Wednesday, July 23, 2014

NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE HONORS ONE OF ITS MEMBERS

The Native American Tribe, Michigan & Ohio Remnants of the Ottawa Nation (MORON) has bestowed the honorary title of Chief MORON upon elderly judge Richard Markus.

Markus received the honor with his usual lack of humility, remarking, "I've always considered myself a MORON among MORONS."

Markus received numerous accolades at the ceremony in which he was named Chief MORON.

Markus' Third Grade teacher, now a spry 104 years of age, took the podium and told the crowd, "I always though of the judge simply as a Dick in class.  I recognized right away that the had the right stuff to rise among MORONS to the pinnacle of success, the Chief among the MORONS."

The tribe did not bestow this honor lightly upon Markus.  The Elders met over a period of months at various councils to debate the issue of whether or not Markus demonstrated all of the qualities of a MORON to merit the award.  Chief Schitting Bull, who presented the award, declared of Markus, "Once a MORON, always a MORON.  I know of no greater living MORON."

In his acceptance address, Markus stated proudly, "I was born a MORON, have lived the life of a MORON, and I'll die a MORON.  Everything I've ever done, I've done as a MORON."

Markus, now aptly known as CHIEF AMONG MORONS, graciously took the opportunity to acknowledge some of his fellow MORONS, especially the MORONS over at the Medina County courthouse, mosque, and railroad station.

Markus singled out particularly philandering LAPDOG MEDINA jUDGE COLLIER and LAPDOG'S INTIMATE CONSPIRATOR , MEDINA COURT REPORTER DONNA "HAVE IT YOUR WAY" GARRITY.  Markus stated openly to the crowd of his supporters, a number of other MORONS at a meeting of the Medina County Bar Association, "I would like to acknowledge LAPDOG COLLIER and his intimate colleague DONNA "HAVE IT YOUR WAY" GARRITY, who have been tampering with transcripts for the past  ten years.  NOW THOSE ARE COUPLE OF REAL MORONS."

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

MEDINA POLICE: "BUBBLE GUM IS A GATEWAY DRUG; LEADS TO HEROIN ADDICTION."

As regular readers of this blog well know, the blogger is not particularly a fan of the Medina Gassette, the oracle of the Medina County Chamber of Commerce that determines all the news that is fit to print is only feel-good fluff promulgated by the Medina County politicians.

However, following a conversation with a local citizen, the blogger was directed to a recent online article published by the Gassette on July 15.  Here's the headline:
MEDINA POLICE TO COMBAT DRUGS BY CRACKING DOWN ON LOITERERS, LITTERERS
After reading the article, the blogger is convinced that Medina Police may very well have hit upon an ingenious scheme.  After all, the local children loitering on school grounds after school, littering the playground with bubble gum wrappers, are certainly destined to become the heroin addicts and drug abusers of the future.

The blogger draws the reasonable inference, after reading the article, that Medina Police have determined that bubble gum is a gateway drug that ultimately leads to heroin addiction.

There is an obvious and inevitable progression from bubble gum to marijuana on the drug abuse continuum.

The current Medina Police initiative will permit police to arrest all of those pint-sized litterers, obtain samples of their DNA, which they can store in a special Bubble Gum Abuser database.

Bubble Gum abusers will appear before LAPDOG COLLIER who can sentence them to  supervision in the Bubble Gum Division of his Drug Court.

Then, in  the future, when all of these bubble gum abusers get the munchies after they graduate to the inevitable abuse of marijuana, police can gather all of the littered Snickers wrappers and, through DNA analysis, quickly identify the culprits.

Perhaps Medina County can eliminate drug abuse by simply criminalizing the sale and possession of bubble gum.  Now there's an idea whose time has come!

Sunday, December 8, 2013

STROLLING DOWN MEMORY LANE WITH MEDINA COUNTY LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, AND WITH SCOTT SLEAZEBURY, LAPDOG COLLIER'S ASSIGNED HANDLER !!!

In the wake of the State v. Labriola case. in which the Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Labriola's conviction on account of the "repeated and egregious misconduct" of Medina Ass. prosecutor Mustafah Razavi, the blogger thought it appropriate to review some of the cases in which Appellants have raised issues of misconduct of Medina Ass. prosecutor Scott Sleazebury, of which there are, indeed many.

Of course, SLEAZEBURY has not engaged in this recurrent pattern of "widespread" prosecutorial misconduct in a vacuum.  All of SLEAZEBURY'S prosecutorial misconduct was enabled and facilitated by LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE.  That is the only way, of course, that a second-rate attorney like LAPDOG CAN KEEP HIS UNOPPOSED LIFETIMG APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY BENCH.

As the Ninth District Court of Appeals pointed out, when it chastised SLEAZEBURY for his prosecutorial misconduct, in its analysis of  State v. Johnson:
The prosecutor’s “cross-examination” of these women was improper, and the trial court should not have allowed him to get away with it. 
LET SLEAZEBURY GET AWAY WITH IT ?  NOT ONLY DID LAPDOG COLLIER LET SLEAZEBURY "GET AWAY WITH IT," HE HAS ENCOURAGED AND PROMOTED THE RECURRENT PATTERN OF PROSECUTORAL MISCONDUCT.  LAPDOG COLLIER IS PART AND PARCEL OF THE COMPLETE PACKAGE OF WIDESPREAD MISCONDUCT.
 
Now it's time to review some of the misconduct by SLEAZEBURY and LAPDOG COLLIER OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS.  The blogger will include specific case numbers, so that the reader may research and review these cases at the website of the Ninth District Court of Appeals.
 
Remember that all of the cases cited below were tried before LAPDOG COLLIER by Medina Ass. prosecutor SCOTT SLEAZEBURY.
 
State v Aaron Gatt, 2011-Ohio-5221, tried by Salisbury before Collier
  PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
{¶14} Mr. Gatt’s second assignment of error is that the prosecutor engaged in improper
conduct that deprived him of a fair trial.     

{¶18} This Court’s review of the transcript in this matter revealed many troubling

comments by the prosecutor.  Although not amounting to reversible error, the prosecutor made numerous inappropriate comments throughout the course of this trial.  In addition to the threat Mr. Gatt has assigned as error, the prosecutor repeatedly expressed his personal belief regarding the credibility of witnesses (during direct-examination of his own witness, cross-examination of the defendant, and closing argument) and frequently introduced facts not in evidence via his “questions” to various witnesses.
 
This Court has previously addressed this prosecutor’s tendency to engage in “widespread improper conduct” in the courtroom.  State v. Johnson, 9th Dist. No. 09CA0054-M, 2011-Ohio-3623, at ¶62, 42-70.  
 
State v Brian Johnson, 2011-Ohio-3623, tried by Salisbury before Collier
 
   PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
{¶42} Mr. Johnson’s second assignment of error is that the prosecutor engaged in a
 pattern of improper conduct that deprived him of a fair trial.
 
{¶43} The prosecutor in this case did engage in a pattern of improper conduct.
 
{¶44} Mr. Johnson has argued that the prosecutor committed numerous instances of
improper conduct during his cross-examination of defense witnesses.  An embarrassing amount of that cross-examination reads more like the script of a television drama than the type of cross-examination that is expected from a prosecutor. 
 
{¶49} The prosecutor’s “cross-examination” of these women was improper, and the trial
court should not have allowed him to get away with it.
 
{¶62} Lawyers are forbidden from stating a personal opinion about the credibility of a
witness.  State v. Smith, 14 Ohio St. 3d 13, 14 (1984). 
{¶73} The prosecutor was argumentative, asked improper questions, made testimonial
 assertions, referred to facts that were not in the record, misrepresented the evidence, and
 expressed his personal opinion of Mr. Johnson’s credibility. 
 
 
State v Riffle, 2010-Ohio-2812, tried by Salisbury before Collier
                   ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
         “[RIFFLE] WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL DUE TO PROSECUTORIAL
            MISCONDUCT.”
 
{¶5} In his first assignment of error, Riffle contends that he was denied a fair trial due
 to prosecutorial misconduct. Riffle takes issue with statements made by the prosecutor during opening and closing statements as well as on cross- examination.
 
{¶11} Next, Riffle points to the prosecutor’s statements regarding the fact that S.R. had
 no reason to lie and that she was testifying against Riffle because it was the truth.
 
{¶13} Riffle points to statements made by the prosecutor during the State’s closing
argument.  Particularly, Riffle contends that the prosecutor’s statements served to bolster S.R.’s credibility and to explain perceived discrepancies in her testimony.
{¶23} Riffle further states that the “prosecutor also prejudiced [Riffle] by questioning
him over objections about a young lady named Katie Rock, whom the court had previously ruled could not be introduced as evidence pursuant to Evid.R. 404(B) during the first trial in November of 2006.”  [A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT ROUTINELY FACILITATED BY LAPDOG COLLIER.]
 
State v Craig Maynard, 2009-Ohio-282, tried by Salisbury before Collier
 {¶29} Mr. Maynard’s second assignment of error is that the trial court incorrectly
prevented him from questioning witnesses about Mrs. B.’s and B.M.’s veracity. At trial, Mr. Maynard’s lawyer asked the mother of B.M.’s drinking companion if she had an opinion about whether Mrs. B. was a truthful person, and the trial court sustained the State’s objection.  He also asked her if she had an opinion about whether B.M. was a truthful person, and the trial court again sustained the State’s objection.  Finally, he asked the drinking companion if she had an opinion about whether B.M. was a truthful person, and the trial court again sustained the State’s objection.  After completion of all the evidence, Mr. Maynard’s lawyer proffered that he would have asked both witnesses whether they “believe she’s going to be truthful” and that he believed they both would have answered no. [ANOTHER CLASSIC  EXAMPLE OF LAPDOG COLLIER ROUNTINELY PREVENTING FULL AND FAIR CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENSE, DIRECTLY IN VIOLATION OF THE HOLDING OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN DAVIS v. ALASKA.]
 
State v Peter Riffle, 2008-Ohio-4155, tried by Salisbury before Collier
                   ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
         “THE LOWER COURT ERRED AND DENIED [RIFFLE] HIS RIGHT T0 DUE PROCES OF LAW PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WHEN IT PERMITTED EVIDENCE REGARDING HIS POST-MIRANDA SILENCE AND ASSERTION OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL[.]”
{¶3} In his first assignment of error, Riffle asserts that his constitutional rights were
violated: (1) when Police Chief Sivard testified that once given his Miranda warnings, Riffle exercised his right to remain silent; (2) when a social worker testified as to the circumstances of her interview with Riffle and noted that Riffle had told police that he wanted an attorney; and (3) when the State referenced Riffle’s decision to cease interrogation with police during closing argument.
{¶6} “Questioning regarding post-Miranda silence is improper.”  State v. Gales (Nov.
22, 2000), 9th Dist. No. 00CA007541, at *4, citing Doyle, 426 U.S. at 619.  With regard to a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights, the Supreme Court of Ohio had held that “the use of pre- arrest silence as substantive evidence of guilt is an impermissible burden upon the exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege.”  Leach, supra, at ¶28, citing Combs v. Coyle (C.A. 6, 2000), 205 F.3d 269,  285
.
We, therefore, hold that the evidence of, and the State’s references to, Riffle’s silence were improper. 
                  ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
         “STATE MISCONDUCT DURING [RIFFLE’S] TRIAL VIOLATED
         PROTECTIONS AFFORDED BY THE FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH
         AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND      
          REQUIRE REVERSAL[.]”
 
In his third assignment of error, Riffle asserts that the State engaged in misconduct
by: (1) stating in opening argument that the defense would likely use a “built-in” defense thereby implying the defense is false or illegitimate; (2) imputing that defense counsel was insincere during closing argument; (3) asking the jury during closing argument to compare S.R.’s veracity with that of their own teenage daughters; (4) giving a personal belief as to the veracity of the evidence during closing argument; and (5) implying during closing argument that the jury had a duty to convict Riffle because of S.R.’s courage in coming forward.
 
State v Robert Morris, 2008-Ohio-3209, tried by Salisbury before Collier 
                   Assignment of Error No. I
         “The trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense
         of criminal trespassing and in failing to properly instruct on a necessary element
         of criminal trespass as required for a conviction of burglary in violation of
         [Defendant’s] rights to due process and fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth
         Amendments to the Ohio and United States Constitutions.”
{¶3} Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on the lesser
included offense of criminal trespass, including giving an instruction on privilege, an element of the crime of criminal trespass.  Defendant maintains that the trial court agreed that criminal trespass was a lesser included offense of burglary, but refused to instruct the jury on the offense based on State v. Fontes (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 527. [ANOTHER CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF SLEAZEBURY AND LAPDOG COLLIER TAG-TEAMING A DEFENDANT BY REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON A PROPER LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE.]
{¶6} If under any reasonable view of the evidence it is possible for the trier of fact to
find the defendant not guilty of the greater offense and guilty of the lesser offense, the instruction on the lesser included offense must be given. The evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to defendant.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Deimling (Dec. 20, 2000), 9th Dist. No. 99CA007496, at *1 quoting State v. Wilkins (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 382, 388
 
{¶7} The parties concede and the trial court acknowledged that criminal trespass is also a lesser-included offense of an (A)(3) burglary, although the trial court declined [REFUSED] to give such an instruction. [THUS DELIBERATELY PREJUDICING MORRIS] 
State v Anthony Divincenzo, 2006-Ohio-6330, tried by Salisbury before Collier
         In his fifth assignment of error, Appellant argues that the trial court
         erred in permitting the State to introduce testimony that Appellant invoked his
         right to counsel during his interview with police. [ See State v Peter Riffle, 2008-Ohio-4155, above.]
State v Ricardo Almazan, 2006-Ohio-5047, tried by Salisbury before Collier
                       SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
         “The trial court abused its discretion and erred to the prejudice of
         [Defendant] by allowing the state to introduce, over defense
         objection, irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial and misleading testimony
         by a sheriff’s deputy, concerning comments which he allegedly
         overheard [Defendant] make during a break in the trial about the
         amount of marijuana transported to court for introduction by the
         prosecution as State’s Exhibits 19-21.”
 
State v Michael Scheck, 2006-Ohio-647, tried by Salisbury before Collier
 
         “THE COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT
         PREVENTED DEFENSE COUNSEL FROM CROSS-
         EXAMINING THE VICTIM REGARDING PRIOR SEXUAL
         ACTIVITY WITH THE CO-DEFENDANT.”
 
         In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues that the trial court
         committed reversible error when it prohibited the defense from cross-examining
       T.D. regarding her prior sexual activity with the co-defendant.
 
[ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF LAPDOG COLLIER SUSTAINING SLEAZEBURY'S OBJECTION AND DEPRIVING THE DEFENDANT OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY AND FAIRLY CROSS-EXAMINE A STATE'S WITNESS, IN VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HOLDING IN DAVIS v. ALASKA.]
 
                   ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
         “THE STATE OF OHIO COMMITTED PROSECUTORIAL
         MIDSCONDUCT [SIC] WHEN IT AUTHORIZED THE
         DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE PRIOR TO TRIAL WHICH
         WAS CRUCIAL TO [APPELLANT’S] CASE.”
 
[A TYPICAL EXAMPLE OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN'S OFFICE OF WITHHOLDING AND CONCEALING EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF THE HOLDING OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN BRADY v. MARYLAND.] [See prior post at this blog
 
 
                      ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR VI
         “IT WAS PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND
         REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR [THE STATE] TO REFER TO
         [APPELLANT] AS A ‘RAPIST’ DURING THE TRIAL.”
In his second assignment of error, Appellant contends that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct when it authorized the destruction of crucial evidence prior to trial.  In Appellant’s sixth assignment of error, he contends that the State also committed prosecutorial misconduct when it referred to Appellant as a “rapist” during trial.
         Appellant has notably failed to identify the portion of the trial
 
         wherein the prosecutor referred to him as a “rapist.” 
 
[EVIDENCE OF ANOTHER "OFFICIAL" TRANSCRIPT DELIBERATELY EDITIED AND MATERIALLY ALTERED BY LAPDOG COLLIER.]  [See prior posts at this blog
 
          Nonetheless, a review of the transcript reveals that during closing argument the prosecutor  
          stated:
 
                   “You back down from a lie, like he did eight days before his trial. 
                     That’s what a coward does, that’s what a rapist does.”
 
State v Henry Smith, 2005-Ohio-1001, tried by Salisbury before Collier
 
         “A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT OF [APPELLANT] WAS
         PREJUDICED BY CERTAIN COMMENTS MADE BY THE
         STATE OF OHIO DURING THE REBUTTAL CLOSING
         ARGUMENT THAT WARRANT A REVERSAL OF
         [APPELLANT’S] CONVICTIONS.”  
         In his fourth assignment of error, Appellant has argued that he was
         not afforded a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct.  Specifically, Appellant
         has argued that the State made prejudicial statements during its closing arguments,
         and that such statements prevented Appellant from receiving a fair trial.
 
         Appellant first has argued that race was used as a means of securing
         his conviction because the State referenced “the OJ case” in its closing arguments.

        Appellant next has argued that certain comments by the State in
        closing argument were racially motivated.
 
 
State v Bryan Nelson, 2004-Ohio-4967, tried by Salisbury before Collier
 
         In his final assignment of error, Appellant argues that he was denied
         a fair trial due to the misconduct of the prosecutor.
         Appellant points to three specific instances of misconduct in the
         State’s case that he believes deprived him of a fair trial.  Appellant claims that the
         State improperly questioned an expert witness about the cause of the fire,
         improperly argued the time that was required to fill the house with gas, and
         improperly made personal assertions that Westfield Insurance “did not push for           
         this prosecution.”
 
 
[ WHO WAS SLEAZEBURY TRYING TO FOOL?  BILL BATCHELDER, MR. ESTFIELD INSURANCE AND THE SITTING JUDGE PRIOR TO LAPDOG, HAND-PICKED LAPDOG COLLIER TO REPLACE HIM ON THE BENCH IN KANGAROO COURTROOM NO. 1.] 
 
State v Nicholas Jamison, 2004-Ohio-2514, tried by unknown female prosecutor before Collier [EVIDENCE THAT DINO HOEMAN HAS ADOPTED A POLICY OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT]
 
         In his fourth assignment of error, appellant argues that prosecutorial
         misconduct, specifically statements made during the State’s closing argument,
         unfairly prejudiced appellant, inflamed the jury and consequently denied appellant
         a fair trial.  Appellant asserts that, absent the improper prejudicial closing
         argument by the State, the jury would not have found him guilty of assaulting Ms.
         Whipple.
         In the instant case, appellant alleges that during the State’s closing
         argument, the prosecutor argued facts not in evidence and characterized the
         appellant in terms designed to inflame the jury by repeatedly referring to
         appellant’s use of alcohol and stating that appellant lacked any indicia of a brain
         injury.  Appellant also argues that the prosecutor improperly told the jury that
         appellant’s attorney was intentionally making “untrue” statements to them.
 
State v Samuel Cutlip, 2004-Ohio-2120, tried by Salisbury before Collier
 
 
        “THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT’S
         CONFRONTATION CLAUSE RIGHTS AND COMMITTED
         REVERSIBLE ERROR IN ADMITTING HEARSAY
         STATEMENTS BY ALLEGED ACCOMPLICES WHICH
         IMPLICATED APPELLANT, WHERE THOSE STATEMENTS
         DID NOT CONTAIN ADEQUATE INDICIA OF RELIABILITY.”
       
         In his first assignment of error, Appellant maintains that the trial
         court erred by admitting certain statements in violation of his Confrontation
         Clause rights.
         [T]he admission of the hearsay statements of Lechene and Barandi violated Appellant’s     
        Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him.
 
[ANOTHER TYPICAL EXAMPLE OF SLEAZEBURY AND LAPDOG COLLIER DELIBERATELY VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT]
 
 
THERE ARE MANY MORE EXAMPLES OF MISCONDUCT BY THE TAG TEAM OF SLEAZEBURY AND LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE.  THIS LONGSTANDING PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT, OBVIOUSLY CONDONED AND PROMOTED BY CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO GAG A MAGGOT, EVEN A MAGGOT LIKE LAPDOG COLLIER !!!