"NO MORE HEAT!" PLEADS SALISBURY

DESPERATE IS AS DESPERATE DOES IN ASSAULTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT

While I have very little more tolerance for the amateurish attempts by Medina County assistant prosecutor SCOTT SALISBURY a/k/a SKIPPY SLEAZEBURY (for obvious reasons), TO SILENCE THIS BLOG, this feeble attempt by SLEAZEBURY DESERVES HONORABLE MENTION.

On the evening of January 1, 2011, SLEAZEBURY sent this "covert" message to the blog:

To the Medina Corruption Blog:

I think its time you spent time away from your blog, and focused on other matters. Your recent rants which we flagged away on Craigslist were very ALL CAPS, and that has made us worry about your mental stability. Therefore I am asking you to let the heat die down by suspending your blog, after which I will email the county to not take action against you. This will continue for a period of a couple months, and afterwards you will have the option of deleting the blog permanently or limiting blog discussion to matters of opinion or proven controversey. Reply in 3 days.

Regards,

Publius

HERE IS MY response to SLEAZEBURY a/k/a "PUBLIUS":

"SOUNDS AN AWFUL LOT LIKE EXTORTION TO ME!  IS THAT YOUR INTENTION?"

WHAT A LAUGHER!!!!  SALISBURY IS MAGNANIMOUSLY OFFERING LIMITED FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN THE FINEST TRADITION OF MEDINA COUNTY COURTS.  NO THANKS!

 This is how they play the game at the Medina County Courthouse/Mosque & Railroad Station.  Then of course, they routinely follow it up with the double-cross.

You may wish to revisit a prior post at this blog entitled, "THE ART OF THE FIX AND THE DOUBLE-CROSS IN MEDINA COURT," found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/10/art-of-fix-and-couble-cross-in-medina.html

Now, I must tell you, in addition, that SLEAZEBURY, using the alias of PUBLIUS, has made some wonderfully incriminating admissions in one of his postings at Craig's List today.  I have preserved thte admissions for future court proceedings, but here is just a marvelous excerpt from SLEAZEBURY'S message with regard to withholding favorable evidence from a defendant:


"While I understand that Brady v Maryland (1963) says they must do this, it is almost impossible to enforce which is why the abuse has been going on. The thing is that while Hartman has said he has evidence of this abuse, it has never seen the light of day to the public or the FBI Cleveland Branch office. 

Yes, no evidence should be withheld, but if you are making these allegations, bring some firepower to back it up in the form of hard evidence. Papers, recordings, etc. "

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SCOTT SALISBURY, FOR THESE MARVELOUS ADMISSIONS THAT COLLIER ISN'T ENFORCING BRADY V. MARYLAND AND THAT THIS ABUSE CONTINUES TO GO ON IN THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTS!  

SALISBURY HAS PERSONALLY VALIDATED THE FACTS PRESENTED AT THIS BLOG!


While SALISBURY calls for the production of the concealed evidence, he surely overlooks the fact that he's hidden all the favorable evidence, which is likely long gone!  But there is a little, and I'm prepared to produce that evidence to competent authority.


There are two EXTREMELY IMPORTANT POINTS to consider as a result of SLEAZEBURY' admissions:


1) Honest and honorable prosecutors comply with their ETHICAL OBLIGATION to comply with the Brady decision.  NOT SO IN MEDINA COUNTY!


2) Honest and honorable judges COMPEL prosecutors to disclose evidence they might otherwise intend to withhold.  NOT SO IN MEDINA COUNTY!


For further information about Brady v Maryland, decided in 1963 by the United States Supreme Court, you can go to another post at this blog, entitled "COLLIER AND SALISBURY PLAY HIDE AND SEEK WITH THE EVIDENCE," by following this link:
http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/12/collier-and-salisbury-play-hide-and.html

MUCH MORE TO COME, AS THIS BLOG GOES ON ....