SALISBURY QUALIFIES FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE LIAR'S CLUB

         Trial was scheduled and did commence in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, before TOTALLY CORRUPT JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, on Monday, November 9, 2009.

         On June 29, 2009, defense counsel timely filed Defendant’s Combined Requests For Discovery, A Bill of Particulars, And Notice of The State’s Intention to Use Specified Evidence. The filing expressly requested, “A complete history of the Defendant’s past criminal record, if any.”

         In his discovery response, filed by SALISBURY with the court on July 10, 2009, SALISBURY provided no such information.

         On November 6, 2009, the very last business day prior to trial, SALISBURY sprung upon the defense copies of materials which he had received via facsimile transmission, dated September 11, 2009.

         The materials consisted of a transmission of information regarding Defendant’s 2004 misdemeanor arrest (which did not bear on honesty, truth and veracity) and a Civil Protection Order issued on the basis of unfounded allegations and subsequently vacated by order of the County Court of Common Pleas.

         In subsequent conversation with SALISBURY during the pre-trial conference, defense counsel sought and received a concession from SALISBURY that this information was not in any way related to the offense of aggravated burglary and was not admissible at trial. 

         Further, SALISBURY falsely represented to defense counsel that he did not intend to introduce this information in his case-in-chief at trial.

         Defense counsel memorialized her conversation of November 6, 2009, with Salisbury in a letter to him, dated November 11, 2009. 

         AS YOU MIGHT REASONABLY SURMISE, SALISBURY ADMITTED THIS CLEARLY INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE THROUGH HIS FIRST WITNESS, CONTRARY TO THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND THE PREVAILING CASE LAW, ALL WITH THE BLESSING OF TOTALLY CORRUPT JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER.

         IS THERE ANY DOUBT THAT THE CORRUPTION ENDEMIC IN THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTS AND PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE MUST BE INVESTIGATED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE?

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

COLLIER WINKS AT SALISBURY, WHO VIOLATED THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE!

           In August 2009, SALISBURY placed an undercover operative in the Medina County Jail to gather information from the Defendant, who had already been indicted, arraigned, and was known by SALISBURY to be represented by defense counsel. 

          The undercover operative, who identified himself as Chris Palm or Chris Palme, made a conscious effort to sit at the Defendant's four-place table during the three days that Palm was present in the Medina County Jail.

         Another inmate, known to the Defense Investigator and with whom the Investigator has spoken, informed the Defendant that Palm was an undercover operative/investigator who was known to the inmate in the context of the community, outside the confines of the Medina County Jail.  This individual has confirmed the same information to the Defense Investigator.

         Further, in the very words of a former Medina County assistant prosecutor with regard to placing undercover operatives in the Medina County Jail to elicit information from represented persons, “They do that all the time in Medina!”

        

         In order to verify the veracity of the inmate’s report to the Defendant, the Defense Investigator queried the dockets of the Medina and Wadsworth Municipal Courts and the Medina County Court of Common Pleas. 

        Not surprisingly, there is no record of any criminal action to be found in any of the dockets of the above-named courts of Medina County, Ohio for Chris Palm or Chris Palme. 

        Further, a corrections officer at the Medina County Jail confirmed to the Investigator that there is no official record in the Sheriff’s Department database that a Chris Palm/Palme has ever been confined in the Medina County Jail.

        Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Chris Palm or Chris Palme is, indeed, an undercover operative placed beside the Defendant inside the Medina County Jail at the direction of SALISBURY.

         This egregious misconduct is another breach of the attorney-client privilege by SALISBURY, which rises to the level of a constitutional violation of the first magnitude.

         COLLIER was noticed of SALISBURY'S invasions of the defense camp in the form of a sworn affidavit and a declaration filed with the court. 

         However, as always, COLLIER failed to address and redress these issues, raised in the Defendant’s post-conviction motions, all to the intended benefit of the prosecutor.

           SINCE THE VIOLATION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE BY THE MEDINA COUNTY APPEARS TO BE A PRACTICE OF LONG-STANDING, ACCORDING TO A FORMER ASSISTANT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR, THERE IS LITTLE DOUBT THAT COLLIER IS AWARE AND APPROVES OF THIS HIGHLY UNLAWFUL PRACTICE!

           THIS IS BUT ONE MORE REASON, AMONG MANY, FOR THE NEED OF AN INDEPENDENT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTS BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

SALISBURY EAVESDROPS, COLLIER IGNORES THE SUPREME COURT!

        On November 6, 2009, Defense Counsel attended a pre-trial conference called by COLLIER, who had hoped to railroad the Defendant without the benefit of one of those infamous Medina County show "trials."

         SALISBURY offered the Defendant a plea to one count of burglary (F-4) with one year in prison. 

         The Defendant refused SALISBURY'S plea offer because he is factually innocent of the charged offense of Burglary, or any other crime.

         During the plea negotiations on November 6, 2009, the Defense Investigator was sitting on a bench in the hallway, outside of COLLIER’S conference room. Thusly seated in the hallway, the Defense Investigator heard SALISBURY state to Defense Counsel, “I’ve listened to his (Defendant's) telephone conversations with the Defense Investigator.”

        

         The Defense Investigator recognized immediately that SALISBURY had listened to privileged communications between the Defendant and the Investigator. Telephone calls made by inmates from the Medina County jail are recorded by and through an agreement between Medina County and Correctional Billing Services, Dallas, TX.

         SALISBURY learned the identity of the Defense Investigator during the Investigator's testimony at the suppression hearing on August 21, 2009.

         The Defense Investigator maintained liaison with the Defendant and briefed him, via telephone, as to the status and strategies of the defense case, as did Defense Counsel.

         Given SALISBURY'S complete lack of honesty and integrity, it is more than likely that SALISBURY eavesdropped on privileged conversations between the Defendant and Defense Counsel, as well.

         In 1966 the United States decided Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 307 (1966), citing Black v. United States, 385 U.S. 26 (1966), and citing Coplon v. United States, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 103, held that Government invasion of the defense camp invalidates the trial at which it occurred.

           COLLIER, WHO WAS FULLY BRIEFED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL ON THE PROVISIONS OF HOFFA V. UNITED STATES, SIMPLY IGNORED THIS RULING BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

         As it turns out, the Defense Investigator's assessment was accurate. Following one segment of the suppression hearing, the Investigator informed the Defendant, via telephone, that defense counsel intended to subpoena Deputy Clinage at trial as a defense witness and that defense counsel considered Clinage’s testimony important to the defense.

  

         SALISBURY never called Clinage, the assigned case officer, to testify at trial. Further, Clinage ignored a defense subpoena and did not appear to testify at trial in response to the defense subpoena. Clearly, Clinage was instructed to ignore the subpoena by SALISBURY, with COLLIER’S approval. 

         Defense Counsel twice informed COLLIER, on the record, that Clinage had failed to appear at trial in response to the defense subpoena.  

        COLLIER JUST BLEW IT OFF AND MADE NO ATTEMPT TO COMPEL SALISBURY TO PRODUCE CLINAGE, THE STATE'S AGENT, UNLIKE AN HONEST AND ETHICAL JUDGE!

AFTER ALL, COLLIER HAS NO REGARD FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE RULINGS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, SINCE COLLIER CONSIDERS HIMSELF TO BE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE KANGAROO COURT OF MEDINA COUNTY, OHIO!

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

SALISBURY HID FAVORABLE EVIDENCE FROM THE DEFENDANT RIGHT FROM THE OUTSET

         On the afternoon of September 1, 2009, Defense Counsel and the Defense Investigator met with the Evidence Control Officer at the Medina County Sheriff’s Office for an evidence view.

         The Evidence Control Officer produced the evidence log and displayed   some, but not all, items of physical evidence maintained by the Medina County Sheriff’s Office.

         The Evidence Control Officer produced an inventory log and displayed to Defense Counsel all but three items of evidence, which she stated she was instructed by SALISBURY to refuse access to Defense Counsel.  

The Evidence Control Officer placed an asterisk beside each of the three items on the evidence log that she was instructed by SALISBURY to withhold. The Defense Investigator photographed the evidence log to memorialize SALISBURY'S instructions to the Evidence Control Officer.

         The Evidence Control Officer, on orders and instructions from SALISBURY, refused to permit Defense Counsel to access the following evidentiary items, as designated by asterisks on the complaint log:

1) copy of 911 dispatch tapes regarding this call;

2) micro-cassette of interview of FRED FLINTSTONE – follow up conversation about this incident; and

3) 1 CD CONTAINING PICTURES OF ALLEGED INJURIES OF DEFENDANT'S WIFE

         Not surprisingly, each and every of the items that Salisbury instructed Ms. Klinecht to withhold from the defense contained exculpatory evidence.

         Defense Counsel obtained a copy of the 911 dispatch tape directly from the Medina County Sheriff’s Office via Public Information Request.  

         Indeed, the 911 tape, which Salisbury had instructed the Evidence Control Officer to withhold from defense counsel, contained numerous crucial statements from Wilma Flintstone, the only State’s witness to “incriminate” the Defendant at trial, made by Ms. Flintstone that she could neither see nor hear any events occurring outside the bedroom in which she had been ensconced during the entirety of the purported “incident.”  

         Further, during the recording, Ms. Flintstone stated expressly to the dispatcher, "I DIDN'T SEE DEFENDANT."                                   

         Both SALISBURY and COLLIER refused to turn over to the defense the exculpatory audiotape and the exculpatory photographs that clearly fail to show any injury to Defendant's wife, as falsely testified at trial by Ms. Flintstone. 

         COLLIER REFUSED TO COMPEL SALISBURY TO TURN OVER THE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENDANT. 

        SALISBURY refused to voluntarily turn over the exculpatory evidence and handed the evidence off to COLLIER who, during discussions of the Motions in limine, admitted to Defense Counsel that he was personally in possession of the exculpatory audiotape and the exculpatory photographs.

         COLLIER never made the exculpatory evidence available to the defense, despite repeated requests by Defense Counsel.

           THIS IS PRECISELY WHY MEDINA COUNTY NEEDS AN INDEPENDENT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF THE CORRUPTION IN THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTS.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

JUST ONE MORE THREAT FROM SALISBURY!

Assistant prosecutor SCOTT SALISBURY a/k/a SKIPPY SLEAZEBURY (for obvious reasons) just can't help himself.  Psychologists would term his affliction Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

SALISBURY SENT THIS EMAIL MESSAGE TO THE BLOG ON THIS VERY DAY:

Brother,

I remind you that there are very powerful men and women, who do not like the publishing of your blog.

You will regret defying their will.

You were given a chance to shut it down.

You refused.

Now we will make your blog unable to be used.

The authorities have been notified.

You will lose.

We will win.

Your son will pay for the sins of the father.

Bet on it

SALISBURY IMPLIES THAT THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS IS JUST AS CORRUPT AS THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTS.  PERHAPS THE BLOG SHOULD SEND SALISBURY'S CLAIM TO THE COURT OF APPEALS AND MAKE A DIRECT INQUIRY ABOUT SALISBURY'S CLAIMS.

IT HASN'T YET DAWNED ON SALISBURY THAT HE, COLLIER, AND HOLMAN MAY THINK OF THEMSELVES AS BIG FISH.  WHAT THEY FAIL TO RECOGNIZE IS THAT THEY SWIM IN A VERY SMALL POND, VERY SMALL INDEED!

MUCH MORE TO COME .....

COLLIER DETESTS SPEED, UNLESS IT'S LUNCH TIME!

      At the conclusion of the fourth and final segment of the suppression hearing, conducted on or about October 9, 2009, COLLIER stated on the record, “You’ll have my decision in a week.”  COLLIER permitted no oral argument at the conclusion of the suppression hearing.

         No ruling was forthcoming from COLLIER. COLLIER did not issue a written opinion, setting out findings of fact and conclusions of law, primarily because he was unable to cogently reconcile his denial of the motion to suppress with the facts and the law. 

         In fact, since COLLIER never issued a written ruling, at the pre-trial conference called by COLLIER on November 6, 2009, COLLIER casually stated to defense counsel, “I’m going to overrule your motion.”  

         COLLIER’S unnecessarily protracted conduct of the suppression hearing over several weeks and his failure to timely rule on the suppression motions, as he initially offered from the bench, had the intended effect of depriving the Defendant of a speedy trial by tolling the time of the unwarranted delay to the Defendant, and thus purposefully circumventing the requirements of the law with respect to speedy trial. 

         Had COLLIER ruled within a week, as he offered from the bench, he would have been required to try the Defendant at an earlier time than the scheduled trial date of November 9, 2009.

         Rather than complying with the requirements of the law, COLLIER, acting deliberately contrary to law, knowingly and willfully deprived the Defendant of a speedy trial.

        

         Further, COLLIER overruled the Defendant’s motion to suppress the illegally seized evidence in spite of the fact that Salisbury failed to meet his burden under the law.

         COLLIER then, contrary to the prevailing case law and well-established legal precedent, permitted Salisbury to introduce tainted evidence at trial with the specific intention of prejudicing the Defendant. 

         In 1969, more than forty years ago, the United States Supreme Court decided Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, holding there is no exception to the rule that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible at trial.

         Further, way back in 1886, more than 120 years ago, the United States Supreme Court decided Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S 616, and held “Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. *** It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.”

COLLIER SEEMS TO BE A BIT BEHIND IS HIS READING, THAT IS IF HE CAN READ!

BASED UPON HIS PERFORMANCE IN THE COURTROOM, I AM FIRMLY CONVINCED THAT THE ONLY BRIEFS COLLIER READS ARE LABELED "JOCKEY!"

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

SALISBURY DICTATES TO COLLIER, "I'M GOING TO PLAY THE WHOLE TAPE, AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME!"

The defense sought to suppress the nearly hour-long tape recording of the 911 telephone call made by Wilma Flintstone on May 27, 2009, on the basis that:

1. the recording was inadmissible because the tape constituted inadmissible hearsay evidence; 

2. contained unsupported defamatory, inflammatory, and irrelevant statements of Wilma Flinstone; and 

3. that playing the tape recording before the jury, given the availability of Wilma Flintston to testify at trial, violates the Defendant’s rights under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.

         During the suppression hearing, the defense admitted an exhibit which is described as a six-page transcript of segments from the tape recorded 911 call in which Wilma Flintstone informed the dispatcher that:

1. she had never seen Defendant during the purported incident;

2. that she was seated on the floor of a bedroom inside the Flintstone residence during the entirety of her phone discussions with the dispatcher; and

3.  that she could neither see nor hear events outside of the bedroom where she remained at all relevant times.

Interestingly, Salisbury objected to admission of the transcript on the basis that it contained hearsay, precisely the defense position on the matter of the tape recording, in its entirety.  

         In spite of material evidence presented at the suppression hearing that Wilma Flintstone was unable to see and hear the events that she was reporting to the dispatcher, COLLIER did not suppress the tape recording, contrary to the prevailing case law and the rules of evidence, all calculated to prejudice the Defendant and to benefit the prosecutor.

         During the suppression hearing, SALISBURY dictated to COLLIER, “I am going to play the whole tape to the jury.” Most certainly as expected, over defense objections, COLLIER permitted SALISBURY to play the entire unredacted tape recording to the jury.

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT SALISBURY WAS, AND IS, THE TAIL THE WAGS THE DOG NAMED COLLIER!

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

COMMENTS FROM MEDINA COUNTY OBSERVERS!

A Medina County Citizen has offered his own observation regarding TOTALLY CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY JUDGE AND THE GANG AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION:


"Never has a judge in this county act like Collier does or have even close to the amount of negative opinions from the community...the medina court house is definitely in need of a 'close look' by higher authorities...i wish i knew where to tell the 'medina blogger' to take his case because it is legit. - they're all tied together in that court house, there are people close to Collier (on the golf course) that have witnessed him enjoying the COCAINE in the past and if you see him in action you'd have no choice but to wonder if this SORRY EXCUSE for a judge is still 'powdering' his nose.....i wish i knew of a way to get him investigated - carl monday??? --- i have not had a candidate to vote for in all the years he's been a so-called judge, so he doesn't get voted in, i leave that page UNVOTED - NOBODY runs against him, they all know the court house is 1 big corrupt happy family - Collier is a sad excuse for a judge and ALOT of people are suffering for it...any suggestions on how to put this in the 'spotlight'???"


THEN THIS FROM ANOTHER OBSERVER:


"After watching just one episode of Colliers TV show, which is so full of overacting dramatics by him, as if he is on a Comedy Central skit, or a Saturday Night Live spoof, I was shocked. His arrogant and obnoxious behavior is far from professional. How is it that this Judge can get away with such behavior?
Collier is beyond crazy. He is exhibiting some serious mental health issues by his behavior. I feel sorry for anyone who crosses this judges path. It appears guilt till proven innocent is the way of that judges courtroom. And good luck with that one. I pray that judge is investigated and given a mental evaluation....and soon."  



IT SEEMS THAT THE CORRUPTION IN THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION IS A "SECRET" NOT SO WELL KEPT!


It is not all that difficult for me to believe that COLLIER may be a drug abuser, given his erratic behavior!


APPARENTLY, ONLY HIS GOLFING BUDDIES (AND PERHAPS HIS SON) KNOW FOR SURE!


This little bit of information, to be sure, will never be found in print at George Spudnutt's Medina Gasette.


MUCH MORE TO COME .....

COLLIER REFUSES TO REVIEW GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE INDICTMENT PRESENTED BY THE CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR

            During the suppression hearing, Medina County sheriff's deputy Douglas Clinage, on cross-examination, was unable to articulate any conduct of the Defendant which might constitute evidence of and give rise to the unspecified underlying “criminal offense” as charged in the indictment. Clinage was the only witness to offer testimony in support of the defective indictment in this case.

         Defense Counsel requested COLLIER to review the transcript of the grand jury testimony of Douglas Clinage to determine what testimony he gave, if any, as to the Defendant’s conduct which might be considered to have given rise to the unspecified “criminal offense” which Defendant intended to commit within the premises of the Leighton residence.

         COLLIER emphatically and unequivocally denied defense counsel’s motion, stating, “I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT.”

         COLLIER, who should be expected to comprehend the guaranties of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, refused to review Clinage’s grand jury testimony knowing full well, based upon Clinage’s testimony, that the Defendant was being tried for a criminal offense for which he had not been indicted by the grand jury.

         COLLIER refused to review the grand jury transcript thereby knowingly subjecting the Defendant to an unlawful prosecution for an offense not indicted by the grand jury, and over which TOTALLY CORRUPT JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER presided.

         On October 21, 2009, Defense Counsel filed Defendant’s Opposition to Prosecutor’s Alleged “Notice of Underlying Crimes,” fully briefing the trial judge on the issues and the law.  In part, Defense Counsel cited to State v Robertson, 2002-Ohio-6824, wherein the Ohio Supreme Court held:

Section 10, Article 1, of the Ohio Constitution provides that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury ***.”  We have held that this provides an inalienable protection to the defendant that he will be tried on the same essential facts on which the grand jury found probable cause. State v Vitale (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 695.  

Cases cited by Defense Counsel in support of the Defendant's Opposition to Prosecutor's Notice of "Underlying Crimes": 


State v. Robertson, 2002-Ohio-6824
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)
Caldwell v. Texas, 139 U.S. 692 (1891)
State v. Foust, 2004-Ohio-7006
Groppi v. Leslie, 404 U.S. 496 (19720
United States v. Wane Pump Co., 317 U.S. 200 (1942)
Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S 196 (1984)
United States v. Opsta, 659 F.2d 848 (1981)
United States v. Panzavecchia, 421 F.2d 440 (1970)


SET OUT BELOW ARE ALL THE CASE AUTHORITIES CITED BY SALISBURY :


                                                           (NONE)
    

TIME FOR ANOTHER QUICK TALLY:


Briefs Filed:  Defendant  =  1
                       Salisbury    =  0


Pages Filed:  Defendant  = 19
                        Salisbury   =   0


Cases Cited:  Defendant  = 10
                        Salisbury   =   0


Once again, SALISBURY was a COMPLETE ZERO!

COLLIER was not persuaded by either the Constitution of the United States or the prevailing case law, including decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and did not dismiss the fatally flawed indictment despite defense counsel’s brief informing him of the law.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

COLLIER RULES DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO KNOW THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE WITH WHICH HE WAS CHARGED, AND WHICH HE HAD TO DEFEND

As the reader may recall, during the September 4, 2009 session of the protracted suppression hearing, defense counsel raised the issue of the unspecified “criminal offense” SALISBURY charged in the indictment of the Defendant.


During the hearing, CORRUPT JUDGE COLLIER ordered Salisbury to provide the defense with “a list of underlying criminal offenses” which Salisbury intended to present to the jury no later than September 11, 2009.


SALISBURY failed to comply, knowing full well that he could defy any "Order" from COLLIER with impunity, since COLLIER has been bought and paid for by CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN. In fact, an "Order" from COLLIER to SALISBURY carries all the force of a request, and nothing more.


Finally on October 8, 2009, nearly two full months after COLLIER ordered Salisbury to provide Defense Counsel with the "LIST" of underlying offenses, at long last SALISBURY turned over his laundry list of alleged underlying offenses, none of which had been presented to the Medina County grand jury for consideration and deliberation.


FOLLOWING IS SALISBURY'S "LIST" OF MULTIPLE-CHOICE UNDERLYING CRIMINAL OFFENSES WHICH HE "MAYBE" INTENDED TO PROVE AT TRIAL:


1.   Aggravated Menacing
2.   Menacing
3.   Domestic Violence
4.   Assault
5.   Criminal Mischief
6.   Disorderly Conduct
7.   Felonious Assault
8.   Kidnapping
9.   Abduction
10. Child Endangering
11. Possessing Criminal Tools
12. Intimidation
13. Unlawful Restraint
14. Using Weapons while Intoxicated
15. ANY OTHER CRIME WHICH MAY BECOME KNOWN TO THE STATE


Setting aside, for the moment, that SALISBURY had no competent, probative evidence to prove any of these alleged underlying alleged offenses SALISBURY alleged that Defendant intended to commit, there is a very strong Constitutional violation in this "list."

In State v Robertson, 2002-Ohio-6824, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a defendant has the inalienable right to be tried on the same essential facts on which the grand jury found probable cause.

Based upon Salisbury’ laundry list of “underlying crimes,” it was and is clear that the Medina County Grand Jury was not offered any evidence as to Defendant's conduct which would lead to the inference that he intended to commit an identifiable and specified criminal offense within the Flintstone residence.


MOST CERTAINLY, THE GRAND JURY DID NOT INDICT THE DEFENDANT FOR SOMETHING THAT MIGHT LATER BECOME KNOWN TO THE STATE.  DUH !!!! 


Failure to present evidence of any underlying crime, upon which the grand jury decided and deliberated, constitutes a violation of the Defendant’s protections guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.


THIS MUST CERTAINLY COME AS A SHOCK AND COMPLETE SURPRISE TO CORRUPT JUDGE COLLIER, WHO FOUND IT PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TO DEPRIVE THE DEFENDANT OF NOTICE OF THE OFFENSE AGAINST WHICH HE WAS REQUIRED TO DEFEND.


IT'S JUST ONE OF THE MANY WAYS IN WHICH COLLIER HAS DEPRIVED THIS DEFENDANT, AND MANY OTHER DEFENDANTS, OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED PROTECTIONS!


MUCH MORE TO COME ....

COLLIER PULLS ANOTHER RABBIT OUT OF HIS HAT FOR SALISBURY!

On September 25, 2009, at the next scheduled session of the suppression hearing, as soon as COLLIER took the bench, he waved the Motion to Show Cause in the air and stated, “I’m not going to deal with this now.” 

Salisbury, AS ALWAYS, never filed a response to the motion, relying instead on the beneficence of COLLIER, who never did deal with the contempt issue, as was fully expected by the defense.

Of course, CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN was in the courtroom when COLLIER took the bench, to emphasize that COLLIER had better "do the right thing."  

COLLIER complied with his master, DINO HOLMAN, and did not dare sanction SALISBURY, his boy.

AFTER ALL, IF COLLIER HAD DARE TO TAKE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST SALISBURY, COLLIER COULD HAVE VERY WELL JEOPARDIZED HIS UNCONTESTED LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT, COMPLIMENTS OF HOLMAN AND MEDINA COUNTY DEMS.

JUST A QUICK TALLY:

Briefs filed:  Defendant = 1

                       Salisbury   = 0

Pages filed:  Defendant = 7

                       Salisbury   = 0

Cases cited:  Defendant = 2

                       Salisbury   = 0

ONCE AGAIN, SALISBURY WAS A COMPLETE ZERO, AS ALWAYS!

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

COLLIER IS UNABLE TO COUNT BEYOND THE NUMBER OF FINGERS ON HIS HAND!

During the September 4, 2009 session of the protracted suppression hearing, Defense Counsel raised the issue of the unspecified “criminal offense” SALISBURY charged in the indictment.


During those proceedings, the COLLIER ordered Salisbury to provide the defense with “a list of underlying criminal offenses” which Salisbury intended to present to the jury. 


This was a none too subtle message from COLLIER to SALISBURY to provide MULTIPLE UNDERLYING ALLEGED CRIMINAL OFFENSES to the defense, intended to thwart the Defendant’s preparation for trial, intentionally done by COLLIER to benefit the prosecutor. 

SALISBURY did not timely comply with COLLIER’S order to provide the defense with “a list of underlying criminal offenses.” 

Therefore, on September 24, 2009, Defense Counsel filed a Motion For An Order To Show Cause Why The Assistant Prosecutor Should Not Be Held In Contempt Of Court And Subject To Sanctions.

FOLLOWING IS AN EXCERPT TAKEN FROM THE MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE, WHICH IS 7 PAGES IN LENGTH AND CANNOT BE PUBLISHED HERE IN ITS ENTIRETY:

     "It is axiomatic that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment requires that certain steps be followed before a person's "life, liberty, or property" can be taken away.  Procedural Due Process that the states afford an accused proper notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.  Nothing can be more basic and necessary than for Defendant, or any any accused person, to have knowledge of the charge against him.  The record of the case demonstrates that the prosecution has utilized every scheme and device to withhold and deny due process to Defendant.  SALISBURY'S recent disregard of the court's express mandate to identify the charged offense is but one example of the government's denial of due process.

     Therefore, the Defendant respectfully moves the court for an Order to Show Cause Why Assistant County Prosecutor Scott B. Salisbury Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court and Subject to Sanctions, for violating the court's Order of September 4, 2009, by refusing to identify, in writing to the defense, by September 11, 2009, the "criminal offense" alleged, but not specified, in the Indictment." 

IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WERE EXPLAINED IN VERY FUNDAMENTAL TERMS TO COLLIER, TERMS THAT EVEN HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND.


Unfortunately, since the 14th Amendment is numbered well beyond the number of fingers on his hands, COLLIER fails to comprehend the concept of a Constitutional Amendment so highly numbered above 10.


Of course, Defense Counsel filed this motion prior to having become fully aware that COLLIER TAKES HIS ORDERS FROM HOLMAN AND SALISBURY!


MUCH MORE TO COME ....

AN INSIDER'S VIEW OF THE CHARACTER, INTEGRITY, AND MORALITY AT THE MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

It has occurred to me that it might be reasonable to more closely examine the character and integrity of the Medina County Prosecutor's Office.  What better way to do so than through the eyes, and in the words, of an assistant Medina County prosecutor?

Back in October 2010, assistant Medina County prosecutor SCOTT SALISBURY a/k/a SLEAZEBURY (for obvious reasons), sent a series of email messages to an individual who posted on Craig's List in support of this blog.  Not surprisingly the correspondent, SLEAZEBURY, used the email address of "LETITBE8691@aol.com."

"LET IT BE?" There is little doubt that SLEAZEBURY and his cronies would wish that I would just "LET IT BE"!!!  NOT MUCH CHANCE OF THAT!  THE PUBLIC CORRUPTION IN THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT SYSTEM HAS GONE ON FAR TOO LONG TO JUST "LET IT BE!"


Following is an exchange of email between "LET IT BE" and the supporter of this blog:


FROM "LET IT BE":


From: "letitbe8691@aol.com" <letitbe8691@aol.com>To: pers-3mpbd-2018790334@craigslist.orgSent: Thu, October 21, 2010 8:41:40 PMSubject: RE; Re: It's got to be killing you, Scotty Boy! - (u know)


How about you go down to your favorite gay porno shop (You know you have one, lmao), buy youself a dildo and go fuck yourself!!!


A REPLY FROM THE BLOG SUPPORTER:


To: letitbe8691@aol.comSent: Thu, October 21, 2010 8:44:52 PMSubject: Re: RE; Re: It's got to be killing you, Scotty Boy! - (u know)

your such a classy guy aren't ya. Your mom must be so proud. I refuse to respond to you in such a derogatory manner, I was raised much better than that. Seriously though "Mark".... don't deny who you are. You're an easy read. God Bless your angry horrid soul.

NOW FOR THE REPLY FROM "LET IT BE" SALISBURY:

----- Forwarded Message ----From: "letitbe8691@aol.com" <letitbe8691@aol.com>
Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 8:56:35 PMSubject: Re: RE; Re: It's got to be killing you, Scotty Boy! - (u know)


Obviously you weren't rasied well at all. Talk shit on Craigslist all the time with no facts to back up anything. Your fucked up little blog is full of shit and even if it wasn't, "FUCKING LEAVE MEDINA IF IT'S SOOOOOO HORRIBLE!!! And while I'm at it, FUCK YOUR GOD AS WELL!!! Now go buy your dildo an make yourself happy, if only for a minute or so...

THERE YOU HAVE IT! AN INSIDER'S VIEW OF THE CHARACTER, INTEGRITY, AND MORALITY THAT PERVADES THE OFFICE OF THE MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR.  MAKES YOU PROUD OF YOUR "PUBLIC SERVANTS," DOESN'T IT?


THE FACT THAT SALISBURY HAS CURSED THE CREATOR IS SYMPTOMATIC OF THE ARROGANCE AND ABUSE OF AUTHORITY FOUND IN THE MEDINA COURT SYSTEM AND PARTICULARLY AT THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE!


If I recall history rightly, Adolph Hitler told the Jews to "just leave."  Do you notice the parallels here?

It is obvious that these "public officials" who fear neither God nor man, have no respect for the inalienable rights of the citizens of this land conveyed by the United States Constitution when they have no respect and reverence for God and, therefore, religious freedoms!


There is no doubt they prefer Muslim Sharia Law, demonstrated daily in the courtroom of corrupt judge COLLIER.  Perhaps they are all Muslims!

MUCH MORE TO COME ...