Friday, July 29, 2011
A TYPICAL CASE OF HOLMAN HIDING THE EVIDENCE!
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
judge CHRISTOPHER COLLIER: THE CASE FIXER
Corrupt judges have scarred the landscape of American jurisprudence for the past 200 years. Chicago is a classic example, where public corruption involving judges and police is legendary. Chicago, however, is not alone in that regard.
Some years ago in Cleveland, some outlaw bikers planted a bomb at the house of a rival gang member. However, they placed the device at the wrong house. When the device detonated, an innocent young husband and wife, and their two year old son were killed. The offenders were identified, arrested and indicted.
The case was assigned to Judge James McGettrick in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. At trial, McGettrick threw the case out, relieving the defendants of any future criminal liability since double jeopardy attaches once a jury is impaneled.
Many years later, while drinking at a bar in Lakewood, Judge McGettrick bumped into an undercover agent, a personal friend of mine, and mistook the agent for one of the bikers. The agent sarcastically remarked to McGetrtrick, "we really appreciate what you did for us in that murder case." McGettrick, again thinking that the agent was a biker, remarked, "You still owe me $10,000.00 for that one."
The following day, the agent delivered the $10,000.00 bribe to McGettrick, who was then promptly arrested. Ultimately, McGettrick, a crooked judge and case fixer, was convicted and sent to prison where he died.
While McGettrick fixed cases, including murder cases, for defendants in exchange for money, corrupt judge COLLIER also fixes cases, but for an equally corrupt county prosecutor, Dean Holman.
While McGettrick took money on a case-by-case basis, COLLIER benefits financially by retaining his seat on the bench of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, unopposed by any Dem opponent as long he is subservient to HOLMAN. COLLIER continues to take home his paycheck, receives his benefits, including retirement benefits. This has turned out to be a better deal for COLLIER than the deal made by McGettrick.
NEVERTHELESS, A BRIBE IS A BRIBE, IN WHATEVER FORM TAKEN AND RECEIVED!
How, might you ask, does COLLIER fix cases for the prosecutor? It's really quite simple, really. Here are but a very few of the ways COLLIER fixes cases.
COLLIER does not enforce the Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure against the prosecutor. Quite simply, the prosecutor does as he damn well pleases and COLLIER just sits back and lets the good times roll.
Then there is the matter of the voire dire. That is the jury selection process where attorneys are permitted to ask questions of prospective jurors. COLLIER permits the prosecutor, over defense objections, to explain the prosecutor's version of the law, which you can be sure is not consistent with the law as should be explained to jurors in jury instructions at the end of the trial by the judge. This misconduct by the prosecutor, permitted and condoned by COLLIER, is intended to bias the jury against the defendant from the very outset of the trial.
Of course, there is always the matter of suppression. Suppression is a procedure wherein the defendant moves to suppress, or strike, evidence that was illegally seized by the police. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that every citizen will be secure from intrusion by the state. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, Mapp v. Ohio, ruled that illegally seized evidence cannot be admitted at trial against a defendant. The Supreme Court characterized such illegally seized evidence, and evidence flowing therefrom, as "fruits of the poisonous tree."
COLLIER completely disregards these bulwarks of your constitutional protections and admits illegally seized evidence at trial, again in favor of the prosecutor.
As most people are aware, the state presents its witness first. The prosecutor is permitted to first examine his witness on direct examination. The defense attorney is then permitted to cross-examine the state's witnesses. Here, COLLIER gives the prosecutor a bonanza.
The rules of evidence permit a defense attorney to examine a state's witness on matters involving bias against the defendant. In other words, the rules of evidence permit the defense attorney to explore whether the witness has an ax to grind witht the defendant. COLLIER prevents the defense attorney from examining the state's witnesses for bias, effectively emasculating the defendant's right of cross-examination. COLLIER does not wish to imperil the state's case by examining witness bias.
One of the most ingenious techniques, employed by COLLIER during trial, is his personal demeanor before the jury. Most jurors, because of their inexperience look at the judge as the god of the courtroom, as COLLIER well knows. Accordingly, when the defense attorney is examining witnesses, COLLIER rolls his eyes, stares up at the ceiling, gazes out the window, and places his head on the bench as if napping. While this conduct is not reflected in the trial record, as COLLIER well knows, his conduct is intended to influence the jury and bias the jury against the defendant.
In all, A BLACK MAN IN A 1950'S COURTROOM IN MISSISSIPPI HAD A BETTER CHANCE OF RECEIVING A FAIR TRIAL THAN DOES ANY DEFENDANT APPEARING BEFORE COLLIER IN THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WHO CANNOT EXPECT TO RECEIVE ANYTHING BUT BACKWOODS "JUSTICE"!
THERE IS MUCH, MUCH MORE TO COME...
Some years ago in Cleveland, some outlaw bikers planted a bomb at the house of a rival gang member. However, they placed the device at the wrong house. When the device detonated, an innocent young husband and wife, and their two year old son were killed. The offenders were identified, arrested and indicted.
The case was assigned to Judge James McGettrick in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. At trial, McGettrick threw the case out, relieving the defendants of any future criminal liability since double jeopardy attaches once a jury is impaneled.
Many years later, while drinking at a bar in Lakewood, Judge McGettrick bumped into an undercover agent, a personal friend of mine, and mistook the agent for one of the bikers. The agent sarcastically remarked to McGetrtrick, "we really appreciate what you did for us in that murder case." McGettrick, again thinking that the agent was a biker, remarked, "You still owe me $10,000.00 for that one."
The following day, the agent delivered the $10,000.00 bribe to McGettrick, who was then promptly arrested. Ultimately, McGettrick, a crooked judge and case fixer, was convicted and sent to prison where he died.
While McGettrick fixed cases, including murder cases, for defendants in exchange for money, corrupt judge COLLIER also fixes cases, but for an equally corrupt county prosecutor, Dean Holman.
While McGettrick took money on a case-by-case basis, COLLIER benefits financially by retaining his seat on the bench of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, unopposed by any Dem opponent as long he is subservient to HOLMAN. COLLIER continues to take home his paycheck, receives his benefits, including retirement benefits. This has turned out to be a better deal for COLLIER than the deal made by McGettrick.
NEVERTHELESS, A BRIBE IS A BRIBE, IN WHATEVER FORM TAKEN AND RECEIVED!
How, might you ask, does COLLIER fix cases for the prosecutor? It's really quite simple, really. Here are but a very few of the ways COLLIER fixes cases.
COLLIER does not enforce the Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure against the prosecutor. Quite simply, the prosecutor does as he damn well pleases and COLLIER just sits back and lets the good times roll.
Then there is the matter of the voire dire. That is the jury selection process where attorneys are permitted to ask questions of prospective jurors. COLLIER permits the prosecutor, over defense objections, to explain the prosecutor's version of the law, which you can be sure is not consistent with the law as should be explained to jurors in jury instructions at the end of the trial by the judge. This misconduct by the prosecutor, permitted and condoned by COLLIER, is intended to bias the jury against the defendant from the very outset of the trial.
Of course, there is always the matter of suppression. Suppression is a procedure wherein the defendant moves to suppress, or strike, evidence that was illegally seized by the police. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that every citizen will be secure from intrusion by the state. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, Mapp v. Ohio, ruled that illegally seized evidence cannot be admitted at trial against a defendant. The Supreme Court characterized such illegally seized evidence, and evidence flowing therefrom, as "fruits of the poisonous tree."
COLLIER completely disregards these bulwarks of your constitutional protections and admits illegally seized evidence at trial, again in favor of the prosecutor.
As most people are aware, the state presents its witness first. The prosecutor is permitted to first examine his witness on direct examination. The defense attorney is then permitted to cross-examine the state's witnesses. Here, COLLIER gives the prosecutor a bonanza.
The rules of evidence permit a defense attorney to examine a state's witness on matters involving bias against the defendant. In other words, the rules of evidence permit the defense attorney to explore whether the witness has an ax to grind witht the defendant. COLLIER prevents the defense attorney from examining the state's witnesses for bias, effectively emasculating the defendant's right of cross-examination. COLLIER does not wish to imperil the state's case by examining witness bias.
One of the most ingenious techniques, employed by COLLIER during trial, is his personal demeanor before the jury. Most jurors, because of their inexperience look at the judge as the god of the courtroom, as COLLIER well knows. Accordingly, when the defense attorney is examining witnesses, COLLIER rolls his eyes, stares up at the ceiling, gazes out the window, and places his head on the bench as if napping. While this conduct is not reflected in the trial record, as COLLIER well knows, his conduct is intended to influence the jury and bias the jury against the defendant.
In all, A BLACK MAN IN A 1950'S COURTROOM IN MISSISSIPPI HAD A BETTER CHANCE OF RECEIVING A FAIR TRIAL THAN DOES ANY DEFENDANT APPEARING BEFORE COLLIER IN THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WHO CANNOT EXPECT TO RECEIVE ANYTHING BUT BACKWOODS "JUSTICE"!
THERE IS MUCH, MUCH MORE TO COME...
Monday, July 25, 2011
LAPDOG MEDINA JUDGE COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT & TOWN WHORE, PANDERS TO THE PUBLIC
The blogger came across his rather amusing web page expressing the limited views of LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT & TOWN WHORE:
http://medlawlib.org/judgecollier/about_court.htm
This is rather an interesting read and validates the very real proposition the LAPDOG COLLIER is indeed the VILLAGE IDIOT & TOWN WHORE!
Here is but one excerpt from LAPDOG COLLIER'S self-serving explanation of his role as a judge:
Actually, "the trial judge (SHOULD) make sure that the rules governing a trial are followed...."
One of LAPDOG COLLIER'S many failings is that he has refused to follow the Ohio Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure in the very trial being profiled here at the blog.
The reader may wish to review a prior post at this blog, addressing the very manner in which LAPDOG COLLIER enforces "the rules governing a trial" at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/12/collier-philosophy-all-those-pesky.html
Here are a few, but not all, of the Rules that LAPDOG COLLIER violated at "trial":
http://medlawlib.org/judgecollier/about_court.htm
This is rather an interesting read and validates the very real proposition the LAPDOG COLLIER is indeed the VILLAGE IDIOT & TOWN WHORE!
Here is but one excerpt from LAPDOG COLLIER'S self-serving explanation of his role as a judge:
"Our system of justice ensures that anyone can come into a court of law and have his or her dispute heard and resolved by a jury comprised of Medina County citizens. The trial judge makes sure that the rules governing a trial are followed and that the proceeding is fair."LAPDOG COLLIER is obviously referring to the American system of justice, generally, and is clearly not speaking of the reality of the Medina County Courts, where citizens are deprived of their constitutional protections and the Rule of Law.
Actually, "the trial judge (SHOULD) make sure that the rules governing a trial are followed...."
One of LAPDOG COLLIER'S many failings is that he has refused to follow the Ohio Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure in the very trial being profiled here at the blog.
The reader may wish to review a prior post at this blog, addressing the very manner in which LAPDOG COLLIER enforces "the rules governing a trial" at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/12/collier-philosophy-all-those-pesky.html
Here are a few, but not all, of the Rules that LAPDOG COLLIER violated at "trial":
Criminal Procedure Rule 1 : Scope of Rules: Applicability, etc.
Criminal Procedure Rule 3 : Complaint
Criminal Procedure Rule 4 : Warrant or Summons; Arrest
Criminal Procedure Rule 6 : Grand Jury
Criminal Procedure Rule 7 : The Indictment and the Information
Criminal Procedure Rule 12 : Pleadings and Motions Before Trial
Criminal Procedure Rule 16 : Discovery and Inspection
Criminal Procedure Rule 29 : Motion for Acquittal
Criminal Procedure Rule 30 : Instructions
Criminal Procedure Rule 31 : Verdict
Criminal Procedure Rule 33 : New Trial
Criminal Procedure Rule 46 : Bail
Evidence Rule 101 : Scope of Rules; Applicability, etc.
Evidence Rule 103 : Rulings on Evidence
Evidence Rule 401 : Relevant Evidence
Evidence Rule 402 : Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible, etc.
Evidence Rule 403 : Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice….
Evidence Rule 404 : Character Evidence not Admissible to Prove Conduct, etc.
Evidence Rule 501 : Privileges: General Rule
Evidence Rule 601 : General Rule of Competency (of witnesses)
Evidence Rule 601(B) : Spouse Testifying
Evidence Rule 602 : Lack of Personal Knowledge
Evidence Rule 605 : Competency of Judge as Witness
Evidence Rule 607 : Impeachment
Evidence Rule 609 : Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime
Evidence Rule 611 : Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation
Evidence Rule 615 : Separation and Exclusion of Witnesses
Evidence Rule 616 : Methods of Impeachment
Evidence Rule 704 : Opinion on Ultimate Issue
Further, COLLIER violated the following provisions of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct:
Canon 1:
Rule 1.1 Compliance with the law
Rule 1.2 Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
Canon 2:
Rule 2.2 Impartiality and Fairness
Rule 2.3 (A), (B), C) Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment
Rule 2.4 (B), (C) External Influences on Judicial Conduct
Rule 2.5 (A) Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation
Rule 2.6 (A) Ensuring the Right to be Heard
Rule 2.8 (A), (B) Decorum, Demeanor, and Communication with Jurors
Rule 2.9 (A), (B) Ex Parte Contacts
Rule 2.10 (B) Judicial Statements on Pending Cases
Rule 2.15 (B) Responding to Lawyer Misconduct
There is no question the LAPDOG COLLIER FAILED TO ENFORCE THE RULES IN THE TRIAL PROFILED HERE AT THE BLOG.
When LAPDOG COLLIER professes that he has the responsibility to ensure that the "proceeding is fair," he's obviously referring to the MEDINA COUNTY FAIR, since a "trial" before LAPDOG COLLIER most closely resembles a CIRCUS SIDESHOW.
THESE ARE A FEW MORE REASONS THAT MEDINA COUNTY NEEDS AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF ITS COURTS CONDUCTED BY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE!
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
THESE ARE A FEW MORE REASONS THAT MEDINA COUNTY NEEDS AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF ITS COURTS CONDUCTED BY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE!
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
Friday, July 22, 2011
LAPDOG MEDINA JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, CAN TAKE A LESSON FROM A REAL AND HONEST JUDGE!
LAPDOG MEDINA JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, CAN TAKE A LESSON FROM AN HONEST JUDGE, WHO ENFORCES THE RULES OF EVIDENCE!
In a trial conducted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Washington, FEDERAL JUDGE REGGIE WALTON, AN HONEST AND KNOWLEDGEABLE JUDGE, unlike LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, declared a mistrial in the prosecution of former Yankee pitcher Roger Clemens.
In a scathing criticism of prosecutors, Judge Walton remarked that the prosecutors violated the Rules of Evidence by introducing inadmissible evidence before the jury, A REGULAR OCCURRENCE IN THE KANGAROO COURTROOM OF LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, WHO PERMITS ASS. PROSECUTOR SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, TO DO THAT VERY THING WITH IMPUNITY.
Just what did the Federal prosecutors do? Well, they presented evidence to the jury that, prior to trial, they assured the Judge that they had not intention to bring forward. RING A BELL?
An article concerning the actions of prosecutors and the comments of Judge Walton can be found at:
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Judge-declares-mistrial-in-Roger-Clemens-steroid-perjury-case-071411/?gt1=39002
YOU MAY RECALL THAT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, ASSURED DEFENSE COUNSEL IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO TRIAL THAT HE HAD NO INTENTION OF INTRODUCING INADMISSIBLE FORBIDDEN "OTHER ACTS" EVIDENCE AT TRIAL.
HOWEVER, BEING THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR THAT HE IS, SALISBURY INTRODUCED SUCH FORBIDDEN EVIDENCE THROUGH HIS FIRST WITNESS, THE DEFENDANT'S WIFE, WHO HAD ASSERTED HER SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE REPEATEDLY.
LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, JUST SMILED AND LET THE FORBIDDEN EVIDENCE COME BEFORE THE JURY, ALL WITH A WINK AND A NOD TO SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
LAPDOG COLLIER SHOULD HAVE DONE IMMEDIATELY WHAT AN HONEST JUDGE LIKE JUDGE WALTON DID: DECLARE A MISTRIAL!
Judge Walton remarked, "I think that a first-year law student would know that you can't bolster the credibility of one witness with clearly inadmissible evidence."
How about that! Based on Judge Walton's commentary, it is obvious that LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, AND SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, DON'T POSSES THE KNOWLEDGE EXPECTED OF FIRST-YEAR LAW STUDENTS!
OF COURSE, LAPDOG COLLIER'S FAILURE TO RULE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE LAW, AS WOULD A FIRST-YEAR LAW STUDENT, DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE ONLY WAY THAT LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, CAN PRESERVE HIS LIFETIME UNCONTESTED APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT IS TO BOW TO DINO HOLMAN, COLLIER'S PUPPET MASTER, AND RULE IN FAVOR OF SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, NO MATTER THE LAW AND THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
In a trial conducted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Washington, FEDERAL JUDGE REGGIE WALTON, AN HONEST AND KNOWLEDGEABLE JUDGE, unlike LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, declared a mistrial in the prosecution of former Yankee pitcher Roger Clemens.
In a scathing criticism of prosecutors, Judge Walton remarked that the prosecutors violated the Rules of Evidence by introducing inadmissible evidence before the jury, A REGULAR OCCURRENCE IN THE KANGAROO COURTROOM OF LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, WHO PERMITS ASS. PROSECUTOR SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, TO DO THAT VERY THING WITH IMPUNITY.
Just what did the Federal prosecutors do? Well, they presented evidence to the jury that, prior to trial, they assured the Judge that they had not intention to bring forward. RING A BELL?
An article concerning the actions of prosecutors and the comments of Judge Walton can be found at:
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Judge-declares-mistrial-in-Roger-Clemens-steroid-perjury-case-071411/?gt1=39002
YOU MAY RECALL THAT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, ASSURED DEFENSE COUNSEL IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO TRIAL THAT HE HAD NO INTENTION OF INTRODUCING INADMISSIBLE FORBIDDEN "OTHER ACTS" EVIDENCE AT TRIAL.
HOWEVER, BEING THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR THAT HE IS, SALISBURY INTRODUCED SUCH FORBIDDEN EVIDENCE THROUGH HIS FIRST WITNESS, THE DEFENDANT'S WIFE, WHO HAD ASSERTED HER SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE REPEATEDLY.
LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, JUST SMILED AND LET THE FORBIDDEN EVIDENCE COME BEFORE THE JURY, ALL WITH A WINK AND A NOD TO SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
LAPDOG COLLIER SHOULD HAVE DONE IMMEDIATELY WHAT AN HONEST JUDGE LIKE JUDGE WALTON DID: DECLARE A MISTRIAL!
Judge Walton remarked, "I think that a first-year law student would know that you can't bolster the credibility of one witness with clearly inadmissible evidence."
How about that! Based on Judge Walton's commentary, it is obvious that LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, AND SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, DON'T POSSES THE KNOWLEDGE EXPECTED OF FIRST-YEAR LAW STUDENTS!
OF COURSE, LAPDOG COLLIER'S FAILURE TO RULE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE LAW, AS WOULD A FIRST-YEAR LAW STUDENT, DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE ONLY WAY THAT LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, CAN PRESERVE HIS LIFETIME UNCONTESTED APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT IS TO BOW TO DINO HOLMAN, COLLIER'S PUPPET MASTER, AND RULE IN FAVOR OF SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, NO MATTER THE LAW AND THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
GEORGE SPUDNUTTS, OWNER OF THE MEDINA GASETTE, BUSTED!
A regular reader of this blog reports that George Spudnutts, publisher of the Medina Gasette, has been charged with DUI by police in Avon Lake, Ohio.
It is somewhat surprising that the Medina Gasette, the official oracle of the Medina County Chamber of Commerce, chose to print an article announcing Spudnutts' arrest.
The "news" article can be found at this link: http://medinagazette.
Further, the docket concerning Spudnutts' arrest can be found at the website of the Clerk of the Avon Lake Municipal Court at http://www.avonlakecourt.com/
Hats off to the arresting officer for a job well done!
Had Spudnutts' been charged in Medina County, it is likely that CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN could have intervened to make sure the case was washed.
All one need to do to confirm that suspicion is to look at the matter involving DEMOCRAT POLITICIAN SAM SCAFFIDE, former Brunswick Service Director and Twinsburg City Councilman, who, according to an informed source, was terminated by the City of Brunswick for misappropriation of funds and was never prosecuted by FELLOW CORRUPT DEMOCRAT AND MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN.
Of course, it's always possible that HOLMAN can place a phone call to Avon Lake and call in a favor to get Spudnutts off the hook.
All it takes is a phone call. After all, all it took for SCAFFIDE to get the job as the Brunswick Service Director was a phone call from Cuyahoga County Commissioner Jimmy Dimora who is currently under Federal indictment for his role in the public corruption in Cuyahoga County.
The blogger extends his thanks and appreciation to the reader who furnished this information in the public interest.
Much more to come ....
It is somewhat surprising that the Medina Gasette, the official oracle of the Medina County Chamber of Commerce, chose to print an article announcing Spudnutts' arrest.
The "news" article can be found at this link: http://medinagazette.
Further, the docket concerning Spudnutts' arrest can be found at the website of the Clerk of the Avon Lake Municipal Court at http://www.avonlakecourt.com/
Hats off to the arresting officer for a job well done!
Had Spudnutts' been charged in Medina County, it is likely that CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN could have intervened to make sure the case was washed.
All one need to do to confirm that suspicion is to look at the matter involving DEMOCRAT POLITICIAN SAM SCAFFIDE, former Brunswick Service Director and Twinsburg City Councilman, who, according to an informed source, was terminated by the City of Brunswick for misappropriation of funds and was never prosecuted by FELLOW CORRUPT DEMOCRAT AND MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN.
Of course, it's always possible that HOLMAN can place a phone call to Avon Lake and call in a favor to get Spudnutts off the hook.
All it takes is a phone call. After all, all it took for SCAFFIDE to get the job as the Brunswick Service Director was a phone call from Cuyahoga County Commissioner Jimmy Dimora who is currently under Federal indictment for his role in the public corruption in Cuyahoga County.
The blogger extends his thanks and appreciation to the reader who furnished this information in the public interest.
Much more to come ....
Monday, July 18, 2011
CORRUPT COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN CUT A SWEETHEART DEAL WITH ANOTHER MEDINA POLITICIAN
CORRUPT POLITICIANS PERPETUATE CORRUPTION AND BREED OTHER CORRUPT POLITICIANS! HERE'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE:
A faithful reader of this blog has forwarded information to the blog concerning ANOTHER CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY POLITICIAN, COUNTY TREASURER JOHN BURKE.
The reader has forwarded the following links, which may be of interest to the reader:
http://www.topix.com/forum/
If you have perused any of the material at any of the above links, you are likely to have found that BURKE seems to have evoked the public ire in years past because of his shady dealings.
In fact one reader, apparently from the venerable Medina firm of A.I. Root Co., posted the following message:"Be very careful of Medina County Treasurer John Burke. Those who are aware of his past would certainly avoid dealing with him on financial issues."
It seems that BURKE, like HOLMAN, has more than a few skeletons rattling around in his closet.
One particular reader comment however, caught the eye of this blogger: "John Burke was convicted of tax crimes, filed for personal bankruptcy and miswired half a million dollars of the library's money to a bankrupt boot company in Texas!!!!"
The blogger also found another reader comment enlightening: "SPENT OVER $50,000 OF OUR TAX DOLLARS to fly to HAWAII, NEW ORLEANS, MONTANA, NEW MEXICO AND MORE. You've got to be kidding me. Say bye-bye Burke."
I'll bet BURKE learned an awful lot about managing Medina County finances in Hawaii, New Orleans, Montana, New Mexico, and more, all on the taxpayers' tab.
The representation that BURKE was convicted of tax crimes was particularly intriguing to the blogger, who decided that it might be a good idea to check the records at the website of the Medina County Clerk of Court. WHAT AN INTERESTING TURN OF EVENTS ARE REVEALED THERE!!!
Under Criminal Docket No. 97CR0183, found at http://www.co.medina.oh.us/medct_epublicnodr/pages/DetailForm.aspx?case=97CR0183 , the file discloses that BURKE was indicted by the Medina County grand jury on July 1, 1997 on SIX FELONY COUNTS OF FILING FALSE TAX RETURNS.
BURKE'S FELONY INDICTMENT is not publicly displayed at the Clerk's website, for all the obvious reasons to be found in a corrupt "criminal justice" system.
The blogger, therefore, can only speculate that BURKE had been indicted for violations of Section 5747.19 of the Ohio Revised Code, if only for HOLMAN to falsely portray to the public that he was dealing with the dishonesty of another CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY POLITICIAN.
Here's the l aw:
747.19 Filing incomplete, false, and fraudulent returns.No person shall knowingly fail to file any return or report required to be filed by this chapter, or file or knowingly cause to be filed any incomplete, false, or fraudulent return, report, or statement, or aid or abet another in the filing of any false or fraudulent return, report, or statement.Effective Date: 12-20-1971
5747.99 Penalty.
http://www.topix.com/forum/
If you have perused any of the material at any of the above links, you are likely to have found that BURKE seems to have evoked the public ire in years past because of his shady dealings.
In fact one reader, apparently from the venerable Medina firm of A.I. Root Co., posted the following message:
"Be very careful of Medina County Treasurer John Burke. Those who are aware of his past would certainly avoid dealing with him on financial issues."It seems that BURKE, like HOLMAN, has more than a few skeletons rattling around in his closet.
One particular reader comment however, caught the eye of this blogger:
"John Burke was convicted of tax crimes, filed for personal bankruptcy and miswired half a million dollars of the library's money to a bankrupt boot company in Texas!!!!"The blogger also found another reader comment enlightening:
"SPENT OVER $50,000 OF OUR TAX DOLLARS to fly to HAWAII, NEW ORLEANS, MONTANA, NEW MEXICO AND MORE. You've got to be kidding me. Say bye-bye Burke."I'll bet BURKE learned an awful lot about managing Medina County finances in Hawaii, New Orleans, Montana, New Mexico, and more, all on the taxpayers' tab.
The representation that BURKE was convicted of tax crimes was particularly intriguing to the blogger, who decided that it might be a good idea to check the records at the website of the Medina County Clerk of Court. WHAT AN INTERESTING TURN OF EVENTS ARE REVEALED THERE!!!
Under Criminal Docket No. 97CR0183, found at http://www.co.medina.oh.us/medct_epublicnodr/pages/DetailForm.aspx?case=97CR0183 , the file discloses that BURKE was indicted by the Medina County grand jury on July 1, 1997 on SIX FELONY COUNTS OF FILING FALSE TAX RETURNS.
BURKE'S FELONY INDICTMENT is not publicly displayed at the Clerk's website, for all the obvious reasons to be found in a corrupt "criminal justice" system.
The blogger, therefore, can only speculate that BURKE had been indicted for violations of Section 5747.19 of the Ohio Revised Code, if only for HOLMAN to falsely portray to the public that he was dealing with the dishonesty of another CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY POLITICIAN.
Here's the l aw:
747.19 Filing incomplete, false, and fraudulent returns.
No person shall knowingly fail to file any return or report required to be filed by this chapter, or file or knowingly cause to be filed any incomplete, false, or fraudulent return, report, or statement, or aid or abet another in the filing of any false or fraudulent return, report, or statement.
Effective Date: 12-20-1971
5747.99 Penalty.
(A) Whoever violates section 5747.19 of the Revised Code, or whoever violates section 5747.06 or 5747.07 of the Revised Code by failing to remit state income taxes withheld from an employee, is guilty of a felony of the fifth degree.
Of course, neither BURKE nor HOLMAN wanted to have the full facts put before a jury of voters. So, on October 17, 1997, BURKE waived trial by jury.
Then, surprise of surprises, on November 10, 1997, BURKE'S INDICTMENT WAS DISMISSED UPON MOTION BY HOLMAN!
Lest justice be recognizably denied, at least for appearance sake, on October 20, 1997, HOLMAN filed a MISDEMEANOR BILL OF INFORMATION CHARGING BURKE WITH DUTY OF AGENTS TO REPORT AND TESTIFY, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 5703.43 OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE! You can find the docket at http://www.co.medina.oh.us/medct_epublicnodr/pages/DetailForm.aspx?case=97CR0332
Here's the statute with which BURKE was then charged:
5703.43 Duty of agents to report and testify.
(A) Whoever violates section 5747.19 of the Revised Code, or whoever violates section 5747.06 or 5747.07 of the Revised Code by failing to remit state income taxes withheld from an employee, is guilty of a felony of the fifth degree.
Of course, neither BURKE nor HOLMAN wanted to have the full facts put before a jury of voters. So, on October 17, 1997, BURKE waived trial by jury.
Then, surprise of surprises, on November 10, 1997, BURKE'S INDICTMENT WAS DISMISSED UPON MOTION BY HOLMAN!
Lest justice be recognizably denied, at least for appearance sake, on October 20, 1997, HOLMAN filed a MISDEMEANOR BILL OF INFORMATION CHARGING BURKE WITH DUTY OF AGENTS TO REPORT AND TESTIFY, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 5703.43 OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE! You can find the docket at http://www.co.medina.oh.us/medct_epublicnodr/pages/DetailForm.aspx?case=97CR0332
Here's the statute with which BURKE was then charged:
5703.43 Duty of agents to report and testify.
No officer, agent, or employee of any public utility, company, firm, person, partnership, corporation, or association, subject to any law which the tax commissioner is required to administer shall fail to fill out and return any blanks required by such law, fail to answer any questions therein propounded, or knowingly or willfully give a false answer to any such question where the fact inquired of is within his knowledge, or fail upon proper demand to exhibit to the commissioner any book, paper, account, record, or memoranda of such public utility, which is in possession of such officer, agent, or employee or under his control.
Effective Date: 10-01-1953
Interestingly, the blogger finds no reference at all to prohibitions by a PUBLIC OFFICIAL referenced in Section 5703.43, so that BURKE WAS CHARGED WITH A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE FOR WHICH HE COULD NOT BE LEGALLY CHARGED, EXCEPT IN MEDINA COUNTY.
On the same date, October 20, 1997, BURKE, A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, PLED GUILTY TO 6 MISDEMEANOR COUNTS AND WAS FINED $250.00 ON EACH COUNT.
BURKE WAS NOT ORDERED TO PAY THE COUNTY RESTITUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF THE TAXES THAT HE HAD AVOIDED PAYING.
The essence of BURKE'S conduct, as best the blogger can reconstruct from available information is that BURKE Tampered with Records (a violation of law) by issuing falsified real estate tax bills to himself, reducing the amount of tax due and owing by BURKE to MEDINA COUNTY. The blogger's best guess is that BURKE'S criminal conduct was discovered during an audit of his office by the State of Ohio. It is likely that state auditors turned the matter over to HOLMAN for prosecution, putting HOLMAN between a rock and a hard place.
This was the only way that CORRUPT COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN could wiggle out of this ticklish situation without disrupting the cozy love fest between Medina County politicians.
HOLMAN could have, and should have charged BURKE with THEFT IN OFFICE, using as the predicate felony offense TELECOMMUNICATIONS FRAUD, in violation of Section 2913.05 of the Ohio Revised Code.
Of course, just as in the matters of former Medina County Commissioner MARK WHITFIELD (See http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/12/equaler-protection-under-law-in-medina.html) and former Brunswick Service Director SAM SCAFFIDE (See http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/07/fix-is-in-dino-holman-wont-prosecute.html), HOLMAN did not want to forever bar BURKE from holding public office.
However, HOLMAN had no problem prosecuting the purported sex slave of his best bud, Erie County Prosector Kevin Baxter (See http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/12/holman-implicated-in-malicious.html AND http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/12/just-side-note-on-holmans-best-bud-erie.html).
GIVEN THE UNEVEN PLAYING FIELD IN THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTS, WHERE CITIZENS ARE DEPRIVED OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY HOLMAN AND LAPDOG MEDINA JUDGE COLLIER, ACTING IN CONCERT, AND WHERE POLITICIANS ARE EXEMPT FROM PROSECUTION FOR THEIR FELONY CRIMES, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE ENTIRE MEDINA COUNTY "CRIMINAL JUSTICE" SYSTEM.
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
HOLMAN could have, and should have charged BURKE with THEFT IN OFFICE, using as the predicate felony offense TELECOMMUNICATIONS FRAUD, in violation of Section 2913.05 of the Ohio Revised Code.
Of course, just as in the matters of former Medina County Commissioner MARK WHITFIELD (See http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/12/equaler-protection-under-law-in-medina.html) and former Brunswick Service Director SAM SCAFFIDE (See http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/07/fix-is-in-dino-holman-wont-prosecute.html), HOLMAN did not want to forever bar BURKE from holding public office.
However, HOLMAN had no problem prosecuting the purported sex slave of his best bud, Erie County Prosector Kevin Baxter (See http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/12/holman-implicated-in-malicious.html AND http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/12/just-side-note-on-holmans-best-bud-erie.html).
GIVEN THE UNEVEN PLAYING FIELD IN THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTS, WHERE CITIZENS ARE DEPRIVED OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY HOLMAN AND LAPDOG MEDINA JUDGE COLLIER, ACTING IN CONCERT, AND WHERE POLITICIANS ARE EXEMPT FROM PROSECUTION FOR THEIR FELONY CRIMES, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE ENTIRE MEDINA COUNTY "CRIMINAL JUSTICE" SYSTEM.
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
Friday, July 15, 2011
THE FIX IS IN! DINO HOLMAN WON'T PROSECUTE POLITICALLY CONNECTED FELLOW DEM PUBLIC OFFICIAL!
The blogger has received some interesting information about further CORRUPTION IN THE MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE.
It certainly takes very little imagination to connect the following dots.
An informed source informed the blogger on July 6, 2011 that SAM SCAFFIDE, the Brunswick Service Director had been removed from his office for misappropriation of funds.
A brief inquiry located the following online article at Cleveland. com, found at this link http://blog.cleveland.com/brunswicksuntimes/2011/05/scaffide_leaving_brunwick_serv.html
Stealing from the public while in governmental employment is a criminal offense, otherwise known as THEFT IN OFFICE, in violation of Section 2921.41 of the Ohio Revised Code, A FELONY OFFENSE. The Theft in Office Statute can be found at http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.41
SECTION 2921.41 OF THE Ohio Revised Code provides:
One of the consequences of conviction for the OFFENSE OF THEFT IN OFFICE is set out in SECTION 2921.41 OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE:
Now, the common citizen residing in the County of Medina might reasonably believe that theft by a public official would merit a prosecution. That, of course, is not the case if you happen to be politically connected in Medina County.
The blogger has queried the websites of the Clerk of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas found at http://www.co.medina.oh.us/medct_epublicnodr/ and the Clerk of the Medina Municipal Court found at http://24.144.216.42/connection/court//index.xsp. NOT SURPRISINGLY, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO RECORD OF ANY PROSECUTION OF SCAFFIDE TO BE FOUND!
If you have read the article at Cleveland.com, linked above, you will notice that, in addition to his former employment as the Brunswick Service Director, Scaffide is also involved in Democrat politics as a Councilman in Twinsburg, Ohio.
Based on the above, it is obvious that, if Scafiide were to be convicted of the Felony Offense of Theft in Office by fellow Democrat Dino Holman, Scaffide would be forever barred from holding any public office and position in the future.
DINO HOLMAN IS JUST NOT PREPARED TO CONVICT ANOTHER CORRUPT FELLOW DEMOCRAT, ESPECIALLY A DEMOCRAT CONNECTED TO CUYAHOGA COUNTY COMMISSIONER JIMMY DIMORA!
Of course, HOLMAN is no stranger to looking the other way when it comes to theft in office. In fact, all one need do is look to the conduct of HOLMAN'S ASS. PROSECUTOR SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. [See http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/12/salisbury-poet-continues-to-steal-your.html ] AND [http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/04/assistant-prosecutor-scott-salisbury.html ]
READERS MAY RECALL ANOTHER LOCAL POLITICIAN WHO WAS NEVER PROSECUTED BY HOLMAN. [See http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/12/equaler-protection-under-law-in-medina.html ]
HOWEVER, MORE THAN THE ABOVE, THE PLOT THICKENS WELL BEYOND THE PUBLIC VIEW AND THERE IS QUITE A BIT MORE TO THIS STORY THAN MEETS THE EYE.
In or about 1974, SAM SCAFFIDE was arrested at Northfield, Ohio on the basis of a FEDERAL ARREST WARRANT which charged SCAFFIDE WITH A FEDERAL FELONY OFFENSE ARISING FROM THE POSSESSION AND USE OF STOLEN CREDIT CARDS.
How, do you suppose, that the requisite background check of SCAFFIDE prior to his hire eluded the detection of Brunswick City Officials? An inquiry of the NATIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (NCIC) database would have most surely provided SCAFFIDE'S FBI Number and documented his Federal prosecution.
And just how did SCAFFIDE, a resident of Twinsburg, get the job of Service Director in Brunswick?
ACCORDING TO AN INFORMED SOURCE, CUYAHOGA COUNTY COMMISSIONER JIMMY DIMORA, CURRENTLY UNDER FEDERAL INDICTMENT IN THE CUYAHOGA COUNTY CORRUPTION PROBE, PLACED A TELEPHONE CALL TO A MEDINA COUNTY PUBLIC OFFICIAL AND PERSONALLY ARRANGED FOR SCAFFIDE TO GET THE JOB!
IT IS PLAIN TO SEE HOW THE TENTACLES OF ORGANIZED CRIME AND CORRUPTION IN CUYAHOGA COUNTY HAVE REACHED WELL DOWN INTO MEDINA COUNTY,
THIS IS JUST ONE MORE REASON THAT MEDINA COUNTY NEEDS A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF ITS "CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM" BY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
It certainly takes very little imagination to connect the following dots.
An informed source informed the blogger on July 6, 2011 that SAM SCAFFIDE, the Brunswick Service Director had been removed from his office for misappropriation of funds.
A brief inquiry located the following online article at Cleveland. com, found at this link http://blog.cleveland.com/brunswicksuntimes/2011/05/scaffide_leaving_brunwick_serv.html
Stealing from the public while in governmental employment is a criminal offense, otherwise known as THEFT IN OFFICE, in violation of Section 2921.41 of the Ohio Revised Code, A FELONY OFFENSE. The Theft in Office Statute can be found at http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.41
SECTION 2921.41 OF THE Ohio Revised Code provides:
A) No public official or party official shall commit any theft offense, as defined in division (K) of section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, when either of the following applies:
(1) The offender uses the offender’s office in aid of committing the offense or permits or assents to its use in aid of committing the offense;
(2) The property or service involved is owned by this state, any other state, the United States, a county, a municipal corporation, a township, or any political subdivision, department, or agency of any of them, is owned by a political party, or is part of a political campaign fund.
SECTION 2901.01 OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE DEFINES "PUBLIC OFFICIAL" THUSLY:
THEFT OFFENSES PROSCRIBED BY SECTION 2913.01 OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE CAN BE FOUND AT http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2913(A) “Public official” means any elected or appointed officer, or employee, or agent of the state or any political subdivision, whether in a temporary or permanent capacity, and includes, but is not limited to, legislators, judges, and law enforcement officers. “Public official” does not include an employee, officer, or governor-appointed member of the board of directors of the nonprofit corporation formed under section 187.01 of the Revised Code.
One of the consequences of conviction for the OFFENSE OF THEFT IN OFFICE is set out in SECTION 2921.41 OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE:
C)(1) A public official or party official who pleads guilty to theft in office and whose plea is accepted by the court or a public official or party official against whom a verdict or finding of guilt for committing theft in office is returned is forever disqualified from holding any public office, employment, or position of trust in this state.
Now, the common citizen residing in the County of Medina might reasonably believe that theft by a public official would merit a prosecution. That, of course, is not the case if you happen to be politically connected in Medina County.
The blogger has queried the websites of the Clerk of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas found at http://www.co.medina.oh.us/medct_epublicnodr/ and the Clerk of the Medina Municipal Court found at http://24.144.216.42/connection/court//index.xsp. NOT SURPRISINGLY, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO RECORD OF ANY PROSECUTION OF SCAFFIDE TO BE FOUND!
If you have read the article at Cleveland.com, linked above, you will notice that, in addition to his former employment as the Brunswick Service Director, Scaffide is also involved in Democrat politics as a Councilman in Twinsburg, Ohio.
Based on the above, it is obvious that, if Scafiide were to be convicted of the Felony Offense of Theft in Office by fellow Democrat Dino Holman, Scaffide would be forever barred from holding any public office and position in the future.
DINO HOLMAN IS JUST NOT PREPARED TO CONVICT ANOTHER CORRUPT FELLOW DEMOCRAT, ESPECIALLY A DEMOCRAT CONNECTED TO CUYAHOGA COUNTY COMMISSIONER JIMMY DIMORA!
Of course, HOLMAN is no stranger to looking the other way when it comes to theft in office. In fact, all one need do is look to the conduct of HOLMAN'S ASS. PROSECUTOR SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. [See http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/12/salisbury-poet-continues-to-steal-your.html ] AND [http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/04/assistant-prosecutor-scott-salisbury.html ]
READERS MAY RECALL ANOTHER LOCAL POLITICIAN WHO WAS NEVER PROSECUTED BY HOLMAN. [See http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/12/equaler-protection-under-law-in-medina.html ]
HOWEVER, MORE THAN THE ABOVE, THE PLOT THICKENS WELL BEYOND THE PUBLIC VIEW AND THERE IS QUITE A BIT MORE TO THIS STORY THAN MEETS THE EYE.
In or about 1974, SAM SCAFFIDE was arrested at Northfield, Ohio on the basis of a FEDERAL ARREST WARRANT which charged SCAFFIDE WITH A FEDERAL FELONY OFFENSE ARISING FROM THE POSSESSION AND USE OF STOLEN CREDIT CARDS.
How, do you suppose, that the requisite background check of SCAFFIDE prior to his hire eluded the detection of Brunswick City Officials? An inquiry of the NATIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (NCIC) database would have most surely provided SCAFFIDE'S FBI Number and documented his Federal prosecution.
And just how did SCAFFIDE, a resident of Twinsburg, get the job of Service Director in Brunswick?
ACCORDING TO AN INFORMED SOURCE, CUYAHOGA COUNTY COMMISSIONER JIMMY DIMORA, CURRENTLY UNDER FEDERAL INDICTMENT IN THE CUYAHOGA COUNTY CORRUPTION PROBE, PLACED A TELEPHONE CALL TO A MEDINA COUNTY PUBLIC OFFICIAL AND PERSONALLY ARRANGED FOR SCAFFIDE TO GET THE JOB!
IT IS PLAIN TO SEE HOW THE TENTACLES OF ORGANIZED CRIME AND CORRUPTION IN CUYAHOGA COUNTY HAVE REACHED WELL DOWN INTO MEDINA COUNTY,
THIS IS JUST ONE MORE REASON THAT MEDINA COUNTY NEEDS A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF ITS "CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM" BY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, RULES THAT APPLES ARE ORANGES!
LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, has effectively ruled that Apples are Oranges in a twist of logic that is absolutely astounding. Not even a complete moron could equal LAPDOG COLLIER'S ridiculous ruling in the matter of the SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE.
Regular readers of this blog may recall that a court in the State of Hawaii quoted appellate law, decided in the State of Ohio, that A SPOUSE HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO TESTIFY AGAINST A SPOUSE. [ See http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/06/judges-in-state-of-hawaii-know-more.html ].
It bears repeating the content of Rule 601 of the Ohio Rules of Evidence:
Appellate courts in the State of Ohio have affirmed the ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF A SPOUSE TO REFUSE TO TESTIFY AGAINST A SPOUSE, UNLESS HE/SHE ELECTS TO WAIVE THE PRIVILEGE AND OFFER TESTIMONY.
IN THE CASE BEING PROFILED HERE AT THIS BLOG, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT CHARGED WITH VICTIMIZING HIS WIFE IN ANY FASHION. [ See http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/02/collier-slips-and-slides-past-sixth.html for the precise language of the charge in the indictment ].
Regular readers of this blog may recall that a court in the State of Hawaii quoted appellate law, decided in the State of Ohio, that A SPOUSE HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO TESTIFY AGAINST A SPOUSE. [ See http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/06/judges-in-state-of-hawaii-know-more.html ].
It bears repeating the content of Rule 601 of the Ohio Rules of Evidence:
EVID R 601 GENERAL RULE OF COMPETENCY
Every person is competent to be a witness except:
(A) Those of unsound mind, and children under ten years of age, who appear incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts and transactions respecting which they are examined, or of relating them truly.
(B) A spouse testifying against the other spouse charged with a crime except when either of the following applies:
(1) a crime against the testifying spouse or a child of either spouse is charged;
(2) the testifying spouse elects to testify.
Under Ohio Rules of Evidence Rule 601, the spouse testifying against the spouse charged with a crime is first presumed incompetent.UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE OF EVIDENCE 601, A SPOUSE CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY A SPOUSE UNDER ANY CONDITIONS UNLESS HE/SHE IS THE VICTIM OF A CHARGED CRIME AT THE HANDS OF THE DEFENDANT.
Appellate courts in the State of Ohio have affirmed the ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF A SPOUSE TO REFUSE TO TESTIFY AGAINST A SPOUSE, UNLESS HE/SHE ELECTS TO WAIVE THE PRIVILEGE AND OFFER TESTIMONY.
IN THE CASE BEING PROFILED HERE AT THIS BLOG, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT CHARGED WITH VICTIMIZING HIS WIFE IN ANY FASHION. [ See http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/02/collier-slips-and-slides-past-sixth.html for the precise language of the charge in the indictment ].
HIS WIFE WAS THEREFORE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY BY LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, CONTRARY TO THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND THE LAW.
In issuing his "ruling" on the matter of the Defendant's wife assertion of her spousal privilege and compelling the wife to testify, clearly with the intent to prejudice the defendant and to please CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, AND SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR AND COLLIER'S HANDLER, LAPDOG COLLIER COMPARED THIS CASE WITH SEVERAL INAPPLICABLE CASES CITED IN OHIO LAW.
After LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, ruled that the DEFENDANT'S WIFE MUST TESTIFY, Defense Counsel objected and drew LAPDOG COLLIER'S limited powers of comprehension to Rule 601 of the Ohio Rules of Evidence.
At this juncture, SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, jumped up and offered this less-than brilliant explanation of the SALISBURY VERSION OF THE LAW, found at Page 29 of the Trial Transcript:
LAPDOG COLLIER just let this argument from SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, slide by as if it made perfect sense.
I suppose it did make sense to LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, who can only preserve his lifetime uncontested appointment to the Medina County court by doing as he's told by CORRUPT COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN and his handler, SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR!
At pages 55 through 66 of the Trial Transcript, LAPDOG COLLIER offered his hare-brained legal analysis, attempting to justify his ruling compelling the Defendant's wife to testify.
In issuing his "ruling" on the matter of the Defendant's wife assertion of her spousal privilege and compelling the wife to testify, clearly with the intent to prejudice the defendant and to please CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, AND SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR AND COLLIER'S HANDLER, LAPDOG COLLIER COMPARED THIS CASE WITH SEVERAL INAPPLICABLE CASES CITED IN OHIO LAW.
After LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, ruled that the DEFENDANT'S WIFE MUST TESTIFY, Defense Counsel objected and drew LAPDOG COLLIER'S limited powers of comprehension to Rule 601 of the Ohio Rules of Evidence.
At this juncture, SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, jumped up and offered this less-than brilliant explanation of the SALISBURY VERSION OF THE LAW, found at Page 29 of the Trial Transcript:
Now, SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, argued that only the Defendant's wife could assert her Spousal Privilege, making this argument after the DEFENDANT'S WIFE HAD FILED TWO SWORN AFFIDAVITS WITH LAPDOG COLLIER AND SENDING A PERSONAL LETTER TO SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, ASSERTING HER SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE!"Well that’s wrong, because it’s her privilege to waive. If she waives it, he can assert it all he wants. I mean, that’s like if the Defendant in the case stands up, Judge, and objects to every single question because she’s asserting his privilege that his wife can’t testify. We all know in the court that’s not the ...."
LAPDOG COLLIER just let this argument from SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, slide by as if it made perfect sense.
I suppose it did make sense to LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, who can only preserve his lifetime uncontested appointment to the Medina County court by doing as he's told by CORRUPT COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN and his handler, SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR!
At pages 55 through 66 of the Trial Transcript, LAPDOG COLLIER offered his hare-brained legal analysis, attempting to justify his ruling compelling the Defendant's wife to testify.
LAPDOG COLLIER cited to State v. Bryant, 56 Ohio App.3d 20 (6th App. Dist. 1988); State v. Mowery, 1 Ohio St.3d 192 (1982); State v. Rahman, 23 Ohio St.3d 146 (1986); Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980); and State v. Antill, 176 Ohio St. 61 (1964). Bryant had relied on each of the other four cases. 56 Ohio App.3d at 21-22.
Not a single one of LAPDOG COLLIER'S cited cases applies to the facts in this case, except for Trammel, decided by the United States Supreme Court, which stands for the proposition that a spouse may not be compelled to testify against a spouse.
Bryant was charged with kidnapping his wife, so Evid.R. 601(B) did not apply.
In Rahman, the victim was the defendant's daughter, so that the spouse was competent to testify under Rule 601.
In Antill, that defendant was charged with assaulting his wife so that Rule 601 did not apply.
In Mowery, that defendant was charged with shooting his wife 3 times, so Rule 601 did not apply.
At Page 59 of the Trial Transcript, LAPDOG COLLIER offered this moronic comment:
… [Mowery] is really an interesting case, because it relates to an aggravated burglary case, like my case here, which resulted in the aggravated murder of a person who was there at the house as well. In this particular case, the question was before the Supreme Court, whether the appellee, the defendant, could successfully assert a privilege to exclude his wife’s testimony as to aggravated murder and aggravated burglary.
The reader will take note that, also unlike Mowery, it was not the Defendant who asserted a spousal privilege, but rather, THE DEFENDANT'S WIFE ASSERTED HER PRIVILEGE, WHICH LAPDOG COLLIER KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY DENIED TO HER, CONTRARY TO LAW, ALL FOR THE INTENDED PURPOSE OF DENYING THIS DEFENDANT A FAIR TRIAL!
SO, AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THE TRIAL RECORD, LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT, HAD DEMONSTRATED THAT HE IS A COMPLETE AND TOTAL WHORE!
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
Monday, July 11, 2011
LAPDOG MEDINA JUDGE COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, JUST CAN'T SEEM TO BOTHER TO GET IT RIGHT!
In an earlier segment of this blog, the reader learned that LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, did not comprehend that the laws of the State of Ohio require that grand jury proceedings in all felony cases must be recorded. [See prior post at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/06/ignornace-is-bliss-no-wonder-lapdog.html ].
Then, regular readers of this blog learned that, after being informed that grand jury proceedings were recorded LAPDOG COLLIER REFUSED TO REVIEW THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY OF KEYSTONE DEPUTY DOUGLAS CLINAGE TO DETERMINE WHETHER CLINAGE HAD GIVEN ANY TESTIMONY AT ALL TO THE GRAND JURY TO SPECIFY WHAT UNDERLYING CRIMINAL OFFENSE THE DEFENDANT MAY HAVE BEEN ALLEGED TO HAVE INTENDED TO COMMIT AFTER ENTERING THE HOME OF HIS PERSONAL FRIEND OF MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS. [ See prior post at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/06/village-idiot-lapdog-medina-judge.html ].
In deciding State v. Sellards, the Ohio Supreme Court held, in part:
IT IS CLEAR THAT LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, HAD INTENDED TO DEPRIVE THIS DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, IN SPITE OF THE LAW MANDATED BY THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE OHIO SUPREME COURT!
That, of course, is why LAPDOG COLLIER refused to review the transcript of the grand jury testimony of Sheriff's Deputy Douglas Clinage, who has obviously had advanced police training administered by the KEYSTONE COPS.
OF COURSE, LAPDOG COLLIER WILL DO ANYTHING, INCLUDING DEPRIVING AN INNOCENT CITIZEN OF HIS RIGHTS AND DEFYING THE AUTHORITY OF SUPERIOR COURTS, INCLUDING THE SUPREME COURTS OF OHIO AND THE UNITED STATES, SOLELY TO KEEP HIS UNCONTESTED LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, COMPLIMENTS OF CORRUPT DEMOCRAT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN AND THE MEDINA DEMOCRAT PARTY.
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
Then, regular readers of this blog learned that, after being informed that grand jury proceedings were recorded LAPDOG COLLIER REFUSED TO REVIEW THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY OF KEYSTONE DEPUTY DOUGLAS CLINAGE TO DETERMINE WHETHER CLINAGE HAD GIVEN ANY TESTIMONY AT ALL TO THE GRAND JURY TO SPECIFY WHAT UNDERLYING CRIMINAL OFFENSE THE DEFENDANT MAY HAVE BEEN ALLEGED TO HAVE INTENDED TO COMMIT AFTER ENTERING THE HOME OF HIS PERSONAL FRIEND OF MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS. [ See prior post at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/06/village-idiot-lapdog-medina-judge.html ].
In deciding State v. Sellards, the Ohio Supreme Court held, in part:
"While the secrecy of grand jury testimony is legendary, this court recognized an exception to this secrecy rule in State v. Greer (1981), 66 Ohio St. 2d 139 [20 O.O.3d 157]. This court held in Greer that if an accused is able to demonstrate a particularized need, i.e., when the circumstances reveal a probability that the failure to provide the grand jury testimony will deny the defendant a fair trial, grand jury proceedings may be disclosed."
IT IS CLEAR THAT LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, HAD INTENDED TO DEPRIVE THIS DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, IN SPITE OF THE LAW MANDATED BY THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE OHIO SUPREME COURT!
That, of course, is why LAPDOG COLLIER refused to review the transcript of the grand jury testimony of Sheriff's Deputy Douglas Clinage, who has obviously had advanced police training administered by the KEYSTONE COPS.
OF COURSE, LAPDOG COLLIER WILL DO ANYTHING, INCLUDING DEPRIVING AN INNOCENT CITIZEN OF HIS RIGHTS AND DEFYING THE AUTHORITY OF SUPERIOR COURTS, INCLUDING THE SUPREME COURTS OF OHIO AND THE UNITED STATES, SOLELY TO KEEP HIS UNCONTESTED LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, COMPLIMENTS OF CORRUPT DEMOCRAT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN AND THE MEDINA DEMOCRAT PARTY.
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
Friday, July 8, 2011
JUST HOW MANY VIOLATIONS CAN SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, COMMIT WITH JUST ONE IMPROPER STATEMENT?
The correct answer to the question of just how many violations SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, committed with just one improper sentence is NO LESS THAN 45 VIOLATIONS !
In his IMPROPER CLOSING ARGUMENT, SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, improperly claimed the Defendant was GUILTY OF UNCHARGED CONDUCT, WHICH WAS UNPROVEN, found at page 1043 of the trial transcript :
"Just because he’s not charged with that doesn’t mean it didn’t occur."
In his IMPROPER CLOSING ARGUMENT, SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, improperly claimed the Defendant was GUILTY OF UNCHARGED CONDUCT, WHICH WAS UNPROVEN, found at page 1043 of the trial transcript :
"Just because he’s not charged with that doesn’t mean it didn’t occur."
In one bated breath, SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, thus deliberately violated eight State Constitutional provisions; nine United States Constitutional provisions; fifteen Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct; and at least nine and upwards of thirteen American Bar Association Standards of Conduct for Criminal Prosecutors.
Those provisions are:
Ohio Constitution:
Article 1, Section 5 (“The right of trial by jury shall be inviolate”);
Article 1, Section 10 (“No person shall be held to answer for a crime, unless on presentment or
indictment of a grand jury”);
Article 1, Section 10 (“In any trial, in any court, the party accused shall be allowed to appear
and defend in person and with counsel”);
Article 1, Section 10 (“the party accused shall be allowed to demand the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof”);
Article 1, Section 10 (“the party accused shall be allowed to meet the witnesses face to face”);
Article 1, Section 10 (“the party accused shall be allowed to have compulsory process to procure
the attendance of witnesses in his behalf”);
Article 1, Section 10 (“the party accused shall be allowed to have a speedy public trial by an
impartial jury”);
Article 15, Section 7 (“Every person chosen or appointed to any office under this state, shall
take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and of this state).
The United States Constitution:
Article III, Section 2 (“The Trial of all Crimes shall be by
Jury”);
5th Amendment (“No person shall be held to answer for a crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury”);
5th Amendment (“No person shall be deprived of life [or] liberty without due process of law”);
6th Amendment (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial, by an impartial jury”);
6th Amendment (“the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation”);
6th Amendment (“the accused shall be confronted with the witnesses against him”);
6th Amendment (“the accused shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor”);
6th Amendment (“the accused shall have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence”);
14th Amendment (“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States”) ;
14th Amendment (“nor shall any State deprive any person of life [or] liberty without due
process of law”).
The Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct:
Rule 3.1 (“A lawyer shall not bring a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue in a
proceeding, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so”);
Rule 3.3(a)(1) (“A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a
tribunal”);
Rule 3.3(a)(3) (“A lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false”);
Rule 3.4(e) (“A lawyer shall not in trial assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when
testifying as a witness”);
Rule 3.4(e) (“A lawyer shall not in trial state a personal opinion as to the credibility of a witness
or the guilt or innocence of an accused”);
Rule 3.5(a)(1) (“A lawyer shall not seek to influence a juror by means prohibited by law”);
Rule 3.5(a)(6)(“A lawyer shall not engage in undignified or discourteous conduct that is
degrading to a tribunal”);
Rule 3.7(c) (“A government lawyer participating in a case shall not testify”);
Rule 3.8(a) (“The prosecutor in a criminal case shall not pursue or prosecute a charge that the
prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause”);
Rule 4.1(a) (“In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false
statement of material fact or law”);
Rule 4.4(a) (“In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial
purpose other than to embarrass, harass, delay, or burden a third person”);
Rule 8.4(a) (“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate or attempt to violate the Ohio
Rules of Professional Conduct”);
Rule 8.4(c) (“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation”);
Rule 8.4(d) (“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to
the administration of justice”);
Rule 8.4(h) (“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in any conduct that adversely
reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law”).
The ABA Standards of Conduct for Prosecutors:
ABA Standard 3-5.8(a) (“In closing argument to the jury, the prosecutor should not
intentionally misstate the evidence or mislead the jury as to the inferences it may draw.”);
ABA Standard 3-5.8(b) (“The prosecutor should not express his or her personal belief or
opinion as to the truth or falsity of any testimony or evidence or the guilt of the defendant”);
ABA Standard 3-5.8(c)
prejudices of the jury”);
ABA Standard 3-5.8(d) (“The prosecutor should refrain from argument which would divert the
jury from its duty to decide the case on the evidence.”);
ABA Standard 3-5.9 (“The prosecutor should not intentionally refer to or argue on the basis of
facts outside the record”);
ABA Standard 3-1.2(c) (“The duty of a prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict”);
ABA Standard 3-2.8(a) (“A prosecutor should not intentionally misrepresent matters of fact or
law to the court”)
ABA Standard 3-5.2(a) As an officer of the court, the prosecutor should support the authority
of the court and the dignity of the trial courtroom by strict adherence to codes of professionalism
and by manifesting a professional attitude toward the judge, opposing counsel, witnesses,
defendants, jurors, and others in the courtroom”);
ABA Standard 3-5.6(b) (“A prosecutor should not knowingly and for the purpose of bringing
inadmissible matter to the attention of the judge or jury offer inadmissible evidence, ask legally
objectionable questions, or make other impermissible comments or arguments in the presence of
the judge or jury”).
In addition, the argument was an extension of “evidence” presented through the compelled
testimony of Defendant’s wife, in violation of her absolute spousal privilege. As such, the
prosecutor’s argument was a continuing violation of: ABA Standard 3.5-7(c) (“A prosecutor
should not call a witness in the presence of the jury who the prosecutor knows will claim a valid
privilege not to testify”);
ABA Standard 3.5-7(a) (“The interrogation of all witnesses should be
conducted fairly, objectively, and with due regard for the dignity and legitimate privacy of the
witness, and without seeking to intimidate or humiliate the witness unnecessarily”);
ABA Standard 3.5-7(b) (“A prosecutor should not use the power of cross-examination to
discredit or undermine a witness if the prosecutor knows the witness is testifying truthfully”);
ABA Standard 3.5-7(d) (“A prosecutor should not ask a question which implies the existence
of a factual predicate for which a good faith belief is lacking”).
ALL OF THESE MANIFOLD VIOLATIONS OCCURRED IN THE PRESENCE OF TOTALLY CORRUPT LAPDOG MEDINA JUDGE COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT, WHO JUST SMILED APPROVINGLY AS SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, RAILROADED AN INNOCENT CITIZEN, WITH THE FULL COOPERATION AND COLLUSION OF LAPDOG COLLIER.
THIS IS ALL THE MORE REASON WHY MEDINA COUNTY DESPERATELY NEEDS AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)