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 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”); 

5^th Amendment (“No person shall be held to answer for a crime, unless on a presentment or 

indictment of a Grand Jury”); 

5^th Amendment (“No person shall be deprived of life [or] liberty without due process of law”);

6^th Amendment (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy

 and public trial, by an impartial jury”); 

6^th Amendment (“the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation”);

6^th Amendment (“the accused shall be confronted with the witnesses against him”); 

6^th Amendment (“the accused shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his 

favor”); 

6^th Amendment (“the accused shall have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence”); 

14^th Amendment (“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges 

or immunities of citizens of the United States”) ; 

14^th 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 ....