WHAT ELSE HAS BEEN UNLAWFULLY REMOVED FROM THE CORRUPTED TRIAL TRANCRIPT?

I am glad you asked that question!  The blogger can point out just a few of the less than judicious comments made at trial by THE COMMON CRIMINALS OVER AT COURTHOUSE NO. 1 AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO COMPLETELY CORRUPT LAPDOG JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT, TOWN WHORE, AND THE "PAVLOV DOG" OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN.


HERE ARE A FEW OF LAPDOG COLLIER'S REMARKS, UNLAWFULLY EXCISED FROM THE CORRUPTED TRIAL TRANSCRIPT:


LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT, TOWN WHORE, AND CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN'S "PAVLOV DOG," conduct a four-part suppression  hearing, over the span of several weeks, due in large measure to the incompetence and arrogance of SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.


As a matter of law, the State bears the burden of proof in any suppression hearing where the seizure of the evidence was effected without a search warrant.  In the case being profiled at this blog, Keystone sheriff's deputies seized evidence from this defendant, without a search warrant, incident to his unlawful arrest.  Therefore, again according to the law, SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR was compelled to first put on witnesses and evidence to support the State's contention that the evidence was legally seized from this Defendant, WHICH IT WAS NOT.


At the suppression hearing, the first session of which was conducted on August 21, 2009 SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR appeared, completely unprepared, and had no witnesses available to testify and bear his burden of proof!


LAPDOG COLLIER, who routinely fails to abide by the law and the rules of evidence, ordered the Defense to put on its case, which Defense Counsel was prepared to do.


At what turned out to be the conclusion of the first session of the suppression hearing, SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, was completely out of control, arguing with Defense Counsel.


LAPDOG COLLIER WAS UNABLE TO RESTRAIN SALISBURY OR RESTORE ANY SEMBLANCE OF ORDER IN THE COURTROOM. (WHILE THIS WAS GOING ON, ASSISTANT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR MUSTAFAH RAZAVI WAS SMILING BROADLY, WAVING, AND GIVING LAPDOG COLLIER THE THUMBS-UP!)


Finally, as LAPDOG COLLIER could no longer tolerate Defense Counsel besting his "boy" SALISBURY with her knowledge of law and her argument, LAPDOG COLLIER growled "We're done for the day."


LAPDOG COLLIER then turned to the Defense Investigator, who had been testifying and who had also bested SALISBURY, and grunted to the Defense Investigator, who was then sitting in the witness stand, "GET OUT OF HERE!"


Curiously, this little bit of dialogue from LAPDOG COLLIER has been excised from the trial transcript.  Certainly this Defendant had no part in withholding this remark from LAPDOG COLLIER.


It would certainly seem that the only individual who benefited from excising this less than judicious remark from the transcript is LAPDOG COLLIER, who did not want the 9th District Court of Appeals to notice the fact that LAPDOG COLLIER acted like a HORSE'S ASS FROM THE BENCH.


As a matter of fact, this comment from LAPDOG COLLIER constituted a violation of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct.  Specifically, as expressly provided by the Code of Judicial Conduct:

RULE 2.8 Decorum, Demeanor, and Communication with Jurors

         (A) A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the court.

(B) A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control.

LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, DID NOT WANT THE 9TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS TO RECOGNIZE THE HE WAS MOST CERTAINLY NOT PATIENT, DIGNIFIED, OR COURTEOUS.  THOSE CHARACTERISTICS JUST DON'T EVER SEEM TO BE EXEMPLIFIED IN ANY WAY BY LAPDOG COLLIER'S DEMEANOR AND PERFORMANCE IN THE COURTROOM.


MUCH MORE TO COME ....

JUST WHAT DID THE COMMON CRIMINALS OPERATING COURTROOM NO.1 AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION DELETE FROM THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT?

In the prior post at this blog. readers were treated to the basis upon which the COMMON CRIMINALS OVER AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION WERE INSPIRED TO TAMPER WITH AND ALTER THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT FOR THE UNLAWFUL PURPOSE OF DEPRIVING THIS DEFENDANT A FAIR HEARING ON HIS APPEAL.


SPECIFICALLY, THE HOLDING OF THE UNTIED STATES SUPREME COURT IN DAVIS v ALASKA (1974) COMPEL AUTOMATIC REVERSAL OF THIS DEFENDANT'S UNLAWFUL CONVICTION BEFORE LAPDOG MEDINA JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, WHO DELIBERATELY AND UNLAWFULLY PREVENTED DEFENSE COUNSEL FROM PROPERLY CROSS-EXAMINING THE STATE'S WITNESSES.


Upon the unassailable discovery that the COMMON CRIMINALS OVER IN COURTROOM NO. 1 AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION HAD TAMPERED WITH AND ALTERED THE "OFFICIAL" TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, DEFENSE COUNSEL FILED A BRIEF WITH THE HONORABLE ROBERT J. BROWN, WHO WAS APPOINTED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO REPLACE CORRUPT LAPDOG MEDINA COUNTY JUDGE COLLIER TO HEAR AND DECIDE THIS DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.


JUDGE BROWN, WHO APPEARS TO BE AN HONEST AND HONORABLE MAN, IS A BREATH OF FRESH AIR IN THE CORRUPT ENVIRONMENT OF THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTROOM NO. 1, LAPDOG COLLIER'S ASSIGNED COURTROOM.  


It was truly refreshing to observe that Judge Brown maintains proper order and decorum in proceedings before him, unlike LAPDOG COLLIER whose proceedings more closely resemble a circus sideshow.


In the prior post at this blog, readers were pointed to Defense Counsel's brief AUTHORITIES AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL; MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL; MOTION FOR ARREST OF JUDGMENT; MOTION TO SUSPEND EXECUTION OF SENTENCE; AND MOTION FOR BAIL PENDING APPEAL , which can be found at http://www.co.medina.oh.us/medct_epublicnodr/pages/viewdoc.aspx?case=09CR0229&p=1&a=77.

In that brief Defense Counsel drew to LAPDOG COLLIER'S attention to the holdings of the United States Supreme Court in Davis v Alaska, virtually assuring LAPDOG COLLIER that he would be overturned and reversed by the 9th District Court of Appeals because he had deliberately deprived this Defendant of his right to effective cross-examination of the State's witnesses, thus intentionally denying this Defendant his rights accorded by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  

The United State Supreme Court, in Davis v Alaska, has held that denying a defendant of the right to effective cross-examination, as LAPDOG COLLIER so deprived this Defendant at trial, is a "CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR OF THE FIRST MAGNITUDE" REQUIRING AUTOMATIC REVERSAL!


For those who have an interest in reading the complete text of Davis v Alaska, that case can be found at http://supreme.justia.com/us/415/308/case.html  .


Defense counsel filed her brief PETITIONER'S MOTION TO CORRECT TRANSCRIPTS on August 4, 2011.


On August 29, 2011, CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR filed RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S MOTION TO CORRECT TRANSCRIPTS AND MOTION TO HAVE DEFENSE COUNSEL RECUSED FROM CASE.  The brief filed by HOLMAN'S OFFICE is not displayed for public viewing at the website of the Medina County Clerk of Court, for reasons that are all too obvious to readers of this blog.


CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN DOES NOT WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT HE OPPOSES CORRECTING THE CORRUPTED TRIAL TRANSCRIPT.  HOLMAN DOES NOT WISH THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT HE CONTINUES TO OBSTRUCT THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE!


In reply to HOLMAN'S OPPOSITION TO CORRECT THE CORRUPTED AND TAINTED "OFFICIAL" TRANSCRIPT, Defense Counsel filed a subsequent brief.  Defense counsel filed her brief PETITIONER'S REPLY TO STATE'S OPPOSITION TO CORRECT THE RECORD; OPPOSITION TO STATE'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PETITIONER'S COUNSEL found at http://www.co.medina.oh.us/medct_epublicnodr/pages/viewdoc.aspx?case=09CR0229&p=1&a=129


At Pages 19 - 26 of Defense Counsel's Reply to State's Opposition to Correct The Record, Defense Counsel has pointed out some, but not all, of the testimony unlawfully removed from the trial transcript by the COMMON CRIMINALS OVER AT COURTROOM NO. 1 IN THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION.


PERTINENT PORTIONS OF THE BRIEF, IDENTIFYING SPECIFICALLY THE TESTIMONY THAT HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY AND UNLAWFULLY REMOVED FROM THE CORRUPTED TRIAL TRANSCRIPT BY THE COMMON CRIMINALS OPERATING IN COURTROOM NO. 1 ARE EXCERPTED HERE:

In the Additional Authorities brief, Trial Counsel pled:

           For example, the defendant was prejudiced when defense counsel was not permitted to fully cross-examine Deputy Frank Telatko regarding the exculpatory statements of Matthew Hartman, made immediately after his arrest.  The Court also prevented defense counsel from cross-examining Telatko concerning his lack of knowledge of the law for making an arrest without a warrant, and his failure to accurately include in his report his observations, which were exculpatory to Matt and contradictory to Kim Leighton’s 911 call, thus revealing her call was a false alarm.  Full cross-exam would have impeached not only Telatko’s credibility, but also the credibility of Kim Leighton.

            Curiously, the transcript fails to include the line of questioning from Defense Counsel concerning Telatko’s knowledge, or lack thereof, “of the law for making an arrest without a warrant, and his failure to accurately include in his report his observations, which were exculpatory to Matt and contradictory to Kim Leighton’s 911 call, thus revealing her call was a false alarm.”  Further, the transcript mysteriously fails to reflect that the trial judge prevented Defense Counsel from pursuing that line of questioning.  The State can offer no plausible innocent  explanation for this omission from the transcript, which omission certainly does not benefit Petitioner.

            In her Additional Authorities brief, Defense Counsel pled:

             

              The Court prevented defense counsel from cross-examining Al Leighton regarding the statements he made to sheriff’s deputies at his home, the scene of the alleged offense on May 27, 2009.  Specifically, Mr. Leighton informed sheriff’s deputies that Matthew had not burglarized his home and that he did not wish to pursue criminal charges against Matthew.  The defense was also stifled from eliciting additional exculpatory testimony from Mr. Leighton regarding information he provided to Deputies Clinage and Telatko on May 29, 2009, when they conducted an additional interview of him at his home.  Despite numerous written and oral requests by the defense for the tape recording of that interview, the assistant prosecutor refused to provide it.  Not only did the defense not have the tape recording prior to its cross-examination of Mr. Leighton, it still has not been turned over to the defense.

              The Court also prevented defense counsel from cross-examining Mr. Leighton as to his known prior traumatic brain injury and the manner in which such injury may have affected his sensory abilities to perceive and process events and information.  Such cross-examination was relevant for the jury to assess Mr. Leighton’s ability and inability to remember events and conversations accurately.

            The trial transcript fails to contain Defense Counsel’s line of questioning regarding statements made by Mr. Leighton to sheriff’s deputies on May 27, 2009 that the Petitioner had not burglarized his home. Further, the transcript mysteriously fails to reflect that the trial judge prevented Defense Counsel from pursuing that line of questioning.  The State can offer no plausible innocent explanation for this omission from the trial transcript, which omission certainly does not benefit Petitioner.

            The trial transcript fails to include Defense Counsel’s line of questioning with regard to statements made by Mr. Leighton to sheriff’s deputies during a subsequent interview of him on May 29, 2009.  Further, the transcript mysteriously fails to reflect that the trial judge prevented Defense Counsel from pursuing that line of questioning.  The State can offer no plausible innocent explanation for this omission from the trial transcript, which omissions certainly does not provide any benefit to Petitioner.

            The transcript fails to include Defense Counsel’s line of questioning regarding Mr. Leighton’s known traumatic brain injury.  Further, the transcript mysteriously fails to reflect that the trial judge prevented Defense Counsel from pursuing that line of questioning.  The State can offer no plausible innocent explanation for this omission from the trial transcript, which omission certainly does not benefit Petitioner.

            A particularly noteworthy and compelling  purported “anomaly” appears in the transcript at the purported close of the cross-examination of Al Leighton. (Tr. 265)  As the State well knows, Defense Counsel, as an experienced Federal prosecutor, subscribed to appropriate protocol by informing the trial judge that she had no further questions at the conclusion of her examinations and cross-examinations of the respective witnesses.  (Tr. Suppression Hearing 64, 119, 217, 288; Tr. 171, 210, 333,  338, 416, 467, 546, 591, 649, 669, 815, 890)  The transcript at the purported conclusion of the testimony of Al Leighton ends abruptly during an incomplete line of questioning by Defense Counsel, and lacks her usual and customary notice to the trial judge, “I have no further questions.”

            Further, in her Additional Authorities brief, Defense Counsel pled thusly:

            Additionally, defense counsel intended to cross-examine Mrs. Leighton as to the basis of her animus toward Matthew, which long predated May 27, 2009, and which colored and motivated both her inflammatory and prejudicial remarks made to the 911 dispatcher and her subsequent, perjured testimony at trial.

            The transcript fails to include Defense Counsel’s line of questioning as to Mrs. Leighton’s animus toward petitioner.  Further, the transcript mysteriously fails to reflect that the trial judge prevented Defense Counsel from pursuing that line of questioning.  The State can offer no plausible innocent explanation for this omission from the trial transcript, which omission certainly does not benefit Petitioner.

THESE ARE SOME, BUT NOT ALL, OF SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE STATE'S WITNESSES THAT HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY REMOVED FROM THE CORRUPTED TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS BY THE CRIMINALS OPERATING IN COURTROOM NO. 1 AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION!

MUCH, MUCH MORE TO COME ....

LAPDOG COLLIER & THE OTHERS AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION SUDDENLY FIND THE HOLDING OF THE UNITED STATES SUPEME COURT PERSUASIVE, LEADING THEM TO TAMPER WITH AND ALTER THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT!

It is  more than interesting that LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, completely ignored the holdings of the United States Supreme Court in the case being profiled at this blog. LAPDOG COLLIER completely ignored the prevailing decisions of the Supreme Court, such holdings which are the law of the land and control the proper rulings at trial.  LAPDOG COLLIER DID SO, OF COURSE, WITH THE SPECIFIC INTENTION TO DELIBERATELY DEPRIVE THIS DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL.


LAPDOG COLLIER SUCCEEDED IN THAT MISSION, OF COURSE.  THAT IS THE ONLY WAY THAT LAPDOG COLLIER HAS BEEN ABLE TO KEEP HIS FIRM GRIP ON HIS UNCONTESTED LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, COMPLIMENTS OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN AND THE MEDINA COUNTY DEMOCRAT PARTY.


However, once LAPDOG COLLIER and SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, had accomplished their unlawful objective, they next had to conceal their unethical and unlawful conduct from the 9th District Court of Appeals.


LAPDOG COLLIER NOW HAD TO TURN TO THE DEFENDANT'S BRIEFS AND SUDDENLY NOW REALIZED THAT HE WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY BE OVERTURNED ON APPEAL SINCE, AT A MINIMUM, HE VIOLATED THE HOLDING OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DAVIS v ALASKA, DECIDED IN 1974. 


THE REAL VALUE OF THE DEFENDANT'S BRIEF TO LAPDOG COLLIER, WHICH HE COMPLETELY IGNORED AT TRIAL, WAS TO POINT OUT THE BASIS UPON WHICH THE CONVICTION WOULD BE OVERTURNED, WITHOUT QUESTION!


Following this Defendant's UNLAWFUL CONVICTION, LAPDOG COLLIER held a "hearing" to purportedly "consider" this Defendant's post-trial motions on December 18, 2009.  Of course, given the fact that CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN HAS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR LAPDOG COLLIER WITH AN UNCONTESTED LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT AS LONG AS LAPDOG COLLIER IS TOTALLY OBEDIENT, the purported "hearing" was no more than an exercise in futility by this Defendant, since LAPDOG COLLIER HAD NO INCLINATION TO FAIRLY "HEAR" ANYTHING AT ALL.


In fact, LAPDOG COLLIER, in usual and customary fashion, did not permit Defense Counsel to argue this Defendant's position.  All that SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, did at this purported "hearing" was to launch into more of his unsupported and unethical attacks upon Defense Counsel.

On December 17, 2009, the day prior to the dated of the sham "hearing," Defense counsel filed a brief captioned AUTHORITIES AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL; MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL; MOTION FOR ARREST OF JUDGMENT; MOTION TO SUSPEND EXECUTION OF SENTENCE; AND MOTION FOR BAIL PENDING APPEAL , which can be found at http://www.co.medina.oh.us/medct_epublicnodr/pages/viewdoc.aspx?case=09CR0229&p=1&a=77.


At Page 33 of the Additional Authorities brief, linked immediately above, Defense Counsel provided the following sub-heading:

THE COURT LIMITED DEFENDANT'S CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE STATE'S WITNESSES, THUS DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF RIGHTS ACCORDED TO HIM BY THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Under this subheading, Defense Counsel cited to a number of holdings of the United States Supreme Court, ALL OF WHICH LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE COMPLETELY IGNORED AT THE TRIAL OF THIS DEFENDANT.


Defense Counsel cited to Davis v. Alaska, among other similar cases, which powerfully establishes the rights of this Defendant to properly and fully cross-examine the State's witnesses, and the fatal result to the State's case where this Defendant was deprived of that right.

At Page 37 of the Additional Authorities brief, Defense Counsel cited directly to and quoted precisely the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316 (1974):

...it seems clear to us that any such inquiry, effective defense counsel should have been permitted to expose to the jury facts, from which the jury, as sole triers of fact and credibility, could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.  Petitioner was thus denied the right of effective cross-examination which "would be CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR OF THE FIRST MAGNITUDE and no amount of showing of want of prejudice would cure it."

To rephrase, the United States Supreme Court has held that in any case, such as the case being profiled here at this blog, where this Defendant was unconscionably denied his right of effective cross-examination, REVERSAL OF THE CONVICTION IS AUTOMATIC, since the violation of his constitutional rights was so EGREGIOUS.

EVEN THOUGH LAPDOG COLLIER SO DENIED THIS DEFENDANT HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION AT TRIAL, HE WAS SUFFICIENTLY INTELLIGENT TO KNOW THAT THIS DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO AUTOMATIC REVERSAL OF HIS CONVICTION.


This holding of the United States Supreme Court certainly posed a dilemma to LAPDOG COLLIER.  Even though LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, had no problem IGNORING THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, HE LIKELY COULD NOT EXPECT THE 9TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS TO DO SO.


What, pray tell, to do?

LAPDOG COLLIER, and his handlers at the corrupt Medina County Prosecutor's Office, came up with what they thought was a SIMPLY BRILLIANT IDEA.


"LET'S JUST CHANGE THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT," they thought.  "AFTER ALL," they reasoned, "LAPDOG COLLIER APPOINTED A DIFFERENT ATTORNEY FOR THE APPEAL. THE TRIAL COUNSEL AND HER INVESTIGATOR WILL NEVER READ THE TRANSCRIPT.  THEY'LL NEVER EVEN KNOW."


Thereupon, the COMMON CRIMINALS WHO OPERATE THE MEDINA COUNTY "JUSTICE SYSTEM" REMOVED FROM THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT THE LINES OF QUESTIONING POSED BY THE DEFENSE COUNSEL TO THE STATE'S WITNESSES DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION, AND THE CORRESPONDING DENIALS OF LAPDOG COLLIER, PREVENTING DEFENSE COUNSEL FROM PURSUING PROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE STATE'S WITNESSES.


"PROBLEM SOLVED," thought these COMMON CRIMINALS OPERATING THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION.


The one MAJOR FLAW in the thinking of THESE COMMON CRIMINALS OVER AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION WAS EXPECTING DEFENSE COUNSEL AND HER INVESTIGATOR WERE AS LAZY AND INCOMPETENT AS THEY ARE.


THE COMMON CRIMINALS OVER IN COURTROOM NO. 1 AT THE MEDINA COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION WERE COMPLETELY WRONG IN THAT REGARD.


DEFENSE COUNSEL AND HER INVESTIGATOR READ THE "OFFICIAL" TRANSCRIPT OF THE TRIAL AND FOUND WHERE THE TRANSCRIPT HAD BEEN "SANITIZED" IN AN UNLAWFUL ATTEMPT TO DEPRIVE THIS DEFENDANT OF A FAIR HEARING ON APPEAL.


THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST GLARING REASONS THAT THE MEDINA COUNTY "JUSTICE SYSTEM" NEEDS A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION BY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE INDICTMENTS, TRIALS, AND CONVICTIONS IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THESE COMMON CRIMINALS OVER IN COURTROOM NO. 1 AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION!


MUCH, MUCH MORE TO COME ....

HAVE THEY ALL "LAWYERED UP" AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION?

It would certainly seem that the political hacks over at the Medina County Courthouse/Mosque & Railroad Station have all "LAWYERED UP," and wisely so.  They certainly don't want to be deprived of their constitutional rights after all, like they deprive local citizens of their constitutional rights.


Readers may recall that it has already been brought to the fore that LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, has recused himself in another matter involving a  burglary case, likely upon the advice of retained legal counsel.  LAPDOG COLLIER is just not bright enough to have taken such action on his own initiative. Then again, LAPDOG COLLIER has gotten away with his corrupt practices for so many years, he mistakenly believes that he is bullet proof. It would certainly take the advice from his own attorney to advise him otherwise, and to bring LAPDOG back to reality.  [See previous post captioned LAPDOG COLLIER HEARS FOOTSTEPS, SEEKS LEGAL ADVICE!  found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/09/lapdog-collier-hears-footsteps-seeks.html ]


The most telling fact, however, comes from Medina Ass. prosecutor SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.  SALISBURY, who has amply demonstrated that he is an obnoxious ignoramus at best, had been in the habit, until quite recently, of sending messages to this blog on a daily basis.  SALISBURY frequently sent multiple messages daily, particularly after he had imbibed one too many Shirley Temples.


As of late, however, SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, has been mysteriously silent.
Recently, SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, has refrained from sending to the blog his typical crude, vile, and racist messages on a daily basis.  Perhaps one reason is that some of his more colorful messages bearing upon his views of minority citizens and his assessment of the value of the United States Constitution have been included in legal briefs submitted by Defense Counsel to the visiting judge now considering the Defendant's Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.

Just like LAPDOG COLLIER, SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, ISN'T BRIGHT ENOUGH TO KNOW WHEN TO JUST KEEP QUIET!


No doubt, he was instructed by his own retained legal counsel to stop with his incriminating remarks.  Understandably, SALISBURY'S attorney recognizes that SALISBURY, A CO-CONSPIRATOR OF COLLIER AND HOLMAN IN THE UNETHICAL AND UNLAWFUL CONDUCT THAT PERVADES THE MEDINA COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, IS FACING VERY REAL EXPOSURE ARISING FROM HIS OWN MISCONDUCT.


Even Daniel Webster wouldn't be able to relieve these scofflaws over at the Medina County Courthouse/Mosque & Railroad Station from their liability.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

A PREVIEW OF THINGS TO COME FOR LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER

The Supreme Court of Ohio, pursuant to the investigation of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, issued the following finding and order in the matter of CORRUPT CUYAHOGA COUNTY JUDGE BRIDGET McCAFFERTY, CONVICTED AT TRIAL IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

2011-1542. In re McCafferty.

On September 9, 2011, and pursuant to Rule V(5)(A)(3) of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, the Secretary of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio certified to the Supreme Court a certified copy of a judgment entry of a felony conviction against Bridget Marie McCafferty, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Ohio.

Upon consideration thereof and pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4), it is ordered and decreed that respondent, Bridget Marie McCafferty, Attorney Registration Number 0055367, last known business address in Westlake, Ohio, is suspended from the practice of law for an interim period, effective as of the date of this entry.

It is further ordered that this matter is referred to the Ohio State Bar Association for investigation and commencement of disciplinary proceedings.

It is further ordered that respondent immediately cease and desist from the practice of law in any form and is forbidden to appear on behalf of another before any court, judge, commission, board, administrative agency or other public authority.

It is further ordered that, effective immediately, respondent is forbidden to counsel or advise, or prepare legal instruments for others or in any manner perform legal services for others.

It is further ordered that respondent is divested of each, any and all of the rights, privileges and prerogatives customarily accorded to a member in good standing of the legal profession of Ohio.

It is further ordered that before entering into an employment, contractual, or consulting relationship with any attorney or law firm, respondent shall verify that the attorney or law firm has complied with the registration requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(8)(G)(3). If employed pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(8)(G), respondent shall refrain from direct client contact except as provided in Gov.Bar R.

2 09-14-11V(8)(G)(1), and from receiving, disbursing, or otherwise handling any client trust funds or property.

It is further ordered that, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(3)(G), respondent shall complete one credit hour of continuing legal education for each month, or portion of a month of the suspension. As part of the total credit hours of continuing legal education required by Gov.Bar R. X(3)(G), respondent shall complete one credit hour of instruction related to professional conduct required by Gov.Bar R. X(3)(A)(1), for each six months, or portion of six months, of the suspension.

It is further ordered that respondent shall not be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio until (1) respondent complies with the requirements for reinstatement set forth in the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, (2) respondent complies with this and all other orders issued by this court, (3) respondent complies with the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, and (4) this court orders respondent reinstated.

It is further ordered, sua sponte, by the court, that within 90 days of the date of this order, respondent shall reimburse any amounts that have been awarded by the Clients' Security Fund pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F). It is further ordered, sua sponte, by the court that if, after the date of this order, the Clients' Security Fund awards any amount against the respondent pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F), respondent shall reimburse that amount to the Clients' Security Fund within 90 days of the notice of such award.

It is further ordered that on or before 30 days from the date of this order, respondent shall:

1. Notify all clients being represented in pending matters and any co- counsel of respondent's suspension and consequent disqualification to act as an attorney after the effective date of this order and, in the absence of co- counsel, also notify the clients to seek legal service elsewhere, calling attention to any urgency in seeking the substitution of another attorney in respondent's place;

2. Regardless of any fees or expenses due respondent, deliver to all clients being represented in pending matters any papers or other property pertaining to the client, or notify the clients or co-counsel, if any, of a suitable time and place where the papers or other property may be obtained, calling attention to any urgency for obtaining such papers or other property;

3. Refund any part of any fees or expenses paid in advance that are unearned or not paid, and account for any trust money or property in respondent's possession or control; 4. Notify opposing counsel in pending litigation or, in the absence of counsel, the adverse parties of respondent's disqualification to act as an attorney after the effective date of this order, and file a notice of

3 09-14-11

disqualification of respondent with the court or agency before which the litigation is pending for inclusion in the respective file or files; 5. Send all such notices required by this order by certified mail with a return address where communications may thereafter be directed to respondent;

6. File with the clerk of this court and the Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court an affidavit showing compliance with this order, showing proof of service of notices required herein, and setting forth the address where the affiant may receive communications; and

7. Retain and maintain a record of the various steps taken by respondent pursuant to this order. It is further ordered that respondent shall keep the Clerk, the Ohio State Bar

Association, and the Disciplinary Counsel advised of any change of address where respondent may receive communications.

It is further ordered, sua sponte, that all documents filed with this court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number, and timeliness of filings. All case documents are subject to Rules 44 through 47 of the Rules of Superintendence of Ohio which govern access to court records.

It is further ordered, sua sponte, that service shall be deemed made on respondent by sending this order, and all other orders in this case, to respondent’s last known address.

It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1),that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication.

THIS LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION FROM THE OHIO SUPREME COURT, CITED ABOVE, SHOULD SUFFICE TO PROVIDE CORRUPT LAPDOG MEDINA COUNTY JUDGE COLLIER A GLIMPSE AT WHAT HE IS SURELY FACING AS A RESULT OF HIS CORRUPT AND UNLAWFUL CONDUCT AS A POLITICALLY APPOINTED, AND NEVER LEGITIMATELY ELECTED, "PUBLIC OFFICIAL."

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

LAPDOG COLLIER HAS MADE IT TO THE CORRUPT JUDGES HALL OF FAME

As readers have been shown thus far, there is absolutely no doubt, based upon the facts and the evidence, that Medina County "judge" Christopher COLLIER is, indeed: 1) TOTALLY CORRUPT; 2) THE LAPDOG OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN; 3) A CASE FIXER; 4) THE VILLAGE IDIOT; 5) THE TOWN WHORE. 


Further, as has been shown here by the facts and the evidence, LAPDOG COLLIER: 1) IS A POLITICAL APPOINTEE; 2) HAS NEVER FACED ANY OPPOSITION IN ANY LEGITIMATE ELECTION; 3) HAS CUT A SWEETHEART DEAL WITH CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN AND MEDINA COUNTY DEMOCRATS; 4) PRESERVES HIS UNCONTESTED LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT BY SERVING THE INTERESTS OF AND TAKING HIS MARCHING ORDERS FROM HOLMAN; 5) DENIES INNOCENT CITIZENS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS ON A DAILY BASIS; 6) DEMONSTRATES NO REAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW AND THE RULES OF EVIDENCE; 7) HAS ATTEMPTED TO PERSONALLY BENEFIT FROM CORRUPTED AND ALTERED TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS.


The blogger could go on and on, all day long.  Readers, however, clearly get the idea.

Well, in a tribute to the depth of LAPDOG COLLIER' COMPLETE AND TOTAL COURRUPTION. HE HAS FINALLY MADE IT TO THE CORRUPT JUDGES' HALL OF FAME!


Readers may, or may not, recall the case of corrupt Cook County (Chicago), Illinois judge Thomas J. Maloney, who was convicted of fixing murder cases in exchange for cash.


Maloney was so corrupt that he has been awarded his own page at Wikipedia, found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Maloney_%28judge%29

Should you go to the above link, you will find LAPDOG COLLIER and this blog cited at Footnote 14.

AT LONG LAST CORRUPT MEDINA JUDGE, LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, HAS MADE IT TO THE HALL OF FAME, OR SHAME!

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

ONE OF THEM BITES THE DUST, A FEW MORE TO GO AT THE MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

HERE IS THE FIRST TO FALL AT THE MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE!


The following article was posted at the Cleveland Plain Dealer website, www. cleveland.com, on September 9, 2011.  A direct link to the article: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/09/ohio_supreme_court_suspends_as.html

Ohio Supreme Court suspends assistant Medina County prosecutor's law license

Published: Friday, September 09, 2011, 2:31 PM     Updated: Saturday, September 10, 2011, 5:24 AM

By John Caniglia, The Plain Dealer 
Follow

ShareEmailPrint

View full sizeiStock photo

MEDINA, Ohio -- An assistant Medina County prosecutor had his law license suspended for six months for improperly notarizing signatures while in private practice and refusing to take responsibility for his actions.

The Ohio Supreme Court sanctioned Tom Karris for the misconduct, which took place years before he began representing the county.

Karris improperly notarized documents on three different occasions in 2000 and 2001, according to a ruling of the Ohio Supreme Court released last week. He went to work for Prosecutor Dean Holman's office in 2008, where he represented townships and the county in litigation. The state disciplinary counsel filed the complaint against Karris in December 2009.

"Since the time he has worked here, he has done an outstanding job for the residents of Medina County," Holman said. "This occurred nine years before the filing of the complaint and eight years before he came to work here."

Holman and Medina County Common Pleas Judge James Kimbler testified on behalf of Karris, "attesting to his integrity, excellent character and good reputation," the Supreme Court reported in its decision.

Holman said Karris will put together a list of cases that he had been working on. He stopped working as an attorney last week and Holman was unsure if Karris would return to the office.

Karris, who lives in Strongsville, could not be reached to comment on the suspension.

The Supreme Court's decision said Karris notarized documents twice in January 2000 and once in January 2001. The documents included a promissory note, a mortgage and quitclaim deed and a land contract. Each time, Karris notarized papers that said a man and his then-wife signed the documents.

Karris eventually became a third-party defendant in a lawsuit against the man. During the course of the case, questions arose as to who had signed the documents Karris notarized.

In the proceedings against Karris, the state disciplinary board heard conflicting accounts on whether the woman signed the records. The man and woman, who divorced in 2003, testified that the woman did not sign any of the documents. The man said he had signed her name, according to the Supreme Court's decision. He previously had said in an affidavit in another legal proceeding that she had signed two of the documents.

Karris testified that the woman had signed the records in his presence. One of Karris' other clients testified that he had been present when the man and woman signed the documents.

The Supreme Court's decision said a forensic document examiner for the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation testified that the signatures purporting to be the woman's were not hers. The examiner testified that there is "a high-degree of certainty" that the signatures were of her former husband, according to the board's decision.

"(Karris) improperly notarized documents on three separate occasions," the Supreme Court's report said. "He also steadfastly refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct . . . even when confronted with forensic evidence" that the woman did not sign the documents.

SO, IT WOULD SEEM, THAT CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN HIRES ONLY THOSE "ATTORNEYS" WITH A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF PAST CORRUPT ACTIVITIES, LIKE FORGERY, PERJURY, TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE, TAMPERING WITH RECORDS, ALL FELONY VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE.

Here's a quote from another online article from George Spudnutt's Medina Gasette, found at http://medinagazette.northcoastnow.com/2011/09/10/assistant-prosecutor-suspended/

Tom Karris, of Strongsville, was suspended Sept. 1 by the Ohio Supreme Court for six months. According to the court, there is “clear and convincing evidence that Karris engaged in dishonesty, fraud and deceit that adversely reflected on his ability to practice law by improperly notarizing documents on three separate occasions” in the early 2000s.

Readers may also wish to view reader comments to the Cleveland Plain Dealer online article at http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/09/ohio_supreme_court_suspends_as/691/comments.html 

KARRIS IS OBVIOUSLY HOLMAN'S KIND OF GUY, AND MEETS ALL HOLMAN'S REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYMENT AT "HIS" OFFICE. 

While Kariss is obviously a liar, as found by the Supreme Court of Ohio, he certainly does not evidence conduct suggestive of being a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, LIKE SCOTT SALISBURY!

The reader will take note or the fact that, according to the article, "Holman and Medina County Common Pleas Judge James Kimbler testified on behalf of Karris, "attesting to his integrity, excellent character and good reputation," the Supreme Court reported in its decision."


The complete Opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio can be found here: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-Ohio-4243.pdf

Now isn't that remarkable?  CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, THE NUMBER ONE PURVEYOR OF DISHONESTY IN THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, TESTIFIED AS TO THE "INTEGRITY, EXCELLENT CHARACTER, AND GOOD REPUTATION" OF KARRIS!

THE ONE GLARING QUESTION REGARDING HOLMAN'S TESTIMONY REMAINS: IN COMPARISON TO WHOM AND TO WHAT?  IN COMPARISON TO HOLMAN, COLLIER, AND SALISBURY?


IF SO, ONE MIGHT CONSIDER THAT HOLMAN, COLLIER, AND SALISBURY MAY VERY WELL MAKE CHARLES MANSON LOOK LIKE A PARAGON OF VIRTUE!

THIS IS JUST ONE MORE BIT OF PROOF THAT MEDINA COUNTY NEEDS AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.  THE SOONER THE BETER!

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

COLLIER IS NOT JUST HOLMAN'S LAPDOG, BUT HIS "PAVLOV DOG" AS WELL

Just what won't CORRUPT LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER do to preserve his hold on his lifetime, uncontested seat on the Medina County bench, compliments of CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DEAN HOLMAN and the Medina County Democrat party?


The answer to that question, of course, is just about anything, INCLUDING TAMPERING WITH, ALTERING, AND AMENDING A TRIAL RECORD, OR SO IT SEEMS!


Most, if not all readers are likely familiar with Pavlov's dogs.  Just to refresh, Pavlov was a social scientist who was testing the theory of stimulus and response.  Pavlov rand a bell, and thereafter fed his dogs, who were test subjects in his experiment.  After repeating this series of events, Pavlov rang the same bell, but withheld food, finding that the dogs began to salivate at the sound of the bell, even though food had been withheld.  This experiment validated Pavlov's theory that stimulus produces a predictable response.

If Pavlov were alive today, he would not have to use canines for his experiments.  He could easily confirm his theory by attending a kangaroo "trial" conducted by LAPDOG MEDINA JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT, TOWN WHORE, AND A "PAVLOV DOG" TRAINED BY CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN.


Specifically, HOLMAN has trained LAPDOG COLLIER TO DENY EACH AND EVERY PROPERLY PLACED OBJECTION LODGE BY DEFENSE ATTORNEYS.


EVERY TIME DEFENSE COUNSEL VOICES "OBJECTION" AT TRIAL, LAPDOG COLLIER'S PAVLOVIAN RESPONSE IS "OVERRULED!"


Perhaps it is a worthwhile endeavor to examine the trial transcript in the case of the innocent citizen railroaded by LAPDOG COLLIER, at least the portion of the trial transcript that remains after it had been edited, tampered with, altered. and amended by the boys over at the Medina County Courthouse/Mosque & Railroad Station.


A review of the CORRUPTED "OFFICIAL" TRANSCRIPT discloses that Defense Counsel voiced "OBJECTION" on no fewer than 40 occasions at trial, AND LAPDOG COLLIER OVERRULED (DENIED) EACH AND EVERY OF DEFENSE COUNSEL'S 40 OBJECTIONS.


Just so that the reader understands the implication of this fact, Defense Counsel raised each and every objection that SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, VIOLATED THE OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE. 


SO THIS FACT ALONE PROVES UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, HOLMAN'S "PAVLOV DOG" COMPLETELY DISREGARDED THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AT TRIAL!!!


This, however, is but one side of the coin.

Whenever Defense Counsel asked a question that went to the truth of a matter, SALISBURY OBJECTED  ON THE BASIS THAT THE TRUTH WAS KILLING HIM.


Of course, LAPDOG COLLIER, HOLMAN'S "PAVLOV DOG,"  certainly could not let the truth enter into the trial.  AFTER ALL, THE ONLY WAY THAT LAPDOG COLLIER PRESERVES HIS LIFETIME UNCONTESTED APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY BENCH IS TO ASSURE THAT HOLMAN AND HIS CRIMINAL ASSISTANTS "WIN," NO MATTER HOW BADLY HE VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT.


So, examining the other side of this coin, LAPDOG COLLIER SUSTAINED (GRANTED) NO FEWER THAN 52 OBJECTIONS LODGED BY SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, AT TRIAL!


To give credit where credit is due, however, it is noted that LAPDOG COLLIER DID SUSTAIN (GRANT) 2 OBJECTIONS RAISED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL AT TRIAL!


In summation LAPDOG COLLIER OVERRULED NO FEWER THAN 40 DEFENSE OBJECTIONS AT TRIAL, BUT IN THE SPIRIT MAGNANIMITY, GRANTED THE DEFENSE ALL OF TWO OBJECTIONS!


It is certainly worth reviewing some of LAPDOG COLLIER'S "rulings" in order to evaluate the manner in which he mediates a trial, calling to mind LAPDOG COLLIER'S claim that it is his responsibility, as a "judge," to assure that trials are conducted fairly.  [See prior post captioned LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, PANDERS TO THE PUBLIC found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/07/lapdog-medina-judge-collier-village_25.html ]

COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE FOLLOWING "RULINGS" FROM LAPDOG COLLIER:


At pages 803 & 804, the defense investigator was testifying in the context of his law enforcement experience, prior to his retirement as a Federal law enforcement officer:

Defense Question:  Now when you would go on a raid or on an arrest, did you ever wear your holster across your shoulder, diagonally across your shoulder?

Witness:  No.  Not like an ammunition bandoleer, no.
Defense Question:  And why is that?
Witness:  Because you wanted to have the - - your firearm at the ready.  And, in fact - -
Salisbury:  Objection.
Witness:  - - particularly --
LAPDOG COLLIER:  I'm going to let him testify about this briefly.  Please go ahead, sir.
Witness:  Particularly on drug raids - - 
Salisbury:  Objection.
LAPDOG COLLIER:  I'm going to sustain the objection as to "DRUG RAID."  WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH A DRUG RAID HERE TODAY!

While LAPDOG COLLIER refused to permit innocuous testimony about the law enforcement experience of the defense investigator, TAKE A LOOK AT THE PREJUDICIAL QUESTIONS/REMARKS IMPERMISSIBLY ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE BY SALISBURY WITH THE FULL APPROVAL OF LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE:


While cross-examining a defense witness, at Page 562 of the corrupted trial transcript, SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR was "examining" the witness about one of the Defendants' prior associates:

Salisbury Question:  (The associate) He's a drug addict.
Defense Counsel:  Objection.
LAPDOG COLLIER:  OVERRULED.

Now, let's take a look at a similar comment in SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR'S closing "argument," found at Page 1039 of the corrupted transcript:

Salisbury: ... he's (Defendant) hanging around a bunch of DRUG ADDICTS.
Defense Counsel:  Objection.
LAPDOG COLLIER:  OVERRULED.

Firstly there was no testimony, other than the impermissible testimony of SALISBURY, WHO HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN TO BE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, that the defendant ever associated with a "drug addict" or a "bunch of drug addicts."

Secondly, it his highly prejudicial, and impermissible, to interject the subject of drugs into a case where drug offenses have not been charged.

AS YOU CAN SEE. LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT, TOWN WHORE, AND HOLMAN'S "PAVLOV DOG" WAS TICKLED PINK WHEN HE PERMITTED SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, TO PREJUDICE THIS DEFENDANT BY IMPERMISSIBLY INJECTING DRUGS INTO THIS CASE, WHICH WAS NOT ABOUT DRUGS AT ALL.


THIS IS PRECISELY WHY THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WILL ONLY BE SERVED BY AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.


MUCH MORE TO COME ....

ANOTHER PERFECT REPLACEMENT FOR LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER

Sooner or later, Republicrat judge CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT,TOWN WHORE, AND LAPDOG OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, will likely be disbarred from the "practice" of law (he really needs a lot more practice before he surpasses the cerebral level of a first-year law student). In fact he may soon be breaking big rocks into small ones, compliments of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons.

The question next arise as to who the Republicrats will next appoint to a lifetime uncontested seat on the Medina County bench to do the bidding of the Medina County Prosecutor.

While the readers have already been shown a potential candidate or two, here is a pretty much local DIRTBAG who seems to fit the bill quite nicely, although he does seem to have a bit too much hair.

MASSILLON —

Massillon Municipal Court Judge Edward J. Elum will face the Supreme Court’s Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline on Sept. 21.

In April, the board certified a complaint against Elum, who first was elected in 1995, that alleges he violated the rules of judicial conduct on two occasions in 2010.

In one case, Elum is accused of making “crude and improper” statements during a hearing in which neither defense attorneys nor prosecution were present to a man who was on probation and wasn’t abiding by court orders.

The other case stems from Elum’s involvement in the case of a drunken-driving suspect who received lewd photos and messages from the arresting officer, Massillon Police Officer John Mitchell.

The complaint states that Elum issued court orders that placed himself and the court in the middle of an administrative and potential criminal investigation of Mitchell. Elum ordered that copies of the text messages and photographs be held by the court in a sealed envelope even though there was no judicial reason to do so, according to the complaint.

Prosecutors refused to comply with the order, which was later dropped. Mitchell was suspended for five days, but did not face criminal charges. The drunken-driving suspect was cleared of the charge when lab tests showed no drugs or alcohol in her system the day of her arrest.

The complaint says Elum refused to remove himself from the case despite strong feelings about the allegations against Mitchell. Elum also is cited for publicly criticizing Police Chief Robert Williams before and after the case.

Elum will face a three-member panel at 10 a.m. Sept. 21 at the Ohio Judicial Center in Columbus. If the panel decides a violation was committed, it will recommend discipline to the Ohio Supreme Court, which has final say.

Penalties may include a public reprimand, law-license suspension for a maximum of two years, an indefinite suspension or disbarment.

Copyright 2011 The Independent. Some rights reserved

ON SECOND THOUGHT, AS IT TURNS OUT, ELUM MAY BE JUST TOO HONEST TO SIT ON THE BENCH IN THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SINCE HE ADMITTED HIS MISCONDUCT, UNLIKE LAPDOG COLLIER.

http://www.indeonline.com/communities/x1069114204/Elum-admits-violating-rules-governing-judges-lawyers

After he has tried to explain away all of his misconduct, Elum will have to share his experiences with LAPDOG COLLIER, who will shortly be Columbus bound for a hearing of his own before Supreme Court’s Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.

THAT'S SOME GOOD NEWS, FOR A CHANGE!

MUCH MORE TO COME .....