HOLMAN THE CORRUPT has attempted to conceal this information from the general public:
The Medina County Prosecutor’s Office Refused to Produce Sheriff’s Deputy Douglas Clinage, the Officer Responsible for Issuance of the Constitutionally Defective Criminal Complaint and Arrest Warrant Charging the Petitioner, Who Was Subpoenaed by The Defense to Appear at Trial and Offer Testimony.
Medina County Sheriff’s deputies arrested Petitioner, without probable cause, on May 27, 2009. Deputy Douglas Clinage prepared a criminal complaint lacking a statement of essential facts, contrary to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Ohio Crim. R. 3. Whiteley v Warden, 401 U.S. 560 1971.
A copy of the constitutionally defective criminal complaint is appended hereto as Exhibit 5.
During the suppression hearing, Clinage conceded that he had not sworn to the defective criminal complaint. (Suppression TR. at 242).
Deputy Clinage then issued an arrest warrant upon his own authority and initiative, without review of the defective criminal complaint, lacking a statement of essential facts, and without review by a neutral and detached judicial officer. United States v Leon, 466 U.S. 897 (1984); Illinois v Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1982).
A copy of the constitutionally defective arrest warrant is appended hereto as Exhibit 6.
Further, Deputy Clinage offered the following curious testimony regarding Petitioner’s arrest while under cross-examination by defense counsel:
A. – It was a complicated night.
Q. What was complicated?
A. Originally, he was not arrested for the burglary.[1]
Q. What was he arrested for?
A. Originally, he was arrested for domestic violence, three charges of menacing, and two other charges, I believe.
(Tr. Supp. Hearing at 243.)
Deputy Frank Telatko arrested Petitioner on May 27, 2009. The State called Deputy Telatko to testify at the suppression hearing. (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 163.) On direct examination, Telatko testified, “I was unsure of what his actual charges were going to be.” (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 169.)
When asked by defense counsel during cross-examination at suppression hearing to articulate the basis for Petitioner’s arrest, Telatko testified “We took him into custody until we could sort it out.” Telatko’s testimony in that regard has been unlawfully excised from the tainted “official” transcript. However, the unlawful edit of the tainted “official” transcript failed to account for the following dialogue, proof of the unlawful tampering with the “official” transcript, found at Page 180 of the Suppression Transcript.
In an exchange with the trial court regarding her cross-examination of Deputy Telatko, defense counsel stated to the court:
This relates to the – whether or not there’s probable cause for an arrest. So far, this officer did not observe any criminal conduct. He wasn’t even sure what Matthew Hartman was being arrested for. (Emphasis added.)
(Tr. Supp. Hearing, at 180.)
A diligent review of the tainted “official” transcript of the suppression testimony of Deputy Telatko discloses that marked absence of any testimony by Telatko, preceding the above-recorded quote of defense counsel, in any regard to defense counsel’s questions, or the replies, of Telatko concerning the basis of Petitioner’s arrest. Those questions and answers have been unlawfully excised from the “official” transcript. A copy of Pages 179 - 180 of the Suppression Transcript is attached as Exhibit 7.
Further proof that portions of the suppression hearing testimony of Deputy Telatko had been unlawfully excised from the “official” transcript of the suppression hearing can be found during the cross-examination of Telatko at trial. [2]
Q. All right. And on October 9th, when you testified, do your remember being asked this questions and giving this answer?
“What did you arrest him for?”
And you said, “I don’t know,” you wanted to take him into custody and sort it our later? (Emphasis added.)
Do you remember saying you were going to say you were going to “sort it out later?” (Emphasis added.)
SALISBURY: Objection.
(Tr. at 369-370.)
Following the suppression hearing, defense counsel formed the opinion that the testimony of Deputy Clinage was important to the defense case. The defense investigator communicated this information to Petitioner in a telephone conversation. See Exhibit 3.
The Clerk of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas served Deputy Clinage with a defense subpoena, compelling his appearance and testimony at trial. A copy of the defense subpoena issued to Deputy Clinage is attached as Exhibit 8.
Deputy Clinage was present at the opening of the trial and paraded the prosecutor’s illegally seized evidence into the courtroom. (Tr. at 4, 213.) Deputy Clinage was not sworn, offered no testimony on behalf of the State, and, after exiting the courtroom, was never to be seen again in the courthouse. Clinage failed to appear at trial in response to the defense subpoena.[3]
Defense counsel noticed the trial court and the prosecutor that she intended to call Deputy Clinage if the prosecutor failed to do so. The trial judge stated to defense counsel, “You can keep them [Deputies Clinage and Telatko] under subpoena if that’s what you need to do.” (Tr. Pretrial 11/09/2009, at 4.)
Defense counsel noticed the prosecutor and the trial court on two successive days, on the record, that Clinage had failed to appear in response to the defense subpoena. (Tr. 766; Tr. Post Trial Hearing at 16.). Nevertheless, the prosecutor failed to produce Clinage, the State’s agent who signed the constitutionally defective criminal complaint accusing the Petitioner. Neither did the trial court take any action to compel Salisbury to produce Deputy Clinage at trial.
The prosecutor has advanced no countervailing evidence to refute the “official” record of the proceedings documenting the Medina County prosecutor failed to produce Deputy Clinage, which he was obliged to do under the law. Pennsylvania v Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), at ¶2 of syllabus.
[1] Curiously, the “official” tainted transcript fails to accurately memorialize Deputy Clinage’s testimony in response to the question, “Why was it complicated?” In response, Clinage actually testified at the suppression hearing, “The charge kept changing.” The precise suppression testimony of Deputy Clingage that “The charge kept changing” was quoted in defense counsel’s brief Additional Authorities and Exhibits in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Accquittal, filed on December 17, 2009, more than one year prior to the time that the court reported filed the tainted and materially altered “official” transcript of the proceedings. Once Counsel’s brief alerted the person who altered the transcripts that Clinage’s testimony was damaging to the State’s case, that person used the information when selecting portions of the transcripts to excise.
[2] A careful reading of the first twelve lines of Page 180 of the transcript of the suppression hearing discloses undeniable evidence of tampering with the transcript. Defense counsel was questioning Telatko about the positions of officers at the scene when, at Line 5, Salisbury lodged an objection regarding Miranda issues, incongruous with the contemporaneous testimony of Telatko.
[3] Salisbury addressed the court, “Judge, I have another witness (Deputy Clinage) in the courtroom bringing in evidence. Could I just - - I just want him to bring it in and he can leave.” (Emphasis added.) (Tr. at 213.)
ONCE AGAIN, NEWBY KERN HAS OFFERED NO PROOF OR EVIDENCE OF HIS DENIALS THAT SALISBURY INSTRUCTED CLINAGE TO FAIL TO ANSWER THE DEFENSE SUBPOENA, WHEREAS THIS INNOCENT DEFENDANT HAS ADVANCED PROOF, INCLUDING SPECIFIC CITES TO THE CORRUPTED "OFFICIAL" TRANSCRIPT OF THESE PROCEEDINGS THAT HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH, MATERIALLY ALTERED, AND CHANGED CONTRARY TO LAW.
HOLMAN THE CORRUPT DOES NOT WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT HE HAS COLLUDED WITH LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL, AND LAPDOG COLLIER'S MEDINA COURT REPORTER DONNA GARRITY, TO TAMPER WITH AND MATERIALLY ALTER "OFFICIAL" TRANSCRIPTS. IT IS NOW OBVIOUS THAT THIS UNLAWFUL PRACTICE OF TAMPERING WITH RECORDS, A FELONY OFFENSE OF THE THIRD DEGREE, HA BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME.
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
No comments:
Post a Comment