STA-PUF KERN IS LYIN & DENYIN!

A long while ago, the blogger has observed that ALL SLEAZY ATTORNEYS, like LAPDOG COLLIER, CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN and his minions SCOTT SLEAZEBURY, MUSTAFA RAZAVI and newby attorney MATTHEW KERN, who bears no small resemblance to the STA-PUF MARSHALLOW MAN, are in the perpetual habit of LYIN' & DENYIN'.

The blogger has observed the same misconduct of certain attorneys home-based in Indianapolis, Indiana.  But that is another story.

Recently, STA-PUF KERN KERN filed a brief in the Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals pertaining to the case that is being profiled in this blog.

Not surprisingly, STA-PUF KERN has been caught LYIN' & DENYIN', as he has certainly taken to DINO HOEMAN'S office motto: "Lie a little, lie a lot.  What's the difference?"

Of course, HOEMAN has directed Clerk of Court David Wadsworth, who appears to have not missed many meals either, to refrain from posting STA-PUF'S brief on the Clerk's website so as to prevent the public from catching on that STA-PUF KERN has been LYIN' & DENYIN', LIKE THE REST OF HIS STAFF.

Presented below is but one excerpt, among many, in which STA-PUF has been caught  LYIN' & DENYIN'.

"There is no evidence, in the record or anywhere, the transrcipt of the first trial was altered.   Judge Markus gave [the Defendant] ample opportunity to submit such evidence prior to the start of the second trial, which [the Defendant] failed to do."

Now, either STA-PUF KERN is either JUST PLAIN STUPID or he's LYIN' & DENYIN'.
The reader may be the judge.

On August 4, 2011, this Defendant filed a MOTION TO CORECT TRANSCRIPTS, found at http://www.co.medina.oh.us/medct_epublicnodr/pages/viewdoc.aspx?case=09CR0229&p=1&a=122

The MOTION TO CORRECT TRANSCRIPTS submitted, among other things, SWORN PROOF that the transcript had been TAMPERED WITH AND MATERIALLY ALTERED as well as copies of pages 37-43 of the MATERIALLY ALTERED TRANSCRIPT OF THE SUPPRESSION HEARING, deleting LAPDOG COLLIER'S CURT AND LESS THAN JUDICIOUS STATEMENT TO THE WITNESS "GET OUT OF HERE!" referring to the witness who had been seated in the witness stand.


STRIKE ONE, STA-PUF!

On April 16, 2012, this Defendant further filed his SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO CORRECT TRANSCRIPTS.  The Clerk of Court, once again at DINO HOEMAN'S direction, failed to post this brief at the Clerk's website, sine HOEMAN doesn't want the public to see PROOF that the TRANSCRIPTS OF THE TRIAL HAD BEEN DELIBERATELY TAMPERED WITH AND MATERIALLY ALTERED.

The blogger, however, is in possession of a copy of the SUPPLEMENT TO CORRECT TRANSCRIPTS, which will be referenced below.

IT IS CLEAR THAT PASSAGES OF THE TESTIMONY OF SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES DOUGLAS CLINAGE AND FRANK TELATKO WERE DELIBERATELY EXCISED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT.  THAT TESTIMONY, HAD IT NOT BEEN REMOVED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT, SUPPORTS THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION THAT SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES LACKED PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THIS DEFENDANT.

THAT IS WHY LAPDOG COLLIER DELETED THIS TESTIMONY FROM THE RECORD.  AFTER ALL, LAPDOG DOES NOT WANT TO LET THE COURT OF APPEALS KNOW THAT HE IS EITHER A COMPLETE BOOB WITH NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW (WHICH IS QUITE LIKELY) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THAT HE "FIXED" THIS CASE FOR DINO HOEMAN AND SCOTT SLEAZEBEURY (AN ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY).

This Defendant's SUPPLEMENT TO CORRECT TRANSCRIPTS set out PROOF THAT THE TRANSCRIPTS HAD BEEN ALTERED.

HERE CITING TO PAGES 6-7 OF THE SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO CORRECT TRANSCRIPTS, which CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN has hidden from public view:

OBVIOUS MATERIAL ALTERATION OF THE TRANSCRIPT AT VOLUME II, PAGES 179-180 OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE SUPPRESSION HEARING

An obvious material alteration to the transcript of the suppression testimony of Sheriff’s Deputy Frank Telatko is found at pages 179-180 of Volume II of the Suppression Hearing.

Deputy Telatko’s cross-examination began at Page 175.  Between Pages 175-180, defense counsel cross-examined Deputy Telatko about the scene and procedures employed in arresting the Defendant, as well as duty weapons carried by the sheriff’s deputies.

At Page 179, Line 23, defense counsel posed the following question to Deputy Telatko:

Q. And in addition to the three of you coming from the south side where all the trees

are, how many other officers responded that day?

A. There was two more officers that were north of the residence and another officer

that was south of us.

Q. And which officers were north of the residence?

At Page 180. Line 5, the transcript has been materially altered by the insertion of an incongruous objection by Mr. Salisbury, completely unrelated to Telatko’s prior cross-examination:

MR. SALISBURY: Objection

THE COURT: Basis?

MR. SALISBURY: Relevance.

The motion to suppress has nothing to do with whether he’s been read Miranda or

          whether he’s advised of his rights and what statements he made.  It has nothing to

do with the 9-1-1 tape.

An examination of the preceding pages of Deputy Telatko’s cross-examination has failed to reveal any questions and answers pertaining in any manner to Miranda warnings, the advisement of rights, or the 9-1-1 recording.

The misplaced incongruous objection by Mr. Salisbury has been inserted in an attempt to conceal and cover up the deletion of the true testimony given by Deputy Telatko at the suppression hearing.

A copy of Volume II, Pages 175-180, is attached as Exhibit 1.

Telatko’s Actual Testimony, Excised From the Transcript of the Suppression Hearing, Was the Subject of Telatko’s Cross-examination at Trial

Defense Counsel cross-examined Deputy Telatko at trial concerning his actual testimony at the suppression hearing, found at Page 369 of the Trial Transcript:
 

Q. All right.  And October 9^th, when you testified, do you remember being asked this question 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 out later?

A copy of Page 369 of the trial testimony of Deputy Telatko, taken from the Trial Transcript, is attached as Exhibit 2.

 STRIKE TWO, STA-PUF! 

Moreover, citing to the same SUPPLEMENT TO CORRECT TRANSCRIPTS, filed by this innocent and railroaded Defendant, at Pages 11-12:

MATERIAL ALTERATION OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE SUPPRESSION TESTIMONY OF DEPUTY DOUGLAS CLINAGE
  

The Reported Testimony of Deputy Douglas Clinage From the Transcript of the Suppression Hearing 

 Deputy Douglas Clinage testified at suppression hearing on October 9, 2009. 

At Page 243 of Volume II of the Transcript of Suppression Hearing, the reply from Clinage to a specific question has been materially altered: 

 A. I don’t remember.  In all honesty, I don’t.  It was - - it was a complicated night. 

Q. What was complicated? 

 A. Originally, he was not arrested for the burglary. 

 A copy of Page 243 of the suppression hearing testimony of Deputy Douglas Clinage is attached as Exhibit 3. 

 The Actual Testimony of Deputy Clinage at Suppression Hearing  

The actual testimony of Douglas Clinage has been materially altered in an attempt to obscure that fact that sheriff’s deputies lacked probable cause to arrest this Defendant. 

Follows is the actual testimony of Clinage given at the suppression hearing: 

 A. I don’t remember.  In all honesty, I don’t.  It was - - it was a complicated night. 

 Q. Why was it complicated? 

 A. The charge kept changing.

 Defense Counsel’s Notes Taken at the Suppression Hearing Memorialized Clinage’s Actual Testimony 

 Defense counsel’s notes taken during the testimony of Deputy Clinage’s at the suppression hearing memorialized Clinage’s response, “The charge kept changing.” 

A copy of the page from defense counsel’s notes, documenting Clinage’s testimony, is attached as Exhibit 4.  

Defense Counsel Memorialized the Actual Testimony of Clinage in her Brief  

  Defense counsel memorialized the actual testimony given by Deputy Clinage at the October 9, 2009 suppression hearing in her Additional Authorities brief, filed on December 17, 2009: 

 At the Suppression Hearing, Deputy Douglas Clinage testified that the evening of May 27, 2009 was a “complicated night” because the criminal “charge kept changing.”  Obviously because the arresting officers had not even identified the specific crime for which they arrested Matthew, it was not possible for them to have identified the particular elements for that offense.  Similarly, not having identified any offense and its elements before placing Matthew under arrest, it was not possible for the officers to have satisfied the probable cause standard that Matt had violated each of those elements.  When the arresting officer has not considered the precise nature of the offense he believes has been committed, it is simply not possible for him to have made an arrest based on probable cause, because he obviously has not and cannot have satisfied himself that the arrested person probably committed acts that violated all of the elements of a criminal offense. (Emphasis added.)

LEST THERE BE ANY DOUBT THAT LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, MATERIALLY ALTERED THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE TRIAL, PRESENTED BELOW IS A COPY OF THE ACTUAL HANDWRITTEN NOTES TAKEN DURING THE SUPPRESSION HEARING TESTIMONY OF DEPUTY DOUGLAS CLINAGE:

STRIKE THREE, STA-PUF!

As you, the reader have been shown, there is AMPLE PROOF IN THE RECORD THAT THE TRANSCRIPTS HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY TAMPERED WITH AND MATERIALLY ALTERED BY LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE!  Of course, there is much more such evidence, but this should suffice.

Readers can decide for themselves, based on the evidence displayed here and hidden from  public view by CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN, whether or not STA-PUF KERN IS JUST ONE MORE LIAR, AMONG MANY, ON THE STAFF OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN!