CORRUPT COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN CAUGHT LYIN' & DENYIN' AGAIN !!!

Corrupt Medina County Prosecutor DINO HOEMAN  has been caught LYIN' & DENYIN' AGAIN.

HOEMAN  is sticking to his personal motto:

"LIE A LITTLE. LIE A LOT.  WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?"

DINO just can't seem to help himself.  All of those lies have been rolling off DINO's tongue for so many years, it's just second nature to him.

 The Ninth District Court of Appeals has, for the second time, reversed the conviction of the innocent man whose case is being profiled at this blog.

In it's opinion, Case No. 2013-Ohio-4407, the Court of Appeals strongly suggested, "HOPEFULLY, REASSIGNMENTS [OF PROSECUTORS] FOR ANY RETRIAL WILL BE CONSIDERED."

Now, slow as he may be, DINO HOEMAN apparently got the message from the Court of Appeals.

On May 16, 2014 DINO personally filed a Motion to Appoint Special Prosecutor, before Medina County Common Pleas Judge James Kimbler.  Never mind that Judge Kimbler has no jurisdictional authority in this case.  The Rules and the Law have no place in the Medina County courts.

HERE'S WHERE DINO GOT CAUGHT LYIN' & DENYIN AGAIN!

In the final sentence of his Motion to Appoint Special Prosecutor, DINO MADE THE FOLLOWING OUTRAGEOUS CLAIM:

"THIS REQUEST IS MADE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE  SO AS TO AVOID ANY APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY AS A RESULT OF BASELESS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THIS OFFICE AND OTHERS IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM."

HUH?  THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT BY DINO AND HIS CREW OF SCOFFLAWS IS ANYTHING BUT "BASELESS."

FOLLOWING ARE EXCERPTS FROM THE RECENT APPELLATE DECISION:

"[APPELLANT] ASSERTS IN HIS THIRTEENTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THAT HE WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE OF MISCONDUCT BY THE PROSECUTOR.  VIEWING THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROSECUTORS' CLOSING ARGUMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE TRIAL, WE AGREE."

"WE NOTE THAT IN THE PRIOR APPEAL, [APPELLANT] ALLEGED PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DURING HIS FIRST TRIAL.  WE STATED THAT WE 'HAD ADDRESSED SIMILAR ISSUES IN OTHER RECENT OPINIONS AND ARE CONFIDENT THAT THE ISSUES WILL NOT BE REPEATED SHOULD [APPELLANT] BE RETRIED.'"

"[W]HERE THIS COURT ATTEMPTED IN ITS LAST OPINION TO GENTLY SUGGEST THAT THE STATE NOT REPEAT ITS INDISCRETIONS, I WILL SAY IT BLUNTLY: THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY(S) ARE MUCH TOO PERSONALLY INVESTED IN THIS CASE TO BE OBJECTIVE."

 Perhaps, instead, DINO is referring to the fact that his LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER has TAMPERED AND MATERIALLY ALTERED THE TRANSCRIPTS IN THE TRIAL OF THE INNOCENT MAN WHOSE CASE IS BEING PROFILED AT THIS BLOG.

IT CAN BE PROVEN THAT LAPDOG COLLIER HAS BEEN TAMPERING WITH TRANSCRIPTS FOR AT LEAST THE LAST TEN YEARS.  IN FACT, THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF EVIDENCE THAT THE BLOGGER INTENDS TO PRESENT TO A FEDERAL GRAND JURY, SEEKING LAPDOG'S INDICTMENT FOR PUBLIC CORRUPTION.