Shown below is the ninth installment of the MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE ON THE GROUNDS OF PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL BAD FAITH AND MISCONDUCT, which LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER and the Republicrats at the Medina County Courthouse, Mosque & Railroad Station do not want you, the citizens, to see. You can cross-reference any exhibits to the List of Exhibits by "CLICKING" on the link shown directly below "PAGES" at the upper right-hand corner of the web page:
Not surprisingly, CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN and his surrogates at the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office are continuing in their futile attempts to shield LAPDOG COLLIER, their puppet in the truest sense of the word, from the consequences of his MISCONDUCT AND UNLAWFUL CONDUCT.
The text below demonstrates the manner in which CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN has been caught lyin' & denyin' attempting to conceal the unlawful conduct of LAPDOG COLLIER and "HAVE IT YOUR WAY" GARRITY.
Mr. Hartman has extensively briefed the issue of the
materially altered and corrupted transcript to Trial Court II in support of his
Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. Those briefs are best summarized in a
footnote to Mr. Hartman’s Appeal Brief
III (9th Dist. No. 13CA0018-M, 2014-Ohio-2226):
This Court, in deciding Mr. Hartman’s
first appeal, remarked, “This Court has reviewed the transcript of testimony of
Mr. Leighton and Deputy Telatko and is unable
to find any place at which the trial court prevented Mr. Hartman from
asking Mr. Leighton about what he told the arresting deputies, prevented him
from asking Deputy Telatko about what he said after his arrest, or prevented
him from asking the deputy about his knowledge of the law. Considering that Mr. Hartman has not provided
any page number in his brief, we must
conclude that those alleged errors did not occur.” [Emphasis added.] State
v. Hartman, 2012-Ohio-745, ¶ 24
.
.
This Court [of Appeals] has been unable
to locate the cited passages, and others, because they have been unlawfully
deleted from the “official” transcript of proceedings. The filing of materially
altered transcripts constitutes a fraud upon
this Court and on Mr. Hartman. During the post-conviction hearing conducted on
December 12, 2009, the Trial I court winced noticeably as defense counsel
articulated the trial violations of Davis
v. Alaska, 415 U.S 308, 318 (1974) (holding Petitioner was 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.' Brookhart
v. Janis, 384 U. S. 1, 384 U. S. 3."). (Trial I, Hearing on
Post-Conviction Motions, Tr. at 12-15.)
Although the
transcripts were altered, other briefs remained in the record further
documenting the errors raised on appeal of Trial I. See November 23, 2009 Motion
for Acquittal; Motion for New Trial; Motion for Arrest of Judgment; Motion to
Suspend Execution of Sentence; And Motion For Bail Pending Appeal at
12-13; December 17, 2009 Additional Authorities 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 at 33-37; January 4, 2010 Post-Hearing Rebuttal Memorandum With
Exhibits at 37, 45; August 4, 2011 Petitioner’s Motion to Correct
Transcripts; August 29, 2011 Petitioner’s Supplement to Motion to
Disqualify the Office of the Medina County Prosecutor at 14; September 28, 2011 Petitioner’ Reply to State’s Opposition to Correct the Record;
Opposition to State’s Motion to Disqualify Petitioner’s Counsel at
20-26; November 28, 2011 Petitioner’s Update to Further Support His
Pending Motion to Disqualify the Medina County Prosecutor’s Office at
5-6; April 16, 2012 Defendant’s Supplement to Motion to Correct Transcripts
and exhibits; May 14, 2012 Motion to
Bar Successive Prosecution of Defendant in Violation of the Fifth Amendment’s
Double Jeopardy Clause at 10, 151-154 and Exhibit 2; The missing passages from the “official” transcript of Mr.
Hartman’s first trial, documenting the contentions that the Trial I court
deprived him of his constitutional safeguards, did not mysteriously
vanish from the “official” transcript of the proceedings by mistake or
accident. Nor was the material
alteration of the record of the suppression hearing testimony of Deputies
Telatko and Clinage mere typographical mistakes or accidents.
Specific references to Mr. Hartman’ briefs, cited in the
above-footnote, are set out below for the Court’s convenience.
