BACK TO THE BUSINESS AT HAND. CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN CAUGHT LYIN' & DENYIN' IN SPITE OF THE EVIDENCE!

Having taken a time-out to at this blog celebrate the Christmas holiday with LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER and HIS MAIN SQUEEZE, DONNA "HAVE IT YOUR WAY" GARRITY, it is now time to return to the business at hand.

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 (9^th 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.