Monday, January 19, 2015

THIS DELIBERATE ALTERATION HAS THE FINGERPRINTS OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN ALL OVER IT, LIKE OTHER UNLAWFUL TRANSCRIPT ALTERATIONS

Shown below is the TWENTY-FIRST 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:



The Transcript of Mr. Hartman’s October 28, 2013 Bond Hearing

Has Been Deliberately Edited and Materially Altered in an Attempt To Deprive His Spouse, For a Third Time, of Her Spousal Privilege.

On October 28, 2013, Matthew Hartman, represented by the undersigned, appeared before Judge Richard Markus, then sitting by assignment, for a bond hearing.  Medina County Prosecutor Dean Holman and his assistants, Matthew [MUSTAFAH FAOUQUOD] Razavi and Matthew [STA-PUF] Kern, represented the State at the hearing.
During the hearing, while considering the conditions of bond, Judge Markus queried whether the State was alleging that Melissa Hartman and the Hartman children were victims of the charged offense.  Markus asked the prosecutors, “Who does the State say are the victims of this crime?”
With the Court’s permission, Prosecutor Holman, alongside [MUSTAFAH FAOUQUOD] Razavi and [STA-PUF] Kern, formed a huddle and conferred among themselves for awhile.  Following their impromptu conference, Dean Holman turned to Judge Markus and stated, expressly and unequivocally, “Al and Kim Leighton are the victims.  His wife and children are not victims.”
At a luncheon following the bond hearing, attended by Mr. Hartman, his family, and the undersigned, discussion included the fact that Dean Holman had expressly and unequivocally identified only the Leightons as the victims of Mr. Hartman’s alleged offense, to the exclusion of all other persons.  They discussed the significance of this admission by the prosecutor because it preserved Melissa Hartman’s spousal privilege and further proved that the prosecution could not force her to testify.
In anticipation of Mr, Hartman’s impending third trial, the undersigned ordered a transcript of Mr. Hartman’s bond hearing from Medina Court Reporters, Inc., specifically to have this crucial admission by Holman.
On or about October 10, 2014, court reporter Jenifer Lunney furnished the alleged transcript of the October 28, 2013 bond hearing.  Upon review, the undersigned detected material alterations to this transcript, as the undersigned has found in other transcripts in this case that Medina Court Reporters, Inc. has prepared.[1]
Specifically, at pp 14-15 of this corrupted transcript, a course of dialogue attributed to Judge Markus had been invented and inserted into the transcript.  Moreover, Dean Holman’s express and unequivocal identifications of only “the Leightons” as the victims of the alleged offense has been deliberately deleted from the transcript.
Witnesses to Dean Holman’s express and unequivocal identification of the Leightons as the sole victims of Mr. Hartman’s alleged offense, made during Mr. Hartman’s bond hearing, have prepared affidavits pertaining to Holman’s identification.  The affidavit of Matthew Hartman is attached as Exhibit Fifty-Eight.  The affidavit of Matthew’s mother, Mrs. Carolyn Hartman, who was present at the hearing and witnessed the identification of the Leighton’s as the sole victims of Matthew’s alleged offense, is attached as Exhibit Fifty-Nine.  The affidavit of Inspector Paul M. Hartman, the defense investigator and Matthew’s father, is attached as Exhibit Sixty.
Another alteration occurs when discussing electronic monitoring and the travel restrictions as a condition of bond.  Throughout the entirety of the bond hearing, the undersigned objected on Mr. Hartman’s behalf to electronic monitoring.  The transcript has been altered to falsely read that the undersigned agreed to electronic monitoring in certain counties (which also makes no sense – monitoring is not related to counties.  Either a defendant is on monitoring or he is not.  It also makes no sense with other portions of the transcript where the undersigned continues to argue against monitoring.)  In truth and in fact, the undersigned agreed to travel in certain counties, but never agreed to monitoring anywhere.[2]


[1] Jenifer Lunney is the same court reporter who furnished a materially altered transcript and is alleged to have offered perjured testimony in the trial of Ms. Lynn Vandeusen. See, infra, State v. Lynn Vandeusen, Medina Case No. 12CR0388, and Exhibit Twenty-Five.
[2]  Counsel notes that Garrity also changed Counsel’s closing argument in Trial I to include admissions and concessions regarding the evidence that the undersigned most certainly did not make.
 

No comments:

Post a Comment