WHERE DID THAT UNLAWFULLY INSERTED OBJECTION FROM SLEAZEBURY COME FROM?

Shown below is the THIRTEENTH 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:

F.  The Suppression Hearing Testimony of

Deputy Frank Telatko Was Deliberately Altered.

The suppression hearing testimony of Sheriff’s Deputy had been deliberately altered in an attempt to defeat Defendant’s claim that sheriffs’ deputies arrested him without the requisite probable cause.  An obvious material alteration to the transcript, “recording” the suppression testimony of Deputy Frank Telatko is found at pages 179-180 of Volume II of the suppression hearing transcript.  The material alteration was made by inserting an incongruous objection from the prosecutor into the transcript, in place of the actual testimony of Deputy Telatko in an attempt to conceal and cover up the fact that sheriffs’ deputies lacked probable cause to arrest Mr. Hartman.

Deputy Telatko’s cross-examination by defense counsel began at page 175 of the transcript.  Between pages 175-180, defense counsel cross-examined Deputy Telatko about the scene and procedures employed by deputies during the arrest of Defendant Hartman, as well as the types of duty weapons the deputies carried that day.

Beginning at Page 179, Line 23, defense counsel posed the following questions 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 [sic] 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?

Before Deputy Telatko could answer the questions, according to the corrupted transcript, an incongruous objection, completely out of the context of defense counsel’s cross-examination, was deliberately and unlawfully inserted into the record.

Beginning now at Page 180, Line 5:

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.

There had been no prior questions directed to Deputy Telatko from defense counsel pertaining in any way to Miranda, the advisement of rights, or the 9-1-1 tape.  Moreover, the colloquy between defense counsel and the judge at Page 180, Lines 15-24, reveals that defense counsel had been addressing with Deputy Telatko the locations of various sheriffs’ deputies at the scene of the arrest.

The misplaced, incongruous objection by the assistant prosecutor had been deliberately and unlawfully inserted into the record in an attempt to conceal and cover up the actual testimony of Deputy Telatko, addressed immediately below.

A copy of Pages 175-180 of the corrupted Volume II testimony of Deputy Telatko is attached hereto as Exhibit Eleven.