CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN ASKS, "WANNA BUY A BRIDGE IN BROOKLYN ? "

As shown in the prior post at this blog, CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN and PHILANDERING ILLEGITIMATE "JUDGE" LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER have authorized the Clerk of Court to make the State's Motion for Reconsideration of Change of Venue Order available for public viewing.

At the same time, HOEMAN and LAPDOG COLLIER have issued strict orders to the Clerk of Court to prevent the public from viewing the defense opposition to the motion, captioned Defendant's Opposition to State's Motion to Reconsider.  After all, why would these two JAGOFFS, HOEMAN and LAPDOG COLLIER, want you, the public, to really learn of all of their egregious misconduct, driven by bad faith ?

THE ESSENCE OF THE STATE'S LAUGHABLE REASONS FOR TRYING TO KEEP THE THIRD TRIAL FOR THE SAME ALLEGED OFFENSE, FOLLOWING TWO REVERSALS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS DUE TO DELIBERATE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, IS FOUND IN THEIR BRIEF SEEKING JUDGE COSGROVE TO KEEP THE POTENTIAL THIRD TRIAL IN THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE, MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION:

"A TRIAL IN MEDINA COUNTY WOULD ALSO BETTER PROTECT HARTMAN'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL."

If you believe that, HOEMAN HAS A BRIDGE TO SELL YOU IN BROOKLYN, OVER THE HUDSON RIVER ! 

WHO DO THEY THINK BELIEVES THAT ?  THEY'VE ALREADY DELIBERATELY DEPRIVED HIM OF A FAIR TRIAL . . . TWICE.

THE FOLLOWING IS TAKEN FROM THE INTRODUCTION TO THE DEFENSE BRIEF, Defendant's Opposition to State's Motion to Reconsider, THAT HOEMAN AND LAPDOG COLLIER DEFINITELY DO NOT WANT YOU, THE PUBLIC, TO SEE.

The State has filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Change of Venue Order on February 6, 2014.  While the State posits its theories for the Court to reconsider its order, which prudently and appropriately moved venue to Cuyahoga County, the State’s motion certainly raises well founded suspicions of the State’s ulterior motives, none of which are to promote the fair and equitable administration of justice or securing Mr. Hartman a fair trial.  In fact, Mr. Hartman has been twice denied a fair trial in Medina County.

The Court should deny the state’s Motion on the following grounds:

1.         Neither the Court nor Mr. Hartman can expect to receive accurate, unaltered transcripts from any future proceedings that may be conducted in Medina County.

2.         The conduct of future proceedings, including the trial, if any, in Cuyahoga County will eliminate the threat of witness intimidation, retaliation, and further physical violence from the Medina County Prosecutor’s Office and Medina County Sheriff’s deputies.

A.                The deliberate refusal of the Medina County Sheriff’s Office to provide timely and adequate medical treatment to Mr. Hartman for a life-threatening illness, while confined in the Medina County Jail, speaks to the animus of the Medina County Sheriff’s Office toward Mr. Hartman.

B.        Sheriff’s deputy James Foraker assaulted Mr. Hartman, who had been handcuffed and shackled, without provocation in the stairwell of the Medina County courthouse, in an unprovoked attack.                                                                         

C.                 The Medina County assistant prosecutors will not be on hand at the Cuyahoga County courthouse to badger and intimidate witnesses in the case at bar.

D.        The Medina County Assistant Prosecutors will not be on hand at the Cuyahoga County Courthouse to badger, insult, harass, and intimidate Mr. Hartman’s family in the case at bar.

E.         Judge Collier will not be on hand at the Cuyahoga County courthouse to carry through on his threats to Inspector Hartman nor the Medina County Prosecutor to initiate a contrived prosecution.

3.         The logistics of the Medina County courthouse provides prosecutors the opportunity to prejudice the jury, which can overhear prosecutors’ remarks made in the narrow hallway adjacent and contiguous to the office of the judge’s secretary, where Medina County assistant prosecutors regularly and routinely congregate during court proceedings.

4.         The conduct of the trial, if any, at Cuyahoga County will not cause undue inconvenience to the parties and witnesses.

5.         The diversity of the jury pool in Cuyahoga County will serve to afford Mr. Hartman a fair trial should and promote the effective administration of justice, free from tampering.

 
EACH OF THE REASONS TO NOT TO CONDUCT THE TRIAL IN MEDINA , DELINEATED ABOVE, WILL BE EXPANDED UPON IN THE FOLLOWING POSTS AT THIS BLOG, THE VERY ISSUES THAT HOEMAN AND LAPDOG COLLIER ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL FROM YOU, THE PUBLIC.