APPEAL IV - APPEALING JUDGE COSGROVE'S DENIAL OF CORRUPTION IN THE MEDINA "JUSTUS" SYSTEM

AS REGULAR READERS OF THIS BLOG ARE BY NOW AWARE, MATTHEW HARTMAN IS THE INNOCENT MAN WHOSE CASE HAS BEEN PROFILED AT THIS BLOG.  THE BLOGGER, WHO IS MATTHEW'S FATHER, IS AN HONORABLY AND HIGHLY DECORATED RETIRED FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WITH MORE THAN 30 YEARS LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE AND IS UNIQUELY QUALIFIED TO ASSESS AND COMMENT UPON THE PUBLIC CORRUPTION IN THE MEDINA COUNTY "JUSTUS" SYSTEM, WHERE THE REAL CROOKS ARE RUNNING THE SHOW.

REGULAR READERS OF THIS BLOG ARE AWARE THAT MATTHEW'S ATTORNEY FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THIS TYPICAL HOE-MAN BULLSHIT CASE ON THE GROUNDS OF AN ONGOING PATTERN OF EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT, DRIVEN BY BAD FAITH, ON THE PART OF DINO HOE-MAN (WITH EMPHASIS ON "HOE"), THE GODFATHER OF MEDINA ORGANIZED CRIME,  ILLEGITIMATE "jUDGE WEASELPECKER" COLLIER, HOE-MAN'S LAPDOG, AND VISITING JUDGE RICHARD "WEASEL DICK" MARKUS, CHIEF AMONG MORONS.

TO REVIEW A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE CONDEMNING THESE CROOKS OVER AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE, MOSQUE, BROTHEL, & RAILROAD STATION, READERS CAN CLICK ON THE "PAGES" LINK AT THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THIS PAGE, CAPTIONED MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE BASED ON THE GROUNDS OF PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL BAD FAITH AND MISCONDUCT.

MATTHEW'S ATTORNEY FILED THE MOTION TO DISMISS, REFERENCED ABOVE,  ON NOVEMBER 10, 2014.

ON OCTOBER 23, 2015 AT 2:00 PM, AFTER NEARLY ONE FULL YEAR AND ON THE DAY BEFORE THE THIRD UNCONSTITUTIONAL TRIAL WAS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN, VISITING JUDGE COSGROVE DENIED THE MOTION TO DISMISS, EFFECTIVELY DENYING THE PROOF OF CORRUPTION IN THE MEDINA COUNTY "JUSTUS" SYSTEM."

IN HER OCTOBER 23, 2015 (THE DAY BEFORE THE SCHEDULED START OF THE THIRD UNCONSTITUTIONAL TRIAL), ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL MOTIONS, JUDGE COSGROVE EXPRESSLY "FOUND"

"THE COURT FINDS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE  TO SUPPORT DEFENDANT'S CLAIM THAT THE TWO TRIAL JUDGES AND THE MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE 'DELIBERATELY AND WILLFULLY ENGAGED IN EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT DRIVEN BY BAD FAITH."

WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU ABOUT THE INTEGRITY AND CHARACTER OF JUDGE COSGROVE?

PERHAPS THE JUDGE WAS MUNCHING ON PEYOTE BUTTONS DURING THE FIVE MINUTES SHE TOOK TO REVIEW THE MOTION TO DISMISS.

NEVERTHELESS, MATTHEW FILED AN APPEAL, FOR THE FOURTH TIME, WITH THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, APPEALING JUDGE COSGROVE'S MISGUIDED AND MISPLACED DENIAL OF HIS MOTIONS TO DISMISS.

A COPY OF THE MOST RECENT APPEAL BRIEF, NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS NO. 15CA0090-M CAN BE ACCESSED AT "PAGES" IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THIS WEB PAGE.

PERHAPS IT MERITS A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE ISSUES TO WHICH JUDGE COSGROVE TURNED A DELIBERATE BLIND EYE IN AN ATTEMPT TO DENY THE CORRUPTION IN THE MEDINA COUNTY "JUSTUS" SYSTEM, AS SET OUT IN THE APPEALS BRIEF, CASE NO. 15CA0090-M:

The present trial court [COSGROVE], in denying Mr. Hartman's Motion to Dismiss, failed to recognize the clear and convincing evidence of misconduct and bad faith by the prosecuting attorneys and prior trial judges, which Mr. Hartman had briefed in detail, including proof of the following:

1. a)  The State prosecuted Matthew Hartman when, as the State well knew, Sheriff's deputies, lacking probable cause, unlawfully arrested Matthew Hartman based solely on the strength of an uncorroborated miscommunication from the sheriff's dispatcher to deputies. See Defendant's Reply to State's Opposition to Disqualify the Trial Testimony of Kimberly Leighton, at pp, 10- 13. 
   
   
2. b)  The State engaged in Brady violations. See Motion to Dismiss, at pp. 46, 49; Reply Brief, at pp. 49-53. The Honorable Judge Robert Brown, sitting briefly by assignment, had scheduled a hearing on the Brady violations, whereupon the Medina County Prosecutor applied to disqualify him. Judge Markus conducted Trial II. 
   
   
3. c)  The State fabricated a discovery document. See Motion to Dismiss, at p.1, Exhibit One; Reply Brief, at pp. 37- 42, Exhibit Ten. 
   
   
4. d)  The State invaded the defense camp at Matthew Hartman's first trial. See Motion to Dismiss, at pp. 1-2, Exhibit Two; Reply Brief, at pp. 42-49, Exhibits Eleven and Twelve. 
   
   
5. e)  Trial court I [COLLIER], applying the erroneous “reasonable articulable suspicion” standard rather than “probable cause” to control the admission of evidence at trial, denied Mr. Hartman's motion to suppress on the absurd rationale that a grand jury indictment cures violations of the Fourth Amendment by law enforcement officers. See Motion to Dismiss, at pp. 2-5, Exhibits Fifty-Five, Fifty-Six, Fifty-Seven; Reply Brief, at pp. 23-25, Exhibit Seven. 
   
   
6. f)  The assistant prosecutor introduced forbidden alleged and untrue “other acts evidence” at Mr. Hartman's first trial, with the approval of Trial Judge I [COLLIER], after assuring defense counsel and the judge during discussions in limine that he would not do so. See Motion to Dismiss, at pp. 5-6, Exhibit Three.

7. g)  Trial Court II [MARKUS] concealed and withheld from the defense a prejudicial ex parte letter, mailed to the trial court by adversaries of Matthew Hartman's father in unrelated federal civil litigation and making false and unfounded accusations, prejudicing the trial judge against Matthew Hartman and his defense team and influencing the evidentiary rulings.. See Motion to Dismiss, at pp. 6-7, Exhibit Four; Reply Brief, at p. 66, n. 10. 
   
   
8. h)  During an ex parte conversation in chambers between the Trial Court I judge [COLIER] and the assistant prosecutor, defense counsel and her investigator overheard the judge [COLLIER] yell at the assistant prosecutor for compelling testimony from Matthew Hartman's wife at trial, then adding to the prosecutor, “But I'll help you.” See Motion to Dismiss, at pp. 9-10, Exhibit Five. 
   
   
9. i)  Donna Garrity, principal in the firm Medina Court Reporter's Inc. and the official court reporter under contract with Trial Judge I, [COLLIER] filed deliberately, materially altered transcripts in the Ninth District Court of Appeals of Matthew Hartman's first trial and suppression hearing, after requesting and receiving no fewer than 7 extensions of time from the Court; and demonstrating that the current trial court [COSGROVE] overlooked obvious alterations, including incongruous objections inserted into the record to conceal deletions of testimony, obvious gaps in testimony, and altered passages of testimony where original testimony was documented in contemporaneous notes, briefs and later memorialized by impeachment during trial. See Motion to Dismiss, at pp, 10-26, Exhibits Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, and Twenty; Reply Brief, at pp. 63-65. 
   
   
10. j)  Court Reporter Jenifer Lunney, also employed by the suspect Medina Court Reporters, Inc., prepared and furnished to the defense a materially altered transcript of Matthew Hartman's October 28, 2013 bond hearing, materially altered with the intent to deprive Matthew's wife of her inviolable spousal privilege for yet a third time in the proceedings below. See Motion to Dismiss, at pp. 26-28, Exhibits Fifty-Eight. Fifty-Nine, and Sixty; Defendant's Reply to State's Opposition to Protective Order, at pp. 5-7. 
    
    
11. k)  Donna Garrity, the official court reporter for the judge in Matthew Hartman's first trial, has been materially altering official transcripts of proceedings before the same judge  [COLLIER] for no less than 13 years, as early as 2003, including, but not limited to, transcripts in the cases of Jeffery Mack, Frank P. Wood, David L. Reed, Ashley Marrs, Lynn Vandeusen, Richard Miles, and Gregg Depew. See Motion to Dismiss, at pp. 28-37, Exhibits Twenty-One, Twenty- Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four, and Twenty-Five; Reply Brief, at pp. 86- 89, Exhibit Twenty-Two. See also Defendant's Reply to State's Opposition to Motion for Protective Order, Exhibits Three and Four. 
    
    
12. l)  Transcripts prepared by Garrity’s firm, for other Medina County courtrooms, before other judges, have been similarly materially altered. See Motion to Dismiss, at pp. 37-40, Exhibits Twenty-Six, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, Twenty-Nine, Thirty, and Thirty-One.

13. m)  A purported investigation conducted by the Office of Mike DeWine, Ohio Attorney General, into the transcript tampering, was no more than a sham, intended by DeWine to conceal and cover up the misconduct of the Medina County sitting judge, one of DeWine's Republican cronies. See Reply Brief, at pp. 70-80; Exhibits Eighteen, Nineteen, and Twenty. (E.g., DeWine’s “investigators” refused to subpoena Garrity’s raw tapes of hearings, and other relevant and probative evidence, instead choosing to believe Garrity’s and Collier’s denials, without scrutiny. 
    
    
14. n)  The judge in Matthew Hartman's first trial [COLLIER] appears to have participated in a false billing scheme by court reporter Donna Garrity, who billed Medina County for stenographic services not supported by case dockets in cases before Judge Collier. See Motion to Dismiss, at pp. 57-62; Exhibits Forty-Six, Forty-Seven, Forty-Eight, Forty-Nine, Fifty, Fifty-One, Fifty-Two, Fifty- Three, and Fifty-Four; Reply Brief, at pp. 80-83. 
    
    
15. o)  Medina County Prosecutor Dean Holman has personally engaged in altering “official” transcripts of court proceedings. See Defendant's Reply to State's Opposition to Motion for Protective Order, at pp. 12-16; Exhibits Four and Five. 
    
    
16. p)  To the present date, the State persists in misrepresenting the facts and the record in this case. See Reply Brief, at pp. 1-5, 10-42, 45-49, 53-57, 63-67, 80-83; Defendant's Reply to State's Opposition to Motion for Protective Order, at pp. 1-5; Defendant's Reply to State's Opposition to Disqualify the Trial Testimony of Kimberly Leighton, at pp. 1-13; Defendant's Reply to State's Opposition to Motion to Suppress Unlawfully Seized Evidence, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree; Defendant's Reply to State's Opposition to Motion to Suppress the Audio Recording of the 911 Call, at pp.1-13; Defendant's Reply to State's Opposition to Motion to Enforce Defendant's Double Jeopardy Protections. 
    
    
17. q)  While Matthew Hartman was confined in the Medina County Jail, the State refused to provide him with timely and necessary medical treatment for a life- threatening illness contracted while he was unlawfully imprisoned an additional month following the reversal of his conviction, and, thereby, subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, almost causing his death and amputation of his leg. See Defendant’s Opposition to State’s Motion to Reconsider Order on Venue, at Pages 6 – 9, and Matthew Hartman’s Reply Brief, in support of Motion to Dismiss and contra State’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, at Page 93. 

ONCE AGAIN, AFTER REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE OF THE DELIBERATE BAD FAITH CONDUCT OF HOE-MAN, COLLIER, AND MARKUS, MADE THE DISINGENUOUS  "FINDING" THAT:

"THE COURT FINDS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE  TO SUPPORT DEFENDANT'S CLAIM THAT THE TWO TRIAL JUDGES AND THE MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE 'DELIBERATELY AND WILLFULLY ENGAGED IN EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT DRIVEN BY BAD FAITH."

THE ONLY PROPER INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN FROM JUDGE COSGROVE'S "FINDINGS" IS THAT SHE HAS BEEN INDUCTED INTO THE "GOOD OLE' BOYS" CLUB AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE, MOSQUE, BROTHEL & RAILROAD STATION!!!