SHERIFF'S DEPUTY UNWITTINGLY CONCEDES IN SWORN TRIAL TESTIMONY THAT CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY "JUDGE WEASELPECKER" COLLIER HAS MATERIALLY ALTERED THE TRANSCRIPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS !!!!

KARMA HAS A FUNNY WAY OF TURNING THE WORM!

MEDINA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES ROUTINELY LIE AS IF IT'S THEIR SWORN DUTY TO FRAME AS MANY INNOCENT CITIZENS AS POSSIBLE SO AS TO NOT DISAPPOINT THEIR CORRUPT SUPERVISORS AND SUPERIORS.  THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS.  OF COURSE, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FROM A "SYSTEM" THAT EMBRACES CORRUPT PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES LIKE "WEASELPECKER" COLLIER?

SHERIFF'S DEPUTY DOUGLAS CLINAGE, IN SWORN TESTIMONY IN THE THIRD AND FINAL TRIAL OF THE INNOCENT MAN RAILROADED BY THIS COLLECTIVE OF DIRTBALLS, UNWITTINGLY PROVED THAT "WEASELPECKER" AND DONNA GARRITY, "WEASELPECKER'S" OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER WITH BENEFITS, DELIBERATELY AND MATERIALLY ALTERED AN "OFFICIAL" TRANSCRIPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF OHO.

TAKE A LOOK AT AN EXCERPT FROM THE BLOGGER'S COMPLAINT TO THE OHIO SUPREME COURT PERTAINING TO "WEASELPECKER" COLLIER.

Collier denied Matthew Hartman’s 7/30/2009 Motion to Suppress on the absurd rationale that the return of a grand jury indictment cures violations of the Fourth Amendment by sheriff’s deputies. Collier denied Matthew Hartman’s Motion to Suppress despite the facts that sheriff’s deputies lacked probable cause to make the arrest and that Deputy Clinage admitted in testimony that he had not sworn to the criminal complaint in this case that lacked a statement of essential facts required by Crim. Rule 3 and the Fourth Amendment.  

At Volume II of the materially altered suppression hearing transcript, p. 243, the corrupted transcript presents the following passage of altered testimony purportedly offered by Deputy Douglas Clinage:

A. I don’t remember. In all honesty, I don’t. It was - - it was a complicated night.

Q. What was complicated?

A. Originally, he was not arrested for the burglary. 

           [Emphasis added to material alteration]

Thereafter in the corrupted transcript, Collier added the non-existent purported testimony of Deputy Clinage to the transcript:

Q,       What was he arrested for?

A.`       Originally, he was arrested for domestic violence, three charges of menacing, and two other charges, I believe.

From there, after contacting my supervisor and talking it over with the group that was all there, it was decided that the misdemeanors should be alleviated and we should go forward - - go with the burglary charge, because he walked in the house with a weapon.

Deputy Clinage never spoke these words in his suppression testimony, which Collier later attributed to him in the corrupted transcript.  See Tr., Suppression Hearing, Vol. II, at 243-244.

In fact, the actual testimony of Clinage given at the suppression hearing was as follows:

A.  I don’t remember. In all honesty, I don’t. It was - - it was a complicated night.

Q.Why was it complicated?

A. The charge kept changing. [Emphasis added.]

Collier materially altered the actual testimony of Deputy Clinage that clearly demonstrated the sheriff’s deputies lacked probable cause and that, as a matter of law, everything the deputies seized from Matthew Hartman at the time of his unlawful arrest was inadmissible as evidence where Clinage was unable to articulate the grounds for the arrest at the moment of arrest.

More than one year prior to the date Garrity filed the deliberately, materially altered transcript of Hartman I in the Court of Appeals, Matthew Hartman memorialized the actual testimony of Deputy Clinage in Matthew’s December 17, 2009, Additional Authorities brief.

At the Suppression Hearing, Deputy Douglas Clinage testified that the evening of May 27, 2009 was a “complicated night” because the criminal “charge kept changing.” Obviously because the arresting officers had not even identified the specific crime for which they arrested Matthew, it was not possible for them to have identified the particular elements for that offense. Similarly, not having identified any offense and its elements before placing Matthew under arrest, it was not possible for the officers to have satisfied the probable cause standard that Matt had violated each of those elements. When the arresting officer has not considered the precise nature of the offense he believes has been committed, it is simply not possible for him to have made an arrest based on probable cause, because he obviously has not and cannot have satisfied himself that the arrested person probably committed acts that violated all of the element of a criminal offense. [Emphasis added.]

Additional Authoritiesbrief, at 6-7.

The above-cited passage from Matthew Hartman’s Additional Authorities brief guided Collier to the precise passage of Deputy Clinage’s testimony that Collier needed to materially alter to conceal and cover up the incontrovertible fact, among other, that sheriff’s deputies lacked probable cause to make the arrest and that, under controlling legal authorities, all items seized from Matthew at the time of his unlawful arrest were inadmissible at trial.  Of course, Collier needed to materially alter the transcript to conceal and cover up his unconscionable denial of Matthew Hartman’s meritorious motion to suppress, which he attempted to accomplish by materially altering the transcript of the suppression hearing testimony of Deputies Telatko and Clinage.

In Hartman III, much like Deputy Telatko, Deputy Clinage confirmed by his testimony that Collier had materially altered the transcript of his testimony at the suppression hearing. When asked if he recalled his prior testimony in a prior proceeding to the effect that “the charge kept changing, Clinage responded in the affirmative.  See Tr., Hartman III. APX 792.  See also Supplement to Correct Transcripts, at pp. 9-13; Exhibits Three, Four.

The uncontroverted sworn testimony of Sheriff’s Deputy Douglas Clinage, the State’s witnesses, at trial in Hartman III proves beyond any doubt that Collier materially altered the transcript of the suppression hearing testimony of Deputies Telatko and Clinage with the intent to support his unconscionable denial of Matthew Hartman’s motion to suppress.[1]

---

[1]Collier’s court reporter Donna Garrity lacks the knowledge and sophistication to know what passages of testimony to materially alter to effect the intended outcome of Matthew Hartman’s appeal.

BELOW IS SHOWN THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT PAGE OF CLINAGE'S TRIAL III SWORN TESTIMONY, ADMITTING THAT "WEASELPECKER" COLLIER UNLAWFULLY EDITED THE TRANSCRIPT OF CLINAGE'S ACTUAL TESTIMONY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING.

NOT MUCH DOUBT ABOUT IT NOW, IS THERE?

SLEAZY AKRON ATTORNEY GIVES JUDGE THE SWEAT OFF HIS BALLS!!!!

YOU JUST CANNOT MAKE THIS UP! SLEAZY AKRON ATTORNEY GIVES JUDGE COSGROVE THE SWEAT OFF HIS BALLS!!!

IT SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE TO REGULAR READERS OF THIS BLOG THAT THE BLOGGER HOLDS THE MAJORITY OF ATTORNEYS IN LOW REGARD FOR A WHOLE HOST OF REASONS.  HERE IS ANOTHER PERFECT EXAMPLE.

ON AUGUST 8, 2019, THE  BLOGGER APPEARED AT A HEARING BEFORE JUDGE PATRICIA COSGROVE IN A MATTER PERTAINING TO THE MASSIVE FRAUD SCHEME EXECUTED BY LOCAL DIRTBAG ATTORNEYS, MEMBERS OF THE MEDINA MOB.

SPECIFICALLY, JUDGE COSGROVE CONDUCTED THE HEARING TO ASSESS WHETHER TO ASSESS SANCTIONS AGAINST THE JAGOFF ATTORNEY REPRESENTING PARTIES ADVERSE TO MR. GREGG DEPEW, A VICTIM OF THE MASSIVE FRAUD SCHEME.

THE BLOGGER OFFERED HIS TESTIMONY, WHICH WAS REASONABLY STRAIGHTFORWARD.  ESSENTIALLY, THE JAGOFF ATTORNEY ALLEGED IN COURT FILINGS, LACKING A GOOD FAITH BASIS, THAT GREGG DEPEW IS THE AUTHOR OF THIS BLOG, CLEARLY A BULLSHIT CLAIM.

THE BLOGGER TOOK TO THE WITNESS STAND AND TESTIFIED THAT HE IS THE AUTHOR AND PUBLISHER OF THIS BLOG, NOT GREGG DEPEW.

NEXT IT WAS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS SLEAZEBALL ATTORNEY, WHO WAS ACTUALLY PRESENT TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE JAGOFF ATTORNEY, TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE BLOGGER.

IT TURNS OUT, AS EXPECTED, THAT THIS SLEAZEBALL ATTORNEY IS A LIGHTWEIGHT AND DID NO MORE THAN ASK A NUMBER OF LEADING (ACTUALLY MISLEADING) QUESTIONS, AGAIN LACKING A GOOD FAITH BASIS.  THE QUESTIONS WERE BULLSHIT AND THE BLOGGER RESPONDED ACCORDINGLY.

THE SLEAZEBALL ATTORNEY WAS TYPICALLY ARROGANT AND, AT ONE POINT, REFERRED SARCASTICALLY TO THE BLOGGER AS, "MR. BLOGGER." THE BLOGGER'S INITIAL REACTION WAS TO REFER TO THIS SLEAZEBALL AS "MR. SHYSTER."  HOWEVER, OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE COURT, THE BLOOGGER CHOSE NOT TO SINK TO THE LEVEL OF THIS SLEAZEBALL AND REFRAINED.

FOLLOWING HIS TESTIMONY, THE BLOGGER WAS DISMISSED AND LEFT THE COURTROOM, MISSING THE REAL ACTION.

ACCORDING TO GREGG DEPEW, THE SLEAZEBALL ATTORNEY, FOR NO EXPLAINABLE REASON, SMUGGLED TWO COMPACT DISCS INTO THE COURTHOUSE/COURTROOM, CONCEALED IN HIS JOCKEY SHORTS.

WHEN IT CAME TIME FOR THIS SLEAZEBALL ATTORNEY TO OFFER THE COMPACT DISCS TO THE JUDGE, HE FISHED DOWN INTO HIS PANTS AND SEARCHED FOR THE DISCS IN HIS SHORTS.

AS THIS SLEAZEBALL ATTORNEY SEARCHED HIS SHORTS, AROUND HIS JOHNSON, ONE DISC SLID DOWN HIS PANT LEG AND FELL ONTO THE COURTROOM FLOOR. LOL!

ULTIMATELY HE LOCATED THE OTHER COMPACT DISC NESTLED IN HIS JOCKEY SHORTS NEXT TO THIS JOHNSON AND, VOILA, HE PRODUCED THE DISC FROM HIS SHORTS AND HANDED IT TO THE JUDGE.

ALONG WITH THE COMPACT DISC, THIS SLEAZEBALL ATTORNEY GAVE JUDGE COSGROVE THE SWEAT OFF HIS BALLS!

ANOTHER FINE EXAMPLE OF COURTROOM DEMEANOR BY A "MEMBER" OF THE BAR,

LOL!