DEJA VU !!! SEEN IT ALL BEFORE, MORE THAN ONCE !!!

In the prior post at this blog, readers were shown that the Ninth District Court of Appeals overturned the conviction of Vincent Labriola in the Medina Kangaroo Court of Common Pleas due to the "REPEATED AND EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT" OF MEDINA ASS. PROSECUTOR MUSTAFAH RAZAVI.

MUSTAFAH RAZAVI'S "REPEATED AND EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT" IN THE LABRIOLA CASE WAS NOT AN ANOMOLY AND SIMPLY DEMONSTRATES THE ONGOING COURSE OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IN THE MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, CONDONED AND PROMOTED BY CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN.

COMPARE MUSTAFAH RAZAVI'S "REPEATED AND EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT" IN THE LABRIOLA CASE WITH MUSTAFAH'S "REPEATED AND EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT" IN THE CASE BEING PROFILED AT THIS BLOG, ALONG WITH THE "REPEATED AND EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT" OF ASS. PROSECUTOR SCOTT SLEAZEBURY.

Shown below are excerpts from the transcript of the case being profiled at this blog, along with appropriate commentary.

In Labriola, at page 9, ¶27, the Court noted that “the Ohio Supreme Court has concluded that comments by the State referring to the defendant’s evidence as ‘lies,’ ‘garbage,’ and ‘[a] smoke screen’ went well beyond the normal latitude allowed in closing arguments and [was] clearly improper.”  Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d at 14.”  In [Defendant's] trial, the State’s closing argument included these very comments, repeatedly characterizing the defense evidence as “lies,” and “garbage,” and other derogatory remarks intending and accomplishing similar prejudice.  The transcript is replete with these impermissible remarks by the State’s prosecutors [Excerpts from the State’s closing arguments, with cites to pages of the transcript, follow]:

There's an old saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Something along those lines. I think that's how it goes. And the general idea is you are not going to keep accepting garbage and just say, hey, give me another try.  (Tr. at 1116.)

as much as they [the defense] want to put on ridiculous testimony and lies --I'm [SLEAZEBURY] not as polite as Mr.[Mustafah] Razavi and [Defense counsel] -- and lies to say that door was wide open every time I entered their premises, absolutely, definitely.  (Tr. at 1190).

And that's how you know that's a lie.  (Tr. at 1190).

even though, even though [Defendant] lied in his statement  (Tr. at 1193).

And I'll submit to you that the defense presented to you a lot of irrelevant, frankly useless evidence, and I submit to you on behalf of the State of Ohio that what they presented, a lot of it was, frankly, useless to your determination today.  (Tr. at 1106).  [These remarks also include use of the prosecutor’s position for improper vouching.]

the defense is going to present to you, we submit to you, the illogical and preposterous notion . . .  (Tr. at 1097-1090).

           Despite all the attempts they have made to have this preposterous notion that there's some like one-way privilege . . . (Tr. at 1098).

          Their argument is that for 30 minutes she was there sitting in the living room while he watered the flowers. Impossible. Not true. Made up.  (Tr. at 1112).

And I suggest to you that most of these [defense exhibits] are frankly worthless.  (Tr. at 1115).

Why did they put on this all? To try to distract your attention from the evidence in this case.  (Tr. at 1115).

their [defense] theory, it got so preposterous, ladies and gentlemen  (Tr. at 1124).

but the really preposterous things . . .  (Tr. at 1125).

That's ridiculous.  (Tr. at 1191).

That's something they made up later to try to say that this time elapsed, which it didn't.  (Tr. at 1193)

The best story he could come up with is he's going there, this night, to Deputy Clinage, this is what Clinage told you, "I'm going there to cool off and to go groundhog hunting." Well, curiously, Al Leighton never told you that. Because it's not true.  (Tr. at 1202).

 

The Court, in Labriola, at page 9, ¶27, confirmed earlier holdings that, “A prosecutor may not express any opinion as to the credibility of a witness or as to the defendant’s guilt.” Citing State v. Kirby, 9^th Dist. No. 23814, 2008- Ohio-3107, at ¶23.  In[Defendant's] trial, the State violated this well-established law and actually stated the following to the jury:

"the State of Ohio has every right to comment upon it and comment upon the credibility of those witnesses."  (Tr. at 1117). 

 

 

NOT SO. . .  ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO ! ! ! !

 

      The State then proceeded to deceive and mislead the jury, by dictating the conclusions that the State wanted, namely, that [Defendant], all of his witnesses, and even his counsel were lying to them and deliberately trying to mislead them.  For example, when her testimony hurt the State’s case, the State chose to mischaracterize the  truthful testimony of [Defendant's] wife as “a whopper.” 

 

Specifically, the prosecutors stated:

 

[Defendant's wife] got up here and really, I think, hit you with a whopper  (Tr. at 1105).

 

And now [Defendant's wife] wants you to believe, oh, it was all, it was all Kim.  (Tr. at 1113).

 

Now, [Defendant's wife] tried to mislead you.  (Tr. at 1197).

 

You know, there's been a lot of quotes and a lot of sayings, and I'm not big on that and I don't pretend to be so presumptuous as to quote Shakespeare or read Shakespeare, but there's one quote that I like, because I don't read Shakespeare, have never read Shakespeare, butwhen a play is cast in hell, Shakespeare said, do not expect the actors to be angels. Okay? And that's very, very appropriate in this case. Because [Defendant's wife] got her -- got -- was assaulted, reacted appropriately that day, and now she's trying to save her family.  So she is not being honest about what happened that day.  (Tr. at 1197-1198).  [ IF SLEAZEBURY HAS NEVER READ SHAKESPEARE, HE OBVIOUSLY MADE THIS UP - TYPICAL FOR A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. ]

 

[Defendant is] not a valid broker of the evidence.  (Tr. at 1198).

 

[Defense witness] gave me the preposterous answer . . .  (Tr. at 1123).

 

[Defense witness is] just not telling the truth, okay, to protect his friend.  (Tr. at 1124).

this is not the place for you to get people to come in and give you false characterizations about the nature of people's relationships  (Tr. at 1124).

 

[Defense witness] can't say that [Defendant] has privilege to go in the Leighton's house. That's ridiculous.  (Tr. at 1191).

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you the testimony of [Defense investigator, an honorably retired federal agent.]  It's like an oh-for on all of those. That's an abject failure as to all of this, and let me tell you why, ladies and gentlemen, why he fails the credibility test in these instructions.  (Tr. at 1117).

 

[Testimony] certainly was not frank or reasonable. [Defense investigator] certainly wasn't trying to provide him the truth. He was trying to avoid answering.  (Tr. at 1120).

 

Ladies and gentlemen, you hear, and it's palpable, in [Defense investigator's] appearance and his manner of testimony, a disingenuous nature, a not frank nature, an interest or bias in this case. There is no doubt about it. And his testimony doesn't even make sense.  (Tr. at 1121).

 

when you watch [Defense investigator] up there, that was cat and mouse games  (Tr. at 1124).

 

How disingenuous and nonfrank and not credible is [Defense investigator's] testimony?  You don't have to accept testimony that is so disingenuous and nonfrank.  (Tr. at 1125).

 

But [Defense investigator] the best investigator in the world wants to sell you that bill of goods.  (Tr. at 1126).

 

I don't want to distract you from the facts in this case, which is, I believe, and I told you this, the intention of their defense.  (Tr. at 1126).

 

These things, ladies and gentlemen, all these photographs, I submit to you on behalf of the State of Ohio, [improper vouching] these pictures of firearms, these pictures of automobiles, these pictures of the outlet, and like seven pictures of the outlet and all different stores are a distraction. [attacking the honesty and value of the defense evidence in an impermissible manner.]  (Tr. at 1114).

 

since you have heard for an hour and a half of [Defense counsel] mischaracterizing the evidence  (Tr. at 1186).

 

[Defense counsel] wants to mislead you. Intentionally.  (Tr. at 1187).

 

 

Corrupt Medina County Prosecutor DINO HOEMAN obviously approves of the ongoing PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT of Ass. prosecutors SCOTT SLEAZEBURY and MUSTAFAH RAZAVI, in that HOEMAN has failed to take any corrective action to curb these ass. prosecutors gone wild, despite repeated chastisement from the Court of Appeals.

The Blogger believes a Federal Judge will view the recurrent misconduct of HOEMAN'S office quite differently!

 

The excerpts of Mustafah's and Sleazebury's misconduct during closing arguments would make a text book example to a first-year law student of how not to conduct closing argument at trial.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals has seen it all before, and will most certainly see it all again . . . and again . . . and again.

 

NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS RECOGNIZES RECURRENT PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT BY THE MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, SLAPS MUSTAFAH RAZAVI, REVERSES CONVICTION!!!

The Ninth District Court of Appeals has begun to recognize a recurrent pattern of misconduct by

the Medina County Prosecutor's Office.

On June 24, 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of Vincent Labriola, who had been

deprived of a fair trial due to PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, this time

by SCOTT SLEAZEBURY'S  office companion and cohort, MUSTAFAH RAZAVI.

The Court of Appeals found that MUSTAFAH RAZAVI engaged in the same pattern of misconduct

in Mr. Labriola's case as SLEAZEBURY  demonstrated in the case being profiled at this blog.

IT IS CLEAR THAT CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN ENDORSES AND ENCOURAGES MISCONDUCT BY HIS CUYAHOGA COUNTY CAST-OFFS, SPECIFICALLY SCOTT SLEAZEBURY AND MUSTAFAH RAZAVI !!!

MUSTAFAH RAZAVI'S  PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT  IS APTLY CHARACTERIZED BY THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, DECIDING MR. LABRIOLA'S APPEAL, EXCERPTED BELOW:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

 

THE PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS DURING CLOSING ARGUMENT AN
FAILURE TO PROVIDE ALL EVIDENCE ROSE TO THE LEVEL OF
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WHICH DEPRIVED MR. LABRIOLA OF
HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF HIS 5TH, 6TH, AND

14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND
ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

{¶24} Labriola argues that he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial based on

improper conduct by the State. This Court agrees.

{¶25} Labriola first argues that the State’s repeated comments during closing argument

about his lack of credibility and other witnesses’ credibility deprived him of a fair trial.

{¶26} Although the State is generally accorded a certain degree of latitude during

closing argument, “[t]he prosecutor is a servant of the law whose interest in a prosecution is not

merely to emerge victorious but to see that justice shall be done. It is a prosecutor’s duty in

closing arguments to avoid efforts to obtain a conviction by going beyond the evidence which is
 

before the jury.” (Internal citations omitted.) State v. Smith
14 Ohio St.3d 13, 13-14 (1984).

As an initial matter, the State “must avoid insinuations and assertions which are calculated to

mislead the jury.” Id. at 14, citing Berger v. United States, 295 U.S.78, 88 (1935).

{¶27} This Court has adopted the Ohio Supreme Court’s test in evaluating a claim of

prosecutorial misconduct arising during closing argument. We must determine “whether the

prosecutor’s remarks were improper and, if so, whether the remarks prejudicially affected the

defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Kirby, 9th Dist. No. 23814, 2008-Ohio-3107, ¶ 23, citing

Smith at 14. Specifically, a prosecutor may not express any opinion as to the credibility of a

witness or as to the defendant’s guilt. Kirby at ¶ 23. For example, the Ohio Supreme Court has

 concluded that comments by the State referring to the defendant’s evidence as “lies,” “garbage,”

and “[a] smoke screen” went “well beyond the normal latitude allowed in closing arguments and

[was] clearly improper.” Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d at 14. A reviewing court focuses not merely on

the culpability of the prosecutor, but rather considers the trial record as a whole to determine

whether the defendant received a fair trial. Kirby at ¶ 23, citing State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160,

166 (1990).

{¶28} During closing argument, the State [MUSTAFAH RAVAVI] repeatedly
 

commented on Labriola’s testimony as untruthful, implausible, and full of lies. For example, in

comparing Labriola’s testimony to that of other witnesses, the assistant prosecutor

[MUSTAFAH RAZAVI]  asserted: “You only heard that from

Mr. Labriola who, by the way, his testimony is untruthful and I’ll point out a lot of ways why it’s

untruthful.” Labriola objected to this statement, arguing that the prosecutor “has no idea whether

it’s truthful or not. That’s misleading.” When directed by the trial court to rephrase, the State

[MUSTAFAH RAZAVI] continued by asserting that “this man right here, Vincent

Labriola, his testimony is full of mistruths and lies. It’s clear as it can be and that’s my argument
 
to you.” Later, the State [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI] informed the jury: “You heard what I

 call and what I submit to you is false testimony of the Defendant * * *.” 

  The assistant prosecutor [MUSTAFAH TAZAVI] asserted that Labriola’s “excuses”

were “implausible” and that he “in fact, lied.” 

The State [MUSTAFAHRAZAVI] argued that “if * * * you’re Vincent Labriola, and


I submit to you a liar as he has been throughout this case when he testified, you think up another lie


 for that * * *.”   ¶29} In addition, the assistant prosecutor [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI] commented on

 Labriola’s explanations,stating that “[t]hat affects his credibility. You don’t accept every story.”
 
 

The State [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI] even went so far as to effectively inform that jury
 



that they must either believe or discount all testimony from

any single witness.  The State [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI] argued that Labriola wanted the

 jury to believe the State’s witnesses as their testimony aligned with his but not when it did not:


 “That’s not the way it works. That’s not the way human beings work. That’s not the way that 12

 
people that are peers that are deciding the case decide credibility.”

 

{¶30} In his rebuttal argument, the assistant prosecutor [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI]

 asserted that the State [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI] did not

present the testimony of Steven Combs because it did not want “to parrot your lies * * *.” In

conclusion, the assistant prosecutor [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI] told the jury that the State

 “has been an honest broker of the evidence in this case[,] * * * characterizing the evidence in a more
 

believable fashion.”

 

{¶31} Finally, the State [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI] commented on the credibility of some
 
 of its witnesses, going so far as to emphasize the witnesses’ traits to bolster their credibility.
 

After recapping the testimony of Chris Adam and Ryan Sweeney, the assistant prosecutor [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI] stated: “I suggest to you that they

were very credible in their testimony. Frankly, they’re very likeable and straight forward.”

 

{¶32} This Court concludes that the assistant prosecutor’s [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI'S] repeated comments about Labriola’s untruthfulness crossed the line into impropriety. See Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d at 14. Moreover, we conclude that the State’s [MUSTAFAH RAZAVI'S] repeated and egregious misconduct prejudicially affected Labriola’s substantial rights so as to deprive him of a fair trial.

Even after being directed by the trial court at one point to rephrase, the assistant prosecutor
[MUSTAFAH RAZAVI] only more emphatically called Labriola a liar.

 In fact, the crux of the State’s argument was that Labriola lied under oath, while the State’s witnesses told the truth. Under the circumstances of this case, the State’s misconduct deprived Labriola of his constitutionally protected right to a fair trial. Thus, as the State’s remarks prejudicially affected the defendant’s substantial rights and undermined the integrity of the proceeding, Labriola’s first assignment of error is sustained.

{¶34} Labriola’s first assignment of error is sustained. Labriola’s second assignment of

error is overruled. This Court declines to address the third assignment of error as it is moot. The

judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas is reversed and the cause remanded for



further proceedings consistent with this decision. 





 
 THE "PERFORMANCE" OF MUSTAFAH RAZAVI IS CERTAINLY FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS WITNESSED, IN ANY CAPACITY, THE PROCEEDINGS HELD DAILY IN THE MEDINA COUNTY MOSQUE AND RAILROAD STATION!!!
 
  
 

SALISBURY, THE CONSUMMATE LIAR, SPEAKS WITH FORKED TONGUE !

In a prior post at this blog, the blogger commented on the hypocritical public comments of LAPDOG JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, who excoriated a framed defendant in his kangaroo courtroom, WHEN LAPDOG HIMSELF TAMPERED WITH AND ALTERED THE "OFFICIAL" TRANSCRIPTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE INNOCENT MAN RAILROADED BY COLLIER, AS PROFILED IN THIS BLOG.

Medina County Ass. Prosecutor stepped up to the plate at the sentencing of FRAMED DEFENDANT LYNN VANDEUSEN and urged LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, to send Ms. Vandeusen to prison for ALLEGEDLY ALTERING A COPY of an official court record, prepared by none other than DONNA GARRITY, THE COURT REPORTER WHO KNOWINGLY FILED MATERIALLY ALTERED TRANSCRIPTS WITH THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS IN THE CASE BEING PROFILED AT THIS BLOG.

Of course, SALISBURY and DINO HOEMAN obviously dictated the sentence to LAPDOG COLLIER well in advance of the sentencing hearing in one of their usual and customary FORBIDDEN ex parte agreements with LAPDOG COLLIER.

In his typical arrogant and hypocritical custom, SALISBURY, also known as SCOTT SLEAZEBURY due to his lack of character and integrity, is quoted in the Medina Gasette:

County Assistant Prosecutor Scott Salisbury had asked the judge to send Vandeusen to prison.

“She will lie to benefit herself in any way,” Salisbury told the court. “We ask that she be given a prison sentence and that the sentence be greater than the minimum.”

ONE MORE CASE OF SLEAZEBURY, THE POT, CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK !!!  The entire Medina Gasette "article" can be found online at http://medinagazette.northcoastnow.com/2013/04/23/doctoring-court-documents-gets-woman-6-months-in-jail/

Readers may recall that SLEAZEBURY, A CHARTER MEMBER OF THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE, MOSQUE, & RAILROAD STATION LIARS CLUB , DOES NOT HAVE A REPUTATION FOR TRUTH AND VERACITY.  IN FACT, SLEAZEBURY, WHO DEMONSTRATES ALL OF THE TRAITS OF A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, WILL SAY ANYTHING, AT ANY TIME, TO ADVANCE HIS POSITION, NOTWITHSTANDING THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.

Regular readers of this blog may recall how he BLATANTLY LIED to defense counsel at the outset of the trial in the case being profiled at this blog.  Please see the prior post at this blog, captioned SALISBURY, A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, LIES OPENLY ON THE TRIAL RECORD, found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/03/salisbury-pathological-liar-lies-openly.html

IT CAN CERTAINLY BE CONCLUDED, WITH NO UNCERTAINTY, THAT SLEAZEBURY WILL LIE TO BENEFIT HIMSELF IN ANY WAY !!!

ANOTHER PERFECT EXAMPLE OF LAPDOG MEDINA COUNTY JUDGE COLLIER BOWING AND SCRAPING BEFORE CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN

Here is proof, once again, that LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND  TOWN WHORE, remains the OBEDIENT SERVANT of CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN,

Following is an excerpt form the March 5, 2013 online edition of the Columbus Dispatch, found at http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/03/05/judge-missed-murderers-one-finger-salute.html :

No matter how much sense it makes, an Ohio judge shouldn’t have banned a man convicted of attempted murder from setting foot in this state again, an appeals court ruled last week.

George Mose of Bradenton, Fla., pleaded guilty in 2011 to planning to kill his married ex-girlfriend in Brunswick, south of Cleveland. He agreed with prosecutors as part of his plea deal that he wouldn’t return to Ohio except to fulfill parole requirements.

Medina County Common Pleas Judge Christopher Collier accepted the agreement, including the ban and a sentence of three years in prison, much of which Mose already had served.

Then Mose appealed the plea deal, and the 9th District Court of Appeals decided that the judge couldn’t ban him from the state, because Ohio law doesn’t allow that as a punishment.
 

It appears that, just like all of those old-time Western movies, CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN instructed George Mose to get out of Dodge, or rather the State of Ohio, after his release.

LAPDOG COLLIER apparently believed that this idea was just peachy and so ordered George Mose to never let the sun go down on his behind in the State of Ohio, ever again.  Once again, LAPDOG COLLIER obediently followed the orders dictated to him by DINO HOEMAN. 

It's really the only way that LAPDOG COLLIER can retain his lifetime appointment to the Medina County bench, compliments of DINO HOEMAN and the MEDINA COUNTY DEM PARTY.

LAPDOG COLLIER never even gave his one daily  thought to this unconstitutional order.  OF COURSE, LAPDOG COLLIER, WHO HAS LIKELY NEVER READ THE UNTIED STATES CONSTITUTION, DISREGARDS THE CONSTITUTION DAILY, AS ORDERED BY HOEMAN.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed LAPDOG COLLIER AGAIN and vacated yet another of LAPDOG COLLIER'S HOEMAN-ORDERED ILLEGAL RULINGS.

WAY TO GO LAPDOG, PROVING ONCE AGAIN WHY YOU'VE EARNED THE REPUTATION OF THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE.
 

LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER THROWING STONES WITHIN A GLASS HOUSE!!!

A reader of this blog has recently made this blogger aware of a recent "trial" in the kangaroo courtroom of Medina judge LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE.   The reader drew the blogger's attention to an article appearing recently in the Medina Gassette, reporting the conviction of a woman, who had absolutely no chance of receiving a fair trial in LAPDOG COLLIER'S kangaroo courtroom.

It seems that the woman was charged and convicted for tampering with a COPY of a court transcript, according to the Gassette.  How anyone can be charged with altering a COPY OF A TRANSCRIPT, other than MEDINA COURT REPORTER DONNA GARRITY, defies comprehension.

The Gassette attributes some deliciously hypocritical quotes to LAPDOG COLLIER, who has personally  caused TAMPERED AND MATERIALLY ALTERED TRANSCRIPTS, OF THE PRIMARY CASE BEING PROFILED AT THIS BLOG, TO BE FILED WITH THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS.  Please see prior posts at this blog, captioned MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR PUTS ALL BLAME ON LAPDOG COLLIER FOR TAMPERING WITH THE "OFFICIAL" TRANSCRIPT  found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2012/01/medina-county-prosecutor-puts-all-blame.html ; and WHAT HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL, IS TRYING TO CONCEAL FROM THE PUBLIC: ISSUE #4 - UNLAWFUL TAMPERING WITH THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT , found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-holman-corrupt-another-stupid_09.html .

Below are the quotes that the Medina Gassette attributes to LAPDOG COLLIER, A HYPOCRITE OF THE HIGHEST ORDER:

Common Pleas Judge Christopher J. Collier said Vandeusen’s actions show she created a “web of deceit” and ordered that she undergo psychological evaluation and counseling.

“I want to know if this societal harming can be fixed,” he said
 

THE BEST WAY TO ADDRESS LAPDOG COLLIER'S CONCERN ABOUT FIXING THE "SOCIETAL HARMING" IS FOR LAPDOG COLLIER TO RESIGN PROMPTLY.

In the first place, LAPDOG COLLIER  and CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN have created a "web of deceit" when they entered into an unholy quid pro quo agreement to prevent the voters from kicking LAPDOG COLLIER off the bench.  DEMOCRAT HOEMAN HAS AGREED NOT TO RUN A CANDIDATE AGAINST LAPDOG COLLIER, AS LONG AS LAPDOG COLLIER DOES PRECISELY AS HE'S TOLD BY HOEMAN, TO INCLUDE ISSUING UNLAWFUL KANGAROO COURT RULINGS IN FAVOR OF HOEMAN'S OFFICE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACTS AND THE LAW, THUS DEPRIVING DEFENDANTS OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES AND THE CITIZENRY OF MEDINA COUNTY OF THE RULE OF LAW.

A copy of the Medina Gassette article, quoting LAPDOG COLLIER, can be found online at http://medinagazette.northcoastnow.com/2013/04/23/doctoring-court-documents-gets-woman-6-months-in-jail/ .

THE VANDEUSEN CASE SMELLS STRONGLY OF FISH AND HAS "FRAME-UP" WRITTEN ALL OVER IT, TYPICAL OF THE LACK OF HONESTY AND INTEGRITY IN THE MEDINA COUNTY SYSTEM OF INJUSTICE !!!

EXTORTION IS A CRIME EVERYWHERE EXCEPT IN MEDINA COUNTY

The average citizen is aware that EXTORTION is universally a criminal offense... except in the courts of Medina County.

Let's examine Section 2905.11 of the Ohio Revised Code:

2905.11 Extortion.

(A) No person, with purpose to obtain any valuable thing or valuable benefit or to induce another to do an unlawful act, shall do any of the following:

(1) Threaten to commit any felony;

(2) Threaten to commit any offense of violence;

(3) Violate section 2903.21 or 2903.22 of the Revised Code;

(4) Utter or threaten any calumny against any person;

(5) Expose or threaten to expose any matter tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to damage any person’s personal or business repute, or to impair any person’s credit.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of extortion, a felony of the third degree.

(C) As used in this section, “threat” includes a direct threat and a threat by innuendo.

 

This is the law of the State of Ohio ... except in Medina County.

 

Below is an email message recently sent to the blog by a citizen who is obviously FED UP WITH THE CORRUPTION IN THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTS:

They want juveniles parents to agree to Medina drug court with heavy expenses going directly to Medina and a year of attendance with extra costs. If you comply, your child violating Probation for testing dirty for THC will never be more than 4 days. If you do not agree or go to another drug deterant program in another county, then your child will be given much longer jail time and no rights or priviledges equal to the former offender. Check the records of sentencing. Check the statistics of Probation department. Clearly Extortion!
 

This concerned parent has hit the nail precisely on the head!!!

As regular readers of this blog, the Medina County Drug Court is a device contrived by LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE to generate revenue for the coffers of the Medina County courts!  Anyone who thinks that LAPDOG COLLIER devised the Drug Court for the benefit of drug-dependent Medina County citizens has another think coming.

IN FACT, LAPDOG COLLIER IS REPUTED TO BE A COCAINE ABUSE HIMSELF!!!
Please see prior post at this blog, captioned COMMENTS FROM MEDINA COUNTY OBSERVERS ! found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/02/comments-from-medina-county-observers.html

As readers can see from this unsolicited email to the blog, posted above, any parent of a minor whose child takes a puff or two from a joint is required to PAY TO PLAY IN MEDINA COUNTY.  If a parent opts to enroll a child in a program outside of Medina County, penalties are increased and amount to no more than RETRIBUTION FOR REFUSING TO COUGH UP THE MONEY TO THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTS.

Similar unlawful practices apply for DUI offenders in Medina County.  Kickbacks to "public officials?"  Probably.

The aggrieved parent, author of the above email message, is right on the money...EXTORTION.

EXTORTION IS A CRIME EVERYWHERE IN OHIO . . . EXCEPT IN MEDINA COUNTY!

REVISITING STA-PUF'S MORONIC CLAIM !!!

The blogger remains astounded, in fact, stunned by the level of STA-PUF KERN'S outright STUPIDITY!

In fact, STA-PUF'S moronic claim is so OUTRAGEOUS that it merits another visit!

On Page 8 of his recent brief, filed with the Ninth District Court of Appeals, STA-PUF claimed:

"THE COMPLAINT DOUBLES AS THE AFFIDAVIT BECAUSE IT IS A SWORN ALLEGATION THAT THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE CHARGED ACT."

 The blogger referenced this claim, in a broader context in a prior post at this blog, captioned STA-PUF KERN IS OBVIOUSLY MENTALLY CHALLENGED ! found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2013/01/sta-puf-kern-is-obviously-mentally.html

This is such a patently STUPID claim that it is worthy of examining what the Supreme Court of the United States has to say about it. 

What STA-PUF alleges is that it is perfectly correct and proper for an office to simply swear that an accused person violated a specific offense, and nothing further !!!

As has already been shown, contrary to STA-PUF'S moronic claim, the Fourth Amendment to the United States specifically provides, "NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION." 

Setting aside for a moment the law of the land, the United States Constitution, which STA-PUF has obviously NEVER READ, the United States Supreme Court, with which STA-PUF appears to be unfamiliar, has examined this very issue . . . IN 1971, A MERE 42 YEARS AGO !!!

In 19771, the United States Supreme Court decided Whiteley v Warden of the Wyoming State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560 (1971).  The Whiteley case is similar to the case being profiled at this blog, and can be found at http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/560/

The following is taken directly from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Whiteley case:

Syllabus

A sheriff, acting on a tip, made a complaint before a magistrate charging that petitioner and another individual on the date and at the place named "did then and there unlawfully break and enter into [the described] locked . . . building," and a warrant was issued.

Held:

1. Petitioner's arrest violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and the evidence secured incident thereto should have been excluded from his trial. Pp. 401 U. S. 564-569.

(a) The complaint, which did not mention that the sheriff acted on an informer's tip, and which consisted of no more than the sheriff's conclusion that the individuals named committed the offense, could not support the independent judgment of a disinterested magistrate. P. 401 U. S. 565
.
(b) The standards applicable to the factual basis for an arresting officer's probable cause assessment are no less strict than those applicable to the magistrate's assessment. Here, the arresting officer had no information to corroborate the report that the suspects had committed the crime and the fact that the warrantless arrest was based on a police radio bulletin cannot supply the element of probable cause that the officer who issued the bulletin lacked. Pp. 401 U. S. 565-567.

2. Since, notwithstanding petitioner's constitutional challenge at each stage, respondent made no attempt to show that the magistrate had more information than was presented in the complaint, he may not attempt to do so now on remand; and the writ must issue unless the State appropriately arranges to retry the petitioner. P. 401 U. S. 569.

The precise language of the "complaint" in the Whiteley case :

"I, C. W. Ogburn, do solemnly swear that, on or about the 23 day of November, A.D. 1964, in the County of Carbon and State of Wyoming, the said Harold Whiteley and Jack Daley, defendants, did then and there unlawfully break and enter a locked and sealed building [describing the location and ownership of the building]."

THAT'S  THE EXTENT OF IT !  MARKEDLY SIMILAR TO THE CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE "COMPLAINT" FILED BY DEPUTY DOUGLAS CLINAGE IN THE CASE BEING PROFILED AT THIS BLOG.

IT HAS NOT GONE UNNOTICED THAT A SHERIFF'S OFFICER, IN BOTH CASES, FILED THE CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE "COMPLAINT, " AND NOT BY PROPERLY TRAINED, COMPETENT, AND QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL POLICE OFFICERS!


Just what did the United States Supreme Court have to say about the need to observe the requirements of the Fourth Amendment pertaining to the issuance of arrest and search warrants?  Let's see:

"The decisions of this Court concerning Fourth Amendment probable cause requirements before a warrant for either arrest or search can issue require that the judicial officer issuing such a warrant be supplied with sufficient information to support an independent judgment that probable cause exists for the warrant. [Footnote 6] Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969); United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102 (1965); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964); Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U. S. 528 (1964); Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257 (1960); Giordenello v. United States, 357 U. S. 480 (1958)."

In deciding the Whiteley case, the U.S. Supreme Court observed:

In the instant case -- so far as the record stipulated to by the parties reveals  -- the sole support for the arrest warrant issued at Sheriff Ogburn's request was the complaint reproduced above.  That complaint consists of nothing more than the complainant's conclusion that the individuals named therein perpetrated the offense described in the complaint. The actual basis for Sheriff Ogburn's conclusion was an informer's tip, but that fact, as well as every other operative fact, is omitted from the complaint. Under the cases just cited, that document alone could not support the independent judgment of a disinterested magistrate.

In sum, the complaint on which the warrant issued here clearly could not support a finding of probable cause by the issuing magistrate.
  

"Therefore, petitioner's arrest violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; the evidence secured as an incident thereto should have been excluded from his trial. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961)."

It is clearly obvious that STA-PUF KERN, like LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, have failed to read and apply Whiteley and other controlling cases decided by the United States Supreme Court, IF THEY CAN READ AT ALL !!!