JUDGE JOYCE KIMBLER PERPETUATES CORRUPTION IN THE MEDINA COUNTY "JUSTUS" SYSTEM

AT THE TURN OF THE NEW YEAR, IT'S JUST THE SAME OLD THING IN THE MEDINA COUNTY "JUSTUS" SYSTEM, CORRUPTION REIGNS SUPREME NOW PERPETUATED BY JUDGE JOYCE KIMBLER, CARRYING ON A FAMILY TRADITION!

SHOCKING "NO-NEWS" REPORTED IN THE MEDINA GASSETTE 

AS MEDINA COUNTY RESIDENTS ARE FULLY AWARE, THE MEDINA GASSETTE, THE ORACLE OF THE MEDINA COUNTY REPUBLIKKKRAT PARTY, HAS DEVELOPED A WELL-EARNED REPUTATION FOR PUBLISHING NO NEWS.

IN FACT, THE MASTHEAD OF THE PRINT EDITION OF THE MEDINA GASSETTE PROCLAIMS,  "NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS!, THE MANTRA OF THE MEDINA REPUBLKKKRAT PARTY.

IN KEEPING WITH THE TRADITION OF PROMOTING THE AGENDA OF FORMER MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOE-MAN, THE GASSETTE PUBLISHED A NO-NEWS ARTICLE ON DECEMBER 30, 2016.

THE GASSETTE ARTICLE, CAPTIONED "NEW TRIAL SOUGHT IN VEHICULAR ASSAULT" CAN BE FOUND ONLINE AT http://www.medina-gazette.com/Medina-County/2016/12/30/New-trial-sought-in-vehicular-homicide.html

THE ARTICLE REPORTS THAT CITIZEN KEIR McQUISTAN IS SEEKING A NEW TRIAL AFTER BEING CONVICTED IN A BENCH TRIAL PROSECUTED BY MAGISTRATE MUSTAFAH FAOUQUOD RAZAVI !!!

ACCORDING TO THE ARTICLE, JUDGE JOYCE KIMBLE HAS CHOSEN TO PERPETUATE CORRUPTION IN THE MEDINA COUNTY "JUSTUS" SYSTEM BY HIRING RAZAVI, A FORMER KNUCKLE-DRAGGING ASS PROSECUTOR HELD OVER FROM THE REGIME OF FORMER MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOE-MAN.

THE FACT THAT JUDGE KIMBLER HIRED RAZAVI, A GENUINE SCUMBAG WITH NO INTEGRITY AT ALL, IS SHOCKING ENOUGH!

REGULAR READERS OF THIS BLOG MAY VERY WELL RECALL A PRIOR POST AT THIS BLOG IN WHICH THE BLOGGER DETAILED THAT, WHILE THE BLOGGER HAD BEEN TESTIFYING IN A SHAM SUPPRESSION HEARING HELD (IN 4 PARTS) BEFORE PHILANDERING ILLEGITIMATE "WEASELEPCKER" COLLIER, RAZAVI WAS SEATED IN THE PEANUT GALLERY.

WHILE THE BLOGGER WAS TESTIFYING IN THE CASE OF THE INNOCENT MAN RAILROADED BY COLLIER AND HOE-MAN, PROFILED AT THIS BLOG, RAZAVI WAS GIVING "WEASELPECKER" COLLIER THE "THUMBS UP" SIGNAL THROUGHOUT!!!

THIS IS BUT ONE EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATING THE BOTH RAZAVI AND "WEASELPECKER" COLLIER ARE IRREDEEMABLE SCUMBAGS!

MUSTAFAH FAOUQUOD RAZAVI IS NO STRANGER TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

NEEDLESS TO SAY, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, THE OFFICIAL OFFICE POLICY OF FORMER MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOE-MAN, WAS NOT AN ALIEN CONCEPT TO RAZAVI, WHO ALWAYS DID HIS BEST TO TRAMPLE ON THE RIGHTS OF INNOCENT CITIZENS.

FOLLOWING ARE EXCERPTS FROM A DECISION BY THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, CASE NO. 2013-OHIO-4407, EXPRESSLY DIRECTED AT RAZAVI:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR XIII

DESPITE PREVIOUS WARNINGS FROM THIS APPELLATE COURT IN

HARTMAN I, THE STATE COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY

REPEATED ACTS OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT THAT

PERVADED THE ENTIRE TRIAL AND AGAIN DENIED HARTMAN A

FAIR TRIAL, BY ASSERTING FACTS THE EVIDENCE CONTRADICTED,

DENIGRATING HARTMAN AND HIS DEFENSE COUNSEL, AND

ASSERTING PERSONAL OPINIONS.

{¶15} Mr. Hartman asserts in his thirteenth assignment of error that he was denied his
constitutionally protected right to a fair trial because of misconduct by the prosecutor. Viewing the entirety of the prosecutors’ closing argument in the context of the entire trial, we agree. 

 {¶16} We note that in the prior appeal, Mr. Hartman alleged prosecutorial misconductduring his first trial. See Hartman, 2012-Ohio-745, at ¶ 28. We stated that we had “addressed similar issues in other recent opinions and are confident that the issues will not be repeated should Mr. Hartman be retried.” Id.    [WRONG!!!]

{¶17} . . . However, “the prosecution must avoid insinuations and assertions which are
calculated to mislead the jury.” Smith at 14. Additionally, “[i]t is improper for an attorney to express his personal belief or opinion as to the credibility of a witness or as to the guilt of the accused.” Id. Moreover, “[i]t is improper [for the prosecution] to denigrate defense counsel in the jury’s presence.” State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404, 2008-Ohio-2, ¶ 304. “[A] conviction based solely on the inflammation of fears and passions, rather than proof of guilt, requires reversal * * *.” State v. Williams, 23 Ohio St.3d 16, 20 (1986). 

{¶19} Unfortunately, we face a similar situation in the instant matter. While there are
several improper (and unobjected to) comments from the State during its initial closing argument (asserting that the testimony of a defense witness was disingenuous and not credible and that defense theories were preposterous and essentially garbage), the improper comments and inferences continued to mount during the State’s rebuttal.The record reflects that the State’s rebuttal is rife with argument that is disrespectful and disparaging of defense counsel, defense witnesses, and defense theories of the case. The tone is clearly inflammatory. The State repeatedly impugns the integrity of defense counsel, accusing her of (1) mischaracterizing the evidence, (2) telling the jury “everything about the evidence that it was not[,]” and (3) seeking to intentionally mislead the jury. Additionally, the State accuses defense witnesses and defense
counsel of lying. 

{¶20} Thus, the State repeatedly argued that witnesses were lying, that defense theories were ridiculous, and that defense counsel was mischaracterizing the evidence. . . . . We note that even the State’s concluding remarks are problematic: the State summarized stating that “[n]othing, nothing they have presented to you makes any sense whatsoever with regard to innocence. Nothing. We have presented you * * * nothing but evidence of guilt in this case.” It is well established that “prosecutors may not invade the realm of the jury by, for example, stating their personal beliefs regarding guilt and credibility, or alluding to matters outside the record.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Akron v. McGuire, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24638, 2009–Ohio–4661, ¶ 13.

{¶25} In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the prosecutor’s improper remarks prejudicially affected the substantial rights of Mr. Hartman. Accordingly, we sustain Mr.Hartman’s thirteenth assignment of error.

SO MUCH FOR RAZAVI'S COMPLETE LACK OF INTEGRITY.  THE BLOGGER HAS TO QUESTION THE INTEGRITY OF JUDGE KIMBLER, WHO HIRED THIS MORON RAZAVI TO "RESOLVE" CASES IN "HER" COURT!

HERE'S THE RUB

FIRSTLY, LET'S LOOK AT AN ENTRY MADE BY JUDGE KIMBLER PRIOR TO THE TIME MR. McQUISTAN'S CASE WAS CALLED FOR TRIAL:

DID YOU, THE READERS TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT RAZAVI WAS THE ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR IN THIS CASE BEFORE BEING HIRED AS JUDGE KIMBLER'S MAGISTRATE?

APPARENTLY JUDGE JOYCE KIMBLER DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, EVEN WHEN IT'S CLOSE ENOUGH TO BITE HER ON THE BUTT!

FORMER MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOE-MAN VIEWS THE PREJUDICE AGAINST McQUISTAN AS BEING "JUST PEACHY!"

THE MEDINA GASSETTE, HERETOFORE A USEFUL TOOL OF FORMER MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOE-MAN TO POISON MEDINA COUNTY JURY POOLS WITH HIS FALSE, FRAUDULENT, AND PREJUDICIAL "PRESS" RELEASES (IT IS QUESTIONABLE WHETHER THE MEDINA GASSETTE CAN RIGHTFULLY BE CALLED THE "PRESS"), HAS ONCE AGAIN COME TO HOE-MAN'S DEFENSE.

THE GASSETTE ARTICLE DUTIFULLY REPORTED HOE-MAN'S BULLSHIT CLAIM, REPRODUCED BELOW:

County Prosecutor Dean Holman filed a motion to strike the motion to vacate, stating “the defendant’s brief is so baseless that it must be struck.”

ANYTIME HOE-MAN CLAIMS AN ISSUE IS "BASELESS," 
READERS CAN DAMN WELL BE ASSURED THERE IS MERIT IN THE ISSUE(S) THAT HOE-MAN TRIES TO BRUSH ASIDE.  EXAMPLES ARE MANIFOLD!

IT APPEARS THAT JUDGE JOYCE KIMBLER HAS BEEN ANOINTED TO CARRY THE TORCH OF THE DEMO WING OF THE MEDINA REPUBLIKKKRAT PARTY TO PERPETUATE PUBLIC CORRUPTION IN THE MEDINA COUNTY "JUSTUS" SYSTEM, CARRYING ON WHERE FORMER MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOE-MAN HAS LEFT OFF!

HERE'S A TIP FOR THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY: THOROUGHLY CHECK THE TRANSCRIPT FOR THE USUAL AND CUSTOMARY UNLAWFUL MATERIAL ALTERATIONS!