LAPDOG COLLIER AND SALISBURY THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, THOSE TWO STUPID CRIMINALS, PLAY THE MEDINA COUNTY SHELL GAME

HMost readers are likely aware of the age-old shell game.  In the shell game, the operator places a pea beneath one of three shells.  Individual place best that they can locate the shell concealing the pea, after the operator has rapidly shuffled the shells.

LAPDOG MEDINA JUDGE COLLIER and MEDINA ASS PROSECUTOR SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, have devised their own version of the MEDINA COUNTY SHELL GAME.


Unlike the original shell game, however, LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER and SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, BOTH STUPID CRIMINALS, play the same shell game, but only with witnesses adverse to their unlawful "positions."  


THE MEDINA COUNTY SHELL GAME SEEMS TO BE COMMONLY PLAYED IN THE CORRUPT COURTS OF MEDINA COUNTY.


Take, for example, the case of the son of Medina County Assistant Prosecutor William Thorne, who was cited for his second DUI and summoned to the Wadsworth Municipal Court.  Not surprisingly, the State Trooper who issued the citation simply "forgot" to appear in Wadsworth Municipal Court  ... on two separate occasions.  Also, not surprising, "Judge" McIlvaine dismissed the case!  [See prior post, captioned MORE HOLMAN CORRUPTION REPORTED BY ANOTHER MEDINA COUNTY CITIZEN, found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/10/more-holman-corruption-reported-by.html ]

In the case of the innocent man railroaded into prison by LAPDOG COLLIER, being profiled at this blog, LAPDOG COLLIER and ASS PROSECUTOR SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, hid Medina County sheriff's deputy DOUGLAS CLINAGE, who, although he had been served with a defense subpoena to appear at trial and give testimony, simply ignored the defense subpoena upon instruction from SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.  


LAPDOG COLLIER, even though repetedly advised by defense counsel that CLINAGE had failed to appear, took no action to compel ASS PROSECUTOR SALISBURY to produce CLINAGE.


HERE IS MORE PROOF THAT LAPDOG COLLIER, THAT STUPID CRIMINAL, INTENTIONALLY VIOLATED  THIS INNOCENT CITIZEN'S THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT HIS ACCUSERS, GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION:


Pictured below, although not a good reproduction, is a copy of the defense trial subpoena served upon deputy CLINAGE:

Having been shown that CLINAGE had been subpoenaed to appear and testify, presented below is Page 766  from the corrupted "official"transcript, demonstrating that defense counsel gave notice to LAPDOG COLLIER, THAT STUPID CRIMINAL, that CLINAGE had failed to appear, as LAPDOG COLLIER well knew:

As the reader can plainly see, when notified that CLINAGE had failed to appear, LAPDOG COLLIER'S ONLY RESPONSE WAS NO RESPONSE!  LAPDOG COLLIER just wanted to dispense with all of those cumbersome formalities, like presenting proof of innocence, and get right down to sentencing.


It is also perfectly clear, from the portion of the tainted "official" transcript that LAPDOG COLLIER, THE STUPID CRIMINAL, did not cut out of the transcript, that ASS PROSECUTOR SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, INSTRUCTED CLINAGE TO DISREGARD THE DEFENSE SUBPOENA AND TO DISAPPEAR !


Picture below is Page 213 from the corrupted "official" transcript that proves the point:

At lines 5 -8 on Page 213 (pictured above), from the very mouth of ASS SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR:

"Judge, I have another witness [CLINAGE] in the courtroom bringing in evidence.  Could I just - - I want him to just bring it in and HE CAN LEAVE." 

So it was!  CLINAGE waddled into the courtroom, presented the illegally seized evidence to SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, and exited the courtroom and the Medina County Courthouse/Mosque & Railroad Station, never to be seen again.


CLINAGE was never sworn as a witness, and offered no testimony.


LAPDOG COLLIER and SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, STUPID CRIMINALS BOTH, HID CLINAGE IN THE FINEST TRADITIONS OF THE MEDINA COUNTY SHELL GAME.  


Although, it is always possible that CLINAGE, who received his advance police training from the KEYSTONE COPS, simply lost the written directions from the sheriff's office to the Medina County Courthouse/Mosque & Railroad Station and simply could not find his way back.


MUCH MORE TO COME .... 

9th DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS AGAIN FINDS: LAPDOG COLLIER LET SALISBURY GET AWAY WITH IT AGAIN!

The 9th District Court of Appeals has begun to recognize a pattern of unchecked Prosecutorial Misconduct of assistant prosecutor SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, always endorsed and promoted by CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN AND LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE!


SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, tried the case of State v Gatt before LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, in the Kangaroo Court of Medina County on September 27, 2009 and was found guilty, as usual, DUE TO THE CORRUPT CONDUCT OF SALISBURY AND LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER!  


The docket in the case of State v Gatt, Medina County Kangaroo Court no. 09CR0519, can be found at the Medina County Clerk's website at http://www.co.medina.oh.us/medct_epublicnodr/pages/DetailForm.aspx?case=09CR0519 .

A brief review of the docket in case no. 09CR0519 suggests that the alleged criminal offense was investigated by those "crack" officers of the Medina County Sheriff's Office, who have received their advanced police training in the State of Pennsylvania from the KEYSTONE COPS.


Following his unlawful conviction in the Kangaroo Court of Medina County, CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DECIDED THAT MR. GATT SHOULD RECEIVE FIVE YEARS IN PRISON.


Accordingly, on October 19, 2009, Mr. Gatt appeared before the COMPLETELY DISHONORABLE AND DISHONEST LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER WHO, FUNCTIONING ALWAYS AS THE "PAVLOV DOG" OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, IMPOSED THE SENTENCE MANDATED BY HOLMAN.  LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, SENTENCED MR. GATT TO A TERM OF FIVE YEARS IMPRISONMENT.

Mr. Gatt appealed his conviction, which was recently decided by the 9th District Court of Appeals on October 11, 2011.  The Opinion of the 9th District Court of Appeals, State v Gatt, 2011-Ohio-5221, can be found at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2011/2011-ohio-5221.pdf .

At Paragraph 15 of the Opinion, the Court of Appeals summarized, in part:

{¶15} During the State’s cross-examination of Mr. Gatt, the prosecutor asked Mr. Gatt
to step down from the stand to reenact the altercation for the jury.  For purposes of the
reenactment, the prosecutor played the role of Mr. Topovski.  The prosecutor asked Mr. Gatt what he said to Mr. Topovski when he first approached him that night, then he asked him what he did.  Mr. Gatt, while apparently walking for the jury, testified that Mr. Topovski “was walking like this.”  The prosecutor responded, “Come on.  I’m walking up to you.  Don’t hit me, because it might turn out a little different, okay?  Tell me what you d[id].”  

Aside from the inappropriateness of the remark, the reader will take note of the fact that SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, AND VERY MUCH THE COWARD, boasted in front of the jury, "Don’t hit me, because it might turn out a little different, okay?"


SALISBURY, IN THE COMFORT AND PROTECTION OF THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE/MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION, WAS SUFFICIENTLY BOLD AND DARING TO MAKE THIS BOAST AND THREATEN MR. GATT WHEN, IN FACT, SALISBURY WOULD BE THE FIRST TO TURN AND RUN FROM A REAL CONFRONTATION WHEN NOT SURROUNDED BY SAFETY AND SECURITY PROVIDED HIM BY COURTROOM PERSONNEL, INCLUDING MEDINA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES.


SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, has developed a fierce reputation for taunting and threatening chained and shackled defendants, as well as the mothers and sisters of those same defendants who appear in the Kangaroo court of LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER!


Turning back now to the Opinion in State v Gatt, the 9th District Made this observation about the unchecked pattern of prosecutorial misconduct of SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, all of which is endorse, promoted, and enabled by LAPDOG COLLIER and CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN:

{¶18} This Court’s review of the transcript in this matter revealed many troubling
comments by the prosecutor.  Although not amounting to reversible error, the prosecutor made numerous inappropriate comments throughout the course of this trial.  In addition to the threat Mr. Gatt has assigned as error, the prosecutor repeatedly expressed his personal belief regarding the credibility of witnesses (during direct-examination of his own witness, cross-examination of the defendant, and closing argument) and frequently introduced facts not in evidence via his “questions” to various witnesses.  This Court has previously addressed this prosecutor’s tendency to engage in “widespread improper conduct” in the courtroom.  State v. Johnson, 9th Dist. No. 09CA0054-M, 2011-Ohio-3623, at ¶62, 42-70.  This Court, however, released the Johnson opinion on July 25, 2011, ten months after the trial in this matter.  As Mr. Gatt’s trial took place before we expressed our concern about this practice, we will not further discuss the issue at this time. 

So, within a matter of a few short months, the 9th District Court of Appeals has commented for a second time on SALISBURY'S HABIT OF ENGAGING IN "WIDESPREAD IMPROPER CONDUCT."


The Office of Disciplinary Conduct of the Ohio Supreme Court, when learning of these additional comments from the 9th District Court of Appeals, will surely have additional fodder when they consider whether or nor to disbar SALISBURY, HOLMAN, and LAPDOG COLLIER.


TO BE SURE, LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, LET SALISBURY "GET AWAY WITH IT" ONCE AGAIN, ALL THE WHILE CHEERING SALISBURY ON FROM THE BENCH!


In reviewing the docket at the Clerk of Court website, the blogger takes note of the fact that the Court Reporter requested and received only one extension of time to file the transcript of the proceedings in State v Gatt.


THERE MUST NOT HAVE BEEN MUCH FOR LAPDOG COLLIER, SALISBURY, AND HOLMAN TO TAMPER WITH, ALTER, AND AMEND IN THE GATT TRANSCRIPT.


MUCH MORE TO COME ....

WHAT INTEGRITY ???

As has been previously shown at this blog, CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, in an act of sheer desperation to avoid an evidentiary hearing scheduled by Visiting Judge Brown, has filed an affidavit of disqualification with the Ohio Supreme Court, seeking to remove Judge Brown from hearing and deciding the merits of this meritorious Petition for Post Conviction Relief.


Of course, DINO HOLMAN does not want the public to see just what he has contained in his affidavit, so he has unlawfully instructed the Clerk of Court to conceal his affidavit from public view.

It is interesting to note that in one of his disingenuous claims, HOLMAN MAKES THE COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS CLAIM THAT JUDGE BROWN'S COMMENT THAT SALISBURY HAS ENGAGED IN MISCONDUCT IN THIS CASE, AS WELL AS IN OTHERS, REFLECTS THAT JUDGE BROWN HAS "EXPRESSED HIS OPINION ON THE INTEGRITY" OF SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR!


WHAT INTEGRITY ???  NEITHER SALISBURY NOR HOLMAN POSSESS THE SLIGHTEST SCINTILLA OF INTEGRITY, AS HAS ALREADY BEEN DEMONSTRATED AT THIS BLOG.


SALISBURY, with HOLMAN'S full approval, withholds and conceals exculpatory evidence from defendants, and likely destroys it rather than being held to account for his actions, in violation of the laws of the State of Ohio.  They tamper with, alter and amend the trial record, again in violation of the laws of the State of Ohio.  They make improper testimonial statements, argue with witnesses, hide witnesses favorable to the defense, mischaracterize the testimony of witnesses, make improper opening statements and closing arguments, all in collusion with LAPDOG JUDGE CHRIS COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE.


WHERE CAN ANY INTEGRITY BE FOUND IN ANY OR ALL OF THIS EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT?


MUCH MORE TO COME ....

A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE HYPOCRISY OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN

CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, feeling the noose tightening around his neck, HAS MADE A DESPERATE BID TO REMOVE THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROBERT BROWN FROM HEARING AND DECIDING THIS DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.


HOLMAN WANTS TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE BROWN WHEN JUDGE BROWN REBUFFED AN ATTEMPT BY ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR,  TO IMPROPERLY INFLUENCE AND PREJUDICE THE JUDGE BY "REMINDING" HIM THAT HOLMAN HAD CONTRIBUTED TO JUDGE BROWN'S CAMPAIGN WHEN HE RAN FOR THE 9TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS.


SALISBURY APPROACHED JUDGE BROWN, AS IF TO SAY, "YOU OWE US!"


JUDGE BROWN DIDN'T BITE!


THEN, JUDGE BROWN REMINDED SALISBURY OF HIS EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT IN A CASE RECENTLY DECIDED BY THE 9TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, STATE  v JOHNSON.  (See prior post at this blog, 9th DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS: "(COLLIER) SHOULD NOT HAVE LET (SALISBURY) GET AWAY WITH IT!" found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/09/9th-district-court-of-appeals-collier.html)


Now, in an EXTREMELY DISINGENUOUS ATTEMPT TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE BROWN, CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, WHO IS UNABLE TO "INFLUENCE," MANIPULATE, AND CONTROL JUDGE BROWN, AS HE DOES LAPDOG MEDINA JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, WROTE THE FOLLOWING IN HIS AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION, PROPOSING THE REMOVAL OF JUDGE BROWN FROM THE PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF FILED BY THIS DEFENDANT:

23.  At all relevant times herein, Judge Brown, inter alia, has a constitutional duty to "support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution [of the State of Ohio], to administer justice without respect to persons and faithfully and impartially and impartially to discharge and perform all duties incumbent upon him as such judge...." R.C. 3.23.  A judge must set aside his or her own moral, philosophical, religious and personal views on specific issues that are litigated in the courtroom, and only apply the existing law to the established facts of cases the judge presides over. 

WHAT A HOOT!  HOLMAN, WHO DAILY CONSPIRES WITH LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER TO DEPRIVE INNOCENT CITIZENS OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, ACTUALLY HAS THE NERVE TO CITE TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WHICH, ACCORDING TO SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, IS NO MORE THAN "A SCRAP OF PAPER."  (See prior post, LAPDOG COLLIER, HOLMAN, SALISBURY CONSIDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION TO BE NO MORE THAN "A SCRAP OF PAPER" !, found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/09/9th-district-court-of-appeals-collier.html)


HOLMAN SHOULD HAVE SENT THIS LITTLE MISSIVE TO LAPDOG COLLIER, AND PERHAPS EVEN READ IT HIMSELF!  ALTHOUGH, TO BE SURE, LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, HAS CLEARLY SET ASIDE ANY AND ALL SENSE OF MORALITY AS HE CONSPIRES WITH DINO HOMAN TO CONVICT INNOCENT CITIZENS,


MUCH MORE TO COME ....

9th DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS: "(COLLIER) SHOULD NOT HAVE LET (SALISBURY) GET AWAY WITH IT!"

The precise words of the 9th District Court of Appeals, chastising LAPDOG MEDINA JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, are found in a recently decided appellate decision in the case of State v. Johnson, found at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2011/2011-ohio-3623.pdf.


Precisely, the 9th District Court of Appeal, in a decision issued on July 25, 2011, held:

The prosecutor’s “cross-examination” of these women was improper, and the trial court should not have allowed him to get away with it.

 The Court of Appeals was commenting on the conduct of both LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER and Medina County Ass. prosecutor SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR!


What the Court of Appeals has not recognized is that COLLIER, A LAPDOG OF MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DEAN HOLMAN,  has been letting SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, "get away with it" for years!


Simply put, letting SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR "get away with it" is the only way that LAPDOG COLLIER, a Republican, can retain his uncontested lifetime appointment to the Medina County bench, compliments of CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN and the Medina County Democrat Party.


The blogger has taken the time to read prior decisions of the 9th District Court of Appeals, found at http://www.ninth.courts.state.oh.us/.  Armed with the knowledge of the corrupt practices of LAPDOG COLLIER and the criminal assistants of CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, those opinions have quite a tale to tell!


The substance of some of those prior appellate decisions, when placed in the context of the finding of the 9th District Court of Appeals in the recent Johnson Opinion, cited above, reveals a longstanding history of misconduct by LAPDOG COLLIER and SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.


Certain of those prior decisions of the 9th District Court of Appeals will be profiled in future segments of this blog, and compared with the Johnson Opinion, and the unethical and unlawful conduct of LAPDOG COLLIER and SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR in the case being profiled at this blog.

IT IS PATENTLY CLEAR THAT CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN HAS NEVER TAKEN ANY ACTION TO CURB THE ABUSES AND MISCONDUCT OF HIS CRIMINAL ASSISTANTS, DESPITE THE COMMENTS OF THE 9TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.


ONE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN NOT ONLY APPROVES, BUT ACTUALLY ENCOURAGES THE MISCONDUCT OF HIS ASSISTANTS SOLELY TO PRESERVE HIS TARNISHED 98% CONVICTION RATE, PRESERVED ONLY AT THE COST OF INNOCENT INDIVIDUALS WHOM HE PROSECUTES DAILY BEFORE HIS LAPDOG, JUDGE COLLIER, WHO WILL DO ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING, INCLUDING VIOLATE THE LAW, TO PRESERVE HIS UNCONTESTED LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY BENCH!


MUCH MORE TO COME ....

LAPDOG COLLIER DOESN'T TAKE CORRECTION FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS

The trial record is replete with unfounded claims by Salisbury, The Pathological Liar, that Defense Counsel “misleads the court,” and “misstates the law,” when, in fact, it was Salisbury, The Pathological Liar, who perpetually misled the court and the jury and misstated the law in the most general terms, since he failed to cite even one case during the entirety of the proceeding. 

Admittedly it was difficult, if not impossible, for Salisbury to mislead LAPDOG COLLIER, who was complicit with Salisbury throughout the proceedings.

As the Defendant more than adequately set forth, it was the Assistant Prosecutor who affirmatively misled the LAPDOG COLLIER by claiming that criminal trespass was not a lesser included offense of aggravated burglary, despite having been reversed and counseled otherwise by the 9^th District Court of Appeals in State v. Morris, 2008-Ohio-3209 (9^th Dist. App. 2008), tried before LAPDOG Judge Collier, Morris, 2008-Ohio-3209, ¶ 14.  LAPDOG Judge Collier also should have remembered that the Appeals Court reversed him in Morris for not charging the jury with the lesser-included offense instruction in an aggravated burglary case.  Yet, in this case , the same Assistant Prosecutor Salisbury, The Pathological Liar, affirmatively misled the same LAPDOG Judge Collier into not giving the lesser-included criminal trespass instruction.

            The level of complete dishonesty of Salisbury, The Pathological Liar, and the corrupt trial judge LAPDOG COLLIER is exemplified in an exchange between Salisbury and the trial judge on the merits of properly instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of Criminal Trespass.

            SALISBURY:     Judge?

            COURT:              Yes?

SALISBURY:     If I could just address that point, Judge.  My position – and I think there are cases that back this up – that a criminal trespass  -- the criminal trespass would not be appropriate.

(BRIEF INTERRUPTION IN THE PROCEEDINGS)

SALISBURY:      The State’s position is, the criminal trespass could not be an appropriate lesser included offense on an aggravated burglary, because the specific facts of the case are that he trespassed into a habitation….

                             The trespass into a habitation, Judge, is a burglary. It can’t be a criminal trespass.

COURT:              And a trespass into an unoccupied structure is a criminal trespass.  Is that your point?

SALISBURY:      Right, not into a habitation…. I believe there are cases that say it is fact specific, and under these facts that have come in front of this jury, criminal trespass does not apply.

                             We are not seeking a lesser included offense.

DEFENSE COUNSEL:  I did some research to be absolutely sure, but it’s my understanding that criminal trespass is a lesser included offense ….

COURT:              Can I tell you what I think he’s arguing?  And I’ve heard it before.  I guess that criminal trespass can, in certain situations, be a lesser included.  He’s (sic) arguing that, according to the facts of the case, because it’s a trespass into a habitation, that it’s different.  In other words, I think that you’re going to find that there are criminal trespass instructions given, but factually it would require them - - he’s arguing factually it wouldn’t.  So if you can find some cases, I’d love to look at them.

(Tr. 762 -765)

COURT:              Okay.  Here’s what I’m going to do. I’m giving the (A) (1) and (A) (4).  I’m not giving the criminal trespass

  (Tr. 949)

              Apparently the corrupt trial judge LAPDOG COLLIER overlooked the very basic fact that he had been overturned by the 9^th District Court of Appeals on the very issue of failure to instruct the jury of the lesser-included offense of criminal trespass in a burglary case tried before him by Salisbury, The Pathological Liar, on August 9, 2006, Medina County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 06CR0124.

              Quoting verbatim from the 9^th District Opinion, at ¶ 2:

Defendant was indicted on one count of burglary in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(3), a third-degree felony for his unlawful entry into the home of Brenda Roberts and assault of Ms. Roberts’ guest, Allan Leach, on January 29, 2006.

State v Morris, 2008-Ohio-3209, ¶ 2

              The facts in Morris are such that Defendant Morris entered the habitation of Brenda Roberts, which, at the time of the alleged offense, was occupied by at least Allan Leach.

              The facts in Morris are strikingly similar to this case at bar insofar as Morris had frequently entered the home of Roberts on prior occasions, just as the Defendant had entered the Flintstone home on numerous prior occasions.  Further, in both Morris and this case , privilege came at issue.

              Ultimately the 9^th District Court of Appeals, in overturning LAPDOG COLLIER, held:

              Criminal trespass is a lesser included offense of aggravated burglary.

              State v. Morris, ¶ 5, Id.

             

If under any reasonable view of the evidence it is possible for the trier of fact to find the defendant not guilty of the greater offense and guilty of the lesser offense, the instruction on the lesser included offense must be given.  The evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the defendant. (Emphasis added) State v Deimling (Dec. 20, 2000), 9^th Dist. No. 99CA007496 at *1 quoting State v Wilkins (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 382, 388.

State v. Morris, ¶ 6, Id.

LAPDOG COLLIER HAD A CONVENIENT LAPSE OF MEMORY, AFTER HAVING BEEN CHASTISED BY THE 9TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS FOR ABUSE OF DISCRETION, IN HIS PURSUIT OF RAILROADING THIS DEFENDANT, AN INNOCENT MAN!

MORE PROOF THAT MEDINA COUNTY NEEDS AN INDEPENDENT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF ITS CORRUPT COURTS BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

COURT OF APPEALS CHASTISES SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, FOR PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, ALL TO NO AVAIL !!

In a matter unrelated to the the proceedings being profiled at this blog, the 9th District Court of Appeals at Akron, Ohio took particular note of the misconduct of Medina Assistant Prosecutor SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR during a trial conducted before LAPDOG MEDINA COUNTY JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE.


In his usual and customary manner, LAPDOG COLLIER permitted and facilitated the MISCONDUCT BY SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.


The specific matter involves the trial of Brian Johnson, Medina Common Please Case No. 08CR0282, tried on or about June 8, 2009.  The case can be found at the online docket of the Medina County Clerk of Court at http://www.co.medina.oh.us/medct_epublicnodr/pages/DetailForm.aspx?case=08CR0282


Brian Johnson appealed his case, which was overturned, in  part, on the illegal sentence imposed by SALISBURY and HOLMAN through LAPDOG COLLIER.


THE APPELLATE DECISION CAN BE FOUND AT http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2011/2011-ohio-3623.pdf and is well worth the read, particularly at Pages 16 through 40, where the Court of Appeals addressees the PERVASIVE MISCONDUCT OF SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL!


THE COURT OF APPEALS OFFERS A SCATHING ASSESSMENT OF THE PERVASIVE MISCONDUCT OF SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.


HERE ARE SOME EXCERPTS FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

"An embarrassing amount of (SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR'S) cross-examination reads more like the script of a television drama than the type of cross-examination that is expected of a prosecutor." [Paragraph 44].

"That cross-examination included numerous improper references to what the fourth woman ... testified at  her deposition.  During the cross-examination of Maryann Toney, for example, (SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR) repeatedly asked questions framed to improperly put before the jury what the (fourth woman) supposedly testified...." [Paragraph 46]. 

LAPDOG COLLIER, AS ONE WOULD EXPECT, OVERRULED A PROPER OBJECTION LODGED BY THE DEFENSE AND PERMITTED SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, TO CONTINUE TO OFFER HIS PERSONAL TESTIMONY.

"During his cross-examination of Erin McPherson, (SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR) again improperly put before the jury what the (fourth woman) has allegedly said...."  [Paragraph 47]

"(SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR'S) ""cross-examination" of these women was improper, and (LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE) the trial court should not have let him get away with it."  “In the first place, it is highly improper for any lawyer in the trial of any jury case, civil or criminal, to make what amounts to testimonial assertions under the pretext that he is merely ‘asking a question.’ Secondly, it is unprofessional to put before a jury, under the pretext of asking questions, information that is not in evidence.” State v. Daugherty, 41 Ohio App. 3d 91, 92-93 (1987) (citing 1 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice (2 Ed. 1980 and 1986 Supp.) 3.91, Standard 3-5.9 and DR 7-106(C)(1) of the Code of Professional Responsibility).  [Paragraph 49].

"By repeatedly referring to what (the fourth woman) supposedly testified at her deposition, the prosecutor was attempting to introduce testimony that was not properly before the jury. “While an attorney’s lack of familiarity with the Rules of Evidence may affect the question of whether misconduct was intentional or inadvertent, ignorance of the Rules of Evidence does not render questioning allowable where it would otherwise be improper.” City of Sidney v. Walters, 118 Ohio App. 3d 825, 829 (1997)." [Paragraph 49].

"During his cross-examination of Dr. Raggio, the prosecutor argued with her aboutwhether she had refused to talk to him before trial and whether she had canceled a scheduled telephone conference...."  [Paragraph 50]

AT THIS JUNCTURE, LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, OVERRULED ANOTHER PROPER DEFENSE OBJECTION.  THIS IS HOW LAPDOG COLLIER PRESERVES HIS UNCONTESTED LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY BENCH, COMPLIMENTS OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN AND THE MEDINA COUNTY DEMOCRAT PARTY!

"The prosecutor’s final “question” in the above quoted exchange was not a question, it was a statement. Statements are appropriate for closing arguments. They are not appropriate cross-examination. Further, although the prosecutor repeated his claim during close, his statement was not true, or at least not supported by the record. Dr. Raggio testified, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that N.J. had a Vitamin D deficiency that caused him to have abnormal bones and that his fractures were “consistent with a non-abuse situation.” Although some of the doctors who testified for the State disagreed with Dr. Raggio’s opinion, it was not true that all six of the doctors “brought in” by the State did."  [Paragraph 51].

Typically, SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, was lying to the jury with the full approval of LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE!  HERE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF LAPDOG COLLIER FACILITATING THE MISCONDUCT OF SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR:

“Q And I guess I’m a little unclear. I guess I don’t know. It’s a little unclear to me. Have you seen the x-rays or not?

A Yes, I have. ... .

Q Both the one from June and the one from January?25

A Correct.

Q  And is that the reason that you keep saying that that’s a poor indicator for telling bone fragility, because the bones upon x-ray appear absolutely normal?

A No.

Q That is not the reason, or they don’t appear normal?

A No, that’s not the reason.

Q They do appear normal?

A Correct.

Q And would it surprise you to learn that the two radiologists who testified for the State of Ohio disagree with that opinion that you have, that x-rays are not a good way to tell bone density?

Objection, you Honor.

THE COURT: Basis

[MR. JOHNSON’S LAWYER]: Dr. Skoblar did not say that. He said the opposite.

THE COURT: I’m going to overrule that objection. You can continue, if you know.

  

WHAT YOU HAVE JUST WITNESSED HERE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF LAPDOG COLLIER RAILROADING A DEFENDANT! 

"Although Dr. Fleissner testified that N.J.’s injuries “were consistent with childabuse, he never used the phrase “classic child abuse” that (SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR) attributed to him.Again, therefore, (SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR) was either mischaracterizing Dr. Fleissner’s testimony or relying on a conversation that took place outside the record. Either of which was inappropriate. (SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR) repeated his improper statement during his closing argument."  [Paragraph 57].

"Another example of improper conduct occurred later in the prosecutor’s cross- examination of Dr. Raggio...." [Paragraph 58].

"Again, the prosecutor was arguing, not asking questions. Further, by stating that everyone he talked to disagreed with Dr. Raggio regarding the effect of a Vitamin D deficiency, the prosecutor could have lead the jury to believe he had had conversations with experts who did not testify."  [Paragraph 59]. 

"The prosecutor’s improper conduct continued during his cross-examination of Mr. Johnson...."  [Paragraph 60]. 

"The prosecutor also committed improper conduct during his closing argument by expressing his personal belief about Mr. Johnson’s credibility and by suggesting that his lawyers were insincere :

[Mr. Johnson’s lawyers] have done a fantastic job of confusing you, and if I didn’t know what I knew and if you didn’t know what you knew, you’d be thoroughly confused. Now, I would love to be able to interact with you, because I would ask, ‘Do you think that they think the fractures happened, or didn’t they?’ Because from those closing arguments, you certainly can’t tell, right? You kept hearing that the fractures weren’t there in the photos that you saw. ‘The kid’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with the boy.’ That’s what [one of Mr. Johnson’s lawyers] just said. Dr. Oehlenschlager would never know it because he didn’t have those fractures. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. We know that he did. We know that he did. Arethey disputing the fact that he has fractures? It seems that way, doesn’t it? But you can’t dispute that, you cannot dispute that, but they are disputing it, andthat’s, allegedly, the reason they are showing you those photos.

 [ONE OF MR. JOHNSON’S LAWYERS]:  Objection. 

THE COURT: Overruled. 

 [THE PROSECUTOR]: They are talking about Dr. O. as if he went to Dr. O.and he didn’t have any fractures. That’s what they’re saying to you. That’s what they said over and over and over again, both of them.Well, how ridiculous is that? They’re trying to confuse you. Did he have the fractures or not? ‘Yes, he did,’ or ‘No, he didn’t. That really sounds kind of like his client up there. Which is it?”  [Paragraph 61].

ONCE AGAIN YOU SEE LAPDOG COLLIER FACILITATING THE MISCONDUCT OF SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, BY PERMITTING HIM TO CONTINUE WITH AN IMPROPER ARGUMENT TO THE JURY!

"Lawyers are forbidden from stating a personal opinion about the credibility of awitness. State v. Smith, 14 Ohio St. 3d 13, 14 (1984). Despite that, the prosecutor in this case told the jury that he could have predicted that Mr. Johnson would lie on the witness stand and that he, in fact, did so. And in State v. Keenan, 66 Ohio St. 3d 402, 405 (1993), the Ohio Supreme Court wrote that imputing insincerity to defense counsel was improper. By suggesting to the jurors that Mr. Johnson’s lawyers were trying to confuse them, the prosecutor suggested that his lawyers did not believe in his innocence. That was improper."  [Paragraph 62].

"In Fears, former Chief Justice Moyer noted that courts often comment on the misconduct of prosecutors, but declare their conduct to be nonprejudicial in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. State v. Fears, 86 Ohio St. 3d 329, 350 (1999) (Moyer, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). He noted that, despite the Ohio Supreme Court’s admonitions about misconduct, “our protestations have failed to change the advocacy of some prosecutors. It is as if they intentionally engage in improper conduct, safe in the belief that this 

court will continue to protest with no consequences.” Id. at 352. He recommended that reviewing courts, “[i]n the interest of the integrity of the criminal justice system in this state, . . . demonstrate that our protestations are more than utterings of frustration.” He also warned that “[r]efusing to address the fundamental unfairness of a trial riddled with prosecutorial misconduct because . . . [the reviewing] court deems the evidence of guilt to be overwhelming creates the perception that we protect the right to a fair trial only when we believe that the defendant is not guilty.” Id. at 353; see also United States v. Antonelli Fireworks Co. Inc., 155 F.2d 631, 661 (1946) (Frank, J., dissenting) (“If we continue to do nothing practical to prevent [prosecutorial mis]conduct, we should cease to disapprove it. For otherwise . . . [t]he deprecatory words we use in our opinions on such occasions are purely ceremonial. . . . The practice . . . breeds a deplorably cynical attitude towards the judiciary.”). "  [Paragraph 69].

"....we note a suggestion from the Eighth District that, “[i]f we are to stop short of punishing the State for a prosecutor’s misbehavior by refusing to overturn otherwise valid convictions, perhaps such cases should routinely be referred to disciplinary counsel so that individual prosecutors can be impressed with the need for ethical behavior.” State v. Cody, 8th Dist. No. 77427, 2002-Ohio-7055, at ¶38."  [Paragraph 70]

IN THE MATTER OF THE CASE BEING PROFILED HERE AT THE BLOG, THE INNOCENT MAN, RAILROADED BY SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, AND LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, HAS TAKEN THE ADVICE OF THE 9TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS AND  FILED A 350 PAGE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WITH THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL OF THE OHIO SUPREME COURT AGAINST LAPDOG COLLIER, HOLMAN, AND SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR!!!

"(SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR) was argumentative, asked improper questions, made testimonial assertions, referred to facts that were not in the record, misrepresented the evidence, and expressed his personal opinion of Mr. Johnson’s credibility."  [Paragraph 73].

Certainly the Johnson case, cited above, should add impetus to the 350-page complaint of Judicial & Prosecutorial Conduct, filed against LAPDOG COLLIER, CORRUPT COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, and SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, because it, and other cases, unequivocally demonstrate an ongoing and longstanding pattern of corrupt practices and misconduct by LAPDOG COLLIER, HOLMAN, AND SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. 

SO THE MISCONDUCT GOES ON AND ON, UNABATED.  THE ONLY REMEDY TO THIS LEVEL OF CORRUPTION IS TO DISBAR COLLIER, HOLMAN, AND SALISBURY, AND SEND THEM ALL PACKING TO THE UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY TO ATONE FOR THEIR CRIMES.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....