SALISBURY FEARS THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS POTENTIAL LAWBREAKERS!

        The blog has received a message from Medina County assistant prosecutor SCOTT SALISBURY a/k/a SKIPPY SLEAZEBURY (for obvious reasons).


        SALISBURY has offered his motivation in his misguided attempts to suppress this blog and deny the provisions of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Remember that shutting down malcontents like the Medina Blog is critical to protecting the reputation of whistleblowers everywhere, and maintaining confidence in the legal system, which is important so criminals don't shoot cops if they think that they face automatic conviction." 


WHAT AN EYE-OPENER IS THIS RIDICULOUS STATEMENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR!


       It is obvious that SALISBURY cares not the least about whistle blowers.  If that were so, HE WOULD HAVE COME FORWARD LONG AGO TO BRING TO LIGHT THE CORRUPT PRACTICES IN THE MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE AND THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTS.


     SALISBURY claims he wants to maintain confidence in the legal system?  WHAT A PREPOSTEROUS CLAIM!  SALISBURY wants to bolster confidence in the legal system by manufacturing his own "evidence" and concealing exculpatory evidence from defendants?  And he thinks that COLLUDING WITH TOTALLY CORRUPT JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER IN DEPRIVING CITIZENS OF THEIR RIGHTS WILL FOSTER CONFIDENCE IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM?


   SALISBURY wants to make sure that hardened criminals, like shoplifters and jaywalkers, wont shoot at the cops in desperate attempts to flee?


     THIS CLAIM BY SALISBURY IS THE HEIGHT OF STUPIDITY !!!!!


     SALISBURY wants to make sure that every arrested person is AUTOMATICALLY CONVICTED TO SEND A MESSAGE NOT TO SHOOT AT COPS ????


    Apparently SALISBURY'S DELUSIONAL THINKING has overtaken him completely.


    I can recall only one instance in the last twenty years that anyone has shot at police in Medina County, and that suspect was not fleeing from anyone.  He shot and wounded a sheriff's deputy who was approaching the suspect's residence. HOLMAN made sure that COLLIER sentenced him to a long stretch in the penitentiary.


   This is Medina County, Ohio, not New York, Philadelphia, Miami, Los Angeles, or St. Petersburg, FL where three police officers have been shot and killed with the past 30 days.


    Medina County has more cows per capita than any of those highly urbanized locations!


    THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH IS THAT SALISBURY IS ATTEMPTING TO SUPPRESS THIS BLOG BECAUSE HE DOES NOT WANT THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO BE INFORMED OF THE LAWLESSNESS AND CORRUPTION ENDEMIC IN THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTS!


MUCH MORE TO COME ....

SALISBURY QUALIFIES FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE LIAR'S CLUB

         Trial was scheduled and did commence in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, before TOTALLY CORRUPT JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, on Monday, November 9, 2009.

         On June 29, 2009, defense counsel timely filed Defendant’s Combined Requests For Discovery, A Bill of Particulars, And Notice of The State’s Intention to Use Specified Evidence. The filing expressly requested, “A complete history of the Defendant’s past criminal record, if any.”

         In his discovery response, filed by SALISBURY with the court on July 10, 2009, SALISBURY provided no such information.

         On November 6, 2009, the very last business day prior to trial, SALISBURY sprung upon the defense copies of materials which he had received via facsimile transmission, dated September 11, 2009.

         The materials consisted of a transmission of information regarding Defendant’s 2004 misdemeanor arrest (which did not bear on honesty, truth and veracity) and a Civil Protection Order issued on the basis of unfounded allegations and subsequently vacated by order of the County Court of Common Pleas.

         In subsequent conversation with SALISBURY during the pre-trial conference, defense counsel sought and received a concession from SALISBURY that this information was not in any way related to the offense of aggravated burglary and was not admissible at trial. 

         Further, SALISBURY falsely represented to defense counsel that he did not intend to introduce this information in his case-in-chief at trial.

         Defense counsel memorialized her conversation of November 6, 2009, with Salisbury in a letter to him, dated November 11, 2009. 

         AS YOU MIGHT REASONABLY SURMISE, SALISBURY ADMITTED THIS CLEARLY INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE THROUGH HIS FIRST WITNESS, CONTRARY TO THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND THE PREVAILING CASE LAW, ALL WITH THE BLESSING OF TOTALLY CORRUPT JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER.

         IS THERE ANY DOUBT THAT THE CORRUPTION ENDEMIC IN THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTS AND PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE MUST BE INVESTIGATED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE?

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

COLLIER WINKS AT SALISBURY, WHO VIOLATED THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE!

           In August 2009, SALISBURY placed an undercover operative in the Medina County Jail to gather information from the Defendant, who had already been indicted, arraigned, and was known by SALISBURY to be represented by defense counsel. 

          The undercover operative, who identified himself as Chris Palm or Chris Palme, made a conscious effort to sit at the Defendant's four-place table during the three days that Palm was present in the Medina County Jail.

         Another inmate, known to the Defense Investigator and with whom the Investigator has spoken, informed the Defendant that Palm was an undercover operative/investigator who was known to the inmate in the context of the community, outside the confines of the Medina County Jail.  This individual has confirmed the same information to the Defense Investigator.

         Further, in the very words of a former Medina County assistant prosecutor with regard to placing undercover operatives in the Medina County Jail to elicit information from represented persons, “They do that all the time in Medina!”

        

         In order to verify the veracity of the inmate’s report to the Defendant, the Defense Investigator queried the dockets of the Medina and Wadsworth Municipal Courts and the Medina County Court of Common Pleas. 

        Not surprisingly, there is no record of any criminal action to be found in any of the dockets of the above-named courts of Medina County, Ohio for Chris Palm or Chris Palme. 

        Further, a corrections officer at the Medina County Jail confirmed to the Investigator that there is no official record in the Sheriff’s Department database that a Chris Palm/Palme has ever been confined in the Medina County Jail.

        Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Chris Palm or Chris Palme is, indeed, an undercover operative placed beside the Defendant inside the Medina County Jail at the direction of SALISBURY.

         This egregious misconduct is another breach of the attorney-client privilege by SALISBURY, which rises to the level of a constitutional violation of the first magnitude.

         COLLIER was noticed of SALISBURY'S invasions of the defense camp in the form of a sworn affidavit and a declaration filed with the court. 

         However, as always, COLLIER failed to address and redress these issues, raised in the Defendant’s post-conviction motions, all to the intended benefit of the prosecutor.

           SINCE THE VIOLATION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE BY THE MEDINA COUNTY APPEARS TO BE A PRACTICE OF LONG-STANDING, ACCORDING TO A FORMER ASSISTANT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR, THERE IS LITTLE DOUBT THAT COLLIER IS AWARE AND APPROVES OF THIS HIGHLY UNLAWFUL PRACTICE!

           THIS IS BUT ONE MORE REASON, AMONG MANY, FOR THE NEED OF AN INDEPENDENT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTS BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

SALISBURY EAVESDROPS, COLLIER IGNORES THE SUPREME COURT!

        On November 6, 2009, Defense Counsel attended a pre-trial conference called by COLLIER, who had hoped to railroad the Defendant without the benefit of one of those infamous Medina County show "trials."

         SALISBURY offered the Defendant a plea to one count of burglary (F-4) with one year in prison. 

         The Defendant refused SALISBURY'S plea offer because he is factually innocent of the charged offense of Burglary, or any other crime.

         During the plea negotiations on November 6, 2009, the Defense Investigator was sitting on a bench in the hallway, outside of COLLIER’S conference room. Thusly seated in the hallway, the Defense Investigator heard SALISBURY state to Defense Counsel, “I’ve listened to his (Defendant's) telephone conversations with the Defense Investigator.”

        

         The Defense Investigator recognized immediately that SALISBURY had listened to privileged communications between the Defendant and the Investigator. Telephone calls made by inmates from the Medina County jail are recorded by and through an agreement between Medina County and Correctional Billing Services, Dallas, TX.

         SALISBURY learned the identity of the Defense Investigator during the Investigator's testimony at the suppression hearing on August 21, 2009.

         The Defense Investigator maintained liaison with the Defendant and briefed him, via telephone, as to the status and strategies of the defense case, as did Defense Counsel.

         Given SALISBURY'S complete lack of honesty and integrity, it is more than likely that SALISBURY eavesdropped on privileged conversations between the Defendant and Defense Counsel, as well.

         In 1966 the United States decided Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 307 (1966), citing Black v. United States, 385 U.S. 26 (1966), and citing Coplon v. United States, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 103, held that Government invasion of the defense camp invalidates the trial at which it occurred.

           COLLIER, WHO WAS FULLY BRIEFED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL ON THE PROVISIONS OF HOFFA V. UNITED STATES, SIMPLY IGNORED THIS RULING BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

         As it turns out, the Defense Investigator's assessment was accurate. Following one segment of the suppression hearing, the Investigator informed the Defendant, via telephone, that defense counsel intended to subpoena Deputy Clinage at trial as a defense witness and that defense counsel considered Clinage’s testimony important to the defense.

  

         SALISBURY never called Clinage, the assigned case officer, to testify at trial. Further, Clinage ignored a defense subpoena and did not appear to testify at trial in response to the defense subpoena. Clearly, Clinage was instructed to ignore the subpoena by SALISBURY, with COLLIER’S approval. 

         Defense Counsel twice informed COLLIER, on the record, that Clinage had failed to appear at trial in response to the defense subpoena.  

        COLLIER JUST BLEW IT OFF AND MADE NO ATTEMPT TO COMPEL SALISBURY TO PRODUCE CLINAGE, THE STATE'S AGENT, UNLIKE AN HONEST AND ETHICAL JUDGE!

AFTER ALL, COLLIER HAS NO REGARD FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE RULINGS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, SINCE COLLIER CONSIDERS HIMSELF TO BE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE KANGAROO COURT OF MEDINA COUNTY, OHIO!

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

SALISBURY HID FAVORABLE EVIDENCE FROM THE DEFENDANT RIGHT FROM THE OUTSET

         On the afternoon of September 1, 2009, Defense Counsel and the Defense Investigator met with the Evidence Control Officer at the Medina County Sheriff’s Office for an evidence view.

         The Evidence Control Officer produced the evidence log and displayed   some, but not all, items of physical evidence maintained by the Medina County Sheriff’s Office.

         The Evidence Control Officer produced an inventory log and displayed to Defense Counsel all but three items of evidence, which she stated she was instructed by SALISBURY to refuse access to Defense Counsel.  

The Evidence Control Officer placed an asterisk beside each of the three items on the evidence log that she was instructed by SALISBURY to withhold. The Defense Investigator photographed the evidence log to memorialize SALISBURY'S instructions to the Evidence Control Officer.

         The Evidence Control Officer, on orders and instructions from SALISBURY, refused to permit Defense Counsel to access the following evidentiary items, as designated by asterisks on the complaint log:

1) copy of 911 dispatch tapes regarding this call;

2) micro-cassette of interview of FRED FLINTSTONE – follow up conversation about this incident; and

3) 1 CD CONTAINING PICTURES OF ALLEGED INJURIES OF DEFENDANT'S WIFE

         Not surprisingly, each and every of the items that Salisbury instructed Ms. Klinecht to withhold from the defense contained exculpatory evidence.

         Defense Counsel obtained a copy of the 911 dispatch tape directly from the Medina County Sheriff’s Office via Public Information Request.  

         Indeed, the 911 tape, which Salisbury had instructed the Evidence Control Officer to withhold from defense counsel, contained numerous crucial statements from Wilma Flintstone, the only State’s witness to “incriminate” the Defendant at trial, made by Ms. Flintstone that she could neither see nor hear any events occurring outside the bedroom in which she had been ensconced during the entirety of the purported “incident.”  

         Further, during the recording, Ms. Flintstone stated expressly to the dispatcher, "I DIDN'T SEE DEFENDANT."                                   

         Both SALISBURY and COLLIER refused to turn over to the defense the exculpatory audiotape and the exculpatory photographs that clearly fail to show any injury to Defendant's wife, as falsely testified at trial by Ms. Flintstone. 

         COLLIER REFUSED TO COMPEL SALISBURY TO TURN OVER THE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENDANT. 

        SALISBURY refused to voluntarily turn over the exculpatory evidence and handed the evidence off to COLLIER who, during discussions of the Motions in limine, admitted to Defense Counsel that he was personally in possession of the exculpatory audiotape and the exculpatory photographs.

         COLLIER never made the exculpatory evidence available to the defense, despite repeated requests by Defense Counsel.

           THIS IS PRECISELY WHY MEDINA COUNTY NEEDS AN INDEPENDENT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF THE CORRUPTION IN THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTS.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

JUST ONE MORE THREAT FROM SALISBURY!

Assistant prosecutor SCOTT SALISBURY a/k/a SKIPPY SLEAZEBURY (for obvious reasons) just can't help himself.  Psychologists would term his affliction Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

SALISBURY SENT THIS EMAIL MESSAGE TO THE BLOG ON THIS VERY DAY:

Brother,

I remind you that there are very powerful men and women, who do not like the publishing of your blog.

You will regret defying their will.

You were given a chance to shut it down.

You refused.

Now we will make your blog unable to be used.

The authorities have been notified.

You will lose.

We will win.

Your son will pay for the sins of the father.

Bet on it

SALISBURY IMPLIES THAT THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS IS JUST AS CORRUPT AS THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTS.  PERHAPS THE BLOG SHOULD SEND SALISBURY'S CLAIM TO THE COURT OF APPEALS AND MAKE A DIRECT INQUIRY ABOUT SALISBURY'S CLAIMS.

IT HASN'T YET DAWNED ON SALISBURY THAT HE, COLLIER, AND HOLMAN MAY THINK OF THEMSELVES AS BIG FISH.  WHAT THEY FAIL TO RECOGNIZE IS THAT THEY SWIM IN A VERY SMALL POND, VERY SMALL INDEED!

MUCH MORE TO COME .....

COLLIER DETESTS SPEED, UNLESS IT'S LUNCH TIME!

      At the conclusion of the fourth and final segment of the suppression hearing, conducted on or about October 9, 2009, COLLIER stated on the record, “You’ll have my decision in a week.”  COLLIER permitted no oral argument at the conclusion of the suppression hearing.

         No ruling was forthcoming from COLLIER. COLLIER did not issue a written opinion, setting out findings of fact and conclusions of law, primarily because he was unable to cogently reconcile his denial of the motion to suppress with the facts and the law. 

         In fact, since COLLIER never issued a written ruling, at the pre-trial conference called by COLLIER on November 6, 2009, COLLIER casually stated to defense counsel, “I’m going to overrule your motion.”  

         COLLIER’S unnecessarily protracted conduct of the suppression hearing over several weeks and his failure to timely rule on the suppression motions, as he initially offered from the bench, had the intended effect of depriving the Defendant of a speedy trial by tolling the time of the unwarranted delay to the Defendant, and thus purposefully circumventing the requirements of the law with respect to speedy trial. 

         Had COLLIER ruled within a week, as he offered from the bench, he would have been required to try the Defendant at an earlier time than the scheduled trial date of November 9, 2009.

         Rather than complying with the requirements of the law, COLLIER, acting deliberately contrary to law, knowingly and willfully deprived the Defendant of a speedy trial.

        

         Further, COLLIER overruled the Defendant’s motion to suppress the illegally seized evidence in spite of the fact that Salisbury failed to meet his burden under the law.

         COLLIER then, contrary to the prevailing case law and well-established legal precedent, permitted Salisbury to introduce tainted evidence at trial with the specific intention of prejudicing the Defendant. 

         In 1969, more than forty years ago, the United States Supreme Court decided Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, holding there is no exception to the rule that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible at trial.

         Further, way back in 1886, more than 120 years ago, the United States Supreme Court decided Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S 616, and held “Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. *** It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.”

COLLIER SEEMS TO BE A BIT BEHIND IS HIS READING, THAT IS IF HE CAN READ!

BASED UPON HIS PERFORMANCE IN THE COURTROOM, I AM FIRMLY CONVINCED THAT THE ONLY BRIEFS COLLIER READS ARE LABELED "JOCKEY!"

MUCH MORE TO COME ....