WHAT HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL, IS TRYING TO CONCEAL FROM THE PUBLIC: ISSUE #7 - CONSPIRACY TO UNLAWFULLY CONVICT AN INNOCENT MAN

Newby Kern overlooks tangible evidence that SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, CONSPIRED WITH LAPDOG COLLIER, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL TO CONVICT AN INNOCENT MAN.  Newby Kern asserts that this unlawful conduct by both SALISBURY and LAPDOG COLLIER was plucked out of thin air?

             In an Ex Parte Discussion Between The Trial Judge and Medina County Assistant Prosecutor Salisbury in Chambers, Immediately Prior to a Scheduled Hearing on Petitioner’s Post Conviction Motions and While Discussing the Unlawfully Compelled Testimony of Petitioner’s Wife, the Trial Judge Was Overheard to Say to Salisbury, “But I’ll Help You.”

            On November 23, 2009, defense counsel filed Motion for Acquittal; Motion for New Trial; Motion for Arrest of Judgment; Motion to Suspend Execution of Sentence; and Motion for Bail Pending Appeal.  On December 17, 2009, defense counsel filed Additional Authorities and Exhibits in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Acquittal; Motion for New Trial; Motion for Arrest of Judgment; Motion to Suspend Execution of Sentence; and Motion for Bail Pending Appeal.

            On December 18, 2009, defense counsel and her investigator were seated in the gallery of Courtroom No. 1, waiting for the scheduled hearing on Petitioner’s post conviction motions to convene.  While seated there, defense counsel and her investigator overheard the trial judge and Salisbury discussing in loud voices the impending motions hearing.

            In one memorable exchange, while discussing the forced testimony of Petitioner’s wife, who had asserted her spousal privilege on no fewer than 4 occasions, the trial judge stated loudly to Salisbury, “You compelled the wife to testify.”  The trial judge then quickly added, “But I’ll help you.”

            Defense counsel detailed this ex parte discussion between the trial judge and Salisbury in her Affidavit of Disqualification of Judge Collier, which she filed with the Ohio Supreme Court.  Further, defense counsel attached to her Affidavit of Disqualification the sworn Affidavit of her defense investigator regarding his independent recollection of this ex parte communication between the trial judge and Salisbury in the chambers of Courtroom No. 1 on December 18, 2009.

            A copy of the Affidavit of Disqualification of Judge Collier, filed by defense counsel with the Ohio Supreme Court, along with the supporting Affidavit of defense counsel’s investigator, is appended hereto as Exhibit 15.

            This prosecutor has presented no countervailing evidence to challenge or dispute the ex parte communications between Salisbury and the trial judge during the proceedings below. 


MUCH MORE TO COME .... 

WHAT HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL, IS TRYING TO CONCEAL FROM THE PUBLIC: ISSUE #6 - DESTRUCTION OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE

Newby Kern then had the audacity to claim that SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, has had nothing to do with destroying the exculpatory evidence in this case, despite SALISBURY'S own claims, set out below.

Medina County Assistant Prosecutor Salisbury Has Insinuated That the Exculpatory Evidence Withheld From Petitioner at Trial Has Been Destroyed.

            Medina County Assistant Prosecutor has understandably been outraged that his unlawful and unethical conduct has been openly exposed at an Internet blog site exposing the corruption in the Medina County Courts.  In his anger, Salisbury has submitted a number of electronic messages to the blog, often employing assumed identities, intended to threaten, intimidate, extort, harass and deride the blog, the Petitioner, and the Petitioner’s family.

            In one such electronic message, Salisbury threatened a lawsuit but, at the same, admitted that abuses of the Brady Rule in the Medina County Courts are ongoing because the Brady Rule “is almost impossible to enforce which is why the abuse has been going on.”

            A copy of Salisbury’s electronic message to the blog, dated January 1, 2011 and previously attached to Petitioner’s Surreply and Motion to Strike State’s Out of Rule Second Response; Motion to Disqualify Medina County Prosecutor’s Office, is appended hereto as Exhibit 13.

            On January 3, 2011, Salisbury sent a message to the blog, found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com, in which insinuated that the exculpatory evidence withheld from Petitioner at trial had been destroyed.  In his electronic message to the blog, Salisbury wrote:

            And can you prove that these illustrious prosectors (sic) withheld evidence?

You do realize that if the courts were really corrupt as you have said with FACT that they are … they would have destroyed all proof by now.  (Emphasis added.)

Because the courts are really not corrupt, and the evidence that Matthew is not the violent felon that nearly killed his family is not and never has been in existence.

He got off easy Paul, 5 years instead of 10, and convicted by a JURY, not a double cross plea deal like you claim.[1]

A copy of Salisbury’s electronic message to the blog, attached to Petitioner’s Reply to States Opposition to Correct the Record; Opposition to State’s Motion to Disqualify Petitioner’s Counsel, is appended hereto as Exhibit 14.

            This prosecutor has yet to produce the withheld the exculpatory evidence and, moreover, drove to Columbus to file an Affidavit of Disqualification of Judge Brown with the Supreme Court on the very day before Judge Brown’s scheduled evidentiary hearing regarding the withheld exculpatory evidence, for the very purpose of evading and evading the evidentiary hearing.

---

[1] At sentencing, Salisbury “argued” for a 10-year sentence.


MUCH MORE TO COME ....

WHAT HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL, IS TRYING TO CONCEAL FROM THE PUBLIC: ISSUE #5 - CONCEALING EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE

Newby Kern makes the outlandish denial that MEDINA ASS PROSECUTOR SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR and LAPDOG COLLIER, TWO EQUALLY STUPID CRIMINALS, have withheld EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE FROM THIS INNOCENT DEFENDANT.


HOLMAN THE CORRUPT and LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, TWO PARTNERS IN CRIME (LITERALLY),  just can't stand to reveal the longstanding and customary practice of withholding exculpatory evidence for persons accused of criminal offenses.

           The Medina County Prosecutor Deliberately Withheld Exculpatory Evidence, Identified and Demanded by Petitioner, Thus Violating the Laws of the State of Ohio, Specifically ORC §2921.12(A)(1), Tampering With Evidence, a Felony of the Third Degree.

            At the suppression hearing, Deputy Douglas Clinage testified that he took photographs of the purported “injuries” to Petitioner’s wife at the scene of the purported incident that led to Petitioner’s arrest. (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 226).  Clinage further testified that he took an “oral statement” from Roy “Al” Leighton “two days later,” specifically on May 29, 2009.  (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 256.)

            Prior to trial, defense counsel viewed some, but not all, of the evidence in this case at the Medina County Sheriff’s Office.  Ms. Beth Klinecht, the evidence custodian, reported that Medina County Assistant Prosecutor instructed her to deny access to certain items of the evidence, specifically the photographs of the purported “injuries” of Petitioner’s wife, the micro cassette recording of the taped “oral” statement of Roy “Al” Leighton taken by Deputy Douglas Clinage on May 29, 2009, and the audiotape of the dispatch 911 call. (Tr. Supp. At 88-89) 

            During the evidence view, Ms. Klinecht produced a copy of the evidence log upon which Ms. Klinecht placed asterisks beside the items that Salisbury instructed her to withhold from defense counsel. (Tr. at 723-724.)

            Defense counsel’s investigator photographed the two-page evidence log.  A copy of the photograph of the Medina County Sheriff’s evidence log, displayed to defense counsel and her investigator prior to trial, and previously attached to Petitioner’s Reply to State’s Opposition to Correct the Record; Opposition to Disqualify Petitioner’s Counsel, filed on September 8, 2011, is appended hereto as Exhibit 12.

            Defense counsel filed her Rule 16 Discovery Demand on June 29, 2009.  Included among the discovery sought, and expressly requested, were:

“Any…photographs…recordings… available to or within the custody or control of the State, which are material to the preparation of the defense….” 

“All evidence known, or by exercise of due diligence may become known, to the prosecuting attorney, favorable to the Defendant, or discrediting to the State’s case (“Brady Material,” as defined in Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny), and material to either guilt or punishment, specifically including, not limited to the following: …

5.         The existence and identification of each occasion on which each State witness has testified to, or otherwise provided as statement, or narrative purporting to describe the facts of this case, whether oral, transcribed, recorded, written, reported, or summarized, together with copies of all such testimony, transcripts, recordings, statements, narratives, reports, or written summaries of oral statement;

7.         Any executed or unexecuted written, tape recorded or summarized oral statement(s) of whatever kind and description in the possession, custody, or control of the State, its agents, or the prosecuting attorney, made by or obtained from any person regarding the incident at issue;

8.         All other mitigating and/or exculpatory materials.

            The prosecutor refused to turn over the requested exculpatory evidence.  Accordingly, on July 27, 2009, defense counsel failed Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery; and Renewed Motion for a Bill of Particulars.  Salisbury filed no opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Compel.  The trial court did not rule on the Motion to Compel and failed to compel the prosecutor to turn over the exculpatory evidence.

            At the close of the September 4, 2009 segment of the four-part suppression hearing, defense counsel discussed discovery issues with the trial court. (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 123.)  Defense counsel informed the trial court that she had received exculpatory information from Roy “Al” Leighton and specifically requested the tape-recorded interview of Mr. Leighton be turned over to the defense, further stating her belief that Salisbury was withholding Brady material.  (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 124-125.)  Salisbury stated to the Court, “… I don’t want to give her the tape.”  Salisbury then turned over the audiotape of the May 29, 2009 interview of Roy “Al” Leighton to the trial judge.  (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 143.)

            Defense counsel then brought the matter of the photographs of the Petitioner’s wife, taken by Deputy Clinage at the scene of the purported incident, to the attention of the trial court.  Salisbury denied he had any such photographs, even though they were specifically itemized on the report of Deputy Clinage.  (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 145.)

            Petitioner’s counsel then informed the trial judge that the Sheriff’s evidence custodian had been instructed to refuse to turn over the photographs of the purported “injuries,” allegedly sustained by petitioner’s wife, to defense counsel.  (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 145.)

            The trial judge then instructed Salisbury, “But if you’ve got pictures, give them pictures.”  (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 146.)  Shortly thereafter, the trial judge addressed Salisbury, “If you’ve got photographs, make a reasonable effort to find those photographs.  If you do, you have got to give them to me. I’ll take a look and see if they’re exculpatory.”  (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 148.)

            Salisbury later informed the trial judge that he had been informed by Deputy Clinage that Clinage had taken photographs of Petitioner’s wife at the scene.  Salisbury then added, “I will provide that.” (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 154-155.)

            Further, given the Salisbury’s refusal to turn over the exculpatory evidence, on September 24, 2009, defense counsel filed Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why the Assistant Prosecutor Should Not Be Held In Contempt of Court and Subject to Sanctions, incorporating by reference Petitioner’s prior discovery demands.  Salisbury filed no opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Show Cause.  Once again, the trial court failed to rule on the motion, and failed to compel Salisbury to turn over the exculpatory evidence.  (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 160.)  The trial judge never addressed the Motion to Show Cause.

            In pretrial discussion of the Motions in limine, held on November 9, 2009, defense counsel reiterated to the trial judge, “we still have not seen those photographs” or the audio tape of the May 29, 2009 interview of Roy “Al” Leighton.  (Tr. Pretrial at 13-14.)

            The trial judge agreed to review the audio taped interview of Roy “Al” Leighton and make it available to defense counsel prior to the cross-examination of Mr. Leighton.  Salisbury stated that he had turned over the audiotape to the trial judge.  (Tr. Pretrial at 14).

            The trial judge, despite his earlier assurances to defense counsel that he would “give (defense counsel) an opportunity” to review the audio cassette tape of the oral statement given by Roy “Al” Leighton to sheriff’s deputies on May 29, 2009, refused to turn over the audio tape at trial.  (Tr. Pretrial at 14; Tr. at 344-346.)  During a sidebar conference at trial, Defense counsel once again informed the trial judge that the defense still had not been provided production of the exculpatory photographs.  (Tr. at 347.)

The trial judge never made the audiotape of the oral statement given by Roy “Al” Leighton or the requested photographs available to the defense, at trial or at any other time.       

At trial, Kimberly Leighton falsely testified that, when Petitioner’s wife Melissa arrived at her home, Melissa “had marks.  It appeared to me that somebody grabbed her by the neck.”  (Tr. at 272.)  Petitioner’s wife disputes the testimony of Kimberly Leighton and denies that there were “marks” around her neck, suggestive of choking, as Ms. Leighton insinuated.

The photographs of Petitioner’ s wife, had they been turned over to the defense, would have refuted the testimony of Ms. Leighton concerning “marks” around the neck of Melissa, and would have affected the credibility of the entirety of her testimony.  The audiotape of the May 29, 2009 interview of Roy “Al” Leighton, had it been turned over to the defense, would have included statements of Mr. Leighton that Petitioner did not burglarize his home, and that Mr. Leighton did not wish to press criminal charges against Petitioner.

Neither the trial judge nor Salisbury ever turned over the exculpatory photographs or the exculpatory audiotape of the May 29, 2009 oral statement of Roy “Al” Leighton to the defense, at trial or at any other time.   By denying that the Office of the Medina County Prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence from Petitioner, the prosecutor is now laying culpability for concealing and withholding this exculpatory evidence from Petitioner squarely at the feet of the trial judge, which may very well be true.

Despite his sweeping denials, the prosecutor has offered no countervailing evidence to dispute or challenge the record, which documents that Brady material was deliberately withheld from Petitioner.

ONCE AGAIN, NEWBY KERN HAS FAILED TO SUPPORT HIS SWEEPING DENIALS, WHICH HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER, WITHOUT ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE.


THIS INNOCENT DEFENDANT HAS, HOWEVER, PRODUCED PROOF AND EVIDENCE THAT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, FACILITATED BY LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, HAS INDEED WITHHELD EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE FOR THIS INNOCENT DEFENDANT.  THE UNLAWFUL CONDUCT OF SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, AND LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER CONSTITUTES MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF OHIO, SPECIFICALLY TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE, A FELONY OF THE THIRD DEGREE.


Regular readers of this blog may recall that, in a prior post, the blogger published an electronic message from SALISBURY , THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, who openly admitted that the Medina County Prosecutor's Office regularly withholds exculpatory evidence from defendants because the requirement to disclose such evidence in compliance with the Brady Rule, promulgated by the United States Supreme Court, "is almost impossible to enforce." 

Newby Kern offers no more than incredible sweeping denials that he is unable to support with any competent, credible evidence.

MICH MORE TO COME ....   

WHAT HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL, IS TRYING TO CONCEAL FROM THE PUBLIC: ISSUE #4 - UNLAWFUL TAMPERING WITH THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT

Turning now to the fourth issue that HOLMAN THE CORRUPT AND LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, STUPID CRIMINALS BOTH, definitely want to conceal from the public:

           The Medina County Prosecutor and/or the Trial Court Colluded With Medina Court Reporters to Produce a Tainted “Official” Transcript of the Proceedings, in Their Entirety, by Tampering With, Altering, and Amending the Transcript, Thus Violating the Laws of the State of Ohio, Specifically ORC §§2913.42(A)(1), 2913.42(A)(2), and 2913.42(B)(4), Felony Offenses of the Third Degree.

Medina Court Reporters, a Medina County firm, is under contract with the trial judge Collier to provide court-reporting services.  Defense counsel and her investigator have detected, and continue to detect, material alterations to the “official” transcript of proceedings, all calculated and designed to deprive Petitioner of a fair hearing on his direct appeal and his Petition for Post Conviction Relief.  The level and degree of misconduct by the Medina County Prosecutor, however, was so pervasive that, by excising all of that misconduct from the transcript, there would be no transcript at all.  Nevertheless, the tampering, material alteration, and amendment to the “official” transcript was carried out, in part, with the specific intent of depriving Petitioner of his claim that he was deprived of his constitutional rights under the Confrontation Clause in that the trial judge prohibited defense counsel from fully and fairly cross-examining the State’s witnesses.  Such prohibition effectively emasculated Petitioner’s right to confront and examine his accusers.  Denial of the “right of effective cross-examination” is “constitutional error of the first magnitude” requiring reversal.  Davis v Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315-318 (1974).

            In Petitioner’s post-conviction Motion for Acquittal, filed with the court on November 23, 2009, defense counsel attached her sworn declaration enumerating the court’s “errors” at trial, and pointing to issues, expected to be raised on appeal.  A copy of defense counsel’s sworn declaration, as attached to Petitioner’s Motion for Acquittal, is appended hereto as Exhibit 9.

            On December 17, 2009, Petitioner filed his Additional Authorities and Exhibits in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Acquittal, once again pointing to issues, expected to be raised on appeal, in greater detail.  One of many issues identified was the trial court’s denial of Petitioner’s constitutional rights to effective cross-examination of the State’s witnesses, accorded to him under the Confrontation Clause and buttressed by Davis v Alaska, Id.

            On December 27, 2010, after receiving no fewer than eight extensions of time, the court reporter filed the tainted “official” transcript of the proceedings with the Clerk of the Ninth District Court of Appeals.  Attorney Robert Dixon was appointed by the trial court to represent Petitioner on his direct appeal.  Subsequently, at a much later date, Mr. Dixon made the tainted “official” transcript of the proceedings to Petitioner’s trial counsel who, under time pressures and constraints, prepared and timely filed the Petition for Post Conviction Relief as provided by ORC §2701.03(D)(1).

            Following the timely filing of the Petition for Post Conviction Relief, defense counsel and her investigator more thoroughly reviewed the “official” transcript of the proceedings and discovered the transcript had been tampered with, materially altered, and amended, with the obvious intent to deny and deprive Petitioner a fair hearing on appeal and on his Petition. Petitioner’s counsel briefed this Court with respect to the manifold inaccuracies and omissions in the “official” transcript in Petitioner’s Motion to Correct Transcripts, filed on August 4, 2011, and in Petitioner’s Reply to State’s Opposition to Correct the Record; Opposition to States’ Motion to Disqualify Petitioner’s Counsel, filed on September 8, 2011, which provide examples of specific portions of testimony that are curiously and suspiciously missing from the “official” transcript.

            More recently, Petitioner’s counsel has detected even more suspicious omissions for the transcript of the suppression hearing, at Pages 180 and 243 of the suppression hearing transcript, discussed at Section V (C) of this brief, supra.

            Further, Petitioner has filed sworn proof of certain omissions from the “official” transcript in the form of the Affidavit of Paul M. Hartman, previously attached to Petitioner’s Motion to Correct Transcripts, and appended hereto as Exhibit 10.

Also, defense counsel has attached to Petitioner’s Reply to State’s Opposition to Correct the Record; Opposition to States’ Motion to Disqualify Petitioner’s Counsel Page 56 from the Formal Complaint of Judicial and Prosecutorial Misconduct filed by Petitioner’s father with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Ohio Supreme Court on or about January 11, 2011, well prior to the time that defense counsel had access to the “official” transcripts.  In his complaint, Petitioner’s father makes reference to comments made on the record at the time of Petitioner’s sentencing on January 29, 2010.  The well-remembered comments from the trial judge are curiously missing from the “official” transcript.  A copy of Page 56 of the Formal Complaint of Judicial and Prosecutorial Misconduct, as attached to Petitioner’s brief filed on September 8, 2011, is appended hereto as Exhibit 11.

            While Petitioner has advanced proof, including sworn proof that the “official” transcript has been tampered, materially altered, and amended, the prosecutor has failed to advance any countervailing evidence to challenge or dispute Petitioner’s evidence.

SINCE THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, LAPDOG COLLIER AND MEDINA COURT REPORTER DONNA GARRITY HAVE TAMPERED WITH AND MATERIALLY ALTERED A TRANSCRIPT, THEY DO NOT WANT ANY OTHER INNOCENT CITIZENS WHOM THEY RAILROADED TO RAISE SIMILAR ISSUES.  BESIDES, THEY MOST CERTAINLY WISH TO AVOID THE FEDERAL PRISON TERMS WHICH THEY ARE DESERVEDLY DUE.


MUCH MORE TO COME ....

WHAT HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL, IS TRYING TO CONCEAL FROM THE PUBLIC: ISSUE #3 - OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE BY HIDING WITNESS

Following is the third installment of factual information, taken from this innocent Defendant's Reply Brief.


HOLMAN THE CORRUPT has attempted to conceal this information from the general public:

           The Medina County Prosecutor’s Office Refused to Produce Sheriff’s Deputy Douglas Clinage, the Officer Responsible for Issuance of the Constitutionally Defective Criminal Complaint and Arrest Warrant Charging the Petitioner, Who Was Subpoenaed by The Defense to Appear at Trial and Offer Testimony.

            Medina County Sheriff’s deputies arrested Petitioner, without probable cause, on May 27, 2009.  Deputy Douglas Clinage prepared a criminal complaint lacking a statement of essential facts, contrary to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Ohio Crim. R. 3.  Whiteley v Warden, 401 U.S. 560 1971.

 A copy of the constitutionally defective criminal complaint is appended hereto as Exhibit 5.

            During the suppression hearing, Clinage conceded that he had not sworn to the defective criminal complaint. (Suppression TR. at 242).

            Deputy Clinage then issued an arrest warrant upon his own authority and initiative, without review of the defective criminal complaint, lacking a statement of essential facts, and without review by a neutral and detached judicial officer. United States v Leon, 466 U.S. 897 (1984); Illinois v Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1982).

A copy of the constitutionally defective arrest warrant is appended hereto as Exhibit 6.

            Further, Deputy Clinage offered the following curious testimony regarding Petitioner’s arrest while under cross-examination by defense counsel:

            A.  – It was a complicated night.

            Q.  What was complicated?

            A.  Originally, he was not arrested for the burglary.[1]

            Q.  What was he arrested for?

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

(Tr. Supp. Hearing at 243.)

Deputy Frank Telatko arrested Petitioner on May 27, 2009.  The State called Deputy Telatko to testify at the suppression hearing.  (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 163.)  On direct examination, Telatko testified, “I was unsure of what his actual charges were going to be.”  (Tr. Supp. Hearing at 169.) 

            When asked by defense counsel during cross-examination at suppression hearing to articulate the basis for Petitioner’s arrest, Telatko testified “We took him into custody until we could sort it out.”   Telatko’s testimony in that regard has been unlawfully excised from the tainted “official” transcript.  However, the unlawful edit of the tainted “official” transcript failed to account for the following dialogue, proof of the unlawful tampering with the “official” transcript, found at Page 180 of the Suppression Transcript.

In an exchange with the trial court regarding her cross-examination of Deputy Telatko, defense counsel stated to the court:

This relates to the – whether or not there’s probable cause for an arrest.  So far, this officer did not observe any criminal conduct.  He wasn’t even sure what Matthew Hartman was being arrested for. (Emphasis added.)

(Tr. Supp. Hearing, at 180.)

            A diligent review of the tainted “official” transcript of the suppression testimony of Deputy Telatko discloses that marked absence of any testimony by Telatko, preceding the above-recorded quote of defense counsel, in any regard to defense counsel’s questions, or the replies, of Telatko concerning the basis of Petitioner’s arrest. Those questions and answers have been unlawfully excised from the “official” transcript.  A copy of Pages 179 - 180 of the Suppression Transcript is attached as Exhibit 7.

            Further proof that portions of the suppression hearing testimony of Deputy Telatko had been unlawfully excised from the “official” transcript of the suppression hearing can be found during the cross-examination of Telatko at trial. [2]

Q.        All right.  And on October 9^th, when you testified, do your remember being asked this questions and giving this answer?

            “What did you arrest him for?”

            And you said, “I don’t know,” you wanted to take him into custody and sort it our later?  (Emphasis added.)

            Do you remember saying you were going to say you were going to “sort it out later?”  (Emphasis added.)

SALISBURY:             Objection.

(Tr. at 369-370.)

            Following the suppression hearing, defense counsel formed the opinion that the testimony of Deputy Clinage was important to the defense case.  The defense investigator communicated this information to Petitioner in a telephone conversation. See Exhibit 3.

            The Clerk of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas served Deputy Clinage with a defense subpoena, compelling his appearance and testimony at trial.  A copy of the defense subpoena issued to Deputy Clinage is attached as Exhibit 8.

                        Deputy Clinage was present at the opening of the trial and paraded the prosecutor’s illegally seized evidence into the courtroom. (Tr. at 4, 213.)  Deputy Clinage was not sworn, offered no testimony on behalf of the State, and, after exiting the courtroom, was never to be seen again in the courthouse.  Clinage failed to appear at trial in response to the defense subpoena.[3]

            Defense counsel noticed the trial court and the prosecutor that she intended to call Deputy Clinage if the prosecutor failed to do so.  The trial judge stated to defense counsel, “You can keep them [Deputies Clinage and Telatko] under subpoena if that’s what you need to do.”  (Tr. Pretrial 11/09/2009, at 4.) 

Defense counsel noticed the prosecutor and the trial court on two successive days, on the record, that Clinage had failed to appear in response to the defense subpoena.  (Tr. 766; Tr. Post Trial Hearing at 16.).  Nevertheless, the prosecutor failed to produce Clinage, the State’s agent who signed the constitutionally defective criminal complaint accusing the Petitioner.  Neither did the trial court take any action to compel Salisbury to produce Deputy Clinage at trial.

            The prosecutor has advanced no countervailing evidence to refute the “official” record of the proceedings documenting the Medina County prosecutor failed to produce Deputy Clinage, which he was obliged to do under the law. Pennsylvania v Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), at ¶2 of syllabus.

---

[1] Curiously, the “official” tainted transcript fails to accurately memorialize Deputy Clinage’s testimony in response to the question, “Why was it complicated?”  In response, Clinage actually testified at the suppression hearing, “The charge kept changing.”  The precise suppression testimony of Deputy Clingage that “The charge kept changing” was quoted in defense counsel’s brief Additional Authorities and Exhibits in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Accquittal, filed on December 17, 2009, more than one year prior to the time that the court reported filed the tainted and materially altered “official” transcript of the proceedings.  Once Counsel’s brief alerted the person who altered the transcripts that Clinage’s testimony was damaging to the State’s case, that person used the information when selecting portions of the transcripts to excise. 

[2] A careful reading of the first twelve lines of Page 180 of the transcript of the suppression hearing discloses undeniable evidence of tampering with the transcript.  Defense counsel was questioning Telatko about the positions of officers at the scene when, at Line 5, Salisbury lodged an objection regarding Miranda issues, incongruous with the contemporaneous testimony of Telatko.

[3] Salisbury addressed the court, “Judge, I have another witness (Deputy Clinage) in the courtroom bringing in evidence.  Could I just - - I just want him to bring it in and he can leave.”  (Emphasis added.) (Tr. at 213.)

ONCE AGAIN, NEWBY KERN HAS OFFERED NO PROOF OR EVIDENCE OF HIS DENIALS THAT SALISBURY INSTRUCTED CLINAGE TO FAIL TO ANSWER THE DEFENSE SUBPOENA, WHEREAS THIS INNOCENT DEFENDANT HAS ADVANCED PROOF, INCLUDING SPECIFIC CITES TO THE CORRUPTED "OFFICIAL" TRANSCRIPT OF THESE PROCEEDINGS THAT HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH, MATERIALLY ALTERED, AND CHANGED CONTRARY TO LAW.


HOLMAN THE CORRUPT DOES NOT WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT HE HAS COLLUDED WITH LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL, AND LAPDOG COLLIER'S MEDINA COURT REPORTER DONNA GARRITY, TO TAMPER WITH AND MATERIALLY ALTER "OFFICIAL" TRANSCRIPTS.  IT IS NOW OBVIOUS THAT THIS UNLAWFUL PRACTICE OF TAMPERING WITH RECORDS, A FELONY OFFENSE OF THE THIRD DEGREE, HA BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME.


MUCH MORE TO COME ....

WHAT HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL, IS TRYING TO CONCEAL FROM THE PUBLIC: ISSUE #2 - PLACING UNDERCOVER OPERATIVE IN THE MEDINA COUNTY JAIL

Presented below is the second issue that CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN has attempted to conceal from public view, taken from this innocent Defendant's Reply Brief. filed in response to Newby Kern's Opposition to Bond.


HOLMAN THE CORRUPT attempts to conceal from the public that his office places undercover operatives in the Medina County Jail to unlawfully elicit information from inmates represented by legal counsel.

This practice has been forbidden by the U.S. Supreme Court,  and under Hoffa v United States, compels reversal of any conviction where such outrageous tactics have been employed.

           The Medina County Prosecutor’s Office Invaded the Defense Camp by Placing an Undercover Operative in the Medina County Jail to Elicit Information From Petitioner Following his Arraignment, With Full Knowledge That Petitioner Was A Represented Person, Thus Invading the Defense Camp in the Second Instance.

            On August 18, 19, and 20, 2009, on the very eve of Petitioner’s scheduled August 21 suppression hearing, the Medina County Prosecutor’s Office placed an undercover operative in the Medina County Jail.  The undercover operative, who assumed the name and identity of Chris Palm/Palme, made every effort to stay close at hand to Petitioner during the aforementioned dates.  Another inmate at the Medina County Jail informed Petitioner that Chris Palm/Palme was known by another name to the inmate in the community and identified Palm/Palme to Petitioner as a “narc.”  This same inmate later informed defense counsel’s investigator that the individual who used the assumed name of Chris Palm/Palme was believed to be an employee of Medina County.  The inmate, however, refused to provide the true name of the undercover operative out of fear of retaliation from Medina County officials.

Defense counsel’s investigator queried the online databases of the Medina County Clerk of Court, the Clerks of the Medina Municipal Court and the Wadsworth Municipal Court, but found absolutely no record for anyone named Chris Palm/Palme, indicative of the fact that Chris Palm/Palme had not been lawfully confined at the Medina County Jail. Additionally, a corrections officer at the Medina County Jail queried the Medina County Sheriff’s database of inmates at the request of the defense investigator and found that there was no official record of any named inmate identified as Chris Palm/Palme ever confined at the Medina County Jail.

Petitioner filed his sworn proof of Salisbury’s invasion of the defense camp by placing an undercover operative, using the assumed identity of Chris Palm/Palme, in the Medina County Jail to elicit information from Petitioner, a represented person, previously attached to Petitioner’s Surreply and Motion to Strike State’s Out of Rule Second Response; Motion to Disqualify Medina County Prosecutor’s Office, filed on August 10, 2011, which is presently appended hereto as Exhibit 4.

The Medina County Prosecutor has, to date, advanced no countervailing evidence to challenge or dispute Petitioner’s evidence that Salisbury has invaded the defense camp, in this second instance.

ONCE AGAIN, NEWBY KERN HAS FAILED TO OFFER ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS DENIALS OF THIS UNLAWFUL CONDUCT.


READERS CAN BE SURE THAT LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL, IS FULLY AWARE OF THIS UNLAWFUL PRACTICE AND SIMPLY IGNORES IT WHEN BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION, AS WELL AS THE HOLDINGS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN THIS REGARD.


MUCH MORE TO COME ....

WHAT HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL, IS TRYING TO CONCEAL FROM THE PUBLIC: ISSUE #1 - INVASION OF THE DEFENSE CAMP

The blogger has pointed out that this innocent Defendant's Reply Brief Newby Kern's Opposition to Bond, like many other documents in a whole host of cases, has not been publicly displayed at the website of the Medina County of Clerk for one simple reason: HOLMAN THE CORRUPT WANTS TO SHIELD HIS OFFICE FROM PUBLIC EXPOSURE OF THE CRIMINAL CONDUCT AND MISCONDUCT BY HIS OFFICE.


The blogger, in this and in immediate future posts, will publish portion of this innocent Defendant's Reply Brief.


HERE IS THE FIRST INSTALLMENT OF THAT WHICH HOLMAN THE CORRUPT WISHES TO HIDE FROM PUBLIC VIEW:

            Medina County Assistant Prosecutor Scott Salisbury Invaded the Defense Camp By Monitoring Privileged Telephone Conversations Between the Defense Investigator and the Petitioner.

            During a pre-trial conference at the Medina County Courthouse on November 6, 2001, Medina County Assistant Prosecutor Scott Salisbury admitted to defense counsel that he had monitored telephone conversations between the Petitioner and his father, who Salisbury well knew to be defense counsel’s investigator in the case at bar. Those conversations, prior to trial, were privileged communications concerning the status of the case at bar and and defense trial strategy.  Government invasion of the defense camp compels conviction to be set aside as constitutionally defective.  Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 307 (1966).

            Petitioner filed his sworn proof of Salisbury’s invasion of the defense camp by monitoring privileged communications between the Petitioner and his defense counsel’s investigator in the manner of the Sworn Declaration of Paul M. Hartman, Investigator, The Cramer Law Group, LLC, previously attached to Petitioner’s Post Hearing Rebuttal With Exhibits, filed with the trial court on January 4, 2010, is presently attached as Exhibit 3.

            The Medina County Prosecutor has, to date, advanced no countervailing evidence to challenge or dispute Petitioner’s evidence that Salisbury invaded the defense camp.

READERS WILL TAKE PARTICULAR NOTE OF THE FACT THAT NEWBY KERN DENIES VIOLATING THIS INNOCENT DEFENDANT'S 6th AMENDMENT RIGHTS, ALTHOUGH HE PRODUCES NO PROOF OR EVIDENCE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THIS INNOCENT DEFENDANT HAS, INDEED, OFFERED SUCH PROOF.  OBVIOUSLY, HOLMAN THE CORRUPT DOES NOT WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THAT HIS OFFICE ROUTINELY INVADES THE DEFENSE CAMP (INVALIDATING ANY CONVICTION RISING THEREFROM) BY MONITORING THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN INMATES AT THE COUNTY JAIL AND INMATES' DEFENSE ATTORNEYS.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....