A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY FOR LAPDOG COLLIER

A Golden Opportunity has just arisen for LAPDOG COLLIER, the village idiot and town whore.
This blog has just received an unsolicited email from America Idol, compliments of Scott Sleazbury no doubt, announcing that it will be accepting online auditions.

That announcement opens an array of opportunities to LAPDOG COLLIER.

Just imagine LAPDOG COLLIER perched on his throne, bedecked in his flowing black robes, his skull spit-shined to brilliant glistening perfection.

Then imagine CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN seated across the courtroom, holding in his hand his latest list of orders and commands for LAPDOG.

Then, with a glint of gratitude in his eyes for the lifetime appointment to the Medina County bench that HOEMAN and the Medina County Dems have awarded him for his faithful service to HOEMAN, LAPDOG COLLIER croons that oldie, but goodie, "I'M YOUR PUPPET."

This would certainly be a sure-fire winner for LAPDOG, which he would most assuredly sing straight from the heart.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE MEDINA JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER

AN HONEST VISITING JUDGE HAS APPOINTED A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE MEDINA COUNTY JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, THE LAPDOG OF MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, FOR TAMPERING WITH AND MATERIALLY ALTERING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTS!

After a prolonged hiatus from publishing new posts at  this blog, the blogger has decided to inform the citizens of Medina County that, at long last, someone has had the courage and intestinal fortitude to address the CORRUPTION ENDEMIC IN THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTS!

A Visiting Judge has taken note of the evidence that the official transcript of the innocent citizen, whose case has been profiled at this blog, has been tampered with and materially altered.  The Visiting Judge has appointed  Special Prosecutor to investigate Lapdog Judge Christopher Collier, as well as Corrupt Medina County Prosecutor and his staff.

The local media, particularly the Medina Gassette, have either taken no notice of this fact, or shield these corrupt politicians from public exposure to the fact that they are being investigated for their misdeeds.

Interestingly enough, Medina County Ass Prosecutor Mustafah Razavi has made the incredulous claim that Medina Ass Prosecutor Scot Salisbury has not sent any of the email messages to this blog which the blogger has displayed over time.  In fact, Mustafah has gone so far as to claim that the blogger has fabricated Salisbury's numerous email messages in order to intimidate Dino Holman.  Just who does he think will believe that bit of outlandish fiction?

In fact, there are many, many emails Salisbury has sent to this blog that have not been published, simply because the blogger would have had no time to publish anything else.

Nevertheless, the blogger believes that you, the public, and particularly the citizens of Medina County, are entitled to know that there appears to be a glimmer of hope that LAPDOG COLLIER and his cohorts just may be brought to justice.

Below is a link to the COURT ORDER order appointing a Special Prosecutor to investigate LAPDOG COLLIER and CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN.

http://www.co.medina.oh.us/medct_epublicnodr/pages/viewdoc.aspx?case=09CR0229&p=1&a=168

I am quite certain that LAPDOG COLLIER, A CORRUPT JUDGE OF THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, took particular note that on this very day Federal Judge Sara Lioi sentenced Jimmy DiMora, another CORRUPT POLITICIAN, TO 28 YEARS IN FEDERAL PRISON.

Even though DiMora had received bribes, his crimes pale by comparison to those of LAPDOG COLLIER, WHO HAS DELIBERATELY DEPRIVED INNOCENT CITIZENS OF THEIR LIBERTY FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL EXPEDIENCE, THAT IS TO ASSURE HIM A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT COMPLIMENTS OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN AND THE MEDINA COUNTY DEM PARTY.

A MESSAGE FROM THE INNOCENCE PROJECT

February 7, 2012 289 EXONERATED
	Dear Friend, John Thompson spent 18 years in prison — 14 years of that on death row — for crimes he did not commit. Facing his seventh execution date, aprivate investigator discovered that scientific evidence of his innocence had been knowingly concealed by the New Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office. Think about that for a moment: While a man’s life hung in the balance, an agency meant to pursue only justice withheld evidence it knew could prove his innocence. TAKE ACTION: Contact your state legislators and urge them to strengthen oversight of prosecutorial misconduct and protections for the wrongfully convicted in your state. Thompson was eventually exonerated, and like anyone who has been so willfully and egregiously wronged,  he sued the prosecutors’ office for what they’d done to him. And he won. A jury awarded him $14 million, one million for each year on death row. When Louisiana appealed, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the spring of 2011, in a controversial 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the prosecutor’s office could not be held liable. With Connick v. Thompson, the U.S. Supreme Court took away one of the only remaining means for the wrongfully convicted to hold prosecutors accountable for willful misconduct. Although all other professionals, from doctors to airline pilots to clergy, can be held liable for their negligence, the Supreme Court has effectively given district attorney offices legal immunity for the actions of their assistants, even when an office is deliberately indifferent to its responsibility to disclose exculpatory evidence. It is now up to our elected officials to strengthen our existing systems and create new ones if necessary to ensure that prosecutor’s offices are accountable and transparent. Contact your elected officials and demand that they strengthen safeguards against prosecutorial misconduct and protections for the wrongfully convicted in your state. Sincerely, Barry Scheck Co-Director The Innocence Project
	Spread the Word Help protect the innocent by sharing this action.
	HOME  :  SUBSCRIBE  :  DONATE  :  FORWARD TO A FRIEND

LAWMAKERS IN OHIO, AND CERTAINLY MEDINA COUNTY OFFICIALS, DON'T SEEM TO HAVE AN INTEREST IN PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS AGAINST PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT.


MUCH MORE TO COM ....

WHAT JUSTICE TERRENCE O'DONNELL HAS TO SAY ABOUT EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS, A DAILY OCCURRENCE IN LAPDOG COLLIER'S KANGAROO COURTROOM #1

Regular readers of this blog are aware that this blog has exposed the improper ex parte communications between LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER and MEDINA ASS PROSECUTOR SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.


In one particularly egregious ex parte meeting in LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER was overheard to tell SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, "I'LL HELP YOU" at a scheduled post-conviction hearing held before LAPDOG COLLIER in Kangaroo Courtroom No. 1.


The innocent man whose case is being profiled at this blog, who was railroaded by LAPDOG COLLIER and SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, has presented sworn proof of this ex parte meeting, from which the defense counsel was obviously excluded. 


At the sham hearing, immediately following this forbidden ex parte conversation between LAPDOG COLLIER and SALISBURY THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.  LAPDOG COLLIER FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH HIS PROMISE TO SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. AT THE SENTENCING HEARING, LAPDOG COLLIER DENIED ALL OF THIS INNOCENT CITIZEN'S MERITORIOUS POST-CONVICTION MOTIONS.


IN DENYING THE POST-CONVICTION MOTIONS, LAPDOG COLLIER STATED THAT HE WAS DENYING THE MOTIONS "ALTHOUGH THERE ARE NUMEROUS GROUNDS."


CONVENIENTLY, LAPDOG COLLIER UNLAWFULLY REMOVED THAT REMARK FROM THE CORRUPTED "OFFICIAL" RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AS HE UNLAWFULLY TAMPERED WITH, MATERIALLY ALTERED, AND CHANGED THE TRANSCRIPT.  (TAMPERING WITH RECORDS, A FELONY OF THE THIRD DEGREE!)


Although presented earlier at this blog, the blogger again presents his sworn proof of the egregious ex parte communication between LAPDOG COLLIER AND SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR:

What, may one ask, does the Ohio Supreme Court think of such forbidden ex parte communications between sleazy judges and sleazy attorneys?

Supreme Court Justice Terrence O'Donnell made his position clear in an opinion concerning the suspension of the law license of a sleazy Cleveland attorney, who would fit in quite well in the office of CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN and welcomed by LAPDOG COLLIER to engage in the usual and customary ex parte discussions at will..


Taken from an online news article found at http://www.wkyc.com/news/state/article/234642/23/Court-High-profile-Cleveland-attorneys-license-suspended is the following language of Justice O'Donnell directly from his opinion.

Justice Terrence O'Donnell joined the court's decision, but also entered a separate opinion, joined by Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor and Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, in which he responded to an assertion by counsel for Stafford during oral argument that ex parte communications (communications between counsel for one party and the judge outside the presence of opposing counsel) were a common practice in proceedings before the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court.

Justice O'Donnell wrote: "Participating in unauthorized ex parte communications is prohibited conduct subject to sanction. Our adversarial system of justice is dependent upon attorneys who respect, understand, and adhere to the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and impartial jurists who strictly adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct and who resist ex parte engagements. Counsel and judges are reminded of their obligation to adhere to the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct in this regard and to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Of course, given the fact that LAPDOG COLLIER, and HOLMAN THE CORRUPT completely ignore and violate the provisions of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and the decisions of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, the legal opinion of such an insignificant personage as Justice Terrence O'Donnell of the Ohio Supreme Court will hold little sway in the fiefdom of the corrupt Medina Courts.

Most certainly, LAPDOG MEDINA JUDGE COLLIER does not qualify as an
impartial jurist," to which Justice O'Donnell has alluded.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

WHAT HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL, IS TRYING TO CONCEAL FROM THE PUBLIC: ISSUE #10 - SMOKE AND MIRRORS

HOLMAN THE CORRUPTis attempting to conceal that he has already schooled Newby Kern in one of the standard tactics of his office: SMOKE AND MIRRORS.  That is, to say, one of the tried and true tactics employe by HOLMAN THE CORRUPT and his "boys" is to deflect attention away from the real issues by raising the proverbial "red herring."

Here is but one more example:

         The Assistant Prosecutor Launches Attacks Upon Petitioner’s Father That Not Only Are Untrue But Also Are Wholly Irrelevant To The Issues Raised in the Motion For Bond.

                                                                                                                  

            This prosecutor, reflecting the animus of the Medina County Prosecutor’s Office, has launched personal attacks upon Petitioner’s father that are wholly irrelevant to the issue of bond.

Petitioner’s father is a highly decorated and honorably retired Federal law enforcement officer who has demonstrated the highest level of integrity and honesty in all of the many years of his law enforcement service.

            The Medina County Prosecutor, however, has demonstrated by this brief and by the egregious display of unchecked prosecutorial misconduct by Assistant Medina County Prosecutor Salisbury, who has an extensive and longstanding history of “widespread improper conduct in the courtroom,” that his office has very little integrity, if any, and no credibility.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

WHAT HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL, IS TRYING TO CONCEAL FROM THE PUBLIC: ISSUE #9 - KNOWINGLY ARGUING AGAINST THE STATE OF THE LAW

HOMAN THE CORRUPT tries to conceal that one his "boys" argued against the state of the law, decided by the Ninth District Court of Appeals, and, in fact, overturning LAPDOG COLLIER and SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, ON THE VERY SAME ISSUE.

            Salisbury Argued Against the Lesser-Included Offense of Criminal Trespass Knowing Full Well That The Trial Judge Had Been Previously Reversed by The Ninth District Court of Appeals on the Very Same Issue in 2008 in the Medina County Case of State v. Morris, 2008-Ohio-3209, Tried by Salisbury Before This Same Trial Judge.

            As the trial court consulted with counsel in preparation of the jury instructions, defense counsel moved the trial court to charge the jury with the lesser-included offense of Criminal Trespass.  (Tr. at 764-765, 940-943, 949-951)  Salisbury, however, argued against the lesser-included offense of Criminal Trespass based upon the premise that a trespass into an occupied structure does not permit the trial court to charge the jury with the lesser-included offense of Criminal Trespass.  (Tr. at 761-764, 936-937, 945-946, 948)  Salisbury overlooked the fact that the Ninth District Court of Appeals overturned this same trial on the identical issue in the case of State v Morris, 2008-Ohio-3209.  Salisbury tried the same Morris case before this same trial judge.

            Citing now to the record in the case at bar:

            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.

MS. CRAMER:  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)

In it’s opinion in State v Morris, the Ninth District Court of Appeals noted:

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.  Thus, the facts in Morris are strikingly similar to the case at bar insofar as Morris had frequently entered the home of Roberts on prior occasions, just as the Petitioner had entered the Leighton home on numerous prior occasions, although in the case at bar Petitioner had formed no intent, and did not commit a criminal offense within the Leighton residence.  Thus, in both Morris and the case at bar, privilege became an issue.

              The Court of Appeals in Morris 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), 9th Dist. No. 99CA007496 at *1 quoting State v Wilkins (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 382, 388.

State v. Morris, ¶ 6, Id.

              This prosecutor cannot deny that Salisbury was aware that Criminal Trespass is a lesser-included offense of Aggravated Burglary. Nor can this prosecutor deny that Salisbury argued against charging the jury with the lesser-included offense of Criminal Trespass in the case at bar.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

WHAT HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL, IS TRYING TO CONCEAL FROM THE PUBLIC: ISSUE #8 - THE COMPLETE LACK OF INTEGRITY OF THE MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

Newby Kern and HOMAN THE CORRUPT wish to conceal the complete lack of integrity of his office, epitomized by the dishonesty of his assistant, SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, which HOLMAN THE CORRUPT endorses and promotes.


After all, HOLMAN'S mantra is, "Lie a little. Lie a lot.  What's the difference?"

            No Greater Evidence of Deceit in The Case at Bar Can Be Shown Than the Manner in Which Medina County Assistant Prosecutor Scott Salisbury Introduced Forbidden Alleged “Other Acts” in Violation of Evid. R. 404(B), Which Further Demonstrates Salisbury’s Predisposition and Intent to Engage in “Widespread Misconduct in the Courtroom.”   State v. Gatt, 2011-Ohio-3263, at ¶18.

            During a pre-trial conference held at the Medina County Courthouse at the direction of the trial judge, Salisbury sprung upon defense counsel heretofore undisclosed alleged “other acts”.  Salisbury sprung the alleged “other acts” upon defense counsel on Friday, November 6, 2009, on the very eve of the trial, which was schedule to commence on Monday, November 9, 2009.  The facsimile indicia on the documents presented to defense counsel established that Salisbury had received the documents on September 11, 2009.

            In subsequent discussion with Salisbury during the pre-trial hearing, Salisbury conceded to defense counsel that purported “evidence” of the alleged “other acts” was not properly admissible as evidence.  Defense counsel sent a letter to Salisbury, dated November 8, 2009, memorializing her pre-trial discussions with Salisbury, including his concession that purported “evidence” of the alleged “other acts” was not properly admissible.

            In her letter to Salisbury, defense counsel wrote:

The Defendant’s first request for discovery, filed on June 29, 2009, requested, among other things, notice of any prior criminal record of the defendant, as well as notice of the State’s intention to introduce Rule 404(b) evidence.  The defense repeated this latter request in our Motion to Compel Discovery, filed on July 27, 2009.  The State’s discovery response did not include any prior criminal record of my client, only a misdemeanor arrest that was dismissed.  See the State’s discovery response, filed July 10, 2009.  To date, the State has not filed or provided any notice of intent to introduce Rule 404(b) evidence.  Id.

On Friday, November 6, 2009, for the first time, you gave me printouts regarding a 2004 incident.  I have reviewed the paperwork you have provided to me and it fails to disclose any felony conviction or any admissible misdemeanor conviction.  See Rule 609(A)(2), Ohio Rules of Evidence.  After you and I discussed those papers, you concede that the incident was not admissible at trial, even if Mr. Hartman took the stand and testified.  Please promptly advise me if you have changed your position and now intend to attempt to introduce this incident, so we can raise the issue of its admissibility with the Court in a motion in limine.

            A copy of defense counsel’s letter to Salisbury, dated November 8, 2009 and previously attached to Petitioner’s Motion for Acquittal, is appended hereto as Exhibit 16.

            Salisbury did not reply, in any manner, to defense counsel’s letter of November 8, 2009.

            On the morning of the first day of trial, November 9, 2009, during a discussion of Motions in limine, defense counsel raised the issue of Salisbury’s intent to introduce the forbidden alleged “other acts,” the subject of defense counsel’s November 8, 2009 letter to Salisbury. 

The following exchange is documented in the record of the discussion of the Motions in limine:

THE COURT:                        What else do you have for me?

MS. CRAMER:          Two prior orders in which my client requested additional discovery responses.  I was only told of a misdemeanor arrest, which would not be admissible; then on Friday, the prosecutor showed me another misdemeanor, which again, it’s not a truth-or-veracity issue misdemeanor.  I don’t know if he - - it seems from our discussions, he’s not intending to introduce this even if the Defendant took the stand.

THE COURT:                        Mr. Salisbury.

MR. SALISBURY:     Well, I’m definitely not introducing it in my case in chief.            (Emphasis added.)

THE COURT:                        He’s not going to use it in his case in chief, so don’t worry about that.    (Emphasis added.)

(Tr. Pretrial at 8-9)

            As soon as the trial commenced, Salisbury called Petitioner’s wife, Melissa Hartman, as his very first witness.  The trial court compelled the testimony of Petitioner’s wife despite that fact that neither she nor her children were victims of the charged crime, and in spite of the fact that she had asserted her spousal privilege on no fewer than four separate and distinct occasions, including by Affidavit.  The trial court failed to advise Petitioner’s wife that she had an absolute right to not testify under the circumstances of the case at bar.  See Evid. R. 601(B); State v Brown, 115 Ohio St.3d 55 at 67 (2007).

            During direct examination of Petitioner’s wife, his very first witness, Salisbury introduced the inadmissible alleged “other acts,” contrary to his assurances to defense counsel during discussions of the Motions in limine.  Obviously, the defense had not raised the issue of Petitioner’s character, since defense counsel had not posed a single question to Salisbury’ first witness, nor had Salisbury qualified Petitioner’s wife a hostile witness. 

(Tr. at 117-120.)

            Defense Counsel requested a sidebar conference.  (Tr. at 120.)  Defense counsel raised her objection to the introduction of the forbidden alleged “other acts” by Salisbury.  (Tr. 120-121.)   As his sole rationale for introducing the forbidden alleged “other acts”, in violation of Evid. R. 404(B), Salisbury offered his very simple, although unsound, rationale, “I don’t have any other witness to testify to this incident….”  (Tr. at 122.)  The trial court permitted Salisbury to continue and to introduce the forbidden alleged “other acts”.  (Tr. at 124.)

            To further compound his deceit in this regard, Salisbury filed State’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Acquittal, Etc., on January 6, 2010, fully 18 days after the trial court denied all of Petitioner’s meritorious post conviction motions.

 In his sham brief, in fact the only brief he ever filed in the proceedings below, Salisbury asserted, in pertinent part, “Additionally, at no time did the State ever assure or reassure that it wouldn’t use the (forbidden “other acts”) evidence.”  (Emphasis added.)  State’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Acquittal, Etc., at unnumbered Pg. 2.

The prosecutor has not, and cannot, offer any legitimate rationale, legal or otherwise, to excuse the blatant deceit and misconduct of Salisbury with regard to the introduction of forbidden alleged “other acts” at trial.

            The prosecutor’s argument that, “out of thin air (defense counsel) has constructed an entire web of lies about which there is no evidence to support the fantastic claims” is not well founded and lacks any scintilla of merit.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....