OHIO SUPREME COURT TO LAPDOG COLLIER: "GET OFF YOUR DEAD ASS!"

The Ohio Supreme Court has taken issue with the FAILURE OF LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE for his usual and customary to perform his duties diligently.  OBVIOUSLY, LAPDOG COLLIER HAS BEEN TOO BUSY EDITING,  SCRUBBING AND ALTERING TRANSCRIPTS, BEFORE MEDINA COURT REPORTER DONNA GARRITY FILES THEM WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS, FOR HIM TO PAY ANY ADEQUATE ATTENTION TO HIS MINISTERIAL DUTIES.

LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, sentenced Clifford Culgan to a term of ten years imprisonment on August 8, 2002.  In typical fashion, LAPDOG COLLIER failed to properly docket the sentencing entry, with the required pronouncements pertaining to the provisions of Culgan's term of post release control.  Now, perhaps LAPDOG COLLIER may not be entirely to blame, since it appears he delegates the preparation of the docket entries to his bailiff, who is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, either.  Best guess is that her IQ is about the same as LAPDOG'S, from which one can reasonably conclude that errors in the most minor tasks are inevitable.

On July 30, 2007, Culgan filed a motion with LAPDOG COLLIER seeking to be properly resentenced in accord with Ohio Criminal Rule 32(C).  This was Culgan's first mistake, since LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, is not familiar with the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure and, even if he were, LAPDOG COLLIER disregards them anyway, as he is ordered to do by CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN.

Needless to say, LAPDOG COLLIER expeditiously DENIED CULGAN'S MOTION ON AUGUST 1, 2007, TWO DAYS AFTER CULGAN FILED HIS MOTION. The docket entry, denying Culgan's motion, LAUGHABLY STATES THAT LAPDOG GAVE CULGAN'S MOTION "CAREFUL CONSIDERATION."

IN A PIG'S EYE!!!

On October 6. 2007, Culgan filed an appeal with the Ninth District Court of Appeals, seeking an order to compel LAPDOG COLLIER and DINO HOEMAN to issue a sentencing entry compliant with Criminal Rule 32(C).

The Ninth District Court of Appeals dismissed Culgan's appeal, so Culgan appealed the issue to the Ohio Supreme Court which ruled that LAPDOG COLLIER'S docket entry pertaining to Culgan's "sentencing entry did not constitute a final appealable order because it did not contain a guilty plea, verdict, or the finding of the court upon which Culgan's convictions were based."

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in Culgan's favor and issued an order compelling LAPDOG COLLIER to issue a proper sentencing entry that complied with Criminal Rule 32(C) and constituted a final appealable order.

Given the fact that LAPDOG COLLIER was preoccupied with editing, scrubbing, and materially altering transcripts before MEDINA COURT REPORTER DONNA GARRITY filed them with the Court of Appeals, LAPDOG took the easy way out and grudgingly docketed a "nunc pro tunc" (this for that) sentencing entry.

NOT GOOD ENOUGH.  CULGAN APPEALED LAPDOG COLLIER ONCE AGAIN.

This time, the Ninth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Culgan and agreed with Culgan's interpretation of the law that LAPDOG COLLIER "should have re-sentenced Culgan consistent with State v. Foster."

The Court of Appeals ordered LAPDOG COLLIER TO RESENTENCE CULGAN CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE OF THE LAW, WHICH LAPDOG WAS OBVIOUSLY LOATHE TO DO.

The Blogger is not at all surprised that Mr. Culgan has a better grasp of the law than does a BOOB LIKE LAPDOG COLLIER.

After he had been resentenced by LAPDOG COLLIER, Mr. Culgan once again appealed to thte Court of Appeals.  The Court of Appeals denied Culgan's appeal.

As an aside, Culgan appears to be somewhat of a gadfly and has peppered the Ninth District Court of Appeals with numerous appeals from judgments in the Medina County Kangaroo Court of Common Pleas.

On August 18, 2009, LAPDOG COLLIER resentenced Culgan to ten years imprisonment, with credit for time served.

Ultimately, Mr. Culgan served his ten-year sentence and was released from custody, subject to a period of post release control, under the authority of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority.

In March 2012, Culgan filed a motion with LAPDOG COLLIER seeking to terminate his post release control deriving from LAPDOG COLLIER'S SENTENCING ERRORS, AS IF CULGAN HAD A SNOWBALL'S CHANCE IN HELL OF PREVAILING WITH COLLIER, WHO IS NOTHING MORE THAN A LAPDOG TO CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN.

With regard to Culgan's March 2012 motion, LAPDOG COLLIER DID WHAT LAPDOG COLLIER DOES BEST: NOTHING !

Ultimately, Mr. Culgan worked his way up to the Ohio Supreme Court, which had to once again spank LAPDOG COLLIER.

FOLLOWING ARE EXCERPTS FROM THE DECISION ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT:

{¶ 4} On March 21, 2012, Culgan filed a motion to terminate postrelease

control. When no decision was made on that motion by July 24, 2012, Culgan

filed the complaint in this case in the Ninth District Court of Appeals for writs of

mandamus and procedendo. The Ninth District dismissed the complaint. State ex

rel. Culgan v. Collier, 9th Dist. No. 12CA0064-M (Aug. 8, 2012). Culgan

appealed, and both parties have submitted briefs.

{¶ 5} The appeal is now before the court for our consideration of the

merits.

{¶ 13}  Culgan’s motion, which deals with an

uncomplicated issue, has been pending in the trial court for over a year. Not only

does the judge’s failure to rule exceed the 120 days mandated in Sup.R. 40(A)(3),

but a ruling on the motion would have mooted the present case, conserving

judicial time and resources. 

                We therefore grant a writ of procedendo to compel Judge [Lapdog] Collier [The Village Idiot and Town Whore] to rule on Culgan’s motion.


THIS IS WHAT THE CITIZENS OF MEDINA COUNTY GET WHEN THEY ARE DEPRIVED BY THE DEM PARTY OF VOTING A WORTHLESS BOOB LIKE LAPDOG COLLIER OUT OF OFFICE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPLACE LAPDOG WITH A PRESUMABLY HONEST JUDGE. 

LAPDOG COLLIER DESIGNER TEE SHIRTS

CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN and his ass. prosecutors have decided to recognize MEDINA COUNTY LAPDOG judge COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, for his undying fidelity to the objectives of Hoeman's Office:  "TO PUNISH EVERYONE INDICTED BY THE MEDINA COUNTY NOT-SO-GRAND JURY."

Forget about proof!  DINO HOEMAN will manufacture that!  Forget about exculpatory evidence favorable to the defendant!  DINO HOEMAN will conceal and bury that!  Worried that the defendant did not really commit a crime?  Not to worry, LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE will make sure the innocent are convicted, no matter what it takes !

Because LAPDOG COLLIER has so faithfully carried the bags of CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN and his ass. prosecutors for so many years, the OFFICE OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN has presented LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, with a Baker's Dozen customized designer Tee shirts, shown below:

LAPDOG COLLIER SEEN FONDLING HIS BALLS AT GOLF OUTING !!!

As the Summer fades into the Fall season, Medina County residents are bracing for the long winter season inevitably headed toward Ohio.

The Labor Day Holiday heralds the unofficial end of the summer season and, like most everyone elsewhere, Medina County ended the season with a bang at the Medina County Labor Day Classic golf outing.

As usual, anybody who is anybody in the circle of Medina County movers and shakers attended, including LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE.

LAPDOG COLLIER, INCIDENTALLY, HAS STOPPED SENDING ANONYMOUS ELECTRONIC MESSAGES TO THIS BLOG, USING SUCH IMAGINATIVE PSEUDONYMS AS "LEPERCHAUN SAM" (PROPERLY SPELLED L-E-P-R-E-C-H-A-U-N), "STEVE MARTINEZ-Johnson" (HE DOES ACTUALLY RESEMBLE THE HEAD OF A "JOHNSON"), and  "PUBICUS."  NOT SUPRISINGLY, ALL OF THE NUMEROUS ANONYMOUS ELECTRONIC MESSAGES TO THE BLOG STOPPED ABRUPTLY AS SOON AS JUDGE MARKUS ORDERED AN INVESTIGATION, NAMING LAPDOG COLLIER AS A SUSPECT.

Back to the subject of the Medina County Labor Day Classic golf outing, a number of individuals report having seen LAPDOG COLLIER RIDING AROUND THE COURSE, FONDLING HIS BALLS.

Now, for LAPDOG COLLIER, this is not nearly as strange as it seems, given his erratic behavior in Kangaroo Courtroom #1 at the Medina County Courthouse, Mosque, and Railroad Station.

In fact, speculation is that, when looking bored and peering our the windows as the defense presents its case to the jury in LAPDOG'S Kangaroo Courtroom #1, LAPDOG COLLIIER IS ACTUALLY FONDLING HIS BALLS !

Now this matter needs little clarification.  The point is that LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, ordered a score of personalized golf balls, emblazoned with LAPDOG'S personal motto, "It's Good to Be the King."  LAPDOG COLLIER has adopted his personal motto, due and owing to the fact that CORRUPT MEDINA PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN and the Medina County Dem Party has granted LAPDOG A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE COURT, and he cannot be removed from his throne since the Medina County politicians have prevented the citizenry from voting him out in a fair and honest election.

LAPDOG COLLIER is so proud that he has successfully defeated the United States Constitution and of his lifetime appointment, he delights in fondling his little balls as a measure of his lifetime achievement and success!

DEJA VU !!! SEEN IT ALL BEFORE, MORE THAN ONCE !!!

In the prior post at this blog, readers were shown that the Ninth District Court of Appeals overturned the conviction of Vincent Labriola in the Medina Kangaroo Court of Common Pleas due to the "REPEATED AND EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT" OF MEDINA ASS. PROSECUTOR MUSTAFAH RAZAVI.

MUSTAFAH RAZAVI'S "REPEATED AND EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT" IN THE LABRIOLA CASE WAS NOT AN ANOMOLY AND SIMPLY DEMONSTRATES THE ONGOING COURSE OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IN THE MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, CONDONED AND PROMOTED BY CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN.

COMPARE MUSTAFAH RAZAVI'S "REPEATED AND EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT" IN THE LABRIOLA CASE WITH MUSTAFAH'S "REPEATED AND EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT" IN THE CASE BEING PROFILED AT THIS BLOG, ALONG WITH THE "REPEATED AND EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT" OF ASS. PROSECUTOR SCOTT SLEAZEBURY.

Shown below are excerpts from the transcript of the case being profiled at this blog, along with appropriate commentary.

In Labriola, at page 9, ¶27, the Court noted that “the Ohio Supreme Court has concluded that comments by the State referring to the defendant’s evidence as ‘lies,’ ‘garbage,’ and ‘[a] smoke screen’ went well beyond the normal latitude allowed in closing arguments and [was] clearly improper.”  Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d at 14.”  In [Defendant's] trial, the State’s closing argument included these very comments, repeatedly characterizing the defense evidence as “lies,” and “garbage,” and other derogatory remarks intending and accomplishing similar prejudice.  The transcript is replete with these impermissible remarks by the State’s prosecutors [Excerpts from the State’s closing arguments, with cites to pages of the transcript, follow]:

There's an old saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Something along those lines. I think that's how it goes. And the general idea is you are not going to keep accepting garbage and just say, hey, give me another try.  (Tr. at 1116.)

as much as they [the defense] want to put on ridiculous testimony and lies --I'm [SLEAZEBURY] not as polite as Mr.[Mustafah] Razavi and [Defense counsel] -- and lies to say that door was wide open every time I entered their premises, absolutely, definitely.  (Tr. at 1190).

And that's how you know that's a lie.  (Tr. at 1190).

even though, even though [Defendant] lied in his statement  (Tr. at 1193).

And I'll submit to you that the defense presented to you a lot of irrelevant, frankly useless evidence, and I submit to you on behalf of the State of Ohio that what they presented, a lot of it was, frankly, useless to your determination today.  (Tr. at 1106).  [These remarks also include use of the prosecutor’s position for improper vouching.]

the defense is going to present to you, we submit to you, the illogical and preposterous notion . . .  (Tr. at 1097-1090).

           Despite all the attempts they have made to have this preposterous notion that there's some like one-way privilege . . . (Tr. at 1098).

          Their argument is that for 30 minutes she was there sitting in the living room while he watered the flowers. Impossible. Not true. Made up.  (Tr. at 1112).

And I suggest to you that most of these [defense exhibits] are frankly worthless.  (Tr. at 1115).

Why did they put on this all? To try to distract your attention from the evidence in this case.  (Tr. at 1115).

their [defense] theory, it got so preposterous, ladies and gentlemen  (Tr. at 1124).

but the really preposterous things . . .  (Tr. at 1125).

That's ridiculous.  (Tr. at 1191).

That's something they made up later to try to say that this time elapsed, which it didn't.  (Tr. at 1193)

The best story he could come up with is he's going there, this night, to Deputy Clinage, this is what Clinage told you, "I'm going there to cool off and to go groundhog hunting." Well, curiously, Al Leighton never told you that. Because it's not true.  (Tr. at 1202).

 

The Court, in Labriola, at page 9, ¶27, confirmed earlier holdings that, “A prosecutor may not express any opinion as to the credibility of a witness or as to the defendant’s guilt.” Citing State v. Kirby, 9^th Dist. No. 23814, 2008- Ohio-3107, at ¶23.  In[Defendant's] trial, the State violated this well-established law and actually stated the following to the jury:

"the State of Ohio has every right to comment upon it and comment upon the credibility of those witnesses."  (Tr. at 1117). 

 

 

NOT SO. . .  ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO ! ! ! !

 

      The State then proceeded to deceive and mislead the jury, by dictating the conclusions that the State wanted, namely, that [Defendant], all of his witnesses, and even his counsel were lying to them and deliberately trying to mislead them.  For example, when her testimony hurt the State’s case, the State chose to mischaracterize the  truthful testimony of [Defendant's] wife as “a whopper.” 

 

Specifically, the prosecutors stated:

 

[Defendant's wife] got up here and really, I think, hit you with a whopper  (Tr. at 1105).

 

And now [Defendant's wife] wants you to believe, oh, it was all, it was all Kim.  (Tr. at 1113).

 

Now, [Defendant's wife] tried to mislead you.  (Tr. at 1197).

 

You know, there's been a lot of quotes and a lot of sayings, and I'm not big on that and I don't pretend to be so presumptuous as to quote Shakespeare or read Shakespeare, but there's one quote that I like, because I don't read Shakespeare, have never read Shakespeare, butwhen a play is cast in hell, Shakespeare said, do not expect the actors to be angels. Okay? And that's very, very appropriate in this case. Because [Defendant's wife] got her -- got -- was assaulted, reacted appropriately that day, and now she's trying to save her family.  So she is not being honest about what happened that day.  (Tr. at 1197-1198).  [ IF SLEAZEBURY HAS NEVER READ SHAKESPEARE, HE OBVIOUSLY MADE THIS UP - TYPICAL FOR A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. ]

 

[Defendant is] not a valid broker of the evidence.  (Tr. at 1198).

 

[Defense witness] gave me the preposterous answer . . .  (Tr. at 1123).

 

[Defense witness is] just not telling the truth, okay, to protect his friend.  (Tr. at 1124).

this is not the place for you to get people to come in and give you false characterizations about the nature of people's relationships  (Tr. at 1124).

 

[Defense witness] can't say that [Defendant] has privilege to go in the Leighton's house. That's ridiculous.  (Tr. at 1191).

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you the testimony of [Defense investigator, an honorably retired federal agent.]  It's like an oh-for on all of those. That's an abject failure as to all of this, and let me tell you why, ladies and gentlemen, why he fails the credibility test in these instructions.  (Tr. at 1117).

 

[Testimony] certainly was not frank or reasonable. [Defense investigator] certainly wasn't trying to provide him the truth. He was trying to avoid answering.  (Tr. at 1120).

 

Ladies and gentlemen, you hear, and it's palpable, in [Defense investigator's] appearance and his manner of testimony, a disingenuous nature, a not frank nature, an interest or bias in this case. There is no doubt about it. And his testimony doesn't even make sense.  (Tr. at 1121).

 

when you watch [Defense investigator] up there, that was cat and mouse games  (Tr. at 1124).

 

How disingenuous and nonfrank and not credible is [Defense investigator's] testimony?  You don't have to accept testimony that is so disingenuous and nonfrank.  (Tr. at 1125).

 

But [Defense investigator] the best investigator in the world wants to sell you that bill of goods.  (Tr. at 1126).

 

I don't want to distract you from the facts in this case, which is, I believe, and I told you this, the intention of their defense.  (Tr. at 1126).

 

These things, ladies and gentlemen, all these photographs, I submit to you on behalf of the State of Ohio, [improper vouching] these pictures of firearms, these pictures of automobiles, these pictures of the outlet, and like seven pictures of the outlet and all different stores are a distraction. [attacking the honesty and value of the defense evidence in an impermissible manner.]  (Tr. at 1114).

 

since you have heard for an hour and a half of [Defense counsel] mischaracterizing the evidence  (Tr. at 1186).

 

[Defense counsel] wants to mislead you. Intentionally.  (Tr. at 1187).

 

 

Corrupt Medina County Prosecutor DINO HOEMAN obviously approves of the ongoing PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT of Ass. prosecutors SCOTT SLEAZEBURY and MUSTAFAH RAZAVI, in that HOEMAN has failed to take any corrective action to curb these ass. prosecutors gone wild, despite repeated chastisement from the Court of Appeals.

The Blogger believes a Federal Judge will view the recurrent misconduct of HOEMAN'S office quite differently!

 

The excerpts of Mustafah's and Sleazebury's misconduct during closing arguments would make a text book example to a first-year law student of how not to conduct closing argument at trial.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals has seen it all before, and will most certainly see it all again . . . and again . . . and again.