MUSTAFAH RAZAVI SNAKEBIT BY HIS OWN LIES TO THE COURT !!!

Regular readers of this blog may recall that, over time, the blogger has excerpted some of the offensive electronic messages sent to this blog by the MORONS OVER AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE, MOSQUE & RAILROAD STATION.

ONE OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED MORONS HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS NONE OTHER THAN MEDINA ASS. PROSECUTOR MUSTAFAH RAZAVI !!! 

On October 31, 2011, one of the morons at the Medina County Courthouse, Mosque & Railroad Station sent the following electronic message to the blogger:

Scott Sleaze medina.corruption@gmail.com via blogger.bounces.google.com	10/31/11
to me

 

Scott Sleaze has sent you a link to a blog:

Hey old man, we got your guy out! We'll get one of Baxter's friends in here! Do you not get it! We own the whole thing! All the way to the Federal Appeals Court!

This particular message came to the blog after the Honorable Judge Robert Brown stepped aside and withdrew from deciding the Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. filed by the innocent man whose case is being profiled at this blog.  CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN filed an affidavit of disqualification against Judge Brown with the Ohio Supreme Court after Judge Brown chastised Medina Ass. prosecutor SCOTT SLEAZEBURY made an improper attempt to influence Judge Brown.   See prior post at this blog, captioned WHO WILL HOLMAN TRY TO BRIBE NEXT ? found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/11/who-will-holman-attempt-to-bribe-next.html

The message to the blog, shown above, certainly insinuates that the Supreme Court will appoint another corrupt judge, like LAPDOG COLLIER, to replace Judge Brown.

The Supreme Court appointed retired Judge Richard Markus to hear this case after Judge Brown stepped aside.  Counsel for the innocent man, whose case is being profiled at this blog, promptly notified Judge Markus of the above-electronic message, as well as the issue of the materially altered and corrupted transcripts filed with the Ninth District Court of Appeals by DONNA "HAVE IT YOUR WAY" GARRITY, LAPDOG COLLIER'S PERSONAL COURT REPORTER.

WHAT TURNED OUT TO BE THE IRONY OF IRONIES, MUSRAFAH RAZAVI DELIBERATELY LIED TO JUDGE MARKUS WHEN HE MADE THE DISINGENUOUS CLAIM THAT THE BLOGGER SENT THE ABOVE-MESSAGE TO HIMSELF TO INTIMIDATE THE CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE.

AS THE READER WILL SEE, THIS DELIBERATE LIE BY MUSTAFAH RAZAVI ULTIMATELY TURNED TO BITE HIM IN THE BUTT - BIG TIME.

In response, Judge Markus ordered an investigation into the deliberate tampering with the trial transcripts (which Mike DeWine whitewashed) and the authorship of the above offending email message, impugning the integrity of Judge Markus.

AS IT TURNS OUT, MUSTAFAH RAZAVI IS THE APPARENT AUTHOR OF THE MESSAGE TO THIS BLOG, SHOWN ABOVE.  AS A RESULT, JUDGE MARKUS HAS SUBMITTED THE INFORMATION, GLEANED FROM THE "INVESTIGATION" HE ORDERED, TO THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL OF THE SUPREME COURT FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION TO BE TAKEN IN THE MATTER OF MUSTAFAH RAZAVI.  MY, HOW THE WORM TURNS!!!

LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS !!!

Medina Ass. prosecutor MUSTAFAH RAZAVI has apparently not learned this lesson. In making one particular sarcastic, off-the-cuff remark, MUSTAFAH inadvertently revealed that he is the author of  at least some of the offensive electronic messages sent to the blog, which has since turned out to bite him in the end (the rear end).

On one occasion, when leaving LAPDOG COLLIER'S KANGAROO COURTROOM NO. 1 at the Medina County Courthouse, Mosque & Railroad Station, MUSTAFAH made a sarcastic remark about his "muslim skin."

The blogger knew at that very moment that MUSTAFAH RAZAVI had been the author of at least some of the offensive messages sent to this blog.

During the course of publishing this blog in its entirety, the blogger never referred to Razavi as a Muslim !!!

MUSTAFAH however, using the alias of SAM LEPERCHAUN
(notice the incorrect Arabic spelling of "Leprechaun") sent a message to this blog on December 26, 2010, an excerpt of which is presented below:

Sam Leperchaun <leperchaunsam@yahoo.com>

Is it true that we do have an actual Muslim working in the Prosecutor's office. I'd advise informing the local Tea Party groups (they are known as 9-12 or Friends And Neighbors, whatever they have called themselves now, they are all fake for the most part). But they will latch on to a liberal Rat Holman employing a Mooslim in the office, IF THIS IS TRUE, do not make any blatantly false allegations, you are dealing with a poltical machine that can railroad you to a nice ride in state prison.

In reply, the blogger sent this message to "Sam Leperchaun"  (Mustafah Razavi):

Miguel Sword <medina.corruption@gmail.com>	12/27/10
to Sam

 

Thank you, and may God bless you and family.  By the way, re: Muslim in the prosecutor's office.  One criminal Assistant is Matthew Razavi, of Middle Eastern descent, but I don't know his religion.

The reader can see, then, that it was MUSTAFAH RAZAVI  who referred to himself as a Muslim in this email exchange with the blogger.

That fact, of course, is what may be considered to be the first clue.

Remember this for the future, MUSTAFAH: LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS AND YOU HAVE SUNK YOUR OWN SHIP.

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

 

 

JUDGE KIMBLER'S BLOG "TEAM MEMBER" PLAYS THE SHELL GAME !

In the prior post at this blog, readers were shown how Judge Kimbler's blog "team member" attempted to minimize MUSTAFAH RAZAVI'S PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT in the case of State v. Labriola.

Readers will now be shown the lengths to which Judge Kimbler's "team member" has gone to conceal from the public, quoting the Ninth District Court of Appeals, "THE EGREGIOUS AND WIDESPREAD MISCONDUCT" OF MEDINA ASS. PROSECUTORS SCOTT SLEAZEBURY AND MUSTAFAH RAZAVI.

Displayed below, for the reader's consideration, is the following post taken from Judge Kimbler's blog:

 

The reader will note that the "team member"  attempts to conceal the DELIBERATE MISCONDUCT AT TRIAL BY SCOTT SLEAZEBURY AND MUSTAFAH RAZAVI, DESCRIBING THEIR DELIBERATE MISCONDUCT AS "ERRORS."

 

 

IT'S TIME TO REVIEW WHAT THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS HAD TO SAY ABOUT WHAT JUDGE KIMBLER'S "TEAM MEMBER" DESCRIBED AS SIMPLE "ERRORS" :

 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR XIII

DESPITE PREVIOUS WARNINGS FROM THIS APPELLATE COURT IN

HARTMAN I, THE STATE COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BYREPEATED ACTS OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT THAT PERVADED THE ENTIRE TRIAL AND AGAIN DENIED HARTMAN A FAIR TRIAL, BY ASSERTING FACTS THE EVIDENCE CONTRADICTED, DENIGRATING HARTMAN AND HIS DEFENSE COUNSEL, AND

ASSERTING PERSONAL OPINIONS.

{¶15} Mr. Hartman asserts in his thirteenth assignment of error that he was denied his

constitutionally protected right to a fair trial because of misconduct by the prosecutor. Viewing the entirety of the prosecutors’ closing argument in the context of the entire trial, we agree.
 
{¶16} We note that in the prior appeal, Mr. Hartman alleged prosecutorial misconduct during his first trial. See Hartman, 2012-Ohio-745, at  28. We stated that we had “addressed similar issues in other recent opinions and are confident that the issues will not be repeat should Mr. Hartman be retried.” Id.

{¶17} “When a defendant alleges that remarks by the prosecutor during closing argument denied him a fair trial, we consider ‘whether the remarks were improper and, if so, whether they prejudicially affected substantial rights of the defendant.’” State v. Cleland, 9^th Dist. Medina No. 09CA0070-M, 2011-Ohio-6786, ¶ 32, quoting State v. Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d 13, 14 (1984), citing United States v. Dorr, 636 F.2d 117 (5th Cir.1981).

 

 

Although the State is generally accorded a certain degree of latitude during

closing argument, “[t]he prosecutor is a servant of the law whose interest in a

prosecution is not merely to emerge victorious but to see that justice shall be

done. It is a prosecutor's duty in closing arguments to avoid efforts to obtain a

conviction by going beyond the evidence which is before the jury.”

 

 

13-14. “The prosecutor may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at trial, and may comment on those inferences during closing argument.” State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 466 (2001). However, “the prosecution must avoid insinuations and assertions which are calculated to mislead the jury.” Smith at 14. Additionally, “[i]t is improper for an attorney to express his personal belief or opinion as to the credibility of a witness or as to the guilt of the accused.” Id. Moreover, “[i]t is improper [for the prosecution] to denigrate defense counsel in the jury’s presence.” State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404, 2008-Ohio-2, ¶ 304. “[A] conviction based solely on the inflammation of fears and passions, rather than proof of guilt, requires reversal * * *.” State v. Williams, 23 Ohio St.3d 16, 20 (1986).

{¶18} The Ohio Supreme Court in Smith concluded that reversible error occurred in a situation in which, during closing argument, “the assistant prosecutor referred to defense evidence as ‘lies,’ ‘garbage,’ ‘garbage lies,’ ‘[a] smoke screen,’ and ‘a well conceived and well rehearsed lie[,]’” and additionally “intimated that defense counsel had suborned perjury by manufacturing, conceiving and fashioning lies to be presented in court.” Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d at 14. The Supreme Court noted that there was no evidence in the record to support the accusations. Id.

 

{¶19}

Unfortunately, we face a similar situation in the instant matter. While there are several improper (and unobjected to) comments from the State during its initial closing argument (asserting that the testimony of a defense witness was disingenuous and not credible and that defense theories were preposterous and essentially garbage), the improper comments and inferences continued to mount during the State’s rebuttal.

The record reflects that the State’s rebuttal is rife with argument that is disrespectful and disparaging of defense counsel, defense

witnesses, and defense theories of the case. The tone is clearly inflammatory. The State repeatedly impugns the integrity of defense counsel, accusing her of (1) mischaracterizing the evidence, (2) telling the jury “everything about the evidence that it was not[,]” and (3) seeking to intentionally mislead the jury. Additionally, the State accuses defense witnesses and defense counsel of lying. For example, when responding to the testimony that defense witnesses offered about the condition of the Leightons’ door when they would visit, the State stated that “[p]eople don’t leave their doors open, as much they want to put on ridiculous testimony and lies * * * to say that door was wide open every time I entered their premises, absolutely, definitely.” The State went on to assert that, if that were true, the defense witness who photographed much of the scene would have taken a picture of the door being open, and because there was no picture, scene would have taken a picture of the door being open, and because there was no picture, “that’s how you know that’s a lie.” Further, when discussing Deputy Clinage’s recollection of the unrecorded statement that Mr. Hartman made to police, the State asserted that because a certain fact was not in the statement, that the fact was “something they made up later * * *.” The State went on to comment, “And the difference in the State’s – what the State presented you and what the defense presented you is our evidence actually makes sense and it fits, every single thing, including his statement, even though, even though he lied in his statement and tried to say he was going groundhog hunting.” Ultimately, it was the State’s repeated comments about lies and mischaracterization of the evidence that led defense counsel to finally object during a sidebar. Defense counsel correctly pointed out that “it is improper to say a witness lied and to say an attorney is lying or misleading.” Nonetheless, the trial court, while expressing concern that the prosecutor was possibly making references to matters that were not in evidence, overruled the objection and the assistant prosecutor’s inappropriate comments continued. The State went on to accuse Mrs. Hartman of attempting to mislead the jury and stated that “she is not being honest about what happened that day[,]” and that she “tried to make you believe this time frame that wasn’t true[.]” The State again asserted that Mr. Hartman’s statement to Deputy Clinage that he was going over the Leighton’s to go groundhog hunting was “not true[]” essentially because Mr. Leighton, the State’s witness, did not testify to that.

 

{¶20} Thus, the State repeatedly argued that witnesses were lying, that defense theories were ridiculous, and that defense counsel was mischaracterizing the evidence. [The] conflict in the evidence is to be resolved by the jury, not the prosecutor’s assessment that the defense witnesses must be lying because their version of events is ridiculous in the eyes of the State. We note that even the State’s concluding remarks are problematic: the State summarized stating that “[n]othing, nothing they have presented to you makes any sense whatsoever with regard to innocence. Nothing. We have presented you * * * nothing but evidence of guilt in this case.” It is well established that “prosecutors may not invade the realm of the jury by, for example, stating their personal beliefs regarding guilt and credibility, or alluding to matters outside the record.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Akron v. McGuire, 9th Dist.Summit No. 24638, 2009–Ohio–4661,  13.

 

{¶22} Additionally, we cannot say that the case against Mr. Hartman was overwhelming

 

 

{¶24}Given the conflicting evidence and theories of the case, we cannot say that the State’s improper comments with respect to defense counsel and the credibility of witnesses did not impact the outcome of this trial.

 

 

 

{¶25} In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the prosecutor’s improper remarks prejudicially affected the substantial rights of Mr. Hartman.

 

 

 

{¶36}It was not until closing argument in general, and the State’s rebuttal in particular, that the wheels came off for the prosecution. The rebuttal prosecutor impugned the motives of defense counsel, stated personal opinions about facts in the case, and repeatedly called defense witnesses liars. [T]he [prosecutors’] statements went so far beyond the bounds of professional conduct in a courtroom, that I find it impossible to say that in a close case such as this one, a jury would have found the defendant guilty even without the improper comments

 

{¶37} The unfortunate result is that this case will be remanded once again to the trial court where it is likely that yet more resources will be expended for yet another retrial. Whether that in fact happens is beyond our purview. However, where this Court attempted in its last opinion to gently suggest that the State not repeat its indiscretions, I will say it bluntly: the prosecuting attorney(s) are much too personally invested in this case to be objective. Hopefully, reassignments for any retrial will be considered.

 

So, as the reader can see, this case has been reversed on the grounds of "egregious and widespread" DELIBERATE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, rather than innocuous "errors" the Judge Kimbler's "team member" tries to suggest. 

 

 

 

JUDGE KIMBLER'S BLOG HAS QUITE A "TEAM" !

Quite accidentally, the blogger stumbled across Judge Kimbler's Blog.  Judge Kimbler has to be given credit for posting various recently decided cases and makes the attempt to make the law available to the common man, like the blogger.  In fact, Lapdog Collier would be well served by reading Judge Kimbler's blog whenever he takes a break from TAMPERING WITH AND ALTERING "OFFICIAL" TRANSCRIPTS.

Thee blogger, however, takes issue with Judge Kimbler's selection of his blog's "team members," at least one of whom has taken significant steps to conceal the true facts of recent decisions of the Ninth District Court of Appeals pertaining to cases tried in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas.

Take, for example, the following post appearing on Judge Kimbler's blog:

Note how Judge Kimbler's "team member" soft-sells the PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT the Ninth District Court of Appeals found in the Labriola case.

Excerpts from the Labriola Decision are shown below:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

 

THE PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS DURING CLOSING ARGUMENT AND

FAILURE TO PROVIDE ALL EVIDENCE ROSE TO THE LEVEL OF
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WHICH DEPRIVED MR. LABRIOLA OF
HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF HIS 5TH, 6TH, AND
14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND
ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

{¶24} Labriola argues that he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial based
 on improper conduct by the State. This Court agrees. 

¶25} Labriola first argues that the State’s repeated comments during closing argument about his lack of credibility and other witnesses’ credibility deprived him of a fair trial.

{¶26} Although the State is generally accorded a certain degree of latitude during

closing argument, “[t]he prosecutor is a servant of the law whose interest in a prosecution is not merely to emerge victorious but to see that justice shall be done. It is a prosecutor’s duty in closing arguments to avoid efforts to obtain a conviction by going beyond the evidence which is before the jury.” (Internal citations omitted.) State v. Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d 13, 13-14 (1984). As an initial matter, the State [Mustafah Razavi] “must avoid insinuations and assertions which are calculated to mislead the jury.” Id. at 14, citing Berger v. United States, 295 U.S.78, 88 (1935).

{¶27} This Court has adopted the Ohio Supreme Court’s test in evaluating a claim of
prosecutorial misconduct arising during closing argument. We must determine “whether the prosecutor’s remarks were improper and, if so, whether the remarks prejudicially affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Kirby, 9th Dist. No. 23814, 2008-Ohio-3107, ¶ 23, citing Smith at 14. Specifically, a prosecutor may not express any opinion as to the credibility of a witness or as to the defendant’s guilt. Kirby at ¶ 23. For example, 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. A reviewing court focuses not merely on the culpability of the prosecutor, but rather considers the trial record as a whole to determine whether the defendant received a fair trial. Kirby at ¶ 23, citing State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 166 (1990).

 

{¶28} During closing argument, the State [Mustafah Razavi] repeatedly commented on Labriola’s    testimony as untruthful, implausible, and full of lies. For example, in comparing Labriola’s  testimony to that of other witnesses, the assistant prosecutor [Mustafah Razavi] asserted: “You only heard that from Mr. Labriola who, by the way, his testimony is untruthful and I’ll point out a lot of ways why it’s untruthful.” Labriola objected to this statement, arguing that the prosecutor “has no idea whether it’s truthful or not. That’s misleading.” When directed by the trial court to rephrase, the State [Mustafah Razavi] continued by asserting that “this man right here, Vincent Labriola, his testimony is full of mistruths and lies. It’s clear as it can be and that’s my argument to you.” Later, the State [Mustafah Razavi] informed the jury: “You heard what I call and what I submit to you is false testimony of the   
Defendant * * *.” The assistant prosecutor [Mustafah Razavi] asserted that Labriola’s “excuses” were “implausible” and that he “in fact, lied.” The State argued that “if * * * you’re Vincent Labriola, and I submit to you a liar as he has been throughout this case when he testified, you think up   another lie for that * * *.”

{¶29} In addition, the assistant prosecutor commented on Labriola’s explanations, stating that “[t]hat affects his credibility. You don’t accept every story.” The State even went so far as to effectively inform that jury that they must either believe or discount all testimony from any single witness. The State argued that Labriola wanted the jury to believe the State’s witnesses as their testimony aligned with his but not when it did not: “That’s not the way it works. That’s not the way human beings work. That’s not the way that 12 people that are peers that are deciding the case decide credibility.”

{¶30} In his rebuttal argument, the assistant prosecutor asserted that the State did not present the testimony of Steven Combs because it did not want “to parrot your lies * * *.” In conclusion, the assistant prosecutor told the jury that the State “has been an honest broker of the evidence in this case[,] * * * characterizing the evidence in a more believable fashion.”

{¶31} Finally, the State commented on the credibility of some of its witnesses, going so
far as to emphasize the witnesses’ traits to bolster their credibility. After recapping the testimony of Chris Adam and Ryan Sweeney, the assistant prosecutor stated: “I suggest to you that they were very credible in their testimony. Frankly, they’re very likeable and straight forward.”

{¶32} This Court concludes that the assistant prosecutor’s repeated comments about Labriola’s untruthfulness crossed the line into impropriety. See Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d at 14. Moreover, we conclude that the State’s repeated and egregious misconduct prejudicially affected  Labriola’s substantial rights so as to deprive him of a fair trial. Even after being directed by the trial court at one point to rephrase, the assistant prosecutor only more emphatically called Labriola a liar. In fact, the crux of the State’s argument was that Labriola lied under oath, while the State’s witnesses told the truth. Under the circumstances of this case, the State’s misconduct deprived Labriola of his constitutionally protected right to a fair trial. Thus, as the State’s remarks prejudicially affected the defendant’s substantial rights and undermined the integrity of he proceeding, Labriola’s first assignment of error is sustained.

THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS HAS SENT A MESSAGE TO CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN AND HIS MINIONS: LYIN' AND DENYIN' BEFORE THE JURY, AS A STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE, IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MUSTAFAH RAZAVI FAILS TO "HOLMANIZE" INNOCENT CITIZEN !!

The following was taken from the online Medina Court News, a weekly newsletter intended to inform Medina County residents of the shenanigans over at the Medina County Courthouse, Mosque, and Railroad Station:

 

 

Hinckley Man Found Not Guilty of Robbery

Jeffrey A. Kitko, of 2622 Marland Drive, in HInckley Township was found not guilty by a jury in Judge Kimbler's court on Wednesday. Mr. Kitko was charged with robbery from an incident that took place on August 15, 2012, when he was walking home from a nearby tavern. While he was walking home he got into a neighbor's truck and attempted to drive it from the neighbor's driveway.

 The neighbor woke up, and he and his girlfriend confronted Mr. Kitko. The confrontation ended with Mr. Kitko being thrown to the ground and then walking off the neighbor's driveway. He was later arrested at his home, which was located four houses away from the neighbor's home. The neighbor woke up, and he and his girlfriend confronted Mr. Kitko. The confrontation ended with Mr. Kitko being thrown to the ground and then walking off the neighbor's driveway. He was later arrested at his home, which was located four houses away from the neighbor's home. 
 
At trial Mr. Kitko's attorney raised the defense that Mr. Kitko didn't have the purpose to deprive the neighbor of the truck, and therefore, could not be guilty of robbery. Robbery is using force or the threat of force to commit a theft offense.
 
The jury deliberated for about an hour before finding Mr. Kitko not guilty . 

DESPITE HIS USUAL AND CUSTOMARY "REPEATED AND EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT" MUSTAFAH RAZAVI WAS UNABLE TO WIN A CONVICTION OF THIS INNOCENT CITIZEN AND "HOLMANIZE" HIM, LIKE SO MANY OTHER INNOCENT CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTY WHO HAVE BEEN OVER-CHARGED BT CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN.

This case is a perfect study of the MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE BY HOEMAN and his ASS. PROSECUTORS. 

According to the report, cited above, Mr. Kitko was walking home from a local tavern. obviously three sheets to the wind.  When Mr. Kitko was four doors away from his own home, he entered and sat in his neighbor's pickup truck, likely sounding the horn in the process.  The neighbor awoke, came outside, and ejected Kitko from the truck, whereupon Kitko stumbled on to his own home, four doors away.

The local gendarmes arrived on scene and, after gathering whatever information to solve this "whodunit," went to Kitko's home and placed him under arrest.

HERE IS WHERE HOEMAN'S MALFEASANCE COMES INTO PLAY.

Mr. Kitko's actual conduct amounted to no more than Public Intoxication and/or Disorderly Conduct, minor misdemeanors anywhere but in Medina County.

Failing to review the actual facts of the matter, one of HOEMAN'S ASS. PROSECUTOR, in usual and customary fashion, jumped to conclusions without the benefit of any analysis of the facts whatsoever and indicted Kitko for the offense of ROBBERY, a felony offense.

At trial, however, MUSRAFAH RAZAVI was unable to explain how Mr. Kitko was able to steal the truck and drive it off, four doors away, WITHOUT THE KEYS!

THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT COMMON SENSE IS NOT SO COMMON, AND, IN FACT, NON-EXISTENT AT THE OFFICE OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN, THE PUPPETEER WHO PULLS THE STRINGS FOR LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE.

Mr. Kitko got away with not violating the law this time, but you can be sure DINO HOEMAN and his ASS. PROSECUTORS will by lying in wait.  The next time they find him walking home  from the local tavern, they will be sure to pounce and charge him with WUI (Walking under the Influence)!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ? THIS HAPPENS IN MEDINA COUNTY ALL THE TIME, EXCEPT FOR .....

The blogger came across an online news article, excerpted below, typical of the Medina County Kangaroo Courts, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THE DeKALB COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BELATEDLY RIGHTED THE WRONG.

YOU WILL NEVER SEE CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY DNO HOEMAN OR LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, CORRECT AN INJUSTICE, SINCE INJUSTICE IS THEIR DAILY OBJECTIVE.

IN FACT, LAPDOG COLLIER IS SO COMMITTED TO DOING INJUSTICE HE HAS STOOPED TO EDITING AND ALTERING TRANSCRIPTS !!!

Wrongly convicted man released after 12 years in prison

Georgia Dept. of Corrections

David Peralta, 36.

4 days ago David Beasley of Reuters

 

David Peralta was convicted in 2001 of the drive-by shooting that killed his girlfriend, Rebecca Moore, said Tully Blalock, one of his attorneys.

 

ATLANTA — A Georgia man has been released from prison after serving 12 years for a murder that prosecutors now concede he did not commit.

David Peralta was convicted in 2001 of the drive-by shooting that killed his girlfriend, Rebecca Moore, said Tully Blalock, one of his attorneys.

Eric Burton, a spokesman for the DeKalb County District Attorney's office, said the charges were dismissed because "through subsequent investigation, it was concluded that Peralta was not guilty of the crime and that the victim was fired upon by a rival gang."

In 2006, federal investigators with a gang task force turned over information to Georgia prosecutors indicating that Peralta may not be the killer.

"As far as we know, nothing was done," with the information from federal investigators, said Blalock. "The speed at which this case has progressed really has been frustrating."

It was only after Peralta won a new trial on appeal and prosecutors reopened the investigation that the charges against his client were finally dropped, said Blalock.

Notice that "nothing was done" for seven years, even though the State was presented with information by competent Federal investigators that Mr. Peralta had committed the offense.

Moreover, only after Mr. Peralta's conviction was overturned did the State dismiss its case.

At least the State ultimately did the right thing, UNLIKE MEDINA COUNTY, WHERE LAPDOG COLLIER SCRUBS AND MATERIALLY ALTERS TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS IN A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO DEPRIVE THE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR HEARING ON APPEAL, AND IN A FUTILE ATTEMPT TO PROTECT HIS ALREADY TARNISHED REPUTATION AS A "JUDGE."

ALL OF THIS UNLAWFUL MISCONDUCT, OF COURSE, IS APPROVED BY CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN, WHO PROMOTES PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT BY HIS ASS. PROSECUTORS.

The online new article, referenced above, can be found at http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/wrongly-convicted-man-released-after-12-years-in-prison

 

 

 

 

LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, A NITWIT OF THE LOWEST ORDER, OVERTURNED BY THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS ON HIS UNINFORMED "INTERPRETATION" OF THE CONSTITUTION

WHAT A HOOT !!!  LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, ACTUALLY HAD THE UNMITIGATED GALL TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION. 

THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS MADE SHORT WORK OF OVERTURNING LAPDOG COLLIER'S UNINFORMED "INTERPRETATION" OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Regular readers of this blog have long ago recognized that LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, doesn't have a clue what the Constitution is, much less what it guarantees.

LAPDOG violates the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments daily in his Kangaroo Courtroom No. 1 at the Medina County Courthouse, Mosque, and Railroad Station.  These Constitutional Amendments have their origins in the Bill of Rights, which LAPDOG COLLIER confuses with his monthly residential water bill, believing he has a right to city water for which he receives a regular bill.

It is highly likely that LAPDOG has ever read the Constitution and, even if he had made the attempt, he likely could not understand its content, given his limited mental capacity.

In a recent case, LAPDOG COLLIER took an unworthy stab at determining the constitutionality of a local ordinance in the case of Sunset Estate Properties, LLC v. The Village of Lodi, Ninth District Court of Appeals Case No. 2013-Ohio-4793, found at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2013/2013-ohio-4973.pdf

Essentially, LAPDOG COLLIER mustered all of the reasoning he could from both of his brain cells and concluded that Lodi's Zoning Ordinance is constitutional.

The judges of the Ninth District Court of Appeals decided otherwise.  Following are excerpts from the Ninth District's Opinion, overturning LAPDOG COLLIER . . . AGAIN:

{¶12} Sunset and Meadowview sought various declarations, including a declaration that

L.Z.C. 1280.05(a) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied and that its application denies the

entities the viable economic use of their properties and effects a taking for which just

compensation is due. In this case, the trial court found that L.Z.C. 1280.05(a) was constitutional

because it “is not arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unrelated to the public health, safety,

welfare and morals[.]” It premised that finding on the village’s authority pursuant to Section 3,

Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution to enact zoning ordinances as an exercise of its police

power. This Court does not dispute a municipality’s authority in that regard.

 Sheffield v.Rowland, 87 Ohio St.3d 9, 10 (1999) (noting that “[t]he enactment of zoning ordinances is

 an exercise of the police power, not an exercise of local self-government.”). That authority is not

absolute, however. Rather, zoning power “‘must be exercised within constitutional limits.’”

Schad v. Borough of Mt. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 68 (1981), quoting Moore v. East Cleveland, 431

U.S. 494, 514 (1977) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment).

Without any analysis [OF COURSE], the trial court then summarily concluded that L.Z.C.

 

1280.05 was constitutional. This Court disagrees and concludes that L.Z.C. 1280.05(a) is

 

unconstitutional on its face.

Readers will note that the Ninth District Court of Appeals took particular notice of the fact that LAPDOG COLLIER made his uninformed ruling the Lodi's ordinance was "constitutional," without any analysis.  That fact, of course, is due to the fact that LAPDOG COLLIER is incapable of conducting any analysis at all.

All of this goes to prove, once again, that LAPDOG COLLIER is but a local ROADS SCHOLAR (not to be confused with a Rhodes Scholar) who has to navigate from his home to the Medina County Courthouse, Mosque &Railroad Station with the use of a local road map.