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 ....

NEWBY KERN TRIES TO HIDE SALISBURY'S LONGSTANDING, EXTENSIVE HISTORY OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, ALL OF WHICH HAS BEEN FACILITATED BY LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER

In the prior post at this blog, readers learned that CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN has added a rookie attorney to his staff, Newby attorney Matthew Kern.  HOLMAN THE CORRUPT has assigned Newby Kern to oppose the Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, motivated in no small measure to conceal the unlawful and unethical conduct of his office and LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE.


Toward the end of attempting to conceal the illegal conduct of LAPDOG COLLIER and MEDINA ASS PROSECUTOR SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, Newby Kern filed a brief in opposition to this innocent Defendant's Motion for Bond.  Further, HOLMAN THE CORRUPT HAS INSTRUCTED THE MEDINA COUNTY CLERK OF COURT TO WITHHOLD THIS INNOCENT DEFENDANT'S REPLY BRIEF SO AS TO WITHHOLD FROM PUBLIC VIEW AND SCRUTINY THE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE ILLEGAL AND UNETHICAL CONDUCT OF HIS OFFICE.

In his Brief in Opposition to Bond, rife with misrepresentation of material facts and unsupported claims (much as if SALISBURY THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR had significant input, even though SALISBURY in incapable of composing an intelligible legal brief), Newby Kern moved to strike from the record evidence of the longstanding extensive patter of prosecutorial misconduct by Salisbury, all of which misconduct was deliberately facilitated and enabled by LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER,
HOLMAN'S "PAVLOV DOG."


FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF CASES PRESENTED TO THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS IN WHICH SALISBURY'S MISCONDUCT WAS RAISED AS AN ISSUE:

State v Aaron Gatt, 2011-Ohio-5221, tried by Salisbury before Collier

  
-  "This Court has previously addressed this prosecutor’s tendency to engage in “widespread improper conduct” in the courtroom." 


State v Brian Johnson, 2011-Ohio-3623, tried by Salisbury before Collier 

 -  " The prosecutor in this case did engage in a pattern of improper conduct. "
  -  " The prosecutor was argumentative, asked improper questions, made testimonial assertions, referred to facts that were not in the record, misrepresented the evidence, and expressed his personal opinion of Mr. Johnson’s credibility."
  -  “While an attorney’s [SALISBURY'S] lack of familiarity with the Rules of Evidence may affect the question of whether misconduct was intentional or inadvertent, ignorance of the Rules of Evidence does not render questioning allowable where it would otherwise be improper.” 
  -  "The prosecutor’s “cross-examination” of these women was improper, and the trial court  [LAPDOG COLLIER] should not have allowed him to get away with it."

State v Riffle, 2010-Ohio-2812, tried by Salisbury before Collier

  -  "In his first assignment of error, Riffle contends that he was denied a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct."

State v Craig Maynard, 2009-Ohio-282, tried by Salisbury before Collier

 -  "

Mr. Maynard’s second assignment of error is that the trial court incorrectly prevented him from questioning witnesses about Mrs. B.’s and B.M.’s veracity." 

State v Peter Riffle, 2008-Ohio-4155, tried by Salisbury before Collier

-  "In his first assignment of error, Riffle asserts that his constitutional rights were violated: (1) when Police Chief Sivard testified that once given his Miranda warnings, Riffle exercised his right to remain silent; (2) when a social worker testified as to the circumstances of her interview with Riffle and noted that Riffle had told police that he wanted an attorney; and (3) when the State [SALISBURY] referenced Riffle’s decision to cease interrogation with police during closing argument."

  -  "We, therefore, hold that the evidence of, and the State’s [SALISBURY'S] references to, Riffle’s silence were improper.

State v Robert Morris, 2008-Ohio-3209, tried by Salisbury before Collier

  -  “The trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of criminal trespassing and in failing to properly instruct on a necessary element of criminal trespass as required for a conviction of burglary in violation of [Defendant’s] rights to due process and fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Ohio and United States Constitutions.”

  -  " Defendant maintains that the trial court agreed that criminal trespass was a lesser included offense of burglary, but refused to instruct the jury on the offense based on State v. Fontes (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 527."

  -  "Defendant maintains that the trial court simply got confused between the charged crime (the (A)(3) burglary) and the State’s suggested lesser included, the (A)(4) burglary, when it made its decision on how to instruct the jury."   [LAPDOG COLLIER WAS NOT "CONFUSED," BUT ACTED DELIBERATELY TO RAILROAD MR. MORRIS]

 -  “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 defendant.” 

State v Anthony Divincenzo, 2006-Ohio-6330, tried by Salisbury before Collier

  - " In his fifth assignment of error, Appellant argues that the trial court [LAPDOG COLLIER] erred in permitting the State [SALISBURY] to introduce testimony that Appellant invoked his right to counsel during his interview with police."

State v Ricardo Almazan, 2006-Ohio-5047, tried by Salisbury before Collier

  -  “The trial court abused its discretion and erred to the prejudice of [Defendant] by allowing the state to introduce, over defense objection, irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial and misleading testimony by a sheriff’s deputy...."

State v Michael Scheck, 2006-Ohio-647, tried by Salisbury before Collier

  -  "In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues that the trial court [LAPDOG COLLIER] committed reversible error when it prohibited the defense from cross-examining

  -  "In his second assignment of error, Appellant contends that the State [SALISBURY] committed prosecutorial misconduct when it authorized the destruction of crucial evidence prior to trial."

State v Henry Smith, 2005-Ohio-1001, tried by Salisbury before Collier

  -  "In his fourth assignment of error, Appellant has argued that he was

 not afforded a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct."  

  -  "Appellant next has argued that certain comments by the State in closing argument were racially motivated."   [ See SALISBURY'S racist remarks at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/03/salisbury-continues-to-lie-claims-he.html and also at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/03/salisbury-although-slow-learner-is.html ]


READERS HAVE BEEN SHOWN ONLY 10 OF THE MOST RECENT 20 CASES PRESENTED TO THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS RAISING THE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT OF SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.  THERE ARE CERTAINLY MANY, MANY MORE.


NOW, TO THE POINT OF THIS DEMONSTRATION OF THE PATTERN OF EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT BY MEDINA ASS PROSECUTOR SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR:


Newby Kern, in his Opposition to Bond, objects to the presently assigned judge having been presented with the full list of the 20 most recent cases raising the issues of SALISBURY'S PATTERN OF EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT, claiming that SALISBURY'S PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IN THE PRIOR MOST RECENT 20 CASES IS "IRRELEVANT" TO SALISBURY'S PATTERN OF EGREGIOUS PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT  IN THE CASE OF THE INNOCENT CITIZEN BEING PROFILED AT THIS BLOG.


Specifically, Newby Kern has argued:

It is the position of the State that this [list of cases documenting SALISBURY'S misconduct] is entirely irrelevant to the proceedings as the Opinions of the Ninth District Court of Appeals whether a prosecutor erred in other cases is irrelevant to the determination whether a prosecutor erred (in this case)....Frankly, whether the prosecutor committed misconduct in some other case is irrelevant to whether there was misconduct in this case.

Setting aside the fact that Newby Kern appears to have a problem constructing a proper sentence, his argument is based upon the faulty premise that SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, SIMPLY "ERRED" WHEN HE ENGAGED IN AN EGREGIOUS PATTERN OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WHEN HE JOINED TOGETHER WITH LAPDOG COLLIER TO RAILROAD AN INNOCENT CITIZEN INTO PRISON.

To believe that SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, simply "erred" can only be concluded by an individual of significantly diminished mental capacity to the level of LAPDOG COLLIER. 


The purpose of the list of 20 recent cases of prosecutorial misconduct by SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR is to demonstrate unequivocally that SALISBURY ENGAGED IN A DELIBERATE PATTERN OF EGREGIOUS PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, AS HE HAD DONE SO MAY TIMES BEFORE OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS.


THAT PATTERN OF EGREGIOUS PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT BY SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, HAS GONE UNCHECKED FOR MANY YEARS, PROVING THAT SUCH MISCONDUCT IS CONDONED AND PROMOTED BY CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN.


MUCH MORE TO COME ON THIS SUBJECT ....

 

  

 

 

    

 

MEDINA COUNTY LIARS CLUB TO MEET IN LAPDOG COLLIER'S KANGAROO COURTROOM NO. 1

The Medina County LIARS CLUB will hold it's daily meeting in LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER'S KANGAROO COURTROOM NO.1 at 10:00 a.m. today for the express purpose of inducting the newest member, newby attorney Mathew Kern, into the Medina County Courthouse/Mosque & Railroad Chapter of the MEDINA COUNTY LIARS CLUB.

Kern is just a pup, out of law school for little more than a year.  However, he has taken to the official mantra of CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN like a duck to water.

Regular readers of this blog will recall the mantra of HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, "LIE A LITTLE, LIE A LOT.  WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?"  


Kern certainly has already developed the habit, so near and dear to the heart of HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, of taking great liberties with the facts and the truth.


HOLMAN THE CORRUPT has assigned newby attorney Kern with opposing the Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, filed by the innocent citizen who LAPDOG COLLIER and MEDINA ASS PROSECUTOR SALISBURY railroaded into prison, and thereafter TAMPERED WITH, MATERIALLY ALTERED, AND CHANGED THE "OFFICIAL" TRANSCRIPT PF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE BEING PROFILED AT THIS BLOG/


In the most recent development in the matter of the Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, this innocent Defendant filed a motion for bond, pending a decision in his direct appeal, or, in the alternative, a finding and resolution of his Petition.


Of course, fearing a judicial finding condemning his office for corrupt and unlawful conduct, HOLMAN THE CORRUPT instructed Newby Kern to file a brief opposing bond.

Here, of course, is where Newby Kern shows his true colors, and demonstrates, despite his tender age,  that he is just one more run-of-the mill sleazy attorney.

The blogger will set out, at this point, some of Newby Kern's false claims, as set out in his opposition to bond for this innocent citizen:

"(Defense Counsel)has claimed that the State engages in certain practices or has performed certain acts which never occurred.  Out of thin air she has constructed an entire web of lies about which there is no evidence to support the fantastic claims.  She has claimed, inter alia, that the State colluded with the court reporter, that the State placed an informant in the Medina County Jail, that the State withheld exculpatory evidence, and that the State has destroyed that supposed evidence to prevent the defense from proving the supposed Brady violation.  These claims are utterly false."


FIRST OF ALL, ANYTIME THAT HOLMAN THE CORRUPT AND ANY OF HIS STAFF, INCLUDING NEWBY KERN, USE THE WORD "LIE" IN ANY CONTEXT, ONE CAN BE ASSURED THAT THEY, THEMSELVES, ARE THE ONE LYING.


Of course, as with all such slime that comes oozing from the office of HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, Newby Kern has asserted all of the above false claims without the slightest bit of proof or evidence. 


Defense Counsel, for obvious reasons, filed a brief in reply, so as to establish the true facts of the matter.


HOLMAN THE CORRUPT has once again exercised his exclusive option to CENSOR the Defendant's Reply Brief by instructing the Clerk of Court to withhold the brief from the general public, once again violating the Constitutional mandate requiring fair and public trials.


A snippet of attachments to the Reply Brief, specifically only 6 of 21 Exhibits,  and nothing the Reply Brief is to be found at the Clerk's "public" website, specifically found at http://www.co.medina.oh.us/medct_epublicnodr/pages/viewdoc.aspx?case=09CR0229&p=1&a=143

OBVIOUSLY, HOLMAN THE CORRUPT IS ATTEMPTING TO CONCEAL THE TRUE FACTS REGARDING THE UNLAWFUL CONDUCT AND MISCONDUCT OF HIS OFFICE.


SO AS TO FULLY INFORM YOU, THE READER, OF THE TRUE FACTS, ALL SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, THE BLOGGER WILL REVEAL PORTION OF THE REPLY BRIEF THAT HOLMAN IS ATTEMPTING TO HIDE FROM PUBLIC VIEW.


MUCH MORE TO COME...

MEDINA LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER OVERTURNED AGAIN BY THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS ON ANOTHER RUBBER-STAMPED CONVICTION

MEDINA LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, proves once again why he has earned the title of VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE.

On February 21, 2012, the Ninth District Court of Appeals overturned and reversed LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER in the case of State of Ohio v Tiffany Schaufele, 2012-Ohio-642, found at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2012/2012-ohio-642.pdf , a case prosecuted by none other than MEDINA ASS PROSECUTOR SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.


By now it is obvious that the office of CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN does not screen any of the cases presented for prosecution by local law enforcement authorities, but relies upon the corrupt practices of his office and the COLLUSION WITH LAPDOG MEDINA JUDGE COLLIER TO "WIN" CONVICTIONS IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO COMPETENT, CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES.  


HOLMAN THE CORRUPT is clearly negligent by failing to evaluate those cases presented by local officers for actual violations of law.  It is obvious that if an officer believes there is a violation of law, even if lacking probable cause, that's good enough for HOLMAN THE CORRUPT.  Perhaps it is simply a matter of ignorance of the law by HOLMAN THE CORRUPT and his criminal assistants (an apt characterization).  


In the case of Ms. Schaufele, who agreed to a BENCH TRIAL before LAPDOG  JUDGE COLLIER, Ms. Schaufele's attorney committed a singular error in judgement by placing any faith at all in the integrity of LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER and the Medina County Courts.  The defense attorney, from Strongsville, apparently was not aware that LAPDOG COLLIER RUNS A KANGAROO COURT AND DOES NOTHING MORE THAN RUBBER-STAMP ANYTHING THAT COMES OUT OF THE OFFICE OF HOLMAN THE CORRUPT.


In the Schaufele case, LAPDOG COLLIER found Ms. Schaufele GUILTY in spite of the fact there was insufficient evidence of guilt, according to the Ninth District Court of Appeals.


That, of course, comes as no surprise to the blogger, since it is now commonly known that the only way LAPDOG COLLIER can preserve his lifetime political appointment to the Medina County Bench is to blindly serve CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN who will not run a candidate against LAPDOG COLLIER as long as LAPDOG does precisely as instructed.


Apparently, LAPDOG COLLIER and SALISBURY THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR did not sufficiently edit and materially alter the transcript of this bench trial to overcome the usual and customary INCOMPETENCE OF LAPDOG COLLIER or THE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT OF SALISBURY THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR to the extent that they were able to convince the Ninth District Court of Appeals that Ms. Schaufele received a fair trial.


Congratulations to Ms. Schaufele for obtaining justice, which clearly cannot be found in the courts of Medina County.


MUCH MORE TO COME ....