Friday, July 9, 2010

CONLEY AT WORK ON RECOVERY FROM ZEIGLER: SEE HIS RESEARCH. WILL PROSECUTOR FERRERO LET HIM PROCEED?


The SCPR is thoroughly impressed with the work of civic minded attorney Craig T. Conley (working on a pro bono basis) in formulating a plan to pursue Stark County Treasurer Gary Zeigler to compensate the Stark County public for funds missing from the county treasury on account of the Frustaci matter and for other unexplained missing funds (approximately $500,000 worth).

His plan seems solidly ensconced in Ohio statutory law and designed to put Stark County taxpayers at the head of the line (as much as possible under the law) to satisfy any judgment he may obtain in a court of law.  If delay persists, the SCPR fears that the taxpayers may be left with no Zeigler assets to go after if there is further delay in pursuing a court adjudication of Zeigler liability for the missing funds.

Prosecutor Ferrero has not refused to proceed.  However, he favors delay.  To say it again, The Report is concerned (as is Conley) that further delay may jeopardize the ability to collect on Zeigler assets should a court grant a judgment as the outcome of a lawsuit.

There is a conference scheduled between Ferrero, Conley and Judge John Haas at 10:00 AM this morning.  What is the subject of the conference?  Conley says he does not know.

The Report believes the conference could be either on who between Ferrero and Conley will be allowed to proceed against Zeigler, or the possibility that Judge Haas will recuse himself and perhaps speak for the entire Stark County Common Pleas bench on recusal because of the official relationships that exist between the Court, Ferrero and Zeigler.

If it is the former rather than the latter, then Ferrero could make it an easy matter by deferring to Conley.   But will he?  If it is the latter, then so be it.

Obviously, the conference could be about neither.  So it will be interesting to see.

Here is a reproduction of the memo sent to the SCPR by Attorney Conley last evening outlining his research findings on Zeigler transactions on formerly (currently - in the case of the mortgaged property) Zeigler-held  (as delineated in the Conley generated document) real property which Conley apparently thinks may be relevant to efforts to collect on a judgment which might be obtained by either Ferrero's office or Conley in a suit against Zeigler on account of the missing funds at the Stark treasury.

No comments: