HAS BALAS-BRATTON ATTORNEY CONLEY PUT TOGETHER "THE PERFECT BRIEF?"

By mid afternoon on Wednesday George T. Maier nemesis and Cynthia Balas-Bratton attorney Craig T. Conley had filed his client's brief and evidence with the Ohio Supreme Court in furtherance of his client's protest of George T. Maier being the Democratic candidate for sheriff in the May 6, 2014 primary election.

We shall know within a week, give a day or two, whether or not Conley put together "the perfect brief" in terms of being "the winning argument."

By the SCPR's analysis, Conley's brief is pretty impressive, perhaps even perfect, but - as The Report as frequently opined in these pages, in making a ruling "the Supreme Court does not have to be correct, it just has to be the Supreme Court."

Actually, the statement comes from Conley himself who, as I recall, picked it up from another source.

What is interesting about the potential of the Conley argument is that it is so constructed that the high court may never get to the merits of the case.

Really?

How's that?

THE BACKGROUND

Remember Conley's focus on one Deametrious St. John during the run up to the February 21, 2014 hearing on the Balas-Bratton protest?

St. John, one of two Stark County Democratic Party appointees to the Stark Board of Elections (BOE), had been foolish enough to make himself a media star and make pronouncements that indicated to Conley and many others that he (St. John) had already made up his mind on how he would be voting on a protest filed by Conley's client (Cynthia Balas-Bratton) on George T. Maier's qualification to be a candidate for Stark County sheriff on the May 6, 2014 Stark County Democratic Party ballot.

Balas-Bratton filed her "protest" with the Stark BOE on February 11th.

The BOE met on February 17th to set a hearing date (February 21st) and to dispose of several administrative and procedural issues.

On February 21st the hearing was held and as expected to the Republican Party appointed BOE members (Curt Braden and William Cline) deadlocked with the two Democratic members (St. John and Sam Ferruccio, Jr), and it was left to Secretary of State Jon Husted to break the tie.

Which, surprisingly enough he did in siding with the Democrats saying that he chose "to err on the side of ballot access" and that he was unable to determine one way or the other whether or not Maier was qualified under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 311.01(B)(9)(a) or (b).

In doing so, the SCPR believes that Husted wittingly and intentionally left a large hole for Balas-Bratton and her attorney to drive a bus through in their quest to have the Ohio Supreme Court reverse him.

And who better to drive that bus than one Craig T. Conley.

Of all the legal counsel taking part in the Maier qualification matter, The Report thinks Conley is most knowledgeable and prepared.

And that takes in a lot of territory.

Readers of the SCPR will recall the filing of a quo warranto by interim Sheriff Tim Swanson on February 12, 2013 (Greg Beck, the lead counsel) to have Maier (appointed by the Dems on February 5, 2013 to fill in for Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald [who could not take office as required on January 7, 2012 due to an illness from which he died on February 22nd] removed as a usurper in that he was not qualified under ORC 311.01 to be sheriff.

The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with Swanson and Beck and removed Maier on November 6, 2013.

How impressive was that?

On December 11th, the Dems reappointed Maier.

Consequently, the battle of his ORC 311.01 looms large.

Sections 311(B)(9)(a) or (b) are a focal point of the Balas-Bratton challenge to Maier's candidacy to serve beyond December 31, 2014 as Stark County sheriff.

Had St. John not mucked things up with his desire to be a media celebrity, the SCPR thinks that Maier had a better (though likely still not better than 50/50) chance to remain on May's ballot.

And in doing so, he handed Balas-Bratton a gift that The Report thinks has plenty of promise to be George T. Maier's undoing.

What organization wouldn't like to be an executive vice president (St. John) who in a quest to be the local yokel "from the big city" savior? 

It is interesting to the SCPR that St. John appears to look down his nose at Stark County's "organized" Democrats on the basis of his having learned the "art of 'power' politics" at the feet of Cleveland/Cuyahoga County political strongman George Forbes might end up being the reason that George T. Maier is ruled off the May ballot and concomitantly the Democrats have nobody to challenge Republican Larry Dordea.

The Report imagines that St. John these days is frequently down on his hands and knees praying to the "God of 'all things political'" that his "day in the media sun" is not THE basis on which the Supreme Court makes its decision which results in Maier's disqualification from the ballot.

In a St. John induced-decision scenario, Ohio's "court of last resort" rules that St. John had locked himself in by his own words and, thereby, "on the face of it" tainted the BOE hearing process to such a degree that Balas-Bratton ended up being denied her due process of law constitutional rights.

Should the Supreme Court negate St. John's vote, then Maier fails to qualify by a 2 to 1 vote and Husted's tie-braker is thereby negated.

As the SCPR understands Conley's position, such is how he sees the likely outcome of the Supreme Court's handling of Balas-Bratton v. Husted, et al.

If Conley is correct and the Ohio Supreme Court takes the St. John way out, the court avoids having to go into a thoroughgoing analysis of the provisions of ORC 311.01(B)(9).

By Ohio statutory law, Husted was compelled - as the tie-breaker -  to sift through the evidence submitted and make a "finder of fact" determination in the light of ORC 311.01 statutory standards as to whether or not Maier meets subsection (9)(a) or (b) criteria.

Husted's failure (assuming the court rules that St. John should not have been one of the BOE decision makers) will have in effect left Maier "in the lurch" on the matter of his qualifying or not under the ORC 311.01 scheme of things.

Moreover, the man who self-describes as being a "a political operative" and who insinuated on February 15th of this year (the day he was replaced by the Stark Dems as a BOE member with his term set to expire on the 28th) that the Stark Dems were nothing but political "rubes" in comparison to his political upbringing under Forbes, will likely be thought in Stark Democratic Party Executive Committee circles (if his media grandstanding results in Husted getting overturned) as being the man who cost George T. Maier an opportunity to be elected sheriff.

CONLEY'S BRIEF

Thanks to St. John's media performance, Conley comes right out of the box with with a pathway the high court has to like.

The Balas-Bratton brief opens with the "threshold" question of whether or not Dem BOE member St. John's pre-hearing media comments worked a denial of "due process of law" on the prosecution of her "protest" of Maier's candidacy.

There is a saying:  "the first impression is the last impression."

In first signaling the Supreme Court that the court has an easy way available to dispose of the Writ on a concrete constitutional basis (.i.e. denial of due process of law) due to St. John's media exuberance, Conley has made, the SCPR thinks, an indelible impression on the court in using language that will catch the court's attention and likely will stay with the seven justices throughout the course of the court's deliberation.

No doubt the court will look at the ORC 311.01 arguments with interest.

However, it should be readily apparent that getting into taking the evidence submitted by the various parties in this consideration of Balas-Bratton v. Husted, et al and comparing it the provisions of 311.01(B)(9)(a)/(b) is a rather daunting task even for a body like the Ohio Supreme Court and its vast legal resources.

Readers need to recall that in Swanson v. Maier, the court refused to go further than an analysis of ORC 311.01(B)(8)(a)/(b) inasmuch as the court's scrutiny of those provisions was enough for the court to determine that Maier' failure to qualify under either of them made it superfluous to go on to 311.01(B)(9), to wit:

Accordingly, the focus of this SCPR blog will be on the Balas-Bratton "due process of law" argument which The Report thinks could well be a dispositive argument.

However, Conley does make another (in addition to the ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a) and (b) arguments) interesting argument under ORC 2733.14.

2733.14 Judgment when office, franchise, or privilege is usurped.

When a defendant in an action in quo warranto is found guilty of usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding or exercising an office, franchise, or privilege, judgment shall be rendered that he be ousted and excluded therefrom, and that the relator recover his costs.  Effective Date: 10-01-1953 

Of course, as we Stark Countians know all too well, the Ohio Supreme Court did find Maier guilty of usurping in its November 6, 2013.

Could this argument be another "easier way out" of the more difficult ORC 311.01(B)(9) legal minefield?

BUILDING THE "VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS"
ST. JOHN BIAS ARGUMENT

Conley skillfully wends his way through the St. John "for Maier" history:

1. St. John [SCPR note:  executive vice president of the Dems] citing qualification criteria endorsed George T. Maier [SCPR note: over Lou Darrow] on Maier personal stationery pre-February 5, 2013.
2. St. John voted as a Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) member on February 5, 2013 to appoint George T. Maier as McDonald's successor.
3. St. John voted as a SCDP-CC member to appoint Maier a second time (after the 11/06/2013 Supreme Court finding a violation of 311.01(B)(8)) on December 11, 2013.
4. St. John in a interview to local media within days of his sitting as a "quasi-judicial" public official on the Balas-Bratton "protest" of the Maier candidacy stated:  "I've always believed he [SCPR note:  Maier] met the qualifications."
5. Balas-Bratton insisted pre-hearing that St. John step aside and not be one of the determiners of her protest but was refused by St. John himself, the Stark BOE and the Ohio secretary of state and in doing so preserved her "denial of due process" arguments.
6. St. John, at the conclusion of the Balas-Bratton "protest," [SCPR note:  "go figure,'] moved to qualify Maier and voted for his own motion.

Hence, Conley's powerful closing on the "denial of due process" argument:

The SCPR thinks it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will wade into the ORC 311.01 waters given the compressed time frame within which it must act given ballot publication timeline concerns especially with having been provided the justices' powerful legal pathway on "denial of due process" grounds.

On the chance that the Supremes decide to wade in, it seems to the SCPR that advantage is still with the Balas-Bratton position.

In the Applicable Jurisdiction section of his brief, Conley paints a vivid picture of principles of law that apply to Balas-Bratton.

1. Citing 1995 Supreme Court legal precedent, Conley sets up that when it comes to interpreting ORC 311.01 provisions, "it is the responsibility of the courts to enforce the literal language of statute.
2. Courts are not to add or delete words to/from statutes,
3. A year is not the cobbling together of parts of years to make up full years, rather a year is defined in Ohio law to be "12 consecutive months."  (SCPR note:  the definition of a year is a bone of contention in the interpretation of a year under ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a))
4. A number of Supreme Court decisions (despite the fact that Jon Husted says the law is unclear and ambiguous) have held 311.01(B)(9)'s language to be "definite," "unambiguous," and clear with specific reference in the precedent cases to:
1. the requirement of two years supervisory experience as a peace officer, and
2. the requirement of the officer being at the rank of "corporal or above."

THE TWO YEARS OF SUPERVISORY EXPERIENCE- AS A PEACE OFFICER

Even it one does not contest (which Balas-Bratton does) whether or not Maier's stint as the second-in-command (and about seven days as first-in-command) at the Ohio Department of Public Safety (ODPS) meets the standard of ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a), to wit:

(9) The person meets at least one of the following conditions:

(a) Has at least two years of supervisory experience as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or above, or has been appointed pursuant to section 5503.01 of the Revised Code and served at the rank of sergeant or above, in the five-year period ending immediately prior to the qualification date;

Conley's bottom line position is that Maier is short a number of days having "at least two years of supervisory experience as a peace officer."

Maier in his application process did try to take the February 11, 2013 to November 6, 2013 time as SCDP-CC appointed sheriff to solve the ODPS time period deficiency.

A problem?

Indeed.

In its November 6th decision, the Supreme Court said that in effect Maier was never the lawful sheriff of Stark County.

So how can he bootstrap himself, Conley argues, into meeting the two year requirement of ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a) by adding service time that the Supreme Court itself said in Maier v. Swanson was from a legal standpoint "as if it had never occurred?"

THE TWO YEARS OF SUPERVISORY EXPERIENCE
- AS A CORPORAL OR ABOVE

Inasmuch as Maier did not have a literal rank of "corporal or above," the Maier legal team can only argue "equivalency."  


And that folks, the SCPR thinks, is a losing position because of the "literal" rule of construction Ohio's courts are held to and the reality that "equivalency" appears nowhere in ORC 311.01(B)(9(a).

AT LEAST TWO YEARS OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Finally, Conley attacks the contention by the Maier proponents that he meets the criteria of ORC 311.01(B)(9)(b), to wit:

(b) Has completed satisfactorily at least two years of post-secondary education or the equivalent in semester or quarter hours in a college or university authorized to confer degrees by the Ohio board of regents or the comparable agency of another state in which the college or university is located or in a school that holds a certificate of registration issued by the state board of career colleges and schools under Chapter 3332. of the Revised Code.

And to make short-shrift of Maier's failure to meet this criterion of Ohio statutory law, one need to go no further than to look at the affidavit of a Stark State College official (Vogley):

"As of the date of this affidavit, Maier has not earned any credit at Stark."

And Maier testified at the February 21st "protest" hearing that he had not done any academic work at Stark State College."

Closed case on ORC 311.01(B)(9)(b), no?

A key point for purposes of the Supreme Court's handling of the Balas-Bratton Writ, the SCPR thinks, is that Secretary of State Jon Husted completely and utterly failed to make any finding on ORC 311.01.

In doing so, he totally undermined the import of his breaking the tie on the Stark BOE in terms of result holding in siding with the Democrats.

Had he merely said in his written findings that he adopted the findings of the Democrats as stated in the Dems position paper, he would then have placed a huge burden on Balas-Bratton to show that in doing so he had "abused his discretion."

But he didn't and thereby damaged the likelihood that Maier's place on the ballot will be validated.

With friends like the Republican secretary of state, who needs the enemies?

And one might add:  with friends (for the SCDP) like Deametrious St. John, who needs any enemies?

The clincher however for Balas-Bratton prevailing in Balas-Bratton v. Husted, et al may well be that her attorney Craig T. Conley in his submissions of documents (the brief and evidence) to the Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday may have submitted "the perfect brief!"

(VIDEO) WILL STARK CO COMMISSIONERS PROVIDE TAXPAYER PAID LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STARK COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

UPDATED AT 10:26 AM

VIDEO

STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

CONVENE

ADJOURN

EXECUTIVE SESSION

ON

APPOINTING "SPECIAL COUNSEL"

TO BENEFIT STARK DEM PARTY INTERESTS?

A couple of days ago the SCPR got wind that Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero might be about to recommend to the Stark County commissioners that they join him in asking the Stark County Court of Common Pleas to appoint "special counsel" at Stark County taxpayer expense to represent Stark County Democratic Party appointed members of the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE, Board) Deametrious St. John and Sam Ferruccio, Jr in a proceeding now pending before the Ohio Supreme Court. (LINK to filing)

Really?

Why?

Well, follow this sequence of events, you will get the picture!

• January, 2013
• Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez calls a meeting with Democratic Stark County commissioner Thomas Bernabei and Democratic sheriff Tim Swanson at the Stark County Office Building suite of offices occupied by the commissioners,
• TOPIC:  How to fix Gonzalez favorite for Stark County sheriff George T. Maier's deficiencies in qualifying to be sheriff under the criteria set forth in Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 311.01(B)(8) and (9),
• Swanson refuses to participate in the repair and Maier goes to Harrison County to serve as a deputy sheriff for two weekends in order to solve at least one of Maier 311.01 problems,
• Maier had told local media that he "guaranteed" he would be qualified to be sheriff under ORC 311.01 or he would not apply to be appointed,
• February 5, 2013
• Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC, Dems) meets to appoint a sheriff to replace Democrat Mike McDonald who had been elected in November, 2012 but who could not take office on January 7, 2013 because of an illness that cost him his life on February 22, 2013,
• Democratic Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero files an affidavit with the SCDP-CC saying that Maier is NOT qualified under 311.01 to be sheriff,
• The Dems appoint Maier in a surprisingly close vote 92 to 84 over Democrat Lou Darrow,
• February 12, 2013
• Interim sheriff Tim Swanson files a quo warranto with the Ohio Supreme Court alleging Maier to be unqualified under 311.01 to be sheriff,
• November 6, 2013
• The Ohio Supreme Court agrees with Swanson and ousts Maier from office saying that he had usurped Swanson's right to be sheriff,
• November 8, 2013
• Maier goes back to Harrison County, Ohio and puts in another stint as deputy sheriff through December 5, 2013,
• December 11, 2013
• Stark Dems reappoint Maier sheriff by a 101 to 65 vote again over fellow Democrat Lou Darrow,
• February 5, 2014
• The filing deadline for candidates to fill out the term (through January, 2017) of Mike McDonald finds that George T. Maier has filed petitions,
• Ohio law provides that the Stark BOE determines whether or not candidates qualify under ORC 311.01 to run for sheriff,
• Republican Larry Dordea passes the test "with flying colors,"
• February 11, 2014
• Local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley (a registered Republican, by the way) agreed to represent one Cynthia Balas-Bratton  (a Massillon Ward 2A Democratic precinct committeewoman) "pro bono"  (for the public good, i.e. free of cost to Stark County taxpayers) in "protesting" the candidacy of Democrat George T. Maier for Stark County sheriff in a proceeding provided for under Ohio law,
• SCPR Note:  Conley says he agreed to do so in the interest of "the rule of law" alleging that Maier does not meet the criteria of Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 311.01(B)(9) mandatory qualification factors of Ohio law,
• February 21, 2014
• The Stark County Board of Elections (BOE, Board) deadlock 2 to 2 (Republicans Curt Braden and William Cline for disqualifying Maier; Democrats Deametrious St. John and Sam Ferruccio, Jr for qualifying Maier),
• March 7, 2014
• Republican Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted breaks the tie as provided for under Ohio law in favor of the Democrat St. John/Ferruccio position,
• Husted refuses to apply ORC 311.01 to Maier's candidacy and instead orders him on to the ballot saying he was "erring on the side of ballot access,"
• March 11, 2014
• Conley files an action on behalf of Balas-Bratton in Prohibition (i.e. Writ of Prohibition) with the Ohio Supreme Court,

Back to square one, to wit:

(Repeating the first paragraph of this blog)

A couple of days ago the SCPR got wind that Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero might be about to recommend to the Stark County commissioners that they join him in asking the Stark County Court of Common Pleas to appoint "special counsel" at Stark County taxpayer expense to represent Stark County Democratic Party appointed members of the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE, Board) Deametrious St. John and Sam Ferruccio, Jr in a proceeding now pending before the Ohio Supreme Court.

Yesterday, the commissioners met in executive session in what the SCPR believes to be in consideration of the Ferrero recommendation.

Simple enough, no?

Not really!

As he is wont to do, Conley really complicated the consideration by commissioners with the following two letters fired off before meeting time (1:30 p.m.),

Before moving on though, readers are advised that if the Stark commissioners decline to provide the Dem BOE members special counsel, their point of view will be represented in the form of the Ohio attorney general's office representing Secretary Husted, to wit:

THE BACKGROUND RE:

CONLEY'S THINKING ON THE COMMISSIONERS CONSIDERING APPOINTING "SPECIAL COUNSEL"

Re: Appointment of special prosecutor in BOE OSC cases

FROM Brant Luther TO You Tues, 4:18 PM
Show Details

From:  Brant Luther

To:  Martin Olson

Martin,

The Commissioners will most likely address this issue tomorrow at their regular meeting.  There will probably be an executive session at the conclusion of the Commissioner's meeting with action likely to follow.

Thanks,
brant [sic]

Brant A. Luther, Esq.
Stark County Administrator
110 Central Plaza South, Suite 240
Canton, Ohio 44702
330-451-7581

>>> Martin Olson <tramols@att.net> 3/11/2014 1:40 PM >>>

Brant,

I understand that the commissioners are being asked to appoint special prosecutor on representing Stark BOE on Balas-Bratton v. Stark BOE/Deametrious St. John case.

True or untrue?

If true, when will the Board of Commissioners meet to consider request?

MartinOlson/SCPR


MARCH 12, 2014 (8:41 AM)  
LETTER #1

TO:        Stark County Board of Commissioners
FROM:  Craig T. Conley, Esq.
RE:        State ex rel.   Cynthia Balas-Bratton  v. Hon. Jon  Husted, et al., Ohio Supreme Court  Case No.   2014-0374
 
It is my (unconfirmed) understanding that Prosecuting Attorney Ferrero has determined that he is "conflicted-cut" from representing Respondent the Board of Elections ("B0E") in the above-referenced action in prohibition and that he therefore will be requesting, during your meeting this afternoon, that your Board appoint a special prosecutor in his stead pursuant to O.R.C. 305.14(A).

I respectfully suggest that appointment, and the attendant unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer funds ought not be made for the following reasons (not necessarily presented in order of importance):

1.  The primary Respondent involved is the Ohio Secretary of State not the BOE, which is essentially a "nominal" Respondent.

2.  The Court will decide the matter on its merits with or without either Respondent's involvement, noting that the Relator, even in the absence cf an answer having been filed by Respondents, is required under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(A)(2)(a) to file her evidence and merit brief by a finite date.

3.  Under S.Ct. Prac.R. 12.08(A)(3), motions to dismiss and motions for judgment on the pleadings are not permitted, which I presume means, on the "flip side", that Relator may not move for default judgment in the event no timely answers are filed.

4.  Assuming, as anticipated, Respondents are served Summons and Complaint today, I calculate their answers to be due this coming Monday, March 17, 2014, which hardly provides a special prosecutor sufficient time to review the BOE's voluminous file, the applicable statutes and the applicable jurisprudence in a meaningful manner (which, of course, is not a problem for the Secretary of State's counsel, the Ohio Attorney General).

5.  Given the BOE's tie vote, a special prosecutor would be in an automatic position cf conflict with his own client for purposes of either supporting or opposing the relief requested by Relator.
In sum, the Secretary of State, not the BOE, is responsible to "defend" his decision; and the BOE, because of its tie vote, is certainly not in a position to do so for him.

It therefore is again respectfully suggested that no O.R.C. 335.14(A) application for appointment of a special prosecutor should be made, noting that said Revised Code Subsection does not mandate either such an application or the Court' s subsequent grant of same.

MARCH 12, 2014 (10:17 AM)  
LETTER #2

TO:        Stark County Board of Commissioners
FROM:  Craig T. Conley, Esq.
RE:        State, ex rel.   Cynthia Balas-Bratton  v. Hon. Jon Husted, et al., Ohio Supreme Court Case No.   2014-0374.
 
With reference to item no. 5 of my earlier memo of this date to you, I respectfully direct your attention to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(a)(1), which provides, in pertinent part, that "A lawyer's acceptance or continuation of representation of a client creates a conflict of interest if . . . the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another current client''.

I also respectfully direct your attention to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(c)(2), which provides, in pertinent part, that "Even if each affected client consents, the lawyer shall not accept or continue the representation if . . . the representation would involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same proceeding".

In short, under the instant circumstances of the BOE's tie vote, any special prosecutor appointed would have, as I opined previously, an automatic" conflict.

Therefore, such a special prosecutor may not, under the aforesaid Rules of Professional Conduct, enter an appearance in the above-referenced action in prohibition; and should he or she nonetheless do so, I will move for his or her disqualification under the Ohio Supreme Court's jurisprudence in, inter alia, Mentor Lagoons, Inc. v. Rubin, et al. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 256.

In sum, it would be both a waste of taxpayer money and an exercise
in futility to appoint a special prosecutor in Prosecutor Ferrero's stead.

I therefore again respectfully urge you tc refrain from seeking such an appointment.

MARCH 13, 2014 (7:01 AM)  
LETTER #3

TO:        Stark County Beard of Commissioners  
FROM:  Craig T. Conley, Esq.
RE:        Stats ex rei. Cynthia Baias-Bratton v.   Hon.   Jon Husted, et al.,   Ohio Supreme Court Case No.   2014-0374

Noting that the Ohio Secretary of State ("Secretary"), as Ohio's chief elections officer, is in essence the "fifth" tie-breaking member of all County Beards of Elections/ it may well be that an attorney representing the BOE under the instant circumstances is representing the majority of the "five-member" BOE and therefore does not have a conflict under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

If arguendo that is a correct proposition of law (noting that I am unaware of any jurisprudence supporting same)f there obviously is no need to use Stark County taxpayer funds to replicate the same arguments/filings that will be made by the Secretary's counsel, who, under that same proposition cf law, will in essence be representing both the Secretary and the B0E.

I therefore again respectfully urge you, conflict or not, to refrain from appointing a special prosecutor, as same clearly would be but a waste of our County's taxpayer dollars and would only serve to otherwise needlessly "muddy the waters".

In short, let the Secretary's statutory counsel (the Ohio Attorney General) *carry the ball" here.

MARCH 12, 2014 (2:09 PM - 3:59 PM)

STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONVENE/ADJOURN "EXECUTIVE SESSION"

The video:



Hmm?

No decision.

But that the meeting lasted one hour and 50 minutes (1:50) tells one that there was a hot and heavy controversy going on in the meeting, no?

One theory is that one or more commissioners want to appoint taxpayer subsidized legal counsel for the Dems whereas at least one does not with the result being the realization of a "bad" motive to make an already messy situation even messier.

Another theory is that Conley has made his mark with at least one of the commissioners that for an appointment to be made would be a waste of taxpayer money.

The commissioners will try again today at 4:00 p.m. to resolve their obvious differences.

And, of course, the SCPR will be there to videotape the decision.

So at the end of all that high drama yesterday, nothing, absolutely nothing is decided as to whether or not the Stark Dems are going to be benefited at taxpayer expense.

Talk about coming full circle.

Back in January, 2013 Stark County Dems chairman Randy Gonzalez enlists the support of Democratic commissioner Bernabei within the confines of official taxpayer supported seat of county government (i.e. the Stark County Office Building) to help the Democrats seat Stark County's next sheriff.

While it is unlikely that Gonzalez will be back today, there is no doubt with the SCPR that politics is at play today in some way, shape or form on the questions of whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Stark County Taxpayer will be asked to fund the interests of the Stark County Democratic Party.

Prosecutor Ferrero denies that there is a conflict in interest in terms of the Democrat BOE members position being represented by "somebody" before the Prohibition writ now before the Ohio Supreme Court.

He says that with the secretary of state breaking the tie in favor of the Dems that their position is majority position and therefore there is no conflict in interest in having a tie between the two competing GOP and Dem positions in the context of the original 2 to 2 vote.

And Craig Conley tells the SCPR he agrees with that position.

But he maintains that it still is a waste of Stark County taxpayer money for the commissioners to agree to appoint legal counsel to represent the St. John/Ferruccio position.

It is somewhat ironical that the commissioners will be making a decision on whether or not to fund the Stark Democratic Party interest with taxpayer funds today.

How's that.

Well, at noon today, Stark County Budget Director Chris Nichols (also a Republican who serves on the Canton Township Board of Township Trustees) will be presenting the "final" 2014 Stark County Budget at a public meeting to be held in the third floor conference room of the Stark County Office Building.

At that meeting the commissioners will be preaching austerity.

The question will be if you are Craig T. Conley is this:

Will the commissioners practice what they preach?

YOU NAME IT! BRAINLESS, CLUELESS, HYPOCRITICAL - THAT'S POLITICAL "PRETTY FACE" JON HUSTED!

 SUBTOPICS

HUSTED & THE LIBERTARIANS

HUSTED & THE MAIER DECISION

(Complementary Political Decisions?)

THE ST. JOHN FACTOR

HUSTED HYPOCRISY 

Little did any of us know on February 17, 2014 that former Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio mayor Don Robart would give a "heads-up" on the quality of his new bosses' mind when he spoke about the ballot disqualification of George T. Maer as being a "no brainer."

HUSTED & THE LIBERTARIANS

HUSTED & THE MAIER DECISION

(Complementary Political Decisions?)

Just days before, Robart - a leading Summit County Republican - who after 28 years as Cuyahoga Falls mayor, was dumped by Falls' voters in November, 2013, was selected to land in an obvious "political soft landing place" (at Ohio taxpayer expense) as the "eyes and ears" of Ohio Secretary of State (SOS) Jon Husted as region 3 director of the SOS.

So we know that Jon Husted is a highly partisan Republican who has no qualms about using taxpayer funds (provided by to provide for his own kind.

Moreover, he recently demonstrated (Husted Orders Libertarian Candidates Off Primary Ballot, March 7, WBNS) that he will use the power of his office to deny ballot access when he thinks it might damage a fellow Republican's (Governor Jon Husted) reelection.

The Libertarian case is compelling evidence that Jon Husted is not a man of principle that he implies he is in his self-serving statement that he is "erring on the side" in allowing George T. Maier access to the Stark County ballot as a Democratic candidate for sheriff.

Moveover, he in the Maier case establishes that he is not a "rule of law" man.  Rather that in his political calculation, his decision to allow Maier on the ballot was a bizarre combination of being brainless, clueless, and hypocritical in coming to the Maier decision.

It is safe to assume that Robart did not talk "out of school" on February 20th when he told an Akron Beacon Journal reporter that the strength of the cases between the Balas-Bratton (the Democratic protester) and Maier before the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE, Board) filed on February 6th made it pretty much a "no brainer" that Maier is not qualified under Ohio Revised Code 311.01 (as interpreted by the Ohio Supreme Court [Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto, November 6, 2013].

Of course, Robart did speak "out of school" in talking to the ABJ reporter.

Otherwise the statement was "inside Baseball" talk among Husted's "deep 'political' thinkers" in the mulling over he could overcome the obvious in making a political calculation that they think benefits Jon Husted best in his current (running for reelection as secretary of state), and perhaps (in 2016) if a reelected Kasich becomes the Republican standard bearer for president of the United States.

THE ST. JOHN FACTOR

The Maier decision indicates to the SCPR that Husted does not think key Stark Republicans (the Timkens, Braden and Cline [of the BOE] and Jeff Matthews [director of the BOE] in terms of how zealously they campaign for him are critical to his reelection efforts as secretary of state.

And he just might benefit from the Maier folks sitting on their hands in terms of the effort they put forth to deliver Stark County to the firebrand Nina Turner (a state senator from Cuyahoga County) in the secretary of state face-off.

The political unsophisticate in all this may prove to be former (as of March 1, 2014) Stark BOE Democratic member Deametrious St. John.  Remember, the guy who the SCPR - kiddingly, only taken seriously by Stark County lawyer and Democratic activist Steve Okey; as probably having trouble spelling his first name.

Political idiot (unsophisticate)?

That's the SCPR's take on St. John's political acumen.

That notwithstanding St. John telling Stark's Democrats at a Stark County Democratic Party Executive Committee (SCDP-EC) meeting (to pick his successor as a BOE member) on February 15 what "rubes" they are when it comes to political intrigue and roughhousing.

For he came out of the School of Political Hard Knocks conducted by Cuyahoga County/City of Cleveland political boss George Forbes.  (See George Forbes-An Obsession with Power, Cleveland Magazine.com, November, 1986)

Stark County politics he told the SCDP-EC "is a joke."

If it is, then St. John should be very upset with himself, for it appears to the SCPR that he just got worked over by the Maier faction of the Stark County Democratic Party and perhaps Jon Husted.

In the end, he might retroactively find his vote for George T. Maier's qualification to be on the May Democratic ballot by the Ohio Supreme Court. 

Wouldn't that be a political humiliation, if it happens?

• SCPR Note:  Balas-Bratton has filed a Notice of Appeal to revive the question of whether or not St. John should have be allow to vote on the Maier matter,
• An invalidation of the St. John vote would negate the Husted tie-breaker which would result in a Maier disqualification from the May ballot unless the Ohio Supreme Court rules otherwise

Deametrious is the chairman of the Stark County Black Caucus PAC (Political Action Committee, SCBC-PAC).

Guess what one of Nina Turner's forte is?

She is the foremost activist in the Ohio Black Legislative Caucus of which the Stark County version is a spin-off of.

So do you think that maybe, just maybe Deametrious St. John - the "political operative" (he proudly says he is) - in his role as SCBC-PAC may be pushing for Nina Turner to be elected secretary of state?

Of course!

But while they will certainly pay lip service to Deametrious and his Turner-as-secretary-of-state cause; the "Maier Loyalty Club" - the SCPR thinks - will give only that:  which is to say "lip service."

With political friends (if he is typical) like Deametrious being her political operative, Nina Turner has very little chance to become secretary of state and virtually no chance to win in Stark County.

Accordingly, Husted's decision may or may not show political smarts, he is clueless on election law.

The "no brainer" talk of Robart the SCPR thinks is indicative of what Husted knows to be the case.

But for whatever byzantine political reasons he has conjured up, he decided to ignore "the rule of law" and followed his political gut feeling in making a decision that he thinks may benefit him.

Jon Husted is political through and through.  And what the Maier decision shows is that Stark's Republican "powers that be" were not such that he  felt that going their way was in his personal political interest.

HUSTED IS HYPOCRITICAL

A SCPR reader brought to the attention of The Report that being in addition to being a Machiavellian politician that Husted is a first rate hypocrite.

No surprise here.

Hypocrisy is a typical quality of politicians.

George T. Maier himself, the SCPR thinks, is right up there with Husted on the matter of hypocrisy.

He guaranteed Stark Countians back in January, 2013 that if he applied to be appointed by the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC), he would be qualified under Ohio Revised Code Section 311.01.

When he was told by the Ohio Supreme Court on November 6, 2013 that his "guarantee" was bogus, then he started telling Stark Countians that the high court's decision was a "mere technicality" of law that he was going to correct.

Yet no one, including Husted this past Friday has ruled that he is now qualified under 311.01.

But Stark Countians can bet their bottom dollars that neither the SCPD-CC appointed Sheriff George T. Maier nor any of his deputies will want to hear about "mere technicalities" for those they arrest in the performance of their duties.

And that is the way it should be in our life as Americans, Ohioans, and Stark Countians and our accountability to "the rule of law."

Just not for George T. Maier and ORC 311.01.

The same goes for Husted.

Back in 2003 as a legislator on the cusp in 2004 of becoming the Ohio Speaker of the House (which, of course, establishes his political clout within the Republican caucus of the House which at the time was a supermajority along with the Senate in the Ohio General Assembly), he was a sponsor of a revision of ORC 311.11.

Now we know (March 7, 2014), Jon Husted could care "a rat's *** " about the criteria of ORC 311.01 and "the rule of law."

All this hypocrite cares about is his own political hide!

If he Ohio Supreme Court reverses him, which the SCPR thinks there is a good chance that it will, Husted will then have it every which way.

He on March 7th in the Maier and Libertarian cases took care of what he perceived to be in his and the governor's political interests.

If the high court does what the legal merits of Maier compel, Husted can then say to himself:  "Jon, you have done well by yourself." and to Starks's Republican leadership "I have done no harm."

As The Report says above, being the consummate politician he is "he has had it every which way!"

What follows is a synopsis of Husted's involvement with ORC 311.01 back in 2003.

DEAMETRIOUS ST. JOHN "INSISTS" THAT HE IS CAPABLE OF RENDERING AN "UNBIASED" DECISION ON BALAS-BRATTON BOE PROTEST OF MAIER SHERIFF CANDIDACY

AND

HE MISCHARACTERIZES SCPR BLOG OF 02/14/2014?
 
UPDATE AT 10:14 AM

UPDATE AT 10:24 AM
 

Earlier this morning Balas-Bratton attorney Craig Conley wrote this letter to the Ohio secretary of state Jon Husted, to wit:

Dear Mr. Husted:

For the reasons set forth hereinbelow, it is respectfully suggested that you are legally obliged to "strike" and disregard (its lack of merit aside) the entirety of Attorney Okey's February 18, 2014 letter to you wherein he purports to represent Mr. St. John as a BOE Member.

Under O.R.C. 309.09(A), the Stark County Prosecuting Attorney, not Attorney Okey is statutory counsel for Mr. St. John in his official capacity as a BOE Member.

Indeed, that Code Subsection provides, in pertinent part, that "The prosecuting attorney shall be the legal advisor of the . . . board of elections, and all c0unty officers . . . [and] The prosecuting attorney shall prosecute and defend all suits and actions which any such officer, board . . . directs or to which it is a party . . . " (emphasis supplied)

There has been no O.R.C. 305.14(A) application for or appointment of "outside" legal counsel to represent BOE Member St. John in the Prosecuting Attorney's stead - which, of course, means that, as a matter of law the Stark County Prosecuting Attorney, at all times relevant, has been and remains BOE • Member St:. John's statutory counsel, not Attorney Okey.

Accordingly, it is  again respectfully  suggested that you are legally obliged to "strike" and disregard the entirety of Attorney Okey's aforesaid letter,

Sincerely,

Craig T. Conley

CTC/rcps    cc:    Cynthia Balas-Bratton    
                             Stark County Board of Elections    
                             Stark County Prosecuting Attorney
                             Steven P. Okey, Esq. 
                             Thomas L. Rosenberg, Esq.
                              Michael R. Traven, Esq.

The SCPR provided a copy to Steve Okey with a request for his reaction, to wit:

On Feb 20, 2014, at 9:41 AM, "Martin Olson" <tramols@att.net> wrote:

> Steve,
>
> Do you have a reaction to Conley having sent the attached letter to Mr. Husted?
>
> Specifically, do you contest Conley's assertion that you are not authorized to represent Mr. St. John?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Martin

Here is Steve's response:

Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:04 AM

From:  Steve Okey

To:  Martin Olson

Martin,

Thank you for your inquiry.

Mr. Conley's letter is a model of absurdity.  Although the prosecutor is statutory counsel, Mr. Ferrero has long since publicly announced his conflict of interest in the Maier matter. Further, Mr. St. John is entirely free to retain personal counsel at his discretion -- and thus far, at no cost to the taxpayers.

Regards,

Steve

Sent from my iPhone

ORIGINAL BLOG

The SCPR "at best" has a "testy" relationship with Deametrious St. John.

Somewhat like The Report's connections with Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez and Republican Stark County GOP chairman Jeff Matthews, state Representative Christina Hagan (Republican - Marlboro) and the Democrat Maier brothers (George and his familial and political mentor Johnnie A. Jr.).

These folks are a number Stark County officials who carry themselves with a "my way or the highway" attitude about themselves.

They avoid anyone who asks tough questions. No "meaningful" accountability to the Stark County public is abided by these people.

And, of course, the SCPR "leaves no stone uncovered" and they well know that.

All are "control" artists who are used to others not challenging their "received 'political' wisdom."

Of course, they can and do refuse to answer specific "probing" questions which is why - even though public figures paid with taxpayer dollars - by the likes of the SCPR.

They are more than willing to be talking with Stark County mainstream media types because they get "softballs" thrown to them.

THE CASE OF DEAMETRIOUS ST. JOHN

In an earlier blog this week, I referenced a telephone message that St. John left on my voice mail Sunday evening.

This, despite his summarily rejecting my request for an "on camera" interview (readers can hear St. John doing the rejection on the tape of the Sherers' interview) which, of course, would have given him a full and complete opportunity to have made himself seen and heard thereby obviating the need to take "the coward's way out" and leaving a voice mail.

Monday morning, as I was preparing to cover the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE, Board), St. John was "at it again."

Yelling at The Report "from a distance" that the February 14th blog did not get the facts rights in that in language suggesting - perhaps - that he was not renewed as the Stark Dems as the Party's Stark BOE member because of the controversy surrounding whether or not he could do an unbiased decision on the Cynthia Balas-Bratton challenge to the BOE on George T. Maier's candidacy for Stark County sheriff.

The fact of the matter is that the SCPR was not citing facts but rather was offering an opinion-esque analysis.

To repeat, what  I did do was SPECULATE (BLOG LINK) (see that capitalized word Mr. St. John) that perhaps the St. John challenge that is currently underway - as his being too biased to function ethically as a "quasi-judicial" (a role he has on elections contest as a board member with the Stark BOE) - MAY have been an "not owned up to" factor by the Party brass in his not being renewed for another BOE term in office.

Does Deametrious St. John know the difference between assertions that something is factual as compared to conjecture about what may or may not be factual?

Apparently, not!

ON TO THE ST. JOHN BOE ROLE

You do not have to be a lawyer to know that a judge (even if a "quasi-judge) whose public statements indicate he has pre-judged a case should as a matter of impeccable ethics be required to step aside from that case.

Most such persons step aside without being compelled to.

Despite his having made a number of statements to area media of his being convinced that George T. Maier is qualified (presumably he is referring to Ohio Revised Code Section 311.01) to be sheriff of Stark County, he has talked himself into believing that he has not pre-judged Cynthia Balas-Bratton's "protest" against Maier now before the BOE and he has refused to remove himself.

Here is what Balas-Bratton's attorney terms as St. John's "self-serving" affidavit his attorney has filed with the Ohio secretary of state:

(Note:  Somewhat reconfigured for blog formatting purposes)

BEFORE THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

STARK COUNTY, OHIO

IN RE:  PROTEST RELATING TO THE PROTEST OF GEORGE T. MAIER

___________________________________

AFFIDAVIT OF DEAMETRIOUS ST. JOHN 

___________________________________

Deametrious St John, after being duly sworn, states the following to be true:

1.  I am competent to testify to the matters stated herein, I make this Affidavit upon personal knowledge, information and belief

2.  I am a member of the Stark County Board of Elections, having been duly appointed by the Ohio Secretary of State.

3.  It is my understanding that Cynthia Balas-Bratton has fiJed a protest against the candidacy of George T. Maier to be on the Democratic primary ballot for the office of Stark County Sheriff on May 6,2014.

4.  I hold no personal bias for or against Cynthia Balas-Bralton, George T. Maier. or any other interested party to this matter, or their attorneys, nor do I hold any personal bias against the protest filed by Ms. Balas-Bratton.

5.  I hold no hostile feeling or spirit of ill-will or undue friendship or favoritism toward any of the interested parties to this matter or their attorneys.

6.  I have not formed an opinion or fixed anticipatory judgment regarding the merits of the protest filed by Cynthia Balas-Biatton. Indeed, the protest was filed only three days ago on  February 11, 2014. The protest and its associated documents are voluminous and must be fully and comprehensively reviewed, a process that is ongoing.

7   Previously, certain limited statements were attributed to me in the press regarding the qualifications of Mr. Maier for the office of Stark County Sheriff. However, those attributed statements constituted only edited portions of the Jul! statements that were actually made, and do not accurately reflect the full and complete context in which the statements were made.

8.  I specifically deny the allegation that I have already decided, pre-hearing, that the protest should be denied. The Stark County Board of Elections has not yet heard the protest as required by R.C 3513.05,. and I will not form an opinion regarding the merits of the protest until all appropriate information and evidence has been submitted to the Stark County Board of Elections and the parties have had an opportunity to be heard.

9.  I affirmatively state that I am approaching the protest with an open state of mind which will be governed by the law and the facts. I understand my duty to reader a fair and impartial judgment upon the protest filed by Cynthia Balas-Bratton, and I have the full ability to render  a fair judgment in the faithful execution of my duties.

10. In relation to the protest tiled by Cynthia Balas-Bratton, I wiJI perform the duties of my office to the best of my ability and will enforce the election laws, in accordance with the oath I took pursuant to R.C. 3501.08.

This affidavit is St. John's countermand to the obvious prejudicial import - to reasonably minded persons, the SCPR thinks - of the multiple public statements/votes he has made of George Maier's ORC 311.01 qualifications to be Stark County sheriff.

So on two counts (mischaracterizing the SCPR's Monday blog and his affidavit) The Report thinks St. John has has come down with a case of  "foot in mouth" disease.

COUNT ONE

To review, his official line as published in Monday's blog:

Problem for St. John is that the SCPR is not convinced of his stated reasons and he is not willing to undergo a "cross-examination-esque" Q&A.

The Report has this gnawing feeling that a number of something elses are at play as to why St. John is not staying on.

Maybe the SCPR is onto something and maybe not.

A stand up guy on the public payroll should be willing to face incisive questioning so that the public gets a fair shot at uncovering the full story.

Sometimes even the deepest held secrets on matters such as this leak out.  And if that is the case here, readers can be sure that the SCPR will recall these misgivings, and if suspected information leaches out, St. John can be sure that The Report will revisit the matter in a future blog.

And the last time I checked, in the United States of America we are allowed to accept or not accept what we are being told by anyone and certainly such is the case with public officials.

How many times have Americans had elected/appointed officials look unblinkingly into a camera and deny this or that suspicion and/or that his/her statements belie what is "self-servingly" said to be the import of them?

COUNT TWO

In addition to The Report doubting the reasons given for his stepping down as a Board member, the SCPR questions his and his attorney's line that he can render an unbiased decision in the Balas-Bratton protest before the Board of Elections.

Why won't St. John answer questions on both matters at the hand of someone who has a great deal of experience of asking probing questions?

Hmm?

ON THE "PRE-JUDGMENT" QUESTION:

"Political Operative" St. John (folks, that is how he describes himself), thinks he can suspend his admitted already formed "personal belief" and have a case of amnesia on that "lurking in his mind" and potentially form a different assessment on hearing the evidence.

Take a look at this excerpt from a recent Alliance Review article:

The Report ventures to say that St. John's protestations to the contrary, common human experience tells us all that to think in such contradictory ways as St John is, makes us "uneasy" and compels most of us to step aside.

Of course, there are always a few who for whatever reason (ego or whatever) engage in an "exercise of fooling oneself" and persist in imposing themselves in situations where the justice of the matter calls out that a reasonable and reflective person recuse himself from judging.

It appears to the SCPR that Mr. St. John is in the throes of fooling himself.  And though one never likes to see a person put himself in such a foolish enterprise, he can have at it for himself.

But it is quite a different matter when a St. John pushes again to affect public processes.

Accordingly, it is fitting and proper that Balas-Bratton has challenged him on his right to participate in judging whether or not George T. Maier possesses the required credentials set out on ORC 311.01 to be qualified to be sheriff of Stark County.

Fortunately, in American, St. John - whether he likes it or not - is accountable to other public officials and therefore is not free to make an "exclusive to himself" judgment about his capacity to be unbiased on the matter before him.

As things stand now, should Secretary of State Jon Husted fail to intervene by noon today, the SCPR is told that Balas-Bratton will be filing a Writ of Prohibition with the Fifth District Court of Appeals (headquartered in Canton) to stop St. John pursing his apparent determination to engage in an "exercising of fooling onself" from doing so in this instance because a paramount "public interest" is at stake.

The SCPR applauds Balas-Bratton for pursuing this extraordinary remedy.

As background to fill readers in on what has already transpired between legal counsel for Balas-Bratton and St. John, here are links to relevant documents:

•  February 17, 2014 blog,
•  February 16, 2014 blog,
•  February 14, 2014 blog,
•  February 14, 2014 blog (earlier in the day),
•  February 14, 2014 blog (still earlier in the day),
•  February 14, 2014 blog (yet still earlier in the day)

The Report always presents space to the likes of St. John to have the SCPR reading public hear them out.

Above, The Report has stated St. John's case on the Stark Dems' reappointment process, and what follows in his attorney's statement of his case to be permitted to continue on to judgment in the Balas-Bratton "protest," to wit:

OKEY'S LETTER FOR DEAMETRIOUS ST. JOHN

Dear Secretary Husted:

I represent Deametrious St. John, who is a member of the Stark County Board of Elections. Mr.  St. John was appointed to the Board in 2013 and his term will end on February 28,2014. Mr. St. John has ably served in this important office and has conducted himself with pride throughout his tenure.

Currently pending before the Stark County Board of Elections is a protest to the candidacy of George T. Maier to be on the May 6, 2014, Democratic primary ballot for Stark County Sheriff. The  protest has been filed by Cynthia Balas-Bratton, who is represented by Attorney Craig T. Conley.

Attorney Conley has demanded that Mr. St. John abstain from voting on or participating in any  consideration of the protest Attorney Conley has now requested that you "summarily remove or suspend" Mr. St. John from the Stark County Board of Elections.

Attorney Conley's demand that Mr. St. John be summarily removed or suspended must fail for both substantive and procedural reasons, as I explain below.

Attorney Conley alleges that Mr. St. John has "inexplicably refused to recuse himself from the subject Protest." This is a falsehood, inasmuch as we have provided to Attorney Conley a specific and legally sound explanation of why abstention is improper in this case, along with an Affidavit of Mr. St. John. Regrettably, it appears that Attorney Conley chose to omit these two documents from the materials he submitted to your office. Therefore, I am enclosing the letter that we sent to Mr. Conley on Friday, February 14, 2014, as well as a copy of the Affidavit.

Attorney Conley raises a due process argument in relation to his demand that Mr. St. John  abstain. However, a substantial showing of personal bias is required to disqualify a hearing officer or to obtain a ruling that the hearing is unfair. Staschak v. State Med Bd of Ohio, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 03AP-799, 2004-Ohio-4650,1(40. "The term 'bias or prejudice' implies a hostile feeling or spirit of ill-will or undue friendship or favoritism toward one of the litigants or his attorney, with the formation of a fixed anticipatory judgment on the part of the judge, as contradistinguished from an open state of mind which will be governed by the law and the facts." In re Disqualification of Hunter, 137 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2013-Ohio-4467,997 N.E.2d 541,1J9. (Citations omitted.)

Attorney Conley complains that Mr. St. John - as a member of the Stark County Democratic  Central Committee - joined the majority of voting members of the Central Committee in appointing Mr. Maier to the office of Stark County Sheriff. However, this in no way constitutes evidence of "bias." The rule has long been that the outcome of a judicial proceeding alone may not stand as proof of bias or partiality. Meadowbrook Care Ctr. v. Ohio Dept of Job & Family Servs., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-871,2007-Ohio-6534, [Section] 26(citing Liteky v.United States, 510 U.S. 540, 114S.Q. 1147, 127 L. Ed.2d 474 (1994)). Similarly, the outcome of the votes of the Stark County Democratic Central Committee (in which Mr. St John voted with the majority) in the discharge of its official duties under R.C. 305.02(B) may not stand as proof of bias or partiality.

The attached Affidavit of Deametrious St. John affirmatively refutes any allegation that Mr. St.  John has personal bias in this matter. Mr. St. John has no hostile feeling, spirit of ill-will, undue friendship or favoritism toward either of the parties or their attorneys. He has not formed a fixed anticipatory judgment and instead is approaching the protest with an open state of mind which will be governed by the law and the facts. Mr. St. John folly intends to fulfill his duty to render a fair and impartial judgment upon the protest filed by Cynthia Balas-Bratton.

I have provided this substantive explanation despite the fact that Attorney Conley has utterly failed to establish or show any ground that could possibly warrant you to "summarily remove or suspend" Mr. St. John under R.C. 3501.16. That statute states in pertinent part: "The secretary of state  may summarily remove or suspend any member of a board of elections, or the director, deputy director, or any other employee of the board, for neglect of duty, malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, for any willful violation of Title XXXV of the Revised Code, or for any other good and sufficient cause."

R.C. 3501.16 authorizes six grounds for the removal or suspension of a member of a board of  elections: (1) neglect of duty, (2) malfeasance, (3) misfeasance, (4) nonfeasance, (5) a willful violation of Title 35 of the Revised Code, and (6) any other good and sufficient cause. Attorney Conley fails to specify or even allege which of these grounds Mr. St. John supposedly committed.

Attorney Conley makes the unsubstantiated allegation that Mr. St. John "evinces a clear violation of his O.R.C. 3501.08 Oath of office." The oath of office for members of the Board of Elections is found in R.C. 3501.08, which requires "an oath that he will support the constitutions of the United States and of the state, will perform the duties of the office to the best of his ability, will enforce the election  laws, and will protect and preserve the records and property pertaining to elections." Again, Attorney Conley launches naked, unsupported allegations without any reference to which specific provision is supposedly violated.

These vague, non-specific and unsupported allegations far fall short of what the law requires for  the Secretary of State to remove or suspend a member of the board of elections. The Ohio Supreme Court has held: "R.C. 3501.16 does not grant the Secretary of State broad discretion in removing election board members. He is required to submit more than 'his reasons for believing' the individual should be removed. Indeed, he cannot remove them except for certain very specific reasons and 'other good and sufficient cause.'" State ex rel Hough v. Brown, 50 Ohio St.2d 329, 332, 364 N.E.2d 275 (1977). (Emphasis original.)

Substantively, Attorney Conley has entirely failed to meet the specific and narrow standards of the law.

Procedurally, Attorney Conley is equally as flawed. His demand for "immediate [emphasis sic] action under O.R.C. 3501.16 to 'summarily remove or suspend' Mr. St. John" is an invitation to the Secretary of State to violate Mr. St. John's due process rights. It is ironic that Attorney Conley demands due process for his client, while seeking to deny due process to Mr. St John. Indeed, Mr. St. John holds the distinction of being the first African-American to ever serve on the Stark County Board of Elections and is uniquely aware of the seriousness of his responsibilities. Further, Mr. St. John views any attempt to deny him due process, particularly as sought here by Attorney Conley, as wholly flawed.

The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized that "an individual who is already an election board member has a greater constitutional interest in keeping that position than does an individual who has not yet been appointed." State ex rel Hough v. Brown, 50 Ohio St.2d 329, 332, 364 N.E.2d 275 (1977).

Mr. St. John's constitutional interest is guaranteed to due process by virtue of Section 38, Art. II  of the Ohio Constitution, which states in pertinent part: "Laws shall be passed providing for the prompt removal from office, upon complaint and hearing, of all officers * * * .for any misconduct involving moral turpitude or for other cause provided by law." (Emphasis added.) This constitutional requirement of "upon complaint and hearing" is repeated and implemented by R.C. 3.07.

Following these constitutional and statutory mandates, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that "a formal complaint and hearing are required prior to any removal of a member of a board of elections * * *." State ex rel Hughes v. Brown, 31 Ohio St.2d 41, 44, 285 N.E 2d 376 (1972). The only exceptions to this rule are where the law automatically requires an office to be vacated, such as when a sheriff has been absent from the county for 90 days, or where a person accepts a second office whose duties are incompatible with those of another office already held. These exceptions do not apply here.

Attorney Conley demands that Mr. St. John be immediately and summarily removed from office.  This would be an egregious violation of the due process requirements of Ohio law.

For the above reasons, we respectfully request that you deny the demands of Attorney Conley, and thereby permit Mr. St. John to continue to perform his duties as a member of the Stark County Board of Elections.

Very truly yours,

THE OKEY LAW FIRM, L.P. A.

Steven P. Okey   

SPO/klf
Enclosure
Copy: Deametrious St. John
Craig T. Conley, Esq.
Stark County Board of Elections

Here are two follow up letters which contain Craig Conley's response (as Balas-Bratton's attorney):

The first letter:

Dear Mr. Husted:

Although I have not yet received a copy of sane from Attorney Okey, I am in receipt of a copy of his February 18, 2014 letter to you  ... .

At the outset, I decline to respond to Attorney Okey's multiple ad hominem  attacks,  all of which are but the proverbial "red herrings"'.

As to Mr. St. John's self-serving and grossly disingenuous Affidavit, I refer you to my two responsive February 14, 2014 memos to Attorney Okey, true copies of which follow {along with a true copy of The Alliance Review  article referred to therein).

In that regard, to paraphrase language from Attorney Okey's aforesaid letter, "Regrettably, it appears that Attorney Okey chose to emit those two responsive memos from the materials he submitted to your office".

Stated succinctly, as set forth in those two responsive memos, it simply is not enough for Mr. St. John to say "it ain't so" via a self-serving affidavit.
As to my February 17, 2014 request of you to "summarily remove or suspend" Mr. St. John, that phrase is a direct quote from O.R.C. 3501,16; i.e., it is not my phraseology,

In that regard, as you are certainly aware, the Ohio Supreme Court has defined "summarily" to mean "without ceremony or delay''.

And Conley's letter to Attorney Okey in the wake of Okey's "responsive to Conley" letters sent earlier in the week by Conley to the Ohio secretary of state:

Steven P. Okey, Esq. FROM:  Craig T. Conley, Esq.

RE:    Cynthia    Balas-Bratton's    Protest    Against    Maier Candidacy
 
With reference to your February 18, 2014 letter to Secretary of State Husted, 

I have already responded thereto (and you should receive a copy of that response in tomorrow's mail).

Although my response to Secretary Husted appropriately did not include mention of the matter, I must express my dismay (if not disgust) that you "played the race card" by going out of your way to inform Secretary Husted that your client "holds the distinction of being the first African-American to ever serve on the Stark County Board of Elections", which "distinction" of course per se means that he, apparently unlike. European-Americans, "is uniquely aware of the seriousness of his responsibility".

In short, SHAME ON YOU! 

(the last sentence was inadvertently omitted in the original publication by the SCPR)

Hmm?

Interesting, no?