PART 7: JUDGE PARK SERIES: WILL JAKMIDES GET PARK REVERSED AGAIN?

On August 18, 2014, the Fifth District Court of Appeals:

• on the appeal of Alliance attorney Jeff Jakmides (filed on behalf of one Barbara Lockheart)
  
• that Judge Dixie Park of the Stark County Probate Court had violated the Constitutional (due process of law) rights of Lockheart which resulted in her spending some 10 harrowing days
• in the Stark County jail

It could be that Jakmides may once again be on a track to have the Fifth District find that Judge Park has violated the due process of law rights of yet another Stark Countian.

On February 26th, Jakmides filed an appeal with the court from Judge Park rulings in the case In re:  ... Frank K. Bolog:

As a matter of formal legal pleadings, the appeal asserts that Judge Park:

In layman's language, the pleading asserts that Judge Park:

1. Violated Ohio law in acting to appoint a guardian for putative ward Frank K. Bolog without having found that as a matter of law on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that Bolog is mentally impaired,
2. Violated Ohio law in appointing an guardian for Bolog's personal/property interest decision making authority of a person (John R. Frank, appointed February 4, 2014) who never made a required Ohio Supreme Court prescribed application, and consequently:
3. Bolog was denied his U.S. Constitutional rights of due process of law (notice and opportunity to be heard) rights.

If Jakmides is successful, Bolog will be the fourth in a string of cases within a year in which Park was either reversed on constitutional grounds (In re:  Finan and In re: Flohr) or remanded (by the Ohio Supreme Court) on the illegal issuance by a probate court judge of a search warrant.

The Report will not repeat the volumes that have already been written in this current series (who knows how long this is going to go on?), but here are links for those SCPR readers are not familiar with the details of what has gone on before:

• September 22, 2014, 
• September 23, 2014,
• September 25, 2014, 
• September 29, 2014,
• January 14, 2015,
• February 19, 2015

The question that the SCPR raises is this:  When is enough enough?

In several blogs of this series, The Report has said that Judge Park is obviously in over her head in terms of knowledge of the law or in judicial demeanor and should at her own initiative resign.

Of course, that is not going to happen.

The SCPR has learned that among Stark County judicial/legal establishment, Judge Park has very low regard in terms of her legal acumen.

However, elected official colleagues and lawyers who appear before her will talk "privately" with one another in derogation of her legal abilities, but none apparently have the courage to go face-to-face with Judge Park and join the SCPR in asking her to resign.

Currently, there is a trial going on in Cleveland involving Cleveland Municipal Court judge Angela Stokes (currently barred from hearing criminal cases) on whether or not Judge Stokes should lose her law license and therefore the ability to be an Ohio judge:

Excerpts from a February 26th Cleveland Plain Dealer piece on the trial:

The Ohio Supreme Court's Board of Professional Conduct appointed a three-member panel to hear the case, which is unfolding like a trial in a makeshift courtroom in the offices of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association.

Joseph Caligiuri, the lead lawyer for the disciplinary counsel, described Stokes' treatment of people appearing in her courtroom as "downright despicable" and said that she led a "reign of terror" that disrupted the entire court. He said people who enter her courtroom walk into a "different universe."

Among the allegations made by local lawyers and others against Judge Park in addition to the higher court reversals/remands as linked to above, include charges that she favors certain lawyers over others and has had a difficult relationship with court employees.

Local attorney Craig T. Conley has made "no bones about it," he wants Park gone and gone yesterday.

While ethical rules will not allow lawyers who have filed disciplinary complaints to make having done so public, the SCPR has reason to believe that complaints have been filed against Judge Park.

Should any of "thought-to-have-been-filed" complaints mature into charges being filed by Disciplinary Counsel against Park, the SCPR thinks Stark Countians can expect a similar scene that is going on in Cleveland to materialize in Stark County.

It hasn't been that long since there was a resolution of difficulties that came out of troubles that plagued the Stark County treasurer's office during the period April 1, 2009 through the end of October, 2011.

And, of course, there is the George T. Maier qualifying to be sheriff saga that dragged out from February 5, 2013 through the November election of 2014. 

Could it be that Stark County will once again be the focus of all Ohio as the Judge Dixie Park saga unfolds?

PART 6 IN A SERIES: "THREE STRIKES AND YOU ARE OUT?" JUDGE PARK FOR THIRD TIME ADMONISHED BY HIGHER COURT!

UPDATED:  7:00 PM

CORRECTION:  (08:54 AM)

In today's original blog the SCPR erroneously reported that Jennifer Arnold in her capacity as law director had requested the search warrant which is the subject this blog.

The warrant was issued in 2012 and Arnold did not become law director until early in 2014.

On that erroneous basis, The Report commented that it appeared to have been a case of "judge shopping."

With the premises being in error, of course, the comment thereon was unfounded with regard to the current law director for which the SCPR apologies to Ms. Arnold for.

REVISED BLOG

Unbelievable!  Simply unbelievable!!  And a third time, utterly unbelievable!!!

Over a six month span (August 18, 2014 through February 18, 2015), Stark County Probate Court judge Dixie Park (Republican of Alliance) has been found by an appellate court to not have known the law.

In the first two cases, Ohio's Fifth District Court of Appeals (which includes Stark County) held that Judge Park did not understand and apply correctly the Constitutional law of Ohio and of the United States of America on due process of law.

Yesterday, the Ohio Supreme Court found that she exceeded her authority in issuing a search warrant sought on behalf of the Alliance Police Department back in 2012.

Back on January 14, 2015, this is what the SCPR wrote about Judge Park after her second reversal on "due process of law" grounds (In re ... Flohr):

A little rain falls on all our lives, no?

Nonetheless the SCPR thought that Park's error on Finan was so grievous and threatening to the legal well-being of day-in, day-out Stark Countians  who might have the misfortune of appearing before her and incurring arbitrary "getting on her wrong side" that The Report launched a series designed to persuade Judge Park to resign.

Well, with yesterday's Ohio Supreme Court decision, the little bit of rain has now turned into  a drencher if not a torrent.

The Report will not repeat the volumes that have already been written in this current series (who knows how long this is going to go on?), but here are links for those SCPR readers are not familiar with the details of what has gone on before:

• January 14, 2015,
• September 22, 2014, 
• September 23, 2014,
• September 25, 2014, and 
• September 29, 2014

The person who signaled that "all was not right" with the search warrant thing was Alliance Municipal Court magistrate Jean Madden. She ordered the suppression of evidence in the Brown et al case and was upheld by Judge Robert Lavery (now retired).

The SCPR report wrote back in 2012 that Madden (a Republican) should have been the Republican appointee as Charles Brown's replacement when he retired.

As for Judge Park, The Stark County Political Report once again calls for her to resign.

Just take a look at what the Ohio Supreme Court had to say in yesterday's issued opinion.

The most disturbing thing about this latest Park episode is that her taking on a role not permitted as a matter of Ohio law (unless under appointment by the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court) could have jeopardized prosecutors' legal ability to continue with a prosecution of alleged violations of Ohio gambling laws.

Alliance justice officials need to explain to Alliance public who it was that initiated the contact with Judge Park in light of the clarity of the law of Ohio that a probate judge has no power to issue search warrants.

The primary question is whether or not the contact was a case of "judge shopping?"

If it can be determined that such was the case, then measures need to be instituted in the Alliance law department to ensure that such never occurs again.

The current law director (who has been in the Alliance Law Department since 2001 as an assistant prosecutor) that she will not as law director be asking any judge for a search warrant.

Doesn't that sound a little over the top?

• Note: The Reporter who wrote the story linked to above, in a "clarification" e-mail to the SCPR says that Arnold meant "other probate judges;" not judges who are statutorily authorized to grant search warrants.

"Bottom line," Judge Park should not have been receptive to anybody's entreaty to issue the warrant.

Three Park by higher courts admonishments (including two reversals on Constitutional law grounds) within six (6) months!

Unreal.

And one can only shutter to think what litigants and their attorneys have had to endure at the hand of Judge Park on matters which have not made it up the ladder for review by Ohio officials to whom Park has accountability.

Unfortunately and disgustedly, Stark County's organized Democratic and Republican political parties both gave Park a pass in the 2012 elections.

The moral of the story on Dixilene Park as a Stark County judge, it seems to the SCPR, is that individual litigants and the county/municipal justice system itself cannot rely on her knowing and/or correctly applying the law of Ohio and of the United States of America.

The conclusion is inescapable, is it not?

Judge Park should resign and should resign today!

PART 5: CONTINUING SERIES - PROBATE JUDGE DIXIE PARK, YET ANOTHER "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" REVERSAL

On August 18, 2014 (In re: ... Finan) the 5th District Court of Appeals found that Judge Dixie Park (a Republican from Alliance) had violated Alliance resident Barbara Lockhart's "Due Process of Law" rights under the United States of America Constitution in jailing her for some ten (10) days in September/October, 2013.

Sometime in the early fall of 2014 it appears that the University of Mount Union arranged with Judge Park to be the University's Constitution Day speaker at this Stark County (Alliance) institution of higher learning.

The University officials selecting her also made a big deal out of the fact that Park was the first woman ever to speak at the event.

While Mount Union does a terrific job with its Division III football program, its officialdom seems to have a way to go in selecting deserving female Constitution Day speakers.

The SCPR can think of a number of Stark County female attorneys/judges more qualified to speak on constitutional law questions than Park.

One would hope that the person or committee  selecting her as Constitution Day speaker had not read In re: ... Finan and the travesty of a harrowing jailing experienced by as foisted upon Citizen Lockhart by Judge Park.

One might get philosophical about Park's grievous failure in the Finan case  and muse that "nobody is perfect" and though Park's not understanding "due process of law" had traumatic consequences for Lockhart; "such is life."

A little rain falls on all our lives, no?

Nonetheless the SCPR thought that Park's error on Finan was so grievous and threatening to the legal well-being of day-in, day-out Stark Countians  who might have the misfortune of appearing before her and incurring arbitrary "getting on her wrong side" that The Report launched a series designed to persuade Judge Park to resign.

Links to those blogs:

September 22, 2014,

September 23, 2014,

September 25, 2014, and

September 29, 2014

(Note:  Originally, the SCPR intended on doing a two part series; however, inasmuch as information kept pouring in, The Report (tongue- in-cheek fashion) started with the third blog of the series labeling "Part 3 of a Two Part Series."

Today's blog is simply labeled "Volume 5:  Continuing Series" inasmuch as the SCPR thinks that perhaps somewhat like the Washington Post's treatment of the Nixon administration Watergate story there may be a seemingly unending life to what the SCPR now labels as being "Parkgate."

Hopefully, this series will prompt the resignation of Judge Park as the Post's series on Nixon did with his resignation.

Especially in light of Judge Park having been bounced around once again by the Ohio 5th District Court of Appeals.

If you are Dixie Park, how does she explain a second time (In re: ... Flohr, December 31, 2014) less than a year later of being reversed because of her being determined to have violated the U.S. (as State of Ohio) Due Process of Law right of a citizen of Stark County.

In Flohr,  Judges Sheila Farmer, William B. Hoffman and Patricia Delaney found:

• that Park in holding a hearing in which one Jude Flohr was present:
• but NOT ALLOWED by Park to question the Judge Park appointed guardian ad litem who had made certain recommendations conditioning Jude Flohr's right to associate with his Probate Court ward father (namely, Ivan Flohr),
• had executed an unconstitutional "denial of due process of law" 

Accordingly, the 5th District reversed Judge Park's adoption of the guardian ad litem's recommendations unless and until Park corrects (perhaps Justin's attorney will ask for Park's "disqualification on a rehearing" ?) her illegal action.

Let's take a look at some of the language that opinion writer Judge William B. Hoffman wrote: (reconfigured for ease of reading purposes)

• Appellant [Jude Flohr] did not receive a copy of the report.  
• At the hearing, “[n]o oaths were administered and no sworn testimony was taken.  
• Witnesses were not called to testify.  
• There was no opportunity to question or examine persons regarding statements or allegations.  
• No one requested to question or cross examine other persons present.” 
• The trial court permitted counsel for Appellee [guardian of Ivan, Ivan's daughter Faith; a sister to Jude] to comment upon the number of phone calls placed by Appellant and Mary James [a sister to Faith and Jude] to the Ward.  
• Counsel for Appellee provided a copy of telephone records to the trial court and counsel for Mary James. 
• Appellant did not receive a copy of these records.

Following the hearing, 

• the trial court suspended any and all contact between Appellant and with the Ward until certain conditions were met, 
• i.e., Appellant was to complete a psychological evaluation and the evaluator approved the commencement of visitation.  
• Such ruling was based upon the GAL’s [guardian ad litem] recommendations.

We find Appellant was not provided notice the scope of the April 22, 2014 hearing would include restricting his right to associate with his father

• Appellee’s motion sought compliance with her decisions by the Ward’s children.  
• The motion did not seek to eliminate Appellant’s contact with the Ward or request he undergo a psychological evaluation.  
• Further, Appellant did not receive a copy of the GAL report; therefore, was not prepared to respond to the allegations and recommendations contained in it. 
• Appellant also was unaware his telephone contact with the Ward was being questioned.  
• Appellant was not provided an opportunity to explain was characterized as an “inordinate” number of calls. 

Prior to placing restrictions on Appellant’s right to see or contact the Ward, we find

• the trial court was required to afford him his due process rights.  
• We find the proceedings below failed to do so.  
• Appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on these issues should Appellee decide to pursue them upon remand.  

It should be shocking and unacceptable to Stark Countians that elected judicial official Dixilene Park would so flagrantly deny everyday Stark Countian Jude Flohr his basic rights of "notice and opportunity to be heard" BEFORE before being subjected to Judge Park's order.

And, doesn't one have to wonder how many other denials Park may have propagated (not appealed or given "the benefit of a doubt" by the 5th District) over her ten years plus on the bench?

Anybody who cares anything about the quality of justice being administered in Stark County ought to review each and every SCPR blog written on Park and her conduct as judge beginning with September, 22, 2014 blog (see LINKs above).

So far only The Stark County Political Report have given Park's failures as a judge as articulated by the 5th District the attention they deserve.

It is quite indicting of Stark County's only countywide print medium, which has a reporter assigned to specifically cover Stark County courts, that it has given only minimal coverage (Finn) or no coverage (Flohr) to the to Park's lapses.

On the political front, the Stark County Democratic Party and the Stark County Republican Party have each failed to note Park's grave judicial deficiencies and provide Stark Countians with electoral alternatives.

And the silence from the Stark County Bar Association (SCBA) is deafening.  Of course, it could be that the SCBA is acting according to ethics rules that prohibit publicly revealing action taken in filing ethics complaints.

And where are the those Stark County jurists and attorneys who privately say that Park should be resign as a judge or be banished by the Ohio Supreme Court but who utter nary a peep for the well-being of an unsuspecting general public who may have the misfortune to appear before Park and risk incurring her ire.

Stark County does have two stand up attorneys in this regard.  One being the well known and regarded Jeff Jakmides and the other courageous attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley.

Conley was the subject of an ethics complaint by a cowardly "anonymous" person (believed by some to have been inspired by the judge himself), when he accused Stark County Court judge Frank Forchione of grandstanding when he illegally - according to Conley - diverted $5,000 of taxpayer fine money to a fund designed to assist victims of the Sandy Hook shooting back in December, 2013.

As a consequence of Conley filing legal action against (for client Marcelli) Forchione, which it appears that he thought was a correct interpretation of Ohio law, he obtained the return of the $5,000 from fund officials which was then deposited with the Stark County treasury.

Once Forchione changed direction, the Marcelli lawsuit was dismissed.

Conley was exonerated of any ethics violation by Ohio's Disciplinary Counsel office.

Jakmides is to be commended for pressing the Finan matter and even going so far as to suggest to deciding judges Hoffman, Wise and Gwin that they should consider referring Judge Park's unconstitutional action resulting in jail time for his client to Disciplinary Counsel.

Again, it could be that some of the silent ones are acting but are not permitted by ethics rules to publicize their initiatives.

But the SCPR thinks that most of them are content to stand idly by and allow an unsuspecting Stark County public walk in to Probate Court unaware that they may be subjecting themselves to a denial of due process of law.

Again, the question the SCPR poses is this:  Who has been affected by Judge Park's grave legal errors?

Certainly not the upper crust of Stark County society.

It has been everydays like Barbara Lockhart and Jude Flohr!

Isn't it interesting that the bullies of public life are prone to single out those with limited resources to pounce on?

Remember, folks.

There "but, for the grace of God," go you and I.

Judges are very powerful people and if left unchecked coupled with not having proper judicial temperament can wreck a person's life.

As the SCPR has written, failures (two documented such cases) like Park's should prompt a resignation.

Being the arrogant person that a number of Stark Countians who are in a position to know how she functions as a judge, think her to be; Park, like other "in your face" Stark County politicians and government officials - who, by the way, only the SCPR is willing to write about - obviously thinks she can get away with "not being up to the task" of lawfully processing critical constitutional law questions as clearly indicated by Finan and Flohr.

Moreover, there are allegations she treats staff disrespectfully and there are allegations that she meets out disparate treatment to attorneys appearing before her.

Carl Monday, an investigative reporter with WOIO, CBS's affiliate in Cleveland, has confirmed with the SCPR that he is working on a Judge Park story.

But that has been some time ago.

The Flohr case has been brought to his attention and it will be interesting to see whether or not a second denial of due process will get him to moving on investigating Judge Park.

The SCPR has reason to believe that at least one ethics complaint (perhaps several) has been filed against Judge Park.

But as the Massillon Municipal Court Eddie Elum case and the Judge Angel Stokes matter out of Cuyahoga County shows the SCPR, the Ohio Supreme Court itself appears loathe to deal effectively and efficiently with one of their kind.

The SCPR believes Elum, though disciplined, got a "mere 'slap on the wrist'" and the SCPR thinks given what The Report thinks is an overbearing way about himself will, in due course, likely be "in hot water" once again down the road.

The high court has no problem at all disciplining malfeasant/misbehaving attorneys and doing so rather expediously.

One Stark County attorney, from personal experience, tells the SCPR that  Disciplinary Counsel and the Supreme Court move fast on attorney ethical complaints.

But grievously "errant" judges?"

That seems to be "a horse of a different color," that attorney says.

The Stokes case is particularly telling on the Supremes in terms of acting quickly.

Since October, 2013 there has been a clamor among Clevelanders, which group includes "going public" judges (how rare that is) and attorneys dealing with her,  for Disciplinary Counsel and the Supreme Court to remove her from the bench.

And she has "finally" been dealt with.

And for now, even that is temporary.

And who knows, It could be that she will avoid permanent disqualification as a judge by Ohio's august body.

In any event, the final decision likely will not come until this summer (2015).

It will have taken in the neighborhood of two years for the Supreme Court to deal with allegations going back many years; most of which appear to be of the same genre.

All of which means that even if disciplinary complaint(s) have been filed against Park as reportedly they have been; a determination is not likely to come anytime soon.

Moreover, it could be that the indicated filing of the Park complaint(s) will never see "the light of day."

Judge Stephen Belden formerly of the Canton Municipal Court did the "honorable thing."

He resigned (November 30, 2014) when word got out that he was perhaps being investigated by Disciplinary Counsel on allegations that he was "in effect" putting folks appearing before him in jail for not paying their debts.

De jure imprisonment for debt has been outlawed a long, long time in the USA.

The SCPR has since September been calling for Park to resign after the Finan case.

All the more so now with the December 31, 2014 Flohr case which is a second instance of being reversed on having denied an ordinary Stark Countian "due process of law!"

In Cleveland, to its credit the Plain Dealer editorial board has taken strong position on the Stokes matter and provided the reading public with chapter and verse on Supreme Court proceedings against her.

In Stark County, only the Stark County Political Report has the gumption to take the position that Judge Park needs to resign.

In light of the gravity of Judge Park's unconstitutional actions, at least according to the 5th District Court of Appeals; one would think that she would issue a press release or otherwise response explaining her side of Finan and Flohr.

But, to date, there is nothing but silence from Judge Park as far as the SCPR can determine.

She could follow the lead of Stark County attorney Loren E. Souers, Jr. (once a Canton Municipal Court judge) as he exercised his right (as promulgated by the Ohio Supreme Court) in response to a disciplinary complaint brought against him in his role as a judge (February 13, 1991) by Ohio Disciplinary Counsel for comments he made to local media about his differences with the very same court (the 5th District Court of Appeals) that Judge Park has twice that reversed by but on altogether different grounds.

Souers was not found to have impinged on anybody's constitutional rights.

The point of the SCPR being that Judge Park has the latitude by virtue of Disciplinary Counsel v. Judge Loren E Souers, Jr,  to differ in public with the 5th District and thereby explain to the Stark County public her actions.

When a higher court says constitutional rights have been violated by one who presents herself as being versed well enough (i.e. the Mount Union Constitutional Law Day presentation) on U.S. and, of course, derivatively, Ohio constitutional law; the Stark County public, the SCPR thinks, is entitled:

• to hear her side of things, (if she thinks the court was wrong), or, if not:
• apologize, and
• resign

The Report would be delighted to provide the Stark County Political Report's well known "on camera" forum as a medium for Park to avail herself of in the way of a response.

Or, she could invite WOIO's Carl Monday into her office and take on his style of interrogation.

But who thinks either is going to happen?

PART 1 - A SERIES - STARK COUNTIANS GET "SHORT CHANGED" BY THE CANTON REPOSITORY?

UPDATED ON 11/07/2014 AT 08:45 AM

ORIGINAL BLOG

The Stark County Report's "home page" on opening up an "online" browser is The Report's "online" subscription to the Washington Post.

The Report is an avid newspaper reader.

But not just any newspaper.

The SCPR's newspaper of choice each and every morning ought to be The Canton Repository.

Unfortunately, it is not very often a newspaper that yours truly thinks "is worth reading."

However, on occasion the editors at The Rep give the green light to some very good reporters on its staff (e.g. Matt Rink, Alison Matas and Kelli Young) and lets them do a thorough job in investigating this or that thing that is happening in Stark County.

But that is the exception rather than the rule and, accordingly, it is always a serendipity experience for The Report to unfold The Rep and find anything worth reading in terms of politics and government in Stark County.

More often than not, when the SCPR opens the pages of The Cleveland Plain Dealer (cleveland.com), there are a number of stories bearing on Cuyahoga County government and politics that are worth reading.

One such story that graced the pages of cleveland.com (LINK) yesterday, to wit:

Stokes comes from the "once political powerful" Carl and Louis Stokes family mix  that dominated Cleveland and Cuyahoga politics in decades of yore.

And it is relevant in a relational sense of the word in that it can be instructive regarding the effort of Stark Countian attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley to get Stark County Court of Common Peas judge Dixie Park removed from office.

Recently, The Stark County Political Report did a series of blogs on the whys and wherefores of Conley's effort, to wit:

• September 22, 2014, Part 1
• September 23, 2014, Part 2
• September 25, 2014, Part 3
• September 29, 2014, Part 4

Getting a judge who should not be "on the bench" off the bench is a herculean task.

And, as matters now stand, Dixie Park (running unopposed on November 4th) is in for a new term amid what the SCPR believes to be a consensus among practitioners before her that she does not have the legal competence to merit being a judge.

As far as the SCPR is concerned Judge Park proved in spades her legal incompetence in a recent case in which she jailed a woman for some ten days, more or less, illegally according to the Fifth District Court of Appeals.

One might think:  "Well, judges are human beings and they do make mistakes."

Okay, counter that trite expression with a more meaningful one:  "What if you were the innocent person who had your reputation tarnished and were deprived of your liberty by an 'all too human judge."'

Moreover, the SCPR is told that there is much more to Dixie Park not having the necessary qualities for being a judge such as but not limited to her fair dealings with attorneys appearing before her and how she treats members of her staff.

The Stark County Political Report has already written extensively on Park's lack of judicial enhancing qualities.

And more is to come.

The Report hears that Carl Monday, an investigative reporter with WOIO, Channel 19 in Cleveland still has in the works a expose on Judge Park and how she functions as a judge.

But, of course, with The Repository we have heard very little.

Going forward on Conley's effort to get Park off the bench, the Stark County public will have to get its information from The Stark County Political Report.

"Mum" is likely to be the word emanating from 500 Market Avenue, South.

Just like the George T. Maier candidacy for sheriff wherein there are serious allegations of misconduct by Maier when he was number 2 in the Ohio Department of Public Safety among several other allegations weighing in on his fitness from a character standpoint to be Stark County sheriff.

Now that Maier has been elected, should those character issues flower into an abuse of power in the discharge of public duties, The Rep will bear a heavy burden of having left the Stark County reading public down in not exploring fully the allegations.

The SCPR has written frequently about those issues and would love to put the camera on George T. Maier and have him respond.

Maier and his brother Johnnie, Jr. (probably Stark County's foremost "political" and "government" official paranoids who appear work hard to squash opinions different from their own) want to minimize the SCPR's effect for public consumption purposes.

They work overtime emphasizing that the SCPR is a blog and to be lumped in with all other blogs many of which are irresponsible.

An example of their implication that "blogs" by the definition of being an irresponsible blog is characterized by, the SCPR thinks, The Massillon Review, which The Report believes (was/is?) authored by Stark County Democratic   Party political director R. Shane Jackson.

Dormant for the present for about a year now (despite being called back into existence in time for the Massillon Municipal 2013 elections by, according to the Review's anonymous (therefore cowardly) writer, look for a second "popular demand call" for after the 1st of the year.

The Massillon Review originally came into existence not long before the 2011 elections in which Johnnie A. Maier political loyalist Kathy Catazaro-Perry ran for mayor against incumbent Democratic mayor Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr., a long time political competitor to Maier.

2015 is another Massillon mayoralty and city council election years.  And, of course, Jackson and his political patron saint, Johnnie A. Maier, Jr have a huge stake in trying to control the selection process of Massillon city government.

But their attack is not working with respect to The Stark County Political Report.

Readers of the SCPR know that The Report exercises "due diligence" to substantiate Stark County Political Report viewpoints with solid evidence.

One may interpret the evidence differently, but that the SCPR uses evidencing supporting matter is a comment frequently made to The Report by SCPR readers.

Moreover, The Report's critical eye is trained equally on Republican and Democrat officeholders/candidates and thereby earns being deemed to be Stark County only "independent" source of political/government news and analysis.

Such is what separates The Stark County Political Report from many other blogs, and, indeed, from many, many "mainstream" media opinion writers.

The fact of the matter is that the Maiers pay lots of attention to The Stark County Political Report as evidenced by George's legal counsel (in the personal liability lawsuit against him for having served illegally as sheriff for some nine [9] months) using SCPR blog material in his legal pleadings.

And George T. Maier can be sure that The Report will be watching every move that he makes and the SCPR will serve the public interest that The Rep has not and likely will not in letting the public know when Maier engages personal political interests as sheriff over the public interest.

One of the first hires that Maier should make as the "elected" sheriff of Stark County is to hire a plumber.

A plumber?  Really?

Indeed!

The SCPR during the campaign had plenty of leaks coming out of the Stark County sheriff's office during the Maier/Dordea campaign.

And, undoubtedly, going into the future discontented sheriff's office personnel will turn to the SCPR and not The Repository to get the story out to the Stark County public.

Just as The Repository has given "short shrift" to the Dixie Park story, it has gone beyond "short shrift" on Maier to "no shrift" to his characters issues and thereby has "shorted" the Stark County public on information upon which to choose between Maier and Dordea.

For this "the bigs" at The Repository should be ashamed of themselves.

A tipoff of how vain "the bigs" at The Rep is came fairly early on in the SCPR's existence.

When first introduced in 2009/2010 by then-commissioner Todd Bosley to reporter Robert Wang, his reaction?

"Oh, you're the guy my bosses hate!"

The "learned" bosses at The Rep hate?

Not exactly an image the thoughtful editors (at least for public persona purposes) would want projected of them, no?

Moreover, give us all a break.

By comparison in terms of resources, the SCPR is "a fly on the wall" of The Repository.

Why would The Repository view The Stark County Political Report a threat?

Could it be that the editors (which The Report thinks has to be one of the sorriest editorial boards for similarly sized markets in the USA) and "the bigs" absolutely know that the SCPR will go where they will not go because they worry about damaging The Rep's standing with "the powers that be in Stark County government and politics?

The meaningful to readers media outlets of the country (e.g. The Washington Post of Watergate fame, The Cleveland Plain Dealer and its willingness to take on a judge) do not worry about who they offend.

Therein, the SCPR thinks, lies the problem of The Canton Repository!

PART 4 OF A TWO PART (LOL: i.e. 4 of 2) SERIES: A CASE AND OTHER ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT THAT MAKES THE CASE FOR STARK COUNTY PROBATE COURT JUDGE DIXIE PARK TO RESIGN? OR, BE REMOVED INVOLUNTARILY "BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW!?

CONLEY TO INITIATE A PROCESS 

TO REMOVE

 JUDGE DIXIE PARK FROM OFFICE

PARK'S CURRENT SITUATION

In view of the trauma that Stark County Probate Court judge Dixie Park visited upon Stark County ordinary citizen Barbara Lockhart of Alliance on September 25, 2013, to wit:

• Lockhart "unconstitutionally" (the Fifth District Court of Appeals held on 09/18/2014 vis-a-vis Stark County Probate Court judge Dixie Park) guilty of criminal contempt of court, and thereby:
• abusing her discretion as a judge, in that
• Park denied Lockhart "due process of law," with a consequence of
• ordinary citizen Lockhart experiencing a horrifying 11 days in the Stark County jail,
• The Report thinks Park should resign her position.
 

While the SCPR understands that judges are human beings who make mistakes like we all do; this one is more than a "common variety mistake" and therefore it should have some consequences that serves as a lesson to all persons of judicial or political power who abuse that power.

Not being a judge any more, seems to the SCPR to be a fitting consequence for Judge Park which, if such becomes a reality, will be a lesson not lost on those who hold power in our cherished American democratic/republican system grounded in "the rule of law."

Judge Park could make it easy on herself and everybody else in the Ohio and Stark County body politic and resign.

That, the SCPR thinks, would be the proper thing to do.

But "power people" are not prone to do "the community interest" or what many of us think is "the morally right" thing.  For them, "might is right" is a standard which likely permeates their lives in the public sector.

HOW DOES AMERICA'S POLITICAL SYSTEM DEAL WITH THE JUDGE PARKS OF THE WORLD?

And, it seems that if one is a judge, those in superior positions of authority in our system of justice who could deal with such a matter as the Park/Lockhart situation; do not - often enough - do so.  Especially if judicial conduct is the issue.

There has been chatter as to whether or not somebody who has the obligation under the Ohio Supreme Court Rules of Attorney/Judicial Conduct has or will possibly make a referral of the Park handling of Lockhart to Ohio's disciplinary counsel.

But we will never know if a referral has been made unless Disciplinary Counsel takes a matter up, files a charge and makes a recommendation to the Ohio Supreme Court that discipline be administered.

Even if Disciplinary Counsel does make a recommendation, as in the Massillon Municipal Court disciplinary affair in which Eddie Elum was the subject matter (LINK to the actual decision), many political and judicial system observers think that Ohio's Supremes take it easier on fellow judges than on "gone-rogue" attorneys.

Elum has long had a reputation among folks who appear before him, or otherwise have had to deal with him, of having a short fuse and being an "over-the-top" pop off.

An example, as cited by the Ohio Supreme Court in Disciplinary Counsel v. Elum, 2012-Ohio=4700.

And, of course, for someone talking the way Elum did to Dunn, it was no surprise that he attacked The Stark County Political Report back in 2010 when The Report blogged about a political conflict between Elum and Chief of Police Robert Williams of Massillon, to wit:

    Martin

    I received some excepts (sic) on your blog covering a meeting that I had last week with Chief Rob Williams and Chief Prosecutor John Simpson. Our meeting was very constructive and helpful.  Your statements are false and misleading.  You have no conscience, lack professionalism and make no effort to ascertain the facts. As a member of the Bar, you are an embarrassment.  You do nothing to promote the high ethical standards of our legal profession.

  Again:

    "Your statements are false and misleading.  You have no conscience, lack professionalism and make no effort to ascertain the facts."

Look at this additional excerpt from the aforecited Ohio Supreme Court Decision:

{¶ 18} Judge Elum has since acknowledged that there was no cover-up by the Massillon Police Department of the arresting officer’s conduct in the Farnsworth case and that he used a “bad term” in describing the situation. 

Judge Elum has admitted that through his January 15 order, he placed himself in the middle of an administrative investigation into the arresting officer’s conduct and stepped outside his role as a judge. Judge Elum has recognized that his threat of contempt proceedings at the January 20 pretrial hearing had been a “bad choice of words” because contempt would not have been appropriate under the circumstances. 

And Judge Elum has agreed that he issued an unenforceable order on January 21 when he continued to pursue the submission of the text and picture messages after the criminal and traffic charges against Farnsworth had been
resolved. Finally, Judge Elum admits making statements to the newspaper about the Massillon Police Department, alleging ineffective leadership.

Had the Supreme Court not stayed Elum's six month suspension from the practice of law, the SCPR thinks that the court would have thereby made a powerful ruling that would have resonated far and wide within the Ohio judiciary that the court will not abide such conduct in that there would be "real world" consequences.

Such a ruling may have been effective to make Judge Park think twice, three times or more on September 25, 2013 before doing what she did to Citizen Lockhart.

But Supreme Court did not.

In staying Elum's suspension, they did what many think amounted to a mere "slap on the wrist."

And there are those out in the general public who suspect that judges are not exactly the ideal factor to deal with maverick judges.

Consequently, it is refreshing to have one like Conley (see discussion below) step up and invoke another procedure  that may result in a Judge Dixie Park being removed from office in the wake of the Canton-based Fifth District Court of Appeals having found that she abused judicial discretion in denying Lockhart due process of law.

There are instances (LINK) where governing authorities have effectively and swiftly dealt with "off-the-reservation" judges.

If Park gets removed from office, there will be headlines across the media of Ohio (even The Canton Repository) that no judge will miss the point of.

The Elum and Park matters are relatively rare, and, of course, many if not most Ohio judges are first-rate.

Here in Stark County, the SCPR can point to the likes of now retired judges Charles E. Brown, Jr, and V. Lee Sinclair, Jr.

Stark's David Dowd, Jr. (interestingly enough from Massillon) who sits on the federal bench has had a distinguished career as a jurist as did Leroy Contie, Jr. before him.

And there is Ira Turpin.

Yours truly remembers Ira a being a classy jurists who had a passion for minority rights.

As a political reporter, opinion maker, editorialist and sometimes an investigative journalist, The Stark County Political Report wears as a "badge of honor" receiving attacks like Elum's.

In one conversation with Elum, he was at loss to explain why Martin Olson would write critical blogs about him.  "Martin," he says, "I have checked my records and you have never appeared in my court."

The Report repeats:  For the SCPR, it is never a matter of a subject being friend or foe, it is a matter of "letting the 'political' chips fall where they may."

No passes to those generally thought well of from the pen of the SCPR.

And, The Report, has no problem commending public officials for specific conduct who the SCPR thinks in general are not high quality public officials, and, moreover, perhaps, subjects The Report does not personally like.

The Report has never had a problem with Judge Dixie Park.  Is she thinking what Elum was?  What did I ever do to Martin Olson?

Answer:  nothing, absolutely nothing!

The SCPR is pursuing stories and getting to the bottom of them in the spirit of making our political system a better one in terms of:

• accountability,
• respectfulness of government/political officials to the Stark County public,
• communicability,
• accessibility,
• openness, and the like.

Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero attacked the SCPR over The Report's unceasing advocacy that justice prevail in the Marlboro Chief of Police Ron Devies matter.

Of course, The Report has written quite a number blogs referencing Ferrero's attack because it appears to have a frontal assault on The Report's constitutional right to engage in the expression of a free press in holding public officials accountable.

And that (an attempt to intimidate the media) is how the SCPR takes Elum's attack. For the SCPR has never has been written by yours truly as member of the bar.

Noteworthy is The Report's turnabout in commending Ferrero for resisting to what appears to be a bullying effort by George T. Maier, his brother and former Stark County Democratic Party chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. and a number of top-tier political allies to make George Stark County sheriff.

Here is a link list of a series of blogs that the SCPR had penned in early 2010 on Elum's :

• ELUM: GET OVER IT 

• TIGERLAND IN AN UPROAR 

• CICCHINELLI/CATAZARO-PERRY WAR ERUPTS ANEW 

• TRIAL HEAT: CATAZARO-PERRY/CICHINELLI POLITICAL FIGHT?

• DEMOCRAT TO DEMOCRAT

As regards to the-then Massillon Chief of Police Williams political flap with Elum, who ends up having a disciplinary complaint filed against him?

As recited above, Edward J. Elum.

Hmm?

What do SCPR readers think?

Did The Report have the facts straight?

Who is an embarrassment to the bar?

Currently, the SCPR is working on a City of Canton/Canton City Schools matter in which a great deal of resistance is being encountered to a public records request.

The more resistance, guess what?  The more the SCPR is likely to dig, and dig, and dig until the question "why the resistance" is found out!

What will The Report uncover if "in an accordance with Ohio law" response is made to the outstanding public records request?

Right now the SCPR is being told that The Report does not understand the import of an Ohio Supreme Court case in terms of what material has to be revealed.

Somewhat like Elum's "Martin, you did not get your facts right," no?

We shall see how much the SCPR understands.

The SCPR has been told many, many times over the life of this blog how The Report does not understand this or that thing or get this thing or that thing correctly. 

The Report's history is that, most of the time, if not nearly all the time, there is understanding/factual knowledge on the part of the SCPR and, more often than not, it turns out the resisting/declaiming officials/entities were hiding something that the public is entitled to know.

WHAT IS TO BE DONE ABOUT JUDGE PARK?

The Stark County Political Report would be absolutely amazed if Judge Park were to resign over her handling of the Lockhart matter.

Power public officials like Park always think with time the controversy will fade away and the misdeed will have no "real" political consequences.

And, often, they are correct.

However, Judge Park has yet to square up with the known track record of local civic activist and attorney Craig T. Conley who is one tenacious, bulldog of an activist when it comes to seeing to it that his take on justice and the rule of law becomes reality.

The SCPR has learned that Conley has decided to invoke (starting this week)  a procedure provided by Ohio Revised Code Section 3.07, to wit (focusing on the relevant parts applicable to the Park situation):

3.07 Misconduct in office - forfeiture.

Any person holding office in this state, or in any municipal corporation, county, or subdivision thereof, coming within the official classification in Section 38 of Article II, Ohio Constitution, who willfully and flagrantly exercises authority or power not authorized by law, ... is guilty of misconduct in office. Upon complaint and hearing in the manner provided for in sections 3.07 to 3.10 ... .

The In re: Finan Fifth District Court of Appeals decision is enough, the SCPR thinks, to justify an initiation of a 3.07 procedure against Judge Park.

Moreover, The Report thinks that there is other substantial indication that Judge Park has arrogantly discharged her authority and thereby provides an additional bases on which she should be removed from office.

The SCPR welcomes the courageous effort by Conley and is pleased that he is willing to devote time and effort to this gigantic project.

In order to get started on the multi-step process to remove Park, Conley needs to marshal forces to collect signatures.

When Conley and fellow community activist Thomas Marcelli launched a similar effort in 2009 (Stark County Citizens Right to Vote Committee) in an effort to void by citizen vote the 1/2 cent "imposed" sales tax at the hand of 2008 Stark County commissioners Todd Bosley, Tom Harmon and Jane Vignos, The Report was skeptical that they and their co-workers could pull off getting 10% of the 2008 gubernatorial vote as signatories (about 14,000) on their petitions.

But the committee did,

And, to boot, though the SCPR thought at the time that the "imposed" nature of the levy was ill-advised, The Report supported Stark Countians retaining the tax.

But Stark Countians did not.

By a huge margin, county voters sustained the Conley/Marcelli effort in November, 2009.

The signature collection standard for R.C 3.07 is higher:  15% of the last gubernatorial election vote.

The SCPR thinks the closest standard for calculating what the 3.07 effort will require is the 2010 governor's race (a non-presidential year like 2014 is).

It appears that about 20,000 might be needed.

But perhaps not.

Since Ohio's Democrats have nominated a Rob Burch-esque candidate in Clevelander Ed FitzGerald and it appears  to the SCPR that the entire Republican statewide ticket will cruise to victory in little over a month, it could be that the number could be closer to 15,000 than 20,000.

In 1994 123,085 Stark County voters went to the polls.  So let's see.  Fifteen (15%) percent times 123,085 voters equals 18,463.

Could 2014 (the basis on which the 3.07 calculation will be made) be lower than 1994.

Probably not, but, of course, anything is possible.

It is up to her, of course, but one would not think that Judge Dixilene Park is going to take Conley and his political allies lightly.

Of course, unlike any other media outlet reporting/opinionating on Stark County politics and government, the SCPR provides Conley's gameplan in its entirely as outlined in a letter faxed to The Report on Friday, to wit: (restructured somewhat by the SCPR for clarity/emphasis sake)

September 26, 2014

TO:    Martin Olson, Blogger Stark Political Report

FROM:  Craig T. Conley, Esq.
RE:    Stark County Probate Court Judge Dixie Park

Because Judge Park is running unopposed in the upcoming November election, there are only two means to obtain her removal from the Bench:

• a disciplinary action through the Ohio Supreme Court, or 
• the procedure set forth in O.R.C. 3.07, et seq. (which Code Sections apply to many public officials, including Judges).

As to the latter, O.R.C. 3.07 provides, in pertinent part, that:

• "Any person holding office in this state, or in any . . ., county, or subdivision thereof, . . . who willfully and flagrantly exercises authority or power not authorized by law, . . . is guilty of misconduct in office", noting that applicable jurisprudence indicates the standard of proof is "clear and convincing", not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

As to Judge Park, based upon the Finan Opinion alone, I believe she clearly meets that statutory definition of misconduct in office and that the aforesaid standard of proof can be readily met at hearing.

• O.R.C. 3.08 provides, in pertinent part, that: "Proceedings for the removal of public officers . . . shall be commenced by:
• the filing of a written or printed complaint specifically setting forth the charge,
• and signed by qualified electors of the . . . political subdivision whose officer it is sought to remove, not less in number than fifteen percent of the total cast for the governor at the most recent election for the office of governor in the . . . political subdivision whose officer it is sought to remove".

While that is a relatively "big" number vis-a-vis the last gubernatorial election, it will certainly be a much smaller number vis-a-vis the upcoming November election; and, as evinced by the sales tax repeal referendum here in Stark County, obtaining the requisite number cf signatures is certainly "doable".

Indeed, although Ms. Lockhart is (at least to my knowledge) the most adversely affected victim of Judge Park's misconduct in office, there are many dozens of others who I reasonably presume would be quite willing to assist in gathering the requisite number of signatures.

Also pursuant to O.R.C. 3.08, if the complaint (which I will draft):

• sufficiently specifies the misconduct, and 
• if it (which may be signed in counterparts) contains sufficient valid signatures, 

the matter would be heard before the Fifth District Court of Appeals, 

• noting that Judge Park would have a right to demand a jury and thereafter would have the right under O.R.C. 3.09 to an appeal

Also pursuant to O.R.C. 3.08, provides in pertinent part, that:

• "Proceedings for the removal of public officers . . . by the filing of a written or printed complaint:
• specifically setting for the charge, and
• signed by the qualified electors of the . . . political subdivision whose officer it sought to be removed not less in number than fifteen percent of the total cast for the governor at the most recent election for the office of governor in the . . . political subdivision of whose officer it is sought to remove."

Also pursuant to O.R.C. 3.08, "The court may suspend the officer during pendency of the hearing'' (noting that the "hearing shall be had within thirty days from the date of the filing of the complaint." 

In short, I intend, at my earliest possible opportunity to begin the process, it being more than just unlikely that Judge Park will voluntarily resign.

. . .

Little did Judge Park on September 25, 2013 understand that in legally abusing Mrs. Lockhart that she might be unleashing political forces that may well deprive her of a role in Stark County government she prizes, that of continuing to be a Stark County jurist.

The SCPR is disappointed that Judge Park apparently lacks the capacity to self-correct.

Beyond that, The Report is disappointed in that the judicial system itself (outside of the Fifth District Court of Appeals in its In re: Finan decision) seems to have a blind spot in the handling of "off-the-reservation" judges.

All power vested in the officers of government in our system of government are derived from the people.

How quickly not only Judge Park, Judge Elum and others forget this most fundamental of all American values.

On the flip-side, it is encouraging that the likes of Conley, Marcelli and others, in a display of corrective citizenship, step-up-to-the-public-interest-over-private-interest-plate and get "the people" involved in removing those who do not understand that they are "temporarily" holding the public trust and are subject to being removed when they forget from whence they came!

PART 3 OF A TWO PART SERIES: A CASE AND OTHER ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT THAT MAKES THE CASE FOR STARK COUNTY PROBATE COURT JUDGE DIXIE PARK TO RESIGN?

UPDATED:  07:55 AM

When The Stark County Political Report started this series, it was advertised as being a "two part" series.

But as the headline above indicates, today's blog is entitled "PART 3 OF A (originally intended) TWO PART SERIES."

But if this story breaks the fashion the SCPR thinks it might, it could rival other headline blogs that The Report has been in the thick of; namely, the Phil Davison video (which went viral on the Internet in September, 2010) and the George T. Maier controversy when he was removed as the Stark County Democratic Party appointed on November 6, 2013.

Accordingly, it is likely that today's blog is not the last in this series.  However, if this series continues on, the headline format will remain PART # OF A TWO PART SERIES to serve as a reminder to readers that one never knows where a SCPR blog is going to lead.

The Report learned late yesterday that WOIO, Channel 19, and investigative reporter Carl Monday is instituting an investigation of the judicial conduct of Stark County Probate Court (Trial Court) judge Dixie Park.

The Report is told that parties-in-interest in another guardianship (In re: Balog) forwarded one of or both the SCPR Monday and Tuesday blogs to a lead official at Channel 19 and that Monday was directed to conduct an investigation.

The focus of today's blog is on:

• the continuing saga of the story behind the Fifth District Court of Appeals (Appellate Court) decision in the case In re: Finan in which the Appellate Court found that Judge Park had violated the Constitutional Rights of Barbara Lockhart of Alliance in jailing her for not timely providing documents and making appearances in the Trial Court.
• the suffering and indignities incurred by Lockhart in being jailed by Judge Park, and
• an amplification of allegations made by local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley on certain judicial conduct by Park, and
• where the Park matter might be headed.

THE CONTINUING SAGA 
& 
WHERE THE MATTER MIGHT BE  HEADED

Jeff Jakmides, attorney for Barbara Lockhart, did not know how to respond when Appellate Court Judge Scott Gwin inquired on hearing the horrifying story of an ordinary Stark Countian being thrown into the Stark County jail asked:  What can we do for your client?

Jakmides' response:  "You can clear her record."

Another of his responses was "You can refer the matter to Ohio's Disciplinary Council."

Response from the Appellate Court judges?

None.

But, of course, there should have been no response on the "you can refer [Park] to disciplinary counsel."

For although Ohio judges and attorneys are obligated under the Rules of Professional Conduct to report to Disciplinary Counsel any conduct done by attorneys/judges that they witness or become aware of; anyone who refers is prohibited by those same rules in revealing having done so.

The only person who can discuss such a referral is the subject him/herself. 

So it is possible that one or more of the Appellate judges did a referral to Disciplinary Counsel.

The SCPR has information to the effect that Craig Conley may have filed such a referral on Park.  And The Report asked Conley whether or not he had done so.  But to no avail.  Conley would neither confirm or deny that he had done so.

Another point of oral argument before the Appellate Court by Jakmides is his description of an exchange that took place between himself, Judge W. Scott Gwin, Judge William B. Hoffman and Judge John W. Wise.

A paraphrase: (Jakmides speaking)  "Judge Hoffman, Judge Wise, Judge Gwin; you've been around.  We've got a trial lawyer:  Judge Gwin.  We've got former trial courts judges:  Judges Hoffman and Wise.  We've got former prosecutors: Judges Hoffman, Wise and Gwin.  We've got a judge who has been a defense attorney:  Judge Gwin.

Note:  And Judge Wise is the son of former Stark County judge Reuben Z. Wise, Jr. who died suddenly and tragically (1985) while serving as Stark County Probate Court judge.  The SCPR knew Judge Reuben Z. Wise, Jr.  And, it is clear to The Report, that the Lockhart matter would never, ever have occurred in Judge Reuben Z. Wise's court.  Not the remotest possibility!!! Reuben Z. Wise was a "bend over backwards" type of judge referred to elsewhere in this blog.

After summing up some 120 years of legal/judicial experience as between Gwin, Hoffman, Wise and Jakmides himself, he asks them:  "Have we ever seen anything remotely like this in all our combined years?"

Gwin, Hoffman and Wise did not say a word in response.  But the SCPR believes they had to be in full accord with Jakmides observation as evidenced by their clear and unmistakable decision in reversing Judge Park.

One legal commenter has observed to the SCPR that these Appellate Court judges not only found that Jakmides had established one legal error by Judge Park.

They went on to do what courts do not generally do (once the court has found one sufficient basis on which to reverse a trial judge) they found that Jakmides had established the second of two asserted Judge Park errors of law.

And not just any law, but the bedrock of American law:  constitutional rights law.

It boggles the mind - given In re: Finan that Judge Park thinks she is qualified to get out in the community and talk about constitutional rights.

LOCKHART'S SUFFERING
HORROR, TERROR & HUMILIATION!

As a matter of the public record, Lockhart attorney Jakmides described in some detail in Trial Court and Appellate Court filings the emotional trauma (terror) that Ms. Lockhart suffered as a consequence of being jailed by Judge Park.

And what 56 year old citizen who has never had to deal with the justice system wouldn't be terrified?

Jakmides told the SCPR that when he first visited with Mrs. Lockhart on October 9th, she was in a complete state of frenzy.

Jakmides also tells The Report that in his experience as an attorney (deemed by many in the Stark County bar to be one of Stark's very best criminal defense attorneys) courts bend over backwards (even granting "unreasonable" requests of a defendant) to ensure that all a potential jailed person is afforded all her constitutional rights (notice, opportunity to be heard and the assistance of competent legal counsel, et cetera) before there is any thought of convicting a person such as Lockhart and sentencing them to jail.

The SCPR has obtained a description (from one in a indisputable position to know) of the process Mrs. Lockhart went through from the moment of being arrested on Judge Park's bench "arrest" warrant, to wit:

She would have been taken from her home,  handcuffed and placed in the back of a cruiser and then transported to the Stark County Jail, likely in the full view of their family and neighbors, as well as the general public.

Upon arrival at the Jail, Lockhart

• would have been fingerprinted,

• had her mug shots taken, 

• required to disrobe and surrender all her personal belongings (including jewelry, watches, etc.), and

• she would have, on October 1, 2013, have been issued a blue Jail jumpsuit and slippers, after which  placed in the appropriate Jail population,

At the Stark County jail, Mrs. Lockhart almost certainly was incarcerated alongside prostitutes,. drunks, drug addicts and "lesser" violent offenders, noting that more experienced and hardened inmates often cruelly threaten and abuse "newbies" in "survival of the fittest" fashion.

Note:  An extended stay in the Stark County jail means that Mrs. Lockhart suffered the horror and humiliation of being deprived of her liberty in the company of people who did not have the financial resources to get out of jail on bond, had such a terrible history that they were not eligible for bond or in waiting - after having been convicted to be transported to "hard time" prison.

Getting out of jail for those charged but not convicted normally is easy to achieve.  Of course, having been illegally convicted, Mrs. Lockhart was not eligible to post bond.  Accordingly, she, for her 11 days in jail, was among the most destitute that Stark County has.

As a Stark County jail inmate, Mrs. Lockhart was subject to a strict regimen as to what she was permitted and not allowed to do at what time; and, 

And, perhaps, for the first time in her life, Mrs. Lockhart would had to use common showers, toilet facilities and sleeping arrangements with a large number of fellow prisoners.

On being transported to Court for hearing on October 2, 2013, Lockhart would have been taken handcuffed and chained and in her jail-issued jumpsuit and slippers.

Note:  On October 2nd, Mrs. Lockhart - who had never been in trouble with the law in her entire life - her attorney says - on the 2nd gets sentenced by Judge Park to 30 days in jail without having been afforded her constitutional rights. 

An additional alarming factor of the October 2nd hearing, Jakmides says, is that there is no recording, there is no transcript of what actually went on when Park found Lockhart guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced her to jail.

Such trauma, terror and utter humiliation is what Judge Park's unconstitutional denial (reference In re: Finan) of Lockhart of her due process of law rights was in large part, if not completely, visited upon over an 11 day period of time until she secured the legal services of Attorney Jeff Jakmides.

If the "legal thrashing" at the hands of the Appellate Court were not enough to prompt Park to resign her place on the Stark County bench, it seems to the SCPR that the horror, terror and humiliation she visited on an ordinary - no prior record Stark Countian - upon reflection, would be enough for her to do the right thing by Stark Countians.

WHERE IS THIS MATTER HEADING?

It is hard to say.

Of course, the thing the SCPR thinks ought to happen and Judge Park will realize how grievous the consequences to Barbara Lockhart of her legal mistake were and step down.

But The Report does not think that Judge Park will go that easily.

Perhaps WOIO and Monday getting into a scrutiny of the Lockhart and other Park handled judicial matters will be a convincing factor to Park.

Of course, nobody who knows can speak to the matter, but perhaps Ohio's Supreme Court will be taking up the matter in a disciplinary complaint.

Every judge in Stark County and Ohio has an interest in not having on Ohio's bar of justice judges who do not apparently know the fundamental "law of the land!"