(VIDEO) CRAIG CONLEY CONTINUES HIS CLIENT'S PURSUIT OF JUDGE FRANK FORCHIONE IN THE 5TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

VIDEO

"COMPLETE"

OHIO V. FORCHIONE

5TH DISTRICT COA

ORAL ARGUMENT

Of course, November 5, 2013 was a significant date in that it was general election day.

For the likes of Richard Hart of Canton; Sarita Cunningham-Hedderly, and Ed Lewis, IV of Massillon; John Rinaldi of Canton and, moreover, the Canton Parks levy "a jewel of a day" because election results made winners of them all.

November 5, 2013 could turn out to have been a key date for Judge Frank Forchione of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas.

At about high-noon, Ohio's Fifth District of Appeals concluded oral arguments in the case of Ohio v. Forchione.

Judges Baldwin, Farmer and Wise listened attentively as Conley (for Demis: the complainant) and the state of Ohio legal representative Prosecutor Craig Morgan of the Akron prosecutor's office (subbing for the Canton prosecutor's out of conflict-in-interest concerns) made their arguments.

THE BACKGROUND

The Stark County Political Report started its tracking of the Conley/Forchione saga on January 25, 2013 when Conley demanded Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero file suit against Judge Forchione (Stark County Court of Common Pleas) for having redirected fine money assessed in a criminal case to a Massachusetts charity and to recover same to the Stark County general fund.

The Stark County Political Report continued its tracking of the Conley/Fochione story with a January 29, 2013 blog.

Some folks had raised the spectre that Conley was not so much concerned about "the rule of law" as he was to exact revenge of Forchione because Forchione would not initially withdraw from a case that Conley had before him and which Conley lost before the Ohio Supreme Court to compel Forchione's recusal.

Eventually, Forchione did withdraw at his own initiative and, interestingly enough, Conley settled on the merits in his favor and with considerable cash in his pocket.

So that why the SCPR did the "sour grapes" blog.

Ferrero refused Conley's demand and "a client" found Conley and Conley filed a lawsuit in mandamus against Forchione.

Of course, those who regularly follow the SCPR you need not click on the links above, but it might not be a bad idea just as a refresher on how things got started.

In the end, with Conley's filing of a lawsuit, the SCPR believes Conley's lawsuit (ultimately dismissed by Conley himself [at his client's direction, of course]) when his client Tom Marcelli was satisfied that Forchione had corrected what the law of Ohio does not allow a judge to do which is to say redirect fine money to a charitable purpose.

The motivation of the suit, remember, Conley said was to compel Judge Forchione to be what everybody expects of a judge that is "be a 'rule of law' judge."

For his efforts, Conley was rewarded with having a disciplinary action filed against him by an "anonymous" complainer for Conley having accused Judge Forchione for "grandstanding" in ordering the diversion of the fine to the charity, which complaint Conley ended up winning.

But still the matter was not over.

On February 28, 2013 up stepped a Franklin County resident; namely, Louis Demis (who is thought to once have lived in Navarre) who filed an affidavit authorized by Ohio Revised Code sections 2935.09 and 2935.10 wherein he claimed that in doing the diversion of the fine money that there was "probable cause" to think that Forchione had committed a crime of "theft in office."

Well, guess who got into that fray as legal counsel for Demis?

Of course, local attorney and frequent civic activist Craig T. Conley.

On a pro bono (for the public good) basis, when requested, he agreed to take on representing Demis.

The Canton law department deferred taking the matter on because of obvious "conflict-in-interest" questions as did the entire bench of the Canton Municipal Court.

A retired Barberton Municipal Court judge (Michael McNulty) received the assignment to hear the case in Canton.

Well, on April 23rd, about an hour and one-half after the hearing McNulty ruled against Demis.

It was kind of a bizarre hearing in that the prosecutor representing Ohio (on the Demis affidavit) actually argued against finding "probable cause."  Had it not been for Conley, there would have been no argument for "probable cause."

So "end of the matter," no?

Of course, not!

While it was up to Mr. Demis whether or not to call it quits, if Demis was game to keep the heat on Judge Forchione, you have to believe that Conley was going to be up to it.

And so on May 15th an appeal of McNulty's adverse finding to Demis on his affidavit was at Demis' request filed by Conley.

THE COURT OF APPEALS

And that brings to where we are on today's blog.

On election day, November 5, 2013, the 5th District Court of Appeals heard the appeal.

The SCPR is highly skeptical that the appellate court will reverse Judge McNulty but one has to admire Craig T. Conley's willingness to "put his money where his mouth is" in representing Demis "free of charge" in the important cause of advocating for what he thinks is for the maintenance of "the rule of law."

For anyone who has not seen an appellate argument, the Conley/Morgan face-off in the 5th District Court of Appeals is a classic.

Here is the full 5th District Court of Appeals video.

STAGE IS SET FOR CONLEY'S "LAST BITE AT THE APPLE?"

It has been since early this year that local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley has been pursuing Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione on Forchione's order requiring a defendant convicted upon his guilty plea to pay $5,000 (rather than to the Stark County treasury for the benefit of the county general fund:  as required by law) to a charity.

The SCPR does examine Conley's motives for pursuing Forchione (in the linked prior blog above) inasmuch as the two have a legal history that predates the case dealt with in the link.

But beyond that question, one would think that when Forchione retrieved the money and the Stark County clerk of courts Nancy Reinbold forwarded the $5,000 to Stark County treasurer Alex Zumbar for deposit in Stark County's general fund that such would be the end of the matter.

Well to think that of Craig T. Conley is not to know Craig T. Conley.

Conley tells the SCPR that even if he did have a revenge motive (which he denies that he has) against Forchione, it is irrelevant.

The triumphant issue, he says, is pure and simple a question of the "rule of law."

The Stark County Political Report's detailed familiarity on Conley and his unmatched Stark County civic activism only goes back to December, 2008 and his picking up on (in early 2009) on the action of the-then Stark County commissioners Democrats Todd Bosley, Tom Harmon and Republican Jane Vignos and their "imposing" a one-half percent (0.5%) sales tax on Stark Countians ostensibly for the purpose of fixing what was said at the time to be Stark County's broken 9-1-1 emergency call receiving and dispatch operations.

It made no difference at all that the "imposed" tax "seems - on the face of it" to have been made for a worthy project.

As it turned out, Conley et al learned during the campaign that not only was money (0.25%) of the "imposed" tax for fixing 9-1-1; the remaining 0.25% was destined for the county general fund.  However, county officials were talking very little if at all about the general fund aspect of the tax increase.

For Conley-then and Conley-now (Forchione), there is a proper way to do things.

While it certainly was within the legal rights for Bosley, Harmon and Vignos to have "imposed" the sales tax, their action was subject to review by the citizens of Stark County and Conley stepped forward and became the "brains of the operation" and successfully, in November, 2009, pulled off an overwhelming election victory over Bosley and friends including most Stark County office holders who undoubtedly were in favor of retaining the tax revenue.

An ironic twist to Conley-then and Conley-now is that Conley-then's action had the effect of denying (long-term) monies to the county general fund from the "imposed tax," however, in Forchione his action benefited the county general fund.

The point being?

It is not a question of the substantive merit or demerit of the cause, but a question of imperiality, and, in the case of Forchione, a question of the lawfulness of what he did.

Besides the 2009 sales tax issue and the Forchione matter, Craig T. Conley has been annoying - to say the least - various Stark County sited officials regularly (e.g. Zeigler, Kim Perez, Randy, Gonazalez, John Ferrero, Tim Swanson, and Joe Martuccio, to name some - not all- of them) since the SCPR has focused on his civic/political activity.

The latest thing that Conley is into is his representing a now Columbus-based (former Stark Countian) by the name of Louis Demis in Demis' quest to have criminal charges (a fourth degree felony - theft in office) on his affidavit alleging that in diverting the $5,000 away from the Stark County treasury initially, Judge Forchione committed criminal offense alleged.

On April 23rd of this year, visiting judge Michael McNulty found the Demis affidavit to be "unfounded" as a matter of law.

There couldn't have been a happier man in all of Stark County when Craig Conley learned "yes" his client Louis Demis wanted to appeal the McNulty decision.

And file an appeal Conley did on behalf of client Demis on May 15, 2013.

Since then the respective counsel (Akron prosecutor Craig Morgan for the state of Ohio) and, of course, Conley for Demis have been trading legal briefs.

And so now the stage is set for Conley to show once again how determined and tenacious he is for any cause, any client.

Conley, in the view of the SCPR, sets out smartly the issues in the case set to be decided by the 5th District Court of Appeals (which primarily sits in Canton - the court is located in the Stark County Office Building), to wit:

As anyone who is familiar with "probable cause," the threshold for meeting that standard is rather low.

Of course, conviction is rather another matter which we all know is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Even if Conley on behalf of Demis were to compel - through legal process (i.e. a successful appeal) , a successful prosecution of Judge Forchione, The Report thinks, is rather unlikely.

And The Report believes that conviction is not the "real" motivation driving Conley himself.

Yours truly thinks that Conley's determination and tenaciousness is borne of this commitment to the "rule of law" and that nobody, no matter what their station in life is, should not be amenable to legal processes.

Even those who disagree with Conley as to the merits of the question as to whether or not Judge Frank Forchione should be charged per the Demis affidavit should be impressed with his commitment to the "rule of law."

And to his determination and tenaciousness!

CONLEY (ON BEHALF OF CLIENT DEMIS) FILES APPEAL OF "NO PROBABLE CAUSE" ON JUDGE FRANK FORCHIONE; THEN HIGH-TAILS IT OUT OF THE COUNTRY. HMM?

On April 23rd, the SCPR wrote, in part:

The SCPR has learned that Judge Michael McNulty has found "no" probable cause that Judge Francis G. Forchone committed a "theft-in-office" in his handling of the $5,000 Sandy Hook School Support matter growing out of the Scott D. Studer case.  (LINK to prior SCPR blog for background).

A complaining affidavit was filed with the Canton Municipal Court on February 28, 2013 by one Louis W. Demis now of Columbus, Ohio but formerly of Navarre (Stark County) Ohio.

Local media failed to inform the Stark County public about the filing of the affidavit when it was filed even though there is indication that they had access to the filing early on. 

... 

The SCPR published a blog on the matter forthwith on first learning about the existence of the filed affidavit. 

... 

Demis' attorney, Craig T. Conley, told yours truly that depending on his analysis of the articulated basis of Judge McNulty's decision, he may look into whether or not there is an appeal to be made.

 LINK to the entire blog .

On the following day The Report in analyzing McNulty's decision, in part wrote:

It takes less than 10 minutes.  Morgan's [Akron Chief Assistant Prosecutor Craig Morgan] presentation sealed the deal.  There would be no finding of probable cause.

What judge in all of America would find probable cause in the face of a prosecutor saying "I can't prosecute" and intimating "I will not prosecute?"

 LINK to the entire blog.

Notwithstanding, Judge McNulty's "no probable cause" decision, local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley has agreed to carry on behalf of Columbus resident (however, a former Navarre resident) Louis Demis with the case.

On the 15th of this month (last Wednesday), immediately on flying out of the country on a planned vacation (the SCPR was only joking in terming it "high-tailing" in this blog's headliner) Conley caused a Notice of Appeal to be filed.

So far Judge Frank Forchione (Stark County Court of Common Pleas) has to be "'feelin' good" about his prospects in the ultimate outcome of this case.

While it is common for those who lose in a trial court (or, in this case, a municipal court deciding on probable cause) to march out to the court house steps and declare that there will be an appeal.

The reality of appealing is that relatively few cases are overturned on appeal.

And, one has to believe that Conley and his client are not likely to succeed on appeal.

However, Conley tells the SCPR he feels very strongly that Demis v. Forchione is the exception rather than the rule; hence, the appeal.

If yours truly understands Conley's analysis, it appears that in his view is that McNulty's language:

 "Further it is doubtful that the $5,000 in question was ever the property of Stark County."

provides an opportunity beyond the points of law already argued by him in the probable cause hearing itself.

Notwithstanding the well known reality among attorneys who appeal cases as a matter of course that chances on appeal are pretty slim, one has to be struck by the Demis/Conley persistence.

In, reportedly, former Hall of Fame New York Yankee catcher Yogi Berra lanquage:  "It ain't over til its over."

While Judge Forchione appears to be "sitting pretty" in terms of his legal position, one would think that there has to be some unease that the case is being carried on.

For we all are fully aware of another well known colloquialism:  "Its not over until the fat lady sings."

Only and only if the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals (sitting principally in Canton) confirms Judge McNulty, will Judge Frank Forchione finally have his rulings and actions in State of Ohio versus Studer fully behind him?