(VIDEOS) GONZALEZ AND DEMORA ORCHESTRATE EMBARRASSMENT FOR DEMS IN MAIER RE-APPOINTMENT?

UPDATE:  SUNDAY AT 2:32 PM

 Sheriff Qualifications

From:  rjgatien@neo.rr.com 

To:  tramols@att.net

Mr. Olson,

Mr. Schulman states on your blog:

"Here, the ONLY qualification that the Court found lacking was whether Sheriff Maier was a " full-time " peace officer. Sheriff Maier satisfied that qualification by working - FULL TIME -as a Harrison County deputy sheriff.

What more could you ask or does this statute require. "

The Court found:   

SLIP OPINION NO. 2013-OHIO-4767 THE STATE EX REL. SWANSON v. MAIER. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, 

it may be cited as State ex rel. Swanson v. Maier, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4767.]

{¶ 39} As he satisfies neither R.C. 311.01(B)(8)(a) nor (b), Maier does not meet the qualifications for a county sheriff. We need not explore his qualifications under R.C. 311.01(B)(9), because he meets neithercriterion in R.C. 311.01(B)(8).

Thank you for your coverage of this important issue.

Rick Gatien

TIM SWANSON'S RESPONSE TO ALLEN SCHULMAN'S QUESTIONS PUT TO THE SCPR BY SCHULMAN

To:  Martin Olson

I asked Ferrero on the first go around to file on my behalf when I learned on February 5th that only the Prosecutor, Sheriff, or Attorney General could file any action concerning the first appointment. 

Ferrero advised he couldn't file and couldn't represent me because of a "conflict of interest" by issued an affidavit in support of Lt. Darrow and one explaining Maier wasn't qualified. 

I then told Maier I was going to file and then approached Greg Beck at the meeting and asked if he would represent me and he agreed. That is how I came to obtain Beck as my attorney.

Since the Supreme Court ruled Maier was never Sheriff and effectively I was, we submitted a bill for attorney fees to them. 

They have refused to pay it but have paid $20,000 towards Maier's attorney fees. 

Remember that he had been declared to never have been Sheriff and the time between 5 Feb and 6 Nov null and void.

Nothing H[A]S changed regarding hid qualifications the same issue that he was ousted for Nov 6th still exists. He must be a fulltime peace officer holding the rank of corporal or above for TWO years during the five years immediately proceeding the qualification date of Feb 7th.

They don't see a problem and don't want to even address it. 

Refer to 311.07 (B)(9)(a) O.R.C.  

Its the law.

Tim Swanson

COMMENT FROM ALLEN SCHULMAN

The SCPR has very high regard for Allen Schulman who is part of the legal team (via his association on this case with Warren Price) representing SCDP chairman Randy Gonzalez and the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee.

The SCPR thanks Allen for taking the time and effort to add to the discussion on the Stark County Democratic Party's action taken last night on re-appointing George T. Maier as Stark County sheriff.

As always, the SCPR publishes civil and relevant comments on The Report blogs "in-full."

Perhaps Allen can prevail on George, Randy, Johnnie, Steve and Michael to do "on camera" interviews with me.  I always afford subjects of SCPR blogs as much space/video time as they would like to respond to The Report's blogs on the condition that they are done in a civil  and responsive manner.

I already talked Warren Price on camera last evening and he was very responsive to my questions.  As far as I am concerned, Warren Price is a very classy guy.

I will be publishing my interview with Price in an appropriate setting.

Sometimes I even let subjects of my blogs get a little uncivil as in the case of an e-mail that Stark County Democratic Party political director R. Shane Jackson sent to me and copied to a virtual "Who's Who" of Stark County leading public officials (and media) in an obvious personal attack on me.

Wouldn't it be nice to sit down with the political director of the Stark County Democratic Party and get his insight of all things political in Stark County.

Back in friendlier days; Shane, Johnnie and I have had a number very interesting conversations about the nuances of Stark County politics.

Of course, I am a person of my own mind and it has been my experience that such is something they have a problem with.

Both were very helpful to me when I was the Democratic Party nominee for Ohio's 50th House District (the old district).

Here is Allen's comment:

Martin,

As you know, I am a regular and avid reader of your blog. Whether I agree with your view, or not, I always find your perspective interesting and informative.

Your coverage of the Sheriff's issue, however, is baffling to me.

So far, your coverage has been harshly critical of Sheriff Maier, his brother, Chairperson Gonzalez, the party's legal team and the Committee members who cast their votes to reinstate Sheriff Maier to his former position.

On the other hand, you have not commented - at all- on the motives that are at work to disqualify Sheriff Maier from his appointment.

Does it seem strange to you that retired Sheriff Tim Swanson hired an attorney to prosecute this case in the Ohio Supreme Court simply because he was " upholding the statute " ?

Have you asked the Sheriff who is paying the legal fees for his team of lawyers ? ( No, it is not based on whether he will recover from the County taxpayers. )

Why is the County Prosecutor so intent to deny Sheriff Maier his appointment and why is his staff so eager to do his bidding ?

 Of all appointments, why pick on a man who has devoted his life to law enforcement, who was a former highway patrol officer, who was assistant director of public safety for the State of Ohio, who carried a weapon and a badge, and " worked with agents in the field, in surveillance and making arrests on search warrants and raids " and " the superintendent of the Ohio Highway Patrol—who holds the rank of colonel—reported to Maier on active investigations, and Maier oversaw and helped manage those investigations."?

As lawyers, you and I understand the importance of the rule of law.

But we also appreciate the intent of a statute and why it has been proposed and adopted.

Here, the ONLY qualification that the Court found lacking was whether Sheriff Maier was a " full-time " peace officer. Sheriff Maier satisfied that qualification by working - FULL TIME -as a Harrison County deputy sheriff.

What more could you ask or does this statute require. Obviously, the statute was intended to ensure that a County Sheriff be a law enforcement officer not someone who has no law enforcement background.. like an insurance agent. ( eg. Bob Berens )

Finally, why don't you tell your readership that the Buckeye Sheriff's Association supported Sheriff Maier in the Supreme Court or that he has the trust and support of his deputies?

I know you to be a fair journalist. In this instance, I think you have lost your way.

 Let's hear the other side...believe me, there is one !

Your friend,

Allen Schulman 

FINAL UPDATE AT 05:00 PM

UPDATED:  07:03 AM (FIRST VIDEO - "THE INTRO") 

UPDATED:  08:06 AM 

(SECOND VIDEO - DeMORA "THE OBJECTIVE ONE? TAKES OVER; GETS CHALLENGED WITH MOTION OUT-OF-THE BOX & ROLL CALL) 

UPDATE:  09:04 AM

(THIRD VIDEO) - DeMORA READS """"THE"""" LEGAL EXPERT'S LEGAL OPINION 

UPDATE:  11:28 AM

(FOURTH VIDEO) - THE ARGUMENT OVER WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW GREG BECK SPEAK

UPDATE:  12:55 PM 

(FIFTH VIDEO) - STARK CO PROSECUTOR "AS A COMMITTEEMAN" SPEAKS ON QUALIFICATION ISSUE

UPDATE:  3:39 PM

(SIXTH VIDEO)  - OKEY/FERRERO/OTHERS ON QUALIFICATION ISSUE 

UPDATE:  5:00 PM

(SEVENTH VIDEO)  - SWANSON & GONZALEZ ON WHETHER OR NOT GEORGE  MAIER OUGHT TO BE INCLUDED IN VOTE

Ever been to a "performance" and felt sympathy for the "star performer(s)" because it was obvious that they were "in over their heads?"

That is exactly how the SCPR felt about Stark County Democrat chairman Randy Gonzalez and the Ohio Democratic connected Bill DeMora and their "dog and pony show" performance last night at the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church located on Fairhaven Avenue in Canton.

The occasion?

To "re-do" the appointment of a Stark County sheriff as ordered by the Ohio Supreme Court on November 6, 2013 in the quo warranto case Swanson v. Maier filed within days of the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee's (what turned out to be) illegal appointment of George T. Maier on February 5th because he lacked Ohio statutory qualification.

As the SCPR has predicted in yesterday's pre-vote blog; the outcome was a no doubter (Maier 101; Darrow 65).   The February vote was Maier - 92 to Darrow's 84).

Why was an appointment necessary in the first place?

Mike McDonald (a long time Stark County deputy sheriff) had been elected in November, 2012 but due to an illness which proved to be terminal (February 22nd) had to resign being sheriff-elect immediately prior to his scheduled taking of office on January 7th.

As indicated in this blog a couple of paragraphs ago, the February appointment of George T. Maier was "turned on its head" by the Supreme Court because of the "botched" effort of Stark Dems chairman Randy Gonzalez "aided and comforted" by Ohio Dems representative Bill DeMora.

And as far as the SCPR is concerned they botched things over again in last night's performance which The Report is tabbing "a dog and pony show."

The February 5th effort clearly was "amateur hour" but it was apparent last night that Gonzalez (as Stark County Democratic Party chairman) and DeMora (representing Ohio Democratic Party chairman Chris Redfern) had learned some things from the mangling of the earlier attempt to appoint George A. Maier, the brother of former Stark County Party chairman (2003 - 2009) Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

But they had not learned enough, well enough.

To repeat, the whole affair came across as being "a dog and pony show."

What exactly is "a dog and pony show?"

Here is one definition:

"Dog and pony show" is a colloquial term which has come to mean a highly promoted, often over-staged performance, presentation, or event designed to sway or convince opinion for political, or less often, commercial ends.

Be sure not to miss the second part of the definition because this expresses the SCPR's take on the whole of last night's proceeding:

Typically, the term is used in a pejorative sense to connote disdain, jocular lack of appreciation, or distrust of the message being presented or the efforts undertaken to present it.

The "staging" was apparent from the time the SCPR walked through the door at Holy Trinity.

The large room was divided into halves.

The first half filled with round tables for the general public.

At about the half way point of the hall were a series of rectangular tables that formed a place for precinct committee members to sign in and also served the dual purpose beyond which the press could not go which, of course, was housed with "not enough" chairs for the some 170 committee members assembled.

Members of the press were heard by the SCPR to complain that they could not hear the committee persons very well as they made various motions and comments during the proceeding.

The Report rejoinder to the complaints?

"Oh!  that's by design.  It is obvious to me that Gonazlez and his executive vice chair (Maier, Jr.) wants to make it difficult for media coverage."

Most of the people speaking had no microphone, so one had to strain to hear what the committee members were saying.

But "you can bet your bottom dollar" the Gonzalez, DeMora, lead-attorney Steve Okey and the George T. Maier friends - for the most part - were on microphone "loud and clear."

Here and there, Maier opponents interim Sheriff Timothy Swanson and Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero were allowed to use the mic, but a good part of the time even they were afforded the indignity of having to shout to be heard.

Chairman Gonzalez's response when complaints were yelled out:  "we can't hear?"

For the most part:  "grin and bear, it" folks!

As mentioned above, every once in a while DeMora was allowed to hand the mic to a Swanson or Ferrero, but nobody else,  except the prime performers "in the dog and pony show," was allowed to be heard clearly by the press and those in the "reserved for the public section."

The Report thinks "the making it difficult to be heard" by the anti-Maier forces was purposeful.

Anyhow, ontinuing our tour of the meeting facility.

At the front of the room was a rectangular table of either side of the meeting moderator's "apparent" place for the respective legal counsel for the Dems' legal team and the Swanson/Darrow legal team.

However, as will be explained in more detail later on in this blog, only "one side" was entitled to have its legal team participate, so one of the tables remained vacant "all night long!"

Guess which side's legal team was seated at the designated table?

You've got it!

Allen Schulman (Canton city council president), Steve Okey (one of Stark County's most strident and caustic Democrats; (just ask some of his former Alliance city council colleagues), Warren Price (former Canton city official and the most level-headed of the entire group of lawyers) and Micheal Thompson, who appears to the SCPR to be a sort of "hanger-oner" (i.e. not a "main guy" in the representation scheme of things) type.

So that sets up the physical layout.

Now we get to the actual conduct of the meeting.

For each point of this part of today's blog, the SCPR is including video so that SCPR readers can get a sense for themselves what "a dog and pony show" experience is like.

VIDEO GUIDED TOUR OF MEETING

THE INTRO

In this video segment, the most notable parts are the chairman needing to point out that "police officers are present" (hmm?) and that the meeting is to be "a fair meeting"  (hmm? again; we shall see).



BILL DeMORA (ODP) TAKES OVER MEETING

One supposed improvement over the February 5th meeting was a larger role for Bill DeMora.

The SCPR does not think that his presiding over the meeting (Gonzalez did most of the presiding on February 5th) in terms of giving the other side (the Darrow supporters) a fair opportunity to be heard made one iota of a difference.

DeMora appears to The Report to have choreographed each and every move with Gonzalez beforehand.

Accordingly, it is just one more piece of the "dog and pony show" designed to make it seem that an unbiased person was presiding over the meeting.

For anyone who believes that "you see 'bias, but now you don't see it" maneuver,  the proverbial saying:  "Would you want to purchase some 'swamp land' in Florida," applies.

In this video, note that "right off the bat" a motion is hollered out "to keep the ballots in Stark County" which DeMora with no parliamentary justification whatsoever rules as being out-of-order.

Also in this video is the roll call of assembled precinct committee persons, so that SCPR readers can know first hand who attended.



A key piece in the orchestrated "dog and pony show" performance by Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez was the obtaining of and reading of a "legal opinion" by Ohio Democratic Party attorney Don McTigue.

This little ditty (i.e. the McTigue letter) apparently was designed to overwhelm the non-attorney segment of the gathering of SCDP-CC members.

As expert as McTigue supposedly is, he didn't even do enough research to know (see motion to hear Beck video below) that the original qualification date was February 6th (30 days from the January 7th McDonald failure to take office date).

But this, undoubtedly Gonzalez inspired tactic, probably worked with those who lack critical thinking skills.

As would come out later in the meeting, Steve Okey and Michael Thompson assured the February 5th meeting of the SCDP-CC that Maier was then qualified.

Do the SCPR a favor, go and read the Ohio Supreme Court decision (Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto) to understand more fully how wrong Okey and Thompson were.

Attorneys rarely get impressed with other attorneys and their opinions.

And to the SCPR McTigue is utterly unimpressive in his opinion; notwithstanding DeMora's flowery "Ohio's leading elections attorney."

One particular point in McTigue's opinion stands out.

What is that?

He openly challenges the majority Supreme Court justices who said in Swanson v. Maier that Maier was never sheriff.

The SCPR for one thinks that no matter what McTigue thinks of the word of the Supreme Court is guess what?  On state issues it is the Supreme!



Next up last night was a motion made by Lake Township precinct committeeman Steve Reisch who also happens to be an attorney of 15 years standing.

What was the motion?

To allow Greg Beck, attorney for Swanson (Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto [which resulted in Maier being ousted as sheriff] and (Swanson/Darrow v. Gonzalez and SCDP-CC, mandamus), not a committeeman himself, to address the assembly of committee persons.

This is where, the SCPR thinks, Gonzalez, DeMora, and Schulman and Shane Jackson go way off the track of "basic fairness."

DeMora (a non-committeeman himself) reads a legal opinion letter from an non-committeemen member (McTigue's) and then Okey et al, except for Jackson. who had another approach. argued the fact that Beck is not a committee member as a reason to deny the entire membership to opportunity hear the opposing point of view.

Gonzalez was especially egregious and The Report thinks highly disingenuous in acting as if the SCDP-CC was united in the first Maier appointment.  Gonzalez took the liberty (no surprise to the SCPR) in one set of his remarks (i.e. "all of you") including all SCDP-CC members as being the clients of Okey, Schulman, Price and Thompson.

The fact of the matter is that the February 5th vote was 92 (Maier); 84 (Darrow)?

Do think that maybe - just maybe - those 84 Darrow votes have more affinity for what Greg Beck has to say than the four SCDP attorneys (representing the "unified" executive committee controlled by Gonzalez and Johnnie A. Maier, Jr)?

What was Gonzalez afraid of as demonstrating his resisting having Beck speak?

It rings hollow with the SCPR when a guy like Gonzalez pines about being the member of the political party of Jefferson and Jackson.

As for that political genus R. Shane Jackson (the SCDP political director), what a trip he is.

Knowing full well that Maier's attorneys (that duo from Roetzel and Andress in Columbus) were not present last night, and, are not ever likely to be present at a SCDP function, comes up with the "brilliant" idea:  "Well, golly gee [the SCPR's editorial addition], if Beck is allow to speak then the Maier attorneys should be entitled to speak"

Which in his mind alone is apparently some sort of "trump card" to ice the central committee in into a position of not allowing Beck to speak.

Go figure!

And as far as the SCPR is concerned. by Gonzalez's actions in the conduct of the entire Maier/Darrow matter belies the lip service he is prone to pontificate on from time to time about basic democratic (note the small letter "d") republican values.

The whole tenor of of the official Stark County Democratic Party leadership face off last night smacks of personal interest politics and sheer political power (i.e. "we are going to jam this down your throats, whether or not you like it!").

The Stark County general voting public should be turned off by this display and have that factor play into anything that is Stark County Democratic Party/Gonzalez/Maier endorsed in terms of issues and candidates come November, 2014.

However, the public should endeavor to ferret out quality Democratic Party candidates who have have the misfortune to be saddled with a SCDP endorsement.

The following video shows the back forth argument on the motion and the vote.

An impressive 72 stalwarts showed they were for fair play whereas the rest demonstrated by their votes that they are not interested in hearing "the whole story."

Even those who figured that they were going to vote for Maier should have been willing and open minded enough to hear the Swanson/Darrow argument. 

The video shows who the non-democratic are and viewers should note who they think was for basic fairness and who was not.

This particular vote made it very clear how the vote on the appointment was going to go.  It was a clear "ramrod Maier through" operation from the get-go.



The next best alternative for any kind of different legal opinion to the ears of the SCDP-CC members was for Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero to stand up and speak inasmuch Greg Beck was not allowed to speak.

As the following video shows, Ferrero was reluctant to do so probably understanding that he was not the best source to articulate reasons why the committee should not make a second mistake in appointing Maier sheriff.



Having denied that the Swanson/Darrow case for George T. Maier "continuing" disqualification is still the case, DeMora inartistically segues into having SCDP attorney Steve Okey present his one-sided take on the issue.

What a treat!



The SCPR's take on Okey's contribution? to the discussion is as follows:

• He gets his facts wrong for starters in that the "very first Ohio Supreme Court lawsuit filed" (see graphic above) in the series of three total lawsuits filed was the one by Lou Darrow (filed a few days before the February 5th meeting) because:
• Darrow knew what every other reasonable minded person knew which was that Maier's qualifications were suspect.
• Even Gonzalez raised the issue with Stark County commissioner Tom Bernabei and Tim Swanson in an early January, 2013 meeting at the Stark County commissioners' office.
• Gonzalez reportedly tried to convince Swanson to hire Maier for a short period of time to "hopefully" fix Maier's qualification problem.
• And, of course, Maier disingenuously, the SCPR believes, denied in his deposition in a later case (i.e. Swanson v. Maier) that the weekend of work in Harrison County in January was an attempt to heal himself of being disqualified by Ohio statutory law.
• He and Warren Price represents the SCDP-CC "as a body" whether on February 5th you voted for Maier, Darrow or Dordea.  Really?
• Apparently Okey was asleep/distracted when Gonzalez stood earlier in the last night's session and argued that the Darrow/Dordea voters - in effect - were unrepresented.  Hmm?
• In a obvious attempt (as the SCPR sees it) to "inflame" anti-Darrow passions within the committee members, Okey spoke a number of times last night about about the committee members "being sued (apparently referring to the Swanson/Darrow mandamus action and, perhaps, Darrow's February In Prohibition action)"
• In an extension of the inflammatory mode The Report believes he was in, Okey spoke repeatedly of the effort by Swanson/Darrow (in the mandamus) to deny the central committee members the right to vote
• Of course, this is only part the story (remember Beck was denied the right to fill out the full account of the mandamus in being denied the right to address Wednesday's meeting)
• But that's what you get when you have the party brass put on a "dog and pony show, no?"
• In the view of the SCPR, Okey (by way of omission) goes way beyond what one should read into the Supreme Court's denial of Beck's request for a order limiting last night vote to either Darrow or Dorea,
• He suggested that he, Price, Thompson and Schulman were "neutral" parties who independent of one another took it upon themselves to determine Maier to be qualified notwithstanding his and Thompson's similar (now Supreme Court debunked) appraisals to the SCDP-CC assessments of Maier's qualifications.
• (Remember Maier's guaranteed - "If I apply, I will be qualified" statement?) 
• Who believes Okey's suggestion of neutrality and independence protestations?
• He trots out Maier's "its a mere technicality" argument that got him ousted as sheriff by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Okey never does effectively address the telling points made by John Ferrero and Frederic Scott (of Ferrero's office) that he and Thompson had made faulty appraisals of Maier qualifications at the February 5th SCDP-CC meeting,

By implication he maintains that the Supreme Court was wrong in removing Maier in its November 6th decision.

Hmm?

Next up is a video of Tim Swanson and his "impassioned - not calculated" plea to the SCDP-CC not to make a second mistake which, of course, the SCPR thinks the committee members did by a 101 to 65 vote.



The SCPR has learned that Swanson by the end of this week is likely to file a "new" quo warranto and consequently the SCPR goes on record as saying that The Report expects the Supreme Court to toss Maier out-of-office once again.

Exactly what Stark County needs, no?

Swanson, who the SCPR has roundly criticized in quite a number of blogs since The Report's inception (March 12, 2008), is at great inconvenience to himself and nothing to gain politically is doing "the right thing" for "the rule of law" in doggedly sticking to his determination to be the instrumentality of realizing "the rule of law" in this sheriff appointment matter.

Hip-hip-horray for THE RULE OF LAW!

STARK JUDGE RACES OF NOVEMBER, 2014 TO GET "UNUSUALLY" POLITICAL?

UPDATE:  3:00 PM (WITH LIST OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CANDIDATES TAKING OUT PETITIONS SO FAR FOR 2014 RACES

ORIGINAL BLOG
 
Apparently, things have not been controversial enough for Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione over the past eleven (11) months in terms of his being a focal point in local media.

Follow "the chronology of the Forchione publicity run" under the ensuing list of Datelines.

Dateline No. 1.

Late last week, His Honor seemingly injected himself into the fight between the George T. Maier and Tim Swanson/Lou Darrow camps fight as to whom is going to be eligible to be appointed sheriff of Stark County to replace sheriff-elect Mike McDonald who was too ill to take office on January 7, 2013.

Stark Dems botched the original replacement appointment on February 5th in appointing former Massillon safety director George T. Maier.

According to the Ohio Supreme Court in a November 6, 2013 decision (Swanson v. Maier), he was not eligible under the requirements of Ohio statutory law to be appointed despite Maier's "guarantee" (pre-February 5th meeting) that he would be eligible, "if he applied."

Ohio's "court of last resort" has ordered the Dems to do a "do-over" to correct the February 5th mistake.

The Democrats re-do is slated for December 11th.

Dateline No. 2.

In December, 2012; January, 2013, Forchione made a decision in a criminal case (the Studer case) he presided over that a $5,000 fine he exacted of the defendant be paid for the benefit of the victims of the mass shooting of students in December, 2012 at Sandy Hook (located in Newtown, Massachusetts).

Only problem was that, despite the obvious compassionate and charitable impulse that many Stark Countians think motivated Forchione to order what he did; not all Stark citizens were willing to let him be compassionate/charitable with Stark County taxpayer money.

And one of the particularly "important" unwilling ones was local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley.

He has a history of discord with Forchione.

In 2011, Conley had filed an Affidavit of Disqualification in a case he had before Judge Forchione.

Conley lost the case, but then Forchione recused himself post-decision.

Hmm?

One must ask, what was that all about, no?

Dateline No. 3

February 1, 2013.

Conley files suit.

Ohio statutory law provides that fine money can ONLY be deposited in the appropriate county's general fund.  Saying that his motivation was that "the rule of law" has to prevail, Conley filed a civil suit against this judge.  The SCPR, for one believes, was instrumental in Forchione asking the Newtown/Sandy Hook charity to return the $5,000 so that he could place it into the Stark County treasury.

For his effort, an anonymous Stark County person (believed to be a Stark County attorney) filed an ethics complaint with Ohio's Disciplinary Counsel against Conley because Conley was reported in local media of saying that in ordering the diversion of Stark County taxpayer money Forchione was grandstanding.

Conley subsequently was exonerated of any ethics violation for his "grandstanding" remark by counsel assigned to make a determination of whether or not Conley had committed a violation of the Ohio's Professional Responsibility Code in place for lawyers.

If Conley was correct in his "grandstanding" assessment, one needs to ask:  why would Forchione want to grandstand?

Well, Conley did not specify.

The only thing that the SCPR can think of is that Forchione is up for election in November, 2014 and like many incumbents may have been thought by Conley of using his official position to enhance his electability.

Dateline No. 4

Later in February (the 28th), Forchione had to be surprised when a former Stark Countian (Louis Demis formerly of Navarre, but now of Columbus) filed a rarely used legal procedure (Affidavit Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Sections 2935.09/10) in an attempt to get the State of Ohio to prosecute Frank Forchione for "theft-in-office" for having originally diverted the money from the Stark treasury to the Newtown, MA based charity.

Guess who stepped forward to "volunteer" his "pro bono"  (for the public good) legal services to Demis?

Of course, Craig T. Conley.

Conley has a track record of offering his considerable legal skills as a public service free-of-charge to the taxpaying public going back years.

Back in 2009, the SCPR believes that Conley was instrumental in forcing Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero to more sooner that later in recovering (as provided for in Ohio statutory law) monies lost on account of the theft by former Chief Deputy Treasurer Vince Frustaci of upwards of $3 million of Stark County taxpayer dollars.

While the-then treasurer Gary D. Zeigler was not implicated in the Frustaci theft, Ohio statutory law does make a public official - in a civil suit context - "strictly" liable to the public for monies lost without regard to fault in administering his/her office.

Zeigler has always denied that he failed to properly administer the treasurer's office while he was treasurer.

Dateline No. 5

In an April hearing, Conley, arguing the Demis position, failed to convince a visiting judge (retired Barberton Municipal Court judge Michael McNulty) in a proceeding in the Canton Municipal Court, to find probable cause.

But Conley pressed on.

Dateline No. 6.

The Demis appeal to the 5th District Court of Appeals on May 20, 2013.

On November 5th, Conley argued probable cause to the 5th District Court of Appeals (based in Canton).

He argued that the visiting judge erred in not finding probable cause.

A decision is due any day now.

Return to Dateline No. 1

Here we are in the week of November 18 - 22, 2013 and we have Frank Forchione "in the headlines" once again in the Swanson/Darrow - Maier face-off on whom is going to be sheriff come December 11th.

As stated by Judge Forchione in area media reports, his only role is to be ministerial in the determining base-level eligibility (matters that are susceptible of absolute factual determination) factors.

And yet, there are those Stark Countians who think that Forchione is injecting himself in a more substantive way than that into the the sheriff eligibility controversy.

Saying that he is "erring on the side of democracy," (which seems to the Stark County Political Report as being more "political" question rather than a "judicial" question") is apparently Forchione putting himself in the position of determining the field of candidates "anew" for appointment at the December 11th SCDP-CC meeting.

Forchione appears to be substituting his judgment for that of the Supreme Court notwithstanding that the only date of eligibility articulated by the court in its November 6, 2013 opinion is a "qualification date" of February 6, 2013."

Hmm?

Forchione was adventuresome in ordering the Studer fine money be paid for the benefit of the Sandy Hook victims.  He apparently ate "legal" crow in retrieving the money and having it deposited in the Stark treasury in compliance with Conley's law-based demand.

The question is:  Is he going to be eating "legal" crow once again?

The SCPR is hearing that there are Stark Countians who think that Forchione

(a Democrat who has served for years in the Canton Law Department under current director Joe Martuccio and his predecessor and current county commissioner Tom Bernabei)

in opening up the application process for a qualification date beyond February 6th has "in effect," (presumably not an intentional act) taken sides with the likes of Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez (a zealot Maier supporter, who has announced he will re-apply) and his prominent Democratic legal advisers Allen Schulman, Warren Price, Steven Okey and Michael Thompson.

Commissioner Bernabei is on record of being a big George T. Maier booster.

Undoubtedly, there are "legal eagle" eyes looking at the legal propriety of Forchione's decision to open up the application process in light of the Swanson v. Maier opinion.

The "fresh eyes," if The Report's conjecture is correct, would be in the supplementation of a writ of mandamus filed on November 18th by Swanson and his top lieutenant Louis Darrow (also a candidate to be the Dems appointee) followed by motions for injunctive relief filed this past Friday.

The mandamus and injunctive relief requests are specifically designed to stop Gonzalez led Dems from including Maier in the ordered "re-do" selection process.

Why, pray tell, would Forchione risk being legally wrong again?  Is the re-open another "bit of grandstanding" a la Conley's charge on Studer/Sandy Hook matter? 

The SCPR would not be surprised to see Judge Forchione himself be drawn into the Ohio Supreme Court legal proceeding(s) in light of his decision to re-open the application process.

Dateline No. 7.

Whether or not he is validated on this decision, it is becoming likely that he is making himself a political lightning rod come the November, 2014 elections.

Forchione was first elected in 2008 and with one term under his belt, he would likely - under normal circumstances - be pretty much a shoe-in for re-election.

The Report is told that Forchione's 2013 judicial activism has given birth to an effort to find "a worthy" Republican opponent against him come next year's election.

Conley (a Republican, but not part of the Stark County Republican Party leadership) makes no bones about it.

Forchione is a prime political target for defeat in next year's general election insofar as he is concerned.

Many, many Stark County judicial elections are uncontested.

However, next year, a rare year indeed in Stark, four of the five Stark County Court of Common Pleas, General Division judgeships are on the ballot and two for the first time (Farmer and Werren).   

Werren has already drawn a daunting rival (in terms of the clout and regard she has in the legal community) in Chryssa Hartnett who is a Stark County assistant prosecutor and an assistant chief prosecutor of the criminal division.

The SCPR has written that she deserved to be considered by the Stark County Republican Party/Republican Governor John Kasich for either of the appointments that went to Kristin Farmer or Curtis Werren.

But we all know that the politicos look out for their respective political parties first and the public interest - maybe - second.

Normally, only first time judicial candidates are thought to be vulnerable to being unseated.

But the question is fast becoming, is second time candidate Frank Forchione in his 2013 activism putting himself into the vulnerable category alongside Farmer and Werren?

Historically, it has been unusual for state judicial races (of course, there are no federal judiciary elections; all positions are appointed) to draw the interest of political action groups (PACs) which are putting increasing amounts of money and effort into the election face-offs.

While the Stark judicial elections are unlikely to draw any PAC money, the Forchione, Farmer and Werren races will likely all be contested and the campaigns could become testy.

The testiness is highly unlikely to come from the candidates themselves because the Ohio Supreme Court has strict rules on what candidates can do in the way of the substance/finances of their campaigns. 

It is hard for the SCPR to see how Judge Forchione is enhancing his chances of being reelected next year in view of the notoriety he has achieved with his 2013 judicial activism.

His break from the tradition of how sitting judges comport themselves in terms of generating public notice may be a sign of the times we now live in, which is to say, perhaps:

A New Politics of Judicial Elections, Stark County style?

THE KEY IN WHOM WILL BE STARK'S NEXT SHERIFF? DARROW OR MAIER?

OHIO SUPREME COURT'S  

DETERMINATION 

OF

"THE QUALIFICATION DATE"

 UPDATED AT 12:00 P.M.

Yesterday, Sheriff Tim Swanson joined with his top lieutenant and a leading candidate to become Stark County sheriff in filing a Writ of Mandamus with the Ohio Supreme Court.

The writ was filed to gain enforcement of the high court's original order in Swanson v. Maier wherein Maier was ousted by the supreme justices in a 5 to 2 vote effective November 6, 2013. (Click on graphic to enlarge)

The SCPR's take on the key issue of the new case is whether or not the Supreme Court confirms/disaffirms the qualification date referred to in the Ohio Revised Code section of statutory law as being either February 6, 2013 or December 5, 2013.  (Click on graphic to enlarge)

Therein, the SCPR believes, lies the answer as to whether George T. Maier might once again take up habitation at 4500 Atlantic Boulevard or, alternatively, Lt. Lou Darrow.

If the justices reaffirm February 6, 2013 as the date they settled on in Swanson v. Maier as being the date that applies to the court's order that the Stark County Democratic Party redo its selection of Mike McDonald's successor, then George Maier will not be returning to the sheriff's diggs.

For there is no way he can redeem himself from the court's November 6th determination that he was unqualified as of Feburary 5, 2013, the date that the local Dems selected him by a 92 to 84 vote over Darrow.

However, if the court takes the view of legal counsel (Allen Schulman, Steve Okey, Michael Thompson [Gonzalez]) advising Chairman Gonzalez that the qualification period begins anew (within 30 days from the November 6th decision), then Maier has a chance.

But only a chance.

It is likely that Maier would be able to qualify on the basis of his having served (in process now) as a full-time deputy sheriff for longtime friend and sheriff Ronald J. Myers of Harrison County (about an hour driving distance from Maier's home in Massillon) in the county seat of Cadiz, Ohio.

But if the Harrison County stint is Maier's basis for qualifying one has to wonder whether or not that will be challenged in some future legal proceeding.

In the original Swanson v. Maier case the Supreme Court did not consider the same tactic of serving two days in Harrison County as being enough to satisfy the full-time requirement.

It appears to the SCPR that the court was looking for more than just the mere passage of time on the job.  If that is the case, does it make any difference that he will have been on the job about 30 days when the Stark Dems meet once again (December 11th) to make a new appointment?

Could it be that the court was looking at a "good faith" (in the legal sense of the expression) aspect of the time in Harrison?

Good faith?

Yes.

For example, is George Maier on the job in Harrison with the intent to remain a full-time peace officer for the reasonably foreseeable future?

So, in the view of the SCPR, even if the Ohio Supreme Court defines "the qualification date" to be December 5, 2013, it does not necessarily mean George T. Maier's legal problems are over.

A factor such as this prospect may be enough to convince a majority of Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee members to opt for Lou Darrow over Maier.

Precinct committeepersons might also want to reflect on highly credible reports that in a meeting (The Meeting) that occurred in early January in the office of Stark County Commissioner Tom Bernabei which included Bernabei, Sheriff Swanson, Chairman Gonzalez and Maier (via telephone) that the chairman asked Swanson to hire Maier as a full-time Stark County sheriff for a few days because there were concerns that Maier could not qualify under the statutory law of Ohio.

Important to them, The Report thinks, should be that the chairman on February 5th (the first selection date), as the SCPR recalls, did not share the existence of "The Meeting" nor, of course, what The Report thinks is a "political" (for Steve Okey) "smoking gun" indicating that Gonzalez conducted the meeting knowing that the Dems could be making a decision that would not stand up to the scrutiny of the Ohio Supreme Court.

It appears to the SCPR that party leaders favoring Maier were hoping against hope that Tim Swanson would not step up and file the challenge to Maier's qualifications in the Supreme Court.

Also a factor with the precinct committeepersons, in terms of Maier understanding his qualification vulnerability (according to him "a mere technicality;" obviously a "minimizing" tactic), for their consideration in the upcoming scheduled December 11th "second" selection attempt ought to be focusing on Maier's weekend in Cadiz, Ohio in January in which he worked as a full-time deputy sheriff for two days.

He denied in his deposition in Swanson v. Maier that solving his "technical" problem was the reason for him going to Cadiz.

The SCPR thinks that the denial falls in the category of "who is going to believe that?"

How insulting to people of common human experience and understanding, no?

As already discussed, the Supreme Court did not bite on the first Harrison County excursion and the SCPR does not believe that Ohio's "court of last resort" is into making "technical" rulings as Maier would have us believe.

How insulting to the high court, no?

The Supreme Court articulates and requires that we all follow the "Rule of Law" not as "a mere technicality" but as a way for us to have an ordered society.

One has to think that a compelling consideration in the minds of committeepersons is whether or not they want to be a party to possibly dragging this matter out even further than it has gone already, no?

The nine months of uncertainty that the Stark Democratic Party leaders put the county through is something they owe an apology for.

As Commissioner Janet Creighton said of the Swanson v. Maier ruling, Stark County "takes three steps forward, then five steps backward."

And The Report adds, the sheriff uncertainty situation was completely avoidable and should never have happened.

There is nothing keeping Maier from running in the May, 2014 Stark County Democratic primary.  The SCPR encourages him to do so.

Let Stark Countians judge whether or not they want him as our sheriff in view of all that has transpired.

In the view of the SCPR, such would be the responsible thing for Maier to do.

Stark Countians deserve better than what they have gotten from the Stark Dems so far.

It could be that likely Republican candidate in November, 2014 Larry Dordea's prospect of winning gets better and better with each passing day that the Stark Dems' squabble continues.

On reading the Beck brief in his new filing and contrasting his arguments with Gonzalez arguments as contained in a letter from Gonzalez (at the hand of his attorneys) to Beck which is attached to the brief, The Report believes that Beck's position is the more tenable argument.

But we shall see.

As an acquaintance of The Report likes to say:

The Supreme Court does not have to be right, it just has to be the Supreme Court.