STRANGE INDEED, GEORGE T. MAIER ATTORNEY CANNOT SEEM TO GET HIS REDACTING STRAIGHT

 UPDATED:  08:12 AM

The Stark County commissioners think Rosenberg is an expert on quo warranto's although he lost the only one that the SCPR is aware of that he has handled (i.e. Swanson v. Maier).

Readers will recall that the commissioners hired Thomas L. Rosenberg of the prestigious firm of Roetzel & Andress over a year ago (March, 2013) to represent George T. Maier.  Maier had been appointed by the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee to replace Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald (November, 2012) who was unable to take office on January 7, 2013 due to an illness which cost him his life on February 22, 2013.

The Dems appointed Maier on February 5, 2013 and Swanson filed his successful lawsuit on February 12th with the Supreme Court ouster of Maier decision coming on November 6th.

Apparently, Rosenberg takes the commissioners' attribution of his being an expert seriously.  Over the course of numerous lawsuits (including Cynthia Balas-Bratton's BOE protest of February 11, 2014) regarding his client Maier, he has seemingly taken it on himself to become "the minder in chief" of all things legal not only for client Maier but also for:

• the commissioners, 
• Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero, 
• the Stark BOE,
• Buckeye Sheriff Association CEO Robert Cornwell,
• Craig T. Conley, who in a number of different legal proceedings contra George T. Maier or his interests represents:
• Taxpayer Thomas Marcelli,
• Tim Swanson,
• Cynthia Balas-Bratton

And there may be others that Rosenberg has taken to counseling of that the SCPR has missed in this blog.

However, the focus of this blog is to show how wrong Rosenberg is in his recent admonition/threat on Craig Conley on his allegations that Conley has failed to redact sensitive law enforcement information on Rosenberg's client George T. Maier.

SCPR readers know of course that Craig Conley did file with the Ohio Supreme Court on March 11, 2014 a Writ of Prohibition with the court asking the court to overrule the decision of Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted in siding with Democratic BOE Members in breaking a tie between those two Dem members with the two Republican members and thereby has ruled that Rosenberg's client George T. Maier is to be included on the May 6, 2014 Democratic primary ballot.

Look at this copy of the Rosenberg March 26th letter.

So first of all, Rosenberg gets his case caption wrong in his March 26th letter, to wit:

The incorrect cite (Marcelli v. Maier is a taxpayer lawsuit to recover taxpayer monies allegedly paid Maier or on behalf of Maier from February 11, 2013 through November 6, 2013) in only the beginning of what appear to be some monumental mistakes made by Rosenberg in the March 26th letter.

To cut through everything, the SCPR is convinced that what Rosenberg accuses Conley of is in fact the doing of Rosenberg himself and that it is on his letter of March 26th letter is an outrage.

So much so that The Report thinks that Rosenberg and/or the law firm he is associated with (Roetzel & Andress) should be issuing a public retraction and, of course, a personal apology to those who the SCPR thinks Rosenberg has erroneously fingered as being in violation of Ohio law.

Before we get into the details of Rosenberg's apparent error being focused upon by the SCPR in this blog, readers should go to a few other blogs to get a fix on what The Report thinks is Rosenberg's out-and-hubris.

•  Blog of February 14, 2014
•  Blog of January 27, 2014

Of course, The Report thinks that Rosenberg and George T. Maier is "a perfect match" in terms of the arrogance that both demonstrate to anybody who is looking at "the complete person."

Those of us who know Craig T. Conley know that he is more than capable of defending himself and his clients.

Let's have Conley speak for himself:

In that regard, I note you made a similar allegation in Swanson's first quo warranto action against your client, notwithstanding the fact that the source of the subject personal identifier information was mostly, if not exclusively, you by and through your submission of various un-redacted exhibits during one or more trial deposi­tions taken in that action.  (color differentiation added)

Your aforesaid grossly imprudent conduct aside, Mr. Maier^s home address is certainly otherwise no secret and in fact has been revealed to the public by vou and/or by him on many occasions via multiple un-redacted publicly-available filings

Here the SCPR picks to recite in Conley's words in a summary fashion the prior public publications by Rosenberg or Maier himself:

1. The letter of support (signed by, inter alia, BOE Member St. John) for Candidate Maier on his personal letterhead that you caused to be filed as "evidence" with the Ohio Supreme Court; 
2. Candidate Maier's three Applications for Candidacy as filed with the Stark County Common Pleas Court; 
3. his Application for Candidacy as filed with the Stark County Board of Elections; 
4. his Declaration of Candidacy as filed with the Stark County Board of Elections; his Party's Certifications by Party Central Committee to Fill a Vacancy in County Office or City Office as filed with the Stark County Common Pleas Court and/or with the Stark County Board of Elections; 
5. his Notices of Peace Officer Appointment as filed with the Stark County Common Pleas Court and/or with the Stark County Board of Elections; 
6. a copy of his Ohio Driver's License as filed with the Stark County Common Pleas Court and/or with the Stark County Board of Elections; his Stark State College "Transcript" as filed with the Stark County Common Pleas Court and/or with the Stark County Board of Elections; 
7. your own January 14, 2013 "Qualifi­cations for Sheriff",letter to Mr. Maier; 
8. Mr. Maier's own "vote for me" letter to the DCC; and 
9. his Civilian Background Check fingerprint cards as filed with the Stark County Common Pleas Court and/or with the Stark County Board of Elections (some or all of which cards even include Mr. Maier's ... , which is also the case with at least one of your own post-redaction "evidence" filings with the Supreme Court in Swanson's first quo warranto action against your client) .

Conley goes on:

Indeed, other than those documents listed hereinabove that I obtained through the Ohio Supreme Court's website in Swanson's first quo warranto action against your client, I obtained all of the other hereinabove listed documents upon O.R.C. 149.43 public records requests made of the Stark County Auditor and/or the Stark County Prosecuting Attorney and/or the Stark County Board of Elections and/or the Stark County Board of Commissioners and/or the Stark County Clerk of Courts, none of which public records had Mr. Maier's "super secret" home address redacted therefrom (and some of which, as aforesaid, did not even have his ... redacted therefrom)
 

In sum, it is clear that the blame for any failure to redact personal identifier information from the aforesaid publicly-available documents lies solely with you and/or with your client:, certainly not with me or with my client (and certainly not with Attorney Beck or his client).

By the way, all of the aforesaid publicly-available documents aside, Mr, Maier's "super secret" home address is otherwise readily available to anyone both electronically and in "hard copy" via the Stark County Auditor's real property records, noting that Mr. Maier is a Stark County homeowner.

Accordingly, in light of the aforesaid non-exhaustive listing of publicly-available documents showing Mr. Maier's "super secret" home address, I respectfully suggest you need to reconsider your untenable position here, but should you nonetheless follow through with your outrageously inappropriate threat to "seek further redress against [me] and [my] client", please be advised that I will thereafter seek such redress against you personally and/or against your client personally and/or against your law firm.

Indeed, stated plainly, under the circumstances, I find your aforesaid "nastygram" to be both laughable and a grossly unprofessional (and shameful) attempt at intimidation and/or blame transference.

It therefore is requested that you forthwith refrain from transmitting further such "nastygrams" to me, as they only serve to demean our learned profession.

After all that, get this!

A sheriff is not entitled by Ohio law to have his home address information redacted, to wit:

149.43 [Effective Until 3/20/2015] Availability of public records for inspection and copying.

As used in divisions (A)(7) and (B)(9) of this section, "peace officer" has the same meaning as in section 109.71 of the Revised Code and also includes the superintendent and troopers of the state highway patrol; it does not include the sheriff of a county or a supervisory employee who, in the absence of the sheriff, is authorized to stand in for, exercise the authority of, and perform the duties of the sheriff. 

Isn't that something!

After all is said and done, it appears that ORC 149(A)(7)(g) specifically excludes a county sheriff from having his home address redacted.

Think maybe Thomas L. Rosenberg doesn't have some "egg on his face?

Think maybe Conley, Beck and others do not have an apology coming?

In the light of the foregoing, it is likely that many of us are thinking not What's the Matter with Kansas, rather we are more prone to be thinking:

What's the Matter with Thomas L. Rosenberg, no?

Answers please, Mr. Rosenberg!

(ENCORE VIDEO) BSSA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CORNWELL FORGOT TO MENTION BSSA'S "PREVIOUS" POSITION ON ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a)? HMMM?

UPDATED AT 11:15 AM
(SEE EMAIL FROM SCPR READER)

ENCORE VIDEO

CRAIG T. CONLEY

DESTROYS

BSSA'S

CREDIBILITY

AS AN

"EXPERT" WITNESS

ON 

ORC 311.01 

 

10:37AM

February 27, 2014

Martin,

Thank you for today's blog reviewing the Cornwell testimony at the Balas-Bratton protest hearing before the Stark County Board of Elections. 

Before today's blog, I was not sure what to think of Cornwell's testimony. 
On the one hand, he was obviously biased and
argumentative in favor of Maier in spite of his claims of neutrality in favor of "the law".

On the other hand, he seemed somewhat credible in that he believed in what he was saying.

It is enlightening to find out about his prior amicus briefs asking the Supreme Court for strict interpretations of ORC 301.01 and as well as the fact that the original statute was modified for tighter qualification guidelines is enlightening. 

It is indeed a flip/flop.

You also mention that you hope that Braden and Cline will note the Craig case when transmitting the BOE record to the Ohio Secy of State. 

This raises a question. BOE member Ferruccio handled all objections and was clearly the sole "referee" in the BOE hearing. 

Why didn't member Cline, an attorney, offer any input on any of the objections? In particular, I note Cornwell's unwillingness to answer "yes or no" questions with a clear yes or no. Would it have been out of procedural order for Cline to interrupt and order Cornwell to answer clearly "yes" or "no"??

Steve Marcoaldi   

ORIGINAL BLOG

It seems to be a "trademark" of anything touched by George T. Maier attorney Thomas L. Rosenberg (of Roetzel and Andress/Columbus).

Okay, I'll bite.

What "seems to be a 'trademark' of ... Rosenberg?"

Depending how it plays in his perceived interest of his client, he shows that he can take a letter or a statute and likely anything else relevant to a legal case and take contradictory positions.

A classic case of his doing so can be seen on this (LINK) to prior SCPR blog.  In the cited blog, Rosenberg was going to "out of the goodness of his civic minded heart" represent Stark County taxpayers to retrieve from interim Sheriff Tim Swanson the $20,000 that Stark County's commissioners agreed to pay to Rosenberg and his law firm for his having represented Maier in a quo warranto filed February 12, 2013 by Swanson.

The presumption was that Maier was going to win.

But, of course, in hindsight we now know that "something funny happened on the way out of the court."  Maier lost and was ousted as the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) appointed sheriff by the Ohio Supreme Court on November 6, 2013

Swanson winning did not stop Rosenberg from writing the commissioners and demanding that the commissioners not reimburse Swanson (some $33,800) for his legal expenses in getting Maier thrown out.

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't go about it the right way to demand that the commissioners pay his legal fees on the basis of his having won, but Swanson is about to have the last laugh on Rosenberg.

There is a scheme of Ohio statutory law in existence that makes a quo warranto loser "personally liable" to the winner.  And, Swanson has retained legal counsel and had him file a lawsuit against Maier (LINK).

Now what do you suppose Maier would rather happen?

Pay Swanson his $33,800 as on a "moral claim" basis or have Maier have to pay out of his personal funds nearly $90,000 in wages and benefits that Swanson missed out on because Maier usurped his office?

How is Rosenberg explaining that one to George T. Maier.

Rosenberg seems to have developed having "one's foot firmly implanted in one's mouth" into an art form.

On February 11, the SCPR wrote a blog describing Rosenberg's allegation in a November 13, 2013 letter to Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero that Lt. Louis Darrow, if he were to pursue a second appointment (Maier's first appointment having been invalidated) of the SCDP-CC on December 11, 2013, would - as a classified employee - be violating ORC 124.57.

Guess what?

George Maier by his own hand on December 5, 2013 wrote Harrison County Sheriff Ronald J. Myers (his "friend forever") telling him as a classified employee, he had to resign so he could seek the appointment also.

So?

Well, on November 26, 2013 Maier had filed an application with the Stark County Court of Common Pleas for the SCDP-CC appointment.

Hmm?

Presumably, Maier was acting under the advice of Rosenberg.

One standard for Darrow; another for Maier?

Isn't that terrific that a man who would be Stark County sheriff apparently has two standards in legal accountability?

Now we get to the point of this blog.

Rosenberg appears to be at it again.

This time it is through his expert witness Robert Cornwell.

Cornwell has been the chief executive officer of the Ohio Buckeye Sheriffs' Association (BSSA) since 1983.

In 1987, he, as a BSSA lobbyist, got state Representative Ron Gerberry (of the Youngstown area) to guide a bill through the Ohio General Assembly which came to be known as Ohio Revised Code Section 311.01.

In 1981, (served one term through 1984) Stark Countians had elected Republican insurance man Robert C. Berens as Stark County sheriff.  Needless to say, most Stark Countians thought that Berens was a disaster.  But there was a "silver lining" to his being elected.  It was obvious to one and all that there needed to be standards for one to stand for election as a county sheriff.  Hence, the birth of 311.01.

Well, now, it seems that the "mere technicalities" of ORC 311.01 are a huge barrier to Democrat George T. Maier ever becoming sheriff of Stark County in the sense of being elected to fill the term of Mike McDonald, who was unable to take office on January 7, 2013 (having been elected in November, 2012), because of illness which cost him his life on February 22, 2013.

At least such is what George calls them, "technicalities" that is.

Well for purposes of this blog, let's take a look at one of the "technicalities."

ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a) is the particular technicality we will delve into.in this blog, to wit:

 311.01 Election and qualifications of sheriff.

(A) A sheriff shall be elected quadrennially in each county. A sheriff shall hold office for a term of four years, beginning on the first Monday of January next after the sheriff's election.

(B) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person is eligible to be a candidate for sheriff, and no person shall be elected or appointed to the office of sheriff, unless that person meets all of the following requirements:

...

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

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

The enlarged language is one of several points of argument between Maier's attorney (Rosenberg) and the protester  (Cynthia Balas-Bratton, represented by Craig T. Conley) to Maier's candidacy as Stark County sheriff

More specifically the argument centers on whether or not one has to have been within the last five years (going back from February 4, 2014) a "corporal or above" for two years within said five years.

And who better than to bring in as an "expert" witness than Robert Cornwell of BSSA, no?

After having seen him:

• testify trying to make having the losing position in Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto appear to make him some kind of authority, and 
• after having seen where his BSSA, in a number of pre-Balas Bratton versus Maier cases, asserted the Balas-Bratton position; it appears that Rosenberg, once again, screwed up "big-time" in bringing Cornwell in to testify at the Balas-Bratton "protest" hearing of February 21st.
• SCPR Note:  See video and a SCPR summary of Cornwell's Rosenberg-led examination at this LINK.

How is it that the SCPR thinks Rosenberg "screwed up?"

First, look at Cornwell's examination by Balas-Bratton's attorney Craig T.
Conley:

.

The "key" points of the Conley cross-examination (of course, as interpreted by the SCPR) for purposes of this blog include:

• that Cornwell attempts to present himself as an "impartial witness" devoted to having anyone who applying ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a) to do so according "the way it should be,"
• the fact of the matter was that the Maier side of the Balas-Bratton protest was the side that asked that BSSA allow Cornwell to come and testify,
• BSSA and filed an amicus brief in Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto (which Maier lost) 
• In the lead up to BSSA's attorney preparing the brief, Cornwell had multiple conversations with Maier attorney Rosenberg and which conversations included:
• past cases in which BSSA had taken positions on the various provisions of 311.01,
• that BSSA historically has asked the Supreme Court "to interpret the statute as it reads,"
• incredibly denies that the Maier amicus was filed in support of Maier,
• however, he admits that the amicus argues that Maier meets all the qualifications required by 311.01,
• resists Conley's point that the amicus was a losing proposition with the Supreme Court but ultimately under Conley persistence admits that the Supreme Court ruled that Maier did not meet the qualification under 311.01 of being "full time,"
• resists Conley's point that he holds himself as being an expert on 311.01 and yet he was wrong in Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto,
• agrees with Conley that a former version of 311.01(B)(9)(a):
• allowed for two years of supervision or its equivalent,
• did not require that the supervisor be a corporal or above (with no qualifying language of "equivalency,
• spars (which the SCPR undermines his implicit claim of objectivity) with Conley over whether or not being assistant Ohio Director of Public Safety (as Maier was in the Strickland administration) qualifies as being the "equivalent" of being a "corporal or above,"

BSSA, under Cornwell, at least insofar as the organization's obvious commitment to George Maier as qualifying under 311.01 is "as plain as day" to anyone who hears Cornwell's testimony.

The SCPR believes that there may be some connection between BSSA and the Maiers through state Representative Ron Gerberry who at the time the original 311.01 was passed, (1987) worked closely with BSSA.  The Report has known Maier brother Johnnie A. Maier, Jr since the days he was state representative from a section of Stark County and who was one of his best legislative friends: Ron Gerberry!

Cornwell brought up the fact that Tim Swanson was president of BSSA (2008) and that he worked well with Swanson and thereby wished to imply that it is believable to think that BSSA is not biased toward the Maiers' interest.

But the SCPR is not buying.

The Report will be working to establish a tie between Cornwell, BSSA, the Maiers and Representative Gerberry as being "the key" as to why BSSA has come out so strong in its Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto amicus for Maier.

Many times, it is not so much that people lie about this or that item being asked about, but the "sin" comes in in "what they omit."

The SCPR believes that such may be the case with Cornwell.

It will interesting to see whether or not the SCPR can uncover a BSSA, Cornwell, the Maiers, and Gerberry connection.

In addition to potential BSSA documentable bias of a BSSA/Cornwell/Maier relationship, there is the matter that it appears to the SCPR that BSSA and its executive director Cornwell has taken legal positions, specifically, on ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a) [see above], contrary to what its position was in Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto, and is on the Balas-Bratton "protest" of George T. Maier's candidacy before the Stark County Board of Elections.

Unless the SCPR has missed something in Cornwell's testimony in Balas-Bratton v. Maier last Friday, Cornwell does not in that testimony reveal that BSSA has "flip-flopped" on the issue.

The leading case in which BSSA filed an amicus before the Ohio Supreme Court was:

Hmm?

Cornwell does not mention Craig?

So what?

Well, how about the fact that BSSA submitted an amicus in Craig that shows its position to be exactly the opposite from that BSSA expressed in Swanson v. Maier!

Hmm?

From the BSSA amicus brief in Craig:

Reed admitted that he had not completed two years of post secondary education or its equivalent and that he has never served in the state highway patrol Rather, he sought to qualify as a candidate for sheriff on the theoiy that his experience with a private security firm (Cincinnati Special Police LLC) (LLC) was equivalent to "two years of supervisory experience as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or above/' even though Reed and respondent admit that experience with this LLC does not constitute experience as a peace officer. This "liberal construction" was accepted by the Board "in favor of placing candidates on the ballot" (Response, Third Defense.)

Such statutory interpretation [SCPR Note:  i.e. "equivalency"] may have been permissible under prior versions of Ohio Revised Code §311.01(B)(9), as interpreted in State ex. rel Hawkins v. Pickaway Cty. Bd of Elections (1996), 75 Ohio St 275, but, in response to Hawkins the statute was amended to require supervisory experience as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or above. The statute in its present form was then considered by this Court in State ex rel Wolfe v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 88 Ohio St 3d 182, wherein this Court found that there was no need to construe the meaning of the statute since it "expressly requires that the supervisory experience be *as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or above'." Id. at 185-86.  (emphasis added by SCPR)

As far as the SCPR is concerned, it was outrageous for Cornwell under the apparent guidance of Maier attorney Thomas Rosenberg to have failed to bring the Craig decision (a case "on all fours" [an expression attorneys are familiar with] to the attention of the Stark County Board of Elections members hearing and deciding the Balas-Bratton "protest of the Maier Stark County sheriff candidacy.

Members Cline and Braden in transmitting the record to the Ohio secretary of state should cite the Craig case omission (and, of course the "contradictatory" BSSA Craig amicus brief from the BSSA (Cornwell) presentation last Friday.

And there are other cases in which BSSA had a contrary to Swanson v. Maier opinion (amicus briefs) that never found their way into the record of Balas Bratton v. Maier.

Those should be dug out and presented to the secretary of state, also.

Shame on BSSA and its chief executive officer Robert Cornwell for the glaring omissions.

And shame on Thomas L. Rosenberg for not bringing the foregoing referenced cases and briefs to the attention of the Stark County Board of Elections.

"Flip-flop" is too nice of an expression for what was done.

Stark Countians, even those who favor George Maier, should be outraged that a man who would be Stark's chief law enforcer would countenance such an outrage.

And maybe he doesn't?

The telling question has to be:  Will he distance himself from the BSSA (Cornwell) presentation?

If he doesn't and does not do so immediately, then, as far as the SCPR is concerned, George T. Maier owns it!

IS GEORGE T. MAIER ATTORNEY - THOMAS ROSENBERG - DIGGING A "DEEPER HOLE" FOR SCDP-CC APPOINTED SHERIFF?

UPDATE:  09:08 AM

This morning already Craig Conley is busy following up with Prosecutor John Ferrero in a "tit-for-tat" on Maier and his attorney Thomas Rosenberg on pursuing the prosecution of Maier on the same standard that Rosenberg advocated on November 13, 2013 that Lt. Louis Darrow be prosecutor for what Rosenberg alleged to be a violation of ORC 124.57.

Here is today's Conley to Ferrero letter (without the letterhead)

With reference to my February 10, 2014 letter to you, I urge you to immediately refer that matter to the Ohio Attorney General for prosecution. (Reference O.R.C. 124.64; and, see also O.R.C. 124.62.)

In that regard, I note that Mr. Maier's counsel, Attorney Rosenberg, as to Lt. Darrow's purported violation of O.R.C. 124.57, made that same request of you via his November 13, 2013 letter.

Specifically, in that letter, Attorney Rosenberg wrote "I encourage you to . . . seek the involvement of the Attorney General of Ohio, as chief law enforcement officer of the State, to act as special prosecutor in all matters going forward”.

Although I do not purport to speak for Attorney Rosenberg, as an officer of the Court himself, I reasonably presume he was not advocating enforcement of the rule of law only against classified civil servant Lt. Darrow as a contender for the same DCC appointment sought by Mr. Maier, who was himself at the relevant time a classified civil servant.

In that regard, I note that in his "vote for me" letter to the DCC Mr. Maier wrote ^". . . as a career law enforcement officer, I have taken a solemn oath to respect the rule of law . . .".

In short, both Mr. Maier and Attorney Rosenberg should be taken at their word; i.e., Mr. Maier should be held to the rule of law.

cc: Ohio Attorney General

ORIGINAL BLOG

When the SCPR speaks with local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley about his activities, existing and projected:

• to have George T. Maier required to reimburse Stark County (Marcelli v. Maier, Stark County Court of Common Pleas,11/27/2013) for some $130,000 for a diverse combination of wages, benefits received by him and expenditures made by him while serving illegally (Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto, November 6, 2013) as sheriff (February 11, 2013 through November 6, 2013),
• to have Maier required to pay some $90,000 to interim Sheriff Timothy Swanson in denied wages and benefits on a personal liability theory of law (to be filed any day now),
• to have Maier disqualified as sheriff by the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) (protest to be filed with BOE within the the next few days),
• and NOW
• to have Maier investigation to determine whether or not he is in violation of Ohio Revised Code Section (ORC) 124.57 (Prohibition against partisan political activity)
• Note:  Conley tells the SCPR that a finding that Maier to be in violation of ORC 124.57 might result in his being:
• declared not to be sheriff (even as the December 11th appointee of the SCDP-CC,
• not certifiable (in addition to other grounds that Conley will assert in the "protest" to the BOE) by the Board for the May 6th primary ballot

Conley is often heard to say:  "Just when you think things cannot get any better, guess what?, they do!"

And just as often, he will add and "the person who makes them better" is none other than Thomas L. Rosenberg of the prestigious law firm of Roetzel and Andress (Columbus office).

Stark County's chief administrator Brant Luther, about a year ago, when the commissioners on February 19, 2013 agreed to pay $20,000 to Rosenberg, said the commissioners were doing so in the belief that they were hiring him because of his "expertise" in representing clients in quo warranto cases.

(Note:  It turns out, according to Conley, that Rosenberg's "expertise" is in "construction law.")

He may not be the expert in quo warrantos that the commissioners thought they were getting, but the SCPR thinks that he is showing that he is quite able at "digging deeper [legal] holes" for his client.

And in doing so, Rosenberg is amply demonstrating that what applies to others does not - in his mind - apply to client George T. Maier.

Back on January 27, 2014, The Report wrote a blog which graphically set forth letters written by Rosenberg which directly contradicted each other, to wit:

• May 6, 2013:  Rosenberg wrote that Swanson should be made to reimburse Stark County taxpayers for the need of the commissioners to hire Rosenberg to defend George T. Maier in the Swanson February 12, 2013 filed quo warranto and that he, Rosenberg, would as "a matter of duty" to the Stark County taxpayer represent Stark Countians "gratis" to recover same from Swanson,
• January 5, 2014: of course, after Rosenberg/Maier lost the quo warranto, Rosenberg wrote another letter to the Stark commissioners demanding that they NOT PAY Swanson's legal expenses (then some $33,800) in his successful effort.

Is there a purer expression of hypocrisy or situational ethics than the foregoing example?

Well, there could be.

It seems to the SCPR that if Rosenberg is particularly accomplished at anything, it is at applying one standard to others while ignoring it when it comes to his client.

Here is the string of events:

• On November 13,  2013 Rosenberg wrote a letter to Stark County Prosecutor John D. Ferrero, to wit:

• On December 5, 2013, George T. Maier writes Harrison County Sheriff Ronald J. Myers (a law enforcement pal going back to Maier's days in the Ohio State Patrol), to wit:

So?

Well, curiously enough, Stark County Court of Common Pleas records (i.e. the the clerk of courts office), show that Maier filed an application, when?

November 26th!

Really?

That's the way it appears.

So, let me get this straight.

George T. Maier:

• has his attorney try to get Louis Darrow removed from candidacy for the Stark County sheriff by Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) appointment at its December 11, 2013 meeting,
• resigns as "a classified civil service" Harrison County deputy sheriff on December 5th, saying that he would then apply for the SCDP-CC appointment on December 6th and the Stark County Common Pleas Court records show he had already applied on November 26th while he was still "a classified civil service" Harrison County Deputy sheriff.

Is that it?

So it appears.

Take a look at an extract of the November 26, 2013 application (some 9 days before resigning as deputy sheriff)  or yourself:

All of which brings us to the main point of this blog.

Maier/Rosenberg nemesis Craig T. Conley fired off a letter to Stark County Prosecutor John D. Ferrero yesterday demanding that Maier be investigated for a violation of guess what?

You've got it!

Ohio Revised Code Section 124.57.

Here is Conley's letter.

Craig T. Conley Co., LP A.

ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW

CRAIG T. CONLEY, ESQ. 220 MARKET AVENUE SOUTH

SUITE 604
CANTON, OHIO 44702 - 2180

. . .
February 10, 2013 (corrected by Conley to read:  February 10, "2014")

VIA HAND-DELIVERY

Hon. John D. Ferrero,

Stark County Prosecuting Attorney

STARK COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

P.O. Box 20049

Canton, Ohio 44701-0049

Re:  George T. Maier
 

Dear Prosecutor Ferrero:

At the outset, a review of Kr. Maier's Harrison County Employee Earnings Record reveals that he was employed by Sheriff Myers (the second time) on November 8, 2013 through and including December 6, 2013. (A true copy of that Record, obtained via a public records request made by me of the Harrison County Auditor, is enclosed.)

As you are aware, following ~ha~ "re-hiring", on November 13, 2013, Mr. Maier's counsel, Attorney Thomas L. Rosenberg, sent you a letter regarding O.R.C. 124.57 and Lt. Darrcw's purported violation thereof- (For your convenience and ready reference a true copy of that letter, obtained via an O.R.C. 149.43 public records request made by me of your office, is enclosed.)

Indeed, in that letter, Attorney Rosenberg affirmatively opined that O.R.C. 124.57 "precludes civil servants from engaging in-partisan politics".

The irony, of course, is that when that letter was written on Mr. Maier's behalf, Mr. Maier was himself subject to that same Code Section preclusion, noting that Mr. Maier's "good friend forever", Harrison County Sheriff Ronald J. Myers, had already (for the second time) hired Mr. Maier (at Harrison County taxpayer expense) as a Harrison County Deputy Sheriff for the sole purpose of advancing Mr. Maier^'s political ambition to become Stark County Sheriff.

In fact, when he subsequently wrote his December 5, 2013 resignation letter to Sheriff Myers, Mr. Maier, in addition to admitting that he had theretofore "again asked the Stark County Democratic Party to consider [his] application for appointment as sheriff", he represented that he himself is "a classified employee . . . unable to seek an appointment or election of [sic] a political office". {A true copy of that letter, obtained via an O.R.C. 149.43 public records request made by me of the Harrison County Auditor, is enclosed.)

It therefore is respectfully suggested that Attorney Rosenberg's aforesaid letter evinces Mr. Maier's indirect political activity during the time that he was an O.R.C. 124.57 "employee in the classified service of . . . the several counties [of Ohio]". (See also OAC 123:1-46-02(C)(6) and/or (7).)

As to Mr. Maier's direct political activity during the relevant time period, I first call your attention, in addition to Mr. Maier's aforesaid December 5, 2013 resignation letter, to his prior letter to the Democratic Central Committee Members wherein he solicited their votes for his second appointment to the public office of Stark County Sheriff. (A true copy of that letter is enclosed herewith, noting chat, although same is undated, it obviously was sent before Mr. Maier's second DCC appointment on December 11, 2013.)

In that regard, it is noteworthy that Mr. Maier's aforesaid "vote for me" letter to the DCC bears a notation at the bottom of the second page thereof that reads ^All materials printed in house and paid for by Keep George Maier Sheriff Committee".

Additionally, on November 26, 2013, and also before Mr- Maier's second DCC appointment on December 11, 2013, it is noteworthy that he had made a formal Application for Candidacy which he caused to be filed with the Stark County Clerk of Courts. (A true file-stamped copy of that Application is enclosed herewith.)

In that sworn Application, Mr. Maier affirmatively staged "I am a candidate for the office of Sheriff of Stark County, Ohio" and indicated that he is currently employed by the Harrison County Sheriff's Office.

In sum, it is respectfully requested that your office and/or the Ohio Attorney General immediately commence an investigation of what appears to be Mr. Maier's flagrant and repeated violations of O.R.C. 124.57 and that appropriate action thereafter be taken against Mr. Maier.

Sincerely,

Craig T. Conley

CTC/mps

Enclosures

cc:  Ohio Attorney General (encls.)

Hmm? 

Maybe just maybe George T. Maier with his attorney's help is "digging a deeper [legal] hole" for himself in ensuring that he will never become the "elected" sheriff of Stark County?

Also, a prime example of being an exercise in "getting hoisted by one's own petard!" no?