Monday, March 31, 2014


 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.
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!

No comments: