CLEVELAND PAID OVER $1 MILLION TO DEFEND JUDGE STOKES ETHICS COMPLAINTS

UPDATED:  3:23 PM

BUT 

MASSILLON MUNICIPAL COURT DISTRICT TAXPAYERS 

WILL NOT HAVE THE SAME FATE

============================================= 

BUT
IS 
JUDGE ELUM 
GOING TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD 
THE "JUDGES LIABILITY POLICY"
 PREMIUM INCREASES?

This recent Cleveland Plain Dealer headline caught the SCPR's eye:

Even more eye catching was the following excerpt from the editorial board's opinion:

Those allegations (LINK to article those SCPR readers interested in the underlying material) led to a 2015 trial before the Board of Professional Conduct, a special panel of the Ohio Supreme Court, but Stokes fought the case tooth and nail, frequently changing lawyers. That also prolonged the matter -- and added to the city of Cleveland's costs. Cleveland wound up shelling out more than $1 million for Stokes' legal defense  ...  (emphasis added)

Of course, Canton (Belden) and Massillon (Elum, twice) have been Stark County's contribution to judge's (Belden [alleged]) having ethical problems.

And it could be, the SCPR has learned, that another Stark County judge from the Court of Common Pleas may, when the time is ripe [i.e. a certain timing milestone has to have passed], be in for the same experience that Belden and Elum have experienced.

One of the concerns to Stark County-based taxpayers has to be whether or not we will be asked to pick up the tab when judges or any other public official is under official scrutiny and has to expend funds to pay for his/her defense.

Beginning on December 17th, The Stark County Political Report has been writing about the latest ethical allegations made against Massillon Municipal Court judge Edward J. Elum (LINK).

In addition to the original blog on Elum's latest has also written the following blogs:

• December 21, 2015,
• December 25, 2015, and the following SCPR "suggested" New Year Resolution:

Putting two and two together and coming up with with seemingly four as an answer in light of the Stokes editorial, the SCPR thought it would be appropriate to inquire with Massillon fiscal officials as to whether or not Massillon and/or Stark County political subdivisions within the Massillon Court District (everything west of Whipple Avenue) have experienced (re:  the December 18, 2012 decision on Elum) and would experience anew the Cleveland "paying to defend" a public official phenomenon.

But unlike Johnnie A. Maier, Jr and his obviously unthought 40% of the vote equals an ass kicking knee-jerk assertion on the outcome of the Massillon mayoralty race, The Report did think and consequently asked the question.

The question went to Massillon auditor Jayne Ferrero.

Ferrero did not have an answer to the SCPR's question and so forwarded The Report's inquiry to Judge Elum himself.

Thank you, Auditor Ferrero.

As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly thinks that Judge Elum owes The Report an apology for getting "personally" ugly when yours truly wrote a political analysis blog (re:  Freedom of Press, United States Constitution), to wit:

So when The Report in reviewing newly received e-mails this morning and seeing an e-mail purportedly from Judge Elum, it was "with baited breath" that yours truly raced to open the e-mail.

A long awaited apology?

Well, here is the the string of e-mails that prompted the SCPR hearing from Elum:



Aw Shucks!

No apology.

But there was a silver lining for Massillon Municipal Court District taxpayers.

These taxpayers did not pay for the 2012 decided disciplinary case (six month suspension from practice of law, suspended on condition of no further offenses during the six month term) and will not be paying for current underway disciplinary complaint.

Massillon Municipal Court District taxpayers should be thankful that Judge Elum's e-mail to The Report had this good news (silver lining) for them.

The SCPR is resigned to the apparent reality in thinking that Judge Elum does not have it within him character wise to do the right thing in respecting the United States Constitution he is sworn to uphold by apologizing to a media outlet up close and personal that he slammed for having the audacity to think that a political blogger has the right to cover his involving himself in the politics of Massillon  (LINK).

Yours truly suspects that there is a certain municipal court clerk and chief deputy who had a role in Elum doing what he did with the over-the-top e-mail, the cowards the SCPR thinks they are.

Hiding behind the robe of a judge?

It would be interesting to know whether or not Elum sent a similar e-mail to Matt Rink now of The Repository (a reporter with The Independent) questioning his personal integrity in the wake of his covering the same story (LINK), no?