COULD "GRANDSTANDING" COST JUDGE FORCHIONE IN NEXT YEAR'S GENERAL ELECTION?

 Update:  10:00 AM

For the likes of a political blog such as the Stark County Political Report, there is no judge in all of Stark County that is quite the match of Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione in generating reader interest.

It seems like every time Judge Frank opens his mouth, he creates an opportunity for the SCPR to write a blog and The Report's numbers do indicate that the readers like to read political assessments of what the good judge is doing and saying these days.

The only other judge in Stark who draws much political interest on part of the press and the Stark County public is Judge Eddie Elum of the Massillon Municipal Court bench. 

Otherwise, Stark's judges (no offense, your Honors) are pretty much a bland group as far as political writers are concerned.

And one gets the impression that they "like it like that."

We know that Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor of the Ohio Supreme Court likes it like that.

Over the past several years or so she has made a number of proposals  (e.g. A Proposal for Strengthening Judicial Elections; May, 2013) to lessen the impact of politics on judicial races and to get the public more participative in judicial elections but not on the basis of political party identification or on candidates playing to the press.

Rather she wants to see restructuring of judicial elections instituted and educational opportunities made available to the voting public that voters will take advantage of.

The SCPR would like to be a mouse in the chambers of Judge O'Connor when she reads about the "creative' sentencing efforts of the likes of Judge Forchione which, one writer says, is sanctioned in Ohio law.

• (Note, to wit: "The Ohio Legislature has enacted a law that allows judges to choose alternative punishments if they are related to the crime.")

Since last December, Judge Forchione has been "one busy man" in terms of his creative juices flowing.

He had to do "an about face" on Creative Effort #1 (the Studer case sentencing [redirecting fine money to a charity) and he may be undone by the Ohio Supreme Court on Creative Effort #2. (see note)

•  NOTE:  "an arbitrary" - the SCPR thinks - opening up the Stark County sheriff qualification process to new applicants whereon he quoted as wanting "to err on the side of democracy""
• The Report expects interim Sheriff Tim Swanson to file a new quo warranto this week asking the Supreme Court to once again remove George T. Maier from office, which, if it happens again, would, in effect, undo Forchione's Creative Effort #2

His most recent foray into creativeness, Creative Effort #3, (sentencing offenders to jail on Christmas Day, according to a local media report) is probably going to stick and prove to be a reliable for Forchione to keep his name in the mainstream media and the blogosphere.

Not exactly some, the chief justice wants to see from her judges across Ohio, one would think.

But Judge Frank appears bound and determined to find ways to be a media headliner.

The SCPR has a copy of a recent day in the telephone life of Judge Forchione in hand and it reveals a number of telephone calls back and forth between the judge and the folks down at 500 Market Avenue, South.

How come the number of the SCPR does not appear in his telephone records?

Maybe just maybe that Judge Forchione knows that The Report is more than prepared and uniquely positioned to ask questions he might feel just more than a mite uncomfortable answering?

It is interesting to note "on the returned phone calls thing" how utterly even-handed (sarcasm folks) that Forchione is in his relationship with Stark County media.  But, of course, those other media folks need every advantage they can muster in order to stay on the same page with the SCPR.

Moving on, one has to wonder "what is yet to come" between now and November, 2014 with Stark County's most media-savvy judge.

Hopefully, Forchione will have an opponent next fall.  Whether or not a Stark County judge has an opponent is always a matter of concern for often they do not.

The number of "uncontested" elections in Stark County (not just judgeships) speaks volumes for the the effectiveness of  both the Stark County Republican and Democratic Party chairmen.

And, if he does get an opponent, Forchione's "creative sentencing" propensity should be a front and center discussion point as the respective campaigns unfold.

The SCPR would like for such a race to show results that indicate a public satisfaction with or against this type of the administration of justice.

Here are a couple of examples of what other judges across the American judicial landscape have done in the way of unusual sentences.

• A former judge (a former Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice, nonetheless) has been ordered to wear handcuffs having been convicted of political corruption using her court staff to run her political campaigns,
• An Ohio judge has ordered a Coshocton man to run around the block where the jail is located as retribution for his having run away from police post-traffic accident.

From a political standpoint, creative sentencing is a risky proposition for a judge to model him/herself on and which more than a few prominent American jurists frown upon.

Apparently, Forchione has concluded that the surest way for him to get reelected is via political grandstanding.

The SCPR will do its part to help him be front and center with the Stark County public between now and November, 2104.  Of course, The Report will be seeking out Forchione's opponent for reaction "what has been and what is yet to come" a la the ghosts of Christmas Past and Christmas Future of the classic Christmastime story Scrooge.

The Studer case and the George T. Maier sheriff qualification matter have already served as "lightning rods" that have put him in the Grandstand of Stark County Politics.

The question becomes is this a wise or unwise thing for him to be doing from a political standpoint.

It seems that Judge Forchione is at the vanguard of Creative Punishments the New Trend in Criminal Justice.  

But "how will it play in Peoria err Stark County?

As far as the Stark County Political Report can determine, Forchione is the political equivalent of a Lightning rod that collects highly positive reviews and some let's say euphemistically "less enthusiastic reviews."

His former boss (as Canton law director) and Stark County commissioner Thomas Bernabei does a "the sun rises and sets on Frank Forchione" whereas (lawyers will like that word, no?) there are "unnamed" (readers can guess who they are, of course) others who seemingly "fly into a rage" at the mere mention of the judge's name.

Hmm?

The Report's take on Forchione is that if he senses unconditional endorsement of the way he comports himself, he couldn't be more gracious, friendly and correct.

However, like most folks with a strong political side to them, if one communicates scrutiny and implies a willingness to take exception in a given situation, depending on the situation, then feeling threatened he he is likely to react with frostiness, if not hostility.

So in the market place of ideas and political relationships, you've got those competing looks on Forhione out there floating in the larger Stark County political milieu.  And it appears the political sphere is the one that he really is paying close attention to in his creative sentencing stance as next November looms on the political horizon.

Undoubtedly, he sees himself as being an avant-garde judicial official who is advancing the cause of "tailor-made" justice.

The SCPR has scoured the Internet in order to get an appreciation of how "creative sentencing" is being received.

• One site lists eleven opinions, generally favorable, on the Judge Forchione demonstrated style of sentencing,
• However, jurists (lawyers and law professors) take a more critical bent,
• A 2006 article quoting a then Ohio State Moritz College of Law professor (Berman) talks of the political risks that are inherent in "sentencing gong wrong."
• Some worry about "When [...] Judicial Creativity in Sentencing [is] Just a Bit Too Creative"

The SCPR shares the implied concerns "when judicial creativity in sentencing becomes just a bit too creative."

And, of course, one has to be concerned about "the rule of law" prevailing and that citizens not endorse a judge becoming a helter-skelter fashioner of the administration of justice.

In Stark County, it was exactly that concern that prompted a lawsuit being filed to force Judge Forchione to retract his sentence (in terms of where the fine money ended up).

And the SCPR thinks that Stark Countians should appreciate the effort of Citizen Thomas Marcelli in being willing to step forward to compel Judge Forchione to rethink his action in Studer.

As far as The Report is concerned, the best statement of worries about "off-the-reservation"  (err creative sentencing) judges apparently out to make name for themselves in the political reelectability arena has been expressed by television legal commentator  Jonathon Turley, to wit:  (Dear Judges: Your Creative Punishments Are Hilarious and Also Terrible. Please Stop)

The entire point of a code of laws is to move away from “common sense” justice and its attendant inconsistencies, and to professionalize the process by establishing a standardized list of crimes and punishments that’s valid in all jurisdictions.

The judiciary’s role is to interpret these laws and pass judgment on behalf of the state; judges are theoretically elected or appointed based on their supremely nuanced understanding of these laws, not based on their ability to hand-letter punitive signage.

This doesn’t mean that the system always works.

But it’s meant to ensure that, at the very least, the system proceeds with a measure of fairness and dignity.

Judge Frank Forchione already has enough of a track record on his innovative sentencing techniques for Stark Countians to assess whether or not his trend-setting methods are something that "the body politic" cottons to.

Undoubtedly, he is on a roll and more headline grabbing and grandstanding-esque sentences are in the offing.

Fochione's jury should be the Stark County voting public as educated by the Stark County bar.

For those members of the bar who have entered the discussion, and, in one case has taken action, the SCPR says that such is a good thing.

Judges are very powerful figures in the American society.

While many would like to take the selection of judges out of the hands of the voting public, the SCPR is not among them.

Forchione has to understand that his creative sentencing trek can result in a his becoming a political lightning rod that could result in his political demise.

Such should be the right of the people in our democratic-republican system of government.

"Let it be written, let it be said" - and - let the people decide come November, 2014.

The Stark County "voting public 'jury'" is out on Judge Frank Forchione, no?

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The point being?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And to his determination and tenaciousness!

"RULE OF LAW" WINS THE DAY: CONLEY OVERCOMES ETHICS COMPLAINT IN BRINGING COMMON PLEAS COURT JUDGE FRANK FORCHIONE "TO HEEL" ON ISSUE

UPDATED:  10:00 AM

Local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley has demonstrated once again that he is a man of "a cast iron stomach."

He learned yesterday that the Ohio State Bar Association Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct Committee found that he had not violated ethics rules (as alleged in an "anonymous" a January 28th filed complaint) in charging (in representing Bethlehem Township resident Tom Marcelli) that Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione had engaged in grandstanding in his sentencing order of a former Jackson School District 9th grade basketball coach Scott Studer.

Studer was convicted (after pleading guilty in multiple counts Illegal Use of a Minor in a Nudity-Oriented Material or Performance [R.C. 21907.323(A)(1)](F2)) to 15 years in prison and ordered to pay a $5,000 fine for the benefit of the shooting victims of the Sandy Hook, Connecticut.

While Conley understandably did not enjoy having the complaint filed and says that even if unfounded as this one was determined to be, such cannot be a good thing for one's practice of law.

However, he was willing to risk that a complaint would be filed for the greater community good - that is to say - a confirmation that the "rule of law" reigns supreme in Ohio.

Conley's allegation of Forchione's grandstanding?

Here it is from a prior blog of the Stark County Political Report, according to a local media account of Conley's assessment of Forchione's order, to wit:

"This was just grandstanding," Conley said.  "This is Jeeze, 'I can get my name in the paper.'  The courtroom is not a place for a popularity contest."

The Stark County Political Report has published a number of blogs on the matter that readers will want to review to grasp the full drama of the ensuring attack on Conley for grandstanding in his own right which prompted the complaint cited above.

• LINK:  A Classic Case of "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished?"  The "anonymous" attempt to discipline Craig Conley for Support of the Primacy of the Rule of Law?
• LINK:  Is Conley Challenge to Forchione Sandy Hook Order "Sour Grapes?"

 The letter from the Ohio State Bar Association exonerating Conley:

In a statement issued by Conley late yesterday, he said, in part:

"While I am, of course, pleased that the unfounded anonymous grievance has been dismissed, I am ever more pleased that the rule of law under which our justice system operates has, as evinced by the post-lawsuit [i.e. the declaratory judgment action:  Marcelli v. Forchione] return of Studer's $5,000 to Stark County [the county general fund], been vindicated."

So is this the end of the matter?

Not really.

Conley tells the SCPR that he has been working on finding someone to run against Forchione in November, 2014 when he comes up for re-election.

And, he says, he plans to be fully engaged in the effort to unseat Forchione.

Conley tells The Report he believes that Forchione demonstrated in his unlawful order in the Studer case that he is not sufficiently adhered to the "rule of law" as to merit re-election.

Normally, judicial campaigns are like "watching paint dry" and the likelihood of an incumbent judge losing is somewhere between "slim and none and 'slim' has just left town."

However,  if Conley carries through (which the SCPR thinks he will), Forchione's re-election bid could be a political sight to behold.

In the opinion of the SCPR, the Stark County public has a lot to be appreciative of about Craig T. Conley.

To cite just of few of his contributions he has made to good government in Stark County in recent years:

• He led the effort to repeal the "imposition" of the-then Commissioner Bosley, Harmon and Vignos (December, 2008) 0.5% county sales tax,
• He pushed Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero into a "earlier than he was disposed to do" pursuit of a recovery of former Stark County Treasurer Gary Zeigler of monies lost, as provided for in Ohio statutory law, (i.e. the Vince Frustaci theft of upwards of $3 million, which Zeigler himself was not implicated in) during his administration of the county treasury, and, of course,
• His pursuit of Judge Forchione on behalf of client Marcelli to ensure that the Studer fine money end up in the Stark County treasury and thereby effecting compliance with the "rule of law."

Which among the three does Conley think has been his most significant accomplishment?

"Not even close, Conley says, the  Forchione matter, without a doubt."

And the SCPR agrees with that assessment.

A fitting conclusion of this blog, yours truly believes is the open of the SCPR blog of February 20th, to wit:

Although the author of this blog is an attorney, the blog is written (as are all SCPR blogs) from the perspective of yours truly being a blogger who comments on politics and government (mostly Stark County-based) from a journalistic perspective and not as a lawyer.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RULE OF LAW TO AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the highest, "the rule of law" has to be the highest order in a democracy.

Dr. Mark Cooray has written eloquently on this topic (LINK).

In part, he writes:

The rule of law is fundamental to the western democratic order. Aristotle said more than two thousand years ago, "The rule of law is better than that of any individual." Lord Chief Justice Coke quoting Bracton said in the case of Proclamations (1610) 77 ER 1352

"The King himself ought not to be subject to man, but subject to God and the law, because the law makes him King".

DISCUSSION: SEQUEL #2, DESARIO AND THE NORTH CANTON CAPER

Yesterday, the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) related how the Mayor Tom Rice (North Canton) with, perhaps, a nudge from political consultant Jack DeSario replaced Stark County labor attorney Robert Tscholl, who represented North Canton in negotiations with unions, with Cleveland-based attorney Gary Johnson's law firm.

This event along with a number of others prompted former North Canton city councilman Chuck Osborne to filed a complaint with Canton City Prosecutor Frank Forchione (now a Stark County Common Pleas Court judge).

The Report in this blog is going to parse the Forchione report.

First, to the left is a summary of the background of Forchione's work (hereinafter "FR") taken out of the first paragraph.
The Report has highlighted certain portions of the graphic insert. The green highlight indicates language that The Report will comment.

The Report talked with Attorney Robert Tscholl prior to preparing this report and learned that Attorney Tscholl never told Prosecutor Forchione nor anyone else that he "no longer wanted to negotiate [North Canton's] contracts.

Moreover, in February, 2003 it is very likely that Rice was considering hiring Jack DeSario to run his campaign against Osborne (and Stark County Republican Party stand-in Christopher East). Let The Report be the first to say, what Rice was doing in February is sheer speculation.

Forchione, in an omitted part (omitted by The Report) of the FR goes on to talk about the fees that Gary Johnson would be charging North Canton. These particulars are only relevant in his report because part of the allegation that North Canton way overpaid Johnson (almost $55,000) for the work especially in the light of the approximately $15,000 the city was paying Tscholl.

Second, by May, the relationship between Rice and DeSario was cemented in an actual contract.

Did Jack DeSario know that Rice was keeping the DeSario/Johnson connection secret from North Canton officials?

Forchione stops with the Rice aspect, since that was the mandate of his investigation. So we will never know unless Rice or DeSario want to address the question.

Third, Attorney-labor negotiator Gary Johnson "pussyfoots" around as to whether or not Jack DeSario works for Johnson & Angelo. Why?

DeSario himself revealed to Forchione that - yes - he worked for the firm and that he discussed union negotiations with Mayor Rice and go so far to own up to discussion Johnson & Angelo with Rice.

Folks, this is a strange course of events (the hedging of Johnson, while DeSario is forthcoming).

For Stark Countians The Report believes there are several things to be garnered from Frank Forchione's investigation of Osborne's complaint as it relates to the Jack DeSario/Johnson & Angelo/North Canton connection.

1. Stark County attorney Robert Tscholl lost a client (he is now back working for North Canton for two years now) through political machinations.

2. North Canton paid approximately $40,000 more for legal services than Tscholl would have charged.

2. Stark Countian Jack DeSario was apparently looking out for his Cuyahoga County association while living in and working in Stark County (both as a political science professor at Mount Union College and as a political consultant).