CAN REPUBLICAN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE & SECY OF STATE JON HUSTED BE TRUSTED TO KEEP OUR PRIVATE INFO—"PRIVATE!"

UPDATED AT 09:31 AM

It galls Donald J. Trump to no end that Hillary Clinton beat him by nearly three (3) million votes in the national popular vote total in last November's presidential election.

Trump generated a bit of FAKE NEWS (on Twitter, of course) in claiming that had there not been massive voter fraud to the tune of some three (3) to five (5) million voters.

Every secretary of state in the nation disputed Trump's "trumped up" claim for their respective states; all 50 of them!

But, of course, Donald is never wrong.

So, at taxpayer expense, by executive order on May 11, 2017, he created the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (PACEI).

Most of us likely thought that PACEI was a typical Trump "big bravado" that would be quickly forgotten and sink into oblivion.

But no so quick!

On Wednesday this past week PACEI vice chairperson and Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach sent a letter to the 50 state secretaries of state asking for registered voter data including birth dates and the last four digits of each voter's social security number.

From a Politico article:

Technical experts say the voter data that the commission wants to assemble would quickly become a single treasure trove for cyber criminals and foreign intelligence services. Identity thieves could use information such as addresses, birth dates and the last four digits of Social Security numbers for digital impersonations, and foreign spies could use it to fill out dossiers on Americans they hope to blackmail.

For many of us who voted in the November, 2016 election (about 57% of registered voters), the choice between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton was "six of one; a half-a-dozen of the other."

Kind of like the Perez/Healy Canton mayoralty Democratic primary race in 2015, no?

"NONE OF THE ABOVE!"  was a ballot option that should have been available to Canton voters.

As it should have been for presidential election voters in November, 2016.

Thomas Bernabei saved the day for Canton in 2015 by abandoning his Democratic Party ties and going "independent."

It was the Healy/Perez WHBC sponsored debate shortly before the primary election that got Bernabei's goat big-time in that it showed him that neither was up to being mayor of Canton for the next four years.

But there was nobody to rescue the nation from the Trump/Clinton presidential sweepstakes fiasco.

That President Trump is behind an effort to put our highly sensitive private information (i.e. date of birth and last four numbers of our social security number) in one central database as the Politico article above warns is something that should prompt a unanimous (including "core" Trump supporters)"oh, no you don't" (now Mr. President you are getting in my backyard) and our answer is: NIMBY.

It is one thing for the president to mess with the national media, his political opponents and others who take exception to him.

It is quite another for him to support an effort to jeopardize our personal security.

The way for us to send that message individually to give him a 100% disapproval rating in polling on that issue!

Moreover, elected public officials from the national level of government through state governments and even local governments must make it clear to Donald J. Trump that he has gone too far.

He asks:  "What do they have to hide?"

Do we have something to hide and expect public officials to secure information that they have required of us?

You bet!

Our input of sensitive information starts for most of us with the Stark County Board of Elections headed by Stark County GOP chair Jeff Matthews who stood alongside Trump when he campaigned in Stark in September, 2016 as did then-Stark County commissioner candidate and Canton Township trustee Bill Smith, Stark County commissioner Richard Regula and Stark County treasurer Alex Zumbar..

Commissioner Janet Creighton would have been at the campaign event but for a conflict in scheduling.

And who can forget state Representative Christina Hagan showing up with her baby in a grandstanding sort of way who has said that she has "bonded" with Ivanka Trump.

Indeed we are and should be trying our best to hide vital information from the criminals out there that are on a non-stop-mission to phish, hack and otherwise to electronically steal pieces of our personal information to put together to steal from us and do other bad things to us, our personal, family and financial security.

To prevent this president from trampling on our privacy rights and possibly subjecting us all to dire personal consequences in order to satisfy his bruised ego at not having won the popular vote, it will take resolute secretaries of states across the 50 states of the United States of America to draw the line of our structure of federalism "check and balance" and refuse to comply with the PACEI request including Ohio's Jon Husted.

He and local officials who openly supported Trump's election should be publicly calling Trump out for his seeming desire to tamper with the integrity our election system in the sense of by centralizing making a central database an inviting target for hackers in next years congressional elections.

Ohioans should be just a little nervous with Secretary of State Jon Husted who is running for governor of Ohio and owns up to being a "deplorable" for supporting Trump which is an over-the-top name-calling of Trump supporters by Hillary Clinton during the campaign.

For her to engage in name-calling, pretty much puts her in the same boat of Donald J. Trump.

Maybe she doesn't, hasn't done it to the degree that "the Donald" has and continues to do, but she has shown she is quite capable of doing so.

So again, these two fit a billing of being "six of one, half-a-dozen of another" and thereby disgrace their running for the highest office in the land.

Hopefully, Secretary Husted hadn't thought through the implications of his identifying with "deplorable."

On his campaign website he says this through a spokesperson:

“These are the foremost campaign organizers from around the state who helped Donald Trump win Ohio by 8-points and become President, who are now all prepared to work hard to make sure Jon Husted is Ohio’s next Governor.”

He says along with some 19 other secretaries of state across America that he will not comply with the PACEI request.

However, some of his campaign statements are worrisome in terms of his wanting to tap into Trump support.

Republican voters should watch Husted's actions very carefully on his actions in response to PACI and if he does not protect us voters and our highly sensitive information, he should be made to pay the political price in May, 2018 in a resounding defeat.

(VIDEO) WILL STARK CO COMMISSIONERS PROVIDE TAXPAYER PAID LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STARK COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

UPDATED AT 10:26 AM

VIDEO

STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

CONVENE

ADJOURN

EXECUTIVE SESSION

ON

APPOINTING "SPECIAL COUNSEL"

TO BENEFIT STARK DEM PARTY INTERESTS?

A couple of days ago the SCPR got wind that Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero might be about to recommend to the Stark County commissioners that they join him in asking the Stark County Court of Common Pleas to appoint "special counsel" at Stark County taxpayer expense to represent Stark County Democratic Party appointed members of the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE, Board) Deametrious St. John and Sam Ferruccio, Jr in a proceeding now pending before the Ohio Supreme Court. (LINK to filing)

Really?

Why?

Well, follow this sequence of events, you will get the picture!

• January, 2013
• Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez calls a meeting with Democratic Stark County commissioner Thomas Bernabei and Democratic sheriff Tim Swanson at the Stark County Office Building suite of offices occupied by the commissioners,
• TOPIC:  How to fix Gonzalez favorite for Stark County sheriff George T. Maier's deficiencies in qualifying to be sheriff under the criteria set forth in Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 311.01(B)(8) and (9),
• Swanson refuses to participate in the repair and Maier goes to Harrison County to serve as a deputy sheriff for two weekends in order to solve at least one of Maier 311.01 problems,
• Maier had told local media that he "guaranteed" he would be qualified to be sheriff under ORC 311.01 or he would not apply to be appointed,
• February 5, 2013
• Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC, Dems) meets to appoint a sheriff to replace Democrat Mike McDonald who had been elected in November, 2012 but who could not take office on January 7, 2013 because of an illness that cost him his life on February 22, 2013,
• Democratic Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero files an affidavit with the SCDP-CC saying that Maier is NOT qualified under 311.01 to be sheriff,
• The Dems appoint Maier in a surprisingly close vote 92 to 84 over Democrat Lou Darrow,
• February 12, 2013
• Interim sheriff Tim Swanson files a quo warranto with the Ohio Supreme Court alleging Maier to be unqualified under 311.01 to be sheriff,
• November 6, 2013
• The Ohio Supreme Court agrees with Swanson and ousts Maier from office saying that he had usurped Swanson's right to be sheriff,
• November 8, 2013
• Maier goes back to Harrison County, Ohio and puts in another stint as deputy sheriff through December 5, 2013,
• December 11, 2013
• Stark Dems reappoint Maier sheriff by a 101 to 65 vote again over fellow Democrat Lou Darrow,
• February 5, 2014
• The filing deadline for candidates to fill out the term (through January, 2017) of Mike McDonald finds that George T. Maier has filed petitions,
• Ohio law provides that the Stark BOE determines whether or not candidates qualify under ORC 311.01 to run for sheriff,
• Republican Larry Dordea passes the test "with flying colors,"
• February 11, 2014
• Local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley (a registered Republican, by the way) agreed to represent one Cynthia Balas-Bratton  (a Massillon Ward 2A Democratic precinct committeewoman) "pro bono"  (for the public good, i.e. free of cost to Stark County taxpayers) in "protesting" the candidacy of Democrat George T. Maier for Stark County sheriff in a proceeding provided for under Ohio law,
• SCPR Note:  Conley says he agreed to do so in the interest of "the rule of law" alleging that Maier does not meet the criteria of Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 311.01(B)(9) mandatory qualification factors of Ohio law,
• February 21, 2014
• The Stark County Board of Elections (BOE, Board) deadlock 2 to 2 (Republicans Curt Braden and William Cline for disqualifying Maier; Democrats Deametrious St. John and Sam Ferruccio, Jr for qualifying Maier),
• March 7, 2014
• Republican Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted breaks the tie as provided for under Ohio law in favor of the Democrat St. John/Ferruccio position,
• Husted refuses to apply ORC 311.01 to Maier's candidacy and instead orders him on to the ballot saying he was "erring on the side of ballot access,"
• March 11, 2014
• Conley files an action on behalf of Balas-Bratton in Prohibition (i.e. Writ of Prohibition) with the Ohio Supreme Court,

Back to square one, to wit:

(Repeating the first paragraph of this blog)

A couple of days ago the SCPR got wind that Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero might be about to recommend to the Stark County commissioners that they join him in asking the Stark County Court of Common Pleas to appoint "special counsel" at Stark County taxpayer expense to represent Stark County Democratic Party appointed members of the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE, Board) Deametrious St. John and Sam Ferruccio, Jr in a proceeding now pending before the Ohio Supreme Court.

Yesterday, the commissioners met in executive session in what the SCPR believes to be in consideration of the Ferrero recommendation.

Simple enough, no?

Not really!

As he is wont to do, Conley really complicated the consideration by commissioners with the following two letters fired off before meeting time (1:30 p.m.),

Before moving on though, readers are advised that if the Stark commissioners decline to provide the Dem BOE members special counsel, their point of view will be represented in the form of the Ohio attorney general's office representing Secretary Husted, to wit:

THE BACKGROUND RE:

CONLEY'S THINKING ON THE COMMISSIONERS CONSIDERING APPOINTING "SPECIAL COUNSEL"

Re: Appointment of special prosecutor in BOE OSC cases

FROM Brant Luther TO You Tues, 4:18 PM
Show Details

From:  Brant Luther

To:  Martin Olson

Martin,

The Commissioners will most likely address this issue tomorrow at their regular meeting.  There will probably be an executive session at the conclusion of the Commissioner's meeting with action likely to follow.

Thanks,
brant [sic]

Brant A. Luther, Esq.
Stark County Administrator
110 Central Plaza South, Suite 240
Canton, Ohio 44702
330-451-7581

>>> Martin Olson <tramols@att.net> 3/11/2014 1:40 PM >>>

Brant,

I understand that the commissioners are being asked to appoint special prosecutor on representing Stark BOE on Balas-Bratton v. Stark BOE/Deametrious St. John case.

True or untrue?

If true, when will the Board of Commissioners meet to consider request?

MartinOlson/SCPR


MARCH 12, 2014 (8:41 AM)  
LETTER #1

TO:        Stark County Board of Commissioners
FROM:  Craig T. Conley, Esq.
RE:        State ex rel.   Cynthia Balas-Bratton  v. Hon. Jon  Husted, et al., Ohio Supreme Court  Case No.   2014-0374
 
It is my (unconfirmed) understanding that Prosecuting Attorney Ferrero has determined that he is "conflicted-cut" from representing Respondent the Board of Elections ("B0E") in the above-referenced action in prohibition and that he therefore will be requesting, during your meeting this afternoon, that your Board appoint a special prosecutor in his stead pursuant to O.R.C. 305.14(A).

I respectfully suggest that appointment, and the attendant unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer funds ought not be made for the following reasons (not necessarily presented in order of importance):

1.  The primary Respondent involved is the Ohio Secretary of State not the BOE, which is essentially a "nominal" Respondent.

2.  The Court will decide the matter on its merits with or without either Respondent's involvement, noting that the Relator, even in the absence cf an answer having been filed by Respondents, is required under S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.08(A)(2)(a) to file her evidence and merit brief by a finite date.

3.  Under S.Ct. Prac.R. 12.08(A)(3), motions to dismiss and motions for judgment on the pleadings are not permitted, which I presume means, on the "flip side", that Relator may not move for default judgment in the event no timely answers are filed.

4.  Assuming, as anticipated, Respondents are served Summons and Complaint today, I calculate their answers to be due this coming Monday, March 17, 2014, which hardly provides a special prosecutor sufficient time to review the BOE's voluminous file, the applicable statutes and the applicable jurisprudence in a meaningful manner (which, of course, is not a problem for the Secretary of State's counsel, the Ohio Attorney General).

5.  Given the BOE's tie vote, a special prosecutor would be in an automatic position cf conflict with his own client for purposes of either supporting or opposing the relief requested by Relator.
In sum, the Secretary of State, not the BOE, is responsible to "defend" his decision; and the BOE, because of its tie vote, is certainly not in a position to do so for him.

It therefore is again respectfully suggested that no O.R.C. 335.14(A) application for appointment of a special prosecutor should be made, noting that said Revised Code Subsection does not mandate either such an application or the Court' s subsequent grant of same.

MARCH 12, 2014 (10:17 AM)  
LETTER #2

TO:        Stark County Board of Commissioners
FROM:  Craig T. Conley, Esq.
RE:        State, ex rel.   Cynthia Balas-Bratton  v. Hon. Jon Husted, et al., Ohio Supreme Court Case No.   2014-0374.
 
With reference to item no. 5 of my earlier memo of this date to you, I respectfully direct your attention to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(a)(1), which provides, in pertinent part, that "A lawyer's acceptance or continuation of representation of a client creates a conflict of interest if . . . the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another current client''.

I also respectfully direct your attention to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(c)(2), which provides, in pertinent part, that "Even if each affected client consents, the lawyer shall not accept or continue the representation if . . . the representation would involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same proceeding".

In short, under the instant circumstances of the BOE's tie vote, any special prosecutor appointed would have, as I opined previously, an automatic" conflict.

Therefore, such a special prosecutor may not, under the aforesaid Rules of Professional Conduct, enter an appearance in the above-referenced action in prohibition; and should he or she nonetheless do so, I will move for his or her disqualification under the Ohio Supreme Court's jurisprudence in, inter alia, Mentor Lagoons, Inc. v. Rubin, et al. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 256.

In sum, it would be both a waste of taxpayer money and an exercise
in futility to appoint a special prosecutor in Prosecutor Ferrero's stead.

I therefore again respectfully urge you tc refrain from seeking such an appointment.

MARCH 13, 2014 (7:01 AM)  
LETTER #3

TO:        Stark County Beard of Commissioners  
FROM:  Craig T. Conley, Esq.
RE:        Stats ex rei. Cynthia Baias-Bratton v.   Hon.   Jon Husted, et al.,   Ohio Supreme Court Case No.   2014-0374

Noting that the Ohio Secretary of State ("Secretary"), as Ohio's chief elections officer, is in essence the "fifth" tie-breaking member of all County Beards of Elections/ it may well be that an attorney representing the BOE under the instant circumstances is representing the majority of the "five-member" BOE and therefore does not have a conflict under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

If arguendo that is a correct proposition of law (noting that I am unaware of any jurisprudence supporting same)f there obviously is no need to use Stark County taxpayer funds to replicate the same arguments/filings that will be made by the Secretary's counsel, who, under that same proposition cf law, will in essence be representing both the Secretary and the B0E.

I therefore again respectfully urge you, conflict or not, to refrain from appointing a special prosecutor, as same clearly would be but a waste of our County's taxpayer dollars and would only serve to otherwise needlessly "muddy the waters".

In short, let the Secretary's statutory counsel (the Ohio Attorney General) *carry the ball" here.

MARCH 12, 2014 (2:09 PM - 3:59 PM)

STARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONVENE/ADJOURN "EXECUTIVE SESSION"

The video:



Hmm?

No decision.

But that the meeting lasted one hour and 50 minutes (1:50) tells one that there was a hot and heavy controversy going on in the meeting, no?

One theory is that one or more commissioners want to appoint taxpayer subsidized legal counsel for the Dems whereas at least one does not with the result being the realization of a "bad" motive to make an already messy situation even messier.

Another theory is that Conley has made his mark with at least one of the commissioners that for an appointment to be made would be a waste of taxpayer money.

The commissioners will try again today at 4:00 p.m. to resolve their obvious differences.

And, of course, the SCPR will be there to videotape the decision.

So at the end of all that high drama yesterday, nothing, absolutely nothing is decided as to whether or not the Stark Dems are going to be benefited at taxpayer expense.

Talk about coming full circle.

Back in January, 2013 Stark County Dems chairman Randy Gonzalez enlists the support of Democratic commissioner Bernabei within the confines of official taxpayer supported seat of county government (i.e. the Stark County Office Building) to help the Democrats seat Stark County's next sheriff.

While it is unlikely that Gonzalez will be back today, there is no doubt with the SCPR that politics is at play today in some way, shape or form on the questions of whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Stark County Taxpayer will be asked to fund the interests of the Stark County Democratic Party.

Prosecutor Ferrero denies that there is a conflict in interest in terms of the Democrat BOE members position being represented by "somebody" before the Prohibition writ now before the Ohio Supreme Court.

He says that with the secretary of state breaking the tie in favor of the Dems that their position is majority position and therefore there is no conflict in interest in having a tie between the two competing GOP and Dem positions in the context of the original 2 to 2 vote.

And Craig Conley tells the SCPR he agrees with that position.

But he maintains that it still is a waste of Stark County taxpayer money for the commissioners to agree to appoint legal counsel to represent the St. John/Ferruccio position.

It is somewhat ironical that the commissioners will be making a decision on whether or not to fund the Stark Democratic Party interest with taxpayer funds today.

How's that.

Well, at noon today, Stark County Budget Director Chris Nichols (also a Republican who serves on the Canton Township Board of Township Trustees) will be presenting the "final" 2014 Stark County Budget at a public meeting to be held in the third floor conference room of the Stark County Office Building.

At that meeting the commissioners will be preaching austerity.

The question will be if you are Craig T. Conley is this:

Will the commissioners practice what they preach?

HUSTED FAILURE TO MAKE A "TOUCHDOWN/FIRST DOWN," TO COST MAIER A PLACE ON MAY BALLOT?

"Block that punt!" in football metaphor terms has to be the cry coming from the lips of Cynthia Balas-Bratton these days.

And it appears that such is exactly what may happen on the next play of her protest (filed February 11, 2014) of George T. Maier being the Democratic candidate for Stark County sheriff.

Coming out of the Stark Board of Elections (BOE, Board) hearing of February 21, 2013, the SCPR figures that Team Balas-Bratton had Team Maier pinned back on its own ten yard line with a 4th and 20 yards to go for a first down; 4th and 80 yards to go for a touchdown.

Yesterday, Balas-Bratton attorney Craig T. Conley sent in "the play" which could result in the Ohio Supreme Court knocking down Secretary of State Jon Husted's effort (a punt) to get Maier onto May's primary ballot without having scored a winning touchdown for Team Maier.

Husted rejected "let's go for a touchdown play" sent him by Team Maier (Stark Board of Elections members Deametrious "I Learned Politics from George Forbes" St. John and Sam Ferruccio, Jr) a week ago today.

Husted elected in his March 7, 2014 decision to "play it safe" and punt the ball (Maier's fulfilling ORC 311.01(B(8) [re:  a second quo warranto] & (9) requirements) out of harm's way, to wit:

While I am not confident that Mr. Maier meets the legal qualifications in the Ohio Revised Code, I am also unable to clearly conclude he does not. Given the law and the facts in this case, I choose to err on the side of ballot access.

In "playing it safe," Husted utterly failed to discharge the duty imposed on him by Ohio's statutory law to determine - from the evidence presented him through the Stark Board of Elections - whether or not George T. Maier is entitled to be on the ballot.

In "err[ing] on the side of ballot access" he ignored the law and in effect said "Supreme Court, you look at that evidence anew and the legal arguments thereon" and decide.  I will not."

Another critical mistake that Husted made was to misidentify the central issues before himself and the Stark BOE.

He says: The central issue of the protest is whether Mr. Maier satisfies the educational or supervisory requirements of R.C. 311.01(B)(9).

But in reality the effect of the Balas-Bratton protest hearing case was to persuasively challenge George T. Maier's meeting any of the criteria of ORC 311.01(B)(8) and (9).

Moreover, in his decision, Husted says not one word about St. John's right as a matter of law given his self-articulated bias in area media reports of having disqualified himself to sit in judgment of Maier's qualifications.

Nonetheless, punting the ball in the fashion he did could work for Team Maier (i.e. "the Supreme Court does not have to be correct in its decision, it only has to be the Supreme Court).

In doing so, he once again reduces the Maier forces to "the hope and a prayer" status that they had in awaiting his decision.

But punting also presents an opportunity that otherwise would not have been available to Team Balas-Bratton had Husted gone for and made a touchdown, or at the very least a first down in terms of strength of argument to get the BOE tie (Republican members Braden and Cline for keeping Maier off the ballot;  Democratic members St. John and Ferruccio for placing him on the ballot) broken by the ultimate decider in Team Maier's favor.

How is Team Balas-Bratton (through the Ohio Supreme Court) to get through the Team Maier defense to "block the punt?"

Answer?

• St. John is ineligible to be a team member and thereby provides Team Balas-Bratton with a "gap in the defensive line" through which to "block that punt," and/or
• Ferruccio being "out-of-position" and having called the wrong blocking scheme to prevent a blocked punt,

either of which puts Team Balas-Bratton in a position to trump (via Supreme Court decision) the Husted attempt via his "err on the side of ballot access" decision of March 7th to "advantage" Team Maier in keeping sheriff candidate George T. Maier "on the field of play."

So that is the football metaphor of things to come.

For the SCPR readers who prefer a non-sports approach here are the actual Balas-Bratton arguments.  (LINK to Ohio Supreme Court filed Writ of Prohibition)

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(WRIT OF PROHIBITION)

     32.  Relator incorporates by reference herein paragraphs nos. 1 through 31, inclusive, hereinabove.

     33.  By and through his active participation in the subject
Protest hearing, BOE Member St. John denied Relator her due process right to a non-biased guasi-judicial tribunal.  

     34.  By and through the Secretary's failure and refusal to remove or suspend BOE Member St, John from participating in the subject Protest hearing, he denied Relator her due process right to a non-biased quasi-judicial tribunal.  

     35.  Had the denial of due process referred to in paragraphs nos, 33 and 34 hereinabove not occurred, BOE Member St. John's aforesaid motion would have failed for want of a second and the BOE's vote on Relator's Protest would have been 2 to 1 in favor of granting that Protest; i.e., there would have been no tie vote for the Secretary to break.

     36.  In allowing BOE Member St, John's Protest hearing participation and attendant motion and vote, the Secretary exercised and continues to exercise quasi-judicial power, which exercise was and is unauthorized by law; and, the denial of the herein requested Writ will result in.injury to Relator for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law due to the rapidly upcoming primary election, with, as noted by the Secretary in his aforesaid decision, its attendant "deadline for military and overseas ballots just weeks away".

     37.  Relator is therefore entitled to a writ of prohibition prohibiting the Secretary from recognizing BOE Member St. John's motion and vote against her Protest.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(WRIT OF PROHIBITION)

     38.  Relator incorporates by reference herein paragraphs nos. 1 through 37, inclusive, hereinabove.

     39.  Via his aforesaid decision, the Secretary exercised and continues to exercise quasi-judicial power, which exercise was and is unauthorized by law; and, the denial of the herein requested Writ will result in injury to Relator for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law due to the rapidly upcoming primary election, with, as noted by the Secretary in his aforesaid decision, its attendant "deadline for military and overseas ballots just weeks away".

     40.  Because of the Secretary's aforesaid decision, the BOE is about to exercise quasi-judicial power, which exercise is unauthorized by law/ and, the denial of the herein requested Writ will result in injury to Relator for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law due to the rapidly upcoming primary election, with, as noted by the Secretary in his aforesaid decision, its attendant "deadline for military and overseas ballots just weeks away".

     41.  Relator is therefore entitled to a writ of prohibition prohibiting the BOE and the Secretary from including Maier on the May Democratic primary ballot as a candidate for Stark County Sheriff.

Within a very few days, Team Maier leader and attorney Thomas Rosenberg (with the Ohio attorney general's office and the BOE's legal counsel in the mix) will be responding to the Balas-Bratton arguments.

The question is whether or not Rosenberg can fix the holes created by St. John and Ferruccio?

The SCPR thinks not.

However, remember:  "the Supreme Court does not have to be correct, it just has to be the Supreme Court."

Therein lies yet another opportunity for the Maier factor to realize once again (as with Husted) "a hope and prayer!"

YOU NAME IT! BRAINLESS, CLUELESS, HYPOCRITICAL - THAT'S POLITICAL "PRETTY FACE" JON HUSTED!

 SUBTOPICS

HUSTED & THE LIBERTARIANS

HUSTED & THE MAIER DECISION

(Complementary Political Decisions?)

THE ST. JOHN FACTOR

HUSTED HYPOCRISY 

Little did any of us know on February 17, 2014 that former Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio mayor Don Robart would give a "heads-up" on the quality of his new bosses' mind when he spoke about the ballot disqualification of George T. Maer as being a "no brainer."

HUSTED & THE LIBERTARIANS

HUSTED & THE MAIER DECISION

(Complementary Political Decisions?)

Just days before, Robart - a leading Summit County Republican - who after 28 years as Cuyahoga Falls mayor, was dumped by Falls' voters in November, 2013, was selected to land in an obvious "political soft landing place" (at Ohio taxpayer expense) as the "eyes and ears" of Ohio Secretary of State (SOS) Jon Husted as region 3 director of the SOS.

So we know that Jon Husted is a highly partisan Republican who has no qualms about using taxpayer funds (provided by to provide for his own kind.

Moreover, he recently demonstrated (Husted Orders Libertarian Candidates Off Primary Ballot, March 7, WBNS) that he will use the power of his office to deny ballot access when he thinks it might damage a fellow Republican's (Governor Jon Husted) reelection.

The Libertarian case is compelling evidence that Jon Husted is not a man of principle that he implies he is in his self-serving statement that he is "erring on the side" in allowing George T. Maier access to the Stark County ballot as a Democratic candidate for sheriff.

Moveover, he in the Maier case establishes that he is not a "rule of law" man.  Rather that in his political calculation, his decision to allow Maier on the ballot was a bizarre combination of being brainless, clueless, and hypocritical in coming to the Maier decision.

It is safe to assume that Robart did not talk "out of school" on February 20th when he told an Akron Beacon Journal reporter that the strength of the cases between the Balas-Bratton (the Democratic protester) and Maier before the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE, Board) filed on February 6th made it pretty much a "no brainer" that Maier is not qualified under Ohio Revised Code 311.01 (as interpreted by the Ohio Supreme Court [Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto, November 6, 2013].

Of course, Robart did speak "out of school" in talking to the ABJ reporter.

Otherwise the statement was "inside Baseball" talk among Husted's "deep 'political' thinkers" in the mulling over he could overcome the obvious in making a political calculation that they think benefits Jon Husted best in his current (running for reelection as secretary of state), and perhaps (in 2016) if a reelected Kasich becomes the Republican standard bearer for president of the United States.

THE ST. JOHN FACTOR

The Maier decision indicates to the SCPR that Husted does not think key Stark Republicans (the Timkens, Braden and Cline [of the BOE] and Jeff Matthews [director of the BOE] in terms of how zealously they campaign for him are critical to his reelection efforts as secretary of state.

And he just might benefit from the Maier folks sitting on their hands in terms of the effort they put forth to deliver Stark County to the firebrand Nina Turner (a state senator from Cuyahoga County) in the secretary of state face-off.

The political unsophisticate in all this may prove to be former (as of March 1, 2014) Stark BOE Democratic member Deametrious St. John.  Remember, the guy who the SCPR - kiddingly, only taken seriously by Stark County lawyer and Democratic activist Steve Okey; as probably having trouble spelling his first name.

Political idiot (unsophisticate)?

That's the SCPR's take on St. John's political acumen.

That notwithstanding St. John telling Stark's Democrats at a Stark County Democratic Party Executive Committee (SCDP-EC) meeting (to pick his successor as a BOE member) on February 15 what "rubes" they are when it comes to political intrigue and roughhousing.

For he came out of the School of Political Hard Knocks conducted by Cuyahoga County/City of Cleveland political boss George Forbes.  (See George Forbes-An Obsession with Power, Cleveland Magazine.com, November, 1986)

Stark County politics he told the SCDP-EC "is a joke."

If it is, then St. John should be very upset with himself, for it appears to the SCPR that he just got worked over by the Maier faction of the Stark County Democratic Party and perhaps Jon Husted.

In the end, he might retroactively find his vote for George T. Maier's qualification to be on the May Democratic ballot by the Ohio Supreme Court. 

Wouldn't that be a political humiliation, if it happens?

• SCPR Note:  Balas-Bratton has filed a Notice of Appeal to revive the question of whether or not St. John should have be allow to vote on the Maier matter,
• An invalidation of the St. John vote would negate the Husted tie-breaker which would result in a Maier disqualification from the May ballot unless the Ohio Supreme Court rules otherwise

Deametrious is the chairman of the Stark County Black Caucus PAC (Political Action Committee, SCBC-PAC).

Guess what one of Nina Turner's forte is?

She is the foremost activist in the Ohio Black Legislative Caucus of which the Stark County version is a spin-off of.

So do you think that maybe, just maybe Deametrious St. John - the "political operative" (he proudly says he is) - in his role as SCBC-PAC may be pushing for Nina Turner to be elected secretary of state?

Of course!

But while they will certainly pay lip service to Deametrious and his Turner-as-secretary-of-state cause; the "Maier Loyalty Club" - the SCPR thinks - will give only that:  which is to say "lip service."

With political friends (if he is typical) like Deametrious being her political operative, Nina Turner has very little chance to become secretary of state and virtually no chance to win in Stark County.

Accordingly, Husted's decision may or may not show political smarts, he is clueless on election law.

The "no brainer" talk of Robart the SCPR thinks is indicative of what Husted knows to be the case.

But for whatever byzantine political reasons he has conjured up, he decided to ignore "the rule of law" and followed his political gut feeling in making a decision that he thinks may benefit him.

Jon Husted is political through and through.  And what the Maier decision shows is that Stark's Republican "powers that be" were not such that he  felt that going their way was in his personal political interest.

HUSTED IS HYPOCRITICAL

A SCPR reader brought to the attention of The Report that being in addition to being a Machiavellian politician that Husted is a first rate hypocrite.

No surprise here.

Hypocrisy is a typical quality of politicians.

George T. Maier himself, the SCPR thinks, is right up there with Husted on the matter of hypocrisy.

He guaranteed Stark Countians back in January, 2013 that if he applied to be appointed by the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC), he would be qualified under Ohio Revised Code Section 311.01.

When he was told by the Ohio Supreme Court on November 6, 2013 that his "guarantee" was bogus, then he started telling Stark Countians that the high court's decision was a "mere technicality" of law that he was going to correct.

Yet no one, including Husted this past Friday has ruled that he is now qualified under 311.01.

But Stark Countians can bet their bottom dollars that neither the SCPD-CC appointed Sheriff George T. Maier nor any of his deputies will want to hear about "mere technicalities" for those they arrest in the performance of their duties.

And that is the way it should be in our life as Americans, Ohioans, and Stark Countians and our accountability to "the rule of law."

Just not for George T. Maier and ORC 311.01.

The same goes for Husted.

Back in 2003 as a legislator on the cusp in 2004 of becoming the Ohio Speaker of the House (which, of course, establishes his political clout within the Republican caucus of the House which at the time was a supermajority along with the Senate in the Ohio General Assembly), he was a sponsor of a revision of ORC 311.11.

Now we know (March 7, 2014), Jon Husted could care "a rat's *** " about the criteria of ORC 311.01 and "the rule of law."

All this hypocrite cares about is his own political hide!

If he Ohio Supreme Court reverses him, which the SCPR thinks there is a good chance that it will, Husted will then have it every which way.

He on March 7th in the Maier and Libertarian cases took care of what he perceived to be in his and the governor's political interests.

If the high court does what the legal merits of Maier compel, Husted can then say to himself:  "Jon, you have done well by yourself." and to Starks's Republican leadership "I have done no harm."

As The Report says above, being the consummate politician he is "he has had it every which way!"

What follows is a synopsis of Husted's involvement with ORC 311.01 back in 2003.