JUDGE FORCHIONE HAS SOME QUESTIONS TO ANSWER ABOUT HIS ROLE IN THE STARK SHERIFF SELECTION PROCESS, NO?

UPDATE:  11:00 AM

Within the past few minutes the SCPR has talked with Lt. Lou Darrow with regard to the question of whether or not he has been contacted by Judge Frank Forchione in the context the judge's work performing ministerial duties under Ohio statutory law regarding the qualification of sheriff candidates for the re-do appointment by the SCDP-CC as ordered by the Ohio Supreme Court on November 11th.

Darrow tells the SCPR that Forchione had not contacted him at the judge's initiative.

However, Lieutenant Darrow added that he, himself, had contacted the judge out of concern that Forchione's re-opening the qualification process (see below) for the Democrats to consider additional candidates for the SCDP-CC appointment to the county sheriff position "would be used against him" (the SCPR's words; not Darrows) if he did not go through the application process once again.

Darrow did reaffirm that he believes that he and Republican Larry Dordea are the only two candidates who by virtue of the decision in Swanson v. Maier are qualified for consideration when the SCDP-CC meets on December 11th.

ORIGINAL BLOG

The Stark County Political Report has learned from a person whom The Report considers a highly reliable source that Stark Common Pleas Court judge Frank Forchione (Democrat) was making phone calls last week.

So?

Agreed, there is nothing particularly newsworthy about that in and of itself.

But once you know that one such call was supposedly made to Ohio Supreme Court ousted-sheriff (November 6, 2013) George T. Maier, does that make the ordinary into - perhaps - just a tad more than an ordinary practice of making a phone call.

Maybe, just maybe, no?

And The Report has reason to believe the alleged call was not a return phone call.

Add in that the SCPR has confirmed with Republican Larry Dordea (a SCDP-CC sheriff appointee aspirant; see explanation on the appointment process below), that he did not receive a Frank Forchione call last week or ever in the current application process.

Hmm?

Does that make the Maier thing even more interesting?

Also, why would Forchione need to talk to Maier anyway?

Everything is in place from Maier's first go at becoming the SCDP-CC appointed sheriff.

It is hard to imagine any need for the judge to talk again with Maier, no?

What else does he need in addition to Maier's widely disseminated press reports that he is again an applicant for appointment?

Remember, all the "ministerial" stuff is taken care of as of the February 5th Stark Dems.

And Judge Forchione says that assessing that part of qualifying is his only role.

Who else among sheriff-appointee prospects did or did not receive a Forchione call?

The Report has learned that Douglas Smith initiated a contact with Judge Forchione last Monday to arrange an interview with him as part of the ministerial qualifying process preliminary to being considered by the SCDP-CC.  Smith said that Forchione did return his call (Smith having left his telephone number) in order to arrange a mutually satisfactory date for the interview.

How about Lou Darrow?

The SCPR tried but was unable to contact Darrow for a response.

But if the judge was contacting all the candidates, wouldn't Dordea have received a call at the judge's initiative?

We all learned recently that Forchione on his own initiative interpreted (even though a "current" case (Swanson/Darrow v. Gonzalez, et al) is pending in the Ohio Supreme Court) "the ouster-decision" (Swanson v. Maier) as authorizing him to re-open the application process to one and all who think they are qualified to be Stark County sheriff.

The Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) has been ordered by the high court to re-do its February 5, 2013 defective appointment of Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald's replacement.

They are scheduled to do so on December 11th.

McDonald submitted his resignation before his January 7, 2013 "take office" date.

A critical problem with Forchione's interpretation is that the only date mentioned in Swanson v. Maier as being "the qualification date" on criteria listed in Ohio statutory law was February 6, 2013.

That date is one that the Ohio Supreme Court has said George T. Maier cannot meet.

If the Forchione to Maier telephone call report is true, which the SCPR believes it is, why is Judge Forchione calling Maier apparently at Forchione's initiative?

Well, the SCPR has already reported that he talked Douglass Smith, so what is different about him being in touch with Maier?

For one, The Report, to repeat the point, is under the clear impression that Forchione initiated the purported contact with Maier whereas in the Smith situation it was Smith who seized the initiative.

Secondly, Smith had not applied in the first round of the SCDP-CC consideration of who was to be McDonald's successor.

And, of course, there is the "no contact" with Dordea.

Wouldn't it shock all of us if the supposed call to Maier was:  "don't bother George, I am now clear the February 6th date applies and therefore you cannot qualify for the re-do appointment?"

Folks, do not hold your breath on that one.

The Report would call/visit (with camera in hand)/email Judge Forchione and ask the question full-throated and direct to him.  But, but, but . . . the good judge is not taking Stark County Political Report calls/on-camera visits/emails these days.

It appears to the SCPR that Forchione only takes media questions if he thinks they are softball questions of the "kiss-up" variety that unfortunately for Stark Countians seems to be standard fare from so much of Stark County local media these days.

And It is probably not the "why?" the phone call to George T. Maier" question so much with Forchione.   Undoubtedly, he has a ready answer for that one.

Rather he knows as do all Stark County public officials and public figures, it is a certainty that SCPR questions are going to probe much deeper than the obvious.

For instance, the SCPR would press Forchione on his re-opening process rationale and justification much harder than has been done by those media persons he has been willing to talk to.

As The Report wrote last week, it was strange indeed that a man who likes to project himself as a conservative type has gotten to the point that some Stark Countians see him as a judicial activist type.

Of course, there is the whole thing with the Studer case wherein he was forced by a local civic activist to do a U-turn on ordering a $5,000 Studer fine paid to an out-of-state charity and have it deposited in the general fund of the Stark County treasury which happens to be the mandate of "the rule of law" in Ohio.

And now the "open the appointment process" controversy.

Hmm?

So maybe Judge Forchione's true nature is that of being an activist who sees some benefit from the publicity that comes with doing controversial things as part of his judicial function?

He does these things and then cherry picks which media get to ask him questions and he has consequently been seemingly comfortable in the confidence they will uncritically publish his self-serving statements (e.g. "I err on the side of enhancing democracy).

None of Stark County current media knows of the connective tissue that may or may not bind various players in the "select a new sheriff process" as does the SCPR.

Insofar as Judge Forchione having or not having historical connections to these folks, isn't the Stark County public entitled to know that the judge has been vetted by a prepared media person with questions which go to the heart of the matter?

Could "zeroed-in" questions clearly raise THE QUESTION as to whether or not Judge Forchione should be involved in the qualification process at all?  

Especially in light of his interpretation of "the qualification date" including the post-February 6, 2013 period which happens to be the - in effect - "substantive" (i.e. no longer merely "ministerial") interpretation of the leadership of the Stark County Democratic Executive Committee and the Maier side of the appointment controversy. 

Was any consideration given to having one of the Republican Common Pleas judges - who has no connection with Democratic politics - do the ministerial processing?

Shouldn't this have been considered going back to the original application process?

It is hard to believe that one of them would venture into the "I think I know the mind of the Ohio Supreme Court" landscape?

How convenient that Judge Forchione wraps himself in a safe media cocoon, no?

Other Stark County judges and Stark officials have no problem going on camera with the SCPR.

These interviews are put on the SCPR blog in their entirety.

They are the best and truest forum from which Stark Countians can make an informed assessment.

The camera tells all.

If Forchione is so confident that he has gotten into the minds of the justices of the Ohio Supreme Court in his brash interpretation of Swanson v. Maier, he should be willing to take on all related questions.

Why is Judge Frank Forchione being so selective? 

What is he protecting himself from?

The SCPR suspects that there is way more to this story and whom is talking to whom out of the public spotlight than the general public has any idea of as this matter currently stands.

The Report goes all the way back to the meeting that Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez called with Stark County commissioner Tom Bernabei, interim sheriff Tim Swanson which included George T. Maier via telephone.

The topic, according to Tim Swanson?

How can we fix George T. Maier's suspected problem of qualifying to be Stark County sheriff?

It appears to the SCPR that nothing has changed from that meeting in January, 2013 to the very date of this blog!

Only now the qualification factor is not "suspected."

George Maier is down in Harrison County trying to fix the unfixable if the February 6th date holds.

Ohio's "court of last resort" has clearly ruled as a matter of "the rule of law" that he was never the legal sheriff of Stark County from February 11, 2013 (the date he was bonded) through November 6, 2013.

Unless the high court forthrightly says before December 11th something other than February 6, 2013 as being the operative qualification date, the Stark Dems and Judge Forchione have their marching orders!

Wouldn't it be ashamed if Stark County were to be put through another trying time?

CONLEY IS BACK. FILES BRIEF WITH 5TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS ON FORCHIONE MATTER. WILL PERSISTENCE MAKE HIS CLIENT & THE "RULE OF LAW" A WINNER?

Local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley may be Stark County's leading jurist in terms of his dogged, persistent pursuit of the rule of law.

Undoubtedly, his detractors would like to paint him as a lawyer who has gone amok in that he has so much ego that he cannot abide anyone getting the best of him.

Such might be the view of the anonymous person (presumably a peer lawyer of Conley's or, perhaps, a Stark County judge) who filed an ethics complaint against him on January 28, 2013 with Ohio's Disciplinary Counsel.  (LINK to prior SCPR blog).

Conley was exonerated of having committed any ethics violation on March 26, 2013. (LINK to prior SCPR blog on the topic)

To summarize the origin of things which resulted in the ethics complaint being filed:

Conley accused Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione of grandstanding on part of his sentencing order of a Stark Countian who had pled guilty in his court in December, 2012 in multiple counts of Illegal Use of a Minor in a Nudity-Oriented Material or Performance (R.C. 21907.323(A)(1)](F2)).

Judge Forchione had, in the objectional part of his sentencing (to Conley) of one Scott Studer, ordered him to pay $5,000 for the benefit of the Sandy Hook Elementary School (Newtown, CT) shooting victims of December, 2012.

Conley of February 1, 2013 [LINK to prior SCPR blog) filed suit against Forchione (a Declaratory Judgment action on the interpretation of ORC 2949.11) demanding that "the rule of law" prevail and that Ohio's statutory scheme providing that criminal case fine money be paid to the county treasury in satisfaction of the aforesaid statute.

The reason that the SCPR cites to this particular link is because the referenced blog explores the question of whether or not Conley was motivated to take Forchione on in Studer because of a separate legal tussle between the two on the allegation by Conley that Fochione had demonstrated bias against him in a case in which he was a defendant (citation:  Estate of Cletus P. McCauley et al vs. Craig T. Conley, et al [Stark County, 2011 CV 02325] in 2011 in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas).

Needless to say, Conley denies that such was the case, but the SCPR thinks it is a fair question to ask and consider as one seeks to determine why Conley carries on (with a different client) and a new issue even after Forchione retrieved the $5,000 from Sandy Hook and had Stark County Clerk of Court Nancy Reinbold deposit the money into the Stark County general fund maintained by Stark County Treasurer Alex Zumbar as demanded by Conley.

The ink on the clerk of courts stamp on the voluntary dismissal (February 15, 2013) of the declaratory judgment action (filed on behalf of Thomas Marcelli) had not yet dried  yet when on February 28, 2013, a new legal proceeding was initiated against Judge Forchione.

Initially, Conley was not involved.

But by April 15th, Conley picked up on the new matter (pro bono - for the public good - as in Marcelli v. Forchione) in which Columbus resident Louis Demis (a former Stark Countian with ties to the Navarre area) alleged in an affidavit that Judge Forchione had, in ordering (and in following through in seeing that the order was effectuated [re:  Letter of Transmittal, January 3, 2013]) the $5,000 be paid to the Sandy Hook victims relief fund rather than to the Stark County treasury, committed the criminal offense of "theft in office."

Hearing was held on the affidavit in the Canton Municipal Court on April 23, 2013 before former Barberton Municipal Court judge Michael McNulty with Akron Law Department attorney Craig Morgan (an Akron chief assistant criminal prosecutor) appearing (unsympathetically to the affiant in the opinion of the SCPR) and Conley also appearing but who was actually advocating for the Demis position.  (LINK to prior SCPR blog with video on the entire hearing)

Well, to took Judge McNulty about one hour after concluding the hearing (at about 9:35 a.m. [the state having begun at 9:00 a.m.]) to file his decision of "no probable cause."  (LINK to prior SCPR blog detailing the decision)

Not long after the decision, Conley announced that he would be prosecuting an appeal for Louis Demis.  (LINK to prior SCPR blog)

The SCPR has obtained a copy of Conley's brief (about 15 pages long) filed in the appellate case which he filed on Friday.

Here are the issues as Conley sees them:

If Conley's client is to prevail and Conley's devotion to the "rule of law" is to be realized, then it will be owing to his persistence and doggedness.

For the SCPR daresays that about the only person living in Stark County who believes that the 5th District Court of Appeals will reverse Judge McNulty is Craig T. Conley.

Agree with him or not, like him or not; you have to admire his determinedness, perseverance and persistence.

While the SCPR would be surprised to see Judge McNulty overturned, there were probably a lot of Stark Countians that never thought that the $5,000 Studer fine would make it into the general fund of the Stark County treasury after it had already been paid for the benefit of the the Sandy Hook victims.

But guess where it sits on July 22, 2013?

Judge Forchione is likely being counseled by many that he has absolutely nothing to worry about from the Demis initiative.

And that may prove to be the case.

Nonetheless, the SCPR is guessing that he is not underestimating Craig T. Conley.

For he knows from first hand experience that Conley is absolutely committed to the "rule of law."  And make no mistake about it, motivated or not by outside events, Conley does see the current case as an extension of that basic principle of law.

Finally, he does put his money (i.e. pro bono time) where his mouth is!"

Yes, Craig T. Conley is back.

Could it be that his persistence will produce results once again?

A "PROBABLE CAUSE" HEARING (ON "ALLEGED" THEFT-IN-OFFICE) SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 23RD ON CONSEQUENCES OF STARK CO. COMMON PLEAS JUDGE FORCHIONE ORDER IN THE STUDER CASE. HMM?

UPDATE:  04:45 p.m.

The SCPR has learned that Judge Frank Forchione nemesis Craig T. Conley has been retained (on a pro bono basis) to provide legal advice and counsel to Louis W. Demis with regard to his affidavit (see full affidavit below) vis-a-vis Forchione and his allegation that Forchione's re-directing of fine money ($5,000) via his order in the Scott D. Studer case from the Stark County treasury general fund to the Sandy Hook Support Fund amounted to a theft-in-office by the case law of Ohio.

Conley says that Demis is committed to pursuing his allegation to a successful conclusion.

Conley tells the SCPR that he will be in contact with Akron prosecutor Craig Morgan soon in a coordinating sort of way in preparation for a "probable cause hearing" set for April 23, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. in the Canton Municipal Court with former Barberton judge Michael McNulty presiding.

SUBTOPIC

REPOSITORY SITS ON STORY

What is the expression about getting more than one bargained for?

Oh!  How about?  "Be careful what you wish for — you just might get more than you bargained for."

Well, as it turns out, "getting more than one bargained for" may be the ultimate consequence for Judge Francis (Frank) G. Forchione of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas in his sentencing of Scott D. Studer.

The, let's say, the "unorthodox" (to be euphemistic) original sentencing (December 19, 2012) was done in the full glare of media attention and Forchione - as a ramification of the sentencing hearing - garnered local, statewide, national, and, indeed, international attention.

Here is a SCPR LINK for those SCPR readers who are not familiar with the details of a matter in which Forchione ordered a convicted felon (Studer pled guilty to several felony counts) to pay a $5,000 fine NOT through the Common Pleas Court Clerk of Courts TO be forwarded on to the Stark County treasury and then deposited in the Stark County general fund as required by Ohio law, BUT TO the Sandy Hook School Support Fund in order to aid the families of the victims of the December 14, 2012 mass shooting/killing of 20 students and 6 teachers in Newtown, Connecticut.

Within days local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley accused Forchione of grandstanding (SCPR LINK).  Moreover, a Bethlehem Township resident stepped forward and asked Conley to file a lawsuit in order to get the money to where it belonged, he said: to the Stark County general fund.

Conley agreed to do so pro bono (for the public good).

For his civic-mindedness, Conley was rewarded by being named the subject of a ethics complaint filed by an anonymous (SCPR LINK) person on January 28, 2013.

Ultimately, Forchione found a way (SCPR LINK) to retrieve the $5,000 fine from Newtown and amended the original Studer case order and by the amendment had Clerk of Courts Nancy Reinbold forward the $5,000 onto Stark County Treasurer Alex Zumbar for deposit in the county general fund. 

The Marcelli complaint was voluntarily dismissed on February 15th.

Conley on March 26, 2013 was exonerated (SCPR LINK) by Ohio State Bar Association ethics counsel on the ethics complaint "as being unfounded."

End of matter?

Apparently not!

The SCPR learned on Friday (late in the day) that a Columbus resident (Louis W. Demis) has filed an affidavit with local authorities on February 28th alleging that Judge Forchione had in ordering (and in following through in seeing that the order was effectuated [re:  Letter of Transmittal, January 3, 2013]) that the $5,000 be paid to the Sandy Hook victims relief fund rather than to the Stark County treasury committed the criminal offense of "theft in office," to wit:

The SCPR has further learned that Stark County's only countywide newspaper has known of the affidavit being filed for some time and has decided (a least for the time being) not to inform Stark Countians of the pending action.

This is the same newspaper who saw fit to publish an article about Mayor Healy's wife and her being arrested on October 13, 2011 on a matter that had absolutely no relevance to the mayor's performance in office.

Pray tell?  How many standards are in effect at The Repository?

Of course, local authorities treated the affidavit as if it was the hottest potato to hit the Stark County in many a moon.  Forchione served as the top prosecutor in Canton during his 13 years in the Canton Law Department where he served his full legal career (other than also maintaining a private practice) until he was elected to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas bench in November, 2008.

Canton Law Director Martuccio tells the SCPR that immediately on receiving the affidavit, Canton Municipal Court Clerk of Courts Phil Giavasis telephoned him with the question:  "What am I to do with this affidavit?"

Answer:  Martuccio directed his Canton Law Department staff find non-Stark Countian criminal justice folks to take a look at questions compelled by the filing of the affidavit; namely:

• whether or not to prosecute (who turned out to be Assistant Akron Chief Assistant Criminal Prosecutor Craig Morgan) on the basis of the affidavit, and 
• whether or not a viable judiciable complaint (i.e. probable cause) has been made (who turned out to be the retired but formerly long time Barberton Municipal Court Judge Michael McNulty).

Martuccio agreed with The Report's assessment that the filing of the affidavit was consonant with Ohio statutory authority which seemingly is Ohio's version of "citizen arrest" legislation (Ohio Revised Code Sections 2835.09 and 2835.10) that is prevalent across America.

Moreover, he told The Report that over his years in the Canton Law Department only few of such affidavits have been filed.

This past Tuesday, April 9, 2013, Canton Municipal Court acting presiding and administrative judge Stephen Belden set a  "probable cause hearing" on the Demis affidavit for Tuesday, April 23, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge McNulty.

Martuccio said that it is not likely that Judge Forchione will be appearing at the hearing.  However, he added that if probable cause is found, then Judge Forchione will be processed through the criminal justice system the same way as any other citizen.

If this matter passes the "probable cause" hurdle, one has to wonder how Prosecutor John Ferrero (Stark County's prosecutor) handles the matter inasmuch as felonies get prosecuted at the county level and not the municipal court level.

As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly, like Sheriff Tim Swanson, does not have a lot of faith (LINK) in how Ferrero runs his office.

However, this one, if it gets that far, appears to be a "no brainer" that Ferrero's office would not be touching this one with the proverbial "ten foot pole."   The office provided legal advice to Judge Forchione during the Marcelli challenge of his sentencing of Studer.

Undoubtedly, the matter would not be presided over by a sitting nor former Stark County Common Pleas Court judge.

The SCPR has learned that a local (Canton-based) lawyer is looking at taking on the case (apparently in advisory role to Mr. Demis since only prosecutors try criminal cases in Ohio) on a pro bono basis.

There probably is no more apt way to describe what Judge Forchione has gotten himself into other than to use the "tar baby story" (not the SCPR's idea, rather an idea borrowed from another) from the collection of Uncle Remus stories many of us "older" folks were subjected to in elementary school decades and decades ago.

Nowadays it is not cool to use these stories because some think they are racist expressions.

The SCPR's use of the tar baby story is designed to vivify the sticky situation that Judge Forchione apparently has created for himself in grandstanding (Conley's accusation) in having Scott Studer pay his fine - not to the Stark County treasury as required by law - but rather to the Sand Hook Foundation.

From Wikipedia here is the essence of the story:

Br'er Rabbit ("Brother Rabbit") is the main character of the stories, a likable character, prone to tricks and trouble-making who is often opposed by Br'er Fox and Br'er Bear.

In one tale, Br'er Fox constructs a lump of tar and puts clothing on it. When Br'er Rabbit comes along he addresses the "tar baby" amiably, but receives no response. Br'er Rabbit becomes offended by what he perceives as Tar Baby's lack of manners, punches it, and becomes stuck.

So the question becomes with the filing of the Demis affidavit: Is Judge Forchione about to become stuck to a problem that he gave birth to beyond anything anyone dreamed of?

Will he be pondering the adage: 

"Be careful what you wish for (i.e. publicity? in making the order) — you just might get more than you bargained for."  Or will the affidavit prove to be "a tempest in a teapot?"

Only time will tell.

Stayed tuned to the SCPR where you can depend on hearing Stark County news and analysis when it breaks!

BREAKING NEWS! CONLEY VINDICATED BY OHIO STATE BAR ASS'N "LEGAL ETHICS & PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE!" HE DID NOTHING WRONG IN ACCUSING JUDGE FORCHIONE OF "GRANDSTANDING" IN THE SENTENCING OF THE STUDER CASE

The SCPR has learned that local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley has been found by the Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct Committee (a Certified Grievance Committee) of the Ohio State Bar Association to NOT HAVE VIOLATED Ohio's ethics and professional conduct rules which govern the behavior of judges and lawyers.

An "anonymous" blogger (which Conley thinks was a local attorney) filed the complaint on January 28th. (LINK to a prior SCPR blog that details the history behind the circumstances that led to the filing)

The decision was handed down on Tuesday but received in the mail today by Conley.

A CLASSIC CASE OF "NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED?" THE "ANONYMOUS" ATTEMPT TO DISCIPLINE CRAIG CONLEY FOR SUPPORTING THE PRIMACY OF THE RULE OF LAW?

 UPDATED AT 8:15 AM

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".

 APPLYING THE RULE OF LAW IN STARK COUNTY

The SCPR believes that such is what local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley had in mind when he decided to challenge Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione on part of his sentencing order of Scott D. Studer of Jackson Township.

Originally, Judge Frank Forchione had, as part of his sentencing of Studer, ordered him to pay $5,000 for the benefit of the Sandy Hook Elementary School (Newtown, CT) shooting victims.

Here is a LINK to a prior SCPR blog which provides background and more detail on the Studer matter.

Conley originally attempted to right what he considered to be a Forchione transgression of "the rule of law" in a communication to Judge Forchione's legal counsel (Stark Co. prosecutor John Ferrero), to wit:

January 23, 2013

VIA FACSIMILE (3 PAGES TO 330/451-7965) ONLY

Hon. John D. Ferrero
Stark County Prosecuting Attorney
STARK COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE
P.O. Box 20049
Canton, Ohio 44701-0049

Re: State of Ohio v. Scott D. Studer
    Stark County Common Pleas Court Case No.  2012 CR 1790

Dear Mr. Ferrero:

As you are aware, in the above-referenced high-profile criminal action, Judge Forchione (with your formal approval) ordered Mr. Studer to “pay a fine in the amount of Five thousand dollars ($5000.00) . . . to be forwarded to the victims of Newtown, Connecticut tragedy”.  (Reference the Court’s December 19, 2012 Journal Entry Sentencing Form and December 31, 2012 Judgment Entry/imposition of sentence.)

As you are also aware, on January 2, 2013, under cover of his Court-stationery letter of that same date, Judge Forchione forwarded Mr. Studer’s $5,000.00 check in payment of that fine to the Sandy Hook School Support Fund.(Reference the Court’s January 2, 2013 Judgement Entry, to which Judge Forchione attached his aforesaid cover letter and a copy of Mr. Studer’s $5,000.00 check.)

As you are also aware, Judge Forchione thereafter promptly informed the media of the Fund’s receipt of that check.  (See, e.g., a news article entitled “Studer’s check for $5,000 sent to Sand Hook support fund” which was electronically published in The Repository on January 8, 2013.)

Grandstanding issues aside, as I reasonably presume is the case

Hon.  John D. Ferrero,
Stark County Prosecuting Attorney
January 23, 2013
Page 2 of 3

with you, I am unaware of any Ohio Revised Code Section authorizing Judge Forchione’s tender of Mr. Studer’s $5,000.00 fine to any entity other than that specified in O.R.C. 2949.11 (effective May 6, 1986 and not since amended), which Code Section provides, in pertinent part, that “. . . an officer who collects a fine shall pay it into the treasury of the county in which such fine was assessed,  within twenty days after receipt of the fine, to the credit of the county general fund”. (emphasis supplied)

Indeed, in Ohio v. Cooper (2001), 144 Ohio App. 3d 316, the Eighth District Court of Appeals, citing (at 320 and 321) to that same Code Section, appropriately held “This statute mandates that all fines be paid into the county treasury; a trial court therefore does not have the statutory authority to direct payment of a fine to a charitable organization”.  (emphasis supplied)

Along those same lines, in Lane v. Phillabaum (12th Dist. 2008), 182 Ohio App. 3d 145, 2008-Ohio-2502, that Court, citing to that same Code Section, held (at ¶ 18) that “. . . it was improper for the court to order the students to make donations to a particular charity or nonprofit organization . . . rather than paying a fine into the county treasury”.  (See also State v. Short (12th Dist. 1992), 1992 WL 158413, for that same basic proposition of law.)

Accordingly, on behalf of the taxpayers of Stark County, and more particularly on behalf of my client, Thomas M. Marcelli (a County resident, taxpayer and electorate), I request you immediately institute a civil action against Judge Forchione for the recovery of and payment into the Stark County Treasury of Mr. Studer’s $5,000.00 fine, plus interest from January 2, 2012 to the date of such recovery and payment.  (Reference O.R.C. 309.12 and 309.13.)

In that regard, because you, as the Stark County Prosecuting Attorney, signed your approval of Judge Forchione’s December 31, 2012 Judgment Entry (and/or because of the effect of O.R.C 309.09(A)), I respectfully suggest you should forthwith recuse yourself from any and all future involvement in this matter and

Hon.  John D. Ferrero,
Stark County Prosecuting Attorney
January 23, 2013
Page 3 of 3

should request the appointment of a special (out-of-County) prosecutor.

Please promptly advise.  Thank you.

                           Sincerely,

                           Craig T. Conley

CTC/mps

cc: Thomas M. Marcelli
       Stark County Auditor
       Stark County Board of Commissioners
       Stark County Treasurer

BACKGROUND OF THE ETHICS COMPLAINT

Well, it was the Conley "grandstanding" assessment which caught the attention of the "anonymous" complainant and generated his initiative to Ohio's Disciplinary Counsel after Conley's comment hit the media.

An interesting factor here is that the "anonymous" complaint was originally sent to the Ohio Supreme Court Disciplinary Counsel (OSC-DC) only to be redirected to the office to the Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct Committee of the Ohio State Bar Association.

Why?

Conley tells The Report because the OSC-DC said that there was a "conflict in interest" in the OSC-DC considering the complaint.

Conley will not comment or speculate as to the specifics of why there would be a conflict in interest between the "anonymous" complainant and the OSC-DC.

But the Stark County Political Report will.

The Report thinks that the "anonymous" complainant may be either a very prominent Stark County attorney or judicial official who is well known to the OSC-DC.

It only stands to reason that if such is the case, that the enforcer of ethics would want to be above reproach itself.

The "anonymous" complainant (in filing the complaint on January 28, 2013) referred to a Matt Rink Repository piece (January 23, 2013) in which the following Conley comment is reported by Rink:

"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 ATTEMPT TO AVOID THE FILING OF A LAWSUIT

Prosecutor Ferrero apparently was not inclined to (probably because of what the SCPR believes to be "bad blood" between the two growing out of the Zeigler case), or was unable to convince Judge Forchione to alter the order so as to be in compliance with "the rule of law:" (that is to say, ORC 2949.11) within the time frame set by Conley.

The SCPR believes it was the former rather than the latter.  Accordingly, the SCPR posits that Ferrero bears some responsibility for Conley becoming frustrated in his quest to get an obvious error fixed.

Conley and his client being the "rule of law" devotees they are, could not abide the delay in getting the Studer fine order fixed to what it eventually should have been from the beginning, to wit:

As originally issued and in apparent violation of ORC 2949.11:

As corrected by Judge Forchione on February 14th:

Conley says the change in the order is in and of itself an admission by Judge Forchione that the first order was wrong despite the denial by the judge to local media he had done anything wrong.

Clerk of Courts Nancy Reinbold told the SCPR yesterday that the correction/amendment is sufficient to cause her to pay the returned  $5,000 (see details of the return below) to the Stark County treasury for deposit in the county general fund.

Had Ferrero taken Conley's letter at face value and acted to counsel Judge Forchione that the request be honored in quick order, then the declaratory judgement action likely would not have been filed for the simple reason that it was ultimately voluntarily dismissed last Friday:  the lack of a judiciable issue.

CONLEY GOING PUBLIC 

An argument can be made that Conley was too quick in going to the media with his "grandstanding" charge.

He tells the SCPR that he was relying on Code of Professional Conduct Code Section 8.2 in his zeal to correct an obvious (to him) problem, to wit:

Perhaps he needed to slow down a little devote more time and effort to a private remedy?


Otherwise, doesn't he give credence to a charge that he was grandstanding himself?


THE RETURN OF THE $5,000 STUDER FINE FROM THE SANDY HOOK SCHOOL SUPPORT FUND

Eventually, Judge Forchione retrieved the money from the Sandy Hook School Support Fund (which cost the fund's agent [Western New England United Way] $25 in wire transmittal fees).

Undoubtedly, the Marcilli initiated lawsuit was an instrumental factor, no?

CONLEY NAMED A GRANDSTANDER IN HIS OWN RIGHT

Of course, Conley's pursuit of the "rule of law" brought lots of media attention including the SCPR which in an ironic sense made Conley vulnerable to a charge that he was himself grandstanding.

Such allegations were made by supporters of Judge Forchione's original $5,000 Studer fine to be paid for the benefit of Sandy Hook shooting victims.

Conley denies that he was grandstanding.  He stands on his insistence that his going public was to fulfill his deep commitment to the rule of law.

CONLEY HAVING A PERSONAL MOTIVATION QUESTION 

Moreover, a least one of them ("warmsunshine" on The Rep's online comment section) having familiarity with the rocky interpersonal relationship between the judge and Conley (Conley filed an "affidavit of disqualification" on a case - which Forchione recused himself some nine months after winning on the affidavit issue) implied that the only reason that Conley was interested in taking on client Marcelli's cause (even suggesting that Conley had client-shopped) was because of recent acrimony between Conley and Forchione.

ANONYMOUS COMPLAINANT

Conley has some strong words for "anonymous" complainant:

• That he views the complaint as an attempt to intimidate and muzzle and that such simply is not going to happen

CONLEY'S VIEWS ON THE RULE OF LAW

He has some interesting thoughts about his/any attorney's obligation to see to it that judges (especially judges) follow the rule of law.  Conley says:

• He did nothing wrong in making the comments complained of by anonymous and that if attorney can't make truthful comments, such is not good for the American system of justice,
• Every attorney has an affirmative duty to expose problems in the judiciary for the betterment of the judiciary and the rule of law,
• Cited a Supreme Court decision which held out that members of the judiciary have a greater duty to follow the law than the members of the bar,

LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM THE CONLEY/FORCHIONE STAND OFF

Lessons to be learned can probably be reduced to one basic lesson:  communication, communication and more communication.

And the SCPR believes that Prosecutor John Ferrero was the key.

As far as the SCPR knows, there was very little communication between Conley as legal counsel for Mr. Marcelli and Ferrero as the lawyer for Judge Forchione.

During what Conley termed as being Zeiglergate, it was very obvious that Ferrero felt put upon by Conley in his seizing the initiative to push Ferrero to get moving to secure Zeigler assets in the event the county were to secure a judgment against Zeigler for the loss funds that Vince Frustaci stole from the county treasury.

Zeigler was not implicated in the theft, but the State of Ohio Auditor issued findings that Zeigler's treasury policies, practices, procedures and inadequate, in some instances, physical facilities were deficient.  Moreover, Ohio statutory and case law makes a county treasurer strictly liable for loses that occur under a treasurer's watch for whatever reason it occurs.

Conley felt Ferrero was remiss in protecting the county's interests quickly enough and therefore got the jump on Ferrero by filing a taxpayer lawsuit on the part of guess who?  You've got it:  Tom Marcelli.

Hence giving birth to "bad blood" between the two of them which spilled out into the press.

The similarities between the Zeigler and Forchione matters are striking in terms of the Ferreo/Conley relationship.

Apparently, the "bad blood" lingers which is surprising between two lawyers.

It is common knowledge that lawyers battle one another for the interests of their clients/causes, but at the end of the day bury the hatchet and oft times go out and have a drink with one another.

Clients get disturbed by this phenomenon, but judges and lawyers think nothing of it.

Such is the case with many athletes and coaches (e.g. witness the Harbaugh brother against brother match up in the Super Bowl) who vie with one another but then often fraternize when the contest is over.

It is clear to the SCPR that Conley is going to continue to be Conley (i.e. a civic activist eternal and agitator).  And, Ferrero is likely to continue to be Ferrero (i.e. in the opinion of the SCPR:  oversensitive and just tad vindictive).  Does anyone doubt that there will be future face offs between the two?

Because of the SCPR's incisive writing, Ferrero will not answer The Report's questions.

Can yours truly do without access to Ferrero?  Of course.

The Report gets plenty of information about his operation of the prosecutor's office without exchanging one word with him.  And the SCPR will continue to cover his performance in office whether he likes it or not.

A man who gets paid by Stark County taxpayers, doesn't think he has to be accountable?

He may not like, but there are quite a few Stark Countians who read the SCPR.

He obviously takes the SCPR's criticism as being personal.

Unbelievable!

The man is an elected public official.

If he can't stand the heat of being an officeholder, why does he keep running for office?

So the SCPR's suggestion to Ferrero is that he toughen up his hide, grow up a little in his governance style and temperament and leave his disagreements with the likes of Conley and the SCPR and others who differ with him in the realm of it all being in the confines of a day's work.

For if he doesn't,  he is likely to experience parade of miscommunications that are not going produce good results for anybody including himself and most certainly the Stark County community at large.

Conley, on future civic activist issues, might want to try first picking up the telephone and talking to Ferrero before firing off a "I am putting you in a corner" type letter.

Ferrero should be willing to take such a phone call and seek to reach common ground through continuing dialogue in which the goals of each and their respective clients get met, at least in part.

DID ANYTHING GOOD COME OUT OF MARCELLI V. FORCHIONE?

The SCPR thinks so.

Judge Forchione showed himself to be a man of compassion.  Those who know him well are convinced that he acted out of the highest of motives.  Even Conley doesn't question that.  He simply says that the judge doesn't have the authority to do what he did.

Moreover, he certainly has learned, in terms of his official duties that he cannot use his duty and power to sentence as a means to manifest his altruistic impulses.

It would be quite shocking if Judge Forchione were to repeat a Sandy Hook type order.

The Report does not believe he will.  So if he has learned his lesson, this is a good thing.

Everybody makes a mistake in judgment from time to time.

John Ferrero  should now realize that he needs to communicate (listen and converse reciprocally) with his colleagues at the bar (e.g. Conley) and with the media (e.g. the SCPR).

America is a check and balance society and as a public official being critiqued is part and parcel of being an official.  Perhaps he is learning this reality.  Let us all hope so.

Anonymous complainant certainly should understand that many people hold the cowardly with emphatic disdain and contempt.

While it is his right to play the role of the coward, it cannot be very fulfilling.  Perhaps this experience will cause anonymous to rethink his cowardice. If anonymous is a person of conviction, then he should have the courage of his convictions.

If his identity becomes known via his own loose lips (the only way it can happen), his cowardice will likely outweigh any claimed devotion to principle.

Is cowardice what he wants to become known for?

Craig Conley has had a new learning experience on the cost of being a civic activist.

While he is confident that the "anonymous" complaint will fail, it has to be displeasing that a person who never been disciplined that he should be subjected to the process.

It is impressive that he has waived his privacy rights and is allowing the Stark County public look on as he defends his right (duty in his eyes) to pursue his devotion to the rule of law.  In contrast to anonymous, a true demonstration of courage and public accountability.

He has been through a firestorm of criticism from some quarters.  And he has shown himself and onlooking Stark Countians that he has the strength of character to stand firm.

The bottom line for all of we Stark Countians is that "the rule of law" has prevailed.

And Craig Conley was the moving force behind its realization.
 
For that all Stark Countians should be thankful.

To repeat:  The rule of law is fundamental to the western democratic order. 

The SCPR presents the entire (except for the introductory and closing sentences) Conley response to the Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct Committee of the Ohio State Bar Association.

Conley waived his right to privacy and pro-actively asked the ethics committee to make its proceedings public.

 

CONLEY DECLARES VICTORY WITH JUDGE FORCHIONE'S CHANGE OF ORDER IN STUDER CASE

 UPDATED & REVISED

Legal counsel (Craig T. Conley) for Tom Marcelli tells the SCPR that he has filed a dismissal (Friday, February 15th) of Marcelli's declaratory judgment action which was  seeking judicial confirmation that that Ohio's sentencing statute which requires fines be paid to the county's general fund is constitutional.

The general fund is administered by Stark County treasurer Alex Zumbar.

Originally, Judge Frank Forchione had as part of his sentencing of Scott D. Studer ordered him to pay $5,000 for the benefit of the Sandy Hook Elementary School (Newtown, CT) shooting victims.

Here is a LINK to a prior SCPR blog which provides background and more detail on the Studer matter.

Conley says that while he thinks that Judge Forchione should have constituted the corrective entry differently, his client is not going to contest the niceties and particularities of the correction.

Judge Forchione held a video conference hearing with Studer (who is at the Madison Correctional Institution located in London, Ohio serving a 15 year sentence) on Thursday.

Conley says that he believes the video conference was unnecessary and could have been handled by a nunc pro tunc order.  He had provided Stark County assistant prosecutor Ross Rhodes with such an order which would have been acceptable to Mr. Marcelli.

The original order with respect to the fine read:

The replacement order with respect to the fine reads:

The SCPR compliments Conley for seizing the initiative to have the money paid into the Stark County treasury general fund.

Judge Forchione reclaimed the $5,000 from the Sandy Hook School Support Fund so that it can be deposited to the credit of the Stark County general fund as required by Ohio's rule of law, to wit:  Ohio Revised Code Section 2949.11

Conley has said all along that he is not anti-charity but that the law is the law and Ohio's law mandates that fines go to the county's general fund.

He has also said that he is not pleased that the $5,000 actually paid to the Sandy Hook Support Fund was reclaimed.

Conley reminded the SCPR that his representation of Mr. Marcelli was done pro bono (for the public good) meaning at no cost for his client and by extension for the Stark County public.

Here is Conley's order of dismissal:

And here is his press release:

CHIEF CIVIL DIVISION PROSECUTOR ROSS RHODES SAID THAT MARCELLI LAWSUIT TO RECOVER $5,000 TO COUNTY GENERAL FUND IS"... A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME." REALLY?????

UPDATE:  10:00 AM

INQUIRY OF CLERK OF COURTS
NANCY REINBOLD

HER RESPONSE

********************************************

 BLOG TOPICS

Is Ross Rhodes eating his words today?

Conley:  correctly identifies his online detractor?

The Repository's "double standard!"

Judge Forchione's temperament? 

Conley has a motive? LINK 

 
****************************************

ADDED MATERIAL

Email from SCPR to Stark County clerk of courts Nancy Reinbold

>>> Martin Olson <tramols@att.net> 2/8/2013 9:12 AM >>>
Clerk Reinbold,

What do you plan to do with the $5,000 returned by the agent for the Sandy Hook Support Fund in response to Judge Forchione's request?

Do you have any indication [that Judge Forchione] is going to (or, perhaps, already has) amended his original order to empower/direct you as clerk to place the money in the Stark County general fund.

MartinOlson/SCPR

Response from Clerk Reinbold:

It will be held on deposit on the Studer case until an order is signed and filed by Judge Forchione directing distribution.

Nancy S. Reinbold
Stark County Clerk of Courts
110 Central Plaza North Ste 160
Canton, OH 44702
(330) 451-7622nsreinbo@co.stark.oh.us

ORIGINAL BLOG

First,  Stark County chief civil prosecutor Ross Rhodes said the judge had absolute immunity when there was speculation in the media that civic activist and local attorney Craig T. Conley would be filing a lawsuit on behalf of Thomas Marcelli seeking to compel Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione to see to it that a $5,000 fine he ordered convicted criminal defendant Scott D. Studer to pay for the Sandy Hook shooting victims was repaid to the Stark County treasury and into the county general fund.

Secondly, in what the SCPR took as an implied intimidation to Conley proceeding with the lawsuit was Rhodes' statement to the effect that if Conley lost the case, he might be looking at paying costs of the action out of his (Conley's) own pocket.

The suit in declaratory judgment (LINK to SCPR blog providing more details of underlying facts of case) was filed on February 1st in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas.  And wouldn't you know it, guess who gets assigned the case by the court's lottery system of assigning cases?

Of course, who else, in a case of super-irony:  Judge Forchione.

Thirdly, after the suit was filed Rhodes said "[i]t was a complete waste of time."

Obviously, if the case continues on, the judge will be recusing himself as will the entire panel of Stark County judges.

Conley tells the SCPR that his/his client's intention was for the $5,000 to come out of the judge's pocket.  Moreover, he says for the judge to deprive the victims of the money already paid to the Sandy Hook Support Fund was disgraceful.

So when news broke last night (LINK) that the agent for the Sandy Hook Support Fund had returned the $5,000 at Judge Forchione's request, one would think that Conley would pack up the lawsuit as being moot and he and his client go away.

For any of us thinking that is not to know Craig T. Conley.

Conley is a guy who pretty much says what he means and means what he says.

His client's (under the counsel of Conley) primary reason for filing the suit in the first place was because of his all consuming passion to "the rule of law" in American jurisprudence.

And Conley is doing all of this pro bono (without charge - for the public good).

He has advanced $300 in filing fees to file the case which he may or may not recover as part of the resolution of the case.


And in filing the case, Conley has incurred the ire of at least a couple of Stark County attorneys (one of whom Conley says has a matter pending before Forchione and the other of which has received some four appointments to cases over the last year or so at the hand of Judge Forchione) and members of the general public.

To boot, Conley believes that Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez chimed in on the comments section of The Repository in support of Judge Forchione under the screenname "warmsunshine."

The Report has asked Gonzalez whether or not Conley's suspicion was well founded.

Gonzalez answered with an emphatic NO!

Conley says that his suspicion is grounded in his belief that information shared in the comment was information that it is likely is uniquely ready at hand to Gonzalez.  Moreover, he points out that as an official in the Canton Municipal clerk of courts office, he thinks Gonzalez would have developed a government interaction relationship with Forchione as a consequence being a prosecutor in the Canton law department.

Conley indicates to The Report that he has put his mouth where his suspicion is as a testament to his certainty of the identity of the anonymous commenter.  He compiled a packet of information on the Judge's order and sent it to Gonzalez without comment.

Finally, Conley tells the SCPR that as far as he can determine, warmsunshine has not commented on the Forchione fine situation or any other Repository story since he transmitted the packet to Gonzalez.

Could be a mere co-incidence, no?

But Conely does not think so.

The Report repeats, that notwithstanding Conley's suspicion, Gonzalez has denied to the SCPR that Conley's speculation is true.

The main point of the foregoing discursive is to share with SCPR readers that folks like Conley are brought under enormous pressure by friends of those he holds to public account to back off.

And for a guy like Ross Rhodes to suggest that Conley's work "... is a complete waste of time" is outrageous for a person who is obligated to cherish the rule of law.

Lawyers 101 in law school is very clear in instruction that the way lawyers determine what the rules of law are, when disagreed upon, is through litigation.

Rhodes undoubtedly knows such to be the case and for him to suggest that Marcelli through Conley accessing the courts is "a waste" is the equivalent of placing himself in a three-in-one role of being jury, judge and executioner.  Pretty arrogant, no?

Nonetheless, Conley having an underlying motivation for participating in the filing the lawsuit merits examination.  This the SCPR has done.  Here is a LINK to that blog.

Beyond Rhodes, there is the conduct of The Repository editorial board in its processing letters to the editors on the Forchione fine issue.

Conley alleges (and has provided substantiation to the satisfaction of The Report) that two attorney letter to editor writers have connections with Judge Forchione.

One, Conley says, has gotten case appointments from the judge.  The other has a case pending before Forchione.

For Gayle Beck (the chief) and her fellow editorial editors to allow those who have a connection to get "letters to the editors" published without the editors having vetted the writers on whether or not they may have a motivation to write the letters they write is astounding.  Had she checked them out and detected Conley's allegations, one would think that she would certainly had inserted an editorial board disclaimer.

For some "letter to the editor" writers, Repository instituted vetting hurdles they have to overcome seem beyond reasonable.  For others, it appears the bar is very low, if not non-existent.

In a one-newspaper-town and in a county which has one-countywide-newspaper; double standarding is unacceptable. 

To The Report, the leadership at The Repository have irresponsibly (from an editorial standpoint) handled their monopoly of Stark County sited media.

The SCPR does not begrudge those with ulterior motives getting their letters published, but the editor, if they are doing proper editorial board journalism, should ensure that letters include disclaimers detailing connections between the writer and the subjects so that readers can make an informed judgment as to how much credibility those writers should be accorded.

So shame on The Repository editorial board for not doing its due diligence!

As it turns out, the Stark County's general fund is ultimately going to get the $5,000 courtesy of Conley and his client Marcelli at no cost to the taxpayers.

A waste, Prosecutor Rhodes?

Judge Forchione's given reason for retrieving the $5,000 is so that the Marcelli/Conley litigation will fade away for mootness thereby saving Stark's taxpayers the expense of protracted litigation.

For Conley, this is not good enough.

He is insisting that the judge correct his order so as to be in compliance with ORC 2949.11 and thereby, at least impliedly, admit that he did not have the legal authority to do what he did in ordering Studer to monetarily assist the victims of Sandy Hook.

In a letter to Prosecutor John Ferrero, Conley lays you his requirements to resolve the declaratory judgment action:

Conley has filed an amended complaint so as to include developments whereby Forchione asked for and received (via the clerk of courts office) the Sandy Hook money back.

Conley says that it is his intent to, by legal redress, compel Judge Forchione to restructure the order so as to put Stark County Clerk of Courts Nancy Reinbold in a plausible legal position to deposit the $5,000 with the Stark County treasury on it way into the county general fund.

While he thinks such will not totally cure the problems with the order, he said that he and his client will not stand in the way of the matter coming to an end if the order is restructured.

At the end of this blog, the SCPR has placed a copy of those paragraphs of the amended complaint wherein Conley endeavors to give life beyond the mere fact that Judge Forchione recovered the money from the folks of Newtown, Connecticut.

For Prosecutor Ross Rhodes, he should issue a press release to effect that he misspoke when to termed the complaint as being "a waste of time," which by definition is not accurate witness the recall of the $5,000 by Judge Forchione owing to the Marcelli/Conley complaint being filed.

For The Repository Editorial Board, they should start applying the same vetting standard to all letters to the editor that appears in the pages of The Rep.

For Judge Forchione, he should reconstruct his order to be in full compliance with the provisions of ORC 2949.11 in such as fashion that Clerk Reinbold is on solid footing in terms of forwarding the $5,000 to the Stark treasury or deposit in the Stark County general fund.

Moreover, it would be helpful for Judge Forchione (who is held in high esteem by many Stark Countians) to admit point-blank that he overstepped his legal bounds.

But will his general disposition, his demeanor, his temperament allow him allow to do so?

Let's all hope that the Forlchione assessment of one highly placed Stark County elected official to the SCRP is on the mark (i.e. that Judge Forchione is a classy guy) and that Conley's is off-the-mark.

For therein lies a quick solution to what Craig Conley is now calling Forchionegate a la his 2009 - 2011 labeling  of Stark County treasury problems as being Zeiglergate.

Forchione's handling of this matter should go a long way towards answering the question of whether or not he gets re-elected when the next comes on the ballot.

Here is the core of the amended complaint: