(ENCORE VIDEO) BSSA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CORNWELL FORGOT TO MENTION BSSA'S "PREVIOUS" POSITION ON ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a)? HMMM?

UPDATED AT 11:15 AM
(SEE EMAIL FROM SCPR READER)

ENCORE VIDEO

CRAIG T. CONLEY

DESTROYS

BSSA'S

CREDIBILITY

AS AN

"EXPERT" WITNESS

ON 

ORC 311.01 

 

10:37AM

February 27, 2014

Martin,

Thank you for today's blog reviewing the Cornwell testimony at the Balas-Bratton protest hearing before the Stark County Board of Elections. 

Before today's blog, I was not sure what to think of Cornwell's testimony. 
On the one hand, he was obviously biased and
argumentative in favor of Maier in spite of his claims of neutrality in favor of "the law".

On the other hand, he seemed somewhat credible in that he believed in what he was saying.

It is enlightening to find out about his prior amicus briefs asking the Supreme Court for strict interpretations of ORC 301.01 and as well as the fact that the original statute was modified for tighter qualification guidelines is enlightening. 

It is indeed a flip/flop.

You also mention that you hope that Braden and Cline will note the Craig case when transmitting the BOE record to the Ohio Secy of State. 

This raises a question. BOE member Ferruccio handled all objections and was clearly the sole "referee" in the BOE hearing. 

Why didn't member Cline, an attorney, offer any input on any of the objections? In particular, I note Cornwell's unwillingness to answer "yes or no" questions with a clear yes or no. Would it have been out of procedural order for Cline to interrupt and order Cornwell to answer clearly "yes" or "no"??

Steve Marcoaldi   

ORIGINAL BLOG

It seems to be a "trademark" of anything touched by George T. Maier attorney Thomas L. Rosenberg (of Roetzel and Andress/Columbus).

Okay, I'll bite.

What "seems to be a 'trademark' of ... Rosenberg?"

Depending how it plays in his perceived interest of his client, he shows that he can take a letter or a statute and likely anything else relevant to a legal case and take contradictory positions.

A classic case of his doing so can be seen on this (LINK) to prior SCPR blog.  In the cited blog, Rosenberg was going to "out of the goodness of his civic minded heart" represent Stark County taxpayers to retrieve from interim Sheriff Tim Swanson the $20,000 that Stark County's commissioners agreed to pay to Rosenberg and his law firm for his having represented Maier in a quo warranto filed February 12, 2013 by Swanson.

The presumption was that Maier was going to win.

But, of course, in hindsight we now know that "something funny happened on the way out of the court."  Maier lost and was ousted as the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) appointed sheriff by the Ohio Supreme Court on November 6, 2013

Swanson winning did not stop Rosenberg from writing the commissioners and demanding that the commissioners not reimburse Swanson (some $33,800) for his legal expenses in getting Maier thrown out.

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't go about it the right way to demand that the commissioners pay his legal fees on the basis of his having won, but Swanson is about to have the last laugh on Rosenberg.

There is a scheme of Ohio statutory law in existence that makes a quo warranto loser "personally liable" to the winner.  And, Swanson has retained legal counsel and had him file a lawsuit against Maier (LINK).

Now what do you suppose Maier would rather happen?

Pay Swanson his $33,800 as on a "moral claim" basis or have Maier have to pay out of his personal funds nearly $90,000 in wages and benefits that Swanson missed out on because Maier usurped his office?

How is Rosenberg explaining that one to George T. Maier.

Rosenberg seems to have developed having "one's foot firmly implanted in one's mouth" into an art form.

On February 11, the SCPR wrote a blog describing Rosenberg's allegation in a November 13, 2013 letter to Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero that Lt. Louis Darrow, if he were to pursue a second appointment (Maier's first appointment having been invalidated) of the SCDP-CC on December 11, 2013, would - as a classified employee - be violating ORC 124.57.

Guess what?

George Maier by his own hand on December 5, 2013 wrote Harrison County Sheriff Ronald J. Myers (his "friend forever") telling him as a classified employee, he had to resign so he could seek the appointment also.

So?

Well, on November 26, 2013 Maier had filed an application with the Stark County Court of Common Pleas for the SCDP-CC appointment.

Hmm?

Presumably, Maier was acting under the advice of Rosenberg.

One standard for Darrow; another for Maier?

Isn't that terrific that a man who would be Stark County sheriff apparently has two standards in legal accountability?

Now we get to the point of this blog.

Rosenberg appears to be at it again.

This time it is through his expert witness Robert Cornwell.

Cornwell has been the chief executive officer of the Ohio Buckeye Sheriffs' Association (BSSA) since 1983.

In 1987, he, as a BSSA lobbyist, got state Representative Ron Gerberry (of the Youngstown area) to guide a bill through the Ohio General Assembly which came to be known as Ohio Revised Code Section 311.01.

In 1981, (served one term through 1984) Stark Countians had elected Republican insurance man Robert C. Berens as Stark County sheriff.  Needless to say, most Stark Countians thought that Berens was a disaster.  But there was a "silver lining" to his being elected.  It was obvious to one and all that there needed to be standards for one to stand for election as a county sheriff.  Hence, the birth of 311.01.

Well, now, it seems that the "mere technicalities" of ORC 311.01 are a huge barrier to Democrat George T. Maier ever becoming sheriff of Stark County in the sense of being elected to fill the term of Mike McDonald, who was unable to take office on January 7, 2013 (having been elected in November, 2012), because of illness which cost him his life on February 22, 2013.

At least such is what George calls them, "technicalities" that is.

Well for purposes of this blog, let's take a look at one of the "technicalities."

ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a) is the particular technicality we will delve into.in this blog, to wit:

 311.01 Election and qualifications of sheriff.

(A) A sheriff shall be elected quadrennially in each county. A sheriff shall hold office for a term of four years, beginning on the first Monday of January next after the sheriff's election.

(B) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person is eligible to be a candidate for sheriff, and no person shall be elected or appointed to the office of sheriff, unless that person meets all of the following requirements:

...

(9) The person meets at least one of the following conditions:

(a) Has at least two years of supervisory experience as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or above, or has been appointed pursuant to section 5503.01 of the Revised Code and served at the rank of sergeant or above, in the five-year period ending immediately prior to the qualification date; (emphasis added by the SCPR)

The enlarged language is one of several points of argument between Maier's attorney (Rosenberg) and the protester  (Cynthia Balas-Bratton, represented by Craig T. Conley) to Maier's candidacy as Stark County sheriff

More specifically the argument centers on whether or not one has to have been within the last five years (going back from February 4, 2014) a "corporal or above" for two years within said five years.

And who better than to bring in as an "expert" witness than Robert Cornwell of BSSA, no?

After having seen him:

• testify trying to make having the losing position in Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto appear to make him some kind of authority, and 
• after having seen where his BSSA, in a number of pre-Balas Bratton versus Maier cases, asserted the Balas-Bratton position; it appears that Rosenberg, once again, screwed up "big-time" in bringing Cornwell in to testify at the Balas-Bratton "protest" hearing of February 21st.
• SCPR Note:  See video and a SCPR summary of Cornwell's Rosenberg-led examination at this LINK.

How is it that the SCPR thinks Rosenberg "screwed up?"

First, look at Cornwell's examination by Balas-Bratton's attorney Craig T.
Conley:

.

The "key" points of the Conley cross-examination (of course, as interpreted by the SCPR) for purposes of this blog include:

• that Cornwell attempts to present himself as an "impartial witness" devoted to having anyone who applying ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a) to do so according "the way it should be,"
• the fact of the matter was that the Maier side of the Balas-Bratton protest was the side that asked that BSSA allow Cornwell to come and testify,
• BSSA and filed an amicus brief in Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto (which Maier lost) 
• In the lead up to BSSA's attorney preparing the brief, Cornwell had multiple conversations with Maier attorney Rosenberg and which conversations included:
• past cases in which BSSA had taken positions on the various provisions of 311.01,
• that BSSA historically has asked the Supreme Court "to interpret the statute as it reads,"
• incredibly denies that the Maier amicus was filed in support of Maier,
• however, he admits that the amicus argues that Maier meets all the qualifications required by 311.01,
• resists Conley's point that the amicus was a losing proposition with the Supreme Court but ultimately under Conley persistence admits that the Supreme Court ruled that Maier did not meet the qualification under 311.01 of being "full time,"
• resists Conley's point that he holds himself as being an expert on 311.01 and yet he was wrong in Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto,
• agrees with Conley that a former version of 311.01(B)(9)(a):
• allowed for two years of supervision or its equivalent,
• did not require that the supervisor be a corporal or above (with no qualifying language of "equivalency,
• spars (which the SCPR undermines his implicit claim of objectivity) with Conley over whether or not being assistant Ohio Director of Public Safety (as Maier was in the Strickland administration) qualifies as being the "equivalent" of being a "corporal or above,"

BSSA, under Cornwell, at least insofar as the organization's obvious commitment to George Maier as qualifying under 311.01 is "as plain as day" to anyone who hears Cornwell's testimony.

The SCPR believes that there may be some connection between BSSA and the Maiers through state Representative Ron Gerberry who at the time the original 311.01 was passed, (1987) worked closely with BSSA.  The Report has known Maier brother Johnnie A. Maier, Jr since the days he was state representative from a section of Stark County and who was one of his best legislative friends: Ron Gerberry!

Cornwell brought up the fact that Tim Swanson was president of BSSA (2008) and that he worked well with Swanson and thereby wished to imply that it is believable to think that BSSA is not biased toward the Maiers' interest.

But the SCPR is not buying.

The Report will be working to establish a tie between Cornwell, BSSA, the Maiers and Representative Gerberry as being "the key" as to why BSSA has come out so strong in its Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto amicus for Maier.

Many times, it is not so much that people lie about this or that item being asked about, but the "sin" comes in in "what they omit."

The SCPR believes that such may be the case with Cornwell.

It will interesting to see whether or not the SCPR can uncover a BSSA, Cornwell, the Maiers, and Gerberry connection.

In addition to potential BSSA documentable bias of a BSSA/Cornwell/Maier relationship, there is the matter that it appears to the SCPR that BSSA and its executive director Cornwell has taken legal positions, specifically, on ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a) [see above], contrary to what its position was in Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto, and is on the Balas-Bratton "protest" of George T. Maier's candidacy before the Stark County Board of Elections.

Unless the SCPR has missed something in Cornwell's testimony in Balas-Bratton v. Maier last Friday, Cornwell does not in that testimony reveal that BSSA has "flip-flopped" on the issue.

The leading case in which BSSA filed an amicus before the Ohio Supreme Court was:

Hmm?

Cornwell does not mention Craig?

So what?

Well, how about the fact that BSSA submitted an amicus in Craig that shows its position to be exactly the opposite from that BSSA expressed in Swanson v. Maier!

Hmm?

From the BSSA amicus brief in Craig:

Reed admitted that he had not completed two years of post secondary education or its equivalent and that he has never served in the state highway patrol Rather, he sought to qualify as a candidate for sheriff on the theoiy that his experience with a private security firm (Cincinnati Special Police LLC) (LLC) was equivalent to "two years of supervisory experience as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or above/' even though Reed and respondent admit that experience with this LLC does not constitute experience as a peace officer. This "liberal construction" was accepted by the Board "in favor of placing candidates on the ballot" (Response, Third Defense.)

Such statutory interpretation [SCPR Note:  i.e. "equivalency"] may have been permissible under prior versions of Ohio Revised Code §311.01(B)(9), as interpreted in State ex. rel Hawkins v. Pickaway Cty. Bd of Elections (1996), 75 Ohio St 275, but, in response to Hawkins the statute was amended to require supervisory experience as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or above. The statute in its present form was then considered by this Court in State ex rel Wolfe v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections (2000), 88 Ohio St 3d 182, wherein this Court found that there was no need to construe the meaning of the statute since it "expressly requires that the supervisory experience be *as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or above'." Id. at 185-86.  (emphasis added by SCPR)

As far as the SCPR is concerned, it was outrageous for Cornwell under the apparent guidance of Maier attorney Thomas Rosenberg to have failed to bring the Craig decision (a case "on all fours" [an expression attorneys are familiar with] to the attention of the Stark County Board of Elections members hearing and deciding the Balas-Bratton "protest of the Maier Stark County sheriff candidacy.

Members Cline and Braden in transmitting the record to the Ohio secretary of state should cite the Craig case omission (and, of course the "contradictatory" BSSA Craig amicus brief from the BSSA (Cornwell) presentation last Friday.

And there are other cases in which BSSA had a contrary to Swanson v. Maier opinion (amicus briefs) that never found their way into the record of Balas Bratton v. Maier.

Those should be dug out and presented to the secretary of state, also.

Shame on BSSA and its chief executive officer Robert Cornwell for the glaring omissions.

And shame on Thomas L. Rosenberg for not bringing the foregoing referenced cases and briefs to the attention of the Stark County Board of Elections.

"Flip-flop" is too nice of an expression for what was done.

Stark Countians, even those who favor George Maier, should be outraged that a man who would be Stark's chief law enforcer would countenance such an outrage.

And maybe he doesn't?

The telling question has to be:  Will he distance himself from the BSSA (Cornwell) presentation?

If he doesn't and does not do so immediately, then, as far as the SCPR is concerned, George T. Maier owns it!

GEORGE T. MAIER: RALLYING THE TROOPS?

The Stark County Report is hearing that on Monday of this week, when Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) sheriff appointee GEORGE T. MAIER returned to 4500 Atlantic Boulevard (after having spent Friday battling a "protest" to his candidacy for Stark County sheriff), he was seen and heard to be "rallying the troops" to his cause.

It must have been an surreal scene.

For it is hard to imagine being through all that Maier has been through since launching his drive (January, 2013) to become Stark County's next "permanent" (more or less) sheriff, that it would be him who is picking up the spirits of his supporters rather than the other way around.

Let's walk through the chronology of Maier's quest to become sheriff.

EARLY JANUARY, 2013

As we all sadly recall, long time Stark County deputy sheriff Mike McDonald (chief deputy sheriff of the Jail Division of the Stark County at the time) became ill during his campaign to replace the retiring Tim Swanson effective January 7, 2013.

Though elected in November, 2012, he was unable to take office on the 7th due to the illness which resulted in his death on February 22, 2013.

It fell to the SCDP-CC to appoint a McDonald successor under the statutory law of Ohio.

The aspirants to the appointment were long time Stark County deputy sheriff Lt. Louis Darrow (a Democrat), fellow Democrat Maier (who spent most of his policing career in the Ohio State Highway Patrol) and Republican Larry Dordea who made his mark as a first rate policeman as nine year chief of the Alliance Police Department.

From the beginning, some questioned whether or not Maier was qualified to be Stark County sheriff because, of late in his career path, he was not "a cop on the beat," but rather a top level administrator with the Ohio Department of Public Safety (Columbus) and the city Massillon safety and service department.

Consequently, he was pounced on by local media with questions about his eligibility under the standards of Ohio Revised Code Section (ORC) 311.01 to become sheriff.

Blessed with a certitude that few people have, Maier made a very strong statement indeed on the issue of his eligibility.

However, the SCPR believes in his "heart of hearts" he knew well before February 5, 2013 (the date Democrats selected to me to choose McDonald's successor) that getting qualified to be sheriff was going to be a much more difficult undertaking than his bravado statement indicated.

In early January, his emissary and probably Stark County's most enthusiastic George T. Maier for Stark County sheriff (outside of his brother and executive vice chairman of the Stark Dems, Johnnie A. Maier, Jr - JAM) Stark Democratic Party chaiman Randy Gonzalez convened a meeting with Stark County commissioner Thomas Bernabei and Sheriff Swanson to devise ways and means to shore up George's "questionable from the beginning" credentials under ORC 311.01 to be sheriff.

Gonzalez naively believed that Swanson would help out.

But the retiring sheriff had plans of his own.

And they were not focused on Maier.

BACKGROUND TO SWANSON RESISTANCE TO MAIER

Swanson, when he started considering retirement (a second time) a few years ago, he first designated his other (other than McDonald) chief deputy sheriff (operations) Rick Perez to become his designated successor.

But then came along the Marlboro chief of police Ron Devies case in which Perez committed a big "no, no" in Stark County policing circles in investigating the case in which Devies and his son got indicted (including felony counts) for what the SCPR thinks was "merely" a "communications problem" over computer equipment and software issues between the Devies son and at least one, perhaps two, of the Marlboro Township trustee at the time (January, 2009).

A big "no, no?"

Yes, Rick testified in the case that he wore a tape recorder (unknown to Chief Devies) in questioning the chief about the allegations being made in Marlboro Township.

The SCPR believes that Devies investigation incident was the beginning of the end for Rick Perez's apparent anointment by Swanson as his successor.  Devies and his son, by the way, had charges dismissed at the end of the prosecution's case by then Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge V. Lee Sinclair, Jr (since retired).

So whom to take Perez's place?

The highly respected Mike McDonald, that's who.

It was a real blow to the Stark Dems that McDonald fell ill.

The SCPR believes that the Stark County Democratic Party "powers that be" worried with McDonald's resignation about their ability to retain the Party's hold on the sheriff's office most recently for the past 20 years with McDonald having to step aside.

Swanson's choice was Darrow.

While he knew Maier, the SCPR's take (though Swanson's says that he could get behind Maier if he (Swanson) could be assured that Maier had "no" qualifications problem.

The Report believes Swanson but also thinks that he was not all that enthusiastic about the Maiers (not so much George but rather "political power broker" brother Johnnie, Jr, who was Stark County Democratic Party chairman from 2003 through 2009) and was eager to find someone in-house (i.e. someone he had worked with in the sheriff's department) to be the Democratic replacement for McDonald.

So Swanson settles on Darrow as being the only top administrator within the department who indicated he was interested in becoming McDonald's successor.

The Report believes two things happened which created a rift between the Maiers (remember, chiefly Johnnie, Jr.) and Johnnie's stand-in as chairman (Gonzalez) and Swanson.

First, The Report believes that when scuttlebutt developed within the inner circles of the Stark County Democratic Party during the McDonald campaign that McDonald was likely not going to be able to take office, Johnnie, Jr. planted the notion with George that he was an ideal candidate for replacement sheriff and that it became clear to Swanson he was not going to have any input as to whom McDonald's successor was going to be.

• SCPR note:  The Report believes that as part of his overall desire to see his political friends, supporters and family members achieve various stations in Stark County government units.
• For example:
• his wife is the elected Tuscarawas Township fiscal officer, 
• brother Chuck is chief security officer for the Massillon City Schools, and
• nephew Michael is a Massillon police officer.
• SCPR note:  Many of Johnnie A. Maier, Jr political friends and supporters hold Stark County public positions:
• For example: (just to provide a flavor Johnnie's connections)
• Randy Gonzalez is Stark County Dems chairman as Maier's successor (2009) and the "elected" Jackson Township fiscal officer and a former trustee,
• Gonzalez nephew Larry St. Jean holds a position in the Kathy Catazaro-Perry administration (see next paragraph)
• Massillon mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry was groomed by Maier to challenge long time political competitor Francis H. Cicchinelli, Jr for the mayoralty of Massillon.  She defeated the 28 years as mayor Cicchinelli in the May, 2011 Democratic Party primary election,
• Massillon Municipal Court judge Eddie Elum (his wife Margaret is the Catazaro-Perry's top administrative assistant).
• David Maley (the spouse of Johnnie's secretary Tammy Maley) works in the Massillon Building Department,
• R. Shane Jackson as Maier's chief deputy clerk of courts (see JAM/Jackson family connection below)
• SCPR Note:  Do not for a nanosecond thinks that Johnnie A. Maier, Jr's friends and family are limited to the Massillon area,
• For Example:
• Stark County Recorder Rick Campbell who is married to the daughter (the chief administrator of Plain Township [where Louis Giavasis is a long-term trustee]) of former Stark County commissioner and Perry Township trustee Gayle Jackson (who was the very first Stark Countian to embrace JAM as a candidate for public office when he defeated the legally troubled Red Ash for state representative in the early 1990s),
• Canton clerk of courts Phil Giavasis with whom Randy Gonzalez served as chief deputy until very recently and whom was replaced by Giavasis with Randy's son Kody who had been chief deputy for Rick Campbell

Second, The Report believes that the Maiers tried to "muscle" Swanson into appointing George as a Stark County deputy sheriff so that George could use the appointment (as he was later to do as a consequence of having his friend Sheriff Ronald J. Myers appoint him as a Harrison County deputy) as being "the appearance" of being a full-time peace officer as required by ORC 311.01.

Well, nobody, but nobody muscles Tim Swanson.

They did not know it then, but Swanson was to become "the person" who stands in the way of George T. Maier ever becoming the replacement for Mike McDonald in the sense of serving out McDonald's term through early 2017.

When the Stark Dems met on February 5, 2013 to select McDonald's successor, one could see the disgust on Gonzalez's face as he intoned "your Stark County prosecutor" (John Ferrero) has filed an affidavit to the effect that George T. Maier is not qualified by virtue of ORC 311.01 to be Stark County sheriff.

The Report's take is that Gonzalez humiliated Ferrero (a former Stark County Dems chairman, himself) and thereby created an enduring enemy for George Maier to have to deal with.

But there is another, the SCPR thinks "political" factor that likely flavors Ferrero's willingness to step forward to challenge George.  That is the political competition between Ferrero and Johnnie A. Maier, Jr within the bowels of Massillon Democratic politics.

In Massillon there are the Maier Democrats, the Cicchinelli Democrats and the Ferrero Democrats.  However, Ferrero does have a loose association with the Cicchinelli folks.

So not only is Tim Swanson to prove to be the main reason (in the opinion of the SCPR) that George Maier does not end up as McDonald's successor; you have John Ferrero working at a fever pitch to double down on keeping George from "permanently" (more or less) filling out McDonald's term.

FEBRUARY 4, 2013 

The day before the SCDP-CC meets to select a McDonald successor, Louis Darrow (a Swanson protege) files a Writ of Prohibition with the Ohio Supreme Court to stop the Dems from meeting.

Reason?

Darrow wants the Supremes to look at Maier's qualifications.

But it was a pipe dream to think that the high court would act within 24 hours and the matter goes "moot" when the Stark Dems act on the 5th in selecting Maier.

Case dismissed on February 13, 2013.

FEBRUARY 5, 2013

Everybody in political circles that the SCPR knows was stunned when George T. Maier narrowly defeated the virtually unknown (within SCDP-CC politics) Louis Darrow 92 votes to 84 votes on February 5th.

Most of us assumed that Johnnie and Randy had done their nose counting and lobbying with SCDP-CC members and that Darrow would prove to be "token" opposition.

Well, the 92 to 84 vote count, meant that "the fight was on" and such a close vote within the Democratic fiefdom itself would encourage the likes of Tim Swanson to mount a legal challenge.

FEBRUARY 12, 2013

Ferrero's filing the affidavit was one thing, but the Maier political force never in their wildest dreams thought Swanson would have the "chutzpah" to actually file a legal action against Maier.

The SCPR predicted from "the get-go" that the Supreme Court would find for interim Sheriff Tim Swanson and oust Maier from office, which it did on November 6, 2013.

If JAM et al thought they were going to go "untested" in bullying through the process to make George sheriff, then this case should have been the clarion call that such was not going to be the case.

NOVEMBER 18, 2013

In its November 6, 2013 ouster of George Maier as the SCDP-CC appointed sheriff of Stark County, the Ohio Supreme Court provided for a re-do of the February 5, 2013 original appointment

But the court was unclear what the "new" qualification date would be.

Was it to be the original February 6, 2013 date or by virtue of the November 6th decision was it thereby changed to November 6th?

Well, Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione (who had contributed $40 on September 25, 2013 to George T. Maier in a campaign fund raiser; one has to wonder why he didn't recuse himself in favor of another Stark County judge to make the determination) decided to "err on the side of Democracy" and picked the November date rather than the February date which then allowed Maier to re-apply.

Darrow and Swanson believed the date should be construed to be the February date.

Accordingly, they filed a Mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court asking the court to limit the SCDP-CC's selection to Darrow and Dordea (the only two other candidates in the February 5th proceeding).

Nobody expected the court to act before the date (December 11th) picked by Chairman Gonzalez to re-appoint.

But they did.

The justices refused to rule one way or the other in dismissing the Darrow/Swanson instituted mandamus on December 10th; one day before the new selection date.

The Maier forces were in a celebratory mode over the dismissal.

NOVEMBER 27, 2013

This date may prove to be George T. Maier biggest nightmare in that it is  the of the filing of a taxpayer suit against Maier to recover county monies received by and expended by Maier while he was "usurper' sheriff.

 So?

"Biggest nightmare?"

Really?

Indeed!

For legal counsel on this case is none other that Stark County's most effective and dogged civic activist Craig T. Conley.

Conley became incensed when he realized (on reading Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto)  that Maier had gone to Harrison County and got his "friend forever"  (see Balas-Bratton "protest" material below) Sheriff Ronald J. Myers to take him on as a deputy sheriff (he served two weekends) for what Conley thought and still thinks was a "sham" hire which Conley feels indicates a Maier "lack of character."

On top of Conley's disgust on Maier's "opportunism," Maier's legal counsel Thomas L. Rosenberg launched in his pleading response to the November 27 taxpayer lawsuit what Conley views to be "a personal attack" on Conley himself.

Big mistake Thomas!

And, as radio commentator of yesteryear Paul Harvey used say "and now for 'the rest of the story."'  (see additional material on Conley's involvement below)

DECEMBER 11, 2013

The SCDP-CC meets once again and re-appoints George T. Maier as Stark County sheriff.

The vote this time was 101 - 65.

Still considerable opposition which the SCPR thinks had to be distressing to the Maier folks.

This vote likely means that even if Maier gets through the legal challenges "on the table" and "yet to come" the JAM/Gonzalez-led Dems have a major job on their hand to get Democrats behind a George T. Maier candidacy let alone convince political independents and Republicans.

FEBRUARY 11, 2014

Massillon Democratic precinct 2A - on the 11th - produced a protester to the candidacy of George T. Maier (with the Stark County Board of Elections [BOE, Board] to be on the ballot as a Democratic candidate in the May 6, 2014 Democratic primary election; namely, Cynthia Balas-Bratton.

At both the February 5th and December 11th SCDP-CC meetings, Balas-Bratton had raised her voice against Maier.

Interestingly enough, word must have leaked out that Balas-Bratton was going to be a thorn is the side of the Maiers, in that a JAM ally Dave Irwin who works for Stark County recorder Rick Campbell) filed petitions to oppose Balas-Bratton for reelection on May 6th.

FEBRUARY 17, 2014

The BOE meets to set a hearing date for the protest, to consider requests to issue subpoenas and to do other housekeeping matters.

February 21, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. at the Canton Regional Chamber of Commerce's Millennium Center (200 Market Ave, North) is the date, time and location of the hearing set by the Board.

FEBRUARY 18, 2014

Interim Sheriff Tim Swanson files a "personal liability" lawsuit in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas against George T. Maier to recover some $88,000 in compensation that was denied Swanson because Maier usurped to his office for the period February 11, 2013 through November 6, 2013.

Swanson says that any money he obtains from the action will, after recouping his legal expenses in litigating with Maier (including his successful quo warranto), will be donated to Wishes Can Happen.

February 20, 2014

After having asked the Ohio secretary of state (earlier in the week and the request not being acted upon):

• to prohibit Stark County Democratic Party member Deametrious St. John of the Stark County Board of Elections from participating in the BOE vote on whether or not Maier was to excluded from the May ballot because - she alleges - he had indicated in pre-hearing press statements that St. John had already made up his mind on the matter without hearing,

Balas-Bratton filed an action (two each, prohibition/mandamus) asking the Fifth District Court of Appeals (as its core objective) to remove him.

The complaint was filed too close to the February 21st hearing date to enable to court to rule.

However, Balas-Bratton's attorney (Conley) says he will resist the case's dismissal as being moot on that part of the case having to do with St. John himself on the possibility that the Ohio secretary of state will break a 2 to 2 tie between the Republican and Democratic members of the BOE (see below) on the 21st in favor of the Democrats.

In such an eventuality, Conley says he will then ask the Court of Appeals on whether or not St. John should have recused himself.

If so and the court invalidates the vote of the 21st, presumably a re-vote will be 2 to 1 in favor of keeping Maier off the ballot thereby negating the secretary of state from breaking the tie.

FEBRUARY 21, 2014

The Stark BOE votes 2 (Republicans for) to 2 (Democrats against) on the Balas-Bratton protest to keep George T. Maier off the May 6th ballot.

The Board has 14 days (until March 7th) to file February 21st hearing documents (e.g. transcript and exhibits) with the Ohio secretary of state for consideration in rendering his tie breaking vote.

OTHER LEGAL ACTIONS?

Most certainly!!!

No matter who wins with the secretary of state, there will be an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.

However, the review standard with the Ohio Supreme Court is so high that it is likely that secretary's decision whatever it is will stick.

Moreover, if the secretary rules for removing Maier from the May ballot, then the SCPR has reason to believe that a "second" Tim Swanson quo warranto will be filed.

CONCLUSION

No matter what one thinks of George Maier's cause, his endurance has been and continues to be impressive.

He does not give the impression that "he is the worse for wear" for what he has gone through.

Should he stay on the ballot and ultimately win election to fill out McDonald's term, it is highly unlikely the victory will be without cost.

Maier may appear to be unflappable after going through all that he has and may yet have to endure, but certainly nobody believes that he hasn't thought from time-to-time:  "what did I get myself into?"

Moreover, the prospects of Swanson prevailing of holding Maier "personally" liable for the nearly $90,000 in monies that Swanson lost as a consequence of Maier usurping his office are said by number of observers to be very likely.

And there is the matter of legal fees that he is engendering in defending the multiplicity of legal actions past, present, and future.

The Stark County commissioners have paid $20,000 towards his fees.

But The Report believes it is highly unlikely that they will volunteer to ante up fees (as they did in the first quo warranto) should a second one follow.

But the big downer has to be that:

• last Friday's 2 to 2 vote and a Republican secretary of state breaking the tie, and 
• his having plenty of legal justification for supporting (and have the Ohio Supreme Court on appeal uphold) a vote to keep Maier off the ballot,

the ultimate prospects succeeding McDonald seem to be rife with "doom and gloom,"

For George T. Maier to be cheering up anybody simply unbelievable!

IS GEORGE T. MAIER ATTORNEY - THOMAS ROSENBERG - DIGGING A "DEEPER HOLE" FOR SCDP-CC APPOINTED SHERIFF?

UPDATE:  09:08 AM

This morning already Craig Conley is busy following up with Prosecutor John Ferrero in a "tit-for-tat" on Maier and his attorney Thomas Rosenberg on pursuing the prosecution of Maier on the same standard that Rosenberg advocated on November 13, 2013 that Lt. Louis Darrow be prosecutor for what Rosenberg alleged to be a violation of ORC 124.57.

Here is today's Conley to Ferrero letter (without the letterhead)

With reference to my February 10, 2014 letter to you, I urge you to immediately refer that matter to the Ohio Attorney General for prosecution. (Reference O.R.C. 124.64; and, see also O.R.C. 124.62.)

In that regard, I note that Mr. Maier's counsel, Attorney Rosenberg, as to Lt. Darrow's purported violation of O.R.C. 124.57, made that same request of you via his November 13, 2013 letter.

Specifically, in that letter, Attorney Rosenberg wrote "I encourage you to . . . seek the involvement of the Attorney General of Ohio, as chief law enforcement officer of the State, to act as special prosecutor in all matters going forward”.

Although I do not purport to speak for Attorney Rosenberg, as an officer of the Court himself, I reasonably presume he was not advocating enforcement of the rule of law only against classified civil servant Lt. Darrow as a contender for the same DCC appointment sought by Mr. Maier, who was himself at the relevant time a classified civil servant.

In that regard, I note that in his "vote for me" letter to the DCC Mr. Maier wrote ^". . . as a career law enforcement officer, I have taken a solemn oath to respect the rule of law . . .".

In short, both Mr. Maier and Attorney Rosenberg should be taken at their word; i.e., Mr. Maier should be held to the rule of law.

cc: Ohio Attorney General

ORIGINAL BLOG

When the SCPR speaks with local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley about his activities, existing and projected:

• to have George T. Maier required to reimburse Stark County (Marcelli v. Maier, Stark County Court of Common Pleas,11/27/2013) for some $130,000 for a diverse combination of wages, benefits received by him and expenditures made by him while serving illegally (Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto, November 6, 2013) as sheriff (February 11, 2013 through November 6, 2013),
• to have Maier required to pay some $90,000 to interim Sheriff Timothy Swanson in denied wages and benefits on a personal liability theory of law (to be filed any day now),
• to have Maier disqualified as sheriff by the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) (protest to be filed with BOE within the the next few days),
• and NOW
• to have Maier investigation to determine whether or not he is in violation of Ohio Revised Code Section (ORC) 124.57 (Prohibition against partisan political activity)
• Note:  Conley tells the SCPR that a finding that Maier to be in violation of ORC 124.57 might result in his being:
• declared not to be sheriff (even as the December 11th appointee of the SCDP-CC,
• not certifiable (in addition to other grounds that Conley will assert in the "protest" to the BOE) by the Board for the May 6th primary ballot

Conley is often heard to say:  "Just when you think things cannot get any better, guess what?, they do!"

And just as often, he will add and "the person who makes them better" is none other than Thomas L. Rosenberg of the prestigious law firm of Roetzel and Andress (Columbus office).

Stark County's chief administrator Brant Luther, about a year ago, when the commissioners on February 19, 2013 agreed to pay $20,000 to Rosenberg, said the commissioners were doing so in the belief that they were hiring him because of his "expertise" in representing clients in quo warranto cases.

(Note:  It turns out, according to Conley, that Rosenberg's "expertise" is in "construction law.")

He may not be the expert in quo warrantos that the commissioners thought they were getting, but the SCPR thinks that he is showing that he is quite able at "digging deeper [legal] holes" for his client.

And in doing so, Rosenberg is amply demonstrating that what applies to others does not - in his mind - apply to client George T. Maier.

Back on January 27, 2014, The Report wrote a blog which graphically set forth letters written by Rosenberg which directly contradicted each other, to wit:

• May 6, 2013:  Rosenberg wrote that Swanson should be made to reimburse Stark County taxpayers for the need of the commissioners to hire Rosenberg to defend George T. Maier in the Swanson February 12, 2013 filed quo warranto and that he, Rosenberg, would as "a matter of duty" to the Stark County taxpayer represent Stark Countians "gratis" to recover same from Swanson,
• January 5, 2014: of course, after Rosenberg/Maier lost the quo warranto, Rosenberg wrote another letter to the Stark commissioners demanding that they NOT PAY Swanson's legal expenses (then some $33,800) in his successful effort.

Is there a purer expression of hypocrisy or situational ethics than the foregoing example?

Well, there could be.

It seems to the SCPR that if Rosenberg is particularly accomplished at anything, it is at applying one standard to others while ignoring it when it comes to his client.

Here is the string of events:

• On November 13,  2013 Rosenberg wrote a letter to Stark County Prosecutor John D. Ferrero, to wit:

• On December 5, 2013, George T. Maier writes Harrison County Sheriff Ronald J. Myers (a law enforcement pal going back to Maier's days in the Ohio State Patrol), to wit:

So?

Well, curiously enough, Stark County Court of Common Pleas records (i.e. the the clerk of courts office), show that Maier filed an application, when?

November 26th!

Really?

That's the way it appears.

So, let me get this straight.

George T. Maier:

• has his attorney try to get Louis Darrow removed from candidacy for the Stark County sheriff by Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) appointment at its December 11, 2013 meeting,
• resigns as "a classified civil service" Harrison County deputy sheriff on December 5th, saying that he would then apply for the SCDP-CC appointment on December 6th and the Stark County Common Pleas Court records show he had already applied on November 26th while he was still "a classified civil service" Harrison County Deputy sheriff.

Is that it?

So it appears.

Take a look at an extract of the November 26, 2013 application (some 9 days before resigning as deputy sheriff)  or yourself:

All of which brings us to the main point of this blog.

Maier/Rosenberg nemesis Craig T. Conley fired off a letter to Stark County Prosecutor John D. Ferrero yesterday demanding that Maier be investigated for a violation of guess what?

You've got it!

Ohio Revised Code Section 124.57.

Here is Conley's letter.

Craig T. Conley Co., LP A.

ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW

CRAIG T. CONLEY, ESQ. 220 MARKET AVENUE SOUTH

SUITE 604
CANTON, OHIO 44702 - 2180

. . .
February 10, 2013 (corrected by Conley to read:  February 10, "2014")

VIA HAND-DELIVERY

Hon. John D. Ferrero,

Stark County Prosecuting Attorney

STARK COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

P.O. Box 20049

Canton, Ohio 44701-0049

Re:  George T. Maier
 

Dear Prosecutor Ferrero:

At the outset, a review of Kr. Maier's Harrison County Employee Earnings Record reveals that he was employed by Sheriff Myers (the second time) on November 8, 2013 through and including December 6, 2013. (A true copy of that Record, obtained via a public records request made by me of the Harrison County Auditor, is enclosed.)

As you are aware, following ~ha~ "re-hiring", on November 13, 2013, Mr. Maier's counsel, Attorney Thomas L. Rosenberg, sent you a letter regarding O.R.C. 124.57 and Lt. Darrcw's purported violation thereof- (For your convenience and ready reference a true copy of that letter, obtained via an O.R.C. 149.43 public records request made by me of your office, is enclosed.)

Indeed, in that letter, Attorney Rosenberg affirmatively opined that O.R.C. 124.57 "precludes civil servants from engaging in-partisan politics".

The irony, of course, is that when that letter was written on Mr. Maier's behalf, Mr. Maier was himself subject to that same Code Section preclusion, noting that Mr. Maier's "good friend forever", Harrison County Sheriff Ronald J. Myers, had already (for the second time) hired Mr. Maier (at Harrison County taxpayer expense) as a Harrison County Deputy Sheriff for the sole purpose of advancing Mr. Maier^'s political ambition to become Stark County Sheriff.

In fact, when he subsequently wrote his December 5, 2013 resignation letter to Sheriff Myers, Mr. Maier, in addition to admitting that he had theretofore "again asked the Stark County Democratic Party to consider [his] application for appointment as sheriff", he represented that he himself is "a classified employee . . . unable to seek an appointment or election of [sic] a political office". {A true copy of that letter, obtained via an O.R.C. 149.43 public records request made by me of the Harrison County Auditor, is enclosed.)

It therefore is respectfully suggested that Attorney Rosenberg's aforesaid letter evinces Mr. Maier's indirect political activity during the time that he was an O.R.C. 124.57 "employee in the classified service of . . . the several counties [of Ohio]". (See also OAC 123:1-46-02(C)(6) and/or (7).)

As to Mr. Maier's direct political activity during the relevant time period, I first call your attention, in addition to Mr. Maier's aforesaid December 5, 2013 resignation letter, to his prior letter to the Democratic Central Committee Members wherein he solicited their votes for his second appointment to the public office of Stark County Sheriff. (A true copy of that letter is enclosed herewith, noting chat, although same is undated, it obviously was sent before Mr. Maier's second DCC appointment on December 11, 2013.)

In that regard, it is noteworthy that Mr. Maier's aforesaid "vote for me" letter to the DCC bears a notation at the bottom of the second page thereof that reads ^All materials printed in house and paid for by Keep George Maier Sheriff Committee".

Additionally, on November 26, 2013, and also before Mr- Maier's second DCC appointment on December 11, 2013, it is noteworthy that he had made a formal Application for Candidacy which he caused to be filed with the Stark County Clerk of Courts. (A true file-stamped copy of that Application is enclosed herewith.)

In that sworn Application, Mr. Maier affirmatively staged "I am a candidate for the office of Sheriff of Stark County, Ohio" and indicated that he is currently employed by the Harrison County Sheriff's Office.

In sum, it is respectfully requested that your office and/or the Ohio Attorney General immediately commence an investigation of what appears to be Mr. Maier's flagrant and repeated violations of O.R.C. 124.57 and that appropriate action thereafter be taken against Mr. Maier.

Sincerely,

Craig T. Conley

CTC/mps

Enclosures

cc:  Ohio Attorney General (encls.)

Hmm? 

Maybe just maybe George T. Maier with his attorney's help is "digging a deeper [legal] hole" for himself in ensuring that he will never become the "elected" sheriff of Stark County?

Also, a prime example of being an exercise in "getting hoisted by one's own petard!" no?