PART 6 IN A SERIES: "THREE STRIKES AND YOU ARE OUT?" JUDGE PARK FOR THIRD TIME ADMONISHED BY HIGHER COURT!

UPDATED:  7:00 PM

CORRECTION:  (08:54 AM)

In today's original blog the SCPR erroneously reported that Jennifer Arnold in her capacity as law director had requested the search warrant which is the subject this blog.

The warrant was issued in 2012 and Arnold did not become law director until early in 2014.

On that erroneous basis, The Report commented that it appeared to have been a case of "judge shopping."

With the premises being in error, of course, the comment thereon was unfounded with regard to the current law director for which the SCPR apologies to Ms. Arnold for.

REVISED BLOG

Unbelievable!  Simply unbelievable!!  And a third time, utterly unbelievable!!!

Over a six month span (August 18, 2014 through February 18, 2015), Stark County Probate Court judge Dixie Park (Republican of Alliance) has been found by an appellate court to not have known the law.

In the first two cases, Ohio's Fifth District Court of Appeals (which includes Stark County) held that Judge Park did not understand and apply correctly the Constitutional law of Ohio and of the United States of America on due process of law.

Yesterday, the Ohio Supreme Court found that she exceeded her authority in issuing a search warrant sought on behalf of the Alliance Police Department back in 2012.

Back on January 14, 2015, this is what the SCPR wrote about Judge Park after her second reversal on "due process of law" grounds (In re ... Flohr):

A little rain falls on all our lives, no?

Nonetheless the SCPR thought that Park's error on Finan was so grievous and threatening to the legal well-being of day-in, day-out Stark Countians  who might have the misfortune of appearing before her and incurring arbitrary "getting on her wrong side" that The Report launched a series designed to persuade Judge Park to resign.

Well, with yesterday's Ohio Supreme Court decision, the little bit of rain has now turned into  a drencher if not a torrent.

The Report will not repeat the volumes that have already been written in this current series (who knows how long this is going to go on?), but here are links for those SCPR readers are not familiar with the details of what has gone on before:

• January 14, 2015,
• September 22, 2014, 
• September 23, 2014,
• September 25, 2014, and 
• September 29, 2014

The person who signaled that "all was not right" with the search warrant thing was Alliance Municipal Court magistrate Jean Madden. She ordered the suppression of evidence in the Brown et al case and was upheld by Judge Robert Lavery (now retired).

The SCPR report wrote back in 2012 that Madden (a Republican) should have been the Republican appointee as Charles Brown's replacement when he retired.

As for Judge Park, The Stark County Political Report once again calls for her to resign.

Just take a look at what the Ohio Supreme Court had to say in yesterday's issued opinion.

The most disturbing thing about this latest Park episode is that her taking on a role not permitted as a matter of Ohio law (unless under appointment by the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court) could have jeopardized prosecutors' legal ability to continue with a prosecution of alleged violations of Ohio gambling laws.

Alliance justice officials need to explain to Alliance public who it was that initiated the contact with Judge Park in light of the clarity of the law of Ohio that a probate judge has no power to issue search warrants.

The primary question is whether or not the contact was a case of "judge shopping?"

If it can be determined that such was the case, then measures need to be instituted in the Alliance law department to ensure that such never occurs again.

The current law director (who has been in the Alliance Law Department since 2001 as an assistant prosecutor) that she will not as law director be asking any judge for a search warrant.

Doesn't that sound a little over the top?

• Note: The Reporter who wrote the story linked to above, in a "clarification" e-mail to the SCPR says that Arnold meant "other probate judges;" not judges who are statutorily authorized to grant search warrants.

"Bottom line," Judge Park should not have been receptive to anybody's entreaty to issue the warrant.

Three Park by higher courts admonishments (including two reversals on Constitutional law grounds) within six (6) months!

Unreal.

And one can only shutter to think what litigants and their attorneys have had to endure at the hand of Judge Park on matters which have not made it up the ladder for review by Ohio officials to whom Park has accountability.

Unfortunately and disgustedly, Stark County's organized Democratic and Republican political parties both gave Park a pass in the 2012 elections.

The moral of the story on Dixilene Park as a Stark County judge, it seems to the SCPR, is that individual litigants and the county/municipal justice system itself cannot rely on her knowing and/or correctly applying the law of Ohio and of the United States of America.

The conclusion is inescapable, is it not?

Judge Park should resign and should resign today!

PART 4 OF A TWO PART (LOL: i.e. 4 of 2) SERIES: A CASE AND OTHER ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT THAT MAKES THE CASE FOR STARK COUNTY PROBATE COURT JUDGE DIXIE PARK TO RESIGN? OR, BE REMOVED INVOLUNTARILY "BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW!?

CONLEY TO INITIATE A PROCESS 

TO REMOVE

 JUDGE DIXIE PARK FROM OFFICE

PARK'S CURRENT SITUATION

In view of the trauma that Stark County Probate Court judge Dixie Park visited upon Stark County ordinary citizen Barbara Lockhart of Alliance on September 25, 2013, to wit:

• Lockhart "unconstitutionally" (the Fifth District Court of Appeals held on 09/18/2014 vis-a-vis Stark County Probate Court judge Dixie Park) guilty of criminal contempt of court, and thereby:
• abusing her discretion as a judge, in that
• Park denied Lockhart "due process of law," with a consequence of
• ordinary citizen Lockhart experiencing a horrifying 11 days in the Stark County jail,
• The Report thinks Park should resign her position.
 

While the SCPR understands that judges are human beings who make mistakes like we all do; this one is more than a "common variety mistake" and therefore it should have some consequences that serves as a lesson to all persons of judicial or political power who abuse that power.

Not being a judge any more, seems to the SCPR to be a fitting consequence for Judge Park which, if such becomes a reality, will be a lesson not lost on those who hold power in our cherished American democratic/republican system grounded in "the rule of law."

Judge Park could make it easy on herself and everybody else in the Ohio and Stark County body politic and resign.

That, the SCPR thinks, would be the proper thing to do.

But "power people" are not prone to do "the community interest" or what many of us think is "the morally right" thing.  For them, "might is right" is a standard which likely permeates their lives in the public sector.

HOW DOES AMERICA'S POLITICAL SYSTEM DEAL WITH THE JUDGE PARKS OF THE WORLD?

And, it seems that if one is a judge, those in superior positions of authority in our system of justice who could deal with such a matter as the Park/Lockhart situation; do not - often enough - do so.  Especially if judicial conduct is the issue.

There has been chatter as to whether or not somebody who has the obligation under the Ohio Supreme Court Rules of Attorney/Judicial Conduct has or will possibly make a referral of the Park handling of Lockhart to Ohio's disciplinary counsel.

But we will never know if a referral has been made unless Disciplinary Counsel takes a matter up, files a charge and makes a recommendation to the Ohio Supreme Court that discipline be administered.

Even if Disciplinary Counsel does make a recommendation, as in the Massillon Municipal Court disciplinary affair in which Eddie Elum was the subject matter (LINK to the actual decision), many political and judicial system observers think that Ohio's Supremes take it easier on fellow judges than on "gone-rogue" attorneys.

Elum has long had a reputation among folks who appear before him, or otherwise have had to deal with him, of having a short fuse and being an "over-the-top" pop off.

An example, as cited by the Ohio Supreme Court in Disciplinary Counsel v. Elum, 2012-Ohio=4700.

And, of course, for someone talking the way Elum did to Dunn, it was no surprise that he attacked The Stark County Political Report back in 2010 when The Report blogged about a political conflict between Elum and Chief of Police Robert Williams of Massillon, to wit:

    Martin

    I received some excepts (sic) on your blog covering a meeting that I had last week with Chief Rob Williams and Chief Prosecutor John Simpson. Our meeting was very constructive and helpful.  Your statements are false and misleading.  You have no conscience, lack professionalism and make no effort to ascertain the facts. As a member of the Bar, you are an embarrassment.  You do nothing to promote the high ethical standards of our legal profession.

  Again:

    "Your statements are false and misleading.  You have no conscience, lack professionalism and make no effort to ascertain the facts."

Look at this additional excerpt from the aforecited Ohio Supreme Court Decision:

{¶ 18} Judge Elum has since acknowledged that there was no cover-up by the Massillon Police Department of the arresting officer’s conduct in the Farnsworth case and that he used a “bad term” in describing the situation. 

Judge Elum has admitted that through his January 15 order, he placed himself in the middle of an administrative investigation into the arresting officer’s conduct and stepped outside his role as a judge. Judge Elum has recognized that his threat of contempt proceedings at the January 20 pretrial hearing had been a “bad choice of words” because contempt would not have been appropriate under the circumstances. 

And Judge Elum has agreed that he issued an unenforceable order on January 21 when he continued to pursue the submission of the text and picture messages after the criminal and traffic charges against Farnsworth had been
resolved. Finally, Judge Elum admits making statements to the newspaper about the Massillon Police Department, alleging ineffective leadership.

Had the Supreme Court not stayed Elum's six month suspension from the practice of law, the SCPR thinks that the court would have thereby made a powerful ruling that would have resonated far and wide within the Ohio judiciary that the court will not abide such conduct in that there would be "real world" consequences.

Such a ruling may have been effective to make Judge Park think twice, three times or more on September 25, 2013 before doing what she did to Citizen Lockhart.

But Supreme Court did not.

In staying Elum's suspension, they did what many think amounted to a mere "slap on the wrist."

And there are those out in the general public who suspect that judges are not exactly the ideal factor to deal with maverick judges.

Consequently, it is refreshing to have one like Conley (see discussion below) step up and invoke another procedure  that may result in a Judge Dixie Park being removed from office in the wake of the Canton-based Fifth District Court of Appeals having found that she abused judicial discretion in denying Lockhart due process of law.

There are instances (LINK) where governing authorities have effectively and swiftly dealt with "off-the-reservation" judges.

If Park gets removed from office, there will be headlines across the media of Ohio (even The Canton Repository) that no judge will miss the point of.

The Elum and Park matters are relatively rare, and, of course, many if not most Ohio judges are first-rate.

Here in Stark County, the SCPR can point to the likes of now retired judges Charles E. Brown, Jr, and V. Lee Sinclair, Jr.

Stark's David Dowd, Jr. (interestingly enough from Massillon) who sits on the federal bench has had a distinguished career as a jurist as did Leroy Contie, Jr. before him.

And there is Ira Turpin.

Yours truly remembers Ira a being a classy jurists who had a passion for minority rights.

As a political reporter, opinion maker, editorialist and sometimes an investigative journalist, The Stark County Political Report wears as a "badge of honor" receiving attacks like Elum's.

In one conversation with Elum, he was at loss to explain why Martin Olson would write critical blogs about him.  "Martin," he says, "I have checked my records and you have never appeared in my court."

The Report repeats:  For the SCPR, it is never a matter of a subject being friend or foe, it is a matter of "letting the 'political' chips fall where they may."

No passes to those generally thought well of from the pen of the SCPR.

And, The Report, has no problem commending public officials for specific conduct who the SCPR thinks in general are not high quality public officials, and, moreover, perhaps, subjects The Report does not personally like.

The Report has never had a problem with Judge Dixie Park.  Is she thinking what Elum was?  What did I ever do to Martin Olson?

Answer:  nothing, absolutely nothing!

The SCPR is pursuing stories and getting to the bottom of them in the spirit of making our political system a better one in terms of:

• accountability,
• respectfulness of government/political officials to the Stark County public,
• communicability,
• accessibility,
• openness, and the like.

Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero attacked the SCPR over The Report's unceasing advocacy that justice prevail in the Marlboro Chief of Police Ron Devies matter.

Of course, The Report has written quite a number blogs referencing Ferrero's attack because it appears to have a frontal assault on The Report's constitutional right to engage in the expression of a free press in holding public officials accountable.

And that (an attempt to intimidate the media) is how the SCPR takes Elum's attack. For the SCPR has never has been written by yours truly as member of the bar.

Noteworthy is The Report's turnabout in commending Ferrero for resisting to what appears to be a bullying effort by George T. Maier, his brother and former Stark County Democratic Party chairman Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. and a number of top-tier political allies to make George Stark County sheriff.

Here is a link list of a series of blogs that the SCPR had penned in early 2010 on Elum's :

• ELUM: GET OVER IT 

• TIGERLAND IN AN UPROAR 

• CICCHINELLI/CATAZARO-PERRY WAR ERUPTS ANEW 

• TRIAL HEAT: CATAZARO-PERRY/CICHINELLI POLITICAL FIGHT?

• DEMOCRAT TO DEMOCRAT

As regards to the-then Massillon Chief of Police Williams political flap with Elum, who ends up having a disciplinary complaint filed against him?

As recited above, Edward J. Elum.

Hmm?

What do SCPR readers think?

Did The Report have the facts straight?

Who is an embarrassment to the bar?

Currently, the SCPR is working on a City of Canton/Canton City Schools matter in which a great deal of resistance is being encountered to a public records request.

The more resistance, guess what?  The more the SCPR is likely to dig, and dig, and dig until the question "why the resistance" is found out!

What will The Report uncover if "in an accordance with Ohio law" response is made to the outstanding public records request?

Right now the SCPR is being told that The Report does not understand the import of an Ohio Supreme Court case in terms of what material has to be revealed.

Somewhat like Elum's "Martin, you did not get your facts right," no?

We shall see how much the SCPR understands.

The SCPR has been told many, many times over the life of this blog how The Report does not understand this or that thing or get this thing or that thing correctly. 

The Report's history is that, most of the time, if not nearly all the time, there is understanding/factual knowledge on the part of the SCPR and, more often than not, it turns out the resisting/declaiming officials/entities were hiding something that the public is entitled to know.

WHAT IS TO BE DONE ABOUT JUDGE PARK?

The Stark County Political Report would be absolutely amazed if Judge Park were to resign over her handling of the Lockhart matter.

Power public officials like Park always think with time the controversy will fade away and the misdeed will have no "real" political consequences.

And, often, they are correct.

However, Judge Park has yet to square up with the known track record of local civic activist and attorney Craig T. Conley who is one tenacious, bulldog of an activist when it comes to seeing to it that his take on justice and the rule of law becomes reality.

The SCPR has learned that Conley has decided to invoke (starting this week)  a procedure provided by Ohio Revised Code Section 3.07, to wit (focusing on the relevant parts applicable to the Park situation):

3.07 Misconduct in office - forfeiture.

Any person holding office in this state, or in any municipal corporation, county, or subdivision thereof, coming within the official classification in Section 38 of Article II, Ohio Constitution, who willfully and flagrantly exercises authority or power not authorized by law, ... is guilty of misconduct in office. Upon complaint and hearing in the manner provided for in sections 3.07 to 3.10 ... .

The In re: Finan Fifth District Court of Appeals decision is enough, the SCPR thinks, to justify an initiation of a 3.07 procedure against Judge Park.

Moreover, The Report thinks that there is other substantial indication that Judge Park has arrogantly discharged her authority and thereby provides an additional bases on which she should be removed from office.

The SCPR welcomes the courageous effort by Conley and is pleased that he is willing to devote time and effort to this gigantic project.

In order to get started on the multi-step process to remove Park, Conley needs to marshal forces to collect signatures.

When Conley and fellow community activist Thomas Marcelli launched a similar effort in 2009 (Stark County Citizens Right to Vote Committee) in an effort to void by citizen vote the 1/2 cent "imposed" sales tax at the hand of 2008 Stark County commissioners Todd Bosley, Tom Harmon and Jane Vignos, The Report was skeptical that they and their co-workers could pull off getting 10% of the 2008 gubernatorial vote as signatories (about 14,000) on their petitions.

But the committee did,

And, to boot, though the SCPR thought at the time that the "imposed" nature of the levy was ill-advised, The Report supported Stark Countians retaining the tax.

But Stark Countians did not.

By a huge margin, county voters sustained the Conley/Marcelli effort in November, 2009.

The signature collection standard for R.C 3.07 is higher:  15% of the last gubernatorial election vote.

The SCPR thinks the closest standard for calculating what the 3.07 effort will require is the 2010 governor's race (a non-presidential year like 2014 is).

It appears that about 20,000 might be needed.

But perhaps not.

Since Ohio's Democrats have nominated a Rob Burch-esque candidate in Clevelander Ed FitzGerald and it appears  to the SCPR that the entire Republican statewide ticket will cruise to victory in little over a month, it could be that the number could be closer to 15,000 than 20,000.

In 1994 123,085 Stark County voters went to the polls.  So let's see.  Fifteen (15%) percent times 123,085 voters equals 18,463.

Could 2014 (the basis on which the 3.07 calculation will be made) be lower than 1994.

Probably not, but, of course, anything is possible.

It is up to her, of course, but one would not think that Judge Dixilene Park is going to take Conley and his political allies lightly.

Of course, unlike any other media outlet reporting/opinionating on Stark County politics and government, the SCPR provides Conley's gameplan in its entirely as outlined in a letter faxed to The Report on Friday, to wit: (restructured somewhat by the SCPR for clarity/emphasis sake)

September 26, 2014

TO:    Martin Olson, Blogger Stark Political Report

FROM:  Craig T. Conley, Esq.
RE:    Stark County Probate Court Judge Dixie Park

Because Judge Park is running unopposed in the upcoming November election, there are only two means to obtain her removal from the Bench:

• a disciplinary action through the Ohio Supreme Court, or 
• the procedure set forth in O.R.C. 3.07, et seq. (which Code Sections apply to many public officials, including Judges).

As to the latter, O.R.C. 3.07 provides, in pertinent part, that:

• "Any person holding office in this state, or in any . . ., county, or subdivision thereof, . . . who willfully and flagrantly exercises authority or power not authorized by law, . . . is guilty of misconduct in office", noting that applicable jurisprudence indicates the standard of proof is "clear and convincing", not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

As to Judge Park, based upon the Finan Opinion alone, I believe she clearly meets that statutory definition of misconduct in office and that the aforesaid standard of proof can be readily met at hearing.

• O.R.C. 3.08 provides, in pertinent part, that: "Proceedings for the removal of public officers . . . shall be commenced by:
• the filing of a written or printed complaint specifically setting forth the charge,
• and signed by qualified electors of the . . . political subdivision whose officer it is sought to remove, not less in number than fifteen percent of the total cast for the governor at the most recent election for the office of governor in the . . . political subdivision whose officer it is sought to remove".

While that is a relatively "big" number vis-a-vis the last gubernatorial election, it will certainly be a much smaller number vis-a-vis the upcoming November election; and, as evinced by the sales tax repeal referendum here in Stark County, obtaining the requisite number cf signatures is certainly "doable".

Indeed, although Ms. Lockhart is (at least to my knowledge) the most adversely affected victim of Judge Park's misconduct in office, there are many dozens of others who I reasonably presume would be quite willing to assist in gathering the requisite number of signatures.

Also pursuant to O.R.C. 3.08, if the complaint (which I will draft):

• sufficiently specifies the misconduct, and 
• if it (which may be signed in counterparts) contains sufficient valid signatures, 

the matter would be heard before the Fifth District Court of Appeals, 

• noting that Judge Park would have a right to demand a jury and thereafter would have the right under O.R.C. 3.09 to an appeal

Also pursuant to O.R.C. 3.08, provides in pertinent part, that:

• "Proceedings for the removal of public officers . . . by the filing of a written or printed complaint:
• specifically setting for the charge, and
• signed by the qualified electors of the . . . political subdivision whose officer it sought to be removed not less in number than fifteen percent of the total cast for the governor at the most recent election for the office of governor in the . . . political subdivision of whose officer it is sought to remove."

Also pursuant to O.R.C. 3.08, "The court may suspend the officer during pendency of the hearing'' (noting that the "hearing shall be had within thirty days from the date of the filing of the complaint." 

In short, I intend, at my earliest possible opportunity to begin the process, it being more than just unlikely that Judge Park will voluntarily resign.

. . .

Little did Judge Park on September 25, 2013 understand that in legally abusing Mrs. Lockhart that she might be unleashing political forces that may well deprive her of a role in Stark County government she prizes, that of continuing to be a Stark County jurist.

The SCPR is disappointed that Judge Park apparently lacks the capacity to self-correct.

Beyond that, The Report is disappointed in that the judicial system itself (outside of the Fifth District Court of Appeals in its In re: Finan decision) seems to have a blind spot in the handling of "off-the-reservation" judges.

All power vested in the officers of government in our system of government are derived from the people.

How quickly not only Judge Park, Judge Elum and others forget this most fundamental of all American values.

On the flip-side, it is encouraging that the likes of Conley, Marcelli and others, in a display of corrective citizenship, step-up-to-the-public-interest-over-private-interest-plate and get "the people" involved in removing those who do not understand that they are "temporarily" holding the public trust and are subject to being removed when they forget from whence they came!

HAS BALAS-BRATTON ATTORNEY CONLEY PUT TOGETHER "THE PERFECT BRIEF?"

By mid afternoon on Wednesday George T. Maier nemesis and Cynthia Balas-Bratton attorney Craig T. Conley had filed his client's brief and evidence with the Ohio Supreme Court in furtherance of his client's protest of George T. Maier being the Democratic candidate for sheriff in the May 6, 2014 primary election.

We shall know within a week, give a day or two, whether or not Conley put together "the perfect brief" in terms of being "the winning argument."

By the SCPR's analysis, Conley's brief is pretty impressive, perhaps even perfect, but - as The Report as frequently opined in these pages, in making a ruling "the Supreme Court does not have to be correct, it just has to be the Supreme Court."

Actually, the statement comes from Conley himself who, as I recall, picked it up from another source.

What is interesting about the potential of the Conley argument is that it is so constructed that the high court may never get to the merits of the case.

Really?

How's that?

THE BACKGROUND

Remember Conley's focus on one Deametrious St. John during the run up to the February 21, 2014 hearing on the Balas-Bratton protest?

St. John, one of two Stark County Democratic Party appointees to the Stark Board of Elections (BOE), had been foolish enough to make himself a media star and make pronouncements that indicated to Conley and many others that he (St. John) had already made up his mind on how he would be voting on a protest filed by Conley's client (Cynthia Balas-Bratton) on George T. Maier's qualification to be a candidate for Stark County sheriff on the May 6, 2014 Stark County Democratic Party ballot.

Balas-Bratton filed her "protest" with the Stark BOE on February 11th.

The BOE met on February 17th to set a hearing date (February 21st) and to dispose of several administrative and procedural issues.

On February 21st the hearing was held and as expected to the Republican Party appointed BOE members (Curt Braden and William Cline) deadlocked with the two Democratic members (St. John and Sam Ferruccio, Jr), and it was left to Secretary of State Jon Husted to break the tie.

Which, surprisingly enough he did in siding with the Democrats saying that he chose "to err on the side of ballot access" and that he was unable to determine one way or the other whether or not Maier was qualified under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 311.01(B)(9)(a) or (b).

In doing so, the SCPR believes that Husted wittingly and intentionally left a large hole for Balas-Bratton and her attorney to drive a bus through in their quest to have the Ohio Supreme Court reverse him.

And who better to drive that bus than one Craig T. Conley.

Of all the legal counsel taking part in the Maier qualification matter, The Report thinks Conley is most knowledgeable and prepared.

And that takes in a lot of territory.

Readers of the SCPR will recall the filing of a quo warranto by interim Sheriff Tim Swanson on February 12, 2013 (Greg Beck, the lead counsel) to have Maier (appointed by the Dems on February 5, 2013 to fill in for Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald [who could not take office as required on January 7, 2012 due to an illness from which he died on February 22nd] removed as a usurper in that he was not qualified under ORC 311.01 to be sheriff.

The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with Swanson and Beck and removed Maier on November 6, 2013.

How impressive was that?

On December 11th, the Dems reappointed Maier.

Consequently, the battle of his ORC 311.01 looms large.

Sections 311(B)(9)(a) or (b) are a focal point of the Balas-Bratton challenge to Maier's candidacy to serve beyond December 31, 2014 as Stark County sheriff.

Had St. John not mucked things up with his desire to be a media celebrity, the SCPR thinks that Maier had a better (though likely still not better than 50/50) chance to remain on May's ballot.

And in doing so, he handed Balas-Bratton a gift that The Report thinks has plenty of promise to be George T. Maier's undoing.

What organization wouldn't like to be an executive vice president (St. John) who in a quest to be the local yokel "from the big city" savior? 

It is interesting to the SCPR that St. John appears to look down his nose at Stark County's "organized" Democrats on the basis of his having learned the "art of 'power' politics" at the feet of Cleveland/Cuyahoga County political strongman George Forbes might end up being the reason that George T. Maier is ruled off the May ballot and concomitantly the Democrats have nobody to challenge Republican Larry Dordea.

The Report imagines that St. John these days is frequently down on his hands and knees praying to the "God of 'all things political'" that his "day in the media sun" is not THE basis on which the Supreme Court makes its decision which results in Maier's disqualification from the ballot.

In a St. John induced-decision scenario, Ohio's "court of last resort" rules that St. John had locked himself in by his own words and, thereby, "on the face of it" tainted the BOE hearing process to such a degree that Balas-Bratton ended up being denied her due process of law constitutional rights.

Should the Supreme Court negate St. John's vote, then Maier fails to qualify by a 2 to 1 vote and Husted's tie-braker is thereby negated.

As the SCPR understands Conley's position, such is how he sees the likely outcome of the Supreme Court's handling of Balas-Bratton v. Husted, et al.

If Conley is correct and the Ohio Supreme Court takes the St. John way out, the court avoids having to go into a thoroughgoing analysis of the provisions of ORC 311.01(B)(9).

By Ohio statutory law, Husted was compelled - as the tie-breaker -  to sift through the evidence submitted and make a "finder of fact" determination in the light of ORC 311.01 statutory standards as to whether or not Maier meets subsection (9)(a) or (b) criteria.

Husted's failure (assuming the court rules that St. John should not have been one of the BOE decision makers) will have in effect left Maier "in the lurch" on the matter of his qualifying or not under the ORC 311.01 scheme of things.

Moreover, the man who self-describes as being a "a political operative" and who insinuated on February 15th of this year (the day he was replaced by the Stark Dems as a BOE member with his term set to expire on the 28th) that the Stark Dems were nothing but political "rubes" in comparison to his political upbringing under Forbes, will likely be thought in Stark Democratic Party Executive Committee circles (if his media grandstanding results in Husted getting overturned) as being the man who cost George T. Maier an opportunity to be elected sheriff.

CONLEY'S BRIEF

Thanks to St. John's media performance, Conley comes right out of the box with with a pathway the high court has to like.

The Balas-Bratton brief opens with the "threshold" question of whether or not Dem BOE member St. John's pre-hearing media comments worked a denial of "due process of law" on the prosecution of her "protest" of Maier's candidacy.

There is a saying:  "the first impression is the last impression."

In first signaling the Supreme Court that the court has an easy way available to dispose of the Writ on a concrete constitutional basis (.i.e. denial of due process of law) due to St. John's media exuberance, Conley has made, the SCPR thinks, an indelible impression on the court in using language that will catch the court's attention and likely will stay with the seven justices throughout the course of the court's deliberation.

No doubt the court will look at the ORC 311.01 arguments with interest.

However, it should be readily apparent that getting into taking the evidence submitted by the various parties in this consideration of Balas-Bratton v. Husted, et al and comparing it the provisions of 311.01(B)(9)(a)/(b) is a rather daunting task even for a body like the Ohio Supreme Court and its vast legal resources.

Readers need to recall that in Swanson v. Maier, the court refused to go further than an analysis of ORC 311.01(B)(8)(a)/(b) inasmuch as the court's scrutiny of those provisions was enough for the court to determine that Maier' failure to qualify under either of them made it superfluous to go on to 311.01(B)(9), to wit:

Accordingly, the focus of this SCPR blog will be on the Balas-Bratton "due process of law" argument which The Report thinks could well be a dispositive argument.

However, Conley does make another (in addition to the ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a) and (b) arguments) interesting argument under ORC 2733.14.

2733.14 Judgment when office, franchise, or privilege is usurped.

When a defendant in an action in quo warranto is found guilty of usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding or exercising an office, franchise, or privilege, judgment shall be rendered that he be ousted and excluded therefrom, and that the relator recover his costs.  Effective Date: 10-01-1953 

Of course, as we Stark Countians know all too well, the Ohio Supreme Court did find Maier guilty of usurping in its November 6, 2013.

Could this argument be another "easier way out" of the more difficult ORC 311.01(B)(9) legal minefield?

BUILDING THE "VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS"
ST. JOHN BIAS ARGUMENT

Conley skillfully wends his way through the St. John "for Maier" history:

1. St. John [SCPR note:  executive vice president of the Dems] citing qualification criteria endorsed George T. Maier [SCPR note: over Lou Darrow] on Maier personal stationery pre-February 5, 2013.
2. St. John voted as a Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) member on February 5, 2013 to appoint George T. Maier as McDonald's successor.
3. St. John voted as a SCDP-CC member to appoint Maier a second time (after the 11/06/2013 Supreme Court finding a violation of 311.01(B)(8)) on December 11, 2013.
4. St. John in a interview to local media within days of his sitting as a "quasi-judicial" public official on the Balas-Bratton "protest" of the Maier candidacy stated:  "I've always believed he [SCPR note:  Maier] met the qualifications."
5. Balas-Bratton insisted pre-hearing that St. John step aside and not be one of the determiners of her protest but was refused by St. John himself, the Stark BOE and the Ohio secretary of state and in doing so preserved her "denial of due process" arguments.
6. St. John, at the conclusion of the Balas-Bratton "protest," [SCPR note:  "go figure,'] moved to qualify Maier and voted for his own motion.

Hence, Conley's powerful closing on the "denial of due process" argument:

The SCPR thinks it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will wade into the ORC 311.01 waters given the compressed time frame within which it must act given ballot publication timeline concerns especially with having been provided the justices' powerful legal pathway on "denial of due process" grounds.

On the chance that the Supremes decide to wade in, it seems to the SCPR that advantage is still with the Balas-Bratton position.

In the Applicable Jurisdiction section of his brief, Conley paints a vivid picture of principles of law that apply to Balas-Bratton.

1. Citing 1995 Supreme Court legal precedent, Conley sets up that when it comes to interpreting ORC 311.01 provisions, "it is the responsibility of the courts to enforce the literal language of statute.
2. Courts are not to add or delete words to/from statutes,
3. A year is not the cobbling together of parts of years to make up full years, rather a year is defined in Ohio law to be "12 consecutive months."  (SCPR note:  the definition of a year is a bone of contention in the interpretation of a year under ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a))
4. A number of Supreme Court decisions (despite the fact that Jon Husted says the law is unclear and ambiguous) have held 311.01(B)(9)'s language to be "definite," "unambiguous," and clear with specific reference in the precedent cases to:
1. the requirement of two years supervisory experience as a peace officer, and
2. the requirement of the officer being at the rank of "corporal or above."

THE TWO YEARS OF SUPERVISORY EXPERIENCE- AS A PEACE OFFICER

Even it one does not contest (which Balas-Bratton does) whether or not Maier's stint as the second-in-command (and about seven days as first-in-command) at the Ohio Department of Public Safety (ODPS) meets the standard of ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a), to wit:

(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;

Conley's bottom line position is that Maier is short a number of days having "at least two years of supervisory experience as a peace officer."

Maier in his application process did try to take the February 11, 2013 to November 6, 2013 time as SCDP-CC appointed sheriff to solve the ODPS time period deficiency.

A problem?

Indeed.

In its November 6th decision, the Supreme Court said that in effect Maier was never the lawful sheriff of Stark County.

So how can he bootstrap himself, Conley argues, into meeting the two year requirement of ORC 311.01(B)(9)(a) by adding service time that the Supreme Court itself said in Maier v. Swanson was from a legal standpoint "as if it had never occurred?"

THE TWO YEARS OF SUPERVISORY EXPERIENCE
- AS A CORPORAL OR ABOVE

Inasmuch as Maier did not have a literal rank of "corporal or above," the Maier legal team can only argue "equivalency."  


And that folks, the SCPR thinks, is a losing position because of the "literal" rule of construction Ohio's courts are held to and the reality that "equivalency" appears nowhere in ORC 311.01(B)(9(a).

AT LEAST TWO YEARS OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Finally, Conley attacks the contention by the Maier proponents that he meets the criteria of ORC 311.01(B)(9)(b), to wit:

(b) Has completed satisfactorily at least two years of post-secondary education or the equivalent in semester or quarter hours in a college or university authorized to confer degrees by the Ohio board of regents or the comparable agency of another state in which the college or university is located or in a school that holds a certificate of registration issued by the state board of career colleges and schools under Chapter 3332. of the Revised Code.

And to make short-shrift of Maier's failure to meet this criterion of Ohio statutory law, one need to go no further than to look at the affidavit of a Stark State College official (Vogley):

"As of the date of this affidavit, Maier has not earned any credit at Stark."

And Maier testified at the February 21st "protest" hearing that he had not done any academic work at Stark State College."

Closed case on ORC 311.01(B)(9)(b), no?

A key point for purposes of the Supreme Court's handling of the Balas-Bratton Writ, the SCPR thinks, is that Secretary of State Jon Husted completely and utterly failed to make any finding on ORC 311.01.

In doing so, he totally undermined the import of his breaking the tie on the Stark BOE in terms of result holding in siding with the Democrats.

Had he merely said in his written findings that he adopted the findings of the Democrats as stated in the Dems position paper, he would then have placed a huge burden on Balas-Bratton to show that in doing so he had "abused his discretion."

But he didn't and thereby damaged the likelihood that Maier's place on the ballot will be validated.

With friends like the Republican secretary of state, who needs the enemies?

And one might add:  with friends (for the SCDP) like Deametrious St. John, who needs any enemies?

The clincher however for Balas-Bratton prevailing in Balas-Bratton v. Husted, et al may well be that her attorney Craig T. Conley in his submissions of documents (the brief and evidence) to the Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday may have submitted "the perfect brief!"

PITCHES THAT GEORGE T. MAIER COULD NOT HIT?

 SUPPLEMENTAL UPDATE:  10:05 AM

CONLEY ADMONISHES BOARD OF ELECTIONS TO KEEP THE POLITICAL LOBBYING OUT OF BOARD'S PROTEST CONSIDERATION

Craig T. Conley Co. LPA

ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW

...

February 12, 2014

VIA FACSIMILE (1 PAGE TO 330/451-7000) ONLY

TO: Stark County Board of Elections

FROM: Craig T. Conley, Esq.

RE: Cynthia Balas-Bratton's Protest Against Maier Candidacy

As to the above-referenced Protest, if it has not already occurred, I suspect you will very, shortly be heavily "lobbied" by.both "pro-Maier" and "anti-Maier" factions.

Because you are herein acting as a quasi-judicial body, you are, as a matter of law, required to disregard and reject such "lobby" efforts and to make your decision only upon hearing, without theretofore engaging in any ex parte communications and without any pre-hearing deliberations between cr among yourselves, both directly and, in "round robin" fashion, indirectly.

Or. a related topic, please consider this memo a request for your Board's timely issuance of hearing appearance subpoenas to Mr.-Maier and to Harrison County Sheriff, Ronald J. Myers.

In that regard, I respectfully suggest Mr. Maier should be served that subpoena at his home address of 331 Oakcrest Lane N.E., Massillon, Ohio 44646; and Sheriff Myers should be served at his office address, of 114 Court Street, Cadiz, Ohio. 43907.

... .
ORIGINAL BLOG

UPDATED:  09:10 AM

Whomever is giving "political" advice to George T. Maier ought to go hide his/her head.

Could be a her, but the SCPR doubts it.

And it could be a "their heads."  Which the SCPR thinks is the most likely thing going on.

The Report has a pretty good idea of the identities of the not-so-sage George T. Maier political advisers.

Those people, The Report believes, are "political bully types" who think that everybody wilts in their presence.

The SCPR thinks that political trials and tribulations of the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee (SCDP-CC) appointee (for a second time) as Stark County sheriff are owing to "major" miscalculations made by his key political cognoscenti.

Strike One!

Massillonian John Ferrero's "curve ball" humpbacks by the would-be sheriff's bat.

None of George's political "inside baseball" groupies figured that Stark County's prosecutor and former Stark County Democratic Party chairman would throw a "curve ball" his way.

As George Maier came to the plate, he had to think he had "all his ducks (err softballs) all in a row" and he was ready "to hit them out of the park!"

But then came along John with his "affidavit of disqualification," and lo and behold! Maier's whiffs on it - Strike One!

Well, the Maier politicos had to say to themselves, any other pitches thrown George's way will be "true" softballs.

Nobody figured the "I'm on my way to Florida" interim Sheriff Tim Swanson would be into staying in touch with 10 below temperatures and throwing another "unhittable" baseball the appointed sheriff's way.

But they figured wrong.

Tim with his "quo warranto" pitch threw the "slider" of his life at "Casey George-at-the-bat" and lo and behold another whiff.

Now this is getting to be serious stuff.

Strike Two!!

Out of the batter's box (ousted November 6, 2013 - Swanson v. Maier - by the Ohio Supreme Court), Maier regroups and another try.

Re-appointed on December 11th, Maier pulls himself together for one final swing.

Will it be a third whiff or a home run?

Up steps another fellow Massillonian to make a pitch.

Oh! A lady?  With all due respect to women, this has got to be a pitch that Maier can handle, no?

Think again.

Cindy Balas-Bratton shocks them all with a Bob Feller-esque fastball that zooms right by the desperately swinging bat of the former Ohio Highway patrolman.

Steeeeeerrriiike Three!!!

George Maier is out, so the SCPR thinks.

As The Report has been writing for a number of days now, Massillon Ward 2A Democrat Cynthia Balas-Bratton may prove to be the political shock of their lives for the close-in political gurus who are guiding George T. Maier through the Stark County Democratic Party political thicket.

She was there on February 5, 2013 (the first appointment of Maier) and raising her voice in opposition to him only to be (in the opinion of the SCPR) cast aside with contempt and dismissiveness (as the SCPR believes Ferrero and Swanson were) by Maier pal and political ally Randy Gonzalez who chaired the meeting.

As if that were not enough, Ferrero, Swanson and Balas-Bratton were "steam-rollered" again on December 11th.

But she may, in the filing of her protest yesterday,  be in line to have "the last laugh" on Chairman Randy and other Stark politicos who appear to smugly think they are "head and shoulders" above the "Balas-Brattons of the world.  One has to wonder whether or not The Gonzalez crowd have ever heard of the biblical injunction that "pride goeth before a fall?"

With the 4:17 PM, February 11, 2014 filing, Balas-Bratton may have set into motion a process which might result in George T. Maier not being certified to be "the" Democratic Party candidate for Stark County sheriff come the elections of 2014.

If that happens, it appears to The Report that Republican Larry Dordea is in line to have an uncontested pathway to becoming Stark's first Republican sheriff in 20 years.

Those 101 Democrats who supported Gonzalez et al will then be real pleased with themselves that they followed this political "Pied Piper" over the clift into political oblivion.

And Stark Countians, in general, will have - because of Stark County Democratic Party leadership political arrogance - been deprived of having a choice in November's election.

Gonzalez and friends should be pleased with themselves, no?

On to the Balas-Bratton protest:

THE PROTEST PROCESS (From extracted portions of O.R.C. 3513.05:

• Protests against the candidacy of any person filing a declaration of candidacy for party nomination or for election to an office or position, as provided in this section, 
• may be filed by any qualified elector who is a member of the same political party as the candidate and who is eligible to vote at the primary election for the candidate whose declaration of candidacy the elector objects to, ...
• The protest shall be in writing, and shall be filed not later than four p.m. of the seventy-fourth day before the day of the primary election. (February 21, 2014)
• The protest shall be filed with the election officials with whom the declaration of candidacy and petition was filed. 
• Upon the filing of the protest, the election officials with whom it is filed shall:
• promptly fix the time for hearing it, and 
• shall forthwith mail notice of the filing of the protest and the time fixed for hearing to the person whose candidacy is so protested

KEY POINTS OF THE BALAS-BRATTON ARGUMENT:

• "As a threshold matter, it is respectfully suggested that: Usurper Maier' s candidacy here is barred by operation of O.R.C. 2733.14, entitled "Judgment when office, franchise, or privilege is usurped" and which provides, in pertinent part:, that "When a defendant in an action in quo warranto is found guilty of usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding or exercising an office, franchise, or privilege, judgment shall be rendered that he be ousted and excluded therefrom, . . ." (emphasis added by SCPR)

• 2733.14 Judgment when office, franchise, or privilege is usurped.

  When a defendant in an action in quo warranto is found guilty of usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding or exercising an office, franchise, or privilege, judgment shall be rendered that he be ousted and excluded therefrom, and that the relator recover his costs.  Effective Date: 10-01-1953 

• Protestor asserts that, following the Ohio Supreme Court's issuance of its aforesaid Opinion on November 6, 2013 [Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto, filed February 12, 2013], Maier remains unqualified under O.R.C. 311.01 (B) (8) (a) because his subsequent attempt to "cure" same  was a sham, which should not be recognized by this Board (emphasis added by SCPR] 
• 311(B)(8) The person meets at least one of the following conditions:
• (a) Has obtained or held, within the four-year period ending immediately prior to the qualification date, a valid basic peace officer certificate of training issued by the Ohio peace officer training commission  ... .
• Balas-Bratton contends that Maier's employment in Harrison County (weekend in January, 2013 and from November 6, 2013 through December 5, 2013) by Maier's "good friend forever" (Sheriff Ronald J. Myers) was "a sham" in that there is no evidence:
• was ever advertised
• that Maier joined the Union inasmuch as Harrison County deputies are unionized, and that:
• Maier correspondence indicates that the job was "designed solely for his own self-serving political advancement purposes."
  

• ... it appears that Maier, while purportedly employed by the Harrison County Sheriff, obtained Democratic Party appointment (the second time) to his current position as Stark County Sheriff by and through blatant and repeated violations of O.R.C. 124.57 ... (emphasis added by SCPR)

• 124.57 Prohibition against partisan political activity.

  
  (A) No officer or employee in the classified service of ... of the several counties, ... shall directly or indirectly, orally or by letter, solicit or receive, or be in any manner concerned in soliciting or receiving, any assessment, subscription, or contribution for any political party or for any candidate for public office; nor shall any person solicit directly or indirectly, orally or by letter, or be in any manner concerned in soliciting, any such assessment, contribution, or payment from any officer or employee in the classified service ... .
• See the specifics of alleged violations of O.R.C. in Tuesday's SCPR (LINK),
• O.R.C. 311.01(B)(9) requires that a candidate for County Sheriff must have either (a) "at least two years of supervisory-experience as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or above . . . in the five-year period immediately prior to the qualification date" or must have (b) "completed satisfactorily at least two years of post-secondary education or the equivalent [thereof] . . .  . (emphasis added by SCPR)
• To sum up the Bratton-Balas argument on these points, she says:
• Maier's employment at Ohio Department of Highway Safety (ODHS) ( May 21, 2007 through January 11, 2011) is not the equivalent of "corporal or above," or alternatively that
• said employment (even if deemed to be "at corporal or above" was not for the required two years during the "going back" five years (February 4, 2009 through February 4, 2014) in that he served at ODHS from February 4, 2009 through January 11, 2011 which amounts to 23 months and "a few days" which is short of Ohio law required 24 consecutive months which means that any time outside the 24 month "consecutive months" does not count.
• Maier has never qualified on the two years post-secondary avenue witness an affidavit submitted to the Ohio Supreme Court by a Stark State College official
• As to peace officers, O.R.C. 109.741 requires "the training of peace officers in the handling of missing children, missing persons, and child abuse and neglect cases"; O.R.C. 109.742 requires  the training of peace officers in crisis intervention"; and O.R.C. 109.744 requires "the training of peace officers in the handling of the offense of domestic violence, other types of domestic violence-related offenses and incidents, and protection orders  and consent  agreements".
• In short, if Maier has not heretofore filed documentary evidence with the Administrative Judge of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas (and thereafter with this Board) evincing his aforesaid non-OPOTA training, it is respectfully suggested that such a failure provides further support for this Protest and another reason to grant same (emphasis added by SCPR)

There you have it folks.

The SCPR thinks Balas-Bratton makes a persuasive legal argument that the BOE should not certify George T. Maier as being qualified and therefore should rule him off the May 6, 2014 Stark County Democratic Party ballot.

Of course, the legal arguments should prevail and, likely will ultimately "tell the tale."

The expectation is that the Stark BOE will deadlock at a 2 to 2 vote along political party lines.

Sam Ferruccio (a lawyer) and Deametrious St. John are the Democrats (believed by the SCPR to be tied to the Maier SCDP faction) on the Board.

William S. Cline (a lawyer) and Curt Braden (a former Stark County Republican chairman) are the Republicans on the Board.

Ohio law provides for Ohio secretary of state Jon Husted to break a tie.

In a year in which Husted and Republican governor John Kasich are on the ballot, does anyone expect Husted to break for the Maier position?

If so, please send that person to the SCPR.

Do I have a deal for him/her.

For the SCPR sees that either way the BOE rules (presuming a tie with Husted breaking the tie), there will be a court challenge and likely on an direct expedited path to the Ohio Supreme Court for the high court to weigh in once again on a Stark County "right to office" question.

It will - in the end - be the Ohio Supreme Court which rules whether or not George T. Maier strikes out on Balas-Bratton's fastball!

GEORGE MAIER SHOULD BE BEGGING TIM SWANSON TO FILE A SECOND QUO WARRANTO?

UPDATED AT 12:00 PM

SWANSON LETTER TO FERRERO OF 12/13/2013 SUBSTITUTED IN

After thinking about it again, the SCPR thinks that there is a case for "a changed mind" about whether or not the George Maier ought to be begging Swanson not to file a new quo warranto.

A few days ago, The Report wrote:

So The Report thinks that the establishment [Gonzalez et al] leadership should have been more conciliatory on Wednesday to Darrow's supporters and, even now, should be rushing to conciliate with Swanson before he goes off on another quo warranto mission.

But on second thought, perhaps not.

It would, of course, be politically devastating to Maier to lose again in the Ohio Supreme Court.

And, depending on the timing of a negative on qualification outcome, could make it impossible to be deemed qualified even in a primary election scenario.

If he doesn't get in front of the court again at interim Sheriff Swanson's initiative, his next trip to the court might have to be at his own initiative.

And it could be an effort that comes too late for him to be certified as a qualified primary election candidate or, alternatively, one in which the general election comes and goes without the court having made a decision.

How's that?

If Swanson does not challenge Maier via a "by what authority he holds office" a second time, Maier's next qualification test will be at the hand of the Stark County Board of Elections (Board/BOE) as part of Ohio's "election of a sheriff qualification process," for the primary election set for May 6, 2014, to wit:

311.01 Election and qualifications of sheriff

(F)(2) Each board of elections shall certify whether or not a candidate for the office of sheriff who has filed a declaration of candidacy, a statement of candidacy, or a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate meets the qualifications specified in divisions (B) and (C) of this section.  (emphasis added)

So?

The Stark County Board of Elections "ain't" the Gonzalez/Johnnie A. Maier, Jr controlled Stark County Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee.

And, without a favorable to George T. Maier ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court on his qualification before they rule, it is not hard to see the two Republican members of the Board voting "not to certify him" thereby making him ineligible to gain the Democratic Party nomination.

Okay. Let's see. There are two Democrat BOE members who, undoubtedly, will vote that he is certifiable as qualified and the two Republicans, who, likely, are to vote that he is not certifiable.

Hmm?

Two to two, the candidate wins the tie!

Not so quick.

There is a tie breaker vote provided for in Ohio's statutes.

Hmm?

Who is the tie breaker?

The Ohio secretary of state who is REPUBLICAN Jon Husted.

Hmm?

Might be a problem for George, no?

So maybe, just maybe, George would be better off getting the matter resolved sooner than later with one more effort to convince the Supreme Court that he is qualified.  Courtesy of guess whom?

You've got it.

Interim Sheriff Tim Swanson!

And indications are that Maier may be accommodated by Swanson.

Friday is the "drop-dead" date on whether or not a second Swanson challenge is in the offing, the SCPR is told.

On December 10th,  the Maier legal team has filed a motion with the Ohio Supreme Court for it to dismiss Swanson's Writ of Mandamus filed on November 18th and under which the court refused (on December 10th) to order the removal of George Maier's name from consideration at the Stark County Democratic Party's central committee (SCDP-CC) selection meeting last Wednesday.

Maier went on to win his second appointment by a 101 to 65 vote over Lou Darrow.

Last Friday Tim Swanson sent a letter to Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero, to wit:

"I am again requesting that your office take whatever steps are necessary to begin legal action to determine if George Maier is qualified to assume the position of Stark County Sheriff." (emphasis added)

 

As emphasized by the green highlighting, Swanson added that should Prosecutor Ferrero find that Maier is unqualified then he wants a determination of "whether any improper expenditure of funds has taken place."

A well placed source tells The Report that it would reasonable to infer from his sending of the letter, that Swanson will file a second quo warranto to remove George T. Maier from office if Ferrero or a specially appointed prosecutor (Ferrero has maintained that he has a conflict in interest) fails to file.

Ferrero, in February, did not seek to have a special prosecutor appointed.

He sort of did when Craig T. Conley (on behalf of Stark County taxpayer Thomas Marcelli) demanded that he do so in order to recover to the public county treasury monies received (salary and benefits) and spent (on rebranding the office his name) during the time Maier was in office as a usurper as determined by the Ohio Supreme Court on November 6th.

However, the Stark County commissioners seems to the SCPR to be solidly behind Maier and waived aside Ferrero's suggestion that they and he might jointly accede to Conley's demand.

Consequently, Conley in late November filed Marcelli's civil suit against Maier.

One of Stark's commissioners is Republican Janet Creighton.  She "makes no bones about it," she is committed to supporting Republican candidates across Stark County who run for elective office.

There is no doubt with the SCPR that the person for the Republicans to run against Maier in 2014 is former Alliance police chief and current Hartville police chief Larry Dordea.

Dordea, in the judgment of The Report, is the only Republican law enforcement officer up to taking on Maier.

He ran against Tim Swanson (2008) and Mike McDonald (2012) and was very competitive in doing so in a county which tilts Democratic in countywide elections except if the Democratic candidate has political roots in the city of Canton.

But for some reason, Dordea does not seem to garner the enthusiasm of folks like Creighton and Stark County GOP chairman Jeff Matthews.

The SCPR had a discussion with Commissioner Creighton on the topic of a third Dordea candidacy about a week ago and she did indicate that if it came down to Dordea v. Maier, she would be supporting Dordea.

However, she inter-spliced into the conversation a comment that "there are other Republicans interested in contesting Dordea for the GOP nomination in May, 2014."

All of which leads The Report to believe that Dordea may only get "official" support from the likes of Creighton.  Hardly, a basis for rosy prospects for Dordea to defeat Maier if Maier makes it to the 2014 general election.

Could it be that if Swanson declines to challenge Maier a second time that one or, perhaps, both Republicans (William Cline and Curt Braden [a former chairman] on the BOE would join the Democrats to certify Maier as being qualified when even in the light of the November 6th Ohio Supreme Court decision to the contrary?

Perhaps.

But wouldn't Maier have a more certain shot at being deemed qualified in stating his case anew in a second Swanson Supreme Court challenge?

After all, the original decision was 5 to 2 in favor of Swanson.   Maier is only two votes away from having a smoother path to being elected as Mike McDonald's successor.

Readers will recall, of course, that the whole reason for this jockeying as to who will be Stark County's next sheriff is due to the fact that Mike McDonald, elected in November, 2012, could not take office on January 7, 2013 (as scheduled) due to an illness which turned out to be terminal (February 22nd).

Of course, there are two sides to that coin whereby Swanson files a second quo warranto and that is if it turns up  Maier "not-qualified" a second time.

Does anybody doubt George Maier would be finished as a candidate?

Even if the decision comes before the primary election, it is hard to see how even "unenthusiastic" (presuming Cline and Braden share what the SCPR thinks is Creighton misgivings about Dordea) Republicans can ignore two Ohio Supreme Court determinations that Maier is unqualified and vote (one or both) to certify him.

Certainly,with John Kasich running for reelection in 2014, one would think that Ohio Secretary of State would not want to aid the Democratic Party cause in Stark County in helping Maier to qualify him for office.

All of which would leave George T. Maier in the unenviable position of putting himself before the high court for a third time on the qualification issue in context of another Democrat (presumably Lou Darrow) being the party nominee.

So it seems to the SCPR - on rethinking the matter - that rather than discourage Tim Swanson from filing a second quo warranto, perhaps, the Maier supporters ought to be encouraging him?