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

 UPDATED AT 8:15 AM

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

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RULE OF LAW TO AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

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

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

In part, he writes:

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

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

 APPLYING THE RULE OF LAW IN STARK COUNTY

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

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

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

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

January 23, 2013

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

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

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

Dear Mr. Ferrero:

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

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

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

Grandstanding issues aside, as I reasonably presume is the case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please promptly advise.  Thank you.

                           Sincerely,

                           Craig T. Conley

CTC/mps

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

BACKGROUND OF THE ETHICS COMPLAINT

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

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

Why?

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

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

But the Stark County Political Report will.

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

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

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

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

THE ATTEMPT TO AVOID THE FILING OF A LAWSUIT

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

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

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

As originally issued and in apparent violation of ORC 2949.11:

As corrected by Judge Forchione on February 14th:

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

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

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

CONLEY GOING PUBLIC 

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

CONLEY NAMED A GRANDSTANDER IN HIS OWN RIGHT

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

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

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

CONLEY HAVING A PERSONAL MOTIVATION QUESTION 

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

ANONYMOUS COMPLAINANT

Conley has some strong words for "anonymous" complainant:

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

CONLEY'S VIEWS ON THE RULE OF LAW

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

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

LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM THE CONLEY/FORCHIONE STAND OFF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unbelievable!

The man is an elected public official.

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

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

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

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

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

DID ANYTHING GOOD COME OUT OF MARCELLI V. FORCHIONE?

The SCPR thinks so.

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

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

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

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

Everybody makes a mistake in judgment from time to time.

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

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

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

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

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

Is cowardice what he wants to become known for?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

CIVIC ACTIVIST & ATTORNEY CRAIG T. CONLEY URGES PROSECUTOR JOHN FERRERO TO SUE JUDGE FRANK FORCHIONE. WILL HE DO IT?

You talk about chutzpah, local civic activist and local attorney Craig T. Conley has it in spades.

Reacting to an order recently put on by Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione in the Scott D. Studer case that as part of his sentence on having pled guilty in multiple counts Illegal Use of a Minor in a Nudity-Oriented Material or Performance [R.C. 21907.323(A)(1)](F2) included a requirement that he pay a fine of $5,000.00 "to be forwarded the victims of Newtown, Connecticut tragedy," Conley fired off a letter (January 23rd) to Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero asking him, on behalf of a client, to institute a civil action against Forchione to recover the money to the Stark County treasury.

Readers will recall as reported in local media that Studer (a former Jackson High School freshman basketball coach) had videotaped numerous student athletes (since 2005) taking showers.

There were various other sentences handed down by Judge Forchione in his order of December 31st including a 15 year prison sentence.

Here is the text of Conley's letter to Ferrero:

January 23, 2013

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

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

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

Dear Mr. Ferrero:

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

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

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

Grandstanding issues aside, as I reasonably presume is the case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please promptly advise.  Thank you.

                           Sincerely,



                           Craig T. Conley

CTC/mps

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

Conley says that his/his client's initiative has gone national, indeed, international (e.g. GOOGLE LINK).

A Repository piece (Attorney challenges judge's decision to sent $5,000 fine to Newtown, January 23, 2013 by Matt Rink) spells out Ferrero's response to the Conley letter, to wit:

Ferrero said his office has reviewed the issue and will amend the judgment entry, a change that won’t require the money to be returned.

“We will recommend that an amended entry be filed to reflect Judge Forchione’s intentions,” he said. “It will still be payable to the fund the judge wanted. It will be designated as a fine, but to be paid in lieu of paying it to the court. ... We feel that will cure the problem that Mr. Conley is bringing up.”

To which Conley has fired off another letter to Ferrero which in essence says "you cannot do that."

Conley says that the only permissible-in-law reason for a judge's order to be amended is to correct a clerical error (commonly referred to as being a nunc pro tunc [now for then] order by attorneys).

Conley goes on to claim that Judge Forchione has no jurisdiction to change his issued "final, appealable order" on his own initiative and that the only recourse now is for Ferrero to see to it that the $5,000 gets put in Stark County treasury.

And to fortify the authorities cited in his first letter to Ferrero, he cites an Ohio Supreme Court ethics opinion.

This opinion appears to yours truly to be along the lines of prior legal citations by Conley in the first letter which he says stands for the proposition of law: absent specific statutory authorization. judges cannot order defendants to make charitable contributions as part of their sentencing.

There is a factual difference between Opinion 2010-4 and Studer.  In the Opinion, the defendant makes the request to be allowed to make the contribution whereas in Studer the Court takes the initiative.

Is this a significant difference?

We all shall find out in time as Conley pursues his remedy of compelling the payment of the Studer fine into the Stark treasury rather than to the Newtown charity.

Conley and Ferrero have a testy interpersonal history going back at least to the end of June, 2010 (LINK to SCPR on Conley demand letter to Ferrero).

Allegations surfaced on April 1, 2009 that Stark treasury chief deputy Vince Frustaci had stolen Stark County taxpayer funds.  Frustaci pled guilty to having stolen $2.45 million of county funds on June 25, 2010.

Zeigler was not implicated in the Frustaci theft.

By existing Ohio law the-then treasurer Gary Zeigler had potential personal liability for any funds coming up missing for whatever reason while he was treasurer.

Eventually the Zeigler and Stark County commissioners reached a settlement agreement on financial issues and Zeigler resigned/retired on October 19, 2011.

The SCPR believes that Conley was a critical factor in enhancing Stark County's ability to recover lost funds at the level it did.

Until he stepped forward, it looked as if Prosecutor Ferrero would be sitting on his hands for a long, long time.  Perhaps too long for Stark County to be able (in terms of availability of assets) to have an opportunity to satisfy as much of the loss it did from available resources that existed at the time of Conley's agitation.

As far as Ferrero is concerned with regard to Conley surfacing in the Studer matter, one has to believe he is experiencing a Yogi Berra-esque "deja vu all over again."

The SCPR has attempted to contact Judge Forchione for his reaction to the correspondence.    But so far, no response.

The Report would contact Ferrero.  However, he - the public official he is - is unwilling to take the SCPR's questions.  Yours truly has a history with him of asking tough questions and critiquing the administration/management of his office.

Unfortunately for Stark Countians, Ferrero was reelected to office this past November.  Stark's organized Republicans have been unable to find a viable candidate to take him on.  In fact, they fielded no candidate is 2008.

But if he ever thinks better of his rash and retributive stance vis-a-vis the SCPR, yours truly stands ready to take his unedited video statement or, if he would rather, his unedited e-mail in response to the Conley demand.

Conley tells The Report that he will give Ferrero a couple of weeks to respond but that his failing to do so would prompt him to file a lawsuit on behalf of his client and long time Stark County civic activist Tom Marcelli.

Moreover, he says it is not a matter of the worthiness of a cause (i.e. Sandy Hook victims) in terms of having fines diverted from the county treasurer nor is it the amount of the money.   He assured The Report that he and his client's reaction would be the same if the amount were $5 and the charity was Stark County sited.

Conley says the law is clear on the matter and that he stands ready to ensure by his client's contemplated legal action to see that the $5,000 gets deposited in the Stark treasury.

There are not many Stark County citizens who will go where Conley goes and do what he does in terms of civic activism.  It takes a cast iron stomach and an unique ability to more forward in the face of pressure from those who do not cotton up to civic activism.

Whether one agrees with or disagrees with the substance of his effort, he certainly deserves accolades for being willing to take on issues such as the Zeigler matter and the $5,000 Sandy Hook fine payment issue.

Stark County could be in for a protracted battle.

Stay tuned folks!

FERRERO'S OFFICE SHOULD BE EXCUSED FROM ANY COUNTY BUDGET CUTS, HANDS DOWN?

When Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero appeared before the county commissioners three (3) months to the day that Gary D. Zeigler resigned/retired (October 19, 2011), he had "an ace (perhaps, two aces) up his sleeve" as he confronted commissioners on their proposal to cut his office 23% (along with other Stark County general funding receiving departments) for 2012.

Here is a video of Ferrero (and Commissioner Thomas in response later [01/23/11]) justifying, in part, why his office should not be cut.



Since Ferrero did not come armed with exact figures, the SCPR went checking.

A "lo and behold" The Report found (according to official Stark County auditor office numbers) that Stark County spent $247,604.88.

Multiplying the $247,604.88 three (3) times according to the Ferrero articulated standard, his office saved Stark County taxpayers $742,814.64 or nearly THREE QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS!

So what is the argument about?

Too bad for the rest of Stark County's of general fund supported department of governments, but who among them can say that they more than pay for themselves in savings to taxpayers?

And the Zeigler thing is not the only thing.

Ferrero has the commissioners by the throat on another matter.

If they do cut his office, he will do an end run around them and ask Stark County's courts to appoint counsel who will paid out of guess what?

You've got it, the general fund.

Which, of course, will cost the county a lot more than the $678,000 that they would be saving with a 23% cut on the 2011 budget.

To sum the justification for the commissioners not exacting 23% or any cuts to the Stark County prosecutor's office:

• the office has saved the county about three quarters of a million dollars to start with, and 
• it might cost the county budget hundreds of thousands of dollars more with "appointed special counsel."

Indications are that commissioners are highly sensitive to law enforcement matters, including the prosecutorial function.

So it will be interesting to see whether or not Ferrero has been effective or counterproductive in trying to ward off cuts to his office.

The commissioners main worry?

If they give into Ferrero, what is the message they are sending to the remaining Stark County general fund funded departments of government?

The commissioners' message has been that "we are all in this together."

Will it hold water, if they cave into Ferrero?

CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS. AFTER ALL STARK CO. HAS BEEN THROUGH WITH STARK PROSECUTOR JOHN FERRERO, THE STARK GOP IS ABOUT TO GIVE HIM ANOTHER FREE RIDE?

To the SCPR there is nothing more disgusting than this:

Readers of the Stark County Political Report know how utterly unimpressed yours truly is with Stark GOP Chairman Jeff Matthews.

For him to allow Ferrero and Zeigler to go unchallenged in the election of 2008, should tell you all you need to know about the grit and determination of this politico.  Oh yes, the Stark GOP has had some success because of what local attorney and civic activist Craig Conley has coined "Zeiglergate."  But that is the only reason for the Stark County Republican turnaround.  Not at all from the political skills of one Jeff Matthews and his cushy job at the Stark County Board of Elections.

It is looking more and more like 2008 in the case of Ferrero.  The Report learned recently that Conley is not going to run against Ferrero and in a chat today with 2004 Ferrero foe:  Attorney Jeff Jakmides - The Report came away thinking that he is not going to run either.  Only a few weeks ago, the SCPR was told that Jakmides definitely would be Ferrero's opponent.

Of course, readers of the SCPR know how utterly unimpressed yours truly is with Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero. 

Because of what the SCPR believes to have been examples of  Ferrero's sorry prosecuting in the Devies (criminal) case and the Zeigler (civil) cases, the voters of Stark County should be ready to replace Ferrero as prosecutor in November of 2012.

In the Devies case he allowed Marlboro Police Chief Ron Devies and his son to be charged with fourth degree felonies (along with misdemeanors) in what it appears to yours truly to have been a communications problem between the Devies family members and former Marlboro Township trustees Wise and Wolfe.

That he exercised poor judgment in carrying the case to prosecution was validated in the opinion of the SCPR when Judge Lee Sinclair sustained defense counsel's (Jakmides and Reinbold) motion to dismiss.  This folks is about a close as one can get to a legal slam dunk

Ferrero should never have handled this case.  He should have farmed it out to a special independent counsel or to a prosecutor from a neighboring county.  The Report is confident that either would have handled the matter short of prosecution.

Actually, any time a Stark County based public official (including Zeigler) is being looked at, the look should not be by a former political ally or even an acquaintance (Ferrero on Zeigler).  It should be like in the Mark Roach case (Zeigler's predecessor who ran into legal difficulties).  A special independent counsel was appointed to do the assessment.

To The Report, every Stark Countian should be nervous about the possible import of Ferrero's handling of the Devies case:  something like - "there but for the grace of God go I." 

Had he owned up to his miscalculation on Devies and publicly apologized to the family and had he publicly apologized for his outrageous act of filing a grievance with Ohio's Disciplinary Counsel against yours truly (dismissed out of hand) in response to The Report's political analysis and editorializing on his handling of the Devies case, then perhaps Stark Countians can look beyond these matters in assessing whether or not he has the political maturity to continue as county prosecutor. 

The Stark County Political Report is not now nor has it ever been about yours truly blogging as an attorney.

To carry on, there is Conley's Zeiglergate.

It was Conley who got the ball rolling to ensure Stark Countians had an opportunity to recover monies from Zeigler by operation of Ohio Revised Code Section 321.37 on the basic fact that $2.96 million of taxpayer was missing from the county treasury in the wake of Zeigler's (cleared of any involvement in the theft by Ferrero and federal prosecutors) former chief deputy having stolen at least $2.46 (admitted) of the missing money.  There are people that think he stole the entire $2.96 million.

How did Ferrero respond to the Conley initiative?

He got mad and lashed out at Conley in the press.

Go figure!

So if Jeff Matthews is anything other than a political grandstander, now is the time for him to get moving to find a viable candidate to oppose Fererro next year.

VIDEO: C. DAVID MORGAN ON TRUSTING GOV'T. SEE TREASURER ZEIGLER'S LETTER TO PROSECUTOR FERRERO. GOV'T TRUST ENHANCING OR TRUST UNDERMINING?

It was truly amazing to read the letter sent by Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler to Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero on Wednesday.

Here read it for yourself.

 

It has been clear from April 1, 2009 (the date that he fired Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci) that Gary Zeigler is not a "the buck stops here" public official (a la Harry Truman) even though Ohio law seems to put him in that position however involuntary Zeigler may be in accepting the law.

While Ferrero's office and the federal prosecutor exonerated Zeigler of any involvement in the Frustaci theft of what is believed to be $2.96 from the county treasurer, the public and many county officials appear to believe that Zeigler failed to have management and administrative measures in place to prevent Frustaci from doing what he did.


Ohio law (Ohio Revised Code 321.38)  holds:

321.37 Suit on bond of county treasurer.

If the county treasurer fails to make a settlement or to pay over money as prescribed by law, the county auditor or board of county commissioners shall cause suit to be instituted against such treasurer and his surety or sureties for the amount due, with ten per cent penalty on such amount, which suit shall have precedence over all other civil business.
Effective Date: 07-01-1985

So now Zeigler wants Stark County taxpayers to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars in using county legal counsel so he can avoid "personal" liability?

It would be truly shocking if Ferrero were to bite on that one.   The Report thinks the chances of that happening is right there in the league with the chance of a snowball in hell. 

There is probably a better chance that local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley will convince Canton Law Director Joe Martuccio to prosecute Zeigler for dereliction of duty than Ferrero going after the State of Ohio Auditor.

At Wednesday's commissioner meeting, a Reverend C. David Morgan appeared to make a presentation at the commissioners' Public Speaks segment of the meeting agenda.

His topic?

Citizen trust in government!

Interesting enough he did mention the Zeigler removal from office situation and the frustration that commissioners must feel that they followed a statute to remove him only to have the Ohio Supreme Court invalidate the law.

For the SCPR and The Report believes for large numbers of Stark citizens, the most egregious thing about Zeigler is his "sticking his head in the sand" in terms of denying any responsibility whatsoever for not ensuring that adequate policies, procedures, structures of operations were in place from when he took office in 1999 through the April 1, 2009 Frustaci revelation.

According to Zeigler, he has been a flawless manager and administrator and protector of the public trust.  "I have done nothing wrong," he says about his management of the county treasury.

But many differ with him.  The State of Ohio Auditor recommended changes that were not made.  Successor treasurers Allbritain, Koher and Zumbar made many changes to the measures Zeigler had in place.  Moreover,  most of the Stark County public is not buying the Zeigler line either.

The SCPR believes that Zeigler's pugnacious, arrogant refusal to accept any responsibility for not having adequate safeguards in place has done much to undermine public trust in Stark County government.

Other county officials do not deserve to be tainted by the Zeigler's obstinance but it appears they are.  A casualty of the air of distrust that permeates the public view of county government likely will be the proposed 1/2 sales tax increase that will be on the November ballot.

Because of the situation in the treasurer's officers, Commissioners Bernabei, Creighton and Ferguson have had to be out in Stark County in a series of meetings trying to restore trust.  Many county officials joined them including Alex Zumbar who was elected treasurer in November, 2010 only to be removed by the Ohio Supreme Court on June 23rd.

With Zeigler on the sidelines, it appeared they were making progress.

But with him being back, it seems that any ground gained is now lost.  His abiding intransigence is not something that Stark Countians are going to accept and they appear prepared to punish all of Stark County government in order to make a point to the county treasurer.

While it was fine for Morgan to address the commissioners, it probably would have been more appropriate for him to have stopped just short of making a left turn into the Stark County office complex.

Rather he should have made a right turn into the offices of Stark County Treasurer Gary D. Zeigler and made his speech to him.

He could have asked Treasurer Zeigler to tell him where the "pea of officeholder responsibility" is located in terms of owning up to improvements in policies, procedures and structures of operation that he should have had in place so as to measurably enhance the likelihood that Vince Frustaci could not have done what he in fact did.

Here is the video of C. David Morgan.

SOME COUNTY OFFICE HOLDERS REFUSE TO DEAL WITH REALITY?

Apparently, at a recent meeting of Stark County's elected officials (this past Friday at the Athens Restaurant) rather than focus on ways and means to implement the will of the people of Stark County on November 3, 2009; some county officials are leading a fight to go back again to Stark's taxpayers for an increase in the county sales tax.

 Who is the chief "non-hearing" public official?  Well, Prosecutor John Ferrero seems to be the guy (see Stark elected officials to pay for sales tax poll, Kelli Young, The Repository, January 28, 2011).

Go figure!

The man who balanced his 2010 budget on a "hope and a prayer," and had to borrow money from commissioners to do so and who was the liaison between office holders and the Citizens Review Committee appears to be the driving force to convince Stark County taxpayers to increase the county sales tax.

Maybe, just maybe, Mister Fererro ought to give austerity (i.e. the Citizens Review Committee's recommendations plus some) a chance, first?

That county officials are willing to dip into their own pockets should tell Stark County taxpayers a lot.

They are refusing to get the message (63% to 36%) that office holders implement fully county government austerity measures and "we the public" will determine whether or not we can live with them.

Any move to increase the sales tax should come from the voting Stark County public; not from county office holders.

The "let's do a poll crowd" of county officials are not getting the message of November 3, 2009.

Of course, we all know that their leader John Ferrero is an artisan of wishful thinking!

CONLEY ISSUES ULTIMATUM TO PROSECUTOR FERRERO. WILL FERRERO GIVE IN?

The SCPR has learned that civic activist and attorney Craig T. Conley sent a letter today to Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero demanding that Ferrero file a lawsuit on bonds (2) and an insurance policy covering employee theft for the losses sustained by the Stark County treasury over the terms of Stark County Gary D. Zeigler's time in office.

Most ($2.46 million of nearly $3 million) but not all of the missing money was pilfered by former treasury Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci who pled guilty in the Northern District of the United States District Court on June 25, 2010; the day the federal government filed a Bill of Information against him.

Despite the appearance that the Frustaci generated loss has been known since Frustaci was fired, county officials still have not moved to recover the loss.  But for the efforts of Conley, it seems that Ferrero would not have moved to recover for taxpayers until after Frustaci is sentenced on September 7th.

The SCPR commends Attorney Conley for his pro bono (for the public good) work.  Stark Countians should be and are undoubtedly pleased with Conley's effort.  However, everyday citizens need to be contacting Prosecutor Ferrero with questions as to why he is resisting Conley's effort to get the recovery effort moving.

Here is a copy of Conley's letter to Ferrero.

AN EARLY TOE-TO-TOE/FERRERO VERSUS CONLEY: SHOULD STARK COUNTIANS CARE WHICH ONE PURSUES TREASURER ZEIGLER ON LIABILITY ISSUES ON MISSING COUNTY MONEY?

It was a week ago Friday when "in the public interest" Attorney Craig T. Conley filed a lawsuit (on a pro bono [for the public good] basis) against Stark County Treasurer Gary Zeigler to recover missing funds from the county treasury; mostly at the hand of former Chief Deputy Vince Frustaci who has admitted in open federal court to have taken about $2.46 million of a total missing nearly $3.0 million.

Conley is planning on filing a motion for summary judgment before Zeigler even gets his attorney to file an answer to the lawsuit.  He says that this is a "strict liability" case on the basis of Ohio statutes fixing liability on the treasurer, in particular, and on any public official, in general, to make the public whole for any money that comes up missing during the administration of the office.

Early last week Conley sent a demand letter on behalf of client Tom Marcelli to Stark County Prosecutor Ferrero insisting that Ferrero immediately initiate a civil action against Zeigler to recover any missing money not covered by bonds, insurance and other resources (e.g. Frustaci liquidating his pension fund in favor of Stark County government).

Ferrero (via Civil Prosecutor Deborah Dawson) did not outright refuse the demand, but did claim the time was not ripe for filing suit against Zeigler. 

Initially, Conley said he would file suit on July 7th if Ferrero had not filed by the end of business on July 6th.  However, Conley did not wait until the 7th; he filed on the 2nd.

Conley's reasoning is that waiting hurts the Stark County taxpayer for several reasons.

First, if the suit is delayed until after Frustaci is sentenced (Conley says that Frustaci has already begun serving his time in the Mahonning County Jail pending official sentencing to federal prison) on September 7th and the bond obligations kick in, then the bond company's will file suit against the persons bonded and be first in line for any assets that may be available to cover the bond money paid.  Bonds do not work like insurance.  Those covered by bonds are fully liable for any bond money paid out by the bonding company.

Second, Conley says that Zeigler has recently transferred some realty assets (apparently to relatives) for no consideration (which Conley concedes could be co-incidental and not designed to protect from potential judgment creditors).  However,  Conley plans, if allowed to proceed on the suit he has filed against Zeigler, to ask Judge John Haas (the Stark County Common Pleas Court judge initially assigned to the case) to freeze Zeigler's remaining assets pending outcome of the litigation..  Conley believes that  "time is of the essence" in the case moving forward.

Of interest is information that Judge Haas has called for an in-chamber conference for tomorrow (July 9).

What might that be about?

Could it be a discussion among the Court, Ferrero and Conley as to whether or not Conley will be permitted to proceed?

There may be a question of whether or not Ferrero has had sufficient time to consider Conley's demand to proceed against Treasurer Zeigler.  However, as of yesterday, accordingly to Conley, no motion had been filed by Ferrero to stay or dismiss the Conley-initiated suit.

The SCPR believes Conley is to be commended for pushing the pursuing of Zeigler for liability, if any, for any missing money out of the Stark treasury and for getting the action moving.

We know from a Repository report (Lawsuit seeks Stark County's missing millions from Zeigler, 07/02/10, Shane Hoover) that Ferrero takes a dim view of Conley's action, to wit:  “It’s nothing but grandstanding as far as I’m concerned."

If Ferrero asks for a squelching of the Conley initiative, the Stark County public (via the Stark County commissioners) should be asking him how he will ensure that delay will not jeopardize the public's priority to assess against any Zeigler-held assets, if ultimately there is a judgment of liability against the county treasurer.

Of course, the called for conference could be for other matters and not about delaying/stopping the case from proceeding.

Whatever the Friday confab is about, what Conley terms as being "Zeiglergate" is of the utmost of interest to Stark Countians.

As pointed out in the first paragraph of this blog, Conley tells the SCPR he is not planning on charging legal fees in this case and will not be asking the Court to assess attorney fees he is entitled to as a matter of law unless certain exigencies arise.

Here is a copy of the Conley/Marcelli complaint for SCPR reader perusal.

STARK CO PROSECUTOR JOHN FERRERO “POLITICALLY?” ATTACKS THE WRITER OF THE SCPR UNDER THE GUISE OF MAKING A “RULES OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY” COMPLAINT, BUT DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL ISN’T BUYING!

Since March, 2008, yours truly has been writing a political blog on the ins and outs of Stark County politics and government.

In January, 2009, a situation materialized in Marlboro Township wherein Police Chief Ron Devies and his son Kyle were being investigated on allegations of tampering with the township's computer operations.

In the opinion of the SCPR, when the facts of the case became known (and The Report did have the chief's version which was recorded on video and published on the SCPR), it was clear that the Devies had done nothing wrong and that the file-up was a consequence of improper communications between the Devies and township trustees (Wise and Wolf).

Accordingly, from the outset The Report believed that no charges would be filed against the Devies once Sheriff Swanson and Prosecutor John Ferrero got into the matter.

Well, the SCPR was wrong and the Devies both got charged with fourth degree felonies and some misdemeanor charges.

While yours truly does not write the Stark County Political Report as a lawyer commenting on the legal significance of legal-connected matters, it was abundantly clear to anyone - it doesn't take a lawyer - that something was not right about the Devies being indicted.

And, of course, even the general public knows that saying, which has a lot of truth to it, to wit:  "a prosecutor worth his salt could indict a ham sandwich."

Once the indictments occurred, The Report (believing quality of the case to be almost non-existent) predicted in these pages that Ferrero's legal staff would try to "plea bargain" out of the felonies.  And they did (confirmed to The Report by the one of the Devies' attorneys).  Only trouble with plea bargaining effort was that the Devies were not buying.

They were firm in their conviction that they had done nothing wrong.

The Devies went out and got a couple of outstanding local attorneys (Jakimedes and Reinbold [a retired Stark County Common Pleas judge.]

Once the trial began (the fall of 2009), the SCPR was there with camera-in-hand to record the testimony.  If anything, the testimony of Chief Deputy Perez (especially) and others reinforced The Report's (layman-vantage-point/yours truly is not a criminal defense attorney) take on the case.

The Report believes that most non-lawyers (and, perhaps, all criminal defense attorneys) would say that the case should NOT have been brought in the first place!

But it was and the long and the short of it is that Judge Lee Sinclair did the right thing in dismissing the case after chief criminal prosecutor Dennis Barr completed Ohio's case.

Hallelujah!  The system worked!!!

While the Devies were undoubtedly gratified at the results, they had to be thinking to themselves what an injustice it was that they had been put through this process.

People do make mistakes.  The SCPR believes that Ferrero's office made a mistake in not identifying this situation for what it was and resolving the matter well short of charges being made and, certainly, well short of an actual trial being started.

After the case dismissal, all John Ferrero had to do was to publicly apologize to the Devies and the Stark County general public for the mistake the SCPR believes his office made.

The Report has confirmed with Chief Devies that a Ferrero apology would make all the difference in the world.

In making such an apology, Ferrero owes it to the public to give some sort of explanation as to how Devies could happen and what structures and procedures of government he will put in place to ensure that there is not a Devies II.

Ferrero has had opportunities to apologize to Chief Devies (in terms of proximity) on a number of occasions, but never did.  On one such occasion, Devies tells the SCPR that he and Ferrero were within two people of one another. However, in the final analysis, it does not take proximity.

Undoubtedly, Executive Editor Gauger will provide a forum. It would be a shot in the arm for a mediocre - at best - editorial board.

After all, you have two honorable, community serving men who faced the prospect of prison time, if convicted. The Report is adamant that an apology needs to be forthcoming.

The SCPR is pleased to have written as no other Stark County media outlet wrote during this - what appears to have been - a miscarriage of justice in the sense of Ferrero seeking indictments and carrying the matter onto trial   But, of course, not when the matter got in Judge Sinclair's hand.

The Report (knowing Sinclair as well as yours truly does) knew that he would get it right.

Post-dismissal, Ferrero should have "eaten a little crow."  Ferrero should have said that the SCPR had it right from the get-go, apologized to the Devies and the Stark general public (with some explanation and remediation initiative), and then moved on.

Well, the only thing that Ferrero did was move on.

Where did he move to?

You are not going to believe this.

Ferrero (who hails from Massillon - any connection to Judge Eddie Elum and Massillon clerk of courts Johnnie A. Maier, Jr?)  files a violation of the Ohio Rules Professional Responsibility against yours truly, as if I had written the blog as an attorney and, as if what was written was not covered by an attorney's Ohio and U.S constitutional rights to free speech.

Of course, Ferrero was nowhere near yours truly's actual role in filing the complaint:  that of being an opinion journalist and politics/government commentator.

And the irony of it?

First, it got dismissed pretty much out-of-hand; as it should had been.  (Yours truly only learned about the complaint after the Disciplinary Counsel made her decision).

Second, the decision makes it apparent to yours truly that he was within his Ohio and U.S. constitutional right - EVEN WRITING AS AN ATTORNEY (which he wasn't) - to free speech in writing as has been written.

To emphasize, the fact of the matter is that yours truly was not writing as an attorney.

You would think that when Ferrero gets "slam-dunked" for a second time, he would have it in him to telephone yours truly and apologize for filing a totally unwarranted complaint. 

But he hasn't and, yours truly is not holding his breath waiting for the warranted apology.

Ferrero's action in filing the complaint, could not realistically be - in the opinion of The Report - a concern about the SCPR's respect for Stark County bar and its courts.  Anyone who knows yours truly, knows that The Report respects Stark's attorneys and judges to the highest degree.

However, as a journalist, The Report will not gloss over what The Report perceives to be a problem in the administration of justice in Stark County.

The SCPR believes that Ferrero was using the Ohio Rules of Professional Responsibility as a political attack.  Not only for John Ferrero, but many other Stark County elected officials who have been subjected to The Report's incisive political/governmental analysis.  They don't like The Report's findings and opinions and are desperately looking for ways - any way, including the clearly inapplicable - to shut Olson up.

So it could be that the general query among these politicos is this:  How can we stop Olson?  Obviously, Ferrero is going to deny such to have had such a motivation.  Nonetheless, that strong suspicion lingers with yours truly.

Again, The Report believes that Ferrero - if he was motivated as yours truly suspects -  was the lead not just for himself in a "what about my political future" context, but for number of  other Stark County officials who have come under intense scrutiny of the SCPR. 

The Canton Repository did a pathetic job of opinionating on the Devies matter.  But that is Executive Editor Jeff Gauger for you.  He appears to The Report to be so intent on maintaining his newspaper's insider relationship with the "powers that be" in Stark County that the SCPR sees him as directing the editorial staff to steer clear of the likes of Ferrero in any kind of critical vein.

At the end of this story, one thing should be abundantly clear.  Stark County needs a new prosecutor.  If a police chief can be put through what the Devies got put through, then shouldn't the rest of us worry?

Ferrero will have to stand for reelection in 2012. Who shall run against him?

Last time out, Ferrero ran unopposed.  Big mistake!  That will not happen again, even if yours truly has to (reluctantly) run. Campaign theme:  "Remember Devies!"

The SCPR plans to keep up the drumbeat for Ferrero being cast aside by voters in November, 2012.  Preferably, it will be at the hand of  one of Stark County's many able attorneys; someone other than yours truly.

Notwithstanding Prosecutor Ferrero's endeavor to tarnish the professional reputation of yours truly, the SCPR pledges to the Stark County public to keep the heat on; not only Ferrero, but all of Stark County government.  For sure, The Report expects to get "blow-back."

In the meantime, yours truly is waiting for a Prosecutor John Ferrero apology!

As is the Devies family!!

As is the Stark County general public!!!