GEORGE T. MAIER & FRIENDS MIGHT BE "ON THE HOT SEAT" SOON?

Apparently, as a Christmas present, local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conlely representing Stark County citizen and taxpayer Thomas Marcelli, wanted to send contested Stark County sheriff George T. Maier's attorney (Thomas Rosenberg) a message.

Really?

Indeed!

What message?

First, a holiday greeting.

Starting out with the last line of the the Conley to Rosenberg letter:

P.S.  I offer you and yours my best wishes for the holidays.

Folks, that inclusion in the Conley December 24th letter to Rosenberg just goes to show what a decent fellow Conley is.

Not holding it against Roetzel & Andress attorney Rosenberg for launching an ad hominem against him in Rosenberg's motion to dismiss Marcell's taxpayer original lawsuit against Maier, he issues a "best wishes for the holidays."

How about that!

Truly impressive, no?

Second (for purposes of the structure of this blog), but obviously of the first order of import as far as Conley and Marcelli are concerned, is a tempering of the ending best wishes, to wit:

RE: State ex rel. Marcelli v. Maier, Stark County Court of Common Pleas Court Case No. 2013 CA 03075

Under the presumption that a second quo warranto action will shortly be filed seeking the ouster of Mr. Maier a second time, I wanted to provide you the professional courtesy of advance notice that, should that second action, (as I reasonably presume will be the case) again result in Mr. Maier’s ouster, my client will promptly thereafter file a second taxpayer lawsuit seeking the same type of refunds from Mr. Maier of public funds he is now seeking in the instant action.

A second taxpayers' lawsuit?

Interesting.

Conley tells the SCPR that he has received numerous telephone calls from people he deems to be Maier emissaries putting pressure on him to counsel his client (Marcelli) to drop the taxpayer lawsuit against Maier.

Awfully naive for the Maier supporters to think they can pressure Conley (Marcelli) to back off, no?

Perhaps, the December 24th "faxed" letter (to ensure that it was received before December 25th, undoubtedly) was sort of a response to both the Rosenberg "motion to dismiss" personal attack and the emissary pressure being applied?

However one takes the missive, it is clear to the SCPR that it is a blunt salvo putting Rosenberg's client on notice that (assuming Conley gets beyond the motion to dismiss, which The Report thinks he will) George T. Maier and his political boosters within the hierarchy of the Stark/Ohio Democratic Parties (local and state) they have some accounting to do on their "in-house"  and "inter-personal" discussions as to whether or not they coordinated efforts to make George Stark County sheriff, to wit:

That matter aside, in the meantime, I request you promptly provide me several available deposition dates in February, 2014 for Mr. Maier’s deposition, which I presently presume, depending in large part upon his level of cooperation in providing responsive answers to my inquires, will take a full day, if not longer.  (emphasis added)

Look at the Conley's list: (bulleted by the SCPR for clarity sake)

Along those same lines, it is my present intention to also depose, inter alia,

• Judge Edward Elum, 
• Stark County Democratic Chairman Randy Gonzalez, 
• Ohio Democratic Party [ODP] Secretary William DeMora, 
• Prosecuting Attorney John Ferrero, 
• Harrison County Sheriff Ronald J. Myers, 
• Lt./Deputy Sheriff Louis Darrow, 
• Sheriff Timothy Swanson, 
• and some or all of 
• the several attorneys who had represented and/or are still representing Mr. Maier before the Ohio Supreme Court
• and/or had, prior to the November 6, 2013 issuance of the Ohio Supreme Court’s Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4767, otherwise (incorrectly) opined as to Mr. Maier’s statutory qualifications, 
• [SCPR NOTE:  Meaning, perhaps, Steve Okey, Michael Thompson, Allen Schulman and Warren Price]
• as well as Sheriff Swanson’s counsel, Attorneys Gregory A. Beck and James F. Matthews.

Wow!!!

The Report presumes that Conley inadvertently omitted Maier brother and former Stark County Democratic Party Johnnie A. Maier, Jr (currently, executive vice chairman of the Stark Dems).

Maybe he should consider deposing the Stark Dems' political director R. Shane Jackson (who is Johnnie's chief deputy clerk of courts in Massillon city government).

Readers of The Report will recall Jackson's caustic email to the SCPR of September 18, 2013 decrying The Report's suspicion that the very top echelon local Democratic Party leadership had known for some time before his resignation on January 4, 2013 that Sheriff-elect Mike McDonald (November, 2013) would be unable to take office as scheduled on January 7th because of an illness - which regrettably and tragically - eventually cost McDonald his life (February 22, 2013).

Conley's proposal to depose the likes of Gonzalez, DeMora and, hopefully, from the SCPR's perspective, Johnnie, Jr. and R. Shane, could prove to be of the utmost interest to Stark Countians who want the "political curtain" to be pulled back and the conjectured machinations, perhaps, to be revealed as having been "the real deal."

The Report believes that the Jackson e-mail was a "stark" (no pun intended) political calculation hatched up by Johnnie and Shane to put the SCPR on the defensive with an added quest to drive this blogger off pursuing getting forthright answers as to when George T. Maier and "his innermost political circle" first understood that McDonald would not be able to take office and consequently initiated laying the political groundwork to give George the edge in the political competition as to whom would become sheriff to succeed McDonald.

It is one thing to issue "not-under-oath" denials, but will they stand the test of being "put-under-oath?"

For as the SCPR sees it, a key component of the Marcelli lawsuit is whether or not George T. Maier acted in "bad faith" in accepting the first Stark County Democratic Party appointment (February 5, 2013) and therefore is legally vulnerable to having to return some $130,000 of Stark County taxpayer money, combined received (salary/benefits) and spent (re-branding), by George.

Digging into George T. Maier, Eddie Elum, Randy Gonzalez, Johnnie A. Maier, Jr, R. Shane Jackson, William DeMora and Harrison County sheriff Ronald J. Maier conversations might shed floodlights of "under oath" testimony that may be revelatory of who knew what, when and the effect of such knowledge/information on George Maier's decision to apply for the appointment to succeed McDonald and the timing thereof.

Readers will recall that initially George Maier was guaranteeing that if he applied for the appointment, he would be qualified.

The essence of the question raised by the  Marcelli lawsuit - in everyday language - given the the Swanson v. Maier Ohio Supreme Court decision of ouster coupled with what information may be forthcoming from the above-reference depositions; is whether or not there has been a "breach of warranty" and that therefore Stark County taxpayers are entitled "as a matter of law" to be reimbursed?

The SCPR believes that the Maier forces will fight "tooth and nail" not to be put under Conley's incisive questioning.

Don't be surprised if Maier agrees to a settlement with Marcelli (acting on behalf of Stark County's taxpayers) in order to avoid his and his political allies being put on the "hot-seat" (i.e. put under oath) and having to answer the tough, dogged and "no stone unturned" questions of one Craig T. Conley.

On the other hand, it was a brazen move on the part of the Maier political cabal to think they could bulldoze through the likes of Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero and interim Sheriff Tim Swanson unchallenged.

The latter could indicate that the political bullying will continue and more audacity and arrogance is in the offing?

COULD "GRANDSTANDING" COST JUDGE FORCHIONE IN NEXT YEAR'S GENERAL ELECTION?

 Update:  10:00 AM

For the likes of a political blog such as the Stark County Political Report, there is no judge in all of Stark County that is quite the match of Stark County Court of Common Pleas judge Frank Forchione in generating reader interest.

It seems like every time Judge Frank opens his mouth, he creates an opportunity for the SCPR to write a blog and The Report's numbers do indicate that the readers like to read political assessments of what the good judge is doing and saying these days.

The only other judge in Stark who draws much political interest on part of the press and the Stark County public is Judge Eddie Elum of the Massillon Municipal Court bench. 

Otherwise, Stark's judges (no offense, your Honors) are pretty much a bland group as far as political writers are concerned.

And one gets the impression that they "like it like that."

We know that Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor of the Ohio Supreme Court likes it like that.

Over the past several years or so she has made a number of proposals  (e.g. A Proposal for Strengthening Judicial Elections; May, 2013) to lessen the impact of politics on judicial races and to get the public more participative in judicial elections but not on the basis of political party identification or on candidates playing to the press.

Rather she wants to see restructuring of judicial elections instituted and educational opportunities made available to the voting public that voters will take advantage of.

The SCPR would like to be a mouse in the chambers of Judge O'Connor when she reads about the "creative' sentencing efforts of the likes of Judge Forchione which, one writer says, is sanctioned in Ohio law.

• (Note, to wit: "The Ohio Legislature has enacted a law that allows judges to choose alternative punishments if they are related to the crime.")

Since last December, Judge Forchione has been "one busy man" in terms of his creative juices flowing.

He had to do "an about face" on Creative Effort #1 (the Studer case sentencing [redirecting fine money to a charity) and he may be undone by the Ohio Supreme Court on Creative Effort #2. (see note)

•  NOTE:  "an arbitrary" - the SCPR thinks - opening up the Stark County sheriff qualification process to new applicants whereon he quoted as wanting "to err on the side of democracy""
• The Report expects interim Sheriff Tim Swanson to file a new quo warranto this week asking the Supreme Court to once again remove George T. Maier from office, which, if it happens again, would, in effect, undo Forchione's Creative Effort #2

His most recent foray into creativeness, Creative Effort #3, (sentencing offenders to jail on Christmas Day, according to a local media report) is probably going to stick and prove to be a reliable for Forchione to keep his name in the mainstream media and the blogosphere.

Not exactly some, the chief justice wants to see from her judges across Ohio, one would think.

But Judge Frank appears bound and determined to find ways to be a media headliner.

The SCPR has a copy of a recent day in the telephone life of Judge Forchione in hand and it reveals a number of telephone calls back and forth between the judge and the folks down at 500 Market Avenue, South.

How come the number of the SCPR does not appear in his telephone records?

Maybe just maybe that Judge Forchione knows that The Report is more than prepared and uniquely positioned to ask questions he might feel just more than a mite uncomfortable answering?

It is interesting to note "on the returned phone calls thing" how utterly even-handed (sarcasm folks) that Forchione is in his relationship with Stark County media.  But, of course, those other media folks need every advantage they can muster in order to stay on the same page with the SCPR.

Moving on, one has to wonder "what is yet to come" between now and November, 2014 with Stark County's most media-savvy judge.

Hopefully, Forchione will have an opponent next fall.  Whether or not a Stark County judge has an opponent is always a matter of concern for often they do not.

The number of "uncontested" elections in Stark County (not just judgeships) speaks volumes for the the effectiveness of  both the Stark County Republican and Democratic Party chairmen.

And, if he does get an opponent, Forchione's "creative sentencing" propensity should be a front and center discussion point as the respective campaigns unfold.

The SCPR would like for such a race to show results that indicate a public satisfaction with or against this type of the administration of justice.

Here are a couple of examples of what other judges across the American judicial landscape have done in the way of unusual sentences.

• A former judge (a former Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice, nonetheless) has been ordered to wear handcuffs having been convicted of political corruption using her court staff to run her political campaigns,
• An Ohio judge has ordered a Coshocton man to run around the block where the jail is located as retribution for his having run away from police post-traffic accident.

From a political standpoint, creative sentencing is a risky proposition for a judge to model him/herself on and which more than a few prominent American jurists frown upon.

Apparently, Forchione has concluded that the surest way for him to get reelected is via political grandstanding.

The SCPR will do its part to help him be front and center with the Stark County public between now and November, 2104.  Of course, The Report will be seeking out Forchione's opponent for reaction "what has been and what is yet to come" a la the ghosts of Christmas Past and Christmas Future of the classic Christmastime story Scrooge.

The Studer case and the George T. Maier sheriff qualification matter have already served as "lightning rods" that have put him in the Grandstand of Stark County Politics.

The question becomes is this a wise or unwise thing for him to be doing from a political standpoint.

It seems that Judge Forchione is at the vanguard of Creative Punishments the New Trend in Criminal Justice.  

But "how will it play in Peoria err Stark County?

As far as the Stark County Political Report can determine, Forchione is the political equivalent of a Lightning rod that collects highly positive reviews and some let's say euphemistically "less enthusiastic reviews."

His former boss (as Canton law director) and Stark County commissioner Thomas Bernabei does a "the sun rises and sets on Frank Forchione" whereas (lawyers will like that word, no?) there are "unnamed" (readers can guess who they are, of course) others who seemingly "fly into a rage" at the mere mention of the judge's name.

Hmm?

The Report's take on Forchione is that if he senses unconditional endorsement of the way he comports himself, he couldn't be more gracious, friendly and correct.

However, like most folks with a strong political side to them, if one communicates scrutiny and implies a willingness to take exception in a given situation, depending on the situation, then feeling threatened he he is likely to react with frostiness, if not hostility.

So in the market place of ideas and political relationships, you've got those competing looks on Forhione out there floating in the larger Stark County political milieu.  And it appears the political sphere is the one that he really is paying close attention to in his creative sentencing stance as next November looms on the political horizon.

Undoubtedly, he sees himself as being an avant-garde judicial official who is advancing the cause of "tailor-made" justice.

The SCPR has scoured the Internet in order to get an appreciation of how "creative sentencing" is being received.

• One site lists eleven opinions, generally favorable, on the Judge Forchione demonstrated style of sentencing,
• However, jurists (lawyers and law professors) take a more critical bent,
• A 2006 article quoting a then Ohio State Moritz College of Law professor (Berman) talks of the political risks that are inherent in "sentencing gong wrong."
• Some worry about "When [...] Judicial Creativity in Sentencing [is] Just a Bit Too Creative"

The SCPR shares the implied concerns "when judicial creativity in sentencing becomes just a bit too creative."

And, of course, one has to be concerned about "the rule of law" prevailing and that citizens not endorse a judge becoming a helter-skelter fashioner of the administration of justice.

In Stark County, it was exactly that concern that prompted a lawsuit being filed to force Judge Forchione to retract his sentence (in terms of where the fine money ended up).

And the SCPR thinks that Stark Countians should appreciate the effort of Citizen Thomas Marcelli in being willing to step forward to compel Judge Forchione to rethink his action in Studer.

As far as The Report is concerned, the best statement of worries about "off-the-reservation"  (err creative sentencing) judges apparently out to make name for themselves in the political reelectability arena has been expressed by television legal commentator  Jonathon Turley, to wit:  (Dear Judges: Your Creative Punishments Are Hilarious and Also Terrible. Please Stop)

The entire point of a code of laws is to move away from “common sense” justice and its attendant inconsistencies, and to professionalize the process by establishing a standardized list of crimes and punishments that’s valid in all jurisdictions.

The judiciary’s role is to interpret these laws and pass judgment on behalf of the state; judges are theoretically elected or appointed based on their supremely nuanced understanding of these laws, not based on their ability to hand-letter punitive signage.

This doesn’t mean that the system always works.

But it’s meant to ensure that, at the very least, the system proceeds with a measure of fairness and dignity.

Judge Frank Forchione already has enough of a track record on his innovative sentencing techniques for Stark Countians to assess whether or not his trend-setting methods are something that "the body politic" cottons to.

Undoubtedly, he is on a roll and more headline grabbing and grandstanding-esque sentences are in the offing.

Fochione's jury should be the Stark County voting public as educated by the Stark County bar.

For those members of the bar who have entered the discussion, and, in one case has taken action, the SCPR says that such is a good thing.

Judges are very powerful figures in the American society.

While many would like to take the selection of judges out of the hands of the voting public, the SCPR is not among them.

Forchione has to understand that his creative sentencing trek can result in a his becoming a political lightning rod that could result in his political demise.

Such should be the right of the people in our democratic-republican system of government.

"Let it be written, let it be said" - and - let the people decide come November, 2014.

The Stark County "voting public 'jury'" is out on Judge Frank Forchione, no?

MARCELLI/CONLEY STRIKE OUT AT MAIER & ROSENBERG

STARK COMMISSIONERS 

MET IN "EXECUTIVE SESSION"
WITH
STARK CO. PROSECUTOR JOHN FERRERO

YESTERDAY

TO CONSIDER 

SWANSON REQUEST ON

GEORGE T. MAIER

UPDATE:  11:40 AM

Attorney Conley did file a Marcelli Motion to Strike earlier this morning.

The last few paragraphs of the motion provide readers with an excellent summary of the tone of the entire document, to wit:

In sum, if this Court does not strike Defendant’s pre-answer Motion to Dismiss, it should deny same for all and any of the reasons set forth hereinabove.

“Bottom line”, Usurper Maier is not, as he would have this Court believe, a hapless and blameless “victim” here, “immunized” by legitimate color of law and good faith.

Rather, the real victim here is the collective body of Stark Count taxpayers, who are out $129,301.75 and who, unlike Maier, are not already (before their 50th birthdays) retired and receiving a very generous “double-dipping” State pension and attendant lifetime of taxpayer-guaranteed financial independence and security.

ORIGINAL BLOG

One has to wonder whether or not it has dawned on Thomas Rosenberg of Roetzel & Andress and representing George T. Maier in his battle to be sheriff of Stark County that he is, perhaps, in for one his biggest challenges in his legal face-off against local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley.

Conley is representing Stark County taxpayer Thomas M. Marceilli in Marcell's question to recover for Stark County taxpayers the nearly $130,000 that Maier received/expended as, what Conley has coined in expression in recent pleadings, being the "usurper sheriff" for the period February 12, 2013 through November 6, 2013.

The February through November timeline is the period of time that Maier occupied 4500 Atlantic Boulevard as the illegal (according to the Ohio Supreme Court, Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto, filed February 12, 2013; decided November 6, 2013) occupant of the sheriff's digs.

Yesterday, Conley filed an "amended" complaint on behalf of Marcelli (the original having been filed November 27, 2013).

Here is the essence of the original filing:

Conley says he found it expedient to file an "amended" complaint for various reasons chief among which is the fact that he under covered new numbers that raised the original pleading from about $120,000 to nearly $130,000 as the amount his client wants to recover for Stark County taxpayers.

Maier's attorney (Rosenberg), who the SCPR thinks connected with Maier on the basis of a recommendation by Massillon Municipal Court judge Eddie Elum, Elum thought to have - in an overlapping time period context - worked with Rosenberg in the Ohio attorney general's office (1980s into the 1990s), "moved to dismiss" Conley's original complaint on December 10th.

To complete the connection, Elum is thought among a number of Stark County political observers, including the SCPR, to be politically close to George Maier's brother, Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

A SCPR source has provided a copy of a Columbus Dispatch report published that shows a Elum/Johnnie A. Maier, Jr political connection going back to 1988, to wit:

Rosenberg may well now want to rethink whether or not the "motion to dismiss" was the best way to deal with the Marcelli complaint.

It is clear to the SCPR from looking at Conley's original complaint compared to the "amended" complaint that the original may have been deficient in certain regards and susceptible to telling legal attack some time during the proceedings.

It appears as if Rosenberg's "motion to dismiss" made it apparent to Conley that some "legal repair" was in order and that such was also a reason why the original complaint was amended.

With the filing of the "amended complaint" Rosenberg will have to rethink his response.

Will he renew his "motion to dismiss" or will he go in a different direction.

How he reacts to the "amended" complaint could be a tip-off on how the Marcelli (Conley) versus Maier (Rosenberg) battle is going to unwind, if it does in fact continue.

Conley (who considered Rosenberg's original "motion to dismiss" to be a personal attack on him) has made a legal pleading move (filed December 13th) to disqualify Rosenberg on the basis of Rosenberg having a "conflict-in-interest."

Key in Marcelli's (verified, in other words - sworn under oath - "amended" complaint (an argument that may not have been all that apparent in Conley's original pleading) is his alleging that in assuming the office of Stark County sheriff, George T. Maier, acted in "bad faith."

In "bad faith?"

In setting up the allegation of Maier assuming the office on February 12th as being "in bad faith," Marcelli recites to several key factors:

• Stark County prosecutor John Ferrero's "sworn statement" (February 4, 2013) to the Stark County Democratic Central Committee (SCDP-CC), which met on February 5th to consider appointing a sheriff to replace November, 2012 sheriff-elect Mike McDonald (link to background as to why McDonald was being replaced).
• The "sworn statement" by Ferrero asserted that George T. Maier did not meet statutory requirements to be qualified for appointment as sheriff and which document was filed with the Ohio Supreme Court in Swanson v. Maier (see cite above)
• Ferrero and two assistant prosecutors (all SCDP-CC members) spoke of their belief that Maier was disqualified,
• Maier was present at the meeting but notwithstanding the legal opinions accepted the SCDP-CC appointment.
• The Ohio Supreme Court in its Swanson v. Maier decision made the statement:
• "Despite concerns expressed by several members of the DCC meeting that Maier did not meet the qualifications for sheriff, the DCC appointed him."
• Maier, "purportedly acting under the color of law had no authority to so act ... ."

As a consequence of Marcelli's amended filing, here is a comparison (in addition to the allegation that Maier acted in "bad faith" and not under the "color of law" in the sense of having reason to believe he had the legal authority to do so) of the outlining of the particular Maier receipts/expenditures that Marcell seeks to recover for Stark County taxpayers.  (Note:  one additional item has been added from the original November 27th pleading)

Conley tells that the SCPR that first thing this morning he will be filing a motion to strike Rosenberg's motion to dismiss on the basis that the motion to dismiss is no longer applicable in view of Marcelli's having filed his "amended" - verified - complaint yesterday.

So there you have it folks.

The ongoing battle between Conley and Rosenberg on behalf of their respective clients.

Yesterday, Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero met with the county commissioners in "executive session" to discuss Tim Swanson's letter of December 12th (received by the prosecutor on the 13th) whereby Swanson re-asserted his February 7th request that Ferrero make a determination of whether or not George T. Maier holds office lawfully and to act according to his finding.

So, in addition to the Marcelli civil action, there is still plenty going on in the back and forth between the Swanson and Maier factors.

The SCPR expects a final determination by Swanson - no later than tomorrow - as to whether or not to pursue a new quo warranto.

Stay tuned!

(VIDEO) MARCELLI V. MAIER TO BE FILED TODAY? (A LAWSUIT DESIGNED TO RECOVER STARK COUNTY TAXPAYER MONIES)

UPDATED:  AT 2:30 P.M.

FILING CONFIRMED

 VIDEO

COMMISSIONER THOMAS BERNABEI

EXPLAINS WHY

THE STARK CO. COMMISSIONERS

ARE IGNORING

PROSECUTOR JOHN FERREO'S

LETTER 

ON

"CIVILLY" PURSUING

GEORGE T. MAIER

ON BEHALF OF

STARK CO. TAXPAYERS

The Stark County Political Report has learned (weather permitting) that Stark County resident Thomas M. Marcelli will be filing a civil lawsuit today against "ousted-from-the-sheriff's office" George T. Maier to recover for Stark County taxpayers sums received/spent by Maier during his time (February 11, 2013 through November 6, 2013) at 4500 Atlantic Boulevard.

Marcelli's attorney, Craig T. Conley, back on November 12th sent Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero demanding that he seek recovery of monies received by and paid by or on behalf of Maier.

Ferrero declined to do so on his own initiative.

He did offer to join with the Stark County commissioners in requesting the Stark County Court of Common Pleas to appoint a "special prosecutor" to assess whether or not legal action be initiated to recover Conley thinks is some $120,000 that ought to be retrieved from Maier and restored to county revenues for the benefit of Stark County taxpayers.

However, after last Wednesday's regular weekly meeting, Commissioner Tom Bernabei tells the SCPR in the following video that the commissioners to be in the nature of "an informational letter" of Ferrero's willingness but not an "actual" request that the commissioners join him.

Bernabei added that the commissioners saw no need to pursue Maier for recovery of taxpayer funds and therefore would not be taking Ferrero up on his offer.



In the lawsuit, the SCPR has reason to believe that the following allegations will be made:

• During Maier's unlawful and void ab initio [from the beginning] tenure as Sheriff, he was, with taxpayer funds, was paid salary and benefits as though he were lawfully Sheriff; i.e., Maier was, upon information and belief,  and was compensated in the total amount amount of $88,511.75,
• [D]uring Maier's unlawful and void ab initio tenure as Sheriff, he caused taxpayer funds to be expended to change and "re-brand" with his name inter alia [among other things] building and vehicle signage and stationery, and in doing so, Maier, upon information and belief, used $13,671.37 in public funds,
• [D]uring Maier's unlawful and void ab initio tenure as Sheriff, a bond was, with taxpayer funds, obtained for him at, upon information and belief, a cost of $1,399.88,
• [D]uring Maier's unlawful and void ab initio tenure as Sheriff, his attorney's fees related to Swanson quo warranto action, with taxpayer funds, were directly paid or reimbursed to him in the amount of, upon information and belief, of $20,000

An interesting sidelight to the Marcelli lawsuit is the possibility (speculated by the SCPR) that Conley may be going up against pre-eminent and highly regarded Stark County personal injury attorney Allen Schulman.

Conley (a conservative Republican) is an excellent attorney his his own right and has considerable experience in bringing taxpayer lawsuits.

The two know each other well and are said to have a history in engaging each other on various and sundry political and philosophical issues (Schulman is a liberal Democrat) in a number of encounters over the years.

Moreover, Schulman is one of Stark County's foremost Democrats who serves as president of Canton City Council and is currently one of a team of Stark County attorneys (i.e. Warren Price [of Schulman's firm], Steve Okey and Michael Thompson) representing the Stark County Democratic Party and its chairman Randy Gonzalez in a mandamus lawsuit filed by interim sheriff Tim Swanson and Lieutenant Lou Darrow in the Ohio Supreme Court on November 22nd.

Of course, the Stark County Political Report will be covering this political/legal drama as it unfolds - in thoroughgoing detail.

The November 22nd action is a follow on to the high court's ruling on November 6th (Swanson v. Maier, quo warranto) wherein the court removed Maier from the sheriff's office and ordered the Stark Dems' Central Committee to re-do it February 5, 2013 original appointment.

At dispute in the mandamus is whether or not the articulated,  in the Swanson v. Maier decision "qualification date" of February 6, 20 is binding on the Stark Dems in its re-do meeting scheduled for December 11th.

But that is "all beside the point" as far as Conley is concerned inasmuch as he believes that by the Swanson v. Maier decision Maier was never "as a matter of law" sheriff of Stark County and therefore was not entitled to be paid direct or on his behalf or for him to spend any taxpayer dollars that are tied to his personhood (i.e. signs/stationery and the like displaying his name as sheriff).

Stark County auditor Alan Harold balked at paying Maier any county monies at the outset of Maier's appointment but the state of Ohio auditor overruled Harold.

It is going to be awfully embarrassing to the state auditor (Republican David Yost) and to the Stark County commissioners if Conley prevails for Marcelli in the name of Stark County's taxpayers.

One of the things that the commissioners have staked their reputation on as county governors is their watchdog function of taxpayer funds.

They are on record now as giving Maier a pass on the need to recover any monies from him.

If Conley/Marcelli succeed, then the commissioners will certainly have a "political" black eye.

Republican commissioner Janet Creighton has taken out a petition to run for reelection.

Could it be that in the run up to the 2014 elections she might have some "explainin" to do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Initially, Conley was not involved.

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the issues as Conley sees them:

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

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

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

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

But guess where it sits on July 22, 2013?

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

And that may prove to be the case.

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

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

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

Yes, Craig T. Conley is back.

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

APRIL 23, 2013: BEGINNING OF THE END FOR JUDGE FRANCIS G. FORCHIONE? "PROBABLE CAUSE" HEARING SET FOR 9:00 AM IN CANTON MUNY COURT

Tuesday, April 23, 2013 could be the most crucial day in the life (some 50 years, now) of Stark County Common Pleas Judge Francis G. Forchione.

For tomorrow is the day that Judge Michael McNulty (formerly of the Barberton Municipal Court, but now retired) is to determine whether or not there is "probable cause" to believe Judge Forchione committed the crime of "theft-in-office" in his handling of the fine portion of the penalty meted out to the now-former Jackson Township resident Scott D. Studer.

Studer pled guilty (December 19, 2012) to multiple felony counts of the Illegal Use of a Minor in a Nudity-Oriented Material or Performance [Ohio Revised Code {ORC} 21907.323(A)(1)](F2) in secretly taping Jackson Township High School freshman basketball players in the school's locker room.

A Columbus resident (some suspect with Stark County ties) on February 28th of this year filed what appears to be a "sort of" equivalent of a "citizen's arrest"  of His Honor (as provided for ORC Sections 2935.09 and .10) growing out of an incident in late December, 2012 in which he issued a series of orders and letters against now-former Jackson Township resident Scott D. Studer.

In this blog, text bearing the color as exemplified in this particular text indicates a timeline for the orders/letters/lawsuits related to how Judge Forchione dealt with the sentencing of Studer.

In this blog, text bearing the color as exemplified in this particular text indicates a timeline for the affidavits/pleadings/orders related to the probable cause matter re:  Judge Forchione recited above.

For the uninitiated, here is a string of links to prior SCPR blogs in which the Studer case and its ramifications are discussed:

• January 25, 2013 blog,
• January 29, 2013 blog,
• January 31, 2013 blog,
• February 1, 2013 blog,
• February 6, 2013 blog,
• February 20, 2013 blog,
• March 29, 2013 blog

On December 31, 2012, Judge Forchione sentenced Studer to 15 years in prison and fined him $5,000.

Here is where the judge got off the track of following the law of Ohio with respect to the fine.

"[T]he court orders [the $5,000] be forwarded to the victims of [the] Newtown, Connecticut tragedy."

Getting more specific on the January 2, 2013, Judge Forchione issued a follow up order, the key portions of which are:

Now comes the Court who hereby confirms that the Defendant, Scott D. Studer, has complied with the Court's previous order to pay the sum of $5,000.00 to the Sand Hook School Support Fund. ...   

The check was provided to the Court on January 2, 2013.  The Court forwarded the check along with a letter of instruction, attached to the entry hereto.  (emphasis added)

Here is a re-creation  (emphasis added) of Judge Forchione's "letter of instruction." 

--------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          January 2, 2013

Sandy Hook School Support Fund
c/o Newtown Savings Bank
39 Main St.
Newtown, Ct 06470

Dear Sir or Madam,

     Recently I presided over a criminal case in Stark County, Ohio regarding Scott D. Studer.  Mr. Studer was a coach at Jackson High School who was caught videotaping basketball players in the locker room for his own self-gratification.

     A part of his sentence, I ordered him to pay the sum of $5,000, as well as serving a 15-year jail sentence. Since the nexus of the crime took place in an educational setting, I felt it more appropriate that the funds be given to the Sandy Hook School Support Fund.  While it is unthinkable to compare this case to the tragedy that has occurred in your community, the Studer case shocked Stark County and left many people asking the same question with which Newtown surely struggles:  "How cound this happen?"  "What can we do to prevent this in the future?"; and, "How can we best help those affected?"  It is my hope that some good can come out of this case by helping  those in your community as they work to rebuild their lives after the Sandy Hook School tragedy.

     I would greatly appreciate it if the Court could receive a confirmation of this donation, so that I can ensure its proper application. (emphasis added)


     Respectfully,


     The Hornorable Frank G. Forchione, Judge

----------------------------------------------

On January 23, 2013, Belthlehem Township resident Tom Marcelli asked local attorney and civic activist Craig T. Conley to initiate efforts (to the point of filing a lawsuit, if necessary) to compel the payment of the $5,000 fine to the Stark County treasury maintained county general fund as required by ORC 2949.11, in part to wit:

[A]n officer who collects a fine shall pay it to 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."

To that end, Conley wrote Stark County Prosecutor John Ferrero  asking:

... on behalf of the taxpayers of Stark County, and more particularly on behalf of my client, Thomas M. Marcelli (a County [sic] resident, taxpayer and electorate), I request you immediately institute a civil action against Judge Forchione for the recover of and payment into the Stark County Treasury of Mr. Studer's fine ... .

On January 30, 2013,  Civil Division Chief Ross Rhodes wrote to Conley rejecting his request (Note: to see the entire Rhodes letter go to this LINK).

On February 1, 2013, Conley files a declaratory judgment action against Forchione on behalf of client Marcelli (LINK).

On February 4, 2013, Forchione wrote a letter (via fax) to a Sandy Hook School Support Fund officials acknowledging a telephone call of the same date wherein communicated:  "As I indicated, a Stark County taxpayer has filed a lawsuit over the donation.  The returned donation will need to be made out to the [sic] Nancy Reinbold ... ."

On February 6, 2013, the Sandy Hook School Support Fund wired the $5,000 payable to Stark County Clerk of Courts Nancy Reingold.

On February 14, 2013, Judge Forchione held a video-conference with Studer (who by then was in prison) wherein he re-sentenced Studer without mention of the $5,000 being for the Sandy Hook School Support Fund.

On February 15, 2013, Tom Marcelli instructs Conley to dismiss the February 1, 2013 filed declaratory judgment action inasmuch as Conley had advised him that the return of the $5,000 rendered the case without a justiciable issue.

On February 28, 2013, Louis W. Demis files his ORC Sections 2935.09 and .10 authorized affidavit alleging that Judge Forchione's actions as described above constitute "theft-in-office" which gave birth to the selection by Canton Law Director Joseph Martuccio of an out-of-town prosecutor (Craig Morgan, Akron's chief assistant [criminal] prosecutor and Judge Michael McNulty to conduct a probable cause hearing, ;which, as indicated at the beginning of this blog, is sent for tomorrow:  Tuesday, April 23, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. in the Canton Municipal Court.

Probably to Judge Forchione's chagrin, guess who is lingering in the shadows in the prosecution of the probable cause hearing?

You've got it!  None other than his nemesis Craig T. Conley.

And Conley is taking his role very seriously.

He has prepared a well-done and thorough brief and supplement thereto (the SCPR provides a copy of the brief at this end of this blog for those readers who want to take them in) that appear to present the distinct possibility that Judge Francis G. Forchione of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas will have to defend himself on the accusation that in his handling of the Studer case he has committed a theft-in-office.

Judge Forchione has stated in area media accounts of the Studer matter that he does not believe in "creative sentencing."  But that is exactly what the SCPR believes that the $5,000 Studer fine being directed to the Sandy Hook School Support Fund is a clear case of.  And that is to put a kind face on it.

To be less than kind, one can do what Conley did with the area media in calling Judge Forchione out on "grandstanding" in making the order.

And to be ultimately unkind, to accuse someone of theft-in-office (as Demis has done Forchione) presents a real challenge to Forchione's continuance in office.

Neither creative sentencing nor grandstanding has a place in American jurisprudence.

Everybody participating in our civil and criminal system need - simply - to do one thing.

Follow the rule of law!

Wasn't the Marcelli/Conley declaratory action was the nudge that rectified Forchione deviation therefrom?

Does anyone believe that Frank Forchione will ever again venture into the "creative sentencing" waters?

So is the Demis action a case of overdoing it?

And will Judge McNulty see it as such?

It is regrettable that Judge Forchione went "off-the-reservation" and it could prove very costly indeed to him.

It is vitally important to the integrity of our way of life that no man, no woman, nor non-emancipated person be above the rule of law.

And that the SCPR thinks is what Marcelli's declaratory judgment action was all about.

And that is what Demis' affidavit appears to be about - underscored.

Nothing else matters!!!

ATTACHMENT 1 (OF 2):  CONLEY'S MAIN BRIEF

ATTACHMENT 2 (OF 2):   SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

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

UPDATE:  10:00 AM

INQUIRY OF CLERK OF COURTS
NANCY REINBOLD

HER RESPONSE

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

 BLOG TOPICS

Is Ross Rhodes eating his words today?

Conley:  correctly identifies his online detractor?

The Repository's "double standard!"

Judge Forchione's temperament? 

Conley has a motive? LINK 

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

ADDED MATERIAL

Email from SCPR to Stark County clerk of courts Nancy Reinbold

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

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

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

MartinOlson/SCPR

Response from Clerk Reinbold:

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

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

ORIGINAL BLOG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Gonzalez answered with an emphatic NO!

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

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

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

Could be a mere co-incidence, no?

But Conely does not think so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A waste, Prosecutor Rhodes?

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

For Conley, this is not good enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the core of the amended complaint: