new! Health and Beauty: Health Benefits of Carrots
________________________________________________________________________________________
Tune into AM 1380 WLRM Sunday @ 11 PM CST /12 AM EST, or listen online at
Did you miss the show? Click
So, check out 'The Santa Claus Jam,' by Cameron J of Youtubes Random Structure TV. Its a must see! Watch and enjoy!
Copyright 2024 Black Women in Communications LLC
Upcoming Shows:
________
August 30
________
Christmas in July
July 24 - 25, 2021
____________
July 24 - 25, 2021
____________
September 20
________
Coming Up:
July 4 - 5 , 2021
____________ text.
____________ text.
___________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Pictured above : Actress, Sheila Guyse ( July 14, 1925 - December 28, 2013)
Double click here to edit this text.
posted November 5:
In Re: Canton/Stark County w/ Special Shout Out to Blacks in Canton/Stark County
I wasn't able to upload the related audio (I tried), and the site is not conducive to a written version of the matter. For now though, just trust me on this one , and DO NOT RE-ELECT KYLE STONE. That said, I promise the back story relating to my heartfelt plea will be shared on a later date. For now... again: DO NOT RE-ELECT KYLE STONE , because, at a minimum , a prosecutor who knows the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor is essential. Judging from a 2021 case brought by Stones office however, whereby a $121 "bad check" was treated as a Felony 5, when it should have been treated as a misdemeanor... Stone does not know the difference between the two. Moreover, the check was cleared in 2021, so why is the case still pending -- in a court that lacks standing over the charge, no less ? Further, I allege that Kyle Stone has "unclean hands," and this is not a good look for Stone or any other prosecutor. And while the basis for my allegation begs to be shared, it must be shared at a later date. For now: please do not re-elect Kyle Stone. And please note that, while I have received both subtle and overt threats since I announced that I would discuss the basis for my plea that Stone not be re elected, I believe I have a duty to share this
In Re: Canton/Stark County w/ Special Shout Out to Blacks in Canton/Stark County
I wasn't able to upload the related audio (I tried), and the site is not conducive to a written version of the matter. For now though, just trust me on this one , and DO NOT RE-ELECT KYLE STONE. That said, I promise the back story relating to my heartfelt plea will be shared on a later date. For now... again: DO NOT RE-ELECT KYLE STONE , because, at a minimum , a prosecutor who knows the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor is essential. Judging from a 2021 case brought by Stones office however, whereby a $121 "bad check" was treated as a Felony 5, when it should have been treated as a misdemeanor... Stone does not know the difference between the two. Moreover, the check was cleared in 2021, so why is the case still pending -- in a court that lacks standing over the charge, no less ? Further, I allege that Kyle Stone has "unclean hands," and this is not a good look for Stone or any other prosecutor. And while the basis for my allegation begs to be shared, it must be shared at a later date. For now: please do not re-elect Kyle Stone. And please note that, while I have received both subtle and overt threats since I announced that I would discuss the basis for my plea that Stone not be re elected, I believe I have a duty to share this
story.
____________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
Here's a sentence or two about the others that I've asked you not to re elect:
Jamie Walters ( County Recorder): The $121 check that is referenced above, was written to the county recorders office. Walters, as County recorder, called Sheriffs deputies as the checks endorser aka the accused, attempted to pay it off, and the checks endorser aka the accused, was arrested at the Recorders Office.
George Maier (Sheriff): Five deputy sheriff officers ( including Cheyenne Urbach) arrested the accused on an unverified warrant relating to the $121 check, and other claims, such as forgery relating to a deed, despite that the signature on the deed was that of the accused, and notarized under oath. The fact that the warrant was unverified at the time it was excuted however, should have barred the officers from acting on it. In other words , the warrant was unverified at the time it was executed, which means the deputies lacked standing to act on it until it was verified. Moreover, Urbach kept the accuseds college identification cards, state identification card, items relating to an estate, and moreover failed to list the items as being received during booking. So there is no formal record of the items being confiscated by Urbach. Upon the accuseds release, the items were not returned, although according to Major CJ Stanz ( now retired) the items were last in the possession of Sheriffs Detective Rebecca Rhodes Greene, despite they were not checked in as being in the accused's possession during booking.
For what reason were the identification cards kept tho? As souvenirs? To sell for profit? And why didn't Urbach list them as "items that were in the accuseds possession" at the time of booking?
In addition, one night, while the accused was incarcerated, a male warden lingered outside the accuseds cell, and allegedly said " break up with him."
(note: the accused ( a black woman) , was allegedly linked to a white male at the time of her arrest, and has allegedly suggested that this may have been a basis for her arrest).
As for Maiers part in this debacle? Simply, any act by his staff falls on Maiers desk,
and his staff messed up big time with this travesty of a case thats still pending. Surely he knew about it. How could he not ?
Natalie Haupt: While assigned to the case, Judge Natalie Haupt was accused of coercion, for repeatedly demanding that the defendant waive the right to counsel. As a result, a formal complaint was filed with the Ohio Disciplinary counsel, and a months long investigation by Lia J Meehan began, but was abruptly dropped without explanation, just after Haupt recused herself from the case. The grievant thinks the ODC told Haupt to recuse herself, so as to avoid further investigation , as the defendant never sought a recusal. In a second grievance, Haupt was accused of colluding with attorney Richard Drake, who the accused claims was appointed without regard for procedural rules that govern the appointment of counsel. Simply, the accused claims (1) Drake was appointed off the record, (2) absent an assessment of eligibility for appointed counsel (3) absent a request for appointment of counsel, and (4) absent a hearing on the record concerning appointment of counsel.
Drake then, was appointed off the record, allegedly to prevent the defendant from prosecuting the case, and, moreover, to fish for information.
Misc: After Haupt recused herself from the case, which, at that time, had been pending for 8 months, it was re-assigned to the docket of Judge Taryn Heath, who started the case over from day one, as if no other events had transpired. Angel Ruhl, an assistant prosecutor, was replaced by Mark Ostrowski when the case moved to Heaths docket. In addition, and for the record, the accused claims Ruhls performance on the case was "so inept it was embarrassing," and furthermore states that Heath had no standing to re boot the case to day one, as it had been on Haupts docket for 8 months, with a Motion to Dismiss having been filed prior to Haupts recusal, but which Haupt refused to set for hearing. Filed pro se, the motion was ultimately stricken from the record after Drake was appointed to act as counsel for defendant. He remained on the case, despite defendants request (made one day after Drake was appointed) that he withdraw. The accused described her relationship with Drake as "combative and confrontational, " and further stated," He's there to help the prosecutors case, not mine."
In addition to the $121 felony "bad check charge," the case concerns a real estate transfer from the accuseds limited liability company to herself. According to the accused, the house was vacant at the time of the transfer, and she was going to move in, but, "Stark County officials have made my life a living hell since the transfer, and made it impossible to move in." She says , "As a black woman, I'm not supposed to own anything -- least of all real estate in a quiet sleepy town like Canton." She says she doesn't even want to move into the house now though, and would probably be killed if she did, "because the hostility in Stark County is just that real."
There is no legitimate criminal case though, and Stark County officials know it. There never was. So why was the case filed? And why is it still pending?
Ask Kyle Stone: Ohio's first black prosecutor.
posted November 8:
#
next: She wants Rhodes - Greene fired, and, despite his re-election, wants Stone aka "the states first black prosecutor," removed from office.
To be continued...
posted November 11
Jamie Walters ( County Recorder): The $121 check that is referenced above, was written to the county recorders office. Walters, as County recorder, called Sheriffs deputies as the checks endorser aka the accused, attempted to pay it off, and the checks endorser aka the accused, was arrested at the Recorders Office.
George Maier (Sheriff): Five deputy sheriff officers ( including Cheyenne Urbach) arrested the accused on an unverified warrant relating to the $121 check, and other claims, such as forgery relating to a deed, despite that the signature on the deed was that of the accused, and notarized under oath. The fact that the warrant was unverified at the time it was excuted however, should have barred the officers from acting on it. In other words , the warrant was unverified at the time it was executed, which means the deputies lacked standing to act on it until it was verified. Moreover, Urbach kept the accuseds college identification cards, state identification card, items relating to an estate, and moreover failed to list the items as being received during booking. So there is no formal record of the items being confiscated by Urbach. Upon the accuseds release, the items were not returned, although according to Major CJ Stanz ( now retired) the items were last in the possession of Sheriffs Detective Rebecca Rhodes Greene, despite they were not checked in as being in the accused's possession during booking.
For what reason were the identification cards kept tho? As souvenirs? To sell for profit? And why didn't Urbach list them as "items that were in the accuseds possession" at the time of booking?
In addition, one night, while the accused was incarcerated, a male warden lingered outside the accuseds cell, and allegedly said " break up with him."
(note: the accused ( a black woman) , was allegedly linked to a white male at the time of her arrest, and has allegedly suggested that this may have been a basis for her arrest).
As for Maiers part in this debacle? Simply, any act by his staff falls on Maiers desk,
and his staff messed up big time with this travesty of a case thats still pending. Surely he knew about it. How could he not ?
Natalie Haupt: While assigned to the case, Judge Natalie Haupt was accused of coercion, for repeatedly demanding that the defendant waive the right to counsel. As a result, a formal complaint was filed with the Ohio Disciplinary counsel, and a months long investigation by Lia J Meehan began, but was abruptly dropped without explanation, just after Haupt recused herself from the case. The grievant thinks the ODC told Haupt to recuse herself, so as to avoid further investigation , as the defendant never sought a recusal. In a second grievance, Haupt was accused of colluding with attorney Richard Drake, who the accused claims was appointed without regard for procedural rules that govern the appointment of counsel. Simply, the accused claims (1) Drake was appointed off the record, (2) absent an assessment of eligibility for appointed counsel (3) absent a request for appointment of counsel, and (4) absent a hearing on the record concerning appointment of counsel.
Drake then, was appointed off the record, allegedly to prevent the defendant from prosecuting the case, and, moreover, to fish for information.
Misc: After Haupt recused herself from the case, which, at that time, had been pending for 8 months, it was re-assigned to the docket of Judge Taryn Heath, who started the case over from day one, as if no other events had transpired. Angel Ruhl, an assistant prosecutor, was replaced by Mark Ostrowski when the case moved to Heaths docket. In addition, and for the record, the accused claims Ruhls performance on the case was "so inept it was embarrassing," and furthermore states that Heath had no standing to re boot the case to day one, as it had been on Haupts docket for 8 months, with a Motion to Dismiss having been filed prior to Haupts recusal, but which Haupt refused to set for hearing. Filed pro se, the motion was ultimately stricken from the record after Drake was appointed to act as counsel for defendant. He remained on the case, despite defendants request (made one day after Drake was appointed) that he withdraw. The accused described her relationship with Drake as "combative and confrontational, " and further stated," He's there to help the prosecutors case, not mine."
In addition to the $121 felony "bad check charge," the case concerns a real estate transfer from the accuseds limited liability company to herself. According to the accused, the house was vacant at the time of the transfer, and she was going to move in, but, "Stark County officials have made my life a living hell since the transfer, and made it impossible to move in." She says , "As a black woman, I'm not supposed to own anything -- least of all real estate in a quiet sleepy town like Canton." She says she doesn't even want to move into the house now though, and would probably be killed if she did, "because the hostility in Stark County is just that real."
There is no legitimate criminal case though, and Stark County officials know it. There never was. So why was the case filed? And why is it still pending?
Ask Kyle Stone: Ohio's first black prosecutor.
posted November 8:
Aww snap...there's a new sheriff in town... or at least there will be in January. That said, Congratulations Sheriff Elect Eric Weisburn!!! Thats what I'm talkin bout tho !!! Still wish I had worked harder on the DO NOT RE- ELECT campaign, and/or started sooner with it, because maybe it would have made a difference in the outcome of the other races, as I definitely did not want Kyle Stone , Natalie Haupt or Jamie Walters re- elected, but I didn't put enough effort into the campaign, and certainly did not start soon enough. In fact, to be effective, a DO NOT RE - ELECT campaign would have to be worked on foot, phone, online, by mail, and whatever other means I could come up with. Simply, I needed to be extremely aggressive about it, and would have to have started by June 1 at the latest, because, in order to defeat the incumbents, new voters would have to be lured to the polls, as the ones who typically vote, do not seem to waiver. That is, they vote Red, or they vote Blue, so, to get favorable results, there would be a need to recruit new voters, and /or influence voters who were undecided.
In any case, while I did not expect George Maier to be defeated, I'm glad he was, and hope that Eric Weisburns election will be a step in the right direction. Finally, if only the Disciplinary Counsel had sanctioned Judge Natalie Haupt, or pursued its investigation of her as aggressively as it pursued its investigation of Judge Timothy Grendell of Geauga County , Judge Pinkey Carr of Cleveland, Ohio, and/or Judge Steven Terry of Cuyahoga County, perhaps Haupt would have been suspended from the bench by now, and, consequently, ineligible to run for re-election, but the ODC dropped its investigation of Haupt without explanation , and, in so doing, sent an unmistakeable message that: "whats good for the goose is not good for the gander."
posted November 9
The accused is sick that Stone got re - elected ... absolutely sick over the news, and thinks that his announcement concerning the indictment of the officers in the Frank Tyson case was conveniently, if not intentionally, made on the Friday before election day. "It functioned as free publicity, and helped his re-election campaign," she said, adding, " if Stone had failed to seek an indictment or get one, he probably would not have been re-elected. It definitely helped his campaign. "
posted November 11
Complaints regarding Natalie Haupt, Taryn Heath and Richard Drake have been filed with the Ohio Disciplinary Counsel (hereafter ODC), but whether the ODC will pursue those complaints as aggressively as it pursued complaints concerning Judge Timothy Grendell, Judge Pinkey Carr and Judge Steven Terry, remains to be seen. One thing is for sure, the ODC can not continue to pick and choose who it takes down, which is what I allege it has been doing. It also can not continue to bar grievances filed by non - credentialed and/or pro se grievants, which is also what I allege it has been doing.
As already discussed in an earlier post though, the grievance concerning Haupt was being investigated by Lia J Meehan, but came to a screeching halt after Haupt recused herself from the case. Again, the accused thinks the ODC advised Haupt to recuse herself so as to avoid further investigation, as no Motion to Recuse was ever filed in the case. Instead, Haupt was simply asked to follow the law and the rules of criminal procedure, which she had allegedly failed to do. The investigation did not officially end though. Meehan simply stopped communicating with the grievant. That was in 2021-22. Since then, and despite Haupts recusal, a second grievance has been filed. The second grievance accuses Haupt and Drake of collusion. And what else is it, if an attorney and presiding judge meet off the record so as to cause the attorney in question to be appointed to a case, absent a Motion for Appointment of Counsel or mandatory assessment of defendants financial eligibility for counsel?
Simply put, an attorney can not be appointed to a case ( 1) absent an assessment of the defendants eligibility for appointed counsel; (2) for the sole purpose of throwing a case; (3) for the purpose of preventing a defendant from prosecuting a case in its favor, or (4) for the purpose of building a case that the prosecutor KNOWS it does not have.
It doesn't work like that... or at least, its not supposed to.
And for the record, I have said in the past that, with regard to Cleveland based Judge Terry, Judge Carr , (and Judge Stokes for that matter), their cases were the result of race based disparities, with respect to who and what the ODC investigates. As for Chardon based Judge Grendell, I allege that his case is the result of years long efforts to take him down. In other words, I allege there is a faction that has been out to "get" Judge Grendell for years, and the pending case against him is demonstrative of that fact. At the end of the day though, the ODC is, clearly, selective about who and what it investigates, because it has received scores of grievances that assert allegations similar to those presented about Judge Grendell, Judge Carr, Judge Terry and Judge Stokes, yet those grievances remain unaddressed. The question is: why?
#
When the case was transferred to Taryn Heaths docket, the accused , in an effort to remove Heath from the case, tendered an Affidavit of Disqualification to the Ohio Supreme Court on grounds that Heath (1) served on the board of the Ohio Attorney General’s Task Force on Criminal Justice, (2) served as Assistant Attorney General (3) served on the Judicial Advisory Board to the Stark County Jail and (4) served on the Stark County Community Corrections Planning Board, which the accused perceived to be a conflict of interest, since plaintiff is the State of Ohio, and the allegations in the complaint are asserted by Rebecca Rhodes Greene of the Stark County Sheriffs department.
In its affidavit, the accused stated as follows:
posted November 9
The accused is sick that Stone got re - elected ... absolutely sick over the news, and thinks that his announcement concerning the indictment of the officers in the Frank Tyson case was conveniently, if not intentionally, made on the Friday before election day. "It functioned as free publicity, and helped his re-election campaign," she said, adding, " if Stone had failed to seek an indictment or get one, he probably would not have been re-elected. It definitely helped his campaign. "
posted November 11
Complaints regarding Natalie Haupt, Taryn Heath and Richard Drake have been filed with the Ohio Disciplinary Counsel (hereafter ODC), but whether the ODC will pursue those complaints as aggressively as it pursued complaints concerning Judge Timothy Grendell, Judge Pinkey Carr and Judge Steven Terry, remains to be seen. One thing is for sure, the ODC can not continue to pick and choose who it takes down, which is what I allege it has been doing. It also can not continue to bar grievances filed by non - credentialed and/or pro se grievants, which is also what I allege it has been doing.
As already discussed in an earlier post though, the grievance concerning Haupt was being investigated by Lia J Meehan, but came to a screeching halt after Haupt recused herself from the case. Again, the accused thinks the ODC advised Haupt to recuse herself so as to avoid further investigation, as no Motion to Recuse was ever filed in the case. Instead, Haupt was simply asked to follow the law and the rules of criminal procedure, which she had allegedly failed to do. The investigation did not officially end though. Meehan simply stopped communicating with the grievant. That was in 2021-22. Since then, and despite Haupts recusal, a second grievance has been filed. The second grievance accuses Haupt and Drake of collusion. And what else is it, if an attorney and presiding judge meet off the record so as to cause the attorney in question to be appointed to a case, absent a Motion for Appointment of Counsel or mandatory assessment of defendants financial eligibility for counsel?
Simply put, an attorney can not be appointed to a case ( 1) absent an assessment of the defendants eligibility for appointed counsel; (2) for the sole purpose of throwing a case; (3) for the purpose of preventing a defendant from prosecuting a case in its favor, or (4) for the purpose of building a case that the prosecutor KNOWS it does not have.
It doesn't work like that... or at least, its not supposed to.
And for the record, I have said in the past that, with regard to Cleveland based Judge Terry, Judge Carr , (and Judge Stokes for that matter), their cases were the result of race based disparities, with respect to who and what the ODC investigates. As for Chardon based Judge Grendell, I allege that his case is the result of years long efforts to take him down. In other words, I allege there is a faction that has been out to "get" Judge Grendell for years, and the pending case against him is demonstrative of that fact. At the end of the day though, the ODC is, clearly, selective about who and what it investigates, because it has received scores of grievances that assert allegations similar to those presented about Judge Grendell, Judge Carr, Judge Terry and Judge Stokes, yet those grievances remain unaddressed. The question is: why?
#
When the case was transferred to Taryn Heaths docket, the accused , in an effort to remove Heath from the case, tendered an Affidavit of Disqualification to the Ohio Supreme Court on grounds that Heath (1) served on the board of the Ohio Attorney General’s Task Force on Criminal Justice, (2) served as Assistant Attorney General (3) served on the Judicial Advisory Board to the Stark County Jail and (4) served on the Stark County Community Corrections Planning Board, which the accused perceived to be a conflict of interest, since plaintiff is the State of Ohio, and the allegations in the complaint are asserted by Rebecca Rhodes Greene of the Stark County Sheriffs department.
In its affidavit, the accused stated as follows:
'Judge Heaths relationship to the Stark County Sheriffs Department , and Plaintiff , State of Ohio, constitutes a clear conflict of interest, and creates the appearance of bias. And since even "an appearance of bias can be as damaging to public confidence as actual bias, accordingly... disqualification is appropriate." (see: Disqualification of Murphy, 110 Ohio St.3d 1206, 2005-0hio-7148, 850 N.E.2d 712, ~ 6.)
The problem?
The Clerk of Court, per instructions from Maureen O'Connor (then Chief Justice for the Ohio Supreme Court), would not permit the accused to file the Affidavit. Instead, the accused had to move for leave to file the Affidavit, which was quickly denied by O'Connor. So there is no record of the Affidavit or the Motion For Leave to File, because it was never filed - per O ' Connor, who denied the Motion for Leave to File, and, consequently, the attached Affidavit that the accused sought to file.
No one should have to move for leave to file an Affidavit of Disqualification in the Ohio Supreme Court however. It is tendered, time stamped, filed and a decision ultimately rendered -- unless of course, you are a black woman who needs to be put in her place, in which case, the procedures may differ, as they did in this instance.
But don't take my word for it, click here for the Ohio Supreme Courts Guide to filing affidavits of disqualification.
#
On one occasion, the door slammed as the accused left the courtroom. Deputy William O. White had been observing the proceedings, despite he was not assigned to courtroom security, but was instead assigned to the courthouse entrance. There was a lot of interest in the case though, and there were often far too many spectators, despite Covid restrictions that allowed only necessary parties to be present in the courtroom. On this occasion, White was a spectator. When the door slammed, he followed the accused downstairs to the clerks office, and sternly warned that she would be going to jail if she did not show some respect. He furthermore went on and on about the slammed door. " He got right up in my face... eyeball to eyeball... all crazy like," she said of White. The next day, she called Major CJ Stanz, to whom White and other deputy sheriffs assigned to court house square reported. She explained the incident to Stanz... expressed her disdain for White... and moreover advised Stanz that she did not slam the door. Stanz informed her that it was not possible to slam the court room doors, because they had been configured with an anti - slam device, so that if the door slammed, there was something wrong with it. "I'll have someone take a look at it," he said. "Which court room was it?"
The point though, was that White had over reacted, and furthermore, should not have been in the court room at all, since he was not assigned to court room security, but, rather, the court house entrance. The accused says she doesn't know if Stanz spoke to White about the incident or not, because she did not follow up, but some weeks later, there he was again ( Deputy White) in Judge Heaths courtroom, and this time, even she (Judge Heath) looked at him as if to ask, "what are you doing here?" The accused says she thought White was looking for a reason to get in her face again, but she doesn't know that for sure, and added, "I saw him, but he ain't say nuthin to me, and I ain't say nuthin to him. I just left." Eventually though, she says she requested and received Whites personell file, but would not disclose what it revealed, although she thinks his outburst was meant to intimidate and embarrass her... much like the case itself.
#
What on Earth did Ohio's first black prosecutor say to the grand jury that caused it to treat a $121 "bad check" as a felony bad check charge , when, due to its amount, its a misdemeanor? And what on Earth did Ohio's first black prosecutor say to the grand jury that caused it to issue forgery and theft charges, when neither occurred? What did he say?
But for that matter, what is this case REALLY about?
I'm not sure I want to know, but its clear that one function is to keep the accused's life tied up in knots, which is what the case has done for the four years that it has been pending.
One things for sure, Stone is determined to take her down. She, on the other hand, is determined to have him removed from office.
#
When the accused went to clear the $121 check, she was arrested at the Recorders office on an unverified warrant. The following day, she had a hearing before Judge Kublius at the municipal court. Judge Kublius dismissed the case and released the accused on her own recognizance. When the accused got back to the jail, she was advised that she would be released that day, once the jail received the Order from the court. Meanwhile, Rebecca Rhodes - Greene, a Stark County Sheriffs detective, pulled up to talk to the accused. " Lets sort this mess out," she said, however, the accused informed Rhodes - Greene that there was nothing to sort out, so their conversation was brief.
As the accused was escorted back to her cell, she saw Rhodes - Greene walk toward the jail administrators office. This is important, because, despite that the accused was to be released that day, she was not. The accused thinks Rhodes - Greene told the jail administrator not to let her out, so she remained incarcerated over night, despite she should have been released , per the order entered by Judge Kublius. The following morning , which was Friday, the accused met with someone from the Sheriffs office, who established conditions for her release. Namely, she was to call the Sheriffs office once a week to check in. The accused said this condition allowed the Sheriffs office to exercise control over her that it would not otherwise have, since the Order entered by Judge Kublius , released her on her own recognizance, and without stipulations.
In the days and weeks that followed, the accused tried to bring obstruction of justice charges against Rhodes - Greene, on grounds that she interfered with the accuseds release. The complaint and affidavit, which the clerk of court refused to file, also alleged that the jail , by and thru its administrator, violated the court order when it kept her overnight, and failed to timely release her. While the accused made more than one trip to the court in an effort to get the complaint filed (or before Judge Kublius for his review), the staff was un-co-operative, thus the complaint was never filed. Keep in mind though, that it is nearly impossible for an individual to initiate a criminal complaint. This needs to change however, so that criminal complaints are as easily tendered and filed by individuals as are civil complaints.
#
The accused claims Stark county officials have prioritized the case as if it were the most pressing before them, which she says is pathetic, because, "they don't have a case, and they know it."
posted November 23
It might be worth noting that Canton is a predominately white city, with roughly twenty five percent of the population being black. That said, it has a rural look and feel, and is definitely ole school. For instance, many businesses shut down on Sunday, which was the norm during our parents generation, but not so common these days. And there are still many locally owned business's... small locally owned business's, but you have to know where to look. It has a different vibe for sure though -- a real different vibe. As for the property in question, its located in a predominately white section of Canton, so that might be part of the problem, consequently, the accused filed a complaint with Cantons Fair Housing Office , although it refused to move forward with the complaint. A grievance was also filed with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, but they would not treat it seriously either. In fact, OCRC used the pending criminal complaint as an excuse to refuse review, despite it was advised that the criminal complaint was little more than a ruse, designed to prevent the accused from living in the house, and, furthermore designed to prevent Stark County officials from being held accountable for their misconduct.
Its not everyday that Canton's Fair Housing Office receives a complaint like this one though-- one that accuses the county of racial discrimination and intimidation, with respect to housing, so this is fairly new ground. Thats the allegation though, with Rebecca Rhodes - Greene having been explicitly named in the grievance filed with Canton's Fair Housing Office, which generally handles allegations that pertain to sales and rentals, not allegations that pertain to county officials who , under color of law, allegedly obstruct an owners right to the peaceful enjoyment of the premises, due to the owners racial make up.
#
No crime has been committed though, and they know it. Of course, the case wasn't filed because they thought they had one. They knew they didn't. It was filed for a plethora of reasons , some of which only they , and 'select members of the public' know about.
If there's any validity to whats being said in the streets though, Stones "unclean hands" may be a lot dirtier than I initially suspected.
#
posted November 26
It's all very serious at this point, because, according to the accused, the case is merely being used to harass her.
#
She said she could hardly believe Richard Drake was still acting as her attorney, and drawing a check for his "services," because, "I told that man to git his a** off my case," she said. "That was in 2022," she said, adding, "Its 2024 , bouta be 2025, and his a** still on my case!!!"
Moreover, in addition to issuing requests for withdrawal by certified mail, regular mail, personal service , and court filings, she says she left at least one voicemail for Drake.
"I told that man, I said, ' I told you to git yo a** off my case... What part of that did you not understand? "
To date, she says, Drake never responded, but continues to act as her attorney.
The problem?
The Clerk of Court, per instructions from Maureen O'Connor (then Chief Justice for the Ohio Supreme Court), would not permit the accused to file the Affidavit. Instead, the accused had to move for leave to file the Affidavit, which was quickly denied by O'Connor. So there is no record of the Affidavit or the Motion For Leave to File, because it was never filed - per O ' Connor, who denied the Motion for Leave to File, and, consequently, the attached Affidavit that the accused sought to file.
No one should have to move for leave to file an Affidavit of Disqualification in the Ohio Supreme Court however. It is tendered, time stamped, filed and a decision ultimately rendered -- unless of course, you are a black woman who needs to be put in her place, in which case, the procedures may differ, as they did in this instance.
But don't take my word for it, click here for the Ohio Supreme Courts Guide to filing affidavits of disqualification.
#
On one occasion, the door slammed as the accused left the courtroom. Deputy William O. White had been observing the proceedings, despite he was not assigned to courtroom security, but was instead assigned to the courthouse entrance. There was a lot of interest in the case though, and there were often far too many spectators, despite Covid restrictions that allowed only necessary parties to be present in the courtroom. On this occasion, White was a spectator. When the door slammed, he followed the accused downstairs to the clerks office, and sternly warned that she would be going to jail if she did not show some respect. He furthermore went on and on about the slammed door. " He got right up in my face... eyeball to eyeball... all crazy like," she said of White. The next day, she called Major CJ Stanz, to whom White and other deputy sheriffs assigned to court house square reported. She explained the incident to Stanz... expressed her disdain for White... and moreover advised Stanz that she did not slam the door. Stanz informed her that it was not possible to slam the court room doors, because they had been configured with an anti - slam device, so that if the door slammed, there was something wrong with it. "I'll have someone take a look at it," he said. "Which court room was it?"
The point though, was that White had over reacted, and furthermore, should not have been in the court room at all, since he was not assigned to court room security, but, rather, the court house entrance. The accused says she doesn't know if Stanz spoke to White about the incident or not, because she did not follow up, but some weeks later, there he was again ( Deputy White) in Judge Heaths courtroom, and this time, even she (Judge Heath) looked at him as if to ask, "what are you doing here?" The accused says she thought White was looking for a reason to get in her face again, but she doesn't know that for sure, and added, "I saw him, but he ain't say nuthin to me, and I ain't say nuthin to him. I just left." Eventually though, she says she requested and received Whites personell file, but would not disclose what it revealed, although she thinks his outburst was meant to intimidate and embarrass her... much like the case itself.
#
What on Earth did Ohio's first black prosecutor say to the grand jury that caused it to treat a $121 "bad check" as a felony bad check charge , when, due to its amount, its a misdemeanor? And what on Earth did Ohio's first black prosecutor say to the grand jury that caused it to issue forgery and theft charges, when neither occurred? What did he say?
But for that matter, what is this case REALLY about?
I'm not sure I want to know, but its clear that one function is to keep the accused's life tied up in knots, which is what the case has done for the four years that it has been pending.
One things for sure, Stone is determined to take her down. She, on the other hand, is determined to have him removed from office.
#
When the accused went to clear the $121 check, she was arrested at the Recorders office on an unverified warrant. The following day, she had a hearing before Judge Kublius at the municipal court. Judge Kublius dismissed the case and released the accused on her own recognizance. When the accused got back to the jail, she was advised that she would be released that day, once the jail received the Order from the court. Meanwhile, Rebecca Rhodes - Greene, a Stark County Sheriffs detective, pulled up to talk to the accused. " Lets sort this mess out," she said, however, the accused informed Rhodes - Greene that there was nothing to sort out, so their conversation was brief.
As the accused was escorted back to her cell, she saw Rhodes - Greene walk toward the jail administrators office. This is important, because, despite that the accused was to be released that day, she was not. The accused thinks Rhodes - Greene told the jail administrator not to let her out, so she remained incarcerated over night, despite she should have been released , per the order entered by Judge Kublius. The following morning , which was Friday, the accused met with someone from the Sheriffs office, who established conditions for her release. Namely, she was to call the Sheriffs office once a week to check in. The accused said this condition allowed the Sheriffs office to exercise control over her that it would not otherwise have, since the Order entered by Judge Kublius , released her on her own recognizance, and without stipulations.
In the days and weeks that followed, the accused tried to bring obstruction of justice charges against Rhodes - Greene, on grounds that she interfered with the accuseds release. The complaint and affidavit, which the clerk of court refused to file, also alleged that the jail , by and thru its administrator, violated the court order when it kept her overnight, and failed to timely release her. While the accused made more than one trip to the court in an effort to get the complaint filed (or before Judge Kublius for his review), the staff was un-co-operative, thus the complaint was never filed. Keep in mind though, that it is nearly impossible for an individual to initiate a criminal complaint. This needs to change however, so that criminal complaints are as easily tendered and filed by individuals as are civil complaints.
#
The accused claims Stark county officials have prioritized the case as if it were the most pressing before them, which she says is pathetic, because, "they don't have a case, and they know it."
posted November 23
It might be worth noting that Canton is a predominately white city, with roughly twenty five percent of the population being black. That said, it has a rural look and feel, and is definitely ole school. For instance, many businesses shut down on Sunday, which was the norm during our parents generation, but not so common these days. And there are still many locally owned business's... small locally owned business's, but you have to know where to look. It has a different vibe for sure though -- a real different vibe. As for the property in question, its located in a predominately white section of Canton, so that might be part of the problem, consequently, the accused filed a complaint with Cantons Fair Housing Office , although it refused to move forward with the complaint. A grievance was also filed with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, but they would not treat it seriously either. In fact, OCRC used the pending criminal complaint as an excuse to refuse review, despite it was advised that the criminal complaint was little more than a ruse, designed to prevent the accused from living in the house, and, furthermore designed to prevent Stark County officials from being held accountable for their misconduct.
Its not everyday that Canton's Fair Housing Office receives a complaint like this one though-- one that accuses the county of racial discrimination and intimidation, with respect to housing, so this is fairly new ground. Thats the allegation though, with Rebecca Rhodes - Greene having been explicitly named in the grievance filed with Canton's Fair Housing Office, which generally handles allegations that pertain to sales and rentals, not allegations that pertain to county officials who , under color of law, allegedly obstruct an owners right to the peaceful enjoyment of the premises, due to the owners racial make up.
#
No crime has been committed though, and they know it. Of course, the case wasn't filed because they thought they had one. They knew they didn't. It was filed for a plethora of reasons , some of which only they , and 'select members of the public' know about.
If there's any validity to whats being said in the streets though, Stones "unclean hands" may be a lot dirtier than I initially suspected.
#
posted November 26
It's all very serious at this point, because, according to the accused, the case is merely being used to harass her.
#
She said she could hardly believe Richard Drake was still acting as her attorney, and drawing a check for his "services," because, "I told that man to git his a** off my case," she said. "That was in 2022," she said, adding, "Its 2024 , bouta be 2025, and his a** still on my case!!!"
Moreover, in addition to issuing requests for withdrawal by certified mail, regular mail, personal service , and court filings, she says she left at least one voicemail for Drake.
"I told that man, I said, ' I told you to git yo a** off my case... What part of that did you not understand? "
To date, she says, Drake never responded, but continues to act as her attorney.
#
next: She wants Rhodes - Greene fired, and, despite his re-election, wants Stone aka "the states first black prosecutor," removed from office.
To be continued...
posted November 11
The Shift Posts / Canton
** * various topics relating to Canton and Stark County, Ohio, with focus on subject matter of a more serious nature, that is typically overlooked by mainstream media.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Scroll down for updates that will be posted in sequence. And please note that this thread began on election day, 2024.
#
#