IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF
CUYAHOGA COUNTY
State of Ohio Case No: CR-05-467-784 B
v.
Dr. Elsebeth Baumgartner Judge: Shirley Strickland Saffold
MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM
ORDER CRIM R 12 ;CIV R 60 (B)
Now comes Dr. Elsebeth Baumgartner pursuant to CRIM
R 12 and CIV R 60 (B) (1) (4) and (5) and moves this honorable court for relief
from the Order entered September 22, 2005 stylized Finds (sic) of Fact and Conclusions of Law denying Dr Baumgartner’s
and her co-defendant Bryan DuBois’ joint Motion to Dismiss the Indictment with
prejudice. Memorandum in Support
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Respectfully
submitted,
_____________________
Elsebeth Baumgartner
P.O. Box 386, 9368 WSR 163
Oak
Harbor, Ohio 43449
419-410-5818
MEMORANDUM
INTRODUCTION
Defendants first raised the defects in the
Indictment herein at a Pre-Trial on August 29, 2005. They then filed a joint Motion to Dismiss on September 2, 2005.
The Motion alleged the Indictment must be dismissed with prejudice due not only defects in the Indictment but
serious integrity issues concerning the process by which the Indictment was
found and returned and the transparent political nature of the
prosecution.
Defendant
asserts that this Honorable Court must examine whether or not the First
Indictment was dismissed with or without prejudice and on what date the dismissal occurred before
it can proceed on the second indictment.
Importantly this Honorable Court held a Hearing on
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on September 12, 2005 and agreed to issue Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law
on all of the legal issues presented by Defendants but did not continue Defendants trial date of September 13, 2005. Instead, this Court after arraigning
Defendants on the second indictment with the First Indictment still pending
considered the State’s oral Motion to Dismiss taken without leave of court as required per CRIM R 48 (A) and while
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with prejudice was decisional. The Court’s entry dismissing this case was
not entered and journalized until September 22, 2005 well after the September
13, 2005 trial date had passed and Defendant to date has still not been served
a copy of the dismissal entry. Likewise
the Court’s Findings in this matter were also entered on September 22, 2005
after defendant inquired because the docket reflected both her criminal cases
were still pending. Defendant received
a copy of that entry in open court. (See Transcript of Pre-Trial in case no
470-184 A dated September 22, 2005).
Defendant now moves in the interests of justice for
relief from this Court’s journal denying the Motion to Dismiss the Indictment
with prejudice entered and journalized September 22, 2005 and moves that this
Honorable Court entered a journal entry with findings of facts and conclusions
in compliance with CRIM R 48 (B) dismissing this case with prejudice thereby
barring further prosecution on the second indictment.
CIV RULE 60. Relief From Judgment
or Order
provides:
(A) Clerical mistakes. Clerical mistakes in
judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from
oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time on its own
initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the
court orders. During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so
corrected before the appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter
while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate
court.
(B) Mistakes; inadvertence;
excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence; fraud; etc. On motion and upon such
terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative
from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons: (1)
mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move
for a new trial under Rule 59(B); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse
party; (4) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior
judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it
is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application;
or (5) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment. The motion shall
be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2) and (3) not more
than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken. A
motion under this subdivision (B) does not affect the finality of a judgment or
suspend its operation.
The procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as
prescribed in these rules.
Specifically, Defendant asserted in her Motion and at hearing that the Indictment
contained the following defects:
The
Indictment was not promptly returned to the court by the Grand Jury foreman and filed on June 30, 2005
as required by ORC 2939.22.
The Indictment
does not contain the required words TRUE BILL as required by ORC 2939.20
The Indictment was
not on a Court Indictment Form, did not bear the seal of the
Court and appeared to bear the forged signature of Rev. Albert Williams.
APA Kasaris engaged
in behavior that gave strong indicia that this prosecution
is politically motivated and intended to silence by abridging the First Amendment rights of the
defendants, publishers of the internet based government
investigative journal Erie Voices (www.erievoices.com).
FACTS
1.
On June 30, 2005, Assistant County Prosecuting Attorney (APA) Dan Kasaris
obtained the Indictment herein from a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury that
Defendants maintain does not comport with Ohio law. After obtaining the
Indictment instead of promptly filing that Indictment with the Court, APA
Kasaris appeared before Chief Judge McMonagle even though there was no case of
record and obtained high cash property only bonds on both defendants on
non-violent low level third degree felonies. (See Record)
2.
Defendant first raised defects with the Indictment on July 27, 2005 during a
colorful pre-trial wherein the court was informed that Defendant, a former
elite biotechnology transfer attorney and Christian civil rights activist
believed the Indictment was politically motivated and intended to silence her
about case manipulation for profit and or to protect organized criminal
activity. Specifically the court was informed that defendant had studied
special prosecutor and visiting judge appointments for over 4 years in
Cuyahoga, Erie and Ottawa counties and had detected a pattern wherein these
appointments appeared calculated to deliver pre-determined outcomes for certain
parties. (See Transcript from July 27,
2005)
3.
The sworn claims of Krista Harris, an African American female from Sandusky,
Ohio whom defendant represented pro bono in December 2001 to January 2002
concerning Erie County prosecutor Kevin Baxter also the Special prosecutor hand
selected by Cuyahoga County prosecutor Bill Mason to investigate alleged
elections crimes in the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections were reported to the
court. APA Kasaris was hand selected by
Erie County prosecutor Kevin Baxter to prosecute Defendant in Erie County on an
indictment for stealing her own company car on June 1, 2005 and was already
aware that defendant was out on bond from Erie County Common Pleas Court and
not a flight risk at the time of obtaining the Cuyahoga County Indictment. (See
Transcript from July 27, 2005)
4.
Defendant also repeatedly raised the issue both orally and in hand written
motions from jail that the State was barred from prosecuting Defendants because
over 60 years of US Supreme Court case law prohibit criminalizing speech
critical of government. (See for
example California v Bridges, Pennekamp v Florida). It is undisputed that the State’s case is brought based on
writings of a litigant, some over 14 months old criticizing the handling of her
civil cases by retired visiting judge Richard Markus who she claimed was not
legally appointed to adjudicate her cases and that the State has failed to show
those writings to be threatening or false in any way.
5.
Foreman Williams testified that he did not return the Indictment to the Court
but instead handed it to APA Kasaris. The Foreman testified that this was not
typical procedure because the form used was not the typical Indictment and he
ordinarily returns an found indictment to the court by filing it with the Court
clerk who staffs the Grand Jury chambers. The witness testified APA Kasaris
claimed this was a “special” matter and that normal procedures would not be
followed. APA Kasaris did not file the Indictment with the court until July 11,
2005. (See Transcript in preparation)
5.
The witness also testified that the Indictment did not bear the words TRUE BILL
anywhere on the document. (See Transcript in preparation)
6.
The witness testified that the signature on the Indictment was in fact his own,
but the Indictment presented in court was not the original indictment. Moreover, the witness who testified was
never asked to produce any identification or to enter samples of his
signature. Indeed, the witness had
difficulty remembering events and was prompted with an Affidavit allegedly
prepared by the witness not two hours earlier to refresh his memory. This
Affidavit was not entered into evidence but a copy of it is attached hereto at
Exhibit A
7.
The Affidavit claims that a True Bill Indictment was returned though this
statement is directly contradicted by the testimony of the witness who stated
the terms “TRUE BILL” are not present on the Indictment. The terms TRUE BILL
are present on every regular indictment filed with the court.
8.
The witness stated the Grand Jury met in Grand Jury Room B while the Affidavit
states the Grand Jury met in Room A.
9.
The Witness could not remember the name of the Judge who testified but upon
being shown the Affidavit that he had just signed earlier that day stated it
was Judge Richard Markus and that he testified for about an hour before the
grand jury.
10.
The Affidavit claims that within over an hour Judge Markus and the grand jury
reviewed many emails and the four lawsuits Defendant filed against him. Defendant notes that it takes over 20
minutes to read each lawsuit and that there are not 4 lawsuits but 2 lawsuits
that were filed first in federal court in Florida, withdrawn and then re-filed
in US District Court in Ohio. No
federal law enforcement officers have accused Defendant of filing false
documents with a US Court and no court has made any finding that the lawsuits
were false or misleading in any way.
The lawsuits were dismissed without any findings on the merits of the
claims.
11.
The Affidavit claims that Judge Markus testified that Dr. Elsebeth Baumgartner
had been labeled a vexatious litigator by him in Ottawa County Common Pleas
Court which is a true statement.
However Judge Markus testified in a misleading manner by claiming he was
the judge assigned to preside over more than one civil case in which defendant
was a party in Ottawa County, Ohio. In
fact Judge Markus, a retired visiting judge of 75 years of age appeared
illegally without a filed assignment notice in Ottawa County Common Pleas Court
on January 22, 2004 in one of 5 cases he claimed to be assigned to by Chief
Justice Moyer and continued to appear over Defendant’s objections because Judge Markus was not a lawfully appointed
judge in the cases but in fact was placed on the cases to affect a
pre-determined outcome in order to punish Defendant for exposing the corrupt
nature of the retired visiting judge system in Ohio from which he
benefits. Judge Markus unilaterally
denied Defendant her right to jury trials in all her civil cases so there were
no findings by a neutral and detached fact finder in any of Defendants cases.
12.
It is unknown whether Judge Markus disclosed to the Grand Jury that he filed 34
counts of criminal contempt against defendant in December 2004 in Ottawa County
for her written criticism of his handling of defendant’s cases filed in defense
of her interests in court cases but was unable to obtain have the county
prosecutor refer the conduct to the grand jury. These citations were filed
without an affidavit and it was only after Judge Markus realized he could not
hold Defendant in contempt for criticizing him and that evidence of his
involvement in throwing a $175,000 judgment in Ottawa County was posted on the
internet that he approached APA Kasaris while he was presiding over highly
political cases involving reputed mobster Charles Columbo to obtain an
indictment over the acts that alleged acts that all occurred in Ottawa County
in Cuyahoga County.
13
The Affidavit claims that Judge Markus testified that Judge Christopher Boyko
labeled Defendant a vexatious litigator in the federal system. This is a false statement because there is no
provision in federal law to declare a citizen who is not indigent and
incarcerated to be a vexatious litigator.
Defendant has a constitutional right under the First amendment to file federal lawsuits complaining of a judge
who allegedly threw her cases and can not be indicted for the exercise of a
fundamental right.
14
ORC 2939.22 requires the Grand Jury foreman to return the Indictment to the
Court not the prosecutor. Rev. Williams
testified that he did not return the Indictment to the Court via the Court
clerk who is assigned to the Grand Jury as his duty by statute requires but
instead APA Kasaris took the document.
Kasaris did not return the document to the court either but instead held
it until July 11, 2005 when it was finally filed stamped by the Clerk of Court.
15
The Honorable Judge claimed that APA Kasaris is an officer of the court and
therefore was allowed to hold on to the Indictment and return to the Court on
July 11, 2005. The court’s journal entry did not address the issue of whether
the failure of a grand jury foreman to return an indictment promptly to the
court was a defect requiring dismissal of the Indictment particularly in light
of the fact that state interfered with the return and delayed filing the
Indictment with the court for nearly 2 weeks.
Argument
I. ORC 2939.22 and the Rules of Criminal Procedure mandate
that an Indictment be returned
by the Grand Jury Foreman to the court promptly and the Indictment must be dismissed due the State’s
failure to protect the Fifth
Amendment rights of the Defendants.
It is fundamental that criminal statutes are to be
strictly construed and that all doubts decided in favor of the defendant and
against the State. Defendant argues
that the express terms of ORC 2939.22 combined with the enormously important
role the Grand Jury plays as a protection against politically based
prosecutions require that the Indictment to be dismissed and with
prejudice.
The facts of this case reveal a complex Indictment
not on the Court’s form, found after a little over an hour of testimony by a
retired visiting judge regularly assigned to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas
Court that was then not returned by the Grand Jury foreman to the court but was
instead taken by APA Kasaris and held for 12 days before filing with the
court. Defendant could find no law
in support of the position that a Grand
Jury foreman can delegate his duties to a prosecutor and that there can be a
delay in the return of an indictment to the court.
Wherefore, Defendant moves the
Honorable judge to reconsider her Journal Entry dated September 22, 2005 and to
enter an order dismissing the Indictment with prejudice due to the State’s
failure to protect the integrity of the Grand Jury proceedings by ensuring the
Foreman and the Foreman only returned the Indictment to Court promptly in
compliance with ORC 2939.22 and due process rights of the defendant.
II. The Indictment must be dismissed because the State failed to
comply with RC 2941.20 which
requires the terms A TRUE BILL to be indorsed on an Indictment and for the Grand Jury Foreman to subscribe
his name.
O.R.C 2941.20 provides that when an Indictment is
found, “the foreman shall endorse on such Indictment the words “A TRUE BILL” and
subscribe his name as foreman.”.
Defendant provided the Honorable with citation to Key v State 2004 Ohio 5341 10th Appellate District
9-30-04. In Key, the court was
confronted by a defendant challenging his Indictment because the terms A TRUE
BILL were pre-printed and not hand written. The Court cited Ruch
v. State 111 Ohio St. 580 (1924) which held that strict compliance with
requiring the terms A TRUE BILL to be in handwriting was exceptionally
technical and that it was sufficient if the terms A TRUE BILL were pre-printed
on the Indictment. However the court
emphasized that the terms A TRUE BILL are legal requirements for a valid
Indictment.
Argument
Defendants presented two arguments concerning
compliance with ORC 2941.20. Defendants
argued that the signature was not that of the Grand Jury Foreman Rev. Albert
Williams and that the Indictment was fraudulently obtained by APA Kasaris
because it was not on the Court format and did not contain the words A TRUE
BILL. While a witness appeared before this court on September 12, 2005 and
testified that the signature on a copy of the Indictment in this case was his,
the facts are that witness was never asked to provide identification, or
samples of his signature (granted this was due Defendant’s failure to inquire)
and the signature on the indictment is visually distinctive and different from
the samples provided to the court from other Indictments bearing the signature
of Rev. Albert Williams. These
distinctions are even greater upon viewing the original signatures on record at
the clerk’s office. The witness on direct exam could not recall basic facts
even though he purportedly signed an Affidavit just 2-3 hours earlier and his
memory had to be refreshed by the use of that Affidavit by APA Kasaris. It was as if the witness wasn’t certain of
his facts and indeed the Court kept addressing the witness as Mr. Jones not Rev
Williams.
The Affidavit in turn reveals a glimpse of the
testimony offered by Retired Visiting Judge Markus and strongly suggests that
no serious consideration of the complex counts in this indictment could have
been undertaken by a grand jury based on one hour of testimony. While this
court was satisfied with the testimony of the witness in claiming the signature
as his own, this court failed to address the many other pieces of evidence that
lead one to conclude that the Indictment was obtained under very suspect
circumstances and ought to be dismissed.
The Ohio State Supreme Court has found that the words A TRUE BILL must
be endorsed on an Indictment to give it legal affect. (See Ruch supra.) Defendant
submits that the reason the necessary legal terms are not on the Indictment is
because the document is not A TRUE BILL
and it isn’t a coincidence that the same suspect form was used by APA Kasaris
to obtain a highly political indictment of reputed organized crime figure
Charles Columbo and his associates in a gambling ring case involving taverns in
APA Kasaris’s community of residence N. Royalton. And in a stunning coincidence Judge Markus was hand selected by
Chief Judge Mc Monagle to adjudicate the case without first obtaining the
recusal of every Cuyahoga County Common Pleas judge as required by the Rules of
Superintendence. Moreover, Defendant can
find no authority under Ohio law that permits a retired visiting judge to
adjudicate criminal cases. CRIM R 2 (E)
does not provide authority to visiting judges to hear criminal cases because
the Ohio legislature has only enacted legislation applicable to civil cases.
Despite
being the complaining witness on two criminal matters against Defendant, Judge
Markus continues to adjudicate her cases in Ottawa County. In fact he continues
to issue orders subjecting defendant to harassing examinations without notice
or process. (See Judicial Tyranny Continues
in Ohio Free Speech Case attached at Exhibit B published at www.northcountrygazette.org and provided to the
Judicial Policy Committee of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in support
of a preliminary complaint reporting misconduct of Judge Richard Markus and a
protective order from this court).
Wherefore, defendant moves the
Honorable Judge review her journal entry dated September 22, 2005 and issue
specific findings of facts and conclusions of law dismissing the Indictment
with prejudice as a matter of law due the lack of terms A TRUE BILL and the
suspect circumstances concerning the obtainment of the Indictment by the State
of Ohio.
III. Prosecutorial
misconduct compels this Honorable Court to dismiss the Indictment with prejudice.
History of Prosecutorial
Misconduct in this Case
This
Honorable Court and defendants learned at a pre-trial on September 7, 2005 that
APA Kasaris had obtained a second Indictment case number 470-184 for
substantially the same alleged crimes on August 30, 2005 the day after learning of the defects in
the First Indictment at pre-trial on August 29, 2005. It was apparent that APA Kasaris
had no intention of informing either the court or Defendants that he had
obtained the second Indictment or that he had named the court’s Bailiff as the
State’s first listed witness in his discovery for this case just provided to
defendants on August 30, 2005 after obtaining the second indictment. Counsel for defendant opined that the proceedings
had a whiff of “abuse of process” upon learning of the second indictment and
the State’s naming the Court’s Bailiff as a state witness and declined to work
out a deal with prosecutor Kasaris.
(See Articles published at www.erievoices.com
Exhibit C- An Account of Yesterday’s
Pre-trial; Exhibit D Prosecutor’s
Scam has Too Many Holes; and Exhibit E-Prosecutor
Releases Felonious Emails and transcript of September 7, 2005 hearing in
preparation)
This
Honorable Court made no specific findings as to the propriety of the State’s
conduct in secretly obtaining a second indictment while the first was still
pending before this Honorable Court and as to the propriety of this Honorable
Court continuing to preside when Mr. Lawrence Wallace, Bailiff was made a
witness for the state. Defendants
argue that these acts alone constitute bad faith prosecution requiring
mandating that this court dismiss the Indictment with prejudice. In view of the fact that this Honorable
Court elected to continue to preside over the second indictment, defendant
seeks specific assurances from the court that the State will not be allowed to
exploit its prior relationship with Mr. Wallace and that the court will address
the issue of whether the prosecutor’s history of documented misconduct compels
dismissal with prejudice.
The
record proves that the State through Mr. Kasaris engaged in serious violations
of the Code of Professional Conduct and even openly made and or encouraged
false representations to the court in order to violate Defendants
constitutional rights during the entire prosecution of the First
Indictment. For example, Mr. Kasaris
moved chief judge Richard Mc Monagle on
July 1, 2005 to set outrageously high $360,000 cash/property only bond on
defendant and a $150,000 cash/property only bond on Bryan DuBois even though
the indictment for low level non-violent felonies had not been returned to the court until July 11, 2005
and Mr. Kasaris knew due to involvement with defendants in cases in Erie and
Ottawa counties that defendants were not flight risks.
High Bonds as Evidence of
Prosecutorial Misconduct and Political
Persecution
Defendant maintains that the high bonds and ex parte motion to Chief Judge Mc
Monagle constitute intentional violations of defendants constitutional rights
to bail and due process in order to silence media critics of the Cuyahoga
County prosecutor’s office and the
retired visiting judge system which benefits the lone complaining witness in
the case retired judge Richard Markus.
Court records prove that Judge Markus benefits financially from
appointments by Judge Mc Monagle wherein he was intentionally selected for two
cases involving Mr. Kasaris and a reputed mobster Charles Columbo. Defendant asserts she and her business
partner were indicted in Cuyahoga county due their publishing evidence of
organized crime’s alleged ability to manipulate case outcomes in Ottawa, Erie
and Cuyahoga counties via visiting judge and special prosecutor appointments at
www.erievoices.com and the threat
publication poses to Mr. Kasaris, Judge Markus and their aligned political
associates professionally and economically.
Indeed, defendant will produce evidence that will
prove that 1) Judge Markus approached Dan Kasaris to handle defendants as
“problems” because of the threat they posed to operations in Ottawa and Erie
counties and promised Mr. Kasaris political benefits in exchange for an
indictment; 2) Judge Markus entered false and or misleading testimony before
the grand jury with the knowledge of Dan Kasaris to obtain the indictment; and
3)
most egregiously Judge Markus and Cuyahoga County
prosecutors colluded to submit false documents to the State of Ohio in order
that Judge Markus would obtain private benefits from the prosecution including
representation at state expense in personal matters and payment for his self serving testimony before the Grand Jury by
the State of Ohio.
Lastly, Kasaris had prior knowledge that defendants
were out on a $35,000 bond and a recognizance bond respectively from Erie and
Ottawa County Common pleas courts on alleged crimes related to the same acts
charged in this Indictment.
Nevertheless he sought and obtained the high bond in this case in a
transparent effort to deny defendants an opportunity to defend themselves in
the first indictment.
Intentional Interference with
the Right to Counsel as Evidence of Prosecutorial Misconduct
The transcripts of both defendants arraignments
before Judge Peter Corrigan irrefutably prove that Dan Kasaris knowingly
permitted Judge Peter Corrigan, a former employee in Prosecutor Bill Mason’s
office to force appoint counsel for the Defendants without a finding of indigency.
Both appointed counsel urged defendants to remain silent and not
report the fact that Defendants were not indigent and made no effort to reduce
the bonds or to inquire into the conditions under which their clients were
unlawfully held. As a result Elsebeth
Baumgartner was held in the hole without cause for 10 days in the Cuyahoga
County jail. On July 27, 2005, Mr.
Kasaris admitted he knew defendant was not indigent and appeared happy that she
was denied access to counsel because he knew Robert Lynch was refusing to take
her calls. (See Transcript July 27, 2005 pre-trial)
Remarkably, after
Dr Elsebeth Baumgartner, a former lawyer insisted on representing
herself and the Honorable Judge had her execute a waiver indicating that she
had knowledge of the nature of the charges against her and was capable of
assisting in her own defense thereby making an express finding that defendant
was competent to stand trial; Mr. Kasaris urged the court to refer the
Defendant to the Court Diagnostic clinic based on dicta in an Ohio Supreme Court decision wherein justices practiced
medicine without a license by suggesting defendant was mentally ill due her
criticism of Chief Justice Moyer and the visiting judge scheme.
However, Mr. Kasaris knew at the time that defendant
was not mentally ill because 1) the jail psychiatrist Dr Smartee had examined
defendant and found her sane and to be a victim of a political persecution
prior to the hearing; and 2) The State of Ohio had found defendant competent to
stand trial in Ottawa County case no 02CRB025 after a special prosecutor
attempted to smear defendant just like Mr. Kasaris by representing that her
political and religious beliefs concerning corruption in the courts indicated
she was mentally ill. Mr. Kasaris had
knowledge of that finding because he is using the case in the prosecution of
Defendant in Erie County wherein he was appointed special prosecutor at the
express request of Erie County prosecutor Kevin Baxter for stealing her own
company car. (See CR 05-257 in Erie County Common Pleas Court and reports
posted at www.erievoices.com)
Not
surprisingly not only did the Court Diagnostic Clinic find defendant to be
competent to stand trial, but to be highly intelligent without mental defects
whatsoever. Which begs the question,
when does the state of Ohio stop trying to muzzle the defendant and start
inquiring into the serious legal misconduct she and her business partner report
at www.erievoices.com?
Prosecutorial Misconduct due
to a continuing course of false representations to the court
After falsely representing to this Honorable Court
that defendants represented dangerous flight risks for over two and half
months, Mr. Kasaris curiously elected upon the finding of the second Indictment
to summons Defendants to be
arraigned the day after scheduled
trial in this case without notifying this Honorable Court that he would nolle
the first indictment. [1]. He then continued to falsely represent to
the court that he believed defendants to be
flight risks as his rationale
for insisting this court arraign defendants prior to his dismissing the first
indictment but prior to this court entering its findings and conclusions of law
for the basis of the dismissal of the first indictment. (See Transcript
September 12, 2004 in preparation).
Wherefore because the State by APA
Dan Kasaris has engaged in a pattern of misrepresentation, violations of court
rules and Ohio statutes and violations of defendants rights to advance a
politically motivated prosecution in order to curtail Defendants First
Amendment rights to comment freely on matters of the government including
criticizing the legal system, Defendant urges this Honorable Court that its
dismissal of this case be found to be with prejudice and findings of facts and
conclusions of law be entered to that effect in compliance with CRIM R 48 (B)
State of Ohio
County of Ottawa
I verify that I have read the foregoing and that the
statements made herein are true and made after sufficient inquiry into the
facts to cause a reasonable person to conclude they are true.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Elsebeth Baumgartner
Subscribe
and sworn to before me this 3rd day of October, 2005.
________________________
Notary Public
CERIFICATE OF SERVICE
The
undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Motion for relief from
Judgment was hand delivered to the offices of Cuyahoga County prosecuting
attorney Bill Mason at 1200 Ontario Cleveland Ohio this 3rd day of
October 2005.
_____________________
[1] Defendant notified this Honorable Court that she
intends to file a Motion for an Order to Show Cause.