Originally Posted - November 2, 2006

return home

CLEVELAND---In the wake of one of her defense attorneys being suspended from practicing law as he was preparing motions to present in the myriad of criminal charges against her, former Ohio attorney and pharmacist Elsebeth Baumgartner (left)has asked Cuyahoga County Commons Pleas Court Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold (right) to recuse herself.

Revealing highly biased and prejudicial statements allegedly made against her by Saffold in the presence of other attorneys and disclosing the unconstitutional order issued by Saffold that she cannot have access to her own court file, Baumgartner says that judicial canons require Saffold to remove herself from the case.

She also says that the record will support that Saffold has egregiously violated her constitutional rights in a case which is based on free speech issues and an individual's right to criticize public officials and post comments on their own blog.

Baumgartner alleges that Daniel Kasaris, the assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor who is prosecuting her both in Cuyahoga and Erie Counties, knew of the impending suspension of her attorney prior to the Supreme Court decision issued Wednesday, Nov. 1.

Baumgartner also reveals that in presence of witnesses and on the record that Saffold has accused her of lying, indicating a total lack of impartiality and prejudgment against Baumgartner which would serve to deny her a fair trial. In fact, she says that at the last status conference held Monday, Oct. 30 by Saffold, attorneys approached her and told her that she was not being treated fairly.

The former attorney says that Saffold also falsely accused her of moving items on her judicial bench and says that there are witnesses who can attest that Saffold's allegations are malicious and false.

Baumgartner also asserts, and seemingly with good basis, that Kasaris and Cuyahoga County have engaged in a selective and retaliatory prosecution against her. She names several instances in which others have engaged in the same course of conduct for which she has been criminally charged such as levying allegations of wrongdoing and misconduct against public officials but they have not been charged.

The letter as penned by Baumgartner, who currently has no attorney of record in the matters before Saffold and who is being prohibited by Saffold from viewing her own case file, was filed Thursday with various officials and agencies, including as a complaint against Saffold with the Cuyahoga County Bar Association and the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, based primarily on Saffold's actions against her within the last month. Baumgartner has not waived her right to counsel and although she could, pursuant to the Sixth Amendment, proceed pro se, Saffold ruled last January that Baumgartner cannot file any documents in the case which effectively denies her the right to counsel.

The letter follows:

Elsebeth Baumgartner, Pharm.D., J.D.
Oak Harbor Ohio 43449

November 2, 2006

Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas
Courtroom 21B
1200 Ontario
Cleveland, Ohio 44113

VIA FACSIMILE 216-348-4033

     Re: Events of October 30, 2006 and Constitutional violations

Dear Judge Saffold:

I write to clarify the record concerning events in court on October 30, 2006 and the date of the next status hearing. I also wish to report violations of constitutional rights and violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

NEXT STATUS CONFERENCE

My understanding is the status conference is scheduled for next Thursday November 9, 2006 not this Thursday November 2, 2006.

STATUS CONFERENCE OF OCTOBER 30, 2006

A status conference was held on October 30, 2006 concerning progress on retaining counsel. The State was not represented.

You have previously stated that this case will be tried on November 13, 2006 with or without counsel despite my refusal to sign a waiver of my right to counsel. To date, I've not retained counsel for many reasons.

Interviewed Attorneys have trial conflicts and or need time to prepare to defend a case wherein their client faces 109 years in prison for allegedly sending emails critical of Retired Visiting Judge Richard Markus, a member of the Cuyahoga bench, and or posting comments to defend myself on an internet site (www.erievoices.com) funded entirely by my businesses or family which has since been closed down to allegedly obtain an unrecorded plea deal with my former business partner and co-defendant Bryan DuBois.

Mr. DuBois was represented by Attorney Jay Milano in those negotiations and you were informed his fee of $25,000 was allegedly obtained by false pretenses from my husband Joseph Baumgartner and/or by misuse of company credit cards. Mr DuBois and his wife are subjects of pending complaints to the federal government concerning alleged bankruptcy fraud.

Also, Mr. Kasaris has disclosed documents and witnesses as part of discovery in case 478555 that indicate he intends to enter into evidence at trial court events of 12-12-05 in case 470184. This would appear to make the court, staff, Kathy Moore, Jay Milano, Mr. Kasaris, and Mr Keane witnesses in both cases.

Moreover, I've been advised by both my physician and psychologist that self re-presentation would be adverse to my physical and mental health and would prevent me from receiving a fair trial. Indeed you recognized this and wisely placed a mental health treatment condition on my bond as well as a prohibition against filing documents on January 19, 2006. How can I defend myself if the court has placed a restriction on my filing documents in my case?

ERIE COUNTY PROSECUTION AND LOSS OF COUNSEL

Further complicating matters is the fact that yesterday, at 4PM I learned that my attorney Derek Farmer, retained to represent me in Erie County Common Pleas Case 2005 CR 257 also prosecuted by Dan Kasaris, was suspended from the practice of law. I believe this to be a retaliatory action against Mr. Farmer due his zealous representation in Erie County. In any event this latest set back has severely aggravated my stress disorder due to my well founded fears that good counsel are being warned not to represent me or retaliated against for representing me.

In fact, Mr. Kasaris knew of this suspension a week before the Supreme Court ruled and advised an attorney I was considering hiring in Cuyahoga County to represent me in Erie County. Retired Visiting Judge Ronald Bowman set a Motion schedule of November 7, 2006 but due to the suspension this schedule will not be met because of the actions of the State of Ohio.

The Erie case is a vindictive political prosecution and has pended since May 20, 2005. I am being prosecuted by Mr. Kasaris at the request of Erie County prosecutor Kevin Baxter who also serves as special prosecutor in Cuyahoga County for allegedly stealing a company car that I financed, without complaint, and for felony fleeing and eluding in a controlled pursuit for which I was not cited by a single law enforcement agency.

In the Erie case Mr. Kasaris insisted on October 5, 2006 on placing a psychological treatment condition on my bond and a prohibition on communicating with anybody involved in any legal matters anywhere without permission of the court after I was held for 46 days from August 21, 2006 until October 5, 2006 without a valid charge, hearing or even a judge assigned to my case. This latest incarceration follows 45 days for alleged contempt of court from June 1, 2006 until July 15, 2006 due speech reporting the alleged protection of white male politicians' sexual misconduct by Mr. Kasaris that occurred in a closed criminal proceeding from which the press and public were barred.

Thus, the State of Ohio through the actions of Mr. Kasaris has placed conditions in two courts that mandate counsel represent me and recognizes psychological trauma after delaying the cases by unlawfully incarcerating me. Moreover under the Americans with Disabilities Act the State and Court are required to accommodate me and ensure my constitutional rights are fully protected.

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN CUYAHOGA COUNTY

You were informed that my former attorney Jeffry Kelleher has not returned my complete case record and was not prepared to proceed to trial on September 13, 2006. Mr. Kelleher filed no witness list or discovery as confirmed by the State, and failed to communicate with his client for 3 months, despite payment of $25,000 or ten times the amount paid to court appointed counsel for similar cases.

In order to hire counsel, I tried to recreate the case record by asking the Clerk of Court to examine the complete case file including correspondence and case notes. The clerk's office stated the file was in your office and could be examined and copied there.

EVENTS OF OCTOBER 30, 2006

On October 30, 2006 I arrived just prior to 9AM and spoke with Matt who was filling in for Bailiff Wallace. Attorney Frank Gasper, being considered as possible counsel was with me and directed Matt to the file drawer which contained the case file. Mr. Gasper had reviewed this case file, a public record, the prior week in order to make a proposal to me for representation with your full knowledge.

Matt gave me the file and directed me to an office where I could copy documents. I took the case file into the courtroom and removed and copied some documents filed by Mr. Kasaris which were not in the file given me by Mr. Kelleher. The ladies in the office as well as Matt were courteous and pleasant.

I returned to the courtroom and replaced the documents in order. Mr. Gasper was seated at the table the entire time and witnessed these events. I then removed the case notes, and correspondence sent by me to the court in February 2006 concerning internet based harassment directed at me consisting of linking my name to porn sites, a technique known as "infostaining".

I proceeded through the side door to return to the office to copy these documents. We met in the hallway and I said "Good Morning". You demanded to know what I was doing in the hallway and I explained that I was going to the office to copy items from my case file as the Clerk's office directed me. You told me I was not allowed to have access to my case file. I immediately returned to the courtroom, placing the documents back as found. The case file was returned to Matt. Again, Mr. Gasper and other witnesses were present.

You then appeared and we went on the record for my status conference. You made two accusations against me.

First, you claimed that I lied to the court by claiming I had a doctor's appointment but remained in court after our prior status conference on October 24, 2006. The facts are I had to cancel my psychologist's appointment scheduled for the morning of October 24, 2006 because your bailiff scheduled a status conference for the same time without first checking with me to see if I was available or providing me with notice. Thus, there was no longer an appointment scheduled for that day because I rescheduled.

Further, you claimed that the court doesn't provide written notice in a criminal case and that your bailiff contacted Mr. Gasper who was not my attorney though I am in negotiations to hire him and Mr. Richard Drucker. I stayed to observe voir dire to familiarize myself with your courtroom procedures.

Second, you claimed that you found me wandering in the jury room, that I had moved items on your bench and that a defendant without an attorney is not allowed to have access to their case file or to court facilities.

Many people were in the courtroom and can verify that I did not approach your bench. We met in the hall outside an unoccupied conference room while enroute to the office to copy documents. Finally the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments and the Ohio Public Records Act provide constitutional and statutory guarantees to access court records and use court facilities. Nobody has a greater interest or right to review a criminal case record then an unrepresented defendant.

APPEARENCE OF SELECTIVE PROSECUTION

Cleveland Scene in its internet edition this past week made disparaging remarks about you and in 2003 yet nobody is suggesting the editor be indicted and face 109 years in prison for criticizing a judge and or publishing commentary on the internet exposing alleged legal misconduct as happened to me. This prosecution facially violates not only the First Amendment but the International Declaration on Human Rights which the United States is bound to honor.

Cleveland Scene also published a highly inflammatory and libelous piece about this case on May 3, 2006 wherein my own attorney is quoted as saying "She's been indicted for being annoying" as well as libelous comments from Mr. Kasaris and Retired Judge Knepper in July 2006 wherein I am labeled mentally ill for criticizing the courts.

Recent news reports validate my criticisms of Ohio's legal system. For example, the Plain Dealer reports the court and prosecutors knew Attorney Kevin Mc Faul to be addicted to cocaine for many years but not a single court officer reported his misconduct and the threat he posed to the public safety as required by the Code of Professional Responsibility. This validates my assertions that there is a double standard for government and politically connected lawyers who allegedly abuse drugs such as Kevin McFaul, and Special prosecutor Kevin Baxter.

The Plain Dealer also reports that area school districts spent over $40 million dollars on outside legal counsel despite the fact that they are entitled to free legal services under Ohio law. This validates my assertion that many law firms are dependent upon illegal government subsidies or contracts and confirms that over $1.5 million was illegally spent in the Benton Carroll Salem Local Schools as a result.

Similarly, Judge Nancy Russo prevailed in her Complaint for a Writ of Prohibition to prevent private judges like Richard Markus from enriching themselves by misuse of public resources in their for profit judicial corporations. The decision validates my criticisms of Judge Markus that he abused his office for personal gain, violated ethics laws by receiving unjust compensation and failed to disclose his private clients so that parties who have him assigned to their civil cases as a visiting judge can detect conflicts of interest.

The decision from the Ohio Supreme Court is also noteworthy for a statement made by Justice Pfeifer wherein he stated no rational judge would hold that the First Amendment didn't apply to internet communications. Ironically at this time of Pay to Play scandals throughout Ohio government, your honorary campaign manager and donor Bill Mason occupies the very office that ought to be protecting the people's interests by filing a case against Judge Markus and other private judges to recover the hundreds of thousands of overhead and other personal business expenses paid out. Instead he is prosecuting me by criminalizing internet based speech that criticized these practices in violation of over 200 years of US law and 40 years of International law in an alleged protection scheme.

Finally, media is replete with stories concerning former Congressman Foley and the obscene instant messages and emails he sent to government employees who happen to be minors. Nobody is suggesting Congressman Foley be indicted for paper terrorism and held on $360,000 cash bond in the hole as happened to me for reporting alleged sexual abuse of a 15 year old mentally disadvantaged male by Peter Redfern the brother of State Democratic Chairman Chris Redfern to judges and prosecutors and expecting them to uphold the laws prohibiting sexual exploitation of children.

While there is no known paper trail in the Foley case showing who knew what and when, there are court pleadings and transcripts dating back to 2003 showing a concerted effort by judges, prosecutors and others to cover up the alleged sexual exploitation of a vulnerable 15 year old boy in order to protect political careers. This validates my complaints dating back to January 2, 2002 that there is an appearance that the legal system of Ohio is covering up the sexual misconduct of government officials and their associates.

In fact the transcript from this case dated September 13, 2006 reports this alleged sex crime and nobody has bothered to investigate it despite the fact that your Honorary Campaign manager and donor William Mason chairs the Ohio Task Force on Internet Crimes Against Children. Rather that task force appears to have been misused to allegedly attempt to plant child pornography on the my legal computers containing attorney client privileged communications which were unlawfully seized from my home on February 1, 2006 and my key computer hard drive has yet to be returned to me.

CURRENT ELECTIONS

Ken Blackwell has suggested that Ted Strickland has a history of protecting pedophiles. This would appear to be true where the brother of the State Democratic Chairman is concerned. However Republican AG candidate Betty Montgomery's claim that she is tough on pedophiles is patently false. In fact, Betty Montgomery and current AG Jim Petro have both known of the allegations concerning Peter Redfern for several years yet have curiously refused to investigate the matter.

I suggested to Betty Montgomery at a meeting of Erie County Republican women in November 2003 that her perceived lack of compassion and failure to protect women and children sexually exploited by the politically connected in Erie and Ottawa counties may be due to her single status and lack of children. Ms Montgomery didn't deny this and has steadfastly refused to inquire as auditor into the alleged thefts or waste of millions of dollars through invalid contracts in public schools, the courts and other government subdivisions that benefit her law firm donors.

However, you are a mother and I am at a loss to understand why the court continues to allegedly protect egregious wrongdoing by male public officials and their associates while assailing me for simply trying to defend myself and family against repeated and outrageous violations of our constitutional rights to speech, religion, conscience, privacy, liberty, and to be free of harassment. My belief is that your animus towards me is politically and gender based as well as retaliatory for my evangelical Christian beliefs and advocacy.

Canon 3 E (1) requires you to disqualify yourself at the appearance of impropriety or if reasonable people would find the process unfair or biased. Several people including attorneys approached me on October 30, 2006 after the status conference and opined that I was not being treated fairly. Thus, I believe that standard is objectively met in this case and ask you to honor your oath of office by recusing yourself and this case randomly assigned to another judge.

Sincerely,

Elsebeth Baumgartner
All rights reserved

cc

Judge Nancy McDonnell
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
Cuyahoga County Bar Association
Mike Blumenthal
Ken Blackwell
Ted Strickland
Marc Dann
Betty Montgomery
Cleveland Scene
Plain Dealer
Dan Kasaris

© 2006 North Country Gazette