Originally Posted - November 8, 2006

return home

He felt insulted because he had been called incompetent and his rulings challenged.

His feelings were hurt and he was mad because his wife talked unwittedly and openly with a blogger.


Retired visiting judge Richard Markus denies allegations that disbarred attorney Elsebeth Baumgartner levied against him but which have never been proven false in a court of law. They're been ruled false because he says so.

He claims that although the Ohio Constitution mandates that judges must be removed from the bench upon reaching age 70, that he and others can circumvent the law by acting as "retired visiting" judges and can continue to adjudicate cases, and remain on the public dole, until age 80.

Because he claims her accusations of case fixing and overbilling taxpayers are false and he feels he's done a good job, he wants her criminally charged for criticizing him.

The North Country Gazette has obtained the minutes of the Grand Jury proceeding against northern Ohio bloggers Elsebeth Baumgartner (left) and Bryan DuBois (right), publishers of Erie Voices. The minutes provide a bizarre inside look into character assassination of Baumgartner used as the basis in the government's effort to stop her from writing, seeking to criminally charge her with using a criminal tool, a computer, to intimidate Markus by sending him e-mails critical of him and his performance as a judge.    GRAND JURY MINUTES

In attempting to gain the criminal indictment, the minutes indicate that prosecutor Daniel Kasaris teamed up to testify with Markus to essentially indict Baumgartner for what Kasaris terms as her "goofiness", taking her to task for having dared exercised her constitutional right to seek redress of grievances in the court, for exercising her freedom of press, speech and association, for being alive, walking, talking and writing. According to Kasaris and Markus, she can only challenge their abuse of power and position, and that of other public officials, with their permission.

An indictment is nothing more than a formal accusation. It is not a conviction, it is a formal document written for a prosecuting attorney charging a person with some offense after the jurors have heard allegations made by the prosecutor, usually outside the presence of the defense. In the case of Baumgartner, she was charged under a secret indictment and not given an opportunity to appear and testify before the grand jury.

It has often been said that a Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich and the review of the Baumgartner minutes is a sad commentary on the Grand Jury system and the inadequacy of some people who sit as jurors that can forever change a person's life based on hearsay, prejudice and unfounded accusations.

Elsebeth Baumgartner, like all other defendants, is presumed innocent and must be proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, at a fair trial before an impartial magistrate before an impartial jury of her peers.

The trial against Baumgartner on multiple counts of intimidation, retaliation along with criminal possession of a criminal computer, is scheduled to begin Monday, Nov. 13 before Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold.

Although it's alleged that Baumgartner committed the alleged crimes by sending emails from a computer in her home in Ottawa County to complainant Markus, she's been charged in Cuyahoga County which gives rise for a jurisdictional issue. She's also being charged for filing a federal lawsuit in Florida, another jurisdictional challenge.

She will also be tried in a separate matter on a complaint brought against her by her former business partner, Bryan DuBois. Although she and DuBois were co-defendants in the indictment on the Markus complaint, DuBois later agreed to shut down the Erie Voices blog which had focused on exposing government corruption and had agreed to testify against Baumgartner in order to save himself jail time.

On Monday, Baumgartner filed an application with the Ohio Supreme Court to disqualify Saffold and for the assignment of a sitting judge from outside of Cuyahoga County to adjudicate the matter.    SAFFOLD AFFIDAVIT

Although Baumgartner has not voluntarily waived her right to counsel and had been unable to retain counsel to defend the case before Saffold, Saffold has ruled that she must proceed pro se but that she can't file any motions or documents in her own defense without an attorney and has denied Baumgartner access to her own court file. Saffold has also advised Baumgartner that she doesn't have to serve Baumgartner notices of hearings or conferences in the charges against her.

During the pendency of the charges, Saffold has revoked Baumgartner's bond on several occasions, without cause and in one instance last November, without hearing and without stating on the record a reason for the incarceration.

Kasaris in essence admits to teaming up with Markus to retaliate against Baumgartner for having dared to file lawsuits and attempt to initiate criminal investigations into her allegations of contract and insurance fraud, bid rigging and egregious judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. Kasaris admits to, in fact, openly brags that Markus has been "my visiting judge" in numerous cases in which they seek to silence activists and critics of government and "we've dealt with roughly 40 of these people".

A review of the Grand Jury transcript indicates that Kasaris himself testified before the Grand Jury concerning the purported evidence against Baumgartner, reaching back to incidents of 1999 which would be time barred for prosecution under Ohio's statute of limitations. The transcript also indicates that no law enforcement officer independently investigated Markus' claims that he was intimidated by e-mails sent criticizing his handling of civil cases in Ottawa County.

In fact, there is no indication that any investigation was conducted.

Kasaris also attempts to indict and imply guilt by association. He tells the grand jury that he and Markus have teamed up to "stop…..these people", telling the jurors that "I've got a couple people doing ten (years), a couple doing eight. They're not writing anymore". When a juror asks if Baumgartner is "connected" to "these people", Kasaris maintains that because they have allegedly "appeared together on a talk show", that she (Baumgartner) "is loosely affiliated with some of those people....she and a couple of them have the same lawyer…..she appeared, I think, on a local radio show with one of those goofballs".

Guilt by association. That's unconstitutional as is criminalizing the free speech. Kasaris and the prosecution must meet the standard of guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt, produce irreputable proof that a crime has bee committed that will place this highly educated, mother of two, happily married woman, civic-minded citizen in prison for the rest of her life for daring to criticize a judge and call him corrupt.

The prosecution of Elsebeth Baumgartner is supposed to send a message to all those who dare to stand up and question and criticize government, who dare to write about government wrongdoing----do it and we'll shut you down.

The woeful lack of evidence in the charges against Baumgartner is evident in these grand jury minutes, the only witness called by Kasaris against Baumgartner is Markus who plainly uses his power and position to attempt to quash a critic and reportedly even billed the state of Ohio and County of Cuyahoga taxpayers for his appearance before the Grand Jury which is clearly an exercise of his and Kasaris' vendetta against Baumgartner.

Markus repeatedly attempts to claim that although he's filed 34 charges of contempt against Baumgartner and is now the complainant against her in an attempt to imprison her for the rest of her life that he is impartial and unbiased. He repeatedly states that he has to be impartial, as it he's trying to convince himself.

Although Markus and Kasaris claim that the so-called intimidating emails were sent by Baumgartner simply because someone used her email address which can commonly be done by "spoofing", there is no evidence presented that the emails in question were generated by Baumgartner or even from any computer used by Baumgartner. In fact, in that it is claimed that the e-mails were sent under an AOL address, it is common knowledge that AOL IP numbers cannot be tracked to an individual computer as they are dynamic---temporary---rather than static which is a number assigned to the computer by an Internet service provider to be its permanent address on the Internet.

Although Kasaris and Markus claim that the e-mails were sent to Markus by Baumgartner, no proof of that has yet been provided and that would be a necessary element in order to gain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Grand Jury minutes also serve to indicate the vagueness and overbreadth of the intimidation statute, as Kasaris himself admits that there is no definition for "harm" imposed and that by itself, creates the foundation for the overall dismissal of the convoluted charges against Baumgartner.

The only question remains is how much will Ohio taxpayers have to pay for Markus, and Kasaris and Saffold to retaliate against Baumgartner before the Constitution and Ohio's Criminal Procedure Code kick in. 11-08-06

© 2006 North Country Gazette