|
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
QUESTION INTEGRITY OF HIS
COURTROOM OPERATIONS!
IS
SCIOTO COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT JUDGE
HOWARD
HARCHA III
RUNNING
A FAIR COURT? SOME SAY NO! I AGREE!
May 29, 2007 By
Doug Deepe (John Welton)
John Welton (Doug Deepe) Sentinel
Reporter
Over the last year there have been some mysterious
decisions and hearings
being
rendered in the courtroom of Scioto County Common Pleas Court Judge
Howard
Harcha III. We have learned that the 4th District Court of
Appeals
has stated that
trial court transcripts of the case of murderer
John Martin Adams has
been doctored and/or altered, Judge Harcha III
dismisses a policeman’s lawsuit
who is
being represented by the same attorney in the Adams case, and
finally
Judge
Harcha III banned a local citizen from audio or video taping the
hearing
for the
residents of Grandview Avenue to ensure the public could be
fully
informed of the
court hearing. Does this sound more like Nazi
Germany
in the 1940’s than what our forefathers set up for an open
judicial
system for the people?
I
wrote a story over the weekend about the 4th District Court of
Appeals
issuing
an order to
Judge Harcha III demanding that he hold an evidentiary
hearing
to find out why
four different trial court transcripts have been sent
to
the Court of
Appeal in the Adams murder trial. Why would Judge
Harcha
III allow not
1, nor 2, nor 3, but 4 different trial transcripts to go
up to
the Appeals Court by an employee of his?
Maybe
Judge Harcha III’s decision in the Grandview case sheds a little
light on
this matter. Judge Harcha III ordered Teresa Mollette to not take
a tape
recorder and/or video recorder into his courtroom for the
Grandview Street residents hearing against the City of
Portsmouth a few
months
ago.
Mollette
filed a paper with Judge Harcha III asking permission to video and
audio
record the
hearing. Her request was not just denied but Mollette had
her
equipment seized by the judge until after the hearing was
completed.
Click on
the following link to read the posting Mollette put up on her website
concerning her attempt to record the
Grandview
hearing:
http://portsmouthcitizens.info/blog/?page_id=19
The reporters from other media sources were
allowed to take their equipment
into the
courtroom. In other words, Judge Howard Harcha III allowed the
SOGP
gangster
reporters to bring their equipment into the courtroom, but
denied
Mollette
who owns a
website that publishes public information for
free for
her readers the
right to capture the hearing with her
equipment.
I now believe that maybe Judge Harcha III
didn’t want Teresa Mollette to
video or
audio the
hearing because he wouldn’t be allowed to alter the
hearings
transcript
if he knew that
Mollette would publish the hearing on
her
website. Judge Harcha III knows the local press never prints negative
activity
by local judges so he doesn’t mind
having
them in the courtroom with their equipment. Do you smell something
funny
here people?Now we just learned this weekend that Judge Harcha III
dismissed a case filed by Portsmouth Police Officer
Steven Nagel against the
City of
Portsmouth and Portsmouth Police Chief Charles Horner. Officer Nagel
complained that he was forced to provide information
to Chief Charles Horner
about
Nagel’s association with former New Boston Police Officer
Matt
Powell and when
Nagel refused to do so, Chief Horner retaliated
against
him and eventually fired him from his job. An arbitration
hearing
was held
and the administrative
officer
ordered Nagel back to work but Chief Horner and Mayor Kalb has
refused
to put Nagel back to work.
Judge Harcha III gave a summary
judgment for Chief Horner and the
City of
Portsmouth claiming no material fact was left in the case for a
jury
to be
impaneled to hear testimony. This order disputes a prior decision by
Judge
Harcha III in which he stated material facts did exist and the case
would go to trial. The attorney
for Officer Nagel is Jim Banks from Dublin,
Ohio.
Attorney
Banks is also the attorney for John Adams.
Is it coincidental clients of Attorney Banks
are being thrown out of court now?
Attorney
Banks was fortunate to have a client like John Adams who had the
financial resources to fight Judge Harcha III at the
Court of Appeals.
This
forced the hand of Judge Harcha III and his immoral scheme to allow
altered
transcripts to go up against an individual seeking justice at the
Court of
Appeals.
While
I’m not saying Adams did or didn’t commit murder, he deserves to
have his
case
heard fairly at the Court of Appeals.
How many other false transcripts have
been submitted by Judge Harcha III’s
court
reporters to
Courts of Appeal? How many men or women are aware that
their
court appointed
lawyer may have not had the funds to fight like
Attorney Banks has done to prove false
information may have kept them
in
prison?
This activity by Judge Howard Harcha III appears to
take us back to the
1940’s
when altered
information was used by Nazi Germany to slaughter
innocent
people using
the courts to do the dirty work. What has been
uncovered by Attorney Banks
against this
sitting judge is not just illegal,
it is
immoral!
Maybe if enough pressure is put on
justices at the Court of Appeals a full
investigation will occur on
Judge Howard Harcha III and we can find out
how long
this illegal action has been going
on.
We at the Sentinel sat in the courtroom of Judge Harcha
III in 2003 when
attorney Mike Mearan stood up and stated that
“he knew the deal that
had been
worked out for
his client (rapist John Michael Schmidt) couldn’t
be
followed through with because of the public disclosure of the deal
by
certain
websites.” It seems that Judge Harcha III
learned to shut
down
website
owners after we revealed his dirty deal back in 2003.
Why else
would a judge shut down the public from hearing what he says
from the
bench of his courtroom?
Finally, Judge Howard
Harcha III was the Portsmouth Municipal Court
Judge
that illegally
expunged the criminal record of now Scioto County
Sheriff
Marty Donini.
Judge
Harcha III was fully aware that he illegally expunged two criminal
records
for Donini to
make him eligible to run for Scioto County Sheriff.
It was
then Judge Harcha III that signed the illegal affidavit for
Donini
claiming
that Donini had no criminal record that would prevent him from
running
for the office of Scioto County Sheriff.
These revelations
should scare the people of Scioto County and make them
reconsider putting Judge Harcha III back on the
bench when his term
expires. Judge Harcha III’s
record proves
he will cover up crimes and
now
maybe he is party to committing the crime of submitting
false information to a
higher
court.
Do you
or your loved ones think you will get a fair hearing with this
judge?
You
better think again.
John Welton (Doug Deepe) May 29,
2007
**************************
APPEAL
OF MARTINGS DECISION RETURNED
TO
SCIOTO COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT.
The
Appeals Court upheld on Tuesday, July 19,
2005, the Mollettes
insistence that there is no just cause
for allowing an appeal of
any part of the case at this time.
The Scioto County
Common Pleas Court is to now
address the question of granting
the Mollettes a writ
of mandamus and an injunction.
The Court of Common Pleas will also address the
question of damages and attorney fees. The Court
of
Appeals ruled that the Common Pleas Court is to
make these
decisions, not the City Council.
The costs of the
losing Appeal are to be split between
Clay Johnson/Martings
Foundation and the City
Council of Portsmouth. Both filed
appeals in December
2004 following an "emergency"
ordinance passed
by four controlled City Councilmen to
authorize the
appeal, and appropriate money for the costs
of the appeal.
(This appeal action by City Council and Solicitor
David Kuhn has proven to be
another waste of City
funds.)
The decision of the Court of Appeals was made
by
Administrative Judge William H. Harsha, with
Appeals
Judges P.J.Abele and J. Kline concurring.
Written and
posted by Austin Leedom, Sunday, July 24, 2005 at 1:25 a.m.
This article first
posted here on July 22,
2005.
NEW
BOSTON POLICE SGT. MATT POWELL -
Trial next month - - Don't miss this one.
06/17/05 FILING NOTICE OF DEPOSITION THE STATE WILL TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF JOHN STEWART, TST TOWING, ON 6/23/05 AT 10:30 AM AT THE MAYOR'S COURTROOM. SAID DEPOSITIONS WILL CONTINUE FROM TIME TO TIME UNTIL COMPLETED. SAID DEPOSITION WILL BE TAKEN BY STENOTYPE & VIDEOGRAPHER 06/20/05 CT ORDER JUDGMENT ENTRY: UPON ORAL MOTION OF DEFT & FOR SUFFICIENT CAUSE SHOWN, TO WIT: PREPARATION OF TRANSCRIPTS & OBTAINING AFFIDAVITS OF WITNESSES, SOME OF WHICH ARE ON VACATION, THE DEFT IS GRANTED AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME UNTIL 6/24/05 IN WHICH TO FILE & SERVE EVIDENTIARLY MATERIALS TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM OF SELECTIVE PROSECUTION. 216/175 06/21/05 SERVICE SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED. SERVED SUBPOENA; TO JOHN STEWART ON 6/20/05 BY PERSONAL SERVICE; SERVED BY SCHERER 06/21/05 ISSUANCE ISSUED SUBPENA TO MAYOR JAMES WARREN; TO APPEAR ON 6/21/05 @ 12;30 AM. ON BEHALF OF DEFT. 06/21/05 ISSUANCE ISSUED SUBPENA TO TST TOWING/OLLIE RENTZEL; TO APPEAR ON 6/23/05 @ 9:00 AM.; ON BEHALF OF DEFT 06/22/05 FILING TST TOWING/OLLIE REUTZEL'S OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA; FILED BY ATTY JOHN R. HAAS 06/23/05 FILING STATES NOTICE OF STATES 3RD ADDITIONAL COMPLIANCE W/DEFTS REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY 06/23/05 FILING PRECIPE FOR SUBPENA; FILED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR 06/23/05 ISSUANCE ISSUED SUBPENA TO MARTY EVELAND/PORTSMOUTH POLICE DEPT TO APPEAR ON 7/19/05 @ 9:00 AM. ON BEHALF OF THE STATE 06/23/05 FILING STATES SECOND COMPLIANCE W/REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY BY THE STATE & NOTICE OF INTENT TO USE EVIDENCE 06/23/05 FILING STATES NOTICE OF SERVICE OF STATES SECOND DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY 06/23/05 FILING STATES NOTICE OF STATES SECOND COMPLIANCE W/DEFTS REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY 06/23/05 FILING DEFTS NOTICE OF FILING TESTIMONY OF LEE BOWER & DEPUTY GOODWIN 06/23/05 FILING DEFTS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS ON GROUNDS OF SELECTIVE PROSECUTION &/OR IMPROPER MOTIVE; ORAL HEARING
REQUESTED
999999999
(Note: Local Municipal Judge Richard Schisler
allows Kuhn's office to control all prosecution in Municipal Court;
there will be no charges filed against Mark Kuhn's gun-toting
employee Dean Conklin for beating Mrs. Welton)
MUNICIPAL
COURT Judge Schisler has corrupted justice, and impeded police. City
Solicitor David Kuhn, and his nephew Mark Kuhn have subverted and
corrupted Municipal Court Rule 28 so as to empower the Kuhns to have
total control over which cases reach the court. RULE 28 is a
violation of civil rights.
Courts CITIZENS SUE City of
Portsmouth - Repeated back up of sewer waters into homes have
caused serious health problems and great property damage
ANOTHER SUIT AGAINST THE CORRUPT
CITY GOVERNMENT
Written and published by Austin Leedom, Shawnee
Sentinel Reporter at 6:45 p.m. Thursday, December 30,
2004
Twenty-one (21)
residents of the Grandview – 25th Street area, near the
hospital, have filed a suit against the City of Portsmouth. Citizens
have told us that for over seven years they have suffered from
flooding and back-up of sewer waters into their homes. Damages have
become increasingly worse during this time despite an order from the
Ohio EPA in the year 2000 that the City of Portsmouth was not to
allow any additional building in this area of the city until
sufficient sewer capacity was provided by the City.
The City of Portsmouth
has ignored the orders of the EPA and has continued to issue
building permits for more construction which has caused additional,
worse flooding and damage to the health of the citizens.
We were unable today to
obtain a complete copy of the case file in this most recent suit
against the City, but, printed below is a copy of the Common Pleas
Court Docket sheet we obtained from the office of Mildred Thompson,
the Scioto County Clerk of Courts at www.sciotocountycpcourt.org. The case number is 04CIH00301. Larry Essman
of 2417 Grandview is listed as Plaintiff Number One in this
action.
The attorney for the
Plaintiffs in this new legal action is D. Joe Griffith of Lancaster,
Ohio.
Mr. Griffith recently
won an action in Common Pleas Court for Bob and Teresa Mollette of
Franklin Boulevard against the City of Portsmouth in the case of the
illegal purchase of the Martings Building in May 2002.
The City owes $14,000 to
Attorney Griffith, plus legal fees to a losing out-of-town attorney
that Solicitor David Kuhn hired to defend the City.
Scioto County
Common Pleas Court Judge William T. Marshall ruled the sale of the
building null and void because of violations of the Ohio Sunshine
Law by the City Council of Portsmouth and Clay Johnson, (Johnson is
also known as the Richard D. Marting
Foundation.)
Mr. Johnson now
owes the taxpayers of Portsmouth the Two Million Dollars he
unlawfully took from them. It is time collect fromClayJohnson. The
City is going to need money to pay damages and lawyer fees in the
many lawsuits the City now faces.
Written and published by Austin Leedom,
Shawnee Sentinel Reporter at 6:45 p.m. Thursday, December 30,
2004
D O C K E
T S H E E
T
________________________________________________________________________________
Dec 30, 2004 Scioto Court of Common Pleas Page 1
5:05 pm D O C K E T S H E E T for 04CIH00301
LARRY ESSMAN, et al vs. CITY OF PORTSMOUTH
________________________________________________________________________________
Date Filed: 12/29/04 Style: L ESSMAN ETAL/CITY PORTS
Judge : 2
Action : OTHER CIVIL
________________________________________________________________________________
Judge Howard H. Harcha III Judge
Plaintiff 1 Attorney 800 339-4618 Gen
Pty 1 ESSMAN, LARRY GRIFFITH, D JOE
2417 GRANDVIEW AVENUE 144 E MAIN ST P O BOX 667
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662 LANCASTER OH 43130
Plaintiff 2 Attorney 800 339-4618 Gen
Pty 2 ESSMAN, LORETTA GRIFFITH, D JOE
2417 GRANDVIEW AVENUE 144 E MAIN ST P O BOX 667
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662 LANCASTER OH 43130
Plaintiff 3 Attorney 800 339-4618 Gen
Pty 3 VOORHEIS, DONNA GRIFFITH, D JOE
2407 GRANDVIEW AVENUE 144 E MAIN ST P O BOX 667
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662 LANCASTER OH 43130
Plaintiff 4 Attorney 800 339-4618 Gen
Pty 4 BOREN, DONNA GRIFFITH, D JOE
2114 25TH STREET 144 E MAIN ST P O BOX 667
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662 LANCASTER OH 43130
Plaintiff 5 Attorney 800 339-4618 Gen
Pty 5 BOREN, LARRY GRIFFITH, D JOE
2114 25TH STREET 144 E MAIN ST P O BOX 667
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662 LANCASTER OH 43130
Plaintiff 6 Attorney 800 339-4618 Gen
Pty 6 FELTS, VICTORIA GRIFFITH, D JOE
1924 25TH STREET 144 E MAIN ST P O BOX 667
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662 LANCASTER OH 43130
Plaintiff 7 Attorney 800 339-4618 Gen
Pty 7 LODWICK, JAMES GRIFFITH, D JOE
1902 25TH STREET 144 E MAIN ST P O BOX 667
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662 LANCASTER OH 43130
Plaintiff 8 Attorney 800 339-4618 Gen
Pty 8 LODWICK, JANET GRIFFITH, D JOE
1902 25TH STREET 144 E MAIN ST P O BOX 667
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662 LANCASTER OH 43130
Plaintiff 9 Attorney 800 339-4618 Gen
Pty 9 NEWSOM, CINDY GRIFFITH, D JOE
2315 GRANDVIEW AVENUE 144 E MAIN ST P O BOX 667
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662 LANCASTER OH 43130
Plaintiff 10 Attorney 800 339-4618 Gen
Pty 10 ALLEN, BEVERLY GRIFFITH, D JOE
2310 GRANDVIEW AVENUE 144 E MAIN ST P O BOX 667
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662 LANCASTER OH 43130
Plaintiff 11 Attorney 800 339-4618 Gen
Pty 11 LEWIS, CAROLYN GRIFFITH, D JOE
1914 25TH STREET 144 E MAIN ST P O BOX 667
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662 LANCASTER OH 43130
Plaintiff 12 Attorney 800 339-4618 Gen
Pty 12 ZOELLNER, DAVID GRIFFITH, D JOE
2306 GRANDVIEW AVENUE 144 E MAIN ST P O BOX 667
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662 LANCASTER OH 43130
Plaintiff 13 Attorney 800 339-4618 Gen
Pty 13 ZOELLNER, SUE GRIFFITH, D JOE
2306 GRANDVIEW AVENUE 144 E MAIN ST P O BOX 667
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662 LANCASTER OH 43130
Plaintiff 14 Attorney 800 339-4618 Gen
Pty 14 MCQUINLEY, MACK GRIFFITH, D JOE
2306 GRANDVIEW AVENUE 144 E MAIN ST P O BOX 667
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662 LANCASTER OH 43130
Plaintiff 15 Attorney 800 339-4618 Gen
Pty 15 GULKER, GREG GRIFFITH, D JOE
2635 SHAWNEE RD 144 E MAIN ST P O BOX 667
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662 LANCASTER OH 43130
Plaintiff 16 Attorney 800 339-4618 Gen
Pty 16 HUNT, BOB GRIFFITH, D JOE
2311 GRANDVIEW AVENUE 144 E MAIN ST P O BOX 667
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662 LANCASTER OH 43130
Plaintiff 17 Attorney 800 339-4618 Gen
Pty 17 HUNT, PRISCILLA GRIFFITH, D JOE
2311 GRANDVIEW AVENUE 144 E MAIN ST P O BOX 667
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662 LANCASTER OH 43130
Plaintiff 18 Attorney 800 339-4618 Gen
Pty 18 CRAPYOU, ANGELO GRIFFITH, D JOE
2301 GRANDVIEW AVENUE 144 E MAIN ST P O BOX 667
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662 LANCASTER OH 43130
Plaintiff 19 Attorney 800 339-4618 Gen
Pty 19 JOHNSON, KYLE BRUCE GRIFFITH, D JOE
144 E MAIN ST P O BOX 667
2314 GRANDVIEW AVENUE LANCASTER OH 43130
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662
Plaintiff 20 Attorney 800 339-4618 Gen
Pty 20 JOHNSON, BONNIE GRIFFITH, D JOE
2314 GRANDVIEW AVENUE 144 E MAIN ST P O BOX 667
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662 LANCASTER OH 43130
Plaintiff 21 Attorney 800 339-4618 Gen
Pty 21 NELSON, SHEILA GRIFFITH, D JOE
2329 GRANDVIEW AVENUE 144 E MAIN ST P O BOX 667
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662 LANCASTER OH 43130
Defendant 1
Pty 22 CITY OF PORTSMOUTH
MUNICIPAL BUILLDING
728 SECOND ST RM 1
PORTSMOUTH OH 45662
________________________________________________________________________________
Actions
Date Description
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/29/04 FILING
COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND
12/29/04 ISSUANCE
SUMMONS ISSUED WITH CERT COPY OF COMPLAINT
TO CITY OF PORTSMOUTH BY CERTIFIED MAIL Copied and published by Austin Leedom, Shawnee Sentinel Reporter at 6:45 p.m. Thursday, December 30, 2004
Is City Deficit to Deepen?
Written and published by
Shawnee Sentinel Reporter Austin Leedom 1:15 a.m. Wednesday,
December 28, 2004.
The Shawnee Sentinel has received information
that the suit against Portsmouth Police Chief Charles Horner and the
City of Portsmouth by former Police Officer Steven Nagel was settled
yesterday, December 28, 2004 by a court ordered agreement. This
information has not been confirmed.
According to our information
Officer Nagel is to receive money for loss of pay, and other
damages. He is to be restored to his position as Police Patrolman.
Also the attorneys for the plaintiff and for the defendants will be
paid from city funds.
As you can read from the Court Docket
Sheets published below, this case has been in the courts for
fourteen months.
Apparently the Common Pleas Court decision was
against Chief Horner and the City of Portsmouth. This decision was
appealed, and now the appeal is lost.
The City of Portsmouth is
going to pay big dollars for this one if our information is correct.
There are two more legal actions now pending against Police Chief
Charles Horner. Our inside information on the next two suits against
Chief Horner indicates that he and the City of Portsmouth will also
lose these cases.
How many big dollar
losses can the city withstand? Already Mayor Jim Kalb is planning to
raise fees for city services. Total costs to the city on these cases
could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The next
case that the City of Portsmouth and Police Chief Charles Horner
face is the suit filed by New Boston Police Sergeant Matthew Powell.
This is a connected case with the Nagel suit. Nagel was a friend of
Sergeant Powell. Sheriff Marty Donini is also listed as a
defendant in this case.
Powell’s difficulties started when he
began asking about missing drug money that had been confiscated.
Nagel’s troubles began when it was found he was a friend of Sergeant
Powell. Chief Horner could not fire Sergeant Powell, a New Boston
officer, but he did fire Portsmouth Police Patrolman Steven
Nagel.
Chief Horner, joined by Sheriff Marty Donini, had begun
unlawful actions against Sergeant Powell. When the Sentinel
reporters began asking about the missing drug money Chief Horner and
Sheriff Donini disbanded the notorious Drug Task Force in May of
2003.
Both the Sheriff and the Chief of Police used departmental
equipment and time in their attempt to get rid of Sergeant Powell.
Both the Sheriff and the Chief of Police have failed to make proper
reports on drug money and other seized items to the Office of the
Attorney General as the law requires and both have refused to
account for money as required by law. Where is the money? The
Sheriff and the Portsmouth Chief of Police have repeatedly denied
requests for public information by Sentinel reporters, in violation
of the Sunshine Law.
Also, the Sheriff has received over $200,000
in Furtherance of Justice Funds since he took office. He refuses to
make a proper accounting to the public as he is required to do.
Where’s the money, Marty? What did you do with it?
Perhaps we
will learn more when the suit filed by New Boston Police Sergeant
Matthew Powell against Chief Horner is heard. A trial is to be held
beginning Monday, the 24th of January, 2004 in the Common Pleas
Court of Judge Howard H. Harcha III. The Judge has allotted five
days for this trial.
Published below is a copy of the Common
Pleas Court Docket Sheets in the Nagel v. Police Chief Charles
Horner case as copied from the Scioto County Clerk of Courts
Office:
D O C K E T S H E E T
________________________________________________________________________________
Dec
28,
2004
Scioto Court of Common
Pleas
Page 1
10:37
pm D O C K E T S H E E
T for
03CIC00081
STEVEN NAGEL vs. CHARLES HORNER, et
al
________________________________________________________________________________
Date
Filed:
10/20/03
Style: SE NAGEL/CH
HORNER
Judge :
2
Action : OTHER
TORTS
________________________________________________________________________________
Judge
Howard H. Harcha
III
Judge
Plaintiff
1
Attorney 614
866- 666
Gen
614 766-1203 Fax
Pty
1 NAGEL,
STEVEN
BANKS, JAMES
H
% PORTSMOUTH POLICE
DEPT P O BOX
40
728 SECOND
STREET
DUBLIN OH
43017
PORTSMOUTH OH
45662
Defendant
1
Attorney 513
583-4208 Gen
Pty 2
HORNER,
CHARLES
BARBIERE, LAWRENCE
E
H(INDIVIDUALLY)
11935 MASON ROAD STE
110
728 SECOND
STRET
CINCINNATI OH
45249
PORTSMOUTH OH
45662
AKA: CHIEF OF PORTSMOUTH POLICE
DEPT.
Attorney 513
583-4200
Gen
513 583-4203
Fax
PATTON, JAY
D
11935 MASON ROAD, STE 110
CINCINNATI OH
45249
Defendant
2
Attorney 513
583-4208 Gen
Pty 4
PORTSMOUTH POLICE DEPT-CITY
BARBIERE, LAWRENCE
E
OF PORTSMOUTH
OH
11935 MASON ROAD STE
110
% MAYOR GREGORY
BAUER
CINCINNATI OH
45249
PORTSMOUTH OH
45662
Attorney 513
583-4200
Gen
513 583-4203
Fax
PATTON, JAY
D
11935 MASON ROAD, STE 110
CINCINNATI OH
45249
________________________________________________________________________________
Actions
Date
Description
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/20/03
FILING
COMPLAINT WITH JURY
DEMAND.
10/20/03
ISSUANCE
SUMMONS ISSUED WITH CERT COPY OF COMPLAINT TO
DEFTS
BY CERTIFIED
MAIL.
10/24/03
SERVICE
RETURN RECEIPT FILED.
SERVED
PORTSMOUTH POLICE DEPT S-J MARTIN
10-22-03
CHARLES HORNER, CHIEF PORTSMOUTH POLICE DET - S-J
MARTIN
10-22-03
10/30/03
FILING
ANSWER OF DEFTS TO PLFT'S COMPLAINT; PORTSMOUTH
POLICE
DEPT/CITY OF PORTSMOUTH OH & CHARLES HORNER, CHIEF
OF
POLICE FOR THE CITY OF
PORTSMOUTH
12/11/03
FILING
NOTICE OF
HEARING.
STATUS CONFERENCE; BEFORE JUDGE HARCHA ON 1-22-04
AT
1:45PM
01/27/04
ORDER
JUDGMENT ENTRY (PRE TRIAL ORDER) SETTING DATES
AND
DISCOVERY
DEADLINES.
257/173
01/28/04
FILING
NOTICE OF
HEARING.
PRETRIAL CIVIL; BEFORE JUDGE HARCHA ON 5-20-04 AT
11:15AM
PRETRIAL CIVIL; BEFORE JUDGE HARCHA ON 11-15-04 AT
1:00PM
JURY TRIAL 3 DAYS; BEFORE JUDGE HARCHA ON 12-13-04
AT
9:00AM
02/26/04
FILING
NOTICE OF SERVICE OF PLFT'S ANSWERS TO PORTSMOUTH
DEFTS'
FIRST SET OF INTERROS AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
OF
DOCUMENTS ON
2-24-04
03/04/04
FILING
NOTICE OF SERVICE OF PLFT'S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFTS
UPON
COUNSEL FOR DEFTS ON
2-26-04
03/18/04
FILING
NOTICE OF TAKING OF
DEPOSITION
WITNESS TO BE DEPOSED: STEVEN E
NAGEL
DATE/TIME: APRIL 2 2004 AT
10:00AM
PLACE DEPO IS TO BE TAKEN: DAVID W KUHN
ESQ
04/19/04
FILING
DEFTS' DESIGNATION OF EXPERT
WITNESSES
06/15/04
FILING
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT BY
PLFT
06/21/04
CT ORDER
JUDGMENT ENTRY; UPON MOTION OF PLFT AND FOR
SUFFICIENT
CAUSE SHOWN PLFT IS HEREBY GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE
HIS
AMENDED
COMPLAINT
262/59
07/12/04
FILING
ANSWER OF DEFTS TO PLFT'S AMENDED
COMPLAINT
07/12/04
FILING
DEFTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
07/20/04
ORDE
JUDGMENT ENTRY. IT IS THE ORDER OF THIS COURT THAT
THE
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE AND HEREBY IS SCHEDULED
FOR
NON-ORAL HEARING BEFORE THE COURT. NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL
BE
HEARD. NEITHER PARTIES NOR THEIR ATTORNEYS NEED
APPEAR
MEMORANDUMS IN SUPPORT OF OR OPPOSITION TO SAID MOTION
SHALL
BE FILED WITH A COPY DELIVERED TO THE COURT IN CHAMBERS
AT
THE TIME OF FILING. IT IS SO
ORDERED.
MOTION OF :
PLFT'S
HEARING DATE: 8-12-04 AT
8:00AM
MEMORANDUMS DUE: ON OR BEFORE 8-11-04 AT
4:00PM
262/235
07/22/04
FILING
NOTICE OF
HEARING.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT- NO HEARING; BEFORE JUDGE HARCHA
ON
8-12-04 AT
8:00AM
08/09/04
FILING
MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME BY
PLFT
(FAXED
COPY)
08/10/04
CT ORDER
JUDGMENT ENTRY; UPON MOTION OF PLFT AND FOR GOOD
CAUSE
SHOWN, PLFT IS HEREBY GRANTED AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
UNTIL
8-31-04 IN WHICH TO RESPOND TO DEFTS' MOTION
FOR
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
265/110
08/16/04
FILING
(ORIGINAL) DEPOSITION OF STEVEN N NAGEL ON 4-2-04
AT
11:06AM
(TYPED)
08/16/04
FILING
NOTICE OF FILING OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT; OF PLFT STEVEN
N
NAGEL ON APRIL 2, 2004 IS BEING FILED CONCURRENTLY WITH
THE
FILING OF THIS
NOTICE
08/30/04
FILING
PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM CONTRA DEFENDANTS' MOTION
FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT W/MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT.
09/09/04
FILING
DEFTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
11/08/04
FILING
PLFT'S PRETRIAL
STATEMENT
11/08/04
FILING
DEFTENDANT'S PROPOSED JURY
INSTRUCTIONS
11/08/04
FILING
DEFENDANTS' PRETRIAL
STATEMENT
11/15/04
FILING
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ADDITIONAL
COUNSEL
IN ADDITION TO LAWRENCE E BARBIERE, JAY D PATTON OF
THAT
SAME LAW FIRM HEREBY ENTERS HIS APPEARANCE AS
ADDITIONAL
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS PORTSMOUTH POLICE
DEPARTMENT/CITY
OF PORTSMOUTH OHIO AND CHARLES HORNER CHIEF OF
POLICE,
CITY OF PORTSMOUTH IN THE WITHIN
ACTION.
12/08/04
CT ORDER
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
ENTRY
VOL 268 PG
208
12/08/04
ISSUANCE
ISSUED A CERTIFIED COPY OF DECISION AND JUDGMENT
ENTRY
TO COUNSEL OF RECORD BY REG U S MAIL-ENVELOPES
WERE
PROVIDED BY COURT
W/POSTAGE.
12/09/04
FILING
NOTICE OF APPEAL BY PORTSMOUTH POLICE
DEPARTMENT/CITY
OF PORTSMOUTH OHIO AND CHARLES HONER, CHIEF OF
POLICE
FOR THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH OHIO- CASE # 04CA-2975
D O C K E T S H E E T
________________________________________________________________________________
Dec
28,
2004
Scioto Court of Common
Pleas
Page 1
10:24
pm D O C K E T S H E E
T for
04CA002975
CHARLES H HORNER, et al vs. STEVEN E
NAGEL
________________________________________________________________________________
Date
Filed:
12/09/04
Style: HORNER-PORTS
POL/NAGEL
Judge :
3
Action : APPEAL-
03-CIC00081
________________________________________________________________________________
Judge
Court of Appeals
Judge
Judge
Plaintiff
1
Attorney 513
583-4208 Gen
Pty 1
HORNER, CHARLES
H
BARBIERE, LAWRENCE
E
728 SECOND
STREET
11935 MASON ROAD STE
110
PORTSMOUTH OH
45662 CINCINNATI OH
45249
AKA: CHIEF OF PORTSMOUTH POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Plaintiff
2
Attorney 513
583-4208 Gen
Pty 3
PORTSMOUTH POLICE DEPT-CITY
BARBIERE, LAWRENCE
E
OF PORTSMOUTH
OHIO
11935 MASON ROAD STE
110
728 SECOND
ST
CINCINNATI OH
45249
PORTSMOUTH OH
45662
Defendant
1
Attorney 614
866- 666
Gen
614 766-1203 Fax
Pty
4 NAGEL, STEVEN
E
BANKS, JAMES
H
728 SECOND
STREET
P O BOX
40
PORTSMOUTH OH
45662 DUBLIN OH
43017
________________________________________________________________________________
Actions
Date
Description
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/09/04
FILING
NOTICE OF APPEAL OF C H HORNER,CHIEF OF POLICE CITY
OF
PORTSMOUTH OH, PORTSMOUTH POLICE DEPT, CITY OF
PORTSMOUTH
OHIO.
12/09/04
FILING
CIVIL CASE DOCKET STATEMENT- NO TRANSCRIPT TO BE
FILED.
(NATURE OF CASE GOVERNMENTAL
IMMUNITY)
12/09/04
FILING
STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT OF
ERRORS-DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
HAVE NOT ORDERED THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS.
12/10/04
ISSUANCE
ISSUED NOTICE OF APPEAL, CIVIL CASE DOCKET
STATEMENT,
STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS TO ATTY JAMES H
BANKS
FOR APPELLEE BY CERTIFIED
MAIL.
(4) COPIES OF NOTICE OF APPEAL-CIVIL CASE DOCKET
&
STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS TO COURT OF
APPEALS.
12/20/04
SERVICE
RETURN RECEIPT FILED.
SERVED
JAMES H BANKS; S-NINA ?
12-17-04
12/20/04
FILING
NOTICE OF TRANSMISSION TO COURT OF APPEALS -NO
TRASCRIPT.
12/20/04
ISSUANCE
ISSUED A COPY OF NOTICE OF TRANSMISSION OF
RECORD
TO COUNSEL OF RECORD BY CERTIFIED
MAIL.
(4) COPIES TO COURT OF
APPEALS.
12/27/04
SERVICE
RETURN RECEIPT FILED.
SERVED
JAMES H BANKS; S-NINA NAJAR
12-22-04
Click the Back Button to Return to Previous Screen
CITIZENS WIN
DECISION
Police Chief Charles Horner
was right when he reported the purchase of the Marting building to
Clay Johnson was illegal. Ohio Attorney General overlooked
violations. BCI&I investigation was a farce.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004 at 9:30
p.m.
COMMON PLEAS COURT JUDGE WILLIAM T. MARSHALL
RULES MARTING PURCHASE INVALID
The following is a copy
of the decision and order:
IN THE COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS
SCIOTO COUNTY,
OHIO
GENERAL
DIVISION
CASE NO. 04 CIH-110
TERESA
MOLLETTE, et al
Plaintiffs,
VS.
PORTSMOUTH CITY COUNCIL
Defendants
This
matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s
Motions for Summary
Judgment. This Court on September 30, 2004 converted Defendant’s
Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings to Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court
having reviewed the entire file herein finds that Plaintiffs filed a
Complaint against the
City Council of Portsmouth alleging that the passing of Ordinance
63-02 violated the "Sunshine Law", Revised Code section
121.22.
The facts
are as follows: Sometime in early 2002, Mayor Greg Bauer approached
members of the Portsmouth
City Council about the City’s purchase of the Marting’s Brothers
Company property in
downtown Portsmouth. On unstated dates, members of City
Council met at local
attorney Clay Johnson’s office in groups of three during which a
tour of the Marting’s Brothers building was conducted by Council
members. Attorney David Kuhn, attorney for Portsmouth City Council, stated on the record
in the hearing of September 30, 2004, members met in groups of three
for an information gathering, however, a review of the depositions
of the City Council
persons reveal that the City Council’s members met in groups of
three to avoid the "Sunshine Law." For example, James D. Kalb,
Sr. testified in his deposition when questioned,
"Do you
recall there being a discussion that it wouldn’t be a good idea to
have more that three at a
time because it could be construed as being a meeting?" Answer:
"That’s what was on everybody’s mind. At any time when there are
more than three Council members present, you know, that is one of the three criteria
involved for the "Sunshine Law."’
Question:
"One of the purposes of doing it three and three is not to be
construed as having a
meeting?" Answer: "I would say."
On April 8,
2002, Portsmouth City Council held a regular session in the Council
chambers. A review of the minutes of that meeting indicates that the
purchase of the Marting’s building was not discussed in public by
the City Council.
On April 17,
2002 Mayor Greg Bauer sent a memo to the City Council with the
stated intent of the memo, "to bring you up-to-date with the
Marting’s proposal and what has transpired since our tour of the
building." The memo notes that the appraisal and schedules for the
building were included in the Council’s packet for the April 8, 2002
meeting. However, as noted above, there was no public discussion on
April 8, 2002 by the City Council regarding the Martings’
building.
On April 22,
2002, a City Council meeting was held. The agenda for the
meeting did not mention the Marting’s building. Minutes of the
April 22 meeting reflect that after the call to order and Pledge of
Allegiance, Vice-President Ray Pyles made a motion to recess "into
Executive Session to discuss the purchase of property for the City."
Thereafter, the Council members went into Executive Session and out
of view of the public. At the end of the Executive Session,
the public meeting was reconvened, and Vice-President Pyles made a
motion to add to the Agenda an order that would authorize the Mayor
to negotiate a real estate purchase agreement with the Marting’s
Brothers Foundation.
A review of the
Minutes reflect that there were no questions or comments and Council
voted six to nothing to add the ordinance to the Agenda.
Thereafter, the Clerk gave the first reading to ordinance, but Vice
President Pyles subsequently moved to suspend the rule requiring the
ordinance to be read on three separate dates. The Motion
passed six to nothing and the charter rules stipulating that three
readings of legislation be required were suspended.
Ordinance 53-02
was passed six to nothing without any public discussion by
Council.
On May 13,
2002, City Council held another meeting. The Minutes reflect that
the Marting’s building was not discussed. The record also
reflects that immediately following the Council meeting of May 13, a
"Conference Meeting" was held by the Council members to discuss
pending legislation that would be on the next Council Meeting
Agenda. There were no Minutes taken of the Conference
Meeting.
On May 29,
2002, Minutes of the meeting reflect that Councilman Baughman,
acknowledging a request from the Mayor, "moved to add legislation
providing for the issuance of a two million dollar City Hall
Acquisition Bonds Anticipation Notes." Again, there were no
questions or comments the Motion carried five in favor and zero
against, (one member was absent). Legislation was added to the
Agenda as "Item K." The Clerk then gave first reading to an
ordinance authorizing the Mayor of the City of Portsmouth, Ohio to
enter into a real estate purchase agreement for the purchase of the
Marting’s Brothers Company for certain property located as described
in the real estate purchase agreement in an amount not to exceed
$2,000,000 to be paid for from the proceeds of the Bond Anticipation
Notes appropriated into the building fund 3003.115.513.
Councilman Baughman moved to suspend the rule requiring ordinances
to be read on three separate dates. There were no questions or
comments and roll was called. The vote was five to nothing and the
rule was suspended. Councilman Baughman then made a motion to
pass the ordinance. There were no questions or comments and roll was
called with five in favor and zero against. The Ordinance,
number 63-02, was passed.
The Court
finds that his cause of action does arise under section 121.11 of
the Revised Code, commonly referred to as the "Sunshine Law," and
that this cause of action was filed within the two-year Statute of
Limitations. The one year statute of limitations is superceded
by the two year statute of limitations set forth in the "Sunshine
Law." applies because that statute declares any legislative action
invalid which falls within its purview.
The Court
further finds, based upon the depositions and the parties who
testified herein, that City Council’s pre-arranged back-to-back
meetings with Attorney Clay Johnson, who represented the Marting’s
Foundation, violated the "Sunshine Law." While it is true that
the Minutes of the May 29, 2002 Council meeting demonstrate that
ordinance 63-02 was enacted in open session, it is clear that the
adoption of the ordinance resulted from deliberations conducted in
meetings not open to the public. ouncil first violated the "Sunshine
Law" by assembling "in private" in groups of three in the attorney’s
office who was representing the Marting’s Foundation.
The ordinance
enacted at the May 29th Council Meeting was clearly the
result of a pre-arranged vote by the members of Council, agreed to
prior to the meeting. The ordinance was submitted and voted upon
without any discussion by the members of Council or any one
else.
To
compound the matter, they then suspended the three readings
requirement, thus precluding any possibility of public
discussion.
The Ohio
Supreme Court held in the case of State ex rel Cincinnati Post v
Cincincinnati (1996), 76 Ohio.St.3d 540 that the Cincinnati City
Council held regular and special meetings which were open to the
public except during Executive Session. Executive Sessions were held
in private and not recorded. In June of 1995, the City Manager
called three sets of back-to-back meetings between the City Manager
and Council members. The Supreme Court of Ohhio summarized the
meetings as follows:
The same
procedure applied to each set. The City Manager’s administrative
assistant scheduled the meetings so that in no session would there
be a majority of Council members. In depositions, the City Manager
testified that "the reason for having fewer than a majority of
members at Council at a meeting is so that we wouldn’t violate
Ohio’s open meetings law." The City manager testified tht he
understood that if a majority of Council met to discuss possible
business, and the public was excluded, the meeting would violate
Ohio’s "Sunshine Law." All of the meetings were held in the City
manager’s office and the county’s proposal for building new stadiums
was discussed at all of these sessions."
The Supreme
Court held that Council’s back-to-back meetings, which, taken
together, were attended by a majority of Council members, violated
the provisions of section 121.22 of the Revised Code, the "Sunshine
Law." According to the Court, the "Sunshine Law" "prevents such
maneuvering to avoid it clear intent." According to the Court,
back-to-back sessions discussing exactly the same public issues can
be construed as two parts of the same meeting. The Supreme Court
likened the back-to-back meetings to "legislative musical chairs"
that attempted to ignore the legislative intent of the
statute.
It is clear
that the City charter, as amended, attempts to authorize Council to
consider the purchase of property for public purpose in Executive
Session. It is also clear that the charter requires that
"citizens of the City shall have a reasonable opportunity to be
heard at any such meeting."
While
that requirement was not met at the May 13th "Conference
Meeting" and that that fact alone would militate against the
validity of the ordinance, the exclusion of any public discussion of
the purchase at the regular meeting, the suspension of the
three-readings requirement, coupled the "sham" meetings held to
circumvent the "Sunshine Law" requires this Court to hold that ordinance 63-02 is
invalid.
All parties
agree that if Section 4 of the City charter conflicted with the
revised code section 121.22 on the issue of Executive Session that
the charter would prevail. In 1989, section 4 of the Portsmouth City
Charter was modified adding to it that the public meeting
requirement is, "subject to the provisions of the open meeting law
of the Ohio Revised Code."
Inasmuch
as it is not contested that the City Charter must prevail over the
Section 121.22, the Court finds that the clear meaning of Section 4
is that, although it make reference to section 121.22 of the revised
code which allows Executive Sessions, the charter language clearly
states that the rules of the Council shall provide that citizens of
the City have a reasonable opportunity to be heard at any
such meeting in regard to any matter considered
thereat.
Defendant
asserts that with RC 121.22 (I)(1) the Plaintiffs do not seek in
this Complaint to compel Council to comply with the "Sunshine Law."
They do not ask the Court to "issue an injunction to compel the
members of the public body to comply with its provisions." The Court
finds that to not be the sole remedy therein for the reason are RC
121.22 (I) further goes on to state that, "A resolution, rule, or
formal action of any kind is invalid unless adopted in an open
meeting of the public body. A resolution, rule or formal actions
adopted in an open meeting that results from deliberations in a
meeting not open to the public is invalid…"
Based upon the
foregoing, the Court finds that there remains no genuine issues as
to any material facts and that Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. Defendants have violated the City charter and
the "Sunshine Law" and ordinance 63-02 if therefore
invalid. This Court rules and states that the contract
between the City of Portsmouth and Marting’s Foundation is invalid
because the resolution, rule, or formal action adopted in the open
meeting was the result of deliberations not open to the
public.
It is
THEREFORE ORDERED that the deed recorded in the Scioto County Record
of Deeds recorded in Volume 971 at Page 448 be set aside and held
for naught and that the City of Portsmouth shall retain an equitable
charge and a valid encumbrance and lien in the said property for the
purchase price thereof in the sum of $2,000,000. There being no just
reason for delay, this is
a final appealable order.
SO
ORDERED
________________________________
WILLIAM
T. MARSHALL, JUDGE
James
D. Truman, 2043 Sixth Street, Portsmouth, Ohio is scheduled to
appear before Scioto County Common Pleas Court Judge Howard H.
Harcha III in a pre-trial criminal hearing September, 21 2004.
Mr.
Truman was secretly indicted on September 26, 2003 on a charge of
ILLEGAL PROCESSING A DRUG DOCUMENT (F4).
FROM SENTINEL FILES,
ONE YEAR AGO
(Posted by Austin Leedom 3:00 a.m. on September 18,
2004)
EVELYN HOWARD MURDER SOLVED
WITH ASSISTANCE OF
SENTINEL
Chief Detective accused
Sentinel of harming investigation.
By Doug Deepe, Milo Shoveler, HM
Murdock and Special Undercover Investigator Benjamin
Dover
(posted 1:00 p.m. Tuesday,
September 16, 2003)
On April 3, 2003, the
Sentinel published a story about a possible "serial killer"
being involved with the murder of Evelyn Howard. This story was
written after an extensive investigation by a Sentinel
reporter into new evidence that we had found.
The Sentinel has information that
there is a second killer involved in the Evelyn Howard murder. Where
is the second killer, Detective Blair?
The Scioto County Sheriff’s Office had spent
five years and four months by April of 2003 looking for the
killer(s) of Evelyn Howard with no success.
The Sentinel has aggressively
pursued this homicide case for the last four years and has
interviewed many individuals that the Scioto County Sheriff’s Office
failed to interview in their investigation of the Evelyn Howard
murder.
Those interviews began paying off with excellent
leads.
Earlier this month in an article written by
Reporter Austin Leedom, the Sentinel was the first to report
that a man in jail (Danny Payton) was the man that could be linked
to the murder of Evelyn Howard.
Sentinel reporters had
discussed murders across the State of Ohio with other law
enforcement agencies and had confirmed that DNA evidence existed
that linked a murder in Fayette County, Ohio with the Evelyn Howard
murder.
The Scioto County Sheriff’s Office sat on
that information for years without making a move on the suspect. The
Sheriff did not notify the public that there was a serial killer in
the area.
It wasn’t until the Sentinel reported
to the public that we knew who the killer was that Chief
Investigator Hughie Blair sought a murder charge against Daniel
Payton.
Daniel Payton was the next door neighbor of
Evelyn Howard when Mrs. Howard was killed over five and a half years
ago.
A relative of Evelyn Howard was first
informed of the possible link between Daniel Payton and the death of
the elderly lady by the Sentinel, on Friday, the
5th of September, after we confirmed Danny Payton had
been indicted on charges of raping a twelve-year-old
girl.
A daughter of Evelyn Howard was shown our
investigative documents three days before we published our story on
this website about the possible connection of Danny Payton with the
murder. The Sentinel published this information on Monday,
the 8th of September.
Five days later the Scioto County
Sheriff’s Office announced a link to Danny Payton to the
Portsmouth Daily Times. Reporter Mark Shaffer's article on
the murderer, Daniel Payton, was printed on Saturday, the
13th of September in the Daily Times
In February 2003, a message from
the Sentinel was left with the Sheriff's Office that Danny
Payton was a likely suspect in the murder, according to a
Sentinel reporter who is currently working out of town. This
call was apparently ignored by the Sheriff's Office.
A daughter of Mrs. Howard and
one of her bosses reviewed our information and were shocked to see
that the Danny Payton, our murder suspect, lived right next door to
her mother. The daughter had never before been shown this
information.
The Scioto County Sheriff’s Office
went through at least four different investigators on this case,
including Chief Detective Hughie Blair.
Chief Detective Hughie Blair,
according to the daughter of Evelyn Howard, was a "pillar of
strength to her and her family" during the years after her mothers
death, yet Detective Blair didn’t tell the daughter about Payton
being the killer until the Sentinel broke our
story.
Detective Blair went to the
daughter of Mrs. Howard and told the daughter that the
Sentinel almost destroyed the case against Daniel
Payton.
Chief Detective Blair needs to
apologize to the Sentinel. Instead of criticizing us, a
simple "thank you" will suffice.
With our little resources we
solved a murder for your office.
It is our evidence that has helped
linked these other murders together, not your investigation,
Detective Blair.
Hughie, you had five years and
nine months of investigation time to talk to the next door neighbor.
What took you so long?
Explain to the public Detective
Blair how the Sentinel could affect a murder case with the
guilty man sitting in prison in Orient, Ohio? Where was Payton
going?
It appears that Sentinel
stories possibly led you to Daniel Payton. Again, just say thanks to
us; the murder is solved and a serial killer is off the
street.
Yesterday the Sentinel
contacted a law enforcement agency north of Scioto County and
furnished information to the Sheriff of that county that there may
be evidence linking a murder in that county with evidence here in
Scioto County. No details will be published on this until the lawmen
in both counties have an opportunity to make their investigation.
This is a third murder, and the Sentinel has information that
indicates there was a second person involved in the murder of Nellie
Evelyn Howard in Eden Park, Ross County.
Chief Detective
Hughie Blair and the Scioto County Sheriff’s Office had not
contacted that law enforcement agency as of yesterday to come check
out the evidence.
After the conviction of Danny
Payton, maybe Chief Detective Blair could ask the Crime Stoppers to
release the reward money, for the tip leading to Payton’s arrest to
the Sentinel. The Sentinel is aware that the Howard
family has a $7,500.00 reward offered to the public. The Sentinel
wants the Howard family to know we would never take their money.
They have suffered too much, already.
If anyone tries to claim the
$7,500 from the family of Evelyn Howard the Sentinel will
fight them because we know for certain that the Sentinel
investigative reporters helped solved this murder whether Chief
Detective Blair, Sheriff Marty Donini or anyone else wants to admit
it.
Detective Blair, and the Scioto
County Sheriff’s Office didn’t make a move to charge Daniel Payton
with murder until after we printed the article in the
Sentinel on Monday, the 8th of September, 2003.
Check the dates of our numerous
stories written about the Evelyn Howard murder since November, 1997.
An extensive article by Austin Leedom was printed in the hard-copy
issue of the Shawnee Sentinel in October, 1998. In that issue
information that should have been made public, but was curiously
kept secret by Sheriff Marty Donini, was revealed.
Maps and other items were
published in the Shawnee Sentinel newspaper in the October,
1998 issue. A likely connection with a third murder, in another
county, was exposed by the Sentinel at that time. To our
knowledge, the Scioto Sheriff took no action to investigate the
connection with the other murder.
The Shawnee Sentinel has
pursued the mysterious slaying of Evelyn Howard, and also of several
other unsolved murders, that have occurred during the present
Sheriff's administration.
Our interest in this, and several
other recent unsolved Scioto County murders, is inspired by the
secrecy, and incompetence of the present Sheriff. There are many,
many unsolved murders in Scioto County since Marty Donini took
office in January 1997.
Sheriff Donini has shown little
interest in investigation of murders, or other crimes. He has said,
"Give the people enough time and they will forget
anything."
Our previous Sheriff, Jim
Sutterfield served four years, was called to investigate eight
murders in his four-year span. He solved all eight murders, most of
them within days. He left the Sheriff's Office with a clean
record.
Take a lesson from the previous
Sheriff, Marty. You cannot usually solve murders by having
detectives working on nine-to-five hours work days.
Let’s compare notes publicly, or
in court, if you doubt this story.
D D
Shawnee Sentinel update – one year later, September 16,
2004
On February 13, 2004 Daniel
Payton was sentenced to a prison term of 30 years to life on three
counts of rape of a child by Common Pleas Court Judge Howard H.
Harcha III. These crimes were committed in July, 2003.
In the Murder
Case:
On the 27th of
April, 2004 Daniel Payton was indicted on two charges:
(1.) AGGRAVATED MURDER and
(2.) RAPE.
Daniel Payton, presently
confined in state prison, will be brought before Scioto County
Common Pleas Court Judge Howard H. Harcha III in proceedings to
answer to these charges on the 24th of September
2004.
(Posted by Austin Leedom on September 18,
2004)
MARTINGS BROTHERS COMPANY
IN COURT
(Written at 12:30 a.m. Monday,
August 23, 2004 by Austin Leedom)
Martings Brothers Company and
co-defendant Marie Glickert of 486 Hammerstein Road, Wheelersburg
were sued on September 30, 2002 by Tonya R. Lawson of Otway in
Common Pleas Court for money damages.
Today, Monday, August 23, 2004,
the case is scheduled for trial by jury before the Honorable Judge
William T. Marshall at 9:00 a.m. in Scioto County Common
Pleas Court.
There was no trial. This case was settled out of court before
trial time. (Written at 1:00 a.m., Tuesday, August 24,
2004.
WHY
IS UNIVERSITY LAWYER SITTING AS PORTSMOUTH MUNICIPAL COURT
JUDGE? "It's legal, but I can't remember under what
section." says Judge Richard Schisler
|
