Events in the Case Against Baumgartner
              From The Empire Journal and North Country Gazette

Baumgartner News & Views

 

Baumgartner Loses Bond Bid

North Country Gazette
July 20, 2008

CUYAHOGA COUNTY—Self-proclaimed judicial whistleblower Elsebeth Baumgartner of Oak Harbor has lost her bid for a second appeal bond in her free speech case.

Baumgartner is currently incarcerated at the Ohio Reformatory for Women after Cuyahoga County Common Pleas County Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold revoked her bond on May 9 and ordered her to begin serving her eight year prison term for intimidating and retaliating against retired visiting judge Richard Markus and her former business partner, Bryan DuBois and his wife.

Sandra Finucane of Gahanna, Ohio, Baumgartner’s attorney, had filed a motion for an appeal bond in the Eighth District Court of Appeals in Cuyahoga County on June 11. It was denied on July 16.

Baumgartner had been free on a $50,000 bond pending the outcome of her appeal of the 2005. Saffold had imposed conditions on the bond that included that she could not file any legal actions in any court without Saffold’s approval.

Cuyahoga County prosecutor Daniel Kasaris had moved to revoked Baumgartner’s because she had filed a federal lawsuit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the Ohio Pharmacy Board and several state public officials on April 7, although she had not attempted to serve any of the defendants. On May 8, the day prior to her hearing, she voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit.

The following day, Saffold revoked her bond and sent her to prison.

Finucane had argued that a bond condition that prohibits an appellant from exercising her First and Fourteenth Amendment right to petition for redress of grievance and to access the courts is unconstitutional and could never be voluntarily waived where the choice presented is either "no bond" or to "waive a constitutional right".

Courts which have addressed the issue of "unconstitutional conditions" in the context of bail conditions have been careful to ensure that government does not use unconstitutional bail conditions to chill First Amendment rights, including speech, press, assembly and petitioning activities, Finucane argued. http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2008/06/29/files_for_bond/

Kasaris had filed his response on June 25 but Finucane said she was away on vacation and did not receive it until July 7. She replied to it on July 15, with a motion for leave to file late due to the circumstances. The following day, the court dismissed her motion.

She said that Kasaris had essentially argued that the bond condition isn’t unconstitutional by comparing it to Ohio’s vexatious litigator statute and because Baumgartner has been declared a vexatious litigator in the U.S. District Court in Northern Ohio. However, she has not been declared a vexatious litigator in the Southern District which is where the federal lawsuit was filed.

He also falsely argued that Baumgartner had never made the arguments in the lower court that she is making to the appeals court now. Finucane said that Baumgartner did argue generally that the bond condition was unconstitutional in her memo in opposition which she filed pro se in the trial court, even though she only had one day to do so, had not been properly served, and it isn’t even clear that it is necessary.

She said that Baumgartner’s former attorney, Ken Myers, had also argued the issue orally back in 2007 when the state then attempted to revoke her bond

Finucane said there are no standards for Judge Saffold to apply to deny or grant a request in her order or even a time within which Saffold must make a decision. Also, the vexatious litigator statutes don’t condition a constitutional right upon the loss of another right or privilege.

She said the state vexatious litigator statute does not inhibit the filing of federal suits in any way, as does the bond condition.

Because the 8th District makes its own independent judgment and is not required to correct the trial court’s error, Finucane said she had submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the Third District Court of Appeals concerning the unconstitutional revocation of bond in the trial court but she expected that the action will be prolonged.

Baumgartner was indicted in 2005 on numerous felony counts of intimidation and retaliation as a result of sending non-threatening, but allegedly "materially false" e-mails to a judge and others and for filing civil suits containing allegedly "materially false" allegations.

She was indicted on numerous felony counts of intimidation and retaliation in a second case for posting offensive web posts on a website about her co-defendant and his wife, Bryan and Mandy DuBois. One of the postings was allegedly materially false and the other was a parody of rap lyrics by a nationally known rap artist which, although not directed at any one in particular, was alleged to constitute a "threat of harm."

After pleading no contest to 18 felony counts on the condition that she would be allowed to remain free on bond during her appeal, she was found guilty of 15 felony counts, including four felonies for the altered rap lyrics post alone.

On Dec. 18, 2007, Ms. Baumgartner was sentenced to a total of eight years in the Ohio Reformatory for Women. She appealed. 7-20-08

Baumgartner Files For Bond Citing Unconstitutionality

Posted on Sunday, 29 of June , 2008 at 9:30 pm

CUYAHOGA COUNTY—Apparently retired visiting judge Richard Markus doesn’t embrace the U.S. Constitution or subscribe to the constitutional guarantees provided by the First Amendment.

A bond condition that prohibits an appellant from exercising her First and Fourteenth Amendment right to petition for redress of grievance and to access the courts is unconstitutional and could never be voluntarily waived where the choice presented is either “no bond” or to “waive a constitutional right”.

Sandra Finucane of Gahanna, Ohio, attorney for disbarred attorney and judicial whistleblower Elsebeth Baumgartner has filed a motion for an appeal bond in the Eighth District Court of Appeals in Cuyahoga County.

Baumgartner is currently incarcerated at the Ohio Reformatory for Women after Cuyahoga County Common Pleas County Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold revoked her bond on May 9 and ordered her to begin serving her eight year prison term for intimidating a judge.

 

Baumgartner had been free on a $50,000 bond pending the outcome of her appeal of the 2005 conviction for allegedly intimidating and retaliating against retired visiting judge Richard Markus as well as her former business partner, Bryan DuBois.

 

Saffold had imposed conditions on the bond that included that she could not file any legal actions in any court without Saffold’s approval.

 

Courts which have addressed the issue of “unconstitutional conditions” in the context of bail conditions have been careful to ensure that government does not use unconstitutional bail conditions to chill First Amendment rights, including speech, press, assembly and petitioning activities.

 

The motion seeking her release on bond was filed June 11.

 

Baumgartner was indicted on numerous felony counts of intimidation and retaliation as a result of sending non-threatening, but allegedly “materially false” e-mails to a judge and others and for filing civil suits containing allegedly “materially false” allegations.   She was indicted on numerous felony counts of intimidation and retaliation in a second case for posting offensive web posts on a website about her co-defendant and his wife, Bryan and Mandy DuBois.  One of the postings was allegedly materially false and the other was a parody of rap lyrics by a nationally known rap artist which, although not directed at any one in particular, was alleged to constitute a “threat of harm.” 

 

fter pleading no contest to 18 felony counts she was found guilty of 15 felony counts, including four felonies for the altered rap lyrics post alone.  On  Dec. 18, 2007, Ms. Baumgartner was sentenced to a total of eight years in the Ohio Reformatory for Women. She appealed.

 

On Jan. 29, after briefing had been completed by both sides, the Court Of Appeals determined that it lacked jurisdiction to proceed because Saffold had failed to sentence Baumgartner on six counts of which it had entered findings of guilt in its journal entries.   The appeals court therefore remanded the case back to the trial court but did not dismiss the appeal.  

 

On remand, Saffold, without Mrs. Baumgartner being present, sentenced her to additional time and sentenced her on two counts of which she had specifically been found “not guilty” during the change of plea proceedings. 

 

As a part of Baumgartner’s negotiated plea, she was to be granted an appeal bond in the amount of between $25,000 and $50,000.  No special bail conditions were part of the negotiated plea agreement and she did not agree to certain conditions of the bond which the court subsequently imposed on her.  Specifically, the record reflects that no bond condition prohibiting Baumgartner from exercising her First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievance was incorporated within the bond agreement which the court executed on Dec. 22, 2006, and which Mrs. Baumgartner signed on Dec. 26, 2006. 

 

Finucane writes that what occurred is that one of the alleged victims in the case, Retired Visiting Judge Markus, suggested at the sentencing hearing, that the trial court impose bond conditions restricting Mrs. Baumgartner’s speech and petitioning activities.  Saffold then issued an order entered Dec. 21, 2006,  setting appeal bond conditions that Baumgartner “shall file no lawsuit in any court against any public official without the express written permission of Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold;” and, that Mrs. Baumgartner “shall make no public, derogatory, factual statement about any public official without reasonable cause to believe it is true.” 

 

Saffold’s order further defined a “public statement” as “any statement intended for publication on an internet website, an oral or written statement to any governmental entity, or any other publication for the general public.”   The order defined a “factual statement” as one which ”asserts specific provable conduct and is not a mere expression of personal opinion.”

 

During the course of the pending appeal, prosecutor Daniel Kasaris and the Cuyahoga County prosecutor’s office moved for Saffold to revoke  Baumgartner’s bond on three separate occasions.   The first such instance was on Jan. 24, 2007.   The hearing on that motion was held on April 30, 2007. 

 

Saffold,  being in the middle of an unrelated trial, stopped the trial to hear the state’s argument that Baumgartner had written an inmate grievance at the Ottawa County jail in which she complained that she had received a death threat from an employee of a contractor with the facility.   Since this grievance violated none of the conditions of her bond, the trial court overruled the motion in an entry journalized on May 4, 2007. 

 

Then on the afternoon of April 30, 2008, Kasaris filed another such motion which lacked a certificate of service, and the court set a revocation hearing for the morning of the May 5.  Baumgartner was never served with this motion.  The basis for the motion to revoke on this occasion was that  Baumgartner had applied with Judge Markus, as she was required to do as a vexatious litigator, to file a legal malpractice suit against two of her former attorneys. 

 

She indicated in her proposed complaint that she had a residence in Florida when her bond conditions did not permit her to leave the State of Ohio.  In fact, she resides in Ohio and although she also has some property in Florida, she had never left the State without permission of the trial court, nor did the State allege that she had.  Thus, this motion to revoke was also denied in an entry dated May 12.

 

Finally, just two days after Saffold denied the second motion to revoke Baumgartner’s bond,  Kasaris filed a third motion to revoke her bond on May 7.  The State’s motion contained a certificate of service; however there was no date or method of service specified in the certificate.  Saffold set the hearing a mere two days after that motion was filed, Baumgartner not having been yet been served with a copy of it, on May 9.

 

The basis for the third motion was that Baumgartner had filed a federal lawsuit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the Ohio Pharmacy Board and several state public officials on April 7, although she had not attempted to serve any of the defendants.   On May 8, the day prior to her hearing, she voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit.

 

Kasaris alleged that because she had not first sought the trial court’s approval to file the suit, she had violated her bond conditions.   No evidentiary hearing was held in order to determine the truth or falsity of any of the allegations contained within the suit.  Based solely upon Baumgartner’s act of filing a lawsuit in a federal court which was voluntarily dismissed before it had been served on anyone, Saffold granted Kasaris’ motion to revoke on the same day of the hearing, May 9, and Baumgartner remains incarcerated.

 

Finucane argues that in general, cases throughout the federal courts hold that once a state has made provision for bond pending appeal, the arbitrary denial of such bond violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

 

The courts have held that  “[t]he right to petition one’s government for the redress of grievances is enshrined within the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,” and that “ability to seek redress in the courts is a fundamental right, guaranteed by the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 

The doctrine of unconstitutional conditions prohibits a governmental entity from forcing a person to exchange a constitutional right for another right or privilege, holding that if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited.

 

“The doctrine of unconstitutional conditions prohibits terminating benefits, though not classified as entitlements, if the termination is based on motivations that other constitutional provisions proscribe”, the federal court held in  Bourgeois v. Peters (2004).

 

Courts which have addressed the issue of “unconstitutional conditions” in the context of bail conditions have been careful to ensure that government does not use unconstitutional bail conditions to chill First Amendment rights, including speech, press, assembly and petitioning activities.  In. Leary v. United States, the federal court held that “If the appellant’s eligibility to be enlarged on bail under the Eighth Amendment may be lost because he exercises his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and to freedom of the press, then [the law at issue] imposes an unconstitutional condition.

 

Federal case law cited by Ms. Finucane points out the First Amendment, to the fullest extent, protects all citizens and that numerous cases have firmly established “that the Constitution, and notably the First Amendment, reaches inside prison walls.”

 

Because the condition of Baumgartner’s bond at issue, which impinges upon her First Amendment right to petition for redress or grievances, could not have been curtailed as extensively as it was in her bond condition, had she been incarcerated, it is unconstitutional to institute it as a condition for remaining at large.

 

It’s unknown when the court will rule on the motion.  6-29-08

 

 

Baumgartner Appeals Court Okays Criminalizing Free Speech

 

North Country Gazette

03-08-08 -- In a chilling, but not unexpected decision, the Sixth District Court of Appeals has upheld the 2006 criminal contempt conviction of former Oak Harbor attorney Elsebeth Baumgartner, lending troubling implications for the public’s right to criticize public officials, especially the judiciary. . . . The Sixth District essentially insulated thin-skinned and egotistical judges such as retired visiting judge Richard Markus of northern Ohio, placing Markus in a cocoon and ignoring well-established case law, especially federal case law, concerning contempt cases and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in essence criminalizing the exercise of free speech. . . . The Sixth District failed to address any controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent which prohibits the punishment of political speech or restricts comments on public affairs. . . Does a citizen have the constitutional right to criticize a judge or other public official without fear of retaliation by arrest and jail?  No, according to Markus’ brethren in the unanimous 3-0 decision released Friday. . . .  The case is likely on a track direct to the U.S. Supreme Court as Baumgartner says she will take the matter to federal court. . . . Last year, Ottawa County probation officer Jody Royster had admitted that it was “open season” in Ohio on Baumgartner.  Conventional wisdom indicated that there was virtually no way that Baumgartner could have expected to win her appeal at the state court level. Ohio Official Admits It's "Open Season" On Baumgartner. In a sworn affidavit given by the late Judge John Adkins last January, Adkins reportedly admitted that in essence there is a “judicial hit” on Baumgartner, admitting that he had been appointed by Chief Justice Thomas Moyer to handle the initial politically charged case against brought against Baumgartner in 2002 on complaint of Erie County prosecutor Kevin Baxter and in essence, Adkins admitted that he had allegedly been ordered to stifle her and insure a conviction which ultimately led to her disbarment and later revocation of her pharmacy license.


Conviction upheld for ex-attorney
By Kristina Smith Horn, Staff writer

03-08-08 -- An appeals court upheld Elsebeth Baumgartner's 2006 criminal contempt conviction for accusing a judge of persecuting her and committing crimes. . . . The disbarred Oak Harbor attorney gave no evidence to back up any of her dozens of allegations against Visiting Judge Richard Markus of Cuyahoga County while he presided over a civil libel trial against her in 2004, the Sixth District Court of Appeals ruled Friday. . . . Baumgartner, 52, served 120 days in the Ottawa County Detention Facility after another visiting judge found her guilty of 27 counts of contempt in Ottawa County Common Pleas Court. . . . "We recognize that judges can be subjected to rude and insolent comments and behavior," the justices wrote. "We also recognize that judges must necessarily withstand this rudeness and insolence on occasion. A judge's life is not for the meek. . . . "Having said that, we finally recognize that there is behavior so outrageous that it constitutes an attack on the legal system and is, therefore, contemptuous."


Click to Search the North Country Gazette
for its extensive reporting on Elsebeth Baugartner


Ohio Attorney Baumgartner Jailed Again

By Greg Szymanski

02-29-08 -- An Ohio attorney facing 66 years and six months in jail for speaking out a city council meeting was jailed last Thursday after making a routine court appearance in preparation for her upcoming trial. . . . Information still remains sketchy as to the exact reason why attorney Elsebeth Baumgartner was hauled away to the Erie County jail, but sources close to the case say it's nothing but 'political pay back' for uncovering serious corruption in Cuyahoga County leading all the way to the doorstep of the White House. . . . As outrageous as it sounds, Baumgartner faces a total of more than 109 years in jail on other felony charges stemming from city council incident, including emailing a high ranking Ohio judge and running a controversial web site accusing high ranking Ohio officials with serious crimes.. . . 'They have twisted the law and essentially taken away my freedom of speech rights,' said Baumgartner two weeks ago after appearing on Greg Szymanski's radio show, The Investigative Journal. . . . After Baumgartner was jailed Thursday, she was unavailable for comment, as all phone and email contacts have gone unanswered. . . . However, close friend and associate, Angela Caputo, provided the following update on her case, saying as of Sunday evening Baumgartner was still being held in the Erie Country essentially as a modern day 'political prisoner.' . . . 'Elsebeth is in the Erie County jail. Thursday was supposed to be the start of her trial on felony fleeing and eluding in front of Visiting Judge David Knepper,: said Caputo. 'I do not have any details yet - just a message from her husband Joe Baumgartner.


Selective Prosecution—A Sign Of Tyranny

North Country Gazette Commentary

02-13-08 -- Suppose you’re traveling on a city street and come to an intersection where there’s a stop sign. You look to your right and see an occupied patrol car sitting in an adjacent parking lot.  All the cars ahead of you roll on through the stop sign and the cop makes no move whatsoever to cite them.  You do the same thing when it’s your turn at the stop sign and wham—here comes the cop after you, red lights flashing and siren wailing. . . . Selective enforcement, you cry!  How come you’re stopping me when everyone else was doing the same thing and you didn’t bother them?  Of course, maybe they weren’t at the city council meeting last night like you, speaking out against the proposed increase in police salaries.  Could it be retaliation? . . . How about if you’re an owner of a business that’s surrounded by other mercantile shops?  The other business owners put up new signs without having to obtain a permit but when you do put up the same type of sign, you get served with a notice of zoning violation, summoning you to court. . . . Selective enforcement you cry!  How come you’re citing me but not the other business owners?  Could it be because they paid the zoning officer $50 to look the other way and I refused to do so? Could it be intimidation? . . . Selective enforcement is a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection for all persons under the law.  On the federal level, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires equal treatment.  The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the prohibition on selective prosecution to the states.  The equal protection doctrine requires that persons receive similar treatment under the law. . . . The U.S. Supreme Court has held that selective prosecution exists where the enforcement or prosecution of a criminal law is “directed so exclusively against a particular class of persons…..with a mind so unequal and oppressive” that the administration of the criminal law amounts to a practical denial of equal protection of the law.


Judicial Coercion

© 2007 North Country Gazette

3-10-07 -- Elsebeth Baumgartner, the beleaguered, disbarred attorney who is paying a price for blowing the whistle on governmental corruption in northern Ohio, entered a no contest plea in Erie County Court this week to charges of felony fleeing and failure to comply with the order of a police officer for charges brought against her in May 2005 by Bay View Police. . . . Charges of resisting arrest and grand larceny against her were dismissed. . . . But the way in which the plea was obtained is certain to bring a constitutional challenge to unlawful bond conditions and coercion. There's already a Fourth Amendment challenge well established to the entire arrest due to the allegedly defective warrant used as the premise to effect the arrest and the fact that the alleged warrant had been issued in a case which had already been dismissed. . . . One of Baumgartner's attorneys, Richard Drucker, said the matter would be appealed because one of the elements of law needed to sustain a charge of felony fleeing is that there must be a substantial risk to public safety involved and in the Baumgartner case, there was none as evidenced by the fact that there were no traffic charges and a veteran officer with the Florida Highway Patrol testified it was the lowest speed chase he had ever participated in.

 

 

Ohio Whistleblower Gets 8 Years For Criticizing Judge

 

CLEVELAND---Government critic and judicial whistleblower Elsebeth Baumgartner has been sentenced to eight years in prison for writing e-mails to a 76-year-old retired visiting judge who is still sitting on the bench adjudicating matters although the Ohio Constitution mandated his removal from the bench when he reached age 70.

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/121906EightYears.html


 

November 29, 2006

Baumgartner Jailed 120 Days For Criticizing Rent-A-Judge

© 2006 North Country Gazette

Seven months after former Oak Harbor attorney Elsebeth Baumgartner was tried in Ottawa County on 34 contempt charges lodged against her by retiring visiting judge Richard Markus, visiting judge David Faulkner rendered his verdict, finding her guilty of 27 counts of contempt. . . . On Tuesday, Faulkner sentenced Baumgartner to 120 days in the Ottawa County Jail, denying a stay and appellate bond while she appeals his rulings
 

November 8, 2006

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.  Also to see, grand jury minutes click here.

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/110806GrandJury.html

 

November 2, 2006

 

Judge Tells Baumgartner She Can't Review Own Case File

© 2006 North Country Gazette

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 has asked Cuyahoga County Commons Pleas Court Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold to recuse herself. . .

September 5, 2006

Baumgartner Appeals To Ohio Supreme Court

The Ohio Constitution says that "All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his land, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and shall have justice administered without denial or delay". That means that EVERY person has access to our courts.

READ MORE

August 18, 2006
 

Erie County Attempting To Revoke Baumgartner Bond
 

ERIE COUNTY, OHIO----As the result of Elsebeth Baumgartner attending a creditors' hearing on July 26 in federal court in the bankruptcy action of her former business partner and his wife, special prosecutor Daniel Kasaris has moved to revoke her bond and issue a warrant for her arrest to cause her immediate incarceration.

READ MORE

April 5, 2006

Baumgartner Contempt Trial Ends, Verdict Next Month

PORT CLINTON, OHIO---Appearance of impropriety?

The panoply of ethics violations continued in Ottawa County Common Pleas Court Monday where former Oak Harbor attorney Elsebeth Baumgartner is on trial for the criminalization of her free speech rights for criticizing a judge.

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/040406TrialEnds.html

March 25, 2006

Trial Monday In Ohio Free Speech Case, More Charges Lodged

One of the nation’s most important cases dealing in judicial corruption and First Amendment issues will take center stage on Monday, March 27 in Cuyahoga County in northern Ohio.

Or will it?

Can Ohio officials afford

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/032506Baumgartner.html

October, 2005

OAK HARBOR, OHIO--Charges of prosecutorial misconduct including use of the office for political retribution have once again been brought before the Ohio Common Pleas Court by judicial whistleblower Dr. Elsebeth Baumgartner and Bryan DuBois, editor of a blog which focuses on judicial and governmental corruption in northern Ohio.

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/101605OhioBloggers.html

September 9, 2005

In a surprising and highly questionable move, one day before a pre-trial hearing in the case of the Ohio bloggers arrested for allegedly intimidating a judge, the prosecutor has attempted to withdraw the prior indictment, citing a defect.

Allegations concerning the alleged forged indictment will now proceed to a full evidentiary hearing on Monday, Sept. 12 after the defendant, disbarred Oak Harbor attorney Elsebeth Baumgartner, refused to allow Kasaris to substitute indictments.

http://www.theempirejournal.com/090805_Bloggers_in_
Ohio_Free_Speech_Case_Claim_Indictment_Forged.html

Complainant Judge in Baumgartner Case
 to Preside In Contempt Case

August 13, 2005

OHIO--Although retired visiting judge Richard Markus has filed a criminal complaint against former Ohio attorney Elsebeth Baumgartner and has obtained an order of protection against her, claiming that he has been intimidated by her, in one of the most blatant abuses of power demonstrated from the bench, Markus has given notice that he is moving forward Friday, Aug. 12 with a contempt hearing in Ottawa County against Joseph Baumgartner, Elsebeth’s husband and a former member of the Benton-Carroll-Salem Board of Education.

 

Complainant Judge in Ohio Case Denies
Baumgartner Sixth Amendment Rights

Whistleblower Attorney
Baumgartner Released From Jail

Baumgartner, arrested and indicated on intimidation and retaliation harges for the exercise of free speech rights in challenging the alleged corruption of public officials was released Thursday from the Cuyahoga County Jail in northern Ohio after posting a reduced $25,000 bond.

August 10, 2005

“If a 50 year mother of two can be tortured for 10 days as a result of an indictment that is a forgery on its face and her business partner arrested and abused for reporting her story, then obviously this country is lost”, former attorney Elsebeth Baumgartner told The Empire Journal after being released from an Ohio county jail where she was held for 24 days, 10 days in isolation with no outside contact, for having dared to criticize Ohio public officers. To read further click below:

http://www.theempirejournal.com/08100511
_Whistleblower_Attorney_Baumgartner_Released_From_Jail.html

August 4, 2005

First the Ottawa County Clerk’s office refused to allow former attorney Elsebeth Baumgartner the right to file an appeal in a criminal case---a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

   Now they’re denying her the right to defend herself in felony charges against her brought by the judge in her case.

    Officials in Ottawa County are claiming that although she is currently under indictment in both Ottawa County and Cuyahoga County on complaint on retired visiting judge Richard Markus, 74, that she cannot file motions in her own defense unless she has prior approval from the complainant in the case------Ohio visiting judge Richard Markus.
 

http://www.theempirejournal.com/071905_intimidating_a_judge.html

Most recent events  in the case of
Elsebeth Baumgargner from "Erie Voices
"

"http://erievoices.com/blog/static.php?page=static050316-191152

http://www.mail-archive.com/thepowerhourflashstats@thepowerhour.com/msg00027.html

http://www.erievoices.com/blog/

http://erie%20voices.com/

Ex-Oak Harbor Attorney Faces Additional Charges

Toledo Blade
May 26, 2005

BAY VIEW, Ohio —— More charges were filed yesterday in Erie County against a former Oak Harbor, Ohio, lawyer who was arrested last weekend after allegedly driving away from police.

Elsebeth Baumgartner, 50, was charged by Bay View police with felony failure to comply, resisting arrest, failure to comply with the order of a police officer, and a stop-sign violation. According to authorities, she fled from police officers who had arrived Friday night at a Bay View restaurant to arrest her on a probation violation warrant.

Ms. Baumgartner, who has made numerous charges of wrongdoing against local public officials, appeared yesterday in Ottawa County Municipal Court for a hearing on the probation violation.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS03/50526006/-1/NEWS

$175,000 verdict against Baumgartner
More contempt of court charges pending

By Kristina Smith
News Herold
December 14, 2004

PORT CLINTON - OHIO - Disbarred former Oak Harbor attorney Elsebeth Baumgartner faces criminal contempt charges after losing a libel case filed against her.

Visiting Judge Richard Markus ruled Monday that Baumgartner repeatedly defamed former Benton-Carroll-Salem school board member Kellen Smith through libelous letters and must pay him $175,000 in damages. Evidence in the case was presented Dec. 1-3 in Ottawa County Common Pleas Court.

Markus cited 32 references from court records Baumgartner filed during the case that caused the contempt charges, including accusations of case-fixing and corruption against Markus, Smith, Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Moyer and other officials.

"As the fifth and final judge who has been subjected to her disgraceful verbal assaults in this case, this judge believes he has a professional duty to cite her for some of her criminally contemptuous acts during the time that this judge presided over this case," Markus wrote, noting during the case three sets of attorneys withdrew themselves and four judges recused themselves. "If no one seeks to halt this disruptive conduct, she has every reason to believe that no restrictions apply to her advocacy in any court."

Baumgartner said the decision did not surprise her and that she is talking with the U.S. Department of Justice about her allegations of case-fixing against Markus and racketeering against Smith and Markus.

"This is a sham judgment," she said by telephone Monday. Markus asked that another judge be assigned to hear the contempt case against Baumgartner because he could be called as a witness, according to court records. A hearing date has not been set.

Markus ruled that letters Baumgartner wrote to local law enforcement agencies, the Ottawa County commissioners and others seriously harmed Smith's reputation and were malicious, court records show.

Baumgartner accused Smith of conspiring with other school officials to cover up corruption and harassment against her daughter, Jessica Baumgartner, a former student in the district.

Smith was not available for comment Monday, but had said earlier that Baumgartner turned on him after he investigated her complaints against other school officials and determined that they were baseless.

Elsebeth Baumgartner, who lists addresses in West Palm Beach, Fla., and Lambertville, Mich., arrived on the final day of the trial to be a witness, but she did not defend herself in the case. She was not called as a witness.

There is a warrant for her arrest from the Ottawa County Municipal Court for a probation violation, but Markus said he granted her immunity from it to appear for court. Baumgartner has disagreed with Markus' statement that she had immunity.

Markus dismissed Smith's libel case against the DNA research company, Cleveland Genomics Inc., of which Baumgartner is the president and chief executive officer, during the final day of the trial.

E-mail Kristina Smith at mksmith@fremont.gannett.com.

Email this story

Originally published Tuesday, December 14, 2004

The Elsebeth Baumgartner Story
by Sallie reporting on radio interview highlights

Drugs And Corruption At Our Door Step

Elsebeth Baumgartner’s background was that of a Pharmacist from 1978 to 1994, when she and her husband ran a successful small-town drug store in NW Ohio. During this period she attended the University of Toledo, receiving her law degree in 1994 at the top of her class. She then went to work in the Biotech Transfer Field for major medical institutions and research groups…… only to stumble on one of the biggest rackets in the country: Steering of government contracts and government research.

While at Cleveland in 1999 Baumgartner decided to blow the whistle. Graft was pervasive and rampant all around her and she was unable to tolerate it any longer. But sounding the alarm has exposed her life to a process of total dismantling, in which she has been targeted for destruction by the Ohio legal mafia.

Ohio is headquarters of the legal industry, and is a leading industrial complex attracting major Law firms from all over the country. Five out of ten of the largest law firms in the world are located in Cleveland, where they are intimately involved in controlling government contracts and cash-flow, and in representing the world’’s vested money interests.

While uncovering a conspiracy of corruption that came to be known as the Tied Grant fraud scheme, Baumgartner made the astounding discovery that all cases in the State of Ohio are subject to being fixed through manipulation by the Ohio State Attorney General’’s office, where judges are appointed under the auspices of the Ohio Chief Justice. Special Prosecutors were appointed in the same way…… some times through local prosecutors’’ offices.
In January, 2002 Baumgartner filed motions to expose case-fixing against whistle blowers in the Ohio counties of Cuyahoga, Erie and Ottawa along Lake Erie’s north shore. Within a week of her action in filing these motions the Ohio Supreme Court leveled accusations that she was a threat to public safety, stripping her of her Ohio law license and even denying her right to a hearing.

Although Ms. Baumgartner poses no actual threat to public safety- a ludicrous assertion from the beginning- the ruse that she poses a threat has been concocted by the Ohio legal mafia over their secret concerns that, given Baumgartner’’s background in Pharmacology- coupled with her record in exposing the enormous drug trafficking and money laundering ring lead by the Chief Justice of Ohio and certain other major law firms in Cleveland…… the real threat she poses is obviously to them!

While serving as a biotech attorney Ms. Baumgartner uncovered and became intimately concerned with several technology transfers stemming from Case Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland. She discovered that there is a deeply entrenched criminal cabal within the Cleveland political-legal clique directly controlling deal-flow for government contracts. The trail of these unholy schemes, she found, leads into Gov. Taft’s office through his science advisor, Frank Samuel, who is not actually a scientist at all. When Baumgartner tried to blow the whistle on all this and even started unraveling corruption in Ohio law enforcement, which seems to especially thrive in rural areas of the state- things began happening in her own personal life at home- where she resides in a rural area 90 miles from Cleveland.

The law firm Squire, Sampson and Dempsey, Ms. Baumgartner discovered, seemed to play a pivotal role in the crime wave enveloping Ohio’’s political and legal structure in connection with certain highly suspicious pharmaceutical-medical deals. She found multiple levels in which inemoney crimes and massive fraud were commonplace, driven by state officials whose source of funding came from federal tax-payer dollars, elicited through lucrative federal government contracts. Yet the most startling aspect of all this to Baumgartner was her discovery of a role Charles Clark played as both senior partner to the above law firm and husband of Federal Court judge Leslie Brooks Wells, the jurist presiding over the Traficant case. Clark was in an ideal position to receive court-awarded contracts funneled to him by his wife, judge Wells.

Pending before Judge Wells since November 2001 has been evidence filed by Ms. Baumgartner in Cleveland Federal Court exposing the above fraudulently obtained government contracts and the criminal ring of corrupt county prosecutors who abetted in the making of them, including former county prosecutor-cum-Congresswoman Stephanie Tuft Jones, who is implicated in case-

fixing to protect illegal drug trafficking, along with various other criminal activities in the northern district of Ohio.

The worst-kept secret in the Ohio Bar Association is that 30-35% of the legal profession is drug/alcohol addicted. Ottawa and Erie county prosecutors are known to suffer drug habits as asserted by eye witnesses who were present while these men were in the act of using controlled substances. Recently, more evidence has come forward indicating that the Cuyahoga County prosecutor is also involved.

Ms. Baumgartner found that Ohio’s illegal drug trafficking is literally controlled by law enforcement! she has evidence to show that members of the law-enforcement community have consistently and flagrantly involved themselves in improper for-profit handling and use of controlled substances with total impunity. Apparently the don’t look-don’t ask scenario applies in Ohio, as these criminals- who perpetrate their misdeeds in what amounts to a good old boy cop cartel are not prosecuted, and have been known to fabricate crimes against those who try to expose their racket.

The case that got Ms. Baumgartner in trouble with the Ohio Supreme Court, and which led to the revocation of her law license, was one first uncovered by former attorney Jeffery Keith following the freak death of his stepson. When Keith attempted to enter his son’s estate into the Ohio probate process he butted up against what amounted to a brick wall, called the probate case-

fixing cabal. When he tried to advance his stepson’s probate action he was warned by a leading attorney from Western Heard, one of Cleveland’s biggest law firms, that if he went forward with the probate proceedings his life would come unraveled.

Mr. Keith was threatened that he’d better prepare to take on the world if he persisted…… i.e.- his troubles would be severe. Keith’s connection to a group called CAAMEO- Cleveland Arab America Middle Eastern Organization, where he worked as fund-raiser, may have been one factor in this unusually harsh and abusive treatment. In 1995 Keith attended a meeting where an envoy from then President Clinton, Dr. James Zogby, was in attendance. Zogby was present in what was supposedly an official capacity as head of the Arab-American Institute, and was there to propose that CAAMEO be awarded a $5 million dollar federal grant to establish an African-

American Bank in Cleveland. However, as Mr. Keith learned, these funds were earmarked for use in the construction of West Bank housing for Israelis, and were to be administered under the farce of an Arab front group.

Such things fly in the face of all Americans hold sacred, serving to further exacerbate animosities in the strife-ridden Middle East, not to mention the despicability of profiteering from human misery. Present at this meeting was Congresswoman Mary Rose Oakauer, who was involved in the scam. Keith, whose life had been vividly transformed by the experience with the Ohio probate process in the matter of his stepson’s death, had taken all he was willing to take. Having just learned of the fraudulent misappropriation of the CAAMEO funds he said "This is treason, and I will not be involved with it."" He then walked out of the meeting, and as he departed he was told, "We will destroy you." Shortly afterward, Mr. Keith was indicted on 96 fabricated counts of arson by then- prosecutor Stephanie Tuft Jones, who saw to it that Keith was convicted and sent to prison.

However, six years later many of the agents who had been paid to fabricate the criminal case against Mr. Keith have come forward and given sworn affidavits, which were filed in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in January, 2002, asking that a new trial be ordered for Mr. Keith. These affidavits were instrumental in exposing recently-elected Congresswoman Stephanie Tuft Jones’’ involvement in case-fixing and fabrication of evidence. It was shortly thereafter that Ms. Baumgartner’’s law license was stripped from her.

The second case filed in January, 2002 involved an African American woman from Sandusky Ohio, one Christa Harris, who was sexually enslaved by Erie Co. prosecutor Kevin Baxter for nearly five years under threat of false criminal charges. Mr. Baxter was one of the Ohio good ‘‘ol boys intimately involved in drug trafficking in the county. Ms. Harris found the courage to swear out affidavits in the months of December, 2001 and January 2002 in a effort to gain her freedom. Yet rather than address any of Ms. Harris’ concerns she was, instead, brought up on false charges over a probate case she was exposing, tried, sentenced and imprisoned in Marysville Women’s Prison.

Since that time two things have transpired: 1) Ms. Baumgartner has filed a motion in Erie County for a special prosecutor to look into allegations of criminal activity there, and has filed all evidential materials pertaining to the above and other allegations with the US District Court, where 2) She has put in a request for a special grand jury and special prosecutors. She has been contacted by citizens all over Ohio who complain that officials are virtually never held accountable for crimes of theft and other illegalities, and that Ohio citizens are being denied constitutional access to the courts. It falls as highly coincidental that Ms. Baumgartner was assigned the courtroom of Federal Judge Leslie Wells in the grand Jury proceeding, the very judge presiding over the Traficant case.

At about this same time Baumgartner had gone public with her allegations at a town council meeting held in Port Clinton, Ohio based on sworn affidavits from eyewitnesses who spilled the beans on Kevin Baxter’s involvement with organized crime. Additionally, eyewitnesses (former associates) confirmed that Baxter is employing his ferry boat company,"Island Express Boat Lines," which he owns and operates, for illegal federal and state contracts…… and using the ferry boats for drug smuggling and gun running. Ohio has islands that have a known history as drug and weapons-smuggling drop points.

Ms. Baumgartner’s public announcements failed to curry favor with the entrenched Ohio clique. She had spoken on behalf of several clients, of whom one’s mother was believed murdered because she was getting ready to blow the whistle on the cabal’s activities. When Baumgartner spoke publicly in her official capacity as an attorney she found herself strapped with criminal charges. No one looked into the evidence that her clients had presented, or the fact that there were eyewitnesses to the alleged criminal conduct. True to form, the cabal trumped up an immediate assumption that she was lying, without even bothering to look at the evidence. She was charged with "Falsification" for her indiscretion of exposing the good old boys’ unconscionable behavior. Baumgartner goes to trial this Thursday and Friday 7/25 and 7/26 in Port Clinton, Ohio.

Keep in mind regarding the above that in a 1964 case titled Garrison vs. Louisiana it was specifically stated that a citizen cannot be criminally charged- especially when that citizen happens to be an attorney- for standing up at public meetings and calling for an investigation, or criticizing a public official.

Chief Justice Moyer who, it is said is……"owned by the drug cartel," has assigned a visiting judge from 150 miles away to preside in the Baumgartner coal-raking, despite death threats that have been made against Ms. Baumgartner, her clients, and witnesses as recorded in filed affidavits. People don’t receive death-threats unless they pose imminent danger to someone. Yet this FIX-IT judge, John Adkins from Circleville, Ohio is going forward with the Baumgartner prosecution (persecution). Adkins, like his fellow jurists, has all the earmarks of a dishonorable judge. Also being brought in is a special prosecutor named Tim Brawn from Lucas County, Toledo, Ohio, who is to prosecute the case against another female victim named Elsa. He just happens to be the brother of a Sandusky, Ohio police officer and rides comfortably ensconced in a hip pocket (where the money’s kept) of Erie County prosecutor Kevin Baxter of Sandusky, Ohio.

In summation, all these rotten members of the Ohio good old boys’ political-legal clique are in collusion and sharing the proceeds of their criminal acts! The case against Ms. Baumgartner clearly becomes one of sour grapes when keeping in mind that she and her clients were all victims of these corrupt law enforcement officers. The tragic murder of a woman who was the mother of one of Ms. Baumgartner’s clients and the false imprisonment of another client, Christa Harris, who was forced to serve as a private sex-slave to Erie Co. prosecutor Kevin Baxter for reporting his involvement in drug trafficking and probate fraud…… are only the "tip of the iceberg."
Baumgartner didn’t make any friends when she stood up during a Port Clinton, Ohio Council meeting urging that the members not enter into a public contract with Mr. Baxter’s Island Express Boat Lines, as he uses same for criminal activities. It’s the old sweet-sop where a public entity- government- enters into contractual arrangements with a member of the private sector to operate a concession for profit. Within the context of this scenario lies an enormous conflict of interest.

The case against beloved Congressman Jim Traficant who is also a victim of government steering contracts was under the hawkish scrutiny of the same Republican Congresswoman Stephanie Tuft Jones who’d sat on an ethics committee before judge Leslie Wells- the same rotten judge who saw to Rep. Traficant’s ushering into prison. He said he had been railroaded; he was right.

The case of attorney Elsebeth Baumgartner is an outrageous attempt to muzzle an attorney at law who is attempting to bring forward evidence of serious criminal activity, including several cases of murder. But, grim though the appearance of things may be for her, truth is a defense, and she has many witnesses.

These statements are not my opinion, but were derived from a partial transcript drawn up by Ms. Baumgartner in explanation of her feelings over being disbarred and to make known the long legal ordeal she has been made to endure for her courage in speaking openly of the matters addressed in this article. The content of this narrative was made public in a broadcast radio interview, paraphrased only for proper tense and congruence.

I disbelieve the fact of drug-trafficking and corruption is a problem only in Ohio. There was another case on public radio in Kalispell, Montana involving drugs, which had been covered up by the Kalispell sheriff, a local judge and the FBI. Last year a man with some knowledge of the preceding is known to have met with FBI personnel at a secluded area to furnish evidence of the above, but never returned home. This year, another local citizen investigated the situation in Kalispell and was arrested on trumped up charges, then physically abused while in custody. His mother, a retired Army Captain, is very worried he may not live to go to trial. The attorney she had hired to defend him was threatened with disbarment. Sounds very familiar!

As the Bible says…… in the last days, evil is called good, and good will is called evil.
Above Essay - Words 2576

Source: http://arc3.m2ktalk.com/p235678/072202.ram (starting at 18)

[Index to Articles]
 

A Feast

Take Action

Judicial Accountability | Judicial Independence | Discipline State Court Judges
Appeals-State Court | Disposal of JQC & Other Records | Discipline Federal Court Judges | Appeals -Federal Court | Judicial Canons | Violation of Separation of Powers
History of the Bar | Privatization of the Bar | Unauthorized Appropriation of Funds
The Judicial Bar Rules | Unauthorized Bar Functions | Law is Big Business | Endnotes