Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Suing the County with County Money?  Court Transcripts Revealed!

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

The following “transcript” apparently documents the meeting where Sheriff Leis won the right for the County to pay legal expenses so they could be sued.  Throughout the transcipt, James Harper was called “Mr. Harp.” We corrected his name. 

For anyone following this story, we figured apparent courtroom proceedings may shed some light on the issue.

Thanks to Michael Earl Patton for acquiring and providing this document.

=====

THE COURT: Okay.  We got this appointment of legal counsel matter with the Sheriff and the County.

MR. HARPER: May it please the Court, Jim Harper from the County Prosecutor’s office.  We have representatives of the Sheriffs of Hamilton County for the Sheriff’s position, and Pat Thompson, the County Administrator is here.

We filed an application with attached memorandum of law which includes a transcript of the Board’s proceedings where they considered this matter and expressed their reasons for not joining in the application.

The Prosecuting Attorney’s Office has a conflict interest because normally we would represent both the Board and the Sheriff.

THE COURT: So you can’t do it?

MR. HARPER: So, I’m here to make sure they have their opportunity to be before you; that you had a memorandum at least laid out with the facts involved.

THE COURT: Okay.  Anybody from the Commissioners’ office?  Pat Thompson, you’re representing the Commissioners?

MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Nothing else?

MR. THOMPSON: There’s a transcript from the meeting.

THE COURT: I looked it over.  Mr. Harper was nice enough to drop it off yesterday.  I looked it over.

And the, Sheriff, do you want to add anything?

MR. LEIS: I got a lot of things I could add to it, Judge, if I need to add anything to it?

THE COURT: I don’t think you do.  I looked it over.

MR. LEIS: Very well.

THE COURT: I’ll appoint the law firm of Schroder Maundrell Barberiere and Powers.  Now do we have miscellaneous --

MR. HARPER: We have a miscellaneous case number.

THE COURT: Let me put that down.  It’s M-061502.  We will put that on, and we will stamp it.

And anything else then?

MR. HARPER: That’s all I have, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Let’s give—let’s stamp it to make it official.

MR. HARPER: Yes.

THE COURT: There you go.

MR. HARPER: I’ll get that put on and we will proceed from there.  Thank you very much for your time, sir.

MR. LEIS: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Take care, Si.

(PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED.)

Socializer!

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

ONE ADVOCATE says:
23 Jan 2007  at  11:52 pm | #

Alright, so the prosecutor’s office is supposed to represent the commissioners and when there is a conflict, the sheriff gets appointed counsel, right?  So how did the prosecutor prepare the brief for Leis?  Why was he there promoting the brief against their primary client’s best interest ( the bocc) and why did the county not have legal counsel there to argue against the motion?
Essentially, the prosecutor’s office left the county bocc high and dry and without any opposition - it was their job to write a brief in opposition , best they can, against the motion and fight it.
THis hearing should have ONLY been tto appoint counsel for the sheriff so that he could plead a case for the appointment of counsel for the jail issue—they skipped an enire proceeding and just jumped to the end result.

ANd who got taken - the taxpayers - we were provided no representation ( via representation of the bocc) inthis matter whatsoever - the prosecutor did not do what the bocc, their client, wanted - which was to oppose a motion for the appointment of counsel for the sheriff

besides - the sheriff has in house counsel that taxpayers are paying for who should have been the ones to bring this motion- it is not the prosecutor’s job to bring forth a motion against itself

anon says:
23 Jan 2007  at  11:54 pm | #

Deters should be charged with legal malpractice

says:
24 Jan 2007  at  09:46 am | #

I plan to write an article giving more details.  The prosecutor’s office prepared a memorandum of law which was referenced in the transcript and which does present the case why the commissioners can turn down the sheriff’s request.  I find the arguments compelling.

One of the interesting things about this case is that there is absolutely no reference to Ohio statute, case law, or any argument—either verbal or written—as to why the sheriff should be given his lawyers.  There is no complaint—either verbal or written—from the Sheriff.  There is also no explanation from Judge Ruehlman as to why he ruled as he did.

So the side that presented the legal arguments, including Ohio statute references and case law, lost, and the side that presented absolutely no argument won.  In the end, all we know is that the Sheriff got what he wanted without knowing how the decision was made.

anon says:
24 Jan 2007  at  09:32 pm | #

Approximately what did this circle jerk cost? Doc prep and judges, lawyers, comissioners, sheriff & staff? Don’t we have better things to do with tax dollars?