Mavens of Quibble
A Concise Opuscule
January 2nd, 2020 by: Ennis R. Patterson
Prosecutors of Cuyahoga County (Cleveland, OH) are masters of the art of quibble. No matter how exact one may be at presenting their written pleadings and using specific legal jargon, Cuyahoga Prosecutors (CP) are apt to pretend to not understand the gist of the important aspects of the motions and other legal papers filed by pro se litigants.
I'll be the first to profess CP are far from being mordant in their intelligence based on the arid arguments they make at times and their seemingly inability to use plain logic. But at the same time it is hard to imagine standards for becoming a lawyer in the state of Ohio are so low (whether in studies or culture) that being able to comprehend text has become trivial or secondary. Are they dealing with too many cases? Could it be mnemonic guides of some kind of needed? Maybe it's a combination of both...or something else.
When reviewing responses from the state in regards to motions or petitions I've filed, at time it's inconceivable my filings were thoroughly perused as the state's responses flatly answer elements of my pleadings that don't exist. For example, I filed a motion (writ of mandamus) with the Eighth District Appellate Court requesting to be granted a new trial or to have my case dismissed since the state clearly was not fully in a accord with particular rules, codes, and precedents about specific judicial proceedings. In the state's response they claimed I was asking the appellate court to "compel the trial court to serve [me] with a copy of findings of fact and conclusions of law"¹ which is an absolute lie. There is not one segment of my writ of mandamus petition where I behest such documents -- not one! But the state
1 knows in order for them to control the narrative and achieve a favorable ruling they absolutely must lie and fabricate. Skulduggery tactics as such are rote on the state-level. Even more alarming, appellate courts echo all purportations of the state in these such instances which indicates they either don't read pro se filings or they'd rather connive; after all, appellate court judges do have friends and family in the lower court judicial realm.
After reviewing several quasi cases in regards to the trickery of my own, it becomes clear all state-level courts are in cahoots to ambiguously, or blatantly depending on perception and understanding of law, hamper due-process if that's what it takes to satisfy a bottom-line.
It should be noted that the issue described in the penultimate paragraph is the most egregious of several lies/fabrications told by the state as it relates to the noted (mandamus) motion.
The name of the game for the state is to 'do whatever it takes to win' even if it means constructing sensational prevarications of sophisticated jabberwocky.
1 See: Petition for Write of Mandamus. This is public info which can be looked up on internet (Patterson v. Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court -- case no. 107755). See state's respond captioned: "Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgement to Petition for Writ of Mandamus." Mandamus also speak of how the state ignored claims of previous filed documents; quibbling is a constant for the state.
If you are working on an APWA-related project, please let us know how you plan to utilize the Archive. We hope to share information about your work with our readers and, whenever possible, with relevant APWA authors.
APWA is an open access archive. We encourage use of the writings for research, course planning, and projects engaged in examination of the criminal legal system. Reproduction of essays in their entirety infringes on author copyright without their explicit consent from the writers. Please contact us if you plan to reproduce entire essays; we will do our best to put you in contact with the authors for consent, and their compensation for any project that is profit making.