CLEVELAND, OH – Had Judge Will Dawson obeyed the instructions in R.C. 2935.09 and 2935.10 when he received Justyn Anderson’s criminal complaint naming 24 private individuals like Larry McDonald for impersonating a law enforcement officer, he would have protected the constitutional rights of East Cleveland’s 96 percent American Negro residents over a year ago. An armed McDonald operating on some Papa Doc Duvalier “Tonton Macoute” bullshit, would not have been allowed to kidnap the American citizen who filed the complaint against him and charge him with “disorderly conduct” for not “shutting up” when he told him to do so.
McDonald and 23 private citizens discharging the duties of law enforcement officers without Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy credentials had been and still impersonate law enforcement officers in East Cleveland daily. McDonald was instructed by Section 109:2-1-13 and more of Ohio’s Administrative Code.to “cease discharging the duties of a law enforcement officer and carrying a weapon” four years ago. Anderson’s complaint shared this information and more with Dawson.
The problem is that instead of obeying R.C. 2935.09 and 2935.10’s instructions and confirming the information in his possession, Dawson claims he lost Anderson’s complaint against the 24 law enforcement officer impersonators. Instead of immediately asking him for a copy, he said nothing for over a year until Anderson reminded him and he suggested that it be resubmitted. Nothing Dawson upon a plain English language reading of the statute was “within the law.”
2935.10 Filing of affidavit or complaint procedure. (A) Upon the filing of an affidavit or complaint as provided by section 2935.09 of the Revised Code, if it charges the commission of a felony, such judge, clerk, or magistrate, unless he has reason to believe that it was not filed in good faith, or the claim is not meritorious, shall forthwith issue a warrant for the arrest of the person charged in the affidavit, and directed to a peace officer; otherwise he shall forthwith refer the matter to the prosecuting attorney or other attorney charged by law with prosecution for investigation prior to the issuance of warrant. (B) If the offense charged is a misdemeanor or violation of a municipal ordinance, such judge, clerk, or magistrate may: (1) Issue a warrant for the arrest of such person, directed to any officer named in section 2935.03 of the Revised Code but in cases of ordinance violation only to a police officer or marshal or deputy marshal of the municipal corporation; (2) Issue summons, to be served by a peace officer, bailiff, or court constable, commanding the person against whom the affidavit or complaint was filed to appear forthwith, or at a fixed time in the future, before such court or magistrate. Such summons shall be served in the same manner as in civil cases. (C) If the affidavit is filed by, or the complaint is filed pursuant to an affidavit executed by, a peace officer who has, at his discretion, at the time of commission of the alleged offense, notified the person to appear before the court or magistrate at a specific time set by such officer, no process need be issued unless the defendant fails to appear at the scheduled time. (D) Any person charged with a misdemeanor or violation of a municipal ordinance may give bail as provided in sections 2937.22 to 2937.46 of the Revised Code, for his appearance, regardless of whether a warrant, summons, or notice to appear has been issued. (E) Any warrant, summons, or any notice issued by the peace officer shall state the substance of the charge against the person arrested or directed to appear. (F) When the offense charged is a misdemeanor, and the warrant or summons issued pursuant to this section is not served within two years of the date of issue, a judge or magistrate may order such warrant or summons withdrawn and the case closed, when it does not appear that the ends of justice require keeping the case open.
Anderson’s criminal complaint charged “felony” violations of 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242 that identified conspiracies to violate constitutional rights “under the color of law.” Anderson didn’t realize Dawson was in on the conspiracy and would ignore his 18 U.S.C. 4, “Misprision of felony, ” duty to comply with the language of the state law that had been presented to him in the complaint he conveniently lost.
Between the extra $100 he unlawfully added to $150 minor misdemeanor fines the general assembly created for the criminal offense, the bond money no one reports to council for the people they’ve unlawfully arrested, jailed and fined through obstructive acts of theft in office, there was no reason for Dawson to hear Anderson’s complaint. Dawson and the cops were jailing people in a facility the state told them to close two years ago; and the money connected to the cash, cars and drugs being stolen from the people this armed organized criminal gang of law enforcement officer impersonators was kidnapping off the city’s streets was too good.
Dawson had his own scam going as his pregnant Las Vegas traveling companion “executive assistant’ was staging a $17,000 robbery of the court’s daily cash collections around the time of Anderson’s complaint. The municipal court was making money off the unlawful arrests and jail bonds; and Dawson was setting it up to be stolen.
A source who saw him gambling in Las Vegas witnessed him “throwing down large bills.” The FBI can easily track his travel through TSA and obtain video surveillance from the casinoes of Dawson at the tables through the Nevada Gaming Commission. It’s just a matter of time. He should have resigned instead of compounding his offenses by continuing his unlawful interactions in conspiracy with McDonald, Gardner, MIchael Cardilli, Hemmons and other unsworn and uncertified private citizens Anderson’s complaint told him were impersonating law enforcements officers.
Dawson now knows Anderson was kidnapped by armed cop impersonator McDonald and charged by another private citizen impersonating a prosecuting attorney named Heather McCollough with “disorderly conduct.” With Anderson’s R.C. 2935.09 complaint on knowledge still valid though his negligently reckless violation of Rule 4.01 of the Superintendence of the Courts negligence “lost” it, the information is still “filed” with the court and criminally-unresolved as a result of what can only now be viewed by investigating FBI agents as Dawson’s willful obstruction.
East Cleveland’s court is presided over by a single judge whose duty under RULE 4.01(A) is to “be responsible for and exercise control over the administration, docket, and calendar of the court or division.” The negligence shows a Rule 5(D) violation for his negligent case management plan. Dawson would have also lied in the monthly case disposition reports he submits to the Supreme Court of Ohio on official forms by losing a “filed” case he reported and then had to later report either was resolved or “lost.”
Dawson would have to pretend he’s heard none of council’s discussions about McDonald and McCollough not being administered oaths of office to discharge the duties of law enforcement officers for the municipal corporation of East Cleveland in the manner spelled out in R.C. 705.28. Ward 2 Councilwoman Juanita Gowdy checked the clerk’s office for all oaths after her swearing in on January 1, 2020. Dawson’s oath is on file with the clerk of the council in the manner prescribed by the state general law. There are none on file for any of the municipal court’s employees.
No oath is filed with the Clerk of Council for McDonald. The oath for McCollough is a sham. It bears only her signature and not that of her “appointing authority” the mayor. Without the oath of office neither McDonald nor McCollough were and are authorized to discharge the duties of a peace officer or prosecuting attorney. The language in R.C. 705.28 clearly instructs them that the oath is required “before” they start working. McCollough’s is dated for long after she started working.
705.28 Oath of office. Every officer of a municipal corporation and every employee holding a position upon an annual salary, before entering upon the duties of his office, shall take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation, which shall be filed and kept in the office of the clerk of the municipal corporation
What happened 10 days after both McDonald and McCollough started discharging duties without the oath is that the job was automatically declared vacant under Ohio law. What the law gave the council the civil right of “the office” to do by resolution was to declare each office or position vacant and instruct the mayor to fill it in the manner authorized by law. But that civil right of the office was obstructed by private contract law director impersonator Willa Hemmons when she did not advise the officers of the municipal corporation to discharge the duties of their offices as it pertained to her own violation of R.C. 705.28 in January 2014.
Like McCollough and McDonald, Hemmons’ oath was not filed with the Clerk of Council within 10 days after her January 2014 “appointment” through a “contract” that itself was not lawful. A village is authorized to hire a private attorney to discharge the duties of a city director of law. East Clevland is not a village.
Since February 1, 2014, the municipal corporation of East Cleveland has operated without a director of law discharging the duties of a statutory office. Former council clerk Tracy Udrija confirmed for me in writing in 2014 that Hemmons’ oath was not delivered to her and signed by Gary Norton as her appointing authority.
There’s another problem with Hemmons’ impersonation of East Cleveland’s director of law as a resident of Shaker Heights. R.C. 733.49 has two components to it that my late director of law, Almeta Johnson, and I discussed in connection with law’s language. Almeta resided in Crystal Towers in East Cleveland.
733.49 City director of law – term of office. The city director of law shall be elected for a term of four years, commencing on the first day of January next after his election. He shall be an elector of the city.”
Sexist language has been stricken from the Revised Code even if it’s still written into the laws, so the idea that a law director can only be a “he” is not applicable. What is applicable is the requirement for the officer to be an “elector” of the city. This instruction is repeated in R.C.733.68. and neither Ronald Riley nor Hemmons were electors of East Cleveland in their official capacity as city director of law. Deputies are not required to be “electors” so my initial hiring of Riley and Hemmons was within the law.
733.68 Qualifications of municipal officers – oaths. (A) Except as otherwise provided in division (B) of this section or in another section of the Revised Code, each officer of a municipal corporation, or of any department or board of a municipal corporation, whether elected or appointed as a substitute for a regular officer, shall be an elector of the municipal corporation and, before entering upon official duties, shall take an oath to support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state and an oath that the officer will faithfully, honestly, and impartially discharge the duties of the office to which elected or appointed. These provisions as to official oaths shall extend to deputies, but they need not be electors.
It was Almeta’s view in her official capacity as law director that the charter’s language giving the mayor the authority to appoint the city director of law pursuant to Section 113 was valid. It was my view that the appointment was for four years; so I told her she couldn’t leave me. I’m joking. Almeta had gotten her law partners, Una Keenon and Pat Blackmon, to help her help me train Curtis Sliwa’s Guardian Angel’s on the criminal laws they needed to know relative to making citizens arrests in 1981 for my first class of volunteers. She was my friend.
What this means for Dawson is that since February 2014 every criminal prosecution has been prosecuted by an unqualified “private attorney” impersonating a municipal director of law in violation of R.C. 2938.13. The heading is “prosecution of criminal cases.”
“In any case prosecuted for violation of a municipal ordinance the village solicitor or city director of law, and for a statute, he or the prosecuting attorney, shall present the case for the municipal corporation and the state respectively, but either may delegate the responsibility to some other attorney in a proper case, or, if the defendant be unrepresented by counsel may with leave of court, withdraw from the case. But the magistrate or judge shall not permit prosecution of any criminal case by private attorney employed or retained by a complaining witness.” Effective Date: 11-01-1977.
Pursuant to the language of her contract, which mirrored the duties of law directors in the revised code, Hemmons at all times as an attorney is, was and should have been the constitutional enforcement officer of the municipal corporation. The protector of the civil rights of all with whom the government interacts inside and out. That includes kidnapped citizens like Anderson she now knows was illegally housed in a jail the state ordered closed.
The R.C. 733.51 “powers and duties” of the city director of law is to serve as legal counsel and attorney for the officers and employees of the municipal corporation. R.C. 733.52 makes the city director of law the chief prosecuting attorney of the municipal court for the state of Ohio.
R.C. 733.53 gives the city director of law the authority to prosecute, only upon resolution of the counsel, in defense of the city against legal actions brought against it for the acts or misconduct of its officers and employees. R.C. 733.54 required Hemmons to give opinions to officers and employees that showed them how to discharge the duties of their offices and jobs within the law.
R.C. 733.56 gave Hemmons the duty to apply for an injunction when either Gary Norton, Brandon King, Will Dawson, Ron Brooks, Jack Johnson and now Charles Iyahen misapplied public funds to prevent them from plunging the city back into fiscal emergency and financial ruin to the tune of over $100 million in legal liabilities from her own lost cases council never approved. This is yet another civil right of council’s she obstructed.
R.C. 733.57 under the heading “specific performance” instructed Hemmons to ensure that any avoided public duty or contractual obligation is performed. So with a contract she crafted to demonstrate her knowledge of the statutory duties she was going to advise the officers and employees of the municipal corporation of East Cleveland to discharge within the framework of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions, and federal, state and local laws, her own oath of office and that of every other officer and employees should be on file with the clerk of council as prescribed by R.C. 705.28.
With clear instructions and authority to protect the city, not its individual officers under Disciplinary Rule 1.13 of Ohio’s Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers, from the misconduct of its individual officers and employees, there should be none had Hemmons discharged the duties of the city director of law as mandated and written in plain English. None of what’s now taking place between East Cleveland police, the city prosecutor’s office and municipal court would be so far on the other side of the law had its law enforcement officers were not guided into criminal misconduct as she concealed her own “unsworn” violations of laws from her employers.
McDonald should be OPOTA certified and so should 23 other East Cleveland law enforcement officer impersonators. Hemmons and every other officer and employee’s oath should be on file with the council clerk. Hemmons would also be a city resident. The law director’s “deputy” or McCollough would not have to be a city resident if either were appointed and discharging the duties of appointed public offices lawfully.
The problem with McCollough’s appointment and sham oath of office is the one “nuanced” duty of the director of law as the chief prosecutor that’s the same as the R.C. 309 duties of the “county prosecutor” to appoint their own deputies. Without being administered an oath of office, Hemmons lacked the statutory authority to “appoint” McCollough as her deputy.
The charges McCollough has filed against Anderson, a citizen who is on record as one of her critics for conspiring with McDonald and the other unsworn and uncertified law enforcement officer impersonators, are themselves criminal as she has no authority, despite her personal motivation, to do so.
What’s left for Dawson is only one choice. Find Anderson’s “lost” criminal complaint and act on the felonious evidence in front of him. The FBI’s public corruption unit has been contacted. A kidnapping has been reported and the facts and evidence show the kidnapper was a private citizen impersonating a law enforcement officer. The armed private citizen kidnapper is conspiring with other armed private citizens impersonating law enforcement officers as they control the municipal police department.
Unsworn individuals are unlawfully discharging the duties of the director of law, chief prosecuting attorney and that official’s deputies, and bringing criminal complaints as private citizens against the citizens who have exposed their organized criminal activities. Hemmons was instructed by the council president in writing that without an oath or contract, which neither exist, she has no legal authority to communicate “opinions” to the city’s elected officers; and has warned her to cease and desist.
Even today, September 21, Shaker Heights resident Hemmons sent an email to obstruct the city’s official business by advising Richmond Heights resident Brandon King, an individual who has no legal authority to discharge the duties of mayor in East Cleveland, not to sign off on the official business enacted by the city’s authorized “resident” electors during their official meetings of council.
Dawson would be wise to “investigate” and let the laws and evidence guide his conduct. The individuals he’s interacting with are impersonating law enforcement officers and have been ever since his swearing-in. Not knowing is not his fault. He’s known for at least a year based on his own admission that Anderson’s criminal complaint was filed and lost with and within the municipal court where he is its single presiding and administrative judge. No bosses. No excuses.
The moments when ordinary people act beyond their perceived limits are these during this period in history in East Cleveland; and in the United States of America. The Constitution of this nation and state, and its laws, do mean something whether they’re known and understood by those who’ve been administered oaths of office to discharge the duties of an elected or appointed public office or not.
The understood reality of being an American citizen is the knowing of your rights that no one gets to shit all over; and fuck all that “Brother and Sister” shit or you wouldn’t be shitting all over your Brothers and Sisters. None of these self-hating criminals deserve sympathy.
They’re like cartoon crooks who don’t know they’re already caught. They never see the hunters. The solution, Will, is simple. Validate with the “originating agency” every official’s credentials who appears before the court to ensure that they are authorized by law to enter an appearance. Don’t trust any official’s “word.” Confirm what’s entered into official records.
The Attorney General of the State of Ohio has confirmed that 24 private citizens are unlawfully discharging the duties of law enforcement officers and you’re the judge conspiring with the city’s prosecuting attorney and them as if their arrests are lawful; and you’re depriving U.S. citizens and the council of their civil rights.
18 U.S.C. 241, Conspiracy against rights.
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
18 U.S.C. 242, Deprivation of rights under color of law.
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
