6. July 29, 2010 Indictment in State v. Cafaro, et al., Case No CR A-I

Transcription

1 ORIGINAL STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. THE VINDICATOR. PRINTING CO., et al., IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO vs. Relators, (Original Action in Prohibition and Mandamus) ^ L ^9 THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. WOLFF, JR., et al., Respondents. APR CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO I JOINT RECORD OF EVIDENCE (VOL.1 OF 2) Marion H. Little, Jr. ( ) Christoplaer J. Hogan ( ) Zeiger,Tigges & Little LLP 3500I-luntington Center 41 Southl3igh Street Columbus, Ohio Counsel for Relators The Vindicator PrintingCo. and YVFMJTelevision, Iirc. Carley J. Ingram ( ) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office P.O. Box West Third Street Dayton, Ohio Couns el for Respondent Judge William H. YVoIfJ,' Jr. Marlin G. Weinberg (Pro Hac Vice) Law Office of Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. 20 ParkPlaza, Suite 1000 Boston, MA Connsel forlnten)eningrespondent Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr. Ralph B. Cascarilla ( ) Darrell A. Clay ( ) Walter & Haverfield I.LP The Tower at Erieview 1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 3500 Cleveland, OH CounselforInterveningRespondent The Cafaro Cn. J. Alan Jolmson (Pro Hac Vice) Cynthia Reed Eddy (Pro Flac Vice) Johnson & Eddy 1720 Gulf Tower 707 Grant Street. Pittsburgh, PA Counsel for LzterveningResponilent Flora Cafaro John P. McCaffrey ( ) Anthony R. Petruzzi ( ) McLaughlin & McCaffrey, LLP P.aton Center, Suite Superior Avenue Clevcland, OH Counsel for Intervening Respondents Ohio Valley Mall Contpany and Marion Plaza, Inc. { i }

2 JOINT RECORD OF EVIDENCE (VOLUME 1 OF 2) EX. DATE DESCRIPTION 1. Case Docket Sheet in State v. Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., Mahoning Cty. Case No CR Case Docket Sheet in State v. The Cafaro Company, Mahoning Cty. Case No CR A 3. Case Docket Sheet in State v. Ohio Yalley Mall Company, Mahoning Cty. Case No CR B 4. Case Docket Sheet in State v. The Marion Plaza, Inc., Mahoning Cty. Case No CR C 5. Case Docket Sheet in State v. Flora Cafaro, Mahoning Cty. Case No CR I 6. July 29, 2010 Indictment in State v. Cafaro, et al., Case No CR A-I 7. Aug. 6, 2010 Judgment Entry setting pretrial on September 9, 2010 (Wolff) 8. Aug, 31, 2010 State of Ohio's Response to Motions of Defendants Martin Yavorcik and Flora Cafaro for a Bill of Particulars 9. Sept. 2, 2010 Lctter from John F. McCaffrey to Judge William H. Wolff, Jr. requesting Bills of Particulars be filed under seal (entered on doclcct Dcc. 6, 2010) (Ex. A to Relators' Verified Complaint) 10. Sept. 7, 2010 Letter from Dennis P. Will to Judge William H. Wolff, Jr, regarding letter from John F. McCaffrey dated September 2, 2010 (entered on docket Dec. 6, 2010) (Ex. B to Rclators' Vcrified Complaint) 11. Sept. 9, 2010 Judgment Entry (Wolff) (Ex. C to Relators' Verified Complaint) 12. Sept. 14, 2010 Supplemental Order (Wolff) (Ex. D to Relators' Verified Complaint) 13. Oct. 1, 2010 Joint Motion of Defendants Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., Flora Cafaro, The Cafaro Company, Ohio Valley Mall Company, and The Marion Plaza, Inc. Seeking the Court's Action to Address Apparent Violations of Grand Jury Secrecy (with attached exhibits) 14. Oct. 1, 2010 Brief of the State of Ohio in Response to Joint Motion of Certain Defendants Regarding Grand.lury Secrecy and Rcquest for Hearing { )

3 EX. DATE DESCRIPTION 15, Oct. 4, 2010 Judgment Entry setting hearing on Motion Seeldng Court Action to Address Apparent Violations of Grand Jury Secrecy (Wolff) 16. Oct. 12, 2010 Supplement to Joint Motion of Defendants Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., Flora Cafaro, The Cafaro Company, Ohio Valley Mall Company, and The Marion Plaza, Inc. Seeking the Court's Action to Address Apparent Violations of Grand Jury Secrecy (with attached exhibits) 17. Oct. 13, 2010 Supplement of the State of Ohio to Brief in Response to Joint Motion of Certain Defendants Regarding Grand Jury Secrecy and Request for Hearing 1&. Oct. 14, 2010 Transcript of Proceedings held Oct. 14,2010 (TO BE FILED WITH THE SUPREME COURT UNDER SEAL) 19. Oct, 20, 2010 Oxders Relating to Defendants' Motion Seeking the Court's Action to Address Apparent Violations of Grand Jury Secrecy 20. Nov. 10, 2010 Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Temporarily Seal All Bills of Particulars and Notices of Intent to Introduce Rule 404(B) Evidence Until ABer Trial (released 12/7110 except for Ex. 1) (Ex. F. to Relators' Verified Complaiut) 21. Nov: 15, 2010 Letter from Marion H. Little, Jr. to Judge Williatn H, Wolff, Jr. and Anthony Vivo re. Youngstown Vindicator Public Records Request (Ex. G to Relators' Verified Coinplaint) 22. Nov. 16, 2010 Memorandum of Law in Support of Joint Motion of Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., Flora Cafaro, The Cafaro Conipany, Ohio Valley Mall Company, and The Marion Plaza, Inc. to Dismiss Indictment (Ex. E to Relators' Verified Complaint) 23. Nov. 17, 2010 Letter from Marion H. Little, Jr. to Judge William H. Wolff, Jr. and Anthony Vivo regarding Youngstown Vindicator Public Records Request (Ex. H to Relators' Verified Cotnplaint) 24. Nov. 17,2010 Letter from Marion H. Little, Jr. to Kathi M.cNabb Welsh and Anthony Vivo regarding Youngstown Vindicator Public Records Request (Ex. I to Relators' Verified Complaint) 25. Nov. 18, 2010 Motion of the Youngstown Vindicator and WFMJ-TV for an Order Vacating the September 9 and September 14, 2010 Sealing Orders and Permitting Public Access to Bills of Particulars and Motion to Dismiss Indictment { }

4 Public Access - Docket List Page 1 of 15 General Inquiry Docket Search CR STATE OF OHIO - vs- CAFARO, ANTHONY M VJ Search Criteria Docket Desc. ALL Begin Date End Date Sort 0 Ascending # Descending Search Results 91 Docket(s) found matching search criteria. Docket Docket Text Date 04/14/2011 JE>SEE ATTACHED IMAGE Amount Amount Images Due /28/2011 JE>SEE ATTACHED IMAGE /31/2011 JE>SEE ATTACHED IMAGE /31/2011 MOTION OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO ENLARGE TIME IN WHICH TO COMPLY WITH CRIMINAL RULE 16 DISCOVERY REQUIREMENTS AND FOR AN ORDER ALLOWING DISCLOSURE FILED Attorney: WILL ESQ, DENNIS P (38129) 01/31/2011 NOTICE OF FURNISHING OF RULE DISCOVERY MATERIALS FILED BY PLAINTIFF [ONE PLEADING FILED UNDER 10 CR 800; 10 CR 800A-I] 01/21/2011 STATE'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO CAFARO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A REDACTION ORDER & FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING USE AND DISCLOSURE OF BILLS OF PARTICULAR FILED UNDER SEAL BY PLAINTIFF [ONE DOCUMENT FILED UNDER 10 CR 800, 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, AND 10 CR 800 1] [UNSEALED 1/31/11] Attorney: WILL ESQ, DENNIS P (38129) 12 THE OHIO LEGAL BLANK CO. INC. EXHIBIT Jt. Rec. Ex 1 CLEVELANO, OHIO lst? /20/2011

5 Public Access - Docket List Page 2 of 15 01/12/2011 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ORDER: (1) REDACTING THREE REFERENCES CONTAINED IN STATE'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME IN WHICH TO COMPLY WITH CRIMINAL RULE 16 DISCOVERY REQUIREMENTS AND FOR AN ORDER ALLOWING DISCLOSURE; AND (2) THE ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING DISCLOSURE AND USE OF BILLS OF PARTICULARS FILED UNDER SEAL [UNSEALED 1/31/11] 01/05/2011 MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER: (1) REDACTING THREE REFERENCES CONTAINED IN STATE'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME IN WHICH TO COMPLY WITH CRIMINAL RULE 16 DISCOVERY REQUIREMENTS AND FOR AN ORDER ALLOWING DISCLOSURE; AND (2) THE ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING DISCLOSURE AND USE OF BILLS OF PARTICULAR FILED UNDER SEAL FILED BY DEFENDANTS ANTHONY M CARFARO SR., FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., AND THE MARION PLAZA INC. [ONE DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR 800, 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, AND 10 CR 800 I] Attorney: CASCARILLA, RALPH E. (13526) [UNSEALED 1/31/11] 01/03/2011 BILL OF PARTICULARS FOR ANTHONY M. CAFARO, SR; THE CARARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA, INC. AND JOHN MCNALLY IV FILED BY PLAINTIFF [PLEASE NOTE ONE PLEADING FILED UNDER SEAL AND CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR 800; 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, AND 10 CR 800 D] 12/22/2010 PER ORDER OF 12/21/10, EXHIBITS AND 5 TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME UNSEALED 12/21/2010 JE> DECISION AND ORDER. (WOLFF, SITTING ON ASSIGNMENT) SEE ATTACHEDIMAGE 12/06/2010 CORRESPONDENCE DATED 9/7/ FROM ATTORNEY PAUL NICK AND lst? /20/2011

6 Public Access - Docket List Page3of15 ATTORNEY DAVID MUHEK TO ATTORNEY JOHN MCCAFFREY FILED 12/06/2010 CORRESPONDENCE DATED 9/2/ FROM ATTORNEY JOHN MCCAFFREY TO COURT FILED 12/06/2010 SUBPOENA RETURNED & FILED SERVED WITNESS /06/2010 SUBPOENA RETURNED & FILED SERVED WITNESS /06/2010 SUBPOENA RETURNED & FILED SERVED WITNESS /06/2010 SUBPOENA RETURNED & FILED SERVED WITNESS /06/2010 SUBPOENA RETURNED & FILED SERVED WITNESS /06/2010 NOTICE OF INTENT TO PRESENT EXPERT TESTIMONY BY ANTHONY CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA AND FLORA CAFATO AT THE DECEMBER 6,2010 HEARING FILED BY DEFENDANTS ANTHONY CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA AND FLORA CAFARO -FILED UNDER SEAL [ONE PLEADING FILED UNDER 10 CR 800][PLEADING RELEASED 12/7/10] Attomey: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) 12/03/20 10 JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR., THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA INC., AND FLORA CAFARO TO ENLARGE THE JANUARY 3, 2011 PRETRIAL MOTION FILING DEADLINE FILED [INCL ALL CAFARO DEFT'S] [PLEADING RELEASED 12/7/10. HOWEVER EXHIBITS 2 AND 5 REMAIN SEALED] ***ON 12/22/10-EXHIBITS 2 AND 5 UNSEALED-SEE 12/22/10 DOCKET ENTRY Attorney: WEINBERG, MARTIN G (519480) 12/03/2010 REPLY OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER VCATING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14,2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PATRICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED 12/03/2010 RESPONSE OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY 4/20/2011

7 Public Access - Docket List Page 4 of 15 MALL CO, THE MARION PLAZA INC AND FLORA CAFARO TO MOTION OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED ***DUPLICATE FILING TO MOTION FILED 11/30/10 12/02/2010 MOTION OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV FOR AN ORDER CONFIRMING THEIR RIGHT TO FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR AN ORDER VACTING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14,2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT AS PART THE PUBLIC RECORD FILED Attorney: LITTLE ESQ, MARION H (42679) 12/02/2010 MOTION IN LIMINE OF THE STATE OF OHIO WITH RESPECT TO THE JOINT MOTIONS OF DEFT'S MICHAEL SCIORTINO AND JOHN MCNALLY IV AND OTHER DEFT'S FILED [[PLEADING RELEASED 12/7/10] Attorney: WILL ESQ, DENNIS P (38129) 12/01/2010 JE> IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, THAT THE CAFARO DEFT'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PROCESS SERVERS IS GRANTED. THOMAS COOL, PRESIDENT OF NORTHEAST OHIO COURIER AND SUBPOENA SERVICE INC., PO BOX 547 WARREN OHIO AND/OR GARY HALL OF GARY HALL CONSULTING LLC, 4887 MILLS CREEK LANE, NORTH RIDGEVILLE OHIO ARE HEREBY DESIGNATED AS SPECIAL PROCESS SERVERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING SUBPOENAS IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER. IT IS SO ORDERED. (WILLIAM H WOLFF JR) SEE ATTACHEDIMAGE 12/01/2010 JE> THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF, INSTANTER, IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY M CAFARO SR, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL lst? /20/2011

8 Public Access - Docket List Page5of15 CO, THE MARION PLACA INC AND FLORA CAFARO TO DISMISS INDICTMENT IS SUSTAINED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (WILLIM H WOLFF JR- SITTING ON ASSIGNMENT) SEE ATTACHEDIMAGE 12/01/2010 DEPOSIT RECEIVED Receipt: Date: 12/01/ /01/2010 SUBPOENA ISSUED TO PROCESS SERVER 11/30/2010 REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR., THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA INC., AND FLORA CAFARO TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED INSTANTER UNDER SEAL [ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NO. 10 CR 800] [PLEADING RELEASED 12/7/10] 11/30/2010 RESPONSE OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO, THE MARION PLAZA INC AND FLORA CAFARO TO MOTION OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14,2010 SEALING ORDER AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED [ONE PLEADING FILED FOR CAFARO DEFT'S] 11/30/2010 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF INSTANTER IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO, THE MARION PLAZA INC AND FLORA CAFARO TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED [ONLY ONE PLEADING FILED UNDER CAFARO DEFT'S] Attomey: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) 11/30/2010 MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR; THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO, THE MARION PLAZA INC AND FLORA CAFARO FOR APPOINTMENT OF PROCESS SERVER FILED [ONE PLEADING FILED UNDER CAFARO DEFT'S] Attomey: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) 11/23/2010 JE> FOLLOWING MOTIONS ARE SET FOR HEARING ON 9:O0AM: SEE ENTRY. PARTIES ARE lst? /20/2011

9 Public Access - Docket List Page 6 of 15 EXPECTED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON THE EVIDENTIARY ISSUES WHICH THE VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV ASSERT THAT THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS BEFORE ENTERING A SEALING ORDER. (WOLFF, SITTING ON ASSIGNMENT) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 11/23/2010 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO, FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO AND THE MARION PLAZA INC TO TEMPORARILY SEAL ALL BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND NOTCIES OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE 404 (B) EVIDENCE UNTIL AFTER TRIAL FILED UNDER SEAL BY PLAINTIFF- ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS CR 800, 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, 10 CR 8001 [[PLEADING RELEASED 12/7/10] 11/22/2010 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR, FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL AND THE MARION PLAZA TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT FILED UNDER BY THE PLAINTIFF [ONE MOTION CONTAINING CASE NO. 10 CR 800, 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, 10 CR 800 I [PLEADING RELEASED 12/7/10] Attomey: WILL ESQ, DENNIS P (38129) 11/18/2010 MOTION OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT-ONE PLEADING CONTAINING NAMES OF ALL DEFENDANTS FILED UNDER 10 CR 800 Attorney: LITTLE ESQ, MARION H (42679) 11/16/2010 LIMITED NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ TV REGARDING ALL MOTIONS RULINGS AND/OR HEARINGS WITH RESPECT TO ANY FORM OF CLOSURE FILED Attorney: LITTLE ESQ, MARION H (42679) 11/16/2010 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION OF lst? /20/2011

10 Public Access - Docket List Page 7 of 15 ANTHONY CAFARO SR., THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALEY MALL, MARION PLAZA INC. AND FLORA CAFARO TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED UNDER SEAL [ONE PLEADING FILED UNDER THIS CASE NUMBER ONLY][PLEADING RELEASED 12/7/10] 11/16/2010 JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR., THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALEY MALL, MARION PLAZA INC. AND FLORA CAFARO TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED UNDER SEAL [ONE PLEADING FILED UNDER THIS CASE NUMBER ONLY] [PLEADING RELEASED 12/7/10] Attorney: CASCARILLA, RALPH E. (13526) 11/10/2010 MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TEMPORARILY SEAL ALL BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND NOTICES OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE RULE 404(B) EVIDENCE UNTIL AFTER TRIAL FILED BY DEFT [INCL ALL CAFARO DEFT'S] [PLEADING RELEASED 12/7/10-HOWEVER EXHIBIT 1 REMAINS SEALED] Attorney: STAMBOULIDIS, GEORGE A (202742) 10/20/2010 JE> ORDERS RELATING TO DEFTS' MOTION SEEKING THE COURT'S ACTION TO ADDRESS APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF GRAND JURY SECRECY. SO ORDERED. (WOLFF, SITTING ON ASSIGNMENT) 10/20/2010 REGULAR MAIL POSTAGE FEES /20/2010 COPIES ISSUED OF 10/20/10 ORDER RE: MOTION HEARING TO JUDGE WOLFF, ATTY. CILLO, ATTY. MUHEK, ATTY. WILL, ATTY. BELCHER, ATTY. NICK, ATTY. STAMBOULIDIS AND ATTY. WEINBERG 10/13/2010 NOTICE OF FURNISHING RULE DISCOVERY MATERIALS FILED BY STATE [ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR 800 I FILED] Attorney: MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P (24395) 10/13/2010 SUPPLEMENT TO BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO JOINT MOTION OF CERTAIN DEFENEDANTS REGARDING GRAND JURY SECRECY AND REQUEST FOR HEARING FILED lst? /20/2011

11 Public Access - Docket List Page 8 of 15 BY STATE [ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR 800 I FILED] Attorney: MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P (24395) 10/12/2010 SUPPLEMENT TO JOINT MOTION OF DEFENDANTS ANTHONY CAFARO SR, FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO AND THE MARION PLAZA INC SEEKING THE COURT'S ACTION TO ADDRESS APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF GRAND JURY SECRECY FILED [ONE PLEADING UNDER 10 CR 800 FILED] Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) ET AL. 10/08/2010 NOTICE OF FURNISHING OF RULE DISCOVERY MATERIALS FILED BY PLAINTIFF-PLEASE NOTE ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR 8001 Attorney: MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P (24395) 10/04/2010 JE> MATTER HAS BEEN SET FOR HEARING ON MOTION TO ADDRESS APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF GRAND JURY SECRECY FOR 9:00AM. (WOLFF, SITTING ON ASSIGNMENT) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 10/04/2010 COPY OF HEARING NOTICE SENT BY COURT TO PARTIES BY REGULAR MAIL FILED CRIMINAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE Sent on: 10/04/ :23:55 10/01/2010 BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO JOINT MOTION OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS REGARDING GRAND JURY SECRECY AND REQUEST FOR HEARING FILED BY PLAINTIFF UNDER SEAL-ONE PLEADING FILED CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR 800 I 10/01/2010 JOINT MOTION OF DEFENDANTS ANTHONY M CAFARO SR., FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., AND THE MARION PLAZA INC. SEEKING THE COURT'S ACTION TO ADDRESS APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF GRAND JURY SECRECY FILED Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) [SEVERAL OTHER COUNSEL LISTED] 09/27/2010 NOTICE OF FURNISHING OF RULE DISCOVERY MATERIALS FILED BY PLAINTIFF-PLEASE NOTE ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS. lst? /20/2011

12 Public Access - Docket List Page 9 of CR CR 800 I Attomey: MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P (24395) 09/15/2010 Issue Date: 09/15/2010 Service: COPIES OF 9/14/10 JE TO PARTIES Method: (CP) REGULAR MAIL Cost Per: $ 0.44 CAFARO, ANTHONY M c/o ATTY: STAMBOULIDIS, GEORGE A BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA NEW YORK, NY Tracking No: R WILL ESQ, DENNIS P c/o ATTY: WILL ESQ, DENNIS P LORAIN CO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 225 COURT ST THIRD FLOOR ELYRIA, OH Tracking No: R NICK, PAUL c/o ATTY: NICK, PAUL OHIO ETHICS COMMISSION WILLIAM GREEN BUILDING 30 W SPRING ST; L3 COLUMBUS, OH Tracking No: R CILLO ESQ, ANTHONY D c/o ATTY: CILLO ESQ, ANTHONY D ASSISTANT LORAIN CO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 225 COURT STREET-THIRD FLOOR ELYRIA, OH Tracking No: R BELCHER ESQ, BILLIE J c/o ATTY: BELCHER ESQ, BILLIE J ASSISTANT LORAIN CO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 225 COURT ST-THIRD FLOOR ELYRIA, OH Tracking No: R MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P c/o ATTY: MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P ASSISTANT LORAIN CO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 225 COURT STREET- THIRD FLOOR ELYRIA, OH Tracking No: R CAFARO, ANTHONY M c/o ATTY: WEINBERG, MARTIN G 20 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1000 BOSTON, MA Tracking No: R /15/2010 COPIES ISSUED OF 9/14/10 JE ISSUED TO PARTIES 09/14/2010 JE> SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER. (REFER TO DETAILED ENTRY) (JUDGE WILLIAM H WOLFF JR) 09/10/2010 Issue Date: 09/10/2010 Service: COPIES OF 9/9/10 JE ISSUED TO PARTIES Method: (CP) REGULAR MAIL Cost Per: $ 0.44 CAFARO, ANTHONY M c/o ATTY: STAMBOULIDIS, GEORGE A BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA NEW YORK, NY Tracking No: R GAINS, PAUL J. c/o ATTY: GAINS, PAUL J. MAHONING CO lst? /20/2011

13 Public Access - Docket List Page 10 of 15 PROSECUTOR 21 W BOARDMAN ST YOUNGSTOWN, OH Tracking No: R WILL ESQ, DENNIS P c/o ATTY: WILL ESQ, DENNIS P LORAIN CO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 225 COURT ST THIRD FLOOR ELYRIA, OH Tracking No: R NICK, PAUL c/o ATTY: NICK, PAUL OHIO ETHICS COMMISSION WILLIAM GREEN BUILDING 30 W SPRING ST; L3 COLUMBUS, OH Tracking No: R CILLO ESQ, ANTHONY D c/o ATTY: CILLO ESQ, ANTHONY D ASSISTANT LORAIN CO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 225 COURT STREET-THIRD FLOOR ELYRIA, OH Tracking No: R BELCHER ESQ, BILLIE J c/o ATTY: BELCHER ESQ, BILLIE J ASSISTANT LORAIN CO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 225 COURT ST-THIRD FLOOR ELYRIA, OH Tracking No: R MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P c/o ATTY: MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P ASSISTANT LORAIN CO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 225 COURT STREET- THIRD FLOOR ELYRIA, OH Tracking No: R CAFARO, ANTHONY M c/o ATTY: WEINBERG, MARTIN G 20 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1000 BOSTON, MA Tracking No: R /10/2010 COPIES ISSUED OF 9/9/10 JE TO PARTIES 09/09/20 10 JE> THIS MATTER WAS PRETRIED SEPT 9, 2010 WITH ALL DEFTS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND THE STATE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. IN VIEW OF THE ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL THE COMPLEXITY OF THE CASE AND THE WAIVER OF ALL DEFTS OF THEIR RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL AS PROVIDED BY STATUTE, TRIAL IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN JUNE 6, THE STATE WILL PROVIDE OPEN FILE DISCOVERY TO COUNSEL FOR THE DEFTS ON OR BEFORE SEPT 23, 2010 AND INFORM COUNSEL FOR THE DEFTS WHEN THE STATES PROVISION OF DISCOVERY IS COMPLETE. THE DEFTS SHALL HAVE NINETY DAYS TO PROVIDE RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY EXCEPT FOR lst? /20/2011

14 Public Access - Docket List Page 11 of 15 DISCLOSURE OF THEIR EXPERT WITNESSES. THE STATE HAS NO OBJECTION TO ANY PENDING DISCOVERY MOTIONS OF THE DEFT'S AND THOSE MOTIONS ARE SUSTAINED. ALL FILINGS IN THIS CASE SHALL BE UNDER S EAL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FILINGS THAT ARE CLEARLY PROCEDURAL AND CANNOT POSSIBLY IMPLICATE DEFT'S CONCERN ABOUT RECEIVING A FAIR TRIAL. PLEADINGS SHALL BE SERVED UPON ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL FOR THE DEFTS SHALL HAVE FOURTEEN DAYS FROM FILING TO MAKE OBJECTIONS AND THE STATE SHALL HAVE FOURTEEN DAYS TO RESPOND AND COUNSEL FOR THE AFFECTED PARTIES MAY REQUEST A HEARING IF DEEMED NECESSARY. ALL PRETRIAL MOTIONS SHALL BE FILED ON OR BEFORE JAN 3, THE PREFERRED METHOD OF SERVICE IS BY E MAIL. ALL FILINGS SHALL BE SENT TO JUDGE WOLFF AT THE TIME THE ORIGINAL IS FILED WITH THE CLERK. IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE WILLIAM H WOLFF JR) 09/09/2010 WAIVER OF RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL FILED BY DEFENDANT ANTHONY CAFARO SR. 09/08/2010 UNOPPOSED MOTION OF JOHN ZACHARTIAH TO EXCUSE PERSONAL ATTENDANCE AT THE SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 PRE TRIAL 09/03/2010 UNOPPOSED MOTION OF DEFT MARTIN YAVORCIK TO EXCUSE PERSONAL ATTENDANCE AT SEPT 9,2010 PRETRIAL FILED 08/27/2010 MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF MARTIN G WEINBERG FILED BY DEFT Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) Attorney: WEINBERG, MARTIN G (519480) 08/27/2010 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL FOR DEFT ANTHONY CAFARO SR FILED Attorney: STAMBOULIDIS, GEORGE A (202742) 08/27/2010 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL FOR DEFT ANTHONY CAFARO SR FILED Attorney: WEINBERG, MARTIN G (519480) lst? /20/2011

15 Public Access - Docket List Page 12 of 15 08/27/2010 UNOPPOSED JOINT MOTION OF DEFT'S ANTHONY CAFARO, SR., FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO AND THE MARION PLAZA INC TO EXCUSE PERSONAL ATTENDANCE AT THE SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 PRETRIAL FILED Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) 08/27/2010 JOINT MOTION OF DEFT'S ANTHONY CAFARO SR., FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO AND THE MARION PLAZA INC TO ENLARGE TIME FOR THE FILING OF PRETRIAL MOTIONS FILED Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) 08/27/2010 MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF GEORGE STAMBOULIDIS FILED Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) 08/27/2010 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AS COUNSEL FOR DEFT ANTHONY CAFARO SR FILED Attorney: JOHNSON ESQ, J. ALAN (10504) 08/26/2010 NOTICE OF THE INTENT OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO VOLUNTARILY COMPLY WITH OHIO CRIMINAL RULES 7(E) AND 16(B) AND LOCAL CRIMINAL RULE 9 FILED 08/24/2010 SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS OF DEFTS ANTHONY M CAFARO SR., FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO AND THE MARION PLAZA INC FILED Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) 08/23/2010 JOINT MEMORANDUM OF DEFT'S ANTHONY CAFARO SR, FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO AND THE MARION PLAZA INC IN SUPPORT OF THEIR JOINT MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS FILED 08/23/20 10 JOINT MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS OF DEFT'S ANTHONY CAFARO SR, FLORA CAFARO AND THE CAFARO CO OHIO VALLEY MALL CO AND THE MARION PLAZA INC FILED Attorney: JOHNSON ESQ, J. ALAN (10504) 08/12/2010 Issue Date: 08/12/2010 Service: COPIES OF 08/04/10 Method: (CP) REGULAR MAIL Cost Per: $ 0.44 CAFARO, ANTHONY M c/o ATTY: REED EDDY lst? /20/2011

16 Public Access - Docket List Page 13 of 15 ESQ, CYNTHIA 1720 GULF TOWER 707 GRANT STREET PITTSBURGH, PA Tracking No: R GAINS, PAUL J. c/o ATTY: GAINS, PAUL J. MAHONING CO PROSECUTOR 21 W BOARDMAN ST YOUNGSTOWN, OH Tracking No: R CAFARO, ANTHONY M c/o ATTY: JOHNSON ESQ, J. ALAN 1720 GULF TOWER 707 GRANT STREET PITTSBURGH, PA Tracking No: R /12/2010 COPIES ISSUED OF 08/04/10 JE TO PARTIES 08/11/2010 BCI FILED /06/2010 JE> THE ABOVE MATTER WILL BE SET FOR A PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, WITH CLIENTS, ON 9:00 AM. (JUDGE WOLFF) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 08/06/2010 JE> CERTIFICATE OF ASSIGNMENT HONORABLE WILLIAM HERMAN WOLFF JR A RETIRED JUDGE OF THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS. (ERIC BROWN, CHIEF JUSTICE OF OHIO SUPREME COURT) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 08/05/2010 RECOGNIZANCE OF ACCUSED FILED IN THE SUM OF OWN RECOGNIZANCE 08/05/2010 COPY OF HEARING NOTICE SENT BY COURT TO PARTIES BY REGULAR MAIL FILED CRIMINAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE Sent on: 08/05/ :24:05 08/04/2010 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ATTORNEYS J ALAN JOHNSON AND CYNTHIA REED EDDY FILED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT ANTHONY CAFARO 08/04/2010 MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF HERRY ALAN JOHNSON FILED Attomey: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) 08/04/2010 MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF CYNTHIA REED EDDY FILED Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) 08/04/2010 JE> WITHIN CAUSE WAS ASSIGNED TO COURTROOM #5. GIVEN CASES 10CR800 (A-I) INVOLVES PAST AND PRESENT ELECTED OFFICIALS AND LOCAL ATTYS FROM MAH CTY A CONFLICT EXISTS WHICH REQUIRES JUDGES OF GENERAL lst? /20/2011

17 Public Access - Docket List Page 14 of 15 DIVISION OF MAH CTY COMMON PLEAS COURT TO RESCUSE THEMSELVES FROM ABOVE CAPTIONED CASE AND REQUESTS OHIO SUPREME COURT REASSIGN THIS MATTER TO A VISITING JUDGE. (KRICHBAUM, DURKIN, EVANS, SWEENEY, D'APOLITO) 08/03/2010 UNOPPOSED MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR FOR MODEST ENLARGEMENT OF DEADLINE FOR BOOKING AND PROCESSING FILED Attomey: JOHNSON ESQ, J. ALAN (10504) 08/03/2010 JE> DEFT IS ORDERED TO SELF REPORT TO MAHONING CTY JUSTICE CTR FOR BOOKING ON :00AM. AFTER BOOKING, SHERIFF IS ORDERED TO RELEASE DEFT FROM MAHONING CTY JUSTICE CTR ON THIS MATTER ONLY. (SWEENEY) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 08/03/2010 JE> DEFT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF DEADLINE FOR BOOKING AND PROCESSING IS GRANTED. AFTER BOOKING, SHERIFF IS ORDERED TO RELEASE THE DEFT FROM MAHONING CTY JUSTICE CTR ON THIS MATTER ONLY. (SWEENEY) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 08/03/2010 JE> BY INQUIRY OF THE COURT, DEFT ANTHONY CAFARO ACKNOWLEGES RECEIPT OF A COPY OF THE INDICTMENT. ATTY J. ALAN JOHNSON IS RETAINED AS DEFENSE COUNSEL. DEFT PLEADS NOT GUILTY. BOND IS O.R. THIS CASE IS ASSIGNED TO COURTROOM 5 (JUDGE D'APOLITO). INITIAL PRE- TRIAL IS SCHEDULED FOR 1:30pm. THIS CASE IS SET FOR TRIAL ON l0am. (SWEENEY) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 08/03/2010 THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT HE IS THE ATTY WHO WILL TRY THIS CASE-JOHNSON 08/03/2010 JE> DEFT A. M. CAFARO, SR CERTIFIES HE HAS BEEN GIVEN A COPY OF THE INDICTMENT & UNDERSTANDS THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM. SAID DEFT. WAIVES HIS PRESENCE AT ARRAIGNMENT & SUBMITS TO A WRITTEN PLEA OF NOT GUILTY TO ALL CHARGES IN 4/20/2011

18 Public Access - Docket List Page 15 of 15 THE INDICTMENT. SAID DEFT ASKS HE BE RELEASED ON HIS OWN RECOGNIZANCE. DEFT SUBMITS HE WILL REPORT TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR BOOKING. (SWEENEY) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 08/03/2010 SUMMONS RETURNED & FILED SERVED--ANTHONY CAFARO. SERVICE ACCEPTED BY ATTY JOHN MCCAFFREY ON BEHALF OF CLIENT VIA FED EX 07/29/2010 DIRECT PRESENTMENT, INDICTMENT FILED lst? /20/2011

19 Public Access - Docket List Page 1 of 9 General Inquiry Docket Search CR A STATE OF OHIO - vs- THE CAFARO COMPANY VJ Search Criteria Docket Desc. ALL Begin Date End Date Sort 0 Ascending 0-1 Descending Search Results 50 Docket(s) found matching search criteria. Docket Docket Text Date 04/14/2011 JE>SEE ATTACHED IMAGE Amount Amount Images /28/2011 JE>SEE ATTACHED IMAGE /31/2011 JE>SEE ATTACHED IMAGE /21/2011 STATE'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO 0.00 CAFARO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A REDACTION ORDER & FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING USE AND DISCLOSURE OF BILLS OF PARTICULAR FILED UNDER SEAL BY PLAINTIFF [ONE DOCUMENT FILED UNDER 10 CR 800, 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, AND 10 CR 800 I] Attorney: WILL ESQ, DENNIS P (38129) 01/05/2011 MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER: (1) REDACTING THREE REFERENCES CONTAINED IN STATE'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME IN WHICH TO COMPLY WITH CRIMINAL RULE 16 DISCOVERY REQUIREMENTS AND FOR AN ORDER ALLOWING DISCLOSURE; AND (2) THE ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING DISCLOSURE AND USE OF BILLS OF THE OHIO LEGAL BLqNK CO INC. EXHIBIT Jt. Rcr R`. CLEVELAND OHIO ^ lst? /20/2011

20 Public Access - Docket List Page 2 of 9 PARTICULAR FILED UNDER SEAL FILED BY DEFENDANTS ANTHONY M CARFARO SR, FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., AND THE MARION PLAZA INC. [ONE DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR 800, 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800B, 10CR800C,AND 10CR8001] Attorney: CASCARILLA, RALPH E. (13526) 01/03/2011 BILL OF PARTICULARS FOR ANTHONY M. CAFARO, SR; THE CARARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA, INC. AND JOHN MCNALLY IV FILED BY PLAINTIFF [PLEASE NOTE ONE PLEADING FILED UNDER SEAL AND CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR 800; 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, AND 10 CR 800 D] 12/21/2010 JE> DECISION AND ORDER. (WOLFF, SITTING ON ASSIGNMENT) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 12/03/2010 JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR., THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA INC., AND FLORA CAFARO TO ENLARGE THE JANUARY 3, 2011 PRETRIAL MOTION FILING DEADLINE FILED [INCL ALL CAFARO DEFT'S] 12/03/2010 REPLY OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER VCATING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14,2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PATRICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED 12/03/2010 RESPONSE OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO, THE MARION PLAZA INC AND FLORA CAFARO TO MOTION OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED 12/02/2010 MOTION OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV FOR AN ORDER CONFIRMING THEIR RIGHT lst? /20/2011

21 Public Access - Docket List Page 3 of 9 TO FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14,2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT AS PART THE PUBLIC RECORD FILED Attorney: LITTLE ESQ, MARION H (42679) 12/02/2010 MOTION IN LIMINE OF THE STATE OF OHIO WITH RESPECT TO THE JOINT MOTIONS OF DEFT'S MICHAEL SCIORTINO AND JOHN MCNALLY IV AND OTHER DEFT'S FILED Attorney: WILL ESQ, DENNIS P (38129) 12/01/2010 JE> IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, THAT THE CAFARO DEFT'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PROCESS SERVERS IS GRANTED. THOMAS COOL, PRESIDENT OF NORTHEAST OHIO COURIER AND SUBPOENA SERVICE INC., PO BOX 547 WARREN OHIO AND/OR GARY HALL OF GARY HALL CONSULTING LLC, 4887 MILLS CREEK LANE, NORTH RIDGEVILLE OHIO ARE HEREBY DESIGNATED AS SPECIAL PROCESS SERVERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING SUBPOENAS IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER. IT IS SO ORDERED. (WILLIAM H WOLFF JR) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 12/01/2010 JE> THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF, INSTANTER, IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY M CAFARO SR, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO, THE MARION PLACA INC AND FLORA CAFARO TO DISMISS INDICTMENT IS SUSTAINED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (WILLIM H WOLFF JR- SITTING ON ASSIGNMENT) F SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 11/30/2010 RESPONSE OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR., THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA INC., AND FLORA CAFARO TO MOTION OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC lst? /20/2011

22 Public Access - Docket List Page 4 of 9 ACCESS TO BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED 11/30/2010 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF, INSTANTER, IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR., THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA INC AND FLORA CAFARO TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) 11/30/2010 MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR., THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA INC AND FLORA CAFARO FOR APPOINTMENT OF PROCESS SERVERS FILED Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) 11/23/2010 JE> FOLLOWING MOTIONS ARE SET FOR HEARING ON 9:00AM: SEE ENTRY. PARTIES ARE EXPECTED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON THE EVIDENTIARY ISSUES WHICH THE VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV ASSERT THAT THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS BEFORE ENTERING A SEALING ORDER. (WOLFF, SITTING ON ASSIGNMENT) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 11/23/2010 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO, FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO AND THE MARION PLAZA INC TO TEMPORARILY SEAL ALL BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND NOTCIES OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE 404 (B) EVIDENCE UNTIL AFTER TRIAL FILED UNDER SEAL BY PLAINTIFF- ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS CR 800, 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, 10 CR /22/2010 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR, FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL AND THE MARION PLAZA TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT FILED UNDER BY THE PLAINTIFF [ONE MOTION CONTAINING CASE NO. 10 CR 800, 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, 10 CR /18/2010 MOTION OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE SEPTEMBER lst? /20/2011

23 Public Access - Docket List Page 5 of 9 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT-ONE PLEADING CONTAINING NAMES OF ALL DEFENDANTS FILED UNDER 10 CR 800-FOR IMAGE PLEASE SEE 10 CR 800 Attorney: LITTLE ESQ, MARION H (42679) 11/16/2010 LIMITED NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ TV REGARDING ALL MOTIONS RULINGS AND/OR HEARINGS WITH RESPECT TO ANY FORM OF CLOSURE FILED-PLEASE NOTE ONE PLEADING WITH ALL DEFENDANTS NAMES FILED UNDER 10 CR 800 Attorney: LITTLE ESQ, MARION H (42679) 11/10/2010 MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TEMPORARILY SEAL ALL BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND NOTICES OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE RULE 404(B) EVIDENCE UNTIL AFTER TRIAL FILED BY DEFT [INCL ALL CAFARO DEFT'S] Attorney: CASCARILLA, RALPH E. (13526) 10/20/2010 REGULAR MAIL POSTAGE FEES /20/2010 COPIES ISSUED OF 10/20/10 ORDER RE: MOTION HEARING TO ATTY. CLAY AND ATTY. CASCARILLA 10/13/2010 NOTICE OF FURNISHING RULE DISCOVERY MATERIALS FILED BY STATE [ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR 800 I FILED] Attorney: MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P (24395) 10/13/2010 SUPPLEMENT TO BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO JOINT MOTION OF CERTAIN DEFENEDANTS REGARDING GRAND JURY SECRECY AND REQUEST FOR HEARING FILED BY STATE [ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR 800 I FILED] Attorney: MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P (24395) 10/08/2010 NOTICE OF FURNISHING OF RULE DISCOVERY MATERIALS FILED BY PLAINTIFF-PLEASE NOTE ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR 8001 Attorney: lst? /20/2011

24 Public Access - Docket List Page 6 of 9 MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P (24395) 10/04/2010 JE> MATTER HAS BEEN SET FOR HEARING ON MOTION TO ADDRESS APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF GRAND JURY SECRECY FOR 9:00AM. (WOLFF, SITTING ON ASSIGNMENT) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 10/01/2010 BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO JOINT MOTION OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS REGARDING GRAND JURY SECRECY AND REQUEST FOR HEARING FILED BY PLAINTIFF UNDER SEAL-ONE PLEADING FILED CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR 800 I 09/27/2010 NOTICE OF FURNISHING OF RULE DISCOVERY MATERIALS FILED BY PLAINTIFF-PLEASE NOTE ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR 800 I Attorney: MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P (24395) 09/15/2010 Issue Date: 09/15/2010 Service: COPIES OF 9/14/10 JE TO PARTIES Method: (CP) REGULAR MAIL Cost Per: $ 0.44 THE CAFARO COMPANY c/o ATTY: CASCARILLA, RALPH E. THE TOWER AT ERIEVIEW 1301 E NINTH ST, SUITE 3500 CLEVELAND, OH Tracking No: R THE CAFARO COMPANY c/o ATTY: CLAY, DARRELL A THE TOWER AT ERIEVIEW 1301 E NINTH ST STE 3500 CLEVELAND, OH Tracking No: R /15/2010 COPIES ISSUED OF 9/14/10 JE TO PARTIES 09/14/2010 JE>SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER. (REFER TO DETAILED ENTRY) (WILLIAM H WOLFF JR.) 09/10/2010 Issue Date: 09/10/2010 Service: COPIES OF 9/9/10 JE ISSUED TO PARTIES Method: (CP) REGULAR MAIL Cost Per: $ 0.44 THE CAFARO COMPANY c/o ATTY: CLAY, DARRELL A THE TOWER AT ERIEVIEW 1301 E NINTH ST STE 3500 CLEVELAND, OH Tracking No: R THE CAFARO COMPANY c/o ATTY: CASCARILLA, RALPH E. THE TOWER AT ERIEVIEW 1301 E NINTH ST, SUITE 3500 CLEVELAND, OH Tracking No: R /10/2010 COPIES ISSUED OF 9/9/10 JE TO PARTIES 09/09/2010 JE> THIS MATTER WAS PRETRIED lst? /20/2011

25 Public Access - Docket List Page 7 of 9 SEPT 9, 2010 WITH ALL DEFTS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND THE STATE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. IN VIEW OF THE ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL THE COMPLEXITY OF THE CASE AND THE WAIVER OF ALL DEFTS OF THEIR RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL AS PROVIDED BY STATUTE, TRIAL IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN JUNE 6, THE STATE WILL PROVIDE OPEN FILE DISCOVERY TO COUNSEL FOR THE DEFTS ON OR BEFORE SEPT 23, 2010 AND INFORM COUNSEL FOR THE DEFTS WHEN THE STATES PROVISION OF DISCOVERY IS COMPLETE. THE DEFTS SHALL HAVE NINETY DAYS TO PROVIDE RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY EXCEPT FOR DISCLOSURE OF THEIR EXPERT WITNESSES. THE STATE HAS NO OBJECTION TO ANY PENDING DISCOVERY MOTIONS OF THE DEFT'S AND THOSE MOTIONS ARE SUSTAINED. ALL FILINGS IN THIS CASE SHALL BE UNDER S EAL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FILINGS THAT ARE CLEARLY PROCEDURAL AND CANNOT POSSIBLY IMPLICATE DEFT'S CONCERN ABOUT RECEIVING A FAIR TRIAL. PLEADINGS SHALL BE SERVED UPON ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL FOR THE DEFTS SHALL HAVE FOURTEEN DAYS FROM FILING TO MAKE OBJECTIONS AND THE STATE SHALL HAVE FOURTEEN DAYS TO RESPOND AND COUNSEL FOR THE AFFECTED PARTIES MAY REQUEST A HEARING IF DEEMED NECESSARY. ALL PRETRIAL MOTIONS SHALL BE FILED ON OR BEFORE JAN 3, THE PREFERRED METHOD OF SERVICE IS BY E MAIL. ALL FILINGS SHALL BE SENT TO JUDGE WOLFF AT THE TIME THE ORIGINAL IS FILED WITH THE CLERIC IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE WILLIAM H WOLFF JR) 09/09/2010 WAIVER OF RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL FILED BY DEFENDANT CAFARO COMPANY 08/26/2010 NOTICE OF THE INTENT OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO VOLUNTARILY COMPLY WITH OHIO CRIMINAL RULES 7(E) AND 16(13) AND LOCAL lst? /20/2011

26 Public Access - Docket List Page 8 of 9 CRIMINAL RULE 9 FILED 08/12/2010 Issue Date: 08/12/2010 Service: COPIES OF 08/04/10 Method: (CP) REGULAR MAIL Cost Per: $ 0.44 THE CAFARO COMPANY c/o ATTY: CASCARILLA, RALPH E. THE TOWER AT ERIEVIEW 1301 E NINTH ST, SUITE 3500 CLEVELAND, OH Tracking No: R THE CAFARO COMPANY c/o ATTY: CLAY, DARRELL A THE TOWER AT ERIEVIEW 1301 E NINTH ST STE 3500 CLEVELAND, OH Tracking No: R GAINS, PAUL J. c/o ATTY: GAINS, PAUL J. MAHONING CO PROSECUTOR 21 W BOARDMAN ST YOUNGSTOWN, OH Tracking No: R /12/2010 COPIES ISSUED OF 08/04/10 JE TO PARTIES 08/06/2010 JE> THE ABOVE MATTER WILL BE SET FOR A PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, WITH CLIENTS, ON 9:00 AM. (JUDGE WOLFF) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 08/06/2010 JE> CERTIFICATE OF ASSIGNMENT HONORABLE WILLIAM HERMAN WOLFF JR A RETIRED JUDGE OF THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS. (ERIC BROWN, CHIEF JUSTICE OF OHIO SUPREME COURT) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 08/04/2010 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ATTORNEYS RALPH CASCARILLA AND DARRELL CLAY ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT THE CAFARO COMPANY 08/04/2010 JE> WITHIN CAUSE WAS ASSIGNED TO COURTROOM #5. GIVEN CASES 10CR800 (A-I) INVOLVES PAST AND PRESENT ELECTED OFFICIALS AND LOCAL ATTYS FROM MAH CTY A CONFLICT EXISTS WHICH REQUIRES JUDGES OF GENERAL DIVISION OF MAH CTY COMMON PLEAS COURT TO RESCUSE THEMSELVES FROM ABOVE CAPTIONED CASE AND REQUESTS OHIO SUPREME COURT REASSIGN THIS MATTER TO A VISITING JUDGE. (KRICHBAUM, DURKIN, EVANS, SWEENEY, D'APOLITO) 08/03/2010 JE> BY INQUIRY OF THE COURT, DEFT THE CAFARO CO. ACKNOWLEGES RECEIPT OF A COPY OF THE INDICTMENT. ATTY J. lst? /20/2011

27 Public Access - Docket List Page 9 of 9 ALAN JOHNSON IS RETAINED AS DEFENSE COUNSEL. DEFT PLEADS NOT GUILTY. THIS CASE IS ASSIGNED TO COURTROOM 5 (JUDGE D'APOLITO). INITIAL PRE- TRIAL IS SET FOR 1:30pm. THE COURT SETS THIS CASE FOR TRIAL ON l0am. (SWEENEY) 08/03/2010 THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT HE IS THE ATTY WHO WILL TRY THIS CASE-JOHNSON 08/03/2010 JE> DEFT, THE CAFARO COMPANY'S WAIVER OF INDICTMENT. (SWEENEY) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 08/03/2010 SUMMONS RETURNED & FILED SERVED--THE CAFARO CO. SERVICE ACCEPTED BY ATTY JOHN MCCAFFREY ON BEHALF OF CLIENT VIA FED EX 07/29/2010 DIRECT PRESENTMENT, INDICTMENT FILED lst? /20/2011

28 Public Access - Docket List Page 1 of 9 General Inquiry Docket Search CR B STATE OF OHIO - vs- OHIO VALLEY MALL COMPANY VJ Search Criteria Docket Dese. ALL Begin Date End Date Sort C. Ascending #Descending Search Results 51 Docket(s) found matching search criteria. Docket Docket Text Date 04/14/2011 JE>SEE ATTACHED IMAGE Amount Amount Images Due /28/2011 JE>SEE ATTACHED IMAGE /31/2011 JE>SEE ATTACHED IMAGE /21/2011 STATE'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO CAFARO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A REDACTION ORDER & FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING USE AND DISCLOSURE OF BILLS OF PARTICULAR FILED UNDER SEAL BY PLAINTIFF [ONE DOCUMENT FILED UNDER 10 CR 800, 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, AND 10 CR 800 I] Attorney: WILL ESQ, DENNIS P (38129) 01/05/2011 MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER: (1) REDACTING THREE REFERENCES CONTAINED IN STATE'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME IN WHICH TO COMPLY WITH CRIMINAL RULE 16 DISCOVERY REQUIREMENTS AND FOR AN ORDER ALLOWING DISCLOSURE; AND (2) THE ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING DISCLOSURE AND USE OF BILLS OF THE OHIO LEGAL BLANK CO., INC: EXHIBIT ;Tt. Rar^^ F cleveland, GHIO 441a2199..` lst? /20/2011

29 Public Access - Docket List Page 2 of 9 PARTICULAR FILED UNDER SEAL FILED BY DEFENDANTS ANTHONY M CARFARO SR., FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., AND THE MARION PLAZA INC. [ONE DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR 800, 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, AND 10 CR 800 I] Attomey: CASCARILLA, RALPH E. (13526) 01/03/2011 BILL OF PARTICULARS FOR ANTHONY M. CAFARO, SR; THE CARARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA, INC. AND JOHN MCNALLY IV FILED BY PLAINTIFF [PLEASE NOTE ONE PLEADING FILED UNDER SEAL AND CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR 800; 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, AND 10 CR 800 D] 12/21/2010 JE> DECISION AND ORDER. (WOLFF, SITTING ON ASSIGNMENT) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 12/03/2010 JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR., THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA INC., AND FLORA CAFARO TO ENLARGE THE JANUARY 3,2011 PRETRIAL MOTION FILING DEADLINE FILED [INCL ALL CAFARO DEFT'S] Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) 12/03/2010 REPLY OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER VCATING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14,2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PATRICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED 12/03/2010 RESPONSE OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO, THE MARION PLAZA INC AND FLORA CAFARO TO MOTION OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED 12/02/2010 MOTION OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV FOR AN lst? /20/2011

30 Public Access - Docket List Page 3 of 9 ORDER CONFIRMING THEIR RIGHT TO FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR AN ORDER VACTING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14,2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT AS PART THE PUBLIC RECORD FILED Attorney: LITTLE ESQ, MARION H (42679) 12/02/2010 MOTION IN LIMINE OF THE STATE OF OHIO WITH RESPECT TO THE JOINT MOTIONS OF DEFT'S MICHAEL SCIORTINO AND JOHN MCNALLY IV AND OTHER DEFT'S FILED Attorney: WILL ESQ, DENNIS P (38129) 12/01/2010 JE> IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, THAT THE CAFARO DEFT'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PROCESS SERVERS IS GRANTED. THOMAS COOL, PRESIDENT OF NORTHEAST OHIO COURIER AND SUBPOENA SERVICE INC., PO BOX 547 WARREN OHIO AND/OR GARY HALL OF GARY HALL CONSULTING LLC, 4887 MILLS CREEK LANE, NORTH RIDGEVILLE OHIO ARE HEREBY DESIGNATED AS SPECIAL PROCESS SERVERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING SUBPOENAS IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER. IT IS SO ORDERED. (WILLIAM H WOLFF JR) SEE ATTACHEDIMAGE 12/01/2010 JE> THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF, INSTANTER, IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY M CAFARO SR, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO, THE MARION PLACA INC AND FLORA CAFARO TO DISMISS INDICTMENT IS SUSTAINED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (WILLIM H WOLFF JR- SITTING ON ASSIGNMENT) SEE ATTACHEDIMAGE 11/30/2010 RESPONSE OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR., THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA INC AND FLORA CAFARO TO MOTION OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 SEALING lst? /20/2011

31 Public Access - Docket List Page 4 of 9 ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED 11/30/2010 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF, INSTANTER, IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR., THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA INC AND FLORA CAFARO TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED Attomey: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) 11/30/2010 MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR., THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA INC., AND FLORA CAFARO FOR APPOINTMENT OF PROCESS SERVERS FILED Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) 11/23/2010 JE> FOLLOWING MOTIONS ARE SET FOR HEARING ON 9:00AM: SEE ENTRY. PARTIES ARE EXPECTED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON THE EVIDENTIARY ISSUES WHICH THE VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV ASSERT THAT THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS BEFORE ENTERING A SEALING ORDER. (WOLFF, SITTING ON ASSIGNMENT) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 11/23/2010 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO, FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO AND THE MARION PLAZA INC TO TEMPORARILY SEAL ALL BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND NOTCIES OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE 404 (B) EVIDENCE UNTIL AFTER TRIAL FILED UNDER SEAL BY PLAINTIFF- ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS CR 800, 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, 10 CR /22/2010 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR, FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL AND THE MARION PLAZA TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT FILED UNDER BY THE PLAINTIFF [ONE MOTION CONTAINING CASE NO. 10 CR 800, 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, 10 CR /18/2010 MOTION OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV FOR AN lst? /20/2011

32 Public Access - Docket List Page 5 of 9 ORDER VACATING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14,2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT-ONE PLEADING CONTAINING NAMES OF ALL DEFENDANTS FILED UNDER 10 CR 800-FOR IMAGE PLEASE SEE 10 CR 800 Attorney: LITTLE ESQ, MARION H (42679) 11/16/2010 LIMITED NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ TV REGARDING ALL MOTIONS RULINGS AND/OR HEARINGS WITH RESPECT TO ANY FORM OF CLOSURE FILED-PLEASE NOTE ONE PLEADING WITH ALL DEFENDANTS NAMES FILED UNDER 10 CR 800 Attorney: LITTLE ESQ, MARION H (42679) 11/10/2010 MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TEMPORARILY SEAL ALL BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND NOTICES OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE RULE 404(B) EVIDENCE UNTIL AFTER TRIAL FILED BY DEFT [INCL ALL CAFARO DEFT'S] Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) 10/20/2010 REGULAR MAIL POSTAGE FEES /20/2010 COPIES ISSUED OF 10/20/10 ORDER RE: MOTION HEARING TO ATTY. MCCAFFREY AND ATTY. PETRUZZI 10/13/2010 NOTICE OF FURNISHING RULE DISCOVERY MATERIALS FILED BY STATE [ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR 800 I FILED] Attorney: MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P (24395) 10/13/2010 SUPPLEMENT TO BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO JOINT MOTION OF CERTAIN DEFENEDANTS REGARDING GRAND JURY SECRECY AND REQUEST FOR HEARING FILED BY STATE [ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR 800 I FILED] Attorney: MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P (24395) 10/08/2010 NOTICE OF FURNISHING OF RULE DISCOVERY MATERIALS FILED BY PLAINTIFF-PLEASE NOTE ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS. lst? /20/2011

33 Public Access - Docket List Page 6 of 9 10 CR CR 800 I Attorney: MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P (24395) 10/04/2010 JE> MATTER HAS BEEN SET FOR HEARING ON MOTION TO ADDRESS APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF GRAND JURY SECRECY FOR 9:00AM. (WOLFF, SITTING ON ASSIGNMENT) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 10/01/2010 BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO JOINT MOTION OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS REGARDING GRAND JURY SECRECY AND REQUEST FOR HEARING FILED BY PLAINTIFF UNDER SEAL-ONE PLEADING FILED CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR /27/2010 NOTICE OF FURNISHING OF RULE DISCOVERY MATERIALS FILED BY PLAINTIFF-PLEASE NOTE ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR 8001 Attorney: MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P (24395) 09/15/2010 Issue Date: 09/15/2010 Service: COPIES OF 9/14/10 JE TO PARTIES Method: (CP) REGULAR MAIL Cost Per: $ 0.44 OHIO VALLEY MALL COMPANY c/o ATTY: PETRUZZI, ANTHONY R EATON CENTER STE SUPERIOR AVE CLEVELAND, OH Tracking No: R OHIO VALLEY MALL COMPANY c/o ATTY: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F SUPERIOR AVENUE EATON CENTER, SUITE 1350 CLEVELAND, OH Tracking No: R /15/2010 COPIES ISSUED OF 9/14/10 JE TO PARTIES 09/14/2010 JE> SUPLEMENTAL ORDER. (REFER TO DETAILED ENTRY) (JUDGE WILLIAM H WOLFF JR.) 09/10/2010 Issue Date: 09/10/2010 Service: COPIES OF 9/9/10 JE ISSUED TO PARTIES Method: (CP) REGULAR MAIL Cost Per: $ 0.44 OHIO VALLEY MALL COMPANY c/o ATTY: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F SUPERIOR AVENUE EATON CENTER, SUITE 1350 CLEVELAND, OH Tracking No: R OHIO VALLEY MALL COMPANY c/o ATTY: PETRUZZI, ANTHONY R EATON CENTER STE SUPERIOR AVE CLEVELAND, OH Tracking No: R /10/2010 COPIES ISSUED OF 9/9/10 JE TO lst? /20/2011

34 Public Access - Docket List Page 7 of 9 PARTIES 09/09/2010 JE> THIS MATTER WAS PRETRIED SEPT 9,2010 WITH ALL DEFTS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND THE STATE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. IN VIEW OF THE ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL THE COMPLEXITY OF THE CASE AND THE WAIVER OF ALL DEFTS OF THEIR RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL AS PROVIDED BY STATUTE, TRIAL IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN JUNE 6, THE STATE WILL PROVIDE OPEN FILE DISCOVERY TO COUNSEL FOR THE DEFTS ON OR BEFORE SEPT 23, 2010 AND INFORM COUNSEL FOR THE DEFTS WHEN THE STATES PROVISION OF DISCOVERY IS COMPLETE. THE DEFTS SHALL HAVE NINETY DAYS TO PROVIDE RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY EXCEPT FOR DISCLOSURE OF THEIR EXPERT WITNESSES. THE STATE HAS NO OBJECTION TO ANY PENDING DISCOVERY MOTIONS OF THE DEFT'S AND THOSE MOTIONS ARE SUSTAINED. ALL FILINGS IN THIS CASE SHALL BE UNDER S EAL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FILINGS THAT ARE CLEARLY PROCEDURAL AND CANNOT POSSIBLY IMPLICATE DEFT'S CONCERN ABOUT RECEIVING A FAIR TRIAL. PLEADINGS SHALL BE SERVED UPON ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL FOR THE DEFTS SHALL HAVE FOURTEEN DAYS FROM FILING TO MAKE OBJECTIONS AND THE STATE SHALL HAVE FOURTEEN DAYS TO RESPOND AND COUNSEL FOR THE AFFECTED PARTIES MAY REQUEST A HEARING IF DEEMED NECESSARY. ALL PRETRIAL MOTIONS SHALL BE FILED ON OR BEFORE JAN 3, THE PREFERRED METHOD OF SERVICE IS BY E MAIL. ALL FILINGS SHALL BE SENT TO JUDGE WOLFF AT THE TIME THE ORIGINAL IS FILED WITH THE CLERK. IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE WILLIAM H WOLFF JR) 08/27/20 10 UNOPPOSED JOINT MOTION OF DEFT'S ANTHONY CAFARO SR., FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO AND THE MARION PLAZA INC TO EXCUSE lst? /20/2011

35 Public Access - Docket List Page 8 of 9 PERSONAL ATTENDANCE AT THE SEPT 9, 2010 PRETRIAL FILED Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) 08/27/2010 JOINT MOTION OF DEFT'S ANTHONY CAFARO SR., FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO AND THE MARION PLAZA INC TO ENLARGE TIME FOR THE FILING OF PRETRIAL MOTIONS FILED Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) 08/26/2010 NOTICE OF THE INTENT OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO VOLUNTARILY COMPLY WITH OHIO CRIMINAL RULES 7(E) AND 16(B) AND LOCAL CRIMINAL RULE 9 FILED BY PLNTF 08/12/2010 Issue Date: 08/12/2010 Service: COPIES OF 08/04/10 Method: (CP) REGULAR MAIL Cost Per: $ 0.44 OHIO VALLEY MALL COMPANY c/o ATTY: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F SUPERIOR AVENUE EATON CENTER, SUITE 1350 CLEVELAND, OH Tracking No: R GAINS, PAUL J. c/o ATTY: GAINS, PAUL J. MAHONING CO PROSECUTOR 21 W BOARDMAN ST YOUNGSTOWN, OH Tracking No: R OHIO VALLEY MALL COMPANY c/o ATTY: PETRUZZI, ANTHONY R EATON CENTER STE SUPERIOR AVE CLEVELAND, OH Tracking No: R /12/2010 COPIES ISSUED OF 08/04/10 JE TO PARTIES 08/06/2010 JE> THE ABOVE MATTER WILL BE SET FOR A PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, WITH CLIENTS, ON 9:00 AM. (JUDGE WOLFF) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 08/06/2010 JE> CERTIFICATE OF ASSIGNMENT HONORABLE WILLIAM HERMAN WOLFF JR A RETIRED JUDGE OF THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS. (ERIC BROWN, CHIEF JUSTICE OF OHIO SUPREME COURT) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 08/04/2010 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ATTORNEYS JOHN F MCCAFFREY AND ANTHONY PETRUZZI ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT OHIO VALLEY MALL 08/04/2010 JE> WITHIN CAUSE WAS ASSIGNED TO COURTROOM #5. GIVEN CASES lst?633197i3 4/20/2011

36 Public Access - Docket List Page 9 of 9 10CR800 (A-I) INVOLVES PAST AND PRESENT ELECTED OFFICIALS AND LOCAL ATTYS FROM MAH CTY A CONFLICT EXISTS WHICH REQUIRES JUDGES OF GENERAL DIVISION OF MAH CTY COMMON PLEAS COURT TO RESCUSE THEMSELVES FROM ABOVE CAPTIONED CASE AND REQUESTS OHIO SUPREME COURT REASSIGN THIS MATTER TO A VISITING JUDGE. (KRICHBAUM, DURKIN, EVANS, SWEENEY, D'APOLITO) 08/03/2010 JE> BY INQUIRY OF THE COURT, DEFT THE OHIO VALLEY MALL CO. ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT OF THE COPY OF THE INDICTMENT. ATTY J. ALAN JOHNSON IS RETAINED AS DEFENSE COUNSEL.. THIS CASE IS ASSIGNED TO COURTROOM 5 (JUDGE D'APOLITO). INITIAL PRE- TRIAL IS SCHEDULED FOR l0am. THIS CASE IS SET FOR TRIAL ON l0am. (SWEENEY) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 08/03/2010 THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT HE IS THE ATTY WHO WILL TRY THIS CASE-JOHNSON 08/03/2010 JE> DEFT OHIO VALLEY MALL COMPANY'S WAIVER OF INDICTMENT. (SWEENEY) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 08/03/2010 SUMMONS RETURNED & FILED SERVED--OHIO VALLEY MALL CO. SERVICE ACCEPTED BY ATTY JOHN MCCAFFREY ON BEHALF OF CLIENT VIA FED EX 07/29/2010 DIRECT PRESENTMENT, INDICTMENT FILED lst? /20/2011

37 Public Access - Docket List Page 1 of 9 General Inquiry Docket Search CR C STATE OF OHIO - vs- THE MARION PLAZA INC VJ Search Criteria Docket Desc. ALL Begin Date End Date Sort 0 Ascending # Descending Search Results 50 Docket(s) found matching search criteria. Docket Docket Text Amount Amount Images Date 04/14/2011 JE>SEE ATTACHED IMAGE /28/2011 JE>SEE ATTACHED IMAGE /31/2011 JE>SEE ATTACHED IMAGE /21/2011 STATE'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO 0.00 CAFARO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A REDACTION ORDER & FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING USE AND DISCLOSURE OF BILLS OF PARTICULAR FILED UNDER SEAL BY PLAINTIFF [ONE DOCUMENT FILED UNDER 10 CR 800, 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, AND 10 CR 800 1] Attorney: WILL ESQ, DENNIS P (38129) 01/05/2011 MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER: (1) REDACTING THREE REFERENCES CONTAINED IN STATE'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME IN WHICH TO COMPLY WITH CRIMINAL RULE 16 DISCOVERY REQUIREMENTS AND FOR AN ORDER ALLOWING DISCLOSURE; AND (2) THE ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING DISCLOSURE AND USE OF BILLS OF ihe OHIO LEGAL BLANK CO, INC ' EXHIBIT Jt Rx_ 4 CLEVELAND, OHIO , lst? /20/2011

38 Public Access - Docket List Page 2 of 9 PARTICULAR FILED UNDER SEAL FILED BY DEFENDANTS ANTHONY M CARFARO SR., FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., AND THE MARION PLAZA INC. [ONE DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR 800, 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, AND 10 CR 800 I] Attorney: CASCARILLA, RALPH E. (13526) 01/03/2011 BILL OF PARTICULARS FOR ANTHONY M. CAFARO, SR; THE CARARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA, INC. AND JOHN MCNALLY IV FILED BY PLAINTIFF [PLEASE NOTE ONE PLEADING FILED UNDER SEAL AND CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR 800; 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, AND 10 CR 800 D] 12/21/2010 JE> DECISION AND ORDER. (WOLFF, SITTING ON ASSIGNMENT) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 12/03/2010 JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR., THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA INC., AND FLORA CAFARO TO ENLARGE THE JANUARY 3,2011 PRETRIAL MOTION FILING DEADLINE FILED [INCL ALL CAFARO DEFT'S] Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOfIN F. (39486) 12/03/2010 REPLY OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER VCATING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PATRICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED 12/03/2010 RESPONSE OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO, THE MARION PLAZA INC AND FLORA CAFARO TO MOTION OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED 12/02/2010 MOTION OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV FOR AN lst? /20/2011

39 Public Access - Docket List Page 3 of 9 ORDER CONFIRMING THEIR RIGHT TO FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR AN ORDER VACTING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14,2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT AS PART THE PUBLIC RECORD FILED Attomey: LITTLE ESQ, MARION H (42679) 12/02/2010 MOTION IN LIMINE OF THE STATE OF OHIO WITH RESPECT TO THE JOINT MOTIONS OF DEFT'S MICHAEL SCIORTINO AND JOHN MCNALLY IV AND OTHER DEFT'S FILED Attorney: WILL ESQ, DENNIS P (38129) 12/01/2010 JE> IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, THAT THE CAFARO DEFT'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PROCESS SERVERS IS GRANTED. THOMAS COOL, PRESIDENT OF NORTHEAST OHIO COURIER AND SUBPOENA SERVICE INC., PO BOX 547 WARREN OHIO AND/OR GARY HALL OF GARY HALL CONSULTING LLC, 4887 MILLS CREEK LANE, NORTH RIDGEVILLE OHIO ARE HEREBY DESIGNATED AS SPECIAL PROCESS SERVERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING SUBPOENAS IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER. IT IS SO ORDERED. (WILLIAM H WOLFF JR) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 12/01/2010 JE> THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF, INSTANTER, IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY M CAFARO SR, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO, THE MARION PLACA INC AND FLORA CAFARO TO DISMISS INDICTMENT IS SUSTAINED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (WILLIM H WOLFF JR- SITTING ON ASSIGNMENT) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 11/30/2010 RESPONSE OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR., THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO, THE MARION PLAZA INC AND FLORA CAFARO TO MOTION OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14,2010 SEALING lst? /20/2011

40 Public Access - Docket List Page 4 of 9 ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED 11/30/2010 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF, INSTANTER IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR., THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA INC AND FLORA CAFARO TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F.(39486) 11/30/2010 MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR., THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA INC., AND FLORA CAFARO FOR APPOINTMENT OF PROCESS SERVERS FILED Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) 11/23/2010 JE> FOLLOWING MOTIONS ARE SET FOR HEARING ON 9:00AM: SEE ENTRY. PARTIES ARE EXPECTED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON THE EVIDENTIARY ISSUES WHICH THE VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV ASSERT THAT THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS BEFORE ENTERING A SEALING ORDER. (WOLFF, SITTING ON ASSIGNMENT) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 11/23/2010 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO, FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO AND THE MARION PLAZA INC TO TEMPORARILY SEAL ALL BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND NOTCIES OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE 404 (B) EVIDENCE UNTIL AFTER TRIAL FILED UNDER SEAL BY PLAINTIFF- ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS CR 800, 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, 10 CR /22/2010 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR, FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL AND THE MARION PLAZA TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT FILED UNDER BY THE PLAINTIFF [ONE MOTION CONTAINING CASE NO. 10 CR 800, 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, 10 CR 800 I 11/18/2010 MOTION OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV FOR AN lst? /20/2011

41 Public Access - Docket List Page 5 of 9 ORDER VACATING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT-ONE PLEADING CONTAINING NAMES OF ALL DEFENDANTS FILED UNDER 10 CR 800-FOR IMAGE PLEASE SEE 10 CR 800 Attomey: LITTLE ESQ, MARION H (42679) 11/16/2010 LIMITED NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ TV REGARDING ALL MOTIONS RULINGS AND/OR HEARINGS WITH RESPECT TO ANY FORM OF CLOSURE FILED-PLEASE NOTE ONE PLEADING WITH ALL DEFENDANTS NAMES FILED UNDER 10 CR 800 Attorney: LITTLE ESQ, MARION H (42679) 11/10/2010 MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TEMPORARILY SEAL ALL BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND NOTICES OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE RULE 404(B) EVIDENCE UNTIL AFTER TRIAL FILED BY DEFT [INCL ALL CAFARO DEFT'S] Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOIIN F. (39486) 10/13/2010 NOTICE OF FURNISHING RULE DISCOVERY MATERIALS FILED BY STATE [ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS. l0 CR CR 800 I FILED] Attorney: MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P (24395) 10/13/2010 SUPPLEMENT TO BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO JOINT MOTION OF CERTAIN DEFENEDANTS REGARDING GRAND JURY SECRECY AND REQUEST FOR HEARING FILED BY STATE [ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR 800 I FILED] Attorney: MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P (24395) 10/08/2010 NOTICE OF FURNISHING OF RULE DISCOVERY MATERIALS FILED BY PLAINTIFF-PLEASE NOTE ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR 800 I Attorney: MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P (24395) 10/04/2010 JE> MATTER HAS BEEN SET FOR HEARING ON MOTION TO ADDRESS APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF GRAND JURY SECRECY FOR lst? /20/2011

42 Public Access - Docket List Page 6 of 9 9:00AM. (WOLFF, SITTING ON ASSIGNMENT) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 10/01/2010 BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO JOINT MOTION OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS REGARDING GRAND JURY SECRECY AND REQUEST FOR HEARING FILED BY PLAINTIFF UNDER SEAL-ONE PLEADING FILED CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR /27/2010 NOTICE OF FURNISHING OF RULE DISCOVERY MATERIALS FILED BY PLAINTIFF-PLEASE NOTE ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR 800 I Attomey: MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P (24395) 09/15/2010 Issue Date: 09/15/2010 Service: COPIES OF 9/14/10 JE TO PARTIES Method: (CP) REGULAR MAIL Cost Per: $ 0.44 THE MARION PLAZA INC c/o ATTY: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F SUPERIOR AVENUE EATON CENTER, SUITE 1350 CLEVELAND, OH Tracking No: R THE MARION PLAZA INC c/o ATTY: PETRUZZI, ANTHONY R EATON CENTER STE SUPERIOR AVE CLEVELAND, OH Tracking No: R /15/2010 COPIES ISSUED OF 9/14/10 JE TO PARTIES 09/14/2010 JE> SUPLEMENTAL ORDER. (REFER TO DETAILED ENTRY) (JUDGE WILLIAM H WOLFF JR.) 09/10/2010 Issue Date: 09/10/2010 Service: COPIES OF 9/9/10 JE ISSUED TO PARTIES Method: (CP) REGULAR MAIL Cost Per: $ 0.44 THE MARION PLAZA INC c/o ATTY: PETRUZZI, ANTHONY R EATON CENTER STE SUPERIOR AVE CLEVELAND, OH Tracking No: R THE MARION PLAZA INC c/o ATTY: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F SUPERIOR AVENUE EATON CENTER, SUITE 1350 CLEVELAND, OH Tracking No: R /10/2010 COPIES ISSUED OF 9/9/10 JE TO PARTIES 09/09/2010 JE> THIS MATTER WAS PRETRIED SEPT 9,2010 WITH ALL DEFTS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND THE STATE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. IN VIEW OF THE ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL THE lst? /20/2011

43 Public Access - Docket List Page 7 of 9 COMPLEXITY OF THE CASE AND THE WAIVER OF ALL DEFTS OF THEIR RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL AS PROVIDED BY STATUTE, TRIAL IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN JUNE 6, THE STATE WILL PROVIDE OPEN FILE DISCOVERY TO COUNSEL FOR THE DEFTS ON OR BEFORE SEPT 23, 2010 AND INFORM COUNSEL FOR THE DEFTS WHEN THE STATES PROVISION OF DISCOVERY IS COMPLETE. THE DEFTS SHALL HAVE NINETY DAYS TO PROVIDE RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY EXCEPT FOR DISCLOSURE OF THEIR EXPERT WITNESSES. THE STATE HAS NO OBJECTION TO ANY PENDING DISCOVERY MOTIONS OF THE DEFT'S AND THOSE MOTIONS ARE SUSTAINED. ALL FILINGS IN THIS CASE SHALL BE UNDER S EAL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FILINGS THAT ARE CLEARLY PROCEDURAL AND CANNOT POSSIBLY IMPLICATE DEFT'S CONCERN ABOUT RECEIVING A FAIR TRIAL. PLEADINGS SHALL BE SERVED UPON ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL FOR THE DEFTS SHALL HAVE FOURTEEN DAYS FROM FILING TO MAKE OBJECTIONS AND THE STATE SHALL HAVE FOURTEEN DAYS TO RESPOND AND COUNSEL FOR THE AFFECTED PARTIES MAY REQUEST A HEARING IF DEEMED NECESSARY. ALL PRETRIAL MOTIONS SHALL BE FILED ON OR BEFORE JAN 3, THE PREFERRED METHOD OF SERVICE IS BY E MAIL. ALL FILINGS SHALL BE SENT TO JUDGE WOLFF AT THE TIME THE ORIGINAL IS FILED WITH THE CLERK. IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE WILLIAM H WOLFF JR) 09/09/2010 WAIVER OF RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL FILED BY DEFENDANT MARION PLAZA 08/27/2010 UNOPPOSED JOINT MOTION OF DEFT'S ANTHONY CAFARO SR, FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO AND THE MARION PLAZA INC TO EXCUSE PERSONAL ATTENDANCE AT THE SEPT 9,2010 PRETRIAL FILED Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) lst? /20/2011

44 Public Access - Docket List Page 8 of 9 08/27/2010 JOINT MOTION OF DEFT'S ANTHONY CAFARO SR., FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO AND THE MARION PLAZA INC TO ENLARGE TIME FOR THE FILING OF PRETRIAL MOTIONS FILED Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) 08/26/2010 NOTICE OF THE INTENT OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO VOLUNTARILY COMPLY WITH OHIO CRIMINAL RULES 7(E) AND 16(B) AND LOCAL CRIMINAL RULE 9 FILED 08/12/2010 Issue Date: 08/12/2010 Service: COPIES OF 08/04/10 Method: (CP) REGULAR MAIL Cost Per: $ 0.44 THE MARION PLAZA INC c/o ATTY: PETRUZZI, ANTHONY R EATON CENTER STE SUPERIORAVE CLEVELAND, OH Tracking No: R GAINS, PAUL J. c/o ATTY: GAINS, PAUL J. MAHONING CO PROSECUTOR 21 W BOARDMAN ST YOUNGSTOWN, OH Tracking No: R THE MARION PLAZA INC c/o ATTY: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F SUPERIOR AVENUE EATON CENTER, SUITE 1350 CLEVELAND, OH Tracking No: R /12/2010 COPIES ISSUED OF 08/04/10 JE TO PARTIES 08/06/2010 JE> THE ABOVE MATTER WILL BE SET FOR A PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, WITH CLIENTS, ON 9:00 AM. (JUDGE WOLFF) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 08/06/2010 JE> CERTIFICATE OF ASSIGNMENT HONORABLE WILLIAM HERMAN WOLFF JR A RETIRED JUDGE OF THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS. (ERIC BROWN, CHIEF JUSTICE OF OHIO SUPREME COURT) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 08/04/2010 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ATTORNEYS JOIIN F MCCAFFREY AND ANTHONY PETRUZZI ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT THE MARION PLAZA INC 08/04/2010 JE> WITHIN CAUSE WAS ASSIGNED TO COURTROOM #5. GIVEN CASES 10CR800 (A-I) INVOLVES PAST AND PRESENT ELECTED OFFICIALS AND LOCAL ATTYS FROM MAH CTY A CONFLICT EXISTS WHICH REQUIRES JUDGES OF GENERAL lst? /20/2011

45 Public Access - Docket List Page 9 of 9 DIVISION OF MAH CTY COMMON PLEAS COURT TO RESCUSE THEMSELVES FROM ABOVE CAPTIONED CASE AND REQUESTS OHIO SUPREME COURT REASSIGN THIS MATTER TO A VISITING JUDGE. (KRICHBAUM, DURKIN, EVANS, SWEENEY, D'APOLITO) 08/03/2010 JE> BY INQUIRY OF THE COURT, DEFT THE MARION PLAZA INC. ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT OF A COPY OF THE INDICTMENT. ATTY J. ALAN JOHNSON IS RETAINED AS DEFENSE COUNSEL. THIS CASE IS ASSIGNED TO COURTROOM 5 (JUDGE D'APOLITO). INITIAL PRE- TRIAL IS SCHEDULED FOR l0am. THIS CASE IS SET FOR TRIAL ON l0am. (SWEENEY) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 08/03/2010 THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT HE IS THE ATTY WHO WILL TRY THIS CASE-JOHNSON 08/03/2010 JE> DEFT THE MARION PLAZA INC'S WAIVER OF INDICTMENT. (SWEENEY) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 08/03/2010 SUMMONS RETURNED & FILED SERVED--THE MARION PLAZA INC. SERVICE ACCEPTED BY ATTY JOHN MCCAFFREY ON BEHALF OF CLIENT VIA FED EX 07/29/2010 DIRECT PRESENTMENT, INDICTMENT FILED lst? /20/2011

46 Public Access - Docket List Page 1 of 9 General Inquiry Docket Search CR I STATE OF OHIO - vs- CAFARO, FLORA VJ Search Criteria Docket Desc. ALL Begin Date End Date Sort 0 Ascending,* Descending Search Results 57 Docket(s) found matching search criteria. Docket Docket Text Date 04/14/2011 JE>SEE ATTACHED IMAGE Amount Amount Images Due /28/2011 JE>SEE ATTACHED IMAGE /31/2011 JE>SEE ATTACHED IMAGE /21/2011 STATE'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO CAFARO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A REDACTION ORDER & FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING USE AND DISCLOSURE OF BILLS OF PARTICULAR FILED UNDER SEAL BY PLAINTIFF [ONE DOCUMENT FILED UNDER 10 CR 800, 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, AND 10 CR 800 I] Attotney: WILL ESQ, DENNIS P (38129) 01/05/2011 MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER: (1) REDACTING THREE REFERENCES CONTAINED IN STATE'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME IN WHICH TO COMPLY WITH CRIMINAL RULE 16 DISCOVERY REQUIREMENTS AND FOR AN ORDER ALLOWING DISCLOSURE; AND (2) THE ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING DISCLOSURE AND USE OF BILLS OF THE OHIO LEGAL BLANK CO., INC. EXHIBIT.Tt_ Rar F 5 CLEVEIAND, OHIO lst? /20/2011

47 Public Access - Docket List Page 2 of 9 PARTICULAR FILED UNDER SEAL FILED BY DEFENDANTS ANTHONY M CARFARO SR, FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., AND THE MARION PLAZA INC. [ONE DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR 800, 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800B, 10CR800C,AND 10CR80011 Attorney: CASCARILLA, RALPH E. (13526) 12/21/2010 JE> DECISION AND ORDER (WOLFF, SITTING ON ASSIGNMENT) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 12/03/2010 JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR., THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA INC., AND FLORA CAFARO TO ENLARGE THE JANUARY 3, 2011 PRETRIAL MOTION FILING DEADLINE FILED [INCL ALL CAFARO DEFT'S] Attomey: JOHNSON ESQ, J. ALAN (10504) 12/03/2010 REPLY OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER VCATING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14,2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PATRICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED 12/03/2010 RESPONSE OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO, THE MARION PLAZA INC AND FLORA CAFARO TO MOTION OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED 12/02/2010 MOTION OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV FOR AN ORDER CONFIRMING THEIR RIGHT TO FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR AN ORDER VACTING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT AS PART THE PUBLIC RECORD FILED Attorney: LITTLE lst? /20/2011

48 Public Access - Docket List Page 3 of 9 ESQ, MARION H (42679) 12/02/2010 MOTION IN LIMINE OF THE STATE OF OHIO WITH RESPECT TO THE JOINT MOTIONS OF DEFT'S MICHAEL SCIORTINO AND JOHN MCNALLY IV AND OTHER DEFT'S FILED Attorney: WILL ESQ, DENNIS P (38129) 12/01/2010 JE> IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, THAT THE CAFARO DEFT'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PROCESS SERVERS IS GRANTED. THOMAS COOL, PRESIDENT OF NORTHEAST OHIO COURIER AND SUBPOENA SERVICE INC., PO BOX 547 WARREN OHIO AND/OR GARY HALL OF GARY HALL CONSULTING LLC, 4887 MILLS CREEK LANE, NORTH RIDGEVILLE OHIO ARE HEREBY DESIGNATED AS SPECIAL PROCESS SERVERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING SUBPOENAS IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER. IT IS SO ORDERED. (WILLIAM H WOLFF JR) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 12/01/2010 JE>THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF, INSTANTER, IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY M CAFARO SR, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO, THE MARION PLACA INC AND FLORA CAFARO TO DISMISS INDICTMENT IS SUSTAINED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (WILLIM H WOLFF JR- SITTING ON ASSIGNMENT) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 11/30/2010 RESPONSE OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR., THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA INC AND FLORA CAFARO TO MOTION OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT FILED 11/30/2010 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF, INSTANTER, IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO, SR., THE CAFARO CO., OHIO VALLEY MALL CO., THE MARION PLAZA INC., AND FLORA lst? /20/2011

49 Public Access - Docket List Page 4 of 9 CAFARO TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FILED Attorney: JOHNSON ESQ, J. ALAN (10504) 11/30/2010 MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR., THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO, THE MARION PLAZA INC. AND FLORA CAFARO FOR APPOINTMENT OF PROCESS SERVERS FILED Attorney: JOHNSON ESQ, J. ALAN (10504) 11/23/2010 JE> FOLLOWING MOTIONS ARE SET FOR HEARING ON 9:00AM: SEE ENTRY. PARTIES ARE EXPECTED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON THE EVIDENTIARY ISSUES WHICH THE VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV ASSERT THAT THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS BEFORE ENTERING A SEALING ORDER. (WOLFF, SITTING ON ASSIGNMENT) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 11/23/2010 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO, FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO AND THE MARION PLAZA INC TO TEMPORARILY SEAL ALL BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND NOTCIES OF INTENT TO 1NTRODUCE 404 (B) EVIDENCE UNTIL AFTER TRIAL FILED UNDER SEAL BY PLAINTIFF- ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS CR 800, 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, 10 CR /22/2010 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY CAFARO SR, FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL AND THE MARION PLAZA TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT FILED UNDER BY THE PLAINTIFF [ONE MOTION CONTAINING CASE NO. 10 CR 800, 10 CR 800 A, 10 CR 800 B, 10 CR 800 C, 10 CR 800 I 11/18/2010 MOTION OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ-TV FOR AN ORDER VACATING THE SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 SEALING ORDERS AND PERMITTING PUBLIC ACCESS TO BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT-ONE PLEADING CONTAINING NAMES OF ALL DEFENDANTS FILED UNDER 10 CR 800-FOR IMAGE PLEASE SEE 10 CR 800 Attorney: LITTLE ESQ, MARION H 4/20/2011

50 Public Access - Docket List Page 5 of 9 (42679) 11/16/2010 LIMITED NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR AND WFMJ TV REGARDING ALL MOTIONS RULINGS AND/OR HEARINGS WITH RESPECT TO ANY FORM OF CLOSURE FILED-PLEASE NOTE ONE PLEADING WITH ALL DEFENDANTS NAMES FILED UNDER 10 CR 800 Attorney: LITTLE ESQ, MARION H (42679) 11/10/2010 MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TEMPORARILY SEAL ALL BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND NOTICES OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE RULE 404(B) EVIDENCE UNTIL AFTER SEAL FILED BY DEFT [INCL ALL CAFARO DEFT'S] Attomey: JOHNSON ESQ, J. ALAN (10504) 10/20/2010 REGULAR MAIL POSTAGE FEES /20/2010 COPIES ISSUED OF 10/20/10 ORDER RE: MOTION HEARING TO ATTY. J. ALAN JOHNSON AND ATTY. REED EDDY 10/13/2010 NOTICE OF FURNISHING RULE DISCOVERY MATERIALS FILED BY STATE [ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR 800 I FILED] Attomey: MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P (24395) 10/13/2010 SUPPLEMENT TO BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO JOINT MOTION OF CERTAIN DEFENEDANTS REGARDING GRAND JURY SECRECY AND REQUEST FOR HEARING FILED BY STATE [ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR 800 I FILED] Attomey: MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P (24395) 10/08/2010 NOTICE OF FURNISHING OF RULE DISCOVERY MATERIALS FILED BY PLAINTIFF-PLEASE NOTE ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR 800 I Attomey: MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P (24395) 10/04/2010 JE> MATTER HAS BEEN SET FOR HEARING ON MOTION TO ADDRESS APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF GRAND JURY SECRECY FOR 9:00AM. (WOLFF, SITTING ON ASSIGNMENT) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE lst? /20/2011

51 Public Access - Docket List Page 6 of 9 10/01/2010 BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO JOINT MOTION OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS REGARDING GRAND JURY SECRECY AND REQUEST FOR HEARING FILED BY PLAINTIFF UNDER SEAL-ONE PLEADING FILED CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR 800 I 09/27/2010 NOTICE OF FURNISHING OF RULE DISCOVERY MATERIALS FILED BY PLAINTIFF-PLEASE NOTE ONE PLEADING CONTAINING CASE NOS. 10 CR CR 800 I Attorney: MUHEK ESQ, DAVID P (24395) 09/15/2010 Issue Date: 09/15/2010 Service: COPIES OF 9/14/10 JE TO PARTIES Method: (CP) REGULAR MAIL Cost Per: $ 0.44 CAFARO, FLORA c/o ATTY: REED EDDY ESQ, CYNTHIA 1720 GULF TOWER 707 GRANT STREET PITTSBURGH, PA Tracking No: R CAFARO, FLORA c/o ATTY: JOHNSON ESQ, J. ALAN 1720 GULF TOWER 707 GRANT STREET PITTSBURGH, PA Tracking No: R /15/2010 COPIES ISSUED OF 9/14/10 JE TO PARTIES 09/14/2010 JE> SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER. (REFER TO DETAILED ENTRY) (JUDGE WILLIAM H WOLFF JR.) 09/10/2010 Issue Date: 09/10/2010 Service: COPIES OF 9/9/10 JE TO PARTIES Method: (CP) REGULAR MAIL Cost Per: $ 0.44 CAFARO, FLORA c/o ATTY: JOHNSON ESQ, J. ALAN 1720 GULF TOWER 707 GRANT STREET PITTSBURGH, PA Tracking No: R CAFARO, FLORA c/o ATTY: REED EDDY ESQ, CYNTHIA 1720 GULF TOWER 707 GRANT STREET PITTSBURGH, PA Tracking No: R /10/2010 COPIES ISSUED OF 9/9/10 JE TO PARTIES 09/09/2010 JE> THIS MATTER WAS PRETRIED SEPT 9, 2010 WITH ALL DEFTS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND THE STATE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. IN VIEW OF THE ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL THE COMPLEXITY OF THE CASE AND THE WAIVER OF ALL DEFTS OF THEIR RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL AS PROVIDED BY STATUTE, TRIAL IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN JUNE 6, lst? /20/2011

52 Public Access - Docket List Page 7 of THE STATE WILL PROVIDE OPEN FILE DISCOVERY TO COUNSEL FOR THE DEFTS ON OR BEFORE SEPT 23, 2010 AND INFORM COUNSEL FOR THE DEFTS WHEN THE STATES PROVISION OF DISCOVERY IS COMPLETE. THE DEFTS SHALL HAVE NINETY DAYS TO PROVIDE RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY EXCEPT FOR DISCLOSURE OF THEIR EXPERT WITNESSES. THE STATE HAS NO OBJECTION TO ANY PENDING DISCOVERY MOTIONS OF THE DEFT'S AND THOSE MOTIONS ARE SUSTAINED. ALL FILINGS IN THIS CASE SHALL BE UNDER S EAL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FILINGS THAT ARE CLEARLY PROCEDURAL AND CANNOT POSSIBLY IMPLICATE DEFT'S CONCERN ABOUT RECEIVING A FAIR TRIAL. PLEADINGS SHALL BE SERVED UPON ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL FOR THE DEFTS SHALL HAVE FOURTEEN DAYS FROM FILING TO MAKE OBJECTIONS AND THE STATE SHALL HAVE FOURTEEN DAYS TO RESPOND AND COUNSEL FOR THE AFFECTED PARTIES MAY REQUEST A HEARING IF DEEMED NECESSARY. ALL PRETRIAL MOTIONS SHALL BE FILED ON OR BEFORE JAN 3, THE PREFERRED METHOD OF SERVICE IS BY E MAIL. ALL FILINGS SHALL BE SENT TO JUDGE WOLFF AT THE TIME THE ORIGINAL IS FILED WITH THE CLERK. IT IS SO ORDERED. (JUDGE WILLIAM H WOLFF JR) 09/09/2010 WAIVER OF RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL FILED BY DEFENDANT FLORA CAFARO 08/31/2010 STATE OF OHIO'S RESPONSE TO MOTION OF DEFT'S MARTIN YAVORCIK AND FLORA CAFARO FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS FILED 08/27/2010 UNOPPOSED JOINT MOTION OF DEFTS ANTHONY CAFARO SR., FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO AND THE MARION PLAZA INC TO EXCUSE PERSONAL ATTENDANCE AT THE SEPT 9,2010 PRETRIAL FIELD Attorney: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) lst? /20/2011

53 Public Access - Docket List Page 8 of 9 08/27/2010 JOINT MOTION OF DEFT'S ANTHONY CAFARO SR., FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO CO, OHIO VALLEY MALL CO AND THE MARION PLAZA INC TO ENLARGE TIME FOR THE FILING OF PRETRIAL MOTIONS FILED Attomey: MCCAFFREY, JOHN F. (39486) 08/27/2010 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AS COUNSEL FOR DEFT FLORA CAFARO FILED Attorney: DOYLE ESQ, WILLIAM T (16119) 08/27/2010 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL FOR DEFT FLORA CAFARO FILED Attomey: JOHNSON ESQ, J. ALAN (10504) 08/26/2010 NOTICE OF THE INTENT OF THE STATE OF OHIO TO VOLUNTARILY COMPLY WITH OHIO CRIMINAL RULES 7(E) AND 16(B) AND LOCAL CRIMINAL RULE 9 FILED 08/13/2010 Issue Date: 08/13/2010 Service: COPIES OF 08/04/10 Method: (CP) REGULAR MAIL Cost Per: $ 0.44 GAINS, PAUL J. c/o ATTY: GAINS, PAUL J. MAHONING CO PROSECUTOR 21 W BOARDMAN ST YOUNGSTOWN, OH Tracking No: R CAFARO, FLORA c/o ATTY: DOYLE ESQ, WILLIAM T 2000 STANDARD BLDG 1370 ONTARIO ST CLEVELAND, OH Tracking No: R /13/2010 COPIES ISSUED OF 08/04/10 JE TO PARTIES 08/11/2010 BCI FILED /06/2010 JE> THE ABOVE MATTER WILL BE SET FOR A PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, WITH CLIENTS, ON 9:00 AM. (JUDGE WOLFF) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 08/06/2010 JE> CERTIFICATE OF ASSIGNMENT HONORABLE WILLIAM HERMAN WOLFF JR A RETIRED JUDGE OF THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS. (ERIC BROWN, CHIEF JUSTICE OF OHIO SUPREME COURT) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 08/04/2010 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ATTORNEY WILLIAM T DOYLE ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT FLORA CAFARO 08/04/2010 RECOGNIZANCE OF ACCUSED FILED lst? /20/2011

54 Public Access - Docket List Page 9 of 9 08/04/2010 JE> WITHIN CAUSE WAS ASSIGNED TO COURTROOM #5. GIVEN CASES 10CR800 (A-I) INVOLVES PAST AND PRESENT ELECTED OFFICIALS AND LOCAL ATTYS FROM MAH CTY A CONFLICT EXISTS WHICH REQUIRES JUDGES OF GENERAL DIVISION OF MAH CTY COMMON PLEAS COURT TO RESCUSE THEMSELVES FROM ABOVE CAPTIONED CASE AND REQUESTS OHIO SUPREME COURT REASSIGN THIS MATTER TO A VISITING JUDGE. (KRICHBAUM, DURKIN, EVANS, SWEENEY, D'APOLITO) 08/03/2010 JE> DEFT ORDERED TO SELF REPORT TO MAHONING CTY JUSTICE CTR FOR BOOKING ON AT 12:00 NOON. AFTER BOOKING, SHERIFF IS ORDERED TO RELEASE DEFT FROM MAIIONING CTY JUSTICE CTR ON THIS MATTER ONLY. (SWEENEY) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 08/03/2010 JE> BY INQUIRY OF THE COURT, DEFT FLORA CAFARO ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT OF THE INDICTMENT. DEFT PLEADS NOT GUILTY. BOND IS O.R. ATTY W. DOYLE IS RETAINED AS DEFENSE COUNSEL. THIS CASE IS ASSIGNED TO COURTROOM 5 (JUDGE D'APOLITO). INITIAL PRE-TRIAL IS SCHEDULED FOR l0am. THIS CASE IS SET FOR TRIAL ON l0am. (SWEENEY) SEE ATTACHED IMAGE 08/03/2010 THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT HE IS THE ATTY WHO WILL TRY THIS CASE-DOYLE 08/03/2010 JE> DEFT'S WAIVER OF INDICTMENT. (SWEENEY) SEE ATTACHEDIMAGE 08/03/2010 SUMMONS RETURNED & FILED SERVED--FLORA CAFARO THROUGH ATTY WILLIAM DOYLE VIA FED EX 07/29/2010 DIRECT PRESENTMENT, INDICTMENT FILED Ist? /20/2011

55 IN UM MAHONING COiIN7. YCOURT OE COMMON PI.EA..S T'HF STATF OF.OFL[O ) COYJN'1'YOF MAIiQNIIYG) THE STATE OF OIiIO VaS`. ANTFTONYM: CAp'AR<O, SR. SSN: X$X X.XV" 1374 Warner Road. Hubbard, OIiio and CLEaKOFC-OURTS MAHONtNG COUN7Y. OF!!o JUk i 9 20?0 I 1. a=i t e.d _ DIR ECT PRFSENT^fi^^^i^NY vn^o, ciearc ; JtTDGE CASENO. 2o3.o CR 1NDIC'ID3Ts1VTF or: ; COI7PJ'^.S. 0N73 T$dt0 1'G7H[ ^qrt^*7 agrng 7n a Fattern ofcorrapt Activity i R.C (A)(1) TI^.+ CAFARO COMPANY; an I C'OiINfS EIGf7CT TB[ROUGH TBN Ohio forprofit corporat3on ;1&'ugaguzg qna Pattean of ComxptAcfiviiy (Ohio Charter/Reg. No ) R.C ).(2) Belmont Avenue Youngstown,Ohio COT7Nj1SylT1LRO [FfrH and Conspira.cy, R.C.;?923.o:L(A)(i) ( COYJI^iTS'z8 THROU ^a^r. 0Mt) yat:-ry MA.7.1 " - t Conspiracy, R.C. 2 LXl^1^:4NY, an Ohio Limited 9^.6z(A)(2) Partnersbip COUNi S 2^ Yhron (Obio C2iarter/R0g: No ) 3 Peliury; R.C..29k.ri(A) 2445I3eTuiontAvenue. YoungstoWi,Ohib ^ COi711T r..: _ FS 3_^$OUGHCas aud. ^ Brcbery, Id G 29^r_p?(^1) i. TMMA. RON P^..^O '[AVT a7 TIiRUUGF^ ^}g. LA^A, I1^FC:; an,. $rlbery, R C:.29^ip2(G}. Ob#o for pm&tcprporation f., (Olzio Charterf Reg; ko ) i COi715iTS 5o TFT^^3T^GF[ ^^ 2445 BelmoutAvenue ^ BrIbery> jz C Youngstown; Obhio 44so4 ta86. f. {^). and I^^GIp[l^dl^{I^[i^^([^[^11[^[^^^I^{I ;;0= i 1 COT7T^fiPs^.:..!.$rlbely, FIC. 4402]_o2(1)) THE OHIO LEGAL 6LANK CO EXHIBIT Jt. Rec. Ex. 6 ^ 1. ed^tion cortt#nuedairs"-di^4 vaoe

56 JO HN A: 7.VIcNA I.I,Y,1V D.O.B. 40*Fmoft SSN: XXK-XX:Mft 2236 Burma Drive Youngstown, Ohio and JOHN RF,Al2D.ON D.O.B. UO". low SSN: X){X XX #Rw 7473 Nimtington Di-ive No.6 Boardnman, Ohio and MICIit1LL V: SCIOI2TINO D.O.B. 86"Sm1w. S.S.N. =:XX.j** Wooxlgate Street Austintown, Ohio and JOHN ZACFTAR.TAH D,O.B. 1 im ' S.S.N. XX'A. XX^^ 125 Button Bush Circle Chaglrin Falls, Ohio and MARTTT+TYAyVORCIK D.O.B. S.S.N. 7.3$2. GlenwoodAvenue Bba"rdman, Ohio CQ^ ^g. TFIROUGH f MoneyLaunilering, RC.131S.55(A)(1)! COUIVT'S K6 TfiROUGH 57! Money Iaundeiing, It:C. 13r5.3$(A)(2). i COiINTS f,& TIiROUGH {9 Money Laundering, RC. 13^.^(A)(3)! COUNT' 6o Tampering with Records, RC (AX2). 'COI)Ni` 61? Disclosure of Confidential Information, RC. io2.o3(b) & ; GOU1V'P 62 THit.OUGH 64 C Ilflict:oflPitereSf, RC. I02.03(D) & 102,99 GOUNiS 6.4i TT3ROT7GH 67 Conflict of Interest, lz.c. io2.o3{e) & ^ COIII^T1S 68 TFIROUGU 6o i Filing False F'mancial-Discldsure Statement, s IZ.C (D) & $ t COUT!TI'S.^o T'I^1tOUG^I 7x: {. Soliciting or.4ecepti:qg Iiuproper Competisation R C W(i): ^ COi7N TS"^2 TIiROT3Gl^f [Money Laundering, R.C. 131g.5S(A)(e)!, ^.. }.. and FLORACAT3AR0 S.S.N. Xa-m=) StetA art.sharon Road Brookfield; OfiiQ 44403

57 CoulvToNTs :.i;ng.aging #n a Paitern of Gorrupttlctivrty, X..C (A)(1).*. r]'ihe Jurors of the Grand Jury; being first duly sworn, within and for the County of j Matroning, State of Ohio, on their oaths and in the nanie and by the authority of the State of Ohio find and'present that. defendants, OHIO VAi.LEY MALL COMPAbIY; AN OHIO I.IIVITTED PARTNER>SHIP AND THE MAIRION PLAZA, INC., AN OHIO FOR I'ROFIT CORPORATION, PfS GENERAL PARTNER, on or about to , at Mahoning County, Obio being employed by, or associated with, any enterprise did conduct or part-ieipate in, directly or indirectly, the affaiss of the enterprlse tbrough a pattern of corrupt activity, including the offenses enumerated in the Counts of this. indictment that constitute corrupt activity as defined in Section of the Revised Code, or the colleciion of an unlawful debt, in violation of Seciion (A)(Z) of the Ohio Revised, Code, a Felony in the Second Degree, contrary to the form of the'statate in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of tlze State of Ohio.. THE EIVTERPRISE. _ ^,. The enterpiise, as defined in (C) of the Revised Code is an association an,d/or organi7,afion and/or grpup of persons associated in fact, althongh not. necessarily a legal entity including the persons and enkities named as defendants in the caption of this indicfiment, to wit: ANTHONY M. CAFARO, SR, THE CAFARO CO&tPANY, OHIO VALI.EY MALL COMP.AN?I, TI3E MAILIO.N PLA7A, INC., JOHN A. McNAI.LY, ' TV, JOHN REARDON, MICIiAEI: V. SCIORTINO, JOHN ZACI3ARIA% MARTIN YAVORCIJK AND FLORA CAFAItO as well. as persons known but uncharged-and/or upknown. Said defendants are persons known and associated witli thae enterprise. An enterprise includes ill3citas well as licit enterprlses. AF'trAIR3 ORTIiE ENTERPRISE The affairs of the entetprige inciu.de this jurisdicdion and ipelude but are not limited. to:, A. gnrieliingthe defendant membezs.and assoeiafes of the enterprise through ongbing.criminal activity; includiiig the paiter.n and ineicients of corrupt activity. B. Preserviiig aiid proteceing.tiie power, Wuence and.profts of the eriterpr.ise by P^ntofing the a^airs f the enyerpxise.through a.pattern of corrupt adivity. THE PATTEItItT&JD INCIDp`.N'TS 017 CORRLipTACI IVIT^ The pattern and incidents of corrnpt aciavity. atiiibuted'-to. the defendants. nanfed hezein and persona Tcnown au.d. unknown involve two or: 4*ore incidents of.corrapt astivity, as 4e44ecl. in RC: ^29i3^31^), pit^ ant ta. H C. ^2g2^ 3^(A).(x) wl^erein said

58 defendants as principals or in complicity with others daiown and/or unknown, did engage in, conspire to engage in, or solicit another person or persons to engage in Corrapt 'Adivity, including vrithout limitation, any of the foilowing crunes, as specified in the body of this indictment: 1. MoneyIaundering, RC , 2. Tampering with Records, RC. 29i Perjnry,R.C. 292i.zi; 4. Britzery, RC. 292i.o2; and. S. Soliciting or Receiviilg Tmproper Compensation, RC PORF.EITURE SPECIFICATTON Tlie Gra.nd Jurors farther find and specify that the interests of defendants OHIO VALLEY MAId. COMPANY; AN OHIO LIMITED PAR.TNERSHIP and THE MARION PIVA, II3C, AN OEiIO FOR PROFIT CORPORATION, its general pariner-in the real estate commonly known as. the Garland Avenue real estate, -112ahoning. County Parcel ID (Lot 698) and Parcei it) s3o27oo86ooo (Lot 598 McGuffey) f individually and collectively referred to herein as the "Garland Properlies"] shaif be subject to forfeiture, each as an instrnmentality used in connection with the commissioii of the offense set forchhereinabove at this Count. CCHTt4TTWO. Engagvzg in a Pattern of Corruptrfctivity, R.C. 29z3.32(A)(i) e-jurors bfthe Grand Jury, being first duly sworn, within and for the County f RtvTahoning, SCate of Ohio; on their oaths and in tlie name and by tlie authority of tfie State of Olrio find and present that deferislant, THEC.AAFARO COMPANY, on or about to ,. at Mahonipg Co.unty, 'Oliio being employed by,'or associated with, an,y egterprise did conduct or par(ieipate..in; diiectiy or indireetly, :tke affaiis of the enterprise through a pattern of corrupt activity, including 'the -o ffenses enumerated.i,n the Counts of tiiis indictment that consh[tute corrnpt activity. as definedin ^C}ion ag2;3.3x af the Revised Code,.orthe coilection' of an unlaf^fut debt; in violation'of.section ?(A).(i) of the Ohio. ltcvised Code, ^a^ Felot^y in the- Second Aegree, contrary to the form- of the statute in siach case made and provided, and abainsty'he peace and`dignity ofthe State of Oiiio. - THE EA7TERPR^^.. T1te entee^r,prise,, as defined 'in 2923:31(G) of the ytevi^ Cvde is an assoeiation anii^or organizaiion and/or group of p.ersons' assxiatied i n fact, althaugh.not u^sar^y a legai'rentity inrtiudiug. the persons and:entities:named as defendarits. iri tlie captiori cjl: Ylris indicfinent, to wit:.a.i\1tiionir IVI: CAF6Kb, _BR., 1^HE CAF.rLRO ' COTwIPA:I+}3(;. OHIO VALLEY Tvii1LL tsoivipaivy, THE MA1d:tON P7. VA INC., JOHN A Ivte1FIA,UI', -'Ii ; JOHN ^',ARDON, MICFIAEI,. V.. S.LIOE:xINO; - J0HIT Zc4CEiA12IQi3, 3vfARTINYAVORCIX.ANfl k'lor4 CAFA1?O. as weli as -reesons icnozvn

59 but uncharged and/or unimown. Said defendants are persons Imown and associated with the enterprise. An enterprise includes illicft as we31 aslicft entsrprises. AFFAIRS OF THE ENTERPRISE The affairs of the enterprise iiioludathis jurpsdiction and include but are not linnited to: A. Enriching the defendant inembers and associates of the enterprise through ongo ing criminal actiity, including the pattern and incidents of eoirupt ty. B. Preserving and protecling the power, influence and profits of the enterpiise.b hpromoiing the affairs of the enterprise tiirougha.pattern of corrapt activity. THE PATTERN ANll INCIDENTS OF CORRUPT A. The pattern and incidents of oorrupt activity attributed to the defendants named herein and persons known and unknown involve two: or more-incidents of corrupt activity, as defnx ed in R.C. 29z3.31(17, pursuant to RC i(A)(1) wherein said defendanfis'as principals or in complicity with others known and/or-unlmown, did engage in, oonspir.e to engage in, or so&cit another person or.'persons to engage in Corrupt Activity, including without.limitation,. any of the following c;ri mes, as specified in the body of tbis indictment: s. Moneyl:aundering, R.C , 2: Tampering with Itec6rds, I,2,C. 29i Perjury,. R,C. 292i.ix; 4. $r[i^ery, I2 C. 292LO2; and' 5: Solicitfng or ^eceiving Improper Compensation, It.C F09-^MIR. E SPECIFI ATION The C^^O t^rranc3.,iirors ^4^p^ ^^e fureher pecify find anri.s that the interest's of defendant 1'IiE real estate commoi Uy known as the Garland Avenue rw estate, Mahoniiig Courity Parcel Z12 '53oz7oo9.00,0 -ot.'6g8) and Parcel II7 530^ ( T ot 698 liiifey): [indiyiduaiiy and collectively re erred to herein: as the "Garland Pinperties"] s&ayl be subjeet to orfeitu^. each as an instrtunentality used in conneciion. bvith the coinmission-of the offense Counf..set fo=th hereinabove at.t}iis. C't1UiV'X TwtEE. ' Lrzgagfriyina:F'attern ofcorrlcptaeiutfhj; R C 2gz3:32(A)Cr^ e djurors et#^e Grand' Tuty, bein^ fi^ d^, ^^ t^ ^ Mahoni.n, 3tate:of Ohio, ^arid for tbe Couiiof. ori their oaths and in tbe nai neand:tjy t>se autbo x, - erf > the State a C?Y;o:findand.preseutthatdefendantAN`1H(3NI'M: CAI+AR0, SR, on.or.

60 ab.out 02-o1-2o04 to , at 1Vlahoning County,:Ohio being etnplayed by, or the o^ated with, any en^rpris aduct or participate in, directly or inclirectly, affaus of the enfe nse through pattern of corrupt acfivity: including the offenses enumerated in the. Counts of this indictment that coqiviiy as defined in Section Z of the Revised nstitute corrupt a debt; in violation of Sectfan Code, or the"collection of an tuilaxvful CA)(7) of the Ohio irev93ed Code, a Felony in the Second Degree, contrary to the form of the statute nsuch case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio. THERp^SE The enterprise, as defined in 2923 and/or organization.31(c) of the Revised Code is an association and/or group of persons necossarily a legal entity inelu '^e ^ociated in facfy although not the caption of this indi ^ ^rsoj?s and entities named as defendants in ctment to wit: ANTHONY M: CARAR.O,. SR., THE CAFARO COMPr1'y, OHTO -Vt1LLEY MALL COMPADIX, THE MARION Pr pzn, A. MCNALLY,. IV JOHN REARDON, MTCHAEL V. SGiORTIlJO, 19^, JOHN but unc and/or ^ yavvorcir AN17 FLORA CAFARO as well as persons known with the ente ^o^ Said defendants are persons known and associated rprise. All enterprise includes iliici.t as well as licit enterprises. AFFAIRS OFTIdE ENTERPRTSE The affairs of the.enterprise include this jurisdicqto to: n and inelude but.are not Iimited A Enriexung the defendant ynembers and associates of the enterprise through ong ^. ex?minal actfkity> including the pattern and inciderits of corrupt g b l^ erving and'^pe g^ng the io^r; i^tflueiaca and profils ofthe enterprise i ^ affairs.of the adiv ty enterprise througj^ a. patteern of cpxrupt THEPATTERN YNCIDE OF CORR The pattern aud incidents of coi rupt activity attr.ibuted to the defeazdanis natned herein and porsons Iaiowa.and unlaiowaiinvoive two or more i^neidents of eiaupt aetivity, as de^ued iu R.C i3(n e^e defendants ^, pprincipais as Fiusnant to R:C zga3.g2(a (1) wherein said: e^g^inin oph^e ^with otbers Imown andfor. ui^imown, diii OD^?pt A ^Siictu ' > auotlier person: or peisons to engage ip sl^^ed ux the Y. ^out of thisin lina, dictment the itatfon followiri^ any- of crinxes, as - 21 z Moaey7>aunderiug, R.C ;.. S. p^1et^ x Ft1^ IZecords, RG: 29x3:42 erj^y> ILC: 292Y_ 1,

61 4 Bribeiy, ILC 292LO2; and 5. SaIiciting or Receiving Ianproper Campensation, R.C. 292f,48 PORFEM' MESPECIFICATTON The Grand Jurors further find and specifythat thedefendan,t's interest in: C) any entity owning the reai estate commonly known as the Garland Avenue real estate, Mahoning County Parcel ID o (IO t ^98) and Parcel ID oao (Lot b98 IvIcGuffey) [individually and coiledively referred to herein as the "Garland Properfies"]; and (ll) any general or limited parinership in,terest in The Ohio Valley Mall ^mp^y, an Ohio limited parbiership, being the fee simple owner of record of the forgoing Garland Properties; and (M) any shares of any stock owned by or for the benefit of the defendant, whether outiight, in tivst or otherwise, of any and ati classes, in and to The Cafaro. Company, an Ohio corporation, an entity having control over certain of the affaf rs of the Garland Properties; and (iv). any shares of any stock owned by or for the benefzt of the defendant, whether outr'ight, in trust or otheiwise, of any and a11. classes, in and to the Marion Plaza Ine., an Ohio corporation, the geinerai partner of record of The Ohio 'PatIey Mall.Company, an Ohio Iimited partnersliip, the fee sitaple oivner of reaord of the real estate known as the Gariand Progerties; - sha11 be subject to forfeiture, each as an insttvmentality used in comecuon with the commission of the offense set forth bereinabbve.at tbis Couttt COUN':C 17OIlR ^nga9in9 vn ci Pcat#ern ofcorruptacffvfty;..id.c (A)(r) ^^ojurors of tlie Grartd Jury, being first duly sworn, tvithin and foz' the County of the State o Ohio find, an,d ^resentethat. de n eo^ e^^^e autliazity of ab.out an to i o08' daia at on Matio th ^ A. MeNtSLLY, or IV, associated wit}^t y.ent ^ Cnunty, Ohio: being employed b, or the affairs of the ente ^rise did conduct or parlicipate in, directly or indireetly, offenses emimerated i^ranse tl^rough a.pattern of corrupt tlze Counts of ti'vs activiiy, aneiuding. fite debt; as defined in in vioi Section :indicttnent of the Revisedthat Code, consfituteeortupt or. the co7lectibiz of aa acfivity u ation of SeCdon (A)(A) nlav fui Second. Degree, cn^3' to:^e ^rm. of tbe Ohio Code, Itevised. a]^elouy in^the of the s[atufe. i and against tlie peace and dignits'.ofthe State.bfOhio. n such c^se m ade and provided, TFIE EIV2ZRpRiSE The : enterpajse; as defitried itt g292,3,gj(^) o f tha. Revised Co:de is an asseciatton ^df^r organi^atioa and/or.group of per5ons associat^ in fact^: althotzgh nof..

62 necessarily a legal entity including the persons and entities named as defendants ia the caption' of this indictment, to wit: ANTIiONY M. CAFARO, SR., THE CAI?ARO -COI4IPANY, OHIO VALLEY MALL COMPANY, THE MARION PLAZA, INC., JOHN A. McNALL'Y, IP, JOHN IZEARDON, MICHAEL V. SCIOR'I'INO, JOHN ZACIiARIAH, MARITN YAVORCIKAND FLORA CAFARO as well as persons known but uncharged and/or unlolown: Said defendants are persons lanown and associated with the enterprise.. An enterprise includes iilicit as well as licit enterprises. AFFAIRS OF THE ENTERPRISE The affairs of the enterprise include this jurisdiction and include but are not limited to: A- Enriehing the defendant members and associates of the enterprise through ongoing criminaiaetivity, including the pattern and incidents of corrupt ad3uity.' B. Preserving and protecting the power, influence and profits of the enterprise "by promoting the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of corrupt activity. - TFIE I'ATt ERN AND INCIDENTS OF CORRUpTA.CTIVITY The pateern and incidents of corrupt activity- attributed to the deferi.dants named herein and persons lcno:wn and unknown invoive twa or more incidents of comr.pt activity, as defined in R.C. 929,a3.gt(I), pursuant to R.C ,(A)(1) wherein said defendanfis as principals or in complicity with others known and/or unknown,, did engage in,. conspire to engage.iaa, or solicit another person or persons to engage in Coraupt Activity; iaelucgng without 2^nitaiion, any. _ of the followiug. crimes, as speaified in the.body oftbis indictment: 1.. 1Vloney Launderi.ng, R C.. i3z5 S5. 2. Tauiperingwifti.Records, R.C I'erjury, ]I.C. 292x.xa;. q... Bribery, R.C. 292r,t^2,; and 5. Soliciting or Receiving Improper Corirpetisatfon, R.C. 2921q^ COZTNTFIVE. Engaging fn a Patte-ra o, f CorruptAcCivity,.tt.Q zqa3.32faxx1 r Ikl e Jumrs of t^ie Graud Jury; being f irst dujystivorv, r,,itbin and fot the County of ahohing, State of (.Iliio;:on tbeir oatlrs.anii in the.ziame and bytt3e auttloraty of the ftte of Ohio find tnd preserit fliat deferidant, JOHN REA.RDON,,4n or about o to i2-12=2qo8;. at.lt^atiouing County,. Ohio`being employed liy ar assocfated witb; anyente;prise did eonduct bt.participate iu,diiectly or indirectty,.the affairs of the - enterprise, through: a pattern of corrupt: act[^rity, incl^g the offenses enumerated in the Counts.;of., this iridiitment that. constitute coxmpt aciivity as

63 defined in Secfion of the Revised Code, or the collection of an uulawfid debt; in violation of Section (A)(a) of the Ohio Revised Code, a Felony in the Second Degree, coniraty to the form of the statute iii suoll case made and provided, and against tjie peace and dignity of the State of Qhib. THE ENTERPRISE The enterprise, as defined in (C) of the Revised Code is an association and/or organization and/or gr.oup of persons associated in fact although not necessarfly a legal entity including the persons and entities named as defendants in the caption of this indicfinent; to wit: ANTHODiY U. CAI,ARO, SR., THE CAFARO A. CO141PANY, OHIO VALLEY MALL COMPANY, THE MARIO_N PLAZA, INC., JC+,HN McNALLY, N, JOHN REARDO1V-, MICHAEL V. SCIORTINO, JOHN ZCHARTAii, MARTIN YAVORCIK AND FLORA CAFARO as w.ell as persons known but uncharged anil/or unknown. Said clefendants are persons known. and associated with the enterprise. An enterprise ittclildes iliicit as well as lieit enterprises. AFFAII2S OF. THEEIc]TFRI?RISE The aff'airs of the enterprise includethis,jurisdictiog and include but-are not lted to: A. Eririching the defendant members and associates of the enteiprise tbrough ongoing. criminal activity, including the pattern and incidents of corrupt activity. B. Pi eserving and protec. ting the p.ower, intluence and profits of tbeenterprise by promoting the zffaiis of the actiyity. enteiprise through a pattern of corrapt THE PATTI,rAN AND TNCI ENTS OF COR_RIIPTA 'Tfie pattern -and ineidents of corrupt acti herein and yity atinli uted to the dofendants named persons knotvn aiad mntmown anr lve tsvo ar more inczdeuta of coirupt defe^ts a^ ', as defined as in R C a92pursuant to.r C. 2g^,32(A)(Ij wherein said principals nn;in complicity with others lazown aad/or unknown, did ^rnzget Activi^, inclu ^e r s licit another person. or persons ta engage in sp^ Sn tt^ebody dyng without. limitation, ' any of tlie foliowing crimes, as ^ of tlua indtef^nent: 1 Moneyl;aundering:RC..1g15.55, 2. TamperingwitliRecords;.P C.: 2g^,^ Perjtuy, R C. 2y2111;. _4. Br1^3eTy, R:C.: 2g21.02; atl^ S. Solicifing or Receiviag:Zmproper Caaupensatiori; It C: 2qzIx43

64 COt7NT SIX Engaging ina Patterno.fCorruptActivity,It:C (A)(x). ^e Jurors of the Grand Jury, being first duiy sworn, within and for the County of Mahoning, Sfate of Ohio, on their oaths and in the name and by t1ye authority of the State of Ohio $ud and present that defendant, ^.'OHN ZACI3ARIAH, on or about to 12»22-a008, at Mahoning County, Ohio being employed by, or associated with, any enterprise did conduct or participate in, direcfly or indirectty, the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of corrupt activity, including the offenses enumerated in the Counts of this indictinent that constitute corrupt aclivity as defined in Sectio^t i of the Revised Cade, or the collection of an unlawfui debt; in violationof Section (A}(1) of tiie Ohio Revised Second* Degree; contrary to the form of th and against the peace and e statute in such case meade and provided, dignity of the State of Ohio: TIiE ENTEi2pRISE and/or The enterprise; as defined in 2g23.31(C) of the Revised. Code is an association n n^d/br gratip of persons associated in fact, although not 3' eg entity including the persans and entities namecl as the caption of this indietment; to wit. ANT]FTONY M. CAFARO, SLZ., THE defendants CAFARO in COMPANP, OHTO VALLEYMAI,L COMPANy, T'EIE i4igripi,j..pl.a7 y INC., JOHN A. McNt1I,LX', IV; JOHN REARDON, IdIC^L ^ACHARIAFi, ZvliAItTTN. YtI..VORCIK Y SCIOR'TINO, JOHN ts Np FI ORA CAPFAi20 as well as persons known but uncharged and/or unlmown. Said defendants are persons known and-associated - rvith the enterprise. An enterprise includes i1licit as well as iicit enterprises. A^'t&M OF THE EIiITERPRISE The aftairs of the enterprise ineiude this jmisdfction and include but are not Ii to: mited A- Enxiehingthedefendant mem(iersand-associates.ofthe enterprise tbrough 01190ing czimittal aaryit,y,. iueluding the pattern and incidents of corrapt activity. ^^et^'irigar^d protecting: the power,: in#iiaence and profits. ofthe enterpr.ise a^^ty ting the affairs of the enteepprise tlarougti a pattern of corrupt EPAITT}sRbi A ND INCIDEIVT4 nfcorrr7ut AL^^^ The pateerti and incidents of corrupt'act%yity. attrlbuted. to the ciefetidants ^atued aetivit3',. herein aud a^ petsonsiaiawn defped zn 12 and-.uniaiown invoive.tvao or more ineidents of corru.c ^ pt defendauts. as., purstiaut to 3LC ?(A}{i) ^^erein aaid prfueipal or in cou^plie#iy with otheis. know.n. anc1./or unknown, did

65 engage in, conspire to engage in, or solicif another persbn or persons to engage in. Corrupt Activity; including xdthout limitation, any of the following crimes, as specified in the body of this indictmenf: 1. Moneyl,aundering, RC Tampering with Records, R.C Perjury, RC ; 4. Bribery, R.C ; and 5. Soliciting or Iteceiving Improper Compensation, R.C. 2921:43 COUNT SEVEI@ Engaging in a Pattern of CorruptActivity, R.C (A)(Z) e Jurors of the Grand Jury, being first duly sworii, witliin and for the County af iviahoning, State of Ob4o, on their. oaths and in the name and by the authority of the State of Ohio find and present that defendant, MICHAEI, V.. SCIORTINO, on or abaut to , at Mahoning Connty; Ohio beiixg employed by, or associated svitb, any enterprise.did conduct or partieipate in,'direetly or indirectly, the affairs of the enterprise tbrough a pattern of corrnpt aclivity, including the offenses enumerated in the Counts of this indictment that constitute oorrnpt activity as defined in Sectfon of the Revised Code, or. the callection of an nnlawful debt; in violation of Section (A)(z) of the Ohio Revi.sed Code a Felony in the Second Degree, contrary to the form of the statute in sttch case made and provided, and againstthe peace and dignity of the State of Ohio. THE I?NTERPRISL. The.euterprige,. as defuied in (C) of the Revised Code is an association.and/or o7rganization and/or group of persons. associated iu fact, although not neeemrily a legal entity including the person,s and"entities named as defendants in the caption of tlt.isindictment; to wit: ANTHOIJT' M. CAFARO, SR, THE CAFARO COMPANI', C)II.CO VALLEY MA:LL COMPANY; THE Ivlt1RION 1?IAZe1; INC.,. JOHN A. McNALI.Y,.IV; JOHN RE.AROON;. MICHAET. V. SCIOR1INl3; JOHN 7ACIiARIAH, MARTIN.YAVORCII AND FLORA CAFARO as vvelt as persons known but uncharged and/or unknotvn. Said defendants are persnns kuown and associated with the enterprise: An enterprise includes iilicit.as_mll as lzcit enterprsses... AFFAIRS OF THE ENTERPRiSIE'. The affairs of the. enterprise 3laclude tbis. juxisdiction-.and include but am not limited to: ' A. FnTieliiug the defendant menibers and.associates of the enterpriae tiirough ongoidg. criminal activity,. iricluding the pattern and incidents of corrupt aotivitt3',

66 E. Preserving and protecting the power, influence.and profits of the enterprise by promoting. the affairs of the enterprise through a patterri of corrupt activity. THE PATTERNAND INC1bENTS OR COIZU'UP I ACTI^TJy The pattern an(i incidents of corrupt activity atfributed to the defendants named herein and persons Iaaown and.unimown involve two or more incidents of corrupt activity, as defined in R.C (f), pursuant to R.C: (A)(i) wherein said defendants as principals or in complicity with others known and/or unknown, did engage in, conspire to engage in, or solicit another person or persons to engage in Corrupt Activity, including without limitation, any of the following crimes, as specified iri the bady of this indictment: L Money Laundering, C. 1M 55, z. TamperingwithRecords, R,C Per,jury, R,C ; 4. Bribery, R.C. 292L02; and 5 Solic,itingor Receiving Improper Compensation, P.C. 2921:43 COTJNT EIGHT Engaging in a Pattern of CorruptActiaiiy,lZC (A)(_*); : Te Jurors of tlie Grand Jury, being first duly sworn,. within and for the County of. ahoning, Sfate of Ohio, on their oaths and in the iuame and by the authority of the State of -OIiio fnd 'and present that defendanfs, 'OFiIIO VALLEY MALL COMPANY; AN OHIO TdMITED PARTNERSHIP AND THE MARION PI.A.2B., INC., AN OIiIO FOR PROPTi' CORPORATtON; TTS GENERAL PARTNEI2, at Mahoning County, Ohio, on or about o2-oi-2o04: to go8, through a pattern of oorrupt activity, irioludibg. the offenses enuznerated in the Counts of this indictment that conslitute corrupt activity as defined in Section oftlle Revised Code, or the collection of an untawful debt, did acqaire or maintain;'directty or indirectly, any _ interest ih, "or control of,. any -enterpd.se or real properey,`in violation of Section Z9a3.32(A)(2) o.f the Ohio Revi.sed Code, a Pelony in the gecoxid. I?egFee, contrary to the forin of the statute in s.uch case made and'provided; and against the p:eace and dignity of the State of Ohio. THE ENTERPRi$E. The enterprise, as desned in. p9z3 31(C) of.the Revised' Code fs an associatfon. and/or q rganization and/or gro.up. of persons assoo;ated in fact, although not nece,sar3ly a.iegai entity including the persons anc3 entities named as defendants io[ the capfiozy o "` indic6neizt,. to wit ANTHONY N C-A-'VA.RO;. SR.,. M CAIzARO- COMPANY, OHIO VALJ EY lvla^l COMPAbIY; TFTE.b7AKTON'PI.tYZA, ITIC., JOHN. A, McNAI.L^,'; IV,.. doiin ZtEARDON, IvIICI3t^EL.^ S4`J(ORTINO, IOFTN ^C^ MARTLN Ytl'V'ORCIT^AND kw3te1. CAFARO as rveli as persons known

67 but uncharged and/or unlrnown. Said defendanis are persons known and associated with the enterprise. Anenterprise includes illicit as well as licit enterprises. AFBAIR3 OF THE ENTERpRISE The affairs of the enterprise include this f urlsdiction and include but are not l'imited to: ' A: Enrfching the defendaat members and associates of the enterprise through ongoing.criminal activity, including the pattern and incidents of corrupt activity. B. Preserving and protecting the power, influence and profits of the enterprise by promotirig the affairs of the enterprisethroug]r a pattern of corrupt. activity. THE 1'ATTERNAND INCIDENTS OF CQRRUPTACTIVITY. The pattern and incidents of corrapt aativity atlributed to the defendants named herein and persons.iozown and unlmown involve two or more incidents of corrupt activity, as defined in R.C i(I), pursuant to RC. z923.32(a)(i) wherein said defendants as principals or in complicity with others lcnown and/or unknown, did engage in, conspire to engage in, or solicit another peipan or persons to engage in Cart2tpt Activity, including without limitation, any of the following crimes; as specified in the body of this indiclment: ^. Biioney Launderin&RC. 23i5.65; 2. Tampeeing. with Records, R.C. 29ig.q2 3. Perjury, RC. 292Lai; 4. Bri6ery, R.C ; and Solicituig or R ceiving Improper Compensation; RC..^292x.43. FO.RFEITZIRE SPECIFfCA'a'iON The Grand Jurois fi3rther find and specify that the interests -of deferidan.ts O1:IIO. VALLEY MAT,L COMPANY, AN OiiIG} IdMTI'ED PARTIsTERBHIP'and THE MARION PLAZA, INC., ANOFTIO I?OR PROFIT C012PO12ATIOlt; itsgei.tera.l partner in the real estate commonly lkuawn as the Garland tl,venue real estate, Ivlahon,i'ng County Pareel ID 53oa (T,ot 698) and Pareel ID 530^70o86ao4 (Lot. 698 McGuffey) (' individually and colle^tively referred to herein as.the "Gar3a nd P'roperties" j-shall be subject to farfeiture,., each as an instnun.entality usedi in. connection with the eommission of the offenseset forth hereinabove at this Count..

68 Engaging in a Pattern of Cor^rup ^ ^ J, R C.Zq23 32(A)( 2); e Jurors of the Grand Jury, beang fi Mahoning, State of Qhio rst duly and sworn; for the within Coun ty of, on thei r oaths and in the name and by the authority of the.state of Ohio find and present that defendant THE CAFARO COMPANY, AN OHIO FOR PRQFIT CQRPQItATION, at Mahoning County, Ohio, on or about o2-oxzooq to ^-y2-2oo8, or through a pattern of corrupt activity, including the offenses enumerated in the G ounts.of this indictment that conslitute corrupt aetivity as. did de$ned acquire in Section z of the Revised Code, nr the coiieotion of an unlawful debt, maintain enterprise maintain, d'uectly or indirectiy, any interest in, or control of, any or real property, in vioiation of Section (A)(2) of the Ohio Revised Code; a Felony in the Second Degree, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, andagainst the peace anddignity of the State of Ohio. THE.ENTERPRISE The eaterprise, as defined in ?(C)* of the Revised' Code is an association n ^^r17y dj a tegalu enti^^u^up of persons associatecl in fact, although. not t3' dmg the persons and entities named as defendants in the caption of this indictment, to wit; AAITT3ONp M. CAFARQ; SR, CC3MPANY, OHIO V"ALLEY MALL COMPAIVY, PTE CAPARO A MeNALLY; IV, JOHN ^^OH P^,TI^' C., JOfiN ZA.CHARIA$,:MARTINYA'YQRCIKAND Q FI.OR^AC ^^O as w llla^^.srtino,. JOHN but uncharged and/or vnioioy n. Said defendants are _^^ persons Iazown.with the en^prise. An ^o^ and associated enterprise includes ^7ticit as well as Iicit enterprises, AWAIRS OF THE ENURPRISE' The affairs of the euterprfse inctude this,jtu asdtetaon aia4 include but are not limited to: A. Riuichin,g the defendant memnrs and associates of the entei pr.iae through. ongoiug Orfininal. activity; iiichidirig the pattern and incidents of corrupt abtivits..... B. Preserving andpr tecting thblyow&r; influence and rrifats.ofthe enterprise l^y promoting tlie affaizs of the.enterprise activity: throug ^ a. patterta of corrupt ME PATT IIN ' hereut Tho pattern and iucide.nts of corrtypt activit} attrlbut^ to t3ie 'defeudaats na actiivi ty, and persons Iazown.and.u^o^ in.voive two med. or triore `irici^aifs of eorrupt defendai^as ts de as^eii in R C; 9^-3z(^, purs!aant to'r C. p923.g2a)(i whereaa^.sa;d prineilials or in c^plicit^ with others imown. and. j for tinlmown, did

69 ^^ptm^ ^n' n u ergage zn, or solicit another person or persons to engage in speeified in the Uodyoftl ^'mdi us ' noentlimitafion, any bf the following crimes, as Y. MoneyLaundering,lZ.C Tampezingwith Records, RC Perjury, R.C. z92i.si, 4. Bribery, R.C. 9292i.o2; and 5. Soliciting or Receiving Improper Compensation, RC. a9a FORFETTtJgE SpECIFICATIOAI CThe AFARO Grand COMPANY Jurors further find and specify that the interes[s f. defendant. THE estate, in the real estate commonly known as the G oarland Avenue real 53oz7oo86000^ ^n^ P^ ID ( Lot' 698) and Parcel TD agthe (Lot 698 McGuffey) [individually and collectively referred to herein "(3airland Pinperties"] shall Ize subject to forfeiture, each as an ins#rumentatity Count. tised in conneetion with the commi,ssion of the offense set forth hereinabove at this COLJNT TEN Ehgagin9 tn a l'attern of Co rr7iptactzvity, R.C (A)(2), e Jurors of the Grand Jury, being first duly sworn Mahoauig, State of Ohio, os their oaths an-,^^ and for the County of State of Ohio find and preserit that defendant the e name and hy the autl7ority of AN Mahoning Couuty, Ohiti, on.or about to i-i pg^ ^^^^' Q f ^a^p^tu, iaicludiqg the offenses enumerated in. the (^vounts of thi,s iudictm,ent the collection ofanpt actlvity as defined in Sedion 2q,23-g1 of the Revised Code, or interest i unlawful debt, did Aequire or.maiatain, direcy]y or i.n^:iir^tly,- any n, or control of any enterprise or real properiy, in violatlon of Section P (A)(2) of the Ohio.Iteviseii Code,.a Felony in the Secoiid Degree; contrary to dign.ity the form of of the the State statu6 ofoldo. in such ' case made and pr6vided, and against tge peaee a^nd TFIEETdTFTgp&BE The enterprise, as.defiped in 292Mz(c) Af the Revised Code is.an* aswmtion and/or organization : and/or gtoup. of, persons associateci iri fact,' 'although not necessart7y a Iegal entity including the persai^s and entities natned as defendants in tiie caption ofthis i^ndieftiient', to wit: ANTT^OI^i.Y M. CAFARO, SR, THE CAFt^RO COMFANI; OZ^IO ^?Ai:r.wv ^^ C.OMPANy. ^E. MARTQN. A. McNt1ZL^,. lv, J(?FHIeT REAR^ON,.: ^:^C^EL' V. 3( IOR?7nT^C, JOH1^T ZACHARTAIi, ahd/or YAVORCiK ^ but Unrharg^ FIAiiA CANARO as well as getsons lmawn with the eate ^ox ^o^` Said defezidants are persons laiotyn,and associat^ rprise. Anenterpzise includes ^Iicit as well as Iicit er.tterprises.

70 AFFAIRS Og THE ENTERPRISE The affais of the enterprise include this jurisdietion and include but are not limited to: A. Enriching the defendant members and associates of the enterprise tlirough o^oing criminal activity, including.the activity. pattern and incidents of corrupt B. Preserving and protecting the power., influence and profits of the enterprise a^rty omot3ng the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of corrupt THE PATTERVAND INCIDENTS OF C RRUPTACITVITY The pattern and incidents of corru herein and personszcnown and pt actiaity atfnbuted to the defendants named activity, as defined in RC ), unlmown pursmnt involve to two RC. or niore incidents of corrupt defendants (A)(1) wherein said as pr.incypals or itf 'complicity with others known and/or unimown, did engage in, conspire to engage in, or solicit another person or person;s to engage in Corrupt Ac^ivity, including without Iimitation> specified in the body of this indictment: any of ttaefoilowing crimes, as 1. lvloney lauadering RG a315.55, 2. Tampering S.vith Records; RC Perjury, RC. 29?a.i1; 4. Sribery, RC. 2gzz o2; and ^. Snliciting or i^eceiving Improper Compensation, R.C. 292a.43. F OIZZ'ETTJ^HF S'P77nrr.rn^+ E2 ly' The Grand.Turors further filzd and s Ilecifythatthedeferidantsixtterastiut (I) Aen ^^ ^i^ the real :estata'com.^nonly known as the Garland 69$) and Parcel e at ID o,' 1^Iahoniug: Couzaty ParMI ID.'S$o276o90000 (Lot 83tiZ7UO86otto. ( and ectively referred to he^ ^^e."^iand I.ot 6g8 11^cGuRey}.[individuaiiy Cii) any call Pro g^neial ar limited partneiship mte Pert es"l,' anil CompanYr m Qhio.limited t^st m. 1Yie Ohio Yalley Mall record of the for parfuemhip,. being. tlie fee simple owner of (y^. ^^g Garland Pxoperizes, and ang slzares of any stocl^ owned by or ^ee^ *hether uut^^ o for the Isene&t of tile defendant, in^ irnst or ofhers^ise, of anyand ail classes, in and to o^'ez'eertain'oftlie y' an ^bio.covorattori, an eaticy IEa.ving control (iv) an shares ^^ofthe^arlandproperties;and wheth Y.ex.ou ^of any stock owned liy or#or thq b^eftt of the defendant, tltit; in irust or othetrvise, of any and all classes, in and to

71 the Marion Plaza Ine., an Ohio carporation, the genera3 partner of record of The Ohio Valley Mall Company, an. Ohio-limited partnership, the fee simple owner of record of the real estate known as the Gartand Properties; shall be sub}ect to forfeiture, each as an insirmnentality used in connection with the commission of the offense set forth hereinabove at this Count COIIIV'T z.x Conspiracy, R.C. 2923:o1(A)(i) e 1 Maho ors of the Grand Jury, being first duly sworn; within and for the County of ni'lg, State of Ohio, on their oaths. a,nd in the name and by the authority of the State of Ohio find and present that defendants, O.HIO VAi.i"F.y MALL COMPANY, AN OHIO-LIMITED P.ARTNERSHIP AND THE MARION PT.A7,A INC., AN OHIO FOR PROFIT CORPORATION, ITS GENEitAL PARTNER, on or about o to , at Mahoning County, Ohio, with the purpose to commit or to promote or faca'iitate the cozinmission of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity in violation of section of the Revised Code, did; wath ariother person or persons, plan. or aid in pianni.ng the commission of any of -the speoified offenses, to wit: engaging in a pattern of corrapt aetivity in violation of section af the Revised Code, whereby a substantial overt act or acts in furtherance of the conspiracy have been done by the defendants or a person with whom said defendants conspired, subsequent to said defendants' entrance into the conspfracl, and include clandestine meetings with one or more of the persons wiyh. whom said defendants have ^^P^di. - commvssion and/or complicity in the conunission. of one.or more. offense(s) of Money Laundering, R.C. s r5 53, Tampering with Records, R.C. 29r3 42, Perjury, R.C. 2g2LII, Brlbety, R,C o2; and Soliciting or Receiving Improper Compensation, R.C. 292i.43; the teiader of or complicily in the tender of money witii:^esgect to'any one or more of the crimes. set ottli in the body of this Iudiclmentr the provision of or comglicity.in the grov3sit^n of free legal serctices to pnbk^ seryauts; the provisiou of or complicitqi.n the pravisian of monies to or for the benefit of public servant(s);..the offer to gurchase- or' complicity in the.off'er to purcha..se and/or guaranty -a loan made by-a national bank in eonneation with -an 8ffort to block the proposed relocation ofmahoning County. o.d"iees to a premises commonly referred to as Oalr -HilI', in violation of Section 2923.o1(A)(f) of tiio Revised Code, a Felony o the Third Degree, contrary to fhe forna. of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the ftte of Ohio. C(DtT1VT x2 Conspiracy, R.C<292S:o1(A)(z) ^h e Jurors of the Gratid Jttxy;.bft ffiat duly sworn, zv.ithin and for the Count,y of. L M'ahoning, 9tate. of Ohio, on.their oattis and in-ttze. nanxe and: by the authority of the State of Ohio J bd. and present tiiat-defefid'ant. 1 H^ CAFARO CE7MP.4NY, on or about 02-0z-zoo,4.to i2-12-wo8,. at Iviahosf:i,ng Colilty, Ohio, with the gurpose to commit or tp.prcimote or facditate the eommissiori of engagipg in, a patcerri of^corrapt.

72 activity in violation of section of the Revised Code, did, tivitb another person or-persons, plan or aid in planning the commission of any of.the specified offenses, to w ft engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity in violation of section of the Revised Code, whereby a substantial overt act or acts in furtherance of the conspiracy have been done by the defendant or a person with whom said defeudant conspired, subsequent to said defendant's entrance into the conspiracy and include clandesline meetings with one or more of the persons with whom said defendant has oonspired; commission and/or complicity in the commission of one or more offense(s) of Money Iaundering, RC. 13r5.55, Tampering with Records, R.C , Per7ury, R.C. 292I.11, Bribery, R.C.^ ,. and. Soliciting or Receiving Improper Compensation, R.C. 292u.4.3; the tender of or compiicity in the tender of money with respect to any one or more of the crimes set forth in the body of this Indictment, the provision of or complicity in the provision of free legal services to public servants; the provision of or complicity in the provision of monies to or for the benefit of public servant(s); the offer to purchase or complicity in the offer to purchase and/or guaranty a loan made by. a national bank in conneciion with an effort to block the proposed relocation of Mahoning County offices to. a premises commonly referred to as "Oak HiU', in vioiation of Section o1(A)(a) of the Revised Code, a Felony of the Third Degree, c,ontrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and agairtst the Ieacepnd dignity ofthe State of Obio. - COiT1oPT 1,3 Cbnspiracy, R.C oa(A)(I) rphe Maho ning, of the Grand Jury, being first duly sworn, within and for the County of ning, State of Ohio, on their oaths and in the name and by the authority of the State of.obio fuzd and present that defendant, APTTHONyM. CAFARO, $R, on or about o2-oi-2oo4 to , at Mahoning Count;,. Ohio, with the purpose to commit or to promote or fae$itate the comniissioxi of engsging in a patteria of corrnpt activity in violation of section of the Revised C ode, did; with. another person or persons,.plan or aid iri planning ffie commission of any of the specified offenses, to wit: engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity in Revised Code; wherehya'sulistantial violatron of section 2923.gz of the overt act or acts iia fartherance of the conspiracy have been done Iiy.the'defendaut or a peison with whoin- said defendant eqnspired, subsequent to said defqndant's entrance into the conspiracy and.include clan.destine meetings with ane or.more of the persons with whoni said defendaut has conspired; commissioii and/or. coinplicity in the connnission, of one or more offense(s) 4f Money I,aundering,.I;.C, , 'pampering with Rec.ords, R,C , perjmy, R,C- '^9m21.1s, Biz[rery, R.C. 292I02, and Soliciting^ o^. Keceqiing Inx ro. Compensation, X.C. z92i.4,3; the tender of or compiaci P^ ' tyin.thetender. ofinopeywith respect to anyone or more of the erimes set forth in the body of thi.s Indictment, the provision of or. cow.pticity in tbe provision: of free Iegal services to public servants; tb.e provision of 'or complicity in: tize prpv:[sioa of monies to or for the benefit of public s.ervant(s); the offer to purchase or. complicity ^in.. the offer to gurchase and/or Buar-anty a loau made: by a nat[onal bank in connection.^it-h: an-effoih to block the proposed relooation of Ivlahoning County offces-to a preuiises coznm.oniy.referred to as "Oak Flill', i.n violation of ;Seetioa 2g23;oz(2x)(i). of the Revised C.ode, a Felony of

73 the Third Degr e, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against thepeace and dignatyof the State of Obio. COUM zq Conspiracy, R.C 2923.o1(A)(r) "e Jurors -of the Grand Jury, being first duly 1 sworn, within and for the County of M^o^ng,SEate of Ohio, on their. oatbs and in the name and by the authority of the State of Ohio find and present that defendant, JpHN A. McNALLY, IV, on or about to , at Mahoning Counts,'. Obio, with the pmpose to commit or to promote or facilitate the commissiou ofengaging in a pattern of corrupt activity in. vioiation of sedion of the Revised Code, did, with another person or persons,plan or aid in plaiming the connnission of any of.the specified offenses, to wit: engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity in violation of saciion' z of the Revised Code, whereby a substaniial overt act or acts in-fnrcheranc.e of the conspiracy have been done by the defendant or a person with whom said defendant conspired, subsequent to said defendant's entranee into the conspiracy and include clandestine meetings with one or more of the persons with whom said defendant has conspired; commission andjor 'eompiicity in. the commission of 'one or mare offense(s) of PerjurY, R.C , Bn'bery, RC: o2, violations of etbics laws pursuant to R.C. io2.o2 and/or RC. xo2.o3; the receipt of or oomplicity in the receipt of monies with.respect to any one or more of the crimes set forth in the body of this Yndidment including the receipt of or complicity in the receipt of fiee legal services, all in conneelion. with an effort to block the proposed relocation of Mahoning County offices to a premises commonly. referred to as `oak. FIiIY, in violation of Seetion 2423.ox{A)(x) of the Revised, Code, a Relony of the Tkird Degree, contrary.to the form Qf the statute in such case made and provided, and against.fhe peace and. dignity of the State of O$io. CAUNT 1, Coizspir.acy, R.C os(A)(1). ^he Jurors of the Grand Jnry, being first duly sworn, within and for the County of i^abo^?g, S#ate of Ohio; on their oaths and in the name.aizd by the authority of tttestate ofohio tiudand present that defeudant, JOHIN REAgDON, on or about oz= ar-?ooq, to x2: i;-208; at 14tahoning Count,y, Obio, with'the purpose to commit or to promote or facilf,tate the commission,of engeigiug i# a patterg.of corrupt activity in violation of seetion of the l3evasecl'code, did, witp anotherperson or pezsons, plan or aid iri planning the commissiori of any qe e^agiag in a pattern of corrupt activity in violation of seetgon the specified offenses, to vdt: Code, whereby a923:32 of the Revised been done by a snbstantial overt aet or acts in fureherance of the coiaspiraey have the defendant or a pei'son : with whom said defendant coi»,spired, subsequent-to said clefettdant`s entrxnce into the conspiraoy and fnetude etandestine meeiiqgs vitt.y, one or more of thepeisons w.ith. whom said defendant has conspired; commission atid/or compli.city in the comrnissiou' of Perji.agy, R.C. 292^..aa, Br.n"bery, R.C. 292x.o2; violaiio ^f eth3c^ laws ffe^s) of R.P. xo2o2 and%or.rc. 102,03 ; the receipt of or-coa^apli^{y in th^ rece' tpt of monies with res" tx) any ane or more of'the.crimes set:fortti in the Ii6dy of this

74 Tndiciment including the receipt of or complicity in the eceipf fi, all in connet^tion with an effort to bloclc the proposed relorcation lial eg t oof Ma eehon ng services C offices to a premises commoniy referred to as "Oak giu', in violation of Seciion ounty 2923.o1(A)(i) of the Revised Code, a Felonyof fbe Tbird Degree; contrary to the form the of the State statute of Ohio. in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of COT7NT 16 Conspiracy, R,C:2923.ot(A)()) re Jurors of the Grand Jury, being frst duly sworn, within and for the County of rahotiing, SYate of Ohio, on their oaths and in #he name and by the authority of the State of Ohio find and present that defendant: JOHN Zt1,CHARiATfi, on or about to oo8, at 7vlah6ning County, Ohio,' with the pm^se to commit or to promote. or facilitate the commission of engaging in a pattern of corrupt aciivity in violation of section 2923-n of the Revised Code, did, kvith another pezson or persons, plan or aid in planning the commission of es, to any of the specified offens wit: engagmg in a pattern.of corrupt aetivity in violatipn of section ^923,g2 of the su Revised Code, whereby a bstantial overt act or acts in fiirtherance of the conspiracy have been done by the defendant or a p.erson with whom said defendant conspired, subsequent to said dcfendant's entrance into the conspiracy and include clandestine meetings with one. or more of the persons with whom said defendant has conspired; commission and%r complicity in the commission of one or more offense(s) o Tampering with Recbrds, RC. 2o13.42, Per,jury, RC^ zg2l.i.i and Bri'bery, R.C. 292LO2; the receipt of or complicit,y in the receipt of monies with respece to any one or more o the crimes set forth in the body of ttiis. Indictrnent including the receipt of or complicity.in the receipt of free legal services, all in co^inection with an effort to block the proposed relocation of 1vFahoning. Connty offices to a premises commonly referredto as,"o;ak gi]z', in violation of Secfion 292g.oi(A)(i). of the. Revised Code, a Felony of the.third Ilegree, contrary to the form of the statute in. such case made and provided, and againsk the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio. CUIII4IT 17 Con.spiracy,l2.C: 2g-m3.oi(A)(r) If1ho Jurors of the Grand Juiy, being first duly sworn,. tivitliiii. ao d for the County of MahOning, 3tateof Ohio on their oatbs and in tbe name and.by.tlie autliority-of the State of Ohio ^nd. and present that defendant, MICHA LL ^ SCTOR37I^TO,. on or about to.12-i;x-2oo$,at Mahoning commit or tr^.proinote or. faca7ita#e^the comm"ssi`on e^'oliio, of with the purpose to activity in vlblation ofsedion 2 'a^ in a Pattern of corrupt qr.persons, plan or aid iu 9,32 of the Revisec3'C ode, i1fd; Witli ariother person y,yt planming.tke comiaission of any of tfie specified offenses, to Rey,^ en ^ ^a ^tteaii- of corrupt activity in.violation of:soction of the Y bsfant+at oyert act or acts in fxrtl^erance of the conspiracy ttave been ctone by the defe adant or:a:person with whorii said defendant conspired,. siibsequent xo'said "siefendanys eniranoe into tlie conspzracy and include claride,stine?neetings with one or tieo.re.of the.persons.vritli rv}tom said.deferkdantllas conspired; commission andfor eomp)icity, in:,be:coninlission of oue:ot mkre Qffense(s) of

75 Perjnry, R.C , Bribery, R.C. 292r,o2; eiolations of etlucs laws pursuant to R.C. i62:o2 and/or RC. 1o2.o3; the receipt of or campticity in the receipt of monies with respect #o.any one or more of the crimes set forth_in the body of Indictment including the reoeipt of or complicity in th this e receipt of free. all in conttedion with an effort to block the proposed relocation Of Mahoning legal services, County offlces to a prgmises commonly referred to as "Oak HiII', in violation 2923.o1(A)(1} of the RevySed Code, a of Section of the Felonyof the Third Degree, contrary to the form statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio. COt7NT x8 Conspiracy, R.C o1(A)(2) The Jurors afthe Grand Jury, being first duly swozn, within and for the- County of 1 Mahoning, State of Ohio, on their oaths and in the name and by the authority of the State of Ohio find and. present that defendants, OHIO V ALLBy M AT. COMPANY, AN OHIO I.TMITED 2'ARTNERSHIP AND THI; MARION PT.A7.A IIdC., AN OHIO FOR PRORIT th CORPORATION, I1g GEI^ERAL pag^^ at Mahonfng to Couniy, promote Ohia, afi on or abbut 62 oz 2ooq to y2-i2-2oo8, with the purpose to commit or facylitate vioiation Of section e commission of the' Revised Of engagi.ng Code, did in agree a pattern of corsupt activity in with persons that one or more of them another person or wiil engage in conduct that facilitates the oomtnissionof any of the specified offenses, to wit: en,gaging in a pattern of corrupt. aeivity in violation of seciion Of the Revised.Gode, overt act or accs in.ftirti^erance Of the conspifacy have been done whereby by the defendants a substantial or a person witli wlzom said defendants enirance into the conspiracy om said and include conspired,. subsequent to said defendants' ^ne meetings with one or more of complicity in the ^ m defendants have conspire; eommission and/or 7,3L5 55> Tam ^on o one or more affense(s) of Money Iaundering, R.C. R.C , Pering and Solicit withing Records, R.C: , Pe1Jury,.1LC , Bribery Rece;ving: Improper the tender Co3npensation R C. 292i.^}3; the crimes. set -for.th ^^^ in the tender Of anoney with respect to any. mne or more of the prowision of free Ie ^y of this Tndietment, the provision of ^or complica.ty in in the,provision of ^^^ to public servanis; tbe provisioii of or complic.ity TnoDIes to or for the benefit af publfe servant(s); the offer to Purchase or gamplieitq in the offer fia purchase and/or guaranty a loan made by a nai3onal bank in conneeffon with an effort to block the praposed relocation Of Mahoning Ccuuity Seciion offi^s to a premises cdmmonly xeferred tp as: "Oak HiII', ipi conteary violation to tbe of g2t3^.a ite^t (A)(2) form the Reyised Code, a-^iony a.of statute Of. ofthe Tfiird Degree peace in th ignity ofthe State of Obio. such and case made ai^d provided, d and. against, the CO.i)1VT i9.. Conap{racy, R_C: 292g.oi (A )(z). :. ^^o ors of ths Grand Jury, being ;grst dulx scvorrt; ivfthin and for the Coun the Stafe of ^l^io t^n^ ^o' on theix oatths. and in the nanie' aud by th,^ autliorit^y of. presertt that defendaut, ^ 0^^0 COMPANY,. at

76 Mahoning Couniy, Ohio, on or about to wi comznit or to promote or facilitate the commissio110 f engaging in, a th the pattern of corrupt person aeiivity in violation or of section persons of the Revised that Code, purpose did agree with another to commissian of one or more of them wiii engage in conduct that facilitates the any pf the speeified offenses, to wit: engagid.g activity in violaiion of iu a pattern of corrupt overt seclion of the Revfsed Code, whereby a substantial act or acts in fiutherance of the conspiracy have been dorie by the defendant or a.person with whom said defendant conspired,.subsequent to said defendant's the entrance persons into wifili the whbm consgiracy said and include clandestine meetings with one or more of in the defendant has conspired; commission and/or complicity eommission of one or more affense(s) of Money I,aundering, RC. 13 Tampering with Records, RC , Perjury, RC ,. Bribe , and Solicitiug or Receiving Improper Compensatlon, R.C ; the te.uder of or complicity in the tender of money with crimes set forth in the body of this Indictment, respect to any pne or more of the the provision of or complicity in the prov.ision of free legal,services to public servants; the provision o or complicity in the Provision of monfea to or for the benefit of public servant(s); the offer to purehase or complicity in the offer to purchase and/or guaranty a loan made by connection with an effort to bloclt the groposed relooation o Mahoning a natioinal County bank in offices to a gremises conimonjy referred to as 00ak Iii]l ; in violation of Section of the statu(te}m such case^ ^e' a pelony of the Third Degree, contrary ta the faim the State of Ohio. mde and 'provided, and agaivsg the peace and dignity of CO'UNT 20 Consptracy, R.C. 29-og.o1(Am e Jumrs o fhe Grand Ju ry being first M^a^g;S[nteof(}hi duly sworn, within and for the Co oa their oaths unty of o,resettt and ^in- the nanze and by the autiiority of the State of Ohio find and p that defendant, ANTH(3gry U. CA:RAgq, SR at c ^i^ o Prom^Ot' or acijita^the ^2004 to 12-i2-2oo8, with the purpose tp aetfvity in violation. secuengaging o fssioti in of a* pattern of coriupt on-2923,32 of the Revised Code, did agree with auother person or persons that one or more of#hem wiil engage in conduct that facilitates the comm?ssion of any o:.the^sp^iged o a^^ty. ^ violation of. f^ens es,- to wit:.e^aging in a pattern of corrupt of tlie. Revised. Code wli aovert act or acts in fnrtherance o the conspiracy have ereby a substantial person been doue by the defendant or Mtrance. with t whm^ said defendant conspired,. subsequent to said defendaiit's ^ pem^^^ wh P^cy and include clandestine meeting, with, in the co o^ ^d defendant has eonspire one or more of d, commission and/or complicity Tam rin^^^^ a.one or. more offense(s) of Aqoney Iafande^g, R C ^^55, , Pe g w!t& ^UC. R^ ^ or. R^^ 2913.g.2, a92iijrnbezy, ^ P6r.lury., R and RC,. tender.of or com.l' ^^Froper CompensatYon; R C ^9243; the c^^ set fortt^ iu.tiie Pcit 3' ^^e tender of money wifh respect to-amy one or more of the P1'oviafon of ree legal bpd^ of tliis Indictmeht; the grovision of or complicit.yfn the services to publie servaslts; the provision of or comqlicity fnthe prowisian o moxues.to.or^ or the beneft of public sersnant(s);. ths..of xr. ta g,^rchase or c mplici.ty in offerto tiie and/or p'archaseguaranty a.loan^inade by anationaf bank in

77 connection with an effort to block the -proposed relocation of Mahoning Cozinty offices to a premises commonly referred to as 'Oak gi7i; in violation of Section 2923.o1(A)(2) of'tbe Revised Code, a Felony of the Third D'egree, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio. COTTNT 2z Corzspiracy, RC. 29R3.0z(A)(2) r e Jurors of the Grattd Jury, being frst duly sworn, within and for ttie County of ahoniug, State of Ohio, on their oaths and in the'nante and by the authority of the State of Ohio - find and present that defendant, JO,FIN A. McNALLY, IV; at Maboning County, Ohio, on or about to , with the purpose to tommit or to promote or facilitate the commission of engaging in a pattern of corrupt ac(ivity in vioiation of section of tbe Revised Code, did agree with another person or persons that one or more of them wfll engage in conduct that faatates the commission of any of the specified offenses, to wit: engabbing in a pattern of corrupt activity in violation of section z of the Revised Code, whereby a substantial overt act or acts in furtherance of the conspiracy have been done by the defendant or a person with whom said defendant conspired, subsequent to said defendant's entrance into the conspiraey and. include clandestine meeiin.gs'with one or more of the persons with whom said defendant has conspired; commission and/or complicity in the commission of one or more offense(s) of Perjury, R.C , Bribery, R.C o2, violations of ethics law pursuant to RC. xo2.o2 and/or R,C. 1o2.o3; the receipt of or complicity in the receipt of monies withrespectto any one or more of the cdmes set.forth ia the body of this Indictment including the receipt of or complicity in the receipt of free Iega1. service,s, aii in connection with an. effort to block the proposed retoeat ori of Matt'oning County offices to a premises commorily referred to as Oak Hill', in ttie vioiation of 3eclion 2923.oi(A)(2) of the Revised Code, a Felbny of Third Degree, conttary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio.. COUNT z2. Conspiracy, E.G oa(a)(2). rjnie Jurors of the Grand Jury, being first duiy.sworn; within and for the County of.1.1vlahoning, State of Ohio, ontheir.aaths aud in the name and by the authority of the State of Olu<i find and present that defendant, JOHN RF,A1t13OI}i,.at Mahoniug Countyy Ohio, on or about o2=.oi-2oo00i2-i2-2oo&, with the purpose to commit or to promote or facilitate the oommission of en,gagging in..a.paftern of corrupt activity in. violation of section 2923.;32 of the Revised Cede, did agree ivitti another person or Perstips that one or more of tbem. will engage in. conduct. that facilitates the eomin.i.ssion of any of.tb.e &peei$ed offenses, to wit: engagmg ur a pattern of corrupt activity in.violatio^ af section 29'3.32 of the Revised Code, whexeby a su7^stantia) overtact or actsrig fpitheranco ofthe.conspiraeyhave been doite by tliedefendant or a pmon -with whom said,'.defendant'cxtnspired, subseq.uent to said defendaut's entsanc.e into the conspiraay and inetude:clandestiae nzeetings-wit'rc'one or more of. the persons with whom said defeudanthas. consp3refl; commis$ion and/or complicity

78 in the.commission of orie or more offense(s) 2921.o2 Of Perjury, RC. 2921ri, Bribery, R.C. reiceipt of; violations of ethics laws pursuant to RC. io2:o2 and/or R.C ; the cr mes setor complicity in the receipt of monies.with respect to anyone or more of the forth in the body of this Indictment including the receipt of or complicity in the receipt of free legal services, all in connection with an effort to block the pro"posedh Oakrelocation as il l' of Mahoning County offices to a premises commonly referred.to, in violatibn Of Seotion 2923.oi(A)(2) of the Revised Code, a Felony of the Third Degree, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio. COTTNT23 Conspiracy, R.C ox(a)c2) ^e Jurors of the Grand Jury, being first duly sworn, within and for the County of tbmahoning, State of Ohio, on their oatlis and in the name and by the authority of estate of Ohio find and present that defendant, JOI tn Z?.CHARiAH, at Maboning County, ohio, on or about'07 og-2oog to , with the purpose to coummit or to promote or facilitate the commission of engagi ng."n a pattern of corrupt activity in violation of section of the Revised Code, did'agree with another. person or persons that one or more of them will engage in conduct that facihtates the armmission Of any. of the specified offenses,-to wit: eugaging in a pattern of corrapt iy in violation Of section 2923,32 of the Revised. Code, whereby a substaniial overt act oracfs in fnrtherance of the. conspiracy have been done by the defendant or a person with whom said defendafit. conspired, subsequent to said defendant's 6h^ance into the conspiracy.and ilude olandes ^ne meeti^,h,i^ one or more of Persons with whom said.defendant haseoiispired; commission and/or complicity , in the commission. Of one or more offense(s) of- Tampering wit$. Records, R.C. Perjury, R.C. a921.r.i and Bn'bery, R.C. 292x,o2; the receipt of Of forfh complicity in thein the receipt of monies with respect to ahy one or more of the crimes set body Of tbis Indict:ment including the receipt of or complicity in the receipt of free legal services, all in connection with an: effort"to block the proposed. relocation Of Mahonii^g Couniy offices to a premises commonly refez7ed to as "Oak HiII', iai violation Of Section 2921oi(A)(2) of the Revised.Code,. a F`elonyof the T7iird. Degi. ee, contiary to the form% of the 'statuto against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio. in such case made and provided, and C LJN'T 24. Conspfracy, 72.C.?923,oa(A)(2) ^liejurors of the Gaanr] : Jurg :being ^ duly sworn, F thitz and for the Cauntyof 1 Malioning, State Of Ohio, on tlieiroaths and in tlxe. vi t1.te- '' name and by the anthority of ytate of Ohio find and present that defendaat,. MICHAF.,b VSUCRTINQ, at Mahoniing, County, phib, oii^ or about og-x4-q.^ to x2-ia-2oo$,. sviih the purpose to oomndit or to promote: or.faciiittate ths onmmission of engaging,ih a pattern of c0 adiz^ity in.vioiation of seclion 2g23,32 rr upt of the RevSsed Code, did agree witli another commlas person or persons that one or snoie of#hom wnj engage in conduct tbat facilitates the -on. of any of the sgecified offensess^,to wit enga^ trg in a patter n Of cotaugt

79 activitp in violation of section of the Revi,sed Code, whereby a substantial overt act or acts in furtherance of the conspiracy lzave been done by the defendant or a Persan with whom said defendant conspired, subsequent to said defendants entrance i ' nto iite conspiracy and include clandestine meetings with one or raore of h in the co m^ssion of one^ordmore offetns as j o p^' ^m^ion KC. and(or complicity ; violations of ethics laws pursuant to R C. 02^02 and/or R.C. o^2.og^; R.Che t receipt ofor complicityin the receipt of mouies erimes forth set in wifih the body respect of this to any one or more of the I ndichnent including the receipt of or oomplicity in the receipt of free legal services, all in connection-with proposed relocation of Mahoning County otizces an effort to bloclr the as to a premises conunonly referred to the ^ TOa lukrd Hill', in violon of Section 292g.oi(A)(2) of the Revised Code a Felony of Degree,-contrary to the form of the statute in such case.made and provided, and againstthe peace and dignity of the State of Ohio: = COiJNT 25 Perjury,.B.C 292z.zz(A) ^j he Jurors--of the Grand Jury of the State of Obio, wit&in and for the body o the 1 Coiuity aforesaid, on their oatbs, I1V THE NAMEAND BY TE E AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF OHIO; Do find and present, that the A1VTH(jNy M. CAFARO) SR., in the County of Mahoning, unlawfully on or about June 6, 2o07 did; in any official Proceeding,. knowingly make a false statement under oath or affirinaiion, or Imowingl,yswear or affirm thetrufh of.a false statementpreviouslymade, when either statement is material, in violation of (A) of the Ohio Revised Code, a Felony of the Third. Degree, contrary to the form ofthe gtatute in such case made and provided,andaga%nst the peace and diguityofthestate of Ohio. 1OTJPIT 26 Perjzw y, R.C. 292z.zz(A) rrhe:turors.of the Gxand Juty of the State of Ohio, witbin and for flie,body of the.i County aforesald, on their oaths,. IItI'1T T&I^.A.IvI^- TFTE STATE OF OMIO, Do fnd and resen ^ FY ^E AUTfiOI^ OF the County of Mabo P ^ tbatthea2#thoivi' M. Ct1FAR0, SR., in ^, untaw iilly on or about Jiioe 6; Pro^ding, knowangly make. 'a 2007 did, in any officiat false statement fxnder oath or aff'itmation, or knowing1y swear or affirm, the tcvth of afat.se siatementpreviausly statoment is materiai, in viqlati o^# of 2921.ii(A) of the made, when either ( fb4o Revised Coc3e, a Felony of the Tlxird Degree, contrary to the fo.xnx of the staturte in such ease made and provided, and against the peace aud dignity of the State of Oliio_ CUiT1V t" 47 Petjitry, R:Czg2a:zz(A) e Jurors-of the Grand Jury of ttae State of Ohio, *jthffi and for tlie body of the Coianty aforesaid, on their oatlta, IN ZTIF, NAME AND BY THE AUVA40rI, OF T.[iE STAT f+: OF OHIO, Do find and preseut, that the ANTHONY it+t. CAFAItO, SR., in

80 the County of Mahoning, unlavsfuily on or about June 6, 2007 did, in any official pro a^ _'?owinggly make a false statement under oath or affiranation, or swear r afffim the truth Of a false statement previously made, when either statement is mafeniat,,in.violation Of 292x.11(A) of the Ohio Revised Code, a,felony of the Third Degree, contrary to the form of the statute iu such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio. COUNT 28 1'e'JuM 29z1.zz(A) e Jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, within and for the body of the County aforesaid, on their oaths, IN THE NAME AND BY THE STATB.OF OHIO; Do find and present, THE AUTHORITY OF A. McNALLY, that the.above named Defendant, JOHN N in the County. of Mahonkg, unlawlnily on or about May i6, 2007 did, in any official proeeed$ig, knowingly make a. alse af6rmation, or knowingly saa ear or statement under oath or made, when either statement is mate^i^'^al, inevi Revised Code; a Felony o the Third t aha^ o 29a^a ii(a) of the Obio such case made and provided; and Degree, C ntrazy to ihe form of the statute in againstthe peace and dignityof the State of Ohio. COI7NT 29 Perjury, z92i.x1(a) ^Ixe Juwrors of 1the. Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, within and for the body of the i County aforesaid, on-theix oaths, TN'I73E NAME AND BY'THE AI3THORTTY OF THE STATE O.F OIIiIO, Do find and present, that the above named Defendant, JOI-iN A- MCNALLY, IV in the County of Mahoning, umla did, in any official- Proceeding, knowingly ^i^'-on or about May i6, 2007 abnmation, or Iaaowi make a false,statement under oath or made;. wheu eitirer st^eme is mat afe^i^r i'aml the. ^ffi of. a fatse statemen^t previously Revised, OOde, a Felon,y of the.third Ij ' in. violation Of 2.^2i.n(A) of the Ohio such case made and provide, ancl e^' c nirarf' to.tlie ^form of the atatirte in a$ainst the Peace andr3ignfty ofthe Seatg ofola3o.. ^'fj1v7c gp. '.. IjCPJip f, 2921.Y1(A) County e Jerbre aforesaid; of.tlie Gr'and' Jury of the Shate of Oluo,.within antl-for the body of the on their oaths, IN TH^ IdA11g AND BY THE STAT.E OF Do.find QHIO' Pand. THE.AY3TFTOTtITY OF A. MeNAE LY resent, that the above nained I?efendant, JOHN did, iix any cj^ci^ the Coun.ty Of ri+i.^honfrcg;. unpawfu^y on- oi about IY.[ay i6, 2007 affirruatron; or i?ngly k^op ^' swear ^o^'^y* make a false statement under oath ar made, when either statemeut is or affirn the tnrth isf a' als^statement previonsly Revised ^Lad^ ^naterial, ^ vialation qf g.292y,u(a7 of tlie Ohio such case.m ^e ^^Iony- of the T7rird: ]I^egreei ^a^.^y ^o the form of -the statute.in prov ded and against thepeace and dignity ofthe State of Ohio.

81 COtINI'3r Per.lurJ,292a.1x(A). e Jurors of the Grand Jury r of the State of Ohio, within and fox the body of the onnty afaresaid, on their oatlis, IN THg NAME AND BY THL AIPTHORTT'Y OF THE STATE OF OHIO, Do find and present, that the above named Defendant, JOHN REARDON, in the County of Mahoning, unlawfully an or about June 16, did, in any olficial proceeding, knowingly make a false statement under oath or affirmation, or knowingly swear. or affirm the truth of a false statement previously made, when either statement is materia.l, in violation of z921.11ea} of the Ohio Revised Code, a Felony of the Third Degree, contrary to the {orm of the statute in such case made and. provided, and ag2insttlze peace and dignityof the State of Ohio. CCITTNT32 PerJuM 292z.iz(A) ^he Jurors of the GrandJury of the State of Ohio, witl^in aind- for the body of the.^l County aforesaid;. on their oaths, IN THli NAMg AND BY THE AV,iTIORITY OF THE STATE OF OIiIO, Do find-and present, that the above named Defendant, JOHN REARDON, in the County of Iblahouing, unlap,fyily on or about June 16, 2007 did, in any official proceeding+ kliowmgly make a false stateinent under oath or affinnation, or 1rn.owingly swear or affirm the truth of a faise statement previously made, when either statement is Material, in viotation of (A) of the Ohio Revised Code, a Felony of the Third.Degree, contrars,to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and Againstthe peacerand dignityof the SFate of Ohio. (;OHNT 3g I?erjury, 292r.xz(A) T.he Jurors of tlie Gzand Jur3 oftlle State of Obfo, within azid for the body of the.k County aforesaid, on their oaths, IN THE NAML A.ND BY UME AIITHOItITy OF THE. SSTA1E OF.OMO, 1)o'fuad and present, that tlie abave named Defeudant, MICHAEL V. SCIOI2'PTNO, in tlie-couaity of Mah:oDing, unlayy&^ily on or about o5-2^.- 2ooq to.o6-o did, in any officiai pr under oath or afhrvaatfori, orkno inyor I s^eding' ^ow^y^e a^^tement previ.ousjy Yqade, when either statenient is material ^o ihe ation o eg^ s^j o^the Ohio Revis.ed Oode; a Felony of the Third Degree, contrary to.the foxzn of the statute Ohio. in such case tnade and provided, and against. the peace and dignity of the State of. (.O.UNf34 PerlWV;?92z.is(A) e Jurors cd'.fhe Grand Jury of the:state of Oiiio within and for the boc^y of the Countp aforesaid; n their oaths, IN TFIE NAME THIb STAT.E.-OF OHTO Do AND BY T^g A^OI IT IOF MI.a.:^r.. V.. ^c C ' ^d and presea^t, thafi the absive named Defendant IORTIi^I^3i.in the Cotnlty of-who117ir,,11ni$1nf11i^y on qr about os-a2-

82 2007 to did, in any official proceeding, lmowingly make a false statement under oath or aflirmation, or knowingly swear or affn,m the truth of a false statehment previously made, when either statement is tuaterial, in violatiouof (A) of the - Ohia Revised GCSde, a Felony of the Third Degree, contrary. to the form op the statute in such case made and provided, and agaiust Ohio.. the peace and-dignity of the State of ^OUNF35 Perjury, 2921,11(A) The Jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, within and for the body of the 1 County aforesaid; on their oaths, IN THE NAIvIE AND BY THE A THE STATE OF OHIO, OF, Do fu.2d and pzeseritx that the above named Defendant, JOHN in any ^Il^ln. tthe Couniy of 1Viahoning, unlawfuiiy on or about Aprii 5, 2007 did, affirmation, or Iaor^^^' knowingly n'ake a false statement under oath or wi4gly swear or affirin.tlie truth of a false statement previously made, when "thex statement is material, in vioiation of (A) of the.ohio Revised Code, a Felony of the Third Degree, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made anci provided, and againa the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio. COLlNTg6 Pe77uriJ, (A) The Jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, within and for the body of the 1 County aforesaid, on their.oatlis, IN THE NAIVi$ r1n13 BY THE AUTHORTfY OF THE STATE OF OHIQ; I)o fmd and present, :that the above named De endant, JOHN ^ Can IJilitol^ i^iin the County.of M'ahoning, u^^y on or about AprII S, 2007 did, any FrOceedmg, knowingly make a false sfatement under oath or afflraoation, or ImowiiigTy swear or affirm the tru,th of a false stateuent previously made, when.either statement is anatet7ai, in violation of 292a.iY,('A) of the Ohio. Revised Oode, a Felony of the Third Degree, contrary to the forin of the statute in such case made aua provided, and against the peace and dignity of the.state of Ohio. COiJN`I' 37 P2r.jtdy,292I.1Y(A) V e Jtirors:of fihe Grand Jury of the. Stat,e of Oluo,.withi^ and. for the body of ttie ounty afozr.said, on their oaths; IIQ THE NAME ANIj. BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE 3TATE OF OHIO, Do find ev.d pr.esent,- that theabove named Defendazzt, JOHN ZAGIiARi qh, in {he i ounty of Iviahoning, uwawfuuy Qn or about.april 5,. aoo7'did, in any officfal Froceeding, '^o^gly ^ake a false state^nent under oath. or af&imation, or la^^vzin giy swear or affizm tlxe trut^ of'a false stat^inent Freviovsly ^ed ^oithei.:statement is?uaterial; u[ violaiion of 29^q.x^(A) of tfte Ohio, a Fe1Q^?y of the ^d peg^, ^n^y.to. the forin of ttae statute in s?^h ^e made and provided, and againstthe pea^ ^d.^^,of the 3tate of Ohio.

83 COUN1' 38 Bribery,2921.o2(A) ofmcnally ^C e Jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, within and-for #he body of the ounty aforesaid, on their oaths, IN THE NAME ANI) BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF OHIO, Do find and present, that OHIO VALLEY MAT,L COMPANY, AN OHIO LIMTTED PARTNERSHIP AND THE MARION PI.AZA, INC., AN OHIO FOR PROFIT CO.RP012A3TON ITS GENERAL PARTNER, in the County of Mahoning, uniawfiiliy, on or about o oo8, did, with purpose to corrupt a public servant or party official, or improperly to- influence him with respect to the discharge of his duty, whettier before or after he is elected, appointed, qualified, employed, siunmoned, or sworn, promise, offer, or give any valuable tbing or valuable benefit, in vidiatlon of (A) of the Obio Revised Code, a'feiony of the Third Degree, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provlded, and againstthe peace and dignity of the State of Ohio: - COUNd' S3g BHbery, 292i.a2(A) ofreardan ^C e Jurors of the Grand Juay of the State of Ohio; within and.for the body of the ounty aforesaid, on their oatbs, IN THE NAME AND. BY THE At?THORTTY.Op THE STATE OF OHIO, Do find and present; that.oiiio. VALLEY ItIA.LL CObIPANY, AN OF.IIO LIMTiEIj PARTNEI{SHIP.AND THE M ARION PLAZA, INC., AN f7hi0 FOR PROFIT CORPORATtON, ITS GENERAL PARTNER, in the County of Mahoning,.unlawfulty on or about 02=01-04 to , 2iid; witb purpose o corrupt a public setvant orpasty officiat, or improperly to.in#iuence him with respect to the discbarge of bis.duty, whether before or after he is elected, appointed,.qualified,.employed, summi^ned, or sworn, promise, offer., or give any vahtable thing or valuable benefifi, iu violati.oa of z921.oz(a) of the Ohio Revised Code, a Felony of the Third Degr2e, contrary to the-forru-of the statute in such case made and provided, and.againsttlie peace anddignity of the State of Ohio. 00TJNT4a Eribery, (A) ofsciortfno C4iunty e Juroim aforesaid, of#he Grand Jury of the State-6f Ohi.bn their oaths o; w IN 7TiL NAMV AIiTD ifl ii B ia antl for the:btsciy of the., Y TIiL 2iUxIIOIiITy (7F THE STATE OF OHI0,13o 8ndandpreseat, that OHI(? VALLEI'^MALL_ COMPANY, AN Of3I0 LIMTTEA. PUTNFMHIp AND..THE MARION P7:AYA.INC:; AN OHIO - FOR% PRG7FI1' C(lRl'OILATIL?N,. IT^ GE.+ItlEItAI; PARTNER; 4a; tlie. County of.. Ii^lalioning, nfila"'hy on -or about o9-r^.-n8 ta i2^-^-2008;. did; witti purpose to. to public servant or party official, or improperly ^ j^u^^ ;;^ with r dischargethe espect of hi,s duty whether b ofore or after he is. elleated, app.ointed,

84 qualified, employed; summonad, or sworn, promise, offer, or give any valuable thing or valnable benefit, in violation of (A) of the Ohio. Revised Code, a Felony of aud ^e'^d Degree, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, against the peace anddiviily o the State of Ohio. COIJNT 4i Bribery, 2g2zo2(A) ofmcnally r C e Jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, within and for the body of the ounty aforesaid, on their oaths, IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUq"HORITY OF THE STATE OF OHIO, Do find andresent, that THE CAFAkO COIviPANY, in the County of Mahoning, unlawfally on or about to , 'did, with purpose to corrupt a public servant or party official, or improperly to influence him 'with respect to the discharge of his duty; whether befqre or a$er he is elected, appointed, qualified, employecl summoned, or.swoin, promise, offer, or give any valuable thing or valuable benefit in violation of 92921,o2(A) of the Ohio Revised Code, a Felony of the Third begree; contrary to the form of the statute in such case made ari.d provided, aud against thepeeaee and dignity of the State of Ohio. CO[7N1' 42 Bribery, 2g2i.02(A) ofreardon rllhe jmts of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, within and for the body of the County aforesaid, on their oaths, IN THE N AME AND BY T.EiE AITTHORIZy OF THE STATE OF OHIO, Do find and presestt; that THE'CAFAIZO'COMPANY, in the County of Mahon3ng,.unlawfulljr on or about o2-oi-6. to o8, did, with Purpose to corrnpt a.public servant or party official, or improperly to influence him with res^eet to t&e :diseharge of his. a utj,,. whe^er bafora or a tar he is elected, appouzted, clualifed, eznployer3, summoned, or sworn, promise, offer, or give any valuab2e. thing or yatuable bane$t, in vivlation of 29a^ b2ja) of tlie. hio Revised Code, a FeIony o the'l^i hird Degraa, oontraz3 to tha form of the sfatut^ in such.case made and providad,. and agai^ist tha peace and drgnity oftha State of OIiio. CUtJNT 4.3 Brfbery;.292X. 2(A). ofsciortivao ^e Jurors of the Granil Ju{^., of the State of Ohio, witlun and for the body 'of the C ounty aforesazd, on theix baths, IN THE NAME AND BY THE AITTHORITY'OF THE Sq`ATE of OHIa, -.ISo find ancl pre,sent; that '1IM CAFARO COMI'j.Ar1Y, in the F,oanty of lkiahon ingr Unla^vfii]Ty on or about o9-i,^-og to. ^-s2-2o68; did with piuvose-to corrupt.a pttblic servan or par[y official, or.improperly.to influence him with. respect to ifie diso}tatge of 'bis duty, whether - before or af ex he is el valuab e^ qualifeec^ empioyed; surnmoned, or sworn, pro,uiise,, offer, or giv^ thing or veli^able ^ae^r^ ^.violation of z92t.o^(a) of tlte Ohio R,evised

85 Code, a Felony of the Third Degree, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made afid provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio. COUNTqq. Bribery, (A) ofmcnolly r e Jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, within and for the body of the ounty aforesaid, on their oaths, IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF OHIO, Do find and present, thataivmonym. CAFARO,.SR., in the County of Mahoning, unlawfully on. or about to , did, with Purpose to corrnpt a public servant or party official, or improperly to influence him with respect to the discharge-of his duty, whether before or after he is elected, appointed, clualified, emplayed,.sumrinoned, or sworn; promise; offer, or give any valuable thing or valuable bensfit, in violation of 292x;o2(A) of the Ohio Revised Code, a Felony of the Third Degree, contrary to the form of the statute in such ease made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio. COTINT 45 Bribery, 2921:02(A) ofreardon e Jurors of the Grand Jmy of the State of Ohio, within and for the body of the Pountyaforesaid, on their oaths, IN THE NAME Al+iD BY THE AOTHQR(^,y OF THE STATE OF OHIO, Do find and present, that ANTHQN'Yy M. CAFARO, SR., in the County of Mahoningg, unlawfully on or about oz-oi-o4. to r2-i2- zoo8, did, with purpose to eorrupt a pubtic -servant or party official; or improperiy to influence him with respect to the dis barge of his duty, whether before or after he is eleeted, appoffited, 4ualified,. employed, summoned, or sworn; promise, o fer, or give any valuable thing.or valuable bene5'it; in violation of 2g2i;o2(A) of the. Ohio Revised Code, a FeIony of the Third Degree, contrary to the foim of the statute. in such case made and provfded, and against the peace and dignity of tlie State of Ohio. OQTINT 46 Brfb^ry, 292Y.o^(Aj.. of SC1oTtTito e,turdrs of the Grand Jury a P the Stat i Count e of Ohio, withfn and for the bod.y of thee. y aforesaid, on. tlaeir oatlis, IN THE NA14iE AND THE 3TATE.OFOHIO; Da find ant B.YTU^R AUTHORFI'Y OF County of lyiahoning; ur^ia^y _ ( Present, on ti^at or AN.TEiONL' about K. CAFAI2O, to SR.; with.: in'the ur^po ^ ta corrupt a putslicservaut, or Party o{$cial, or improperly td iuftuenee him. pect.to the djscliarge of hjs duty; whether befo^ or after he is eteeted,. valu^abl e quahfaed,.employed;: suznn^orted, or. sworn, piomise, offer, orgive any. ^?rig 9r valuable benef4t, Codein violation of (A) of the Ohio Revised, a F toiiy of the Thircl. Degxee, eontrary to the forcn^ of ++e star,rte in. ^ uclt case made asd'e provided, and agamst the.peace and dignicy of tfie. State of Obio.

86 Go Briberg, 29a1.o2(C) ofzachariah ^The Jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, dsithin aud for the body of the 1 County aforesaid, on their oatbs; IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORPPF OF THE STATE OF OHIO; Do find and present, that OHIO VALLEY MALL COMPANY, AN OHIO LIlYIITED PARTNERSHIP AND THE.MARTON PLAZA, INC., AN OHIO FOR. PROFIT CORPORATION, ITS GENERAI, PARTNER, in the County of Mahoning, uulatvfi.illy on or about o to oo8, did, with purpose to corrupt a witness or improperly to influence him with respect to his testimony.in an of-rcw Proceadiqg, either before or after he is subn or give hirn or another person any valuable thing or valuable benefitr,pin vioiationeof 2921.o2(C) of the Ohio Revised Code, a FeIonyof the Third Degree, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against fhe peace and dignity of the State of Ohio. COLTA7Tq.$. BrtbeTTf, 292I.02(C) ofzachtiricrh. ^C e Jur rs of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio; within and for the.body of the. ounty aforesaid, on their oaths, IN 1TiE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF OHIO, Do find andpreseiit, that THE. CAFARO.COMPANY, in the County of Mahoniiig, unlayvhiily on or about 67 o5 2oo5 to i.a-i2-2o08, did, with. purpose to corrupt a witness or improperly to influence him with respect to testimony if, au, 6fficW proceeding, either before or after he is sub bis promise, offer, or give him or another Pcena.ed or swara, in. violation of (C) 'of t^ie Ohio R1evised C,o valuatle.de, a'feio y of the-third Degree, contrary to the foz m of the statute in such case made and provided; anci against the peace and dignity of ilie State of Ohio. COETNT q:q Bribery, 292r.6;^(C). ofz'achwzah "e.jurors of the Grand Jury 'of the State of Oliio, "wtthin and for the body of tlie 1 County afaxesaid, on their aaths, in THF N.i,AND. gx ^g A^O^y OF THJ STATE. (3I^OHIO, Do find:3ndpresent, thata^1thonym. OAFAROf SIL,.in-the Count,y of'mahoning, unlawftilly on or about-.67-o5-zoo, to 12-x2«2oo8; did, with. PUrpose to corrupt a tyitiaess orimproperly to influence hiari with' respect to -his tesiimotiy in an official promed;np>: eitlier before, or after he is sub promise,offer,or.givehvnoxanother erson y vatu^ble ^na^orsworn, in violat3ott. of ^^ ( ) of the OI?i.oRevased thzipg: or valuable beueft, c0n t?efozmo#tbe Cc de; a I?eIony of ttxe Third Degree, p^^d d statute in sucli case anade anit grovideci, and against tihe ^gnity of#he State.of0]ifo:

87 COLTN'i' 5o B727iety, (B) r[m e Jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, within and for the body of the County aforesaid, on their oaths, IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATEOF OHIO, Do find and present, that JOHN A. McNAI.LY,IV, in the County of Mahoning, uniawfiilly on or about o2-oi-o4 to oo8, did either before or after he was elected, appointed, qualified, employed, summoned, or sworn as a public servant or party official, knowingly solicit or accept.for himself or another person any valuable thing or valuable benefit to corrupt or improperly influence him or another public servant or party official with respect to the discharge of his or the other public.servant's or party official's duty, in vioiation of 2921.oz(B) of the Ohio Revised Code, a Felony of the Third Degree; contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provicled, and against the peace and digniiy of the State of Ohio. COIIl4T gi Bribery, (B) rt%e Jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio; witbin and for the body of the j, County aforesaid, on their'oaths, IN THE NAME AND BI.' TIiE AITTHORTTY OF THE STATE OF OpIIO; Do find and present, that JOHN REARDON, in the County of Mahonink, unlawfillly on or about to x2-i2 _2oo8, did either before or after he.was eleceed, appointed, quaiiged, employed, sumzi7toned, or sworn as a public 'servant or party official,.knowingly. solicit or accegt for himself or anc}tt3er person any valuable thing.or valuable benefit to corrupt or improperiy infiuence him or another public servant or party official with respect fo the discharge of his' or the other public servant's or party officiat's duty; in violation of (B) of the Obio Aevised Code, a Felony of the Third Degree, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made andprovided, and against the peace and d2gnity of the State of Ohio. CGiTTNT' 52 Bribery, 292i.a2(.8) Jurara of the Grand Jtny of the State of Qhio, within aud for the body of the.i Countyaforesaid,on their oatbs, IN THE NA11E.AND 8Y TITL AIPfiFiO1ZITY OF THE STATE, OF OFiZO, Do find andpresent; that MICS3ABL Ye-SCIOLZTINO, in the C.ounty of Mahoning, uniawftilly on qr about o9-i4-2oo5.to 12-Y2 2flo8, did 'either _ before or after he was elected, appointed, qualified, employed, summoned, or sworn as a public servaut.or party offieiai, knowiioy solicivor accept for himself or a.n:other person any valual:ile ttiing orvaluabte benefit to. corrupt or iniproperty iufluence him or anothet public.servant or parcy ol3icial with respect to the discharge of his or the otb.er public servant's or party ofiicial's duty, in yloiatiort of 292I.U2(B), of the Ohio Revised Code, a Felony of the Third. Degree,, contrary to the form of the statute in such ca.se made and provided, and against the peace and dig_uity ofthe StatL-of Ohio.

88 COTJNT 53 Briberij,: (D) ^he Jurors of the Grand Jury af ttie State of Qluo;.within and for. the body of the 1 County aforesaid, on their oaths, IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORTiY OF THE STATE OF OHIQ, Do fmd.and present, that JOHN ZACFIARIAII, in the County of Maltoning,.unlawfidly on or about oq o^-2005 ta i ; did either before or after he was subpoenaed or sworn as a witness, lmowingly solicit or accept for himself or another gerson any valuable thing or valuable benefit to corrupt or improperly influence him with respect ta his testimony in an affieial proceeding, in violation of 292i.o2(D) of the Obio Revised Code, a Felony of the Third Degree, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and agairnse the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio. COUNT S4 Money Zuurzdering,.t3ig.5g(A)(1),+The Jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, within aud for the body of the j. County afioresaid, on tli:eir oaths, IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORTi'Y OF THE STATE OF OHIO, Do find and present, that THE CAFARO COMPANY, in the County of Mahoning, unlawfuily on or about 01-oi-2008 ta.-1a-3i 2oo8, did conduct or attempt to conduct a transaction lmowing that the property involvesl in the transadion is the proceeds of some form of uniawfvl act3vity wi.th the purpose of committing or fiu thering the commission of corrupt activity, in - violation of g(A)W of the Ohio Revised Code, a Felony. of the Third Degree, oontrary to the form of the.statute in such case made and provided, and againatthe peace and dignity ofthe State ofohio.: CODNT gfi MonegLaunder.fn9, (A)(1) r'ph e Jurors of the Giand Jury of the State of Ohio, within a.nd: for the body of the 1. County aforesaid, on their oatiis, IN TFIIi NAIvXE rxnd BY.TTiE AumORI'I"Y OF THE STATE OF OEiIO, Do find and.i3resen4 that ANTHONY M: CAFAAI{.O, SR., in the County of Mahoain.g, tuilawfuily on or about os-ol-2po8 to i2-32-2oo$, did conduct or attemp.t to. condciet a- transaction lmowing that tlio property involved. 'in the transaciion is- the.grooeeds of some form of.nnlawfiil aolivity with the purpose of committing' or fiuthe.riug the connnission of com.tpt.adivity, W vi.oiation of a3?5 55(A)(i) of the O17io Revised Code, a.felony of the 1`2iird I3e' conf.rary to the form of the stat7ate in such cm made and proyidisd, and: against the pmm and dignity ofthe Sta'te of Ohio: COtJIetT ;6 1Ylnney Lazunderin3', s3j5 ^5'(^?C2),. e Jurors of the Grand,Iury of the State of Qhio, witbin and f4r fi-b,e T,ody of the County aforesafd; on tlieir oaths,-in THE 1sdAllIE AND'BYTHE AUTHORi'PY OF

89 THE STATE OF OHIO, Do find and present, that THE CAFARO COMPANY, in the County of 14ahoningg, unlawfnily on or about ox-ox-2oo8 to oo8, did coniiuct or attempt ' to conduct a iraiasaction knowing that the properly invopved in the. transaciion is tbe proceeds of some forni of unlawlul activity with the intent to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of the property or the intetit to avoid a traasaction reporting requirement under of the Ohio Revised Code or federal law, in violation of i313.5;(a)(2) of the Ohio Revised Gbde, a Felony of the Third Degree, conh ar.y to the form -of the statute in.such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio. COiJNT 5q MoneyT.aundering, i315 55CA1(2) e Jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, within and for the body of the ^County aforesaid, on their oaths, IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF OHIO, Do find and present, that A.NTkiONI M. CAFARO; SR., in the County of Mahoning, - unlawfully on or about ox-ox-2oo8 td i2-3i-20o8, did conduct or attempt to conduct a transaction knowing that the property involved in the teansaction. is the proceeds of some form.of unlawful activity 'wath the intent to conceal or disguise the nature, location; source, ownership, or cozitrol of the property or the intent to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under of the Ohio Revised Code or federal law, in violation of x3x,5.53(a)(2) of the Ohio Revised Code, a Felony of the Third Degree, contrary to the form of the statute.in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio. COLJIVT 58 Money, Launderzng.?315 55(A)(3) ^he Jurors of the.grand Jury of the 5tate of Ohia, within. and for the body of the,j. Coimtyaforesaid, on their oaths, IN THE NAME AND BY THE AU'I'HORPi'Y' OF THE STATE OP OEiIO, Do fand and.presezi.t, that THE CAFAR,O: COlYIPANY, in the: t ourltl' of Malioning, uniaw.fiffly on or about zoo8 to 12-gi 2oo8; did conduct or attemptto eonduct a ira.nsaation with the purpose to promote; raaiaage, establish, earjq on; or faciittate tlae.promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on of corrupt a #iqity, in.violation of x3x5 55(A)(3) of the Ohio Revised Code, a Felony of the Third Degree;. contraryto the form of the statute i-n sueb case made and provided, and against the peace ancl dignity of the State of Ohio. COUNT loney Zaundering, r3z5.55(a)(3). e Jurors of thefirand Jury of.the State. of Ohio; withiu and - fo C tlxe liody of the County aforesaid, on theit.oatlir:, IN THE NAME EIND BY THE ^FL(TI^TTX OF THE STATE OF OHIO, Do find and present, flxat-ai^1thofrt^'.m. CAFA.KO, SR^., in the County of Mahoniiag, untawfiilly on or al56ut oi-ox-2oo8.to-i2-31-^008; did conduct or attempt to con.dl,ict a transactior! Faitl^ the purpose to promote; ma?^age, establish, carry on, or fac titate iue prontotion, n^anagement, establishment, or an3ring ^ on of

90 corrnpt activity, in violation of n315.55(a)(3) of the Ohio Revised Code, a Felony of the Third Degree, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and againse thepeace and dignity of the State of Ohio. COUNT 6o Tampering with Records, (A)(2) e.jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, within au.d for the body of the rounty aforesaid, on their oaths, IN"'HE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORTTP OF THE STATE OF OHIO, Do find and present, that JOHN ZACHARinu, in the County of Mahoning, unlawfiffly on or about xx-16-2oo5 to , did utter any writing or record, k.nowing it to have been tampered with as provided in division (A)(i) of of the Ohio Revised Code, where the writing, data, computer software, or record is kept by, or belongs to a local, state, or federal governmental entity, in violation of (A)(2) of the Ohio Revised Code, a Felony of the Third Degree, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio. COIINl' 61 Disalosure ofconfidentiallnformation, i02.03(b) &xo2,99 ^C e Jurors of the Grand Jury of the 3fate of Ohio, within and'foar the body of the ounty aforesaid, on their oaths, II+f THE NAIvIE 1lND BY TMAUTHORITY OF THE STAT.E OF OHIO, Do find and present, that JOHN A, McNALLY TV, in the County of Mahoning, uulawfully on or about o to 02=118-2oo6 did, being a present or ormer public official or employee, disclose.or use, without appropriate autiiorization, any informatioii -aeqtiired by the public offieial or employee in the course of the pubfic official's or employee's officiai duties that is confidential because of shatutory provisions, or that has been clearly designafed to the pttblic official or employee as conf dential when that conf dential designation is warranted because of the status of the pmceedings or the circumstanaes under which the information was received amd'.preserving its confidentiality is necessary to the groper eonduct of government 15usiness, a misdemeanor of the f(rst degree pursuant to xo2.99 of the. Ohio 1tevLsed* Code, in violation of 1o2.og(B) of the Ohio Revised Code, contrary to the form of the statute in such case m4deand pmvided;and against tjie.peace and dignity of the State of Ohio. piusuant to 29oi.z1(B), ' w)ien the seciion defining an offense does not specify any degree of culpabd.ity, and plainly indicates a purpose to impose swet criinynal * aiability. for the conduct described in the seceion, then culpability is not required for a persort to be guilty of the offense and when the sec[ion neither specifies oulpability nor plsinly indictttes aputrpose to impose strict fiability, reeklessness is sufficient culpabilityto commit the offense: GOI7N'i`62 Con,tli tofln^terest, ro2.03(d) &io2.g9_ e Jurors of the Orand Jury of tlie'^'tate of Ohio, within and: foir the body of the County aforesaid, oa thcir oaths, IN T'HE.NAtvFE AND BY TFiE'AUTIJORITY OF

91 1TiE STATk: OF OH.IO, Do find and present, that JOIiN A. MeNAI.LY IV, in the County of Mahoning, unlawfulty on or about to M-i2-2oo8, did, being a public official or employee, iise or authorize the use of the authority or influence of office or employment to secare anything of value or the promise or offer of anything of value that is of such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence upon the public official or employee with respect to that persori's duties; a misdemeanor of the first degree pursuant to 102,99 of the Ohio Revised Code, in violation of (D) o the Ohio Revised Code, c,ontxaiyto the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and diguify of the State of Ohio. Pursuant ta 29o1.2i(B), when the section defining an offense does not specify any degree of culpability, and plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict criminal liability for the conduct desen`bed in the section, then culpability is not required for a person to be guilty of the offense and when the section neither specifies culpabiiity nor plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict Iiabifity, recidessness is sufficient culpability to commit the offense. COIIN`r 63 Corzfiictoflnterest, z02.03(d) &zoe_99. r e Jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, within and for the body of the ounty aforesaid, on their oaths, IN THE NAME AND gy THE AVI'HORI TY OF THE STATE OF OHIO, Do find and present, thatjohn REARDON,_ in the County of Mahoningi unlawfiiily on or about 01-o3-2o05 to 12-ia-2oo8, did, being or employee, use or. authorize the use of the authority or influene ce xn f office or employment to secure anything of value or the promi,se or offei of anything of value that is of such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper intluence upon the public official or employee with respect to that persori's duties, a misdemeanor of the fiist degree pursuant to ia2.99 of -the Ohio Revised Code, iu violation of io2.o3(d) of the Ohio Revised Code, contru.y to the form of the statute ih such case made and provided, and against the peace and:dignity of the State of Ohio. Pursuaat to i(B), wh.en the sectlon defining an offense does not specify any degree of ntluct ^,^d piainiy. indicatesa pcu^ase to impose strict criuunal liairiiity for the descn'ued in the. sechon, then culpabi1$.y is not required for-a person to be guilty of the offense and when the section.neither spe ifies euipabi'lity.nor plainly indicates a Pnrpose to impose s[rict liability, reckiessness is sufficient culpability to. commit the.oftense. COTJN'I' 64 Confltotofinterest, &so2199 The Jurora of the.grand Jury of the.state of Qhio,-rui^thin and fnr the body of the j County aftiresaid, on their oat6s; IN TIiE.NAIvIE AND BY TIIE AUTHORITY OF TIiE STATE OF. OHIO, Do find and present, that 1VITCFIAEi, V. SCIORITNO, in the County of 1Vi8honing, tuilaw ully on or about 09 public o$icial oreuio. 14-2oo5 to 12-i2 2oa$, did, being a office or ean ^^'. or autbotlxe the nse:of.tke authority or in#luence:of ployment to secute.anythirig of value or tlie promise. or offer of anything ilue that is of such a character. as to manifest a suhstantisi and improper ence upoh the publicafceial or emplqyee with respeet to that perso^'s diuties, a demeanor of ttie flrst degree pursuant to" zo2:09: of the Ohio"Revised Code, irt

92 violation of (.D) of the Ohio Revised Code, coutrazy. to the fonn oftbe statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio. Pursuant to (B), when the section defning an offense does not specify any deby ee of culpability, and`plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict criminal liability far the conduct described in the seciion, then culpability i s not required for P. Persom to be guilt3' of the offense and when the section neither specifies culpability 2plainly indicat es a puipose to impose strict ]iability, reclclessness is sufficient pablityto commit the offense. COUNT65. CoTtflict oflnterest, so2.o3(z') &io2.99 ^e Jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, within.anci for the body of the County aforesaid, on their oaths, IN THE ISAME AND BYTHE ATJTHORITY OF THE STATE OF OI3I.04 Do ffnd and present, that JOHN A. McNALI,Y IV, in the County of Mahoning, untav^!'ury on or about to i2-i2 2008, did, being a public official or employee, solicit or accept anything of value that is of such a cbaracter as to manifest a substantial and improper influence upon: the public official or employee witb respect to that person's duties, a misdemeanor of the fust degree pursuant to of the Ohio Revised Code, in violation of 1q2.o3(E) of the Ohio Revised Code, contrary to the form of the statute in such. case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity'of the State of Ohio. Pursuant to (B), when the-section defining an offense does not specify any degree of culpability, and plainiy indicates a. purpose to impose strict criminal liability foa the conduct described in tiie section, then culpability is not required for a person.to be gvilty of the offense and when the section neither specifies culpability nor plainly indicates a Pupose to inipose strict liability, recldessness is sufficient culpability to commit the offense. C(HJIs1T G6 G'onflictof Interest; Yo2.o3(E) &zo2.99 r e Jurors of the Grand Jury of.tbe State of Ohio; within and for the body of the ount,y aforesaid, on theiroaths, IN THE NAME AND gx-thea'i7'tho.rtty OF THE STATE OF QHTO, Do find and present, that JOFiN.KEA$,DON, in the County of 1VMahoning, unlatvfully on or about 0a to 12-v2-2oo8, did; being a public offfeial or employee, solicit or accept anythi,ng-of valueyhat i s of suclz a. r.:haracter as to manifest-a substanii2l and' improper influence upon the public ofbcial or employee with respeet to that person's dutie,s, a misdemeanor of the first degree pursuant to io2:99 of the Obfo Revised Code, in viqlation of (F) of the Ohio Revised Code, conlraiy. to theform of:tfiie statute in such cisemde an.d prov2ded, and against th.e peaee arid dignityofthe State.of Ohio. Piusiiant to 29ox=(B), when tiie seclion defining an offense does not sgecify any degree. of cr^ipability, and: pla.inlyindicates a purpose to impose sirict eximit3al lfability for the c.onduet deser^l^edin the sectiou, then culpabdity is not requfred for a person to-be guilty ofthe.of'fense aand when tlie. section neither specffies culpabffity nqr plainly indicates a purpose to itiagose skrict. liability, reeldessness is szaf&cieny culpabirty to committhe offense..

93 CAiINT 67 Conflictof7nterest, xo2.o3(h) &io2.99 rphe Jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, within and for the body of the.l County aforesaid, on their oaths, IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY" OF THE STATE OF OHIO, Do find and present, that MICHAEL V. SCIOR7TNO, in the County of Mahoning, uniawfully on or about o9-14-2oo5 to r2-i2-2oo8, did,-being a pubiie official or employee, solicit or accept anything of value that is of such a character as to manifest a substanfial and improper influence upon the public official or employee with respect to that peison's duties, a misdemeauor of the first' degree pursuant to io2.99 of.the Ohlo Revised Code, in violation of io2.o3(e) of the Ohio Revised. Code, contrary to the form of the statate iri such case made and provided, anil agailrst the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio. Pursuant to 29ot.21(B), when the section defining an offense.does not specify any degree of culpability, and plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict crhninal liabifity for the conduct described in the section, then culpability is not required for a person to be guilty of the offense and when the section neither specifies calpability nor plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict liability, recklessness is sufficient. culpability to commit the offense. COUNp 68 Filing FaLse Financial Disclosure Statement, io2.o2(d) &zo2.99 'e Juroi.s of the Grand Jury. of the State of Ohio, within and for the 'body of the County aforesaid, on their oaths, IRf THE NAME AND BY THE AIITHORITY OF TIiE STATE OF OHIO, Do find and present, that JOHN REAl DON, in the County of Mahoning, uola.wfully on or about Aprit 2,2007 did knowingly file a false statement that is required to be filed under ioz:o2 of the Ohio Revised Code, a misdemeanor of the fimt degree purs'oant"to 'to2.9g of the Ohio Revised Code, in violation of i.o2.o2(k)) of the Ohio Revised-CoSie.contrary, to the for,m. of the sta#ute in such case made and provided, and against#he peace and dignity of.the S.tate of O11io. COUP1T 69 1?iling False FinancialDfsclosure Statement, zo2.o2(d) &so2.99 rphe Jurors of the Grand Juryy of the State.of Ohio, within and for the body of the j County'afozesa4d, on their oaths, IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORTI'Y OF THE,ST.4.TE OF OHIO, I7b $nd and present, tliat MICHAEI, V: SCIORTINO, in the County.of 14lahoning, iinhiwfitlly on or about".riay i,' 2ooy did denowingly.fi3e a false statement that is required to be Sil.ed under xo2;o2 of the Ohio Revised Code, a misdemeanor of the fiist-degree.pursuant to. zo2.99. of the Ohio Revised Code, in YIolaiian qf i02.o2(d): of the Ohio Revised Code, contraryto the form of the statute in".such case made and provided, -aud. against the peace and diguity of the State of 'Ohio.

94 COVN7e 7 Soliciting or acceptfng improper compensation, (A)(1) The Jurors of the Granrl Jury of the State of Ohio, within and for the body of the County aforesaid, on their oaths, IN THE NAME AND BY'THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF OHIO, Do find and present, that JOHN A. IvicNALLY IV, in the County of Mahoniqg, unlawfuliy on or about o2-ox-2oo4 to i.2-z2-2oo8, did, being a public servant, knowingly solicit or accept any compensation, other than as allowed by dlvisions (G), (H); and (I) of 1o2.o3 of the Revised Code or other provisions of law, to perform the public servant's official duties, to perform any other act or service in the public servant's public capacity, for the general performance of the duties of the public servant's pubiic office or public employment, or as a supplement to the public servant's public compensation, a misdemeanor of the fnst degree, in violation of (A)(1) of the Ohio Revised Code, contraryto the form of the statute in such case made and prov;ded, and against thepeace and dignity of the State of Ohio. COUh7T ryi Saliciiing or aceepfirtg improper compensation, 292i:43(A)(I). The Jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, withzn. and for the body of the County aforesaid, on their oatbs, IN THE NAME AND BY TIIE AU HORTTY OF THE STATE OFOHIO, Do find and present, that MICIiAEL V. SCIORTINO, in the County of Mahoning, unlawfu3iy on or about o9-a4.-2oo5 to a2=r2-2oo8, did, being a public servant, knowingly solicit or accept any compensation, other -thau as allowed by divisions (G), (H), and (1) of io2.o3 of the Revised Code or other provisions of law, to perforni the public servant's official duties, to perform any other act or service in the public servant's public. capacity, for the general performance of the duties of the public ser"vant's public office or public employrixont, or.as a supplement to the public servant's public compensation, a misdemeanor of the firsc degree,. in violation of' 292r.43(A)(x) of the Ohio Revised Code, contrary.to, the form of the statute in such case made a rid provided, and against the peace arid dignity of the 8tate o]fohio: (X?UhIT 7z 1Yloriey Xaundering, 13L5 55(A)(2) e Jurors of the Grand Jury of the StAte of Ohioa, within and for the body of the County aforesaid, on their oaths, IN THE NAME AND- BY THIa AiJTHORFI'Y OF THE STATB.OF OIiIO, Do $nd andpresent, that MAItTINYAVORCIY, inthe County of Mahonin& unlawfully on or about o3-2o-2oo8 to so-1,,r-2oo9, did conduct or attexupt. ta. conduct a transaetion knowing that the propercy. invol'ved in the ti^ausaction is the proceeds.of.s.ome"form of ^:tnlawful activity with the intent to conced ord' zsguise the natare, Iocatiotz, souree, ownership, or:confrol' ofthe properly or the intent-to avoid a transa,etion.reporfing reqw rensent under im.83 of the Ohio Revised: Code or federat law; in viowon of ^^5 3^CrY^(2) of the Ohib'Revised Code;. a Felony ofthe'third Degree, contrary to the.forṇ m ofthe.sta#u.tein such case madeandprovided, mzd againsttlie peace and aignity ' o the.4?'tate of Ohicr.

95 CQTINT 7S MoneyLaundering, (A)(2) rr"he Jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, within and for the body of the 1 County aforesaid, on their oaths, IN "FHE NATv1EAND BY THE AU'i'HORrI'Y OF THE STATE OF OHIO; Do find and present, that FLORA CAFARO, in the County of 1VIahoning, un2awfully on or about Mareh zo, zoo& did conduct or attempt to conduct a transacfion knowing that the properly involved in the transaction is the proceeds of some forni.of unlawful acfivity wi.th.the intent to.coneeal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control" of the property or the intent to avoid a transackion reporling_ requirement under of the Ohio Revised Code or federal law, in violation of i3i5.55(a)(2) of the Ohio Revised Code, a Felony of the Third Degree, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio..81WaILSED Ek 7R t7e BZLL: eperson of tfie Grand Jury Lorairi County Prosecuting Attokney. and. AppointedAs: ut W. ivick C'hief In'vesiigativeAttorney Ohio Ethies Gommission. ' :. Speeiat.ProseeatingAttorazeys Maho:uing County, Ohio

96 CLERKAF COURTS MAFiONlNG COUNTY, OHIO IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO AUG FIL`cp ANTHOtvY ViVO,CLERK STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff Vs. ANTHONY M CAFARO 2010 CR August 6, 2010 dt7jdgement ENTRY Defendant 9:00 a.m. The above matter will be set fot a pretrial conference, with clients, on Septembex 9, 2010 at u (1, JUDGE WII.LIAM H. WOLFF JR I IIBN IIIN IUN IIIII Ip^ ^ill IIIII NIN IN^ I^N I^I NN ^^ 2010CR "01 CRJUD THE OHIO LEGAL BLANK CO., INC.. EXHIBIT ( e Jt. Rec. Ex. 7 CLEVELANO. OHIO ,

97 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS GENERAL DIVISION MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO JUDGE William H. Wolff, Jr. Courtroom 9 Ys. MARTIN YAVORCIK CASE NO CR oo8oo H and FLORA CAFAgO CASE NO CR oo8oo I STATE OF OFIIO'S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS OF DEFENDANTS MARTIN YAVORCIIC AND FLORA CAFARO FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS The State of Obio, through its undersigned attorneys, hereby responds to the Motions of both Defendant Martin Yavorcik and byora Cafaro for a Bill of Partiealars. The common indictment in this case is legally sufficient under Ohio law, as it places each defendant on notice of the specific charges against them. Moreover, the extensive discovery to be afforded the defendants prior to trial, pursuant to newly-revised Ohio Criminal Rule 16, wi11 be sufficient to enable them to prepare for trial In addition, this Response voluntarily provides defendants with further details regarding the Indictment Accordingly, the State of Ohio maintains that there is no need for any order granting responses to what amount to civil case reqnests for answers to interrogatories. - THE OHIO LEGAL BLANK CO., INC. EXHIBIT :Tt:RPC_ F.x.8 GLEVELAND. OHIO441424/99. SEP

98 PURPOSES AND REQUIRFMF.tyTS OF AN INDICPIVIENT AND A BILL OF PARTICULARS Ohio law is clear relative to the purpose and requirements of both an Indictment and of a BiIl of Particulars: "Crfm.R. 7(B) explains the structure and sufficiency requirements of an indictment: `Tfte statement may be made in ordinary and concise language without technical averments or allegations not essential to be proved. The statement may be in the words of the applieable secison of the statute, provided the words of that statute charge an offense, or in words stifflcient to give the defendant notice of ar the elements of the offense with which the defendant is ch.arged. (emphasis added) State v. Horner Slip Opinion No. 2oio-Ohio-383o, decided August 27, 2oio. An indictment is sufficient to inform a defendant of the charges if it uses the ]anguage of a statutory section which states the element of the offense and specifies when defendant committed the offense. That was done here in the common indictmentlil. See, Rule 7 of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure. See also, R.C. 294i.o5. An indictment is not-in the State of Ohio--required to state in specific detail all of the particular facts upon which the indictment was based. Defendant can obtain the factual bases from both a biil of particulars and the State s prosecutorial file pursuant to (the recently revised) Ohio Criminal Rue 1.6. See, Ohio v. Sessler Ohio 4931,2007 Ohio App. L.EXIS 4631(2007)[2]. tsl The indictment followed Ohio law, despite cectain of the defendants' hyperbole relative to the lack of specificity of the indictment 1=7 Ohio Case law and Crim. Rule 7 generally track the original Ohio Revised Code statute (prior to the implementation of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Proeednre), at therein, `Statement charging an offense" which provides that: 7n an indietment or infonnatian charging an offense, each count shall aontaen, and is sug'iafent if it contanis in substance, a statement that the accused has committed some pub&c offense therein specified. Such statement may be made in ordinary and eoncfae language without any technical averments or any allegations not essential to be proved. It may be in the words of the section of the Revised Code describfag the offense or declaring the nzatter charged to be a public offense, or in any words sufficienf to give the aceused notiee of the offense of which he is charged.' (emphasis add.ed). 2

99 However, a criminal rule B81 of Particulars is not meant to be the equivalent of a response to a civil rule request for interrogatories: "A nwtion for a bill of particulars seeking to obtain a detailed statement of the particutar means by which the state claims the defendant committed an aiieged offense and a motion for discovery and inspection of the state's evidence were properly overruled. The disclosure by the state of evidence is not a proper function of a biii of particuia.rs, and no probtem of constitutional dimensions is raised by limiting the scope of discovery within the discretion of the trial court.' (emphasis added) State v. Wilson, 29 Ohio St. 2d 203, 208 N.E.2d 915 (1972) The Ohio Supreme Court has stated the Ohio rule relative to Bills of Particular and said that the purpose of giving a BiR of Particulars is "to elucidate or particularize the conduct of the accused"... "but not to provide the accused with specifications of evidence or to serve as a substitute for discovery." See, State v. Lawrinson. 49 Ohio St. 3d 238 at 239 (199o), citing State v Sellards 17 Ohio St.,Ad OBR qin_ 478 N E 2d 781 (1985). See, also State v. Wilson, supra. State v. Robinson, 2oo5 Ohio 6286,2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 5631 (Ohio Ct. App., Iake County Nov. 25, 2ao5). Certain of the Defendants cite extensively to federal authorities in their requests for extremely detailed Bills of Particular; however, federal authorities, in interpreting the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, are in accord with Ohio's interpretation of its own criminal rules. Under federal law, the general purpose of a biil of particulars is to inform a defendant of the charges against him with snfficient precision to: (1) enable him to prepare his defense, (2) obviate surprise at trial, and (3) enable him to plead his acquittal or conviction in the case as a bar to subsequent prosecution for the same offense. United States v. Davis. 582 F.2d 947, 951(5th eir 1978), cert denied- 441 U.S. 962(1979). Federal case law interpreting Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that a biil of particulars should not be expanded into a device to circumvent the 3

100 restrictions on pretrial discovery of specific evidence contained in Fed R. Csim.. P. 16. Cooner v. United States. 282 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. ig6o). See also Davis, 582 F.2d at 951("generalized discovery is not a permissible goal of a bill of particulars"). Where the indictment itself and the bill of particulars supplied by the government provide the defendant with adequate information with which to conduct his defense, requests for additional particulars should be denied. Harlow v. United States. 301 F.2d 361, (bth Cir.), cert. denied 371 U.S. 814 (1962). Federal courts have taken into account other sources of informa.tion provided by the government, including discovery materials. United States v. Lone, 7o6 F.2d io44, io54 (9th Cir.1983) (broad discovery can serve as a substitate for the "trial preparation" fonction of a bill of particulars). See, e.g., United States v. Feola. 651 F. Supp.1o68,1133 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (court considered whether the information requested had been provided elsewhere, including through discovery). Even under the federal interpretation of its rules, an. indictment is deemed sufficient if it "contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charges against which he must defend, and second, whether it enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of fature prosecutions for the same offense." United States v. Middleton, 246 F.3d 825, , Qu.otine United States v. Monus. 128 F.3d 376, 388 (6th Cir. 1997). The government is under no obligation to "preview its case or expose its legal theory", nor does the government have to disclose the "precise manner in which the crime charged in the indictment is alleged to have been committed." United States v. Shoher. 555F. Supp (1983), uotin United States v. Andrews. 381 F.2d 377, (1967) As stated in United States v. Malinsky, 19 F.R.D. 426,428 (S.D.N.Y. 1956): 4

101 "The purpose of a biii of particulars is to inform the defendant as to the crime for which he must stand trial, not to compel the disclosure of how much the government can prove and how much it cannot nor to foreclose the government from using proof it may develop as the trial a.pproaches " (emphasis added). Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendants in Mahoning County Common Pleas case numbers 2010 CR oo8oo, et at, are to receive thousands of pages of documents (a significant number of which came from the defendants themselves pursuant to grand jury subpoenas issued during the course and scrope of an extensive grand jury investigation which was curtailed by a finite ending date specified by the Mahoning County general division judges, ail of whom have recused themselves in these companion cases). THE STATE OF OHIO'S VOLUNTARY BILL OF PARTICULARS WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANT YAVORCIK COUNT 72- MONEY I,AtJNDERING BY MARTIN YAVORCIK During the time frame set forth in the indictment, Defendant, Martin Yavorcik, both conducted transactions and aided and abetted Flora Cafaro, in conducting lransactions on behalf of himself, Defendant Flora Cafaro and the Cafaro Company and members of the criminal enterprise identified in the common indictment and as that term is defined in (c) of the Ohio Revised Code (hereafter sometimes referred to as "Enterprise"), knowing the property involved was the proceeds of some form of u.nlaw-ful activity and did so in a manner calculated to conceal or disguise the natare, location, source, ownership or control of the property or to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under of the Revised Code[31 or federal law. fsi The documents evidencing said count of money laundering together with Defendant Yavorcil's 2008 Form 1040, U.S. Federal Income Tax Return referenced hereinbelow as well as campaign finance reports shall be provided to defendant in discoveiy pursuant to Ohio Crnninal Rule 16 iastead of being attached hereto. 5

102 Defendant Martin Yavorcik received a$ib,ooo.oo check, dated March 20, 2008, issued by Defendant Cafaro Company. The check was signed by.f'lora Cafaro in her capacity as a representative of Cafaro Company. An znvoice from "Martin Yavorcik Trial Attorney, dated that same date, March 20, 2oo8, was specifically made to look like it was for legal services on a "Service Date" of "February 20, 2oo8" for "William M. Ferraro/American Gladiator Fitness Center" and for "services rendered". Yet, Defendant Yavorcik failed to report the $i5,ooo.oo received as income on his 2oo8 federal form io4o, individual income tax return. Wdliam Ferraro has also denied ever meeting and using Defendant Yavorcik for legal services 141. Defendant YAVORCIK issued a check the very next day, on March 21, 2008, from his cheetdng account described as the "Martin Yavorcik, Esq." account in the same amount of $16, made payable to "Global Strategies Group". Global Strategies Group is a political consulting organization and issued a "memorandum," dated May 5, 2oo8, which purported to address a"survey of likely voters" conducted in ApriL 2008 relative to the race for prosecuting attorney in Mahoniag County, comparing and contrasting the political viability of Paul Gains and Defendant Yavorcik in that race. Defendant Yavorcik also failed to list the true source of the $15,ooo.oo in funds from The Cafaro Company check signed by Flora Cafaro on his campaign finance report for the year in which it was received by concealing the actual source of the funds and then misrepresenting the source used to pay for the survey/poll to be an in-kind contribution from Defendant Yavorcik, himself 141 There area number of interview summaries createdby SpeaialAgents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, termed "302s" which wirbe provided to defendant in Discovery pm'suant to Ohio Crim. Rule x6. 6

103 Defendant Yavorcik is the same attorney that was solicited by Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., his brother John J. Cafaro and his sister, Flora Cafaro and backed financially in an amonnt totaling $12o,ooo.oo fbr the purpose of removing Paul Gains from office following the much-publicized attempt which delayed but failed to block the move from the Cafaro-controlled Garland Plaza site to OakhilL Moreover, Defendant Yavorcik became a eandidate and received funds from Cafaro members of the Enterprise during a period of time in which special prosecutor(s) were being considered relative to the extraordinarlly unusual and ultamately uusuecessfnl actions to block the county's move from the Cafaro's Garland property to Oakhill. THE STATE OF OHIO'S VOLUNTARY BILL OF PARTICULARS WITH RESPEGT TO DEFENDANT FLORA CAFARO COUNT - MONEY LAUNDERING BY FLORA Ct1FAR0 The State of Ohio specifically incorporates the statements and acts set forth above relative to Count 72 as if fully rewritten herein. This count relates to the aetivity of Martin Yavorcik detailed above relative to Count 72. On or about the date set forth in this count of the indictment, the Defendant, Flora Cafaro, issued the $15,ooo.oo check from the Cafaro Company to Defendant Yavorcik. Defendant F'lora Cafaro both conducted said transactions on behalf of herself, the Cafaro Company and the Enterprise and aided and abetted Defendant Yavorsik knowing the property involved in the transactions was the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and did so in a manner calcnlated to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership or control of the property or to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under of the Revised Code or federal law. 7

104 The Cafaro Company check signed by Defendant Flora Cafaro was disguised to look like a payment for legal services on behalf of her son's business and was instead specificaily used to pay for a survey/poll to be conducted by Global Strategies Group as noted above relative to Count 72. This is not the first time Anthony Cafaro or other members of the Enterprise has made clandestine payments and the State will seek to offer and introduce other acts evidence. CONCLUSION The defendants have been placecl on notice of the crime for which they are charged pursuant to a proper indictment; they have been provided with this voluntary BM of Particulars and they will have access to extensive information in this case through the volutninous discovery to be afforded under Ohio Criminal Rule i6. Said information is more than sufficient to fully apprise them of the pending charges and to enable defendants to prepare for trial. To the extent defendants seek evidentiary details in excess of such needs, it is beyond the proper scope of a biil of partieulars. RespectfuIly submitted, and Dennis P. Will Special Prosecuting Attorney Paul Nick Spec3al ProsecutingAttorney by Special Prosecuting Attorney and by Anthony Cillb oo62497 Special Prosecuting Attorney 8

105 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A true copy of the forgoing BflI of Pariiculars has been served via regular US mail this g1st day of August, 2010 upon Defendants Martin Yavorcdc and Flora Cafaro in care of their attorneys at the addresses appearing below and also to counsel for the other defendants charged by way of common indictment at their respective addressed appearing below and via the same method of delivery: John F. McCaffrey, Esq. Anthony Petruzzi,.Esq. McLaughlin McCaffrey Eaton Centre Suite 1350 Cleveland, Ohio Cour seifor Ci"M & Marion Riaza Ralph Cascatilla, Esq. Darrel Clay, Esq. Walter & Haverfield LLP Tower at Erieview, Suite East 9th Street Cleveland, Ohio Counselfor Cafaro Company William T. Doyle, Esq Standard Building 137o Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio Courrseifor Flora Cafaro John Juhasz, Esq West Boulevard Youngstown, Ohio CourrseI for MichaeZ Scio r iin o Louis DeFabio, Esq Market Street Youngstown, Ohio Counseifor JohnReardon. J. Alan Johnson, Esq. Cynthia Eddy, Esq. Johnson & Eddy 172o Gulf Tower 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA Courpsed, 'ora. Cafaro, Sn'. George Stamboulis, Esq. Baker & Hostetler, Esq. 45 Roekefeller Plaza,llth Floor NewYorlC, NY 1o111 CounseiforA. Cqfaro, Sr. Lynn Maro, Esq. 7o8i West Boulevard Youngstown, Ohio Counselfor John MeNaLiy Roger Synenberg, Esq. Synenberg & Associates LLC 55 Public Square, Suite 1200 Cleveland, Ohio Counsetfor John Zachariah. J. Gerald Ingram, Esq. Robert Dufrin, Esq. 733o Market Street Youngstown, Ohio Counset for Martin Yavorcik D a vi P. Mub.ek 9

106 .4'i;srS'2F d2'.^ :=3tT1?P1^':'z'HP'i:;.ASER`JET"FR5i'" ':9slt MCI.AUGHLIN & IYICCAPFREY, LLP EATON CErrTss, Sara SvPaxlox Aveivas E',LSVEIdiVD, OHIO John F. McCaffrey (216) 6a3-o5oo o Fuc (2i6) 623-o935 Jfta@paladiit-lasr.com law@paladirt-lawcom Via & Regular U.S. Msil Hoit. William H. Wolff; Jr. c/o Stephanie Franle, Bailiff 'Mahoning County Court of Common Pieas 180 Market Street Youngstown, OH State ofohio v..anyhony M Cafaro. Sr, et al., Case Dear Judge Wolff: I write to you as counsel for Defeudants Ohio Valley Matl Cvrnpany and The Marion Plaza, Inc. seeking the Court's immediate intervention, prior to the September 9d' pretrial, to cease the State's announced intent to file bill of particular responses prior to the scheduled pretrial on September 9, See Notice of Intent of the State of Ohio to Comply with Ohio Criminal Rules 7(E) and 16(B) & Local Criminal Rule 9. I am joined in tliis effort.by counsel repl+esentiug Defendants ttnthony M. Cafaro, Sr.; Flora Cafaro, and The Cafaro Company. Defendants request tbe Court issue a dicective to the State requiring it to: 1. Produce to the Defendants, fourteen (14) days in adrwanoe of filing with the Clerk of Court, its proposed bill of particular responses oonceming any one or more of the Defendants named in the Indictment until Defendants have the opporiunity to apply to the Court for appropriate relief; or alternatively, IIIIiIIlIIIIImilIlIIlbIIIIIiIIifIII THE OHIO LEGAL BLANK CO.. INC 1 EXHIBIT Tt Rar_ F CLEVELANO, ONIO CR MEMO EXHIBIT A

107 ` :30PM p.3 2. Direct that its bill of particular responses be filed under seal with the Cierk of Court to afford both the Court and Defendants the oppornarity to move to redact the specific portions whieh Defendants contend should be stricken froni filings before being made publio. At a xninimtun, Defeadants request the Court preclude the State from any further public filings until the pretriai on September 4 i at which time the Court may receive further inform.ation from tite patties on tbis issue, or require Defendants to proceed with the filing of a fomiai motion pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Suparintendence for the Courts of Ohio, which authorizes a court to restrict public access to a case doeuinant based on a party's motioa or the Court's own order. The State's Response Contains Gratuiteus, Inftammatory Statements More Alon'Y`o A Fress Release Than A Response To A Bill Of Particulars The State recently filed, on the pubgc record, a document putpoiting to be its response to a bill of particulars requested by Flora Cafaro and Martin Yavorcik. See State of Ohio's Response to Motions of Defendants Martin Yavorcik and Blora Cafam for a Bill of Particulars (hereinafter "the State's Response"). The State's Response fails to respond to the specific requests for particularity sought by Mr. Yavoroik or Ms. Cafaro. Ftiartherarore, the State's Response contains gratuitous and infiammatory statements designed to incitethe media and poison the public's peroeption o the Defendants. The State's Response was filed on Tuesday of this week and immediately made available to Youngstown area media outlets even before the Defendants, or this Court, were served. in faat, Defendants only learaed of the flliiig after being contacted by the media. Aithough furnished to the media, the State's Response was not available on the

108 `.:Sep'ez. 2010, '12:30PMI '1{P^$$EfJEf FfFX p.4 Clerk of Court's eleatronic docket, or from your bailiff Stepbanie Frank. To date, every filing by Defendants has been immediately furnished to your bailiff and promptly served on the State. In eontrasf, Defendants were not served with the State's Response until Wednesday, September 1 L, well after the media fully reported on the contents of the State's Response. The State's effoit to pander to the media through its Response succeeded. The front page headline on the September I" edition of 77ie F'indicaYor read "Details einerge. in Flora Cafaro, Yavoroik case" and the accompanying article irampeted the State's allusion to potential Evid. R. 464(13) evidence. A copy of the article is enclosed with this letter. The State's Response - more in the nature of an adversarial press release than an appropriate response to a well-takenmofion for a bill of parhiculars - has extraordinary potential to taint unfairly the local citizenry and thereby seriously compmmise: Defendants' ability to obtain a fair trial by an unbiased jury drawn from this community. Defendants should not have to fear that in exercising their cdmstitutional tights to be fully informed of the allegations made against them in the Indictment they will be providing an cpporhmity for the State to multiplythe media exposure that resulted from its initial Indictment and disseminate, thmugh the vehicle of a legal pleading, extraneous, inflammatory -- and prejudicial allegations and promises of future evidence that migbt well be excluded - into the public consciousness. A bill of particulars is not a device to be manipulated by the prosecution to preview discovery, test themes to be advanced at trial, or characterize the "other act" evidence the State mayo fer at trial. See S'tate v. Sellardss (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 169, 171 ("A bill of particulars has a limited purpose - to elucidate or particularize the conduct of 3

109 Sep 02"^czD fcl 12: 30PM HP"Lftt12JET`'FR%' ` P the accused alleged to constitute the charged offense.") (Eanphasis added). Specifically, with respect to Flora Cafaro's reqnest for particularity on the lone count of the Indictment charging her with an offense (Count 73 - money laundering), the State again recites the relevant statutory language of R.C , but then foi+eshadows its intention to attack Defendants' character with the following: See State's Response at S. The Cafaro Company check signed by Defendant Fiora Cafam was disguised to look like payments for legal services on behalf of her son's business and was instead specifically used to pay for a sutveylpotl to be condncted by Global Strategies Group as noted above relative to Count 72. This is not the tirst time Anthony Cafaro or other members of the Enterprise has made clandestine payments aad the State will seek to offer and introdnce other acts evidence. (Eniphasis added). With respeat to Mr. Yavorcik, the State chatacterizes certain evidencethat has not yet been produced in disoovery. See State's Response at 5, n. 3. Surprisingly; the State uses its response to commenton the anticipated testimony of potential witnesses to be offered at trial See State's Response at 6("William Feixaro has denied ever meet tg and. using Defendant Yavoreik for legal services."}. Even more egregious is the State's attempt to bolster its characterization of anticipated witncss testintony by stating "There are a number of interview summaries created by [the FBI)... which wilibe pmvided to deftxuiant in Discovery pursuant to Ohio Crini. Rule 16." See State's Response at 6, n. 4. Such statements are clearly intended.for the media, not to respond to the Defendants' requests forparticulars. Each:of the Defendants made written request for Crim. R. 16 discovery and notice of its intent to introduce Evid: R. 404(B) evidence by letter to the Special Prosecutors 4

110 Siip 02 Z PM HP `LR3E17'JET'F`HX following their an aignment. As the Court well koows, the State's production of discovery maaterial is not filed withthe Clerk of Court orproduced to the media before, or even after, its disclosure to a defendant, Because of the State's obvious efforts to taint the jury pool, this Court must take action to preserve and protect Defendants' constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial. Defendants Requcst For A Temporary Sealing Is Approprlate Where The State's Response Endangers Defendants Ability To ReceiveA Fair Trisl A. Superintendence Rule 45(E)Authorizes The Seal.ing Of Case Documents Rule 45(E)(1) of the Rules of Superintendence for tha Courts of Obio authorizes a party to a judicial proceeding, or the court on its own order, to restrict- public access to a case doownent. On January 12, 2009, the Supreme Court of Obio amended the Rules of Superintendence by adopting Rules 44 through 47. See Cl'evedand Construcriona Ine. v. Pfllanueva (2010),186 Ohio App.3d 258, 262. The newly adopted rales, effectivc as of May 1, 2009, oiutline procedures for regulating publie access to court documents. Id. Specifically, Sup, R. 45(E) concerns the res&iction of public access to a case document, more often referred to as the sealiag of a doeumant. Superintendence Rule 45(S)(1) permits anyparty who is the subject of information in a case document to file a motion requesting that the court resttiet public access to the infomation or the entire docuu ent if necessary. Superlntendenee Ruio 45(E)(2) provides the standard by which a court sbould determine whether public access to a docnntent is to be restriated: (2) A court shall restrict public access to infommtion in a case document or, if necessary, the entue doctuncnt, if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the preswnption of allowing public access is outweighed by a 5

111 NS^p' 0^8-2.OM;-12 :31-RM HP LR5Ek'J^*R; FRX?,., See Sup.R. 45(E)(2). higher interest after considering each of the following: (a) Whether public policy is served-by restricting publio access; (b) Whether any state, federal, or common law exempts the document or in oxnnation from public access; (c) Whether factors that support restriction of public access exist, including risk of injury to persons, individual privacy rights and interests, proprietary busiriess irrformation, public safety, and fairrtess of the adj uilicatory procuss. Each factor is met here. As described betow, public policy is best served by restricting access in the manner suggested by Defendants so that their canstitutional rigbt to trial by an unbiased jury is preserved. Furthermore, alihough no law specifically exempts a bill ofparticulars from public access, existing case law amplysupports the right to restrict the manner in which filings in a criminal case are handled, inctuding restricting public access. Finally, restricted access is appropriate in order to avoid the Stata fiom repeating its appare,nt. gamesmanship snd efforts to undermine the fundaniental fairness: of these proceedings. B. The ffiight To A Fair Trial Outweighs Publtc Access To The State's Bill Of Particalars While there exises a gmeral First Amendmeitt rigbt of public access to documents &led with the court in the course of judiciat proceedings, this right is by no means absolute. Rather, it is best described as a qualified right that ba3ances the public's right to access t'o judicial proceedings with a criminal defendant's eountervaiiing constitutianal rights to a fair triai and an impartial jury. See Globe Newspaper Ca. v. Superior Court (1982), 457 U.S. 596, 606; Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. V'u^g'3nPa (1980), 448 U.S. 555, 6

112 :^31PM"HP.LflSER4t p n.18. While open criminal proceedings give assurances of fairness tb both the public and the accused, there are some limited circumstances in which the right of the accused to a fair trial might be undsrmiaed by publicity. In such cases, the trial court must determine whether the situation is such that the rights of the accused override the gualified First Amendment right of access. Press Enterprfse Co. v. Superior Court (1986), 478 U.S. 1, 9 ("Press-Enterprisell"). The United States Supreme Court and the Supueme Court of Ohio have both reoognized that "no right ranks higher than the [Sixih Amendment] right of the accused to. a fairtrial." SYate, ex red. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Bond (2002), 98 Obio St.3d , quoting Press Enterprfse Co. v. Superior Court (1984), 464 U.S. 501, 508 ("Press Enterprise T'). Accordingly, a criminal deferidant's Sixth Amendment iightto a fair trial outweighs the public's interest in accass to a court document. See In re New York 7Ymes Co. (2d Cir. 2009), 577 F.3d 401, 410 n.4 ("other proceedings raaybe nonpublic under certain cireumstances, ineluding protecting a defendant's right to a fair trial"); In re Globe Newspaper Co. (1" Cir. 1990), 920 F.2d 88,93 (defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial is constitutionally protected interest to be considered in ordering disclosure); United States u Sampson (D. Mass. 2003), 297 F.Supp.2d 342,345 ("An accused's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial plainly rises to the level of a compelling interest"). The constitutionally-protected right to a fair trial will be directly implicated by the State's filing of fixither bills of particulars akin to its Response. "A high profile case... imlwses unique demands on tbc trial court, and req the coutt to establish procedures for dealing effectively, efficiently and fairly with reeturing issues such as whether doeuments should be placed under seal or redacted." 7

113 St?ja',M '2:'31Y'M`HP LRSt=fYJE'!^*;Iq?i United States v. McVeigh (14t' Cir. 1997), 1 t9 F.3d 806; 813. AfcYeighnotedthat the Supreme Court had not yet made a definitive ruling on whether there was a First Amendment right of aceess to court documexits, and if so the scope of that right. Id. at 812. However, McYetgh sssumed that the First Amendment right to attend prelitninary hearingsestablished in Press Enterprise II extended to access to judicial documents. Id. McVeigh held that the district court made sufficient findings to support its sealing orders: `.`With respect.to the limited redactions of the suppression motion and aocompatwing exhibits, the court noted that the motions contained `references and attaohments which axe not now and may never be in evidence,' and that diselosure 'would lilcely generate pre-trial publicity prejudioial to the interests of all parties in this criminal proceeding. "' Id at (footnote omitted). McVeigh also held that the public is not entitled to evidence once the evidence is in fact determined by the court ta be inadmissible. Id at te interview summaries. referenced in the State's Response are clearly inadmissible hearsay; similar to the agent interview notes McVeigh detemlined should not be released to the puhlic because of their "deleterious effect of making publicly available incriminating evidence that the district court has ruled may not be considerad ut assessing the defendant's guilt." McVeigh;119 F.3d at 814. The situation tltat watrentetl redaction of material in McVeigh is the preeise. situation present here. Among other faults, the State's Response contains inflatnmatory andprejudicial references to information that likely will be ruled inadltrissible at trial. However, ptiorto this Court being able to determine the admissibility of such evidence, the media has seized on the intlammatory statelnents and caused even more prejudice to 8

114 Sep ^ti^?2t7'10" 12:31"PM HP`'LHSERJET' F'ff*`?"-f p `-1b:.. the Defendants. The substantial risk of finther prejudice is great and action must be taken imniediately to protect the Defendants from the State's inappropriate tactics. The Supreme Coiut "has long recognized that adverse publicity can endanger the ability of a defendant to receive a fair trial." Gannett Co., Inc. v. I3ePasqaute (I979), 443 U.S. 368, 378. rn Gannett, the Court found no First Amendment violation in the deniai of pubfic access.to a suppression hearing, noting that: Publicity concemingpretrial suppression hearings such as the one involved in the present case poxs special risks of an.faimess. The whole purpose of sueh hearings is to screen out unreliable or illegalty obisined evidence and insure that this evidence does not become known to the jury.... Publieity concerning the proceedings at a pretiial heaiing, however, could influence public opinion against a defendant and inform potential jurors of inculpatory information whoiiy inadmissible at the actual trial. Id. (citation ontitted); see also Nixon v. Warner CommuniearZons (1978), 435 U.S. 589, 598 (observing that there may be compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the pubtic's interests in disclosure when "conrt files might have become a vebicle for improper purposes"). The same considerations are operative here, as the State's Response contain references to inflammatory and prejudicial infonnation that may neverbe admitted into evidence but which may nonetheless remain indelibly imbedded in the nsinds of potential jurors. Them is every reason to believe that future responsesby the State will contain equally if not even more inflammatory and prejudicial informa.tion. The immediate relief Defendants request is tailored to balance competing camstitntional interests. In re ProWdence Journal Co., Inc. (I`6 Cir. 2002), 293 F3d 1, was an outgrowth of a widely-pubhoized potitieal eorraption ease'against a mayor. The district conrt ordered that all documents be reviewed by the court prior to the documents 9

115 Sep 02-2^Q1cEk'z'i2d31PM 'EHP t.fls1=r.]et FFl}C ^ being publicly filed. The order was necessary because "a substantial risk cfprejudicing the parties' rights to a fair trial" through the "intense media ooverage" exist.ed. Id. at 5. A newspaper challenged the court's order. The First Circui.t held that "given the ciroumstances of [thej case, the district court's implementatiou of a general procedure to seal all memoranda temporarily appears nacrowly tailored." Id. at 14. The only suggested changes to the order the First Circuit made were to: (1) include a timetable obligating the court to perform its screening. responsibilities; (2) review each mesiorandum filed promptly azw to not wait until any possible reply memoraaduni was filed; (3) include a provision as to whether the court intends to unseat memoranda at some point after the trial, and if so when; and (4) to consider redaction as a possible altemative on a document by doeument basis. Id. at 15. A similar procedure is warranted here. "Every court has supervisory power over its own recads and files, and access has been denied where oourt files have become a vehicle for itnproper.purposes." In re: Tke Spnkesraan-12evfew (D. Utah 2008), Case No. MC , 2008 U.S. Dist. LSJCIS 59070, at "6, quoting MeClatchy Newspapers v United States Dist Court (9s`.Cir. 2002), 288 F.3d 369, Access must be denied to documents in this matter, because statements made in court documents are being used bythe media for improper purposes. For all of these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court promptly take action to restrain the State from further prejudicing this trial, by requiring that future responses to bills ofparticulars be provided.14 days in advance.ofpublic filing until Defendants have the opportanity to apply to the Court for appropriate relie& or that. public access to futur responses be placed under seal urttil Defendants have the 10

116 ,8ep 02 POM"1 2:32PN1".' HP^t_ASER3ET FRX P : opportunity to apply to the Coiut for appropriate relief. To the extent necessary, Defendants. ar.a prepared, if so directed by the Court, to file a formal motion requesting this relief under Superintenderice Rule 45(E). Very Truly Yours, JFM/bn Enclosurcs co: Paul Nick, Esq. (via faesirnile axui ) Dennis P. Will, Essq. (via facsimile and ) David Muhek, Esq. (via facsimile and ) And for counsel Martin.G. Weinberg, George. A. Stainboulidis, J. Pslan Jolmson, and Ralph E Cascarilla 11

117 ..... ^. 5ep 02 20'1'O"T'9^'J2PM HPLRSltRJEY'FfiX

118 Sep "12'S 34;P^M" HP" I.HSER'JET FRx

119 ....*^Sep^ o'36PM;^.!:^>FiP `L'R^S R^7ET ^HS^. ::. p.15` : 'F^f^.'ieedY^bE 79aluvcli^C^p^^ y ^^1^NOk ^_.^,^r^aa^^. '^c^do1^. +^te4". fhe..titlfa ^":, '`.` - :. ^^7'Na co11ei5llbj,'r]eims tfv^t^ ; Y?w^ Ik:Apoed a.rlbak i $.b00:fcme ^>;; ^^^msm^p^t:. ^ie.f:^v^k^wylffie^afe ^Q t :^4dCCpia^iiE+mdm^v^hx^dLbr: ^.,. uti^"d^^s^e; ;;.:

120 DENNIS P. WILL ProsecutingAttomey Lorain County, Ohio 225 Court Street 3rd Floor Elyria, Ohio Phone Fax Vfa. to jtnmla?galadin-law.com Rr Regular US Mail John F. McCaffrey, Esq. MeLaughlin & McCaffrey, LLP Eaton Center, Suite i35o ilii Superior Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44ii4-25oo September 7, 2010 RE: Letter of John McCaffrey to Judge Wolff, dated 9-2-2oio; State of Ohio vs. Anthony Cafaro, Sr., io CR osoo, et al. Dear Mr. McCaffrey: This letter is directed to you and not to any other attorney representing the Cafaro interests although we certainly have no objection should you decide to share it with any of them. We've never seen anything quite like your letter to Judge Wolff. "Incredulous" is the best word to descn'be our collective reaction and, frankly, your letter was both insulting and disturbingly disingenuous. We understand that our situation is different than yours inasmuch as we receive no compensation for our efforts in Mahoning County, having been engaged on a mutual aid basis while you've been retained to zealously represent the interests of your clients. Although we have, to date, ignored many of your annoying transgressions during the course and scope of this investigation and case, we can no longer do so, given your most recent attempts to rewrite the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure and circamvent the filing of a proper motion pursuant to the Rules of Superintendence For The Courts Of Ohio=. 1 Rule 45(E)(i) of the Rules of Superintendence provides that "AnyparCy to a judicial action or proceeding or other person who is the subject of information in a case THE OHIO LEGAL BLANK GO., INC. EXHIBIT Tt Rer. Fx 10 II^IIIIIE^IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIilIIIII IIIIIUIiI^I IIIII 2010aR ODBOC b MEMO EXHIBTT B CLEVELANO OHIO

121 Page 2 of 5 John F. McCaffrey, Esq. September 7, 2oio The State has made every effort to be fair and accommodating to all of the requests by the defendants' counsel: The State complied with your. request relative to the Oakhffi publicity DVD you asked to have provided to the grand jury; The State asked for personal recognizance bonds although it could have sought cash or surety bonds for ail defendants; The State did not object and, in fact, approved the use of the Mahoning County process of allowing all defendants in this matter to waive appearances at arraignments in an effort to curtail any hype or frenzyalthough it could have refused to consent under local rules-nor did we complain when the arraigning judge allowed all counsel for the defendants to stay home while the State was required to apend 2 =h hours travelling to and from Mahoning County, wait for almost two hours to call 9 cases in minutes and then avoid the media while leaving the courtroom. The State did not object to any delay in an arraignment of a defendant who was out of the country and, in fact, assented to the setting of an arrai.gnment for that defendant at the end of last month; The State did not object to any delay in the booking of any defendant including, at your own request, the booking of Mr. Cafaro based on your representation that he had a preplanned business meeting on the courtordered date; The State did not object to any defendant's travel out of the State during the pendency of the case (preauthorization apparently required by local custom and practice); The State did not object to any requests for any expansions of time in which to file Rule 7 or Rule 16 requests; The State did not object to any defendant's lack of attendance at the first pretrial; document may, by written motion to the cour t. request that the court restrict public access to the information or, if necessary, the entire document. Additionally, the court may restrict public access to the information in the case document or, if neoessary, the entire document upon its own order. The court shall give notice of the motion or order to all parties in the case. The court may schedule a hearing on the motion."

122 Page 3 of 5 John F. McCaffrey, Esq. September 7, 2oi0 The State has not called press conferences to bring publicity to its theory of the case, unlike your client and other co-defendants; and We were even in the process of accommodating your request and, although not required by rule, converting discavery materials to a more manageable and accessible pdf format organized in categories of information until today. That is, we have endeavored at every turn to deal with all counsel--including you --in a professional and courteous manner and avoid all statements about the merits of the case to any media outlet beyond minimal responses necessitated by statements made by or on behalf of your client and other defendants in this case. You should therefore attempt to understand our reaction to your incredible charaeterization of the events surrounding the filing of the Bill of Particulars with respect to Flora Cafaro and Martin Yavorcik. We informed all counsel for the defendants more than a week ago through a fizing with the Clerk of Court's office of a Notice of the State's intent to voluntarily provide and file a bill of particulars. We did that in an effort to end the needless posturing and to inform all counsel of our intent to oamply with Rule 7 as that rule is normally followed. You didn't object. There is no provision under local rule of court or the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure for filing court documents anywhere else. In short, we filed the Notice and thebm of Particulars where they were required to be filed and served each on counsel in the manner required. If there was some other special procedure for filings in this case that is unique to Mahoning County, no one informed the State of Ohio. We provided absolutely nothing to the media when the Notice and Bill of Particulars were filed on September 1, 20io, despite your insinuations to the contrary. We do not control what the media chooses to publish or the procedures of the Clerk of Courts with respect to documents properly filed there. As you should know, court filings are made in the Clerk's office and are a matter of public record =. We f iled our documents in the proper place. You also know or should have known that an indictment is sufficient under Ohio law if it states a charge in terms of a statute and supplies the relevant dates of offense-as did the indictment in this case. You should also know that the facts of the 2 In fact the Ohio Supreme Court has stated that:...the public had a right of aacess to any court record before, during, and for a period of time after the criminal trial. In fact, the publids access to the records is unrestricted until a decision is made to seal reoords.' (emphasis added) State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. brnkler, 101 Ohio St.3d 382,2004 Ohio 1581 (2004).

123 Page4of5 John F. McCaffrey, Esq. September 7, 2010 case are then supplied through a bill of particulars and that Criminal Rule 7 requests by defendants are normaily routine (much like the requests made by other defendants in this case) and often rather perfunctory. We didn't object while you continue to play musicat chairs in your representation of varying clients; or when we read about the filing of your moiion for a bill of particulars and 'preiiminary statement' in the news and received a eopy of them two days later; or even when you filed the 'motion for a bbl of particulars' and your self-styled `preliminary statement', attaching irrelevant documents which looked to us like a transparent effort at attracting media attention to your characterization of the case as one lacldng evidence and providing your media spin to a defense that the move to Oakhill was somehow a bad thing. We take great issue with, your misstatement that the State somehow engaged in an effort to "pander to the media" especially in view of both your unusual motion for a bill of particulars (seeking to control the content and manner of response ak.in to a civil rule request for interrogatories) and the media comments made by a member of your defense team and by a Director of Corporate Communications employed by one of the Cafaro organizations. You ask for more particularity, stating that the indictment is vague and yet when you got it, you didn't like the facts and now seek some kind of editorial right of prior restraint by demanding 14 days notice of content before the State files a bill of particulars. Every statement made in that Bill of Particulars is factually backed. You moved for it and we voluntarily responded. If you had moved for and received a prior order to seal the record, we would certainly have complied with that. The most objectionable and disappointing aspect of our interaction with you is your demonstrated lack of candor and courtesy. When you need something from uslike our consent to waivers of arraignment-you have no problem politely and expeditiously showering us with telephone calls and s. However, when you decide to publish a tome of a defense position paper disguised as a motion for a bill of particulars or send a repugnant, self-serving letter to a judge that makes unfounded accusations against the State (of doing sometbing that you look to actaaily be doing yourself), you use more surreptitious methods. You sent your September 2, 2010 letter to the judge's office via and then faxed it to us so we received it only after the judge's bailiff had communicated with both you and the judge. We were literaliy reading your letter-received moments before off the fax machine--when we received what appeared to us to be a prearranged conference call with both you and the judge's bailiff on the line announcing the judge's `decision' after the contents of your letter had already been communicated to the judge. That happened without any ability on the State's part to make a record or even present its position via correspondence in response to your letter.

124 Page 5 of 5 John F. McCaffrey, Esq. September 7, 2010 As you know, the proper procedure requires that you file a motion-with the Clerk of Courts-seeking to seal the record. You even cited the rule in your letter. We would then have requested a hearing before a judge to make a record, so that the interests of the State and the other defendants in this case could be heard. Of course filing a proper motion in accordance with a rule may have sabjected your request to adverse media scrutiny since you know that Clerk of Court filings are public record unless ordered otherwise. Better yet, you eould have picked up the phone, shared your concerns and aflowed us the courtesy to address it cooperatively with you and the crourt We fully intend to voluntan'ly comply with the judge's request, communicated to us through your unusual conference call arranged with his bailife We will do so even without benefit of a journalized order until the date of the first pretrial. However; you should know that you wi11 not receive any response to your motion for a bbl of particulars or discovery until the State determines the best course in which to proceed after that meeting. Very truly yours, Dennis P. Will, Prosecuting Attorney Lorain County, Ohio Anthony Cillo Assistant Prosecuting Attoraey rain County.,Ohio by Panl Chief Investigative Counsel, Ohio Ethics Commission cc: Hon. William H. Wolff, Jr. c/o Stephanie Frank, Bailiff 3 Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas 120 Market Street Youngstown, Ohio ^d P. Muhek Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Lorain County, Ohio as Special Prosecutors for Mahoning County, Ohio

125 IN THE OOURT OFOOMM(3N PLEAS IvIAfIONlNG COUN'PY, OHIO STA'fBOPOHtO Ys, PLvntiff ' A14IIiONYIvL C1FAR0, JRtr "PtIE CAFARO COMPANY (A) OIi[OVALLEYMALL CO. (B) TF3E MARION PI.A7 P., M {C ) JOH[QA.MQNAtr.Y(D) JoMxEnRDOri R MIcY3nELV sdor'lmx3 (Bj ]OxNZtiCaHARTAH (C - MART[NYAVO1tQIS. PLORACAPARO (L) 2010 Qt 800 September9, DGMENTE^Y JUDGE tx+llliabi H WOLFF, JR.. On Assignment, lut. IV, Section 6.OLio Constitutian - I^qU1^11^1aNI^^11^91^N^^I^NI^I^ ^ ' ooe ^,sea In view of the esthmted tiroe of 1{ral, the complexikyof the case and thewaiverof all 'defendants of thetr right to a speedyttial as provided bystatute, trial is scheduted to begin.- Jcme 6, 'Ike State will provick "opencfile" discavery. to connsel for the defendants on:or befoe September23, 2010.andinfonncounselforthe defendattts when the state's provision of discoveryls convlete.'tlte defendants shallhave ninety (90) da)s to provide reaprooal discovecy er,cept:for disclosoe of their expert witnesses. 1he State has no objection ta anypending discovetymotans of the I7efendants and those nwtions ate SUSTAINED. AIl fi[ings ia this case shaf[be under seal with the exceptiori of fi4ngs that are clearlyprocedural and camot possi)ly implieate Defendants' concem about receiving a fair ix9a1. Pleadings shall be sernd upon afl patties and counsel for THE OHIO LEGNL BLANK CO., INC. EXHIBIT Jt.Rac Ex 1^1 clevelanq OHIo a o314 EXHIBIT c

126 the Defendants s6afl have fowceea (14) days from fitmg to make objections and the Staie shall have foutteen (14) days to respond and counsel for the affecud par:ies mayroqaest a heaft if deemad necessary. AII pretiial.motions shall.bo filed on or before Jwiaary3, Le pmfenied method of service is [iye-mai(. Afl fipstgs slrall be sent to Jtu fge Wo3 f at the time the original is fied wah the Cieils I'C IS SO ORDERLD. t CLERKe Copks to allcowwelof reooaiandaaawnpresentedparties Q0U.315

127 STA'PE OP OHIO PlaiotiFf IlY THE OOURT OP QO1N1Kf3N PLEAS MAFIONING OOUNTY, OHIO 1010(1tg00 September 14, 2010 L flk OF U AAM1HOS^NO OOUfdTy OnI^ SEP 14 20t4. FIL ' ANTHONYVIVO.CLSK Vs. AIV1fiCNY1vL CABARO, Jlit"' THLr CAPAIZO OOMPANY (A) OH[OSrALLEY MAI.L 00. (9) `thl MARIONPT.AZA, ING (t). JOT^IIJA. MINALLY(D) JOHIV REARDON (S}. I^u^I.v saorrnvo " ]OImrzACYiARIAIx(U) MARl'IN YAVORQK FiORACAFARtl (t). Defeudants SEmALL+lyIEriT'*A,7TER JUDGLr WiLI.tAM Ii V0LFF, JR.. On Ass9gamant, Attu. IV, Sectiou 6 Obio Coastitution InDIel9t fbl111llimmiinlng 2010CR This order supplements theoider of September 9, ) All pending motions for an extension oftime wfthin which to fffe pretrial motlons are SUSTAH.. I ED. and the^ motions shall be filed on or before January 3, ) All pending motions of out of state counsel to appear pro hac vice are SUSTAINED. 3) The filing underseal protoool s further explained as follows. This case has attracted and w8l continue to attract significant media coverage. in these c(rcumstances, the court i.s obsged to balance the right of the defendantsto a fair trfal and the right of the public to be lnformed of these proceedings through the media or through personal examination of the record. The concern of the court Is that fair and Impartial potential jurors can be found In Mahonlng County, I.e. potentiai jurors without preconce ved notions of how this case should be decided that thejr cannot set aside due to pretrial pub! c ty. The protocoi allows counsel for the defendants to object in vrciting to content ln the State's filings that they consider unduly prejudichei such that tt should not be part of the public record prior to tr al. The State has the opportunity to respond in writing to these objections. The court wtil rule on the defendants' objections promptly after the State responds or the deadline for response expires. The court contemplates ruling on the objections without oral argument unless argument is requested by counsel. If the court concludes that any matertai should not be made part of the putilicrecord prior to t'rial, ltwill order that material to be redacted from that filing and the `5a5aCR THE OHIO LEGAL BLANK CO., INC. EXHIBIT.T.R. Ex. 7 CLEVELANO, OHIO EXHIBIT D

128 balance of the fifing wi8, as redacted, be unsealed. Although the foregoing discussion anticipates objections by the defendants, the State may utilize the same protocol as to defendants' #1lings. In ordering and explaining thts protocol, the court has found guidance In the discussions in United Stotes v. McVe1gk 219 Fh3d 808 (1997) and In re ProvldenceJournal, inc,193 F.3d 2 (2002) IT TS $O OItDERET}. JUDGE II.Li luf FL WDI. Sitting On Assignment Azdcle TV, Section 6 Ohio Consticudon Cd3:RKi Copiea to all counsal of recoidand ail unteprosenttd pacties 00D43:4

129 FILED UNDER SEAL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MAHONINCr COUNTY, OHJO State of Ohio, ) Case No CR ) Plaintiffs, ) Judge William H. Wolff, Jr. V. Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., et al., Defendants. JOINT MOTION OF DEFENDANTS ANTHONY M. CAFARO, SR., FLORA CAFARO, THE CAP'ARO COMPANY, OHIO VALLEY MALL COMPANY, AND THE MARION PLAZA, INC. SEEIUNG THE COURT'S ACTION TO ADDRESS APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF GRAND JURY SECRECY Now come Defendants Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., Flora Cafaro, The Cafaro Company, Ohio Valley Mall Company, and The Marion Plaza, Inc. (collectively "the Defendants"), by and through the undersigned counsel, and respectfully request intervention by this Court in addressing apparent violations of grand jury secrecy. The order is necessary because of the apparent actions of a grand juror in publicly disclosing matters occurring before the grand jury to The Vindicator newspaper and the resulting publication of that informa.tion. This Court's prompt action is necessary to protect the Defendants' Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. A brief in support of this motion is attached. THEDHIO LEGAL BLANK CQ, m EXHIBIT Jr_ upe Fu i't CLEVELAND, OHIO441o2-1i9B

130 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION SEEKING THE COURT'S ACTION TO ADDRESS APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF GRAND JURY SECRECY 1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Vindicator's September 19, 2010 edition reprinted an anonymous letter identifying its writer as a grand juror that retumed the Indictment in this case. That anonymous letter revealed matters occurring before the grand jury. Immediately following the letter's publication, a website conunent to the article was posted by a person identified only as "ytownredux." That posting, as well as repeated other postings by "ytownredux," refers to specific inforxnation presented to the grand jury, as well as information concerning the grand jurors' deliberative process. There is strong evidence demonstrating that the author of the anonymous letter to The Vindicator may well be the same person identified as "ytownredux" on The Vindicator website. Defendants maintain that the secrecy obligations accorded matters occurring before the grand jury has been, and may well continue to be, breached by a member of the grand jury that retumed the Indictment or by a person exposed to matters presented to the grand jury. These breaches of grand jury secrecy ihreaten the future rights of the Defendants to a fair trial uninfluenced by prejudicial pretrial publicity. Defendants seek the intervention of the Court in addressing these violations of grand jury secrecy by undertaking the targeted inquiries as set forth below in the Requested Relief portion of this brief II. STATEMENT OF KNOWN FACTS A. Grand Juror's Letter to the Media The September 19t" edition of The Vindicator contained an editorial titled: "Did special prosecutors go too far?" The editorial began with the announceinent that a 2

131 reporter covering this matter for The Vindicator received a letter from "a member of the Oakhill Grand Jury." See "Did special prosecutors go too far" as reprinted on The Vindicator's website, Exhibit 1. The letter, or at least a portion of it, was quoted in the editorial page of The Vindicator as follows: See Exhibit 1. Dear Mr. de Souza: Thank you for Sunday's column in The Vindicator. As a member of the Oakhill Grand Jury, it pains me not to be able to say anything to anyone. I just wanted you to know we did not indict a ham sandwich and that you are exactly right in your analysis. Please keep hitting this hard. I am so afraid that what we did will end up going no where and get lost in "politics as usuar' in the Mahoning Valley. We were ordinary people appalled at what undue influence cost the citizens of Mahoning County. Please keep up the good work. Sincerely. [sic] A juror The letter of the grand juror begins with a statement noting his duty of secrecy, "it pains me not to be able to say anything to anyone[,]'p and then continues by disclosing the very information he recognizes he is required by law to keep secret. The grand juror's letter was an attempt to validate the analysis contained in a previous editorial printed in the September 5`M edition of The Vindicator titled: "Oakhill is not on trial." The "Oakhill is not on trial" editorial predicted "[h]ow this enterprise operated will be laid out in detail... when evidence is presented through discovery" based on the following sentence contained in the bill of particulars pertaining to the charges against Flora Cafaro and Martin Yavorcik: "[t]his is not the first time Anthony Cafaro or other members of the Enterprise [have] made clandestine payments and the State 3

132 will seek to offer and introduce other acts evidence. ' See "Oakhill is not on trial" as reprinted on The Vindicator's website, Exhibit 2 (emphasis added). The grand juror's letter, reprinted in the newspaper, vouches for the accuracy of the editorial's statement that detailed evidetice exists about the alleged "enterprise" and how it operated, and that this information, as well as "other acts evidence," is what the prosecution intends to present in seeking a conviction. The grand juror's letter divulged the existence of sucb evidence that he would only have leanled in his capacity as a grand juror. This evidence has not yet been ruled admissible at trial, is not public in nature, and has not been provided to the Defendants. Inforrnation presented during grand jury proceedings is not to be disclosed or connnented on by a grand juror. See Ohio Crim. R. P. 6(E). An obligation recognized, yet apparently knowingly flouted by the grand juror who authored the "anonymous" letter to The Vindicator. Importantly, the letter goes even further then confinning the existence of certain information. The letter specifically provides information regarding the deliberations and the vote of the grand jury. The letter, as quoted, concludes with the following statement: "We [the grand jnrors] were ordinary people appalled at what undue influence cost the citizens of Mahoning County." See Exhibit 1(emphasis added). This statement pertains to the feelings and sentiment of the grand jurors during its deliberations. It implies the grand jurors' vote to charge was not a close one, and that the grand jurors believe those indicted are guilty of the offenses charged. In addition to vouching for the existence of certain information and disclosing the grand jurors' deliberative process, the grand juror's letter implores future petitjurors to convict: "I am so afraid that what we did will end up going no where and get lost in `polities as usual' in the Mahoning 4

133 Valley." Id. (emphasis added). This demonstrates an impermissible purpose in the disclosures by the former grand juror: to support the opinions of The Vindicator's deeply biased chief columnist Bertram de Souza and to rally future jurors to convict the defendants that the grand jury charged. This statement also reveals a second level of impropriety as the quotation to the phrase "politics as usual" may be a reference to specific testimony presented before the grand jury. B. Suspected Commentary By A Grand Juror Or Individual Having Access To Matters Occurring Before The Grand Jury The reported grand juror letter may not be the only disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury that returned the Indictment against the Defendants. One of the anonymous internet comments written in reaction to the September 19`n The Vindicator editorial titled: "Did special prosecutors go too far?" may have been written by the same grand juror that authored the anonymous letter appearing in the article or, if not, clearly by one of a small universe of accountable people who had direct access to the secret information presanted to the grand jury. See Exhibit 1. The suspect comment is the 4a' comment appearing after publication of the editorial on-line and done so under the internet handle "ytownredux." Comment 4 was written in part as a response to the first of two comments appearing in the same blog. Comment I questioned whether a letter from a grand juror even exists, while comment 2 noted the irony of a grand juror recognizing the secrecy obligation, yet violating it by sending a letter to the media, even if done anonymously. In response to these blog comments, connnent 4 states: "To think that a reporter would make up a letter from a[grand] juror is not impossible, but seriously misguided." See Exhibit 1(emphasis added). The author of comment 4, "ytownredux," is intent upon 5

134 defending the very authenticity of the grand juror's letter. Yet, defending the authenticity of the grand juror's letter is not the sole reason to suspect that the author of the grand juror letter and conzment 4 are the same individual, or that the author of comment 4 was someone having access to grand jury information. Comment 4 begins with the statement: "While I appreciate that everyone is entitled to an opinion, and DavidJohn [another internet blogger] certainly deserves his, in most of his comments about Oak Iiill he has been wrong, and I would really appreciate it if he would stop until the facts come out." See Exhibit 1(emphasis added). This statement implies "ytownredux" is somehow different from the other commentators in that he already knows the facts, presumably because he was a grand juror or exposed to grand jury information. Comment 4 continues: "The Special Prosecutors wanted to make sure this was not a waste of anyone's time and presented overwhelming amounts of evidence that was taken into consideration before indictments were given." See Exhibit 1 (emphasis added). This statement claims to know the qualitative and quantitative amounts of information actually presented to the grand jury, and that such information was considered by the grand jurors prior to voting. Only the grand jurors and individuals who were exposed to the evidence presented to the grand jurors know of the supposed "overwhelming amounts of evidence" presented to and considered by the grand jury. Such a representation excludes witnesses wlzo would only Irnow about discrete testimony or documents. This assertion reinforces the reasonable belief that the comment is. attributable, alone, to either a grand juror or other individual having access to matters occurring before the grand jury. 6

135 Importantly, the grand jury that returned the Indictment in this matter was not a special grand jury considering infonnation relating only to the Defendants. The grand jury for the term beginning January 2010 was a general grand jury receiving information on a varied number of other matters requiring presentation before a grand jury sitting in Mahoning County. The comment further implies that "ytownredux" understood the presentation of grand jury information for this matter was substantially different than other matters presented to the grand jury for the tenn of January For "ytownredux" to claim to know the information presented to the grand jury and that such information was considered by the grand jury during its deliberations, necessarily suggests that the author of comment 4 may have been a grand juror, or exposed to the work of the grand jurors. The most compelling example of "ytownredux's" claimed knowledge is when he states: "(a] definition of corrupt is pretty straightforward, and while you can offer lot's of 'grey' areas, in this case there was not so much. Why don t you take a little time and read all of the transcripts from the depositions on the OakHill Case. They should provide a lot of light if you just pay attention this time." See Exhibit 1 (emphasis added). Importantly, the first portion of the comment uses the past tense, "in this case there was not so much." The only portion of this matter that has concluded is presentment to the grand jury. Accordingly, "ytownredux" is suggesting that in the case presented to the grand jury the alleged corruption was clear and did not fit into "grey areas." The second portion of the comment suggests "ytownredux" has read all the deposition transcripts from the taxpayer lawsuit filed in 2006 by Ohio Valley Mall Company against the Mahoning County Commissioners and others. Not all depositions in the Oakhill case were filed with the clerk of court or otherwise made public. However, 7

136 as the grand jury returned charges of perjury relating to several of the deposition transcripts, the grand jury necessarily was provided access to deposition transcripts and read them. If "ytownredux" in fact read civil deposition transcripts, those transcripts most reasonably would have been furnished to him in his capacity as a grand juror or as an individual participating in the presentation of information to the grand jury. A review of earlier internet postings by "ytownredux" further supports the belief that he was a grand juror or exposed to matters occurring before the grand jury: "...[Ajnd yes I toured the entire Oak Hill site and saw the pictures of Garland." See comments posted by "ytownredux," Exhibit 3 at "ytownredux" comment to The Vindicator article titled, "Legal analysts predict long, complex court battle," August 25, 2010 at 3:10 PM (emphasis added). The grand jurors returning the Indictment in this matter were provided a tour of the Oak Hill building and accompanied by Maboning County Deputy Gary Snyder. Also "ytownredux" asks "Have you toured Oakhill?" in a comment posted on July 31, 2010 at 10:37 AM. See Exhibit 3 at "ytownredux" comment to The Vindicator article titled, "Probe of Oakhill followed complex, long path" July 31, 2010 at 10:37 AM but simply going from the evidence that I have seen that leads me to believe that Anthony [Cafaro] is aiw shoulder deep in this.. 7 See Exhibit 3 at "ytownredux" comment to The Vindicator article titled, "Legal analysts predict long, complex court battle," August 25, 2010 at 3:10 PM (emphasis added). 8

137 "The special prosecutors were very fair and balanced with the Grand Jury." See Exhibit 3 at "ytownredux" comment to The Vindicator article titled, "Oakhill-case lawyers seeking more details," August 25, 2010 at 7:50 AM. "I think the prosecutors deserve a lot of tinxe to have to write out every meeting that took place." See Exhibit 3 at "ytownredux" comment to The Vindicator article titled, "Oakhill-case lawyers seeking more details," August 24, 2010 at 7:54 AM (emphasis added). It should be noted that the Mahoning County prosecutors prepared a detailed chronology of communications among the defendants that was relied on by the Mahoning County officials supporting the purchase of the Oakhill building in the trial of the taxpayer lawsuit and, presumably, this very same evidence was presented to the grand jury. "There is of course truth in that, but how many get to lobby in person in your own business office, more than dozens of times?" See Exhibit 3 at "ytownzedux" comment to The Vindicator article titled, "Legal analysts predict long, complex court battle," August 22, 2010 at 8:06 AM (emphasis added). This comment discloses that its author was exposed to infonnation revealing the number and specific location of meetings between the Defendants, and the fact that certain of the meetings involving the public officials and Anthony Cafaro, Sr. occurred at the Cafaro building. "The Grand Jury is not stupid people, there were 5 months out of these people's lives that they considered everything that was 9

138 presented. They were not led by anybody, but took time and listened to ail evidence that was presented and thought (unanimously at that,) that what they heard was criminal and should be brought to trial. Get over it." See Exhibit 3 at "ytownredux" eomment to The Vindicator article titled, "73 charges focus on public-private conflicts," July 31, 2010 at 10:23 AM (emphasis added). It is probable, that "ytownredux" may be the same grand juror who wrote the letter to The Vindicator or is otherwise an individual having access to grand jury information. "[Y]townredux" is a prolific commentator on The Vindicator's website, espeeially on matters concerning the work of the Special Prosecutors in the Oakhill matter. Read as a whole, it is improbable that the commentator is simply fabricating the extent of his personal knowledge regarding secret grand jury proceedings and evidence. Likewise, it is predictable, given the sequence of writings available through The Vindicator website that "ytownredux" will again make disclosures highly prejudicial to the Defendants in this case and in violation of obligations of grand jury secrecy. Accordingly, this Court must necessarily act to prevent any further disclosure of grand jury information to protect the integrity of Defendants' Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and to vindicate the historic and codified obligations and values of grand jury secrecy. C. Defendants Have Made A. Prima Facie Showing That Grand Jury Secrecy Requirements Violated In determining whether a prima facie case has been made that grand jury secrecy requirements were violated: (1) "there must be a clear indication that media reports disclose information about `matters before the grand jury[;] "' and (2) the diselosure "the 10

139 [report] must indica.te the source of the information revealed to be one of those proscribed[.]" United States v. Flemmi (D. Mass. 2000), 233 F. Supp.2d 113, , citing In re Grand Jury Investigation, 610 F.2d 202, (5"' Cir. 1980) ("Lance"). As demonstrated above, the letter from the "Crrand Juror" and comments published by "ytownredux" clearly disclose matters occurri.ng before the grand jury, including the vote and sentiment of the grand jurors disclosed during deliberations. Furthermore, the letter clearly identifies itself as having been written by a "grand juror." While the "ytownredux" comments do not explicitly state they were written by a grand juror, the information disclosed in the comments clearly indicate that the author was either a grand juror or a person exposed to grand jury information, and warrants further investigation. Flemmi, 233 F. Supp 2d at (court found it could not properly end the inquiry regarding the source of informatfon published in an article, so ordered affidavits of those exposed to grand jury information affirming or denying communication with the media). In light of the prima facie showing of violations of grand jury secrecy requirements, the relief requested below is necessary to vindicate the historical and important duties of grand jury secrecy blatantly violated and is limited "to the extent necessary to stop the publicity and [identify] the offenders." United States v. Eisenberg (11"' Cir. 1983), 711 F.2d 959, 966. The relief requested is consistent with that found appropriate in Eisenberg and Flemmi. Eisenberg required the govermnent to report to the court: (1) to whom instructions against extra-judicial publicity were given; (2) the substance of the instructions; and (3) the response of those to whom they were given, as well as supplying affidavits of those privy to grand jury information detailing their communications with the media and news media representatives. Id. at

140 Forthermore, the requested relief is consistent with Eisenberg explicitly placing no restrictions on the district court's ability to order an investigation into alleged violations of grand jury secrecy requirements, and its determination that circumstances may exist where a district court could seek the appointment of special counsel to assist the court in detennining the accuracy of the alleged violations. Id. at 966; see also In re Special Grand Jury Investigation Concerning Organic Technologies (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 304, 305 ("Eisenberg has been adopted by both state and federal courts as the model for establishing Crim. R. 6 hearing procedures."). III. LAW AND ARGUMENT In discussing the secrecy of the Grand Jury the Supreme Court of Ohio has stated the following: R.C imposes an oath and obligation of secrecy upon grand jurors. R.C serves as a reiteration of the General Assembly's mandate in this regard. Additionally, divulgence of the secret proceedings of a grand jury affronts the dignity and authority of the court under the supervision of which the grand jury was impaneled, unless such person is cailed upon by the court to make such a disclosure. In re Klausrneyer (1970), 24 Ohio St. 2d 143, 145 (emphasis added). The oath required from each grand juror is found at R.C , and in relevant part states: Do you solemnly swear or affirm... that you will keep secret all proceedings of the grand jury unless you are required in a court of justice to make disclosure... as you shall answer unto God or under the penalties of perjury? (emphasis added). In answering the question posed by the oatb, each juror swears a promise not to divulge the proceedings of tha grand jury. In addition to swearing to keep the 12

141 proceedings of the grand jury confidential: [t]he grand jurors, after being sworn, shall be charged as to their duty by the judge of the court of common pleas, who shall call their attention particularly to the obligation of secrecy wbich their oaths impose, and explain to them the law applicable to such matters as may be brought before thein. R.C (emphasis added). In addition to each grand juror being sworn to secrecy, reiterated by a judicial charge, Rule 6(E) of the Ohio Criminal Rules of Procedure dictates grand jury secrecy, and in relevant part states: Deliberations of the grand jury and the vote of any grand juror shall not be disclosed... A grand juror, prosecuting attorney, interpreter, stenographer, operator of a recording device, or typist who transcribes recorded testimony, may disclose matters occurring before the grand jury, other than the deliberations of a grand jury or the vote of a grand juror, but may disclose such matters only when so directed by the court.... (emphasis added). For a grand juror to disregard the requirement of secrecy and repeatedly disclose grand jury proceedings requires the grand juror to disregard his oath, ignore the charge given by the court, and violate Criminal Rule 6(E). Furthennore, regardless of the capacity in which an individual leams of matters occurring before the grand jury, such as in an individual's capacity as prosecuting attomey or court reporter, disclosure of grand jury matters is prohibited by Criminal Rule 6(E) absent a court order. Such disregard of grand jury secrecy requirements "affronts the dignity and authority of the court...:' In re Klausrneyer, 24 Ohio St.2d at 145. Such willful violation of grand jury secrecy requirements puts at risk a defendants' Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. As noted by the Ohio Supreme Court: In Sheppard [v. Maxwell (1966), 384 U.S. 333], the 13

142 Supreme Court was greatly distressed by the disclosure to the news media of information which did not and could not constitute component evidence at trial. The prejudicial effects of such disclosures and the dissemination thereof effectively foreclosed any possibility that the criminal defendant therein could receive a fair trial before an impartial jury. State ex rel. Vindicator Printing Co. v. Watkins (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 129, 138. United States v. Flemmi, supra, concerrrned the filing of a motion to dismiss, and alternatively for sanctions for the government's alleged violations of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) and a local rule of court arising from an unauthorized disclosure of grand jury information. The motion was based on an article appearing in The Boston Globe containing detailed information presented to the grand jury. Flemmi found that the article was susceptible to the interpretation that it reported on evidence not part of the public record, yet presented to the grand jury or investigators acting as the grand jury's agents. Flemmi finther noted that depending on the source of the information, such information may in fact be inadmissible at trial. Chief Judge Wolf concluded, in Flemmi, that the information in the article frustrated of grand jury secrecy requirements. Ensuring grand jury information is not leaked to the press is a court's obligation and response to the Supreme Court's direction in,sheppard that: The courts must take such steps by rule and regulation that will protect their processes from prejudicial outside interferences. Neither prosecutors, counsel for defense, the accused, witnesses, court staff nor enforcement officers coming under the jurisdiction of the court should be pennitted to frustrate its funetion. Id. at 116, quoting Sheppard, 384 U.S. at 363. Chief Judge Wolf thereafter required that those with aocess to grand jury materials execute sworn affidavits that they were not responsible for the communications to the media. 14

143 Not only do violations of grand jury secrecy harm the integrity of the court, but such deliberate violations also pose a clear and present threat to the accused's constitutional guarantee to a fair trial. The letter written by an individual claiming to be a grand juror who returned the hidictment against the Defendants is highly prejudicial. The letter validates a reporter's opinion that the Special Prosecutors intend to utilize "other acts evidence" regarding alleged "clandestine payments" by the Defendants to establish how the alleged criminal enterprise operated. By vouching for the editorial's opinion, the letter validates the existence of "other acts" evidence. The letter also asserts that the entire grand jury was "appalled" at the "undue influence" they determined existed. As information presented to the grand jury included material that may never be presented to the trial jury, the grand juror's comments, now and in the future, serve only to taint the venire pool into believing that evidence presented to the grand jury was excluded from trial. It may also reinforce in the minds of The Vindicator's readers the underlying notion that this grand jury acted differently than others, taking five months to assess the entire universe of evidence, and that therefore the accusations should be accorded great weiglit; whereas the law requires, to the contrary, that they receive no weight at all. The commentary of a grand juror, or one exposed to matters occurring before the grand jury, as to the guilt of an accused is highly prejudicial to the administration of justice, to historic values of grand jury secrecy, and to the future rights of a defendant to a fair trial uninfluenced by prejudicial pretrial publicity. If a trial jury were informed that the grand jurors were convinced during their deliberations that the prosecution produced sufficient evidence not merely to charge but also to convict, a petit juror may unduly rely on such information. It is for this very reason that while disclosure of certain matters occurring before the grand jury may be disclosed when so directed by the court, 15

144 disclosure of grand jury deliberations and the vote may never be disclosed. See Ohio Crim. R. P. 6(E). Accordingly, the grand juror's letter, while not disclosing precise specifications of the iinformation presented to the grand jury, represents the most dangerous of all disclosures as it reveals the sentiment the grand jurors displayed during their deliberations. IV. REQUESTED RELIEF A court's inherent authority over grand juries is well recognized. In re United States (ls` Cir. 2006), 441 F.3d 44, 57 citingmcnabb v. United States (1943), 318 U.S. 332, A court may remedy misconduct which violates rules ensuring the integrity of the grand jury's functions. Id., citing United States v. Williams (1992), 504 U.S. 36, 46. The requested relief is sought because Defendants cannot investigate the proceedings of the grand jury on their own. Fuithermore, this Court rnnst provide the requested relief because all of the Mahoning County Common Pleas Judges have recused themselves from their involvement in this matter. The relief sought from this Court is as follows: l. Appoint a disinterested neutral member of the bar pursuant to R.C , as the Mahoning County Prosecutor's Office and the Judges of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas have recused themselves from this entire matter, to conduct an independent investigation that would include as its objectives the identification of the person or persons responsible for the communications to The Vindicator on September 19, 2010 as quoted above to determine if an action should be brought or prosecuted. In particular, the appointed special investigator would have 16

145 the responsibility to: (a) Retrieve or subpoena from The Vindicator and its reporter Bertram de Souza, the original grand juror letter (and its envelope) referenced in Mr. de Souza's September 19, 2010 column, as well as any other documents provided by the anonymous grand juror. This information will then be presented to the Court for inspection. While a newspaper jounnalist is protected from disclosing his source of information under R.C , the protection does not extend to the disclosure of physical items, especially physical items already made public. See State ex rel. Nat'l Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Court of Common Pleas of Lake Cty. (1990), 52 Ohio St. 3d 104, 111; Forest Hills Utility Co. v. City of Heath (1973), 37 Ohio Misc. 30, 35 (the privilege applies only to sources and not to inanimate objects); and (b) Obtain or subpoena from The Vindicator, or the vendor servicing its inteznet website for the posting of public comments, any identifying information for the author of Comment 4 who utilizes the internet handle "ytownredux" for inspection by the Court to determine if "ytownredux" was a member of the grand jury for the January 2010 term or auindividual who was exposed to matters occurring before the grand jury. See Eisenberg, 711 F.2d at 966 ("We can conceive of circumstances where a district court could seek the appointment of a special counsel to assist the court in determining whether Rule 6(e) violations had occurred."). 17

146 2. Order, for the Court's in camera inspection, preparation of the transcripts of those grand jury proceedings having to do with: (a) the oath given to the grand jurors; (b) the charge to the grand jurors provided pursuant to R.C ; and (c) any instructions relating to the requirement of secrecy provided to the grand jurors over the course of the grand jury proceedings. 3. instruct the offending grand juror or person exposed to grand jury information of their continuing secrecy obligations under the law as it relates to matters occurring before the grand jury. 4. Take such other further steps as the Court deems necessary and appropriate to ensure that no further disclosures of matters occurring _before the grand juror are disclosed absent an order from this Court and to assure that any willful prior disclosure is appropriately addressed by the Court. V. CONCLUSION Therefore, Defendants Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., Flora Cafaro, The Cafaro Company, Ohio Valley Mall Company, and The Marion Plaza, Inc. request their motion seeking the Court's action in addressing apparent grand jury secrecy violations be granted as the interest ofjustice so requires, and that the Court further pursue the suggested relief which the Defendants have indentified in their motion. 18

147 Respeatfully submitted, George A. Stamboulidis (admitted pro hac vice) BAKER HOSTETLER 45 Rockefeller Plaza 11th Floor New York, NY Office: Fax: Counsel for Defendant Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr. Martin G. Weinberg (admitted pro hac vice) Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston, MA telephone facsimile owhngw@att.net Counsel for Defendant Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr. J. Alan Johnson (admitted pro hac vice Cynthia Reed Eddy (admitted pro hac vice) JOHNSON & EDDY 1720 Gulf Tower 707 Grant Street Pittsburg, PA Office: Fax: jjohnson@johnsoneddy.com ceddy@johnsoneddy.eom Counsel for Defendant Flora Cafaro RalpkiB. Cascarilla ( ) Darrell A. Clay ( ) WALTER & HAVERFIELD, LLP The Tower at Erieview 1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 3500 Cleveland, OH Office: Fax: roascarilla@walterhav.com E-Maii: dclay@walterhav.com Counsel for Defendant The Cafaro Company John F. MeCaf&ey ( ) Anthony R. Petruzzi ( ) McLAUGHLIN & McCAFFREY, LLP Eaton Center, Suite Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH Office: Fax: jffrn@paladin-law.com arp@paladin-law.com Counsel for Defendants Ohio Valley Mall Company and The Marion Plaza, Inc. 19

148 _ ld. ` Stamboulidis (admitted^^^^` o hac vice) BAKBR.FIOSTBTLER 45 Rockefeller Plaza 1M Floor Ne* Y'ork; NY Office: 211.5$ Bax: gstamboulidis@bakerlaw.eom Ccaunsel for Deferidaut A.nthoiiy M. Cafaro, Sr. f "4 k1.an Jobn sf (admittedpro hac vice) Cyntllialteed Eddy (admitted pro hac vice) JO,HN'S4N & EDDY 1720 Gu1f Tower 707 Cxiant S.treet Pittsburg, PA Office: Fa;c: jjobnson@johns.oneddy.com IrMail: ceddy@jolinsoneddy.com Couns fordefend ^,"_ tf'loracafaro ccaffrey (0 ony R. Petmzzi (00 McLAUGHLIN & McC ApMY, Eaton center, Suite Superior Avenue Cleveland, OP Office; 216, Fax: arp@paladin-la.w.com in G. Weinberg (adrnttted p(g h viee) NIartin O. Weinberg, P.C. 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston, MA telephone facsimile Bmail: owlrrigw@att net Counsel for Defendant Anth.ony M. C Sr. Ra1phE. ascarilla(00i3526) DazreliA. Ciay(006'7598) WAL'SER. & HAVER.FIELD, LLP The Tower at.erieview 1301 EastNintb Street, Suite 3500 Cleveland, OH Office: Pax: F-Mail: &'Niail: dclay@walterhav.oom Counsel for Defendant The Cafaro Coanpany Counsel for Defendants Ohio Valley Mail Company and The Marion Plaza, Inc, 19

149 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing Joint Motion of Defendants Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., Flora Cafaro, The Cafaro Company, Ohio Valley Mall Company, and The Marion Plaza, lnc. Seeking The Court's Action to Address Apparent Violations of Grand Jury Secrecy has been served via electronic delivery this 30a` day of September, 2010 upon: Dennis P. Will, Esq. Lorain County Prosecuting Attomey 225 Court Street, 3rd Floor Elyria, OH Special Prosecutor for Mahoning County John B. Juhasz, Esq West Boulevard Youngstown, OH Counsel for Mike Sciortino Lou DiFabio, Esq Market Street Youngstown, OH Counsel for John Reardon Paul Nick, Esq. Chief Iuvestigative Attorney Ohio Ethics Commission 8 Long Street, 10 i Floor Columbus, OH Special Prosecutor for Mahoning County Roger Synenberg, Esq. Synenberg & Associates LLC 55 Public Square, Suite 1200 Cleveland, OH Counsel for John Zachariah J. Gerald Ingram, Jr., Esq. Robert Duffrin, Esq Market Street Youngstown, OH Counsel for Martin Yavorcik Lynn Maro, Esq West Boulevard Youngstown, OH Counsel for John McNally 20

150 Youngstown News, Did spec_. - prosecutors go too far? Page 4 of 13 A.ustintownResidential utos Classifieds Search_: Vindy.com ^ 'ad News Rome Did special prosecutors go too far? Comments I._ Bmail Pxint SliareThis Published: Sun, September 19, 12:00 a.m: There are certain letters that ring true, even though they are uusigned. This one arrived in the mail the week of Sept. 5 in reaction to the cohu»n, "Oalrhill is not on trial": "Dear Mr. de Souza: "Thank you for Sunday's column in The Vin.dicator. As a member of the Oakhill Grand 7ury, it pains me not to be able to say anything to anyone. I just wanted you to know we did not indict a hain sandwich and that you are exactly right in your analysis. Please keep hitting this hard. I am so afraid that what we did will end up going no where and get lost in `politics as usual' in the Mahoning Valley. We were ordinary people appalled at what undue influence cost the citizens of Mahoning County. Please keep up the good work. "Sincerely. "A juror" The letter was prescient, because the very week it was received, visiting Judge William H. Wolff Jr. issued a ruling that should have alanned Mahoning Valley residents, including the juror, who are tired of govemment corruption. The players Judge Wolff's ruling had the effect of hiding from public view all filings in the the state of Ohio's criminal case against seven individuals and three companies. The seven are Anthony M. Cafarc, Sr., retired president of the Cafaro Co.; Mahoning County Conunissioner John A. McNally IV; county A uditor Michael V. Seiortino ; former county Treasurer John Reardon; former Job and Famil-' GV1V lde EXHI EXFB1B T BIT I

151 Youngstown News, Did spec... prosecutors go too far? Page 5 of 13 Services Director John Zachariah; Flora Cafaro, an officer of the Cafaro Co; and, Atty. Martin Yavorcik. Three companies were also named in the grand jury indictment: The Cafaro Co., Ohio Valley Mall Co., and The Marion Plaza, hic. As the Sept. 5 column pointed out, the criminal case against the defendants centers on one issue: political corruption. It is not about the decision by two county commissioners, Anthony Traficanti and David Ludt, to buy the former South Side Medical Center and move the 7FS agency into it. For almost 20 years, the agency had been located in the Cafaro-owned Garland Plaza, with county govenunent spending at least $1.2 million for rent and other expenses. The coluinn, wliich detailed the charges against the Valley Seven, also made note of the fact that in a document released publicly pertaining to Flora Cafaro and Atty. Yaroroik, there was this sentence: " I'his is not the first time Anthony Cafaro or other members of the Enterprise [have] made clandestine payments and the State will seelc to offer and introduce other acts evidence." (Other acts evidence is a legal concept.) The document pertaining to Flora Cafaro and Yavorcik - it's called a Bill of Particulars - detailed a $15,000 transaction that the state says violated criminal statutes. The state's case is being presented by special prosecutors Dennis P. Will, Paul Nick, David Muhek and Anthony Cillo. Lawyers react It didn't take long for the gaggle of defense lawyers to seek to bury any of the documents pertaining to this case. Last week, Judge Wolff softened his "seal" position by saying that he would hold hearings in an effort to determine which documents, if any, sliould be made public and what iuformation should be released. The judge's change of heart came on the heels of a Vindicator editorial that argued against any hiding fronz the public infoimafion pertaining to this case. The key question in this case is rather straiglztforward: Did the Cafaro brother and sister use their financial wealth and influence to corrupt the current and former government officials? All the defendants have denied the charges and have hired high-powered lawyers to defend them. Did the special prosecutors show their hand by including the paragraph about Antliony Cafaro in the bill of particulars dealing with the charges against his sister and Yavorcik? The defendants obviously think so, or they wouldn't have asked for the judicial seal. Indeed, there are reports that some of the lawyers wanted the judge to issue a gag order that would prevent anyone involved with this case from talking about it. Fortunately, the gag wasn't issued. 9/24/2010

152 Youngstown News, Did speciw.. prosecutors go too far? Page 6 of 13 You can just image the public's reaction to Auditor Sciortino, who is running for re-electian this year, refusing comment because of the judicial veil. Other stories you might like Why didn't}jtcz f oil in tlle rollollt? Oakliill is not on trial Hev Jimbo you need to call Blaao Comments 1 VC`. davi^diotm (54 connnents posted 5 days, 2 hours ago how can a legitimate reporter write a column based upon an anonymous letter and how do we know it was a grand jury member rather then tablack we can assume ludt and traf canti, cannot write The key question in this case is rather straightforward: Did tht Cafaro brother and sister use their financial wealth and influenee to corrupt the ourrent and former govenunent officials? wiithout sounding like bill clintonhow do you define con,upt is it illegal for individuals to donate large amounts of money to canpaigiis and do people who donate to campaigns then have access because of their donations isnt this common in local state and national politics does a person become an ambassador because they are nice people or have given big money how about a federal judge how about a member of the ohio puco board how about a ysu board of regents and who negotiated and renewed the lease that paid all this money to the cafaros and wasnt it a month to month lease at some point 9/24/2010

153 Youngstown News, Did spec.^ prosecutors go too far? Page 7 of 13 why didnt the county get out of the bad lease how long has gains been prosecutor is it con-uption or incompetence or what and why oakhill and not a building downtown dont the politicians always talk up downtown redevelopment when a hospital and the renaissance group eouldnt make a go of oakhill shouldnt that have set off warning bells aud who is getting big construction contracts at oak hill because the spending never ends and did the architecture firm at oak hill give donations to traficanti it is not a simple question about financial wealth and influence it is using a grand jury to settle political scores and why does the newspaper never question the wisdom of buying a ghetto building are the connnissioners advertising bids in the newspaper rather then the internet there are no good guys in this story opponents of oak hill proponents of oak hill the vindicator Suggest removal: burford (Sl (om3nents) posted 5 days, 1 hour ago I agree with David John. Doesn't it seems odd that a grand jury member who says that it pains them not to be able to say anything to anyone writes a letter to the newspaper even if done without their narne? Maybe desouza wrote himself a letter. I agree Ludt and Traficanti couldn't put 2 sentences together.maybe Tablack was the writer. Maybe Gains.Who really knows. Oak Hill is bleeding the county. And now they are going to spend hundreds of thousands more to fix up space for the Board of Elections which has been shown to be nothing but bad news. Bad government never ends in the valley. Suggest removal: 9/24/2010

154 Youngstown News, Did spec._ prosecutors go too far? Page 8 of 13 Stan 5144 commelrts posted 5 days ago After a few interest free and no payback loans are passed out the Cafaro Bnterprise will be vindicated! Suggest removal: 4WO ytownredux (43 conunents) posted 4 days, 11 hours ago While I appreciate that everyone is entitled to an opinion, a:nd DavidJohn certainly deserves his, in most of his comments about Oalc Hill he has been wrong, and I would really appreciate it if he would just stop until the facts come out. To think that a reporter would make up a letter from a juror is not impossible, but seriously misguided. The Grand Jury was on this case for 5 months and gave a lot of their time to hear all the evidence that prosecutors had to give. Remember that they only hear one side and only have to decide if it is enough to go to trial, but that was not necessarily the case for this presentation. The Special Prosecutors wanted to inake sure this was not a waste of anyone's time and presented overwhelming amounts of evidence that was taken into consideration before indictments were given. A definition of corrupt is pretty straightforward, and while you can offer lot's of 'grey' areas, in this case there was not so much. Why don't you take a little time and read all of the transcripts from the depositions on the OakAill Case. They should provide a lot of light if you just pay attention this time. While I agree with you that the County was negligent in not getting out of Garland sooner, you are naive to think that they did not try to get back to downtown and are even rnore so if you don't thiaik roadblocks were in the way. It has been a month to month lease for 10 years, there was plenty of tiune to inove, however most of the building problems did not come until the final few years. By the way, OakHill is a building downtown, have you not travelled the 10 blocks? Do you really want a building the size of OakHill vacant and subject to looters and vandals? There is so much complexity to this case, that it is frustrating that it wont be heard for 9 months, and like the Juror told Bertram, we would really like to see justice done and not just sweep this under the carpet. This has NOTS-IING to do with it being a good deal or not, but everything to do with powerful businessmen and political officials working together against the County at all odds to stop something that they wanted to stop for purely selfish reasons. Suggest removal: davidjohn (54 coinnients) posted 4 days. 5 hours ago is it really naive to think they did not try to get back downtown there is no space downtown 9/24/2010

155 Youngstown News, Did spee3.._ prosecutors go too far? Page 9 of 13 phar mor stambaugh huntington home savings they could not build a small building downtown east end west end front street commerce street stop this laughable notion that oak hill is downtown it is not and is it the job of the taxpayers to rescue every abandoned building especially a 90 year old building does an average joe have access to all the transcripts in the lawsuit when you put an albatross around the communitys neck for generations it is about a good deal or a bad deal like the annex like the jail eveir if they acted for purely selfish reasons so what is that criminal they should have done the right thing leave garland years ago and not move to oak hill bad decision Suggest removal: === author5 0 (227 convnentsl posted 4 days, 2 hours ago davidjohn is tough on the eyes, but makes a valid argument. Once the mntiny on the county is settled and the bad guys go to jail, etc., another grand jury needs to be convined to look into why Oakhill was bought in the first place. I never could understand why Andy Suhar -- working for the banlavptcy Judge shoved this tax-payer money drainer down our throats. Anybody know who was on that hospital board? Anyone know who/what special interest groups are getting paid to repair Oakhill? Anyone know if Traficanti, Ludt, Gains and Tablack are tied into those special interest groups? Suggest removal:! 9/24/2010

156 .Youngstown News, Did speciw. prosecutors go too far? Page 10 of 13 Stan (5194 cominentsl posted 3 days, 21 hours ago As soon as the Cafaros regain control heads will roll! How dare they be treated in such a fashion! Suggest removal: yto),vnredux (43 eoimnentsl posted 3 days, 16 hours ago Yes, sazry, you are naive, if the Cafaro's are currently being charged with conspiring to stop the move to Oak Hill, do you think that is the only place they would conspire not to put it? Have the Cafaro's ever tried to stop the JFS from going downtown? Hnunmm, makes you. thiiilc a bit if you let it and believe the pattern. And yes, as a matter of fact, it is the taxpayers on the line for anything that JFS does, as that is what supports that agency, taxes! Again, you are confusing a bad decision to conspiracy to block a purchase. It could be the worst decision in the world, but a 2-3 vote wont stop it, and if it is done legally, it wont. There is no proof that it will be a bad move yet, just supposition, supposing is a lot like an assumption, and you know wbat they say about people who assume. Suggest removal: burford (81 comments) posted 3 days, 13 hours ago Apparently I am nayve as the other people who comment here are according to ytownredux. I am iiot a fan of McNally and Sciortino and the Cafaros, But if this is a horxible decision to move to Oak Hill, and I think it is, I don't have a problem with sonieone, anyone opposing the move to Oak Hill. Is that a crime? I oppose Obamacare. I I call my congressman, and assume for the sake of argument it is not Tim Ryan, and I ask him not to fund Obamacare, to stop it from being implemented, and he agrees, are we guilty of a criminal conspiracy? How long was the Garland lease? The lease must have been renewed over the years.and it was written here that the lease was month to month the last few years. Why didn't the county move Jobs and Family downtown? Unless we assume the Cafaros owned all the commissioners over the last 25 years. Maybe they did. But as ytownredux said, "you know what they say about people who assume." Suggest removal: C:og fln to comment 9/24/2010

157 Oakhill is not on trial Page 1 of 3 Oakhill is not on trial Sunday, September 5, 2010 The criminal case against current and former Mahoning County govermzlent officials and members of a prominent Valley family centers on one issue: political corruption. The case isn't about the decision by Mahaning County to move the Job and Family Services agency from one location to another. And, it certainly isn't about the county's purchase of Oakhill Renaissance Place, the fonner South Side Medical Center in Youngstown. Despite what defense lawyers contend, and what a recent front-page headline in The Vindicator suggested, Oalcliill is not on trial. If it were, then the Garland Plaza (McGuffey Mall) on Youngstown's East Side would also be on trial. Why? Because the plaza, owned. by the Cafaro Co., one of the largest shopping center developers in the country, is at the heart of what has now come to be known as the JFS relocation controversy. For almost two decades, Malloning County had leased space in the plaza, and in the last years of the agreement had been spending at least $1.2 million for rent and other expenses. The relocation was pushed by the JFS eniployces, who contended that the building was a liealth hazard. Almost 100 worker's compensation health claims had been filed. while the agekicy was a.t Gvland. Oaldiill purchase Thus, the decision was made by the commissioners to move the agency to another location, and after studying varions optioaxs, two of the three comnissioners, Anthony Traticanti and David Ludt, voted to purchase Oakhill Renaissance Place. Commissioner John A. McNally IV voted against the purchase. McNally is one of the seven individuals charged in what the state says was a criminal enterprise. In a nutshell, McNally, county Auditor Michael Sciortino, former county Treasurer John Reardon, former JFS Director John Zachariah, former Cafaro Co. President Anthony Cafaro Sr., company executive Flora Cafaro, and Atty. Martin Yavorcik are accused of trying to undermine the conduct of official govennnent business. r. THEONIQyECf OLqV GOYII CR EXHIBIT 2 OHID.^dGYU9j>99ij 9/27/2010

158 Oakbill is not on trial Page 2 of 3 How this enterprise operated will be laid out in detail when the bill of particulars relating to the indictments are filed by the special prosecutors, and when evidence is presented through discovery. Suffice it to say that the state will be out to prove that the Cafaro brother and sister used their financial wealtli and influence - three of their companies, Cafaro Co., Ohio Valley Mall and Marion Plaza, were also named in the indictments - to corrupt the current and former county government officials. All the defendants have denied the charges and promise to f ght them in court. Last week's release of a bill of particulars pertaining to the charges against Flora Cafaro and Yavoroik sheds a great deal of light on the direction the prosecutor are taking the case. The details of the bill of particulars were published in Wednesday's Vindicator. But there's onc sentence in the nine-page doc nnent that reveals thc stra3lcgy prosecutors liave adopted: "This is not the first tiine Anthony Cafaro or other members of the Enterprise [have] made clandestine payments and the State will seek to offer and inu oduce other acts evidencc." (A Google sceu-ch for "other acts evidence" provides a clear defii7ition of the legal concept.) Why would prosecutors include that sentence in a document that lays out what Flora Cafaro did to conceal a $15,000 transaction involving Atty. Yavorcik? To let the defendants know that their attempt to turn this case into a discussion about dxe purchase of Oakhill Renaissance Place will not succeed. Special prosecutors Dennis P. Will, Paul Nick, David Muhek and Antliony Cillo are taking the government/politieal corruption route. Fair game But if the defendants insist on putting Oakhill Renaissance on trial, then Garland Plaza, starting with the lease agreement between the Cafaro Co. and Mahoning County, becomes fair game. While Anthony Cafaro has contended in the past that there was nothing unusual about the lease - the 9/27/2010

159 Oalchill is not on trial Page 3 of 3 landlord was only responsible for maintaining the building's superstructuure - the idea of taxpayer dollars being used to pay for the upkeep and repairs of a privately owned building does give pause. http.// 9/27/2010

160 Comments Posted By "ytownredux" Legal analysts predict long, complex court battle Wraz, again, I think you are a bit misguided. Point by point: The 2 buildings were in no where near the same shape, and yes I toured the entire Oak Hill site and saw the pictures of Garland. There was a horrible roof at Garland. They were hanging plastic bags from the ceilings over the main-frame computers to keep them from getting wet. There was mold and broken tiles everywhere. (BTW I do fault the county for not doing normal wear and tear upkeep, it was not done well, but the roof which was a major source of the problems should be on Cafaro's dime, it was his building.) However, Oak Hill does not have those problems, the renovation costs there are for changing the interiors primarily to fit the needs of the departments moving in there and all the computers it takes to run those departments. Oak his has n.o problem structurally as did Garland. Some update of heating/air conditioning would help, but they are both working and not in disrepair. These 2 buildings are in NO way comparable. Next, I will even give you that there was possibly not inuch homework done on OakhilI, althought I feel there was some and enough, but that being said, to buy for the county is much smarter than leasing. Yes the upkeep is big, but remember even though you, are leasing buildings, there is still an extra charge for the utilitiies and now you can combine multi county offices and not pay the rent, that more than offsets the upkeep. I am definitely looking at this as a good taxpayer should and with much more insight to this particular situation than the average taxpayer here in the Valley has. You do realize that the lease was negotiated 20 years ago and we have been out of lease and staying month to month the past 10 years right? Again, I say a triple net lease with supposedly the roof not ben.ig part of the building is a joke. There was extremely bad negotiating on tbe part of the old comtnissioners 20 years ago. Let me also say, and I atn sorry to be cryptic, but you are not necessarily correct that all building owners had the chance to negotiate a deal for JFS back in the day. Finally, again I am not lost in any hoopla, but simply going frorn evidence that I have seen that leads me to believe that Anthony is about shoulder deep in this and good works by the family and company or not, he should not be held less accountable because of those deeds. He did criminal wrong and should be punished accordingly. I also want our office holders held just as accountable if not more so because they were elected to protect OUR best interests, not a childhood friends or a corporations!!! August 25, 2010 at 3:10 p.m. permalink suggest removal Oakhill-case lawyers seeking more details Well Exposed, a taxpayers lawsuit is a legal means to challenge an action by elected officials. It is interesting that you say that it was "apparantly is or was a bad deal" when. I tt'n to save their there is no direct evidence of that yet, just speculatton uy peop e ry g

161 a**es. Phishie has not been paying attention, it was an outside prosecutor that has been investigating these charges, the local prosecutor just brought them in after thinking their was wrongdoings but not wanting to investigate themselves in case people would think it looked bad. A good question is can the Cafaro company file a taxpayers lawsuit while even tbough they are taxpayers, they have a vested interest in the County staying where they were in a decrepit building? Now THAT sounds like a conflict of interest to me. As far as the costs, you can't blame the county for the money these lawsuits are costing since they were made to go to court by the Cafaros for over a year, only to win the case because it was bologney in the first place. The special prosecutors were very fair and balanced with the Grand Jury. did you read they have over 50,000 pieces of evidence they are givin.g at the pre-trial discovery hearing. No wonder it took 7 months to make the indietements. August 25, 2010 at 7:50 a.m. permalink suggest removal pakhill-case lawyers seeking more details Wow! That is going to be a lot of particulars. I think the prosecutors deserve a lot of time to have to write out every meeting that took place. Especially if they have to do it for each person because it will be so redundant. It is gonna take a couple more trees than they have used for the evidence they already have just to write this bill. The question really isn't what ara the particulars and what they did. They did it. The question is what are the penalty's going to be? Will it be time to set examples, or will it be slap on the wrists as usual for the Mahoning Valley. August 24, 2010 at 7:54 a.m. permalink suggest removal Legal analysts predict long, complex court battle Unfortunately, being "pillars of the community," only made Anthony and J7 feel untouchable and kingmakers in the Valley. While their donations to the community were large and many, you have to wonder now how many had some major league strings attached. It will be a sad day for the Mahoning Valley if Anthony only gets a slap on the wrist for these major charges. I wish Betras said that as a lawyer he has to believe the elected office holders are innocent'til proven guilty, but as the county democratic chair, you would hope he would realize the hurt these people have caused the Valley and if he worked and succesfully won a case with Nick before, he should know that Nick would not be presenting a case that wasn't pretty air-fight. Betras should publicly call for them to resign immediately if he wants to save any respect the local party. It is amusing that Betras says that it is 'very defensible' in that you are able to lobby your representatives. There is of course truth

162 in that, but how many get to lobby in person in our own business office, more than dozens of times? Shouldn't the officials at least get lobbied in their office or in a public meeting place if it is on the up and up? If this case does not end in multiple convictions, there is no hope for an honest trial in the Valley for well connected criminals. August 22, 2010 at 8:06 am. permalink suggest removal Probe of Oakhill followed complex, long path Oakhill is not bleeding the County, do some research and stop just parroting whatever you read. Do you realize in the 3 years since the move, you have SAVED over a million and a half dollars PLUS utilities that was paid to the Cafaro's dilapidated building. We have also saved whatever the County Coroner was paying in rent before the building was bought. Do you reniember there was a 5 million dollar bond that was put out when the building was purchased for renovations and that there is still about a third of that left to help get the other County entities moved into the building SAVING even more rent money given to others. The taxes that may or not be due, (they are still being appealed to the State and not owed yet,) would be paid by the million and a hal pluswe have saved in Cafaro rent alone. Have you. toured Oakbill? I hope you do before you knock the building. It WAS a hospital, it was built well and cared for in most of the building. We should be finding ways to fill up building and save on outgoing rent.for county entities and spend that money on the utilities or improving services. As for the indictments, they are NOT about whether the building purchase was a good idea or not, they are about County officials (who happen to be Democrat, would have happened with Republicans too if they wanted Cafaro backing) who went above and beyond opposing the purchase, but worked hand in hand with someone outside the County who had a vested interest in keeping the County JFS in their building and keeping their cash cow going and the first building that daddy ever built afloat. July 31, 2010 at 10:37 a.m. permalink suggest removal 73 CHARGES FOCUS ON PUBLIC-PRIVATE CONFLICTS At long last there are people making sense here. If people would research and not just live in an echo chamber of what they hear, they would realize that although the Oak Hill decision was probably rushed, it was the best decision at the time and probably will be the best in the end. Calling it a money pit is way to premature. Do you understand that since Oakhill was bought, we have SAVED a million and a half dollars in rent to the Cafaros, SAVED whatever rent we paid for the Coroner was paying to Southside when

163 they owned OakHill, SAVED whatever utilities we were paying at Cafaro's while there was a leaky roof, etc. Do you rernember when Oakhil7 was purchased there was a 5 million dollar Bond put up for renovations and that we havent even spent all of that money yet. The money pit is a lie, and once ALL county entities are moved there and not paying rent to other buildings, it will be even better. Think for yourselves people, do not listen to the lies. Finally, this isn't even about whether Oakhill was a good or bad decision, the indictments are about what was done by county officials with those that had a vested interest in keeping a county agency in their dilapidated cash cow building. It is not illegal to oppose a purchase, but the tlzings you do to oppose a purchase can very well be illegal. The Grand Jury is not stupid people, there were 5 months out of these people's lives that they considered everything that was presented. They were not led by anybody, but took time and listened to all evidence that was presented and thought (unanimously at that,) that what they heard was criminal and should be brought to a trial. Get over it. July 31, 2010 at 10:23 a.m. permalink suggest removal

164 FILED UNDER SEAL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS GENERAL DIVISION MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO vs. ANTHONY M. CAFARO, SR. and THE CAFARO COMPANY and OHIO VALLEY MALL COMPANY and THE MARION PLAZA, INC and JOHN A. McNALLY, IV and JOHN REARDON and MICHAEL V. SCIORTINO and JOHN ZACHARiAH and MARTIN YAVORCIK and FLORA CAFARO 1 JUDGE William H. Wolff, Jr. CASE NOS. 2oio CR oo800 2o1o CR oo8oo A 2oio CR oo8oo B 2010 CR o0800 C 2010 CR oo8oo D 2010 CR oo8oo E 2010 CR oo8oo F 2010 CR oo8oo G 2010 CR oo8oo H 2010 CR oo8oo I BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO JOINT MOTION OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS REGARDING GRAND JURY SECRECY AND REOUEST FOR HEARING The State of Ohio has reviewed the "Joint Motion of Defendants Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., Flora Cafaro, The Cafaro Company, Ohio Valley Mall Company and The Marion Plaza, Inc. Seeking the Court's Action to Address Apparent Violations of Grand Jury Secrecy" and requests a hearing on said motion. THEOHIO LEGAL BLANK CO.. INC EXHIBIT T R L'4-14 CLEVELAND, OHIO 44102'1799

165 Ohio Criminal Rule 6(E) states the obligations with respect to Grand Jury secrecy and provides that: Deliberations of the grand jury and the vote of any grand juror shall not be matters occurring before the grand disclosed. Disclosure of other may be made to the prosecuting attorney for use in the performance jury of his duties. A grand juror, prosecuting attorney, interpreter, stenographer, operator of a recording device, or typist who transcribes recorded testimony, may disclose matters occurring before the grand jury, other than the deliberations of a grand jury or the vote of a grand juror, but may disclose such matters only when so directed by the court preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding, or when permitted by the court at the request of the defendant upon a showing that grounds may exist for a motion to dismiss the indictxnent because of matters occurring before the grand jury. No grand juror, officer of the court, or other person shall disclose that an indictment has been found person before such indictment is filed and the case docketed. The against a court may direct that an indictment shall be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pursuant to Rule 46. In that event the clerk shall seal the indictment, the indictment shall not be docketed by name until after the apprehension of the accused, and no person shall disclose the finding of the indictment except when necessary or summons. No obligation of secrecy for the issuance of a warrant may be imposed upon any person except in accordance with this rule. Ohio R. Crim. P. 6(E). (Emphasis added). Even federal law has long recognized that the need for secrecy is relaxed postindictment. See, generally, Schmidt v. United States, 115 F.2d 394 (1940). Moreover, the oath of secrecy taken by grand jurors has been recognized for the following purposes: "(t) To prevent the escape of those whose indictment may be contemplated; (2) to insure the utmost freedom to the grand jury in its deliberations, and to prevent persons subject to indictment or their friends from importuning the grand jurors; to prevent subornation of perjury or tampering with the witnesses who may testify before the grand jury and later appear at the trial of those indicted by it; (4) to encourage free and untrammeled disclosures by persons who have information with respect to the commission of crimes; (5) to protect the innocent accused who is exonerated from disclosure of the fact that he has been under investigation, and from the expense of standing trial where there was no probability of guilt. The basis of all but the last of these reasons for secrecy is protection of the grand jury itself, as the direct independent representative of the public as a whole, rather than of those brought before

166 the grand jury" Schmidt v United States, supra. See also United States v. John Doe, Inc. I 481 U S (U.S. 1987) The comments cited by the movants in their motion do not bear upon any of the reasons often stated for secrecy. While the State is mindful of the concerns of the moving defendants regarding comments made by an as yet unidentified individual or individuals, the remedy sought by the defendants is overly broad and unduly burdensome as applied to a person airing a post-deliberation, post-true bill opinion (as opposed to a 'matter occurring before the grand jury) in a public forum. Additionally, it inappropriately seeks the remedy of what is, in essence, a court appointed special prosecutor. The State of Ohio therefore respectfnlly requests a hearing on said motion. Respectfully submitted, and Dennis P. Will Special Prosecuting Attorney Paul Nick Special Prosecuting Attorney and by: and Anthony D. Cillo oo62497 Special Prosecuting Attorney vici P. 4uhek Special Prosecuting Attorney 3

167 REQUEST FOR HEARING Please take notice that the State of Ohio hereby respectfully requests a public hearing on the "Joint Motion of Defendants Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., Flora Cafaro, The Cafaro Company, Ohio Valley Mall Company and The Marion Plaza, Inc. Seeking the Court's Action to Address Apparent Violations of Grand Jury Secrecy". S'pecial Prosecuting Attorney CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A true copy of the forgoing Notice has been served via electronic mail this ist day of October, 2010, upon the persons named in the attached distribution list incorporated herein by reference as counsel of record for each defendant and as their names appear therein. Special Prosecuting Attorney 4

168 State of Ohio vs Anthonv Cafaro, Sr.. et a1. Case No. io CR o800, et seq. DEFENSE COUNSEL DISTRIBUTION LIST t. George A. Stamboulidis, Esq. Baker & Hostetler 45 Rockefeller Plaza NewYork,NY Lynn Maro, Esq West Blvd., Suite 4 Youngstown, Ohio Tel: Fax: Counsel for John McNally IV Fax: E Mail: gstamboulidis0bakerlaw.com Counsel for Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr. 7 J. Gerald Ingram, Jr., Esq. Robert Duffrin,Esq. 2. J. Alan Johnson, Esq. Cynthia Reed Eddy, Esq. Johnson & Eddy 172o Gulf Tower 707 Grant Street Pittsburg, PA Office: Fax:4i r iiohnsonn iohnsoneddv com ceddv^dd ^com. Counsel for Flora Cafaro 3. John F. McCaffrey, Esq. McLaughlin & McCaffrey LLP Eaton Center, Suite 1350 tiu Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH Office: Fax: ifm^ladin-law.com Counsel for ohio Valley Mall LP & The Marion Plaza, Inc. 4 Ralph E. Cascarilla, Esq. Walter & Haverfield, LLP The Tower at Erieview i3o1 East Ninth Street, Suite 3500 Cleveland, OH Office: Fax:2t6.575 o9rt rcascarilla(@walterhav.co m Counsel for The Cafaro Company 7003 Market Street Youngstown, Ohio Counsel for Martin Yavorcik 8. Lou DeFabio, Esq Market St # 220 Youngstown, Ohio Counsel for John Reardon 9. Roger Synenberg, Esq. 5cnenhern& av^±4ixt+^^,,7,l^` 55 Public Square Suite 1200 Cleveland, OH Phone: / Fax: (216) Counsel for John Zachariah io. Martin G. Weinberg, Esq. Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. 2o Park Plaza, Suite iooo Boston, MA 02n Fax: owlrngw{^'_iil.t.nei Counsel for Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr. 5 John B. Juhasz. Esq West Blvd., Suite 4 Youngstown, Ohio Tel: Fax: Emad: Jbjjurisdoclu va#ro.c m Counsel for Michael V. Scrortino 5

169 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO Vs. Plaintiff ANTHONY M. CAFARO, JR. THE CAFARO COMPANY (A). OHIOVALLEY MAIJ- CO. (B) THE MARION PLAZA, INC. (C) JOHN A. MCNALLY (D) JOHN RB,ARDON (F) MICHAEL V. SCIORTINO (F) JOHN ZACHARIAH (G) MARTIN YAVORCIK (H) FLORA CAFARO (1) 2010CR800 October 4, 2010 iudgmen'' ENTRY JUDGE WIIS-IAM H. WOLFF, JR.. On Assigntnent, Axt. IV, Section 6 Ohio Constitution Defendants This mattet has been scheduled for a Heating on Motion to Addtess Appaxent Violations of Grand Jury Sectecy foy Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. JUDGE WILLIAM H. WOLFF Sitfing On Assignment Astide IV,Secdon 6 Ohio Constitotion to all counsel of record and an unrepxesented parties CLERK: Copies IiNRIIIAIIIiINIIiNidIiIllImlllalllQ 2010CR 00NO 00ON4093<, CRJnD ^^5.^^ finoss'^ Iva

170 FILED UNDER SEAL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO State of Ohio, Case No CR V. Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., et ac., Plaintiffs, ) Judge William H. Wolff, Jr. Defendants. SUPPLEMENT TO JOINT MOTION OF DEFENDANTS ANTHONY M. CAFARO, SR., FLORA CAFARO, THE CAFARO COMPANY, OHIO VALLEY MALL COMPANY, AND THE MARION PLAZA, INC. SEEKING THE COURT'S ACTION TO ADDRESS APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF GRAND JUItYSECRECY Now come Defendants Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., Flora Cafaro, The Cafaro Company, Ohio Valley MaII Company, and The Marion Plaza, Inc. (collectively "the Defendants"), by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby supplement their joint motion seeking the court's action to address apparent violations of grand jury secrecy filed on September 30, This Supplement sets forth recently-obtained information that links the internet pseudonym "ytownredux" to an identifiable individual publicly proclaiming he was a member of the Mahoning County Grand Jury during the January 2010 tenn. The internet comments concerning this individual's service on the grand jury were made contemporaneous with the presentation of matters occurring before the grand jury, disclosed matters that were subject to obligations of secrecy, and matched other publicly available information to provide the Defendants with a convincing basis to THE OHIO LEGAL BLANK CO., INC. EXHIBIT Jt. Rec. Ex. 16 f.i FVFI ANII ()HIO 34101^99 support the nexus between "ytownredux" and a grand juror who was part of the panel tha

171 regularly received secret testimony and other information from the presentation that resulted in the Indictment issued in this matter. In addition, this Supplement demoristrates that, on further review of the comments by "ytownredux" on The Vindicator website, a grand juror was either conducting his own investigation into the Oakhill matter or acquiring information from. sources other than those presented to the grand jury. Furtlier, this Supplement will address the issue of the reported authorization by Judge Evans for The Vindicator to conduct an interview of the grand jury foreman, and the legal issues such order, if it exists, creates. As a result, the Defendants seek leave to supplement and particularize their previously filed motion for the appointment of a special investigator to determine the identity of the leaker or leakers, the scope of the breaches of grand jury secrecy, whether the grand jury was properly instructed to maintain its oath of confidentiality, and whether furth.er proactive remedies are appropriate to prevent any further compromising of the constitutional proteotions accorded to Defendants by both state and federal constitutions to both an impartial grand jury and a fair and impartial future trial in Maboning County. See e.g. Section 10, Article I, Ohio Constitution. 1. IDENTIFICATION OF "YTOWNREDUX" AS MAHONING COUNTY GRAND JUROR SCOTT FULLERTON A"Google" search of the term "ytownredux" led to the discovery of a Twitter account held by an individual named Scott Fullerton using the pseudonym "YtownRedux: " See Exlzibit 1, results of Google search for "ytownredux." The Twitter page of "YtownRedux" confirms that Scott Fullerton is the owner of that account and that he resides in "NE Ohio." See Exhibit 2, Scott Fullerton (YtownRedux) on Twitter at p. 2. The "Google" search also led to the discovery that Scott Fullerton uses the address 2

172 See Exhibit 3 Conununity Diversity Program Series brochure at infonnation for October 11, 2009 event and Mahoning Valley Gay Pride Center 2010 Officers. A"C3oogle" search of the term "Scott Fullerton" led to the identification of Ace In The Hole Marketing, a company for which Fullerton is the founder and Chief Executive Officer. See Exhibit 4, Ace In The Hole website, at About Us. In fact, the website for Ace In The Hole provides links to Fullerton's current Twitter account "AceMarketer" and his Facebook page. Id. A review of the "AceMarketer" Twitter page revealed two postings (colloquially known as "Tweets") referencing Fullerton's service on the grand jury. See Exhibit 5, Ace Marketing (AceMarketer) on Twitter at Tweets 54 & 55. Specifically, Tweet 55 from January 14, 2010 at 7:54 AM stated: "Getting some client notes together then head to Jury Duty[,]" while Tweet 54 from January 11, 2010 at 10:19 AM made it clear that the jury duty was in fact grand jury duty by stating: "busy week good grand jury yesterday." Id. The AceMarketer Twitter page references that the author is located in "Youngstown, OH." Id. at p. 2 A review of Fullerton's Facebook contained additional references to Fullerton's service on the grand jury. Scott Fullerton Going over client notes before i [sic] go to JuYy Auty... January 14, 2010 at 7:00 AM. See Exhibit 6, Scott Fullerton Facebook Posts at p. 19 (emphasis added). Scott Fullerton loves a full week of exciting challenges. All day at client followed by meetings most of Wednesday and Friday, and doing justice for the County at Grand Jury all day Thursday. February 23, 2010 at 7:22 AM. Id. at p. 15 (emphasis added). 3

173 s Scott Fullerton Okay, am back after spending the afternoon in Jail...c'mon friends, I was just there inspecting it as part of my duty with the Grand Jury. We ate their food, saw their laundry, food prep and medical facilities, visited some inmates in the minimum security (fun some were playing chess,) visited some inmates in the maximum security (not-fun, they have the evil eye thing down pretty good)[.] March 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM. Id. at p. 12 (emphasis added).. Scott Fullerton Looooong Day. Up early to work on puter [sic], then at the Courthouse all day for Jury duty... Apri18, 2010 at 7:21 PM. Id. at p. 9 (emphasis added). Scott Fullerton Having a very productive week, however we interrupt this week for a day of Grand Jury duty, lol. Last month, then Thursday are mine... April 15, 2010 at 7:24 AM. Id. (empliasis added). Fullerton's Facebook posts establish that Fullerton was a member of a county grand jury. Farthermore, Fullerton's information page on Facebook lists his current location as Eaardman., Ohio. See Exhibit 71 Facebook Information Page. Boardman is situated in Mahoning County. Scott Fullerton publicly proclaimed he was a member of the grand jury, and Fullerton's public proclamations are supported by his name appearing on the venire for the January 2010 Term of Mahoning County Grand Jury as Service No. 42, and Service No. 42's selection as a member of the grand jury. See Exhibit 8, Judgment Entry filed December 10, 2009 in Case No. 09 CR OPEN and Judgment Entry filed January 12,2010 in Case No. 10 CIt OPEN. Furthermore, because there was only a single grand jury in session during the time frame of Fullerton's communications, and the grand jury returning the Indictment against the Defendants was a general, not special, grand jury, Fullerton appears to have been a member of the Mahoning County Grand Jury that investigated the Oakhill matter. Fullerton was eager to share the fact he was a member of the grand jury with anyone 4

174 having a Facebook account. Fullerton took no steps to secure or make private his electronic entries. Furthermore, on one occasion Fullerton provided specific details as to how he spent his day on the grand jury, visiting a county jail. See Exhibit 6 Facebook Posts, at March 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM post at p. 12. Importantly, a series of featured and front page articles in The Vindicator regularly reported to those receiving Fullerton's Facebook and Twitter entries that the ongoing grand jury investigation regarded the "Oakhill" case. The Vindicator has given continual front page coverage to the 2010 grand jury that indicted the defendants. See Exhibit 9, selection of articles from The Vindicator February 2010 through June The Vindicator article from April 15, 2010, "County grand jury hears more evidence on Oakbill purchase" made reference to the fact that the grand jury hearing evidence on the Oakhill matter sat on Thursdays. See Exhibit 9 at Peter H. Milliken, County grand jur,y hearing evidence on Oakhill purchase, The Vindicator, April 15, 2010, at Al. Thursday was the day Fullerton informed his readers that his service on the grand jury took place. See, Exhibit 6, post at April 15, 2010 at 7:24 AM. The presence of public postings by Fullerton concerning his service on the grand jury raises concerns as to additional information be likely provided to others with whom he regularly communicated. Concomitantly, persons reading Fullerton's Facebook and Twitter entries would know of his grand jury service raising the parallel concern of others providing him information regarding the subject matter of the grand jury investigation off-line. These persons may be residents of Mahoning County and thus potential jurors in this matter. As Fullerton has publicly used the pseudonym "ytownredux," once as his address and once for his Twitter accoiurt, it is reasonable to infer that the individual using that pseudonym on the Vindicator website is Fullerton, especially in 5

175 light of the facts detailed in Defendants' motion suggesting that the comments written by "ytownredux" originated from either a grand juror or an individual having access to matters before the grand jury. Defendants have more than established a prirna facie case that grand jury secrecy requireinents were violated. United States v. Flemmi (D. Mass. 2000), 233 F. Supp.2d 113, , citing In re Grand Jury Investigation, 610 F.2d 202, (5s' Cir. 1980) ("Lance"). U. OTHER EVIDENCE OF FAILURE TO RESPECT GRAND JURY SECRECY OBLIGATIONS A. Additional Public Comments By Fullerton After reviewing the public comznents of "ytownredux," Defendants are additionally concerned that Fullerton may have sought information from others outside of the grand jury to obtain information conceming the Oakhill investigation. "[Y]townredux" posted two comments on The Vindicator website showing that Fullerton was communieating with others regarding Oakhill outside of the grand jury and during the final phase of the grand jury's seven-month investigation: "To call the building decrepit is nonsense as anyone who has toured the facility can attest. Decrepit sums up Garland Plaza quite well and to compare the too [sic] is ludicrous at best. Having a friendly neighbor that has worked for JFS for over 13 years, she is an unbiased person and said that Oak Hill has turned out wonderfully for the department overall." See additional connnents posted by "ytownredux," Exhibit 10, at "ytownredux" comment to.the Vindicator article titled, "Acting JFS director sticks up for Oakbill" June 18, 2010 at 9:53 AM (emphasis added). 6

176 "Actually my next door neighbor IS [sic] an employee at JFS at Oakhill, has been with them for 13 years and says that Oakhill is 5,000 times better than her entire time at Garland." See additional comments posted by "ytowiiredux," Exhibit 10, at "ytownredux" comment to The Vindicator article titled, "Officials react to Oakhill dissent" May 29, 2010 at 12:10 PM (emphasis added). These comments demonstrate that "ytownredux" was eommunicating with his neighbor during Izis serviee on the grand jury and specifically concerning the Oakhill investigation. Importantly, these comments appear after a new grand jury for the May 2010 term was seated in Mahoning County, yet during the period that the grand jury for the January 2010 term continued to receive eviderzce solely related to the Oakhill investigation. See Exhibit 11, Judgnient Entry filed June 3, 2010 in case No. 10 CR OPEN (granting second extension of grand jury term until July 30, 2010 "solely for the purpose of completing the investigation of the acquisition of the Oak Hill. Renaissance Place and presentment to the Grand Jury"). Accordingly, not only is it possible that "ytownredux" obtained infonnation from his neighbor that he either used during his personal deliberations preceding the grand jury vote, but he may have shared that same information with other grand jurors. Without an investigation, it will remain unknown as to what information "ytownredux" provided, and may still be providing, regarding the matters occurring before the grand jury. Fullerton's failure to maintain the secrecy of the grand jury may or may not have been a deliberate affront to the integrity of the Court. Fullerton's actions relating to posting comments regarding the Oakhill investigation may or may not have resulted from the failure of the judge presiding over the grand jury to properly instruct him and other 7

177 grand jurors regarding the obligations of grand jury secrecy. Likewise, the "Anonymous" letter that was quoted in the September 19, 2010 column by Bertrain de Souza of The Vindicator may or may not have emanated from Fullerton. If it did not, then a second grand juror is currently engaged in communicating with the newspaper holding an almost monopolistic control over the news in Mahoning County. B. Potential Interview of Grand Jury Foreman According to the October 6, 2010 edition of The Vindicator, the judge who presided over the grand jury that issued the hidictment in this matter authorized The Vindicator "to interview Michael T. Heher, grand jury foreman, concerning details of the Oakhill case." See Exhibit 12, Peter H. Millikan, "Web postings rile up Cafaro lawyers," The Vindicator, Oct. 6, 2010, at Al. The Vindicator article reports that authorization was sought "[a]fter the Oakhill indictment was filed." Id. at A4. The Indictment was filed on Thursday July 29, Yet, by the following Tuesday morning, all the judges on the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas General Division had recused themselves from any matters eoncerning this case and requested the Ohio Supreme Court reassign the matter to a visiting judge. See Exhibit 13, Judgment Entry dated August 3, 2010 and filed August 4,2010 in Case No. 10 CR No counsel for the indicted Defendants received notice of The Vindicator's application, nor that it was being considered by Judge Evans, nor did any counsel receive notice of the order authorizing The Vindicator to conduct such an interview. Clearly, sucli an order, if issued, would be unsupported by any "necessity" for the authorized release from grand jury secrecy and would contravene every established principle safeguarding grand jury testimony and other proceedings from unnecessary public disclosure. It would also, inexorably, generate poisonous publicity that would have the 8

178 effect of tainting future trial jurors with the potential of detailed knowledge of how a separate group of citizens assessed the presentation albeit an ex parte one by the prosecution. Moreover, and putting aside the issue of whether the authorization was granted before or after his necessary recusal, Judge Evans reported authorization to The Vindicator necessarily implies his understanding that it was lawful for the grand jury foreman to submit to an interview "conceming details of the Oakhill case." As of September 24, 2010, a review of the Mahoning County Grand Jury order file, known as the "CR Open File," reveals no judgment entry by Judge Evans authorizing The Vindicator to interview the foreman of the grand jury that issued the hidictment in this matter. Defendants are confident that permitting the media to interview a grand juror about matters occurring before the grand jury is not lawful. Accordingly, Defendants seek an order from this Court countermanding any order issued by Judge Evans that would result in a grand juror's disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury and notifying the foreman of the grand jury of such a superseding order so no future interview will lawfully occur based on the prior order of Judge Evans. III. TIIIS COURT HAS AiJTHORITY TO ORDER THE RELIEF REQUESTED BY DEFENDANTS Courts of common pleas possess inherent power to appoint special prosecutors in criminal matters. State ex rel. Master v. City of Cleveland (1996), 75 Ohio St. 3d 23, 27 citing,state ex rel. Johnson v. Talikka (1994), 71 Ohio St. 3d 109; State ex rel. Williams v. Zaleski (1984), 12 Ohio St. 3d 109; State v. Bunyan (1988), 51 Ohio App. 3d 190; see State ex rel. Thomas v. Henderson (1931), 123 Ohio St. 474, 478 ("The power of the court, in the investigation of criminal charges, to appoint counsel to represent the state, 9

179 without legislative authority therefor, [sic] was first exercised by the court of general quarter sessions, at Marietta, September 9, 1788."); see also In the Matter of the Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon Pedro Archuleta (S.D.N.Y., 1977), 432 F. Supp. 583, 599 (directing U.S. Attorney to investigate a grand jury leak and report back to the court); United States v. Kearney (S.D.N.Y. 1977), 435 F. Supp. 1108, 1119 (directing government to conduct an internal investigation regarding a grand jury leak). An attorney appointed under this inherent power is sometimes referred to as a "special" prosecuting attorney. Williams, 12 Ohio St. 3d at The Thomas Court noted that a common pleas court properly exercises its inherent power where neither the prosecuting attorney nor assistant prosecutor could perform their prosecutorial duties. One may easily conceive of a variety of illustrations under which the prosecuting attorney would be embarrassed, and the performance of his duties rendered difficult, and no statutory provision has been made for such cases. Manifestly the appointment of an assistant under the direction of the prosecutor would not obviate the difficulty. One may also conceive circumstances like those presented in this case, whicli, by reason of the prosecutor himself being under investigation, make it impossible that either he or any assistant under his direction sliould act. Thomas, 123 Ohio St. at ; see also Williams, 12 Obio St. 3d at 111. In this matter the Mahoning County Prosecutors Office recused itself entirely because of a conflict of interest. The Lorain County prosecutors and Ohio Ethics Commission attorney who have agreed to accept responsibilities for the underlying case have no greater "standing" to be delegated the obligations to investigate unlawful grand jury leaks than any other prosecutor or person under Ohio law, understanding that the special prosecutors are at minimum witnesses to certain of the events that are within the 10

180 ambit of a proper investigation (e.g. that certain evidence was presented on certain dates, the identities of the grand jurors in attendance, whether the grand jurors were instructed and if so when and by whom), they are defacto ineligible from being authorized to investigate these matters for which they may need to provide information. This inherent authority alone provides this Court with the ability to order the relief requested by the Defendants. In addition, the Supreme Court of Ohio has stated: "we view R.C as granting court discretion to appoint an attorney of its choice to bring or prosecute an action on behalf of the state whenever the prosecuting attorney is absent, interested in the action, or disabled." State ex ret. Thomas v. Kane (1989), 43 Ohio St. 3d 164, 165 (emphasis added). The inclusion of in Chapter 2733, Quo Warranto, thus may be viawed as providing for the manner in which an individual, other than the prosecutor, may lawfully bring or prosecute an action without usurping the prosecutor's authority. Accordingly, under both the inherent power of the Court of Common Pleas and R.C , this Court has the authority to provide for the relief requested by Defendants. IV. MODIFICATION OF DEFENDANTS' REQUESTED RELIEF With the probable identification of the individual grand juror that has been utilizing the pseudonym "ytownredux," Defendants modify their request for relief as follows: l. Appoint a disinterested neutral member of the bar pursuant to its inherent authority and R.C , as the Mahoning County Prosecutor's Office and the Judges of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas have recused themselves from this entire matter, to conduct an independent 11

181 investigation that would include as its objectives the identification of the person or persons responsible for the communications to The Vindicator on September 19, 2010 as quoted above to determine if an action should be brought or prosecuted. In particular, the appointed special investigator would have the responsibility to: (a) Retrieve or subpoena from The Vindicator and its reporter Bertram de Souza, the original grand juror letter (and its envelope) referenced in Mr. de Souza's September 19, 2010 column, as well as any other documents provided by the anonymous grand juror; (b) Determine whether there is any information from the material produced by The Vindicator linldng the autlior of the grand juror letter to Scott Fullerton, the person using the internet pseudonym "ytownredux," or whether, instead, the "Anonymous" letter appears to have been authored by a separate grand juror thus multiplying the rislcs of future disclosures inconsistent with the Defendants' right to a fair trial; and (c) Attempt to interview Scott Fullerton, the author of the "Anonymous" letter if the author can be identified, or any other necessary witness to detennine the scope of the breaches of grand jury secrecy and in particular to determine whether Fullerton relied upon evidence involving Fullerton's own apparent independent investigation of the case as suggested by the additional intemet postings identified above, and whether he disseminated such extrinsic infonnation to the other grand jurors. 12

182 2. Order, for the Court's in camera inspection, preparation of the transcripts of those grand jury proceedings having to do with: (a) the oath given to the grand jurors; (b) the charge to the grand jurors provided pursuant to R.C ; and (c) any instructions relating to the requirement of secrecy provided to the grand jurors over the course of the grand jury proceedings. 3. Instruct the offending grand juror or grand jurors of their continuing secrecy obligations under the law as it relates to matters occurring before the grand jury. 4. Determine whether Judge James C. Evans, the Mahoning County Common Pleas Judge presiding over the grand jury that issued the Iudictment in this case, actually issued an order authorizing The Vindicator "to interview Michael T. Heher, the grand jury foreman, canceming details of the Oakhill case" as reported in the October 6, 2010 edition of The Vindicator. If so, Defendants request the Court countermand Judge Evans order and instruct Michael T. Heher as to his continuing obligations as a former member of a Mahoning County Grand Jury. 5. Take such other and further steps as the Court deems necessary and appropriate to ensure there are no further disclosures of matters occurring before the grand jury absent an order from this Court, and that any willful prior disclosure is appropriately addressed by the Court. 13

183 V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, and those provided in the Joint Motion of Defendants Seeking The Court's Action to Address Apparent Violations of Grand Jury Secrecy, Defendants Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., Flora Cafaro, The Cafaro Company, Ohio Valley Ma1I Cornpany, and The Marion Plaza, Inc, respectfully request their motion seeking the Court's action in addressing grand jury secrecy violations be granted as the interest of justice so require, and that the Court further pursue the suggested relief which the Defendants have indentified above, 14

184 Respectfizlly subniitted, Geor A. Stamboulidis (adrn.att ^ pro hac vice) BAKER HOSTETLER 45 Rockefeller Plaza llth Floor New York, NY Office: 212, Fax: gstamboulidis@bakerlaw.com Counsel for Defendant Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr. salan Jo son (admitt d p ac vice, Cynthia Reed Eddy (admitted pro hac vice) JOHNSON & EDDY 1720 Gulf Tower 707 Grant Street Pittsburg, PA Office: Fax: jjolmson@johnsoneddy.com ceddy@johnsoneddy.com Martin G. Weinberg (adm vice) Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston, MA telephone facsimile owhngw@att.net pro ac/ e_ot Counsel for Defendant Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr. Xwe,e;..^^^."r?lKa ^.. *Ralph 1 E. Cascarilla ( ) f&"6eff Darrell A. Clay ( ) WALTER & HAVERFIELD, LLP The Tower at Erieview 1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 3500 Cleveland, OH Office: Fax: rcascarilla@walterhav.com dclay@walterhav.com Counsei for efendant Counsel for Defendant The Cafaro Coanpany Jo McCaffrey (00 An ony R. Petrazzi ( McLAUGHLIN & McCAFFREY, LLP Eaton Center, Suite Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH Office: Fax: j5n@paladin-law.com arp@paladin.-1aw.com Counsel for Defendants Ohio Valley Mall Company and The Marion Plaza, lnc. 15

185 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing Supplement to Joint Motion of Defendants Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., Flora Cafaro, The Cafaro Company, Ohio Valley Mall Company, and The Marion Plaza, Inc. Seeking The Court's Action to Address Apparent Violations of Grand Jury Secrecy has been served via electronic delivery this 12"' day of October, 2010 upon: Dennis P. Will, Esq. Lorain County Prosecuting Attorney 225 Court Street, 3rd Floor Elyria, OH Special Prosecutor for Mahoning County John B. Juhasz, Esq West Boulevard Youngstown, OH Counsel for Mike Sciortino Lou DiFabio, Esq Market Street Youngstown, OH Counsel for John Reardon Paul Nick, Esq. Chief Investigative Attorney Ohio Ethics Commission 8 Long Street, 10`h Floor Columbus, OH Special Prosecutor for Mahoning County Roger Synenberg, Esq. Synenberg & Associates LLC 55 Public Square, Suite 1200 Cleveland, OH Counsel for John Zachariah J. Gerald Ingram, Jr., Esq. Robert Duffrin, Esq Market Street Youngstown, OH Counsel for Martin Yavorcik Lynn Maro, Esq West Boulevard Youngstown, OH Counsel for John McNally 16

186 ytownrednx - Google Search Page 1 of 2 Web lmaaes Videos Maus News Shoppina Gmail more v abkirshner@gmail.com ) Set[in s v i Sipn out.ytowflcedux $L ^ SearCh i ^^'; e L ^_..-^v^_ _.._...-..^-._. = instant is on r About 367 results ( 0.33 secontls) Advanced search Everything Images Videos More Show search tools ; Did you mean: town redux Scott Fullerton (YtownRedux) on Twitter Dec 31, Join today and Get updates via SMS by texting foliow YtownRedux to in the United States Codes for other countries... twitter.comlytownredux - Cached Vindy.com News Younastown Warren Columblana Ohio - Comments by.. ADVERTISEMENT-. VindyJobs Jobs Vindy Homes Homes Vindy Wheels Autos Classifieds. Vindy.oom. ytownredux. Last login: Sunday, August 22, Cached Youngstown News UPDATED WITH CHARGES: 7 indicted in Oakhill case Jul ytownredux (45 comments) posted 2 months, 1 week ago. Sorry Norfhs)de, but while I don't like to resort to name calling on here, Cached Strow rnore results from Image hostino free nhoto sharina & video sharina at Photobucket ytownredux's Proffle I Recent Uploads + Follow Following. Latest Activity All Albums Recent Uploads Tags. Share. Post to website. Send . Get link code... s789.photobucket.comlhomelytownreduxlreeentuploads - Caehed Pictures by vtownredux - Photobucket ytownredux Photobucket album... merlo-flash-for-website.gif medo oontest image by ytownredux. Share & IM Direct Link HTML Code IMG Code... s789.photobucket.com/albums/yy174/ytownredux/ - Cached Show more results from s789.photobucketcom vtownredux - User orofile: I Vaifev24 com I Entertainment. Local... trct 10, Mahoning Valley entertainment informatlon, venues, dining, music, and drink specials. vailey24.comfusers/ytownreduxl-cached Vindy com News Younpstown Warren, Coiumbiana Ohio - vtownredux's.. Your source for local news, sports, weather, discussions, contests and informauon in Trumbull, Mahoning, Mercer and Columbiana counties, zadcom.comisocialfytownredux/- Cached Vindv com News Younostown Warren, Columbiana Ohio - Comments by... ADVERTISEMENT -, VindyJobs Jobs Vindy Homes Homes - Vindy Wheels Autos Classifieds. Vindy.com. ytownredux. Last login: 2010 CR /7/2010

187 ytownredux - Google Search Page 2 of 2 Sunday, September 19, alzad.comluserslytownredux/comments/?page=2 - Cached Vindy.com News Younostown Warren, Columbiana Ohio - Comments by... Homes Vindy Wheels Autos - Classifieds. Undy.com, Google Web Search, VindyWheels, VindyJobs, Ctassif ietls. ytownredux. Last login: Sunday, August 22, Itf1090.tam.us.siteprotect.com/users/ytownredux/commentsl? page=3-cached OakhilE suspects file ciaims - TribTodav.com - News, Sports, Jobs... They also believe the same person, once referred to as "he," also posted comments under the user name "ytownredux" that further led attomeys to believe the._ ^ tribtoday.com/page/.../oakhill-suspects-file-claims.html?... - Cached Did you mean to search for: town redux Next Searoh Help Give us feedback Google Home Advertising Prograrns Business Solutions Privacy About Google :// 10/7/2010

188 Scott Fullerton (YtownRedux,.,n Twitter Page I of 4 Slcip past navigation On a mobile phone? Check out m.twitter.com! Skip to navigation Skip to sian in form Have an account?sign in Username or ,.._.-_... _. Password ForgOt password? Forizot usemame? AlreadXusing Twitter on yottr phone? Get short, timely messages from Scott Fullerton. Twitter is a rich source of instantly updated information. It's easy to stay updated on an incredibly wide variety of topics. Join today and _Sign,Up> ; Get updates via SMS by texting follow YtowuRedux to in the United States Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes: Country Code For customers of Australia Telstra Canada (any) United Kingdom Vodafone, Orange, 3, 02 E3CFiiE3tT m CR htt»://twitter.eom/1'townredux 10/7/2010

189 ^ Scott Fullerton (YtownRedux, on Twitter Page 2 of 4 Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes: Indonesia AXIS, 3, Telkomsel Ireland India Bharti Airte], Videocon Jordan Zain New Zealand 8987 Vodafone, Telecom NZ United States (any) Codes for otlier countries YtawnRecinx 1. Happy New Years to AlL! Have a safe night and a very prosperous I am looking forward to it. 8:18 AM Dec 3I st 2009 via web 2. May be ending the birthday with some karaoke at the Lemon Grove tonight let me Name Scott Fullerton Location NE Ohio Bio Marketer by Day, Concerned Citizen by Night 48 Following 24 Followers 0 Listed 55Tweets Favorites know if you wanna come on down. $2.50 Following grill cheese?? Mmmmm 8:54 AM Dec 30th via web 3. So still wrapping my head around how great the movie AVATAR is. You HAVE to see it in IMAX 3D, Unbelievable how real the 3D is thru movie 12:47 PM Dec 19th_ 2009 via ^ web 4. Contemplating Florida in February, has a ON nice ring to it eh? No, honestly, I mean ALL View all..., _ w^^' ^ 35 ^. rt;v ^ _ LE ^ 1 ^ 0^`. * 3^ c,«*r h ^S.._^+ of February, 5 days of cold and I am over it already 7:51 PM Nov 30th via web RSS feed of YtownRedux's tweets RSS feed of 5. Ummmm Black Friday Shopping...Next ytownredux's.favorites year will just sticlc a needle in my eye instead, lol, luckily good friends there to 10/7/2010

190 Scott Fullerton (YtownRedux) on Twitter Page 3 of 4 make it fun 9:14 AM Nov 27th via web 6. is thankful for all of his friends and family and wish all a very happy thanksgiving and a time for reflection on what we are thankful for 6:55 PM Nov 25th via web 7. Hope you all have a short week as you prepare for the holidays with family and good friends, luckily,l will be spending time with both!! 2:54 PM Nov 23rd 2009 via web congrats for the 40/40, hope you had a good time, We have to have lunch again sometime when you are free, have a great weekend 12:06 PM Nov 20th via web was those turkey muffins or whatever your design?? or Sparkles, they are kewl, where can I order some? 12:05 PM Nov 20th, 2009 via web 10. Back from a social media break. Can't believe the holidays are upon us already. The Positive People Network meets tonight at BW3's Stop by 9:53 AM Nov 17tb via web 11. weekend full, hope all is having a good one. Saw the new Stargate Universe last night with friends...ummmmm jury is still out, a bit slow 12:18 PM Oct 3rd, 2009 via web 12. Great weekend, happy for my best friends I year wedding anniversary, happy for my friends awesome movie premiere Friday night, Life is good! 9:11 AM Seu 28th, 2009 via web happy anniversary to you and your lovely 2:58 PM Sep 26th, 2009 via web 14. Awesome premiere of Steel Valley Meltdown last night at Ford Recital Hall. Great turn-out, great movie, time for the fihn festival circuit 9:45 AM Sep 26th via web 15. Shout Out to Kevin, Danny and Frank for 'Steel Town Meltdown' pren7iere tonight at Ford Recital Hall. Time to turn the page, great work men! 0:19 AM Sep 25th, 2009 via web 16. Lost my phone and took a whole day off after CreateAThon and did absolutely nothing at home. Today: Find phone, mtg, get back to work 8:33 AM Seu 20th, 2009 via web 10/7/2010

191 Scott Fullerton (YtownRedux).in Twitter Page 4 of hours into our 24 hour marathon to help non-profits in the area with free marketing materials About 2 hours until i fall asleep UGH!! 11:17 PM Sep 17th, 2009 via web 18. going to be working literally the next 30 hour str8, then to bed, see you friends sometime Saturday evening... zzzzzzzzz 8:09 AM Sep 17th, 2009 via web 19. Great re-launching of the Positive People Group last night to the new and impoved, Mahoning Valley Positive People Network. More to come... 8:31 AM Sen 16tb, 2009 via web 20. Went from Grey to Green yesterday morning to Blue last night as OSU lost by not managing the clock better. Oh well, good time with friends 5:21 PM Sep 13th 2009 via web more Footer 2010 Twitter About Us Contact BIoQ Status Goodies API Business Hel Jobs Terms Piavac 10/7/2010

192 oay0'umoas6unoa b9zliuaaad OIVd B62kSOd'$ n 98OlIdOBd-NON 5SS44 o140' um=6uno% ezeld A;isianlun auo 6;lsianluN a3e1s uraois6unoti A1saani0 pue 611unuodd0 lenb3 p -gi0 0 ^ ^

193

194 Mahoning Vailley Gay Pride wnter: 2010 Officers Page 1 of /6/2010

195 Ace in the Hole Market4ng, 'Yv.,,u We Are, What We Do Page 1 of 1 "Aee In the Hole Marketing;" was started In 2008 as I noticed a need for good advice and an extra hand, to help businesses develop their Marketing, public Relations, Promotions and Sales Buiiding- Along with a group of trusted friends and experts in their fields, our mission is to ensure that every business we work with has an'ace In the hole', or someone to call on when they are looking toimprove and grow their businesses. Blog: Ace Marketind 101 Twitter: AceMarketer Facebook: Scott Fuliertan Advertising Public Relations Promotfons Guestservices Staff Development Sales Building Human Resources Business Operations Web Design Asain the Hole Marketing 6960 Market Street suite 117 Boardman, OH Scott Fullerton Founder, CEO Marketing has always been my passion, but it took hard Work and lots of on-the-job training to discover EFFECTIVE marketing and bowto combine It with public relations, advortising and sales buiiding, to form the perfect strategy sets tu help build businesses. The service sector has always been myforte; fromstaffing, restaurant, and marketing companies, came expertise in making suro the gtlest, or client ts the basis for a successful operation. I have been lucky to have leamed from some of the giants in the service industry, and am excited to share tbat informatlon with my own take and styte to all of my rtients. I look forward to bdnging all of the resources that my team and I have to affer, to ensure your service business always has an "Ace In the Hote," to guide you through any situation. Ron Nanosky Needei2website? Our sayder Web Inite a tive is Ace In the Hote's web design services. We offer hosting, dessign, and the one of the best content management systems availabie. YOU have full update ability. AMA PPG Leads Group, MV TEST 10/6/2010

196 Ace Marketing (AceMarketer) on Twitter Page 1 of 7 > 53ciprast naviaatian On a mobile phone? Check out m.twitter.com! Skiu to na.vizatiora Skin to sigii in 1:iarrv Have an account?si m iii Username or Password I Remember me For-goi password? ForBot usernait7e^ Already using `t'vdtt.er on. your phone? Get short, timely messages from A^e Marketing. Twitter is a rich source of instantly updated information. It's easy to stay updated on an incredibly wide variety of topics. Juiu t2dm and Sign_^1p;1:; 1;- Get updates via SMS by texting follow AceMarlceter to in the United States '1"^,vo-way (sending and receiving) stiort codes: Coantly Code lror customers of Australia > Telstra Canada (any) United. Kingdom Vodaforie. Orange, 3, /7/2010

197 Ace Marketing (AceMarketer) on Twitter Page 2 of 7 TNn-o-way (sending and receiving) short codes: Indonesia AXIS, 3, Telicomset Ireland Tnd.ia Bharti Airtet, Videocon Jordan Zain Nexv Z,ealand 8987 Vodafone. Telecom NZ LTnited States (any ) eodes for other countries AceMarketer 1. #rightpediatriccancer! RT and Dreyer's Fruit Bars will donate $1 to aid pediatric cancer research! htt;:://bit.iv/azudoj about 22 hours aeo via TwitCause 2. Pledge w/members Project to support education! We'll donate $11v1 if we get 100k pledges by 10/1 ht' l/bit.iv/):dapledge Pls RT via TwitCause 3. Help Remember 9/1.1. Post a"never Forget" 9/11 Ribbon or Share your 9111 story at htin://bitlyfdvadb5 gtv'hereiwas pls RT 1.284, 151,865, via'1"witcause 4. Remembering 9/11. Give a Tribute To A Friend To Reniember 9/11 At: I^ttu /?bit.lv%dvol?b5 PIs RT via TwitCa.use 5. You can help nonprofit causes on Twitter by becoming a Twitcause Star! httl.r:flbit.!vlbl've rxk T 00,000 pp1 are already helping f via TwitCause 6. $1 miltion reasons to RT. Join a TwitCause + ('chhevfoundation raise money for leukemia Name Ace Marketing Location Youngstown, OH Web INRn:%ha=ww aceirat.. + Bio Sales BoostingGuru, Marketirrg Genre, Your Ace in the Hole 139 F'ollowina 273 Follotvers 8 L,isted 582Tweets Favorites Following M View ali... IRSS feed of AceMarketer's twcets RSS jteed of AceN4arlceter.'s favorites 10/7/2010

198 Ace Marketing (AceMarketer) on Twitter Page 3 of 7 research. RT 1,281,137,878, via TwitCause 7. clirias gorhatn So I am thinking the interrogation scene, pretty awesome actually even if it wasnt the first I ,000_00 via web from Ehn 14noll Hei:*.hts. Poland you tweeted witliin 30 minutes of rachel maddow, you are getting closer my friend, looking forward to a new episode tonight 1.280, via web from I3oardman Parlc. Boardinan gorham awesome opening scene, great after -effects animations. Hope this show is a keeper, my mom even called to say how great it is , via web from Elm ftnoll H.eights..Poland 10. $1 million reasons to raise money for leukemia reseaseh. 1v/dwB4c5 RT 1 279,589,838, via TwitCause Itttp:/:twittzic.com/25zz3i - Love Kauai, The P!antation Holly is soooooo relaxing. Be sure to take the Grotto tour, it is magnif 1, , via "CwitDie 12. I don't have my homework is supporting Shiba Inu Dogs, check out why at Pls RT via TwitCause 13. Join TwitCause + Amex Members Project! Raise money for charities! Vote for which charities receive $20oK! httu://bit.lvlamovoi i;amexmp #`span 1.277, via T^CVitCause 14. Shout `I CARE' and help rfi a^h^ ta.ii3s! and show support hitp://brt.ly"ttivitcausc Pls RT 1,277,I53, via TwitCause I.S. for 4tnjbhonorsweek RT & Help empower women b.tte)://bit.lvitvvitcause Pls RT 1, , via'i'witcattse 16. Every Child Deserves Security & Team up to #'GiveADlanket _p:/!bit,!y/tiniitcause htt Pls RT via TwitCause 17. Be a part of the 00ilSpillRescue! and show support htttr/./bit.ly/twitcause Pls RT via TwitCause 18. Stand up for ocean wildlife! This week send #SaveOurSeas /7/2010

199 Ace Marketing (AceMarketer) on Twitter Page 4 of 7 at httu:%/bit lv-/twitcause RT pls I ,117, via TwitCause 19. Every pet needs a home! hitu://git.lv'/ddx3bo Donate ^ htr!ltinyurl comr"oetsmartoharitigs RT pls I?73.514,957,000,00 via TtvitCause Iappy Cinco de Mayo peeps, Casa Ramirez Chiclcen Burritos with Mote Sauce is calling my nanie; and I must obey!! via web from Dowritown Youngstown. Youngstown 21. Hanging at the Lemon Grove before going to Representative Hagan's victory watch for the returns at the Dem HQ l via web from Downtown Youn.Lstown Younestown took time and voted today, did you? In Mahoning County Ohio, we need to renew a 1/2 percent sales tax or we are in dire straights I?72 983, via web from Boardman Park Boardman 23. Have u really tlianked a custoiner/alient this wlc? C3ratitude is the attitude that helps you retain ciients, make friends, & inftuence people. 1: via web fram McKay Villa2e. I3oardman Howard wants to know how many volunteers with personal stories about medical mj to talk to legislature would you like? ,165, via web from Downtown Y'ounasteown Younestovm 25. Help rescue animals! Show ur support htto `'bit Iyltwitcause httn//t'invurt.comlaups< uad RT pls 1.272, , viatwitca.use 26. Start your group 2 give eomi&fi eecycle Show your snpport http //bit.!y/t:witcause RT pls 1, , via TviiCause 27. Be an advocate for LGBT rights. http'//bit ivltw'ttcattse Donate at httu //tinvurl.com;trive2alsen RT pis 1 r7i viatwitcause 28. A useless piece of future insurance trivia to pass along to my clients today. You're welcome Ron and Rob... htttr//tiiivurl.com/vjv75ae via web from Boardrnan Park Boardman 29. Donate a dotlar to fight MS htto Ntinvurl.com/allforms[ (via TwitCause) at httn:!/bit.{y_/twitcause RT please $5.18$ via TwitCause 30. K twitter friends, I am a very good Marketer, but not so much on graphic design, anyone want to help 10/7/2010

200 Ace Marketing (AceMarketer) on Twitter Page 5 of 7 me design a new logo for a client?? 1.270, , via web from Sauirrel Hill South_ Pittsburgh 31. So I never really liked flash in websites for a myriadl of reasons, (ok they look nice,) but here's another reason httn://tinvurl.comh-card7v via web from Niles. (3tI 32. Join TwitCause & #Whyl?idIGetlylarried2, Tweet ftshcltar4kids & LionsOate will give $1 to CovenantHouse Fdn 1, via '1'tivitCause 33. Great Seminar today on How To Best Use Social Networking. Thanx Mahoning Valley Leads Group via Faceboolc 34. This week evety time you tweet kplan.ttrees Dreyer's/Edy's will donate $1 to the Frnit Tree Planting Fndn httlr:'/hit.1.v/d5a4f0 ] 'L69, _00 via T^^itCause 35. This week every time you tweet 4HeIp4Kids the Children's Hunger Fund (@isunt>ortcl-if) gets $1 htto:%;bit..lv/abafttv I?68.759,291, via TtivitCause 36. Working from Home Office today to get lots of month end things accomplished. Savanna Springs Newsletter, Billings, Appt line-ups, etc. 1,267, via web 37. TwitCause is supportin.g Mariska's TheJHF. They can win $250k from #Pe siltefresh for stu'vivors of abuse & violence: ht^r://bit.ly/a7ikjd 1: via TwitC:ause 38. Are you sending mixed messages in your marketing material? Is your logo congruent witlt your slogan? Learn how people process these soon x 26(i via web 39. I'm supporting WhatAPair2000 (duets benefiting breast cancer research) this week as a TwitCause Star, you can join at 1, via TwitCause 40. My Power Point Presentation: "Positive Speaking in Life and Business," with an extra section on Vision Board Creation available next week. 1, via web 41. As a TwitCause Star I'm supporting the SICIPProgram - helping underprivileged children and their dream to play sports! htt^.^://hitiy/9i)cvyq 8:31 PM Feb 16th via TwitCause 42. Mahoning Valley Positive People Network nieets tonight at BW3's, Southern Park Ma{l. Happy Hour 5-6, Mtg 6-7:30. Connection thru positivity ^_.3& AM Feb 16th via web 10/7/2010

201 Ace Marlceting (AceMarketer) on Twitter Page 6 of "All is as planned,'the Cooperative' has been most generous by hosting this little party on Persephone." Coming to SiFi channel in :51 AM Feb 12th via web 44. Dancing witlt Dance4Lifelnt this week to pusli back the spread of HIV/AIDS. Support them with me at htfip:!/bit.lv/aiill<=_4^'^' as a TC Star 9:28 PM Feb )th! via TwitCause 45. cz bmurphv714 husky pups not a good idea anless youpre sure, they will knock Mikela al{ over the place, ours did to my bros. we gave him away. 7:40 PM Feb 9th via web in replv to bnur 1^ A good busimess/marketing consultant will give you all of your options and help you weigh whats best for you & your bttsiness, not always EZ 9:43 AM Feb 8tli via web 47. Early morning helping a client move his business to the next level in the hardest way possible, letting go of an employee during a recession 9:39 AM Peb 8th via web 48. D1Vitgpacts In the 40's, the Bich pen was clranged to Bic for fear that Americans wotild pronounce it ^ 'Bitch.'... htt.u:l/omg-facts.com #omafaets 10:32 PYt Feh 4th via web Retweeted by AceMarlceter and 100+ others 49. According to AdWeek: 54% of companies ban 2 of the most popular social media sites fbr business, Facebook & Twitter. Ask me for work around! 8:02 AM Feb Sth via web just became a TwitCause Star to support nonprofit causes on Twitter every wreek with my tweets, you, can too here: h'tt.a://bit.(yiatejc5i 5:20 PM Feb 2nd via TwitCause 51. From a marketing perspective this new Apple IPad launch is fascinating. Sheer genius by Apple, not for a good product but for upgrade sales 9:02. AM Feb 2nd via web 52. Pepsi Refresh Project! Not paying for Superbowl ads, THIS will. be around long after Bowl Sinart & Practical 1= //wwtiy re.freshevervthin >s coni 10:04 AM Feb I st via web 53. Nice turnout aiid discussions at Thinkers & Drinkers last night, followed by 6am meeting witlt my client to 'git er done' as usual on Tuesdays 9:44 AM Jan 26th via web 54. Client meeting at Caribou Coffee, or as I like to call ( it, "Ace in the I-Iole Marketing - East" lol, busy week, good grand jury yesterday. 9:47 AM Jan 22nd via web 55. Getting some client notes together then head to Jury Duty. This week is going by fast. A. few appts. for 10/7/2010

202 Ace Marketing (AceMarketer) on Twitter Page 7 of 7 Marketing audits still available. 7:54 AM Jan 14th { via web 56. Planapaloooza 2010 was a success, I made a great plan for work & personal, and now iys time to work the plan. What a great start to Monday 10:I9 Atb1 Jan I I th via web 57. There was no punctuation until the 15th century. Wow, I always thought I was born in the wrong decade...it's the wrong century 1.0I7 AM Jan Il.th via web 58. Planapalooza day 2 starts now Lots of great stuff accomplished on day 1, Who knew goal setting can be so much fun, & jacuzzi and-poker too 10:12 AM Jan 9tti via web 59. Leave at 2pm for my 2010 Plan-a-pa(ooza!! Complete my I and 5 year biz and personal plans Have planners, pens, & hotel reservations. Woohoo 10:03. A.M Jan 8th via web hope to change that in :57 AM Jan 8th via web more Footer Twitter About Us Contact BIOR StatUS Goodies API fiusiness.lobs Terrns Privacv 10/7/2010

203 ' Facebook (1) 1 Scott Fullertou Page 1 of 20 Fllters cutt Fulierton Loddng fonvard to the Offrciai!aunrh Party of Mahoning Vallay Business Blast tonight at O'DOno!d's in Aufttown, 5-7pm. First of monthly Business Biast Netwoddng meetings and free Pood, door pr4es, and Fl off drink cotryons. Hope to see you there. MV eusiness 61ast w.mvtmb!astcon^ IS OeateanAd 52 AeGvities For DC x 1Gds pannpxlhin9societ.cum TueSday atl:i.:air,' Sreie 'Flag Tammy Lor nza M&InikCheere 1byaU Smtt...GOOd lu[n drd hav allcndtimen!:) Tueedayat1:00pm Smt FU!krtonThamTammy,sws stullaundlttiisevenmg.tooking f^ forv+ardtotlienewammtue.navea9^tweekdadin' ^ TueWay2t9:41pm Scott Futlet4on Looking forvrard to a very busy, but productive week, Fail Is here, and time to hunker down and get'er done! Enjoy your week fdends, make it a good one. Montrayat8:45am... : _.,_..._..._....._-..,. 5cott FujterYOn I the hard work Is paying oh, the new concept website officially launches today. Please chak it out and give me feedback: htip:// official Laundt Party at O'Donold's Pub In Austlntown this Tuesday, Oct. 5th fmm 5-7pm. Free food door prizes, $1 off drink coupons. Soaar Media Advertising gets a whole newtwist 1 vrcrvt.mwhb!azt.mm QitlbC I at 12:43pm' snale' Flag Tammy torenzo Melnik likes thk. NECFNiACRVRY A deai each rreek fur pds '{- andmanspretnawn a[lwit16,weekendoutlngs, and mare! Shop me^erspey Oesgner saiesatideek.binfotlay,it's freel r _... ]Oo/aOFFShoes& Ctothes!!'! tuymdthe'ackcom 6WG,Stsoef4ddden,eetsey 7ohmm^ am mor at up to 7gYO0Ffl Join Beyond The _ Racktedaytoshoptlre hcneatbrands,freetojan! Swpl&eSTrop a's F(nc Pastry and 2 Ww pages. Scottand M<hele Mcende 5CiWrali are now fdellds. /da4atmnesmana ;{IXl mmmenced on MMe TOmmaney'a Ilnk....._......_..._..._.. Futterton Looooong day today &iends. Website goes ine tomorcow for new business <oncept, Official taunch next Tuecday at O'Donoid's!n Austkltdwn 5pm, and lot's of last mmute doodads to do. Ohhhh...and had to change the name and webdte and all marketing materials as well In iast 24 hours...keep t!te faith friends, keep lhe farh... SeptemUer 30 a!' 6:19am 43 morie tfckem for you and yovr Mends,vaMdatanyAM39 or LoavrsC9!heab'e N Ofl Limd'edtlmeofier. ii....: w.. MoreAds..^_^. nf<[ntac11vtr/ Scott Is now fiiends wbh MidfatlTaaothy Carvin and MlkeTOmmaney. Scott fu9erton Am excited as I begin the fa»i week before the new biz concept launches,!f you havent got invitation to!aunch party, piease come ta O'Drmold's fn Austlntown on Tuesday, Oct 5th from 5-7pm, Free Food, $1 off drtnks, ooor PdzeS, t.e2rn abaut the new concapt 31$ iii! OftlclalLaun<IrPZrtyforMahoninBwalleyau5inessSias[ Lecatlon: 0'DOnold's Idsh Pub - A+unntavn Tlme: 5: gupm Tveeday, OMba 5th Sepb:rn5rr 27 at B:58am Slere' Flag _..._....._,..._ _...._._._...-_ ^ 6cott Fullerton Fol-the second year m a row, as the weather coo5 quickly, I e rethlnk the wlsdom of N+.staging g!ass blocks for the window of the bathroom. Rested my fingers against them and am sure will get frostbite gne day as winter proyresses, LOl SeptemErr 27 at 8:44zn btlp:{/ 10/7l2010

204 Facebook (1) ( Scott Fullerton Page 2 of 20 Scott fbllerpon Cueet day yesterday, off to help out a roent on the phones fw a while today and then out ta dlnner with great friends. tooking forward to the weekend, hope you alt fiave an excellent one. far my fiiend Ed, "Without in9pi!at'qn the best pa+rrs of the mind remain dormank there Is a fuel in us which needs to be ignlted with sparks" Sei>tom4er 35 at SA4am E6AeylikesNb. _... _,.._..-_... _.....,_..... _... _... Ed Asy SGett, So trug gtad tninga wentweil ymterday!!11 Have a GFCAT Weexend!!!! TCB Iil! Sepretlaar2+atSlOam nelkt1tnctnrryryf ScoG I5 nowr'rends vnth KNnr OaA!nsky and Yaungstawn Rttk. Scutt!snow fdems wkh w!tllem Leonards Eaalraordinary Gemiemen and 2a0+er peopk. cf-'t.e'-_ I -u SNtt s nowfdends wim Orsk E%enbergar and 6 otlrer people. -._.._....._ _....._...,... Scott Fullerton Up arnd ready for a 9mt day. SStopping by Chambers Business {; Showcase,meetkig with my sales manager for the new business concept, lunch with friends, meeting with CM1y of Yourqlstown for a projeu Hope the outcomes are as great as the set-ups, I ol Enjoy the day fyiends, S,y+tember 23 at 8:39am 3,. peaple._.._..._. pke Mis,_._..... Trecey Houser VdltskyYCUeNoYO,etlay M Scatt, t don'timow wbemyou getan your enerpybutbctlfe ft and sendeometn Cali t(or dellvertt..b!!) c:ernv` r z3 ap _,._.._..,,._.._.._..,._...,.._._ 5:33am..._...,..._._... S^;i.>5cotlfnlterWmwAFOeiCUp'r+iOraPoOw^sometlmesawr7 ace1';' n'f^-^war[oa CyouandbameoeOttald9arrda9aN,an dtlon'tfeellike wa!tirgforui<monion. _._.,._..,^.._ _ Se.pRm`xR3atT:40pm....._._..,...,..._... TrareyHOUser Uditsky Yeatd Rey bow, p!easa! <) $eytem^r]3at10:48pm..._-..._.._.._...,..^._..._.,,...,..^^...^...^_..._..._.,.,._,...,..._..._ r-uiferton Going to 0'Donold's today to get my Hamburger Review rd ard and try the 2009 best burger at a great price and plan for MV BusinP.E9 BuzZ launch party. 6eptxmbert0at9:41am HamburgerReytewnoarddtlyoutryonell 5 ptember 71 at 3:26pm _..._... _..._.._......_.._..._......_..._.._ _.^._..,_..._..._._._... :: Scott.FullertonThefirstblogpostofnewvenWreisposted: ^ so prepared m be BU2ZED Mahoning Valiey. Website ve0 be taunched on October ist and twitter is up and runnmg, get ready for the fa'st sample video <wning soon. ^,^.^,,;, MaM1on7ngYalteYausinessaurz wwa,mvbirbuu.m^epatcwn wetcome te tlw Metm.iin9 Valky eusiness aurt, tfle ryaca m go ro learn 2MUtValley Lfirs!ncsses and getswel deals7ustfor)rou. You wm Ond tf,m1es on wme nf tlre UeStpla2c to 0. M Cnc Ya!ley. Class!cs and new, we da drc I+nmexrork so you dcn't ha`e W. ar r8 at433pm' Slrare Flag._, _...._... _..._..._ _ _ ::a.:`: Scott rulierton B7W, one of my chents, Ron Nanosky will be In Gi2rd v: tomorraw for Poker RuNRlde for Life to benepr Pink Promises Pin k F und. Support our frlend )acquetine Mart!n at this awesome event SGnemk2r 3 9 at u:342m JaCqueNne Manin nk2s th!s.. oeeeer^ :xttlinmv (riendsvrith farm romerand 2 other nonpro, Scett tnmmente6d+ted Kaufima's rmk. :rstt Ilkes Oneflne pay (t.ocai Busines5),' -+,e litep:// 10/7/2010

205 Facebook (1) 1 Scott Fullerton Page 3 of 20 _...._...,.._..._..._......_... Scott Futlertnn Saturday aftemoon at Caribou sipping some of the i.hst coffee my'puter and a smile, great day out, hope everyone has an awesoma II 16 at I2:2hm Scott Futlerton Ern)oy tfs weekend friends. 99eIc finished with new busirnss... cept w2pnsite, collateal materiai will be sent to the pr)nters Monday, Press leases and iniervlews begin a week after that...so excitetl, ttle Bua is about tobegtn... September 17at9:5Ym 2 peoplelike Nis. Scott Fu6erton vla Paul Hagman: Hey Friends, especially mine from SoCai, a fnend here In Ohio kthlsciose to pladn9 In ttds home decor contest, and I can really use your vote to push him over the tdge. Cordest ends tonight, so hop to and move those votes,'inanxii S. A Mod's LoR-[6?-TheSelbyis In Your Place Contest wwwsneshc^wnw'l<om SepYembp' I*v at 11:27am - Shpre' Flag._..._._._...,...,_..-._...^ _.._......_...._....,,_ Scott Fu6erton Very exciting and tedious day yesterclay creating the wlendat for my new business concept launching In October. t.ooks 8ke all Is on track, get ready for an extitxtg new way to promote yow business, oiganiration, event, etc. in Sentember 14at8:58am 2pa0pleYkeNts.._._.. _ ^. PEC6NT M1Cr{Y#Y 591RCmnment tl on Ed A2Y'S 5dtU5. 6cott Ilkesxaiwtet, inc. -Insaranm Mana9amartSalulians-[MS (TechndogYProduct/ Servke). - ure SeoNand dnnie Schidla am now frlands. oaer.mnw zavn<nu _ _., _ Sc'ottf LnerlnnSpendingtlledayatCasade(bribautogetsomewodcdone on the new projety. ]t needs to launeh in 18 tlays, so getting exc lted but bts of work to do. Get reatly Mahoning VatleY for a whole new way to pmmote your business, event, organ)zatton, orcause. Soptemlar 12 at 11:14am RE4etY(0.CrNIIl' Scottis nowfrlandswiur KMCerly Poillerartl 30Mer propie...._..._.._..-.,......_..._.._...,...._..._... _..._... Scott Fullerton Spent his 9111 with positne people trying to to preserve our culture and our earth and our neighborhoods, musi4 food and perfect weatlx.v, what betfer to bklcheut a stain on our h[stwy, Thank you Grey to Green. SS at'6:36pm 2 people lik2 tlut...._ _..._...._..._....._..._,..., _..._...._... _... _... ^._......_.... j Scott Fullerton Eo I kllled m{'puter yesterday by breaking the prong from the puter for the charger, no charger, no puter. Luckily under bumper to bumper warranty, but 3 week tumaround for repairs. All my new buvness(roncept plans were NOT backed up, not good, not good, having tn create some from saatch all mrer again to launch by Octnber lst Seprsnber 10 a[3:i2pm pianemf96efgofurthnafferlylhatewtenmathappensl SCrFember 30 at 5:35pm lulfe LePto Notbatked up??it whetwercyou thlnkingf Sep.embar Ao at s:sipm -.-_...,._..-.,...,..,-»_,,,...,_...-^..,._.,...,F,...,._ V _._...^_...-^.^...».^^...._..^...:,.,...,.._.^.<v...,....,...,. Scott FuRerton I.opking forward tu a grest day, working on my new business predut7lcnncept, meetmg with potential staffer, and we have Fall weather, what Is there not to liket! Hope all my friends have a happy and prosperous day as welt. S^ptvmber9at8:34am 2 peopie IIKe etix /7(20I0

206 Facebook ( 1) 1 ScottFullerton Page 4 of ScMk Fulieeten K, so thanx to Joe, I have found and easy and Inexperisive way to build a srnartphoneor apple Iphone (not so "amapensive) application with a lot of tun features. Does not took the best yet, not much design capabifity, but functionality works well. Was fun t7ying tt cut today for a client SayfterAer a at6:fi1pm REC[NTACRVnY $CnltisnoY, f112nd$ WRfl ]G1N 6SCEC atpt 3 MFPYp@CpIC SWtllkes5trrrclnyPhoa;raphybY'Bnand]oHierpages. mented on Ed Aay's s4lu. _._...._ _..'....._... Fullerton bought $10 for $20 Worth of Upscale Savories and Sips at The Bistro and Lounge npon M Saplv»b2r 8 at O:fWam via Grouilnn' t>enl _....._._......_...,.. _,._...._ _ Scott Fuilerton Love when dte mkidle of the week is here in a bpnk, thanx Labor Dayl Reat night sitting with new am interesting friends at Cadbou last nghl Feeling stronger about my new buslness cara:opt, can't wait to start sharirg tt soon. Sc 7`emLer33ty:53am....,...^...,.._...._ -..^^«._...^ ,...,,... F1111erLJn KFriBndS, time t0 proye we alegrownnpe, Or btill kids at heart, jain up below to get information on a 30 year HS retmion, heck I'll drive ^, orf(y nver from Ohb, let's do ttli ^ ' ^3 SouthHmsHighSChun40faasoF1932l36YOarReuntnnOpm o NCiW^^ ss ^98s30Yaarfteunicn.) qn^ Sr:ot'abi^t tred^ y to ak'^nd the revnrcn. TNs grou(!s purposels to re... mcer ] at 8;40am Share flag...,..v:.._.._..... `-.-_^.._..,.._._._^_..,,.u...^...m..._. 1i t Scott FvdlertonThanx all for well wishes for Dad, he went m for more blood work sat/sun so we should get those results this week. Hope evetyone has an awesome and hopefully shorter week after the holidak "DonR be afraid your life wig end, Be afraid that it wdi never begin." $ep!embv'latb:36am RKENTACfMIY Sfottdnd $IEpflen pou615 are nnw frlend5.'msslcyam ufiimc ECCCt,.oteon75U5HQRStt'SVJaN. s<ott laes Mu Ausmess Bun. -^ Bwttand Catfie arosnan are now fdaws. nm w^sem kk.x..._._.._.._..._.._ _....._ ofifullerton Spending tabor Day weekend onng for dad as he adjusts to more heart complications, but he is doing fine, and then laboring on a new business pursuit that I w3t be sharing soon. Enfoy the Monday off (F you got it fdeiuisi ^eptembereat9:59am 3 people like Nis.. _. _...._......:... _......_...._... _ Yie'.v all9 cvmments..._.,..._._._ ^....._,_._ ,..._. Rhontla Hampton 5chien(e5enalny upllpong thoughts ro you ail scotn t 5eptemter6at1:95pm.._.._ _._......_....._.. _..._..... ^!'-''^'i^^ ScottFUllertonThanzRhonEaandZ^,^d6tloingabitbeitu,he ^^ wcntmforbloodworkata^msufandwesmu'agetlaoreresulcsttds weer. Hope yov eil have an awewme week. Sep;embCt7ataJ3atn' iperson ook:comiscattfiillertos.acainarketer?ref--profile 1017l2010

207 Facebook (1) f Scott Fullerton Page 5 of RC{ENTM1<fYVtfr Smtl:ilkes Covmfa:m Ima9ing (WSUaI arttst). W. RfG6RTfLY3VnY Scott [IIM1.'S TYM[mtlr FIYs (frmuglg).' N.e SWKand SNK1lfpmpSOndR Mw{Yh'TdS.' WOSmtlxs FneM Scotxnd Phll IPdd arenow friend5.^ Paa Prd Eba,me... _... _ _.._ _..._ scott Fngerton ApparentfyTime Wamer Cable does not want me to buy advertising space for my dient because their W+one system Is totaliy %$*&^$ LIPh at. RKFNTAC711v21Y ScoK I5 now(rends wah )ohn scheckelbohand &yan Chilton. scoitand ]asxt MAnnan arennw (dend4 - Atl1]ilsn a; 1^ Smttfikes taptaln Morgan USA ( Food and 2everage). - ur,a scok wrxe on tyndsey fthess way. Scott Fullerton Looking for peopte to go to the Democratic Chalr's dinner on August 12 with me. Deni s have taken an unfair hit In the Valley with these indictments. We need to band together at this dinner and see how we can restore the people's trust and get our Demoaatic 7deals resmred. Au9uA6atlL5lam._...._._ _.._,_ Scott Fuitertan Always a busytuesday doing my Marketing Dtrector'thang' at America's inwrance A9enq. Am tooking to my grsithursday In 7 months E dorft have to do my civic du(yr k)t.'1 ime for arwther new clinnt. August 3 at 10:52.am RECENTACRVLIY 3cott sids Mirtreal Fox Rcmembrante Poundatlon (Non-pmRt). uke ScOKCCmmenF2d nn Jenftl kar'6f5 ef3n5. ^ ScoKiNPs Laoducerron ve/a 5now (L(tar[harmel Oummwdcattonsl ^ N^4.._.._.._ _...._._ cott Fullerton Very saddened by the whole indicternentsthat have come out, but it Is not a Demoaetlc ttsng, k's about corruptable people. Unfottunately eornlptlon does not have a potltlcal aff111attoon. July 29 xt3:aoym..._.... _._....._......_..._._ Scott Fulierton Had a nice, but exhausting weekend hoswng the Brother, SisteNn-Law, and the 11yo Nephew from South Carolina this weekend. Of course nephew chose go-carts and outdoor mini-golf over Sorceress Apprentlce in the 93 degree heat and humid4y, so I wuld bake in the sun just a litt le more thisweekend...tol. 2u0Y 26 at U.:59am... _._.....,. Scott FuBertan Had to move my Bhag day with The Agent back to Sunday to fkttjustlce and put some bad guys away. Thought I had a week off but nooooo, tharix people, and you know who you arerl iuly 22 zt 9:U3am Oena Rupert MLUCn HuwgpKie Bha85 ScoK(end Ron)7 3uly 22.. at 9:06am W.. Sam MorrfsThat apunds big, M1xW, and audadousl 3uly22at9:43am RECEFTAGtZVRY $COKCnmm9lYLMt M1)Pflld Ff^s att.flf ScaK wmmurm on ]evdd Fznds's s(atuz SeoKand Tns3 Darru+9Wn are rkkw friws. Faer.ss. zs rnend ^akcommented on )errid Fran:ks staax ScoK6 nmafnends w)th Itsa Neeld and 2 other peeple. mxlm SwK Ilkes A%trcetla's Restau2ntard Catvlny - CanReld Cltlo(Rrslaurana. 'uv.e ScaK)o1nM dre proup TertnNk ns -Byhur.g for a Cure. anmb--c Swtt)oiMC tfie grouy M.Vb.Ra. http // keter?ref=profile 10/7/2010

208 Facebook (1) 1 Scott Fullerton Page 6 of 20 Scott am VeeFestare now friends' aaivz.xs ntem Ecotils nw+mends wdkr Tana'ny Larenm Me!nWc and 4 otlrers%eogle Scuttlit'es Gjm'+Young.w.avrn and &tterilving Sunroxns of tha MahaNng VaNey. _......_..._..._ Fullertcn &ushing up on my seuatana) pool skllls taiay as I f311 in for a client today whlle 3 of 4 are nutof the otfice and they are wirked busy. 71ope ycu all have a gteat weekend!i lune 13 at 2:3$Im... _....,. _..... YECENTpCRVItY ScatNksEasY+`ReatPmdusUans(toralWSincel). uxe Smtt)okkd the graup pavmtown Warrv_n &ents an J PrNVO4ons (eeunca )m+ujagro+p R4cwYacirviry 5 ttand Obna laaaze are nmv trlends. Arb ownemrflan 5cottcommeMYd On t+ahonheg Caunty Oemocrsts"s frhoto. Sm[t Ilkes AuguAUs Rans (Arofesvlonai & Persanal tonsu!1m9) (Pmfess!onal SerVICe).'UY5 X^[and Jan OMaI@y are mw friends. ras:m.ss r4ana Scott dnd WdxYe D7ner arenowfriends. PoS..saYaasrXea 5mtt Iikes me Pgent (Professional.''erWce7.' e'u Scott conu,ented un Ed Aey's G.Som.._.._.,..._..._.._ _......_......_ _.,... Scott Futlerton June lst 9aUyt! Going frkt! w reym^' g afs for first halt of make youeveraodue^than.hope youati^hadag If reatweekend^mak itfm'ppen!his weekli lune3 at7:05xm RFCeNTACnt'[tY $Co(t INRS OMO Pubik 5rWfiCa5Un2 Car, (NOn'ProfR)-'the Scnuand>ason t21m9er am novrfdends.'nhsaenas veen+ acokand IynMh Eovo are now fnends. twa NT e ss sne:d ScMtwmmented an r'a My'SNnk. Scol[ mmnxnted on Ed Ae/s 6nk. 2 morcs!mll2r BWYies Scelt NkesArtanda aeagle IJVe (MUSidan).':rvn ScMtandJames:Valkeramnowinends.'rdex eeasr=w.w Scott Fulierton Repost from high schoot friend LeAnne:'Yf an Arizona cop " papers" and 1 say " scisors" does that mean I x'in7?t" ; pulls me ever and says LOL, thamr Le0.nlw for a much needed laugh this vrcek...0(f to a dient tor the day. Mey 34 at 7:4Gam krts Harrington Lols! That ishllarbus! May 14et 7:46am nee[ntacnvin Scoltand leetesue ere tww frknds. ne,:ceesrrsna swttcomma'sed on nafend Youngstowns ilnk. SCMt commentcd an IEnlon Giuve's 1iNc _..._^... _ _ _._.._..,._._...._.._..._..._... ott Fuiterton via Max Blechman: For all my Oemoclatic (dands and those just love the cnmedy of Lewis Black like I da.....thara again Jon wert. Lewis Binck: "Glenn eerk HmsNaz{TOVYettz's" (V[aE0) wvnr.ntd9rgtmportmm G!anr.ECtkS arncs Mre alwags "rrovec CO bepren: faide hcc+e "osilysm1ow."levdswacktool<rautepfu:5tertrrhanz.wresegment n'exking Ne rox News9luA ror his Iendercy ta makee. erylhirg Nad- :alared. P9y 31 at 6:v.Cm' SXare' Flag Scott Fullerton Bad day yesterday witlt health and leg, Ilttk betw tvday, but have to be at clients for a few hours, then back tn bed, crazy week here, hope ail is wep In myfacehook friends workl. May 12 at 7:55a /7/2010

209 ' Facebook (1) 1 Scott Fullerton Page 7 of 20 ua Alkenst nope you Pesl Cetter and bave a better week. [2ata:t2an....._.... _.._. -_._ _..... T+acey Honser UEftsky hey whaz hzvpenmi ^n7 meane-tta1, iwg2 yourcydy p May 12 at ip.31dm : Scott Fulierkon LoCS to do on a busy Monday. Looking fonvani to a meenng at ipm wth some new friends. ay 30 at &41am Havard Medert likes thls, _..._...,..._......,._..... _.._..._..... _..._... _._..._ Scott Fullerton Happy Mothel's Day to my wonderful mother Linda, who Is so tedt challenged, I will be spending the next'.,0 minutes eptaintng for her how to read this. I lova her and appretlate all she has done for me and our famity. F?ay9atiD:eGam SaeP'efaan-O.Rrander 5cott.tel! her HI fmm ust llay9at3:0"m REEEHTACndrrY ad m M3twnin9 C4unLy DamnatSs tink $cett iikes Chfsline's Ga,den (NOn-Proat).. ure $wtt Ike.s BoaMmen Medkal5upp/ (am5} (Medlral semce). - aaa Scott Fullerton Another Cueat Weelrl Thanx to friends who hung out, plans that worked out, and work I got planned out. Hope everyone has a great.,^:e weekend. In Pittsburgh tomorrow, woohoo. May T at I:22am Scatt Fulierton is very happy that my votes rasulted In virtnrles for the following mndidates I chose... Congrots to Bob tiagan, Joe Schiavani,'{1m Ryan,Carol Righettt, Issue i and Issue 3, Thank you Mahtmtng County for apprrnnng tlte satrs taw i am disappotnted that Jennifer Brunner did not make it thraugh the pdmary. Thara Inr voting feitow OhHns, lets get together again in November. May 4 at 31:27pm Ed AeyCangratuetans to en, and NankaY thevotrvsthat passed Ne 9AtESTAT n&vewkt, 9ood smrt fawan Ms/4xt11:35pm _ -^; ScattFUnerCaneaclty Ed,timetonwvefarc,ardandcreateauniried panymthanrretearaonpiansfurthemmmun&ytopresenlin NovemDe. MxySatl2'4ain Seott Fullerton Hanging at the Lemon Grove before going to Representabve Hagan's vktory, watdt for the rewrns at the Dem HQ May4aaa:0fim Scott Fullerton I voted, no long lines, for my favodte DemocraUC candidates, AND FOR the sales a renewai people, YM wont miss a tlttng. iey4at10:34xn... _..._ Scott Fullerton Get out and vote Mends! Estlmated 30%voter tumout isn't a demor.2cy, we need to support our mndidates and our idea(s. ay4at5:4pem Scott Fullerton D2ma QueenTrafficantwaits until the last day possible to fde, agamst Ryan who Is twire the man, typimt Treffimnt7 Vindimtor mll have him splayed a4 over the fmra page tomatow, exacdy according to Traffrcants plan, typual Vindicator; Youngstown after one of the best weekends in 20 years, wtll get get to be... See MOre May3at5:53pm KrisHarrlnQWnUglt. t4ay 3 at6:32ym.^..._._. _.....,_ _.^ _......_...._...._ _....._._ Scott Fullerton Dmma Queen 1laffmnt waits ungl the last day poss7bie to fde, agatnst Ryan who is twice the man, typtal TraOimnt; V;ndicater will have liun splayed all aver the front page tomorrow, eracoy accordin9 to TrafFmnts pfan, typical Vindiotor; Youngstown after one of the best weekends in 20 ynars, theyoutm6pokes again across the cotmtry, typioa) YovngsMl town poptirs, thank -- MaY3att2:2apm 305fli2 Aikerb Ed Aey ""yote DAVE tuur""democmt+"wte tuot* 10/7/2010

210 Facebook (1) ( Scott Fullerton Page 8 of 20 at C2:31Pm RECINTaERVSIS Scott commentkd an 7x Schla+onPS Satus, scett cnnmentm on SerrtMet Bnxinefs Mtvs. ScottlikesAPpte9atoPurnlhne(Stare).'t'u^ Fullerton Fzvarite 4uote Heard 7oday: "Some of the worlds greatest which Is wn we close our eyes when we kiss, ny, dream, mings are unseen, y or pmy," Start the week off great friends, you ran make the cho7cz to enjoy the day. ntay 3 at 2:57am 3 peopte ilke ltds....,_...,_.... _.....,. _ _..,......_..._.. 5coit Futlerton WOWI So much to do this weekend in the Yoangstown area, '^-'2 h d thare's this new artist Etton 7ohn or startmg wiu?th PartY tomght, o an somethingp^)ingatttrecwelllcentre,anopen houseat th e new Rust Bel[ Theatre Company venue and 4other artistic IocaBOm around town, After parties, W;t etc. etc. etc. Apd130at'7:53an nenarupertoetaceheppytd^!. - Ap?I36at9:Cem WECENTqCIWIrY Swttl7Yxs Merte SnrvranceAyencYi Inc.IaaMdn9 and Flnanclnl5ewica). uce Scottpkes Ttre Resl O'bnolds FrishPrN a Gtlle ( tnol6usiness). i^ ScottllkesM:ar0:Gr2Es(ProfCSsonai"uei use Scultand Ray tonsrvrzy ore now frieni - MCM m*me Scottand Kevin Fropperarerww fdends. nmsat urnu+l. 5cIXtwimnertted ontemon GrweY staws. $rottane JenMM' M. TkuCO Be s are now fnems.' wu^a+ira^+'rnaro ft FuHerton Oa/ 2 in arwther great week. 6am dient meeting and the sun ^. o I b ht b 7am r^tta love ig Hava you really nianked a issh nirg ng y customer/dient this week?p Qatitude ie the amtude that will help you retain clients, make faends, and InFluence people. April n et &55am Trxcey Houser lwitsky missyou tod :7 27 at3a:3ndm 8cott Fullerton I. have greatfriends, a family that suppwls me and a Job that I love. How can it not be a great week? Enjoq everyone, If it is to be, it's up to Ap nl 26 at 3:313m 2 peat+te bke this. TracoY Houser Udtslry 5uch anawewme awwtlc have a 9r scom 6al'lRitam Futfe.tan'fhanxTrzcef, hopeyou xre9omggreadl Mlssyou lots. :126xf2:1]Pm neca11tacnyny Scott commented on Tony Fane^s aroum 5wttsueq FasfiPon 350 (Mafessbnxi 5ervice)., nxe `[Mtand IAnda Narnea Fowler3re nowfi PERnMasshima ^CCttsnd Therete FRnees 1e5epharC nowriends. ^ M1&fiwecus Ma'E BcUtt Fullertnn Awesome week tltis week, lots done for ClieMS and my bil I.coking forward to the weekend. Hope ereryone enjoysll APHl23aii......_._ ,.._..,_..._._..._ Scutt Ful(erton liey South Hgis High Alumm, how about a 1it19e crea4we m)schief this week.:. VJhSe web surf^ng, rame across the South Hills H'rgh School WiRipedia site: htkp:!/circyuri.com/y6s6cfr It's a 6ttle boring, and 10/7/2010

211 Facebook (1) ( Scott Fullerton Page 9 of 20 Wikipedie is editaule, how about weexparnd on the entr2s a bit? I am sure we could add some fwl facts fram our glo7days, LOL. Sauth Hn)s High scbool (West CovNa, CarHornia) wndpedla, Chefree aecycropedla 4a A<om SoaLh 15i15 HghShoe! (oren W+osxn tryra abb2vhtian, SHH9)is a pubgccoaducatior'ai tnghschmllaatedlntlreniasinmzezstemirartafvtestcwina.wljnmla(aillwi.gh there i8a fm'monmisccrcepdan that itk in tbnm). e^star tman9eie,' in tr^e San Gaatlelva0ey..,. AprB 21 at9:26am - Share Fia _ _._..._....._..._. Scott FulEerton Great meettng this rmming wrh my business coach. LaMdng foward to a productive day, and tlm day following meeting with my PositNe peopie NetWOrk fdends is always a gl'eat dayi ''Nee your talent (averybddy has one) In anyway you can. Oon'tkeep it for yourself I9Ce a miser - spend It 11ke a millionafrei" Lucy MacDonald ApB]1at9:15am aeoarupert delnconiceqwte...andso4uei - Ap;N 21 at9:91ah NE<fnTFR3VffY Scaltand 8on Fmeryare iww ffiends.^ Ava am es r:a:d SruUend SamAlortla ake nawrlems. Ak.d Sam. ttine^e Scattllk, 365 Ttu:gsto da InYoun9ato'r+n (wah5rre} akc Swlt Ilkes Ohio Oema.taVC Pattv (Nw:-Profiq.' um SCOltllkm PhoeFlrtidn G:'ill (Ce316U51ne55).' LRe Scott and OMO oems are new frk.nds. xla re,s.rs fhee...._..._ _..._...,_......_._......, Scott Fufierton Having a very praludive week, however we imerrupt this week for a day of Grand Jury duty, lol. Last month, then 7iwrsdays are mfne and hopepully new dients again. Enjoy doing my civ71 duty, but having togive up clients one day a week has been touo, Apnl 15 at 7:240m..._ _..._...,... xscs+rncrcum SWpamr Fankeellattrf are now fnende. ^ aearnn+ecpr+-m sarme again d' this we=.k. Planning for^positne Pecple Networ^t9 ext week, ^t's of tent obl'udatbns, nwving my new restaurant assoc forward and excited to have good friends and padners to do this witht ApN 12 et 8:573m Trzcey Hwaei Utltt9cY Hkes 4fiis...._...,..--,......_..._..._.-...,.._......_ _.-.,_-._..., _......_......_-.._._._..._._ _._...._....._.._...._._..._"._.-. "i Smtt Fullertvn Have a great weekend eveyoody, light day today, haping thtt Is the last IitNe cold dp7 vre will see in NE Ohio this Spring.., :M, Aryii9at7:22am nv ScottllkalGn4`^ (webs^l. tim SWtt atal UVra Berf^Eya1C Raw rri2adf.'!dd 4esa as RICM SGattdnd aeithlepawe^s Y2 nm9ffiplqs.' ib'..easfnend _,_.... _ _... _... ecott Fulierton thanx vikki, great talking a Lastin9 Friendship HeartatiHeart. heark now hcatirq M 3 hawminufc. Apd18 ec8:52pm Na IHean' Give Hwtt a Heart.-._._^_...,._..._...,..._.,..^..^,...._._.,._-..^._..,_.-.._.,_^ gcott Ful[erton Looooong Day. Upearly to work an puter, then at the Courdtouse a0 day for5ury duty, then late aftemoon meeting, now read'mg to get done tonlghl whewi Apq 8 at' 7:21run js : Scott Fuilerton Elrands for Parents this moming, lots of'puter work to do during day, then nreeting tonght. Wednesday Is more ftl:e, bust your hump day" than humpdayl AprA 7 at6:58am RECS1^IACRVrtt SCat[<ommen' hd On Ran N2no5kt^5 L13NS 10/712010

212 Facebook (1) 1 Scott Fullerton Page 10 of 20 5sttand Vhl!Op tto6in Ftt!esare nwv fnendx /xdnrft ss AIsq Scmtand Gler. Nelesare navmends. u1 mm+m nu's.._._._ _._ _.,_...,..._... _..._,..._._ ScattFulferton Some useless future trivia to pass along tv my two insu2nce clients this week. You am wekome Aon and Rob, lol. arandfreak Butte^ngers now io5osen againstpenplc raying fingers an them UnrvrLWT ThrauqhAxA 14, mnsumhsan f!e onon9ro c!aim'rsonwwx!ndep^ tnchesiheb Butindingar. Aprll6at 1:4pm - ShPrn - flaq..._._..._..._ _ Scott Fullerton Someono with too much money and not enough bratns? A statement on the mater!al!sm of todays tech obsessed culture? AdeW way to spend a 57turday! You Dedde htt'p:// vgnieature=pwyer_embeddad - r- -''^f^ Brandnevripad9ettingamasaeGbyabasabstlbet wv.w.y9utr,be.can leaxlnq brand r.ewmkof thebax ipad Ap:46at t:52pm Share' Flag aecentm1<0.v1!'( Scatand Dan W. am nowfriends.,:as oa.unrem Smttand Nlson P.ur.s are naw fneras. /cdrosm Mr+MJ $PortandPamAtcharenownfends.nnuesmazmena.....,..._ _... _..._...,._. _._.,..., ttfufferton 5!tUng at ihop w!th'the Agent' plannng oar attack for the day. Busy week this week, but looking forward to it a!i.opening fbr one new rxent; know anyone Ihat needs some help madceting theirbusiness, or gettm9 fheir HRculbse In order?? Looking for a refermn Apvl6at6:96ffin NFCEXTFCRVLiY SCOKand ]ermter Sxul CamObell aze nuw friends. ece ka^nbrasrnem Smtiand 9.er4ng Archer are naw frknds. <ans^sarqns rnaw e^,^ j' Scott Fulietinn Crazy busy day all over NE Ohfo itseems and a meetmg. ^,. tonigit, but now home and re!axing and getting ready to d!p lntn some as strawberdes and home made angel food <ake, that's good for you rigl fruit!! Apta 5 at 9:36pm 3 4tbny FemzndrsYCs, and potatodrips & pofoun countas 2 serrlnua ofvegelabtes.myfavwhefnritisorsnqepidesux. Pprtl6al'S::AM11, RCCRNrACt]VnY $ret.tand Rednty Mineneld are now fdems. I r w' Rw.revwemnu ScattanE aruce A'ravlnskry are nw: fdends - nm anrco asr,imu 6mGn:ehnilarSlM!e6 _ _ _._...,.._ ,w tt Fullerton Awesome weekend, serious cztdi^up tlne with friends Gom HS in Call, got stuff done araund the house, great t!me with fam on Easter, (sca!!oped pineappte, who knew?), and looking forward to a great week. Hope you all hzve a good one! A{p11=.a17:15am RLrtNRFCEN1N Smtt and HelpHOftnOCtlaisGUMer arennw friends. mw NdpVCaneaz PosW SzcandJUtieKCere3GangbtFarenowfrknds.^waMiexirmm. Srattl!kes CowMawn Yau,SaWwn(Lacal BusSness). ^ ux< _._ _.._.._ : Scoa Fullaton Happy Easter ELesyone, may yowtltocolate bunn!es be soad and mlored eggs diverse. Ergoy the rest of the weekend. AprN 4 at 7:39am _ _._. Scott Fullerton Yilres I am getting In bvub!e in CaGfom!a and beyond fof not putt!ng up the second ha6 of tbe ptctute, I.OL.liere you go friends,lets tag some more and get those mefnories worrcing overime. M'ss you aa actuat!y, and anyone here of Paul Antista, I havent taiked to him forever and he was one of the feertess four of me, tinn, darin b!imell and ride mnn, good ttmes and good friends in the day! 10/7/2010

213 Facebook (1) 1 Scott Fulferton Page 11 of 20 Ted%aufirer.likestlds _....,...._,_.,.._-._..._._..._.... vlcavauzommmmts....,._.., _..._...^_. and my mintl k gone,.laf.. t see sane old frimds twct don'tsee me6y them...l reayy dmi't renpnfieriflwesm[+elguesstlqtleoneufmysigneofage-inl ^`^^^LCrraine Kaye Tes]o LOLI i'm FreUy mur+wilh ycu onthaz! 8vtthat dey.ircm2mberwell.,.tmtreallytirledmyl^fofflbll SCrAnr.ter9alt1:liVnv _._ _..., _ _..._ ,.tt Fullerton Hanging in panera 6rtak Company in Canfield, OH, should be fo<using on some dient work, but am daydmnung about Gmes gone by in High School tharix tu a yearbookpic eome friends are pessmg a(ong. Look for the geek with the yearbook in his hands, lul. TedKaWflnanlikesthk,.,,..._. _..._._._.._ _..._.., Viaw an 28 ammeras......_._.,..._.._..._ _...._...,..._.._...,..._...._,... Ted nauffinan hmm, Ib nnnr letme bg hlm. heyejeryone,iryauhaven'talready,p!cba'jantheshh5'i3230yaar reunbn9roup: thcpvlwm+.fatt^iwo'r.somlgr oup.phpigitl^ i]]680 2&ref=ts> See N^ae ::ep.empetrats`s9pm...^_..._,..._...,,...,,...,......_u.._. CeC90 It McWlOams itls Nintl of remnrls meofthe AnImal Nouse phcto..,=) SeptemherEat8:i5pm..._..._._._..._......_ _ _ _...,_ _..... _.....,..._... _... _,..... Scott Fuilerton O1oy facebook friends, I am a great nrarketer, but graphic design,..not w much. I m+ed help designing a new logo for one of my dfents....anyone able to give me some Ideas?? AprA 3 at 11:Sepm y1w1aii5cammgh3,......_......,..._...'._..., _._,._...._..._...,_... tt rulleft. ij.-:: ^ y bnyfr^end,lol ML5.5Yar ^ euynu tag9' mgthe plroto 61m everyom elseseems tabe, tooc2ry. hp17at8:31pm..._ T,arey xouser Udrtsky thatwnuld beawewmcl nes6 youtoei doyou er coneto calife,nh? 1 am In Ne ptwto In a greendress. i stln have Se same hak Ayle, haha ApnY3a[9'34qn RECORLGtR2tt ScottaM 1uNGt.WRo are nowhlems. - w woe,arnm SCettarWTkMtnyS.a ' mtkerenowriend9.'m1+1tin^csryeaetwu SCCttand Twry F@mHnder 2r2 now friends NMT'X,ye. rm*n _..._... _...._......_._..._ Scott Fulterton Feeling it is going to be a great weekend, got to spend t9me w6h Positive People Netnnrk Board last night and great tirngs happening for me all around. tlope you a0 have a Happy Easter!! r,pn 2 at 6A38m 0 0.cy 11rtes Vds....-_^._.,..-..._...^.,.,_...-_-- -._._..._._,.,_.^_._..... _...,_...,..,_..._......,..._.....,..._....._._..._..._.... _..,.. Scott Fullerton So I am probabty last to the party on this, but am glad I dor have my web guy, that wo(ks for the website building part of my companyr build in flash. S.tre ft pretty's a site up a btt, but there are a lot of drawbacks, herelsanotheronethttpy/news.yahoo.cvrnms/!iyesdence/2gig 0901/sE,!Nesdenw(ip2delreadychangingt hewaywebsftetarebunt $ttp:// 10/7/2010

214 i Facebook (1) 1 Scott Fullerton Page 12 of 20 datraadycdzn9!ngtaewaywebsltesareeui!t-yah00!news -.. Ayah0040tt.. 14e nwuso(the ina d metarl mrfe,5 around t'lu^ya,tinp ttx resmnt ciblelmarkcd, the Ipa:'x dlrmdy hbr.' ng a wide-ranyir8 enettan 4usMC65es bufore it has e+en bc-en om.ciaay, relkiae0. AtreedY,... Amll i at 1:12pm Shara -Fag Mike Scchien!e i reat!y IIMe the posibiikies N flash, but!he gefom^sk<65ye5 thut Mobe is unwillinpjunade todearuf, )'tttmake S2 mess.!rom satling mybrowserfora few semn7sfo owl0ht kkling n, or hemrng myfens 2mp up whtle a vmb p^,e ts idin9, just halmla Fla4-, needs mme workbefore C6 entltace ik. ppra 1 at 1:25ppt necaftacnvlyy Sc^tp!ned rhe gro0p Drunken PnatC 531wn. Scott end 4amy SM1EtllCamaa xr nanfriends. ^ M.a Spcy asens# 6cattcOmmanted on Mahoning [aonw DanOC2l{s!ink Srott and Jacob liarcer are now Friends. ngaksssrfert S:UYand Dvnab asnaon an: nowfdends. ^ apa amku.+sertew _ _..._._..._..._..._.._...,.... 6cott Fullerton So waking up after 6tful nkpub of dreams of blowing peop!e up. Damn you Chinese food and playing Mass Effeet 2 with The Agent too torg lastnigln=) Mard, 3] ats:ctam Scott FuRerton Test 123,!iave a Great weekerui Frlends!! M.arth 25 at ll:esarn :: ScotkFutierton Heading off fo gtve a Sotial Media/Networking Presentation : for aval!ey Networking Group. Snaw an the gress but rmds look good, fiave a greatweekendfrlendst! laarch26at6:56am,tecqrref!ne Mattin wi,h Icould gc! Good Ndd i wedc In E.liverpod today and nee an eadysh,t In tire Gmrd eaice for nry ambitious Frid9y ^adula! tal.. Mard52EeU:Oqam......_ _...,.._,_ _.,. _...T_.._..._..._... FUtt rmnyouweremisscd,butikrhandwdsfw ROntop3ss outat np1y w9eka mee{ings rortlm52lcteresmd. Have a$wt ' wmj:endl! March25aC9:15am..._......_..._.,..._..._.._......_......_...,..._;.._..._......,.._...._.._..._......,_._.._._._...,^_.._ "fj;'l^,_ scatt Fullerton I think that a tour of the county jail shoukl be a mandatory field trp far all H.S kids, (and same adults.) There was a lot of Insight ta be gained and am now even more worried s!rou!d the 112 penny sales tam fah and add more to tlte already inevitable layoffs in the SherifYS ofgce Marcn25at4-:15pm wew al! 1 wmments t, Mistitem+ieh-FiahartkdololoololMOlobloolln T Mzrch25at4:99pm,.,,.,.... _ slripes ^'whatyumclfferencereally.^er ih wa^y^lao,ti^owcn9oodln^ Scott Fulletton Okay, am back afterspending the afiernwn in Jail... c'mon frtends, I was just there inspectirg lt as parof my duty with tfie Grand Jury. We ate thetr food, saw their laundry, food prep and medical fadlitfes, visited some inmates in ahe minlmum security (fun some were playing chess,) visited some Inmates in the maxlmum securtty (not-tun, they have the ev6 eye thing down ptetty good) Marth 25 at 9:129m Scott Fu6erton OWay, so the fog is so thick, I swear I saw a pimte shlp ^ coming at me down the street tms morning In the wee hours of 5:45 am on to breakfast meeting. Turns out it was a WRTA bus, but sni, that Fog movie was playing With my mind.!u.a h24at8:24em _... JacqunJhe MarUn Akes thk_ ^ Krtstenaasa!5&ptenqngMmrelOrwaithataCafpenterfi!m... Era ler way free W x kkyryl M6YCh 24 at 12:110m Scott ick MdV ay and.al tt(e ostch-tqr, lhanx^n s the well wastes yestwerday feiends. ay ^... play Marth24at8:14am profile 10/7/2010

215 Facebook (1) 1 Scott Fullerton Page 13 of 20...r...-.-_,- r"^p.. 5cuttFUltestms Hey YW, hm+is nnooi for Penny and yowiob golr4i) ^. We gona cah9+ up again. Merfi24at$2Gam., _._---- _._..._.._ ^..... ZoeNetSUn^OStYanEerHeylschcallagong9ood,EtRhavahadSane Pard deses Mb semaskr. undnb+g greax bewme an aa#. mgr this mcnuy Idsof hcurs, but no ramplxlnts, lof. arayau Isav thevxathc(t and yes we do, I w1a gneyou a caa wmc6mewpen imaff. message mewitltyomphenez an0agoctl Gmetomll. Mateh 24 at 0:24em... NECENrncnVm' StpG CammEnt2d an3acql'etinr MaNn's ataws. ay PBm ser. attlm I.enwn Grove(LoalOUSfiess). me ScoG joined the soupyoungouwn Coorie Ta1N-,.lanuxs Grxm..,_..._._._.._..._ _._ _.. '..._._....._... BroYt Fulterton Nappy St. Patr ks Day Fr7ends, Comed ecef and l2bbage is getting ready to boit with my special mustard sauce. Meeting wit h my business coach in morning, at my aew clients for 4 hours titls afternoon, and a night of Blamey Shamrocks tonight. warch 17 at O:o2am ewa118cemmentc FNllerton eiw, ma9y wantto korn mme aboutyour Pxrannrmal any and ityw need any mads M+9 heldfor I4 (et me know _hllatil2fem _...,...--' lubtwentoutona0aylu0wlnoneofthe garors.l'm sure N+eV ctatwtth yw later m fmwcek at 12:OM1pm ^...,...._. _.._.... ScoEt Fullerton Givirg a Presentation tanight on "How To Geate A Posllive Culture rn The Workpiace" for the Mahonkig Vatiey Positlve People Network tonight at BW3's in the Southern Park Mall. Meeting stzrts at 6pm In the Private BanQUet Room, cocktalis and mlxer are ftom 5-6pm. Flope to see you there. March tg at 3:07pm _...,._..._..._._.,_......_.-._ _..._._...,... Fuparton Hey Friends, for those who may not know, I am on the Board and a quasffounderof the Positive People Netwotk below.if you are looking to notwotk wibt otl>er Ilke minded posibve people in Business, Famlly, and Communlty, I suggest you become a fan of this page and try to vist our monthly meetngs 'u'y'.4ii+?'+ Mahanln4VafteYPOaihVeFCOPfeNetworkTheMahonir^9VaPeyPOSiUVa i.._^ ^s ieopk Netwmk areats an 3e ^ 3rd Tueaday of ealn mm1th io lhe prlvate B M uct mom uf 8w3's In the Snul+em Park Mxil, BnmdmRn. 4 1hio. Merk and a l greetan6 m^ng starts at Sp.m to 6pm and Piw meedtgs slart Womp4y atgpm nd Iast voul abouk., vro-z551oaai 5elvke: 274 pewle llke this 5ee More March 12 al 7:19am' 8hare' Fhg Ron.._.^ panosky..._..,..^^... IIkeS this..._.,...«'f tacey Houser Uditaky Yuu are so awemnsg rch 12 at 12:31pm Nccercracmm $Wtttlk splnk Pmmises PogtMesCectorcry 6autiqrm(Medirql ^rvisej.^ L':wx :vrottbkes The P,uH BeltAtaater tom(any (tocai BvHnesS).' Lke 8cott akes Mahonklg valley PoEYJve PeoWe Net310`k(Profess:onal3mvice).' Lxe Smttjoined Uregroup )uianne xnd nave for tm 2018 YuPt+O Taday Weddingl Smtt wmleon Plxn sua.cmn's W.B. stottaod Plex Fkpavre4 are nmv feends.' wmcvmasaw.^d Scuttcommenled on StacW Pam StfgMtCS stxtus. 5mli and AW2 Cartsan are nowfrknds.' am wma u r.ima ne NT0.EiR1'rY 5[onand )aramlinemargn an: now niends. - aeeuzq d rex mva ScottllkesMahondfgYaikyt<zdsGSCUn(club).u;2 scartcommef6ed on Ed AAey'S Mk Scottcvmmemetl on Pd Aeys Imk , ,, Sootc Fullerton lnoking for an Interesting way to promote youp buaness77 Did you know dlatyou pn add user gmerated photos to Go42's 56'eetview7 10/7/2010

216 Facebook (1) 1 Scott Fullerton Page 14 of 20 What a grc-atway to show off yoe business to anyone'goagyng'the street of yourbusiness. YOUtube.wm/wafth7v=LjhnT7zcZ vigate throvgh V ser Photat In S1see[ V faw I M:w <grx and Qag ccrm1*0!3 make it Yser mn311n,'ted P1wto51n SbCM Vkw. In b^e tlyectbn you wanttv Ys>k See rare Pdg Scoft Fuitertun Wow, great day and a great week. Started off Monday getting a new dent and ended Friday gefting a new friend and business atly. Thamc for a gteat meeng and get to krmw you session Ray. Need to get your wetxite noticed? Awesome opnmization ideas at vrvw.copiiotnetworkwm. Have a great weel:end friends. Cop4bt Me3fa - Youngstown OhSn Webslte Oesfgn, 6E0, aad On1lneMarketing wyµv.raplbinmwmk6am Youc-gSMnnOhlo webkte design, ry a, and free IaOal e 51ne3s directory Fabruaiy 26 at 6:i9pm - Share ^ F9eg _..., _ _... ucruracavm Scott and Oarin BlinCelf are rnwfflends.^ xclmnnas r'mu Stottand )eanengteare now friends. ^ njolem arfned Scottlikes JlmmyY ftdian Foods. BaRery&DeJh (Food and aeve2gei.' u'c Scotecommented on Ed Aey's status. '.knt Commented an Ed Fley+s GnY. RFCENTPCRVIIY Scott<anmenMd an cd Aey's aixtt. Scc4t <ammerr d an qwred 6mwn's 4nk. $cng wmmenld ondb SSmS & Oestgns's N'.wo.....,._ _..._ ,..._.._.., ScoCt Fullerton Day full of ineetings and worr that nee<is to get done. C,oing to network at downtown Youngstown BNf chapter at lunch today, message me ''(;`^.ja t if you wantrojoinl2-1:30 FPbradp'24at 7:173m... Scott FWterton That was lhe major announcemene, Goverrwr Stnckland Is now coming to the podium to echo the good news... Congratulatrons to Lordstown and to the Mahoning Valley for good news In jobs and an example of hard work paying off. Fetiruuy 23 at 1:21fen..._^_._..... _..._...,...,.._ _..._.._...,._....,...._._... _._._... _. g`^,ii`; Scott Fulterten GM wia put 300 million in dollars to Lwdstown, and add about 17A0 plus employees bringing total to atatr 4500 people. Will bring lats of dovats to aree In taxes from the added employees and sales ^ a. Frirvvry 2,i af 1:35.. ^^n _..._.._...,._._.._..._.._... _ utterton Mr Reure just announced the 3rd Shift will come to t.ordstown ry 23 at ::Sipn._..._ _..._..._._.._.._..._......_._...._. Soott Futlerttm Mark Reuw Is introduced ard told how he drove here In the Volt and amng Lake Erie and tallred about the story of our auto industry then started ta&itg and commending GM parlneis FWmary23at1:J2Pm. ScottFUllertonHuge[urnoutaitlte plam(ofmurse}... and now a pomp and dreumstance ushedng ow the leaders of GM, United Auto Workers and Ohio Govemment... Welcome by Lordstown Head lohn Donahoe Febrrvary 23 at L09Pm,.._._... _....._ _....._ _._.... SCOtt Furl^iermn Am impressed they started exactty "... on time,andkindadyging the rocki music track to the opening video featuring what tardstown does far United Way and overvmwor GM and the tnrtlstown Plant rtmoary 23 at':rlpm Scott Fullerton Tuning into Inrdstown News Conference over GM's media website, starting now Wth a video presentalion with t3eracic Obama leading it

217 Facebook (1) 1 Scott Fullerton Page 15 of 20 6wYh Wllerton Love a full wcek of exching chaltenges. All day at diant followed by meet'mgs most of Wednesday and Friday, and doing Sustirs for the CountyatGraldAmyatlday7Tursday. Felutary 23 at'l22am arcpntpqn3ti Xctt wmmented on Ed Aey'9 NabM. ScoR<ommented on Ed Re.y'isMtus. SCOttllkeSLCm0.ia0ke: At'the teman 60ve (tccal6usiner)- ' UFe SCottllkeSU fyj ' tya ebt (Reer2Urdn().^ Uke _ _ _ _..._..._..._... _..._..._..._... Bcott Futlertwt Great day tuday, lots done on powerpoint presentzt ns, Ule MVRA and got a new dient on lop of t aa. Rewarding myself with a muffin and coffee at the Le!non Grove. ebrumy 22 at S:SOpm Dena Rupert Uetuco love LL1 Have bren wantlng ta chtxktlkhplace ' Out..hGWStha(Lntl) ^ B( W how many did you have at mvppn WR weelc!..., s'euniary'1.2at5:59pm.._._..._^_....._.._......_ :%ISwtiFLtlerLOnFOOda^t^Wen^^ ospherelsverynlce.wehan ggad tumpugat Iryn^ 17 FebiuaN23xt?:05am _ Scott Fuitetoa Last week of a short month, time to'gtt er done: Are you Mmmunirzl'mg congnxrnyto your clients? Are they visually, audibly, or kinestheucally more wired to hear what you have to sayi PowerPoint presentation cnmfng soon on how to speak etfeclsvely hm your cgents and seal the deal more often Feebmery )2 et 7:48am Ttna MehaWloMOS<of mycustamers wouidn'tundersbnd. TAey don't speakewllish,haveteeth.arwearshoes.lol _. Fu1lerNn We!I Me farm<onnection in Y. mmpanysname thelg,haha recrosyzzacnum._..,..._..._.._._.^.._._.._^^..--,...^... Tf in a MehaHie I U9nk thacs why I spend ay.rof Um h+farmnka FebmaN2Sat8:taam R.CeNTM1GfiwtY SwSand Mellesa eodnh NaMlltiare new frlencs. AOe NzA.enm Fume ^C9ttand &en H^ are rww friend5. FW 4Y'"m(i!N:a.. _^a[g6hikcfwry Sco[t Gkes Aef Electric & AtN Security(prefe5slonak SeiMCe). ^ ine SCdS and Ryan Ve n'le am naw frlbms.' Mn aya^ as F4rA scotto)mmenred on kon NanoskySSwWS, 52G.IIkeSThaf5u5UR657oumal(UJTmurd:aaCna).'Un4 5 ttcommemed on Lyn0.sey HugYSa's stltus. _.._._._..._....._....._... _ _..._... Scott Fullerton My Thoughts es a PR {xrson on the TIger Woods press Februzry 19 at'. t:32xm HedgesRankin Ikes._..._...._._... thie.... F _.. - ullerton My pr analyd's of Tyer Wocds: He I+ad a great _- iwnter, awful przsenwtlon...toasbnaste rsanyonnl Gocdwvrds mld,but you <an almostfeel where It sald a^ the paper'shake head here, FmfMasse b%" took dlredlyat rzmera M1ere." Ithink k was a wise nnvefar his wlfe not lvbsthere If tlley are stltl discussxrg pnssnidty ofdlwrce, ItwaM Ude Nm asa PR slwr in theendif so. Thls was dewty to Pava the way rn gel back Into gom sonqw ne UUs yeer adltmay appmse Mssponswsand faunda6on board nemccls umess therc is a huge amountof bacyjash fromthe waodcmea of Ilds speech.famamyouallhaw:yourownthou9tjsaswell,butwnneave It hem._..could i have made W. ratum mtv be er...ehhh.. I surethlnk 50. FebeuaN 19 at 1i.33?m, _......_...._...._.._..._..._._ (Aartsse Clay I agtee._xasnt 51Mere at atl Fouary 2e at 12:31am ,..,.. Funetton PnsltNe Speaking: Never say,'4 want zyz." it Oierally teik; your wbm.nnsrlous mind to want for R, making itheider to achieve. F2me it In 10/7/2010

218 Facebook (1) 1 Scott Fullerton. Page 16 of 20 the positive,'1 am achieving>m," and it wlll putyour svbconscfous to work for you in Hnding ways to atfaln it Fchrsry 34 at9:99am NinNannxkyl!hestM _ ^ _... _ _, _... _... _..., _ ,.... vlewa115 comnrems _.._..._..._... _._._...,... ^_._.._..._..._._.. g RoyTaomxSYougotthatrlght.,.lil:COinlil Feb:uary23at>:23Pm it t'alierton Ne(liay. tva have Mased you around here Bvary23at6:51pm -...._.v._,.,_-....._.,_... Scott Fuliet'totr Excelient tumout last night at the Mahoning Valley Positive People Nenvork Mtg in Boadman. P.eceived many compnments on my PoslHve Speaking and Vision Board presentatbn last nighc so de dded to put them in a powt rpoint presentation and svnd to any that are interested. Shoutd be ready in about a week or message me here If Interested in receiving a copy Scott@aceintheholemadte6ng.cam Pali 17 at 7:34m ngea Rupert deluco swertt Giad if Went so we6. An0 yes, pleafe fom2nrk the pm R+ FrURI iebrvary 17 ats:26am ScotY Fullerton Mahoning Valley Positlve Peopie Network meets tonight at. BW3's in the southern Park Nlall Happy hour 5-6 and meeting in the priva te banquet room from 6-7:30. Come connect and mingle wfch ot 'her business and community leaders who know a posit'ive attitude plus mitn e actions wia get podtice resuks in our Vatiey February 16 & 7:32am FECERTPeTNIT\ kon Iikes PW T:eerer Burt (Laral BusNes). We Scdt<ommvinted on pon Pldc's sbte9. SwttwnnnenteCOnblahonm9uuntyOemKretis9atus..._,._...._......_ _,.._._..-..._._,......_... 6catt Fultertvn 5penrRng today getting presentation ready for the Mahoning Vailey PositNe PeoPle Network Mtg. Tuesday ntght- I hope ydu an will be there. S-6pm happy hour and the meeting starts at 6pm at the private banquet room In BVd3's In the Southem Park Mall. FdYUary15et633am aectxrrctzvrtt Scottfkes C4ROl forcomks55nker (POGticun), uke ScritJo!neC the greup CNANGEFACF.BWi(BACK TO NORIML! idr.n':v Gx w...,,._ ^aceypanyhrnttiikeswz...:._..._..._... _.._......_...,._ ScattwnaGenteM on Sta<eyPm! Sr.M1mitt's sbtus. $CWt2nA willlam RMJbGl3re ny.tlfikmls.' neev.59nnli rabtl ScanJoNed the greup NEOLrmotis.-xmm'xeroup ScottanA Shephea ECer^tb are tmw trlends. nae 5nos^m ammr^a $[OftCOmmtl,ted NI RCn N2MSky5 phota...._...,....._....._ _..._....._..._ catt Fullertan Moming meeting and then dear off the plate to enjoy the end. Great MVPPN Bond Meet3ng last night and then meeting deux, kzk- _ our retum to the ScFM scapt 1 am wrltlng wbh fr2nds, "AII is a5 has ^ rous by hosting this little party a Persephone. ^av^g re end frierrls. on Fabiwn 12#6:47am _..., Ran Naoosky ')ake..., E'ke5 thls..._._... _......_,..._...^_ 5ky 14250P!n9^50 Wondin9 FeSmary 12at4:35mn 'n%1k+aygmknth.._"wanr16 ne<4ntacrf'fiy Scnttand GY,tlin V. Oafk are now friends. Nk enemx mam Smttantl GIM ]oae are now hiengs -nm ryntasrr.ula ScontiR^lnC &Naprmeurs Gub af America -Ycungriown-warten <Cak).' uke Scott Fuliertun has dedided I wiil work from home today. Snow cancrjled some big appointments and dont really want to miss new BNLClapter, but ink I wiq to make for a smoother day. bruary to at 8:3!am 10/7/2010

219 Facebook (1) 1 Scott Fullerton Page 17 of Seottjust CameG a t25k Star Medal ln aejeweted HtltK SWtt emned this medel vritl, a saxe of 142,100 and his net n'xflal wlll be Ned at 150k. 'Q Febnmryg a[b:m1]pmvir L^lswe^24 6IIK Piay Ow)Cweled BNb......_.._...,_.._..._..._._..._..._......_...._...^-._..._._..._,..,._... Scott Fullerinn Phave a full day of ineetings scheduled for Wednesday and it looks 6ke I may be snowed in again. Spending Mday with TheAgent and hoping this stnrm is a false aiarm, the weatfier Peopie are never right 2 predicdons in a row are they?? Felxuary5et5:51an,,.,._^^.-:.^.-..._>_...,,., :...-,^.,..., :.,...._.^T_..._... Scott Fullerton has analyzed the St1pe<'bovA Ads from a Marketers petspect&e: Winner of Best Ad: Google, Winner of ieast needing to advertise at the Superbowl: Googk, Most overhyped ad that was least controversial on airing: Focus on FamllyTebow Ad, Most underhyped ad that was most ContrOVersal tasteful: IM[Irers men wsthout pants, Favorite Ad...l3stty WKIW Abe Vigoda Pebrvary 8 at 1:031m Mlke Bchieate &Ogestwaste of maney US Censusad. FffiNan'Sat2:24pn1 ne[entfrnry Scettand t2m Grke are now frlems. aa usn u Rime Srutt&kes Ckseland HoPik^s IntematlOnal tirpok(cle7 ('r2vel5wce). ute SWttand ShePirerd4elf Stor<gese now Mends.' anestxis'e:dasmem SCOltand SheVa Krle9 Faxn are now frlends. Amsrwaxaexrd Scolt and Ed Aey are ruw frtends. am [a as et :e _..._,_......_.,... Scott Fuilorton Last day of busmess sitimg mybert frlands {and ciient's) business, good week tfiere overall and thinkwe kept It gomg. interesting stuff happening and looking mrward to an awesome year if the last 5 weeks are any indicetion. liave a greatweekend peeps! F2luuny 5 at 6:57am Ip5lwaAikenSlllreUMC.,, _...,...^..._..._._..._...._...,.._......_...^._..._..._.._....._... Virnall4 carnmnt _..._._...,.... erdtlmurphy5owewontbeseeiny.. yryv attheammcetr'9 SCOtt? ^braary5 at 8:59am ' lfmnalluskyvrank55mh,wewuuwnarhzvemadetttmsrarwah oulyoulthankv aqam forbxby i mezn "WtlnesK' Srtdng fm uzl _.r^...-..^.- ^..._ FebmaMy5at126pm.:..._..._......,..._.._......_._.._..._..._..._ Scott Fullertun Good turnout for firat downtown Ytown BNJ meeting today. Networking and Rekenbon are the key to a thdving small business In this ecaromic climate, If you are looking for a nudge In the right direction or someone to setyour sail, Bnes m a tall and IeCs get your business thriving. Felruary 3 at 2Aipm._ _.._......_......_..._. 2ERNTAGTIVR1 8cortand Robert Marginoarc now lda:ds. Mawrocras:uua SCOftand MlChael A. FreelMn are now fliendt ^ MENtliarlu n1ea Sceltcar4nented on Marb' aretyes IMk...._... _..._... _..._.._....,.._._._..._.._.._._.,-._,..,....._._..._..._.._._ Scatt Fudiertan Go tn Urbandictlonary.com, type in your first name, oopy and paste Ufs as your status (if you feel sa compe8ed) and Pm the (most Intere5ting) entry foryoor frome in the wmments. i-ehnan, 3$):$funt SCott FuNeriun S. Smtt 852 up, 559 drn m qryscottmu95,t519a59nd me9net5 5'wtk K waraeifla and ramg, he3 tne bestthrn9 m my Afe, not Cnly does he mlkethebeat boyttiem he makesan even better ber Mend...and he'sail mine..s:attakpleee tu mink bea a PWya..hut M1e'a taocxnr.g to Oea PIdYa... taurd SmtCi a blintantf93}2" FebruaiY'-at]:S9am,laltFlHertvnOhlmnsmococobedPiayawh^^.,.k^a..-_._....okaylxmaonePewnkin0ado:k,butheY, You Pe.bNary3et60oem._..._..._..._ ^..._... STSCey Parr Schrnlltlove e, you area 9reattrlend, ameays hzve been!n :) Fstmsry S at 12:10em 10/7l2010

220 Facebook (1) 1 Scott Fullerton Page 18 of 20._.._._ _ Scott Fullerton As always, a good Monday night at the Lemon Gmve d75cussron group, not as much discussion qst night a.a hanging vv6h good friends, but It works for met Grtlkd cheexe and soup fer $4.95 are you kidding me?77 Me toves me some 96lled dleeze sammichl I Febaary 2 ut 7:99am.MshuaNikensiikesthls....._.. Scott Fullerton is Businsss sitdng at a dients all week as he mtaxes in the mountains of Verment, may his skii s waz on-wax off, lof. Fabuary2at):35am 2 peaple gkemis. Scott Fulferton is ex[ted about the Pepsi Refresh ampaign where dley are taking the# money from Superbowl ads and Is using it for 20 milliat $$ of grsntsto projecfs that are submitted and voted on each month. Check It out... Pepsf Refresh Pmlect *ehesheveyming.wm PepS is grvtr,g avv.ry mnllons es4, month toe,rm rah'esmna 1dPat d,at clznye L'iC worl4.fheidfaswdh ti,emosf vina will mt IVe9ranfs.5o voh Iw' ya.r:avmres.oo you have an Idea tlwt ner.vls suduon7 team haw Pepti f.2n hetp. FeBruarylat'a:ham Share^flag......,_..._....._...._..,...._...,_ _---^--^'." 5cott Fulterton okay, no haters,[haveteenhofdingoffonthisallweek purposely, but serfously when chubby with a mustadie it was either this or Siper Mafro. it's Doppelg5nger week; dwnge your profne pu.ture to sameone famous you have been tofd you look Iike. After you update your profile with your evil twin photo tiwn cut and paste this to your etatus. Todd RlrharCSBOOS likes mis. NCwa1lSCOmInrnM. ^... _ _...,..._ A CM1e0sseCrayamnyt JantNry 31 at 12:e5pm ' '..._._..._....._..._,.._ _..... Oon Rtckhaw aboirhls chubby "pam1" FeONary1 at8:23am,... _...._..._.^ _..._.._..._... Scott Fullerton via SC Sfmon: Sericusty, Democrator Republican, SNS Is unprecedented. A chance for Repub'S to rhetork. and potitfcae the hetl out of their'issues" with the Pres, and a chance for the Prea to show them he knows EXACTLY what they am doing and why they have to Wep or bse. PreSdenk Orsma Fua Q&A Fresit'znt (Jbama s(otl Q&i at:tre YAUse Repuhti n!arcmrn aalsnore. httpj,`aw~.c.yanatthaezvey/library(vwcink.bnd2 b=126516a5396e=1264)b9993&n^ai 3anuary 30 at 6:29pm' Share I Hag REttRTA(.'rLV1YY ScMtand CetnMLOn92rer2nmvfYCMs.?W UeanxKr^e,e Scott likes db 9gvs& oa9gns(visual Attlst). - GAa -.._ _._....._..._..._._..._._..., _... Scott Fullerton If you & I woke up in jail together...using only FWR werds...what woum you say tome7 Copy and paste this ln your status and me what funny things your fhends say... (And Syou make a mmmenp you gotta put this In your status. Fair is fair.) and we'll see who can follow dire:tions... 3anuary2gat6:.Aam Vlew all a comments......_..._.... "..._..._..._.._..._...-_... AndyHCyletlkenwtwoWdbstqefir4dmelnLOL ^a FebruSry 1 at Ii.37am 10/7/2010

221 Facebook (1) f Scott Fullerton Page 19 of 20 xko9ax DamN Natyou again. 'e1r.ujry 2at12:30am ScMk 1olned the 9roup Canmkt e for eur i W ue - Nahoning County Ssles Tax issu2. ^ W vdemap StonarA tbwar.y Mcrkettarenow fr#nds Scuitand Grace f)xnef amnow frknda - c+il mace asrv+m+s 6co1t Fullerton Nke tumout andconversatfon for ilrnkers & Drinkers last nght, thanx lyler for taa7tating and grczt to meet so mary new friends. Busy ^ Tuesday as usual with atl day at my dleny6 startfig at 6am. SanvarY26at8:5]am RECEMTFC6VLIY 5<Ut and Rdbert Udxyarenow niends..r.euaa.qtusfnvm Scettand LWtl,ryn SMa-Brien:a Nateh arc ngw friends. - Rai nzurwas rr.vm Scatand Caro!ynSh-rymsn arenow rr2nds.- aaaurt4' aswsma _....._. _._......_-_..,._._^. Scott Fullerton Getting ready to head to BW3's!n the Southern Park MaU for a Mahoning Valley Pusiti>e People Netwcrk meeung. You looking to meetwith other positive people looking to aeate change for the better in the Malmning Valley? Come on out, vm rneet on the 3rd Tuesday of every month from 5-6pm open social hour and the meettng is from 6-7:30pm. All are welcnme to check out a meegng or 2. Jarrvtry 19 at4aspm RCENTACRwiY Sa1f wrote nnihlnkers & orinken's wall Srptt pkes mocaevoluywn (GOCnmunkat)ns). twz ScanNke5Mge7ChlrayractkCenGa'MedlCatSer 3rk)-'Ulw T'I; SrottFullertanGOing over clientnotesbeforeigotojuryduty.ihavebeen takmg zppointments wittt companies for Marketing Audits. I evaluate your marketing plan and materials, give you an ana!ysis of your rortgtatigon, and sit down with specific recommendatlons. A few appts left, ca11 or rnessage me to set one up. 73rwery 14 at7:00am..._..._...._.,..,_.^..-..._. ^._-^..., :...,,.._..._......,:ott Fullerton pwnapaloooxa 2010 was a tuge success, Nice to get away for,.ie weekend, spend some time with a good friend, wrrte out the business and personal9oats, and re-tocus. Now that I have planned Nre work, it's time to work the p!an. Looking forward to 7anuary11at9:09am....,,_..._..._,,.:...,....,...,._...,_._..._....._...._._ Scott FuOerton Had a great swlm and breakfast, nnw ba& to the napa!ooooza in my secret undisdosed location. Got a lot of work dorre,._.erday and a litt(e poker In for fun. lnoking forward to finish! ng up totlay and tomorrow. KkW of exciting pianning my goa!s for 2010 and the npt 5 years. Have a great weekend a!!. Sanuery9 at 9:ihwm RonNanosrynl^lNw. ---,..._...,_....._..., _..._._ ZaeNelsomtlstander Pokerf areyou in Vegas7 kt nuary9et5:42wn,tt Fallerton HkFV4 bcliev2 w nof Nelll op hurg of Chsster, West dnla na5 a WSinOanG a5 only 50 minums fi+2y.ll's wh2te we auyed ni9i4 ') Jamla.y SG at 12:40pm._...^..._..,_..._._..._...,..,....,....._.,...,. "..., _ _.,._._,.^_._. _ _.._...,... Scott PulEerton Today I am off for my Goal PlanningpaWoma for Reserrotions booked, schetlulers and calendars packed, pens and number 2 pencrys all sharp and mady for acson, bringirg along a fdend to break the monotony and to bounce ideas off of. You got your 2010 busmess plan and personal goafs set? You can do i[! )anuary8 M &:32am.,._ _._.._..._v.._..., _ ,I`: Scott Fullerton Bnjoyed meeting Senator Shmrod 9rown last night at!kb Hagens re-electfon event. Campaign season, here we go agagr. I respect both Sterrod and eob very much and am happy they are repre.senttng us. ^ Jatwerv8M9:29am....._.._--._.._...^.._._.^_....^_...^,..._s_.,...,..._..._.,_ Scott Fulletton Is hoping for some Facebook Help... Anyone good wrh MS Fxcef?? I need to know howj'f it's possible, to <arry over a nuniber from a 10/7/2010

222 Facebook (1) 1 Scott Fullerton Page 20 of 20 sheet to another sixet in a ormula. Any takers on this one? I a it the hep3. 3anuazy 5 at 5:35pm Vrewall8commaRs ^...._ ^..._v._.._..._..._...-._._,.:..._...,.:...,._ 5âaaon5chroeCerLetmeFmwlfyauAlAneedN- x4tattomgave you is vfiat I wouid have sent :g) _.._..._._JBAO'-R'68tRa1^..._ _..._.._. rs?43:i: ScuttFuFerWnThanxSharm,dldnlhavetimetoMlttvdal',bttw@ aar^pttqnow " ^ ( anj II ' you agree wlth Tem 1 am sure it' s guin9 to wmk'n+anx ' againformeheip. ]amrary6a[3:s9µtt.._ _....._._ Smtt Futlerton. Welcome back to the 2010 woacareek On th4s weeks ^im-rowv sahedue: l tti mzenbs,en,- dit pop^ls my nonprofl[ board,.. wad b minute, 2010 is ' bogarting my 2009 schedule, glad I ^^ am adding a cow)e tvfxts that I haven't toid 2010 abuut yeti Have a great week friends. ;anuary 4 at 8:03am 3oshu 0.fl:ens INxsEda N6CENTAGINIK 5(pttand TNdeeVJEath2rhy are rw W friends.. FLGnWCeaPoME 5xttilkes Sa^nna Springs VVaRrlHOme `.^a'ace). ^uw yyttconnnented on Dennls OSlrandC 3s pho o, SwltanC ItrlsMn Sassl2re nmafrlnnds. and qmm aa Fmrm Scott and YveBE t/a r9ar^^b are nmv fflenos.. nce mtx u rnme SCOlt CommenteC on RobGt Dennick 30M"s stalu5. _....._ _._----- _ _ r..._.._._...._......_..^_._. i%_, i. 50ottFUlierton To all my SHHS friends who may not have left SoCal ; yec... Hxe Is my New Years Eve the last 11 pwrs... Firewaks what??? : olderpastt Deaemtuf 31,200 at 629am share Nnvall7conmunts FUHertnn l lwarycu mike, I gotso used totl+e mountalnsl have. N E,W ^ Sbyou Cdn SEE nle bun, hafta yourffeld UHn9 Of drank h fef setbngfwyourirotlsettwughi Janvary 1 atj:00mn V_.. HhunGa Hamptun Schlenie5flg the SHMS Nma Mater, ahhh, I dony Minkyeu xam metu sing anynhing tmad. 'r} CbodhySCOtt Jemarflat^21am _..._._.,^._..._._..^,..-._... ^._...._..._ ,..._....^_..._... _......_._ _ ,_... ott Futterton Thank You to ag of my riends rtear and far who made my.,, Y yesterday so mutli fun. Hey SHHS friends ft Todd eoo's Bday today. Happy Ne.v Years to ail, I will be v,mrking my raso)ution solutions with my cnach [)ena Deluco, May God biess you for a safe and prosperous 2010 ^ecemtxv 33 2fF9 at 7= 3am profile 10/7/2010

223 Facebook I Scott Fullerton Page 1 o 2 Scott Fullerton AddasFriend.....,_:'.._,_..,..i I Wall = Info i W._... ^_... People who aren't fdends with Scott see only some of his proflie infnrmation. if personally, send him a message or add him as a friend. you kn About Me Basic Info Sex: Male Relationship Singie Status: rnterested In: Women Men Looking rror: Friendship Networking Current City: Boardman, Ohio Hometown: Covina, California A Marketing Consultant by trade and a Vagabond by vocation. I have tak time on earth Flnding out what I enjoy, and what I dont, where I succeei fail, I am a constant work in progress, I am not as rich, or smart, or han, compassionate as I should be, but I am always striving to be more of all things. I have loved and lost, and am excited to want to love again. I am attrad wisdom, and passion, and strength of character, and compassion to othe I have worked 20 years in the Restaurant Industry and the past 2 years Advertising/Multimed la Production. This past month I have ventured out and started my own company called, "Ace in the Hole Marketing:" I offer consulting in Markel Refations; Sales Buiiding, Human Resources, and Business Operations. I have 4 cfients; and am excited about this new joumey and experiience. Favorite "A person is a success if they get up in the morning and gets to bed at n Quotations between does what he wants to do.",bob Dylan "I think It's really important to maintain a positive attitude. It might not s problems, but keep it up long enough and it wiii plss off enough people I worthwhile." -Margot Black...See More Education and Work Empioyers Ace in the Hole Marketing September 2008 to present 10/7/2010

224 Facebook I Scott Fullerton Page 2 of 2 CEO/Owner Boardman, Ohio A ConsutGng company that specializes in the Service Industry, and offers on Advertising, Marketing, Public Relations, Sales Building, Human ResoL Business Operations. Our forte is the restaurant industry. High School South Hills tiigh'82 tikes and Interes Music Chords of Christmas, The Zou, Amanda Beagle Live WEovies Avatar India, Fine-Tune, The Burted Life Television Lost, The Daily Show Show other Pages Contact Information......_: Facebook Profile facebook.com)scottfullerton.acemarketer 10/7/2010

225 IN TH13 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CASE NC3:.09 CR OPEN DATE:I7ECEMBER 10, UDGM1xNT E^TTR'Y C[^K o^ C,vUnS MAff(iNl r - -.._.. fy(3 COU - N'f1; dhld DEC sz dpthe Court that Randall Weliington, Shedff of Mahouing County, Juror named in the at#aohed Venire to attend ondan[7arx 7, 2010, at &^AS. A Nl.., ARX 2010'fetm of Mahoning County Grand 7ury. dered that the Sheriff of Mahoning Couan^io, complete service on aaeouror Ae Clerk ofcourts is ordered to send a copy of this 7udgment Bntry to: u? ellington Sheri#'I, Court Services Division it6 xury Commissioner rosecittor

226

227 ri ja N! w uf ^L n m a oh ^nq in ^D h ad m o N N ^!. w q q <' w N N N N N N N ^'1 N N ^n N th M N ^l N ^anz^a^a,a a^ V 7 aza -^Q..4Q^a N 0 t^ t'f ri ^o h w Of m ^-1 O N m ^ w W.i ^[1 nt N N N ' N9f N R, W M A v ^ O C N q q b O d q N ^0 ei N i` N W tqr O m ^ N N.- di O^' eni ti ^^i ^N-1 h b r^i e^^f ^b-4.^{ ^-2 tw`7 i9 A ^ ei A rl w H H H

228 W.^p W p N 1~[I lnr 1I1 V^t N N N imh N b W W b N N b a -0., i z^ V) ^ a a ^?7^`^^. ^ V) ed,-0 b w m b m m v a T m c^o o urei w N M m. w o m ^v N ^ o ^v a cv m m ^ w a H n r,-i ^-i ' 1 m.ni rmi O^t N W t^t ^ e H N O^i ^ N a 9 o z Iwa a ux.^1 O^ uf a t^ m m q tc M w u{ ^o m at o ^1 Ct M a! N ^4 0

229 'Z), a v, ^4. a n ^^z ^ a z N.p^ Oi M l0 O ^(t i'h` O tp^f M rl H ri h ^ M P W P1 W ^0 O tl^ N O ^O rl V^ O O M O h QN N O M h ^0.hd ^ tlni N.h1 W.^.1 W ^P-1 upi N.Mf b W +^n ^a-i m N ehi 4h0 r

230 O H N M r4 r l m T 01 ON1 OMi Opi 0^1 Omt N OWi T H 0 mi 0 W ^1 ^O n m W K H H m. i N W^ -1 o H a a a Z^4 a z z^o o. `yn Z-1 m dt H W M rn W N n mn H n a H m r m w-m M p 4 r ^0 M W W N N M. h W M H V^ O j n 'ti ^ft h O n US H H N ri r l H.+'^,! m r I(5 h f^v rt W rn W a r wh W n w. H N W M W v1 nw H N t0 ^^-1 N W N

231 ri O Ui O r h-^ N b h b G dr W W W N N Iff W W h M <M m ^ "^ ^ ' ^ ^ W W b ~ W t^ G^ IWtI h.-t ^ M r-1 ri NI r1 fi.i t'i H p, p

232 tisfaf0 4h^9.Cprmmon Pleas Court of said County at the Court House therein, on day of g-' ^^d forenoon and so from day to day untit discharged, then and there to serve as JURORS is rit make appear to our said Court on the ^70' day of UA &)4.e00 `t' yhere this vrrit. o7qt^ day of tc the torsg oing Uentre, and to i»#* that tha requirements of the Jury Code have been compiied with. By/I^^'.J1-wo Cterk Deputy SHERIFF'S RETURNa^herBt 1 received this venire on t h day of hgc^ b"- VA29ft, at tm:z^r- o'ofocka M., erved the,same on the pe'rsons therein named, against whose names the service Is Indicated. Shertff 8y ^ K I - ^il^^r ` Cvd2T SEr e=ce c lx 5 X^^. o a^?srd.mvs ServSc^ I Deputy tz3 - tns^^cz E= z rr t3,rrzi ^rnauac^e-^ 5ke^ ^e;e s Ia'rAt, 41

233 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS-.._,-..,..,,- c^ MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO r^a^g ^^t" cmm^ Ji yg or caun ^'tls v nu, CASE # 10 CR OPEN JAN IN THE MATTER OF: GRAND JURY TERM JANUARY 2010 ) JUDGMENT ENTRY This 7t' day of January, 2010, for good cause shown pursuant to ORC 2313,16, the following prospective Grand Jurors as nutnbers on the venire drawn on December 10, 2009 are hereby excused or were not served: Numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100,101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, and 125. It is ordered that the approved excusals be recorded and filed with the Jury Commissioners pursuant to ORC Michael T. Heher has been appointed as the Foreman of the January 2010 Term of the Grand Jury and eight Grand Jurors being Numbers 2,10, 11,15, 21, 22, 23, and 30 and five Alternate were selected being Numbers 31, 42, 47, 48, and 57. All Grand Jurors and the Alternates were sworn and given instruetions of law by the Court. The Grand Jury was then Ordered to retire and begin its duties. See Record taken, January 7, 2010 II^^I^IIIlIIIl^1IlIlI^IIlIlIll!lIIINII4^Ii^fli^lllill 2070 or oo cnauo J a'^'^ 5 ^ 0005'30

234 4^ 43 ^;^5 ; v >: 5 CuHyE"yOma. n`^y^ ^ O^O^ZC.L^NAy^j4A ^. R:NT$"VUd^4 NO^V W v^p. NmeOV^lyG' 'NP.4^3 y ^ Cbv y'tl>f^^o1. d N F 01 W p Q^^ y ^ ^ge^t-v o m6o 88 L a, _^'v d ',^ L.i.o i?^-. _.J?. _..

235 ,!fi C ^Y g 4VFm ^UN N 04^yau.^Ra.T+N Vp.'6rVl'V ^+ auiy.o.=y`^ ^vc aui^^va. c^v.5s^pa.'o.a '.^- o^ u nr.!:'. s '^$c^ Q, aac,.,«om.e^ec=nm a"y am$ osvua..:^',e>^o4cag 3o Em Tm L^c^aom6e.uy EN^C WO.y''CaL06L'5 N^.C^pVbE^,.^+4^m f9 OamYrF"NAW. ^p baa. FS^UOaa'7 :e.m G o`^c>o^oe-21eawrsf- ce- n aia.." L^,... G,E a CGO ^Z^y o utj^aviu>. c a' n+^y" yln4na'^^, HAFEaLU^9Ht+^^a^ nc- _p^3t<p'yp a-7 OVpYi.T. m.^"^^^ uu I wu Eoarm m4uuss<m ZaZ3A:. nmnc r^x.'. IT.=a^.F*^Jw av.:a. '.". 4QL? T >il 'b oa Do y a r, Cw -'0 19xn«rs'EoE^w Yf:c yow8 "cj0`,coa.g^u+e^` '' oob 1-.yr+y^W^aµ'.'= nigr 'Y p^c"ftv u ^^6ap.N^ p'o?frox GF= ^o awg Ou4p^lar3' Q4««ns,uM..^ opie^ x y;^ y..,^aerciya^ aeoa+bscin GF rvon.n. `` 'a 19.C^.'y^.C,,..^yyJ«C«^^NO?Da ^.,po mu 0 Y,^moo..ol.as+'y`'vO.Ss`^vc^ a`c^oa.a.veu,ep1mfi-«c.e ^.C`^ a^^^1mv'0o ^'NGyLayyL9^^W'9.^ yc'6ky4^^9. em co,b Q^noov.hcu uc^y3«dc^.a..^oe,'3s^..^'.a >'`Q'y'^'F «a 8 Qv o S" ay.'t of»^ ^U...b_ oo a,n4"a`an^ai0^.m.ouaf.^_ 'wdee?'^^ Y.vO ' iqae.^^3e 3^on^ VuwE'w:^"4 ^i a ^,p ^ pp a ^ a,^; : a a rj a^ o^'re, +wv asc)o1m?: uc'm^'c,,.^3 E 9.maU y^ac o.:= crs'aa^'-y,,' ^E^.,=''C OU^E KN mdnmclicmmcmo^ 'pveol^.vv ^NO^u^..n' Vronb v''+3^syu.`,^e Ua^^^ BcoV 7T fmc5aucifm^n=a^ e»^"'o^ cgi' '`''"m'^o. ^f.^u s o ws`'yfoaaroi H -d a^slm'^xy..c- g'v.o..::^c ft. '"`ea m ^^ X6uCwa^^aA^a;-s wfnw' "d `aa4. _'v1 EumEn wq noquoa$yn.e^^^a.uu "7.o`ov'v'y^`co^ sm^q^& p^.n9:xy^^^.n:cl f.amw `.'- 'pcy.,^^'«a's. ama} s a«wi. =.C m"v ms 'S Y'oomO- A ymo c y m" z^n'''j$u'a u ^^+^.e^3a t9mv"3^bso^a ym"e^^f o '04 rv ^H^m^OH:E;2$ 7mVL,p 6QU LCO N,.F9N 'at'~ UC.Cdip m,d'c fd Zp^},ymo^... ^"eeroi in,^= b^^a'.ec'ny ^N3 amn ^V..,- LVy.EMYr j':..7^023nn^w^n "'OS' VW' YN.{,^ 'Gf" Ndra0' a4==.cc m E^.x1 «a^ ao y"o ain6w''^uno mcam y. 'dy '..C^1S^ AT"~3FUP.NV! CE n6r_t^nvc 2cmig'A, s,$,n>o'^m:e^ce^u,`r` m ^3^tiv mabap^ 'Eamway,uF-.m^ - v 'mc'c g!'.s- "'neuc.r"'^cop^nc='i COF6HUCp...baF:V^Ft.'cioa^verde PiY roama T,yrc wrom3 m 0cfa arep-+yo=^,:^c.'si ^eoa `oa3 u ue"^.{cyn uwm.s..n.s.3e ULNLCV'OOWO dow.s,a.a. «w..a.n.. YGCq^L^'O Lo^'L«C ^^94'CCE 0' P.tx^ ^'n2 ac 'o m^.qo C''qu^w^" Ee3c'w- F-FL Evmb vv'0uv aou.^ ^JC ^ E ^ n" tv. in V 4.G, R"c3,c^^. c ^o rs.e `s ^m EFEten. ga,^,q^n^:c L^o, m a n.ee?myevp.^ro `rs ymo'3o'-' wo='cei' a4 3 aa F c'4m,a weud.fn OOV v+^ M^.'CAmF' Ca ^.ct-.^,:nvmw..^ u s^.fw.u«oa8 ` m'^.^ nae^o v.t a=aawfo o^ >,op.o47f.aw'-v^ rown w a e D EN u ^ 'o.c ^ ^'i eue.o^i"c^p $c.s..e"^t^^^-'^ c ^,8 pfw^rai44,m^^i^.'e"n a'y9 ^..'dwvfi'^yf Ve^'^YiiEEuvwCn.M_QVICNTIVdVN b ^ 08. '^,c^cc^'c`n>' ^ «^pdc^r^1^'^.pwwod=_anycw^[ L 'sc^aun'aqc^gewu3dtg^ca^^ic. ^.CL^^L^y =c t^i'o^ T a..a.y^vwiry = a ^^6 ' L O^ m yg..v^^g I-^R^ddn^ q y^elmf3n'.'? 'Yi`mCxg N..m M CrC.^:DE..u N6«H a.^n^^. V E0.iO^i. q^ofnynmev

236 Traficauti, Gains go before OaKbill jury Page 1 of 2 Traficanti, Gains go before Oakhill jury Friday, March 19, 2010 By PETER H. M.ILLIK.EN milliken@vindy.com YOUNGSTOWN Two Mahoning County officials spent a few hours with a grand jury and the special prosecutors probing the county's purchase of Oa'khill Renaissance Place. Anthony T. Traficanti, ehainnan of the county commissioners, and Prosecutor Paul J. Gains both appeared. Gains spent about two hours and Traficauti about an hour with the jurors. Thursday's appearance by special prosecutors Dennis P. Will and Paul M. Nick was their third known presentation of evidence to the graud jury - the others having occurred Feb. 11 and Feb where all proceedings are secret Traficanti was escorted to and from the grand jury by Detective Gary Snyder of the Mahoning County Sheriff's Department. Gains anived alone at the grand jury about 1 p.m., just moments after Traficanti left, and Gains left alone. Shortly after the grand jurors departed from their extended session, Will and Nick leff the county courthouse without commenting shortly after 3:30 p.ni: No indictments concerning Oakhill were announced. The investigation began with an October 2007 letter from Gains to the Ohio Ethics Commission, which voted to launch the Oaldaill probe two months later. At Gains' request, the county's common pleas judges appointed Will and Nick as special prosecutors in. November Will is the Lorain County prosecutor, and Nick is the Ohio Ethics Commission's chief investigative counsel. Gains said then that the special prosecutors would be independent of his office and that their probe would concern possible criminal violations of Ohio's ethics law related to conflict of interest The story of Oakhill dates back nearly four years to the county's purchase of the five-story former hospital complex in U.S. Bankru.ptcy Court. littn:/lwww.vindv.com/news/2010/mar/19/traficanti-eains-eo-before-oakhill-iurv/?orint 3/19/2010

237 Traficanti, Gaiuzs go before Oarhill jury Page 2 of 2 Coimuissioner John A. McNally IV was the sole dissenter wlaen Commissioners Anthony T. Traficanti and David N. Ludt voted to buy Oakhill, which is the former Fornm Health Southside Medical Center. Citing concerns about unknown costs of buying, operating and maintaining the complex, McNally and county Auditor Michael V. Sciortino and then-county Treasurer John B. Reardon pnblialy opposed the purchase. As the county's Department of Job and Family Services ended its 19-year tenancy at Garland Plaza ou the city's East Side and moved to Oakhill, Garland's owner, the Cafaro Co., unsuccessfully sued to reseind the county's purchase of Oakhill. On the very day a bankruptcy judge approved the county's Oakhill purchase in July 2006, McNally, Sciortino and Reardon met with Anthony M. Cafaro Sr., who was then president of the Cafaro Co., in Cafaro's office, Reardon testified during the July 2007 trial of that lawsuit. At the end of that trial, Visiting Judge R.ichard M. Markus ordered Sciortino to issue the county's $75,000 check for the Oakhill purchase, which Sciortino had withheld for a year. Sciortino complied. Sciortino, McNally and county Treasurer Lisa A. Antonini confumed they received subpoenas directing them to turn over Oakhill-related documents and correspondence to the county grand jury in April At the end of 2009, Anthony M. Cafaro Sr. and his brother, John J_ Cafaro, who had been company vice president, announced their retirement and placed the company in the hands of Anthony's sons, William A. and Anthony Jr., as co-presidents, jury/?print 3/19/2010

238 The Vindicafior - Thursday, A ri ^=- ^ ^ounty ^r^nd ^^y hears more evidencfl 0U'0a.khijl.purchase ByPETERIi.MILLIKSN mfitliken@'vindy.com 'YOUNGSTOWN A Mahoning County gralid 7'ury spent all day Thursdayhearin.gevidence presented by special prosecirtors probing potential conflicts of interest related to the county's purchase of Oakhill Renaissance Place. No indictments, howev er, were announeed after the grandjury session. It was the fifth known presentation to the grand jury, siilce February by special prosecutors Dennls P. Will, who is the Lorain County prosecutor, and Paul M. Nick, chief investigative counsel ivith the OIIioEthicsComtnission. Thegrand}' urypreviou'sly had heard from the special prosecutors on Feb. 11 and 25, March 18 andapnl B. Key figures who have 41nUiCA70RfILEPR070 Oakhill Renaissance Place. home to many Mahonlrig County offices on Oak Hili AvenueittYoungstown,wasthe focus of a Mahoning County grand Thursday session all day ers; County Administrator George J. Tablack; and County prosecutor Paul J. Gains. No suchhigh-profiie public figuxes were seen entering Thursday's grand appeared at prevtous esslon grand jury sessions with 1uAssthey left the grand the special prosecutors ju ssionatabout4 p.m., have included Anthonẏ ^^ T. Traficanti, chairman of ^e OAKHILL, A4 the county.commission-

239 panyingthernwheeledbankez'sboxes prosecut.ors. full of docuinents out of the visit ing Central to the Oakhiil matter is tb con&uadfi-omal OAKRILL judge courtroom in the county court- public opposition to the county's pu NickandWHldeclinedtocommenton house where the grand juryheard chaseofoakhillexpressedbycount Thursday's presentation. Commissioner7ohnA, McNaLlyIV, th whetherthursday'ssessionconcluded The session differed from the spe-^,soie dissentingconiinissionex; Count their pzesenta#ion of evrdence to the cial prosecutors' earlier visits in that Auditor Michael V. Sciortino, and the grandjuryorwhentheymtghze thegrandjury sg'entthefulldayh'ear- CountylYeasurerJohnB.Reardbn. AllgrandjurySessionsaFCSecret gtheirevrdenceanddidnothear McNally,SciortinoandReardonsai NjckandWiIlleft L nettestrat y other criminal cases presented. theyopposed.thepurc'hasebecauset ford, chief of the' civ ivision oning Count^s assistant pros- uncertain costs of buqing, operatin Mahoning County prosecutots office; ecutots earlier in the day. 4nd maintaining the fdrmer #rospifi 1 O khiil a is the fonnerforut and one ofber secretarfes. ^e grand jury met wednesday to comp ex The prosecutors and those accom- consider matters gfesented by local HealthSouthsideMedipalCenter.

240 p Grand jury extension ordered by judge Thursday, April 22, 2010 By PETER H. MILLIKEN milliken,vind y. com YOUNGSTOWN Special prosecutors investigating potential conflict of interest in Mahoning County's purchase of Oakhill Renaissance Place need more time. Following the investigators' request, Judge James C. Evans of Mahoning County Common Pleas Court issued an order Wednesday extending the grand jury beyond its previously scheduled April 29 termination. He did not put a time limit on the extension. A person familiar with the investigation told The Vindicator, however, that felony charges are being presented to the grand jury for its consideration. A new grand jury will convene May 6 to hear new routine local criminal cases, while the extended grand jury will hear evidence only from the special prosecutors, said Judge Maureen A. Sween.ey, who will become the grand jury judge May 1. Special prosecutors Paul M. Nick, chief investigative counsel with the Ohio Ethics Commission, and Dennis P. Will, Lorain County prosecutor, estimated in their motion for an extension that they need no longer than six additional weeks to present their evidence. "The reason for the requested extension is to allow for continuity in the presentation of evidence to one grand jury," the special prosecutors wrote. Shortly after they were appointed on Nov. 17, 2008, Will and Nick said both of their offices suffered budget euts that affected staffing levels and their ability to complete their tasks as specialproseeutors. Once their presentation of evidence to this grand jury began, limited time was available for scheduling of their appearances, they said. The special prosecutors said they are still receiving information they subpoenaed.

241 "It is irnperative that, in order to ensure due process to any individuals involved in this matter, that the same grand jury consider all pertinent information," Will and Nick wrote. Will and Nick cited a th District Court of Appeals decision saying a grand jury can.be kept in session for up to nine nionths if prasecutors offer a good reason for'the extension. Will and-nick have presented evidence to the grand jury on five known oecasions since February, most recently last Thursday. The county bought Oakbill in U.S. Bankruptey Court in 2006 and moved its Department of Job and Family Services there the following year. Oakhill is the former Forum Health Southside Medical Center. Central to the Oak- bill matter is opposition to the purchase expressed by county Commissioner John A. McNally IV, the sole dissenting commissioner; county Auditor Michael V. Sciortino; and tlien county'1'reasurer Jobn B. Reardon. McNally, Sciortino and Reardon said they opposed the purchase because of uncertain costs of buying, operating and maintaining thc complex. The three met with Anthony M. Cafaro Sr., then president of the Cafaro Co., in Cafaro's office the day the countybought Oak-hill. Cafaro, the landlord for the county's Department of Job and Family Services in Garland Plaza on the city's East Side, unsuccessfully sued the county in an attempt to rescind the Oakhill purchase.

242 Prosecutors revisit grand jury in probe of akhill purchase By Peter H. Milliken Friday, April 30, 2010 Oakhill Renaissance Place By PETER H. MII,LII{BN YOUNGSTOWN Special prosecutors probing potential confli.ets of interest concerning the dispute over Mahoning County's purchase of Oakhill Renaissance Place made their sixth known presentation to the county grand jury Thursday. Earlier presentations by special prosecutors Dennis P. Will, Lorain County prosecutor, and Paul M. Nick,chief investigative counsel for the Ohio Ethics Commission, were Feb. 11 and 25, March 18 and April 8 and 15. The grand jury produced a shqrtlist of routine local criminal indictments Thursday, but no Oakhill-related indictments have been announced. Detective Gary Snyder, a Mahoning County deputy sheriff working with the special prosecutors, and two other men were seen wheeling a flatbed douy loaded with banker's boxes full of documents into the courthouse's south entrance about 9:45 a.m. Thursday. The special prosecutors remained in the courthouse after the grand jurors left in mid-afternoan. The grand jury, whose regular four-month term was set to expire Thursday, has been extended indefinitely by order of Judge James C. Evans of Mahoning County Common Pleas Court at the request of the special prosecutors.

243 Will and Nick said they wanted the extension "to allow for continuity in the presentation of evidence to one grand jury" and estimated that they needed no longer than an additional six weeks to present their case..after this week, the new grand jury, which will convene for four months of weekly sessions beginning next Thursday, will hear routine local criminal matters, and the extended grand jury will hear only from the special prosecutors, said Judge Maureen A. Sweeney, who will become grand jury judge next week. The county bought Oakhill in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in 2006 and moved its Department of Job and Family Services there the following year. OakhiIl is the former Forum Health Southside Medical Center. Central to the Oakhill matter is opposition to the purchase expressed by county Commissioner John A. McNally IV, the sole dissenting commissioner; county Auditor Michael V. Sciortino; and then county Treasurer John B. Reardon. McNally, Sciortino and Reardon said they opposed the purchase because of uncertain costs of buying, operating and maintaining the complex. The three met with Anthony M. Cafaro Sr., then president of the Cafaro Co., in Cafaro's office the day the county bought Oakhill. Cafaro, who was the landlord for JFS in Garland Plaza on the city's East Side, unsuccessfully sued the county in an attempt to rescind the Oakhill purchase. 05/04/ jury-in-probe-/7print

244 The Vindicator - Thu.rsday, May 27, 2010

245 LM:nlrewnf.n sikgl'rmla he Vinbicator IrRtt)AY JUN114,2010 5Q0 ) h l grand jury exlen ed 0July 30 nyvm'snx.dstcuusrr alieiglrtofdremsfgnedandfiled thefiratextansiontoallowforcon- safdhewasnyf+unifiarwithtt+ede- cnses, mtl!)kn+eolaanrwn '1lmcsdaysaidthiawouldbethe tinultyoftheaviderm presenta- milsoftlmcaseinvolvingoakhikf, Focexamplqhenntedt hate YOUNCSLOWN secondandhnalextensian. nonbeforeutesamagmndjary. whichtstheformerfoiuml9cohh ti a'al^grrarobfncycomieiontfn MahoningCOUnty'seiglxcvm- Thegmndjury'soriginally floweventbeirmotlonaxpress- SoutlrsideMedicaiCantcc p g P rve d that C.Y. hogngountygova cnmamfor man-plcasjudgeshav unanischeduiadfour-monthrermwas ingrheidratlonnlesforthesecond 18mv ver,heogse maualyagreedtaoxlendthegmnd toexpireap[il3qbutapedaipros- exfinsfonlsnotapubiicdocu-cxtanslonsaremomcontmanfor almosttwoyears. dc jucy mbfngpotenlfeleciminal aautondenmsp.lnillandpauim. menysaid%athimcnabbwelsh, federaygfendjuriastl[anforthose 5ome[imes. con0ctsofiiuerestlnthecauntys Nickaskedforandreceivedfrom chfefdeputydttkofcourts.all inohio'sconunon-pkeascourt5 jsabvio^irsilywjattyouhaveolerc' purches of0akhiubenaissance [hejudgesanmaen.aonthrough grandjuryproceadfngsaresucmt. becausefedemlgrandjuriesmoro i d LewisRara,nCaseWesternRe- commonlyhandlacompyaxnrajo[ pleceumilluly90. T rurs ay. SeeOAKHItL.a4 entry that Wilf and Nrrksaid they wanted scrve Un7versiry Imv pmfassor. fraud and guvcmmentcarruptiun But the judgment Cafaro's lawyer: $10,000 was loan nyb[+tnnn.mlturcen nardnnhv4r,dlrmvs pevgunu Tire 910,000 lohn l. Cafaro was accused of illegally giv{ng forthsbenafitofhfs dauginelsfil-fatcdcon esalonalcampzign purting m eleations offioials wastntendedasalonnmher - campaignmena gertopay his law-schooi tuitfon degt, CaWrosdefensefawyersafd ^ inaraurtng. ^ro. 56, of Hublta. ',9faro.6o.presviD be santenced at g TLesdayby VS. Ustr Judge RatUleen O'Malleyin6Teveland. Ca[nro pfeaded guilty to making a False s[ateman[ coacaraing a contribution 8a gavetotthal>enedtofthe -04 Congrassionatcam- 20 of7sisdzughter,capri o of Liberty, D32nd, who fs nheolrfo Senate minoritylaeder. John Cafaro caused his daughter's campaign committee to falsely report to the FederalEleccafuro tion Cumnrtsston that he had given only 32A00 to her carnpaign, when, In faa, he gave an addiuonai By0,000inth formorayoan to Robcrt f.5dmeigor of Columbus far Che campaign s benepit, the U.S. ntrorney sa1d.t4ei. limit fa cnmpaigngihs individualsis 52,000. Tlsneidet' Cafam tearrmd tuatsciruerga5knownasbj. 9cbuargc, was concerned tha[ if he Uecame campa ign managar xnd hnl[ed his law amdies at Ohio 5mte Vnlversitq, ha wuld face a sfgnificantouligalionto[epzy his atudent 3ians, the detense Ilingsaid. Tirerefom. IJ.. un â aaerajl)s and witbout We knowledg ofanyone efsa ax ^-tated whh the cam- -anetlmr.schuerger dlt for CrcncerJnff.ffes mdttectum4ftkrc ncencm1eckshiabineatweatminstervres JoseMWina, riding irom B Wiec Pa, 4K ior Ca ncet, a nenpmlit group of 26 bicyc5st is trzvetin, thisweekandendmgju1y311nbnnfnnqsea uyocnisemac denru,.rl ifui Apean ltr)drbmnpr r'^y WL-NTY-CyGi'.T cotlega students bike mflas over 63 days to raise funds. fostor Impe VIDEO 4GOOnNnetoNnOy.com tosao evitleoon th6 slery, TODONATE 1Gato4kforaancer.or8 xnd spread awareness andcasey'ssecond. aboutcencer. My Inom is a Hod^- The cyclists in tlt 4K kiris lymphomn surv - for Cancer, mosdy stu- vor," Casey suid of he[ dents at )ohns Hopkins Involvemcna Vnlvcrsity. Macyland. Two of Medina's aloae starteddreirjourneysun- frlands made the trip in daylrombaltimore. 20oBandlastyeaeMedi- TheystoppsdThuraday nas grandmotherdied of aramoono[westmnster auramtumm,andaclose PresUyterianChurehin relativedicdgombreast Bonrdman to eat snacks cancer.hesaid. and db[ner provided by Frank riiddle, a cuurur ehutacfy members end to memuec said the church spendthenigh[. open ditsdoorstofeed They'll wrap up their and house the oycllsts crekjuly37.atsanfrancfs- four years sgo and bas cosgoldcogategridge. continueditsince. losemedina,21.ofmi- Weanjoyhavin g them am6 and K[istlna Casey. here." he said. "Ali of our Z2,ofBernardsvgle,N.)., peopleinthechuait,pre, s lolr irz YaGlq), on ci»ss-cafncr)r 17'e1> vuinwauwnlmrr,x reh m aoaaman on Tbursdny sfarliog3n Balltmore nrl Sherff I lowers layoffs by 21 Niinimum-secul ity jail toretnain Cl05efl nym^ltenn.tdlcuatrv 1/llAanENaMjtPolN YOUN(iSTdxN Mahomng Couniy Shcriff Dandail A. Wellingron saidthelayoffreductiansln his dcpartmcnt were mad2 possibie by discussfons hotween the county ndministrator and the county's bondconnsaltoresiruclvre thecountysdebt 7heslrer4ffhas rescindud 7 the IayoFfs of 21 deputyes thatwaufdhavemkeneffect 5lrnday. They wcte aman g Bfi depulies and lwo dviiians to whnm hryoff natkes were mailed May 21 because of the county 's receasfon- InducedbudgM ISis. Baaed on the originaf total of g6 layoffs, thc sherfff sald tiretounty's jail capaony was being reduced from the previous5l12 prisoners tn 252, but thc rescindingof211a yoffswiil allow the main jofl to irold up[o4121nlnates. Tiu minimum-secnrity jail. which was ci sed 'n mid-may, will remain cfosed.besaid. Yha choriffaaitt discuesions bettveen eount p Administrata[ Genrgc ). Tnblackandthebondcvunsel involved «structuring thecountysdebttoachfeve what Tablack refarred 10 as a loop-term budgetary i "oah^ngeffecc" gm 7ablack nated that the threr:-yaar tederai Jvdges' order, wbich settled an inmate lawsuit cosreernbyg Jail crowding and which required county-jnilfacilitius to remain fully open and staifed. did no[ espf re

246

247

248 Add^tAanal Conarnents I'osted By "atmwnredux" Acting JFS director sticks up for Oakbill It is appreciated that Miss Genetin cleared up the obvious scam by this labor leader who is on somebody's christmas card list besides the labor union. To call the building decrepit is nonsense as anyone who has toured the facility can attest. Decrepit sums up Garland Plaza quite well and to compare the too is ludicrous at best. Having a riendly neighbor that has worked for JFS for over 13 years, she is an unbiased person and said that Oak Hill has turned out wonderfully for the department overall. Burfords use of hyperbole is suspect as well. Filled with snakes, mice and insects?? How about occassionally spotted and dealt with immediately snakes, mice and insects. Guess what? Every building from Youngstowii to Boardman has that occasional snake, mice and insect problems, welcome to NE Ohio if you are new. I believe that Oakhill will be a smart move in the future and costs have been grossly exagerated by people. just in the 3 years they have been there, there has been over I and a half million dollars in rent savings from the decrepit Garland Plaza. June 18, 2010 at 9:53 a.m. permalink suggest removal Off'icials react to Oakhill dissent Cassie, to your knowledge, what DID McNally, Sciortino, and Reardon recommend they do? That is also probably a very good question, Why DID they not get Oakhill as a gift? Was it really Laziness or something else? Actually my next door neighbor IS an employee at JFS at Oakhill, has been with them for 13 years and says that Oakhill is 5,000 times better than her entire time at Garland. May 29, 2010 at 12:10 p.m, permalink suggest removal

249 CLERK OF COURTS fvyahoning COUNTY, OHIO IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO UN Q FlLE ANTHONY ViVg CLERK CASE NO. 10 CR OPEN IN RE:MOTION FOR ) EXTENSION OF GRANDJURYTERM ) JUDGMENT ENTRY ) ) This matter came before the Court this 2"d of June, 2010, on the Motion of the Special Prosecutors to extend the term of the January 2010 term of the Mahoning County Grand Jury for the second time solely for the purpose of completing the investigation of the acquisition of the Oak Hill Renaissance Place and presentment to the Grand Jury. After consultation with Prosecutors Paul M. Nick and Dennis P. Will and for good cause shown, it is the Order of this Court that the Grand Jury term is extended until July 30, 2010, at which time the Grand jury term shall terminate. This Court previously extended the term of said Grand Jury from May 1, 2010 until June 3, No further extensions shall be granted. It is further the order of this Court that the appointed special prosecutors continue to serve without compensation as previously ordered by this Court. Judge. Judge James Evans shall preside over the extended grand jury. Judge Maureen Sweeney shall assume all other duties of the Grand Jury Judge R. Scott Krichbaum udge Theresa Dellick ^ A / E^g R^] ^. ^^\^`^ ^./ Judge Ma "linky ^ ^-R ^9 `^

250 m p >w o S^ m d^hg'd^a^ W 0n^ y M E >U S ^^^} Z.G ^ 1. Y atv^^a'o -gn O ^+ T TVJ ^"' M^ +^ T.. T^ J o G q^ q E V yn yn- w^ 8 0 tlf m N W `^%V^Shc9 't^ w m G.Q V a ^ 6 f^'-^ ' m.n c,,$ Vgm go ^'a ^ O 9 R ^-3`s 1 'g 9 a.tg oe :'gvuor _ d^mv c m^y^"' ^..C 0 q '' ;^y, o ' 3 '^J' o U d o. m^.c': vi GmOU ^ w"^ OmWq^T NCt^m -gf'^ T^ ^ ^-^ ^ oln E w u^' ^^ w ^ ^..wq,f^ ^ ^ ^' ^ Ero;sb 6^v ^.:.--'ra, o O-y ^ C'mC.n ^.gaa l f ^1^vi e;l 6 q^ o^'^^^^^'p^ ^ ^ ^ m c^ ^'a^ ^ S ` $ o ^ + `j m., A_, y. m ^^^g^x^ ^^^^ Ei^NoG ^w^ C^ ^!. 2 ^ o C p 'ab'el i. O^^ ^ c i^ aa i.+^m.^ y5 YN ^ T r,oy yn m a: 'f,^ci Y ^E.2 o^^^ m!g^,a. ^'m ie ^m.,,d o^g C^ w EXHiBIT 2010 CR 00800

251 OA'KHILL C.oyirrusd frurra a TT13,-'.vll!`7'JTCA'`l'1^ -Tthe Oalchill grand jury, it pains me not Yo be able to say anything to anyone. I ^'ust wanted cliarged with criminai con- ^amsanetsadc an.d ntltatyouare spiracy to prevent or delay the exactly rightin your axxalysis. courityjob & FamilyServices p,leasekeephitti.ngthishard. nqsve from Cataro Co: ogvned rerited qtia.rters to Oakhill ltenalssanceplace. xhecottnxy bou. giitoakhill In 20U6 and movedjfsthere in July2UQ7. Plora. C afaro and Prtty:lVfar tin Yakrorcik are cha'rged wiith moneylauzidering W connactron wrtlx a caacealed gift of "1 am so afraid that what we did will end up ^ohig noivheteax ldgetlostin politicsas tusual' 1n rbe Mahoning VaIley. t4re were ordinar}^ people appallsd a'twhat undue infiuexce cost the citizens of Mahoaaing County,. Please keep, up the goodworlc." The na.ue grand jurors, who sys,ooo,investigators allage she liad Iseen iri session. for seqen gave to Yavorcik's unsuccess- months, d'elzberated onjuly f[i1 icbtl,.? a'^paign for coturty pg before uiranimouslq z^oi uxg piosuquipx;.. thatdxyirifalorofai173counts thoaafazo lawyers allege.'intheitidicunent. that txx`e ano,nymous letter tn The Cafaro motion says the clutjed ^ix a Sept. 29 coluxnn anonymous letter.tivas written by edit ia1 wfitexherttam ft ;'to supporttlie opinions of'z7ae SouzaatidLheetinsly.compost; p^rcraor'sdeeplybiasedcbief mgs Eg.^±?eal snfo> zxiatroal t.hat columnisi Bertram de Sotiza oxhlya;^zkjurar d.x.sapre^i ie aud toxally f+xtxu e (trial] jurors knowiei3ge of t'he to convict the defendants that gra ul-juiy proceedings could tlie g^rand juay charged: 'f he know. Oaldzill caimin<l jua'y tnalis sct The ananyinous letter to de tobegiu7une 6, Zt111. Souza:ihanks lurri for a Sept. 5 The moticm aslcs Judge Wnifi calumntitled"oakhillisnoton to.dothefollowing: trial" andsays: ".As amennber of: 8^ Appaint a neutral Iact yer to ind.ependeutly investigate to identify the wrrter of the letter The Vtrictziaror printed Sept.3.;9 "to deterinine if an action should be brought or prosecuted." That special investigatorwould be empowered tio tztrieve orsubpoena for Fudge Wolff's inspection the osiginal grand juror letter and its envelope and any oth'er document:s provided by the anonymous grand juror. o Obtain or subpoena frorn 772e Vindicsitor or the Internet vendor servicing Vindy. com the Icteutitv ofthe commentator fur judge Wolff to determine whether that coiriinen.tator was a menxber ofthe grand-jury hearing the Oaldxill case. ^ Order preparatlon of transcrlpt5 of the secrecy oatii given to the Oakltill grand juxor:s and any instructtons tbey received canc:erning secrecy for the judge's secret inspection. ^ "Instruct the offending grand juror or persoti ex posed to grand-jury information of their continuing secrecy obligations under thelaw:" o Ensur-e that no ftuther disclosures of goatx.d-jur, f in.formation occur vitl iout the judge's aitthozi7atian. In their res^onse, also fiied unde. rsealpridayand.disclosed Tltesday, tbe.oakhill special! prosecutors cite Rule 613 of the Oh.lo rules of criminal procedurz, wllich refers tq a sacrecy obigation.,befo.re axi indictmenti.srnadepublic. "Even federal law haslong recdgni'ze'd that the heed for secrecy is relaked pdst-indictmerit,' wrote Oakhill special prosecutots Dennis P. Wrill, Paul Nick and. Anthony P. Cillo. Judge Wqlffhas set alaearhtg requested by the prosecutors on the secrec}3 issue for 9 a-m. Oct. 14 in Mahoni.ng County Commo;tJ'leas Court Prfter'the Oakhill indictment was filed, T77e TTiiacZica- i Cor sought and received per-? mission from Tudgo Jain.es C. Evans, tf.e grand-juxy judge, } toi.nterviewmtdtael`i'.h.eher, grand-juryforeinan,concern- I ingdetails oi:`the Oakhill case. Halter declined to grant thri interview. lin^ ^^ ^^ seek disclosure - public records I^y^i attrt.mt^ititrt^ ' Oakhil2 RenaissamePlace- special proseclrtors in the fornted at Oakhill since the.; crttmbe,rftin,ty.carn In response to the fawyer's OaEchili criintnal case, but eountybdughttt Ctpf,UNBU^g public-records request, Gains Stratford, his. civil division. "We gavc them over 8,000.^iawyerforCafaroCoaf- saidliebadnorecordsofcom- chref,wasfzcquentlyseen pages,"gau?ssaid Wegave f"diates has filed two marida- municationsbetv.reetj hts staff u,ttlxthose speaalprosecutors $xem evetything fhat we bemr.ts actions with the Ohio Si- and g and juryjudge James C. at oa.k:lailt grand Iux'y sessions lleve that we have thacis sub- ^ preinecatrzt askingthatcourt Svans concem.mg the Oakixill earlier tliisyear jecf tp Iae pubtic records lav, to centpel Mahanisag County 'nd gra jury or between Ga9ns' In his tltlaer raandamus ac- Gait^.s added. Proseeutor Paul J. C^ap?s and 'staffand tbe Oalchilt grand ju- tion, Mccaf rey conipiatned 'tf they have documents ^ C;^ina 'P,ricker, an assistaii.t rms Brtcker drdir't pro^tle tlxe fol thatithey claim exast that we countyprosecutor,toftdflllthe McCaffr.ey also protested Iav.angrecFOiYlsinrespoYis&to tla^:nrtprovide, [beyshould lac^ er'srequest for disclosure Gains' withholding of calen- juspubhc $ecordsreques tdeiatxfy' thosg dtrcuriierits; of public.mcords t.oncerning dars of Crhins, 6ricker and Lir ^ Throatezzed or pe^dtng at^d we 11 jop7^ ^or tltem, Oa&hill I?enalssan eplace nette Srtatford, another as.sis- clarrix,s b^ county ep1:,^oy G^^ises s^^d "Ehe have twthing T Y ze 1 la F vyer, N[ JC o xntant countp prosecutor, from eesrrooii:iri,gatoak]i`zilstn^s to,'jj^me. fiey of Cleyeland, is one o tixe Nav. 1., 2008, to the pzesent, ilae couniry acquireti Oakh 3i^cGalffey de^lfd ro. an- Iawyers defending the Ohio and Gains rellrsal to.provid e 111ux24A.'b': CepAx(er s rguestions, trailey Mall Co. and the Mar- zds reco of rand-'us g l... yteiat^ ^^^^^tt costs Far doifn- sayshg a3j hl ttblic j.p corn- ionir.laza lnc. in acriminal complalnts geaerited by or ^:tyagenc^eslhassx^aclto art entspirn^erui^}.he(?akhiyl case, in whi.ch prosecutors al- tiled against hiso#ticao} staf E Oakhxll,. how ^lxe vac7atecl niattn^^ ^uld be tnade.i^ fi1- I lege those co.mpanies and six Gains' refusal to li^iiuce space 5s rrotv hetn'g,used, m^s ttpeourt:docurgxents arid atherdefendantsconspired those calendars and cons andtheanc.oznearidopet ina^epaotrit,: to prevent or delay the move piairies is xnx alad atxl_dek rhe attng cq5ts',f4z the vacated jd^s^af11^1 he C^t aro Go s diof the couruy's Llepartment of Ohio Fublic Reetsrtls V1c space Isefore and aftor tlre reb^o^j fcortiai^te commitnijob and Famih>Servic:es fmm CafEr eysa'sd. rel 'gatcori; c^1t^s also det lined Eo com- Cafaro. Co.-&wwned rented. Gitins requeste[1 the ajz A;',F1re t^xn;ing and' ac5ats af r^e#t.trecause'the Oakhril quart erstot-hecounty-owned pointment ofi,ndependent aziy^aaidscapingwoikoer- niatterispendhxgincourt.

252 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO CLERFC<)t.fF(t5 MRIiONENG C^Ut^,._. ^ i0 ^ AUG S'.CATE OF OHIO Vs. Plaintiff 2010 CR B August 3, 2010 TUDGEMENT ENTRY OI'LIO VALLEY MAIS. COMPANY Defendant The wi.tbin cause was assigned to Couxtxoom # 5. Given the cases 10 CR 800 (A-1) involves past and present elected officials and local attorneys ftom Mahoning County, a conflict exists which requires the Judges of the General Division of the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court to tecuse themselves from the above captioned case, and requests that the Ohio Supreme Court xeassign this matter to a Visiting Judge. JUD SCOTI I^RIGFTBAUM JUDG john M. DURKIN pn^-- E1A4 SG.AV ^ OV (_4y4=1 32 IIlIIInIfIIIffI^11^I^IIf1111^^IIIIN^IIII^^ 2010 CR U0H00 B p002bs649e4 ar.auo JUDG EN.A. SWEENEY UDGE F OTI A. D'APOLITO CLERK: COPY `f0 ALL COUN"s-EL OR UNREPRESENTED PART`E'.

253 FILED UNDER SEAL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS GENERAI. DIVISION IVIA,HOIV'ING COUNTY, OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO vs. ANTHONY M. CAFARO, SR. and THE CAFARO COMPANY and OHIO VALLEY MALL COMPANY and THE IVIARION PLfl7'.A, INC and JOHN A. McNALLY, IV and JOHN REARDON and MICHAEL V. SCIORTINO and JOHN ZACz-TARiAH and MARTIN YAVORCIK and FLORA CAFARO JUDGE Wiltiam H. Wolff, Jr. CASE NOS CR oo8oo 2oio CR oo8oo A 2010 CR oo8oo B 2010 CR oo8oo C 2010 CR oo8oo D 2010 CR oo8oo E 2010 CR oo8oo F 2010 CR oo8oo G 2010 CR oo8oo H 2010 CR oo8oo I SUPPLEMENT TO BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO JOINT MOTION OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS REGARDING GRAND JURY SECRECY AND REQUEST FOR HEARING 1. The Court Lacks Authority to Appoint a "Special Investigator 0 to Investigate Allegalions of a Grand Juror Violating His Oath under Crun. R. 6(E). In their Joint Motions, Defendants Authony M. Cafaro, Sr., F"lora Cafaro, The Cafaro Company, Ohio Valley Mall Company, and The Marion Plaza, Inc. (hereinafter "Defendants") move The Court to appoint a disinterested member of the bar pursuant to R.C to conduct an independent investigation. In effect, Defendan ^ts move EXHIBIT Jt. Rec. Ex. 17 c^evelano. OHIO

254 for The Court to appoint a special prosecutor. For the following reasons the Court lacks that authority. The Court sits on this case as a visiting judge pursuant to the Guidelines for Assignment of Judges, Guideline io(a). Although fully possessed of responsibility to oversee this case to its conclusion, The Court is not a"judge" within the meaning of R.C , which vests in the court of common pleas discretion to appoint prosecutorial counsel in criminal matters. That section states that "the court of common pleas... may appoint an attorney to assist the prosecuting attorney in the trial of a case pending in such court." Id.; see also State ex rel Williams v. Zaleski (1984), 12 Ohio St. 3d iog, 112, 465 N.E.2d 861. There are then two related arguments which operate together to produce the result that the Court cannot appoint a special prosecutor. As a visiting judge, the Court's authority extends only to the confined limits of Case No CR oo8oo. See Guidelines for Assignment of Judges, Guideline io(a) and ii(a). Because appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate allegations that a grand juror violated their oath of secrecyf would necessarily entail creation of a new investigation into a new subject (the grand juror(s) supposedly responsible), the matter exceeds the limits of the Court's specific grant of authority. See Guidelines for Assignment of Judges, Guidelines io(a) and iz(a); see also Sup. R. s.t Moreover, R.C says that a court of common pleas may appoint an attorney to assist in prosecuting a case "pending in such court." R.C (emphasis added). The investigation of a grand juror or jurors who allegedly violated t A matter more properly the subject of a contempt proceeding in the court of the judge who supervised that term of the grand jury. 2

255 their oath of secrecy under Crim. R. 6(E) is not a matter currently pending before this Court. Not only is the case not one of those included in the assignment of the Court, but the matter is not a case before any court in the State of Ohio. At this point, even the regular judges of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas would lack authority to appoint assistants to aid in prosecuting the'matter. Additionally, Defendants' motion urging the Court to appoint a special prosecutor under R.C must fail because Defendants do not indicate on what basis they believe the office of the Mahoning County Prosecutor to be vacant, or the Mahoning County Prosecutor absent, interested in the action in quo warranto or disabled. R.C ; State ex rel. Thomas v. Kane (1989), 43 Ohio St. 3d 164, 539 N.E.2d Defendants similarly fail to establish a special need for the Court to appoint a special prosecutor. The Offfice of the Mahoning County Prosecutor is not conflicted in investigating the individual or individuals in question in the same manner as they felt conflicted to request a special prosecutor to prosecute Defendants. Because there is no apparent conflict between the supposed grand juror and the Mahoning County Prosecutor's Office, it would be inappropriate for the Court to appoint a special prosecutor and thereby usurp the authority and discretion of the Mahoning County Prosecutor. State v. Ross (In re Disqualification of Cirigliano) (2oo4), xo5 Ohio St. 3d 1223, 2004 Ohio 7352, at 1[ i6 (citing State v. Bunyan (3rd Dist. 1988), 51 Ohio App. 3d i9o, 192, 5s5 N.E.2d 98o (where the duly elected prosecutor felt unable to carry out his prosecutorial duties against the defendant, the court of common pleas possessed authority to appoint a special prosecutor)). For these reasons, Defendants' motion must be denied. 3

256 U. The Comments of the Alleged Grand Juror(s) Do Not Concern a 'Matter Occurring Before the Grand Jury'. Defendants claim in their Joint Motion that one or more grand jurors violated their oath of secrecy under Crim. R. 6(E) in mailing an anonymous letter and posting comments to news articles on the newspaper's website. Even though the comments were made, none rose to the level of prohibited disclosures of matters "occurring before the grand jury." Crirn. R. 6(E). Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(E) sets forth the obligations of grand jurors with respect to secrecy and provides that: Deliberations of the grand jury and the vote of any grand juror shall not be disclosed. Disclosure of other matters occurring before the grand jury may be made to the prosecuting attorney for use in the performance of his duties. A grand juror, prosecuting attorney, interpreter, stenographer, operator of a recording device, or typist who transcribes recorded testimony, may disclose matters occurring before the grand jury, other than the deliberations of a grand jury or the vote of a grand juror, but may disclose such matters only when so directed by the court preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding, or when permitted by the court at the request of the defendant upon a showing that grounds may exist for a motion to dismiss the indictment because of matters occurring before the grand jury. No grand juror, officer of the court, or other person shall disclose that an indictment has been found against a person before such indictment is filed and the case docketed. The court may directed that an indictment shall be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pursuant to Rule 46. in that event the clerk shall seal the indictment, the indictment shall not be docketed by name until after the apprehension of the accused, and no person shall disclose the finding of the indictment except when necessary for the issuance of a warrant or summons. No obligation of secrecy may be imposed upon any person except in accordance with this rule. 4

257 Federal law has long recognized that the need for secrecy is relaxed postindictment. See Schmidt v. United States, 115 F.2d 394 (6th Cir. 194o). The oath of secrecy grand jurors take is recognized for the following purposes: (i) To prevent the escape of those whose indictment may be contemplated; (2) to insure the utmost freedom to the grand jury in its deliberations, and to prevent persons subject to indictment or their friends from importuning the grand jurors; to prevent subornation of perjury or tampering with the witnesses who may testify before the grand jury and later appear at the trial of those indicted by it; (4) to encourage free and untrammeled disclosures by persons who have information with respect to the commission of crimes; (g) to protect the innocent accused who is exonerated from disclosure of the fact that he has been under investigation, and from the expense of standing trial where there was no probability of guilt. The basis of all but the last of these reasons for secrecy is the protection of the grand jury itself, as the direct independent representative of the public as a whole, rather than those brought before the grand jury. Id. (citing United States v. Amazon Indus. Chem. Com., 55 F.2d 254 (D. Md. 1931); see also United States v. John Doe, Inc. I, 481 U.S. io2, x1o (i987). Defendants point to seven (7) comments they believe are authored by an individual or individuals who was/were a grand juror in this case which disclose evidence or documents presented to the grand jury, the contents of the deh'berations or the vote of the grand jury. They are: 1) an anonymous letter claiming to be from "a juror" in response to an article in the Vindicator. The letter supposedly received by the Vindicator appeared in an editorial entitled "Did special prosecutors go too far?" on September 19, ) a comment on the Vindicator website from "ytownredux" arguing with previous commentators on September 20,

258 3) a comment on the Vindicator website from "ytownredux" arguing with previous commentators on August 25, ) a comment on the Vindicator website from "ytownredux" arguing with previous commentators on August 25, ) a comment on the Vindicator website from "ytownredux" remarking on the article on August 24, ) a comment on the Vindicator website from "ytownredux" remarking on the article on AugUSt 22, ) a comment on the Vindicator website from "ytownreduu" arguing with previous commentators on July 31,2010. Examining each comment in turn, the Defendants' assertions that the statements evince that a grand juror or jurors violated his or her/their oath(s) of secrecy fall shcffof violation. Anon3gmous Grand Juror Letter Defendants undertake painstaking effort to cull through the letter of the alleged grand juror to show that it is, and could only be written by, a member of the grand jury which indicted Defendants. Even though the letter opens with the author claiming to be a member of the grand jury and how it pains him to not be able to say anything, the letter goes on to say nothing of substance about the underlying merits of the case. The letter merely avers that the grand jury did not indict a ham sandwich and that the author is concerned that the case will not go anywhere and get lost in the politics of the Valley. Contrary to Defendants' suggestion, this letter does not relate to matters occurring before the grand jury. A grand juror's oath of secrecy does not prohibit 6

259 them from identifying themselves as a member of the grand jury. Crim R. 6(E). Instead, the rule merely prohibits grand jurors duly sworn from disclosing the contents of the grand jury's deliberations and the vote2 and "other matters occurring before the grand jury." Crim R. 6(E). Unlike Defendants' characterization of this letter as vouching for the accuracy of the article to which it responds, the letter does not allude to any specific evidence presented to the grand jury and refers nowhere to the deliberations of the grand jury. ln fact, contrary to Defendants' claim that the letter verifies the presentation of "other acts evidence," the letter is silent on the question. The line that "[the author is] exactly right in [his] analysis" is vague whether it refers, as the Defendants suggest, to whether the State presented other acts evidence to the grand jury or whether it refers to the comments de Souza made in the editorial about political issues and observations. In view of the other comments related to political considerations not properly before the Court in the instant case ("Please keep hitting this hard. I am so afraid that what we did will end up going no where [sic] and get lost in `politics as usual' in the Mahoning Valley."), it is equally likely that the comment does not refer to matters before the grand jury. Setting aside Defendants' claim that it is somehow an impermissible purpose for a commentator to support what Defendants characterize as a deeply-biased author of a newspaper editorial, it strains credulity to argue that the mere utterance of the phrase "politics as usual" provides a sufficient basis to believe that the letter refers to specific grand jury testimony. On the contrary, the phrase has become 2 In light of The Court's release of the fact that the grand jury unanimously (9-0) voted to indict the Aefendants in this case, that fact is no longer being secret. When discussing public information, it cannot be said that a grand juror who discloses public information violates an oath of seerecy- 7

260 common parlance in the vernacular not only of the Mahoning Valley area but of the country as a whole. Defendants' argument that the phrase refers to an impermissible disclosure of specific grand jury testimony is belied by the phrase's common usage. Simply put, nothing in the anonymous letter discloses the contents of the grand jury's deliberations or specific matters occurring before the grand jury. Even assuming the author of the letter was in fact a grand juror, that grand juror did not violate the specific command of Crim. R. 6(E). Because no other obligation of secrecy may be imposed inconsistent with that Rule, id., any action against the grand juror would amount to an unconstitutional infringement of their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Internet Postines of "ytownredux" t1s an initial matter, "ytownredux" has been contacted and interviewed by an investigator holding multiple law enforcement credentials, including that of a deputy sheriff of the Mahoning County Sheriffs department. That was done following the initial joint motion filed by several of the defendants and is one of the nine members of the grand jury which indicted the Defendants. Defendants make conclusory assertions that, based on the nature of the comments and the views expressed therein, the poster must be one of the grand jurors. Their averments layer implication and supposition upon their own speculation that because evidence must have been presented to the grand jury, the statements a person makes on a website must confirm what evidence that must have been. Contrary to Defendants' assertions otherwise, the statements made in the online posts, while not laudable, nevertheless fails to surmount the requirement that the disclosures be about `matters occurring before the grand jury'. 8

261 2) Post of september 19, 2010 Defendants aver that comment #4 to the editorial, "Did special prosecutors go too far?," appearing online is not only from a grand juror but impermissibly discloses matters occurring before the grand jury. Each of the different parts of the online post fails to disclose the substance of any matter occurring before the grand jury. "Ytownredux" does not admit to seeing the letter at any point or being its author. Instead, the comment merely states that although not impossible, it would be seriously misguided to think that the reporter made up the letter. Next, Defendants claim that the statement "I would really appreciate it if he would stop until the facts come out" somehow demonstrates that the poster is different from the other commentators. Rather than independently assert facts - which could be construed as disclosing matters occurring before the grand jury - oytown.redux" merely asks another commentator to withhold their conclusory judgment about a pending case. Even if this statement could somehow be read to suggest that "ytownredux" were positively aware of the facts of the case, Defendants attempt to prove the affirmative from a qualified negative statement. It were as though the rules of logic somehow necessitated the conclusion that because some animals are not human and Aristotle is an animal that Aristotle is therefore an elephant. That conclusion is not supported by the logical inferences reasonably drawn from the statement. The Defendants also claim that this comment's statement that the prosecution presented "overwhelming amounts of evidence" which was taken into consideration demonstrates that this person is a grand juror because only the grand jurors know of the supposed overwhelming evidence presented. This argument also misses the fact 9

262 that the statement does not identify any of that supposed overwhelming amount of evidence. Nowhere does this comment refer to specific testimony of witnesses or disclose the (ieliberations of the grand jury. It is no secret that the grand jury was held over from it's initial term and investigated the charges against Defendants for many months. Given the length of the grand jury's consideration of charges, it would be reasonable for even a public observer to conclude that the prosecution had presented voluminous evidence. What else would have occupied the time of the grand jury for so long? Finally, Defendants argue that allusions to the civil deposition transcripts from the OakHill litigation somehow demonstrate that "ytownredux" read all of the transcripts (an incorrect donclusion). Because Defendants aver that not all of the depositions were filed with the clerk of courk's office or otherwise made public, they conclude that the commentator must have been a grand juror and that the State must have offered testimony for the grand jury's consideration. This argument too relies on layering belief and inference and supposition on a thin layer of speculation. 3) Post of August 25, 2010 Defendants claim that the assertion by "ytownredux" that he or she visited the Oak Hill site and saw pictures of Garland proves that he or she was a grand juror. Even so, it seems patently clear from the newspaper reports and from the postings of other commentators that the fact that the grand jury toured the OakHill site and saw pictures of Garland was public knowledge. Additionally, Defendants point to the statement that "going from the evidence that I have seen... leads me to believe that Anthony [Cafaro] is about shoulder deep in this...:' as identifying the poster as a juror. Even so, there is no basis upon 10

263 which to believe that it implicates a matter occurring before the grand jury. Specifically, the quote does not impermissibly reveal any particular evidence "ytownredux" may or may not have considered. it is not, however, an instance of a grand juror disclosing matters occurring before the grand jury in violation of the secrecy oath under Crim. R. 6(E). 4) Second Posting of August 25, Defendants claim that the statement "the special prosecutors were very fair and balanced with the Grand Jury" demonstrates that the commentator was a grand jury. Even granting that the natural tendency of this statement is to believe that the person was in fact a grand juror, it nevertheless does not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury because it does not discuss deliberations or the presentation of actual evidence before the grand jury. It merely notes the manner or style of presentation. Crim. R. 6(E); Schmidt, 115 F.2d ) Posting of Augllst 24, Defendants aver that because there was a chronological description of events prepared for the taxpayer trial that this evidence was presented to the grand jury and therefore the only basis on which one could write about it would be i the author was a grand juror. Again, even so, the disclosure does not rise to the levfel of a matter occunnng before the grand jury. Moreover, Defendants' own argument concedes that the evidence was already public. It was offered in the taxpayer lawsuit by Mahoning County officials supporting the OakHill property. Any number of people had access to this document before it was, if ever, presented to the grand jury. Because this was not purely a matter occurring before the grand jury, even if "ytwonredux" is a grand 11

264 juror they did not violate the oath of secrecy under Crim. R. 6(E). The information was public knowledge. 6) Post on Atlgnlst 22, Defendants claim that the post asking how many people get to lobby in person in their own office dozens of time discloses that the author was exposed to information about the number and specific location of meetings. On the contrary, the post is rather vague. The post does not mention any defendant by name, does not provide anything close to a specific number of meetings and asks an interesting question. Even viewing it in a light most favorable to the Defendants, this post does not disclose a matter a occurring before the grand jury. It does not identify specific testimony or documents the grand jury reviewed, does not disclose the contents of deliberations or the vote of the grand jury, and refers to facts in the public record ascertainable from the chronology prepared by Mahoning County officials which is the subject of communication #5, the post of August 24, The posting did not disclose matters occurring before the grand jury. Therefore, there was no violation of the secrecy obligation under Crim. R 6(E). 7) Post of JuSy gi, Defendants argue that the comment that the grand jury considered all the evidence, took their time and thought (unanimously) that what they heard was criminal and should be brought to trial. This specific post doesn't reveal anything occurring before the grand jury. It says the only thing an outside observer would say. The grand jury considered the evidence presented; the grand jury took its time and listened to all the evidence that was presented; the grand jury thought that what they heard was criminal and should be brought to trial. Of course they did all of those 12

265 things: that's the very definition of what an indictment by a grand jury represents. The grand jurors found probable cause to believe that the Defendants committed the proscribed offenses and that a trial should be held. What is it about this post which avers knowledge of inside information? The post does not disclose anything occurring before the grand jury. As described above, the post is generic and does not reveal specific evidence or deliberations. It is a post-indictment opinion. The only aspect of this communication which could be a disclosure is the fact that the grand jury voted unanimously to indict, a fact which has long been public knowledge. Nothing "ytownredux" uttered in his or her posts was a "matter occurring before the grand jury." There was no Crim. R. 6(E) violation. The appropriate remedy is a limited one. See discussion infra Part III. III. Defendants' Requested Remedy is overly broad. The Appropriate Remedy is a Cautionary Instraciion to All of the Grand Jurors and an Admonishment not to comment on the case. pailurof Contempt by the Offending Grand Jurod Result in a Finding In their Joint Motion, Defendants assert that the court should appoint a special investigator/prosecutor/member of the bar to investigation their allegations that a grand juror or grand jurors violated his or her/their oath(s) of secrecy. For the reasons set forth above at Part II, the specific comments made do not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury. The disclosure is thus not prohibited by the oath of secrecy. See Crim R. 6(E). Defendants stretch to argue that these disclosures prejudice them in that if the petit jurors were to learn that the grand jury was convinced not just that the indictment was supported by probable cause but that they were convinced by enough 13

266 evidence to convict, the petit jurors might unduly rely on that information. This argument belies the realities of a trial.,turors are routinely instructed that the indictment is not evidence, that an indictment does not support an inference towards a conclusion that the defendants are guilty. The argument also misses completely the fact that the jurors would have to be aware of that specific information in order to rely on it. The only possibility that a petit juror would know such information would be if they read the comments on the Vindicator website and remember it. That possibility can be solved simply through voir dire andjor a cautionary instruction not to consider anything jurors may have heard before the case about the evidence or the opinions of others prior to trial. Defendants state at the end of their Law and Argument section that the letter editorialist represents the most dangerous of the disclosures. They to the Vindicator argue that it reveals the sentiment of the jurors during deliberations. As argued in however, the letter claiming to be from a grand juror does not disclose Part II, supra, either evidence before the grand jury or the content of their deliberations. To the extent that the letter discloses sentiment, the "appalled at what undue influence cost the citizens" line fails to rise to a level of prejudicial effect. In effect, ordering an investigation into "ytownredux's comments on the website will have the effect of seelang to punish an individual for his Vindicator speech. The right to free speech is certainly not absolute, but it is a vigorous right guaranteed by Amendment. The investigation will not just implicate the right of "ytownredux" but also the Vindicator's decisions to publish information, create a foram for discussion on its website as well as other commentators who are fearfnl 14

267 that the full weight of a prosecutor will be brought to bear against them creating a chilling effect on free speech. Unless the rights of a grand juror to express his opinions about gublic information relevant to a public case are to be subordinated, contra Crim. R. 6(E) ("No obligation of secrecy may be imposed upon any person except in accordance with this rule."), the proposed remedy of Defendants violates an individual's right to freedom of speech because a prohibition on future speech is a form of prior restraint, Seven Hi1Ls v. tawn Nations (1996), 76 Ohio St. 3d 304, 307, 1996 Ohio 394 see ("prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights"), To v. Cochran (2005), 544 U.S. 734, 738 ("Prior restraints are simply repugnant to the basic values of an open society" in that they "tend to encourage indiscriminate censorship in a way that subsequent punishments do not."). The Ohio Supreme Court recognized earlier this year that Defendants' claim that their right to a fair trial may be implicated by continued publicity is not an absolute claim. In State ex rel Toledo Blade v Henrv Countv Court of Common Pleas (2010), 125 Ohio St. 3d 149, 157, 2010 Ohx 1533, at 137 (emphasis added), the Court quoted precedent holding that "VWhen there is a conflict between the First and Sixth Amendment rights...the trial court is required to act to resolve that conflict by protecting both the First and the Sixth Amendment rights when... that can be done in a reasonable and lawful way." Even if the author of the letter is in fact one of the grand jurors, restricting his or her right to speak freely about matters not prohibited by the oath of secrecy would unconstitutionally restrict his or her First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Similarly, an order to the Vindicator to disclose what it knows is not only shielded by 15

268 the Ohio source shield law, R.C , but would encroach on its First Amendment right to freedom of the press, see Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart (1976), 427 U.S. 539, 561. It would serve as a dramatic chilling effect on free speech and press were Defendants to prevail on what amounts to a gag order for the public. Cf. FCC v. Fox ions Inc. (2010), -U.S., 129 S. Ct. 18oo, 1837 (quoting Dombrowski TV Stat v. Pfister (1965), 38a U.S. 479, 494) ("So long as the statute remains available to the State the threat of prosecutions of protected expression is a real and substantial one. Even the prospect of ultimate failure of such prosecutions by no means dispels their chilling effect on protected expression."); see also Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition (2002), 535 U.S. 234, 244; Cibson v. Florida Legis. Investigative Comm'r. (1963), 372 U.S. 539, ; Wieman v Undecraff (1952), 344 U.S.183,195 (Frankfurter, J., concurring). nr. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the State respectfully requests that The Court deny the Defendants' Joint Motion for the appointment of a special prosecutor and other relief requested. Respectfully submitted, and Dennis P. Will Special Prosecuting Attorney Patil. Nick Special Prosecuting Attorney and by: and Anthony D. CiIlo oo62497 SpeciahProsecuting Attorney 7 ` David P. uhek Special Prosecuting Attorney 16

269 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A true copy of the forgoing brief has been served via electronic mail this 13th day of October, 2oio, upon the persons named in the attached distribution list incorporated herein by reference as counsel of record for each defendant and as their names appear therein. 17

270 State of Ohio vs Amhonv Cafaro Sr et al Case No. 1o CR o&oo, etseq. DEFENSE COUNSEL DISTRIBUTION LIST 1. George A. Stamboulidis, Esq. Baker & Hostetler 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY ioi Fax: E Mall: $st mboulidis@bakerlaw.aom Counsel for Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr. 2. J. Alan Johnson, Esq. Cynthia Reed Eddy, Esq. Johnson & Eddy 172o Gulf Tower 707 Grant Street Pittsburg, PA Office: Fax:4i iiohnsonca7iohnsoneddv.com ceddvcaliohpsoneddv.eom Counsel for Flora Cafaro 3. John F. McCaffrey, Esq. McLaughlin & McCaffrey LLP Eaton Center, Suite Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH Office: Fax: 2i ;fm r)a ualadin-law.com Counsel for Ohio VaIIey Mall LP & The Marion Plaza, Inc. 4. Ralph E. Cascarilla, Esq. Walter & Haverfield, LLP The Tower at Erieview 13o1 East Ninth Street, Suite 3500 Cleveland, OH Office: o8 Fax: rcascariila@walterhav.com Counsel for The Cafaro Company 6. Lynn Maro, Esq. 7o81 West Blvd., Suite 4 Youngstown, Ohio Tel: Fax: 3o Connsel for John 1V.[eNa11Y N 7 J. Gerald Ingram, Jr., Esq. Robert Duffrin, Esq Market Street Youngstown, Ohio Counsel for MartinYavorcik 8. Lou DeFabio, Esq Market St # 220 Youngstown, Ohio Counsel for John Reardon 9. Roger Synenberg, Esq.,_,^enbere & Associates. LLC 55 Public Square Suite 1200 Cleveland, OH Phone: / Fax: (216) Counsel for John Zachariah io. Martin G. Weinberg, Esq. Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. 2o Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston, MA o2ai o Fax: owhnew(a^att.net Counsel for Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr. xxx 5. John B. Juhasz. Esq. 7o8x West Blvd., Suite 4 Youngstown, Ohio Tel: Fax: Jbiiurisdoc@vahoo.com Counsel for Michael V. Sciortino 18

271 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO,ex rel. ) THE VINDICATOR PRINTING CO., et al., j Case No Relators, ) ( Original Action in Prohibition and ) Mandamus) vs. ) ) THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. WOLFF, j JR.,et al., ) Respondents. ) JOINT RECORD EXHIBIT NO.18 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS HELD OCTOBER 14, 2010 State v. Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., et al, Mahoning Cty. Case No CR 800A-I (FILED UNDER SEAL) THE OHIO LEGAL BLANK CO., INC. EXHIBIT Tt R.eo- Fx_ 18 { ) OLEVELANO, OHIO

272 CLp<,:< OF C; MAHON!;'^ : Cqiu STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO 2010 CR 800 (INCLUDING A-I) October 20, 2010 FILFu ANTHONY VMG, C!. P.RK Vs. ANTHONY M. CAFARO, SR. THE CAFARO COMPANY (A) OHIOVALLEY MALL CO. (B) THE MARION PLAZA, INC. (C) JOHN A. MCNALLY P) JOHN REARDON (E) MICHAEL V. SCIORTINO (F) JoHN ZACHARIAH (G) MARTIN YAVORCIK (H) FLORA CAFARO (I) ORDERS RELATING TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION SEEKING THE COURT'S ACTION TO ADDRESS APPRE SECRECY VIOLATIONS OF GRAND JU RY JUDGE WILLIAM H. WOLFF, JR On Assignment, Art. IV, Section 6 Ohio Constitudon Defendants This matter is before the coutt on the motion of defendants Anthony M.Cafaro, Sr.,et al. seeking court action to addxess appaxent violations of grand juty sectecy. The motions of several other defendants to join in the motion are SUSTAINED. The court heard oral atgument by counsel for the paxties on October 14, 2010, and later, on October 14, insttucted each of the grand jurors of theiu continuing obligation to keep secret the proceedings of the grand jury and of the sanction for failing to do so. As to defendants' modified request fot xelief, found at pages of the supplement of defendants Anthony M. Cafato Sr., et al. to their motion, the court orders as follows: Patagxaphs 1 and 2 are OVERRULED without pxejudice. Paragraphs 3-5 are SUSTAINED. Authorizations, if any, pteviously given by the gyand jury judge to the news media to inte rand jury foreman or any othex grand iew the g EXHIBIT Tt Ror R-.r 19 CLEVELANO, OHIO'.SC192-1]99-

273 juror axe hexeby ORDERED VACATED. The court has alteady provided the other relief requested in these paragraphs. IT IS SO ORDERED. )iqomir, ^. ^6Q JUDGE WILLIAM H. WO Sitting On Assignment Article IV, Section 6 Ohio Constitution CLERIC: Copies to a(1 counsel of record and all unrepresented parties

274 CLE'P.K OF COURTS AA.4H[3PJIAIr.lYf' turv nuir, I NOV 10 2i)1Q. ^ FlLED AN711ONY VIVO. CIERK FILED UNDER SEAL IN THE COURT OFCOMMON PLEAS MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiffs ) Case No, 2010 CR ) V. ) Judge William H. Wolft~ Jr. ANTHONY M. CAFARO, SR., et al., Defendeats. MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TEMPORARILY SEAL ALI. BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND NOTICES OF INTENT TO IDFTROHUCE,, RULE 404(B) EVIDENCE UNTIL AFTER TRIrtiL Now come Defendants Anthony Cafaro, Sr., Flora Cafaro, The Cafaro Company, Obio Valley Mail Company, and' he Marion Plaza, Inc. (collectively "the Defendants"), by and through the undersigned coansel, and hereby move this Court for an Order temporarily sealiug all bills of partiaulars and notices of intent to introduce Rule 404(B) evidence until after trial in this matter is conciuded. A memorandum in support of this motion is attached. THE OHIO LEGAL BLANK CO., INC 20,OCR OM4888M oomo MOT EXHIBIT Jt Ror Rv?R LLEVELANO, OHIO

275 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TEMPORARILY SEAL ALL BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND NOTICES OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE RULE 464(B) EVIDENCE UNTII. AFTER TRIAL I. INTRODUCTION On November 3, 2010, the State filed its Bill Of Part'sculats For John Zachariah ("7achariah bill ofpartiotdars"j as to co-defendant John Zachaziab only under seal. This Motion and its supporting Memorandum request that the Zachariah bill ofparticuiars, and each suceeeding: one as to all other defendants, remain under seal until the conclusion of trial. In addition, to the extent the StaW intends to respond to the defendants' request for notice of an intent to intraduce Rule 404(B) evidence, those responses should also remain under seal until the conclusion of the trial. Bills of particulars and notice of an intent to introduee Rule 404(B) evidence are aidn to notices of discovery. They are not judicial pleadings that require a aourt decision regardin$ a contested matter of law. They are not filed as part of a judicial proceeding that itself eanjoys a qualified First Amendment right of public access. They are not judicial doeuments that result by their nature in a substantive court decision that implicates the ltistoric role of the qualified common law and First Amendment access to such documents. They are far more akin to exchanges of discovery that both state and federal courts have conclusively detemained are not subject to any qualified rigbt of public access. Absent such a constitzrta onal or common law right, the risk that disclosure will compromise the critical right, protected by the Sixth Amendment, to an itnpartial jury selected from the county where the charges are brought. mandates the temporary sealing of alybills of particulars and notices of the intent to introduce Rule 404(B) evidence until the trial is complete. Alternatlvel3 ; even if there is a public right of 2

276 access, its value is more tban counterbahuu,ed by the inexorability that any unsealing will catalyze - - massive and prejudicial pretrial publicity. This motion and memorandum brief ly recount the publicity in Mahoning County, largely resulting from a practice of its leading print medium, The Yindicator, sensationalizing and editorializing the contents of the State's disclosures in the Flork Cafaro and Martin Yavorca'k bill ofpart'tcular responses. Although the Zachariah bill of pariiculars is more sober in tone than that filed as to defendants Yavoraik and Flora Cafaro, it does refer at length to evidentiary matters, including specific documents tbat may or may not be admitted at trial. The Zacbariah bill of particulars, if unsealed, will prejudice not only Zaehariah but also defendant Anthony Cafaro, Sr. and the other defendants thercfore file this motion and memorandum, but also reserve the right to file a more specific opposition-to the unsealing of future bills of patticulars and notice.s of intent to introduce Rule 404(B) evidence, including the responses they expect to be filed regarding the charges against than, II. STATEMENT OF RACTS A. The Za ariah Bill Of Particulars Is A Discoverv Document The Zachariah bill of particulars represents an attempt at providing greater particu3arity for only certain select offenses charged. See Zachariah bill of particulars, Bxhibft 1. The Zacharish bill of partieulars provides no particularity as it relates to the pattem of corrupt activity or conspiracy offenses charged. The sparse statements relating to the pattem of corrupt activity offense consist of notbing more than the State's opening argument. Widi respect to the perjury, bribery, and tampering with records offenses, the Zachariah bill of particulas makes, in some instances, specific. reperenee to doauments the State produced to the parties in discovery. These discovery documents may never be admitted as evidence at trial or may be excluded for use by

277 tho State in the manner it currently intends. Nevertheless, the Zachariah bill of particulars represents no more than the State's disclosure of cettain evidence relating to only certain of the offenses alleged against Zachariah. The nearly 50,000 documents the State produced to the parties in response to the defendants' (liscovery requests wera not filed publically, nor would it have been pennissible for the State to do so. Accordingly, the manner in which the State intends to use such documents should not be permitted to be played out in a public forum in advanee of trial. The Zaebariah bill of particulars amounts to no more than the State's voluatmy disclosure of how it intends to use cerlain doouments produced in discovery for only some of the offmes charged against Zacduuiah. B. Media Coverage of Response to Fiora Cafaro's and 1Vlartin Yavoreik's Iteauest for Bills of Particulars On August 31, 2010, in response to requests eontained in bills of particulars filed separately by two defendants, Flora Cafaro and 1vIarlin Yavorcik, the State filed its response that made representations about evidentiary mattars outside the proper, but limited, fattction of a bill of partiailars answer. See State's Response to Flora Cafaro and Yavorcik's Motion For A Bill OfFarticulars ("Fiora Cafaro and Yavoroik bill of particulars"), Exhibit 2. The response, for instance, included an unresponsive and inflammatory representation that the State inte.nded to offer "bad acf' evidence as to the conduct of other defendants to prove its criminal charges against Flora Cafaro and Yavorcik. Id. at 8. Also inaluded were matters appropriate to discovery responses; not to a bill of particulars, including references to the content of what witnesses told the State's investigators and to an uninvited statement as to the involvement of the FBI in the state investigation. Id. at 6 and fit 4. 4

278 The Flora Cafaro and Yavorcik bill of particulars additionally eontained a statement of the State's intent to offer evidence of uncharged financial transactions other tban the single $15,000 transaction that alone provides the basis of the single count charged agairtst Flora Cataxo and Yavorcik. ("Defendant Yavorcik is the same attomey that was solicited by Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., his brother John I. Cafaro and his sister Flora Cafarc and backed finsncially in an amount totaling $120,000..."). Id. at 7. Even more egregious is the unnecessary and impermissible representation that "(tjhis is not thefirst time Anthony Cafaro or other members of the Enterprise has made clandestine payments and the State will seek to offer and tntrodttce other acts evidence." Id. at 8(anphasis added). Such an allegation was not responsive or appropriate for a response to a bill of partieulars. The allegation was highly'inflarnmatory aad made reference to an intent to offer evidence outside the indictment which could wsll be excluded upon proper motion. It expressly did not relate to the specific defendants whose request was being responded to, since neither Flora Cafaro nor Yavoroik were charged in any other count in the 73-count indictment, i.e., they were specifically excluded from all "Entezprise" and "Conspiracy" related atlega6ons. Finally, the State advised that it had the future option to. attach evidentiary documents to its bill ofparticulars responses as to other defendants. Id at 5, fn3. Not saiprisingly, Youngstown's only daily newspaper, The i'indicator (hereinafter "Vindicator"), in a front page banner headline and article on September 1, 2010 made extensive reference not only to additional, uncharged, &nancial transactions between Flora Cafaro and Yavoraik but also, predictably, to the inflammatory and unnecessary allegations against Anthony Cafaro, Sr. See Vindicator artlcle, Exhibit A. The State's response regarding "this is not the first 5

279 time Anthony Cafaro...niade clandestine payments"' and the State's promise to "seek to offer and introduce other acts evidence" was quoted verbatim on the front page of the Vindicator. Id. A September 5, 2010 column by Bertrem de Souza in the Sunday Vindicator pmelaimed the media's intent to scrutinize and report on ail future filings and evidentiary disclosures. See Vindicator azticl.e, Exhibit 4. De Souza, who sits on tb.e Vindieator's editorial board as well as being its chief political columnist, wrote that "[blow this enterprise operated wili be taid out in detail when the biil of particulars relating to the indiatments are filed by the special proseentors, and when the evidenee is presented tbrougb discovery." Id. (Emphasis added). it is, of oourse, the purpose of a trial -- not a bill of par6culars or notice ofintent to use Rule 404(B) evidence - to provide proof of whether there is an Enterprisa- an allegation already accepted as fact by de Souza - and "how this Enterprise operated." kl. De Souza's column also referettced the Plora Cafaro and Yavorci.k bill ofpartieulats filing, stating that "last week's release of a bill of particulars...sheds a great deal of light on the direction the prosecutor(s) are takin.g the case. The details of the bill of particalars were published in W ednesday's Vindicator. But there's one sentence in the nine page documents that revcals the sttategy the proseeutors have adopted." Id. De Souza then re-quotes the infiammatory allegation about Antbony Cafaro, Sr. and "clandestine" but uncharged conduct. De Souza asks the rhetorioal question, "why would proseoutors include that sentence in a document that lays out what Flora Cafaro did to conceal a $15,000 transaction... ' Id. He then answers the question by saying it was to let the "defendants know" that the prosecution intends to take the "governntenttpolitioal conuption route." Id. it is therefore incontrovertible that any allegations similar to the ones included in the Flora Cafaro and Yavorcik bill of patticulazs will result in front page coverage in the Vindicator 6

280 and, predictably, evoke successive articles and columns reiterating and analyzing the nafure of the political or criminal allegation.s made by the State. It is also beyond dispute that future articles will focus on defendant Anthony Cafaro, Sr., his businesses, and on the Vindicator's institutional belief that it was political corruption (not community concetn or the right of an entity to puusue civil litigation) that delayed the Mahoning County Depariment of Job & Family Services move to Oakhill. See September 19, 2010, column by de Souza, Exbibit 5. The contem of the September 19' column, which matches the editorial positi:on of the paper and the intensely petsonalized attacks on Mr. Cafaro (as well as pre-jadging the existence of both cotruption and an "Enterprise"), is further proof that future bills of particulars and notices of intent to intmduce Rule:404(B) evidence, if unsealed, will be widely and repeatedly qaoted by the Vindicator as is the front page prominence paid by the Vindicator to the September 9 and September 14, 2010 procedural ordem of the Court. See Vindicator articles, Exhibits 6 and 7. C. The Vindtcatur s Establlshed Bias The past practices of the Vindicatar conclusively deanonstrate that it will feature any unsealed motions in repeated front page stories and reinforce an already well-documented institutional bias that the Vindicator has repeatedly revealed regarding defendant Anthony Cafam, Sr., his sister Flora, and the several Cafaro entities charged in the indictment For example, post-indictment coverage prejudicially includes front page articles headed by the label "The Oakhill T' with pictares and articles relating to the defendants, their family hiswry, and the subject matter of the pending charges. See Vindicator artiole, Exhibit 8. Just the repeated moniker "The Oakhill 7" (a not so subtle reminder of the infamous "Cbicago Seven" trial of the 1960s) undetmines the presumption of immcence, particularly with its "mug shot" type lineup of photos of the seven individual defendants. 7

281 Mahoning County is essentially a one-newspaper county. Tha Vindicator's business records reflect a circulation of 36,343 copies of its newspaper daily with 45,723 on Sunday in a county that in 2000 had 257,000 residents. Given the multiplying factor, i.e., that each copy of the newspaper is read by multiple peaple (approximately 2.19), the effect of the Vindicator on the future jury venire of Mshoning County cannot be overstated. By comparison, the next leading local paper, the W4rren Tribune Chronicle, published in neighboring 1rumbull County, has a circulation of less than 1,100 (1 f82d daily and 1,058 on Sundays) in Mahoning County. AdditionaUy, the ratings of WFMJ, a channel owned by the same owners as the Vindicator, is at least twice the ratings of the next most watched station during the peak news hours of 6-7 AM, 7-8 AM, 8-9 AM, and has a 5.2 rating at the 6-7 PM time period, dwarfmg the competition's 3.0 rating. See list of ratings, Exhibit Q. Given the common ownership, it is unsurprising that WFMJ also ran a news article on August 31, 2010 matching that of the Vindicator and referring to the impermissible and extraneous allegations against Anthony Cafaro, Sr. contained in the Flora Cafaro and Yavorcik bill of partiaalars. See Exhibit 10 ("Prosecuteis say tbis isn't the first time Anthony Cafaro or other members of tha enterprise have made clandestine payments and the state will seek to offer other acts as evidence"). Disciosures in court pleadings that rnight be dissipated in a larger metropolis with multiple sources of news and a greater variety of subjects of public interest will inexorably be etched in the publlc eonsciousness of a small county subject to receiving its local information largely from a single source. As a paper holding noar monopolistic control over the M'ahoning County media, the prejudice created by the Vindicator is already deep-seated and must be considered when assessing whether unsealing pleadings will have the effeat of adding fuel to an ongoing fire, fatally undermining the constitutional rights of the defendants to a jury selected 8

282 fairly from the county where the criminal charges have been lodged. Despite the Vindicator's suggestion that its rights supersede the rights of the defendants to an impartial jury, and that a change of venue would substitute fvr an unbiased cross-section of Mahoning County jurors (see e.g. Vindicator editorial, September 12, 2010, l;ixbibit 11 the option of a temporary sealing of any filings, whieh if unsealed would prediatabiy result in front page Vindicator articles, is compellingly supported on this unique record by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution rigbt of the defendants to a fair trial in Mahoning County rather than elsewhere. We live in the Internet Age. Since the Vindicator maintains a web-site containing not only its arohives but also a specific link to two documents - the first being the State's Response to the Flora Cafaro and Martin Yavorcik bill of particulars (see Exhibit D the second being the 73-count indiclsnent, the damage of adverse articles referring to allegations about the defcmdants cannot even assuredly be erased with time. The wisdom of the procedure set in place by the Court is unassailable, for absent automatic sealing there would be no mechanism to assure that a filed-unsealed pleading would not, for months, up to and including the time for jury selection and trial, be prominently linked on the Vindicator web site and easily accessible to venire persons who might otherwise be less exposed to the pretrial publicity. Further, the decision to seal or unseal must be made in the context of a firiure vatire that has already been exposed to a significant number of prejudicial articles, coiumns, and aditfnials regarding defendant Antlaony Cafaro, Sr. and the charged co-defendants.' Disclosures in court pleadings that might be dissipated in a larger metropolis with multiple saurces of news and a ' If the State disputes eitiaer the imtitutionaiized bias of the Vindicator favoring a move to OakhiU and criticizing Anthony Cafaro, Sr., his fsmily, and the County's C'arland Plaza leasa or the V'mdicatvr's practiate of giving prejufflcial front page covexage to the investigaticn and prosecution of this case, the defendants request leave to supplenment this filing with an appendix of articles sapportin$ tttese conclusions. 9

283 greater variety of subjects of public interest will inexorably be etched in the public consciousness of a small county subject to receiving its local information largely from a singte souiee. L^7-.ewise, the ability to select a jury, already burdened by the length of the prospective trial, will be gravely burdened by the predictable difficulty of finding not only venire members willing to attend a multi-month snmmer trial but who also are unaffected by and unexposed to the repeated pull of prejudicial front page headlines and articles in the Vindioator reinforced by follow-up columns and by television disseminations of the same news content by WFMJ, the Vindicator controlled television station III. LAW & A,RGUMENT A. Bills of Particulars And Notices Of Rule 404()vt) Evidence Are Not Subjeet To Any Qualified First Amendment or Common Law IIigaltt of Public Access The defendants' eonoern is concrete and non-speculative: the selection of a fair and impartial jury representing a cross-seotion of Mahouing County wia be impossible absent a temporary sealing of all bills of particulars. The sealing procedure bcing applied by the Court in this case is unassailable due to at least two additional oonstitutional considerations. PY mt, not all pleadings are even subject to the qualified publio access rights. Second, the nature of the filed pleading must be considered. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recognized tbat "political corruption cases tend to attraot widespread media attention...." In re Pmviulenae JournaY Co. Inc. (lu Cir.2002), 293 F.3d 1, 14. The triai court was wncemed that "urnestrained disciomes" would endangcr tha defendant's right to receive a fair trial? Understanding that the trial court's concem was valid, Providence Journal concluded that "in view of the notoriety of the case and the incidents a$ased on chculation figures, it is eativmred Ebat the local readarship percentage for the Vindicator '1 2 h titnes greetea than 6ie loc,sl reedership percentage for The ProvidenCe Journal. 10

284 recounted by the disirict court, we are convinced that the court's pameption of a threat to the defendants' fair trial rights was objectively reasonable." Id at 14. Providence Journal properly held that "an accused's Bixtb Amendment right to a fair trial plainly rises to the level of a compelling interest" and that "when that rigbt collides head on with the public's right of access to judicial records, the defendant's fair trial right talces precedence.0 Id at 13 (emphasis added). Provia'ence Journal then approved an order, similar in substance to the Ehrler issaed by this Couit requiring the sealing of all memoranda temporarily'wntil the judge detemiines that a specific document poses no undue risk to the defendant's fair trial rights." Id at 14, "We hold that the district court's insistence on reviewing each memorandum before deciding whether it should remain under seal did not eonstitute reversible error ' and that no case law "prevents a court from establishing this sort of prophylaxis." Id. at 14. Pmvidence Journal held that "given the circumstances of [thel case, the district court's implementation of'a general procedure to seal all memoranda temporarily appesrs nazrowly tailored." Id. at 14. The Court identified its concerns: (1) that judicial review of a sealed pleading occur on a specific timetable; (2) that the document be unsealed at some point after the trial ended; and (3) that redaction, as well as sealing, be considered. Id. at 15. None of these pze,scriptions are inemistent with the implementation of the Court's Order of temporary sealing. Importantly, Providence Journal approved the sealing of entire documents until the conclusion of the triai when such doouments had the poten6al to compromise a deibndant's right to an impsrtialjury. Id. at Motions for bills of particulars, notices of other acts evidence, and responses thereto, are more akin to exchanges of discovery or to discovery motions and responses than to the sort of ii

285 legal pleadings that require a decision by ajudicial officer. The "F'irst.Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of spedal access to information not available to the public generally. See Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), 408 U.S. 665, 684. The exchange of discovery niaterials is neither a public process nor a matter of public record. See e.g., United Statr.s v. Anderson (3d Cir.19$6), 799 F.2d 1438, (tolding that "a bill of particulars that merely facifitates voluntary discovery is not a court document the public or press are entitled to view.") Ohio law fnm.ly suppcrrts the proposition that discovery-related disclosures are not within the ambit of a qualified common law or First Amendment presumption of access by the public or media. See e.g:, State ex rel. WHIO-TV-7 v. Lowe (1977), 77 Ohio St.3d 350, ("discovery is neither a public process nor typically a matter ofpublic record. Historically, discovery materials were not available to the public or press...discovery should be encouraged... public disclosure would have a chilling effect on the parties' search for and exchange of infotruation pursuant to the discovery rules"). Fedmal law is similar. "like the constitutional right of access, the common law presumption does not encompass discovery materials. The courts have not ext.ended (the qualified common law right of acoess) beyond materiais on wbich a court relies in detennining the litigan.ts' substantive rights." Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc. (la Cir. 1986), 805 F.2d 1, 13. The U.S. Supreme Court in Seattle 7imes Co. v. Rhinehard (1984), 467 U.S. 20 upheld a protective order against a First Amendment challenge when it forbad the release of information learned in civil discovery but not yet adnritted at trial, in part because of the risk that information that might never be admitted at trial oonld jeopardize the rlghts of the litigants, as well as uncharged third-parties: "T9tere is an opporlimity, therefore, for lit9gants ta obtaiuz -- incidentally 12

286 or purpasefully -- information that not only is irrelevant but, if publicly released, could be damaging to reputation and privacy. The govermnent clearly has a substantial interest in preventing this sort of abuse of its proeesses" Seattle T'unes Co., 467 U.S. at 35. In United States v Anmodeo (2d Cir. 1995), 71 B.3d 1044, , Judge Winter established a continmma for the weight to be aoeorded the presumption of access, determining at one end that documents that were material and critical to a judge's decision were to be accorded "strong weight" since they related directly to the "need for public monitoring" of the exercise of judicial decision-making. Id. at But, "as one moves along the continuwn, the weight of the presumption declines:' Id at "Where testimony or documents play only a negligible role in the periormanee of Article III duties, the weight of the presumption is low and amounts to little more than a prediction of public access absent a countervailing reason." Id. at 1050 (emphasis added). Judge Winter added that "documents that play no role in the petforniance of Article III functions, such as those passed between the parties in discovery, lie entirely beyond the presumption's reach." Id. at Bills of particulars and notices of Rule 404(B) evidence are akin to documents that pm between the parties in diseoveiy requiring no performance of a judge's decision-making, and are therefore outside of the presumption of access. Absent challenge, the exchange of bi11s of particulars and notices of "other act" evidence constitute voluntary disoovery material provided in response to a defartdant's discovery requests. The disclosure of this material requires no judicial decision. Even if the responses were to be challenged for specificity in the future - a matter that is not coneretely before the Court at this time - the documents in question will lie at the outer perimeter, with the presumption of access to be accorded a low weight easily eclipsed by the gravity of the defendants' future right to a fair jury and fair trial, 13

287 When the New York Times sought to unseal Title III documents (.e., court authorized interceptions of cotmnunications) to provide it with infonnation about the misconduct of New York Governor Elliot Spitzer, the Court of Appeals for the Secorid Circuit, acknowledging the qualified First Amendment right of the public to both attend judicial proceedings and tc have access to certain judicial documents, reviewed Its past jurispradence which focased on two barameters. S'ee, In the Matter of the Application of the New York Tfines Company to Unseal 1T''rretap and Search Warrant Mater atr (2d C'u. 2009), 577 F.3d 401, 409. First the Court looked to whether the rigbt td gain access was related to judicial reoords that "have historically been open to the press and general public" and to whether the right of "public aecess plays a significant positive role in the firnctioning of the particrilar process in queation." Id. at 409. Only if the document in question "passes these tests of experience and logic [does] a qualified First Amendment right of public aecess" attach. Id at 409. The Cnnrt then ruled that the documents in question satisfied neither the test of history nor the logic of public policy, and that unsealing was outweighed by the privacy interests that would be implicated if dissemination were permitted.id. at410. The Second Circu.it then examined under a second test whether the document at issae related to a proceeding wbioh the public had a right to attend, determining that without a "public right to attmd the relevantprooeedings, there is no publio tight to gain access to the documents produced at those proceedings." Id. at 410. As applied, bills of particulars and notices of Rule 404(B) evidence, unlike plea agreements, sentencing memoranda, even bail motions, do not meet the test of history, i.e., there is no historic right of access to these discovery-related filings. Bills of partieulazs certainly involve no judicial function sinee courts do not ordinarily pass on the adequacy of a response to a request for particulars. Finally, there is no judicial hearing that 14

288 results from. the filing of a bill of particulars (as there would be upon the filing of a motion to suppress requiring an evidentiary hearing). In short, the First Amendment qualified right of access is simply not impficated by the filing of a response to a request for particulars or notice of an intent to use Rule 404(B) evidenoe. A bill ofparticulars is filed to give the opposing party notice of the prosecutor's theory of the case and the evidence it intends to offer in support of such theory and, as such, does not require the oourt to issue any rulings and is not related to any judioial proceeding for which the public is entitled to be present. Accordingly, there is nopublic right to gain access to those doauments. B. Any QuallSed Right OfAccess Is Presumptive, Not Absolute, And Outweighed By The Defendants' Sixth Amendment tttabts To A Future Fair Triai in Uahonin County The right ofpublic access is presumptive, r.e., qualified, not absolute, and rests at least in part on "experience and logic" and on whether a document in question was one that had historically been available to the media. United States v. MeVedgh (10 i Cir. 1997), 119 F.3d 806, 812. Its application rests on a balance of countervailing considerations such as the effect on a citizen's right to a faior trial of ajury txintaining members contaminated by exposure to prejudicial pretrial publicity. See, e.g., Gannett Co., Ine. v. DePasquale (1979), 443 U.S. 368, 378 (no First Amendment violation in denial of publio access ta a suppression hearing); Nfxon V. Warner Conernuntcations (1978), 435 U.S. 589, 598 (compelling reasons to preclude public access to tape recordings played during public hearing). The publio, for instance, has no right to receive copies ofpleadings that relate to evidence that is excluded because of constitutional or evidentiaryjudicial decisions made by the trial court, see, e.g., McVetgh, 119 F.3d at ; United Stares v. Rajaratnam (S.D.N.Y. 2010), 708 F. Supp.2d 371, Particularly in a "high pmfile case," a trial court must establish procedures to "efficiently and fairly (deal with] 15

289 recurring issues such as whether documents should be placed under seal or redacted." McYeigh, 119F.3dat813. References in bills of particulars or notices of intent to use Rule 404(B) evidence to uncharged conduct, (1uce references to unadjudicated Title IlI documents in bail hearings or infomcation relatiag to chailenged searches during motions to suppress) must remain sealed until a court has the opportunity to assess the admissibility of the evidence alleged. See, e.g., Gannett Co., Ina supra; United States v. Giordano (B. Gbnn. 2001}, 158 F. Supp2d 242,246 (approving the closure of a bail hearing and a sealing of documents recounting evidence derived from Title Iii wiretaps on the basis that if the evidence was later excluded a air trial would be impossible dne to the prior dissemination of the fruits of the ohallanged source of evidence). "As a very practical matter, if untested material is unsealed but then suppressed, it will likely be impossible to undo the damage done" from the unsealing. lta,%aratnarn, 708 F. Supp.2d at 377. Absent at least the temporary sealing, documents such as motions to suppress or sever or exhibits that refer to infomaation that a eourt later conoludes is not to be admitted at trial should cleaxly remain sealed until the court datennines ihat the contents contain only information that is to be admitted at trial. Id. at The very real potential for a complete exclusion of signifioant portions of the Zachatiah bill of partictilars exists, for its cornerstone, that there is some imgropriety in the payment of legal fees for third-parties or in the attempts by a private citizen to cornmunicate with public officials as to ruatters that affect their economie self-interest will be placed in dispute, pretrial, as a principled basis for ariminal liability. See e.g., Baltimore Scrap Corp. Y. David J. Joseph Co. (4e' Cir. 2001), 237 F.3d 394, 401("Funding of Htigation by a non-party can be petitioning to the same extent that filing a lawsuit itself is petitioning...nonparties often provide aid to litigants, whether through financial backing, legal assiatance, amious 16

290 briefs, or moral support."). Until the vazious prasecutorial theories of liability and evidentiary admissibility are reviewed by this Honorable Court through the vehicles of Rule 12 motions to dismiss and motions in limtne that will pmvide a pretrial opportunity for the court to exercise its traditional gatekeeper functions on disputed evidence, the value of public notice to discovery type documents is more than outweighed by tha particularized need for continued sealing. This is no ordinary case. To the contrary, theories of guilt that are unprecedented are being advaneed. "Due Process forbids turning eitizem into ariminals through the application of novel, untested applications of a criminal statute:' United States v. SaathofJ''(S.D. Cal. 2010), 708 F. Supp.2d 1020,1042. Defendants' "privacy and fair trial interests are at their zenith before the material has been tested" given the compelling interests of a futuxe fair trial and its primacy when weighed agaiast any public right of access to evidentiary and prosecutorial theories that remain untested by either pretrial motion or the evidentiary rules that govern admimbility at trial. Rajaratnam, 708 F. Supp.2d at 377, fn. 6. IV. CONCLUSION Therefore, ljefendants Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., Flora Cafaro, The Cafaro Company, Ohio Valley Mail Company, and The Marion Plaza, Inc. request temporary seling of any bills of particuiars and notices of intent to introduce Rule 404(B) evidence. 17

291 Respea tfull ubmitted y s, ^ e, ^A+^i^^kG^ dt'^ ^f^ ^K^P^sO'i^[X' C eorge. Stamboulidis (admitted Martin G. Weinbarg (admr+^ *^ ^a E^s vice) pr gaker HpST,ETLgR t/^1 Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. 45 Rockefeiter Plaza 20 Park Plaza, Scute th Floor Boston, MA New York, NY telephone Of$ae: facsimile Fax: owlmgw@att.net E M ^'1,g stamboulidis(a}bakerlaw. swm Counsel for Defendant Autbony M. Cafaro, Counsel for Defendant Anthon.y M. Cafaro, Sr. Sr. Al^ohn n(adrafttedpro hac vice) lphb Cakseanlla(001352fi} CyntbiaReed Eddy (admi ed pro hyg^c vice} Darrell A. Clay ( ) JOHNSON & EDDY +ac'^f^ wal'ter & HAVERFIELD, LLP 1720 GulfTower The Tower at Erieview 707 C' srant Street 1301 East Ninth 3treet, Suite 3500 Pittsburg, PA Cleveiapd, OH O^ce: Office: Fax: Fax; B-Mail: jjobnsonqjohnsoneddy.com UMaii: rvascarilla@waiterhav.com ceddy@,johnsoneddy.com dclay@walterhav.com Co 1 for Defen,dantFlora Cafaro F. McCaffrey ( ony R. Petntazi Mc1,A.UG1iL1N & McCAFPREX,1,LP Eaton Cerrtea, Suite Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH OECace: Fax: jfm@patadin-law.com E-Maii: arg@paladin-law.aom Counsel for Defendants Ohio Valley Ma11 Company and The Marion Plaza, Inc. Counsel tor Defendant The Cafaro Company 1s

292 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a hue copy of the foregoing Motion and Memorandum Of Law In. Support Of Motion To Temporarily Seal All Bills Of Pasticalars And Notices Of Intent To Introdu.ce Rule 404(B) Evidence Until After Trial has been served via electronic delivery ky ofnovember, 2010 upon: Dennis P. WiU, Esq. Lorain County Prosecuting Attomey 225 Court Street, 3rd Floor Elyria, OH Special Prosecutor for Mahoning County John B. Juhasz, Esq WestBoutevard Youn,gstown, OH Counsel for Mike SCiorhno Lou DaFabio, Esq Markot Skeet YoungstoR'n, OH CounselforJolm Reardon Paul Nick, Esq. Chief Investigative Attorney Ohio Ethics Comntission 8 Long Street,10' Floor Columbus, OH Special Proseoutor for Mahoning County.R.oger Synenberg, Esq. Synenberg & Assoeiates LLC 55 Public Square, Suite 1200 Cleveland, OH Counsel for Jobn Zachariah J. Gerald Ingrarn, Jr., Esq. Robert Duffzin, Esq Market Street youngstown, OH Counsel for Martin Yavoroilc Lynn Maro, Esq West Boulevard Youngstown, OR Counsel for lohn McNally 19

293 544\ THE C}./ VSYT Vi`q.1y.^.}{iiy^[iL'A(^SJ^1}Y p^ G./d^lS^Vi^SVylyt^} uieu.w, A'l1.64Y'V'i-1YVJ^'! V.O.1V. _ , _ 2`HS 8a'8!(3F EkRm ^. F J'ETd7CfE T^"'il^.szu ^. D1IOM Jr. (kmuti3om 9 bfiz^pil^7yti VfD$^I CASE'1VOt 2oXo C$ 0o8ob H't affd FT:tfRA. CAPARC3 MAM1tTO, a4sa G" aoffoo I ^` I`^^ ^D^'^ i^^ tt^13^?q MOTTTH.Op' ld^^pt1^p5^^ln`^^(ra^_ ^ 3^^:^ARO E+08 A73FI^:^^^. '^'l^.aiib TkM, byei* of ab.ya^,*ronglr x' s mtsde^u^cl attoaseys; :'heteby raspmds to Oie ^tio^e:oeb^h #)afeudgnt Ivla^iiu L'avor^iliaxs^t^laia^aFsro ^a8^ll^fsrpiieal^i^s:. 2'Eft,eamnoa taouhit.^mt iu ft coe is legel^ xufidsb't undw' omo la+rr, ss it ptaces ex& riefendozt om ^ttgfz^e ^t^te ^d^ es^ar^ ^geit^sc ifiiem. 14Lcstaoreq the. mbengve diseovery td be_affol*sd &e defenaents priax to hl* um2ast $ to 0%*.^d 01do C&nfnal Aute 16, tg be Maeient to euawe tbem. to pqam ffvr lriai, Di addkcfv, this Respostge waltmtatgy prmvxdes detewants wi& tutlw deta&'rwrdiag tbs Inrltnhabnti Aeaor3[n&, tlie Bia1a of ohiqmaizwna fl.^ isere is no wed fv Pop order graufiing responses to wbat amount#o civil cm requests faraxiswersip ntereogatoies. t 'A Ott 'aq ^^JSJV00 2

294 t3pan nmf:'tmgntam A BIIL (?F I'.AMCUIARS a. Wotaw#s cslesrrelativeto diepw.pae atd retftmente opbalhan Tzdielmont and ofa BM ef #artictdars: ^t5xt tt. ^1 e^ta^is ttte st.i.c.fura and amm requimnm* of an Wkhnentr MteWni'- rrrw 8a m.ritie in ardbwg rend mraxse kajime utkfiouf tw^t^i1 r^rie^xt^rts or M%c^{one vof ewent3at. ii+ bs protoe& 27o skrcement^ Tie irts^ wor& q^"the ap7sliara^i7^ ^es^ion.^.s^?^d^ pro14ded ew i^'s' " t ^tt[:seattct^ r^ixtr^9e aii:o,n^se,, vr#iiw^tls.st^ to ^fiie ^e t3^^+ rroif^ q^`azt' the swr,^tt,^ of #ka " r^^t^:j: tp'f^ ^lze ^tt is` i^t:ar^ (^hasis i^tl.^ Staia V. "1^nrner Slip Opinion.N9. 2oui60}da deeâdod,8'ugciet:27r. at^o An indfetmmt is: suffim* to tuf4= a daferrib3nt of the c3targes if tpses t}te langaage of a st'amtory sei:wn which stat.o. tw edememt of ft offinse arxd VeMes.%hen tiefsni3ant eaanndited theoffwse. That w4s siprie h;et,% iii the ptsansm iaft^;eizfo. SM,?tule 7 of fhe Dhso Aut^,9fOh3nd txraeec[ure 8ft a3s0, P.C. An in8iciine^ is not^ia'rhe 91atr. of OIdo,--reVaed, to'sbxe in qodzv detag all.pf*'xqtgu^ #,ts npon.wwh tite.iudiai}peat vpas^',fj.^g4i... Roq?slant:raa obt^u;i,3te..., a.; tltowdbaes' from both a ism of potieailars,=d'[kie 8taWs prasaeu#wiai ;%e ptiisnaneta (thbrsce^tttprevised) Ob^o E^'snai Kusa6.-a^ea, ah^v S^seTer. ^oo^t7ma ^9^, 2oa^ C?Wu:APP, L=H 4652 (Ooo7PI ^7 `TB^^faii^U5fol^o,d^sA^^cdii^edefen8aail^by`Par'boisioladvatothe^cof apa^dt^bftiieindimm^. ^ plia t^ iawatsd ^m Riil^ qgenet^ty tise7c liie btigiaal OLia Ravleed Code.stittitA to 21 e^5on of ^ s^fo ^ades. af c^na! rracerture}> ac 1zgwr.rra *erafa, ^ec^erimar nad' whiok pravides 9^ar. ^tc at^ b^dte^i?nt r^x'ir}farmauon ohmg3+p an Rpme, eaclr cvw.ahiti[ contade, ahd 4s sowmr{ffe e^tt;dns. i^:er^etance, a statatnent' tt^u t^e. aeweedi ^ias r^m^idtted sasa^ ^?^c ^sa thera^re ^ " f be' meda {tt pr{ i"ou} ^{ j q[u^ Cp,7w!ae, " e w,t7^aq! a12}j tarlituasi a, ^t^t9 oy aqy^^ n^ ^to 6eproV^a, S^ rtuty be ^ ri^is nf ttis B^' Q^ ths8eutserygodedes^cg^ie4^^e^ dgdarh{g`ihemuttarci^ar^adtobaa pubipe^se,^ in ai^y drbids si^'enc tc gfde ttts d^t^ietl riotice of the 4ff^ ofmhech he ts etrarged. ^emi1 added}. z 'd. E9tl "# hyd$'2-tr olo$ 'le'xny

295 I3.ove^'er, a odminal rale Bill ofparhculm Is not mear[tto be tlte equtvalerrt of e, ^. revonseta a oivil " requese for itttiesxagstar5es:.a. inationn,far a b'it1 of par^ ' swk* to o7rtaf t a d"ed stateenent 2f t^e parftkxr matw b,y twoh the stats^ the d^nd tae^ ^e ^ 4 iims a»7wtiott,^or dho^i^j ^^ of,^ter^ ouanukd'. ^ dw^ bh the am^.4^"^ 7s 7urt ri ' Inipoifumidow' m^a iw ^OfJju*: tm4 ricyp.rntkv A^ddnsttYutiorial tu^sed. ini Iir^.z^, the a^ ^davveṁuwm flie ctwcr.etian ^ ssouw MkM g# ONo ft 2d 20& 20 d.a2ii 915(19*. 'tbaohia Buptene Coutt lu siated ft Oblo rale relatfirs t0 Oft of Parlioulmr anti'seid the the.paywo of Ofte= of Padeulaas fs ^o ^1c^aie o^ pautica^iarizs tbs eoudltc:iai'tfiee awised"...;"liatmot tts protd4lbe aoat=d wi& s7mewcudoreg tsf evoeitlim asir to awve as a su1w#me for diseovwy," 8ee; ftftb_ IA%nsnn ^#g flliidt 3t 8^ e$8 at ^3g (^990.^. eih`3^.^ ",+ qp'^--^^^^ +^ Ohie ^^^a, ia 30# 6ti8 bt3i: a(1.98z).. Oft. ktbo 5tefas'opra ^v l^biesnri A6os f)hi46a$6s.tw 6 Obii3lS,Bp. =8 55$1 COblo tlapp., Lsket'ouWTTbv 25, 20 o0). Weiti of the Defertdaufs cite exbwaivel;r to feb ual axsflzornes in t'bei.r *questa ft amme"1`y` c4efarle^ ^lls of Fer[3eaa^r; bawevbr> fdite^ aut6ozidirf t'kee;f.etlsral 12vks tifuus n"sl Piocedam are ba ar.c:ora with OLio'g ttaptaiagon flflts owri Ulxnipal Txlea. itmlw federrellav4tize ge=rai Aurposeaf`a bib of parfi6tslms #e to inferm, a deftdant of the e1v*ea aggabnet fit9m wftlz stmctent pxedsfom tot (x) enablelsim So "na his defeose, {2) obrfafeeazprise at tttals arid 03) mable btu to piead his aequdw or coavlotioa 9n the case a; u bgr to sul»equent pxoswa#iosi for the satne offinse. u+twd `guv Dav9a B82 F.2d ; (5th (Sr ), 441 U.S. 962 (197r.l) Federal ww law ;tat.apreting Paie 7 of the Federal 2tulas of ('lmfual Pro ecinre a%tes that a bm of par*nian,s sltould.umtbe espanded into a deviceto eireaxaveaf #he 3 'd 69Et'' 11 Yddbb^6 olol '!E'^ny

296 wotriotiona nu prehw disrwery of qecific e4tdeaee aoerdn.ed ia P^e& 1L cdn. p.16. Comer. Liiai^d ^i^^ 2^ i? 2d 5^7: 53a t9^ tsr. ag6o). :f^ ^o. j^g v, g13a E+.sd at gat ("generalize3 ctiseavery ls n^t a peivjyasltsle goal of a bill afpaiifculales"). Where the 3ltdletment 1fseT aud,the bflt of partiruiars suppited by the gaaesmany provide the defsudaut wft adeqaate informaticsu wlth whi& th ruuduet (ias (-kffmse, r&pests for addkoaal pa.r&-oars sltat7.d Hjdmv Datod b8a^ 301 RPA^ 3f3, (56 (5r.3, Mt de*a 371 X7:3. 89 U962). Fedemi czae* bave tiken iuto aa:oust o*eraome s of ir&imet{m pwvided by tlse.gmrnmenntiaeluding diewvw marsrials. rs^ftdft*es u Lrine c1 i044, Ci= 19R3) ( Uraad &sa7vety-ean serftas a sv.bsftgc o,rtle "tetal:pregaxation" ^bn cfa ln'il afparitc^axs).8^: e.a.. f ^^tr^^a,: b^i B. ^ 36b8, s^3g AlMY 1997) faw*ts^sidexed wlvether tbjg1nf4imaden7r:eqnestei.had%een ltra-dsted e^, irici,idfr^g^h?caz^ diwxftrv) Pyzn =dot the Eedbxai incerpra.ta'kioit v.t b rulee, an So&wwat is deemed atiffiefsat3f it "fixtnfiainb Yiba eleuttltt'm, of t3t oge1aw *vd aaa.oiy bfrrm g. 'thatidant afthe &eyw aga#aet wkch he mtust defea,d, antc secoad, wh4ert euable,. 'lam tb plead an aeqitittal er c;envicykm iu bar of fabie pxcftartlcts3s for the satpe iif#wsse" UrifW amted v..fididdlekea. 246 L7oil 8'nuh 8q1-q2t Wgft rfr+ited es v MUM =9 F.gil S7(^ g8g (6th 4h!. i997). 'i'b.e pm=ent is nsuler no abytgaii'on to fts case or expose 9ts 1ega1 ihso;rt, nur does the government l^.vs'to r'!'ssdosa tfie:',iiestse manner ia whieh t3ie enme aharged 9n the indletmenr Is elleged [n bave l^eeq.t^namiiteti " ; nite ^^^v ^*^ee. ^g F Supp 344, 8$9 (1g83)s ^ Dtd States vandsswa. g6x Ia:ad 3'Y/> STl-7g (1W). 19 FRD. 426, 428 (5D.E+T,Y. 1956): As stated in r h+it^a e^trs v, 1i slcv. 4 b Ia E9LZ100 Wal.o otoz u any

297 'The pokpose of a b3li of particutars ig to iaform tbtt defodbut es to the mime for vmpb ke m6t staud txi4riot tu eomvei &e d#9e1ostwe of how m.nc& the gove^r^.^ ean ^pr^sve ^ant12a9'^' much it +rsur.tot xtor to f^treeloeet^ ^govtraxuent!' am: ush2gproof te rnay develop astfle Viet apgraae^" Cemphasis e8ded}. PAwSei.aut to vu1e 16 ofrb.e.bbio Rnles of Crlrriinai Pmcedurey t}tedet'endan.ta in MahoYZtrig Couniy Cammon ZM'tase nvmlaeys2olo CR 00800, er at, are to rsoeive ttionaeuda o# TFa `z.s of ctaepmt (a s;^t gmpb:er of w7siali came tsam tble 4afeudaatis ftteniysel*s pmmpmt to Wand.)my imbpoenas3sstted during tbe entme andt swpe of aii exben*m pmd juty in+restigaiion.qebi(ii was taurtaslea by afinite eadibs date apeie4t.ted by the. Tdeh.ozuug Cot3nty general "on judges, a31 of *tiam h0e fecusemetbielue44n t7iwe r^ripariio^ e^ses), g!tm#yoo: _ ^^^ ^ Um^ ^ ^x -t FZ lr 4 71z 10.V4-M P;R A 4 t^^ d' tb^14 Daring tfse#hm :Frame at fodh in. fhe Sa&tsoentT)afiandarit^ MWirrYavowt; bok^i ormdxtea immadons and awd and ab.ftd itlora pdam, ia non&ekirig VanattioM'on beheif of 6ui.^4 Deondat'ttPloaitdmw ani3tlse Waa t'^npanp auii membeas of the vrimiual. e'ntm*r3sg tdeiiaea in the c.o,mmfia itydi'etm^ eali Ws. Ut teft io deftea 3a 29gs^9x(a) oftha Ohio Rev3sed Cada- (hexeaftr sometimes'rdetred to a "gaerprlse'l 3cnowtng the propedy iuxul.ved wes tbe yroeee& of sprao fonn of voawfu1 aetit+f,iy arxk ti3d so 6 a mm-+.ec cdcwated to cooed or cibga9se the mbfte, luraeitij4 Nduree, omermp oi crontrol oft7s.epropaty orta mvoidatrawactiou teport3ng recnxiimmene under of#he RSVlesd GodeTalorfederalletv. t ^ 1^s ^3oov^ta evideaciag sefd munt of m.na33anntlk&& t4gaam wi8t Defendeut S'EVonwe gactb.8vrat iq40. QS. B6&r0aqume 1W7OtsMrefexes^ed>^1owR^ well xe pgmpoipfnmee O.p.oM slm7[`uksoeideti to 6fauduLt ffi discove4 Puceneatm ^ia CrhxhnalMvteiCi fasd xd ofbetng atwnd herou. 5 S'a `E9EE 'IH N1aat b o^at '^^ aoy

298 Defendant Ivfark3nYmrc& reueived a Ss6,ooouw cdaeak, daiedyar+ch aa, zod8, issuod by Det'ee.dant tdro CmyanY. The check was signed by Flora Cahro ia ber caparhy as a gapresezttae'ive cif{afaro l"ornpany. An mvoicefrofa "Martfn'Yavoxoik'TziaT Aitoriiey; i3ated titat ssme &te^ Marcit go, aoo8, wae spermeeiy 3nacie tv looktme it waa foz' legat servicties on a;"gervice mato of "`Fdbmry zo, 2068." *r'"gmbm X Vmxo/Amarican. {Metax ifiaess MVW big ipr "SeMccea xebdeve. Xst,.Aeftftt 4fewrft t&4 t^ raport tba *is,ope:oo mdvea as inesme on h5e e o8 fe&w.farm. xo40,.iudmdual i marie.e ft ret+itt. W9II3am ReFCaro tlls alsa denw ever ' mieedog.aad aftg DetAndaat'Yavura[kfor kga1 servieea (4. DeSgb:cteat Xavorc& issifcl a cksrk ft veiq iiezt days on-kdare"h ss, 2mg, from bis cheaft secomnt dsd#sd as t'he -TvTarlh la.wox clf6 Esq ^-aooowt 'bu: OIJ5 same asnountofj45,aoaria m-b&pwable to "dow S6tate^ t3ixaw: Ginbat Sia!ktegies C'mup fs a potittcat co=w*g WVriiWMon Au4 iwed.g wmgayorandw tiated MttY , Y.Tb3eh P'm7orte4 to addmss a *stusws of MAY f vt^4s"^,.aatttitiatfld 7n -A.prSlr` 204i^" ^ative R4 `d0 MGe for Pmww ^ ^mer ttl Mabelaim CSatsttty qpamaxiog a'ixi eantmft't^,ie P4IWW vwbibtg g'f PAUI GaivS and DAftxdBAt'YaomT& fnoa't'roo. t3efmdwzt`i*avnud* also Wed to ]$st the trne eoums of t7i9% $1g,000f.oa #u ftmds f.mm The 4'a#'ato CaMPnY ** sigue3.byaora Cdno on him esmgaip $nanee eepozt for the yesr in vr3vcb ft vres }soei.ved..hy ccmcealing d>,e aebw souree of the fivxds aiad than miemresentimg the socuee psed ta jop fvx the suiveylpnii to be an 'ru-laad eantdbution frnan Defezxclan'CYAVortn`Ic, Mwaei. tai. T[^ece ateanwaber ofm#e.rw3eeea,^m++^++^ps createdhy'si>eaelagants ofthepadar.a't8i^n.^rf t to i^+io ta1m. 83aa, ^enne8'.io2s svhicti wpl ise pr acxdafc to t^fens7ant ^^SCOwelgpuceaea C911.o0 1 faei4 oiot I E srl

299 DeFenc7aut Yvorcik is tlae saaie e#borney that vve.v solidted by Anthrnsy M. 4^aro, Sr:,'^ais bra^ John, ^. Cafexo.e.udi^ ^ister; 3^oia C^ anrll^r^?.d^a^deltg :i}i an am,owst toiprmg $saastpo.00 for the puqoes of xemyrvfng Paut Gams ^'ram office failowln$ themu&-pd&ized atbexdpt whioh de1ayeabut:fail.edta b2pek'ti--nirn+e *m the Ce{'aro-conteUed Garland Plaa site to oakm &fumover, Ddmrxdaut ylvi>re& bezatcea eeriade'teent3re^ebo-a imds i*om Cdero tnemhe.8 of the Enurp4e8dnrta5g a. eadl prasect#ir(s) xm idno eon4ttersd M?aifve to tge ^- i n wlriclx ap. ^eav^iyier^1^ ^^ ^d ^imaiely ^sn^.ac^ss Ca ii}oekthe. eouws riiave fkmmtiee Cafaro's GMeri.d prwetcyto CTskMt. TM-gL4 O^ il 'S V^LI7ZdTAR^ Ob 7taarrrr^r^^ TODEMi+DAlNi ^L"WK-^A^tdy 'I9xe 9tete:9fohio vw&ayiwo*orae3dieetai oineau audaeitsmt orthabove relatbe'to t2dmir7^^ if Wrewr3tYau besdn. i^s^.^ssipt xelates to: the ac^iv3^s' ttf Maxtin '^ava^.d^iled abirve r^ive t^r C=t W, On orai.rattt4'hede.tesetfooitttis aotmrq'ftliziadictmeut,-tla'ddoxiam6. Pgpa cai'sro, ismea iile $1so00;0o ehe* ffforn $s (;afaxri CoMPE# to D'efadaitt Ye^rorate^. DecfeadancRloxaCsfam both coaductab. saidtiren"oas onbeha)fof herself, #he Cafero Osim PeaY-andtile gaftnp^a snd atdedantl,sbeffieddeattdaricyavorsitrlmowin $e Trropsrk.9 ir'sw3ved aa ttievaeaetioas was ttie pwceaje of some fti of waiawfiil adttxdiy and dia mizt o mmer calaalated to wziixw or &sgutae ffie nkituse, IooOor+, souzee, RNSnei,Wp dr eonb.rol of the proparty or to 4s!oid a taansaednn repotugg requiremeats3nder a3^fi 58 ^^ itevisad Cos?,e or fekrei, Iaw, 7 ( 'd fi9lb.on WdtliY 9W "!i"op

300 The Cafaro Compan.y;&ee`tt signed by 7SaPendent Mora (afta vrss disgutmd tol' lonk tike a payineut fox leo servicas ozi. behatf of har san's bnsiness anct was insteacl. qseeff le.&y uaerl tb pe;y'fot lklmmyjpod to be condusw by Globel: Sttategiea Gmvqt es zs^et3. sbove rnletive to. Co^t '^ ^2uis is not t]^a ^E^^ir^e Anthony G^faxa ttr otber memben ofthm Eatt&pr#se vas made alassd,astine paynion7s and tle Skate w11 mek to dffiw ant3in9roftetth$r ppts emencer CWC;LUSIOtd' Tfie defr;adeuts have baw piaaeit an notia bf t^ie ci9me fwr whieh #b.ay are o}wgpa pisrsualt-iv alamper fxiretmar t tb5 te3,ve beeu pravixied «3th tbb eolut=g BiYT of par.imjara:4ud they wfe.liave eeie*s.tro exte:isrve iufu^iaiadn fnalfr.en,ase thrilsagh tbo vobxxmiinctrts dtscoveryta hecatfnxs^d under ^bib Crit^inr^,RRie^.d:.^Rid 1^oim^tna is- moie tass sacoat to fjtug qpxisg ttieio df to pr^zc{bzg ob,a" aixd 90- aftble dafaa ^en^ ta ^rs^ie ^r tsga^ To the edmzt daudpin a seek eadentiat ddws in emesa xi^ch. aeokt$s *ortd tha pxoper swpe of a bitl vf WrOulars A.tdLeiz,YfM4 aobx67 speew ProsemftAfurueY $ a 91Z'Oti 8 Wd I:t olot 'IE 8 V

301 E'M3tTnT''aTSC)F fi"imv"tm Airpe copyof#6e foi'go$ng BW oflwtietzlars has been serveedvca regu2art7s mail tms 81ot da ofanps4-20io ;upon Defendan.is gaft ' 'avoraaud E4oYa (earo in eara of t#ssr attoraeps at t#w 4Lddtesses appearhigbdow od also i o txr=sa'i for the a *er c}ekdsut oharged by wa of coinmon indfct3nen't at *e.ir zespeddve ad'dressadap^wbelowsndvie:tbs4ams^xie^hod,c ii*very: Jc^^.Ii^c^>.E^q ^,^ati,^cltasdn,_^q. t ^ohmm^7lt-^^ iq80 (^ut^f^0^!'er t^tttstc^et do*it{jkio Wo ^t^btagti, P^ ^lts9 G^oxtitii3^^^''i6roT^t^^n:^'FrtzfY G*ti^uAt' al+t.^ihr'a.t'u^'a^,^r. ga5d lgqi tawsn.^t.ltleniew^, Sutt^ g^oo :^gni^q+^sgcee^, 0 WOMAoW44214 ^^^^^rr ^^^ ubiilzf _: rl+'i t on. ' Ik- mng ooz C^dlsri3i. ^ ^. Ca^tt^set,jf»rl^rxc^ara Job't1..TOW, Fst4. ToBi. WMBoadlevard Cv IOMMrOMta446M f^138^8^+&jyao, FS. J. CLereldbWaxa,H4. Robeiet D^oft ^c1^ ryg$o B^.^EF[!eC Xb1UlsOpMObQ 446= ^sel,^m'.tof^ii44p2 9 I/ b 'd E9Lb'aN 9 1Ngb:4 41ob U '$sd

302 2010 CR EXHIBIT 3

303 a^!olvad ;^ `^

304 The C1ând?^ Smtd^y Sept^mhei S. $016

305 Did special prosecutors go too far? Page 1 of 2 Did special prosecutors go too far? Sunday, September 19,2010 There are eertain letters that ring trae, even though they are unsigned. This one arrived in the mail the week of Sept. 5 in reaction to the eoluna:, "Oakhill is not on trial": "Dear Mr. de Souza: "Thank you for Sunday's colunm in The Vindicator. As a member ofthe Oakhill Grand Jury, it pains me not to be able to say anytbing to anyone. I just wanted you to know we did not indict a ham sandwich and that you are exactly right in your analysis. Please keep hitting this hard. I am so afraid that what we did will end up going no where and get lost in `politics as usual' in the Mahoning Valley. We were ordinary people appalled at what undue influence cost the citizens of Mahoning County. Please keep up the good work. "Sincerely...A jmme. The letter was ptmient, bemse the very week it was received, visiting Judge William R. Wolff Jr. issued a ruling that shoul.d have alarmed Mahoning Valley residents, including the juror, who are tired of government conruption. The players Judge Wolff s raling had the effect of biding from public view all filiregs in the the state of Ohio's critninal oase against seven individuals and three oompanies. The seven are Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., retired president of the Cafaro Co.; Mahoning County Commissioner John A. IvieNally IV; eounty Auditor Michael V. Sciortino; former county Treasarer John Reardon; former 7ob and Family Servioes Director John Zachariah; Flora Cafaro, an officer ofthe C'.afaro Co; and, Atty. Martin Yavorcik. Tbree companies were also named in the grand jury indictment: The Cafaro Co., Ohio Valley Mall Co., and The Marion Plaza, Inc. As the Sept. 5 eolumn pointed out, the erinrinai case against the defendants centers on one issue: political corruption. It is not about the decision by two county cotnmissioners, Anthony Traficanti and David Ludt, to buy the former South Side Medical Center and move the JFS agency into it. For almost 20 years, the agency had been located in the Cafaro-owned Crartand Plaza, with county goverisment spendi.ng at least $1.2 million for rent aud other expenses. The oolumn, which detailed the charges against the Valley Seven, also made note of the fact that in a document released publicly pertaining to Flora Cafaro and Atty. Yarorcik, there was this sentence: /2

306 Did special prosecutors go too far? Page 2 of 2 "This is not the fsrat time Anthony Cafam or othea'rnembers of the Enterprise [have] made clandestine payments and the State will seek to offer and introduce other acts evidence." (Other acts evidence is a legal concept.) The document pertaining to Flora Cafaro and Yavorcik - it's called a Bill of Particulars - detailed a $15,000 transaction that the state says violated eriminal statutes. The state's case is being presented by special prosecutors Dennis P. Will, Paul Niek, David Muhek and Antfiony Cillo. Lawyers react It didn't take long for the gaggle of defense lawyers to saek to bury any of the documents pertaining to this case. Last week, Judgc Wolff softened his "seal pcisition by saying that he would hold hearings in an effort to determine which documents, if any, should be made public and what information should be released. The judge's change of heart came on the heels of a Vindicator editorial that argued agaio:st any hiding from the public informati.on pertaining to this aase. The key question in this case is rather straightforward. Did the Cafaro brother and sister use their financial wealth and influence to corrupt the curtent and former govemm^^.t officials? All the defendants have denied the charges and have hired high-powered lawyers to defend them. Did the special prosecutors show their hand by including the paragraph about Anthony Cafaro in the bill of particulars dealing with the charges against his sister and Yavoraik? The defendants obviously think so, or they wouldn't have asked for the judicial seal Indeed, there are reports tha.t some of the lawyers wanted the judge to issue a gag order that would prevent anyone itrvolved with this case from talking about it. Fortunately, the gag wasn't issued. You can just image the public's reaction to Auditor Sciortino, who is running for re-election this year, refusing commerit because of the judicial veil. htkp;//

307

308 Judge amends Oakhill order By Fe*er: H. NIilliken Wednesday, September 15, 2010 By Peter Millik.en Wot, ff to screen f z'lings, deciate what to unseac By PBTER H. MILLIKEN millikeu@vin.dv.com YOUNGSTOWN A viaitiiig judge has issued a written clarification of his earlier order sealingm the Oak- hill view all pre- trial document filin.gs, except for routine procedural matter, Renaissance Place criminal- conspiracy case. Tn a supplemental order filed'tlaesday, Judge Wiliiam H. Wolff Ir.,^ be deadlines wi11 conduct the jury trial, said the filings will be made tu der seal; there part'es' lawyers; and the judge for objections to pubfic release and responses fram tt e then will screen the doeuments for "'u'duly pxejudicial" content before deciding what to unseal. 'ections and responses immediately after the The judge said he'll rule on any written obj response deadline expires, redact anything he believes shouldn't be part of the pretrial public record, and unseal the remainder of the filings. "This case has attracted and wi11. continue to attract signifi.cant media coverage," Judge Wolff said. "Tn these eircumstances, the court is ob iiged to balance the right of the ' t of the ublic to U. informed. de endants to a fair trial and the "The concesn of the court is that fair and impartial potential jurors can be found in Mahoning County," the judge added. Judge Wolff defined fair and impartial jurars as those "without preconceived notions of how this case should be decided that they cannot set aside due to pretrial publicity.

309 46 La Z Boy Spas intr6siuetosp atpm The judge said he expects to iule on objections without oral arg nnents unless the lawyers request oral arguments. The judge's order did not say how long the parties would have to object or respond to an objection after a document is filed. The jury trial is set to begin June 6, No oral or written motions have been made to seal any documnts in this case. Speciai Prosecutor Paul M. Nick, chief investigatlve counsel for the Columbus-based Ohio Ethics Commission, and Joe Bell, Cafaro Co. spvkesman, said the wnrocedure clarification from the judge is consistent with the understanding of the judge's p they had after last Thursday's initial 90-minute pretrial conference with the judge in chambers. Nick and Bell, however, declined to comment further. Bell said the prosecuttng and defense lawyers who participated in thet conference agreed not to comment publicly about filings in the case or the judge's orders until further notice. A Mahoning County grand jury returnai a 73-count, 41-page indictment in the criminatconspiracy case 7u1y 28. Five people and three companies are charged with conspiring to prevent or delay the move of Mahoning County l3epartment of 7ob and Family Services from Cafaro Co: owned rented qaarters on the ci 's East Side to Oakhill Renaissance I'lace. Oakhill is the former Fomm Health Southside Medical Center, which the county purchased in 'FS moved there the following year. The defendants charged with conspiracy and other charges are: Anthony M. Cafaro Sr., retired president of the Cafaro Co.; the Cafaro Co. itself and two of its affiliates, the Ohio

310 Valley Mali Co. and the Marion Plaza Inc.; county Commissioner John A.. McNally IV; county Audi.tor Michael V. Sciortino; fomier county Treasurer John B. Reardon; and John Zachariah, former JFS director. Two other defendants indicted in the case are not charged with conspiracy. They are Flora Cafaro, pazt owner of the Cafaro Co., and Atty. Marti?i Yavorcik> who are charged only with money laundering 3n connection with an allegedly concealed $15,000 gift she gave to Yavozcik's unsuccessful 2008 campaign for county prosecutor. Flora Cafaro is Anthony Cafaro's sister.

311

312 a1 ^^ca^rilissiwcer ^1d^ gtspeaks pd^rs, AE16asEeps.otqlfl^ 6eiorititiYg 6aikedoathug^ptemreeet^vdthl6epMhosadroakFo t^nei^ piua.tlqi<^nrgadnith m^glog M a pauemof coouptadlrli,y,soi p ArffiStY.coaGlato#BWd' ey^,'t1ictloswpoeaon Ipatiei.^qa,aadaoliaitingoFaocepkiriEln^^mpen^A ' ',.. Cawi[pAut9UYldmd` - ` AtiomayliartiaParertAea; alsaxmsbaoiaaf. iersthemwaftcauunty attbeje&aiclaagssiatta; Jlstk:eCeM^ti4rkishooktag ^ yfptat»heptoadqd ana svunknfmoney. ^^e ^^ldms^ '.laaaif^. ;. -..: 1 OAffML pxoeesaeo- Xavor= was ^donasingt wunt q ywafavizy ofinoneyiawsdarin& topresentingmyaideof ^wla Waking herwaq the case and clearmg my upthastepsoceompamed name,' he said. -by her Wiffiam I3e is charged wfth ea- p"le- ^^^ (,^nothing, gagingiaapattemgfoor- blut Doyle saidba.pians-. ruptagtivity,conapiraty,, to vigorousty defend hii;, brt`bary, wni]ict ^ym ^t ai^g apd s]e, opf^es t, #[I[ng a false to:a tuci^ss^s^; :. finarieieldisclosuxestate- a^p,., memt and aoiieitfng or pwra Cafaro.ivas iu-' eccepptingimp16pero0 r` dictadtutaeingletnoroy^ ^ saidhestanda ^^^g ^ ^ h^ dacision to ope are ^ted John7sra}a tbe county' s pnt ase riak former cbunty Ibls '. of Oakhili, the former p^iy.saxoioes i= gazum Health South- leam is oatc oy^^id. side Meditat Center. He said tbere ^ s no ^t busine'ss ing ^is^agg^^ a^^'"` ook: p^nfo[titc^d^ changaprdesaff:change ^t agcttvity,consp3x arder costingthe coumy a ap, pe)mi'i txibery, and ^`It3 just a money pit; ^ C^ Sc and itwase,orthose rea- ^ sonsifontthtit; hesaid. de^^tbacatamcabas He addaslte hasno!ri - ordered to ap ar t^tian on howingoutof be ^r^^kingtoda}[ ^Ie is. theupwmingnovmnber dtargedwdhengaging3n. ^ snsttere'nftnmmtactiv?'ik,.,sauy wr ` ` :` "' y conspirary per^ury,cevter b6iy, and aqancy cessing, H seidhe Iooka fomerd ^to 14itnsetfagainst Fotmar county-lkey su.tar iobu Reaidon reeeived a judginent entcy gottenmtatb^b:po4nt Igor29 iroaii IudRe lou,iyapoltto yszs tms'losbean Invea ordsmg bim tu appear at tjkatdic neitluac t nor my, tiie jarl by 1:30 p.m. Prifls fam charges of en- ettorilteq have beea able to addtass the iasuas.' he. said. "f am goiag to tigbt gainginapattetnafcm- ; rapt consp6racr Iils:a dag The couimissioner is PdlurYe9. ^o^^ ^^y pt^yg ^, of interestand filii^g a apatreffioeeoprtptactw- feisebnanclai disdosure i)ccni^or tv 1he.in^cmtante6atges est, ure df cans, Anthony Cafara Sr. and dentipl. iafo;cmaticn and his business entities of ngar?wypftha- c napiti gwlrkmcntaby, 5eio^ao, R64i34n and Aldfaliysaid Irqi son- Zaobariab td Preamaat or viqced'ifiatoppos^tba dda9t3terelbnofthe ase was the t couat} 1e 1ob and F^mUy- td do.d3e said ^` SeKViceddeRaximenEfrom ^^zx ih^opats assacialeii `.tha Cafa;o ;ow!{ed Ciai ^assa - :^Sn ^ lupuedmin^ `the Ms1P,outhe ^ye }espurces taty' ahasc to0eichill Yezrhed at tbe Sba ttficetivavi cetocated ^qo. t5ga iai20d7 ' d^et$^ end W ^eadshirt,.'i7^eindis^tacsusee he- r,limbed, tha MeNally, SCiortiao, Reoz` step,ir6pcof Hce jaii -donafiazachartalot'tak saging nnly, "X iyavt no :higbt lties$omthecafaio oommait beiwgeu- C',o.and/orit -subaic^iarteting^ditig,to^: ies.;.:, -

313 Yf9UNGSMWN-WARREN Te[evfsion NgMS ltacings - W ERat3ngssia of 1 113Ui20(9) #^"d i^ayoat'^t'g^ EarIY Nlor.nino 5A-8A: t

314 i News N'ow; More Loca.l News for Youngs tawrn, Ohio - Prosecutors reveal cle#eils in Oekhi.ll scandal ^!fm-po.4,^.: ; `.,s :.^^ :-^.^nr -:..a _yy_ y Frosecutors rerrea'i detaiis iti Oakhitl scandal Augdst31, 2010 YUUPI^O1Ntd, CfhW = Ttero's n^r 1nformatio2 ^t0ut a"es egeu^t ir^o of the defendat^s In ttie. Oakfitll piltilie cnt^uptton-asandal; attoptey MaT@n YautiMlk 0 dst Flara Cafafo. LatetCttlsdayaiternoon prosecutoraiiled ;3 pili of aattidutare kaefttifylfia:speciti'a.ibagafact^ops.a^egadly takari bp^taafaro and Yavorcik. qecoidlnv to Proseautors, m qey digguissd t4 keik fike..a payn3eh't^frn' ^ai sorvic^ wss attggedty used i5t'jsoktkal purpdsas. The Ca(am GtalTtRany.t^ti a 15 thousand dollar ohack an N^ch 1Q. 7^S "dgned byfioyargetarabo atamey Wrtin Yavttr*. A tsam^art^+thvafce made iitatipqma oal+w^ 0?@^'"ta kiok tike ttte check evas for Iagst sery^ i^tt {llbeii5'f $rraraandame.tka9 ^^f^ ^n^s ^ex^fal. Mr^uevsr Ye unr+alc fa9ed:tq T'.epFatt.ft. W thoitaand as mcome andwottarrt ^rrgro h^s deni ^ a^'h^^h?'hnd'uaing A@ornay't^^v9i'cik torle^l sl3nk^: YaVpft Issued a 15 thousand dd1at dogft Ffre'ne#.day pay:able to. GlOhai Strffitt3g(as 0mup. a p4111k:^al oot"r>p tirrn: t3lobai Strategies lasod BlDorTlorandurn purported to address^r^'meter Sur^y tn'the. Mahaning County prrssacr's naw Vftre YavQfGtkwas chanerigfn9 ineumbwt:fatil Ggdns. YgVWdlk also faifed to rapart Ute i$ ltitta.sand.dcsllo ofa his eampalgn firtan:ee report. Prbsenutors atso say Yavorc. tk w,paapiidted I5y.Aiithony', Joho and Flora Cafarc and tifrousah'd ijodarsia tkfeatt5sins tn ttia^eetteh. pr6se>atlems allege that Fiew Caḟaro condludfkd the trat(satkfotis on behad orhemett and tlre Caiaro ttohipaliy knowtng ieaaasillegel and dong tn a manner to aoraeal fineridat repodi.ng requitevnents of federal taw. Pro606utors say thb Isn t fhsfirst ttme.^qwhy C^jaR? or other membes ofilre enferprise ha^ matl^ Claiidestins payments and tlre state mfil( aedk to p#13i pfhfiradts as t;vkterxos. ^wxwow A conimn a CepytgJn 2o0o-26i6 NlqAd[^{cw entl WFNFJ A812161ric a- ned t:oyifiorc IMolmittun amihis stle, pleose reed ow Prtuecv VeYcv and 7wnns ntseme.

315 r6awky's Hmwcw Locking the courthouse door is no assurance of a fair trial Sunday, September 12,2010 A defendant's right to a fair trial and the need for coutfs in a free country to operate opcnly often came into conflict. And it is the obligation of a judge to balance those competing interests, using all the tocls at his disposal. That doesn't appear to be happening in what's come to be called the Oakbill case. The case involves mdiotments against high-profrle individuals, including two curreat county officeholders, and principals in one of the area's most prominent private compauies. They have been accused in a multi-oount indictment of having cotuspired to prevent or delay the o^^ move of the Mahoning County Dcpartment of Job and Pamily Setvices fromt a former piaza. owned by the Cafaro Co, to 4akhill Renaissance Place, a former hospi Mahoning County. Some lawyers, and maybe ever some judges, would like to restrict public access only'to that evidence that is eventually introduced in court. But that's not the tradition that is honored by cur open court system. Unlilce some countri.es, where even the name of smeone eharged with a crime is seakd pending oonviction or exonesation, or others in which the fate of a citizen is determinod entirely behind closed doors, we in the tjnited States have found that open is better. Unusualiy high interest In most cases, of course, the public has 3ittlc interest in the background mechanizations of the courk. Bntnotthis time. The defendattts in these cases ars: Anthony K Cafaro Sr., retired president of the Cafaro Co.; his sistet', Flora Cafa% part-owner of the Cafaro Co.; the Cafaro Co. l Co. and the Marion Plaza fnc,; county and two of its affiiiates, the Ohio Vailey Mal Commissioner John A. McNally N; county Auditou'Michael V. Sciortino; former county 'Preasnrer John B. Reardon; John Zachariab, the former county Job andros ^yo ervices director, for count and Atty. Mattin Xavorcik, who made an unsnceesstul run yp People want to know details of how the officers of influential companies dotn8 bns^r'ess with the g mth ' e ublic's interest. county interaot with county offictals elected to wor p

316 Judge William H. Wolff Jr. of Kettering, who has been assigned to preside over the case, has set the trial to begin nine months from now. The implicati.on of an order he signed last week is that until then, details o what the prosecution has uncovered will be sealed. Ho's doing this in the stated interest of protecting the purity of the jury pool Presumption goes too far His action, however, presumes that normal access to court documents would poison the jury pool, depriving the defendants of a fair trial. The extent to whieh any pretrial publicity has affected any prospective juror's ability to remain impartial is something that.is routinely examined during juzy seleetion. And if it becomes obvious that 12 impartial jurors cannot be found in Mahoning County, the court has an option of ehanging venue. Judge Wolff was assigned from outside the area to hear the case inthe interest of impartiality. lf it is neessary to take the trial outside the area in the interest of irnpartiality- and the need for that is by no means certain - it can be done. It is more than a little disconcerting that all discussion about blocking public access to future filings was done, itself, bebind closed doors. This is not a federal case. In federal prosecutions the complaint is often heatd bat^ u S the defendant has extraordinary resources, he or she is almost certainly outgunned by Justice Department. In this case, however, there are five special pzosecutors representing the state and the Ohio Ethics Commission. They are outnumbered almost 3-1 by a panoply of defense lawyers, some local, othas from Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Boston and New York City, While it is ttae that prosecutors represent the state, and therefore the people, their focus is on winning a eriminal conviotion, not on preserving the public's rigbt to know. Broader considerations It falls to the judge to recognize all the various competing interests, not necessarily only those chooses that ars being argued in front ofhim by specifie advocates at any one tane^vjhea^ g es ou ^ to close the door to his chambers and to give only two sides a hearing, tsansp window. Judge Wolff said ttals is the most complicated case he has ever tried in his longand variedcareer. in diapute, and sorne facts m.aynever corne ta light. It is unreasonable to expeet the public to remain in the dark, especially'when two of the accused remain on the public payroll.

317 in the judicial toot bag that Judge Wolff has at his disposal, he Feached in and Stabbed a sledge hammer. Before he crushes the public's right to know, he should reconsider and Snd a more suitable tool

318 :EIGER, TIGGES &LITTLE ti,i> if:lep]{bnli8t4 345-yQQ p4c$im[l.e 4 4Y4] 361-^14ob ATTQRNItYS AY LAW l500 HX7MT11{CsTON. QI^idTER RiTER OlRE^T N UMBEN ^ 4^1 ^duyh HIG`t3 5T7}E.HT GO4llM6lls.'oNitl43273, 4dt4a ber 15, 2019 V^,Hand-llelivery snd^acsimite ^,. 1heHonQ'r'abte Willcam`H. VVtlIff; Jr. ^a iiritvn Pteas Judge;'Sitting By. ti.ssignisieiit CUo, urtroem:9 ' ai^alionmg,f^utity Court House izu'^arket Street 3^aungstown,:CH HonorebW Vl?il liam H Wolf^Jr: I^Aantgomery;Count}r'Comman Flees Couit ^11 N J'erty Stieet # 5'15 âayton, QH Mr:>AntEto4vivo lufahoning lrvunty Clerk of Courts 1u1d1iQning Gounty Court XTouse 1201tdarket Street ^oungstovin; OH Re: The YounQStown Vindicator Re ordsreouest Dear udge Woiff sad Mr. Vivo; ^FTe r^present tlie Xoungsto^un Vtndicator and WFM1-TV 1'tirsuant f(s Seotiom 14^.43'1 ft:ohio Revised Code; we ^equest^'an oppoituiut^tp rntst siispect, t11en tles}gnatt for cop '}^ng; au ; (a) : frling`s made; (b) orders issued or iitade, irrespective of'?whetiier jdnmali^etla andldi`(s) ` documents submitted to the ttouit in tate of Ohio v. Yavarctk^e i al., Cese No. 201b CR X1,1v3ahoning.County Dsrhinon Fleas (^ oi^ J.7. As dre Ohio. $up reme'gonrt bas, u^ade elear,: any recortls or docuinents (s);filed With the,... clerk'soffice; or (b^ received by andutilized by tho 'Coilrt as parf of its decision niaking proce',ss; " iri'espective of whethet joiuna lized, are public records,:. and must be made available `for inspection upon request during regular business hours. See, pa., State ex re 1. WHNS TV,;Inc, v.. Diies, 101 Ohio Sti 3d 406, 411 (2004); State ex rel MotheYs Agamst Drunk lhivers wgosser, _,. 34 (1985). THE OHIO LEGAL BLANK CO., INC. EXHIBIT Jt. Rec.Ex 21 EXHIBIT G CLEVELAND, OHIO

319 November 15; 2010 Page 2 Z'EIGER, TIGGBS & LITTLE LLP As a resultz consistent with Sec ian 144:43, please make these records promptly available for inspe0tton. If any documentsare svithh' we respectful[y request thatfthey;be identified. appze^{6.yotu atfention to tlus matter lease do not hasitate to eall ir^a^^ quesuons.,little,jr: ry24-004:zq1843:.

320 FILED UNDER SEAL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff, Case No CR JUDGE WILLIAM H. WOLFF, JR. vs. ANTHONY M. CAFARO, SR., et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION OF ANTHONY M. CAFARO, SR., THE CAFARO COMPANY, OHIO VALLEY MAI.L COMPANY, THE MARION PLAZA, INC. AND FLORA CAFARO TO DISMISS INDICTMENT - George A. Stamboulidis (Pro Hac Vice) BAKER HOSTETLER 45 Rockefeller Plaza 11th Floor New York, NY Martin G. Weinberg (Pro Hac Vice) Law Office of Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston, MA Counsel for Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr. J. Alan Johnson (Pro Hac Vice) Cynthia Reed Eddy (Pro Hac Vice) JOHNSON & EDDY 1720 Gulf Tower 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA Counselfor Flora Cafaro ( ) Ralph E. Cascarilla ( ) Dariell A. Clay ( ) WALTER & HAVERFIELD, LLP The Tower at Erieview 1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 3500 Cleveland, OH " Counsel for The Cafaro Company John F. McCaffrey ( ) Anthony R. Petruzzi ( ) McLAUGHLIN & MCCAFFREY, LLP Eaton Center, Suite Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH Counsel for Ohio Valley Mall Company and Marion Plaza, Inc. 2010CR aoeao MB.70 EXHI'BIT E THE OHIO LEGAL BLANK CO., INC. EXHIBIT,RPr_ Ex. 22 CLEVELANO, OHIO

321 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION... 1 II. THE COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT CHARGING THE CAFARO DEFENDANTS AND FLORA CAFARO VIOLATE THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION TEN OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, AND OHIO RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 7(B)...:... 2 A. B. C. An Indictment Must Not Only Contain the Elements of the Charged Offense, But Must Provide Adequate Notice of the Charges... 2 A Bill of Particulars Cannot Cure a Defective Indictment... 4 The Indictment Must Be Dismissed Because It Fails To Provide Constitutionally SuffrcientNotice To These Defendants The Perjury Counts - Counts 25 through (i) Failure to Identifv the O, fficial ProceedinQ...6 (ii) Failure to Identify the Allegedlv False Statements...8 (tii) Failure to Define the Offense The Bribery Counts - Counts 38 through (i) Failure to Identi Dates of Pavments (ii} Failure to Identify Valuable Thine, Valuable Benefit. or Imoroner Influence The Money Laundering Counts - Counts 54 through 59 and The Pattern of Corrupt Activity Counts - Counts I through 3, 8 through 13, and 18 through (i) The Substantive PCA Char,ees _ (ii) The PCA Conspiracv CharQes (tii) The Collection ofan Unlawful Debt Charzes {

322 III. THE INDICTMENT MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE IT FAILS TO MEET MINIMAL STANDARDS OF SPECIFICITY REQUIRED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IV. THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE DEMAND THAT A CRIMINAL INDICTMENT INCLUDE THE SAME LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY AS THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT NOW REQUIRES FOR CIVIL PLEADINGS...:...: V. CONCLUSION......:...:...30 { }

323 I. INTRODUCTION On July 29, 2010, a Grand Jury retumed a seventy-three count indictment against three entities and seven individuals, including tan counts alleging violations of the Pattern of Corrupt Practices Act ("PCA") under R.C (A)(1) and (A)(2); fourteen counts of conspiracy to engage in a pattern of corrupt activity under R.C (A)(1) and (2); thirteen counts of perjury under R.C (A)(2); sixteen counts of bribery under R.C (A), (B), (C), and (D); and eight counts of money laundering under R.C (A)(1), (2), and (3). Defendants Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., The Cafaro Company, Ohio Valley Mall Company, and The Marion Plaza, Inc. (the "Cafaro Defendants") and Flora Cafaro are charged in thirty-four of the counts, to wit: Count 1 Count 8 Count 11 Count 18 Counts Count 47 Count Count 9 Count 12 Count 19 Counts Count 48 Count 54 Count 56 Count 58 Count 3 Count 10. Count 13 Count 20 Counts Counts Count 49 Count 55 Count 57 Count59 Count 73 The language and charges set forth in these counts, and the constitutional deficiencies therein, are discussed in detail below. { )

324 H. THE COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT CHARGING THE CAFARO DEFENDANTS AND FLORA CAFARO VIOLATE THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO TIIE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION TEN OF TIIE OHIO CONSTITUTION, AND OHIO RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 7(B). A. An Indictment Must Not Only Contain the Elements of the Charged Offense, But Must Provide Adequate Notice of the Charges. The United States and Ohio Constitutions restrict the government's ability to indict based on generalities and imprecision. `"Phe Sixth Amendment requires the govemment to inform the accused of the `nature and cause of the accusation."' United States v, Santa-Manzano, 842 F.2d 1, 2(1s' Cir. 1988) (citations and quotations omitted). This fundamental right, along with the rights to confront adverse witnesses, compulsory process for obtaining witnesses, and the assistance of counsel, together comprise the "compact statement of the rights necessary to a full defense" provided by the Sixth Amendment. Faretta v. Californta, 422 U.S. 806, 818 (1975). The Supreme Court has held that "[b]ecause these [Sixth Amendment] rights are basic to our adversary system of criminal justice, they are part of the `due process of law' that is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to defendants in the criminal courts of the States." Id. (citations omitted). Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution provides: "[N]o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous, crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury." Like the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, "[tjhis provision guarantees the accused that the essential facts constituting the offense for which he is tried will be found in the indictment of the grand jury... Where one of the vital elements identifying the crime is omitted from the indictment, it is defective and cannot be cured by the court as such a procedure would permit the court to convict the accused on a charge essentially different from that found by the grand jury:' State v. Headley, 6 Ohio St.3d 475, (1983). This rule { ) 2

325 ensures that a criminal defendant will not be "surprised" by a charge. See In re, R'eed; 147 Ohio App.3d 182, 2002-Ohio-43, 33 (8s` Dist. 2002). In Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (1962), the Supreme Court set forth the criteria to measure the sufficiency of an indictment. As such, it is well-established that an indictment is constitutionally sufficient only if it: (1) contains the elements of the charged offense; (2) gives the defendant adequate notice of the charges; and (3) protects the defendant against double jeopardy. Valentine v. Konteh, 395 F.3d 626, 631 (6' Cir. 2005) (citing Russell, 369 U.S. at ). An indictment may not simply recite the elements of the offense charged. An indictment satisfies the demands of the Sixth Amendment only if it contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged and "sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet." Russell, 369 U.S. at 763 (internal citation omitted). An indictment which sets forth only a bare recitation of the statutory language "may be sustained only if the statute sets forth all the necessary elements fully and clearly, without ambiguity or uncertainty, accompanied by a statement of facts sufficient to inform the accused of the specific conduct which is prohibited." United States v. Salisbury, 983 F.2d 1369, 1374 (6a' Cir. 1993) (citing Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974)). The due process rights enunciated in Russell are required not only in federal indictments but also in state criminal charges. Valentine, 395 F.3d at 631 (citations omitted); State v. Sellards, 17 Ohio St.3d 169, 170 (1985) ("An individual accused of a felony is entitled to an indictment setting forth the `nature and cause of the accusation' pursuant to Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution."). Rule 7(B) of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure confirms these protections guaranteed in ordinary and concise by the Federal and Ohio Constitu6ons: "The statement may be made language without technical averments or allegations not essential to be proved. The statement { } 3

326 may be in the words of the applicable section of the statute, provided the words of that statute charge an offense, or in words sufficient to give the defendant notice of all the elements of the offense with which the defendant is charged." Thus, in Ohio, "an indictment meets constitutional requirements if it 'first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense."' State v. Childs, 88 Ohio St.3d 558, 565 (2000) (emphasis added) (quoting Hamling, 418 U.S. at ); see also State v. Buehner, 110 Ohio St.3d 403, 405 (2006). B. A Bill of Particulars Cannot Cure a Defective Indictment. Ohio law is well-settled that a bill of particulars cannot cure a defective indictment. State v. Lewis, 85 Ohio App.3d 29, 32 (3'c Dist. 1993). "It is elementary that averments in a bill of particulars may not be used to cure fundamental defects in an indictment; on the contrary, it is granted... for the Gmited purpose of elucidating or particularizing the conduct of the accused alleged to constitute the charged offense." State v. Gingell, 7 Ohio App.3d 364, 367 (V` Dist. 1982). Because a bill of particulars cannot cure defects in an indictment, a trial court errs if it considers facts stated in a bill of particulars when ruling on a motion to dismiss an indictment. See State v. Silos, 104 Ohio App.3d 23, 26 (9a` Dist. 1995) (bill of particulars was a matter beyond the "face of the indictmenf' and should not have been considered in ruling on defendant's motion to dismiss). State and federal standards with respect to the purpose and effect of a bill of particulars are essentially the same. In Russell, the Supreme Court held that "a bill of particulars cannot save an invalid indictment." 369 U.S. at 770; see also United States v. Superior Growers Supply, Inc., 982 F.2d 173, 177 (e Cir. 1992) ("A bill of particulars cannot cure a legal deficiency; rather the proper result is dismissal of the indictment."). The appellate court, when reviewing the ( ) 4

327 sufficiency of an indictment, must ask "whether the onrission complained of deprives the defendant of one of the protections which the guaranty of a grand jury indictment was meant to ensure:" United States v. Sturman, 951 F.2d 1466, 1478 (6d' Cir. 1991). Although the State has not yet responded to the Cafaro Defendants' request for a bill of particulars in this case, well-settled Ohio and federal law dictate that a bill of particulars could not save the indictment. For the reasons detailed below, each of the counts discussed below must be dismissed for failing to provide constitutionally sufficient notice of the offenses of which these defendants are accused. C. The Indictment Must Be Dismissed Because It Fails To Provide Constitutionally Sufficient Notice To These Defendants. 1. The Perjury Counts - Counts 25 through 27. Using identical language, Counts 25, 26 and 27 each charge Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr. with perjury in violation of R.C (A), as follows: The Jurors of the Grand Jury of the State of Ohio, within and for the body of the County aforesaid, on their oaths, IN THE NAME AND BY TBE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF OHIO, Do find and present, that the ANTHONY M. CAFARO, SR., in the County of Mahoning, unlawfully on or about June 6, 2007 did, in any official proceeding, knowingly make a false statement under oath or affinnation, or knowingly swear or affirm the truth of a false statement previously made, when either statement is material, in violation of (A) of the Ohio Revised Code, a Felony of the Third Degree, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio. The three counts use the same language, verbatim, including the date of "on or about June 6, 2007." For several reasons, these counts are constitutionally deficient and must be dismissed. { } 5

328 (i) Failure to Identfj"y the Offecial ProceedinQ. These counts are defective for failing to identify the "official proceeding" at which Mr. Cafaro allegedly committed perjury. Case law makes clear that such information must be set forth in an indictment. In Russell v. United States, the defendants were convicted of violating 2 U.S.C. 192, which makes it unlawful for a person summoned to testify before a committee of Congress to refuse to answer "any question pertinent to the question under inquiry." While each indictment stated that the questions to which answers were refused "were pertinent to the question then under inquiry" by the subcommittee, the indictments failed to identify or particularize the subject under inquiry. On this basis, the Court held that the indictments were insufficient because they failed adequately to apprise the defendants of what they must be prepared to meet and were insufficient to enable courts to decide whether the facts alleged were sufficient in law to support convictions. 369 U.S. at Similarly, in United States v. Murphy, 762 F.2d 1151 (1" Cir. 1985), the Court reversed the defendants' convictions based on a defective indictment involving testimony of a witness in an official proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512(a)(1) (tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant). The First Circuit held that the indictment failed to identify the "official proceeding" that the defendants intended to influence, notwithstanding the fact that the indictment "partot[ed] the statute" and gave a precise date of the alleged offense (March 23, 1984). Id. at "Crucial to preparation of any defense to a charge under the statute is at Icast some indication of the identity of the proceeding in which the defendant tried to influence testimony: " Id. at Finding that the indietment did not identify the proceeding in which the defendants tried to influence testimony, the court held that the indictment "did not sufficiently apprise the defendants of what they must be prepared to meet." Id (quoting Russell, 369 U.S. at { } 6

329 763). The court found the deficiency so serious that it vacated the defendants' convictions despite the defendants' failure to raise the defect in a timely pretrial motion. Id. at Just like the indictments in Russell and Murphy, the indictment here is constitutionally deficient because it fails to identify the "official proceeding" during which Mr. Cafaro allegedly made false statements, or at which he knowingly swore or affmned the truth of a false statement previously made. In fact, Counts 25 through 27 do not even refer to "an" official proceeding, which could arguably provide some notice, but instead cite "any" official proceeding, which further illuminates the flaws of the indictment as drawn. Indeed, the use of the term "any" to modify "official proceeding" raises doubts as to whether the grand jury even found probable cause that Mr. Cafaro committed perjury at a particular "official proceeding." It matters not that the indictment seemingly parrots the language of the statute. Russell teaches that even though the language of the statute appeared in the indictment, by failing to allege a fact that went to the core of the alleged crime, to wit, the subject under inquiry before the congressional subcornmittee, the defendant was not sufficiently apprised of what he must be prepared to meet, and the court could not decide whether the facts alleged were sufficient in law to support a conviction. See Russell, 369 U.S. at 764 ("[T]he very core of criminality under 2 U.S.C. 192 is pertinency to the subject under inquiry...:'). Likewise, while Counts 25 through 27 allege that the statements were "material," they fail to define the "core of criminality" of the charged offense - the "official proceeding" during which false statements were made or affirmed. As the Russell Court observed, "[w]here guilt depends so crucially upon such a specific identifcation of fact, our cases have uniformly held that an indictment must do more than simply repeat the language of the criminal statute." Id. The absence of any particularization regarding the "official proceeding" during which allegedly false statements were made prevents (

330 Mr. Cafaro from being sufficiently apprised of what he must be prepared to meet, and the perjury counts must therefore be dismissed. (ii) Failure to Identifv the AlleQedlv False Statements. The perjury counts are also constitutionally deficient because they fail to identify both the statements that were allegedly false and the contrasting objective truths. In this regard, the indictment wholly ignores the well-established constitutional rights of a defendant accused of perjury. Without further precision regarding the allegedly false statements at issue, Mr. Cafaro is not fairly informed regarding the charges against which he must defend, or the charges that were agreed to by the grand jury. See United States v. Eddy, 737 F.2d 564, 567 (60' Cir. 1984) ("in perjury cases, `[n]o guessing is tolerated [in the drafting of a perjury indictment] and the indictment must set out the allegedly perjurious statements and the objective truth in stark contrast so that the claim of falsity is clear to all who read the charge."') (quoting United States v. Tonellt, 577 F.2d 194, 195 (3' Cir. 1978)). Accordingly, the counts must be dismissed. In United States v.tomasetta, 429 F.2d 978, (15` Cir. 1970), the First Circuit, relying upon the principles set forth in Russell, dismissed an indictment charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. 894 (collection of debt by extortionate means), holding that the indictment's failure to specify the means by which the alleged threats were communicated, to specify with greater precision the location of the alleged offense, and to name the victim, in combination, "made it unfair to require the defendant to answer" the indictment. Id at The court observed that the imprecise indictment deprived the defendant of the ability to prepare a defense other than an alibi defense, such as "to demonstrate that the conduct which allegedly amounted to the communication of threats never took place, that a communication did take place but conveyed no threat, or that the meaning of an ambiguous communication has been misconstrued by the grand jury." Id. at 980. Moreover, the court noted that an indictment as vague as that returned against ( } 8

331 TomBsetta makes it "possible, however unlikely, for a prosecutor to obtain a conviction based wholly on evidence of an incident completely divorced from that upon which the grand jury based its indictment. " Id (emphasis added). The remainder of the court's reasoning applies squarely in this case; Id. Moreover, as the crime is essentially a speaking offense it would be critical for a defendant to fix in his mind the substance of any conversation in issue as soon as possible. However, where the location, time, and object of the communication are specified only in the most general terms or not at all, we cannot see how this manner of defense could bc undertaken. In sum, this defendant could not possibly have made an adequate preparation for trial on the basis of the information contained in this indictment. The indictment charging Mr. Cafaro presents the same (if not greater) constitutional hurdles as those identified in Tomasetta: the inability to prepare a defense centered around the communication at issae, and the ability of the prosecution to "roam" at trial. If properly apprised of the allegedly false statements, Mr. Cafaro could attempt to demonstrate that the conduct which allegedly amounted to the making of a false statement never took place, that the conduct did take place but the statament was not false, that the false statement was not made at an "official proceeding," and/or that the meaning of an ambiguous statement has been misconstrued by the grand jury. Given the total lack of precision and detail in the present perjury charges and the fact that there are three identical charges, however, it is impossible to discem what statements the grand jury determined were allegedty false. At trial the government is free to present whatever allegedly false statements it chooses, and in whatever "official proceeding" it chooses, so long as it occurred "on or about June 6, 2007." A prosecutor could, "however unlikely," present to the petit jury an alleged act or statement that differed entirely from the alleged act or statement that was presented to the grand jury, provided that the dates coincided. Furthermore, there would be no way to match those alleged acts or statements to a particular pegury charga out of the three { } 9

332 identical counts in the indictment. The government "may not have the power `to roam at large' in this fashion." Id. (quoting Russell, 369 U.S. at 768). The principles and holdings articulated in these paradigmatic federal cases have been applied with equal force by Ohio courts. For example, in State v. Graves, 184 Ohio App.3d 39 (4a` Dist. 2009), the court dismissed counts charging illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material because the indictment failed to aver that the nudity constituted a "lewd exhibition" or a "graphic focus on the genitals." This language did not appear in thc statute itself, but was a judicially-constructed requirement from a prior case to avoid running afoul of the First Amendment. Id at 42. The court upheld the decision to dismiss the charges, fin^ ding that the allegation failed to set forth a punishable offense, and refused to allow the state to amend the indictment, because doing so would violate the state constitution, which prevents trials for infamous crimes except upon indictment by grand jury. Id at 43. In State v. George, 2004 WL , 2004-Ohio-2868 (1a Dist. 2004), the court dismissed a charge of operating a gambling house which failed to identify any of the actual premises (instant bingo locations) over which the defendant altegedly had austody, control or supervision. Id at 40. The relevant statute prohibited any "owner or lessee, having custody, control, or supervision of premises" from occupying such premises for gambling. Id. at 138, citing R.C (A)(1). The court hald that identifying which premises the defendant had in his custody, control, or supervision was "essential" in an indictment under the statuto, and that the charge was constitutionally deficient because the defendant "could not possibly prepare a defense without knowing which `various locations in Hamilton and Clermont' counties would be involved in the case" and "has no way of showing that the gambling houses he supposedly operated in this case are not the same gambling houses that might be involved in future prosecutions." Id at The court further observed that, absent these essential facts, "we ( ) 10

333 have no way of knowing what evidence the state presented to the grand jury." Id. at 46 (emphasis added). This decision illuminates the critical importance of inciuding enough information in an indictment to ensure the prosecutor cannot "roam at large" and is confined to presenting evidence to convict the defendant on the actual offense charged in the indictment as presented to the grand jury. Even had the indictment in this case identified the official proceeding(s) - and it clearly does not - Mr. Cafaro would be. unable to identify which three questions and answers out of the multitude presented at the unspecified proceeding(s) were the subject of the indictment. He is thus unable to contend such answers were (a) not false and (b) not material. Nor would he be able to establish that the answers were simply honest failures to disclose or innocent misstatements in light of all the facts attendant to any proceeding. The Supreme Court has recognized that careful analysis of questions and answers is required to determine guilt or innocence in perjury cases, for courts are not dealing with "casual conversations" in such cases. Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, (1973) (reversing perjury conviction and noting that "[ulnder the pressures and tensions of interrogation, it is not uncommon for the most earnest witnesses to give answers that are not entirely responsive. Sometimes the witness does not understand the question, or may in an excess of caution or apprehension read too much or too little into it"). A prosecutor is not free to speculate why the grand jury charged a defendant. Absent some identification of the specific answer that the grand jury agreed to charge as perjurious, there is simply no trustworthy assurance that the grand jury charged the defendant for the same crime that the prosecutor intends to prosecute. Nor is there any way to determine whether the alleged acts or statements presented by the prosecutor as evidence supporting these charges was actually tho basis for any one of the three identical perjury charges in the indictment. { } 11

334 (iii) Failure to Define the O fense. Finalty, Counts 25 through 27 violate the first purpose of an indictment, which is to identify and define the offenses of which the individual is accused, in order to protect against future prosecutions for the same offense. See State v. Sifer4 151 Ohio App.3d 103, 2002-Ohio- 6801, 22 (3' Dist. 2002), aff'd, 99 Ohio St.3d 145. These charges provide no protection against a new indictment for three more answers, and then a third for three more even if certain of the allegedly false statements in either of these successive indictments were the same as the ones the grand jury chose to allege in the first indictment. The existence of three identical charges underscores this issue: how can a defendant protect against being re-prosecuted for the same accused crime without being informed as to what offense he is being charged with? This was a primary concern underlying the Supreme Court's decision in Russell. See Section II.A., infra, discussing the Constitutional requirement that an indictment be specific enough to protect against doublejeopardy. Mr. Cafaro properly judges the indictment by Russell's standards, and it clearly suffers from the same failures. There is no specificity provided in terms of the alleged "official proceeding." There is no specificity regarding the alleged false statements and the contrasting objective truths, and the indictment cites absolutely no facts, much less the essential facts, underlying the bare, conclusory assertion that Mr. Cafaro, on or about June 6, 2007, did "knowingly make a false statement under oath or affirmation, or knowingly swear or affirm he truth of a false statement previously made." Moreover, the indictment uses this exact language to charge Mr. Cafaro with three separate acts of perjury. It is virtually impossible for Mr. Cafaro to begin preparing a defense to any of these charges based on the indiotment as presently constituted. It is impossible for Mr. Cafaro to even distinguish amongst Counts 25, 26, and 27 to know how each charge is distinct from the other. As such, for all of the foregoing reasons, and ( ) 12

335 because a bill of particulars cannot cure the indictment's deficiencies, Counts 25 through 27 of the indictment must be dismissed. 2. The Bribery Counts - Counts 38 through 49. The indictment charges twelve separate counts of bribcry against Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., The Cafaro Company, Ohio Va11ey MaIl Company, and The Marion Plaza, Inc. First, Counts 38 through 46 state nine bribery counts under R.C (A). Three of these counts (38, 41 and 44) state bribery of "McNally," another three counts (39, 42 and 45) state bribery of "Reardon," and the final three counts (40, 43 and 46) state bribery of "Sciortino." All nine counts use carbon-copy language to charge that the Cafaro Defendants: unlawfully... did, with purpose to corrnpt a public servant or party official, or improperly influence him with respect to the discharge of his duty, whether before or after he is elected, appoirited, qualified, employed, summoned, or swom, promise, offer, or give any valuable thing or valuable benefit, in violation of [R..C (A)]... The "McNally" and "Reardon" counts state that the unlawful conduct took place "on or about to " while the "Sciortino" counts set forth a time period of "on or about to " In addition to the nine counts under R.C (A), Counts 47 through 49 state three additional bribery counts against the Cafaro Defendants under R.C (C). These counts, under the heading, bribery of "Zachariab," state that "on or about to ," the Cafaro Defendants: unlawfully... did, with purpose to corrupt a witness or improperly to influence him with respect to his testimony in an official proceeding, either before or after he is subpoenaed or swom, promise, offer, or give him or another person any valuable thing or valuable benefit, in violation of [R.C (C)]... For the following reasons, all of the bribery counts are infum and must be dismissed. ( ) 13

336 (f) Failure to Identify Dates ofpayments. Each of the twelve bribery charges describe an offense that oceurred on some date within a period ranging from three years, three months to four years, ten months, without in any respect specifying the "valuable thing or valuable benefif' that was offered, promised, or given. These counts are constitutionally deficient for failing to specify a date alone. While under other circumstances an indictment may not be deficient for "stating the time [of the alleged crime] imperfectly," the crime of bribery "can[not] be alleged to have occurred other than on a single day." State v. Beros, 1979 WL , *5 (Ohio App. 5fl' Dist. 1979) (dismissing six bribery counts alleging the act of bribery was committed other than in a single day, i.e., in a month, during a season, and during a calendar year). This is so because the crime of bribery does not involve a "course of continuing conduct"; rather, the unit of prosecution for the crime of bribery is each, individual unlawful payment. Id. at *5-6; United States v. Anderson, 509 F.2d 312, 333 (D.C. Cir. 1974); United States v. Tutein, 122 F. Supp.2d 575, (D.V.I. 2000) (collecting cases and finding the unit of prosecution to be "every corrupt offer"). Consequently, "where the crime alleged is not one of a continuing nature, and where the time alleged includes at least the period of a month, the indictment is insutlicient and will not withstand a motion to dismiss:" Beros, 1979 WL , at *6. Each of the twelve bribery counts against the Cafaro Defendants alleges only that an unlawful payment or offer took place at some point during a three- or four-year period: COUNTS 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, & 45 - "on or about to " COUNTS 40, 43, & 46 - "on or about to " COUNTS 47, 48, & 49 - "on or about to " None of these allegations are constitutionally sufficient, none of thase counts provides any of the Cafaro Defendants with "adequate notice and an opportunity to defend." Siferd, 151 Ohio ( ) 14

337 App.3d at As the Fifth District Court of Appeals reasoned in Beros, the constitutional guarantee of indictment by a grand jury demands that non-specific bribery charges such as these be dismissed to avoid the very real possibility that the defendant will be convicted based on conduct that was never actually charged by the grand jury: To rule otherwise would give the prosecuting attorney the power to specifyfor the frst time the date of the crime in the Bill of Particulars. Under such a practice there is no way of knowing whether the Grand Jury has determined that the facts alleged in the Bill of Particulars are the facts upon which the Grand Jury voted an irtdictment. For example, if a Grand Jury heard evidence about a number of robberies that the defendant was alleged to have committed and thereafter retumed a single count indictment alleging that the defendant did commit during the year 1976 the crime of Robbery, is the prosecutor then free to pick and select by way of a response to the Bill of Particulars the particular robbery which he believes he has the best opportunity of proving? We think not. Such a practice violates the defendant's constitutional right not to stand trial for a felony absent indictment. Beros, 1979 WL , at *6 (emphasis added). In the present case, the indictment affords no protection against the possibility that the Cafaro Defendants will be convicted of bribery based on activities that took place within the same three- to nearly five-year period described in the bribery counts, but which are not the same activities that supported the grand jury's indictment. (ii) Failure to Identifv Valuable Thing Valuable Benefet, or Improper Influence. These bribery counts are also constitutionally deficient for failing to identify in any respect the valuable "thing" or "benefit" offered, any alleged communications accompanying the alleged offering, the manner in which the conferring of such value was intended to corruptly or improperly influence the public official, or any other detail from which the defendant could even begin to construct an effective defense. Just like the infirm indictments in Russell, the bribery counts of the indictment against the Cafaro Defendants borrow the language of the statute without setting forth matters going to the very core of criminality: the valuable thing purportedly { } 15

338 conferred, and the improper influence allegedly intended. Without specificity as to these elements of bribery, the Cafaro Defendants are not adequately apprised of what they must be prepared to meet. The necessity of precision is heightened here given the First Amendment right to petition, and even to seek to influence, government officials. See, e.g., United States v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713, 731 n.15 (1 Cir. 1996) (noting that lobbyist's job is "to persuade and influence legislators to benefit certain interests," that such endeavors "are protected by the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievance' guaranteed by the First Amendment," and "it would be impermissible to rely upon the lobbying position simpliciter to establish a corrupt intent to Siegelman v. United States, influence"). In an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the matter of former attorneys general wrote that "the potential for the arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of anti-corruption statutes raises serious First Amendment concerns." See Brief of Amici Curiae of Former Attorneys Geneml in Support of Petitioner, in Siegelman Y. United States (No ), Sept. 10, 2009, p. 5. There are vital First Amendment interests at stake in cases involving issue-advocacy contributions, making cases such as this very different from cases involving payments to officiats personally. These types of concerns led the Supreme Court, in McCorrnick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257, 273 (1991), to conclude that in Federal Hobbs Act prosecutions involving campaign contributions, the government must prove an explicit quid pro quo - t e., " the payments are made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act." Accordingly, the First Amendment concerns presented in this case warrant a more exacting examination of the indictment and require more specific allegations of wrongdoing than those that now appear in these counts. ( J 16

339 Based on the indictment as presented, this Court will be unable to decide whether the facts alleged are sufficient in law - i.e., whether they allege a legally viable theory, which, if proven, would support a criminal conviction, or whether, instead, they allege constitutionallyprotected conduct such as petitioning public officials or making lawful campaign contributions. Further, if other proceedings were taken against the Cafaro Defendants for a similar offense, the record would not show with accuracy to what extent they may plead a former acquittal or conviction. Nor is it possible to ascertain whether the allegations could be raised as a restraint on a prosecutor switching theories of prosecution. Not only is the conduct unspecified, but the date range for some of these offenses spans nearly five years, and it is therefore impossible to ascertain what determination was reached by the grand jury in returning these counts. Each of these deficiencies alone is sufficient to establish a violation of fundamental constitutional rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution. For all of these reasons, the bribery counts are infirm and must be dismissed. 3. The Money Laundering Counts - Coants 54 thrangh 59 and 73. The indictment charges Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., The Cafaro Company, and Flora Cafaro with money laundering. Counts 54 and 55 charge that The Cafaro Company and Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., "on or about to , did conduct or attempt to conduct a transaction knowing that the property involved in the transaction is the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity with the purpose of committing or fin'thering the commission of conupt and 57 charge that, during the same activity, in violation of (A)(1)... Counts 56 conducted a similar transaction time period, The Cafaro Company and Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr. intent to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of the "with the property or the intent to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under [R.C ] or ( ) 17

340 federal law, in violation of (A)(2)..." Counts 58 and 59 charge that, during the same time period, The Cafaro Company and Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr. "did conduct or attempt to conduct a transaction with the purpose to promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on of a corrupt activity, in violation of (A)(3)..." Lastly, Count 73 charges that on March 20, 2008, Flora Cafaro conducted a transaction "with the intent to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of the property or the intent to avoid a transaction reporting requirement..: in violation of (A)(2).. :". Once again, these counts are constitutionally deficient because they fail to identify or particularize any transaction that allegedly violated the relevant statutory provisions. Like the perjury and bribery counts, the government is free at trial to choose any transaction it desires (assuming it fits within the charged time period) in its attempt to convict these defendants, regardless of whether it was the same transaction or transactions relied upon by the grand jury in returning the indictment. The danger is heightened here in a case involving an entity and a businessman who have conducted hundreds if not thousands of financial transactions during the relevant time period. The government "may not have the power `to roam at large' in this fashion," T'omasetta, 429 F.2d at 980 (quoting Russell, 369 U.S. at 768), and this imprecision contravenes the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution. Additionally, an essential element of this crime is that the property involved in the alleged transaction is the proceed of some form of unlawful activity. The indictment provides no indication whatsoever as to the nature of that unlawful activity, which activity goes to "the very core of criminality" under the statute. See Russell, 369 U.S. at 764. That is, just like the infirrn indictments in Russell, the money laundering counts in this case borrow language from the { } 18

341 relevant statutes without setting forth a fact that goes to the very core-of criminality under the statute. As such, these counts of the indictment must also be dismissed. 4. The Pattern of Corrupt Activity Counts - Counts 1 through 3, 8 through 13, and 18 through 20. Counts 1, 2 and 3 charge that Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., The Cafaro Company, Ohio Valley Mall Company, and The Marion Plaza, Inc. "on or about to ," "being employed by, or associated with, any enterprise did conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, offenses enumerated in the Counts of this indictment that constitute corrupt activity as defined in Section of the Revised Code, or the collection of an unlawful debt, in violation of [R.C (A)(1)J, a Felony in the Second Degree... (Section et seq. hereinafter referred to as the "PCA.") It defines the "enterprise" as "including the persons and entities named as defendants," to wit: Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., The Cafaro Company, Ohio Valley Mall Company, The Marion Plaza, John McNally IV, John Reardon, Michael V. Sciortino, John Zachariah, Martin Yavorcik, and Flora Cafaro, "as well as persons known but uncharged andlor unknown." Indictment at Count Three. It sets forth two "affairs of the enterprise": (a) enriching the defendant members and associates of the enterprise through ongoing criminal activity, including the pattem and incidents of corrupt activity; and (b) preserving and protecting the power, influence and profits of the enterprise by promoting the affairs of the enterprise through a pattem of corrupt activity." Id The PCA counts further allege that the pattern and incidents of corrupt activity involve two or more incidents of corrupt activity, as defined in R.C (I), that the defendants "as principals or in complicity with others known and/or unknown, did engage in, conspire to engage in, or solicit another person or persons to engage in Corrupt Activity, including without limitation, any of the following crimes as specified in the body of this Indictment": (1) money { } 19

342 laundering; (2) tampering with records; (3) perjury; (4) bribery; and (5) soliciting or receiving improper compensation. Counts 8, 9 and 10 use substantially similar language to charge the Cafam Defendants with a violation of R.C (A)(2), except instead of accusing them of being employed by or associated with "any enterprise," it accuses them of having "acquire[d]or maintain[ed], directly or indirectly, any interest in, or control of, any enterprise or real property..." (i) The Substantive PCA Char es. To prove Counts I through 3 and 8 through 10, the government must establish "(1) conduct of the defendant which involves the commission of two or more specifically prohibited stataer federal criminal offenses; (2) the prohibited criminal conduct of the defendant constitutes a pattem of corrupt activity; and (3) the defendant has participated in the affairs of an enterprise or has acquired and maintained an interest in or control of an enterprise." See Lopardo v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 548 F.Supp.2d 450, 469 (N.D. Ohio 2008) (citing Universal Coach, Inc. v. New York City T),ansit Auth., 90 Ohio App.3d 284, 291(8b Dist.1993)). The PCA is patterned on the federal RICO Act, therefore, Ohio courts look to federal law applying RICO when they analyze the PCA. U.S. Demolition & Contracting, Inc., v. O'Rourke Consir. Co., 94 Ohio App.3d 75, 84 ($' Dist, 1994). Corrupt activity, as defined by the PCA, constitutes criminal offenses. An indictment charging a PCA violation must include notice of such purported criminal activity, and in fact "[d]ue process requires that the accused have notice of what acts the state will seek to prove to support a conviction." State v. Burkitt, 89 Ohio App. 3d 214, 224 (2nd Dist. 1993). Here, the indictment fails to particularize any of the essential acts which make up any of the alleged predicate crimes (money laundering, tampering with records, perjury, bribery and soliciting or receiving improper compensation). For all of the reasons discussed supra, the ( ) 20

343 particular counts setting forth these predicate offenses are constitutionally insufficient in and of themselves. Clearly, then, by referring to crimes "as specified in the body of this Indictment," without setting forth any additional facts, the indictment does not pass constitutional muster. The government cannot charge a pattem of corrupt activity without particularizing the specific criminal acts that allegedly make up the pattern, including the essential elements of those predicate criminal offenses. As the Sixth Circuit observed in reversing a defendant's federal substantive and conspiracy RICO convictions as violating the Double Jeopardy Clause: A showing that different predicate crimes are charged as predicates from one indictment to the next is significant because it tends to prove a different pattem of activity and, accordingly, that the defendant is being punished for different RICO conduct. In contrast, a showing that the same predicate crimes were committed under different factual circumstances only tends to prove that the pattem of activity was more widespread than the initial indictment originally conveyed. It does not tend to prove a separate pattem of conduct. United States v. Wheeler, 535 F.3d 446, 454 (6' Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Russotti, 717 F.2d 27, (2'4 Cir. 1983) ("double jeopardy is implicated in successive RICO prosecutions only if both the enterprise and the pattem of racketeering activity alleged in each indictment are the same."). In this case, the government has wholly failed to delineate with any sense of preaision the predicate crimes, or the pattern of activity allegedly tethered to the enterprise. As drafted, it is virtually impossible to determine what pattern of activity or particular predicate crimes were identified by the grand jury, much less to muster a defense to such a shapeless indictment. Given the almost limitless breadth of a pattem-type substantive charge, a detailed recitation of the predicate offenses is imperative. Without such specification, a court is without the ability to test the legal viability of the charge if proven and to reign in a prosecution that roams outside the criminal allegation brought by a grand jury. The defendant is likewise without notice of charge { ) 21

344 and without protection against successive pattern allegations based on the same series of predicates. See infra, saction Il. (ii) The PCA Conspiracy Char2es. The PCA conspiracy offenses charged in Counts 11 through 13 and 18 through 20 suffer from the same constitutional infirmities. In these counts, the indictment charges that the Cafaro Defendants, "on or about to ," with the purpose to commit or to promote oz facilitate the commission of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, "did, with another person or persans, plan or aid in the planning the commission of any of the specified offenses in violation of [R-C (A)(1)]" (Counts 11-13), or, "did agree with another person or persons that one or more of them will engage in conduct that facilitates the commission of any of the specified offenses in violation of [R.C (A)(2)]" (Counts 18-20), to wit: engaging in a pattem of corrupt activity... whereby a substantial overt act or acts in furt.herance of the conspiracy have been done by the defendants or a person with whom said defendants conspired, subsequent to said defendants' entrance into the conspiracy and include clandestine meetings with one or more of the persons with whom the defendant have conspired; commission andlor complicity in the commission of one or more offense(s) of [money laundering, tampering with records, perjury, bribery, and soliciting or receiving improper compensation]; the tender of or complicity in the tender of money with respect to any one or more of the crimes set forth in the body of this Indictment, the provision of or complicity in the provision of free legal services to public servants; the provision of or complicity in the provision of monies to or for the benefit of public servant(s); the offer to purchase or complicity in the offer to purchase andlor guaranty a loan made by a national bank in connection with an effort to block the proposed relocation of Mahoning County offioes to a premises commonly referred to as "Oak Hill"... Once again, the indictment does not delineate any particulars of the underlying predicate acts or the charged pattern of activity. In addition, the indictment refers generically to "substantial overt act[s]" not elsewhere mentioned in any count retumed against the Cafaro Defendants, and which ( ) 22

345 are completely devoid of any factual detail, making it impossible for these defendants to be sufficiently apprised of the allegations they must be prepared to meet at trial. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that an indictment is insufficient to charge someone with conspiracy if it does not "allege some specific, substantial, overt act performed in furtherance of the conspiracy." State v. Childs, 88 Ohio St.3d 194, syllabus (2000) (affirming dismissal of indictment for conspiracy to commit aggravated trafficking as fatally defective for failure to allege a specific overt act). "[A]n indictment for conspiracy requires more than a mere recitation of the exact wording of the statute defining the offense of conspiraoy." Id at Pursuant to this rule, Ohio courts have reversed numerous conspiracy convietions where the indictment did not allege an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. E.g., State v. George, 2000 Wl , *5 (Ohio App. 1 la` Dist. 2000) (reversing conviction of conspiracy to engage in corrupt illegal activity); State v. Bundy, 2005 WL , 2005-Ohio-3310, 40` (7a` Dist. 2005) (reversing conviction for conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery). The conspiracy charges in Counts 11 through 13 and 18 through 20 do not specify a substantial overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Nor are the counts saved by the lengthy recitation of non-substantial, vague acts in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. The counts attempt to specify the "substantial overt act" by providing a veritable laundry list of generic activities, including: (1) clandestine me0tings with one or more of the persons with whom the defendants conspired; (2) commission and/or complicity in the offenses of money laundering, tampering with reeords, perjury, bribery and soliciting or receiving improper compensation; (3) the tender of or complicity in the tender of money with respect to any one or more of the crimes set forth in the body of the indictment; (4) the provision of or complicity in the provision of free legal services to public servants; (5) the provision of or complicity in the provision of monies to or for the benefit of public servants; and (6) the offer to purchase or complicity in the offer to {W ) 23

346 purchase andlor guaranty a loan made by a national bank in connection with an effort to block the proposed relocation of Mahoning County offices to a premises cornmonly referred to as "Oak Hill." These vague averments delineate absolutely no details or facts setting forth the dates of these alleged events, the objects of the offenses, the location of the offense, the individuals comnvtting the acts, or any other fact that affords these defendants the slightest opportunity to begin a defense to these charges. Despite its recitation of categories of conduct allegedly committed by the Cafaro Defendants, the indictment does not set forth a valid offense against them. As one Ohio court aptly noted, in defining a"conupt activity," R.C (1) cites to dozens of violations under the Revised Code which would constitute corrupt activities. "Due to the indeterminate meaning of'cornxpt activity,' an indictment charging the defendant with conspiracy to engage in a pattern of corrupt activity that fails to allege a substantial overt act committed by the accused in furtherance of the conspiracy is inadequate tq fulfill the role served by the indictment in our judicial system." State v. George, 2000 VJI , at *4. More specifically, failing to allege a specific, overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is inadequate to fulfill the dual role of an indictment, i.e., to protect the accused from future prosecutions for the same offense by identifying and defining the offense, and to afford the accused nodce and an opportunity to defend by compelling the govemment to aver the material facts constituting the essential elements of the offense. Id, citing Sellards, 17 Ohio St.3d at 170. Rather than sufficiently identifying and defining the substantial overt act underlying the conspiracy charge so that the Cafaro Defendants can evaluate and defend against the material facts alleged against them, the indictment in this case avoids any real specificity by reciting a long, generic list of activities, thus creating only an illusion of specificity, rather than ( ) 24

347 constitutionally sufficient notice. There is no way to nan'ow the list to understand which of the activities are the actual basis for the government's charge. (ili) The Collection of an Unlawful Debt CharQes. Finally, to the extent the substantive PCA counts (counts 1 through 3 and 8 through 10) charge the Cafaro Defendants with the collection of an unlawful debt, these counts are fatally flawed. The Cafaro Defendants have not been providcd the names of the alleged victims from whom they allegedly collected unlawful debts. Furthermore, no notice is given as to the dates on which the defendants allegedly coltected or attempted to collect unlawful debts, where these collections or attempted collections allegedly occurred, or from whom they were allegedly made. Indeed, thase counts are far more generalized than the one at issue in Tomasetta. While the indictment in Tomasetta did not identify the alleged victim, at least it identified the particular day and the particular city in which the threats were allegedly made. The indictment provides no specificity in terms of dates and cites absolutely no locations at which the collections of debts allegedly occurred or were attempted. Based on the indictment as it presently reads, the defendants would have to be prepared to show that they were not in the entire county from February 1, 2004 to December 12, 2008, to establish an alibi defense to any of the collection of debt allegations. Likewise, because of the total laak of precision or detail, it is not possible to begin to discern what collections or attempted collections the grand jury determined were criminal in nature. As a result, these allegations are constitutionally deficient as well and must be dismissed. ( ) 25

348 M. THE INDICTMENT MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE IT FAILS TO MEET 1VIINIMAL STANDARD& OF SPECIFICITY REQUIRED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE OF THE FIF'rH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the state from subjecting a defendant to multiple prosecutions for the same offense. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794 (1969). Once a tribunal has decided an issue of ultimate fact in a defendant's favor, the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes a tribunal from ever considering that same issue in a subsequent trial. Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 348 (1990). Consequently, it is well-settled that an indictment must "farnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to :.. avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a further proseoution for the same cause[.]" bnited States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 558 (1857). And, to satisfy the Double Jeopardy Clause, "facts are to be stated [in an indictment], not conclusions of law alone. A crime is made up of acts and intent; and these must be set forth in the indictment, with reasonable particularity of time, place, and circumstances." Id. at 558; see also State v. Ogle, 2007 WL , 2007-Ohio-5066, 21 (8a' Dist. 2007) (reversing trial court's ruling denying dismissal of mistried rape charge on double jeopardy grounds, where carbon copy language of multiple rape charges in the indictment made it impossible to determine which charge had resulted in acquittal). In Russell, the Court emphasized "two of the protections which an indictment is intended to guarantee, reflected by two of the criteria by which the sufficiency of an indictment is to be measured." 369 U.S. at 763. The second of these criteria concerns the protections guaranteed by the Double Jeopardy Clause, and whether the indictment is sufficiently detailed to protect the defendant from a successive prosecution. 14 at ("These criteria are, first, whether the ( ) 26

349 indictment `contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged, `and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet, `and, secondly, in case any other proceedings are taken against him for a similar offense whether the record shows with accuracy to what extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction."') (internal citations omitted); State v. Childs, 88 Ohio St.3d at 198 (one of the twopurposes of an indictment is to "[protect] against future prosecutions for the same offense." ); see also Valentine, 395 F.3d at (holding that the undifferentiated counts in the indictment "introduced the very real possibility that [the defendant] would be subject to double jeopardy in his initial trial by being punished multiple times for what may have been the same offense"). "Carbon copy indictments" - indictments using inultiple, identically-worded counts which do not delineate or differentiate between offenses - do not satisfy the Double Jeopardy Clause because they do not provide defendants with protection from subsequent prosecution. See Valentine, 395 F.3d at 636 ("When prosecutorsopt to use such carbon-copy indictments, the defendant has neither adequate notice to defend himself, nor sufficient protection from double jeopardy... Importantly, the constitutional error in this case is traceable not to the generic language of the individual counts of the indictment but to the fact that there was no differentiation among the counts."); see also State v. Holder, 2008 WL , 2008-Ohio- 1271, 9-1 ](8s' Dist. 2008) (affirming dismissal of "carbon copy" charges based on Valentine); State v. Tobin, 2007 WL , 2007-Ohio-1345, 8-10 (2nd Dist. 2007) (following Valentine). This is so because identical counts create impetmissible uncertainty as to the jury's ultimate findings and do not allow a defendant to plead conviction or acquittal as a bar to future prosecutions for the same offense. Valentine v. Huffman, 285 F. Supp.2d 1011, (N.D. Ohio 2003) (citing Isaac v. Grider, 211 F.3d 1269 (6a' Cir. 2000)), aff'd in part, rev'd in part by Valentine v. Konteh, 395 F.3d ) 27

350 As detailed supra, none of the counts naming the Cafaro Defendants or Flora Cafaro are sufficiently detailed to protect them in the event of a successive prosecution. Neither the official proceeding nor the statements at issue are identified in the perjary counts. In Valentine, the defendant was accused of twenty counts of child rape and twenty counts of felonious sexual penetration. 395 F.3d at 628. The Sixth Circuit found that the "multiple, identically worded" nature of these charges, which failed to specify times and places with particularity, deprived Valentine of protection against double jeopardy. Would double jeopardy preclude any prosecution concerning the abuse of this child victim, the abuse of this victim during the stated time period, the abuse of this victim at their residence, the stated sexual offenses in the indictment, the offenses offered into evidence at trial, or some group of forty specific offenses? We cannot be sure what double jeopardy would prohibit because we cannot be sure what factual incidents were presented and decided by this jury. If Valentine had been found not guilty, it is not clear to what extent he could ably assert that his acquittal barred prosecution for other similar incidents. Id. ai 635 (emphasis added). The indictment here is similarly deficient: no times or places of the "official proceeding" at issue, and no particularization of the answers that were allegedly false. The perjury charges in Counts 25 through 27 use carbon-copy language; they even contain the same typographical errors. As exact duplicates of one other, not one of the charges provide Mr. Cafaro with the protection from double jeopardy required by the Constitution. Id. at 636. And, as such, Counts 25, 26, and 27 must be dismissed. The same analysis holds true for the bribery, money laundering, and PCA counts. The indictment fails to set forth the items of "value" allegedly offered as a bribe, it does not particularize any transactions, and it does not set forth the elements of alleged predicate offenses within the PCA counts. In the absence of these particulars, the defendants are simply not able to plead a fonner acquittal or conviction in the event of a successive prosecution. In Valentine, the prosecution offered to stipulate that the defendant cannot be.indicted for the charges at issue { } 28

351 during the entire time period at issue. The court dismisscd this improvisation as constitutionally deficient: [i]t is immaterial that Valentine faces no current risk of being tried a second time. Courts in habeas proceedings must ensure prisoners were afforded proper constitutional protections during their state criminal proceedings. As the carbon-copy counts of Valentine's indictment would have complicated any subsequent assertion of double jeopardy, we find that his due process rights were violated. Id at 635. As such, for these reasons as well, the present indictment must be dismissed, at least those counts naming the Cafaro Defendants and Flora Cafaro. IV. THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE DEMAND THAT A CRIMINAL INDICTMENT INCLUDE THE SAME LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY AS TIiE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT NOW REQUIRES FOR CIVIL PLEADINGS. Two recent Supreme Court cases have raised the pleading requirement set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the Court introduced a "plausibility" pleading standard, designed to curb discovery abuse and weed out frivolous lawsuits. Two years tater, in Ashcro,ft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct (2009), the Court cemented its position, holding that Rule 8(a)(2), which provides that a civil complaint must contain short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendadt-unlawfully-harmcd-me accusation," that a "pleading that offers `labels and conclusions' or `a fonnulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do,"' and that a civil complaint does not suffice "if it tenders 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of `further factual enhancement."' Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557). As the Supreme Court requires that a civil complainant do niore than plead facts that are "merely consistent" with a defendant's civil liability, and that a claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference ( ) 29

352 that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, certainly the govemment should be held to the same if not higher standards in the context of a criminal indictment. To hold otherwise leads to a confounding, if not fundamentally unfair, paradox-a criminal defendant, whose very liberty is at stake, can be charged with an indictment that states nothing but the bare language of the criminal statutes with which he is charged, devoid of any factual detail facially establishing criminal liability and/or the basis upon which the grand jury ostensibly returned the indictments, yet civil defendants are entitled to far more detailed pleadings. Although the Supreme Court's decisions in Twombly and Iqbal are of limited guidance with regard to the standard required to sufficiently plead an indictment, courts have observed that these decisions have created the perplexing state of affairs in which a civil plaintiffls burden to survive a motion to dismiss is now higher than the govemment's burden to survive a motion to dismiss a criminal indictment. See United States v. Diallo, 2009 WL , *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); United States v. Northcutt, 2008 WL , *2 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Certainly, this gross imbalance between the civil and criminal pleading standards runs afoul of the fundamental protections guaranteed by the United States and Ohio Constitutions, which demand nothing less than that required in thecontext of a civil pleading. Criminal defendants should have no lesser rights to notice through a charging document that provides courts with sufficient "factual matter" which if "accepted as true" would "state a claim to relief." V. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, the counts of the indictment charging the Cafaro Defendants and Flora Cafaro are constitutionally deficient. These counts do not in any respect prevent the prosecutor from roaming at trial, in violation of the right to indictment by grand jury guaranteed by Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution; they fail to delineate essen6al elements of the crimes in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and ;

353 7(B) ofthee Ohio Itules of Qamiirai.Procd se daftcfiabts rggardiag:avlsa tht-711wist I^e pralrare8. WAdfad ift v, T3'rilteel SYui'^-36.9 Ue'E. 749(1463)s md. igainsta saewsiv4inil3dnent it viola#e4n-frf provide;su^"icignt falo t1ie.ifatilila 7eapardy C.iause-tr tle FifitR Aule meat to -de 'Unwstates each andevay czmt e mtts't be disi^t"s^ 45 R0 I l.tli 'fl or 1qe.w'York, NY 1011 J- pffiez: 212:589,4211 Fax: 212.5$9A01 F Ivlail; gstanalx>ulidis@bak,etf^'.v.i; illa(00]'3s. _ :l^aq ( ) W^L'lU & IOVEI'FIELD, LUt' 'Che ToW4W4Enauicw 1301 East7!tiu#t4 gtfw; S*w k^vela^#,t^fl &< ?a^ 216.^^5 4^'1^ >^Nlasl: tcasear111agv,+altbeba%i:ena E-W1; 40iayOW 0iteriM.Pom 20 Patk Plaza., SuiN 1^000 Bostosi; MA flf ftce: 61?=22.`7-3'74.(} Fanail: aiulm$vc@attziet C.ou#seTfQrArrthmeyd2 GzrfFir'n, S5: {09=6 34

354 ,^.^. Cynt-bia Rw:d Eddy IOH1+TSt)N &EM1' 1729 GuLf Tiower 707 E'i.rrank kvet Fittsln.trgli, PA 1521,9 Offbse: ax: 412:227.M1 B-Tv1ai1: jjol^sdn^cra^»asxi^ Co3atisel, j'ot FlaYer (.'afopo `o YaiFe;y Mail Cempazjra»d (00459t$6-9)

355 t'ei^t'ftifzct^.`i^ fl^' $ERVICE I hereksy eerrifq tbat a true copy of ttre ftrtegoing AefetarESrrazb0ur+k of Law tn Support q(the./oiazr Motion of Anthony M. Cafaro, Sr., The Cof^rro Cprr^Marty; Chrid Yaltey Mtrll Compar{y, ^e JYl'arion Plitza, lrre: ani Flora Capro to 1Jasmiss InrNcmi4nl' has been. serv.etl v'ru this I e day ofnoveihber,.2010 ugort: Dennis P. Will, Bsq. Lorain County Proseeuting. Attorney 225 Court $treet 3rd Floor Elyria, Speoial Pi-osecutor for Maltonlreg CvurtGy Paul'Pqick,:Esq. Chief Itlvestigative At,tome)r Ohio Ethics Comm.ission 8 Long Street, IO", Floor Colunibus, Oli.io Special Prasectltarfar Mahorzing Czzrcaaty Sohn B. Juhasa, Esq West BolzleuArd Youpgatq'vea, OH Counsel for Mike 5cigrtina Lou DlFabio, Esel. 4&22 Market Street Youngstown, OH CounseZforJohn Rearefon Roget `SYnetPiUg, Esq $ynertbeq 8c Assoeiates; LL.C 5.5 Pubrie StdtaJ'er :guiw 1201) Clevetand. 3H E14I.I3 Counset far.t vhft Zuc3iariah J. OeraIel Ingratv., Jr.,. Ese^ Robert Duffriii, Esq. 73'3:0 Market Street Youngstawh, OH Cognsef for M47rtin F'nvorcik Lyhn..Maro, Estj, 1032 Boardrrian Canfield Road. 1'oungstown, Oli Counsel for 3ohn McNelly ( ) 33

356 ZTrIGF3t, TIGGES "& L1'LT,LE: ATT[lithiEt^'-iiT l.$m 7ELE>HOK.^'IA Q. ' ' " i-890g HUNT[N6'j'Oh( CEF1'Y6R FA^SCMiL6':4^I^Q S6SlPa6.; _ 4r SGUTI'T,HIGH $TREET WR]TEp S lylrec'f NL!M9ER:,.. : (614) : COLUM9fJ5y GHIG ovcmber I7; 20i Th^Hontirallle Williarn 1T. 'Wo1ffJr. Cor4t^n`I'lea^ Jiidge, `^ itting Bl+.+is signment rig pnunty t House 1^O;tvtart^e^Street 5tourigstown; H Heiioftble VJilliam H. Wolff, 7r Montgori1ery County Canitnon Pleas Cow4t 4i'N Perry stzoet # 515 Bayton,?RH A4i: AritlSbrly Vivo kal;oning (`outtiy Clerk of Courts Mahoning Cnunty Court House 120 Market Street 'if tiuugstowrt,, OH udge Wolff and Mr. Vivo; The Youngstown VjridicatorPublic.Records Roauest : W t fh Y un town Vindicator and'wfmt TV., Pursuant to Section 149:43 a c represen e o gs the: luo Revis^d oc e, "we.seque s an, P,P ;, then designate or copy ng, d t o ortunruty to firstnrispect f i a1l (a) filtngs' madea (b) orders zssu ed or m ad eines' '. echve P 6t whether ^C^,^o jounahzed, au dj or. ' (c) ziocuments'submitted to the Gourt in State of Ohio y AnthonV Iyl Cafaro. 7r., ^ 26 ^fl CR and stibsets A= I, i4l^lii3ning Couniy Cir^an Pfeas Coutt (Wa^Fz J.). ^e previously made a public records'reguest in Case ^io 2410'CR ilo800(li}. aqti,n,-tih;n Sunreine Coitrt has made cleat; any recoeds or documents (a};filed"rurth tqe clerk's office --- or (b),rece)ved, -- by and -'1 uw)zed by,t Cl te ourt as part of its decision inaking process, urespectrve } f whether J'o(snalized ate public recoxds, and `must be made;, availabje, for..v-^ fnspeip[on upon.requesc auur,g rogu. u vu^uawa uw,..._s, ^ Dnes, 101 Ohio St. 3d 406, ^1,11 (2004); State ex rel Ivlothers Agai^t T3runk 11riVeis v Gosser, 24.Obio St. 3d 30; (1985); THE OHIO LEGAL BLANK CO.. INC EXHIBIT 'Y_ Rar:Fx-?4 CLEVELAND. OHIO EXHI.BIT H