To All:
Some of you know that I am Keenya's brother. I have been involved with her case since June 1998. She was sentenced August 11, 1998.
I implore you to sign her petition which was authored by another of Keenya's supporters. Let's all get behind Keenya and let the State of Ohio & Keenya know that she does have supporters.
http://www.petitiononline.com/freekc/petition.html
Owing to the generosity of Karen and the work of Marcus, we will be posting on this website a history of Keenya's case and provide you with documents for your review.
Much thanks & gratitude to all of you!
Del
Each time a man stands up for an ideal... or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a ripple of hope...Robert Kennedy |
Hi Del,
Just signed it -I had not read the details before and am truly outraged by Keenya being imprisoned  May God bless you both.
Love,
Cheryl |
It is hoped that in reviewing this synopsis you will join in signing the petition to the Governor of Ohio on Keenya's behalf.
KEENYA CURRY: SYNOPSIS OF JUVENILE & CRIMINAL CASES
1. Pregnant at 16, left home.
2. Married a short-time to the father Lloyd Burmeister.
3. Single mom with 3 children of her own: (in age order) Tammi, Lavera, and Gerald.
4. Life-long welfare mom.
5. Cases involve 2 grandchildren: (as of Jan 97) 6 yr old Keenya Burmeister
daughter of Tammi; & 3 yr old Joshua Burmeister son of Lavera - children
abandoned by their mothers.
6. History of CSB (Childrens Services Bureau) involvement with own kids; there
were several unsubstantiated ‘complaints’ to CSB. Yet history didn’t stop CSB
from placing grandchildren with her.
(Later, at the Sentencing of criminal case, Judge cited Keenya’s problems with
own kids as ‘evidence’ that she abused grandchildren).
7. At time of placement: little girl 1 yr old?; boy later at 15 months old?
8. Both grandchildren had documented severe mental/physical health issues:
Girl: ADD/ADHD with attendant behavioral and social interaction problems
Boy: ADD/ADHD crack baby, electrical misfiring in brain, rampant eczema
9. Both kids being treated with Ritalin & other drugs.
10. CSB well aware of medical problems of kids - well documented & ongoing
treatments from various doctors. Both children receiving SSI indicative of
the severity of their problems.
11. Keenya had pleaded with CSB for help with kids due to behavioral problems;
she could not deal with their behavioral issues. CSB refused.
12. Keenya eventually sought another opinion on treatment - that’s when found
Dr. David Cragar Minor (Fall of 96?).
13. Minor self-diagnosed ADD/ADHD; self-styled ‘expert’ on ADD/ADHD in
particular with children. Also diagnosed Keenya and placed her on Ritalin
which she eventually had to stop because of debilitating side-effects.
14. At one point, CSB proposed a case plan that Keenya refused to sign because
not sufficient info; Dr. Minor told her not to worry, he knew how to deal with
CSB. Minor told her to put chain on bedroom door to give kids ‘time-out’. She
placed piece of Formica on lower part of upstairs window because little girl
kept climbing out on roof (witness was neighbor & Akron police officer never
interviewed by Reed).
Confining child/children to bedroom was basis of Kidnapping charges.
15. Jan 97, on a complaint (by either Dr Minor and/or CSB through caseworker Sarah
Cruse), CSB took kids, placed in foster care. Kids were 6 and 3 yrs old.
Cruse had previously visited with Keenya regards the complaint.
Subsequently, CSB recommended the grandchildren be removed from Keenya’s home; the CSB
recommendation was signed by Cruse. However, Cruse told Keenya privately
that she had not seen any evidence of abuse and that she was forced by her
supervisors to sign the complaint; Cruse was upset and told Keenya that she
would quit her job if ever forced to do similarly in the future!
16. Thus began the Juvenile Court proceedings to determine what to do in the
best interests of the children: return to natural moms, to grandmother, or put
foster care.
17. During these proceedings, CSB tasked to prepare a case-plan for the court.
Dr. Minor admitted to caseworker that he had over-medicated the children
for their own protection against themselves due to their behavioral issues.
Subsequently, per Prosecutor, Dr. Minor said he had over-medicated the children
to to over medicate the children to protect them from the horrors they were
being subjected to by their grandmother! As well, Prosecutor alleged that Curry
was over-medicating the children though she maintains gave children only
prescribed doses - she advised attorney Reed to obtain prescription record
from Youngfellow Drug but he never did.
18. Keenya indigent; by the time the 2 Juvenile Court proceedings were over,
she had had 4 different attorneys (Harvey-Williams, Henges, Mishic, Reed).
(When criminal charges filed, Reed asked to be appointed counsel since he
was already representing her in Juvenile Court cases.)
19. In the first Juvenile Court proceeding, Court ruled that ‘no abuse’ had
occurred. Involved in these proceedings, among others, were the CSB’s
caseworkers and sociologist assigned to interview and assess the children,
Prosecuting Attorneys, the guardian ad litem and, Dr. Minor. Obviously,
all these ‘professionals’ and the Court were in agreement that Keenya had not, in
fact, abused these children.
20. However, that was to change during the 2nd Juvenile Court proceeding
over the next few months.
21. In the interim between the Juvenile Court proceedings was the time of the
genesis of the targeted prosecution of Keenya.
22. Prosecutor brought in the First Team: judge remained the same but
the magistrates changed: 1st recused herself and it was the 2nd magistrate
who took charge of the case and the Judge (who Judge remained the same)
took a back-seat in the case.
23. Moved to exclude Keenya from consideration of where to place the kids,
ruled that she had no legal interest notwithstanding that it was CSB who
had awarded her custody of the little girl and, guardianship of the little boy.
24. During this 2nd Juvenile Court proceeding, it was the replacement magistrate
who ruled that, the little girl had (since the end of the 1st Juvenile Court
proceeding) revealed horrible tales of mental & physical abuse by their
grandmother. As a result, the magistrate ruled that she was personally
referring the case for criminal investigation.
CSB/State exercised total control of the grandkids and no independent
evaluation/interview was ever conducted - not in the Juvenile nor the Criminal
cases. All ‘evidence’ controlled by Prosecutor including denial of access to
defense.
One such fantastic tale of abuse supposedly related by the little girl involved
Curry’s alleged deprivation of food to the grandkids. As a result, the little girl
allegedly told the State’s pyschologist that she had been so hungry that, in the
middle of the night, she climbed down from the 2nd story roof, walked 2 miles
to McDonald’s and then, apparently walked back home and climbed up to the
the 2nd floor and re-entered the house through the window she had climbed out
of! One only need look at the house and try to imagine an adult trying to do
what she reportedly did; let alone finding her way to and from a McDonald’s
that was 2 miles away.
25. During the Juvenile court proceedings, 1st attorney (Harvey-Williams) asked court
to replace her because of ‘workload’; however, privately that attorney told Keenya
she was tired dealing with CSB. Court assigned 2nd attorney (Henges) in error
(attorney for daughter Lavera), eventually admitted error & assigned a 3rd attorney
(Mishic). Henges gave Curry file to daughter LaVera to give to her attorney.
I requested client files from Harvey-Williams, Henges, Mishic and Reed. Both
Harvey-Williams and Mishich were contentious and we filed Grievances; Henges
denied ever having represented Curry and hence, did not have any client files to provide.
As for Reed, it took nearly 2 years before he finally provided his client
files & working notes; he sent one batch free-of-charge but then wouldn’t send
the balance until I paid him for the copies.
Because defendant not entitled (at law) to receive copies of court documents from
the Clerk of Courts and, because her assigned attorneys refused to give copies of
their client files, Curry was without benefit of documents with which to make pro-
se filings for Post Conviction or Reopening of Appeal.
26. Mishic would not discuss case with Curry so, she felt Mishic did not have her best
interests in mind; she found attorney Reed in phonebook. Curry did not know one
type of attorney from another (criminal defense, tax attorney, etc).
27. Curry contracted with Reed for $1000; $400 down and payments (paid him the
$400 but before any of the remaining payments were made, the criminal charges
were filed and he became her appointed attorney for the criminal case).
28. Curry told court & Mishic that she didn’t want Mishic representing her. Court
refused to dismiss him. Instead, Mishic & Reed were co-counsel but the
relationship was acrimonious and the they acted independently because Mishic
refused to keep Reed informed.
29. Nov 97, Keenya contacted (by message on telephone answering machine) by
detective of the Akron Police who called her to advise case had been referred to
him and asking her what was it all about (as if he had no clue as to the nature of
the issues).
30. Reed advised Keenya to ‘hide-out’ while it sorted out what was going on;
told her to keep it confidential because he could get into a lot of trouble.
Eventually, Reed accompanied Keenya to police to turn herself in. Reed left
Curry at the police station.
31. While at the police station, police were very nice, at first but- then turned on her
quickly thereafter.
32. The Police case file has not been obtained - doubtful if Police did any
investigation: for example: no one other than CSB caseworker (on routine visit)
ever visited residence to document home condition or formica on window or
chain on bedroom door - even attorney Reed never visited residence.
33. Charges filed Nov 1997: 4 counts Child Endangering; 2 counts Kidnapping.
34. Reed asked Arraignment Court to appoint him as counsel because he had
already been involved in the Juvenile proceedings.
35. Reed had little criminal experience - had been a tax attorney.
In State of Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of who is
authorized, qualified and competent to practice law in Oho - no other body or
person can question the qualifications of an admitted attorney. Further, this
edict is codified in the laws of Ohio.
The Supreme Court decries that anyone passing the bar exam is competent
to handle any type of case (tax, civil, criminal etc.) excepting capital cases which
require additional training and/or experience.
From my discussions with the Ohio Office of Public Defender (OOPD) and the
Akron Bar Association, is it not possible for a potential client to learn of a
particular attorney’s credentials unless the attorney volunteers background info
or the potential client may have read press releases - there was no central
repository of information in Ohio containing info/data on any attorney’s
qualifications. In fact, because of the Supreme Court edict (and Ohio Law), no
one can question an attorney’s qualifications - this includes the Ohio Bar
Association who is responsible for providing a list of attorneys to the
Arraignment Court who volunteer for assigned counsel duties (the Bar
Association, or even the Arraignment Court, is prohibited from inquiring of such
attorneys their qualifications - the Bar Association is merely a conduit between
attorneys wishing to volunteer for assigned counsel duties and the Arraignment
Court).
36. Trial originally scheduled for Feb 98; then rescheduled for Jul 16, 98.
37. During course of representing Curry in the criminal case, Reed filed two (2)
Motions for Bill of Particulars; Judge never ruled on motions, as is required by
law to do (see Docket).
38. Apr 98, letter re: Plea Offer from Prosecuting Attorney asking for Reed’s
response (contained in Attorney notes received from Reed).
Per Reed, plead guilty to 2 counts of Kidnapping and would drop the 4 counts of
Child Endangering. Reed did not relate offer to Keenya and turned it down
(didn’t inform Keenya of this offer & that he turned it down until Jul 7th meeting
with Keenya - he told her he turned it down because he knew she wouldn’t go for
it to which Curry replied that he was right because she wasn’t guilt).
39. In retaliation, Prosecuting Attorney filed June 1996 - 30 additional counts of
Child Endangering and Kidnapping.
Keenya not aware of why these charges were filed or even, the nature &
details of any of the 36 charges filed against her, nor was her attorney and hence,
the reason he filed two Motions for Bills of Particulars which the Judge
never ruled on, as is required.
40. Jun 16, 98 - I entered the scene when I came to Akron (from Washington State) to
help my mom who had suffered heart attack/stroke the week before. I was not
previously aware of the Juvenile or Criminal proceedings against my sister.
41. Curry related that trial scheduled for Jul 16th; that Reed would never return phone
calls; she had no idea what was going on with her case.
42. Advised Curry best way to get his attention and document case was to
send faxes: one fax to ask to meet with him to discuss case strategy; one fax
to provide him list of personal & professional witness list for him to contact as he
had never contacted anyone - in fact, refused to talk to one who tried in vain
to contact Reed by phone.
Curry took my advice and sent the 2 faxes (about 23 Jun 1998?) which are
contained in the working notes received from attorney Reed.
43. Was not until Jul 7th (9 days before Jul 16th scheduled trial) that Reed finally
responded by phone. He asked Curry meet him that day at the Courthouse,
she assumed to talk about the case and defense strategy.
44. Curry & ‘friend’ (who had often accompanied Curry) met Reed at Courthouse.
45. It was at this meeting that Reed told her of the prior plea offer by the Prosecuting
Attorney. He told her he had turned it down because he knew Curry wouldn’t
go for it. He did not tell her that the additional 30 counts were filed in retaliation.
46. He also told her that he had had, that day (July 7th), a ‘chance encounter’ with the
Prosecuting Attorney who offered a new Plea Offer and that he had had a meeting
with Prosecuting Attorney in Judge’s chambers and they discussed the plea offer
(see Reed’s affidavit). The new offer was: if Curry would plead guilty to 5
counts of Child Endangering, the State would drop the remaining 31 counts
and not seek the maximum; would likely result in probation because had no priors
or, 1 year at the most. Told her, however, that Judge was not obligated to agree
to the Plea Offer.
47. Reed strongly recommended Curry accept the Plea Offer because he had not
been allowed to see the evidence against her and thus, he would not be able to
provide her a defense.
He related that the Prosecutor told him that if Curry refused this
2nd offer then, the Prosecutor would continue to pile-on charges even if they
totaled 1,000 counts.
Reed told Curry she should accept the offer because he was afraid her ‘butt will
spend the rest of your life in jail”.
Reed told Curry he had to have her answer in 15 minutes.
Reed later lied in his affidavit (to be filed with the Appeal) concerns the terms of
the Plea Offer and, also lied having informed Curry about the prior Plea Offer:
in his affidavit he said he met on or about June 15, 1998 to inform Curry that
Prosecutor had made a Plea Offer (the 1st Offer) and that she declined. This is
an outright lie because that’s the day I arrived in Akron and, because this Offer
was made sometime in April 1998 as evidenced by the Prosecutor’s follow-up
letter to Reed at the end of April 1998 asking for his response. Reed said June
15th in his Affidavit to try to cover his ass (because he didn’t inform Curry of
the Prosecutor’s offer, as he is required to do) and because on June 16th the
Prosecutor filed the additional 30 charges in retaliation for Reed having turned
down the 1st Plea Offer. If she had accepted the 1st offer, the maximum sentence
would have been 20 years vs. the 25 years she received, as a result of the
subsequent Plea Offer she accepted.
48. Curry and ‘friend’ struggled about what she should do. ‘Friend’ convinced
Curry her best option was to take the offer; Curry felt she had no choice
especially since her attorney told her he could not even mount a defense for
her and that she would get no more than 1 year vs. risking spending the rest
of her life in jail.
49. Proceeded immediately that day (July 7, 1998) into Plea Hearing. Suggestive
that everything was well-orchestrated and timed.
50. Plea Agreement is required to be stated in open court - it was not (as it
was related to Curry by Reed).
Judge required to determine if Curry’s acceptance of plea was knowing and
voluntary. Judge’s statements to & questions of Curry were not in conformance
with Rules.
Part of the reasoning requiring the plea be stated in open court is to then ensure
the defendant understands the plea agreement offer to which he/she wishes to accept.
This is extremely important because by accepting a plea agreement, she
gives up valuable Constitutional protections and guarantees.
Another equally important reason the Plea Agreement is required to be stated in
open court is to ensure everything is above-board; that all parties to the agreement
(the defendant, the prosecutor, the judge and, the public) are aware of the agreement
and that no misunderstandings can be claimed.
51. Judge has only 3 options as to the required to either: agree to Plea
Agreement, reject the Agreement, or defer her decision pending further input.
If the Judge chooses either to reject the Agreement or, to defer her decision,
the defense has the option then to withdraw acceptance of the Agreement and
then, to either renegotiate the Agreement or, to proceed to trial.
This 3rd option was reportedly the Plea Agreement, which effectively bypassed
options 1 and 2 and the Judge’s decision was deferred pending conduct of Pre-
Sentencing Investigation (PSI) and Victim’s Impact Statement (VSI).
The defense attorney did not raise any objections to the Judge’s decision to defer
her decision. His silence was in effect his tacit agreement that the Plea Agreement
as stated by the Prosecutor was the actual agreement. The Judge never inquired of
Curry her understanding of the Plea Agreement so the record doesn’t reflect any
discrepancies between what Reed told her and what is stated as the Plea
Agreement in the record.
Reed then asked the Judge to authorize psychological evaluation of Curry; Judge
rebuked him but told him to file Motion which he did but not until the very morning
of the Sentencing Hearing and which the Judge rejected; the news media
were invited to witness the sentencing Hearing and the Judge’s determination had
already been made and she surely was not going to further delay or alter her
decision.
It is doubtful that the Plea Agreement which was stated in the Plea Hearing was
actually the Plea Agreement that Reed had made or which he relayed to Curry;
or, if it was, it is further evidence of Reed’s culpability or his incompetence as it
was illogical. Did Reed really expect that the PSI & VIS would be
favorable to his client? Considering that the nature of the charges, the
Prosecutor’s stated intent to file more charges even if they totaled 1,000, the
hostile posture of the Judge? Reed might argue that he thought a psycho-
diagnostic of his client would be favorable and influence the Judge - if so, one
only need read the Transcript of Plea Hearing regards the Judge’s thoughts on
authorizing such a procedure and, note that, if Reed thought it would help his
client then, why did he wait until the very
morning of the Sentencing Hearing
before filing the motion?
The affect of Reed’s agreeing to the Plea Offer which is expressed in the
Transcript of Plea Hearing was to allow the State more time & opportunity to
amass and present more damaging information upon which to base
the Judge’s inevitable harsh sentencing; in exchange, Curry got nothing (in the
Appeal, the State countered that Reed was such a good negotiator that the State
dropped 31 of the 36 charges and thus, Reed saved his client from more time!).
In fact, Reed obtained more time for his client than she would have received had
he advised her to take the 1st plea offer to 2 counts of Kidnapping that would have
netted her only 20 years maximum. Because, as his motions for Bills of
Particulars attest, he had no more basis in fact on July 7, 1998 than he had had in
April 1998 upon which to recommend she accept a plea.
Note also that an Evidentiary Hearing was never requested regards the Hearsay
evidence of the grandchildren.
52. The Sentencing Hearing was set for August 11, 1998.
53. Was defense afforded opportunity to participate in the PSI? To what extent?
54. Defense was not allowed to see PSI until the Sentencing Hearing.
55. Defense attorney did not tell Curry what time the Sentencing Hearing was
scheduled. I advised her to call the Clerk of Courts because she did not want to be
late. She did call the Clerk and found the Hearing was set for 10:15am; I told
Curry that we should arrive early, just to be certain we did not run into traffic
problems and allow sufficient time to find parking and the courtroom. I told
Curry I would drive to her house to pick her up along with our mother; Curry
was accompanied by her friend. We arrived at the courthouse about 0945am.
56. Reed was no where to be seen. I had never met Reed prior to this day. The start of
the Sentencing Hearing was delayed by other cases and did not start at the
scheduled 1015am time. I was standing beside Curry who was sitting on a bench
in the waiting area outside the Courtroom. A man walked over and sat down
beside her and then, Curry began sobbing heavily. I wondered if this man was
Attorney Reed and leaned over and asked who he was. He was a reporter for a
Cleveland television station and wanted to ‘interview’ Curry. I asked Curry if
she wanted to talk to him and she was unable to speak through her sobs and
simply shook her head ‘No.’. I informed the reporter she did not wish to speak
with him; he persisted and a verbal altercation followed. Because I was so intently
focused on this reporter, I was not aware that about 15 members of the media with
their cameras had gathered behind me.
57. The Sentencing Hearing did not actually begin until about 1130am. Reed finally
made an appearance just a couple minutes before the Hearing started. He denied
any knowledge that the media had been invited to the Hearing.
58. When the previous court case ended, the media were let into the courtroom and
they set up there cameras and microphones at the rear.Then, Reed, Curry, her
friend, my mother and I headed toward the courtroom. Literally, on the way into
the courtroom, Reed asked me and my mother if we would speak to the Judge on
Curry’s behalf - which we did. The reason for us to speak was to hopefully
have a positive influence on the sentence that the Judge would render.
59. The Prosecutor addressed the Judge and stated that they were seeking the
maximum. This was a clear violation of the Plea Agreement but attorney Reed
said nothing. (see Reed’s affidavit filed with the Appeal by attorney Vogel).
60. After listening to the Prosecutor and to my mother and me, the Judge rendered
the sentence, reading from a prepared statement which indicated to me that she
had already decided and that the media had been called to record it.
The Judge said this was the worst case of abuse she had ever seen in her, blah,
blah, blah. The Judge even cited Curry’s prior involvement with CSB with her
own 3 children as evidence that she had abused the grandchildren.
61. The Judge sentenced Curry to the maximum: 5 years on each of 5 counts of
Child Endangering to run consecutively and without chance of parole (she
would have to serve the entire 25 years).
62. Curry was led off in handcuffs to begin her sentence.
63. Together, Reed, my mother, Curry’s friend and I filed out of the courtroom; we
stopped just outside the courtroom door. Reed was visibly shaken and ashen in
color as he leaned against a wall.
Then, Reed did and said something that I thought, at the time, quite bizarre. He
reached into his pants-pocket and pulled out a wad of small pieces of white paper
which, he said, were telephone messages from witnesses for Curry and that, had
he known things were going to turn out as they did (the extraordinary sentence) he
would have returned calls to these witnesses. I recall asking myself, why wouldn’t
he have called and spoken to these witnesses, in any event, and certainly long
before the case had proceeded to sentencing?
Per Curry, Reed refused to talk to any of her witnesses. One, a Kent Haines
psychologist at Portage Path had tried unsuccessfully to call Reed. Reed had not
even requested a witness list from Curry; she faxed list in June 1998 per my
advices. Subpoenas were not requested until shortly before the scheduled July 16,
1998 trial.
64. I along with my mother and Curry’s friend, drove to Curry’s house to retrieve
as many valuables, as possible, because without her there, the home was vacant
and thieves could enter and ransack it and steal her personal property. As it turned
out later, it wasn’t unknown thieves that stole all Curry’s property but rather her
so-called ‘friend’ who had been her confident all through the legal processes.
We had been at the house only a short time when I heard neighboring dogs
barking. I walked outside to see what was going on and saw the reporter, with
whom I had had the altercation at the courthouse, in the driveway of the
neighboring property and walking from the rear to the street. The reporter was
accompanied by a cameraman who had setup a camera across the street from
Curry’s house. The reporter and I exchanged a few words: I that he was
trespassing, he that he had a right to be in the street. I stood on the front porch of
Curry’s house while the two of them were across the street, the reporter
speaking into a microphone and the cameraman obviously filming Curry’s
house.
65. That night, I recorded several television broadcasts which reported on Curry’s
sentencing. The reporter whom I had rebuked framed his story in such a way that I
was featured prominently, obviously his way of retaliating against me. I have
these recordings on video-cassette and on DVD.
66. Reed told Curry he would file the Appeal. However, he would not accept her
phone calls or respond to her letters. In Sep 1998, he asked the Court to replace
him.
Attorney Vogel was assigned and Curry did not discover this until Vogel sent
her a letter in October 1998.
67. Nov 1998 - Elections: Summit County Prosecutor to become Lt Gov in Jan 1999;
Judge Whitmore elected to 9th District Court of Appeals (located in Summit Co);
attorney Reed lost race for Akron City Council. Michael Callahan appointed to
post of Summit County Prosecutor.
68. Jan 1999: Appeal filed by attorney Vogel including affidavit of attorney Reed
disputing the Plea Agreement and admitting (some) of his ineffectiveness as
Curry’s appointed counsel.
69. Feb 1999: Request for Extension of Time to file Post Conviction Relief (pro-se) -
denied.
70. May 1999: series of articles by Akron Beacon Journal exposing the
over-indictment patterns of Summit County Prosecutor Maureen O’Connor
during her tenure. O’Connor defended her practices as being lawful and
tough-on-crime. Not surprisingly, the same tactics were used in Curry’s case.
71. Sometime during my investigations, learned that Judge Beth Whitmore had
earned the nickname “Maximum Beth” which apparently attorney Reed was
not aware of or had ignored.
72. Feb 2000: Appeal denied.
73. Feb 2000: Requested Ohio Office of Public Defender represent Curry in filing
re-opening of appeal - denied.
74. May 2000: Application for Re-opening of Appeal (pro-se): denied.
75. Jun 15 2001: Grievance filed re: Dr. Minor to Ohio Medical Board: for refusing to
give Curry her medical records as required by Consent Agreement.
76. Mar 13 2003: Dr. Minor’s medical license permanently revoked by Ohio Medical
Board. The below link to Ohio Medical Board details Dr. Minor's physical & mental health issues.
It is enlightening to compare his mental symptoms with those which he is
quoted in the Victim Impact Statement as suffering and which cause he attributes
resulted because of Curry treatment of her grandchildren.
Link to Ohio Medical Board re: disciplinary action & revocation of Dr. Minor's medical license:
https://license.ohio.gov/Lookup/SearchDetail.asp?ContactIdnt=2979486&DivisionIdnt=78&Type=L
We requested Curry’s medical records from Dr. Minor. She stated he had also diagnosed her with ADHD (as with both grandchildren) and prescribed Ritalin (as with the grandchildren). Curry discontinued the medication because of adverse reactions. We wanted her medical records to document the treatments given by Dr. Minor. Dr. Minor failed to supply her medical records. Consequently, we filed a complaint to the Ohio Medical Board per their Consent Agreement with Dr. Minor; and, we pursued the
Medical Board to enforce the Agreement which they did and permanently revoked his medical license.
Curry heard that Dr. Minor, after her incarceration, was sued by his partner (Peter Demezza) for embezzling money from their medical practice. I have not conducted any follow-up regards this issue and do not know if true or the exact nature of such a suit.
77. Politics:
During his representation of Curry, attorney Reed was campaigning for a seat on the Akron City Council. Mr. Reed was a Republican. He was equally unsuccessful in prior
campaigns for other public offices. He has since become a Magistrate.
Summit County Prosecutor Maureen O’Connor was a Republican and slated to become
the Lt Gov of Ohio; she was appointed as Lt Gov in Jan 1999 following Curry’s sentencing Aug 11, 1998. She subsequently was touted for a position in the Justice Dept
with the Bush administration but was unsuccessful. She then gave up her position as
Lt Gov to become an Ohio Supreme Court justice which she holds to present time.
Judge Beth Whitmore, Court of Common Pleas, Summit County was a Republican and campaigning for a seat on the 9th District Court of Appeals, Summit County. Whitmore was elected and assumed her position in Jan 1999. She was a friend and political consort of O’Connor. All members of the 9th District Court of Appeals were (still are?) Republicans.
Assistant Prosecutor Allison McCarty was a Republican. She was assigned to prosecute Curry’s criminal case. She has subsequently become a Judge in the Court of Common Pleas, Summit County.
Former Magistrate Brenda Unruh (Juvenile Court case) is a Republican. She has since become a Judge in the Court of Common Pleas, Summit County. Unruh is the replacement Magistrate in the 2nd Juvenile Court proceeding and is who referred the case for criminal investigation.
Judge Judith Hunter was a Republican. She was the Judge in both Juvenile Court cases. As far as I know, she retains this position through present time.
Each time a man stands up for an ideal... or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a ripple of hope...Robert Kennedy |
I have passed it around this morning.
K x
Oh, Great Spirit, grant that I may not criticize my neighbor until I have walked a mile in his moccasins." - Old Indian Prayer My dad told me!! |
|
Home 
