Highlights of Keenya's juvenile & criminal cases

[Admin]

Perhaps, you've asked youself how Keenya ended up in prison. I realize you need a concise way to begin to understand the injustice Keenya has suffered.

So, I have prepared a snyopsis of the Juvenile Court and Criminal Court cases to assist your understanding. This synopsis will give you an overall view of the events and people who are responsible for Keenya's imprisonment. With knowledge, you will be able to comprehend what happened, who are the people responsible, and why Keenya is incarcerated. Afterwards, you will be better able to review and digest other case information and documents which I will post. Then, working together we can have a dialogue and discussions about ways that we can help Keenya gain her freedom.



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 1997) 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 two 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.

[Admin]

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 the 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).

[Admin]

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 guilty).


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.

[Admin]

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 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 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.

Keenya had taken her grandchildren to Dr. David Cragar Minor seeking another medical opinion regards their diagnosed Attention Deficeit Disorder (ADD) for which they had been receiving treatment (Ritlan) from another doctor. Dr. Minor was a self-syled 'expert' on ADD in children. In fact, Dr. Minor was a long-time sufferer (among other mental problems). One gets the distinct impression that Dr. Minor believed that most people also suffered from ADD - including Keenya who he also diagnosed and prescribed Ritalin.

After her incarceration, Keenya (with I disagreeistance) sought to obtain her medical records from Dr. Minor, in order to establish factual basis that he had diagnosed and treated her for this condition. We sent the proper request to Dr. Minor for Keenya's medical records but never received his reply. As a result, we filed a grievance with the Ohio Medical Board and, as a result, learned that Dr. Minor was already in trouble with the Medical Board for previously failing to release other patient records to the patients and, because of his suffering from physical and mental health issues.

At the time our grievance to the Board, we learned that Dr. Minor had previously entered into a Consent Agreement that, in order for Dr. Minor to avoid disciplinary actions, he must fulfill patients requests for records and demonstrate his compliance with other requirements. Our grievance and Dr. Minor's failure to respond was the final strike against Dr. Minor and thus, the Ohio Medical Board thereafter permanently revoked his license to practice medicine in Ohio.

You can read for yourself the Ohio Medical Board case and documents against Dr. Minor and their permanent revocation of his medical license to practice in the State of Ohio:

license.ohio.gov/Lookup/SearchDetail.asp?ContactIdnt=2979486&DivisionIdnt=78&Type=L

Note: Keenya discontinued the taking the Ritalin prescirbed by Dr. Minor because of severe adverse reactions

Keenya heard that Dr. Minor, after her incarceration, was sued by his former 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. She subsequently has become a Judge in the Court of Common Pleas, Summit County.