Proving Diane Reason's transcript for case 1990-CM-9 was manipulated

After winning a jury trial 12 to 0 without an attorney I asked the court reporter Diane Reason to prepare a transcript of the event.  It would take her nearly 2 months to get it to me and when I finally received a copy of the transcript it was whitewashed and quite possibly whitewashed by the same person she told me had to look at it before she could give it to me.

During a malicious prosecution lawsuit the manipulated transcript did not portray the events in the jury trial properly.  The jury was allowed to see things that proved the State put a pathological liar with an agenda on the stand and the transcript does not easily prove that.  When the closing remarks were altered it made it look like the State didn't lose the trial until the closing remarks and that is wrong.   The State lost the jury trial on my second question of cross examination when the State's primary witness proved she was a big liar.

The following proves there are inconsistencies in the Transcript prepared by Diane Reason in 1990 that point to the fact it was manipulated and quite possibly it was manipulated by the very Judge that brought charges against me in 1990 named Judge Brinn where Judge Brinn had the history, motive and opportunity to manipulate things in his favor again.

In 1983 both Judge Brinn and Richard Coppula, a now disbarred attorney, incorrectly thought they were helping a woman they called "Bev" protect her daughter when the exhibits entered in a 1990 jury trial proved all they were really doing was helping a woman that enjoyed tormenting her own daughter help the boy that her daughter tried to use as a middle man torment her daughter.

Judge Brinn's history of manipulating facts included helping the now disbarred assistant State's attorney Richard Coppula alter evidence in a "Report of Proceedings" that could have  proved the only way the State won a 1983 jury trial was by rendering the Statue Invalid with misleading jury instructions and using closing remarks that unfairly prejudiced the jury.

The proceeding statement was proven by the police report I used to win my second jury trial in 1990 because it proved that every statement Beverly and Ed Rusk made to police was false and where the false statements they made about Cheryl WIngert classified as an obstruction of justice because people would unjustly take Beverly's side after they heard her false statements and misleading statements about her own daughter.

Diane Reason was probably also under the belief that she was helping a woman she worked with so after she finished my transcript she gave it to someone else to look at.  She never said who she gave it to but by the changes that were made to the transcript, it certainly looks like she gave it to Judge Brinn to manipulate it.

To make a long story short, Judge Brinn and I went head to head on a public newsgroup so anyone can see that Judge Brinn still thought he was helping Beverly Rusk help her daughter until after he saw the exhibits I used to win a jury trial at:
http://SlimeFest.com/Exhibits.

Then after Judge Brinn saw the exhibits I used to win a jury trial he stated: "you were handed a win due to an error committed before you were charged."

Because Judge Brinn signed a "Report of Proceedings" we know that he knew about all the exhibits I'd use in court with the exception of Defense Exhibit #4.   That means that exhibit and the facts tied to that exhibit have to be what Judge Brinn is referring to when he states: "handed a win."

The "Report of Proceedings" signed by Judge Brinn can be found at:
http://SlimeFest.com/ReportofProceedings

Defense Exhibit #4 from the jury trial I won can be found at:
http://slimefest.com/Exhibits/#Exhibit4

I'm sure Diane Reason, the court reporter in my 1990 jury trial figured adding white lies to white lies wouldn't hurt anything but what Diane Reason was really doing when she allowed the transcript to be manipulated by someone else was add to big lies and ended up helping a misguided mother help a boy that her daughter tried to use as a middle man torment her own daughter.


The major changes made to the transcript conceal the fact the State lost the trial by putting a pathological liar on the stand and they also make it appear as if I won the jury trial in my closing remarks.  Those changes included altering the closing remarks and removing any mention of Beverly Rusk's detailed description of the alleged phone call.

If Beverly Rusk's detailed description of the alleged phone call had been left in the transcript it would have proven two things.  One that she fully impeached herself with her answer to my second question under cross examination and that her husband also impeached her because his detailed description of the alleged phone call was different than his wife's.

The most pronounced proof that there was absolutely no detailed description from Beverly Rusk about an alleged phone call is in the ORDER by the Third District Appellate Court in case #3-91-0162   Those three Judges did everything they could do assassinate my character.  They manipulated testimony that was completely impeached by the exhibits they did not have and they even went so far as to falsify evidence in the fourth paragraph of their ORDER.

But, and this is the important part, there is nothing at all in their ORDER about Beverly Rusk's detailed description of the alleged phone call.  They have Ed Rusk's detailed description of the alleged phone call but not Beverly's and I'm sure every telephone harassment lawsuit starts out with a detailed description of the alleged phone call so the transcript prepared by Diane Reason is also inconsistent with other telephone harassment lawsuits.

As a side note:  Two exhibits used to win the 1990 jury trial also prove that Judge Brinn knew Beverly Rusk was a pathological liar with an agenda that obstructs justice before he even brought charges against me.  The two exhibits that ended up completely impeaching all three of the State's witnesses with prior inconsistent statements can be found at:
http://slimefest.com/Exhibits/ProofOfPerjury

People that might be mentioned below:
Judge Thomas Berglund: Presiding Judge
Beverly Rusk: complainant
Ed Rusk:  Beverly's second husband
Cheryl Wingert: Beverly''s daughter from first marriage
Donny Geiger: boy Cheryl tried to use as a middle man
Casey or Charles Stengel: Prosecuting attorney
Richard Coppula:  Prosecuting attorney in a 1983 trial


First the truth about the closing remarks then I plan to show inconsistencies in the transcript prepared by Diane Reason regarding the answer to my second question in a Jury trial.

1.  I started my closing remarks with: "What they said happened did not happen" and the rest of my closing remarks were based entirely on what the State learned about Beverly Rusk's daughter during the jury trial.  I also stated: "Yes she was a friend when I needed one the most and it looks like she needs a friend now."  The closing remarks Diane Reason placed in her transcript were so far from the truth I had to write them down down on another sheet of paper instead of trying to pencil in minor corrections.

3.  I lost my first jury trial after making closing remarks just like the closing remarks Diane Reason's transcript makes it look like I made so there was no way I was going to do that again.  In reality the place that I pointed out there was no evidence of a phone call was when I tried to enter my phone bill as an exhibit since the alleged phone call would have been long distance and shown up on my phone bill.

3.  If I had made closing remarks just like the ones the transcript has me listed as making Casey Stengel would have made a reply but in reality I didn't leave him anything to reply to.

4.  Because of the similarity between the closing remarks in Diane Reason's transcript and what happened in a jury trial in front of Judge Brinn everything points to Judge Brinn as the manipulator of the transcript that Diane Reason prepared for case 1990-CM-9.


The following questions took place on August 22, 1990 during cross examination of Beverly Rusk in a jury trial that I won 12 to 0 without an attorney.

The following statement made by Judge Thomas Berglund starts off my cross examination.

Page 20 line 18:
COURT:  Relating to matters she's testified to.

But that remark was unnecessary because I knew that and besides Beverly Rusk testimony had given me plenty to work with:


Question #1 from Page 20 line 22:

Q:  To start with you said your age is 50?

A: 59.

Q:  I was going to say, you said you were 50 when I was in high school.

Note:  I graduated from high school in 1974 and the question about her age was asked in 1990 so Beverly Rusk was at least 65.

Q:  Would you mind showing proof of your age?

Casey objects but the judge never ruled on his objection so I could have kept going with that question but I moved to my next question anyway.


Question #2 from Page 21 line 21:

Q.  Okay, next one.  You said you had a child nine years?

Note: that really meant Beverly had a nine year old child but I was quoting Beverly Rusk's exact words.  Beverly mentioned the child during her detailed description of the alleged phone call and the child was her daughter's child making it her grand daughter.

MR. STENGEL:  Objection.  That was not an answer to anything.

DEFENDANT:  She said.  She was testifying that she had a child for nine years.  Is that what she said?

Note:  I don't know why the transcript says "child for nine years" because I was trying to quote Beverly Rusk where she simply said a "child nine years."

COURT:  Do you recall the question, Mr. Stengel?

MR. STENGEL:  I don't recall any answer with nine years in it.

DEFENDANT:  She was just stating facts.

The above means Beverly mentioned the "child nine years" during her detailed description of the alleged phone call.

COURT:  He can inquire on that if it is of any merit.  What is your question?

Q.  How long have you really had custody of the child?

A.  Who are you talking about?

Q.  Which child are you talking about?

A.  I don't recall saying I had custody of any child.

Q.  You mentioned child.  You mentioned the word child.   You said something about nine years.  I know nothing of this.  I'm trying to get it clarified.

A.  I did not mention any child.

I won the jury trial with her reply because Beverly Rusk had mentioned her grand daughter as a "child nine years" during her detailed description of the alleged phone call and that particular testimony from Beverly Rusk never made it to the transcript prepared by Diane Reason or if it did it was removed by whoever she gave it before I got to see it.

Either way, the fact remains Beverly Rusk completely impeached herself with her fraudulent answer to that question and other inconsistent testimony in her cross examination below.

As a side note:  the following statement made by me is one of the numerous statements missing from Diane Reason's transcript.  I wrote it down in a letter I sent to to the attorney that was the prosecuting attorney in my 1983 jury trial as he was serving jail time during 1990 for "Theft by Deception."

she said "She did not mention anything." I said I have it written down that you did! She denied it again! I was standing in front of the jury at this time. I then held up my notebook, and drew a box around the place where I'd made my note, then placed a ? inside the same box. At the same time I said "Hmmmm" loud enough for the jury to hear! I'm pretty sure this was the most critical error Beverly made.

Above found at: http://overprotectivemother.com/Coppula.htm

Why would Beverly Rusk lie so easily?  Beverly Rusk knew from a "Petition to quash Subpoenas" held on July 13, 1990 what I was going to do if she had admitted to mentioning her daughter earlier.  More about Shanna at:
http://slimefest.com/Shanna


Question #3 was on page 22 line 4 was about Ed Rusk employment but that question fell through because all I got was more lies.  I wanted to prove Ed Rusk was not working anywhere in 1983 and that was part of the reason he was so upset when Beverly Rusk told him I harassed her at the courthouse.


During the opening remarks Charles Stengel made the remark "Only Band" when he was trying to say the only place I knew Cheryl Wingert from was "Only Band."  The answers that Beverly Rusk gave next proved that the State was dealing with false information before the trial even took place.

Question from page 25 line 2

Q.  So we could have had lockers right next to each other?

A:  You could have.

Q.  We could have had other classes with each other?

A.  But you said it was only band.  Do you remember that?

Q.  Yes.

Note:  I knew I would be dealing with a pack of lies from Beverly Rusk so I subpoenaed two friends from high school to help prove she was lying.  But I didn't have to use them for that because Beverly had proven she was lying on her own again with her replies.


Question from page 25 line 10

Q.  What words would you use when you would describe me?  You used the word infatuated.  What was another one?

Beverly Rusk testimony to that would end up proving that she also called me a faggot.


Question from page 27 line 7

Q.  Could these phone calls have been 3 years apart?

A.  We have been to court with you before.

DEFENDANT:  That's irrelevant, Your Honor.

COURT:  Well, let's not make any more specific references to any past court hearings.  You did ask the question.

Page 27 line 20

Q.  Again, could these phone calls have been 3 to 5 years apart.

A.  They could have.

Q.  So in essence, it's as good as they have quit?  Would you say if they are that far apart they have stopped?

What I was trying to point out above was I quit trying to reach Cheryl after she ignored me in person and Cheryl even testified that exact event during the trial.

When Cheryl moved back home I felt I had to apologize for my actions so I called her back.  We could talk for hours after she moved back home but she didn't ask me the same questions she asked Donny Geiger about me and that was what I wanted so I quit calling her back.


NOTE: Up to this moment in the jury trial every single question I asked Beverly Rusk was directly related to testimony in the jury trial and if anybody thinks that question #2 wasn't also directly related to Beverly Rusk's testimony in the jury trial it means they were duped by a manipulated transcript.


Questions from Page 32 line 3:

DEFENDANT:  I am asking for an incident.  A list of incidents that made them think it was harassment.  They just say phone calls.

COURT:  Where did you get that?

DEFENDANT:  She just said it was all phone calls.  She just said that.

COURT:  She said that.  She also said there were visits to the house .

DEFENDANT:  Then I said the incidents that started it all.   In other words the visits to her house.  (more missing testimony here)

Note: I know I used the phrase "She jumped way down the time line" because I have it written down on the transcript.

COURT:  You are going to have to ask the questions.

A.  You've been over to our house, you have telephoned.

Q.  Is it plural?

MR. STENGEL:  I would like her to have the opportunity to answer his questions.  He said visits.  Then she started to answer.

COURT:  Let her finish her answer first.

DEFENDANT:  I just, all she needed was an S or no S.

NOTE: The following statements made in the transcript can be seen at:
http://slimefest.com/Exhibits/#Exhibit1intro

COURT:  You want a yes or no, or an answer?

DEFENDANT:  Yes.

A.  You were over to our home once, and the rest have been phone calls.

Q.  And this one time I was invited to your house.  This one time you said I went to your house?

A.  You were never invited to our home.

( I wanted to address the Judge as "Your Honor" at least once during the jury trial and the following is where I addressed him as "Your Honor" but those words are missing too)

DEFENDANT:  At this time I would like to introduce the court of proceedings.

( I also said "Report of proceedings" but I was walking toward my table at that time so the court reporter could have honestly missed the word "Report.")


That was all I needed to do to win that jury trial because that "Report of Proceedings" would be allowed for purposes of impeachment and I was already given permission to use a police report for purposes of impeachment shortly before the trial.

Those two exhibits together proved Beverly Rusk had been allowed to get away with perjury and obstructing justice in an earlier jury trial and there was no way a second jury would let her do it again especially after they saw how many lies she told during the course of the second jury trial and that she shouldn't have been interfering with her daughter's life in the first place.

The Prosecuting attorney had no way to win the jury trial after the "Report of Proceedings" was introduced for purposes of impeachment because:

1.  Cheryl Wingert would also be completely impeached with prior inconsistent statements using that "Report of Proceedings."

2.  He had no way to prevent me from entering the police report for purposes of impeachment because I knew the proper procedure to have it entered.

3.  His misleading jury instructions would be thrown out because I had the correct jury instructions with me.

4.  His attempt to prejudice the jury with his closing remarks failed because I prevented it with my last objection during the trial.

In other words Casey Stengel was prevented from using the exact same tricks that Richard Coppula played on me in an earlier jury trial and I could have easily won that jury trial with the exact same evidence I used to win the above jury trial.


As proven by numerous lawsuits on malicious prosecution:  Unfairly withholding information from the State that could have prevented a prosecution can be used to prove malice.

The following question proves that Beverly Rusk unfairly withheld a letter from the State and that letter proved I was prepared to prove just how big a liar Beverly Rusk was in court and that letter could have prevented a prosectution if she had given it to the State.

Question from Page 43 line 22

Q.  This year or last year did I show up at your office with a letter?

A.  Yes.

Q.  How many of those things did you disagree with?

MR. STENGEL:  Objection, Your Honor.  At this time that letter is not in evidence.  I don't have any opportunity to review what letter they are talking about.


Last Update: 07/13/2010 12:39 PM