You are on page 1of 5

Eric Jonathan Brewer


February 3, 2016
Attorney Thomas DiCaudo, Contract Prosecutor
Village of Boston Heights
DiCaudo, Pitchford & Yoder
209 South Main Street
Akron, OH 44308


Summary of Brewer / Boston Heights Village pre-trial hearing
Question of attorney Thomas DiCaudo's official status as a contract Mayor's Court
prosecutor based on claim of not being a sworn official of the Village of Boston Heights
and are therefore not bound by the duties of a public office
Evidence of a U.S.C. 18, 241 conspiracy violation between
contract prosecutor Thomas DiCaudo and Boston Heights police
Mr. DiCaudo:
Through an act of inadvertence, my cell phone recorded the February 1, 2016 pre-trial hearing and our
conversation after the judge left.
I perceive the official acts discussed during and after the hearing to constitute evidence of criminal
misconduct and a violation of Disciplinary Rule 8.4.
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to do any of the following:(a) violate or attempt to violate the
Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the
acts of another; (b) commit an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyers honesty or
trustworthiness; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; (d)
engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; (e) state or imply an ability to
influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the
Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; (f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in
conduct that is a violation of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, the applicable rules of judicial
conduct, or other law; (g) engage, in a professional capacity, in conduct involving discrimination
prohibited by law because of race, color, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, national origin,
marital status, or disability; (h) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyers
fitness to practice law.

I've had time to review our conversations during the pre-trial hearing and after Stow Municipal Court Judge
Lisa L. Coates left us alone to talk. I'll first address my lingering concerns about the recorded conversation
after she left. I note that you refused to shake my hand when I extended it in greeting before the hearing. I
recognize by that act your inability to separate emotion and personal bias from professionalism.
The most significant take-away from the pre-trial hearing is that you are abusing the authority of the
prosecutor's office to preserve the interests of a client and teach me a lesson.

You were instructed by the Judge to deliver the exculpatory evidence to a Defendant. She left and you said
I'd have to pick up the records from the Village. You also indicated that I'd have to pay for the evidence. I didn't
know at the time you couldn't charge me for evidence.
You manufactured an entire motive-inspired conversation out of nothing when you asked if I was driving,
which was none of your business. When I told you to cease with the driving questions you threatened me with a
pre-meditated arrest if you learn that I drove to the Village to retrieve the records you were ignoring the Judge's
instructions to deliver. So what's your plan? Refuse the Judge and Rule 16's instructions to timely-deliver me
the records, which you've already done? Lure me to the Village? Have Boston Heights police you're conspiring
with watch me leave while another waits to see if I drive so they can arrest me?
What do they intend to do? Use LEADS/NCIC databases to investigate my driver because you'll go to great
lengths to conceal police misconduct and discredit their accusers? Have you and the police already worked out
the details of your conspiratorial plot? That after the judge left discussion between us in the recording sounds
ominously like a conspiratorial threat when added to the conversation about the extra criminal charges you
discussed during the hearing, and after reading the Motion for Sanctions I filed in court before you arrived.
Since you raised the issue of upgrading the non-jailable minor misdemeanor offenses to criminal offenses, I
look forward to asking the officers why it took 101 days for the extra charges to be discovered and how the
decision to do so was arrived.
I've alleged that you're involved in a Title 18, Section 241 federal conspiracy with Boston Heights police to
deprive me of my constitutional rights to conceal your role in a profit driven criminal RICO enterprise using
LEADS/NCIC databases to generate over $440,000 in fees and fines. Section 241 is used by federal prosecutors
to prosecute police officers, and was recently used to successfully prosecute a prosecutor. Your role with them is
now obvious. A copy of this letter is forwarded to Assistant U.S. Attorney General Vanita Gupta/Civil Rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any
State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of
any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or
because of his having so exercised the same; They shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated
sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced
to death.
You raised the misrepresentation issue to support your threat of new charges, but there are immediate
identification facts that would stare a not-so-conspiratorial prosecutor in the face that you've ignored in your
eagerness to conspire with the accused law enforcement officers. This opens a new round of constitutional
rights deprivations, and creates a separate liability for the Village, and for you. The police officers didn't even
handle that lawfully. I want every recorded conversation visual and audio that exists which makes
reference to me in any way.
Since you've disengaged yourself from performing the official and lawful duties of a prosecutor, and are
operating in the capacity of a private contractor, you've chosen not to fully and fairly hear or review my
testimony with me. You didn't give me the same time as you gave the police to view the video evidence from the
perspective of my criminal allegations against them.
On the morning of February 1, 2016, the day of the pre-trial hearing, you acknowledged reading the Motion
for Sanctions I filed with the clerk of court before you arrived. You were already angry, refused to shake my
hand and retaliated with the threat of criminal charges based on dash and body cams you've possessed for 101
days, and that you claimed was non-discoverable after I filed a Motion to Compel.

You committed perjury and contradicted your own motion before the Judge saying you intended to give me
the evidence, but only after my Motion to Compel; and after she told you the dash and body cams were
discoverable. Why didn't you just bring the dash and body cams to the hearing if you intended to deliver them?
I look forward to the officer's testimony on how you and they conspired to identify the criminal charges 101 days
after I was cited. It's a shame city officials don't see the perverse and obstructive role you're playing in
corrupting what could have otherwise been honest law enforcement officers.
You threw Mayor Bill Goncy's administration under the bus when you told the Judge his police officers were
derelict in turning over the dash cam and body cam evidence I'd been requesting for nearly two months. What
are they doing? Splicing and editing? Do you hear me asking the officer if he's recording through a dash and
body cam, and him saying yes? I asked for the inventory from what was claimed by the officer to have been
an inventory search. I asked the officer, specifically for it. I hope that part was recorded.
You said the inventory search wasn't discoverable and the judge told you it was indeed discoverable, and
instructed you to deliver it. By the date of the hearing police had possessed the so-called inventory search list
for 101 days. Does that now have to be created? Or are the only items found in the second police officer's
complete inventory search of the belongings in my car less than a joint of weed and an empty pipe with burned
up weed tar in it? Do Village officials even know this is how you're operating on their behalf? I look forward
to seeing an inventory list that was reviewed with me in recordings, and that I signed.
Mr. DiCaudo. I'm not playing your justice-obstructing games. You're going to deliver the records via email
or U.S. mail as I requested, and as the law and rules require, and I'm not paying for them. I'm prepared to file a
motion for contempt to address your dishonesty, disregard for the rules and disrespect of the Court if they're not
delivered within hours upon receipt of this letter.
The Judge instructed me to reach out to city officials to obtain public records, because you refused to deliver
them. You said you weren't an official of the city although you hold yourself out to the public as a city official.
No problem. I'll send a request and also copy this letter to the mayor.
I'm not stunned by your maliciousness and conspiratorial conduct. I actually expected it because those are
exactly the constitution and law-violating services you advertise to Ohio governments in your law firm's
marketing materials.
When a law enforcement officer, correctional facility or municipality is facing potential
liability in a claim involving alleged unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual
punishment, excessive police force, police misconduct, inadequate public policy or other
wrongdoing, our team of trial lawyers evaluates the case for qualified or absolute
immunity, timeliness or other strategic defenses. If such immunities are unavailable, the
lawyers at DiCaudo, Pitchford & Yoder go to great lengths to ensure our clients' interests are
preserved through vigorous attacks against the allegations and preparing our client for
Instead of an American citizen you see in me a potential liability and are conspiring with your municipal
client to preserve its interests through vigorous attacks against the allegations that they've deprived him of his
constitutional rights. The true harm is to other citizens who faced you in trial without your disclosing that
you were holding an official title to execute your advertised services and not administer justice.
In the Judge's presence and after she left, you said you were not an official of the Village as a private
contract prosecutor, and when I asked you to deliver the exculpatory evidence I'd requested as public records.
The Judge clearly identified the records as public and advised me to obtain them from the Village. I asked you
as an official of the Village to deliver the public records pursuant to ORC 149.43.

The question now raised is if you believe your duties are to the office you hold by title, or to your contract to
thwart the administration of justice when the Village faces potential liability because of law enforcement officer
misconduct. Those dual roles are a conflict. Your I am not an official claim further explains why you see no
conflict in refusing to accept a criminal complaint against a Village law enforcement officer that would be filed
pursuant to ORC 2935.09. I now wonder if you wrote your own duties into the terms and conditions of a
contract to replace the duty to perform those authorized under the title of prosecutor by our state's lawmakers.
I also question if your contract with the Village might provide some proprietary interest in the revenue
generated from citations, which would explain your protect my partner mindset with police officers ignoring
the laws they're supposed to obey that were identified in the Village's participation agreement with the state to
access LEADS/NCIC public safety databases. These are Supreme Court of Ohio and U.S. Department of Justice
issues and I'll not waste your time with them here.
You also stated that some police personnel records are not public. I informed you that the only non-public
information in a police personnel file is that which is personally identifiable pursuant to ORC 149.43. No
address, no date of birth, no social security number. That's another act of contempt on your part towards the
Judge's instructions and declaration that all of the records I sought were public. Every duty you ignore only
confirms the great lengths your team of lawyers go through to suppress allegations of police misconduct.
Whether you view yourself as an official of the Village, your malicious acts are creating a liability for them
that is encumbering their public funds and harming the municipal corporation's reputation. Boston Heights
taxpayers will pay for everything their private contract prosecutor does wrong as you engage in acts of
malpractice and dereliction to duty to carry out an unlawful and now very personal agenda.
We spoke of your plan to move the Court to address the legal issues facing this case. You'll recall before the
Judge arrived how I shared with you that I'd filed a Judicial Notice review request prior to the hearing. You
asked me what was Judicial Notice. I began to explain and stopped, and then asked why you didn't know as a
lawyer. Nonetheless, when you spoke of your planned motion after the Judge left I reminded you that I'd already
asked the Court for the Judicial Notice.
You said, after the Judge left, that my exposing your misconduct was not going to help me. You thought my
description of your criminal and rule violating acts in my motions were personal. As I corrected the Judge, I'll
correct you. I'm not angry and I didn't know you. I only know what I've read about your conduct as an Akron
public employee. You acknowledged that you've already been contacted by the Supreme Court of Ohio.
I was an investigative journalist before my mayoral election, and during my cabinet experiences with two
other mayors; so yes, I reviewed snippets of public records and news articles about your career. I told you. I
was a safety director. I fired a police chief and a prosecutor for the type of misconduct I'm witnessing from you.
I fired and prosecuted police officers for misconduct. That's how you preserve the interests of your client. You
train and punish constitutional non-compliance out of law enforcement officers. You don't conceal it. You obey
your oath of office.
Your client, Mr. DiCaudo, is the Constitution of the United States of America. You're supposed to review
dash and body cams and tell law enforcement officers what they did wrong, and advise them not to do it
again,and instruct them on what to do that's lawful and constitutional. Those are not the services you advertise.
The more wrong they do the more you get paid, so you encourage the wrong to keep getting paid as a contract
prosecutor. Those are the services you advertise.
When I learned you refused complaints from citizens who'd complained of police misconduct, I remembered
my conversations with Mayor Don Pluralistic and Marco Sommerville, and members of council; and realized
you were that guy who'd obstructed much of their police reform efforts. I read your leading questions to the
cop who shot Demetrius Vinson, and connected that tactic to the criticism identified in the U.S. Department of
Justice's investigation of Cleveland's use of deadly force that one of my former employers, Mayor Michael

White, requested.
Your representation of an Akron cop the FBI is investigating, Donald Schismenos, caused me to think the 200
pieces of videotaped evidence he hid from innocent citizens was hidden during your watch as the city's chief
prosecutor. It's the same thing you tried with me. I assumed that if you were being paid to administer justice
and didn't, then you wouldn't administer it as a contractor. Justice is not what your law firm sells.
Mr. DiCaudo, I perceived you to be a criminal masquerading as a prosecutor when you were a public official,
and I perceive you to be a criminal masquerading as a prosecutor as a private contractor. That's why I shared
those thoughts in my motion to compel and a separate one for sanctions. I expected you to do everything you've
done. It's what you advertise.
You clearly said you were not an official of the Village of Boston Heights, so I have no idea who I'm
dealing with if it's not an official who holds a title that comes with lawful duties that are not being performed.
It's why I asked the Judge to make you comply with the rules of criminal and civil procedure as they were
written instead of operating under rules of your own creation.
You asked why I was the only person in America who knew laws didn't allow cops to randomly access license
plates. You'll recall I said that it was okay to lynch black people and Italians until the laws were changed. The
bottom line is the laws haven't changed. The 9th District Court said privacy wasn't an issue and Congress says
the judges are wrong.
Here's what the 9th District Court of Appeals ruled. ... if they own vehicles that have license plates that are
required to be openly displayed pursuant to RC 4503.21; ... the neighbor is not also entitled to privacy. State
v. Bates 1987 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. Medina County). The Court also ruled, ... although a random vehicle
stop without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is invalid, a random computer check of a vehicle license
plate is not.
The addresses of homes are openly displayed and owners are identified in county databases. Boston Heights
police can't drive through neighborhoods and randomly run addresses, identify citizens with outstanding
warrants, run their plates and identify the vehicle they drive, and wait for them to leave home and drive off, and
they follow and arrest them. No American supports that, and neither does the constitution. I'm sure Mayor
Goncy and the council don't support that type of police spying on their neighbors who's addresses or license
plates are openly displayed, and federal laws you haven't read agree. The 9th District Court was wrong.
Read OAC 4501:2-10-03(D): The primary purpose of LEADS is the protection of the officer on the street;
therefore, terminal operators shall maximize entry capabilities to serve this purpose ... It's a safety tool for the
officer on the street to use for his protection before he approaches a vehicle he's already stopped for another
reason. The officer on the street must ask him or herself if the entry is maximized for protection on the
street before they access LEADS. I hope his responses to my questions about his reason for accessing LEADS is
I the dash and body cams. Every response and question I asked had a very clear legal purpose to establish
that the detaining Boston Heights police officer was operating unlawfully. You'd acknowledge his violations of
law and deprivation of my rights if you were administering justice.
You can claim you're not a Boston Heights official but the public perceives you to hold the office, and that's
how you present yourself in official proceedings. If you're not an official, and have not been administered
an oath of office to perform the duties of the office of prosecutor, that's another problem altogether for the
Village of Boston Heights.
Eric Jonathan Brewer, Pro Se