New Sixth Circuit Opinion Supports Olivito's Work on Underlying Case: Functional Ability of Olivito in Question? by Whom and Why?

Recently, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower district court ruling and opinion

which clearly favored the strong pleading, discovery and briefing that Attorney Olivito was

able to produce inside a very disturbing but real Section 1983 claim which clearly demonstrated

that the plaintiffs, a white working class family from Steubenville Ohio were entitled to

overcome the qualified immunity challenges of the local Steubenville officers when they jumped

a privacy fence, then pursued a son of the father and owner of the residence, then allegedly

struck him on the side of his temple with a mag lite flashlight three times and then once inside

the same residence, arrested the minor for underage drinking contra what they pursued him

for allegedly. The underage drinking charged had been dismissesd by the local municipal

court three years ago.

In the recently decided Thorne v. City of Steubenville Police Officers, the Sixth Circuit

strongly rejected the subsequent thirty five page appellate brief the City's insurer's defense

firm had filed stating that the lower district court got it wrong. What the Sixth held was the

case's issues of officer liability under Fourth Amendment standards were so clear and so well

delineated by the lower court after their own "extensive and careful review and a separate oral

argument" that the lower court opinion granting Attorney Olivito's original briefing a clear legal

victory on the initial summary judgment officer liability issues was sufficient to stand for their

own affirmance of the lower court on all of the most relevant claims including the improper

search and warrantless entry into a private residence's backyard, the subsequent false arrest

and the excessive force claim, which was not challenged on appeal by the city lawyers.

This legal opinion from the high appellate court in Cincinnati, represents a sweet and

particularly strong victory for the original counsel on the case's record, Mr. Olivito, who filed

the original pleadings, did all of the discovery work as lead and solo counsel on the case and then

also wrote, alone, the main summary judgment plaintiff responsive briefs on this case last year

which proved to be both very effective and sufficiently strong to overcome the serious

qualified immunity defenses that all police officers can raise and were stated and briefed by the

large insurance defense firm out of Columbus and Cleveland, Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder who

represented the City, the officers and the FOP locally for the City officers.

The opinion result is also clearly based on the hard and diligent work of Dan Thorne Sr

himself, who put much of the case's key documents together for Mr. Olivito even before he had

hired a lawyer to do the same.

Judge Marbley included as lead counsel inside his published opinion, Mr. Richard Olivito's

name as first counsel on that case's district court opinion. While noting the district court made

a technical error on applying to the officers both sets of officer immunity claims and reversing

that in part, the appellate court clearly upheld the district court's well written primer opinion on

Fourth Amendment standards, strongly vindicating both the lower district court and the

plaintiff's arguments and pleadings inside the original case filed in January of 2005.

********************************************************************************

What does this mean for the career of Attorney Richard Olivito? Only the future knows

but one thing is clear: The Supreme Court's office of disciplinary counsel chief prosecutor

Lori Brown had filed a motion in late February and then a supportive brief last March, [2007]

stating that due to certain issues in Mr. Olivito's personal life, he was "no longer capable of

functioning as a competent attorney"...

"What a deeply misguided, slanderous and serious allegation to lay at any lawyer's feet,

much less have it done by the State Supreme Court of Ohio's enforcement arm and mechanism

by its very own ethics office. I think Ms. Brown has opened herself up to a false light complaint."

What is going to be the standard applied now by the Ohio Supreme Court, who seems to

be wasting no time to somehow respond officially to this Sixth Circuit victory given the plaintiff's
original lawyer Richard Olivito who created the case, its pleadings and wholly prosecuted and

as solo lead counsel developed the record of the same to date, all just before the Ohio Supreme

Court suspended his license last summer for a year?

The outcome and the truth is yet to be seen. God literally only knows what is to come

of this unique battle and legal circmstance between Mr. Olivito and his distractors. No doubt,

Attorney Olivito has made powerful enemies among certain high political circles and some local

bar associations in this state. There are some among these who are very quick-to-

the-draw-enemies of Mr. Olivito's and his law practice who have devoted more than a passing

interest in Mr. Olivito and have spent much more than mere 'face time' with his distractors and

not a few mere dollars in investigating him, by those appointed to kill off his practice, working

for this present Supreme Court and some related special interests in this state.

These same individuals seem to love to chat with some of the more powerful political office

holders of inside this state's judiciary about the law practice of Richard Olivito in terms of his

standing within the legal system and profession of Ohio. They love to create falsehoods about

his representation of lowly clients. The are like those we have read in sunday school lessons

who in the ancient times as the Old Testament described them: "they are those who call evil

good, and good, evil...".

Whatever the outcome and the recent effort to make Olivito submit to the bizarre

request they have made regarding him submitting to a mental health evaulation sought by

by this very sick and compromised chief disciplinary counsel lawyer Ms. Brown of the

Ohio Discipilnary Counsel's office and then, dutifully 'ordered', by the seriously

compromised Akron corporate law firm and State Republican party lead lawyer, Jeff Heintz,

one thing is very clear:

The Sixth Circuit conservative judges, some from Ohio, some not, not only believed in what

the Thorne- Olivito claim had plead and developed thru hard won efforts, inside his legitimate

federal 1983 lawsuit filed on behalf of very seriously injured clients but they completely believed
strongly about what they reviewed, heard and then decided about the case, so much so they

completely affirmed the extremely favorable lower court decision regarding officer liability

in this case and let stand the district court's published opinion which was clearly endorsed

and strongly affirmed most of the work product of the plaintiff's original pre summary judgment

part of the case, over and against that of the large insurance defense firm of downtown

Columbus' lawyers who strongly opposed and challenged the plaintiff's solo counsel for the

first two years on this case every step of the way but have now come away major losers in

these all important first several rounds of such intense and complex federal litigation.

"I have to wonder, whether or not, Ohio Disciplinary Counsel Ms. Lori Brown, or David

Comstock of Youngstown and/or even the former panel chair on my present pending but

stayed disciplinary case, ever have had the opportunity to litigate such issues all the way

through the highest federal appellate courts and yet win within such complex federal litigation

with the kind of well- funded, deep pocket opposition that we have had to face in terms of

this particular kind of Thorne case.

I have, very fortunately and for a lot of reasons, which relate to the careful choosing of the

claims I take and the underlying strength of the client's case and by God's grace, literally, and

now we have overcome. If any such counsel [have ever done this type of litigation] then they

ought to know for certain, I am quite capable of functioning fully as a lawyer for anyone who

wants to chance me with their federal civil rights claim based on Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendment violations.

If not, then they need to sit back, take a breath and just truly ponder what they are foolishly

stating about a fellow lawyer who has run circles around several major defense firms, both in

Cleveland and now in Columbus, by himself, on a shoe string budget armed only with the truth,

the records of his client's cases and his own astute experience and knowledge of a very rarified

and often not truly utilized by average lawyers, field of federal litigation, reserved for only

those who would dare to take on their local cities and municipalities and their local police chief's

and.......win...the most important legal arguments pertinent to such heavy litigation....at the

highest possible courts in the entire midwest region we're operating within."

"This result ought to stand for something in light of all that has been alleged against me by

these out of control and truly biased 'ethics' lawyers who along with this present all republican

FOP endorsed Supreme Court of Ohio which seems more bent on harming my reputation and

the cause of my innocent clients than they are protecting the public and/or promoting the truth

about my actual abilities as a winning advocate -lawyer on behalf of my various serious civil

rights clients, along with their very serious federal constitutional claims."