Google+ Badge

Thursday, June 26, 2008

The Truth About Richard Olivito's Ability to Practice Law As Per Seventh District Court of Appeals: Reversal of Lower Court's Mental Health Order

The Seventh District Court of Appeals is not an easy court to either practice before nor
necessarily win over to one's side of a high legal argument w/o doing one's
serious homework. Yet this is precisely what Attorney Richard A. Olivito
has done several times when his case's have appeared in front of the Mahoning
County Based regional court of appeals located in Youngstown, Ohio.

The State v. Williams case is just such a case that denotes what type of work
the court has recognized for Mr. Olivito's efforts and this is in addition to other
cases which have been decided in favor of the legal arguments presented mainly
by Mr. Richard Olivito before the same Seventh District Court of Appeals for
the past decade or more, prior to his recent issues w/ the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Please read the case as linked at the right of this article in the links spot and see
a lawyer's how hard work on a relatively minor but signficiant local legal case makes
a lawyer proud and helps to change a community and a municipal court's rulings in
relation to real live clients and helps define an entire municipal courts' policy inside
a significant metropolitan region.

At the same time this same decision made just prior to the time that several disciplinary
counsel have challenged Mr. Olivito over bespeaks a totally different view and account of the efforts of at least one set of lawyers...the state discipilnary counsel and those local disciplinary counsel for the very same county wherein the Seventh District Court of Appeals to whether or not Richard Olivito is capable of competently representing the public and his clients
either by criminal appointment and /or inside his numerous civil rights litigation claims.

The fact that his work can both presentserious propositions of law and result in making a difference with legal merit for various clients and other related issues before courts w/ direct personal knowledge of his work speaks to the very issues that so recklessly being
tossed about and promoted by some very negative lawyers who work for the
state's disciplinary system.

What is behind this obvious comparison between what state and local governmental bar association lawyers are claiming are the problems w/ Mr. Olivito's practice and what
actual real courts have decided, including courts of appeals decisions like the Williams case demonstrate is something that goes to the both the heart of the issue presently before the
Ohio Supreme Court in relation to Mr. Olivito's ablity to practice law and yet in some ways, is well beyond this present posting

But it also stands in part, for the proposition that there just possibly may be an agenda for why such serious mis representations promoted and generated by governmental lawyers on behalf of largely vested special interests are being bantered about inside various modes of legal briefs and made-to-order special ethics board's "orders" which in turn are causing entire high courts like the Supreme Court of Ohio to take an extreme position in regards to a solo lawyer like Richard Olivito who happens to know a thing or two about fundamental constitutional rights within the special field of law called Section 1983 litigation where he has not been afraid
to speak out about the same issues strongly on behalf of his clients impacted civil rights.

Read and see what the difference between what Ms. Brown has presented inside her one sided self interested and extremely biased and unsupported legal brief about Mr. Richard Olivito's competence and what Mr. Olivito's legal abilties are and what a real genuine court of law says through an actual in court legal appellate argument he is capable of presenting on behalf of true and geniune real clients and people of Ohio. Even the highest court of the entire Youngstown
Court system would seem to disagree the kinds of things said about Mr. Olivito and his ability
to practice on behalf of clients within the region and across the state, as many of his actual
clients realize.

The Seventh District Court's opinion here linked at the initial sidebar, states in clear language:

"The record also reflects that the mental health evaluation would serve no purpose to the contempt that occurred here. If he submits to the evaluation, he stil must serve the sentence in jail. It is an order to submit to an evaluation, not counseling. Thus, it has no rehabilitative, restorative, or even punitive effect, as sentencing is designed to achieve.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the record of this case or evident in the court's findings demonstrating that a mental health evaluation is relevant or proper.

The record does not reflect a history or indication of mental health issues. The presentence investigation mentions nothing about mental health issues and opines that appellant is in good health. Accordingly, based on the record here, this court hereby deletes the portion of the sentence ordering appellant to submit to a mental health evaluation."

This is the actual language of the real higher court of appeals decision that was reached a year prior to the State Disciplinary Counsel's attempt to do the very same thing

This appellate decision was handed down after a full briefed and argued appeal, which included an oral argument on the issue as well as year long appeal which was taken by myself against the lower Youngstown Municipal Court's attempt to place me in jail for thirty days for a failure to obtain a "mental health evaulation" . (noting the irony of a court that said in order to "help" me they thought a heavy handed 30 jail sentence done in public, was the proper way to "coerce" me into seeking such help!)

I actually did serve a day in jail on this sentence and was taken to jail, in a suit, in leg irons and hancuffs, in full view of the local media and many local lawyers. It was a circus and a local deputy who escorted me out of the court room in leg irons, told me he has NEVER in thirty years of assisting in that court room, seen any thing like the way I was treated.

Thankfully, there is a very independent thinking and apolitical enough court of appeals, that saved me from much of the harshness of what happened in the good judge Millich's courtroom in March of 2004.
Curiously, the respected Seventh District Court of Appeals, which resides in Youngstown itself, was very familiar w/ my legal work and abilities,
knew not only was there "no basis in the record" for such a order, but there
simply never was such evidence to create this false light issue about my mental health whatsoever.