- FRANK BRUZZESE IS THE PUPPET MASTER OF PROSECUTOR JANE HANLIN:
- The time has come to finally expose Attorney Frank Bruzzese and his personal, family and financial interest in controlling the Jefferson County, Ohio legal and political establishment.
- Frank Bruzzese, Esq. is the principal founder of the law firm Bruzzese and Calabria. Through what appears to be careful and strategic planning, he has accomplished over the last decade a masterful plan of becoming, for loss of a better description, the “GodFather” of the county.
- The brother of Frank Bruzzese is the Jefferson County Common Pleas Judge, Joseph J. Bruzzese. In the late 1990s and early 2000, the Bruzzese clan began their quest for legal and political dominance of the Steubenville, Jefferson County area. First, he orchestrated the taking over of the Jefferson County Prosecutor’s Office by running his law associate (Thomas R. Straus) against the incumbent prosecutor Bryan Felmet. Felmet was a former Lt. Colonel in the Army Judge Advocate Division and an accomplished and well respected attorney.
- A law associate of Frank Bruzzese, Jane Hanlin was married to a Steubenville Police Detective. Jane Hanlin, prior to becoming an attorney was an administrator at the local hospital (Trinity Medical Center). She was successful in making Frank Bruzzese the attorney for the hospital which resulted in a large financial windfall for Frank Bruzzese.
- When Jane Hanlin decided to divorce her former husband (Keenan), she retained the services of Frank Bruzzese. After the divorce, she remarried Steubenville Police Detective Hanlin.
- Jane Hanlin kept her day job with the hospital and went to law school in Pittsburgh, Pa., about a 30 mile distance from Steubenville. Upon graduation, she joined the Frank Bruzzese law firm.
- In the election of 2004 against Prosecutor Felmet, Frank Bruzzese, with the help of Jane Hanlin, obtained the endorsement of the Steubenville FOP for Thomas Straus. They also orchestrated a public “no confidence vote” against Felmet.
- Upon taking office, Thomas Straus, became, in essence, the puppet of Frank Bruzzese. Frank Bruzzese became the chief deputy prosecutor. Frank Bruzzese kept his private law practice in tact but received a large salary as a “part-time” assistant prosecutor. Thomas Straus proceeded to name and hire members of the Bruzzese law firm as assistant prosecutin attorneys, including Frank Bruzzese’s son, Jeff Bruzzese.
- Public records in the Jefferson County Auditor’s Office will reveal the salaries of all the Bruzzese affiliates.
- When Jane Hanlin became an assistant prosecutor under Thomas Straus, she was a member of the Steubenville City School Board. Other members of the Steubenville City School Board included Frank Bruzzese’s wife and a relative (Agresta) of a member of the Bruzzese Law firm. A former member of the Bruzzese Law Firm, Dan Spohn, had also been a member of the Steubenville City School Board but resigned when he became elected Judge of Steubenville Municipal Court.
- So, in the year 2005, Frank Bruzzese and his cabal had control of the following:
- *Common Pleas Court—brother Joseph Bruzzese, Jr.
- *Steubenville Municipal Court-former law partner Dan Spohn
- *Jefferson County Prosecutor’s Office-former law partner Thomas Straus with the Bruzzese firm and relatives being named assistant prosecutors.
- *Jefferson County Board of Elections--Frank Bruzzese was one of the two democrats on the board along with John Abdalla, the Mayor of Stratton and brother of Sheriff Fred Abdalla.
- *Jefferson County Democratic Party-Frank Bruzzese was the vice-chairman with John Abdalla being Chairman.
- *Frank Bruzzese was the law director for the Village of Stratton, Ohio (a paid position) with John Abdalla being Mayor.
- One legal problem when Thomas Straus became prosecutor was Jane Hanlin’s position as a school board member. Ohio Revised Code Section 3313.13 prohibits an assistant county prosecuting attorney from being a member of a board of education of a school district. On December 20, 2004, the Ohio Attorney General rendered an official opinion #2004-049 reiterating the law. Instead of following the law, Jane Hanlin and the prosecutor’s office simply ignored the law. Jane Hanlin not only continued as a school board member with Frank Bruzzese’s wife, but eventually became the President of the School Board. Her son and daughter have been the recipients of scholarships and other awards and renumerations from Steubenville High School.
- So, when Jane Hanlin allegedly disqualified herself from the recent rape case because of her allegience to the Steubenville School system, she should have disqualified herself from the school system,at least 8 years earlier, in accordance with the law and ethics.
- In 2010, Thomas Straus suddenly decided to resign as prosecuting attorney during term. The appointment for a new prosecutor was up to the Jefferson County Democratic Party. Chairman John Abdalla and Vice-Chairman Frank Bruzzese spoke for and endorsed the unanimous nomination of Jane Hanlin to replace Thomas Straus.
- After Jane Hanlin became prosecutor, any remaining members of the Bruzzese Law Firm became assistant prosecuting attorneys. It is possible, (a check with the county auditor’s office will verify the same) that for a short period of time, Frank Bruzzese gave up his assistant public prosecutor position to receive public retirement benefits. Thereafter, he was re-hired at a large salary by Jane Hanlin and now has the benefit of “double-dipping” in salary.
- The plan now is to eventually have Jane Hanlen assend to the Common Pleas Bench and Frank Bruzzese’s son, Jeff Bruzzese to be named the new prosecuting attorney and thus continue the dynasty of control by one “family”. They belive that Jane Hanlin’s next election to higher office will be simply “A WALK IN THE PARK” with a breeze at her back (pronounced Bru-zzese).
- With regard to the Steubenville Rape Case, a special prosecutor could have become involved immediately. By routine, the chief assistant prosecutor from Trumbull County, Ohio and a former Jefferson County Assistant Prosecutor (Christopher Becker)and the current law director for the Village of Wintersville, is named special prosecutor when conflicts appear. He would have been very aggressive, however. The prosecutor from neighboring Harrison County (Shawn Hervy) who routinely becomes a special prosecutor in adjoining counties when requested, could have been named special prosecutor. He would have been very aggressive, however. These two experienced prosecutors could have taken the lead in a moment’s notice. They have a reputation of filing charges against any and all who are involved in crimes or complicity to crimes.
- In the present Steubenville Rape Case, the following charges should have been considered against any and all alleged perpetrators, law enforcement officials, school adminstrators, observers and persons with any knowledge of the circumstances:
- Ohio Revised Code Section 2907.08-Voyerism
- Ohio Revised Code Section 2921.04-Intimidation
- Ohio Revised Code Section 2921.21-Tampering with Evidence
- Ohio Revised Code Section 2921.22-Failure to Report a Crime
- Ohio Revised Code Section 2921.31-Obstructing Official Business
- Ohio Revised Code Section 2921.32-Obstructing Justice
- Ohio Revised Code Section 2921.44(B) Dereliction of Duty
- Ohio Revised Code Section 2921.45-Interferring With Civil Rights
- Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.01-Conspiracy
- Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.03-Complicity
- Victims’s Rights: 2930.13--Information to be provided to victim by law enforcement agency; 2930.05--Notice of arrest or detention of offender; 2930.06--prosecutor to confer with victim; 2930.19--prosecutor to protect rights of victim
- Sanctions: Ohio Revised Code Section 309.05-Procedure for Removal of Prosecuting Attorney for neglect or misconduct in office.
- Please note: THE OPINIONS AND COMMENTS SET FORTH ABOVE ARE SOLELY THE OPINION OF THE UNDERSIGNED. THEY ARE OPINION AND NOT NECESSARILY FACT. NO PERSON SHOULD PLACE ANY RELIANCE OR FAITH IN THE OPINION AND COMMENTS EXPRESSED, HEREIN. THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ABOVE ARE MERELY THE EXERCISE OF THE UNDERSIGNED’S RIGHT UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. OPPOSING VIEWS AND COMMENTS ARE WELCOMED AND ENCOURAGED. SHOULD ANY VIEW OR COMMENT BE MADE CONCERNING THE ABOVE, THEN THE RESPONDING VIEWS AND COMMENTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS THE TRUE AND ACCURATE SET OF FACTS AND OPINIONS AND THE OPINIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE UNDERSIGNED SHOULD BE IGNORED AND HELD FOR NAUGHT.
- Just an Observer with “No Dog in the Fight”. This is my first rodeo.
a guest Jan 7th, 2013 1,289 Never
RAW Paste Data