Case Update
4/17/05
There is additional evidence not posted on this website for the reason it contains too much personal information. On June 17, 2002, the United States Department of State responded to a July 1997 Freedom of Information Act request and disclosed records obtained from the United States Embassy in Mexico City, Mexico.
 Those records prove that on May 30th, 1989, I personally appeared at the United States Embassy in Mexico City, Mexico, and applied for, purchased and received a United States Passport.

On March 11, 2003, through counsel, a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for New Trial was filed before the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas in Cincinnati, Ohio. Judge Kubicki, a new judge and my fourth trial court judge, was assigned. A new prosecutor, Scott Heehan, my fourth prosecutor, was assigned to the case.

All the evidence you see here, plus the records from the U.S. Embassy, were submitted to the Court.

By October 2003, the prosecution had failed/refused to answer my Motion for New Trial. Judge Kubicki issued and Order Granting me "Leave" to file a New Trial Motion. Leave of court to file a new trial motion is both a totally "discretionary" decision, and required to be sought any time a defendant discovers new evidence after the 120 day time limit imposed by Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 has expired.

The New Trial Motion was filed on November 2nd, 2003. The prosecution responded on December 18th, 2003. On January 9th, 2004, we filed our Reply Brief. On January 16th, 2004 a "Report" was held before Judge Kubicki. On January 20th, 2004, my attorney, William R. Gallagher of Cincinnati, delivered a copy of the 1996 trial transcripts personally to the judge, and the prosecutor, after the prosecution claimed they could not find my 1996 trial transcripts--transcripts they had used to argue against me in my Federal Habeas Corpus proceedings up until April 21st, 2003, when the U.S. Supreme Court denied my Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

In September, 2004, because my case seemed to just be laying there, I threatened to file a Petition for a Writ of Procedendo in the Court of Appeals which would have forced the Judge to proceed to a ruling on my case. In response, the Judge told my attorney he would, "get back with him next week." The following week the Judge called my attorney's office and stated he was Ordering that an Evidentiary Hearing be held on "whether or not" I had been "diligent" in finding my new evidence.

By law, he had already decided I had been "diligent" when he had Granted the Motion for Leave to File back in October, 2003. A couple of days after the judge called my attorney, the prosecution filed an "Amended Response," amending the initial Response they had file on December 18th, 2003, nine months late, claiming they did not have the transcripts when the had filed their initial response. As noted above, my attorney had personally delivered a copy of the transcripts to both the judge and the prosecutor on January 20th, 2004.

We filed a Motion to Strike their nine month late "Amended Response," as being filed Out of Rule and Untimely. The judge never has ruled on our Motion to Strike. Apparently the rules donít apply to me. 

In their "Amended Response," the prosecutor repeatedly misrepresents the facts testified to at the trial, as they have continuously done since this case began, even going as far as inferring the girl went to the hospital and that a rape test was done, when that never happened, nor does it appear anywhere in the trial transcripts. The prosecution counts on most people never taking the time to read the transcripts, and not knowing that they are lying.

In October 2004 I was transported back to the Hamilton County Jail for an Evidentiary Hearing. The hearing was held in November 2004. At the hearing my trial attorney testified that he was unable to present the evidence I now have because the prosecution refused before the trial to give us any dates of when Sarah Adams would testify the crimes charged were to have occurred. My mother testified as to the difficulty I had finding the people I was in Mexico with, because the charges brought against me, as testified to by Sarah Adams, were eight (8) years old by the time the trial was held and we received the dates during her testimony.

I testified as to the difficulty I had finding any of my witnesses because all of the addresses I had, except for one, was no longer where the people I was seeking lived, and that some had remarried and changed their names, plus the fact that everyone in Mexico with me had been from somewhere besides the United States.

I was asked by the prosecution if I had committed the rapes charged, and under oath, I denied having committed the rapes.

Numerous receipts showing numerous times I attempted to write to my witnesses after my trial, were adduced into evidence and testified to. My attorney from the 1996 trial testified as to his efforts to locate my witnesses, and that even though a substantial effort was made by him, only a couple could be located, and all of those after the 120 days to file a Motion for New Trial had expired.

After the Evidentiary Hearing, I was returned to prison on November 23rd, 2004.

On February 5th, 2005, some two (2), years after my Motion for New Trial had been filed, Judge Kubicki issued a five (5) page Order Denying my Motion for New Trial, that I could have written in 10 minutes. He held the testimony of Sarah Adams was "vague," and held that she gave no dates.

On this website you can see pages 710-712 of the 1996 trial transcript she explicitly states the "first time," was, "the week after Christmas in 1988," and at pages 657-658, states that "it happened at least once a month each month after the first time." If that isn't December, 1988, and January, February, March of 1989, I don't know what is.

He then states I was not "diligent" in finding my new evidence.

The new evidence, all of it which you can see here, is referred to only one time by Judge Kubicki, as "some affidavits and documents." 

I wrote Judge Kubicki a letter cussing him out and filed Notice of Appeal. 

In all the years I have been doing legal work for other men in here, and fighting my own case, I have never before written a Judge a letter that was disrespectful. But his decision was an insult to me and an insult to the justice system. It was perfidious, a deliberate breach of faith and his Oath of Office.

How he could find, as a matter of fact, that there were "no dates" given by Sarah Adams at my trial in her testimony is simply intellectually dishonest and anyone reading this can see that for themselves by clicking on the links to the transcript pages posted on my website.

I have proven I was 4,000 miles away from Cincinnati when Sarah Adams says I committed these crimes. But Joe Deters, (who is now the prosecutor in Cincinnati, after his hand-picked man, Mike Allen got caught, literally, with his pants down, and the Republican Party forced Deters to come back and become a last-minute candidate for prosecutor, to keep the Republican Party in power in the Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office,) was also the prosecutor at the time of my 1996 trial.

Joe Deters wants to be the Governor of Ohio, and has the backing of President Bush. He can't stand to have my case thrown out, and the fall out that will come with that politically.

The Opinion issued by Judge Kubicki on February 5th, 2005, has his style of "justice" allover it. Deny, deny, deny, even when it is the truth being denied.

I need your help. I am out of money. This fight has cost me well over $200,000. I need your letters and support. Otherwise, I may well spend the rest of my life in prison for crimes of which you can see the proof of my innocence yourself posted here.

Your time and attention are appreciated.

Sincerely,

James F. Love
 

E-Mail Jim

©2002-2005 James Love. All Rights Reserved.
Prisoners do not have access to computers.
All E-mail goes to the IIAO and is forwarded to the prisoner.
 

About IIAO | Prisoner News | How to Help | Articles | Letters | FAQ | Links | Contact Us
 

Love Case

Back to IIAO Main