Yates vs MRDD (update)

Filed under: MRDD,Uncategorized — tkm January 25, 2009 @ 13:0 pm

On Friday, January 23, 2009, I got a phone call from Dan Mault to let me know neither he nor Dave Ross got demoted at Scioto County MRDD during the timeframe Z. Douglas Loper was being investigated for criminal misconduct with students. In addition and according to Mault neither he nor Ross was Civil Service employees prior to the Yates inquiries. It appears to me that there are some inconsistencies during the testimonies of both Miller and Oakley in the two day trial that took place on January 12-13, 2009.

Also, Oakley provided testimony that Mault released patient confidentiality. Mault told me at no time did he release any patient confidentiality to anyone. When the Scioto County MRDD School was challenged by the public sector on their position and their actions concerning the suspected molestation of students by a faculty member he (Mault) provided the public sector preapproved statements at the direction of Oakley. The only information he discussed with the public sector was information already being talked about because of the inquiries by Denise Yates, mother of one of the victims, during her research of what happened to her daughter while in the care of Scioto County MRDD.

I still contend it takes determination like shown by Denise Yates to bring justice. She was up against a lot of obstacles including but certainly not all inclusive the Scioto County MRDD School, a large corporation with an vast amount of cash flow that hired an attorney from Columbus, Ohio to protect the interest of the school and not the interest of a student; Denise Yates’s previous lawyer, Stan Bender, initially took her case but then wanted to settle prior to justice being served. After listening to a couple of the defense witnesses on the 2nd day of the trial, it appears some employees of the Scioto County MRDD School distorted the truth in order to protect the school and their own reputation rather than see justice served for a student entrusted to the MRDD program.

Yates v MRDD

Filed under: MRDD,Uncategorized — tkm January 19, 2009 @ 14:0 pm

Tidbits of Information from the trial:

During the second day of the trial Tony Miller, Principal at the time of the rape, testified Detective Charles of the Portsmouth Police Department and a representative from the Scioto County Prosecutors’ office conducted an internal investigation at the Scioto County MRDD school concerning the alleged charges against Z. Douglas Loper. After the investigation was concluded MRDD officials established the investigation conducted by Charles and the Prosecutor’s office was sufficient and final.

Also during his testimony Miller talked about his lawsuit against the Scioto County MRDD School and John Oakley. How he felt his tenure contract was not approved due to the school needing someone to take the fall for the Yates case. He also described how he felt Oakley had retaliated against him for his performance appraisal conducted with Oakley’s wife.

John Oakley’s testimony provided how plans were being discussed to bring Loper back to work at Scioto County MRDD. Oakley also imparted information that two individuals were demoted in the Adult Program Department. These two (2) individuals were Dan Mault for releasing student information to outside individuals and Dave Ross who took a position, which included a $5,000 cut in pay.

If it were not for Denise Yates’ perseverance and determination a thorough investigation would never had been done and Z. Douglas Loper might still be working at the Portsmouth MRDD School and students at the school might still be unprotected victims of his sexual molestation. If not for Denise Yates’ persistence the external investigation would not have been completed and the deficient inquiry conducted by Charles and the Scioto Prosecutors Office would have been final. If not for Denise Yates Loper could still be involved in our schools and abusing students; yes even yours.

This crime against this woman and her child took place in 1998; this is an example of what it takes to see justice served.

“Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.” Reinhold Niebuhr

Yates vs MRDD et al

Filed under: MRDD,Uncategorized — tkm January 14, 2009 @ 0:0 am

The trial between Yates vs MRDD in Scioto County Common Pleas Court, Judge Marshall’s Court room, wrapped up today, Tuesday, January 13th, 2009. The Plaintiff’s witnesses testified on the first day of the trial, Monday, January 12th, 2009, while today the Defense finished up the two-day trial with John Oakley. John Oakley is the retired Superintendent of the Vern Riffe School of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (MRDD) during the time Zane Douglas Loper committed crimes against female students of the MRDD School. Loper is currently serving time in the Ross County Correctional Institution for 3 counts of 3rd degree felony (ORC 2907.054) against a female child, 1 count 3rd degree felony (ORC 2907.054) against a female child, 1 count 3rd degree felony (ORC 2907.054) against a female child. His 18 year and 6 mo sentence commenced on May 6th, 2002 and is scheduled to expire on May 28th, 2020; he will also be required to register as a sex offender upon his release. Loper was initially charged with 22 counts until a plea bargain was reached between Loper and the Scioto County Prosecutors office, which reduced his charges to the 5 counts listed above.

During closing remarks the Plaintiff’s attorney, D. Joe Griffith, told jurors the Defense Attorney and his witnesses did not bring facts to the witness stand but delivered a CYA type of defense. Also, during closing remarks Mr. Griffith reminded the jurors that at the time John Oakley was deposed, documented provided, his first concern was for the reputation of the school and secondly the safety of the students.

In my opinion during closing remarks by the Defense Attorney all he could produce was to instruct the jurors to find MRDD blameless in allowing a female student enrolled in their school to be sexually abused by a male staff member because of the possibility of a sexual discrimination lawsuit. John Oakley provided the excuse for not properly documenting and enforcing policy and procedures that a female student must be escorted to the restroom by another female staff member may give an appearance of discrimination. I don’t know about the rest of you but I would rather deal with a discrimination charge above placing a student(s), a staff(s) member and/or the school in a position to have to defend or prosecute a charge of gross sexual imposition, sexual assault or even rape. Mr. Oakley, even after an impending investigation and lawsuit, felt it unnecessary to reinforce policy and procedures through documentation. It appeared to me he was still more interested in public facade over student safety.

Prior to dismissing the jurors to deliberate and render a final decision Judge Marshall reminded the jurors they should rule only on the merits of the testimony heard and the documents (Exhibits) that will be available to them when they are excused to the jurors room; the exhibits are reviewed and approved by both sides. He also reminded them if the decision they render should be for the Plaintiff they must trust there was a conscious disregard and a reckless attitude by the MRDD staff (John Oakley and Tony Miller, Principal at the time of the offenses).

After about 1.5 hours (~6:30 pm) the jurors returned to the courtroom with a verdict that was read by Judge Marshall, Judgment for the Plaintiff’s. Remember, the Plaintiff’s had the Burden of Proof to show a reckless willful and wanting disregard by MRDD and staff.

Justice was Served.


Additional Information:

CLICK: Yates vs MRDD et al


Filed under: MRDD,Uncategorized — tkm September 19, 2005 @ 11:0 am

Update on story by Bob Forrey 10-31-2005
CLICK: Out-of-Date Rape


(The photo above, in which a molested child is viewed as if through a mother’s tears…..)


this story appeared first on the Sentinel–9/14/2005

Last week, while at the Scioto County Court House, I saw Ms. Yates standing outside Judge Kirsch’s Court Room. Ms Yates is a mother of a 5-year-old mentally retarded daughter who was raped by Zane Douglas Loper, a staff member of MRDD and later a city policeman. Though Loper was convicted and is currently serving an eighteen-year prison term for his crime, justice is still not being done, for having been victimized by a member of the staff of the MRDD, the girl is now being victimized by the Portsmouth lawyer who represents her in the case that her mother filed against the MRDD and its director John Oakley.

Because of the politics and legal shenanigans that go on in Portsmouth, Ms. Yates had originally thought it would be a mistake to have a Portsmouth lawyer, which is why she hired one in Chillicothe. But the Chillicothe lawyer hired a co-council in Portsmouth, Stanley C. Bender, and the worst Ms. Yates had feared is coming to pass.

This past week she learned that Bender, her own attorney, is trying to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent all her child’s legal issues. This guardian is an ex-partner in Bender’s firm whom he has chosen without her consent. This removes Ms. Yates from making any legal decisions for her child who she has been fighting for the past 9 years. Bender can then settle the case without Ms. Yates’ permission and receive his cut, 1/3 of all monies granted to the child and other legal fees he may deem necessary. Bender claims the mother is too emotionally distraught and is incapable of knowing what is best for the child. The mother is deeply dedicated to the welfare of her daughter, but she is not distraught or irrational. On the contrary, Ms Yates is deeply hurt and saddened that she was betrayed by her attorney just for monies he could receive. Ms. Yates strikes me as level-headed and correct in her assessment of this situation: Bender is trying to negotiate a deal that Ms. Yates disagrees with, so he is trying to get her out of the way. Bender wants her to disregard her instincts as a mother, her instincts to love and to protect her child for the rest of her child’s life.

The Portsmouth establishment wants to put the MRDD scandal behind it, just as it wants to put the Marting rip-off behind it. If it weren’t for The Sentinel and John Welton, the public would have remained in the dark about the rape of the taxpayers in the Marting deal and of the rape of a five-year-old girl at the MRDD.

Bender wants this mother to put this behind her, but there is something much more important to this mother than money. Does this make her over-protective? One public agency, the MRDD, neglected to protect her daughter from a predatory male pervert. No male member of the Portsmouth legal establishment, Stanley Bender, is going to dictate to her what is best for her daughter. What is best for her daughter is her, her mother. This mother knows what’s best for her daughter. Her daughter was sexually raped at one public agency. Her mother is determined that she is not going to be raped legally in another.

Teresa Mollette