On the day of trial, Jason was facing five counts for a possible sentence of 23 years in prison (see indictment). Three counts of Money Laundering R.C. 1315.55(A)(3) and 1315.99(C) which are punishable up to nine years. The first was for a $3,000 deposit that Kristie made to the Wood County Sheriff for the deposit on a tax-sale home in October 2012. Oddly it was from Kristie to the Sheriff. There was no testimony of how it even tied into the PHCA. No money was withdrawn from the PHCA for the transaction. This charge was thrown out during the appeals process even though the jury found Jason guilty. The second was for a $25,000 check Jason withdrew from the medical clinic account. This was something that the prosecutor spent a lot of the trial on; the medical account and this one withdrawal. This is what they seem to be trying to hide. They told the jury that no one knew that this account existed except Jason. However, after Stephanie Serda and Anita Serda denied its existence throughout the trial, Jason remembered that Stephanie was actually a signer on the account and she admitted it. It proved she lied the whole time, but it changed nothing. In an odd twist, someone in the Serda circle sent an anonymous letter to Jason (while he was in prison) and allegedly also sent it to the judge and prosecutor stating that not only was Stephanie a signer but she actually opened this medical account. There has been nothing from the courts on this yet. The third was writing a $13,000 check. This check was also for the purchase of the tax-sale home. They basically charged Jason with spending money they said he stole. All three of the money laundering charges were eventually thrown out by the appeals court.

The fourth charge was aggravated theft which is a third-degree felony under R.C. 2913.02(A)(2) and (B)(2). There are different types of theft in the Ohio Revised Code. The really odd thing about this charge is that the revised code states that the theft was committed by going beyond the consent of the owners. Why is it odd? When we get into the trial you will see that over $30,000 was Jason and Kristie’s actual money, and you will see that others who were the owners were told by the judge’s order that they had no right to how their money was spent (see commissions list). You will see affidavits from nearly all the board members saying they knew and approved of how the money was spent (Steve Kramer sent the prosecution a letter). You will see testimony where Stephanie Serda herself explains the program (here and here) and the Attorney General’s forensic accountant even testifies that the money very well could be legitimately spent; she just didn’t have the records available to her. Yet, the Wood County prosecutor changes even her testimony in the closing arguments. You will actually hear from the alleged victims and none of them (other than Stephanie and Anita Serda) believe a single penny is missing. You will even see that the President at the time of the arrest did not believe a theft occurred (Paul Blazius interview).

The final charge was a Felony of the first degree. It is called the RICO Act in the Federal courts and it was mainly created to go after organized crime. This has a sentence of up to 11 years. Simply put, Wood County had to prove that Jason committed two or more felonies of an F3 or above that did not count as a single act. We will soon post a motion that Jason filed to have this charge also thrown out due to the Appeals court violating Jason’s rights in upholding this conviction. While we are not accusing the Appeals Court of corruption, the facts are simple. In the jury instruction given by the trial court judge, the crimes that were listed were the three money laundering charges and the aggravated theft. Upon the appeals court throwing out the money laundering, only ONE charge was left, aggravated theft; therefore the engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity or RICO charge should have been thrown out. However, the court said that there were plenty of incidents that made up the aggravated theft that still prove Jason was guilty of engaging. Unfortunately, by law, they are incorrect because none of the incidents that made up the aggravated theft were specifically mentioned in the jury instructions. Also, every single incident in the aggravated theft was an F5 (lower than an F3) so they do not qualify to justify the engaging charge. Jason should have been released nearly two years ago. Now for the kicker about the corrupt system.

If you have a lawyer, they are you! No matter how badly they screw the pooch, you are stuck with the consequences. In Jason’s case, his appeal attorney was clearly not aware of the requirements for the engaging charge. He only had ten days after the decision from the Appeals court to inform them of the law that required the reversal of the engaging charge; it did not happen. In January 2024 Jason became certified in paralegal studies and learned this law shortly thereafter. He filed a motion for review. Not only was it denied because the appeal was over in 2021 but the motion was stricken from the record (see this post). To sum it up, Jason should have been released on January 15, 2023 at the latest. Realistically with his good days and earned credits, it would have been closer to mid-2022. But, since the three Appeals judges with decades of experience and Jason’s attorney did not know that part of the law, too bad. Their mistake leaves Jason in prison for four extra years. The sad part is that there is no Better Business Bureau for judges and you can certainly believe that the Wood County prosecutor will not concede to the rule of law. We will soon post the motion that Jason sent to the Appeals court. The ironic part is that this very same appeals court wrote a decision previously that was largely the basis for the argument on Jason being released. Corruption? Maybe. Politics? Maybe. A gross injustice? Undeniably!!! It is not the system that is necessarily wrong, it is the people that run the system.