Sunday, March 26, 2017

:THE MEDINA HORROR PICTURE SHOW" - PART 2; "LAW ? WHAT LAW ?" ASKS "WEASELPECKER" COLLIER..OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

IN A PRIOR POST AT THIS BLOCK, THE BLOGGER CITED TO THE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF "jUDGE WEASELPECKER" COLLIER FILED IN THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.  

IN THAT POST, THE BLOGGER POINTED OUT THAT "WEASELPECKER" COLLIER VIOLATED NEARLY ALL THE RULES GOVERNING COURTROOM PROCEDURE, ALL IN THE EFFORT TO UNLAWFULLY CONVICT A FACTUALLY INNOCENT CITIZEN.

"WEASELPECKER'S" DELIBERATE RULES VIOLATIONS ONLY TELL ONE-HALF OF THE STORY.

IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE (OBVIOUSLY NOT INCLUDING MEDINA COUNTY), STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES AND OHIO SUPREME COURTS, HAVE INTERPRETED THE CONSTITUTION(S) AND APPLIED THOSE INTERPRETATIONS TO A MYRIAD NUMBER OF CASES, ESTABLISHING A BODY OF PRECEDENT THAT LOWER COURTS ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW.  OBVIOUSLY, "WEASELPECKER" COLLIER SEEMS TO OVERLOOK THAT PROVISO OF THE LAW.

SHOWN BELOW, TAKEN FROM THE  COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF "jUDGE WEASELPECKER" COLLIER FILED IN THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, IDENTIFY SOME, BUT NOT ALL, OF THE
CONTROLLING DECISIONS OF THE SUPERIOR  COURTS, INCLUDING THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT "WEASELPECKER" DELIBERATELY IGNORED.

 Collier’s rulings ignored and contravened the prevailing law, including precedents and holdings of the United States Supreme Court, despite having been fully briefed on the law by defense counsel. 

The prosecutor cited no law during these proceedings. Following are some, but not all, of the cases that Collier, despite having been fully briefed on them, simply ignored in “fixing” this case for the county prosecutor:

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1886)
         - “Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should          be liberally construed. *** It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.

Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 403-406 (1965)
         - The right of cross-examination, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
         - Evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment is not admissible at trial

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 (1980)
         - “When police conduct a warrantless search, the state bears the burden of establishing the validity of the search.

Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S.14 (1967)
         - Sixth Amendment right of a defendant to compulsory process extends to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 61-62 (2004)
         -  “The Confrontation Clause commands, not that the evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination.

Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315-318 (1974)
         - Denial of the “right of effective cross-examination” is “constitutional error of the first magnitude” requiring automatic reversal

Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895)
         - It is the duty of the court (not the prosecutor) to expound the law, and the jury to apply the facts to the law, otherwise the stability of justice and personal rights are jeopardized

Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133 (2005)
         - “It is…elementary law, federal and state, that the judge bears ultimate responsibility for instructing a lay jury in the law.”

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
         - State’s obligation to disclose information and evidence favorable to the defendant

United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)
         - “… the Court has consistently held that a conviction obtained by the     knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair,[Footnote 8] and must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.”


United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, Fn 7 (1976), citing Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103
         - Due process of law “cannot be deemed to be satisfied by mere notice and hearing if a state has contrived a conviction through the pretense of a trial which in truth is but used as a means of depriving a defendant of liberty through a deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation of testimony known to be perjured. Such a contrivance by a state to procure the conviction and imprisonment of a defendant is inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice as is the obtaining of a like result by intimidation.”

United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, Fn 8 (1985)
         - “…the Brady rule has its roots in a series of cases dealing with convictions based on the prosecution's knowing use of perjured testimony. In Mooney v. Holohan, (1935), the Court established the rule that the knowing use by a state prosecutor of perjured testimony  to obtain a conviction and the deliberate suppression of evidence that would have impeached and refuted the testimony constitutes a denial          of due process.”

Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 307 (1966)]
         - Government invasion of the defense camp compels conviction to be set aside as constitutionally defective

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 241 (1983)
         - Probable cause, to be determined on the totality of the circumstances, requires corroboration of a tip by independent police work/investigation

Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560 (1971)
         - Criminal complaint not setting out a statement of essential facts does not pass constitutional muster

Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 724 (1969)
         - There is no exception to the rule that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible at trial

Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648, 668 (1987)
         - “We have recognized that "some constitutional rights [are] so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error." Chapman v. California, 386 U.S., at 23. The right to an impartial adjudicator, be it judge or jury, is such a right.

Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 172-173 (1997)
         - “As to a criminal defendant, Rule 403's term "unfair prejudice" speaks to the capacity of some concededly relevant evidence to lure the fact finder into declaring guilt on an improper basis rather than on proof specific to the offense charged. Such improper grounds certainly include generalizing from a past bad act that a defendant is by propensity the probable perpetrator of the current crime. Thus, Rule 403 requires that the relative probative value of prior conviction evidence be balanced against its prejudicial risk of misuse. A judge should balance these factors not only for the item in question but also for any actually available substitutes. If an alternative were found to have substantially the same or greater probative value but a lower danger of unfair prejudice, sound judicial discretion would discount the value of the item first offered and exclude it if its discounted probative value were substantially outweighed by unfairly prejudicial risk. Pp. 180-185.”

Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, at 14 (2006)
         - “Through the in limine procedure, the (courts) should redact or exclude the portions of any statement that have become testimonial, as they do, for example, with unduly prejudicial portions of otherwise admissible evidence.

Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980)
         - Individual cannot be compelled to testify against a spouse

Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, at syllabus ¶ 2
         - “Criminal defendants have the right under the Compulsory Process     Clause to the government’s assistance in compelling the attendance of  favorable witnesses at trial, and the right to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination of guilt.

Holloway v. Florida, 449 U.S. 905, 907 (1980)
         - “Thus the Court more than once has expressed the understanding     that a lesser-included-offense (instruction) minimizes the risk of    undermining the reasonable-doubt standard.

Sansone v. United States, 330 U.S. 343, 349 (1965)
         - “In a case where some elements of the crime charged themselves constitute a lesser crime, if the evidence justified it, would no doubt be entitled to an instruction which would permit a finding of guilt of the lesser offense.

State v. Morris, 2007-Ohio-3591, at ¶ 37
         - In the prosecution for alleged violations of 2911.11 ORC, “due process requires that the particularized nature of the accused’s   conduct includes the behavior that demonstrates he committed an underlying offense.

State v. Hous, 2004-Ohio-666, at ¶ 11
         -  “…jury instructions given at the end of a trial cannot relate back to give an accused adequate notice of the charges against which an accused must defend….

State v. Hubbard, 2004-Ohio-5204, at ¶ 6
         - “Under Evid.R. 602, a witness may testify only to those matters of which he has personal knowledge…gained through firsthand observation or experience and actually perceived the subject matter of his testimony.

State v. Taylor, (1993) 66 Ohio St. 3d 295, 300-301
         - “For a purported excited utterance to be admissible there must have been: …(4) the declarant must have personally observed the event.

Cox v. Oliver Machinery Co., (1987) 41 Ohio App. 3d 28, at 35-36
         - “The key to the statement’s trustworthiness is the spontaneity of the statement, either contemporaneous with the event or immediately thereafter.

State v. Mitchell, 2007-Ohio-1696, at ¶ 19
         - “The Ohio Supreme Court has recently affirmed that recordings of 911 calls that were made to avoid immediate danger are not testimonial and do not violate the Confrontation Clause when the declarant is not available to testify at trial.”

State v. Henness (1997), 79 Ohio St. 3d 53, ¶ 1 of the syllabus
         - “…the testifying spouse remains incompetent *** until she makes a deliberate choice to testify, with knowledge of her right to refuse. The trial court must take an active role in determining competency, and must make an affirmative determination on the record that the spouse has elected to testify.

State v. Hunt (1994), 97 Ohio App. 3d 372, holding that a cross-examiner    may not make testimonial assertions under the pretext of asking a question

GIVEN ALL OF THE HOLDINGS AND DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ("U. S." CITATIONS) TO WHICH "WEASELPECKER" TURNED A BLIND EYE, ANY DISINTERESTED PERSON WOULD SUSPECT THAT PHILANDERING, ILLEGITIMATE "jUDGE WEASELPECKER" COLLIER IS UNDER THE MISTAKEN IMPRESSION THAT MEDINA COUNTY HAS SECEDED FROM THE UNION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE LAW OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT CONTROL PROCEEDINGS IN THE "COURTS" OF THE MEDINA COUNTY "JUSTUS" SYSTEM!

NOW, READERS MAY BE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT "WEASELPECKER" COLLIER IS IGNORANT OF THE LAW.  WHILE THAT IS UNABASHEDLY TRUE THAT "WEASELPECKERIS AN IGNORANT BASTARD, PARTICULARLY IN MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE LAW, "WEASELECKER" WAS BRIEFED ON EACH OF THE ABOVE-CASES IN THE CASE BEFORE HIM. 

IGNORANCE OF THE LAW BY "WEASELPECKER"

COLLIER IS NO DEFENSE TO PUBLIC

CORRUPTION !!!

NO ONE CAN DISPUTE THE FACT THAT 

"WEASELPECKER" COLLIER IS A CORRUPT "PUBLIC 

"OFFICIAL" AND A CROOK !!!

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

EXCLUSIVE! JUST IN PHOTOS OF "WEASELPECKER" COLLIER'S 2017 SWEARING-IN CEREMONY

"WEASELPECKER" COLLIER'S "OFFICIAL" COURT REPORTER (WITH BENEFITS), CONSORT, PARAMOUR, MISTRESS, MAIN SQUEEZE, AND HIS CAMPAIGN MANAGER DONA "HAVE IT YOUR WAY" GARRITY HAS JUST RELEASED EXCLUSIVE PHOTOS OF "WEASELPECKER'S" 2017 SWEARING-IN CEREMONY TO THE MEDINA GASSETTE, WHERE "NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS!"

REGULAR READERS OF THIS BLOG ARE NOW TREATED TO A PICTORIAL DELIGHT OF THOSE FESTIVITIES AND THE GALA  EVENTS FOLLOWING.

SHOWN BELOW IS "WEASELPECKER" COLLIER "SALUTING" HIS SUPPORTERS FROM THE PUBIC WING OF THE MEDINA REPUBLIKKKRAT PARTY AS HE APPROACHES THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE, MOSQUE, BROTHEL & RAILROAD STATION PRIOR TO THE SWEARING-IN CEREMONIES.


SHOWN BELOW IS THE RECEPTION COMMITTEE, ASSEMBLED ON THE STEPS OF THE COURTHOUSE, MOSQUE, BROTHEL & RAILROAD STATION, AWAITING "WEASELPECKER'S" ARRIVAL AND PREPARED TO ESCORT HIM TO THE CEREMONIES TO BE HELD WITHIN.


ONCE THE CROWD HAD SETTLED IN, "WEASELPECKER' COLLIER PLACED HIS HAND ON HIS PERSONAL BIBLE.


FOLLOWING THESE SOLEMN PROCEEDINGS, "WEASELPECKER' COLLIER LED A CONTINGENT OF HIS SUPPORTERS FROM THE PUBIC WING OF THE MEDINA COUNTY REPUBLIKKKRAT PARTY.



MANY OF THE UNINFORMED AND APATHETIC MEDINA COUNTY VOTERS FOLLOWED "WEASELECKER" COLLIER IN PROCESSION TO THE GALA FOLLOWING THE SWEARING-IN CEREMONIES.


EVEN MEMBERS OF THE YOUNG PUBICS  ORGANIZATION WERE IN ATTENDANCE.


THE EVENTS OF THE DAY WERE COVERED IN FULL BY "REPORTERS" FROM THE MEDINA GASSETTE WHERE "NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS."



THE DAY'S FESTIVITIES WERE CAPPED OFF WITH A WIENER AND MARSHMALLOW ROAST ATTENDED BY "WEASELPECKER" COLLIER'S MOST ARDENT SUPPORTERS FROM THE PUBIC WING OF THE MEDINA REPUBLIKKKRAT PARTY.



TO CELEBRATE THIS SPECIAL DAY, "WEASELPECKER" COLLIER PRESENTED DONNA "HAVE IT YOUR WAY" GARRITY, HIS "OFFICIAL" COURT REPORTER (WITH BENEFITS), CONSORT, PARAMOUR, MISTRESS AND MAIN SQUEEZE, WITH A VERY SPECIAL GIFT TO COMMEMORATE HIS VERY SPECIAL DAY, CELEBRATING HIS VICTORY OVER THE UNINFORMED AND APATHETIC ELECTORATE OF MEDINA COUNTY.

FIRSTLY, "WEASELPECKER" COLLIER GIFTED GARRITY WITH A CURIO OF SORTS, A TOKEN GRAB BAG TO MEMORIALIZE HIS "SPECIAL" DAY.


THEN, BESIDES THE GAG GIFT, SHOWN ABOVE, "WEASELPECKER" GIFTED GARRITY WITH A MORE PERSONALIZED GIFT.


"WEASELPECKER" GIFTED GARRITY, HIS "OFFICIAL" COURT REPORTER (WITH BENEFITS) A PAIR OF CROTCHLESS PANTIES SO THAT HE CAN LOOK DOWN AT GARRITY FROM THE BENCH AND BE REMINDED OF HIS GLORIOUS SWEARING-IN CEREMONY WITH EACH AND EVERY GLANCE !!!


Sunday, March 19, 2017

"THE MEDINA HORROR PICTURE SHOW" NOW SHOWING IN KANGAROO COURTROOM #1 AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE, MOSQUE, BROTHEL & RAILROAD STATION.

THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW, STILL REGULARLY SHOWN AT THE CEDAR-LEE CINEMA IN CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, IS SAID TO BE A CULT CLASSIC.

THE MEDINA HORROR PICTURE SHOW, HOWEVER, IS AN OCCULT CLASSIC WHERE THE DARK FORCES OF THE UNIVERSE CUSTOMARILY PREVAIL.

RESIDENTS CAN EASILY CATCH A DAILY SHOWING OF THE MEDINA HORROR PICTURE SHOW IN "WEASELPECKER" COLLIER'S KANGAROO COURTROOM #1 OVER AT THE MEDINA COUNTY COURTHOUSE, MOSQUE, BROTHEL & RAILROAD STATION.

NOW, "WEASELPECKER" COLLIER PRESENTS WITH NO SMALL LEVEL OF IRONY WITH HIS DOUBLE-TALK AND DELIBERATE VIOLATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF OHIO.

HERE IS BUT ONE EXAMPLE OF THE HYPOCRISY OF THIS DOUBLE-TALKING MORON WHO WOULD NOT MAKE A DECENT BOIL ON THE ASS OF A REAL JUDGE.

IN ONE OF THE MORE THAN 400 OFFENSIVE EMAIL MESSAGES "WEASELPECKER" COLLIER SENT TO THIS BLOG, "WEASELPECKER" WROTE THE FOLLOWING;
"STOP COMPLAINING HOW HARD IT IS TO ESCAPE CONVICTION.  IF WE MUST KEEP ORDER AMONG THE RACIAL MINORITIES AND THE BIKERS LIKE THE TWO HELLS ANGELS WE BUSTED, OCCASIONALLY THE INNOCENT MUST BE CONVICTED.  BUT WE MUST MAINTAIN ORDER, WE CANNOT HAVE CHAOS IN OUR COUNTY."
THERE IS NO SLIGHT LEVEL OF IRONY IN HIS DEFENSE OF THE CONVICTION OF THE INNOCENT, IN WHICH HE PLAYS SUCH A PIVOTAL ROLE,

AS READERS OF THIS BLOG WILL ACKNOWLEDGE, THE PRIMARY MANNER OF PRESERVING ORDER, PARTICULARLY IN THE COURTS OUTSIDE MEDINA COUNTY (WITH NUMEROUS GLARING EXCEPTIONS), IS TO CLING TO THE LAW AND THE RULES OF COURTROOM PROCEDURE.

"WEASELPECKER" COLLIER DOES NEITHER!

PRESENTED BELOW, EXCERPTED FROM THE BLOGGER'S COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF "jUDGE WEASELPECKER" COLLIER  FILED IN THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL OF THE OHIO SUPREME COURT.

THE BELOW EXCERPT, TAKEN FROM THE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT MEMORIALIZES SOME, BUT NOT ALL OF THE RULES OF COURT THAT "WEASELPECKER" COLLIER VIOLATED  IN ORDER TO SECURE AN UNJUST AND UNLAWFUL CONVICTION OF A FACTUALLY INNOCENT CITIZEN.


Collier Violated Numerous Ohio Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure.  There are no Rules of Evidence enforced against the prosecutor by Collier. 

Following is a list of some, but not all, of the Rules, which COLLIER ignored and violated at “trial”:

Criminal Procedure Rule   1 : Scope of Rules: Applicability, etc.
Criminal Procedure Rule   3 : Complaint
Criminal Procedure Rule   4 : Warrant or Summons; Arrest
Criminal Procedure Rule   6 : Grand Jury
Criminal Procedure Rule   7 : The Indictment and the Information
Criminal Procedure Rule 12 :  Pleadings and Motions Before Trial
Criminal Procedure Rule 16 :  Discovery and Inspection
Criminal Procedure Rule 29 : Motion for Acquittal
Criminal Procedure Rule 30 : Instructions
Criminal Procedure Rule 31 : Verdict
Criminal Procedure Rule 33 : New Trial
Criminal Procedure Rule 46 : Bail

Evidence Rule 101  : Scope of Rules; Applicability, etc.
Evidence Rule 103  : Rulings on Evidence
Evidence Rule 401  : Relevant Evidence
Evidence Rule 402  : Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible, etc.
Evidence Rule 403  : Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice….
Evidence Rule 404  : Character Evidence not Admissible to Prove Conduct, etc.
Evidence Rule 501  : Privileges: General Rule
Evidence Rule 601  : General Rule of Competency (of witnesses)
Evidence Rule 601(B) : Spouse Testifying
Evidence Rule 602  : Lack of Personal Knowledge
Evidence Rule 605  : Competency of Judge as Witness
Evidence Rule 607  : Impeachment
Evidence Rule 609  : Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime
Evidence Rule 611  : Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation
Evidence Rule 615  : Separation and Exclusion of Witnesses
Evidence Rule 616  : Methods of Impeachment
Evidence Rule 704  : Opinion on Ultimate Issue

         Further, COLLIER violated the following provisions of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct:

Canon 1:
         Rule 1.1      Compliance with the law
         Rule 1.2      Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
Canon 2:
         Rule 2.2      Impartiality and Fairness
         Rule 2.3 (A), (B), C)  Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment
         Rule 2.4 (B), (C)  External Influences on Judicial Conduct
         Rule 2.5 (A) Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation
         Rule 2.6 (A) Ensuring the Right to be Heard
         Rule 2.8 (A), (B)  Decorum, Demeanor, and Communication with Jurors
         Rule 2.9 (A), (B)  Ex Parte Contacts
         Rule 2.10 (B)  Judicial Statements on Pending Cases
         Rule 2.15 (B)  Responding to Lawyer Misconduct

THE ABOVE DEMONSTRATES THE MANNER IN WHICH "WEASELPECKER" COLLIER, FORMERLY DINO HOE-MAN'S LAPDOG, AND CURRENTLY THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, WOULD HAVE ALL OF THE UNINFORMED AND APATHETIC MEDINA COUNTY ELECTORATE BELIEVE HE MAINTAINS "ORDER," BY DEPRIVING ACCUSED INDIVIDUALS OF THEIR OTHERWISE GUARANTEED PROTECTIONS UNDER LAW AND MAKING EVERY CONCEIVABLE EFFORT TO CONVICT INNOCENT CITIZENS.

WHAT A COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY CORRUPT MORON AND A WASTE OF GOOD AIR WHO, IN FACT, PROMOTES CHAOS IN THE "COURTS" OF THE MEDINA COUNTY "JUSTUS" SYSTEM!

WHAT A DOUCHEBAG!!!