Because, however, they've always done it that way makes it neither proper nor lawful. Perhaps these "judges" were sleeping during their law school classes on criminal procedure. Then again, it may just be that they really don't care about what is proper and lawful, just as long as they please Dino Holman, obviously himself no legal scholar.
You will note that the below criminal complaint, typical of those filed in the courts of Medina County, contains only a conclusory statement of Deputy I.B. Lyon that Ms. Truly Innocent violated Section 2923.122 of the Ohio Revised Code at Wadsworth, Ohio on July 4, 2010. You will further note that there is no statement of essential facts which informs the "judge" of the facts which led Deputy Lyon to conclude that a criminal offense had probably been committed and that Ms. Innocent had probably committed that offense.
That, of course, foolishly presumes that a judge would review the criminal complaint for probable cause, which these "judges" fail to do in Medina County!
By now, it should come as no surprise to you that, more nearly 40 years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled that just this type of criminal complaint does not pass constitutional muster. In 1971, the United States Supreme Court decided Whitely v Warden Wyoming State Penitentiary, 401 U.S 560, 564 (1971). You can read this case for your self at http://openjurist.org/401/us/560/whiteley-v-warden-wyoming-state-penitentiary .
The "judges" of Medina County, with the exception of COLLIER, must be unaware of this recent change in the law since it was decided a mere 40 years ago. Perhaps they need to catch up on their reading.
COLLIER however has been given this specific case law in a brief, which he simply ignored, apparently at the behest of Sleazebury and Hoe-Man. There is no excuse for COLLIER failing to abide by the holdings of the United States Supreme Court, if he were an honest judge.
Integrity and honesty however, are not hallmarks of COLLIER's "character," or more appropriately, the lack thereof!
There are other issues to be taken with this defective complaint, as well. You will note that this defective criminal complaint has been signed by Dolly Varden, a Notary Public. Dolly signed the complaint when she took a moment away from her primary duties as a teller at the local bank. Medina County deputies and police officers routinely present their criminal complaints to Notaries Public for signature, often not taking the time to even swear to the truth of their conclusory statements.
Once again, the United States Supreme Court addressed this issue more than 60 years ago. In Johnson v United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14 (1948), the U.S. Supreme Court held, "The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protections consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a NEUTRAL AND DETACHED MAGISTRATE (judicial officer) instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." You can also read this case at http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/Library/legal/sc4.htm .
As a point of clarification, a warrant, be it either for the search and seizure of property or person, is governed by these standards of probable cause, to be determined by a neutral and detached judicial officer. This little constitutional nicety is completely ignored by the "judges" of Medina County, including but not limited to COLLIER, who has also been briefed on this provision of the law as well.
Of course, it is entirely possible that COLLIER remains ignorant of the law because he simply does not read the briefs filed by defense attorneys. After all, Sleazebury doesn't file any legal briefs for COLLIER to read. Then again, why should Sleazebury take the time and trouble to research the law when COLLIER is in Holman's pocket?
If you have either pled guilty or been found guilty in the Wadsworth or Medina Municipal Courts after having been charged with a criminal offense on the basis of this type of constitutionally defective criminal complaint, you have been deprived of your Fourth Amendment Right accorded to you by the United States Constitution. In other words, you have been unlawfully convicted!
It certainly seems to me that Dino Holman and his criminal assistants have been so busy punishing individuals indicted for criminal offenses, they have been remiss in instructing sheriff's deputies as to the proper manner to prepare and file criminal complaints that comply with the law and that pass constitutional muster!
If I had been convicted of a criminal offense in either Medina or Wadsworth Municipal Courts on the basis of such a constitutionally defective criminal complaint, no matter the year of conviction, I believe that I would send a letter, citing these particular U.S. Supreme Court Cases, along with a copy of the defective criminal complaint (easily obtained from the Clerk of Court), to Chief Justice Eric Brown, Ohio Supreme Court, 65 South Front St., Columbus, Ohio 43215-3434. My letter would explain that I had been convicted of a criminal offense based upon a constitutionally defective criminal complaint and would request that the Supreme Court vacate my conviction, expunge my record, and return to me all fines and court costs that I paid out.
A PROPERLY CONSTRUCTED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT WILL FOLLOW IN THE NEXT SEGMENT ....
No comments:
Post a Comment