COLLIER: A PERFECT EXAMPLE HOW NOT TO DO THE LAW!

As this blog progresses, I intend to point out the Rules of Evidence and the Rules of Criminal Procedure and, where appropriate, point to U.S. Supreme Court cases, all of which corrupt judge CHRIS COLLIER has, at one time or another, violated so as to please his handler, corrupt Medina County prosecutor DINO HOLMAN.


Violations of these Rules by COLLIER carry various degrees of intended prejudice to the defendant .  Violations of certain of these Rules are, in and of themselves, violations of the U.S. Constitution and constitute reversible error, meaning that the court of appeals is compelled to overturn any conviction arising from such a violation.

In the aggregate however, the cumulative effect of violating the Rules is likely to have the effect of denying the defendant a fair trial, which is exactly what COLLIER intends whenever he ascend to his throne in the courtroom.

It has certainly occurred to me that there may be some law students who regularly read this blog.  For those young persons who aspire to become lawyers, and perhaps real judges, you will find here precisely what NOT TO DO when practicing the law as I point to COLLIER's practices and rulings.


The first rule of thumb, which COLLIER has clearly forgotten, is that the United States Constitution has value and should be the guiding principle in the practice of the law.

The second rule of thumb, which COLLIER routinely ignores, is that decisions by the United States Court are effectively the law of the land.  That's why the Founding Fathers made provisions for that esteemed institution, in the first place.

The third rule of thumb, which COLLIER rejects, is that a person accused of a criminal offense is, by law, presumed to be innocent until and unless proven otherwise in a fair trial (not to be found in COLLIER's room) conducted according to the Rules of Evidence and the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and governed by the body of appellate decisions (all of which are routinely ignored by COLLIER).


I've often wondered about the origins of the the term "kangaroo court."  However, after seeing COLLIER in action, the concept of "kangaroo court" came into focus quite clearly.  After seeing COLLIER and SLEAZEBURY jump to conclusions, and steering the jury to do the same, without the benefit of the facts, the Rules, and the law, I now fully understand.


IF YOU FOLLOW THIS LINK, YOU WILL FIND INFORMATION ON AN INDIVIDUAL, WITH THE REQUISITE DEGREE OF INTEGRITY, WHO WOULD BE MORE THAN A SUITABLE REPLACEMENT FOR COLLIER:  http://www.frontiernet.net/~dancase/Marcojudge.htm


A  group of law students would do well to attend a COLLIER trial so as to recognize all the pitfalls when practicing the law in an unfair forum with a sleazy, unethical prosecutor and a corrupt judge!


MUCH MORE TO COME ....