COLLIER SLIPS AND SLIDES PAST THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!

In the Motion to Suppress, the defense challenged the sufficiency of the indictment for failing to properly notice the Defendant of the unspecified underlying “criminal offense” which the assistant prosecutor intended to allege that Defendant had intended to commit within the home of Fred Flintstone, Defendant's friend of twenty years.

         Following is the precise language as contained in the indictment:

         “…on or about the 27^th day of May, in the year of Our Lord, Two Thousand Nine, within the County of Medina, State of Ohio, aforesaid Defendant unlawfully and knowingly did by force, stealth or deception, trespass in 1234 County Road, an occupied structure,when another person other than an accomplice of the offender is present, with the purpose to commit therein a criminal offense, and the said Defendant has a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance as defined in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code, on or about his person or under his control, to wit: a handgun, in violation of Section 2911.11(A)(2) of the Ohio Revised Code, a felony of the first degree (F-1), contrary to the statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio.”

The primary issue is what, if any crime, the Defendant in intended to commit while in his friend's home, if any.  This constitutionally defective indictment fails to charge the requisite element of the specific offense that the State intended to prove, at trial, the CRIMINAL OFFENSE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO COMMIT IN HIS FRIEND'S HOME!

I turn now to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which COLLIER HAS APPARENTLY FAILED TO READ AT ANY TIME.

Following is the verbatim text of the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Now, the language of the Sixth Amendment appears to be reasonably straightforward and not particularly difficult to understand by most reasonably intelligent people ... except CORRUPT JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER.

COLLIER HAS VIOLATED EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT WHILE CONDUCTING THE PURPORTED TRIAL OF THE DEFENDANT.

At issue for the moment is the clause of the Sixth Amendment that provides, "...and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation."

What that simply means is that the State has a legal obligation to inform any person accused of a crime as to the criminal offense with which he is charged and the basis of such a charge.

The language of the constitutionally defective indictment, cited above, asserts that this Defendant entered the home of his friend to commit an UNSPECIFIED OFFENSE.

There is certainly no notice of the unspecified "criminal offense" to be seen here!

SIMPLY PUT, THIS CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE INDICTMENT FAILS TO FULLY INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF THE TOTALITY OF THE OFFENSE HE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED!

CORRUPT JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, IN PRESERVING HIS GRIP ON HIS UNCONTESTED LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY BENCH, COMPLIMENTS OF CORRUPT DEM COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN AND THE MEDINA COUNTY DEM PARTY, OBVIOUSLY AGREES WITH HOLMAN'S POSITION THAT THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IS NULL AND VOID IN MEDINA COUNTY.

MUCH MORE TO COME .....