REVISITING STA-PUF'S MORONIC CLAIM !!!

The blogger remains astounded, in fact, stunned by the level of STA-PUF KERN'S outright STUPIDITY!

In fact, STA-PUF'S moronic claim is so OUTRAGEOUS that it merits another visit!

On Page 8 of his recent brief, filed with the Ninth District Court of Appeals, STA-PUF claimed:

"THE COMPLAINT DOUBLES AS THE AFFIDAVIT BECAUSE IT IS A SWORN ALLEGATION THAT THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE CHARGED ACT."

 The blogger referenced this claim, in a broader context in a prior post at this blog, captioned STA-PUF KERN IS OBVIOUSLY MENTALLY CHALLENGED ! found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2013/01/sta-puf-kern-is-obviously-mentally.html

This is such a patently STUPID claim that it is worthy of examining what the Supreme Court of the United States has to say about it. 

What STA-PUF alleges is that it is perfectly correct and proper for an office to simply swear that an accused person violated a specific offense, and nothing further !!!

As has already been shown, contrary to STA-PUF'S moronic claim, the Fourth Amendment to the United States specifically provides, "NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION." 

Setting aside for a moment the law of the land, the United States Constitution, which STA-PUF has obviously NEVER READ, the United States Supreme Court, with which STA-PUF appears to be unfamiliar, has examined this very issue . . . IN 1971, A MERE 42 YEARS AGO !!!

In 19771, the United States Supreme Court decided Whiteley v Warden of the Wyoming State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560 (1971).  The Whiteley case is similar to the case being profiled at this blog, and can be found at http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/560/

The following is taken directly from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Whiteley case:

Syllabus

A sheriff, acting on a tip, made a complaint before a magistrate charging that petitioner and another individual on the date and at the place named "did then and there unlawfully break and enter into [the described] locked . . . building," and a warrant was issued.

Held:

1. Petitioner's arrest violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and the evidence secured incident thereto should have been excluded from his trial. Pp. 401 U. S. 564-569.

(a) The complaint, which did not mention that the sheriff acted on an informer's tip, and which consisted of no more than the sheriff's conclusion that the individuals named committed the offense, could not support the independent judgment of a disinterested magistrate. P. 401 U. S. 565
.
(b) The standards applicable to the factual basis for an arresting officer's probable cause assessment are no less strict than those applicable to the magistrate's assessment. Here, the arresting officer had no information to corroborate the report that the suspects had committed the crime and the fact that the warrantless arrest was based on a police radio bulletin cannot supply the element of probable cause that the officer who issued the bulletin lacked. Pp. 401 U. S. 565-567.

2. Since, notwithstanding petitioner's constitutional challenge at each stage, respondent made no attempt to show that the magistrate had more information than was presented in the complaint, he may not attempt to do so now on remand; and the writ must issue unless the State appropriately arranges to retry the petitioner. P. 401 U. S. 569.

The precise language of the "complaint" in the Whiteley case :

"I, C. W. Ogburn, do solemnly swear that, on or about the 23 day of November, A.D. 1964, in the County of Carbon and State of Wyoming, the said Harold Whiteley and Jack Daley, defendants, did then and there unlawfully break and enter a locked and sealed building [describing the location and ownership of the building]."

THAT'S  THE EXTENT OF IT !  MARKEDLY SIMILAR TO THE CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE "COMPLAINT" FILED BY DEPUTY DOUGLAS CLINAGE IN THE CASE BEING PROFILED AT THIS BLOG.

IT HAS NOT GONE UNNOTICED THAT A SHERIFF'S OFFICER, IN BOTH CASES, FILED THE CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE "COMPLAINT, " AND NOT BY PROPERLY TRAINED, COMPETENT, AND QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL POLICE OFFICERS!


Just what did the United States Supreme Court have to say about the need to observe the requirements of the Fourth Amendment pertaining to the issuance of arrest and search warrants?  Let's see:

"The decisions of this Court concerning Fourth Amendment probable cause requirements before a warrant for either arrest or search can issue require that the judicial officer issuing such a warrant be supplied with sufficient information to support an independent judgment that probable cause exists for the warrant. [Footnote 6] Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969); United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102 (1965); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964); Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U. S. 528 (1964); Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257 (1960); Giordenello v. United States, 357 U. S. 480 (1958)."

In deciding the Whiteley case, the U.S. Supreme Court observed:

In the instant case -- so far as the record stipulated to by the parties reveals  -- the sole support for the arrest warrant issued at Sheriff Ogburn's request was the complaint reproduced above.  That complaint consists of nothing more than the complainant's conclusion that the individuals named therein perpetrated the offense described in the complaint. The actual basis for Sheriff Ogburn's conclusion was an informer's tip, but that fact, as well as every other operative fact, is omitted from the complaint. Under the cases just cited, that document alone could not support the independent judgment of a disinterested magistrate.

In sum, the complaint on which the warrant issued here clearly could not support a finding of probable cause by the issuing magistrate.
  

"Therefore, petitioner's arrest violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; the evidence secured as an incident thereto should have been excluded from his trial. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961)."

It is clearly obvious that STA-PUF KERN, like LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, have failed to read and apply Whiteley and other controlling cases decided by the United States Supreme Court, IF THEY CAN READ AT ALL !!!

STA-PUF GETS CONFUSED BY ALL THOSE NUMBERS!

Turning again to the most recent brief filed by STA-PUF KERN in the Ninth District Court of Appeals, concealed from public inspection and review by CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN for reasons that should be all too obvious to the reader, it appears that all of those confounded section numbers found in the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure are a source of confusion to STA-PUF KERN.

 

The various numbered sections of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure begin at #1 and go all the way up to #60, with subsections as well.  Admittedly, the number of Rules exceed the aggregate number of STA-PUF'S finger and toes, all the more so if STA-PUF happens to be missing a digit or two!

 

Permit the blogger to explain.

 

In his most recent brief, at Page 18, STA-PUF KERN another truly laughable "legal" proposition when he argues:

"By its express terms, however, there is no requirement that the arresting officer affix an 'affidavit' to a 'complaint.'  Crim. R. 4(E)(2)."
 

WHAT A MORON!  Just because that's the way they've always done it in Medina County does not justify the illegality of the usual and customary violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Please see the prior post at this blog, captioned STA-PUF KERN IS OBVIOUSLY MENTALLY CHALLENGED, for the precise language of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Readers will take note of the fact that STA-PUF attempts to justify the violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by relying on the "express terms" of Criminal Rule 4(E)(2).

Perhaps, we should examine the precise language of Rule 4(E)(2), set out below:

 

RULE 4. Warrant or Summons; Arrest

(E) Arrest.

(2) Arrest without warrant.

Where a person is arrested without a warrant the arresting officer shall, except as provided in division (F), bring the arrested person without unnecessary delay before a court having jurisdiction of the offense, and shall file or cause to be filed a complaint describing the offense for which the person was arrested. Thereafter the court shallproceed in accordance with Crim. R.5.
 

So then, it is certainly necessary for an officer to "file or cause to be filed a complaint describing the offense for which the person was arrested.  The blogger takes no issue with the language of Rule 4(R)(2).  That, however, is where it ends.

Readers will take note, however, that Rule 4(R)(2) does not define the term "complaint."

Here is where STA-PUF'S laughable "legal" argument fails miserably.

Most of us, with the possible exception of STA-PUF KERN, realize that the numeral "4" follows the numeral "3" in out Western system of numbers.

Why don't we all put in reverse and travel from Criminal Rule 4 to Criminal Rule 3 and see just what we can find?

LO AND BEHOLD!  WE'VE FOUND THE RULE 3 IS CAPTIONED "COMPLAINT."  WILL WONDERS NEVER CEASE?

Let's examine the language of Criminal Rule 3, and see what we can learn about a lawfully issued criminal complaint!

RULE 3. Complaint.

 

The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It shall also state the numerical designation of the applicable statute or ordinance. It shall be made upon oath before any person authorized by law to administer oaths.

[Effective: July 1, 1973.]***
 

*** Readers will note that Rule 3 was enacted nearly 40 years ago, even before STA-PUF KERN was in diapers.  STA-PUF'S IGNORANCE OF RULE 3 IS NO EXCUSE, SINCE RULE 3 WASN'T ENACTED YESTERDAY. 

My, Oh My!  What have we here?  Apparently STA-PUF KERN failed to consider the requirements of Criminal Rule 3 when he dreamed up his laughable Rule 4 argument, in an attempt to defeat the provisions of the Fourth Amendment.

The language of Criminal Rule 3 does not seem particularly difficult to comprehend, at least for someone of average intelligence.

Rule 3 clearly requires the satisfaction of identifiable elements in the preparation of a criminal complaint in order to pass muster (everywhere else but in Medina County):

1.) A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS CONSTITUTING THE OFFENSE CHARGED;

2)  The numerical designation of the applicable statute or ordinance allegedly violated;

3)  MADE UPON OATH BEFORE ANY PERSON AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO ADMINISTER OATHS.
 

Apparently , one out of three is close enough for government work in STA-PUF'S world, as well as in the KANGAROO COURTROOM OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY JUDGE LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE.

In the case being profiled at this blog, SHERIFF'S DEPUTY DOUGLAS CLINAGE FAILED TO 1) set out a statement of essential facts in his Constitutionally defective "complaint," and 2) swear an oath to the Constitutionally defective complaint. which Clinage conceded on hos testimony at the Suppression Hearing.

IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO PROBLEM GETTING AROUND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BY DINO HOEMAN AND HIS MINIONS, INCLUDING SCOTT SLEAZEBURY. AT TRIAL IN LAPDOG COLLIER'S KANGAROO COURTROOM.  AFTER ALL, LAPDOG COLLIER HAS BEEN BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY CORRUPT COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN AND THE MEDINA COUNTY DEMS.

It is quite another matter to present a convincing argument to a reviewing court, without DELIBERATELY LYING, as STA-PUF KERN HAS CLEARLY LEARNED.

STA-PUF KERN PROVES TO BE ANOTHER ROADS SCHOLAR !!!

The blogger points once again to the recent brief filed by STA-PUF KERN, which decidedly points to the fact that STA-PUF KERN is just one more Medina County ROADS SCHOLAR ( not to be confused with "Rhodes Scholar") and has joined the ranks of other ROADS SCHOLARS LIKE LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, AS WELL AS CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN AND HIS MINIONS SCOTT SLEAZEBURY AND MISTAFA RAZAVI !!!

For the benefit of the readers, a ROADS SCHOLAR is defined as a geographically challenged individual who must study a ROAD MAP in order to travel from the Medina County Courthouse, Railroad Station & Mosque, located at the Medina Square, to Interstate 71.

It is time, once again, to examine STA-PUF'S brief in order to assess his intellectual capacities.

In STA-PUF'S brief, at Page 19, makes the following moronic claim:

"[Defendant's] reliance on Gerstein v Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975), is likewise misplaced because Gerstein only holds that an accused is entitled to a determination of probable cause after arrest.  [Defendant] received that [Defendant] received that determination when he appeared for a first appearance in Wadsworth Municipal Court.  Judge McIlvaine (ANOTHER LEGAL ROCKET SCIENTIST) set bond with conditions AND CONTINUED THE PRELIMINARY HEARING."
 

 WOW! STA-PUF WORKS IN THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE AND DOES NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN INITIAL APPEARANCE AND A PRELIMINARY HEARING ? A TRULY MIND-NUMBING DISCLOSURE!!!

Apparently, STA-PUF was back in the Men's washroom, again, during law school class on Criminal Procedure.

So as to not confuse STA-PUF with all of those complicated legal terms found in all of those STUFFY OLD LAW BOOKS, the blogger will refer to the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, with which STA-PUF does not seem to be particularly familiar, to define and differentiate between "Initial Appearance" and "Preliminary Hearing."

RULE 5. Initial Appearance, Preliminary Hearing





(A) Procedure upon initial appearance.

When a defendant first appears before ajudge or magistrate,the judge or magistrate shall permit the accused or his counsel to read thecomplaint or a copy thereof, and shall inform the defendant:  

(1) Of the nature of the charge against him;                     

(2) That he has a right to counsel and the right to a reasonable continuance in the proceedings to secure counsel, and, pursuant to Crim. R. 44,the right to have counsel assigned without cost to himself if he is unable to employ counsel;

(3) That he need make no statement and any statement made may be used against him;

(4) Of his right to a preliminary hearing in a felony case, when his initial appearance is not pursuant to indictment;

(5) Of his right, where appropriate, to jury trial and the necessity to make demand therefor in petty offense cases.

In addition, if the defendant has not been admitted to bail for a bailable offense, the judge or magistrate shall admit the defendant to bail as provided in these rules.

In felony cases the defendant shall not be called upon to plead either at the initial appearance or at a preliminary hearing.
 In misdemeanor cases the defendant may be called upon to plead at the initial appearance.

Where the defendant enters a plea the procedure established by Crim. R. 10 and Crim. R. 11 applies.

AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THE PRIMARY INTENDED PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL APPEARANCE IS TO SET BAIL.
 

 (B) Preliminary hearing in felony cases; procedure.

(1) In felony cases a defendant is entitled to a preliminary hearing unless waived in writing.[T]he judge or magistrate shall schedule a preliminary hearing within a reasonable time, but in any event no later than ten consecutive days following arrest or service of summons if the defendant is in custody.

(4) Upon conclusion of all the evidence and the statement, if any, of the accused, the court shall do one of the following:

 

(a) Find that there is probable cause to believe the crime alleged or another felony has been committed and that the defendant committed it, and bind the defendant over to the court of common pleas of the county or any other county in which venue appears.

 

(c) Order the accused discharged.
 

 SO, THE OHIO RULES PROVIDE THAT, AT THE INITIAL APPEARANCE, THE JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE IS REQUIRED TO SCHEDULE A PRELIMINARY HEARING WITHIN TEN DAYS.

SO THEN, AND THIS IS APPARENTLY DIFFICULT FOR STA-PUF TO COMPREHEND, IN THE PROGRESSION OF ANY CASE THE PRELIMINARY HEARING FOLLOWS THE INITIAL APPEARANCE BY TEN DAYS.

AT THE INITIAL APPEARANCE, THE COURT SETS BAIL.

AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUPPORT AN ARREST.

The blogger has tried to explain and differentiate these two separate stages of a proceeding that in the most basic terms, so as not to cause undue confusion for STA-PUF.

By STA-PUF'S own admission, Judge MvIlaine, " CONTINUED THE PRELIMINARY HEARING."  STA-PUF apparently failed to understand the highly technical term "CONTINUED THE PRELIMINARY HEARING."  What it means, in layman's terms, is that McIlvaine SCHEDULED THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AT A FUTURE DATE.

IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE JUDGE "CONTINUED" TO HEAR TESTIMONY AT THE INITIAL APPEARANCE, AS STA-PUF KERN APPARENTLY BELIEVES.

CONTRARY TO STA-PUF'S MISTAKEN BELIEF, AS HE CLAIMS IN HIS BRIEF, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ACCORDED HIS RIGHT TO A PROBABLE CAUSE DETERMINATION AT HIS INITIAL APPEARANCE, WHEN McILVAINE SIMPLY SET BAIL AND BY STA-PUF'S OWN ADMISSION, "CONTINUED"  (SET FOR A FUTURE DATE) A PRELIMINARY HEARING.

NOW THE READER KNOWS WHY STA-PUF KERN MERITS THE TITLE OF MEDINA COUNTY "ROADS SCHOLAR."
 

STA-PUF KERN IS OBVIOUSLY MENTALLY CHALLENGED!

Once again, the blogger points to the brief filed by STA-PUF KERN with the Ninth District Court of Appeals.  STA-PUF KERN must have attended one of those famous classes held by Wadsworth Municipal Court "judge" Steve McIlvaine, another mental midget. Please see prior post at this blog, captioned WADSWORTH MUNICIPAL COURT, WHERE THE FLAWED PROCESS BEGINS found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/10/wadsworth-municipal-court-where-flawed.html

McIlvaine, who conduct classes on proper first appearances by arrested persons, is part of the corrupt political machinery in Medina County, and has succumbed to INFLUENCE PEDDLING.  IF YOU KNOW THE RIGHT PERSON, OR LINE THE RIGHT POCKETS, YOU'RE HOME FREE IN MEDINA COUNTY.  Please see prior post at this blog, captioned MORE HOLMAN CORRUPTION REPORTED BY ANOTHER MEDINA COUNTY CITIZEN found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/10/more-holman-corruption-reported-by.html

McIlvaine has not slightest inclination of the law pertaining to the rights of arrested persons.  NEITHER DOES STA-PUF KERN, OBVIOUSLY!

In STA-PUF'S BRIEF, at Page 18, he laughably argues:

"There is no requirement that the arresting officer affix an "affidavit" to the "complaint." [Defendant] alleges the two are separate entities, yet the two are one in the same.  In preparing the charge against [Defendant], Deputy Clinage prepared a complaint for filing in the municipal court with notarial attestation.  The deputy complied with Crim. R. 4(E)(2) in having a notary affix her seal.  DEPUTY CLINAGE DID, IN FACT, SWEAR TO THE COMPLAINT.  THE COMPLAINT DOUBLES AS THE AFFIDAVIT BECAUSE IT IS A SWORN ALLEGATION THAT THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE CHARGED ACT."

WHAT??? IF STA-PUF TRULY BELIEVES THIS BIT OF LEGAL GARBAGE, HE REALLY IS A COMPLETE MORON OF THE LOWEST ORDER!!!

It would appear that STA-PUR KERN must have been in the Men's washroom, scribbling on the walls and otherwise pleasantly engaging himself, during his law school classes on Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure.

EVEN A ROOKIE COP, THE FIRST DAY ON THE JOB, KNOWS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AND AN ARREST WARRANT.

AN ARREST WARRANT IS ISSUED, ACCORDING TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, BASED UPON A COMPLAINT.  ONE FOLLOWS THE OTHER. 


ACCORDING TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, WHICH OBVIOUSLY HAS NO VALUE IN MEDINA COUNTY, A COMPLAINT IS REQUIRED TO SET OUT ARTICULABLE FACTS, UPON WHICH A NEUTRAL AND DETACHED JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CAN DETERMINE WHETHER THE OFFICER HAS ESTABLISHED PROBABLE CAUSE UPON WHICH AN ARREST WARRANT  MAY THEN ISSUE.

SET ASIDE, FOR THE MOMENT, THAT THERE ARE NO NEUTRAL AND DETACHED JUDICIAL OFFICERS IN MEDINA COUNTY.

NO COMPLAINT, NO PROBABLE CAUSE!  NO PROBABLE CAUSE, NO ARREST WARRANT!  AT LEAST THAT'S HOW IT'S DONE IN COMPETENT AND LAWFUL COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

PERHAPS STA-PUF KERN WOULD BE WELL SERVED BY READING THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS . . . FOR THE FIRST TIME!

The FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, FOUND IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, IS REASONABLEY CLEAR ON THE REQUIREMENT THAT AN ARREST WARRANT BE BASED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SET OUT IN A COMPLAINT:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There it is, in black and white. "No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation."  EVEN THOUGH THIS PARTICULAR LANGUAGE DATES BACK TO JOHN ADAMS IN 1780, THE LANGUAGE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT FOR AN INDIVIDUAL OF AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE.

YET, ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE CAUGHT STA-PUF KERN LYIN'& DENYIN', IN THE SAME BREATH, AS HE FALSELY CLAIMED "DEPUTY CLINAGE DID, IN FACT SWEAR TO THE COMPLAINT."

Let's say we mosey on over, once again, to the corrupted transcript of the Suppression Hearing, at least that which remains of it after LAPDOG COLLIER TAMPERED WITH AND MATERIALLY ALTERED THE "OFFICIAL: TRANSCRIPT.

Picture below is Page 242  of the corrupted transcript of the Suppression Hearing, and the reported testimony of Deputy Douglas Clinage:

SIMPLY AMAZING, ISN'T IT?  CLINAGE TESTIFIED, AT LINE 16, THAT HE DID NOT SWEAR TO THE COMPLAINT.

JUST ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF STA-PUF KERN LYIN' & DENYIN',  ABOVE AND BEYOND HIS PROFOUND LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!!!

STA-PUF'S BRIEF REMINDS THE BLOGGER OF AN OLD TUNE SUNG BY CONNIE FRANCIS, "WHO'S LYING NOW?"

STA-PUF KERN CAUGHT LYIN' & DENYIN', ONCE AGAIN!

To recap, the blogger has, in the two previous posts, documented with cites to the record, that STA-PUF KERN has exhibited a PATTERN OF LYIN' & DENYIN, which qualifies him for admission into that elite organization to which all local SLEAZY ATTORNEYS belong: THE MEDINA LIARS' CLUB.  Regular meeting are held at the home of the president, LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, on Sunday mornings after the Mosque has closed.

It is time to now examine ANOTHER LIE THAT STA-PUF KERN has asserted in his brief filed with the Ninth District Court of Appeals, at Page 17:

"And there is no credible evidence in the record that the Sheriff's Office denied [Defendant's] request to contact his attorney."

Tout au contraire, STA-PUF!
(Translating for the benefit of STA-FUF KERN, "Tout au contraire" is a French term meaning "Quite the contrary")

For the benefit of the reader and STA-PUF KERN, all filings by counsel, and all attachments, are incorporated into the record of a proceeding.

In the first instance, it may very well be worthy to examine the SWORN AFFIDAVIT filed with LAPDOG COLLIER in this case attached to the Defendant's Supplement to Motion to Suppress, AND MADE A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD:

NOTE PARAGRAPHS 5 AND 12

There you have it.  Corrections Officers denied this Defendant's requests to contact an attorney were denied on no fewer than THREE OCCASIONS immediately following his unlawful arrest.

IN FACT, THE MEDINA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE HAS PUT IN PLACE AN ILLEGAL POLICY THAT FORBIDS AN ARRESTED PERSON FROM CONTACTING AN ATTORNEY PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT OFFICIAL CHARGES ARE FILED.  THAT, OF COURSE, IS ALSO A VIOLATION OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE, BUT IN MEDINA THERE IS NO RESPECT FOR THE LAW, OTHER THAN AS AN INSTRUMENT OF REPRESSION, AS IN A FASCIST POLICE STATE.

However, looking beyond the Defendant's SWORN AFFIDAVIT IN THE RECORD, it is clear that LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, made every attempt to prevent this issue being brought forward on the record at the suppression hearing.

Pictured below is page 273 taken from the TAMPERED AND MATERIALLY ALTERED CORRUPTED TRANSCRIPT OF THE SUPPRESSION HEARING:

LAPDOG COLLIER, AN OBVIOUS SCUMBAG OF THE HIGHEST ORDER, CLEARLY DID NOT WANT THE RECORD TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICY OF THE MEDINA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, WHICH LAPDOG COLLIER OBVIOUSLY APPROVES AND ENDORSES.

MOREOVER, SCUMBAG COLLIER DID NOT WANT THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT THIS INNOCENT DEFENDANT HAD BEEN HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

IN HIS BRIEF, STA-PUF KERN HAS DEMONSTRATED, ONCE AGAIN, THAT HE IS JUST AS SLEAZY AS DINO HOEMAN AND SCOTT SLEAZEBURY, A MATTER OF WHICH, THE BLOGGER IS CERTAIN, STA-PUF KERN IS EXTREMELY PROUD.  STA-PUF KERN IS JUST ONE MORE SCUMBAG ATTORNEY ON THE MEDINA COUNTY PAYROLL!

STA-PUF KERN, A TYPICAL SLEAZY ATTORNEY, CAUGHT LYIN" AND DENYIN' AGAIN!

In the prior post at this blog, the attention of the reader was drawn to a recent brief filed by STA-FUF KERN with the Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals, which CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN HAS CONCEALED FROM PUBLIC VIEW AND INSPECTION IN AN ATTEMPT TO PREVENT EVEN MORE EMBARRASSMENT TO HIS OFFICE, WHICH IS REGULARLY ENGAGED IN THE USUAL AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICE OF ALL SLEAZY ATTORNEYS, LYIN' & DENYIN'.

In the prior post at this blog, readers were presented with the TRUE FACTS which unequivocally PROVE THAT STAF-PUF KERN LIED IN HIS BRIEF WHEN HE ALLEGED:

"There is no evidence, in the record or anywhere, the transcript of the first trial was altered.   Judge Markus gave [the Defendant] ample opportunity to submit such evidence prior to the start of the second trial, which [the Defendant] failed to do."

Readers were shown PROOF POSITIVE that this innocent and railroaded Defendant produced competent and credible evidence, IN THE RECORD, that the transcripts of the trial had been TAMPERED WITH, MATERIALLY ALTERED, AND CHANGED.

AS WAS SHOWN, ST-PUF KERN, ANOTHER TYPICAL SLEAZY ATTORNEY, AMONG MANY, IN THE EMPLOY OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN, STRUCK OUT ON THAT LIE!!!

Let's examine another of STA-PUF KERN'S COMPLETE FABRICATIONS, set out at Page 8 of his brief, which was fashioned in likeness of Grimm's Fairy Tales:

"No contemporaneous objection was made to the testimony concerning the statements made by the six year-old...(Tr at 450) .  Under Evidence Rule 103(A)(1), the lack of any objection on this basis means that [Defendant] forfeited appellate review."

STA-PUF KERN has asserted unequivocally that Defense Counsel failed to raise an objection to the admission of hearsay statements of a six year-old into evidence, offered during the PERJURED TESTIMONY OF ONE OF THE STATE'S WITNESSES, WHICH PERJURY HAD BEEN SUBORNED BY ASS. COUNTY PROSECUTOR SCOTT SLEAZEBURY.  Readers will take note of the fact that STA-PUF KERN cites to Page 450 of the trial transcript (Tr. at 450).

WHAT SAY WE ALL MOSEY ON OVER TO PAGE 450 OF THE TRANSCRIPT, PRESENTED BELOW, TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENSE COUNSEL RAISED AN OBJECTION TO THE HEARSAY STATEMENTS OF A SIX YEAR-OLD, SHALL WE?

Lo and Behold!  WHAT HAVE WE HERE?  

Contrary to the FALSE CLAIM of STA-PUF KERN, ANOTHER MEDINA COUNTY SLEAZY ATTORNEY, THE RECORD CLEARLY REVEALS THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF THE HEARSAY TESTIMONY OF THE SIX YEAR-OLD CHILD!

STA-PUF KERN must be relying upon the fat that the judges of the Ninth District Court of Appeals DO NOT VERIFY THE CITES IN HIS BRIEF. AFTER ALL, "LIE A LITTLE. LIE A LOT.  WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?" SAYS STA-PUF KERN, IN LINE WITH THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOEMAN.

It certainly appears that STA-PUF KERN, who obviously LIED in his brief, is worthy of investigation by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio!