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!
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment