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:
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:
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?"
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?"
No comments:
Post a Comment