LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, A NITWIT OF THE LOWEST ORDER, OVERTURNED BY THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS ON HIS UNINFORMED "INTERPRETATION" OF THE CONSTITUTION

WHAT A HOOT !!!  LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, ACTUALLY HAD THE UNMITIGATED GALL TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION. 

THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS MADE SHORT WORK OF OVERTURNING LAPDOG COLLIER'S UNINFORMED "INTERPRETATION" OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Regular readers of this blog have long ago recognized that LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, doesn't have a clue what the Constitution is, much less what it guarantees.

LAPDOG violates the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments daily in his Kangaroo Courtroom No. 1 at the Medina County Courthouse, Mosque, and Railroad Station.  These Constitutional Amendments have their origins in the Bill of Rights, which LAPDOG COLLIER confuses with his monthly residential water bill, believing he has a right to city water for which he receives a regular bill.

It is highly likely that LAPDOG has ever read the Constitution and, even if he had made the attempt, he likely could not understand its content, given his limited mental capacity.

In a recent case, LAPDOG COLLIER took an unworthy stab at determining the constitutionality of a local ordinance in the case of Sunset Estate Properties, LLC v. The Village of Lodi, Ninth District Court of Appeals Case No. 2013-Ohio-4793, found at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2013/2013-ohio-4973.pdf

Essentially, LAPDOG COLLIER mustered all of the reasoning he could from both of his brain cells and concluded that Lodi's Zoning Ordinance is constitutional.

The judges of the Ninth District Court of Appeals decided otherwise.  Following are excerpts from the Ninth District's Opinion, overturning LAPDOG COLLIER . . . AGAIN:

{¶12} Sunset and Meadowview sought various declarations, including a declaration that

L.Z.C. 1280.05(a) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied and that its application denies the

entities the viable economic use of their properties and effects a taking for which just

compensation is due. In this case, the trial court found that L.Z.C. 1280.05(a) was constitutional

because it “is not arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unrelated to the public health, safety,

welfare and morals[.]” It premised that finding on the village’s authority pursuant to Section 3,

Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution to enact zoning ordinances as an exercise of its police

power. This Court does not dispute a municipality’s authority in that regard.

 Sheffield v.Rowland, 87 Ohio St.3d 9, 10 (1999) (noting that “[t]he enactment of zoning ordinances is

 an exercise of the police power, not an exercise of local self-government.”). That authority is not

absolute, however. Rather, zoning power “‘must be exercised within constitutional limits.’”

Schad v. Borough of Mt. Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 68 (1981), quoting Moore v. East Cleveland, 431

U.S. 494, 514 (1977) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment).

Without any analysis [OF COURSE], the trial court then summarily concluded that L.Z.C.

 

1280.05 was constitutional. This Court disagrees and concludes that L.Z.C. 1280.05(a) is

 

unconstitutional on its face.

Readers will note that the Ninth District Court of Appeals took particular notice of the fact that LAPDOG COLLIER made his uninformed ruling the Lodi's ordinance was "constitutional," without any analysis.  That fact, of course, is due to the fact that LAPDOG COLLIER is incapable of conducting any analysis at all.

All of this goes to prove, once again, that LAPDOG COLLIER is but a local ROADS SCHOLAR (not to be confused with a Rhodes Scholar) who has to navigate from his home to the Medina County Courthouse, Mosque &Railroad Station with the use of a local road map.