CAN LAPDOG "PUBLIUS" COLLIER DISCHARGE A FIREARM WITHOUT SHOOTING HIMSELF IN THE FOOT ?

REASON #6 TO NOT HOLD THIS TRIAL, OR ANY OTHER TRIAL, IN MEDINA COUNTY.
           

Judge Collier Will Not Be On Hand at the Cuyahoga County Courthouse to Carry Through on His Threats to Inspector Hartman Nor the Medina County Prosecutor to Initiate a Contrived Prosecution

Medina Judge Collier, who is now desperate because of the proof of his unlawful conduct from which there is no escape and which Mr. Hartman has placed before the Court, has threatened Inspector Hartman.  As well, evidence developed by Inspector Hartman documents the unlawful conduct of the Medina County Prosecutor’s Office, which has tampered with evidence and continues to deliberately withhold discoverable evidence.

Collier has threatened to shoot Inspector Hartman, to plant drugs in his car, and to cause his arrest and conviction on a charge of OVI based on manufactured evidence, specifically a “canned” urine sample, among other threats.  See Mr. Hartman’s Motion to Dismiss, With Prejudice, on the Grounds of Prosecutorial and Judicial Bad Faith and Misconduct, at pp. 53-54, Exhibit Thirty-Seven.

The conduct of further proceedings in this case, including the trial, if any, at Cuyahoga County greatly diminishes the potential for Judge Collier to carry out one or more of the threats he has directed at Inspector Hartman. *

[FOOTNOTE: At the suppression hearing, Collier remarked that he holds a concealed-carry permit. (Suppression Hearing, Tr. at 32-33).  Inspector Hartman infers, therefore, that Collier carries a concealed firearm upon his person.]

Moreover, the conduct of further proceedings, including the trial, if any, at Cuyahoga County will diminish the likelihood that the Medina County Prosecutor’s Office and Medina County Sheriff’s deputies can engage in retaliation by planting evidence and/or causing the unlawful arrests and contrived prosecutions against Inspector Hartman and the undersigned, not an uncommon practice in Medina County.  See Mr. Hartman’s Motion to Dismiss, With Prejudice, on the Grounds of Prosecutorial and Judicial Bad Faith and Misconduct, at pp. 39-41, Exhibit Twenty-Five, re: State v. Lynn Vandeusen, Medina Case No. 12CR0388; Reply to State’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, pp. 55-58, Exhibit Seventeen, re: State v. Carol Gross, Medina Case No. 13CR0474.