COLLIER SNOOZES AS CITIZEN LOSES!

Perhaps it is time to take a look at the Motion to Suppress, filed by the Defendant's attorney. The MOTION to SUPPRESS filed by Defense Counsel was 43 pages in length.


SALISBURY failed to file any opposition, containing any argument or case law, supporting any position he might have espoused.  That is a usual and customary practice, since he can rely on CORRUPT JUDGE COLLIER to deny any and all defense motions in order to convict and railroad an innocent citizen to prison!


Give the length of the Defendant's Motion to suppress (43 pages), it is not possible to publish the motion in its entirety here.


However, I will set out the various sub-headings in the Motion, each of which is supported by supporting and controlling case law.  In other words, an honest judge would have read the brief and the supporting law and concluded that the illegally seized evidence could not be properly admitted at trial.


HERE, THEN, ARE THE SUB-HEADINGS IN THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS:


I.  The Arrest of Defendant Without a Warrant Violated The Fourth Amendment, Because It Was Not Supported By Probable Cause. Therefore, All Evidence Seized, Obtained, Derived, or Flowing From the Unlawful and unconstitutional Arrest Must Be Suppressed.


  A.  WILMA FLINSTONE ADMITTEDLY WERE NOT PHYSICALLY ABLE TO OBSERVE            DEFENDANT AND FRED FLINTSTONE, OR ACCURATELY REPORT ANYTHING THAT WAS OCCURRING IN THE FLINTSTONE HOUSE.  WILMA'S 911 CALL WAS BASED SOLELY UPON DOUBLE HEARSAY AND THE RANTINGS OF AN ANGRY WIFE.


  B.  FRED PERMITTED DEFENDANT TO ENTER AND RE-ENTER THE HOUSE, UNESCORTED.  THIS EVIDENCE, COUPLED WITH DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT INSIDE THE HOUSE, REFUTES THE CHARGE OF AGGRAVATED BURGLARY.


  C.  THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE OFFICERS CONTRADICTED THE HEARSAY TIPSTER (WILMA), DID NOT SICLOSE ANY HINT OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT, AND FAILED TO PROVIDE PROBABLE CUASE TO SUPPORT AN ARREST.


  D.  THE OFFICERS ARRESTED DEFENDANT AT THE FLINTSTONE RESIDENCE.


II.  The Subsequent Arrest Warrant Cannot Cure the Initial Illegal Arrest, Because the Warrant is Constitutionally Defective On Its Face and Also Invalid, Having Been Issued in Violation of the Fourth Amendment's Requirements and the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure.


III.  The Unlawful Arrest, the Deficient Complaint, and the Invalid Arrest Warrant Cannot Be Cured By the Subsequent Indictment, Which Also Suffers Fatal Constitutional Flaws.


IV.  The Arresting Officer Never Advised Defendant of His Constitutional Rights.  Regardless, the Lengthy Lapse of Time From the Initial Arrest Until the Subsequent Custodial Interrogation Required that the Interrogator Advise Defendant of His Miranda Rights Again Before Beginning the Interrogation.  Interrogated Without Miranda Warnings, Defendant's Will Was Overborne By the Officer's Interrogation Techniques.  Defendant Never Knowingly, Voluntarily and Intelligently Waived His Fifth Amendment Rights.


V.  The Tape Recorded 911 Call, Nearly An Hour in Duration, Consists of Unreliable Double And Triple Hearsay, Mostly Irrelevant, and Inflammatory.  If Admitted Into Evidence, It Would Violate Defendant's Rights Under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.  The Officers' Direct Observations Contradicted the Civilian Caller's "information."  Thus, the Very Minimal Probative Value of the 911 Call is Substantially Outweighed By Its Highly Prejudicial Effects.


FOLLOWING ARE THE CONTROLLING CASE AUTHORITIES CITED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL IN THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS:


Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 346 (1966)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 479 (1963)
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 625 (1991)
Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 101 (1959)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230-41 (1983)
Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (1959)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968)
Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14 (1948)
Whiteley v. Warden Wyoming State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560, 564 (1971)
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)
McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 305 (1967)
Hodgson v. Butts, 7 U.S. 140, 154-157 (1805)
Garmon v. Lumpkin County Georgia, 878 F.2d 1406 (1989)
Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 119 (1997)
In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 365 (1970)
United States v. Hart, 640 F.2d 856 (6th Cir. 1981)
Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478

All of the above-cited cases, with the exception of the Garmon and Hart Cases (decided in the U.S. Court of Appeals) were decided by the United States Supreme Court with respect to specific points of law.


COLLIER, who likely failed to read the Defendant's Motion to Suppress at all, obviously failed to yield to the authority of the United States Supreme Court, whose rulings are construed to be the LAW OF THE LAND.


The only authority to whom COLLIER actually looks is CORRUPT COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN.  After all, it's the only way that COLLIER can keep a firm grip on his lifetime, uncontested appointment to the Medina County Court of Common Pleas.


SET OUT BELOW ARE THE CASE AUTHORITIES CITED BY SALISBURY IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS:


                                       (NONE)


Apparently COLLIER was guided by SALISBURY, outside the parameters of the law, to DENY DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS!


MUCH MORE TO COME ....

UPDATE! COLLIER STILL VOTED TOP CORRUPT PUBLIC OFFICIAL IN MEDINA COUNTY!

In order to keep readers fully informed, and as we are now past the Christmas (known as Xmas at the Medina County Courthouse/Mosque & Railroad Station) and well into the new year, the votes have been re-tabulated and, to no one's surprise, judge CHRISTOPHER COLLIER STILL RETAINS THE TITLE OF MOST CORRUPT PUBLIC OFFICIAL IN MEDINA COUNTY!


Remaining at the very top of the heap, COLLIER comes in First Place again among readers for his profile in the post "judge COLLIER, the Case Fixer," which can be found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/10/christopher-collier-case-fix.html


Readers appear to be enthralled with the overview of COLLIER's criminal conduct, and how he manages to steer juries to convict innocent citizens by his antics and unlawful tactics.

Running in Second Place, but fading in the polls behind COLLIER, is assistant Medina County prosecutor SCOTT SALISBURY a/k/a SLEAZEBURY (for obvious reasons) in the piece entitled, "An Insider's View of the Character, Intergrity, and Morality at The Medina County Prosecutor's Office," which can be found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/11/insiders-view-of-character-and.html


This reader favorite, in SLEAZEBURY's own words, includes a very personal curse directed at God, his Creator, and has become a "must read," particularly for Medina County clergy.

Another SLEAZEBURY reader favorite is a recent post entitled, "Sleazebury Claims Sexual Relationship With Domestic Relations Judge" found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/12/sleazebury-claims-sexual-relationship.html


Once again, in his very own words, SLEAZEBURY spills the beans as he describes his physical relationship with a Medina County Domestic Relations Judge, in which he obviously takes pride.

Round out the top three is CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DEAN HOLMAN, who is presently running a distant third.

A number of reader favorites include, "Remember Corrupt Prosecutor Mike Nifong From North Carolina?" found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/11/remember-corrupt-prosecutor-mike-nifong.html


This stirring account recalls the indictment of the entire innocent Duke Lacrosse Team by Nifong, all for his own political purposes, and illustrates the strong parallels between Nifong and HOLMAN in their legal philosophies and practices.  This is quite a read, according to readers of the blog.

Readers have also been partial to "A Typical Case of Holman Hiding the Evidence"  found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/12/typical-case-of-holman-hiding-evidence.html


This post is a moving account of the manner in which HOLMAN hid evidence from a young girl in pursuit of winning a conviction at all costs.  That attitude and practice continues on down to the present day in HOLMAN's office as he pursues the goal of obtaining a tarnished 99% rate of conviction.

Another strong reader favorite has recently been, "A HOLMANIZED Citizen Driven to Suicide" which is found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2010/12/holmanized-citizen-driven-to-suicide.html


This post is the sad account of a young wife and teacher, driven to suicide by HOLMAN, after being wrongly charged with felony crimes which could not be proven, much like Mike Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse Team.  The only major difference between the two cases is that an honest judge could not be found in Medina County to toss the case.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

COLLIER APPLAUDS AS SALISBURY MANUFACTURES HIS OWN "EVIDENCE"

SALISBURY falsified a document that he turned over to the defense during purported "discovery" proceedings.  

Salisbury merged excerpts taken from the reports of two separate officers into a single document and presented this falsified document to falsely represent to defense counsel that the Defendant was advised of his Miranda Warnings immediately prior to his interrogation at the Medina County Jail by Deputy Douglas Clinage, in a deliberate, unethical, and unlawful attempt to thwart a lawful challenge by the defense to the deputies’ violations of Defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights.  

A copy of SALISBURY's falsified document is pictured below:

The falsified document consists of a number paragraphs. 

The first paragraph alleged that an unnamed officer advised Defendant of his Miranda Warnings.  

The following paragraphs set out statements purportedly given by Defendant to the deputy following the Miranda Warnings.  

SALISBURY's falsified document does not identify the author, the time the Miranda Warnings were given, or the time of the interrogation.  The falsified document purports to offer that the interrogation followed, immediately or shortly thereafter, the Miranda Warnings.

Investigation by Defense Counsel established otherwise!

Deputy Frank Telatko arrested Defendant at approximately 6:54 pm, on the afternoon of May 27, 2009.  At approximately 7:07 pm on May 27, Deputy Telatko broadcast to the sheriff’s office dispatcher, via radio, “Enroute 25 with Defendant. Maranda (sic) advised.”  

A copy of Deputy Telatko’s official incident report, obtained by the defense by way of subpoena, was reviewed. The pertinent portion of Deputy Telatko’s report states as follows:

Defendant was seated in the back seat of my patrol vehicle.  I advised Defendant of his Miranda and he stated he understood.  While enroute to the Sheriff’s office I asked Defendant if he had an (sic) alcoholic beverages and he stated he had a couple of beers at dinner.

This language, taken from the report of Deputy Telatko, appears at the first paragraph of the discovery document falsified by SALISBURY.

The following paragraphs of SALISBURY'S falsified discovery document were taken by SALISBURY from the separate narrative report of Deputy Douglas Clinage. 

During cross-examination at the suppression hearing, Deputy Clinage conceded that he had not advised Defendant of his Miranda Warnings prior to his interrogation of Defendant at 3:00 am on the morning of May 28, 2009, CONTRARY TO THE IMPRESSION SALISBURY ATTEMPTED TO CREATE WITH HIS FALSIFIED DISCOVERY DOCUMENT.

Also, on cross-examination at the suppression hearing, Deputy Telatko twice recited, on the record, the Miranda Warnings he issued to Defendant.  On each of those two successive recitations, identical in content, Telatko failed to recite the full warnings required by the Miranda Decision.  Telatko’s Warnings were, therefore, deficient.

Giving "almost" the Miranda Warnings is just like being "almost" pregnant!  This is not a game of horseshoes, where "close enough" is sufficient to score.

As SALISBURY well knew when he falsified the discovery document, the lapse of time between the May 27, 2009 deficient Miranda Warnings given at 7:07 pm, and the May 28, 2009 unwarned interrogation of Defendant at 3:00 am, with all of the other attendant factors inherent in such a delay, would give rise to a whole host of legal issues that SALISBURY had unlawfully attempted to avoid by falsifying the discovery document.

When he knowingly and willfully falsified the discovery document, SALISBURY attempted to taint and corrupt the legal proceedings, in violation of §2921.12(A)(2), Ohio Revised Code,  Tampering with Evidence, a felony of the third degree.  The Ohio Revised Code Section follows:

2921.12 Tampering with evidence.

(A) No person, knowing that an official proceeding or investigation is in progress, or is about to be or likely to be instituted, shall do any of the following:

(1) Alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any record, document, or thing, with purpose to impair its value or availability as evidence in such proceeding or investigation;

(2) Make, present, or use any record, document, or thing, knowing it to be false and with purpose to mislead a public official who is or may be engaged in such proceeding or investigation, or with purpose to corrupt the outcome of any such proceeding or investigation.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of tampering with evidence, a felony of the third degree.

Effective Date: 01-01-1974

Furthermore, when Defense Counsel drew this very matter of the falsified discovery document to the attention of TOTALLY CORRUPT JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, COLLIER simply brushed aside this violation of law by SALISBURY, as if of no consequence, and attempted to explain and cover up the unethical and unlawful conduct of SALISBURY.

In fact, COLLIER, in attempting to conceal and cover up the unlawful conduct of SALISBURY, aided and abetted SALISBURY in the criminal offense of Tampering with Evidence.

        

         COLLIER’S attempted defense of SALISBURY'S misconduct holds no water and is no more than a failed disingenuous attempt to shield SALISBURY from the consequences of his unethical, unlawful conduct.  

Following is a cite from United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, Fn 7 (1976), citing Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1976:

         - Due process of law “cannot be deemed to be satisfied by mere notice and hearing if a state has contrived a conviction through the pretense of a trial which in truth is but used as a means of depriving a defendant of liberty through a deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation of testimony known to be perjured. Such a contrivance by a state to procure the conviction and

imprisonment of a defendant is an inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice as is the obtaining of a like result by intimidation.”

          IN FACT, TOTALLY CORRUPT JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER HAS CONSPIRED WITH TOTALLY CORRUPT COUNTY PROSECUTOR DEAN HOLMAN TO PERMIT AND CONDONE DELIBERATE DECEPTIONS TO BE PUT BEFORE MEDINA COUNTY JURIES UNDER THE PRETENSE OF TRIALS, SO AS TO WIN THE UNLAWFUL CONVICTIONS OF INNOCENT CITIZENS AND DEPRIVE THEM OF THEIR LIBERTY.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

COLLIER SUPPRESSES JUSTICE, BUT NOT ILLEGALLY SEIZED EVIDENCE!

On August 20, 2009, defense counsel filed yet another motion in support of the Motion to Suppress, specifically a motion captioned Supplement to Motion to Suppress.

         Defense counsel filed such motion, with supplemental case law, to challenge the admissibility of any of the Defendant’s statements on the basis of the violation of the Defendant’s Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment protections, including but not limited to the State’s Miranda violations and denial of the Defendant’s request for counsel.

         During the first segment of the suppression hearing on September 4, 2009, Assistant County Prosecutor MATTHEW RAZAVI was seated in the audience. As the defense investigator offered his testimony, RAZAVI was smiling, laughing, and repeatedly signaling COLLIER with “thumbs-up.” 

The collegial relationship between COLLIER and the prosecutors was all the more evident when COLLIER made absolutely no attempt to restrain RAZAVI'S jubilant displays.

The state produced only two witnesses at the suppression hearing, Medina County Sheriff’s Deputies Frank Telatko and Douglas Clinage, the lead “investigator.”  Neither Telatko nor Clinage, the State’s only two witnesses, were able to testify as to the essential facts that led to Matthew’s arrest. 

FUNDAMENTALLY, EVEN AFTER THE PASSAGE OF A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME, THESE DEPUTIES WERE UNABLE TO TESTIFY AS TO ANY FACTS WHICH WOULD LEAD ANY REASONABLE PERSON TO CONCLUDE THAT THEY HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT AT ANY TIME FOR ANY CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

         COLLIER conducted the suppression hearing in four separate and distinct sessions, over a span of approximately eight weeks.  COLLIER, given his proven credentials as a "C" student, "more or less," obviously has a limited attention span. 

         The suppression hearing, which might have otherwise required an estimated four hours to complete in toto, commenced before COLLIER on August 21, 2009. After hearing approximately one hour of testimony, COLLIER continued the hearing to a time approximately two weeks distant, since he was unable to prevent Defense Counsel from administering a sound thrashing to SALISBURY in all matters pertaining to the law.

         The further significance of COLLIER’S continuance lies in the fact that SALISBURY had not called and had available any witnesses to offer testimony and was not prepared to meet his burden under the prevailing case law (as if the law holds any sway with COLLIER).

         Rather than moving forward, as any proper judge would do, COLLIER rewarded SALISBURY by continuing the proceedings in order to afford Salisbury the opportunity to prepare and present evidence, which he should well have been prepared to accomplish on August 21. The case was continued by COLLIER solely to benefit the unprepared prosecutor. 

MUCH MORE TO COME .... 

"I SWORE AT THE DEFENDANT! WHY DO I HAVE TO SWEAR AT THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT?"

        At the suppression hearing, Deputy Clinage testified that

he had not sworn to the criminal complaint. He did not know whose signature appeared on the complaint as the administrator of the oath and before whom, on face, he purportedly swore to the complaint.

         You may recall from an earlier segment at this blog that an Ohio Appellate Court has ruled that, to be in accord with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Rule 3 of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, an officer must swear an oath to a criminal complaint to be valid. I refer once again to State v. Green (1988), 48 Ohio App. 3d 121 -- holding "Where a charging officer signs a complaint but fails to execute the jurat (oath), such complaint is void and any conviction resulting therefrom is also void. (Crim. R. 3, applied.)”]

         Based upon these facts, as the defense investigator testified at the suppression hearing, and complemented by the testimony of Deputy Clinage who conceded in sworn testimony that he had not sworn an oath to the already constitutionally defective criminal complaint, the arrest warrant is further fatally flawed and any physical evidence flowing from the arrest is tainted by this violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any such evidence seized pursuant to the fatally flawed arrest, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, is inadmissible at trial.  

         OF COURSE. TOTALLY CORRUPT JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, WITH A WINK AND A NOD TO SALISBURY, SIMPLY IGNORED THE LAW AND RULED, ONCE AGAIN, THAT THIS VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WAS "CURED" BY THE REURN OF AN INDICTMENT BY THE MEDINA COUNTY GRAND JURY. 

         

          COLLIER, a lawyer for more than thirty years, should have sufficient knowledge to be able to rule in accord with the prevailing case law in this regard, were he an honest judge, which case law was provided to him fully briefed in the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress.

         On November 6, 2009, COLLIER informed defense counsel that he intended to deny the Motion to Suppress on the basis that the Fourth Amendment violation was “cured” by the return of an indictment in this case, contrary to the holdings of the United States Supreme Court more than fifty years ago. 

You may wish to GOOGLE  the following cases to verify to yourselves the state of the law:

Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948) 

Mapp v Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) 

Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)

Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 724 (1969)

Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560 (1971)]

         As you can see from the years in which these cases were decided, the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in the above cases confirm that VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ARE NOT CURED BY A GRAND JURY INDICTMENT. 

         This not some revolutionary new precept in the law, since the controlling body of law dates back more the 60 years.

         Interestingly, but not particularly amusing, when the defense investigator testified at suppression hearing that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution required a criminal complaint to set out a statement of essential facts, COLLIER and SALISBURY laughed openly.

         This conduct alone demonstrates the level of contempt that COLLIER and SALISBURY hold for the protections that should be afforded by the United States Constitution, BUT ARE DENIED TO CITIZENS IN THE KANGAROO COURT ADMINISTERED BY COMPLETELY CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER.

         However, notwithstanding the Fourth Amendment violations by law enforcement officers, and contrary to the prevailing case law, TOTALLY CORRUPT COLLIER permitted introduction at trial of physical evidence seized from the Defendant incident to an unlawful arrest. COLLIER admitted the physical evidence at trial, in spite of law to the contrary, solely and unlawfully to the intended benefit of the prosecutor, thus intentionally prejudicing the Defendant.

        SALISBURY, as always, failed to file any opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Suppress.  More substantial evidence that SALISBURY and HOLMAN rely upon COLLIER's corrupt rulings, no matter the state of the law.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

A WORD ABOUT THE USUAL AND CUSTOMARY MEDINA COUNTY CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS

It seems only appropriate to comment on the longstanding custom of issuing CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE ARREST WARRANTS BASED UPON CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS here in Medina County.


Presented, once again, is the CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THAT, ACCORDING TO COLLIER, PASSES CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER, despite the requirements of the United States Constitution, the rulings an holdings of the United States Supreme Court, and the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure:

You will take note that there are no "facts" set out on the complaint to demonstrate what conduct of the Defendant constituted any alleged violation of the law, from which a neutral and detached judicial officer might otherwise decide whether there was probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that the Defendant committed the specified the alleged offense.

Although, to be fair, there appear to be NO NEUTRAL AND DETACHED JUDICIAL OFFICERS IN MEDINA COUNTY.


It is clear to me that the prosecutors and judges in Medina County are all Roads Scholars  (not to be confused with Rhodes Scholars).

It is more than interesting that, when the Defense Counsel raised the issue of the constitutionally defective and invalid criminal complaint with TOTALL CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, his response was completely astounding.


COLLIER stated openly, on the record, "Am I supposed to be concerned with what happened in another court?"


The answer to the question is an unequivocal "YES!"


Any moron, even a MORON LIKE COLLIER, should know that constitutional protections attach to a Defendant from the outset of any criminal proceedings, rather than at the whim and wish of any "judge" who fails to follow the law.


In fact, COLLIER informed Defense Counsel that an indictment "cures" all of the Fourth Amendment violations by Sheriff's deputies, IN HIS OPINION.


That may be COLLIER's opinion, BUT IT IS CERTAINLY NOT THE LAW.  COLLIER WILL HAVE AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK FINDING ANY CASE LAW SUPPORTING HIS IDIOTIC PROPOSITION AND CONCLUSION.... UNLESS HE LOOKS TO HIS OWN PRIOR "RULINGS,"MADE AT THE DIRECTION AND BEHALF OF DEAN HOLMAN SO AS TO PRESERVE HIS UNCONTESTED LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT.


Then too, assistant prosecutor SALISBURY "argued," without citing any competent legal authority as always, that the failing of Deputy Clinage to set out the facts, as required by the United States Constitution, to simply be "an error of form."


AN ERROR OF FORM?  The very fact that officers are required to file a criminal complaint is to comply with the requirements of the Constitution.  In Medina County, however, they do it because it's always been done this way .... THE WRONG WAY!


One might reasonably expect Corrupt Medina County Prosecutor DEAN HOLMAN, after more than 20 years in office, to have spent some amount of time instructing law enforcement officers as to the manner in which to prepare legally valid criminal complaints.

Then again, its always possible that HOLMAN, another Roads Scholar, doesn't know to do it himself!  He's been too busy promoting unlawful convictions, by any number of means of unethical  conduct, to preserve his tarnished 98% conviction rate, based upon, among other things, tainted evidence and constitutionally defective criminal complaints and arrest warrants.




MUCH MORE TO COME ....

"WHAT DO YOU MEAN I HAVE TO WRITE OUT WHAT HAPPENED? WE NEVER DO THAT!"

        The criminal complaint in this case, filed by Deputy Clinage with the Wadsworth Municipal Court, did not contain a statement of essential facts, was not sworn by Deputy Clinage, and was not reviewed for a finding of probable cause by a neutral and detached judicial officer, RENDERING THE ARREST WARRANT CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE AND IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!

               

         Following Defendant's arrest, the defense investigator went to the office of the Clerk of the Wadsworth Municipal Court and obtained copies of the criminal complaint and warrant filed by Medina County Sheriff’s Deputy Douglas Clinage in support of Defendant's arrest. An examination of the criminal complaint disclosed that it failed to contain a statement of essential facts that might be reviewed and considered by a neutral and detached judicial officer for a finding of probable cause, as required by Ohio Crim.R. 3.

           Pictured below is a copy of the CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT filed by Deputy Clinage.  You will note that the defective criminal complaint fails to set out any information from which a neutral and detached judicial officer might find probable cause, that is if "judge" McIlvaine ever bothered to take the time to review a criminal complaint for probable cause, AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW. He's probably just been too busy preparing his lesson plans, planning to instruct newby judges how to do it ... the wrong way!

         

         




         Finding that there was no statement of essential facts set out upon the face of the criminal complaint, the defense investigator requested a copy of the affidavit which he expected would have been offered in support of the criminal complaint. A complete review of the court’s file disclosed that there was no supporting affidavit. In fact, the deputy clerks at the Office of the Clerk of the Wadsworth Municipal Court had absolutely no concept or awareness of any affidavit filed by any officer, at any time, offered in support of any criminal complaint ever filed in the Wadsworth Municipal Court.  Essentially, all the criminal complaints filed in the Wadsworth Municipal Court failed to set out the essential facts upon which probable cause might otherwise be determined by a neutral and detached judicial officer.


        In sum, each and every criminal complaint, and the each and every arrest arrest warrant flowing from such defective criminal complaints, are and have been CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE!

           Inquiring further of the deputy clerks, the defense investigator learned that it is the usual and customary practice of the Clerk of the Court to issue arrest warrants, based upon such defective criminal complaints, without any review whatsoever by the judge or magistrate of the court. The first time that the judge of the Wadsworth Municipal Court encounters these defective complaints and warrants is at a defendant’s initial appearance.

         Failure of an officer to set out a statement of essential facts in a criminal complaint constitutes a violation of Ohio Crim. R. 3, and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides in pertinent part “…no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.”

OF COURSE, IN MEDINA COUNTY, COLLIER FEELS NO OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION OR THE OHIO RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE! AFTER ALL, BEING ASSURED OF A LIFETIME UNCONTESTED SEAT ON THE MEDINA COUNTY BENCH, COMPLIMENTS OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, WHY WOULD HE BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE STATE OF THE LAW OUTSIDE MEDINA COUNTY?

MUCH MORE TO COME ....