COLLIER REFUSES TO REVIEW GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE INDICTMENT PRESENTED BY THE CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR

            During the suppression hearing, Medina County sheriff's deputy Douglas Clinage, on cross-examination, was unable to articulate any conduct of the Defendant which might constitute evidence of and give rise to the unspecified underlying “criminal offense” as charged in the indictment. Clinage was the only witness to offer testimony in support of the defective indictment in this case.

         Defense Counsel requested COLLIER to review the transcript of the grand jury testimony of Douglas Clinage to determine what testimony he gave, if any, as to the Defendant’s conduct which might be considered to have given rise to the unspecified “criminal offense” which Defendant intended to commit within the premises of the Leighton residence.

         COLLIER emphatically and unequivocally denied defense counsel’s motion, stating, “I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT.”

         COLLIER, who should be expected to comprehend the guaranties of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, refused to review Clinage’s grand jury testimony knowing full well, based upon Clinage’s testimony, that the Defendant was being tried for a criminal offense for which he had not been indicted by the grand jury.

         COLLIER refused to review the grand jury transcript thereby knowingly subjecting the Defendant to an unlawful prosecution for an offense not indicted by the grand jury, and over which TOTALLY CORRUPT JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER presided.

         On October 21, 2009, Defense Counsel filed Defendant’s Opposition to Prosecutor’s Alleged “Notice of Underlying Crimes,” fully briefing the trial judge on the issues and the law.  In part, Defense Counsel cited to State v Robertson, 2002-Ohio-6824, wherein the Ohio Supreme Court held:

Section 10, Article 1, of the Ohio Constitution provides that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury ***.”  We have held that this provides an inalienable protection to the defendant that he will be tried on the same essential facts on which the grand jury found probable cause. State v Vitale (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 695.  

Cases cited by Defense Counsel in support of the Defendant's Opposition to Prosecutor's Notice of "Underlying Crimes": 


State v. Robertson, 2002-Ohio-6824
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)
Caldwell v. Texas, 139 U.S. 692 (1891)
State v. Foust, 2004-Ohio-7006
Groppi v. Leslie, 404 U.S. 496 (19720
United States v. Wane Pump Co., 317 U.S. 200 (1942)
Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S 196 (1984)
United States v. Opsta, 659 F.2d 848 (1981)
United States v. Panzavecchia, 421 F.2d 440 (1970)


SET OUT BELOW ARE ALL THE CASE AUTHORITIES CITED BY SALISBURY :


                                                           (NONE)
    

TIME FOR ANOTHER QUICK TALLY:


Briefs Filed:  Defendant  =  1
                       Salisbury    =  0


Pages Filed:  Defendant  = 19
                        Salisbury   =   0


Cases Cited:  Defendant  = 10
                        Salisbury   =   0


Once again, SALISBURY was a COMPLETE ZERO!

COLLIER was not persuaded by either the Constitution of the United States or the prevailing case law, including decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and did not dismiss the fatally flawed indictment despite defense counsel’s brief informing him of the law.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

COLLIER RULES DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO KNOW THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE WITH WHICH HE WAS CHARGED, AND WHICH HE HAD TO DEFEND

As the reader may recall, during the September 4, 2009 session of the protracted suppression hearing, defense counsel raised the issue of the unspecified “criminal offense” SALISBURY charged in the indictment of the Defendant.


During the hearing, CORRUPT JUDGE COLLIER ordered Salisbury to provide the defense with “a list of underlying criminal offenses” which Salisbury intended to present to the jury no later than September 11, 2009.


SALISBURY failed to comply, knowing full well that he could defy any "Order" from COLLIER with impunity, since COLLIER has been bought and paid for by CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN. In fact, an "Order" from COLLIER to SALISBURY carries all the force of a request, and nothing more.


Finally on October 8, 2009, nearly two full months after COLLIER ordered Salisbury to provide Defense Counsel with the "LIST" of underlying offenses, at long last SALISBURY turned over his laundry list of alleged underlying offenses, none of which had been presented to the Medina County grand jury for consideration and deliberation.


FOLLOWING IS SALISBURY'S "LIST" OF MULTIPLE-CHOICE UNDERLYING CRIMINAL OFFENSES WHICH HE "MAYBE" INTENDED TO PROVE AT TRIAL:


1.   Aggravated Menacing
2.   Menacing
3.   Domestic Violence
4.   Assault
5.   Criminal Mischief
6.   Disorderly Conduct
7.   Felonious Assault
8.   Kidnapping
9.   Abduction
10. Child Endangering
11. Possessing Criminal Tools
12. Intimidation
13. Unlawful Restraint
14. Using Weapons while Intoxicated
15. ANY OTHER CRIME WHICH MAY BECOME KNOWN TO THE STATE


Setting aside, for the moment, that SALISBURY had no competent, probative evidence to prove any of these alleged underlying alleged offenses SALISBURY alleged that Defendant intended to commit, there is a very strong Constitutional violation in this "list."

In State v Robertson, 2002-Ohio-6824, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a defendant has the inalienable right to be tried on the same essential facts on which the grand jury found probable cause.

Based upon Salisbury’ laundry list of “underlying crimes,” it was and is clear that the Medina County Grand Jury was not offered any evidence as to Defendant's conduct which would lead to the inference that he intended to commit an identifiable and specified criminal offense within the Flintstone residence.


MOST CERTAINLY, THE GRAND JURY DID NOT INDICT THE DEFENDANT FOR SOMETHING THAT MIGHT LATER BECOME KNOWN TO THE STATE.  DUH !!!! 


Failure to present evidence of any underlying crime, upon which the grand jury decided and deliberated, constitutes a violation of the Defendant’s protections guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.


THIS MUST CERTAINLY COME AS A SHOCK AND COMPLETE SURPRISE TO CORRUPT JUDGE COLLIER, WHO FOUND IT PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TO DEPRIVE THE DEFENDANT OF NOTICE OF THE OFFENSE AGAINST WHICH HE WAS REQUIRED TO DEFEND.


IT'S JUST ONE OF THE MANY WAYS IN WHICH COLLIER HAS DEPRIVED THIS DEFENDANT, AND MANY OTHER DEFENDANTS, OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED PROTECTIONS!


MUCH MORE TO COME ....

COLLIER PULLS ANOTHER RABBIT OUT OF HIS HAT FOR SALISBURY!

On September 25, 2009, at the next scheduled session of the suppression hearing, as soon as COLLIER took the bench, he waved the Motion to Show Cause in the air and stated, “I’m not going to deal with this now.” 

Salisbury, AS ALWAYS, never filed a response to the motion, relying instead on the beneficence of COLLIER, who never did deal with the contempt issue, as was fully expected by the defense.

Of course, CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN was in the courtroom when COLLIER took the bench, to emphasize that COLLIER had better "do the right thing."  

COLLIER complied with his master, DINO HOLMAN, and did not dare sanction SALISBURY, his boy.

AFTER ALL, IF COLLIER HAD DARE TO TAKE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST SALISBURY, COLLIER COULD HAVE VERY WELL JEOPARDIZED HIS UNCONTESTED LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT, COMPLIMENTS OF HOLMAN AND MEDINA COUNTY DEMS.

JUST A QUICK TALLY:

Briefs filed:  Defendant = 1

                       Salisbury   = 0

Pages filed:  Defendant = 7

                       Salisbury   = 0

Cases cited:  Defendant = 2

                       Salisbury   = 0

ONCE AGAIN, SALISBURY WAS A COMPLETE ZERO, AS ALWAYS!

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

COLLIER IS UNABLE TO COUNT BEYOND THE NUMBER OF FINGERS ON HIS HAND!

During the September 4, 2009 session of the protracted suppression hearing, Defense Counsel raised the issue of the unspecified “criminal offense” SALISBURY charged in the indictment.


During those proceedings, the COLLIER ordered Salisbury to provide the defense with “a list of underlying criminal offenses” which Salisbury intended to present to the jury. 


This was a none too subtle message from COLLIER to SALISBURY to provide MULTIPLE UNDERLYING ALLEGED CRIMINAL OFFENSES to the defense, intended to thwart the Defendant’s preparation for trial, intentionally done by COLLIER to benefit the prosecutor. 

SALISBURY did not timely comply with COLLIER’S order to provide the defense with “a list of underlying criminal offenses.” 

Therefore, on September 24, 2009, Defense Counsel filed a Motion For An Order To Show Cause Why The Assistant Prosecutor Should Not Be Held In Contempt Of Court And Subject To Sanctions.

FOLLOWING IS AN EXCERPT TAKEN FROM THE MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE, WHICH IS 7 PAGES IN LENGTH AND CANNOT BE PUBLISHED HERE IN ITS ENTIRETY:

     "It is axiomatic that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment requires that certain steps be followed before a person's "life, liberty, or property" can be taken away.  Procedural Due Process that the states afford an accused proper notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.  Nothing can be more basic and necessary than for Defendant, or any any accused person, to have knowledge of the charge against him.  The record of the case demonstrates that the prosecution has utilized every scheme and device to withhold and deny due process to Defendant.  SALISBURY'S recent disregard of the court's express mandate to identify the charged offense is but one example of the government's denial of due process.

     Therefore, the Defendant respectfully moves the court for an Order to Show Cause Why Assistant County Prosecutor Scott B. Salisbury Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court and Subject to Sanctions, for violating the court's Order of September 4, 2009, by refusing to identify, in writing to the defense, by September 11, 2009, the "criminal offense" alleged, but not specified, in the Indictment." 

IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WERE EXPLAINED IN VERY FUNDAMENTAL TERMS TO COLLIER, TERMS THAT EVEN HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND.


Unfortunately, since the 14th Amendment is numbered well beyond the number of fingers on his hands, COLLIER fails to comprehend the concept of a Constitutional Amendment so highly numbered above 10.


Of course, Defense Counsel filed this motion prior to having become fully aware that COLLIER TAKES HIS ORDERS FROM HOLMAN AND SALISBURY!


MUCH MORE TO COME ....

AN INSIDER'S VIEW OF THE CHARACTER, INTEGRITY, AND MORALITY AT THE MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

It has occurred to me that it might be reasonable to more closely examine the character and integrity of the Medina County Prosecutor's Office.  What better way to do so than through the eyes, and in the words, of an assistant Medina County prosecutor?

Back in October 2010, assistant Medina County prosecutor SCOTT SALISBURY a/k/a SLEAZEBURY (for obvious reasons), sent a series of email messages to an individual who posted on Craig's List in support of this blog.  Not surprisingly the correspondent, SLEAZEBURY, used the email address of "LETITBE8691@aol.com."

"LET IT BE?" There is little doubt that SLEAZEBURY and his cronies would wish that I would just "LET IT BE"!!!  NOT MUCH CHANCE OF THAT!  THE PUBLIC CORRUPTION IN THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT SYSTEM HAS GONE ON FAR TOO LONG TO JUST "LET IT BE!"


Following is an exchange of email between "LET IT BE" and the supporter of this blog:


FROM "LET IT BE":


From: "letitbe8691@aol.com" <letitbe8691@aol.com>To: pers-3mpbd-2018790334@craigslist.orgSent: Thu, October 21, 2010 8:41:40 PMSubject: RE; Re: It's got to be killing you, Scotty Boy! - (u know)


How about you go down to your favorite gay porno shop (You know you have one, lmao), buy youself a dildo and go fuck yourself!!!


A REPLY FROM THE BLOG SUPPORTER:


To: letitbe8691@aol.comSent: Thu, October 21, 2010 8:44:52 PMSubject: Re: RE; Re: It's got to be killing you, Scotty Boy! - (u know)

your such a classy guy aren't ya. Your mom must be so proud. I refuse to respond to you in such a derogatory manner, I was raised much better than that. Seriously though "Mark".... don't deny who you are. You're an easy read. God Bless your angry horrid soul.

NOW FOR THE REPLY FROM "LET IT BE" SALISBURY:

----- Forwarded Message ----From: "letitbe8691@aol.com" <letitbe8691@aol.com>
Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 8:56:35 PMSubject: Re: RE; Re: It's got to be killing you, Scotty Boy! - (u know)


Obviously you weren't rasied well at all. Talk shit on Craigslist all the time with no facts to back up anything. Your fucked up little blog is full of shit and even if it wasn't, "FUCKING LEAVE MEDINA IF IT'S SOOOOOO HORRIBLE!!! And while I'm at it, FUCK YOUR GOD AS WELL!!! Now go buy your dildo an make yourself happy, if only for a minute or so...

THERE YOU HAVE IT! AN INSIDER'S VIEW OF THE CHARACTER, INTEGRITY, AND MORALITY THAT PERVADES THE OFFICE OF THE MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR.  MAKES YOU PROUD OF YOUR "PUBLIC SERVANTS," DOESN'T IT?


THE FACT THAT SALISBURY HAS CURSED THE CREATOR IS SYMPTOMATIC OF THE ARROGANCE AND ABUSE OF AUTHORITY FOUND IN THE MEDINA COURT SYSTEM AND PARTICULARLY AT THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE!


If I recall history rightly, Adolph Hitler told the Jews to "just leave."  Do you notice the parallels here?

It is obvious that these "public officials" who fear neither God nor man, have no respect for the inalienable rights of the citizens of this land conveyed by the United States Constitution when they have no respect and reverence for God and, therefore, religious freedoms!


There is no doubt they prefer Muslim Sharia Law, demonstrated daily in the courtroom of corrupt judge COLLIER.  Perhaps they are all Muslims!

MUCH MORE TO COME ...

COLLIER SLIPS AND SLIDES PAST THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!

In the Motion to Suppress, the defense challenged the sufficiency of the indictment for failing to properly notice the Defendant of the unspecified underlying “criminal offense” which the assistant prosecutor intended to allege that Defendant had intended to commit within the home of Fred Flintstone, Defendant's friend of twenty years.

         Following is the precise language as contained in the indictment:

         “…on or about the 27^th day of May, in the year of Our Lord, Two Thousand Nine, within the County of Medina, State of Ohio, aforesaid Defendant unlawfully and knowingly did by force, stealth or deception, trespass in 1234 County Road, an occupied structure,when another person other than an accomplice of the offender is present, with the purpose to commit therein a criminal offense, and the said Defendant has a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance as defined in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code, on or about his person or under his control, to wit: a handgun, in violation of Section 2911.11(A)(2) of the Ohio Revised Code, a felony of the first degree (F-1), contrary to the statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio.”

The primary issue is what, if any crime, the Defendant in intended to commit while in his friend's home, if any.  This constitutionally defective indictment fails to charge the requisite element of the specific offense that the State intended to prove, at trial, the CRIMINAL OFFENSE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO COMMIT IN HIS FRIEND'S HOME!

I turn now to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which COLLIER HAS APPARENTLY FAILED TO READ AT ANY TIME.

Following is the verbatim text of the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Now, the language of the Sixth Amendment appears to be reasonably straightforward and not particularly difficult to understand by most reasonably intelligent people ... except CORRUPT JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER.

COLLIER HAS VIOLATED EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT WHILE CONDUCTING THE PURPORTED TRIAL OF THE DEFENDANT.

At issue for the moment is the clause of the Sixth Amendment that provides, "...and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation."

What that simply means is that the State has a legal obligation to inform any person accused of a crime as to the criminal offense with which he is charged and the basis of such a charge.

The language of the constitutionally defective indictment, cited above, asserts that this Defendant entered the home of his friend to commit an UNSPECIFIED OFFENSE.

There is certainly no notice of the unspecified "criminal offense" to be seen here!

SIMPLY PUT, THIS CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE INDICTMENT FAILS TO FULLY INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF THE TOTALITY OF THE OFFENSE HE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED!

CORRUPT JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER, IN PRESERVING HIS GRIP ON HIS UNCONTESTED LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY BENCH, COMPLIMENTS OF CORRUPT DEM COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN AND THE MEDINA COUNTY DEM PARTY, OBVIOUSLY AGREES WITH HOLMAN'S POSITION THAT THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IS NULL AND VOID IN MEDINA COUNTY.

MUCH MORE TO COME .....

WHATEVER COLLIER IS SMOKING IS OBVIOUSLY IMPAIRING HIS LIMITED MENTAL "FACULTIES"

Realizing that CORRUPT JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER is not the brightest bulb in the Medina County Courthouse/Mosque & Railroad Station, Defense Counsel decided to file a SUPPLEMENT TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS, and rightly so.

Defense Counsel decided that CORRUPT JUDGE COLLIER needed unfailingly to understand the controlling case law, which he clearly does not.

Once again, because of the length of the SUPPLEMENT TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS (17 pages), it is not possible to publish the Motion here in its entirety.  I will however, as I did in setting forth the principles of the MOTION TO SUPPRESS, set out here the subheadings of the Supplemental Motion.

HERE THEN ARE THE SUBHEADINGS OF THE SUPPLEMENT TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS:


I.     THE BURDEN IS ON THE STATE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A DEFENDANT'S CUSTODIAL STATEMENT WAS MADE KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY.

II.    THE OFFICERS VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS WHEN THEY DENIED THE DEFENDANT'S REQUESTS TO SPEAK WITH AN ATTORNEY AND INSTEAD INTERROGATED HIM AFTER HE INVOKED THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL.

III.    EVEN IF MIRANDA WARNINGS WERE GIVEN AT THE TIME OF ARREST, THE ALLEGED SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS, NEVERTHELESS, ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE, BECAUSE THE ARREST WAS ILLEGAL (THE ARREST WAS NOT BASED ON PROBABLE CAUSE).

IV.    EVEN IF MIRANDA WARNINGS WERE GIVEN AT THE TIME OF ARREST, THE ALLEGED SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS MUST BE SUPPRESSED BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HIS RIGHTS AND DID NOT WAIVE ANY RIGHTS. THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOW THAT FRESH MIRANDA WARNINGS WERE REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF THE INTERROGATION.

           (THIS IS THE LEGAL CHALLENGE SALISBURY ATTEMPTED TO EVADE AND    AVOID WHEN HE FALSIFIED THE DISCOVERY DOCUMENT, PREVIOUSLY DISPLAYED AT THIS BLOG ON FEBRUARY 4, 2011)  and found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/02/collier-applauds-as-salisbury.html


THESE WERE THE ISSUES BRIEFED TO CORRUPT JUDGE COLLIER BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, ALONG WITH THE CONTROLLING CASE LAW.


To do a quick tally, Defense Counsel filed the Motion to Suppress, consisting of 43 pages, and Supplement to Defendant's Motion to Suppress, consisting of 17 pages.


Defense Counsel filed a total of 60 pages, with controlling case law, in support of the suppression of illegally seized and illegally acquired "evidence" by sheriff's deputies.


THE TOTAL OF PAGES FILED BY SALISBURY OPPOSING THE PROPOSITIONS, SUPPORTED BY LAW, OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS: ZERO!


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


Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S 346 (1966)
State v. Kassow (1971), 28 Ohio St 2d 141
Lego v. Twommey, 404 U.S. 477, 487-89 (1972)
State v. Arrington (6th App. Dist. 1984), 14 Ohio App. 3d 111, 114
State v. Garcia (9th App. Dist. 1986), 32 Ohio App 3d 38
State v. Gray (1st. App. Dist. 1994), 14 Ohio App. 3d 43
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1993)
United States v. Hinckley, 673 F.2d 115 (D.C. Cir 1982)
Lanier v. North Carolina, 474 U.S. 25 (1985)
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963)
Taylor v. Alabama, 475 U.S 687 (1982)
State v. Sims, (2nd App. Dist. 1998), 127 Ohio App. 3d 603, 614-16
Kaup v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626 (2003)
Tague v. Louisiana, 444 U.S. 469 (1980)
State v. Lester (1989),  126 Ohio App. 3d 1, 6

Defense Counsel cited to 17 additional controlling case authorities in this Supplement to Defendant's Motion to Suppress, over and above the 19 controlling case authorities cited in the Motion to Suppress.


TOTALLY CORRUPT MEDINA JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER LIKELY NEVER READ THIS BRIEF, AS WELL, AND HAS FAILED TO YIELD TO THE HOLDINGS OF SUPERIOR COURTS, ALL OF WHICH ARE FAR, FAR SUPERIOR TO THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.


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


                                                           (NONE)


Once again, it is more than obvious that the services of TOTALLY CORRUPT JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER HAVE BEEN BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN.


A LAST LOOK AT THE FINAL TALLY:


Briefs filed:    Defendant = 2
                        Salisbury   = 0


Pages filed:     Defendant = 60
                         Salisbury   =  0


Case cited:     Defendant = 36
                        Salisbury   =  0


It is beyond question that SALISBURY, A COMPLETE ZERO, has won the heart and mind of COLLIER who completely ignored controlling case law, including decisions of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.


There is little question that, from the outset, this Defendant was denied a fair trial by COLLIER WHO IS, BEYOND ANY QUESTION TOTALLY CORRUPT, ALL IN HIS OWN SELF-INTEREST.  DOES THE TERM "PROSTITUTE" COME TO MIND?


MUCH MORE TO COME ....