A QUICK PEEK AT A FEW, BUT NOT ALL, OF THE CASE LAW LAPDOG COLLIER, THAT STUPID CRIMINAL, IGNORED AT THE TRIAL OF THE INNOCENT CITIZEN HE DELIBERATELY RAILROADED INTO PRISON

It may be worthy to consider some, but not all, of the controlling case law that LAPDOG COLLIER, THAT STUPID CRIMINAL, ignored and violated during the trial of the innocent citizen that LAPDOG COLLIER deliberately railroaded into prison in order to preserve his lifetime uncontested political appointment to the Medina County bench, compliments of CORRUPT DEM PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN and the Medina County Dem Party.


DEMONSTRATED BELOW IS PRECISELY WHAT WE GET WHEN WE ARE DENIED THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CHOOSE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS, A HALLMARK OF MEDINA COUNTY POLITICS!


Any cite with "U.S." is a controlling decision of the United States Supreme Court and is the law of the land, except in Medina County!


HERE ARE SOME OF THE CASES THAT LAPDOG COLLIER DELIBERATELY OVERLOOKED AND IGNORED:

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1886)

         - “Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. *** It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.”

Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 403-406 (1965)

         - The right of cross-examination, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

         - Evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment is not admissible at trial

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 (1980)

         - “When police conduct a warrantless search, the state bears the burden of establishing the validity of the search.”

Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S.14 (1967)

         - Sixth Amendment right of a defendant to compulsory process extends to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 61-62 (2004)

         -  “The Confrontation Clause commands, not that the evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination.”

Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315-318 (1974)

         - Denial of the “right of effective cross-examination” is “constitutional error of the first magnitude” requiring automatic  reversal

Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895)

         - It is the duty of the court (not the prosecutor) to expound the law, and the jury to apply the facts to the law, otherwise the stability of justice and personal rights are jeopardized

Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133 (2005)

         - “It is…elementary law, federal and state, that the judge bears ultimate responsibility for instructing a lay jury in the law.”

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

          - State’s obligation to disclose information and evidence favorable to the defendant

United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)

         - “… the Court has consistently held that a conviction obtained by the    knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair,[Footnote 8] and must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the   false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.”

United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, Fn 7 (1976), citing Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103

         - 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.”

United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, Fn 8 (1985)

- “…the Brady rule has its roots in a series of cases dealing with convictions based on the prosecution's knowing use of perjured testimony. In Mooney v. Holohan, (1935), the Court established the rule that the knowing use by a state prosecutor of perjured testimony to obtain a conviction and the deliberate suppression of evidence that would have impeached and refuted the testimony constitutes a denial of due process.”

        

Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 307 (1966)

         - Government invasion of the defense camp compels conviction to be 

set aside as constitutionally defective

         

         

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 241 (1983)

         - Probable cause, to be determined on the totality of the circumstances, requires corroboration of a tip by independent police work/investigation

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

         - Criminal complaint not setting out a statement of essential facts does not pass constitutional muster

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

         - There is no exception to the rule that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible at trial

Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648, 668 (1987)

         - “We have recognized that "some constitutional rights [are] so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error." Chapman v. California, 386 U.S., at 23. The right to an impartial adjudicator, be it judge or jury, is such a right.”

Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 172-173 (1997)

        

           - “As to a criminal defendant, Rule 403's term "unfair prejudice" speaks to the capacity of some concededly relevant evidence to lure the factfinder into declaring guilt on an improper basis rather than on proof specific to the offense charged. Such improper grounds certainly include generalizing from a past bad act that a defendant is by propensity the probable perpetrator of the current crime. Thus, Rule 403 requires that the relative probative value of prior-conviction evidence be balanced against its prejudicial risk of misuse. A judge should balance these factors not only for the item in question but also for any actually available substitutes. If an alternative were found to have substantially the same or greater probative value  but a lower danger of unfair prejudice, sound judicial discretion would discount the value of the item first offered and exclude it if its discounted probative value were substantially outweighed by unfairly prejudicial risk. Pp. 180-185.”

Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, at 14 (2006)

         - “Through the in limine procedure, the (courts) should redact or exclude the portions of any statement that have become testimonial, as they do, for example, with unduly prejudicial portions of otherwise    admissible evidence.”

Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980)

         - Individual cannot be compelled to testify against a spouse

Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, at syllabus ¶ 2

         - “Criminal defendants have the right under the Compulsory Process Clause to the government’s assistance in compelling the attendance of favorable witnesses at trial, and the right to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination of guilt.”

Holloway v. Florida, 449 U.S. 905, 907 (1980)

         

- “Thus the Court more than once has expressed the understanding that a lesser-included-offense (instruction) minimizes the risk of 

undermining the reasonable-doubt standard.”

    

        

Sansone v. United States, 330 U.S. 343, 349 (1965)

         - “In a case where some elements of the crime charged themselves constitute a lesser crime, if the evidence justified it, would no doubt be entitled to an instruction which would permit a finding of guilt of the lesser offense.”

State v. Morris, 2007-Ohio-3591, at ¶ 37

         - In the prosecution for alleged violations of 2911.11 ORC, “due process requires that the particularized nature of the accused’s conduct includes the behavior that demonstrates he committed an underlying offense.”

State v. Hous, 2004-Ohio-666, at ¶ 11

         -  “…jury instructions given at the end of a trial cannot relate back to give an accused adequate notice of the charges against which an accused must defend….”

State v. Hubbard, 2004-Ohio-5204, at ¶ 6

         - “Under Evid.R. 602, a witness may testify only to those matters of which he has personal knowledge…gained through firsthand observation or experience and actually perceived the subject matter of his testimony.”

State v. Taylor, (1993) 66 Ohio St. 3d 295, 300-301

         - “For a purported excited utterance to be admissible there must have been: …(4) the declarant must have personally observed the event.”

Cox v. Oliver Machinery Co., (1987) 41 Ohio App. 3d 28, at 35-36

         - “The key to the statement’s trustworthiness is the spontaneity of the statement, either contemporaneous with the event or immediately

thereafter.”

State v. Mitchell, 2007-Ohio-1696, at ¶ 19

         - “The Ohio Supreme Court has recently affirmed that recordings of 911 calls that were made to avoid immediate danger are not testimonial and do not violate the Confrontation Clause when the declarant is not available to testify at trial.”

State v. Henness (1997), 79 Ohio St. 3d 53, ¶ 1 of the syllabus

         - “…the testifying spouse remains incompetent *** until she makes a deliberate choice to testify, with knowledge of her right to refuse. The trial court must take an active role in determining competency, and must make an affirmative determination on the record that the spouse has elected to testify.”

State v. Hunt (1994), 97 Ohio App. 3d 372 

          - holding that a cross-examiner may not make testimonial assertions under the pretext of asking a question

THE ABOVE LIST OF CASES DOES NOT CONTAIN THOSE CASES IN WHICH LAPDOG COLLIER AND ASS PROSECUTOR SALISBURY, BOTH STUPID CRIMINALS, HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED BY THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS.

SOME OF THOSE CASES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED PREVIOUSLY AT THIS BLOG!

YOU CAN BE ASSURED THAT LAPDOG COLLIER, HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, AND ASS PROS. SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, WILL BE RELYING ON THESE AND OTHER CASES WHEN PLEADING THEIR OWN CASES IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT!

IT IS PATENTLY OBVIOUS THAT A BROOM NEEDS TO BE TAKEN TO THE ENTIRE MEDINA COUNTY "JUSTICE" SYSTEM AND EACH & EVERY ONE OF THESE "PUBLIC SERVANTS" NEEDS TO BE SWEPT OUT OF OFFICE AND BACK TO CHASING AMBULANCES, WHERE THEY ALL BELONG!

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

LAPDOG COLLIER AND SALISBURY THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, THOSE TWO STUPID CRIMINALS, PLAY THE MEDINA COUNTY SHELL GAME

HMost readers are likely aware of the age-old shell game.  In the shell game, the operator places a pea beneath one of three shells.  Individual place best that they can locate the shell concealing the pea, after the operator has rapidly shuffled the shells.

LAPDOG MEDINA JUDGE COLLIER and MEDINA ASS PROSECUTOR SCOTT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, have devised their own version of the MEDINA COUNTY SHELL GAME.


Unlike the original shell game, however, LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER and SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, BOTH STUPID CRIMINALS, play the same shell game, but only with witnesses adverse to their unlawful "positions."  


THE MEDINA COUNTY SHELL GAME SEEMS TO BE COMMONLY PLAYED IN THE CORRUPT COURTS OF MEDINA COUNTY.


Take, for example, the case of the son of Medina County Assistant Prosecutor William Thorne, who was cited for his second DUI and summoned to the Wadsworth Municipal Court.  Not surprisingly, the State Trooper who issued the citation simply "forgot" to appear in Wadsworth Municipal Court  ... on two separate occasions.  Also, not surprising, "Judge" McIlvaine dismissed the case!  [See prior post, captioned MORE HOLMAN CORRUPTION REPORTED BY ANOTHER MEDINA COUNTY CITIZEN, found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/10/more-holman-corruption-reported-by.html ]

In the case of the innocent man railroaded into prison by LAPDOG COLLIER, being profiled at this blog, LAPDOG COLLIER and ASS PROSECUTOR SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, hid Medina County sheriff's deputy DOUGLAS CLINAGE, who, although he had been served with a defense subpoena to appear at trial and give testimony, simply ignored the defense subpoena upon instruction from SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.  


LAPDOG COLLIER, even though repetedly advised by defense counsel that CLINAGE had failed to appear, took no action to compel ASS PROSECUTOR SALISBURY to produce CLINAGE.


HERE IS MORE PROOF THAT LAPDOG COLLIER, THAT STUPID CRIMINAL, INTENTIONALLY VIOLATED  THIS INNOCENT CITIZEN'S THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT HIS ACCUSERS, GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION:


Pictured below, although not a good reproduction, is a copy of the defense trial subpoena served upon deputy CLINAGE:

Having been shown that CLINAGE had been subpoenaed to appear and testify, presented below is Page 766  from the corrupted "official"transcript, demonstrating that defense counsel gave notice to LAPDOG COLLIER, THAT STUPID CRIMINAL, that CLINAGE had failed to appear, as LAPDOG COLLIER well knew:

As the reader can plainly see, when notified that CLINAGE had failed to appear, LAPDOG COLLIER'S ONLY RESPONSE WAS NO RESPONSE!  LAPDOG COLLIER just wanted to dispense with all of those cumbersome formalities, like presenting proof of innocence, and get right down to sentencing.


It is also perfectly clear, from the portion of the tainted "official" transcript that LAPDOG COLLIER, THE STUPID CRIMINAL, did not cut out of the transcript, that ASS PROSECUTOR SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, INSTRUCTED CLINAGE TO DISREGARD THE DEFENSE SUBPOENA AND TO DISAPPEAR !


Picture below is Page 213 from the corrupted "official" transcript that proves the point:

At lines 5 -8 on Page 213 (pictured above), from the very mouth of ASS SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR:

"Judge, I have another witness [CLINAGE] in the courtroom bringing in evidence.  Could I just - - I want him to just bring it in and HE CAN LEAVE." 

So it was!  CLINAGE waddled into the courtroom, presented the illegally seized evidence to SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, and exited the courtroom and the Medina County Courthouse/Mosque & Railroad Station, never to be seen again.


CLINAGE was never sworn as a witness, and offered no testimony.


LAPDOG COLLIER and SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, STUPID CRIMINALS BOTH, HID CLINAGE IN THE FINEST TRADITIONS OF THE MEDINA COUNTY SHELL GAME.  


Although, it is always possible that CLINAGE, who received his advance police training from the KEYSTONE COPS, simply lost the written directions from the sheriff's office to the Medina County Courthouse/Mosque & Railroad Station and simply could not find his way back.


MUCH MORE TO COME .... 

THE "MEDINA SOLUTION" TO A LEGAL CONUNDRUM

Taken from the online edition of the Canton Repository:

MASSILLON —  Stark County’s chief criminal prosecutor is facing allegations that he drove under the influence. 

Dennis E. Barr, 53, of Canton, entered a written not-guilty plea Tuesday in Municipal Court through defense attorney Christopher Newlon. 

Barr is charged with a misdemeanor count of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse or a combination of them. The offense carries a penalty ranging from a three-day driver-intervention program to six months in jail.

IT WOULD APPEAR THAT MR. BARR IS PRESENTLY IN THE SOUP. The entire online article can be found at  http://www.cantonrep.com/news/x123112686/Top-criminal-prosecutor-charged-with-driving-under-the-influence .

Assuming that Mr. Barr will be appearing before an honest judge, the likes of which cannot be found in the courts of Medina County, he is truly in the proverbial pickle.  It would be rather hypocritical of Barr to prosecute DUI offenders when he has engaged in like and similar conduct.

What, oh what, to do?

Mr. Barr would be well served to place an immediate phone call CORRUPT MEDINA PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, who can give Barr some sound advice as to how to BEAT THE RAP!

HERE IS A GUARANTEED WINNER, TAKEN FOM THE PLAYBOOOK OF HOLMAN THE CORRUPT.

The first thing that Barr should do is file an AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION with the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court.  He need not worry whether he has a good faith basis to bring the Affidavit.  He can just make up a few grounds and misrepresent the facts, just like HOLMAN THE CORRUPT.

After Mr. Barr has deep-sixed the honest Stark County Judge, he needs to do a little political maneuvering.

First, he needs to have the Stark County Prosecutor, Mr. Barr's superior, appoint CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN to the position of Special Prosecutor.  This is a time-worn tactic reciprocally used by HOLMAN THE CORRUPT and ERIE COUNTY PROSECUTOR RANDY BAXTER, who apparently thinks it to be perfectly "ethical" to have sexual relations with a witness in an upcoming murder trial.  [ See prior post at this blog, captioned CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DEAN HOLMAN PREPARES TO PROSECUTE HIS OWN CO-DEFENDANT!, found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/11/corrupt-medina-county-prosecutor-dean.html ]

Once HOLMAN THE CORRUPT is on board, the next move is to have HOLMAN THE CORRUPT arrange to have one of his subordinates, that is one of the Medina County judges, volunteer to sit by assignment in Mr. Barr's case.

Since Mr. Barr's case will likely be heard in one of the municipal courts of Stark County, the perfect choice for the job is "Judge" Stephen McIlvaine, from the Wadsworth Municipal Court.

Regular readers of this blog will recall that McIlvaine is one of those politically well-placed "judges" who recently won re-election by a landslide in one of those uncontested "races" in the most recent infamous Medina County rigged elections.  [ See prior post at this blog, captioned ANOTHER UNOPPOSED JUDGE WINS ELECTION IN A LANDSLIDE! found at http://medinacorruption.blogspot.com/2011/11/another-unopposed-judge-wins-election.html ]

McIlvaine is the perfect puppet for this job.  He can just make this little inconvenient DUI simply just go away, JUST LIKE HE DID FOR THE SON OF MEDINA COUNTY ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR WILLIAM THORNE .... TWICE !!!  [ 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 ]

Now, only one more step to be taken by HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, and this will all be a done deal.

All HOLMAN THE CORRUPT need do now is to place a telephone call to the State Highway Patrol Post and make sure that the trooper who issued the citation to Barr just fails to show up at court, JUST LIKE HE DID IN THE MATTER OF THE SON OF WILLIAM THORNE AND, MORE TO THE POINT, LIKE HE DID IN THE CASE BEING PROFILED AT THIS BLOG, WHERE HOLMAN THE CORRUPT AND SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR AND ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL SIMPLY INSTRUCTED SHERIFF'S DEPUTY DOUGLAS CLINAGE TO FAIL TO APPEAR EVEN THOUGH CLINAGE HAD BEEN SUBPOENAED BY THE DEFENSE TO APPEAR AND GIVE TESTIMONY!


WITH HOLMAN THE CORRUPT AS THE "SPECIAL" PROSECUTOR AND McILVAINE SITTING ON THE BENCH AS THE VISITING JUDGE, MR. BARR HASN'T A WORRY IN THE WORLD.


THAT'S HOW IT'S DONE IN MEDINA COUNTY.  JUST ONE MORE DAY, BUSINESS AS USUAL, IN THE CORRUPT COURTS OF MEDINA COUNTY.


MUCH MORE TO COME ....

SALISBURY , THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, SCOFFS AT THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR,  like LAPDOG MEDINA JUDGE CHRISTOPHER COLLIER and CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN, has gotten away for so long with his criminal conduct, under the color of law, for so long that he has the misperception that he is ABOVE THE LAW, just like LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER and HOLMAN THE CORRUPT.


The very simple and unassailable fact is that these three have proven to be no more than STUPID COMMON CRIMINALS!


SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, in his extreme ARROGANCE, has gone so far as to SCOFF AT SPECIAL AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.


FOLLOWS IS AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE THAT SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, SENT TO THIS BLOG:

As readers can plainly see, SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR,  contemptuously refers to Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as "FLUNKIES."


This blogger's best guess is that, when he is shown those gold badges by FBI Special Agents, more likely than not, SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, WILL SOIL HIS PANTS!


MUCH MORE TO COME ....

IT GETS WORSE FOR LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, THE STUPID COMMON CRIMINAL

In the very prior post at this blog, readers were shown undeniable proof that LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER, THE STUPID COMMON CRIMINAL, and MEDINA COURT REPORTER DONNA GARRITY have materially altered the transcript of the suppression hearing testimony of sheriff's deputy Frank Telatko by excising a rather large portion of Telatko's testimony, beginning at Page 179 of the corrupted transcript.


By removing certain portions of the suppression hearing testimony of sheriff's deputies Douglas Clinage and Frank Telatko, and specifically Telatko's testimony that "WE ARRESTED HIM (DEFENDANT) SO WE COULD SORT IT OUT LATER," LAPDOG COLLIER, THE STUPID COMMON CRIMINAL, BELIEVED HE WAS "HOME FREE" WITH THE NINTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS AND THE COURT OF APPEALS WOULD DENY THIS INNOCENT MAN A FAIR HEARING ON HIS DIRECT APPEAL.


If there were no testimony to the effect that sheriff's deputies lacked probable cause to arrest this innocent defendant, LAPDOG COLLIER "reasoned,"the Ninth District Court of Appeals would not be able to criticize LAPDOG COLLIER for failing to suppress obvious illegally seized evidence.


It hasn't worked out that way, however, because this innocent defendant's trial attorney and investigator have read the corrupted transcripts and detected NUMEROUS UNLAWFUL MATERIAL ALTERATIONS TO THE TAINTED "OFFICIAL" TRANSCRIPT, ALL CALCULATED AND DESIGNED TO DENY THIS INNOCENT MAN A FAIR HEARING ON HIS APPEAL, AND TO KEEP HIM UNLAWFULLY IMPRISONED.


To further complicate LAPDOG COLLIER'S now tenuous grip on his lifetime political appointment to the Medina County bench, LAPDOG COLLIER and MEDINA COURT REPORTER DONNA GARRITY forgot about and failed to excise a portion of the trial testimony of  sheriff's deputy Frank Telatko, referencing his prior testimony at the October 9, 2009 suppression hearing that, "WE TOOK HIM INTO CUSTODY SO WE COULD SORT IT OUT LATER."


PICTURED BELOW IS PAGE 369 OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF FRANK TELATKO:

At lines 17-24 of the trial testimony of Telatko, defense counsel asked him:

       "All right.  And on October 9^th, when you testified, do your remember being asked this questions and giving this answer?            “What did you arrest him for?”
            And you said, “I don’t know,” you wanted to take him into custody and sort it our later?            Do you remember saying you were going to say you were going to “sort it out later?”  

 SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, lodged an immediate objection, of course.


NOTWITHSTANDING HIS BEST, BUT BUMBLING EFFORTS, LAPDOG COLLIER, THE STUPID CRIMINAL, FAILED TO REMOVE ALL TRACES OF TELATKO'S SUPPRESSION TESTIMONY, AS DEMONSTRATED ABOVE.

STUPID CRIMINALS MAKE STUPID MISTAKES.  LAPDOG COLLIER IS NO EXCEPTION TO THE RULE!

LAPDOG COLLIER IS INDEED JUST ONE MORE STUPID CRIMINAL!


THIS IS BUT ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF LAPDOG COLLIER'S CRIMINAL CONDUCT IN TAMPERING WITH AND MATERIALLY ALTERING THE CORRUPTED TRANSCRIPT.


THE CRIME?  TAMPERING WITH RECORDS, A FELONY OFFENSE OF THE THIRD DEGREE.


MUCH MORE TO COME ....

MORE EVIDENCE OF ANOTHER "STUPID CRIMINAL MOVE" BY LAPDOG COLLIER, THAT STUPID CRIMINAL

The blogger has once again had the occasion to exclaim, "There's LAPDOG COLLIER, THE STUPID CRIMINAL," as the blogger detected yet one more "STUPID CRIMINAL MOVE" by LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER as yet another material alteration to the trial transcript of the corrupted trial of this innocent railroaded into prison by LAPDOG COLLIER.  


THE MATERIAL ALTERATION OF THE CORRUPTED TRANSCRIPT, KNOWINGLY FILED BY MEDINA COURT REPORTER DONNA GARRITY, LITERALLY JUMPED OFF THE PAGE AND SHOUTED, "THERE'S LAPDOG COLLIER, THE STUPID CRIMINAL!"


Medina ASS PROSECUTOR SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR,  called sheriff's deputy Frank Telatko, who like sheriff's deputy Clinage received his advanced police training from the Keystone Cops, to testify at the hearing before LAPDOG COLLIER on this innocent defendant's Motion to Suppress the evidence seized from this innocent citizen incident to his unlawful arrest.

During cross-examination, Defense Counsel asked Telatko, who personally arrested this innocent defendant:

"What was he arrested for?"

Deputy Telatko testified, in reply:

"We arrested him so we could sort it out later!" 

By his very own sworn testimony, Telatko admitted that, as a matter of law, he did not have probable cause to arrest this innocent defendant.


The law does not permit an officer to make an arrest, and later figure out whether a crime, if any,has been committed, or, as Telatko testified, to "sort it out later.


Upon hearing this testimony from Telatko, an honest judge should have, and would have, suppressed any and all evidence and statements of this innocent defendant as flowing from an illegal arrest for want of probable cause.  LAPDOG COLLIER DID NOT SUPPRESS THE ILLEGALLY SEIZED EVIDENCE!  BUT THEN AGAIN, LAPDOG COLLIER IS NOT AN HONEST JUDGE!


More to the point, the blogger has scoured the transcript of the suppression hearing and has found that Telatko's testimony that, "We arrested him so we could sort it out later," HAS UNLAWFULLY BEEN REMOVED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT BY LAPDOG JUDGE COLLIER AND MEDINA COURT REPORTER DONNA GARRITY!


WHAT, THE READER MAY ASK, IS THE PROOF?


Obviously, LAPDOG COLLIER, by removing any trace of Telatko's testimony, believed he had absolved himself of his unethical conduct since Telatko's damning testimony has simply disappeared!


But, alas, LAPDOG COLLIER, THE VILLAGE IDIOT AND TOWN WHORE, HAS PROVEN HIMSELF TO BE A STUPID CRIMINAL ONCE AGAIN!


Although LAPDOG COLLIER and COURT REPORTER DONNA GARRITY unlawfully excised that portion of the transcript that had memorialized Telatko's testimony, they created a disjointed an incongruous gap in the suppression transcript of Telatko's testimony at Pages 179 - 180, pictured below:

 

These two pages from the corrupted transcript of the suppression hearing are quite revealing of the tampering and material alterations of the "official" transcript by LAPDOG COLLIER and MEDINA COURT REPORTER DONNA GARRITY.

After inquiring of Telatko about his assigned duty weapon, defense counsel asked Telatko, at the bottom of Page 179:

"In addition to the three of you coming from the south side where all these trees are how many other officers responded that day?"

At the top of Page 180, Telatko testified in reply:

"There was two other officers north of the residence, and another officer that was south of us." 

Immediately thereafter, at Page 180, the tainted and corrupted transcript records an objection from SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR:

"The motion to suppress has nothing to do with whether he's been read Miranda or whether he's advised of his rights and what statements he made.  It has nothing to do with the 9-1-1 tape."

A diligent review of the corrupted "official" transcript disclosed that the cross-examination of Telatko began at Page 176 of the suppression hearing transcript.

Nowhere, between pages 176 and 180 of the suppression hearing transcript, ALL OF TELATKO'S TESTIMONY ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, did defense counsel ever question Telatko about "WHETHER (THE DEFENDANT'S) BEEN READ MIRANDA, OR WHETHER HE'S BEEN ADVISED OF HIS RIGHTS AND WHAT STATEMENTS HE MADE," OR THE "9-1-1 TAPE."


On the face of this corrupted record, SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, is objecting to matters NOT IN THE RECORD OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF FRANK TELATKO!


The objection by SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, is out of the context and completely incongruous with the cross-examination, on the corrupted record, occurring prior to the objection.

IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR FROM PAGES 179 & 180 OF THE CORRUPTED TRANSCRIPT OF THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT LAPDOG COLLIER AND MEDINA COURT REPORTED DONNA GARRITY HAVE EXCISED A GOOD PORTION OF TELATKO'S TESTIMONY REGARDING THE FAILURE OF TELATKO TO GIVE THE COMPLETE MIRANDA WARNINGS AND TELATKO'S CONSIDERATION OF THE INACCURATE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO HIM BY THE 9-1-1 DISPATCHER.


IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THIS IS THE POINT IN THE TESTIMONY THAT LAPDOG COLLIER AND MEDINA COURT REPORTED UNLAWFULLY EXCISED TELATKO'S TESTIMONY, "WE ARRESTED HIM SO WE COULD SORT IT OUT LATER."


THIS BUMBLING EXCISION OF A BLOCK OF TELATKO'S TESTIMONY FROM THE SUPPRESSION HEARING TRANSCRIPT IS A BRILLIANT TESTAMENT TO THE FACT THAT LAPDOG COLLIER IS, INDEED, NOTHING MORE THAN A STUPID COMMON CRIMINAL!

MUCH MORE TO COME ....

WHERE'S WALDO?

As most readers of this blog are aware, young children are often challenged by an amusing game called "Where's Waldo?"

The game is relatively simple, but challenging at the same time.  The game presents a large picture with depictions of Waldo concealed within.  The objective of the game, of course, is to find as many hidden pictures of Waldo as possible.

The blogger has engaged in a similar pursuit in recent times, although the game is called, "WHERE'S LAPDOG COLLIER, THE STUPID CRIMINAL?"


Here is how the game works.

As the blogger has continued to pore over the corrupted transcripts of the trial and related proceedings of the innocent citizen railroaded into prison by LAPDOG COLLIER, HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, AND ASS PROSECUTOR SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, suddenly a material alteration or omission from the transcript literally jumps out from the page.


At each of those moments, the blogger has an immediate epiphany and recognizes,  "THERE'S LAPDOG COLLIER, THE STUPID CRIMINAL!"


IT IS TRULY AMAZING HOW FREQUENTLY THE BLOGGER HAS COME TO RECOGNIZE AND EXCLAIM, "THERE'S LAPDOG COLLIER, THE STUPID CRIMINAL" IN THE PAGES OF THE CORRUPTED TRANSCRIPT.


MUCH MORE TO COME....