Posted on 03/31/2015 5:20:23 PM PDT by Whenifhow
Today in a pre-trial hearing, an Ohio judge casually agreed with a motion filed by a prosecutor asking to ban a defendant from bringing up the United States Constitution or the constitutionality of the law under which he is charged with a crime.
Judge Catherine Barber (or Kathryn Barber), a retired judge filling in for the Xenia Municipal Judge Michael Murray stated “there will be no mentioning of the Constitution” and then laughed when the defendant claimed that uttering words on a public sidewalk constitutes free speech. (The audio of the hearing can be found here: http://bambuser.com/v/5372976). This was in response to a suggestion from the prosecutor that bringing up the constitution and civil rights “will confuse the jury.”
About a month ago, Virgil Vaduva, a journalist and editor of The Greene County Herald purposefully stood in front of the Xenia police station in an attempt to raise awareness about the constitutionality of the city’s anti-panhandling law.
(Excerpt) Read more at truthvoice.com ...
(Of particular possible interest considering the debate regarding the Constitution on the other thread; one-time ping [unless you’re already on the CWII Spark list]: C. Edmund Wright; P-Marlowe; xzins; nesnah; MamaTexan; DiogenesLamp; null and void; Travis McGee; Nero Germanicus; Ray76)
The following, from Marbury v. Madison, seems to me to be quite relevant:
This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
The Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited [p177] and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.
This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.
If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each. [p178]
So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
Judges are lawyers, and they take an oath. This judge can be disbarred for that command.
If Yer retired” “STFU and sit down.
And he was convicted!
Man Convicted of Raising Money For Charity After Judge Ignores Grammar of ‘Panhandling’ Law
http://freedomsfloodgates.com/2015/03/28/man-convicted-of-raising-money-for-charity-after-judge-ignores-grammar-of-panhandling-law/
You see, the ordinance that Xenia penned says that to be “panhandling” it must be done for “personal” gain.
The city’s definition of panhandling reads:
“PANHANDLING. To request verbally, in writing, or by gesture or other actions, money, items of value, a donation, or other personal financial assistance. Further, PANHANDLING shall include any request for a person to purchase an item for an amount that a reasonable person would consider to be in excess of its value.”
As expected, the police cited Mr. Vaduva and he came to court to make his case – not only against the unconstitutional ordinance, but also maintaining that he had not actually violated the wording of the ordinance.
You see, when the sentence says “or other personal financial assistence,” it is saying that everything mentioned before the word “other” was also for “personal” financial assistance as well. That is how the English language works. But more than a few people in the City of Xenia have difficulties with the English language. You remember the cult film classic “Gummo“? Yeah, that’s Xenia. Really: it’s based in Xenia, Ohio.
My craziest Army buddy was from Xenia.
Can I former Wadsworth and current Steubenville gal get on the ping list please?
Judge Catherine Barber (or Kathryn Barber), a retired judge filling in for the Xenia Municipal Judge Michael Murray
Gave you the wrong judge - he had a substitute!!
^^^^^
Before the trial, Judge Catherine Barber (or Kathryn Barber), a retired judge filling in for the Xenia Municipal Judge Michael Murray stated “there will be no mentioning of the Constitution” and then laughed when the defendant claimed that uttering words on a public sidewalk constitutes free speech. The audio of the hearing can be found here on Bambuser.
But at the trial Thursday you can hear the entire court room laugh at the prosecutor’s suggestion that they can regulate free speech in public space. They believed that asking for money can be compared to “shouting fire in a crowded movie theater” even though the former does not endanger anyone’s safety or lives. In philosophy this argumentative fallacy is known as the fallacy of “false analogy.”
Take a listen to the Xenia courtroom comedy in the audio clip below…
Wadsworth and current Steubenville gal
**********
Do you want these names added?
Steubenville gal
and
Wadsworth
That’s been going on for a long time. Many judges openly scoffed and laughed at the Constitution in divorce courts during the 1990s.
“PANHANDLING. To request verbally, in writing, or by gesture or other actions, money, items of value, a donation, or other personal financial assistance. Further, PANHANDLING shall include any request for a person to purchase an item for an amount that a reasonable person would consider to be in excess of its value.”
‘to request verbally, in writing, or by gesture, or other actions, money’
wouldn’t every single business in that town be guilty of panhandling?
wouldn’t the town also be in violation if they send out a tax notice or issue a speeding ticket?
As I recall Xenia is downstate - Cincy/Dayton area.
“Judge drank the slightly thickened Lake Erie water.”
She’s still alive, so it didn’t work..
It doesn't make it right and it certainly eliminates any humanity from 'the law' .. but that's the problem
Does anyone know the outcome of this trial ?
wouldn’t every single business in that town be guilty of panhandling?
_______________
Yes!! the entire article is worth the read!
Intro to the article....
So while our reporters were in the court room, and one asked another person there to support the defendant if they had change to feed the meter, they were committing a criminal act. Moreover, another member of the media requested “a couple of quarters” outside for their parking space, as jury selection for this minor, fourth degree misdemeanor took all morning. That journalist too had committed a criminal act by making this request.
snip
The judge and prosecutor were furious that they had been played, so they decided to try something new: insisting that the wording of the law actually means something entirely different than what it grammatically says.
I wonder if lower-level judges have to take an oath to uphold the Constitution?
In post #24 the freeper posted “And he was convicted!”
Immediate grounds for appeal.
see post 24 for the outcome of the trial - he was convicted!
Xenia huh? Lord. I used to live there about 40 years ago. A true windy city back in 1974.
Further down in the article:
So what’s next? Vaduva has filed a Motion To Vacate Verdict based on this insane, and ignorant abuse of the English language by the judge and prosecutor.
Images of his arguments....
We couldn’t agree more. If you haven’t guessed it yet, this is not going away. This case is headed to the federal courts. On Tuesday the 31st, the court plans to sentence Virgil to 30 days in jail for his crime of raising money for charity. Help us SPREAD THE WORD so this ridiculous “Gummo” Xenia Court doesn’t get away with this perverse form of “justice.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.