Ohio Judge: There Will Be No Mentioning Of The Constitution Here

http://truthvoice.com/ ^ | March 23 2015 | Staff

[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.

[knarf]

she pretty much headed that one off at the pass

I was clearly understanding he was going that way, but I think he's aware a judge can stop an atty from mentioning that before a jury

Jury nullification is valid, but difficult to get to a jurors ears

[C210N]

This one is from Ohio too... must be in the water.

[The Working Man]

Perhaps you meant to post to someone else?

My post that you responded to was:

“The Stupid is really strong with this Judge. Her VERY position is the result of the constitution she casually tosses out of her courtroom.

That NEEDS to be pointed out to her firmly.... VERY Firmly.”

The judge’s position I was referring to was her position as a JUDGE. A constitutionally created position, either Federal or State. So when she threw the First amendment out the door she opened the door for her position as a judge to also be thrown out.

I believe you just can’t pick and choose what amendments you care to follow. Follow all or none. But be aware when you choose to follow none then the protections and guarantees in the Constitution shouldn’t apply to you either.

Although today’s reality says if you are a Democrat or a politician then the law doesn’t apply to you. Perhaps the Judicial branch thinks the same? And then what happens when the Bureaucracy claims the same ‘privilege’?

SHTF/CWII has many potential fathers... This path is just one of them.

[OneWingedShark]

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.”

That would be Schenck which says, in part:

We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.

This portion of the decision clearly indicates the sheer wrongness of the decision: they start off by admitting the actions in question would have been within their constitutional rights, then they conspicuously ignore that the first amendment prohibits congress from passing certain classes of law, and that these are unconstrained prohibitions: there is no unless or exigent circumstance.

Then they use this case of shouting fire to bolster their already deceitful reasoning, insinuating that there is no remedy by insinuating (a) no local [state] law could apply, and (b) ignoring civil suits, which in the absence of (a) would still provide for a method of remedy.

So there you have it: the court unilaterally amending the Constitution, adding a big except when it's inconvenient.

[goodwithagun]

Just my FReeper handle will do, thanks.

[healy61]

If this man is representing himself, the court should grant him wide latitude to defend himself against the state.

[Darksheare]

Imported Lake Erie gel.
Fresh from the quivering waves.

[Paladin2]

Maybe that’s why I don’t seem to be selected for JD lately.

[Whenifhow]

goodwithagun you have been added to the Ohio ping list which is held by both Las Vegas Dave and whenifhow

[knarf]

No ... I posted to you

I have been disarmed because of a felony committed 45 years ago, that I ignored and stood on the 2nd ammendment ... but an asshole brought the FBI to my house ... and it's a story for another time ...

I had three guns .. 12 ga, 22 semi-auto pistol and a 9MM carbine ... in the course of interrogation it was discovered I had HAD (in the past) been in possesion of 2 .22 semi-auto rifles (for my sons) and an AK74 (not 47)

I no longer was in possesion of these guns but in my trial, though my lawyer tried unsuccessfully to get the charge changed ... I was charged with possesion of 6 guns

I had three ... I used to own three ... that makes 6

[goodwithagun]

Thanks!

[RIghtwardHo]

Early in my Proprietorial career I had a judge rule against me beginning with the following statement, “I don’t care what the law says ...”

[P-Marlowe]

I haven’t bothered watching the video, but the trial court is not the proper forum to challenge the constitutionality of a law.

If you are acquitted you have no standing to challenge it. If you are convicted, then you have standing and you can raise it on appeal.

So if I were the judge, I would have told the defendant to sit down and shut up. If he doesn’t like the law, he can appeal to a higher court.

[Repeal 16-17]

It seems this was a show trial. The defendant was prohibited from raising his two defenses (Constitutionality and statute’s wording). This conviction should be reversed on appeal and this fascist judge should be thrown off the bench.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

I wish some of our debating opponents would grasp the significance of this point.

[Diamond]

i'll bet you a donut that the judge would not permit jury nullification arguments in front of the jury.

Cordailly,

[Gluteus Maximus]

The defendant is a pro per. I listened to a lot of it and he obviously had no idea what he was doing. I’ve defended innumerable cases like this. Pro per defendants are almost without exception in way over their heads and they trip over the simplest things. He should have had a lawyer.

[OneWingedShark]

Many judges openly scoffed and laughed at the Constitution in divorce courts during the 1990s.

Do you mean the 7th Amendment?

[The_Reader_David]

Are the Police really the problem with the Legal System?

No, the police are a problem with the legal system. Judges are another, regulators a third, legislators a fourth, and there are probably others I'm overlooking.

[Secret Agent Man]

if courts are not going to give justice, people will do their job they refuse to do.