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.

[OneWingedShark]

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.

This is something that really, really ought to be used: once a judge treats the Constitution authorizing his own position with disdain, he should be treated with utmost disdain and disrespect. (And, should he try to hold you in contempt of court, you can throw it back in his face: the document that he just dismissed was that which creates the court.)

[Whenifhow]

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.
__________
Thanks for your insight. As it moves to federal level, perhaps he will get a lawyer.

[OneWingedShark]

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.

Agreed.

[eyeamok]

If he has a decent Lawyer he should immediately file a deprivation of rights suit against this tramp PERSONALLY, and bankrupt the traitor:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[sten]

ah yes. i keep forgetting. the laws written into the books can only be properly interpreted by the high priests of the temple

what was i thinking

oh, and the judge and prosecutor should be disbarred immediately. any injuries suffered by the defendant should be paid for by them, personally

[null and void]

At no point in history has any government ever wanted its people to be defenseless for any good reason ~ nully's son

The biggest killer of mankind

Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping!

To get onto The Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping List you must threaten to report me to the Mods if I don't add you to the list...

[i_robot73]

Let’s not confuse the poor judge, nor the Left (but I repeat myself), with LOGIC.

[Pox]

This statement must be the most infuriating and seditious proclamation I’ve seem from a “public servant” in a long while. Such a statement leads me to believe that there MUST be a Civil War in this country to pull our society back from the brink of annihilation.

[faithhopecharity]

just trying to get O’s attention for nomination to the Supreme Court

[Nifster]

let’s not be confused by messy things like freedom of speech/s

[American Constitutionalist]

The judge should know that if there is no US Constitution, the judge then has no authority.

[Bob434]

the lawyer can move that this judge be removed from this case for violating the constitution which she swore to uphold-

[publius911]

Bookmark

[Ken H]

"Gentlemen, you can't fight mention the Constitution in here. This is the War Court Room!"

[OneWingedShark]

[Axenolith]

That is actually one of the most important points the defendant could bring up. “Do you have a a duly sworn oath on file” directed to the judge. Last I heard, there was a crapstorm brewing over this down LA way because some prosecutors didn’t have valid oaths on file, and their cases, past and present were at risk for this oversight.

[Ghost of SVR4]

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.

And this is a MAJOR problem. The "law" is too damn complex. The common citizen can (and will at some point in their lives) be caught up in this rats nest of "laws". Judges and DA's like these assholes will say ignorance is not excuse. Really? I bet if I cased this judge and DA for the day they broke some "laws". Hell, the judge hardly knew what was being prosecuted; took her 30 seconds in between single syllable words to figure out what the hell was going on and repeat it.

All the states need to enact a new law. For every new law, three will be abolished.

I quite honestly have no freaking clue if anything I do anymore is "legal".

[onedoug]

Me too!

[familyop]

Do you mean the 7th Amendment?"

That's a good consideration, but we (family/fathers' rights organizations) saw scoffing along with violations of the 1st (judges forbidding journals about divorces on websites, other expressions), 2nd (VAWA, restraining orders, etc.), 13th (e.g., Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) and 14th (equal protection).

But now, here comes the remainder of the default and repudiation process. Tens of millions of victims hardened by the corruption will have some popcorn and watch the picture show.

[OneWingedShark]

Tens of millions of victims hardened by the corruption will have some popcorn and watch the picture show.

Sounds German. [Explicit warning]

13th (e.g., Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983)

Hm, I'll have to take a closer look at that one, but a quick skim didn't seem to show any reasoning around the 13th amd.