In a recent pre-trial hearing in Xenia, Ohio, a judge agreed with a prosecutor’s motion to prohibit the defendant from mentioning the Constitution or the constitutionality of the law he was charged with violating.
Judge Catherine Barber stated “there will be no mentioning of the Constitution” to the defendant, Virgil Vaduva.
The prosecutor made the claim that mentioning the Constitution “will confuse the jury,” to which Vaduva replied that uttering words on a public sidewalk, his panhandling charge, constitutes free speech.
MOVE TO PAGE 2:
God help Ohio if they dont get rid of her.
bodily remove her americans..now…
F**k her the law she is practicing was founded in that document.
that judge needs to be fired
DEBENCH THE$#%&!@*!!
The Judge should be thrown out of Ohio
TREASON!!
She should not be a judge in the United States!
She ought to be fired
Really, you people have it all wrong. This guy is trying to argue the constitutionality of the law that prohibits panhandling near the City Building. He was pretending to “panhandle” on the sidewalk next to the City Building and he basically dared the cops to write him a ticket. When they did, because he refused to stop and told them he wouldn’t stop, he decided to represent himself in the courtroom, and is trying to argue that the law is unconstitutional. Judge Barber is totally correct in her rule. Besides, it’s her courtroom, and she can preside over cases however she sees fit, so long as it’s within the law of the State of Ohio. This Vaduva guy is one of the most eccentric people