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:
Strip this person of judge-ship!
Orwell’s 1984 coming to a neighborhood near you. Soon. Smh
Article 3 section 3 adhering to the enemies is what he’s doing. Someone should teach this F*cker!
No! It is called treason. What do we do with judges that do not uphold our law as they swore to uphold. If they turn their back on our constituion then they have broken the oath to become a judge. AND if they did not take the oath then they never were judges to begin with. Do like we all do… sweep the floor, take out the trash, and make ready for the new worthy tennant who desires to uphold our laws. If you wont do this simple thing then whose fault is it that she is still there.
If people in every state don’t do their homework on candidates for judgeships before voting, we will soon be RULED from the bench! NOT GOOD!!! Wake up folks!!! STOP this madness!!!!!!
Since it was the unconstitutionality of the ordnance being challenged, and since he has a constitutional right to defend himself in court, then denying him the right to mention the constitution is tantamount to denying his right to self defense in court.
The judge’s order is inherently paradoxical.
A poor judge, he
He should be removed. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution!
Another crazy liberal
Kick her off the bench
You can’t fix stupid