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:
That’s from the fjc.gov website
So, basically everyone on this thread is completely wrong about everything lol
Are red states just seeing who can be the stupidest now.
Sad thing is nothing will be done and we all know it.
I wonder if the cons$#%&!@*ution was mentioned in her swearing in ceremony
Her court may as well be shut down. It is doing no good if you can’t mention the cons$#%&!@*ution.
In that case, any situation where rights are at issue, the judge must recuse (him?)self – or face charges of mal feasance.
Remove her fat as from the bench!
The justice system is a revenue business. Not a justice system.
It’s not her court