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:
So we the people shouldn’t have to go to her court room if we cant mention the constitution in our arguments
You are no Judge, you are just playing at being one.
She has no business on the bench.
This is no judge. Kick her$#%&!@*out. Raise hell people
FIRE THAT NUT,,,! Its NOT HER CHOISE!
Throw the EFFING judge out too
WTH???
In the event of moral decay, a moral reset is needed. The real question is, how much destruction comes before a society agrees to a moral reset. In America today, there are 2 possibly 3 ideas of thought. They are in conflict and only destruction will come of it. Your choice. Your vote. Your country! Where will you go when there is no America?
SOUND LIKE THE JUDGE NEED BAN FROM BEING A JUDGE , TO HOLD OFFICE YOU TAKE A OATH TO UP HOLD THE CONSTITUION , JUDGE IS NOT UP HOLDING THERE OATH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
fire her