Using Voice Recorder and Interacting With LEOs

[color of law]

If JUDGE Mallory is related to anti-gun Cincinnati MAYOR Mallory, then there is no way the judge would do anything "pro-citizen".

Brother.....

There is one thing that a judge does not like happening and that is being overturned by the appeals court.

 

[eye95]

The link was pretty clear - "ACQUITTED BY COURT"

No, your contention was more than just the acquittal. You contended a reason. Pardon me for wanting support for that contention, but this is OCDO, the site that (at least used to) require support for contentions of law.

So, one more time, care to post a link to the decision, so I can read for myself WHY defendant was acquited?

Geez, this crap used to be automatic at OCDO. The once-greatest-site on the Internets has fallen mightily!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[color of law]

View attachment Complaint.pdf

View attachment Judges sheet.pdf

The Journal Entry says motion to dismiss over ruled. then it says: NG/NG bench trial.

The docket sheet says acquitted.

 

[eye95]

I don't know what that crap is, but my iPad won't display it. \

One more time: Do you have a link to a ruling that says what you claim it says????


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[color of law]

They are PDF files. If you don't have adobe reader on your I pad then down load here....http://www.adobe.com/products/reader-mobile.html

And no - Hamilton county clerk of court does not allow public access to court documents over the internet.

 

[eye95]

They are showing up as attachments. Please, just link the ruling. Simple request.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[color of law]

They are showing up as attachments. Please, just link the ruling. Simple request.

What part of "Hamilton county clerk of court does not allow public access to court documents over the internet" don't you understand.

My android opens up the PDF documents using Adobe reader. I gave you a link for the Adobe reader program for your I pad.

I can't help you with inferior apple products.:lol:

 

[eye95]

I guess you don't want to support your contention. Not surprising. Moving on.

ETA: Even with an OS that can deal with your crap: None of your links is to the RULING! Put up or shut up!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[color of law]

I guess you don't want to support your contention. Not surprising. Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Incorrect. I don't have a responsibility to supply you documents that are compatible with your operating system.

PDF files are the standard. I supplied you with a free download of the Adobe Reader used world wide to view documents.

Moving on.

 

[independence]

They are showing up as attachments. Please, just link the ruling. Simple request.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I was able to get the PDF links to work on Android by using a browser instead of Tapatalk.

Sent from an app instead of a browser simply because browsers on mobile devices are incapable of basic usability by design so that people can sell apps.

 

[eye95]

I was able to get the PDF links to work on Android by using a browser instead of Tapatalk.

Sent from an app instead of a browser simply because browsers on mobile devices are incapable of basic usability by design so that people can sell apps.

I was also, once I got home.

However, NONE of the links is to the RULING.

Folks can claim what a ruling says, but until they actually link the ruling, they are talking through their hat.

 

[color of law]

I was also, once I got home.

However, NONE of the links is to the RULING.

Folks can claim what a ruling says, but until they actually link the ruling, they are talking through their hat.

Yes the link to the ruling is the "Journal Entry." Journal Entries are the official record of the court.
Here is a link to a court of appeals case that talks about the "Journal Entry." And by the way, this appeals court case is the same guy. And yes he won his appeal.
http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-110074_09232011.pdf

Also, the Ohio Supreme Court will explain to you that the court speaks through its journal entry.
State v.Mincy (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 6, 441 N.E.2d 571
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...hio+St.3d+6,+441+N.E.2d+571&hl=en&as_sdt=4,36

There is your crash course in reading court documents. By the way "NG" means not guilty.

Moving on........

 

[Maverick9]

It is amazing some of the crap I accidentally record!

Try eating less fiber...or maybe more fiber.

 

[eye95]

No one is disputing the "not guilty."

You very specifically made the claim that the ruling supports your contention about the identification statute. If what you are saying is true, that would be in the ruling. So, produce the ruling, or we are left to believe that there is no such ruling from any bench that says what you contend it says.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[SteveInCO]

No one is disputing the "not guilty."

You very specifically made the claim that the ruling supports your contention about the identification statute. If what you are saying is true, that would be in the ruling. So, produce the ruling, or we are left to believe that there is no such ruling from any bench that says what you contend it says.

Or in other words, he wants documentation that they ruled Not Guilty for the reason you are claiming. A simple "NG" notation doesn't supply the rationale for the verdict.

 

[eye95]

Or in other words, he wants documentation that they ruled Not Guilty for the reason you are claiming. A simple "NG" notation doesn't supply the rationale for the verdict.

Precisely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[davidmcbeth]

View attachment 11162

View attachment 11163

The Journal Entry says motion to dismiss over ruled. then it says: NG/NG bench trial.

The docket sheet says acquitted.

The complaint is defective on its face ... its supposedly an affidavit but its based on his belief, not facts.

No surprise it was a NG verdict.

Just messing with this defendant I think.

If eye is looking for a memorandum of decision he should ask for one ...

 

[color of law]

Or in other words, he wants documentation that they ruled Not Guilty for the reason you are claiming. A simple "NG" notation doesn't supply the rationale for the verdict.

It is quite apparent that you guys have little or no experience as to how municipal courts operate in Ohio.

Judges do not put their opinion as to why they ruled the way they did in writing. All that appears in the Journal is their decision, guilty or not guilty. If you what the judge's explanation you would have to buy the transcript. This is usually only done when one of the parties appeals. And even then the judge may not have gave an explanation as to why s/he ruled the why they did.

This case is not hard to understand.

Complaint: Gave name refused to give address and date of birth.

Judges ruling: Not guilty.

Logical inference: “Or” means “or” not “and.” Defendant complied with the plain meaning of the statute.

The state did not appeal.

The unconstitutional statute lives another day to screw another uninformed citizen.

Moving on.

 

[color of law]

The complaint is defective on its face ... its supposedly an affidavit but its based on his belief, not facts.

No surprise it was a NG verdict.

Just messing with this defendant I think.

If eye is looking for a memorandum of decision he should ask for one ...

So what else is new???????

That is standard operating procedure in the Hamilton County, OH court system.

 

[eye95]

It is quite apparent that you guys have little or no experience as to how municipal courts operate in Ohio.

Judges do not put their opinion as to why they ruled the way they did in writing. All that appears in the Journal is their decision, guilty or not guilty. If you what the judge's explanation you would have to buy the transcript. This is usually only done when one of the parties appeals. And even then the judge may not have gave an explanation as to why s/he ruled the why they did.

This case is not hard to understand.

Complaint: Gave name refused to give address and date of birth.

Judges ruling: Not guilty.

Logical inference: “Or” means “or” not “and.” Defendant complied with the plain meaning of the statute.

The state did not appeal.

The unconstitutional statute lives another day to screw another uninformed citizen.

Moving on.

In other words, you will NOT back up your assertion as to what the judge ruled. Therefore, your assertion has zero credibility.