Using Voice Recorder and Interacting With LEOs

eye95 said:

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

Click to expand...

I am not going to play this game with you.

It is apparent that you don't like how the court system works in Ohio.

And it's apparent you did not read the Appeals Court case or the Ohio Supreme Court case that explains what constitutes the record. If you did then you apparently don't comprehend the English language.

The paperwork speaks for itself. You choose not to read and understand the plain meaning of the words on the paper.

It is your problem not mine.

Have a good day.....

No game. At least not on my part.

You claimed that a ruling was made that agreed with your theory on the ors in the identification statute. I asked you to produce the ruling to demonstrate that agreement. You won't produce the ruling (only proof that the defendant was found not guilty, nothing about why). Therefore you have made a contention about what the ruling says without providing the requisite support: the ruling. Your claim has zero credibility and will continued to have zero credibility until and unless you produce that ruling.

I frankly don't care whether you get this or not. Folks reading this thread do. And that is what matters.

Not moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Did I ever tell you guys that I was once in a car with eye95 and color of law for several hours...round trip?

MyWifeSaidYes said:

Did I ever tell you guys that I was once in a car with eye95 and color of law for several hours...round trip?

Click to expand...

Only once?

color of law said:

The state did not appeal.

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

Click to expand...

Please tell us about how the state can appeal a judgment of acquittal.

Werz said:

Please tell us about how the state can appeal a judgment of acquittal.

Click to expand...

Let's see...They can...um...uh...They should...No, that's not it...uh...How about...?

Oh, Hell, I dunno.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Werz said:

Please tell us about how the state can appeal a judgment of acquittal.

Click to expand...

PWN!!!! Of course, once acquitted it's over.

eye95 said:

You claimed that a ruling was made that agreed with your theory on the ors in the identification statute. I asked you to produce the ruling to demonstrate that agreement. You won't produce the ruling (only proof that the defendant was found not guilty, nothing about why). Therefore you have made a contention about what the ruling says without providing the requisite support: the ruling. Your claim has zero credibility and will continued to have zero credibility until and unless you produce that ruling.

Click to expand...

I covered this issue in this forum more than a year ago.
Maybe some quotes from Hiibel would help:

[T]he Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted NRS § 171.123(3) to require only that a suspect disclose his name. * * * "The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists.'" Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, Humboldt Cty., 542 U.S. 177, 185 (2004), quoting Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. County of Humboldt, 59 P.3d 1201, 1206, 118 Nev. 868, 875 (Nev. 2002)

Click to expand...

The only issue before the United States Supreme Court was the disclosure of a name. It decided the case it was presented, nothing more.

And the use of the word "or"?

"'And' may be read 'or,' and 'or' may be read 'and' if the sense requires it." R.C. 1.02(F)

Click to expand...

And would it make sense for a criminal suspect to be required to give his date of birth but not his name? Really?

Yeah, this discussion has been had over and over. Until this issue is settled in court, it is, at best, interesting speculation. I suspect that, ultimately, only name will be required, but for far different reasons.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

MyWifeSaidYes said:

Police Officer: "How are you, today?"
Open Carrier: "I'm fine. And yourself?"
PO: "Fine. I noticed your firearm. Can I ask why you're carrying it?"
OC: "Sure. For self-defense."
PO: "Why are you carrying it out in the open?"
OC: "Because it's legal."
PO: "Do you have some ID on you?"
OC: "Am I free to go?"

(Repeat until you get an answer. DO NOT let them change the subject.)

IF YES

PO: "Well, yes. You are free to go, but..."
OC: "Have a nice day!"
(then walk away)

IF NO

PO: "No. Do you have some ID?"
OC: "I do not consent to this encounter. If I'm being detained, I would like my attorney present before answering any questions. I have his number on my phone. May I call him please."

At this point, we have seen Youtube videos of police telling folks that they are NOT free to go but that they are NOT being detained. Right. It's one or the other, folks.

PO: "You're not being detained."
OC: "Am I free to go?"

(Return to IF YES/IF NO choices.)


NEVER ask them if you've done something wrong. It does not matter to YOU and it will just remind them to make something up.

Click to expand...

Thank you for an example to tie what I was looking for together.

Officers are trained to "dominate the situation" and they expect to do so. That's fine by me, in a Tier-2 or Tier-3 encounter. If it's Tier-1 I'm going to do my best to counter that, quick, fast, and in a hurry. Officer Friendly is NOT going to dominate a Tier-1 encounter with me.
If he tries, the encounter is over as simple as that. He's the one that wants something not me. That being the case he's going to have to 'buy' my cooperation.

I just hope to make the price high enough.

Werz said:

color of law said:

The state did not appeal.

Click to expand...

Please tell us about how the state can appeal a judgment of acquittal.

Click to expand...

What's there to tell. Only a neophyte attorney would ask such a first year law school question. And what would prompt such a question is puzzling. Unless, like most assistant prosecuting attorneys, they are trying to demonstrate their ignorance of the law.

I'm trying to figure out who made such a statement. It appears no one did. Yet, Werz quoted my clear and concise statement: “The state did not appeal.” My statement did NOT mention a word about the state appealing an acquittal verdict. So, the only conclusion I can surmise is an arrogant attorney is trying to pick a fight.

So, why did I say the state did not appeal? Well, we know the Ohio Supreme Court has held that a directed verdict is a final verdict for purposes of R.C. 2945.67. See State v. Keeton, 18 Ohio St.3d 379 (1985), see paragraph two of the syllabus.

And we know that in a bench trial, jeopardy attaches when the judge begins to receive evidence. See State v. Meade, 80 Ohio St.3d 419, 424 (1997), citing Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 35 (1978), and United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 569 (1977). “[T]he principles of double jeopardy preclude retrial of [a defendant].” State v. Davis, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 03 CA-A-07038, 2004-Ohio- 2804, ¶ 8.

Even so, an appeal is not moot if “the underlying legal question is capable of repetition yet evading review.” Id. at ¶ 9, quoting Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 737 (1974), fn.8. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that “[a] court of appeals has discretionary authority pursuant to R.C. 2945.67(A) to review substantive law rulings made in a criminal case which result in a judgment of acquittal so long as the judgment itself is not appealed.” See State v. Bistricky, 51 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990), syllabus.

Why didn't the state appeal? I can only think of three reasons. One, they didn't care. Two, they didn't know they could. And three, they knew they would loose because they knew that “or” means “or.”

Werz said:

And would it make sense for a criminal suspect to be required to give his date of birth but not his name? Really?

Click to expand...

Why yes it would. R.C. 2921.29 was part of the Ohio Patriot Act. The construction of the statute was based on Hiibel. They clearly knew that Hiibel authorized name only as it relates to a Terry stop. To not cross the line set by the Supreme Court in Hiibel the Senate new that using the term “or” in the statute would not allow R.C. 2921.29 to go afoul of the high court's ruling.
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/...mittee&hf=analyses126/s0009-rrh-126.htm#_ftn1

Werz said:

You should also realize that Hiibel limited its analysis to the Nevada statute which required only a name.

Click to expand...

And Terry v. Ohio only applies to Ohio.

I supplied an actual case directly dealing with R.C. 2921.29 where the defendant was acquitted by only giving their name.
Werz offered an anecdotal legal opinion which lacked any case law directly addressing the issue.

Have a nice day......

color of law said:

What's there to tell. Only a neophyte attorney would ask such a first year law school question. And what would prompt such a question is puzzling. Unless, like most assistant prosecuting attorneys, they are trying to demonstrate their ignorance of the law.

Click to expand...

Or it could be someone who realizes that paralegals who think they know everything are required to sit behind the bar for very good reasons.

color of law said:

I'm trying to figure out who made such a statement. It appears no one did. Yet, Werz quoted my clear and concise statement: “The state did not appeal.” My statement did NOT mention a word about the state appealing an acquittal verdict. So, the only conclusion I can surmise is an arrogant attorney is trying to pick a fight.

So, why did I say the state did not appeal? Well, we know the Ohio Supreme Court has held that a directed verdict is a final verdict for purposes of R.C. 2945.67. See State v. Keeton, 18 Ohio St.3d 379 (1985), see paragraph two of the syllabus.

And we know that in a bench trial, jeopardy attaches when the judge begins to receive evidence. See State v. Meade, 80 Ohio St.3d 419, 424 (1997), citing Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 35 (1978), and United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 569 (1977). “[T]he principles of double jeopardy preclude retrial of [a defendant].” State v. Davis, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 03 CA-A-07038, 2004-Ohio- 2804, ¶ 8.

Even so, an appeal is not moot if “the underlying legal question is capable of repetition yet evading review.” Id. at ¶ 9, quoting Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 737 (1974), fn.8. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that “[a] court of appeals has discretionary authority pursuant to R.C. 2945.67(A) to review substantive law rulings made in a criminal case which result in a judgment of acquittal so long as the judgment itself is not appealed.” See State v. Bistricky, 51 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990), syllabus.

Why didn't the state appeal? I can only think of three reasons. One, they didn't care. Two, they didn't know they could. And three, they knew they would loose because they knew that “or” means “or.”

Click to expand...

They might even lose. But the court's verdict, as set forth on the record, made no legal conclusions about the constitutionality of the statute. The verdict says nothing about the admissibility of evidence. It says nothing about the prosecution preserving for appeal, by objection, any issue related to the validity or applicability of the statute. The court's verdict, as nearly as anyone can tell, finds only that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof under the law. And even though the trial proceedings in Mr. McCarren's case show none of the factors which would pave the way for a state's appeal as approved in Bistricky, a licensed attorney who has been counsel of record on many dozens of criminal appeals would recognize the extreme rarity of cases where a court of appeal is willing to grant leave to appeal - under any circumstances - in cases where the defendant was acquitted. A paralegal probably would not.

Thus, the query remains: Please tell us about how the state can appeal a judgment of acquittal.

color of law said:

What's there to tell. Only a neophyte attorney would ask such a first year law school question...

Click to expand...

Or someone trying to point out the silliness of your argument.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I am a long time observer and infrequent contributor to this forum. (In fact this may be my first actual post, I can't really remember)

The primary reason for my lack of participation? All to often I have found myself leaving the site in disappointment over what I see as a lack of understanding and commitment to principles of freedom. It would seem to me that the typical member of a site such as this one, would be someone that appreciates the heritage that was once our birthright in this country. But the disagreements and opinions expressed here, often display a distinct lack of unity on issues of liberty. And more profoundly, what freedom really means. Freedom is more than the right to carry a gun to defend yourself, it is all of us recognizing each others basic right to live our lives as we please, so long as we do no harm to others, or their property.

All of this came back to me again as I read this thread and this time I could not constrain myself from jumping in.

I have known color of law for nigh on 20 years. He has dedicated himself to helping people, who many times, have had little access to legal help. He has spent literally hundreds of hours studying the rules of court and the myriad of regulations that have beset us. Do not be fooled we are living in a police state. I count it a privilege to have spent many hours with him trying to decipher the best methods of doing battle with the host of bureaucrats that surround us. He is not a lawyer, and I am guessing, proud of that fact. But if it were allowed and I needed the help, I would much rather have him at my side in the court room than the vast majority of Attorneys.

I can only guess what the motives of eye95 are with regards to this protracted squabble. Maybe he wants a guarantee that if he decides to follow the advice he will find indemnity against arrest. If so, he should know following the “law” is not a silver bullet against arrest. How many have been arrested for openly carrying? Which of course we know is perfectly legal.

I suspect that he just likes to argue. With respect to that possibility I would simply say, anyone with any experience in court would know that Judges almost never issue written judgments that contain findings of fact and conclusions of law, in fourth degree misdemeanor cases. For one thing they are to lazy, but more importantly they are trained to avoid like the plague, rulings that might create an actual Constitutional controversy.

My purpose is to keep neophytes from taking bad advice from a person who is not a lawyer. There is an actual lawyer posting in this thread also posting cautionary messages.

The law requires name, address, and date of birth. The lawyer has posted actual rulings in this thread, not references to inaccessible rulings. His citations indicate that currently the law properly requires those three pieces of information.

Could the law change? Yes. Could the courts consider the non-lawyers argument to change the reading of the law so that only one of the three is required. Yes. Has it? No one has demonstrated that any such thing has happened. Will it? Maybe, IMO, almost certainly not. Will a court eventually rule that only a name is required? Probably.

Until then, I will continue to warn people who are detained to provide any or all of the three as requested by the detaining officer.

And, I have also met the non-lawyer in person. He can be a nice guy. He can be an ass. He isn't a lawyer. He has provided nothing but his interpretation of the language as support for his position. It is an interesting argument. But, as of now, that is all it is, an argument.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Cerberus said:

... I would simply say, anyone with any experience in court would know that Judges almost never issue written judgments that contain findings of fact and conclusions of law, in fourth degree misdemeanor cases. For one thing they are to lazy, but more importantly they are trained to avoid like the plague, rulings that might create an actual Constitutional controversy.

Click to expand...

"Where defendant makes a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of her right to trial by jury, Crim.R. 23(C) requires only that the court make a general finding. Failure of the court to make specific findings is not violative of defendant's due process rights." State v. Walker, 26 Ohio App.3d 29, syllabus (8th Dist. 1985)

"[T]he trial judge is required to make a general finding of guilt or innocence pursuant to Crim.R. 23(C), and separate findings of fact and conclusions of law are neither countenanced nor permitted[.]" State v. Cattledge, 2010-Ohio-4953, at ¶26 (10th Dist.)

FWIW, Cattledge also contains an excellent review of decisions by multiple Ohio appellate districts as to whether the knife you carry in your pocket will be deemed a concealed weapon.

That tells me that this is not just a case of inaccessible finding or unpublished findings, but almost surely, a case of the finding that was asserted was never made. That would explain any reticence to actually post the asserted finding!

color of law said:

What's there to tell. Only a neophyte attorney would ask such a first year law school question. And what would prompt such a question is puzzling. Unless, like most assistant prosecuting attorneys, they are trying to demonstrate their ignorance of the law.

Click to expand...

Werz said:

Or it could be someone who realizes that paralegals who think they know everything are required to sit behind the bar for very good reasons.

Click to expand...

The reason they are required to sit behind the bar, in legal terms is “collusion and conspiracy to commit a breach of fiduciary duty against the Constitution. The sixth amendment provides the accused to be allowed the assistance of counsel, of their choice, and without, conflict of interest. As to the, Of their choice, no where does it authorize the sole use of State approved, bar card carrying Attorneys. The various State Bar Associations have high-jacked the so called justice system. At the time the Constitution was written the Bar Association did not exist, and the first law school, had only begun to teach in 1780. At the time a lawyer was simply someone who had studied the law, as opposed to being a member of one of the most powerful cabals in the country. A cabal that forces you to accept one of their lackeys if you want assistance in Court. That is the reason he is required to sit behind the bar.

As to the conflict of interest, one of the dirtiest little secrets of all is the fact that Attorneys FIRST duty is to the Court and then to the public and lastly their client. Which they never disclose to the client! Can you say breach of fiduciary duty, and conflict of interest?

You say that col thinks he knows it all, I will grant you that is sometimes true, but, that doesn't make him wrong, and, he has bested a fair number of lawyers in Court.

eye95 said:

My purpose is to keep neophytes from taking bad advice from a person who is not a lawyer. There is an actual lawyer posting in this thread also posting cautionary messages.

Click to expand...

I can here the neophytes out there rising as one in honor to your diligence

What ruling are you citing to back up your claim that it is bad advice?

I thought we were supposed to be mostly adults on here, can't we just encourage people to start educating themselves about these issues and let them decide, as adults, what actions to take?

eye95 said:

The law requires name, address, and date of birth. The lawyer has posted actual rulings in this thread, not references to inaccessible rulings. His citations indicate that currently the law properly requires those three pieces of information.

Click to expand...

This is a good example that you just like to argue and that you seem to have a particular problem with col. The lawyer DID NOT cite any rulings in this thread that demonstrates that the law requires all three! He simply cited a Nevada State Court ruling which cited the Supreme Court ruling in Hiibel, which col had referenced. Hold yourself to the same standards that you required of col.

As to the over emphasis of the importance of lawyers, and your apparent belief that only someone who has passed the bar is a qualified source of information on legal matters; the local Clerk of Court asked me a few years ago if I was a lawyer. I asked her, what would motivate her to insult me like that. She said “well the paperwork I see from you is much better than what I see from most lawyers that come in here, I was just curious.” I don't tell that story to suggest that I know more about the law than all lawyers, but it is illustrative of the fact that a sizable percentage of lawyers out there are, to varying degrees, incompetent. The fact that they are under the thumb of the Courts means that they are rarely going to fight zealously for you in Court, and, I've had lawyers admit to me that statement is true.

Cerberus said:

I would simply say, anyone with any experience in court would know that Judges almost never issue written judgments that contain findings of fact and conclusions of law, in fourth degree misdemeanor cases. For one thing they are to lazy, but more importantly they are trained to avoid like the plague, rulings that might create an actual Constitutional controversy.

Click to expand...

Werz said:

"Where defendant makes a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of her right to trial by jury, Crim.R. 23(C) requires only that the court make a general finding. Failure of the court to make specific findings is not violative of defendant's due process rights." State v. Walker, 26 Ohio App.3d 29, syllabus (8th Dist. 1985)

"[T]he trial judge is required to make a general finding of guilt or innocence pursuant to Crim.R. 23(C), and separate findings of fact and conclusions of law are neither countenanced nor permitted[.]" State v. Cattledge, 2010-Ohio-4953, at ¶26 (10th Dist.)

Click to expand...

OK they have a good excuse for being lazy, but this doesn't change the essence of the point I was making.



I am done with this, I would just like to reiterate my primary reason for jumping into this in the first place. It really hacked me off that you were piling on col, when I know him well enough to know that he that he is just trying to help the folks on here to better understand how and what they are doing to us. The lack of commitment to the participles of liberty and the dearth of ability for critical thought on these important issues, especially with a community such as this is very disheartening. The notion that seems to be prevalent on this site, that the fight with the TPTB on the gun issue exists in a vacuum, is dead wrong. If we don't start standing tall and demanding all of our rights be recognized and returned, the gun issue won't mean a thing.

Well stated, Cerberus. In the past, I've spent some time with COL and Eye95. They're both good, intelligent men. I don't recall spending any time with Werz (yet) but suspect that my impression of him would be the same as that of the other two. It's a shame that these three couldn't be a force together for Liberty instead of two piling on one in a forum dedicated to open carry. Eye95, at times you were simply being stubborn. The PDF file posts demonstrate that. I also see some of the point, COL... they can't see it in black and white so they throw a flag. Werz... well, you're just being Werz. Sometimes, exchanges between the three of you produce some gems and sometimes it just gets ugly. This was ugly.

If I was a defendant in court, I'd want nobody other than COL somehow in my corner. Out of all of the attorneys I've known throughout my life, none have had the razor sharp focus and unclouded loyalty to truth in law than him.