Sunday, December 2, 2012

DONT DRINK AND DRIVE IN FORT WAYNE. DRINK AT HOME INSTEAD.


GOT THE SHERIFFS OF CHIEF OF POLICES PERSONAL CELL PHONE NUMBER/ DONT HAVE ANY INFLUENCE, OR FRIENDS, WELL- PAL- YOUR FUCKED...
pity the fool( as Mr T might say.. )
http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20121130/LOCAL03/311309968
James Osenkowski Jr. will be spending the holidays in the Allen County Jail.
the rest of the article is copied below- scroll down.. waay down.. 

 it sucks to be made an example of..  

Refusing blood test order gets DWI suspect 90 days

Rebecca S. Green | The Journal Gazette
FORT WAYNE – James Osenkowski Jr. will be spending the holidays in the Allen County Jail.
On Thursday, he was sentenced to 90 days in jail by Allen Superior Court Judge Wendy Davis for refusing a court order to have his blood drawn after he was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.
He is the first to be so charged under Allen County’s new policy dealing with those who refuse to submit to certified chemical breath tests and blood draws.

INDIANA CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE 1-
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst/art-1.html

Section 11. Search and seizure

Section 11. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized

Section 14. Double jeopardy and self-incrimination

Section 14. No person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense. No person, in any criminal prosecution, shall be compelled to testify against himself.

 and others not listed here, but in link above..

 US CONSTITUTION:

 http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt5toc_user.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt5afrag8_user.html#amdt5a_hd33
:

AMENDMENT V

[ This is the text of the Fifth Amendment. For an explanatory article, see our Wex page]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
STATE LAW
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title34/ar47/ch3.html


here- ILL DRAW YOU A PICTURE...


DUDE SHOULD HAVE HAD ONE OF THESE?
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/getoutofjail.jpg

local politicians, judges, etc- get one of these:
http://farm8.static.flickr.com/7109/6854320502_d3f9804b7d.jpg



SOBER AS A JUDGE , YOUR HONOR.. ( insert names of local judges as applicalbe.. and other local privileged citizens and children, as needed).. best judicial system money can buy. "With liberty and justice for all who can afford it"- stephen Loeschner- local genius, RIP..


COPiED FROM OUR OWN LOCAL LEGAL EAGLE:  defendor of the opressed, protector of the common people..

Gina Burgess
Friday
ETHICS HEARING ON PAUL MOSS MATTER: A reminder that today is the Ethics Commission hearing on the continuing Paul Moss matter. The hearing takes place at 1:30 pm today in the lower level of Citizens Square. Presiding over the matter will be an incomplete Ethics Commission consisting of Republican Chairman Tom Hardin (attorney for Election Board, campaign treasurer/fundraiser for Circuit Court J
udge---where appeals in this matter will go, and law partner of GOP Chairman Steve Shine) and Democrat representative Wendy Stein (business woman/owner of Stein Advertising and a member of Mayor Henry’s Legacy Committee). Last month, the third member of the Ethics Commission, the non-partisan and most honorable Judge Ryan, resigned from the panel and earlier this month the Ethics Commission chose to move ahead in the matter without a third member so as to not “delay” the matter further. Judge Ryan resigned because he likened the matter to that of a witch hunt as he strongly believed (and I strongly agree) that the Ethics Commission, which consists of appointed members, has no jurisdiction over elected members. Hardin disagreed suggesting that an elected official is an employee of the government and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the appointed Ethics Commission. Paul Moss will be removed from office effective December 31st due to his term naturally expiring. Members of the general public, including me, have offered to temporarily fill the Judge Ryan’s vacated spot so that Paul Moss gets access to a full tribunal that he would be entitled to as a “public employee.”

Like · 
  • Gina Burgess The Ethics Commission is proceeding in a manner that I, personally, consider suspect and questionably ethical. First, no commission has the right to proceed without a full membership. The Chairperson of a Commission is someone who is to call meetings, set the agenda, but otherwise has no voting rights, except in cases of a tie. Per Roberts Rules, I don’t believe the Ethics Commission can legally obtain quorum, which is needed to make anything legally binding. If quorum is established, then I would ask the Ethics Commission to reveal by what or by whose authority. Second, the Ethics Commission can not “punish” Paul Moss. They can’t remove him from office---he was elected and therefore can only be removed by those who elected him or, perhaps an argument can be made that if he is found incapacitated or somehow negligent of his office, then his colleagues can move to censure or impeach in the same way as is afforded members of the state legislature. They can’t penalize Paul Moss financially and if they attempt to do so, then they risk a civil lawsuit. Any “punishment” or “penalty” imposed upon Paul Moss can’t take effect until Moss has a chance to appeal the matter, which is 30 days from the date of imposition of said penalty. Ironically or interestingly, that occurs darn near the end of Paul Moss natural and soon-to-be-expired term. Thirdly, I don’t believe the Ethics Commission has any intent on penalizing Paul Moss. I believe this is an extravagant horse-and-pony show designed to give the appearance of airing the matter out in public. While I give the Ethics Commission credit for their attempt at transparency, they are setting two dangerous and ill-advised precedents: (1) that quorum is not needed in meetings and hearings held by appointed government officials and (2) that appointed government officials somehow have jurisdiction over elected government officials. The quorum issue is a bad precedent because it fails to provide anyone accused of an ethics violation with the full protections afforded them by a full panel. The jurisdiction issue is a bad precedent because it puts appointed officials in control of the behavior of elected officials—this could undermine the elected officials ability to do the job for which they were elected by the people to do.
  • Gina Burgess TO MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA: Please do some investigative reporting on this matter. It would be particularly interesting to get Hardin (and Stein) on the record as to why they feel they can proceed without meeting quorum and just what authority (i.e. statute, code, case law, Roberts Rules, etc) grants them the power or process to do so. Also, Hardin (and Stein) have made a “ruling” that gives them the ability as appointed officials to have jurisdiction over elected officials. Hardin has cited that the basis for their decision has to do with Paul Moss being an employee of the government. Paul Moss is an elected official and that makes him an employee of the people who elected him, not the government. Hardin (and Stein) have never supported their position with any authority (i.e. statute, code, case law, Roberts Rules, etc). Matter of fact, that position may actually be in conflict with the Constitution of the State of Indiana, as it pertains to elected county officials. It would be very interesting to get Hardin (and Stein) on public record stating exactly where they get the authority to proceed against Moss.
  • Douglas B Pritchett The Commission is just more phoney bloney feel good crap that our elected officials use to show us they they are all honorable, transparent and above reproach. Smoke and mirrors to confuse the ignorant taxpayer/voter.
    Friday at 8:57am via mobile · Like · 2
  • Douglas B Pritchett The fact of the matter is, Paul Moss took advantage of his position as an elected official, to ask for special consideration because of his political office. This happens all the time, everyday. No one should he shocked by this. While it is unfair to regular citizens, that's they way it is. Being a member of the powerful political ruling class has it's perks.....this is one of them
  • Gina Burgess Douglas B Pritchett --- I totally agree that Moss took advantage of his position, both as elected official and personal friend of the Sheriff. (You may remember that I called him out for that right after the incident occurred.) Matter of fact, I actually agree with Hardin's assessment that this special consideration, in this case, can and should be treated as a gift. The problem is that the Ethics Commission just does not have any authority in this matter where an elected official is concerned and the matter, as frustrating and irritating as it is, should have been dismissed. Should Paul Moss be penalized? Absolutely, but only by those who chose to elect him......or as the case was this year, chose not to elect him. (He did lose the State Representative primary.) Has Paul Moss been penalized? I think he has. His name has been rung through the mud off and on this entire campaign season. He lost his primary. He's had to pay hundreds, possibly thousands, of dollars for legal representation in a matter where jurisdiction cant be established. He's been penalized. Matter of fact, if he were merely a county employee, I would say that he has been treated unfairly in the matter. Does the Ethics Commission have the right and/or jurisdiction to penalize Moss? Absolutely not. Who has that right? The voters/electorate or perhaps his colleagues.
  • Robert Gordon Baxter The committee should be made up of at least 4 to 6 people equally representing both parties and as it stands from what I am reading it is made up of two Republicans and one Democrat. I propose that they bring in another person that has no party affiliation then procede to discuss the ethical violation that was committed. (ME I'LL BE THAT PERSON!!!!) By the way what was the ethical violation?
  • Robert Gordon Baxter I agree that being a politician is like being in a ruling class but it also a position that you should and must take seriously when working for your constituents
  • Robert Gordon Baxter that is why when you run on a platform for the people you stick to that platform while in office
  • Douglas B Pritchett Any Ethics panel should have the legal authority to impose a penalty. This one, apparently does not and was probably designed that way since it is nothing more than window dressing for the stupid and ignorant taxpayers. Secondly, it's scope should be clearly defined, which this one, apparently does not since Ken Fries was able to walk away from the proceeding simply be asserting that the panel had no authority over him. A toothless tiger with bad gum disease.
    Friday at 11:27am via mobile · Like · 1
  • Gina Burgess Douglas B Pritchett and Robert Gordon Baxter -- Great conversation and great points being made. :-) I just came from the Ethics Commission meeting. In an interesting move, the Ethics Commission brought in special legal counsel, Tim McGauley, who brokered a Disposition Agreement with Tim Pape, counsel for Paul Moss. The Disposition Agreement called for a written public apology written by Paul Moss acknowledging the perception of his wrong-doing and the impact his actions had on public trust matters. The DA also called for the Ethics Commission to dismiss the matter with prejudice, but noting that this agreement would not be a binding agreement nor a precedent for future cases.
  • Douglas B Pritchett Good now we're done. This sham of an Ethics board needs to be abolished. Its a joke serving no legal purpose. This whole nasty event has cemented the belief that the political ruling class lives by and is judged by different rules than those poor, ignorant, unwahsed taxpayers. It's good to be the King.
    Friday at 3:03pm via mobile · Like · 1
  • Fred Baer- Scott Eastom An apology?!?!?! I am going to drink and drive, refuse a breath analyzer and ask to speak to Sheriff Ken Fries. Then offer the city of Fort Wayne my apology and ask to dismiss any criminal charges. Any common citizen will get their butt beaten by Fort Wayne city police for refusing.
    14 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Michelle Hill I agree, Fred...just an apology seems a bit too "simple"...
    Hopefully Ken Fries had learned something from this event...do not take any more phone calls from Paul Moss...
    Who asks to call Ken Fries and NOT expect special treatment?
    11 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Douglas B Pritchett I think everyone involved wanted to close this mess up as quickly as possible so as to quiet the pissed off taxpayers who don't get these types of perks. this was a text book example of the rules not applying to those who are politically powerful and w...See More
    10 hours ago · Like · 1
  • David Christopher Roach SPEAKING OF DRINKING AND DRIVINg, AND BREATHALYZER/BLOOD TESTS- theres a dude sitting in the ACJ- for 90 days, full sentence- no good time for "Indirect contempt of court- sentenced by Judge wendy davis- for refusing to self incriminate himself, by refusing to allow the SYSTEM- to shove a needle in his arm; to draw evidentiary blood sample, so Prosecutors office can charge citizens with DUI/OWI. Id like to know where in state statute, or federal loaws- where a person can be forced to a- submit to an invasive procedure by the police/courts- (thrers the 5th amendment, and Indiana has a similar statement in its Article citizens bill of rights. State law says that a person refusing a alcohol/drug test- will get their drivers license suspended for a year. but it says nothing for incarceration without due process by charging them with "indirect contemtpt of court"- where was this citizens public defender? when was this citizen allowed to have an attorney present during this evidentiary blood draw? also- never mind that the cops sit outside bars- in this case- Pieres/canturbury plaza?- or whatever that sport s bar is called- Mitc hells? or Peanuts. And the fact this dude was driving ad blew a 2.0- rather hihg- but like Paul moss- portable breathylyzers are deemed inacurate in a court of law. too bad Mr Ostrezenkowski- ow whatever- didnt have the sheriffs cell phone number, or the chief of Police. and if this dude was stopped by an IPFW cop- outside campus grounds- on any public street( I have a problem with that jurisdictional item- campus cops should stick to only school grounds, and have no authority off campus premises. Its IPFW campus - not IPFW FWPD, you know? And granted- the dude was numerically intoxicated- by statute- - heavy frequent drinkers can function at high levels of drinking- take an amateur- on new years eve- for instance- who othewise tee-totals, and givt ehm a bottle of champagne, and theyre puking on their shoes.. And hopefully- that ostrezewski dude didnt hurt anybody, or break anything, and the probable cause was he was probably reasonably suspicuous- that its after cosing time, the 'suspect" was out in public driving- so lets stop them for whatever anc check them out.. oops- your busted pal, and your tail light was out/ your vehicle matched a description, or any of a hundred other pretexts the FWPD/ cops ingeneral sue. but my issue is this dude is locked up for 90 days- no appeal- for "indirect contempt of court"- is it contempt of court to stand outside the courthouse, and tell the judges to go f-ck themselves that they are assholes- free speech on the courthouse green? contrmpt of court? or is it indirect to stand there and silently flip them the middle finger, symbolizing the same- acive f-off judge, vs passive f- of judge? the police, and courts should never have the right to invade your boyd with a shar p object, without your consent, and by excercising your free will, and state/ US constitutional rights of self incrimination- to throw them in jail instedad. the state ought to decriminalize OWI/DUI unless the person has caused personal injury, or property damage to anothers property- which then should be a crime- crashing your own car-- well- thats not criminal- thats just stupid.. and like i said- besides the fact the dude was clocked at 2.0 on the portameter. he should hav e stayed in his car- and also- the issue of bars over serving their customers, and serving obviously intoxicated persons, as well- thats a whole nother can of worms. I know you love to discuss the laws, and this adds on to the paul moss/sheriff fries/ inequities in the laws and their applications- equal justice.. etc.


xx

  • David Christopher Roach IM GOING TO FILE A COUPLE COMPLAINTS WITH THE ETHICS COMMITTEE- 1 about the courts, sheriff, etc- about cherrymasters- from 1990- to 2005- its not the crime its the cover up. what did they know and when did they know it- starting with the judges, the prosecutors, etc- and RICO- conspiracy to obstruct justice, negligence, failure to uhold their oaths of office to uphold the laws- to investigate and prosecute crimes, etc.. police/political/judicial corruption/misconduct; contempt for the laws of the state; etc.. and a scond complaint to investigate the authority/pracices by the courts and prosecutors, judges- to violate citizens constitutional rights against self incrimination- forcing non-consensual blood draws/ imprsionment without due process, etc- to stop this miscarriage of justice, and violation of citizens rights. consent of the governemd; ptition for redress of greivances.. etc..

SOBER AS A JUDGE , YOUR HONOR.. ( insert names of local judges as applicalbe.. and other local privileged citizens and children, as needed).. best judicial system money can buy. "With liberty and justice for all who can afford it"- stephen Loeschner- local genius, RIP..

xx
JOURNAL GAZETTE ONLINE TEXT:

Refusing blood test order gets DWI suspect 90 days

Rebecca S. Green | The Journal Gazette
FORT WAYNE – James Osenkowski Jr. will be spending the holidays in the Allen County Jail.
On Thursday, he was sentenced to 90 days in jail by Allen Superior Court Judge Wendy Davis for refusing a court order to have his blood drawn after he was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.
He is the first to be so charged under Allen County’s new policy dealing with those who refuse to submit to certified chemical breath tests and blood draws.
In September, Allen County Prosecutor Karen Richards announced a shift in how her office will handle drunken-driving arrests and suspects who refuse to submit to a certified breathalyzer test at the jail.
Now her office obtains a search warrant from a judge forcing the driver to stick an arm out and get a blood test.
While Indiana law requires anyone who refuses chemical breath tests to have his or her driver’s license suspended for a year, the refusals left prosecutors with little or no evidence to effectively prosecute the case.
According to Chief Deputy Prosecutor Michael McAlexander, Osenkowski, 27, of the 4800 block of Franke Road in New Haven, was pulled over in the 5600 block of St. Joe Road on Nov. 18.
He blew a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.20 percent, more than twice the legal limit of 0.08 percent, on the portable breath test.
But when Osenkowski was taken for a formal breathalyzer test, he refused the certified chemical test. When prosecutors obtained the warrant from Davis, Osenkowski continued to refuse, McAlexander said.
According to court records, Osenkowski has prior convictions for drunken driving, which makes another arrest a felony.
He is now formally charged with DWI with a prior conviction as well as driving while suspended, according to court records.
When he appeared in court Thursday morning for a hearing on a charge of indirect contempt, Osenkowski was subdued and remorseful, apologizing profusely to the judge for refusing her order on Nov. 18.
Davis said his remorse kept him from getting a sentence of 180 days on the indirect contempt charge.
Indirect contempt involves obstructing court process or refusing a judge’s order outside the presence of the judge. Direct contempt involves misbehavior within the courtroom or in front of the judge.
The warrants give the prosecutors the ability to force a suspected drunken driver to comply with a blood draw, but McAlexander said they do not want to see anyone get hurt.
So the judges are holding those, starting with Osenkowski, in indirect contempt. Prosecutors originally asked for a sentence of 180 days in jail for Osenkowski. Davis declined, citing his obvious remorse.
Since the policy change, prosecutors have had to seek fewer than 20 warrants for the blood draws. McAlexander said that the arrested person usually complies when the consequences are spelled out for them.
So far, about five people have refused and are in the process of being held in contempt of court.
Those in jail for contempt of court do not receive any time cut off their sentence for good behavior, as one would if serving time for a felony or a misdemeanor.
Osenkowski won’t get out of jail on this charge alone at least until the end of February.

rgreen@jg.net



Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)