Log In
Sign Up
Home
7:06 pm
April 25, 2017
Offline
Trem v. State 2009-Ohio-3875.
Respondent-appellant the State of Ohio appeals a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, which found Senate Bill 10, Ohio’s Sexual Offender classification and registration scheme, to be unconstitutional in its entirety. Petitioner-appellee is Joseph Trem. Appellant assigns four errors to the trial court:
[...]
Appellee was convicted of rape and gross sexual imposition in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in 1995. The record does not disclose whether appellee’s conviction was the result of a plea agreement.
Appellee received a notice of new classification and registration duties under R.C. 2950.01 et seq., as amended by Senate Bill 10, also known as the “Adam Walsh Act”. The statute as amended was effective July 1, 2007, after appellee’s conviction and sentencing. Appellee contested the reclassification, asserting the new legislation violates several provisions of the Ohio and United States Constitutions, and imposes new obligations and additional substantial burdens on him. He also alleged the change in registry requirements directly violates his original plea agreement.
The trial court found Senate Bill 10 is unconstitutional both facially and as applied to appellee because it violates the prohibitions against both retroactive and ex post facto laws. The trial court cited its decision in Sigler v. State,Richland Common
Pleas Case No. 07CV1863, and granted judgment in favor of appellee.
The State of Ohio appealed the matter to this court.
In each assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court erred in finding Senate Bill 10 to be unconstitutional on multiple grounds. We agree.The court cited its decision in Sigler, supra, wherein it found Senate Bill 10 unconstitutional. However, this court has since reversed the court’s decision. Sigler v. State, Richland App. No. 08-CA-79, 2009-Ohio-2010. In Sigler, we found, as courts across Ohio have repeatedly held, Senate Bill 10 is constitutional and does not violate prohibitions against retroactive or ex post facto laws. Id. at paragraph 89.
The appellant’s assignment of error IV may be inapplicable here as to any plea bargain, but we find the prior classification system did not create the expectation that appellee will never be the subject of further legislative action.
In accord with our previous holding in Sigler, each of appellant’s assignments of error is sustained. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, Ohio, is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court for further proceedings in accord with law and consistent with this opinion.
Again, these arguments were correct with the PREVIOUS HOLDING of the Sigler case. But the Appeals Court has clearly REVERSED the decision of the court of common pleas in the Sigler case. So a severe case like this one, the defendant STILL HAS TO REGISTER under Adam's Law. Does CPN get another point here? It sure looks like it.
In other words, Chuck Reeves can FIND all the court cases he wants. But did he actually READ THEM? Did he actually see that the Appeals Court has reversed the Common Please court's finding on Sigler and that severe offenders are NOT SNEAKING THROUGH THE LOOPHOLE? Some of the more serious offenders apparently are being stopped. However...these cases go back to like 2009 and 2010. The Appeals Court said the cases are remanded to court for FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. So there is a final verdict we clearly do not know about. Someone has to follow up on these cases.
7:10 pm
April 25, 2017
Offline
Cook v. State 2009-Ohio-4356
Respondent-appellant the State of Ohio appeals a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, which found Senate Bill 10, Ohio’s latest sexual offender classification registration scheme, is unconstitutional in its entirety. Petitioner-appellee is Darryl Cook. Appellant assigns four errors to the trial court:
[..]
Over twenty years ago, appellee was convicted in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court of various offenses, including rape. In December, 2007, appellee received a notice of new classification and registration duties pursuant to R.C. 2950.01et seq., as amended by Senate Bill 10 and effective January 1, 2008. Appellee challenged the classification and registrati
on requirements, and argued Senate Bill 10 violates multiple provisions of the Ohio and United States Constitution. The trial court cited its opinion in Sigler v. State, Richland County Court of Common Pleas, No. 07-CV-1863, wherein it found Senate Bill 10 is unconstitutional.
During the pendency of this case, this court reversed the trial court’s decision in Sigler,supra, see Sigler v. State, Richland 08-CA-79, 2009-Ohio-2010. This case raises identical arguments.
We note although the State argues Senate Bill 10 has merely adjusted appellee’s pre-existing duty to register, in the trial court appellee asserted he had never been ordered to register prior to this newest legislation. Even so, the Supreme Court has held new sex offender registration and notification provisions may be imposed on past offenders.
Sigler at paragraph 43, citing State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 2008-Ohio-291, 700 N.E.2d 570; State v. Williams, Warren Co. App. No.CA2008-02-029. 2008-Ohio-6195. Further, we find appellee’s prior history does not create a vested, settled expectation he would never be the subject of legislative action.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court for further proceedings in accord with and consistent with this opinion.
So the more violent ones are trying to advance a legal technicality to get off a federal registry. They are trying to sneak away into the shadows and in the first round, apparently failed. In the words of Dave Chappelle, "gotcha, bitch." But as I said, these cases were remanded to court for further proceedings. So we only know how round one went. And there clearly was a set up to be a round two.
7:13 pm
April 25, 2017
Offline
Means v State. 2009-Ohio-3840.
On or about November 30, 2007, appellee, Jimmy Means, received a Notice of New Classification and Registration Duties based on Ohio's Adam Walsh Act, R.C. 2950.01, et seq. The notice indicated that appellee was being classified as a Tier III sex offender.
On January 29, 2008, appellee filed a Petition to Contest Reclassification with the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio pursuant to R.C. 2950.031(E) and 2950.032(E), challenging both the level of his classification and the application of the Adam Walsh Act. Appellee contested his reclassification under R.C. 2950.01, et seq., as amended by S.B. No. 10, effective date January 1, 2008, a law which was in effect on the date he was reclassified, but was not in effect on the date he committed the offense in question. Appellee challenged the constitutionality of S.B. No. 10 which eliminated the prior sex offender classifications and substituted a three-tier classification system based on the offense committed. Appellee argued R.C. Chapter 2950, as amended by S.B. No. 10, violated the prohibitions against retroactive and ex post facto laws, interfered with his right to contract because it required the state to breach his plea agreement, violated the separation of powers doctrine, constituted a double jeopardy violation, and violated both procedural and substantive due process.
By conditional final order filed September 30, 2008, the trial court found S.B. No. 10 was unconstitutional both facially and as applied to appellee because it violated the prohibitions against both retroactive and ex post facto laws. In granting judgment inappellee's favor, the trial court relied upon its decision in Sigler v. State, Richland C.P. No. 07-CV1863.
Appellant, the state of Ohio, filed an appeal on November 20, 2008. On January 14, 2009, this court sua sponte stayed all further proceedings in this, as well as numerous other Adam Walsh cases from Richland County, pending our decision in the aforementioned Sigler case.
On April 27, 2009, this court reversed the trial court's decision in Sigler. See, Sigler v. State, Richland App. No. 08CA79, 2009-Ohio-2010. By judgment entry filed May 7, 2009, this court sua sponte lifted the stay and assigned this case to the accelerated calendar. This matter is now before his court for consideration.
Preliminarily, we note this case comes to us on the accelerated calendar. App.R. 11.1, which governs accelerated calendar cases, provides in pertinent part the
following:
(E) Determination and judgment on appeal
"The appeal will be determined as provided by App. R. 11.1. It shall be sufficient compliance with App. R. 12(A) for the statement of the reason for the court's decision as to each error to be in brief and conclusionary form.
"The decision may be by judgment entry in which case it will not be published in any form."
One of the important purposes of the accelerated calendar is to enable an appellate court to render a brief and conclusory decision more quickly than in a case on the regular calendar where the briefs, facts, and legal issues are more complicated.
Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn. (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 158.
This appeal shall be considered in accordance with the aforementioned rules.
In these assignments of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in finding S.B. No. 10 to be unconstitutional on multiple grounds. We agree.
This court has examined identical arguments as set forth by appellee and has rejected them. See, State v. Gooding, Coshocton App. No. 08CA5, 2008-Ohio-5954; See also, Sigler v. State, Richland App. No. 08CA79, 2009-Ohio-2010. Virtually every appellate district in this state has upheld the Adam Walsh Act against the identical challenges raised by appellee herein. See, State v. Graves, 179 Ohio App.3d 107, 2008-Ohio-5763; Holcomb v. State, 3rd Dist. Nos. 8-08-23, 8-08-25, 8-08-26, 8-08-24, 2009-Ohio-782; State v. Bodyke, 6th Dist. Nos. H-07-040, H07-041, H07-042, 2008-Ohio-6387; State v. Byers, 7th Dist. No. 07CO39, 2008-Ohio-5051; State v. Ellis, 8th Dist. No. 90844, 2008-Ohio-6283; State v. Honey, 9th Dist. No. 08CA0018-M, 2008-Ohio-4943; State v. Christian, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-170, 2008-Ohio-6304; State v. Swank, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-019, 2008-Ohio-6059; and State v. Williams, 12th Dist. No. CA2008-02-029, 2008-Ohio-6195.
[...]
The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio is hereby reversed, and the matter is remanded to said court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and the law.
7:22 pm
April 25, 2017
Offline
So we know what happened in 2009 and 2010 when the Appeals Court basically overturned the court of common pleas in MANY CASES and said re-registering was NOT unconstitutional. Especially for more violent offenders such as Cook. In round one in 2009 in the Appeals Court, they said we find appellee’s prior history does not create a vested, settled expectation he would never be the subject of legislative action.
So this means something happened with Cook in 2016. Check it out.
http://law.justia.com/cases/oh.....-1310.html
Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of gross sexual imposition and was sentenced to eighteen months in prison. After serving his prison sentence, Appellant was released but was still subject to the reporting requirements that were imposed because he was adjudicated a sexual predator. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of appeals seeking an order striking his reclassification as a sexual predator applied under Megan’s Law and the AWA Act. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant was not in prison or otherwise restrained of his liberty, he was not eligible for habeas corpus relief.
The decision is in a pdf that is embedded in the page. As one can see, he fucked up on some paperwork which is why they didn't take his appeal seriously. I have to wonder if they would have granted him his wish if he did file his paperwork properly. I would sure hope not. And I would understand Chuck Reeves being concerned if doing correct paperwork is enough to get a violent offender out. But it seems that with the case of Mr. Cook, he lost round one in 2009 and round two in 2016. He said basically he served his sentence, registered for however long he was supposed to and that should be it. It seems that in 2016, they upheld their 2009 notation of the violent nature of his offense and decided because of it, he would not get through the constitutional challenge loophole.
Chuck Reeves can breathe a sigh of relief regarding Mr. Cook. I will see what else I can dig up regarding round two for any of the other guys.
7:34 pm
April 25, 2017
Offline
What happened to ROUND TWO in 2014 with Mr. Trem? Let's see. They rejected his appeal and sent his ass back to prison for raping his daughter and committing other violent sexual acts.
http://cases.justia.com/ohio/e.....1415293246
Appellant Joseph Trem appeals the decision of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas that denied his motion to withdraw guilty plea. For the reasons stated herein, we
affirm the decision of the trial court.
In July 1994, appellant was charged under a 39-count indictme
nt with multiple counts of rape, gross sexual imposition, and endangering children. A majority of the counts related to sexual conduct against his own daughter from the time she was nine years old through her mid teens. Two of the gross sexual impos
ition charges related to appellant having his daughter engage in sexual activity with other individuals, who were her friends. Several counts also involved appellant’s sexual conduct against one of those friends. Appellant initially entered a plea of not guilty to the indictment.
In March 1995, appellant retracted his former plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to rape of his daughter when under the age of 13, as amended under Counts 1 and 6 to delete the use of force; rape ofhis daughter as charged in Counts 11, 13, and 14; and gross sexual imposition as charged in Counts 30, 31, and 32. The remaining counts were nolled.
The trial court sentenced appellant to a prison term of 10 to 25 years on Counts 1 and 6, to run consecutively to each other and concurrent to the remaining counts for which the court imposed a term of 10 to 25 years on Counts 11, 13, and 14, and two years each on Counts 30, 31, and 32, all running concurrently to each other. The aggregate prison term imposed was 20 to 50 years. Appellant did not file a direct appeal.
In February 2014, nearly 19 years later, appellant filed a motion to withdraw guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1. Appellant argued his primary reason for agreeing to enter a plea of guilty was his understanding that he would serve no more than 15 years of incarceration. Appellant attached a copy of the sentencing transcript to his motion. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing. This appeal followed.
Appellant’s sole assignment of error claims the trial court erred by failing to address the issues raised by his motion and by failing to hold a hearing.
[...]
The record in this case reflects that appellant was sentenced to a total indefinite prison term of 20 to 50 years. Appellant claims he
entered his plea with an understanding that the most time he would actually serve would be 15 years regardless of the actual sentence imposed. However, there is nothing to show that appellant did not know the actual sentencing possibilities at the time he entered his plea. Because appellant did not file a transcript of the plea hearing, we must presume regularity and the validity of the trial court’s acceptance of his plea.
SeeState v. Soverns, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101185, 2014-Ohio-4094, ¶ 6-7; State v. Woody, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92929, 2010-Ohio-72, ¶ 10.1 See Statev. Mack, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2005-P-0033, 2006-Ohio-1694, ¶ 17-19. Thus, we are unable to conclude that appellant did not fully understand the sentencing consequences of his guilty plea. We are also cognizant that in 1997, appellant filed a motion to correct sentencing journal entry, which sought to correct the judgment entry to accurately reflect the sentence imposed in open court, and no mention was made as to appellantonly serving a 15-year prison term. Rather, it is apparent that appellant understood the actual sentence imposed was a total indefinite prison term of 20 to 50 years.
Nonetheless, to support his claimed error, appellant relies upon the sentencing transcript. Appellant claims that it was his understanding thatdespite the imposition of an indefinite sentence, the most time he would actually serve was 15 years. However, there is nothing that would reflect this was a condition of the plea bargain. The record reflects that as indicted, appellant was facing numerous life terms for the rape of
his daughter with force when she was under the age of 13. As the prosecutor represented, at that time, even if all counts had
been run consecutive, appellant would have been “eligible” for parole by statute in 15 years. Therefore, the prosecutor requestedthat the court run at least two of the rape counts, which required an indefinite term of 10 to 25 years each, consecutive to ensure that “he will be in prison for 15 years before he is eligible for parole.”
Consistent with the prosecutor’s request, the court proceeded to impose a minimum sentence of 10 years and a maximum of 25 years on Counts 1 and 6, to be run consecutively. As the court indicated, that resulted in a “20 year [minimum] sentence, which is in excess of the 15.” Although the court did make misstatements resulting from an apparent misunderstanding of parole eligibility, by repeatedly indicating the most time appellant could serve was 15 years, this did not alter the indefinite prison term that was imposed or the validity of the plea that had already been entered.
Now if we check this link
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2016/2016-Ohio-2932.pdf
We see that not only did the court reject his attempt to change his plea, but they said he has no grounds for demanding to be taken off the sex offender registry. His application was DENIED! So Trem will stay on under Adam's Law and he can not change his guilty plea back to not guilty. In other words, Cook and Term did not get through the loophole. Chuck can breathe a sigh of relief regarding those two. Now all that needs to be examined are the Wallis and Means cases. Let's see how round two panned out in like 2014 or 2015 or 2016 or whatever...
7:46 pm
October 30, 2013
Offline
Dude... pfft.
You still catch the "L" for posting all that shit without sourcing annotations...
Refresh my memory... didn't this whole thing "come to our attention" last year by way of JUGGALO HOLOCAUST?
But more to the point:
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT?!
WHAT DO YOU THINK IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN?!
SPEAK ON JUST WHAT FUCKIN' BEST CASE SCENARIO YOU ARE FUCKIN' GETTING AT?!?!
Because the alternative is that you want Psychopathic Records to go down in flames because they have a friend you got problems with...
And after posting all THAT SHIT... oh yeah, you got problems, Bub.
"Your lack of online social presence makes it difficult for me to predict your needs..." - 2064: Read Only Memories
7:51 pm
Moderators
May 22, 2012
Offline
open the juggalo detective agency, yo.
you will get customers.
they wont pay much, but still.
Whoop Whoop scruffy :
wicket_juanawfully paranoid, arent you?
7:59 pm
April 25, 2017
Offline
Cheshyr said
Dude... pfft.
You still catch the "L" for posting all that shit without sourcing annotations...
Refresh my memory... didn't this whole thing "come to our attention" last year by way of JUGGALO HOLOCAUST?
But more to the point:
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT?!
WHAT DO YOU THINK IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN?!
SPEAK ON JUST WHAT FUCKIN' BEST CASE SCENARIO YOU ARE FUCKIN' GETTING AT?!?!
Because the alternative is that you want Psychopathic Records to go down in flames because they have a friend you got problems with...
And after posting all THAT SHIT... oh yeah, you got problems, Bub.
I never gave sources? You need to work on your reading comprehension and/or memory. I clearly said on page 7 that the Cook, Means, Wallis and Term cases come from the very links Chuck showed in his google search at the 25 minute mark of his last solo video. If you want to find those cases, follow his google hints. On the other hand, I can just give them to you no sweat.
Means V. State
https://supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2009/2009-ohio-3840.pdf
Wallis V. State
https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2009/2009-ohio-3874.pdf
Trem V. State
https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2009/2009-ohio-3875.pdf
Cook V. State
https://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/5/2009/2009-ohio-4356.pdf
Everything else, I sure damn did give links to. So shut your mouth. I don't want psychopathic records to go down in flames. You are making assumptions. The way you type with lousy punctuation, unnecessary capitals, and pointless ' marks in place of a "g" is an indicator of your lack of intelligence and lack of ability to grasp the main issues. Is Chuck's paranoia about these lawsuits that cited Sigler warranted? Did they slip through the cracks? To repeat myself, Cook and Term did not get through the loophole. Chuck can breathe a sigh of relief regarding those two. Now all that needs to be examined are the Wallis and Means cases. Let's see how round two panned out in like 2014 or 2015 or 2016 or whatever. In case you don't understand, I am saying Chuck has made an error and CPN is correct on at least one point. CPN and Chuck will make their mistakes from time to time. Nobody is perfect. So I don't worship one side over the other. I care about facts and I care about evidence.
Don't get jealous and angry at a motherfucker just because I have the patience and intelligence to read legal documents and understand them.
8:39 pm
October 30, 2013
Offline
Ooh-kaay...
So like, I'm not supposed to notice that despite having "quoted" my entire post, you seemed to think that one sentence was only worth responding to...?
Yeah... I'm real interested in your "legal acumen".
I got paid to argue AT&T cellphone contract disputes with Fortune 500 companies that didn't wanna pay for their employees roaming, text and data overages (to the tune of MANY thousands of dollars)! You wanna get LITIGIOUS up in this piece? I won a court case against that same company when they fired me and buried them in their own policies in a "right-to-work" state!
I got out of a 12month apartment lease after only 3months AND got to keep my deposit!!! I gotz paper skillz, bitch!
But hey...
Why don't you go ahead and lay back down on the couch and tell us some more about the positive outcome of this fever dream you've been telling us about? Hmm?
"Your lack of online social presence makes it difficult for me to predict your needs..." - 2064: Read Only Memories
9:01 pm
April 25, 2017
Offline
I got paid to argue AT&T cellphone contract disputes with Fortune 500 companies that didn't wanna pay for their employees roaming, text and data overages (to the tune of MANY thousands of dollars)! You wanna get LITIGIOUS up in this piece? I won a court case against that same company when they fired me and buried them in their own policies in a "right-to-work" state!
I got out of a 12month apartment lease after only 3months AND got to keep my deposit!!! I gotz paper skillz, bitch!
You were your own lawyer in court?
You left a lease and kept your deposit?
Good job if both are true. So you should therefore have the intelligence to see why all that stuff I posted is relevant.Or do you really not get why I went into such detail? Shall I repeat myself once again? It appears so:
CPN wants to imply that if the previous offense was serious enough, then FOR THE SAKE OF CHILDREN AND SOCIETY, the more serious offenders would in fact get put onto the federal registry. He then implies that Chuck never studied the cases he screenshoted at 25 minutes of his last solo video. He implies he looked at the cases and figured out that less serious ones were let go and more serious ones were NOT let go.
I think I am wrong about CPN. He may be correct after all. It seems that the Ohio appeal court has reversed the decision of the Sigler case in the lower Court of Common Pleas. Hence, having to register under this new bill is NOT unconstitutional. In fact, one of the decisions I am about to bring shows that because of the SEVERITY of the offense, it was not an issue to make him register under Adam's Law. That is CPN's point. I think Chuck Reeves fucked up by not reading these cases. CPN apparently has. Good for him.
Is Chuck's paranoia about these lawsuits that cited Sigler warranted? Did they slip through the cracks? To repeat myself, Cook and Term did not get through the loophole. Chuck can breathe a sigh of relief regarding those two. Now all that needs to be examined are the Wallis and Means cases. Let's see how round two panned out in like 2014 or 2015 or 2016 or whatever. In case you don't understand, I am saying Chuck has made an error and CPN is correct on at least one point. CPN and Chuck will make their mistakes from time to time. Nobody is perfect. So I don't worship one side over the other. I care about facts and I care about evidence.
I don't know how you missed those first two block quotes. They came before I copied and pasted all that stuff. They clearly set the stage for what I was about to do next. To see who was right. CPN or Chuck. Why? Because I care about facts and evidence. because I don't worship one side over the other. Hopefully that's the last time I have to say this again.
Why don't you go ahead and lay back down on the couch and tell us some more about the positive outcome of this fever dream you've been telling us about?
I don't know what apparent dream of mine you are referring to. Is it your old baseless assumption I want Psychopathic Records to collapse into bankruptcy and artists' careers destroyed? By the way, you're still wrong about claiming the stuff that I posted had no sources or rather could not be sourced/tracked down. Again, you would have easily found those 4 links via google just by following Chuck Reeves' example. That's why I put the video up there and MENTIONED SPECIFICALLY the 25 minute mark. To show how and where to find those things. I apologize for expecting normal people to be able to put two and two together by following the Chuck Reeves' google search example after directing people to a timestamp in the video, and not realizing I had to spoonfeed people.
10:12 pm
October 30, 2013
Offline
Hey, @vinyllover
"Your lack of online social presence makes it difficult for me to predict your needs..." - 2064: Read Only Memories
12:29 am
April 25, 2017
Offline
Chuck Reeves had another live stream tonight.
He brought this website to my attention and the attention of all those watching. Here are all of the charges against Sigler for different things over the years.
Now here is the 1999 charge. For some reason, there is a firearms issue. Observe the three different original charges. Look for Firearms Specification.
12:34 am
June 12, 2012
Offline
vinyllover said
Chuck Reeves had another live stream tonight.
That guy CPN is so hardheaded its unreal...
12:35 am
April 25, 2017
Offline
Jump to 1 hour 40 minutes 50 seconds. It was the second time Chuck went to that website during the stream. But this second time around, he gets into a little more detail. Here is that third charge about firearms specification from 1999.
2941.145.
Let's check this one out.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2941.145
2941.145 Firearm displayed, brandished, indicated that offender possessed the firearm, or used it to facilitate offense specification.
(A) Imposition of a three-year mandatory prison term upon an offender under division (B)(1)(a)(ii) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code is precluded unless the indictment, count in the indictment, or information charging the offense specifies that the offender had a firearm on or about the offender's person or under the offender's control while committing the offense and displayed the firearm, brandished the firearm, indicated that the offender possessed the firearm, or used it to facilitate the offense. The specification shall be stated at the end of the body of the indictment, count, or information, and shall be stated in substantially the following form:
"SPECIFICATION (or, SPECIFICATION TO THE FIRST COUNT). The Grand Jurors (or insert the person's or the prosecuting attorney's name when appropriate) further find and specify that (set forth that the offender had a firearm on or about the offender's person or under the offender's control while committing the offense and displayed the firearm, brandished the firearm, indicated that the offender possessed the firearm, or used it to facilitate the offense)."
(B) Imposition of a three-year mandatory prison term upon an offender under division (B)(1) (a)(ii) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code is precluded if a court imposes a one-year , eighteen-month, six-year, fifty-four-month, or nine-year mandatory prison term on the offender under division (B)(1) (a)(i), (iii), (iv), (v), or (vi) of that section relative to the same felony.
(C) The specification described in division (A) of this section may be used in a delinquent child proceeding in the manner and for the purpose described in section 2152.17 of the Revised Code.
(D) Imposition of a mandatory prison term of fifty-four months upon an offender under division (B)(1)(a)(v) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code is precluded unless the indictment, count in the indictment, or information charging the offense specifies that the offender had a firearm on or about the offender's person or under the offender's control while committing the offense and displayed the firearm, brandished the firearm, indicated that the offender possessed a firearm, or used the firearm to facilitate the offense and that the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a firearm specification of the type described in section 2941.141, 2941.144, 2941.145, 2941.146, or 2941.1412 of the Revised Code. The specification shall be stated at the end of the body of the indictment, count, or information, and shall be in substantially the following form:
"SPECIFICATION (or, SPECIFICATION TO THE FIRST COUNT). The Grand Jurors (or insert the person's or the prosecuting attorney's name when appropriate) further find and specify that (set forth that the offender had a firearm on or about the offender's person or under the offender's control while committing the offense and displayed the firearm, brandished the firearm, indicated that the offender possessed a firearm, or used the firearm to facilitate the offense and that the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a firearm specification of the type described in section 2941.141, 2941.144, 2941.145, 2941.146, or 2941.1412 of the Revised Code.)"
(E) Imposition of a mandatory prison term of fifty-four months upon an offender under division (B)(1)(a)(v) of section 2929.14 of the Revised Code is precluded if the court imposes a one-y ear, eighteen-month, three-year, or nine-year mandatory prison term on the offender under division (B)(1)(a)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (vi) of that section relative to the same felony.
(F) As used in this section, "firearm" has the same meaning as in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code.
Amended by 131st General Assembly File No. TBD, SB 97, §1, eff. 9/14/2016.
Amended by 129th General AssemblyFile No.29, HB 86, §1, eff. 9/30/2011.
Effective Date: 01-01-2002 .
12:57 am
August 23, 2014
Offline
JDizzle420 said
vinyllover said
Chuck Reeves had another live stream tonight.That guy CPN is so hardheaded its unreal...
this is why I hate him.
If he was just another fanboi riding J's cock? he'd be about as bad as half the juggalos I'm *friends* with. It's the fact that he refuses to ever admit he was wrong, refuses to accept blame for shit he does, insults anyone who DARES to disagree with his word as if it was gospel.
quote me to trigger a Canadian child molester
4:57 pm
June 8, 2016
Offline
djscrubb said
Miklo Velka said
DCFaygoGuy has prolly the best Juggalo channel going right now.
I completely agree. I really dig all the old (but recent) album reviews he does. Keep it going @dcfaygoguy . Long time sub. Your actually the only Juggalo channel I sub to. Most are just god fuckin awful....I feel like I can smell their breath through my fuckin phone....
Edit:
I will say that I did enjoy Big Irish Juggalos vids/channel way back when. He had an interesting outlook on things sometimes. What ever happened to that dude??
Irish is still around, not on camera quite as much. He's with the CarnivalSpirits crew, you can catch him on the Every Saturday Afternoon Hangout every now and again on CarnivalSpirits
5:29 pm
December 15, 2013
Offline
These YouTube "personalities" are a different breed.
5:47 pm
May 4, 2014
Offline
Realizm said
These YouTube "personalities" are a different breed.
They even get their own convention.
 |
 |
 |
8:54 pm
April 25, 2017
Offline
I managed to contact Chuck and I told him about all the things on pages 7 and 8 I put up here showing how many sex offenders who sued ended up losing their "constitutional challenge." At least CPN alluded to it before Chuck ejected him in that heated debate a couple of days ago. But Chuck is correct that the original 1999 charge did have an initial firearms specification. So I wonder how CPN is going to make his video now that he knows he can't accuse Chuck of faking documents or at least presenting a faked document that is apparently a composite fake of two separate documents.
Are we even going to see this faked composite document that CPN claims he found, analyzed and determined to be a fake? Is he going to show us where and when he found this faked composite document with a piece from 1997 and a piece from 1999? Is he going to reveal the source of this faked composite document? Or are we going to just have to take his word for it that he saw something like this? Hey, he wasn't smart enough to set up his recording equipment THE VERY SECOND after Chuck Reeves got off the phone with him and told him Tech was going to call him (because he thought Chuck was fucking with him LOL). So maybe this faked composite document does exist and he just didn't bookmark the website or copy and save it to his hard drive. Ha ha.
11:59 pm
April 25, 2017
Offline
Chuck's livestream is on as I type this. I just heard him say Will Sigler showed up in the comments section of a youtube video by Kreyz McKormik
youtube.com/watch?v=SmJ9iolt13M
I only got what I thought was relevant. Happy reading:
C Note he testified in court he DID NOT KNOW HER AGE... SHE WAS IN A CLUB YOU HAD TO BE 18 TO GET IN.... SHE HAD A FAKE ID.... people get screwed on that shit all the time....that iS WHY LOOPHOLES ARE CREATED... he got hemmed up on some bullshit... just like the creating of the ROMEO AND JULIET LAW... its a loophole that was created TO PREVENT KIDS THAT ARE SEEING EACHOTHER FROM GETTING SLAMMED UP IF ONE OF THEM TURN 18 BEFORE THE OTHER..
yes I plead guilty to a sexually oriented offense 18years ago I was accused of trying to force an ex girlfriend to go down on me rather than her tell the truth to her cousin who i was currently seeing at the time. I was placed on a registry through local sheriff's dept where I live and had to register for 10 years after which I was deleted for their site. I was never accused of doing something with a child and would never hurt a child wtf before all of this pleading guilty and going away I was and still am a Marine whether I'm active duty or not. I've done everything in my power over the last 6 years I've served the Hatched in the light and not completely behind the senses to show the Juggalo world how much they are loved and appreciated and help out everyone I could day or night but that was never enough. yes I have a sex offense on my record but I'm in no way a sex offender.( By the way where I live you can get classed as a sex offender for peeing on the side of the road so in no way should that person be linked up to a pedophile but that's how the law is here) I was classed as the least of the 3 classes a pedophile is automatically predator or tier 3 classed and anyone who thinks or feeling differently my address hasn't changed in all these years so why not talk online and hate at least do it to my face #FTFOMF Juggalo for life
you can spin it anyway you like by your own accord you where 20 she was 15 true? also can you school us to the fact of why you where in 6'7' video?????
C Note yes but I had no idea of her age while we went together her ID said 18 and she looked the part. as far as the video I was supposed to be a suicide bomber blowing up a church of Scientology listen to the lyrics and you'll hear it
+Will Sigler dudes get pinched on this sort of shit all the time because bitches be crazy sometimes. And then a guy gets burnt socially for the rest of his life. I can understand the pain of being accused of something you didn't do and be sentenced for it.
Kreyz McKormik yea I know bro. her cousin that I was actually seeing wrote me a few time while I was locked up saying she still wanted to be friends.
Will Sigler well well well well well. First if this is in fact William Sigler I would like to thank you for having the guts to speak up on this unlike PSY or ICP. Second, I hope you can understand the hypocrisy of having someone with a criminal record such as yours being associated with PSY after all of the messages and life lessons preached through their music. Our issue doesn't so much lay with you as it is the crime you are associated with and the negative image it casts upon all juggalos. If you had spoke up sooner and through a legitimate outlet in sure all of this drama since the release of 6'7 could have been avoided. So my question here to you is ,do you think those of us that feel a sex offender (regardless or the type) being associated with PSY or ICP are wrong for wanting better for our community? I can defend PSY (and have had to) on allot of subjects, but find it impossible to do so here...
C Note I was advised against being on that show so I was just listening to what I was told and the video was a few weeks ago and no I stepped down to help save Psychopathic and other from drama and hate but whether I am on the payroll or not they are all my friends and I still see and talk to them. And I swore to be a juggalo for life and down for life so whether I'm officially working there or not I still have nothing but LOVE and RESPECT for all true Juggalos, Psychopathic Records and the Insane Clown Posse and nothing will EVER change that even if everyone turns on me and hates me I didn't sign up for this life to be loved by other but to make them feel loved and appreciate for everything they do to make this dirtball world a better place. Juggalos are the SHIT. I made the MJ outfit for that video and was asked if I minded being a mad bomber blowing up a church or science I even had a mask on but later the editor thought it'd be better to blur my face lol I guess because it wasn't about me it was about how bad those Scientology churches are.
Joshua Krawczyk of course I understand and totally agree if I actually was what people are saying I am I'd have killed myself I don't play that either. I don't hold it against anyone for hating that about someone just hurts that I'm the same person I've been and all it took was a few people making up lies and manipulating the truth to get them to throw away the "Everyone's Welcome At The Carnival" mentality and turn on me. But that's life I guess. MCL
no not everyone is welcomed!!! people convicted of hurting a child for one.. those types of ppl belong in there own hell!!! you know you have said a lot of stuff either here today and also with your statement on the juggalo show, but one thing you have not done is show remorse or spoken about the pain and anguish that you caused YOUR VICTOM and what she has been going threw since your attack on the child, you have done nothing but spin this to benefit yourself and try to make ninjas feel sorry for you, that's what monsters do so I understand, you clearly have no remorse for you crime THAT YOU PLEAD QUILTY TOO!!, if you can own up to your rape in court you should be able to do that here and now...TRUE JUGGALOS know what you are....MMFFL TO ALL REAL JUGGALOS
and I've seen people think because I had a class action suit go to the Supreme Court that it must mean I condone this. HELL NO!!! the only reason I fought mine when I did is because originally I was classed by the Judge as an Oriented Offender under Megan's law (Oriented, Habitual, Predator) well unfortunately a unthinkable thing happened to John Walsh's son and he fought and got approved into law the Adam Walsh act which was supposed to sentence anyone after that under a new law and tier system (tier 1,2,3) well instead of it just effecting cases after that the system went back and reclassed everyone currently in the system in any way, so at the time so for me that meant after 8 years of registering on this least of the classes which I was supposed to for 10 years the system reclassed me as the worse a tier 3 where I'd have to register for every 90 days for life and neighbors get notified etc cause the system didn't look at specifics only the charge. So after talking to the Judge he recommended fighting it cause he said its unconstitutional that he sentenced me and then after that long them trying to reclass me like his sentence wasn't right or good enough. so I fought it and remained my original classification for 2 more years then was released from registering. Hope this clears up the confusion for some
C Note I'm not trying to and haven't tried to spin anything. I plead guilty to Attemped Rape because my lawyer told me to. if anyone has ever been actually raped or molested then I feel beyond sorry for them and know how hard it is to live with that and how hard it is to try to overcome that and live anything close to a normal life. But this wasn't the case in 1999 so sorry you feel that way but you like others are gravely mistaken but you can believe whatever you want and live in hate.
Will Sigler I think you should make some sort of public acknowledgement of this situation. there are allot more of us asking questions than will see your statements here. I appreciate you speaking up here but I still can't condone someone with a record such as yours being allowed any type of positive notoriety within the juggalo world. I have allot more questions concerning inconsistencies with your statements here and available court records and statements made while under oath but again do not think this is the type of forum for that kind of discussion. I will say to you here i will no longer publicly ask ICP or PSY about your renewed public involvement with them. I just hope you can say publicly what you are saying here and more.
I only believe what the court doc's say!! and just because your lawyer told you to do something you do it? you pleaded down to attempted rape only because you would have gotten at least 12 years or more if you took it to trail because the evidence was overwhelming against you . you plead out because it was what was best for you!! if you where not guilty you would have fought it, but you didn't, and by your own admission you dated said victim for weeks and I have to imagine during that time you had to of found out her legit age so miss me with all that bullshit about not knowing..
Joshua Krawczyk ask anything you want and yea this probably isn't the forum as you put it just wanted to try to get rid of some of the confusion about people thinking I fought to get some offender not to register. All offenders have to register. I was added to an already existing suit about a reclass not over the registration period and just because the suit was won doesn't effect future cases only people at the time that were already classed . and I've seen the edited police report that people are saying are court doc. take that stuff with a grain of salt but again people can believe what they want. if people really believe I'm a sick or bad person there's NOTHING I can say or do to ever change that. Hit me up anytime
Will Sigler ive never called the actual case or the specifics of your arrest into question. im strictly going by words written accepted and logged int the record, the guys defending them like i made it up are the ones making a bigger deal than it is, ive done my part and heads can make informed decisionson there own.
Dont worry Chuck, your lies are about to be exposed REAL SOON
Something like this SUNK the legendary Zulu Nation and all they had in that case was stories. Here theres a paper trail, can you not see why some people believe you to be a threat to the culture
Chuck Reeves of course I know you've told lies about me I've seen them and I'd never waste my time talking to someone who clearly only trolls to get veiws and likes rather than the actual truth. Have a good day brother I have nothing more to say to a closed minded hater.
ALSO Do you WILL SIGLER believe I ever told any lies about you?
and if I told you to kill yourself would you?? you pled out because of the evidence, because if you would have fought it you would have still be on the list (where you should be) we need to hear the victim's side of the story..
I invite you to enter the ejection seat for sure, come through and we'll chat, As a Juggalo for life and knowing how much of the juggalo mythos is based on a distain and hatred of BIGOTS, RAPISTS, RACISTS, CHILD PREDATORS and similar demons....... Do you think AS A JUGGALO that any connection especially a public one with a person who could be seen as that due to his prior actions? AS A JUGGALO? Not As Will Sigler.
so you went to jail for 6 years for no reason, further more you pled out to a crime you didn't commit? is that what your saying?
Will Sigler my suggestion is to either put out your own video statement, do an interview with faygoluvers or do a hangout with both cpn and Chuck Reeves. I suggest those 2 youtubers due to the facts cpn will garner you the most exposure and Chuck will ask the right questions and follow ups to truly allow you to explain your side publicly.
no im your age, yes I have had Run-ins with the police most of us here in chi-town that R about that life has, but I sure as fuck wouldn't plead guilty to something i didn't do EXSPECIALY ATEMPED RAPE OF A CHILD , my misspellings are due to the fact that I am in complete disgust over the fact you will not take accountability for YOUR actions, you can DEFLECT OR SPIN IT ANY WAY YOU WANT, you are a convicted o attempted rape of a child and you show absolutely no remorse .....
C Note but all reports don't have to be filed. you obviously have never had a run in with how shady the system can be so that makes me happy for you hope you never have to. Ever.and by all your misspellings can see you're either young or have lil education you really should proof read especially when you're trying to make a strong point but I know what you're saying. Stay up MCL
the only doc's iv seen come's straight from the OHIO state database, and I doubt they are falsifying police reports, I can send you the link to refresh your memory....
C Note there was no evidence against me I have proof of that. I was young and dumb and listened to a court lawyer when I should've taken it to trial but its been many a year since then so I can't change the past only the future.
Kreyz McKormik yes and no. Chuck will and does admit openly that some of what he does and says is for entertainment and shock value. Whereas cpn will only admit he was wrong when it comes to things he said about tech9 and only because tech himself personally called him on it. On this subject though which I feel is much more important to us as a whole cpn is blatantly disregarding facts to go after one misconstrued point. I have tried to have these conversations personally with cpn to which his replies are always childish and ignorant where with Chuck he will appreciate calling him out on bullshit and thank you for it. I would also like to point out that Chuck is more geared towards older Juggalos such as myself where cpn is usually the first Youtuber younger peeps find and should be responsible enough to know how impressionable those fam kids are. The bottom line is that all of us should be going out of our way to pass along information as facts only when it is and make sure opinions are pointed out as such. Something I feel cpn is incapable of.
All RSSMost Users Ever Online: 591
Currently Online:
67 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
The Warlock: 11663
King Lucem Ferre: 9098
Old Mr Dangerous: 8974
krunk: 8060
OCJ_Brendan: 6148
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 755
Members: 3743
Moderators: 6
Admins: 2
Forum Stats:
Groups: 5
Forums: 28
Topics: 12299
Posts: 245363
Newest Members:
KennethSic, marijuana edibles, PromotionErump, Michaeletews, issuesthycloonModerators: GanjaGoblin: 2873, Psyral: 4297, bozodklown: 394, scruffy: 11447, PunkRockJuggalo: 6559, Pigg: 6492
Administrators: admin: 1, ScottieD: 845
