Dramacow Ron Collins / Draven Azropht - Fake ninja, fake ex-MP, real pest toward teen girls, fight ducker/loser, convicted felon

[AprilRains]

Any update on this? Any idea when the trial is?

No hearings are scheduled at this writing. Having determined that Ron's not being granted bail, the court is in no big hurry.

Ron's cashews are in the chopper. The whole case can be made by showing the jury two pieces of paper: the form where he swore he wasn't committed involuntarily, and the paperwork for his committal dated well before he signed that form. Thus, there's no rush; it's not as if they are imprisoning a likely innocent.

Update: This lolcow has stood unmilked for weeks. What a shame. But don't worry, the West Virginia courts have taken pity on his bursting udders.

A magistrate has recommended dismissing his lolsuit with prejudice. Some highlights:

Well, no shit. Indeed, he provided factual evidence for only one claim: That the prosecutor did not share evidence that would have hurt the defendant.

So I guess it's back to whackin' it and waiting for the mills of the gods to grind his criminal case. Or, rather, to grind him in its inexorable millstones.

Update 2: Ron has filed a handwritten response to the magistrate's recommendation. It is handwritten, and not well, so this :autism: ain't easy to read. My initial reading is that his response translates to "Nuh-UH!" yet again. He doesn't raise any new arguments, and to my non-lawyer eye, it doesn't appear as if he's addressing the recommendation all that well. He's saying nothing new, merely re-pleading his arguments as if they hadn't been rebutted. It's twenty pages of word salad with no merit I can discern. Legal experts with patience and aspirin in good supply are invited to decipher his scrawling and see if he has a goddamned point.

 

[gREEEEEEEEEr]

I feel for the lawyers who actually have to decipher that and produce a coherent response. I'm guessing "this is bollocks and should not be deigned with a response" would not suffice.

It's really painful to read, because he repeats the same handful of things over and over, as if he thinks it's just a matter of saying the right set of magic words enough times to finally get the judge to agree.

Far as I can tell, he's trying to rules lawyer about some infraction he believes the prosecution committed, based on a law which says that the court has to provide the court-appointed shrink with certain information pertaining to the case. Apparently he claims the shrink did not list these under "sources of information" in his report (and/or something about the case numbers?), so he believes that the whole action and trial were "fraudulent"; he then goes on to claim that involuntary confinement without "guidance from a mental health expert" is a constitutional rights violation, and since he claims the mental health expert's statement was "fraudulent", this is a violation of his rights. Finally, he argues that "fraudulent" actions are not protected by the statute of limitations.

Anyway, here's the plain text as well as I could transcribe it out, and I've attempted to faithfully reproduce his spelling and punctuation (which should be separate criminal offenses). Dude can't spell "judicial" or "argument" to save his life...

Spoiler

1
In THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION

Ronald Collins
Plaintiff
Vs. Civil Action No: 5:17-CV-01330
Kristen Keller
Defendant

Plaintiff’s Response to Courts
Proposed Findings and Recommendations

Now comes the Plaintiff, Ronald Collins Jr., Pro Se, to
file a written reply to the Honorable United States Magistrate
Judge Aboulhosn’s Proposed Findings and Recommendations. The
Plaintiff does appologise for the Handwritten Response but, the
Plaintiff lacks other resources.
The Plaintiff feels that the Honorable Judge erred in his
finding as;
1) The Honorable Judge makes note that the Defendant’s councel
cites an incorrect statute claimed by the Plaintiff, distinguishing
between W.Va. Code 61-5-27a & 61-5-27. This matter is discussed
in violation of W.Va. Code 27-6a-2(b) a statutory requirement
of law to file all evidence related to a given case for evaluation
related to a given While the Plaintiff does assert the violation
occurred under case number 13-F-1026, the Plaintiff would like
to note this 12-B-234 & 14-F-13-B case numbers are referring
to the same case. And evidence interconnected to the present
Federal Criminal Case (No: 5:18-cr-00068 ).
2) The Honorable Judge references Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522(1989)
& includes a note that said case “pertains to a state magistrate

2
who committed individuals to jail for non-jailable misdemeanors”
& that “The Supreme Court held that judical immunity is not
a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judical
officer acting in her judical capacity.” Applying the courts
own cited statements in conjunctions with W.Va Code 61-5-27a
which makes it a crime to bring a fraudulent official
proceeding, against W.Va. Code 61-5-27a subsection (b):
“Fraudulent official proceeding. - It is unlawful for a
person to knowingly engage in a fraudulent official
proceeding or legal process.”
And, W.Va. Code 61-5-27a subsection (c)
“Fraudulent filing. - It is unlawful for a person to knowi knowingly
cause a public official or employee to file, record, or
deliver a fraudulent... complaint, summons, judgement,
warrant or other legal process.”
This shows a similar grounds under Pulliam v. Allen
(citing the Honorable Judge in his Proposed Findings and
Recommendations footnote 11) “The Supreme Court held that
judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive
relief.”
The Plaintiff holds that by violating the statutory
requirements of 27-6a-2 subsection (b):
“(b) The court shall require the party making the motion
for evaluation, and other parties as the court considers
appropriate, to provide to the qualified forensic
evaluator appointed under subsection (a) of this section
any information relevant to the evaluations within ten
business days of its evaluation order. The information

3
shall, include but not limited to;
(1) A copy of the warrant or inditement;
(2) Information pertaining to the alleged crime, including
statements by the defendant made to police, investigative
reports and transcripts of preliminary hearings if any;
(3) Any available psychiatric, psychological, medical or
social records that are considered relevant;
(4) A copy of the defendant’s criminal record; and
(5) If the evaluations are to include a diminished capacity
assessment, the nature of any lesser included criminal offenses
The Honorable Judge herein erred in that the Plaintiff did
include a copy of the arrest warrant, search warrant & page 5
of Dr. Miller’s own report showing sources of information
related to the “re-evaluation order” under case number 13-F-
1026 (a.k.a. 13F-1026) yet no related information such as Trooper
Haynes or the offense date of 16 to 22 August 2013.
The Plaintiff asks the court, is this not the violation of
statutory & Constitutional Rights that the U.S. Supreme Court
cited in Pulliam v. Allen? Is this not also a violation of
W.Va. Code 61-5-27a by violating the statutory requirements
of 27-6a-2(b)?
3) The Plaintiff feels the Honorable Judge erred in citing
Defendant’s claim under Cavendish v. Moffitt but the Judge
has ignored the Plaintiff’s citation of the same case. As in
Cavendish v. Moffit 163 WVa 38, 253 S.E. 2d 558 (1979) the
West Virginia Supreme Court has held that W.Va. Code 56-2-1_
must be read with W.Va. Code 55-7-8a. That as per the
state statute of limitations, citing Cavendish v. Moffit we

4
must look to 55-7-8a & W.Va. Code 61-5-27a making
said case an issue of evidentiary facts. That if court
reviews the statutory requirements of W.Va. Code 61-5-27a
that the court would find under Cavendish v. Moffitt
the W.Va code 55-7-8a, read with 55-2-12 does not
allow for any statute of limitations for fraudulent
actions or personal injuries that result out of fraud.
Thus the Defendant’s claims to a statute of limitations
are incorrect.
4) Furthermore, the Plaintiff feels the judge erred &
accuses the bench of abusing the law to protect
the criminal actions of the Defendant. The Judge
cites “Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the Court is
required to screen each case in which a prisoner
(the Judge cites in footnote 15 “Though Plaintiff was not
a “prisoner” at the time he filed his Complaint,
since March 14, 2018, he has been incarcerated as
a result of criminal proceedings initiated in this
Court as referenced in criminal action number 5:18-
cr-00068-1.”) seek redress from a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity. On screening, the Court must recommend
dismissal of this case if the complaint is frivolous,
malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.”
The Plaintiff would first make note in that in the
Motion to have the Defendant Served, the Plaintiff did

5.
raise concern about the possible & expected violation of
Judical Canon concerning the appearance of impropriety.
Secondly, the same evidence in the Government’s criminal
case 5:18-cr-00068-1 is also valid for this Civil Action &
that the Judge in error is applying 28 U.S.C. 1915A when
trying to evaluate material facts brought up by the Plaintiff
in point 2, of this Response;
a) Defendant did violate statutory rights as outlined in
W.Va. Code 27-6a-2 subsection (b), as the “re-evaluation”
order has a case number 13F-1026 but, no relevant
information such as date of offense or arresting officer
as per the attached warrants & search warrant, to previous
motions.
b) Defendant did also by violating W.Va. Code 27-6a-2(b)
violate the law in W.Va. Code 61-5-27a &, in so doing under
Cavendish v Moffitt 163 W.Va. 38, 253 S.E. 2d 558 loses any
claims to statute of limitations under 55-7-8a, which must
read with 55-2-12.
c) That the Judge in error, has omitted certain factual
statements made by the Plaintiff. Such as that; the
Plaintiff was basing his claim on the falsification of
the evidence for the psychological evaluation. Not the
initial statement of false charges originating with case
number 13F-1026/13-F-1026.
d) The Judge states the “claim lacks an arguable basis in
fact when it describes “fantastic or delusional scenarios,” are
the “fantastic or delusional scenarios” of a court order for
“re-evaluation” under case number 13-F-1026, with a

6
matching Arrest Warrant presented to the same judge that has
information not present in Dr. Miller’s evaluation & required
by W.Va. State Code 27-6a-2(b)?
The same Judge states, “A complaint, therefore, fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted factually
when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can
prove no set of facts in support of his claim...” Yet on
page 12 of the Judge’s motion writes “Plaintiff refers to
the transcript from his bond hearing in Raliegh county
Circuit Court that Trooper Haynes was the arresting
officer, but this information that was not provided to
Dr. Miller for the “re-evaluation” that Defendant knew
there was additional information that was not provided
to Dr. Miller, which concerned new charges of terrorist
threats.” This again is false, as the Plaintiff has only
once been charged with terrorist threats, that the
Defendant states on the referenced transcript there
was “no new charges” & the Plaintiff challenges the
Magistrate Judge to produce any previous case, noting
the case numbers 12-B-234, 14-F-13-B, 13-B-410 &
13-PCR-929-K for the terrorist threat charges?
The Plaintiff feels the Magistrate Judge is ignoring the
statutory requirements of state code 27-6a-2(b) & the
material evidence of both the arrest warrant for Case 13-F-
1026, & the sources of information listed in Dr. Miller’s
report. Concerning 28 U.S.C 1915A.
5) The Judge has erred in stating “Finally, the requirement
of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can

7
ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts
which set forth a claim currently cognizable in federal
district court.” The Plaintiff argues the only “failure to allege
facts” are the Judge’s;
a) Dr. Miller’s report is SOURCES OF INFORMATION cites
a court order for “re-evaluation” using the case number
13-F-1026, no mention of an arrest warrant with that
case number exists. The term “re-evaluation” is false,
itself.
b) W.Va. Code 27-6A-2 subsection (b) statutorily requires a
copy of the warrant or indictment, information pertaining
to the alleged case & others. Dr. Miller’s report contains
no factual evidence to be brought forth with that case
number.
c) Plaintiff submitted a copy of the arrest warrant for
13-F-1026, citing date of offense of 16 to 22 August 2013,
arresting officer Trooper Haynes & no information seen on
Dr. Miller’s Report. So that while Judge Aboulhosn may be
correct in his standard of law, he is ignoring the factual
elements established by evidence & law. Yet, he is applying
the term to the Plaintiff of “prison inmate” to (what the
Plaintiff feels is to deny the plaintiff his right to due
process) & claim to screen the case & conceal the
defendant’s criminal actions & violations of the Plaintiff_
Civil Rights of a 42 U.S.C 1983 claim.
The Plaintiff does not make this claim lightly, as;
a) The Plaintiff would not be an inmate awaiting trial, with
the very violations of laws & rights, the Plaintiff is suing

8
over &, the Government is basing it’s case on, if
the Magistrate Judge had not signed his arrest warrant.
b) The Plaintiff feels that the “prison inmate” lable
is presumptive as the Plaintiff has not been found
guilty. So that any resulting verdict in said
criminal case is now colored by an appearance of
impropriety.
c) The plaintiff feels this would be best resolved
with a stay of judgement unless the Magistrate
Judge’s intent was to use the Plaintiff’s charges to
be able to prevent the Plaintiff from arguing said
facts before the court & calling witnesses who could
verify said facts.
Analysis:
The Federal Magistrate Judge makes reference to Turner
v. Safley 482 U.S. 78, 84, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2259, 96 L.Ed 64
(1987) stating “[F]ederal courts take cognizance of valid
constitutional claims of prison inmates.” However, the
Plaintiff is not convicted of any crime &, only, is only,
incarcerated pending trial due to an Arrest Warrant
signed by Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate
Judge on March 13th 2018 with a case number of 5:18-
mj-00009. Thus, further establishing an appearance
of impropriety.
Furthermore, United States Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn
states;
“Generally speaking, to state and prevail upon a claim under

9
42 U.S.C. 1983, a plaintiff must prove that (1) a person acting
under color of State Law; (2) committed an act which deprived
her of an alleged right, privilege or immunity protected by
the Constitution or laws of the United States.” This seems to
be an issue with the ruling Magistrate Judge ignoring
statements & case law referenced by the Plaintiff, such as
already outlined.
Thus, the Plaintiff has no choice but to question the
impartiality & integrity of the Judge’s findings. As it has
been is clearly set forth (1) Kristen Keller did file for said
“re-evaluation,” is (2) statutorily required under W.Va. Code
27-6a-2(b) to provide certain items of information associated
with case 13-F-1026 which are (3) not present in Dr. Miller’s
SOURCES OF INFORMATION in his report & (4) resulting in
a fraudulent order of commitment under bound over number
14-F-13-B.
Prosecutional Immunity:
The findings of Magistrate Aboulhosn are in conflict with the
arguement made by the Plaintiff, she neglected to turn over as the finding is misleading
stating “Therefore, Defendant still enjoys absolute immunity
even if, as alleged by the Plaintiff, she neglected to turn over
additional evidence or documents to Dr. Miller in preparation
for his re-evaluation.” As the Plaintiff has alleged & proven
with information under W.Va. Code 27-6a-2 subsection (b), (2)
beginning with the arrest warrant or indictment for case 13-SF-
1026 by Trooper Haynes, (3) for 16 to 22nd Ag August 2013 as
an alleged date of offense, (4) a Search Warrant issued on the
same day or (5) similar evidence by way of information contained

10
therein.
Furthermore, stating what the Plaintiff feels is a direct
& purposeful statement of bias in stating;
“Interestingly, the undersigned notes that Defendant
did not withhold evidence or information that could
even remotely be characterized as “exclupatory,” indeed
Plaintiff seems to argue that Defendant did not share
all the evidence against Plaintiff to Dr. Miller as
demonstrated by the excerpt from the December 3, 2013
hearing.”
The Plaintiff contends that Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn
is making an outright biased & false statement. Again
the Plaintiff is not arguing that the “Defendant did
not share all evidence against Plaintiff to Dr. Miller”
the Plaintiff is arguing the Defendant did not share
the statutorily required evidence under W.Va. Code 27-
6a-2(b) with Dr. Miller, resulting in a fraudulent filing,
fraudulent official proceeding & fraudulent service of
commitment to under 61-5-27a of W.Va. Code the cited
passage of transcript by the United States Magistrate
Judge only had to do with the Defendant claiming
responsibility for the evaluation. On page 16 of Plaintiff’s
Reply to Defendant’s to Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary
Judgement, the Plaintiff (1) cites page 35 of said transcript
line 6 where Defendant mentions Trooper Haynes by name
& (2) line 11 the case number 13-F-1026 showing Defendant
did withhold associated information with 13-F-1026
required by W.Va. Code 27-6A-2 subsection (b).

11
Additionally, the Plaintiff hereby quotes said transcript at line
5 on page 35:
“Q. Did you have an opportunity to review the complaint that
Trooper Haynes obtained charging you with new counts of
terrorist threats?
A. The new counts of terrorist threats?
Q. The terrorist threats -- well, not the newest. There’s no new
charges being brought just yet. But, that would be 13-F-1026,
threats of a terrorist act?”
Thus, reinforcing Plaintiff’s point 5 about the Judge’s false
statements of (citing point 2) “Plaintiff refers to the transcript
from his bond hearing in Raleigh County Court that Trooper Haynes
was the arresting officer, but this information was not provided
to Dr. Miller, which concerned new charges of terrorist
threats.” on page 6 of this filing.
The Plaintiff therefore offers the Honorable Judge Berger
further evidence of U.S. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s pattern of
false & misleading statements, in what appears to be an attempt
at arguing the case for the Defendant while biasing
Judgement against the Plaintiff.
On page 20 the U.S. Magistrate Judge alleges falsely “Nevertheless
as stated supra, Plaintiff’s allegations primarily concern that
Defendant engaged in fraudulent legal proceedings and cause
Dr. Miller to produce a fraudulent report regarding his mental
state by failing to provide certain additional information to
Dr. Miller in preparation for psychiatric re-evaluation.”
The Plaintiff would like to clarify the Magistrate Judge’s
misunderstanding of facts;

12
1) That on Dr. Miller’s report page 2 he notes that the
Plaintiff was evaluated on case number 12-F-470/471 & Case
13F-1026 (bound over numbers omitted).
2) That the Defendant’s own exhibit C of Response to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgement notes these cases as dismissed
associated with case numbers 12-F-470/471.
3) That the evaluation for case 13-F-1026 is seperate under
the charges & unrelated. Therefore the Plaintiff feels U.S.
Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn is changing facts to suit his
arguments. Under W.Va. Code 27-6a-2 subsection (b) the
Defendant was required by statutory law to provide
information relevant to the case for which it was ordered.
Not, dismiss charges & order an evaluation under a
different case number (13-F-1026) but, withhold information
required by law, supply simply because of a combined order
for multiple cases. Such order dismissing cases 12-F-470/471
& requesting a “re-evaluation” under 13-F-1026 does not
remove the statutory requirements of State Law, that require
said information to be present under W.Va. Code 27-6a-2(b)
to provide information relivant to that cause case for evaluations
(no previous evaluations occured under said case number)
nor is the case cited in State’s Record of Events associated
with this case.
Therefore it is import import impossible for the Plaintiff to defend legal
arguments, aserted by Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn that
are not his own & correct every twist of statement &
misrepresented statement issue by the U.S. Magistrate’s
claims.

13
Again Plaintiff stands on Pulliam v. Allen 466 U.S. 522(1984) that
“The Supreme Court held that judicial immunity” (a similar form of
absolute immunity enjoyed by the Defendant) “is not a bar to
prospective injunctive relief against a judical officer acting in
her judical capacity.” And that such actions “are a violation of
due process and equal protection” where the action in question
“violates statutory or Constitutional Rights.” As such, W.Va. 27-6a-2(b)
is protected by Addington v. Texas 441 U.S. 418, 426-27, 60 L.Ed. 2d
323, 99 S. Ct. 1804 (1979). Which found that long-term court ordered
involuntary confinement to a mental health facility, without any guidance
from a mental health expert, is a deprivation of liberty in violation
of an individual’s constitutional rights of due process and equal
protection. And, the information needed to obtain said “expert
guidance” is found in W.Va. Code 27-6a-2(b). Which Magistrate
Aboulhosn is dismissive of the Plaintiff’s similar material evidence
in the Plaintiff’s Criminal Charges & will lead to further violation
of the Plaintiff’s rights?
However, if the Honorable Judge Berger would review the Plaintiff &
Defendant’s legal arguments in thier original statements &, feel the
Defendant is still entitled to absolute immunity, the Plaintiff, feels the
court should be moved to file charges against the Defendant
under 18 U.S.C. 242 Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law,
to avoid further appearances of impropriety. Provided the
court upon reviewing these facts finds evidence of (as the
Plaintiff knows it will with honest examination of evidence)
of wrongdoing or probable cause therefore.
Statement of Limitations:
Once again the Plaintiff would cite Cavendish v. Moffitt & point

14
3 of this Response. The Defendant’s violation of W.Va. Code
27-6a-2 subsection (b) produced a fraudulent filing &
fraudulent proceeding under W.Va. Code 61-5-27a,
as fraudulent actions are not protected by the statute
of limitations under Cavendish v. Moffitt 163 W.Va. 38, 253
S.E. 2d 558 which states W.Va. Code 55-2-12 be read
with W.Va. code 55-7-8a which states only injury joined
“by fraud or deceipt” has no statute of limitations, as
under part of the fraudulent act.
As this concerns the Plaintiff, in so far the U.S.
Magistrate omitted the Plaintiff’s citation of Cavendish
v. Moffit in the Plaintiff’s response to the motion to
Dismiss by the Defendant.
As the U.S. Magistate Judge has claimed the Plaintiff’s
claims are “time barred” but, has neglected the cited
common law standard under Cavendish v. Moffitt to include
W.Va. Code 55-7-8a with 55-2-12 cited by the Plaintiff, the
Plaintiff feels there is no legal standard under Owens v. Okure
448 U.S. 235, 249-250, 109 S.Ct. 573, 102 L.Ed. 2d 599 (1989) as
to include this fact of common law (for which the Defendant
or Magistrate Aboulhosn have offered no counter arguement)
that joins both W.Va. Code 55-2-12 with 55-7-8a under
Cavendish v. Moffitt & places further common law
constraints on any claims under Mc Causland v. Mason
County Bd. of Ed., 164 F, 2d 278 (4th Cir 1981), cert denied.
454 U.S. 1098, 102 S.Ct. 671, 70 L.Ed. 2d 634 (1981) as W.Va.
Code 55-7-8a states:
“(a) In addition to causes of action which survive at common

15
law, causes of action for injuries to property, real or personal
or injuries to the person and not resulting in death or for
deceit or fraud, also shall survive and such actions may be
brought not withstanding the death of the person entitled
to relief recover or the death of the person liable.”
Note that on page 5 of the 1983 form the Plaintiff did
write “As Kristen Keller using court order for case 13F-1026
& resulting in a false report based on Fraudulent Evidence.”
On page 6 the Plaintiff referenced “false evidence
released to the media to discredit evidence of a
history of fraudulent legal process.”
And Fraudulent Legal Process is found under W.Va. Code 61-
5-27a(b) & (c). Under Cavendish v. Moffitt 163 W.Va. 38, 253
S.E. 2d 558:
“W.Va. Code 55-2-12 must be read part material with W.Va.
Code 55-7-8a. W.Va. Code 55-7-8a provides in part: In addition
to causes of action which survive at common law, causes of
action for injuries to property, real or personal, or injuries to
the person and not resulting in death or for deceit or fraud
shall survive; and such actions may be brought notwithstanding
the death of the person entitled to recover or the death of
the liable.”
Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn ignores the Plaintiff’s citation
of Cavendish v. Moffitt & statements concerning “fraudulent
evidence” on the 1983 form of the initial claim, citation
of both W.Va. Code 55-2-12 & 55-7-8a in Plaintiff’s
response on Pages 6 & 7.
Thus, showing an unfair bias toward the Defendant’s argue-ment

16
Adding to the wieght of the Plaintiff’s arguement, so far;
the Plaintiff would cite Cavendish v. Moffitt, citing Snodgrass
v. Sission’s Moble Home Sales 161 W. Va. 588, 244 S.E. 2d 321,
1978 W.Va. Lexus 3000 (1978 ):
“By isolating causes of action for fraud and deceit
and combining them with personal actions which survive
under W.Va. Code 55-7-8a (a), the legislature intended
to exclude from statutory survivability under 55-7-8a (a)
such personal torts as defamation, false arrest and
imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. Those personal
actions, lacking statutory survivability and not possessing
no common law survivability, take a one-year statute
of limitations under W.Va. Code 55-2-12(c).”
This says nothing of fraudulent actions for which the filings or fraudulent legal
Plaintiff has always based his lawsuit & stated proceedings & the Plaintiff has maintained the Defendant violated W.Va.
27-6a-2(b) as an act of fraud in violation of 61-5-27a.
The Civil Rights damages are the effect of the fraudulent
actions for which the Plaintiff has always based his
lawsuit & stated the same in the Plaintiff’s Response
to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, which the U.S.
Magistrate (like so many other things) has omitted.
Thus the Plaintiff does not find W.Va. Code 55-2-12
a “time-bar” when viewed by W.Va. Codes 55-7-8a, 61-5
-27a & W.Va Code 27-6a-2(b). All codes the U.S. Mag
Magistrate noted on page 4 but, failed to cite for the
Plaintiff & Honorable Judge’s benefit. Again the Plaintiff
points out to the Honorable Judge Berger, this arguement
is also found in the Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s

17
Motion to Dismiss.
Twombly, Iqbal and Pleadings under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:
The Plaintiff does not disagree with the standards of
federal rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12 (b)(6) or, the common
law standards put forth by Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn. The
Plaintiff does find the Magistrate Judge did err as; (citing him
“After thorough review of Plaintiff’s Complaint and his
responsive pleadings to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the
undersignBd agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff has failed to
sufficiently plead any supporting facts or provide any “plau-
sible” allegations of fraud, defamation or other misconduct
that would entitle him to relief to survive Twombly and Iqbal.
Plaintiff’s claims consist of nothing more then a compilation
of a few records that were generated during the criminal
proceedings in State Court, and in case of Dr. Miller’s
report, an incomplete record, and finally, an article
published over four years ago concerning those events.
Plaintiff attempts to buttress his statements arguments with copies of
West Virginia’s statutes and recitation of case law, but
provides nothing more than conclusory statements that
Defendant committed some form of fraud and defamed
him.”
The Plaintiff is barred from any suit for damages (1) except
for fraud, as established by Snodgrass v. Sisson’s Moble Home
Sales Inc,. 161 W. Va. 588, 244 S.E. 2d 321 (1978 ) & Cavendish
v. Moffitt 163 W.Va. 38, 253 S.E. 2d 558 (1979) establishing
in pari materia bond between W.Va. Code 55-2-12 & 55-7-8a

18
(a). That (2) said legal requirement of such an order for
“re-evaluation” or psychiatric evaluation is found in
W.Va Code 27-6a-2(b) & (2) the definitions of fraudulent
filing & fraudulent legal proceedings found in W.Va. Code
61-5-27a(a), (b) & (c). All cited & referenced, even provided
to the court & listed on page 4 of the Magistrate
Judge’s PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMEND-
ATION.
Yet with heavy heart & sad disposition I must
argue the findings bias & in Many cases not properly
researched. Citing that many arguments creditted to
the Plaintiff are not to be found in the Plaintiff’s
filings. That on page 10 of the Magistrate’s filing
citing a W.Va. Code that does not exist “27-6A-2(6)
(1) (2) & (4).” The Magistrate never addressed the
Plaintiff’s argument citing Cavendish v. Moffitt & W.Va.
Codes 55-2-12 & 55-7-8a, though he cites these codes
on page 4 of his filing. Nor does he list the Sources
of Information, date of offense or other information
from Dr. Miller’s report relevant to W.Va. Code 27-6a-2
(b).
Much of the Magistrate’s findings appear as a “copy
& paste” rewording of the Defendant’s arguments, mistated
codes & fabricated arguments the Plaintiff never made,
omitting the Plaintiff’s arguments & citing code only
for the Defendant, the Plaintiff fears to trust the
Magistrate to weigh similar evidence in the criminal
case or, motions thereof.

19
The Plaintiff, has made bold & direct accusations not just on
the point of arguing against the findings of the Magistrate
but, to prepare to file an appeal & complaints with the
U.S. Courts to such bias disregard for the law. Much of
these facts will overlap into the criminal case & the
Plaintiff fears this bias disregard for the law will infect his
due process & equal protection rights in that matter, as well
as, the appearance of impropriety is strong.
Proposal & Recommendations:
The Plaintiff feels he may not be able to meet every
aspect of Rule 12 but, has established some material proof
of wrong doing in the omitted arguements from material
proof of wrong doing in the omitted arguements from the
Findings to the Court. The Plaintiff asks that the Honorable
Judge Berger set aside the Findings & read the arguments in
their original form. The Plaintiff asks the Court to not grant
the Motion to Dismiss & to do as you like for the Summary
Judgement.
If the Honorable Judge does not dismiss & does not act grant a
Summary Judgement, place the Civil Case on hold until the
Criminal Case has been resolved, allowing me an
opportunity to gather & submit evidence in court.

x (signed) Date: 5/11/18

 

[AprilRains]

Holy shit! Thank you. What an effort!

Okay, I've read his response. All hail @gREEEEEEEEEr for the transcript.

There's not one new point in Ron's petition. He just reasserts all of the statements from his previous response. It's as if the magistrate hadn't responded at all!

His grasp of the difference between a minor procedural error and a fraudulent attempt to convict is weak at best. Even if I were to take him at his word for every alleged error the prosecution made, none of them would harmed him materially. He was headed for the nut hatch, and that's in the best case. Hard time with hard men would have been much worse for the Ninja Napoleon.

You don't make crazy threats toward cops and judges and expect any good to come of it. Unless, of course, you're Ron Collins.

 

[oldTireWater]

As long as doesn't recant being a lethal weapon.

The bodies must be stacking up in jail.

 

[AprilRains]

Some minor reveals, an amusing blast from the past, and more information coming soon!

Ron's defense attorney made two motions: To have the charges dismissed, and to strike some language referring to Ron as a "mental defective". We have the minutes of that proceeding and the judge's eventual order denying the dismissal and granting the change of language; both have funny bits.

Ron's lawyer tried to make the case that the mentally ill aren't always violent, so Ron shouldn't be prohibited from arming himself. It didn't go well:

As for the "mentally defective" thing, the prosecutor didn't mince words:

The judge was indeed not moved by Ron's lawyer's statistics regarding crazy people and violence:

However, he did decide that Ron had not been adjudicated as a mental defective. That's probably true.

More tea is coming, however! The full transcript of his previous hearing, the one that didn't go so well, is soon to be released, probably by next week. When it is, Gentle Reader, you will have it almost as soon as I do.

And now for the halcyon days when Ron was walkin' free and buyin' guns! The local police knew what he was up to, and alerted their people accordingly:

Nice picture of Ron, no? He had more hair then.

That's all for now, but stay tuned!

Update: TEA FOR THE GOSSIP GOD!

Ron's defense attorney filed a response to the recommendation that Ron's motion to dismiss be denied. (I got it wrong earlier. That judge's opinion was a recommendation, not a final finding. Sorry, I'm not a lawyer.)

The motion is mostly boring bullshit except for one bit of absolutely exceptional reasoning:

So to sum up: Percentages don't mean shit; 88% of the loonies didn't hurt anyone "during that study period", so what's the big deal, amirite?; let my people go!

One of the exhibits attached to this petition was yet another hand-scrawled petition Ron wrote in 2014. I think it was meant to establish that Ron did too object to being locked up in the loony bin, so his involuntary incarceration there totes does not count. The funny part, however, is not the handwritten mess, but rather some fairly eloquent evidence against him on which he has scribbled NUH-UH, more or less. Also, there are some very incriminating excerpts from that earlier transcript of Ron babbling like a crackhead to a dude who was wearing a wire. Good times, good times.

Ron's lawyer is doing his level best, and that's his job, but I fear he is in for a disappointment.

Update 2: Okay, the transcript of Ron's March 14 initial appearance hearing is out, and unfortunately it's not that entertaining. He was polite to the judge, for a change, and he stayed on topic. There's only one informative bit:

So now we know:

• He's still pursuing that stupid civil case.
• It's being heard by the same judge as the one who conducted this criminal hearing. I'm not sure if this judge is hearing his actual criminal case later this month.
• He's a fucking whiner. You're in jail, Ron, not a resort. The service is apt to be a bit slow.

The only other thing I have is that word on the street is that Ron's going for a jury trial. That's possibly a smart move. West Virginia juries are pretty bullish on gun rights, and the argument for Ron's legal prohibition against buying guns involves a few technical points that the prosecution will have to explain to a jury. Horrible as it sounds, the dude just might slide by on this one. And the West Virginia cops will have to worry once again.

Update 3: And now shit is jumping off! All errors in any legal opinions below are my own. I did have a lawyer look at stuff, and I believe he agrees with what I'm about to write, but I am no lawyer.

We just saw two new documents released in Ron's criminal case. In one, the judge officially approves the magistrate's recommendations to deny Ron's motion to dismiss, while striking language regarding Ron being adjudicated mentally defective. This last is not helpful to Ron. In fact, it gives the prosecutor one less thing to prove, and simplifies the case against Ron.

The really bad part for Ron is that the judge has closed off several avenues of defense. For example, it is now established that Ron was involuntarily committed to a mental institution before he bought the gun, and that this is a violation of Federal law:

Also, his lawyer's attempt to do an end run around the law on Constitutional grounds will not be heard:

The other document implies lots of lulz. Apparently, Ron has been writing letters directly to the court, doing an end run around his attorney:

A pity they're sealed! Surely something good will be inside. Oh, well. Ron's history of pro se representation does not suggest that these letters could possibly have helped him.

Word on the street is that Ron's criminal trial is scheduled to start today. I'm not sure if they're still doing jury selection or if they're ready to try his ass, but given the judge's rulings, if I were Ron I would change my plea to guilty right fucking now. This judge has already cut off his main lines of defense, and will almost certainly instruct the jury accordingly. He needs to cop a plea or he might just get the max.

Update 4: Oh holy shit. Things are happening faster than I can shitpost.

Ron's trial began today and has now been continued.

Why? It's not in the record. But the resulting order contains clues:

Remember those three letters of his? Well, apparently the court read them, sealed the discussion thereof, and now Ron is being evaluated for competency.

Hoo, boy, those must have been some letters!

Best part? This time, Ron and his lawyer are leading the charge to have him legally adjudicated as mentally defective -- the very thing he was trying to avoid before.

What a ride, people!

Update 5: Ron's public defender would like to leave now.

Apparently the reasons are true lulz and cannot be explained publicly:

I guess this means Ron will have to use the other public defender in the state of West Virginia?

Update 6: To my complete astonishment, Ron has been found competent to stand trial.

Update 7: Well, the trial is being moved, either sooner to August 20 or later to September 17 at the earliest:

Spoiler

Since both the defense and the prosecution are fine with an earlier date, my guess is that's the one they'll pick, but I don't know the court's schedule.

If Ron's lawyer had much of a defense planned, he'd probably want more time to woodshed witnesses, hire and coach experts, and so on. Unsurprisingly, Ron cannot afford any of that.

We also now have the prosecution's list of three witnesses and it's pretty much what you'd expect: the arresting officer, the gun store clerk who sold Ron the gun, and the ATF case officer. The prosecution is playing this one conservatively, and for good reason: They're very likely to win if they don't get cute.

 

[UselessRubberKeyboard]

@AprilRains, you're doing a sterling job keeping this thread updated. Semper fucking Fi for going through all the court documents and insanity that is this cow.

I really really hope this guy doesn't get away with the illegal gun ownership charges. Last thing this mentalist needs is a firearm. He could, however, really use some serious psych meds, and maybe a semi-permanent residence in soft play jail.

 

[AprilRains]

@AprilRains, you're doing a sterling job keeping this thread updated. Semper fucking Fi for going through all the court documents and insanity that is this cow.

I appreciate the kind words. It's my pleasure to update the thread. I can't stand a single thing about Ron, and I'm not sorry to see him on the way to prison.

I really really hope this guy doesn't get away with the illegal gun ownership charges. Last thing this mentalist needs is a firearm. He could, however, really use some serious psych meds, and maybe a semi-permanent residence in soft play jail.

I don't claim to know the hearts of a jury that has not been selected yet, but I'd be shocked if he were found not guilty. The evidence is so straightforward in this case that it'd damn near require an act of jury nullification to let him off.

Update: I guessed wrong on which way they'd push the trial. It's set for October 22:

Update 2: Ron's lawyer will not be allowed to withdraw as counsel, because the court realizes that the resulting shitshow would be contrary to the interests of justice:

Spoiler

Update 3: The redacted transcript of Ron's hearing in March is out. Very little in the transcript is novel, but there is one new lulzy bit:

Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought.

The rest is just a summary of why Ron belongs in prison. It is terse and well reasoned, and provides a preview of the case the prosecution is likely to put forward late next month,

Update 4: Unsurprisingly, Ron's civil lawsuit against prosecutor Keller was dismissed. It turns out you can't sue people for doing their jobs.

Update 5: Less than three weeks before the trial is scheduled to begin, Ron's lawyer petitions for a second time to be relieved as counsel.

I think the petition is unlikely to succeed. The court doesn't want to drag this out, Ron can't afford his own lawyer, and no other public defender will have better luck dealing with him. But O Lord the salt that Ron must be spewing, to make this guy ask yet again to be let go.

Update 6: The court imposed a high bar to allow Ron's counsel to be relieved:

They didn't care how shitty Ron is as a client. They wanted to know how a change would improve matters. That isn't surprising; starting over with a new public defender would delay things for months, and it's unlikely another lawyer could do any better.

So imagine my surprise when I learned the petition was granted!

I'd dearly love to see those sealed documents. Something juicy is there!

Update 7: Given the change of counsel, it was inevitable that Ron's new lawyer would file for an extension and get one, and the trial is now postponed to January 14, 2019:

I guess that means Christmas in jail.

Fa la la la ha, ha ha ha ha

 

[American Chad]

This is even better than watching OPL get continuance after continuance. At least in that case, OPL isn't actively shitting the bed, at least as far as being such a retard that an appointed attorney wants off the wild ride. I'm guessing that that doesn't happen very often, and it's probably even less likely that a court would say this to the attorney: "You know what, yeah, your client is a total sped. You can go home now!"

I almost forgot about this idiot, but I guess we'll see what happens between now and January.

 

[AprilRains]

The defense has pushed the trial back to March:

 

[Easy J]

This is probably for the best, from Ron's perspective. He'll have at least a year of soft, safe county jail time credited toward whatever sentence he eventually gets.

 

[AprilRains]

This is probably for the best, from Ron's perspective. He'll have at least a year of soft, safe county jail time credited toward whatever sentence he eventually gets.

Very true, and he's close to home. That may not be true of whatever federal prison they send him to. Also, state jail is in general easier than federal lockup. (I don't think he's in county but I could be wrong.)

Sadly, unless he finds a way to cop a sweet plea, I think he's looking at a minimum of five years. One down would still leave four to go, and he has a big mouth. I don't love his odds.

 

[Easy J]

I think he'll angle for a crazy man unit. He publicly stamps his little feet when being dismissed as crazy. But when push comes to shove (prison time), he always takes whatever legal mercy is on offer due to his mental issues.

He managed to skate by with a year in the nuthouse for stalking & threatening that trooper back in the day.

 

[AprilRains]

I think he'll angle for a crazy man unit. He publicly stamps his little feet when being dismissed as crazy. But when push comes to shove (prison time), he always takes whatever legal mercy is on offer due to his mental issues.

He managed to skate by with a year in the nuthouse for stalking & threatening that trooper back in the day.

I think that's the best thing for him, and probably even the right thing. I don't think his malignant narcissism is treatable, but the paranoid aspects might be. I think those paranoid outbursts are behind a lot of his bad behavior. If he can get those under control, he might have a shot.

I note that he sued people over his previous commitment, but that could have been purely opportunistic.

 

[Easy J]

This was attached to some appeal Ron filed. Someone in Southern Regional Jail has a hobbit/ lawn gnome fetish.

 

[AprilRains]

TFW multiple self-awarded black belts are no defense against an average weenie wagger.

Fucking excellent.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Ron has a habit of conflating and combining all of his many legal issues into one overarching Vast Anti-Ron Conspiracy. The conspiracy leaderboard changes from time to time, but in the past I have figured prominently in the Charlie Day string-and-pushpin diagram through which Ron derives pattern and meaning from the myriad events of his life. Perhaps understandably, Ron is never at fault for the negative outcomes of his day to day activities. External forces, all of them colluding to destroy him, suppress him, and otherwise hold him down, are always to blame. These forces run the gamut from every level of state and local government to individuals, such as myself, whom he believes mean him ill out of some burning jealousy or other deficit of character. It never occurs to Ron that the common denominator in all his problems is, well, Ron.

 

[AprilRains]

Ron has filed an appeal to the dismissal of the civil case. Warning: This is even more unreadable than his usual chicken scratch. Either the scanner sucked or his pen was really faint, especially for the first half of the first page.

The substance, as far as I can tell, is not that different from his previous filings. He thinks any inconsistency he perceives in the state's case is a reversible error. That's not how the law works, of course. He even brings in details of his current criminal case, which are not germane to his civil suit against his prosecutor in a previous case.

I wish his jail gave its inmates better access to word processors. These handwritten appeals grow tiresome.

Update 1/26: Ron did not file a timely notice of intent to appeal, so his illegible appeal is dismissed.

I bet the court was relieved not to have to decipher his scrawl.

Update 3/4: Ron Collins requests yet another delay, this time so he can prepare a defense that he did not knowingly violate the law. I suppose his argument is that he thought the state was just kidding when they committed him to a mental institution.

At least this time he acted through counsel, and the petition isn't handwritten chicken scratch. That's an improvement.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Oh Good Lord, how did I miss this gem of a lolcow?

Ron Collins is what happens if you took the most pathetic aspects of Jace Connors and Todd Daugherty combined and then tacked those flaws onto an arrogant redneck.

This guy is something else. He's batshit insane and is even a wannabe ninja (even citing Ashida Kim as a reference) and despite his supposed martial arts and military training, got his ass kicked in the backyard by some manlet and wouldn't stand up to some guy whipping their dick out in front of him.

I'm not talking about Ron defending himself from some brute rapist, I'm talking he wouldn't even stand up to some random weirdo creep making passes at him and flashing their junk. Either Ron is even more pathetic than he seems (which is likely) or maybe he didn't stand up to the weirdo because he didn't want any extra charges hanging over his head while he was in jail. My guess is a mix of both.

 

[AprilRains]

The prosecution has responded to Ron's request for a delay:

To my layman's eye, that does not look good for Ron.

 

[Phil Elmore]

The trial is currently set for Monday, so I imagine we'll see a decision within the next day or two on the request for another continuance.

I've heard varying theories on just how many years he might get. I honestly would not be surprised if he walks with time served, given that he didn't hurt anyone and the prisons are overcrowded. I'd say chances are good he's going to be a felon when this is over, but here's the thing: Over a career of petty criminality, assault, stalking, harassment, and the like, he's never once been convicted of a felony. It boggles the mind.

Of course, once he gets out, we reset the Days Without A Ron Collins Criminal Offense timer to zero and wait for him to land himself in legal trouble again. It's not even a matter of "if." He'll get arrested again sometime within the next few years after he leaves custody.