Ronald Ploetz, the Most Corrupt Judge in New York State

In this article we will show you how ‘Judge’ Ronald Ploetz’s, the Cattaraugus County Court Judge commits perjury and wars against the Constitution of the United States, the very document that that allegedly gives him the power over you. Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. A judge is engaged in acts of treason. [Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958)]; Common/Case law has shown that……when a judge acts outside of his capacity judicial immunity is not absolute. In this matter the Judge failed and/or refused to abide by specific constitutional mandates as so described herein.

'Judge' Ronald Ploetz

Cattaraugus County ‘Judge’ Ronald Ploetz

You will see the very same issues that our President is now facing and the battle we all as a people now face. Section one is an actual copy of the “judges” ‘facts’ according to Ploetz contained in the actual order and decision. Section two is facts spelled out verbatim according to Ploetz’s logic and reasoning). Section three is section two and we add what really happened based on the prima facie evidence that Ploetz had available to him. The black colored words are what is written by Ploetz’s in the “decision & order” (which we have a certified copy of) the red colored words better define the actual facts versus the facts Ploetz had just skewed to fit the people false narrative that he was well aware of based on the evidence that is supposed to be contained within the court case file. Green colored words are definitions of said words Section four is the way it should have been written based on the prima facie evidence without the coloring of words. The purple words define the outright lies Ploetz attempted to put forth with copies of evidence Ploetz has available to him. Blue colored words are words that would have been included in the Defendant/Victim was allowed to testify, which he was not [People v Aguilera 82 N.Y. 2d 23]. In part two we shall dissect the whole order and show how Ploetz uses court cases that don’t apply and misrepresents facts.

Example of a well written Decision & Order

Example of a well written Decision & Order. Click to enlarge.

To the right you will see how a real Decision and Order is written. You will notice how the judge describes in detail exactly what the individual was charged with and what types of instruments used to charge the individual with, which is lacking in Ploetz’s Decision and Order. No where in Ploetz’s order will you find him citing what the victim was actually charged with. This allowed him to plant other wording to make it appear that the victim was what charged with numerous crimes when in fact he was only charged with (1) Traffic Misdemeanor and (2) Violations. He would also state in the order “…of one charge (of several pending)”. Another example of Ploetz’s utilizing this distortion of facts method is when he committed perjury by claiming Defendant traveled “several miles” when in fact the videos proved it was less then two (2) miles.

22MAR17-PLOETZ-PERJURY-DECISION-ORDER-V1

Ploetz’s “Decision & Order”. Click to enlarge.

That is not “several”. The District attorney would also use this type of terminology, implying that the victim had been chased through the townships of Ellicottville, Mansfield and Little Valley to support this distortion of the facts. On State Route 242 you can go through three townships in a little over two miles (2.1 to be exact). This allows him and the District Attorney to blur the facts as to what actually occurred in order to purposely sow confusion in order to cover up the crimes committed by public employees and to utilize this in any future proceedings.  This process helps plant a seed of thought into record, including the Appellant court, to make it appear that they were dealing with a individual who had gone on a wild criminal rampage throughout the county.

Video for a factual based reference as to what happened.

SECTION ONE – ACTUAL ORDER OF PLOETZ -“PROCEDURAL HISTORY” AND “FINDINGS OF FACTS”

22MAR17-PLOETZ-PERJURY-DECISION-ORDER-V1

SECTION TWO –ACTUAL ORDER VERBATIM, ACCORDING TO THE JUDGE’S ‘OBSERVATIONS’ OF THE EVIDENCE

Procedural History

Over several months, multiple motions were filed and return dates held. Four issues now remain and are ripe for review: 1) probable cause for the stop of Defendant’s vehicle, 2) suppression of Defendants statements, 3) CPL 30.30 timeliness of action, and 4) dismissal of the obstruction of governmental administration charge. 

A hearing was held on November 16, 2016, and Deputy Cori Kowalski of the Ellicottville Police Department testified. Videos from a police body camera and Defendant’s dashboard camera were admitted into evidence. 

Findings of Fact

The court credits the testimony of Officer Kowalski and finds:

During the pre-dawn hours of February 27, 2016, Officer Kowalski  saw Defendant operate his motor vehicle without headlights and failed to signal a turn; Defendant did not yield to police officers who had their emergency lights engaged; during the police pursuit that lasted several miles, Defendant repeatedly crossed the double yellow line parrying the movements of the police cruiser in front of him; Defendant had to be boxed in by two cruisers before he would stop; once stopped, Defendant refused to open his window, talk to Officer Kowalski , or open his car door; when Deputy Kowalski was reasonably concerned for his personal safety; Defendant’s behavior created reasonable safety concerns that justified keeping him in handcuffs while awaiting an ambulance; Defendant was not under arrest or in custody when he made on the scene statements; no promises, threats, or undue influence were exerted to get Defendant to talk to officers; the questions asked of Defendant were investigatory or concerned Defendant’s physical condition and needs; Defendant made multiple spontaneous and unsolicited statements; and Defendant’s statements were made knowingly and voluntarily.

Defendant was arraigned on February 27, 2016, and the case was adjourned for him to appear with counsel. New traffic tickets were filed on February 28, 2016 to correct the location and spelling of Defendant’s name. Defendant appeared in town court on March 10, 2016 without counsel and requested adjournment to appear with counsel. That warm day, the people stated readiness on the record. On April 14, 2016, Defendant appeared with counsel in town court and was arraigned. Defendant was indicted on May 5, 2015 and the people filed a written statement of readiness on May 16, 2016.

SECTION THREE – ACTUAL ORDER VERBATIM ACCORDING TO THE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT PLOETZ FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO ‘DETAIL’ IN HIS “FINDINGS OF FACT”

Over several months, multiple motions were filed and return dates held. Four issues now remain and are ripe for review: 1) probable cause for the stop of Defendant’s vehicle, 2) suppression of Defendants statements, 3) CPL 30.30 timeliness of action, and 4) dismissal of the obstruction of governmental administration charge. 

Defendant 'requesting' a JD 255 review of the record and certification not found.

Defendant ‘requesting’ a JD 255 review of the record and certification disks not found.

A hearing was held on November 16, 2016, and Deputy Cori Kowalski of the Ellicottville Police Department testified. Videos from a police body camera and Defendant’s dashboard camera were admitted into evidence which was not provided to the Defendant and was returned to the District Attorney and not kept in the court file on this matter which did not allow the Defendant to obtain copies.

Findings of Fact

The Defendant was not allowed to testify so the court credits the testimony of Officer Kowalski and finds:

During the pre-dawn hours of February 27, 2016, Officer Kowalski  saw Defendant operate his motor vehicle without headlights and failed to signal a turn; Defendant did not yield to police officers because of the prior vicious assault by a Cattaraugus County Sheriffs Deputy who has a history of such conduct and the Ellicottville Police Department in the same area.

Patrol Cars Blinding Spotlight on Rt 242

Patrol Cars Blinding Spotlight on Rt 242 during incident in question. Backed up by video evidence.

The patrol car immediately turned on his spotlight and blinded the victim though his rear-view mirror so he could not see the other patrol car behind it, who appeared had their emergency lights engaged; during the police pursuit that lasted several miles (which only lasted around 1.5 miles, not several), Defendant repeatedly crossed the double yellow line, which Sheriff’s Deputy Hunt lied about Defendant attempting to knock Officer Kowalski off of the road as Kowalski  passed Defendant’s vehicle. Defendant only did attempted to go around

Map of distance traveled, start of alleged 'contact' to stop, assault/assassination attempt

Map of distance traveled, start of alleged ‘contact’ to stop, assault/assassination attempt, Backed up by video evidence

Officer Kowalski because he only wanted to get to a safe location that he knew was lit and where video cameras were located for all parties involved because the last time he was stopped by the Ellicottville, New York, Police Department he was handcuffed to a chair and viciously assaulted and knocked out by Cattaraugus County Sherriff’s Bryan H Schwabenbauer who has been sued in federal court for the same type of conduct, as well as perjury, and was given a raise for it, Defendant was parrying due to this prior illegal conduct of the EPD and CCSO is now being sued for (parrying is a verb and means to ward off (a weapon or attack, especially with a countermove, i.e. the victim was attempting to defend himself against individuals who had previously viciously assaulted, i.e. attacked, him while handcuffed to a chair)) the movements of the police cruiser in front of him; Defendant had to be boxed in by two cruisers before he would stop; once stopped, Defendant refused to open his window, talk to Officer Kowalski , or open his car door because Defendant had guns pointed at him within two seconds of being stop, with his stereo still playing because he did not have the time to turn it off and could not hear who was speaking to him and was in fear to move except to put his hands in the air, and realized that if he made any sudden moves he would could be shot dead,

EPD draws gun, points it at defendant within two seconds. Defendant did not have time to do anything except put hands in the air. Backed up by video evidence.

EPD draws gun, points it at defendant within two seconds and window is shot out or smashed out. Defendant did not have time to do anything except put hands in the air. Backed up by video evidence.

when Deputy Kowalski (who is not a Deputy) approached Defendant’s vehicle. Defendant then heard a loud bang from Kowalski shooting out, or violently smashing out in less than thirty seconds. The shattering of Defendants driver’s side window sent shards of sharp glass into defendants face and when Defendant was violently pulled outside the vehicle, then thrown to the ground and knocked out, handcuffed and stomped upon and, Deputy Kowalski was reasonability concerned for his personal safety because he and the other officer were wearing bullet proof vests and carrying and pointing guns at Defendant, Defendant’s behavior while he was knocked out and stomped upon created reasonable safety concerns victim-of-rieman-drivers-windowbecause Defendant was violently pulled from his seat and then violently thrown to the ground and knocked out and stomped upon, which caused a head injury, which included loss of memory, vision, hearing and muscular/skeletal problems and blood to immediately flow from his left ear which is indicative of a concussion and/or skull fracture. Defendant awoke with his upper right side of his body in intense pain and head-injurywas then lifted in an injurious manner to his feet that [which] justified keeping him in handcuffs while awaiting an ambulance. He was then interrogated and was then taken to the Olean General Hospital in handcuffs where hospital personal refused and/or failed to treat his head injury, claiming that he had walked in. Defendant was released to the custody of the EPD and left the hospital with the blood still flowing from his left ear as the police body cam shows, in handcuffs, however according to the judge Defendant was not under arrest or in custody

Leaving hospital with blood still coming out of left ear

Leaving hospital with blood still coming out of left ear

when he made on the scene statements; no promises, threats undue influence were exerted to get Defendant to talk to officers because the weapons drawn on him, the violent shooting or smashing out of the window and fear of being shot dead if he moved and then the vicious assault by law enforcement on the scene is not considered a threat nor is it, and; the questions asked of Defendant were investigatory or concerned Defendant’s physical condition and needs however at no time did law enforcement on the scene ask if defendant was injured and how he felt, but Defendant did state he was in serious pain; Defendant made multiple spontaneous and unsolicited statements with his head injury and after having guns drawn on him, his 27FEB17-hand-cuffdriver’s side window either being shot out or knocked out, then violently pulled from his and violently thrown to the ground and knocked out, then stomped upon, then pulled to his feet in an injurious manner, and last but not least; and Defendant’s statements were made knowingly and voluntarily.

END OF DECISION AND ORDER WHICH INCLUDED FACTS THAT PLOETZ FAILED AND/OR REFUSED TO DETAIL.

The last one sets a scary standard. The only way Ploetz’s would know if the victim had done so “knowingly and voluntarily” would be if he can read a persons mind. Think about it, the only way you would know if a person is doing something voluntary is if they told you so, if not then you just don’t know.

Ploetz knew, or should have known that it lacked authority (jurisdiction) to deprive claimant of his Rights and therefore immunity is lost. [Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2nd 844]. Further the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice [David v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449]; The presence of malice and the intention to deprive a person of his civil rights, under color of law is wholly opposed with judicial function. When a judge acts intentionally and knowingly to deprive a person of his constitutional rights he exercises no discretion to individual judgment; he acts no longer as a judge, but as a ‘minster’ of his own prejudices [Pierson v. Ray 3986 U.S. 547 (1967). No one in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it [Buckles v. King County 191 F.3d 1127 via United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882)].

CLICK HERE TO REVIEW THE REST OF THE ORDER

Download PDF