3.) My mother offered to help by signing a one-year lease
Theresa Crow for a rental located at 1335 North Limestone St. in
Springfield Ohio and the three of us met on location.
Mom's Genuine Lease Page 1
5.) Due to electrical deficiencies and other problems with
rental, I ((empasis on I; can another person terminate any other
person's lease agreement? If so, we'd all be in trouble), I gave
notice to vacate about
a year later, a "walkthrough" inspection was conducted by Eric Crow
6.) However, a few months after I vacated a notice came in the mail
at my new residence that I was being threatened by the Crows for a property damage claim!
I replied to the Crows that they were made aware of each and every
disaster that occurred in their property (once I even called at 2am to
inform them of a busted water pipe caused by the frost) and that I had
showing the true cause of damages and that I caused no intentional
damage (did I scuff the wall when moving my stuff to safety from the
waterfall from upstairs is another story for another page).
is one of many
videos wmvflvmp4movdvdavi that is on the Court Record, yet the Judge denied all evidences
and even denied the actual tenant/occupant from the Case, but why? Video
shows where damages came
from. It was the upstairs tenant's plumbing, and later an
fire. The landlord and his agents must go through my downstairs
rental in order to get to plumbing, electrical, air conditioners, etc.
which are all housed in the basement. Regardless of whether the
mud came from the muddy basement or the muddy fire, it should not be
either the liability of the tenant, or the former tenant.
7.) The Courts denied my two written requests to become a party to
the case, stating they have the wrong person being sued. Both
were submitted and are on Court Record
prior to Pre-Trial. At pre-trial my mom's paid attorney slithered
from the judge's chambers to inform her that he would not be able to
represent her. The judge emerged to inform her to find another
attorney and, oh by the way the trial is set for a couple of months
later (despite the fact that I already appealed his decision to deny
evidence and my person to become the RIGHTFUL party to the case).
At trial, with my mother left unrepresented and allowing her no
assistance, like her son for instance, the judge declares his best
judgment, referencing the previous lease, my mother's, stating, "
The written lease was for a term of 12 months, and provided that the
tenancy would continue on a month to month basis ".
Now had a real judge of good character been unswayed from his lofty
position and allowed the evidence into the courtroom, he'd invariably
discover that MY RENTAL RECEIPTS SHOW THAT I paid QUARTERLY (for one)
and that I was the subsequent tenant and that I gave my 30 day notice a
year beyond my mother's lease. He'd also discover a letter
written by the crows themselves in which they state "...DAMAGES WHICH
OCCURRED DURING KENNY'S TENANCY".
The fact is, this was a malicious show of government gone awry, and
surely not worth financing. It is my hopes that the Federal
Government will alleviate all the states of their wasteful middle-man
facades and make this nation a model nation for the world to emulate
(as opposed to the disgust most nations now have toward our crookedness
of those that ought have a bit more couth about themselves).
I'm not an attorney. I've not even graduated high school. I
should be sorry I don't speak the neo-court's nomenclature (which
appears more a perversion of our common colloquial and nationally known
vocabulary...who knew they would confound the word "intervene" to mean
something totally different?).
Devilishness, in my opinion. If they are not a court for the
citizens then what have the citizens to do with such a scourge?
Mom's Genuine Lease Page 1
*Later, although the Lessor unlawfully kept the deposit beyond that
which is lawful, the Court would award a deposit to the Lessor.
But why? The Lessor's Lease doesn't specify anything about a
deposit. However the Lessor does admit to their being a deposit
in two documents already submitted to the Court Record. So
regardless of who the Court wishes to believe was the tenant is
immaterial when the Court has willingly allowed a fictitious Lease,
from a fictitious Company (Tec Rentals), neither of which exist.
8.) Both of my Requests to present evidence and witnesses
were Denied by Judge Thomas Trempe of Clark County Municipal Court,
given were the following reasons:
prior to Pre-Trial, I appealed to the Appellate Divisionto
that the decision by the municipal court judge denying my becoming a
party to the case be
overturned and allow me to present evidence to show that the
allegations are fraudulent and knowingly directed to the wrong
party. The appeal was for a 60(b) motion and was accepted in the
Appellate Court in September 22,
However the Court did not perform a
60(b) motion, and instead allowed the lower court to progress to
trial until many
months later, AND still did not respond until ANOTHER 5 months
lower court disregarded waiting for the Appellate to come back with an
answer to determine whether it was lawful to deny evidence in an
ongoing case in which the third party was the only person on the planet
that could be proven to be the tenant regarding the exact case being
heard in the Court.
Instead, the Appellate, When the Appellate
did respond, it was to this: Problem
Ruling as if the appeal I made to the
Appellate at pre-trial
would have any bearing to a trial decision of the lower court months in
the future. appealed to the Appellate Division
To make matters worse, on March 27,
2018, the Appellate Court sends me a letter addressed as a
"final" notice (*big bold letters).
I have not noticed any loss of command of my mail and would bank my
mother's life on the fact that the Courts cannot show/prove they've ever sent
a previous notice, although their letter claims they've sent "numerous notices". Fraud will not pull our nation out of this $21 TRILLION dollar debt (http://usdebtclock.org),
leaders with creativity and courage will pull this nation out of it's
dire unpublished present position of debt, stealing from old women will
not accomplish a thing (aside from more ill-will for the mis-managers).
The Appellate has sent "Final Notice", a demand for money.
It is well established that a payment MUST be made
at the time of filing an appeal to the appellate court.
must include an afidavit of
indigence before an appeal can
be accepted into the court. The fact that the belabored court
clearly failed to respond and enforce some semblance of having a need
for an Appellate court to intervene in a 60(b) motion, is testament of
the affidavit's legitimacy (find a bank account with my name on it and
i'll eat mushrooms again, for instance).
As seen on the Court's own website, the afidavit was accepted in their
office on 9/22/16 (TAGCPM.PA.PublicPortal). Appeal
as if it were an appeal to the future verdict of the Trial, in effect
stopping all Appeals to the lower Court Trial altogether; five months
later stating the appellate's decision is unappealable. Shameful
waste of space and money, we could get more justice and do better with
bums running the court (in my arguably substantiated opinion).
10.) The Second Appellate Court did not bother to
or answer until 5 months A F T E R the lower Court went ahead
with Trial disregarding the motion to the appellate, holding my mother
un-represented and un-assisted in a
bad Trial. I
would NOT be allowed to present evidences to a case in which I am
the obvious correct party to. Oh it was asked of me for the 5
minutes I was permitted into the court room, " Do you have
evidence to show the cause for damages ? ". Me: "Why yes,
it's right in the back there", pointing to the back of the courtroom
where I left my bag to approach the bench. The judge wasn't
interested (smug thuggish behavior).
I was asked to take down my mailbox
that was approved by the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE).
*This video has been pulled by the Youtube censorship wheel, sorry but
this video is only available to download (right-click the file format
of your choice and choose "save-as":
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phone
records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright. Title I, 101, Oct 19, 1976, 90 Stat 2546)