Click Here for THE ORIGINAL PAGE

I am waiting for yet another modem / router from the only choice of Internet here. The attacks are organized and appear to be predominantly the 3rd shift that cause the most damage. Making this website has shown clearly the one-ness of the neo-corpo-politico-econo arena.
Our Nation CAN do Better!


BE a JUDGE~!

This Web Page last updated: May 4, 2017

Today You are the Judge


LET'S SEE WHERE YOU STAND!



The following is a true case that was "heard" within the Springfield Ohio Court of Appeals.



Okay, Here we go,

A CASE IS PRESENTED FOR YOUR REVIEW.

You are the higher Court Judge belonging to the Order of the Second Appellate Court of Appeals located in the Sunny City of Springfield Ohio.

You are reviewing the Judgement of the Lower-Court Judge's Decision in a Landlord/Tenant Dispute in which a "3rd Party" had submitted "motions" to the lower Municipal Court Judge, Plaintiff, and to the Court Record, stating that the case is a Fraud and that he is the correct Party and Tenant to the ongoing Case.
The 3rd Party applicant submitted physical DVD's of videos and motions to the Court (Attempting to "Correct The Record" and "Intervene" in the ongoing matter).

The 3rd Party (not a "named" Defendant, nor a Plaintiff) claimed to have evidence that only a Plaintiff or a Defendant in a Case can properly introduce into a Court of Law (of one's own free will).

The 3rd Party informed the Lower Court Judge, Plaintiff, and Court Record that they have a case before them in which the wrong party was being Sued.

But regardless of which party is being sued, the 3rd Party stated that he has evidence to refute any Claim made by the Landlord of the Lease, Mrs. Crow
(which is the wife of the husband that won this case, but that's not important right now).

This leaves you in a precarious situation.
The Judge you are reviewing works across the hallway from you.


In effect, YOU are a Judge, Judging a Judge.

The 3rd Party Claim to you is that he is:

1.) A First-Person Witness of the damages that the Landlords were seeking money for in the (then) ongoing Municipal Court Case,


2.) In possession of Video/Audio evidence that would refute the Landlord's Claim,


3.) In possession of documents relevant to the ongoing lower Municipal Court Case,

4.) The actual tenant during the very time that damages were occurring (claiming the Case was filed completely against the wrong party, a 70+ year old woman that was the former Lease Holder).




Now let's step up to yet another level.


Fed R Civ Rule 24.

(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:

1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute (see TITLE IV. PARTIES);

OR
(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.


(b) Permissive Intervention.
(1) In General. On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who:

(A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute(see TITLE IV. PARTIES); or (B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.


Fed R Civ Rule 18. Joinder of Claims

(a) In General. A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, cross claim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.
(b) Joinder of Contingent Claims. A party may join two claims even though one of them is contingent on the disposition of the other; but the court may grant relief only in accordance with the parties™ relative substantive rights. In particular, a plaintiff may state a claim for money and a claim to set aside a conveyance that is fraudulent as to that plaintiff, without first obtaining a judgment for the money.

Counter Suit Denied, yet the money required to file the Counter-Suit was kept by the Court and the Party was not recompensed despite the denial of Service.

Joinder

New subdivision (a) defines the persons whose joinder in the action is desirable. Clause (1) stresses the desirability of joining those persons in whose absence the court would be obliged to grant partial or hollow rather than complete relief to the parties before the court.The interests that are being furthered here are not only those of the parties, but also that of the public in avoiding repeated lawsuits on the same essential subject matter. Clause (2)(i) recognizes the importance of protecting the person whose joinder is in question against the practical prejudice to him which may arise through a disposition of the action in his absence. Clause (2)(ii)recognizes the need for considering whether a party may be left,after the adjudication, in a position where a person not joined can subject him to a double or otherwise inconsistent liability. See Reed, supra, 55 Mich.L.Rev. at 330, 338; Note, supra, 65Harv.L.Rev. at 1052“57; Developments in the Law,supra, 71 Harv.L.Rev. at881“85.
With this new information,

Page1 Page2


Page3 Page4


Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2

The law does not specify that one must prove him or herself to be included in an ongoing case.

The Law merely states that:

Fed R Civ Rule 24.
(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:
(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute(see TITLE IV. PARTIES);
or (2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action,and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.

The Lower Court Judge made the ruling to deny the 3rdParty'sMotion for the reason as shown below: Click here to see the Judge's ruling

With this new information, Do YOU overturn the Lower Court's Decision?
(and allow me to present issue in the Municipal Court Case in which I'm not a named party),
or
Do YOU affirm the Decision of the Lower Court?
(that I have no right to Intervene in a Case in which I'm neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant)

_______________________Quick Test 5
READY?
As formerly stated, there were TWO Motions I submitted to the Lower Court Prior to Pre-Trial.Below is the Second Motion which is on Public Court Record.
Review the Motion, consider the matter, and answer accordingly below.


My timely filed MOTION TO CORRECT THE RECORD

(Prior to Pre-Trial)
Page1 Page2


Page3 Page4


Page5 Page6


Page7 Page8


Page9 Exhibit Video 1















The Lower Court Judge, which you delayed reviewing for months, allowing the case to go through trial, and even delaying a decision until FIVE MONTHS AFTER the lower Court had kept the evidence and 3rd Party Claimant from presenting anything in Court, found that the woman was guilty of causing damage to ceiling tiles and carpets.



Ohio Revised Code, Rule 24. Intervention "Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: (1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a Federal Statute



(*see Rule 19. Required Joinder of Parties, et. al.); or (2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action." The following is a letter from the Plaintiff!
You Be the Judge!

Presented to you are two verifiably received letters which were sent over 3 years ago and containing signature verification from the US Postal Service, including the tracking/shipping information.




Consider the dates of the letters. Consider the date that the damages Claim was filed in the Municipal Court.
You BE THE JUDGE!This Document was received by Sheriff Lyons, the Plaintiff Crow's Son-in-Law, on November 25, 2014


You be the Judge!This Document was received by the Crow Attorney stating similarly.






Continue below to familiarize yourself with the original Case.
http://www.springfield-ohio-post.com
As it stands now, the Municipal Court manipulated a 70+ year old woman to come all the way to Ohio to be told that she's the cause of the damages.

Eric Crow, the (now) Municipal Court winner, was not a signer (or signor) on any Lease Agreement, yet seems to have the approval of the Lower Municipal Court concerning standing... in a Lease Agreement in which he's not even named. The Court gave the award to Eric Crow. My contention as the 3rd Party is that if Eric can make a claim against Margaret Baldino in a Lease Agreement dispute that he's not even a party to, then why can I not make a Claim against either of the Crows when I have expressed to the Municipal Court Record to be:

1.) A First-Person Witness of the damages that the Landlords were seeking money for in the (then) ongoing Municipal Court Case, 2.) In possession of Video/Audio evidence that would refute the Landlord's Claim, 3.) In possession of documents relevant to the Municipal Court Case, 4.) The actual tenant during the very time that damages were occurring (so the Case was filed completely against the wrong party, a 70+ year old woman that was the former Lease Holder). Yet,regardless of who was the tenant or which of the Leases the Court was willing to see, Eric Crow is oddly enough shown on the Court Record as being the recipient of the Court award and champion winner of the Theresa Crow /Margaret Baldino Lease (dis)Agreement. In fact, Eric Crow was permitted to be present in the Court Room throughout the entirety of his wife's Contractual Trial; whereas Margaret Baldino's witnesses were told to stay in the hallway until called.
My mother and I even went and filed a Counter-Suit against the Crows ($50+ dollars). You guessed it.
Denied (but the Municipal Court kept the money).

Lucky Crows? Or something else?
You Be The Judge!Acknowledgement






















Second Appellate's 800 number . Leave your opinion of this tragedy of injustice. Appellate Case Number:2016-CA-56
Thank you for your time, and enjoy the remainder of this page.SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AS PER THE COURT RECORD with notes and exhibits

Date Form Notes
2/4/2017
MyClosing Statement to the Second Appellate District Court of Appeals.

Body
Page2 Page3 Page4
Misc. pages
Page1 Page5

Myresponse to the Crows' Attorney stating that I've not shown "interest"and that I have no"standing".
9/29/2016 My Brief to the Second Appellate District Court of Appeals

Body
Page2 Page3 Page4 Page5 Page6 Page7 Page8
Misc. Pages
Page1
Instructed by the Second Appellate Division to complete a"Brief".
Luckily the google monopoly hasn't censored the template out of the public's reach, allowing me to comply.
Notice the date in which this form was submitted, September 29, 2016 (the Municipal County Court disregarded the issue presented to the Appellate Division altogether and progressed on to Trial without waiting for the Second Appellate Court Decision in this matter (as to whether or not it is lawful to deny evidence and a 3rd Party that has obvious INTEREST.
Its outcome with Margaret Baldino as the guilty party by judgment of the Municipal County Court of Springfield Ohio's Judge Thomas Trempe ought to be considered null and void.
9/22/2016 My original Appeal to the Second Appellate District Court of Appeals.

Page1 Page2
Original header was carried over from the Municipal Court Case,
as instructed from the Appellate Court Clerk

The original header, however, appears to be confusing the fluidity of the Appeal's intent insofar that the parties' places within the Case itself confounds the legal issue(for instance, perhaps the names of the Crows and Baldino ought to be removed from the appeal of an issue that is between the Municipal Court Judge decision, the Law that the Judge is to uphold, and myself).

Misc. Pages

Brief from the Crow Attorney
**Clicking the link to the left works, however this entry is out of place and I'll address it when time permits.
The original Clark County Municipal Court Case, from which this appeal is derived, can be seen Here. Check it out, there's a world of exhibits and evidences that were denied!



******
OKAY THAT'S IT! Let's See how YOU vote now.

1.)Although the Lower Municipal Court Judge was verifiably cognitive of the Appeal to the Higher Court soon after Pre-Trial, The Municipal Court Judge decided to keep the appointment and have the Trial anyway (not waiting on the Appellate Court to Rule on whether or not I have legal standing in the damages claim in the Municipal Court Case. The Appeal was right after Pre-Trial so there can be no misunderstanding of what is being appealed at this stage, even without reading the Appeal):

Page1

Page 2

2.) Denied evidence in mom's defense which was/is already entered into the Municipal Court Record well prior to Trial

My Version,

which matches their version as to the facts of the very case at hand:
**My version does not hide the exhibits/evidences. But I'm not entirely done with that page yet so there's more (however what IS complete OUGHT to be enough!)


3.) Denied Court access when that person is with evidence that should have been inter-pleaded, adjoined, intervened, or as an interested party to the Case that is FREE to present evidence to the Case.

4.) Rather, there is bias in that an entirely different party, MR.CROW, as the winner of Mrs. Crow's Contractual Lease Agreement Complaint.
*Mr. Crow is a witness at best. How is it legal to give credit to a witness, a person that doesn't have standing and wasn't part of the Lease which was being heard before the Municipal Court, and in dispute?
Crow Win?

5.) Again, bias toward Eric Crow, to not be sequestered during Trial.
Whereas the Defense's witnesses were left in the hallway, unlike Eric Crow, in a lease he's not even a signer (signor)nor was he present at the signing of the Lease Agreement (However, the 3rd party Intervenor was present during Margaret Baldino and Theresa's Lease signing ).




Narrated by Kenny Hendrick, 3rd-Party Appellant, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure TITLE IV. PARTIES and/or any known and unknown laws that exist and still avail the freedom to redress of grievances (off the top of my head), In reference to the lower Court's Decision to Deny Due Process. The Appeal is being heard within a 60(b) motion at Springfield Ohio's Second Appellate Court of Appeals. FOLLOW THE CASE: The original Clark County Municipal Court Case, from which this Appeal is derived, can be seen Here. The Municipal Court version(which does NOT show exhibits to the Public) can be seen on their website Here. Note:The Appellate Court appears to be re-directing this issue to reflect Kenneth Hendrick (myself) vs. Eric Crow, et al., including my own mother.Yet,expressed in my original motion to the Appellate Court in which is stated: That I question the Lawful Judgment of the Springfield Ohio Municipal Court's Judge Trempe to restrict my access to a(then) on going case. **Note:The courts have banned this website from being viewed within the Court's "secure" Computer System. The website you are presently viewing is blocked after it had already been named within the 3rd Party Appeal to the 2ndDistrictAppellate Court of Appeals itself. Videos and other evidences that were already submitted to the Municipal Court's Record prior, are now blocked from consideration to the higher Court (redacted so that the higher Court, as well as the general public, cannot view the actual exhibits and evidences). Where do I stand? Justice Demands: 1.) Reimbursement for that $1,000.00 "attorney" that bailed at pre-trial. The same attorney suddenly is found to be the Head of the Attorneys Bar (!!??!). The critical point in the case, Pre-Trial, and allowed by a Judge during an exparte meeting where an Attorney emerged to bid farewell to the Aged Defendant, done with the blessing of the Judge as seen here. 2.) The good name be given back to my mother. My mother has NEVER been brought to Court in her over Seventy Years on this planet (that's almost a Century!). 3.) Since it is not possible to give back her good name, that which is not tangible,the exact amount the Crows sought is what my mother ought to receive from the Crows. This shame and embarrassment upon my mother, Truth be told, has been the impetus behind her and her husband to now plan for a divorce. 4.) All Court Costs to be returned and reimbursed back to my mother. Much harm to the otherwise peaceful lives of the Baldino's (and Myself) in court fees and costs,an amount for loss of time/life via altered personal plans to defend oneself against wrongful allegations, paper costs, ink costs,electricity for printers and computers costs, costs to submit various documents to the Court, costs incurred to dub and submit videos to the Court and Plaintiff's Attorney, etc.,including an amount to compensate for the undue duress, loss of sleep, loss of appetite, arguments amongst family which were the direct result of this despicable matter at hand (the primary of which is the already mentioned plans for a Divorce, other costs such as postage costs, notary costs, fuel costs,etc.). What is wrong is wrong and those that have been wronged ought to be compensated.It's the right thing to do now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Narrated by Kenny Hendrick, 3rd-Party Appellant, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure TITLE IV. PARTIES
and/or
any known and unknown laws that exist and still avail the freedom to redress of grievances (off the top of my head),
In reference to the lower Court's Decision to Deny Due Process.






The Appeal is being heard within a 60(b) motion at Springfield Ohio's Second Appellate Court of Appeals.

FOLLOW THE CASE:
The original Clark County Municipal Court Case, from which this Appeal is derived, can be seen Here.






The Municipal Court version(which does NOT show exhibits to the Public) can be seen on their website Here.

Note:The Appellate Court appears to be re-directing this issue to reflect Kenneth Hendrick (myself) vs. Eric Crow, et al., including my own mother.Yet,expressed in my original motion to the Appellate Court in which is stated: That I question the Lawful Judgment of the Springfield Ohio Municipal Court's Judge Trempe to restrict my access to a(then) on going case.
**Note:The courts have banned this website from being viewed within the Court's "secure" Computer System.
The website you are presently viewing is blocked after it had already been named within the 3rd Party Appeal to the 2ndDistrictAppellate Court of Appeals itself.
Videos and other evidences that were already submitted to the Municipal Court's Record prior, are now blocked from consideration to the higher Court (redacted so that the higher Court, as well as the general public, cannot view the actual exhibits and evidences). Where do I stand?
Justice Demands:







1.) Reimbursement for that $1,000.00 "attorney" that bailed at pre-trial. The same attorney suddenly is found to be the Head of the Attorneys Bar (!!??!). The critical point in the case, Pre-Trial, and allowed by a Judge during an exparte meeting where an Attorney emerged to bid farewell to the Aged Defendant, done with the blessing of the Judge as seen here.






2.) The good name be given back to my mother. My mother has NEVER been brought to Court in her over Seventy Years on this planet (that's almost a Century!).










3.) Since it is not possible to give back her good name, that which is not tangible,the exact amount the Crows sought is what my mother ought to receive from the Crows.
This shame and embarrassment upon my mother, Truth be told, has been the impetus behind her and her husband to now plan for a divorce.






4.) All Court Costs to be returned and reimbursed back to my mother.
Much harm to the otherwise peaceful lives of the Baldino's (and Myself) in court fees and costs,an amount for loss of time/life via altered personal plans to defend oneself against wrongful allegations, paper costs, ink costs,electricity for printers and computers costs, costs to submit various documents to the Court, costs incurred to dub and submit videos to the Court and Plaintiff's Attorney, etc.,including an amount to compensate for the undue duress, loss of sleep, loss of appetite, arguments amongst family which were the direct result of this despicable matter at hand (the primary of which is the already mentioned plans for a Divorce, other costs such as postage costs, notary costs, fuel costs,etc.). What is wrong is wrong and those that have been wronged ought to be compensated.It's the right thing to do now.
Misc. Letters From The Court :











Sept-29-2016-Page1





Sept-29-2016-Page 2





Show Cause to Kenny





Show Cause to Crow







Misc. Notes and scraps

Address: 2803 Road Springfield Ohio 45504 Product of Ohio Product of USA
Telephone:+1 (937)718-3586
Fair Use Clause

107: Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use

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, 90Stat 2546)








Commitment to the Environment
Our Nation CAN do Better!

Kenny's Other TOPICS





Off-Grid Discoveries and Batt Project

Bank 1

Bank 2
Bank 3

Bank 4
Bank 5

Bank 6
Bank 7

Bank 8
Bank 9

Bank 10

Made with Trash Project

Brick Wall 1



Brick Wall 2

Solar in Action
Solar 1



Solar 2

Off-Grid Photo Gallery

Photos 1

Photos 2
Photos 3



Off-Grid Lifestyle
Lifestyle 1

Lifestyle 2
Lifestyle 3

Lifestyle 4

Wind Energy



Solar Kits

The Well



The Garden
This topic is Pending the new
Censorship Laws



History

Wood Stove



Walkway

Security



Lighting

Water



Solar Controllers

Topic:Gardening
Garden 1



Garden 2


Garden 3
POLITICAL


Political 1

Political 2
Political 3

Political 4
Political 5

Political 6


Sites of Springfield Ohio Clark County Community Interest:

Clark County Terror

Municipal Court Racket?
Ohio's Shame

Brick Projects
Solar Projects

"My people, when ye see these signs, come out of her" Holy Crap, my Passport is denied!
On Springfield (2nd Draft)

On Economics (1st Draft)



THE OTHER SIDE OF PROJECTS



THE OTHER SIDE OF HOBBIES





If the upload server is off, call and I'll turn it on if needed: (937) 718-3586