Statement to the Second Appellate District Court of
||My Brief to the Second
Appellate District Court of Appeals
|Instructed by the Second Appellate Division to
complete a "Brief".
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).
|9/22/2016||My original Appeal to the Second
District Court of Appeals.
||Original header was carried over from the
Municipal Court Case, as instructed from the Appellate Court
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).
||**Clicking the link to the left works, however this entry is out of place and I'll address it when time permits.|
Decision of the Second Appellate Court of Appeals
If you disagree with the Judgment, please do bother to put your two-cents in by calling the Court and telling them so...this isn't going to go away unless Justice returns to our Judiciary.
Court of Appeals
(800) 608-4652 (within Ohio), (937) 225-4464, (937) 496-7724 (fax)
Appellate Case Number: 2016-CA-56Anyone with access to youtube can watch the videos that show beyond a shadow of doubt that Margaret Baldino did not cause any of the claimed damages.
Youtube Search terms:
"1335 North Limestone Springfield"
|Lack of Personal Subject Matter
Jurisdiction exists. Two persons have informed me that this
phrase is an issue (against the Courts).
Interestingly enough (a sheer guess by the way because I wasn't
entirely sure when I wrote it), I submitted the Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction in the very first motion to the Clark County
Municipal Court.....how did both the Clark County Municipal Court
and the Second Appellate Court of Appeals in Ohio not even address
1.) You'll notice that the Court of Appeals did not even mention how Mr. Crow was awarded a sum when he's not even on any Lease Agreement. The Lease was between A and B but C wins as seen on the Clark County Muncipal Court's Website here and D did it?
2.) You'll notice how the Court of Appeals did not even touch on the matter of the multitude of video evidences that showed the damages as a result of the upstairs tenant's plumbing .
Remember, the suit claimed that Margaret Baldino, a 70++ year old woman "caused damages" so it doesn't matter who the tenant is if the evidence shows she couldn't have caused the damages (unless her name is Running Water or Bursting Pipes).
3.) You'll notice that the determination parrots that of the Municipal Court Judgment and that the Court is relying on the squabble about who was the tenant at the time of the damages but ignoring the irrefutable video evidence that has made its way to the Municipal Court Record contained further down this page. The Plaintiffs Claim clearly names Margaret Baldino as the cause for damage of property.
Who profits by denying evidence and interested parties from a case?
4.) You'll notice not one iota of photo evidence was necessary for the Crow's (the Plaintiff's) to win a "claim" for leaving "trash and debris" on the property (but I ...not my mom...have videos and a half dozen witnesses and documents, and even the movers that helped me move out and my own testimony that NEEDS to be considered in the Case, it clearly ought to have some affect on the adverse determination they've made here).
There's video evidence that the claim simply is not authentic.
7.) You'll notice that the Second Appellate Court of Appeals changed the wording of the original Clark County Municipal Claim. The original Claim states that Margaret Baldino "Caused the damage"....now it's evolved to "...damages that occurred during Margaret's Lease".
Family ties (i.e. the upstairs tenant and the plaintiff) can no longer be found on the Internet as Nicole's Facebook and Twitter Accounts have been closed (luckily for me I have a video on the Internet that was made before that desperate delete action, huh? Heeeere's your video.
8.) You'll notice that the Court of Appeals apparently are feeling okay to address ONLY the two motions of the more than SEVENTEEN made to the Court Record.
Pay close attention to the "INITIAL FILING" in the Timeline below, notice how the Second Appellate Court of Appeals changed the wording. This is good?
9.) You'll notice that the Appellate determination mentions that my mom (the former lease holder) never remained at the property in question, but failed to mention the fact that I not only supplied rental receipts but also stated that I HAD THE SUBSEQUENT LEASE.....no mention of how it was determined to be a lie in that "Final" determination by the Appellate though.
11.) You'll notice that on page two of the Judge's best Judgment that it is stated by the Judge "...For the reasons outlined below, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed." Now I challenge anyone to find reasons why the Second Appellate Court of Appeals would affirm the Lower Court's Decision to bar my ability to present my own witnesses and my own evidences to refute the ill-aimed Claim. If you review the initial case you'll invariably find
that it was Judge Trempe that first introduced the Law that is now deemed incorrect (i.e. 24(a)&(b)
12.) Interestingly you'll notice on page 6 that the Court of Appeals Judge speaks much of Civ.R. 24(A),(B),and (C) so we must conclude that either the Court of Appeals has noticed that I never brought up anything of Civ.R. 24 (that was introduced by the Municipal Court Judge) and apparently reiterated by the Court of Appeals to keep Justice from where it's due when all Judges are surely aware of Rule 18 Joinder/Non-Joinder and yet in my Brief TO THE COURT OF APPEALS ON PAGE 5 IS STATED JOINDER, a Federal Law that does apply). As for my personal statements referencing Civ.R. 24(a)(b), et. al. it was due to following the Judge's lead in introducing the cited law in the first place (see denial).
The paid Attorney for my mom did not tell her about subject matter Jurisdiction. He submitted onto the court record before pre-trial that my mom was in florida.
I stated on the court record she is not of the jurisdiction of the Clark County Municipal Court of Ohio.
About the law of subject matter jurisdiction, go here.
The following is the original Municipal Clark County Court Case.
Clark County Municipal Court
05/14/2017 : 02:15AM
Guy A. Ferguson, Clerk