Thanks for Visiting!
Systems by Kenny Hendrick
Be Ye Separate or Die
Made with Trash
Solar Panel Kits
Springfield Ohio Discourse
|Below are personal sentiments at the given moment in time.
The Honorable Michael T. Hall, Presiding and Administrative Judge
Erin E. Scanlon, Esq., Court Administrator
Our Nation CAN do Better!
District Court of Appeals Ohio
This page is based from a Clark County Municipal Court Claim Original,
which is here.
41 N. Perry Street, Fifth Floor
P.O. Box 972
Dayton, Ohio 45422-2170
(800) 608-4652 (within Ohio), (937) 225-4464, (937) 496-7724 (fax)
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
PER THE COURT RECORD with notes
ClosingStatement to theSecond AppellateDistrict Court ofAppeals.
|Response tothe Crow Attorneystating that "interest"
has not been shown and thatthere is no "standing". Perhapsif the judiciary wereto use the samedefinitions that therest of thenon-judiciary has.|
Brief to the Second
Appellate District Court
|Instructed by the SecondAppellate Division tocomplete a "Brief".|
Notice the date in whichthis form was submitted,September 29, 2016 (theMunicipal County Courtdisregarded the issuepresented to the AppellateDivision altogether andprogressed on to Trialwithout waiting for theSecond Appellate CourtDecision in this matter(as to whether or not itis lawful to deny evidenceand a 3rd Party that hasobvious INTEREST).
original Appeal to the
District Court of
|Original header wascarried over from theMunicipal Court Case, asinstructed from theAppellate Court Clerk|
The original header,however, appears to beconfusing the fluidity ofthe Appeal's intentinsofar that the parties'places within the Caseitself confounds the legalissue (for instance,perhaps the names of theCrows and Baldino ought tobe removed from the appealof an issue that isbetween the MunicipalCourt Judge decision, theLaw that the Judge is touphold, and myself).
Brieffrom the Crow Attorney
|**Clicking the link tothe left works, howeverthis entry is out of placeand I'll address it whentime permits.|
of the Second Appellate
Court of Appeals
If you disagree with theJudgment, please do botherto put your two-cents inby calling the Court andtelling them so...thisisn't going to go awayunless Justice returns toour Judiciary.
Court of Appeals
(800) 608-4652 (withinOhio), (937) 225-4464,(937) 496-7724 (fax)
AppellateCase Number:2016-CA-56Anyone with access toYouTube can watch thevideos that show beyond ashadow of doubt thatMargaret Baldino did notcause any of the claimeddamages.
YouTube Search terms:
"1335 North LimestoneSpringfield"
|Lack of Personal SubjectMatter Jurisdictionexists. Two persons haveinformed me that thisphrase is an issue(against the Courts).Interestingly enough (asheer guess by the waybecause I wasn't entirelysure when I wrote it), Isubmitted the Lack ofSubject MatterJurisdiction in the veryfirst motion to the ClarkCounty MunicipalCourt.....how did both theClark County MunicipalCourt and the SecondAppellate Court of Appealsin Ohio not even addressthis?|
1.) You'll notice that theCourt of Appeals did noteven mention how Mr. Crowwas awarded a sum whenhe's not even on any LeaseAgreement. The Lease wasbetween A and B but C winsas seen on the ClarkCounty Municipal Court'sWebsite hereand D did it?
2.) You'll notice how theCourt of Appeals did noteven touch on the matterof the multitude of videoevidences that showed thedamages as a result of theupstairs tenant's plumbing.
Remember, the suit claimedthat Margaret Baldino, a70++ year old woman"caused damages" so itdoesn't matter who thetenant is if the evidenceshows she couldn't havecaused the damages (unlessher name is Running Wateror Bursting Pipes).
3.) You'll notice that thedetermination parrots thatof the Municipal CourtJudgment and that theCourt is relying on thesquabble about who was thetenant at the time of thedamages but ignoring theirrefutable video evidencethat has made its way tothe Municipal Court Recordcontained further downthis page. The PlaintiffsClaim clearly namesMargaret Baldino as the
causefor damage of property.
Who profits by denyingevidence and interestedparties from a case?
4.) You'll notice not oneiota of photo evidence wasnecessary for the Crow's(the Plaintiff's) to win a"claim" for leaving "trashand debris" on theproperty (but I ...not mymom...have videos and ahalf dozen witnesses anddocuments, and even themovers that helped me moveout and my own testimonythat NEEDS to beconsidered in the Case, itclearly ought to have someaffect on the adversedetermination they've madehere).
There's video evidencethat the claim simply isnot authentic.
7.) You'll notice that theSecond Appellate Court ofAppeals changed thewording of the originalClark County MunicipalClaim. The original Claimstates that MargaretBaldino "Caused thedamage"....now it'sevolved to "...damagesthat occurred duringMargaret's Lease".
Family ties (i.e. theupstairs tenant and theplaintiff) can no longerbe found on the Internetas Nicole's Facebook andTwitter Accounts have beenclosed (luckily for me Ihave a video on theInternet that was madebefore that desperatedelete action, huh? video.
8.) You'll notice that theCourt of Appealsapparently are feelingokay to address ONLY thetwo motions of the morethan SEVENTEEN made to theCourt Record.
Pay close attention to the"INITIAL FILING" in theTimeline below, notice howthe Second Appellate Courtof Appeals changed thewording. This is good?
9.) You'll notice that theAppellate determinationmentions that my mom (theformer lease holder) neverremained at the propertyin question, but failed tomention the fact that Inot only supplied rentalreceipts but also statedthat I HAD THE SUBSEQUENTLEASE.....no mention ofhow it was determined tobe a lie in that "Final"determination by theAppellate though.
11.) You'll notice that onpage two of the Judge'sbest Judgment that it isstated by the Judge"...For the reasonsoutlined below, thejudgment of the trialcourt will be affirmed."Now I challenge anyone tofind reasons why theSecond Appellate Court ofAppeals would affirm theLower Court's Decision tobar my ability to presentmy own witnesses and myown evidences to refutethe ill-aimed Claim. Ifyou review the initialcase you'll invariablyfind
that it was Judge Trempethat first introduced theLaw that is now deemedincorrect (i.e.24(a)(b)
12.) Interestingly you'llnotice on page 6 that theCourt of Appeals Judgespeaks much of Civ.R.24(A),(B),and (C) so wemust conclude that eitherthe Court of Appeals hasnoticed that I neverbrought up anything ofCiv.R. 24 (that wasintroduced by theMunicipal Court Judge) andapparently reiterated bythe Court of Appeals tokeep Justice from whereit's due when all Judgesare surely aware of Rule18 Joinder/Non-Joinder andyet in my Brief TO THECOURT OF APPEALS ON PAGE 5IS STATED JOINDER, aFederal Law that doesapply). As for my personalstatements referencingCiv.R. 24(a)(b), et. al.it was due to followingthe Judge's lead inintroducing the cited lawin the first place (see denial).
The paid Attorney for mymom did not tell her aboutsubject matterJurisdiction. He submittedonto the court recordbefore pre-trial that mymom was in Florida.I stated on the courtrecord she is not of thejurisdiction of the ClarkCounty Municipal Court ofOhio.
law of subject
following is the
original Municipal Clark
County Court Case.
Case No. 15CVF02981
Road Springfield Ohio45504 Product of Ohio Product of USA
Telephone:+1 (937) 718-3586
Click Here if you
are looking for
Video not playing? We can thank monopoly ATandT Internet for scalping the bandwidth. Sorry for the inconvenience. Download video instead.
Sites of Clark County Community Interest:
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, 90 Stat 2546)