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
Second District Court of Appeals Ohio
Our Nation CAN do Better!
This page is based from an authentic 2015 Judicial breakdown in the Clark County Municipal Court, a Claim Original, which may be seen here.
*The new censorship laws give law enforcement the right to censor sites from the Internet at will. If anything is found to be helpful or important here, copy it before it's gone (It's what they do to manipulate Public Consideration and Opinion, for their own profit).
Closing Statement to the Second Appellate District Court of Appeals.
Response to the Crow Attorney stating that "interest" has not been shown and that there is no "standing". Perhaps if the judiciary were to use the same definitions that the rest of the non-judiciary has.
My Brief to the Second Appellate District Court of Appeals
Instructed by the Second Appellate Division to complete a "Brief".
My first submission is contained below and was somehow denied,
stating I needed more formality and nomenclature.
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).
My original Appeal to the Second Appellate District Court of
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).
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-56
Anyone with access to YouTube can watch the videos that show beyond
a shadow of doubt that Margaret Baldino did not cause any of the
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 this?
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". Supposedly we've been led to
believe that practicing law from the bench is unlawful.
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,
*CENSORED video. ALL the videos that were uploaded to YouTube were
either censored with more than a dozen claims to copyright
infringement when in fact the videos were entirely made by me
(obviously since I'm talking in the video and the destruction is
live in the video). Fed up with the antics by whomever was
complaining about each and every one of the uploaded videos, I
dropped YouTube altogether.
Video not playing? We can thank monopoly ATandT Internet for scalping the bandwidth. Sorry for the inconvenience. Download video instead.
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
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
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 also 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.
The Judge slandered the facts to reflect that it was
Theresa AND Eric Crow that entered into a Lease Agreement
with my mother.
This is untrue. It was I, My mother, and Theresa who were
the only persons in the rental during the Lease Signing.
Eric never was present. If the Court rules Judgment for
someone wouldn't it be ethical and wildly orthodox to award
a Judgment between the two signors of the Lease?
And yet the Judgment goes to somebody whom isn't even on the
Lease (that in of itself shows thuggish behavior and no
semblance of a proper Judicial System).
Where did the Judge get the idea Eric was involved in my
mother's lease? The only Lease that Eric was involved in was
one with me, and I was barred from the case, the very issue
in which I'm the only person on the planet recording the
disasters as they happened.
One can have no respect for a racket when in respect to
those that enjoy their privileged lifestyles and lord over
us taking , always taking and giving nothing of community
value in return.
Before I die I'd like to see our military come home and
clean house. One country, one set of laws that cover the
entirety of our nation void of all the profiteering
middle-men that rake us clean. They have failed us (i.e.
Our Nation is lost because of these types and at very LEAST,
we can no longer afford them.
Page1 Page2 Page3 Page4 Page5 Page6
Court Opinion: "A statement that is prepared by a judge
or court announcing the decision after a case is tried;
includes a summary of the facts, a recitation of the
applicable law and how it relates to the facts, the
rationale supporting the decision, and a judgment; and is
usually presented in writing."
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)