Thanks for Visiting!



Systems by Kenny HendrickKenny Hendrick Link Photo
Be Ye Separate or Die




Link Photo of Battery Bank DiscoveryDiscovery



Made with TrashLink Photo for Trash Wall



Solar Panel KitsLink Photo for Solar Panel Kits



Lessons LearnedLink Photo for Lessons Learned



StuffLink Photo for Stuff



Other StuffLink Photo for Other Stuff



More StuffLink Photo for More Stuff



Spectrum FiascoLink Photo for Spectrum Fiasco



Copyright RacketLink Photo for Copyright Racket



EconomicsLink Photo for Economics Discourse



AT&T DebacleLink Photo for AT&T Debacle



Springfield Ohio DiscourseLink Photo of Initial perception of Springfield Ohio
(3rd Draft)




Middle-Man JudiciaryLink Photo of unjust Judiciary



Below are personal sentiments at the given moment in time.
Our Nation CAN do Better!




Today You are the Judge!



Springfield Ohio Court of Appeals



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 Judgment 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 (Attempting to "Correct The Record" and "Intervene"). The 3rd Party (not a 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 Lessor of the Lease (which is the wife of the husband that won this case). How does a "THIRD PARTY" husband win in a lease he's not even named in? That's not important right now, let's keep this simple.

This leaves you in a precarious situation.

The Judge you are reviewing works across the hallway from you.

With nothing more to go on, as the Judge of the Court of Appeals, Do YOU overturn the Lower Court's Decision?



_____________________

Let's step up a notch !

YOU will now be availed a bit more information. You are the Court of Appeals Judge. Again, You will decide whether or not my request to become involved in a Landlord/Tenant Dispute Case was unlawfully Denied by the Lower Court Judge. In effect, YOU are a Judge, Judging a Judge.

I appealed to you. My claim to you is that I am:

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

My claim to you is that I am:

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

My claim to you is that I am:

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

My claim to you is that I was:

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). With this new information, and nothing more to go on, Do YOU overturn the Lower Court's Decision?





_____________________
Law?




******* 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.



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

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. Click Here to find the Counter Suit was Denied(after they took and kept the money to file that Counter Suit)

Rule 19; Required Joinder of Parties

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, 65 Harv.L.Rev. at 105257; Developments in the Law, supra, 71 Harv.L.Rev. at 88185.




_______________________


Evidence that was NOT permitted by the Lower Municipal Court during Trial (yet is entered into the Court Record so it cannot be disregarded).

Your job as the Higher Court Judge is to decide whether or not the Lower Court acted appropriately in keeping the 3rd Party from presenting a case that might refute the Plaintiffs' Claim.
The 3rd Party (me) Claims that the Lower Court erred in allowing a completely wrong party to be Tried by the Plaintiff. Let's get you up to speed.
As a Higher Court Judge, You must review the Court Record of the Lower Court.
Below You will find actual documents that were presented to the Lower Court PRIOR TO PRE-TRIAL.
I'm only going to present One of the Two Motions that I, as the 3rd Party, submitted to the Lower Court PRIOR TO PRE-TRIAL. My timely filed MOTION TO INTERVENE (2 months prior to Pre-Trial)


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.
Their 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 3rd Party's Motion for the reason as shown below: Click here to see the Judge's ruling.


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
Page1

Page2

Page3

Page4

Page5

Page6

Page7

Page8

Page9

Exhibit Video 1


THERE WAS A VIDEO SUBMITTED TO THE COURT RECORD PRIOR TO PRE-TRIAL, DID THE VIDEO AFFECT YOUR Judgment ? The video has my voice in it but nowhere is there a 70++ year old woman. The Lower Court Judge, which you are reviewing, found that the woman was guilty of causing damage to ceiling tiles and carpets. The Lower Court Judge made the ruling to deny the 3rd Party's Motion for the reason as shown below: Click here to see the Judge's ruling




The "law-makers" created a local Law:

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!



Okay, now would it alter your Decision to know that the former Lease Holder with the Plaintiff (Landlord) of the Municipal Court Case, is my mother?

Think about this one for a moment. I'm 52 which makes my mother 70++.

Could a 70+ year old woman create the damage claimed by Springfield Ohio? From Florida!!??

How does that affect you? Does it affect your Decision?


Remember, I'm the 3rd Party Claimant attempting to "Correct the Record", stating that:

1.) The wrong party is being sued.
2.) The Plaintiff hasn't any ground to sue.
3.) The Plaintiff entered into the Court Record fraudulent Documents.
4.) That there are videos and witnesses that are able to prove the aforementioned claims made by the 3rd Party.

Presented to you are two verifiably received letters which my mother sent over 3 years ago.
Luckily she kept the tracking/shipping information.
Read the Letters.
Consider the dates of the letters. Consider the date that the damages Claim was filed in the Municipal Court.

This Document was received by Sheriff Lyons,
the Plaintiff Crow's Son-in-Law, on November 25, 2014
This Document was received by the Crow Attorney





_______________________


Although a slew of exhibits and evidences were entered into the Municipal Court Record, everyone of them were denied
(including videos of the live damages as they were occurring, audio recordings of live narration, relevant documents, witness Testimonies (others), my testimony, etc.). Denied.

You are already aware that there were a couple of Motions filed to the Lower Municipal Court Record prior to Pre-Trial, which alleged:

1.) The Wrong party was being sued.
2.) Evidence was NOT permitted in the Municipal Court.
3.) That the Claim was fraudulent in the first place, and knowingly filed against the wrong party.
4.) That the Lower Court did not wait for the Court of Appeals' Decision (YOUR DECISION, because YOU ARE THE HIGHER COURT JUDGE, DENIED! You too?) as to decide upon my right to stand within the Municipal Court Case to show and tell why I am an element of considerable necessity.

Continue below to familiarize yourself with the original Case. 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.
Shamefully, the Municipal Court of Springfield Ohio found She was found guilty (while I was denied Court Access to present ANY evidences, even those that were on the Court Record!!!). Denied.

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? Acknowledgement Last quiz question, it is this: That if I've impressed upon you enough to email your answers to the aforementioned questions. the next question should be a breeze. Read the short Sequence of events below, if you feel this case has unlawfully left the Tenant out of the Tenant/ Landlord Dispute OR if you feel that at very least I should have been a party that is Free to present evidence, then please call the Second Appellate's 800 number and leave a message concerning your opinion of this tragedy of Justice. 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
My Closing Statement to the Second Appellate District Court of Appeals.
Page2

Page3



Page4




Page1

Page5


Body
Misc. pages


My response to the Crows' Attorney stating that I've not shown"interest" and that I have no "standing".
My Brief to the Second Appellate District Court of Appeals
Page2

Page3



Page4

Page5



Page6

Page7



Page8

Page1


Body
Misc. Pages
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.
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!

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):
border="1">
pdf-0.jpeg pdf-1.jpeg


2.) Denied evidence in mom's defense which was/is already entered into the Municipal Court Record well prior to Trial My Version matches their version border="1">
springfield-ohio-post.com

clark.oh.us
: **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?
oh.us

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 Crime
NEXT

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) ongoing case.

Comments?
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 2nd District Appellate 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.) Recompense/Reimbursement for that $1,000.00 "attorney" that bailed at pre-trial.

The critical point in the case, Pre-Trial, and allowed by a Judge during an ex parte meeting where an Attorney emerged to bid farewell to the Aged Defendant, done with the blessing of the Judge 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.

3.) 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 :

border="1">
Sept-29-2016-court-issued-Page 1

Sept-29-2016-court-issued-Page 2

Court issues Show Cause Order to Kenny

Court issue Show Cause Order to the Crow Attorney



Misc. Notes and scraps
Address: 2803 Troy Road Springfield Ohio 45504 Product of Ohio Product of USA

Telephone: +1 (937) 718-3586


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 upper-class copyright protections. Title I, 101, Oct 19, 1976, 90 Stat 2546)