1335 North Limestone Street in Springfield Ohio Unlawful Diversity Issue ignored
Lack of Personal Subject Matter Jurisdiction exists, Clark County Municipal Court and the Second Appellate Court of Appeals ignore the issue.
After the Clark County Municipal Court disregarded my pre-trial 60(b) motion to the Second Appellate Court of Appeals in Ohio.
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 in the very first motion to the Clark County Municipal Court.....how did the Appellate not even touch on this?
This is the case: http://springfieldoh.ddns.net
(shows exhibits)
This is the case: http://images.clerkofcourts.municipal.co.clark.oh.us/CISWeb/Search.aspx?caseNumber=15CVF02981
(obfuscates exhibits)
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?
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.
After the Clark County Municipal Court disregarded my pre-trial 60(b) motion to the Second Appellate Court of Appeals in Ohio.
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 in the very first motion to the Clark County Municipal Court.....how did the Appellate not even touch on this?
This is the case: http://springfieldoh.ddns.net
(shows exhibits)
This is the case: http://images.clerkofcourts.municipal.co.clark.oh.us/CISWeb/Search.aspx?caseNumber=15CVF02981
(obfuscates exhibits)
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?
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.
Category
🗞
News