Click Here if you are looking for SPRINGFIELD'S COMPUTER REPAIR
This Web Page last updated:  April 24, 2017  


Today You are the Judge.

YES, you!

TAKE THE FOLLOWING SHORT QUIZ and

LET'S SEE WHERE YOU STAND!

 YOU BE THE JUDGE!



>>>   Please answer each short Quiz honestly without changing your answers.  
The following tests are based on a real live case awaiting a decision in Springfield Ohio's

Second Appellate Court of Appeals

THIS IS WHERE YOU WORK TODAYYOU BE THE JUDGE!

Ready?

A CASE IS PRESENTED FOR YOUR REVIEW.

You are the higher Court Judge reviewing the Judgement of the Lower Court Judge's Decision.
This leaves you in a precarious situation.  The Judge you are reviewing works across the hallway from you.

Here's THE CASE:

You are the higher Court Judge that will decide whether or not the lower Municipal Court Judge acted according to the Law, or acted outside of the Law.

  I am the 3rd Party from a Muncipal Court Case in which I come to you appealing that I was unlawfully withheld from a Municipal Court Landlord/Tenant Dispute in which I claim to be a necessary party to the lower Court's Property Damage Claim. 

Let's begin.

With nothing more to go on,
Do YOU overturn the Lower Court's Decision?
(to not allow me to present issue in the Municipal Court Case in which I'm not a named party),
or
Do YOU affirm the Decision of the Lower Court
?
(that I have no right to Intervene in a Case in which I'm neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant)

>>Submit your answer HERE<<

YOUR ANSWER SHOULD EITHER BE:

OVERTURN the decision or,

 AFFIRM the Decision

This concludes your first QUIZ.

Please Title your answer as Test 1 in the subject area of your email; your answer to Overturn or Affirm should be placed within the Body of the email.



Quick Test 2

Now let's step up a notch !

YOU will be availed with a bit more information this time. 

   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.


YOU BE THE JUDGE!

I appeal 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?
(to not allow me to present issue in the Municipal Court Case in which I'm not a named party),
or
Do YOU affirm the Decision of the Lower Court
?
(that I have no right to Intervene in a Case in which I'm neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant)

>>Submit your answer HERE<<

YOUR ANSWER SHOULD EITHER BE:

OVERTURN the decision or,

 AFFIRM the Decision

This concludes your second QUIZ.

Please Title your answer as Test 2 in the subject area of your email; your answer to Overturn or Affirm should be placed within the Body of the email.
 


Quick Test 3

Now let's step up to yet another level !

For this next Quiz, you will familiarize yourself with a few paragraphs of Law. 


YOU BE THE JUDGE!
YOU are the Judge of the Second Appellate Court of Appeals.
You will Judge the Lower Court's Judge(ment). 
You will either OVERTURN or AFFIRM the lower Court's Decision (to Deny my becoming a part of a Case in which I'm not a party to).
Read the following short paragraphs, and submit your answer following the Quiz.

*******

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.

(b) 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

        (B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.

***
One More:

Fed R Civ Rule 18.

Joinder of Claims

   (a) In General. A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, 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.

With this new information, and nothing more to go on,

Do YOU overturn the Lower Court's Decision?
(to not allow me to present issue in the Municipal Court Case in which I'm not a named party),
or
Do YOU affirm the Decision of the Lower Court
?
(that I have no right to Intervene in a Case in which I'm neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant)

>>Submit your answer HERE<<

YOUR ANSWER SHOULD EITHER BE:

OVERTURN the decision or,

 AFFIRM the Decision

This concludes your Third QUIZ.

Please Title your answer as Quiz 3 in the subject area of your email; your answer to Overturn or Affirm should be placed within the Body of the email.



Quick Test 4

 READY FOR THE NEXT TEST?

YOU BE THE JUDGE!

You will need to slow down.   The next test question will be formulated shortly....Keep in mind that this is an actual case which you can follow via the Court's own website (listed further down below).    The following are the notes I'm working with to compile your next Quiz.   Feel free to browse through the jumbled notes.
*Next Quiz will arrive April 27, 2017.
Until then, You may review some of the notes from the actual ongoing Case that is pending the Second Appellate Court of Appeals Decision.




Save:
With nothing more to go on,
Do YOU overturn the Lower Court's Decision?
(to not allow me to present issue in the Municipal Court Case in which I'm not a named party),
or
Do YOU affirm the Decision of the Lower Court
?
(that I have no right to Intervene in a Case in which I'm neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant)

>>Submit your answer HERE<<

YOUR ANSWER SHOULD EITHER BE:

OVERTURN the decision or,

 AFFIRM the Decision

This concludes your FOURTH QUIZ.

Please Title your answer as Quiz 4 in the subject area of your email; your answer to Overturn or Affirm should be placed within the Body of the email.
(end save)




NOTES:

Although a slew of exhibits were entered into the Municipal Court Record, all were denied (including videos, audio recordings, documents, witnesses, etc.) you are not in a position to determine whether the evidence was unlawfully denied.   Again, your only position will be to OVERTURN the Lower Court's Decision to Deny me access to the Courts or to Affirm that my being Denied in the Municipal Court Case was within the Law (so disregard any evidences for now).


There were a couple of documents filed to you,  which allege:
 1.) The Wrong party was sued and that the Lower Court did not wait for your Decision as to my standing,
2.) Since no evidence was permitted in the Municipal Court, the Court found that the 70+ year old woman who had the previous Lease with the Plaintiffs (Landlords) finding her guilty of causing the Plaintiff's alleged damages,
3.) That the Claim was fraudulent in the first place and knowingly filed against the wrong party.   


******

OKAY THAT'S IT!


Send your answer here!

The Clark County Municipal Court:


1.) Did not wait for the decision of the Higher Court to decide on whether I have legal standing in mom's Municipal Court Case:
http://municipal-court.ddns.net/appellate/mysubmission.pdf-0.jpg
http://municipal-court.ddns.net/appellate/mysubmission.pdf-1.jpg

2.) Denied evidence in mom's defense which was/is already entered into the Muncipal Court Record well prior to Trial
My version http://municipal-court.ddns.net, which matches their version: http://images.clerkofcourts.municipal.co.clark.oh.us/CISWeb/Search.aspx?caseNumber=15CVF02981
**My version does not hide the exhibits/evidences.


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.

4.) Allowed bias in that an entirely different party, MR. CROW, to be 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?
https://www.clerkofcourts.municipal.co.clark.oh.us/web.nsf/Judgments?ReadForm&CATYPE=Civil&CASENUM=1502981&COUNTNUM=

5.) Allowed 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 (the 3rd party Intervenor was present though).


and there's more!



Narrated by Kenny Hendrick, 3rd-Party Appellant, under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure TITLE IV. PARTIES
and/or

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."



In reference to the lower Court's Decision to Deny
Due Process.  
The Appeal is being made in a 60(b) motion within Springfield Ohio


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.


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 Judgment of the Springfield Ohio Municipal Court's Judge Trempe to restrict my access to a (then) ongoing case. 


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 Court concerning standing... in a Lease Agreement in which he's not named.  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:

Yet, regardless of 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.  

Lucky Crows?

Lucky CrowmonstersAcknowledgement

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS 

AS PER THE COURT RECORD with notes and exhibits

Date
Form
Notes
2/4/2017
My Closing  Statement to the Second Appellate District Court of Appeals.

Body
Page2
Page3
Page4

Misc. pages
Page1
Page5


My response to the Crows' Attorney stating that I've not shown "interest" and that I have no "standing"

9/29/2016
My Brief to the Second Appellate District Court of Appeals

Body
Page2
Page3
Page4
Page5
Page6
Page7
Page8

Misc. Pages
Page1

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 (months prior to the Municipal County Court issue having progressed on to Trial without waiting for the Second Appellate Court Decision in this matter and its affected outcome with Margaret Baldino as the guilty party by judgment of the Municipal County Court of Springfield Ohio's Judge Thomas Trempe).

9/22/2016 My 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 counfounds 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.





Comments?

**Note: The courts have banned this website from being viewed within the Court's "secure" Computer System.  

The website you are presently on 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 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 evidences).




Justice Demands:


1.) 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 that which is not tangible, the exact amount the Crows sought is what my mother ought to receive.
This shame and embarrasment 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, paper costs, ink costs, electricity for printers and computers costs,  costs to submit various documents to the Court, costs incurred to dub videos to the Court,  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 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.

 

Misc. Letters From The Court : 
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



Address:  2803 Troy Road  Springfield Ohio 45504  Product of USA
Telephone: +1 (937) 718-3586