THIS IS THE NON-REDACTED VERSION WHICH SHOWS EXHIBITS to Case Number:   15CVF02981
heard before the

Clark County Municipal Court

of Springfield Ohio


by Kenny Hendrick,
3rd Party to Issue

Hi,   My name is Kenny.

If you're in a hurry, scroll down to the timeline.

Preamble
I was the Tenant during the time of the disasters that occurred at the Crow Property located 1335 North Limestone St. in Springfield Ohio.

The Courts have somehow determined that since the former Lease Holder is my own mother, that she is somehow responsible for my Lease duration also.

YET REGARDLESS OF WHICH OF US WERE THE TENANT AT THE TIME OF THE DAMAGES I have videos, witnesses, signed documents, receipts, photos, and more WHICH WERE ALL DENIED IN THE MATTER BEFORE THE COURT against my mother.

Imagine your neighbor murders someone.   Now imagine YOU (as opposed to your neighbor) are found guilty of the homicide because the only eye-witness (that took videos of the murder as it was occurring)  is told by the Courts that the evidence and witness are not allowed in the Court Case....even after it is expressed to the Courts that evidence exists to show the Claim against you is false?


Yet numerous evidences were submitted to the Clark County Municipal Court Record as seen on their own site Here, in an attempt to be permitted to show the allegations were false.

So I made this webpage in the hopes that someone out there might see it worthy of adding this account to a history blurb for future Universities' Curriculum or earnest discussion toward the betterment of our Justice System.    

The Judicial System has ruled that the downstairs tenant should pay for the damages which are clearly caught on camera coming from another person's upstairs apartment.

But of my own videos submitted to the Court,  one of the first videos has my opinions,  in case my edited version is not proper (those pesky words), Youtube also has the the unedited version of the videos, also:   https://youtu.be/S0E7vAcGKqY


So, after watching the aforementioned video (and those that follow), either my mom is upstairs (and able to zap into the State of Ohio from Florida) to cause pipes to burst, electric to pop and smoke, or there is no indication she is at fault for these live damages and therefore has been WRONGFULLY manipulated elderly person leaving her without the aid of counsel to defend her (us).

However, the Municipal Court found that a 70+ year old woman that wasn't a tenant, nor in the State of Ohio during the time of the disasters, as the guilty party and the cause of the damages.
CLICK HERE TO SKIP TO THE OTHER ARM OF THAT BODY, THE ON-GOING APPEAL (mine, not my mother's)

SYNOPSIS


Late 2014
Ambush, with a suit for almost $5,000.00 in damages,  Crows took to Court more than two years beyond my Mother's Lease Agreement had terminated, claiming property damage.

$5,000.00 may not seem so significant until you multiply that amount by two. 
The amount the Crows were suing for is about the same amount as the Crows obtained from the same Court in their winning suit a few weeks prior against the upstairs tenant, Nicole Tessenneer.    
$10,000.00 worth of damages to a property?   Both un-related tenants causing equal amounts of damages to the Crow's property is possible...just not very probable.


 Although I attempted to intervene in timely manner,  Twice prior to Pre-Trial, the motions were denied by the Municipal Court Judge. 

The woman the Crows were suing is my mom (I'm 52 years of age); and although we submitted more than a dozen videos, audio recordings, a slew of documentation and other evidences, as shown in the Court's own Record seen on their website here,  all were Denied.

I'm a critical element in this issue.   I am the Tenant that has evidence that would completely refute the Crows' Claim, DENIED! 

The Security Deposit which was unlawfully withheld by the Crows for many months beyond the lawful allowable time frame has also been erased with the Court's consent to the wrongdoing in violation of:  5321.16 (Procedures for Security Deposits).  Lucky Crows?

Promptly, I appealed the Judge Trempe decision denying my lawful right to access the Case in Court to the Second Appellate Division Court of Appeals in reference to Due Process, and what's known to me as a 60(b) motion.

However, the Municipal Court Trial went on its merry way without thought to the pending Higher Court Appeal.
The Municipal Court failed to wait for the Decision of the Second Appellate to first test for legal standing. 
The Appeal filed September 27, 2016 which, five months after the December Municipal Court Trial, was decided.   The Appellate Court concurred with the lower Court stating that my mother never filed an appeal and that I have not shown interest and have no standing.   The more than 10 month Decision came on May 14, 2017.   The Decision mentions that my mom no longer has the ability to appeal (even if she was of the right state of mind and health).
Lucky Crows.

Just to be clear, the Plaintiff's Attorney knew aforehand that Margaret Baldino was the wrong target. 
Below are a couple of documents that would have come out in Court if permitted.  
Would my evidence have enlightened the matter in Court if it were permitted in Court?
Presented to you are two 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.

You BE THE JUDGE!This Document was received by Sheriff Lyons, the Crow's Son-in-Law, on November 25, 2014

You be the Judge!This Document was recieved by the Crow Attorney


In Fact, here is a letter from the Plaintiff's themselves in which they acknowledge Margaret Baldino was NOT at fault and that the damages did NOT occur during her Lease!!
Justice?
This isn't new stuff, this was all entered into the Court Record and summarily denied.

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

AS PER THE COURT RECORD with notes and exhibits

Legend: 
I = Me = my = Kenny Hendrick = Tenant = 3rd Party = Intervenor = (pick your word)
*DISCLAIMER: I'm still compiling this and other documents so please be aware that there may be an error or two, or an omission or wrongful addition, or misspelled or wrongful use of a word or words, etc.
READING  THIS FROM THE BEGINNING IS NOT NECESSARY, IT'S DRY AT FIRST,  MID-WAY DOWN IT STARTS TO GET INTERESTING THOUGH.
Date
Filing
Notes
10/28/2015
Plaintiff's INITIAL FILING against Margaret Baldino
PAGE 1
  PAGE 2
     
Plaintiffs submit two pieces of evidence to substantiate the claim, they are:
  1.) Exhibit A (*THE WRONG LEASE)     

   2.) Exhibit B  (*A bill with a letterhead of a Company that does not legally exist, using a completely impossible date).    
**AFTER THE FACT NOTE:  It appears that the Plaintiffs have hand-written the words: "Typo" next to the erroneous date. I, for one, would like the magic to know whether the word was written before, during or after the Municipal Court went to Trial.

Q: Ask yourself when was the last time you made a typo by using two years in the future to date a document in a present issue?   NOBODY EVER ACCIDENTALLY USES A YEAR THAT IS TWO YEARS IN THE FUTURE. It appears more plausible that the year was written correctly at the time the Document was submitted.     So we have a bill upon a fictitious company letterhead that does not exist lawfully, using a magicly retroactive wrong date=NOT denied by the Judge?).
The Defendant, Margaret Baldino, has never been permitted to see all of the 8 pages filed by the Plaintiff against her.

The Defendant went so far as to make a special trip just for the purpose of seeing the 8 pages against her.   The Clerks of the Court could not produce anything contained in the file stating the file was upstairs in the Judge's Chambers.

The Defendant went upstairs to be told by the Judge's aid that seeing the Judge was not proper and that she would check with the Judge for the file.  When the File was permitted access under the supervision of the Clerks, the Plaintiffs' pages were missing.   When request was made by the Defendant to one of the Clerks as to why the pages were missing, the answer was that they were just doing their jobs and did not know of the whereabouts of the Plaitiffs' pages.

The entire initial Filing is Stated to be comprised of 8 pages.
The Lease alone was 10 pages but also was not contained within the file.  The Lease was purportedly Plaintiff's "Exhibit A" and had the Defendant been permitted to see the "evidence" against her, she would have noticed the incorrect Lease much sooner if she was permitted to her lawful right.  

12/28/2015
Alias Precipe

1/26/2016 The Defendant, Margaret Baldino, domiciled in the State of Florida returns to Ohio under the threat of a Default Judment against her for not complying with the Court to address this issue before the Court.
ANSWER FILED
  

Margaret Baldino complies by leaving her State of Choice to return to Ohio to address the Claim against her.
 Defendant's $1, 000.00 Attorney quits the Case at the beginning of a CRITICAL step in the legal process, at Pre-Trial following a closed-door session between both Attorneys and the Judge;   Margaret Baldino left to wait out in the hallway during that meeting.  Which begs the question whether ex parte communications occurred without anybody standing for the Defendant while her fate was being discussed leaves one to wonder what could have been so ill-discussed as to result as such.
2/17/2016
Motion to Vacate

2/19/2016
Entry to Vacate

7/26/2016
My timely filed MOTION TO INTERVENE
(2 months prior to Pre-Trial)

Page2
Page3
Page4


misc. pages
Page1
Page5
Page6






I make my first attempt to become included in the Case at hand as allowed under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure TITLE IV. PARTIES Rule 19
8/2/2016
My timely filed MOTION TO CORRECT THE RECORD
(2 months prior to Pre-Trial)

Including exhibits:
Page1
Page2
Page3
Page4
Page5
Page6
Page7
Page8
Page9
                          Exhibit 1

    Plaintiffs profit from the upstairs Tenant approximately $5,000.00, though less than $1,000 in damages are stated within Exhibit 5 (Fire Report).
Upstairs Tenant Court Case awarded to the Crows by unknown Judge          



I make my
second attempt to obtain Due Process as per Federal Rules of Civil Procedure › TITLE IV. Rule 19, et. al


Without the Intervenor/3rd party/interested party, whatever you want to call me, (in English Intervenor is defined as intervening), void of my being permitted to produce evidence that would refute the Plaintiffs' claims unjustly leaves the Defendant without an ability to defend herself and her interest altogether.
8/29/2016 JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE
ENTRY
Denied 
 
RESPONDS
Denied   

Denied
Per: Motion to Correct the Record,
previously submitted to the Court by me.
8/29/2016 JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE
ENTRY
Denied
   RESPONDS
Denied   

 Denied
Per:   Motion to Intervene, previously submitted to the Court by me.
9/20/2016
JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE
Responds

PRE-TRIAL

“Ex parte” is a Latin phrase meaning “on one side only; by or for one party.” An ex parte communication occurs when a party to a case, or someone involved with a party, talks or writes to or otherwise communicates directly with the judge about the issues in the case without the other party.   It's worth stating here that on the eve of the Trial a woman was seen consulting with the Crows whom was not the Crows' Attorney.  Following the meeting, the woman departed to the Judge's Office unassisted.  Can we be made privy to that meeting's content?
  The Judge, Plaintiff's attorney, along with the Defendant's $1, 000.00 attorney, meet behind closed doors at Pre-Trial leaving Margaret Baldino in the Hallway.  The Defendant's Attorney quits following the meeting without written notice and seemingly without reason or in accordance with the rules which stipulate the manner in which an Attorney can quit a case (Pre-Trial is a critical function to have erased from our Legal System).   What happened behind those closed doors while mom was left outside in the hall to wait?    Judge emerges to instruct the Defendant that Trial will ensue in 10 weeks and 2 days and advises her to (spend more money )  to find another Attorney to represent her.
The law is supposed to prevent the judge from talking to one party if the other party is not present.  This one-sided conversation is called an “ex parte communication” and is purportedly not allowed.  If the Defendant's attorney hadn't intended to represent the Defendant, and wasn't representing her at Pre-Trial, then a gross injustice has occurred in that the Defendant should have been allowed to be present and privy to whatever was happening behind those closed doors.             
9/27/2016 7 Days later, I timely file an appeal to the 2nd Appellate Court of Appeals

My initial Appeal:
Page1
Page2

TRANSCRIPT PAGE 1
TRANSCRIPT PAGE 2
  September 2016,   my appeal of the Municipal Court Judge's Determination that I was not allowed to be present is entered into the Second Appellate Division Court of Appeals.  However, the Municipal Court apparently doesn't regard the Court of Appeals as a valid venue and continued to Trial a few months later anyway.  Trial was December 1 and the Decision against the Defendant was made on December 5 of 2016. The following are pages sent by the Municipal Court to the Second Appellate showing only communications up to that present date and time (much more was submitted to the Court Record following the transmittal).
9/27/2016 My mom and I file
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Page1
Page2
Defendant submits for the Court's consideration that there is another person that is involved in the Plaintiffs' property and that furthermore there is a Waiver of Claims which is written into the Plaintiffs' Lease which seems to have been disregarded by the Plaintiff. 
10/3/2016
Denied
ENTRY DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS
JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE RESPONDS
Denied
Denied for not including the evidence to the previous Motion to Dismiss.

Defendant resubmits below.
10/5/2016 My mom and I file the amended
MOTION TO DISMISS
Page1
Page2
Page3
Although evidence was included in this amended Motion,  it too is Denied (over one month later).
10/24/2016 My mom and I file
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM AND MOTION
  With exhibits
Page1
Page2
Exhibit Page3
Exhibit Page4
Exhibit Page5
Exhibit Page6
After the 3rd Party (Kenny Hendrick) having vacated the Plaintiff Crow property on 9/9/2014, seven months later Plaintiff submitted a Demand for Payment dated April 6, 2015 for damages TO THE 3RD Party (Kenny Hendrick).  Six more months later Plaintiff changes mind and files Suit against the Defendant, Margaret Baldino (previous Lease Holder!).
In this Motion, Defendant makes mention of the Tenant/Landlord Security Deposit which was already unjustly withheld beyond the legal allowable time and months prior to the Plaintiff having submitted this Claim to the Court.  Defendant submitts a copy of the cancelled check which states the amount of the Security Deposit.  Defendant submitts the AUTHENTIC Lease Agreement which shows the handwriting belonging to the Plaintiff.  The version that was submitted by the Plaintiff to the Court excludes all mention of the Security Deposit (which was wrongfully withheld months beyond that which is lawful and months prior to the Claim having been submitted to the Court against the Defendant).
 
11/17/2016 My mom and I file
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM TO ADDRESS PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATION OF UNAUTHORIZED USE OF PLAINTIFFS' FIREPLACE
With Exhibits
Page1
Page2
Page3
Page4
Page5
Nowhere within the Plaintiffs' Lease was there any mention of the Plaintiffs' fireplace as being Non-Functional.

However, evidence has been submitted to the Court showing that the Plaintiff in fact alleged within a Disclosure Form that the Fireplace was in proper working order.

Exhibit

11/17/2016 Crow Attorney files Plaintiffs' RESPONSES
Page1
Page2
 Plaintiff's verifiably inapplicable receipt from Lowes (2016 materials purchase for repairs claimed to have been done in 2014; time machine?  Not to mention the fact that the receipt appears to belong to someone else.  Look at the receipt, call Lowes, it's that easy to verify).
Anyone can verify by calling Lowes that the receipt is fraudulently submitted and is not applicable to this case.  Along with some blackened paper is all that the Plaintiffs would accord for the Defendant's repeated requests for Discovery (since the Court wasn't releasing anything to the Defendant of the Plaintiffs' material submitted to the Court File).   As mentioned in a past Motion to the Court, Defendant made it clear that along with phone calls to the Plaintiffs' Attorney for Discovery were also a personal visit made to the Plaintiff's attorney's Office requesting the additional documents, receipts, etc.   DENIED.
11/18/2016 My mom and I file
DEFENDANT'S MOTION for Discovery
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
This Statement fairly well sums up the situation.   For the record, in the last paragraph of page 3 a mention was made of a counter-suit.   That's all it was, a mention.   Yet that paragraph delayed this document from being logged to the Court Record.  This motion remained in the Court Clerk's Office until the fee for the Counter-Suit was Paid to the Court....LUCKILY, we returned on 11/18/2016 to submit other paperwork and after inquiring of the missing log in the Court Record, were told that we owed $50.00 to file a Counter Suit....so we did)....The counter suit was summarily dismissed without a refund of the money received or any hearing of issues to be presented.  (What Country are we in here?!)
11/18/2016 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Page1
Page2
Although we had been in constant communications with my mother's insurance company (*we have full records of all dates and times, duration, dates of all incoming and outgoing calls to the insurance company = more than 20 calls out not including the dozen or more calls to us), however AFTER the case was concluded and my mother found guilty, suddenly the insurance Racket stated that we waited too long to file a claim!!!   I started another website documenting all the recorded conversations of that little sham, and posted all the logs to the issue of the scandalous insurance decision.   Everything was hunky-dory until the Muncipal Court Decision was made against my mother...magically her coverage became null and void.  I merely state this here as an after-the-fact note since the lower Municipal Court never waited for the Appellate Court to decide on whether or not I deserved "standing" in the lower Court.
11/22/2016 My mom and I file
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY AND NOTICE OF COUNTER CLAIM
Page1
Page2
Page3
Page4
****WILL ADD TO THIS WHEN TIME PERMITS
11/22/2016 My mom and I file
DEFENDANT'S MEMO IN DISPUTE OF THE HOLES ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF'S CONTRACTOR
Page1
Page2
Page3

Video Exhibits including:

https://youtu.be/f9U0CfARw4k
https://youtu.be/pmjyWUXspf0
Exhibit (will update later)
Exhibit (will update later)
11/22/2016 My mom and I file
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION
Page1
Page2
****WILL ADD TO THIS WHEN TIME PERMITS
11/22/2016 My mom and I file
DEFENDANT'S MOTION
Page1
Page2
Page3
Exhibit (will update later)
Exhibit (will update later)
Exhibit (will update later)
Defendant tenders two exhibits, both of which show the state of disrepair of the Plaintiff's property PRIOR TO EITHER OF US having Leased from the Plaintiff, which could not possibly be reproduced by any tenant in the last decade or more (i.e. cracking and peeling paint, rotting wood, etc. leave one at odds at how to match such decay in any repair better than what the 3rd party tenant had repaired out of his own pocket already).

EXHIBITS WILL BE ADDED HERE LATER
11/22/2016 My mom and I file
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER
Page1
Page2
Page3
Page4
****Please note:   On page 4, which was a copy of a Waiver drawn up by the Plaintiff's Attorney, my mom (the Defendant) inadvertently signed the wrong page of this packet (in otherwords she inadvertently signed the Waiver exhibit as opposed to the actual last page of the Defendant's Submission to the Court).
11/22/2016
My mom and I file
DEFENDANT'S MEMO TO ADDRESS PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATION OF EXCESSIVE TRASH AND FILTH.

Page1
Page2
Page3
Exhibit (will update later)
Exhibit (will update later)

In this Motion, Defendant reminds the Court that although Plaintiff's have alleged that excessive filth was left by the Defendant, that no such proof exists (in fact, none was offered at the Trial either....but...the Judge found in favor or the Plaintiff....just because.  To the contrary, 3rd party possesses videos to show otherwise.   In other words, weeks of cleaning and progress report videos were taken upon my mother having first Leased from the Plaintiff....dead birds and other rodents, previous tenant property all of the place, stains on the carpet, peeling paint, etc.

The Judge would go on to take the word of the Plaintiff despite the fact that Defendant already produced videos showing the fine state of the property upon Defendant having vacated.
Defendant's Exhibit Video
Video shows trash was already present when moving into the Plaintiff's property.  Later videos will show that the Defendant left the Plaintiff's property in better condition when vacating.
11/28/2016 JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE
ENTRY
Denied
Page1
 RESPONDS
Denied
JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE,
 Denied
11/28/2016 JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE
ENTRY
Denied
Page1
 RESPONDS
Denied
JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE,
 Denies Counter Suit
11/28/2016 JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE
ENTRY
Denied
Page1
 RESPONDS
Denied
JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE,
 Denied
11/28/2016
My mom and I file
DEFENDANT'S MEMO MATTER OF PROCEDURE
Page1
Page2
It is in this "motion" to the Court that details the Defendant's Pre-Trial, the questionable legality of whether or not the paid Attorney Heath, for the Defendant, was in a capacity of paid representation and whether or not Margaret Baldino had a Right to be present in that room with the Judge.   Verification of whether the Attorney quit prior to Pre-Trial and didn't tell anybody else, or did it occur during the closed-door session with the Impartial Fair and Just Judge?  Either way, the Defendant had every right and expectation to be in that critical meeting with the judge, instead, she was left out in the Hall pending her fate.   Request is made for a new Pre-Trial, Defendant is Denied two days later on 11/30/2016.
11/28/2016 My mom and I file
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS EVIDENCE OF MATERIAL DEFECT
Page1
Page2
Page3
Page4
Exhibit P - Plaintiff acknowledges 3rd Party as person at fault (and then sues another)
Exhibit
Exhibit
*Will update exhibits when time permits

This is the Defendant's Exhibit H Lease (which has the Plaintiffs' handwriting)
Compare to:
The Plaintiffs Exhibit A and version of the Lease - If we're going after the Defendant that had prior Lease to the same property as the subsequent Son's Lease,  then let's at least have the correct Lease in the Court please.

Exhibit P  Letter from Plaintiff states 3rd Party as person at fault.
11/28/2016 My mom and I file
DEFENDANT'S  MOTION TO DISMISS 3 PHOTOS
Page1
Page2
Page3
****WILL ADD TO THIS WHEN TIME PERMITS
Defendant's Exhibit M-4
Defendant's Exhibit DVD1
Defendant's Exhibit DVD2
Defendant's Exhibit DVD3
Defendant's Exhibit DVD4
11/28/2016 My mom and I file
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DIMISS 1 PHOTO
Page1
Page2
Page3
Page4
Page5
The Defendant in this motion refutes the photos submitted by the Crows.   A photo of a door knob on a door is the focus.   The photo has computer-generated words which the Crows placed within the photo that state: "Damage to back door/Unable to open or close".   The door in question is a door which can be shown to be in the same like state it was when rented, if videos were permitted (The Crows' own realtor also has a video on youtube that shows the same door with the same damage prior to the Defendant every having met the Crows!).  The fact that the Crows added the words "...unable to open or close"  is an impossibility.  The door is one or the other but cannot be both.   Judge rules that the impossible is possible.
Defendant's Exhibit T-45 (Crow's photo of a door knob)
Defendant's Exhibit F
Defendant's Exhibit M-y
Defendant's Exhibit Q-T
    Pic1  Pic2  Pic3  Pic4  Pic5  Pic6 Pic7  Pic8   (Shows impossible to match)
11/30/2016 JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE
ENTRY
Page1
Denied
 RESPONDS
Denied
JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE,
 Denied
12/5/2016 JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE
DECISION AND ENTRY
Page1
Page2
 RESPONDS
Defendant not permitted to show any evidence whatsoever.  Witnesses were sequestered (not permitted to help the 70+ year old Defendant along).

***The Judge didn't even get the date in which I ended tenancy correct.   He states it happened in late August, whereas the Plaintiff, Defendant, and the 3rd Party have stated it to be September 9, 2014
  Not a solitary video, photo, document, receipt, audio...nothing was able to be heard at Trial in the Defense of the Defendant.
Decision rendered by Judge Thomas Trempe for the Plaintiffs and against the wrong Defendant, 
all that was required to win were:
1.) An allegation
2.) Pictures of dubious origins (ie. Rainbow of 12 colors of the same carpet, cut/copy/paste and photo-shopped pictures, etc.)
3.) A bill placed upon a company letter-head that does not exist with an impossible date.
That's it.  
So in essence, if one found a broken vase, took some pictures of the broken vase, created a bill for the repair of the broken vase, and allege you broke the vase, you lose in the Clark County Municipal Court of (Law?).
The Judge conveniently separated the Defendant from the third-party Intervenor, the subsequent Lease holder.  The third-party Intervenor in the hallway cannot show the evidences unless either the plaintiff, defendant, or Judge allows,  ensuring the Defendant is defenseless.
The 3rd party intervenor had videos that would completely demolish the Crows' one witness, a contractor that states he had to repair the holes (which I luckily made videos of my having completed the repairs perfectly already, all that was required was paint).   The Crow's witness also stated of his own, non-coached statement in his bill to the Crows that:  This is the worst case of damage I have ever seen (or something to that effect).....my videos don't lie, the Crow witness would have been cross-examined with a video showing of the state of the rental upon my departure.  

Part Two - The Appeal to the Higher Court of Appeals back when I made the motions to intervene prior to pre-trial (disregarded by the Lower Municipal Court that went ahead to Trial anyway).  The Appellate Court made their Decision 5 months after the Trial.





3rd-Party applicant under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure › TITLE IV. PARTIES

Ohio Revised Code

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);
or
(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action...

Foot Note: Rule 19. Required Joinder of Parties



***This webpage was started on December 12, 2016 and the completion date is not yet known.
There may be errors contained herein.  It is not yet edited or completed.***
The original Court Record is contained within the Clark County Municipal Court Record online (redact applies):
Click through here to the Clark County Municipal Court Record



**Note: The courts have banned this website from being viewed when using the Court's "secure" System.   They blocked this site after it was already mentioned 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). 

Real Justice would Demand:
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
Real Justice would Demand:
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!). 
Real Justice would Demand:
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.
Real Justice would Demand:
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.
Contact
Example Scholastic Study Version, for the Appeal is  Here (suitable for Scholastic Studies)
Address:  2803 Troy Road  Springfield Ohio 45504  Product of USA
Telephone: +1 (937) 718-3586