In the Supreme Court of State of Ohio. Motion for a Stay from any Muskingum County Decision from case No Jv0984OOp28 while this case is

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "In the Supreme Court of State of Ohio. Motion for a Stay from any Muskingum County Decision from case No Jv0984OOp28 while this case is"

Transcription

1 j N G?^ In the Supreme Court of State of Ohio Christopher M. Baisley Case No: Appellant vs Yvonne Ward (Amended Copy to Ohio Supreme Court Ruling) Appellee Motion for a Stay from any Muskingum County Decision from case No Jv0984OOp28 while this case is pending before this court The Appellant Christopher M. Baisley Motion for a Stay for any Muskingum County Decision from the Case Jv while this case is pending before this court. The lower court has made ruling on this case that Appellant feels strongly doesn't have jurisdiction of the case, at least not at this time, which will also will be appealed upon a final order from Muskingum County Domestic Relation Court Judge. The Appellee has been properly served and has not made a response on this matter, and therefore waived their rights in accordance to the rules of Ohio Supreme Court. Similar issues with Appeal Court proceeding. The Appellant moved to strike any motion filed as results from Appellee or her Council response. The Appellant asked this honorable court till they make a ruling on Appellant motion, or motion for Appellant to proceed with his arguments with this court, should they accept this case, that an order of Stay be Granted from Muskingum County Domestic Relation Court and retroactive of filing date with this court starting of October 29,2013. W^ JAN 13 20b4 CLERK OF COURT REME COURT OF OHIO E- 4^^1 P'<...,. r 3/, CLER {? 13K '^ f r< r^ { fy 3^: 3^ s4t 6 B ;^^E M E C' 0 U i4'3 0 ^^0 H 10

2 Fact of the case reason behind such request: 1. The Judgment order of November 13th, 2013 from Domestic Relations Court. This order has be Motion to Strike against, And motion to set aside, no hearing was scheduled, instead the court and Council made a decision to make such order from magistrate order which was filed against by the Appellant. This order came after the filing of the Appeals Court of 5th District, and Ohio Supreme Court. This was taken by the Appellant as a retaliation act for exercise his rights and Challenge the ruling based upon the law set by State of Ohio of not having a Discovery Phase, The Motion that was exercise was under Ohio Procedure 53 which the Domestic Relations Court never let happened. Instead of schedule for a hearing they had sided with Magistrate and council both which is issues brought before the Supreme Court of Ohio. 2. June 7t", 2013 a motion to set aside the Magistrate order by Appellant to Muskingum County Domestic Relations Court, never answers by the court, nor set for a hearing instead making a bias decision. ( November 13ih,2013) 3. July 8`,2013 Motion to Strike the Magistrate order due to a new witness filed by Appellant in Muskingum County Domestic Relation Court never answer by the court, nor set for a hearing instead making a bias decision. ( November 13th 2013) 4. The Appellant original agrees to have Pre- trial until this order came about. When the Court threaten sanctions as a punishment as a forcible act, instead of mediation act, and after the discovery of order the court signed that was objected in timely manner, At this point the Appellant knew that he wouldn't be getting a fair hearing, and had withdrawal any talk at this time and moved forward with his motion filed with Ohio Supreme Court. 5. It was the Appellee Council that pushed the paperwork as he signed the order with the Domestic Relations Court referring to November 13th, Knowing they missed the deadline to make any response now in this case with the Ohio Supreme Court. This order has been file for

3 Relief of Judgment by Appellant to the Domestic relation Court of Muskingum County as of November 15th, To date as the other motion filed by Appellant has not been answered. But the Courts are answer and Granted most of Appellee motion with lower courts as they showing. 6. Appellant understands this would qualify as Professional and Ethical Conduct by the Attorney and the Courts, which is separate from this issues brought before this court, but ask to preserved the integrity of the case the Appellant moves for an order of Ohio Supreme Court to Grant the Motion of Stay of the Case No Jv till they had the opportunity to review the complaint brought before them. Appellant moves in matter of Justice, but as well as unbiased decision and the same protection as any other pro sec or attorney would have.the Appellant requests that this honorable court would stop any type of retaliations by Muskingum County Domestic Relations Court since they have now showed a pattern since the filing with this court. Respectfully Submitted Christopher M. Baisley A copy of this motion has been served upon Appellant Council Brian Benbow 605 Market Street, Zanesville Ohio, postage prepaid on January 10i`', 2014 A Copy of this has been served upon Domestic Relation Court 22 N. Fifth Street, Zanesville Ohio, postage prepaid on January 10th,2014

4 q r.. 10, I ^.j _ _. ^ ^ -- ^.... IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION GHRI atopher M BALSLEY Plaintiff/Petitioner I Case fva. ]V vs- JUDGE: JEFFREY A. HOOPER YVONNE E LACEY Defendant/Petitioner II NOTICE This case is assigned for a pre-trial confen-ence on JANUARY 15, AT 4:00 P.M. before Judge Jeffrey A. Hooper in the Domestic Relations Coi-irt at 22 N. Fifth Street, Zariesviile; Ohio Counsel of record and all parties shall attend this conference. Failure of a party to attend the conference without leave of court shall result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions. '!f ^_AL i ori M. Shook, Assignment Comr-iissioner for Judge Jeffrey A. Hooper CHRISTOPHER M BALSLEY YVONNE E LACEY represented by BRIAN VJ BENBOW REQUEST FOR SERVICE TO THE CLERK: Please serve a copy of this Notice upon counsel of record for each party by i-egudar mail. If a party does not have counsel of record, please serve a copy of the order on the party by regular mail at his or her last kriown aeids-ess.

5 In the Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Court ^ XV^ Christopher M. Balsley Plaintiff Case No: Jv0984"28 Judge: Jeff rtoopev^ ^ :. 1BS. Motion for Relief of Judgment Yvonne Ward Defendant The Plaintiff moves for the court to Grant Motion under Ohio Civil procedure 60 to Grant Relief of Judgment signed by this court on November 13, This case has been appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Plaintiff has attached document of Notice of Appeal to this. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that, "[olnce a case has been appealed, the trial court loses jurisdiction except to take action in aid of the appeal." In re S.J.,106 Ohi St.3d 11, 2005-Ohio-3215, 829 N.E.2d 1207, The trial court [only] retains jurisdiction over issues not inconsistent with the appellate court's jurisdiction to reverse, modify, or affirm the judgment appealed from." Id., State ex rel. Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. Cuyahoga City. Court of Common Pieas,129 Ohio St.3d 30, 2011-Ohio-626, 950 N.E.2d 149. If Denied the Plaintiff moves to have 10 days from time of denial to make objection, and moves for a final order from this court. The Plaintiff moves for Relief of Judgment signed by this court on November 1.3th, Respectfully Submitted Christopher M. Baisley 2476 Michael Drive Zanesville Ohio, Certificate of Service has been made to council Brian Benbow by U.S. mail, Postage prepaid to his office 605 Market Street, Zanesville Ohio, on November 15, 2013

6 :J (`^ S,," fi ^ VS' P L S t1f: 5^^[3 flff r^ l.... ^ 2^i;7 ^i:3v 13 P1^ 1? JZ II4 THE COMMON PLEAS COURT T0 D D ML`SI{.IINGUM COUNTY, OHIO CLERK DOMESTIC IZELATIONS DIVISION Christopher M. I3alsley CASE NO. JV vs. Plaintiff, Judge Wk%9't"" ; Yvonne W. Lacy (Ward) Defendant. JUDt7TMI:NT ENTRY ADOPTING THE JUNF, 7, 2013 MAGISTRAT'E'S DECISION This inatter came before Magistrate Thomas J. Tompkins for hearing on May 3, 2013, upon the parties' cross motions seeking sanctioils under Civ. R. I I and/or R,C. 232a.5 1. Mr, I3alsley appeared tivithout counsel. Attoz7ley Brian W. Benbow appeared for Ms. Ward. The Magistrate issued a Decision on Jline 7, loldizig as follows: "Mr. Balsley asserts that Ms. «7ard's counse1, Brian W. Bei1bow, should be sanctioned luider Citi% R. 11 and/or R.C because Mr. Benbo^v allegedly did not serve Mr. Balsley with the docun:ents filed \vith the Clerk oi1 11/30/2012 (ṈNotice of Appearance, Motion for in: camera interview, and Ms. Ward's ti-vitness list) as iizdicated by Mr.l3enbow's certificate of service filed the same day. Attached to each of the docunients in question is a certificate of service sigited by Mr. BenboNvi certifying that a copy of the document ^^ras served upon Mr. Balsley by regular mail at 2476 Michael Drive, Zanesville, OI-I on November 30, Ivlr. Balsley asserts that he didiaot receive any of tnesedocutiaents by i17ai1. I-ie did not shonv tl7at the documeiits Nvere not actually inailed to him, asceztitied by Mr. Benbow, oirly that he did not receive them through the inail. He

7 adinits that he obtained copies of all of the documentsfrom the Clerk of Courts. Moreover, he fails to show how he was prejudiced in any way as a result of this event. Mr. Balsley asserts that Mr. Benbow should be sanctioned under Civ. R, 11 and/or R.C because he filed Ms. Ward's wititess list on 11/30/2012 for the purpose of delaying the proceedings. Mr. Balsley failed to show that the voluntary disclosure of witnesses, even if it did contain inaccurate information, caused any delay in these proceedings or was filed u=ith the purpose of causing a delay.?vlr. Balsley asserts that Mr. Benbow should be sanctioned under Civ. R. 11 and/or R.C because Mr. Benbow filed Ms. Ward's motion to modify pareriting time on 03/18/2013 with the intcnt to harass Mr. Balsley. Mr. Baisley failed to show th it the motion was filed for any purpose other than to bring to the Court's attention Ms. Ward's request to modily the parenting tinxe oi-der. Therefore, 1111r. Balsley's request for sanctions is denied. Mr. Betlbotiv asserts that Mr. Balsley should be saiictioned under: Civ. R. 11 azid/or R.C because he has repeatedly filed docunients that contain fal.se allegatiozls that Mr. Benbow has enaaged in unethicalbehavior.ms. NVard has incurredattoiney fees in respoi-tdixtgto these filings. Many of the documeiits filed by Mi. Balsley aresimply unintelligible. Mr_ 13alsley's 12/06/2012 filinc, captioned as "Ethical Issue of Counsel" lias already been stricken. In his 12/10/2012 "'Motion to Sanction NIs. Ward's Counsel", Mr. Balsley requests that tile Court sanction INTs. Ward andmr. Benbow for uneihical conduct Mr. Benbow allegedly committed ciurine a time pei iod before N1i. BalslLy re-opeited this case by filing a contempt zilotion on 2

8 November 14, Not only is this "Motion" for sanetions based upon allegations regarding events that occurred prior to the filing of the instant action, it implores this Court "to get involved in Ethical issues" regarding Mr. Benbow --- something that is outside the scope of this Court's jurisdiction. Mr. Balsley's 12/10/2012``Contra Motion of Defendants Ethical Issue of Counsel" contains a rambling series of allegations about Mz. Benbow that have no relevance whatsoever to Mr. Balsley's pending motions of 11 / 14/2012. In the last paragraph of this document, Mr. Balsley makes clear that his p-ltrpose in filirig the document is to inf7uence the Court in the pending action by informing the Court of what he alleges to be Mr. Benbow's unethical behavior "past azid present." Regardless of whether he violated Civ. R. I l in filing the two documents described above, and regardless of the veracity of his allegations about Mr. Benbow's conduet, Mr. Balsley clearly violated R.C by filing these documeaits. Both doclunents fall within the followiilg definitioiz of frivolous conduct: "It [the filing] obviously serves inerely to harass or maliciously injt?.re another pai-ty to the civil action or appeal or is fcir another improper purpose, including, but not limited to, causing unnecessary delay or a needless increase in the cost of 1id.gation." R.C (A)(2)(a)(i). Neither of the dociunents described above had any legitimate purpose in the pending actions: Mr. Balsley lilecl tllezn to enlbarrass or harass Mr. Benbow and/or to prejudice the Coui-t agaizist Ms. 'A'ard by uiaking allegafaons of ethical inisconduct against her legal counsel. ivls> VVa.rd ineurred attoitleyfees in the azllor.znt of $ as result ofiklr. Balsley's :frivolous conduct. 3

9 While Mr. Benbow can and should be expected to withstand even «nfounded personal allegations of inisconduct from an opposing pro se party without causing his client to inccir additional expense, Mr. Balsley's allegations were so obviously an attempt to iinpresperly influenee the Court in the pending action that it was both appropriate and reasonable for Mr. Benbow to expend time to respond. The sum of $ is reasonable. Therefore, Mr. Balsley is hereby ordered.to pay Ms. Ward the sum of $ Judgment shall be entered against Mr. Balsley and in favor of Ms. Ward in said amount." This matter coilsequently came before this Court upon this Court's own Motion to Adopt the Magistrate's Decision. Neither party filed objections. For the foilowing reasons, the Magistrate's Decision is hereby AD+DP'I'EV. Pursuant to Civ.R. 53(F)(4)(a), `:[tjhe court may adopt the magistrate's decision ifno ^A`ritten objections are filed uilless it deterniinesthat there is an error of law or other defect on the face of thc magistrate's decision." See, e.g., Stcrte ext e. Booher v. Honda ofarn. lllfg., Inc, (2000), 88 Ohio St.id 52, 5' ) -54 (coixclusioils of law by inagistrate to which no objection was nlade could not be raised as an ei-zor on appeal), Groz.r One Recrlt},, Inc. v. Dixie Iaat'1 Co. (Apr. 14, 1998), Franklin App. No. 9 7APE , Ohio App. LEXIS 1628, uxu eported, A litrao v. Poriicrnte Contrcacto^-s. Inc. (Sept. 11, 1997), Fiankiin App. No. 97APG02-221; 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 4101, unreportecl; Hcrsh tz. Hcrsh (May 1, 1998), Montgonlety App. No , 1998 Ohio App, LEXIS185I. uiueported; R. G. Real E"state Holcling, I1?c. v. l4.,l. i:t'ognet. (Apr. 24, 1998), Montgomery App. No, 16737, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 1733, unreported..^,'ar zlrcmclj)poz`nte Assocs. v. Brannon (Jai ), MontgonzeryApp. No , 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 2i 1, unreported (apipellai?.t w11o failed 4

10 to file objections to the magistrate's report waived the right to contest either the factual or legal iindings of the trial court). Upon a careful review of the record, there are no errors of law or other defects in the Magistrate's Decision, Because no written objectiozls were filed by June 21, 2013, this Court hereby ADOP'I'S the Magistrate's Decision in its entirety as if fully rewritten herein. There being z1o just cause for delay, judgment of $ is rendered in favor of Defenciant. Mi. Balsley is hereby ordered to pay Ms. Ward the sum of $ Judgment shall be entered against Mr. Baisley aild in favor of Ms. Ward in said ainount, 11!Ir. Baisley's request for sanctions i^ denied. IT IS SO OIZDER:ED. REs ctfuiltsii ^d, E F^vr` Bi,iai W. Be yow ) Benbow Law Ofiices Attorney for Defendant 605 Market St. Zanesville, OH Phone: (740) Fas: (740) Enlail: b«-b 1_97+cyahoo.coin Reguest for Sei vice; Please issue a copy of tliis ordqr or decision oi1 the follo^ving: Clixistophet Balsley Plaintiff I3rian)V. Benbow Attorney for Defendant 5