In the Supreme Court of State of Ohio. Motion for an Emergency Expedite for Stay preceding from any Muskingum County Decision from case

Transcription

1 f^ 3r 5 o-.^^ c Christopher M. Baisley In the Supreme Court of State of Ohio Case No:. v; u ^^......,..,; :+isti.,^"5^ j ^ ^ 3^.Y^ ^i S : i Appellant VS CL :RK s^ COURT SUPREME COURT OF OH O Yvonne 104/ard- (Amended to January 13th, 2013 moves for emergency Stay of proceeding) Appellee Motion for an Emergency Expedite for Stay preceding from any Muskingum County Decision from case No 1v while this case is pending before this court. The Appellant hereby amends his motion and now moves for Emergency. Expedite for Stay of Proceeding, from any Muskingum County Decision from Case No:1V while this court has jurisdiction of the case, yet to be determined to be heard. As this case was appealed in timely manner on October 29t", 2013 with Ohio Supreme Court. 1. In addition to the Motion filed January 13`", The Courts of Muskingum County Domestic Relations have threaten to file Sanction against the Appellant should he not show up. The Appellant prays this court steps in and Grants a Motion for Stay of Muskingum County Domestic Relations Courts. 2. According to the November 13t", 2013 this decision was heard from and Decided from Magistrate on June 7th, It took the Domestic Relations Court Judge till November 13'h, 2013 with help of the council written up the order for the court signature which is being disputed for several reasons by appellant. 3. ln addition to this case which this honorable court has not seen of it'scompieteiy, but support the reason we are at this level. On January 3rd, 2013 as mention in Judgment entry of November 13'h, 2013 this order now become relevant to the case. In Paragraph 3, of (January 3"6, 2013

2 order) "Further, in reviewing the contents of the document, the Court find the issues raised therein should be addressed through the attorney discipline procedure" (Judge Jeff Hooper).Although Council only partial corrected, in his court order of the 17r" of November, 2013 signed by Judge Hooper, this court did not agree with all the issues by council who suppose to hold a higher standards. But later the Magistrate sanctions the Appellant for False bill submitted. 4. This order was in facttimeiy objected as Stated to this honorable court of January 17th,2013 motion, Motion to strike Magistrate Order due to new evidence to new witness iriformation filed stamp on July 8t",2t113 again this was never heard of, never mention, no hearing, this was completely a bias decision from Muskingum County Court. Appellant move this as exhibit and support the claims made within this court. 5. July, 8th, 2013 a sworn affidavit and signed by third party of support of the new information coming forward to this court. Again this was never heard of, never mention, no hearing, this was completely a bias decision from Muskingum County Court. Appellant move this as exhibit and support the claims made within this court. 6. In addition a motion to set Magistrate Motion a side under Civil Procedure 53 on June 11th,2013 before the deadline council written up order for the judge of November 17th,2013. Again this was never heard of, never mention, no hearing, this was completely a bias decision from Muskingum County Court. Appellant move this as exhibit and support the claims made within this court. 7. The Last exhibit is a sanction of conduct for being late for court of disobeying a judge, and misconduct in court proceeding. This case is relevant because it support why a stay would be necessary for this case. The Appellant is not defame the council b.ut only supporting document to show this court in support of and reason for a emergency stay to be Granted.

3 8. In addition to this case the Magistrate had recues him after he orders this order. 9. There is a clear documentation of support that the November 17t", 2013 is in question. The Appellant ask for this court not only accept such case, but Grants a Motion for a stay. As in the Appeals Court the same thing happen that Appellee did not answer in timely manner and all this is being brought before this honorable court in hope for matter of Justice, and Grant the Motion of Stay till this honorable court instructs the Appellant to send either more supporting documents, and due to not allowing to have a discovery phase in Muskingum County Court which was timely filed by Appellant, hearing or otherwise what recommend with this honorable court. Had the 5t" District followed their proceeding set of their rules then the Appellee wouldn't been able to make any remarks of a case he was not a part of in Muskingum County Domestic Relations Court. 10. Therefore the Appellant moves for Emergency Stay of Proceeding as now the Judge has signed an order that was written by co- council, the same person the Judge early stated that the information needed to be taken to Attorney Discipline Procedure. 11. The Documents are therefore support the January 17t', 2013, and amends to it and move to expedite this Motion as Emergency as the Ohio Supreme Court has Held, `( nce) a case has been appealed, the trial court lose jurisdiction except to take action in aid of appeal." In Re S.J.,105 Ohio St. 3d 11, Ohio 3215,829 N.E.2d 149, the Domestic Relation Court had ruled for Sanction should the Appellant not go to pre-trial which jurisdiction is in question, and denied the continuance due to Jurisdiction by the Appellant motion. The Exhibit is in January 17th, 2013 Motion.

4 Not only is there ethical issues, but now there is ethical issues vrrlth the court, especially when the court signed an order knowing this was Motion to set aside, and Motion to strike due to the new witness. Again the Appellant asked this honorable court of rules and rights to be preserved and protected of Appellant rights, as well as any response by the Appellee has missed their deadlines and waives their rights to response uuith. tttis, case. App-ellant_ moved ta strike any responses from Appellee. Therefore, we asked the State of Ohio Supreme Court for Motion of Stay to be Grant Immediately due to the filing of yesterday motion filed by appellant, but now by the Court order appellant to show up to a pretrial which is in question with this court proceeding. Respectfully Submitted Christopher M. Balsley 2476 Michael Drive Zanesville, Ohio Appellant A copy of this motion has been served upon Appellant Council Brian Benbow 605 Market Street, Zanesville Ohio, postage prepaid on January 14th, 2014 A Copy of this has been served upon Domestic Relation Court 22 N. Fifth Street, Zanesville Ohio, postage prepaid on January 14th,2014

5 s>, I f '4: S TcrpDD r.- 1L ^^ Ili? THE COMMONI'I.E4.S CfaL1WI' OF MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO DOMESTIC RELATIONS CHRISTOPHER M. BALSLEY Plaintiff Case l +Io<.JV $ Journal Page _ pvsw J[1I)GE HOOPER YV+DTNNE E. WARD Defendant EDGIkIENT ENTRY This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion of Christopher M. Balsley to set aside the Magistrate Order of Dec.errtber 11, 2012 striking from the record the "et}iical issue of counsel" filed TJer 6, 2012 b}, Piaintiff Chi^.isto^slier M. ^3alsley. The Court has reviewed tlae document inqttestion and findsfirst of all it cloes not compl}l with Rule 7 of the OhioRules of Civil Procedure. It is not one of the enumerated pleadir^gs in Rtile 7(A) nor does it qualify as a ynotioxi under Rule 7(B). ^" 7Further, in revie^-irtgthe ^ritentsof the documerat, the ^:`ourt finds the issues.razset^ therein should be addressed througli the attorney diseipline procedure. Accorclizigly, Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside the Magistrate Order of Decerfliber lt, 2012 is hereby denied.... fvta^strate t'ho:nas J. Tompkins Xhristopher M. E3a slr;y P1Ririt^Pr i^i,^,.je JEkFREVA.HOOIER Bria,i W. Benhow Counsel for [5el-etEdant R E LT^s't_FOR SEIt'tt E "i'o THE CLERK. Piease issue a true copy of ttie foregoing on the parties or their counsel of re-cozd by method prescribed by the Civil Rules. 1

6 ts In the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio " 4 ^s J a^ OtDnlftstic Relations Divisions 16jq^ db'l 8 Christopher M Baisiey Case Mo: JvE9984Qmt128 ToDD Plaintiff Judge:.teff Hooper CLERK Magistrate: Thomas Tompkins Vs. Yvonne E.1Atarc# Defendant Motion to Strike Magistrate Order due to new witness information Plaintiff hereby moves to Motion to Strike Magistrate order due to the new witness certified to the new information coming forward. Plaintiff referring to Magistrate Order June 7t'', 2023 Plaintiff Move to immediately Strike Magistrate Order as he already had object and set the Motion aside and no Judgment has been order by the courts. Therefore the Plaintiff Move for The court to Strike the Magistrate Order from June r`,2013 Respectfully Submitted Christopher M. Balsfey Certificate of Services: Certification of Services as been made be Plaintiff who had sent to the following council by regular mail to follow address of Motion to StrikeMagistrate Order due to new witness information decision on July 8th2023 Attorney Brian Benbow, 605 Market Street, Zanesvi9le Ohio on July gth, 2013 by regular mail

7 rf; }F Pt^ A^ in the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio Domestic Relations Divisions 8 Christopher M BalSiey Case No: JU09$ Plaintiff Judge: Jeff Hooper CLERK Magistrate: Thomas Tompkins Vs. Yvonne E.1A/ard Afridavit of Becky Carnes Defendant I BeckV Carnes dulv sworn to the affidavit testify as following: 1. 1, personally witness the of Defendant Yvonne Ward, and Council Brian Benbow, Maliciously with intend to purpose falsify Document of Council Bill, which was submitted to Domestic Relation Court for the purpose to Harm the Plaintiff Christopher M. Baisley 2. The Document mention in Number one is known as Courtesy bill from Defendant submitted to the Domestic Relation Court on May 3`d,2023 hearing 3. l have been in meeting with Council, and Defendant Yvonne Ward when the conversations have taken place.l personal was present when the plan of action was put in place. This was with the intent for one purpose and that was to make the bill as high as possible for hope to retrieve from Plaintiff. 4. l, personally was there schedule to testify on March 29th, 2023 for the Defendant, and didn't get the chance to testify to fact referring to other issues relating to Contempt. 5. Yvonne Ward was trying to get me to mislead the court should I had testified in this case. Which I did not testified. 6. The Defendant Is working for Brian Benbow under the table for $80.00 a day to clean his office which she has a key to, and knows his password to this home which she also cleans. 7. The Defendant is on government assistance, and has recently applied for a court appointed attorney, both which she has not claim the moneyirnplicated by who she getting paid for by Attorney Brian Benbow. 8. The Defendant has went through files at his office of this case and other case files with knowledge of Brian Benbow which are client and attorney confidentially of anyone being represented by council. 9. The minor Child Taelee Rae Lacey is in unsafe environment by limited to none supervision, she stay at days to weeks at time away from residence.!, personally witness Domestic violence between the Defendant and her husband to where this is abuse not only the minor child listed but by other siblings as well. 10. Domestic Violence mention in part 8 is Physical Abuse, MentatAbuse, and Emotional Abuse.

8 11. I live across the street from the Defendant and had seen first handed mention in 8 and 9 and The Defendant is on Boost bar which is high diagnose of Psychichatic medication which I can testify of seeing her take them which are prescribe by medical physicians for Psychiatric disorders. t wifl also testify of my knowledge of the Defendant made a claim with Social Security for Disability for psychiatric issues. These issues which are being claim by the Defendant are not suitable for any child to be around these types of medical conditions in people. I have been explain this affidavit will be for the view of Defendants and her council, Job and Family Services, Muskingum County Sheriff Department, Muskingum County Prosecutor, 5t' District of Appeal, Any Muskingum County Court, Muskingum County Children Services, Muskingum County Discipline Committee, and Ohio Supreme Court Discipline Committee. This is truth sworn affidavit and been explain any false statement would falt under Ohio Revise Code under Perjury. That this affidavit is true statement. I have not been force, coerce, or anything, and making them at free will as the truth with the case. The Plaintiff was not in any way influence in any statement made in this affidavit. In addition to affidavit: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" The underline states she does. This affidavit was sworn and subscribed to me on ^ day of.duly, 2013 to be the complete truth and will testify to the same in any court proceeding, investigation, Committees of any kind, or any type of proceedings. '2) Becky Carnes.:. Date Notary^p beic Date JEFFREY L RtTTBERGER Notary Public In and for the State of Ohio My Commission Expires September 11, 2017

9 " 1--- Christopher M Baistey Plaintiff ils. Yvonne E.1lhtard Defendant in the Court of Common Pleas of Muskingum County, Ohio Domestic Relations Divisions G`0, ; Case No: JvS39^^ ^ ^,ludge: Je^r ff^ta* 71 Magistrate: T40190s Tompki^s 1 Motion to set aside the Magistrate order of June 7th, 2013 kpi J Plaintiff hereby moves for a Motion to set aside the Magistrate Order of June 7", 2013 referring to Civ. R.11 and /or R.C At the time of filing the transcripts have not been Rrepared of May 3a, 2013 hearing. Memorandum of Support: First the Plaintiff wants to move that this case has been moved before the Court of Appeals as result of hearing of March 29th,2013 hearing. This case has been undecided whether their error in law when the decision of May 3`d, 2013 hearing file date. s In the Magistrate order third Paragraph: "Mr. Baisley asserts that Mr. Benbow should be sanctioned under Civ R. 11 and / Or R.C because he filed Ms. Ward witness listed 11130J2012 for the purpose of delaying the proceedings_ Mr. Baisley failed to show the voluntary disclosure of witnesses, even if it did contain inaccurate information causing any delay in these proceeding or was filed with the purpose of causing a delay. The Court first acknowledges that the information was inaccurate. Even if the court did not order an discovery which prior to this date was not requested by either party other than in March 29th,2013 hearing. 3wtcouncil certifies under Civ 11 this information was accurate and correct knowing this witness list didn't exist volunteer. But the court don't see a problem with this and go on later in define the Plaintiff as Pro Sec had violated Revised Code of past and present comment. This is very bias and prejudice decision which magistrate decision is outweigh by manifest of evidence presented. Attorney Benbow failed to send any of documents of 11J30/2012 to the Plaintiff. But the events the plaintiff was prejudice in event of Council conduct. Again the Magistrates states on second page 6 paragraph, "Neither of these documents described above had any legitimate purpose in the pending action; Mr. galsdey filed them to embarrass or harass Mr. Benbow and/ or to prejudice the Court against Mr. Ward by making ethical misconduct against her fegal

10 counsel. The Court set the standards of argument from May 23`d, 2006 decision. In Plaintiff Exhibit A council publically doesn't describe what the court states that is so obviously an attempt influence the Court in the Pending time. Another issue the Plaintiff has that a meeting took place prior to the hearing which Plaintiff seen Council came from Courtroom. In the proceeding little question was even asked to the Council, and to include this an inappropriate comment was made by council when he states he put a courtesy copy of bill of $ to the Magistrate.llUithout the transcripts, the Plaintiff stated this on records and even asked the Magistrate if a decision been made already. But the thing is the Plaintiff should been there had there been a meeting on this issue, or at least invited to this before it went on record. The personal attacks by council have been many since 2006 with or without council at the Plaintiff. The point the Court acknowledge the information of witness list was inaccurate is defined as Violation of Civ.11. The decision was based upon Plaintiff motion in according to the Magistrate order was what alleges to be Mr. Benbow unethical:behavior"pastand Present" from 12/10/2012 Contra Motion ethical issues of Counsel. It wasn't until January 3`d, 2013 when Judge Jeff Hooper answers with order to uphold of previous order. At this point acknowledge "further, in reviewing the contents of the documents, the Court finds the issues raised therein should be addressed through the attorney discipline procedure" ( lanuary 3`tl, 2013, 3 Paragraph).December 17`'',2012 in plaintiff Contra Motion to Sanction Defendants and other Pending Motions contain the relevance that the order stated within the court. Even more so the Council attorney can name the plaintiff a Vexatious Litigator which the court dismissed due to 3urisdiction. This is not for the purpose to merely to harass when the Plaintiff had filed for the rights of his daughter or this case where the court has position their self for the last Fourteen years, and a continue ruling conduct which the Plaintiff moves to appeal. The only thing the Magistrate did not mention was whether Civit 5 was properiy concluded. From the original argument this was position of Council. The Plaintiff opposes it, and the contra motion went from there in regard to Council conduct. Still this court never settled whether this was even proper or not leaving the original argument unsettled. Specially, when the court have a folder in the clerk office for this purpose for the case. The Plaintiff did nothing wrong leaving this motion to be set aside for Judge to review and the possibility to be heard from but even in the judgment order of January 3`d, 2013 it still was not settled outside the issues will therefore go before the Courts of Appeal when the Court have knowledge such folders take place for the purpose to do business with attorney in this courts defined as their office. In accordance to the Magistrate order (2 Pages, 4th paragraph) "Mr. Baisley 12/10/2012 Contra Motion of Defendant Ethical Issue of Counsel" contains a rambiint; series of allegations about Mr. Benbow that have no relevance whatsoever to Mr. Baisley pending Motion of 11/14/2412. The Plaintiff respectfully disagree when in accordance to Civ 11 when Counsel certify even if it was volunteer, it was a continuous conduct of witness list which is dated throughout this case on several occasion, and records of return subpoena, and it still in existence, knowing this is misleading. This decision is very bias against Plaintiff. Plaintiff states he has not meet with the Magistrate behind close doors, and this is what he say formal in writing of what is define in Magistrate Order of Rambling Series.

11 The Plaintiff moves to overturn this case, asked to open up the fourteen day period for the purpose to prepare the May 3`d, 2013 transcripts. An initial motion to set aside the order to object for grounds to protect the Plaintiff rights of Judgment order or Court of Appeal even with this case in particular. This is clearly a retaliation from the Plaintiff filed a current motion vvith Court of Appeai.lNithout the transcripts being filed there grounds to be overturn based on the Motion filed within without the hearing transcripts based on witness list filed of Defendant. The Magistrate order for Guardian Ad Liden has been honored from the Plaintiff Motion on March 20th, The plaintiff already motion to dismissed the motion on May 6t", 2013 prior to June 7t", 2013 decision. The Plaintiff chose to use another alternative method for upcoming hearing. The Plaintiff wi.e not be using the G.A.L. and continues to withdrawal as previous filed with the motion from May 6th, 2013 Up to date the Court are yet to Answer a Motion for Discovery filed on May 6t', 2013 for any upcoming hearing on any issues. The Plaintiff Moves to overturn the order. There was only a Courtesy Bi l from Defendant council which does not show that the Defendant even pay for such bill. There were no direct questions regarding this that the Plaintiff can recall. This case is completely bias even if the court found the Plaintiff was out of line so was the Defendant Council which the Courts have placed in Peril Glass by wave side. There is no indication other than a bill that was presented. And this was classified as a courtesy bill at hearing. The Plaintiff moves to overturn the current order of Magistrate Order of June 7t', Respectfully Submitted Christopher M. Bafstey c^ ^C) e7 Certificate of Service Certification of Services as been made be Plaintiff who had sent to the fo owing counci i^n Benbow by regular mail to follow address of Motion to set aside the Magistrate order of June 7th, 2023on June 1.Oxh, 2013, postage prepaid 7C-. t -J 71 Attorney Brian Benbow, 605 Market Street, Zanesville Ohio on June 10th, 2013 by regular mail

12 [Cite as State ex ret. Benbo}v v. Runyan, 99 Ohio St.3d 410, hio THE STATE EX REL. BENBOW, APPELLANT, v. RUNYAN, JUDGE, APPELLEE. [Cite as State ex rel Benbow v Runyan, 99 Ohio St.3d 410, 2003-t3hio-41<27.1 Courts --.Turisdiction - Conteynpt - Prohibition ---- YI'rit prohibiting common pleas court judge, from exercising any further jurisdiction in a civil case after judgment was entered based on jury verdict, following trial --- Court of appeals' dismissal of complaint affirmed, when - Court retains jurisdiction to consider collateral issue oj'criminal contempt even after underlying action is no longer pending. (No Submitted July 22, Decided August 20, 2003.) APPEAt, from the Court of Appeals for Ashland County, No. 03-COA-008. Per Curiam. {1[1} Appellant, Brian W. Benbow, was the attorney for Allstate Insurance Company in a case filed in the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas against I-Iydrpomatic Pumps Corporation. Appellee, Judge Jeffrey L. Runyan, presided over the case. {1[2} On January 28, 2003, during the first day of the jury trial, Judge Runyan stated that he intended to fmd Benbow in contempt of court for his misconduct in front of the jury. According to Benbow's complaint, on January 31, 2003, after he appeared late for the second day of the trial, Judge Runyan advised him that he could purge his direct contempt by paying a fine of $500. Judge Runyan further advised Benbow that if he did not pay the fine, the contempt would not be purged and he would be assessed additional penalties. { 3} That same day, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Hydromatic Pumps Corporation. Judge Runyan entered a judgment in accordance with the judgment and dismissed Allstate's complaint with prejudice.

13 StJPR13ME COURT OF OHIo { 4} On February 13, 2003, after Benbow failed to pay the $500 fine, Judge Runyan issued a citation finding him in contempt and ordering him to appear for a show-cause hearing on March 10. {^5} On March 5, 2003, Benbow filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Ashland County for a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Runyan from exercising any further jurisdiction in the underlying case. On March 14, 2003, the court of appeals sua sponte dismissed Benbow's prohibition complaint. The court of appeals determined that Benbow had an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal. On March 18, 2003, Judge Runyan found Benbow in contempt of court for his conduct at trial and for failing to appear at the March 10 show-cause hearing and fined him a total of$i,500. { 6) In his appeal as of right, Benbow claims entitlement to a writ of prohibition because after Judge Runyan dismissed the case, he patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to proceed further on the contempt matter. "It is certainly true that, in general, when a trial court unconditionally dismisses a case or a case has been voluntarily dismissed under Civ.R. 41(A)(1), the trial court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction to proceed, and a writ of prohibition will issue to prevent the exercise of jurisdiction." State ex rel. Huminel v. Sadler, 96 Ohio St.3d 84, 2002-Ohio-3605, 771 N.E.2d 853, 22. { 7} Nevertheless, even when a trial court has unconditionally dismissed a case, the court retains jurisdiction to consider the collateral issue of criminal contempt. State ex rel Com v. Russo (2001), 90 Ohio St.3d 551, 556, 740 N.E.2d 265 ("a court may consider the collateral issue of criminal contelnpt even after the underlying action is no longer pending"); Cooter & Gell v..flartmarx Corp (1990), 496 U.S. 384, 396, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 ("A court may make an adjudication of [criminal] contempt and impose a contempt sanction even after the action in which the contempt arose has been terminated"). 2

14 January Tern1, 2003 { $} Moreover, unre State ex rel. Rice, v. McGrath (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 70, 577 N.E.2d 1100, the primary case cited by Benbow, this case does not involve any dismissal of the case before trial. Instead, the so-called dismissal was ordered by Judge Runyan after he had entered judgment in favor of the defendant based upon a jury verdict following trial. This case is thus not governed by Civ.l Cf., e.g., Beckner v. Stover (1969), 18 Ohio St.2d 36, 40, d 156, 247 N.E.2d 300. {119} Therefore, Judge Runyan did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction over the criminal contempt proceedings, and Benbow's prohibition claim lacks merit. We affirtn the judgment of the court of appeals. Judgment affirmed. MOYER, C.J,, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PPEIFER, LUNDI3F.RG STRATI'nN, O'CoNNOtt and O'DONNELL, JJ., concur. Brian W. Benbow, pro se. 3