IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Hanan S. Rashada, Case No Relator, vs. Deborah A. LeBarron Judge, et al., Respondents. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS Kevin M. Butler (# ) Hanan S. Rashada (Counsel of Record) POB Law Director, City of Lakewood Cleveland, OH Detroit Avenue (216) Lakewood, OH (216) Pro Se Relator (216) (Fax) Counsel for Respondents Judge Patrick Carroll and Magistrate Tom Wagner L. Christopher Frey (# ) Law Director, City of Euclid 585 East 222nd Street Euclid, OH (216) (216) (Fax) Counsel for Respondents Judge Deborah A. LeBarron and Magistrate Franklin Beni

2 BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS TO RESPONDENTS JUDGE DEBORAH LeBARRON AND MAGISTRATE FRANKLIN BENI OF THE EUCLID MUNICIPAL COURT, EUCLID, OHIO: 1. The sum of Euclid respondents' Motion to Dismiss is that this relator failed to establish a legal right to the relief sought and that she possesses(ed) adequate remedy by way of appeal. Relator's Writ of Mandamus was brought because the primary adequate remedy is the responsibility of the Trial Court. A fair hearing on relator's Answer to landlord Normandy's Complaint would have easily avoided the need to engaged the Trial Court's appeal process. Before hearing, and before giving, consideration to the relator's Answer to landlord Normandy's Complaint, respondents quickly ruled for an eviction to throw relator into the streets. 2. After receiving the eviction notice, relator prepared and hand-delivered a "Notice" to respondents. Ref. Notice at Appendix C of relator's Original Complaint. In lieu of treating the Notice as a form of appeal, however, respondents, on the same day the Notice was hand-delivered, elected instead to send relator a copy of a stamp-signature (i.e., Judge LeBarron) Judgment Entry thereby disregarding relator's Notice and emphasizing the ruling for an eviction. Ref. Notice at Appendix F of relator's Original Complaint. In my Answer to Nonnandy's Complaint, this relator alleged assault, harassment and theft. Yet, Euclid respondents reaction to these allegations was to toss relator into the streets. Euclid respondents are officer of the Euclid Municipal Court. They in turn represent the City of Euclid and possessed privileged access to the following records and information: 2

3 a. On December 16, 2010, this relator filed a complaint of assault and harassment with the City of Euclid Police Department as indicated in my Answer; b. On January 21, 2011, this relator met with someone claiming to be the Prosecutor for the City of Euclid who expressed a blatant disregard for relator's complaint of assault and harassment; and c. Following b. above, relator discovered that the person with whom she met at the Euclid Prosecutor's office was an imposter. The real Prosecutor is a male Caucasian. The person with whom this relator met, was a Black male (and to this relator's belief) is a member of the Nation of Islam (NOI), a party defendant (along with several others) to other complaints this relator has registered in other courts of law. As of the date of this Brief, relator has never received any responses from the Prosecutor's office concerning her visit on January 21, 2011; or her calls and visits to and by Euclid Police, with the exception of the one call she made to police dispatch that led to the events of February 6, Ref. Rashada vs. NOI, Euclids, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CV ; filed May 3, Respondents' concern for adeciuate remedy, did not compel them to consider relator's complaint to Police and Prosecutor, occasions of whioh occurred months before she began withholding rent monies from Normandy. 4. Landlord Normandy also possessed adequate remedy; but, chose to lie in response to a subpoena this relator served on it concerning mysterious documents hand-delivered to it authorizing mysterious persons to enter relator's apartment at-will and in her absence. Relator was the sole lessee in a Lease Agreement with Norinandy. The Nation of-is1am, working wiyh government factions were not named in that Lease Agreement as Normandy and respondents are fully aware as it is widely known that Normandy and the respondents facilitate the delicate

4 services provided by the Nation of Islam which uses intelligence technology and strange instrumentation to invade the privacy of citizens of this nation to exact personal and confidential possessions and information that help aide Normandy, respondents and law enforcement in their respective works. 5. Based on the facts stated above, how was relator to presume to have been encouraged to [futilely] indulge respondents' derelictions and exercise "adequate remedy by way of appeal" [?] Had relator [formally] appealed her Answer that was never heard, respondents would have dismissed it also. How does a court presume to hear an appeal on a claim after it failed to here the original claim? Respondents' behavior, coupled with similar dereliction, also meted out to relator by other housing courts, and in particular, the Lakewood Municipal Court, turned relator away from appeals' procedures resulting in her bringing the instant petition to this venue. 6. Therefore, relator respectfully requests that Euclid respondents' Motion to Dismiss be denied. AS TO RESPONDENTS JUDGE PATRICK CARROLL AND MAGISTRATE TOM WAGNER OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL COURT LAKEWOOD OHIO: 7. Respondents allege that relator's Complaint is brought to improper venue. However, relator's petition is correctly brought to the venue of this Supreme Court of Ohio. 8. Respondent allege that relator did not file an Affidavit-in-Support with her Original Complaint. A supporting affidavit is placed behind relator's Original Complaint. A copy of said Complaint was date-stamped by the Clerk of t^us Court and retu-m-ed io this reiator: A copy of the supporting affidavit is included here as Appendix A.

5 9. Lakewood respondents allege that this relator failed to comply with rules of law conceining her Complaint of Writ of Mandamus. The situation involved here is duplicative of the situation stated under the section of this Brief addressing the Motion to Dismiss of the Euclid respondents. Relator filed complaints with Lakewood government and attempted to follow-up on them by approaching the Lakewood Prosecutor's Office. There Prosecutor Eileen turned relator away saying her claims against the Nation of Islam (and others working with them) was not specific enough in that she was unable to name names and indicate specific members of the Nation of Islam even though Prosecutor Eileen wasfully aware of the Nation of Islam and the fact that law enforcement and other governmentoffices facilitate the delicate services provided by the Nation of Islam to aide them in their work. 10. Lakewood respondents argue that a hearing was scheduled to hear relator's Answer. It does not however emphasize the fact that the hearing was set for sometime following her eviction. Even if the later hearing on relator's claims would have exonerated her, would respondents have granted permission to relator to return to her apartment on Lake Avenue after she was evicted and moved out? Relator's eviction was effective April 25, The hearing on her Answer was scheduled for sometime in May, 2010, a procedure that is seemingly backwards, and potentially expensive to this relator. 11. Nevertheless, after moving out of the Lake Avenue apartment, relator prepared and hand-delivered a letter to the Lakewood Municipal Court addressed to respondent Wagner. Ref. April 27, 2010 letter at Appendix J of relator's Original Complaint. At the time relator hand-delivered the letter, Prosecutor Eileen stoocrin YheClerk's office apparentlywaitingiort he letter [?] This was most peculiar and raises certain questions. First, how did Prosccutor Eileen learn that relator had typed the letter to respondent Wagner at a county library in Brookiyn,

6 Ohio? Second, how is it Prosecutor Eileen was so confident as to know relator would handdeliver the letter, enough to wait around for it? Should this Court require an affidavit supporting this statement, please advise this relator and I will prepare and file it. 12. During her residency in Lakewood, relator prepared numerous complaints and hand-delivered them also to other offices of Lakewood government, including the Mayor of Lakewood. No responses have ever been forthcoming. 13. Here again, a failure on behalf of government to exercise adequate remedy and resolve a troublesome situation and avoid an appeals process altogether. Respondents obviously failed to appreciate the fact that landlords neglected to meet their Lease obligations to relator. Relator's rights were disregarded, yet she is held solely responsible for the payment of rent indicated in the Lease Agreement and further, for the payment of utilities, even though others (unauthorized by this relator) facilitated her apartment and utilities as often as she did. Yet, when she refused to continue to foot the bill for the living expenses of strangers, respondents ruled to toss the relator into the streets and a judgment for rent monies is entered onto her credit record. 14. Therefore, this relator respectfully requests that Lakewood respondents' Motion to Dismiss also be denied. Respectfully submitted, Dated: October 18, 2011 Han^F sha^a,r-o S-e- POB Cleveland, OH (216)

7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, HEREBY CERTIFY, that copies of the foregoing Brief in Opposition were served on all respondents by placing copies in the U.S. mails, first-class postage affixed thereon, this 18'" day of October, 2011, addressed to the following: Counsel for Respondents Judge Patrick Carroll and Magistrate Tom Wagner: Kevin M. Butler Law Director, City of Lakewood Detroit Avenue Lakewood, OH Beni: Counsel for Respondents Judge Deborah A. LeBarron and Magistrate Franklin L. Christopher Frey (# ) Law Director, City of Euclid 585 East 222 d Street Euclid, OH Hanan S. Rashada, Pro Se Relator 7

8 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Hanan S. Rashada, POB Cleveland, OH (216) Case No.: Judge: Relator, vs. Deborah A. LeBarron Judge Euclid MunicTal Court 555 East 222" Street Euclid, OH (216) Franklin Beni, Magistrate Euclid Munic,Fal Court (alleged) 555 East 222" Street Euclid, OH (216) Patrick Carroll, Judge Lakewood Municipal Court Detroit Avenue Lakewood, OH (216) Tom Wagner, Magistrate Lakewood Municipal Court Detroit Avenue Lakewood, OH (216) Respondents. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS Hanan S. Rashada POB Cleveland, OH (216) PRO SE LITIGANT Appendix-A

9 STATE OF ) ) OHIO, ) ss: ) County of Cuyahoga. ) AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION Hanan S. Rashada, being duly sworn, deposes and says that she resides in Cuyahoga County Ohio; that her mailing address is POB 14924, Cleveland, Ohio 44114; that she is the Complaint of Writ of Mandamus and knows the contents thereof and that relator in the foregoing they are true of her own knowledge, except as to the matters stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters she believes them to be true. /s/ HananRashada Hanan S. Rashada Sworn to before me and signed in my presence at Cleveland, Ohio, this 16th day of September, /s/ Natalie D. Urbin Notary