ll>.'f.i. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO r.` r C^.^a Angela R. Granata, pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Case No. 2014-0157 FULL PANEL REVIEW REQUESTED vs John Stamatakos, et al. Defendants-Appellee Appeal from the Franklin County Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District. Court of Appeals Case No 13AP000424 Lower Court Case #10CVH04-5544 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Angela R. Granata, Plaintiff Appellant 947 E. Johnstown Road Columbus, OH 43230 Phone: 614-626-1511 Email: argranata@msn.com Pro Se John Stamatakos, Atty., et al. 495 E. Mound St Defendant-Appelle Karen Hockstad, Esq Attorney for JT/SG 191 W. Nationwide Blvd #300 Defendant-Appelle 1:.... RECEM MAY 0 2 M 14. CLERK OF COURT UPRENlE COURT OF OHIO 2,.. ;.;. ` -s `.; s... ' s,. ^..., ;^;:,-.. {...,,.. :;:..,.....%%^.^^^^:;;^
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Appelfant'sfPlaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Pursuant to S.Ct. Prac. R. 18.02 (Motion for Reconsideration), Appellant respectfully ask the Court to reconsider those portions of denial based on S.Ct. Prac, R. 7.08 (B)(4). Henceforth, a memorandum in support follows and is incorporated herein. Re^p ctfullysubmitted,..< } ^V na^ta, o se 947 E. Johnstown Road Columbus, OH 43230 Telephone: (614)-626-151! ARGRANATA@MSN.COM
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT Throughout this case, I have looked forward to the day when the Court system recognizes that fraud perpetrated to the court(s) should not and cannot be tolerated. I ask this court to reconsider its decision with respect and to consider the impainnent of this case, and thus, all this Motion for Reconsideration to be approved. I am urging the Court to consider three major points I have continually expressed and argued to all Courts, those being: Fraud perpetrated onto the Courts and the Plaintiff; Defendants use of res judicata; and Improper Service. I disagree with this Courts entry to decline to accept jurisdiction of the appeal pursuant to S. Ct. Prac. R. 7.08 (B)(4) based upon the following that this case does involve a substantial constitutional question(s) and should be allowed: thus, the appeal did involve a question of great general and public interest and henceforth, the appeal may prove and show a possible felony action by the defendants. Finally, I ask the Court to reconsider its order and to allow oral arguments and mandatory mediation for all parties. I urge the Court to consider my three major arguments: 1. Fraud Perpetrated onto the Court(s) and the Plaintiff 2. Using res judicata to hide the fraud perpetrated to the Court(s) by the defendants; 3. Lack of proper service to Plaintiff, denying plaintiff due process. I urge the Court to reconsider its decision of April 23, 2014 as my request for reconsideration could not be more appropriate; I am asking for reconsideration as set forth in procedures in S. Ct. Prac. R.XI, which are to "correct decisions where necessary." As cited in State v. Hood, 135 Ohio St. 3d 137, 2012-Ohio-6208. "Error in admission of evidence harmless when other evidence of guilt is overwhelming." I am asking this Court to correct decisions where necessary and not based upon allegations of facts (See Buckeye Community Hope Fowncfation v. City of Cuyahoga Falls (1988), 82 Ohio St 3d 539, 541). My appeal is not traditional. It involves fraud and res judicta. This Court, in the past, has issued opinions regarding fraud and res judicata in that both will not be tolerated by this Court. 3
1. PARTS OF THE COURT'S APRIL 28, 2014 DECISION MERIT RECONSIDERATION. A. A cognovits note and forbearance agreement was obtained by fraudulent means against the Plaintiff/Appellant; the defendants used deceptive trade practices, as well as equitable estoppel and res judicata to hide their actions. As seen in Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 99, S. CT 2205 (1979), "Because res judicata may govern grounds and defenses not previously litigated; however, it blockades unexplained paths that may lead to the truth. For the sake of repose, res judicata shields the fraud and the cheat as well as the honest person. It is therefore to be invoked only after careful inquiry." In Grava v. Parkman Twp (1995), 73 Ohio St. 3d 379, 653, N.E. 2d 226 (Douglas, J dissenting), quoting 46 American Jurisprudence 2d (1994), 786-878, judgment section 522, "The doctrine of res judicata is not a mere matter of practice or procedure inherited from a more technical fime, but rather a rule of fundamental and substantial justice or public policy, and of private peace. The doctrine may be said to adhere in legal systems as a rule of justice. Hence, the position has been taken that the doctrine of res judicata is to be applied in particular situations as fairness and justice required, and that it is not to be applied so rigidly as to defeat the ends of justice or so as to work an injustice." We see this in Austin v. Club E., Inc., 2011, Ohlo-919, as well as in Baiko v. Mays (2000), 140 Ohio App. 3d 1, 10,7461V.E. 2d 618, as both cases show where defendants used res judicata and the courts have ruled the doctrine of res judicata as inapplicable. The defendants in my case have used res judicata to hide the fraud they committed to the plaintiff and to the Court(s). B. The Trial and Appellate Courts erred in allowing the doctrine of res judicata to stand, ignoring the true facts of fraud. The defendants alleged the note(s) were signed by plaintiff (or someone who looked like her as outlined by defendants counsel in the Oral Arguments in the Franklin County Appeals Case No. 13-AP-424). The defendants also alleged that the cognovits note was paid by the plaintiff but have failed to produce any factual evidence requested by plaintiff Granata that such note was paid by plaintiff Granata. Yet, when questioned by the plaintiff, as well as the 4
Appeals Court, as to why the judgment is still open against Columbus Microfilm as well as the counterclaim by Columbus Microfilm, defendants cannot answer, because such "entry does not satisfy Civ R. 54 (B)." As seen in Corrmer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St. 3d 185, 2005-Ohio-4559, 833 N.E. 2d 712, 8, "summary judgments cannot be allowed when there is a[n]issue to any material fact." See also Morehead v. Conley, 75 Ohio App. 3d 409, 412, 599 N.E. 2d 786 (4th Dist. 1991). C. Moreover, the judgment granted defendants was obtained under fraudulent actions, and as seen in Portage City Bd of Commrs v. City of Akron, 109 Ohio St. 3d, 106, 123, 2006-Ohio-954; 846 N.E. 2d 478, "Such actions involving fraud and corruption of previous actions will not be tolerated." See also Arday v. Stepien, 2004-Ohio-630 where Arday alleged the defendant Stepien "fraudulently misrepresented the sale" (of the property to Arday). Stepien claimed "res judicata." The Appeals Court of the Ohio Eight District agreed with the Arday's citing that: 18 "First, as Ohio Courts have repeatedly recognized res judicata is not a defense which can be raised by a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ. R. 12(B) because that defense must be proved with evidence outside the pleadings." The defendants in my case produced and submitted fraudulent documents to the Courts which included a fraudulent cognovits note and forbearance agreement allegedly signed by the plaintiff Granata, which plaintiff has forensic evidence by two handwriting experts, that the alleged signatures are NOT that of Ms. Granata, the plaintiff. Lastly, the doctrine of resjudicata is not applicable where the public policy of finality of judgments served by said doctrine is greatly outweighed by the manifest injustice resulting from its application. Sctg9e ef Manut'acfurLn Co, v. U.S.M. Cor.(C.ik. 6 1975), 525 F. 2d 775, 778-.779; Bronson v.!'3d. of Educafion C.A. 61975 525 E. 2d 3449 348; U r a a t e c l States v. L.aFatch,(C A. 6,1977)565 F. 2d 81 5
il THE COURTSHOULD RECONSIDER ITS APRIL 23, 2014 DECISION MERIT RECONSIDERATION BASED THAT PROPER SERVICE WAS NOT OBTAINED AND FOLLOWED. "Without proper service of process (or voluntary appearance or waiver), no personal jurisdiction exists." (Midland Funding L.L. C. v. Dixon, 2c! Dist. Greene No. 2013-CA-27). Plaintiff has outlined previously she was not properly served or represented in the defendant's 04-CV-002850 and Judgment #04-JG-006353 cases. As seen in a simlarcase Midland Funding L.L.C. v. Dixon, 2d Dfst: Greene No. 2013-CA-27, as in my case, as well as in Portfolio Recove,ry Assoc. v. Thacker, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2008 CA 119, 2009-Ohio-4406, 38. That " However, a claim of ineffective service of process is an anomaly where the requirements of Civ.R. 60(B) do not apply. Id. at 122." 11l. CONCLUSION Throughout this litigation, both parties have debated in deciding these important issues. On one hand, res judicata has been used to avoid, by the defendants, the fraud perpetrated to the Courts. Res judicata cannot and should not be used successfully by any plaintiff or defendant to hide fraudulent actions. We see this in decision in Brown v. Felson, 442, U.S. 127, 99, S. CT 2205 (1979) and in Grava v. Parkman Twp (1995), 73 Ohio St. 3d 379, 653, N. E. 2d 226. Reconsideration is warranted in light of evidence erroneous presented by the defendants to previous Courts. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully seek this Court's reconsfderation. Respectfully Submitted: Angela R. Granata, Plaintiff,NP e ^ 947 E. Lhnstown Road Columbus, OH 43230 Telephone: (614)-626-1511 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served by regular U.S. Mail, on April 31 2014, postage prepaid, upon the following persons: John Stamatakos, Atty., et al. Karen Hockstad, Esq. 495 E. Mound St Attorney for JT/SG Defendant-Appellee 191 W. Nationwide Blvd #300 Defendant-Appellee 7