BURTON CAROL MANAGEMENT LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellee,-vS-
IRM ZIEGLER, et al,
Defendant-Appellant,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
.J _.
Case No:
On Appeal From The
Lake County Court of AppealsEleventh Appellate District
Case No: 2014-L-130
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTIONOF DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS IRM ZIEGLER AMD JOSEPH ZIEGLER
IRM ZIEGLERPO BOX 601GRANDRIVER, OHIO 44045(440) 667-9759
JOSEPH ZIEGLER12 COURT STCHARDON, OHIO 44024
APPELLANTS IN PRO PER AT PRESENT
Attorneys at LawMichael D. Linn
23240 Chagrin Blvd, Suite 180Cleveland, Ohio 44122
(216) 514-1180ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
REC1ECVEDMAR 2 3 2015
CLERKQFCOURTSUPREMECOU RTOF OH I O
f^ fi^..:, .^ r;I
st ^,;..%: i
, ^#r,
;^:i
1. =..`°'° ,, s ;;_
R„'^'r ,
<ir^i`.. b^%.i[Ls e ji ^ 1̂ ^ ^'eG-.s%S^.i:
^^
^ „''W
;;"E
%.i:J. ^iiii.S4^ 5.li oJ'i 1S•.G
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERAL INTERESTAND INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION .. ........................................................1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ...............................................................................................1-10
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS OF LAW ......................................................................10
Proposition of Law 1:
(1) DID THE 11TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICES ABUSE IT'S DISCRETION, CREATE MANIFESTINJUSTICE, STRUCTURALLY ERR, PLAIN ERR, UNLAWFULLY EXERCISED JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION
AND/OR IS THEIR AD HOC DECISION DENYING DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS MOTION FORRECONSIDERATION WITHOUT PANEL CONTRARY TO, CONFLICTS WITH, AND/OR INVOLVES A
UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAW UNDER FEDERAL EQUALPROTECTION RIGHT ENTITLING A INDIGENT PRO SE DEFENDANT TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS OF
LAW AND DUE PROCESS ACCESS TO THE COURTS TO ORDER INDIGENT DEFENDANTS TO POST ASUPERSEDEAS BOND ON APPEAL. THAT ASSERTS THAT JUDGMENT ENTRY WAS OBTAINEDFRAUDULENTLY BY STATE LICENSED ATTORNEY AND/OR IN VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTTO FAIR JURY TRIAL AND APPELLATE REVIEW AS DETERMINED BY THE US SUPREME COURT?.........10
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................:............................................15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .........................................................................................................................15
APPENDIX___Appx. 2 Pages
Ohio 11`h District Court of Appeals FEBRUARY 09,2015, Judgment Entry Denying
Defendant-Appellants Motions Stay Enforcement of Trial Court Final Judgments) ...................1 Page
Ohio 11th District Court of Appeals MARCH 05,2015, Judgment Entry Denying
(Defendant-Appellant Motion For Reconsideration) .................................................................1 Page
EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERALINTEREST AND INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
This case/appeal presents a Federal/State Constitutional Questions of Law and is one of
Public or Great General Interest; Unlawful Judicial Construction of Ohio Revised Code(s); and/or
this Indigent Pro Se Defendant-Appellants reasonably presents the herein Federal Constitutional
Questions of Law, in order, to fully Exhaust State Appellate Court Remedies before imminent
Federal Appellate Court Judicial Review, based upon the fact. That the State of Ohio Appellate
Court Decisions, Opinions, and/or Orders: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State
Trial/Appellate Court proceedings in violation of clearly established Federal Law, Ohio Law, and
U.S. Constitution.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
That on MARCH 21,2014 at 12:39 pm, The Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs Proxy State Licensed
Attorney MICHAEL LINN intentionally in bad faith filed the herein Fraudulently, Malicious, and
Retaliatory "Complaint For Forcible Entry, Detainer, and Money Damages" that was procedurally
barred under RES JUDICATA(or us layman call "Collateral Estoppel") against the Indigent Pro Se
Defendant-Appellants for being engaged in the protected Activities/Rights to circulate petitions,
Right to Association, Submitting Grievance/Complaint to Plaintiff concerning unlawful "Utility"
Charge and canceling Defendant's Water Service, and Defendant lawfully litigated/appealed Civil
"Statement of Information In Support of Application by Tenant to Deposit Rent with the Clerk"
1
ORC 5321.07 "Failure of Landlord to Fulfill Obligations, Remedies of Tenant" on the initial
Mentor Municipal Court case(that started all this Litigation) entitled BURTON CAROL
MANAGEMENT LLC V ZIEGLER, Case No: 13-RES-1.
On October 23,2014 Judge Lawrence Allen preceded over and conducted the Mentor
Municipal Court's First Jury Trial in over Fiye Years. After the Ohio Supreme Court Reassigned
the case/appeal entitled BURTON CAROL LLC V IRM ZIEGLER, Case No: CVG 1400227 from Judge
John Trebits. However, These Defendant-Appellants were blatantly denied any/all demanded
material Discovery from the Plaintiff-Appellees Proxy Corporate Law Firm Attorneys by Judge
John Trebits prior to Reassignment, and by Assigned Retired Judge Lawrence Allen.
On OCTOBER 23.2015, at 8:30 a.m, These Pro Se Defendant-Appellants(Debtors)
claims/states that Plaintiffs State Licensed Proxy Corporate Law Attorney(Creditor) Michael Linn
then intentionally and in bad faith filed a untimely and by surprise filed a Fraudulent "Motion In
Limine" to prohibit this Defendant from introducing any/all "SIMILAR ACTS" of Plaintiffs
Attorneys committing Fraud, Perjury, Witnesses, and for misleading another Ohio
Trial/Appellate Courts, specifically the published case entitled MILLENNIA HOUSING
MANAGEMENT LTD V JOHNSON, 2012-Ohio-1044.
On OCTOBER 23.2015. at 8:30 a.m These Pro Se Defendant-Appellants(Debtors)
claims/states that Plaintiff's State Licensed Attorney(Creditor) Michael Linn then intentionally
and in bad faith filed a untimely Plaintiff's "SECOND Motion In Limine", and falsely/fraudulently
mislead Trial Court Judge Lawrence Allen in said Motion to Quash Subpeaonas and Referencing
that Plaintiffs Proxy Corporate Attorney is a Co-Defendant Conspirator in pending Federal RICO
2
Complaint/Lawsuit filed against Plaintiffs and said case was dismissed and that Plaintiffs Proxv
Corporate Attorney Michae! Linn is-Lwas not a party to the lawsuit. That was a lie, deceitful,
misleading and fraudulent.
Unfortunately for the Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs Proxy State Licensed 'Practicing' Attorney
Michael Linn. The Federal Class Action Lawsuit still remained pending in the US District Court,
and Plaintiffs Proxy Corporate Attorney Michael Linn that conducted Jury Trial is a Party to said
Federal Class Action Lawsuit, and Represented Plaintiffs with a existing Conflict of Interest.
On October 29.2014 at 9:00 am Plaintiffs Attorney(Creditor) ROBERT FRIEDMAN ESQ
committing FRAUD and mislead the Trial Court intentionally and in bad faith. By serving
Plaintiffs "Affidavit and Order and Notice of Garnishment of Property other Than Personal
Earnings and Answer of Garnishee° without attaching a WARRANT OF ATTORNEY confessing
Judgment in County of Lake upon the Defendants/Debtors; Lake Co Educational Credit Union
Loan Manager- SARA EVANS; and Mentor Municipal Court.
On December 12.2014 Lake Co Educational Credit Union Loan Manager- SARA EVANS
committed Felony Fraud, Embezzlement, and Larceny by use of Telecommunication, Phone,
and/or Computer devise to unlawfully seize/levy 33.67 from this Indigent Defendant/Debtors
irm Ziegler's Bank Account/Assets prior to her Federal Equal Protection procedural Due Process
"Bank Hearing"(Garnishment Trial) for 1/6/2015 at 8:45 am. That was rescheduled by the
Mentor Municipal Court for JANUARY 9,2015 at 9:00 am.
That this Indigent Pro Se Defendant-Appellant(DEBTOR) Irm Ziegler claims/states that
she timely filed a (1) "Defendant's Pro Se Demand/Request For Hearing, Motion For Objection,
3
Stay, Vacate, and Set Aside Plaintiffs Affidavit and Order and Notice of Garnishment of Property
other Than Personal Earnings and Answer of Garnishee Due To Absolute Indigency and Financial
Hardship"; (2)"Defendant-Appellants Pro Se Motion To Demand Return, Reinstatement,
Reimbursement for $33.67 Unlawfully Levied"; and (3) "Defendant-Appellants Pro Se Motion
For Objection To Plaintiffs Motion For Limine To Quash Subpeonas" for imminent/atypical
Attorney Objections to Subpeonas issued/served PRIOR to Bank Hearing for:
(A) Lake Co Educational Credits Union Employee SARA EVANS needed to testify indefense under oath to secure a adequate Appellate Court Record at "Bank Hearing" for January9,2014 concerning who advised her to unlawfully seize $33.67 from Indigent Pro Se DefendantIrm Ziegler's Bank Account in violation of State/Federal Law;
(B) Lake Co Ohio Family Job and Services Employee Megan Mazza needed to testify indefense under oath to secure a adequate Appellate Court Record at "Bank Hearing" for January9,2014 concerning Indigent Pro Se Defendant lrm Ziegler's absolute lndigency, Food StampDependence, and Monthly Expenses, Bills, Debts, including Bank Account Informations/Assets;
(C) Subpeonas issued to CREDITORS/Plaintiffs Attorneys at Law- Michael D. Linn; Robert
Friedman; Sarah Graham; and James J. Costello needed to testify in defense under oath tosecure a adequate Appellate Court Record at "Bank Hearing" for January 9,2014 concerning ProSe Defendant Irm Ziegler absolute indigency to pay Jury Verdict Award, and the concerning theunlawful seizure of Indigent Pro Se Defendant lrm Ziegler's Personal Bank Account,Assets/Property obtained by the Plaintiffs(CREDITORS) "Practicing" Attorneys without a writteneven a warrant of attorney confessing to Judgment in County of Lake being served on Lake CoEducational Credit Union, Mentor Municipal Court, and/or Defendant-Appellant (DEBTORS).
Further, That Defendant/Creditor- Irm Ziegler claims/states that her Personal Retirement
Assets(Bank Account) is needed to live on extremely limited fixed income, and was unlawfully
seized in violation of State/Federal Law by illegally using electronic/telephone transaction in
conspiracy with Plaintiffs/Attorneys to deprive Defendant of her Assets/Property without Equal
Protection procedural Due Process of Law protected under the 15`, 4`n, 6Yn, and 14th Amendments
of the US Constitution as determined by the US Supreme Court. These Pro Se Defendant-
4
Appellants had a State/Federal Constitutional Right to Equal Protection procedural Due Process
of Law and Access to the Courts at so-called "Bank Hearing" to present actual/valid defense,
Subpeona, Present, Confront, and Question Witnesses before being deprived of her Property in
violation of clearly established FEDERAL FAIR CONSUMER ACT, 15 USC 1601 seq; FEDERAL FALSE
CLAIMS ACT, 31 USC 3729 et seq; ORC 1901.22 "CIVIL ACTION(Garnishment)"; ORC 1925.13
"COLLECTING AND ENFORCING JUDGMENTS"; ORC 1337.53 "CLAIMS AND LITIGATION"; ORC
1925.05 "SERVICE OF NOTICE OF FILING; ORC 1907.33 "ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT
ACTIONS"; ORC 2323.13 "WARRANT OF ATTORNEY TO CON FESS"(Garnishment Proceedings)";
ORC 1321.45 "PROHIBTED CONDUCT OF DEBT COLLECTOR COMMUNICATION AND CONDUCT";
and ORC 1304.80 "CREDIT PROCESS SERVER ON RECEIVING BANK SETOFF BY BENEFICIARY BANK
UCC 4A.502". The Trial Court and Plaintiff/Attorneys(Creditors) violated a lot of Law/Rights here.
On JANUARY 9.2015. The Indigent Pro Se Defendants(DEBTOR) claim/state that Assigned
Mentor Municipal Trial Court Judge Lawrence Allen acted without subject matter jurisdiction,
abused his discretion, created manifest injustice, structurally erred, substantially erred, plain
erred, and blatantly violated Defendant-Appellants of their Federal Constitutional Right to
Liberty, Property, Access to the Courts, Due Process, Self-Representation, and Right Present and
Confront Witnesses against Defendants in his quest to act as Judicial Advocate for Plaintiffs
Proxy Corporate Law Firm by "abusing and upsurped" his judicial functions, in order, to deprive
these Pro Se Defendant-Appellants(DEBTORS) from presenting a actual/valid Defense at said
demanded Garnishment Trial for Plaintiffs/Attorneys(CREDITORS) failure to attach warrant of
attorney confessing to judgment in County of Lake on the Defendants/Debtors, Lake Co
5
Educational Credit Union, and the Mentor Municipal Court as required by State/Federal Law,
protected under the 15Y, 4 th 5`", 6tn, and 14`" Amendments of the US Constitution and the
Federal Supremacy Clause of Article 6 Clause 2 of the US Constitution.
These Pro Se Defendant-Appellants claims/states that Plaintiffs State Licensed Practicing
Corporate Law Firm(Creditors) has a pattern of committing "Similar Acts" of Fraud, Perjury and
Misleading Trial Court Judges and Jury. Thus, Defendants defense, evidence, and witnesses
testimony should have been admissible, and considered by all of the Jury as mandated under
Ohio Rules of Evidence 404(B). Since under Ohio Rules of Evidence 404(B) unambiguously states
that: "It mav be admissible for other purposes. such as proof of motive opportunitv intenty
preparation, plan, knowled2e identity, or absence of mistake or accident concerning my factual
retaliation claims and defense under Equal Protection Due Process of Law. Also see 2913.01
"Definitions"; and Ohio Rules of Evidence 406. "Habit; Routine Practice". The Plaintiffs State
Licensed Corporate Law Firm called POWERS. FRIEDMAN. LINN LLC pattern of committing
"Similar Acts" are no different than "Similar Acts" committed by petty criminals, white collar
criminals, or child molesters. Unfortunately in Ohio, We execute petty criminals, and elect the
great ones to office.
In Lisboay Tramer, 2012-Ohio-1549, {1927} It states that, "in all averments of fraud or
mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.
Malice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally."
As described in Volbers-Kiarich v. Middletown M t. Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 494, 2010-Ohio-2057,
6
929 N.E.2d 434, ¶ 27, citing Burr v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 23 Ohio St.3d 69, 73, 491 N.E.2d
1101 (1986):
"Fraud has various elements: (1) a representation (or concealment of a fact when there is a duty
to disclose), (2) that is material to the transaction at hand, (3) made falsely, with knowledge of
its falsity or with such utter disregard and recklessness as to whether it is true or false that
knowledge may be inferred, and (4) with intent to mislead another into relying upon it, (5)
justifiable reliance, and (6) resulting injury proximately caused by the reliance. In determining
what must be included in a well-pled fraud cause of action, the Tenth District, in Korodi v.
Minot, 40 Ohio App.3d 1, 4, 531 N.E.2d 318 (10" Dist.1987), has enumerated the requirements:
(1) plaintiff must specify the statements claimed to be false; (2) the complaint must state the
time and place where the statements were made; and (3) plaintiff must identify the defendant
claimed to have made the statement. Goldman v. Belden(C.A. 2, 1985), 754 F.2d 1059, 1069-
1070. These requirements are intended to place potential defendants on notice of the precise
statement being alleged as fraudulent, which is all that Civ.R. 9(B) requires. id°.
In Schroeder v. Henness, 2013-Ohio-2767, ¶ 20, The Ohio Appellate Court held that: "To
properly plead a claim for fraud, the plaintiff must: (1) specify the statement(s) claimed to be
false; (2) state in the complaint the time and place where the statement(s) were made; and (3)
identify the defendant claimed to have made the statement(s). Korodi v. Minot, 40 Ohio App.3d
1, 4, 531 N.E.2d 318(10th Dist.1987), citing Goldman v. Belden. 754 F.2d 1059, 1069-1070 (2d
Cir.1985). These requirements are intended to place potential defendants on notice of the
precise statement(s) being alleged as fraudulent, which is all that Civ.R. 9(B) requires. Id.
7
Defendants have more than satisfied not only the burden of proof that Plaintiffs and their Proxy
Corporate Attorneys committed Fraud.
That Defendants/Debtors claims/states that they were denied Federal Constitutional
Right to Fair Jury Trial as protected under the 6th and 14 th Amendments of the US Constitution.
Based upon the fact, That the Jury Verdict and subjective monetary judgment issued by the Jury
was FRAUDULENTLY obtained by the Plaintiffs Attorney(Creditor) Micheal Linn intentionally and
in bad faith misleading the Trial Court Judge, Jury and Defendant/Debtor based upon the fact.
The Jury Award conflicts with Testimony/Evidence presented, based upon the preponderance of
the evidence. Because the Jury Verdict/Judgment is: (A) Excessive or inadequate damages,
appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice; (B) Error in the
amount of recovery, whether too large or too small, when the action is upon a contract or for
the injury or detention of property; (C) The judgment is not sustained by the weight of the
evidence; however, only one new trial may be granted on the weight of the evidence in the
same case; and/or (D) The judgment is contrary to law. Amare v. Chellena Food Express Inc.,
2008-Ohio-65; Warren v. Kaiser, 2003-Ohio-1702; Griffith v. Griffith, 2009-Ohio-1024.
That the herein Indigent Defendant-Appellants(Debtors) claims/states that they are
entitled to a automatic Peremptory Reversal, and be granted a immediate New Jury Trial, based
upon the fact. That Defendants were denied/deprived of the Federal Equal Protection Right to a
Fair Garnishment Trial, and any/all: (1) Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury, or abuse
of discretion, by which Defendant was prevented from having a fair trial; (2) Misconduct of the
prevailing party- Plaintiffs and Proxy Corporate Law Firm with History of Fraud; (3) Accident or
8
surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against by filing Motions For In
Limini; (4) Excessive or inadequate damages, appearing to have been given under the influence
of passion or prejudice; (5) Error in the amount of recovery, is too large or subjective, since the
action is upon a contract or for the injury or detention of property; (6) The monetary judgment
issued by Jury Verdict is not sustained by the weight of the evidence; however, only one new
trial may be granted on the weight of the evidence in the same case; (7) The judgment is
contrary to law; (8) Newly discovered evidence, material for the party applying, which with
reasonable diligence Defendant could not have discovered and produced at trial; and/or (9)
Error of law occurring at the trial and brought to the attention of the trial court by this
Defendants making the application.
Defendant-Appellant Irm Ziegler claims that she will suffer a°'irreparable harm/injury"
by continuing to be subjected to unlawful Garnishments from her Bank Account. Because
Indigent Defendant Irm Ziegler is seperated, Retired bus driver from Riverside Public Schools,
Currently living on a extremely fixed income, welfare, and any/all income is needed for monthly
living expenses such bills/debts as: Rent, Car Lease, State/Federal Taxes, Gas, Electric, Insurance,
Food, Credit Card Debt, Medical Debts, and having to file a Appeal by Right over the Trial Court
erroneous Jury Verdict Decision/Judgment challenging the unlawfully actions of Plaintiffs to
cancel Defendant-Appellants Water Service with actual Water Company, in order, to unlawfully
extort this Defendant(and dozens of other tenants) with an unlawful/illegal excessive MONTHLY
"Utility" Bill/Charge(S40 a Month Water Bill for Two People and Plaintiffs Attornev Michael Linn
Voluntarily Dismissed Co-Defendant Joseah Zieeler because only ONE Person/Defendant lived in
9
Apt but Jurv erroneously awarded for TWO People) not contained anywhere in the biding Lease
Agreement(and without mandatory Individual Water Meters, per State/Federal Utility Laws),
and/or since "Newly Discovered Evidence" has revealed during Jury Trial. That Plaintiff Burton
Carol Management actually pays Water/Sewage QUARTERLY at a much-much lower flat-rate, in
order, to unlawfully profit directly or indirectly from Plaintiffs/Attorneys illegal Criminal RICO
Activities was cause and reason for State Licensed Attorneys to adamantly refuse/fail to disclose
relevant, material, and existing Material Discovery to these Pro Se Defendant-Appellants in their
timely filed Defendants Motion To Compel Discovery.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS OF LAW
Proposition of Law 1:
(1) DID THE 11TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICES ABUSE IT'S DISCRETION, CREATEMANIFEST INJUSTICE, STRUCTURALLY ERR, PLAIN ERR, UNLAWFULLY EXERCISED JUDICIALCONSTRUCTION AND/OR IS THEIR AD HOC DECISION DENYING DEFENDANT-APPELLANTSMOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITHOUT PANEL CONTRARY TO, CONFLICTS WITH, AND/ORINVOLVES A UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAW UNDERFEDERAL EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHT ENTITLING A INDIGENT PRO SE DEFENDANT TOPROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND DUE PROCESS ACCESS TO THE COURTS TO ORDERINDIGENT DEFENDANTS TO POST A SUPERSEDEAS BOND ON APPEAL. THAT ASSERTS THAT
JUDGMENT ENTRY WAS OBTAINED FRAUDULENTLY BY STATE LICENSED ATTORNEY AND/OR INVIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHT TO FAIR JURY TRIAL AND APPELLATE REVIEW ASDETERMINED BY THE US SUPREME COURT?
In Defendant-Appellants(DEBTORS) claim/states that the 11th District Court of Appeals
Justices violated App.R. 26(A)(1) et seq. Under the Rule, Applications For Reconsideration of "any cause
or motion submitted on appeal." An application for reconsideration is considered "by the panel that
issued the original decision:'App,R. 26(A)(1)(c). There was no "panel" just Judge Thomas Wright's aytpcal
rubber-stamp denied to cover-up Attorney Fraud and Judicial Ignorance of the Law.
10
When presented with an Application For Reconsideration, an Appellate Court must determine
whether the Application calls to the court's attention an obvious error in its decision or raises an issue
for consideration that was either not considered at all or was not fully considered by the court when it
should have been. State v. Wade, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-644, 2008-Ohio- 1797, ¶ 2; Columbus v. Hodge, 37
Ohio App.3d 68, 69 (1987). "An Application For Reconsideration is not designed for use in instances
where a party simply disagrees with the conclusions reached and the logic used by an appellate court."
Columbus v. Dials, 10th Dist. No. 04AP-1099, 2006-Ohio-227, ¶ 3, quoting State v. Owens, 112 Ohio
App.3d 334, 336 (1996). "App.R. 26 provides a mechanism by which a party may prevent Miscarriages of
Justice that could arise when an appellate court makes an obvious error or renders an unsupportable
decision under the law." Owens at 336. See State v. Stewart, 2013-Ohio-78.
Defendant-Appellant claims/states for the 11t" District Court abuse of discretion, and
failure to Stay Enforcment of Judgment unless a $3,000 Bond is posted. That the Assigned 'Trial
Court Judge acted without subject matter jurisdiction, abused his discretion, created manifest
injustice, structurally erred, substantially erred, and acted without jurisdiction to enter a
Judgment Entry at Bank Garnishment Hearing to proceed and any funds held to be paid to the
Plaintiffs/Attorneys(CREDlTORS) for lack of warrant by attorney.
Defendants-Appellants(Debtors) demands that the Ohio Appellate Court review the
issue of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction De Novo. Cheap Escape Co.. Inc. v. Tri-State Constr., L l C,
173 Ohio App.3d 683, 2007-Ohio-6185, ¶18; and under Abuse of Discretion Standard.
Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219; Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd. (1993), 66
Ohio St.3d 619, 621; Nakoff v. Fairview Gen. Hoso. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 254, 256.
11
R.C. 2323.12 provides that "[a] person indebted, or against whom a cause of action
exists, may personally appear in a court of competent jurisdiction, and, with the assent of the
creditor, or person having such cause of action, confess judgment; whereupon judgment shall
be entered accordingly."
R.C. 2323.13 provides:
(A) An attorney who confesses judgment in a case, at the time of making such confession, must
produce the warrant of attorney for making it to the court before which he makes the
confession. * * * [fludgment may be confessed in any court in the county where the maker or
any of several makers resides or signed the warrant of attorney.
***
(D) A warrant of attorney to confess judgment contained in any promissory note * * * executed
on or after January 1, 1974, is invalid and the courts are without authority to render a judgment
based upon such a warrant unless there appears on the instrument evidencing the
indebtedness, directly above or below the space or spaces provided for the signatures of
the makers, or other person authorizing the confession, in such type size or distinctive marking
that it appears more clearly and conspicuously than anything else on the document:
"Warning-By signing this paper you give up your right to notice and court trial. If you do not
pay on time a court judgment may be taken against you without your prior knowledge and the
powers of a court can be used to collect from you regardless of any claims you may have against
the No. 08AP-774 7 creditor whether for returned goods, faulty goods, failure on his part to
comply with the agreement, or any other cause."
12
Pursuant to R.C. 2323.13(A):
"Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, if the maker or any of several makers resides
within the territorial jurisdiction of a municipal court*** or signed the warrant of attorney
authorizing confession of judgment in such territory, judgment on such warrant of attorney shall
be confessed in a municipal court having jurisdiction in such territory, provided the court has
jurisdiction over the subject matter; otherwise, judgment may be confessed in any court in the
county where the maker or any of several makers resides or signed the warrant of attorney."
All of the requirements contained within these statutory provisions must be met in order
for a valid judgment to be granted or for a court to have subject-matter jurisdiction over it. Id.
At ¶9, Taranto v. Wan-Noor (May 15, 1990), 10th Dist. No. 90AP-1, 1990 WL 63036.
Defendants/Debtors demands that the Ohio Appellate Court review the issue of subject-matter
jurisdiction de novo. Cheap Escape Co., Inc. v. Tri-State Constr. L.L.C., 173 Ohio App.3d 683,
2007-Ohio-6185, 1118.
Consequently, pursuant to R.C. 2323.13(A), for a trial court to have subject matter
jurisdiction to enter judgment entry against these debtors, "the confession of judgment must be
made within the jurisdiction of a court in which either any one of the makers resides or where
the warrant of attorney was signed:" Sparks v. Delicom Sweet Goods. Inc. (Dec. 20, 1999), 5th
Dist. No. 99-CA-11, citing to Gaal v. Mosher (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 229. A judgment issued by a
court without subject matter jurisdiction is void ab initio. S^arks, supra, citing to Patton v.
Diemer (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 68, paragraph three of the syllabus. "The authority to vacate a
13
void judgment is not derived from Civ.R. 60(B) but rather constitutes an inherent power
possessed by Ohio courts:' Patton, 35 Ohio St.3d at paragraph four of the syllabus.
"A warrant of attorney to confess judgment is to be strictly construed against the person
in whose favor the judgment is given; ...[and] the proceeding on a warrant of attorney to
confess judgment should conform in every essential detail with the statutory law which governs
such a proceeding."' Sparks, supra, quoting Lathrem v. Foreman (1978), 168 Ohio St. 186, 188.
Strictly construing the warrant of judgment is required, as a confession of judgment is a quick
process involving a forfeiture without the procedural safeguards provided by notice or an
opportunity for a hearing. S arks supra.
In the present case, appellants assert that, pursuant to R.C. 2323.13(A), The trial court
lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment on the garnishment against this Pro Se Indigent
Defendant/DEBTORS).
In support of this assertion, They point to the fact that none of the makers of the
Plaintiffs/Creditors Garnishment ever executed the warrant of attorney in Lake County, or for
that matter any form of warrant of attorney.
Based on the foregoing, The trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment entry on
the Plaintiffs/CREDITORS "Affidavit and Order and Notice of Garnishment of Property other
Than Personal Earnings and Answer of Garnishee" without attaching a WARRANT OF ATTORNEY
confessing Judgment in County of Lake upon the Defendants/Debtors; Lake Co Educational
Credit Union Loan Manager- SARA EVANS; and Mentor Municipal Court. See Sunset Land
Partnership v. Trowsdell, 2002-Ohio-4152. That judgment, therefore, is void ab initio. Taranto,
14
1990 WL 63036, citing Patton v. Diemer (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 68. See Klosterman v. Turnkev-
Ohio. L.L.C., 182 Ohio App.3d 515, 2009-Ohio-2508.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFOE Defendant-Appellant requests/prays for the reasons discussed above, this
case involves Federal/State Constitutional Questions of Law and is one of Public or Great
General Interest; Unlawful Judicial Construction of Ohio Revised Code(s); and/or this Pro Se
Defendant-Appellant reasonably presents the herein Federal Constitutional Questions of Law, in
order, to fully Exhaust State Appellate Court Remedies before imminent Federal Appellate Court
Judicial Review, based upon the fact. That the State of Ohio Appellate Court Decisions, Opinions,
and/or Orders: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the
United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of
the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State Trial/Appellate Court proceedings in
violation of clearly established Federal Law, Ohio Law, and U.S. Constitution. The herein
INDIGENT Pro Se Defendant-Appellants requests that this court accept jurisdiction in this case
so that the important issues presented will be reviewed on the merits.
Date :"'3J'r."
6",f y
DEFEIV'9ANT-APPELI %ANT M PRO PERIRM ZIEGLERPO BOX 601
GRANDRIVER, OHIO 44045(440) 667-9759
Respectfully Submitted,
^ pd ^ ^ q • if
EFE N ^ T-APPELLANT IN PRO PERPH ZIEGLERZ
120 COURT STCHARDON, OHIO 44024
15
STATE OF OHIO ))SS.
COUNTY OF LAKE)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On -^ "' C,_^ 0 2015, The undersigned served a copy of this Defendant-Appellant's Memorandum In Support of Jurisdiction of Defendant-Appellant Irm Ziegler; andCertificate of Service. Upon Piaintiff-Appellees Burton Carol Management LLC Representative-Attorneys at Law- Michael D. Linn, at 23240 Chagrin Blvd, Suite 180, Cleveland, Ohio 44122. Byplacing a copy of said documents in a sealed envelope, properly addressed with First Class USPostage being fully prepaid and depositing it in the US Mail.
I declare that the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge, information,and belief.
Date: 0Respectfully Submitted,
DEFEI4,DANT-APPELLA_N^T INPRO PERIRM ZIEGLERPO BOX 601GRANDRIVER, OHIO 44045(440) 667-9759
^ ^l 9!/p
^3° ^ i
/1DEFN DANT- ?PPELLANT IN PRO PERZIgtLER
120 COURT STCHARDON, OHIO 44024
16
STATE OF OHIO
COUNTY OF LAKE
))ss.)
BURTON CAROL MANAGEMENT,LLC,
Plaintif€-Appellee,0 5 W5
-vs-
IRM B. ZIEGLER, et al.,
Defendants-Appel lants.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH DISTRICT
JUDGMENT ENTRY
CASE NO. 2014aL-130
Appellant Irm Ziegler filed a motion entitled "application for reconsideration"
asking this court to reconsider its rulings of January 22, 2015. Ziegler advances
no comprehensible argument in support of her motion and it is therefore
overruled.
JUDGE WRIGHT
FOR THE COURT
STATE OF OHIO
COUNTY OF LAKE
^^ sso]
BURTON CAROL MANAGEMENT,LLC,
Plaintiff-AppeNee,
-vs-
IRiVI S. ZIEGLER et al. ,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH DISTRICT
JUDGMENT ENTRY
'CASE NO. 2014-L-130
[7efendants-Appel'lahts:
This matter is before the court upon appellant Irm Ziegler's motion entitled
"Defendant-Appellant's Motion for Objection and Brief in Opposition [to] Plaintiff's
Motion to Deny Stay Enforcement and Waive Supersedeas Bond." As far as we
can tell, Ziegler seeks for appellee Burton Carol Management, LLC's ("Burton
Carol") response to Ziegler's motions for a stay and waiver of the supersedeas
bond to be stricken because Ziegler's appeal is meritorious. However, we have
already denied Ziegler relief on the underlying motions. Therefore, this motion is
moot.
The motion is overruled.
JUC3C,E THOIVIAS . !NR t;^iT
FOR THE COURT