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