IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO

CIVIL DIVISION

MICHAEL HECKMANN ) Case No. 2014 CV 00034 P.O. BOX 8635, 712 MT. VERNON RD. ) NEWARK, OHIO 43055 ) Plantiff, ) ) - vs.- ) JUDGE THOMAS MARCELAIN ) MAGISTRATE MATTIE KLEIN ) KIM BEEM ) 7096 BAYTON PLACE ) APPLICATION TO SEAL A NEW ALBANY, OHIO 43054 ) CIVIL RECORD PURSUANT

Defendant ) TO THE SUPREME COURT ) OF OHIO, CASE NO. ) 2012-1235, SCHUSSHEIM V. ) SHUSSHEIM

MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Now comes the Defendant, Kim Beem, pro se, moves this Honorable Court to dismiss without prejudice, the application to seal the civil records. The Defendant respectfully requested the motion as the only means she was aware of at the time to have her good name removed from public access on the internet. The access was detrimental to the Defendant and created great mental anguish, especially since it is Defendant’s position that the petition provided by the Plantiff was false, retalitory, and malicous. In the hearing in Franklin County, the magistrate indicated that Licking County was in violation of federal law but did not elaborate then she also mentioned a recent Supreme Court case, Defendant (Petitioner in the Franklin County case) responded Schussheim, and the magistrate acknowledged affirmitively. Having already prepared the Schussheim filing, the magistrate confirming the case, and being unaware of the federal law, Defendant went to Newark that same day to file as she wanted her name off the internet as quickly as possible. After exhaustive research and various contacts, the Defendant left a message for Diana Ramos-Reardon, Domestic Violence Program Manager at the Supreme Court of

Ohio on February 7, 2014 to discuss the application of the Violence Against Women Act with respect to internet privacy. Ms. Ramos-Reardon reviewed the Court View entry by the Licking County Clerk of Courts Office and confirmed it should not be publicly available on the internet. Her tone was apologetic and concerned – a posture that would have been appropriate for those in Licking County to take but, of course, that did not occur. Defendant shared that she had made a Schussheim filing which she prepared prior to attending the hearing in Franklin County and Ramos-Reardon advised that the filing wasn’t necessary because the internet entry should have never been made. To reiterate, if Licking County had been following federal law, Defendant would not have needed to go to the time and expense of making a filing nor would she have suffered harm and anguish from having her good name appear in such a manner. Ramos-Reardon assured Defendant that she would deal with the matter. After consulting with trusted collegues, who have valuable insight on these matters and how slowly the process can be, Defendant realized she needed to address and do so quickly as thousands of citizens were impacted, noting Defendant majored in Political Science so she has a high level of interest in such matters. She addressed with County officials, who were less than responsive and very adversarial, but they did contact the vendor and work has begun to delete the inappropriate entries from public access that have impacted so many, including the Defendant. In a phone conversation on February 10, 2014, Defendant asked Clerk Walters if he had advised the Court of the issue with the internet access. He indicated he had not and told Defendant to contact the Judge. Defendant shared that ex parte communication would be inappropriate. Clerk Walters indicated if the Judge came by and asked about it, he would share the information. The conversation became a bit confusing because at that juncture, Defendant was not aware of a hearing and was attempting to discuss the larger picture of the impact of thousands of people. Clerk Walters was only focusing on an individual hearing of which Defendant had not been notified. Defendant waited on receipt of the notification before filing to dismiss. In consideration of the fact that the Defendant’s name has been removed from the internet, which was the remedy she was seeking, for all practical purposes, the objective of the Schussheim filing becomes moot. Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the application to seal but to do so without prejudice so if the need were ever to arise, Defendant would be permitted to use the information to re-file. Defendant finds this necessary based on the statements attributed to Licking County Clerk of Courts in the Newark Advocate on February 12, 2014, which she feels reveals little understanding of the subject matter and limited concern for the serious nature of the violation of federal law or the impact it may have had on the lives of countless private citizens. Additionally, Defendant requests that any court costs or fees be waived or, in the alternative, assessed to the County, possibly to the Prosecutor’s Furtherance of Justice account, since it was the failure to follow federal law that created the need for the Defendant to make the Schussheim filing. Fortunately, due to Defendant’s diligence,

the County is working toward compliance with federal law and the citizens of Licking County, as well as those from other jurisdictions who may be impacted by this practice, will no longer be harmed in this manner. Defendant would be remiss if she failed to advise the Court of disconcerting matters surrounding this case, especially since the Prosecutor was copied on the hearing notice. Contrary to Heckmann’s blatant lies in the Franklin County hearing, Defendant has only filed twice in her 55 years for protection orders – once in March 2013 (the 2nd death threat by a person who suffers from some disorder that has resulted in her long term use of anti-depressants) and once in December 2013 (email harassement menacing by the Plantiff whose long term issues are well documented on Court View and occurred at the time two public officials expressed their concerns with his escalating behaviors). In both cases the respondents were residents of Licking County but to my knowledge they are not acquainted and both made independent claims of consulting with the Licking County Prosecutor prior to the Franklin County hearings. One would hope that legal services paid for by taxpayer dollars is not being used by the Prosecutor’s office to prepare respondent’s testimony, false or otherwise, in civil matters to which Licking County is not a party. Since such activity would be outside of the scope of the Prosecutor’s duties, Defendant will make the Commissioners aware of the matter. As Defendant is certified in Risk Management for Public Entities, she will suggest that if the Prosecutor is engaged in this practice, it should be on his own time and the County should require a certificate of insurance to verify he has professional liability. The immunity Prosecutor enjoys should not apply when he is acting as an attorney outside the scope of his duties for the County and the County should protect themselves with the certificate of insurance to ensure their liability coverage is not inadvertently exposed. It should be noted in both protection order hearings, the potential for a greater good was realized.

• In the March hearing, the criminal forgot what lies she had told the Sheriff’s office in 2010 and told partial truths when questioned by the Judge. A re-investigation not only proved the original report was falsified but audio recordings were made that prove a new falsification by the criminal and falsifications by three employees (current and former) of the Sheriff’s office. The purpose of the falsified report was to enable the criminal to steal well over a half million dollars and continue her elder abuse and that of her accomplices. No action has been taken on the continuing crimes, possibly because public officials may be implicated, but the evidence exists. It would be most appropriate for the Prosecutor to acknowledge his conflict of interest and invite the BCI in to investigate and request a Special Prosecutor to prosecute the felonies.

• As we know, the December case brought to light a violation of federal law by

the County that has gone unchecked for nearly a decade. Fortunately, that is being corrected.

• Outside the scope of those hearings, it should also be noted that Defendant

wrote a column that was published in the Newark Advocate on October 9, 2013 regarding the Prosecutor’s misrepresentations in a press release about the EEOC complaint against him and his office’s retaliation against a private citizen for writing a blog about the behavior that resulted in the complaint. An additonal column was written and heavily documented that the County’s response to the EEOC was misleading regarding the independent investigation as verified by some “oddities” in the appropriations of funding for the investigator’s services. Unfortunately, the second column was not published but the information was shared with County officials and Defendant has submitted to the State Auditor’s office for review. It may be worth noting that professionally, Defendant has previously been acknowledged as a subject matter expert on Employment Practices Liability, Public Officials Liabilty, and Law Enforcement Liability by the St. Paul/Travelers Insurance Company when she worked in their Public Sector Services division and also received Hartford’s Donald Walker Award for Excellence in Underwriting while working in the public entity insurance niche.

In consideration of these facts, Defendant asks the Court to consider that it may be more than just a coincidence that Plantiff publicly posted of his meeting with the Prosecutor, filed a false petition, did not show up for the hearing that he initated, and caused the Defendant to suffer resulting harm, not only by the mental anguish, the embarassent of having her neighbors in an affluent community witness her being served by the police, and the legal expense, but primarily having her name displayed for public viewing in such a negative manner. A reasonable person may find that it is conceivable that the petition in Licking County was not limited to Plantiff’s desire to retaliate. Defendant most respectfully requests the Courts full consideration of her motion.

Respectfully submitted:

______________________________ Defendant’s Signature ______________________________ Defendant’s Printed Name 7096 Bayton Place New Albany, Ohio 43054 _________________________

Defendant’s Address