RESPONDENTS THE HONORABLE LISA C. ALLEN … TORRANCE, . Case No.: 09-1710 Relator,: ... Joseph T....

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

SAINT TORRANCE, . Case No.: 09-1710

Relator,: ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS

v. : AND PROHIBITION

HONORABLE JUDGE LISA C. ALLEN,et al.

Respondents.

RESPONDENTS THE HONORABLE LISA C. ALLEN , THE HONORABLE LEEH. HILDEBRANDT JR THE HONORABLE MARK P. PAINTER, THE

HONORABLE J. HOWARD SUNDERMANN JR., THE HONORABLE SYLVIASIEVE HENDON THE HONORABLE PENELOPE R. CUNNINGHAM, AND

THE HONORABLE PATRICK T. DINKELACKER'SMOTION TO CONSOLIDATE,

MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIMETO RESPOND TO RELATOR'S COMPLAINT

AND MOTION TO DECLARE RELATORA VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR

KIMBERLY V. RILEY (oo68187)LISA M. ZARING (oo8o659)MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON36 East Seventh Street, Suite 2100Cincinnati, Ohio 45202Tel: (513) 241-4722Fax: (513) 241-8775Email: [email protected];lzarin (g a^mrjlaw.comCounselfor Respondents the HonorableLisa C. Allen, the Flonorable Lee H.Hildebrandt, Jr., the HonorableMark P. Painter, the Honorable J.Howard Sundermann, Jr., theHonorable Sylvia Sieve Hendon, theHonorable Penelope R. Cunningham,and the Honorable PatrickT. Dinkelacker

Saint Torrance3182 Werk Road, #2Cincinnati, Ohio 45211Pro se Relator

Joseph T. Deters, Esq.Hamilton County Prosecutor23o East Ninth Street, 8tt, FloorCincinnati, Ohio 45202Counselfor Respondents, Court o fAppeals-Clerk of Courts,Joseph T. Deters, Esq.,Christian J. Schaefer, Esq.,Charles W. Anness, Esq.,and Patricia M. Clancy

MO'I'ION TO CONSOLIDATE,MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

TO RESPOND TO REI.ATOR'S COMPLAINT ,AND MO'PION TO DECLARE RELATOR A VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR

Now come Respondents, the Honorable Judge Lisa C. Allen of the Hatnilton

County Municipal Court; the Honorable Judge Jerome J. Metz, the Honorable Judge

Ralph E. Winlder, the Honorable Judge Norbert A. Nadel, the Honorable Judge Beth A.

Myers, the Honorable Judge Ethna M. Cooper, the Honorable Judge Dennis S. Helmick,

the Honorable Judge William L. Mallory, the Honorable Judge Melba D. Marsh, the

Honorable Judge Fanon A. Rucker, and the Honorable Judge John Andrew West of the

Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas; and the Honorable Judge Lee H. I lildebrandt,

Jr., the Honorable Judge Mark P. Painter, the Honorable Judge J. Howard Sundermann,

Jr., the Honorable Judge Sylvia Sieve Hendon, the Honorable Judge Penelope R.

Cunningham, and the Honorable Judge Patrick T. Dinkelacker of the First District Court

of Appeals (collectively referred to as "the Judges"), and respectfully move this Court to

consolidate their cases.l

In addition, the Judges respectfully request, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R.

XIV(3)(B)(2)(b), an extension of ten days to respond to pro se Relator Saint Torrance's

complaints.

Further, the Judges respectfully requests this Court declare '1'orrance a vexatious

litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(5)(B) and preclude Torrance from continuing to

prosecute his pending actions against them.

The Judges' motion is supported by the following memorandum.

i This motion will be contemporaneously filed in the listed judges' respective cases,Supreme Court Case Nos: 2009-1710, 2009-1711, 2009-1712, 2009-1713, 2009-1720,2oo9-1721, 2oo9-1722, 2009-1723, 2009-1749, 2oo9-1749•

2

Memorandum of Law

On September 22, 23, and 29, 2009, pro se Relator Saint Torrance filed twelve

original actions in mandamus and prohibition in this Court. Ten of those actions seek

relief against judges in the Hamilton County Municipal Court, Hamilton County Court of

Common Pleas, and Ohio's First District Court of Appeals, including Respondents: the

IIonorable Judge Lisa C. Allen of the Hamilton County Municipal Court; the Honorable

Judge Jerome J. Metz, the Honorable Judge Ralph E. Winkler, the Honorable Judge

Norbert A. Nadel, the Honorable Judge Beth A. Myers2, the Honorable Judge Ethna M.

Cooper, the Honorable Judge Dennis S. Helmick, the Honorable Judge William L.

Mallory, the Honorable Judge Melba D. Marsh, the Honorable Judge Fanon A. Rucker,

and the Honorable Judge John Andrew West of the Hamilton County Court of Common

Pleas; and the Honorable Judge Lee H. Hildebrandt, Jr., the Honorable Judge Mark P.

Painter,3, the Honorable Judge J. Howard Sundermann, ,Jr., the Honorable Judge Sylvia

Sieve Hendon, the Honorable Judge Penelope R. Cunningham, and the I-Ionorable Judge

Patrick T. Dinkelacker of the First District Court of Appeals. See Supreme Court Case

Nos. 2009-1710, 2009-1711, 2009-1712, 2009-1713, 2009-1720, 2009-1721, 2009-1722,

2009-1723, 2009-1749, and 2009-1750.

The majority of Torrance's complaints are unintelligible, but it appears that in each

case, Torrance is complaining about a decision or decisions rendered in the lower court.

In each case, he asks this Court to issue a writ of mandamus or prohibition to reverse,

alter, or impugn the lower court's decision. He also seeks compensatory and punitive

damages against the Judges, in excess of twelve million dollars against each.

2 Torrance incorrectly spells Judge Myers' name as "Meyers."3 The Honorable Judge Mark P. Painter is now retired from the First District Courtof Appeals. He is currently a judge at the United Nations Appeals 1'ribunal.

3

Motion to Consolidate

Due to the similarities in their cases, the Judges request that this Court consolidate

these actions. Consolidation is appropriate because the cases allege a siinilar fact pattern

and involve the same legal issues. In each case, Torrance is suing one or more of the

Judges and improperly demanding this Court issue a writ of mandamus or prohibition to

reverse, alter or impugn a lower court decision. The Judges will ultimately present the

same primaly defense to each action-i.e., that Torrance has an alternative remedy at law

and "neither mandamus nor prohibition will issue if the party seeking extraordinary relief

has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." State ex rel. Plaut V. Cosgrove,

ii9 Ohio St.3d 264, 20o8 Ohio 3838, 893 N.E.2d 485, at ¶5, citing Dzina v. Celebrezze,

io8 Ohio St.3d 385, 20o6 Ohio 1195, 843 N.E.2d 1202, at ¶12. Por this reason, the

Judges respectfully request the following Supreme Court cases be consolidated into one

action:

n 2009-1710: Saint Torrance v. Honorable Judge Lisa C. Allen, et al.

• 2009-1711: Saint Torrance v. Honorable Judge Beth A. Meyers, et ul.

• 2009-1712: Saint Torrance v. Honorable Judge William Mallory et a1.

• 2009-1713: Saint Torrance v. Honorable Judge NorbertNadel, et al.

n 2009-1720: Saint Torrance v. Honorable Judge Ethna M. Cooper, et al.

n 2009-1721: Saint Torrance u. Honorable Judge Jerorne J. Metz, et al.

• 2009-1722: Saint Tor°rance v. Honorable Judge Ralph E. Winkler, et al.

• 2009-1723: Saint Torrance u. Honorable Judge Ralph E. Winkler•

• 2009-1749: Saint Torrance v. Honorable Judge John Andr•ew West, et al.

• 2009-1750: Saint Torrance v. Honorable Judge Fanon A. Rucker, et al.

4

This Court, the parties, and counsel will be spared a great amount of time and expense if

the complaints can be addressed collectively in one action. Therefore, consolidation is

appropriate.

Motion for an Rxtension of Time

The Judges further respectfully request, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(3)(B)(2)(b),

that this Court grant them a ten day extension of time to respond to Torrance's

complaints. The Judges' current responsive deadlines range, depending upon the date

each judge was served, from October 15, 2009 to October 22, 2009.

Moving counsel represents the Judges in all of the above listed cases. An extension

of time will provide counsel sufficient time to prepare a response to Torrance's multiple

complaints and will also afford this Court time to consider and rule upon the Judges'

motion to consolidate. Therefore, the ,Judges request an extension of ten days from their

earliest response deadline, Thursday, October 15, 2009. If this Court consolidates these

actions, the ,Judges respectfully request a new responsive deadline for the consolidated

action of Monday, October 26, 2009.4 If, however, this Court denies the Judges'

motion to consolidate, the Judges respectfully request they each be granted an extension

of time until October 26, 2oo9, to respond to Torrance's complaint in their respective

cases.

Motion to Declare Relator Saint Torrance a Vexatious Litigator

The Judges further move this Court to declare Relator Saint Torrance a vexatious

litigator. Rule XIV(5)(B) provides:

4 Ten days from October 15, 2009, is Sunday, October 25, 2009. Pursuant toS.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(3)(A), a response due on Sunday must be filed on or before the followingMonday. Therefore, the Judges' new responsive deadline will be on Monday, October 26,2009.

5

If a party habitually, persistently and without reasonable cause engages infrivolous conduct under section 5(A) of this rule, the Supreme Court may,sua sponte or on motion by a party, find the party to be a vexatious litigator.If the Supreme Court determines that a party is a vexatious litigator underthis rule, the Court may impose filing restrictions on the party. Therestrictions may include prohibiting the pai-ty form continuing or institutinglegal proceedings in the Supreme Court without first obtaining leave,prohibiting the filing of actions in the Supreme Court without the filing feeor security for costs required by S.Ct.Prac.R. XV, or any other restriction theSupreme Court considers just.

In recent months, Torrance has plastered this Court's docket with his unintelligible

complaints. His frivolous pleadings serve no other purpose than to harass members of

the judiciaiy and waste the time of this Coui-t and all those involved in his cases.

Torrance's cases fall squarely within the parameters of the vexatious litigator rule;

therefore, this Court should prohibit him froni continuing his pending actions or

instituting any new ones ivithout first obtaining leave of court.

A. Between August and September of 2009, Torrance Filed SixteenFrivolous Actions in this Court.

Since August 18, 2009, Saint Torrance has filed seventeen original actions in this

Court, each based in mandamus and/or prohibition. (See the Supreme Court of Ohio's

Docket, attached as Exhibit A5.) Twelve of those actions include claims against a judge or

judges presiding in the Hamilton County courts or the First District Court of Appeals, and

each seeks to reverse a decision rendered by the judge or judges in an underlying case.

Torrance's complaints also share other common elements: they are largely

incomprehensible, demand large sums of money from members of the judiciaiy

(approximately $12,700,000 in most cases), and will be ultimately futile. Torrance

appears to be frustrated with the lower courts' decisions, but rather than appeal those

s Due to the volume of exhibits attached to this motion, the exhibits will only beattached and filed with the motion in Case No. 2009-1710.

6

decisions through the proper channels, he has filed sixteen complaints in mandamus and

prohibition in this Court. This is not the proper mechanism to attack a lower court

judgment-"neither mandamus nor prohibition will issue if the party seeking

extraordinaiy relief has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law," such as an

appeal. State ex rel. Plant, 20o8 Ohio 3838, at ¶g, citing Dzina, 20o6 Ohio 1195, at ¶12.

B. Torrance knew these Complaints were Improper before he filedThem.

Torrance knew, at the tin-ie he filed his most recent actions against the Judges, that

his proper remedy was to appeal the lower court decisions. On August 28, 2009, almost

one month before Torrance filed his ten most recent actions against the Judges, the

Honorable Judge Ralph E. Winkler of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

moved to dismiss Torrance's Complaint against him in Supreme Court Case No. 2oo9-

1529. In his Motion to Dismiss, Judge Winkler clearly explained that 'I'orrance's

mandamus action must fail, because Torrance had an adequate remedy at law:

Judge Winkler's order of dismissal determined the action before him.Relator [Torrance] has a right of appeal under the Ohio Rules of AppellateProcedure and R.C. 2505.03.

A writ of mandamus is not a substitute for appeal and a direct appeal is anadequate remedy at law precluding the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

(See Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Respondent

Honorable Ralph E. Winlder, Judge, Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio, p.

6, Supreme Court of Ohio Case No. 2009-1529, attached as Exhibit B.) Despite this,

Torrance proceeded to file ten similar complaints against lower court judges, demanding

this Court order the judges to change their decisions in his underlying cases.

7

C. Torrance Habitually Files Complaints in this Court WithoutReasonable Cause.

Moreover, Torrance is filling this Court's docket with duplicative actions. Some of

the complaints Torrance filed with this Court are duplicative of previous, unsuccessful

mandamus actions filed in the Court of Appeals, while others are duplicative of cases filed

in this Court.

For example, Torrance filed a mandamus action against the Honorable Judge

Ralph E. Winkler in the Court of Appeals based on the judge's actions in a common pleas

court case, Torrance v. Vehicle Information Service, Inc., Hamilton County Court of

Common Pleas, Case No. A0902495• (See Mandatory Emergency Injunctive and/or

Declaratory Relief of Notice Writ of Mandamus (sic), First Appellate District Case No.

C0900525, attached as Exhibit C.) The Court of Appeals dismissed that action. (See

Entry Granting Motion to Dismiss Mandatory Emergency Injunctive and/or Declaratory

Relief of Notice Writ of Mandamus (sic), attached as Exhibit D.) Torrance then filed a

complaint in this Court, demanding the same relief. (See Torrance V. Honorable Judge

Ralph E. Winkler, Supreme Court Case No. 2009-1722, Complaint attached as Exhibit E.)

Similarly, in Saint 7'orrance v. Honorable Judge Jerome J. Meiz, First Appellate

District Case No. Ao9o2496, Torrance requested the Court of Appeals order a writ of

mandamus against Judge Metz. (See Plaintiffs Mandatoiy Judicial Notice of Writ of

Mandamus, attached as Exhibit F.) In that case, Torrance complained about Judge

Metz's decisions in the case of Torrance v. Angel Hill. Id. The appellate court granted

Judge Metz's Motion to Dismiss. (See Entry Granting Motion to Dismiss Mandatory

Judicial Notice Writ of Mandamus (sic), attached as Exhibit G.) Yet just weeks later,

Torrance filed an action in mandamus and prohibition in this Court against Judge Metz,

8

complaining about the judge's actions in the same underlying case. (See, Saint Torrance

v. Honorable Judge Jerome J. Metz, et al., Supreme Court Case No. 2009-1721,

Complaint attached as Exhibit H.)

Not only are some of Torrance's current complaints duplicative of his previous,

underlying complaints, but some of his current complaints are duplicative of each other.

For example, compare the Complaint in Saint Torrance v. Honorable Jiedge Lisa C.

Allen, et al., Supreme Court Case No. 2009-1710 (attached as Exhibit I) with the

Complaint in Saint Torrance v. Honorable Judge Ralph E. Winkler, Supreme Court Case

No. 2009-1723 (attached as Exhibit J). Aside from the captions, the complaints raise the

same allegations, against the same parties, and demand the same relief.

If permitted to continue, Torrance will only further plague this Court's docket with

his frivolous, duplicative filings. He will cause unnecessary costs to this Court and all

parties and counsel involved. Therefore, the Judges respectfully requests this Court

declare Torrance a vexatious litigator and preclude hiin from continuing his pending

actions.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Respondents, the Honorable Judge Lisa C. Allen of the

Hamilton County Municipal Court; the Honorable Judge Jerome J. Metz, the Honorable

Judge Ralph E. Winlder, the Honorable Judge Norbert A. Nadel, the Honorable Judge

Beth A. Myers, the Honorable Judge Ethna M. Cooper, the Honorable Judge Dennis S.

Helmick, the Honorable Judge William L. Mallory, the Honorable Judge Melba D. Marsh,

the Honorable Judge Fanon A. Rucker, and the Honorable Judge John Andrew West of

the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas; and the Honorable Judge Lee H.

Hildebrandt, Jr., the Honorable Judge Mark P. Painter, the Honorable Judge J. Howard

9

Sundermann, Jr., the Honorable Judge Sylvia Sieve Hendon, the Honorable Judge

Penelope R. Cunningham, and the Honorable Judge Patrick T. Dinkelacker of the First

District Court of Appeals, respectfully request this Court consolidate their cases. In

addition, the Judges request this Court grant them an extension of ten days to respond to

Torrance's complaints. Further, the Judges respectfully requests this Court declare

Torrance a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(5)(B) and preclude him from

continuing with his pending actions against them.

Respectfully submitted,

KIMBERLVV. RILEY o68187)LISA M. ZARING (oo8o659)MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON36 East Seventh Street, Suite 2100Cincinnati, Ohio 45202Tel: (513) 241-4722

Fax: (513)241-8775Email: krileyPmrjlaw.com lzaring mrilaw.comCounsel for Respondents the Honorable Lisa C.Allen, the Honorable Lee H. Hildebrandt, Jr.,the Honorable Mark P. Painter, the HonorableJ. Howard Sundermann, Jr., the HonorableSylvia Sieve Hendon, the Honorable PenelopeR. Cunningham, and the Honorable Pab°ick T.Dinkelacker

10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On October 9, 2009, I seived a copy of the foregoing upon the following party viaregular U.S. Mail, first-class postage prepaid:

Pro se Relator

Saint Torrance3182 Werk Road, #2Cincinnati, Ohio 45211

Counsel for Respondents, Court of Appeals-Clerk of Courts, Joseph T. Deters, Esq.,Christian J. Schaefer, Esq., Charles W. Anness, Esq., and Patricia M. Clancy

Joseph T. Deters, Esq.Hamilton County Prosecutor230 East Ninth Street, 8th FloorCincinnati, Ohio 45202

LISA M. RING ( 8o659)

11

Supreme Court of Ohio - Results by Party Name .

Thie Su .etn Court of Ohio & TheOhio Jec^icia^SystemClerk's Office

65 South FronL SLreet, 8tti Floor

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3431

800.826.9010

614.387.9530

Kristina D. Frost

Clerk of Court

Search Results: Party Last Name = torrance, First Name = saint

Party Name Search Criteria

Party Last Name: torrance

Party First Name: saint

Records 1 to 17 of 17

View Case Case Number Party Name Party Type Case7ype

View Case 2009-1497 Torrance, Saint Relator Original Action in Mandamus and Prohibition

View Case 2009-1518 Torrance, Saint Relator Original Action in Mandamus

View Case 2009-1529 Torrance, Saint Relator Orlglnal Action in Mandamus arrd Prohibition

View Case 20091538 Torrance, Saint Relator Original Action in Mandamus and Prohibition

View Case 2009-1709 Torrance, Saint Relator Origirial AcLion in Mandamus and Prohibition

View Case 2009-1710 Torrance, Saint Relator Original Action in Mandamos and Prohibition

View Case 20091711 Torrance, Saint Relator Original Action in Mandamus and Prohibition

View Case 2009-1712 Torrance, Saint Relator Original AcLion in Mandamus ald Prohibition

View Case 2009-1713 Torrance, Saint Relator Original Actton irr Mandamus and Prohibition

View Case 2009-1714 Torrance, Saint Relator Oriqinal Action in Mandamus and Prohibition


View Case 2009-1721 Torrance, Saint Relator Origtnal Actton in Mandamus and Prahibltion


View Case 2009-1723 Torrance, Saiot Relator Original Action irr Marrdamus and Prohibition

View Case 2009-i749 Torrance, Saint Relator Original Action in Mandamus and Pr6hibition


View Case 2009-1810 Torrance, Saint Rela[or Original Action in Mandanius and Prohibition

Records i to 17 of 17

Back to Search j

http://ww\usuprcmecourt.ohio.<,?ov/Clerk/ecrosJresultsbyparty name-asp ?Lname=torrance&... 10/9/2009

IN THESUPRF,ME COURT OF OHIO

State ex rel. SAINT TORRENCE

Relator

vs.

Hon. RALPH E. WINKLER,Judge, Hamilton Couuty Court ofCommon Pleas, et al.

Respondents

CASE NO. 09-1529

ORIGINAL ACTION INMANDAIVIUS

MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORAN'DUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TODISMISS OF RESPONDENT HONORABLE RALPH F. WINKLER,

JUDGE, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

Saint Torrence, Pro Se3182 Werk Road, Apt, #2Cincinnati, Ohio 45211

RELATOR

C^^RK QF COURT

SARM^catl-_.,".OF 10

JOSEPH T. DETERSPROSECUTING ATTORNEYHAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

Christian J. Schaefer, 0015494Assistant Pirosecuting Attorney230 S. Niuth Street, Suite 4000Cincinnati OH 45202 2174DDN: (513) 946-3041FAX: (513) 946-3018ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS

AUG 2 6 2OpPCLERK OF COURT

SUPREME COURT OF QH

EXHIBIT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE #

APPENDlx INDEx ............................................................................................................................. ii

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................................................................................. ............. -2-

ARGUMENT ............... .................................................................................................................... -2-

PRUPOSITION OF LAW I - A petition for a Writ of Mandamus must be dismissed

unless a relator demonstrates that (1) the relator has a clear legal right to therelief prayed for, (2) respondent is under a corresponding clear legal duty toperform the requested acts, and (3) relator has no plain and adequate legalremedy.

PROPOSITION OFLAW 11 - Relators have an adequate remedy at law. .........................3-

CONCI.IJSION ................................................................................................................................. -4-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE........................................................................................................... .5-

APPENDIX

Docket - Hatnilton County Coinnion Pleas Case Nuniber A-0900952 ...................................... A-1

08/06/09 - Entry of Court Ordered Dismissal ............................................................................. A-2

IN THESUPREME COURT OF OHIO

State ex rel. SAINT TORRENCE CASE NO. 09-1529

vs.

RelatorORIGINAL ACTION INMANDAMUS

Hon. RALPH E. WINKLERJudge, Hamilton County Court of RESPONDENT WINKLER'S

Common Pleas, et al. MOTION TO DISMISS

Respondents

Now colne Hon. Judge Ralph E. Winkler, through counsel, who move that this original

action in Mandanius be dismissed in accordance with S. Ct. R. X, Section 5.

Respectfully subniitted,

JOSFPII T. I)1?TFR5

PROSFCTJTING ATTORNL-.Y

N COUN Y, OillO

^

Assistant rosecuting Attorneys-istian J Schaefer, 54

230 E. Ninth Street, Suite 4000Caicinnati, Ohio 45202-2174513/946-3031FAX 513/946-3018ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM

A. Statement of the Case

This Oiiginal Action in Mandamus complaints that Judge Winkler erred in Entering an

Order L7isniissing Relator's Complaint in Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas case A-

0900952.

Rather than file an appeal of this final order by Judge Winkler, Relator Saint Torrence

filed this action in mandamus. Relators' prunaazy dispute with Judge Winkler's Order is the

allegation that the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure were not followed.

ARGY1VlRN'i'

Proposition of Law I

A petition for a Writ of Mandamus must be dismissed unless a relatordemonstrates that (1) the relator has a clear legal right to the relief prayedfor, (2) respondent is under a corresponding clear legal duty to perform therequested acts, and (3) relator has no plain and adeqnate legal remedy.

For a writ of mandamus to issue, a relator must demonstrate that (1) the relator has a clear

legal riglit to the relief prayed for, (2) respondent is under a corresponding clear legal duty to

perfonn the requested acts, and (3) relator has no plain and adequate legal remedy. State ex ret.

Ohio llssn. OfPu6 School Ernp.fAF,SC,ME. AFL-C'IO v. State Emp. Relations Sd. (1992), 64

Ohio St.3d 149, 151.

Proposition of Law II

Relators have an adequate remedy at law.

Relators did not file a direct appeal of Judge Wuikler's Order dismissing his case. Nurre's

Order O.R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) defines a final order as including:

(B) An order is a final order that may be reviewed, affinned, modified, orreversed, with or witlsout retrial, when it is one of the following:

(1) An order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effectdetermines the action and prevents ajudgment;

J'udge Winkler's oi•der of disrnissal determined the action before hini. Relator has a»ght of

appeal imder the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure and R. C. 2505. 03.

A writ of mandamus is not a substitute for appeal and a direct appeal is an adequate

remedy at law precluding the issuance of a writ of mandamus. See O.R. C. 2731.0.5 and In re

Gstate oJ'Davis (1996) 77 Ohio St. 3d 45. .

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint for a Writ ofMandamus should be dismissed

because relators have an adequate remedy at law.

Respectfiilly submitted,

7OSFPH T. DETERS

PROSECUTING A'I"I'ORNEY

HA*6bN COUNTY, OPIO

stian 7chaefer, 0015494Assistant P osecLtting Attorneys230 E. Ninth Street, Suite 4000Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-21745 1 31946-3 03 1FAX 513/946-3018

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDEN'i'S

CFRTIFICATS OF SFRVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served by regular U.S. Mail this

27°i day of August, 2009 on:

Saint Toirence3182 Werk Road, Apt #2Cincitmati OH 45211

Assistant Pr secuting Attorneystian J. ^haefer, 001949"4

Patricia M. Claucy - Clerk of Courts Page 1 of 2

You Are Not Currently Logged In. lyy In HeCE

• Home

Clanc` y

Clerk of Courts• Court Records ^ • Court Date • Forms I A Services • Division Info

Case Summary Case OptionsCase History

CaseNumber: A0900952lC S h sdase c e u e

tion; SAINT TORRENCE vs. ALI M ALHAJCase Cap Case Documents

Judge: RALPH E WINKLER Document Request Form

Filed Date: 1/3012009 Party/Attorney InformationCenifled Mail Service

Case Type: C372-OTHERTORT-VEHICLEACCIDENT-TAXEDIN COSTSNew Case Search

Total Dsposits: $0.00 New Name Search

Total Costs: $ 238.50 Add Case to My Portfolio

Case History Printer Friendly Version

Doc Image# Date Description Amount

121 811012009

PLAINTIFF MANDATORY,IUDICIAL NOTICE OF EVIDENCE, OF DEFAULTAND NOTICE TO VACATE VOID DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF 14THAMENDMENT UNDER DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTFCTION OF A

6/7/7009

PRO'TECTED CLASS AND PRO LITIGANT WITH CONDITIONS

NOTICE OF APPEALABLE JUDGMENT SENT BY ORDINARY MAIL TO ALLPARTIES REQUIRED BY LAW.

8/6(20D9 ENTRY OF COURT ORDERED DISMISSAI.

L^ 7/14/2009 PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST ALI M. ALHAJ

A 7/14/2009MAGISTRATE'S DECISION. COPY OF MAGIS"I'RATE'S DECISION SENT BYORDINARY MAIL TO ALL PARTIES OR THEIR ATTORNEYS AS

7114/2009

INSTRUCTED PER PRAECIPE.

REGULAR MAIL SERVICE ISSUED TO HOOK FISH & CHICKEN INC

71142009 REGULAR MAIL SERVICE ISSUED'FO SAINT TORRENCE

db 71142009 CERTIFICATE OF REGULAR MAIL FILED. HOOK FISH & CHICKEN INC

7/1 412 0 0 9 CERTIFICATE OF RGGULAR MAIL FILED. SAINT TORRENCE

Iv1 6115f2,009

PLAINTEFF MOTION TO VACATE THIS DEFAULT JUDGMENT I IEARINGPURSUANT SUBJUECT-MATTER JURISDICTION IS LIMITED AND NOTGENERAL Jt1RISDICTION PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR

J°. /73I2009

DEFAULTJUDGMENTBECOMESVACATEVOIDJUDGMENTFORDEI..AYOFDUEPROCESS

PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR SERVICE TO DEFENDANTS FOR DEFAULTJUDGMENT HEARING

(9^

[_27

4f2712009

311612009

PLAINTIFF SUPPLEMENT MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHDAMAGES

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENI

3 /1 212 0 0 9 SUMMONS ISSUED BY REGULAR MAIL TO ALI M ALHAJ

3/12f2009 REGULAR MAIL SERVICE ISSUED TO ALI M ALHAJ

1'^J 3l1212009 CERTIFICATE OF REGULAR MAIL FILED. ALI M ALHAJ

8

iik

311112009

3+412009

WRITTEN REQUEST FOR REGULAR MAIL SERVICE OF SUMMONS ANDCOMPLAINT ON ALI M ALHAJ

NOTICE TO SAINT TORRENCE AS TO UNCLAIMED SERVICE ON ALI MALHAJ SERVICE TYPE: CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE REASON CODE:UNCLAIMED (CERTIFIED MAIL NBR.: 7194 5168 6310 0429 85961

ELECTRONIC POSTAL RECEIPT RETURNED, COPY OF SUMMONS &

A-I

D"nections I Policies I Sitemap

}

Hamilton County Courthouse1000 Main StreetCincinnati, OH 45202

SEARCH

8/27/2009http://www.courtclerk.org/case_summary.asp?sec=history&casenumber-A0900952

Patricia M. Clancy - Clerk of Courts Page 2 of 2

ft 2/972009 COMPLAINT D[LIVERED 7O HOOK FISH & CHICKEN INC ON 0205109,

2/4/2009

FILED, {CERTIFIED MAIt. NBR.: 7194 5168 6310 0429 8602]

.tUDGE ASSIGNED CASE ROLLED TO WINKLER/RALPWE PRIMARY

2/3J2009CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE ISSUED TO HOOK FISH & CHICKEN INC(CERTIFIED MAIL NBR.: 7194 5188 6310 0429 66021

202008CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE ISSUED TO ALI M ALHAJ [CERTIFIED MAIf.NBR.: 7194 5168 8310 0429 85961

Cg 2/212009 SUMMONS ISSUED BY CERTIFIED MAIL TO HOOK FISH & CHICKEN INC

IZI 21242009 SUMMONS ISSUEO BY CERTIFIED MAIL TO ALI M ALHAJ

8 113012009 PLAINTIFF AFFIDAVIT FOR INDIGENT

1 /3 012 0 09 TAXEDINCOSTS - FILlNGSAIN'fTORRENCE 0.00

8 113012009 COMPLAINT FILED

1/300009 G-ASSIFICATION FORM FILED.

About the Clerk I FAQ I Linke I Directions I pollcles I Contact Us I Slte Map

Alternate languages: Deutsch I Espafiol I Francais 1 Italiano

Cc) 2009 Patricia M. Clancy, HamiltOn County Clerk of Courts. All rights reserved.

http:!/hvww.cour[clerk.org/case_summary.asp?sec=history&casenumber--A0900952 8/27/2009

COURT OF COMMON PLEASHAMILTON COUNTY OHIO

SAINT TORRENCE, CASE NO. A0900952

V_

ALC M. ALHAJ,

PLAINTIFF . JUDGE RALPH E. WINKLER

ENTRY OF COURT ORDEREDDISMISSAL

DEFENDANT,

Plaintiff failed to appear on this matter on August 5"', 2009. The Plaintiff in thismatter has filed other frivolous lawsuits with the court and has conducted himself as avexatious litigator. Pursuant to Ohio Civil Rule of Procedure 41(A)(2) the court herebydisntisses the above captioned case.

D8456U353

TO PARTIES0 WH CHS^A L B ET

CMLAXEDED

E C03rS HEREiN.

HE CI.ERK SHqLL $ERYE Riq71qERU" FA t1Hh1}At1AYjUMge

ORIG, COMP, P/IffIK..SiJM NSI ( ) CERT Nl^11 ^ :^'St#^f#I!E' ^ . ^ 1^6P^tE

PROC€^Sf^R'IN THE COUR7' OF APPEAL! CLERNS rEES j}C

TE DISTRICT OF CEFIRST APP LLA ^RI^ E^,^STTN' O II'Y, I-HAMILTON COU 1

i O,EPOSITED BllFif iNr rn61F

SAINT TORRANCE

^

CaseNo. (;0r90^;2'S

Case No. A0902495PETITIONER,

vs

IIONORABLEJUDGE RALPH E. WINKLER1000 MAIN ST COURTHOUSE #360CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202

CUUIT^ aRREA1S

al li. Z 7 2009

PON

RESPONDENT.

- ^ PLAINTIFF MANDA"t-ORY EMERGENCY4 INJl1NCTIVE RELIEF AND\OR DECLARATORY RELIEF OF NOTICE

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Pet'iiioner Saint Torrance comes before this triai (Court of Appeal, V Dist.) court

p^suant to-Itule16, Rule 12(B)(6), I2(B)(3) and common law of the R.C. 2731.01,

2731.02, 2731,03, 2731.04, and Federal laws, US Constitutional Laws also pursuant to

this Writ of Mandamus, Malfcasance, Society (IIeaven) Court.

FACTS^41 ^̂R9fWM^91

1. Peiitioner Saint Torrance is a Disabled Vetcran, tJusinessman, Pro Se Litigant, with

conditions, (PSLWC) or protected class with conditions (PCWC).

2. Petitioner filed a Complaint against Vehicle Information Services Inc., for failure to

honor a (PSLWC) for free estt,imate on niy three vehicles for diminished value, whereI

r

Petitioner, has a case pending in (Common Pleas Court St. Torrance vs. Permanent

General Assurance Corporation. Case No. A0900951), Petitioner liave seen a double

standard in this industry of car repair damages, medical payments, pain and suffering for

compensation and punitive in nature damages.

Petitioner comes now related to the (VS.), on everything pertaining to this or any otliercase, Petitioner have filed or will file.

A. Conditiotts (PSI,WC) (PCWC) vs. The "Working Class" Citizen.

B. Unsound Minds vs. Sound Minds

C. Mandatory vs. Discretionary

D. Writs vs. Common Appeals (polices, "Ohio Rules of Civil Procedures" and

procedures, Common, Federal, US Constitution, Bill of Riglits; Declaration of

Independence), a choose or a with rights, "to extraordinary exceptional circumstances of

peculiar emergency or public importance" of Writ of Mandamus vs. Appeals Process

(Other remedy)

E. Due Process, Equal Protection (US Corrstitutional Laws) vs. Judicial "Officers,

Magistrates, Attorneys" Duty (voted for, sworn in, under oath, in office) against a

(PSLWC) (PCWC).

3. The trial (Judge Winkler) court, has a judici.al "special" duty to a (PSLWC) and a duty

to eiter a Case Conference Management "schedule" for the (PSLWC) for interest of

justice, liberty, life, property in this case it pertaining to "property petitioner three

vehicles for establishing diminished value on (PSLWC) vehicles and this case

Conference Management is pursuant to Rule 16 of the O.R.C.P., Rule 16 (Exhibit #l,

Pretrial Procedure).

4. Trail (Judge Winker) court had established: two, Case Conference Management and a

the first one, being a"Initial Case Management" which demonstrated to Petitioner-

Plaintiff a some sort of bias, prejudice of not making cut off date and pretrial and trial

dates, this grounds for failure to do judicial duties especially for a(PSLWC).

5. Trail (Judge Winkler) court has violated the due process & equal protection clauses

(DP & EP), and in its Final Entry dismissing Case and Finding Plaintiff not Indigent

show a bias, prejudice in the Trial (Judge Winkler) court Opinion of protecting a group of

judges, magistrate, which is understandable but not mandatory but become only the trial

(Judge Winkler) court biases or prejudice, which can not be directed to a(PSLWC) of a

"special class", with couditions, is very mandamns, in nature with out nonnal (working

class) (courts, following protocol) appeal. It further states a trial (Judge Winkler) court in

its statement stating the following: In, addition, ("it is the opinion of the Court that

Plaintiff is engaging in vexatious litigation as defined by Ohio Revised Code and risks

sanctions by the Court if this conduct continues in further court actions") (See Exhibit

#3). This opinion dainages the Petitioners creditability, status (PSLWC), and the gate for

other (PCWC), aggravation of ones conditions, tormenting, torturing a (PCWC),

something, that new to this courts, and has not been acknowledge for while, which is a

(PSLWC), hinders, (PSLWC) and it future cases for civil matter that comes abroad in

society with the working class or non-working class, this public document, record of this

opinion fonn this trial (Judge Winkler) court should be stricken from the record I as

a(PSI.WC) have never seen a trail (Judge Winkler) court commit trespassing and treason

against a (PSLWC) but have experience first hand in this due process delay from other

judges, magistrate, court clerks but not this one now this is the first, this action of opinion

warrants a Writ of Mandamus iimnediately from any further harm to an un harmed,

helpless (PSLWC) and this opinion give the other judicial officers, judges, magistrate,

clerks of court to aggravate ones condition is a warrant for all based on being bias,

prejudices, based on color of skin, or towards a (PSLWC) pursuing ignorance of a

person, corporation, government, crossing, the cross of my father, or crossing the border,

of my ark angel Lucifer, for reality people, this new problem of trial court handling a case

load is very damaging to the judicial integrity it itself by combine, criminal docket, with

any judge, that handles, a civil docket, can be very stressful out, systems, of crossing the

sound mind judgment with unsound mind judgments with there emotional and

disrespectful consumer, Plaintiffs and Defendants, Motions can take a toll on these

Judges, magistrates clcrk of courts too.

6. The trial (Judge Winkler) court, on a (PSLWC) if that trial judge, magistrate can not

handle the everyday case load of it criminal, civil docket, and has by the Petitioner being

a(PSLWC) institutes a form, of a mounting conditions, just like, Petitioners Saint

Torrance this leads to a disease, manning up to your conditions where the trial (Judge

Winkler) courts opinion is very damaging to my condition, career, life being placed on a

public docket given the impression I am a vexatious litigant, which Petitioner is not and

any one label a (PSLWC) actual buries there own grave without Petitioner doing nothing

except do what my fathers directed petitioner to do, this condition I have seen and

experience is ticking time of baggage of thought, hatred, ignorance, color being unstable,

greed, deception of under a group stress (peer pressure) in this authority figure status is

waiting to exploded right in front of all these judicial officers, and clerks of courts, these

courts proceeding being to close together makes judicial officers slipping on there jobs

which makes judicial Officers become in a mhid set a criminal minded judicial officer,

which lead to an unsound mind judgment, order, and decree of this trial (Judge Winkler)

court or any other triad courts all the way up to the Supreme Court of America too.

7. Trial (Judge Winkler) court also explains about indigent which Petitioner does not

understand these court proceeding where the trial court is always stressing to the

Petitioner about following the Obio Rules of Civil procedures and finds out doing nry

experience with the trial courts any court house that the Judge, Magistrates, clerk of

courts had became emotion, bias, prejudice to society but in my situation had violated a

(PSLWC) now that not friendly that intentional to a (PSLWC) (PCWC) now that

aggravation of ones conditions, tormenting, torturing a (PSLWC) (PCWC).

8. Defendant Vehicle Infor7nation Services Inc. had also supplied a damaging and very

hurtful statement causing resubmission of failed services to the public and to a (PSLWC)

(PWCW) about my vehicles, (See Exhibit #4) which I know and you know that my

fathers made those vehicles and thoughts, dreams, and given man knowledge to make and

had shared it with us but to go against my father now that down right suicidal and

honiicidal delusional thoughts of beating a invisible spirit.

9. Trail (Judge Winkler) courtis either-fighting-for-tlie-Defendant-and demonstrated

hatred, bias, prejudice towards Petitioner-Plaintiff, or demonstrated a non-Rules of the

Ohio Rules of Civil procedures, disregard to the common law, federal law and the iJS

Constitution orjust plain one of the angels I thrown out of Ileaven for disrespecting my

fathers, regardless of what direction, the Due Process (DP) & Equal Protection (EP)

clause of the US Constitution has been violated, and any, there judicial officers, violating

a (PSLWC) is ground for not just a "bench warrant" but also, Malfeasance, of there

"throne", Trail (Judge Winkler) Court, opinion open the gates of a judicial system

overhaul and ground for intention infliction of emotional distress to already (PSLWC) is

a fonn of aggravation, resubmission, tormenting, torturing a (PCWC), found out who

likes my fattters and who don't believe in my fathers.

CASE LAWS

10. In Re NLO. et al Petitioners ( 6'" Cir) (See Exhibit #5) explaining and granting of

order being vacated two rulings and: (1) that all peufties shall participate in a "summary

jury trial", open to the media and public, enforceable sanctions against counsel for

anything less than full participation"

This case has a good case law for Petitioner situation of giving factors to place a "Writ of

Mandamus" on trial (Judge Winkler) Court for its failure follow O.R.C.P. and being less

liberal on not just a Pro se Litigant but a Practicing Pro Se Litigant, with Conditions

should be very careful of not aggravation, tormenting, torturing a (PSLWC) (PCWC) this

action against a (PSLWC) renders a unemployment of the common appeals process and

beconies a Mandatory Judicial Emergency Notice of a Writ of Mandamus (Injunctive

relief, and or Declaratory relief).

This court may issue a writ of mandamus pursuant to the All Writs Statute, 28

U.S.C. Sec, 1651. However, petitioners bear a heavy burden in showing that

mandamus is the proper remedy; they must establish a "clear and indisputable

right" to the relief requested. Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co_, 437 U.S. 655, 661-62,

98 S.Ct. 2552, 2557, 57 L.Ed.2d 504 (1978). They must demonstrate a clear

abuse of discretion or conduct amounting to usurpation of the judicial power.

Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 309, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1822,

104 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989). An error of law, standing alone, is not sufficient, for

"then every interlocutory order which is wrong might be reviewed under the All

Writs Act." Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 383, 74 S.Ct.

145, 148, 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953). "The general principle which governs proceedings

by mandamus is, that whatever can be done without the employment of that

extraordinary writ, may not be done with it. It lies only when there is practically no

other remedy." Heistoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500. 505, 99 S.Ct. 2445, 2448, 61

L.Ed.2d 30 (1979), quoting Ex parte Rowland, 104 U.S. 604, 617, 26 L.Ed. 861

(1882).

Petitioner burden has shifted and can be overthrown with 1JS Constitutional Laws under

due process & equal protection was not given, with a bias, prejudice trial (Judge Winkler)

court with a "opinioned statement" make the trial (Judge Winkler) courl lose jurisdiction

under subject matter jurisdiction and it (22) elements of all judicial officer and attorneys,

and clerks of courts and the only remedy is a Mandatory Judicial Emergency Writ of

Mandamus based on the trial (Judge Winkler) court abuse of discretion or issue a

Mandatory or conduct amotmting to usurpation of the judicial power. This trial (.ludge

W inkler) court has a inherent power to stay impartial but its own opinioned coinments

make this trial (Judge Winkler) court time delay, due process & equal protection

especially a (PSLWC) (I'CWC) warrant a "Writ of Mandamus" with it remedies of

violation to a (PSLWC) or a (PCWC) is unacceptable in law against any Disabled,

Handicap, Retarded citizen in a "special class" with conditions.

Ln Petitioner case niy disability status supersedes this employment of cominon appeal

which both has the same time and effects but when tiial (Judge Winkler) court crossed

my father cross then it became personal with the trial court stepping it authority and

boundaries of personal jurisdiction and also subjeet matter jiuisdiction warrants lack of

jurisdiction and even to be reversed back will still place a (PSLWC) in harm way where

ihe trial (court of appeal) court also have a stressful duty related to the US Constitution

and the federal, state and common law with the given Ohio Rules of Civil Procedures to

be lollowed and given by the Supreme Court of Ohio and it superior justices of America

the Supreme Court of America.

BASIS OF ARGUMENT

11. Mandamus vs. common appeal.

12. Pro Se Litigant with conditions (PST.WC) vs. The People, Corporations,

Govemmcnt, Thee Iloly One, Jesus and GOD.

13. (PSLWC) vs. "l'he Judicial System, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, US

Constitution, Federal, State, local laws and don't forget the Ohio Rules of Civil

procedures.

14. Time frame: Writ of Mandamus vs. Common Appeal Process.

15. (PSLWC) vs. Statue of limitation, Res Judicata,

16. (PSLWC) vs. The Discretionary (Motions) vs. The Mandatory (Notices)

17. (PSLWC), ansound mind vs. (Working Class), sound minds.

Respecifully submitted,

Torrance3182 Werk Rd #2Cincinnati, Ohio 45211(513) 541-8522(513) 290-5445Phattoe4 _Yahoo.com

AFFIDAVI'I' OF PETITIONER SAINT TORRANCIi

STATE OF OH(O }}SS

COUNTY OF HAMILTON }

Saint Torrance, being duly affirmed on my oath, say that the Petitioner, Saint Torrance

in the above referenced action this emergency injurictive & declaratory motions for relief

and a Writ of Mandamus is that all facts there in this Writ against a the Honorable Judge

Ralph E. Winkler, the judge opinion has made the Judge bias, prejudice and it opinion on

a public docket has perceived Petitioner to he a vexatious litigation which is not rue and

very damaging to my career as a Pro Se Litigant and any other future cases Petitioner

may file in the future, Petitioner is a "special class" under the ADA, and the Protected

Class with conditions with many jobs as Disabled Veteran, Business Man, Pro Se

Litigant, Petitioner is still currently with VA Hospital under treatment and been under

treatment ever since 1991, also verified through this mandamus record is of my own

knowledge and are true and con•cct. In addition there is a total of four Exhibits attached

to this writ of mandamus, Exhibits #l, d#2, #3 are Entries and one given by Judge Ralph

E. Winkler dated May 20, 2009 and no conclusion of law attached, and not ruling from

the judge which is a catch 22 as to whom suppose to be doing due process or equal

protection to a (PSLWC), (PCWC), this court has placed this game of bait and switch the

law with a(PSL,WC) (PCWC), this Petitioner, playing, delaying, tormenting, torturing a

Pro Se Litigant, with conditions (PSLWC) does not excuse a judicial officers to

supersede a Petitioner with conditions and protected specially under the ADA and one

conditions as a (PCWC), is violation before due process & equal protection clause can

even begin to surface for any defense from Respondent or trial (Judge E. Winkler) court

of there own, in office, sworn in, and under oath when swoo in, and du)ies to protect a

(PSLWC) and (PCWC).

Saint Tomance

SUBSCRIBI:D AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON I'H[S JULY 15, 20Q9.

Notary Public, State of Ohio

CERTIFICATE OF NOTICE OF WIRT OF MANDAMUS

Petitioner will notify counsel for Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. that Petitioner is seeking an

emergency lnjunetive & declaratory relief of this Writ of Mandamus for these Motions

and the Injunction for this. Writ ofMandamus, and will send a copy of this emailcd to the

following:

Andrew A, ConroyP.O. Box 31793Independence, Ohio 44131Andrew.conroyCa)sbcelobal.net

int Td


I hereby wi(1 send a true copy of this Motion to the Defendant attorney on July 27, 2009

by email to VISI attorney as following:

Andrew A, ConroyP.O. Box 31793Independence, Ohio 44131Andrew.conroy.(ir^,sbeglobal.net

Patricia M. Clancy - Clerk of Courts Page 1 of I

You Am Not Cunently Logged In. Lop In Here

irections I Policies I Sitemap

Hamilton County Courthouse1000 Main Streetincinnati, OH 45202

♦ Home A Court Records + Court Date • Forms i Services j Dirieion Info

Case Summary Case Options

CaseNumber: AOBD2495 Case History

Case Caption: SAINT TORRANCE vs. VEHICLE INFORMATION SERVICES INCCase SchedulesCase Documents

Judge: RALPH E iMNKLER Party/Attorney lnformation

Filed Dete:

Case Typo:

911112009

H700 - OTHER CIVIL

Certified Mai7 Servlce

New Case SearchNew Narne Search

Total Deposits: $0.00 Add Case to My PonfolioTotal Costsc $241,20

Case Schedutes

Status Date Time Locatian Judge Action

Aalve 8/1172009 08:45 AM H.C. COURT HOUSE ROOM 360 RALPH E IMNKLER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

AQlye 5112/2009 08:30 AM H.C. COURT HOUSE ROOM 360 RALPH E WINKLER CMC INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT

About the Clerk I FAQ I Links I Directions I Policies t Contact Us I Site Map

Alternate an u s: Deutech i EspaRol { Francais S Italiano

@ 2009 Patrlcia M. Clancy, Hamilton County Clerk of Courts. All rights reserved.

http://www.courtchrk.org/case_summary.asp?see=sched&casenumber=A0902495 7/25/2009

RULE 16. Pretrial Procedure

In any action, the court may schedule one or more conferenees before trial to accomplish

the following objectives:

(1) The possibility of settlement of the action;

(2) The simplification of the issues;

(3) Itemizations of expenses and special damages;

(4) The necessity of amendments to the pleadings;

(5) The exchange of reports of expert witnesses expected to be called by each party;

(6) The exchange of medical reports and hospital records;

(7) The number of expert witnesses;

(8) The timing, methods of search and production, and the limitations, if any, to beapplied to the discovery of documents and electronically stored information;

(9) 'fhe adoption of any agreements by the parties for asserting claims of privilege or forprotecting designated materials afier production;

(10) The itnposition of sanctions as authorized by Civ. R. 37;

(I1) The possibility of obtaining:

(a) Admissions of fact;

(b) Agreements on admissibility of documents and other evidence to avoidunnecessary testimony or other proof during trial.

(12) Other matters which may aid in the disposition of the action.

The production by any party of medical reports or hospital records does not constitute awaiver of the privilege granted under section 2317.02 of the Revised Code.

The court may, and on the request of either party shall, make a written order that recitesthe action taken at the conference. The court shall enter the order and submit copies to theparties. Unless modified, the order shall control the subsequent course of action.

Upon reasonable notice to the parties, the court may require that parties, or theirrepresentatives or insurers, attend a conference or participate in other pretrial proceedings.

F1"1

Patricia M. Clancy - Clerk of Courts

ClancyClerk of Courts

Case Summary

Case Number: A 0902495

CaseCaption: SAINT TORRANCE vs. VEHICLE INFORMATION SERVICES INC

Judge: RALPH E VJINKLER

Ftled Date: 3/1112009

CaseType: H700-OTHERCNIL

Total Deposits: $ 0.00

Total Co5t5: $ 241.20

Page t of I

YouAre Not Cunentiy Logged In. Loo In Here

Directions i Policies I Sitemap

®

A Services A Division Info

incinnati, OH 45202

SE/•RCH

r Hamilton County Courthouse1000 Main Street

Case History

Doc Image# Date Description

(§] 6124/2009 PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

PLAINTiFF MOTION FOR SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION AND TOAS 6/18Y2009 VACATE VOID JUDGMENT AND MOTION FOR STAY BEFORE APPEAR

ANDlOR ALTERNATIVE FOR MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT

MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION OF AND FACTS AND CONCLUSION OF5/29f2009 LAW OF DISMISSAL BASED ON RULE 12(8)(8) AND INDIGENT (FORMA

PAUPERIS)STATUS

512112009 NOTICE OF APPEALABLE JUDGMENTSENT BY ORDINARY MAIL TO ALLPARTIES REQUIRED BY IAW.

FINAL ENTRY DISMISSING CASE AND FINDING PLAINTIFF NOTI^1 5120J2009 INDIGENT

^j. 516l2009 PLAINTIFF MOTION IN OPPOSITfON TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO

DISMISS

1%

DEFENDANT, VEHICHLE INFORMATION SERVICE, INC.'S MOTION TO4/1312008 DISMISSPLAINTIFF'SCOMPUliNTPURSUANTTOOHIORULESOFCNIL

PROCEDURE 12(8)(6) AND 12(B)(3), OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR ADEFINITE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 12(E)

ELECTRONIC POSTAL RECEIPT RETURNED, COPY OF SUMMONS &3l23/2009 COMPLAINT DELIVERED TO VEHICLE INFORMATION SERVICES INC ON

0311e708, FILED. [CERTIFIED MAIL NBR.: 7194 5168 6310043727391

3118/2009 JUDGE ASSIGNED CASE ROLLED TO WNKLER/RALPHIE PRIMARY

[a] 3112l2009 SUMMONS ISSUED BY CERTIFIED MAIL TO VEHICLE INFORMATIONSERVICES INC

3112/2009 CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE ISSUEOTO VEHICLE INFORMATIONSERVICES INC [CERTIFIED MAIL NBR.: 7194 5168 63100937 2739]

.^ 31tt/2009 PLAINTIFF INDIGENT FOR COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

3/1172009 COMPLAlNT& JURY DEC.IAND FILED

3/11/2009 NODEPOSITREQUIRED-POV.AFF.SAlNTTORRENCE

3111/2009 CLASSIFICATION FORM FILED.

Case Options

Case HiBtory

Case Schedules

Case Documents

DoCument Re4uesl Form

Party/Attorney Information

Certirietl Mail Service

New Case Search

New Name Search

Add Case lo My Portfolio

I

About the Clerk I FAQ ( Llnks I Directions I Polides I Contact Us I Site Map

Altemate Igge : Oeutsch ( espanol I Francais I Italiano

© 2009 Patricia M. Clancy, Harnllton County Clerk of Courts. All rights reserved.

0.00

Zka

Printer Friendty Version

Amount

http://www.courtclerk.orgtcase_sutnmary.asp?sec=history&casenumber=A0902495 7/26/2009

COPY OF ENTRY FILED

MAY 2 0 2009 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

HAMILTON COUNTY OHIO

SAINT TORRANCE, . CASE NO. A0902495

V.

f'LAIN'fIFF JUDGE RALPFi E. WINKLER

VEHICLE INFORMATION SERVICE; INC., FINAL ENTRY DISMISSINGCASE AND FAVDING PLAINTIPF

DEFENDANT NOT INDIGEN'I'

T'his matter has come bcfore the Court on Defendant's motion to dismiss theclaims of the plaintiff. For good cause shown, the motion to dismiss the plaintifPs claims isgranted. All claims of the plaintiff are hereby disniissed. In addition, it is ttre opinion of theCourt that Planrtiff is engaging in vexatious Iitigation as defined by Ohio Revised Code and risk8sanctions by the Court if this conduct continues in fiuther court actions. Finally, the Court findsthat the plaintiff is not indigent as evidenced by the three differcnt vehicles owned andreferenced by the plaintiff in his complaint. Plaintiff must pay all costs and fees associated withthis frivolous lawsuit. So ordered this twentietli day of May, 2009.

0

THEVIWW^NOTISETO PARTIES PUiiSUAMT TO CIVILF1ULE 58 WHICH SHALL BE TAXEDAS COSTS HEREI6d:.... . . ... .

6Y

IN THE COURT OF APPEALSFIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, ex rel.SAINT TORRANCE,

Relator,

vs.

HON. JUDGE RALPH E. WINKLER,Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas,

Respondent.

CASE NO. C-o9o525

A0az'tsr

ENTRY GRANTING MOTIONTO DISMISS MANDATORYEMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEFAND/OR DECLARATORY RELIEFOF NOTICE OF WRIT OFMANDAMUS (SIC)

This cause came on to be considered upon the mandatory emergency

injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief of notice writ of mandamus (sic) and upon

the respondent's motion to dismiss the petition.

The Court finds that the motion to dismiss is well taken and is granted.

The mandatory emergency injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief of notice

writ of mandamus is dismissed.

To The Clerk:

pl^^^l^^^{IEnter upon t^e,*urnal of the Court on AUG 2 6 2009 per order of the court.

By: (Copies sent to all counsel)Presiding Judge

IN TI-IB SLIPREME COURT OF OH10

SAINT' TORRANCLi

RELATOR

VS.

CASF., NO.

SUPREMF, CASE NO. PENDINGHONORABLE JUDGF COAFADO CASE NO. C0900525

RALPH F. WINKLER 2^ 2 CP CASE NO. A0902495

AND

PATRICIA M. CLANCYDIRECTORCLERK OF COLTR'I'S1000 MAIN STCINCINNATI, OHIO 45202

VEHICL)::INI'ORMATION SF.RViCFSINC.$46N. CLEVENLAND-MASSILLON AI)BA`3'II, 01110 44333

RFSPONDFNTS.

: SUI'FitvlE COJ12T CASE NO. PF'NOING

NFW SUPR^MF, CASL<ti. ^v.

')1'1'f

MANDA"i'ORY J OU I(;iAL NOTICE ANI)P ^PIA^P6sI9I^Uk tt"bs.I M761tn

NOTICP OF WRI1' OF MANDAMUS, PROIII3ITION, PEREMPTORY, QUOWARRANTO & ALL WRITS TITAT APPLIES FOR PATRICIA M.CLANCY &

VEHICLE INFORMATION S(3RVICL;S INC.

&

NOTICE OP RI;TALIA"I"ION (I F:,lX. TALIONIS) OF JUOICIAI, OFFICER RAt:Pti F.WINKLER

&

NO"I'ICL TO CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MORE INJURY TO A (PCWC)&

NOTICE FOR RF INJURY TO A(PCWC) ANll CONT1'1'UT1ONAL VIOLATIONS

& COMPENSATORY AND PTTNITIVE DAMAGES, INDEFINITE PROTECTIVT~,ORDER

Relator, Saint Torranee coInes before this triai (Supreme Court) court pursuant to

the Honorable Judge Ralph E. Winkler in Case No. A0902495 in ST. Torrance vs.

Vehicle InliA-mataiou Rerviccs Iue a Notice of a Form of Retaliataon occurred on this

case and another ease involving Relator, Saint'1'orrance in ST. Torrance vs. Ali NI Altai

Ilook Fislr & Chicken Inc., C'ase No., A0940952 A E'orni of Disnaissai without proper

notice, for a heaiing on August 5, 2009, and alread.y having Wiits arid Affidavit of

Uisqualification, Pe:nding in tlre Supreine Court of Ohio, would give reason for

Retaliation but could re injury, cause datnages to a prutected class (PCWC) by other co-

conspirators in a form cal.ied "illegal:judicial tactics" through a fiinar of "deception by

procedures" by continuing to perfor•nr judicial duties now, in office with Judge Ralph E.

Winkler, wlsen in thii ("3JIku'T') Rules of Civil 1>roceduAvs was not followed by the trial

(Judge Ralph E. Winkler) cou2t, and in S 1'. Torrance vs. AIi M. Alhai, Hook Fish &

Chicken, Iaxc., case Plaintiff filing for a T?efault Judgment after a hearing with Mabistrhte

Michael T.,. Bachman on a Default Judginent that was not granted or documented qr fited

on the doclcet bT, the trial (Judge Ralplr E. Winlder) court, thi5 "illegal,judicial tactics"

established a Subject-Matter Jurisdiction issue with a "Vacate Void Juslgment"frled ou 6-

1$-2009, in this case with ("VISI") constituti9nal violation begin on a trial (Judge Ralph

E. Watalder) couxt and was not iust regulzn• "iilegal judicial tactics' it became intentionai

against a (PCWC).

PATRICIA M. CLANCY

1. On 3-l 1-2t109, Plaintiff=Reltitcir filed a indigentstatus and in all my crnnp7aint beurg

on a f xed ineorne I came tscross to many US Constilutional violation at the tinle of all my

complainll did not have the money to file but was force to pay'far iiling fces, court case

and ran intsr some `illegal judicial ta.ctics" that bas been going on to long and just woke

up too another tactics that cause also played a part in inducing a ttardslrip on a(k'C.WC)

through judicial Officers of this oourt tclling rr3e that they need money and did not know

it caused me niore4 irrjury to myself, without not one judicial Officers following the law

in all tny case nrakes a out for a racketeering claims and all other claims deena necessary

for there actions.

2, 1 rcceivecl on 9-1-2909 about (4) different expenses reports of money owe to the

Ffamilton County Clerk of Courts and I very srire and ware lhat: every one knows that

Saint ToL7•ance ba.s a lot of Writ of Mandamus, Probihition, Perenxpto.iy, and this new one

after a-escarehing a little more and with my (PCWC) j ust starting understand these Writs.

And other deer-ros action a Relator can take for tlrese tlS L:onstitu6ionai.Rights violations.

(See Exhibit# 1,2,3,4) totaling about $661.70, this expense is clue to trial (Judge Ralph E.

Winkler) court not followiul; procedures and was placed in the Court of Appeals, First

Appellant District of Oliio and the Six Justices, w,ith Jndge Lisa C. Allen, Judge Jerorne

Metz, J.r, Ralph L. Winkler aud the recent one chat was placed in the Supreme Court of

Ohio Judge Lisa C. Aitcn, All Justices in-the Courts of Appeals, First Appellant of Olrio

and a couple other Respondents.

VT?IITCI.E TNFORM^"CIt3NS SE VTR CFS INC

3. Palintiff-Relator, had gotten in eontact with this cornpany to reeeivc n1y three vehicles

appraised for nry company the Last church of Israel, Inc., and receive nasty

renrarks, rudeness and becoming un profez':sional, and request that there license be talcen

and can not do business in dhio with a Indefinite Order, based on there actiolv5 towards a

protected class with conditions, show that your business world also need policing big

time too, because law regulate;s it.

4. Respondent ("V iSI") also does business with the public and just shown a bias,

prejudice, tornienting, torturing, aggravation, re in jury to what the world calls a(3`1

Class Citizen). For the Relator to feel equal, protected, treated with tbe utniost respect of

the declaration of Tndependence stating that all men cit-ated equal and tha man thinles

different shall be stripped of his garrnent and made non whole because of his oenm brother

of color but with conditions.

RuTa1:or request a All Writs to a1l Respondents a.nd US Constitutional vio

racketeering clainis and Conspiracy Claings and all other Acts laws decm necessary to the

fullest of the laws and Compensatoryand PunitiveDamages

Respectfully subniitted,

Saint TQrruice '-3182 Werk Rd #2Cincinnati, Ohio 45211(513) 541-8522(513) 290-5445I' lm^rtq0 jir?Yalioo,ec rTi

APFIDAVI'1' OF SAIN i' TORRAAICE

STA1'E OF OHIO })SS:

COUNTY OF HAMTLTON )

1 Saint Torrance, comes now being duly aftirmed tinder oath to these "All Writs, with

Expedited Elections, US Constitutiomlal Violations, Notice to Conspiracy, Notice of Re-

injury to a Protected Class with Conditions (PCWC) US Consfitutit+nal violations,

Compensatory and Punitive Datxaagcs and a reserved the rights that a trial by jury of my

peers meaning the disabled, handicap, retarded aiad the babies, and elders against this

person Honorable Judge Ralph E. Winkler, Patricia M, Clancy, Vehicles Tnformation

Services lnc. +>n this Complaint, any oiher "Judicial Oiiicer" of all, and any courts,

corporation and persons attempt tcay retaliation acts will also be dealt with severely as

these two in this Complcint for ignorance and crossing the law witb arty illegal bu,siness,

law tactics done in the Complaint and Filed to the Supreme Cotut of Ohio against Duke

Energy Ohio, Ine, F'iith'I`hird Bankand HStJC Auto Finanee, Inc still pendiiil; a case

nurnber, for Relator whoin is a (PCWC) and don't fully uncierstand the Complaint

procedure.s but found to tnany unconstitutional wiolations for equal protection & due

process of the tJS constitutional based on Affidavits, Certiticate of Service should not

hold up a(PCWC) fbr a sitnple case nunzber, ftrst, and then the Clerk of Courts, can issue

a simple nuurber, and wait to send the Conlplaint, out when the Relator a (PCWC) can

understand wittsout no help but should have bc;en help in the Rules of Practice and Civil

Procedures and books for the (PCWC) too, these Affidavits, requirenrents, comes now,

Relator, is the property of, and a Oluoiau, of'the State ofOhio. `I'his personal knowledge,

facts, and evidence attaclied to this Complaint is sufficient and the Relator, is Affiant to

stand competent being a (PCWC) to iestify to all matters and reserved the rights iffiailed

to miss sotne other law that also seen sufficient for the Relator, to not know, but the

Mandatory ludicial &.Adrninistrative Notice and Authorities will be very efCcienl to do

equal protection & due process rights under the US Constitutional rights given too all and

for a (PCWC) too.

PRAY FOR RELTRI'

Relator request all rights and request for All Writs to apply, Expedited Eleetions, US

Constitutional Violations of the 14"' anicndmentartd al ameadment.s that applies, a

Continuing Mandamus, for the twenty (20) years of failed services in I-lamilton County

Couithouses delaying a (PCWC), Compensatory and Punitive Damages for this case atid

reserve the law with case laws of Saint 1'oarance vs. whom, else in 1-lamilton County

Courthouses, a,nd'ni the Suprenie Coui2 of Olrio and the Supreme Court of The United

States too. Relator, reserves his ril;ltts to a jr[fy trial of my peers consisting of the

disabled, Iiandicap, Retarded, babies, elders that did not have there IJS Constitutional

rights on the jury stand as a equal citizen which was always a 3`j class citizen. fn this

situation of settleinent efforts the amount for the procediral deiay and issues

Compensatory in the aniount of 700,000.00 and ali US i;onstitutional vioiations in the

punitive damages in the anaount of 12,000,000.00 and ifaiot scitled fur this amount

reserved the right foriury ofmy peers and what every given frotn the_jury without

tampering with from and helper, guarcfian, representative agendas will be necessary for a

amount requested from Relator, or better given from thc,juiy oI'my peers.

SUBSCRIBED AN[) SWRON TO BEFORE MG ON TTIIS M'`t'LMBFR 20, 2009

My commission Expires:

Ai''aIGAiL fVj`,̀Ol')EMl}S{Votuy!'ublic, 5iato of Ohio

My Crmrniasian Expirer&iptembee 96, 2090

CASE NUMSER m A 0900952

TODAY'0 DATLO'08/12/2009 ^ Page 1

TODAY'S TIM$: 09e35 CMSR5153----------------- .____-___--____---_--________-__--____-____-_-_-____--_________

T H I S I S A D I L I, T N G

biY*****wwwx*rt********xkw*****N********#*M*xx**kww**#ww#*x*#x##*@*xxwrt******

YOU ARE LIABLE FOR THE ABOVE COSTS. WILL YOU KINDLY GIVE THIS YOUR

IMMEDIATE ATTL?NTION AND OBLIGE. ANY ERRORS SHOULD BE REPORTED AT ONCF,.

BRING THIS STATEMENT WITH YOU

OR RETURN WHF.N REMITTING BY MAIL.

YOURS VLRY TRULY,

PATRICIA M. CLANCY,

CLERK OF COURTS

1000 MAIN ST. ROOM 315 CLERK OF COURTS

CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202

ATTN: COST DESK *PLEASE BE ADVISED TIIAT A JUDGMENT LIEN WILL BE FILED

PHONE: (513)946-5667 #'AGAINST YOU AND SL"NT TO THF PROSECUI'OR'S

*OFFICE FOR COLLECTION IF THIS BILL IS NOT PAID *

Please Pay Thio Amount =__> 238.50

A 0900952

SAINT TORRENCE

3182 WERK RD

#2CINCINNATI OH 45211

CASE NUMBER r A 0900952

TODAY'S,DAT£e'08/12/2009 Page 2

TODAY'S TIME. 09t35 CM8R5153------------------------------ ___________________________________________

,CASE NUMBER : A 0900952 LAST ACTIVITY DATE: 08/07/2009

SAINT TORRENCE vS. ALI M ALHAJ FILING DATE: 01/30/2009

FILING < C372 OTHER TORT- VEHICLE ACCIDENT- TAXED IN COSTS

CURRENT JUDGE 218 RALPH E WINKLER ASSIGN DATT•.': 02/04/2009

PREVIOUS JUDGE

DISPOSITTON: 3 DISMISSAL

NOTE

IMAGE: DATE:O6/06/2009

# OF NOTIFICATIONS : 3 TOTAL APPLIED COSTS: 00.00

ARBITRATION :

CONSOLIDATED :

COST APPLICATION DATE

LAST BILLING DATE

GARNISHMENT :

P A R T Y

DEPOSIT NOTION FLAG

R E F E R E N C E

N

___...----------- _____..-__________..___--___________-.._________.._____________

STATIIS PARTY PARTY NAME ATTORNEY NUMBER/NAME

DATE NBR ADDRESS ADDRESS____----------------- .---------------- -------- _

A 01-30-2009 D-1 ALI M ALHAJ5436 FINNICK AVE

CINCINt.IATI ON 45212

A 01-30-2009 P -2 HOOK FISH & CHICKEN iNC

5000 READING RD

CINCINNATI OH 45237

A 01-30-2009 P -1 SAINT TORRENCE3182 WERK RD

#2CINCINLSATI OR 45211

Z9997 PRO SE

^.,-. D O C R E T E N T R I E S_--.._____________________..-------------------------------- ..____.._____--_____-__

DOC ENT DOCK ENTRY IMAGE DOCRET DESCRIPTION/ ANBR TYP CODE DATE NIIMBER - DOCKET COMMENT AMOUNT P______________________________________________________--_--_________-_-_________

84620475 F BILL 8-12-2009 BILLED; 238.50 SAINT

84560984

._ ,D NS

.8-07-2009

TORREN.CE

NOTICE OF APPEALABLE

.7UDGMENT SENT BY ORDINARY

MAIL TO ALL PARTIES

REQUIRED BY LAW.

84560355 D NC 8-06-2009 NOTIFICATION COST. 6,00 N

84560353 D KD 8-06-2009 ENTRY OF COURT ORDERED

DISMISSAL

3.00 N

84243103 JRMC 7-14-2009 CERT'IPICATE OF REGULAR MAIL

FILED. HOOK FISH & CHICKEN

INC

84243102 JRMC 7-14-2009 CERTIFICATE OF REGULAR MAIL

FILED. SAINT TORRENCE

84229592 D FP 7-14-2009 PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST

ALI M- ALHAJ

2,00 N

84217788 D FMD 7-14-2009 MAGISTRATE'S DECISION. COPY

OF MAGISTRATE'S DECISION

SENT BY ORDINARY MAIL TO

ALL PARTIES OR THEIR

ATTORNEYS AS INSTRUCTED PER

PRAECIPE.

2.00 N

84206777 D MAIB 7-14-2009 REGULAR MAIL SERVICE ISSUED

TO HOOK FISH & CHSCKEN INC

1.00 N

CASE NUMBER = A 0900952

TODAY'SDATEe' 08/12/2009 , - Page 3

TODAY'S TIME; 09,35 CMSR5153

D O C K E T E N T R I E S

DOC

NSR

ENT DOCK

TYP CODE

ENTRY IMAGE DOCKET DESCRIPTION/ A

DATE NUMEER DOCKET COMMENT AMOUNT P-------------------------------- _-_.---------- ..._.^-_-;-- ------..__---------84206776 D MAIB 7-14-2009

:REGULAR MAIL SERVICE ISSUED 1.00 N

83B60511 D FXM 6-15-2009

TO SAINT TORRENCE

PLAINTIFF MOTION TO VACATE 6.00 N

442368 %M 13-2009

THIS DEFAULT JUDGMENT

HEARING PURSUANT

SURJUECT-MATTER

JURISDICTION IS LIMITED AND

NOT GENERAL JURISDICTION

PER'IAINING TO PLAINTIFF

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

BECOMES VACATE VOID

JI7DGMENT FOR DELAY OB DUE

PROCESS

PLAINTIFF 14OTION POR 00 N

83202751 D FF 4-27-2009

SERVICE TO DF.FENDANTS FOR

DP•.FAULT JUDGMENT IIEARING

PLAINTIFF SUPPLEMENT MOTION 6-00 N

82668579 D Fh'.M 3-16-2009

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITH

DAMAGES

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR 4.00 Id

82548118 JI2MC 3-12 --2009

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

CERTIFICATE OF REGULAR MAIL

82530668 D SUMD 3-12-2009

FILED- ALI M ALHAJSUMMONS ISSUED BY REGULAR 4.00 N

82530667 D MAIB 3-12-2009

MAIL TO ALI M ALHAJ

REGULAR MAIL SERVICE ISSUED 1.00 N

82530658 D WRAB 3-11-2009

TO ALI 61 ALHAJ

WRITTEN REQUEST FOR REGULAR 1.00 N

82407777 D FP 3-04-2009

MAIL SERVICE OP SUMMONS AND

COMPLAINT ON ALI M ALHAJ

POSTAGE 0-50 N

82407776 D FLSB 3-04-2009 NOTICE TO SAINT T'ORRENCE AS 2.00 N

TO UNCLAIMED SERVICE ON ALT

M ALHAJ SERVICE TYPE:

CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE

REASON CODE: UIdCLAIMED

[CERTIFIED MAIL NSR.: 7194

5166 6310 0429 8596182006972.._.JP.RF 2-09-2009 ELECTRONICPOSTALRECEIPT

RETURNED, COPY OF SUMMONS &

COMPLAINT DELIVERED TO HOOK

FISH & CHICKEN INC ON

02/05/09, FILED. [CERTIFIEDMAIL NHR.: 7194 5168 6310

0429 8602182018642 245 2-04-2009 JUDGE ASSIGNED CASE ROLLED

TO WINKLER/RALPH/E PRIMARY

82005838 D FF 1-30-2009 PLAINTIFF AFFIDAVIT FOR

INDIGENT

3.00 N

81985922 D SUMA 2-02-2009 SUMMONS ISSUED BY CER1'IFIED

MAIL TO 3fOOK FISH & CHICKEi.d

INC

4.00 N

81985921 D MAIA 2-03-2009 CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE

ISSUED TO IiOOK FISH &

7.00 N

CHICKEN INC [CERTIFIED MAIL

NBR.r 7194 5168 6310 0429

8602]81985913 D SUMA 2-02-2009 SUMMONS ISSUED BY CERTIFIED

MAIL TO ALI M ALHAJ

4.00 N

81985912 D MAIA 2'03-2009 CER1'IFIED M1tAIL SERVICE 7.00 N

ISSUED TO ALI M ALIfAJ

[CERTIFIED MAIL NBR.: 7194

5168 6310 0429 85961

CASE NUNRER = A 0900952

.TODAX'S^DATE:' 08/12/2009 Page 4

TODAY'S TIME: 09:35 CMSR5153--------------- ._______--.___--_--_-__-__-----__--_--_.,.._----_-_-__-_____-_---_

D O C K E T E N T R I E S

---------------- --------------------------------------------------------------

Doc ENT DOCK ENTRY IMAGE DOCKET DESCRIPTION/ A

NSR TYP CODE DATE NUMEER DOCKET COMMENT AMOUNT P------------------- ___._-_--_____----_-__-_-----_-._-._-___-__---_--...

81961.641 D COMP 1-30-2009 COMPLAINT FILED 18.00 N

81961640 D SPFT 1-30-2009 SPECIAL PROJECTS FEE PER

ENTRY 2/9./02 IMAGE 147;

50-00 N

M-0200002

61961639 D POST 1-30-2009 POSTAGE: COST DESK 2.00 N

81961638 D LAAT 1-30-2009 O.R.C. SECTION2303.201 26.00 N

61961637 D FCF 1-30-2009 CLASSZFICATION FORM FILE1). 1.00 N

81961636 D CMPT 1-30-2009 COURT MEDIATION PROGRAM FEE

PER ENTRY 8/3/99 IMAGE 164;

25.00 N

81961635 D CLRT 1-30-2009

M-9900002.COMPUTER LS'GAL RESEARCH 3.00 N

81961634 D CLKA 1-30-2009 CLERK FEE FOR EACH CAUSE 25.00 N

81961633 D CCAT 1-30-2009 COURT AUTOMATION 6.00 N

81961632 D C 1-30-2009 COt1RT INDEX: TAXED IN COST 14.00 N

81961631 P TICF 1-30-2009 TAXED IN COSTS - FILING

SAINT TORRP•,NCE

0.00 Y

Total Deposits 0.00Total Costa 238.50

Total Credits 0.00Total Money Out 0.00

Unapplied Deposits : 0.00Unapplied Costs : 230.50

---------------------------------- .--__--__---_-__----_.,_--_.---_----.._____-_-----

Aocount Acconnt Name Amount Amount Applied

----------------- ------------- - ----------- -----------------------------------------

2000-0132 COURT INDEX 14.00 0.00

2000-0211 CLERK FEES 95.00 0-00

2000-0273 SPECIAT, PROJECTS FUND 50.00 0.00

2000-0275 COURT MEDIATION PROGRAM 25.00 0.00

2000-0278 COMPUTERIZED LEGAL RESEARCH 3.00 0.00

2000-0279 COURT AUTOMATION 6.00 0.00

2000-0752 POSTAGE 19.50 0.00

2000-0804 0.R-C. SECTION 2303.201 26.00 0.00----------------------_--__---_--__

238.50 0.00

_-_--_----..------------------._--___-_--___,.___-__--_--_-__-------...-___

Please Pay This Amount e=oa 238.50---------------------------.__--__-___-_-__---_-.._---_-__---_-_-___-_---_--__-_--

CASE 11UL3BER = A 0902495

TODAY'S DATE: 07/23/2009 PageTODAY'S TIME: 07:58 ICNSR5153--------------- ---------- ----------------- ------------- ..,.,.-________--__

****s'*****tk4*#**M*Ye*R+R*ki********Y'A^t't**k******W***k****3.**kA**F**fv***k1F14*

T H I 9 I 9 A B I L L I N G}****+^"*****kkk***:fi1*}^t+****i:k*k**#V:k****MR+k****t;d1^M*x^t*ay.***}**i**h%***i,*

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT A JUDGMENT LIEN WILL BE FILED AGAINST YOU FOR

DELINQUENT COURT COSTS IN THE ABOVE CAPT.T,ONED CASE, YOU ARE FURTHER

ADVISED TIIAT THIS IS A LIEN AGAINST ALL REAL PROPERTY THAT YOU MAY OWN;

4ND MAY BS MADE THE SUBJECT OF F'URTIIER CIVIL ACTION, INCLUDING TIiE

ISSiJANCE OF E%ECUTION, LEVYING ON YOUR AUTOMOBILE OR OTBER PERSONAL

PROPERTY. UNLESS PAYMENT 1S MADE WITHING TEN (10) DAYS, ADDITIONAL

^OURT COSTS MAY RESULT. PLEASE RETI7RN THIS BTATEMEN'1' WHEN REMITTING

3Y MAIL.

.LERK OF COURTS THANK YOU,

1000 MAIN S1'. ROOM 315

=INCINNATI, OH 45202 PATRICIA M. CLANCY,

4TTN. COS9.' DE6K

PHONE: (513)946-5667 CLERK OB COURTS

Please Pay Thie Amount ===> 233.20--------------- ------------------- ---------------------------------

A 0902495

SAINT TORRANCE

31B2 WERK RD

#( 2CINCINNA7'I OH 45211


TODAY'S DATE: 07/23/2009 Page 2

TODAY'S TIME: 07:58 CMSR5153

i:ASE NUMBER : A 0902495

SAINT TORRANCE vg. VEHICLE INFORMATION SERVI

FSLING : H700 OTHER CTVIL

C:I7RRENT JUDGE : 218 RALPH E WINKLER

PREVIOUS JUDGE

LAST AC'1'IVITY DATE: 06/26/2009

FILING DATE: 03/11/2009

ASSIGN DATE: 03/T8/2009

DISPOSITION: 3 DISMISSAL IMAGE: DATE:05/20/2009

NOTE :

# OF NOTIFICATIONS : 2 TOTAL APPLIED COSTS; 00.00

ARBITRATION COST APPLICATION DATE

CONSOLIDATED : LAST BILLING DATE

GARNISHMEN7' :

P A R T Y

DEBOSIT MOTION

R E F E R E N C E

FLAG Y

------------------- ---------------------------------------------- ,.....--------_---

STATUS PARTY PARTY NAME ATTORNEY NOMBER/NAME

DATE NBR ADDRESS ADDRESS--------- ..------------------------------------- -------._ _

A 03-11.-2009 D-1 VEHICLE INFORMATION SERVICES

I NC846 N CLEVELAND-MASSILLON RD

BA'I'H OH 44333-2166

A 03-11-2009 P -1 SAINT TORRANCE3182 WERK RD42CINCINNATI OR 45217.

Z9997 PRO SE

D O C K 34 T E N T R I E S

--------- " ------"---------'-----_.._°--------_.----------------.._-_------------DOC ENT DOCK ENTRY IMAGE DOCKET DESCRSPTION/ A

NBR TYP CODE DATE NUHIBER DOCKET COMMENT AMOUNT P------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------

8435462S D 2NOL 7-23-2009 ****** NO'PICE OF LIEN_ *wswxx 233.20 SAINT TORRANCE

84354824 F BILL 7-23-2009 BILLED: 233.20 SAINT

TORRANCE

83997611 D FXM 6-24-2009 PLAINTIFF MO1'ION FOR FORMA 4.00 N

83926524 D FXM 6-18-2009

PAUPERIS STATUS

PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR

SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION

AND TO VACATE VOID JUDGMENT

AND MOTION FOR STAY BBFORE

APPEAR AND/OR ALTERNATIVE

FOR MOTION FOR LEAVE OF

COURT

4.00 N

8393.5320 F B1Z1. 6-22-2009 BILLED: 233.20 SAINT

TORRANCE

83644388 D FXM 5-29-2009 MOTIOId FOR CONSIDERATION OF

AND FACTS AND CONCLUSION OF

LAW OF DISMISSAL BASED ON

RULE 12(B)(6) AND INDIGENT

(FORMA PAUPERIS) STATUS

83496563 D NS 5-21-2009 NOTICE OF APPEALABLE

JUDGMENT SFNT BY ORDINARY

MAIL TO ALL PARTIES

REQUIRED BY LAW.

8347891.9 F 213 5-20-2009 ****** CLERK NOTATION

******w BILLED PLAINTIFF

PER JUDGMENT ENTRY

CASE NUMBER a A 0902495TODAY'S DATE: 07/23/2009 Page 3

TODAY'S TIME: 07:58 'CMSR5153------------------------------------------- ._"----------_--_--------'------_-_-__-

D O C K E T E N T R I E S----------- .------- ___.----------- .---------------------------------__-_---_-__-_..

DOC ENT DOCK

NBR TYP CODE

ENTRY IMA{ ,̀E

DATE NUMBER

DOCKET DESCRIPTION/

DOCKET COMMENT

A

AMOUNT P

----------- '------ ----- ---------- ._.----------------- .------------- `_- ---_-_ _

834'78909 F B1LL $-20-2009 BILLED: 233.20 SAIN'P

TORRANCE

83477751 D NC 5-20-2009 NOTIFICATION COST. 4.00 N

83477744 D KD 5-20-2009 FINAL EIJTRY DISMISSING

AND FINDING PLAINTIFF

INDIGENT

CASE

NOT

3.00 N

83317124 D FB 5-06-2009 PLAINTIFF MOTION IN 4.00 N

OPPOSITZON 'f'O DEFENDAN'1'SMOTION TO DISniISS

83076794 D EFAX 4-13-2009 *•*'***** ********z* 6.20 N

INCOMING FAX FEES DY DEFT

83076789 D FXM 4-13-2009

XXXBXXXY.3C

DEFENDANT, VEHICHLE

INFORMATION SERVICE, INC.'S

MO1'ION TO DISMISS

10.00 N

. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

2613078

82588921

45

JPRE

PURSUANT TO OHIO RULES OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(B)(6)

AND 12(E)(3), OR IN THE

ALTERNATIVE FOR A DEFINITE

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO RULE

12 (F.)3.1.8-2009 JUDGE ASSIGNED CASE ROLLED

TO WINKLER/RALPH/E PRIMARY

3-23-2009 ELECTRONIC POSTA7., RECEIPT

RETURNED, COPY OF SUMMONS &

COMPLAINT DELIVERED TO

VEHICLE INFORMATION "

SERVICES INC ON 03/16/09 ,FILED. [CERTIFIED MAIL

NBR,: 7194 5168 6310 0437

2739)82533116 D FF 3-11-2009 PLAINTIFF INDIGENT FOR

COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

1..00 N

82527659 D SUMA 3-12-2009 SUMMONS ISSUED BY CERTIFIED

MAIL TO VEHICLE INFORMATION

SERVICES INC

4.00 N

82527656 D MAIA 3-12-2009 CERTIFIED MAIASERVICE

7SSUED TO V.EHI:CLE

INFORMATIOIS SERVTCIiSINC

7.00 N


5168 6310 0437 2739782515589 D CP,TD 3-11-2009 COMPLPSNT & JURY DEMAND

FILED

42.00 N

82515588 D SPFT 3-11-2009 SPECIAL PROJECTS FEE PER

ENTRY 2/1/02 IMAGE 147;

50.00 N

M-0200002

82515587 D POST 3-1.1-2009 POSTAGE: COST DESK 2.00 N

82515586 D LAAT 3-11-2009 O.R.C- SECTION 2303.201 26.00 N

82515585 D FCF 3-11-2009 CLASSIFICATION FORM FILED. 1.00 N

82515584. 1.? CMPT 3-11-2009 COURT MEDIATION PROGRAM FEE

PER ENTRY 8/3/99 IMAGE 164;

25.00 N

M-9900002.

82515583 D CLRT 3-1.1-2009 COMPUTER LEGAL RESEARCH 3.00 N

82515582 D CLKA 3-7.1-2009 CLERK FEE FOR EACH CAUSE 25.00 N

62515581 D CCAT 3-11-2009 COURT AUTOMATION 6.00 N

82515580 D C 3-11-2009 COURT INDEX: TAXED IN COST 14.00 N

82515579 P NDRP 3-112009 NO DEPOSIT

RF.QUIRED-POV.AFF. SAINT

TORRENCE

0.00 Y



TODAY'S TIMES 07:58 CMSR53.53

TOl:3l âG=FOSit9 : 0,00

Tota7. Costs : 241.2oTotal. Credits : 0.00

Total Money Out : 0.00

Unapplied Deposits : 0,00Unapp.lied Costs : 241,20

------------------ _.-________,.-.____--___.__..--------------- ..____-________-.,....___

Account Account Name Amount Amount Applied

---------- -------------------------------- --'---___--..-_------_------------_.-_

2000-0132 COURT INDEX 14.00 0.00

2000-0201 INCOMING FAY. FEES 6.20 0,00

2000-0211 CLERK FEES 102.00 0.00

2000-0273 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 50.00 0.00

2000-0275 COURT MPDIATION PROGRAM 25.00 0.00

2000-0278 COMPUTER7ZED LEGAL RESEARC'II 3.00 0.00

2000-0279 COUR'1' AtJTOMATION 6.00 0_00

2000-0752 POSTAGE 9.00 0.002000-0809 O.H.C. SECTION 2303,201 26.00 0.00

..__________ __________________

241.20 0.00

_-__-_..--_-__-___-_.___________________________.._-_-________________-__..________.

Please Pay This Amount ===> 233.20-------------- ------------ - -------------- ------------ ------------------ --

I CASE NUMH&R = A 0902495

TODAY'S DATE: 08/31/2009 . Page 1

TODAY'S TIIME: 08:47 CMSR5153

*x*rr**xR*Srx+*r'trtk.Fkrr*k*k***kP'*r*xkktxx**r*4 *ktkxw,txx* *x*xx*. rrkkkxxx*kxk

T H I S I S A [5 I L L I N G

ix*hrxrxxk*xAxMk^YP*kxk'k*xx*i:ldiehRfi*xk*#wkkka.****kx#ix*wkxkxwax****r*i**k*Rk

YOU ARE LIASLE FOR THE ABOVE COSTS. WILL YOU KINDLY GIVE TlIIS YOUR

IMMBDIATE ATS'ENTION AND OBLIGE. ANY ERI2ORS SHOULD BE REPORTED AT ONCE.

BRING THIS STATEMENT WITII YOU YOURS VERY TRULY,

OR RETURN 4NiEN REMITTING BY MAIL.

PATRICIA M. CLANCY,

CLERI£ OF COURTS

1009 MAIN ST_ ROOM 315 CLERK OF COURTS

CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202

ATTN: COST DESK *PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT A JUDGMENT LIEN WILL GE FILEI)

PHONR: (51.3)946-5667 •AGAINST YOU AND SBN'I' TO THR PROSECUTOR'S

*OFFICE FOR COLLECTION IF THIS fiILL IS NOT PAIll *

Pleaso Pay Th1s Amount =_=> 233.20

A 0902495SAINT TORRANCE3152 WERK RD

#2CINCItINATI OIi 45211

CASE NUMBER m C 0900525

TODAY'S DATE': 00/31/2009 Pa9a 2

TODAY'S TIME: 08:46 CMSR5153

CASE NUMBER : C 0900525 LAST ACTIVI'I'Y DATE: 08/26/2009

SAINT TORRANCE Vs. HONORABLE RALPH E WINKLER FILING DATE: 07/27/2009

FILING

CURRENT JUDGE

PREVIOUS JUDGE

A110 WRIT OF MANDAMUS - PETITION

ASSIGN DATE:

NOTE

0. OF NOTIFICATIONS

ARBITRATION

CONSOL'IDATED

GARNISFIMEIdT

2 TOTAL APPLIED COSTS: 00.00

COST APPLICATION DATE

LAST BILLING DATE

DEPOSIT MOTION FLAG N

P A R T Y R E F E R E N C E------------------------ ---------------- __..------------- -_-__-____-_____

STATUS PARTY PARTY NAME ATTORNEY NUMBER/NAME

DATE NDR ADDRESS ADDRESS-------- ..------------------------------ -__-______-___-___-_______;--__-_ __ __

A 07-27-2009 A -1 SAINT TORRANCE Z9997 PRO SE

3182 WERK RD

#2CINCINNATI OH 4523.1

A 07-27-2009 E-7 HONORABLE RALPH P. WINKLER

1000 MAIN STREET

0360CINCINNATI OH 45202

D 0 C K E T E N T R I E S-_---__-__-_..-_-__-__-.___________________________________________________

DOC ENT DOCX ENTRY 1MAGE DOCKET DESCRXP'PION/ A

N8R TYP CODE DATE NUMBER DOCKET COMMENT AMOUNT P-_-_----_--_____________________________________________________________________

84864327 F BILL 8-31-2009 BII.,LED: 79.00 SAINT TORRANCE

B4807318 D NOJS B-26-2009 NOTICE OF.ORDER OR JUDGMENT

SENT BY.ORDINARY 14AIL TO

ALL PARTIES REQUIRED BY LAW.

84803007 D AEDD 8-26-2009 ENTRY.GRANTING MOTION TO 3.00 N

. . . DISMISS. KANDA'%4RY' EMERGENCYINJUNCTIVE-RELIEF AND/OR

DECLARATORY RELIEF OF

NOTICE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(SIC)

.84638400 D AM 8-13-2009 MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF

MANDATORY EMF.RGENCY

INJUNCTXVE RELIEF AND/OR


NOTICE WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

4.00 N

84445230 JPRE 8-03-2009 ELECTRONIC POS1'AL RECEIPT

RETURNED, COPY OF WRIT OF

MANDAMUS AND SUMMONS

DELIVERED TO HONORASLE

RALPH E WINiCLER ON

07/29/09, FILED. [CERTIFIED

MAIL NT3R.: 7194 5168 6310

0460 60561844124S4 U SUMA 7-28-2009 SUMMONS ISSUED BY CERTIFIED 4.00 N

MAIL TO HONORABLE RALPH E

WINKLER

CASE NUMBER = C 0900525


TODAY'S TIMEe 08:46 CMSR5153------------------------------- -------------- ------- ---------------------------

. D O C K E T E N T R I E S--------------------------- ....------------------------ _----_________,._-_----_--

DOC ENT AOCK ENTRY IMAGE DOCKET DESCRIPTION/ A

N8R TYP CODE DATE NUM9ER DOCItST COMMENT AMOUNT P---------- ------------------ ,..-----_....-______--_--_-_---_---___----_---______--

84412453D MAIA 7-28-2009 CERTII'lED MAIL S16RVICE 7.00 N

TSSUED TO IIOI4012AHLE RALPH E

WINKLER [CERTIFIED MAIL

NDR.: 7194 5168 6310 0460

6056184412445 D SOMA 7-28-2009 SUMMONS 7SSUED EY CERTIFIED

84412444 D MATA 7-28-2009

MAIL TO ANDREW C CONROY

CERTIFI,L'4) MAIL SERVICE

ISSI7ED TO ANDREW C CONROY

ICERTIPIEI) MAIL NBR.a 7194

5168 6310 0460 606318440044'7 DDDD 7-27-2009 COPY SENT BY ORDINARY MAIL

TO ANDREW A CONROY AND

JUDGE RALPH WINKLER

84400444 CCCC 7-27-2009 COMMON PLEr1S TRIAL COURT ft

A 0902495

4.00 N

7.00 N

84400412 D YT`MD 7-27-2009 PE'TSTION IN 14ANDAMUS FILED 0,00 Y

84400411 D POST 7-27-2009 POSTAGEc C.09'I' DESK 2,00 N

84400410 D CLRT 7-27-2009 COMPUTLR LEGAL RESEARCH 3.00 N

84400409 lll CLKA 7-27-2009 CLERK FEE F'OR EACH CAUSE 25.00 N

84400408 D CCAT 7-27-2009 COURT AUTOMATION 6,00 N

84400407 D C 7-27-2009 COURT INDEX: TAXED IN COST 14,00 N

84400406 P CAND 7-27-2009 NO DEPOSIT 0.00 y

REQUIRED-POV,AF'F. SAINT

TORRANCE

Total Deposits : 0.00

Total CoOts : 79,00

Total Csecti.t.s : 0,00

ToCal Money Out 0.00

Unapplied Deposite : 0.00Unapplied Costs : "79.00

_._,._______-.-.---- .,-..________________.._---__---_-_________..-_----__-__________-- .

Account Account Nasie AmQunt Antount Applied-------- ....______________.,..----------------------------- ..-------- .,-__-______-__-

2000-0132 COURT INDEX . J.4.00

2000-0211 CLERK FEES

2000-0278 COMPUTE$S'l,ED,.L$QAL RESEARC12

2000-0279 COURT AUTOMATION

2000-0752 POSTAGE

40.003..006 Oq

1.6-00__________________

79.00

0.000.000.000.000.00

------------------

0.00

Please Pay Thie Amount .G=> 79.00------ ------------------------------------------------- - --------------------------


TODAY'SnATE, 08/31/2009 Page 1

TODAY'S TIME: 08;36 CMSR5153----- -- ----------------------- - -------------------------------------------------

T I( I S 1 8 A B 1 I, L I N G***1Y*!***A***1*#*'k*i:'Y*******:*f*1:W.YMY**f[*4******kk*****i:*YY:A}*******[**i.'k**k

YOU ARE LIABLE FOR THE ABOVE C06TS. WILL YOU KINDLY GIVE THIS YOURIMMEDIATE A'T'TENTION AND OBLIGE. ANY ERRORS SHOULD HP•. REPORTED AT ONCE.

BRING THIS STATEMENT WITH YOU

OR RETURN WIdEN REMT1'TING BY MAIL.

YOURS VERY TRULY,

PATRICIA M. CLANCY,

CLERK OF COIIRTS1000 MAIN ST. ROOM 315 CLERK OB COURTS

CINCINNATT, OHIO 45202

ATTN: COST DESK *PLEASE BE A)7VISED THAT A JUDGMENT LIEN WILL BE F'ILED

PHONE: (513)946-5667 *AGAINST YOU ANb 3LNT TO THE PRO9ECUTOR'S

*OFFICE FOR COLLECTION 1:F '1'HI:1 RILL TS NOT BAID *

C 0900524

8ATNT TORRANCE

3182 WERK RD

#2CINCINNATI OH 45211

CASE NOAIBER = C 0900524


T'L1DAY'S TIME: 08s36 CMSR5153.,-.-____.._.-_____.._________________....-______-_____-...____._--__________________

CASE NUMBER : C 0900524 LAST ACTIVI'fX DATE: 08/26/2009

SAINT TORRANCE vS. HONORABLE DENNIS S HPLMIC FILING DATE: 07/27/2009

FTLING : A110 WRIT OF MANDAMUS - PETITION

CURRENT JUDGE ASSIGN DATE

PRRVIOUS J13DGE

DISPOSITION: EODC D1'SMISSAL IMAGE: DATE:08/26/2009

NOTE

H OF NOTIPICATIONS . 2 TOTAL APPLIED COSTS: 00.00..ARBITRATION : -- COST APPLICATION DATE

CONSOLIDATi?D LAST BILLING DAT6

GARNISEMENT DEPOSIT MOTION FLAG N

P A R T Y R E F E R E N C E----------- ._.._______.,______________________________________._.._________-..__-____

STATUS PARTY

DATE NBR

PARTY NAME

ADDRESS

ATTORNEY NUMBER/NAME

ADDRESS

----------------- . __--__-__..________________--___..-__-__-___-_._-__-__-_-_---

A 07-27-2009 A -1 SAINT TORRANCE

3182 WERK RD

'L9997 PRO SE

#k2CINCINNATI ON 45211

A 07-27-2009 E-1 HONORAf3LE DENN]:S S IIELMICK

1000 MAIN STREET

8510CINCINNATI OH 45202

D O C K E T E N T R I E S---------- ..------ ---------------- ..-.._-_____--..___..__________________..

DOC

NBR

ENT DOCK

TYP CODE

ENTRY IMAGE

DATE NDMEER

DOCKET DESCRIPTION/

DOCKET COMMENT

A

AMOUNT P

--------------------- .-________-_____-__-___.----------- .______--_--

84863733 F BILL 8-31-2009 BILLED: 111.00 SAINT

TORRANCE

84807317 D NOJS 8-26-2009 NOTICB OF ORDER OR JUDGMENT

SENT BY ORDINARY MAIL TO

ALL PARTIES REQUIRED BY.BAW.

84002835 D AEDP 8-26-2009 .EN'CRY QRAI$TING MOTION TO

DISMISS MANDATORY EMERGENCY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND/OR


NOTICE OF WRIT OF MANDAM17S

(SIC)

3.00 N

847B6520 D AY 8-25-2009 PETITIONER-RELATOR'S

MANDATORB JUDICIAL NOTICES

AND ("AUTI[ORITIES^)

OPPOSITION TO RESPONDI3NTS

MOTION TO DISMISS & NOTICE

OF 201 RULES OF EVIDENCE &

SUPPLEMENTAL PLEAUIN'GS FOR

A PROHIBITION, PEREMPTORY,

US & OHIO CONST3TUTIONAL

VIOLATIONS UF CIVIL RIGHTS

& INJUNCTIVE & OF.

5.00 N

DECLARATORY RELIEF, ADA

VIOLATONS TO A PROTECTED

&CLASS WITH CONDITIONSINDEPINIATE PROTECTIVE

ORDER AGAINST A (PCWC) &COMPENSAROTY AND PUNITIVE

DAMAGES

CASE NUMBER c C 0900524

TODAY'S DATE; 06/31/2009 Page 3

TODAY'S TIME: 08:36 CMSR5153------------------------------------ .---------------------------- -_____----___-

D O C K E T E N T R I E S------------------- ..---_--------_______--__-__-_.r..------ ---_---------

DOC ENT DOCK ENTRY IMAGE DOC&ET DESCRIPTION/ A

NBR TYP CODE DATE NUMBER DOCKET COMMENT AMOIINT P----------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------

84602033 U AP 811-2009 RELATOR SAINT TOEEANCE 15.00 N

MANDATORYNOTICE OF

DISABILITIES & CONDI'TIONS

OF A PRO1'E'CTED CLASS WITH

CONDITIONS (PCIdC) AND

STATUS AS A PRO SE LITIGANT

WITI3 CONDITIONS (PSLWC)

84547272 D AM 8-06-2009 MOTION TO DISMISS PLTF 5.00. N

MANDATORY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

AND/OR DECLARATORY RELIEF

OF NOTICE OF' WRIT OF

MANDAMUS AND MEMORANDUM IN

SUPPORT

84467.639 J'PRE 8-03-2009 ELECTRONIC POSTAL RECEIPT

RE'1'URNED, COPY OF WRIT OF


DELIVERPD TO ANGELA STEARNS

ON 07/30/09, FILED.

(CERTIFIED MAIL NBR.: 7194

5168 6310 0460 6049164461838 JPRE 8-03-2009 ELECTRONIC POSTAL RECF.TPT

RETITRNED, COPY OF WRIT OF


DELIVEREU TO JOY GAZAWAY ON

47/30/09, FILED, [CERTIFIED

MAIL NBR.: 7194 5160 6310

0460 6032184415229 JPRE e-03-2009 ELECTRONIC POSTAI, RECEIPT

RE'1'URNED, COPY OF WRIT OF


DELIVERED TO HONORABLE

DENNIS S HELMICK ON

01/29/09, FILEI). [CERTIFIED

MAIL NBR.: 7194 5168 6310

0460 6025]84412432 D SOMIi 7-26-2009 SUMMONS ISSUED BY CERTIFIED

MAIL TO IIONORABLE DGNNIS S

4.00 N

HELMICK

84412431 1) M4I$..7-28-2.049_ CERTIFIED MAIL, SERVIC$

ISSUED TO HONORABLE DENNIS

S NELMICK ICERTIFIED MAIL

7.00 N

NBR.: 7194 5160 6310 0460

6025184412421 D SUMA 7-26-2009 SUMMONS ISSUED BY CERTIFIED

MAIL TO ANGELA STEARNS

4.00 N


ISSUED TO ANGELA STEARNS

[CERTIFIED MAILNBR.: 7194

7.00 N

5168 6310 0460 6049]84412417 D SUMA 7-28-2009 SUMMONS ISSUED BY CERTIFIED

MAIL TO JOY GA7,AWAY

4.00 N


ISSUED TO JOY GAZAWAY


7.00 N

5168 6310 0460 6032]84400435 DDDD 7-27-2009 COPY SENT BY ORDINARY MAIL

TO MS JOY GAZAWAY, MS

ANGELA STEARNS AND JUDGE

HELMICK

84400433 CCCC 7-27-2009 COMMON PLEAS TRIAL COURT ]{

A 0901028



TODAY'S TIMEo 08:36 CMSR5153

D O C A E T E N T R I E S------------- ---------------------- -_--___-____-_____________.,___-______-__-____

DOC ENT DOCK ENTRY IMAGE DOCKET DESCRIPTION/ A

NBR TYP CODE DATE NUMBER DOCKET COMMENT AMOUNT P

84400399 D PTMD 7-27-2009

84400390 D POST 7-27-2009

84400397 D CLRT 7-27-2009

84400396 D C1,KA 7-27-2009

84400395 D CCAT 7-27-2009

84400394 D C 7-27-2009

84400393 P CAND 7-?,7-2009

PETITION IN MANDAMUS FIL}D 0.00 Y

POSTAGE: COST DESK 2.00 N

COMPtITER LEGAL RESEARCH 3.00 N

CLERK FEE FOR EACH CAUSE 25.00 N

COURT AUTOMATION 6.00 N

COURT INDEX: TAXED IN COST 14.00 N

NO DEPOSTT 0.00 Y

REQUIRED-POV.AFF. SAINT

TORRANCE

1`otal Deposits o 0.00

Total Costs : 7.11-00

Total Ciedit5 0-00

Total Money Out = 0.00

Unapplied Deposits 0.00

Uliapplied Costs 111.00

Account Account Name Amount Amount Applied

2000-07.32 COURT INDEX 14.00 0.002000-0211 CLERK FEES 65100 0.002000-0278 COMPUTERIZi:ID LEGAL RESEARCH 3.00 0.002000-0279 COURT AUTOMATION 6.00 0.002000-0752 POSTAGE 23.00 0.00

_.._.._____________111.00 0.00

Please Pay Thie Amount >__> 111.00

114 THE COURTS OF APPEALSFIRST DISTRICT OF OHIO

I4AMI1,TON COUNTY, OHIO

SAINT TORRANCE3182 WERK RD #2,CINCINNATI, OHIO 45211

PETITIONER,

HONORABLEJUDGE JEROME J. METZ ^1000 MAIN ST COURI7iOUSE #380CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202

RESPONDENT.

C09W-4( 9Case No. A0902496

GOURt 0 pP^pS

AUG -^.6 2009

k^^

PLAINTIFF MANDATORY JUDICIALNOTICE WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Plaintiff-Petitioner, Saint Torrance comes before this trial (Judge Jermoe J. Metz,

Jr) court pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedures and the IJS Constitution under

the 14ih amcndment Section #1 related to due process & equal protection clauses,

American with Disabilities Act! (ADA) of a Protected class with conditions (PCWC) and

(PSLWC). Violation of the Ohio Revised Code, Federal Laws, IJS Constitution leading

to the trial (Judge Jerome J. Metz) court with a Writ of Mandamus, Malfeasance, Society

(Heaven) court.

-° :

^J-^

Uv ^

FACTS

1. Plaintiff-Petitioner Saint Torrance applied for a Default judgment on May 6, 2009

(See Exhibit #1, Plaintiff Motion for Default Judgment), trial (Judge Metz, Jr.) court did

not answer to the PIaintif£ Petitioner's "Motion for Default Judgment" until June 10,

2009 which is more then thirty (30) days for a court to answer to a motion under Revised

Code 2701.02, ("Courts must tender decisions within time limit ") most of its decision

thas to be render within thirty (30) days of any motion, for access, to any other courts and

make sure that a person due process rights are not infringed upon.

2. Petitioner had also applied for Leave of Court for Supplement Pleadings for Breach of

Contract (See Exhibit #1), Petitioner also applied for Plaintiff-Petitioner Supplemental

Evidence Motion for Default Judgment. Angel hill Answer to the Complaint being

without signature and the clerk of court had filed a document illegal under Rule 11 of the

Ohio Rules of Civil Procedures without a signature can not constitute a pleading to be file

d properly and be accepted by any trial (Judge Metz, Jr) court which would violate

Plaintiff-petitioner due process of rights under the US Constitution, Ohio revised Code

and Ohio Rule of Civil Procedures not being followed by the Pro Se Litigant Angel Hill.

3. Itespondent, Judge Jerome J t Metz, Jr., had failed in numerous due process violation

against a protected cla,ss with cinditions (PCWC) and in doing so there is no excuse for a

any reason for a trial court or any court continue to torment, torture, aggravate ones

conditions of any conditions against an imharmed, helpless, not well protected against

everyone Petitioner is a protected class with conditions (PCWC) and (PSLWC), regard

less of color, religion, disabililies.

4. Respondent also failed to conclude and facts with the conclusion of law of it

judgment, entry, order and\or decree to any Petitioner Motions. Respondent negligence

of due process for a protected class with conditions is grounds for a Writ of mandamus

and charging the trial court of i ivil riglits violations being considered as becoming a

Defendant helper and cross the law to many time not to be fighting a protected class with

conditions is no excuse of hearsay in the professional field, where Plaintiff-Petitioner

does not have a degree and have experience and still experience this double standard

towards Pro Se Litigants but iri this Writ of Mandamus Plaintiff Petitioner is a Pro Se

Litigant with conditions (PSLWC).

5. Respondent has some sort of non-believe in the law and rule of civil procedures for a

protected class with conditions^(PCWC) (PSLWC) and a bias, prejudice toward Pro Se

Litigants in this court system e ipeeially a (PCWC) which is like fight a disabled,

handicap, retarded person with!the protected class with conditions not being equal

fighting any one because of the status of unsound mind warrants a bench warrant

automatic with reasons, excuse's, doubt, this form of judicial abuse to a protected class

with conditions is un professio v al and still mimics through the judicial system toward Pro

Se Litigant and attomeys are not no better, where the relation has to severing the

attotney-Judge relation so law will be followed, up held to the fullest, honored by my

fathers if not then here come your destruction of law becoming obsolete without this

game being manufacture in thc beginning to conqucr by conquest or by death and

Plaintiff-Petitionerwill choseideath in order to receive the slaves I once asked for fathers

for etemity.

6. Respondent failed to see arid notice a due process of right for the Plaintiff-Petitioner

Iand in not doing so had infringed on Petitioner US Constitutional rights for failed to

award a default judgment agail st Defendant Angel Hill representing herself as a Pro Se

Litigantjust like 1'laintiff-Petitioner in the Complaint filed against Angel Hill. Defendant

Angel Hill did not seek counsel or legal aid help and token this serious matter into her

Iown hands and had failed to fcillow the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedures with no excuse,

reason to properly defend herself like Plaintiff-Petitioner saint Torrance has in his

continuing legal battles with tti e Defendant to the Complaint and the trial court trying to

help them are in violation of due process right, a illegal emotions to protect but failed to

properly to represent any DefenIdant against a Protected class with conditions (PCWC)

(PSLWC), is un professional and over due to clean up, the true problem which, Law did

not do but people allow to bend a flawless law, to do what they want it a believe or non-

believe reason why niy fathers will set you so that you can return his knowledge,

wisdom, and foolish back to them without doubt.

iI

AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER SAINT TORRANCE

STATE OF OHIO }!} SS

COUNtY OF HAMILTON }

Saint Torrance, being duly affirmed on my oath, say that the Petitioner, Saint Torrance

in the above referenced actionlthis Notice of Writ of Mandamus is that all facts there in

this Writ against a the Honorable Judge Jerome J. Metz, Jr. the judge opinion has made

the entry judgments to bias, pejudice, due process violation and no respect for the

disabled, handicap, retarded citizen of America. Petitioner is a "special class" under the

ADA, and the Protected Class with conditions with many jobs as Disabled Veteran,

Business Man, Pro Se Litigant; Petitioner is still currently with VA Hospital under

treatment and been under treatnxent ever since 1991, also verified through this mandamus

record is of my own knowledge and are true and con'ect. Entries and one given by Judge

Jerome J. Metz, Jr., dated June10, 2009 and no conclusion of law attached, and not

ruling from the trial (Judge Metz, Jr.) court, which is a catch 22 as to whom suppose to bei

following the law and civil probedures that is connected to due process or equal

protection to a(PSLWC), (PCWC), this court has placed this game of "bait and switch"

of criminal mind to civil minds the law with a (PSLWC) (PCWC), this Respondent,

playing, delaying, tormenting, torturing a Pro Se Litigant, with conditions (PSLWC) does

not have an excuse a "judicial offcers" to supersede a Petitioner with conditions and

protected specially under the ADA and one conditions as a (PCWC), is violation before

due process & equal protection clause can even begin to surface for any defense from

Respondent or trial (Judge E. Winkler) court of there own, in office, swom in, and under

oath when sworn in, and duties to protect a (PSLWC) end PCWC)

aint Torrance

SUBSCRtBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON TT-IIS JULY 15,2009.

Notary Public, State of Ohio

FRER L. MORRIS flNotary Public State o! Ohio

''o' My Commis5ion Er fr Des 4P 3^-11F 0,,..r

CER'CIFICATE OF NOTICE OF WRI"I' OF MANDAMUS

Petitioner will mail a copy to the Defendant Angel hill last known address of this Writ of

Mandamus for these Motions for Default Judgment for this Writ of Mandamus, and will

send a copy of this to the following:

Angel Hill3182 Werk Rd #2Cincinnati, Ohio 45211


I hereby will send a true copy of this Motion to the Defendant Angel Hill to the last

knowii address on August 6, 2009 by regular U.S. Mail services to the following:

Angel Fiill3182 Werk Rd #3Cincinnati, Ohio 45211

Patricia M. Clancy - Clerk of Courts Page 1 of2

. YouAre Not Currently Logged In, J,QgIn Here

9E.:F CH

Hamilton County Courthouse1000 Main Streetincinnati, 0H 45202

A SerViceJ I A Division Info

CaseNumCer:

Case Summary

A0902496

Case options

Case History

C S h d lCase CapNon:

Judge:

FBedData:

Case Type:

Total DeposHs:

SAINT TORRANCE vs. ANGEL HILL

JEROME J METZ

3/11/2009

H744 - BREACH OF CONTRACT & JURY DEMAND- OC- POV AFF

$0,00

ase c e u esCase DocumentsDocument Request FOmtParty/Attomey InformationCertified Mail ServiceNewCase SearchNew Name Search

Total Costs: $ 279.50 Add Case to My Portfolio

Case History Pr'mter Friendly Version

Doc Image# Date Description Amount

6b 711812008NOTICE OF HEARING.ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

^J 7/072008 PLAINTIFF SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT MOTION FOR SUMMARY.,.^..^.^r

7/8/2009 PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

IL^7 711/2009

NTIFPS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OFENTRY DENYING PIAIDEFAULTJUDGMENTI

PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS DEFAULTJUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT ANGEL HILL AND MOTION FOR

d?i 811712009DEFAULTJUDGMENTAGAISNTWILLWdALEUANDVACATETHISOENIAL OF DEFAUT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO DEFENDANT FAILURETO SIGN PLEADINGS OF ANSWER TO COMPLAINTAND REQUESTVACATE VOID JUDGMENT AND SUBJECT^MATfER JURISDICTION

[t 8/10Y1009 ENTRY DENYING PLAiINTIFFS MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

ob 6/1012009 ENTRY SEVERING CLAIMS

PL44NTIFF MOTtON FOR TRIAL COURT FACTS AND CONCLUSION LAW

db 6(3l2009 FOR SEPARATION OFeOMPLAINTAND CONTRACTS SIMILAR INNATURE

it 6/212009 CASE SCHEDULING ORDER

6/2r2009 ENTRY REQUESTING OFFICIAL STENOGRAPHER

Lel 6/?12009PLAINTIFF SUPPLEMENT SUPPLEMENf EVIDENCE MOTION FOR

DEFAULTJUDGMENTI

511312009 ANSWER OF ANGEL HILL

^ 5i7/2008 PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

5/812009 PLAINTIFF MOTIDM FOR LEAVE OF COURT FOR SUPPLEMENTALPLEADINGS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

d?i 411312009 SUMMONS ISSUED BY REGULAR MAIL TO ANGEL HILL

4/1312009 REGULAR MAIL SERVICE ISSUED TOANGEL HILL

tSJ 4/13/2009 CERTIFICATE OF REGULAR MAIL FILED.

4110/2DD9VVRtTTEN REQUEST FOR REGULAR MAIL SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND 11COMPLAINT ON ANGEL HILL

NOTICE TO SAINT TORRANCE AS TO UNCLAIMED SERVICE ON ANGELh 4/8/2009 HILL SERVICE TYPE: CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE REASON CODE:

UNCLAIMED [CERTIFIED MAIL NBR.: 7194 6168 6310 0437 27461

httn://www.courtclerk.ore/ease sLUnniarv.aso?sec=historv&casenutnber=A0902496 8/6/2009

iPatricia M. Clancy - Clerk of Courts Page 2 of 2

3118/2009 JUDGE ASSIGNED CASE ROLLED TO METZIJEROMEIJ PRIMARY

L+G 3/1812009 ANSWER OF NALLIAM'ALEU

ELECTRONIC POSTAU RECEIPT RETURNED, COPY OF SUMMONS &L^J 3l18f2009 COMPLAINTDELIVEREDTO WILLIAMALEUON03/14l09, FILED.

(CERTiFIED MAIL NBR:: 7194 5188 8310 0437 27531

3l12J2009 SUMMONS ISSUED BY CERTIFIED MAIL TO 149LLIAMALEU

3/1212009 SUMMONS ISSUED BY CERTIFIED MAIL TO ANGEL HILL

3112/2008CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE ISSUEDTO WILLIAM ALEU (CERTlFIED MAILNBR.: 7194 5168 6310 0437 2753]

3I12/2008CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE ISSUED TO ANGEL HILL (CERTIFIED MAILNBR.: 7194 5188 6310 0437 2748)

311112009 PLAINTIFF INDIGENT FOR COMPLAINT VJITH JURY DEMAND

3/1112009 NO DEPOSIT REOUIRED-POV.AFF. SAINT TORRENCE 0.90

m 311112009 COMPLAINT & JURY OEMAND FILED

8 3/1112t108 CLASSIFICATION FORM FILED.

About the Clerk I FAQ I Unks I Directions I Policies I Contact Us I Site Map

Alternate languages: Deutsch I Espanol I Francais I Itallano

(c^ 2009 Patricia M. Clancy, Hamilton County Clerk of Courts. All rights reserved.

http://www.courtclerk.org/case_summary.asp?sec=history&easenumberA0902496 8/6/2009

IN THE COURr OF APPEAI.,SFIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, ex rel.SAINT TORRANCE,

Relator,

CASE NO. C-o9o549

vs.

HON. JUDGE JEROME J. METZ,Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas,

Respondent.

ENTRY GRANTING MOTIONTO DISMISS MANDATORYJUDICIAL NOTICE WRIT OFMANDAMUS (SIC)

This cause came on to be considered upon the mandatory judicial notice writ

of mandamus (sic), upon the respondent's motion to disiniss the petition, and upon

the relator's response.

The Court finds that the motion to dismiss is well taken and is granted.

The mandatory judicial notice writ of mandamus (sic) is dismissed.

To The Clerk:Enter upon tl}e .J(urnal of the Court on SEP 10 2909per order of the court.

By: (Copies sent to all counsel)Presiding Judge

085006219

IN TIIE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

SAINT TORRANCE (PCWC) (PSLWC) . Casc No.3182 WL'RK RD #2,CINCINNATI, OH1O 45211 _ Common Pleas Case No. A0902496

(Defendants: Angel Hill &William Aleu)Common Pleas Case No. A0905698

RELA'I'OR,

HONORABLEJUDGE JEROME J. MFTZHAMILTON COUNTY COURT OI%COMMON PLEAS COURT1000 MAIN ST COUR'I'HOUSE #380CINCINNATI, 01110 45202

AND

MAC.rISTRA7'E MICHAEL L. BACHMAN :HAMILTON COUNTY COURT OFCOMMON PLEAS1000 MAIN ST COt1RTIIOUSE #I#585CINCINNA'I'I, OHIO 45202

AND

ATTORNI?Y NICHQLAS J. DINARDOOF LBCTAL AII) SOCIETY Oli'SOU'TIIWIiST OHIO, LLC

AND

LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SOUTHWEST :OHIO, LLC215 EAS'I' NINTH S'I'REE'I'CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202

PA1'RICIA M. CLANCY,CLERKS OF COURT1000 MAIN STCINCINNATI, OIIIO 45202

t;L.C^n t7I=' col ! I-i'f`SUPFdEMe GOURT ClF oFiic

MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES:

NO'fICF OF ALI. WRTT'S, MANDAMUS,1'FRF,MP`1ORY, PROHIBI"fION,PROCL'DLNDO

&;MtsRGL;NCY 1MMFDIA'I'E DECLARATORY & 1NJUNCTIVF RELIEF AND\OR

DFCLARATOItY RELIFF,&

NOTICE OF llOUBLE DEFAIJL"1'S AND&

NOTICE OF US CONSTITCJ'IIONAL VIOL,ATIONS &COMPFNSAi'ORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGFS 7

INDIEFINITE °`PR.OTF.C'I'IVE ORDEI2" ON ALL I.IAMII: f'ON COIINTCOURTHOUSES AND AI,L ITS SWRON IN, UNDER OATI3, IN OFFICE

Relator, Saint'Corrance (PCWC) (PSLWC) as a protected class & Pro Sc Litigant,

witli conditions, conies hePore this Suprenie Court pursuant tu It.C. 273 1: Mandamus,

and All Writs, (JS Constitutional Violations to a (PCWC) too, iniunctive andlor

declaratory relief for Plaintiff-Relator, Saint Torrance comes hetore this trial (Supreme

Court) court pertaining to a trial (Judge.lerome J. ?vletz, Jr.) court, trial (Magistrate

Michael L. 13achman) court, and llefense Attonrey Nicholas ,I. DiNardo and The Legal

Aid Society of Soutti West Ohio, LLC, pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Civil Proeedures of

Rule 11, Rule 55, the US Constitution under the 14`E' amendment Section #I, related to

due process & equal protection clauses, Section #3 for judicial officers, attorney being

sworn in, under oath, in oflice of a corporation, and Relator falls under the American

with Disa6ititiesAct (ADA) of a Protected class with coizditions (PCWC) and (PSLWC).

Violation of the Ohio Revised Code, Federal Laws, US Constitution, leading to the trial

(Judge Jerorne J. Metz) (Magistrate Michael L. Bachman) (Attorney Nicholas J.

1)iiVardo) court with a "Writ of Mtuidamus",lnjuneGve and\or lleclaratory relief,

Malfeasance, compensatory and }runitive damages, and trial by Society (14eaven) court.

FACTS

1. I'laintiff-Relator Saint'1'orrance cases were separated which was severitag claims by

trial (Judge Jeronrc J. Metz, Jr-) court, on 6-10-2009.

2. Defendant. (Pro Se Litigant, wiiliout conditions) (PSLWOC), William Aleu, like

Plaintiff-Relator, Saint Toi-rance, protected class with conditions (PCWC), Pm Se

Litigant, with conditions (PSLWC) status, during this time, filing a Complaint, Delendant

William Aleu did attempt to Answer to the Complaint on 6-10-2009 and failed to sign,

place an adch•ess, mxd a Certificate of Services, the Complaint, filed by Plaint.iff=Relator

Saint Torranee on 3-11-2009.

3. 7'rial (Judge Jerome J. Metz, Jr.) court, had severing the claims and separating the

cases, the trial (Supreme Court) court, will see Defendant William Aleu, Answer on 3-16-

2009, and seveiing cJaims 6-10-2009, but in both instances, the `Clerks of C.ourts" bad

filed a non-signature and non-address of a Defendant William Aleu, In >ny history witlx

ttic Clerlc of Court, which eveay doouments that was ever filed in any courtliouse by

Plaintiff=Relator, Saint Torrance, the "Clerk of Court" has always made sure that

Plaintiff- Relator had signed and attached a Certificate of' Service, the Answer filed by

Defendant Wil3iam Aleu, status is a Pro Se Litigant without eonditions (PSLWOC), but

lailed to qualify, Ior an answers, without signaturc, address and certifeate of service is

consider not 951ed and if the Clerks of court filed an illegal document without the proper

signature block, current address, certifcate of services, not attached is a acted of

trespassing on the same rights as a judicial officer any authority figures in office, tinder

oath, sworn in to uphold the QS Constitution for every citizen has done to a (PCWC)

(PSLWC), but an Answer, being tiled, without a signature, address block, eertifc:ate of

service under Rule 11 of tttc Ohio Rules of Civil Procedures, require (See Exhibit lt2),

also under,lLule 12 for IJet'ense, Otljection, Pleadings, a non-signature block not signed,

non-address, and no certificate of service nc,it given establi.sbed failure to answer just like

in Rule 37 for a Motion to Compel for Discovery and Sanctions for not answering or

evading or evasive to a question given in a for of interrogatories, Production of

Documents, Request for Admission, in this matter of the Plaint'sfT=Relal:or's Complaint.

This Breach oflLules, under Rule 11,12, of the Ohio Rules of Civil Pivcedures cutitles

Plaintiff-Relator to a Defiudt Judgmcnt under Rule 55 of the Ohio Rules of Civil

Procedures.

4. During another ordeal in tiiis procedures of civil procedures Deiendant failed to show

up for two case conference management dates on 6-1-2009 and the otlier cases

conferenee management serving claims was giving for 7-1-2009 where Defendant

William Aleu failed to show and a Default Judgment was given against De.fendant

William Aleu for this second first proper case eonference management was giving in fair

ness and good fbith by the trial (Judge Jerome J. Metz, Jr.) court.

5. This servuig claims, cancels out one of the case conference management on 6-1-2009

canceled out this first case conference management for Defendant William Aleu, giving

tlae Defendant William Aleu a good laith efforts, benefit of the doubt to establishing a

prosecution of this Complaint, the first case conference rnanagetnent to be held on 7-1-

2009 and 13cfen(iant (PSL)VOC) Wi7liam Aleu, for Defendant, no-show, or even trying to

obtain an attortiey at the last minute does not justify proper timc to defend wherc there

was numerous Rule violations with Dcfendant (PSLWOC) William Aleu, failing to go to

Legal Aid Society for lielp, whcre I had infornied him and directed him to the number of

Legal Aid or obtain an attorney with the Lawyers Referrals number, [3efendant trying to

obtain Legal Aid counsel bef'ore this liearing for case conference management hearing on

7-1-2009, but had not obtain Legal Aid eounsel rurtil the lrearing on July 13, 2009 for

Plaintiff default hearing, in this "illegal judicial tactics" by trial (Magistrate Michael L.

Bachinan) coutt and Counsel for Defendant William Alcu, the attorney Nicholas J.

DiNardo Furd l.,egal Aid Society of South West Ohio has just demonstTated against a

(PCWC) (PSLWC) that constitutional violation has been done to a(PCWC) & (PSLWC)

slxows that it was intentional to eontinue to tormenting, torturing, aggravation of ones

conditions and to even to disregard the law and trespassing, is a act of treason, it like

called being a double dual agent for the state, but not following the law lo even to

atteinpt not to be equal protection and due process of individual rigbls, especially a

(PCWC) &(1'SI,WC) acting as my own attorney is a direct tradition of violating nry

fath.ers law is very hell place, driven, locked in, can not blame any fathers because of

"Free Will" is a direct violation in front of GOD and Jesus under the US Constitution he

made foi- everyone that believe and claim thenr, renlember aaiy God iather does not have

parents,no excuse to accept that one.

6. This error of fa.ilure demonstrates in my Federal Cases: St. Torrance vs. Citifinancial

Mortgage Company Inc., et ai Case No. 1:08-CV-403., to show entitles Plaintify-

Relator for a Default Judgment under.Rule 55 wherc in this present inatter, trial (Jadge

Jerome J. Metz, Jr.) court failcd to render this decision or entry on the docket aad

journalized this Defatilt Sudgnient without further proeceding liad step its.judicial

boundaries on attempt to torment, torture, aggravate, deny everything to a (PCWC)

(PSI.WC); not knowing that judicial officers were ignoring the tell\tell signs of a

(PCWC) & being a(PSI..WC) would show a double standard that Plaintiff Rclator did not

know of, but have becn very experienced in denials tlrroughout my pursuit of equal, dne

procCss of rights and ifdiscriminat.ion to a(PCWC:) & a (PSLWC) just imagine is racism

still exist, if it clid not they why ain I broke and siripped through a process of it taicing one

expense from one creditor to make a ripple effect to foree a protected class back to

bankruptcy filing now that destruction waiting to happen when socicty find out about that

which is niaimfactured to complete the one world order by force or conquest I love this

"Bible" it tells you what side you better be on her•e come Armagecldon again, while I atn

looking at you in reverse of your souls, this process started with ("CMHA") failed to pay

a (PCWC) & (PSLWC), tln-ough this "illegal business tactics" I am the prime example of

slavery in business still cxist, through money rxot the lJS Constitution violators, tliiel's, a

group of mass-co fusionist for money and not who niade the inoney "NO EXCI ISB"

when it come to judgment day if you failed to say you sorry to my f'alherv and make your

bother whole again and rectify the situation with the inoney you stolen fi•om my fathers,

the greedy is wlioni 7 talk about you did not see the gamc you robbed CiOD pcople your

own ark angel will tonnent you wake up, the Question is how many tnillions do you need

to buy a meal, Plaintiff-Rclator says: the government was "QUICIC Tfl COLLECT,

SLO W'I'O GNE A CHECK" but had built a tolerance for denials and Iceep reading thc

law, showed a "illegal judicial tactics" alid in seeing this, experieneiag tbis, I notice

something was wrong with OHIO, judieiat officer, consisting of judges, magistrates,

attorneys, clerk of courts, law clerks, is a ibrnt of due process & equal protection rights

for Plaintiff=Relator, especially being aprotccted class with conditions (PCWC). 'I'his is

another example of why is the judicial Officer, blocking a "special class" or protected

class, Pro Se Litigant, with conditions (PSLWC), access to justice, liberty, life, property,

especially a disabled, handicap, retarded individual under the American with Disabilities

Act of 1990 anci new aniendments to the ADA Acts, stil] experiencing equal and fair due

process to rights, a doubie standard, substnndardof living for the disabled, handicap,

rctarded, slww a double standatd towards (PCWC & especially a(PSLWC) can be down

we mighf be crazy but not stupid it's a big difference on conditions, arid it will always be

soineone to protect the (PCWC) (PSLWC) Thee Saint is here to stay forever even after

death watch it death its very t+icky if you can face it, it called a th(iusand year reign, it a

("13»).

?. "T'he trial (Judge Metz, Jr.) court eiror by not rendering decisions property under the

Defendant William Aleu failure to Answer not being signed, an address, certificate of

services, or forwarding address has showii a light on Patricia M. Clariey, Clerks of Court,

pei-taining to how this Non-Answer, non-signature, non-address, no certi9icate of service

existed, causing all this tormenting, torturing, ri};gravation of ones conditions, is breaclz of

constitution violation and the question is wlry is it still nothing done or is it being done no

notification tcom any one except a Motion tiom the Prosecuting Joseph T. Deters, do you

not thinlc I imow you watching Plaintiff-Relator, do you not th'vrkthere is another Writ of

lguorance to acknowledge a failed system in OHiO especially with the babies aud the

elders, tlie first niove was °Check mate" now its "Stale mate" I will give you an example

the words a.re "DOU 13L1; llUAL AC.1?;NT & MOTION TO DISMISS is my next "BIG

WORDS", right now, witb any one in authority status, Plaintiff-Relator given you the

faithfiil sight, not worldly siglit.

8. 1'he trial (Judge Jerome J. Metz Jr.) cotu-t, has tlurty (30) days Por a court to answer to

a motion under Revised Code 2701.02, ("Courts must render decisions within time

limit") most of its decision has to be render within thirty (30) days of anymotion, for

access, to any other courts and make sure that a person due process rights are not

infringed upon.

2701.02 Courts must render decisions within time limit.

When submitted to a court on motion, demurrer, or motion for new trial, or whensubmitted to a court on appeal on questions of law or ori final trial on the issues joined, acause begun in a court of record shall be determined and adjudicated within thirty daysafter such submission.

This section applies to causes sent to a referee or special master, and to motionsaffecting the confirmation, modification, or vacation of a report thereof. This section doesnot affect, alter, or change the rules of the supreme court,

Effective Date: 10-01-1953

9. 1'etitioner had also applied for Leave of Court for Supplernent Pleadings for Breach of

Contract (See .Exlribit #11), Petitioner also applied for Plaintiff-Petitioner Supplemental

Evidence Motion for Default Judgment. (hi Angel, Hill Case No. A0902496), Answer to

ilic Coniplaint being without signature, acldress, eertificate of serviees, and the elerk of

court had filed a document illegal under Rule 11 oi'the Ohio Rnles of' Civil Procedures

without a signature can not constitute a pleading to be file d properly and be accepted by

any tiial (Judge Metz, Jr.) court wluch would violate Plaintiff-petitioner due process of

rights tmder the IJS Constitution, Ohio revised Code and Ohio Rule of Civil Procedures

not being followed by the Pm Se Litigant Defendant (PSLWOC) William Aleu.

10. Responde.nt, Judge Jerome J. Metz, Jr., had iailed in nuinerous due process violation

against a protected class with conditions (PC WC) zuid in doing so there is no excuse t'or a

any reason for a trial court or any cour C continue to lorment, torture, aggravate ones

condit'tons of any conditions against an unharmed, tin armed, unsound. mind and belpless,

but (PCWC) &(PSLWC) stuck it out to know that my father made that law to be flawless

and they ealled my and in the world lving iniinicked is called the "Lawless One' but like

usual, ignorance is apart of lear, acceptance, change, which a gift, is hidden in conunon

sensc vs. specialist, in any filed is a direct threat, to not.hing, you own or I own, not well

protected against everyone Relator is a protected class with conditions (PCWC) and

(PSLWC), rvgard less of color, religion, disabilities.

11. Respondent also failed to eonclude and facts witb the conclusion of law of it

judgment, cntry, order and\or decree to any Petitioner Motions. Respondent negligence

of due process for a protected class with conditions is grounds for a"Writ of Mandamus"

and charging the trial court of'civil rights violations being considered as beconung a

Defendant helper and cros,s the law to many time not to be figltting a protected class with

conditions is no excuse of hcarsay in the professional field, wliere Plaintiff-Petitioner

does not have a degree and have experienec and still experience this double startdard

towards Pro Se Litigant,s lnit in this "Writ ofMandamru" Plaintif#'Petitioner is a Pro Se

Litigant with conditions (PSI,WC).

S. Respondent has some sort of non-believe, hidden agenda, working for Plaintill>

Relator rrnd would not even believe it in a thousand year reign, in the law and rute of civil

procedures for a proteeted class with conditions (PCWC) (PSLWC) and a bias, prejudice

toward, Pro Se Litigants, in this court systein especially a(PCWC) cvhich is like fight a

disabled, handicap, retarded person with the prntected class with conclitions not being a

equal fighting, any onc, because of the status of unsound mind, warranfs a bench warrant

automatic withnut reasons, excuses, doubt, this for-m of 'judicial abuse" to a protected

class with conditions, is mi professional, and still mimics through the judicial systein

toward Pro Se Litigant and attorneys arc ttot no better, where the relation has to severing

the attorney-Judge relation so law will be followed severing, up held to the fullest,

honored by rny fatlxers, if not then here come your destruction of law becoming obsolete

without this game, being manutacture, in the beginning to conquer by conquest or by

detith and Plaintiff-Relator, will chose death in order to receive the slaves I once asked

for from my liit'hers for eternity.

12. Respondent failed to see and notice a due process o:f riglit for thc Plaintiff-Relator

and in not dohtg so had inEr-inged on Relators, t)S Constitutional rights for failcd to award

aDelault Judgment against ,I?efendant William Aleu, and contiunuing sow that a subject-

matter jurisdiction and Vacate Void Judgment, Orclers, Entty, Decree is warrant without a

warrant is autornatic under the law without a (PCWC) &(PSLWC) even sliould not even

to begin to thought of a US Constitutional vindication process where law is Flawless,

every one has ajob representing herself as a Pro Sc L,itigrurt just like Plaintiff .Petitioner

in the Complaint filed against William Alcu, die question for the trial (Supreme Court)

court :Why is any one fighting a (PCWC) especially a(PSLWC:) if they are probing my

iiifo it will come back to huntthezn without a doubt. Defendant William Aleu Hill did

not seek counsel or legal aid help and taken tlus seious matter into her own liands and

bad failed to follow the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedures witli no excuse, reason to

properly defending Hitnseli' like Plah7G1.1=Rc.lator Saint Torrance being a (PCWC) &

PSLWC), has in his continuing legal battles with the Defendant and all ofthese judicial

Clffice5 too for a simple C:oinplaint and the trial (Judge Jerome J. Metz, Jr.) court, trying

to help the ilefendant or any delay is a direct violation of Plaintiff l IS Constitutional

rights and being with a (PCWC) (PSI.WC) is a eheck nrate now will take it to the next

level called "sCale mate" are in violation of due process right, a illegal emotions to protect

but failed to properly to represent any Defendant against a Protected class with condition.s

(PCWC) (PSLWC), is tin professional and over due to clean up, the tive problem vvhich,

Law did not do but people allow to bend a flawless law, to do what they want it a believe

or non-believe reason wliy any 1'athers will set you so that you can return his knowledge,

wisdom, and foolish back to thcm without doubt.

aint ToMditce3 182 Werk Rd #2Cincinnati, Ohio 45211(513) 541-8522(513) 290-5445E'1r d:icle^l(a? y^lac^o.coux

AFF3DAVl'1' OF PETITIONER SAINT TORRANCE

S'1'ATE OF OHIO }}SS

C,OUN`l'Y OF NAMIL'1'ON }

Saint Torrance, heing duly aftirmed on nay oath, say that tlie Petitioner, Saint Torrance

in the above referenced action this Notice of AId. Writs is that all facts there in this Writ

against a Defendant William Aleu owning money and i'ailed to pay the Landlord Saint

Torrance and the delay, US Constitutional violations from the Ilonotable Judge Jerome J.

Metz, Jr. and all other Respondents on this Complaint against a(1'CWC) the judge

opinion lias niade the entry, judgments to bias, prejudice, due process & equal protection

clauses, and no respect for the disabled, handicap, retarded, citizen of America. Relator

is a"spceial class" under the ADA, wliiclt ADA by congress & Senate failed to fully

protect the disabled handicap, retarded and the Protected Class with conditions (PCWC)

with in y.jobs as Disabled Veteran,l3usiness Man, Pro Se L}tigant, Relator, is still

currently with VA. Flospital under treatment and becn under treatnient ever since 1991

and my records do not reflect not one known cases of my legal issues which is a violation

of a Doctor, Hospital, Department of Veterans Aflairs shows a bigger agenda by denying

a 3" Class Citizen first, Black Man second, then a Disabled Veteran'I'hird, Fourth a

business nian, fiftli a forced to becomc a Pro Se litigant, with conditions in all area.s of

mycases, atsoverifzed tbroughtheseALLWrits, US Gonstitutionalviolations record is

of my own knowledge ancl are taue ancl correct. ls'ntries and one given by Jadgc Jeronic J.

Metz, Jr., dated Junc10, 2009 and no conclusion of law attached, and not ruling from the

trial (Judge Metz, Jr.) court, which is a catch 22 as to whom suppose to be following the

law and civil procedures that is coauiected to due process or equal protection to a

(PSLWC), (PCWC), this court lias placed this game of "bait and switch" of criminal

mind to civil nzinds the law with a (PSLWC.) (PCWC), this Respondent, playing,

delaying, tormenting, torturing a Pro Se Litigant, with conditions (PSLWC) does not

have an excuse a` judicial officers" to supersede a Petitioner with conditions tmd

protected specially under the ADA and one conditions as a (PCWC), is violation before

due process & eqUal protection clause can even liegin to surlace for any defense {I-om

Respondent or trial (Judge E. Winkler) coiut of there o in of,fce, swom in, and uwider

oath when sworn in, and duties to protect a(PSLWC anc^(PCWCl j

St7I3SCRIBED ANI) SWORN TO BEFOP..E ME ON T1-IIS September 22, 2009.

ABIGA1L,NiCOM'PyUSNotary Put>tlc, :i2, ;i cltii¢

nAy 4;oYnr^5l^t,iut: v..-:r;ires$'n)t®rtif5^+s;;a, 2f; st;

Patricia M. Clancy - C,lerk of Conrts rage I oT z

Ynu Are Not CurrenVy Logged irr. t9_q_in Here

:r011E0ii COUnt'y COU11,hoOS2

t000 F9aln 5tryeY:incfnna::, i7H 452(i2

ervices 4 Division Info

Case :7utn Casa Op4ior>°,

Case Number. A 0602490 Case f#IstOryCase •5chedules

Case Caption: SAINT TORRANCE vs. ANGEL HILLC:asB f10cW ii60(5

Judgg; JEROME J METZ I7trCUII 1`>I A FSaja^5t F"orIn

Ff1eU Date; 3l11/2009 PariylAibrney fntormatian

Case Type: H744 - BREACH OF CONTRACT & JURY DEMAND- OC- POV AFF CetnBnd MailServiceNCW Cast) $fl8rtJ1

Total Deposit»: 00$ 0. Now hlarr.e Rreair,h

Total Costs: $ 285.50 Ad<I Cdso to My Portfo0o

Prinfer Friendiy Version

froe XmNget{ Datu Description

8/8f21)09 CNTRY REQUESTING OFFICIAL STENOGRAPHEI2

8/0/2009 FNTRY DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

7/1012009 NOTiCE OF HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENI'

L^'I 719/2009 PLkINTIFF SUPPLEMENTAF.AFFIDAVfTMOTION FOR SIIMNIARYJUDGMENT

702009 PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

711720D0 ENTRY DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OFFAIJLT UDGMENTJD

0!12l2009

E

PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OFTtiIS DF.FAULTJUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT ANGEL HILL AND MOTION FORDEFAUL"t JUDGMENT AGAISNT WILLIAM ALEU AND VACATE THISDENIAL OF OEFAUT JLVDGMENT PURSUANT TO DEFENDANT FAILURETO SIGN PLEADINGS OF ANSWER TO COMPLAINTAND REQUESTVACATE VOIU JUDGMENT AND SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION

Anvonnt

{t 6MO/2009 ENTRY DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTlON FOR DEFAUCr JUDGMENT

127 011012009 ENTRY SEVERING CLAIMS

PLAINTIFF MOTIONFORTRiAL COURT FACTS AND CONCLUSION LAWL"t9 6f3!2009 FOR SEPARATION OF COMPLAINT AND CONTRACTS SIMILAR IN

NATURE

f¢I 412I2009 CASE SCHEDULING ORDER

^ B02009 ENT"t2Y REQUESTING OFFICIAL STENOGRAPHER

r^ wu2^^ piAINTIFFSQ(?j'4,F:,MENTSUPPLEMENTEVIDENCEMOTIONFORDEFAULT JUDGHIEFIT'"`

in 5113/2009 ANSWfSR OF ANGEL HILL

51712009 PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR DEFAULTJUDGMENT

0/872009 PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COUR7 FOR SUPPLEMENTALPLEADINGS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

'L71 4/13/2008 SUMMONS ISSUED BY REGULAR NIAILTO ANGEL HILL

4/1 312 0 0 9 REGULAR MAIL SERVICE ISSUED TOANGEL HILL

4f1312009 CERTIFICATE OF REGULAR MAIL FILED.

N, 4/10/2009 WRiTTEN REQUEST FOR REGl/IAR MAIL SERV ICE OF SUMMONS ANDCOMPLAINT ON ANGEI HILL

http://www:courtclerk.ot'gfcase sunTrnary.asp?sec--3usPo3y&casemtnLbex-A0902496 9/22/2009

Patricia M. Clancy - Clerk of Courts Page 2 of 2

aiNO'7ICE TO SAINT TORRANCE AS TO UNCLAIMED SERVICE ONANOEL

41812009 HILL SERVICE?YYPE: CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE REASON CODE:UNCUllMEO [CCRTlFIED MAIL NBR.: 7494 5168 6310 0437 27461

3(1812009 JIJDGE ASSIGNED CASE ROLLED TO MET7lJEROMEl.I PRIMARY

3116/2009 ANSWER OF WILLIAM ALEU

ELECTRONIC POSTAL RECEIPT RETURNED, COPY OF SUMMONS &311612009 COMPLAINT DELIVERED TO WILLIAM ALEU ON 03t14f09, FILED.

[CERTIFIED MAIL NBR,I 9194 516B 6310 0437 2753)

m 3112/2009 SUAMONSISSUF.DBYCERTIFIEDMAILTOWILLIAMALEU

8

{5

°u1171206 SUMMONS ISSUED BY CERTIFIED MAIL TO ANGEL HILL

311212009 CERTIFIEDMAILSERVICEISSUEDTOIMLLIAMALEU[CERTIFIEDMIAILN6R.:7194 5188 6310 0437 27531

3112/2008 CERTIFIED MAtL SERVICE ISSUED TOANGEL HILL [CERTIFIED MAILNOR.: 7194 5188 6310 0437 27461

311112009 PLAINTIFF INDIGENT FOR COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

311'F12009 NO DEPOSIT REQUIRED-POVAFF. SAINT TORRENCE

311112009 COMPI.AiNT & JURY DEMAND FILED

3/1112009 CLASSIFICATION FORM FILED.

A6oul: Che CIerY. I FAQ I Links I DirecUons I Pollcies I C:nntart Ws (Site Mah

A1Cernaic It7a^^j^^: D?utsch I Fspoflol I !iotlcais I [taliann

(c^ 2009 A?,tricia M. Clancy, R8''nliton Ccunty Ciei k of C:ourt5. iUl rights resmrve6.

0.00

http://www.aourtclerk.or{;/case.,_sunvnary,asp?sec-history&casenunTber=A0902496 9/22/2009

Pafricia M. Clancy - Clezk of Courts Page 1 ot'2

Ha ,:iitnn C<nmCt' C:ouil:hUUSe1000 Mvln $ci'e:'tCSnGnnati, OH ^iS20L

A Services s Division qnfo

Case GuraHtdry Casn t)p41oo9

Case Number: A 0905898 Cane F4iEtoryCcse fiOhcfittl€.;

Case Caption: SAINT TORRANCE vs. WILLIAM ALEII4i1:Y1 IJ6CdrIY.:lit3

Jvdge: JEROME J METZ f7acuffiant ReUuest Foon

Filed Date: GI10f2009 PartylA9torrey InfnrrnationCerliBr.l Mail S[jrvfco

Case Type: H702 - OTHER CIVIL - TAXED IN COSTSN5`fJCe5C 4GArClt

Total Deposita: $ O.OD New Neme Searr.h

Total Cosie: $273.00 Aarl Cnee to ItM1y Portfolio

Printer Friorxily Version

Doc ErrmageBB

I"+J

Ciate

W1612009

0/20/2009

r>®se.rigtion

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

ENTfiY ADOPTING AND MODIFYING THE NiAGISTRATE'S DECISION

AIY16Llnt

8127720p9 ENTRY REQUESTING OFFICIAL STENOGRAPHER

t̀si' a10/2009 NOTICB OF HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE'S

65 712'7/2009

DECISION

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATES DECISION

7 /2 7120 0 9 FIRSTAMENDFD ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS

712372000PLAINTIFFS MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE NOTICE OF DEFAULT

NOTICE OF JUDICIAL DUTY NOTICE OF DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS

7/21/2009

UNDER COLOR OF LAW

PLAINTIFF NOTICE TO VACATE VOID JUDGMENT PURSUANT TOSUBJ6CT-MAT7ER JURISDICTION ON MAGrSTRATE DECISION FOR THE

7/1412009

LACK OF JURISDICTION

MAGISTRATE'S DECISION. COPY OF MAGISTRATE'S DECISION SENT BYORDINARY MAIL TO ALL PARTIES OR THEIR ATTORNEYS AS

7/1412009

IN3TRUCTED PER PRAFCIPE.

REGULAR MAIL SERVICE ISSUED TO DINARDO/NICHOLASlJ

7114/2009 REGULAR MAIL. SGFiVICE ISSUED TO SAINT TORRANCE

7/1 412 0 0 9 REGULAR MAIL SERVICE ISSUED TO DARYL V HAWKINS

7114/2009 REGULAR MAIL SERVICE ISSUED TO LAWRENCE BARON

7114/2009 REGULARMAILS'ERVICEISSUEDTOANIANDAROMANELLO

Llb 7/t412009 CERTIFICATE OF REGULAR MAIL FILED. DINARDOINICHOIAS/J

'•L!' 7/14f2009 CERTfFICATE OF REGULAR MAII. FILED. SAHUI' TORRANCE

L$i 7/1412009 CERTIFiOATE OF REGULAR MAtL FILED. AMANDA ROMANELLO

7/1 4120 09 CERTIFICAT4 OF REGULAR MAIL FiLED. LAWRENCE BARON

7/14/2009 CERTIFICATE OF REGULAR MAIL FILED. DARYL V HAWKINS

0 7113/2009 NOTIFICATION FORM FILED. NICHOLAS DINARDO

u 7r6i2009PI.AINTIFF MOTION FOR NOfICE TO DEFENDANT FOR DEFAULT

Lii 7/0/2009

JUDGMENT HEARING

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR NOTICE TO DEF FOR DEFAUIT dUDGMENTHEARING

http:/hvww.eourtclerk.org/case sumnTary.asP?sec=histoLy&casenambei=-AO9o5698 9/22/2009

Patricia M. Clan.cy = Clerk of Courts i-age z oi a

'L•'7 7/212009

7/1U2000

612 312 0 9 9

6117/2009

6 11 7120 0 9

OROER OF REFEI2ENCE

PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THF PLEADINGS AND DEFAULTJUDGMENT

ENTRY OF RE-ASSIGNMENT

JUDGE ASSIGNED CASE ASSIGNEO TO MET7IJEROMEJJ PRIMARY

JUDGE REASSIGNE7T CASE TRANSFERRED FROM NADEUNORBERT/ACOURTORDERED PRIMARY

t^'1 611712009ORDER

6/17/2009 JUDGE ASSIGNI'.D CASE ROLLED TO NAOEUNORRERT/A PRIMARY

6 /1 212 0 0 9 ENTRY DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILESUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

6112/2000 REQUESTFORANOFFICIALCOURTSTENOGRAPHER

(3^ 6,r1pf249BPI-AINTIFF MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL

PLEADINGS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

`*LS 6110/2009 ANSWER OF WILLIAM ALFU

`^.` . 611012009 PLAINTiFF INDIGENT FOR COMPLAINT WITH JIRY DEMAND

PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR TRIAL COURT FACTS AND CONCLUSION OF13,11012009 LAW FOR SEPARAT7ON OF COMPLNNTANU CONTRACTS SIMILAR IN

NATURE

6/10f2009 COPY OF SUMMONS - SEE FILING

6/1012009 E4ECTRONIC POSTAL RECEIPT RETURNEO, TO tMLLIAM ALEU

(E^ 6710/2009 ENTRY SEVERING CLAIMS

611Gf2p09 CfASSIFICATION FORM FILED.

6f10/2009 COMPLAINT FILED

6/10/2009 TAXED IN COSTS - FILING SAINT TORRANCk 0.00

Ab0u1: CHe C:Ic19< I FAtT I Linl:S I Dh'ectirns I Policies I Cnntact Us I Site Map

,qLTS^uK ;: Ucutsch I Espan<A I Francets I YtaliznoAltnrnateI

(5) 2(109 Pr,Ericia H. Claney, FIau+Otorf COCnlty Clerk n' Couit;. ddl rirlhts rescwetl.

lFttp:!/www.courccterk.org/case summary.asp'?sec-history&casenumbcr-A09t)5G98 9/22/2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF 01110

SAINT TORRANCE (PCWC) (PSLWC) . Case No. u 111113182 WERK RD #2,CINCINNATI, OHIO 45211 : Municipal Court Case No. 08CV35640

Court of Appeals No. C0900493Filed by Court of Appeals in Common

DEFENDANT-RELATOR, : Pleas Court No. C0900493

HONORABLEJUDGE LISA C. ALLEN jIIAMILTON CC)E7NTY COURT OFCOMMON PLEAS COURT1000 MAIN ST COUR'ITIOUSE #380CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202

AND

ALL JUSTICESJUSTICE LEE H. HILDEBRANT JR.JUSTICE MARK PHILIP PAINTER: ' it iJUSTICE J. HOWARD SUNDERMANN,JR: ^llf°JUSTICE SYLVIA SIFVE HENDON ZjJUSTICE PENELOPE R, CUMMINGHAMJUSTICE PATRICK DINKELACKERWILLIAM HOWRAD TAFT LAWCENTER 230 EAST NINTH STREET, 12' H:FLOORCINCINNAIT, 01110 45202-2138

AND

COURTS OF APPEALSCLERKS OF COURTSWILLIAM HOWARD TAFTLAW CENTER230 EAST NINTH STREET, 121" FLOORCINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-2138

AND

JOESPH T. DETERS (IIAMILTON PROSECUTING ATTORNEY:CIVIL DIVISION

D ^ ^C.^D^^ VEDCE o' s 2 Li;ng

CLERit Ui= COURTSUPREME COUHT P±OHIQ

230 E_ NINTH STREET, SUITE 4000CINCINNA'TI, OHTO 45202-2151

AND

ATTORNEY CI-IRISTIAN.I. SCIIAEFER^jI°7 v/ASSISATNT PROSECUTOR230 E. NINTH STREET, SUITE 4000CINCINATI, OHIO 45202

AND

ATTORNEY CHAIZLES W. ANNESS $Z-(^ASSISTANT PROSECUTING230 E. NINTH STREET, SUITE 4000CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202

AND

PATRICIA M. CLANCYDIRECTOR OF CLERKS OF COURT1000 MAIN STCIATCINNATI, OHIO 45202

RESPONDENTS.

MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICES AND AUTI-IORITIES:PE'TITION FOR A PROHIBITION, IvIANDAMUS, PEREMPTORY, PROCEDEN)O

&TO VACATE VOID ENTRY GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, EMERGENCY

RELIEF AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS&

NOTICE OF FILED IN COURT OF APPEALS, FIRST APPELLANT DISTRICT OFOI-IIO BU'I' COURTS OF APPEALS

FILED IT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLF,AS COURT DOCKET& US. & OHIO CONSTU'I'1:ON VIOI.ATIONS OF DUE PROCESS

&F.QUAI.. PROTECTION CLAUSES FOR A PROTECTED CLASS WITH

CONDITIONS (PCWC) WITH ADA VIOLATIONS & INDEFINIATE PROTECTIVEORDER OF ALL RESPONDFNTS & MALEFEASNANCE &COMPENSATTORY &

PUNITIVE DAMANDES OF WRIT OF NOTICE OF RESTITUTION

Detendant-Relator, Saint Torrance comes before trial (Supreme Court) court,

ajudicial Officer moming\nightmare due to happen, pursuant to the R.C. 2731 for

Prohibition, Mandanius, Notice of Vacate Void Entry, Order, Judgment andlor decree,

docket filed in wrong court, US & Ohio Constitution violations under the civil rights

claims and of all amendments that apply, related to due process and equal protection

especially for a(PCWC:) and (PSLCWC), Indefinite protective Order for all respondents,

and compensatory and punitive damages related to Notice of restitution.

FACTS

1. On July 15, 2009, Defendant-Relator, Saint Torrance filed this Writ of Mandamus,

Lmergency Motion for Injunetive Relief in the Courts of Appeals First District of Ohio,

William Howard Taft Law Center, 230 E. Ninth Street, 12a' Floor, Cincinnati, Ohio.

(2731.02 Courts authorized to issue writ - contents.

The writ of mandamus may be allowed by the supreme court, the court of appeals, or thecourt of common pleas and shall be issued by the clerk of the court in which theapplication is made. Such writ may issue on the information of the party beneficiallyinterested.

Such writ shall contain a copy of the petitlon, verlflcation, and order of allowance.

Effective Date: 10-01-1953)

2. Court of Appeals, FirstAppellant District of Ohio had talked with Patricia M. Clancey

and placed this (PCWC) &(I'SLCWC), cases (C0900493) ancl (C0900549) on the

Common Pleas Docket, now that is some criminal in ,nature, which will allow everybody

else to become a criminal too, very professional.

3_ Hon. Jndge Lisa A. Allen had obtain.ed Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County

Prosecirting Attomey and assistant Christian J. Schaefer & Charles W. Anness, against a

Protected class with conditions (PCWC).

4. Hon. Lisa C. Allen, pleadings was filed on 7-30-2009 with a Motion to Dismiss, a

Motion to Dismiss is not a answer it a form of delay under due process & equal

protections I learned that one through "illegal business & judicial tactics" during this

denial process of every judge, magistrate, attorney, law clerks, clerk of courts (employees

of the people)

5. Entry Granting Motion to Disiniss Emergency Motion for Temporary relief and Writ

of Mandami.2s, don't know who, but all will be subject too its filings of the Court of

Appeals, First Appellant District of Ohio.

6. Notice of Order or Judgment sent by ordinary mail to all parties required by law, again

don't know who sent it but more delay, re injury again and again, and still do not know

who taking the forefront, so all will held accountable in the Court of Appeals, First

District of Ohio.

7. On July 15, 2009 the Cottrt of Appeals (Clerk of Court) had to follow orders from

above from Justices of the Courts of Appeals First Appellant District of Ohio and had to

talks to the Director of the Clerk of Courts for the Hamilton County Common Pleas, Ms.

Patricia M. Clancy, docket to place it where Defendant-Relator could not have time to

file an answer in the right or wrong court, looks like to much incompetence is lingering it

the courthouse like the HINl virus through illegal jtidicial Officers, employees,

attomeys.

R. Hon. Lisa C. Allen received this denland and had obtaining Joseph T. Deters and the

assistants to teain up on a unarmed, unsound mind, (PCWC), denionstrated a (PCWC) to

try to take the bait & switch througli illegal judicial tactics the make any Judicial officers

in contempt of court, violation of a swom in, tinder oath, in office, for a bench warrant

for there atrest, a Writ of Mandamus, Malfeasance, and Disbarred by law. This form of

contradiction of the US & Oluo Constitution states by being swom in, under oath, in

office did not change or perform a defense or offense, can not one Judicial Officers,

Magistrate, Attomey, law clerk, Clerk of Courts, employees, corporation and person if

done which has already occurred it called a spy with in a spy calling it a double dual

agent

9. On 8-24-2009 Defendant-Relator, Saint Torrance had placed a Mandatory Judicial

Notice and ("Authority") to Vacate Void Entry, Order, Judgment, there is no defense or

offense to this (MJNA) to Vacate Void entry, Order, Judgment:

VACATE VOID ENTRY, ORDER, JUDGMENT AND\OR DECREE:

On certiorari this Court may not review questions of fact. Brown v.Blanchard, 39 Mich. 790. It is not at liberty to determine disputed facts(Hyde v. Nelson, 11 Mich 353), nor to review the weight of the evidence.Linn v. Roberts, 5 Mich 443; Lunch v. People, 16 Mich 472. Certiorari isan appropriate remedy to get rid of a void judgment, one which there isno evidence to sustain. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v.Hunt, 39 Mich 469.

10. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction comes to play wben one of the twenty-two elements (22)

are breach some where doing this due process & eqnal protection from the courts is

surrendered by fraud and knowing of this fraud braches any Judicial Officers, attorneys,

Clerk of Courts failed it proper duties own to citizen, a protected class with conditions

especially (PCWC).

SUBJECT-MATTER JIA2TSDICTION:

ELEMENTS OF LACK OF JURISDICTION

In courts of limited jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction is

determined only by an inspection of the record of the case. Theinspection of the record of the case must show that all of the elements

of subject-matter jurisdiction existed, and existed at all times. State

Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thi11, 113 Ill.2d 294, 497 N.E.2d 1156 (1986);

Herb v.Pitcairn, 384 Ill. 237, 241 (1943); People ex rel. Curtin v.

Heizer, 36 I11.2d 438, 223 N.E.2d 128 ( 1967); Brown v. VanKeuren, 340

Ill. 118, 122 (1930); wabash Area Development, Inc. v. Ind. Com., 88

I11.2d 392 (1981). Either subject-matter jurisdiction exists, or it

doesn't.

(4) fraud upon the court, In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 111.App.3d

393 (1962), (5) a judge does not follow statutory proc:edure,Armstrong

v. Obucino, 300 17.1. 140, 143 (1921), (6) unlawful activity of a judge,

Code of Judicial C:onduc.t,(")) violatiori of due process,Johnson v._._Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019 (1938),

(13) when the judqc is involved in a scheme of bribery ( the Alemann

cases, Bracey v. Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997),

21) where an order/judgment is based on a void order/judgment,Austin v.

Smith, 312 F.2d 337, 343 (1962); English v. English, 72 I11.App.3d 736,

393 N.E.2d 18 (].st Dist. 1979).

11. Defendant-Relator request all thee above in this Mandatory Judicial Notices and

("Authorities") of all Notices and restitution of my credit report being restore and better,

Defendant -Relator, also request money back from Duke Energy and Fifth Bank making

iny account current, from this Garnishinent of a federal exempted funds and my checking

debit account attached to my saving account, compensatory and punitive damages with a

trial of my peers, and indefinite Protective Order, attorney fees being a (Pro Se

Litigant(citizen), with conditions (PSLCWC).

FOOT NOTES:

Saint Torrance f\k\a Torrance Smith (name changed in Pebiuaiy 2005), had done

bankruptcy petition and discharged on Janaary 8, 2002 aud Cincinnati Gas & Electric

Coinpany became Cinergy then Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., was on iny banknrptcy petition

and had a also a Adversary Complaint against Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company d\b\a\

Cinergy merger to Duke Energy Ohio Inc.

aint Torrance'I l f27 Wark R`i i#7

Cincinnati, Ohio 45211(513) 541-8522(513) 290-5445i'hattoc4^a^Yahoo.com

AFFIDAVIT OF SAINT TORRANCE

S'I'ATE OF OHIO }}SS:

COUNTY OF FIAIVIILTON }

I Saint Torrance, comes now being duly affirmed rmder oath to these "All Writs, with

Expedited Elections, US Constitutional Violations, Notice to Set Aside a Default

Judgment, Notice of Constitutional Challenge and Emergency Immediate Declaratory

and\or hijunctive of Relief and Notice of an hideflnite "Protective Order" and

Compensatory and Punitive Damages, Vacate Void Judgment, I violation of a

Bankruptcy Order from Bankruptey Court Discharging on January 8, 2003 and repeatedly

given Notice too, many times, and a reserved the rights that a trial by jury of my peers

nieaning the disabled, handicap, retarded and the babies, and elders against this person

Honorable Judge Lisa C. Allen, All Justices, Court of Appeals, Clerk of Courts, Joseph T.

Deters, and any otlier "Judicial Off cer" of all and any courts, corporation and persons

attenrpt any retaliation acts will also be dealt with severely as these five entities in this

Cosnplaint for ignorance and crossing the law with any illegal business, law tactics done

ni the Complaint.filed in the Courts_of Appeals,-First Appellant District of Ohio, against

11 on. Lisa C. Allen then transferred to Common Pleas, Relator, know that the Court of

Appeals is for review but also for (ALL Writs) too, the General Jurisdiction is the

Supreme Court of Ohio, but limited Jurisdiction, is under the R.C. 2731.02:

2731.02 Courts authorized to issue writ - contents.

The writ of mandamus may be allowed by the supreme court, the court of appeals, or thecourt of common pleas and shall be issued by the clerk of the court in which theapplication is made. Such writ may issue on the information of the party beneficiallyinterested.

Such writ shall contain a copy of the petition, verification, and order of allowance.

Effective Date: 10-01-1953

The chain-of-comniand of law make sure no one is above the law and the Supreme Court

of "1'he United States handles US Constitutional and ALL WRITS too, against Duke

Energy Ohio, Inc, Fifth Third Bank and IISBC Auto Finance, Inc still pending a case

number, is that unconstitutional to hold a case number up just because of a two Affidavit

being required to file and then certified mail to the respondents, for Relator, whom is a

(PCWC) and do not fully understand the Complaint procedures, but found to niany

unconstitutional hold up for equal protection & due process of the iJS constitutional

based on Affidavits, Certificate of Service should not hold up a (PCWC) for a simple

case number first and then the clerk of courts can issue a simple number and wait to send

the Complaint out when the Affidavits, and other requirement are met by the Relator,

comes I , Relator is the property of, and a Ohioan, of the State of Ohio. 1 his personal

knowledge, facts, and evidence attached to this Complaint is sufficient and the Relator, is

Affiant to stand competent being a (PCWC) to testify to all matters and reserved the

rights if failc-d to A-niss sotne other laws,-that also seen suf-ficient for the Relator, to not

know, but the Mandatory Judicial & Administrative Notice and Authorities will be very

efficient to do equal protection & due process rights under the US Constitutional rights

given too all and for a (PCWC) too.

PRAY FOR RELIBF

Relator request all rights and request for All Writs to apply, Expedited Elections, US

Constitutional Violations of the 14th aiuendrnent and a1 amendments that applies, a

Continuing Mandamus for the twenty (20) years of failed services izrHamilton County

Courthouses delaying a(PCWC), Cornpensatory and Pmritive Damages for this case and

reserve the law with case laws of Saint Torrance vs. whom else in Hamilton county

Courthouses, and in the Supreme Court of Ohio and the Supreme Court of The tTnited

States too. Relator, reserves his rigbts to a jury trial of my peers consisting of the

disabled, Handicap, Retarded, babies, elders that did not have there US Constitutional

rights on the jury stand as a equal citizen which was always a 3`d class citizen. In this

situation of settlement efforts the amount for the procedural delay and issues

Compensatory in the amount of 700,000.00 and all US Constitutional violations in the

punitive damages in the amount of 12,000,000.00 and if not settled for tlus amount

reserved the right for jury of my peers and what every given from the jury without

tampering with from and helper, guardian, representative agendas will be necessary for a

amount requested from Relator, or better given ' m the jury of my peers.

^

SUBSCRIBED AND SWRON TO BEFORE ME ON TI-IIS SEPTEMBER 20, 2009

My comsnission Expires: ^A( 3ti

FREO L. MORRISlINotary pu6tic, State of Ohio

My Commission Expires 04-30-1 t

DAT13D: 9-21-09

Respectfully submitted,

3, ,^°•c•^.4^

aint Torrance3182 Werk Rd #2Cincinnati, Ohio 45211(513) 541-8522(513) 290-5445Phattoe4 Ya3ioo.com

Patricia M. Clancy - Clerk of Courts

A Home

CPatricia M

lanc.

Clerk of ^ouits 00 hta7n Street

innatl, OI i 45202

Page 1 of 1

0

4 Court Records A Court Date • Forms * Services

Case SUrnnsary

Case Number:

Case Captfon:

Judge:

FiledDate[

Case Type:

TotalDeposXs:

Total Costs:

C 0900493

SAINTTORRANCE vs. LISA C ALLEN

Unavailable

7/1 5120 0 9

A109 - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - PETITION - TAXED IN COSTS.

$ (.00

8 86.00

Case FBistory

Doc Image# Date

W 9/2J2009

912/2009

8/2512009

811912009

8/1912009

In 7130/2009

6h 7/27/2009

7/15/2009

7/15f2009

13F , 7/1512009

8 7/1 512 0 0 9

6b 711612009

7/15/2009

Description

NOTICE OF ORDER OR JUDGMENT SENT BY ORDINARY MAIL TO ALLPARTIES REQUIRED BY LAW.

ENTRY STRIKING APPELLANT'S MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE ANDAUTHORITIES (SIC)

MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND ("AUFHORtTIES") TO VACATE VOIDENTRY, ORDER, JUDGMENT & NOTICE OF EVlDENCE UNDER FEDERALRULE OF EVIDENCE 201

NOTICE OF ORDER OR JUDGMENT SENT BY ORDINARY MAIL TO ALLPARTIES REQUIRED BY LAW.

ENTRY GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS EMERGENCY MOTION FORTEMPORARY RELIEF AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MOTION TO DISMISS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEFAND WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

ELECTRONIC POSTAL RECEIPT RETURNED, COPY OF EMERGENCYMOTION AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS DELIVERED TO USA C ALLEN ON07/20/09, FILED. [CERTIFIED NW IL NBR.r 7194 5168 6310 0458 60751

CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE ISSUED TO ROBERTA MCMAHON [CERTIFIEDMAIL NBR.: 7194 5168 6310 0458 60821

CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE ISSUED TO LISA C ALLEN [CERTIFIED MAILNBR.: 7194 5168 6310 0458 6075]

SUMMONS ISSUED BY CERT1FtED MAIL TO USA CALLEN

SUMMONS ISSUEO BY CERTIFIED MAIL TO ROBERTA MCMAHON

PETITION IN MANDAMUS FILED

TAXED IN COSTS - FILING SAINT TORRANCE

About the Clerk I FAQ I Unk5 I Dlrecttons. I Policies I Conta<.,* U5 ( Site Map

Altemate lanouaoes: Deutsch I Espanol I FrancaisI Itallano

t 2009 Patricia N. Clancy, Hamilton County Cterk of Courts. All rights reserved.

ton Caurity Courtnouse

You Are Not Cunentiy Laggetl tn. Laa In Here

Direc'ions i Poiicic's ; Soemap

A Division Info

Case Opfions

Case History

Case Schedules

Case Documents

Document Request Form

Party/Attorne" hiiorrnaiion

Certified Mail Service

New Case Search

New Name SearchAdd Case to My Portfolio

Printer Friendly Version

Amount

0.00

http://wwcv.courtelerk.org/case_sulnmary.asp?sec=history&easenulnber=C0900493 9/21/2009

IIN THE SUPRI3.ME COURT OF 01110

SAINT TORRANCI_?3182 WF,RK RD #2CIA3CINNATI OHIO 45211

JUDICIAL-RELATOR,

VS.

HONORAHLE;JUDGE RALPH E.WINKLERHAMII;l'ON COUNTY COUItI'IIOUSECOMMON PLEAS L"OURT ROOM #3601000 MAIN STCINCINNATI, 01110 45211

AND

HONORABLEJIJDGE DENNIS S. HEMLICKHAMILTON COIJNTY COURTHOiJSECOMMON PLEAS COURT ROOM #5101000 MAIN STCINCINNATI OI310 45211

AN[)

ALL JIJSTI(:'I;SJUSTICL LEE I-I. HIL1)ESRAN'f JR.J(JSTICE MARK PIIILIP PAINTERJUS'1'[CE J. HOWARi) SIJNDERMANN,JRJUSTICE SYLVIA SIE V E HENDONJUSTICL PENELOPE R. CUMMINGHAMJUSTICE PATIt[CK DINKELACKERWILLIAM HOWRAD 'I'AFT LAWCENTER 230 EAS"I' NINTH STR'EE'T', 12FLOORC.iNCINNATI, 01110 45202-2138

AND

< «-^ (irGtî „

e;11-11 K 0 "r'G0 LiRT1-IOE C(:?URT OF Otllltt

COUR'I'S OF APPEALS ^^ SUf^^^CÌViI l.ÎtJfr°t E)^`YICLERKS OF COURTS

CASL: NO. 0 9

C0900525 (Judge Winkler)C0900524 (Judge Heniliek)

WILLIAM HOWARD TAFTLAW CENTER230 F.AS'T N1NT1I STREET, If" FLOORCINCINNATI, ONIO 45202-2138

AND

JOESPI-I T. DETERSHAMILTON I'ROSECUTING ATTORNEYCIVIL. DTVISION230 E. NINTH STREET, SUITE 4000CINCINN.ATI, OI-lIO 45202-2151

AND

ATTORNEY CI3RISTIAN J. SCHAEFERASSISATNT PROSECUTOR230 E. NINTI3 STREEì, SUITE 4000CINCINATI, OHIO 45202

AND

ATTORNEY CHARLES W. ANNESSASSIS'1'AN1' .PROS'ECUTINCI230 E. NIN'I'H STREET, SUITE 4000CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202

AND

PA'I'RICIA M. CLANCYDIRE'.C'1'OR OF CLERKS OT COURT1000 MAIN STCINCINNA'I'I, OIIIO 45202

I2ESPONDENTS.

MANDATtR.Y JUDICIAL NOTIQV4.S AND AU'FI-IORITIFS;&

PETIÌ'ION FOR A MANDAMUS. PROIiIBITION, PEREMPTORY, PROI',EDENI)O&

TO VACA'IÈ VOID ENTRY GRANTINCrMOTION'I'O DISMLSS,.F.,MERCrENCYIMMENllIATE DECLARATORY & lI+IJIJNCTIVERELIFF

&AND WRI'F Oh' MANDAMUS & NOTICE OF FILED IN COUR'1' OF APPEALS,

FIRST APPELLANT D1S'IRICT OF 01110 BUT COURTS OF A'Pl'EALSFILED 1"t' IN 'CHE COC9RT OF COMMON PLEAS COURT DOCKET

^IIS. & OHIO CONSTITUTION VIOLATIONS OF DU& PROCESS & EQUAL

PROTECTION CLAUSES FOR A PROTECTED (;LASS W1TH QO.NllI'1'IONS(PCWC) WITfi ADA VIOLATIONS & INDEFINIATE PROTECTIVE ORDER OF

ALL RESPONDENTS & MALL.FE,ASNANCE &COMPENSAT'TORY & PUNITIVI?DAMANDES OI' WRI'1' OrNoT1CF OFRLSTITIJTK)N

Defendant-Relator, ,Saint'lorrance comes before trial (Supreme Court) court, with

a judicial Officer mora3irt&5ifrh#inare dtte to happen, pLirrsuantto the R.C. 2731 for

Prohibition, Mandamus, Notice of Vacate Void Entry, Order, Judgnent andlor decree,

docket filed in wrong court, US & Ohio Constitution violations under the civil rightg

claims and of'all amendnients that apply, related to due process and equal protection

especially for a (PCWC) acui (PSLCWC), Indcfi3iite 13r_otcctive Order for all respondents,

aitid compensatory and puuitive damages relatecl to Notice of restitution.

PACTS

1. On July 15, 2009, Dsiandant-Relator, -tv'aint Torrance filed this Writ of Mandamus,

Emergeney Motion for hrjunelivo Relief in the Courta of Appeals Pirst District of Ohio,

William Howard Taft L,aw Centcr, 230 F. Ninth Street, 1P P'loor, Cincinnati, C)hio

2. Court of Appeals, Eiixt Appellant District of Ohio lmd talked with Patricia. M. Clancey

and placed this (PCWC) &(PSLC WC), cases (C0900493) and (C0900549) on the

Conifi-ion Pleas Docket, now that is soine criminal in nature, whieb will allow everybody

else to become a criininal too, very professional.

3. Ilon. Judge Lisa A. Allen had obtained ,losapb T, Deters, Hamilton County

Prosecuting Attoavey altd assistant Christiau J. Schaefea• & Charles W. Anness, against a

Protected class with conclitions (PCWC).

4. F3on. Lisa C, Allen, pleadings was filed on 7-30-2009 with a Motion to Dismiss, a

Motion to Dismiss is not a ansxwer it a form of delay vucler due process & equal

protections I learned that one t.hrough "illegal business & judicial tactics" duririb, ihis

denial process of every judge, magistrate, attorney, law clerks, elerk of courts (employees

of the people)

5. Entiy Gxauting Motion to Dismiss Emergency Motion for Temporary relief and VsWrit.

of Mandarnus, don't know wlio, but all will be subject too its filings of the Court of

Appeals, First Appellant District of Ohio.

6. Notice of Order or Judgrncnt seut by ordinary nrail to all patties required by law, again

don't know who sent it butri-tore delay, re injury again and again, and still do not know

who taking the forefront, so all will hetd acconntable in the Court of Appeals, First

District of Ohio.

7, On July 15, 2009 the Court of Appf:als (Clexk of Couxt) ltad to follow orders from

above ii°om Justices of the Courts of Appeals First Appellant District of Ohio and had to

talks to the Directur of the Clerk of Courts for the llamiltoon County Common Pleas, Ms.

Patricia M. Clancy, docket to plaae it whera.Defendant-.Relator could not have time to

file an answer in the right or wrong court, looks like to much incoanpetence is lingering it

the courthouse like the 1-11J*11 virus through illegal judicial Officers, einployees,

attorneys.

8. Hon. Lisa C. Allen rcceived this demand ancl had obtaining Joseph T. Deters and the

assistants to tcam up on a tmarmed, unsound mind, (PCWC), demonstrated a (PCWC) to

try to t:alca tlie bait & switch throu$h illogal judicial tactics the make any Judicia.l officers

in contempt of corut, violation of a sworn in, ander oatb, in ofCce, for a bench warrant

for there arrest, a'bVrit of Mandamus, Malfe usance, and Disbarred by law. This fbrm of

contradiction of the US & Oluo Constitution states by being sworn in, tinder oatb, in

office did not change or perfor fense or offense, can not one Judiciai Officers,

Magistrate, Attorney, law clerk, Clerk of Couits, employees, cojporadon and person if

done wlaich has already occurred it called a spy with in a spy calling it a double dual

attent

9. (n 8-24-2009 73ePendant-Relator, Saiut Torrairce had placed a Mandatory Judicial

Notice and ("Authority") to Vacate Void Lntiy; Order, Judgment, tliere is no defense or

offense to this (M,INA) to Vacate Void entry, Order, Judgment:

VACATE VOID ENTRY, ORDER, JtJDGMENT AND\OR I7ECREE:

On certiorari this Court may not review questions of fact. Brown v.Blanchard, 39 Mich. 790. It is not at liberty to determine disputed facts(Hyde v. Nelson, 11 Mich 353), nor to review the weight of the evidence.Linn v. Roberts, 5 Mich 443; Lunch v. People, 16 Mich 472. Certiorari isan appropriate remedy to get rid of a void judgment, one which there isno evidence to sustain. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v.Hunt, 39 Mich 469.

10. Subyect Matter Jurtisdietion comes tc) play when onc of the twenty two elements (22)

are breach sonie wliere doing this dr.ie process & cqual protection fiom the courts is

surrendered by fraud and knowing urthis fraud braclres aay Judicial Officers, attorneys,

Clerk o(' Courts failed it proper dttties own to citizen, a protected class with conditions

especially (P( WC).

SIJI3JECT-MA.TTPR .1 U RISDICTIC)N;

ELEMENTS OF LACK OF J(7RLSDZCTION

Sn courts of limited juriSdicti.on, subject-matter jurisdiction is

determined only by an inspecCion of the record of the case. The

in.spection of the record of the case must show that all of the elements

oY-:suhject.-matter jurisdiction exi-s,te-d,...and exist.edat, all times. st.ate

Hank of Lake Zurich v. Thi11, 113 Z11.2d 294, 997 N.E.2d 11.56 (1986);

Herb v. Pitcairn, 384 111. 237, 241 (1943); People ex rel. Curtin v.

Heizer, 36 I1.1.2d 438, 223 N.E.2d 128 ( 196'1); Brown v. Van'RCeuren, 340

111. 118, 122 (1930); Wabash Area Development, Inc. v. Ind. Com., 88

I11.2d 392 (1981). Elither subject-matter jurisdiction exists, or it

doesn't.

(4) fraud upon ihe court, In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 1.1.l.7app.3d

393 (1.962), (5) a judge does not follow statutory procedure,Armstrong

v. Obucino, 300 7,11. 140, 143 (1921), (6) unlawful acCivity of a judge,

Code of Judicial Conduct.,( 7) vi.a.lation of due process,Johnson v_

Zerbst, 304 O.S. 458, 58 S.Gt. 1019 (1938),

(13) when the judge is i.nvolved in a seheme of bribery (the Alemannc:as(,s, Hracey v. Warcden, U.S. Supremo Court No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997),

Z.1.) where an order/judgmeni-. is based on a void order/judclntent,Austin v.Smith, 31,2 F.2d 337, 343 (1962); English v. Enalish, 72 T17..App.3d 736,393 N.G..2d 18 (lst Dist. 1979).

11. Defcndant-Relator request all tltee above in this Mandatoty dudicial Notices and

("Authorities") of all Notices and restitution of my credit report being restore and hetter,

Defendant -Relator, also request nroney back frotn Duke I;nergy axid Fifth Bank muking

niy account corrent, fiYim this Garnislunent of a federal exenlpted fands aard nry checking

debit account attael'ied to rny saving account, compensatory and punitive dainages ruith a

trial of my peers, and indefinite Protective Order, attorney fees being a (Pro Se

Litigant(citi7.en), with conditions (PSLCWC).

F'OOT NOTES:

Saint. Torrance fUc1a Torrance Sinith (name changed in Pebruaiy 2005), had donc

bankrtcptcy tjetition and discharged on Janaary 8, 2002 and Duke Energy Ohio, Tiic., was

an nsy ban]o-tiptey petition and had a also a Adversary Complaint against Cincinnati Cas

& Electric Company d\b\a\ Cinergy merger to Duke Energy Obio Ine.

Vlbniittad,

p J/^^^^%Ql

DATED: 8-31-09

Saint Torrance3182 Werk Rd, #2Cincinnati, Ohio 45211(513) 541-8522(513) 290-54451'1 IA'I,TO_t :4Srt?llAI Tv0,{. '

AFFIDAVITOr sAiNT7Y)RRANCL

S'.CATE 01; oHlo )}SS:

COUNTY OF TLAMIL'I'ON }

I Saint Torrance, comes now being duly affu-naed under oath to these "All Writs, witti

Expedited lilections, jJS Constitutional Violations, Vacate Void Judgmcnt, Notice of

Constitutional Challenge and Fmergency Imtnediate Declaratory andlor Injunetive of

Relief aird Notice of an Indefinite "Protective Order" and Coanpensatory and Puiutive

llarnages and a reserved the rights that a trial by jury of my peers meaning the disabled,

handicap, retarded and the babies, and elder:s against this person Honorable Judge Ralph

F. Winkler and 1-3onorable Judge Denrus S. Heimiclc, and All otlier Respondcnts on this

Complaint, any other "Judicial Officcr" of all and any courts, corporation and persons

attempt any retaliation acts will also be dealt with severely as thase two in this Complaint

for ignorance and crossing the law with any illegal business, (aw tactics done in the

Complaint and filed to the Supreine Crjurt of (Jhio against Duke Energy Ohio, Inc, :Fi_IY.h

Third Rank and FISBC Anto Finance, Inc still pendiog a case number, f,irr Relator wtiom.

is a (PCWC) and don't fully understanct tlie Coinplaint procedures but found to xnany

unconstitutional violations for equal protection & due process of the CJS constitutional

based on Affidavits, Certifccate of 5ervice srould not hold up a (1'C: vJC) for a sirnple

case number, first, aud then thc Clerk of Courts, cao issue a simple number, and wait to

send the Coniplaint, out when the Relator a (PCWC) can understand without nn help but

should have been help in the Rules of Practice and Civil Proeedures and books for ti3e

(PCWC) too, these Affidavits, requirements, comes now, Relator, is thc property of; and

a Oliioian, of the State of Ohio. This personal knowledge, facts, and evidence attached to

thisComplaintis sufficient atid the I:elator, is Aifrant to sland competett being a

(PCWC) to testify to all matters and reserved the rights if failed to miss sonte other law

that also seen sufficient for the Relator, to not know, but the Mandatory Judicial &

Administrative Notiee and Authorities will be very efficient to do equal protection & due

process rights under the US Constitutional rights given too all and for a (1'C WC) too.

PRAY FOR BELdEF

Relator recluest all rights and request for All Writs to apply, Expedited Elections, US

Constitutional Vioiations of the 14`h amendment and al aniendmcnts that applies, a

Continuing Mandamus for the twenty (20) years of failed services in Hamilton County

Courthouses delaying a(PCWC), Compensatory and Pu:n.itive Damages for this aase and

reserve the law with case laws of Saint Torrance vs, whom else in Hamilton county

Courthouses, and in the Supreme Court of Ohio and the Suprenie C.ourt ol'The United

States too. Relator, reserves his rights to a jury trial of nry peers consisting of the

disabled, Handicap, Rctarded, babies, elders that did not have there US Constitutional

rights on the jluy staud as a equal eitizen wlaich was always a 3`d class citizen. In this

situation of settlement efforts the amount for the procedural delay and issues

Cmnpensatory in the ainotmt of 700,000.00 and all US Constitutional violations in the

punit.ive damages in the aniount of 12,000,000.00 and if not settled for this amount

reserved the right firr jury of niy peers aud wha1: every given from the jury without

tampering with fi-om and belper, guardian, representative agendas will be necessary for a

aniount rcquested fitom Relator, or better given fiom tlie jury of'tny peeis.

SOBSCRIBED AND SWRON'I'O 8E'1?QRt3IvSB ON TFIIS SEPTEMBER 20, 2009

My commission ExpSres:_), Z;Ql f

Ai3IfaF1IL ilflCt7CiI.:MU^,'R'oPa;y Pubtk, S4aVn of P31ile

mY Commlasion FxpirQZaSopYCmt79P 90,9.41{;

icia M. C'laney - Clerk of Cotuts Page I of l.

You Are Not Cunently Logged In. Loq1n_!Le_r,e

oli[ies i Slter

nilton Co011tY /-pu'thnU3e00o Ma;n StreetincirliiaU, OI1 i15202

a Services • ! Division Info

(;c"'t£le S;Jtrlti'iFirV Csse Options

Case Number: C 0900525 Case HisloryCasr„ Schedula0

Case Caption: SAINT TORRANCE vs. HONORABLE RALPH E WINKLERCa3e [7OGl101CClt8

Jodgs: tlnavafla6le nor:um, ot Requeat Fomn

Filed Date: 7127)'2009 Party/Attorney InforrnationGexiified Mail gEivice

Case Type: A110 , WRIT OF MANDAMI/S - PETITIONNew Case Sear h

Total Deposfts: $ 0.00c

Nev7 Name SearchTotal Costs; $ 79.00 Add Caso to My Pod(ollo

Cas^ His@cerq P19nter Friendly Version

Dac 1macJcaiA f)atR }SIiYOUni;nescripYiu»

m 812612009NOf1CE OFORDERORJUDGMENTSENTBY OROINARYMAILTOALLPARTIES REQUIRED BY LAW.

ENTRY GRANnNO MOTION TO DISMISS MANDATORY EMERGENCYtt 8126/2009 INJUNCTIVE REl.IEF ANDJOR DECLARATORY RELIEF OF NOTICE OF

WRIT OF MANDAPAUS (SIC)

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF MANDATORY EMERGENCY INJIINCTIVEe/13/2009 RELIEFANOlOR DECLARATORY RELIEF OF NOTtCE WRI'r OF

MANDAMUS AND MFMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

ELECTRONIC POSTAL F?ECEIPT RETURNED, COPY OF WRIT OFMANDAMUS AND Sl1MMONS DELIVERED TO HONORABLE RALPH E

lY 813/2009 WINKLER ON 07129100, F1LED. ICERTIFIED MAIL NBR: 7194 6168 631004606056[

m 712812009 SUMMONS ISSUED BY CERTIFIED MAIL 10 ANDREW C CONROY

A 7/28f2009 SUMMONS ISSUED BY CER(IFIED MAIL TO HONORABLF. RALPH EWINKLER

tt

AboLtt rhe CJcirlt I hAQ I 4.Inks I I71reCilOrIS j Plilichu I Con',acL Us { 5MM 61ap

Alter'nate Lr cLni^e^s: Uertteuh I Esplmal I Fa'ancals [ Iialiano

2.009 NeS,Icia 11. GancY, Hamilron CcmnLy Clei<o'!:ourL-;. AII rtghts reseived.

http://www,eaut2elcrk.org/case_surnmary.asp?sec-history&casenL:ntbcr=CU9DOS25 9/22/2009

712 8120 0 9 CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE ISSUEDrO HONORABLE RALPH E WINKLER[CERTIFIED MAIL NBR.: 7124 5160 6310 0460 0056)

7/28/2000 CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE ISSUED TO ANDREW C CONROY [CERTIFIEDMAtI, NBR.: 7194 6188 6310 0400 6063j

7/27/2009 COMMON PLEAS TRIAL COURT #A 0902495

7/27/2009 COPYSENTBYORDINARYMAILTO ANDREW A CONROY AND JUDGERALPH WINKLER

712712009 NODEPOSITREQUIRED-POVAFF.SAtNTTORRANCE 0.00

7/2-02009 PETITION IN PAANDAMUS FILED

Pats•icia M. Clancy - Clerk of Courts YNge[01.1

arniitcn CounP.y Crorthou5e000 Main Stre;ci:incinnaPi, OH 45202

♦ Home

Casu Numhere

Caso Captlon:

Judge:

Filed Dato:

Case Typo:

Total DepOstt9:

Total Costs:

C 0900524

SAINT TORRANCE v3. HONORA6LE DENNIS S HELMICK

UeavailaDie

7127J2U09

Af7O - WRtT OF MANDAMUS - PETITION

$ 0.00

$111.00

E Services Division Info

{;aa4z 48iStorV

D9c ItTeaUa:3E Date Desc.ription

m

m

ffi

[t

mm

Bf26/2009NOTICE OF ORDER OR JUDGMENTSENT BY ORDINARY MAIL TO ALLPARTIES REQUIRED BY LAW.

ENTRY GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS MANDATORY EMERGENCY8126)2009 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND/OR DECLARATORY RELIEF OF NOTICE OF

WRIT OF MANDAMUS (S1C)

PFTITIONER-RELATOR'S MANDATORY JIIDiCIAL NOTICES AND("AUTHORITIES") OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENTS MOTION TO DtAMiS.S8 NOTICE OF 201 RULES OF EVIDENCE & SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS

8 /2 5120 0 9 FOR A PROHIBITION, PEREMPTORY. US & OHiD CONSTITUTIONALVtOIATIONS OF CIVIL RIGFiTS & INJUNCTIVE & OR DECLARA'fO12YREIJEF, ADA VIOLATONS TO A PROTECTED CLASS WrfH CONDITfONS SINDEFINIATE PROTECTIVE ORDER AGAINST A(PCWC) 6COMPENSAROTY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGFS

RELAT'OR SAINT TOEEANCE MANDATORY NOTICE OF DISABILiTIES &BJ11/2009 CONDFTIONS OF A PROTECTED CLASS WITH CONDITIONS (PCWC) AND

STATUSAS A PRO SE LITIGANT WITH CONDITIONS (PSLWC)

tdOTION TO DISMISS PLTF MANDATORY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ANDlOR8l6I2009 DCCIARATORY RELIEF OF NOTICE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPOri1'

ELECTRONIC POSTAL RECEIPT RETURNED, COPY OF WRIT OF8/3/2009 MANDAMUS AND SUMMONS DELIVERED TO ANGEtA STEARNS ON

07130f09, FILED. [CERTIFIED MAIL NBR.7104 518B6310046Q 60491

ELECTRONIC POSTAL RECEIPT RETURNED, COPY OF WRIT OF8/3/2009 MANDAMUS AND SUMMONS DELIVERED TO JOY rAZAWAY ON 07130J09,

FILED. (CERTIFIED MAIL N1IR.: 7194 5160 0310 0460 60321

ELECT RONtC POSTAL RECEIPT RETURNED, COPY OF WRIT OF81312009 MANDAMUS AND SL/MMONS DELIVERED TO HONORABLE DENNIS S

HELMICK ON 07129108, FILED. [CERTIFIED MAIL N8R.:7194 6168 63100460 60251

7/281200D SUMMONS ISSUED BY CERTIFiED MAIL TO ANGFLA STEARNB

712012009 SUMMONS ISSUFD BY CFRTIFIED MAIL TO HONORAB4E DENNIS SHELMICK

712812 0 0 9 SUMMONS ISSUED BY CERTiF1EU MAIL TO JOY GA'LAWAY

712612009 CERTIFIEDMAIt.SERVICEtSSUEDTOANGELAST'EARNS[CERTiFIED63 0 4666049945

7/20/2009

)MAILN01'.. 71 168 0

CERTiF1ED MAIL SERVICE ISSUED TO JOY GAZAWAY (CERTiFIED MAILNBR.: 7194 5168 6310 0460 60321

CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE ISSUED TO HONORABLE DENNIS 5 HELMICKW2812009 [CERTIFIED MAIL NBR.: 7194 51086310 0460 6026)

Casa Op4[ons

Case t•iistviyCase Schar3ules

Casr pocunranis

Document Raquest FOrln

!'aFiyfAttorney Information

Cortlficd Matl Servic>

New Casa 9 rai ch

New Name Seaecil

.Acid Case to My Prntfoliti

*-Printer Friendly Version

Arr+ortnt

http:llwww.colrrtcierk.or)zJcase sxtmmaty.asp?sec-history&casennlnber=C0900524 9/22/2009

Patricia M. Cio-inoy - Clerk of C:outts r£l^.T,e20TL

7/2 712 0 0 0COPY SENT BY ORDINARY MAIL TO MS JOY GA7AWAY, MS ANGELASTEARNS AND JUDGE H[LMICK

7l27l2009 COMMON PLEAS TRIAL COURT # A M70t626

7l2772009 PFTtTION IN MANDAMUS FILED

7l27f2009 NO DEPOSIT REQUIRED-POVAFF. SAINT TORRANCG 0.00

AUpat the Cfcrk I FAQ I IJnks I Directions I Polictes I Contact Us I Site MaP

P.Ifarnatn lalpn,p,^: neotsr,h j Espai"^c! j Francdi. I Staliano

l'c! 2009 P9trlcia M. i;lancy, Harnil4on (,,ounty l7e:rk rk Couri4. Ali right, re;r-,rv:+i.

htip:/Iwww.couiteterk.rn'glcase_summary.asp?sec-history&casenuniher=C0900524 9/22/2009

RESPONDENTS THE HONORABLE LISA C. ALLEN … TORRANCE, . Case No.: 09-1710 Relator,: ... Joseph T....

Documents

Transcript of RESPONDENTS THE HONORABLE LISA C. ALLEN … TORRANCE, . Case No.: 09-1710 Relator,: ... Joseph T....