/...
CITY OF CLEVELAND CASE NO 2013-1924 Appellees -Plaintiffs On Appeal from the Cuyahoga County C'ourt
of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District
KENNETH S.TAYLOR Court of Appeals Case No. CA-13-99594 Appellant- Defendant
APPELLANTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF NIARGINAL DENIAL BY CHIEF JUSTICE MAUREEN O'CONNOR DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS JURISDICTIONAL MEMORANDUM A MEMORANDUM FILED IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION WAS DENIED IN CONTRARY TO (S Ct Prac R 7.08. Determination of Jurisdiction). AND OTHER CONFLICTS
ORAL HEARING REQUESTED
I{.ENNETH S. TAYLOR; ALYCIA TAYLOR DRIC^'^GIlNS, DEFENDANTS- Appellants, {pro se},8610 Hadden Road Twinsburg, Ohio 44087 1-330-425-1542 [email protected] , BARBRARA A. LANGHENRY (0038838) Director of Law VICTOR R. PEREZ (0074127) Chief Prosecutor ASHLEY M. GARRETT (0087885) Assistant Prosecutor City of Cleveland1200Ontario Street, 8th Floor Cleveland, Ohio 44113(216) 664-4850
'j. . K. ^ AP!; E^ 2 N 14 S,af.1EiRV1 i ,'ss ;3OURIT
CLERK OF COURT M ^ a,rti^ sf (,)F 011H., 10 2
Now comes, Defendants -Appellants, KENNETH S. TAYLOR; ALYCIA TAYLOR
DRIGGINS submitting, APPELLANTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
MARGINAL DENIAI, BY CHIEF JUSTICE MAUREEN O'CONNOR DENIAL OF
DEFENDANTS JURISDICTIONAL MEMORANDUM A MEMORANDUM FILED LN
SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION WAS DENIED IN CONTRARY TO (S.Ct.Prac.R, 7.08.
Determination of Jurisdiction). AND OTHER CONFLICTS. This court allows for a Motion for
Reconsideration where the Court refuses to grant jurisdiction in a discretionary case or an appeal
of right as not involving a substantial constitutional question, Appellants, hereby reqtlests this
Court to reconsider the determination to decline jurisdict.ion as to (S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08.
Determination of Jurisdiction). AND OTHER CONFLICTS. The judge's ruling is incomplete and fails to state the elements under S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08. (B) (4) that gives the judge the power to violate rules of law. No subsection was noted by judge on this S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08. (B) (4) denial order does not meet constitutional requirements, as it did not include a11 the essential elements to deny appeal memorandum. Thus, the prose defendant is not properly inforined of the ruling against him so that he could put forth his defense. Also the judge has presided over previous improper actions and is predisposed to find against Taylor, and is currently under two motions to recuse notices without hearings, both these cases reside side by side on the judges desk and calendar and parallel each other as she refuses to let go, she is predisposed to find against Taylor as she has in all previous cases. See Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Taylor, 2011-Ohio-435. ,
See case # CASE NO 2013-1787 at docket 03/06/14 Chief Justice O'Connor's response to request for recusal pursuant to S.Ct. Prac. R. 4.04(B) - will not recuse. See trial court docket at
04/03/2012 SUMMIT COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS SC 12-AP-026. ORDER TO DENY
DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN OPPOSITION. CASE MAY PROCEED BEFORE JUDGE 3
PARKER. CHIEF JUSTICE MAUREEN O'CONNOR. See Case # No. 2011-0437 dismissed
with no reason by CHIEF JUSTICE MAUREEN O'CONNOR. THE SUPREME COURT OF
OHIO has committed structural errors of law. The rules are set forth below. This decision is
bias, prejudice, partial, and clearly shows a precondition to find in favor of trial court by hiring
her extension of her right arm, a partial retired advocate at $ 500.00 per day or more with no skin
in the game, Judge Mabel Jasper hand picking her to preside over Taylor's trial court case upon
expected reversal and reinand by The United States Supreme Court. All Judges Rulings
Establishes prima facie evidence of clear cut bias by the Ohio Supreme Court the court's bias
makes it impossible for Appellant to get a fair trial in the Eight District. C. A. who redacted
pictorial evidence blotting pictures out removed files frorn clerk's office and tampered with
evidence that the Ohio Supreme Cottrt has ignored. These are crimes against Taylor, who has
never been notice lawfully of official journal entry against him. Appellant also cannot get a fair
trial in the trial court. The Supreme Court found that "among the basic fair trial rights that can
never be treated as harmless is a defendant's right to an impartial adjudicator, be it judge or jury." The Judge and the court's exercise of jurisdiction constituted a "clear usurpation of
power." Sarin v. Ochsner, supra at 424, quoting from Lubben v. Selective Serv. Sys., 453 F.2d
645, 649 (Ist Cir. 1972)... Judge Kenneth A. Rocco P.J DECISION ANL? JOURNAL E.NTRY;
Dated October 24, 2013 fails to addressed this issued raised in appeal. Structural Error. Quoting from the Court's 2004 decision in State v. Perry. But see State v. Colon, 119 Ohio St. 3d 204,
2008-Ohio-3749 backing away from structural error to plain error and declaring Colon 1 applies prospectively. As to application of Colon see State v. Robertson, 180 Ohio App. 3d 365, 2008-
Ohio-6909. For cases where Colon I and 11 were followed and conviction reversed, see State v.
Buford, 178 Ohio App. 3d 640, 2008-Ohio-5505; State v. Summers, 182 Ohio App. 3d 139, 4
2009-Ohio-1883. "Likewise in this instant case was born out of flawed, faulty bad law that is
clearly unconstitutional which caused deprivation life liberty and property both tangible and
entangle. The case was not built on rock solid foundation grounds Structural errors are
"constitutional deffects that "'defy analysis by 'harmless error' standards" because they "affect []
the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply [being] an error in the trial
process itself" "' (Brackets added in Fisher.) State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118, 2004-Ohio-297,
802 N.E.2d 643, at 117, quoting State v. Fisher, 99 Ohio St.3d 127, 2003-Ohio-2761, 789
N.E.2d 222, at T 9, quoting Arizona v. Fulminante (1991), 499 U.S. 279, 309, 310, 111 S.Ct.
1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302. "Such errors permeate' (t] he entire conduct of the trial from beginning
to end' so that the trial cannot "'reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt
or innocence." "' Id., quoting Arizona at 309-310, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302, quoting
Rose v. Clark (1986), 478 U.S. 570, 577-578, 106 S.Ct. 3101, 92 L.Ed.2d 460. "[A] Structural
error mandates a finding of 'per se prejudice.' "(Emphasis sic.) State v. Fisher, 99 Ohio St.3d
127, 2003-Ohio-2761, 789 N.E.2d 222, at 19. Judge Kenneth A. Rocco P.J DECISION AND
JOURNAL ENTRY; the docket is in shambles, disarray, disorder, chaotic and replete with structural errors in law. S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08. Determination of Jurisdiction. (A) Time to review (1)
(a) After the time for filing jurisdictional memoranda has passed, the Supreme Court will review the jurisdictional memoranda filed and determine whether to accept the appeal and decide the case on the merits. (b) If the appeal involves termination of parental rights or adoption of a minor child, or both, the Supreme Court will expedite its review and determination. (2) (a) if the appellee has filed a waiver in lieu of a memorandum in response, the Supreme Court may review the memorandum in support of jurisdiction and determine whether to accept the appeal before the deadline for filing the memorandum in response. (b) Upon review of the memorandum in 5
support of jurisdiction and notwithstanding the appellee's filing of a waiver, the Supreme Court.
may direct the appellee to file a mmorandum in response before it decides whether to accept the
appeal. (3) The Supreme Court may hold its determination of whether to accept a jurisdictional
appeal pending the outcome of any other case before the Supreme Court that may involve a
dispositive issue. (B) Decision on jurisdiction upon review of the jurisdictional memoranda, the
Supreme Court will do one of the following: (1) accept the appeal and order that the case be
briefed in accordance with the applicable provisions of S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.01 through 16.08 (2)
Accept the appeal and hold the decision in the appeal for another case that is pending before the
Supreme Court; (3) Accept the appeal and enter judgment summarily; (4) Decline to accept the
appeal. In declining to accept an appeal the Supreme Court has determined that one or more of
the following are applicable after review of the jurisdictional memoranda: (a) The appeal does
not involve a substantial constitutional question and should be dismissed; Rules 7.08-7.10 (b)
The appeal does not involve a question of great general or public interest; The appeal does not
involve a felony;(d) The appeal doesinvolwe a felony, but leave to appeal is not warranted. (5)
Take any other action the Supreme Court deems appropriate.(C) Jurisdictional memorandum from state solicitor .In any jurisdictional appeal in which the state is not a party but nevertheless may have an interest, the Supreme Court may invite the state solicitor to file a jurisdictional memorandum expressing the views of the state before making its determination of iurisdiction.
The current judge sitting in review of this case, Judge Maureen O'Connor will not recuse in a case that is currently pending before this court, the case involves the Chief Justice extreme rule breaking and failure to follow the law. The Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor in this particular case has engaged in a total disregard of the law mandated by Rule 7.03. This is iiow being advance in contrary to rule of law by plaintiffs counsel. The elerk's Office has erred. The 6
alleged new counsel for plaintiffs has engaged in a total disregard of the law. This zrzaneuver
violates S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.03. Memorandum in Response (A) Deadline. Which states? "To ensure
compliance with the rules, the complete text of the Rules of Practice should be reviewed before
documents are submitted for filing: Please note that the timeliness rules set forth in the Rules of
Practice are mandatory and that the Clerk is not permitted to file untimely documents. Here is
that docket that is illegal, and an unlawful creation of Judge Maureen O'Connor. Pay attention to
the underlined bold portion of docket below.
1 1l i 3/ ! 3 Notice c?f ap.neal cjf Kenneth S T.3;,rlor v. Filed '1':aylor, Kenneth
._ ... .-..,.... 11r'13113 Memorandum in support of jurisdiction ;aiew Filed Taylor, Kenneth bv:
1 1/ 14113 Copv of notice of appcal sef1t to clerk- of cotu-t of appeal; _ .__...... _._ . _._. _. .___. , 02/13I14 Notice of substitution of Rose Marie L. Fiore, James S. Wertheim, and Candice L !Musiek . View Filed Deutsche Bank National Trust Company hv:
02%13114 And designetion of Rose 11ilarie 1,. Fiore as c;oklnsef ot 1-c;coRI See I'iled Deut.sclie Bank Natiozial Trust Con~ pa^^^ Above - _ . --. .. .. __ - -...... __. _. __ __ , 1Vlotion to strike notice of aQpeal und mefnorcindurn in support of,jurisdiction View Filed Deutsche Bankllr'cttional Trust Com,pany by^
tic i Q2I18/I4 Qf fticd: gl?pc^llec^ ^^ncr^^ile ^z yner:?orrr3tdtr.rra in response _ .__._ _. .._,.^.^._....^..^... __ _^ -- ---. _ _., .^_ .. . _ _ __. ^. -_..^....t4'ithin 30duys ..^... _ 0^%^(^/14 sVlemo opposing rnotioii to strike notice otappeal and rnemorandum in support of s FJiei-v jurisdiction r, iled Tccylor. Kenneth by: tl?/20114 Motion in opposirion to de^i-Ination of counsel of rec:«rfl Viez^^ l^'iled Ta^^lor, Kenneth Qr>>:
02/24/14 Second motion in opposition to designation of counsel of record 7
_.__.::^_ . ^. _^.^:r.._.^. .._..:.__..^^._^.._ .._...^:.. Vlew Filed Taylor, Kenneth by:
03/07114 !Requcst for re,ctisal of C'hic" Justice lYlarireei-i O'Connor pursuant to S.Ct. Prac. K. Vice.^ 4.()4(E) Filed Taylor, Kenneth by>; O 3/0C/14 JChief Justice O'Connor's response to request for recusal pursuant to S.Ct. Prac. R. View 14.04(B) - will not recuse U3/U6/I^ Proof of rnai(iii ;: for Rose Maie l_ynn hioie Postu-t S6..,4(4 03,'(}0;14 Proof of flla.i(in^ for Ketii7et1i S. '(,aylor; Po t 03/ 12/14 Return receipt for Rose, Marie Lyrui Fiore -- received 3! 1 Q/201=1 --_ _._. ....: 03/14I14 `'Motion in opposition of judge buying and Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor denial to 'Jiew frecuse Filed Taylor, Kenneth by: 03/20/14 Ib1cn,oralidurri in 1,ponse to jul l5^_fictlOn Vlc^v Frled Deut.4cFze BaiikNatioiial Trljst Ct,inpany O V: 03%24/14 Motion to strike memorandum in response View Filed Taylor, Kenneth = bv: Moreover, despite having received campaign contributions from the current COUNSEL'S LAW FIRM THOMPSON HINE LLP. The same counsel on record of Thompson Hine LLP Lawyers & Law firm represented the allege plaintiff during a disqualification in a previous matter of trial court in a co-conspiracy act against Taylor with Robin Wilson of Thompson Hine LLP. Together with Judge Tom Parker. That Judge Maureen O'Connor Ohio Chief Justice handled and denied. See Docket (Recusal) filed March 5, 2014.Thompson Hine LLP Lawyers & Law firm gave $5,500.00 to Candidate for Justice of Ohio Supreme Court Maureen O'Connor from November 5, 2007 - September 30, 2008.( THOMPSON HIl\^E & FLORY Lawyers & Lobbyists gave OCONNOR, MAUREEN CLEVELAND, OH $3,500 in 09/03/2002). THONIPSON HINE & FLORY Lawyers & Lobbyists OCONNOR, MAUREEN CLEVELAND, OH $1,000 07/12/2002 8 THOMPSON HINE & FLORY Lawyers & Lobbyists OCONNOR, MAUREEN CLEVELAND, OH $1,000 06/07/2002 Thompson Hine LLP Lawyers & Law Firms also gives $7,000.00 in Contributions to Candidate for Justice of Ohio Supreme Court Maureen O'Connor. Ohio "required judges to step aside in cases in which either the lawyers or the parties involved in the case have contributed to their election campaigns." Justice Maureen O'Connor misconduct re: Violations of CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT (Superseded March 1, 2009) Canon 7-(2) (a) (i) and (ii) - Campaign Solicitations; Use of Campaign Funds CAi'VIII.LE E. DEAN, ET AL. V. JOHN T. BONDURANT, ET AL. (FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, RECUSAL, APPEARANCE OF BIAS, JUDICIAL ELECTIONS). "Citizen Action asked those judges to recuse themselves from the FirstEnergy case. They all refused, including O'Connor. "I didn't feel the need," she says. "Just because someone contributed to my campaign? I don't think that's the criteria." "The Supreme Court's landmark Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. The Due Process Clause incorporated by the common-law rule requiring recusal when a judge has "a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest" in a case, T'umey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510, 523. Three cases why any high ethical honorable Chief justice would and should recuse it is the law. The Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires judges and tribunals to avoid even the mere appearance of bias. This case concerns an elected Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor that is, a judge sitting on the highest court in the state of Ohio who remains at the bench to administer and oversee a case involving the Thompson Hine LLP Lawyers & Law Firm who has contributed substantially to that justice's election campaign by giving her a monetary benefit of 14,000.00 dollars in the aggregate to her campaign facts is in public record. We ask she disclosed to the court any other close relat'ronship with this law firm, I,e such as but not limited to Kyle G. Baker of Thompson Hine LLP a lawyer who served as a 9 judicial extern to the Honorable Maureen O`Connor of the Ohio Supreme Court. Couple that with the evidence in Taylor's first motion to recuse filed on March 5, 2014. The cumulative effects of the appearance of bias is far too much for this court to constitutional tolerate under the law alone and especially if you consider the totality of circumstance doctrine. Judge Maureen should enlerge from her iron cage of rationalized bias and appearance of bias and should recuse. OTHER CONFLICTS: This Court should not turn a blind eye to the facts that are set forth in Appellants trial court records and C.A apneal court records and set out in Appellants Memorandum In Support of Jurisdiction. This decision constitutes a paradigmatic shift in the law and presents a profound conflict and raises obvious, plain, and prejudicial error. Chiefly because the courts interpret App. R. 12(A) (2) to allow courts to disregard any assignments of error that an appellant fails to separately argue. However the rules are not correctly applied in this case as the appellants opening brief is set out with (10) ten separate assignment of errors , well-pleaded, with supporting case law , legal authorities , detail , clear, concise , trial court errors explained, and pointed out and preserved in court records certified in both a video tape transcript dated 1/30 /13 , and written transcripts filed with appellants opening brief with irrefutable pristine record. The appellate court fa.iled to weigh the cumulative effects of, an accumulation of less serious errors, when taken as a whole, may so undermine the framework of the proceedings as to rise to the level of a structural error." Langley, 2004-269 p. 12, 896 So.2d at 209-210. This court never points to any of this best evidence or viewed it with an impartial eye because there is obvious error any reasonable person can see viewing video tape transcript. That would change this decision which 10 this is the best evidence in any tribunal in the United States live recording of the proceedings. (As important as it captures, facial expression, voice, gestures etc.) Moreover, the court's decision engages in a game dodge ball as The Eight District Oourt of Appeals erred in its Decision being appealed herein ; they never point to or established any applicable case law that gives them the power and authority to make a decisions that Taylor waived any and /or all his rightsby not raisings the constitutionality of the city's law and ordinance Scalping In Prohibited Zone in violation of code 698A.01. In trial court. Cheifly, because the law that does not even exsist. Judge Kenneth A. Rocco P.J DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY; Dated October 24, 2013 in his first paraghagh states "Cleveland Codified Ordinances (CCO) 698A.01 which prohibits conduct commonly known as "Scalping" tickets outside of a permitted area a minor misden-ieanor offense". However, nowhere in the ordinance is there any language referring to any common known conduct that relates to "Scalping." The trial court convicted Taylor under City Cleveland's ["I.MM-698 A. 01 Scalping In Prohibited Zone ordinance. But no language in this ordinance refer to a commonly known conduct as "Scalping" written in in law or ordinance no such law is available the city or the appeals court does not explain what Scalping is. The city does not have a law that prohibits "Scalping" whatever that terms mean it is certainly not an element in the city's ordinance 698A.01 Outdoor Sales of Tickets of Admission to Sporting Events and Other Events Restricted wluch never mentions activity commonly known as "Scalping" first of all what is scalping? What activity is involved in scalping? No one has ever shown proof in any evidence before the court that the city has any law that prohibits this unknown abigquitous terni. How can an officer charge a citizen with such a crime where he lacks the knowledge to explain what scalping is? Judge Kenneth A. Rocco P.J DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY; Dated October 24, 2013 in his third paragraph he states Taylor fails to raise Il the issue of constitutionality. However, "(the unconstitutionality of this conviction is obvious prejudicial, structural error because the city law Cleveland Codified Ordinances (CCO) 698A.01 which prohibits conduct commonly known as "Scalping" tickets outside of a permitted area a minor misdemeanor offense". does not exist. reversal and remand should have been a fiat, State v. Cooper, 170 Ohio App.3d 418, 2007-Ohio-1186, 867 N.E.2d 493, 113 (4th Dist.) ("[A] defendant preserves his right to object to the alleged insufficiency of the evidence when he enters his `not guilty' plea.") ;) Taylor's arguments were his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. "State v. Colon, 118 Ohio St. 3d 26, 2008-C)hio-1624 - Syllabus: "When an indictment fails to charge a mens rea element of a crime and the defendant fails to raise that defect in the trial court, the defendant has not waived the defect in the indictment." Taylor asked Officer Derrick Davis if he knows the definition for scalping tickets. He testified and said he was not sure. (Tr.at pg 18). ("R" at 4:47:41). Taylor asked him if he understood the elements necessary for a charge. But he did not explain the elements. The trial court failed to prove all the elements to win a conviction under the City Cleveland's ["IMM-6980 A. 01 Scalping in Prohibited Zone ordinance. "(T) He defective indictment resulted in structural error, and the court of appeals erred when it held that the error could not be raised for the first time on appeal. "Quoting from the Court's 2004 decision in State v. Perry, the Chief Justice wrote: "Structural errors are constitutional defects that defy analysis by harm.less error standards because they affect [] the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply [being] an error in the trial process itself. ... Such errors permeate [t]he entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end so that the trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence. ... In determining whether an alleged error is structural, our threshold inquiry is whether such error involves the deprivation of a constitutional right." For the same reason above 12 Taylor's first sixth and seventh errors should be sustained and case remanded back and reversed because His not guilty plea to the charge preserved the right to appeal on the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. State v. Cooper, 170 Ohio App.3d 418, 2007-Ohio-1186, 867 N.E.2d 493, 113 (4th Dist.) ("[A] defendant preserves his right to object to the alleged insufficiency of the evidence when he enters his 'not guilty' plea."); State v. Boles, 187 Ohio App. 3d 345, 2010- Ohio-278 -- 126: "No court - not a trial court, not an appellate court, nor even a supreme court - has the authority, within its discretion, to commit and error of law. ." The court acted against the weight of the evidence. See trial court recording of litigation by video transcript for this powerful display of injustice to Taylor captured live on 1/30 /13 ("R"). In Trial court record. . (Tr.at pgl) The defendants appeal is strengthen by integrated video recording of the transcript orally and visually as dimensions of law. See 54 Cal. 4th 1.186, 281 P.3d 799, 144 Cal. Rapt. 3d 71.6. this case and its fact finders and triers of facts has placed and advanced a questionable footprint of unethical illegal behavior by trial court" However, this honorable expert legal panel of justices lost its way against the manifest weight of evidence , and instead of seeing what was directly in front of them that the wrongful conviction of Taylor in lower trial court constitutes plain, obvious , prejudicial error Moreover by just a cursory look at ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 3; anyone can see the trial court erred by convicting Taylor wrongfully by failure to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Nowhere in its decision is the re any proof the trial court proved its case beyond reasonable doubt supported by any admissible evidence substantial or otherwise. And questioned raise in ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW visa via Statement of the Issues Presentedl.) Did the trial court fail to prove all the elements to win a conviction under the City Cleveland's ["1MM-6980 A. 01 Scalping In Prohibited Zone ordinance? A question that has not addressed by this court. The judge fails to 13 address any of the issues raised in 1.) nor did the city respond of rebut or offer any defense to this the utopian complaint in this appeal placed in the first assignment of error intentional a violation of the appellants most cherished constitutional right in the United States of America. Structural errors are constitutional defects The silence of the appeals court is constitutionally intolerable here and we object to the fact that ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 1: was left out of Judge Kenneth A. Rocco P.J DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY; Dated October 24, 2013 fails to addressed constitutional issues raised in appeal and must do so . The trial court erred by violating Kenneth S. Taylor the Defendant's First Amendment, rights embodied in the Forthteenth Amendment to Commercial Speech, due process, and equal protection rights protected by the Constitution of the United States. This top heavy issue is well -pleaded in this assignment of error that was completely overlooked and not address in Judge s decision. In the contrary Taylor forwarded an abundance of case law conflicting with this ruling and conflicting with other Appellate court districts in Ohio which allow appellants to raise structal error, plain error, prejudicial err©r, and lor constitutional error for the first time on appeal.. State v. Perry, the Chief Justice wrote: StructuraI errors are constitutional defects that defy analysis by harmless error standards because they affect [} the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply [being] an error in the trial process itself. ... Such errors permeate [t]he entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end so that the trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence. ... In determining whether an alleged error is stn.zctural, our threshold inquiry is whether such error involves the deprivation of a constitutional right." State v. Hill (2001), 92 Ohio St. 3d 191 -- (1) Syllabus: "When a court of appeals engages in a plain-error analysis, it must conduct a complete review of all relevant assignments of error in order to determine whether a manifest miscarriage of justice has occurred that clearly affected the 14 outcome of the trial." Syllabus pertains to plain error reversal by the court of appeals based on a Doyle v. Ohio (1976), 426 U.S. 610 violations. Cause remanded for the court of appeals to consider assignments of error previously deemed moot. We now ask this court to revisit that assignment of error that they did not address and review the assignments of error they deem moot. The Eight District Court of Appeals erred in the Decision being appealed herein through its refusal to consider 7.) ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 7: Trial court erred convicting Taylor under the city's ordinance 698A. 01 and violates Taylor's rights under the Equal Protection Clause because the City allows sales and offer of tickets around the Browns Stadium,but bans the mere offer of tickets and sales in and around Gateway Quicken Loans and Progressive Field a few blocks away, and advances no reason why law is not the same at all locations. Judge Kenneth A. Rocco P.J DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY; Dated October 24, 2013 fails to addressed this issued raised in appeal. Structural Error. Quoting from the Court's 2004 decision in State v. Perry. But see State v. Colon, 119 Ohio St. 3d 204, 2008-Ohio-3749 backing away from stnictural error to plain error and declaring Colon 1 applies prospectively. As to application of Colon see State v. Robertson, 180 Ohio App. 3d 365, 2008-Ohio-6909. For cases where Colon I and II were followed and conviction reversed, see State v. Buford, 178 Ohio App. 3d 640, 2008- Ohio-5505; State v. Summers, 182 Ohio App. 3d 139, 2009-Ohio-1883." Likewise in this instant case its was born out of flawed, faulty, bad law that is clearly unconstitutional which caused deprivation life liberty and property both tangible and entangle. The case was not built on rock solid foundation grounds Structural errors are "constitutional defects that "`defy analysis by `harmless error' standards" because they "affect[] the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply [being] an error in the trial process itself." "' (Brackets added in 15 Fisher.) State v. Perry, 101 Ohio St.3d 118, 2004-Ohio-297, 802 N.E.2d 643, at y[ 17, quoting State v. Fisher, 99 Ohio St.3d 127, 2003-Ohio-2761, 789 N.E.2d 222, at 19, quoting Arizona v. Fulminante (1991), 499 U.S. 279, 309, 310, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302. "Such errors perrneate `[t]he entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end' so that the trial eannot `"reiiably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence."' " Id., quoting Arizona at 309-310, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302, quoting Rose v. Clark (1986), 478 U.S. 570, 577-578, 106 S.Ct. 3101, 92 L.Ed.2d 460. "[A] structural error tn.andates a finding of `per se prejudice."' (E.mphasis sic.) State v. Fisher, 99 Ohio St.3d 127, 2003-Ohio-2761, 789 N.E.2d 222, at 19. Judge Kenneth A. Rocco P.J DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY; Dated October 24, 2013 fails to addressed this issued raised in appeal fails to address the fact that the city of Cleveland has no such law against an activity commonly known as SCALPIIVTG, nobody knows what scalping is the charging affidavit never once mention this tibiqu'rtous term its nlost certainly is not written in any city law , it is not a crime or element available under 698 A.01 as nothing in any city law contains such language; therefore The trial court's challenged order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law. What is SCALPING? Definition of SCALPING (Black's Law Dictionary) Definition of SCALPING: 1. znaking money through the scarcity of items.2. Trading strategy where small profits are accumulated to a larger profit. 3. thelawdictionary.org/scalping/. The city s law as well as the appeals court decision is false and uses artificial ingredients as well as artificial element, terms and language not even in the city law under §. 698A.01 Outdoor Sales of Tickets of Admission to Sporting Events and Other Events Restricted. "A fallacious argument is one that may appear correct, but on examination proves not to be so." Fallacies of relevance has occurred the appellees premises "miss the point" and fail to provide logical support 16 for Judge Kenneth A. Rocco P.J the trial court legal conclusion. The holdings in State v. Burke, 2013-Ohio-2888, defeat Appellee's argument. Also in paragraph 3 the appeals court finding Taylor never raise constitutionality of 698A.01 is defeated by His not guilty plea to the charge which preserved the right to appeal on the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. Judge Kenneth A. Rocco P.J DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY; Dated October 24, 2013 fails to addressed this issued raised in appeal.) The trial court fails to prove all the elements to win a conviction under the City Cleveland's ["1MM-698 A. 01 Scalping In Prohibited Zone ordinance? Which was the crime on courts dockets? Which is deferent and represents a huge discrtepencany from the officer sworn staternent that reads? 698A.01 Outdoor Sales of Tickets of Admission to Sporting Events and Other Events Restricted. The initial charge on charging affidavit that was change to City Cleveland's ["IMM-698 A. 01 Scalping In Prohibited Zone ordinance? At trial but where neither specified a subsection in trial court or on citation. The appellate court rulings and findings are confusing and not clear as to what unlawful conviction are they affirming as they seem to have incorpated both laws together the court has erred there is reasonable doubt here . Judge Kenneth A. Rocco P.J DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY; Dated October 24, 201.3 fails to addressed all the issues raised in appeal assignment of error (9) and must do so This appeal which presents extraordinary facts and abuses by the trial court judge of Municipal Court, Judge Angela Stokes who is caught on video tape making false and misleading statement to help to convict an appellant in trial. court of a minor misdemeanor, who corrupted the entire proceeding a biased trial judge, who caused both Sti-uctural Defect and Trial Error. Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510,47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927); Supreme Court of Ohio's Board of Commissionez:s on Grievances and Discipline has this trial court same video transcript in its 17 possessions along with a critical mass of evidence of bias unfairness and abuses by this judge and this high honor court must explain what it sees different from the High superior court. The Supreme Court found that "among the basic fair trial rights that can never be treated as harmless is a defendant's right to an impartial adjudicator, be it judge or jury." Structural errors are constitutional defects like the ones found in ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 9: The trial court erred when it improperly denied defendants motion to dismiss on grounds citation was defective and insufficient, This appeals court must revisit these issues found in Taylors assignment of error( 9) this is the lynchpin of the case) Judge Angela Stokes has been caught on video tape making material and false declarations to trial court which violated federal law under. 18 USC 1623 this is a serious crime, (18 U.S.C. § 1001) is the common name for the United States federal crime laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the federal government of the United States, even by mere denial. A biased trial judge, who would be presided over the entire trial comtnitted structural error. Taylor has rights to Impartial Tribunal. Tutney v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)); In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955). An impartial decision maker is an essential right in civil proceedings as well. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 271 (1970). "The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts or the law... A.t the same tinle, it preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness ... by ensuring that no person will be deprived of his iilterests in the absence of a proceeding in which he may present his case with assurance that the arbiter is not predisposed to find against him. United States v. Cotton (2002), 122 S.St. 1781 -- Under Federal Criminal Rule 52(B) plain error reversal requires (1) an error, (2) that is plain, (3) affects 18 substantial rights, and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings Judge of Municipal Cotut Judge Angela Stokes lied and perjured herself when she said the charging Affidavit contained a subsection letter ("a") when in fact it did not, and used that erroneous fact to wrongfully convict Kenneth S. Taylor the defendant in trial court and the appellant in this appeal, Judge of Municipal Court Judge Angela Stokes erred when she stated on the record and in the record the Capital (A) in 698A.01 Outdoor Sales of Tickets of Admission to Sporting Events and Other Events Restricted is also a subsection. [Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Neller, 102 Ohio St.3d 1234, 2004-Ohio-2895.] 18 USC § 4-1Vlispriaion of felony Making it impossible to get a fair trial or a final judgment. State v. Gross, 97 Ohio St. 3d 121, 2002-Ohio-5524, 145 -- For there to be plain error: (1) There must be an error, meaning a deviation from a legal rule; (2) The error must be plain, meaning an obvious defect in the trial proceedings; and (3) The error must have affected the outcome of the trial. (Citing State v. Barn.es (2002), 94 Ohio St. 3d 21, 27.) Moreover the trial court replied to the allegation in the appeal but never denied this fact in the record , because the trial court transcript is proof of the judges false declaration which is also proof of clear cut bias. State v. Sanders (2001), 93 Ohio St. 3d 245, 278 -- "The presence of a biased judge on the bench is, of course, a paradigmatic example of structural constitutional error, raised by Taylor and has not been addressed, a biased trial judge, who presided over the entire trial which if shown requires reversal without resort to harmless-error analysis." When a party is once found to be fabricating or suppressing documents, the natural, indeed, the inevitable conclusion is that he has something to conceal and is conscious of guilt." Matthews v. Matthews (1981), 5 Ohio App. 3d 140, 143 -- aAll of this, despite having the Suprerxie Court of Ohio's Board of Comnlissioners on Grievances and Discipline hot on her trail for abuses in a 49-page report, which is only the tip of the iceberg, the report was first 19 obtained and made public by 19 Action News Reporter Paul Orlousky. Kenneth Taylors case filed in his appeal is in this report and can be found on page 26, detailed in a 49 page report that is inheritably a part of this appeal intertwined; because the trial court judge took judicial notice of case outlined in report. Notwithstanding the fact that Taylor will testify about abuses suffered in this exact case before the Supreme Court which THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO opinion represents a paradigm shift from High Supreme court. This current appeals decision sends a chilling message to the public when a three judge panel can't see what is plainly in front of them. United States v. Cotton (2002), 122 S.St. 1781-- Under Federal Criminal Rule 52(B) plain error reversal requires (1) an error, (2) that is plain, (3) affects substantial rights, and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings The entire three judge panel heard testimony from Taylor during oral argument when Taylor told the court the Supreme Court of Ohio`s Board of Conunissioners on Grievances and Discipline investigator came to his home about judges behavior in this case. Despite knowing this the honorable three judge panel had a paradigm shift and went in a unlawful converse direction and lost their way Failiiig to feel the 2tons of weight of the evidence sitting on their laps; however when revealed to public this should cause outrage and will cause knees to buckle. There is a laundry list of Obvious Ezxors this court of appeals must review these marginal decisions which are unfair, wrong and unlawful, the court failed to explicate it decision as to why they affirmed trial court decision , on each and every issued raise side stepping violatons of due process, and violation of equal protection issues in assignment of error (7) seven , and one (1) constitutional. violation of l.st Amendment that City Clevelands allege law violates free commercial speech .[ "IMM-6980 A. 20 01 Scalping In Prohibited Zone ordinance. Which the city has no law regarding "Scalping in Prohibited Zone" ordinance? Judge of Municipal Court Judge Angela Stokes made false declaration in trial court when she said the charging Affidavit contained a subsection letter ("a") when in fact it did not, and used that erroneous fact to wrongfully convict Kenneth S. Taylor the defendant in trial court and the appellant in this appeal, Judge of Municipal Court Judge Angela Stokes lied when she stated on the record and in the record the Capital (A) in 698A.01 Outdoor Sales of Tickets of Admission to Sporting Events and Other Events Restricted is also a subsection. Without naming the specific subsection in trial courtor on citation. So the question is did Taylor violate (a), (b), or (c) the trial court judge erred by saying the police officer marked a subsection on the tickets that statement should be meet with caution and suspicion and partiality and leads credence to a pretext rn motive of trial court bias for an expert litigator to argue about something that was crystal clear. State v. Gross, 97 Ohio St. 3d 121, 2002-Ohio-5524, 4[ 45 -- For there to be plain error: (1) There must be an error, meaning a deviation from a legal ni1e; (2) The error must be plain, meaning an obvious defect in the trial proceedings; and (3) The error must have affected the outcome of the trial. (Citing State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St. 3d 21, 27.) This lied she told is the lie she used to advance her verdict and used to deny TayIor motion to dismiss the case. And lead to a rather insidious outcome of the trial who was then wrongfully convicted from this plain error. Structural errors are constitutional defects. WHEREFORE, the DEFENDANTS respectfiilly requests this honorable Court to grant this APPELLAI^TS MOTION IN OPPOSITION OF MARGINAL DENIAL BY CHIEF JUSTICE MAUREEN O'CONNOR DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS JURISDICTIONAL MEMORANDUM A MEMORANDL.rM FILED IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION WAS 21 DENIED IN CONTRARY TO (S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08. Determination of Jurisdiction). AiND OTHER CONFLICTS. ..Or to grant such further relief in favor of Taylor's thiCourt deems appropriate. / /s/Kenneth S. Tavlor Kenneth S. Taylor {pros 61 H ci en Ro Twin urg, Ohio ,1-330- J, 425-154 katicki:tCyahoo.com_ Kenneth S ayl CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The Defendants, hereby certifies that on Apri101, 2014, APPELLANTS MOTION IN OPPOSITION OFMARGINAL DENIAL BY CHIEF JUSTICE MAUREEN O'CONNOR DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS JURISDICTIONAL MEMORANDUM A MEMORANDUM FILED IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION WAS DENIED IN CONTRARY TO (S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08. Deterznination of Jurisdiction). AND OTHER CONFLICTS . Was mailed for filing in the Ohio Supreme Court Clerk's office and MAIL BY U.S REGULAR MAIL TO the following attorneys; BARBRARA A. LANGHENRY (0038838) Director of Law VICTOR R. PEREZ (0074127) Chief Prosecutor ASHLEY M. GARRETT (0087885) Assistant Prosecutor City of Cleveland1200 Ontario Street, 8th Floor Cleveland, Ohio 44113(216) 664-4850 s/Kenneth S. Taylor Kenneth S. Taylor {prose} 8610 Hadden Road Twinsburg, Ohio, 1-330- 425-154 kat.ickitC?yahoo.com_ ^