DOCSLIB.ORG

In the Supreme Court of Ohio

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the Supreme Court of Ohio IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN RE: The State of Ohio, and also the CASE NO. 2017-0385 United States of America STATE OF OHIO AND UNITED STATES EXTRAORDINARY ex rel. ORGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS GREGORY T. ACKERMAN, ET AL. 556 Shadowlawn Avenue Dayton, OH 45419 Phone: (937) 293-4267 Relators, V. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, flca The Bank of New York as Successor in interest to JP Morgan Chase Bank NA as Trustee for Bear Steams Asset- Backed Securities Trust 2005-SD1, Asset-Backed Certificates Series 2005-SD1 c/o Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (SC) 3476 Stateview Boulevard Fort Mill, SC 29715 MAC # 7801-013 Respondent. **************#*******************************************k******************* RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS **********#****************t***********#**********#*¥***************##******** Gregory and Joyce Ackerman Scott A. King (#0037582) 556 Shadowlawn Avenue Terry Posey, Jr, (#0078292) Dayton, OH 45419 Thompson Hine LLP, Phone: (937) 293-4267 Austin Landing 1 Pro se Iitigatars as Relator 10050 Innovation Drive, Suite 400 Miamisburg, Ohio 45342 (937)443-6560 Counsel for Respondent RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS Relator, Gregory T. Ackerman, et al. moves the Court for an Order for further proceedings of Greg and Ackerman’s Joyce “Peremptory writ in first instance” on the grounds that their “good cause” claims of a “priority of civil actions” involving issues of ‘insurance company fraud’ and ‘obstruction of justice’(fraud on the court) to their state (Ohio) regulated “business of insurance” case matters, while carrying an inviolate and preserved right in action to a “jury demand” action for a trial by jury, superseded this inappropriately invoked “bad faith”; frivolous and misleading foreclosure proceedings by Bank of New York Mellon. Furthermore, “bad faith” this foreclosure proceedings by Bank of New York Mellon, and the lower courts determinations are prejudice, arbitrary and capricious, and it appears that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county in which the suit is pending. A review de novo of this peremptory writ in the first instance, and remand to the lower court is appropriate action by this court for delivering justice at any time justice so requires. Memorandum in support of this Response is attached. Respectfully submitted, /it 7 /Lam. Gre T. Ackerrnan, Pro Se / Relator 556 S adowlawn Avenue Dayton, OH 45419 Phone: (937) 293-4267 Jiiycé L. Ackerrnan, Pro Se / Relator 556 Shadowlawn Avenue Dayton, OH 45419 Phone: (937) 293-4267 MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS Now comes Relators again with “show cause”, for “good cause” purposes of public and great general interest, to compel this paramount “Peremptory writ in first instance”, which is brought in the name of the State of Ohio and United States on relation of Gregory T. Ackerman, ex rel., and raise a number of textbook, elementary, fundamental, substantive and substantial constitutional questions for review and execution in favor of the Relators, and their civic peers. I. CORRECT BACKGROUND (a) Relators are “borrowers” to a mortgage loan a.nd loan modification agreement from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and/or aka Wells Fargo Bank N.A. Wells (b) Fargo Home Mortgage and/or aka Wells Fargo Bank NA. is the loan service provider and servicer, and receives all mortgage payments from the Relators, as “borrowers”. Relator (c) encountered a ‘financial hardship’; caused by an unexpected medical disability matter of a family member, and further ‘financial hardship” caused by alleged issues of ‘insurance company fraud’ and “fraud on the Court(s)”. (d) Relators are currently engaged in the ‘business of insurance” with Fortis Benefits Insurance Company (now called Assurant Inc.) to protect their financial interest and wellbeing. (e) Regretfully, the Relator’s “business of insurance” matters were breached by the insurance company, as the fiduciary, and continue to this day to perform “bad faith” acts, with malice, against the insured party (Ackerman) for the past 21 years. (0 Relators were forced to file a legal compla.int(s) against Fortis Benefits Insurance Company called (now Assurant Inc.) with “Jury Demand(s)” as proper civil actions for executing their “inviolate” “preserved” and “Trial by Jurv” action in the Montgomery County Common Pleas court in 2000 at Case No. Case # 2000CV1472 (Judge Mary Katherine Huffman), and later removed to federal U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio in Dayton, Ohio; Case # 3:00CV 00277 (Judge Walter H. Rice and Magistrate Judge Micheal Merz), E Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County Ohio, Case # 2003CV-9499 (Michael Krumholtz) and , later removed to federal U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio in Dayton, Ohio Case # 3:04—O033 (Judge Thomas M. Rose). For “good cause” the (g) Relators hold and retain a “Jury Demand” civil action mm legal rights under the “in Constitution of the United States, order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general " and 1’ welfare, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and Constitution of the State of Ohio in order to protect “certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safeg/”2, as American citizens and Ohio citizens, respectively. Relators have not (h) had their day in Court with iurv trial action(s) with their community civic mers for the past 17 vears of everlasting litigations, upon their “original instant action” to their valuable ‘right in action’ to their written and expressed “Jury Demand(s)”, for a “Trial by Jury” action(s), to discover all genuine issues of disputed material facts for ajury to decide, and thus find proper remedies of relief for the insured party while engaged in their state regulated ’ Constitution the United “We of States; Preamble. the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common promote defense, the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our do " posterity, ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 2 Constitution of Ohio; Bill of Rights; 1.01 Inalienable Rights (1851) “All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting " property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety. “business of insurance” legal case matters. (i) This fundamental, substantive and substantial constitutional elements of law and “procedural defect” to the “insured party’s jury trial action in the “business of insurance” are a gross “deprivations of rights under the Constitution of the United States”, and Constitution of the States of Ohio, and are in fact claims involving insurance and financial matters in this foreclosure civil action. Relator’s “deprivation rights” (j) of under the Constitution of the United States is also violation of law against the United States. (k) Furthermore, Relators state regulated “business of insurance” case matter has a “priority of civil action(s)”, and supersedes all other civil actions of the Relators as a matter of federal law involving both the State of Ohio and Federal “Jury Demand” civil actions in the “business of Insurance”, and currently is a violation of rights under the Constitution of the United States, as originally addressed in the Relators / Defendant’s simple “Answer” claims filed with the trial court in the “first instance”. Relators (1) restate herein their specific, individual, unique and independent “Show Cause to Compel Peremptory Writ in First Instance”, filed March 20, 2017 with this court. Upon (in) this correct background information and review de novo, this court shall find a gross “obstruction of justice” to these insurance case matters that raises a substantial constitutional question and violation of a citizen’s “right” to a “jury demand” process to a trial byjury under the Constitution of tl1e United States, which furthermore caused a foreclosure case matter delay, and thus now “show is clear cause” to the additional harm caused against the Relators in these misleading and bad faith foreclosure proceedings. (n) Respondent (a Bank) is a mortgage investor who filed an inappropriate and illegal foreclosure civil action against the Relators whom maintained a valid and binding business relationship with Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and/or aka Wells Fargo Bank N.A. in order to keep their home during a “financial hardship” caused by alleged issues of ‘insurance company fraud’ and “fraud on the Court(s)”. ARGUMENT (1) Respondent has performed “bad faith”; egregiously, inappropriately and illegally pursued this foreclosure civil action against the Relators for nearly eight years; without merit, good cause or any valid show cause in their foreclosure complaint while the Relator has a continuous valid and binding mortgage business relationship with Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and/or aka Wells Fargo Bank NA. (2) Pursuant to Respondent’s “bad faith” foreclosure matter, “deception” is not discovered until late or the close to ending of the matter at issue. The Relators have “claimed” that the business relationship with lender and loan service provider (Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and/or Wells Fargo Bank NA.) is valid and binding, and that Bank of New York Mellon (a bank investor) has “deceived” the court(s), Officers of the Courts, and the Ohio taxpayers. (3) The Respondent presented this foreclosure complaint in ‘bad faith” while the Relator continued to exercise their customer relationship with Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and/or Wells Fargo Bank N.A., as their mortgage lender and customer service representative, for executing a valid and binding loan modification “Agreement” for future mortgage payments to be delivered to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and/or Wells Fargo Bank NA.. Thus, the Respondenfs ” ” foreclosure “complain in its whole is found to be in “bad faith” and “moo to all courts of law, including tis Motion to Dismiss by Respondent.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Task Force on Commercial Dockets
    The Supreme Court of Ohio Report and Recommendations of The Supreme Court of Ohio Task Force on Commercial Dockets december 2011 REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE Task Force on Commercial Dockets December 2011 MAUREEN O’CONNOR Chief Justice PAUL E. PFEIFER EVELYN LUNDBERG STRATTON TERRENCE O’DONNELL JUDITH ANN LANZINGER ROBERT R. CUPP YVETTE MCGEE BROWN Justices STEVEN C. HOLLON Administrative Director Task Force on Commercial Dockets Hon. John P. Bessey (Co-chair) Columbus Hon. Patrick. F. Fischer (Co-chair) Cincinnati Hon. Reeve W. Kelsey Bowling Green James C. Kennedy Cincinnati Hon. William A. Klatt Columbus Harry D. Mercer Cleveland Scott E. North Columbus Robert G. Palmer Columbus Jeanne M. Rickert Cleveland John S. Stith Cincinnati Adrian D. Thompson Cleveland Staff Liaisons John S. VanNorman, Esq. Stephanie E. Hess, Esq. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 3 REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 5 I. PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMERCIAL DOCKETS .................................. 5 II. COMMISSION ON COMMERCIAL DOCKETS .................................................................. 8 III. COMMERCIAL DOCKET JUDGES ..................................................................................... 9 IV. TRAINING ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Ohio 2020 Annual Report
    T S C of O TWENTY TWENTY ANNUAL REPORT 2020 T Annual Report S O f o C Maureen O’Connor CHIEF JUSTICE Sharon L. Kennedy Judith L. French Patrick F. Fischer R. Patrick DeWine Michael P. Donnelly Melody J. Stewart JUSTICES Jeffrey C. Hagler ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR Stephanie E. Hess DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR DEAR OHIOANS: What a life-changing year 2020 turned out to be! We started the year in a rather routine manner. But in about 10 short weeks, the COVID-19 crisis found its way to our state and courts. By mid-March, normal times were gone. Yet, we kept our courts operating across the state with proactive and innovative approaches to social distancing and remote technology. Our courts proved that strict public health guidelines could be observed while maintaining our commitment to court access for Ohioans. Caution reigned at our 300-plus courtrooms. We put common sense and courtesy to work for the benefit of citizens who came before the bench, as well as for staff members, attorneys, magistrates, and judges. Not one Supreme Court session was delayed or postponed during the COVID pandemic thanks to our use of virtual technology for oral arguments. We diverted $6 million in Supreme Court funds to local courts so they could follow our lead into remote technologies, keeping their doors open as much as possible while holding sessions remotely and maximizing safety precautions. The pandemic has been a trying time for trial courts. I am beyond proud of how judges, court staff, and our Supreme Court staff pivoted quickly to ensure judicial matters were resolved as expeditiously as possible while emergency situations were addressed urgently.
    [Show full text]
  • Engagedscholarship@CSU 1997 Vol.5 No.1
    Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU Law Notes School Publications Winter 1997 1997 Vol.5 No.1 Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/lawpublications_lawnotes How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Recommended Citation Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, "1997 Vol.5 No.1" (1997). Law Notes. 64. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/lawpublications_lawnotes/64 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the School Publications at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Notes by an authorized administrator of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Volume 5 • Issue 1 Cleveland-Marshall Law Alumni Association News N 0 T E S "Evening at Lourdes" by Douglas Lucak President's letter Dear Fellow A}umni: _WelCome to the Cleveland-Marshall College of La~ Centennial Year an~ to the first issue of Law Notes for 1997. I hope each_of you will enjoy reading the history of the Law School that we began serializing in our fall issue with an article on the founding in 1897 of the Cleveland Law Scho~l. This winter we continue ·with a feature on the John Marshall · School of Law and its first graduates. What we learn from reading this history is that Cleveland-Marshall College of Law is adescendant of two remarkable predecessor schools and­ that we burselves are descendants of remarkable men and wom~n. They have l~ft us a legacy - a reminder that we attended a school that has proquced so~e of 'the _state's outstanding practitioners, business persons, public servants and jurists.
    [Show full text]
  • Facsimile) G;J Onson(Crmr,Ilaw
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Disciplinary Counsel, CASE NO. 2013-1623 Relator, RELATOR'S OBJECTIONS TO vs. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE'S Hon. Joy 1VTaiek Oidfield (0073065) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Respondent. RELATOR'S OBJECTIONS TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Office of Disciplinary Counsel George D. Jonson (0027124) Scott J. Drexel* Counsel of Record for Respondent Disciplinary Counsel Designate Montgomery, Rennie & Jonson 36 East Seventh Street, Suite 2100 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 513.241.4722 513.241.8775 (Facsimile) g;j onson(crmr,ilaw. com Catherine M. Russo (0077791) Hon. Joy Malek Oldfield (0073065) Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Respondent Counsel for. Relator 250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 325 Columbus, Ohio 43215-7411 614.461.0256 614.461.7205 (Facsimile) ..^:^ ...^., .. C.Russot^7sc.ohio. ov k..?•'......`t^,,. ... ;"'^"j^j^•• . .~....r,...^....•^.^.«<.^i.^,._w..^._....^'^a i•.l^iW: *Admitted in California; application pending in Ohio TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Table of Authorities Introduction Background Information and Other Relevant Facts 2 Relator's Objections 4 1. Respondent violated Jud. Cond. R. 1.3 by repeatedly informing Copley police officers that she was a judge during and after Loya's aiTest. Conclusion 11 Certificate of Service 12 Appendix A Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. (Filed October 14, 2013) ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES FAGE(S) In the Matter of Faul M. Hensiey, 2012 WL 2786178 8,9 (N.Y.Com.Jud.Cond. June 22, 2012) In the Matter ofJeffi^ey Werner, 2002 WL 31267501 7,8 (N.Y.Com,Jud.Cond.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary of Ohio
    SUPREME COURT RULES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE JUDICIARY OF OHIO Rule I Professional Responsibility and Judicial Ethics II Disciplinary Procedure III Disability Retirement, Removal, or Suspension of Judges IV Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for the Judiciary V Judicial College VI Reference of Civil Action Pursuant to Section 2701.10 of the Revised Code VII Duties of Judge Leaving Office XX Title RULE I. Professional Responsibility and Judicial Ethics. Section 1. Applicability. The Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, effective February 1, 2007, as amended, shall be binding upon all persons admitted to practice law in Ohio. The willful breach of the Rules by a Justice, judge, or candidate for judicial office shall be punished by reprimand, suspension, disbarment, or probation as provided in Gov. Jud. R. II and Gov. Bar R. V. The Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, effective March 1, 2009, as amended, shall be binding upon all judicial officers of this state and candidates for judicial office. The willful breach of the Code shall be punished by reprimand, suspension, disbarment, or probation as provided in Gov. Jud. R. II and Gov. Bar R. V, or by retirement, removal, or suspension from office, as provided in Gov. Jud. R. III. Section 2. Duty of Lawyers. It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance. Justices and judges, not being wholly free to defend themselves, are peculiarly entitled to receive the support of lawyers against unjust criticism and clamor.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Ohio Rules of Practice Effective Jan. 1, 2021
    2021 Rules of Practice EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2021 Office of the Clerk SANDRA H. GROSKO CLERK OF THE COURT OFFICE OF THE CLERK 8th Floor 65 South Front Street Columbus, Ohio 43215-3431 614.387.9530 614.387.9539 Fax www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/clerk RULES OF PRACTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO (Including amendments effective January 1, 2021) The following Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio include all amendments adopted and effective through January 1, 2021, and apply to practice and procedure in cases before the Supreme Court of Ohio. Appendices following the rules include prescribed forms and samples of the types of documents most commonly filed in the Supreme Court. The samples are included to illustrate to attorneys and litigants the proper form to be used for documents filed in the Supreme Court. To ensure compliance with the rules, the complete text of the relevant rules should also be reviewed before documents are submitted for filing. Filings may be made by delivering the documents in person or by mail addressed to the Clerk of the Supreme Court at the following address: Clerk of the Supreme Court Supreme Court of Ohio 65 South Front Street, 8th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3431 All filings in person or by mail must be made during the regular business hours of the clerk’s office, which are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. The Supreme Court has adopted security procedures that apply to all visitors and persons with business before the court.
    [Show full text]
  • IN 'I'he SUPREME COURT of OHIO State Ex Rel., the HONORABLE
    IN 'I'HE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO E^u State ex rel., THE HONORABLE ANGELA R. STOKES, Relator, Case No. 2014-0467 V. THE HONORABLE RONALD B. ADRINE. Original Action in Prohibition Respondent. MERIT BRIEF OF RESPONDENT 'TI=[E HONORABLE RONALD B. ADRINE Richard C. Alkire (0024816) Alvin E. Mathews, Jr.* (0038660) Dean Nieding (0003532) *Counsel ofRec.ord Gerhardt A. Gosnell II (0064919) RICxARD C. ALKIRE Co., LPA 6060 Rockside Woods Blvd., Suite 250 JAVIES E. ARNOLD & ASSOCIATES, LPA Independence, Ohio 44131-2335 115 W. Main Street, 4th Floor Ph: 216-674-0550 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Fax: 216-674-0104 Ph: 614-460-1600 [email protected] Fax: 614-469-1134 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Cou.nsel for Relator The Honoj°able Angela R. Stokes Counsel for Respondent The Honorable Ronald B. Adrine ,.^„_.. _. t/ sr _., . .... £..' ..,ff ^ ^,^ TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODU C'TION ....................................................................................................................1 II. BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................2 III. ARGUMENT ............... ............................................................................................................8 Proposition of Law: An administrative judge of a multi-judge municipal court does not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to issue administrative orders that transfer all criminal cases from one municipal court judge and temporarily remove that judge from the criminal case draw in response to the judge's on-going abusive conduct on criminal matters when such temporary administrative actions are necessary to restore the public's confidence in the legal system, ensure the orderly administration of justice, and prevent further harm to the operations of the entire municipal court ........................................................8 A. To be entitled to writ of a prohibition, Relator must establish that Respondent patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to issue the Administrative Orders .
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Ohio 2004 Annual Report
    t h e s u p r e m e c o u r t o f o h i o T HE S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 4 a n n u a l ANNUAL REPORT r e p o r t T HE S UPREME C O U RT of O HIO 2 0 0 4 a n n u a l r e p o r t thomas j. moyer c hief justic e alic e robie resnic k franc is e. sweeney sr. paul e. pfeifer evelyn lundberg stratton maureen o’c onnor terrenc e o’donnell justic es z steven c . hollon administrative direc tor 2 t h e s u p r e m e c o u rt o f o h i o ( seated - left to right ) alice robie resnick, thomas j. moyer, francis e. sweeney sr. chief justice ( standing - left to right ) maureen o’connor, paul e. pfeifer, evelyn lundberg stratton, terrence o’donnell 3 Dear Fellow Ohioans: March 2005 n the 202-year history of the Supreme Court of Ohio, there was perhaps no year like 2004. After sharing quarters with the executive and judicial branches for all of its storied history, I the Ohio judiciary finally moved into permanent facilities exclusively dedicated to the third branch. And it is an extraordinary building that expresses the hopes and confidence of the people of Ohio in their constitutional democracy. The 250 employees of the Court and other offices of the judiciary who come to work in the Ohio Judicial Center every day are reminded by the majesty of their surroundings that the work they do is important.
    [Show full text]
  • Las Vegas Daily Optic, 05-20-1903 the Las Vegas Publishing Co
    University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository Las Vegas Daily Optic, 1896-1907 New Mexico Historical Newspapers 5-20-1903 Las Vegas Daily Optic, 05-20-1903 The Las Vegas Publishing Co. & The eopleP 's Paper Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/lvdo_news Recommended Citation The Las Vegas Publishing Co. & The eP ople's Paper. "Las Vegas Daily Optic, 05-20-1903." (1903). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/ lvdo_news/623 This Newspaper is brought to you for free and open access by the New Mexico Historical Newspapers at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Las Vegas Daily Optic, 1896-1907 by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE LAS YEGAS IMILY OPTIC VOL. XXIV. LAS VEGAS, NEW MEXICO, WEDNESDAY EVENING. MAY 20. 1903. NO. 167. Military Surgeons Meet Second Day of Confederate Reunion. THE BAD BOY BURGLAR BOSTON, MASS., May 19. Nearly New ORLEANS, La., May 20. The 100 surgeons of this and other second of the annual reunion of FATAL FIRES military ACROSS SEAS day TOUGH KID WHO STOLE LEWIS most them haired United Confederate was countries, of gray the Veterans JEWELRY, OLD OFFENDER. and past middle age, men of great given over almost entirely to routine dignity of mein, many with decora- business to affaire of the relating the Convicted at Council Grove, Kans., for tions upon their coats that tell of ser- association. were Reports presented Like Offense. Reward Offered, bat vice and honorable achievements ir and discussed, committees appointed Still on No Prof ress y .
    [Show full text]
  • 03.19.20 Chief COVID19PR Transcript
    Remarks and Q&A / Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor / March 19, 2020 This is a verbatim transcript of the Ohio Channel Broadcast of Gov. Mike DeWine’s coronavirus news conference. Gov DeWine speaks. Chief Justice O’Connor is introduced by Gov. DeWine at [00:05:56] Thank you. Thank you very much, Governor. Thank you for the invitation to participate this afternoon. I want to thank you also for your courageous leadership on this subject. I think that you have set Ohio as an example for the rest of the nation. And we're proud. This is an unprecedented time. Undoubtedly, a time during which the judiciary of Ohio, as well as the bar, the state and local leaders, must come together to guarantee the vital and continued operation of the state's judicial system and the public's access to justice. Both command and thank Ohio's judiciary for taking action, issuing orders and considering the health and safety of the public as well as their staff. All the while, mindful of the structure and dictates of our constitution and our laws. My intent today is to let everyone know what the courts are doing, and my expectation of what they should be doing to continue operating in a manner consistent with the state's public health strategy. Last Friday, I met with the state's judicial leadership to discuss the judiciary's response to this pandemic. After that meeting, I sent a lengthy email to all judges in Ohio. In the email, I emphasized several key points that I want to highlight today: Courts must open.
    [Show full text]
  • Amendments to the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio and the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary of Ohio
    AMENDMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT RULES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE BAR OF OHIO AND THE SUPREME COURT RULES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE JUDICIARY OF OHIO The following amendments to the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio (Gov. Bar R. V, Sections 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, and 35; Gov. Bar R. VI, Sections 4 and 16; and Gov. Bar R. VIII, Sections 3 and 5) and the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary of Ohio (Gov. Jud. R. II, Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 and Gov. Jud. R. III, Sections 2, 3, and 8) were adopted by the Supreme Court of Ohio. The history of these amendments is as follows: February 6, 2020 Publication for public comment September 9, 2020 Final adoption by conference November 1, 2020 Effective date of amendments Key to Adopted Amendments: 1. Unaltered language appears in regular type. Example: text 2. Language that has been deleted appears in strikethrough. Example: text 3. New language that has been added appears in underline. Example: text SUPREME COURT RULES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE BAR OF OHIO RULE V. DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE [Existing language unaffected by the amendments is omitted to conserve space] Section 2. Jurisdiction and Powers of the Board. [Existing language unaffected by the amendments is omitted to conserve space] (C) Subpoenas. Upon application of a special investigator, respondent, or authorized representative of the relator, the The Board may issue subpoenas and cause testimony to be taken under oath before disciplinary counsel, a certified grievance committee, hearing panel, or the Board.
    [Show full text]
  • March 2010 OAM Newsletter
    NEWSLETTERNEWSLETTER Spring 2010 www.OhioMagistrates.org Magistrates Serving Ohio’s Judiciary Mentoring for Magistrates The Ohio Youth Assessment System: Standardizing Risk and Need Assessment Across Ohio The Ohio Association of Magistrates 2079 West Fifth Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43212 (614) 487-3919 www.OhioMagistrates.org News Bites Editor William Byrne Going Virtual: Design Editor Lindsey Schmitz The Supreme Court of Ohio Judicial Ohio Association of Magistrates Board of Trustees David Jump, President College Moves to Online Registration Franklin County Municipal Court Gregory F. Clifford, 1st Vice President By Patti Reid and Lindsey Schmitz Cleveland Municipal Court William Byrne, 2nd Vice President The Supreme Court of Ohio Judicial College Lucas County Domestic Relations Court James Lyle, Treasurer Franklin County Domestic Relations/Juvenile Court The Supreme Court of Ohio Judicial College is proud to Kenneth Roll, Secretary announce online registration for all of its courses that are open to Lake County Common Pleas Court Matt Reed Judges, Magistrates or Acting Judges, including the OAM Spring Practice Area Chair-Common Pleas/Appellate Court Conference. This technology-driven method of registration not only Butler County Common Pleas Court Thomas Freeman allows attendees to register quickly and easily, but will also give them Practice Area Chair-Juvenile Court online access to the course brochure, a map and directions to the Summit County Juvenile Court Coleen Hall Dailey seminar venue and an email confirming registration. As this method Practice Area Chair-Domestic Relations Court Columbiana County Common Pleas Court is both economical and green, it is the goal of the Judicial College to Lora Lynne Stalnaker soon make this the primary means of course registration.
    [Show full text]