1 2 CUYAHOGA COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT (GENERAL DIVISION) 3 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1678 4 5 Betty Janet Brown ) 6 Plaintiff ) 7 Vs ) WRIT OF PROHIBITION 8 ROBERT C LORD ) 9 NICK KLINE ) 10 LAWRENCE M BRAZIE ) 11 DOMINIC VITANTONIO ) 12 Defendants ) 13 14 15 16 ORDER STAYING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE: MAYFIELD HEIGHTS, 17 OHIO AND THE STATE OF OHIO VS BETTY BROWN IN THE LYNDHURST, OHIO 18 MUNICIPAL COURT Case No.: 08CRB01100 19 20 JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE 21 22 This court takes judicial cognizance and decrees as follows: 23 24 JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE. Judicial notice, or knowledge upon which a judge is bound to act without 25 having it proved in evidence. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 760.] 26 27 "It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's 28 business....The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." 29 30 the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in 31 the conduct of the people's business....The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the 32 agencies which serve them. 33 34 Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of a want of jurisdiction in the Court or 35 judicial officer, of collusion between the parties, or of fraud in the party offering the record, in 36 respect to the proceedings.

37 38 The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law. [American Banana

1 Page 1 4/5/2018 39 Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.] 40 41 The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which 42 formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 43 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 44 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.] 45 46 ....This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people." 47 48 The state cannot diminish rights of the people. [Hertado v. California, 100 US 516.] 49 50 Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation 51 which would abrogate them. [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.] 52 53 There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights. 54 [Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.] 55 56 Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are 57 exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom 58 those powers are specially delegated. [In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor 59 v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627." Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626.] 60 61 This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all 62 Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme 63 Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution 64 or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Constitution for the United States of America, 65 Article VI, Clause 2.] 66 67 COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal 68 retinue, wherever that may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 318.] 69 70 COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its authority, consisting 71 of one or more officers, established and maintained for the purpose of hearing and determining issues 72 of law and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of 73 the law, authorized to exercise its powers in the course of law at times and places previously 74 determined by lawful authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 1067, 1070; Black's Law 75 Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425] 76 77 COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics, and may have a 78 fifth. They are:

79 A. A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the 80 person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 81 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, 82 also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 83 4th Ed., 425, 426]

2 Page 2 4/5/2018 84 85 B. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 86 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, 87 also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 88 4th Ed., 425, 426] 89 90 C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory 91 and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 92 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 93 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231] 94 95 D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; 96 The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. 97 U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 98 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426] 99 100 E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas 101 Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 102 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.] 103 [Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

104 ...our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which under us have the laws of our land to guide, 105 shall allow the said charters pleaded before them in judgement in all their points, that is to wit, the 106 Great Charter as the common law.... [Confirmatio Cartarum, November 5, 1297" "Sources of Our 107 Liberties" Edited by Richard L. Perry, American Bar Foundation.] 108 109 "Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as to 110 cause a free man to lose his court." Magna Carta, Article 34. 111 112 CCP 1209. (a) The following acts or omissions in respect to a court of justice, or proceedings therein, 113 are contempt of the authority of the court:

114 . . . 115 116 3. Misbehavior in office, or other willful neglect or violation of duty by an attorney, 117 counsel, clerk, sheriff, coroner, or other person, appointed or elected to perform a 118 judicial or ministerial service; 119 120 4. Abuse of the process or proceedings of the court, or falsely pretending to act under 121 authority of an order or process of the court; 122 123 5. Disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court; 124 125 . . . 126 127 8. Any other unlawful interference with the process or proceedings of a court; 128

3 Page 3 4/5/2018 129 . . . 130 131 11. Disobedience by an inferior tribunal, magistrate, or officer, of the lawful judgment, 132 order, or process of a superior court, or proceeding in an action or special proceeding 133 contrary to law, after such action or special proceeding is removed from the jurisdiction 134 of such inferior tribunal, magistrate, or officer. 135 136 . . . 137 138 (a) When a contempt is committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, or 139 of the judge at chambers, it may be punished summarily; for which an order must be 140 made, reciting the facts as occurring in such immediate view and presence, adjudging 141 that the person proceeded against is thereby guilty of a contempt, and that he be 142 punished as therein prescribed. 143 144 When the contempt is not committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, 145 or of the judge at chambers, an affidavit shall be presented to the court or judge of the 146 facts constituting the contempt, or a statement of the facts by the referees or arbitrators, 147 or other judicial officers. 148 149 At all stages of all proceedings, the affidavit or statement of facts, as the case may be, 150 required by this decree shall be construed, amended, and reviewed according to the 151 followings rules:

152 153 (b) The court may order or permit amendment of such affidavit or statement for any 154 defect or insufficiency at any stage of the proceedings, and the trial of the person 155 accused of contempt shall continue as if the affidavit or statement had been originally 156 filed as amended, unless substantial rights of such person accused would be prejudiced 157 thereby, in which event a reasonable postponement, not longer than the ends of justice 158 require, may be granted. 159 160 (c) No such affidavit or statement is insufficient, nor can the trial, order, judgment, or 161 other proceeding thereon be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matter 162 of form which does not prejudice a substantial right of the person accused on the merits. 163 No order or judgment of conviction of contempt shall be set aside, nor new trial 164 granted, for any error as to any matter of pleading in such affidavit or statement, unless, 165 after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the 166 opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

4 Page 4 4/5/2018 167 Any question as to the adequacy of an order to show cause [see Code Civ. Proc. § 1212[Deering's] ] 168 and of the adequacy of the affidavit or declaration on which the order to show cause is based should be 169 raised by an opposing affidavit or declaration [Morelli v. Superior Court (1968) 262 Cal. App. 2d 262, 170 266, 68 Cal. Rptr. 572 ] having the effect of a demurrer [see Taylor v. Superior Court (1942) 20 Cal. 171 2d 244, 246, 125 P.2d 1]. 172 173 1218. (a) Upon the answer and evidence taken, the court or judge shall determine whether the person 174 proceeded against is guilty of the contempt charged, and if it be adjudged that he or she is guilty of the 175 contempt, a fine may be imposed on him or her not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or he or 176 she may be imprisoned not exceeding five days, or both. In addition, a person who is subject to a court 177 order as a party to the action, or any agent of this person, who is adjudged guilty of contempt for 178 violating that court order may be ordered to pay to the party initiating the contempt proceeding the 179 reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred by this party in connection with the contempt proceeding. 180 181 FINDINGS OF FACT: 182 183 This court finds: 184 The underlying action herein to be a counter claim to MAYFIELD HEIGHTS, OHIO AND THE 185 STATE OF OHIO VS BETTY BROWN IN THE LYNDHURST, OHIO MUNICIPAL COURT 186 Case No.: 08CRB01100 187 Brown in that action challenged that courts having lawful subject matter jurisdiction in Brown’s 188 “Demand for Dismissal” filed in that case 189 190 Plaintiff in case # 08CRB01100 failed or refused to prove subject matter jurisdiction in response to 191 Brown’s challenge 192 193 The Lyndhurst court denied Browns challenge to jurisdiction and therefore did not compel plaintiff in 194 that case to prove that it had brought lawful subject matter jurisdiction to that court in the face of 195 Brown’s evidence to the contrary 196 197 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 198 199 The issue of the existence of lawful subject matter jurisdiction being in the court hearing the matter 200 cannot be waived. It must be proven when challenged. Failure to perfect said jurisdiction amounts to 201 a due process denial that strips that court of all jurisdiction to decide the controversy. 202 203 As a result of the errant actions of that court and the failure of that plaintiff to prove its lawful authority 204 the Lyndhurst court must lose its standing as having competent jurisdiction in case # 08CRB01100 205 206 In addition, in that Browns right of action are at issue in the Lyndhurst case and would prove 207 exculpatory if found to be both valid and applicable, this court is uniquely qualified to adjudicate 208 Browns right of action where by contrast the Lyndhurst court, by its own omissions, would not. 209

5 Page 5 4/5/2018 210 It is apparent to this court that adjudication of the counterclaim has the capacity to preserve valuable 211 judicial resources in that if Browns right of action were found to be valid that fact would nullify the 212 original action as moot. 213 214 215 216 217 218 ORDER 219 220 Now therefore, the Court being fully informed in the premise of this controversy, it is the ORDER of 221 this court in the form of writ of prohibition; 222 223 That Lyndhurst Municipal case number 08CRB01100 is stayed until the right of action belonging to 224 Betty Brown is fully adjudicated in this court. 225 226 Further, the magistrate, plaintiff, and defendants are invited to each file and serve on all other 227 interested parties a brief no later than November 20, 2009 to show cause to this court why this Order 228 should not take effect or should be modified or in the alternative notice this court for the need of more 229 time. The court, mindful of the rights of the parties and the importance of fair play, will liberally 230 construe the arguments presented. 231 232 233 By: the Court 234 235 236 ______237 Private Attorney Date 238 239 240 Agreeing: 241 242 ______243 Magistrate Date

6 Page 6 4/5/2018