y P ^Fa IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN RE SAMANTHA JOHNS * PRO SE * 75 Woods Drive Apt. 1 * Supreme Court No West Milton, Ohio 45383 * (937)751-9893 * * Relator, * * * V. * PETITION FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT * WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR * OTHER APPROPRATE RELIEF THE HONORABLE MARY L. WISEMAN * MONTGOMERY COUNTY * COMMON PLEAS COURT * 41 N. Perry Street Dayton, Ohio 45402 * y WARD BARRENTINE KARINA KOROSTYSHEVSKY * t {.i N ^;^^j %s ^`.s. a^ HEATHERJANS MATTHEW T. CRAWFORD ASSISTANT PORSECUTING ATTORNEYS * ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dayton-Montgomery County Courts Bldg. P.O. Box 972, 301 W. Third Street Dayton, Ohio 45422 (937)225-5757 ALYSIA A. GOSS BOBBYJOECOX LAW OF PUBLIC DEFENDER ATTORNEY AT LAW 117 S. Main Street, Suite 400 130 W. Second Street Suite 800 Dayton, Ohio 45422 Dayton, Ohio 45402 (937)225-4652 (937)228-1975 RICHARD BUTCH BARNES J. ALLEN WILMES ATTORNEY AT LAW ATTORNEY AT LAW 41 E. Main Street 7821 N. Dixie Drive Enon, Ohio 45323 Dayton, Ohio 45414 (937)340-2226 (937)278-0652 Respondents, PETITION FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT, WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF I. INTRODUCTION Now comes, Samantha Johns (Harrison) Relator, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.01 through 12.10, Supreme Court under Article IV, Section 2. File this Original Petition for Alternative Writ, Writ Of Prohibition or other appropriate relief. Under Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure 21, file this Original action, requesting that this Court prohibit the Honorable Mary L. Wiseman, Judge of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, from further participation in the case below, State v. Samantha Harrison (Johns) Case No. 2012 CR 00138. S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05. Alternative Writs. Unless the Supreme Court orders otherwise, issuance of an alternative writ in a prohibition case stays proceedings in the action sought to be prohibited until final determination of the Supreme Court. Relator seeks an Alternative Writ as an emergency stay preventing Judge Wiseman from proceeding with the trial in this case below, until the Writ of Prohibition is resolved. This court lacks jurisdiction from proceeding any further. Relator seeks Writ of Prohibition to prevent Respondent from preceding any further from the case below, this relator has an unequivocal doubt she will not receive a fair a trial. This court has already set the schedule for and how this trial wi/l be ran according to this courts filed, ORDER AND ENTRY SETTING TIME LIMITS FOR TRIAL. This action in its self, shows the bias this court has on this case. This court plans on holding Jury Selection in Chambers. Just one of the many rule violations by this court. Relator states that absent the granting of the Alternative Writ now sought, the court could act in this Relators detriment and in violation of her Constitution Rights afforded her, which this Relator has no adequate remedy at law. Relator also seeks the Writ of Prohibition from this Court directing this lower court to vacate/cease or dismiss this case below. IL INTRODUCTION Petitioner, reasonably fears that the court, will not be impartial in the case below. The well- founded fear that Relator, would not receive a fair trial is under scored by the extraordinary issues in this case. This relator will provide a copy of this lower courts motion for ORDER AND ENTRY SETTING TIME LIMITS FOR TRIAL, among the many things that are injustice about this motion thus instilling she will not receive a fair trial. The very reason it is imperative this Court grant this Emergency Stay of Proceedings and grant this Writ of Prohibition. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" (Martin Luther King, Jr.) This trial will cause continued great detriment to this relators health and well-being and an undue burden of the tax payers of this County of Montgomery. This relator has also lost 3 jobs, due to these unlawful acts, one being at the Wright Patterson Air Force Base. When the law is clear and unambiguous does not lead absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature. Acts 1987, No. 124, 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1988. To hold nothing but contempt for human rights as resulted in barbarous acts which this relator has had to suffer and endure at this courts mercy for almost a year now. Which involve no less than the office of the Montgomery County Prosecutor; Ward Barrentine, Karina Korostyshevsky, Heather Jans and Matthew T. Crawford. My court appointed counsel; J. Allen Wilmes, Bobby Joe Cox, Richard Butch Barnes and Alysia A. Goss. Attorneys are expected to represent their clients to the best of their abilities, using all reasonable, available, ethical and legal means to achieve their client's goals. The court lacks jurisdiction in the case below, so it has no authority to reach merits, but rather, should dismiss the action. The court has acted in judicial misconduct in ways that are considered unethical and impartial conduct. These actions include: conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the court. This court and my attorney's have been, for lack of a better term, builing, threatening, and using cohesion to intimidate this relator. Treating this relator in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner. Violating other specific, mandatory standards of judicial conduct; due process, the principle that an individual cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property with appropriate legal procedures and safeguards. Such as judicial rules of procedure and evidence, acting outside the jurisdiction of the court. This court is guilty of excessive bail. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The point of bond (or bail) isn't to ensure that the defendant cannot post it, but rather to ensure that he has enough invested in the posting of that bond that it provides an incentive for him to return to court and thus avoid forfeiting that amount. The courts performance of official duties that the conduct would have a prejudicial effect on the courts among reasonable people. These prosecutor's have continued to prosecute this case having full knowledge the state is without jurisdiction, and within the bounds of the law. They are failing to provide exculpatory evidence that would exonerate this relator. Not one of this relators attorneys have raised a Constitutional shield to protect my rights or amendment's. They have aided in this injustice to violate this relator and condone this outrageous behavior from this court. This relator has been deprived of her rights, under the United States Constitution, to due process and equal protection of the law by all respondents in the case below. This relator will also prove that these respondents have only brought this scandalous case to cover up the heinous and atrocious behavior of Montgomery County Children Services and The Montgomery County Common Pleas Court Juvenile Division. Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that rights should be protected by the rule of law. The allegations in this Motion for Emergency Stay and Writ of Prohibition are supported by the affidavit of Samantha Johns, relator. This relator prays upon this Court to grant such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable, just and proper. In that petitioner has no knowledge or background in such extensive law, petitioner respectfully requests this Court to view this petition in a manner that will most efficiently accomplish petitioner's stated objectives; whether that be this Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Motion for Stay of Proceedings or otherwise. Ill. INTRODUCTION This unique and most extraordinary situation involving the closeness of this criminal case and a civil custody case that involve my children. The United States demands strict adherence to the Rules of Judicial Conduct. Where a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, disqualification is required, regardless of the judge's impartiality, or weather this court would question the judge's impartiality, but instead, weather an ordinary litigant would readably question the judge's impartiality. "A determination must be made as to whether the facts alleged would place a reasonable prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial." Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083, 1087 (Fla.1983). If ever there were a situation which required the Appellate Court to strictly adhere to the standards long enunciated in the opinions of the Courts of this state, that situation has arrived. FACTS OF THE CASE 1. This relator will first try and show this Honorable Court how this investigation has been done illegally. Please bare with me because this case starts with my civil case that started in August 2012. It is imitative I prove that all the evidence in this criminal case has been obtained illegally. 2. August 28, 2012 Civil Ex Parte Hearing at Montgomery County Juvenile Court Detective Isaiah Keller Montgomery County Sheriff's Office, Unit Assignment Sex Offenders/Internet Crimes and Pornography with Care House was present. This relator was never told who this person was, during this hearing however. This man was allowed to sit in this hearing and feed questions to the prosecutor Ann Gramza, while this relator was on the stand testifying. I was not Mirandized in anyway. My attorney asked for separation of witnesses before this hearing began. Everyone agreed to this stipulation. 3. Detective Isaiah Keller was allowed to sit in the first 5 hearings that took place at Montgomery County Juvenile Court. During these hearings he would feed questions to Ann Gramza, prosecutor for Montgomery County Children Services.