OHIO SUPREME COURT LARRY E. EALY CASE NO.08-2444 4687 MARLIN AVE TROTWOOD OHIO 45416, Petitioner, Vs. JUDGE JAMES D. RUPPERT zo 1063 EAST SECOND STREET PO.BOX369 FRANKLIN OHIO 45005 41 o fa .7(1Ue SUFRFM^'C Respondent URTOF AMENDED PETITION OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER SECTION 2725.04 WITH ATTACHMENTS OF AFFIDAVITS IN RESPONSE AND COPY DOCKET SHEET OF WARRANT HAVING BEEN ISSUED Larry E. Ealy Pro Se Petitioner files his amended Petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus for immediate relief from judgment of the Dayton Municipal Court visiting Judge James R. Ruppert whom has issued a warrant for his arrest in case NO. 2008TRD3189 for failure to appear on a 100 foot stop violation whereas the trial Judge Dayton Police and Prosecutes office have assembled a Kangaroo Court in an attempt to suspend the Petitioners drivers' license after destroying the video tape of the stop showing the innocents of Larry E. Ealy in violation of his due process rights of law. Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 309-310. Parratt v. Taylqr 620 F.2d 307. Monroe v. Pape Supra., 365 U.S. 167 (1961). Court. ully Sub rt^ttei Larry E. Ealy {ARGUMENT} In the original Petition for Habeas Corpus the Petitioner titled the wrong Respondent and apologizing to Sheriff Phil Plummer for any inconvenience that may have been caused but these things do happen. Now the Petitioner has added additional official paper work from Judge Ruppert and his work or business address since he is evading the certified mail in case NO. 08-2362 for service in the Writ of Prohibition to prohibit him from retaining further jurisdiction in traffic matter 2008TRD3189. The Petitioner left out several reasons why the Petition should be granted even though he has not been arrested. STATEMENT OF FACTS In the first Petition the Petitioner had assumed that Judge James R. Ruppert was sitting on assignment by the order of the Ohio Supreme Court in case NO. 2008TRD3189, but he were assigned by Judge John S. Pickrel and now has conspired to maliciously prosecute the Petitioner after the prosecution destroyed the video tape evidence of the stop made 2-11-08. Another point that must be made about this case is during a phone pretrial conference concerning case NO. 2008cv386 before attorney John C. Musto and attorney and County Commission Board member John C. Cummings, Prior to the Magistrate Sharon Ovington entering the conversation there was a discussion going about an arrest warrant filed against the Petitioner in caseNO 2008TRD3189. This is the case were the destruction of the video tape was discovered, and right before the Judge came into the conversation when the clerk went to go get her John C. Musto stated to Mr. Cummings that Ealy had a warrant for his arrest and that he would be arrested sometime into future. Mr. Musto did not realize that the Petitioner was already on the phone when he made that statement this shows Musto's involvement in the overt act of conspiracy against the Petitioner. The need for the straining order discussed in cv386 is sustained for the very reasons why this Petition is needed and the request to transfer of the traffic case for fear persecution in the State of Ohio. See Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. at 308-309, then later in Georgia v. Rachel 384 U.S. at 791. Strauder and Rachel explains the need in detail as of how and why Indigent African Americans and Poor Plaintiffs/ Defendants can not obtain a fair trial for denial of ones State Court of Rights. {28USC1443} (a) should be amended to all those who face persecution by State officials, this statute should not be limited to the colored race because it says that those who aided the newly freed slaves were persecuted as well. "According to Justice Black" in Jones v. Cunningham. 92 A.L.R. 2d 675]) A petition of habeas corpus can be granted without the Petitioner having to actually be psychically restrained or denied his liberty. Mr. Musto knows me very well, I have tracked he and chief trial counsel John Danish very well, and they have tracked me very well, as stated in the pretrial conference held on 12-19-08 the strategy for the City in case N0.08-cv-386 involving a 1983, 1985, 1986 claims is to find a cheap way-out and this case with Judge Rupperts warrant for violation of a 100 foot stop is away to occupy the Petitioners time and hinder his civil actions. The 100 foot stop although found in O.R.C.4510. Is very ridiculous but the City of Dayton will use any and all resources available to them and continue to perpetrate traffic offenses and destroy evidence at will, the criminal acts have been well documented in the Ealy history since his assault in the City of Dayton Ohio. Explanation of why this case is of great importance. Petitioner Larry E. Ealy who was stopped on 2-11-08 by Dayton Police Officer Nathan Speelman for allegedly failing to signal at a 100 feet. The Petitioner moved for the video evidence of the stop shortly after the first hearing in June of 2008. The evidence would have shown inconstant stories concerning this case where the Petitioner was never provided evidence of the stoppage or shown to have been in violation of a 100 foot stop on 2-11-08. The prosecution and trial Judge has gammed out the exclusion of the video tape to keep the jury from having been fully informed on the nature of the stop this is on going conspiracy and police misconduct in Dayton Ohio. See State v. South 162 Ohio 3d 123 2005-2152. {reversed and remand} by Justice Thomas Moyer. Citing State v, Amsterdam 138 Ohio App. 3d 866 where ineffective assistance was determined by the Court where the attorney of record kept the identity of two witnesses from coming forward. Attorney Alan Gable assigned to the case claimed he had gotten a continuance but now there is warrant issued for failure to appear. Attorney Gable did not do all he could do to get the video tape or secure the presence of a particular Dayton Police Officer, the tape is not destroyed as he confirmed on 12-10-08 as told to him by prosecuting attorney Addie Jane. King but rather its being held allowing the malicious prosecution to happen with out evidence showing the innocents of his client. In State v. Owens (1975), 51 Ohio App. 2d 132. The withholding of the video tape would preclude proper review of the Appeals Court this was already decided and willfully predetermined in violation with the Petitioners Federal Civil Rights under Title 42CUSC 1983, 1985, 1986. Citing Rankin v. Howard 633F.2d 844(1980). {Reversed and Remand}, In Rankin it's found that Judge Howard lacked jurisdiction over a party, then he lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the parties rights whether or not the subject matter was properly before it. Judge Ruppert stepped outside of his jurisdiction by withholding exculpatory evidence showing that the stop was invalid. Gable stated if the Judge finds the Petitioner guilty he could appeal but Gable all ready knew without the tape of the stop it could not be reviewed on appeal that's ineffectiveness of counsel. See Kimmelman v. Morrison 477U.S.307, 324(1979). In Kimmelman The Supreme Court of the United States confirmed that all defendants are guaranteed the right to counsel and not only are they afforded the right to counsel but effective assistance of counsel. Former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist concurring that a Sixth Amendment violation of ineffective assistance of counsel would relitigate a Habeas Corpus Petition. Attorney Alan Gable appointed by the State acted wantonly and recklessly by failing to inform his client that he had the right to have the charges dismissed if the tape of the stop was destroyed. In Morrison the Respondents attorney failed to file a motion to suppress the bed sheet as in this matter Alan Gable intentionally failed here to suppress the ticket even though he confirmed he would during the final pretrial conference held on November 18, 2008. In others words the right of an accused to counsel is beyond a fundamental right. See, e.g, Gideon, 372 U.S.., at 344. The right to counsel may not be deemed fair or fundamental in some countries but it is in ours") the right to counsel is the right to a fair trial itself without it, it would be of little consequence , see e,g. Cronic supra, at 653: United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300,307-308(1973) Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 31-32(1972); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68-69(1932). Its through counsel the Defendant secures his other rights. Main v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 168-170(1985). The Constitutional guarantee of counsel is by far the most pervasive, for it effects his ability to assert any other rights he may have. The constitutional guarantee of counsel , however, cannot be satisfied by mere formal appointment, " see Avery v. Alabama 308 U.S. 444,446(1940)," An accused is entitled to be assisted by an attorney, whether retained or appointed who plays the role necessary to ensure that the trial is fair." Strickland supra, at 685. In other words, the right to counsel is the right to effective assistance of counsel Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 395-396(1985). In this matter collateral review will be the only means through which the Defendant can effectuate the right to counsel restricting litigation of some sixth amendment claims of ineffectiveness to trial and direct review would seriously interfere with an accused right of effective representation.