Kenny Hendrick, also known as "the Third Party", submitted two motions to the higher 2nd Appellate "Oversight" Court following a lower-court's Pre-Trial decision to deny the third-party claimant to become a party to the ongoing case so as to be able to present video and other evidences to the lower municipal court which was handling a case between the Crows and Margaret Baldino.
The Issue
The Right to Intervene (in an on-going "lower" court case) was denied to the third party applicant (me) even though the notice and request to become a party to the case was made known during pre-trial of the lower municipal court (in the then-ongoing issue).
The appeal of the administrative decision to deny my ability to become a party to the case was promptly submitted to the 2nd Appellate court of review.
*Only a Plaintiff or a Defendant are able to produce evidence, hence the numerous requests and 18 motions submitted to the public court record made by the third party (to become a party to the case in which he has video evidence and documentation to refute the legitimacy of the case set forth by others, namely the Crows state that Margaret Baldino, an over-70year old woman, caused damages (presumably while she was over a thousand miles away from the damaged property in Springfield Ohio and is not captured in any of the video evidence presented by the third party claimant).
However the videos submitted to the Court of "justice" and youtube DID show how the building became damaged (not of my doing and certainly not of my mom's doing. I believe it was insurance fraud because the same court also awarded Eric and Theresa Crow a judgment for thousands of dollars from the upstairs tenant also! What a miraculous windfall, but the plot thickens, read on!
By denying the right for a person of the public to Intervene to bring evidence is not only contrary to the Law, but unethical and possibly of malicious design by those that live privileged lifestyles compared to the rest of us.
The first submission of this motion to the higher court of review was made promptly after the lower court's pre-trial determination and subsequent denial of my Motion to Intervene. My first submission of appeal to the higher court (2nd appellate) was declined because it didn't look professional enough for them (seriously). So I submitted the following, which was accepted by the 2nd Appellate Court of Lower-Court Review.
And although I submitted my appeal to the 2nd appellate court requesting to overturn the lower court's ruling to ban my Intervention shortly after pretrial within the lower court, instead of a speedy review and reply to force the lower court to allow third-party to be a party to the relevant case, these people would sit on the request until many months beyond even the lower Court's Trial was over. A noble decision against a 70+ year old woman that had nothing to do with nothing. In other words, the Higher Court acted shady by not addressing the issue requested of them at all, which was to enable my intervention in an ongoing case.
Instead, the higher court pretended that I was acting clairvoyant to know that the lower court judge would many months in the future rule against the wrong party, they pretended to respond as if I was appealing a future negative Trial ruling.
This document was submitted to the upper-2nd appellate court of review when the lower court that presided over a property-damage claim matter ruled against making Kenny Hendrick a Defendant or Plaintiff (pick your poison).
ONLY a Defendant or Plaintiff CAN BE ALLOWED TO SHOW EVIDENCE (*strange, right? But okay), so why was I denied again? So that I COULD NOT show the evidence to the court that the case was/is a fraud?
Justice or Justus?
Again, keep in mind that the foregoing document was submitted to the higher court of review shortly after the lower court (trial court) had completed Pre-Trial.
In other words, shortly after the lower court denies my ability to become a party to the case, I filed with the upper court of review to hopefully get the lower court to uphold the law and allow a third-party to bring pertinent subject matter to the ongoing case (which was set for trial many months in the future of my present motion for review to the higher court).
By this means, I was in two courts at the same time for the same issue but the "Review" court declined to properly answer my motion for Review until MANY MONTHS LATER, after an actual Trial was concluded all the way through Trial.
The Review Court received my request that they overturn the lower court's PRE-TRIAL decision to keep the Third Party from showing evidence
In the months to trial of the lower court property-damage claim (and waiting for the old sleepy-heads of the Review Court), my motions began to roll into the Lower Court (the property-damage Trial Court); my last count on motions submitted by the third-party to the lower court was up to 18).
After feeling like maybe my first two pre-trial motions were too subtle to the lower court (Trial Court), I now made sure to attach physical DVD videos to the motions showing damage as it was occurring (so obviously blaming Margaret Baldino for causing damage when she wasn't even in the same State is ludicrous, criminal, and duh ought to be unlawful in a Court of what? That's right, JustUs).
And yet every motion was denied, many without cause or reason expressed. And at least one of the rulings is a complete fabrication leaning toward a Judge practicing Law(lessness) from the Bench.
18 motions, some with many days or weeks between each motion stemming every inch of the many months to Trial, with attached video evidence, denied?
Only a criminal (or a criminal organization) can deny physical video evidence of the actual damage being alleged against another.
This maliciousness transcends all ethics issues.
Do you see my mom in any of the clips contained in this synopsis video?
Of course the 70+ woman couldn't have caused the damages! The courts purposely denied the videos and denied my ability to be made a party to the case, and even went so far as to treat my appeal (which was made AT PRE-TRIAL) to the 2nd appellate division hoping to overturn the lower court's ruling to keep me out of the case. It was nothing short of utter railroading, a justus system that can never be trusted. It was that obvious.
The premise of my having spent money and time to make this website was an effort to sound the alarm of active corruption in Ohio's Court System.
The polity responded by removing the site numerous times so I had to learn css and html, learn how to host my own server, and most importantly how to read the server logs and use "nmap", "traceroute", "ping", etc., to trace through the foreign proxies that were being utilized by the attackers.
Though my website had a 100% online safety and content rating, they then blocked almost a dozen hosters one after the other before I began to realize what entity was attacking me.
So now, after they removed by site from all search engines where I was formerly well-placed (1st page of Google search for many topics and keywords that only my site has, and after they banned me from all social sites (almost simultaneously), and having no other way to tell the community of what I see as a very real danger to our community, I built a server again and again, receiving a flurry of increased attacks that only the government could facilitate and control (such as denying to renew my passport, threatening me $100.00/day and criminal proceedings if I didn't do something that was AGAINST THEIR OWN LAWS), and much more.
This page is created to show and tell and nothing more.
So it's up to you to discern between the facts presented here whether or not you find the system that is in place in Ohio as a "corrupt, unjust and illegal court", or something else?
You be the Judge.
2014-2024 Kenny Hendrick and the Public Diary (of sorts). All Rights Reserved.
Keywords: Clark County, Legal, Municipal Court, Springfield Ohio, Law, Department of Law
