ORIGIN IAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

0 4 0STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,JIM LINK TREASURER, S.Ct. No.:

VS. ON APPEAL FROMTHIRD DIST. CT. NO.:CA01-12-38

NICHOLAS J KINSTLE ens legis,DEFENDANT IN ERROR-APPELLANT, TRIAL COURT NO.:CV2005 0682

MOTION FOR DELAYED APPEAL

Comes now, Appellant, NICHOLAS J KINSTLE ens legis, by and through,

Authorized Representative Nicholas-Joseph: Kinstle Secured Party Creditor,

hereby moving this Court to grant Order for a Delayed Appeal, in favor of

Appellant.

Allen County Common Pleas Court of Cause of Action No.: CV2005 0682

entered a Judgment Entry on August 23; 2012. Appellant filed a timely Appeal on

or about Sept.11,2012 , in the Third District Court of Appeals, Allen County.

STATE OF OHIO TREASURER JIM LINK, FOR ALLEN COUNTY, OHIO9 PLAINTIFF-

Appellee, filed a Motion To Dismiss on October 22, 2012, based on APPELLANT

failed to seek leave to file.the Appeal as a Vexatious Litigator under RC.

2323.52(F)(2), asserting Appellantmay not institute any legal proceedings

in a court of appeals without first filing an application for leave to proceedwith any court of appeals action.

JUDGE JEFFREY L. REED gave sworn testimony, under Oath,on and for the

record, in the Trial proceedings of Allen Cty Com. Pl. Ct. Action No. CR2011

0048, wherein, he testified that "NO" Leave of Court is required for Kinstle

to file an Appeal in the Courts of Appeal. See, Trial Transcript's, page 55-59

JUne 27, 2011. So, either he, Judge Reed gave perjured testimony or told the

truth. In another Appeal, S. Cohn & Son, Co. v. Kinstle, 174 Ohio App.3d 81,

2007 Ohio 6237, 880 N.E.2d 965, 2007 Ohio App. Lexis 5495 (Ohio Ct. App.,

Allen County, 2007), then Third Dist. Ct. made a Judgment Entry asserting

that one doeg not_; file for leave of Court, to file an appeal, if one

R E'G^E ^ V E D 1^. rL7 Ho

MAR 13 2013MAR ^ S N15

CLERK n- F COURTne'rtinei►I^ra'^f"i 9D°_Llc_nl.lin ii^^^^ A^ k^^^^^^

is determined to be a vexatious litigator under R.C.52323.52. As an appeal of

Right is just that, one of Right. To deny one the opportunity to be heard on

appeal is closing the Courts in violation of Article 1, Sect. 16, Ohio Const.

and violates the Due Process Clauses of the united States of America and Ohio

Constitutions.

On or about, November 26, 2012, Appellant filed for Motion For Leave To FILE

Appeal, simultaniously with a Motion For Reconsideration, both was overruled

and or denied by Appeals Court Judges, who hold a financial conflict of interest

in the proceedings, as the Judges Rogers, Willamowski and Mag. Miller and the

Courtheld exculpatory evidence Kinstle sought by a Rule 9, Rules of Courts of

Ohio, "Affidavit of Specific Negative Averment"' a legal and lawful process,

filed in the Allen COunty Com P1. Ct.'s of CV2005 0682, CV2008 1032 and CR2010

0251, wherein the public officials wrongfully accused Kinstle of Arson, Trespass

on his own property at 3320 Swaney Rd., Allen County, Ohio, which the Judges of

the Court of Appeals made a faulty ruling on Foreclosure in the CV2005 0682 Ap-

peal, as no "Prioritization Statement" was not entered to render the Judgment ofRX

Foreclosure a "Final Appelable Order", which they could4 actually decide having no

jurisdictional authority to decide. On August 23, 2012, the Court of Richard K.

Warren, agreed with Kinstle's Averments in the "Specific Negative Averment", a

Rule 9 process, that Kinstle and Appellant was the rightful owners of 3320

Swaney Road, and rescinded the Forefeiture Order of November 12, 2009, in the

Cv2005 0682 Court. This delayed.Appeal is to bring an ends to injustice by the

Court's of Allen County. Judge Jeffrey L. Reed on February 7, 2013 assertingthis

Motion to Arrest Judgment, Motion for New Trial, and Motion.For Change of Venue

are denied for failure to make application for Leave of Court as a vexatious

litigator under R.C.52323.52(I), and cited the STATE V. KINSTLE (Jan. 17, 2013)

Allen App. No. 1-12-60, unreported, decision. Thus, Justice was denied Kinstle

and the Jan. 17, 2013 Order of the Appellate Court must be reversed to prevent

further miscarriage of justice from occurring to another.

2

Judge Jeffrey L. Reed, without a hearing with parties present, without

I notice of the alleged hearing in his Court of CV2008 1736, Allen County, Entered

Judgment against Kinstle on merit less facts, and Ordered Appellant is a vexat-

ious litigator under R.C.S2323.52(A)(3), which the Appellate Court based its

dismissal of Appeal upon. Which is denying.access to the Courts 446hout cause

or reason, based on Jeffrey L. Reed's testimony as a Judge of CV2008 1736 Court.

Call it fraud, call it perjury, in either circumstance, the Judge's of both the

Allen County Common Pleas and the Third District Court of Appeals are purpose-

fully and knowingly, with intent to cause extended harm and injury to Appellant

and Auth. Rep. herein, by discriminating against them similarly to the Esmail

v. Macrane, 53 F.3d 176, 178 (7th Cir. 1995) action, and, Village of Willow-

brook v. Olech, 528 U.S. at 555. Doing so with malicious intention to cause a

deprivation of constitutional rights, by blocking access to the Court agore-

mentioned, and a^_-ting in concert togethe-e to deny Due Process of La^a and Equal

Protection of Law to Appellant, in bad faith, in dishonor of their sworn 0ath's.

Going against t'ne Ohio General Assemblies intent and purpose in Creating the

R.C,52323.52 statute, the Rule O0(A) and Rule 60(B) Rules of Court. as these

Judges know that a Rule 60(A) cannot be used to efiiect a judgment, and a Rule

60(B) has a one year statutory limitation, which the time began to run on Nov.

ift 19, 2009 ending Nov. 19, 2010. The Judgment Entry of August 23, 2012 is 21

month's past the statute of limitations. One cannot use a Rule 60 Motion if it

lack's standing to prosecute the action. State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster

(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 70, 77, 1998 Ohio 275, 701 N.E.2d 1002. The STATE and its

prosecution team was not able to invoke the jurisdiction of the Common Pleas

Court lacking standing therein, and the time linits have since pasted to eff-

ect the judgment of Forfeiture by way of a Rule 60 anything. See, Dallman v.

Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 176, 298 N.E. 2d

515 syllabus. Therefore, the Order of August 23, 2012 is null and void.

STATE PROSECUTOR's alleged the "Mistake" in not advertising the Sheriff Sale

in October, 2009, was a failure of "THE LIMA NEWS", but evidence shows otherwise.

3

The evidence shows no bill was delivered to Sheriff for advertising the Oct.

Sheriff Sale Date. The first inadvertance by Sheriff's subordinates Sgt. Mefferd

and Ms. Evans. Not reviewing Newspaper for the placement of the Advertisment was

the second inadvertance and a dereliction of the duty of Sheriff subordinates.

Thirdly, Judge Warren testified that all procedures was followed in the foreclos-

ure process, as he "DID" testify in the CR2011 0048 Trial that Kinstle Intimidat-

ed Warren and Sheriff from theirduty to carry out the Foreclosure Process, when

such failure was that of the Xg combined efforts of Sheriff in not telling the

LIMA NEWS Newspaper Co. to print the Ad, and after such was not billed nor display-

ed failed to correct the error timely, before Sale occurred. The Court of Warren

also caused the Foreclosure process to fail as well, as his testimony supports

he physically reviewed the record for correctness of procedures, in the foreclos-

ure sale(s). JUdge Warren entered perjured testimony in the CR2011 0048 trial, by

asserting the failure of foreclosure was not their own (public officials) but it

is KINSTLE"S fault. The Prosecutor Waldick and his subordinates, the County Bd.

of Comm. are at fault as well forfailure to train SHERIFF, JUDGE WARREN AND

PROSECUTOR WALDICK and each of their subordinates on legal process and procedure

in executing a FORECLOSURE FOR TAX OBLIGATIONS THAT ARE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY INSTIT-

UTED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.

Though the STATE OF OHIO PROSECUTOR"S allege, perhaps a mistake occurred in

not advertising the Second Sheriff Sale, Ohio R. Civ. P. 9 (B), requiring, inter

alia, that mistake be pled with particularity ... pleadings must give fair notice

of the nature of the action. Thomas v. Ohio Power Co., -- Ohio App.3d--, 2007

Ohio 5350, --N.E.2d--, 2007 Ohio App. Lexis 4715 (Sept.27, 2007). Therefore, NO

Rule 60 anything could be used by PLAINTIHIFPS To dismiss the FORFEITURE ORDER.

Kinstle challenged the PLAINTIFF'S capacity to sue in the CR2010 0251 Action

in Allen Cty Com P1. Ct., by raising a "Affidavit of Specific Negative Averment"'

pursuant to Rule $ of Rules of Court of Ohio, now imprisoned for eight years for

exercising the Right to do so under the law of u.S.A. and Ohio Constitutions.

4

- - - - - - ---- --- --•--- -

Had Kinstle not brought the Rule 9 Specific Negative Averment to seek blocked

discovery in the CR2010 0251 Action, then Kinstle would have waived such right

under Civ. R. 12(H);(decided under former analogous section) DOT Systems, Inc. v.

Adams Robinson Ent. Inc., 67 Ohio App.3d 475, 587 N.E. 2d 844, 1990 Ohio App.

Lexis 1627 (1990). Kinstle included.a Rule 8(D) Civ. R. notice of default and an

opportunity to cure section in his Rule,9 Specific Negative Averment, now incarcer-

ated for eight years in doing so. Also,: Civ. R. 9(C) requires a plaintiff to plead

that the condition has been satisfied.and permits the plaintiff to aver generally

that any condition precedent to recovery have been satisfied, rather than requir-

ing the plaintiff to detail specifically how each condition has been satisfied;

Nat'l City Mort'g Co. v. Richards, 1820hio App.3d 534, 2009 Ohio 2556, 913 N.E.2d

1007 Ohio App. Lexis 2123 (2009). Therefore Kinstle followed such statutory remedy

filed his "Affidavit of Specific Negative Averment, Opportunity to Cure and

Counterclaim' writing, now incarcezatedfor such legal process, filed in the LIMA

MUNICIPAL COURTS of 10CRB00361A-C, Allen Cty Com Pl. Ct of CR2010 0251, CV2005

0682 and CV2008 1032, and have levied the STATE OF OHIO county of Allen and all

involved a fee for monetization of the body of Kinstle, by selling the SECURITY

INSTRUMENT call "Judgment Entry of Conviction and Sentence" to the Federal Court,

and collecting fees for imprisoning Kinstle the natural born man for crimes charged

against the ens legis trust of the same name, a levi of approximately 10,000,000

lawful U.S. silver dollars .999 fine silver, are assessed each and every day of

incarceration, as set forth in the contract with government, pursuant to UCC-1

Financing Statement Number 2009-226-9887-7. The Foreclosure of CV2005 0682 and CV

20081032 violates Ohio Constitution at Article VIII, Sections 2e,2f, 2h,2i,2n,2o

as the debts of ph public schools are tobe satisfied by cigarette and lottery

taxes, not by ad valorem tax on private landowners. Seixure of 3320 Swaney Rd,

Allen Cty violates the Eighth Amendment of united States of America Constitution.

The reason for the delay is set forth in the attached Affidavit, as Kinstle

has pending two Federal Lawsuits, one U.S. Sixth Circuit lawsuit of Appeal, two

Supreme Court suits, two Common Pleas suits that have overwelmed KInstle, due to5

negligence by the PICKAWAY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE and its WARDEN COOK for not

properly training Library Staff and personel, on opening the doors to the library

MX on sceduled times as posted, not providing working typewriters that do not

continually malfunction, and not supplying an adequate amount of typewriter

ribbons, nor providing a word processor that can supply an ample amount of copies

as required by Court Rules, and an ample supply of paper to write brief's upon.

Had the delays and failures by LIBRARY Staff to not show up for work on their

schedule time, denies access to Courts:via Law Library. The Warden has failed to

replace Librarians when they do not appear for scheduledduty. Thus, the failure

is caused by STATE OF OHIO O.D.R.C. for not properly training WARDEN COOK and

LIBRARIAN Ms. ASHOBE and Ms. Igwe. The delays are continueing the incarceration

of Kinstle without reason, cause, or justification.

Wherefore the Delayed Appeal should be granted as set forth above and in the

affidavit attached hereto.

Submitted this day of the Third Month of two thousand thirteen.

NICHQLAS J KINSTLE ens legis,

uthorized Representative, Secured Party Creditor,Y"Good As Ava ",, UCC-3-402(1)(A),

c/o Kinstle #A611457.00, Pickaway Correctional Institute,P.O. Box 209, Orient, Ohio state; near [43146]Phone/Fax: c/o P.C.I.

Certificate of Service

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent Prosecutor Office in AllenCty, P.O. Box 1243, Lima, Ohio state; Near [45802], postage paid, by and throughSTATE OF OHIO, P.C.I. Mailroom, beyond my control on the above date.

NI^ LAS J KINSTLE ens legis,

By; - y`^^^,^^^ Auth. Rep."Good As Avdl UCC-3-402(1)(A)

6

^..=^ . . ....... ...

IN THE SUPREME COURT-OF OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, S. CT. No.

vs. On.Appeal From Third Dist. Ct.No.: CA01-12-38

NICHOLAS J KINSTLE ens legis,DEFENDANT IN ERROR-APPELLANT, TRIAL CT. No.: CV2005 0682

AFFIDAVIT

State of Ohio )) sS-

County of Pickaway )

I, Affiant, NICHOLAS J KINSTLE, being first duly sworn, having first hand

personal knowledge aver the following:

1. Affiant is the Appellant found in the above styled action;

2. Affiant comes now, by and through, Authorized Representative Nicholas-

Joseph: Kinstle, Secured Party Creditor thereof, being first duly sworn to, or

Affirmed and deposess and says the following, being first hand personal knowledge;

3. That, on August 23, 2012, the Allen County Common Pleas Court of Richard

K. Warren, Action No. CV2005 0682 entered an Order, absent the jurisdictional

authority to do so, being an actual actor in the proceeding, and granted a Rule

60,Motion neither noticed to be a 60(A):or 60(B), that effected the Judgment of

Forfeiture on November 12, 2009, entered by that Court, concerning conveyance of

Affiant's 3320 Swaney Road, Allen County, state of Ohio, township of Jackson,

section 16 property, Titled to township of Jackson by a land grant recorded at

the Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, with was passed to Appellant

under a perfected, paramount superior UCC Lien, by and through Uniform Commercial

Code Number 2009-226-9887-7, dated August 14, 2009;

4. That, an Appeal was filed in the Third District Court of Appeals on Sept.

17, 2012;

5. That, on or about, Sept. 8, 2009, Judge Jeffrey L. Reed Order declared

1

AFFIANT KINSTLE is a Vexatious Litigator under R.C.52323.52, in the Court Action

No. CV2008 1736;

6. That, on or about, June 27, 2011, Judge Jeffrey L. Reed of the CV2008 1736

Court, testified in the CR2011 0048 Court of Allen Cty Com P1., Judge Basinger

visiting from Putnam Cty, Ohio state,, wherein the transcript's of that action, on

pages 55-59 of the Trial Transcript's., attached hereto and incorporated herein,

at page 58, Atty for Defense-Kenneth J. Rexford Questions (Q.) Judge Reed, at

line Four (4), "So, Appeals wouldn'tbe covered by this?" Reed answered, "NO".

At line Eleven (11) Reed Answers: "Just Common Pleas Court". meaning Appellant

does not need to make application to the lower Common Pleas Court, to file an

appeal of Right in the Third Appellate District Court of Allen County, Ohio;

7. That, Third Dist. Ct. of Appeals granted an Order, on a Motion instituted

by Appellant counsel Terry J. Lodge, in the Allen County Common Pleas Court No.;

CV2005 0435. See, S. Cohn & Son Co. v. Kinstle, 174 Ohio App.3d 81, 2007 Ohio

0 6237, 880 N.E. 2d 965, 2007 Ohio.App. Lexis 5495 (Ohio Ct. App., Allen

County, 2007). Said Order declared that one declared a vexatious litigator does

not need to make application for leave of Court to file an appeal of Right, in

the Third Appellate District Court;

8. That, Judge Reed either has committed perjury while testifying in the CR

2011 0048 Trial, or is a plain liar in the EX his recent decisions blocking

Appellant from filing Appeals in the.Courts based on vexatious litigator statute.

9. That, Appellants delay in bringing this Appeal is based on his inability

to access the Pickaway Correctional Institute Law Library. The Librarians Ms,

Igwe, and Ms. Ashobe constantly fail to show up for work on scheduled times,

when the weather is inclimate, which,is understandable, but the Warden is negli-

gent for not Opening the Law Library,and Regular Library at the Scheduled time

of 7:45 each morning, whenstaff cannot be at work timely, and on days they are.

at work on time, as the Librarians fail to open the doors¢at times as late as

9:00 A.M.. Recently I was placed in the Hole for checking the Library Open status

at 8:05, by Ms Gosset a C.O. and by Ms Igwe Librarian, without cause or reason,

2

lossing valueable time. The Warden was notified, Ms Gossett was given time off.

A week later the hours are again reduced, not allowing ample time to generate

documents and research law and cases.

10. That, Pickaway Correctional Institute has but three computors in its

Law Library, there are more than 1500 prisoners attempting to access the Courts.

One can only be on a computer and.typewriter on one-half hour intrevals, thus,

there is not enough time available to document case law, statutes and constitu-

tional laws in the time available. What an attorney could do in one hour on the

street/in an office, takes the entire day at P.C.I. if the Library is Open.

Therefore, a delayed appeal is one of necessity to bring an ends to the injustice

brought upon this Plaintiff by Judges Reed and Warren of the Common Pleas Court

of Allen Cty, Ohio, and the Appeals Court judges Rogers, Willamowski, Mag. Miller

and Preston of the Third Dist. Ct.

11. That, the Third District Court of Appeals and its Judges hold an irrecon-

cilable conflict of financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings, as the

Judges Rogers, Willamowski, Mag. Miller and the Court itself received the same

Specific Negative Avermentsasthe 23 Accusers of Intimidation in the CR2011 0048

Action in Allen Cty Com.Pl:. Ct., Therefore, they withheld exculpatory evidence

requested in the Averments of. Kinstle, causing the Intimidation cases to origin-

ate, and caused the Trespass and Criminal Damage conviction and sentence to enter.

Therefore, Appellant can never receive a fair appellate review ever again from

the Third Dist. Ct. Judges, whom should be removed from public service altogether.

Affiant €urther Saith Naught.N OLAS J INSTLE ens legis,

g :^ s Authorized Representativey Good As Aval", UCC-3-402(1 (A)

Sworn to, or Affirmed, and Subscribed in My presence this __.___day of the Third

PhUip AadrewSUMmsNotary Public.'State of Ohi9Recorded in Fiyette Cottfty

My Guinmission Expite8August 26, 2017

3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO;`

STATE OF OHIO9 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, S. Ct. No.:

vs. ON APPEAL FROM ^THIRD DISTRICT COURT NO.:^^^-/^

NICHOLAS J KINSTLE ens legis,DEFENDANT IN ERROR-APPELI:EE, TRIAL COURT N0. : 6id^, s®r

AFFIDAVIT OF VERITY

I, Affiant, NICHOLAS J KINSTLE ens legis, Appellant, do hereby affirm,

having been first duly sworn in and cautioned as to the penalty of perjury,

deposes and says to the best of My knowledge, in accordance with O.R.C.S2969.25

I have filed other actions (Civil).in the last five years in Common Pleas

Courts as follows: (1) a Civil Suit against Beaverdam Contracting, Inc., in

Van Wert County, (2) others in Allen County primarily appeals from Criminal

Actions instituted by STATE OF OHIO, which I do not have the Action No.s

readily available to me, as I am incarcerated in Pickaway Correctional Inst.,

on bogus charges from a "Sham Legal Process" by STATE OF OHIO from Action No.

CR2011 0048, Allen Cty Com. Pl. Ct, (#) a S. Ct. of Ohio Action is pending

in Action No. 13-0285. I further assert that I have read the information

submitted in the "Motion For Delayed Appeal", it is to the best of My know-

ledge and belief, true and correct.

NICHO S J KINSTLE ens legis,

gy;^ Authorized Representative, Secured Party Creditor,"Good As Aval", UCC-3-402(1)(A)

Sworn to, or Affirmed, and Subscribed in My presence this _2 day of theThi Month, wo thousand thirteen, A.D..

. ^^s^^; `'qPYr ►4^''0 ^p Andrew ^^Ti

^=^!Yfli.^{a

;•'^ 4^_' ^111//^'^' : Nc ►tar.- Public, State of OhioIY P BL C Reco+-d.•d in Favette Countp

M3' (;onunissiun ExpitCb• ^.^s August 26, 2017„g ^'u.,.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I certify a copy of the foregoing was sent ProsecutorOffice at P.O. Box 1243, Lima, Ohio state; near [45802], postage paid, by andthrough STATE OF OHIO P.C.I. Mailrooem beyond My control thisi.day of the

thirteen, A.D.. NI OI.,AS J KI STLE ens legis,D C - I, BY^ ^^^'. Auth. Rep.

"Good As Aval", UCC-3-402(1)(A)

MAR 13 ?01 3

r! M!f M; (;M 114T

.. . .. .. .. . . . ^ ^^^^^ €z ` . . . . . ^.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OIP OTI^^ wg ^^ ^1'• ^~'THIRD APPELLATE DIST F^ ^

ALLEN COUNTY

JIM LINK, TREASUREROF ALLEN COUNTY, OHIOSUCCESSOR TO RHONDA D.EDDY, FORMER TREASUREROF ALLEN COUNTY, OHIO,

NTIFF APPELLEE

CASE NO. 1-12-38

PLAI

V.JL1Di7iVtENT

J.C. MATTHEWS AKA E N T R YNICHOLAS KINSTLE,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This matter comes on for determination of Appellee's motion to dismiss the

appeal, and Appellant's reply in opposition and motion to strike.

Upon consideration the Court finds that Appellant was declared and

remains a vexatious litigator under R.C. 2323.52. See Koehlinger v. Kinstle; Allen

County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV20081736, September 8, 2009. A

vexatious litigator who seeks to "institute or continue any legal proceedings in a

court of appeals" is required to first file an application for leave to proceed in the

court of appeals. R.C. 2323.52(F)(2). Appellant failed to file an application and

was not granted leave to proceed with the appeal in this civil proceeding. When a

vexatious litigator institutes or continues a legal proceeding without first obtaining

^ ^ w^^.

Case No. 1-12-38

leave, the Court in which the legal proceeding is pending "shall dismiss" the

proceeding of the vexations litigator. R.C. 2323.52(I).

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Appellant's motion to strike is denied

and Appellee's motion to dismiss should be granted.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that tne appeal

be, and hereby is, dismissed at the costs of Appellant for which judgmeilt is

rendered and that the cause be, and hereby is, remanded to the trial court for

execution of the judgment for costs.

DATED: NOVEMBER 9, 2012

/hlo

.^ ^.

JUDGES

-2-

^'4..q ^`^ :^

E: D 17 ^ ..# J A ^ t

_ .. i" . . .

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF ALLEN COUNTY, OHIO

JIM LINK, TREASUREREN COLJNTY OHIO CASF NO. CV2005 0682OF ALL

SUCCESSOR TO RHONDA D.EDDY, FORMER TREASUREROF ALLEN COUNTY, OHIO

PLAINTIFF

VS

J.C. MATTHEWS akaNICHOLAS KINSTLE

DEFENDANT

This matter came before the Court upon plaintiff s request that this

Court grant Civil Rule 60 relief from an order of forfeiture in this action,

previously granted on November 12, 2009.

The Court has further reviewed defendant, J.D. Matthews, aka

Nicholas Kinstle's Motion to Strike and Responses which the Court finds

irresponsive to plaintiff's Motion for Relief pursuant to Civ.R.60 and finds

the same not well taken.

0 q3-s

The Court is aware of the extensive history of this particular

foreclosure action, and has examined the clerk's file with regard to the error

alleged to be the basis of the relief requested in plaintiff's motion.

ORDER

1

7(?Y

The Court is further aware that for a valid forfeiture to a political

subdivision or to the County Auditor to occur under Chapter 5723, that there

must have been two properly advertised and conducted Sheriff s sales for the

particular property involved, each of which resulted in no sale for want of

the minimum bid being offered.

An examination of the record of this case reveals that there were two

N previously attempted Sheriff's Sales of the subject property - one September

30, 2009 and the second on October 14, 2009.

However, a further review of the affidavit of the proof of publication

of said sales by the Lima News reveals that only the first sale was

advertised, and there exists no evidence in the record that the October 14,

2009 sale was ever advertised.

The Sheriffs report of the attempted sales indicates that the two sales

did in fact occur on the two dates indicated. However, there is no proof that

the second sale was properly advertised by publication in a newspaper of

general circulation in the county, as required by law to support any future

forfeiture action by this Court.

For this reason, it is the opinion of this Court that a second properly

advertised Sheriff s Sale of the subject property is necessary in order to

correct the previous action in which this Court accepted a petition by Allen

County, Ohio to receive the subject property prior to forfeiture to the Allen

2

County Auditor under R.C. Chapter 5723. In this way, marketability of title

to the subject property can be established and maintained for an ultimate

future owner of the property, either through a Sheriff's Sale or through an

Auditor's auction sale.

The Court is further aware that Allen County, Ohio, the record owner

of the subject property, has in fact indicated its consent to the relief

^ requested by the plaintiff in this action, by the filing of such written consent.

Therefore, it is the opinion of this Court that good grounds exist for

the filing of plaintiff's motion seeking relief, under Civil Rule 60, of this

Court's previous Order Entry of November 12, 2009, and

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff s Motion for Relief

From Order is granted, and this Court's Order Entry of November 12, 2009

forfeiting the subject property to Allen County, Ohio is hereby rescinded,

voided, and held to be of no force or effect.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an Order of Sale be issued by the

Clerk of this Court to the Sheriff of Allen County, Ohio directing him to

advertise and sell with new appraisal, according to law as upon execution,

the subject premises described as follows, to-wit:

SEE ATTACHED EXHBIIT "A"

for not less than 2/3 of the appraised value, and to thereafter report his

proceedings to this Court for further Orders.

3

All other questions are reserved for further consideration and approval

of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that after the within described real

property is sold at Sheriff's Sale, and after court costs and real estate taxes

are paid from the sale proceeds, a hearing will be scheduled with the Court

to determine the priority of payment of the remaining balance, if any , to

other lienholders.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of sale be in the Lima

News, a newspaper of general circulation in Allen County, Ohio, according

to law.

Date: August 23, 2012RilC K. WARREN, JUDGE

RKW/pmcc: Terry J. Lodge, Esq.

Jerry M. Johnson, Esq.R J ff Stone. e reyWilliam G. Kendall, Esq.Gregory M. Antalis, Esq.Lawrence A. Huffman, Esq.David A. JennisonRhonda Eddy-Stienecker,

Allen County AuditorNicholas J. Kinstle

4

EXH IBIT "A"

LEGAI. DESCRIPTION

Being a parcel of land situated in the northwest 1/4 of section 16,township 3 south, range 8 east, Jackson Township, Allen CovntylOhio, and being more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at a monument box found for the intersection of 'thecenterlines of Swaney Road and Sandusky Road:

(1) Thence North, along the west line of the northeast 1/4 of thenorthwest 1/4 of section 16 and the centerline of Sw.aney.Rd., for270.00 feet to a steel peg set-

(2) Thence S. 89° -55' -10"E. for 342.00 feet to a 5/8" iron pin set,passing at 19.35 feet a 5/8" iron pin set-

(3) Thence South for 270.00 feet to a steel peg set on `thecenterline of Sandusky Road, passing a 5/8" iron pin set at 240.00feet-

(4) Thence N. 890 -55' -10"IN., along the centerline of SanduskyRoad, for 342.00 feet to the point of beginning.

Containing in all 2.12 acres of land, subject however to all legaleasements and rights of way.

Parcel Number: 128 38-1600-02-Q01.005Commonly known as: 3320 Swaney Rd., Harrod, OhioPrior Instrument Reference: Volume 880, Page 629

[3e-5cription ApprovertTrmrsl9zy J. F'ip,,r, r p ., F: &

AIlerj C-ountv Eng:neer7ax Map office ^.

t,._ .

[ }Civfl f7iviFjon\TRLASURL'tt1pF:Ell & PJ12Wa(thewyjCinctle 05 0682.dae

ALLEN COUNTY S].^ERrFF'S QFFYCF,Sheriffs Deed Property Description .A rorvaz Formpp ^

Court Csise IVa.: -^

Property Address: -2) -C----..^

Plaintiff: Jiro Lxnk,

Defendant:

Treasurer

. __ . . P^ . . .: J . Y . r

Submitted•Sy; 'dward B. Pedlow, IV, Assistant Prosecutor

Attorney's S:apreane Court LLI. #; 0030150

Attorney's Phone: 419-222-2462

Contact Person: ----------------J: M.i.ller, Assistant Prosecutor

Contact Phone: 419_912.IA4

The legal description must comply with the Tax Map Office Standard Governin Conhtt^/1cQener.c^ ^Cn oh.uPiGtu^^CCnycy^ndardslConve nco Standards vE anccs found at:

The attached legal description has been reviewed by the Allen County Engineer'sThe Fce

ProPerty address, parcet number(s) and deed reference numb:er(s) u t be listed ^ utyde ^h^ Dea^

descr' tio on the deed o e ion You may use a copy of the prior deed, whiclr wiltthis infotTrtation.contain all of

This document, along with the red-stamped --AppROVED„ original logal descri Ption, must be at#uched tothe Order of Sale when filed with the AIlen County Clerk of Cotuts.

All documents submitted for approval must be legible and reproducible to dewitl be rejected. Machine printed or drat}ed documents are preferrd. Partneatal standards, or they

INTEhNAL USE ONLY *The docuntent information nsusreasons: t 6e corrected and resubmltted for

No Correetipn(s) needod aPProval for the fattowing

^ Legal_ Descri.ption does not match information as submitted.d ParcelNumbcr(s) do(es) nat match legal description information asq Legal name

does not match information as submitted, submittedd propeity address does not match informationq Other as su6mittcd,,

The following information has been reviewedand verificd by tlte Coun En i

Legal Owner of Record: ty g nec"^s Ta MaA OfficePropeny Address:

Parcel Number(s):

Researched and Approved by:

APProval Date:

Aiten County Tax Map Offce: 301 N Main t,, Lirna, Ohio 45801 (419) 228-3700

0 *11

c

Pax: (419) 228-7243C^ ^vf^ ?C4q

55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

CRIMINAL MATTERS THAT WAS NOT GOING TO BE PROHIBITED.

Q BECAUSE DUE PROCESS WOULD REQUIRE --

A YEAH. I DIDN'T FEEL -- YES. CORRECT.

Q RIGHT.

A THIS WAS ALL CIVIL LITIGATION, THINGS PENDING OR

INITIATING NEW THINGS WITHOUT GETTING THE PERMISSION OF THE

JUDGE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CASE.

Q RIGHT. I UNDERS -- I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT AS FAR

AS, LET'S SAY AFTER THIS ORDER. I THINK THE ORDER CAME OUT

ON SEPTEMBER 8T", 2009. SO LET'S SAY IN SEPTEMBER OF 2010 IF

SOMEONE WERE TO FILE A DIVORCE COMPLAINT AGAINST MR.

KINSTLE, THAT DIVORCE COMPLAINT WOULD BE GIVEN A CASE

NUMBER, RIGHT? THAT WOULD INSTITUTE THE LEGAL

PROCEEDINGS?

WITHIN THAT SAME CASE NUMBER IF MR. KINSTLE FILED A

COUNTERCLAIM, MY READING THIS I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHETHER

THIS WOULD MEAN THAT A COUNTERCLAIM COULD BE FILED OR

NOT.

19 A HE'D HAVE TO GET LEAVE OF COURT.

20 Q HE WOULD HAVE TO GET LEAVE OF COURT, EVEN

21 THOUGH HE'S NOT -- THIS WOULD NOT BE INSTITUTING LEGAL

22 PROCEEDINGS?

23 A FILING ANYTHING.

56

1 Q OKAY. BUT (A) DOESN'T -- (A) IS NOT FILING ANYTHING.

2 THAT'S JUST INSTITUTING. SO WOULD A COUNTERCLAIM BE

3 INSTITUTING?

4 A A COUNTERCLAIM INSTITUTES ANOTHER CLAIM

5 AGAINST THE ORIGINAL CLAIMANT.

6 Q OKAY. INSTITUTING LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. I MEAN,

7 WHAT DOES INSTITUTING MEAN, AS FAR AS LEGAL PROCEEDINGS?

8 A TO BRING THEM. TO START THEM.

9 Q OKAY. I MEAN, IF IT -- IF THERE'S A CASE NUMBER

1o ALREADY ASSIGNED ROGEE^-MQG ALREADY

11 STARTED?

12 A / YES.

13 Q

14 UNDERS

15 UNDERS

16 CAN'T CO

17 A

' OKAY. THE SECOND -- I MEAN, YOU COULD

AND HOW SOMEONE MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY

AND THAT INSTITUTING LEGAL PROCEEDINGS MEANS YOU

^,NTERCLAIM?

PPOSE.

18 Q yf OKAY. THEZE60,ND..ONE'S CONTINUING ANY LEGAL

19 PROCEEDINGS THAT HE HAS INSTITUTED IN ANY COMMON PLEAS

20 COURT PRIOR TO ENTRY OF THIS ORDER. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO

21 CONTINUE A LEGAL PROCEEDING? I MEAN, ONCE YOU'VE

22 INSTITUTED IT DOESN'T IT CONTINUE ON ITS OWN?

23 A IF YOU READ THE WHOLE ENTRY IT'S ALL AIMED AT

57

1 CONTINUING THE COURSE OF CONDUCT THAT HE HAD IN THE PAST

2 IN TERMS OF FILING THINGS LIKE THESE NONSENSICAL DOCUMENTS

3 NOT RECOGNIZING THE AUTHORITIES OF THE COURTS OF COMMON

4 PLEAS IN ALLEN COUNTY. CONTINUALLY REFERRING TO MYSELF AS

5 A JUDGE OF AN ADMIRALTY COURT.

6 Q OKAY.

7 A CONTINUING THAT KIND OF BEHAVIOR V1/AS THE

8 VEXATIOUS BEHAVIOR.

9 Q WELL, I -- I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. WHAT

1o I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS FOR MR. KINSTLE FOR ANOTHER

11 COURT TO APPLY THIS, CONTINUING ANY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

12 DOES NOT MEAN -- DOESN'T SAY CONTINUING TO DO THINGS THAT

13 MY PRIOR ORDER DETERMINED TO BE VEXATIOUS. IT JUST SAYS

14 CONTINUING ANY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

15 DOES THAT MEAN FAILING TO DISMISS LEGAL PROCEEDINGS? DOES

16 ITMEAN--

17 A NO. IT JUST MEANS CONTINUING ON THE BEHAVIOR

18 THAT HE HAD EXHIBITED PRIOR TO THAT. IT DOESN'T PROHIBIT HIM

19 FROM FILING THINGS WITH COURT PERMISSION. IN FACT, THERE

20 WERE OCCASIONS WHEN I -- HE ASKED LEAVE OF COURT OF ME

21 SPECIFICALLY TO FILE THINGS AND I ALLOWED HIM TO FILE THINGS.

22 Q OKAY. AND THEN IT SAYS MAKING AN APPLICATION,

23 OTHER THAN AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED UNDER

58

1 DIVISION (F)(1). AND THAT'S THE DIVISION WITH REGARD TO

2 VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR. IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED BY

3 HIM OR ANOTHER PERSON IN ANY COMMON PLEAS COURT.

4 SO, APPEALS WOULDN'T BE COVERED BY THIS?

5 A NO.

6 ----U---`IGIUNICIPAL COURT PROCEEDINGS WOULDN'T BE

7 COVERED BY THIS?

8 A NO.

9 Q TAX COURT, FEDERAL COURT, ANYTHING OF THAT

io NATURE?

11 A JUST COMMON PLEAS COURT.

12 Q OKAY. AND MAKING APPLICATION -- APPLICATIONS

13 THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF APPLICATIONS, LIKE YOU MIGHT DO AN

14 APPLICATION TO THE COURT FOR A REVIEW OF A SEARCH

15 WARRANT?

16 A OR BASICALLY JUST ASKING LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE,

17 FOR EXAMPLE, IN YOUR EXAMPLE, LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE A

18 COUNTERCLAIM.

19 Q OKAY.

20 A LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE A MOTION.

:EE2 i Q N^H^^E DOCUMENTS THAT YOU RIVED E

22 CTUALLY FILED IN A COMMON PLEAS COURT, RECT?

2 A THIS ONE WASN'T.

59

i Q OKAY. HOW --

2 A I DON'T KNOW IF ANYTHING WAS FILED IN ANOTHER

3 COMMON PLEAS COURT.

4 Q HOW WOULD YOU KNOW IF A CASE WAS FILED?

5 A IT'S--

6 Q OR THAT A PIECE OF PAPER WAS FILED?

7 A IT WOULD HAVE A FILE-STAMP OF A CLERK OF COURTS.

8 Q SO ANY DOCUMENT THAT LACKS A FILE-STAMP FROM

9 THE CLERK OF COMMON PLEAS WOULD BE ONE THAT HADN'T BEEN

to FILED? WOULD NOT BE AN INSTITUTION OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN

ii A COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WOULD NOT BE A CONTINUATION OF

12 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN A COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, IT WOULD

13 NOT BE AN APPLICATION IN A COURT OF COMMON PLEAS IF IT

14 WASN'T FILE STAMPED; IS THAT CORRECT?

15 A NOT NECESSARILY. ONE MIGHT MAKE AN

16 APPLICATION. THE CLERK'S OFFICE IN ALLEN COUNTY ANYWAYS --

17 Q RIGHT.

18 A -- AS FAR AS I WAS CONCERNED WAS INSTRUCTED NOT

19 TO FILE SOMETHING --

20 Q OKAY.

21 A -- THAT MR. KINSTLE PRESENTED UNLESS I FIRST

22 REVIEWED IT. AND EVEN IF HE DIDN'T GRANT ME OR ASK FOR

23 PERMISSION I WAS DECIDING THAT --

60

i Q RIGHT.

2 A -- INSTEAD OF PUTTING THE BURDEN ON THE CLERK'S

3 OFFICE, PUT THE BURDEN ON ME, AND I WOULD LOOK AT THINGS

4 AND TELL THE CLERK WHETHER THAT SHOULD BE FILE STAMPED OR

5 NOT.

6 Q OKAY.

7 A AND THERE WERE SOME THINGS THAT I SAID GO

s AHEAD AND LET IT BE FILED. SOME THINGS LIKE THIS I SAID NO --

9 Q OKAY.

10 A -- BECAUSE IT'S VEXATIOUS.

11 Q AND THERE WERE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WERE

12 ALLOWED TO BE FILED?

13 A YES, AS I RECALL.

14 Q OKAY. NOW, WHEN A PERSON FILES SOMETHING FIRST

15 OF ALL A COURT SYSTEM HAS DEADLINES SOMETIMES THAT NEED

16 TO BE MET; IS THAT CORRECT?

17 A CORRECT.

18 Q OKAY. SO YOU MIGHT HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU

19 MIGHT HAVE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON A CIVIL MATTER?

20 A CORRECT.

21 Q YOU MIGHT HAVE DEADLINES FOR DISCOVERY

22 REQUESTS EITHER SET BY RULE OR BY COURT ORDER?

23 A CORRECT.