It should be noted that while the following detailed Clark County Court case was underway, I came under a very broad and organized attack, including across-the-board sudden suspensions of all of my social site accounts, phone communications were/are hindered from normal use, and more (all of which is detailed on this website elsewhere. Copy this website to your hard drive, you will find un-linked jewels that I just haven't the time to complete).
Judge Thomas E. Trempe presided in a case in which Theresa Crow knowingly brought a property damage claim against Margaret Baldino.
Civil Discourse reference Case Number=15CVF02981
**Please note, I am Kenny and the author of this website. The reader should be made aware that I am a litte "slow". I may not say my sentences correctly or express my intentions well. Please make me aware of any mis-statements if you happen to notice anything amiss here. email@example.com Thank you."
If you should follow the link to Dailymotion, notice the alias I had used. That was God or luck because who would have guessed that Springfield Government could order pulling all videos associated with my real name on the Internet? Upon my resubmitting the videos to Youtube were followed by suspensions and the loss of all the work to compile and upload the videos? The videos uploaded to Youtube were important because the 18 motions submitted to the court contained links to the videos that CLEARLY show the damages were not of the Defendant.
Springfield missed one of the videos that I just recently found remaining on the Internet, the video is dated with the original description to the video.
Submitted 6 years ago to DailyMotion (the only video site that did not alter or pull my videos because I submitted it using an alias! Kudos to me!)
The following video Title and Description were posted before the case went to Trial. The time-stamp is clearly indicated by going to dailymotion (where the video was uploaded) directly.
DISCLAIMER: Please note, the description to this video was written in haste to Daily Motion during a time when I may not have been thinking so clearly (or something because that is a stupid description in parts, huh?). Sorry. It should be obvious that the videos were made prior to 2016 since my move-out was 2014. Luckily I retained those videos so many years later, huh? What if I didn't though? That's a scarier thought to me.
Original Dated and Time-stamped Description to the DailyMotion Video
"This is how to kill a scammer. Remember kids...when moving into a new place and renting from the rich...DOCUMENT EVERYTHING BEFORE YOU MOVE YOUR STUFF IN (luckily I did ... and will be editing this video frequently today (this is my first draft as of this date 1/29/2016). The case went up for arraignment yesterday....the landlords have made a side-line business of suing their tenants.....I'm about to ruin their day. They already "stole" $600 deposit and $600 last month's unused rent...now almost 2 years after I moved out they are suing!!!!!!!!! LOL....God told me to make daily videos of my move-in and guess what you see in the pre-movein videos? That's right, cracks, splintered wood, broken window, trash in the basement, water stains on the ceilings and carpet and more!!!! Stop back because this little turkey is just getting to his first gobble!"
It should be noted that the plaintiff would later defer from suing me and went after none-other than my mother. I recorded the conversation while the defendant and I and the defendant's paid attorney were in a meeting prior to Pre-Trial. IN fact, it is now October 20, 2021 and I think it's time to release that audio and will do so shortly. I am heard repeatedly stating that I have video evidence to show the claim is a fraud and that the evidence was present with me. The Paid attorney expressed a heated displeasure and chose rather to make a threat against me, then at Pre-Trial he quit the defendant's representation. The paid attorney is the same entity that lured my mother up from Florida to Ohio to "address the allegation made against her". I would much later learn that Ohio had NO JURISDICTION against anyone not in Ohio (for a claim of property damage).
The paid attorney would later be promoted as head-honcho at none-other than the Bar Association here in Springfield.
Theresa Crow's claim was that Margaret Baldino caused the damages to property leased by Theresa.
I submitted videos to youtube showing the damages being caused by another tenant almost a year before the suit was even filed (against the wrong party).
The strangest thing was, Youtube was pulling the videos (repetitively). Each time I would upload the evidence, Youtube was pulling the videos and Google issued accross the board suspensions of my accounts (no kidding, it's documented and I think the last count was 6 times).
For some reason, now that the court case is over and my innocent mother has "lost" in the best judgment of the justus system, the video is strangely allowed to stay up on Youtube. Fu yt.
After submitting the videos to the Court Record in Clark County Ohio's Court of Justus, the videos were WITHOUT NOTICE summarily being pulled from Youtube apparently by a higher power. I was not given reasons for the repeated censorship of the videos from the Internet or the repeated 5 or 6 suspensions by the google/youtube monopoly over videos showing a ceiling and water falling from the upstairs tenant's rental. Yet Springfield is okay with a judge that "finds" against the downstairs tenant? I'd like to know the financier's name to the SEO company that handled the complete unlawful obscuring of evidence, recompense is proper.
Who can prove me to be the tenant during the time of damages and during the production of the videos?
Police (I called the Police to remove a foul customer)
Traffic Enforcement (Handed me a ticket due to my bus having just expired it's tag and was not even out of the lawful grace period....not to mention the bus was/is not mobile and was used for storage only)
Fire Department (After I put out the upstairs tenant's fire, the Fire Department arrived to make sure I put out the upstairs neighbor's fire adequately).
Theresa Crow's upstairs tenant (a.k.a. Nicole Crow)
Evidence was conveniently denied (18 motions in all), including:
Signed letters from the very plaintiffs that filed the claim
Motions made to the Court Record
Time-Stamped and Dated Photos
My first-person testimony, and more were denied to be permitted admissable.
Contrary to the Clark County Municpal Court-version of Margaret's MONTHLY Rental agreement, all subsequent rental receipts following Margaret Baldino's one-year lease were indicated as a quarterly lease with Kenny and not Margaret.
Margaret Baldino's lease with Theresa Crow was not a quarterly lease, as the Landlord's rental receipts show.
In an effort to obtain status with the ability to show his evidence to prove the case is fraudulently in the Clark County Court against the wrong party, Following the "pre-trial" Kenny filed a motion to the higher Appellate Court to make claim, as his video evidence clearly show, was that HE (and not Margaret Baldino) was the tenant during the damages being claimed by the Plaintiff (Theresa Crow). And furthermore, that neither Kenny nor Margaret are to blame for the damages as they were brought on by others either associated with the Plaintiff and her husband (Theresa and Eric Crow) or their workers that had to enter the rental to access the utility panels, plumbing, and furnace accessible only through Kenny's rental (formerly Margaret's rental space).
The Appellate proved to be a farce, and rather than abide by the law and overturn Judge Trempe's decision in the lower court, the Appellate waited to many months even beyond the trial to state they would do nothing (in other words, the motion was to allow evidence into the court for trial which was many months in the future, instead the appellate would prove to be ...you pick the word after your study into this matter).
In the end, the Clark County Municipal Court would award the winnings to not Theresa Crow, who was the only signor on the Margaret Baldino Lease, but rather the court would award to the husband Eric Crow (who had the subsequent lease with Kenny).
It boggles my mind how this is not a racket and subject under Federal penalty. If I or you were to commit an obstruction to Justice, we know we're we would be subjected to become a ward of.
Even the claimant landowner acknowledged in several letters that Kenny was the tenant during the time of the damages. However when a court denies evidence during trial, evidence is of no avail.
This document too, would also be not permitted at Trial in a Court proclaiming of Justice.
There are registered communications between all parties BEFORE the court case ensued which would have facilitated a legitimate court decision (closing one eye doesn't make the judiciary brighter).
Making matters even worse, was the fact that the lease agreement the court DID have in its possession, wasn't even the authentic lease at all (not with Margaret or Kenny). The true copy of the Margaret Baldino lease included at least one amendment that the court's preferred version does not contain, that being the deposit (which isn't mentioned in the court's fraudulent version of Margaret's lease).
If my words on this page ring as questionable, click the link at the top of this page to read the Court Record on the Court's own website to see if it correlates exactly as I state herein.
Following Margaret's one-year Monthly lease, was a new lease made between Kenny (aka Kenny Baldino) and the husband of the landlord, Eric Crow. (*who, with the aid of the Clark County Municipal Court, oddly enough would become the benefactor to the Theresa Crow-Margaret Baldino Lease).
Kenny submitted videos to the court proving without any possibility of doubt, that the damages occurred during his tenancy, and that Margaret Baldino could not possibly have been magic from Florida to cause the damages a year before they even happened.
However the Clark County Court would deny to allow any of the evidences contained in 18 of Kenny's pre-trial motions to the court record, and despite many of the evidences having already been submitted by Kenny and accepted into the Clark County Court Record months in advance of the "https://legal.Trial", forced Kenny to be delineated to that of a mere witness for Margaret (a non-attorney).
The Clark County Court will not allow a witness to present evidence at the trial whatsoever, only Defendants and Plaintiffs have that "privilege" in Springfield's form of Justice.
Margaret, who at the time of the case having been brought against her was living in Florida State and not Ohio, upon receiving the Ohio mail responded from Florida by certified mail to the pre-court communications.
She even hired an attorney when her letters were received but not responded to. She hired the head of the Clark County Bar Association (who moonlighted as an available attorney). However after luring her up to Ohio, at pretrial he declined to represent her anymore without cause or reason.
This is what an attorney costs, they can take money even though they've done more harm.
The new laws allow law enforcement wide-reaching capabilities pertaining to internet websites. The Deputy Sheriff that signed for this document which was addressed to Theresa Crow, is her son-in-law.
There are extensive records and logs which may prove troublesome to the Deputy Sheriff at some future date.
Since Judge Trempe was denying the evidence and motions to the Court record, Kenny filed a motion to the higher court, the 2nd appellate court of appeals, asking that they review the reasons as to why I should not be the Defendant and why my evidence was being denied in a case in which the evidence clearly shows within the on-going case.
The 2nd Appellate Court would go on to not issue an answer for the many months before trial, and in fact not making a decision until many months after the trial by denying Kenny and evidence within their Courts.
This seems like a good place to put the definition of a Racket:
A racket is an organized criminal act or activity in which the criminal act or activity is some form of substantial business, or a way to earn illegal money. Conducting a racket is racketeering.
The Court's preferred version of the lease must be concluded as null and void for at least two good reasons.
1.) Any changes to a lease agreement would have had to be reflected in an ammendment to the lease or an amended lease. No such amendments exists to show a monthly renter becoming a quarterly renter, or that a Rental Deposit was necessary.
If Margaret and Theresa Crow's lease was still in effect beyond the one-year specified within their lease agreement, then the lease is broken by the Plaintiff Theresa Crow, who knowingly, prior to filing in the Clark County Municipal Court against Margaret Baldino, would have to have been conducting business outside of the lease agreement (monthly to quarterly would have to be one amendment, another would have to be the Rental Deposit, neither of which is contained in the Margaret Baldino/Theresa Crow Lease.
2.) The copy of the lease agreement that the court has on record is not, nor has ever been, an authentic lease.
The copy that the Court has was scrapped due to a new lease having the inclusion of the amendment made by Theresa Crow that there needs to be a rental Deposit (which the court's version of the lease does not include, hence the reason why that lease never breathed a solitary day).
The authentic lease was also denied in the Clark County Trial.
In fact, Margaret and Kenny went to the Clark County Court numerous times requesting to see the documents posted by the plaintiff against Margaret.
Of the numbered documents allowed for the plaintiff and kenny to review were the wrong lease and the original claim made by Theresa Crow.
Initially the Crows addressed Kenny with the surprise threat of suit for property damage. Due to possessing so much evidence that disproved any claim the Crows thought they might conjure, Kenny basically said he's ready and let's go to court.
The quest for unfounded revenue is shown to evolve to include both parties, Margaret Baldino and Kenny.
Eventually the seemingly planned revenue-generating scheme evolved to ensure that Kenny and his evidence were kept out of the Trial and allow him only to answer a couple of questions and denying his right to present evidence for the very issue that was being claimed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's court, that Margaret Baldino caused damages.
Rental in disrepair owned by Eric and Theresa Crow who profited almost $10,000.00 with the aid of the Clark County Municipal Court.
Hi, My name is Kenny.
The true story starts out like this:
In 2012, Prior to moving to Ohio, A storm in Florida occurred that caused the ceiling and roof to fall-in, leaving me without a place to call home.
But I was still left with nowhere to go for more than 3 months.
After a few months of wandering, my aged-mother offered to help by signing a one-year lease with Theresa Crow for a rental located all the way in Ohio at 1335 North Limestone St. in Springfield.
Theresa Crow, My Mother, and I met on location and a one-year monthly lease was signed between my mother and Theresa Crow.
Days later while unpacking the bus, my identification was located but it was agreed that the first year lease would resume as written, between my mother and Theresa Crow, and that the subsequent lease would resume in my name.
Mom's Genuine Lease Page (*which is not the same as the court's somewhat hidden version. It's real easy to ascertain which document followed the other.)
Following my mother's one-year MONTHLY lease, I and the husband of the Lessor of my mother's lease, Eric Crow, came to an agreement that I would resume the new lease under new pay arrangements.
Whereas my mother's one-year lease was a monthly lease, the subsequent Lease to me would be a quarterly lease with Eric Crow.
Subsequent Lease shows Quarterly Pay Arrangement
An additional year later in my lease, due to electrical deficiencies and other problems with the rental, I gave notice to Eric Crow to vacate and a "walk-through" inspection occurred impromptu.
Eric Crow and I walked through the entirety of the building and he only specified one solitary problem that he required me to repair. The small hole that was created, approved by Eric Crow to allow alternate electricty into the building since he seemed unable to keep the electric stable, Eric Crow stated that the hole needed to be repaired. I supplemented the erratic electricity using solar panels for the bulk of the remaining weeks at the Crow Property using an extension cord and began tidying up in preparation for the move out.
After the "walk-through" inspection was conducted by Eric Crow and I, (*emphasis on I; can another person terminate any other person's lease agreement? If so, we'd all be in trouble, obviously the Lease was in my name), I was told to fix the hole and nothing else was demanded of me (oh but I did do more, quite a bit more).
A few videos were made during the repair of the hole, which also show the state of the Crow rental upon my vacating.
Later I would submit the videos to the Court Record to refute the lie from Eric and Theresa Crow who Claimed to have paid someone else to repair the hole.
Please note that there appears to be a force or entity that actively hinders the topic contained herein, and may cause issue with the video loading completely (must be great to have a cop in the family with the new laws that Law Enforcement now have the right to remove and take-down any websites that it deems as "inappropriate". Personally I would think that this might be inappropriate: Same Sheriff
Regrets to any inconvenience this may pose, as an alternative video viewing solution, try watching the video here: https://archive.org/details/crow-judiciary-scam
Long story short, the justus system allows my MOTHER to be sued instead of me (my mother did not live with me and the suit was 2 years after her one-year lease was signed). The Clark County Municipal Court would go on to deny all my submissions to the court record including receipts, signed documents, photos, and videos. Instead, my mother was "found" guilty of damages which is a complete disgrace for any legitimacy of the Court system since no 70+ year old woman could accomplish this magic trick of causing damages from a remote location hundreds of miles away.
So how does a landord profit almost $10, 000.00 between the upstairs and downstairs tenants?
Then the Court itself is a criminal organization and should be subject to: Racketeering?