During the pendency of the Appeal there were an unprecedented- 4- Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justices due to the death of former Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, who was initially the Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice until his unexpected death, t...hen thereafter Senior Ohio Supreme Court Junior Justice Paul Pfeifer by rule, ascended to this position, as Interim Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice, and then thereafter, former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland by rule, appointed as Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice, Eric Brown who remained as Chief Justice until an election for the now vacant position was decided by Ohio voters, and thereafter, Maureen OConnor became Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice all of which occurred during the pendency of the Appeal before the Ohio Supreme Court and amidst the following tactics of the attorneys which is now detailed below which has been excerpted from the Appellee Father Anthony Wylies Merit Brief which was previously filed in the Ohio Supreme Court: “…references to matters occurring subsequent to judgment which have been purposefully improperly included by the Appellants, designed and calculated to intentionally bypass and subvert the mandates and strictures of due process of law, the rule of law, purposefully taken out of context, grossly and purposefully misrepresented with tar and feather smear tactics of the lowest common denominator, improperly presented herein under the false pre-text and guise of law, tactics of which are employed by the Appellants and utilized in an attempt to perpetuate hanging accusations, vicious innuendo, and supposition, calculated by malicious design, to castigate, prejudice, and disenfranchise the Appellee Father from a fair hearing on appeal, in an attempt at trial de novo, tactics that are not only wholly unethical and improper, but are tantamount to no less than Salem Witch Hunt attempts utilized in an attempt to render hearing conditions no less oppressive and prejudicial. It is well settled law that: A reviewing court cannot add matter to the record before it, which was not a part of the trial courts proceedings, and then decide the appeal on the basis of the new matter. State ex rel. Montgomery Cty. Pub. Defender v. Siroki, 108 Ohio St.3d 207, 2006-Ohio- 662 at 20 citing State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 728, 730, 654 N.E.2d 1254, quoting State v. Ishmail (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 402, 8 0.O.3d 405, 377 N.E.2d 500, paragraph one of the syllabus. Further **Attorney *Kozel, *Moriarty, and **Attorney *Kozel -now hiding behind **Attorney *Garver along with **Attorney *Farley further in disregard of Prof. Cond. Rules involving dishonesty for attorneys further engaged in fraud upon the Court as officers of the Court, by-- either-- submitting filings from the mistrial and then misrepresenting the filings as part of the Trial Court record properly before both of the Appellate Court[s] when in fact they werent and went further, ***by misrepresenting the filings to the Appellate Courts **both the **Eighth District Court of Appeals -and **in the **Ohio Supreme Court that were never part of the Trial Court and submitted them as such, as if they were in fact part of the original trial record when in fact, they: “…were absolutely never apart of the trial court record at all, both of which were never fully subjected to the heightened scrutiny required by due process of law due to the fundamental rights at stake herein in which the contents of which were either absolutely untrue, so purposefully misconstrued and misrepresented so as to be set forth in such a bastardized fashion that it rendered the factual nature of the improperly advanced assertions grossly distorted from whatever substantive factualness or merit they may have had so as to be untrue which is and was wholly improper and unethical and has been the mainstay of Guardian ad litem Thomas Kozels underhanded tactics along with Brian Moriarty C.B. s appellate counsel in the aforementioned lower appellate proceedings (and herein) irrespective of whether or not it comports with ethics, propriety, or whether or not it is congruous with the fundamental tenets of appellate procedure.” “On March 25, 2009 Betty Farley counsel for the Appellant Mother instead offiling an Anders Brief as would have been proper, instead proceeded to file the Mothers Appellant Merit Brief on behalf the Appellant Mother in disregard of App. R. 23 assigning assignments of error wherein she did not raise plain error which was the only error she could have properly raised on behalf of her client the Appellant Mother as the Mother did not participate in the trial.” “On April 1, 2009 Brian Moriarty was appointed to represent the child in the lower appellate court. Attorney Brian Moriarty never filed an independent appeal on behalf of C.B. and as a result, C.B. was and is an Appellee in the lower Appellate Court. “Brian Moriarty checked out the 21 transcript volumes and improperly faled several motions to supplement the record an several motions for extension of time. He improperly filed his motions on behalf of the guardian ad litem and not on behalf of the child C.B. whom he was appointed to represent by the Eighth District Court of Appeals.” A memorandum in support of jurisdiction shall contain all of the following: A table of contents, which shall include the propositions of law The appellants instead ignore this requirement and instead attempt to sneakily place their propositions of law only within the Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction so as to immerse the propositions of law within scandalous unsworn statements forcing the reader to find them and which are purposely placed amidst references to the Guardian ad litems report of matters specifically predicated on statements that were never corroborated by either the Mothers testimony or other evidence thereto as she never testified and further immersed within accusations that were false, unsubstantiated, and never part of the trial court record during trial and never filed within the original complaint or as amended, and were meritless and is more of the same sneaky manipulative, and grossly underhanded tactics of the appellants.” “The Appellant Mother through her counsel in the lower Appellate Court Betty Farley (nor did she seek alternate appointment of appellate counsel to the Ohio Supreme Court) interestingly did not file an appeal or a cross appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court from the dismissal of the appeal by the Eighth District Court for lack of final appealable order even though she was the initiator of the appeal in the Eighth District Court of Appeals and the only party to file an independent appeal in the lower court with the exception of Guardian ad litem Thomas Kozel, who filed a Notice of Cross Appeal under the same case number, but never filed his Cross - Appellant Merit.”
Posted on: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 17:48:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015