Springfield Ohio Judicial Fraud?


My mother was the previous lease holder to my lease.   She took the lease out for one year in her name due to my being without identification due to a storm which FEMA helped me with (FEMA verification of storm date is contained below in the time-line).
I vacated 9/9/2014 from my lease.
However the landlord took a claim against my mother on 10/28/2015 stating she was the "....cause for damages...".

I attempted to become a party to the case prior to Pre-Trial because I have all the evidences, including videos showing the true cause of the damages.   In fact, my mother was not even in the State of Ohio during the time of the damages, nor was she a party to the lease.

However, the courts ruled that my mother must pay more than $4,000.00 for being the "...cause for damages...".

Does this sound unbelievable?  
If you read to the bottom of the page, there's more unbelievables, yet it's all on the Court Record for the Public to see.

Theresa Crow is the landlord and signer of my lease and my mother's previous lease.   However the Courts rule that the Lessor's HUSBAND is the winner of the Crow Claim.   The total amount sued for is seen on their bill for repairs seen below.  

Problems:
1.) The bill is showing a retro-date to 2013 (that's when my mom's Lease ended, so in other words, the fraud was to show that my mother was indeed indebted, if the damages occurred during her lease).   However the capet installer's bill shows 2014 and since I moved out in 9/9/2014, the carpet installer's bill for October of 2014 is more credible and shows the true date (almost a year after my mother's lease had ended).   Their bill is written on a fictitious letterhead with a company that does not legally exist.   The same bill makes claim on a security deposit that the landlord illegally withheld beyond the lawful time frame (over a year beyond).   When coupled with the fact that the WRONG lease was the landlord's exhibit A, and the bill shown below was her Exhibit B, that's all it took for the Court to find my mother guilty of being the "cause for damages".  The impossible is possible in Springfield Ohio's Judiciary as you'll see further down this page:
Fraud 43.2aClick to enlarge                Fraud 43.2aClick to enlarge


What kind of Justice would rule that the downstairs should pay for the upstairs tenant's space?  

How many of these errors must we show before the Court will undo it's wrongful decision (against the wrong party)?
 
(*by the way, the property appraiser's office has this property listed as RESIDENTIAL, yet the Plaintiff is apparently trying to sell it as commercial...and for that matter, how was it leased to me as commercial if he's only been paying Residential taxes on the property?  Is there no end to the scamming here in Springfield Ohio?).   Here is the property about to be sold in a rush reduced price sale:  http://www.propertypanorama.com/instaview/wrist/405606

Who else can place me IN the Crow rental at the time in which the damages occurred?  
THE SPRINGFIELD OHIO POLICE DEPARTMENT,  
The TRAFFIC LADY (that scoots around in that little motor jeep-like thing, looking for parking violations),
The SPRINGFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT,
THE UPSTAIRS NEIGHBOR,
THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR SOUTH OF the rental,
THE CODES DEPARTMENT, and more!

On to:

Outrageous Attempts to Become a (the) Party to a Case


THIS IS THE NON-REDACTED VERSION WHICH SHOWS EXHIBITS to Case Number:   15CVF02981
heard before the

Clark County Municipal Court

of Springfield Ohio


AS PER THE COURT RECORD (with notes and exhibits)
Here's some exhibits that would have come out in Court if I were not denied a basic Civil Right to address and redress within the Courts, requests that were timely submitted of a relevant
(then) on-going Case

Notice that my Lease was paid quarterly. 
The following is enough to show that both parties, INCLUDING THE PLAINTIFF, and the Defendant, indicate that I'm at very minimum worthy of first-person testimony with the ability to show the evidences that:

1.) I was the tenant during the period in which damages occurred, and

2.) That the damages were a result of upstairs plumbing as seen in the
video compilation listed below:

Scanned2.jpeg
Scanned%20Document4.jpeg

The following is enough to show that both parties, INCLUDING THE PLAINTIFF, and the Defendant, indicate that I'm at very minimum worthy of first-person testimony with the ability to show the evidences that:

1.) I was the tenant during the period in which damages occurred, and

2.) That the damages were a result of upstairs plumbing as seen in this
video compilation:

3.) Video evidence that the damages were from a source that is NOT the Defendant in this case (the Defendant is the VICTIM in this case):  https://youtu.be/S0E7vAcGKqY


acknowledgment.pngPlaintiff acknowledge me (Court does not)

In the event that someone is questioning the authenticity of the location in which my compilation videos are derived, here is THE PLAINTIFFS video which is also on youtube (the plaintiff's realtor submitted this video a few years before I or my mother rented from this plaintiff):  THE REALTORS VIDEO IS HERE and corraborates that my videos are derived from the same exact property in the issue that was before the Municipal County Court in Springfield Ohio:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD3cgH3jhxg
letter-to-crow2.jpegPlaintiffs received the letter from the (wrong) Defendant

letter-to-elder2.jpegDefendant acknowledges me (Court does not; lions and tigers prevent them from it)

If you don't like my version below, here is the Clark County Municipal Court's Record (the only things they omit are some of the exhibits, although mentioned in the motions on record they are omitted from public view, for whatever reason).  Here is their website: http://images.clerkofcourts.municipal.co.clark.oh.us/CISWeb/Search.aspx?caseNumber=15CVF02981


The following is how the Court kept the evidence out of the Court
Legend: 
I = Me = my = Kenny Hendrick = Tenant = 3rd Party = Intervenor = (pick your word)
Heard by Judge Thomas Trempe

Date
Filing
Notes
10/28/2015
Plaintiff's INITIAL FILING against Margaret Baldino
PAGE 1
  PAGE 2
     
Plaintiffs submit two pieces of evidence to substantiate the claim, they are:
  1.) Exhibit A (*THE WRONG LEASE)     

   2.)
Exhibit B  (*A bill with a letterhead of a Company that does not legally exist, using a completely impossible date).    
**AFTER THE FACT NOTE:  It appears that the Plaintiffs have hand-written the words: "Typo" next to the erroneous date. I, for one, would like the magic to know whether the word was written before, during or after the Municipal Court went to Trial. Either way though, it surely wasn't possible for the landlord to do the repairs a year before I vacated.

The Defendant, Margaret Baldino, has never been permitted to see all of the 8 pages filed by the Plaintiff against her.

The Defendant went so far as to make a special trip just for the purpose of seeing the 8 pages against her.   The Clerks of the Court could not produce anything contained in the file stating the file was upstairs in the Judge's Chambers.

The Defendant went upstairs to be told by the Judge's aid that seeing the Judge was not proper and that she would check with the Judge for the file.  When the File was permitted access under the supervision of the Clerks, the Plaintiffs' pages were missing.   When request was made by the Defendant to one of the Clerks as to why the pages were missing, the answer was that they were just doing their jobs and did not know of the whereabouts of the Plaitiffs' pages.

The entire initial Filing is Stated to be comprised of 8 pages.
The Lease alone was 10 pages but also was not contained within the file.  The Lease was purportedly Plaintiff's "Exhibit A" and had the Defendant been permitted to see the "evidence" against her, she would have noticed the incorrect Lease much sooner if she was permitted to her lawful right.  

12/28/2015
Alias Precipe

1/26/2016 The Defendant, Margaret Baldino, domiciled in the State of Florida returns to Ohio under the threat of a Default Judment against her for not complying with the Court to address this issue before the Court.
ANSWER FILED
  

Margaret Baldino complies by leaving her State of Choice to return to Ohio to address the Claim against her.
 Defendant's $1, 000.00 Attorney quits the Case at the beginning of a CRITICAL step in the legal process, at Pre-Trial following a closed-door session between both Attorneys and the Judge;   Margaret Baldino left to wait out in the hallway during that meeting.  Which begs the question whether ex parte communications occurred without anybody standing for the Defendant while her fate was being discussed leaves one to wonder what could have been so ill-discussed as to result as such.
2/17/2016
Motion to Vacate
Here was a pretty good clue to the courts that lack of personal subject matter jurisdiction existed. Notice how the attorney placed the words"...temporary resident of florida..." as opposed to "a resident of florida".... this is the Bait and Bail (at pre-trial) Attorney James Heath.
2/19/2016
Entry to Vacate
Will update soon
7/26/2016
MOTION TO INTERVENE
(2 months prior to Pre-Trial)

Page2
Page3
Page4


misc. pages
Page1
Page5
Page6






I make my first attempt to become included in the Case at hand as allowed under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure › TITLE IV. PARTIES Rule 19


>DENIED<
8/2/2016
MOTION TO CORRECT THE RECORD
(2 months prior to Pre-Trial)

Including exhibits:
Page1
Page2
Page3
Page4
Page5
Page6
Page7
Page8
Page9
                          Exhibit 1

    Plaintiffs profit from the upstairs Tenant approximately $5,000.00, though less than $1,000 in damages are stated within Exhibit 5 (Fire Report).
Upstairs Tenant Court Case awarded to the Crows by unknown Judge   




We make our
second attempt to obtain Due Process as per Federal Rules of Civil Procedure › TITLE IV. Rule 19, et. al

You'll notice that I state Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction exists within the first motion to the Clark County Municipal Court,  but it was ignored.   Even Ohio's Second Appellate Court of Appeals (that responded 5 months after the Clark County Municipal Court went ahead and held Trial anyway), the Appellate didn't even address it in their determination of only the first two of the 18 Motions we submitted to the Clark County Municipal Court).  How is it not criminal to do the exact opposite of what you're learned in?  For instance, if a Doctor knows not to feed you poison yet does so, this is criminal and of no avail to the society it affects.

Without the Intervenor/3rd party/interested party, whatever you want to call me, (in English Intervenor is defined as intervening), void of my being permitted to produce evidence that would refute the Plaintiffs' claims unjustly leaves the Defendant without an ability to defend herself and her interest altogether.>DENIED<
8/29/2016 JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE
ENTRY
Denied 
 
RESPONDS
Denied   

Denied
Per: Motion to Correct the Record,
previously submitted to the Court by me.
8/29/2016 JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE
ENTRY
Denied
   RESPONDS
Denied   

 Denied
Per:   Motion to Intervene, previously submitted to the Court by me.
9/20/2016
JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE
Responds

PRE-TRIAL

“Ex parte” is a Latin phrase meaning “on one side only; by or for one party.” An ex parte communication occurs when a party to a case, or someone involved with a party, talks or writes to or otherwise communicates directly with the judge about the issues in the case without the other party.   It's worth stating here that on the eve of the Trial a woman was seen consulting with the Crows whom was not the Crows' Attorney.  Following the meeting, the woman departed to the Judge's Office unassisted.  Can we be made privy to that meeting's content?
  The Judge, Plaintiff's attorney, along with the Defendant's $1, 000.00 attorney, meet behind closed doors at Pre-Trial leaving Margaret Baldino in the Hallway.  The Defendant's Attorney quits following the meeting without written notice and seemingly without reason or in accordance with the rules which stipulate the manner in which an Attorney can quit a case (Pre-Trial is a critical function to have erased from our Legal System).   What happened behind those closed doors while mom was left outside in the hall to wait?    Judge emerges to instruct the Defendant that Trial will ensue in 10 weeks and 2 days and advises her to (spend more money )  to find another Attorney to represent her.
The law is supposed to prevent the judge from talking to one party if the other party is not present.  This one-sided conversation is called an “ex parte communication” and is purportedly not allowed.  If the Defendant's attorney hadn't intended to represent the Defendant, and wasn't representing her at Pre-Trial, then a gross injustice has occurred in that the Defendant should have been allowed to be present and privy to whatever was happening behind those closed doors.             
9/27/2016 7 Days later, I timely file an appeal to the 2nd Appellate Court of Appeals

My initial Appeal:
Page1
Page2

TRANSCRIPT PAGE 1
TRANSCRIPT PAGE 2
  September 2016,   my appeal of the Municipal Court Judge's Determination that I was not allowed to be present is entered into the Second Appellate Division Court of Appeals.  However, the Municipal Court apparently doesn't regard the Court of Appeals as a valid venue and continued to Trial a few months later anyway.  Trial was December 1 and the Decision against the Defendant was made on December 5 of 2016. The following are pages sent by the Municipal Court to the Second Appellate showing only communications up to that present date and time (much more was submitted to the Court Record following the transmittal).
9/27/2016
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Page1
Page2
Defendant submits for the Court's consideration that there is another person that is involved in the Plaintiffs' property and that furthermore there is a Waiver of Claims which is written into the Plaintiffs' Lease which seems to have been disregarded by the Plaintiff. 
10/3/2016
Denied
ENTRY DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS
JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE RESPONDS
Denied
Denied for not including the evidence to the previous Motion to Dismiss.

Defendant resubmits below.
10/5/2016   the amended
MOTION TO DISMISS
Page1
Page2
Page3
Although evidence was included in this amended Motion,  it too is Denied (over one month later).
10/24/2016
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM AND MOTION
  With exhibits
Page1
Page2
Exhibit Page3
Exhibit Page4
Exhibit Page5
Exhibit Page6
After the 3rd Party (Kenny Hendrick) having vacated the Plaintiff Crow property on 9/9/2014, seven months later Plaintiff submitted a Demand for Payment dated April 6, 2015 for damages TO THE 3RD Party (Kenny Hendrick).  Six more months later Plaintiff changes mind and files Suit against the Defendant, Margaret Baldino (previous Lease Holder!).
In this Motion, Defendant makes mention of the Tenant/Landlord Security Deposit which was already unjustly withheld beyond the legal allowable time and months prior to the Plaintiff having submitted this Claim to the Court.  Defendant submitts a copy of the cancelled check which states the amount of the Security Deposit.  Defendant submitts the AUTHENTIC Lease Agreement which shows the handwriting belonging to the Plaintiff.  The version that was submitted by the Plaintiff to the Court excludes all mention of the Security Deposit (which was wrongfully withheld months beyond that which is lawful and months prior to the Claim having been submitted to the Court against the Defendant).
 
11/17/2016
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM TO ADDRESS PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATION OF UNAUTHORIZED USE OF PLAINTIFFS' FIREPLACE
With Exhibits
Page1
Page2
Page3
Page4
Page5
Nowhere within the Plaintiffs' Lease was there any mention of the Plaintiffs' fireplace as being Non-Functional.

However, evidence has been submitted to the Court showing that the Plaintiff in fact alleged within a Disclosure Form that the Fireplace was in proper working order.

Exhibit

11/17/2016 Crow Attorney files Plaintiffs' RESPONSES
Page1
Page2
 Plaintiff's verifiably inapplicable receipt from Lowes (2016 materials purchase for repairs claimed to have been done in 2014; time machine?  Not to mention the fact that the receipt appears to belong to someone else.  Look at the receipt, call Lowes, it's that easy to verify).
Anyone can verify by calling Lowes that the receipt is fraudulently submitted and is not applicable to this case.  Along with some blackened paper is all that the Plaintiffs would accord for the Defendant's repeated requests for Discovery (since the Court wasn't releasing anything to the Defendant of the Plaintiffs' material submitted to the Court File).   As mentioned in a past Motion to the Court, Defendant made it clear that along with phone calls to the Plaintiffs' Attorney for Discovery were also a personal visit made to the Plaintiff's attorney's Office requesting the additional documents, receipts, etc.   DENIED.
11/18/2016
DEFENDANT'S MOTION for Discovery
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
This Statement fairly well sums up the situation.   For the record, in the last paragraph of page 3 a mention was made of a counter-suit.   That's all it was, a mention.   Yet that paragraph delayed this document from being logged to the Court Record.  This motion remained in the Court Clerk's Office until the fee for the Counter-Suit was Paid to the Court....LUCKILY, we returned on 11/18/2016 to submit other paperwork and after inquiring of the missing log in the Court Record, were told that we owed $50.00 to file a Counter Suit....so we did)....The counter suit was summarily dismissed without a refund of the money received or any hearing of issues to be presented.  (What Country are we in here?!)
11/18/2016 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Page1
Page2
Although we had been in constant communications with my mother's insurance company (*we have full records of all dates and times, duration, dates of all incoming and outgoing calls to the insurance company = more than 20 calls out not including the dozen or more calls to us), however AFTER the case was concluded and my mother found guilty, suddenly the insurance Racket stated that we waited too long to file a claim!!!   I started another website documenting all the recorded conversations of that little sham, and posted all the logs to the issue of the scandalous insurance decision.   Everything was hunky-dory until the Muncipal Court Decision was made against my mother...magically her coverage became null and void.  I merely state this here as an after-the-fact note since the lower Municipal Court never waited for the Appellate Court to decide on whether or not I deserved "standing" in the lower Court.
11/22/2016
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY AND NOTICE OF COUNTER CLAIM
Page1
Page2
Page3
Page4
>DENIED<
****WILL ADD TO THIS WHEN TIME PERMITS
11/22/2016
DEFENDANT'S MEMO IN DISPUTE OF THE HOLES ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF'S CONTRACTOR
Page1
Page2
Page3
Video Exhibits including:

https://youtu.be/f9U0CfARw4k
https://youtu.be/pmjyWUXspf0
Exhibit (will update later)
Exhibit (will update later)
11/22/2016
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION
Page1
Page2
****WILL ADD TO THIS WHEN TIME PERMITS
11/22/2016
DEFENDANT'S MOTION
Page1
Page2
Page3
Exhibit (will update later)
Exhibit (will update later)
Exhibit (will update later)
>DENIED<
Defendant tenders two exhibits, both of which show the state of disrepair of the Plaintiff's property PRIOR TO EITHER OF US having Leased from the Plaintiff, which could not possibly be reproduced by any tenant in the last decade or more (i.e. cracking and peeling paint, rotting wood, etc. leave one at odds at how to match such decay in any repair better than what the 3rd party tenant had repaired out of his own pocket already).

EXHIBITS WILL BE ADDED HERE LATER
11/22/2016
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER
Page1
Page2
Page3
Page4
>DENIED<
****Please note:   On page 4, which was a copy of a Waiver drawn up by the Plaintiff's Attorney, my mom (the Defendant) inadvertently signed the wrong page of this packet (in otherwords she inadvertently signed the Waiver exhibit as opposed to the actual last page of the Defendant's Submission to the Court).
11/22/2016

DEFENDANT'S MEMO TO ADDRESS PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATION OF EXCESSIVE TRASH AND FILTH.

Page1
Page2
Page3
Exhibit (will update later)
Exhibit (will update later)
In this Motion, Defendant reminds the Court that although Plaintiff's have alleged that excessive filth was left by the Defendant, that no such proof exists (in fact, none was offered at the Trial either....but...the Judge found in favor or the Plaintiff....just because.  To the contrary, 3rd party possesses videos to show otherwise.   In other words, weeks of cleaning and progress report videos were taken upon my mother having first Leased from the Plaintiff....dead birds and other rodents, previous tenant property all of the place, stains on the carpet, peeling paint, etc.

The Judge would go on to take the word of the Plaintiff despite the fact that Defendant already produced videos showing the fine state of the property upon Defendant having vacated.
Defendant's Exhibit Video
Video shows trash was already present when moving into the Plaintiff's property.  Later videos will show that the Defendant left the Plaintiff's property in better condition when vacating.
11/28/2016 JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE
ENTRY
Denied
Page1
 RESPONDS
Denied
JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE,
 Denied
11/28/2016 JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE
ENTRY
Denied
Page1
 RESPONDS
Denied
JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE,

 Denies Counter Suit
11/28/2016 JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE
ENTRY
Denied
Page1
 RESPONDS
Denied
JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE,
 Denied
11/28/2016

DEFENDANT'S MEMO MATTER OF PROCEDURE
Page1
Page2
It is in this "motion" to the Court that details the Defendant's Pre-Trial, the questionable legality of whether or not the paid Attorney Heath, for the Defendant, was in a capacity of paid representation and whether or not Margaret Baldino had a Right to be present in that room with the Judge.   Verification of whether the Attorney quit prior to Pre-Trial and didn't tell anybody else, or did it occur during the closed-door session with the Impartial Fair and Just Judge?  Either way, the Defendant had every right and expectation to be in that critical meeting with the judge, instead, she was left out in the Hall pending her fate.   Request is made for a new Pre-Trial, Defendant is Denied two days later on 11/30/2016.
11/28/2016
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS EVIDENCE OF MATERIAL DEFECT
Page1
Page2
Page3
Page4
Exhibit P - Plaintiff acknowledges 3rd Party as person at fault (and then sues another)
Exhibit
Exhibit
*Will update exhibits when time permits

This is the Defendant's Exhibit H Lease (which has the Plaintiffs' handwriting)
Compare to:
The Plaintiffs Exhibit A and version of the Lease - If we're going after the Defendant that had prior Lease to the same property as the subsequent Son's Lease,  then let's at least have the correct Lease in the Court please.

Exhibit P  Letter from Plaintiff states 3rd Party as person at fault.
11/28/2016
DEFENDANT'S  MOTION TO DISMISS 3 PHOTOS
Page1
Page2
Page3
****WILL ADD TO THIS WHEN TIME PERMITS
Defendant's Exhibit M-4
Defendant's Exhibit DVD1
Defendant's Exhibit DVD2
Defendant's Exhibit DVD3
Defendant's Exhibit DVD4
11/28/2016
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DIMISS 1 PHOTO
Page1
Page2
Page3
Page4
Page5
The Defendant in this motion refutes the photos submitted by the Crows.   A photo of a door knob on a door is the focus.   The photo has computer-generated words which the Crows placed within the photo that state: "Damage to back door/Unable to open or close".   The door in question is a door which can be shown to be in the same like state it was when rented, if videos were permitted (The Crows' own realtor also has a video on youtube that shows the same door with the same damage prior to the Defendant ever having met the Crows).  The fact that the Crows added the words "...unable to open or close"  is an impossibility.  The door is one or the other but cannot be both.   Judge rules that the impossible is possible.
Defendant's Exhibit T-45 (Crow's photo of a door knob suggests a door neither opens or closes)
Defendant's Exhibit DVD Video
Defendant's Exhibit F
Defendant's Exhibit M-y
Defendant's Exhibit Q-T
    Pic1  Pic2  Pic3  Pic4  Pic5  Pic6 Pic7  Pic8   (Shows impossible to match)
11/30/2016 JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE
ENTRY
Page1
Denied
 RESPONDS
Denied
JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE,
 Denied
12/5/2016 JUDGE THOMAS TREMPE
DECISION AND ENTRY
Page1
Page2
 RESPONDS
Defendant not permitted to show any evidence whatsoever.  Witnesses were sequestered (not permitted to help the 70+ year old Defendant along).

***The Judge didn't even get the date in which I ended tenancy correct.   He states it happened in late August, whereas the Plaintiff, Defendant, and the 3rd Party have stated it to be September 9, 2014
  Not a solitary video, photo, document, receipt, audio...nothing was able to be heard at Trial in the Defense of the Defendant.
Decision rendered by Judge Thomas Trempe for the Plaintiffs and against the wrong Defendant, 
all that was required to win were:
1.) An allegation
2.) Pictures of dubious origins (ie. Rainbow of 12 colors of the same carpet, cut/copy/paste and photo-shopped pictures, etc.)
3.) A bill placed upon a company letter-head that does not exist with an impossible date.
That's it.  
So in essence, if one found a broken vase, took some pictures of the broken vase, created a bill for the repair of the broken vase, and allege you broke the vase, you lose in the Clark County Municipal Court of (Law?).
The Judge conveniently separated the Defendant from the third-party Intervenor, the subsequent Lease holder.  The third-party Intervenor in the hallway cannot show the evidences unless either the plaintiff, defendant, or Judge allows,  ensuring the Defendant is defenseless.
The 3rd party intervenor had videos that would completely demolish the Crows' one witness, a contractor that states he had to repair the holes (which I luckily made videos of my having completed the repairs perfectly already, all that was required was paint).   The Crow's witness also stated in his bill to the Crows that:  This is the worst case of damage I have ever seen (or something to that effect).....my videos don't lie, the Crow witness would have been cross-examined with a video showing of the state of the rental upon my departure.  
The following link is the original case as per the Clark County Municipal Court of Springfield Ohio, Judge Thomas Trempe
http://images.clerkofcourts.municipal.co.clark.oh.us/CISWeb/Search.aspx?caseNumber=15CVF02981
A mockery of Justice?  You be the Judge.
Example Scholastic Study Version, for the Appeal example (used to demonstrate the need for judicial replacement is)  Here
When all the world determines one thing, yet a ruling interest offers a strict other, be all you can be to change for the better that which you can.
Address:  2803 Troy Road  Springfield Ohio 45504  Product of USA
Telephone: +1 (937) 718-3586