THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

In re: K.A.G.-M.

Devon L. Dullaghan,Appellant

V.

Christo Lassiter,Appellee

Case No. 2010-1274

MOTION TO STRIKE APPELLANT'SAFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY ANDTO DISMISS THE APPEAL ASFRIVOLOUS AND PROSECUTEDFOR DELAY, AND TO DECLAREAPPELLANT A VEXATIOUSLITIGATOR AND FOR ALLSTATUTORY AND EQUITABLERELIEF

Comes now, Appellee Christo Lassiter and motions this Honorable Court to strike

Appellant's affidavit of indigency and to dismiss the appeal as frivolous and prosecuted for

delay, and to declare Appellant a vexatious litigator and for all statutory and equitable relief.

Memorandum in support attached.

AUG C 4 2010

CLERGCOFCOllRTSUPREME COURT OF OHIO

ter, pro seOhio License No, 0067946839 Dunore RoadCincinnati, Ohio 45220-1416Christo.Lassiter@uc.edu513-556-0096 (o)

I

Summary of Proceedings

On 7-19-10, Appellant filed a notice of appeal, affidavit of indigency, and memorandum

in support of jurisdiction.. Appellee filed a response in opposition to jurisdiction on 7-26-10.

Additional proceedings are incorporated in Argument, infra.

Statement of Facts

1. Devon L. Dullaghan is a lawyer and member of the Ohio Bar, Registration No. 0075194.

2. Attorney Dullaghan failed to identify herself as an attorney before this Court.

3. In a 2008 child support ruling, the trial court found:

[Attomey Dullaghan] testified that she left full-time employmentvoluntarily so that she could spend more time with her children.However, mother has no diagnosed physical or mental impairmentwhich would prevent her from working 40 hours per week.

ITMO K.A. G. -M., Warren County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Juvenile Division), Case No.

07-C00733, Magistrate's Decision filed 1-11-08 at 7; no objections taken; appeal dismissed

(ITMO K.A.G.-M., Twelfth Appellate District, Appellate Case No. 2009-01-003, Entry Granting

Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal From Trial Court Orders dated 10/30/07, 3/28/08, and

1/11/08 filed on 3-30-09).

4. In a 2009 child support ruling, the trial court found:

[Attorney Dullaghan] is a law school graduate and spent some timepracticing 1aw. She left the legal field and was employed atAmerican Legal Publishing Corp. on a full-time basis. [Ms.Dullaghan] then chose to work part-time.

ITMO K.A. G.-M., Warren County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Juvenile Division), Case No.

07-C00733, Magistrate's Decision filed 10-27-09 at 5; objections overruled per Entry filed 1-26-

10. No appeal taken.

2

5. Appellant has been ordered to obtain and maintain full time employment as a condition to

purge her contempt for failure to pay child support. (ITMO K.A. G.-M., Warren County, Ohio

Court of Common Pleas (Juvenile Division), Case No. 07-C00733, Magistrate's Decision filed 4-

21-10 at 2)

6. Attorney Dullaghan never served Christo Lassiter, pro se with her trial log and

compilation of exhibits, which she now purports constitutes a "statement in lieu of transcript"

pursuant to Rule 9(C) of the Ohio Appellate Rules of Procedure. (See ITMO K.A. G.-M., Twelfth

Appellate District, Appellate Case No. 2010-01-002, Entry Denying Application for

Reconsideration filed 6-10-10 at 2).

7. Attorney Dullaghan never submitted her statement to the trial court for approval. (Id.).

8. Attorney Dullaghan admitted to committing perjury in the Warren County Court of

Common Pleas, (Domestic Relations Division). (See State v. Lassiter, Hamilton County

Municipal Court, Hamilton, Ohio, Case No. 09/CRB/19109, T.p. dated 7-15-09 at page 5, lines

20-25; copy of transcript excerpt at (1)).

9. On 6-03-10, the psychologist for the Warren County, Ohio Juvenile Court filed a Report

of a court ordered psychological examination of Appellant, which strongly recommended

supervised visitation. ITMO K.A. G.-M., Warren County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas

(Juvenile Division), Case No. 07-C00733, Report of Psychological Examination filed 6-3-10 at

9).

10. Attorney Dullaghan never served Christo Lassiter, pro se opposing counsel, with a copy

of her previous notice of appeal and jurisdiction memorandum. (See In re: K.A. G.M, Supreme

Court of Ohio, Case No. 2009-1608, Notice of Lack of Service in Violation of Rule 5 of the Ohio

3

Rules of Civil Procedure filed 12-17-09).

11. Attorney Dullaghan refused to comply with trial court orders to exchange documentary

evidence and her witness list prior to trial. (ITMO K.A. G.-M., Warren County, Ohio Court of

Common Pleas (Juvenile Division), Case No. 07-C00733, Magistrate's Decision filed 10-30-07

at 1).

12. Attorney Dullaghan prepared and served her own subpoenas without filing same through

the Warren County Juvenile Court and therefore wrongfully obtained privileged documents from

Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services and privileged medical records. (Id., at

2 and 3).

13. Attomey Dullaghan used her attorney notary stamp during a period when she was inactive

as a member of the bar. (Id., at 2).

14. Attorney Dullaghan has admitted "that calling appellee [Harvey] to irritate him may be a

juvenile response." (ITMO K.A.G.-M., Twelfth Appellate District, Appellate Case No. 2010-01-

002, Brief of Appellant, Devon L. Dullaghan) filed 5-10-10 at 9; copy attached at (2)). Yet she

continues this "juvenile response" in filings before this Court.

15. Attorney Dullaghan admitted that she previously addressed service of process to opposing

counsel with the moniker "lying scum." (ITMO K.A. G. -M., Warren County, Ohio Court of

Common Pleas (Juvenile Division), Case No. 07-C00733, T.p. dated 7-19-07, page 56, lines 15-

19). (Copy of transcript excerpt at (3)).

16. "Mother [Appellant] has kept this case in a constant state of turmoil and litigation since

Father [Appellee] was designated Kailin's residential parent." (In re: K.A.G.-M., Warren

County, Ohio Juvenile Court Case No. 07C00733, Decision and Entry filed 12-3-09 at 5).

4

17. The Twelfth Appellate District Court sustained sanctions against Attorney Dullaghan for

frivolous conduct under R.C. § 2323.51. (In re K.A.G.-M, 2009 WL 4263353, 2009-Ohio-6239,

Ohio App. 12 Dist., November 30, 2009 (No. CA2009-04-040)).

18. On 6-25-08, Appellee-Father filed a petition in Hamilton County Probate Court, Case No.

2008-002954 seeking a name change of the minor child who is the subject of the custody

"turmoil." (Court docket at Hllp://www.probatect.org).

19. Mother told Father that she miscarried and therefore Father was not involved in the

child's birth or naming of the child. (In re: K.A.G.-M., Warren County, Ohio Juvenile Court

Case No. 07C00733, Decision and Entry filed 3-28-08 at 2).

20. Mother vehemently opposes the name change. (See In re: K.A.G.-M., Warren County

Juvenile Court Case No. 07C00733, Decision and Entry filed 12-3-09 at 3 and attachment (3)

herein).

21. The Hamilton County, Ohio Probate Court, Case No. 2008002954 has continued the

name change petition hearing in progress eight times (8-8-08, 9-19-08, 10-9-08, 1-20-09, 3-16-

09, 12-10-09, 1-8-10, and 7-26-10) due to Appellant's posture that custody remains in doubt so

long as there is unresolved trial or appellate litigation in this case.

22. On 12-3-08, the Hamilton County Probate Court Case No, 2008002954 filed a

Magistrate's Decision noting Father's concern that Mother's list of pending motions in Warren

County Juvenile Court is intended to delay a final determination of custody so as to delay

disposition of the name change petition.

23. On 12-22-09, the Hamilton County Probate Court continued the name change petition

hearing for the sixth time and stated as follows:

5

Mother filed a new petition for change of custody in Warren County.The petition was denied on 12-3-09. The appeal time must run beforethe court can consider the pending application

Entry continuing hearing filed on 12-22-09.

24. On 1-8-10, the Hamilton County Probate Court continued the name change petition

hearing for the seventh time and stated as follows:

This hearing shall go forward only if the matter before the Courtof Appeals has been concluded.

Entry continuing hearing filed on 1-8-10.

25. On 6-24-10, the Hamilton County Probate Court began a hearing on the merits of Father's

requested name change and continued the matter in progress to 7-27-10.

26. On 7-19-10, Appellant filed her notice of appeal in the present matter before the Court.

27. On 7-26-10, the Hamilton County Probate Court gave notice that it would continue

the name change hearing for an eighth time pending the result of this Court's disposition of the

current matter.

28. Additional facts are continued in the Argument, infra.

Argument

APPELLANT'S AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY SHOULD BE STRICKEN FORMISLEADING ASSERTIONS AND OMISSION. THE APPEAL SHOULD BEDISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS AND PROSECUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OFDELAYING DISPOSITION OF THE NAME CHANGE PETITION.APPELLANT SHOULD BE DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR

1. Appellant's Affidavit of Indigency Should Be Stricken For Misleading Assertions

and Omissions

Appellant's affidavit of indigency states that she is disabled and cannot work full time.

However, Appellant fails to inform this Court that she is an attorney, Ohio registration number

0075194. (Par. (1) of Statement of Facts). (See Rule 3.3 Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct).

Appellant voluntarily left full time employment to work part time. (Par. (3) & (4) of Statement

of Facts). On 4-21-10, the Warren Juvenile Court ordered Appellant to obtain and maintain full

time employment as a condition of purge. (Par. (5) of Statement of Facts). Appellant is not

indigent. She is poor because she chooses to be poor. (See also McEnery v. McEnery, (2000),

Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2000 WL 1863370, (Ohio App. 10 s Dist) at *6)(voluntary cessation of

employment does not trigger the inability to pay defense). Appellant's application for indigency

presumes her continued violation of the purge condition to obtain and maintain full employment.

(Par. (5) of Statement of Facts). By failing to serve Appellant with her notice of appeal in

Supreme Court Case No. 2009-1608, (Par. (10) of Statement of Facts), Appellant's previous

affidavit of indigency before this Court proceeded without adversarial challenge.

II. The Appeal Should Be Dismissed as Frivolous

S. Ct. Prac. R. 14.5 defines a frivolous appeal as one that "is not reasonably well-

grounded in fact or warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension,

modification, or reversal of existing law. Appellant appeals on the ground that her compilation

of exhibits and commentary constitutes substantial compliance with the requirements of Rule

9(C) of the Appellate Rules of Procedure. App. R. 9(C) permits an appellant to submit a

statement in lieu of transcript when a transcript is unavailable. Transcript costs renders them

unavailable to the indigent. (See State ex rel. Madorsky v. Buchanan, Cuyahoga App. No.

87753, 2006-Ohio-3682. However, Appellant shielded scrutiny of her concoction of facts by

avoiding the notice and review requirements of App. R. 9(C). (Pars. (6) and (7) of Statement of

Facts). Appellant's her lack of compliance is not harmless nor ascribable to good faith, however

incompetent. By failing to serve opposing counsel and the Court with her concoction of facts,

she unerringly sought to supplant the adversarial process with her own self-serving perception.

Appellant's substantial compliance argument is not only categorically unworthy, it is an utter

inanity in view of Appellant's admission to committing perjury. (Par. (8) of Statement of Facts).

Appellant's substantial compliance argument is not reasonably well-grounded in fact nor

warranted by existing law nor by a good faith extension, modification, or reversal of existing

law. Appellant's appeal is therefore frivolous.

Appellant has a history of failing to comply with procedural rules designed to facilitate

the fair administration of justice. (See Pars. (11)-(13) of Statement of Facts). Appellant has a

history of misusing the Court's journal and record of proceedings to get her admittedly "juvenile"

digs in at Appellee by calling him "Harvey" (Par. (14) of Statement of Facts) or "lying scum" in

official service of process. (Par. (15) of Statement of Facts).

Even if Appellant raised a non-frivolous point of law, her appeal is pointless. The trial

court's decision found that even if a change in circumstances existed there is noting to suggest

that a change in custody to Mother is in the child's best interest. (In re: K.A.G.-M., Warren

County, Ohio, Decision and Entry filed 12-3-09 at 3). Further, on 6-3-10, six weeks prior to

filing this appeal, the psychologist for Warren County Juvenile Court filed a Report of her court

ordered psychological examination of appellant, which strongly recommended supervised

visitation. (Par. (9) of Statement of Facts).

The Twelfth Appellate District Court sustained sanctions against Attorney Dullaghan for

frivolous conduct under R.C. § 2323.51. (In re K.A.G.-M„ 2009 WL 4263353, 2009-Ohio-6239,

Ohio App. 12 Dist., November 30, 2009 (No. CA2009-04-040)). A second sanction is needed.

8

III. Appellant Prosecutes her Appeal Solely For The Purpose of Delaying Disposition

of the Name Change Petition

This appeal was taken solely for the purpose of delaying final disposition of the name

change petition. Appellant vehemently opposes the name change. (Par. (20) of Statement of

Facts). Since December 2008, the Hamilton County Probate Court has continually made it clear

that it would not consider the name change petition until the matter of custody had been finally

determined in the Warren County Juvenile Court. (Pars. (21)-(25)). Appellant proceeded to trial

on the name change petition on 6-24-10 and then filed her notice of appeal on 7-19-10, just eight

days before the name change hearing was scheduled to conclude on 7-27-10. This hearing has

now been continued eight times. (Id.).

Appellant has a history of delaying tactics in this case to include: 1) one week prior to the

start of the change of custody hearing (the subject of Mother's latest appeal), Mother filed a

motion to change jurisdiction of the case. (In Re: K.A. G.-M., Warren County, Ohio Juvenile

Court, Case No. 07C70033, Mother's motion to change jurisdiction filed 8-19-09); 2) Appellant

failed to complete the trial record on this appeal; and 3) Appellant sought a continuance in the

Twelfth District Court of Appeals without alleging compelling reasons for the delay or even good

cause.The Warren County Juvenile Court criticized Appellant for keeping this case in "constant

turmoil." (In re K.A.G.-M., 2009 WL 4263353, 2009-Ohio-6239, Ohio App. 12 Dist., November

30, 2009 (No. CA2009-04-040)). Appellant will continue her endless campaign to prevent final

disposition on the requested name change unless and until the Court sends a message by

sanctioning her..

IV. Appellant is a Vexatious Litigator

9

This appeal is Appellant's second frivolous appeal before this Court. She has had four

before the Twelfth District Court of Appeals. And, she has kept the case in "constant turmoil" at

the trial level. Something's gotta give.

CONCLUSION

Wherefore, Appellee seeks the following:

1) an order striking Appellant's affidavit of indigence;

2) an order dismissing Appellant's appeal as frivolous and ordering sanctions;

3) an order finding Appellant to be a vexatious litigator with strict limits on future appeals;.

4) and referral of Appellant's litigation misconduct to Disciplinary Counsel as may be

warranted.

Christo Lassiter, pro seOhio License No. 0067946839 Dunore RoadCincinnati, Ohio 45220-1416

Attachment

1) See State v. Lassiter, Hamilton County Municipal Court, Hamilton, Ohio, Case No.

09/CRB/19109, Transcript dated 7-15-09 at page 5, lines 20-25

2) ITMO K.A. G.-M., Warren County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Juvenile Division),Case No. 07-C00733, Excerpt of T.p. dtd 7-19-07, page 56, lines 15-19

3) ITMO K.A. G.-M., Twelfth Appellate District, Appellate Case No. 2010-01-002, Brief of

Appellant, Devon L. Dullaghan) filed 5-10-10 at 9

10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby swear that a true copy of the foregoing Motion to strike appellant's affidavit ofindigence, and to dismiss the appeal as frivolous and prosecuted for delay, and to declaredAppellant a vexatious litigator and for all statutory and equitable relief was delivered via ordinarymail to Devon L. Dullaghan at 200 Woodland Road, Mason, Ohio 45040 this 3rd Day of

August 2010

Chri sto Lassiter, pro se

11

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

HAMILTON COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HARVEY LASSITER,

Defendant.

CASE NO: 09/CRB/19109

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

APPEARANCES:

.CHARLES RUBENSTEIN, ESQ.On behalf of the Plaintiff.

Michael Trapp, Esq.on behalf of the Defendant.

BE IT REMEMBERED that upon the

hearing of this cause, on 7uly 15; 2009, before

the Honorable Richard A. Bernat, a judge of the

said court, the followi.ng proceedings took

place.

5

A

1

2

3

4

5

. 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the twelve year old daughter.

THE COURT: i'11 tell you what,

let's continue with the trial and I'11

deal with that issue as we move down the

road here.

MR. TRAPP: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: Do you want another

minute?

MR. RUBENSTEIN: No. I'm good.

MR. TRAPP: ]udge, I just have a

few more questions of this witness.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

DEVON DULLAGHAN,

having been previously duly sworn, wa.s examined

and testified as follows:

CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY MR. TRAPP:

Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Dullaghan.

A. Good afternoo'n.

Q. I believe when we left off with

this question, did you admit to committing

perjury in the bankruptcy proceeding of:a

october 2008?

A. I don't have independent

recollection of the date, but yes, I did.

54

1

2

3CERTIFICATE

i; .7oyce A. Harmon, RPR, the

undersigned, an official Court Reporter for the

Hamilton County Municipal Court, do hereby

certify that at the same time and place stated

herein I recorded in stenotype and thereafter

transcribed the within 53 (fifty-three) pages,

and that the foregoing transcript of

proceedings is a true, complete, and accurate

transcript of my said stenotype notes.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, i hereunto set my

Hand this 7th day of August, 2009.

Z&-r/hi

6yce A. Harmon, RPRofficiAl Court Reporter

Hamiltbn county, Ohio

22

23

24

25

7-19-07-1assiter

11 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

2 STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF WARREN

3 JUVENILE DIVISION

4 - - -

5

6 IN THE MATTER OF:

7 Kaitlyn Abigail Grove-Merritt

8

9 Case No. 07-CO0733

10 07-C00844

11

12

13

14 - - -

15 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

16 - - -

17

18

19

20

HEARING DATE:

July 19, 2007 RECORDING

21 TRANSCRIBER:

22 Maggie steed

23

24

25

2Page 1

7-19-07-lassiter1 father at 5:30pm on July S. i'll find father in contempt for

2 inappropriately withholding the child from mother at 8:30 on

3 July 5. I'm going to give each of you five days in the county

4 jail.

5 I will suspend that sentence on the condition that

6 there are no further violations of this court's parenting order

7 because if there are further violations of this parenting order

8 you will serve, whoever violates the order next, you will serve

9 every minute of every hour of everyday I have suspended,

10 period.

11 I also want to note a few other matters that are of

12 concern to this court. I want the parties to stop their

13 characterizations in their filings. Ms. Grove-Merritt I've not

14 been able to find the language referred to by Mr. Lassiter that

r 15 you requested service to a Christo lying scum Lassiter. is

16 there any truth to that ma'am?

17 MS. MERRITT: I didn't request service, i addressed the

18 envelope that way.

19 THE COURT: That is ridiculous. I don't want that to

20 ever happen again. You're an attorney, an officer of the court

21 and I expect you to conduct yourself professionally and

22 ethically and certainly maturely at this point in time.

23 I want the parties to stop finger pointing and to stop

24 filing irrelevant matters concerning your prior marriages,

25 prior grievances how conduct yourself as ethical and

571 professional attorneys in this courtroom or obtain counsel who

2 can do so on your behalf.

3 we are adjourned.

4Page 50

COURr

wAqR oFAppF^C F^^NFq4S

MqY °IN THE COURT OF APPEALS '0 Z^^©

fV'4"ELFTH DISTRICT COURTOHIO

PEALAF84N, CiWARREN CO , y^

IN RE: K.A.G-M. Appeal No. CA2010-01-002Trial No. 07-C00733

`BRIEF OF APPELLANT, DEVON L. DULLAGHAN

Appeal from the Warren County Juvenile CourtTrial Court Case No. 07-C00733

Devon L. Dullaghan, Appellant (pro se)200 Woodland Rd.Mason, Ohio 45040(513) 535-4140(513) 459-1415 (fax)

Harvey Lassiter, Appellee (pro se)839 Dunore Rd.

Cincinnati, Ohio 45220(513) 535-4142

(513) 556-1236 (fax)

^ IIIIIIIIIIIIiiliilllllllilllillliiililllllllliliN^llil[Iiiillllilllillliw

n;/10/1n .4rnC•LLANTSSRntF

had whited out "Love Natalie Elise Lassiter" and had sent the card back to him. Appellee was not

able to reconcile this lie with the fact that Appellant was holding the original card in ber hand and

the court observed it and there was no white out on the original. Appellee's constant use of the name

Natalie despite being put on notice that this is offensive to Appellant and detrimental to her

relationship with her child is a clear cut showing of malice, bad faith and change in circumstances.

The trial court found that "Mother has not demonstrated how the name child will result in Kailin

being alienated from her." Decision p. 3. Mother has in fact demonstrated that this is very

devastating to her and her children and the video and audio recordings of exchanges that result in

shouting matches of "Kailin" v. "Natalie" indicate that this is a very real issue. Furthermore, as

testified to previously, no one referred to Appellee as Harvey before he began calling Kailin

"Natalie." Thus, an antagonistic, hostile atmosphere was artificially created and maintained by

appellee. Appellant does not dispute that calling appellee by his .name to irritate him may be a

[ juvenile response, but she does state unequivocally that when she repeatedly asked Appellee in polite

fashion not to call her child "Nataiie" in front ofher and he refused, he was intentionally inciting her

to respond in kind. It should also be noted here that the ONLY name that Appellant's children called

appellee to his face during custody exchanges is "Harvey." On one of the videos, Mishka referred

to Appellee as being "crazy," but he was no longer in earshot and Mishka was immediately

admonished not to call him any names even if his behavior was upsetting to her. This was admitted

into evidence. Appellant's long-standing documentation of her objection to Appellee calling Kailin

Natalie in front of her or in correspondence with her was admitted into evidence as exhibit V. While

not sure what further demonstration the trial court was looking for, she states without any doubt that

calling Kailin "Natalie" is alienating to her and to her other children.

9