CHALLENGE 3

"Animal Rights"

I would research the law and write a comprehensive defense of our position. From my first challenges, I realized the individual is not granted their rights to self-defense. Amendment VI of the constitution guarantees our right to a speedy and public trial while having our accusers, for or against us, in a court of law. It also entitles us to counsel for our defense. It does not state that counsel be an attorney. The constitution was written for simple people to help one another.

I knew we would meet resistance. Public exposure would be our only true defense in a corrupt society.

We would try to set up a communication with the major press but found ourselves betrayed and stranded by the powers that be. Realizing the potential for betrayal, I would have an alternate plan of defense. I had talked with the editor of a small weekly press and he assured me a forum if the major press refused to print the story.

Through a series of publications, we would document betrayal and tickets and fines that would eventually lead to arrest and incarceration; we would persevere to collect a comprehensive indictment on many powerful municipal and appeals judges and prosecutors. In the end they would not face our reason.

Jimmy Carter would send the challenges to the justice department, making this action recorded history. No money, no army and no constituency does not stop the truth from surfacing eventually.

Twenty years later, these facts are going to the grand world jury.

PARIS — Man’s feathered friends and four-legged friends won a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Animals, and they’ve got the United Nations on their side.

Adopted Sunday at a ceremonial meeting of UNESCO, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the Animal Charter opens with the words: "All animals are born with an equal claim on life and the same rights to existence."

The ceremony, attended by statesman, artists and Nobel prizewinners, included a display of 2.1 million signatures collected around the world in defense of animal rights.

THE CHARTER, which is to become UN law In 1980, spells out what animal lovers are pushing governments the world over to embody in legislation:

• That it’s wrong to abandon your dog in the street when you go on vacation.

• That it’s unfeeling to gas stray cats.

• That it’s hideous to keep pigs or cattle locked inside container trucks, sweating or freezing, while customs officials settle their labor disputes.

• That it’s beastly to raise chickens or rabbits in shoebox-sized cages, drop live lobsters In boiling water or force-feed geese to fatten their livers for foie gras

SINGLED out for special condemnation are scientists, the entertainment world and hunters on the grand scale.

"Animal experimentation involving physical or psychological suffering Is Incompatible with the rights of animals," says the charter.

"No animal shall be exploited for the amusement of man. Exhibitions and spectacles involving animals are incompatible with their dignity.

"Scenes of violence involving animals shall be banned from cinema and television, except for humane education.

"Any act involving mass killing of wild animals is genocide, that is, a crime against the species."

THE CHARTER skirts the Issue of whether it is ethical to kill animals for food. It says all "companion" animals "have the right to complete their natural life span." And "If an animal has to be killed, this must be instantaneous, and without distress."

Signing of the charter by the 14 member states of UNESCO does not mean blue-capped UN troops will now be rushed to the defense of persecuted pooches. The organizers hope it will help animal lovers pressing for animal rights legislation.

"Animals are coming out of ghetto in which we human beings penned them up," said Carol Dalgueperse, president of the International Juridical Institute for Animal Protection. "Older civilizations revered, even deified animals. This charter is a breach in the indifference of man."

My friend, Debbi Baum, would type the original four cases. She would ask me if I could escort her to the animal shelter to see if her dog had been taken there.

From that incident, the following test case would evolve. Debbi realized I had a good idea of the premise of law and asked me to answer to a ticket she received. I didn’t worry about form because I realized I possessed the power of the law. I would not worry about procedure for I was setting precedence.

I learned the first year if they don’t want to play fair in establishing the law, they won’t.

Defense for Pup Baum by Tom Kiss (Edward Thomas Kiss) friend and citizen concerned about fair play and justice.

To Whom It May Concern:

It may be asked, "what right do I have to enter into this matter?" I believe in the American ideals of compassion and fairness. As a human being (being in the state of being human) I am compelled to question certain attitudes that lead to the arrest, conviction and execution of certain beings called dogs because they have not had a voice for a defense until today. They have had no due process of law. Each animal is not treated as an individual as they all are.

It has been said that dogs have no intellect. Knowing comes from a sense of right and wrong. Since a dog can be trained to do one thing and not another, they therefore react with a positive or negative response. A sense of right or wrong depending on the trainer’s responsive sense of right and wrong. The environment stimuli creates the reaction. The dog is only a sensing, feeling creature and how savage or how meek their nature depends upon his environment stimuli. We as human beings were given dominion over all life forms. We dominate the realm of attitudes on this planet. It is not in my heart to imprison any being. I do not want bondage for myself and I am certain all my fellow beings, whether with voice or not, have this same sense. To dominate does not mean to hold in captivity. We share the earth; we do not own it. Our ownership concept is only a limited proprietorship. To dominate means to hold influence over (to rule).

Why is a creature mean? What trust they hold in their environment dictates their disposition and that trust depends upon us. I personally own no animals or persons and from this attitude I bring forth a defense.

On March 17, 1980, I accompanied Debra Baum to the animal shelter in Akron, Ohio. During this encounter I did not hear anyone in this organization address Debra Baum as to her legal standing in relationship to her dog, Pup. At that time, she was led to believe she received a ten dollar fine for licensing and release of her dog.

I know this to be fact because she did not go to the bank to cash a check before we came to the shelter because I had funds to handle expenses which she would refund at a more convenient time. I was paying attention and I sensed no evidence of greater expense.

When we were at the shelter, I did not sense an environment of cooperation. We wanted to see Pup more closely so positive identification could be made. It took Debbi and myself to convince the keeper the merits in helping. He has a public service job. He was not very cooperative. These animals are usually pets of families. Their feelings should be respected.

March 19, 1980 Debbi showed me the complaint she received by mail. There was no assurance she would have received this so-called complaint and summons. It was improperly served. The only way information on the complaint was ever obtained was through Debbi’s cooperation (Dubious means). If there is enough communication and cooperation to share messages between the shelter and various agencies, there therefore is ample ability to present adequate information pertaining to ownership responsibilities of the animals. This is only fair and just. Law deals with fairness and justice. The shelter acts as a policing agency for society. If they wish to practice law, they should live within the law.

The complaint itself is a legal embarrassment. It is incomplete and inaccurate. By law it is not worth the paper it is written on. Besides, it is of an "ex post facto" nature. It’s serving only occurred because of facts obtained, as I said, through dubious means.

Of the charges on the complaint, I am aware of one being invalid, the other accurate, and the third unconstitutional. First, Pup was vaccinated which neutralizes fears of him spreading disease. Pre judgment therefore allowed an inaccurate charge to be laid because of ignorance. This is finding someone or somebody guilty without due process. In this case the court would want proof of vaccination or proof of innocence. Secondly, Pup was not registered at the time of arrest and this was not proper responsible action by the Baums, but this error has been rectified and since due process was not practiced by representatives of the law, any fine now would be after the fact. I believe registration is good for identification for the well being of society as well as the individual animal. Baum’s neighbor, Fran George, who lives across the street, phoned the shelter several times to see if her dog was taken when Pup was. He was licensed and still the shelter did not assist or serve or identify her pet. What good is identification if it is not used as a positive aid in communication ownership of an animal? Fran only found her pet since she questioned the honesty of the shelter. Otherwise, her pet would have met a needless end.

Thirdly, Code 618.01 issue is raised to its fairness and validity. In researching the logic or reason behind this law, its merits are questionable. The origin of the ordinance gives reason that dogs have become a public nuisance for enactment. An annoyance? It seems to me that we are annoying their rights to be free beings without the threat of imprisonment or extermination.

This ordinance was a council vote, not a populous vote. I went to the Akron Beacon Journal and checked the records of news articles on the issues of the time pertaining to dogs. There was no recorded evidence of the reason for the ordinance.

I was to the Akron Municipal Building to find reason. There was none. I talked to various people in different capacities there but none could give me a humane reason for the ordinance.

I called the humane society and was not addressed by a humane attitude in relation to animal rights.

Are we such a cruel and inhumane society, we are too selfish to allow basic rights to the creatures we share the planet with? People say "but they tear my trash up." It is only natural for a dog to sense the smells of food in a trash bag. I would be willing to contain trash rather than see my friends, the creatures, be imprisoned.

If they excrete their waste on the land I have been given proprietorship over, I would clean it up.

If a dog is mean, it is the owners who have stimulated this attitude. The dog pays, the creator goes free. I believe proprietorship over animals or anything carries a responsible action.

I have been confronted by mean animals but have never been bitten. If I gave them no reason to fear, they had no reason to attack.

Some argue, to tie, will save them from being run over by an automobile. I am sure a dog would say "give me liberty or give me death." It’s not the length of the individual lifetime; it’s the quality that counts. I would rather run free and exit quickly than spend a lifetime imprisoned.

Another thing which irritates me about ordinances of this nature is they are indiscriminate. An example is my friend Pup, who has helped bring this issue to light. Pup is as gentle and meek and loving a being as I know. He is my friend who has shared great emotion with me. His family loves him dearly and vise versa. This is why their obstinance to this unreasonable ordinance. It is not in their hearts to tie or chain or imprison their friend. If the original complainant was of a neighborly nature and would have personally brought his complaint forward on an eye to eye basis, I am sure the Baum family would rectify any inconvenience or discomfort Pup might have bestowed because of ignorance. He is not of a vicious nature. At worst, he is a trash hound. Is being a trash hound reason for an execution?

It is not Pup’s fault we have become a distant society where people are afraid to openly air their complaints to their neighbors. It is not Pup’s fault the policing agencies of the state unconscionable perform their task without question to his individual rights. It’s not Pup’s fault he likes to run and play with his other peer acquaintances.

For all of this not being his fault and him being an innocent soul, he now faces imprisonment or death. To me, this is not in the general interest of society, to have lost our humane perspective because it meets our selfish whims.

I want to know why the harshest punishment is bestowed for minimal crimes. Where is the reason? Reason is the authority of the law.

What has become of the American ideal of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness when we can indiscriminately and without good reason execute living beings? Our courts and system of government says murder is wrong. Then we go and execute someone because they have committed an act of this nature.

Hypocrisy is not a good forum to rule from. It will never present a positive incentive to obey the laws.

We saw the horrors of the holocaust. Family members speaking about the unconscionable actions of the German nation made public the horrors of these inhumane actions. Animals cannot speak but their entrapment and execution has to be an experience of extreme cruelty. Must we solve all our social problems through brutality and destructive means? We have a brutal criminal act performed, we counter with execution. We have an unwanted seedling developing in a mother, we execute. We have an innocent beast wanting to roam with some degree of freedom, we execute.

It is my awareness that the humane compassionate ideal America was founded on can be a reality. Not as long as we abuse and misrepresent these basic ideals. On these grounds a defense is presented.

While checking some details about our court appearance, in the back offices of the court, I would spot an old acquaintance.

Mel Kaforey was an attorney who had been associated with my family while he was still in law school. His sister lived next door to our first family home when I was a young child.

Debbi Baum and I were in the back chambers of the courts. Mel did not realize he knew either of us but was talking to an associate. He said, "I don’t know why they make these rooms so small and the courtrooms so big when all the dealing occurs in the back?

This is how the courts work. They do their dealings in the rear and then play their fantasies to the "journal entry". (What is on the court records). Public exposure was our only true defense against these scoundrels.

I struck up a conversation with Mel. I told him about our association. He was very congenial and asked why I was there. I told him of our predicament. He first said we need to get a lawyer but after reading the defense, he told me I wrote a better defense than most attorneys.

Years later, Mel handled estate business for the family and passed the word through my mother that his eyes were weakening and he wished I would get my law degree and help him with his practice.

I knew our case would meet resistance. The court would refuse to face our arguments.

I would contact the local press. They would show interest in our story, but would betray this endeavor.

In my previous challenge the Chief Justices office had told me to deal in the lower courts. To prove my point I went a level deeper into the corruption.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO

In reference to City of Akron vs. Debra Baum

Case No. CRB 2184

I (a friend of justice) am appealing to your good senses "Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil for thou art with me". In other words, as I travel through the land of lies and deception, I am not afraid because the truth is with me. What is, is – what isn’t, is not.

Two thousand years ago, Rome grew to a material magnificence in power and political significance. A democratic dream was conceived but never acknowledged. Special interest and special favor created dissension and decay. At that time a young carpenter, a working class individual with little more than his mind, influenced the world by his dedication to the truth. He challenged the misuse of the law by the state, the pharisees or practitioners of the law in his region manipulated and abused their influence. Rather than facing the facts he presented, the heiarchy, wished to eliminate the source of the facts.

Today we are the seeds of Rome. As we have grown on the basic principle of democracy, likewise, we have seen the abuse of these principles. Today, I have an advantage over my predecessor. The world has shrunk with mass communication, my arguments can be heard around the world in a relatively short period of time. I do not possess martial strength. I come with one power, the power of facts. I operate only with a free mind. You can resist me but you cannot defeat me.

April 24, 1980, Debra Baum and myself went to your temple of law in Akron, Ohio. We wished to challenge a local ordinance which we could not find in accordance with our basic principles of government. Tom and Debbi Baum have a dog they consider a friend. They do not wish their friend enslaved or imprisoned with chain, fence or otherwise. They wish him to retain his free nature. He has been ticketed several times. His freedom in this matter is the case in point.

On April 24, 1980, we had an 11:00 a.m. court with Judge Hartnett. Also, at 8:30 a.m. we had a pretrial hearing with Judge Spicer. This was in reference to Case No. CRB 2708, State of Ohio vs. Dee Baum.

8:30 a.m. April 24, 1980 we went to the courtroom of a Judge Spicer, while waiting for the court to convene, Debbi’s daughter of 16 months started to cry (unfortunately, Debbi was unable to secure anyone to care for her children, so I felt it proper, in a compassionate environment such as a court, to have the children attend). The female bailiff, with no degree of compassion, upon hearing the crying sarcastically said "get her out of here." Woe to anyone who doesn’t have patience with the children. This was offensive.

When we appeared in front of Judge Spicer, I explained the similarity of charges we were protesting and advised this particular charge be incorporated into the general defense. In this matter we are challenging the constitutionality of the same ordinances in relationship to the same dog. I said it would be a waste of time, on the courts part and ours to not consider the charges as one challenge.

He claimed he might rule differently than the Judge we were to come before later that day. Is it not the law or reason that rules, rather than any arrogant individual? He did not want to be concise and efficient. This is an incompetent mind, which wishes diversification and disunity. This is not efficient. We are taxpayers. We pay his wage. He wishes to waste our public funds. This is not serving the best interest of society. This is offensive.

11 a.m. 1980 we went to the courtroom of Judge Hartnett. We witnessed a marriage of, by chance, an old acquaintance of Debbi’s. Kim Sprouse and her new husband were married by ritual by Judge Hartnett in our presence. He never consciously looked on these two individuals who he was now inacting the holiest of civil rituals, the bonding of two souls in the most intimate of social contracts devised between man and woman under the laws of nature. It was impersonal and artificial. His duty as a Judge and human being are of question in this matter as to his competence. I, holding such high regard for the state of marriage, was offended by the performance I witnessed.

After the ceremony, the judge returned to his chambers. While waiting for him to return, I went to look for him. I went to the office off the side of the courtroom and Denny Septor (the dog warden) was waiting there. I asked him if he saw the Judge and he said, "no". I told him I wasn’t after his job, rather the way he was performing it. I said it was nothing personal, but in this situation I was wrong. Of course it is personal. I realize the job the wardens are now performing is psychologically bad. My father shared how his attitude was affected by working in a slaughterhouse. Justifiable execution warps the individual's appreciation of life. Who is for life, is for it. Who is against it, is not with it. It numbs the individual's sensitivity to their feelings. Our feelings are our guide to love and life.

I went back again and waited a considerable time before the Judge came from the chambers. The female prosecuting attorney had left her papers in the courtroom. She came in about the same time as the Judge. The Judge had delayed our court for thirty some odd minutes with no regard for our time or explanation of the delay. The prosecuting representative was never introduced and we had no knowledge to her credentials. Debbi thought the Judge might have called her Nancy. In any event, Debbi and her children and myself were confronted by Judge Hartnett, Denny Septor and the prosecuting attorney. Hardly a public hearing. Hardly an open court. Hardly a fair environment.

The Judge, after inconsiderately wasting our time asked (I will call her Nancy) if it wasn’t about her lunch hour.

At this point, I informed the court how we had just had our time wasted.

Nancy arrogantly stated that this matter would only take 15 or 20 minutes.

All the facts I will now bring forth happened but I am not sure of their chronological order. I tried to obtain a transcript of the tape recorded proceedings (we did not have a court reporter) at an earlier date but was informed that Andy Peterson, the court reporter had 40 days to comply. We had 30 days to appeal so I decided to use memory.

In any event, as the hearing progressed I tried to share my awareness so a clear vision of the occurrences would unfold. The Judge at this point threatened me with contempt for speaking out. I informed him we were seeking out justice and I was part of the occurrences. He therefore changed his tactics and said I could assist but only by writing my thoughts down and showing them to Debbi or by allowing me to whisper my thoughts to her and have her convey them to the court. I informed Judge Hartnett I was more familiar with the premise of law than Debbi but he insisted my vocal assistance would hamper rather than assist. He therefore addressed the situation through a means of divide and conquer.

Also, he acted totally ignorant of the brief we had filed for the case earlier. Is it not his job as a fair and impartial observer to have been aware of its content beforehand? Nancy gave him her copy. He read it, but only managed to decipher from it the admission that Pup was allowed to run free. He avoided all other callings for reason within the law.

The original complaint we obtained from the dog warden was not accurately served through the court. In court their copy had now become signed. Why didn’t our copy have this signature on it, unless theirs was signed after the fact? The Judge persisted in turning his mind from the truth, our copy of the complaint.

Also the judge, Denny Septor and Nancy were ignorant of the present revised ordinance and its content. The Judge told Debbi he thought her dog could be loose on her property under her verbal control. This was true until 1957 when the ordinance was changed. He asked the others about this fact. They were unaware. I was the only one who had checked into this matter. I knew.

Towards the end of the proceedings, since they were trying to silence my clear reason and my call for reason on their part, I had Debbi call me to the stand and ask me what I knew about what had transpired. It is quite clear in my statements on public record that I called for reason and none was given.

Judge Hartnett trying to pacify the situation reduced the fines from $23.00 each to $10.00 each plus cost. Debbi let it be known, no matter what the fine she would not leash or cage her dog because the court gave her no reason to do so. A few days later she received a bill for $26.00, which she will not pay.

Upon leaving the courtroom, I told Judge Hartnett I was sorry he approached the situation the way he did. He said he has made mistakes before and he will make them again. I said, I felt this one would cost him severely. I told him how I understood how he was caught in the middle of the game, but this did not make his decision right. Judge Hartnett reminds me of Nicodemus. A person knowing the law, but afraid to practice it.

Debbi, her children and myself went to the elevator. I spotted Nancy in one ready to go down. I said to Debbi while looking at Nancy "Let’s more personalize this" and we walked into the elevator. I said to Nancy, "Why wouldn’t you face the logic in what I wrote?" She sarcastically said, "I don’t have to because I had the law on my side." As the facts show, she had the abuse of the law on her side.

She then replied arrogantly, "I was impressed" referring to my performance in court and I said in a calm manner, "you will be", referring to my comprehension of the effects of the corrupt attitudes within our American judicial system which I am ready to expose. The door to the elevator opened and Nancy left. This ends the pre-trial and post-trial escapades of that day.

Now I am appealing to our judicial system to recognize what is about to transpire. I cannot consciously pay the $50.00 cost for filing an appeal. I am a pauper materially, but even if I weren’t, it would not make a difference for the court refused to reason. This is their purpose. This is not the first dealings I have had with our judicial system. In each instance, I’ve been abused and offended. I am nobody and in being nobody, I represent everybody. I am a common citizen. Today, I have mass communication to expose the corruption I have been confronted with. If I am treated in this manner and this is the general practice, then it is time to cast out the moneychangers from our temples of justice. The officers of the courts have become so preoccupied by their own interest that they are more concerned about profit than justice.

My appeal in this matter is first:

1. The elimination of dog at large ordinances because of their lack of constitutional basis.
2. I call for Judge Hartnett’s impeachment (firing).
3. I call for the release of the prosecuting attorney (whatever her name is) from her duties as a practitioner of law since she has not lived up to her sworn oath to serve justice.

If I am not given a jury of twelve to decide these matters then I will take them to the world jury.

Let me remind the judicial system, we as a nation hold a key role in modeling a New World order. We are the chemicals of every ethnic group, religion and peoples of planet earth. We can talk democracy and freedom and justice but if we do not practice it, our credibility is unconvincing. The American ideal is the vision I am pursuing. I am calling on our system to understand and comply or face the humiliation of the corruption they have created for themselves.

This is my appeal

Tom Kiss (Edward Thomas Kiss)

3662 Edison NW

Uniontown, Ohio

Defense of Debra Baum in reference to the ticketing for dog at large and refusal by Debra Baum to answer the call of that ticketing.

The state at this point has made grave mistakes in the handling of Debra Baum in reference to her proprietorship over her dog, Pup Baum.

April 24, 1980: Court was held by judge Hartnett. At that court, our defense questioned the mishandling of ticketing by dog warden, Denny Septor. We have in this country, a system of checks and balances, so as to hold the agencies of government in order. For the policing agencies or the executioners of the law to confront the citizenry, they must operate through the judicial system. Judge Harnett refused to correct Denny Septor’s misperception of his handling of his authority.

May 20, 1980: Denny Septor again refused to grant Debra Baum her right to due process. We informed the court. The court refuses to practice law. The court has been out of order. The court has been contemptuous. We told the court on April 24, 1980 how ticketing not handled properly is not worth the paper it is written on. We have not changed our position since we are within our legal rights to conceive such a notion.

June 4, 1980: Debra Baum, a mother of two small children was arrested illegally. I came to care for the children. I informed the arresting officer and Denny Septor (who was present) that the court was acting incompetently. They would not listen to reason.

June 4, 1980: 10:40, Debbi called from jail and said they did not know for sure what the reason or charge for her arrest was at that time. Consideration was again not shown by the state.

June 5, 1980: We went to court. Our meeting in reference to this arrest was at 9:00 with Joyce George (judge). She again, like the others, threatened me with contempt because I wanted to bring to light this matter. Practicing law is everyone’s social obligation. Not allowing a clear conception of the facts is an obstruction in the path of justice.

The court and policing agencies have been out of order. It is time for them to realize they cannot intimidate the citizenry without paying grave consequences. Debra Baum and myself have been in a completely defensive position in relationship to these matters as the evidence illustrates.

The state has now cost us time, energy and money. It is their responsibility to correct their ways or face the consequence of their own making.

Realize, the earth has shrunk. Mass communication encompasses the globe. The evidence in these matters clearly shows abuse by the state towards the citizens. In other countries, this form of action is their accepted rule of law. In America, we cannot tolerate these tyrannical acts.

It is the court’s choice. Act as you will and then face the consequences of your labors, whether for good or bad.

Tom Kiss

June 10, 1980

Copy of these matters have been sent to our friend, Jimmy Carter, President of the United States, for the record.

First let me enlighten the court to the fact that the Constitution of the United States is the basis for all law in America. All laws derive from this central source. Interpreting the Constitution, the preamble has to be considered because it sets the tone for the origin of our social doctrine.

The preamble says, "We the people establish justice. If I as an American, if I as a free individual, have observed certain occurrences and can shed light on these happenings, I as a responsible citizen, am compelled to participate in any active forum, so as to bring about a just solution. If a state or local rule interferes with this responsibility, then it is out of order.

I am, after all, trying to establish a just solution so as to promote the general welfare, in order that we can insure domestic tranquility, which is the surest way to secure our common defense. We can talk democracy but unless we practice, we will not gain the respect necessary to ward off attacks against our system. By this premise, I will refuse to be silenced by any arrogant individual or group of individuals which abuse the power and privilege bestowed upon them by the people of this great nation.

Let me further expound as to the penalties involved if any individual obstructs the path I have chosen. I am at this point a documented part of history. I have been pursuing my personal human rights, and have over the past few years brought legitimate litigation’s before the judicial system. I have allowed corrupt practitioners of law to offend me. In the process they have documented their own corruption. All that is necessary at this point is that my arguments be made public. Since I am acting as a common citizen, I am in actuality, representing the best interest of everyone. In other words, I sit in the most powerful position in the world. I have been ordained by conscience to bring a message of peace and justice to a corrupt world. If you wish to attack my position and incarcerate me for doing good, you only further document your corrupt ways. I felt it only fair to warn you so you can determine your own destiny pertaining to these matters.

This so called court may be able to silence or intimidate others with dictatorial practice and the abuse of force, but I am unafraid.

Threaten me with jail. This will be of no avail. I am at present a political prisoner. The policies and practices and inconsideration have me trapped by a hell created by injustice. The policies of past have been abusive to the free thinker. I am an American dissident.

Threaten me with material penalty. This will be of no avail. I am not in love with matter. I am in love with the principles and laws, which govern matter.

Now let us argue whether Debra Baum has been contemptuous to the court or whether the court has been contemptuous towards the citizens it is supposed to represent.

April 24, 1980: I accompanied Debra Baum before judge (in these writings, I use that term loosely) Spicer. At that meeting, we informed him that we had a court with judge Hartnett pertaining to the same charge in relationship to the same dog, at a different time. I suggested, since we had already incorporated two similar charges into one, for court that afternoon; it would be wise to consolidate this charge, also, so as to save time, energy, and efficiency for the court and ourselves. We had by record set the precedence for our position.

He was too caught up in his own self-importance to realize the simplicity of what we were suggesting, for an expedient solution. He refused to be reasonable. Law is based on reason. He was out of order. This is contemptuous.

Notification of reason for not attending his court was again mailed May 9, 1980. We, with this notification, explained our position in relationship to the absence from his court (as he refers to it).

June 5, 1980: Debra Baum and myself went to check where our court would be held. We had a time but no location on the notification from the court. We were ordered to Spicer’s court at 8:30 a.m., 1980 on June 5. We waited for half an hour to finally be informed by the bailiff that the court did not start until 9:00 a.m. We had another court with Joyce George at that time, so we left. The court again displayed no apology or consideration. This is contemptuous.

After our 9:00 court with Joyce George, we were ushered off to Spicer’s court. He told me not to speak even though my testimony would affect the clarity in reaching a just solution to these dilemmas. He said he would not have me speaking in his court. I reminded him it was our court.

He then proceeded to lecture Debbi as to how by not appearing before the court she had wasted the tax payers money. How it cost money for the court. This was our point on May 9, 1980, as the record shows. How ignorant can he be? He’s like a spoiled child. "My court". "We’ll do it my way or no way"—even if it’s not the right way.

I’ve dealt with brat children before. He is out of order. He is contemptuous. He is not practicing law. He is obstructing a just solution to this affair. He is not doing good. He is impeachable.

If now, by chance, anyone would like to lie and say we are contemptible and arrest me on false charges, they too will sign their own warrant. Step forward and expose yourselves.

Now we will speak to this court.

Bill Spicer today is Probate Judge in Akron, Ohio.  At one point in our challenge, he obstructed justice by separating Debbi from her defense by the press of a button.  Into the courtroom rushed three of the biggest guys I have ever seen.  Immediately I said, “You don’t need to use force for I won’t resist.”  They melted into a friendly discomfort as they escorted me from the courtroom.  I knew Bill Spicer would have to find me in contempt of court to get rid of me.  That would place him and myself, one on one.  Outside the courtroom, I would joke with the court goons.  They would tell how I couldn’t do what I was doing because this was the judge’s turf.  I told them that is why I was doing what I was, so I could get him on my turf. 

Once Bill played his tricks on Debbi he would call me back into the room.  He would drop the contempt charge and I would say, “there you go again, changing your word”.

The following is the first public defense in this matter.

IN THE LIGHT

He worked to gain our trust, but in the end he refused to print our story. At one point late in the action, when I criticized his neglect, he told me that Pup would be gone and they would say "Tom who?" I am nobody. Nobodies still have rights.

I am trusting and gullible but I am not stupid. That is why I also set up a communication with "The Weekly Pride". It was a small publication with a readership of about twenty eight hundred.

In the "Pride" articles mention is made of a local judge and sheriff. Guns had shown up on the streets that were supposed to have been destroyed.

Years later, through a mutual acquaintance, I would meet the detective who noticed these guns involved in crimes. According to him, a superior told he and his partner that they might not want to pursue this matter. They wouldn’t want to search their cars for bombs all the time. They would go to the Akron Federal Building to run their investigation.

Jim Barbuto, "the judge" involved in this scandal, was also having sex with prostitutes in his chambers.

The television investigative show "Sixty Minutes" would expose this situation on national t.v. Much later in our challenge I would contact "Sixty Minutes" for exposure to this story. (Palmer Williams letter).

The day I went to town to check on the dog at large ordinance, was the same time the judge was falling from the grace of his position. I felt a mood in the courthouse. As I drove I got a song in my head from the feeling I experienced in the courthouse. "Ding dong the witch is dead, the mean old witch, the wicked witch, ding dong the mean old witch is dead". From the Wizard of Oz that song sang out in my mind. Wickedness overpowered promotes joy.

Many who work in the courts realize the abuse of authority, but are trapped by fear of losing their positions. When they see abuse naturally fall, they are pleased.

Palmer Williams:

I would appreciate your help in bringing the world to Akron, Ohio, to aid me in establishing justice. I have been pursuing a path which to many appears intolerable and impossible but no dream conceivable to the reasonable human mind is unobtainable. This is my dream, my image, my destiny in this lifetime and I only hope to share it with the free spirit in every living being. Justice for all.

We had earlier in the year, raised a challenge to the authority of the state in relationship to the people. The state in this case has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, its corruption and needs now to be brought to order.

I am a person of little material wealth. Everyone has come to believe that they cannot stand up to injustice so it is pertinent this example I am setting materialize to the mass public.

I will let you know that in a democracy there is no greater story than one common person willing to sacrifice their life for the betterment of all. I am willing and have been willing to do this, so we all can live a better existence.

Earlier this year, a friend of mine, Debra Baum, asked me for counsel for her and her dog’s defense. As a friend, I was honored to serve their cause. Here the story begins, as the supplemental materials will illustrate.

Tom Kiss (Edward Thomas Kiss)

3662 Edison N.W.

Uniontown Ohio 44685

Let me communicate what you are facing. First, I am one who has realized my equality with all beings. This means I am not in awe of your positions. I practice unification while you practice dissension. Judgeship does not give divine right rule. The only way to be a good judge is to be clear minded.

Who is in opposition to my clear minded images is in contrast to my civil liberties. Who tells me right is wrong and wrong is right is no competition to this position.

Listen if you will to this poor struggling soul who only wishes peace on earth and good will towards beings. If you feel contempt towards this position, then I feel sorry for you because I am not your enemy. You harm yourselves and the world by not upholding the law. Allowing one to go free and belittling the other because one has and the other has not. One being above the law while the other is below. This inequity has plagued the earth long enough.

Now as to appeal 9688 the court wants to know why this shouldn’t be dismissed. The reason is that the laws of our land are being desecrated. We do not need the transcript of the court. We have given evidence showing lack of due process. We have a reasonable defense, which was not dealt with reasonably.

What is your problem? Have you forgotten the oath you all took after passing your bar exam? You’re sworn to justice. Your lack of cooperation is an indictment to your incompetence. You’re supposed to protect the oppressed and the defenseless. Hypocrites, you say one thing, but practice far from anything considered just.

We have been offended. Our time, energy and efforts are being oppressed by lack of cooperation. You are all very clever. Cleverness nourishes itself on deceit.

Now let me tell you the law. If we were playing the game of poker, I would say I have a lock on the board. If playing chess, I would say I have you checkmated. I sit in the most powerful position in the world. My efforts are put forth as a common man seeking to promote what is good for the general welfare. In doing this, I represent everyone.

Let me contrast a case in point to illustrate further my point. Here I am, an ordinary citizen trying to do good. The courts at each step of the way have shown resistance.

Then on the other hand, we have a high ranking official who has abused the public trust by the name of James Barbuto. Living in this area, I have no doubt that he has over the years abused his office and flaunted his power. According to Coit Leilbert, administrative director of the Ohio Supreme Court, "I guess we’ve never had—at least that I know of—a convicted judge, maybe someone before my time, but I don’t know of anybody" (Saturday June 14, 1980 – Akron Beacon Journal)

Also, Barbuto may receive pay. The oath you all have taken say, "I will maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers". To copulate in the courts is not in accordance with this oath.

James Barbuto held a high level position in our social structure. His image set a tone for the formulation of concepts and ideals in the minds and hearts within his influence. He desecrated the public trust. He broke his word. He deserves no pay. He’s been robbing the public. You people have had your private club long enough.

In such a climate as this, how are we supposed to get a fair hearing? Barbuto’s irreverence and disrespectful manner, and now having experienced several incompetent members of the judicial system?

The answer is of course, mass communication. The day of men being above the law and below the law is about to come to an end.

Almost a year ago, I read a profile on the Barbuto court. The comment made by him in the Akron Beacon Journal left a lasting impression. He said "let’s get this circus on the road". A true court is not a game. It’s not a place to be taken lightly. It is a place to satisfy inequities in social interaction. Attached is a copy of your oath. To date, I have not found it practiced.

Now you explain to us why we do not have a just challenge.

Tom Kiss (6-15-80)

cc: Saundra Robinson, City Prosecutor, City-Safety Bldg., Akron, OH 44308 for Plaintiff-Appellee. Mr. Thomas Kiss, Attorney at Law, 3662 Edison N.W.Uniontown, OH for Defendant-Appellant.

To be filed with Clerk of Courts in reference to Case No. 80CRW4722.

To pay a fine of any amount would be unconscionable on the part of Debra Baum pertaining to this matter. Our actions were a fearless attempt to stand up to the abuse of authority by the state, represented in this particular happening by the Spicer court. We had earlier taken a public stand in writing before the court with charges of contempt by the Spicer Court. The state allowed a biased and prejudice view to oversee this audience. This is grave neglect on the part of the state, for by this action, you constituted a mistrial and also added greatly to the documentation of our case. Seeing by law that again, the state is out of order—this fine is declared null and void.

Tom Kiss

FILED WITH THE COURTS

By the edition of July 16, 1980 I have publicly brought charge against the court. I will use that editorial to express my position to charges I am bringing before the court since these matters are dealing with major public corruption it would be wise for a jury of citizens to judge these matters. This is in reference to case CRW 5712.

By laying charge on me the court has eliminated confusing the issues. Now you must face me head on.

from the Weekly Pride July 16, 1980

Uniontown Man's Court Battle Continues

To the reader:

As of the publication of the Weekly Pride of July 9, 1980, 1, Tom Kiss informed you of the corrupt practices within the judicial system and our inability to communicate to the mass public. I also said we would watch to see how the court performed relative to these matters.

July 7,1980, Debra Baum, her son, nephew and myself went to the Colopy court. What we experienced was blind justice. Our time again was inconsiderately taken for granted. We had a 2:30 p.m. meeting. Robert Colopy was in his chambers, yet he was still 15 to 20 minutes late.

I let it be known before the court that I would speak if I saw injustice. When the court began, Robert Colopy already had an officer present.

I went forward with Debbie and the court immediately warned me not to actively respond. I observed. Immediately the prosecution called the dog warden as its first witness. I could see the court playing to the tape recorder. They were trying to show how a dog was permitted to run loose. We have never denied Pup's freedom. What we have tried to establish is why he was permitted to be free. I could see the court was not ready to reason so I started to speak. Robert Colopy ordered the officer he had present to remove me from the proceedings. The officer came to my chair and took hold of my arm and started to try to pull me from my chair (he was not violent in his action). I told Robert Colopy I didn't have to leave the courtroom because we have an open court in America. He then said he would have me arrested for resisting arrest. I told him first he would have to arrest me. He finally resorted to charge me with contempt of court even though my actions were taken because of the contemptuous nature of the court. (After I was taken from the courtroom they would not respect anything Debbie presented. She let them know on tape that she was not receiving a fair trial.)

I left the courtroom with no resistance. I will detail the events which transpired from arrest to release in the next edition to further explain why change is necessary within our present judicial system.

In any event, I was never formally informed of my lights or formally charged. I was booked at the correctional facility but again was not formally charged. After spending the night incarcerated, I finally received charge, some twenty hours later.

The name on the accusation was not that of my original accuser but rather Joe Donofrio, the judge's bailiff.

From the holding cell at the safety building we were taken before Bill Spicer' (I had previously layed charge against him). Of about thirty-some cases, mine was left til last. I am aware that the court did not want me publicly acknowledged. Bill Spicer was quick to reset a court for July 10, 1980 before, of all persons, Robert Colopy.

I was released on a $2,000 signature bond.

That afternoon I called John Davidson, editor of the Weekly Pride to find when publication would be circulated. He said they were ready. I went and got a copy. I delivered one to local daily news, which had betrayed us. I delivered one to the clerk of courts office.

July 10, 1980, I went to the Colopy office to let it be known that he was one of my accusers and for this reason was prejudiced by this position. I also let it be known I expected to see him as my first accuser in court. (This was said to his bailiff, Joe).

My case was then transferred to Robert Hartnett. I went to protest such a move. (By now I was gaining more cooperation since it appeared several had read copy of the Weekly Pride) - the pen is mightier than power and money. Robert Hartnett was harsh in his attitude towards me when I told him he could not handle my case since I had impeachment charges pending before the appeals board against him. He told me not to try to tell him how to run his courtroom. I was only informing him how to correctly operate within the law

In any event, retired judge Powers was called in. When he finally arrived we had a more personal talk. I explained my position and he tried to pacify me but I told him I could not do anything other than pursuing the course I was on for the betterment of everyone concerned. I told him I hoped he would study completely my position so he was aware of what is transpiring.

He scheduled a court for July 21, 1980 at 9 a.m. on the ninth floor, room 843 of the City County Safety Building, 217 S. High St., Akron, Ohio. The charge in this matter against me is contempt of court. The charges I am filing in this matter in relationship to the courts position are: (1) Obstruction of justice, (2) False arrest, (3) Conspiracy (4) Perjury, and (5) Abuse of the public trust.

I invite anyone concerned about fair play and justice to come and view justice in the making.

Tom Kiss

Uniontown

Fight Continues

August 6, 1980 The Weekly Pride

Courtroom Chronicles Continue

I, Tom Kiss, have been writing to the Weekly Pride in hopes to rouse a spirit embodied in the soul of every being.

The free bird cannot be managed by unreasonable force. The free bird can only be handled through self-control. The free bird must be permitted to be free. I am a free bird.

I have explained weekly my experience with social injustice. For I realize what affects me, affects you and what affects you, affects me. We live in a constant social interaction; a world of cause and effect. Because of the nature of this world certain rules exist in order for us to live in balance. These are the laws of consideration (the laws of God). When we look into the telescope there is divine order. When we look into the microscope the same is true. The large and the small, we live in the middle of these two concepts yet at this point in time, we do not have order. We are the creators of our world and if that world is in disarray it is our fault. (What we project is what we experience.)  These laws of consideration are our social contract, for we have developed a social structure compatible with the laws of God.

As of the July 16,1980 edition of the Weekly Pride, I continued my explanation of our bout with injustice. I invited anyone concerned about fair play and justice to come view justice in the making. I am ashamed to confess that the greatest reason we are prisoners of social injustice is because everyone has lost their spirit of freedom except for a very few. It seems everyone has resigned themselves to be slaves. They say, “you can’t fight injustice.” Sure we can. I can give you a place to dig in, a point to draw the line, but without your backing the corrupt practicers of law do not believe they will face the consequences of their corrupt practices.

It is rumored through people acquainted with the personnel at the courts that they claim Debra Baum and myself foolish in our attempt to stand up against their illegal actions. Since we are only typical citizens, they therefore consider you idiots and fools if you want the law to be practiced.

I assume also that I have more faith in you than you do in yourselves. I am disappointed that no one showed July 21,1980, but Debra and myself have not lost faith that you will rebound.

What occurred the 21st day of July 1980 to prompt this writing? At about 8:30 a.m., Debra Baum and myself arrived at the Summit County Safety Building. We went to the ninth floor to room 943 where I was assigned to attend a court in front of retired Judge Powers.

A sign on the room said to inquire at the Court Administrator office, which I did. I was told our court was set for room 943. A few minutes later Judge Powers came in. I informed him of what I had found out. He said he would see us in the court.

By now it was 8:50 a.m. so I went to face my accusers (Robert Colopy and Joe Donofrio according to court record). At approximately 10 minutes to 10, I went to ask why the court was not starting.

I talked to Judge Powers and suddenly he was professing he was not assigned my case. (At our last meeting, he was the one who set the date and time.) He started suggesting as he did at our last meeting, that I get a court appointed attorney. I said, ‘Why does it matter if I have an attorney when I’m now pointing out the law and the court refuses to reason?

He then goes into a discourse on how I might consider going after a law degree. I have a degree of good sense about the law already, yet to a corrupt court it makes little difference. I mentioned to him that he signed an oath to serve the oppressed, yet he was allowing this injustice to transpire.

The next moment, Joe Donofrio entered the room and said, “Your courtroom has been changed to across the hall.” I asked “Who with” and he said, “Judge Colopy.” I said, “Joe, there’s no way he can be my judge because he’s my accuser,” which was supposed to be settled July 10, 1980. Joe just said, “Just come with me.” (An order.) I said, “Joe, do you have any paperwork to document this change?” and he said no. I said, “Joe, you have to give me documentation of this change if you want me to come into Colopy’s courtroom.” Joe said, “I’m not going to argue, just come with me.” I said, “Joe’ you’re a jerk,” and he said, “You can say that in court.”

I earlier also mentioned a change of venue (change of location of trial from a prejudice environment to a fair impartial environment.) I asked Judge Powers about this at our first meeting and then he ignored this request 

At this point I ventured to see what they were planning for me across the hall. I went to the bailiff’s office to inquire where Robert Colopy was even though I am quite sure he was in his chambers. Everyone in the office played dumb.

I walked around to the courtroom and publicly stated there was no way I would take part in this court. There in the rear of the room was the officer who last arrested me. I knew at this point a trap was set, I turned, left the room and walked out of the building.

Now the court will try to declare I skipped bond. This charge is incorrect. My signature was set for a charge of contempt of court. I attended my assigned courtroom. According to procedure. I have won my case. The judge assigned to the case sat in the interoffice and did not show face in our court. I cannot be tried again.

They only wish to practice deceit. They have not yet faced their charges in front of us. I welcome them a chance to answer in a public court.

Of course I rea1ize the rule of idiocy presently plaguing our courtroom. I face two possibilities. One is I will be illegally arrested or two, I will be in exile from my own home in our own country. I am writing our friend, Jimmy Carter, asking him to call in the Justice Department for a full investigation. I have experienced lack of cooperation from this agency in the past. They must realize our national image is at stake.

I leave the reader with a few final thoughts. I have dedicated my life to building a new world order. I have been living as a pauper, my bills continue to pile up but if I lose all material possession, it is of little consequence since social justice is far more important than any personal needs. My position is just and not foolish, as the court members conspire to say. I need your support for this matter to gain credibility. Whatever happens to me is now in your hands.

(I had hoped this letter was in the last edition. Limited space held it up. I still remain at large. Monday, August 11 we will face the appeals judges [Akron Municipal Court House, second floor, appeals court]. If you desire justice, appear so they understand we demand justice.)

Tom Kiss  
Uniontown

Joe’s parents live down the street from my parent’s home. His brother is county treasurer. I was associated with his cousin who told me tales of partying with Joe. He is just mortal.

Denny partied with people I knew. He is just mortal.

Tom Powers, a retired judge, was called out to deal with our case. Retired judges are used in sticky matters because they retain their judgeship until death. Other judges are elected and can be dethroned.

I knew an old gambler who played Poker with Tom Powers. He told me that Tom was one of the tougher judges, but since he gambled with Tom, Tom cut him slack. This is only rumor and here-say, but it would be typical of the way power is abused.

When I went to talk to Tom, I would first deal with the court administrator who tried to intimidate me but as I told him, he was not a judge so Tom Powers decided to talk with me personally. The administrator asked if he wanted his frock (robe symbolizing authority) but Tom said that was not necessary.

As we shook hands, I felt a quake come from him. Not the shake from age (Tom was in his eighties and has since passed away) but a man who feared his opponent.

Years later jailers would tell me that judges feared me. I have no army, no wealth and no constituency. It’s all about the truth.

Letter to Jimmy Carter

Jimmy,

Lately things have been culminating to a final point. These editorials from a weekly paper have given me a public forum.  The posture of the court has changed with their writing.

However, their resistance is still evident.  Since these matters effect our national image so directly, I feel the Justice Department should be notified.  Their last response was not adequate but possibly this time they will reconsider.

Tom Kiss
July 23, 1980

Order to appear before judge Tom Powers
click on thumbnail for a larger picture.

I know by the rescheduling of my court date that they were ready to fold to my resistance, so I went to the August 19^th court not knowing what to expect but faith gambling that my cards were in the right order.  By now I had been humiliated and frustrated.  I never knew what I was going to do facing the dark shadows of uncertainty.  As the court began I could tell no matter what was said, it wouldn’t affect the outcome.  I just sat and smiled and let them carry on with their silliness.

Poor old Tom Powers sat there and talked for me in my behalf. He handed down the following verdict.

I believe it was one of the rare experiences of his life.

IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF AKRON          CASE NO. 80 CRW 5712

SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO                                    JUDGE POWERS

CITY OF AKRON

Plaintiff

v.

EDWARD THOMAS KISS

Defendant                        JOURNAL ENTRY

Weighing and considering all the evidence the Court finds that clearly and beyond reasonable doubt the defendant ignored repeated warnings to keep quiet, willfully disobeyed and defied the Court, caused interruption and obstruction of orderly court proceedings, thereby committing a contempt of Court.

This is not a major offense, a petty offense which the Court tried to help the defendant to avoid until on final entreaty the defendant defiantly told the Court he would not desist.

As punishment for said contempt the Court ORDERS and ADJUDGES that the defendant pay a fine of $10, which the Court hereby suspends, considering that the defendant did spend overnight in jail. 

The defendant is discharged.

Thomas M. Powers
Judge

Again I answered to appeals judge threatening to end this appeal over a technicality 

To the appeal judges:                            August 9, 1980 

First, I would like to express our disappointment in the idiotic actions of this level of the judiciary in reference to appeal 9688.  The oath hanging in the courthouse has you all sworn to reject offensive positions and to act defensively in the interest of the oppressed and defenseless.  I serve these (the confrontation unravels from a case against a dog who is incapable of verbal communication).

May 27, 1980, I, Tom Kiss, received notice that documentation in brief of our position and praecipetic demands calling for justice was acknowledged by the court.  The court accepted this documentation and called us to court.  They accepted this communication.

June 24, 1980, I tried to counsel the judges to our defense.  This time you tried to reject my ability to communicate the facts.

June 25, 1980, upon the court’s own motion, after notice to the appellant (us) to show cause why the within appeal should not be dismissed, you reconsidered our position and felt you could handle the action, so you allowed the appeal to go forward.

At this point, let me remind the court had accepted our brief statement of our position.  Saundra Robinson, City Prosecutor has never responded with a reasoned reply to our argument.

July 18, 1980, a letter was sent to Debra Baum in reference to appeal 9688, I had originally filed.  Our brief was our appeal.  Our appeal was in brief form immediately upon filing.  Accordingly to rule 18, appellee (city of Akron) has twenty days to reply to our appeal.  The appellee has never responded within the time allowed by the appeals rules.  I believe justice has no time limits so I will be willing to face any arguments presented by the appellee.  Our position is just so anyone willing to take the appellee’s position is in a difficult position to defend.

Again, I remind you not to fool yourselves.  I do not just dwell in a particular courthouse or a limited environment.  My courthouse is the world at large.  Justice is my life quest.  You are disunified and disoriented.  The more you resist our position, the greater the evidence you present to this case.

 
Consider your next move.

Tom Kiss

I have accepted and do accept for my counsel in these matters, Tom Kiss.

(The original was signed by Debbi Baum) 

SUMMIT COUNTY                  NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

CITY OF AKRON                  C.A. NO. 9688

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DEBRA BAUM)                    JOURNAL ENTRY

Defendant-Appellant

This cause was heard August 11, 1980, upon the court’s own motion to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed. 

It is ordered that said motion is overruled. This cause may go forward, to be submitted upon the briefs.

Presiding Judge

cc: Saundra Robinson, City Prosecutor, City-County Safety Bldg.,

Akron, OH    44308 for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Debra Baum, Pro Se, 1982 Oakes Dr., Akron, OH 44312 for Self, Defendant-Appellant.

August 27, 1980 the Weekly Pride

In Pursuit Of Life, Liberty And Happiness

It has been argued that my cause is not your cause. Mine is humanity. What is yours?

It has also been said that what I write is of considerable length, What I write is a very condensed version of the persecution we have endured. In a historic context, it is relatively minor to the thousands of years of pain, misery and suffering which has plagued this planet because of injustice. I realize people fear for their own safety if they become actively involved.

At this point, the abusers of the public trust scurry around the halls trying to figure how to deal with me. They fear me because they, too, realize what I present is true. They fear our will. They know the real authority rests with us. That is why they wish to contain me.

August 11, 1980, Debra Baum and myself again tried to reasonably deal with the judicial system. This time we faced William H. Victor, Edward J. Mahoney and Sam H. Bell. The last game they played was trying to declare they never had copy of our brief of our appeal. I filed this May 9, 1980. Of course when I filed, I immediately mailed a copy to Jimmy Carter. Debbi tried to present a paper I prepared stating our position as soon as this appeals proceedings began. They refused acceptance of it. There was a break in the proceedings so I decided to go downstairs and file this paper. When I walked out of the courtroom. I was greeted by an old acquaintance (we worked constructions together but since he had become a police officer). He was sent to arrest me for they told him I was creating a disturbance. Yes, I disturb these corrupt practitioners of law because I point out their inequities.

We were making no progress a this meeting so I went back to the courtroom, got Debbi, we went to file, the papers and left.

Tuesday, August 19. 1980 we were again scheduled for court with Thomas M. Powers. I will immediately ask for a change of venue. He previously did not serve justice. I cannot trust him.

My arguments of why I was not contemptuous in reference to the Colopy charge will deal with why I spoke out (Robert Colopy earlier gave Debbi a $100 fine and two years probation. It is an interesting comparison when you consider Anthony J. Cardarelli received a year’s probation and no fine). Ex-sheriff caught in a gun scandal.

My arguments will go beyond this particular happening. I have been dealing with trying to establish my basic civil rights over the past few years. This will help establish my character and why I have come to distrust and speak out in open court. While dealing on these matters, I had previously set up a communication with the White House under the supervision of Jimmy Carter when he first became president. At each step of my efforts he has cooperated in documenting my endeavors as historic fact. Here we have the most powerful leader in the world working harmoniously with a common citizen. The top and bottom working together to establish a peaceful world.

The preamble to the cases mentioned reads as follows: The test of the democratic system is at hand. My individual rights have been offended. I am nobody, a commoner, economically a poor man. The parties offending did not know me from Adam. They impersonally crucified my actions, therefore I must come to my own defense. Fairness and justice and equality are only words unless we give them meaning through practice. Practice brings on the advent of justice. This case is not only a defense of my civil rights but a defense of all people’s rights everywhere. With due respect to the conscience of the world this case is presented.

Jimmy Carter and myself have established this historic circumstance. At this reading, I imagine I will be incarcerated. This is the only means the court has to try to silence me. They are foolish. I will not give into their intimidation. I will haunt their courtrooms or whatever it takes until you, the people, rally to aid me.

I look around me and see such pain, misery and unfairness. .1 am not happy with this situation. I love all of you in spite of yourselves. I am not an enemy to those in the courts for I realize the oppressor pays a greater burden than the oppressed for they must close off their feelings from their actions while at least the oppressed feels. One above the law, one below the law will never allow equality to prevail.

Tom Kiss

ARGUMENT

AS TO THE SOLE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR, APPELLEE CONTENDS THAT

AKRON CITY CODE SECTION 618.01 IS A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF

THE AKRON CITY COUNCIL’S POLICE POWER TO PROTECT THE

PUBLIC AT LARGE AND IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A RESTRICTION

UPON DOGS RUNNING AT LARGE.

Section 3, Article XVIII, of the Ohio Constitution grants authority to municipalities to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police regulations as are not in conflict with general laws. A municipal ordinance passed under such authority, to be valid, must not be arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious or unreasonable, and must bear a real and substantial relation to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the public, City of Cincinnati v. Correll, 141 Ohio St. 535 (1943). There can be no question as to the validity of the use of a municipality’s police power to regulate the keeping of animals within the city. Such ordinances bear a real relationship to the general welfare of the public, City of Columbus v. Becher, 115 Ohio App 239, 184 N.E. 2d 583 (1961). It is settled that the enactment by the state of legislation prohibiting animals from running at large and for the taking up and impounding of animals when found running at large is unquestionably a legitimate exercise of the police power, designed to protect the public at large, Gill v. Wilder, 95 Fla. 901, 116 So. 870 (1928). A municipality has the right, in the interest of the safety and health of its citizens to provide that no dog shall be permitted to run at large. Kovar v. Cleveland, 60 Ohio L Abs. 579, 102 NE 2d 472 (1951). Allowing dogs to run at large would promote the tendency of dogs to revert to their savage state, spread disease, and become a public menace.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO

In reference to Case No. 9688            ON APPEAL FROM 

reply by Appellee                        AKRON MUNICIPAL COURT

STATE OF OHIO

Plaintiff – Appellee                     CASE NO. 80 CRB 2184

Vs. 

DEBRA BAUM

Defendant – Appellant

Represented by Tom Kiss

It is settled through our experience that these ordinances of the state in relationship to dogs running at large are an unreasoned misuse of force by the state.  How is it, it has taken this many months, from March to September, for the court to try to reason this matter which I am again pointing out, they are not?  We have never contended dogs go unmanaged just because they retain their individual mobility, no more than anyone of us has a right to do whatever we please as you all will soon find out.  This is why we are still contending that you as representatives of authority have much to answer for.  You wish to try to present what you wish to see.  What about the abuse by the state, not allowing due process of law?  What about the conspiracy which has unfolded in an effort to conceal our efforts?  What about the false arrest, the fines, inconvenience, intimidation, incarceration and general abuse of the public trust?

If we do not have justice within the system devised to broker justice, we cannot have justice throughout our society.  This is not in the general welfare.  This is not promoting the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

In reference to the paper presented by Nancy Kelley (Appellees):

Section 3 Article XVIII, of the Ohio Constitution grants authority within general laws.  Such authority to be valid 1) must not be arbitrary – from the start of our case we have argued the law at present states that dogs cannot be at large because they have become a public nuisance.  Because these ordinances states or dictates they are, does not give reason to how or why.  In other words, the law is arbitrary, decisive but unreasoned, expressed through caprice (whims or fancy), autocratic, desperate.  2) Must not be discriminatory—from the beginning we have contended that each dog is an individual and are a reflection of their environment stimuli, yet this law treats all dogs as if they are savage and unmanageable, which is not true.  3) As long as we promote dictatorial accusations to rule our courts, our laws are a shame and a threat to our social health, safety, morals and general welfare of the public.  How is our general welfare promoted when we allow ourselves to be oppressors of beings?  To leash makes us an oppressor, for I know, I have lead a leashed animal and I know oppression because of the states persistent, corrupt manner which has oppressed me from free communication in trying to defend justice.  There can be question as to the validity of the state's power in relationship to the keeping of animals for I have raised many questions the state refuses to answer.

Our conclusion is this court has not been honorable and we have facts to prove it.

Nancy Kelley is not respectful, for she persists in covering a just solution.  Her reply was not in twenty days.  The plaintiff’s arguments have been arbitrary, superficial, as we have contended right along.

The court has denied, allowed, denied and finally obstructed this appeal.  The appeals judges said they cannot impeach judges.  Previously a surrogate of the chief justice contended the same notion yet the constitution established a safeguard against corrupt practice as stated.  The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior.

Amendment X:  powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

If you persist to be negligent and your superiors likewise, then it is the people who will have to correct these wrongs.

My praecipetic demand in these matters is the law rules and you are all impeachable as the law demands.

Time will tell if the law prevails.  My appeal this time is you relinquish authority or have it taken by law.

Weekly, your trial has been occurring.  I am briefly going to capsulize my appeal.  The attached newspaper articles have been a chronicle of events and the charges are accurate.

This brief is in reference to Case 80 CRW 5712

Appellant                                                           Appellee (Akron Municipal Court)

Tom Kiss vs. Injustice in the Courts

Amendment VI states:  In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.

It has been seven months and several court appearances since I originally tried to defend the oppressed and defenseless in reference to Pup Baum.  It has been several years since I have tried to establish my identity; my right to use my mind; share that mind with others—my democratic natural right.

Amendment VII also says:  by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.  Impartial you are not.

You will try to say that my accused crime was not a major offense. A crime whether major or minor is something forbidden or required by law. Since it is required, we the people establish justice and I viewed injustice in action, it was my civil responsibility to speak out for the sake of justice.  Also, I presented many major charges publicly which it is your responsibility to answer to, in a public hearing.

In my so called trial of August 19, 1980, I immediately told Thomas Powers I did not trust him because of his past betrayal to just action (in reference to the article in the Weekly Pride).  I requested a change of venue.  This is all on court transcript from August 19, 1980 if you want to check the records.  That trial consisted of conspirators of the corrupt Akron Municipal Courthouse.  There was no way I could receive an impartial trial from these abusers of the public trust.  The only reason I proceeded was to further document the facts I have stated all along.

Amendment VI also provides that my witnesses against me be present in the court.  According to the testimony of the prosecution’s star testifier, Joe Donofrio, Robert Colopy was my accuser in the court transcript presented as the main evidence in this matter.  Robert Colopy never showed.

Amendment VII guarantees in suit at common law (which in this matter I have been acting as a common citizen) where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of a trial by jury shall be preserved. Since the charges I have brought deal with the priceless jewel of justice, I was also permitted by law, a jury, which I requested on several occasions.

Amendment VIII states excessive bail shall not be required.  Bill Spicer released me on a two thousand-dollar signature bond.  I was defending justice; this is without doubt excessive bail.  Debra Baum, for the same charge, received $1,500.

Amendment XIV guarantees due process and equal protection of law.  You people have played the law, seeing only partial truths and refusing to see the total picture.

Amendment I allows for my freedom to speak and petition for correction of grievances.  The preamble says I am to establish justice.

The attached papers show I can communicate as I have warned from the beginning, beyond your little domain.

Time is on my side.  The time is right for this maneuver to succeed.

In brief, I realize you will reject admitting your errors, but that does not mean you will not face the consequences of your actions.

I am appealing to finalize the steps necessary to document your total corruption.  Of course, my praecipedic demands are, you relinquish your authority.

Whichever way you decide to go, remember, your game is near its end.

Tom Kiss

STATE OF OH                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

SUMMIT COUNTY                NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

CITY OF AKRON                C.A. NO. 9688

Plaintiff-Appellee           APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
                                     ENTERED IN THE
v.                                   AKRON MUNICIPAL COURT
                                     SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO
DEBRA BAUM
Defendant-Appellant          CASE NO. 80 CRB 2184

Dated: September 17, 1980

This cause was heard September 9, 1980, upon the record in the trial court, and the briefs. Oral argument was waived by counsel for the parties and the matter was submitted to the court. We have reviewed each assignment of error and make the following disposition:

PER CURIAM

Because Akron City Code §618.01 is a legitimate exercise of the municipality’s police power to protect the public, and because it is not unconstitutional as a restriction upon dogs running at large, we overrule appellant’s assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

We order that a special mandate, directing the Akron Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution, shall issue out of this court. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App. R. 27. 

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App. R. 22(E).

Costs taxed to appellant.

Exceptions.

Presiding Judge
for the Court - BELL

BELL, P. J.
VICTOR, J.
MAHONEY, J.
CONCUR 

APPEARANCES: 

SAUNDRA ROBINSON, City Prosecutor, 715 City Safety Bldg.,

217 S. High St., Akron, OH 44308 for Plaintiff-Appellee.

DEBRA BAUM, Pro Se, 1982 Oakes Drive, Akron, OH 44312 for

Self. Defendant-Appellant.

SUMMIT COUNTY              NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

TOM KISS

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.                         C.A. NO. 9847

AKRON MUNICIPAL COURT

Defendant—Appellee         JOURNAL ENTRY

This cause was heard October 29, 1980, upon the court’s own motion, after notice to appellant to show cause why the within appeal should not be dismissed.

Upon consideration thereof, it is ordered that the court’s motion to dismiss is overruled.

It is further ordered that appellant has 10 days from the date of this journal entry to file a brief and appellee has 10 days to file its brief after service of appellant’s brief.  

Oral argument is set for 11:00 a.m., December 10, 1980. 

Presiding Judge

Judge
Judge 

Cc:Tom Kiss pro se 3662 Edison St NW Box 641 Uniontown OH 44685 for Self, Plaintiff.

Saundra Robinson, City Prosecutor, City-County Safety B1dg.,
Akron, OH 44308 for Defendant.

STATE OF OHIO                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

SUMMIT COUNTY                NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

TOM KISS                     CA. NO. 9847

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

AKRON MUNICIPAL COURT

Defendant-Appellee           JOURNAL ENTRY

This cause came on to be heard on October 29, 1980,

for appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file a praecipe per Local Rule 3.

On October 30, 1980, the court overruled its motion to dismiss, and granted appellant 10 days therefrom in which to file his brief.

This cause is dismissed sua sponte for appellant’s failure to comply with this Court’s journal entry dated October 30, 1980.

cc: Tom Kiss, Pro Se, 3662 Edison N.W. Box 641 Uniontown,OH 44685
Saundra Robinson, City Pros. Atty., City-County
Safety Bldg., Akron, OH

Amy Carter and Grits

back of postcard

Tom and Pup

It would take until February of the next year until the justice department would respond. They again refused authority in this matter.

Jimmy Carter would leave office but my mission would continue.

Next:  CHALLENGE 4 “Public Challenge”