Plaintiff Robert V. Durrsein

AMC Branch

PO Box 33633

Dayton, OH 45433-0629

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Southern District of Ohio

Forenote: Again with the Court’s full knowledge and indulgence, fully 14 days were required for the United States Postal Service to deliver the undated and unstamped Motions to the Plaintiff. The Court’s claim of powerlessness would leave the world to believe that the Courts are only a façade with no power in this country. The Court would have Plaintiff believe that no act of legislature or executive branch has ever been addressed or affected by the "powerless" Courts. Strangely, Plaintiff has seen many – now apparently false – reports in textbooks and the media reporting otherwise.

Plaintiff requests the Court to reject the referenced Motion to Dismiss for the following reasons:

1. Beavercreek Police Department were visited on or about March 2, 2000, by Defendants Jeff Seymour and Marilyn Seymour who of their own initiative provided information they knew to be false to the Beavercreek Police Department resulting in the Beavercreek Police Department calling Plaintiff. During the call by the Beavercreek Police Department officer, Plaintiff advised the officer that at least one of the statements relayed to the Officer was a lie. Plaintiff further requested the Officer to immediately document ALL statements made by Jeff Seymour and Marilyn Seymour. A copy of the related Police Report is attachement 1. The Beavercreek Police Department failed to document in the attached report any of the other statements made by the Seymours. Thus the Beavercreek Police Department was negligent in knowingly permitting falsely reported information to be used against the Plaintiff.
2. Attachment 2 is a copy of the letter delivered by Plaintiff reporting in writing and containing information of criminal activities by Defendants Jeff Seymour and Marilyn Seymour. The Beavercreek Police Department failed to act upon this report.
3. Upon the failure of the Beavercreek Police Department to act upon the written information of criminal activities in their jurisdiction, Plaintiff generated attachment 3 (with attachment) which clearly indicated Jeff Seymour’s complicity in attempting to trick and/or entice Plaintiff into violating a restraining order obtained by Defendant Cynthia Chaney Durrstein by means of obvious perjury.
4. Plaintiff subsequently received on his Ameritech Voice Mail a message from Beavercreek Police Department Chief Scott (attachment 4 with date of subsequent save to voice mail archives)wondering what Plaintiff wanted the Beavercreek Police Department to do. The message also indicates that Chief Scott may have discussed this with attorneys and or the Prosecutor. The message also indicates that Chief Scott has no understanding of the law or courts as he states the prosecutors or attorneys decide guilt. Plaintiff has thought this determination was reserved for the judges and/or juries.
5. The concept of equal justice would have the Beavercreek Police Department harass Jeff Seymour and Marilyn Seymour based on false accusation from Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff only sought the Beavercreek Police Department to investigate thoroughly and professionally the illegal activities of Jeff Seymour and Marilyn Seymour. These activities had been occurring for years within the jurisdiction of the Beavercreek Police Department.
6. In acting upon lies – in itself probable criminal acts – the Beavercreek Police Department has refused to perform its legal and professional responsibility and violated the rights of the Plaintiff and Jeff Seymour and Marilyn Seymour to Justice and due process. These concepts not only indicate that the Plaintiff would receive action on the information of criminal activities and that the Seymours would receive just investigation and prosecution for their criminal actions.
7. One can well imagine the local banks receiving a voice mail from Chief Scott asking what they wanted him to do since the Beavercreek Police Department had just received a second alarm from their bank.
8. Plaintiff contends that the rights to equal treatment and due process are violated by the actions or lack thereof by the Beavercreek Police Department and by management oversight by the City of Beavercreek. Perhaps the Beavercreek Police Department and City of Beavercreek are so busy with false complaints of harassment and conversations with attorney and prosecutors that they have no time or resources left to investigate valid complaints of felony activities and spousal abuse.
9. Certainly the Beavercreek Police Department under the direction and control of the City of Beavercreek has demonstrated far greater power and authority than this court. While this Court has just stated its lack of authority to affect other branches of government, the Beavercreek Police Department under the management of the City of Beavercreek has DEMONSTRATED THE POWER to nullify acts of the Ohio legislature and executive branches by invalidating and nullifying laws relating to drug abuse and spouse abuse as well as the fraud in obtaining drugs. Either the Beavercreek Police Department is truly more powerful than the court or the Beavercreek Police Department and the City of Beavercreek have clearly violate the United States Constitution’s separation of powers.
10. The burden of evidence should rightfully be placed upon the investigative agency of the Beavercreek Police Department by means of a Court Order for the Beavercreek Police Department to vigorously and fully investigate the criminal activities of Jeff Seymour and Marilyn Seymour. Of course, the attorney for the Beavercreek Police Department and the City of Beavercreek would have the court and the world believe that, at least in Beavercreek, the abuse of drugs, spouses, truth, and process are indeed proper, while those who honestly and with care try to help others be freed from abuse of drugs, spouses, and truth are worthy victims of harassment, slander, libel, and have no rights under the United States Constitution. In and of itself, this might be just one more demonstration of how sad a state the ethics and conduct of the BAR of Ohio have become under the authority and guidance of the Supreme Court of Ohio. But this too should find favor with the members of the brotherhood of the Bar that also control this Court where the previously cited case will clearly demonstrate to a jury and the public (should this Court ever let this case get that far) that cronyism in Bar is far more powerful in this court and the State of Ohio than the laws and Constitutions of either the State or the United States. Certainly this Court can continue to use processes and formats and all other forms of procedures to deny the Plaintiff’s cause. This would be, at this point, far easier for the court to do that actually accept responsibility for finding a means of actually protecting the United States Constitution and delivering justice instead of process. How sad that the Court has come so far down the path of deliberate denial of justice in order to preserve the façade of justice – a façade of processes, procedures, and regulations that protect the professional cronies of the court and allow the court to hide from true justice and responsibility. Knowing the truth, this court would use processes and procedures to hide the truth and foil justice.
11. Defendants would have this court believe that the United States Constitution has no place in Beavercreek (although the Defendants have demonstrated by action that they do not honor said constitution in their areas of authority. Plaintiff disagrees and feels that the court should find the gross violation of the concepts and requirements of the United States Constitution should be applied to Beavercreek.
12. Defendants claim in their third affirmative defense that the statute of limitations for decades of continuous behavior expires immediately upon the last reported incident demonstrating said illegal behavior.
13. Defendants would claim that honesty, care, and frinedship are negligence in the courts eyes. Certainly they are a liability in Beavercreek and now punishable offenses in the City of Beavercreek.
14. Defendant would like the point the finger elsewhere to avoid responsibility for their willing complicity in unconstitutional and illegal actions which have harmed the Plaintiff.
15. Defendants response that service sufficient has not been accomplished is defeated by the very motion containing said claim. They very ability to make such a statement as this demonstrates the concept of procedures and processes as tools to hide from responsibility and to deny justice. Had the attorney for Plaintiffs true moral fiber, he would seek to make amends for his clients’ harm to Plaintiff and to have his clients enforce the law instead of run from it. Defendants’ attorney has acknowledged that his clients have no control over law enforcement in Beavercreek and that they must therefore be exempt from liability. Perhaps the Defendants will identify the true source of control of law enforcement in Beavercreek. Certainly Defendants actions indicate that Jeff Seymour and Marilyn Seymour have the power to direct the actions of the City of Beavercreek and the Beavercreek Police Department. Would Defendants’ attorney therefore have the Plaintiff sent all future correspondence to the City of Beavercreek and the Beavercreek Police Department to their address?
16. Certainly the Seventh Affirmative Defense is in accordance with the courts statements that the court is powerless over other agencies even in the same building and having responsibility to the court. Plaintiff would contend that the City of Beavercreek and the Beavercreek Police Department are within the United States and subject to the United States Constitution and the laws of the state of Ohio.
17. Defendants claim of immunity would only be even conceptually debatable were the Defendants guilty and otherwise culpable. Is this then a de facto admission of guilt and responsibility. Such immunity would establish Beavercreek as an independent nation with no responsibility to honor the United States Constitution within its boundaries. While the City of Beavercreek and the Beavercreek Police Department may act in such a manner, Plaintiff contends that the United States Constitution and appropriate laws of the country and state do apply in Beavercreek and Greene County.
18. Defendants would try to hide from the just, moral, and legal consequences of their negligence and complicity in criminal acts. Is not the attempt to hide from responsibility in the Ninth Affirmative Defense not a de facto claim of guilt? For if they were not guilty, they would not need to claim exemption from the consequences of such guilt.
19. What risk naturally or legally falls to Plaintiff for being honest and caring, for trying to help his friends to face and conquer drugs and spouse abuse without resorting to the legal process, for honestly reporting criminal actions to the Beavercreek Police Department and thus the City of Beavercreek. In the finest tradition of punish the innocent, the Defendants attorney would have the world believe that reporting crimes in Beavercreek constitutes the assumption of obvious and known risk. Certainly a Freudian slip of perhaps an immoral and illegal reality in Beavercreek and Green County.
20. Defendants Eleventh Affirmative Defense is certainly an interesting and abortive twist of the meanings of our founding fathers. These citations would distort the very meaning of our nation and also would not even apply in any such twisted logic unless these Defendants were truly guilty and trying to escape the liability they really have. Strange how they can deprive Plaintiff of his resources by forcing tremendous legal costs upon Plaintiff, yet seek to protect their material assets from being subject to their immoral and illegal (if by no other reason than complicity) actions. Defendants’ attorney’s citatio Plaintiff, yet seek to protect their material assets from being subject to their immoral and illegal (if by no other reason than complicity) actions. Defendants’ attorney’s citation of laws is somewhat amusing in view of his clients’ refusals to enforce the laws they have endorsed.
21. The Twelfth Affirmative Defense would deny culpability just like the driver of the getaway car in a bank robbery would deny responsibility for the persons shot and killed in the robbery. A polite term for this defense is "hogwash."
22. Thirteenth – see the immediately preceding paragraph. Interesting concept of a "good faith" getaway car driver."
23. Fourteenth - Defendants’ attorney appears to be trying to plea bargain. Perhaps he would have the above getaway car driver only held liable for excessive speed?
24. The Fifteenth is a fascinating example of attempting to hide behind and from the very laws Defendants and their attorney are sworn to uphold. Is hypocrisy a valid legal position in this Court? Refusing to enforce the laws violates the Plaintiff’s rights to due process and equal protection. The claim to immunity from the law is yet another attempt to avoid culpability for their guilt. Such a claim would not be necessary were they innocent.
25. Perhaps a valid claim in a twisted sense. Defendants would have the court believe that honesty and innocence brought risk upon anyone in Beavercreek. While perhaps a valid statement, this still does not justify the complicity of these Defendants in supporting criminal actions in Beavercreek and in publicly registering any of said actions in a manner that is to the detriment of Plaintiff.
26. Again, Defendants’ argument of lack of service is self-defeating as Defendants have fully responded and thus demonstrated that service has indeed been complete and effective.
27. Therefore, Plaintiff requests the Court to reject the referenced Motions to Dismiss.

Robert V. Durrstein, Plaintiff