Respond To:
Christian Appellation
C/o General Delivery Location

NAME OF COURT

State of Ohio ex. rel.
Christian Appellation
Plaintiff/Petitioner,      
vs. 

Respondent’s name
Respondent’s address
  Defendant/Respondent.	 		Cause No. _____________________

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court by Affidavit 	
State of Ohio, County of Mahoning	}	 SS.,	

Comes now the Plaintiff/Petitioner, Christian Appellation, retaining and asserting all inherent rights pre-existing and protected by the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America AD1791, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, affirms (without the venue of the UNITED STATES) that the following is true, correct, and complete, and not misleading. The Petitioner shall at all times be a proper party to this action.

Petitioner has no other plain, speedy or adequate remedies available to him. Appeal is not available, nor was it at the time of the judgments as there was no record absent a verified complaint signed by a person authorized to represent the STATE OF OHIO. Without a record Petitioner could not appeal.

Know all Parties by these presents, the Petitioner brings this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to Mahoning County Common Pleas Court and states that:

I. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS AS USED IN THIS PETITION

1. The following definitions apply to the PETITION contained herein.

2. The word "PETITION" means Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court by the Petitioner.

3. The word '`tribunal" means Mahoning County Common Pleas Court and any of the proceedings held therein as it applies to the Petition styled as Christian Appellation, Petitioner VS. Fred Bailey, Judge Respondent, and Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

4. The words "action" or "proceedings" means the action or proceedings brought in the tribunal by the Petitioners "Petition".

5. The word "Petitioner" means Christian Appellation.

6. The word "Respondent" means Fred Bailey, Judge Respondent's counsel, agents, assigns, successors, employees, principals, members, associates and predecessors in the action.

7. The term "Nature and Cause" means the right to know the parties of interest, venue, jurisdiction, right of action, and cause of action upon which the action is based. 

8. The term "Liberty" means Freedom, exemption from extraneous control, the power of the will to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without retrain, coercion, or control from other parties.  The term "Liberty" includes and comprehends all personal rights and their enjoyment.  The term "Liberty" includes but is not limited to, freedom/right from duress, freedom/right from governmental interference in exercise of intellect, in information of opinions, in the expression of them, and in action or inaction dictated by judgment, the freedom/right from servitude, freedom/right from imprisonment or restraint without lawful Constitutional due process of law, the freedom/right in the use of all of one's powers, faculties and property, freedom of contract, the freedom/right of travel, the freedom/right of religion, the freedom/right of speech, the freedom/right of self defense against unlawful violence, the freedom/right to acquire and enjoy property, the freedom/right to acquire knowledge, the freedom/right to carry on business, the freedom/right to earn a livelihood in any lawful calling, the freedom/right to enjoy to the fullest extent the privileges and immunities given or assured by law to the people living within the union of the United States of America, the freedom/right to demand the nature and cause of any allegation made against a citizen, etc...

9. The term of "Republic of Ohio” means those people dwelling in the organic Ohio Republic (without the legislative jurisdiction of the STATE OF OHIO) who possess unalienable rights from nature's law and Nature's God, which rights are not subject to involuntary liens or diminished by any legal impediment (such as the bankruptcy of the United States declared March, 1933.)

10. The term "prejudice" means Petitioners loss of legal rights privileges and immunities.

11. The term "infamous crime" means . a crime punishable by death in a state or UNITED STATES penitentiary or imprisonment in a state or UNITED STATES correctional facility.

12. The Term "Respondent's action" shall mean Respondent's action STATE COMPLAINT filed in Mahoning County Court #4 under Case No. 94 CR 300.

13. The term  "ORC"  = OHIO REVISED CODE

14. The term "USC" = UNITED STATES CODE

15. The term "USCA" = UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED

16. The term "Pub. L" = Public Law of the United States of America

17. The term "CODE" = A code implies compilation of existing laws, systematic arrangement chapters, sub heads, table of contents, and index, and revision to harmonize conflicts, supply omissions, and generally clarify and make complete body of laws designed to regulate completely subjects to which they relate.

18. The term "CODIFICATION" = process of collecting and arranging the laws of a country or state into a code, i.e. , into a complete system of positive law, scientifically ordered, and promulgated by legislative authority.

19. The term "STATUTE" = An act of the legislature declaring, commanding, or prohibiting something; a particular law enacted and established by the will of the legislative department of government; the written will of the legislature, solemnly expressed according to the forms necessary to constitute it the law of the state.  This word is used to designate the written law in contradistinction to the unwritten law.

20. The term "STATUTES AT LARGE" = Statutes printed in full added in the order of their enactment, in a collected form, as distinguished from any digest, revision, abridgment, or compilation of them.  Thus the volumes of "United States Statutes at Large,"  or the " Ohio Statutes  at Large" contain all the act of the Congress of the United States of America or the Congress of the State of OHIO in their order.

21. The term "SHALL" = command, imperative, mandatory, denoting an obligation to act or not to act.

22. The term "INCLUDE" = To confine within, hold as in an enclosure, take in, attain, shut up, contain, enclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve.

23. The term "FRAUD" = An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right.

24. The term "CITIZEN" = One of the natural born sovereign people, possessing and entitled to the enjoyment of all the rights, privileges and immunities enumerated or un-enumerated in the Constitution of the United States, AD1791, which can be enjoyed by any one of the sovereign people, protected by the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America. 

25. The term "PERSON" = includes, an individual and an entity.

26. The term "ENTITY" = includes, a corporation and foreign corporation, profit and not-for -profit unincorporated associations, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, and two or more persons having a joint or common interest, and the state, United States, and a foreign government.

27. The term "Whoever" = includes all persons, natural and artificial; partners, agents, and employees: and all officials, public or private.

28. The term "STATE OF OHIO" means the corporate state within the legislative jurisdiction of the STATE OF OHIO subject to the legal impediment of the bankruptcy of the United States declared in March. 1933.

29. The term "STATE CITIZEN" = includes, a corporation or any other artificial entity created under the laws of one state and a non resident of every other state.

30. The term "STATE RESIDENT" = includes, any state citizen.

31. The term "Individual" = As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons.

32. The term "NATURAL PERSON" = A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him.  The person is the legal subject or substance of which legal rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call a natural person.  All public officials who are under oath or affirmation to uphold the Constitution and Law of the United States of America are natural persons.

33. The term "AGENCY" = The relation created by express or implied contract or by law, whereby one party delegates the transaction of some lawful business with more or less discretionary power to another, who undertakes to manage the affairs and render an account to the party that delegated the authority.

34. The term "State Agency" = all units of state government established under the constitutional or legislative authority of the state, including any branch, department, or unit of the state government, organization, corporation, partnership or association, however designated or constituted.

35. The term "PUBLIC OFFICER" = An officer of a public corporation; that is, one holding office under government of a municipality, state, or nation. One occupying an office created by law. One who exercise some portion of the sovereign power of the state, either in making, administering or executing the laws. One who acts under a sworn oath or affirmation and or bond.

36. The term "STATE BAR" = is an agency of the STATE OF OHIO.

37. The term "SIGNATURE" = includes any symbol executed or adopted by a party with present intention to authenticating the validity of a writing.

38. Bonafied signature =  In contracts, any symbol executed or adopted by a party attesting that party voluntarily entered into the agreement in good faith, that all terms conditions and obligations were fully disclosed, and that the party fully understood the consciences of the instrument.

39. The term "CONFLICT OF LAW" = When citizens of different states, republics or jurisdictions are parties to suit or other legal proceeding.  A contrary or opposition in laws of states, countries or jurisdictions in cases where the rights of the parties, from their relations to each other or to the subject-matter in dispute, are liable to be affected by the laws of both jurisdictions. The effect of the laws of every state or republic effect and bind directly all property, real or personal, situated within its jurisdictional territory, all persons resident within its own limits of jurisdiction, and are supreme within its own limits by virtue of its sovereignty.  Ambassadors and other public ministers while within the jurisdiction of a foreign power are not subject to the jurisdiction of said laws.

II. STATUS OF PETITIONER
40. The Petitioner is not a UNITED STATES CITIZEN, nor a RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

41. The Petitioner is not a STATE CITIZEN of the STATE OF OHIO, nor a RESIDENT of the STATE OF OHIO.

42. The Petitioner is not a subject of Great Britain. 

III. STATUS OF THE RESPONDENT
43. The Respondent lives in the United States of America, currently residing in a political subdivision of Ohio. 

44. The Respondent is an entity as defined in section 1 of this Petition.
.
IV. TYPE OF ACTION
45. In that the United States nor the Republic/State of Ohio is not being invaded by a foreign power nor has there been a formal declaration of insurrection, the Petitioner asserts the right, protected by the Article 1 § 9 of the Constitution of the United States of America, AD1791 and Articles in Amendment 1 § 13 of the Constitution of the Republic/State of Ohio, and petitions/applies to the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court for a writ of habeas corpus to be issued to inquire into the Nature and Cause of the Respondent's restraint of the Petition's liberties.

46. This action is an original action as per article 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America, AD1791.

V. PURPOSE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

47. The purpose for a writ of habeas corpus is to provide a judicial remedy to the Petitioner to inquire into the nature and cause of the Respondent's restraint of the Petitioners Liberty, once the Petitioner has exhausted all administrative procedures without effecting a remedy. Disclosure by the Respondent of the nature and cause of the Respondent's restraint of the Petitioner's Liberty includes but is not limited to the disclosure by the Respondent of the Respondent's authority and jurisdiction to restrain the Liberty of the Petitioner.  The Petitioner requests that the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court take notice of O.R.C. section  2725.01.
Whoever is unlawfully restrained of his liberty, or entitled to the custody of another, of which custody such person is unlawfully deprived, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment, restraint, or deprivation.

48. The Petitioner asks the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court to take notice of the following description of the term LIBERTY to wit:
The term "Liberty" means Freedom, exemption from extraneous control, the power of the will to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without retrain, coercion, or control from other parties.  The term "Liberty" includes and comprehends all personal rights and their enjoyment.  The term "Liberty" includes but is not limited to, freedom/right from duress, freedom/right from governmental interference in exercise of intellect, in information of opinions, in the expression of them, and in action or inaction dictated by judgment, the freedom/right from servitude, freedom/right from imprisonment or restraint without lawful Constitutional due process of law, the freedom/right in the use of all of one's powers, faculties and property, freedom of contract, the freedom/right of travel, the freedom/right of religion, the freedom/right of speech, the freedom/right of self defense against unlawful violence, the freedom/right to acquire and enjoy property, the freedom/right to acquire knowledge, the freedom/right to carry on business, the freedom/right to earn a livelihood in any lawful calling, the freedom/right to enjoy to the fullest extent the privileges and immunities given or assured by law to the people living within the union of the United States of America, the freedom/right to demand the nature and cause of any allegation made against a citizen, etc...

49. As the court can plainly see, the term liberty includes, but is not limited to physical incarceration. The issues of restraint of the Petitioners Liberty raised by this petition/application for a writ of habeas corpus may include physical incarceration, but is not limited to that single issue of liberty but shall include any and all inherent liberties of the Petitioner that is currently being restrained by the Respondent.

50. The writ of habeas corpus also a remedy to the Petitioner for a collateral attack for a post conviction remedy.

VI. TO WHOM THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS TO BE DIRECTED

51. The Petitioner states that the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directed to Fred Bailey, Judge, Respondent, The Respondent's present whereabouts are Mahoning County Court #4, Austintown Plaza, 6000 Mahoning Avenue, Youngstown, Ohio, 44515. 

52. The Petitioner is petitioning the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court pursuant O.R.C. 2725, commanding the Respondent to appear in court at particular time and place, the Petitioner as a proper party will also be there on the Petitioner's own accord, to then and there explain and produce proof of the authority, legality, and the nature and cause under which Respondent is restraining Petitioner.

53. Should it then be found that the Respondent has no legal authority to restrain the liberty of the Petitioner, the court is to be immediately released and discharge petitioner from the restraint of the Respondent.

VII. STATEMENT OF FACTS SHOWING PETITIONER HAS EXHAUSTED ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

54. As is shown by the following facts, the Petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies available for the protection of the Petitioner's inherent rights regarding the Respondent's restraint of the Petitioner's Liberties:

55. On or about April 18, 1994 a STATE COMPLAINT  was issued in case no. 94 CR 300 in the Mahoning County Court #4 captioned STATE OF OHIO vs NOM DE GUERRE.

56. The STATE COMPLAINT described in the preceding fact was not signed by a person authorized to represent the STATE OF OHIO in court.

57. On July 11, 1995 a JUDGMENT ENTRY was filed in case no. 94 CR 300 in the Mahoning County Court #4 finding the defendant violated article XVII § 1704 of the Austintown Township Zoning Ordinance, fining defendant $2,500.00 and other conditions. See a copy of said Judgment entry attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as exhibit “1”.

58. On or about October 12, 1995 Petitioner filed a Petition to Vacate a Void Judgment pursuant to O.R.C. section 2953.21. See a copy of said Petition to Vacate attached hereto and incorporated herein as if fully rewritten, attached as exhibit “2”

59. On or about January 2, 1997 a second JUDGMENT ENTRY was issued in case no. 94 CR 300 in the Mahoning County Court #4 with variations to the fines and conditions of the judgment entry. See a copy of said Judgment entry attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as exhibit “3”.

60. On or about April 2, 1998 Petitioner received a Notice from the Court that a show cause hearing was scheduled in case no. 94 CR 300 in the Mahoning County Court #4 concerning non payment of the fines.

61. To this date there has been no response to the Petition to Vacate a Void Judgment filed on or about October 12, 1995 in case no. 94 CR 300 in the Mahoning County Court #4.

VIII. SATISFACTION OF O.R.C. SECTION 2725.04

62. There is no copy of a judgment or order attached to this Petition. O.R.C. 2725.04 requires the attachment of a copy of the judgment or order, or if the detention is without legal authority, such fact must appear in the Petition. This Petition shows that there was never a complaint filed in the case signed by a person with authority to represent the State of Ohio. Without a complaint there is no case, and no judgment that is valid.

IX. COLLATERAL/DIRECT  ATTACK

63. Habeas Corpus, when directed against another court’s judgment, may generally be deemed to be in the nature of a collateral attack, Ruther v. Sweeney, (App.) 75 OL Abs 385, 137 NE2d 292; but where the habeas corpus proceeding has been instituted to have a judgment under which a person has been committed declared void ab initio, that proceeding has been regarded as a direct attack upon the judgment, O Jur3d, Judgments (2d ed, § 716). 
	Whether habeas corpus is a collateral attack or a direct attack, it can be used to attack a judgment "… which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally.  Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W. 2d 1087, 1092."  A Void Judgment is, "One that has merely semblance without some essential elements, as want of jurisdiction or failure to serve process or have party in court. Wellons v. Lassiter, 200 N.C. 474, 157 S.E. 434, 436."
	An attack upon a judgment for fraud in its procurement is regarded, not as a collateral attack, but as a direct attack, which is permitted, notwithstanding the judgment questioned may appear on its face regular and valid, for only in rare instances would the judgment itself disclose the fraud uon the parties or upon the court. Lewis v. Reed, 157 NE 897 at 900.
	O.R.C. 2937.02 and other codes and rules prescribe the filing of a complaint as a prerequisite to the court’s jurisdiction. The judgment is void because jurisdiction never attached in the case without a complaint filed by a person authorized to represent the Plaintiff, the State of Ohio.

X. HOW PETITIONER'S LIBERTY IS BEING RESTRAINED BY RESPONDENT

RIGHT OF ACTION

64. In support of this petition, petitioner verily alleges that the Petitioner is being restrained by the Respondent by:

65. Restraining the Petitioners right protected by amendment 13 to the Constitution of the United States of America, AD1791 from peonage and involuntary servitude by compelling the Petitioner to involuntarily participate in the Respondents action filed in the Mahoning County Court #4 under cause # 94 CR 300 wherein there is complaint signed by a person authorized to represent the STATE OF OHIO.

66. The Respondent’s refusing to file a verified complaint signed by a person authorized to represent the STATE OF OHIO is failure to disclose to the Petitioner, the nature and cause of the Respondent's action as it applies to the Petitioner, restraining the Petitioner's right, protected by amendment 6 to the Constitution of the United States of America, AD1791 to full disclosure of the nature and cause of the Respondent's action filed in the Mahoning County Court #4 under Case No. 94 CR 300 depriving the Petitioner of the right to due process of law and equal protection of the law protected by amendments 5 and 14 to the Constitution of the United States of America, AD1791.

67. Depriving the Petitioner of the right, protected by amendment 5 to the Constitution of the United States of America, AD1791 not to be held to answer a crime without a complaint signed by a person authorized to represent the STATE OF OHIO.

68. The Respondent is threatening to further restrain the liberty of the Petitioner by imprisonment and/or loss of property without lawful due process of law and equal protection of law protected by amendment 5, 6 and 14 to the Constitution of the United States of America, Ad1791.
XI. CAUSE OF ACTION

STATEMENT OF WHY THE RESPONDENT RESTRAINT OF THE PETITIONER IS ILLEGAL

Count 1

69. The Respondents, by causing case # 94 CR 300 to be moved forward for collection of fine without disclosing to the Petitioner a complaint signed by a person authorized to represent the State of Ohio denies the Petitioner the right of due process of law and equal protection of the law protected by amendment 5 and 14 to the Constitution of the United States of America, AD1791.

70. The Respondent acted with others to deprive the Petitioner of the right of due process of law and equal protection of the Law a violation of Public Law 1861, ch 33, 12 Stat. 284, codified in Title 42 §1985.

71. The Respondent was knowledgeable that the Petitioner's right to due process and equal protection of the law was being violated and having the power to prevent or correct the wrongful act, neglected or refused to prevent or correct said wrongful act in violation of Public Law 1871, ch. 22, § 6 17 Stat. 15, codified in Title 42 § 1986.

Count 2
72. The Mahoning County Court #4 pursuant to the duty and obligation imposed by the written oath of office to uphold the Constitution and Laws of the United States and the State of Ohio, is required to prevent or correct any act or omission that would violate any right of a party protected by the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America, AD1791.

73. The Mahoning County Court #4 has the authority sua sponte, on it's own Petition, under Federal Criminal Rule F.R.C.P. 12(e) and the Administrative Procedures act, to insure the Petitioner's right to disclosure of the nature and cause of the case no. 94 CR 300, by ordering the Prosecutor to file a complaint signed by a person authorized to represent the State of Ohio, and by ordering the Prosecutor to answer Plaintiff’s Petition to Vacate a Void Judgment.

74. The Mahoning County Court #4 in moving forward with case # 94 CR 300 without requiring the Prosecutor to respond as stated in the previous fact was a clear act of bad faith on the part of both the Mahoning County Court #4 and the Respondent herein.

75. This act of bad faith results in compelling the Petitioner to participate in case no. 94 CR 300 without disclosure of the nature and cause of the Respondents action , without disclosure by what authority the Respondent acts to hold the Petitioner to answer without a verified complaint signed by the prosecutor, a violation of the Petitioner's inherent right of due process with regard to full disclosure of the nature and cause of any action against or purported to be against the Petitioner.

76. The Respondent acted with others to deprive the Petitioner of the right of due process of law and equal protection of the Law a violation of Public Law 1861, ch 33, 12 Stat. 284, codified in Title 42 §1985.

77. The Respondent was knowledgeable that the Petitioner's right to due process and equal protection of the law was being violated and having the power to prevent or correct the wrongful act, neglected or refused to prevent or correct said wrongful act in violation of Public Law 1871, ch. 22, § 6 17 Stat. 15, codified in Title 42 § 1986.

XII. ARGUMENT

78. Ohio Rules of Court, Criminal Rule 57(B) states that “If no procedure is specifically prescribed by rule, the court may proceed in any lawful manner not inconsistent with these rules of criminal procedure, and shall look to the rules of civil procedure and to the applicable law if no rule of criminal procedure exists. There is no rule in the Ohio Criminal Rules that cover the signing of “Complaints”. According to Criminal Rule 57(B) one must look to the Ohio Civil Rules for that procedure.
	Pursuant to Ohio Rule 11, “Every pleading of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in his individual name, whose address shall be stated.” The only signature on the pleading that was filed in the case was the alleged STATE COMPLAINT allegedly charging Petitioner herein with a violation of zoning ordinances. This instrument bears only one signature and that is the signature of Michael P. Kurilla, Jr., zoning inspector. Michael P. Kurilla has no statutory authority to represent the STATE OF OHIO in any proceedings. The only statutory Authority to represent THE STATE OF OHIO falls on the County Prosecutor. The Mahoning County Prosecutor’s signature does not appear on the STATE COMPLAINT as described herein. Ohio Revised Code section 4705.01 forbids third parties from signing pleadings.
	This requirement is further recognized in Ohio Revised Code section 2935.17(B) that shows the form of a Complaint that will be sufficient in Ohio. That form clearly shows that the Complaint is to be signed by the Prosecuting Attorney or the City Director of Law. There is no provision for a form acceptable in Ohio in which a person other than the Prosecutor or the City Law Director can sign a pleading for the STATE OF OHIO.	
	Ohio Revised Code section 2937.02 requires that the affidavit or complaint being first filed, the court shall proceed further. Without a complaint the case cannot proceed. Ohio Revised Code section 2935.09 provides that in all cases, in order to cause prosecution of a person with committing an offense in this state, an affidavit shall be filed with the clerk of courts or the prosecutor for the purpose of having a complaint filed by such prosecuting or other authorized attorney.
Unless there is a complaint filed, and signed by a person authorized by law to represent the Plaintiff there is no due process of law a clear violation of Petitioners 5th Amendment right to due process, and compelling compliance to a judgment void due to lack of due process violates Petitioner’s rights to be free from involuntary servitude.

XIII. CONCLUSION
APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

79. In view of Respondent's actual threatened enforcement of the "Respondent's action" under Case No. 94 CR 300 filed in the Mahoning County Court #4, to restrain the Petitioner, and Petitioners contention that the Respondent has not disclosed to the Petitioner the nature and cause by filing a complaint signed by a person authorized by the State of Ohio to represent the State of Ohio, or to respond to Petitioner’s Petition to Vacate a Void Judgment, places the Petitioner under the Restraint of the Respondent and that the enforcement of the Respondent's action and restraint of the Petitioner is null and void as the Petitioner is not a real party in interest in the Respondent's action, there is an actual controversy within the jurisdiction of this court. A Writ of habeas corpus will adjudicate the rights of the parties.

XIV. RELIEF REQUESTED

80. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that:
A) The Mahoning County Common Pleas Court immediately issue a writ of habeas corpus directed to Respondent, commanding the Respondent to produce documentary proof to establish the authority, jurisdiction and legality of Petitioner's restraint as requested in the Writ to be issued by the Clerk of the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court. That the Respondent disclose the Nature and Cause of the Respondent's action, meaning a complaint signed by a person authorized to represent the STATE OF OHIO, that persons authority to represent the STATE OF OHIO, the parties in interest, venue of the Mahoning County Court #4, jurisdiction of the Mahoning County Court #4 and the Respondent's controversy, the Respondent's right of action and the Respondent's cause of action meaning the injured party, as it pertains to the Petitioner, filed in Mahoning County Court #4 under Case No. 94 CR.
B) In the alternative that the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court issue an order to release and discharge Petitioner from the restraint of the Respondent action filed in Mahoning County Court #4 under Case No. 94 CR 300.

I, Christian Appellation, hold myself commercially responsible that the forgoing is true correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and understanding.

_____________________________________________
Christian Appellation, Petitioner

Then appeared before me Christian Appellation who did affirm and subscribe hereto on this the __________ day of the __________ month of 1998, that the forgoing document as a free act and deed.

_________________________________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC                                   Commission Expires ____________

________________________________		______________________________
Witness						Witness