Opinion
Case No. 20 CA 0939
09-28-2020
STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GREGORY JOHN RINI, Defendant-Appellant.
Atty. Steven D. Barnett, Carroll County Prosecutor and Atty. Adam E. Lumley, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 7 East Main Street, Carrollton, Ohio 44615, for Plaintiff-Appellee Gregory J. Rini, Pro se, 6059 Apollo Road, S.E., Amsterdam, Ohio 43903, for Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Criminal Appeal from the Carroll County Municipal Court of Carroll County, Ohio
Case No. TRD1900860 A-B BEFORE: Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, David A. D'Apolito, Judges. JUDGMENT: Affirmed. Atty. Steven D. Barnett, Carroll County Prosecutor and Atty. Adam E. Lumley, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 7 East Main Street, Carrollton, Ohio 44615, for Plaintiff-Appellee Gregory J. Rini, Pro se, 6059 Apollo Road, S.E., Amsterdam, Ohio 43903, for Defendant-Appellant. WAITE, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant Gregory J. Rini appeals a December 6, 2019 Carroll County Municipal Court judgment entry convicting him of two traffic offenses. Appellant argues that as he is not a "Fourteenth Amendment citizen" the Ohio traffic laws do not apply to him and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the instant matter. Appellant also argues that the court failed to provide him with findings of fact and conclusions of law. For the reasons provided, Appellant's arguments are without merit and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Factual and Procedural History
{¶2} On October 24, 2019, Officer Lionel Woods observed a silver Ford van travelling southbound on North Lisbon Street in the Village of Carrollton, Carroll County. Officer Woods noticed that the vehicle's registration sticker and county sticker was obscured by a license plate holder. Officer Woods called dispatch and learned that the vehicle's registration and the owner's driver's license had both expired. Officer Woods initiated a traffic stop of the vehicle, which was driven by Appellant. Officer Woods cited Appellant for driving without a driver's license, an unclassified misdemeanor in violation of Village of Carrollton Code Section 335.01(A)(1), and for driving with an expired license plate, a minor misdemeanor in violation of Village of Carrollton Code Section 335.10.
{¶3} On November 8, 2019, Appellant appeared pro se for his initial appearance. He refused to enter a plea and alleged that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over him as he is not a "Fourteenth Amendment citizen." Instead, he advances that he is a citizen of the "Republic of Ohio" and the trial court was required to obtain a "certification of nationality" before it could obtain jurisdiction over him.
{¶4} The matter proceeded to a trial on December 3, 2019. Appellant filed a written motion and also orally moved to dismiss the case. In support of his motion, he submitted a "Notice of Formal Cancelation [sic] of U.S. Citizenship - Nationality." He also presented documents that were admitted into evidence. The first document is described as an affidavit and is attached to another document titled "DECLARATION OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE OHIO REPUBLIC." (12/3/20 Trial Tr., Exh. 1). In summation, this document essentially describes Appellant as a citizen of something he refers to as the "Republic of Ohio." Appellant alleges that he also submitted a letter he wrote to former Governor John Kasich stating that the "Head Magistrate of Ohio" had agreed that the motor vehicle code does not apply to Appellant. No such letter is found within the record.
{¶5} Based on Officer Wood's testimony and Appellant's failure to deny the facts of the case, the trial court found Appellant guilty on both counts and imposed an aggregate fine of $282 for the violations and court costs. The court suspended the due date for paying the fines by sixty days to give Appellant an opportunity to file an appeal. This timely appeal followed.
Non-Conforming Brief
{¶6} Appellant's brief does not comply with the appellate rules. Appellant's submission does not include a table of authorities as required by App.R 16(A)(2). In fact, Appellant does not provide any legal citations or authorities within his brief except for a few irrelevant definitions. The brief also fails to provide a statement of the issues presented for review in accordance with App.R. 16(A)(4). Appellant's brief does not contain a recitation of the factual and procedural history as required by App.R. 16(A)(5), (6). Although Appellant claims to raise two possible assignments of error, he has included a total of only three sentences in support of these assignments, and these seem to actually be more in the nature of a statement than an argument. Thus, the brief also does not comply with App.R. 16(A)(7). Appellant's several violations of the appellate rules and procedures are, themselves, grounds for dismissal of this appeal. However, in the interest of fairness and justice, we will proceed address his arguments as we understand them.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1
As to the nature of the State of Ohio and its forced political and legal mandates under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, it and its agencies can only regulate its citizens (of the United States). Such citizens are deemed "residents" under the private law issued by the General Assembly de facto, such being foreign entities (under the body of law known as the "Law of Persons") to the Republic.
{¶7} It can be gleaned from Appellant's two-sentence "argument" that he contends he is not subject to the motor vehicle code because he believes that he is not a "Fourteenth Amendment citizen," and perhaps not an American citizen. As such, he believes that he may accept the rights the constitution affords a citizen but may reject any restrictions or duties imposed by law.
{¶8} In response, the state argues that R.C. 1901.20 gives Carroll County jurisdiction over matters occurring within the county. Further, R.C. 1901.01(A) provides the municipal court with jurisdiction to hear cases involving misdemeanors committed within the county. The state urges that Appellant did not contest that his driver's license was expired and that he operated a vehicle with expired registration tags on the roads of the Village of Carrollton.
{¶9} At trial, Appellant presented several documents he believes support his contention that he maintains citizenship solely in the "Republic of Ohio." The first document is an affidavit where Appellant avers that he executed the documents he attached to it on September 28, 2018. Those documents include: a purported "Declaration of Nationality," "Certificate of Naturalization," "Birth Record Protest," "Governor's Oath," "Bona Fide Contracts," and "U.S. Currency Protest." These documents collectively appear to be an attempt to support Appellant's claimed revocation of his U.S. citizenship and declaration of his citizenship in the "Republic of Ohio." (12/3/19 Trial Tr., Exh. 1.) Appellant also claims he submitted a letter he wrote to former Governor John Kasich stating that the "Head Magistrate of Ohio" had agreed the motor vehicle code does not apply to Appellant. No such letter is made part of this record. The only exhibit of record referencing Governor Kasich is the Governor's Oath of Office.
{¶10} Appellant's argument at trial was that he was "taught [his] whole life knowing, knowing now that it was absolutely flat out wrong to, to make me something that I never had the choice to be or to, to disagree to be a part of." (12/3/19 Trial Tr., p. 11.) Apparently, Appellant seeks to renounce his U.S. citizenship and vest it, instead in a fictitious entity. He concedes that his argument is based on philosophy, however, he views philosophy as the equivalent of law.
{¶11} In relevant part, R.C. 1901.20(A) provides: "The municipal court has jurisdiction to hear misdemeanor cases committed within its territory and has jurisdiction over the violation of any ordinance of any municipal corporation within its territory, including exclusive jurisdiction over every civil action concerning a violation of a state traffic law or a municipal traffic ordinance."
{¶12} While Appellant devotes his argument to questions of citizenship, those claims have no basis in law, nor are they relevant to this case. The ability to drive on Ohio public roads is a privilege, not a right, and is subject to state and local regulations. Appellant concedes that he drove on Carroll County roads with an expired driver's license and automobile registration tags. This infraction is in no way dependent on a question of citizenship. He does not contest the conduct that resulted in the charges in any way. Pursuant to R.C. 1901.20(A), the Carrollton County Municipal Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter. As such, Appellant's first assignment of error is without merit and is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2
The trial court failed to provide the accused with any findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the lawful status after requested to do so (see Transcript of Proceedings dated Dec. 3, 2019, page - etc.).
{¶13} In one-sentence argument, Appellant argues that the trial court failed to provide him with findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellant's argument is unclear, but based on the timing of his request within the record, we presume that he is referring to the court's ruling on his motion to dismiss.
{¶14} The state also construes Appellant's argument to be based on his motion to dismiss. The state contends that while Appellant did not file a written request for findings of fact or conclusions of law, there were no issues of contested fact before the trial court.
{¶15} Appellant moved to have his case dismissed both in writing and orally. Appellant contested the trial court's jurisdiction over him as he claims he is not a "Fourteenth Amendment citizen." As part of his trial court proceedings, he requested that the court explain its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the court did discuss its denial of Appellant's motion to dismiss. The court explained that Appellant had presented no proof that any person holding any kind of government office had declared that the motor vehicle code did not apply to Appellant. (12/3/19 Trial Tr., p. 8.) The court further explained that it believed it had jurisdiction over the matter because the offense occurred within Carroll County, which Appellant did not contest. Thus, although not written, the court did provide Appellant with its findings on the record. There is no law requiring the court to provide written findings when denying a motion to dismiss, particularly when written findings were not requested. We also note the state is correct that no relevant facts in this case were contested. As such, Appellant's second assignment of error is without merit and is overruled.
Conclusion
{¶16} Appellant argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the traffic related offenses against him because he is not a "Fourteenth Amendment citizen" and the Ohio traffic laws do not apply to him. Appellant also argues that the court failed to provide him with findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying his motion to dismiss. For the reasons provided, Appellant's arguments are without merit and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Robb, J., concurs. D'Apolito, J., concurs.
For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignments of error are overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the Carroll County Municipal Court of Carroll County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against the Appellant.
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution.
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
This document constitutes a final judgment entry.