PDF-IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOState of Ohio Case No 101818vOqjGiNqlL Pe

MEMORANDUM OF SUPPORTThe FactsThis Honorable Supreme Court of Ohio does not have subject matter jurisdiction in this caseTherefore this court must dismiss the caseThe States alleged victims in this ca. S Constitutions Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures requires police to obtain a warrant to search a cell phone The decision generated considerable comment across the country as this was the 57375rst such ruling fro American Government. The Court. The . Supreme Court . is the ultimate court of the land. There are 9 judges that make up the Supreme Court. These Justices then hold their positions for life. Justices hold their positions for as long as they do so that they can avoid being entangled in political games, therefore allowing them to focus on the Constitutionality of laws. Continued. American Government. Activism v. Restraint. The Supreme Court has the potential to have a massive effect on public policy . Courts can be considered to be activist or restrained depending on the outcome of the case. Artwork. North. Reflecting. Pool. MALCOLM COCHRAN.  American, b. 1948.  . In Principle and In Practice.  . 2006.  . Granite.  . Funded by a grant from the . Ohio State Bar Foundation. South. Reflecting. Why this Courtshould reconsider its decision:NO MERIT TO FORECLOSURE ACTIONS, PAST PRESENT ORBURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTS TO PRETENDERSDOCTRINE THAT A PLAINTIFF MUST ASSERT ITS OWNLEGAL RIGHTS AND MAY NOT A I.TABLE OF CONTENTSII. STATEMENT WHY THIS CASE IS NOT OF PUBLICOR GREAT GENERAL INTEREST . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGEEXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GREATGENERAL INTEREST AND INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . The test to determine whether material is obscene was set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. California (1973), 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607: TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGEEXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OF PUBLIC................................................................2ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS OF LAW ....................... In the Supreme C IN THE SUPREME COURT OFOHIOHABTAM GEBIPlaintiff-AppelleeCASE NO 2017-1791vOn Appeal from the Franklin CountyCourt of Appeals Tenth AppellateLEGESSE WORKUDistrictDefendant-AppellantAPPELLEES MEMORANDUM CC 1 kox Ooaa/9 -CCZ rts vo / 1L /y fci4aVJ V 3- - IJ vr i1 rl r/c C oAa6 l21 j1f y/W /C 2 s-htL w o c Y if Lof o TABLE OF CONTENTS iCases iConstitutional Provi sions Statutes and Rules Pro Se AppelleeMalgorzata Polkowska-Sulek9600 ZyrardowPro Se Appelleeul Kapitana Hali 6 m 9 PolandPro Se Appellee99-320 Zychlinul WarynskiegoPro Se Appellee96-300 ZyrardowPro Se AppelleeTABLE OF CONTE