J.P., et al. Appellants
FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
LORAIN, OHIO CASE Nos. 15CV186968 15CV196969
pro se, Appellant.
Attorney at Law, for Appellant
GERALD WALTON, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Respondents-Appellants J.P. and L.P. appeal from the
judgments of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. We
affirm in part and reverse in part.
On July 14, 2015, as Petitioner-Appellee M.H. was driving to
CVS she encountered slow traffic. She was not sure why
traffic was moving so slowly. As she was looking around, she
noticed that the person in the car in front of her was the
cause of the slow traffic and was videotaping her with his
phone while he drove. She realized the car in front of her
was being driven by either J.P. or L.P., who are identical
twins. According to M.H. the brothers live near her parents
and had videotaped her and her family in the past. The
brothers had also called the police on her family on multiple
occasions in the past. She also came to notice that the car
in front of the car directly in front of her was driven by
someone else who was also videotaping her. That person was
discovered to be the other brother.
M.H. called the police because she was concerned about
J.P.'s and LP's behavior in the past. She also
believed that at least one of the brothers had a gun that he
had threatened to use on more than one occasion. A sheriff
happened to be in the area, noticed the traffic backup, and
began to investigate. The sheriff spoke with J.P. and L.P.,
who indicated that M.H. was stalking them and that was why
they were videotaping her. M.H. told the sheriff her side of
the story, and she was allowed to continue to the police
station to fill out a police report.
On July 17, 2015, M.H. filed a petition for a civil stalking
protection order against J.P. and L.P. pursuant to R.C.
2903.214. That same day, an ex parte order was issued. The
protected persons were M.H. and her two minor daughters. A
full hearing was held July 31, 2015, at which the petitions
against J.P. and L.P. were heard together. J.P., a licensed
attorney in Ohio, represented himself and his brother. M.H.
appeared pro se. Towards the end of the cross-examination of
M.H., the trial judge abruptly halted the proceedings,
determined that J.P. was "making a mockery out of [the
proceedings], " and refused to allow J.P. to present a
The trial court subsequently issued a full hearing civil
stalking protection order against J.P. and L.P. Thereafter,
J.P. and L.P. appealed. They then moved to amend the notices
of appeal to include an order of the trial court that was
filed shortly before the notices of appeal. We granted their
motion. Subsequently, this Court consolidated the two
J.P. and L.P. have raised 11 assignments of error for our
review, which will be addressed out of sequence to facilitate
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
R.C. 2903.214/ITS SCHEME IS/WAS FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL
AND/OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO [J.P. AND LP], AND
OTHERWISE (INCLUDING THROUGH THE ORDERS) VIOLATES/ED
[J.P'S AND LP'S] FIRST, ...