Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Beem v. Thorp

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Licking

May 18, 2017

KIMBERLY R. BEEM Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
TIMOTHY THORP, ET AL. Defendants-Appellees

         Appeal from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2016 CV 00756

          For Plaintiff-Appellant: KIMBERLY R. BEEM, PRO SE.

          For Defendants-Appellees: WILLIAM DOUGLAS LOVE, ROBERT N. ABDALLA, DANIEL T. DOWNEY ANGELICA M. JARMUSZ.

          JUDGES: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.

          OPINION

          DELANEY, P.J.

         {¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant Kimberly R. Beem appeals the October 24, 2016 judgment entry of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         {¶2} On January 23, 2015, the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation filed six criminal complaints of telecommunications harassment against Plaintiff-Appellant Kimberly R. Beem. The complaints were related to communications sent to family members. A trial to the court was held on September 25, 2015. Beem was found guilty of five of the six counts and acquitted on one other.

         {¶3} On August 15, 2016, Beem filed a complaint in the Licking County Court of Common Pleas against Defendants-Appellees, Licking County Sheriff Timothy "Randy" Thorp, Elmer "Dave" Starling, and Sierra Johnson. In her complaint, Beem alleged:

3.That Defendants have engaged in ongoing bullying, chronic defamation, falsification of legal documents, abuse of power by Thorp and Starling, collusion by all Defendants in an attempt to destroy the well being and happiness of the Plaintiff.
4.That on or about August 21, 2015, Plaintiff was wrongfully convicted of telecommunication harassment due to ongoing falsifications by the Defendants whose falsifications regarding the Plaintiff have been ongoing for several years. In the case of Defendant Thorp, he has gone to the extreme of knowingly violating the Plaintiff's Constitutional rights to hide the corruption in his office and pursue a personal vendetta against the Plaintiff due to the fact that Plaintiff has exposed his conduct. Defendant Starling has knowingly asserted falsifications regarding the Plaintiff, including but not limited to Licking County Sheriff Office (LCSO) and Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) reports. Johnson's initial lies were acts of omission then various lies to cover up her criminal conduct of which she is not held accountable due to her collusion with rogue prosecutor's Kenneth Wayne Oswalt, Douglas Sassen, and Christopher Kinsler. 5. All Defendants were well aware that their assertions were false and they engaged in a series of escalating lies to cover up their ongoing lies and to defame the Plaintiff.

         Beem also requested a change of venue in her complaint.

         {¶4} Sheriff Thorp, Starling, and Johnson filed motions to dismiss Beem's complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Beem responded to the motions. In her September 26, 2016 response, Beem requested the trial court judge recuse himself and the removal of Johnson's counsel.

         {¶5} On October 7, 2016, the trial court held an oral hearing on the issues of recusal and removal. The trial court denied the request for recusal and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.