../>

%J ,/

IN THE OHIO SUPREME COURT

Unemployment Compensation AppealMahoning County Common Pleas CourtJudgment Entry, Case No. 10 CV 4391

On Appeal from the SeventhDistrict Court of AppealsCase #11 MA 105

p"

' %`rn' ';^'

NOTICE of APPEAL

Makris Family, M. Christos Makris, et al

APPELLANT, Pro Se

143 Boardman-Canfield Road, #218Boardman, OH 44512Tel: 330.406.1137

Vs.

Unemployment Compensation Review Board, et al

APPELLEE

Atty. Mike DeWineAttorney General of OhioAtty. Susan M. SheffieldAssistant Ohio Attorney GeneralHealth and Human Services SectionUnemployment Compensation Unit20 West Federal St., 3rd FloorYoungstown, OH 44503

JUL 10 2013

CLERK OF COUiTSU P P E t^^^ C 0 U R, T 0 a 0 H 10

i rS rt^f,3 l

J"t' n rn rr /,r3

CASE NC). 11 MA 105

Makris Family, M. Christos Makris, et al

Judgment Entry: May 30, 2013

This case originated in the court of appeals.

-----M. Christos Makris

CASE NO. 11 MA 105 Makris Family, et al; July 9, 2013

CASE NO. 11 MA 105

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION

IN THE OHIO SUPREME COURT

Unemployment Compensation AppealMahoning County Common Pleas CourtJudgment Entry, Case No. 10 CV 4391

Makris Family, M. Christos Makris, et al

APPELLANT, Pro Se

143 Boardman-Canfield Road, #218Boardman, OH 44512Tel: 330.406.1137

Vs.

Unemployment Compensation Review Board, et al

APPELLEE

Atty. Mike DeWineAttorney General of OhioAtty. Susan M. SheffieldAssistant Ohio Attorney GeneralHealth and Human Services SectionUnemployment Compensation Unit20 West Federal St., 3^d FloorYoungstown, OH 44503

On Appeal from the SeventhDistrict Court of AppealsCase #11 MA 105

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTIONOF APPEYVNT M. (^ARIS MAKRIS

Signature

JU, ol '0 2013

^^^RKOFCOURTSUPREME Cf?^MT OF OHIO

CASE NO. 11 MA 105 Makris Family, et al; July 9, 2013

CASE NO. 11 MA 105

Makris Family, M. Christos Makris, et al.

EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS CASE IS A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERALINTEREST AND INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION;

Rules of Practice of. The Supreme Court of Ohio, 201.3; Appendix D

This presents a critical issue for the future of Due Process of Law in the

Constitution of the State of Ohio. Article I- Bill of Rights, §16 states "All courts shall be

open, and every person, for an injury done him in his land, goods, person, or reputation,

shall have remedy by due course of law, and shall have justice administered without

denial or delay..."

Therefore, the Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk's notices dated June 18, June 21 &

July 2, 2013 and general procedural information about the Supreme Court Rules of

Practice further proves our case and evidences that APPELLEE/Mahoning County

Court of Common Pleas had (as did the Unemployment Compensation Review

Commission/UCRC and the Seventh District Court of Appeals) that same legal

responsibility to honor timely (not in 90 days/3, 6, 9, 12, 24, 36 or however many more

months it fancied wasting for this eligible and fundamental unemployment claim) Due

Process of Law right of APPELLANT to receive timely notice, as The Supreme Court of

Ohio just did. So, if, APPELLANT's written appeal did not result in requested Appeal,

particularly since the Ohio Department of Jobs & Family Services (ODJFS) had,

already, provided APPELLANT with written legal notice that the case was, in fact, in

Appeal (Ohio Appellate Brief, Appendix Y:Y-1), then the Mahoning County Court of

Common Pleas had the responsibility to notify APPELLANT of such, if that was not, in

fact, the case. (The failure of a clerk to serve notice doesn't affect the validity and

timeliness of the AppeaL)

CASE NO. 11 MA 105 Makris Family, et af; July 9, 2013

CASE NO. 11 MA 105

Precedence {2010-1283. State ex ref. Warner v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No.

2012-Ohio-1084. Franklin App. No. 09AP-841, 2010-Ohio-2476; and, 2004-1594. M.

Conley Co. v. Anderson, 2006-Ohio-792. Stark App. No. 2003CA00386, 2004-Ohio-

4216} further evidences that the process for appeal of these unemployment related

issues start in this State with, 1) The Unemployment Compensation Review Board, 2)

The Court of Common Pleas, 3) The Seventh District Court of Appeals and, then, 4)

The Supreme Court of Ohio, all were properly and timely appealed to for redress.

However, in this case, the ODJFS, UCRC, Court of Common Pleas & Seventh

District Court of Appeal's ignorance of the timely documented evidence (including, but

not limited to, UCRC (3-1-2010, Appendix KK:KK-1), Court of Common Pleas (8-23-

2010, Appendix B13:BB-1) in the Seventh District Court of Appeals (9-9-2011, Ohio

Appellate Brief) blatantly violated Article i: Bill of Rights, §1 "All men ... have certain

inalienable rights ... safety" and, instead, strung out, for 3 years, safety essential and

eligible unemployment compensation benefits, and simply chose to ignore Due Process

of Law rights, Appeal and resolution of eligible benefits, through timely redress.

Therefore, the Court(s) did, in fact, know, from page 142, etc. of the Appellate Brief

that the appeals, were, filed timely, but they were unprofessionally, and

intentionally, ignored and not timely docketed by the UCRC & the Court of

Common Pleas who neglected all Due Process of Law rights.

As a result, the State of Ohio Supreme Court, Clerk of Courts and

the 9-9-11 Appellate Brief evidence, in writing, that APPELLANT

submitted (4) four requests, repeat (4) four requests (between August &

September 2010 alone) for general information & appeal to the Court (i.e.,

8-23-2010, 9-7-2010, 9-21-2010 & 9-27-2010), since the ODJFS/UCRC

CASE NO. 11 MA 105 Makris Family, et al; July 9, 2013

CASE NO. 11 MA 105

had already been documented & evidenced as having retaliatorily ignored

telephone callsle-mails/faxes, etc., etc. And, the Court did, finally, have

to evidence, on the November 17, 2010 (see re-attached) that it, was, in

fact, responsible for acknowledging all APPELLANTs requests for info &

appeal, but every one of the requests for information & appeal were still

negligently and in bad faith unconscionably ignored by the Court, only to

thereby accomplish corrupting the system by ignoring all the evidence and

thereby causing substantial harm and prejudice.

In conclusion, since ODJFS even provided written Confirmation

Notice indicating that the Appeal was, in fact, in the Court of Common

Pleas, as of October 19, 2010 (Ohio Appellate Brief, Appendix Y:Y-1), the Court

had the responsibility to notify otherwise, or anywise, if, that was not the case and the

Court had, in fact, just decided they felt like spinning & ignoring all of APPELLANT's

documented requests for information, docket and Appeal. The entire process [under

ORC § 4141.281(D) (2)], is designed to result upon APPELLANT's documented &

written timely request (Ohio Appellate Brief, Appendix CC:CC-2) for address by a

hearing officer decision based upon the evidence of record, let alone a fair decision, and

coherent Due Process would be frustrated if the unlawful, unreasonable, and against

...the manifest weight of the evidence..Decision of the Court of Appeals is permitted to

stand.

Therefore, in order to preserve the integrity and promote the basic purposes of

the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights 1 st Amendment and Constitution of the

State of Ohio, this court must grant jurisdiction to hear this case and review the

erroneous and dangerous decision of the Seventh District Court of Appeals.

CASE NO. 11 MA 105 Makris Family, et af; July 9, 2013

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

We hereby CERTIFY that a copy of our July 9, 2013 Ohio Supreme CottrtComplaint/Petition was sent to the following:

State of OhioSeventh District Court of Appeals

131 W. Federal St.Youngstown, OH 44503

Atty. Mike DeWineAttorney General of OhioAtty. Susan M. Sheffield

Assistant Ohio Attorney GeneralHealth and Htiman Services SectionUnemployinent Compensation Unit

20 West Federal St., 3d FloorYoungstown, OH 44503

Makris Family,lVl. Christos Makris, et al

STATE OF OHIO )

)MAHONING COUNTY )

M. CHRISTOS MAKRIS, et aI

APPELLANT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SS: SEVENTH DISTRICT

VS.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATIONREVIEW COMMISSION, et al,

APPELLEE

CASE NO. 11 MA 105^ ^ . ....^..

JUDGMENT ENTRY.f t,..^...........

. . l.^ .^. .,.....

For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignment of error

is overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of

the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to be

taxed against Appellant.

I

JUDGES.

STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT

M. CHRISTOS MAKRIS, et al.

APPELLANT

VS.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATIONREVIEW COMMISSION, et al.

APPELLEE

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:

JUDGMENT:

APPEARANCES:

For Appellant:

For Appellee:

JUDGES:Hon. Cheryl L. WaiteHon. Gene DonofrioHon. Joseph J. Vukovich

))))))))))

f,^^ [v, f^} . ?

.._...v. <........ . ._ 4_,...

CASE NO. 11 MA 105

OPINION

Civil Appeal from the Court of CommonPleas of Mahoning County, OhioCase No. 10 CV 4391

Affirmed.

M. Christos Makris, Pro se143 Boardman-Canfield Road,Apt. 218Boardman, Ohio 44512

Atty. Mike DeWineAttorney General of OhioAtty. Susan M. SheffieldAssistant Ohio Att®rney GeneralHealth and Human Services SectionUnemployment Compensation Unit20 West Federal Street, 3rd FloorYoungstown, Ohio 44503

Dated: May 30, 2013

I ° :s

_1_

V1lAITE, J.

(¶1) Pro se Appellant M. Christos Makris appeals the judgment of the

Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his administrative appeal of his

claim for unemployment benefits. The administrative appeal was dismissed for lack

of jurisdiction due to Appellant's failure to file the appeal within 30 days of the final

decision of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission (°Review

Commission"), pursuant to R.C. 4141.282(A). The final administrative decision was

sent on September 1, 2010. Appellant did not file his appeal in the court of common

pleas until November 23, 2010. Since the administrative appeal was not filed within

the statutorily allotted period of time, the appeal was properly dismissed. The

judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

{12} Appellant applied for unemployment benefits on December 12, 2009.

The claim was denied on February 1, 2010, by Appellee, Director of the Department

of Jobs and Family Services ("Director"). Appellant filed an administrative appeal,

and a redetermination decision was issued March 23, 2010, affirming the initial

decision. On May 26, 2010, the case was transferred to the Review Commission. A

hearing was scheduled for July 23, 2010, but Appellant failed to attend this hearing.

The claim was dismissed on July 23, 2010, with the dismissal to become final within

14 days unless Appellant provided good cause for his failure to appear at the

hearing. Appellant responded on August 6, 2010, claiming he had waived his

appearance at the hearing.

..2_

{13} On September 1, 2010, the Review Commission issued an order

affirming the dismissal of the administrative appeal. The order stated that it "will

become final, unless within ten days after the mailing of this notice the appellant

notifies the Review Commission in writing that a hearing is desired on the question of

whether or not the appellant has furnished good cause of failure to appear at the

hearing." (9/1/10 Letter.) Appellant did not respond to the Review Commission

within ten days. Instead, Appellant sent a letter to the Review Commission on

November 16, 2010. The Review Commission responded on November 16, 2010,

stating that Appellant had exhausted his administrative remedies and any further .

appeal was required to be filed in the court of common pleas. On November 23,

2010, Appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Mahoning County Court of Common

Pleas.

{¶4} On January 26, 2011, the Director filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(1) motion to

dismiss due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The motion noted that Appellant

had waited longer than 30 days to file the appeal with court of common pleas.

Appellant did not file a response to the motion. Appellant also failed to attend the

motion hearing held on February 14, 2011. The court dismissed the administrative

appeal on February 16, 2011, on the grounds that it had been filed beyond the 30-

day deadline set by R.C. 4141.282(A). This timely appeal followed on March 14,

2011.

-3-

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

APPELLEE ignorance of APPELLANT timely due process of law right,

and ignorance of Evidence-of-Record review on eligible Unemployment

Compensation benefits, is against the manifest weight of evidence and

is in violation of the US Bill of Rights, §16, The Constitution of the State

of Ohio [Article i], Ohio Revised Code, § 4141.281(D) (2) and Ohio

Administrative Code, Chapter 4101:9-4 Prevailing Wage Regulations,

4101:9-4-03 (A) 2.

{T5} The matter under review is whether the trial court committed reversible

error in dismissing Appe!lant's administrative appeal of an adverse ruling from the

Review Commission. Appellant's "brief," which is difficult to decipher, does not

dispute the date he filed his appeal to the court of common pleas, or disagree with

the law governing administrative appeals. Hence, Appellant has raised no reversible

error in the trial court's actions.

{¶6} A claimant bears the burden of proving entitlement to unemployment

compensation benefits, Kosky v. Am. Gen. Corp., 7th Dist. No. 03-BE-31, 2004-

Ohio-1541, ¶9. If the claimant is dissatisfied, he or she may appeal a decision of the

Review Commission to the court of common pleas. R.C. 4141.282(A). On appeal,

`°[t]he trial court may reverse the commission only when it finds the decision to be

unlawful, unreasonable or against the manifest weight of the evidence.' "/a!, citing

R.C. 4141.282(H). Conversely, the trial court shall affirm a decision that is not

unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. A

-4-

dissatisfied party may then appeal the trial court's decision to the court of appeals.

Tzangas, Plakas & Mannos v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Servs., 73 Ohio St.3d 694, 697, 653

N.E.2d 1207 (1995).

{¶7} R.C. 4141.282(A) provides: "Any interested party, within thirty days

after written notice of the final decision of'the unemployment compensation review

commission was sent to all interested parties, may appeal the decision of the

commission to the court of common pleas."

{18} "It is elementary that an appeal, the right to which is conferred by

statute, can be perfected only in the mode prescribed by statute. * * * Compliance

with a requirement that a notice of appeal shall be filed within the time specified, in

order to invoke jurisdiction, is no more essential than that the notice be filed at the

place designated and that it be such in content as the statute requires." Zier v.

Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, 151 Ohio St. 123, 125, 84 N.E.2d 746

(1949). "Compliance with these specific and mandatory requirements governing the

filing of such notice is essential to invoke jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas."

Id., at paragraph two of the syllabus. The timely filing of a notice of appeal is the only

act necessary to vest jurisdiction in the court of common pleas. R.C. 4141.282(C).

{¶9} If the appeal is filed beyond the 30-day deadline described in R.C.

4141.282(A), the trial court is required to hold a hearing on the timeliness of the

appeal. R.C. 4141.282(1). The trial court held a hearing on February 14, 2011, but

Appellant did not attend. Because of his failure to appear and present any evidence

or arguments in his favor, he waived the opportunity for appellate review of any

-5-

issues surrounding the timeliness of the appeal to the court of common pleas. Nicoll

v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2d Dist. No. 24509, 2011-Ohio-5207, ¶26.

{¶10} Appellee filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss Appellant's appeal on

the grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A trial court's decision on a motion

to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction raises

questions of law and is reviewed de novo. Morway v. Durkin, 181 Ohio App.3d 195,

2009-Ohio-932, 908 N.E.2d 510, ¶18 (7th Dist.).

f111} Again, Appellant's "brief' is almost unintelligibie. Appellant's argument

on appeal appears to be that the various officials and administrative departments

involved in his case, along with the court of common pleas, are all confused about

the dates both of the orders being appealed and the date that he filed his

administrative appeal. He also argues that the final order on appeal to the court of

common pleas was not issued until November 16, 2010. He asserts that he

appealed this order on November 23, 2010. These allegations, however, are

contradicted by the record in this matter. The documents in the record are quite

clear. The Review Commission issued its final order on September 1, 2010.

Appellant had 10 days to respond to the Review Commission to prevent the order

from becoming final. Appeilant did not respond. Appellant filed an appeal of the

September 1, 2010, final order on November 23, 2010, in the court of common pleas.

He filed this appeal 83 days after the final order was sent to Appellant. This is well

beyond the 30-day time limit for filing an appeal under R.C. 4141.282(A),

Furthermore, Appellant failed to appear at the hearing specifically set to determine

-6-

the timeliness of the appeal and has waived any arguments regarding that issue.

Therefore, the trial court correctly dismissed the matter. Appellant's assignment of

error is without merit, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Donofrio, J., concurs.

Vukovich, J., concurs.

APPROVED:

ER bll. AI JUDGE

---------- --- - ----- --

•^,^ °'^^' '"^.

• .•^ ^5 ^ ^µ ^ a

. ^ .^

c k 4r 4 ?i

YL ys° y^_._ ___. ________.

.__ 1.:.^ y4 -

^ ^`"^v., 4^ = i ^+h^'°.3'^

VJ py^jV3.Y

, . . ^....J

i 3yr V

•

L! i.,•.^ ^:3

.

. •..,^.i

To: M. Christos Maki-is

From: Mahoning County Cierlt of (.'ourt

Date: 11 i 1<; 2() I t)

Re: Returii c:>f t:ocurne:nt5

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE PAPERS YOU HAVE SENT TO THISOFFICE THIS DATE ARE BEING RETURNED FOR THE FOLLOWINGREASON[Sj:

We are uilable to aQc.ept fax ccyf7ics o#'wrnp3airlts or othel aleLic; f s. ;^ls^>; tlici-w is aS?00.t10 zilirtM fQc;, unlcss you iilc <.t ,afl:ctavit t3f*il-icli&)en(2) Thank you.