Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Harry William Lott, Petitioner v. Ohio Job and Family Services Department

1=3

No.

IN THE

filed

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DEC 0 1 2023

OFFirc 0c THE CLERK

SUPK.iV

- v 'RT u!s

Harry William Lott

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services

— RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

(Ohio Supreme Court)

PETITION FOR

WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(Harry William Lott)

(2680 Sealy Ridge Road)

(Vincent, Ohio 45784)

(740 440-5223)

(Larrywl4@gmail.comVharrywl5@hotmail.com)

Page 1 of 15

1 QUESTION: Does the state of Ohio have the ability to stop access to the court by using the

Vexatious Litigator OH, Rev, cod, § 2323.52 or does the First amendment protect the right

to petition the government for a redress of grievances, which is found in the first

Amendment?

2 QUESTION: Is the Ohio The law of Vexatious Litigation F(l) of § 2323.52 “overbreadth”

and “vagueness ” in the application of the right to satisfy the right to move a case followed

as a Vexatious Litigator?

3 QUESTION: Does the state of Ohio have the ability to dictate legal education that

pertaining to out side the state of Ohio and discourages religious pilgrimage and doctrines

of Scientology when engaging in the Ohio’s courts?

4 QUESTION: Does the regulation1 must be a reasonable time pace, or manner restriction

that leaves open adequate alternative place for speech?

5 QUESTION: Does the Petitioner have the right to a not to associate for fees and JD

requirements under the Ohio Admission the Bar of Ohio over this issues?

6 QUESTION: Does these violations by the Ohio Supreme court justify a Havard bachelor

degree, Yale law degree law degree and Ohio law license for the Petitioner?

1 Vexatious Litigation F(1) of § 2323.52

Page 2 of 15

Case

Ellis v. Railway Clerks. 466 U. S. 435 (1984).

11

GoodNews Club v. Milford Central School. 533 U.S. 98, 121 S. Ct. 2093, 150 L. Ed. 2d 151

(20011

8

Goldberg v. Kelly. 397IJ.S. 254. 90 S. Ct. 1011. 25 L Ed. 2d287 (19701..

5

Lovell v. City of Griffin. 303 U.S. 444. 58 S. Ct. 666. 82 L. Ed. 949 (1938^1

8

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama. 357 U.S. 449

(19581.

7 and 8

Willing v. Mazzocone. 393 A.2d 1155. 482 Pa. 377. 482 Pa. Cmwlth. 308 (19781

11

Laws

14th Amendment

4,5,7,10, and 13

Article 1 § 8 Clause

7

Gov. Bar R. I

11

Vexatious Litigator OH, Rev, cod, § 2323.52............

4

Vexatious Litigation OH, Rev, cod, (1) of § 2323.52

.4 and 9

Page 3 of 15

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PARTIES

,5

OPINIONS BELOW

,5

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED

,5

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

,5

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

,5

JURISDICTION

5

First Amendment,

,5

1 QUESTION: Does the state of Ohio have the ability to stop access to the court by using the

Vexatious Litigator OH, Rev, cod, § 2323.52 or does the First amendment protect the right

to petition the government for a redress of grievances, which is found in the first

Amendment?

,5

Answer,

5

2 QUESTION: Is the Ohio The law of Vexatious Litigation F(l) of § 2323.52 “over­

breadth” and “vagueness ” in the application of the right to satisfy the right to move a case

followed as a Vexatious Litigator?

8

Answer

,8

3 QUESTION: Does the state of Ohio have the ability to dictate legal education that

pertaining to out side the state of Ohio and discourages religious pilgrimage and doctrines

of Scientology when engaging in the Ohio’s courts?

,8

Answer

8

Page 4 of 15

4 QUESTION: Does the regulation2 must be a reasonable time pace, or manner restriction

that leaves open adequate alternative place for speech?

9

Answer

9

5 QUESTION: Does the Petitioner have the right to a not to associate for fees and JD

requirements under the Ohio Admission the Bar of Ohio over this issues?

11

Answer,

11

6 QUESTION: Does these violations by the Ohio Supreme court justify a Havard bachelor

degree, Yale law degree law degree and Ohio law license for the Petitioner

13

CONCLUSION

13

APPENDIX

COMMON PLEAS RULING

4TH DISTRTICT COURT RULLING

SUMPERE COURT DISPOSED

2 Vexatious Litigation F(1) of § 2323.52

Page 5 of 15

PARTIES

Ohio Department of Job and family Services—office of legal and acquisition sendees 30 E.

Broad Street, 31st Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3414

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED

First Amendment: Redress to petition the government, Establishment clause, and Prior restrain

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Ohio court will not let Harry William Lott’s case move follow unless requirements of

Vexatious Litigator OH, Rev, cod, § 2323.52 are meet.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

Does an Ohio have the absolute right to stop access to the court or does that right exist in the

constitution, administrative right to a hearing or Scientology religious of doctrine Fair Game

(Id). The petitioner believes that he may not have access to the court again if these injustice goes

on!

JURISDICTION

The case originated administrative court, Ohio jobs and family services, Washington County of

common Pleas, 4th Circuit Court of Appeal, and Ohio Supreme Court.

1 QUESTION: Does the state of Ohio have the ability to stop access to the court by using the

Vexatious Litigator OH, Rev, cod, § 2323.52 or does the First amendment protect the right

to petition the government for a redress of grievances, which is found in the first

Amendment?

Page 6 of 15

The Court held that "a government employer's allegedly retaliatory actions against an employee

do not give rise to liability under the Petition Clause unless the employee's petition relates to a

matter of public concern Borough ofDurvea. Pa. v. Guarnieri. 564 U.S. 379. 131 S. Ct. 2488.

180 L. Ed. 2d 408 (2011). This hearing is a requirement under the 14th Amendment (OH Conts.

Art 1 § 16) right to due process under the 14th Amendment, which is a hearing Goldberg v.

Kelly. 397 U.S. 254. 90 S. Ct. 1011. 25 L. Ed. 2d 287 09701

This administrative court is required to rule if this case does not go to a hearing. In

addition to being required under the APA, a statement of finding and conclusions is necessary

where a “trial type” hearing is required by due process Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254. 90 S. Ct.

1011. 25 L Ed. 2d 287 09701

The plaintiff pleaded with the party to examine his auditing requirements to not take the

Ohio bar based on the First Amendment. Auditing is a requirement for Scientology, which gives

the user the ability to examine and use past lives in the context to gain and manage their lives.

The book of Dianetics is based on past live events which Thetan(s) attached to the user’s

timeline, which can give a user super human ability in the claims for the plaintiff (supra) . As

well as, as reason for the ability not to take the bar or any part based on past and existing

experiences, which falls under the establishment clause.

Page 7 of 15

If the state of Ohio does not allow other members from others states which to practice

Application to the law of non law degree states California3, Vermont4, Virginia5, Washington6,

New York7, Maine8, and West Virginia9. Based on the requirement that these laws form this state,

of Ohio, and these states are over “Over-breadth” under the First Amendment. These states do

not require a law degree to be admitted to practices. The fact that Ohio requires a JD ABA

Degree is in effect a “Chilling Effect” to the other states that require no law degrees at all. States

that do not hold degrees falls under the requirements under Article 1 § 8 Clause 3 of the U.S.

Constitution for commercials, which is Commerce. After the circuit court issued a restraining

order, the state issued a subpoena for various records, including the NAACP's membership lists.

The Supreme Court ruled that Alabama's demand for the lists had violated the right of due

process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution National

Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama. 357 U.S. 449 (1958).

Applying the law of NAACP v. Alabama10 standard, I don’t have to tell you if I have

gone to Harvard business school or Yale law school if I have or don’t have the degrees from

them. As well, I may have a law license in another state. I have the right not to disclose my

3 https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Requirements/Education

4 https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/attorneys/admission-vermont-bar

5 https://www.vsb.org/pro-guidelines/index.php/reciprocity/

6 https://www.wsba.org/for-legal-professionals/join-the-legal-profession-in-wa/lawyers/qualifications-to-take-thebar-exam

7 https://www.nybarexam.org/Eligible/Eligibility.htm

8 https://mainebarexaminers.org/reciprocal-admission/qualifications/

9 http://www.courtswv.gOv/legal-community/rules-for-admission.html#rule2 15 https://www.courts.state.wy.us/

supreme-court/bar-admission/

10 357 U.S. 449 (1958).

Page 8 of 15

association to the Ohio Bar admission or to this court. After the circuit court issued a restraining

order, the state issued a subpoena for various records, including the NAACP's membership lists.

The Supreme Court ruled that Alabama's demand for the lists had violated the right of due

process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution National

Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama11.

2 QUESTION: Is the Ohio The law of Vexatious Litigation F(I) of § 2323.52 “overbreadth”

and “vagueness ” in the application of the right to satisfy the right to move a case followed

as a Vexatious Litigator?

A court of common pleas that entered an order under division ... (D)(1) of this section to

grant the person leave to proceed as described in division (F)(1) of this section, the period of

time commencing with the filing with that court of an application for the issuance of an order

granting leave to proceed and ending with the issuance of an order of that nature shall not be

computed as a part of an applicable period of limitations within which the legal proceedings or

application involved generally must be instituted or made.

In that has a remedy to cure the non-vexatious limitation but failed to give instruction to

the cause; therefore it is has vagueness properties to it. In term of an “overbreath” of the first

amendment the law require more harmful action(s) than civil actions. It is more rideable to hurt

someone than to solve issues than it is to go to court this fails the fundamental issue of why we

have the court system. There should be a substance due process issues here under the 14th

11 357 U.S. 449 (1958).

Page 9 of 15

amendment of the constitution. That it effects the public health and safety of the Community a

large.

3 QUESTION: Does the regulation must be a reasonable time pace, or manner restriction

that leaves open adequate alternative place for speech

Limited public forum. In these circumstances, the government’s choice to limit speech to

certain messages will be upheld if it is viewpoint neutral and reasonable given the forum’s

purpose. For example, the Court struck down a public elementary school’s refusal to allow a

religious group to use school property after hours for religious activities when the school had

allowed nonreligious groups to use the same property for nonreligious activities. Religious group

my not use school property after hours for religious activities, although nonreligious group may

use the same property for nonreligious actives Good News Club v. Milford Central School. 533

US. 98, 121 S. Ct. 2093. 150 L. Ed. 2d 151 (20011, Was to be unconstitutional. In this case,

religious right to a forum is deemed Constitutional because of the religious right to access and

not religious right access the same public forum.

4 QUESTION: Does the state of Ohio have the ability to dictate legal education that

pertaining to out side the state of Ohio and discourages religious pilgrimage and doctrines

of Scientology when engaged in the Ohio’s courts?

That restraint prevents an action to the court and civil justice; rather, it focus on

punishing time sensitive cases. In the case of Lovell v. City of Griffin, the practitioner did not

applied for a permit because she believed that she had been sent [by] “Jehovah to do His work”

and she regarded the application as “act of disobedience to His commandment” the Court

Page 10 of 15

conduced that the ordinance was invalided on tis face Lovell v. City of Griffin. 303 U.S. 444. 58

S. Ct. 666. 82 L. Ed. 949 tl938Y

Second, in Lovell v. City of Griffin12 a religious right was being raise. What was that

right? In Lovell v. City of Griffin13, the right was getting a license for her speech to permit. The

right for this case was a license for plaintiff commercial speech. The belief that a religious right

Lovell did not apply for a permit because she believed that she had been sent “Jehovah to do His

work” and she regarded the application as “act of disobedience to His commandment”.

“The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win. The law can be used very

easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway,

well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause professional decease.

If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.” L. Ron Hubbard, The Scientologist, a Manual on the

Dissemination of Material, 1955.

The case of Lovell v. City of Griffin14 is tantamount to the that of the Harry William

Lott’s religious right to the use the court system and his ability to sue using the court room.

Does the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibit the imposition of a prior restraint on speech

regardless of a citizen’s ability to pay a money judgment? Yes. The Pennsylvania Constitution

prohibits the imposition of a prior restraint on speech regardless of a citizen’s ability to pay a

money judgment. Article I § 7 states that “every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any

subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.” The framers of the Pennsylvania

Constitution intended this provision to prohibit any prior restraints on the right to speak. This

!2VmT,S 444, SS S Ct 666 89.T. F.rl 949(19^

TTS 444, S8S Ct 666, S9.T. F/l Q49 HQISO

HVmTS 444 SRS P.t 666 K?.T. F.H Q4Q HQ'IR)

Page 11 of 15

right is crucial to the nature of a free state. However, citizens may be held accountable for

abusing their free speech rights after the speech has occurred. A citizen’s economic status does

not affect this right. Conditioning the right of free speech upon the monetary worth of a citizen is

inconsistent with fundamental principles of justice and violates the Pennsylvania Constitution’s

admonition that all men are bom equally free and independent Willing v. Mazzocone. 393 A.2d

1155. 482 Pa. 377. 482 Pa. Cmwlth, 308 0978), The case of Lovell v. City of Griffin15 is

tantamount to the that of the Harry William Lott’s religious right to the use the court system and

his ability to sue using the court room.

5 QUESTION: Right to a not to associate for fees and JD requirements under the Ohio

Admission the Bar of Ohio?

The right to a not associate with the Ohio Admission the Bar of Ohio ("Gov. Bar R. I”)

fees and JD law degree requirements fail under the freedom not associated under the Keller v.

State Bar of Cal.,16 . Based on the information Notion that the bar is a non-govemmental

agency’s use of compulsory dues to finance political and ideological activities that certain

members do not agree with violates those members’ free speech rights when the activities are not

germane to the purpose for which compelled association was justified. These safe guards are:

Transparency dues are spent; objection process; and impartial decision-maker to review

objection. Both question: Where their objection process? And where their any impartial decision­

maker to review objection? They're not hearing Harry Lott vs the Ohio bar admission office () at

istfmTS 444 SRS r.t 666 87. T. F.ri 949n<mt

16 49fi I IS. 1,11ns nt PPPS, 11 n I ■ Frl. Pel 1 (1990).

Page 12 of 15

which is required in the at 14th amendment for due process by the states and in the case of

Goldberg v. KellyT

In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. 431 U. S. 209 (1977V the Court confronted the

issue whether, consistent with the First Amendment, agency-shop dues of nonunion public

employees could be used to support political and ideological causes of the union which were

unrelated to collective-bargaining activities. We held that while the Constitution did not prohibit

a union from spending "funds for the expression of political views ... or toward the

advancement of other ideological causes not germane to its duties as collective-bargaining

representative," the Constitution did require that such expenditures be "financed from charges,

dues, or assessments paid by employees who [did] not object to advancing those ideas and who

[were] not coerced into doing so against their will by the threat of loss of governmental

employment." [Id., at 235-236], The Court noted that just as prohibitions on making

contributions to organizations for political purposes implicate fundamental First Amendment

concerns, see Bucklevv. Valeo. 424 U. S. 1 H976V "compelled. . . contributions for political

purposes works no less an infringement of. . . constitutional rights." Abood, supra, at 234. The

Court acknowledged Thomas Jefferson's view that" 'to compel a man to furnish contributions of

money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.1 [“ 431 U.

S., at 234-235, n. 31] (quoting I. Brant, James Madison: The Nationalist 354 (1948)). While the

decision in Abood was also predicated on the grounds that a public employee could not be

compelled to relinquish First Amendment rights as a condition of public employment, see 431 U.

S., at 234-236, in the later case of Ellis v. Railway Clerks. 466 U. S. 435 (T984').the Court made

Page 13 of 15

it clear that the principles of Abood apply equally to employees in the private sector. [See 466 U.

S., at 455-457],

The Bar is more like an agency-shop dues for non union public employees in Abood v.

Detroit^ which agency-shop dues of nonunion public employees could be used to support

political and ideological causes of the union which were unrelated to collective-bargaining

activities. We held that while the Constitution did not prohibit a union from spending "funds for

the expression of political views ... or toward the advancement of other ideological causes not

germane to its duties as collective-bargaining representative,".

In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. 431 U, S. 209 (1977). the Court confronted the

issue whether, consistent with the First Amendment, agency-shop dues of nonunion public

employees could be used to support political and ideological causes of the union which were

unrelated to collective-bargaining activities. We held that while the Constitution did not prohibit

a union from spending "funds for the expression of political views... or toward the

advancement of other ideological causes not germane to its duties as collective-bargaining

representative," the Constitution did require that such expenditures be "financed from charges,

dues, or assessments paid by employees who [did] not object to advancing those ideas and who

[were] not coerced into doing so against their will by the threat of loss of governmental

employment." [Id., at 235-236], The Court noted that just as prohibitions on making

contributions to organizations for political purposes implicate fundamental First Amendment

concerns, see Buckley v. Valeo. 424 U. S. 1 (1976Y

Page 14 of 15

6 QUESTION: Does these violations by the Ohio Supreme court justify a Havard bachelor

degree, Yale law degree law degree and Ohio law license to the Plaintiff, Harry William

Lott

Conclusion

State of Ohio laws dealing with vexatious litigator are unconstitutional with the plaintiff’s

right to religious acts that are protected in state of Ohio has caused the plaintiff irreparable harm

by not allowing him to experience his first amendment rights and well has the damages to the

plaintiff’s health. The plaintiff, is raising the prior restates of the of the law: Vexatious Litigation

F(l) of §2323.52

It is recommended that it be Reversed. A rewarded with an Ohio law license and a

Harvard Bachelor degree in business administration and a Yale Juris doctor law degree. Based on

the failure to give a hearing and equal protection under the 14th amendment under which

governments the Bar of Ohio ("Gov. Bar R. I”) for the state of Ohio violating the plaintiff’s right

under the First Amendment.

/S/ Harry William Lott

z

Harry William Lott Pro se

2680 Sealy Ridge Road

Vincent, Ohio 45784

(740) 440-5223

Page 15 of 15