The possible improper and/or unjust court actions; the  
 
challenge of jurisdiction; the new evidence; the evidence of 
 
possible fraudulent or misleading exhibits supplied by the  
 
plaintiff; the possible misleading or otherwise testimony of 
 
the plaintiff; apparent ineffective counsel and/or possible
 
malpractice by my counsel, which I had to obtain because of 
 
previous court failure to insure my rights; the unaddressed 
 
assets; the lack of valuation of substantial family 
 
contributions to the plaintiff's schooling, professional  
 
degree obtained during the marital years and other 
 
contributions to plaintiff's professional status; and other 
 
factors of the case, are addressed within the documents 
 
presented or in the record of the case or evidence to be 
 
presented, which bring forth reasons for relief from the 
 
judgement of the Court of Common Pleas of Geauga County. 
 
 
  Under Civ R 60 the court finds as reasons for relief from 
judgement: 
 
(B)(1)   
 mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect:  
  
 (B)(2)   
 newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not 
have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under 
Rule 59(B); 
  
 (B)(3)   
 fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or 
extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an 
adverse party; 
  
 (B)(4)   
 the judgement has been satisfied, released or discharged, 
or prior judgement upon which it is based has been reversed 
or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the 
judgement should have prospective application; 
  
 (B)(5)   
 any other reason justifying relief from the judgement. 
 
 The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for 
reasons (1), (2) and (3) not more than one year after the 
judgement, order or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion 
under this subsection (B) does not suspend its operation. 
The procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgement 
shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules. 
 
 
 Sufficient precedent for relief may be found by review of: 
 
Assman v. Fleming, 159 F.2d 332, 336(8th Cir. 1947), 
 fraud and circumvention preventing party from presenting 
merits of his case 
 
 Brown v. Brown, No. 90 CA-10039 (2d Dist Ct App, 
Montgomery,5-19-87), 
 where one of the parties made material misrepresentations of 
fact; 
 
 Coulson v. Coulson, 5 OS(3d) 12,5c OBR  73, 488 NE(2d) 
809(1983), 
 any fraud on court Civ R 60(B)(3) - fraud by officer of 
court Civ R 60(B)(5); 
 
Freeman v. McCarthy, 153 F.2d 1001 (3d Cir.1946) 
 unauthorized stipulations by attorney - consent to order 
overstepping authority 
 
 Good v. Good, No. 88-CA-000002 (5th Dist. Ct App, 
Knox,6-27-88), fraud - alimony modification;   
 
Hartford v. Hartford, 53 App(2d) 79, 371 NE(2d) 
591(Cuyahoga,1977), 
 abuse of discretion to deny hearing when allegations might 
constitute fraud; 
 
Jelm v. Jelm, 155, OS 226, 98 NE(2d) 401 (1951), 
 judgement procured by fraud; 
 
King v. Mordowance, 46 F.R.D. 474(D.R.I. 1969), 
 gross negligence of former counsel 
 
 Longstreet v. Longstreet, No. 55220 (8th Dist Ct App, 
Cuyahoga, 4-13-89), 
 where judgement procured by fraud;  
Longstreet v. Longstreet, 57 App(3d) 55, 556 NE(2d) 708 
(Cuyahoga 1989), 
 
L.P. Steuart, Inc. v. Mathews, 329 F.2d 234(D.C. Cir.), cert. 
denied, 379 U>S. 824(1964), 
 unfamiliar with court procedures and made frequent inquiries 
of counsel 
 
 Marsh v. Marsh, No. 3986 (11th Dist Ct App, Trumbull, 
12-21-89), 
 Civ R (B)(5) proper for jurisdiction challenge; 
 
 Millbon v. Millbon, No. 89AP-592 (10th Dist Ct App, 
Franklin, 12-21-88, and, Helwege v. Helwege, No.85AP-927 
(10th Dist Ct App, Franklin,6-5-86), 
 Civ R (B)(5) may be appropriate where marital assets are 
omitted from an agreement when both parties are ignorant of 
their existence; 
 
Ryan v. United States Lines Co.,303 F.2d 968(3d Cir.1951), 
 evidence in existance and hidden at time of judgement 
 
Sexton v. Sexton, 60 O App2d 339, 397 NE2d 425(1978), 
 no longer equitable that custody judgement be given 
prospective application 
 
Seidlecki v. Seidlecki, No. 52060, at 6(8th Dist. Ct App, 
Cuyahoga 5-14-87), 
 where "intolerable inequity" ..supports allegations that 
the movant was defrauded into signing it; 
 
Swartzentruber v. Swartzentruber, Nos. 2580,2583 (9th Dist Ct 
App, Wayne, 3-27-91), 
 uncounseled party .. undue influence, fraud or duress and 
less than full disclosure; 
 
 Turoczy v. Turoczy, 30 App(3d) 116, 30 OBR 216,506 NE(2d) 
942 (Cuyahoga 1986),  
 
United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 65-66(1878), 
 intrinsic fraud - matters in which "the decree of the court 
was rendered, as for example in the validity of a deed or the 
perjury of a witness;  
 extrinsic fraud - fraud practiced upon the party seeking 
relief so that he is prevented from fully presenting his case 
to the court. 
 
Volodkevich v. Volodkevich,, 35 OS(3d) 152 518 NE(2d 
1208 (1988), 
 judge's participation in a case such as to give an 
appearance of impropriety and bias could constitute grounds 
under Civ R 60(B)(5) for relief from judgement. 
 
 Yingst v. Yingst, No. 14-89-2 (3d Dist Ct App,Union, 
7-31-90), 
 judgement void where jurisdiction defective; 
 
 
and numerous other precedent from courts of this state and  
 
nation which allowed relief from unjust judgements. 
 
 
In Matson v. Marks, 32 O App 2d 319, 291 NE2d 491 (1972) the  
court finds: 
 
" The procedure for obtaining relief from a judgement shall 
be by motion as prescribed in these rules." Unless the 
grounds for such relief are such as appear upon the face of 
the record, there necessarily must be evidence presented to 
permit a factual determination by the trial court upon the 
grounds for relief from judgement. Both the Civil Rules and 
the rules of the trial court are silent upon the procedure 
for presenting evidence to the court to make such factual 
determination." 
 
" While in some instances evidence may be adequately 
presented in the form of affidavits, and in other 
instances, because of the nature of the grounds for 
relief, oral testimony may be required, a party cannot be 
found in default of presenting such evidence until required 
by rule or order of the court. " 
 
 
However, in Tom McSteen Co. v. Thomas Maloney,Inc. 39 O App 
 
2d 31, 314 NE2d 392(1974) the court finds: 
 
" Whenever a motion to vacate under Civ R 60(B) does not find 
support on the face of the record or is not accompanied by an 
affidavit or other evidence to support a vacation, it is not 
error to deny the motion without a hearing." 
 
" Where a hearing of alleged defence is held, [p]atently, the 
conclusive determination of the validity of the defence must 
await trial on the merits. The effect of a 60(B) 
determination goes no further than to suggest a tenable 
defence if ultimately proven."   
 
 
And previously a court found in Adomeit v. Baltimore, 30 O 
 
App 2d 97, 316 NE2d 477(1974) that: 
 
" If the movant files a motion for relief from judgement and 
it contains allegations of operative facts which would 
warrant relief under Civ R 60(B), the trial court may grant a 
hearing to take evidence and verify the facts before it rules 
on the motion. This is proper and is not abuse of discretion. 
 If, under the foregoing circumstances, the trial court does 
not grant a hearing and overrules the motion without first 
affording an opportunity to the movant to present evidence in 
support of the motion, its failure to grant a hearing is an 
abuse of discretion." 
 
 
And the court found in Bates & Springer,Inc. v. Stallsworth, 
 
56 O App 2d 223, 382 NE2d 1179(1978): 
  
 1. The mere filing of a motion for relief from judgement 
under Civ. r 60(B) does not automatically entitle the movant 
to a hearing on the motion or to vacation of the judgement. 
The movant has the burden of demonstrating that he is 
entitled to the relief requested in accordance with the 
requirements of GTE Automatic Electric v. ARC Industries, 47 
O St 2d 146, 1 OO3d 86(1976). 
 
2. When a movant under Civ R 60(B) fails to submit sufficient 
evidentiary material to justify relief from judgement, a 
trial court may summarily deny the motion but within sound 
discretion of the trial court whether to hold an evidentiary 
hearing on such motion. 
 
 
 Which places me, as the defendant-movant of the case, in the 
 
position of supplying statements and/or evidence necessary 
 
for a determination of relief from judgement, and or reasons 
 
to compel the court to order a hearing to determine the 
 
viability of the request. For this reason and other reasons, 
 
this brief in support of the motions submitted to this court 
 
and the affidavit attached to the motions, are submitted to 
 
bring cause before the court.  
 
 
 The previous court was required to overlook the wording of  
 
the motions and documents in attempt to ascertain and  
 
determine what the party is attempting to compel the court to 
 
do, or present to the court, in the interest of justice. As 
 
is this court now under that same responsibility. I am not an  
 
attorney, and have made numerous requests for representation 
 
and/or costs which have been repeatedly denied. Therefore,  
 
this court must also understand that I can present only what 
 
I have found, or think I have found, might be bearing on the 
 
case, the court is required to addresss the other laws and/or 
 
factors that might be found bearing on the issue since I am 
 
Pro Se before this court not by choice. The original 
 
judgement and the Nunc Pro Tunc Judgement have left me in 
 
poverty and under public assistance and/or without minimum 
 
subsistence and/or under unreasonable obligation and/or 
 
indigent and/or found in contempt for things beyond my 
 
control and ability. 
 
 
 
 The original action was addressed in the Court of Common  
 
Pleas of Geauga County, pre-trial held under direction of 
 
Referee Elaine Tassey, with the trial held under direction of 
 
Judge Hans R. Veit, Common Pleas Judge of Geauga County. 
 
The plaintiff instituted the action on Sept. 27, 1991 
 
(T.d.1), restraining myself and the children to this state on 
 
Oct. 1. For the first, approximately, three months I was 
 
without representation, had no money with which to obtain 
 
any, and was informed by Legal Aid that they could not take 
 
the case because of my wife's income. My income was limited 
 
or non existent because of my primary child care  
 
(househusband) responsibilities and the plaintiff moving to 
 
this state, then spending or converting the family funds, 
 
and my inability to obtain suitable employment. The court was 
 
presented with requests to open assets, and/or supply costs, 
 
and/or representation so that the legal interests of the 
 
children and myself could be protected. 
 
 
1. The court was presented with defining factors and requests  
 
pursuant to 3109.21 - 3109.37 of ORC, regarding Ohio's  
 
interpretation of the  Universal Child Custody Jurisdiction 
 
Act, concerning jurisdiction of the action, which were  
 
dismissed and/or ignored by the court. 3105.03 
 
Civ R 60(B) 5 
 
Volodkeich v. Volodkeich,35 OS(3d) 152,518 NE(2d) 1208(1988) 
 
In re Guardianship of Wonderly,21 OO3d 111 or 67 OS2d 178 
 
 
2. The court was presented with requests to remove the action  
 
to the proper forum under the laws of this state, advised 
 
that the children were removed from the previous state 
 
without the consent and against the advise of the defendant,
 
pursuant to 3109.21, 3109.22, 3109.25, 3109.26, other, and 
 
45-46 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d í307, í321, í322, Civ R 3, 12, 
 
UCCJA Sec. 1 2, 3, 7, 8, 20, 24, 28 USCS 1738A, other, and 
 
presented with a request to allow me to take the children 
 
back to our " home " state, and submitted with a complaint to  
 
submit to that court. which were dismissed and/or ignored by 
 
the court. 
 
 
In re Guardianship of Wonderly,21 OO3d 111 or 67 OS2d 178, 
Syrios v. Syrios(1990), 69 O.App. 3d 246,  
 
 In Patricia R. v Andrew W.(1983) 121 Misc 2d 103,467 NY S 2d  
 
322 the court finds: 
 
 "No condition of wrong doing is necessary to invoke 
provisions of Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act. (28 USCS í 
1738A)" 
 
 
Peterson v. Peterson(1983,Me) 464 A2d 202: 
 
" Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act was enacted to prevent 
jurisdictional conflict and competition over child custody 
and to deter parents from abducting children for purpose of 
obtaining custody awards." 
 
Arbogast v. Arbogast(1984,W.Va.) 327 SE2d 67: 
 
" Before custody decree is entitled to recognition and 
enforcement under 28 USCS í1738A, it must be demonstrated 
that decreeing court had jurisdiction of parties as well as 
subject matter." 
 
Tufares v. Wright(1982) 98 NM 8,644 P2d 522: 
" Test of jurisdiction under 28 USC í1738A(f) includes 
consideration of whether states can exercise thier 
jurisdiction under Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act." 
 
Hooks v. Hooks(1985,CA6 Tenn) 771 F2d 935: 
 
" For purposes of 28 USC í 1738A(b)(4), there is little doubt 
that time during which plaintiff's children were in Texas as 
result of having been wrongfully taken from plaintiff would 
not affect status of Tennessee as children's home state of 
residence under Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act." 
 
 
Civ R 60(B)1, 3, 4, 5 
 
 
3. Requests were made to the court to obtain evidence from 
 
the previous " home " state, necessary for both divorce and  
 
custody, if this state intended jurisdiction, Ohio Rules of  
 
Evidence, 3109.34, Title 18, 28 and 42 of USC, 46 OJ 3d í494,  
 
í495, which were dismissed and/or ignored by the court. 
 
Civ R 60(B) 3, 4, 5 
 
 
4. The court was advised of the unavailability of proper  
 
witnesses within this state, required for both divorce, and 
 
for custody regarding interstate determinations. 
 
 The court failed to proceed under ancillary processes to  
 
obtain the necessary interstate testimony and/or evidence 
 
required for interstate determinations of custody under 
 
request by myself. 3109.34, UCCJA Sec. 3, 7, 18, 19, 20  
 
Civ R 60(B) 1, 3, 5 
 
 
5. Requests were made for investigations of the plaintiff's  
 
actions on behalf of the family and/or children, which 
 
under Civ R 75, 3109.04, 3109.34, 2151.421 should have been 
 
pursued. I presented the motions in an attempt to have some 
 
form of investigation done regarding the family's history,  
 
and actions of the plaintiff, which were dismissed and/or 
 
ignored by the court. UCCJA 
 
Civ R 60(B) 1, 3, 5 
 
 
6. The court was supplied with affidavits and other documents  
 
which should have caused the court to proceed with it's own 
 
motions and investigations under state and federal child 
 
protection laws and/or interstate custody laws. 2151.421, 
 
3109.34, Civ R 75, UCCJA 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11 comment, 18, 19, 
 
20, 21, 24  
 
Civ R 60(B) 1, 
 
 
7. Just prior to the trial of the action, the court was again 
 
advised through motion and affidavit of the court's improper 
 
responses under custody laws of the state, and was requested 
 
to submit the action to the proper forum for a determination 
 
of custody because of the courts previous failure to follow 
 
interstate custody laws, child protection laws, and provide
 
procedural methods to be employed, indicating lack of 
 
impartiality by the court. 3109.25, Civ R 3, Civ R 12, Civ  
 
R 75, 28 and 42 USC, UCCJA, 45-46 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, 
 
which was dismissed/denied by the court. 
 
Civ R 60(B)(1), (5) 
 
 
8. The court mistakenly believed, and/or failed to insure,  
 
that all evidence necessary to the case, was being presented  
 
and/or was obtained. 
 
I have volumes of evidence from household records presented  
 
to my former attorney, which I attempted to present or 
 
have presented and/or presented, which do not now appear on 
 
the record. The indexes submitted with these motions and 
 
brief were in the possesion of, and provided for use by my 
 
attorney, and the plaintiff's. These indexes are from the 
 
in-home records that were and/or are available. The in-home 
 
evidence was then placed with my former attorney after 
 
preparation of indexes. Evidence is indicated in 
 
interrogatory response and attorney communication. 
 
Civ R 60(B)1, 3, 5 
 
 
9. The court mistakenly believed that the plaintiff's 
 
exhibits were true and correct. I have evidence to possibly 
 
prove otherwise. There are factors associated with this 
 
evidence that need review. 
 
Civ R 60(B) 3, 5, 
 
 
10. New evidence has been obtained which might have caused, 
 
or now cause, a different outcome of the action, which was  
 
previously unavailable due to court failure to investigate, 
 
start ancillary processes in previous state, or provide costs 
 
to myself to obtain and investigate for such, the evidence  
 
concerns the plaintiff's interpretation of Kentucky's
 
educational system, found by accident when the parties son 
 
broke open a single strike typewriter film, and I attempted 
 
to explain the workings of the typewriter.. I also have new 
 
evidence which was unobtainable because of its not being 
 
published or presented to the parties prior to judgement or 
 
pursuant to a new trial and appeal. 
 
Civ R 60(B) 2, 3, 4, 5 
 
 
11. The court has originally, and recently, rendered  
 
judgements which have neglected equal protection laws, 
 
Consumer Credit Protection Act, property seperation laws,  
 
child support laws, appellate rules, and other, indicating 
 
possible prejudicial actions by the Court of Common Pleas of 
 
Geauga County. The court rendered a Nunc Pro Tunc 
 
Judgement/Order without apparent leave from the appellate 
 
court, modifying it's original judgement ( í13.30 ) to 
 
include: consideration of spousal support request, when the 
 
original judgement denied that either party requested such; 
 
additional medical expenses (not unusual) for the children; 
 
and other unreasonable and/or other factors which are 
 
included in the original and/or Nunc Pro Tunc judgement/ 
 
order.  
 
Civ R 60(B)(1),(4),(5) 
 
 
12. The court stated that the plaintiff had supplied the 
 
support for the family while I raised the children, failing  
 
to address or understand that the majority of the children's 
 
necessities were supplied by myself or my family, not the  
 
plaintiff. Failing to fully address the role reversal and the 
 
factors that go with that reversal. And failing to follow 
 
3109.04, 3109.05, and the precedent concerning custody, 
 
primary child care giver, nuture years doctrine, and the 
 
defining factors within the above, the court assigned custody 
 
to the plaintiff.    
 
Civ R 60(B)(1), (3), (4), (5) 
 
 
13. The action may possibly be unable to be handled 
 
impartially by this court or in this county due to certain 
 
factors of this case, of which that court, the judges, and  
 
the parties involved, are aware.  
 
I am unsure if this is necessarily true, perhaps an  
 
impartial judge could be found. I have no contempt nor 
 
disrespect for any party, just an exercise of right to an 
 
impartial and fair hearing. 
 
 Civ R 3(C)(4), 40 ALR Fed 954, CJC 3 
 
Civ R 60(B) 5 
 
 
14. The case can not now be impartially handled, nor properly  
 
reviewed as it stands, because of apparent "lost" testimony, 
 
and apparent lack of evidence within the record, and other 
 
problems. 
 
Civ R 60(B) 1, 3, 5 
 
 
15. The marital property settlement was signed by myself, and  
 
I was informed by my former attorney that this was the manner 
 
in which it was to be handled, as only " In home property". 
 
It was later presented as a final seperation of property 
 
agreement of all property and assets not otherwise addressed. 
 
My former attorney informed me that he would address the 
 
monetary assets during the trial, and the court would not 
 
accept or distribute the assets solely upon the agreement. 
 
The plaintiff was assigned all marital monetary assets at the 
 
trial, which was not my intent upon signing the agreement, 
 
nor the plaintiff's intent from her pre-trial statement 
 
requesting equal division of the IRA, which neglected to 
 
include her retirement benefits. Apparently my attorney made 
 
agreements with opposing counsel without consultation or 
 
advising me of such. 
 
Civ R 60(B)(1),(3),(4),(5) 
  
 
16. The court failed to address or otherwise find valuation 
 
for the plaintiff's career and schooling obtained during the  
 
marital years, or the family moneys and other contributions 
 
to those, which I now find is a factor that is to be used in  
 
determining spousal support and equitable property 
 
distribution. The family made substantial contributions, 
 
willingly or otherwise, to the plaintiff's career as it now 
 
stands, evidence from household records is available. 
 
3105.171, 3105.18, 3109.05, 3113.215, 4 ALR4TH 1294, 94 ALR3D 
 
176 
 
Dipetro v. Dipetro,10 O App 3d 44 
 
In re Murphy(1983),10 O App 3d 134 
 
Young v. Young(1982), 8 O App 3d 52 
 
Stevens v. Stevens(1986), 23 OS 3d 115 
 
Civ R 60(B)1, 3, 4, 5 
 
 
17. My former attorney was presented with witnesses available   
 
from the previous state and this state, and requests or 
 
inquiries were directed to him, into methods and manners for 
 
obtaining evidence and testimony or witnesses from the 
 
previous state, which he failed to, or refused to, pursue. I 
 
was surprised to find no witnesses, valuations, and other 
 
household evidence being presented to the court.  Civ R 32, 
 
36, 45, 59, 61, 75 other 
 
Civ R 60(B) 1, 3, 5 
 
 
18. The plaintiff made statements to the court which might be  
 
found to be misleading regarding the children, school contact
 
and participation, and other statements. Witnesses might be 
 
available to indicate such.  
 
Civ R 60(B) 3 
 
 
19. Portions of the transcript of the case may and/or will be 
 
addressed for the content and/or lack of content. 
 
 
20. There are other possible factors, and/or evidence, that  
 
might or may be addressed during a hearing or otherwise on 
 
this Civ R 60 motion and/or other that might be found bearing 
 
for relief. 
 
  
 REQUESTS IN THIS BRIEF 
   
1. I request that I be relieved of the judgement(s) under Civ 
 
R 60. 
 
 
2. I request that the action or proceeding be held under the 
 
required interstate custody laws of this state and nation. 
 
 
3. I request that electronic video monitoring be provided for 
 
any additional action in this case or other.  
 
 
4. I request that any additional action be entertained or  
 
proceeded with, in a different forum and county pursuant to 
 
constitutionally guaranteed rights of equal protection and 
 
due process under the laws of this state and of this nation, 
 
in an impartial and fair forum, or held under direction of an 
 
impartial judge if one might be found ( not within the same 
 
Bar Association or court ) due to the nature of the case, 
 
items to be addressed, the " sting " of possible contempt,  
 
the factors occuring after the judgement, and other reasons 
 
under which this request might be addressed. 
 
 
5. I request that I be supplied with competent legal  
 
representation that can fully address the factors and issues 
 
of the case. 
 
 
6. I request that some form of costs be provided to obtain 
 
evidence, witnesses-testimony or depositions, records,  
 
and/or other items of import or necessary for a proper  
 
determination under the laws of this state and nation. 
 
 
7. I request that restitution of loss and/or damages be 
 
addressed if applicable under 2743.02 and/or 42 USC 1983 
 
and/or others that might apply..  
 
 
 
 
UCCJA, Title 42 USC, The Health and Public Welfare; Ohio 
 
Rules of Evidence, Rules of Court Procedure, Title 28 USC 
 
Judiciary and Judicial Procedure;and appendix; , 
 
Constitutional guarantees of Ohio  and The United States to 
 
equal protection and due process, and equality between sexes. 
 
 
 
 
                              ______________________________ 
                              MAURICE E. BRAHIER 
                              137 MOFFET AVE. 
                              CHARDON, OHIO 44024 
 
I certify that I have sent or otherwise produced the 
documents submitted to the court this __________ day of 
________________, 1993 to the attorney of record for the 
plaintiff.  
 
brief60.txt                                PAGE ~ OF 16�of 3