PREFACE This Brief is presented by the defendant, by himself. In this brief you will find that I have presented the errors in third person format. This was done so that the court might find more fluid understanding or acceptance due to your normal presentations. This court may, of course, take exception to the format, as apparently the lessor court did in it's inferiority complex statement, but I remind this court, that I was, and still am, only doing what an attorney might have done, or might be presenting in his brief. This is again, presented in that light. In Atkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp.(1988),37 OS 3d 80, the court finds that: " The right to file an appeal, as it is defined in the Appellate Rules, is a property interest and a litigant may not be deprived of that interest without due process of law." Under the Ohio and United States Constitutions, the court finds that a citizen may not be deprived of property without due process and representation. Defendant refers to, and attaches with this statement, his Supporting document in appellate record for constitutionally guaranteed rights and refers to addendum for additional referance. In Joyce v. General Motors Corp.(1990),49 OS3d 93,551 NE2d 172, reh den 50 OS3d 709,553 NE2d 691, the court finds that: "Where, in the interest of justice, it is essential for a reviewing court to ascertain the grounds upon which a judgement of a lower court is founded, the reviewing court must examine the entire journal entry and the proceedings." In State, ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co., v. Donaldson (1992), 63 O. St. 3d 173, the court finds that: "An appeal may be heard when there is reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again." In Weaver v. Motorist Mut. Ins. Co.(1990),68 O.App. 3d 547, the court found that: "An appellate court may choose to reexamine the law of the case it has itself previously created, if that is the only means to avoid injustice." Under laws of the court, and state and federal rules, code, statute, and precedent, the defendant requests review of the case in whole by the appellate on grounds inferred or stated in brief, motions presented to both courts, and the records of both courts. The defendant, with this statement, attaches all motions presented to both courts, directs that they be considered as Assignments of Error, with progressive,inclusive numeration, with the attached affidavits, replies, dissertation, supporting documents with their infered or stated law, precedent, or legislative intent found in the addendum inclusions in this brief, or transcript, assigned as Issues Presented for Review and Aguement, and requests that this court rule on them also. Each judgement stands against manifest weight of the evidence, each Error indicates violation of rights and laws, to culminate in a final error, so grieviously wrong towards the defendant and children, as to indicate misfeasance of justice. And in State v. Mattison(1985,Cuyahoga Co.),23 O App 3d 10, 23 OBR 43,490 NE2d 926 the court finds: "In determining whether the decision of a trial court is against manifest weight of the evidence, the following factors are guidelines to be taken into account by the reviewing court:(1) The reviewing court is not required to accept as true the incredible; (2) whether the evidence is uncontradicted; (3) whether a witness was impeached; (4) what was not proved; (5) the certainty of the evidence; (6) the reliability of the evidence; (7) whether a witness' testimony is self-serving; (8) whether the evidence is vague, uncertain, conflicting or fragmentary." This state, and my former wife, have held the children and the myself, under duress, for almost two years, on judgements that violated rights and laws, and ignored the best interest of the children and rights of peoples guarantied by law and the Constitutions under which we all live, rights of the peoples of the several states, that demand due process and equal protection. preface.txt NEXT PAGE PLEASE IF APPLICABLE PAGE NO.p