IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

LICKING COUNTY, OHIO

CIVIL DIVISION


MICHAEL HECKMANN ) Case No. 2014 CV 00034
P.O. BOX 8635, 712 MT. VERNON RD. )
NEWARK, OHIO 43055 )
Plantiff, )
)
- vs.- ) JUDGE THOMAS MARCELAIN
) MAGISTRATE MATTIE KLEIN
)
KIM BEEM )
7096 BAYTON PLACE ) APPLICATION TO SEAL A
NEW ALBANY, OHIO 43054 ) CIVIL RECORD PURSUANT
Defendant ) TO THE SUPREME COURT
) OF OHIO, CASE NO.
) 2012-1235, SCHUSSHEIM V.
) SHUSSHEIM



MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Now comes the Defendant, Kim Beem, pro se, moves this Honorable Court to
dismiss without prejudice, the application to seal the civil records. The Defendant
respectfully requested the motion as the only means she was aware of at the time to
have her good name removed from public access on the internet. The access was
detrimental to the Defendant and created great mental anguish, especially since it is
Defendants position that the petition provided by the Plantiff was false, retalitory, and
malicous.

In the hearing in Franklin County, the magistrate indicated that Licking County was
in violation of federal law but did not elaborate then she also mentioned a recent
Supreme Court case, Defendant (Petitioner in the Franklin County case) responded
Schussheim, and the magistrate acknowledged affirmitively. Having already prepared
the Schussheim filing, the magistrate confirming the case, and being unaware of the
federal law, Defendant went to Newark that same day to file as she wanted her name
off the internet as quickly as possible.

After exhaustive research and various contacts, the Defendant left a message for
Diana Ramos-Reardon, Domestic Violence Program Manager at the Supreme Court of
Ohio on February 7, 2014 to discuss the application of the Violence Against Women
Act with respect to internet privacy. Ms. Ramos-Reardon reviewed the Court View
entry by the Licking County Clerk of Courts Office and confirmed it should not be
publicly available on the internet. Her tone was apologetic and concerned a posture
that would have been appropriate for those in Licking County to take but, of course,
that did not occur. Defendant shared that she had made a Schussheim filing which she
prepared prior to attending the hearing in Franklin County and Ramos-Reardon advised
that the filing wasnt necessary because the internet entry should have never been
made. To reiterate, if Licking County had been following federal law, Defendant
would not have needed to go to the time and expense of making a filing nor would she
have suffered harm and anguish from having her good name appear in such a manner.

Ramos-Reardon assured Defendant that she would deal with the matter. After
consulting with trusted collegues, who have valuable insight on these matters and how
slowly the process can be, Defendant realized she needed to address and do so quickly
as thousands of citizens were impacted, noting Defendant majored in Political Science
so she has a high level of interest in such matters. She addressed with County officials,
who were less than responsive and very adversarial, but they did contact the vendor
and work has begun to delete the inappropriate entries from public access that have
impacted so many, including the Defendant.

In a phone conversation on February 10, 2014, Defendant asked Clerk Walters if he
had advised the Court of the issue with the internet access. He indicated he had not
and told Defendant to contact the Judge. Defendant shared that ex parte
communication would be inappropriate. Clerk Walters indicated if the Judge came by
and asked about it, he would share the information. The conversation became a bit
confusing because at that juncture, Defendant was not aware of a hearing and was
attempting to discuss the larger picture of the impact of thousands of people. Clerk
Walters was only focusing on an individual hearing of which Defendant had not been
notified. Defendant waited on receipt of the notification before filing to dismiss.

In consideration of the fact that the Defendants name has been removed from the
internet, which was the remedy she was seeking, for all practical purposes, the
objective of the Schussheim filing becomes moot. Defendant respectfully requests this
Honorable Court to dismiss the application to seal but to do so without prejudice so if
the need were ever to arise, Defendant would be permitted to use the information to re-
file. Defendant finds this necessary based on the statements attributed to Licking
County Clerk of Courts in the Newark Advocate on February 12, 2014, which she feels
reveals little understanding of the subject matter and limited concern for the serious
nature of the violation of federal law or the impact it may have had on the lives of
countless private citizens.

Additionally, Defendant requests that any court costs or fees be waived or, in the
alternative, assessed to the County, possibly to the Prosecutors Furtherance of Justice
account, since it was the failure to follow federal law that created the need for the
Defendant to make the Schussheim filing. Fortunately, due to Defendants diligence,
the County is working toward compliance with federal law and the citizens of Licking
County, as well as those from other jurisdictions who may be impacted by this practice,
will no longer be harmed in this manner.

Defendant would be remiss if she failed to advise the Court of disconcerting matters
surrounding this case, especially since the Prosecutor was copied on the hearing notice.
Contrary to Heckmanns blatant lies in the Franklin County hearing, Defendant has
only filed twice in her 55 years for protection orders once in March 2013 (the 2
nd

death threat by a person who suffers from some disorder that has resulted in her long
term use of anti-depressants) and once in December 2013 (email harassement
menacing by the Plantiff whose long term issues are well documented on Court View
and occurred at the time two public officials expressed their concerns with his
escalating behaviors). In both cases the respondents were residents of Licking County
but to my knowledge they are not acquainted and both made independent claims of
consulting with the Licking County Prosecutor prior to the Franklin County hearings.
One would hope that legal services paid for by taxpayer dollars is not being used by the
Prosecutors office to prepare respondents testimony, false or otherwise, in civil
matters to which Licking County is not a party. Since such activity would be outside
of the scope of the Prosecutors duties, Defendant will make the Commissioners aware
of the matter. As Defendant is certified in Risk Management for Public Entities, she
will suggest that if the Prosecutor is engaged in this practice, it should be on his own
time and the County should require a certificate of insurance to verify he has
professional liability. The immunity Prosecutor enjoys should not apply when he is
acting as an attorney outside the scope of his duties for the County and the County
should protect themselves with the certificate of insurance to ensure their liability
coverage is not inadvertently exposed.

It should be noted in both protection order hearings, the potential for a greater good
was realized.

In the March hearing, the criminal forgot what lies she had told the Sheriffs
office in 2010 and told partial truths when questioned by the Judge. A re-
investigation not only proved the original report was falsified but audio
recordings were made that prove a new falsification by the criminal and
falsifications by three employees (current and former) of the Sheriffs office.
The purpose of the falsified report was to enable the criminal to steal well over
a half million dollars and continue her elder abuse and that of her accomplices.
No action has been taken on the continuing crimes, possibly because public
officials may be implicated, but the evidence exists. It would be most
appropriate for the Prosecutor to acknowledge his conflict of interest and invite
the BCI in to investigate and request a Special Prosecutor to prosecute the
felonies.

As we know, the December case brought to light a violation of federal law by
the County that has gone unchecked for nearly a decade. Fortunately, that is
being corrected.

Outside the scope of those hearings, it should also be noted that Defendant
wrote a column that was published in the Newark Advocate on October 9, 2013
regarding the Prosecutors misrepresentations in a press release about the
EEOC complaint against him and his offices retaliation against a private
citizen for writing a blog about the behavior that resulted in the complaint. An
additonal column was written and heavily documented that the Countys
response to the EEOC was misleading regarding the independent investigation
as verified by some oddities in the appropriations of funding for the
investigators services. Unfortunately, the second column was not published
but the information was shared with County officials and Defendant has
submitted to the State Auditors office for review. It may be worth noting that
professionally, Defendant has previously been acknowledged as a subject
matter expert on Employment Practices Liability, Public Officials Liabilty, and
Law Enforcement Liability by the St. Paul/Travelers Insurance Company when
she worked in their Public Sector Services division and also received Hartfords
Donald Walker Award for Excellence in Underwriting while working in the
public entity insurance niche.

In consideration of these facts, Defendant asks the Court to consider that it may be
more than just a coincidence that Plantiff publicly posted of his meeting with the
Prosecutor, filed a false petition, did not show up for the hearing that he initated, and
caused the Defendant to suffer resulting harm, not only by the mental anguish, the
embarassent of having her neighbors in an affluent community witness her being
served by the police, and the legal expense, but primarily having her name displayed
for public viewing in such a negative manner. A reasonable person may find that it is
conceivable that the petition in Licking County was not limited to Plantiffs desire to
retaliate. Defendant most respectfully requests the Courts full consideration of her
motion.


Respectfully submitted:


______________________________
Defendants Signature

______________________________
Defendants Printed Name

7096 Bayton Place
New Albany, Ohio 43054
_________________________
Defendants Address