Rebecca-Ann-Cook is filing an appeal with the Third District Court of Appeals in Lima, Ohio, challenging decisions made by the Tiffin-Fostoria Municipal Court in Fostoria, Ohio, regarding multiple traffic-related cases (TRD 2403704A, TRD 2403704, TRD 2403041, TRD 2403040, and TRD 2402451). She claims the municipal court lacked both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over her, alleging procedural and constitutional violations that render the court’s judgments void. Her appeal centers on the argument that her fundamental right to travel, protected under the 14th Amendment and supported by various U.S. Supreme Court precedents, was violated by the court’s actions.
Key Points of the Appeal:
1 Jurisdictional Issues:
◦ Rebecca asserts the Tiffin-Fostoria Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction due to improper service, absence of consent, and no verified complaint from an injured party. She cites cases like Pinoy v. Overnef (95 U.S. 711, 1878) and Ex Parte Craig (282 F. 138, 1982) to argue that a court without personal jurisdiction cannot issue a binding judgment, and void judgments hold no legal weight.
◦ She also claims the court is an administrative tribunal enforcing statutes rather than law, lacking the authority to adjudicate her case.
2 Constitutional Violations:
◦ Rebecca argues her right to travel, a fundamental liberty under the 14th Amendment, was infringed upon. She references cases like Kent v. Dulles (357 U.S. 116, 1958) and Shapiro v. Thompson (394 U.S. 618, 1969) to support her claim that the state cannot burden her movement without due process.
◦ She contends the court turned traffic violations into criminal charges without proving criminal intent (mens rea), citing Morissette v. United States (342 U.S. 246, 1952) to argue that intent is required for a criminal conviction.
◦ Additional violations include denial of due process, fraud, misrepresentation, and judicial oath violations by Judge Rhonda Lynn Best, as well as a failure to address her affidavits.
3 Procedural Complaints:
◦ Rebecca filed multiple affidavits with the court, including a Tort Claim, Notice of Liability, and declarations of her lawful status, which she claims were ignored by Judge Best and Prosecutor Barbara Dibble.
◦ She requested to proceed sui juris (representing herself) and to remove her public defender, Alex Smith, due to a conflict of interest and lack of consent. Judge Best denied this motion, allegedly because she did not understand the term sui juris and forced Smith to remain on the case.
◦ During her trial on April 8, 2025, Rebecca claims she was denied discovery (e.g., body cam footage), silenced by threats of contempt, and intimidated by the judge, prosecutor, and police officers. She also alleges the trial lacked preparation, as she had no witnesses and no communication with the unwanted public defender.
4 Harassment and Coercion:
◦ Rebecca describes ongoing harassment by the Fostoria Police Department, including repeated stops, towing of her vehicle (costing her over $300), and arrests. She claims this led to her wrongful detention, job loss, financial strain, and emotional distress to her and her emotional support animal.
◦ She alleges coercion by Prosecutor Dibble and police, who threatened further jail time if she did not obtain a commercial driver’s license, which she views as perjury since she uses her vehicle for private, non-commercial travel.
◦ Rebecca asserts a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) violation, claiming the court and police are acting as “corporate actors” for profit by enforcing statutes on private citizens.
5 Outcome of the Trial:
◦ On April 8, 2025, Rebecca was convicted of traffic violations, which she claims were improperly escalated into criminal charges. She was sentenced to reporting probation with a 90-day jail term hanging over her, along with requirements to pay for mental health and drug counseling, obtain a GED, and maintain employment—conditions she finds burdensome and irrelevant, as she believes Ohio Revised Code rules apply to public officials, not private citizens.
Legal Arguments:
Rebecca’s appeal hinges on the following legal principles:
• Right to Travel: She argues that traveling in her private vehicle is a fundamental right, not a privilege, supported by cases like Thompson v. Smith (154 S.E. 579, 1930) and Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago (169 N.E. 22, 1929).
• Lack of Criminal Intent: She claims the state failed to prove mens rea, as her actions were based on a good-faith belief in her constitutional rights, supported by United States v. Ciment Video (513 U.S. 64, 1994).
• Void Judgments: She cites United States v. Throckmorton (98 U.S. 61) to argue that fraud vitiates judgments, and Valley v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (254 P. 348, 1920) to emphasize that jurisdiction is a fundamental requirement for a valid judgment.
• Due Process Violations: She alleges the court’s actions—ignoring her affidavits, denying her self-representation, and intimidating her during trial—violated her due process rights under the 14th Amendment.
Broader Context:
Rebecca frames her case as part of a larger systemic issue, alleging that the Tiffin-Fostoria Municipal Court, Judge Best, Prosecutor Dibble, and Fostoria Police are part of a corrupt system that turns constitutional rights into crimes for profit. She believes public officials are misapplying statutes meant for commercial activity to private citizens, infringing on unalienable rights.
Next Steps:
Rebecca filing her appeal with the Third District Court of Appeals, located at 1001 Rienartz Blvd, Lima, Ohio 45801. The Third District Court of Appeals, which serves the region including Fostoria, has jurisdiction to review final appealable orders from municipal courts. Her appeal will likely focus on whether the municipal court had jurisdiction, whether her constitutional rights were violated, and whether the judgments are void due to fraud or procedural errors. Given the complexity of her claims, including allegations of systemic corruption and constitutional violations, the appeals court may need to thoroughly examine the trial record, the affidavits she filed, and the legal precedents she cites.
