Reo v. Lindstedt, CASE NO. 2019-L-073

2020 Ohio 6674

BRYAN ANTHONY REO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARTIN LINDSTEDT, et al., Defendant-Appellant.

CASE NO. 2019-L-073

CASE NO. 2019-L-074

COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO

December 14, 2020

OPINION

Civil Appeals from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Case Nos. 2015 CV 001590 and 2016 CV 000825.

Judgment: Affirmed.

Bryan Anthony Reo, pro se, 7143 Rippling Brook Lane, P.O. Box 5100, Mentor, Ohio 44060 (Plaintiff-Appellee).

Martin Lindstedt, pro se, 338 Rabbit Track Road, Granby, Missouri 64844 (Defendant-Appellant).

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Martin Lindstedt, appeals the trial court's decision entering a jury verdict against him and in favor of appellee, Bryan Anthony Reo. We affirm.

{¶2} In 2015, Reo filed suit against Martin Lindstedt and his corporation, the Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nation of Missouri (the church) asserting claims for defamation and invasion of privacy, among others. Reo's claims were originally asserted in two different complaints in separate courts but were eventually consolidated. The lawsuit stems from Lindstedt's ongoing internet harassment of Reo. Lindstedt and the church counterclaimed, and the trial court subsequently ordered Lindstedt not to represent the church, a corporate entity, or pursue claims on its behalf since Lindstedt is not a licensed attorney. Thereafter, Reo secured a default judgment against the church with the court holding damages, if any, in abeyance until trial.

{¶3} The case eventually went to trial, and at the close of evidence, the trial court narrowed the claims to be decided by the jury based on the evidence. Four of Reo's claims remained, and one of Lindstedt's claims went to the jury.

{¶4} On June 26, 2019, the jury rendered a verdict in Reo's favor against Lindstedt and the church on two counts; it did not find in Reo's favor on his remaining two counts. The jury found in Reo's favor on Lindstedt's counterclaim. The court entered judgment July 1, 2019 setting forth the jury award and ordering Lindstedt and the church to pay damages and court costs. Lindstedt filed two notices of appeal, which were consolidated.

{¶5} Lindstedt's first of nine assigned errors contends:

{¶6} "The trial court 'erred' in that the Lake County Court had no jurisdiction to even try the case because it lacked jurisdiction to try the case involving internet disputes between non-white white supremacist limited-purpose public figure Bryan Reo and Pastor Lindstedt and Pastor Lindstedt's Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri residing 900 miles away with vastly different racial and political views living in Southwestern Missouri. Ohio Civ.R. 3(B)(7) and Civ.R. 4.3(A)(9) [T.d. 200, #15CV001590, Order denying New Trial 15 Oct. 2019] and Bryan Reo in its initial civilcomplaint [T.d. #2 18 Sept. 2015] claimed that Kauffman Racing Equipment., L.L.C., v. Roberts,126 Ohio St.3d 81 grants his local county court in Lake County jurisdiction."

{¶7} Lindstedt challenges the court's jurisdiction to hear the case because he is a Missouri resident who was sued in Ohio. Reo opposes arguing the trial court had personal jurisdiction over Lindstedt and that regardless, Lindstedt waived the issue by filing an answer and counterclaim.

{¶8} Civ.R. 12(H)(1) Waiver of Defenses and Objections states:

{¶9} "A defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person, improper venue, insufficiency of process, or insufficiency of service of process is waived (a) if omitted from a motion in the circumstances described in subdivision (G), or (b) if it is neither made by motion under this rule nor included in a responsive pleading or an amendment thereof permitted by Rule 15(A) to be made as a matter of course."

{¶10} Here, Lindstedt properly preserved the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by asserting it in his amended answer and raising it throughout the course of the proceedings. Natl. City Commercial Capital Corp. v. Page, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2005-09-381, 2009-Ohio-1161, ¶ 17.

{¶11} Notwithstanding, Lindstedt, as the appellant, bears the burden of demonstrating reversible error on appeal. Davis v. Wesolowski, 2020-Ohio-677, 146 N.E.3d 633, ¶ 29 (12th Dist.). It is not our duty "to develop an argument in support of an assignment of error." Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. S. Lorain Merchants' Assn., 9th Dist. Summit No. 22881, 2006-Ohio-2407, ¶ 6, citing Prince v. Jordan, 9th Dist. No. 04CA008423, 2004-Ohio-7184, ¶ 40. Lindstedt fails to lay out the facts and lawnecessary for our disposition of this assignment and instead sets forth conclusory statements without legal authority or references to the record.

{¶12} App.R. 16(A)(7) requires an appellant's brief to include "[a]n argument containing the contentions of the appellant with respect to each assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which appellant relies."

{¶13} "Unsupported legal conclusions do not demonstrate error." In re Complaint of Toliver v. Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio, Inc., 145 Ohio St.3d 346, 2015-Ohio-5055, 49 N.E.3d 1240, ¶ 30. Because this contention is unsupported, we will not construct this argument for him. Byers DiPaola Castle v. Ravenna City Planning Comm., 11th Dist. Portage No. 2010-P-0063, 2011-Ohio-6095, ¶ 35 (disregarding conclusory arguments unsupported in appellant's brief).

{¶14} Furthermore, Lindstedt did not move to dismiss on this basis before or during trial. Lindstedt did, however, include this as one ground for summary judgment in his September 2018 motion, but his summary judgment motion also lacks a cogent legal argument and evidence in support. The trial court overruled his motion December 17, 2018. Nevertheless, a defendant asserting an affirmative defense has the burden to establish the defense. MatchMaker Internatl., Inc. v. Long, 100 Ohio App.3d 406, 408, 654 N.E.2d 161 (9th Dist.1995), citing Dykeman v. Johnson, 83 Ohio St. 126, 135, 93 N.E. 626 (1910). And a party moving for summary judgment likewise has the initial burden "of informing the court of the basis for the motion and identifying those portions of the record which support his or her claim." Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421, 429, 674 N.E.2d 1164 (1997).

{¶15} Although Lindstedt preserved the issue, he failed to establish the legal and factual basis for the defense at trial and on appeal. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying his summary judgment on this basis, and Lindstedt's first assigned error lacks merit.

{¶16} Lindstedt's second assigned error alleges:

{¶17} "The trial court 'erred' in that while [the trial] Judge * * * has this item as #5 in his Opinion: and Judgment Entry of 15 Oct. 2019 about the biased jury with the forced female African juror. Pastor Lindstedt tried to remove this African female from the jury pool by cause and pre-emptory challenges. Also, the jury was far different in belief and composition than a jury from Southwest Missouri. Yet the judge forced this African female upon Pastor Lindstedt nevertheless while allowing Bryan Reo to remove any suspected racists more in line with Bryan Reo's and [the trial] Judge['s] * * * prejudices. (T.d. 200, page 2 & 3. Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 extended to prevent white supremacist pastors and their co-defendant churches from getting a fair trial.)"

{¶18} Lindstedt argues the trial court erred in not permitting him to exclude a juror based on her race. Because he is a white supremacist, Lindstedt claims that any non-white juror should have been removed.

{¶19} The following exchange occurred during trial:

{¶20} "MR. LINDSTEDT: * * * I don't think the African * * * I want to * * * essentially because she's black, I don't want her.

{¶21} "* * * {¶22} "THE COURT: Mr. Lindstedt is asking to excuse Juror No. 4, who's the only African American in our whole jury pool. The only reason he has provided is her race. * * * I am not going to allow you to use a peremptory challenge on her.

{¶23} "* * *

{¶24} "MR. LINDSTEDT: I'm pointing out that white supremacists in Lake County are few and far between, so I guess I have made a peremptory and you denied it.

{¶25} "THE COURT: Right."

{¶26} The only authority Lindstedt cites in support of this argument is Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). However, Batson does not hold that a white supremacist litigant can use a peremptory challenge to remove a black juror based on their race. To the contrary, it prohibits such conduct and holds in part that the Equal Protection Clause forbids challenges to potential jurors on account of their race. Id. at 89.

{¶27} Thus, Lindstedt's second assigned error lacks merit and is overruled.

{¶28} We address Lindstedt's third and fourth assigned errors collectively, which assert:

{¶29} "The trial court 'erred' in that [the trial] Judge * * * improperly prevented Pastor Lindstedt from presenting evidence in his favor. His 15 Oct. 2015 order denying Pastor Lindstedt a new trial or judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict [the trial] Judge * * * makes light of the fact that it was [the trial] Judge * * * who improperly prevented Pastor Lindstedt from presenting evidence in his favor. (T.d. 200, pl. 2, 3). Trial court judge refused to rule on Defendant's instant motion regarding trial exhibits (T.d. 162).

{¶30} "The trial court 'erred' in that [the trial] Judge * * * improperly prevented Pastor Lindstedt from presenting evidence in his favor showing Bryan Reo's perjury and that Bryan Reo is a limited purpose public figure within white supremacy and Christian identity even though a non-white federal agent provocateur. [The trial] Judge * * * used as an excuse to deny Pastor Lindstedt presenting evidence the fact that Pastor Lindstedt was 21 minutes late and then hid himself for nine minutes while Pastor Lindstedt set up for the 2d day of trial on 25 June 2019 to create a pretext to...