Mark A Christensen
P O Box 973
Bucyrus, OH 44820-0973
(419) 689 -1339

legally insufficient on its face. Rather, defendant alleges facts outside the four corners of the complaint, and which it claims entitle it to dismissal at this pre-discovery phase of the litigation. Defendant Leuthold is wrong in every aspect

This motion is coming Five months (5) after Plaintiff filed this complaint for legal malpractice against the defendant Leuthold, and is only coming because he learned Plaintiff endeared a lot of hard work to find an expert legal malpractice attorney to testify at the trial. This motion should have been filed long ago if there was any true merit to it.

If the court will remember in the telephone Civil Scheduling conference between the parties, the Defendant eluded to filing a Motion to Quash within a week. To this date, some eight weeks later, Defendant has failed to honor his word to file such motion to quash, instead files this motion for Summary Judgment because Plaintiff has found an expert witness and knows the jury will find him negligent for Legal Malpractice by the testimony of the Expert Witness. Defendant even goes to the depth of violating Ohio Civil Rules of Procedure and Federal Civil Rules of Procedure, and Ethics in contacting the plaintiff\u2019s expert and harassing and threatening her, as seen in Plaintiffs recent filing for Temporary Restraining order and injunction against the defendant, Leuthold.

2nd sentence: \u201aIt is undisputed that defendant represented plaintiff in the bankruptcy proceeding\u201b. This defendant never represented this plaintiff in any bankruptcy proceeding, and this plaintiff has never in his life filed bankruptcy, which is proof this attorney cannot even remember what he was hired for and not hired for, which begins the art of malpractice to be committed when you can\u2019t keep your clients docket straight.

Statute of Limitations. This is the second time this court has addressed the issue, did the plaintiff toll the statute of limitations? In plaintiff\u2019s rebuttal to Co Defendant at the time, Brad Starkey, the same issue was brought to the court, and the plaintiff adequately proved he tolled the statute of limitations, and had he not, this court would have dismissed this action when it ruled on the Starkey motions, and scheduled this matter for Trial in agreement, that the plaintiff had in fact, tolled the statute of limitations

children while they were being paraded through courts to commit perjury, and many multiple letters and faxes to the defendant, that defendant not one time ever responded in any manner to the plaintiff, did the plaintiff file on March 5, 2008, Pro Se, \u201aMotion for Temporary Custody Order while Action Pending\u201b, along with,

fact, he should have uncovered himself had he been diligently representing me all of 2007, by him ignoring my faxes of the evidence, never responding, and feeling urgent to bring this evidence to the attention of the court, I had no choice but to file Pro Se, as this defendant would not be professional enough to give me the courtesy of calling and advising he no longer wished to represent me. In fact, to this day, defendant Leuthold has never served the Plaintiff notice of his withdrawal from representation, which is required in the Ohio Rules of Ethics, as noted in the Rebuttal filed with this court on Brad Starkey.

This letter also well notes my anger towards him for having deceived and lied to me to get me to sign the divorce decree, making me think I would get one thing, when in fact, he knew all well that he was lying and working for the other side, and as bad as the psychological was against the other party, ignored that evidence and went ahead and elected to honor the brotherhood of attorneys, and malpractice his client and fraud him by telling him things he knew it would take to get his client to sign the final decree.

What father or anyone, would sign off on a divorce decree, if not told if he complied with one wish of the court, he would get something through amending later? And of all the attorneys in Mansfield and Delaware that have reviewed this final decree, not one would have signed their professional name to this document, knowing the evidence showed the mother should not have custody of the children with the psychological results the court ordered, then every attorney hid under the carpet and each knew they had to perjure themselves to the Plaintiff to make him think he would get one something later, knowing not one person would have signed off if told the truth, that they would never again see their kids ever and they would not be representing them ever again after that day no matter how bad the children suffered.

Therefore, the plaintiff well establishes that the statute of limitations was tolled until March 18 2008 upon the magistrate ruling upon plaintiffs motions for custody of the children, and further could stretch the timing to the letter of March 25, 2008 to Defendant, which for the first time, did this plaintiff realize he had been malpracticed by the defendant, which tolled and began the statute of limitations at best, March 18,2008, which Plaintiff has filed this malpractice claim on March 3, 2009 well within the year of the statute.

If we looked further for tolling the statute, when Plaintiff filed his complaint on May 18, 2008 against the Defendant, it was the counsel dating of July 10, 2008, making their decision, that the plaintiff was further tolling the statue of limitations

With this evidence and exhibits along with the many, many court cases found in research where statute of limitations is tolled until one knows or realizes they have been harmed, and this Court having already ruled on this same motion by Co Defendant Brad Starkey, and setting this case for trail, this court has already agreed and ruled, Plaintiff has met the statute of limitations and properly filed in time. And if the defendant was going to argue statute of limitation, he should have properly argued and asked for Summary Judgment on these grounds, on his answer to the Plaintiffs complaint filed with this court on April 3, 2009

Plaintiff was given by this court until September 1, 2009 to name his expert witness. The plaintiff is in the process of having this court certify that his expert is acceptable to testify in this trial. It is this court that determines if an expert is acceptable, not a defendant. The plaintiff has well established in his motion to have his expert qualified by this court, the credentials of this expert, and when this court certifies and enters judgment that the Plaintiff expert is qualified and acceptable to testify in this court, then it will be up to the jury that will decide ultimately, through the evidence and the experts and other witnesses, if Legal Malpractice was committed.

In fact, the defendant is only smoke screening this court, having not taken the plaintiffs case serious from day one, banking on the fact he would not find an expert because it is ten times harder for a Pro Se litigant to do so. And this Pro Se Litigant will agree, it was very complicated and worrisome that one would take the case with a Pro SE litigant, and to afford the Plaintiff equal justice and protection of his rights under the laws, it is important that this court certify this expert so this litigant can begin working with the expert to prepare for trial set for November 24, 2009 in this matter, and stop this defendant from further harassing and threatening this expert, and stop him from having further contact with her.