IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

NATHANIEL HAKE , et al. Case No. 3:17-CV-420 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SHERIFF MICHAEL SIMPSON , et al.

Defendants 

. 

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Now come Plaintiffs through their attorney and respond to the Court’s Show Cause 

Order as follows:

The Court questions the bases for jurisdiction in this case stating,

While Plaintiffs’ citations to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 are interesting, the Court sees nothing in the 

complaint that would allow one to conclude that civil rights were at issue, much less an 

argument for why they should overcome the automatic stay. 

This Court is quite correct in stating that there are no reasons for interfering with an 

automatic stay issued by the bankruptcy court in Case No. 3:17bk-33681, and herein this Court 

touches on the essential issue: the stay in this case was not interfered with by Plaintiffs, but was 

attacked in state court, a completely improper forum and the state court decision then used to 

avoid the Bankruptcy Court stay, as pled, all Defendants knew of the existence of this stay but 
acted to knowingly circumvent it in an improper forum. Only after being threatened with 

contempt (e-mail from Attorney Brian Luzardi to Attorney James Ellis, December 4, 2017), the 

Defendants filed a motion to lift the stay in Bankruptcy Court, thus acknowledging the existence 

of the stay and their knowledge thereof when they proceeded in state court. 

Candidly, a hearing was held concerning this stay in the U. S. Bankruptcy Court on 

November 20, 2017, and the Bankruptcy Court found in favor of the Defendants, finding that a 

co-debtor stay had not existed and dismissed this bankruptcy case.

It would, of course, be easy to now state that this matter is resolved and that it was 

resolved in its proper forum, the bankruptcy court. It would also be easy to state that no civil 

rights issues are involved since the law took its course in the proper forum. However, to do so 

would be to permit a retroactive decision to cure actions which at the time were committed in 

order to knowingly violate and circumvent due process of law, specifically the Bankruptcy Code 

(Hence the reference in the statement of jurisdiction to the Bankruptcy Code) and the history of 

such violations, as pleaded in the Complaint herein.

Plaintiffs understand this Court’s concern about any conflict with the Bankruptcy Court. 

If this were simply a matter of bankruptcy proceedings, that would certainly be a valid concern. 

However, this Court would in no way be interfering with any decision of the Bankruptcy Court.

This matter encompasses more than the proceedings in Bankruptcy Court.

Thus, Plaintiffs present a substantive due process claim. In order to succeed in a 

substantive due process claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must first establish a protected 

property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. Independent Enterprises Inc. v. Pittsburgh 

Water and Sewer Authority, 103 F.3d 1165, 1179-80 (3d Cir. 1997). Here we are talking about a 
plaintiff’s home and their means of livelihood. The Plaintiffs must also show that the Defendants 

violated the relevant standards for such takings and that such takings shock the conscience.

United Artists Theatre Circuit v. The Township of Warrington 316 F. 3d 392 (3d Cir. 2003).

There is a pattern of evading due process from the beginning in Plaintiffs’ cases. These 

actions were commenced with an unsigned complaint contrary to Ohio law (para.23). As in 

many cases since the real estate crash of 2008, the Defendants were unable to produce the Note 

in this matter and concealed this fact (paras. 25 – 27). Without the Note, the Defendants were 

able to double count the amount due (para. 28). The Defendants took property from non-parties 

to the debts and property not listed as security (paras. 29- 30). All of this was done under color 

of the state court and with the participation of state officers as pled in the Complaint herein.

The knowing violation of, at the time at least, an existing stay and the cynical and 

opportunistic avoidance of the proper forum for the adjudication of this stay by going to an 

historically accommodating state court, is only the final act of a pattern of the denial of due 

process to the Plaintiffs by the Defendants.

So what recourse is there for the Plaintiffs? The land has been sold. The crops and 

equipment have been taken. The present action is the only forum for redress of a pattern 

involving both private and state actors in which the Plaintiffs were systematically and 

knowingly (The failure to provide a Note and the concealment of this fact and the avoidance of 

the obvious forum to lift a bankruptcy stay for an all too accommodating state court and state 

officers) denied and circumvented due process of law for the Plaintiffs. The state facilitated the 

taking of property from the Plaintiffs without due process of law. This matter thus transcends
both state law and the bankruptcy code. These things were but obstacles in the Defendants’

paths. The Plaintiffs’ civil rights have been violated. This Court should permit the Plaintiffs to 

present their claims. There will be litigation and motions filed by the parties and there will be 

dispositive motions. And the allegations involving his substantive due process claims will have 

to be proven. But the Plaintiffs will have the right to litigate the deprivation of their 

constitutional rights as pled and justice would have been served.

This Court raised the issue of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is based upon a claim of 

deprivation of substantive due process rights by both state and private actors. This is an initial 

determination, not a trial on the merits or a dispositive motion. The issues raised are not those of 

concern or in conflict with the Bankruptcy Court. The pleadings do establish a claim for 

deprivation of due process of law and therefore confer jurisdiction on this Court.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court to retain jurisdiction of this matter under the 

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

 Respectfully submitted, 

s/ George A. Katchmer

GEORGE A. KATCHMER 

Attorney at Law 

1886 Brock Road N.E. 

Bloomingburg, Ohio 43106 

740-437-6071 

740-437-6077 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

A copy of the foregoing was served upon the Defendants via electronic notification by the Clerk 

of Courts this day of filing. 

/s/George A. Katchmer

Attorney for Plaintiffs