Frivolous court filings must not be tolerated

In describing the pressure being brought to bear on the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court as a result of anti-stalking orders sought by individuals, Vindicator Courthouse Reporter Bob Jackson spotlighted the case of a Youngstown man.
Here's how Magistrate Robert W. Bannon characterized the filing when he dismissed it: "... fanciful and not deserving of serious consideration." That's putting it mildly. The Kensington Avenue man had sought an anti-stalking order against all racetracks in the United States, contending that they've conspired to deprive him of earning a living -- because they won't let him win.
We are sure that this was not what the Ohio General Assembly intended when it passed the anti-stalking law in 1998. We also have no doubt that state lawmakers would have taken a closer look at what they were passing had someone suggested that in Mahoning County in the first four months of this year, 125 requests for anti-stalking orders would be filed; 234 requests during a six-month period in 2002; and 375 during a 10-month period in 2000.
Yes, Mahoning County seems to be an exception, given that in neighboring Trumbull and Columbiana counties, the number of filings pales in comparison. But the problem for the common pleas court is real and is affecting the proper administration of justice.
For this reason, the law needs to be changed to not only tighten the guidelines under which anti-stalking orders can be sought, but to impose real punishment on those who think nothing of demeaning the criminal justice system with frivolity.
A man who believes that racetracks across the nation are conspiring against him certainly doesn't warrant the court's intervention. Yes, he does need help, but not from a judge.
Good intentions
While the Legislature had good intentions when it passed the anti-stalking law, lawmakers wrongly assumed that it would be used only by those with legitimate complaints or concerns. The situation in Mahoning County certainly challenges that assumption.
"We get them by the hundreds," says Judge R. Scott Krichbaum.
The situation is exacerbated by the fact that requests for anti-stalking orders must be handled by the court expeditiously and that the target of the order does not have to be present when the allegations are made. That obvious loophole and other shortcomings prompted visiting Judge Mary Cacioppo to declare the law unconstitutional in October 2000. However, she reversed her ruling last year after it was challenged.
Thus today, a defective law continues to exist -- and plague the courts.
Another problem that should be addressed is the issue of venue. As Judge Cacioppo pointed out, the common pleas court deals with felonies, whereas the anti-stalking law applies to misdemeanors. She contended that the proper venues are the county courts or the municipal courts.
If the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court did not have such a large backlog of legitimate civil cases and did not have to deal with such a large number of criminal cases, including several that carry the death penalty, the complaints of the judges about the anti-stalking law would not have struck a responsive chord with us.
But the fact of the matter is that the court just doesn't have the time to deal with requests for anti-stalking orders.
Mahoning County's legislators should meet with the judges of the common pleas, municipal and county courts to determine how the many holes in the law should be plugged.