Judge Tracie Hunter's Motion For New Counsel & Response To Criminal Charge

Case: 1:16-cv-00561-TSB-KLL Doc #: 54 Filed: 10/23/17 Page: 1 of 33 PAGEID #: 5731
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
TRACIE M. HUNTER, : Case No. 1:16-cv-561
Petitioner, : Judge Black
v. : Magistrate Judge Litkovitz

:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF :
STATE OF OHIO, et al. :
:
Respondents. :
:
:
:
:
PETITIONER JUDGE TRACIE HUNTER’S PRO SE MOTION FOR LEAVE OF

COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO RETAIN NEW LEGAL COUNSEL TO
AMEND OR SUPPLEMENT PLEADINGS FILED IN OBJECTION TO THE MAY 9,
2017 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to Rules 11 and 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Petitioner Hamilton
County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Judge Tracie M. Hunter, pro se, respectfully
moves this Court for a Leave of Court of 120 days to retain new legal counsel to amend her
pleadings as a matter of course or to file supplemental pleadings to the May 9, 2017 Report and
Recommendation (Doc. #41) for the following reasons:
1. The undersigned certifies that she does not make this request: for any improper
purpose or to cause unnecessary delay; but that: her claims, legal defenses and other legal
contentions are warranted by existing law; the factual contentions have evidentiary support; and
the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence. Leave of court shall be granted
to amend pleadings when it is in the interest of justice and Judge Hunter’s constitutional civil
liberties and civil rights shall be irreparably harmed if such leave is not granted.
2. This Court granted multiple Motions for Extension of Time filed by Respondents
to allow Respondent Judge Patrick Dinkelacker to intervene in the case as a Party and to allow
for other claims made by Respondents. Judge Hunter has not heretofore made such requests and
does so now to preserve legal claims. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.
3. Justice requires the court grant leave, otherwise she may be precluded from
asserting her legal grounds in the future. Judge Hunter did not agree to concede claims that
denied her Sixth Amendment constitutional rights to a fair trial, when: A) three jurors said their
true verdict was not guilty and signed sworn affidavits stating that their true verdicts were not
guilty and Ohio law required twelve jurors to unanimously find her guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt; B) special prosecutors lied and made false statements to the tribunal with no evidentiary
support because no evidence existed to support that Judge Hunter violated Ohio Revised Code,
2924.21 or any other laws, as she was merely performing her judicial duties; C) approximately
one-third of the jury admitted it was biased against Judge Hunter during voir dire and could not
be impartial jurists; D) special prosecutors used peremptory challenges to only eliminate black
jurors in violation of the law; E) evidence not only proved that Judge Hunter did not tamper with
evidence, but that prosecutors or others tampered with computer evidence, illegally altered her
judicial entries and fabricated unsubstantiated tales about Judge Hunter’s cases to illegally
influence a jury; F) Judge Norbert Nadel stated during the sentencing hearing that he sentenced
Judge Hunter to jail for her treatment of cases as a Juvenile Court Judge that were not only false,
but irrelative to the alleged conviction and that exceeded his jurisdiction and scope of authority
as a Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge, General Division; G) jury forewoman Sandra
2
Kirkham, the wife of William Kirkham, a Cincinnati lawyer who worked for the law firm that
represented WCPO, a TV station that sued Judge Hunter as Judge, lied on her jury questionnaire
and during voir dire to be empaneled; H) multiple jurors were connected to the prosecutor’s
office and to the evidence utilized at trial; and I) prosecutors fabricated evidence and made
unsubstantiated claims in order to extract an impermissible split verdict conviction against Judge
Hunter in violation of the law.
A. Judge Hunter requests leave of court to retain new counsel to object to the
Magistrate’s recommendation that this Honorable Court deny her Petition for Habeas Corpus
when Judge Nadel denied her Sixth Amendment constitutional right to receive a fair trial and all
jurisdictions require a trial judge to immediately poll the jury upon request of either the
defendant or state, after a jury verdict is published or read in open court, in order to ensure that
the published verdict is each juror’s true verdict. The Magistrate Judge erred in her R & R.
It is uncontested that immediately following trial, three jurors, contacted: Judge Norbert
Nadel, an independent lawyer, and Judge Hunter’s legal counsel Clyde Bennett to inform each of
them separately that their true verdict was not guilty. All three jurors submitted sworn affidavits
stating that if they had been polled by Judge Nadel after the verdict was read in open court, (it
was sealed four days prior) they would have stated for the record that their verdict was not guilty.
Judge Hunter was denied her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial when three jurors, to wit, one-
fourth of the jury, all African-Americans, swore that their true verdicts were not guilty in Ohio, a
state that requires a unanimous verdict. By excluding the three black jurors’ true votes of
acquittal and failing to confirm the alleged conviction by a routine poll that would have taken
minutes, following a complex and lengthy six-week trial, Judge Hunter was denied the
3
constitutional right to be tried by a jury of her peers, as the black jurors’ verdicts were ignored.
Judge Nadel knew the alleged conviction was not unanimous when he refused to poll the jury.
A verdict is not published and ripe for polling until it is read in open court and the
defendant is apprised of the actual verdict. Polling a jury is critically important to ascertaining
whether or not a verdict is unanimous, especially in a state like Ohio that requires a jury to
unanimously determine a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Conducting a jury poll is
fundamentally paramount to ensuring that a defendant receives a fair trial. Jury polling rarely
arises as a Sixth Amendment challenge as all trial judges know to protect the integrity of a jury
trial conviction by following the law, which requires polling a jury upon request in all
jurisdictions. A competent, well-intentioned, unbiased judge would never refuse to poll a jury
upon a timely request of either party, especially when a peer Judge’s freedom is at stake.
It is even more compelling that such basic laws requiring a jury poll would not be
violated in arguably the most high-profile case in Hamilton County, when such trial was
conducted by another Common Pleas judge in the same county where: political, religious and
racial views were repeatedly emphasized, not by Judge Hunter, as Respondents allege to this
Court, but by the special prosecutors during voir dire, and in the opening and closing statements.
It is ironic that special prosecutors accused Judge Hunter of not following the law in her cases
and being a maverick judge, despite the Ohio Supreme Court (OSC) upholding her rulings which
became Ohio law. Yet in presiding over her trial, Judge Nadel refused to follow routine polling
laws and disregarded three jurors who contacted his court, defense counsel and independent legal
counsel immediately following trial to state that their true verdicts were not guilty.
B. The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments preclude
conviction unless the prosecution proves every element of a charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
4
Judge Hunter was charged with violating Ohio Revised Code 2921.421, Having an
Unlawful Interest in a Public Contract, which required Judge Hunter to use the influence of her
office, to wit, her judgeship, to authorize or to secure authorization of a public contract on behalf
of a family member, allegedly her brother, who was hired by the Juvenile Court in 2007, over
five years before Judge Hunter was sworn in, making it factually and legally impossible for her
to have carried out the legal elements required to violate that statute. No evidence of either the
authorization of any contract or the contract itself she was alleged to have secured or authorized
was ever presented because no such contract nor authorization of such contract existed. Without
a contract or authorization of a contract, there could be no violation of law. The Constitution
requires every element of a criminal statute to be met and proven beyond a reasonable doubt in
order to convict one of the crime charged. Judge Hunter would have knowingly had to use her
position as Judge to secure a public contract that was never presented because it did not exist.
The evidence showed that Judge Hunter requested incident reports relative to her duties
as statutory employer of the Juvenile Court, which required her to investigate whenever the court
administrator notified her of any employee involved incident that threatened to expose the
Juvenile Court, specifically the Juvenile Court Judge, to liability. The evidence demonstrated
that Judge Hunter did not take any actions that could be legally construed or even misconstrued
as securing a public contract, when even the state’s witness testified that Judge Hunter did not
speak to nor direct any employees to take any actions necessary to secure a public contract.
In fact, special prosecutors were so desperate to connect Judge Hunter to her brother’s
hiring at Juvenile Court that special prosecutor Scott Croswell lied to the jury and told them that
1
2921.42 Having an unlawful interest in a public contract.(A) No public official shall knowingly do any of the
(1) Authorize, or employ the authority or influence of the public official's office to secure authorization of any
public contract in which the public official, a member of the public official's family, or any of the public official's
business associates has an interest;
5
Judge John Williams hired Judge Hunter’s brother as a favor to Judge Hunter. Not only was that
false, as Judge Hunter did not know Judge Williams when her brother was hired, Judge Hunter
and Judge Williams were actively engaged in a hostile voter lawsuit. They never communicated.
Croswell intentionally lied to the jury to convince them that Judge Hunter was involved because
no evidence existed to establish any connection between Judge Hunter and her brother. When
Judge Hunter was sworn in May 25, 2012, her brother was already working at the court and she
became his employer, not by any actions she took, but by default. When she was contacted by
court administrator Curt Kissinger in an email regarding her brother, evidence showed that she
took the exact same safeguards to protect the Juvenile Court that she took every time an incident
involving any employee of the Juvenile Court was brought to her attention by Mr. Kissinger. Mr.
Kissinger initiated the communications with Judge Hunter regarding employment-related
incidents, including one involving her juvenile court officer brother. Per her judicial training by
the Ohio Supreme Court and judicial handbook issued to her as a statutory employer and
fiduciary of the Juvenile Court, she appropriately requested all incident reports, which evidence
showed she did in every case. Likewise, when she was notified by Curt Kissinger that the media
and citizens requested public records relevant to that employee, she responded to those public
records requests as the law required. Mr. Kissinger initiated her involvement, not Judge Hunter.
Notwithstanding, the jury necessarily made a fantastic leap of law and facts to conclude
that Judge Hunter violated any, let alone all of the elements of R.C. 2921.42, which the law
required in order to convict. The Court may take judicial notice that the Bill of Particulars, which
was never amended, identified R.C. 2941.412 as the statute Judge Hunter was charged under.
2
Request for a final disposition on pending charges by prisoner- warrant, 2941.41 Request for a final disposition on
pending charges by prisoner - warrant. A warrant for removal specified in section 2941. 40 of the Revised Code
shall be in the usual form, except that it shall set forth that the accused is in a state correctional institution. The
warrant shall be directed to the sheriff of the county in which the conviction was had or the indictment or
6
Notwithstanding, the State’s witnesses correctly testified that Judge Hunter never influenced nor
was involved directly nor indirectly with any termination hearings regarding her brother, never
talked to any employees about a termination hearing regarding her brother and never instructed
any actions to be taken by the Juvenile Court on her brother’s behalf after he was terminated by
Judge Williams. Evidence showed that Judge Hunter requested and received information from
Mr. Bowman, including August 1-2, 2013, which was after the alleged termination hearing.
Prosecutors knew that the Ohio Supreme Court emphasized employment law training for
all Ohio Judges, including Judge Hunter, and had just trained her to protect the Juvenile Court,
which R.C. 2151.083 identifies as the Judge of Juvenile Court, from employment liability. Such
training guided her to investigate any and all allegations of employee-related incidents. Dwayne
Bowman perjured himself when he said Judge Hunter’s request for incident reports was unusual
for a judge. Mr. Bowman testified that Judge Hunter routinely requested information regarding
any and all employee incidents that were brought to her attention by staff because he knew that it
was her job, as well as, the established practice of that court. He knew that he was employed
directly by the judges and that part of his job was to routinely provide information to Judge
Hunter pertaining to all activity at the Juvenile Court that could expose the court to liability.
Only the statutory employers of the court, not Mr. Bowman, Mr. Bell, or any other employee
held that role. It would defy logic and law that any employee of Judge Hunter’s would make
information is pending. When a copy of the warrant is presented to the warden or the superintendent of a state
correctional institution, he shall deliver the convict to the sheriff who shall convey him to the county and commit
him to the county jail. For removing and returning the convict, the sheriff shall receive the fees allowed for
conveying convicts to a state correctional institution.
3
In Hamilton county, the powers and jurisdiction of the juvenile court as conferred by Chapters 2151. and 2152. of
the Revised Code shall be exercised by the judge of the court of common pleas whose term begins on January 1,
1957, and that judge's successors and by the judge of the court of common pleas whose term begins on February 14,
1967, and that judge's successors as provided by section 2301.03 of the Revised Code. This conferral of powers and
jurisdiction on the specified judges shall be deemed a creation of a separately and independently created and
established juvenile court in Hamilton county, Ohio. The specified judges shall serve in each and every position
where the statutes permit or require a juvenile judge to serve.
7
legal decisions regarding other employees that could expose Judge Hunter to personal liability as
an employer, without her knowledge. Judge Hunter, not Mr. Bowman could be sued for violating
any employee’s legal rights, including Stephen Hunter’s. Mr. Bowman testified that Judge
Hunter consistently requested reports on all employee-related matters because it was her job.
C. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to trial by an impartial jury. One-third
of the jury admitted during voir dire that they were biased against Judge Hunter and could not be
fair, but were allowed to remain on the jury. At least four jurors stated that they were partial
towards Judge Hunter and would be unable to put their biases aside during trial, especially
following the widespread TV, radio and print media reports, days before trial, insinuating that
Judge Hunter was responsible for the murders of two people, after Prosecutor Joe Deters issued a
press release falsely alleging that Judge Hunter was responsible for their deaths. He intentionally
and unethically tainted the jury pool knowing that the media would publish that absurd lie, and
did, without vetting Mr. Deters’ inflammatory and untruthful tales. Yet none of the jurors who
admitted that they were negatively impacted by those news reports were removed for cause.
It was insufficient for Judge Norbert Nadel to ask the jurors to try and be fair to Judge
Hunter when they repeatedly stated that they were biased and had been negatively influenced by
the media coverage. Those jurors could not possibly have been rehabilitated or miraculously rise
above their expressed biases in a simple plea from Judge Nadel to try and be fair. Those jurors
should have been dismissed for cause when they admitted during voir dire that they believed the
negative media coverage and were admittedly predisposed to find Judge Hunter guilty. There
were more jurors with admitted biases than Judge Hunter’s peremptory challenges could cure,
but she had been deprived of the typical right to view jury questionnaires in advance of the trial.
8
D. There were blatant instances of jury bias, including violations of Batson v.
Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986),4 which held peremptory challenges, based on race or ethnicity,
were unconstitutional when used by criminal prosecutors. Judge Hunter raised Batson after the
prosecutors used all of their peremptory challenges to systematically eliminate African-American
jurors and Judge Nadel eliminated black jurors for cause, but did not dismiss white jurors who
stated multiple times during voir dire that they were biased and could not be fair to Judge Hunter.
In one extraordinary event, a white prospective juror, identified as an employee of the
Hamilton County Treasury Department, falsely accused Judge Hunter of hugging a black
prospective juror in the courtroom. That black juror was subsequently dismissed by Judge Nadel
at the request of special prosecutors. At the time the accusation was made against Judge Hunter,
that juror was the next black juror to undergo voir dire. Judge Hunter had already raised Batson
so the prosecutors needed a non-race based reason to eliminate another black juror. The
prosecutors told Judge Nadel that they were using their peremptory challenge to eliminate the
juror, not based on race, but because she hugged judge Hunter. As it was obvious that the juror
could not have possibly hugged Judge Hunter in a courtroom filled with dozens of TV cameras
capturing her and the jurors’ every move in the media packed courtroom, the prosecutors then
claimed that the prospective black juror was hostile when she cried after being falsely accused of
hugging Judge Hunter, whom she had never met prior to responding to an order for jury duty.
E. Judge Hunter made multiple rulings and orders in her judicial capacity while
actively presiding over the Hamilton County Juvenile Court that changed Ohio laws for the good
and positively transformed statewide policies ensuring the protection, reform and rehabilitation
of children in state custody, in direct contradiction to the statements made by prosecutors. The
4
An objection to the validity of a peremptory challenge on grounds that the other party used it to exclude a potential
juror based on race, ethnicity, or sex.
9
prosecution was required by law to share any evidence in their possession with Judge Hunter and
the jury that directly refuted the charges against Judge Hunter and proved her innocence. Instead,
the prosecution intentionally and illegally withheld evidence that proved Judge Hunter’s
innocence and charged her with felony crimes despite knowing that the evidence the State held
in their possession and intentionally withheld from Judge Hunter and the grand jury proved she
did not tamper with evidence. They charged her in direct contradiction of the law and evidence.
The prosecutor’s computer software expert witness testified that he was instructed by the
Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office to withhold information from his sworn affidavit that the
computer logs showed that Judge Hunter had not backdated her judicial entries as the prosecutor
falsely alleged. Juvenile Court case manager Lisa Miller, an 18 year veteran of the Juvenile
Court, testified that she was trained by her supervisor, Executive Director of Case Management
Connie Murdock, to create Judge Hunter’s judicial entries. Miller testified that she and her
supervisor Mrs. Murdock routinely modified, altered and dated Judge Hunter’s judicial entries,
not Judge Hunter. Ms. Miller testified that she alone altered the entries at Murdock’s request and
did not know why the ruling Judge Hunter made in one of two cases that the State charged Judge
Hunter with tampering with evidence was different than Judge Hunter’s expressed ruling in the
case. Miller admitted that she altered Judge Hunter’s entry, not Judge Hunter.
As the changed entry in the juvenile court management system did not comport to Judge
Hunter’s decision in the case, but in fact contradicted her ruling, the only logical explanation for
the variance in computer records in JCMS was that prosecutors or employees working at
someone else’s direction that also had access to JCMS, changed Judge Hunter’s rulings with
fraudulent intent to frame Judge Hunter. The fact that Judge Hunter was indicted after
prosecutors eliminated key computer evidence that they withheld from her proved that they knew
10
before they indicted Judge Hunter and dragged her through a multi-million dollar trial that Judge
Hunter’s name did not appear on the computer logs and that Judge Hunter was innocent. The
State’s computer expert witness testified that he knew only Miller’s and Murdock’s names
appeared on those entries, not Judge Hunter’s, but special prosecutors intentionally withheld that
exculpatory evidence from Judge Hunter, even after she timely requested such evidence be
preserved, then indicted her with malicious intent to destroy her judicial and law career. One of
Judge Hunter’s entries, admitted as evidence, was also inexplicably altered by Judge William’s
clerk, yet none of those individuals were charged with crimes or held responsible for tampering
with the entries that were used by special prosecutors to falsely accuse Judge Hunter of crime.
Not only was the prosecutors’ conduct a violation of law and ethics, but a crime. It is
unconstitutional for prosecutors to knowingly prosecute a person when the evidence they
obtained prior to an indictment proved that they knew the accused was innocent, especially when
the evidence proved that the State’s witnesses fabricated the evidence used against Judge Hunter.
Moreover, the Magistrate Judge erred when she recommended this Court deny Judge
Hunter’s Petition when the special prosecutors’ remarks were not only inflammatory, but entirely
fabricated and only alleged for the first time at trial because the tales they told of children being
sexually abused while Judge Hunter’s cases were delayed never happened. The prosecutors
illegally influenced the jury by, not only defaming Judge Hunter, but by fabricating facts
regarding Judge Hunter’s cases. Not only is it a travesty of law and justice, the special
prosecutors should have been sanctioned for crafting false accusations and allegations against a
judge in the commission of her official duties. Being provided latitude is one thing, but allowing
special prosecutors to blatantly lie to the tribunal for the sole purpose of influencing a jury to
wrongfully convict her when no evidence existed to support the alleged charges was fraudulent.
11
F. Judge Hunter was denied a fair trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment when
Judge Nadel made statements that were impermissible, unethical and legally unconstitutional. He
abused his power and authority as a judge to sentence Judge Hunter to jail based on her alleged
style as a judge and on her juvenile court rulings when he had no first-hand knowledge of any
cases that Judge Hunter presided over, had never been in her courtroom, never observed her as a
judge in her courtroom and his statements were completely unrelated to the alleged conviction.
It was an abuse of power and authority, overreaching and legally impermissible for a
Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge, General Division, to state that he was sentencing a
Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge, Juvenile Division, to jail based on false allegations by
prosecutors that she was tardy on her cases. It would violate equal protection laws guaranteed by
the Constitution for one judge to be deprived of the autonomy afforded all other judges over their
cases, when judges are protected by judicial immunity on actions performed in their official
judicial capacity. Respondents are requesting this Court to ignore Judge Hunter’s judicial
immunity relative to her protected duties as an Ohio judge and uphold her being sentenced to jail
by a peer Common Pleas judge who interjected his personal opinion regarding the time frame in
which she ruled on her judicial cases as a reason for sentencing her to jail, in violation of the law.
Judge Norbert Nadel sentenced Judge Hunter to jail in violation of the law after he stated
that the evidence showed that “there were serious ethical violations which include among other
things, nepotism, improper judicial temperament, tardiness in making decisions and denying
public access to the court.” Judge Nadel violated the Constitution when he sentenced Judge
Hunter based on unsupported claims regarding her judicial temperament, the alleged time frame
in which she ruled on cases and because she placed limitations on the media when she granted
them access to her courtroom, which were her direct responsibilities as a Judge. Those were
12
judicial decisions that were specific to Judge Hunter’s role as a Judge and completely beyond the
permissible scope of any criminal charges alleged against Judge Hunter by the prosecutors.
The majority of Judge Nadel’s sentencing focused on Judge Hunter’s alleged handling of
her juvenile court cases, revealing that Judge Hunter was prosecuted for reasons non-related to
allegedly securing a non-existent public contract. Prosecutors admitted that they just wanted to
get rid of Judge Hunter, not send her to jail. That might explain why his sentencing diatribe, like
the majority of the special prosecutors’ case, focused on Judge Hunter’s rulings and perceived
judicial style, to make up for her lack of criminal culpability. Any real concerns by prosecutors,
who initiated the criminal investigation of Judge Hunter, relative to how Judge Hunter ruled on
her cases and managed her individual courtroom and docket were issues for the appeals court.
Prosecutors could have presented evidence of Judge Hunter’s demeanor while presiding over her
hearings in any given case, as all of her hearings were videotaped, but they didn’t because Judge
Hunter’s temperament and courtroom etiquette proved appropriate and judicious at all times.
However, Mr. Deters sua sponte initiated a criminal investigation of Judge Hunter after
falsely alleging that she backdated two judicial entries to prevent his office from appealing.
Evidence proved that, not only was such accusation false, prosecutors knew it was false when
alleged. Not only did they know that Ms. Miller dated those documents, they also knew that the
appeals process was the appropriate remedy for a service issue, not an indictment; given that the
Juvenile Court had been backlogged with cases years before Judge Hunter arrived and there was
no uniform system of case management within the court. It was a gross abuse of power and
office for Mr. Deters, who expressed public outrage that Judge Hunter filed ethics complaints
against him after he neglected to answer 12 civil lawsuits filed against her court, to allege that
she committed crimes in retaliation, then hired his personal defense lawyers to indict her. It was
13
confirmed when Deters' chief assistant prosecutor James Harper testified that she must pay for
filing ethics complaints against them because it was the worst thing one could do to a lawyer. By
accusing Judge Hunter of crimes in office they definitively bested her filing ethics complaints.
Judge Nadel, during sentencing, accused Judge Hunter of nepotism despite common
knowledge that many Hamilton County Judges and Mr. Deters all have children and family
members working throughout the Hamilton County Court system, including the Prosecutor’s
office, Clerk’s Office and Common Pleas Courts. When the cases arose, Respondent Judge
Dinkelacker and Judge Fischer, both involved in the State’s cases against Judge Hunter, had
children who practiced as assistant prosecutors before Judge Hunter’s court. Those Judges
should have recused themselves from participating in the State’s case when Leah Dinkelacker
and Anne Fischer worked for Mr. Deters and practiced before the Juvenile Court at the time
allegations were made against Judge Hunter by Mr. Deters. Their family members had a direct
interest in the outcome of the State’s case and in wanting Judge Hunter removed as the Juvenile
Court Judge. That should have precluded their participation in her case given their influence over
the appeals process and their ability to extract retaliation on behalf of their children’s employer.
Unlike those Judges, Judge Hunter was not an elected official when her brother was
independently hired by the Juvenile Court, had no other family members working in the court
and no family connections were utilized to secure her brother’s employment. It was disingenuous
for Judge Nadel to accuse Judge Hunter of nepotism given the deluge of family members of
judges and prosecutors who work in the Hamilton County courts and were hired because of it.
Judge Nadel further demonstrated his pre-existing biases against Judge Hunter by
commenting on her specific cases, like the high-profile North College Hill assault case when he
knew at the time he made those comments while sentencing her that judges are required to be
14
entirely independent of all other judges and that the Ohio Supreme Court (OSC), not peer judges,
is the body that handles complaints against judges regarding the administration of their cases. By
identifying her style and temperament as the basis for her sentencing in a criminal proceeding,
Judge Nadel violated Judge Hunter’s rights as an independent jurist, immune from prosecution.
Judge Nadel denied Judge Hunter a fair trial when he stated that he was sentencing her to
jail because she was tardy on her cases. Judge Nadel was never a Juvenile Court judge in
Hamilton County. He was legally precluded from finding that she was criminally culpable based
on the alleged time frame that she ruled on her cases. If not, other judges would also be jailed.
Yet Judge Nadel allowed special prosecutors to tell the jury that Judge Hunter should be found
guilty of criminal charges, including having an interest in a public contract, because she was
sued at least 12 times by Public Defender Ray Faller to force her to rule, not in the time-frame
recommended by the OSC, but when the public defender dictated she should rule, although Mr.
Faller also testified that his decision to sue Judge Hunter was arbitrarily determined by himself.
Not only did Judge Nadel violate the law, which did not allow him to sentence Judge
Hunter based on one party to those juvenile court cases alleging her rulings were untimely, Judge
Nadel should have known that Judge Hunter was guided by the OSC Rules of Superintendence
that recommended varying time frames for each type of Juvenile Court case. Judge Hunter was
guided in her rulings by Form D instructions, which Judge Hunter followed. A jury would not
have known nor grasped the role, responsibilities or time frames that guide Juvenile Court
Judges in Ohio, especially one like Juvenile Court Judge Hunter who had the highest
documented case load of any Juvenile Court Judge in Ohio, including Hamilton County, per
OSC records. It violated her absolute immunity for Judge Nadel to state that he was sentencing
15
Judge Hunter to jail for allegedly being tardy on her cases when such statement was not only
untrue, given OSC rules, any alleged delays in her rulings did not constitute crime, even if true.
Judge Nadel’s sentencing statement was even more disturbing when evidence exposed
that Administrative Judge Williams had more cases pending than Judge Hunter, despite her
having nearly 100 more Objection hearings scheduled on her docket than Judge Williams, but
the Public Defender only sued Judge Hunter. Judge Nadel heard Public Defender Ray Faller
testify at trial that he arbitrarily sued Judge Hunter 12 times to force her to rule, but didn’t sue
Williams. Judge Nadel knew that Judge Hunter, like all judges, was required to preside over her
cases as an independent jurist, guided by law and policies established by the OSC, not the Public
Defender. It was plain error for Judge Nadel to determine that Judge Hunter violated any laws
by being tardy on her cases and should therefore be jailed. Most of the cases in Juvenile Court,
according to an audit released by the OSC, had been pending in Juvenile Court for many years
before they ever reached Judge Hunter on Objection. Mr. Faller demanded Judge Hunter to
prioritize his cases over the thousands of other cases on her document, which was unethical.
Moreover, Ohio law required Judge Hunter to conduct de novo reviews on all Objections
filed by any party. Given the grave responsibility of weighing whether or not the facts of a case
that had been pending in the Juvenile Court for years warranted permanently separating children
from their families forever or reunifying those families, it would have been irresponsible for
Judge Hunter to render rash rulings just to satisfy the Public Defender, whose lawyers most often
held up those cases. A wrong rash ruling could destroy whole families. It was impermissible for
Judge Nadel, who was not a juvenile court judge and did not handle permanent custody cases, to
sentence Judge Hunter for being tardy in his opinion, when he was clueless about her caseload.
16
Prosecutors withheld from the jury that cases that Mr. Faller sued Judge Hunter to force
rulings had been appealed to the First District Court of Appeals and were outside of Judge
Hunter’s jurisdiction when the Public Defender sued her, which they would have known had Mr.
Deters filed answers in those cases when he represented Judge Hunter. She was legally precluded
from ruling in cases on appeal and the case files were in the First District Court of Appeals, not
Juvenile Court. Prosecutors also withheld from the jury that Judge Hunter had already ruled on
other cases before she was frivolously sued, which the court would have also known had Mr.
Deters filed answers in those cases when his office represented Judge Hunter in those lawsuits.
Prosecutors further withheld from the jury that Mr. Deters, not only negligently failed to answer
the lawsuits filed against Judge Hunter, after he insisted on representing her, denying her the
independent representation Judge Williams and other Common Pleas Judges received when they
were also sued; but Mr. Deters refused to appeal those cases he lost to hide his malfeasance, then
accused Judge Hunter of theft in office when she appealed the cases he neglected to answer.
The prosecutors also withheld that the two lawyers Mr. Deters handpicked to represent
Judge Hunter, after he terminated his representation of her, James Bogen and Firooz Namei, also
failed to file answers to those 12 lawsuits. After Judge Hunter properly filed notices of appeals
with the OSC to appeal the lawsuits that resulted in default judgments against the Juvenile Court
because Mr. Deters, Mr. Bogen and Mr. Namei negligently failed to answer them, prosecutors
accused her of theft in office when OSC notice of appeals fees were paid with a court credit card
that Judge Hunter, as fiduciary, was issued and authorized to use for any business of the Juvenile
Court, which included defending the 12 lawsuits against Juvenile Court that Deters bungled.
Judge Nadel also erred when he stated that he was sentencing Judge Hunter because she
denied public access to her courtroom. WCPO TV and the Cincinnati Enquirer sued Judge
17
Hunter when she followed the Rules of Superintendence and the Hamilton County Local Rules
of Juvenile Court that guided her, in the best interest of the children, to prohibit the media from
publishing the names and faces of twelve-year old children that were accused of assault. The law
required her as a Juvenile Court Judge to protect all children in her custody from harm.
Unlike adult court, a juvenile judge acts in loco parentis to ensure that children are
rehabilitated, not treated punitively. All proceedings in Juvenile Court are civil in nature, not
criminal. Juvenile Judges are required to prohibit or limit access to their courtrooms when it is in
the best interest of the child and the law requires it. Independent child psychiatrists that Judge
Hunter retained to evaluate the children in her cases determined that media exposure would have
permanently harmed them and prevented their rehabilitation, which is the goal of Juvenile Court.
Judge Nadel exceeded the scope of the law and Constitution and violated Judge Hunter’s
right to a fair trial when he debased Judge Hunter over her rulings as a judge and stated that he
sentenced her to jail because she limited access to children in her courtroom. Judge Hunter was
not the first judge in Hamilton County to be sued by the media for placing media restrictions that
comported to the law and local rules of court, but she was the only judge in Hamilton County to
be publicly denigrated and sentenced to jail for following the local rules of the Juvenile Court
that guided her to prohibit the names and faces of children from being published in the media.
Ultimately, this Honorable Court knows and Judge Nadel should have known that it is the
sole discretion of the Judge presiding over her docket to determine individual case schedules, not
the Public Defender’s or Prosecutor’s Office to dictate. To state that Judge Hunter should be
convicted of crime and sentenced to jail while making repeated explicit references to her judicial
temperament, rulings on cases and for allegedly denying public access to her courtroom, exposed
that Judge Hunter was prosecuted for her judicial style. Those reasons, however, were not
18
criminal violations of law. His sentencing demonstrated that Judge Hunter was arbitrarily held as
a judge to a different judicial standard than any other judge who has complete autonomy over her
caseload and docket. It was error and a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection
Clause and Due Process Clauses to convict and sentence Judge Hunter over her cases.
G) Judge Hunter was deprived of her Sixth Amendment right to have a jury trial
comprised of unbiased, impartial jurists, which should have disqualified an employee of a TV
station that sued her as judge from sitting on her jury along with the foreperson, Sandra Kirkham,
the wife of attorney William Kirkham, whose law firm Frost, Brown and Todd, represented
WCPO, specifically when the State used evidence of the lawsuit to attack Judge Hunter’s rulings.
Not only had WCPO sued Judge Hunter over her rulings as a Juvenile Court judge, the
WCPO lawsuit, that was still ongoing at the time Judge Hunter was indicted and subsequently
suspended, was repeatedly referenced and used against Judge Hunter as evidence. It violated
Judge Hunter’s right to a fair trial to have an employee of a company that sued her as Judge, and
the wife of a lawyer, whose law firm was actively suing Judge Hunter when she was indicted and
suspended, on her jury. It was unconstitutional for Judge Nadel not to dismiss them for cause.
In addition to being the wife of a lawyer that worked for the law firm that represented
WCPO, jury forewoman Sandra Kirkham lied on her jury questionnaire to get on Judge Hunter’s
jury, then failed to disclose her dislike for pastors during voir dire when the prosecutors
repeatedly asked jurors how they felt about pastors. The jury forewoman had been abused by a
pastor, but hid that information until it was discovered by Judge Hunter, immediately following
trial, depriving Judge Hunter of an impartial jury. This was particularly disturbing as the
prosecutors repeatedly made false statements about children being sexually abused in foster care
when they alleged that Judge Hunter delayed ruling in cases. Not only were those statements
19
entirely false, but were not supported by any existent evidence, as that particular allegation had
never been made against Judge Hunter at any time in her judicial career until the special
prosecutors pulled it out of thin air at trial. Those prejudicial allegations were not related to any
charges against Judge Hunter and were undoubtedly made to influence the forewoman, who had
been molested by her youth pastor, to convict Judge Hunter, not because she was guilty of a
crime, but because the prosecutor’s repeated inflammatory statements conjured up horrible
memories of that juror’s past, which had been tactically hidden from Judge Hunter, but was
clearly known by the prosecutors. At least one juror, who submitted a sworn affidavit alleging
that her verdict was not guilty, also stated in the affidavit that: Mrs. Kirkham pressured her; the
charge did not make sense to her; and she believed Judge Hunter was innocent. If that juror had
been polled, as the law required, in open court after the verdict was publicly read, that juror
would have said her true verdict was not guilty. But Judge Nadel refused to poll that juror.
To further demonstrate Mrs. Kirkham’s underlying ill motivation to be on Judge Hunter’s
jury, she lied on her jury questionnaire and additionally, intentionally withheld her personal
distrust of pastors during voir dire. Although jurors were examined at length about Judge Hunter
being a pastor, Kirkham, not only failed to mention her bad experience with her youth pastor, but
issued an unprecedented press release following trial expressing her outrage that she was unable
to influence the jury to convict Judge Hunter on all charges. It is disturbing that, even after Lisa
Miller testified that others, not Judge Hunter, altered her entries, and even after the State’s expert
testified that prosecutors told him to intentionally withhold evidence that judge Hunter did not do
it, the jury forewoman, whose husband worked for the law firm that sued Judge Hunter, would
strong arm other jurors to force a conviction. Twelve impartial, reasonable people, serving on a
20
jury, when provided firsthand testimonial evidence that refuted criminal culpability would have
exemplified a proclivity to acquit, not to find Judge Hunter guilty contra the evidence.
Special prosecutors repeatedly attacked Judge Hunter using race-baiting, debasing and
inflammatory language that is typically prohibited during the commission of a trial, but most
especially when such statements were entirely false. Both law and ethics should have precluded
special prosecutors from denigrating Judge Hunter, a sitting judge, making allegations that were
completely false, entirely unsupported by any evidence, and were solely made to improperly
influence the tribunal. Respondents now urge this Court to determine that Judge Hunter
somehow opened the door for the unprecedented, inflammatory attacks that they alone initiated.
H) Judge Hunter was deprived of her Sixth Amendment right to have a jury trial
comprised of unbiased, impartial jurists, which would have disqualified an employee of a TV
station that sued her as judge from serving as a juror at Judge Hunter’s trial when that media
lawsuit, which was pending at the time Judge Hunter was indicted, was used as evidence.
Prosecutors presented evidence that Judge Hunter was held in contempt in the WCPO
case and told the jury, one who was an employee of WCPO, that they should convict Judge
Hunter because she was held in contempt. It was unreasonable to expect a juror, whose employer
was engaged in a lawsuit against the accused when the indictment arose and whose employer
prevailed in a contempt hearing against her, that was used as evidence at that trial, to decide in
favor of the accused, over their employer. Yet that is exactly the type of hostile, biased juror that
Judge Hunter faced, one whose employer, WCPO, was suing the judge when she was charged.
Notwithstanding, they failed to tell the jury that judges are routinely sued in high profile
media cases and that Judge Hunter followed the existing Local Rules of Practice for the
Hamilton County Juvenile Court that required her to protect the identities of the children. Judge
21
Hunter was held in contempt by Respondent Judge Patrick Dinkelacker, who first served on the
First District Court of Appeals, but was later elected to the Common Pleas Court and assumed
the instant case. Respondent Dinkelacker zealously seeks to incarcerate Judge Hunter, despite his
initial involvement as an appellate jurist on her juvenile court cases that were used as evidence in
the State’s case. As Respondent Dinkelacker held Judge Hunter in contempt for prohibiting the
media from publishing children’s names and faces, and those cases, including his finding her in
contempt, was used as evidence to influence a jury to convict her, Respondent Dinkelacker was
legally precluded from presiding over the instant case, due to his preexisting civil involvement.
More importantly, any rulings that Judge Hunter made on her cases as a Judge were
protected by absolute immunity and should not have been utilized in a criminal trial to influence
a jury to convict. It was plain error to utilize Judge Hunter’s unrelated civil rulings against her in
a criminal trial, including a finding of contempt by Respondent Dinkelacker, when prosecutors
neglected to also tell the jury that Judge Hunter’s actions on her individual cases were protected
by absolute immunity, like all other judges in this the State of Ohio and across the country.
If Respondents are allowed to violate her judicial immunity and criminalize Judge Hunter
for performing her judicial duties, it will have a chilling effect on all judges who have a
professional legal and ethical responsibility to independently determine their cases on the merits
of those cases, not because they have been intimidated by prosecutors abusing the power of their
offices to influence the outcomes of judges’ cases. When a judge can be charged with crimes for
actions that were not criminal and sentenced to jail because prosecutors did not like her rulings
on their cases and because she filed ethics complaints against them when they failed to answer
12 lawsuits brought against her after they insisted on representing her, it sets a dangerous
precedent and will lead to a slippery slope that compromises a trial judge’s required autonomy.
22
I) Special prosecutors were provided abnormal latitude, in violation of the law, to
continually malign and desecrate Judge Hunter’s character, especially fabricating facts never
introduced as evidence during any portion of her criminal trial, and withholding exculpatory
evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland5 in order to bolster and justify their unprecedented
allegations of criminal conduct for actions they alleged she made in the commission of her
judicial duties. Such unrelated actions, such as denying public access to her courtroom, as
alleged by Judge Nadel, had it occurred, which Judge Hunter expressly denies, and the evidence
supports never occurred, would have been protected by absolute immunity. However, it is
troubling that prosecutors repeatedly made such statements that were not only inflammatory, but
were untrue, to influence a jury to convict Judge Hunter based on her specific judicial duties.
For instance, prosecutors repeatedly alleged that Judge Hunter’s first judicial act was to
hire a bailiff that had been fired by the court. Such statement was false. Judge Hunter’s bailiff
Avery Corbin resigned from the Juvenile Court after a lengthy, successful Juvenile Court career.
His personnel file was filled with glowing recommendations from his previous judicial
employers and Judge Hunter’s predecessors up to the time he resigned from the Juvenile Court.
The prosecutors withheld from the jury that Judge Hunter’s bailiff, not only worked for
juvenile court for over a decade and consistently received outstanding evaluations by prior
Juvenile Court Judges, which were all in his personnel file, but more importantly, Judge Hunter’s
bailiff was not terminated by the court, but resigned, which the prosecutor admitted he knew at
trial. In an employment at will state, like Ohio, no employer can prevent an employee from
resigning, as Mr. Croswell claimed the court did when Mr. Corbin resigned, which evidence
supported. The evidence showed that Juvenile Court illegally tampered with Mr. Corbin’s
5
373 U.S. 83 (1963) The Due Process Clause requires the prosecution to turn over evidence relating to a defendant’s
guilt, innocence or sentencing upon request, even if it is favorable to the defense.
23
personnel file and placed a termination letter in his file months after Mr. Corbin had already
resigned from the court. It is violation of federal law to tamper with an employee’s personnel
file, which is apparently what someone at Juvenile Court did in violation of the law. Judge
Hunter hired a retired United States Army sergeant as her bailiff, a prior employee that resigned
from the court and whose personnel file up to the time he resigned was supported by glowing
annual recommendations. Judge Hunter would know that it was illegal for the Juvenile Court to
add a termination letter to an employee’s file when there was already a resignation letter in his
file. Judge Hunter properly disregarded the illegal termination letter added to his file later. To do
otherwise, would have been involuntary servitude, a violation of the United States Constitution.
Not only was Judge Hunter denied a fair trial, in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the
United States Constitution and sentenced to jail in violation of her civil liberties, evidence
showed that prosecutors intentionally set out to harm a sitting judge utilizing lies, conjecture and
speculation. The inflammatory statements made by prosecutors, that her current counsel
extensively briefed, not only lacked merit and were void of any criminal probative value, but
were irrelevant to any of the charges prosecutors alleged against Judge Hunter. No evidence was
presented at trial to back up special prosecutors unsubstantiated statements, made for the sole
purpose of gaining a conviction, because no evidence existed to support that she broke any laws.
It is mind boggling that an arguable conviction based on an allegation that Judge Hunter
secured a public contract, despite no evidence of the contract she was alleged to have secured,
was influenced by false allegations by the special prosecutors that: children were sexually abused
pending her rulings; children beat up a homeless man; and the bailiff she hired had been
terminated when evidence supported testimony that he resigned in an employment-at-will state.
24
Respondents request this Court to deny Judge Hunter’s Petition and execute a sentence
based on an underlying case and alleged conviction that arose after prosecutors tampered with
official court records and fabricated facts, including events that never occurred. Respondents
knew that no child had ever been sexually abused pending any ruling by Judge Hunter and that
the majority of permanent custody cases languished in the Juvenile Court for years before Judge
Hunter was elected. They knew that her rulings were not tardy as Judge Nadel stated when he
sentenced her to jail. Respondents also knew that the Bailiff Judge Hunter hired could not have
been terminated by Juvenile Court because he had already resigned after a distinguished career.
Prosecutors knew that every single case pending as a permanent custody case in Juvenile
Court arose upon an allegation of dependency, abuse or neglect. That is how cases originate in
Juvenile Court, not due to anything Judge Hunter did or did not do. To allege that children were
abused while Judge Hunter ruled was untruthful, unethical and unconscionable, unless this Court
believes that all judges are responsible for every calamity that befalls the parties to their cases.
The fact that prosecutors were allowed to repeatedly make such untruthful allegations to
convince the jury that Judge Hunter deserved to be convicted and for Judge Nadel to then recite
those same unsubstantiated claims as his rationale for incarcerating her was a travesty of justice.
It was a violation of her judicial immunity for Judge Norbert Nadel to state that he was
sentencing Judge Hunter to jail because her cases were tardy, she denied public access to her
courtroom and because of her judicial temperament. It also violated the law for Judge Nadel, a
Common Pleas General Division Judge to draw conclusions about the confidential cases of a
Common Pleas Juvenile Division Judge when it was unrelated to any charge or alleged
conviction and he had never been in her courtroom nor reviewed her cases or docket; and it was
25
unethical for a peer judge to publicly disparage another judge’s treatment of her cases when her
alleged judicial style was not a criminal issue and to do so exceeded his jurisdiction as a judge.
Furthermore, Judge Hunter was convicted in violation of the law when special
prosecutors fabricated evidence against her. The State’s witness Katie Pridemore, an assistant
prosecutor that worked for Mr. Deters, alleged that the OSC requested her to spy on Judge
Hunter in her courtroom and prepare a report on all of Judge Hunter’s cases. Considering that the
Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office is a party to the majority of juvenile court cases, it would
be unethical and illegal for Ms. Pridemore or any other prosecutor in Hamilton County to access
all of any judges cases without that judge’s knowledge or authorization and would violate all of
the opposing party’s rights in those cases. It would be highly unusual and extraordinary for the
OSC to violate the Rules of Superintendence, the Ohio Constitution and the United States
Constitution to violate Judge Hunter’s right to due process if there were any such surveillance
being authorized just because the prosecutors did not like her rulings on cases and because she
allegedly held a prosecutor in contempt who refused to follow court orders to turn over evidence
to a juvenile defendant, a ruling that was upheld by the OSC and led to a change in Ohio law.
Nevertheless, the OSC denied authorizing prosecutor Pridemore to spy on Judge Hunter.
It appears that Respondent’s key witness, another assistant prosecutor for Mr. Deters, also
perjured herself to improperly influence jurors to convict Judge Hunter in violation of the law.
4. The underlying case arose when Mr. Deters accused Judge Hunter of crime after
she filed ethics complaints against him, Mr. Harper and two assistant prosecutors for neglecting
to file answers to 12 civil lawsuits when they represented her as the Juvenile Court Judge and
when prosecutors refused to follow her court orders to turn over Brady evidence to juvenile
defendants. At the time they represented Judge Hunter, the election lawsuit she filed in this U.S.
26
District Court in 2010 was still pending, which legally precluded their representing Judge Hunter
without her written consent, which she denied. She requested the county appoint independent
lawyers to represent her, due to Mr. Deters’ existing conflicts, but they refused. Other Common
Pleas Judges, like Judge Williams, received independent legal representation when sued.
In 2010, Tracie Hunter sued the Hamilton County Board of Elections (BOE) for refusing
to count votes. Mr. Deters office represented the BOE against her, assisted by Chief Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney James Harper. After six appeals by Mr. Deters and Harper, Hunter
prevailed and was sworn in May 25, 2012. The election lawsuit was not resolved until November
2013. Mr. Deters sued Judge Hunter in a Writ of Prohibition months after she assumed office in
2012, then dismissed it for lack of merit. Mr. Deters also requested the Board of Commissioners
sue Judge Hunter in 2012 when she initiated hiring a separate court administrator because Mr.
Kissinger assisted Judge Williams, but refused to assist Judge Hunter. Prior Juvenile Court
judges each had separate court administrators. When Judge Hunter was sued by WCPO and the
Cincinnati Enquirer for prohibiting their publishing of names and faces of 12-year old juveniles
and sued again by Public Defender Ray Faller who demanded she give priority to his cases over
the thousands of other cases on Judge Hunter’s docket, Mr. Deters insisted that his office
represent Judge Hunter, despite his blatant conflicts of interest. Judge Hunter repeatedly
requested independent legal counsel, but was denied. Mr. Deters’ office subsequently failed to
answer 12 lawsuits filed against Judge Hunter, which resulted in 12 default judgments against
her court. Judge Hunter, having no other recourse, filed an ethics complaint against them for
misconduct. Mr. Deters subsequently terminated his representation, but handpicked Mr. Bogen
and Mr. Firooz to represent Judge Hunter, although neither of them had any experience
representing Common Pleas judges or working in Juvenile Court. Those lawyers that Mr. Deters’
27
recommended also failed to answer the 12 lawsuits against her. Judge Hunter had no recourse but
to file notices of appeal with the OSC before the time to appeal the 12 default judgments expired.
Mr. Deters then falsely alleged that Judge Hunter backdated two out of thousands of her cases to
prevent his office from appealing those cases. The computer expert that Mr. Deters retained to
review the court system and identify who created her judicial entries testified that he was
instructed by Mr. Deters' office to withhold from his sworn affidavit that it was not Judge
Hunter. Despite the expert’s finding that Judge Hunter had not backdated documents, Mr. Deters
made criminal accusations against Judge Hunter, then handpicked his personal defense lawyers
and divorce law firm, Croswell & Adams and Merlyn Shiverdecker to indict Judge Hunter.
Presiding Common Pleas Judge Beth Meyer signed an affidavit, stipulated as evidence, admitting
that Mr. Deters recommended she appoint defense lawyers Croswell and Shiverdecker, who had
never prosecuted a case, rather than special prosecutors typically provided by the State.
Prosecutors then indicted Judge Hunter for theft in office and misuse of a credit card after she
filed notices of appeals with the OSC in all of the cases that Mr. Deters, Harper, Bogen and
Namei represented her and failed to file answers in 12 lawsuits on her behalf. Prosecutors knew
that Judge Hunter was authorized to pay the business expenses incurred by the Juvenile Court on
behalf of the Juvenile Court and that the Juvenile Court was legally responsible for all of the
legal expenses incurred by those lawsuits against Judge Hunter’s court. Charging Judge Hunter
with four counts of felony theft and misuse of a credit card was most egregious as the special
prosecutors knew that if Mr. Deters had answered the 12 lawsuits or allowed the county to retain
the independent legal counsel that she was entitled to receive as did other Common Pleas Judges,
when sued in their judicial capacities, Judge Hunter would not have been forced to file the
appeals in order to protect the Juvenile Court. She was then denied her right to legal counsel after
28
Mr. Deters’ office intentionally allowed the lawsuits to go unanswered. When questioned
whether or not the criminal charges were alleged against Judge Hunter in retaliation, Mr. Harper
testified that Judge Hunter must pay for filing ethics complaints against him and other
prosecutors. He said it was the worst thing anyone could do to a lawyer.
Judge Hunter’s Sixth Amendment rights to receive a fair trial were denied because the
entire trial process was flawed and the system was manipulated by the county prosecutor to
target a Judge whose election he vigorously opposed in this Court for two years. When that
failed and she was seated Judge, he used the power of his position to have her illegally removed.
Mr. Deters harassed Judge Hunter relentlessly, called her names publicly, accused her of murder,
sued her repeatedly in office with frivolous lawsuits, then bungled those lawsuits and refused her
the independent, unbiased legal representation that she was entitled as a Common Pleas Judge.
Mr. Deters strong-armed the Commissioners to spend millions of taxpayers’ dollars to prevent
Judge Hunter from being elected the first African-American and first Democrat Juvenile Court
Judge in Hamilton County. After illegally discarded votes were counted and she was sworn in 18
months after the election, he forced the county to spend millions more to prosecute her after she
filed complaints against him to stop his unlawful conduct as prosecutor against her as Judge.
Special prosecutors were aware that evidence was fabricated against Judge Hunter and
that employees of the Juvenile Court altered Judge Hunter’s entries before indictments were
filed. Prosecutors were also aware that employees like court administrator Mr. Kissinger, who
supervised the employees, refused to work for Judge Hunter. Prosecutors reviewed all of Judge
Hunter’s communications at Juvenile Court and knew before they indicted her that multiple
threats had been made against Judge Hunter in office and that her staff was afraid of being
harmed, as Judge Hunter’s assistant Erica Farris testified. Prosecutors also knew that Mr.
29
Kissinger and Judge Williams refused to employ security despite Judge Hunter’s repeated reports
of those threats and requests for security in her courtroom to protect the judicial staff from
threatened harm. Mr. Kissinger and Judge Williams blocked Judge Hunter’s access to her
allotted judicial budget, refused to provide security, then accused her of crime when her Bailiff,
in his efforts to protect staff from harm, requested a court officer he knew and trusted to help him
with security on a day he worked alone in a gun-related case and the hallway and courtroom
were filled with witnesses and public and he could not patrol the hallway, offices and courtroom
alone. Unlike most courtrooms, which have a bar of partition separating the public and witnesses
from court personnel, the public could only access Judge Hunter’s courtroom by proceeding
through her direct inner office where her staff worked, which posed an imminent security risk.
Judges in Ohio are typically precluded from presiding over matters involving other
judges in the same jurisdiction. Respondent Dinkelacker had a visiting judge in a wrongful death
lawsuit filed against him and prosecutor Deters had a visiting Judge in his divorce case, but
Judge Hunter was denied the same equal treatment. Her trial was in Hamilton County, Ohio
presided over by peer Common Pleas Judges in the same jurisdiction with financial, familial and
close ties to her accusers. Evidence demonstrated that Judge Nadel, Mr. Croswell, Mr.
Shiverdecker and Respondent Judge Dinkelacker received financial donations from Mr. Deters.
This Honorable Court knows that when cases arise involving any of its judges or family
members of those judges, in order to: maintain the integrity of the trial; avoid the appearance of
impropriety; and ensure that all parties receive equal treatment and due process, those cases are
transferred to visiting judges, not judges within the same jurisdiction. The Common Pleas Court
of Hamilton County is one court with many divisions in the same jurisdiction. Judge Hunter was
30
treated differently than all other judges in Hamilton County, denied absolute immunity and
denied a fair trial in violation of the law, including the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
This Honorable Court has a duty to uphold the laws of the United States Constitution
and to administer justice irrespective of race, political or religious affiliation and other influences
to ensure that Due Process and Equal Protection of the laws apply to all individuals accused of
crime. However, when Mr. Deters used the executive power of his office to initiate
unprecedented criminal charges against a sitting African-American Judge, whose election he
vehemently opposed in a publicly protracted, hostile election lawsuit, it compromised the
integrity of the entire system. He usurped the power and authority of the judicial branch of
government and utilized the power and authority of the prosecutor’s office for personal gain.
Judge Hunter was on the bench one year, not long enough for a new judge to be
acclimated to her position, when prosecutors alleged she committed nine felonies in office.
Respondents want this Court to find that a highly respected pastor and community leader became
a career criminal overnight. Judge Hunter was immediately suspended from office without due
process, upon Mr. Deters’ accusation and an indictment obtained by special prosecutors, that he
handpicked, who also served as his personal defense lawyers, while Judge Hunter, a Common
Pleas Judge, was unlawfully denied legal representation. The jury consisted of family members,
friends and employees of those who sued her as judge and were connected to the prosecutors.
Judge Hunter may be incarcerated in violation of R.C. § 2151, which governs the
treatment of juvenile court judges in Ohio, and Article IV of the Ohio Constitution which
governs the treatment of all constitutional judges in Ohio. This Honorable Court, given
Respondent Dinkelacker’s initial involvement as an appellate court judge and current
involvement as the Common Pleas Judge, should grant Judge Hunter’s request for Leave of
31
Court to pursue judicial and Habeas Corpus legal experts to amend her pleadings when the State
of Ohio and Hamilton County used the unlimited collective resources of private law firms, state
and county budgets and the OAG to inexplicably pursue one judge whose salary was suspended.
Countless millions of dollars were spent by the prosecutor who initiated the allegations to
prosecute Judge Hunter. Fabricating evidence to gain a conviction against a sitting judge that Mr.
Deters vehemently opposed for years and whose election he spent millions of dollars to prevent
warrants full disclosure and a de novo review. It would be a travesty of injustice for this Court to
deny Judge Hunter’s Habeas petition and allow Respondents to inure through illegal conduct.
The Magistrate Judge recommended this Court deny Judge Hunter’s petition despite the
innumerable violations of law employed by prosecutors to convict Judge Hunter of a crime that
no evidence existed to support. Petitioner Judge Hunter now requests this Honorable Court to
grant her Leave of Court, given the potential future impact of this case on the judiciary and
criminal justice system and due to the public’s ongoing interest in ensuring the integrity of the
prosecutorial system. It begs scrutiny when a judge in America can be prosecuted, convicted and
incarcerated at the request of a prosecutor, with a known vendetta, who had enough power and
influence over the county budget, employees and jurors to influence an unlawful conviction.
In the interest of justice, and for the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests
leave of court of 120 days to obtain new legal counsel to pursue her Petition of Habeas Corpus.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Tracie M. Hunter

Petitioner, Suspended Judge
Pro Se
2815 Robert Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45211
(513) 662-6247
hunter.t.m.1234@gmail.com
32
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on October 23, 2017, a copy of the foregoing document was filed
electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the court’s
electronic filing system.
/s/Tracie M. Hunter
Tracie M. Hunter
33

Judge Tracie Hunter's Motion For New Counsel & Response To Criminal Charge

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Judge Tracie Hunter's Motion For New Counsel & Response To Criminal Charge

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case: 1:16-cv-00561-TSB-KLL Doc #: 54 Filed: 10/23/17 Page: 1 of 33 PAGEID #: 5731

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

TRACIE M. HUNTER, : Case No. 1:16-cv-561

Petitioner, : Judge Black

v. : Magistrate Judge Litkovitz

PETITIONER JUDGE TRACIE HUNTER’S PRO SE MOTION FOR LEAVE OF

Recommendation (Doc. #41) for the following reasons:

Hunter in violation of the law.

a contract or authorization of a contract, there could be no violation of law. The Constitution

Kissinger initiated the communications with Judge Hunter regarding employment-related

D. There were blatant instances of jury bias, including violations of Batson v.

prosecutors used all of their peremptory challenges to systematically eliminate African-American

In one extraordinary event, a white prospective juror, identified as an employee of the

comprised of unbiased, impartial jurists, which should have disqualified an employee of a TV

To further demonstrate Mrs. Kirkham’s underlying ill motivation to be on Judge Hunter’s

comprised of unbiased, impartial jurists, which would have disqualified an employee of a TV

a criminal trial, including a finding of contempt by Respondent Dinkelacker, when prosecutors

I) Special prosecutors were provided abnormal latitude, in violation of the law, to

terminated when evidence supported testimony that he resigned in an employment-at-will state.

prosecutors. He said it was the worst thing anyone could do to a lawyer.

unprecedented criminal charges against a sitting African-American Judge, whose election he

vehemently opposed in a publicly protracted, hostile election lawsuit, it compromised the

Respondent Dinkelacker’s initial involvement as an appellate court judge and current

/s/ Tracie M. Hunter

electronic filing system.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi