Springfield, OH – In response to October 4, 2024 opinions of the Clark County Municipal Court sitting “en banc” (as a whole) that referred the Haitian Bridge Alliance and its executive director Guerline Jozef’s criminal charges of Donald J. Trump and JD Vance to the county prosecutor for review, lead counsel Subodh Chandra released the following statement on behalf of the Haitian Bridge Alliance:

The court’s opinions are deeply flawed. The Haitian Bridge Alliance is disappointed by the court’s ultimate decision to refer the matter to the prosecutor, and the irregular process it followed to reach it:

• Irregular process. As a threshold matter, our clients were concerned when the court made up a special procedure just to handle this case. Instead of doing what one might ordinarily expect of a court, which is to have the clerk’s office assign the matter by random draw, the court referred the matter to all the judges. That’s not only generally unheard of for a trial court, it diffuses individual judicial responsibility. It also affords special treatment for Donald Trump and JD Vance that no other citizens would be afforded.
  
  
• Trump and Vance’s causation. The concurring opinion seems to rely on a fatal shrug about whether Trump and Vance really caused the harm to Springfield. But the law permits people to rely on circumstantial evidence and inferences. For example, if you go to bed when there’s no snow outside and wake up in the morning to snow on the ground, you’re permitted to infer that it snowed last night. Similarly, there was no havoc in Springfield until Trump and Vance relentlessly and persistently spread falsehoods about Haitians. It is reasonable to infer that they are the ultimate cause, especially when they persisted after harm started and the harm got worse.
  
  
• Trump’s and Vance’s falsehoods about Haitians. The decision is condescending and cruel to Haitian immigrants. The concurring opinion seems to pretend that somehow, it’s a coin toss as to whether Trump’s and Vance’s lies about Haitian immigrants are true and whether the governor, mayor, and city manager truly said those lies are false. The opinion chides the Bridge for characterizing Trump and Vance’s statements as “lies,” writing that the evidence “does not even support probable cause that the statements are false much less ‘lies’.” But that claim by certain judges was itself false. The record submitted to the court was clear that even Governor DeWine has stated these claims were false: Face the Nation, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine addresses false claims about Haitian immigrants eating pets, YouTube (Sept. 12, 2024), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQIqfH2kFIg (video of DeWine saying, “This is something that came up on the internet, the internet can be quite crazy sometimes, and look, the mayor of Springfield says no, there is no truth in that, they have no evidence of that at all.”); PBS Newshour, Gov. DeWine urges Trump and Vance to end ‘very hurtful’ comments about Haitian migrants, YouTube (Sept. 17, 2024), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDX7y9HvpnA&t=4s (video of DeWine saying “I’ve said [the statements] were wrong. The mayor has said they were wrong. And frankly, they need to stop.”). So Trump’s and Vance’s claims are false and those officials have repeatedly made that clear. For judges of a court to even imply otherwise is disturbing. And the court doesn't even acknowledge that Trump's and Vance's persistent claims that Haitians are here illegally are also false.

• Mischaracterizing the relief sought. On page one, the court claims that the Bridge was not seeking arrest warrants when, throughout the filing—in plain English, the Bridge was.
  
  
• Ignoring the harm. The court’s lead opinion ignores and was seemingly indifferent to the harm Trump and Vance have inflicted with their relentless falsehoods.

• Denying a hearing. We presented caselaw that requires the court to provide a hearing if it isn’t inclined to grant the relief requested. The court disregarded that obligation.
  
  
• Completely ignoring Ohio criminal law holding that the First Amendment doesn’t apply. The court failed to address Ohio criminal law we gave it showing that the First Amendment doesn’t protect Trump’s and Vance’s conduct. For example, an Ohio appeals court affirmed a criminal conviction for inducing panic where a man, with political motives, called media to report falsely that a bridge had been sabotaged. The court rejected the purported First Amendment defense there.

Because prosecutors haven’t acted to protect the Springfield community from Trump’s and Vance’s relentless falsehoods about the Haitian community, the Bridge is skeptical about whether they will do so now, especially when the court is giving them “cover” not to act. It’s not just the Haitian community that is victim to this indifference. It’s Springfield as a whole, including its government, schools, public officials, and colleges.

It’s hard for the Bridge to believe there’s equal justice under law when Trump and Vance are afforded special treatment—even a special process—that no one else who had wreaked such havoc would enjoy. Everyone knows that if you substituted any other names for “Trump” and “Vance” who had inflicted such severe harm on the community with false alarms, by inducing panic, and by disrupting public services, those individuals would’ve been charged by now. Ohio law we presented shows that.

The decision follows amended criminal charges under Ohio and Springfield law filed, under an Ohio statute authorizing private-citizen-initiated charges, by the Bridge's executive director, Guerline Jozef, and a supplement to those charges. The case was captioned In re: Criminal Charges Against Donald J. Trump and James David (“JD”) Vance, Clark County Municipal Court Case No. Matter No. 24SPM100.

Trump and Vance were charged with inducing panic, making false alarms, disrupting public service, and aggravated menacing, along with complicity. The charges address Trump's and Vance's misconduct directed at Springfield, Ohio's Haitian population resulting in harm not just to that community but to Springfield as a whole.

The Haitian Bridge Alliance and Ms. Jozef are represented by Chandra Law's Subodh Chandra, Alexandra Lavelle, Courtney Bow, and Ethan Dawson. They are also represented by Nicole Phillips, legal director, and Erik Crew, staff attorney, of the Haitian Bridge Alliance.

Led by former federal prosecutor Subodh Chandra, Chandra Law is experienced obtaining justice for crime victims, including initiating charges under R.C. 2935.09. The firm also helped pioneer work in holding individuals and companies accountable for civil liability for criminal acts, securing the two leading Supreme Court of Ohio decisions favorable to crime victims on the topic.

If you think that your civil rights have been violated, you may contact us to discuss your options.

At Chandra Law, your case is our cause.®