Columbus, OH – Today, Guerline Jozef, executive director of the Haitian Bridge Alliance, and the Bridge itself, in the name of the State of Ohio, filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of Ohio against the Clark County Municipal Court, Administrative Judge Valerie J. Wilt, Judge Daniel D. Carey, and Judge Stephen A. Schumaker.

The respondent-judges were sued for giving criminally charged former President Donald Trump and Senator JD Vance special treatment, and violating the Clark County Municipal Court Local Rules, Ohio Rules of Superintendence, and relevant statutes in the process. The suit is for writs of prohibition and mandamus, meaning the relators asked the Supreme Court to order the municipal court and its judges to start over and follow the law and proper procedures.

Subodh Chandra, counsel for the Bridge, said, “The municipal court should have applied the same procedures and standard to Trump and Vance as would be given to anyone else—not given them lawless special treatment. Everyone should expect and indeed demand equal justice under law.”

Louis Grube, co-counsel, added, “One of the best aspects of U.S. political culture is that our leaders are supposed to be treated the same as any other citizen. Nobody deserves a different or more preferential track within the justice system. While Clark County Municipal Court judges didn't explain why that principle fell away from the very start in their process, we hope the Supreme Court of Ohio will correct the course.”

Background

On September 24, 2024, Jozef and the Bridge—seeking Donald J. Trump and James David (“JD”) Vance’s arrests—submitted an affidavit and video evidence to the Clark County Municipal Court credibly alleging and establishing probable cause to believe that Trump and Vance committed various crimes against Ohio and its lawful residents. Charges included:

• disrupting public service in violation of R.C. 2909.04(A) and (B) by causing widespread bomb and other threats that resulted in massive disruptions to the public services in Springfield, Ohio;
• making false alarms in violation of R.C. 2917.32(A) by knowingly causing alarm in the Springfield community by continuing to repeat lies that state and local officials have said were false;
• committing telecommunications harassment in violation of R.C. 2917.21(A) and S.C.O. § 537.08 by spreading claims they know to be false during the presidential debate, campaign rallies, nationally televised interviews, and social media;
• committing aggravated menacing in violation R.C. 2903.21(A) by knowingly making intimidating statements with the intent to abuse, threaten, or harass the recipients, including Trump’s threat to deport immigrants who are here legally to Venezuela, a land they have never known;
• committing aggravated menacing in violation of R.C. 2903.21(A) by knowingly causing others to falsely believe that members of Springfield's Haitian community would cause serious physical harm to the person or property of others in Springfield; and
• violating the prohibition against complicity, R.C. 2923.03(A) and S.C.O. § 501.10, by conspiring with one another and spreading vicious lies that caused innocent parties to be parties to their various crimes.

The memorandum and affidavit [UPDATED on 9/30/24] charging Trump and Vance with crimes can be found here [UPDATED on 9/30/24].

On September 30, the charges were amended to add felony counts of inducing panic. And on October 2, Ms. Jozef submitted additional sworn allegations about the injuries suffered by victims of the crimes committed by Trump and Vance.

All charges arose from chaos Trump and Vance caused to the Haitian and entire Springfield community by knowingly, persistently, and relentlessly lying that Haitian immigrants—here on temporary legal protected status after fleeing persecution in Haiti—are here illegally and eating family pets in the community.

Trump and Vance persisted with these lies despite Republican Governor Mike DeWine, the Republican mayor, and Republican city manager all saying the statements were false and needed to stop. They kept doing so despite the chaos that erupted and escalated with their relentless lies.

Trump and Vance’s misconduct resulted in 33 bomb threats, school and college closures and evacuations, parents having the tend to their children at home, festival cancellation, diversion of state troopers and law enforcement, threats to the mayor and his family, and other disruptions. This violates the plain language of Ohio’s inducing panic, making false alarms, and disrupting public services statutes, among others.

The amended bench memo submitted by Chandra Law detailed how the First Amendment’s free-speech clause doesn’t protect Trump and Vance from being held accountable for their misconduct. It did so by referring to specific Ohio criminal cases rejecting such defenses for people engaged in conduct far less egregious and with far less devastating impact.

On October 18, 2024, several “attorneys with Free Speech For People, a national, non-partisan non-profit organization, with constitutional law expertise” writing “jointly with attorneys with Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd., a law firm committed to enforcing the U.S. Constitution and other civil rights laws through litigation,” sent a letter to the County Prosecutor Daniel P. Driscoll. The letter explained that “in the unique circumstances presented by this case, the First Amendment does not immunize Trump and Vance from arrest.”

The prosecutor has yet to act. Ms. Jozef has received no response to her counsel's letter urging independent action.

The court’s preferential treatment

Today’s complaint alleges as follows.

Rather than treating the case just as any other would be treated, the municipal-court judges gave former Trump and Vance special treatment that no other persons accused of crimes in Ohio would ever be afforded.

When Ms. Jozef, on September 24, filed her initial affidavit containing criminal charges under an Ohio statute authorizing private-citizen-initiated criminal charges, Judge Wilt, acting as the presiding and administrative judge, directed the clerk of courts to “designate a special case number” “24SPM100.”

On September 26, Judge Wilt issued an entry reflecting that “the Affidavit filed with the Court presents an issue of importance and significant public interest.” Ms. Jozef didn’t ask for special treatment for her, Trump, or Vance. She expected equal justice under law for all.

Yet in that same entry, Judge Wilt directed, using the excuse of the “special” case numbering, that “the case shall be reviewed and decided en banc.” This means by all judges of the court, acting together.

That isn’t normal, the complaint alleges. Indeed it’s totally unauthorized by any law, the complaint also alleges.

On October 4, 2024, Judges Wilt, Carey, and Schumaker, purportedly acting “en banc,” didn’t issue the arrest warrants requested. Instead, they issued an order referring the matter “to the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney for further investigation and determination whether any prosecution is warranted.” The opinion made much of the First Amendment but failed to address any of the legal authority Chandra Law presented showing there is no free-speech defense under these circumstances.

Judge Schumaker separately issued a concurring opinion “to document further reasoning” for his decision to join the order. In that separate opinion, Judge Schumaker falsely stated that Governor DeWine had never said Trump and Vance’s statements were false, when, in fact, Jozef had submitted video to the Court showing DeWine saying that Trump and Vance’s statements were “wrong” and “needed to stop.”

The “special” procedure the court manufactured to benefit Trump and Vance violates Ohio law

Today’s complaint explains how the special treatment given Trump and Vance violates Ohio law.

Ohio’s “Rules of Superintendence of the Courts” and “Local Rules” of a court define and limit “the authority” of a jurist to assign, reassign, or consolidate pending matters. The law requires that while Ohio courts “are entitled to adopt rules of local practice,” such rules “may not be inconsistent with any rule governing procedure or practice promulgated by” the Supreme Court of Ohio. Except for courts of appeals, no Ohio statute or rule of the Ohio Supreme Court allows for assignments to panels of judges. There would need to be a rule specifically authorizing assignment to a group of municipal-court judges for such an order to be proper, and no such rule exists. So Judge Wilt lacked authority to assign the matter to all the Clark County Municipal Court’s judges sitting as a purported “en banc” panel.

Respondent Judge Wilt also lacked authority to direct the clerk to designate a “special case number” to the Relators’ filings. No local rule permits creating a totally new case-numbering system, which was the only reason for the new case number ending in zero. Even if the filings were supposed to be treated as a special proceeding, that category of cases is still divided between criminal and civil matters under the Municipal Court’s rules, and a criminal case number should have been assigned, the complaint alleges.

For that reason, the complaint alleges there was no valid basis to avoid assigning the case to a single judge based upon the last digit of a properly assigned criminal case number. Even if such a case number had been assigned ending in zero, the local rules require random assignment “by lot.” Ohio’s Rules of Superintendence define assignment “by lot.” Assignment by lot is done “by drawing from a pool of judges using paper, balls, or other objects as lots or counters or a computer” using “the number of judges in the court or division.” Sup.R. 36.01(A)(1)(a)–(c).

Nothing justified treating these charges any differently than any other private-citizen-initiated criminal charges under R.C. 2935.09, especially steering the case to all judges, the complaint alleges.

Indeed, Sup.R. 36.01(A)(1)(b) contemplates assignment “arbitrated by chance with the determination fortuitous and wholly uncontrolled.” Judge Wilt’s conduct manufacturing a special process for Trump and Vance flouted that.

And R.C. 2935.09(D), the statute authorizing private-civitzen-initiated criminal charges, states that “a judge” singular—rather than plural—may direct that such materials may be filed “with a reviewing official for the purpose of review to determine if a complaint should be filed by the prosecuting attorney.”

Similarly, R.C. 2935.10, which establishes procedures for the charges, speaks in the singular and not the plural, thus mandating that strictly one “judge, clerk, or magistrate” must consider and decide whether a citizen’s affidavit has established probable cause in good faith. R.C. 2935.10(A) and (B).

Without a proper assignment consistent with these rules, Judges Wilt, Carey, and Schumaker each lacked judicial authority to preside over or rule on the Relators’ filings, whether individually or en banc, the complaint alleges.

Asking the Supreme Court to stop the preferential treatment of Trump and Vance and order a do-over, with a different judge who hasn’t been tainted by an improper process

The complaint alleges that Ms. Jozef and the Alliance seek writs of prohibition and mandamus from the decision for two straightforward reasons:

First, Respondent Judge Wilt patently and unambiguously lacked authority as presiding and administrative judge to make an en banc assignment—and the jurists of the Clark County Municipal Court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to sit “en banc” in any matter whatsoever. Manufacturing such a process from whole cloth afforded former Trump and Vance special treatment that no other Ohioan is or would be afforded by a municipal court—with no legal basis.

Second, Judge Wilt should be ordered to comply with the Clark County Municipal Court Local Rules, the Ohio Rules of Superintendence, and applicable provisions of the Revised Code, insofar as they regulate assignment of criminal matters like the Jozef and the Bridge initiated.

The complaint notes that because of the “tainted, collective, groupthink, decision-making process undertaken,” on remand to the municipal court, a new, visiting judge will have to be appointed.

Ms. Jozef and the Bridge are represented by Subodh Chandra, Ethan Dawson, Alex Lavelle, and Courtney Bow of The Chandra Law Firm and Louis Grube of Flower & Grube.

The case is captioned State ex rel. Jozef v. Clark County Municipal Court, S.Ct. Ohio No. 2024-1532. The complaint can be found here.

Haitian Bridge Alliance is a national, grassroots, nonprofit community organization that advocates for fair and humane immigration policies and provides migrants and immigrants with humanitarian, legal, and social services, with a particular focus on Black people, the Haitian community, women and girls, LGBTQIA+ individuals, and survivors of torture and other human-rights abuses. It’s an apolitical entity and its work is focused on helping the Haitian migrant and immigrant community regardless of the political views held by individuals within that group of people. Similarly, the Alliance plays a role in defending the Haitian migrant and immigrant community from rights violations no matter the political views or partisan affiliation of the perpetrators of rights violations.

The Alliance has a close connection to Ohio, launching a pilot project in 2024 that connected recent Haitian immigrants to labor-union apprenticeship programs here. The Alliance provided language, technical, and social support to apprenticeship applicants so they could successfully complete the programs. The Alliance’s staff built and maintained strong relationships with the apprenticeship graduates and continued to support them as they were placed in jobs. Several Haitian immigrants supported by the Alliance relocated to live and work in Springfield, Ohio, and all are legally employed there.

You may donate to support the Haitian Bridge’s legal expenses and efforts here. The support would be helpful.

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.®