Still image from video taken by private investigator of Judge Leslie Ann Celebrezze cupping Dottore's face and kissing his lips outside of Delmonico's Restaurant.

Cleveland, OH – Today, former judical assistant to Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court Administrative Judge Leslie Ann Celebrezze, Georgeanna Semary, opposed a motion to strike filed by Celebrezze's alleged paramour Mark E. Dottore—by filing evidence. The response was filed in Ms. Semary's retaliation and intimidation case against Celebrezze

Dottore, a third party, had filed a motion to strike and force the redaction of language in subpoenas to both him and his company. The subpoenas sought, among other things, an August 6, 2008 text message from Celebrezze to him allegedly beckoning:

“I know it is early but my house is still quiet. I know your stressed out. You need to make love to me this week I feel safe when I am in your arms.”

(Sic.)

Dottore is asking the court to shield from public view that language in the copy of the subpoenas filed in the court record. He claimed the text-message language in the subpoenas was "questionable and without foundation."

In response, Ms. Semary's opposition brief atttached as Exhibit 1 an affidavit from Dottore's former wife, Lisa Moran, testifying that Ms. Moran had seen that text message on Dottore's phone from Celebrezze, and attaching her contemporaneous notes of what the message said.

Also attached to the opposition were affidavits from three witnesses who testify that they saw Celebrezze weeping inconsolably at Ms. Semary's 2022 birthday party when Dottore cancelled plans to come see her there. And attached were Celebrezze's admission that Dottore was supposed to meet her at the party and her denial that she wept. Yet, the opposition brief states, Dottore was no friend of Ms. Semary's and was coming only as Celebrezze's date.

The opposition brief extensively cited First Amendment, Ohio constitutional, and Ohio Rules of Superintendence–for-the-courts law that would make what Dottore is demanding unconstitutional and illegal. The caselaw holds that courts must be open to public scrutiny.

Dottore failed to disclose to the court that legal authority.

Ms. Semary's opposition brief may be found here.

Celebrezze filed a motion joining Dottore's effort to hide the subpoenas' language. Ms. Semary's opposition to that motion is forthcoming.

Investigation of the matter continues and discovery is ongoing. Chandra Law continues to seek information from witnesses who have knowledge about Judge Celebrezze and Dottore's relationship and her conduct toward Semary: please call 216.578.1700 or email DRCourtMisconduct@ChandraLaw.com.

(Please do not contact us merely if you were unhappy with results in divorce proceedings. We do not practice family law.)

Ms. Semary's lawsuit, filed in the Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas General Division, alleges that Judge Celebrezze’s career was unraveling when a reporter was investigating her relationship with Dottore—to whom the judge has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in receivership appointments. She orchestrated the destruction of Ms. Semary's career to cover up the relationship, the suit says.

Ms. Semary provided the reporter with open court records and faced immediate retalation by Celebrezze and her co-defendants, the suit alleges. The reporter's investigation resulted in this article by the Marshall Project, a non-profit-journalism enterprise focused on exposing unfairness in the justice system. The article includes video-surveillance footage of Celebrezze and Dottore cited in teh complaint.

A visiting judge is expected soon to be appointed by the Supreme Court of Ohio's Chief Justice because the Common Pleas Court's General Division judges have recused.

Ms. Semary is represented by Subodh Chandra and Donald P. Screen.

Chandra Law is experienced obtaining justice for victims of employment retaliation. We also secure constitutional rights.

And the firm 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 rights have been violated, you may contact us to discuss your options.

At Chandra Law, your case is our cause.®