Druthers In Struthers

A panel of the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct is scheduled to conduct a hearing on May 29-30 on allegations brought against a former municipal court judge.

The pleadings are linked here.

In part, the allegations involve his interactions with the Mayor of Struthers, Ohio, Catherine Miller.

Struthers is located in the southeast suburbs of Youngstown near the Pennsylvania border.

From the Amended Complaint

On May 4, 2023, Miller filed a Petition for a Civil Stalking Protection Order (“CSPO”) against respondent. Miller v. Leone, Mahoning C.P. No. 23 CV 831.

Miller listed herself and her household family members as parties seeking protection.

The Petition alleged that, on May 2, 2023, respondent went to a polling location and harassed Miller, who was also running for re-election, by calling her a “fat bitch” and threatening to “get rowdy” with her.

The Petition also alleged that respondent’s behavior was part of an escalating pattern of harassment she had endured from respondent since January 2023 and that she feared for her safety.

At the hearing

Miller testified that she had previously had a friendly relationship with respondent, but starting in 2020, it began to deteriorate and that, eventually, even the sight of her would “make him go crazy.”

Miller also testified that respondent was falsely telling many people that she was being investigated by the FBI.

She testified that because of his escalating behavior, she would check his schedule to avoid being in contact with him.

She also checked the building’s security cameras and avoided going to the bathroom if respondent was in the hall.

Respondent’s behavior also affected her home life. Because she lived near respondent, she closed the blinds when she was home, and her husband accompanied her when she had to go out.

Miller testified that she was at a polling location on May 2, 2023, when respondent arrived and started screaming, “look at those fat bitches.”

He also stopped her from speaking to voters by stepping in front of her.

He stepped within a few feet of her, yelling, “we can get rowdy” and “let’s get rowdy” with clenched fists.

Further

Respondent’s bailiff, Cheryl Host, testified that in January of 2023, she told Miller to be careful because respondent was having “outbursts,” was “irate,” would be “very loud, screaming,” was “more and more and more * * * angry,” and that his anger was directed at Miller.

Host also testified that respondent screamed vulgarities for the entire building to hear, calling Miller names such as “cunt” and “f’ing bitch.”

Ruling

The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent engaged in a pattern of conduct that caused Miller to believe he would cause her physical harm or mental distress.

The CSPO went into effect on June 5, 2023, and remains in effect until May 4, 2025.

On June 20, 2023, relator sent respondent a Letter of Inquiry regarding the CSPO.

On June 28, 2023, respondent appealed the court’s order.

Appeal

On March 21, 2024, the Seventh District Court of Appeals overruled respondent’s assignments of errors and affirmed the lower court’s order granting the CSPO.

Respondent was the subject of an unrelated domestic violence proceeding brought by his daughter’s mother

On November 12, 2024, respondent filed a pro se brief at the Seventh District Court of Appeals.

Respondent’s brief contained inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims that the trial judge was religiously biased against him.

For example, respondent referred to Judge Giulitto as “the catholic Judge,” “the catholic Trial Court,” or “this catholic court” 36 times in his brief.

Respondent also attempted to mischaracterize the proceedings to suggest that Judge Giulitto’s religious views were the motivating factor in the August 15, 2024 hearing, stating “On August 15, 2024, the catholic Trial Court held an ex parte hearing about a religious disagreement.”

However, respondent had been given notice of the hearing and chose not to attend.

Further, it was not about a “religious disagreement,” but instead, as the appellate court noted, the August 15 hearing was a merits hearing on the DVCPO where A.M. offered testimony that respondent caused A.M. mental distress.

In his appellate brief, respondent also stated, “this catholic court mocked Respondent’s action after being ambushed with his belongings by his previous order in a sadist tone.”

Judge Giulitto did not mock respondent or speak in a sadist tone.

Respondent has filed a pro see response to the Amended Complaint denying misconduct.

He recently sought sanctions against the bar prosecutors

In the Amended Complaint, Relator states without any evidence that the reason for the CPO filing was not a religious dispute, when the whole entire exercise stems from a dispute over a baptism. This is clearly a filing in bad faith and should be sanctioned. In addition the filing is littered with insulting language and unwarranted assertions.

Relator has been directed to respond to the sanctions motion. (Mike Frisch)