On Friday, May 29, 2026, Beau Harvey filed a complaint and petition for a Peremptory Writ of Prohibition in the Supreme Court of Ohio, naming Judges William Finnegan and S. Dwight Osterud as respondents. The filing, case number 2026-0661, alleges that both judges have engaged in the unauthorized exercise of judicial power.
Harvey contends that Judge Finnegan lacked proper assignment to preside over case number CRB-25-02887 in the Toledo Municipal Court. The petition states that Judge Finnegan exercised judicial power without authorization from the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court and that all actions he took in this matter should be vacated. Harvey’s filing points to an entry of rescission for Judge Finnegan’s assignment, effective February 27, 2026, for a different case (CRB-24-08399), suggesting an improper continuation of his involvement in CRB-25-02887.
Furthermore, the petition asserts that Judge Osterud, despite being assigned to case CRB-25-02887 on February 27, 2026, also lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to alleged structural errors in the charging instrument. The complaint details that the original complaint filed on April 9, 2025, was defective, citing an invalid statute and omitting essential elements of the crime. Specifically, it claims the complaint failed to properly allege the required “mens rea,” omitted a numerical designation of the ordinance, and was not sworn before an authorized official.
Harvey argues that the charging instrument is “fatally flawed” and its defects are structural, thus depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction. He contends that the failure to properly charge a criminal offense means the court has no authority to proceed. The Relator also highlights that the complaint was sworn by an officer within the Toledo Municipal Court and filed with colleagues, violating the requirement for a complaint to be sworn by a detached third-party magistrate to establish probable cause.
The petition requests an immediate order granting the Peremptory Writ of Prohibition, as well as an alternative writ that would stay case CRB-25-02887, prohibit Judge Osterud from commencing a jury trial, and order transcripts to be prepared for indigent defendants. Additionally, the Relator seeks an order for the respondents to show cause why the writ should not be made permanent, requesting the vacation of the case complaint and summons due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
