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.

The post Beau Harvey Challenges Jurisdiction of Toledo Judges in Ohio Supreme Court Filing appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

On Tuesday, May 26, 2026, Gregory L. McDougall Jr. filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of Ohio.

The appeal stems from a judgment entry of the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District, in Court of Appeals Case Number 116244, entered on April 13, 2026.

McDougall, representing himself (pro se) and without legal counsel, asserts that this case invokes the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction due to substantial constitutional questions.

The underlying matter involves a motion by respondent Judge Anne Walton Keller to dismiss a writ of prohibition filed by McDougall.

The Court of Appeals granted this motion, finding that Judge Keller possessed the necessary subject-matter jurisdiction to hear misdemeanor cases and actions concerning the enforcement of temporary protection orders.

The court cited precedent stating that errors in the exercise of jurisdiction render a judgment voidable, not void.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Notice of Appeal Filed in Supreme Court of Ohio Challenging Dismissal of Writ Against Judge Anne Walton Keller appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

Carroll, 33, faces a series of serious felony charges, including two counts of first-degree felony kidnapping, two counts of third-degree felony abduction, aggravated burglary (first-degree felony), burglary (second-degree felony), three counts of felony strangulation, grand theft of a motor vehicle (fourth-degree felony), and gross sexual imposition (fourth-degree felony).

The Huron County Public Defender’s office also filed a motion to withdraw as Carroll’s counsel, stating that Carroll had submitted multiple writings to the court demanding new counsel. David Longo, director of the public defender’s office, indicated that despite diligent preparation for trial, the severity of the charges left him with no choice but to file the motion. Attorney Patrick Farrell has since been appointed to represent Carroll. Retired Cuyahoga County Judge John Sutula has been appointed to preside over the case as a visiting judge.

The incident occurred on October 18, 2025, when a 911 call was received from a hotel manager reporting that a female employee had run into the office in distress, stating, “There was violence.” Surveillance footage from the hotel corroborated the employee’s account, showing a man entering the room, followed by screams, and the woman escaping shortly thereafter. Police identified the suspect as Carroll, who investigators noted had recently been released from prison after serving 10 years for involuntary manslaughter related to a fatal stabbing that occurred over a decade ago in Norwalk.

Later that evening, Carroll was apprehended after a rollover crash near U.S. 250. The driver fled the scene on foot but was later found hiding in a barn, wearing the same clothing seen in the hotel surveillance video. Carroll was taken into custody and booked into the Huron County Jail, where he is being held without bond.
The case remains under active investigation, with the possibility of additional charges.

Source: Norwalk Reflector

The post Ohio Judge James Conway Recuses Himself from Eric L. Carroll Kidnapping Case appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

On Tuesday, May 19, 2026, Logan Mathys filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court of Ohio, alleging that Jacob A. Estes, Judge of the Bellefontaine Municipal Court, and the Bellefontaine Municipal Court itself, violated his constitutional rights. The petition, case number 26-0630, claims that Mathys was denied his right to a jury trial and access to his own case records due to unconstitutional financial barriers imposed by the court.

Mathys states that he timely demanded a jury trial in a civil action, Case No. 25CVF01412, pending in the Bellefontaine Municipal Court. However, the petition alleges that Judge Estes entered a summary judgment against Mathys without conducting a jury trial. Furthermore, Mathys claims he was required to pay a $500.00 fee as a precondition to exercising his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, a demand he asserts is unconstitutional.

The petition further details that Mathys was also charged a $150.00 fee to file an appeal of the denial of his jury trial right, which he argues foreclosed his ordinary legal remedy. Additionally, Mathys alleges he was asked to pay $740.00 to access his own case records, a demand he contends violates Ohio Revised Code § 149.43, the state’s public records act, and constitutional rights to access judicial proceedings.

Mathys argues that these financial barriers are impermissible under several U.S. Supreme Court precedents, including Griffin v. Illinois, Boddie v. Connecticut, and M.L.B. v. S.L.J. These cases, he asserts, establish a clear legal duty for courts not to impose financial barriers to constitutional rights, regardless of a party’s ability to pay.

The petition emphasizes that public institutions like the Bellefontaine Municipal Court are funded by the public, and individuals like Mathys, as members of the public, are co-owners and co-funders of these institutions, thus should not be charged fees for access.

The petition requests that the Supreme Court of Ohio issue a writ of mandamus ordering the respondents to vacate the summary judgment, conduct a jury trial, waive all associated fees for the jury trial and appeal, and provide immediate access to case records without charge.

Mathys also seeks a stay of proceedings in Case No. 25CVF01412 and an order that no filing fee be imposed on the mandamus petition itself, citing the constitutional rights at stake.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Writ of Mandamus Filed Against Ohio Judge Jacob A. Estes Over Denied Jury Trial and Record Access appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The legal action began when Huffman petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel Judge Michael W. Rickett to release vehicle registration blocks imposed on him and to certify their release. Judge Rickett responded with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, while Huffman moved for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals ultimately dismissed the case.

The court’s decision was based on several factors. First, the court noted that one of Huffman’s cases, 2014 CR-B 001383, was moot because the vehicle registration block had already been released on February 20, 2026.
Second, the court found the amended complaint fatally defective because Huffman did not name any party who could grant the relief he sought in seven of the municipal court cases over which Judge Rickett did not preside. These cases include 2015 CR-B 000245, 2018 CR-B 000667, 2018 CR-B 000988, 2018 CR-B 001455, 2018 CR-B 001460, TRD-11-12-10838, and CRB-11-11-01633.

Regarding the remaining three municipal court cases, the court determined that Huffman did not demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief requested. The court referenced House Bill 29 and R.C. 4510.22, which Huffman argued mandated the removal of vehicle registration blocks.

However, the court found that Section 5 of House Bill 29 did not apply retroactively to the removal of vehicle registration blocks imposed under R.C. 1901.44 for criminal misdemeanors. The court noted that Huffman’s convictions in the three remaining cases (2021 CR-B 000912, 2021 CR-B 001471, and 2023 CR-B 000137) were for criminal misdemeanors, not motor vehicle offenses.

The Court of Appeals concluded that Huffman could not prove the existence of a clear legal right to the relief he sought, leading to the dismissal of the case. The court also denied all outstanding motions as moot and taxed the costs of the action to Huffman.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Supreme Court Appeal Filed Against Judge Michael W. Rickett in Mandamus Action appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

On Friday, May 15, 2026, Susan Wasserman filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court of Ohio against Karen Phipps, a judge in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. The complaint seeks to compel Judge Phipps to rule on an Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion filed by Wasserman in a related foreclosure case.

Wasserman, representing herself, argues that Judge Phipps has failed to act on the motion within the statutory timeframe mandated by Ohio’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA). According to the complaint, more than 60 days have passed since the filing of the Anti-SLAPP motion without any ruling or opposition filed. Wasserman contends that this delay infringes upon her constitutional rights and undermines the purpose of UPEPA, which is to provide expedited protection against SLAPP suits.

The filing asserts that the underlying foreclosure action brought by Robert Weir, as Successor Trustee of the Elizabeth W. Koeberger Trust, is a retaliatory SLAPP suit designed to penalize Wasserman for her protected petitioning activities. These activities include filing appeals, motions, and complaints in state and federal courts challenging judicial misconduct and other issues related to the Koeberger trust.

Wasserman’s complaint requests the Supreme Court to issue an alternative writ ordering Judge Phipps to show cause why she should not be compelled to immediately rule on the Anti-SLAPP motion. Additionally, she seeks a peremptory writ of mandamus compelling Judge Phipps to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice and award Wasserman reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Ohio Judge Karen Phipps Accused of Failing to Rule on Anti-SLAPP Motion Within Deadline appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

On Wednesday, May 13, 2026, Sterling Robinson filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of Ohio regarding a case involving Judge Jaiza N. Page. The case is an appeal from the Franklin County Court of Appeals, 10th Appellate District, with case number 25 AP 827.

Robinson, acting as his own legal representative (Pro Se), is incarcerated at Madison Correctional Institution located in London, Ohio.

The notice of appeal pertains to a judgment from the Franklin County Court of Appeals for the Tenth Appellate District, which was entered on April 23, 2026. The court denied Robinson’s writ of mandamus. According to the judgment entry, the court overruled Robinson’s four objections to the magistrate’s decision, approved the magistrate’s decision, granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed Robinson’s request for a writ of mandamus. Pending motions were rendered moot, and outstanding appellate court costs were waived.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Ohio Inmate Appeals Tenth District Decision in Judge Jaiza Page Matter appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

On Tuesday, May 12, 2026, Ashley Brooke Osborne filed a complaint in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking a writ of prohibition and a writ of mandamus against Judge Jennifer L. Branch and Magistrate Thomas O. Beridon of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas.

Osborne, acting as her own legal representative, alleges that Magistrate Beridon presided over a five-day jury trial in January 2026 without proper written authorization. The case in question, A2304865, involves a commercial lease dispute arising from Osborne’s tenancy in Fairfield, Ohio.

Osborne claims that Chief Magistrate Anita P. Berding, initially assigned to the case, conducted an off-the-record Zoom conference on January 8, 2026, during which she made oral rulings narrowing Osborne’s claims without issuing a written order. Subsequently, on January 15, 2026, Chief Magistrate Berding signed a Nunc Pro Tunc Entry that removed multiple defendants from the case, a move Osborne argues was a substantive change and not a clerical correction.

According to the complaint, Chief Magistrate Berding sent an email on January 18, 2026, citing a family emergency and stating that Magistrate Beridon would preside over the trial. However, Osborne contends that this reassignment was not authorized, as Judge Branch did not issue a written order, and no recusal order was filed. Osborne further alleges that Chief Magistrate Berding remained active in the case, signing a substantive written order on January 20, 2026, the first day of the trial.

Osborne’s complaint highlights several alleged procedural defects, including the lack of a written order of reference naming Magistrate Beridon and the absence of written consent from all parties for him to preside. She argues that the court’s docketing system continues to list Chief Magistrate Berding as the presiding magistrate.

Osborne seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent Magistrate Beridon from issuing any further orders or a magistrate’s decision in Case No. A2304865 and to declare all proceedings before him void. Additionally, she requests a writ of mandamus compelling Judge Branch to fulfill her supervisory duties, including ruling on Osborne’s pending Motion for Disqualification of Magistrate Beridon.

The complaint also asks the Ohio Supreme Court to vacate the January 15, 2026 Nunc Pro Tunc Entry and restore Case No. A2304865 to its status as of January 8, 2026. Osborne requests that all further proceedings, including any new trial, be assigned to a visiting judge from outside Hamilton County with no connections to the local bench, bar, or magistracy.

Osborne asserts that she has no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law and that Judge Branch has failed to address the jurisdictional defects raised in her filings. She claims that the challenge to Magistrate Beridon’s authority has been pending for 86 days without resolution.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Pro Se Litigant Alleges Unauthorized Magistrate Presided Over Hamilton County Lease Trial appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

On Monday, May 11, 2026, Thomas Jones filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of Ohio regarding a case involving Judge Lisa L. Sadler from the Court of Claims of Ohio. The notice of appeal stems from a decision rendered on April 14, 2026, by the Franklin County Court of Appeals.

Jones, acting as his own legal representative (pro se), is currently housed at the Richland Connection Institution. He is appealing a judgment from the Franklin County Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate District. The filing asserts that the case involves a substantial constitutional question, a felony, and an issue of significant public interest.

The underlying case involves a writ of mandamus sought by Jones against Judge Lisa L. Sadler. Jones had sought to compel Judge Sadler to provide him with an entry of dismissal and to rescind a bill for court costs related to a personal injury action he filed in October 2024. This initial action, Jones v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction, Ct. of Cl. No. 2024-00763JD, was allegedly dismissed “without prejudice” on April 7, 2025, by Judge Sadler.

The Court of Appeals’ decision on April 14, 2026, overruled Jones’ objections to a magistrate’s decision, granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint for a writ of mandamus. The court found that Jones had not established that Judge Sadler had a clear legal duty to provide the requested relief or that he lacked an adequate remedy at law.

The motion to dismiss that was granted was filed on August 25, 2025. Jones filed a memorandum opposing the motion on September 8, 2025, and the respondent filed a reply supporting the motion on September 15, 2025.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Judge Lisa L. Sadler at Center of Ohio Supreme Court Appeal Challenging Dismissal of Writ appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

On Friday, May 8, 2026, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of Ohio regarding a case involving Judge Mark Costine. The filing, which is related to the 12th District Case No. CA2025-10-39, comes after a decision by the Twelfth District Court of Appeals on March 31, 2026, which dismissed the Attorney General’s complaint for a writ of prohibition.

The underlying case originates from a dispute in Clinton County, where Koger Kidd filed a Malfeasance Case in June 2025, alleging misconduct by the mayor of Wilmington and several city council members. Early in the proceedings, Kidd moved to disqualify Wilmington’s Law Director and the Clinton County Prosecutor, citing conflicts of interest. Subsequently, the Clinton Prosecutor filed a Notice of Conflict, stating his personal and ethical disqualification from prosecuting the case.

The Probate Court granted the Clinton Prosecutor’s motion and ordered the disqualification of both the Prosecutor and the Law Director, leading to the appointment of the Attorney General to prosecute the case. Following Judge Costine’s appointment as judge in the Malfeasance Case, the Attorney General filed motions to withdraw as counsel and to reconsider, which the Probate Court denied. This prompted the Attorney General to file an original action for a Writ of Prohibition, which was ultimately dismissed by the appellate court.

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals concluded that the Probate Court had the authority to appoint a special prosecutor, even if the Misconduct Statutes did not explicitly address conflicts of interest involving both the municipal law director and the county prosecutor. The court noted that Ohio law grants courts both statutory and inherent authority to appoint prosecutors, especially when a prosecuting attorney has a conflict of interest.

The Attorney General’s appeal asserts that the Probate Court’s appointment was unlawful because there is no authority for probate courts to appoint anyone other than the Law Director or Clinton Prosecutor to represent a complainant under the Misconduct Statutes. However, the appellate court was not convinced, stating that the trial court did not lack the legal authority to appoint the Attorney General to prosecute the Malfeasance Case.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Ohio Attorney General Appeals Dismissal of Writ Action Involving Judge Mark Costine appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.