On Monday, January 27, 2025, Corey Mason filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition in the Ohio Supreme Court against Vinton County Court Judge Jeffrey Griffith and Assistant Prosecutor Amanda Miller. Mason seeks to prevent the court from proceeding with a falsification charge against him, asserting that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to continue the prosecution.
In his complaint, Mason claims that the prosecution has failed to meet the legal requirements necessary for a falsification conviction under Ohio law. He argues that the charges are not supported by sufficient evidence regarding intent to deceive and materiality, which are essential elements of such a charge. Mason contends that the prosecution is retaliatory, stemming from personal animosity related to an ongoing custody dispute concerning the children he has raised as a non-biological parent.
Mason describes his role as a primary caregiver for the children involved and states that he has acted in loco parentis, meaning he has taken on parental responsibilities despite not being their biological father. He asserts that he has raised the children for eight years and has consistently provided a stable environment, which has been recognized in prior custody arrangements.
The complaint indicates that Mason has been involved in a custody dispute and has recently filed a motion for visitation, supported by a mental health evaluation that concludes he is fit to care for the children. However, he alleges that the prosecution’s falsification charge is baseless and lacks merit, as both the legitimate and alleged falsified versions of the mental health evaluation reached the same conclusion regarding his fitness as a parent.
Mason argues that the prosecution, led by Assistant Prosecutor Amanda Miller, has acted with improper motives, suggesting that the timing of the charge—following his motion for visitation—indicates a retaliatory intent. He posits that the falsification charge has no material impact on the custody proceedings, as both evaluations yielded the same result regarding his parental capabilities.
In his complaint, Mason outlines that the Ohio Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs, including the writ of prohibition, to prevent lower courts from acting outside their jurisdiction. He cites previous court rulings that establish the necessity of proving intent and material impact for a falsification charge to proceed. Mason claims that the trial court lacks jurisdiction because the prosecution has not substantiated these elements.
Furthermore, Mason emphasizes that he is a first-time offender facing a misdemeanor charge and questions the appropriateness of the prosecution given the circumstances. He argues that the continued prosecution represents a misuse of judicial resources and an abuse of prosecutorial power, especially since he contends the charge lacks sufficient legal grounds.
Mason’s complaint also addresses the no-contact order sought by the prosecution, claiming it further constrains his ability to participate in the custody dispute. He argues that this order is unjust and causes irreparable harm to his parental rights and the relationship with the children.
In conclusion, Corey Mason requests that the Ohio Supreme Court issue a writ of prohibition to halt the ongoing prosecution, asserting that the trial court lacks jurisdiction due to insufficient evidence and retaliatory motives behind the charges. He maintains that the prosecution’s actions not only threaten his constitutional rights but also represent a waste of judicial resources.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
