IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

:
Tracie M. Hunter : Appeal No.
PO Box 32325 :
Cincinnati, Ohio 45232 : Case No. C-2300565
:
Relator, :
: RELATOR’S MEMORANDUM IN
v. : OPPOSITION OF RESPONDENT’S
: MOTION TO DISMISS
Judge Stephen Wolaver :
In Care of Court of Common Pleas :
1000 Main Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Comes now Tracie M. Hunter, pro se, and hereby moves this Court to deny Respondent’s

Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for the reasons espoused herein.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Tracie M. Hunter

Tracie M. Hunter
Pro Se
PO Box 32325
Cincinnati, Ohio 45232
(513) 662-6247
thunterlaw@gmail.com

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 I. INTRODUCTION

In her Writ of Mandamus, Relator Tracie M. Hunter, the first African-American Judge of

the Hamilton County Juvenile Court, Common Pleas Division, detailed how Respondent

deprived her of her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law when it

failed to rule on her Motions for Post Conviction relief seeking the vacation of a wrongful

conviction and Motions seeking the release of grand jury transcripts and exhibits related to her

prosecution. Those motions have been pending for four to ten years, respectively, in

Respondent’s Common Pleas Court in violation of the law.

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss fails to even remotely address the factual allegations in

her Complaint, misstates the law and fails to raise the legal grounds required to sustain a 12(B)

(6) dismissal, supporting the issuance of an extraordinary writ to stop the unprecedented abuse of

Relator’s constitutional rights in the ongoing, underlying criminal case. Respondent collectively

dismissed the contents of her specifically plead Writ as “meritless,” but did not even attempt to

address the grounds of injury alleged by Relator, thereby conceding that Relator raised a set of

facts sufficient to demonstrate that she is entitled to the requested extraordinary relief. He further

errantly claimed that this court does not have the “jurisdiction” to exercise authority over the

lower court, in direct contradiction of the law. Relator is entitled to relief, based on the law.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Former Judge Hunter was the first black judge and first Democrat Judge elected to the

Juvenile Court in its inception over 120 years ago. She campaigned on a promise to reform the

Juvenile Court by rehabilitating juveniles, applying the laws fairly to all children and families

regardless of race or socioeconomic background and restoring families. After she was

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 constitutionally denied her right to assume office January 1, 2011, she sued the Hamilton County

Board of Elections to force provisional ballots to be counted that proved she won and eventually

prevailed in her landmark case, Hunter v. Hamilton County Board of Elections, 635 F.3d 219 (6th

Cir. 2011). She was sworn in May 25, 2012, eighteen months after her official term began. Her

opponent John Williams, despite losing the election to Relator, was appointed to the Juvenile

Court while the lawsuit proceeded and immediately seized control of the court. Once sworn in,

she set about implementing juvenile reform, despite fierce opposition from within. Williams

hired a court administrator Curt Kissinger that refused to help Judge Hunter. Williams and

Kissinger controlled employees that took unauthorized actions on Judge Hunter’s cases.

In 2013, Judge Hunter was sued by the media when she prohibited their publishing the

names and faces of 12-year old children in her courtroom. Although the election lawsuit was still

pending, the Prosecutor’s Office undertook her representation and appointed the same prosecutor

that was leading the election lawsuit, James Harper, as her lead counsel, in violation of the law.

Additionally, the Public Defender’s Office sued her a dozen times, alleging her cases were

behind, but that was not true. In fact, Public Defender Allison Hild later testified at her trial that

public defenders were forced by Public Defender Ray Faller, over their objection, to sue Judge

Hunter. If the Prosecutor’s Office had answered those lawsuits as her legal counsel, they would

have demonstrated with the evidence Judge Hunter provided them that those cases had no merit

and were not behind schedule. However, to avoid the truth being exposed that Judge Hunter’s

cases were not untimely and that she was being targeted, the Prosecutor’s Office negligently

failed to answer the lawsuits, but also refused to relinquish their representation. Prosecutor Joe

Deters intentionally allowed Judge Hunter to be continually sued while failing to provide her

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 competent representation in those cases. The First District Court of Appeals, noting in their

rulings that Judge Hunter did not answer the lawsuits, granted default judgements in 12 of those

cases against Judge Hunter. Retired Judge Sylvia Hendon, then Prosecutor Deters’ Mother-In-

Law, specifically ruled that Judge Hunter was not permitted to obtain independent legal counsel,

apart from Prosecutor Deters, even as she granted Writs against Judge Hunter that her son-in-law

negligently failed to answer.

In July 2013, Judge Hunter reported Prosecutor Deters and three assistant prosecutors to

the Ohio Supreme Court for failing to answer those lawsuits as her lawyers and for disobeying

her court orders to turn over evidence to defense lawyers in juvenile cases in her courtroom. A

few weeks after she reported the Prosecutor’s Office for misconduct on juvenile court cases and

for failing to provide her competent legal representation, Prosecutor Deters publicly retaliated

and falsely accused Judge Hunter of backdating court documents, allegations he knew to be

untrue. The media ran with it. When Deters issued a press release alleging one business day

before she stood trial stating that Judge Hunter was responsible for the murders of two people, all

the TV stations and media ran the story. Judge Hunter was tried daily in the media, based on

stories fed directly to them by the Prosecutor’s Office. Nearly half the jury admitted they

believed those media stories about Judge Hunter and would be inclined to find her guilty, based

on those stories, but were allowed to remain on her jury despite their admissions of bias.

After initiating the false allegations, Prosecutor Deters picked the special prosecutors to

indict her. Although the special prosecutor was supposed to be objectively appointed, Beth

Meyer, the presiding judge of the Common Pleas Court, provided a sworn affidavit, admitting

that Prosecutor Deters handpicked the special prosecutor Scott Croswell of the firm Croswell &

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 Adams. He previously served as Deters’ personal criminal lawyers and his firm later represented

him in his divorce. Mr. Deters secured a multi-million dollar public contract for his personal

lawyer that had never prosecuted a case until he was retained by Hamilton County to prosecute

Relator. Although the Ohio Attorney General appoints Special Prosecutors to counties for free in

cases like these, Prosecutor Deters directed millions of dollars to his personal friend and business

associate in order to ensure the removal of Judge Hunter from the bench by any means necessary.

On January 10, 2014, Croswell indicted Judge Hunter on 9 felony counts, including

tampering with evidence, securing a public contract, theft and misuse of a credit card. Eight of

those charges ended in a hung jury and Judge Hunter was convicted on one count, after Judge

Norbert Nadel refused to poll the jury, upon Relator’s request, when the verdict was published.

The State’s software expert witness testified that prosecutors knew Judge Hunter did not

backdate documents, but was told to omit that evidence from his sworn affidavit. Evidence

demonstrated that prosecutors knew she had not committed theft or misused her credit card when

she filed 12 Notices of Appeals that cost $1,200 and retained Jennifer Branch to answer the cases

Deters failed to answer, but Croswell charged her with theft and misuse of a credit card for doing

the job Deters was supposed to do. Every charge should have ended in an acquittal, as they were

soundly disproven at trial, but for the pervasive media bias. Three jurors contacted Judge Nadel

and counsel immediately following trial and reported that their verdicts were not guilty and had

they been polled, they would have said so. They all signed sworn affidavits swearing their true

verdicts were not guilty and alleged intimidation and misconduct by the jury forewoman.

Indeed, the publicly broadcast trial was replete with misconduct and judicial abuse.

Prosecutors pressured Judge Hunter not to appeal the conviction, offering not to try her a second

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 time on the eight charges if she would agree not to appeal. Judge Hunter refused and prepared for

trial a second time. Prosecutors added a 10th felony charge of misuse of a credit card.

On January 16, 2016, as trial began, the Special Prosecutors voluntarily dismissed nine charges.

They alleged it was because Relator’s conviction had been upheld on January 15, 2016, just in

time for her new trial. However, evidence of prosecutorial misconduct had recently been

uncovered by Relator and presented before the trial court in pretrial motions, evidence that

proved prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence, committed perjury, fabricated Juvenile Court

records used to indict and subsequently prosecute Judge Hunter and destroyed evidence.

Relator’s grounds for relief are espoused in the Complaint and in the attached exhibits.

Relator will not restate all of the allegations herein, but highlight and supplement certain facts

that are dispositive of this motion. Additionally, the aforementioned evidence that was presented

during pretrial arguments, that led a dismissal of those nine charges, was not transcribed; but the

State dismissed all charges, following those arguments. Such evidence was discovered post

conviction and presented to the trial court, demonstrating that the State omitted or withheld

evidence and committed perjury to compel a jury to convict Relator in violation of the law.

Relator’s jury trial was replete with extensive violations of her constitutional rights that

denied her a fair trial, including the violation of Batson. Relator was denied discovery of emails

and court records she requested for trial related to the contested conviction. In fact, her attorney

Clyde Bennett placed on the trial record on September 8, 2014, that he would be unable to

provide Judge Hunter with effective assistance of counsel, if he was forced to proceed to trial

that day because the Prosecutor’s Office failed to turn over critical discovery. Over her counsel’s

admission and objection, Judge Nadel forced Relator to proceed without discovery. There were

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 inconsistencies in the Bill of Particulars, including a different statute than the one charged. The

Prosecutor’s Office threatened her trial counsel, which he reported, that he would not get plea

deals for his other client’s if he zealously defended Relator. Trial counsel failed to request Judge

Nadel to disqualify himself, despite his prejudices, biases and inability to conduct a fair trial that

became clear as he flagrantly denied Judge Hunter’s rights. Judge Nadel repeatedly stopped the

trial proceedings mid witness to allow prosecutors to prep their flailing witnesses and search for

answers to questions they couldn’t answer on cross. He attempted to prevent defense witnesses,

like then Public Defender Allison Hild, from putting their complete testimony on record when it

exposed the State’s wrongdoing, exposed corruption, like the clerk’s history of altering records,

corroborated Relator’s innocence or demonstrated that the charges against Relater lacked merit.

Judge Hunter made an oral motion requesting Norbert Nadel to recuse himself at the

onset of trial for his failure to compel discovery, failure to grant Relator’s request to preserve

evidence related to the charges and based on Ohio law that required a recusal, due to his bias. In

a high stakes case, Judge Nadel denied Relator’s right to put on a key witnesses, including court

employees she subpoenaed. Evidence of extensive misconduct was discovered by a forensic

expert allowed into the Juvenile Court for the first time two years after her trial. Key computers

and hard drives were missing or scrambled. Prosecutors admitted they were discarded before

trial, before Judge Hunter was indicted, despite her timely request to preserve and inspect any

and all evidence that was to be used against her at trial. Judge Nadel even forced Relator’s trial

attorney to rest her defense before her attorney Jennifer Branch and other court employees with

knowledge relative to the trial could be called as witnesses because there were specific jurors

that Judge Nadel wanted to keep on the jury that had a time conflict after six weeks.

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 Relator’s counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to appeal or file a Post

Conviction Motion raising the known trial errors, especially those properly preserved at trial, but

new evidence, that was impossible to have discovered sooner, emerged exposing misconduct

between the special prosecutor, jury forewoman, judges and elected officials involved in her

case, that substantially impacted the outcome and invoked the filing of Post Conviction Motions.

Respondent violated her civil rights when he failed to dismiss the charge and vacate her

criminal conviction when new evidence proved that that there was such a denial or infringement

of her rights as to render the judgment void or voidable under Constitutions of Ohio and the

United States. Respondent should have conducted discovery and subpoenaed witnesses when

evidence came to light that the State: tampered with the jury; withheld exculpatory evidence that

would have resulted in an acquittal at trial; and engaged in misconduct so egregious that those

involved should have been charged when their actions came to light. The Grand jury transcripts

were requested for a particularized need to demonstrate that prosecutors knew Relator was

innocent of the charges when they indicted her, which a proper post conviction review would

have revealed, had it been timely conducted by the trial court, as required by ORC 2953.21.1

Respondent further violated Relator’s civil rights to equal protection when he failed to

rule on her Post Conviction motions to dismiss the indictment and vacate the conviction after

two current Ohio Supreme Court justices, one the former prosecutor of Hamilton County, Ohio,

indisputably violated the statute that they convicted Relator, but neither similarly situated judge

1(A)(1)(a) A person in any of the following categories may file a petition in the court that imposed sentence, stating the grounds for relief relied
upon, and asking the court to vacate or set aside the judgment or sentence or to grant other appropriate relief:
(i) Any person who has been convicted of a criminal offense or adjudicated a delinquent child
and who claims that there was such a denial or infringement of the person's rights as to render
the judgment void or voidable under the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United
States;
8

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 or elected official were charged with the crimes they committed because they are white and

Relator is black. Justice DeWine, when a judge on this Court, upheld Judge Hunter’s conviction

and sentence to prison; and former prosecutor Deters, initiated the allegations against former

Judge Hunter that led to her conviction, even as they both committed conduct prescribed by ORC

2921.42. Justice Pat DeWine asked then Prosecutor, now Justice Deters to hire his son via email

at a public agency, after he upheld Judge Hunter’s conviction and sentence to prison. In

response, Deters sent an email ordering his staff to hire Justice DeWine’s son in his office.

Mr. Deters also was not charged when he secured a multi-million dollar contract for his

business associate Scott Croswell to prosecute Judge Hunter and hired Croswell’s son Nicholas

in the Prosecutor’s Office at the start of her trial in September 2014. The State also failed to

charge Prosecutor Deters’ brother Dennis, when he served as a Hamilton County Board of

Commissioner and voted to approve his brother Joe’s request for one million more dollars for the

continued prosecution of Judge Hunter. All of those individuals that secured contracts for their

family members and/or business associates, in violation of ORC 2921.42 are white. The State

openly and unashamedly denied Relator’s civil rights as they violated the same statute, Ohio and

United States Constitutions, denying her equal protection and due process of the law.

Respondent’s failure to rule on motions that have been outstanding for years constitutes a

clear abuse of authority in contravention of clearly established constitutional and statutory

requirements. Relator seeks an extraordinary writ because this an extraordinary issue.

Respondent seeks to end this case to avoid scrutiny of the extreme judicial misconduct at issue,

like denying Relator’s right to be heard by failing for years to rule on motions that required a

timely response; and treating Relator who is black, differently than they treated the white Justice

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 and elected officials. Respondent and prior judges failed to rule on Relator’s Motions because

they cannot legally justify the disparate treatment between a black judge and white judges and

officials, especially when the white justice’s actions prima facie violated the statute, which

specifically proscribed their specific conduct; but required reimagining and misconstruing the

statute in order to convict Judge Hunter of their allegations. Prosecutors initially alleged she

hired her brother. When personnel records proved that Relator did not hire her brother, they

alleged she provided documents to her brother that were never identified. As there were no

documents, according to the law, that Relator provided or could have provided that violated that

statute, the State intentionally refrained from identifying any alleged documents, violating

Relator’s right to notice of the charge. Prosecutors used smoke and mirrors to force an unlawful

conviction, when there was no evidence that she violated ORC 2921.42. But no evidence was

needed when the prosecutor’s secret weapon was the jury forewoman, the wife of a partner in

one of Cincinnati’s largest law firms, Frost, Brown & Todd, that represented WCPO TV, the

station that had an active lawsuit against Judge Hunter when she was charged, but more

importantly, was a personal friend of the prosecutor and his wife that neither disclosed.

Relator’s counsel made a request for Grand Jury proceedings to demonstrate that

prosecutors knew when they charged Judge Hunter with securing a public contract and nine other

charges that Judge Hunter was innocent of all charges. Grand jury transcripts would demonstrate

that prosecutors obscured or omitted the truth and presented evidence they fabricated.

For instance, special prosecutors knew that court personnel changed Judge Hunter’s

judicial entries, after she signed them, without her knowledge or authorization but charged her

with forgery and tampering with evidence. They also knew that the Prosecutor’s Office neglected

10

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 to answer 12 lawsuits filed against judge Hunter when it represented her as judge, but charged

her with felony theft and misuse of a credit card after she retained attorney Branch, now Judge

Branch, to appeal the default judgements issued by this court after Deters negligently failed to

defend Judge Hunter as her legal counsel. They also knew that Prosecutor Deters undertook

representing Judge Hunter as he simultaneously represented the Board of Elections against Judge

Hunter in the still ongoing election lawsuit. Court records established that the Prosecutor’s

Office was representing and suing Judge Hunter at the same time in violation of the law. The

prosecutors knew that Relator did not secure a contract nor did anything to save a job that her

brother unequivocally expressed to the court he did not want, after he was violently attacked by a

juvenile during a routine restraint, a common occurrence at the Juvenile Court.

Relator Hunter performed her judicial duties in accordance with the Ohio Constitution,

Revised Code, Juvenile Court employee personnel manual and judicial training manual that

required her to review all incidents reported to her by employees of the court or members of the

public, as the statutory employer of the Court. Judge Hunter was legally obligated to respond to

public records requests by the media and citizens and was required to follow up whenever

employees, including managers at the Youth Center, contacted her directly. Numerous court

emails proved that Judge Hunter investigated complaints about magistrates, probation officers,

injured juveniles, injured employees, even contract workers for outside agencies that filed

complaints to her directly. Evidence at trial, public records she requested, including critical

discovery she repeatedly requested from the prosecutors of her court correspondence, but was

denied, demonstrated that she made inquiries in all incidences reported to her. Evidence would

also show that she used the same email that she copied and pasted when she requested records

11

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 after multiple employees of the Youth Center, including supervisors, contacted Judge Hunter and

requested she meet with them because of the injuries they received, the lack of support from

Dwayne Bowman and their fear of retaliation for speaking up. As a result of so many complaints,

Judge Hunter sent an email to all the staff long before any incident with her brother agreeing to

meet with them to address their grievances. Judge Hunter made special trips to the Youth Center

day and night on multiple occasions to address employees’ concerns at those employees’

requests, that had nothing to do with her brother. Judge Hunter had a reputation of being hands

on with everyone. She even pursued equitable pay for Magistrates that contacted her. Prosecutors

denied providing Judge Hunters’s emails in discovery because they would corroborate that Judge

Hunter was consistently engaged and began meeting with Youth Center and 800 Broadway

employees as soon as she was sworn in to address their concerns and take action on complaints.

Respondent should have vacated Relator’s conviction for violating her right to equal

protection when Relator filed a Post Conviction Motion containing evidence that DeWine and

Deters violated ORC 2921.42, but were not charged; and produced evidence of an undisclosed

relationship between Scott Croswell, retired Juvenile Court Judge Stephanie Wyler Croswell and

jury forewoman Sandy Kirkham. Furthermore, the trial judge should have vacated her conviction

when it became aware that the prosecutors tampered with computer evidence, failed to disclose

exculpatory evidence and instructed a key witness to omit critical evidence from an affidavit that

demonstrated prosecutors deliberately charged Judge Hunter contra evidence in their possession.

Failure to rule on Post Conviction Motions constitutes a clear abuse of authority in

contravention of clearly established constitutional and statutory requirements. Judge Hunter was

denied her constitutional right to notice of the specific charges in a complaint served upon her,

12

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 and denied a fair jury trial guaranteed under law. Relator seeks an extraordinary writ because this

is an extraordinary case and Respondent has failed for years to perform the duties required by

law. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss fails on the law. The extraordinary writ of mandamus

exists to provide a remedy in cases where judges abuse their authority and violate rights

protected and guaranteed by law and there is no other remedy available to correct the injustice.

III. Legal Argument

A. The First District Court of Appeals has Jurisdiction Over Writ

This Court is vested with jurisdiction to hear an original mandamus action pursuant to

Article IV, Section 3(B)(1) of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. 2731.02.2 Where a public officer or

agency is under a clear legal duty to perform an act, and where there is no plain and adequate

remedy in the ordinary course of the law, an action in mandamus will lie originally in the

Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. * * * (8) State, ex rel. Pressley, v. Industrial Commission

(1967), 11 Ohio St. 2d 141.

B. Relator States Valid Constitutional Claims for the Issuance of a Mandamus

Writ when her Constitutional rights were violated and the Way Is Clear.

Relator Hunter respectfully seeks this extraordinary writ to: stop the extraordinary

violations of her civil rights; to compel Respondent to follow basic Constitutional and statutory

laws; to rule on motions that have been outstanding over four years; and to vacate the conviction

obtained in violation of her rights to equal protection and a fair jury trial. Respondent moves this

Court to dismiss her action without regard for their misconduct in violation of the law.

2The writ of mandamus may be allowed by the supreme court, the court of appeals, or the court of common pleas and shall be issued by the clerk
of the court in which the application is made. Such writ may issue on the information of the party beneficially interested…

13

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 In reviewing this petition, this Court must assume all factual allegations to be true, and

make all reasonable inferences in Relator Hunter’s favor. State ex rel. Dieter v. McGuire, 119

Ohio St.3d 384, 387, 894 N.E. 2d 680 (2008). Dismissal is only appropriate if “it appears beyond

doubt that she could prove no set of facts entitling her to the requested extraordinary relief.” Id.

The Respondent ignored the specific allegations Relator raised, which must be accepted as true.

C. Relator States A Valid Claim for A Writ of Mandamus

“Mandamus is a writ, issued in the name of the state to an inferior tribunal, a corporation,

board, or person, commanding the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a

duty resulting from an office, trust, or station.” R.C. 2731.01. In order to grant a complaint for a

writ of mandamus, the court must find that relator has “a clear legal right to the relief prayed for,

that the respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform the requested act, and that the relator

has no plain and adequate remedy at law.” State ex rel. Hodges v. Taft, 64 Ohio St.3d 1, 3, 591

N.E.2d 1186 (1992), citing State ex rel. Harris v. Rhodes, 54 Ohio St.2d 41, 374 N.E.2d 641

(1978). The relator bears the burden to establish all the elements demonstrating entitlement to the

writ. State ex rel. Luna v. Huffman, 74 Ohio St.3d 486, 659 N.E.2d 1279 (1996).

To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Relator must establish by clear and convincing

evidence (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of Judge

Wolver to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.

See State ex rel. Sands v. Coulson, 163 Ohio St.3d 275, 2021-Ohio-671, 169 N.E.3d 663, ¶ 6. For

a court to dismiss a mandamus complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted, it must appear beyond doubt from the complaint that the

relator can prove no set of facts warranting relief, after all factual allegations in the complaint are

14

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 presumed to be true, and all reasonable inferences are made in the relator’s favor. State ex rel.

Natl. Elec. Contrs. Assn. v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Servs., 83 Ohio St.3d 179, 181, 699 N.E.2d 64

(1998). State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131Ohio St. 3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶

In her Complaint Ms. Hunter requested a writ of mandamus. To be entitled to the writ,

she must present evidence that she has a clear legal right to the requested relief; respondents have

a legal duty to provide it; and Ms. Hunter lacks an adequate remedy in the course of the law.

State ex rel. Brubaker v. Lawrence Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2022- Ohio-1087, ¶ 9.

1. Relator Has a Clear Legal Right To Have the Conviction Vacated and the
Respondent Has an Obligation to Provide It.

Pursuant to Ohio Criminal Rule 33, a new trial may be granted on motion of the

defendant for any of the following causes affecting materially “her” substantial rights:

(1) Irregularity in the proceedings, or in any order or ruling of the court, or abuse of discretion by the court,
because of which the defendant was prevented from having a fair trial;

(2) Misconduct of the jury, prosecuting attorney, or the witnesses for the state;

(3) Accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against;

(4) That the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence or is contrary to law. If the evidence shows the
defendant is not guilty of the degree of crime for which he was convicted, but guilty of a lesser degree
thereof, or of a lesser crime included therein, the court may modify the verdict or finding accordingly,
without granting or ordering a new trial, and shall pass sentence on such verdict or finding as modified;

(5) Error of law occurring at the trial;

(6) When new evidence material to the defense is discovered which the defendant could not with
reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial. When a motion for a new trial is made
upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, the defendant must produce at the hearing on the motion,
in support thereof, the affidavits of the witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given, and if
time is required by the defendant to procure such affidavits, the court may postpone the hearing of the
motion for such length of time as is reasonable under all the circumstances of the case. The prosecuting
attorney may produce affidavits or other evidence to impeach the affidavits of such witnesses.

Judge Nadel abused his discretion when he forced Judge Hunter to proceed with trial,

despite knowing that the State failed to provide discovery and after her lawyer admitted he was

not to ready to proceed without that discovery and would provide ineffective assistance of

15

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 counsel by proceeding on that day. Emails and court records existed that disproved the State’s

allegations against Judge Hunter on this charge, but Relator was denied those emails. Criminal

Rule 163 provides that Relator, upon motion, had a “right to any evidence favorable to the

defendant and material to guilt or punishment…”Rule 16 - Discovery and Inspection, Ohio Crim.

R. 16.

The trial judge violated Relator’s constitutional rights to a fair trial when he failed to

vacate Relator’s conviction after evidence emerged that the jury forewoman failed to disclose her

bias of pastors when the issue was raised on voir dire. In fact, during voir dire when jurors were

specifically questioned about Hunter being a pastor, the forewoman failed to disclose that she

held a deep-seated disdain for pastors, based on her relationship with her youth pastor that led to

her lifelong struggles with pastors, faith and religion. That experience was so traumatic that she

testified about clergy sexual abuse by pastors before the General Assembly and regularly

engaged in forums about that issue, unbeknownst to Relator, because she failed to disclose it.

3 Rule 16 - Discovery and Inspection, Ohio Crim. R. 16

(A) Purpose, Scope and Reciprocity. This rule is to provide all parties in a criminal case with the information necessary for a full and fair
adjudication of the facts, to protect the integrity of the justice system and the rights of defendants, and to protect the well-being of witnesses,
victims, and society at large. All duties and remedies are subject to a standard of due diligence, apply to the defense and the prosecution equally,
and are intended to be reciprocal. Once discovery is initiated by demand of the defendant, all parties have a continuing duty to supplement their
disclosures.
(B) Discovery: Right to Copy or Photograph. Upon receipt of a written demand for discovery by the defendant, and except as provided in
division (C), (D), (E), (F), or (J) of this rule, the prosecuting attorney shall provide copies or photographs, or permit counsel for the defendant to
copy or photograph, the following items related to the particular case indictment, information, or complaint, and which are material to the
preparation of a defense, or are intended for use by the prosecuting attorney as evidence at the trial, or were obtained from or belong to the
defendant, within the possession of, or reasonably available to the state, subject to the provisions of this rule:
(1) Any written or recorded statement by the defendant or a co-defendant, including police summaries of such statements, and including grand
jury testimony by either the defendant or co-defendant;
(2) Criminal records of the defendant, a co-defendant, and the record of prior convictions that could be admissible under Rule 609 of the Ohio
Rules of Evidence of a witness in the state's case-in-chief, or that it reasonably anticipates calling as a witness in rebuttal;
(3) Subject to divisions (D)(4) and (E) of this rule, all laboratory or hospital reports, books, papers, documents, photographs, tangible objects,
buildings, or places;
(4) Subject to division (D)(4) and (E) of this rule, results of physical or mental examinations, experiments or scientific tests;
(5) Any evidence favorable to the defendant and material to guilt or punishment;
(6) All reports from peace officers, the Ohio State Highway Patrol, and federal law enforcement agents, provided however, that a document
prepared by a person other than the witness testifying will not be considered to be the witness's prior statement for purposes of the cross
examination of that particular witness under the Rules of Evidence unless explicitly adopted by the witness;
(7) Any written or recorded statement by a witness in the state's case-in-chief, or that it reasonably anticipates calling as a witness in rebuttal.
defendant is pro se, and any other relevant information.

16

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 That was not the only secret the jury forewoman was hiding. It would take several more

years to uncover the relationship between the jury forewoman, Crosswell and his wife that only

came to light after Mrs. Kirkham detailed her distrust of pastors in a book about her experience,

a book that was endorsed on its cover by Prosecutor Crosswell’s wife, years after jurors swore

they suffered undue pressure by the forewoman to convict her, contra the evidence. Kirkham’s

biases and blatant lies of omission regarding her relationship with the Crosswells and her clergy

biases played out during Relator’s trial, depriving Relator of the fair jury trial required by the

Sixth Amendment. Kirkham lied about her background and did not disclose her relationship with

Crosswell and his wife in order to ensure that she remained on Judge Hunter’s jury. When that

evidence came to light in 2021, the Respondent should have vacated the conviction, but the

judge simply let her Post Conviction Motion sit for years without ruling.

The Relator could not have discovered Mrs. Kirkham’s secrets any sooner because she

was denied access to the jury questionnaire prior to trial and then was only permitted the

standard eight question jury questionnaire reserved for run of the mill jury cases, not six-week

high profile cases like Judge Hunter’s. In stark comparison, in the case of Ray Tensing, a police

officer charged with murder, that did not garner nearly as much media attention as Judge

Hunter’s case, prospective jurors in Hamilton County filled out a 25-page, 192 question jury

questionnaire to help attorneys and the judge identify and eliminate jurors that might not be

impartial. Judge Hunter was denied her request for a detailed jury questionnaire that would have

enabled her to identify plants, like Sandy Kirkham or the TV reporter, whose employer WCPO

was actively suing Judge Hunter for prohibitions she placed on the media to protect children in

her courtroom when she was indicted. While Tensing, who is white, had access to potential jurors

17

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 weeks prior to his trial to ensure that his constitutional rights were protected, Judge Hunter was

denied a long jury questionnaire and denied any access to information normally permitted in a

fair jury trial that would have identified jurists with biases, based on race or religion. Judge

Hunter was denied the equal protection of criminal law rules and civil procedures, based on race.

Relator was entitled to have her conviction vacated based on clear violations of Criminal

Rules 16 and 33, based on jury misconduct, misconduct by the prosecutor and abuse of

discretion by trial court. Respondent is obligated to vacate the conviction.

Relator also has a clear legal right to have her conviction vacated when new evidence

emerged after her appeals were exhausted that Relator’s right to equal protection were violated

and she was treated differently under the same statute than Justice DeWine and Prosecutor

Deters, both who are white. The trial judge at that time was Patrick Dinkelacker, another white

judge, who was an appellate judge on this Court at the same time as Judge DeWine when charges

were filed against Judge Hunter. It was a violation of her rights to equal protection to

discriminately charge Relator, but not the white justice and prosecutor that violated ORC

2921.42 in Hamilton County.

Pursuant to § 2953.21(A)(1)(a), Post conviction relief petition, a person who has been

convicted of a criminal offense and claims that here was such a denial or infringement of the

person's rights as to render the judgment void or voidable under the Ohio Constitution or the

Constitution of the United States may file a petition in the court that imposed sentence, stating

the grounds for relief relied upon, and asking the court to vacate or set aside the judgment or

sentence or to grant other appropriate relief. The trial court shall file its ruling upon a petition for

18

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 post-conviction relief, including findings of fact and conclusions of law if required by law, not

later than one hundred eighty days after the petition is filed. Ohio Criminal Rule 35(C).

All lawyers and courts understand that the word shall indicates a statutory duty to

perform an act that transcends judicial discretion to do or not to do a duty, based on one’s bias,

prejudice, racism, political affiliations, spite, contempt, hatred, retaliation, or contempt for the

person their act or lack thereof impacts, in this case former Judge Tracie M. Hunter.

Relator Hunter had the legal right to have the trial court render a ruling on her Post

Conviction Motions. The trial court, now Respondent is legally obligated to provide that ruling

in accordance with the law and Constitutions that prohibit discrimination and disparate ruling on

race. The way is clear. The State has had ample time to charge Justices DeWine and Deters under

the statute, based on their conduct that fit squarely within the acts proscribed by that law; but

they continue to only selectively prosecute Judge Hunter. Emails of their violation actually exist.

Respondent cannot continue to abuse judicial discretion and escape his duty to vacate a

conviction that violates equal protection laws by refusing to rule. Judge Wolaver has a duty to

vacate a conviction that violates the constitutions of Ohio and the United States, based on race.

The Fourteenth Amendment precludes Respondent from treating Relator differently than

Justices Deters and DeWine, who violated the statute on its face, but were not prosecuted, even

as they directly participated in the prosecution and incarceration of former Judge Hunter.

“Both the Ohio and United States Constitutions provide that no person shall be deprived

of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or be denied the equal protection of the

law. Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 2 ; Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

State v. Klembus, 17 N.E.3d 603, 606 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014) The right of equal protection secured

19

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 by both Constitutions does not permit the State to arbitrarily prosecute Judge Hunter in the

enforcement of a criminal statute that applies to white judges too. The statute does not make

exemptions or distinctions for Ohio Supreme Court justices or prosecutors and their families.

While their actions deliberately and unquestionably violated the statute, the general allegations

against Relator, even had they been true, did not. Without undue influence, like pressure from a

compromised jury forewoman or some other abuses of law and misconduct, there was simply no

way that an unbiased jury could have found that Judge Hunter violated the law when no evidence

was specifically identified for her to defend, violating her constitutional right to be noticed of the

specific charge against her and how it violated the law. The violation of that statute by Justices

Deters and DeWine are clear and the evidence against them clearly identified and tangible.

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), 118 U.S. 356, 374, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1073, the United States

Supreme Court held: "Though the law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appearance, yet,

if it is applied and administered by public authority with an * * * unequal hand, so as practically

to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to

their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the constitution."

An equal protection violation was found when a Cincinnati ordinance required licensing

of all massage practitioners, but was selectively enforced against those who solicited their

service in the newspaper. State v. Norris 147 Ohio App. 3d 224, 2002-Ohio-1033.

“The decision whether to prosecute a criminal offense is generally left to the discretion of

the prosecutor. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 464, 116 S.Ct.1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687.

That discretion is, however, subject to constitutional equal-protection principles, which prohibit

20

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 prosecutors from selectively prosecuting individuals based on “ ‘an unjustifiable standard such as

race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.’ ” Id., quoting Oyler v. Boles (1962), 368 U.S.

448, 456, 82 S.Ct. 501, 7 L.Ed.2d 446.” Prosecutors only charged a black judge and pastor.

2. Relator Lacks An Available Remedy

To be adequate, an available remedy must be “adequate under the circumstances of the

case,” State ex rel. Cody v. Toner, 8 Ohio St.3d 22, 23, 456 N.E. 2d 813 (1983), and be “complete

in nature, beneficial, and speedy.” State ex rel. Yeaples v. Gall, 141 Ohio St.3d 234, 2014-

Ohio-4724, 23 N.E.3d 1077, ¶ 33.

As Respondent noted, Relator exhausted her state appeals and Habeas before the newly

discovered evidence of misconduct, jury tampering and withheld exculpatory evidence contained

in her petition came to light. Respondent argues that “Relator is seeking to use the writ to force

the trial court to overrule this Court’s prior appellate decision.” Such notion is preposterous.

Relator is seeking a Writ to force the trial court to do the job that it has failed to do for over four

years, but still has a duty to do and Relator has no other adequate or available remedy at law.

While a Writ of Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy or request for relief that permits a

litigant to seek immediate reversal by a lower court if, among other things, the trial court ruling

was wrong and the party seeking mandamus has no other way to get relief. Respondent’s claim

that a Writ of mandamus is not permitted because this Court already ruled is not a valid legal

defense or standard. Although Respondent misconstrues the legal intent and purpose of a

mandamus, even if ordering the trial court to vacate the conviction to rectify a prior injustice, has

21

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 the indirect result of mooting prior appellate rulings, based on that injustice, the Court has a duty

to correct prior errors of law and render justice. Otherwise, pride and prejudice prevails.

Notwithstanding, a Writ of Mandamus was filed because the appellate process failed. To

be clear, Relator is not asking this Court to overturn its appellate decision, but to vacate the

original trial conviction for violations of her constitutional rights, based on newly discovered

evidence that was discovered post conviction. The delay in discovering that evidence was due to

the state’s deliberate efforts and ability to cover up, hide and destroy evidence, such as the

computers at the Juvenile Court. Relator asked the trial court to preserve the evidence, but it did

not. Relator also requested her emails at the Juvenile Court as part of discovery, to fight the

criminal charges, but was denied exculpatory evidence that directly proved her innocence of the

lone conviction. There simply is no adequate or available remedy to right this wrong. Moreover,

Respondent did not raise any adequate or available remedies or law in his Motion to Dismiss.

3. There are no alternative remedies that would be speedy be “complete in nature,

beneficial, and speedy.

Relator should not be denied justice, due to the passage of time that her case has pended

in the Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County when jurists have failed to rule, whether

intentionally or negligently. The undeniable failure of judges bound by law to rule on Motions

timely filed years ago, after new evidence emerged of prosecutorial misconduct, equal protection

violations and gross discovery violations demonstrates a callous disregard for the basic tenets of

law and human rights. No remedy at this point would be speedy, but it still can be beneficial and

complete by rectifying prior wrongs that have delayed Relator’s rights to have rulings on

motions inexplicably and inexcusably delayed by Respondent’s trial court for over four years.

22

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 If Relator’s conviction made sense, and jurists could in good conscience and with moral

turpitude justify the disparate treatment between Relator Hunter and the similarly situated white

justices or reconcile the improper relationships, or the tampering with evidence and perjured

testimony by the State, they most likely would not have avoided ruling for years, for the way

would have been easy. But to callously disregard the Constitution, laws and rules and to ignore

unprecedented misconduct by government officials that participated in falsifying records,

withholding evidence and railroading Hamilton County’s first black Juvenile Court judge was a

blemish and black eye to justice that they hoped the passage of time alone might erase.

Relator’s case might have gone away, as all intended, but the fabric of equality espoused

by our constitution and made applicable to the states, including Ohio, by the Fourteenth

Amendment, is supposed to apply to all individuals regardless of race, creed and religion,

including Relator. Her constitutional right to receive justice, regardless of how long ago the

injustice occurred or how long it takes for someone to fix it, is not diminished by time.

The Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio instruct trial courts to rule on

motions within 120 days. Sup.R. 40(A)(3). In State, ex rel. Turpin, v. Court of Common Pleas

(1966), 8 Ohio St. 2d 116 , a Writ of mandamus issued to compel court to proceed on a post-

conviction petition pending for twelve months. The difference in the instant case is that Relator’s

Motion has been pending for years. A mere ruling to rule on her petition would not dispose of the

issues of misconduct, raised by the violations of Criminal Rule 16, 33 or ORC. A mandamus

must issue in order to vacate the conviction that resulted from that wrongful conduct and abuse.

23

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 This Court must assume the truth of all factual allegations in Relator's complaint

and draw all reasonable inferences from them in favor of the relator. State ex rel. Williams Ford

Sales, Inc. v. Connor, 72 Ohio St.3d 111, 113, 647 N.E.2d 804 (1995).

Although Respondent was bound by the law to rule on Relator’s Motion, he did

not, in violation of Relator’s civil rights. For that reason, her original petition has now been

pending for over four and one half years and the renewed petitions and requests for Grand Jury

transcripts have been pending over two years, in violation of the law. Based on the allegations in

those petitions, the trial court, should have issued subpoenas and performed discovery to

determine the depth of corruption and deception of the prosecutor that conducted the trial in

order to gain the one conviction necessary to eliminate a sitting black judge. At the very least,

they should have deposed the jury forewoman and the three black jurors that swore they were

coerced to sign a jury verdict form by the forewoman over their finding of Relator’s innocence,

but were denied the required jury poll guaranteed of a fair trial in order to set the record straight.

Judicial discretion has been defined in Ohio as “the option which a judge may exercise

between the doing and not doing of a thing which cannot be demanded as an absolute legal right,

guided by the spirit, principles and analogies of the law, and founded upon the reason and

conscience of the judge, to a just result in the light of the particular circumstances of the case.”

Krupp v. Poor, 24 Ohio St.2d 123, 265 N.E.2d 268 (1970). A fair jury trial is an absolute right.

Relator’s trial was replete with gross improprieties, misapplications of law and blatant

24

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 violations of Criminal Rule 16.4 Some trial errors were properly preserved by her trial counsel,

some not; some major trial errors were preserved at trial, but not raised on appeal by appellate

counsel, like clear Batson violations when the prosecutors only eliminated black jurors. Relator

should not be deprived of her constitutional right to a new trial after the trial court skirted its

legal duty to rule on Motions that were subsequently filed by Relator’s lawyers, based on new

constitutional claims that didn’t diminish with the passage of time; but highlighted the countless

atrocities that pervaded Relator’s prosecution and the flagrant denial of her basic human rights.

Relator could have filed a Writ of Procedendo, simply requesting this Court order the trial

court to rule; but that does not render justice in a conviction that was ill-gained 10 years ago. But

it does not rectify the violation of her right to Equal Protection, which requires her conviction be

vacated. If prosecutors knew, as Grand Jury transcripts will reveal, that prosecutors charged

Judge Hunter, knowing she was innocent, and that individuals lied in their testimony to the

Grand Jury, the entire indictment must be dismissed, and the conviction, based on those lies or

misconduct, vacated and dismissed. At the very least, Judge Hunter is entitled to a new trial.

Anything short of a dismissal will not rectify the evils committed or provide an adequate remedy.

4A) Grounds. A new trial may be granted on motion of the defendant for any of the following
causes affecting materially his substantial rights:

(1) Irregularity in the proceedings, or in any order or ruling of the court, or abuse of discretion by the court, because of which the defendant was
prevented from having a fair trial;

(2) Misconduct of the jury, prosecuting attorney, or the witnesses for the state;

(3) Accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against;

(4) That the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence or is contrary to law. If the evidence shows the defendant is not guilty of the degree of
crime for which he was convicted, but guilty of a lesser degree thereof, or of a lesser crime included therein, the court may modify the verdict or
finding accordingly, without granting or ordering a new trial, and shall pass sentence on such verdict or finding as modified;

(5) Error of law occurring at the trial;

25

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 By ignoring the legitimate legal arguments Relator raised that formed the basis for her

Writ of Mandamus, Respondent shows clear contempt and demonstrably disregards the fact that

all Ohio judges, not just Relator, have an ethical and legal duty to uphold state laws,

constitutional laws and follow the Civil Rules of Procedure, Local Rules of Court and Rules of

Superintendence. Such flagrant violations have fundamentally plagued this case from the onset.

Post-conviction relief is a vital component of a just and fair criminal system. It provides

an opportunity for wrongfully convicted individuals to present new evidence and correct

procedural errors, ensuring that justice is served. Its intent is to protect the constitutional rights of

defendants, rectify wrongful convictions, and correct sentencing errors. Post-conviction relief

ensures that individuals’ constitutional rights, such as the right to due process, the right to

effective counsel, and protections against cruel and unusual punishment, are safeguarded

throughout the legal process. If any of these rights are violated during the trial, it enables the

petitioner to seek relief through this avenue. One of the main intentions of post-conviction relief

is to rectify wrongful convictions. Post-conviction provides a second chance to present new

evidence that could exonerate them and prove one’s innocence and should be ruled upon in a

timely manner, not ignored for years in order to cover up prosecutorial misconduct, jury

tampering and violations of laws and ethics by jurists and lawyers motivated by greed, power

and fame. When a petitioner can demonstrate that valid grounds for relief exist, such as newly

discovered evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel during the trial, prosecutorial misconduct,

or a violation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights, she is entitled Post Conviction Relief.

Judge Hunter was denied that right despite the numerous grounds raised by her legal

counsel, including one that is now a Judge and can no longer represent her; but who testified that

26

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 those prosecutors and private lawyers did not answer those 12 lawsuits. Those same prosecutors

should have been disciplined when Judge Hunter reported them; instead they were allowed to

retaliate and vindictively and maliciously charge her with theft in office and misuse of a credit

card after she retained a lawyer to defend those lawsuits filed against her court. Was she not

equally entitled to competent legal representation, like every other judge in Hamilton County?

Respondent suggests that this Court should ignore the numerous constitutional violations

that came to light years after Relator was convicted that demonstrated how a prosecutor was

empowered to violate the separation of power of the three branches of government established

under the Constitution in order to maliciously and vindictively prosecute a judge whose election

and court leadership he violently opposed. By upholding the principles of justice and fairness,

post-conviction relief contributes to the ongoing efforts to create a more equitable justice system.

CONCLUSION

This case involves an unprecedented and unauthorized abuse of the law, and Ohio and

United States Constitution, to enable the removal of the first black judge of Juvenile Court that

that was elected by the people to reform the Juvenile Court, which included cleaning up the case

management system, employing equality in the application of laws and stopping practices that

harmed juveniles and prevented their rehabilitation. When Judge Hunter made precedent rulings,

like unshackling juveniles during hearings, or requiring prosecutors to turn over police reports

containing exculpatory evidence to juveniles, she suffered the public ire of prosecutors that was

captured daily in the news. When prosecutors representing her as her legal counsel in over a

dozen lawsuits failed to answer those law suits, resulting in default judgments by this Court,

Judge Hunter was indicted for reporting them. Rather than protect Judge Hunter, who was being

27

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 daily harassed and abused by the Prosecutor’s Office, they protected her abusers. They were not

disciplined for providing Judge Hunter incompetent representation and failing to answer those

lawsuits, nor held accountable when the State’s key witness testified he was told to omit key

evidence from a sworn affidavit that was used as the catalyst to indict Judge Hunter. The

Prosecutor told the jury that he needed one conviction to remove Judge Hunter from the bench

and stopped at nothing to get that conviction, although it meant violating the law, withholding

exculpatory evidence, padding the jury with friends of the prosecutor and intimidating jurors to

sign a jury verdict form against their will. They were brave enough to admit they were bullied

and came forward under intense media scrutiny to do what was right in the face of such evil.

If the public goal is to promote confidence in the judiciary, Respondent fails when he

neglected to rule on post-conviction petitions and motion to compel grand jury testimony that

may have reversed a wrongful conviction years ago. Instead, they continued to harm Relator by

intentionally leaving her life hanging in the balance out of pure spite waiting on rulings for years.

Her case, played out on a global public stage, still of great public interest, has only diminished

confidence in the judiciary and exposed the racial bias within the judiciary and the prosecutorial

misconduct that still motivates those with the power to continue to pick and choose defendants,

based on race, religion, political party and socioeconomic class, even when that defendant is a

judge. Relator’s case demonstrated that a prosecutor who did everything possible to prevent

Relator’s election, could simply achieve the same result by accusing her of crimes and backdoor

his failed efforts. It demonstrated that if one has the right family tree and powerful business

connections, one can control the outcome of a trial and obtain a conviction by any means

necessary, as a recent study of prosecutorial misconduct in Ohio uncovered.

28

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 Relator’s failure to rule in this case for years is inconsistent and contrary to the notions of

due process, equal treatment and fair applications of the law. If Relator’s motion is dismissed, it

would demonstrate that the laws and Ohio and United States Constitution don’t truly matter

when the stakes are high, the matter is of enormous public interest and the victim is black. The

Hamilton County prosecutor was empowered by the court to violate the separation of powers

which exist to stop one branch of government from inappropriately using his power to curtail

another branch of government from carrying out her duties. The prosecution of Judge Hunter was

a show down of power that was illegally exercised to eliminate a threat to the status quo that

ruled Hamilton County when she was elected. Judge Hunter was denied the basic constitutional

right to know the specific nature of the charge against her, or to have evidence used against her

identified or produced. When evidence emerged that exculpatory evidence of her innocence was

withheld; that an undisclosed relationship existed between the special prosecutor and the jury

forewoman; she should have been granted a new trial. When evidence by the state’s witness

proved contrived and the extensive level of prosecutorial misconduct was exposed, the Grand

Jury transcripts should have been produced to review the entire Grand Jury proceedings that

enabled such abuses to go undetected or unaddressed for years after it was exposed.

Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution provides that “all courts shall be open, and

every person...shall have remedy by due course of law, and shall have justice administered

without denial or delay.” Relator Hunter has sufficiently alleged her entitlement to the requested

writs.

29

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO

 For the reasons set forth above, this Court should deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Tracie M. Hunter

Tracie M. Hunter
Pro Se
PO Box 32325
Cincinnati, Ohio 45232
(513) 662-6247
thunterlaw@gmail.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Tracie M. Hunter, hereby certify that Relator’s Memorandum in Opposition to

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss was served upon the counsel of record in this case via the

Hamilton County Clerk of Court’s ECF, this 15th day of December 2023.

30

E-FILED 12/15/2023 7:28 PM / CONFIRMATION 1406718 / C 2300565 / COURT OF APPEALS / MEMO