Timothy J. Grendel! 7413 Tattersall Drive Chesterland, Ohio 44026 440.321.8282 PRESS RELEASE, ‘The Complaint is without legal merit, reflects a lack of understanding of Ohio juvenile law and procedures, and contains many factually incorrect allegations that are 2 years old and older. Judge Timothy Grendell followed the law, protected children, spoke truthfully, and exercised his constitutionally protected free speech rights, especially as they pertain to protecting public confidence in the court. Judge Grendell violated no ethie rules and looks forward to the opportunity to prove that ALL of his actions were proper and ethical. ‘The Complaint contains speculation and false allegations from two individuals who violated numerous court orders (in one case, court orders from three different courts). ‘Those individuals made false abuse allegations against their children’s fathers and actively worked to alienate the children from their fathers. [The child mental health expert opined that allowing the children in one case to terminate visitations with their father would be extremely harmful to the children.] ‘The Complaint improperly cites a non-lawyer (deputy sheriff) as a legal authority, which appears to condone the unauthorized practice of law. Moreover, the deputy was wrong as to Ohio juvenile law. ‘The attorneys for the two juveniles placed in detention for repeatedly disobeying their mother have stated, under oath, that Judge Grendell acted properly and ethically. The Complaint misstates or ignores Ohio juvenile law and the Ohio Juvenile Rules and totally ignores and abridges the First Amendment Rights of Judge Grendel ‘Asa faculty member of the Ohio Supreme Court's Judicial College, Judge Grendell is specifically tasked with teaching Ohio Judges and Court Clerks about legislative matters affecting Courts, and as a member of the Law and Policy Committees of the Ohio Judicial Conference, judge Grendell is frequently asked to review, comment, and testify in front of the Legislature on pending legislative matters. It is inconceivable that the Disciplinary Counsel would have any authority to pick and choose, in hindsight, the appropriateness of any such testimony. It is even more inconceivable that the Disciplinary Counsel would have any authority over the free speech of anyone testifying as an individual Ohio citizen, as Judge Grendell did in his personal testimony regarding HB 624, which is protected by both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution, Justice (Ret.) Paul Pfeiffer, Executive Director of the Ohio Judicial Conference, reviewed Judge Grendell’s committee testimony on HB 6a4, and said he “cannot comprehend that your testimony or work on either proposal [HB 624 or HB 488] would in any respect violate Rule 3.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. As Juvenile and Probate Judge for Geauga County you hold unique responsibilities for the well-being of both children and theelderly. If anything, your expressed concerns regarding COVID reporting policy was ahead of many so called health experts and looking now in the rear view mirror critical mistakes were made to the long term detriment of childhood education and the mental health of all.” Notably, none of these eight different sets of attorneys who represented the grievants sought the Judge's recusal, grieved his conduct, or even sought to appeal the merits of his numerous rulings.PRESS INFORMATION WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS, EXHIBITS, AND EMAILS ‘The Hartman Count is without merit because: 1. The two Hartman boys repeatedly disobeyed the mother's instructions to go with their father for court ordered parenting time. See Affidavit of Constable John Ralph. 2. The Hartman boy's refusal to obey their mother constitutes textbook unruly conduct as defined in R.C. 2151.02. 3. Juveniles who allegedly commit unruly conduct may be placed in detention over a weekend by a juvenile judge. See R.C. 2151.312(B). See In re Puleo, 1979 WL 208197(n'" Dist. Ct. App.). 4. Since the two Hartman boys were allegedly unruly for repeatedly disobeying their mother as defined by R.C. 2351.022, their weekend placement in detention ‘was proper under R.C. 2151.31 and R.C. 2151.312 (B) (3) See, also Affidavit of Judge Ronald Spon. 5. Dr. Afarisad, the child mental health expert asked by the Geauga County Domestic Relations Court to evaluate the children, opined that, allowing the children to make the decision not to see their father would have long-term harmful impact on the children. 6. The boys were held in isolation for their own safety, were not permitted to talk with each other because they were co-defendants, and were not permitted to talk with their mother because she was the victim of the unruly conduct and a major witness. Affidavit of Beth Williams; Jae Leeworthy emails. 7. Under Juvenile Rule 10, any person with knowledge of a juvenile’s unruly behavior may file an unruly complaint against the Juvenile. See Juvenile Rule 10. 8. With respect to the Hartman boys, Constable Ralph had knowledge of the boy's unruly conduct and was fully authorized to file unruly complaints against the boys pursuant to Juvenile Rule 10. Page 1 of 99. Using diversion in lieu of proceeding with a formal complaint is encouraged and permitted by Juvenile Rule 9; In re N,K,, 2003-Ohio~7059 (formal action should be filed only when in best interest of child); See also Ohio Supreme Court Toolkit. 10. The attorneys for the Hartman boys did not appeal the temporary detention and have said the Judge Grendell complied with Ohio Juvenile laws and rules and did not commit any ethical violations. See Affidavit of Attorney Jay Crook and Affidavit of Attorney Jeffrey Orndorff. 1. Under Ohio law, the county prosecutor has no authority over and is not involved in juvenile unruly cases unless and until the juvenile denies the complaint, after it is formally filed, and seeks to contest the complaint, and then the prosecutor can become involved only if the juvenile judge requests his assistance in presenting evidence under Juvenile Rule 29 (E)(a) and R.C. 2351.40. 12, None of Judge Grendell’s rulings were reversed by an appellate court. 1. None of the attorneys representing Hartman or the children accused Judge Grendell of any bias or impropriety and none of those attorneys filed to recuse Judge Grendell or any grievance against the judge. The Page/Sherrick Count is without merit because: 1. Page removed the children from Ohio without their father’s (Richard Sherrick) knowledge or consent and engaged in making false abuse allegations against Sherrick to try to keep him from seeing his children. See Affidavit of Richard Sherick. 2. In 2020, Page used the COVID-19 situation to traumatize the children, withhold the children from seeing their father (Sherrick), and attempt to alienate the children from their father (Sherrick). See Affidavit of Richard Sherrick. 3. Page violated court orders concerning the medical case for the children. Page a of94. Page used COVID-19 as an excuse for openly violating court orders and withholding the children from their father during his legal parenting time. 5. The eleventh District Court of Appeals has ruled that a parent cannot use COVID-19 to unilaterally withhold children from the other parent, “Thus, even though mother attested her decision to withhold father’s physical visitation rights due to al legitimate concern for C.L’ssafety, pursuant to the State’ tay-at-home directives, her ultra vires actions were actually inconsistent the [Hearth] Department's order... the court did not err in concluding her violation of the visitation order was inexcusable. Lindsey v Lindsey, 2021-Ohio-2060, at 9-10. 6. The Appellate Court further ruled that a trial court can find a parent who used COVID-19 to withhold children form their other parent during that parent's parenting time in contempt and place the parent in jail. See Lindsey. 7. Judge Grendell elected not to pursue contempt charges against Page, but instead tried to use court order to manage both parents use of COVID-19 testing to protect the children from further parental manipulation and traumatization, especially by Page. 8. None of Judge Grendell’s rulings were reversed on by the Appellate Court. 9. None of Page’s attorneys accused Judge Grendell of any bias or impropriety and none of those attorneys filed to recuse Judge Grendell or any grievance against the judge. 10, Page has filed baseless grievances against Doctors, lawyers, judges, and court staff. The Count concerning Judge Grendell ‘s interactions with Chardon PD to protect his staff from baseless threats of arrest and the judge’s efforts to protect public confidence in the Probate and Juvenile Court by responding to the Tea Page 3 of 9Party’s request to address the false accusations in a local newspaper is without merit because: 1. The Auditor falsely accused court staff of criminal misconduct for simply performing their court fiscal duties in the public area in the Auditor's office. ‘When Judge Grendell went to retrieve two staff persons and bring them back to court to do their jobs, a Chardon PD officer informed the judge, in the presence of those court staff, that Chardon PD would arrest the staff if they went into the public area to conduct public business. The judge informed the officer that arresting court staff for going into the public area of a public office would negatively impact the court's ability to function and he would have to address the issue with an Administrative Order. 3. Atno time did Judge Grendell threaten the officer or anyone else, but he did remind the officer of the potential consequences for violating court orders. 4. Subsequently, the local newspaper published an article discussing the event and repeated the false allegations coming from the Auditor's and Prosecutor's offices that court personnel engaged in criminal conduct. Kate Jacob from the ‘Auditor's office was prominently quoted in the article. 5. Geauga County citizens from the local Tea Party called Judge Grendell and expressed concerns about the court’s operations based on the article in the local newspaper. These citizens asked Judge Grendell to attend a meeting to address their concerns about the court. 6. To protect public confidence in the Geauga County Probate/Juvenile Court, Judge Grendell attended the meeting and addressed the issues professionally, honestly, and accurately. 7. Judge Grendell had a duty to protect and maintain public confidence in the court in the face of the many false accusations published by the local newspaper, Page 4 of 9The Count Concerning ‘Tim Grendell’s testimony on HB 624 is without merit because: 1. The Complaint categorically ignores Jud. Cond, R. 3.2 (A), (B), and (C), which provides specific exceptions for judicial speech including: (A) in connection with matters concerning the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice; (B) in connection with matters about which the judge acquired knowledge or expertise in matters of law, the legal system, and the administration of justice and may properly share the expertise with governmental bodies and executive or legislative branch officials; and [3] In general. It would be an unnecessary and unfair burden to prohibit judges from appearing before governmental bodies or consulting with government officials on matters that are likely to affect them as private citizens, such as zoning proposals affecting their real property. 2. The testimony was honest and accurate. 3, Tim Grendell was testifying solely on behalf of himself, not as a representative of State Representative Diane Grendell. The testimony was his, not hers. The testimony was submitted to the Committee by Tim Grendell, not Diane. The Committee Chair thanked Tim Grendell for his helpful and professional testimony. 4. The House Committee Chair called the testimony profé assistance to the committee. See Affidavit of representative Scott Wiggam. 5. Justice (Ret.) Paul Pfeiffer, Executive Director of The Ohio Judicial Conference ional and of addressed the propriety of the Judge Grendell’s testifying and testimony stating: “{ am responding to your request for the position and practice of the Ohio Judicial Conference regarding the testimony of our member judges before committees of the Ohio General Assembly. The Ohio Judicial Conference was founded in 1963 to specifically Page 5 of 9facilitate the advocacy of Ohio judges before the General ‘Assembly, the Supreme Court, and all administrative bodies. By statute all Ohio judges, including the justices of the Ohio Supreme Court, are members of the conference.... As a judge that holds and/or has held positions of leadership in both the Probate and Juvenile Judges Associations, we have frequently sought your assistance in drafting, amending, and testifying on a variety of legislative proposals. Currently you have been assisting with HB 488 as it moves through the General ‘Assembly. We do not regard the fact that your wife Representative Diane Grendell is the sponsor of HB 488 as representing a barrier to your valuable input. Because Diane is a former judge, she often is involved as a prime sponsor of legislation initiated by the Ohio State Bar Association, by the Judicial Conference, or by one of the Judicial Associations. Likewise because of your prior service in the General Assembly your advice, counsel, and active participation in the development of legislation continues to be valued by the Judicial Conference and by key members of the General Assembly. It is my understanding that you may be facing disciplinary complaints regarding your testimony and work on amendments to HB 488 and your June 6, 2020 testimony in support of HB 624 ina previous session of the General Assembly. I have just viewed that testimony and cannot comprehend that your testimony or work on either proposal would in any respect violate Rule 3.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. As Juvenile and Probate Judge for Geauga County you hold unique responsibilities for the well-being of both children and the elderly. If anything, your expressed concerns regarding COVID reporting policy was ahead of many so called Page 6 of 9health experts and looking now in the rear view mirror critical mistakes were made to the long term detriment of childhood education and the mental health of all. If your testimony and involvement in the development of legislation is regarded by Disciplinary Counsel to violate Rule 3.2 and your First Amendment rights then the Judicial Conference and the Judicial Associations will have an extremely difficult time advocating effectively in the General Assembly, before the Supreme Court or on matters of concern with the Executive Branch. I do fear that even the hint of potential discipline for one of our judges for these specific activities will have a lasting detrimental impact on our vital work. Finally you asked if judges testify before legislative committees without our invitation, The answer is yes absolutely that happens, often without our knowledge to which we have no objection or reason to complain. Most recently Judge Reginald Routson, a veteran Hancock Common Pleas Judge, appeared in legislative committees to articulate his strong objection to the passage of the resolution placing what is now Issue 1 (a constitutional amendment on bail) on the fall ballot. The Judicial Conference did not take a position on the amendment but it is clear a significant Rarlier this summer majority of our members favor the proposal. the incoming Chair of the Ohio Judicial Conference worked with her local State Representative to change some jurisdictional responsibilities of her Domestic Relations Court and the Portage County Juvenile Court ~ the two judges had worked out mutually agreeable details ~ found legislative support and obtained passage without our direct involvement. Page 7 of 9While rare, if these specific matters proceed beyond an initial investigation and dismissal, [would expect the Judicial Conference to become actively involved in the defense of judicial speech.” 6. Judge Grendell closed the court early on July 2, 2020, solely because of concern that.a protest scheduled for that afternoon would create a court staff safety issue because the court personnel would have to cross the purported protest area to get to their cars. See Affidavit of Kim Laurie. 7. To suggest Representative Diane Grendell “personally” benefited because her husband testified in support ofa bill she sponsored establishes a far broader standard for what constitutes a “personal” benefit than what the Rules allow: Applying this definition, no judge could testify in support of any legislation because, in each such situation, the sponsors would allegedly “personally” benefit from the judge's testimony. As Judge Grendell testified in concluding his House Committee comments only Ohio citizens would benefit by the passage of H.B. 624, by having more information to “make more-informed decisions.” Diane Grendell has held elected public office in districts that include Geauga County since 1992; throughout 2020, she served as the duly clected State Representative for the 76th Ohio House of District, for which she received a statutorily established salary that remains the same, regardless of the success or failure of legislation she supports. She has won seven General Flections prior to 2020, When Judge Grendell testified on HB 624, Diane Grendel had already won her contested Primary Election, and she had no serious opposition in the General Election (her General Election opponent was a first-time candidate with little name recognition or campaign funding, and she ultimately won the General Election handily, 61% to 39%). Additionally, the passage of HB 624 did not hinge upon the Judge's testimony, as there were 26 other proponent witnesses who testified in favor of Hb 624: zero opponent witnesses; and the bill was wildly supported in the Ohio House, with 32 co- Page 8 ofsponsors, including former Supreme Court Justice and current Speaker of the House Robert Cupp. HB 624 ultimately passed the House 61-34. See Diane Grendell Affidavit. Under Article I, Section 11 of the Ohio Constitution and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Tim Grendell had the right to redress to the Ohio House Committee on an issue that directly impacted him and his family. . The allegations ignore the prior disciplinary ruling in In.re Richard Patrick DeWine, Case No. SCC 2018-001, (“a judge is not required to remove himself from his faniily or from any affiliation to his family when he undertakes his judicial tenure”). Page 9 of 9