DEAR EDITOR:

Regarding your report on last week’s hearing in the “civil stalking protective order” proceedings that Struthers Mayor Catherine Miller instituted against Struthers Judge Dominic Leone, it should be noted that evidence was entered at that hearing showing that the Judge had good reason to be upset with the mayor on behalf of area taxpayers.

For example, Miller testified about a letter she recently sent the judge insisting he “increase the revenues” of his court. After hearing this, presiding Judge H.F. Inderlied remarked on the impropriety of a demand that a judge “increase the revenues” of his court, which unethically implies a judge should determine cases based on something other than the facts and law at issue.

Miller also admitted that Judge Leone had been questioning her about apparently improper accounting practices used by her office, and pending FBI investigations of former Struthers employees that caused Leone to have related concerns. Worse, Miller admitted she was trying to prevent Leone from exercising his lawful authority over his court’s revenues. Specifically, she admitted that the day before she filed for the protective order against Leone ä which was the day after the primary where Leone lost to a candidate whom Miller backed ä Miller attended a city council meeting where she discussed a plan to prevent Leone from exercising his authority over the revenues of his court over the remainder of his term so she could gain control over these funds.

Additionally, the Struthers police chief testified that Leone’s alleged misconduct did not warrant filing a formal police report. Which raises an obvious question: If Struthers’ police chief didn’t believe there was enough evidence of a violation of the “menacing by stalking” statute to even make a report, how could there be enough evidence to justify a protective order under the same statute?

The answer, of course, is that there was never any legitimate basis for the mayor’s request, and that she abused the special process for obtaining a protective order in exactly the manner that Ohio courts admonish against, even bringing TV cameras into court with her for maximum political effect.

While Judge Leone might regret the immoderate nature of his criticisms of the mayor, there was no evidence presented in court to show he did anything but engage in “the prerogative of American citizenship” “to criticize public (officials) and measures,” which, as long recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, “means not only informed and responsible criticism but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation.”

We expect that Judge Inderlied will agree and that Judge Leone will be cleared of Miller’s baseless request for a protective order.

ATTORNEY PETER PATTAKOS

Attorney for

Judge Dominic Leone III