Appendix of Exhibits for First Amended Complaint by Ari Jurado

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 1 of 211 PAGEID #: 2002

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

ARISTIDES JURADO, et. al.,

) )

)

Plaintiffs, v. AMY C. STONE, et. al., Defendants,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) }

CASE No. 2:15-cv-0074 Judge Frost Magistrate Judge Kemp

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CONSOLIDATED APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 2 of 211 PAGEID #: 2003

CONSOLIDATED APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS INDEX Appendix of Exhibits A - Unlawful Discriminatory Practices by ODC & SCO EXHIBIT AC1-A1 Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Young, SCO (2000)

EXHIBIT AC1-A2 Title VI Complaint of A. Jurado against ODC (filed with USDOJ)

Appendix of Exhibits B - Health Crisis in Ohio - High Number of Infant Deaths EXHIBIT AC1-B1 INFANT MORTALITY CRISIS IN OHIO Fact Sheets from Ohio Department of Health and Collaborative Organizations

Fact Sheet - Infant Mortality in Ohio (investinchildren)

Fact Sheet - Infant Mortality - 2013 Summary (ODH)

EXHIBIT AC1-B2 2009 Report - NCH & OBBO - Preterm Births Crisis in Franklin County

Healthy Beginnings - OBBO 2009 Report Cover Page

EXHIBIT AC1-B3 "Infant Mortality Rate Near University Circle Exceeds that of Some Third World Countries"

EXHIBIT AC1-B4 Images Published as part of the Media Coverage of the Infant Mortality Crisis in Ohio

Appendix of Exhibits C - Racism & Racial Disparities in Infant Mortality Rates: Ohio's Youngest Citizens victims of Racial Discrimination EXHIBIT AC1-C1 Every Child Counts: Stopping Infant Loss editorial by journalist Sheree Crute, contributor for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

EXHIBIT AC1-C2 Infant Mortality Trends published by Nationwide Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hospital, Columbus Ohio showing growth in rate of infant deaths for Hispanics between 2005 and 2008

EXHIBIT AC1-C3 Impact of Racism on Infant Mortality by Columbus Public Health Department

EXHIBIT AC1-C4 ALARMING LOSSES: Columbus Works to Reverse Trends in Infant Deaths

EXHIBIT AC1-C5 Association between Racism and Health Outcomes by Dr. PhyllisJones, CDC

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Index - i

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 3 of 211 PAGEID #: 2004

EXHIBIT AC1-C6 Health Disparities Research Presentation by Dr. Phyllis-Jones

Appendix of Exhibits D - Racism and Unlawful Discrimination in Guardian Ad Litem and Child Welfare systems, and Family Law System and Industry EXHIBIT AC1-D1 Scholar's View of the Inherent Racially Motivated Bias in the Guardian Ad Litem

EXHIBIT AC1-D2 Sworn affidavit of Milka Licona, grandmother of theinfant child N. G., with her testimony of the differential treatment she and her husband experienced by Brooksedge and Lambert with Support from GAL Bethel.

EXHIBIT AC1-D3 E-mails showing collaboration Between Defendants Smitherman, McCash, and Lambert to intentionally discriminate against Jurado's entire Panamanian family

Appendix of Exhibits E - Evidence specific to Minor N.G.'s Health Condition(s) EXHIBIT AC1-E1 Growth Chart: Weight-for-Age manually plotted by Dr. Mastruserio during the retrospective evaluation of N.G. Jurado on March 28, 2013 98 EXHIBIT AC1-E2 SMS text messages between Lambert and Jurado

100

EXHIBIT AC1-E3 Growth Chart: by WHO

102

EXHIBIT AC1-E4 Response from Lambert and Dr. Muresan

105

Appendix of Exhibits F - Defendant Bethel with Dr. Smalldon, with their established pattern and practice of engaging in racket schemes, at the center of the conspiracy against plaintiffs EXHIBIT MAâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;10 Transcript of court proceeding, Juvenile Court, August 1, 2014 107 EXHIBIT AC1â&#x20AC;&#x201C;F1 Examples of e-mails sent between May 2013 and February 2014 by defendant Bethel to Jurado, while secretly including Dr. Smalldon in BCC:

145

EXHIBIT AC1-F2 Media coverage of the murder trial of Juanita JohnsonMillender, who let her 17-month-old infant son starve to death.

149

Appendix of Exhibits G - Participation in Sec. 1983 conspiracy by new GAL McCash EXHIBIT AC1-G3 E-mails exchanged between Jurado and McCash in December 2014

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

152

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Index - ii

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 4 of 211 PAGEID #: 2005

EXHIBIT AC1-G4 Notarized Affidavit of Milka Licona, Grandmother of minor N.G., Regarding the Dec. 5, 2014 events

159

EXHIBIT AC1-G5 Itemized Statement from Defendant GAL McCash showing unlawful ex-parte communications

164

EXHIBIT AC1-G6 Final Report of Guardian Ad Litem showing collusion with Defendants Wilson and Goddard School-Hilliard II

167

Appendix of Exhibits H - Participation in Sec. 1983 conspiracy by ODC–SCO EXHIBIT AC1-H2 ODC's Determination Letter issued on March 3, 2014 regarding the grievance against Bethel

170

EXHIBIT AC1-H3 E-mail correspondence from the Honorable Gina Palmer, Administrative Magistrate and Legal Director of the Juvenile Court, April 2, 2014

173

EXHIBIT AC1-H4 Partial transcript of March 26, 2014 court proceeding showing ODC–SCO defendants complicity to conceal Bethel's unlawful conduct, and Bethel's racial hatred toward Jurado maximized

175

EXHIBIT AC1-H5 Continuance of the Aug. 27, 2014 hearing for Motion to Remove GAL re-set for KEY DATE of Sep. 24, 2014 shows agreement and coordination between ODC-SCO Defendants, Judge Jamison and other co-conspirators

184

Appendix of Exhibits I - Participation in Sec. 1983 conspiracy by Juv. Ct. & Judge Jamison; transgressions EXHIBIT AC1-I15 E-mail from Defendant Bethel showing her agreement with 186

Judge Jamison allowing Bethel as a paid expert witness

Appendix of Exhibits J - Participation in Sec. 1983 conspiracy by OCRC & OAAG EXHIBIT AC1-J1 E-mails exchanged between OOAG and OCRC

188

Appendix of Exhibits XJ - High Conflict and the Lawsuit as Subsidiary Schemes of the Conspiracy EXHIBIT XJ7-2 Covert E-Mails Sent Between Sep. and Oct. 2013 by Bethel to CoConspirators Showing Agreement to Institute a Lawsuit

196

EXHIBIT XJ7-3 The Lawsuit subsidiary Scheme - Timing of almost-concurrent filings in Juv. Ct. & General Div. Ct. Shows Agreement

200

Appendix of Exhibits XM - Best Interest & Welfare Neglected EXHIBIT XM5-28 MAP of Franklin County with Points of Interest in Custody Case

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

205

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Index - iii

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 5 of 211 PAGEID #: 2006

EXHIBIT AC1-A1

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Young, 89 Ohio St.3d 306, 2000-Ohio-160, Supreme Court of Ohio (2000)

This is the first case in which we have been called upon to apply DR 1- 102(B) since its adoption in 1994. DR 1-102(B) provides that “[a] lawyer shall not engage, in a professional capacity, in conduct involving discrimination prohibited by law because of race, color, religion, age gender, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or disability.”

(Emphasis Added.) Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Young, 89 Ohio St.3d 306, 2000-Ohio-160, at 10. Fifteen years later, Young remains as the only disciplinary case that addresses unlawful discrimination by attorneys or the judiciary since this opinion was issued in 2000. Although rule DR 1-102(B) was later succeded by Rule 8.4(g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the fact remains the same. The language in this rule is specific about the types of discrimination it prohibits. "conduct involving discrimination prohibited by law because of race, color, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or disability” Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(g).

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 2

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 6 of 211 PAGEID #: 2007

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Young, 89 Ohio St.3d 306, 2000-Ohio-160.]

CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. YOUNG. [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Young (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 306.] Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension with second year of suspension stayed with one-year probation — Engaging, in a professional capacity, in conduct involving discrimination prohibited by law because of race, color, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or disability — Finding of discrimination by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or a state or federal court is not a prerequisite to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline finding that an attorney violated DR 1-102(B). A finding of discrimination by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or a state or federal court is not a prerequisite to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline finding that an attorney violated DR 1-102(B). (No. 99-2308 — Submitted April 11, 2000 — Decided July 12, 2000.) ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-24. On April 6, 1998, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint charging respondent, David J. Young of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0009850, with violating DR 1-102(B) (engaging, in a professional capacity, in conduct involving discrimination prohibited by law because of race, color, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or disability), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), and 9-101(C) (stating or implying that the attorney was able to influence improperly or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal,

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 3

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 7 of 211 PAGEID #: 2008

legislative body, or public official). All of the charges against respondent arose out of his conduct toward some of his former employees. A hearing before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“panel”) was held on July 8, 1999. The panel heard testimony from respondent, respondent’s wife, Rhoda Young, respondent’s daughter-in-law, Michele Young, Melodie Goodnough, a current employee of respondent, and four former employees of respondent, Elizabeth A. Crowe, Jessica J. Henn, Emma L. Seta, and Monica C. Miller. The panel’s findings of fact follow. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1956. In 1957, respondent joined his father’s law firm. Respondent now practices with his own son, Gregory S. Young. Respondent and his son are the sole owners of the law practice and respondent handles all of the hiring of support personnel, i.e., secretaries and legal assistants.

At no time prior to relator’s complaint had

respondent hired a male employee for his law firm. The law firm does not have a written sexual harassment policy. Respondent admitted, and his former employees testified, that during the period of 1995 through 1997, respondent would frequently become very angry and use abusive language to his employees. This behavior typically occurred three to four times each week. Elizabeth Crowe On Monday, April 7, 1997, Elizabeth A. Crowe, a law student at the University of Cincinnati School of Law, telephoned respondent’s office to inquire about a legal assistant position advertised in a local Cincinnati newspaper. During the telephone conversation, Crowe told respondent that she was a law student. Respondent told Crowe that if he hired her he would have “an edge on [her] because [she] was a law student.” He said, “the advantage is that when you apply to take the bar exam, you’ll have to say you worked with me and I’ll have

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 4

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 8 of 211 PAGEID #: 2009

to give a recommendation and because of that, I can be sure you’ll behave the way I want you to.” Respondent instructed Crowe to find out as much as she could about him and call him at 1:15 p.m. the next day. On Tuesday, April 8, 1997, Crowe called respondent as requested and arranged to meet with him at his office at 2:30 p.m. that day. While sitting in the reception area waiting to see respondent, Crowe heard a loud voice coming from a back office and someone was being called an “asshole.” Crowe later determined that the voice was respondent’s and during the interview, respondent acknowledged that he had been yelling. Respondent and Crowe subsequently discussed Crowe’s schedule and ultimately agreed that if she were hired she would work approximately fifteen hours per week. Respondent said, “I wasn’t looking for a girlfriend but you seem to fill that position better than any other.”

Crowe assumed he was joking.

Thereafter, respondent instructed Crowe not to discuss their conversations or her personal business with anyone, advising her that this was good training for maintaining attorney confidence. On Wednesday, April 9, 1997, respondent contacted Crowe and asked her to come to his office to meet someone. When Crowe arrived at respondent’s office, she was introduced to respondent’s wife, Rhoda Young. Respondent and Crowe again discussed the hours Crowe would work if hired, the hourly wage she would receive, and the firm’s profit-sharing plan. Respondent told Crowe that, if hired, she would work directly with him and no one else. Respondent told Crowe that this was not the “real” interview and instructed Crowe to return for another interview on Friday, April 11, 1997. Again, respondent admonished Crowe not to talk to anyone about anything personal, and reminded her that he would have an impact on her future and that if she were the best employee he ever had, when he wrote her recommendation for future jobs, he would say so.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 5

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 9 of 211 PAGEID #: 2010

On Friday, April 11, Crowe went to respondent’s office for the “real” interview.

Respondent’s wife again sat in on the discussion.

During the

interview, respondent told Crowe that she would be his personal assistant and that her duties were nonnegotiable because she had everything to gain and he had everything to lose. Crowe told respondent that she wanted to work with him, believing that he could teach her everything there was to know about the law. During the interview respondent asked Crowe, “So tell me, are you a virgin?” Crowe was shocked and responded quietly, “No.” Respondent then said, “Oh, you shouldn’t have answered that question. You should’ve realized that was entirely inappropriate for me to ask you that in an interview. You could’ve said, ‘Why do you want to know? Are you writing a book?’ * * * So if I asked you if you were wearing a bra . . . or if you were wearing panties . . . you wouldn’t have to answer.” (Ellipsis added in part.) Crowe felt uncomfortable, ashamed, and degraded while respondent made these remarks, but she thought that perhaps respondent’s remarks indicated some “nifty lawyering” and was “a crass way of teaching [her] to think on [her] feet.” Thereafter, respondent offered and Crowe accepted a job.

Crowe testified that she accepted the job with

respondent because she needed the job (she was behind in her rent) and because she believed that respondent could assist her in her legal career. On Crowe’s first day of work, Tuesday, April 15, 1997, respondent told her that he was sorry for the sexual comments he had made on Friday. He said that he had discussed the matter with his wife and determined that the comments were inappropriate. On Crowe’s next scheduled workday, Thursday, April 17, 1997, she ran errands with respondent. At one point during the day, respondent told Crowe that what he really wanted was a mistress and that she would be good in that perspective.

Crowe responded that her boyfriend would not appreciate that.

Respondent replied that Crowe should be “sleeping around and have a lot of

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 6

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 10 of 211 PAGEID #: 2011

people in [her] life and not just one.” Respondent nicknamed Crowe “Perky” and began calling her by this name. Also on this day, Crowe witnessed respondent verbally attack Jennifer Crow, another employee of respondent’s, for having been away from her desk while doing paperwork in another office.

According to Crowe, respondent

appeared to be out of control and yelled: “I don’t like you. I’ve never liked you. I don’t know why I hired you. You won’t do anything I ask you to. Why didn’t you tell Greg [respondent’s son] where you were going to be? He should know where you’re going to be at all times. You should go into his office and say ‘Greg, I’m going to be here’ or ‘Greg, I’m going to be there,’ but to not say anything is ridiculous. You’re a terrible worker. You’re such a bitch. I hate you.” While running errands with respondent on Friday, April 18, 1997, respondent again told Crowe that she should be “sleeping around.” Respondent later apologized for his comments and Crowe said she was glad because she thought that they were inappropriate and made her feel very uncomfortable. Later that same day while Crowe, respondent, and respondent’s office manager, Melodie Goodnough, were in respondent’s office, respondent told Goodnough that she should find out what type of drink Crowe liked because he wanted to go away with Crowe one day during the next week to sleep with her and it would be easier for him to take advantage of her if he knew what she liked to drink. Crowe said, “That will never happen.” Respondent laughed and said, “That will never happen, huh?” On Saturday, April 19, 1997, Crowe and Jennifer Crow were the first to arrive at the office in the morning. The telephone rang and Jennifer answered it. As she listened to the caller, respondent arrived at the office. According to Crowe, respondent ordered Jennifer to “get off” the telephone. Jennifer was attempting to advise the caller that she needed to end the conversation; however,

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 7

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 11 of 211 PAGEID #: 2012

before she could do so, respondent took the telephone away from her. In the process, respondent “hit” her about the head. The nature and extent of the blow are subject to considerable disagreement. Respondent spoke to the caller and then hung up.

Thereafter, he began to berate Jennifer, telling her that she was

worthless, that he hated her, and that she was a nuisance. At that point, she told respondent not to hit her again. Respondent pounded his fist on the counter and told her that it was all her fault because she had been within his reach. He told her to make sure that from then on she was not within his reach. Respondent proceeded to tell Jennifer what a bad worker she was for never doing anything that he told her to do. Respondent then left the office for a short time and when he returned he started yelling at Jennifer again. Jennifer was crying. Respondent then began yelling at Crowe and appeared to be out of control. Fearing for her own personal safety, Crowe told respondent that she quit and left the office.

Respondent

followed her out of the office and down in the elevator. Crowe left the building. Upon realizing that she had forgotten her purse, Crowe went back to the office to retrieve it, whereupon respondent again followed her out of the office and into the street, and told her that she had to use him on her bar application and that she could “expect the worst.” Jennifer initiated court proceedings against respondent. The matter was resolved through mediation, and respondent paid Jennifer $7,500 as part of a confidential settlement.1 Jessica Joy Henn Jessica Joy Henn was hired by respondent and worked for him during the summer of 1995. During her interview, respondent said, “You’re a cute girl. Do you have a boyfriend?” At one time during her employment with respondent, respondent discussed with her the character and fitness requirements to take the

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 8

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 12 of 211 PAGEID #: 2013

Ohio Bar Examination and told her that he would be a reference for her and that he could give her a “glowing recommendation” and “wonderful comments.” Henn witnessed respondent lose his temper and yell at employees almost daily during the course of her employment. She noticed that many times the recipient of respondent’s anger would leave respondent’s office crying. Several times Henn was the recipient of his anger and she also cried in response to his outbursts. On one occasion after respondent made her cry, he said, “I really feel like we’ve bonded here. This is a very positive time. This isn’t negative. When we go out there, we need to tell them that we’ve just bonded.” He then took her hand, shook it, gave her a hug, escorted her out of his office into the common area and said to the other office personnel: “Okay. Jessica needs to tell you all something.

Make sure you tell them that we bonded.”

In response to his

instructions, Henn said, “Well, he says that we’ve bonded.” Respondent then again shook her hand and hugged her and said, “We’ve just bonded and that’s the way it is.” Respondent would often hug Henn after he yelled at her. Henn did not indicate to respondent that she wanted him to hug her and on at least one occasion Henn told respondent, “I feel this is very uncomfortable. I don’t think you should be hugging me. We’ve just had a type of argument and, you know, your temper is kind of out of control. I’m intimidated and here you are giving me a hug, and this is very uncomfortable for me.” Emma Leigh Seta Emma Leigh Seta worked for respondent as a legal assistant from May 1997 to August 1997 while attending college. Her job duties with respondent were not very specific.

She occasionally did some filing and accompanied

respondent on errands. About one month into her employment, respondent asked Seta if she had a boyfriend.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 9

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 13 of 211 PAGEID #: 2014

During the three months that Seta worked for respondent, she performed very few law-related tasks and eventually told respondent that she would not sit in his office and do absolutely nothing as his legal assistant. On Seta’s last day of employment with respondent, he told her to sit in a chair in his office virtually all day because he did not want her near the new computer equipment that was being installed. Respondent told Seta that when she applied to take the Ohio Bar Examination, he would give her a bad character reference.

Respondent had

previously told Seta that he knew influential people in Cincinnati, and Seta was afraid that respondent could adversely affect her ability to be licensed to practice law in Ohio by preventing her from passing the character and fitness examination. She discussed this fear with one of her law school professors. Monica Carol Miller Monica Carol Miller was employed as a receptionist/legal assistant for respondent from October 1994 to May 1995. Miller testified that whenever she advised respondent that a telephone caller was interested in employment with the law firm respondent would ask, “Male or female?” If she told him the caller was male, it was commonplace for respondent to advise her to tell him to call back in two or three weeks, but if the caller was a female, respondent would often take the call. On one occasion respondent yelled at Miller for bringing him a glass of water that did not have ice in it. He used foul language and told her that she was stupid. Miller left respondent’s employment after he said that everybody on his staff was stupid and “needed the shit knocked out of them.” The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct with respect to Crowe, Henn, and Seta violated DR 1-102(B) and 1-102(A)(6), in that he created a hostile work environment in his law office by virtue of the questions, touching of female employees, and comments by him during the interview process and while the female employees worked for him as his law clerk and/or personal assistant. The

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 10

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 14 of 211 PAGEID #: 2015

panel also concluded that respondentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conduct with respect to Jennifer Crow violated DR 1-102(A)(6), and that respondentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conduct with respect to Crowe, Henn, and Seta also violated DR 9-101(C), in that he indicated that respondent could improperly influence the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness. In mitigation, the panel found that respondent is a devout practitioner of his religious faith and had been under stress after his mother died in 1995 because he had been very close to her and because he was attending religious services twice each day in her memory. The panel also found that respondent had not been the subject of prior disciplinary action by this court. Relator recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year. Respondent recommended that he receive a public reprimand. The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, with the second year of the suspension stayed in favor of a one-year probation during which time respondent would be required to take courses on civility. The board adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the panel. __________________ Manley, Burke & Lipton and Ann L. Lugbill; Clements, Mahin & Cohen, L.L.P., and William E. Clements; and Edwin W. Patterson III, General Counsel, Cincinnati Bar Association, for relator. Dinsmore & Shohl, L.L.P., Mark A. Vander Laan and Matthew J. Morelli; and John H. Burlew, for respondent. Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, in support of relator, for amicus curiae, Office of Disciplinary Counsel. __________________

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 11

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 15 of 211 PAGEID #: 2016

DOUGLAS, J.

In disciplinary cases, this court renders the final

determination of facts and conclusions of law. Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Reid (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 327, 708 N.E.2d 193, paragraph one of the syllabus. After a thorough review of the record in this case we adopt the findings of fact of the board. We do not, however, adopt all of its conclusions of law. Specifically, we adopt the board’s conclusion that respondent violated DR 1-102(B) (engaging, in a professional capacity, in conduct involving discrimination prohibited by law because of race, color, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or disability) and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law) by creating a hostile work environment for Crowe, but, while respondent’s conduct was clearly inappropriate, we do not agree with the board’s conclusion that respondent’s conduct toward Henn and Seta created a hostile work environment. Moreover, we adopt the board’s conclusion that respondent’s conduct toward Jennifer Crow violated DR 1-102(A)(6).

We also adopt the board’s

conclusion that respondent’s comments to Crowe and Seta violated DR 9-101(C) (stating or implying that he was able to influence improperly or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body, or public official). However, we reject the board’s conclusion that respondent’s statement to Henn violated DR 9-101(C). Each of these disciplinary code violations is addressed and discussed in detail below. DR 1-102(B) This is the first case in which we have been called upon to apply DR 1102(B) since its adoption in 1994. DR 1-102(B) provides that “[a] lawyer shall not engage, in a professional capacity, in conduct involving discrimination prohibited by law because of race, color, religion, age gender, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or disability.”

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 12

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 16 of 211 PAGEID #: 2017

Respondent argues that the board erred in finding that he violated DR 1102(B) for two reasons. First, respondent argues that DR 1-102(B) requires that the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (“OCRC”), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), or a state or federal court make a preliminary finding of discrimination before an attorney can be charged with a violation of the rule. Because there was no such finding in this case, respondent argues that the board had no authority to find a violation of DR 1-102(B). Second, respondent argues that his conduct did not rise to the level of discrimination “prohibited by law.” As explained more fully below, we find respondent’s first argument to be without merit, but his second argument is well taken with respect to respondent’s conduct toward Henn and Seta. Regarding respondent’s first argument, that an attorney cannot be charged with a violation of DR 1-102(B) without a preliminary finding of liability by the OCRC, the EEOC, or a state or federal court, we note that the plain language of DR 1-102(B) does not require such a finding.

If such a requirement were

intended, then language to that effect would have been incorporated into the rule. Respondent argues that the language “prohibited by law” implies that a preliminary finding of liability is required. We disagree. The phrase “prohibited by law” is akin to the phrase “illegal conduct” in DR 1-102(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), and we do not require a conviction prior to finding that DR 1-102(A)(3) was violated.

See, e.g.,

Disciplinary Counsel v. Clifton (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 496, 684 N.E.2d 33; Disciplinary Counsel v. Romaniw (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 462, 700 N.E.2d 858; and Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Deardorff (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 85, 702 N.E.2d 59. Also undermining respondent’s argument that there must be a preliminary finding of discrimination are the differing standards of proof. The burden of proof in civil cases is by a preponderance of the evidence, whereas the burden of proof in disciplinary cases is by clear and convincing evidence. Gov.Bar R.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 13

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 17 of 211 PAGEID #: 2018

V(6)(J). Therefore, even if an attorney were found liable for discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence in a civil case, the board, and ultimately this court, would still be required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the alleged discrimination under the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard. Next respondent argues that the board does not have the authority to make a determination of discrimination. In making this argument, respondent fails to recognize that the board was created by this court to review evidence and make findings and recommendations regarding disciplinary matters. Gov.Bar R. V; Hecht v. Levin (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 458, 461, 613 N.E.2d 585, 588. In any event, assuming arguendo that respondent is correct, the board’s findings and conclusions do not bind this court, as we render the final determination of the facts and conclusions of law. Reid, supra. Thus, it is this court, not the board, that determines whether certain conduct violates discrimination laws, and we are certainly authorized to make such a determination. Respondent also argues that there will be no time limitation for filing a grievance under DR 1-102(B) unless we hold that a finding of discrimination by the OCRC, the EEOC, or a state or federal court is a prerequisite to finding a violation of DR 1-102(B). This may be true, but disciplinary proceedings are not barred by or subject to general statutes of limitations. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Teaford (1966), 6 Ohio St.2d 253, 255, 35 O.O.2d 418, 419, 217 N.E.2d 872, 873. Based on the foregoing, respondent’s first argument is not well taken. Accordingly, we hold that a finding of discrimination by the OCRC, the EEOC, or a state or federal court is not a prerequisite to the board’s finding that an attorney violated DR 1-102(B). We now move to respondent’s second argument with regard to DR 1102(B). As previously indicated, respondent contends in his second argument that his conduct did not rise to the level of discrimination “prohibited by law.”

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 14

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 18 of 211 PAGEID #: 2019

The applicable state and federal statutes regarding discrimination are R.C. Chapter 4112 and Section 2000e, Title 42, U.S.Code, usually referred to as “Title VII.” Our primary focus is on R.C. Chapter 4112 in this case because there is no dispute that respondent employed at least four persons as required by R.C. 4112.01(A)(2),2 and the record indicates that respondent did not employ the necessary fifteen or more employees required to trigger application of Title VII. Section 2000e(b), Title 42, U.S.Code. If we determine that respondent’s conduct in this matter violated R.C. Chapter 4112, then it follows that his conduct was “prohibited by law” and thus violated DR 1-102(B). R.C. 4112.02 provides that “it shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: (A) [f]or any employer, because of the * * * sex * * * of any person, * * * to refuse to hire, or otherwise to discriminate against that person with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment.”

The board concluded that respondent

violated DR 1-102(B) by creating a hostile work environment for three of his former employees. Although we determined that Title VII is inapplicable in the instant matter, it has been our practice, where appropriate, to refer to federal case law interpreting Title VII in our analysis of R.C. Chapter 4112.

Plumbers &

Steamfitters Joint Apprenticeship Commt. v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 192, 196, 20 O.O.3d 200, 202, 421 N.E.2d 128, 131 (“federal case law interpreting Title VII * * * is generally applicable to cases involving alleged violations of R.C. Chapter 4112”). In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), 477 U.S. 57, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49, the court held that a plaintiff may establish a violation of Title VII by proving that discrimination based on sex created a hostile or abusive work environment. To establish that respondent created a hostile work environment, relator must show by clear and convincing evidence (1) that respondent subjected the alleged victim to unwelcome

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 15

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 19 of 211 PAGEID #: 2020

harassment, (2) that the harassment was based on the alleged victim’s sex, and (3) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive as to create a hostile or abusive work environment.3 See Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67-68, 106 S.Ct. at 24052406, 91 L.Ed.2d at 59-60, citing Henson v. City of Dundee (C.A.11, 1982), 682 F.2d 897. We discuss each of these elements separately with respect to each alleged victim beginning with Crowe. First, relator must prove that Crowe was subjected to unwelcome harassment. The federal EEOC regulations include verbal comments of a sexual nature in the definition of sexual harassment. Section 1604.11(a), Title 29, C.F.R. Several of respondent’s comments to Crowe were clearly of a sexual nature, e.g., telling her that she should be sleeping around. The record also indicates that Crowe did not welcome respondent’s sexual comments. On the contrary, Crowe told respondent that his comments were “inappropriate” and made her “uncomfortable.”

Crowe also mentioned her

boyfriend when respondent suggested that she should be his mistress. And when respondent suggested that he and Crowe go away together for a day to have sex, Crowe said, “That will never happen.” These statements by Crowe represent clear indications that the sexual comments were unwelcome. Thus, the first element is met. Second, relator must show that the harassment was based upon Crowe’s sex, i.e., gender. Because respondent is male, Crowe is female, and several of respondent’s comments were explicit or implicit proposals of sexual activity, e.g., telling Crowe she should be sleeping around, that she would make a good mistress, and suggesting that Crowe go away with him to have sex, it is reasonable to assume that the harassment was based on Crowe’s gender. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (1998), 523 U.S. 75, 80, 118 S.Ct. 998, 1002, 140 L.Ed.2d 201, 207-208.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 16

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 20 of 211 PAGEID #: 2021

Finally, relator must show that the harassment created a hostile or abusive work environment. The United States Supreme Court emphasized in Meritor that not all workplace conduct that has sexual overtones can be characterized as harassment forbidden by the statute. Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67, 106 S.Ct. at 24052406, 91 L.Ed.2d at 60. Rather, to find a violation of Title VII, the harassment must be “sufficiently severe or pervasive ‘to alter the conditions of [the victim’s] employment and create an abusive working environment.’ ” Id. at 67, 106 S.Ct. at 2405, 91 L.Ed.2d at 60, quoting Henson, 682 F.2d at 904. In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993), 510 U.S. 17, 21-23, 114 S.Ct. 367, 370-371, 126 L.Ed.2d 295, 301-303, the Supreme Court reaffirmed this standard and explained that the conduct in question must be evaluated under both an objective and a subjective standard. That is, the conduct must be severe or pervasive enough to create an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive, and the victim must subjectively perceive the environment as hostile or abusive. For the reasons that follow, we determine that relator proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent’s conduct created a hostile environment with respect to Crowe under both prongs of Harris. Applying the subjective prong of Harris to the evidence in the case at bar, we find that Crowe perceived the work environment as hostile or abusive. Crowe testified that she felt sexually harassed, but felt there was no one to complain to about the situation. She testified that respondent’s sexual comments shocked her and made her extremely uncomfortable. This was compounded by the fact that, as respondent’s assistant, most of her time at work was spent with him. Also, Crowe testified that after she saw respondent berate and hit her female coworker, she felt physically threatened when he came very close and started yelling at her.

Although this conduct was not sexual in nature, it

demonstrated to Crowe that respondent was capable of physically assaulting his employees and added to Crowe’s feeling of intimidation.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 17

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 21 of 211 PAGEID #: 2022

In regard to the objective prong set forth in Harris, the court acknowledged that determining whether a reasonable person would consider an environment to be hostile or abusive is not susceptible of a “mathematically precise test.” Id. at 22, 114 S.Ct. at 371, 126 L.Ed.2d at 302. The court did, however, provide some guidance by suggesting that the following factors should be considered: the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s performance. Id. at 23, 114 S.Ct. at 371, 126 L.Ed.2d at 302-303. The court stressed that this is a nonexhaustive list of factors and explained that “whether an environment is ‘hostile’ or ‘abusive’ can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances.” Id. at 23, 114 S.Ct. at 371, 126 L.Ed.2d at 302. In light of the foregoing and our consideration of the relevant factors in this matter, we conclude that a reasonable person would have found Crowe’s work environment to be hostile and/or abusive.

Respondent made frequent

sexually harassing comments to Crowe. Crowe worked for respondent for less than twenty hours and during that time she was subjected to numerous sexual comments and advances. Moreover, many of the comments were humiliating, e.g., questioning her virginity, suggesting that he hired her to be his mistress, and telling another employee to determine what Crowe liked to drink so that he could take her away the following week and take advantage of her sexually. We find that respondent’s comments would cause a reasonable person to feel uncomfortable and those feelings would only be exacerbated by the job duties as respondent’s assistant, which required that most of Crowe’s time at work be spent with him, either in his office, or in his car while accompanying him on errands. Certainly after witnessing respondent yell at and strike another female employee for not ending a telephone conversation, a reasonable person in Crowe’s position would feel physically threatened.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 18

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 22 of 211 PAGEID #: 2023

Furthermore, the surrounding circumstances that contributed to the hostility of the environment include respondent’s frequent rages and verbal abuse of his employees, all of whom were women. Respondent yelled at his employees in the office nearly every day, often reducing the recipient of his anger to tears. Also significant is respondent’s attempt to intimidate Crowe by suggesting that if she did not “behave” the way he wanted, he would give the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness a bad reference about her when she applied to take the Ohio Bar Examination. Taking all of the circumstances into account, we conclude that a reasonable person would have found Crowe’s work environment to be hostile and/or abusive. Having found that relator proved by clear and convincing evidence that all of the elements of a hostile work environment were satisfied, we conclude that respondent’s conduct toward Crowe constituted discrimination prohibited by law. Accordingly, we find that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(B). We now evaluate the board’s conclusion that respondent’s conduct with respect to Henn created a hostile work environment. The first element that relator must prove is that Henn was subjected to unwelcome harassment. The federal EEOC regulations define sexual harassment as “Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.” Section 1604.11(a), Title 29, C.F.R.

During Henn’s interview,

respondent told her that she was a cute girl and asked her if she had a boyfriend. In addition, after she was hired, respondent hugged Henn on several occasions. Although in some situations a hug is “physical conduct of a sexual nature,” there are other situations where it is not. There is insufficient evidence in the record to indicate that the hugs in this case were of a sexual nature. In fact, the record reflects that respondent hugged Henn after he had yelled at her and she had become upset. Relator failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that respondent’s actions were of a sexual nature rather than just an attempt to console

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 19

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 23 of 211 PAGEID #: 2024

an upset employee. Moreover, the one comment respondent made to Henn is insufficient to constitute harassment. We find, therefore, that relator failed to prove that respondent’s treatment of Henn satisfied the elements of a hostile work environment. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent’s conduct toward Henn was not prohibited by law and, thus, we reject the board’s conclusion that respondent violated DR 1-102(B) in his conduct toward Henn. We now turn to the board’s conclusion that respondent’s conduct with regard to Seta violated DR 1-102(B) by creating a hostile work environment. Seta worked for respondent for approximately three months.

During that time,

respondent once asked her whether she had a boyfriend. This is the only evidence in the record regarding respondent’s conduct toward Seta that could be construed as “verbal conduct of a sexual nature.” Clearly, this question, standing alone, fails to satisfy even the first element of a hostile work environment, i.e., that Seta was subjected to unwelcome harassment.

Therefore, we reject the board’s

conclusion that respondent violated DR 1-102(B) in his conduct toward Seta. DR 1-102(A)(6) DR 1-102(A) provides: “A lawyer shall not: * * * (6) Engage in * * * conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.” We adopt the board’s conclusion that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6) by creating a hostile work environment.

Likewise, we adopt the board’s conclusion that

respondent violated this rule in his conduct toward Jennifer Crow. The board acknowledged that there was “considerable disagreement” between Crowe’s and respondent’s descriptions of the physical contact respondent had with Jennifer. However, the board did not explicitly describe the differing accounts nor did it state which account it found to be more credible. In Crowe’s version of the incident, respondent struck Jennifer on the forehead with

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 20

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 24 of 211 PAGEID #: 2025

the palm of his hand and then struck her on the left side of her head while taking the telephone away from her. Respondent’s version of the incident is markedly different. He adamantly claims that in reaching to take the telephone from Jennifer, he may have inadvertently touched her head with his finger. We find Crowe’s description of the incident more credible in light of the reactions of all those present. Respondent testified that immediately after the incident he felt “so ashamed of [himself], so embarrassed, [for] bringing disrepute to [his] history and [his] family’s history.” Respondent also paid Jennifer $7,500 as a result of a confidential mediation settlement. Further, Jennifer cried, told respondent not to hit her again, called security, and initiated court proceedings against respondent. Finally, Crowe felt threatened by respondent and quit her job. All of these facts are more consistent with the incident as described by Crowe. Having determined that the incident happened as Crowe described it, we adopt the conclusion of the board that respondent’s conduct with respect to Jennifer violated DR 1-102(A)(6). DR 9-101(C) DR 9-101(C) provides: “A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence improperly or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body, or public official.” The board concluded that respondent violated DR 9-101(C) by suggesting to Crowe, Seta, and Henn that he could improperly influence the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness based on his evaluations of them. With regard to his comments to Crowe and Seta, respondent argues that “[t]here is nothing improper about giving someone a poor recommendation if the person filling out the application feels the [bar] applicant did a poor job.” We agree with this assertion; nevertheless, the facts in this case reveal that respondent’s comments to Crowe and Seta were not based on job performance.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 21

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 25 of 211 PAGEID #: 2026

The statement that respondent made to Crowe, i.e., “Remember, you have to turn in your application and I’ll make the worst of it for you,” was made in response to Crowe’s announcement that she quit her employment with respondent. There is no evidence in the record that respondent felt she had performed poorly in her job duties. Likewise, respondent’s comment to Seta, that he would give a bad recommendation to the board regarding her employment, was not based on merit but was apparently made after Seta complained to respondent about making her sit in a chair all day with nothing to do. For the above reasons, we adopt the board’s conclusion that respondent violated DR 9-101(C) with respect to Crowe and Seta. We do not, however, adopt the board’s conclusion that respondent’s comment to Henn constituted a violation of DR 9-101(C). Respondent told Henn that he would give her a “glowing recommendation” when she applied to take the bar exam, but there is no indication that respondent made this comment based on anything other than merit. Sanction Despite rejecting some of the board’s findings of Disciplinary Rule violations, we adopt its recommended sanction in this case because those violations that were proven involved appalling conduct that is serious enough to support the recommendation. Furthermore, the mitigating factors in this case are not sufficient to reduce the sanction for respondent’s egregious conduct. Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of two years, with the second year of the suspension stayed in favor of a one-year probation during which time respondent is required to take at least six hours of instruction related to professionalism. Gov.Bar R. X(3)(A)(1)(c). Costs taxed to respondent. Judgment accordingly.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 22

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 26 of 211 PAGEID #: 2027

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. COOK, J., concurs in syllabus and judgment only. FOOTNOTES: 1.

Respondent’s testimony revealed this term of the settlement.

R.C. 4112.01(A)(2) provides: “ ‘Employer’ includes * * * any

person employing four or more persons within the state * * *.” 3.

There are two additional elements required by case law. One is

that the alleged victim belongs to a protected group.

In cases of sexual

discrimination, however, this requires a simple stipulation that the alleged victim is a man or a woman. Henson v. City of Dundee (C.A.11, 1982), 682 F.2d 897, 903. The other additional element is respondeat superior. This element is not relevant in this case because respondent is the alleged harasser.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 23

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 27 of 211 PAGEID #: 2028

EXHIBIT AC1-A2 Title VI Complaint of A. Jurado involving Ohio's Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed with the Office of Civil Rights, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. DOJ. on Nov. 6, 2014 (partial reproduction)

In his administrative complaint against ODC, Jurado established the pretextual nature of each and all arguments used by ODC, in their affirmative defenses, for their Motion Dismiss of the Original Action in Mandamus & Prohibition filed with in the Supreme Court of Ohio. It also demostrates that ODC and the SCO institution, along with other rulings involving Jurado, do not apply the laws equally to all the citizens of Ohio.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 24

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 28 of 211 PAGEID #: 2029

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Young, 89 Ohio St.3d 306, 2000-Ohio-160 ........................................................................ 13, 19 City Of Maple Hts. v. Redi Car Wash, 51 Ohio App. 3d 60 ........................................................................................... 14 Disciplinary Counsel v. Pullins, 127 Ohio St.3d 436, 2010-Ohio-6241 ......................................................................... 13 Geauga Cty.Bd. of Commrs. v. Geauga Cty. Sheriff, 2003-Ohio-7201 ......................................................................... 17 In re E.W., Nos. 10CA18, 10CA19, & 10CA20, 2011-Ohio-2123................................................................................... 12 In re K.G., 2010-Ohio-4399 .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Nolan v. Nolan, 2012-Ohio-3736 ................................................................................................................................. 12 Oyler v. Oyler, 2011-Ohio-4390 ............................................................................................................................. 11, 12 Penn v. McMonagle (1990), 60 Ohio App.3d 149 .......................................................................................................... 6 State ex rel. DeBrosse v. Cool (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 1, 3,1999-0hio-239 .................................................................... 16 State ex rel. Scott v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 139 Ohio St.3d 171, 2014-Ohio-1685 .......................................... 17 State ex rel. Sinay v. Sodders (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 224, at 13 ................................................................................... 17 State ex rel. Wyrick v. Indus. Comm., 138 Ohio St.3d 465, 2014-Ohio-541 ................................................................. 17

Statutes Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 2000d-4a(1) .............................................................................................. 5

Rules Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.4(g) ........................................................................................................... 3 Ohio Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar, Rule V, Section 3(B), Subdivision (1)(a) ........................... 3 Ohio Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar, Rule V, Section 4(C) ................................................... 3, 16 Ohio Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar, Rule V, Section 4(C), Division (C)(1)......................... 12, 16 Ohio Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar, Rule V, Section 4(C), Division (C)(2)............................... 16

Constitutional Provisions Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 5(B) ............................................................................................................... 3, 16

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 25

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 29 of 211 PAGEID #: 2030

of retaliation by the Judge presiding over the custody case, which culminated with the Court depriving me of my right to personal liberty by incarceration. The Judge explicitly set the sentence to be carried out/served over the Thanksgiving Holidays. 34. On 10/6/14, in my ultimate attempt to exhaust the very last available local remedy, I filed a Motion for Reconsideration in my case with the SCO, and included new allegations of full blown Retaliation by the Juvenile Court. In addition, I respectfully reminded the high court of the required compliance with Title VI statutes and administrative rules and regulations by both respondents 28. 35. On 11/8/2014, a new cooperating witness, Heidi K. Lancaster (Oyler), confirmed that the grievance she filed with ODC against the GAL in her custody case was investigated and did not get summarily dismissed as the one I filed. Although her claims were not substantiated after the investigation (no findings of fact were issued either), ODC did more than just a review of her complaint/grievance and did not use a pretext not to investigate, such as passing the responsibility of GAL oversight to the juvenile court. In Oyler v. Oyler, 2011-Ohio-4390, there is a reference to Ms. Lancaster filing a complaint with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel against attorney Susan Hulit-Burns. 29 This fact should be easily substantiated by obtaining a copy of the determination letter from either Ms. Lancaster, or the ODC.

EXPECTED DEFENSES BY RECIPIENT ODC, ARGUMENTS Observing the counter-claims and arguments presented by ODC in their Motion to Dismiss filed with the ODC, it is easy to anticipate their defenses and potential counter-claims against this Complaint. To that end, please consider their claims listed below and opposing arguments.

PRETEXT #1: Recipient ODC has no clear statutory duty to investigate a GAL 36. Pages 5–7 of ODC’s Motion to Dismiss contains the argument that they don’t have a duty to investigate based mainly on the fact that Sup.R. 48. confers the right to review and investigate complaints against GALs to the appointing courts. This is clearly a pretext for the following reasons: a.

ODCs have investigated GALs in other instances in which the Grievant is a Caucasian (whiteAmerican). Two examples can be offered: (1) The grievance of a white-American attorney who filed a grievance against another attorney-GAL 30. (2) The grievance of Ms. Heidi

Refer to SCO 2014-10-06 Filing - Motion for Reconsideration, supra. Also see PDF with SCO Case 20141225 Docket item 4. 29 See Oyler v. Oyler, 2011-Ohio-4390, at ¶3 and ¶39. A courtesy copy has been provided in file “C. CaseLaw 05 - Oyler v. Oyler, 2011-Ohio-4390 (ODC Grievance against GAL was investigated).pdf” 30 To provide evidence of this fact, I will have to waive attorney-client privilege. I hope it is not needed given the possibility that ODC may not deny this fact, but I will waive it if necessary.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 26

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 30 of 211 PAGEID #: 2031

Lancaster, a Caucasian female, against attorney Susan Hulit-Burns 31. The two complaints were investigated and treated differently than my grievance. b.

This GAL is also a licensed attorney, and meets the condition of Rule V Subsection (4)(C)(1) A grievance may be dismissed without investigation if the grievance and any supporting material do not contain an allegation of misconduct or mental illness on the part of a justice, judge, or attorney. (Emphasis Added.) Gov.Bar R. V(4)(C)(1) 32.

My grievance filed on 1/6/14, under section (A.04) stated “Deceptive Conduct and Misleading the Court”, as well as “RACIAL BIAS” under section (A.01). The supplementary Statement of Facts document included in the filing also includes several specific allegations of misconduct. Because these allegations are for violations of specific rules that governs the conduct of attorneys, it fell under the jurisdiction of ODC.

Superintendence Rule 48 is only intended to provide minimal guidelines and not define duties or rights:

“Sup.R. 48 does not have the force of law”. Nolan v. Nolan, 2012-Ohio-3736, at ¶26. 33

ii.

“Through decisional law, the Supreme Court has indicated that the Rules of Superintendence are not designed to alter basic substantive rights.” In re K.G., 2010-Ohio-4399, at ¶ 11. 34

iii.

“In the case at bar, appellant does not have any substantive right to enforce under Sup.R. 48. Instead, the rule is a general guideline that does not have the force of statutory law”. In re E.W., Nos. 10CA18, 10CA19, & 10CA20, 2011-Ohio-2123, ¶ 15 35

ODC does not offer any case law or reference any rule or law that divest them from their duty to investigate an attorney when it is acting in a dual capacity, whether the other capacity is GAL, employer, etc. For example, Regarding respondent’s first argument, that an attorney cannot be charged with a violation of DR 1-102(B) without a preliminary finding of liability by the OCRC, the EEOC, or a state or federal court, we note that

See Oyler, supra, at ¶3 and ¶39 Ohio Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar, Rule V, Section 4(C), Division (C)(1); Also see PDF with Statutes and Rules - SCO Rules for Gov. of Bar 33 A courtesy copy has been provided in file “C. CaseLaw 12 - Nolan v. Nolan, 2012-Ohio-3736 (GAL work inadequate).pdf” 34 A courtesy copy has been provided in file “C. CaseLaw 11 - In re K. G., 2010-Ohio-4399 (Sup.R. 48 is a general guideline).pdf” 35 A courtesy copy has been provided in file “C. CaseLaw 10 - In re E.W., 2011-Ohio-2123 (Sup.R. 48 doesn't create substantive rights)pdf” 32

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 27

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 31 of 211 PAGEID #: 2032

the plain language of DR 1-102(B) does not require such a finding. If such a requirement were intended, then language to that effect would have been incorporated into the rule. (Emphasis Added.) Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Young, 89 Ohio St.3d 306, 2000-Ohio-160, at 11. Coincidentally, the Young case turned out to be the only case of unlawful discrimination that the SCO Disciplinary system has substantiated in the past 20 years 36. f.

Guardians Ad Litem, even when are not licensed attorneys (aka “lay guardians”) still fall under the oversight of the ODC because they are appointed court officers. Respondent seeks to diminish the significance of his conduct, observing that he made the statements in his capacity as a guardian ad litem, rather than as an attorney * * * Being licensed as an attorney is not a prerequisite for appointment as a guardian ad litem in a domesticrelations or juvenile case, but even lay guardians ad litem are officers of the court. See Sup.R. 48(D)(3) and (E). Therefore, respondent’s obligations under the former Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct are inextricably intertwined with his appointed role as a guardian ad litem in the underlying case. Disciplinary Counsel v. Pullins, 127 Ohio St.3d 436, 2010-Ohio-6241 at ¶ 25. Because the Guardian Ad Litem in my Grievance is also a license attorney, and even if she was not, she would still be considered an officer of the court and thus under the purview of Respondent ODC, which makes them their duty to investigate 37.

Lower courts have the right and duty to enforce the proper conduct of attorneys in their courtrooms. And when they do, it is not in conflict the ODC’s duty to oversee the legal practice and ethical conduct of attorneys 38. A trial court has the "inherent power to regulate the practice before it and protect the integrity of its proceedings," which includes the "`authority and duty to see to the ethical conduct of attorneys in proceedings before the court. '" * * * Under appropriate circumstances, an attorney may be disqualified from continued participation in ongoing litigation in the event of truly egregious misconduct which is likely to infect future proceedings, and this authority to disqualify an attorney

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Young, 89 Ohio St.3d 306, 2000-Ohio-160, at 10; A courtesy copy has been provided in file “C. CaseLaw 01 - Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Young, 89 Ohio St.3d 306, 2000-Ohio-160 (First & Only Unlawful Discrm. DR 1-102(B) or Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(g)).pdf” 37 Disciplinary Counsel v. Pullins, 127 Ohio St.3d 436, 2010-Ohio-6241 at ¶ 25; Courtesy copy provided in file attachment “C. CaseLaw 03 - Disciplinary Counsel v. Pullins, 127 Ohio St.3d 436, 2010-Ohio-6241 (ODC Jurisdiction over GAL Misconduct).pdf” 38 City of Maple Hts. v. Redi Car Wash, 51 Ohio App. 3d 60, at 61; Courtesy copy provided in file attachment “C. CaseLaw 02 - CITY OF MAPLE HTS. v. Redi Car Wash (1988), 51 Ohio App. 3d 60 (Ct Disq Counsel not in conflict with SCO Discipl).pdf”

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 28

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 32 of 211 PAGEID #: 2033

does not conflict with the Ohio Supreme Court's exclusive authority over attorney disciplinary proceedings. (Emphasis Added.) City Of Maple Hts. v. Redi Car Wash, 51 Ohio App. 3d 60, at 61, citing Royal Indemnity Co. v. J. C. Penney Co. (1986), 27 Ohio St. 3d 31, 33-34, 27 OBR 447, 449, 501 N.E. 2d 617, 620.

PRETEXT #2: Grievant has an adequate remedy at law, other than filing a Grievance with ODC 37. Pages 5–8 of ODC’s Motion to Dismiss contain the argument that my remedy lies with filing a complaint with the Juvenile Court and with following the process to remove the GAL per local rules of the Juvenile Court. This is clearly a pretext for the following reasons:

39 40

Lower trial courts have the right and the duty to enforce the proper conduct of attorneys (and GALs). But that right and duty does not conflict with the concurrent jurisdiction of the SCO to regulate the practice and apply disciplinary proceedings. See City Of Maple Hts. v. Redi Car Wash, supra, at 61.

The trial court’s scope of authority for dealing with misconduct is still limited to disqualifying attorneys from a given case, removing GALs and other sanctions, which is not an equivalent or replacement of disciplinary proceedings and investigations that have broader implications, not just the implications of the specific proceeding or action that a trial court is limited to.

The Juvenile Court has denied me the adequate remedy at law that ODC asserts I have, notwithstanding of requesting an investigation by ODC. Hence, the reason for naming the Juvenile Court as Respondents on the same action. In contrast, both the ODC and the Juvenile Court contended that my claims are based on a difference in opinion between the Court, the GAL and I, implying that the Juvenile Court already adjudicated my claims and Motion to Remove the GAL, and I am simply not happy with the result. As the evidence shows, the Juvenile Court has refused to hear or address my Motions 39. Only as a result of my action filed with the SCO, the Juvenile Court at the last minute set a partial hearing to remove the GAL 40. Just as they did with the Show Cause hearing that was deemed as “vacated”40 when it really wasn’t, the only goal of scheduling the partial hearing to remove the GAL was to give the appearance that my claims with the SCO were a moot issue. The same day that the SCO granted them their motion to dismiss, the Juvenile Court dismissed my motion to remove the GAL (ordered me to Withdraw my Motion), and also held an impromptu hearing to find me in Contempt without procedural due process and in violation of multiple statutes and court rules—which ultimately resulted in a sentence of jail time. Most of it occurred in chambers where there is no record of the proceeding, and thus not

See SCO 2014-07-18 Filing with Complaint for Writs, supra, at ¶21, ¶29–¶33 Refer to SCO 2014-10-06 Filing - Motion for Reconsideration, supra, page 3. Also see PDF with SCO Case 2014-1225 Docket item 4.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 29

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 33 of 211 PAGEID #: 2034

reviewable by Appeal. In short, the available remedies that ODC claims I have were also denied by the Juvenile Court 41. d.

In addition, many of the claims included in my petition for Writs are not appealable. And those that are require the appellant to secure bond, to pay for all transcripts, and ultimately puts all the burden of the remedy on the already-afflicted party.

Even if I did have an adequate remedy at law besides an investigation by ODC—which I contend it is not the case—the ODC has a clear obligation under Title VI that they have not yet met.

PRETEXT #3: Grievant request for an investigation is moot because ODC already investigated. 38. Point (D) in pages 8–10 of ODC’s Motion to Dismiss contains the argument that under the statutory/regulatory definition of “Investigation”, they have already investigated the allegations on my grievance, and as such, my request for an investigation is moot. This is clearly a pretext for the following reasons: a. ODC argues that “An investigation may be as involved as the allegations warrant, which may mean as brief as an initial evaluation which shows that no claim of professional misconduct has been alleged.” (Emphasis Added.) 42 However, this implies that my grievance did not have a claim of professional misconduct and clearly is inapplicable: i.

My grievance filed on 1/6/14 with ODC, under section (A.04) stated “Deceptive Conduct and Misleading the Court”, as well as “RACIAL BIAS” under section (A.01) 43. The supplementary Statement of Facts document included in the filing also includes several specific allegations of misconduct. Because these allegations are for violations of specific rules that governs the conduct of attorneys, which negates their claim above.

ii.

This is a controversy or issue of fact, and as such it shouldn’t be considered during the adjudication of a Motion to Dismiss. 44 Yet, it appears as if the SCO Court still considered these issues/controversies of fact in granting the Respondents Motion to Dismiss, when their own rules established through

See SCO 2014-10-06 Filing - Motion for Reconsideration, supra, pages 4–5. Also see PDF with SCO Case 2014-1225 Docket item 4. 42 See SCO 2014-08-12 Filing with ODC Motion to Dismiss, supra, page 9. Also see PDF with SCO Case 2014-1225 Docket item 3. 43 Exhibit H1 – ODC Grievance Dated 1/6/14, filed with the SCO along with the initial Complaint on 201407-18; a courtesy copy has been included in file “B. Dckt 1 - SCO 2014-07-18 Jurado v. ODC, FCCPCJB - Orig Action for Writs - (for USDOJ.OJP.OCR).pdf”, pages 69-74 of PDF document 44 See SCO 2014-10-06 Filing - Motion for Reconsideration, supra, page 4. Also see PDF with SCO Case 2014-1225 Docket item 4.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 30

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 34 of 211 PAGEID #: 2035

case law of past decisions indicate the contrary. See, e.g., State ex rel. DeBrosse v. Cool (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 1, 3,1999-0hio-239. b. ODC argues that “nor do the Rules require Disciplinary Counsel to share the details of an investigation with the grievant” 45. Even when this may be true, it is only in respect to the “Rules for the Government of the Bar”. These rules were prescribed by SCO pursuant Section 5(B) of Article IV of the Ohio Constitution 46, as mentioned above under “PARTIES AND JURISDICTION”. The same section of the Ohio Constitution sets a clear constrain that “rules shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right.” Ohio Constitution, supra. If Title VI statutes and regulations create substantive rights for beneficiaries of entities receiving federal funding, then we can contend that some of the Ohio Rules for the Government of the Bar may be abridging substantive rights created by Title VI. In the alternative, the SCO and/or ODC would simply need to define new rules for handling Complaints of unlawful discrimination. But until that happens, they are clearly out of compliance. c. ODC argues that “The Rules do not mandate or define the scope, breadth, or form of an investigation conducted by Disciplinary Counsel”45. This is clearly a pretext because, i.

all of the arguments and facts based on Title VI in the preceding paragraphs apply here, and

ii.

the Rules for the Government of the Bar, without a doubt, define what is NOT an investigation. Specifically, Rule V, Section 4(C) of the Rules for the 47 Government of the Bar explicitly states “Power and Duty to Investigate”

and Division (C)(1) expands this with the directive “The Disciplinary Counsel and a certified grievance committee shall review and may investigate any matter filed with it.” 48 Furthermore, the rule’s text stops short of making the investigation of grievances an absolute obligation of ODC only by the one condition stipulated in another subdivision of that section. Division (C)(2) of that same section provides the one and only condition that, “A grievance may be dismissed without investigation if the grievance and any supporting material do not contain an allegation of misconduct”. 49 (Emphasis Added.) ODC admitted that they applied this last stipulation to my grievance. Yet, this subsection makes a clear distinction between (a) a limited-scope investigation 45

See SCO 2014-08-12 Filing with ODC Motion to Dismiss, supra, page 9. Courtesy copy provided in file attachment “D. Statutes_Rules 1 - Ohio Constitution.pdf” 47 Gov.Bar.R. V(4)(C); courtesy copy provided in file attachment “D. Statutes_Rules 2 - SCO - Rules for The Govmnt of the Bar.pdf” 48 Gov.Bar R. V(4)(C)(1) 49 Ohio Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar, Rule V, Section 4(C), Division (C)(2); courtesy copy provided in file attachment “SCO - Rules for The Govmnt of the Bar.pdf” 46

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 31

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 35 of 211 PAGEID #: 2036

Judicial Response”; Courtesy copy provided in file attachment “ A. Exh 3 - Ohio OCJS - JAG and OVW Grants Awards CY13-CY14.pdf” (page 21 of PDF) ........................................................................................................... 4 Exhibit 3 - 10/21/14 OCJS Report, page 7 of the subreport “Subgrant List by Program” listing subgrant 2013-JG-D01-6890 with Project Title “Summit”; Courtesy copy provided in file attachment “ A. Exh 3 - Ohio OCJS - JAG and OVW Grants Awards CY13-CY14.pdf ” (page 31 of PDF) ................................. 4 Exhibit 3 - Report(s) by Ohio’s Office of Criminal Justice Services dated 10/21/14, pages 2 and 6 of the subreport “SubgrantList_ActivePeriod” listing sub-grant 2009-JG-DOV-V6890, with Project Title “Domestic Relations Judicial Leadership Seminars”; Courtesy copy provided in file attachment “A. Exh 3 - Ohio OCJS - JAG and OVW Grants Awards CY13-CY14.pdf” (pages 20 and 38 of PDF) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Exhibit 4 - State Justice Institute FY 2013 Grant Awards listing, page 8 listing Grant number SJI-13N-141 Titled “Ohio Domestic Relations Summit”; Courtesy copy provided in file attachment “A. Exh 4 - SJI_Grant_Awards_FY_05-14_with_Award_Numbers.pdf” ....................................................................................... 4 Exhibit 5 - USDOJ OVW Grant Awards listing SCO as recipient in page 7 of PDF; A courtesy copy has been provided (page 7) in file “A. Exh 5 - USDOJ OVW Grant Awards by Program (FY 2013).pdf” .................................. 4 Exhibit 6 - About the Disciplinary System page on the SCO Website; A courtesy copy has been provided in file “A. Exh 6 - SCO - About the Disciplinary System.pdf” .................................................................................. 3 Exhibit H1 – ODC Grievance dated 1/6/14, filed with the SCO along with the initial Complaint on 2014-07-18; a courtesy copy has been included in file “B. Dckt 1 - SCO 2014-07-18 Jurado v. ODC, FCCPCJB - Orig Action for Writs - (for USDOJ.OJP.OCR).pdf”, pages 69-74 of PDF document ........................................ 7, 15 Exhibit H2 – ODC Determination Letter dated 3/3/14, filed with the SCO along with the initial Complaint on 2014-07-18; a courtesy copy has been included in file “SCO 2014-07-18 Jurado v. ODC, FCCPCJB - Orig Action for Writs - (for USDOJ.OJP.OCR).pdf”, pages 75-76 of PDF document ...................................... 8 Exhibit H3 filed with the SCO along with the initial Complaint on 2014-07-18; a courtesy copy has been included in file “SCO 2014-07-18 Jurado v. ODC, FCCPCJB - Orig Action for Writs - (for USDOJ.OJP.OCR).pdf”, page 77 of PDF document ........................................................................................................ 8

INDEX to File Attachments containing Supporting Docs. and Exhibits, with Cross-Reference A. Exh 1 - 2013-08-15 E-mail correspondence with SCO S. Hanson.pdf ........................................................................................ 7 A. Exh 2 - FY 2011 VAWA Funding Decisions.pdf ...................................................................................................................... 4 A. Exh 3 - Ohio OCJS - JAG and OVW Grants Awards CY13-CY14.pdf .......................................................................................... 4 A. Exh 4 - SJI_Grant_Awards_FY_05-14_with_Award_Numbers.pdf ......................................................................................... 4 A. Exh 5 - USDOJ OVW Grant Awards by Program (FY 2013).pdf ................................................................................................ 4 A. Exh 6 - SCO - About the Disciplinary System.pdf................................................................................................................... 3

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 32

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 36 of 211 PAGEID #: 2037

EXHIBIT AC1-B1

INFANT MORTALITY CRISIS IN OHIO

Fact Sheets from Ohio Department of Health and Collaborative Organizations (2013 - 2014)

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 33

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 37 of 211 PAGEID #: 2038

Infant Mortality in Ohio Fact Sheet

The Problem

The United States trails almost all other developed nations in infant mortality, and Ohio ranks near the bottom among the states. • Ohio ranks 48th overall in the United States - despite being responsible for the 7th largest amount of births. o 37th among white babies o 49th for African-Americans • In 2012 in Ohio, 1,045 babies died before their first birthdays. • Ohio’s preterm birth rate ranks 21st in the US. More than 12.2 percent of infants in the state are born preterm. The rate exceeds 17 percent in African Americans. • Low birth weight babies born to women on Medicaid account for over 50 percent of all Medicaid birth expenditures while representing only about 10 percent of all Medicaid births. • Significant savings can accrue from enabling mothers to add a few ounces to a baby’s weight before birth. An increase of 250 grams (about 1/2 pound) in birth weight saves an average of $12,000 to $16,000 in first year medical expenses. • Premature babies in 2007 cost Ohio’s citizens nearly $1 billion. This does not include the costs associated with maternal hospitalizations or long-term health problems and disabilities.

What We’re Doing to Help

Senate Bill 276: Claire’s Law Update & Safe Sleep Education

This would require Safe Sleep education material distribution by all entities currently required to provide Shaken Baby Syndrome (Claire’s Law) education to parents. ODH will establish a safe sleep education program and materials. It would also require all birthing hospitals, maternity units and freestanding birthing centers to screen for a safe sleep environment available to an infant prior to discharge.

Senate Bill 277: Infant Mortality Commission

This would create a commission to inventory state and local services, resources and the funding streams available to address Ohio’s high infant mortality rate. The connection, or opportunity for connection, of statewide programs with local and community-based programs will be determined by the commission. Membership will include four legislators (two Senate, two House); the Director or the Director’s designee of: Office of Health Transformation, Department of Medicaid, Department of Health, Attorney General, Ohio Commission on Minority Health, and a Public Health Commissioner; a coroner, or someone who conducts death scene investigations; and two representatives from community-based programs.

Senate Bill 278: Death Scene Investigation

This would require the use of the Sudden Unexplained Infant Death Incident (SUIDI) Reporting Form whenever a child one year of age or younger dies suddenly when in otherwise apparent good health.

Senate Bill 279: Federally Qualified Health Center Pilot Project

This would establish a two-year pilot program using the model of “Centering Pregnancy” to improve birth outcomes at four Federally Qualified Health Centers, and earmarks $500,000 in both fiscal years 2015 and 2016 for the pilot program.

Senate Bill 280: Postpartum Care Management & Medicaid Reimbursement for Non-medical Services

This would require case management services for postpartum care be included in the Medicaid managed care system and, earmarks $25 million from Medicaid savings that will be granted by the Ohio Department of Health for community-based services not covered by Medicaid and intended to reduce infant mortality. JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 34

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 38 of 211 PAGEID #: 2039

2013

Infant Mortality What is Infant Mortality?

Most infant deaths occur when babies are1: • Born too small and too early (preterm births are those before 37 weeks gestation) • Born with a serious birth defect • Victims of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). • Affected by maternal complications of pregnancy • Victims of injuries (e.g., suffocation). These top five leading causes of infant mortality together accounted for 63 percent of all infant deaths in Ohio in 2011.2 Some risk factors, such as smoking, may lead to more than one of the conditions in the list above. It is estimated that 23-34 percent of SIDS, and 5-7 percent of preterm-related deaths are attributable to prenatal smoking in the US3. There are also many non-medical contributors to the death of babies, including poverty, lack of education, under-resourced neighborhoods, poor nutrition and race.

Unacceptable Disparities There is a substantial difference in how infant mortality impacts different races. For example, Ohio’s black babies die at more than twice the rate of white babies.  Ohio’s 2012 death rate for white infants was 6.4 per 1,000, compared to 14.0 per 1,000 for black infants (Fig. 1).  While the large variation in the rates of black deaths from year to year may be explained by small counts, the disparity has been consistent. This difference in the death rate for black babies compared to white babies is also found at the national level. Eliminating the disparity is a goal at the national, state and local levels. JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

Figure 1: Infant Mortality Rate by Race, Ohio, 1997-2012

16 12 8 Non-Hispanic Black Ohio Total Non-Hispanic White

4 0

Source: Ohio Department of Health Vital Statistics

*2012 Ohio data are preliminary

How is Ohio Doing?  In 2012, 1,045 infants in Ohio died before their first birthday.  Ohio’s 2012 infant mortality rate was 7.56 per 1,000 live births, significantly higher than the national rate of 6.05 per 1,000.4  Ohio’s infant mortality rate has remained stagnant for over a decade (Figure 1).  At the same time, the U.S. infant mortality rate experienced a twelve percent decline from 2005 through 2011.4  Comparing the ten most populous states, all have lower infant mortality rates than Ohio (Figure 2).  Sixteen states and the District of Columbia had statistically significant declines in their infant mortality rates from 2005 through 2010.1 The Healthy People 2020 objective is to 6.0 per 1,000. This objective has been selected as a national Leading Health Indicator. Figure 2: Infant Mortality in the U.S. and 10 Most Populous States, 2010 Ohio 7.7 United States California New York Texas Georgia Florida Illinois North Carolina Michigan Pennsylvania

6.2 4.7 5.1 6.1 6.4 6.5 6.8 7.0 7.1 7.3 0

2:15-cv-0074

Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 Live Births)

Source: National Center for Health Statistics

Why are Babies Dying?

Mortality Rate (per 1,000 Live Births)

Infant mortality is defined as the death of a baby before his or her first birthday. The infant mortality rate is the number of babies who died in the first year of life, per 1,000 live births. This rate is considered an important indicator of the overall health of a society.

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 35

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 39 of 211 PAGEID #: 2040 Figure 3: Smoking During the Last 3 Months of Pregnancy, By Demographics, Ohio, 2009-2010

What is Being Done in Ohio to Prevent Infant Deaths?

A package of new or enhanced efforts in Ohio’s 2014-16 Executive Budget aim to combat infant mortality and are complimented by the Governor’s Office of Health Transformation, working with the Ohio Department of Medicaid, Ohio Department of Health, and the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services and other human services agencies. Learn more at 1.usa.gov/1e3Ichh.    



  

The Ohio Collaborative to Prevent Infant Mortality (OCPIM) http://tinyurl.com/OhioCPIM , a diverse group of public health officials, policy makers, advocates, providers, and other stakeholders, formed in 2009 to prevent infant mortality throughout Ohio. o Workgroups address specific issues: coordinated healthcare, disparities/racism, data, education/outreach and public policy. Ohio has accepted the Association of State and Territorial Health Official’s (ASTHO) President’s Challenge, the Healthy Babies Initiative, to improve birth outcomes by reducing infant mortality and prematurity in the U.S. The goal is to decrease prematurity by 8 percent by 2014. ODH and Medicaid have formed a state team participating in HRSA’s Collaborative Improvement and Innovation Network (CoIIN). CoIIN provides a platform across states to facilitate collaborative learning and adoption of proven quality improvement principles and practices. Evidence-based smoking cessation counseling using 5 As (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist and Arrange) is being expanded in WIC and other programs to connect women to the assistance needed to quit smoking. Further perinatal smoking cessation activities include implementing a mass media campaign, and expanding provider education and Quitline protocols for perinatal women and families with young children. To impact minority populations with the highest infant mortality, community-based HUBS are being expanded. The HUB model acknowledges that social factors (e.g., transportation, housing, access to care) may influence pregnancy outcomes and uses community health workers to identify women at-risk and connect them to care using “pregnancy pathway” map of actions to address each identified need. Ohio and partners are developing a comprehensive media campaign to spread a unified message to decrease sleep-related infant deaths, which account for the majority of infant deaths after the 28th day of life. The messages include the following: o Place infants for sleep wholly on the back for every sleep, nap time and night time. o Use a firm sleep surface. A firm crib mattress is the recommended surface. o Room sharing without bed sharing is recommended. The crib should be in the parents’ bedroom, close to the parent’s bed. o Keep soft objects, loose bedding and bumper pads out of the crib. o Do not smoke during pregnancy. Avoid exposure to secondhand smoke. Ohio has expanded Medicaid eligibility for family planning services to women and men who are otherwise ineligible for the program. Expanded allowance children or pregnant women to receive medical care covered by Medicaid while their application is officially processed. Infant mortality is one of four health improvement priorities in Ohio’s state health improvement plan. The Ohio Perinatal Quality Collaborative (OPQC) is a statewide, multi-stakeholder network dedicated to improving perinatal health in Ohio.5 Successes and new quality improvement initiatives include the following: Obstetric o Efforts to prevent scheduled births prior to 39 weeks of gestational age resulted in an estimated 31,600 births moving from <39 weeks to 39 weeks or greater gestation, thereby preventing an estimated 950 NICU admissions as of October 2012. OPQC has expanded this project to all maternity hospitals in Ohio. o Launching a progesterone (P17) project to reduce preterm birhts. Providers will be better able to identify, screen, and track outcomes for women eligible for progesterone treatment, which is safe, easily-administered, low-cost and effective. o Increasing the use of antenatal corticosteroids (ANCS), an evidence-based therapy that reduces mortality and morbidity among preterm infants, for women at risk of delivering a baby between 24 and 34 weeks gestation. Neonatal o Efforts focused on reducing bloodstream infections resulted in a sustained 20 percent decrease among premature infants with 22 to 29 weeks gestation in 24 neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Bacterial infections for premature infants significantly increase the risk for prolonged hospitalization, significant morbidities and death. o To further reduce bloodstream infections in premature infants through increasing the use of human milk, which contains antibodies that help to fight germs in a number of different ways.

References: 1. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6231a3.htm 2. http://www.odh.ohio.gov/odhPrograms/cfhs/cfr/cfr1.aspx 3. Dietz PM, England LJ, Shapiro-Mendoza CK, Tong VT, Farr SL, Callaghan WM. Infant morbidity and mortality attributable to prenatal smoking in the United States Am J Prev Med 2010;39(1):45–52. 4. MacDorman MF, Hoyert DL, Mathews TJ. Recent declines in infant mortality in the United States, 2005–2011. NCHS data brief, no 120. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2013. 5. https://opqc.net/

Data Contact: Missy Vonderbrink missy.vonderbrink@odh.ohio.gov

Program Contact: Lori Deacon lori.deacon@odh.ohio.gov

12/10/2013

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 36

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 40 of 211 PAGEID #: 2041

EXHIBIT AC1-B2 ALARMING STATISTICS OF PRETERM BIRTHS IN FRANKLIN COUNTY "Healthy Beginnings" 2009 Report published by Nationwide Children Hospital and the Ohio Better Birth Outcomes (OBBO) initiative (partial reproduction)

"In 2009, the March of Dimes gave Ohio an “F” grade in our efforts to reduce preterm births. Ohio is ranked 34th among the 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia." "Shockingly, the United States trails almost all other developed nations in infant mortality, and Ohio ranks near the bottom among the states." "Preterm birth (the birth of infants before 37 weeks gestational age) is the largest contributor to infant mortality, accounting for almost one-third of infant deaths." "The county’s preterm birth rate of 13 percent is almost double the U.S. public health goal of 6.9 percent and higher than the state overall, costing businesses, government and families emotionally and financially. - In high risk populations in Franklin County, the preterm birth rate is as high as 20 percent. Preterm birth is the result of a complex set of maternal, environmental and infant factors that are still poorly understood, but its consequences are clear."

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 37

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 41 of 211 PAGEID #: 2042

)&"-5): #&(*//*/(4 $0--"#03"5*/( 50 $)"/(& 5)& /6.#&34 0/ $&/53"- 0)*0 13&5&3. #*35)4 0IJP #FUUFS #JSUI 0VUDPNFT 3FQPSU

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 38

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 42 of 211 PAGEID #: 2043

5BOZB MJFT JO BO JODVCBUPS BU /BUJPOXJEF $IJMESFOÂľT )PTQJUBM 4IF JT EBOHFSPVTMZ JMM She is seven days old, but because she was born eleven weeks early, she is small enough to ďŹ t in an adultâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s hand. Her slight body is loaded down with an intravenous line, a ventilator tube to breathe for her, special â&#x20AC;&#x153;bilirubinâ&#x20AC;? lights, and bandages. A host of staff work to help Tanya survive her immature lungs and bacterial infection. Her skin is almost translucent because it is underdeveloped, and she has no fat underneath, adding to her frail appearance. She is at risk of dying in the next few days. If she survives, she has a high likelihood of long-term disabilities. The most frustrating part for Tanyaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s care team: they know the number of preterm births is rising and they will soon be caring for another infant who is as ill as Tanya. Preterm births have been steadily rising, and we are realizing more and more its poor outcomes and high costs. Fortunately, health care, human service, government and other organizations are acting to reduce the number and consequences of preterm births. A promising initiative is currently underway in Franklin County, called Ohio Better Birth Outcomes (OBBO). This report is about the programs and preliminary results of this initiative.

5BCMF PG $POUFOUT

Franklin County Support ....................................... City of Columbus Support ..................................... Why OBBO Matters .............................................. Progesterone Caproate Project ............................. Changing the Numbers .........................................

Nurse-Family Partnership ................................... Safe Spacing ..................................................... OBBO Collaborative Approach ........................... Next Steps......................................................... Central Ohio Scheduled Births Initiative .............

QH ] )&"-5): #&(*//*/(4

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 39

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 43 of 211 PAGEID #: 2044

$IBOHJOH UIF /VNCFST 5IF TUBUJTUJDT BSF BMBSNJOH &BDI ZFBS NPSF UIBO CBCJFT BSF CPSO UPP FBSMZ JO 'SBOLMJO $PVOUZ 1SFUFSN CJSUI Âą CJSUI CFGPSF XFFLT HFTUBUJPO Âą JT UIF MFBEJOH DBVTF PG EFBUI BNPOH OFXCPSOT JO PVS DPNNVOJUZ *O UIF .BSDI PG %JNFT HBWF 0IJP BO Â˛'Âł HSBEF JO PVS FGGPSUT UP SFEVDF QSFUFSN CJSUIT 0IJP JT SBOLFE UI BNPOH UIF TUBUFT 1VFSUP 3JDP BOE UIF %JTUSJDU PG $PMVNCJB Even for the increasing number of children who, through advances in medical care, survive their preterm birth, there are often life-long medical and ďŹ nancial hardships for both baby and family. We know that a variety of factors contribute to preterm births â&#x20AC;&#x201D; lack of health care; smoking; back-to-back pregnancies; increased rates of cesarean deliveries and early induced labor. There is no one solution to the problem. However, there are speciďŹ c actions, such as prenatal treatment with a particular form of progesterone, that we know are effective in reducing preterm birth and preventing repeat premature deliveries. In fact, four of these proven interventions are at the heart of our community-wide effort. We have come together to reduce the incidence of preterm births through the Ohio Better Birth Outcomes (OBBO) initiative. Focused on Franklin County, OBBO is a prevention program designed around four focused components to reduce the frequency of prematurity and its consequences. The Central Ohio Hospital Council, representing all of Franklin Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s health systems, provides a platform to bring together this proactive effort. OBBO unites central Ohioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s hospitals and physicians, the Columbus Public Health Department and related community organizations to help the most vulnerable through landmark funding from the Franklin County Commissioners. This unique collaboration of public and private sectors targeting high-risk families is a model for future work on complex health and social issues. We encourage you to read this report highlighting OBBO, our hopeful preliminary ďŹ ndings, and, most importantly, the faces of those on the front lines of combating preterm birth morbidity and mortality in our community. Our goal is to successfully change birth outcomes in our community and serve as a national model for what is possible in addressing prematurity. Together, we can make a lasting difference for generations to come.

Steve Allen, MD

David P. Blom

Steven G. Gabbe, MD

Claus von Zychlin

Chief Executive OfďŹ cer Nationwide Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hospital

President Chief Executive OfďŹ cer OhioHealth

Senior Vice President for Health Sciences Chief Executive OfďŹ cer The Ohio State University Medical Center

President Chief Executive OfďŹ cer Mount Carmel Health System

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 40

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 44 of 211 PAGEID #: 2045

'PS UIF 8FMM #FJOH PG 0VS :PVOHFTU $JUJ[FOT BOE 5IFJS 'BNJMJFT #FJOH B QBSFOU JT B UPVHI KPC "OE BT QBSFOUT XF XBOU UIF CFTU GPS PVS LJET Â° GSPN CFGPSF CJSUI BOE UISPVHIPVU UIFJS MJWFT 4BEMZ UIF JNNFEJBUF BOE MPOH UFSN IFBMUI EFWFMPQNFOUBM BOE FDPOPNJD DPOTFRVFODFT PG QSFNBUVSF CJSUIT JO PVS DPNNVOJUZ BSF TUBHHFSJOH In Franklin County alone, more than 13 percent of births occur preterm with that rate rising as high as one in ďŹ ve births for mothers with high risk conditions. This is one of the most serious health care challenges our county is facing. Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re committed to reducing the incidence of prematurity in Franklin County. This complex issue requires a cohesive and collaborative response. We are proud to be partnering with Nationwide Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hospital and others to support the research, clinical and public health efforts being undertaken to reduce preterm births. SpeciďŹ cally, weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve pledged our support to the Ohio Better Birth Outcomes (OBBO) initiative. We anticipate that this initiative will lead to a more effective use of resources, more intact families and healthier and more productive communities. We applaud the efforts of the private and public sector partners to create a community-focused response that will have a measurable impact on reducing the number of preterm births. The collaboration of all the hospital systems in the county through OBBO enables a comprehensive safety net for high risk pregnant women. With the best interests of families at the forefront of OBBOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mission, we are conďŹ dent that through this and related endeavors, Franklin County will become widely known for the scarcity of its preterm births and the well-being of its youngest citizens and their families.

Paula Brooks

Marilyn Brown

John Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Grady

Franklin County Board of Commissioners

QH ] )&"-5): #&(*//*/(4

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 41

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 45 of 211 PAGEID #: 2046

5IF 1VCMJD )FBMUI 1FSTQFDUJWF 3FEVDJOH JOGBOU NPSUBMJUZ BOE NPSCJEJUZ UISPVHI QSFUFSN CJSUI QSFWFOUJPO The well-being of infants and mothers is central to the mission of Columbus Public Health. Our efforts to protect and promote the health of childbearing women and their infants run the gamut from systems planning and surveillance initiatives to services for individual women and infants. Some of our direct services to women include prenatal care, family planning, sexual health, immunizations, home visiting, and WIC. In spite of all our communitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; efforts, the rate of preterm births is increasing and preterm delivery remains the single largest cause of infant mortality and morbidity. Columbus is similar to other large cities in Ohio with a preterm birth rate that exceeds the state average and is considerably more than the U.S. Public Health Service, Healthy People 2010 goal. Our efforts alone are not sufďŹ cient. For these reasons, we are enthusiastic about our active role in the Ohio Better Birth Outcomes (OBBO) initiative. From the ďŹ rst day, OBBO has been a joint effort between hospital systems and the public sector. This collaborative approach encourages the participation of neighborhoods and advocacy groups and allows us the best chance of successful implementation. Columbus Public Health intends to continue our role in OBBO in both evaluation of the effects of targeted services and also the linkage of high risk women to the supplemental services provided by the four intervention components of OBBO described on the following pages. We are pleased to be part of a collaborative that can be a model for the rest of the state and the country to follow in planning for and implementing approaches to reducing both the number and the effects of preterm births.

Teresa Long, MD

Health Commissioner Columbus Public Health

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 42

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 46 of 211 PAGEID #: 2047

8): 0##0 ."55&34

3FEVDJOH UIF /VNCFS BOE $POTFRVFODFT PG 1SFUFSN #JSUIT *OGBOU NPSUBMJUZ JT DPOTJEFSFE UIF TJOHMF CFTU JOEJDBUPS PG B DPNNVOJUZÂľT IFBMUI TUBUVT CFDBVTF JU UBLFT JOUP BDDPVOU UIF HFOFSBM IFBMUI PG XPNFO JO UIF DPNNVOJUZ BDDFTT UP NFEJDBM TFSWJDFT GPS ZPVOH XPNFO BOE DBSF PGGFSFE UP JOGBOUT Shockingly, the United States trails almost all other developed nations in infant mortality, and Ohio ranks near the bottom among the states. Preterm birth (the birth of infants before 37 weeks gestational age) is the largest contributor to infant mortality, accounting for almost one-third of infant deaths. Franklin County, like the other large metropolitan areas in the state, has high preterm birth rates that have increased substantially since 1980. - The countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s preterm birth rate of 13 percent is almost double the U.S. public health goal of 6.9 percent and higher than the state overall, costing businesses, government and families emotionally and ďŹ nancially. - In high risk populations in Franklin County, the preterm birth rate is as high as 20 percent. Preterm birth is the result of a complex set of maternal, environmental and infant factors that are still poorly understood, but its consequences are clear. - Besides being the leading cause of infant mortality, preterm birth is associated with extremely high rates of lung disease, eye disease, neurological disabilities and developmental delay. - Medical costs for preterm birth are substantial. The average cost of an infant admitted to neonatal intensive care units in Franklin County is $66,000 and some babies cost in excess of $2 million. Unfortunately, this is just the beginning for the family and society. Children born preterm are more likely to require lifelong medical care, special education services, and parents to stay at home and care for them. They are more vulnerable to inďŹ&#x201A;uenza and other infections and less likely to function effectively in society. In the U.S., preterm births generated more than $26.2 billion in medical and educational costs and lost productivity in 2005.

Â˛'SBOLMJO $PVOUZÂľT QSFUFSN CJSUI SBUF PG QFSDFOU JT BMNPTU EPVCMF UIF 6 4 QVCMJD IFBMUI HPBM PG QFSDFOU BOE IJHIFS UIBO 0IJP PWFSBMM Âł

QH ] )&"-5): #&(*//*/(4

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 43

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 47 of 211 PAGEID #: 2048

$&/53"- 0)*0 4$)&%6-&% #*35)4 */*5*"5*7&

QH ] )&"-5): #&(*//*/(4

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 44

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 48 of 211 PAGEID #: 2049

EXHIBIT AC1-B3 "Infant Mortality Rate Near University Circle Exceeds that of Some Third World Countries" Statement by Infant Mortality expert Dr. Michele Walsh, Division Chief of Neonatology at Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital, in WCPN, Sound of Ideas, radio interview. Apr. 2013; published by Politifacts.com, April 12, 2013. "Within the three miles surrounding the University Circle area, infant mortality exceeds some Third World countries," Dr. Walsh said, "and that is an embarrassment and cannot be allowed to continue." Dr. Walsh statements made during the public radio interview were subsequently researched, verified and published by Politifact.com, an independent fact-checking journalism website aimed at bringing the truth in politics and winner of the Pulitzer Prize in 2009 for its fact-checking of the presidential election. http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2013/apr/12/michele-walsh/expert-says-infant-mortality-rate-near-university-/

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 45

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 49 of 211 PAGEID #: 2050

î &#x152; IUUQ XXX QPMJUJGBDU DPN PIJP TUBUFNFOUT BQS NJDIFMF XBMTI FYQFSU TBZT JOGBOU NPSUBMJUZ SBUF OFBS VOJWFSTJUZ

î ?î ?î &#x2018;

"Within the three miles surrounding the University Circle area, infant mortality exceeds some Third World countries." â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Michele Walsh on Thursday, April 4th, 2013 in a radio discussion

Expert says infant mortality rate near University Circle exceeds that of some Third World countries By Tom Feran on Friday, April 12th, 2013 at 6:00 a.m.

Public health experts consider the infant mortality rate an important indicator of a community's well-being. It is one of the factors that helped land Cuyahoga County in the bottom third of Ohio counties in overall health in a national study released last month by the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Cuyahoga, with its major health centers, performed well again on access to primary care in the annual study. But major health centers can't compensate for poverty and the other, often related stressors that contribute to the high infant mortality of Northeast Ohio. Ohio's rate of infant mortality -- 7.7 deaths per 1,000 live births in the first year of life -- is 11th-worst in the nation, said a public radio report on the subject on WCPN's "Sound of Ideas." The most recent rate reported for Cuyahoga County was a dismal 9.1 deaths, according to the Ohio Department of Health, and the average from 2006 to 2010 was 9.7. Among the experts who discussed the subject on WCPN was Dr. Michele Walsh, division chief of neonatology at Rainbow Babies & Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hospital. JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 46

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 50 of 211 PAGEID #: 2051

"Within the three miles surrounding the University Circle area, infant mortality exceeds some Third World countries," she said, "and that is an embarrassment and cannot be allowed to continue." PolitiFact Ohio agreed that the rate would be alarming. We wanted to know more. We called Dr. Walsh, who said her statement about the city reflects data from a study conducted by researchers at Case Western Reserve University Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences. Its extensive research database is called NEO CANDO, for Northeast Ohio Community and Neighborhood Data for Organizing. It draws from a wide variety of sources that include the U.S. Census and the Ohio Department of Health, and it can break down information by neighborhood.

For worldwide rates of infant mortality, we checked the authoritative CIA "World Factbook." The term "Third World," which once designated countries not aligned politically with the West or the Communist bloc East, generally refers to underdeveloped and developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Many poorer nations use the term to describe themselves. For our fact-check, we used the listings of Third World countries, as measured by poverty and low human development, from the Nations Online independent reference portal. To stay within three miles of University Circle, we looked at data for neighborhoods on Cleveland's East Side. We found that two neighborhoods, Hough and Mount Pleasant, had infant mortality rates above 27 per 1,000 -- worse than in North Korea, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Samoa, Maldives or the Gaza Strip. Two other neighborhoods -- Kinsman (with an infant mortality rate of 31 per 1,000) and South Collinwood (29) -- had infant mortality worse than was reported in Zimbabwe.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 47

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 51 of 211 PAGEID #: 2052

Infant mortality in the University Circle neighborhood, according to the NEO CANDO database, was slightly above 69 deaths per 1,000 live births. That exceeds the rate in countries that include, among others, Bangladesh, Haiti, Burma, Cameroon, Djibouti, Sudan, Kenya, Nepal, Pakistan, Rwanda and Uganda. That number struck us as both anomalous and staggering. We looked for an explanation and got one from researcher Richard Stacklin of the Cuyahoga County Board of Health. The rate for University Circle, he said, reflected the neighborhood’s small statistical base in 2009 of 43 births and 3 infant deaths. He said its most recent three-year average -- a preferable statistic for the neighborhood because it better accounts for fluctuations -- is 18.6 deaths, a figure he noted is still unacceptable and almost double the countywide rate. The average rate worldwide, according to the "World Factbook," is 39.4 per 1,000. The book estimates infant mortality in the United States in 2012 as 6 deaths per 1,000 births -- worse than the average for nations of the European Union and worse than countries including Australia, South Korea and Cuba. Its figures show that some Third World nations have infant mortality rates that are exceeded by those for some neighborhoods within three miles of University Circle. Walsh’s statement rates as True. http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2013/apr/12/michele-walsh/expert-says-infant-mortality-rate-near-university-/



JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 48

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 52 of 211 PAGEID #: 2053

About this statement: Published: Friday, April 12th, 2013 at 6:00 a.m. Researched by: Tom Feran Edited by: Jane Kahoun Subjects: Health Care, Public Health

Sources: WCPN, Sound of Ideas, "Northeast Ohio’s High Infant Mortality," April 4, 2013 The Plain Dealer, "Geauga County tops latest national health rankings; Cuyahoga struggles," March 21, 2013 Ohio Department of Health, "Latest Ohio Infant Mortality Data," June 6 2012 Email with Jennifer Guerrieri, University Hospitals, April 5, 2013 Email with Dr. Claudia Coulton, Case Western Reserve University, April 5, 2013 Case Western Reserve University Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Northeast Ohio Community and Neighborhood Data for Organizing, April 2013 CIA World Factbook, "Infant mortality rate," April 2013 Nations Online Project, "Nations of the Third World," April 2013 Interview with Richard Stacklin, Cuyahoga County Board of Health, April 11, 2013 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Empty cradles: Confronting our infant mortality crisis," Jan. 22, 2011

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 49

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 53 of 211 PAGEID #: 2054

EXHIBIT AC1-B4 Images Published as part of the Media Coverage of the Infant Mortality Crisis in Ohio Fault Lines, an investigative reporting TV show, covered America's Infant Mortality Crisis in a special series which made Cleveland, OH "Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Infant Mortality Capital", their focal point. The episode first aired on September 20th, 2013 in AJAM Cable News Network.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 50

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 54 of 211 PAGEID #: 2055

Newborn in Neonatal ICU (Ohio)

Babyland section of Cleveland Cemetery

Newly Covered Grave of an Infant (Ohio)

A makeshift headstone for the grave of an infant. Source: http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/fault-lines/FaultLinesBlog/2013/9/25/america-s-infantmortalitycrisisaslideshow.html

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 51

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 55 of 211 PAGEID #: 2056

EXHIBIT AC1-C1 Every Child Counts: Stopping Infant Loss editorial by journalist Sheree Crute, contributor for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Sheree Crute's piece reflects on Infant Mortality as a real and present national crisis, while making emphasis on the racial disparities unproportionally affecting minority babies and families. "When it comesto life-threatening pregnancy complications, infant mortality is one of three issues * * * that are more likely to threaten the lives of African American, Hispanic, and Native American children than white babies." A Quiet Crisisâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Uncounted Losses "America's infant mortality rate is in fact high for all women; the US ranks 56 in the world, and the lowest of any wealthy nations. * * *Again, the rate among African American women is more than double that of white women; likewise, the rates are disproportionately high among Hispanic and Native American women."

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 52

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 56 of 211 PAGEID #: 2057

Culture of Health Nov 13 2014

Every Child Counts: Stopping Infant Loss Nov 13, 2014, 3:08 PM, Posted by Sheree Crute

“Matthew was born big and healthy, just under eight pounds,” Carol Jordan says. That’s why it was such a shock to her to lose him on an otherwise average Sunday afternoon. “We had just gotten home from church. My daughter Taylor and my other son Jacob settled in with their video games,” Carol recalls. “I breastfed Matthew and lay him down on his back in his bassinet. He was 3 and ½ months old. About 30 minutes later, I went to check on him. He was on his stomach and he was not breathing.” Despite being overwhelmed by grief, Carol remembers, “I had two kids to take care of and that got me out of bed each day.” Matthew was a victim of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), a leading and little understood cause of infant mortality. With the love and support of family, friends, and First Candle, one of the largest SIDS support organizations in the country, the family slowly recovered. JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 53

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 57 of 211 PAGEID #: 2058 A year after Matthew’s death, Carol gave birth to a daughter, Rachel, in 2002, whom she calls “my little gift,” but she continues to give back. In addition to holding an annual Matthew Jordan Golf Tournament near her Decatur, Ga., home, to benefit the CJ Foundation for SIDS, she is working to open a camp for children who have lost a sibling to SIDS. Carol is one of the many African American women who disproportionately experience infant mortality—the loss of a child in the first year of life. When it comes to life-threatening pregnancy complications, infant mortality is one of three issues— including fetal mortality and low birth weight (LBW)—that are more likely to threaten the lives of African American, Hispanic, and Native American children than white babies. A Quiet Crisis–Uncounted Losses America's infant mortality rate is in fact high for all women; the US ranks 56th in the world, and the lowest of any wealthy nations. The rate among white women is 5.33 per 1,000 births. For African Americans, the rate is more than double that number at 12.40 per 1,000 births. Among Hispanics and Native Americans it is. 8.41 and 7.18 per 1,000, respectively. Yet these statistics tell only part of the story. The rates for fetal mortality (the loss of a child after 20 weeks of pregnancy) are nearly as high for children from these communities of color, with 23 percent of the babies lost after the seventh month. Again, the rate among African American women is more than double that of white women; likewise, the rates are disproportionately high among Hispanic and Native American women. Low birth weight (under 5.5 pounds) and very-low birth weight (under 3.4 pounds) is also disproportionately high among African American infants (13.4 percent and 2.9 percent) compared with 7.2 percent and 1.2 percent for white women. If a child does survive being born underweight, he or she may face a lifetime of heightened health risks—including increased odds of respiratory, cardiac, and developmental problems in childhood, and possibly higher rates of hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, and joint disease in the knees and hips in adulthood.

My Baby Matters As part of a national movement to find solutions for this persistent crisis in infant health, the documentary Surviving One Year focuses on the epicenter of America’s infant mortality crisis—Rochester, N.Y., the fifth poorest city in the country. In this community, children of color are three times more likely to die than white infants. The film, which will air on PBS, is part of the series America by the Numbers (check your local listings or the PBS website for broadcast times).

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 54

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 58 of 211 PAGEID #: 2059

EXHIBIT AC1-C2

Infant Mortality Trends published by Nationwide Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hospital, Columbus Ohio, showing growth in rate of infant deaths within the Hispanic population between 2005 and 2008

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 55

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 59 of 211 PAGEID #: 2060 Full Potential Infant Mortality:: Nationwide Children's Hospital

Í Menu

Infant Mortality Trends Infant mortality is one of the most important indicators of the health of a community. It is a bellwether of maternal health, quality of and access to medical care, socio-economic conditions and public health practices. • On average, 156 infants died each year in Franklin County from 2005 through 2008. • In Franklin County, the average infant mortality rate for non-Hispanic blacks was 2.7 times higher than the non-Hispanic white rate for 2005-2008.

• Rate of deaths to infants under 1 year of age per 1,000 live births. Infant mortality rates for Hispanics are based on fewer than 20 deaths for each year and should be interpreted with caution. • Sources: Franklin County and Ohio: Ohio Department of Health Information Warehouse, analyzed by Columbus Public Health Office of Assessment and Surveillance; U.S.: National Vital Statistics Reports

http://www.nationwidechildrens.org/full-potential-infant-mortality JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

2/10/2015 Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 56

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 60 of 211 PAGEID #: 2061

EXHIBIT AC1-C3 Impact of Racism on Infant Mortality by Columbus Public Health Department

Presentation by Columbus Public Health, May 24, 2011, as part of national campaign for inter-agency knowledge transfer, public health organizations' and public awareness in the promotion of equity for addressing prevalent problems in health care, such as the increasing racial disparities in infant mortality and underlying causes of discrimination and racism. (PARTIAL)

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 57

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 61 of 211 PAGEID #: 2062

All Babies Matter: Understanding the Impact of Racism on Infant Mortality

Presenters: C. Slack, G. Kolliesuah, K. Gray Medina, P. Lyons

Date: May 24, 2011

www.publichealth.columbus.gov

Meet the Presenters Carolyn Slack, Grace Kolliesuah, Karen Gray Medina, Pat Lyons

www.publichealth.columbus.gov

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 58

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 62 of 211 PAGEID #: 2063

ALC Participants 6 teams participated in the initial ALC: Aurora, Colorado Chicago, Illinois Columbus, Ohio Los Angeles County, California Milwaukee, Wisconsin Pinellas County, Florida CityMatCH, AMCHP and NHSA wish to recognize and congratulate these teams for being pioneers in the effort to address racisms’ impact on infant mortality in the U.S. www.publichealth.columbus.gov

by Dr. Camara Jones, CDC (US Center for Disease Control)

What is the impact of race and racism on infant mortality? Camara Jones, MD, MPH, PhD : Racism is a system of power • A system of structuring opportunities and assigning value based on a social interpretation of how one looks • Three kinds of racism – institutional, personally mediated and internalized • http://citymatch.org/UR_tale.php • Developed survey questions to measure racism on the Behavioral Risk Factor Survey www.publichealth.columbus.gov

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 59

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 63 of 211 PAGEID #: 2064

Unequal Treatment

Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care Institute of Medicine, 2002

BD Smedley, AY Stith, and AR Nelson, Editors, Committee on Understanding and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care, Board on Health Science Policy

www.publichealth.columbus.gov

A Health Equity Framework Boston Public Health Commission Education Health Behaviors Access to Health Services

Racism

Safe and Affordable Housing

Birth Outcomes

Job Opportunities SES / Poverty Environmental Exposure Violence

www.publichealth.columbus.gov

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 60

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 64 of 211 PAGEID #: 2065

References for Further Evidence Kramer MR, Hogue CR. “The literature to date suggests a complex, multifactorial causal framework for understanding racial disparities in very preterm birth, with maternal inflammatory, vascular, or neuroendocrine dysfunction as proximal pathways and maternal exposure to stress, racial differences in preconceptional health, and genetic, epigenetic, and gene-environment interactions as more distal mediators. Interpersonal and institutionalized racism are mechanisms that may drive racially patterned differences. “

Burris HH, Collins JW Jr “Epidemiologic data support a life-course conceptual model for African American women's pregnancy disadvantage. Life-course factors influence pregnancy outcomes through two proposed mechanisms: early-life (fetal) programming of reproductive potential and cumulative wear and tear (weathering).”

www.publichealth.columbus.gov

Unnatural Causes: When the Bough Breaks Why do infant mortality rates among African Americans remain more than twice as high as among White Americans? Although birth outcomes are generally better for those with higher education and income, Black women with college degrees are still more likely to give birth prematurely than White women who haven’t even finished high school. Researchers are circling in on a provocative explanation: the chronic stress of racism can become embedded in the body, taking a heavy toll on African American families and on children even before they leave the womb. http://www.pbs.org/unnaturalcauses/hour_02.htm

www.publichealth.columbus.gov

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 61

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 65 of 211 PAGEID #: 2066

Framing for the Social Good… • Everyone having equal opportunity to make good choices produces good health outcomes • Insufficient opportunities reduce choices for optimal outcomes • Addressing racial equity diminishes occasion to unconsciously replicate racism • Racism is not exclusive www.publichealth.columbus.gov

Wheels of Racism at Every Turn Institutional/Structural Racism

Fair Opportunity

Environment

Mental Health

Education

Access Employment

Economics

Physical Health

www.publichealth.columbus.gov

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 62

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 66 of 211 PAGEID #: 2067

EXHIBIT AC1-C4 ALARMING LOSSES: Columbus Works to Reverse Trends in Infant Deaths Special Report by the Columbus Dispatch covering the Infant Mortality Crisis in Columbus, OH and Franklin County, September, 2014. (partial)

"It is a family’s horror and our community’s shame. Babies born in some parts of this city die at rates the nation as a whole hasn’t seen in 50 years. And black babies in Ohio are more likely to die before their first birthdays than anywhere else in the nation." "But much of infant death is tied to race and place." "You also will find a legacy of racist policies, poverty and a lack of investment in the neighborhoods, said Jason Reece, the Kirwan Institute’s director of research. Infant mortality is 'really one of the premier civil-rights issues that we still are dealing with in our country today,' he said."

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 63

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 67 of 211 PAGEID #: 2068 12/26/2014

Alarming losses: Columbus works to reverse trends in infant deaths | The Columbus Dispatch

SPECIAL REPORT

Alarming losses: Columbus works to reverse trends in infant deaths By Misti Crane The Columbus Dispatch • Sunday September 14, 2014 11:21 AM

It is a family’s horror and our community’s shame. Babies born in some parts of this city die at rates the nation as a whole hasn’t seen in 50 years. And black babies in Ohio are more likely to die before their first birthdays than anywhere else in the nation. BROOKE LAVALLEY | DISPATCH Kaniel Duran lived 15 days after being chromosomal disorder. He made it home for only 10 hours, but his presence is still felt deeply there. A cast of his foot, held by his mother, Nora Duran, is one of her keepsakes.

Through the first half of this year, with 81 babies gone, we face another year in which we see three lives a week end in Franklin County before they’ve barely started. The rate of infant deaths here — 7.7 per 1,000 last year — signals trouble that goes beyond It is evidence of broader weaknesses in our community, of areas where the challenges that pile up at people’s doorsteps make Columbus a hard place to start life, say public-health experts and others who are pushing for change. >> See more photos “It is our responsibility to protect our children,” said Dr. Arthur James, an infant-mortality expert and obstetrician-gynecologist at Ohio State University’s Wexner Medical Center. “We have to have courage to figure out how to protect and save our babies.”

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/public/2014/09/alarming-losses-infant-mortality.html

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

1/10

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 64

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 68 of 211 PAGEID #: 2069 12/26/2014

Alarming losses: Columbus works to reverse trends in infant deaths | The Columbus Dispatch

These losses touch all of us — black and white, moms with graduate degrees and teens who hide growing bellies from their parents. But much of infant death is tied to race and place. Ashley Zimmerman keeps mementos of son Mason close by. To do otherwise "isn't fair to me, and it's not fair to him."

The Franklin County babies who died in the first half of this year were born to families of all races but were disproportionately black: 43 were black; 31 were white. The others were Latino, Native American, Asian Indian, Middle Eastern or biracial. Eight neighborhoods have emerged as homes to the highest concentration of the 770 infant deaths in Franklin County in a fiveyear span. The “hot spots” are scattered throughout the city — southeast, northeast, near south, near east, Morse/161, South Linden, the Hilltop and Franklinton. (The areas are based on census tracts, not official neighborhood boundaries.)

View Larger

ALARMING LOSSES

These areas are home to 22 percent of the babies who die (and 30 percent of the non-white babies), though they include just 9 percent of the county’s residents and about 12 percent of births, according to Ohio State University’s Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity. The institute is analyzing data for the Greater Columbus Infant Mortality Task Force, a group of community leaders who began working this year on plans to improve the outlook for babies born here.

South Linden is the worst off, with a rate of 23.5 infant deaths per 1,000 live births between 2007 and 2011. That’s almost three times the county’s rate of 8.6 for the same time frame. The Near East Side (18.4) and the Hilltop (17.1) are home to the secondand third-worst pockets, respectively. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/public/2014/09/alarming-losses-infant-mortality.html

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

2/10

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 65

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 69 of 211 PAGEID #: 2070 12/26/2014

ALARMING LOSSES: A SPECIAL REPORT ON INFANT MORTALITY

See More Watch video, see more photos and read more about infant mortality.

Benjamin J. Marrison commentary: Infant-mortality series sheds light on devastating problem

Alarming losses: Columbus works to reverse trends in infant deaths | The Columbus Dispatch

South Linden is 72 percent minority (mostly black). Forty-three percent of its population lives in poverty. And it has a high rate of vacant housing and violent crime. “Where you find sick and dying babies, you will find moms who are not doing well; you will find neighborhoods that are not doing well,” said Mark Chaffin, director of Research in Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. He has been an adviser to the Columbus task force. You also will find a legacy of racist policies, poverty and a lack of investment in the neighborhoods, said Jason Reece, the Kirwan Institute’s director of research.

Infant mortality is “really one of the premier civil-rights issues that we still are dealing with in our country today,” he said. Ohio had the nation’s worst black infant-mortality rate on record in 2011 at 15.5 deaths per 1,000 births. In six of the eight hot spots in Columbus — everywhere but Franklinton and the Hilltop — people of color are the majority. “Racism has had an effect on the health of black people in America,” James said. A growing body of research suggests that chronic stress over the course of a family’s history triggers genetic changes that predispose people to problems, including preterm birth. “The persistence in this disparity, I think, represents some of the most-egregious remnants of slavery,” James said. Regardless of a neighborhood’s circumstances, “The parents don’t want anything different for their children. They want them to grow up and be successful,” said Dr. Edward Shepherd, chief of neonatology at Nationwide Children’s Hospital.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/public/2014/09/alarming-losses-infant-mortality.html

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

3/10

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 66

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 70 of 211 PAGEID #: 2071 12/26/2014

Alarming losses: Columbus works to reverse trends in infant deaths | The Columbus Dispatch

“Oftentimes, these people have had very difficult choices their whole lives,” he said. “And kids don’t have any choice in who their parents are.” In general, poverty, crime and vacant housing join a handful of other measures that correspond to high rates of infant death. But the neighborhoods also have important differences, which makes a single approach to lowering deaths unlikely to work citywide. Franklinton, for example, is the poorest and the whitest. And the city’s northeast has the most foreign-born people, but a comparatively high number of residents with cars. The infant-mortality task force has issued recommendations to help babies survive here and has assigned the work to various people in the public and private sector. An executive team is shepherding those plans with an eye first on safe sleep habits, smoking cessation and prevention, and prematurity prevention through prenatal care and family planning. Of the 81 infant deaths in the first half of this year, 43 were because of complications from prematurity; 17 were attributed to congenital disorders. The third-most-common cause falls into a category called “sudden unexplained infant death” and is almost always linked to babies’ sleeping where they shouldn’t — on a couch, with a bunch of blankets and pillows, in bed with a parent. They should be alone, on their backs and in a crib, experts say. *****

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/public/2014/09/alarming-losses-infant-mortality.html

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

4/10

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 67

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 71 of 211 PAGEID #: 2072

EXHIBIT AC1-C5 Association between Racism and Health Outcomes by Dr. Phyllis-Jones, MD, MPH, PhD U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

"Levels of Racism: A Theoretic Framework and a Gardener's Tale" is an abstract authored by Camara Phyllis Jones, MD, MPH, PhD, that was published and appeared in the August 2000 issue of the American Journal of Public Health. Her condensed treatise presents a framework for understanding racism and its effects on racial disparities of health outcomes. Her approach has been used to help understand one of the several underlying causes of the controversial problem of racial disparities in infant mortality rates.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 68

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 72 of 211 PAGEID #: 2073

Going Public

Levels of Racism: A Theoretic Framework and a Gardener’s Tale A B S T R A C T The author presents a theoretic framework for understanding racism on 3 levels: institutionalized, personally mediated, and internalized. This framework is useful for raising new hypotheses about the basis of race-associated differences in health outcomes, as well as for designing effective interventions to eliminate those differences. She then presents an allegory about a gardener with 2 flower boxes, rich and poor soil, and red and pink flowers. This allegory illustrates the relationship between the 3 levels of racism and may guide our thinking about how to intervene to mitigate the impacts of racism on health. It may also serve as a tool for starting a national conversation on racism. (Am J Public Health. 2000;90: 1212–1215)

Camara Phyllis Jones, MD, MPH, PhD Race-associated differences in health outcomes are routinely documented in this country, yet for the most part they remain poorly explained. Indeed, rather than vigorously exploring the basis of the differences, many scientists either adjust for race or restrict their studies to one racial group.1 Ignoring the etiologic clues embedded in group differences impedes the advance of scientific knowledge, limits efforts at primary prevention, and perpetuates ideas of biologically determined differences between the races. The variable race is only a rough proxy for socioeconomic status, culture, and genes, but it precisely captures the social classification of people in a race-conscious society such as the United States. The race noted on a health form is the same race noted by a sales clerk, a police officer, or a judge, and this racial classification has a profound impact on daily life experience in this country. That is, the variable “race” is not a biological construct that reflects innate differences,2–4 but a social construct that precisely captures the impacts of racism. For this reason, some investigators now hypothesize that race-associated differences in health outcomes are in fact due to the effects of racism.5,6 In light of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Initiative to Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health by the Year 2010,7,8 it is important to be able to examine the potential effects of racism in causing race-associated differences in health outcomes.

cess to the goods, services, and opportunities of society by race. Institutionalized racism is normative, sometimes legalized, and often manifests as inherited disadvantage. It is structural, having been codified in our institutions of custom, practice, and law, so there need not be an identifiable perpetrator. Indeed, institutionalized racism is often evident as inaction in the face of need. Institutionalized racism manifests itself both in material conditions and in access to power. With regard to material conditions, examples include differential access to quality education, sound housing, gainful employment, appropriate medical facilities, and a clean environment. With regard to access to power, examples include differential access to information (including one’s own history), resources (including wealth and organizational infrastructure), and voice (including voting rights, representation in government, and control of the media). It is important to note that the association between socioeconomic status and race in the United States has its origins in discrete historical events but persists because of contemporary structural factors that perpetuate those historical injustices. In other words, it is because of institutionalized racism that there is an association between socioeconomic status and race in this country. Personally mediated racism is defined as prejudice and discrimination, where prejudice means differential assumptions about the abilities, motives, and intentions of others accord-

Levels of Racism I have developed a framework for understanding racism on 3 levels: institutionalized, personally mediated, and internalized. This framework is useful for raising new hypotheses about the basis of race-associated differences in health outcomes, as well as for designing effective interventions to eliminate those differences. In this framework, institutionalized racism is defined as differential ac1212 American Journal of Public Health

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

The author is currently with the Department of Health and Social Behavior, Department of Epidemiology, and the Division of Public Health Practice, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass. She will soon begin working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga. Requests for reprints should be sent to Camara Phyllis Jones, MD, MPH, PhD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy, MS K45, Atlanta, GA 30341. This article was accepted April 12, 2000.

August 2000, Vol. 90, No. 8

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 69

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 73 of 211 PAGEID #: 2074

ing to their race, and discrimination means differential actions toward others according to their race. This is what most people think of when they hear the word “racism.” Personally mediated racism can be intentional as well as unintentional, and it includes acts of commission as well as acts of omission. It manifests as lack of respect (poor or no service, failure to communicate options), suspicion (shopkeepers’ vigilance; everyday avoidance, including street crossing, purse clutching, and standing when there are empty seats on public transportation), devaluation (surprise at competence, stifling of aspirations), scapegoating (the Rosewood incident,9,10 the Charles Stuart case,11–14 the Susan Smith case15–18), and dehumanization (police brutality, sterilization abuse, hate crimes). Internalized racism is defined as acceptance by members of the stigmatized races of negative messages about their own abilities and intrinsic worth. It is characterized by their not believing in others who look like them, and not believing in themselves. It involves accepting limitations to one’s own full humanity, including one’s spectrum of dreams, one’s right to selfdetermination, and one’s range of allowable selfexpression. It manifests as an embracing of “whiteness” (use of hair straighteners and bleaching creams, stratification by skin tone within communities of color, and “the white man’s ice is colder” syndrome); self-devaluation (racial slurs as nicknames, rejection of ancestral culture, and fratricide); and resignation, helplessness, and hopelessness (dropping out of school, failing to vote, and engaging in risky health practices). The following allegory is useful for illustrating the relationship between the 3 levels of racism (institutionalized, personally mediated, and internalized) and for guiding our thinking about how to intervene. I use this story in my teaching on “race” and racism at the Harvard School of Public Health as well as in my public lectures.

Levels of Racism:A Gardener’s Tale When my husband and I bought a house in Baltimore, there were 2 large flower boxes on the front porch. When spring came we decided to grow flowers in them. One of the boxes was empty, so we bought potting soil to fill it. We did nothing to the soil in the other box, assuming that it was fine. Then we planted seeds from a single seed packet in the 2 boxes. The seeds that were sown in the new potting soil quickly sprang up and flourished. All of the seeds sprouted, the most vital towering strong and tall, and even the weak seeds made it to a middling height. However, the seeds planted in the old soil did not fare so well. Far fewer seeds sprouted, with the strong among them only making it to a middling height, while the weak among them died. It turns out that the old soil was poor and rocky, in contrast to the new potting soil, which was rich and fertile. The dif-

August 2000, Vol. 90, No. 8

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

ference in yield and appearance in the 2 flower boxes was a vivid, real-life illustration of the importance of environment. Those readers who are gardeners will probably have witnessed this phenomenon with their own eyes. Now I will use this image of the 2 flower boxes to illustrate the 3 levels of racism. Let’s imagine a gardener who has 2 flower boxes, one that she knows to be filled with rich, fertile soil and another that she knows to be filled with poor, rocky soil. This gardener has 2 packets of seeds for the same type of flower. However, the plants grown from one packet of seeds will bear pink blossoms, while the plants grown from the other packet of seeds will bear red blossoms. The gardener prefers red over pink, so she plants the red seed in the rich fertile soil and the pink seed in the poor rocky soil. And sure enough, what I witnessed in my own garden comes to pass in this garden too. All of the red flowers grow up and flourish, with the fittest growing tall and strong and even the weakest making it to a middling height. But in the box with the poor rocky soil, things look different. The weak among the pink seeds don’t even make it, and the strongest among them grow only to a middling height. In time the flowers in these 2 boxes go to seed, dropping their progeny into the same soil in which they were growing. The next year the same thing happens, with the red flowers in the rich soil growing full and vigorous and strong, while the pink flowers in the poor soil struggle to survive. And these flowers go to seed. Year after year, the same thing happens. Ten years later the gardener comes to survey her garden. Gazing at the 2 boxes, she says, “I was right to prefer red over pink! Look how vibrant and beautiful the red flowers look, and see how pitiful and scrawny the pink ones are.”

American Journal of Public Health 1213

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 70

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 74 of 211 PAGEID #: 2075

This part of the story illustrates some important aspects of institutionalized racism. There is the initial historical insult of separating the seed into the 2 different types of soil; the contemporary structural factors of the flower boxes, which keep the soils separate; and the acts of omission in not addressing the differences between the soils over the years. The normative aspects of institutionalized racism are illustrated by the initial preference of the gardener for red over pink. Indeed, her assumption that red is intrinsically better than pink may contribute to a blindness about the difference between the soils. Where is personally mediated racism in this gardener’s tale? That occurs when the gardener, disdaining the pink flowers because they look so poor and scraggly, plucks the pink blossoms off before they can even go to seed. Or when a seed from a pink flower has been blown into the rich soil, and she plucks it out before it can establish itself.

And where is the internalized racism in this tale? That occurs when a bee comes along to pollinate the pink flowers and the pink flowers say, “Stop! Don’t bring me any of that pink pollen—I prefer the red!” The pink flowers have internalized the belief that red is better than pink, because they look across at the other flower box and see the red flowers strong and flourishing. What are we to do if we want to put things right in this garden? Well, we could start by addressing the internalized racism and telling the pink flowers, “Pink is beautiful!” That might make them feel a bit better, but it will do little to change the conditions in which they live. Or we could address the personally mediated racism by conducting workshops with the gardener to convince her to stop plucking the pink flowers before they have had a chance to go to seed. Maybe she’ll stop, or maybe she won’t. Yet, even if she is convinced to stop plucking the pink flowers, we have still done

nothing to address the poor, rocky condition of the soil in which they live. What we really have to do to set things right in this garden is address the institutionalized racism. We have to break down the boxes and mix up the soil, or we can leave the 2 boxes separate but fertilize the poor soil until it is as rich as the fertile soil. When we do that, the pink flowers will grow at least as strong and vibrant as the red (and perhaps stronger, for they have been selected for survival).And when they do, the pink flowers will no longer think that red pollen is better than pink, because they will look over at the red flowers and see that they are equally strong and beautiful. And although the original gardener may have to go to her grave preferring red over pink, the gardener’s children who grow up seeing that pink and red are equally beautiful will be unlikely to develop the same preferences. This story illustrates the relationship between the 3 levels of racism. It also highlights the fact that institutionalized racism is the most fundamental of the 3 levels and must be addressed for important change to occur. Finally, it provides the insight that once institutionalized racism is addressed, the other levels of racism may cure themselves over time. Perhaps the most important question raised by this story is Who is the gardener? After all, the gardener is the one with the power to decide, the power to act, and the control over the resources. In the United States, the gardener is our government. As the story illustrates, there is particular danger when this gardener is not concerned with equity. The current Initiative to Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health by the Year 2010 is to be lauded as the first explicit commitment by the government to achieve equity in health outcomes. Many other questions arise from this simple story. What is the role of public health researchers in vigorously exploring the basis of pink–red disparities, including the differences in the soil and the structural factors and acts of omission that maintain those differences? How can we get the gardener to own the whole garden and not be satisfied when only the red flowers thrive? If the gardener will not invest in the whole garden, how can the pink flowers recruit or grow their own gardener? The reader is invited to share this story with family members, neighbors, colleagues, and communities. The questions we raise and the discussions we generate may be the start of a much-needed national conversation on racism.

References 1. Jones CP, LaVeist TA, Lillie-Blanton M. “Race” in the epidemiologic literature: an examination of the American Journal of Epidemiology,

1214 American Journal of Public Health

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

August 2000, Vol. 90, No. 8

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 71

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 75 of 211 PAGEID #: 2076

4. 5.

1921–1990. Am J Epidemiol. 1991;134: 1079–1084. Cooper R, David R. The biological concept of race and its application to public health and epidemiology. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1986;11: 97–116. Cavalli-Sforza LL, Menozzi P, Piazza A. The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1994: 19–20. Williams DR. Race and health: basic questions, emerging directions. Ann Epidemiol. 1997;7: 322–333. Krieger N, Rowley DL, Herman AA, Avery B, Phillips MT. Racism, sexism, and social class: implications for studies of health, disease, and well-being. Am J Prev Med. 1993;9(6 suppl): 82–122. Jones CP. Methods for Comparing Distributions: Development and Application Exploring “Race”-Associated Differences in Systolic Blood Pressure [dissertation]. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health; 1994. President Clinton announces new racial and eth-

10.

11.

12.

nic health disparities initiative [White House fact sheet]. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services Press Office; February 21, 1998. US Dept of Health and Human Services. The Initiative to Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health. Available at: http:// raceandhealth.hhs.gov/. Accessed May 29, 2000. Jones MD, Rivers LE, Colburn DR, Dye RT, Rogers WW. A documented history of the incident which occurred at Rosewood, Florida, in January 1923. Located at: State Library, Tallahassee, Fla. Also available at: http://members.aol. com/klove01/rosehist.txt. Accessed May 29, 2000. Love K. Materials on the destruction of Rosewood Florida. Available at: http://members.aol. com/klove01/rosedest.htm. Accessed May 29, 2000. Canellos PS, Sege I. Couple shot after leaving hospital: baby delivered. Boston Globe. October 24, 1989;Metro/Region section:1. Jacobs S. Stuart is said to pick out suspect.

August 2000, Vol. 90, No. 8

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Boston Globe. December 29, 1989;Metro/Region section:1. Cullen K, Murphy S, Barnicle M, et al. Stuart dies in jump off Tobin Bridge after police are told he killed his wife: the Stuart murder case. Boston Globe. January 5,1990;Metro/Region section:1. Graham R. Hoax seen playing on fear, racism: the Stuart murder case. Boston Globe. January 11, 1990;Metro/Region section:1. Davis R. Prayers lifted up for abducted boys: tots whisked off in S.C. carjacking Tuesday. USA Today. October 27, 1994:10A. Terry D. A woman’s false accusation pains many blacks. New York Times. November 6, 1994;section 1:32. Harrison E. Accused child killer’s family apologizes to blacks. Race relations: Susan Smith’s brother says that his sister’s false claim that an African American man kidnapped her sons was a “terrible misfortune.” Los Angeles Times. November 9, 1994:A9. Lewis C. The game is to blame the blacks. Philadelphia Inquirer. November 16, 1994:A15.

American Journal of Public Health 1215

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 72

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

- (Partial reproduction)

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 73

Presentation by Dr. Phyllis-Jones, MD, MPH, PhD U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Health Disparities Research at the Intersection of Race, Ethnicity, and Disability A National Conference Washington, DC April 26, 2013

EXHIBIT AC1-C6

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 76 of 211 PAGEID #: 2077

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 74

Health Disparities Research at the Intersection of Race, Ethnicity, and Disability A National Conference Washington, DC April 26, 2013

Keynote Address

Camara Phyllis Jones, MD, MPH, PhD

Parallels Intersections Braiding the strands

Systems of Power | Axes of Inequit y

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 77 of 211 PAGEID #: 2078

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Jones CP. Confronting Institutionalized Racism. Phylon 2003;50(1-2):7-22.

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 75

 Unfairly disadvantages some individuals and communities  Unfairly advantages other individuals and communities  Saps the strength of the whole society through the waste of human resources

A system of structuring opportunit y and assigning value based on the social interpretation of how we look (which is what we call “ race” ), that

What is racism?

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 78 of 211 PAGEID #: 2079

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 76

 Unfairly disadvantages some individuals and communities  Unfairly advantages other individuals and communities  Saps the strength of the whole society through the waste of human resources

A system of structuring opportunit y and assigning value based on [fill in the blank], that

What is [inequity] ?

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 79 of 211 PAGEID #: 2080

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Jones CP. Confronting Institutionalized Racism. Phylon 2003;50(1-2):7-22.

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 77

 Unfairly disadvantages some individuals and communities  Unfairly advantages other individuals and communities  Saps the strength of the whole society through the waste of human resources

A system of structuring opportunit y and assigning value based on the social interpretation of how we look (which is what we call “ race” ), that

What is racism?

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 80 of 211 PAGEID #: 2081

“ Race” Gender Ethnicit y Disabilit y status Labor roles and social class markers Nationalit y, language, and legal status Sexual orientation Geography Religion

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

These are risk markers (as opposed to risk factors)



Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 78

Many possible axes of inequit y

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 81 of 211 PAGEID #: 2082

Institutionalized Personally-mediated Internalized

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 79

Jones CP. Levels of Racism: A Theoretic Framework and a Gardener’s Tale. Am J Public Health 2000;90(8):1212-1215.



Levels of Racism

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 82 of 211 PAGEID #: 2083

Housing, education, employment, income Medical facilities Clean environment Information, resources, voice

Explains the association between social class and “ race”

   

Examples

Differential access to the goods, services, and opportunities of societ y, by “ race”

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 80

Jones CP. Levels of Racism: A Theoretic Framework and a Gardener’s Tale. Am J Public Health 2000;90(8):1212-1215.



Institutionalized racism

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 83 of 211 PAGEID #: 2084

    

Police brutality Physician disrespect Shopkeeper vigilance Waiter indifference Teacher devaluation

Prejudice and discrimination Examples

Differential assumptions about the abilities, motives, and intents of others, by “ race” Differential actions based on those assumptions

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 81

Jones CP. Levels of Racism: A Theoretic Framework and a Gardener’s Tale. Am J Public Health 2000;90(8):1212-1215.



Personally-mediated racism

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 84 of 211 PAGEID #: 2085

Accepting limitations to our full humanit y

 Self-devaluation  White man’s ice is colder  Resignation, helplessness, hopelessness

Examples

Acceptance by the stigmatized “ races” of negative messages about our own abilities and intrinsic worth

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 82

Jones CP. Levels of Racism: A Theoretic Framework and a Gardener’s Tale. Am J Public Health 2000;90(8):1212-1215.



Internalized racism

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 85 of 211 PAGEID #: 2086

 “How is racism operating here?”  Structures: the who?, what?, when?, and where? of decision-making  Policies: the written how?  Practices and norms: the unwritten how?  Values: the why?

Identify mechanisms

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 83

 “Could racism be operating here?”  Routinely monitor opportunities as well as outcomes by “race”

Scan for evidence of “ racial” disparities

Jones CP. Confronting Institutionalized Racism. Phylon 2003;50(1-2):7-22.



Measuring institutionalized racism

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 86 of 211 PAGEID #: 2087

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 87 of 211 PAGEID #: 2088

EXHIBIT AC1-D1 Legal Scholar's View of the Inherent Racially-Motivated Bias in the Guardian Ad Litem System and Its Negative Effects on the Children and their Best Interests

"The Curious Case of the Guardian Ad Litem" is a treatise co-authored by Katherine Hunt Federle & Danielle Gadomski. Co-author Federle is a Professor of Law & Project Director at OSU Moritz College of Law

(Partial reproduction)

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 84

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 88 of 211 PAGEID #: 2089

THE CURIOUS CASE OF THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM Katherine Hunt Federle1 & Danielle Gadomski2 I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 337 II. HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS ................................................................. 339 III. RACE, CLASS, AND BEST INTERESTS ................................................... 348 IV. THE CURIOUS CASE OF THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM ............................ 351

I. INTRODUCTION In 2006, Cameron Iacovelli, a veteran of foster care, was given the chance to speak to the Connecticut legislature about his experience with his guardian ad litem, the attorney appointed to represent his best interests in the abuse and neglect case about him.3 He told them: I’ve been in DCF [Department of Children and Families] care since I was 12 years old but didn’t know that I had a lawyer until I was 18 years old. That was when I found out that I no longer had a lawyer . . . . A lot of decisions were made for me, and this person went to court to affect those decisions without my knowledge or influence. I wonder how a lawyer represented me if he didn’t know me. How can he represent me without knowing what I want? For all he knew, I could have been a girl. I believe that if they want to represent you, they have to know you and meet you.4 The concerns Cameron shared with the Connecticut legislature are echoed by thousands of children in the child welfare system every day.5 But even the child who has an opportunity to meet with his guardian ad litem may not have a legal voice in the proceedings because his guardian may 1

Professor of Law & Director, Center for Interdisciplinary Law & Policy Studies and the Justice for Children Project, The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law. 2 J.D., 2011, The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law. 3 Testimony Regarding Raised Bill No. 7077, An Act Concerning the State Budget for the Biennium Ending June 30, 2009, and Making Appropriations Therefor Before the Appropriations Comm., Bill No. 7077 (Conn. 2007) (statement of Cameron Iacovelli, Jim Casey Youth Opportunity Initiative participant), available at http://www.ctkidslink.org/testimony/022007appropsstbudget.pdf. 4 Id. 5 See, e.g., Karen de Sá, Part III If it was about me, why didn’t they ask me?’, MERCURY NEWS, Feb. 12, 2008, http://www.mercurynews.com/dependency/ci_8237949?nclick_check=1.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 85

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 89 of 211 PAGEID #: 2090

338

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON LAW REVIEW

[Vol. 36:3

advocate for the child’s best interests rather than his expressed preferences.6 I have always been perplexed by the guardian ad litem in abuse and neglect cases. The role does not seem to fit neatly into our adversarial system. The guardian ad litem is not a lawyer, at least not the kind of lawyer who is bound by duties of loyalty and zealous advocacy to argue on behalf of her client’s express preferences. The guardian ad litem is not a court-appointed expert—certainly she lacks the expertise to qualify as such, although she nevertheless may assist the court in resolving the dispute. Nor is the guardian ad litem the judge or the prosecutor, although one could argue plausibly that the court all too often defers to the guardian ad litem and the state may fail in its obligations to adequately prosecute the case, leaving it to the guardian ad litem to fill in the gaps. This is even more curious given the significant rights at stake in an abuse and neglect proceeding. There can be no doubt that parents have a fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of their children.7 Although it is less clear that children have a right to maintain their relationships with their parents,8 we might all agree that children may have strong views and even stronger feelings about those relationships. Thus, abuse and neglect proceedings that seek to curtail or strip parents of custody directly implicate constitutional concerns. But the role of the guardian ad litem seems so discordant with our adversarial system that it is hard to understand how the guardian ad litem has become a fundamental feature of these proceedings. If, all things being equal, the outcomes for children in the child welfare system were good, then perhaps my concerns about silencing children’s voices in the child welfare system would not be such a problem. Of course, that would assume that rights themselves have little value, a position I have consistently eschewed.9 But we know that outcomes for 6 2 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(A)(ix) (1994 & Supp. 1996) (current version at 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(A)(xiii) (2006)). ASFA established the best interests standard for guardians ad litem on the national level but the initial advocates of guardians ad litem already envisioned them as best interests advocates. See Brian Fraser, Independent Representation for the Abused and Neglected Child The Guardian Ad Litem, 13 CAL. W. L. REV. 16, 29 (1976). 7 See, e.g., Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 214 (1972); Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 400 (1923). 8 Troxel, 530 U.S. at 88 (stating that it is “extremely likely that, to the extent parents and families have fundamental liberty interests in preserving such intimate relationships, so, too, do children”) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Yoder, 406 U.S. at 243-44 (holding that children are persons within the meaning of the Bill of Rights and their views on education are entitled to be heard) (Douglas, J., dissenting). 9 See, e.g., Katherine Hunt Federle, Righting Wrongs A Reply to the Uniform Law Commission’s Uniform Representation of Children in Abuse, Neglect, and Custody Proceedings Act, 42 FAM. L.Q. 103, 103 (2008); Katherine Hunt Federle, Children’s Rights and the Need for Protection, 34 FAM. L.Q. 421, 424 (2000); Katherine Hunt Federle, The Ethics of Empowerment Rethinking the Role of Lawyers in Interviewing and Counseling the Child Client, 64 FORDHAM L. REV. 1655 (1996); Katherine Hunt Federle, Looking Ahead An Empowerment Perspective on the Rights of Children, 68 TEMP. L. REV. 1585 (1995).

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 86

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 90 of 211 PAGEID #: 2091

2011]

THE CURIOUS CASE OF THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM

339

children in the child welfare system generally are not good.10 It also appears that the guardian ad litem model promotes racist, classist, and paternalistic approaches to the problems of the poor. The guardian ad litem is “the man.” This article will explore the historical development of the guardian and examine the role that wealth, property, and status played in the recognition of rights. Tracing the roles that class and race played in the development of laws governing the family situates the guardian ad litem within an institutional framework that treats children of poor and minority families differently. Moreover, this contextualizes the debate about the proper role of the guardian ad litem and suggests that we should critically examine claims about the need for the child’s protection. This article concludes by arguing that the guardian ad litem is ill equipped to protect the rights a child possesses, and that an express-preferences lawyer is the better model. II. HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS Guardianship itself is an ancient legal concept, tracing its Western roots to Roman law. There were two kinds of guardians at Roman law (at least as it was understood by medieval jurists in feudal England who drew upon the principles articulated in the Justinian Code): the tutor, who was appointed to care for the minor child’s person, and the curator, who was appointed to protect the property of a minor past puberty.11 The curator also could be appointed to assist the minor in litigation.12 This is significant, because as it was understood and practiced by medieval English jurists who drew upon these laws, the curator ad litem (ad litem meaning for the purposes of litigation) was appointed by the court to act only for the purposes of the litigation, and since the curator’s function was to participate in a lawsuit on behalf of the minor, his duty was to vindicate the child’s legal rights.13 In practice, however, some courts blurred the distinction between tutor and curator, consolidating the two offices.14 Despite the Church’s claimed responsibility for all children, the ecclesiastical courts regularly provided guardians only for minors with rights to part of a

10 See, e.g., MARTHA SHIRK & GARY STANGLER, ON THEIR OWN: WHAT HAPPENS TO KIDS WHEN THEY AGE OUT OF THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM (2004) (providing an account of the welfare system and recommendations on how to improve it); U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV., A REPORT TO CONGRESS ON ADOPTION AND OTHER PERMANENCY OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE: FOCUS ON OLDER CHILDREN 1-4 (2005), http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/congress_adopt/congress adopt.pdf. 11 R.H. Helmholz, The Roman Law of Guardianship in England, 1300–1600, 52 TUL. L. REV. 223, 229 (1978). At Roman law, puberty was set at age fourteen for boys and twelve for girls. Id. at 229 n.22. The curator’s appointment ended when the child reached twenty-five. Id. at 229. English courts in practice, however, never established age twenty-five as the endpoint of a wardship. See id. at 233-34. 12 Id. at 250. 13 Id. at 247-48. 14 Id. at 231-32.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 87

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 91 of 211 PAGEID #: 2092

2011]

THE CURIOUS CASE OF THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM

349

This emphasis on best interests is problematic for a number of reasons. First, it may reflect dissatisfaction with the court’s ability to ascertain the best interests of the child through the adversarial process. In part, this stems from a cynical view about parents and their claims to act in their child’s best interests, a view which in turn is grounded in earlier racist and classist notions about poverty, neglect, and poor parenting. But it also suggests disillusionment with state systems and institutions generally, and a deep skepticism about the approach taken by child protective services agencies. What is intimated by this legislative approach becomes explicit in practice: the court needs help in ascertaining best interests, assistance that is unlikely to be provided by the other parties to the abuse or neglect proceeding.100 The indeterminacy of the best interests standard thus increases the risk of arbitrariness. Because state statutes typically provide little guidance as to the meaning or content of best interests,101 and the child’s express preferences are not binding or controlling, the guardian ad litem and the judge in dependency courts are free to determine best interests without meaningful constraints.102 Attorneys are not prepared either by legal training or experience to determine what will be best for any particular child.103 Consequently, it should not be surprising that guardians ad litem may resort to “self-referential, unprincipled determinations about what is the best course for the child and the weight of risks and benefits attendant to any course of action.”104 This leaves considerable room for bias—personal and social, conscious and unconscious.105 Attorneys left adrift by the ambiguous Wald, Adults’ Sexual Orientation and State Determinations Regarding Placement of Children, 40 FAM. L.Q. 381 (2006). 100 Federle, Children’s Rights and the Need for Protection, supra note 9, at 426-27. 101 Some states provide a list of factors for guardians ad litem and judges to consider when considering what is in the child’s best interests. Charlow, supra note 99, at 268. See, e.g., KY. REV. STAT. § 403.270(2) (2006) (court must consider wishes of child’s parents, wishes of the child, interaction and interrelationship of the child, child’s adjustment, mental and physical health of all the individuals involved, reports of domestic violence, the extent of care the child has received by any de facto custodian, and several other factors); WIS. STAT. § 767.41(5) (2006) (guardian ad litem and court must consider wishes of parents stipulated by all parties, child’s wishes expressed through a professional, adjustment of child, mental health of parties, need for stability, availability of child care services, cooperation between parties, history of physical or drug abuse by parent or parent’s partner, reports of professionals and anything else that may be relevant). Other states simply allow the courts to determine what factors will be relevant in any given case. Charlow, supra note 99, at 268. See, e.g., N.J. STAT. § 9:2–4(c) (2006); TENN. CODE § 36–6–101(2)(A)(i) (2009). In no state, however, is it clear whether the best interests standard should be applied to produce a happy childhood or a well-adjusted adult. Charlow, supra note 99, at 268. 102 Federle, Righting Wrongs, supra note 9, at 108 n.30; see also Charlow, supra note 99, at 267; Mnookin, supra note 99, at 226. 103 Annette Ruth Appell, Representing Children Representing What? Critical Reflections on Lawyering for Children, 39 COLUM. HUM. RTS. L. REV. 573, 599 (2008). 104 Id. at 600. 105 Federle, Children’s Rights and the Need for Protection, supra note 9, at 422; see also Nell Clement, Note, Do “Reasonable Efforts” Require Cultural Competence? The Importance of Culturally Competent Reunification Services in the California Child Welfare System, 5 HASTINGS RACE & POVERTY L.J. 397, 416 (2008).

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 88

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 92 of 211 PAGEID #: 2093

350

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON LAW REVIEW

[Vol. 36:3

standard of the child’s best interests will draw on what they know.106 Because guardians ad litem are predominately white and middle class, what they know and value are middle class values, and a standard of living that is neither accessible to everyone107 nor necessarily the optimal way to rear children. Indeterminacy is particularly disturbing in a system that historically has disadvantaged poor and minority families.108 As part of the machinery for administering the child welfare system, the juvenile court disproportionately facilitates the removal of poor and minority children from their families.109 Thus, children of color constitute 41% of all children in the United States, but 59% of the child welfare population110 and 58% of the foster care population.111 Because the family law for the poor historically was based on assumptions about poverty and parental fault, it should come as little surprise that the child welfare system continues to intervene in ways that promote state control and oversight.112 This history also suggests that this middle class bias has contributed to disproportionate impact. Bias not only may result in the removal of a disproportionate number of poor and minority children, but may result in less efficacious decision-making. Some commentators have suggested that lawyers, judges, and social workers view child welfare cases through a white middle class lens, which fails to account for cultural differences that may not be harmful to the child.113 This institutional bias can lead to unneeded disruption for kids and ineffective representation of their interests.114 Additionally, it may be difficult for guardians ad litem, who are mostly white and middle class, to relate to their clients.115 Consequently, guardians may be less respectful of their wards’ preferences, viewpoints, and desires, choosing instead to 106

Federle, Children’s Rights and the Need for Protection, supra note 9, at 426-427. See Amy Sinden,“Why Won’t Mom Cooperate?” A Critique of Informality in Child Welfare Proceedings, 11 YALE J.L. & FEMINISM 339, 352 (1999). 108 PETERS, supra note 40, at 542 app. A. 109 Clement, supra note 105, at 400-01. 110 Theresa Hughes, The Neglect of Children and Culture Responding to Child Maltreatment with Cultural Competence and a Review of Child Abuse and Culture Working with Diverse Families, 44 FAM. CT. REV. 501, 503 (2006); see also SUSAN CHIBNALL ET AL., CHILDREN OF COLOR IN THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE CHILD WELFARE COMMUNITY (Dec. 2003) (discussing issues of over-representation of children of color in the child welfare community and strategies for the child welfare system to accommodate the needs of children of color), http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ opre/ abuse_neglect/respon_coc/reports/persp_ch_welf/child_of_color.pdf. 111 Facts About Foster Care, CHILDREN’S RIGHTS, http://www.childrensrights.org/issues-resources/ foster-care/facts-about-foster-care/ (last visited March 22, 2011). 112 See PETERS, supra note 40, at app. A. 113 See Sinden, supra note 107, at 366-67; see also Susan L. Brooks, The Case For Adoption Alternatives, 39 FAM. & CONCILIATION CTS. REV. 43, 50 (2001) (stating that child welfare systems tend to “discount and devalue the cultural backgrounds . . . . In trying to protect children, we disregard the parents’ rights and their communities’ cooperative values.”). 114 Clement, supra note 105, at 418. 115 Appell, supra note 103, at 595-96 (“[A]ttorneys are unlikely to share the same socio-economic background, cultural values, or kin as the children they represent . . . .”). 107

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 89

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 93 of 211 PAGEID #: 2094

2011]

THE CURIOUS CASE OF THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM

351

exert extraordinary power over the direction of the case.116 Bias may also lead guardians to assume a more adversarial posture with respect to parents and align with the state agency seeking to remove children.117 This, in turn, may engender mistrust and generate even deeper misunderstandings. Certainly, there is strong evidence that poor and minority people of color distrust the child welfare system and its white, middle class professionals.118 IV. THE CURIOUS CASE OF THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM In light of the historical approach to the children of the poor, the debate about the proper role of the child’s advocate in abuse and neglect cases has ominous overtones. On one side are those who focus on children’s incapacity and the importance of protecting children from their abusive or neglectful parents.119 They argue that because children lack the maturity and cognitive capacity to assess their own long-term interests, society has a responsibility to protect and nurture them.120 From this perspective, the guardian ad litem shields the child from the pressures they may feel from parents and the court system by taking away whatever decision making authority the child may have.121 On the other side are those who advocate for an attorney to represent the expressed wishes of the child. Under this view, permitting the voices and preferences of children to be heard empowers them and is good in itself.122 Moreover, advocates of an 116

Id. at 596. Clement, supra note 105, at 417-18. Clement notes the importance of power dynamics when a white person with the legal right to take away a child from the family is sent into the home of a poor minority family. Id. Furthermore that white professional may automatically assume they are in danger because of the hostility of the situation. Id. All of these factors from the professional’s perception of how cooperative the family is and the families response to the professionals. Id. While Clement is speaking of white, middle-class social workers the same power dynamics apply for guardians ad litem. Appell, supra note 103, at 596. 118 See Clement, supra note 105, at 414-15; see also Sinden, supra note 107, at 352. 119 Emily Buss, “You’re My What?” The Problem of Children’s Misperception of Their Lawyers’ Roles, 64 FORDHAM L. REV. 1699, 1702 (1996); see ANN M. HARALAMBIE, THE CHILD’S ATTORNEY: A GUIDE TO REPRESENTING CHILDREN IN CUSTODY, ADOPTION, AND PROTECTION CASES 6 (1993). 120 Buss, supra note 119, at 1702. 121 Id. at 1702-03. See also Stanley S. Clawar, Why Children Say What They Say, 6 FAM. ADVOC., no. 2, 1983, at 25, 45 (stating children are motivated by, inter alia, fear, guilt, desire to protect parents, the parent’s promise to change and a fear of the unknown in their statements to lawyers, judges, and other professionals); Nancy W. Perry & Larry L. Teply, Interviewing, Counseling, and In-Court Examination of Children Practical Approaches for Attorneys, 18 CREIGHTON L. REV. 1369, 1375-86 (1984) (suggesting that children’s feelings of guilt, difficulty in understanding and articulating responses to lawyers’ questions, and their lack of understanding about the court process make a traditional lawyer– client relationship difficult); Sarah H. Ramsey, Representation of the Child in Protection Proceedings The Determination of Decision-Making Capacity, 17 FAM. L.Q. 287, 307 (1983) (suggesting that a child’s emotions may interfere with decision-making); JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN ET AL., IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD 32-33 (1986) (suggesting that a child development expert might be necessary to distinguish between the child’s expressed preferences and real preferences). 122 Buss, supra note 119, at 1703-04. See also Martin Guggenheim, The Right to Be Represented But Not Heard Reflections on Legal Representation for Children, 59 N.Y.U. L. REV. 76, 85-93 (arguing for child-directed representation when the child is mature enough to be “deemed to be an autonomous individual.”); Wallace J. Mlyniec, The Child Advocate in Private Custody Disputes A Role in Search of a Standard, 16 J. FAM. L. 1, 16-17 (1977) (arguing that a traditional attorney for the child minimizes the outside intervention into the family while protecting the child’s right to participate in matters affecting 117

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 90

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 94 of 211 PAGEID #: 2095

EXHIBIT AC1-D2 Sworn affidavit of Milka Licona, grandmother of the infant child N.G., with her testimony of the differential treatment she and her husband experienced from Defendants as hispanic grandparents

The testimony of minor N.G's grandmother is in connection to the differential treatment received by Brooksedge Daycare in collaboration with Lambert during the period starting in December 2012 through July 2013. First, she confirms that Brooksedge denied both grandparents access to the facility, even when Plaintiff Jurado, their son, appeared in the enrollment forms as the child's father. A second example of differential treatment is when they were finally allowed access on their last day of their 6-week stay to meet the child's caretakers tour the facilities, but with the condition that they were escorted the entire time, in a humiliating experience. She also details her accounts of the incident report with Brooksedge, because she is the one that prepared the items that Jurado brought with him on July 2, 2013.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 91

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 95 of 211 PAGEID #: 2096

STATE OF OHIO COUNTY,

FRANKLIN

Affidavit of Milka Jurado Licona I, Milka Licona de Jurado, have been duly sworn and cautioned according to the law, hereby state that I am over eighteen years and competent to testify to the facts set forth below based upon my personal knowledge.

�

"trt

My name is Milka Licona de Jurado, mother of Aristides Jurado and grandmother of [ N. G. ] Jurado

% yea

'{_ .

IP1 9f.

old and retired after a long career in the banking industry.

�

My hu and and I v· it my son once or twice a year on average. Since the birth of my grandson [ N. G. ] we have been here three times: in July/Aug 2012, Dec '12/Jan '13 and now (Jun/Jul ·

2013). 3.

Between January 2013 and June 2013, my husband and I used popular technology available to teleconference (i.e. Skype) and interact with our grandson at least 3-5 times a week.

Our first negative experience with Brooksedge daycare was during the 2012 holiday season. My husband, my daughter and I came to Columbus, OH to visit my son and grandson for a second time for a period of six weeks. During the six weeks, we were denied access to visit our grandson regardless of the length of the visit, and despite the fact that my son's name was listed as the father of [ N. G. ] in the enrollment form. My son was also denied access for the same period of time.

Prior to December 2012 and during our second visit, we were all seriously concerned with our grandson's health.

the daycare on the very

last day of our stay in January2013. We visited our be escorted by our grandson's mother.

caretakers, but we had to

(!?-

�

At the insistence of my son and his attorney, we were allowed in id

� and met hi -ffi:k.f>-

Between January and June 2013 after our son's access to the daycare facility was restored, I witnessed via Skype how our grandson would just fall asleep in the car not even 5 minutes after leaving the daycare facility and after arriving at our son's residence, as if [ N. G. ] had not gotten enough sleep during the day.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 92

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 96 of 211 PAGEID #: 2097

Between January and June 2013, I witnessed the difficulties experienced by our son, as he

had several concerns regarding the daycare facility but was fearful of raising some of the concerns with the administrators or caretakers, given the fact that the environment was already unfriendly towards our son.

Upon our arrival in Columbus on June 2013, my husband and I made the decision not to

visit our grandson at the daycare facility for the entire stay, given the existing attitude the staff towards our son and the obvious collusion that exists between some of the staff at the facility and our grandson's mother.

10. On July 2nd 2013, I prepared a freezer bag with ONLY one "fresh food mesh feeder''

containing a nugget-size piece of frozen mango (1.5 inches long) and a sealed jar of "turkey sticks". My son had planned to take those two items to the daycare facility to get feedback from the staff. At the end of the day, my son returned home with the same jar of

“turkey sticks” still sealed. 11. The morning of July 3rd 2013, during the pick up of our grandson at the daycare facility, my son became troubled when he found inaccurate information written in the daily log sheet

from the day before in respect to what my son fed our grandson during his 15-minute visit the day before. When I read the daily log sheet with the inaccurate/false information, it was obvious to me that it was done with full intent.

OATH (Do not sign until notary is present.)

I, (print name)

/'11 'L f< ft

l J'l0!.Ji9 )e, J""uR/'1.))c;

swear or affirm that I have read

this document and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the facts and information stated in this document are true, accurate and complete. I understand that if I do not I the truth, I may be su ject to penalties for perjury.

Sworn before me and signed in m� presence this

-�!•; ,

�''f�··.

. �zW:il\" : '';;.., tfJ

... � Cl , , ,9_ . , ,, .

�/

\ \"'

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

�J:�� .

k 3 �ay of

�

Charles W. Peters� o� n -------,,_._----.,..-r:-...,. ,,. ...,,. � .. �� Notary Public-State of �ry Public My Commission ExpiMt Commission Expires: April 8. 2014 �

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 93

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 97 of 211 PAGEID #: 2098

EXHIBIT AC1-D3 E-mails showing collaboration Between Defendants Smitherman, McCash, and Lambert to intentionally discriminate against Plaintiff N.G.'s entire paternal Panamanian family Even when Defendants do not have a valid reason to deny contact between the child and his paternal family, and Panamanian relatives, they still deprive the child and Jurado's family from that vital contact and familiar ties, even when it is in the detriment of the child. In this case, the child's Aunt and her family, including N.G.'s toddler cousin, traveled all the way from Norway to visit and especially spend time with little N.G., along with the grandparents that arrived from Panama. But the e-mails in this exhibit show that McCash, as the GAL, is indifferent to the best interest of the child if the situtation does not favor Lambert, consistent with his previous conduct and acts, as well as that of the other participants in the conspiracy, including Judge Jamison and Smitherman. Although there is no court order or legal impediment for Lambert to voluntarily allow Jurado to spend a few hours with the child on the weekends, she refuses to allow any contact between Jurado, his family and the child. The first email shown dated 3/8/2015 was ignored by Lambert. The follow up email dated April 1, 2015 was then ignored by Smitherman and McCash. And finally, the emails dated April 3, 2015 that Jurado sent concerning the Easter holiday, were answered but unfavorably. In a condescending response, Lambert offered Jurado's family the ability to see the child via Skype during their stay in Columbus, something that obviously they can do when they are back home in Norway and Panama. The treatment of Jurado's family as second class citizens was compounded by Judge Jamison's latest overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, when she restricted Skype time between the child and his paternal family to 15 minutes a week.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 94

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 98 of 211 PAGEID #: 2099

 o  

From: Ari Jurado To: Kathrine Hernandez (First View: 03/08/2015 8:59 PM) Sent: 03/08/2015 8:17 PM Subject: Access to see [ N. G. ] for my parents and sister Message:

Please let me know if you will allow my parents and/or sister to see [ N. G. ] outside of the daycare. it could be during the week or on the weekend.

Thanks,

Ari

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 95

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 99 of 211 PAGEID #: 2100 Ari Jurado

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Ari Jurado Wednesday, April 1, 2015 3:38 PM 'Thomas McCash'; 'Erika Smitherman' Hernandez, Kathrine @ Express [ N. G. ] Contact with and Access to by Paternal Grandparents, Aunt, Cousing and Relatives traveling from Norway and Panama

Attorney Smitherman and Attorney‐GAL McCash, I sent the request included below—through OFW—to Ms. Hernandez about three (3) weeks ago (and sent her a text to let her know the email had been sent to her, just in case) regarding a request for [ N. G. ] grandparents, aunt and his younger cousin to see him outside of daycare. Do either one of you know of any standing court order that may be preventing Ms. Hernandez from allowing contact between [ N. G. ] and his paternal relatives and grandparents?? Ms. Smitherman, do you know if your client has a specific reason to deny or ignore my email with the request or if she is simply being indifferent to my family’s request and my request and for [ N. G. ] need to keep in contact with his family from Panama? Mr. McCash, any feedback and opinion you would like to share from your role as Guardian Ad Litem for the child? It has been well established that you can and are able to intensely pursue a matter when you find your involvement necessary. By now, everyone is well aware that my parents, and my sister with her family come a long way to Columbus to see and spend as much time as possible with [ N. G. ] And when they are here, they are usually for a finite period of time. I am looking forward to hearing from you. Regards, Ari Jurado PS: As you witnessed during the last court proceeding, I tried to bring up this and other matters with the court but was not given the chance. By the time we are in court again, this will be a moot issue. 1

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 96

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 100 of 211 PAGEID #: 2101 The OurFamilyWizard速 website

1302 2nd St NE Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55413 http://www.OurFamilyWizard.com Info@OurFamilyWizard.com

Message Report

Ari Jurado generated this report on 04/07/15 at 03:10 AM. All times are listed in America/New_York timezone.

Email: Date: From: To: Subject:

1 of 1 04/04/2015 7:57 PM Ari Jurado Kathrine Hernandez (First View: 04/04/2015 8:51 PM) RE: Easter 2015

Message:

Anytime tomorrow is fine, in the morning better. Just let me know (via Skype) Also as a reminder, it is not possible to hug or kiss your child through Skype. And thank you for offering to let my family see [ N. G. ] via Skype, but that can be done anytime when they are in Norway and Panama. But now they are here now visiting from far away as you know. And Skype doesn't allow [ N. G. ] and his younger cousin, Chantal, to play with together. Arii On Fri, 04/03/15 at 9:27 PM, Kathrine Hernandez wrote: To: Ari Jurado Subject: RE: Easter 2015 Message: You may Skype with [ N. G. ] or talk to him on the phone. I am willing to accommodate your family via phone or Skype as well either with or without your participation as long as advance notice is provided. As a reminder, although it is rarely taken advantage of, your phone or Skype communications with [ N. G. ] can be had up up to 3 times per week with advance notice. On Fri, 04/03/15 at 7:03 PM, Ari Jurado wrote: To: Kathrine Hernandez Subject: Easter 2015 Message: Kathy, As you are well aware, this is the 3rd consecutive year that I don't have [ N. G. ] for Easter. Is there any chance that you will let me see him in person (along with my sister and company) this Sunday? Ari Copyright 2000-2015 OurFamilyWizard.com, all rights reserved, patented

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

1 of 1

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 97

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 98

Dr. Mastruserio identified some of the signs of Failure to Thrive (FTT) that existed during the first 6 months of N.G.'s life and concluded that FTT could not be discarded as a condition or set of symptoms suffered by little N.G. just a few months back.

Growth Chart: Weight-for-Age manually plotted by Dr. Mastruserio during the retrospective evaluation of N.G. Jurado on March 28, 2013

EXHIBIT AC1-E1

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 101 of 211 PAGEID #: 2102

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 99

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 102 of 211 PAGEID #: 2103

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 100

The focus on her admitted "mission" that she had engaged to prove herself while indifferent to the health risks N.G. was being exposed to, drove her to start watering down the supply of pumped breastmilk to prevent or delay intervention by Jurado.

One of the many instances of Lambertâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rejection of the option to supplement with formula while admitting that the amount of breastmilk infant N.G. demanded was "more than I can handle".

SMS text messages between Lambert and Jurado downloaded from Blackberry system showing evidence of the breastfeeding challenges that caused the malnutrition of Plaintiff N.G.

EXHIBIT AC1-E2

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 103 of 211 PAGEID #: 2104

SMS with Kathy

Kathy (6142867836) Ari (3057992212)

SMS with Kathy

SMS with Kathy SMS with Kathy MMS with Kathy SMS with Kathy SMS with Kathy SMS with Kathy SMS with Kathy SMS with Kathy MMS with Kathy SMS with Kathy

Kathy (6142867836) Ari (3057992212)

Kathy (6142867836) Kathy (6142867836) Ari (3057992212) Ari (3057992212) Kathy (6142867836) Kathy (6142867836) Ari (3057992212) Kathy (6142867836) Ari (3057992212)

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

Ari (3057992212) Ari (3057992212) Kathy (6142867836) Kathy (6142867836) Ari (3057992212) Ari (3057992212) Kathy (6142867836) Ari (3057992212) Kathy (6142867836)

SMS with Kathy

Kathy (6142867836) Ari (3057992212)

Kathy (6142867836) Ari (3057992212) SMS with Kathy Ari (3057992212) Kathy (6142867836) SMS with Kathy

Kathy (6142867836) Ari (3057992212)

Ari (3057992212) Kathy (6142867836) SMS with Kathy Kathy (6142867836) Ari (3057992212) SMS with Kathy Ari (3057992212) Kathy (6142867836) SMS with Kathy

SMS with Kathy

Kathy (6142867836) Ari (3057992212)

Ari (3057992212) Kathy (6142867836) SMS with Kathy Kathy (6142867836) Ari (3057992212) MMS with Kathy Ari (3057992212) Kathy (6142867836) SMS with Kathy

SMS with Kathy

Kathy (6142867836) Ari (3057992212)

Subject SMS with Kathy SMS with Kathy SMS with Kathy SMS with Kathy

To Kathy (6142867836) Kathy (6142867836) Kathy (6142867836)

Kathy (6142867836) Ari (3057992212)

From Ari (3057992212) Ari (3057992212) Ari (3057992212)

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 101

I thought I might have to use formula for one bottle tomorrow but I should be good because some of the tips I was given today have already helped with my pumping issue. Supplement as $20 but worth it if it works in long run. <picture> Was he down for the night at 7:20p? Sweet dreams [ N. G. ] No he woke up eat. He is down for the night as of about 15 min ago. That pix was about a 10 min cat nap. K <picture>

I'm not ready to give up just yet. I'm on a mission. :). I got an herbal supplement today and it is supposed to help within 24 to 48 hours.

10/10/2012 18:44 10/10/2012 19:18 10/10/2012 20:35 10/10/2012 20:35 10/10/2012 20:36 10/10/2012 20:36 10/10/2012 20:36 10/10/2012 20:38 10/10/2012 20:40 [ N. G. ]

10/10/2012 18:44

10/10/2012 18:23 Gotta go pump. 10/10/2012 18:26 Don't feel bad if you have to start supplementing with formula

10/10/2012 18:23

It's a bit more than I can handle but I spoke with a lactation nurse today for ideas. Freezer stash is gone gone gone as of today.

Message 10/9/2012 8:06 Please give him a kiss from me when you drop him off 10/9/2012 8:06 Kiss i mean 10/9/2012 18:27 How is [ N. G. ] doing? I miss him He is fine. Napping. Just got home a few min go. Had to stop at Meijer real quick after picking him up. He had a 10/9/2012 18:33 good day today. Will be uping his bottle to 5 oz tomorrow and will see how he does. Will update you when I pick him up as 10/9/2012 18:33 usual. 10/9/2012 18:49 K 10/9/2012 19:08 <picture> 10/9/2012 19:10 :-) [ N. G. ] had a great day. He had more in his bottles and gobbled them up. He had a nap in the afternoon 10/10/2012 18:20 where he fell asleep on his own in the crib and it lasted 2.5 hours. So that is great since he had only slept about an hour total before 10/10/2012 18:20 then the whole day. 10/10/2012 18:21 Nice! How much more? 10/10/2012 18:22 An ounce. So he is doing 5 oz at each bottle feeding as of today. 10/10/2012 18:23 [ N. G. ]

Sent

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 104 of 211 PAGEID #: 2105

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 102

The second page following the growth chart includes guidance material from WHO to interpret the standard deviations (SD) in the growth charts, their significance and risks associated with each threshold. Underweight is defined as <-2.0 SD, and increases the risk of infant mortality. Infant N.G. reached -3.0 SD as shown in the chart.

Growth Chart: Weight-for-Age plotted for minor N.G. Jurado, World Health Organization (WHO) Z-Scores

EXHIBIT AC1-E3

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 105 of 211 PAGEID #: 2106

2:15-cv-0074

Age (complet ed weeks or mont hs)

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 103

WHO Child Growth Standards

-3

-2

50th

CUTOFF POINT OF -2.0 SD, recommended7 by WHO

Weight measurements plotted for N. G. JURADO

Median or 50th Percentile

Growth Chart for Jurado, N. G.

Birth to 6 months (z-scores)

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

Months

Weeks

Weight (kg)

Weight -f or-age BOYS

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 106 of 211 PAGEID #: 2107

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 107 of 211 PAGEID #: 2108 English

Health topics About WHO

Data and statistics

Media centre

Publications

Countries

Search the WHO.int Nutrition Landscape Information System (NLiS) site

Programmes and projects Search

Advanced search

Nutrition Home - NLiS Home - NLiS Data Search - NLiS Country Profile

Help Topic: Child Malnutrition Underweight, stunting, wasting and overweight What do these indicators tell us? These indicators are used to measure nutritional imbalance resulting in undernutrition (assessed from underweight, wasting and stunting) and overweight. Child growth is internationally recognized as an important indicator of nutritional status and health in populations. The percentage of children with a low height for age (stunting) reflects the cumulative effects of undernutrition and infections since and even before birth. This measure can therefore be interpreted as an indication of poor environmental conditions or long-term restriction of a child's growth potential. The percentage of children who have low weight for age (underweight) can reflect 'wasting' (i.e. low weight for height), indicating acute weight loss, 'stunting', or both. Thus, 'underweight' is a composite indicator and may therefore be difficult to interpret. How are they defined? · Underweight: weight for age < -2 standard deviations (SD) of the WHO Child Growth Standards median · Stunting: height for age < -2 SD of the WHO Child Growth Standards median · Wasting: weight for height < -2 SD of the WHO Child Growth Standards median · Overweight: weight for height > +2 SD of the WHO Child Growth Standards median What are the consequences and implications?

Underweight: As weight is easy to measure, this is the indicator for which most data have been collected in the past. Evidence has shown that the mortality risk of children who are even mildly underweight is increased, and severely underweight children are at even greater risk. Stunting: Children who suffer from growth retardation as a result of poor diets or recurrent infections tend to be at greater risk for illness and death. Stunting is the result of long-term nutritional deprivation and often results in delayed mental development, poor school performance and reduced intellectual capacity. This in turn affects economic productivity at national level. Women of short stature are at greater risk for obstetric complications because of a smaller pelvis. Small women are at greater risk of delivering an infant with low birth weight, contributing to the intergenerational cycle of malnutrition, as infants of low birth weight or retarded intrauterine growth tend be smaller as adults. Wasting: Wasting in children is a symptom of acute undernutrition, usually as a consequence of insufficient food intake or a high incidence of infectious diseases, especially diarrhoea. Wasting in turn impairs the functioning of the immune system and can lead to increased severity and duration of and susceptibility to infectious diseases and an increased risk for death. Overweight: Childhood obesity is associated with a higher probability of obesity in adulthood, which can lead to a variety of disabilities and diseases, such as diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. The risks for most noncommunicable diseases resulting from obesity depend partly on the age at onset and the duration of obesity. Obese children and adolescents are likely to suffer from both short-term and long-term health consequences, the most significant being: · cardiovascular diseases, mainly heart disease and stroke; · diabetes; · musculoskeletal disorders, especially osteoarthritis; and · cancers of the endometrium, breast and colon.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 104

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 108 of 211 PAGEID #: 2109

EXHIBIT AC1-E4 Response from Lambert and her friend-pediatrician Dr. Muresan to Jurado's escalating concerns about the alarming weight-gain challenges of his son, N.G. In her e-mail to Jurado, Lambert stated the feedback from Dr. Muresan, and agreeable to her: Infant N.G. is just a small baby. N.G.'s medical records contradicted the absurd opinion, which was part of the ongoing efforts of Lambert's supporters and accomplices to conceal her negligence and other conduct harmful to the child.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 105

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 109 of 211 PAGEID #: 2110

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Ari Jurado Friday, November 16, 2012 10:48 AM Kathy Hernandez Re: [ N. G. ] Dr appt

Thank God. Thank you for the update. On Nov 16, 2012 9:45 AM, "Kathy Hernandez" <kjxatm@gmail.com> wrote: appointment went well. He is still on the smaller side, but doctor says that is just his size and nothing to worry about. He is about 24 inches long now and weighs just over 11 lbs and he is developmentally in the right place. He is eating well. Was advised to continue to breastfeed and not introduce any other foods until 6 months and from there continue to breastfeed up to a year if possible.

[ N. G. ]

His ears looked good as a follow up to his ear infection the last time he had to go in. He does have some baby eczema that is starting from the cold weather but continuing to use the humidifier and mild lotions for dry skin will help. Overall doctor says he looks great.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074 1

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 106

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 110 of 211 PAGEID #: 2111

EXHIBIT MAâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;10

Transcript of court proceeding, Juvenile Court, August 1, 2014.

Partial transcript of the court proceeding for the hearing on Jurado's Motion for Emergency Removal of Blythe Bethel as GAL, conducted on August 1, 2014. The transcript shows Bethel, during her cross-examination, unable to justify her misleading tactics and misrepresentations to the court.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 107

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov111 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2112 1

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO DIVISION OF .DOMESTIC RELATIONS,

JUVENILE BRANCH

3 4

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

(

6 7

IN THE MATTER OF: CASE NO . 12JU-14479

KATHY HERNANDEZ, PLAINTIFF

-vs9 10

ARISTIDES JURADO, DEFENDANT

12 13

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE TERRI JAMISON,

ON AUGUST 1, 2014

16 17

APPEARANCES BY: 18 19 20

ERIKA SMITHERMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF, KATHY HERNANDEZ.

21 22 23 24

ALSO PRESENT: KATHY HERNANDEZ, PLAINTIFF. ARISTIDES JURADO, DEFENDANT, PRO SE.

FTR COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint FRANKLIN COUNTY

2:15-cv-0074

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215 Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 108

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov112 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2113

INDEX OF WITNESSES 2 3 4

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

5 6

DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES

PAGE

AR!STIDES JURADO Quest1ons by the Court

BLYTHE BETHEL As if on Cross Examination by

Aristides Jurado

8 9

10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21

22 23 24

FTR COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint FRANKLIN COUNTY

2:15-cv-0074

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 109

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov113 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2114

3 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 3

DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS A-9 MOTION TO REMOVE G.A.L.

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

A: 3/26/13 EMAIL

6 7

Introduced

4 5

PAGE

Introduced B:

UNITED AIRLINES REPORT

Introduced 9 10

13 14

Introduced

11 12

7/10/13 EMAIL

9/6/13 SHORT TRANSCRIPT 81

Introdu ced E:

2/28/ 1 3 EMAIL 66

Introdu ced

4/29/13 EMAIL

4/29/13 EMAIL 96

Introduced

20 21

Introduced

7/ 1 2/13 EMAIL 103

Introduced

23 24 25

FTR COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint FRANKLIN COUNTY

2:15-cv-0074

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215 Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 110

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov114 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2115

having heard the email that was written, I would say

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

that that speaks that Ms. Bethel was trying to make

rational sense of what was going on with the infant

child that is being breastfed.

5 6

ARISTIDES JURADO:

Uh - huh (affirmative

response) .

JUDGE JAMISON:

So, you wanna (sic) move

on. 9

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

10 11

Thank you, Your

Honor . ARISTIDES JURADO:

Okay.

Continue As if on Cross Examination by Aristides

Jurado:

Is that true Mrs. Bethel that you didn't

care how many times Mrs. Hernandez was stopping at 17

my house?

You didn't care because the issue -

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Objection, that is

not what the witness testified to.

JUDGE JAMISON:

22 23 24

sustained.

Object i o n - - objection

Mr. Jurado , ARISTIDES JURADO: JUDGE JAMISON:

Okay.

- how many times Mrs.

FrR

COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUN1Y

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 111

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov115 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2116

( Hernandez comes to your house has nothing to do with

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

your motion.

Please get on point with your motion.

ARISTIDES JURADO:

JUDGE JAMISON:

5 6 7

Okay .

Do you have a list of

questions? Q.

During the same - - during the same meeting

first meeting that you had with me, the third

opinion that you had was about - - you learned about 9

10 11 12

Kathy's daycare - - position of and do you remember saying that that was nonsense? A.

I - - I'm not sure exactly what you're - -

I'm not trying to be difficult.

understand.

I'm just trying to

Yeah, your opinion was about the - - Mrs.

Hernandez's position on keeping the child in daycare 17

during the week; do you reme mber that your opinion 18 19

was that it was nonsense? A.

I don't recall that, because I've been

pretty consistent in saying that the child during

the workweek should be at daycare because the two of

you could not reach an agreement between yourselves

as to his routine.

FTR

COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUNTY

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 112

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov116 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2117

( Q.

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

Well, you said before that you don't

remember many things, so you wouldn't remember if

that was your initial opinion when you met with me,

right?

5 6

(non-verbal response) .

Okay.

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Objection .

I -

Yes or no?

I don't.

10 11

JUDGE JAMISON:

What's the objection,

counsel?

I'm asking.

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

The objection is

she's already been asked the question and has

answered the question about her recollection from 17

back in 2013 to today. 18

JUDGE JAMISON:

I will sustain the

objection.

ARISTIDES JURADO:

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

23 24

Okay . Thank you, Your

Honor. ARISTIDES JURADO :

So, for the record.

FTR

COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUNTY

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 113

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov117 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2118

61 Okay.

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

This is part of the same exhibit.

Continue As if on Cross Examination by Aristides

Jurado:

Did we talk one time or many times about my

work situation out - - out of town?

You talked to me a lot about that.

And the work and it came up in different

topics and discussions .

Can you read - - can you

read to me the line here that's right here ? 10

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Your Honor, I'm

gonna (sic) ask for some clarification on what it is

he's asking her t o read to ma k e s u re it's not an

email (inaudible).

JUDGE JAMISON:

The witness can identify

the document.

Witness, can you ide nti fy the

document? 18

WITNESS:

Yes, I can .

It is a n April 25th,

2013 e ma il from myself to Ms. Massucci, Mr. Petroff

and a n associate in Ms. Massucci's office and I

believe the ir paralegal.

Should I read the whole

one? Q.

I asked -

FTR

COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUN1Y

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 114

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov118 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2119

( JUDGE JAMISON:

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

- - I don't know what

the question is .

highlighted.

I asked if she could read the middle line

JUDGE JAMISON:

But if it's from her she

can testify to her own doc uments.

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Right.

You were having me pick one sentence out of

10 11

an entire four paragraph email;

convenience d o not always go hand in hand." Q.

Right, correct .

Okay.

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

13 14

"Parenting and

Honor, did s he

What's - - Your

did t h e Guardian, I 'm sorry; I

didn't hear if the Guardian i dent ified the date of

that e mail (inaudible) . 17

JUDGE JAMISON:

She d i d, April - - would

you re-identify the date, p lease? WITNESS:

20 21

a.m.

22 23

Sure, it 's April 25, 20 1 3, 8:05

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN :

Thank you.

Continue As if on Cross Examinat i on by Arist ides

Jurado: 25

FTR

COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUN1Y

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 115

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov119 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2120

( Q.

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

Okay.

Do you consider convenience when a

parent is working far away because he or she has to

and then come home to see his or her kid a

convenience issue, Mrs . Bethel?

I need to see that email.

Okay.

And your question is again, I'm sorry?

If - - do you consider the work situation

It's a yes or no question.

8 9

of a parent that has to work outside because he has

to - - he or she comes and sees their child a

convenience issue?

14 15

I think ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN :

I'm gonna (sic)

object on the basis of I'm not sure what a

convenience issue has to do with the pending motion 17

that we're here for. 18

JUDGE JAMISON:

with the pending motion? ARISTIDES JURADO:

Whether Mrs . Bethel is

biased about making irrational recommendations.

23 24

What does it have to do

JUDGE JAMISON: A.

Ari,

I ' l l allow it.

I consider it to be a n availability

( FfR COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUNTY

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 116

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov120 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2121

issue. 2

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

That's different, very different

than an inconvenience, right? A.

5 6

Okay .

It can be. JUDGE JAMISON:

I'm sorry, I didn't

understand the question.

ARISTIDES JURADO:

I said, "That's very

different than convenience." 9

10 11

And I said, "It can be."

Okay, thank you.

Were you referring to

that inconvenience about the stipulation that I

would pick up my son as soon as I could when I was

coming from out of town?

I - - I - - I don't like just picking one

line out of an entire email and having an entire 17

line of questions about a bigger topic. 18

JUDGE JAMISON:

the question.

22 23

You're the witness today.

WITNESS:

Ms. Bethel, please answer

Well, I'm trying to, but -

Was it connected to me picking up my son -

- okay, at the earliest poss ib le time when I come

from out of town? 25

(

FTR

COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUNTY

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 117

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov121 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2122

( A.

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

Ari, I would not agree to a document that

said that you would pick him up at the earliest -

Yes or no?

I - - I don't understand your question.

Was it connected - - related to me picking

up my son at the earliest possible time when I would come home from a job - - from work?

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Objection, was what

10 11

connected?

What is the nexus that he's trying to

prove? ARISTIDES JURADO:

that says,

always go hand and hand."

Her - - her statement

"Parenting and inconveni e nce do not

WITNESS:

You can't - - I am - - I am

struggling with him taking one line 17

JUDGE JAMISON:

It doesn't matter, Ms.

18 19

Bethel.

You are a witness at this point.

not the lawyer.

WITNESS:

JUDGE JAMISON:

23 24

You're

I Pl e ase answe r the

que stion. A.

Uh, yes.

FTR COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUNTY

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43 215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 118

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov122 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2123

( Q.

ARISTIDES JURADO:

2 3

STENOGRAPHER :

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

Okay, are you marking

another one?

6 7

What d o we do with the

exhibits?

Thank you.

ARISTIDES JURADO :

These are t ogether, a

string on email.

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Your Honor, I'm not

10 11

clear what he's asked - - how he's i d entified his exhibits.

seem to be unrelated to this matter . JUDGE JAMISON:

13 14

It's just a group of separate emails that

It's all - - it 's all

Exhibit "An and we'll deal with that mission later.

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Yeah, that's what I

wondered.

Well, that's what I'm wondering because

he has to have it marked differently, so. 18

ARISTIDES JURADO:

23 24

I said,

"All these." JUDGE JAMISON:

21 22

No, I didn't.

He said it was all one

document. ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN: JUDGE JAMISON:

Thank you.

I'm over here.

(

FTR COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUNTY

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 119

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov123 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2124

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

I'm sorry, I'm

confused .

Conti nue As if on Cross Examination by Aristides

Jurado :

Mrs. Bethel, do you know what Ipsa Ipse is?

Ipsa Ipse?

Yes.

No, tell me.

Can I introduce a treatise?

7 8 9 10

JUDGE JAMISON:

You can ask her the

question, but I don't think she wrote the treatise,

so she wouldn't be able to do that.

questions .

You can ask

If you can read - - read here after -

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Objection, I don't

even know what he is showing the witness.

This

18 19

hasn't been identified to us at all.

ARISTIDES JURADO:

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

22 23 24

Sorry.

I'm sorry.

What is it that

you're going to be asking her t o read on pages 80 or 81?

ARISTIDES JURADO:

I'm sorry, that would

l FTR COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUNTY

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 120

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov124 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2125

be it. ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

Sorry, I didn't know

there's more.

he verify or validate somehow that this book is

somehow you know, going to go toward his Motion for

Your Honor, I'm gonna (sic) ask that

Emergency Removal of the Guardian.

JUDGE JAMISON :

This is a -

Please state the rel evance

of this question or 9

ARISTIDES JURADO:

10 11

This is written by an

expert that our own Supreme Court brought las t year

here to Columbus to train the Guardian ad Litems and

he speaks of how to identify bias in expe rts.

14 15

JUDGE JAMISON:

Well, what - - what

relevance does this witness have with that question?

ARISTIDES JURADO:

We will be able to

identify some traits . 18

JUDGE JAMISON:

to read it.

it.

Well, no; she doesn't need

You need to ask questions pertaining to

She doesn't need to read it.

ARISTIDES JURADO:

JUDGE JAMISON:

Okay .

All right.

Because she's not an

expert witness.

FTR

COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUNTY

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 121

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov125 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2126

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

(

Thank you; that was

my next suggestion.

Continue As if on Cross Examination by Aristides

Jurado:

6 7

All right, so did you know that Ipsa Ipse

means "I am an expert and I say this is true, therefore it is true and that's my expert opinion.

The consultant can help point out the signs that 9 10

reveal that the JUDGE JAMISON:

11 12

Jurado.

what's the relevance?

We just identified she is not an expert, so

14 15

Hold on couns - - Mr.

ARISTIDES JURADO:

If she knew what Ipsa

Ipse means .

JUDGE JAMISON:

Why does she need to know?

She's not an expert . 18

ARISTIDES JURADO:

19 20 21 22 23 24

She doesn't need to be

an expert. JUDGE JAMISON:

She doesn't - - she

doesn't need to know. ARISTIDES JURADO: She 's a Guardian .

She's a Guardian.

She's an expert witness.

( FfR COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUNTY

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 122

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov126 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2127

(

WITNESS:

JUDGE JAMISON :

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

(

No. Okay.

In order to have

her qualified as an expert, you gotta (sic) do much

more than that.

expert.

So, she's not been qualified as an

ARISTIDES JURADO:

JUDGE JAMISON:

All right, perfect.

You can ask her questions.

ARISTIDES JURADO:

All right.

JUDGE JAMISON:

And the questions that you

10 11

need to be trying to answer - - ask her, are

questions pertaining to your motion again.

Continue As if on Cross Examination by Aristides

Jurado :

Do - - do you consider yourself an expert

in the area of guardianship and custody with your 30 17

plus years of experience? 18 19

I consider myself an experienced guardian.

Okay, an expert. ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

22 23 24

No.

Your Honor,

objection. A.

No, I said,

"Experienced."

JUDGE JAMISON:

Ex -

FfR

COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUN1Y

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 123

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov127 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2128

71 (

JUDGE JAMISON:

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

Okay. She has not been properly

qualified as an expert.

ARISTIDES JURADO:

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Okay. And objection to

mischaracterizing her response.

JUDGE JAMISON:

I -

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Thank you,

(inaudible) .

Continue As if on Cross Examination by Aristides

Jurado:

14 15

Okay.

I'm gonna (sic) move on to - - I'm

gonna (sic) start passing documents for you to review.

This is just - - this is my history record

with the airline.

Would you say that this is the

duration of the amount of travel that I did? 18 19

21 22

23 24

(non-verbal response) . ARISTIDES JURADO:

This just shows me

coming and going. ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Objection, first of

all I didn't hear the question and so let's start with that; "Would you say this is a -"

FTR COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUNTY

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 124

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov128 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2129 72

(

JUDGE JAMISON:

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

Would you rephrase the

question?

ARISTIDES JURADO:

JUDGE JAMISON :

Yes.

Or re-state the question,

I apologize.

ARISTIDES JURADO:

JUDGE JAMISON :

(non - verbal response) .

First of all, have you

seen the document? 9

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

10 11

tome, yes.

JUDGE JAMISON:

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

JUDGE JAMISON:

He did show that one

Okay. Thank you .

Okay.

Cont inue As if on Cross Examination by Aris tides

Jurado: 17

Does it look famili ar based on your

18 19

knowledge of my work I'm required - - t he amount of

travel?

b e for e .

This just s hows I've - - I've never seen this docume nt

Uh - huh (affirmative response) . JUDGE JAMISON :

Can the witness identify

FTR COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUN1Y

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 125

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov129 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2130

(

the document? WITNESS:

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

Yes, I certainly can try.

This

all looks to be a three - page document issued by

United Airlines for Mr. Jurado.

plus statement for the period of January 1, 2013

through March 31, 2013.

I t's his mileage

It gives an account summary

and then airline activity for Mr. Jurado; actually,

it gives him an air - - his activity from January 1 9

10 11 12

through June Q.

2013.

How many times does it show I have traveled

back and forth, just a rough amount ? ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

13 14

5th,

Objection to

relevancy, Your Honor.

ARISTIDES JURADO:

It is very relevant .

JUDGE JAMISON:

How is it relevant?

ARISTIDES JURADO:

Because it's gonna

18 19

20 21

22 23 24

(sic) speak to misrepresentations by Mrs. Bethel , thank you. ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Your Honor, we

haven't established JUDGE JAMISON:

If that's your only

objection, then I would sustain - - overrule your

FTR COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUNTY

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 126

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov130 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2131

( objection and allow her to answer. 2 3

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

(

It looks like there's numerous flights.

More than once a week, at least ten?

Almost every week, would you say?

5 6

From just my quick glancing, it looks like

you have frequent flights, yes .

Thank you and {inaudible) to you, right?

I knew you flew back and forth between

8 9

Chicago. ARISTIDES JURADO:

11 12

next .

Can I have this one? ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

13 14

I'm sorry, this is

Uh-huh (affirmative

response).

ARISTIDES JURADO:

I'm sorry, this is

gonna {sic) be Exhibit "2". 17

JUDGE JAMISON:

Could you mark that f or

18 19

purposes of recogni tion as Exhibit "B"? ARISTIDES JURADO:

20 21 22 23 24

This one too.

Thank

you. STENOGRAPHER:

And you want this one as

Exhibit "C"? ARISTIDES JURADO:

Yes.

So for the

FfR

COURTComplaint OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS JURADO v. STONE, First Amended 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUNTY

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 127

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov131 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2132

( record, Exhibit "B" is the one that Mrs. Bethel has 2 3

answered questions about my frequency of travel. Exhibit "C" -

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

4 5

JUDGE JAMISON:

Did you allow Ms.

Smitherman to see Exhibit "C"?

ARISTIDES JURADO:

She

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

yes, ma'am . Yes, Your Honor.

Thank you . 9

Continue As if on Cross Examination by Aristides

Jurado:

Would you like to just identify the

document and r e ad the highlight, pleas e ?

14 15

Okay.

I' ve b e en handed what h as b een marke d as

Defendant ' s Ex hibit "C".

It i s a - - an email from

mys e lf to Mr. Jurado, dated July 10 t h, 2 01 3 at 11 : 5 7 17

a.m.

The s ubje c t matte r i s

[ N. G. ]

Jurado and

Brookse dge Da y care.

ple as e ?

23 24

Can - - can y o u r ead t he highlight e d p a rt s ,

Okay.

I'm reading paragraph thre e of a

four page - - four p a r a graph docume nt; "Amy said t h a t your fr e que nt v i s its to the d a y c are, s ome time s

FfR COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUNTY

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 128

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov132 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2133

( as much as two t i mes every day is disruptiv e for

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

[ N. G. ]

He - - there's a hole in it.

"He seems

distressed.

it takes him time to calm down and that it makes

certain of the workers feel unc omfortable . "

used the words in quotations, "intimidating" and in

He gets distressed when you l eave and

quotations, "aggressive."

She

Amy stressed that they

never want to tell any parent they are not welcome 9 10

to visit because they have an open door policy, but

even our magistrate said when she heard about the

frequency of your visits that you appear to be

quote, "overly involved."

does not want to have to explain to other parents

Amy also said that she

what you are doing at the daycare so much .

I have

had this in other cases where a parent or 17

grandparent goes to a child's school so much that 18 19

other parents complain.

It makes other parents

uncomfortable .

you are present so much.

have unfortunately learned to be cautious of persons

that you do not know being around your children.

They do not know who you are or why In this day and age, we

you want my opinion, I woul d really limit your

FTR

COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUN1Y

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 129

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov133 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2134

(

visits to the dayc are. Q.

Thank you.

Amy is the director of Brooksedge Daycare .

Okay .

Amy Laclair.

Okay.

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

6 7

Exhibit "C".

And who's Amy?

And -

ARISTIDES JURADO:

Sorry, are you done

with that one? 9

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

No, I don't know

10 11

what it is you intend to ask.

I hav en ' t had a

chance to read the entire transcript.

ARISTIDES JURADO:

All these pages are one document.

This one (inaudible) .

JUDGE JAMISON:

I 'm sorry about the

transcript, Ms. Smitherman.

But transcripts have to

be paid for by both counsel .

He's already paid for

17 18

his transcripts.

He gets to ask t he questions.

You

asked the Court to take judicial notice of the file.

They're in the file, so he gets to ask these

questions.

23 24

ARISTIDES JURADO: second.

Okay, okay.

And this is the next document.

One I 'm gonna

(

FTR

COURTComplaint OF DOMESTIC JURADO v. STONE, First Amended FRANKLIN COUNTY

RELA110NS 2:15-cv-0074

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 130

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov134 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2135

( (sic) be asking about the highlighted lines that is 2

a part of the transcript. ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

transcript ?

5 6

This is also a

ARISTIDES JURADO:

No, it's not part of

the transcript.

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Oh, wel l, I'm not

asking that right now.

We can listen to those.

ARISTIDES JURADO:

No, no, this goes with

10 11

that, too.

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

ARISTIDES JURADO:

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

ARISTIDES JURADO:

JUDGE JAMISON :

Huh?

That one goes first. Oh, this goes first?

Yeah.

Mr. Jurado, we're not

gonna (sic) s tand here a ll day while you ' have her 18

read that. going .

ARISTIDES JURADO:

22 23 24

You've gotta (sic) keep your questions

response).

Okay .

Uh-huh (affirmative

All right.

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN: Your Honor, I may be a ble to truncate this.

I - - if he intends to use

FfR COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUNTI

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 131

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov135 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2136

this or have the Guardian read this, I'm gonna (sic) 2 3

enter an objection without even reading it because - based on its nature.

So , it 's - - it looks to be

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

4 5 6 7

JUDGE JAMISON : preemtively object.

Well, you cannot

I mean, h e can try to lay a

foundation a nd then you can lodge your objec tion .

ARISTIDES JURADO:

I have another copy.

9 10

(

Do you mind reading that, I mean is that?

WITNESS:

ARISTIDES JURADO:

What is tha t ? It 's a transcript.

That's your -

WITNESS:

But where is thi s from?

ARISTIDES JURADO :

(inaudible) .

JUDGE JAMISON:

I cannot speculate as to

what the document is, counsel. 18

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

19 20

minutes . ARISTIDES JURADO:

21 22 23 24

I may need a few

have another copy here.

July 8 t h, transcript .

What page is that, Ms.

Bethel? WITNESS:

We l l, this doesn't have any page

FTR COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUNTY

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 132

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov136 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2137

( ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

2 3

sorry .

reviewing this?

Is he questioning the witness while I'm

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

5 6

Your Honor, I'm

WITNESS:

No, no; he was just asking me

what page.

JUDGE JAMISON:

He can, counsel continue

with his questioning. 9

ARISTIDES JURADO:

10 11

(

WITNESS:

JUDGE JAMISON:

You see

what this is saying?

Thank you.

No , that's Leann talking. Okay, just a second.

are not gonna (sic) have you confer with the witness before she testifies .

ARISTIDES JURADO:

I was just pointing to

17 18

JUDGE JAMISON:

You can allow her to

review the document; then you can ask questions

about it .

witness.

23 24

But there will be no conference with the

ARISTIDES JURADO:

Okay.

Let's point to

the other page.

( FTR COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUNTY

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 133

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov137 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2138

( ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN: 2

one. ARISTIDES JURADO:

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

I'm done with that

Okay.

Continue As if on Cross Examination by Aristides

Jurado:

This is a transcript of Amy Laclair, who

you were referring to, Exhibit "Du.

And would you

like to read the (inaudible)? 9

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

10 11

(

Honor.

Objection, Your

Now that he is trying to use this.

This is

a recording between himself and Amy Laclair.

you'd like to have Amy Laclair here to testify as to

what she said to him in this recorded conversation,

he's welcome to do so.

JUDGE JAMISON:

Okay, Mr. Jurado, this is

not something that Ms. Bethel either drafted or 18

wrote or was involved in .

ARISTIDES JURADO:

JUDGE JAMISON:

22 23 24

It's a transcript.

Is it part o f the Court

transcript? ARISTIDES JURADO: JUDGE JAMISON:

No, it's a transcript.

No, you can't do that.

FTR COURT OF DOMESTIC REIATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUNTY

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 134

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov138 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2139 82

( \

1 2

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

has to be part of the Court's transcript or the witness that was involved in the testimony has to be here to testify.

ARISTIDES JURADO:

JUDGE JAMI SON:

6 7

Okay .

That's not a recording of

Ms. Bethel, you can take that back. ARISTIDES JURADO:

Okay.

Can you go ahead

and read - - the other one, please? 9 10

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Your Honor, now I

don't know what exhibit he is asking.

ARISTIDES JURADO:

13 14 15

transcript of July

g th

Sorry, that is the

July

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

8 th

hearing, 2013.

I'm gonna (s ic )

object to that because that does not look like an

official transcript, as there is typing out of where 17 18 19 20

it should be . JUDGE JAMISON:

Have you looked at it?

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Yes, I have and it

does not appear to be an official transcript or one

that would be prepared by this Court.

23 24

ARISTIDES JURADO :

It is.

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Not the way it's

FTR

COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUN1Y

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 135

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov139 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2140

( typed. WITNESS:

JUDGE JAMISON:

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

This is not Can I see it, please?

The

Court will determine whether or not it's a certified

transcript.

6 7

ARISTIDES JURADO:

It 's a transcript of

this - - what is highlighted.

It's just printed

wrong, so I'm asking her to read from here what is 9

highlighted there. JUDGE JAMISON:

No, you asked her to read

from the official transcript.

read from documents you prepared.

14 15

ARISTIDES JURADO:

You don't ask her to

No, I didn't prepare.

It's just a printing was -

JUDGE JAMISON:

Like I said, you prepared

the printing. 18

ARISTIDES JURADO:

JUDGE JAMISON:

You have her read from the

document that is filed with the Court.

Okay.

ARISTIDES JURADO:

Okay.

Can I see

something? UNIDENTIFIED PERSON:

Uh-huh (affirmative

( FTR

COURTComplaint OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS JURADO v. STONE, First Amended 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUN1Y

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 136

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov140 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2141

(

response) . ARISTIDES JURADO:

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

Okay, here are the Objection, I need to

see the document that h e is now showing to the

witness.

ARISTIDES JURADO:

It is - - it is the

hearing that she needs to - - that's already in the

record, the transcript. 9

JUDGE JAMISON:

If it's a transcript she

can ask questions.

You asked me to take judicial

notice of the file.

These transcripts are in the

file.

14 15

ARISTIDES JURADO: A.

Thank you.

This appears to be on page

I'm sorry .

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

No, my fault.

Thirteen of the transcript from the

18 19

proceedings before Honorabl e Magistrate Jill

Matthews that was held on July gth, 2013.

has asked that I read from page 13, line 5.

highlighted the following language and this is me

23 24

Mr. Jurado He 's

speaking to Magistrate Matthews at that hearing; "I do have a problem when we have a parent that is, I'm

FTR COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint FRANKLIN COUNTY

2:15-cv-0074

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 137

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov141 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2142

( being told, coming twice a day, five days a we e k.

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

(

It's disruptive to the daycare."

Magistrate

Matthews then says: "This is dad?"

"Yes."

5 6 7

I respond:

Would you sustain today that you were not

misleading the Court with these statements?

I'm sorry, I didn't -

JUDGE JAMISON:

What was your que stion?

9 10

Would you confirm today that you were not

misleading - - were you or not misleading the Court

with this state - - these statements?

13 14 15

I stated what I felt by those words that I

just read to the Court. Q.

I didn't say, "What you felt".

I said ,

"Were you misleading or not?"

It's a yes or no

question. 18 19 20

I was not misleading, no.

Okay.

So, you were not misleading even

though you knew that I'm in Chicago three to four

days a week every week .

23 24

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Objection , the re's

been no testimony on that.

FfR

COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUNfY

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 138

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov142 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2143

JUDGE JAMISON: 2

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

(

Not at that

particular time.

5 6

She already

testified -

Yes , it is.

JUDGE JAMISON: - okay. Q.

You gotta (sic) know the -

You have to put a time. Okay.

This is July

8th.

Were they

referring to one week, or what - - what was the 9

10 11 12

context of this answer?

Based on a week?

What was

the context - - in one week? A.

When you are in Columbus, you are going to

the daycare, I was being told, up to twice a day,

five days a week.

In one week or the previous month or it

doesn't matter, right?

Previous l y, is that true?

When the chi ld was in daycare , Ari.

When

18 19

20 21

22 23 24

you were in Columbus you were going to the daycare up t o twi ce a day. Q.

So, okay.

And this i s July

so she's

8th,

referring to the prior period and she already t estified that she knew I was in Chicago. JUDGE JAMISON:

No, no, no, no.

You're

FfR COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint COUNTI FRANKLIN

2:15-cv-0074

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 139

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov143 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2144

not testifying at this point, Sir .

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

questioning.

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

ARISTIDES JURADO:

5 6 7

You are

Objection.

I 'm sorry .

Again,

sorry. Q.

So, you knew I was in Chicago every week

and you saw the flight schedule.

You said earlier

today that we talked many times, that every week I'm 9 10 11

in Chicago three t o four days a week .

I said from the document that you

handed me with your Chicago mil es you look like you

travel a lot.

And you said that i f it - - when with your

knowledge of my - - my situation (inaudible).

That you traveled a l ot .

Okay.

And but you still say that

18 19

21 22 23 24

( inaudible ) that statement that I trav el - - that

go to the dayc are five days a week, twice a day. A.

You ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

understand the quest i oning.

Objection.

I don't

I think a lot of what

he's asking h as b een already answered and I'm not -

FTR

COURTComplaint OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS JURADO v. STONE, First Amended 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUNTI

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 140

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov144 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2145

( - I'm unclear as to how this is relevant to the 2

pending motion. ARISTIDES JURADO:

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

(

correlation, Your Honor.

JUDGE JAMISON:

6 7

question.

Well, that's the

I do understand the

I don't think he's allowed the witness to

answer it.

But I do understand it.

Would you

rephrase it in a way that everyone else understands 9

the question? Q.

Why did you not share with the Court that

you knew that whoever told you that I'm going to

daycare twice a day, five days a week might not be

completely truthful because you knew I spend a lot

of time in Chicago?

Is there a reason why you

didn't share that with the Court? 17

I knew that you were also spending a lot of

18 19

time going to the daycare and an unusually - - a lot amount of time, Ari. Q.

no.

You knew or you heard?

Question - - yes or

Did you know or did you hear? A.

I believe what the daycare director told

me. 25

FfR

COURTComplaint OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS JURADO v. STONE, First Amended 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUNTY

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 141

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov145 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2146

(

JUDGE JAMISON:

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

question is you heard.

Yes.

Okay, you heard.

5 6 7

So, the answer to the

Thank you, very much.

All right.

Thank you .

Okay, regarding the email - -

your email that you read from before A.

I'm not sure which one you're referring to.

The email from where you were describing

9 10

from Amy Laclair .

Okay.

Are you saying that - - are you saying here

today that that's accept those things - - she told

you those things, that parents are complaining and -

I am absolutely confident that that is what

she said to me because I take n otes whenever I speak 17

to anybody on the phone. 18 19

Okay.

All right.

Sorry, one mor e time.

Would you say you always try to be - - you always

are honest with the Court, correct?

23 24

I do my very best to be honest with this

Court. Q.

Okay.

Could you tell the Court if you and

FfR COURTComplaint OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS JURADO v. STONE, First Amended 2:15-cv-0074 FRANKLIN COUNTY

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 142

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov146 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2147

112

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN: JUDGE JAMISON:

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

So, that's what we'll be

doing. ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Okay.

Thank you for the

clarification.

ATTORNEY BETHEL:

Do we need to sign a

continuance? 8

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

I haven't signed

9 10

anything.

ATTORNEY BETHEL :

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

STENOGRAPHER:

Okay. But we will.

I wanna (sic) make sure

it's all covered for the docket.

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Absolutely.

This

one is continuing today. 17

JUDGE JAMISON :

Oh, and I have a

continuance here for the - - for the - - wait a

minute.

the one - - if that one's - - this is the one for

I think I gave you the wrong one.

That's

23 24 25

FTR

COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS FRANKLIN COUNTY JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215 Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 143

County Ohio Clerk of Doc Courts the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov147 18 11:05 AM-12JU014479 Case:Franklin 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK #: of 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: of 211 PAGEID #: 2148

113 CERTIFICATE

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

(

I DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE AND

ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS

MATTER ON AUGUST 1, 2014, EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN

6 7

INAUDIBLE PORTIONS, WHICH I TRANSCRIBED FROM THE OFFICIAL COURT RECORDING SYSTEM; AND, SAID

TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN DULY COMPARED WITH THE OFFICIAL 9 10

COURT RECORDING SYSTEM.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

SARAH M. GIBSON (GIBS) OFFICIAL COURT STENOGRAPHER/TRANSCRIPTIONIST

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

(

'路 FfR

COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint FRANKLIN COUNTY

2:15-cv-0074

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215 Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 144

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 148 of 211 PAGEID #: 2149

EXHIBIT AC1–F1

Examples of e-mails sent between May 2013 and February 2014 By defendant Bethel to Jurado and his Counsel purported to be close communications, but secretly and unethically “Blind-Copied” to coconspirators Lambert, Smitherman and Dr. Smalldon

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 145

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 149 of 211 PAGEID #: 2150

Page 1of1

Subject:

Trip to ER

From:

Blythe Bethel (blythebethel@yahoo.com)

To:

arljurado@qualineconsulting.com;

Bee:

ems@petrofflawoffices.com; KHernandez@express.com;

Date:

Thursday, August 1, 2013 3:58 PM

Ari: I received an email from Kathy advising that you took [ N. G. ] to the Er for an alleged burn mark on him That you did not notify Kathy until well aft er you had arrived, and that you gave them the name of the wrong dco tor. I d o not believe that there is any Order on stating that we have two doctors for [ N. G. ] right now. I would like a comple te explanation from you regarding this entire event. Blythe .

http://us路mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch? .rand=fdmc0ivsi5g2o

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Thursday, August 01, 2013

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 146

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 150 of 211 PAGEID #: 2151 ?rint

Page 1of2

Subject:

Re: Trip to ER

From:

Blythe Bethel (blythebethel@yahoo.com)

To:

arijurado@qualineconsulting.com;

Bee:

ems@petrofflawoffices.com;

Date:

Friday, August 2, 2013 11 :35 AM

Ari, t hat is fine. but it causes me some wonder as to why you feel you cannot answer my question. l will await Mr. Golden's reply. Blythe Sent from my iPad

jurado(ci>qualineconsulting.com

On Aug 2, 2013, at 8:13 AM, ari

wrote:

Hi Blythe,

First, I hope you had a restful time during your vacation. Regarding the event from last Friday in which [ N. G. ] was taken to Nationwide Children's and your request for a complete explanation, you will certainly get such explanation.

But if you don't mind, I would like Mr. Golden to handle this request next Monday when he is back from vacation (one business day away). As you know, I have always been eager to communicate and cooperate with you. But given the last experience two weeks ago with the exchange of emails between us during my week vacation with [ N. G. ] I would prefer if my attorney gets involved this time. Respectfully,

Ari Ari Jurado Principal HCM Consultant, Qualine Consulting (305) 799-2212

http://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch? .rand=a5m5hlqs1 ib49 ari jurado@qualineconsultino.com

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Tuesday, August 06, 2013

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 147

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 151 of 211 PAGEID #: 2152

Prin t

Page 1 of l

Subject: Jurado/Hernandez

From:

Blythe Bethel (blythebethel@yahoo.com)

To:

rrp@petrofflawoffices.com: ems@petrofflawoffices.com; keg@golmeiz.com;

Cc:

KHernandez@express.com; arijurado@qualineconsulting.com;

Bee:

jlsmalldon@sbcglobal.net;

Date:

Tuesday, October 8, 2013 3:09 PM

All: I have been advised that today (this is the second time time now) that Ari has taken [ N. G. ] to Children's Hospital ER for treatment without contacting kathy until he was there and had already been talking with hospital personnel about the child. It is also my understanding that Ari is concerned that [ N. G. ] was physically abused at the daycare center. In addition, I am told that Ari presented a picture to the hospital personnel of [ N. G. ] at 1 O months old (the child is now 15 months old), which shows the child with a black eye. Not sure what a dated picture has to do with any allegations of abuse within the last day or two. Keith, I want a full and complete written explanation from Ari as to why he did not call Kathy on his way to Children's. If he truly believes that [ N. G. ] was abused at day care, why did he not call Kathy and advise her of same, and tell her to meet him at the hospital

I have to tell everyone that I am getting very concerned about where this case is headed. Blythe

http://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch? .rand=ab8pflarn02d49

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Tuesday, October 08, 2013

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 148

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 152 of 211 PAGEID #: 2153

EXHIBIT AC1-F2 Media coverage of the murder trial of Juanita Johnson-Millender, who let her 17-month-old infant son starve to death, and Dr. Smalldon's performance as her expert witness Ed Meyer of the Akron Beacon Journal described Dr. Smalldon’s performance as expert witness for the defense: Dr. Smalldon was interrupted mid-sentence during his testimony by a three-judge panel, who ultimately ruled to exclude Dr. Smalldon’s expert witness testimony for lack of value. The two forensic experts engaged by Jurado reached the same conclusion as the three common pleas court judges conducting the Johnson-Millender trial, and also observed numerous elements of bias and other irregularities in Dr. Smalldon’s report. During the first part of the custody trial in January 2015, Dr. Smalldon denied ever having such occurrence. Dr. Smalldon made the intentional misrepresentation among several other ones with confidence and expecting impunity, given Defendant Judge Jamison’s decision to preclude Jurado from presenting any evidence as part of Defendants’ concerted actions to protect each other and conceal their unlawful conduct and acts. Other elements of parallelism between the two cases are indication of Dr. Smalldon's active participation in the conspiracy.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 149

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 153 of 211 PAGEID #: 2154 Ohio.com

JUDGES HALT DEPICTION OF MOTHER Ed Meyer, Beacon Journal staff writer PUBLICATION: Akron Beacon Journal (OH) SECTION: METRO

DATE: August 25, 2004 EDITION: 1 STAR Page: B1

Juanita Johnson-Millender, accused of starving to death her 17-month-old son, was described in court Tuesday as a young woman who does not know from which direction the sun rises. Columbus psychologist Jeffrey L. Smalldon made that observation on the final day of testimony in Johnson-Millender's aggravated-murder trial before a panel of three Stark County Common Pleas judges. Testifying for the defense as an expert witness, Smalldon said he interviewed Johnson-Millender in the county jail four times between May and July and asked her a series of questions to determine her level of comprehension. "She answered seven when I asked her how many weeks are in the year. She didn't know in which direction the sun rises," Smalldon testified. He also said the 19year-old woman's school records -- showing she progressed only to the ninth grade -- repeatedly referred to her social and emotional immaturity and her difficulty relating to events from her past. Judge halts testimony But in a stunning blow to her lawyer, presiding Judge John G. Haas stopped the questioning of Smalldon in midsentence, called a sidebar conference of the lawyers and then disallowed the psychologist's testimony as evidence. Explaining the decision in open court, after he had conferred with the other judges, Haas cited a rule of evidence that expert testimony should be allowed only when it rises above the level of knowledge of the trial panel and helps that panel reach a decision on a verdict. "The testimony, while we recognize the expertise of the doctor who testified . . . was not that type of knowledge that would assist this court in reaching a decision that we have to make in this case," Haas said. If the three-judge panel unanimously finds JohnsonMillender guilty of aggravated murder, she could face the death penalty. Closing arguments are scheduled to begin at 10:30 this morning. Johnson-Millender waived her right to a jury trial last week. The defense rested after Smalldon's testimony was tossed out -- having called only one other witness, who testified about the defendant's chaotic past. Citing a gag order imposed by Haas, defense lawyer Wayne E. Graham Jr. and Assistant Stark County Prosecutor Dennis Barr declined to comment on the court's decision. Judges Lee Sinclair and Charles Brown, the other members of the panel, did not comment from the bench. Events in January The prosecution, in its opening statement by Barr on Monday, said Johnson-Millender purposely caused the death of her youngest son, Joshua Rumph, when she stopped feeding him solid food from New Year's Eve until his death on Jan. 27. It was on that night, witnesses said, that JohnsonMillender took a late bath, went to Joshua's room and found him dead in his urine-soaked crib in her apartment on Alan Page Drive. However, police were not called until late in the afternoon of Jan. 28. According to two tape-recorded interviews of Johnson-Millender by Canton police, she said she was scared and didn't know what to do. Police were finally notified by the grandmother of one of Johnson-Millender's friends, http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=104B6C654F7C53D2&p_docnum=4&s_accountid=AC0115012421194506374&s_orderid=â&#x20AC;Ś

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 150

1/2

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 154 of 211 PAGEID #: 2155 Ohio.com

19-year-old Rachel Everett, when Everett called her grandmother and asked her to come to the apartment. Everett, who said she lived near Johnson-Millender in the same apartment complex, testified Monday that Johnson-Millender appeared to be "staring out into space" when she came knocking on Everett's door asking for help the day after Joshua had died. Everett and several of her friends attended most of the two days of testimony. Asked outside of court whether she agreed with the psychologist's observations about the defendant's ability to comprehend simple questions, Everett replied: "She's slow." Everett said that documents from other psychological evaluations of the woman show that. Mother won't testify Johnson-Millender's lawyers informed the judges that she would not testify, and she told Haas she was in agreement with that decision when the judge asked her if she understood she was giving up that right. Without her testimony and that of the psychologist, the defense was left with 17-year-old Jessica R. Rumph as its only witness. She testified that she is the daughter of Madeline Rumph, who once had legal custody of Johnson-Millender's surviving son, 3-year-old Jeremiah Rumph. Jeremiah is now in temporary custody of the Stark County Department of Job and Family Services and is being cared for by his paternal grandparents in Akron. In her brief testimony, Jessica Rumph said she and Johnson-Millender lived in Madeline Rumph's residence early last year and that she came to know the defendant as very caring and attentive toward Joshua. "Yes, she loved him," Jessica Rumph said. "That was her baby. She always took care of him." But the prosecution produced two of Joshua's pediatricians as witnesses to document his severe decline in weight. Testimony about weight On Oct. 23 -- Joshua's last visit to a doctor, according to testimony -- pediatric specialist Asif Younus of Stark Pediatrics said the child weighed 17 pounds, 8 ounces, and that he had treated him for a cough and wheezing. Chief Deputy Coroner P.S. Murthy, the pathologist who performed the autopsy, testified the child weighed 10 pounds, 4 ounces when he died. Murthy said in court Tuesday that the child's body was so severely emaciated that his right forearm measured only 3 inches in diameter. The cause of death, Murthy said, was "extremely severe malnutrition." In both Barr's opening statement and testimony by a Job and Family Services investigative caseworker, Johnson-Millender was said to have stopped feeding Joshua solid food because she was tired of "cleaning up his puke." Johnson-Millender, according to testimony, told police that Joshua was sickly for much of his short life and could not hold down solid food in his final weeks.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=104B6C654F7C53D2&p_docnum=4&s_accountid=AC0115012421194506374&s_orderid=â&#x20AC;Ś

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 151

2/2

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 155 of 211 PAGEID #: 2156

EXHIBIT AC1-G3 E-mails exchanged between Jurado and McCash in December 2014 showing the collusion and agreement of McCash with Wilson to engage in unlawful conduct and to provide false information for the GAL report 1. Email from Dec. 1, 2014 from Jurado to McCash. Right after McCash caused the involuntary disenrollment of minor N.G. from the Westerville daycare facility, and enforced subpoenas for the Director and teachers, Jurado sent the first email to McCash inquiring if he was allowed to attend the deposition and also inquire about his attendance during any type of interviews or contact with the child’s caretakers at the Goddard School-Hilliard II. 2. On his response by e-mail dated Dec. 1, 2014, it shows McCash letting Jurado think he could attend both and misled him into thinking he was going to have the opportunity to be present during his interview with anyone from Goddard School of Hilliard, whether it was with the Director Wilson or any of the caretakers. 3. On his last email shown for Dec. 1, 2014, Jurado requested the disclosure of the date and time of McCash interviews with the Goddard School Hilliard employees/director, but McCash never answered. 4. During the Dec. 18, 2014 court proceeding, McCash made mention that he had already contacted and obtained information from Goddard School Hilliard. 5. E-mail dated Dec. 18, 2014 from Jurado to McCash shows how Jurado politely requested a copy of his notes from the interview or any information pertaining McCash’s contact with Goddard School Hilliard for the purpose of including or considering the information for his GAL report that was soon to be issued. McCash did not answer his questions that same day or for almost another week. 6. On the same e-mail dated Dec. 18, 2015, Jurado also asked McCash to confirm if the two magazines McCash was referring to while censuring Jurado in open court were the same one’s that Jurado had attached to the 12/18/2015 email. 7. On his e-mail from December 22, 2014, Jurado asked McCash for his response to Jurado’s request for the information from the Goddard School-Hilliard. The e-mail from McCash dated Dec. 22, 2014 included in this set shows how he sarcastically referred to Jurado’s inquiries, and refused to provide any information on grounds that his order of appointment as GAL says to keep information confidential.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 152

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 156 of 211 PAGEID #: 2157

Ari Jurado

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Ari Jurado Monday, December 1, 2014 4:51 PM 'Thomas McCash' [ N. G. ] RE: Jurado

Of course. I already have the info for Westerville. Can you send me date and time for Hilliard? Thanks, Ari From: Thomas McCash [mailto:tmccash@columbus.rr.com] Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 4:49 PM To: 'Ari Jurado' Subject: RE: [ N. G. ] Jurado

That’s up to you. I’m simply going to ask about [ N. G. ] Thomas M. McCash Thomas M. McCash, Attorney at Law 55 S. High St., Ste 210 Dublin, Ohio 43017 (614)408-8367 Fax (614) 408-8282 Direct (614)348-9883 tmccash@columbus.rr.com

From: Ari Jurado [mailto:ari_jurado@qualineconsulting.com] Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 4:47 PM To: Thomas McCash Subject: RE: [ N. G. ] Jurado

Do I have the option to be present for both?

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 153

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 157 of 211 PAGEID #: 2158

From: Thomas McCash [mailto:tmccash@columbus.rr.com] Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 4:45 PM To: 'Ari Jurado' Subject: RE: [ N. G. ] Jurado Yes, it’s a formal deposition. And yes, I have made arrangements for his teachers in Hilliard. Thomas M. McCash Thomas M. McCash, Attorney at Law 55 S. High St., Ste 210 Dublin, Ohio 43017 (614)408-8367 Fax (614) 408-8282 Direct (614)348-9883 tmccash@columbus.rr.com

From: Ari Jurado [mailto:ari_jurado@qualineconsulting.com] Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 4:40 PM To: Thomas McCash Subject: RE: [ N. G. ] Jurado Mr. McCash, Is this a formal deposition? I am not sure how it works when doing it at their premises… Also, have you been able to interview [ N. G. ] teachers at the other daycare location? Ari

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 154

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 158 of 211 PAGEID #: 2159

Ari Jurado

From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Ari Jurado Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:09 PM 'Thomas McCash' Miscellaneous items from today's Hearing 2014-12-18 GAL Criticized two Magz in Dad's coffee table.pdf

Mr. McCash, Regarding the questions/information you obtained from the Goddard at Hilliard when you talked to [ N. G. ] teachers, could you please provide me with a copy of your notes?

In addition, I have attached a PDF containing the cover of the two magazines you mentioned during today’s hearing that you observed at my coffee table—or better yet that you censored within the context of parenting. Because I believe it is important to memorialize these facts, please confirm that the “health” magazine that you referred to is the one in the PDF. As for the “civil rights magazine”, there is no question that it is the one included in the attachment, which is a TIME magazine with Dr. King (MLK) on the cover. Also, please be aware that my parents and I reviewed the audio and video from the day you were here doing the home visit. And strangely enough, [ N. G. ] did not seem to be using his pacifier hardly at all. In any case, I will play for the court next time we are back. That way, you can clarify to the court what it is that think you saw. (and yes, everyone in this case knows that it is a habit of mine to “document” my experiences or conversations by recording audio, video or both… the only exception is in the courtroom.) And one last request on behalf of [ N. G. ] Since you brought up his “routine” several times, please be considerate next time you are planning to stop by the house. In the first planned home visit, you arrived very late which overlapped with [ N. G. ] nap time, and as already discussed, you also stopped by during [ N. G. ] nap time when you came here unannounced. [ N. G. ] nap time and my family’s rosary times are the only activities that I don’t make exceptions for. Regards, Ari Jurado

1 JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 155

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 159 of 211 PAGEID #: 2160

2 JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 156

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 160 of 211 PAGEID #: 2161

3 JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 157

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 161 of 211 PAGEID #: 2162

Ari Jurado

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Tom McCash Monday, December 22, 2014 10:42 PM Ari Jurado Re: FaceTime/Skype

Ari, I believe the judge made it clear that you were to allow FaceTime or Skype between Kathy and [ N. G. ] You wanted to try to change around the parenting time, which was a contention issue that I said to simply keep with local rule 22/27 since that was already in place. Your Item 3 makes no sense. I'm not yours or Kathys attorney so I dont know what you are trying to say. Relative to your last email, what was that? You request for my notes from Hilliard? My order says to keep information confidential. Sent from my iPhone

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 158

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 162 of 211 PAGEID #: 2163

EXHIBIT AC1-G4 Notarized Affidavit of Milka Licona, Grandmother of minor N.G., regarding the Dec. 5, 2014 events that took place at the residence of Plaintiffs.

Milka Jurado, the child's paternal grandmother, witnessed and was victimized by the unlawful acts of McCash, Judge Jamison in coordination with other defendants, when McCash made hostile unnanounced visits to the home in order to intimidate the family, and the child's grandparents, who were expected by Defendants to be witnesses testifying in this civil rights action. The affidavit contains her account of what transpired on that day when both grandparents were having a peaceful and private family day with Plaintiff Jurado and their grandson, minor N.G.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 159

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 163 of 211 PAGEID #: 2164 Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 1-2 Filed: 01/09/15 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 86

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 160

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 164 of 211 PAGEID #: 2165 Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 1-2 Filed: 01/09/15 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 87

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 161

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 165 of 211 PAGEID #: 2166 Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 1-2 Filed: 01/09/15 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 88

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 162

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 166 of 211 PAGEID #: 2167 Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 1-2 Filed: 01/09/15 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 89

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 163

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 167 of 211 PAGEID #: 2168

EXHIBIT AC1-G5 Itemized statement from defendant GAL McCash showing extensive and unlawful ex-parte communications with Judge Jamison on December 5, 2014 The information in the line item for December 5, 2014, along with other evidence, such as their conduct during the Dec. 18, 2014 proceeding and Judge Jamison's response to Jurado's Affivadit of Disqualification, collectively show the participation of Judge Jamison in the agreement to harass Jurado and his family at their home, and her real-time partaking as the plan was carried out by McCash.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 164

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 168 of 211 PAGEID #: 2169 · 

Thomas M. McCash Attorney at Law 55 S. High St., Ste 210 Dublin, Ohio 43017 (614) 408-8367

Aristides Jurado 3963 Easton Way Columbus, OH 43219

December 31, 2014

Page 1 of 1 Date

Description Credit Balance Forward

Credit 0.00

Charge

Payments/Credits: 10/24/2014

Jurado, Aristides

200.00

Charges/Debits: 12/26/2014

Armstrong & Okey

82.50

Other Items:

See attached itemized statement

3,384.00

Balance Due

3,266.50

Notes:

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 165

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 169 of 211 PAGEID #: 2170 ď&#x20AC;

Itemized Statement of Services Rendered Jurado, Aristides Date 9/26/2014 9/28/2014 9/29/2014 9/29/2014 9/30/2014 9/30/2014 9/30/2014 10/7/2014 10/10/2014 10/14/2014 10/19/2014 10/23/2014 10/24/2014 11/16/2014 11/20/2014 11/21/2014 11/24/2014 11/25/2014 11/25/2014 11/26/2014 12/1/2014 12/1/2014 12/3/2014 12/4/2014 12/5/2014

12/12/2014 12/12/2014 12/12/2014 12/15/2014 12/18/2014 12/18/2014 12/24/2014 12/26/2014

Page 1 of 1 Description Review of GAL Appointment Order Email to Plaintiff's Counsel: Re: parties address and relevant documents due to not having access to e-file system for case. TC from Plaintiff's Counsel: Re: Court documents and addresses general discussion on case status. Review e-file court records of case Motion to Unseal Records per Courts Entry of 9-26-14 Email to Plaintiffs counsel and Defendant and Mail: Re: Letter of Introduction, Case Information Request form Email from Plaintiff: Re: Scheduling of Home visit with Plaintiff Email with Plaintiffs Counsel Re: Scheduling initial interview with Plaintiff Review Psychological Evaluation Review Supreme Court Filings of Defendant and Exhibits; Review of Franklin County Common Pleas case re: Brooksedge Daycare v Jurado Interview with Plaintiff. Review of case status with Plaintiff's Counsel Home visit Plaintiff & Child 1.25 visit, .25 travel time Review Defendants Case Information request form Interview with Defendant Home visit Defendant & Child 1.75 visit, .5 travel Hearing-Contempt Purge and Defendant Motions Review of Defendants Motions filed 11-20-14 TC-Father RE Exparte Motion regarding Child Support termination Review Defendants Motion to Strike his Motion for Stay Pending Appeal Email to Plaintiff RE: Holiday Time-daycare drop off [redacted] Review Email from PLaintiff RE: Ari picking up prior to 4:00PM from daycare [redacted] teachers. Email to Westerville Goddard School requesting to set up time to talk to Various emails to Goddard Schools Westerville Director regarding refusal to allow communication with teachers. Issuance of subpoenas to secure teachers names and data. Review emails re day care situation Review of emails and communications from Plaintiff and Defendant regarding Day Care situation. TC with Plaintiffs Counsel re day Care Unannounced home visit to Defendant. TC with Defendant. TC with Plaintiffs counsel re Defendants work phone. Second unannunced home visit to Defendant. Review with Judge re Defendants refusal for home visit TC Hilliard Goddard Schools Teachers Memorandum Contra to Defendants Motion to Quash Subpoenas to Westerville Goddard School Various emails from Defendant re: Memorandum Contra and depositions for 12-15-14 Reschedule of Depositions to 12-18-14 Hearing: Motion for Calrification Deposition: Jennifer Palmer Proposed Entry of Dec 18, 2014 hearing re: Skype-FaceTime and courts clarifications GAL Report - Initial summary of Work-Data to date. Total Hours

Time Spent 0.25 0.10 0.25 1.50 0.50 0.75 0.25 0.75 2.50 3.00 1.50 0.50 3.25 2.25 1.25 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.25 1.50 0.50 0.75 5.00

1.50 1.25 0.50 0.50 1.50 0.75 1.00 2.25 37.85

File Name: Jurado.IS5 JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 166

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 170 of 211 PAGEID #: 2171

EXHIBIT AC1-G6 Final Report of Guardian Ad Litem issued by McCash on January 7, 2015 (partial reproduction)

Among the many irregularities, false and misleading statements in the GAL report issued by Defendant McCash, page 8 of his report includes the most notable item involving his collusion with Defendants Wilson and the Goddard School-Hilliard II in respect to a falsified report with fabricated injuries to the child written by the conspirators and uncovered by Plaintiff Jurado twelve months earlier. The audio recording from December 10 and 11, 2013, captured the acknowledgement of defendants Wilson and Eagle that the injuries written in the report did not exist and made Defendant Lambert responsible for the false report. The information in the report given in December 2014 by Wilson to conceal their unlawful acts in agreement with Lambert, as well as to cause harm by fabricating damaging statements against Jurado, constitutes a statement in furtherance of the conspiracy. In connection with these incidents and the uncovering of her involvement, Wilson continue making statements in furtherance of the conspiracy during her cross-examination as a witness during trial in January 2015. JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 167

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 171 of 211 PAGEID #: 2172

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS, JUVENILE BRANCH KATHY HERNANDEZ Plaintiff-Mother,

: : : : : : :

v. ARISTIDES JUARDO Defendant-Father.

Case No. 12 JU 14479 Judge Jamison Magistrate Matthews

FINAL REPORT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM

TRIAL/HEARING DATE: January 12, 2015 DATE OF APPOINTMENT: September 25, 2014 CHILDREN INVOLVED: 1.

[ N. G. ]

G. Jurado, D.O.B 7/10/12

REVIEW OF RECORDS: I have reviewed the following documents: 1. 2. 3. 4.

All pleadings filed in this case GAL Questionnaire completed by Mother GAL Questionnaire completed by Father Psychological Evaluation report of Dr. Jeffery L. Smalldon dated December 27, 2013. 5. Pleadings filed in Franklin County Case #13-CV-011378 A S Leclair Company Inc. v. Aristides Jurado available online through the Franklin County Clerk of Courts website. 6. Pleadings filed in Supreme Court Case # 2014-1225. State ex rel. Jurado v. Disciplinary Counsel available online through the Supreme Court website inclusive of Exhibits A-L, N, O (Exhibit M is a DVD and not available through the website). 7. Exhibit M filed in Supreme Court Case #2014-1225 played by Defendant at his first home visit on November 16, 2014. 8. Childs Medical Records from Dr. Mark Muresan’s office. 9. Childs Medical Records from Cleveland Clinic 10. Childs Medical records from Nationwide Children’s Emergency Room 11. Childs Medical Records from Columbus Speech and Hearing 12. Ohio Health Delivery Records 13. Emails and communications between the parties through Our Family Wizard and direct emails between the parties 14. Incident Records from Goddard School-Hilliard 15. Incident Reports from Goddard School-Westerville

Page 1 of 17 JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 168

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 172 of 211 PAGEID #: 2173

I contacted the Hilliard Goddard School via telephone pursuant to an arranged time to discuss [ N. G. ] with the Center Director, Owner and his teachers. Unlike the Westerville Goddard School, this location was very cordial and amenable to allowing complete access to their teachers. Gretchen Wilson (Director) and Kim Engle (Owner). (Sup. R 48(D)(13)(g) Ms. Engle and Ms. Wilson provided information regarding The Goddard School and its course of studies utilized as well as incident reports for [ N. G. ] The Goddard Schools utilize degreed teachers and follow at a minimum the Ohio Content Learning Standards published by the Ohio Department of Education (June, 2010 current edition)1. Goddard School is a franchise operation with corporate oversight regarding quality assurance reviews as well as State of Ohio reviews for compliance with Ohio Guidelines. Each classroom has a lead teacher and an assistant teacher. The lead teacher puts together lesson plans for the class to meet the state requirements and Goddard School standards. [ N. G. ]

first entered the Hilliard Goddard School on October 16, 2013 after he was removed from his prior daycare center. He was in the classroom of Maggie Murphy (Lead) and Melissa Wyatt (Asst) and remained there until October, 2014 when he moved up into the classroom of Melanie Masters (Lead) and Diane Sorg (Asst) who are his current teachers. I inquired about [ N. G. ] being injured shortly after his enrollment. Ms. Wilson acknowledged that [ N. G. ] had fallen on a climber and injured himself. She indicated that she believed this was within 1-2 months of his initial enrollment date. Ms. Wilson also discussed another incident report where there was a mark on [ N. G. ] which was apparently determined to be eczema. According to Ms. Wilson, Father was making allegations that Mother had told the center to lie about the mark with the intent to deceive or hide the real reason for the mark from Father. A review of the incident report, there is a change in the word bump to red mark and busted to chapped relative to his lip. When asked about interactions or problems with either parent during pick up or drop off, Ms. Engle noted that Father will pick up [ N. G. ] at very nearly 4:00PM on his days but drops off regularly approximately 30 minutes beyond the 9:00AM regular drop off time. She noted that there were no significant issues of concern with either parent. Ms. Engle does not know Jennifer Chambers from the Westerville Goddard School. She noted that she may have met her once at a joint marketing meeting but does not recollect any other contact with Ms. Chambers. Ms. Engle understood that Ms. Chambers recently purchased the center from the prior owner. Ms. Engle owns two Goddard School centers in Hilliard. She has owned these centers for 12 and 15 years respectively. Diane Sorg 10/14-Present (Sup. R 48(D)(13)(g) Ms. Sorg described [ N. G. ] as a great little boy who has made friends in class and has done well in his transitioning into her classroom. She notes that [ N. G. ] likes to speak and repeats words that teachers say. When discussing [ N. G. ] temperament, Ms. Sorg noted that he has had some temper tantrums which can be normal for [ N. G. ] age. She

http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Ohio-s-New-Learning-Standards/Ohios-New-Learning-Standards

Page 8 of 17 JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 169

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 173 of 211 PAGEID #: 2174

EXHIBIT AC1-H2 ODC's Determination Letter issued on March 3, 2014 regarding the grievance filed against attorney-GAL Bethel Defendants ODC and Stone dismissed Jurado's grievance on the (pretextual) basis that ODC is not authorized to investigate complaints against Guardians Ad Litem.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 170

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 174 of 211 PAGEID #: 2175

�·isciplinarv Clinunfil THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL

scon J. DREXEL

CHIEF ASSISTANT DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL

JOSEPH M. CALIGIURI

250 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 325 COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215-7411 (614) 461-0256 FAX (614) 461-7205 1-800-589-5256

ASSISTANT DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL

STACY SOLOCHEK BECKMAN MICHELLE R. BOWMAN BRUCE T. DAVIS KAREN H. OSMOND CATHERINE M. RUSSO DONALD M. SCHEETZ AMY C. STONE AUDREY E. VARWIG

March 3, 2014

PERSONAL AND CONnDENTIAL

The STATE ex rel., JURADO v. ODC, FCCPCJB

Aristides Jurado

Exhibit H2

3963 Easton Way Columbus, OH 43219 RE:

Blythe Ml�lissa Bethel, Esq. ODC File No. B4-0035

Dear Mr. Jurado: Your grievance n3garding Attorney Bethel was received in our office on January 8, 2014. Please be advised that the authority of this office is limited to investigating alleged misconduct and violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct by attorneys and judges.

Therefore,

only violations of specific rules governing the conduct of attorneys and judges can be addressed by this office. In your grievance you complain about the performance of the Guardian ad litem for your son. Guardian ad l1tems are court appointed, and because of this fact, all of their actions are subject to court re\ iew and approval.

Concerns with the wnduct of a Guardian ad litem should be raised to the cc1urt-th9tappcinted him/h":?r (s8e, Rule 48(G)(9} cf the f'iu!es of

Superintendence 1or the Courts of Ohio). The court will take whatever action it deems is appropriate, and is ,Jbligated by the Code to report any disciplinary rule violations to this office. For the aforementioned reasons, your grievance is dismissed and our file on this matter is closed. Sincerely,

Amye.st® Assistant

ACS/lkj cc:

Gr��

ciplinar

ounsel

Blythe Bethel, Esq.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 171

SUITE 325 250 CIVIC CENTER DR COLUMBUS, OH 43215-7411

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074 ::: ·:3·.2 i �it�t::t:it::t;·:3

COLUMBUS. OH 43218

3963 EASTON WAY

ARISTIDES JURADO

PERSONAL AND

04 2014

•

$ 000 480

i 1li\11nii\1.1111 iJi111i ii l'I i iii 11 i i i i1111i11, 1, i 111Jii11• iji n

ZIP 43215 02 1VV

u.s POSiAGE)) PITNEYBOWES

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 175 of 211 PAGEID #: 2176

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 172

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 176 of 211 PAGEID #: 2177

EXHIBIT AC1-H3 E-mail correspondence from the Honorable Gina Palmer, Administrative Magistrate and Legal Director of the Juvenile Court, April 2, 2014

Hon. Palmer, in answering Jurado's inquiries based on ODCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s assertions in their determintion letter, described what Jurado already knew: the local rule for the oversight of Guardians Ad Litem, including the process of accepting and reviewing comments and complaints regarding a GALâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s performance, exists for the exclusive purpose of keeping or removing a GAL from the appointment list. Understandably, Magistrate Palmer stated that she is not Disciplinary Counsel and that the scope of her duties does not permit any impact to the ongoing case, implying that her role and the scope of that process does not include dealing with misconduct allegations.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 173

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 177 of 211 PAGEID #: 2178

Ari Jurado From:

Gina_Palmer@fccourts.org

Sent:

Wednesday, April 02, 2014 1:40 PM

To:

Ari Jurado

Subject:

Re: Re. Loc. Juv.R. 4(H) - Intended Scope

The STATE ex rel., JURADO v. ODC, FCCPCJB

Exhibit H3

Attachments: JUVENILE RULE 4.pdf; Supreme Court Rule 48 GALs.pdf Mr. Jurado, I have attached Franklin County Local Rule 4 and Supreme Court Rule 48 for your purposes. I cannot give you legal advise and I have no documentation or written information that you can use to file a grievance with the Disciplinary Counsel. When a complaint is submitted I concentrate on whether or not the GAL has met their responsibilities and duties under Rule 4(D) of our Local Rule. I do not make any rulings in your case, nor am I disciplinary counsel. Thanks, Gina Palmer

Ari Jurado <ari_jurado@qualineconsulting.com> To: Gina_Palmer@fccourts.org cc Subject Re. Loc. Juv.R. 4(H) - Intended Scope 04/01/2014 12:03 PM

Dear Magistrate Palmer, As previously discussed a few weeks ago, it is obvious to me the intended scope of the Local Juvenile Rule 4(H) of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Domestic Relations Division, Juvenile Branch. Nevertheless, in reference to the impending complaint/grievance to be filed against the GAL in my custody case, I would like to request from you any documentation or written information that I can use to re‐file my grievance with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio. If none is available, is it possible that you can re‐ state what was discussed? In other words, I need supporting documentation that the language in the local rule and the complaint process is intended only to address eligibility to remain or to excluded from the Guardian Ad Litem appointment list; and it is not intended to be a disciplinary process of any kind. As important is the fact that this complaint process should not impact my case in any way. As you can imagine, I cannot simply make reference to the information you provided when I saw you, as hearsay does not carry much weight in any legal proceeding. I am looking forward to your response. Regards, Aristides (Ari) Jurado (305) 799‐2212 Ari_jurado@qualineconsulting.com

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 174

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 178 of 211 PAGEID #: 2179

EXHIBIT AC1-H4 Partial transcript of March 26, 2014 court proceeding showing ODCâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;SCO defendants complicity to conceal Bethel's unlawful conduct, to protect her and to facilitate retaliation Pages 72 and 73 of the transcript of the court proceedings from March 26, 2014, which was conducted two weeks after ODC's dismissal of Jurado's grivance against Bethel, show Defendant Bethel admitting to having received or having knowledge of all the information, exhibits and other evidence Jurado submitted to the Disciplinary Counsel in support of his grievance. The simple act of issuing the determination letter before the custody case had been finalized would evidently have an adverse effect on the grievant, and will instigate retaliation. In this case, Jurado was assured by ODC that it would not happen. They also had confirmed with Jurado that when issuing a dismissal of a grievance, they do not share all the supporing information filed in the case with respondent. Bethel's statements in open court, when she asked for the court to limit the number of pages in the affidavits that were going to be submitted, including "this court is going to be inundated with thousands and thousands of pages of stuff * * * I know what has been submitted to the [ODC] Supreme Court." While the court went into a short recess, the transcript shows Defendant Bethel talking down to Plaintiff Jurado with repugnance toward him, and harassing him with unfounded accusations of recording the proceedings, of engaging in ghostwriting, etc. If Bethel already had ethnic antipathy since her appointment as GAL for the preceding twelve months, the premeditated actions by ODC-SCO Defendants clearly intensified the hatred.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 175

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 179 of 211 PAGEID #: 2180

Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov 17 4:51 PM-12JU014479

; % ; & %; ; ; $; ; ; & %* ; ; ' $ ; ; $% ; % $; ; &' ; " ;

% *; # + ; $ ; & ; 5,369322 ;

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

& ; $ ;

$% $; & ;

0206.,69 ;

'()(1'$17 )$7+(5 V

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

(;+,%,7 6&2 O

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 176

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 180 of 211 PAGEID #: 2181

Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov 17 4:51 PM-12JU014479

In the

Supreme Court of Ohio Hernandez v Jurado,

THE STATE ex rel. ARISTIDES JURADO, et al., Relators, Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

v. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, et. al. And FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION, JUVENILE BRANCH, et. al.,

: : : : : : : : : : : : : :

CASE No 12 JU 11-14479

Exhibit SCO-O Case No. 2014-1225

ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION

Respondents.

EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXPEDITED ISSUANCE OF ALTERNATIVE WRIT And STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

EXHIBITS

VOLUME II Exhibit O % *

* * ' $ "( ! * & #* * JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 177

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 181 of 211 PAGEID #: 2182 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov 17 4:51 PM-12JU014479

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO 2

DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS

JUVENILE BRANCH

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

IN THE MATTER OF:

KATHY J. HERNANDEZ,

12JU-14479

PLAINTIFF

The STATE ex rel., JURADO v. ODC, FCCPCJB

Exhibit O

ARISTIDES JURADO,

DEFENDANT

11 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 12

BEFORE THE HONORABLE MAGISTRATE JILL MATTHEWS

HEARD ON MARCH 26, 2014

14 15

APPEARANCES BY: ERIKA SMITHERMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF, KATHY J. HERANDEZ

17 18

19 20

RONALD PETROFF, ATTORNEY AT LAW AS COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAITNIFF, KATHY J. HERNANDEZ BLYTHE BETHEL, ATTORNEY AT LAW AS GUARDIAN AD

LITEM ON BEHALF OF THE MINOR CHILD

OTHER APPEARANCES :

KATHY J . HERNANDEZ, PLAINTIFF

ARISTIDES JURADO, DEFENDANT, PRO SE

25 FTR

COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

FRANKLIN COUNTI'

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 178

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 182 of 211 PAGEID #: 2183 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov 17 4:51 PM-12JU014479

ATTORNEY BETHEL :

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

you be given special treatment over anybody else -

MR. JURADO:

ATTORNEY BETHEL:

Mr. Jurado, why should

There has to be a reason - that is a litigan t in

this Court?

MAGISTRATE MATTHEWS: If you - - - if you

want to spe nd some time negotiating things with

them, you can certainly do that but don't -

let's not do that with me in the court r oom. MR. JURADO:

All r i ght.

Thank you

thank you, Your Honor.

ATTORNEY BETHEL:

Your Hono r , I would

respectfully ask lf you're going to be issuing an

order today regarding the submission of affidavits

that you limi t the number of p ages.

going to be inundated with thousands and thousands

of pages of - - - of stuff which will only delay the

decision even more. MAGIS TRATE MATTHEWS:

19 20

This Cou r t is

Uh-huh (affirmative

response ) .

ATTORNEY BETHEL:

Because I kn o w you are a

very thorough Magistrate and you will read every

page, but I'm telling you I - - - I know what has

been submitted to the Supreme Court.

25 FTR

COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

FRANKLIN COUNTY

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 179

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 183 of 211 PAGEID #: 2184 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov 17 4:51 PM-12JU014479

MAGISTRATE MAT THEWS: MR. JURADO:

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

So that's - - - so she wants

to prevent you to read what

sent to the Supreme Court.

for that?

6 7

Okay.

- everything that I Why didn't you just ask

ATTORNEY BETHEL: You know what, Ari, please.

MR. JURADO: Okay.

MAGISTRATE MATTHEWS: What would be your

suggestion for limiting page numbers? ATTORNEY BETHEL:

I would limit it to 25

pages each. ATTORNEY PETROFF:

Well then you have - -

I mean if we're going to do that we need to ta l k

about exhibits because we all know the way around

the page numbers.

ATTORN EY BETHEL:

ATTORNEY PETROFF:

MAGISTRATE MATTHEWS:

Well, yeah You know how you Sure.

Right.

Yeah,

absolutely.

ATTORNEY PETROFF:

Yeah.

ATTORNEY BETHEL:

ATTORNEY PETROFF:

MAGISTRATE MATTHEWS: You know, I - - - I -

Right. Including exhibits.

F J'R

COURT OF DOMESTIC REL>\TIONS

COLUMBUS, 01110 4321;:;

FRANKLIN COUNTY

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 180

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 184 of 211 PAGEID #: 2185 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov 17 4:51 PM-12JU014479

ATTORNEY BETHEL:

ATTORNEY SMITHERMAN:

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

Uh-huh (affirmative

response) . ATTORNEY BETHEL:

This is ( i n audible ) .

I think that's t he wrong

thing to do.

ATTORNEY PETROFF:

ATTORNEY BETHEL:

thing to do.

proceedings?

think that's t he wrong

Mr. Jurado, are you recording t h ese

MR. JURADO:

Huh?

No, why?

asked

asked for permission from the - - - from the Honor

earlier to look at my calendar on my phone.

ATTORNEY BETHEL:

MR.

ATTORNEY BETHEL:

And s o you h ave your

phone si tting up there? MR. JURADO:

To look at my calendar o n my

phone.

16 17

JU RADO ~

To what?

Yes,

wa~

just looking al

the cale -

ATTORNEY BETH EL :

MR.

ATTORNEY BETHEL :

MR. JURADO:

ATTORNEY BETHEL:

JURADO:

Why is it beeping?

Huh? Why is i t beeping?

Maybe somebody te x t me. I hop e you ' re not

COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

FRANKLIN COUNTI'

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 181

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 185 of 211 PAGEID #: 2186

Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov 17 4:51 PM-12JU014479

recording these proceedings. 2

allowed to have your phone out during the

proceedings anyhow, none of us do. MR. JURADO:

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

You shouldn't be

And that's why I asked the

Court to allow me to -

to bring it up.

ATTORNEY BETHEL:

To bring up your

calendar and you did, do you still have to hav e it

out? MR. JURADO:

9 10

If I wanted to record I

couldn't record on my phone ATTORNEY BETHEL:

t o my office and record it.

time you were at my off ice.

MR. JURA DO:

ATTORNEY BETHEL:

MR. JURADO:

ATTORNEY BETHEL:

MR. JURADO:

ATTORNEY BETHEL:

MR. JURADO:

You did it the last

I didn't. Right here ?

Yes, I didn't. Okay.

Okay. Okay.

I 'll even show you the

camera, okay? ATTORNEY BETHEL:

You know, Ari, you come

I don't - - - I don't

agree with you.

MR. JURADO:

Okay?

All right.

I know.

FTR

COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS

COLUMBUS. OHIO 43215

FRANKLIN COUNTY

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 182

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 186 of 211 PAGEID #: 2187 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2014 Nov 17 4:51 PM-12JU014479

ATTORNEY BETHEL:

MR. JURADO:

ATTORNEY

Franklin County Ohio Court of Appeals Clerk of Courts- 2014 Nov 19 2:49 PM-14AP000872

- - - the

r~cord

- proceeding - -

MR. JURADO:

the record

Who is ghostwriting your

Wow, I'm getting credit for

something. ATTORNEY BETHEL:

No, I'm not giving you

credit for anything . MR. JURADO:

ATTORNEY BETHEL: Mr. Golden's. offic;e?

Okay. Who is ghostwriting?

It's funny,

MR. JURADO:

ATTORNEY BETHEL:

MR. JURADO:

ATTORNEY BETHEL:

16.

briefs for you?

12 13

By the way, who

ATTORNEY BETHEL:

10 11.

BETHEL~

MR. JURADO:

The record - - -

ghostwriting your briefs for you?

All right.

I mean this -

I don't agree with you.

isn't it?

Yes, it is funny. Really?

Yes. I think it's very sad

that you think something so serious is this funny.

MR. JURADO:

And I think. tha.t you have

proved yourself so that I

me of having somebody ghostwriting.

~ ~

- to actually accuse I' m not getting

FTR

COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS

COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215

FRANKLIN COUNTY

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 183

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 187 of 211 PAGEID #: 2188

EXHIBIT AC1-H5 Judge Jamison's Order for Continuance of the Aug. 27, 2014 hearing for the Motion to Remove GAL Bethel set for key date of Sep. 24, 2014, show participation and collaboration of ODC–SCO Defendants

Some of the circumstances surrounding the order issued by Judge Jamison showing participation and collaboration of ODC–SCO Defendants with her, and other co-conspirators include: - The order shows that the Court requested the continuance using an "ongoing trial" causing a conflict of schedule. When the order was signed and issued, it was around 1pm on August 27, 2014. However, no proceeding was conducted that afternoon after 1pm. - The hearing scheduled for August 27, 2014 at 1pm for the removal of Bethel was not conducted at the request/order of ODC–SCO Defendants, who provided the Juvenile Court and Judge Jamison with the key date of September 24, 2014 for setting the new date to conduct the hearing. There were the only ones that could anticipate what was to occur on that date. - Instead of the "ongoing trial", Defendants conducted a private meeting to plan the next steps for the effective concealment of Bethel's unlawful conduct, the protection of her reputation, and the acts of retaliation to be carried out against Jurado. - ODC–SCO Defendants underscored to Judge Jamison the reach of the carte blanche they had granted, authorizing her to use whatever means necessary to handle her Juvenile case and rein in Plaintiff Jurado.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 184

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 188 of 211 PAGEID #: 2189 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY, omo DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS AND JUVENILE BRANCH

Plaintiff I Petitioner Judge 1

•

Defendant I Respondent

( -I

Magistrate �----�-�----

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

--;

continuance of the he ring set for

j L{

•

� �-'

_ _

, :r -_...

--'--------- ·' -=---

requests

� for the following reason(s).

•

....

�

1 ( ) Engaged Counsel (verification attached)(H006)

3 ( ) Illness (H008) 5 ( ) To Obtain Additional Information (H012)

7( �'Other

cL \..,V ...\

;\.,

�

015)

11v<

9 ( ) To Perfect Service (HOI 1)

8 ( ) To Complete Discove1y (HO13) Date complaint/petition/motion filed

_____

Number of previous continuances

. y

__,·

____ _ _

Plaintiff/Petitioner

(HO l O)

Defendant/Respondent

A orn:e fov-Pfuntiff/Petitioner

Prosecuting Attorney/CSEA

Sup. Ct. No.

Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

Sup. Ct. No.

Guardian Ad Litem

Sup.Ct. No.

Sup. Ct. No.

ENTRY I MAfilSTR-ATE'S ORDER. ( ) Decision Prior to Hearing

( ) Decision at Time of Hearing

It is therefore ORDERED: The Comt, being fully advised in the premises, and for good cause shown hereby continues the within including the order(s) to appear and show cause, if any, to a date and time certain,

',--

' ' \I)

399 South Front Street, in Courtroom

\� ,1

�

1.. �/

1)ti\..M., 373 South High Street I

, Columbus, Ohio.

( ) The motion for continuance is overruled. (1224)

JUDGE/�

INS1J.�UCTIONS TO ASSIGNMENT

_0chedule hearing within

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

J-220 (Rev. 7-2010)

days.

Schedule hearing on next available date.

_#earing Type Code

2:15-cv-0074

ll· 1t1

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 185

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 189 of 211 PAGEID #: 2190

EXHIBIT AC1-I15 E-mail from defendant Bethel showing her complicity with Judge Jamison, their collaboration and act in furtherance of the conspiracy by allowing Bethel to return as a paid expert witness for Lambert after being recently-removed as GAL This e-mail sent by Defendant Bethel to Jurado, Smitherman and Lambert shows evidence that Judge Jamison and SCO Defendants together devised the exact approach to take for conducting the September 24, 2014, which included taking Jurado, and her co-conspirators to a back conference room that did not have a method for recording the proceeding, as the courtroom does. This email supports Jurado's allegations that the September 24, 2014 proceeding conducted in Chambers had as its sole purpose for Judge Jamison to be able to abuse her authority, engage in misconduct and commit transgressions without restrain. One of the many transgressions and abuses committed included her decision to have Bethel continue participating in the custody proceedings as a paid expert witness for Lambert, just after removing her as GAL. What's more, Judge Jamison has made misleading statements multiple times regarding her handling of the controversies with defendant Bethel. For example, in her response filing to Jurado’s Affidavit of Disqualification to the Chief Justice for removing Judge Jamison from the case, she asserted that “The Court, however, felt to avoid any appearance of bias or impropriety that a new Guardian ad Litem should be appointed over strong objection of [Lambert] got a new guardian ad Litem”. That assertion is misleading and fraudulent as Judge Jamison intentionally left out the part in which she allowed Defendant Blythe Bethel, after her removal as GAL, to return to the case as paid expert witness for Lambert. JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 186

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 190 of 211 PAGEID #: 2191

Ari Jurado

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Blythe Bethel Thursday, September 25, 2014 11:58 AM Ari Jurado ems@petrofflawoffices.com; KHernandez@express.com Re: Access to GAL File (as witness)

Ari: I believe that since I have been removed from the case, and according to what the Judge stated yesterday at Court, that I am now in the role of an expert witness. I believe that the proper way to review an expert witness's file is to schedule a deposition of me and subpoena what records from my file you wish to see and inquire about. I would bill my time at $285 per hour and charge you for any copies you request at the normal rate I charge all clients. If you, or Erika (who is copied on this email as well as Kathy) believe that my position is contrary to what the Judge stated yesterday please let me know. I am more than happy to informally approach the Judge with you and Erika to discuss this issue if necessary. I am out of the office for an out of state family function and will return on Monday. Blythe The information contained in this e-mail message and any attachments is legally privileged and confidential, and intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader is not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that you are prohibited from printing, copying, storing, disseminating or distributing this communication. If you have received this communication in error, please delete it from your computer and notify the sender by reply e-mail. Thank you.

On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:12 AM, Ari Jurado <ari_jurado@qualineconsulting.com> wrote: Ms. Bethel, Per Judge Jamison’s instructions yesterday, I called your office to make an appointment to review your file in the Hernandez‐Jurado case. Your assistant explained that because you are no longer the GAL in the case, she cannot grant the appointment. As the Judge also mentioned yesterday, you can be called as a witness in the future, and thus, your files are discoverable. Please let me know if your office can grant me the time to review your documents without a Subpoena or if I still need a subpoena. Best regards, Ari Jurado 1

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 187

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 191 of 211 PAGEID #: 2192

EXHIBIT AC1-J1 E-mails exchanged between OOAG and OCRC Defendants and handwritten notes On October 18, 2013, the same day that Lambert is notarizing her affidavit in support of her Motion for Modification of Temporary Orders (custody) using the merits of the lawsuit as her basis, and as Jurado is being served the summons and complaint of the lawsuit against him, Defendant Gutowski sent an email to Defendant Garcia, his supervisor and the Columbus regional director. In her email sent at 5:10pm on 10/18/2013, she stated that “it may be an admission by Mr. Jurado that he is intentionally misusing the administrative process in order to manipulate a child custody dispute. I have concerns regarding Mr. Jurado’s conduct and how it affects the Commission”. Gutowski merely repeated the same conclusory allegations Brooksedge and Alexander-Savino made in the complaint with no basis for the allegation. It has been proven that LeClair and Savino knowingly made those statements and others fraudulently given their knowledge of additional information that exculpated Jurado of those false accusations, but withheld the information. The Commission also had in their possession the exculpatory evidence but they also withheld it and did not consider it during their process. 1. Garcia’s handwritten note from 10-21-2013 of his meeting with “CG” (Gutowski), reads: • • • • • •

“CP is manipulating the adm. System, OCRC, to work his domestic issue/child custody issue.” “look at the evid. Comments to Respondent (Brooksedge) Law office.” “Do we allow CP to file retaliation? No.” (CP = charging party) “Policy = Not to take advantage of this system” (Emphasis Sic.) “This is an NPC on 1st case” “If we take Retaliation, NPC (no probable cause) immediately”

2. Garcia’s handwritten note from 10/23/2013 of his meeting with “CG” re Jurado, reads: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

“We agree and A.G. agree” on the handling #1 = NPC ? YES (no probable cause) #2 = Retaliation? Yes, If CP files but this is an easy NPC Didn’t spend much time on it, you had ——— (1) Cred of CP ——— ; Email on ——— (2) No evid. He ——— not illegal Daycare can legally sue Jurado We would ——— to ——— lawsuit is pretext. He is filing ——— He already ——— the OCRC; Claims are meritless Both are NPC CP Retal? Submit if you want ; - I don’t want to meet with you; Mail it in If you wish, file retaliation in the mail (2) We will not ——— ———

3. The handwritings in the 2nd page of the case activity log reads: 10/23

2:00

10/23 10/24

3:00

Conferred w/ C. Gutowski; This is an NPC (no probable cause); CP (charging party) may file retaliation, but do immediate NP on that based on the file info. Advised CP he can file Retaliation, but in the mail Email from CP; can he get OCRC to notarize [in person]? R.G.(Richard Garcia) -> get it done then mail it w/notarization on it

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 188

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 192 of 211 PAGEID #: 2193 Garcia. Richard From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Carolyn Gutowski [Carolyn.Gutowski@ohioattorneygeneral.gov] Friday, October 18, 20135:00 PM Garcia, Richard RE: Aristides Jurado v. Brooksedge Daycare Center (40390) - CONCERNS Jurado com plaint. pdf

Let's touch base on this case next week - I have some policy concerns. Are you available to chat on Monday? Also, I attached the complaint the daycare filed against Mr. Jurado, for your information. Carolyn E. Gutowski Assistant Attorney General - Civil Rights Section Office of Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine Office number: 614-466-7900 Fax number: 614-466-2437 Carolyn.Gutowski@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov From: Garcia, Richard [mailto:Richard.Garcia@civ.ohio.gov]

Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 4:49 PM To: carolyn Gutowski Cc: Stone, Angel Subject: RE: Aristides Jurado v. Brooksedge Daycare center (40390) - CONCERNS

Yes Here is secondary (summary ofthe P!S) tends to resemble a non-jur From: Carolyn Gutowski [mailto:carolyn.Gutowski@ohioatlorneygeneral.gov]

Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 4:43 PM To: Garcia, Richard Subject: RE: Aristides Jurado v. Brooksedge Daycare Center (40390) - CONCERNS Did you get ever get a position statement from Respondent in this case? Carolyn E. Gutowski Assistant Attorney General - Civil Rights Section Office of Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine Office number: 614-466-7900 Fax number: 614-466-2437 Carolyn.Gutowski@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov From: Garcia, Richard [mailto:Richard.Garcia@civ.ohio.gov]

Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 2:29 PM To: Stone, Angel Cc: Carolyn Gutowski Subject: FW: Aristides Jurado v. Brooksedge Daycare Center (40390) - CONCERNS Hi;

This is the person that filed against a day care center, a key case. JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074 1

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 189

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 193 of 211 PAGEID #: 2194

Garcia, Richard From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Carolyn Gutowski [Carolyn.Gutowski@ohioattorneygeneral.gov] Friday, October 18, 2013 5:10 PM Garcia, Richard; Mehra, Aman; Stone, Angel Jurado v. Brooksedge ***ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED*** Jurado complaint.pdf; Exhibit to complaint.pdf

Aman, Angel, and Richard: Although we do not have task force on Monday, we should touch base about the Aristides Jurado v. Brooksedge case. Please see the attached complaint, and the exhibit, which was attached to the complaint. It may be an admission by Mr. Jurado that he is intentionally misusing the administrative process in order to manipulate a child custody dispute. I have concerns regarding Mr. Jurado's conduct and how it affects the Commission. I recommend that we briefly discuss this case in the coming week. Please let me know your availability - if you have interviews on Monday and Tuesday, perhaps we could plan to talk Wednesday morning? Thanks! Carrie Carolyn E. Gutowski Assistant Attorney General - Civil Rights Section Office of Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine Office number: 614-466-7900 Fax number: 877-417-2203 Carolyn.Gutowski@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov

Confidentiality Notice: This message is intended for use only by the individual or entity to whom or which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by telephone.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 190

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 194 of 211 PAGEID #: 2195

- -

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 191

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 195 of 211 PAGEID #: 2196

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 192

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 196 of 211 PAGEID #: 2197

_-=

----- II

--------=s-

_ _ ,j_____ ,

it c

lr;

C-'------------------

ji-------~

._---=---_~--+jl,t-:路-li ==_=:---J-Zl_)/t7 ~ ~ . _ . _ l!~-

.-- ----H - -----it!!il - - --=::;;:=~~~~===::: -------'$

----_._-~~-~!

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

i! 11

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 193

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 197 of 211 PAGEID #: 2198 CASE ACTIVITY & Personal Information Log PAGEl OF .f CASE NAME: Aristides Jurado vs. Brooksedge Daycare Center l~ CASE NUMBER: COLG1C40390l07102013 -7- Z ~ - 2.01'"> -02-/? I Acknowledgment: r acknowledge that the information on this log is true and complete and that r have accessed cpr only for purposes relating to my job duties ot my agency's governmental function. DATE

ACTIVITY/COMMENTS

INITIALS

Charge Taken

Respondent Notified (MANDATORY); Spoke to: Contact Rep. Name, Title, Address, Phone Number: Jessica Jividen, Director Brooksedge Daycare Center 2185 Hilliard-Rome Rd. Hilliard, OH 43026

July 11,

Routed charge.

2013 July 11,

Case assigned to: Richard Garcia

2013 July11,

Case given to: Angel Stone

Notification letter sent/given to Charging Party and Respondent Due Date: July 25,2013 Primary Agenda Date July 15, 2013

2013

CASE GIVEN TO:

12.;;

*(PROCESSING TIME BEGINS)

FINAL DEADLINE FOR CASE SUBMISSION:

loiz....

lOt Z.f

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint U

._.16.

2:15-cv-0074

s_,. â&#x20AC;˘. .__ -...- _ I

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 194 ~

f'5:

CASE Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13ACTIVITY Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 198 of 211 PAGEID #: 2199

& Personal Information Log PAGE 20F2 CASE NAME: Aristides Jurado vs. Brooksedge Daycare Center CASE NUMBER: COLG1(40390j07102013 Acknowledgment: I acknowledge that the infonnation on this log is true and complete and that I have accessed cpr only for purposes relating to my job duties or my agency's govermnental function ACTIVITY/COMMENTS DATE INITIALS I 11{

z.,., (ok.

z(C

C1I (\'"\ "'--'\ -LA T ~~,~

c. a v-n

f-k.::, ~ cv---IJ l?c... ~ {'~hI. 1:1 v~ d...ff I w~_ jI\ t7 (

CDtr-Ce vv-e-J ..../

A vu..!..J Ctf ~ Vhp..... I

IA.

101p.v1

e V\l\.P\4 ~ f-Vt7"-A rra..£J

I fJh-'1

11-{; \ I c'"

\..p

L kz.1; tv'

Qr41 ./1

~L"

A.O ~ ~ lA'l/rJ.

1c(Z...... R("?-

O-c~

"V')

CtfA.-

(/f • /'

~Ir yY\

c-..-vl

~17Q..h-t.1_

l .f (]

c~ .~_

I..j:.

-I

IA-

VI--.

U- r..--

l.e~C

(LS ~ ~ n c--h>t ..." "'-' ~

t.A&A-

.::l=-

L-O\.)

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 195

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 199 of 211 PAGEID #: 2200

EXHIBIT XJ7-2 Covert e-mails sent between September and October 2013 by Bethel to her co-conspirators, and handwritten notes showing early Planning and advanced agreement to institute a lawsuit against Jurado

These e-mails and handwritten notes are just some of the many examples of the covert correspondence between Bethel, LeClair and Dr. Smalldon and show their intent to file a lawsuit against Jurado as early as late-August, earlySeptember 2013.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 196

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 200 of 211 PAGEID #: 2201

Subject: From: To: Date:

Re: Fwd: Civil Rights Commission Complaint Blythe Bethel <blythebethel@yahoo.com> Amy LeClair <aeleclair@gmail.com> Friday, September 20, 2013 at 4:35 PM

------- -ďż˝--- -------

Friday,Thanks for the information. I have left a voicemail for Amy: Fwd: Dr. Smalldon to call me regarding the legal actions that Ari has commenced against your and the daycare. I will let you know what I find out. Blythe

Day

Rome.

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 197

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 201 of 211 PAGEID #: 2202

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 198

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 202 of 211 PAGEID #: 2203

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Blythe Bethel <blythebethel@yahoo.com> Date: Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 8:16 AM Subject: Re: Conversation with Ari Jurado To: Amy LeClair <aeleclair@gmail.com> Amy: Thanks for the email. I thought that I should let you know that I received a letter from Ari's counsel yesterday asking me to do a full-blown investigation into your facility. He wants me to check into the status of your daycare's license. Ari is also concerned (no big surprise here) with the quality of care and treatment [ N. G. ] has received from the daycare. So, I assume that I will be coming out to your facility in the near future. Not sure how I assess the quality of care and treatment that [ N. G. ] gets at your facility. Seems like a pretty subjective thing to me, but I could certainly observe [ N. G. ] for awhile when I visit. Are there days when you are not at the center? Please advise. Regarding the license issue, can you provide me with your current status, or direct me to the place where I can obtain this information? Thanks in advance. As far as the phone call with Ari is concerned, I can only assume that he is taping everything, or he had you on a speaker phone. that may explain the delay in responses. I feel that his question about your husband was completely inappropriate, and I would have told him just that. It is none of his business what your husband does or does not do if you ask me. I can only imagine that he is going after some ting to assist his discrimination claim. I will be calling you to let you know when I will be coming to your facility, but if you could get me the information about your license status, or where I can get it that would be great. I should also know where I can find any complaints that have been issued against the center. Again, I am just trying to cross all of my "T's" and dot all my "i's". Blythe

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 199

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 203 of 211 PAGEID #: 2204

EXHIBIT XJ7-3 The lawsuit as a subsidiary scheme of the conspiracy The timing between the filing of civil lawsuit by Brooksedge and Lambert's related-filings in the custody case, which were done almost concurrently, show evidence of previous agreement and collaboration to carry out the lawsuit subscheme

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 200

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 204 of 211 PAGEID #: 2205

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 201

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 205 of 211 PAGEID #: 2206 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2013 Oct 22 3:59 PM-12JU014479

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 202

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 206 of 211 PAGEID #: 2207 Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2013 Oct 22 3:59 PM-12JU014479

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 203

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 207 of 211 PAGEID #: 2208

Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2013 Oct 22 3:59 PM-12JU014479

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 204

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

2:15-cv-0074

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 205

4. Undue burden when requiring Jurado to drive 100 miles round trip on a daily basis.

1. Daycare Selection Process in October 2013. 2. December 20, 2013 proceeding and unlawful conduct by defendants 3. December 6, 2013 incident involving coersion of Jurado by defendants to drive NG through snow storm.

This map is relevant in the following controversies:

MAP of Franklin County with Points of Interest regarding the underlying custody case, especially those related to the daycare selection process used in October 2013 and in connection with the joining of the conspiracy by Goddard School-Hilliard II

EXHIBIT XM5-28

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 208 of 211 PAGEID #: 2209

I-270 West

JURADO v. STONE, First Amended Complaint

New daycare facility imposed by the GAL and Ms. Hernandez, disregarding the current shared parenting status, is in the westmost point of Franklin County, or as far as possible from Mr. Jurado.

Corn fields

I-670

2:15-cv-0074

On his parenting days, Mr. Jurado had to drive, with his young child in the back, across the metropolitan area from East to West, then through corn fields to get to the newly imposed daycare facility--2 full round trips a day totaling 100 miles on his assigned days with his son (50/50 parenting schedule).

Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, Page 206

Facility proposed by Mr. Jurado was not disclosed by the GAL when answering specific questions from Judge Jamison on 12/20/13

Father-Mr. Jurado

Workplace

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 209 of 211 PAGEID #: 2210

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 210 of 211 PAGEID #: 2211

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 8th day of April, 2015, a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served through the Courtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ECF System and by e-mail to the following: Scott Sheets Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney 373 S. High Street, 13th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 ssheets@franklincountyohio.gov Counsel for Defendants Judge Terri Jamison & the Juvenile Court

Erika Smitherman, Esq., Petroff Law Offices, LLC. 140 East Town Street, Ste. 1070 Columbus, Ohio 43215 ems@petrofflawoffices.com [Prospect] Defendant and Counsel for [Prospect] Defendant Kathy Hernandez (Lambert) Judge Terri Jamison Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Rel., Juvenile Branch 373 S. High Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 Joseph_Saffold@fccourts.org Defendant

Thomas McCash 55 South High Street Suite 210 Dublin, Ohio 43017 tmccash@columbus.rr.com Defendant Blythe Bethel 495 South High Street Suite 220 Columbus, Ohio 43215 blythebethel@yahoo.com Defendant

Halli Brownfield Watson Ryan L. Richardson Assistant Attorneys General Constitutional Offices Section 30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 halli.watson@ohioattorneygeneral.gov ryan.richardson@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

Ronald R. Petroff (0081267) Managing Partner 140 East Town Street, Ste. 1070 Columbus, Ohio 43215 rrp@petrofflawoffices.com Counsel for [Prospect] Defendant Petroff Law Offices, LLC.

Counsel for Defendants [and prospects] Amy C. Stone, Scott J. Drexel, Office of Disciplinary Counsel & Ohio Supreme Court, Ohio Civil Rights Commission, Richard Garcia, Bradley Dunn, Carolyn Gutowski, and Office of Ohio Attorney General

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 211 of 211 PAGEID #: 2212

Kimberly L. Eagle, Owner and Eagle School of Hilliard, Inc. d/b/a The Goddard School – Hilliard II (Crosgray) 7936 Morris Rd Hilliard, OH 43026 Hilliard2OH@goddardschool.com [Prospect] Defendants

Angela Alexander Savino, Esq. Perez & Morris, LLC., 8000 Ravine's Edge Ct., Suite 300 Columbus, Ohio 43235 asavino@perez-morris.com [Prospect] Defendant and Counsel for [Prospect] Defendants Amy LeClair, A.S. LeClair Company, Inc. D/B/A Brooksedge Day Care

Gretchen Wilson, Director The Goddard School – Hilliard II 6074 Parkmeadow Lane Hilliard, OH 43026 DHilliard2OH@goddardschools.com [Prospect] Defendants

ARISTIDES JURADO, Plaintiff Pro Se 3963 Easton Way Columbus, OH 43219 ari_jurado@qualineconsulting.com