Jurado v. Stone, First Amended Complaint by Ari Jurado

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 1 of 411 PAGEID #: 1591

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

ARISTIDES JURADO and N.G., a minor child, through his father and next best friend ARISTIDES JURADO, Plaintiffs,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL – SUPREME ) COURT OF OHIO, ) ) and ) AMY C. STONE, in her official capacity as ) Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, and in her ) individual personal capacity, ) and ) ) SCOTT J. DREXEL, in his official capacity as ) Disciplinary Counsel, Supreme Court of Ohio ) ) And ) FRANKLIN COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT, ) DIVISION OF DOMESTIC DIVISION, ) JUVENILE BRANCH ) and ) ) TERRI JAMISON, in her official capacity as Domestic & Juvenile Judge, and in her individual ) ) personal capacity, ) and )

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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 2 of 411 PAGEID #: 1592

) ) ) ) and ) BLYTHE M. BETHEL, in her official capacity as ) Court-appointed (former) Guardian Ad Litem, ) and in her individual personal capacity, ) ) And ) OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, ) ) and ) RICHARD T. GARCIA, in his official capacity as ) Investigator, Ohio Civil Rights Commission, and ) in his individual personal capacity, ) and ) ) BRADLEY S. S. DUNN, in his official capacity as ) Reconsideration Supervisor, Ohio Civil Rights ) Commission, and in his individual personal capacity, ) ) And ) OHIO OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ) ) and ) CAROLYN E. GUTOWSKI, in her official capacity ) as Assistant Attorney General, Ohio Office of ) the Attorney General, Civil Rights Section, and ) in her individual personal capacity ) ) And ) PETROFF LAW OFFICES, LLC. ) ) and ) ERIKA SMITHERMAN, Esq., ) Petroff Law Offices, LLC. ) THOMAS MCCASH, in his official capacity as Court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem, and in his individual personal capacity,

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 3 of 411 PAGEID #: 1593

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

and KATHRINE JO HERNANDEZ (LAMBERT), And A.S. LECLAIR COMPANY, INC. doing business as BROOKSEDGE DAY CARE, and AMY LECLAIR, Owner and Co-Director Brooksedge Daycare, and ANGELA ALEXANDER SAVINO, Esq. Perez & Morris, LLC., And EAGLE SCHOOL OF HILLIARD, INC. doing business as THE GODDARD SCHOOL – HILLIARD II (CROSGRAY), and GRETCHEN WILSON, Director The Goddard School – Hilliard II and KIMBERLY “KIM” EAGLE, Owner Eagle School Of Hilliard, Inc. d/b/a The Goddard School – Hilliard II

Defendants,

iii

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 4 of 411 PAGEID #: 1594

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ v I.

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 I.A.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................................................................................ 1

I.B.

NATURE OF ACTION AND RELIEF SOUGHT .................................................................................. 13

II.

JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................... 25

III. VENUE .......................................................................................................................... 25 IV. PARTIES........................................................................................................................ 26 IV.A. PLAINTIFFS .......................................................................................................................... 26 IV.B. DEFENDANTS ....................................................................................................................... 27 IV.C. CO-CONSPIRATORS ............................................................................................................... 42 V.

SUMMARY OF CHRONOLOGICAL FACTS, EVENTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ............... 43

VI. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS – INTENTIONAL UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION .................. 96 VII. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS – THE CONSPIRACY ..........................................................120 VII.A. THE AGREEMENTS ENTERED BY DEFENDANTS FORMING THE MASTER CONSPIRACY ......................... 120 VII.B. OBJECTIVES AND GOALS OF THE CONSPIRACY ........................................................................... 198 VII.C. BACKGROUND OF THE CONSPIRACY AND THE FAMILY LAW INDUSTRY............................................ 198 VII.D. UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES AND ACTS PERPETRATED BY CONSPIRATORS DEFENDANTS ........................... 204 VII.E. ONGOING CONSPIRACY SUCCESSFUL SO FAR ............................................................................ 254 VII.F. EVIDENCE SHOWING CONSPIRACY IS SUBSTANTIAL— HUNDREDS OF AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDINGS ..................................................................................................... 256 VII.G. EVIDENCE SHOWING CONSPIRACY IS SUBSTANTIAL— MISCELLANEOUS E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE AND RELATED DOCUMENTATION ................................................................. 298 VII.H. EVIDENCE SHOWING CONSPIRACY IS SUBSTANTIAL— CONCEALED E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE .......... 299 VII.I. EVIDENCE SHOWING CONSPIRACY IS SUBSTANTIAL— LAY WITNESSES, COURT EMPLOYEES AS WITNESSES AND OPINION TESTIMONY BY OTHER WITNESSES...................................................... 303 VII.J. EVIDENCE SHOWING CONSPIRACY IS SUBSTANTIAL— TRANSCRIPTS OF COURT PROCEEDINGS, DOCKET ENTRIES, OTHER FILINGS AND FORMAL DOCUMENTATION .............................................. 305 VIII. ALL LOCAL REMEDIES EXHAUSTED & ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE STATE FORUM ..............327 IX. CLAIMS & CAUSES OF ACTION......................................................................................330 X.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF ...................................................................................................372

XI. CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................393 XII. CONSOLIDATED APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS - INDEX ..........................................................394

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 5 of 411 PAGEID #: 1595

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ v I.

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 I.A.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................................................................................ 1

I.B.

NATURE OF ACTION AND RELIEF SOUGHT .................................................................................. 13

II.

I.B.1.

For Preemption by Federal Law, Seeking Injunctive and Declaratory Relief ............................................................................................. 14

I.B.2.

For Constitutional Challenges to State Laws, Rules, Official Practices, seeking Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive and Declaratory Relief ...................................................................................... 14

I.B.3.

For Systematical Violations of the Prohibitions of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and of State Discrimination Laws, Seeking Preliminary Injunctive Relief, Damages and Demand for Jury Trial ....................................................................................... 18

I.B.4.

For Systematical and Random Violations of the Prohibitions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, seeking Damages and Demand for Jury Trial ................................................... 19

I.B.5.

For Civil and Criminal Offenses Against Children, the Family and the Community according to State and Common Law and Federal Statutes, Seeking Preventive Relief, Permanent Equitable Relief, Damages, Other Types of Relief, Demand for Jury Trial, and Judicial Referral to Appropriate Authorities ................................................................. 20

I.B.6.

For Unlawful Acts, Fraud, and Other State-Law and Common-Law Torts, Including Civil Conspiracy to Commit these Acts, Seeking Damages and Demand for Jury Trial ................................ 22

I.B.7.

For Premeditated Deprivation of Constitutional Rights and Protections under Sec. 1983 and Sec. 1985, and Resulting Injuries, Seeking Preliminary and Permanent Equitable Relief, Damages, and Demand for Jury Trial .................................... 22

JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................... 25

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 6 of 411 PAGEID #: 1596

IV.B.1.

Judiciary Branch Defendants ............................................................................ 27

IV.B.2.

Executive Branch Defendants .......................................................................... 31

IV.B.3.

Private Corporate-Type Defendants ................................................................ 35

IV.B.4.

Private Individual Defendants .......................................................................... 38

IV.C. CO-CONSPIRATORS ............................................................................................................... 42

IV.C.1.

State Actors ...................................................................................................... 42

IV.C.2.

Private Actors ................................................................................................... 42

IV.C.3.

Other Unnamed Conspirators or Named Conspirators Not Named as Defendants ...................................................................................... 42

SUMMARY OF CHRONOLOGICAL FACTS, EVENTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ............... 43

V.A. PRE-CUSTODY DISPUTE.......................................................................................................... 43 V.B.

NOVEMBER 2012 - CUSTODY LITIGATION BEGAN ....................................................................... 45

V.C.

JANUARY 2013 - EQUAL SHARED PARENTING AND UNSUPERVISED PARENTING TIME WITH OVERNIGHTS ORDERED BY THE JUVENILE COURT......................................................................... 47

V.D. MARCH 2013 - DEFENDANT BETHEL APPOINTED AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM ...................................... 47 V.E.

MAY 2013 – MENTAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL HARM PRODUCED BY EXTREME DISTRESS LANDED JURADO IN THE HOSPITAL ....................................................................................................... 52

V.F.

MAY 2013 - JURADO’S FIRST ATTEMPTS TO SEEK HELP AND REDRESS WRONGS .............................. 53

V.G. JULY 2013 – FIRST MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENT OF CONSPIRACY —CONCERTED EFFORT TO COMMIT FRAUD UPON THE COURT WITH THE FABRICATION OF THE OVERINVOLVED FATHER BY DEFENDANTS BETHEL, SMITHERMAN, PETROFF LAW, LECLAIR, BROOKSEDGE AND LAMBERT.......... 55 V.H. JULY 2013 - JURADO’S SECOND ROUND OF ATTEMPTS SEEKING HELP ............................................ 56 V.I. V.J.

JULY 2013 - SCOPE OF THE CONFLICT SUDDENLY EXPANDED – ODJFS AND OCRC AS FIRST STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES INVOLVED DUE TO BROOKSEDGE CONDUCT .................................... 57 AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2013 - DEFENDANTS ENTERED INTO NEW AGREEMENT TO CARRY OUT

THE LAWSUIT SUBSIDIARY SCHEME – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF INJURIES TO THE CHILD TO

FRAME JURADO FOR INVOLVING CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AND AUTHORITIES WHICH FORMED BASIS FOR LAWSUIT .............................................................................................................. 59

V.K.

OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2013 - OOAG AND OCRC JOINED THE LAWSUIT SUB-SCHEME AND THE MASTER CONSPIRACY’S SUBSIDIARY PLAN FOR CAUSING FINANCIAL HARM TO JURADO ................ 65

V.L.

OCTOBER 2013 – CONSPIRACY SUB-SCHEME TO CAUSE FINANCIAL HARM AND UNDUE HARDSHIP STARTED .............................................................................................................. 71

V.M. OCTOBER 2013 - JURADO BEGAN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF SUSPECTED CONSPIRACY AND BEGAN TAKEN PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES ........................................................................ 75 V.N. NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2013 - CONSPIRACY SUB-SCHEME TO FRAME JURADO FOR NEGLECTING AND CAUSING CHILD INJURIES RESUMED ................................................................. 76

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 7 of 411 PAGEID #: 1597

V.O. DECEMBER 2013-JANUARY 2014 – BEGINNING OF NEW SUBSIDIARY SCHEME TO COVER UP BETHEL’S UNLAWFUL CONDUCT AND TO RETALIATE - JUDICIARY BRANCH DEFENDANTS ENTERED THE AGREEMENT ..................................................................................................... 78 V.P.

SEPTEMBER 2014 - RETALIATION SOARED AS DIRECT RESULT OF THE REVEALING OF JURADO’S INTENTION TO SEEK FEDERAL RELIEF, AND THE DISMISSAL OF ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION BY SCO AS REINFORCEMENT OF THE CARTE BLANCHE GIVEN TO DEFENDANT JUDGE JAMISON .................................................................................................. 90

V.Q. DECEMBER 2014 – MCCASH AS DEFENDANT JAMISON’S ENFORCER AND THE CONSPIRACY’S CATALYTIC AGENT................................................................................................................. 92 V.R.

V.S.

MARCH 2015 - JUVENILE COURT’S REINFORCEMENT OF MALEVOLENT CONSPIRATORIAL CONDUCT BY GODDARD SCHOOL DEFENDANTS AND OTHER COLOR OF LAW ABUSES ......................... 95 V.S.1.

March 2015 –Defendants McCash and Judge Jamison Acted Under the Color of Law to Cover Up Willful Acts of Child Endangerment by Perpetrators the Goddard School, Eagle and Wilson in Close Coordination with CoConspirators Lambert and Smitherman—As Overt Acts to Reach the Goals of the Conspiracy................................................................... 95

V.S.2.

March 2015 – Defendant Judge Jamison Abused her Authority Without Restrain when Protecting Defendants The Goddard School and Eagle; Judicial Transgressions included Coaching the Witness during Direct and Cross Examination and Unlawful Preclusion of Indispensable Material Evidence ............................................................................................. 96

V.S.3.

Defendant Judge Jamison Willfully Deprived and Conspired to Deprive Plaintiffs’ Federal Constitutional Rights; Official Ratification of Increased Alienation of Parent and Child that had been Intensely Pursued by Defendants Lambert, Smitherman, Goddard School, Wilson, Eagle and McCash; .............................................................................. 96

V.S.4.

Jamison’s Ultimate Overt Act in Furtherance of the Conspiracy’s Subsidiary Plot that Started Over 2 Years Ago to Deprive Jurado of Equal Protection [of the Law] in respect to Accessing the Daycare facilities to visit his son .............................. 96

VI. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS – INTENTIONAL UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION .................. 96 VI.A. FIRST SIGNS OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION BY DEFENDANT BROOKSEDGE ..................................... 96 VI.B. RACISM BY GUARDIANS AD LITEM A REAL PROBLEM IN OHIO AND FRANKLIN COUNTY ....................... 97 VI.B.1.

Legal Scholar’s View of Racial Bias in GAL Program ......................................... 98 vii

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 8 of 411 PAGEID #: 1598

VI.B.2.

Pro Se Complainants Seeking Help in Dealing with GAL Issues Almost an Every-Day Occurrence At Capital University-Sponsored Self Represented Resource Center in Franklin County Common Pleas Court Building ........................................... 99

VI.C. DEFENDANT BETHEL’S CONSCIOUS RACIAL-ETHNIC BIAS ............................................................ 100 VI.C.1.

Normalcy and Impartiality Before Learning the Color and National Origin of the Parents; First Neutral Recommendations.......................................................................................... 101

VI.C.2.

Drastic Reversal of Opinions when Learned that “Hernandez v. Jurado” was Not a Dispute Between Two Hispanic Parents – Mother-Father Equality Provision Under ORC 3109.042(A) is only Applicable Between Parents of Same Race, Color and Ethnicity .................................................... 103

VI.C.3.

Aligned with Lambert’s Goals that Produced Absurd Results, Against Reason and Available Evidence as Sign of Intentional Discrimination and Conspiracy – Mandatory & Strict Daycare Attendance & Forced Confinement of the Infant Child ..................................................................................................... 105

VI.C.4.

Direct Evidence of Racially-Motivated, Ethnic-Driven Hostility: Bethel’s Racially Charged and Derogatory Language......................................................................................................... 106

VI.C.5.

Torment, Oppression and Persecution by Bethel Became a Normal Part of Jurado’s Daily Life ............................................................... 107

VI.C.6.

Bethel - from GAL to Lambert’s De Facto Advocate ...................................... 108

VI.C.7.

Bethel as Jurado’s Main Adversary in the Custody Proceedings, Persecuted Him as He Placed the Best Interest of the Child First ................................................................................ 113

VI.C.8.

Bethel’s Racially Motivated Misconduct Ramped Up: Became Integral Figure in the Overarching Conspiracy against Jurado................................................................................................. 117

VI.C.9.

Bethel’s Racism Drove Her to Engage in Pattern of Unlawful Conduct and Acts of Fraud Upon the Court Against Her Own Interests ............................................................................. 117

VI.D. DISPARATE TREATMENT BY DEFENDANTS ODC AND STONE ON THE BASIS OF RACE AND ETHNICITY ......................................................................................................................... 117 VI.D.1.

Similarly Situated Grievants ........................................................................... 117

VI.E. UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN THIS CASE NOT ONLY TARGETS PLAINTIFFS BUT ALL PATERNAL FAMILY MEMBERS BECAUSE OF THEIR PANAMANIAN ANCESTRY.................................................. 118

viii

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 9 of 411 PAGEID #: 1599

VI.E.1.

Disparate Treatment of Minor N.G.’s Panamanian Grandparents By Defendants Brooksedge, LeClair, Lambert and Petroff law Firm ........................................................................ 118

VI.E.2.

Overt Collaboration between Defendants Smitherman, McCash, Lambert, Judge Jamison and the Goddard School to Intentionally Disrupt and Sever the Familial Bond and Relationship between Plaintiff minor N.G. and his entire Paternal Panamanian Family .......................................................................... 119

VII. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS – THE CONSPIRACY ..........................................................120 VII.A. THE AGREEMENTS ENTERED BY DEFENDANTS FORMING THE MASTER CONSPIRACY ......................... 120 VII.A.6. To Pre-arrange or Pre-Determine each One of Jurado’s Actions, Cases, Administrative Complaints or Grievances to Disfavor Him and Preclude the Determination of His Claims on the Merits ...................................................................................... 176 VII.B. OBJECTIVES AND GOALS OF THE CONSPIRACY ........................................................................... 198 VII.C. BACKGROUND OF THE CONSPIRACY AND THE FAMILY LAW INDUSTRY............................................ 198 VII.D. UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES AND ACTS PERPETRATED BY CONSPIRATORS DEFENDANTS ........................... 204 VII.D.1. Unlawful Acts by OOAG .................................................................................. 204 VII.D.2. Unlawful Activities and Conduct by Defendants OCRC, Dunn and Garcia ............................................................................................. 206 VII.D.3. ODC-SCO Defendants Unlawful Acts and Practices ....................................... 207 VII.D.4. Unlawful Acts and Conduct by Judge Jamison ............................................... 211 VII.D.5. Unlawful Conduct and Acts by Defendant Bethel .......................................... 232 VII.D.6. Unlawful Acts Perpetrated Jointly by Defendants Lambert, Bethel, Petroff and Smitherman .................................................................... 241 VII.D.7. Unlawful Acts by Defendant McCash ............................................................. 249 VII.D.8. Unlawful Activities, Conduct and Acts by Defendants Brooksedge, LeClair, Alexander-Savino, Goddard-School of Hilliard II, Wilson and Eagle........................................................................ 254 VII.E. ONGOING CONSPIRACY SUCCESSFUL SO FAR ............................................................................ 254 VII.F. EVIDENCE SHOWING CONSPIRACY IS SUBSTANTIAL— HUNDREDS OF AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDINGS ..................................................................................................... 256 VII.F.1. Recordings involving Defendant OOAG ......................................................... 256 VII.F.2. Recordings involving Defendants OCRC, Dunn and Garcia ............................ 259 VII.F.3. Recordings involving Defendants the Juvenile Court, Judge Jamison and Thomas McCash .............................................................. 265

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 10 of 411 PAGEID #: 1600

VII.F.4. Recordings involving Defendants The Goddard SchoolHilliard II, Kim Eagle and Gretchen Wilson ..................................................... 267 VII.F.5. Recordings involving Defendant LeClair, Brooksedge and Alexander-Savino............................................................................................ 282 VII.F.6. Recordings involving Defendant Lambert ...................................................... 292 VII.F.7. Recordings involving Defendant Bethel ......................................................... 295 VII.F.8. Recordings Involving Conspirators Not Named as Defendants ..................................................................................................... 297 VII.G. EVIDENCE SHOWING CONSPIRACY IS SUBSTANTIAL— MISCELLANEOUS E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE AND RELATED DOCUMENTATION ................................................................. 298 VII.G.1. E-mails and Hand-Written Notes Between Defendants Gutowski and Garcia Proving Agreement to Deprive Jurado of his Rights and Protections under the Fourteenth Amendment .................................................................................................... 298 VII.G.2. E-mails between Defendant Garcia and Plaintiff Jurado Showing Garcia’s Misconduct, Disparate Treatment of Jurado, and Intentional Acts to Deny Jurado his Equal Utilization of Public Facilities and of Services Offered by the State Government .................................................................................... 298 VII.H. EVIDENCE SHOWING CONSPIRACY IS SUBSTANTIAL— CONCEALED E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE .......... 299 VII.H.1. E-mail Dated Aug. 1, 2013 from Bethel, to Lambert and Smitherman Disparaging Jurado and Giving Advice to Lambert on the Exact Topics to Bring up During Interviews with Dr. Smalldon ........................................................................................... 299 VII.H.2. E-mails Sent Between May 2013 and February 2014 by Bethel to Jurado and his Counsel Purported to be Close Communications, but Secretly and Unethically “Blindcopied” to Co-Conspirators Lambert, Smitherman and Dr. Smalldon ......................................................................................................... 299 VII.H.3. Set of Covert E-Mails Sent Between September and October 2013 Between Defendants Bethel, LeClair, Smitherman and Lambert Discussing their Plan of Filing a Lawsuit Against Jurado, and Included Communications Between Bethel and her Abettor Dr. Smalldon Regarding The Lawsuit ..................................................................................................... 301 VII.H.4. Email from Oct. 29, 2013 between Defendants Shows Confidential Information Collected during Jurado’s Interview with Children Services as part of their Investigation, Being Leaked back to Defendants as the

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 11 of 411 PAGEID #: 1601

Product of Bethel’s Interference with and Undermining the Integrity of the Agency’s operations........................................................ 302 VII.H.5. Emails Sent Between October and November 2013 by Bethel to All the Parties Blasting Jurado for Taking the Child to the E.R., for the Resulting Involvement of FCCS and for the Disenrollment of the Child from Brooksedge, were also Sent in Secrecy to Dr. Smalldon by the Use of Blind-Carbon-Copy (BCC) ................................................................................ 302 VII.I. EVIDENCE SHOWING CONSPIRACY IS SUBSTANTIAL— LAY WITNESSES, COURT EMPLOYEES AS WITNESSES AND OPINION TESTIMONY BY OTHER WITNESSES...................................................... 303 VII.J. EVIDENCE SHOWING CONSPIRACY IS SUBSTANTIAL— TRANSCRIPTS OF COURT PROCEEDINGS, DOCKET ENTRIES, OTHER FILINGS AND FORMAL DOCUMENTATION .............................................. 305 VII.J.1.

Transcript of Proceeding from July 8, 2013 as one the most significant evidence of Concerted Action in Furtherance of the Conspiracy, when he was declared “Overinvolved Dad” and Not allowed to access the Daycare and Visit his son, all the result of fraudulent misrepresentations by Conspirators .............................................................. 305

VII.J.2.

Record of Phone call Made in July 2013 Showing Concerted Action between Lambert and Bethel to Corruptly Influence and Tamper with Jurado’s Expert Witness, Dr. Mastruserio................................................................................ 306

VII.J.3.

Itemized Bills from Bethel Showing Extensive Communications PROVING AGREEMENT Between Her, Smitherman and Alexander-Savino In Preparation of the Subsidiary Scheme of The Lawsuit Prior to the Triggering Event ............................................................................................................... 306

VII.J.4.

Itemized Bill from Defendant McCash supporting extensive Unlawful, Ex-Parte Communications with Defendant Jamison ......................................................................................... 307

VII.J.5.

Juvenile Court Entry dated Dec. 26, 2014, Drafted by McCash with Decisions Endorsed by Judge Jamison and Orders issued on Dec. 18, 2014...................................................................... 309

VII.J.6.

Transcript Of Dec. 18, 2014 Court Proceeding With Judge Jamison Shows Multiple Overt Acts By Jamison and McCash In Furtherance Of The Conspiracy .................................................... 310

VII.J.7.

Continuance of Hearing Issued on Aug. 27, 2014 for Removal of Bethel Shows Collaboration between Defendants Jamison, ODC, SCO and John Doe in the sub-

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 12 of 411 PAGEID #: 1602

scheme to Protect Bethel, Cover Up her misconduct, and Retaliate against Jurado ................................................................................. 312 VII.J.8.

Transcript of Sep. 24, 2014 Court Proceeding Proves Retaliation by Jamison and Complete Deprivation of Jurado’s Right to Due Process; Shows Judicial Transgressions and Indication of Participation by ODC and SCO ................................................................................................................. 313

VII.J.9.

Defendant Judge Jamison’s Response Filing in case 2015AP-005 to the Chief Justice of SCO showing at least 10 instances of intentional misrepresentations and deceptive conduct ........................................................................................................... 314

VII.J.10. The Mar. 13, 2014 Transcript Shows Jamison’s Radical Change of Posture Against Jurado as a Sign of Entering Agreement with Co-Conspirators, and to Retaliate after Recent Dismissal Of Jurado’s Grievance Against Bethel By ODC ................................................................................................................. 324 VIII. ALL LOCAL REMEDIES EXHAUSTED & ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE STATE FORUM ..............327 IX. CLAIMS & CAUSES OF ACTION......................................................................................330 IX.A. PREEMPTION BY FEDERAL LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO STATE LAWS, PROCEEDINGS, PRACTICES AND OFFICIAL CONDUCT................................................................... 330 IX.B. COLOR OF LAW DEPRIVATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND FEDERAL STATUTORY RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983 ................................................................................................... 338 IX.C. VIOLATIONS OF THE PROHIBITIONS UNDER TITLE VI

OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964................... 354

IX.D. CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH OR TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFFS’ CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY AND CIVIL RIGHTS ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §§1983 AND 1985 .............................................. 360 IX.E. UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION AND PUNISHMENT UNDER 42 U.S.C. §2000A ET SEQ. ..................... 364 IX.F. STATE LAW AND COMMON LAW CLAIMS................................................................................. 366 X.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF ...................................................................................................372

X.A.

X.B.

X.C.

RELIEF IN EQUITY ................................................................................................................ 372 X.A.1.

Preliminary and Immediate Relief .................................................................. 372

X.A.2.

Permanent Relief ............................................................................................ 380

COMPENSATORY DAMAGES .................................................................................................. 383 X.B.1.

Compensatory Damages for Economic Losses ............................................... 383

X.B.2.

Compensatory Damages for Non-Economic Loses ........................................ 385

PUNITIVE DAMAGES ............................................................................................................ 389 X.C.1.

Punitive Damages against Conspirators Acting Under the Color of Law .................................................................................................... 389 xii

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 13 of 411 PAGEID #: 1603

X.C.2.

Punitive Damages Against Conspirators Engaging in Private Conduct .............................................................................................. 390

X.D. OTHER RELIEF .................................................................................................................... 391 XI. CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................393 XII. CONSOLIDATED APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS - INDEX ..........................................................394

xiii

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 14 of 411 PAGEID #: 1604

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

I. I.A.

INTRODUCTION

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ALARMING LOSSES AND TRENDS IN INFANT DEATHS: OHIO’S INFANT MORTALITY CRISIS

After public uproar and international reaction over the growing rate of infant deaths

in many Ohio communities over the past decade, and the State’s poor scoring overall in national infant mortality surveys, the lasting health crisis finally caught the attention of community leaders, state government officials, and the state legislature in recent years. But even with a number of measures taken and in place for several consecutive years—such as the implementation of state and local prevention programs, public awareness campaigns, and the dedicated attention of public health officials to the crisis as a critical issue—slowing down the trends has become a multidisciplinary struggle. 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. This paragraph was quoted from recently published Fact Sheets by Ohio Department of Health and its collaborative organizations, like the ones issued in Dec. 2013 and 2014 included in Exhibit AC1-B1, pages 34–36 of the Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits. A similar statement was also included in the 2009 OBBO Report about the alarming statistics on preterm births in Franklin County, published by Nationwide Children’s Hospital and the Ohio Better Birth

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 15 of 411 PAGEID #: 1605

Outcomes (OBBO) initiative. See Exhibit AC1-B2, page 43 of the Appendix. The stagnant statistics over the years is one of several indicators that show how Ohio’s Infant Mortality Crisis is far from declining. 2.

In 2013, media coverage of the Infant Mortality Crisis in the State intensified, and a

number of news stories surfaced, including interviews with and quotes from local experts. “Infant Mortality rate near University Circle exceeds that of some third world countries", and "that is an embarrassment and cannot be allowed to continue." were some of the statements made by expert Dr. Michele Walsh, Division Chief of Neonatology at Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital, during a public radio interview in WCPN, Sound of Ideas, in April 2013. Shortly after, her assertions were 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. This story, published on April 12th, 2013, and its sources have been reproduced in Exhibit AC-B3, pages 45–49 of the Appendix. 3.

Also in the same year, the Fault Lines investigative

reporting TV show covered America's Infant Mortality Crisis in a special series which made Cleveland, OH, "America’s Infant

Figure 1 - Babyland section of Cleveland Cemetery

Mortality Capital", their focal point. The episode first aired on September 20th, 2013 in AJAM Cable News Network. Exhibit AC1-B4, pages 50–51 of the Appendix.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 16 of 411 PAGEID #: 1606

OHIO’S YOUNGEST CITIZENS VICTIMS OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION 4.

Admittedly, disparities in infant mortality rates by Race and Ethnicity are not unique

to Ohio; they exist at a national level.

"When it comes to 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." Sheree Crute, Every Child Counts: Stopping Infant Loss; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Nov. 13, 2014. Exhibit AC1-C1, pages 52–54 of the Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits. 5.

Although the disparities in infant mortality rates for Hispanic babies are not

substantial compared to the disparity between African-American and white babies in Ohio, statistics show that the Infant Mortality rates for Hispanics in the State have also increased over the years. See Infant Mortality Trends reproduced by Nationwide Children Hospital, and posted in their web portal as of February 2015. Exhibit AC1-C2, page 56 of the Appendix. 6.

Despite being found at a national level, the disparities in infant mortality rates by

race and ethnicity in Ohio are some of the worst in the country, and which set new records in racial disparities of health outcomes. Ohio’s African American Infant Mortality Rate In 2011 Was 15.8, double that for the state as a whole and on par with rates for Thailand (15.9), Colombia (15.9) The Gaza Strip (16.5) And Mexico (16.7). 2013 Franklin County Children’s Report, by Champion of Children – United Way of Central Ohio. 7.

Also the fact remains undisputed that one of several underlying causes of the racial

disparities in infant mortality rates is intentional and unintentional discrimination based on race and ethnicity—at the individual and institutional level, and throughout different segments of 3

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 17 of 411 PAGEID #: 1607

our community, public and private. Ohio Infant Mortality Task Force Report, November 2009. “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.” All Babies Matter: Understanding the Impact of Racism on Infant Mortality, presentation by Columbus Public Health, May 24, 2011; Exhibit AC1-C3, page 61 of the Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits. 8.

The source of these racial disparities in health outcomes has also been explained by

Dr. Camara Phyllis Jones—one of the leading authorities on the subject and senior researcher at the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—as the stress that is caused by a lifetime of facing racial prejudice. The work of Dr. Phyllis Jones has been referenced and relied upon by Ohio Department of Health, the Ohio Infant Mortality Task Force, and by multiple state-wide initiatives on the subject. 9.

Dr. Phyllis Jones has advanced the understanding of this phenomenon by elaborating

clear definitions of these specific experiences: (i) “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.” Levels of Racism: A Theoretic Framework and a Gardener’s Tale, Camara Phyllis Jones, MD, MPH, PhD, American Journal of Public Health, August 2000. Exhibit AC1-C5, page 69 of the Appendix; (ii) Racism is defined as “a system of structuring opportunity and assigning value based on the social interpretation of how we look”. Health Disparities Research at the Intersection of Race, Ethnicity, and Disability, Dr. Camara Phyllis Jones, A National Conference – Keynote Address, Washington DC, April 26, 2013. Exhibit AC1-C6, page 75 of the Appendix.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 18 of 411 PAGEID #: 1608

10.

The upward trends of Infant deaths, attributed to poverty and racism, has become an

alarming fact in some of the local communities, especially in Franklin County and Columbus, Ohio. The Columbus Dispatch covered the local crisis in a special report made public in 2014. The story focused on the fact that “much of infant death is tied to race and place”. 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. * * * You also will find a legacy of racist policies, poverty and a lack of investment in the neighborhoods, said Jason Reece, the [OSU] 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. (Emphasis Added.) Alarming Losses: Columbus Works To Reverse Trends in Infant Deaths, Misti Crane on a Special Report, the Columbus Dispatch, Sunday September 14, 2014; Exhibit AC1-C4, pages 64–66 of the Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits.

Figure 2 - Newly Covered Grave of an Infant in Ohio

ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS WITHIN OHIO’S SELF-REGULATED LEGAL PROFESSION, SELF-GOVERNING JUDICIARY, AND THEIR PRESIDING BODY HINDERED BY THE INHERENT LACK OF CHECK AND BALANCES 11.

For at least two decades, Ohio’s Attorney Disciplinary System has failed to equally

protect all of its citizens during the exercise of its authority and duties to assist the Supreme Court of Ohio, “the High Court”, in meeting its constitutional responsibility to oversee the practice of law, the governing of the bar, and conduct of the judiciary in the state. In the

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 19 of 411 PAGEID #: 1609

process, Ohio’s Disciplinary System has further marginalized minorities and other protected classes, while prescribing and enforcing rules and regulations that facilitate the unlawful discrimination and retaliation against its beneficiaries and grievants. When a subset of its employees and officials choose to treat grievants differently because of their color, race, national origin or sex, they not only abuse their authority with the pretext of exercising judgment but do so in defiance of reason and the prohibitions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”), while denying grievants their rights and protections granted by the U.S. Constitution and the Ohio Constitution. 12.

Each year on average, Ohio’s Disciplinary System substantiates between 110–150

grievances and complaints for various types of ethical misconduct against judges and attorneys—through two of his offices, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and Board of Professional Conduct—that reach the State’s High Court for final adjudication. Only in rare instances, the grievant who initiated the investigation process in those substantiated complaints is Black or Hispanic. In fact, since the implementation of DR 1-102(B) in 1994—the state rule of professional conduct that deals specifically with unlawful discrimination as attorney misconduct which was later replaced by Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(g)— the first and last case that has been brought upon the High Court to apply such rule was submitted in April 11, 2000 under the caption Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Young, 89 Ohio St.3d 306, 2000-Ohio-160, for claims of sexual harassment. Exhibit AC1-A1, page 12 of the Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits. 13.

Given the existence of only one published case of unlawful discrimination

substantiated by the Disciplinary System in the last twenty years that has appeared in front of

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 20 of 411 PAGEID #: 1610

the state’s High Court, reform and enforcement of constitutional and statutory protections by this Federal Court is patently needed. This is especially true considering that this type of failures of the state’s Judiciary Branch and Disciplinary System have important downstream implications, namely the substantial impairment of our family and child welfare systems.

THIS CASE EXPOSES THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE INFANT MORTALITY CRISIS IN OHIO, THE SHORTCOMINGS OF OHIO’S ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM AND THE INSTITUTIONAL RELUCTANCE OF THE OHIO SUPREME COURT 14.

The complete absence of substantiated cases of unlawful discrimination based on

race, color, ethnicity or national origin within the legal profession and the judiciary is, of course, not an indication that licensed attorneys, court officers and judges do not discriminate or that racism has been eradicated. On the contrary, it has been long-established in practice and by prominent legal scholars that racism and unlawful discrimination is a tangible reality throughout the state’s justice system, in family courts and especially within the Guardian Ad Litem system. * * * 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. * * * [Guardians] exert extraordinary power over the direction of the case. [Racial] Bias may also lead guardians to assume a more adversarial posture with respect to parents. (Emphasis Added.) Katherine Hunt Federle & Danielle Gadomski, The Curious Case of the Guardian Ad Litem, University of Dayton Law Review (Vol. 36:3, 2011); Exhibit AC1-D1, pages 88–90 of the Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 21 of 411 PAGEID #: 1611

15.

In view of the fact that the Guardian Ad Litem system, the family law industry and

Domestic and Juvenile Courts are key components of our family and child welfare systems, it can be reasoned that this infrastructure of public and social services—along with the racism and discrimination permeating it—has been detrimental to the health and well-being of minority families and children in Franklin County and throughout the State of Ohio. Ultimately, a strong inference can be made that the discrimination observed in the GAL system and the Courts is exacerbating, or causing in part, the current Infant Mortality Crisis and its racial disparities in Ohio. 16.

With these factors established, the implications of unlawful discrimination within

Ohio’s Disciplinary System and the Judiciary Branch—or even their mere indifference—cannot be ignored, given their role of governing body to these key components of the state’s social services infrastructure. The events and facts being proven in this case make clearer the central synergy of these failures and the causal association between the phenomenon of racial disparities in Infant Mortality rates with its resulting crisis in Ohio, the shortcomings of the Disciplinary System, and the reluctance of the Ohio Supreme Court in addressing unlawful discrimination in the legal profession. 17.

In light of these facts, their implications, and the additional findings being

corroborated through this action, the substance of this case is clearly of great public interest.

RELEVANCY OF THE CLAIMS IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION 18.

Although this case is—we must hope—an extraordinary example of premeditated

disparate treatment on the basis of race, sex, color or national origin, discrimination in family

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 22 of 411 PAGEID #: 1612

courts and child welfare system is not an unusual occurrence. Refer to section VI.B - “Racism by Guardians Ad Litem a Real Problem in Ohio and Franklin County” below for additional information. 19.

The evidence in this case also helps rule out “underreporting” of unlawful

discrimination in the legal profession or judiciary as a plausible explanation for the solitariness of the Young case. 20.

In addition, the evidence and events surrounding this case help establish both the

feasibility and the likelihood that the phenomena taking place in Ohio and causing a health crisis based the racial and ethnic disparities of Infant Mortality rates is more than institutional and unintentional racism. First, this case shows how multiple state laws, rules, official practices or statutes are unconstitutional, conflict with federal rights and protections, or allow constitutional abuses by state officials acting under the color of law—or as referred to by Plaintiffs: the lack of check and balances. To address the likelihood of premeditated or intentional racism as being the culprit for this phenomena, Plaintiffs demonstrate through this action how cases of public corruption—which typically involve economic incentive or personal gain as their main motive—can also be driven solely by racial and ethnic repugnance. This case also proves that being White American or Caucasian is not a prerequisite for a public official to join a criminal enterprise motivated mainly by aversion to minority groups. 21.

The events and extraordinary facts of the underlying case giving rise to this instant

action started like a textbook example of a hostile and conflictive Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”) that was driven solely by her racial and ethnic bias. But from merely resembling a published

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 23 of 411 PAGEID #: 1613

anecdote, it quickly crossed all boundaries of conscience and reached an extreme when other parties began engaging in wanton misconduct in complicity with the Guardian Ad Litem. Their collective and coordinated unlawful acts of Defendants progressed to systematically discriminate, interfere and willfully deprive Plaintiffs, Father and Son, of their rights—even the most basic ones—and have continued to this day because of Plaintiff Jurado’s place of birth, Hispanic speech accent and dusky complexion, as well as his son’s ethnicity. 22.

Because the deprivation or interference with rights started when Plaintiff N.G. was

only a four month old infant—and during a time he was in need of intervention by the public health and welfare system—he became a prime example of the harmful effects that institutional and individual discrimination can have to a child’s well-being. In some instances, the detriment to minor N.G.’s health and safety was significant and noticeable as a resulting side effect of the premeditated discrimination aimed against his father, Plaintiff Jurado; As defendants’ interests and significance of the harm they would inflict upon Jurado grew, their concern with upholding their duties of care and protection of the child’s best interests diminished, to the point of becoming acts of child neglect and endangerment. 23.

As soon as Plaintiff Jurado made his first attempts to publicly denounce the

institutional and individual discrimination by the Courts and GAL respectively, acts of retaliation began against him and vindictive conduct could be consistently observed by the primary coconspirators. Ultimately, a smaller scale instance of collusion transformed into a wider conspiracy consisting of several subsidiary schemes, all sharing common motivators and goal: racial and ethnic aversion, retaliation, concealment and maintaining the status quo.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 24 of 411 PAGEID #: 1614

24.

The enduring discrimination by race and ethnicity that persevere in some areas of the

community, including private sectors, further deepens the detrimental effects of racism that the child welfare system has to the well-being of minority children. In the case at hand, there have been two entire episodes of collusion between the Guardians Ad Litem, the juvenile court and two distinct daycare facilities—whose administrators and staff shared the same racist values—that voluntarily participated and continue to participate in the conspiracy.

Both

facilities perpetrated overt acts to conceal information pertinent to the well-being of the child, and to unlawfully interfere with Jurado’s Civil Rights, ultimately exposing plaintiff minor N.G. to health risks and threats of serious injury. 25.

The resulting harm of Defendants’ concerted action has been factual, severe and

evident:  medical care for the infant child withheld  Hindrance of Plaintiff Jurado during his attempts to feed his own infant son as he cried incessantly because of hunger, even after minor N.G. went hungry almost daily during his first six months of life and was showing signs or at risk of experiencing Failure to Thrive  interfered with the child’s daycare placement that twice caused the infant’s permanent disenrollment from two different child care facilities, during his first two and a half years of life  the accumulated emotional distress that resulted in Father and Son being picked up from the side of the freeway by EMS personnel and taken to the Emergency Room, after months of exposure to deliberate and pervasive torment and harassment by the perpetrators, and a recent re-experience of the same health crisis triggered by the same factors in February 2015  the open declaration by Defendant Judge Jamison that Jurado was an adversary of the Court, only because he raised constitutional claims, bias and other concerns about the Guardian Ad Litem, Defendant Bethel  11

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 25 of 411 PAGEID #: 1615

26.

In December 2015, and after being harassed and tormented for 18 months, the

Juvenile Court Defendants authorized and carried out the harassment of Plaintiff Jurado, Plaintiff N.G. and his elderly grandparents at their home with unnecessary unannounced visits to frighten, cause panic, and inflict substantial distress, compelling them to call for emergency help and to consider the immediate relocation to an undisclosed safe location  Plaintiff Jurado was censured in open court for having in his living room a Civil Rights Magazine with Dr. Martin Luther King on the cover  In retaliation for bringing suit against Judge Jamison in the State’s High Court and learning about Jurado’s intentions to seek relief in federal court, the Juvenile Court summarily found Plaintiff Jurado in Contempt and sentenced him to jail time without affording him any of his constitutional rights  At the next hearing, Judge Jamison denied Plaintiff Jurado his constitutional right to Appeal and unlawfully detained him  27.

Two of the goals of the conspiracy were achieved when Plaintiff Jurado was driven to

poverty and was denied access to the courts, while being compelled to litigate four concurrent cases in four different courts at once and without assistance of private or appointed counsel, and the number of concurrent cases being litigated increasing to seven in the two months following the institution of this action, showing escalated retaliation. As a result, he has been depending on charitable assistance and the financial help of family and friends to make ends meet, all while being responsible for half of the care and expenses related to the child  As another adverse reaction to Jurado’s effort to seek relief under Title VI, Defendants combined their efforts to completely severe Plaintiffs’ father-son bond and relationship as punishment and to deprive the child of contact with someone with whom he has a strong attachment abruptly and inappropriately, from being able to go home, sleep in his own bed, and from the 12

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 26 of 411 PAGEID #: 1616

care and company of his Dad Jurado, for close to one hundred (100) consecutive days and counting, as of the filing of this instant first amended complaint. Defendants concerted action in retaliation was swift and effective with this abrupt punishment of the indefinite suspension of Jurado’s parenting time using the pretext of a staged act of contempt, knowingly harming both Plaintiffs given that little N.G. had spent all of his life together with his father except for separations of no longer than 2 days at a time on average. 28.

Most recently, as of March 2015, the owner, director and some teachers of the

daycare facility where N.G. attends, increase their participation in the conspiracy by overtly engaging in unlawful conduct—including perjury, falsification of documents and other fraud, premeditated disparate treatment of Jurado and N.G., and their segregation on account of their race and ethnicity while in the premises—concluding with their successful plot to stage a unsafe area for framing Jurado with exposing the child to safety risks and with the infliction of injuries to the child, and in the alternative, to intimidate and demoralize Plaintiff Jurado. These defendants were also successful at denying Jurado access to the facility and his equal enjoyment of their services. In collaboration with Defendant Judge Jamison, they reinforced their premeditated discrimination against Jurado by having the Judge issue an Order to restrict Jurado even further during his visits to the facility and to spend time with his son.

I.B.

NATURE OF ACTION AND RELIEF SOUGHT

Plaintiffs, Aristides Jurado, acting Pro Se and N.G., a minor child, through his father and next best friend Aristides Jurado, submit their Complaint and Jury Demand as follows:

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 27 of 411 PAGEID #: 1617

I.B.1. 29.

FOR PREEMPTION BY FEDERAL LAW, SEEKING INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF Plaintiffs bring this action to invalidate specific rules and regulations for the

Government of the Bar of Ohio containing provisions that stand as obstacles to reach the objectives of Congress in respect to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. This conflict gives rise to forward-looking relief sought by Plaintiffs against Defendants Scott J. Drexel and Amy Stone, as officials and representatives of Ohio’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), to permanently enjoin them and preclude them from enforcing the preempted state rules as they are currently written. These state rules have consistently resulted in adverse disparate impact on minorities, and at times, in disparate treatment of members of protected groups.

I.B.2. 30.

FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO STATE LAWS, RULES, OFFICIAL PRACTICES, SEEKING PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF In addition to the invalid rules and regulations for the Government of the Bar that are

in conflict with federal law, several other state laws that are unconstitutional have allowed the civil rights conspiracy and its damaging power to proliferate freely. Of those, Plaintiffs are limiting their constitutional challenges to only two of them for fear of causing delays in the granting by this court of the immediate temporary relief requested. 31.

For the reasons being explained, Plaintiffs give notice of additional claims and

constitutional challenges to other statutes that may be brought up during the course of this action if this court would allow it—in addition to the ones listed below—including a challenge to ORC 2701.03, as well as the request for a three-judge court.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 28 of 411 PAGEID #: 1618

I.B.2(a)

32.

ORC 4112.05(H) AND RELATED OFFICIAL PRACTICES BY DEFENDANTS OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION AND OHIO OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL Through this action, Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of a statute enacted by

Ohio’s legislature, ORC 4112.05(H), that defines one of the many procedures and duties of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, but which hinder the consistent availability of remedies for appealing decisions and orders by the Commission, mainly the judicial review available under ORC 4112.06. 33.

The unconstitutionality of the statute or its interpretation and application by the

state courts and by the Commission, as applied to Plaintiff Jurado, have allowed the intentional discrimination, misconduct and other unlawful acts to be perpetrated by the Commission and some of its officials against Jurado, while foreclosing any adequate remedy for judicial review or appeal of the Commission’s orders, decisions and conduct, in further violation of Jurado’s constitutional and statutory rights and protections. 34.

To rectify the defects and avoid a recurrence, Plaintiff Jurado seeks a permanent

declaration that ORC 4112.05(H) violates the rights and protections of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and a permanent injunction against Defendants OCRC, Dunn, Garcia, OOAG and Gutowski to preclude them from continuing to engage in the current official practice of issuing “findings of fact” that consist of a basic conclusory statement, and which renders the appellate review available under ORC 4112.06 useless for complainants aggrieved by the Commission’s final determination of “no probable cause”.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 29 of 411 PAGEID #: 1619

I.B.2(b) 35.

ORC §§2505.09, 2505.12 AND 2505.16, AND RELATED STATE COURT RULES, PROCEEDINGS AND PRACTICES UNCONSTITUTIONAL The third state law consisting of a set of statutes, court rules, proceedings and

practices that have facilitated the persistence of the conspiracy against Plaintiffs, and the accomplishment of one or more objectives of the conspiracy, are all related to the requirement of giving supersedeas bond as a pre-requisite to granting a Stay to Appellant Contemnors under a specific set of circumstances. 36.

When Appellant Contemnors seek relief in the form of a Stay while facing the risk of

incarceration or while under threat of being deprived of substantial rights that produce irreparable harm, and their relief sought is denied by the trial court or the Court of Appeals— even when the Appellant cannot afford to cover the requirement of giving supersedeas bond, or despite the knowledge that the underlying order being subject of the Contempt is not for the payment of money or any type of financial obligation—it results in the deprivation of the Appellant’s right to a Fair Proceeding or Trial as required by the Due Process Clause. This constitutional deprivation was established by the US Supreme Court in Turner v. Rogers, __ U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. 2507, 180 L.Ed.2d 452 (2011), and the Ohio Supreme Court in Liming v. Damos, 133 Ohio St.3d 509, 2012-Ohio-4783, as long as the following additional factors or conditions exist: (i)

No Court-Appointed counsel provided at civil contempt proceeding for those unable to retain counsel and no other “alternative procedural safeguards” provided by the State, including (ii) No adequate notice of the hearing date, (iii) No opportunity to defend against the contempt charges at the initial contempt hearing, (iv) No opportunity to appeal from the finding of contempt and any purge conditions.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 30 of 411 PAGEID #: 1620

37.

Given that the statutes being challenged as unconstitutional allow the trial court and

the appeals court the â&#x20AC;&#x153;discretionâ&#x20AC;? to grant or deny a Stay being sought by the Appellant, the trial court and the appeals court are in effect able to deny a person the opportunity to appeal even when all the other factors above exist; this is especially true given that the denial of a stay is a terminal ruling because the purge proceeding, incarceration or other substantial deprivation is carried out long before the appeal is decided on the merits. 38.

Plaintiff Jurado seeks a preliminary and expedited injunction to stay three judgments

being appealed and their related purge proceedings which will produce substantial irreparable harm, given that there has been multiple instances in which a Stay has been denied to Jurado by both courts (the Juvenile Court and the Appeals Court) and he currently faces the real and imminent risk of loss of personal liberty by imprisonment based on erroneous or unlawful decisions by the juvenile court in two different judgments, motivated by unlawful discrimination or retaliation; and a third instance in which a stay was also denied by both courts in which Jurado is deprived of substantial constitutional rights. He also seeks a permanent declaration that the statutes, rules and court practices that allow limitless discretion to state courts to deny a Stay sought by an applicant are unconstitutional under the circumstances identified above, and a permanent injunction to prevent the Juvenile Court from denying Jurado another Stay under similar circumstances in the future.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 31 of 411 PAGEID #: 1621

I.B.3.

39.

FOR SYSTEMATICAL VIOLATIONS OF THE PROHIBITIONS OF TITLE II OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 AND OF STATE DISCRIMINATION LAWS, SEEKING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL This action includes requests for remedies on claims of intentional discrimination in

child day care facilities, under the two scenarios in which the acts of discrimination were perpetrated as independent action by the daycare facilities, their staff and administration, and as part of the concerted action among conspirators within the facility and third party private actors and state actors. The unlawful discrimination involved the disparate treatment of Plaintiffs as compared to similarly situated parents and children, and the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ right to the full and equal enjoyment of the facilities and services provided—all on account of their race, national origin or ethnicity, in violation of the prohibitions under 42 U.S.C. §2000a, and ORC §§4112.02 and 4112.99. 40.

These claims also include violations against the prohibitions of 42 U.S.C. §2000a–1,

which gives all persons the right to be free from discrimination at any establishment or place on the ground of color, race or national origin if it is or purports to be required by any law, rule or order of a State or its agencies. In this case, the discrimination experienced by Plaintiffs at the daycare facilities was exacerbated with orders issued by Defendants the Juvenile Court and Defendant Terri Jamison knowingly ratifying the ongoing unlawful discrimination against Plaintiffs under the disguise of their authority under the color of state law. 41.

Plaintiffs also seek immediate temporary injunction to halt the current and ongoing

harm, and permanent relief for the ongoing violations of the prohibitions under 42 U.S.C. §2000a–2, including prohibitions against intimidation, threats, coercion in order to

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 32 of 411 PAGEID #: 1622

interfere with Plaintiffsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; rights to be free of discrimination in daycare facilities, and the prohibition against punishment of Plaintiffs and retaliation against them for their exercise or attempts to exercise their rights under Title II of The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Presently, Plaintiffs have and continue to endure intimidation, threats, punishment and retaliation by Defendants within the daycare facilities in joint action with private parties defendants and state actors defendants, who collectively are inflicting severe and irreparable harm to little N.G. and his father Jurado. 42.

Plaintiffs also seek compensatory and exemplary damages against defendants for

restitution of the injuries caused by their vicious acts.

I.B.4. 43.

FOR SYSTEMATICAL AND RANDOM VIOLATIONS OF THE PROHIBITIONS OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, SEEKING DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Through this action, Plaintiffs hope to redress the wrongs done to them by the

premeditated unlawful discrimination of recipients of federal funds, including state government executive branch agencies, judicial entities and institutions, as well as non-governmental subrecipient of federal funds, such as the Goddard School-Hilliard II. 44.

The disparate treatment of Plaintiffs in account of their race, national origin and

ethnicity by programs and activities recipient of federal funds has been overt; and the state officials under those programs have engaged in conduct that is indefensible. Therefore, Plaintiffs seek damages against Defendants and demand for jury trial.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 33 of 411 PAGEID #: 1623

I.B.5.

45.

FOR CIVIL AND CRIMINAL OFFENSES AGAINST CHILDREN, THE FAMILY AND THE COMMUNITY ACCORDING TO STATE AND COMMON LAW AND FEDERAL STATUTES, SEEKING PREVENTIVE RELIEF, PERMANENT EQUITABLE RELIEF, DAMAGES, OTHER TYPES OF RELIEF, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL, AND JUDICIAL REFERRAL TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES Plaintiffs bring this action to remedy the collective acts to perpetrate felony offenses

related to interference with custody, pursuant to ORC 2919.23(A)(1)—for which civil liability is authorized by ORC 2307.50 in parallel with ORC 3109.051(K)—through restitution by the award of compensatory and punitive damages. Because the injuries being inflicted are present, ongoing and steadily increasing in severity, Plaintiffs seek a preliminary and expedited injunction to discontinue the harmful interference with custody, abrupt deprivation of contact between Plaintiffs, and the severance of little N.G.’s primary attachment. 46.

Plaintiffs also seek a preliminary declaration that Plaintiff N.G. is a victim of crime

under this statute and that the defendants prima facie committed the crime through private conduct, in collusion with state actors abusing their authority under the color of law to mask their criminal acts as lawful. Compensatory parenting time is also sought under this cause of action. 47.

Also Plaintiffs seek preliminary and expedited injunctive relief as preventive safety

measure and declaration that minor N.G. has been a neglected or abused child as defined and authorized by ORC 2151.031, divisions (B), (C), (D) and (E), as a limited remedy for Defendants’ voluntary agreement and participation in a criminal partnership to perpetrate acts of child endangerment, and other premeditated offenses of child neglect and abuse in violation of ORC §§2919.22(A), 2919.22(B), 2151.011 et seq., and 2151.421. 20

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 34 of 411 PAGEID #: 1624

48.

Plaintiffs also seek compensatory and exemplary damages for violations of

ORC 2151.421, for which liability is authorized under ORC 2151.421(M). 49.

Because the criminal enterprise that targeted Plaintiff Minor N.G. by carrying out

premeditated acts of child endangerment, and targeted both Plaintiffs by attempting to injure, intimidate and interfere with their participation in federal protected activities, was primarily motivated by racial and ethnic aversion—resulting in the unlawful deprivation of Plaintiffs rights under the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §§241–242 and violation of the prohibitions of 18 U.S.C. §245—Plaintiffs pray for a Judicial Referral to the United States Attorney for investigation and possible prosecution of these spiteful criminal acts by Private Defendants who have conspired with State Actors engaging in official misconduct and abuses under the color of law. Any involvement of state and local government agencies in investigations deriving from this action will not serve the interests of justice, given the reasonable presumption that the integrity of their operations has already been compromised or will likely be compromised by the mechanism of the ongoing conspiracy; incontrovertible evidence shows that significant interference with multiple government agencies have been achieved by the conspiracy during the past two years. 50.

Similarly, Plaintiffs will seek the intervention in this action by the Attorney General

for civil enforcement in the name of the United States, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. §§2000a– 3(a), 2000a–5, 2000b(a), and 2000h–2; this serves as notice of such intent by Plaintiffs.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 35 of 411 PAGEID #: 1625

I.B.6.

51.

FOR UNLAWFUL ACTS, FRAUD, AND OTHER STATE-LAW AND COMMON-LAW TORTS, INCLUDING CIVIL CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THESE ACTS, SEEKING DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL By instituting this action, Plaintiffs seek restitution for the damages caused by the

unlawful acts of Defendants acting independently and jointly to purposely cause harm to Plaintiffs in violation of prohibitions under common law and state laws, including tortious interference with business relationships, common law fraud, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and other torts.

I.B.7.

52.

FOR PREMEDITATED DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS UNDER SEC. 1983 AND SEC. 1985, AND RESULTING INJURIES, SEEKING PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT EQUITABLE RELIEF, DAMAGES, AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs bring this action to stop the present and ongoing harm inflicted upon them,

to prevent additional irreparable harm resulting from the intentional disparate treatment because of plaintiffs’ ethnicity, color and sex, and from the gross misconduct, and unlawful conspiratorial conduct engaged by defendants to interfere with and to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights, and to seek redress for the past injuries suffered by Plaintiffs, which were caused by Defendants’ wrongdoings and their retaliation. 53.

This case emanates from the initial malignant discrimination and misconduct by

Defendant Bethel, motivated by her racial and ethnical bias. When Plaintiff Jurado started challenging her and sought help and redress because of the harm she was causing him and his son, Defendant Bethel escalated her misconduct and evolved to conspire with others in order to interfere and deprive plaintiffs of their rights and protections of the law. While defendant Bethel’s deceit and other offenses were initially motivated solely by both private financial 22

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 36 of 411 PAGEID #: 1626

gain—as apparent from the racket scheme engaged by her and the custody evaluator—as well as conscious racial/ethnical bias, the two main motives throughout the case have been (a) retaliation and (b) their view and conviction that blacks, Hispanics and other minorities are inferior and do not stand equal before the law and the constitution. The results have been disastrous, and have caused substantial detriment to minor child Plaintiff N.G.’s welfare, including the withholding of medical care and the complete abandonment of the best interest of the child. 54.

One example of many instances of harm caused by defendants can be observed on

separate incidents in which two distinct and unrelated daycare facilities permanently expelled the toddler at the hand of defendants McCash and Bethel. For over a year and a half, defendant Bethel co-conspired with attorney Erika Smitherman, minor N.G.’s mother and others to commit fraud, tamper with witnesses, and abuse their positions and authority with the goal of depriving Plaintiffs of equal protection, procedural due process, substantive due process, and other constitutional rights, resulting in extensive harm to Plaintiff Jurado and Plaintiff N.G. 55.

Due to their sharing of common values and views about race, the sentiment that

Jurado’s posture of denouncing discrimination against Bethel and the Juvenile Court is “him vs. us”, and Bethel’s already influential power and connections with the courts and the SCO, several state actors joined the conspiracy as allies of Bethel, from both the judicial and executive branch of Ohio’s state government.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 37 of 411 PAGEID #: 1627

56.

The adversity endured by the Plaintiffs was aggravated by Defendants Stone, the ODC

and Jamison when they denied Plaintiffs of any relief or protection. Instead, in March 2014, Defendant Stone revealed Father’s grievance and his identity to Bethel—an act that fueled more retaliation by Bethel followed by Jamison. What’s more, the ODC-SCO defendants shared with Bethel all the supporting documentation and evidence that Jurado had submitted to them, in violation of ethical rules, common sense and the prohibitions of Title VI. Immediately after, hostility by Bethel reached unprecedented levels and Defendant Jamison openly proclaimed Plaintiff Jurado an adversary of the court, driven by her already-noticeable intolerance to his accent, by her bias and by retaliation. 57.

From that point forward, the offensive acts being carried out by Defendant Jamison

and others within the Judiciary Branch under the color of law, in concert with the named Defendants, have been pervasive, continuous and consistently escalating—respect to magnitude and severity of the injuries—in direct proportion to Plaintiff Jurado’s efforts to seek redress and end the harm. The ultimate and resulting effect of the judiciary branch participants translates into the complete absence of an adequate state forum for Jurado to pursue adjudication of his constitutional claims, enforcement of federally protected rights and redress of wrongs. These extreme adverse circumstances are substantiated with hard evidence of prearranged or pre-determined outcomes of Jurado’s actions or complaints long before the controversies are ripe for adjudication. 58.

After twenty two months of seeking the help and protection of state and local

authorities, and petitioning the state government and judiciary for redress of the wrongdoings

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 38 of 411 PAGEID #: 1628

being committed against Plaintiffs, all they have to show for is their avoidance, indifference and participation in the concealment efforts of the conspiracy. Their posture left Plaintiffs with no adequate remedies left, other than the filing of a civil rights action in Federal Court. 59.

Most importantly, the overwhelming and overt acts of retaliation against Plaintiffs

create the necessity of timely intervention by this court, especially when irreparable harm is being inflicted and the heightened threat of more irreparable harm is present and imminent.

II. 60.

JURISDICTION

This action arises under federal laws, the Constitution of the United States, and

Constitution of the State of Ohio. 61.

The United States District Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matters of

this action as conferred under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343, and 42 U.S.C. §§2000a–6(a) and 2000d–7. The United States District Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367. 62.

This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§1981, 1983, 1985,

1986 and 1988, 28 U.S.C. §1367, 28 U.S.C. §§2201-2202, the All-Writs Act (AWA), 28 U.S.C. §1651(a), 42 U.S.C. §§2000a, et seq., and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§2000d, et seq. (“Title VI”).

III. VENUE 63.

Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §1391 because it is the district in which

the defendants reside or are located, and were the unlawful acts have been committed.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 39 of 411 PAGEID #: 1629

IV. PARTIES IV.A. PLAINTIFFS 64.

Plaintiff Aristides Jurado (“Jurado”), and adult citizen of the United States born in

Panama, is and has been at all relevant times resident of Franklin County, Ohio, and within the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. Because of his ancestry, he has a dusky complexion and also a Hispanic speech accent—even after more than 25 years of living in the States—due the effect of living in Miami, FL for fifteen years. Plaintiff Jurado is also the father of Plaintiff N.G., who is two and a half years old and the subject of a child custody dispute between his parents. The unusually high number of irregularities and infringements in the child custody case has resulted in collateral litigation spanning over a total of NINE court cases/petitions across five different courts and jurisdictions, including this one. Of those, Plaintiff Jurado was the relator party in disposed case 2014-1225 and petitioner in disposed petition 2015-AP-005 both of the Supreme Court of Ohio. He is also being forced to litigate concurrently these SEVEN active cases Pro Se as (a) Defendant in the main child custody dispute under case number 12-JU-014479 of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division and Juvenile Branch (b) defendant-appellant in pending cases 14-AP-872, 15-AP-0026 and 15-AP-0080 of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, (c) Relator in pending case 2015-0240 of the Supreme Court of Ohio (d) defendant in pending case 13-CV-011378 of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court, General Division, and (d) plaintiff in pending case 15-cv-0074 of the US District Court SD Ohio (this one).

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 40 of 411 PAGEID #: 1630

65.

Plaintiff N.G. is a minor child (“Plaintiff N.G.”, “the Child” or “Minor Child”) and has

been at all times resident of Franklin County, Ohio, and within the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. He is a party to this civil action through his father and next best friend Aristides Jurado. Plaintiff N.G. is the subject of the custody dispute between the child’s mother, Defendant Kathrine Jo Hernandez Lambert (“Lambert”), and Plaintiff Jurado.

IV.B. DEFENDANTS IV.B.1. IV.B.1(a) 66.

JUDICIARY BRANCH DEFENDANTS BLYTHE BETHEL, ESQ. Defendant Blythe Bethel (“Bethel” or “former-GAL”), a white American of Caucasian

descent, is a family law attorney licensed to practice in Ohio and appointed by the Defendant the Juvenile Court, to act as an arm of the court, and as the Guardian Ad Litem for the child being the subject of the custody dispute between Plaintiff Jurado and his son’s mother Lambert, until her recent involuntary discharge. Defendant Bethel is being sued in her official capacity, delegated capacity, and individual personal capacity for acts performed outside the normal functions of a GAL. The Ohio Revised Code and Ohio Superintendence Rule 48 sets guidelines for the duties and rights of Guardians Ad Litem (“GAL”), and in Ohio’s common law, GALs are considered a quasi-judicial officer of the court and they are afforded absolute quasijudicial immunity. See, e.g., Penn v. McMonagle (1990), 60 Ohio App.3d 149. The rights and duties of GALs extend beyond their period of appointment by the Juvenile Court. Her principal office is in Columbus, Ohio.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 41 of 411 PAGEID #: 1631

IV.B.1(b) 67.

JUDGE TERRI JAMISON Defendant Terri Jamison (“Jamison” or “Judge Jamison”) is a duly elected Judge for

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Juvenile Branch, (“CPC” or “The Juvenile Court”) who is presiding over the custody case numbered 12JU-11-14479 for the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities (“custody”) over Plaintiff Minor Child N.G. Defendant Judge Jamison is being sued in her official capacity and her individual personal capacity for acts performed outside of normal functions of a judicial officer.

IV.B.1(c) 68.

THOMAS MCCASH, ESQ. Defendant Thomas McCash (“GAL McCash” or “current GAL”) is a family law attorney

licensed to practice in Ohio and recently appointed by the Defendant the Juvenile Court to act as an arm of the Court and as the Guardian Ad Litem for the child being the subject of the custody dispute, and in replacement of former-GAL Defendant Blythe Bethel. His principal office is in Columbus, Ohio. Defendant GAL McCash is being sued in his official capacity, in his delegated capacity, and in his individual personal capacity for acts performed outside the normal functions of a GAL.

IV.B.1(d) 69.

AMY C. STONE, ESQ. Defendant Amy C. Stone (“Stone”) is an Assistant Disciplinary Counsel for Ohio’s

Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”). Defendant Stone is being sued in her official capacity and her individual personal capacity. Her principal office is in Columbus, Ohio.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 42 of 411 PAGEID #: 1632

IV.B.1(e) 70.

SCOTT J. DREXEL, ESQ. Defendant Scott J. Drexel, (“Drexel”) is the duly appointed Disciplinary Counsel of the

Supreme Court of Ohio. Defendant Drexel is being sued in his official capacity. His principal office is in Columbus, Ohio.

IV.B.1(f) 71.

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL & OHIO SUPREME COURT Defendant Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) is part of the administrative

structure of the institution known as the Supreme Court of Ohio (“SCO”) and one of three offices that make up the Disciplinary System, which governs the ethics and conduct of the legal profession and the state’s judiciary. Named and unnamed defendants Stone, ODC & SCO, John Doe, and Jane Doe III collectively referred to herein as “ODC–SCO Defendants”. (SCO not considered a separate defendant but, instead, is defined as same defendant as ODC) 72.

In any context but particularly in the context of civil rights and federal constitutional

enforcement, the self-governance apparatus of Ohio’s Disciplinary System and legal profession as a whole is of significance because its inherent lack of check and balances. 73.

During relevant times to this action, the SCO has been a recipient of federal funds

through the following grant programs totaling in excess of $1M in 2013 alone: (a) CFDA 16.803, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants Program (JAG) (e.g., sub-grant number 2013JG-D01-6890); (b) CFDA 16.013, OVW’s Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Court Training and Improvement Grants Program; (c) CFDA 16.588, STOP VAWA Formula Grants Program ( e.g., sub-grant number 2013-WF-VA1-8855); (d) State Justice Institute Grant number SJI-13-N-

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 43 of 411 PAGEID #: 1633

141; (e) CFDA 93.643, Children's Justice Grants to States; (f) CFDA 93.586, State Court Improvement Program and (g) CFDA 93.669, Child Abuse and Neglect State Grants. 74.

Under the statutory and regulatory definitions of “program or activity”, prohibitions

under Title VI apply to the entire SCO institution including all of its judicial and administrative offices and divisions, such as the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-4a(1). The SCO and ODC, collectively (“the Disciplinary System”)—independently from their status of program recipient of federal funds and because of their constitutionally delegated duties—act as an outside agent to multiple “federal-funds-recipient programs” throughout the state, with full authority to govern them and with control to minimize or prevent unlawful discrimination.

IV.B.1(g) 75.

FRANKLIN COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT, DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS & JUVENILE BRANCH Defendant the Juvenile Court (“the Juvenile Court”) is a branch of the Common Pleas

Court of Franklin County, Division of Domestic Relations. The Juvenile Court, as a program or activity, has been a recipient of federal funds during relevant times of this action through discretionary, block and formula grant programs, such as (a) CFDA 16.745, Criminal and Juvenile Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program, (b) CFDA 16.738, Byrne JAG Program (e.g. sub-grant number 2011-JG-C01-6928 - Franklin County Family Drug Court with period ending in 2013); (c) CFDA 16.523, Juvenile Accountability Block Grants (e.g. Federal award ID 2010JBFX0043, Subgrant 2010-JB-RPU-0801 for Drug Courts with end date of 12-31-2013); (d) CFDA 16.525, Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program, and others.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 44 of 411 PAGEID #: 1634

76.

Just like any other court in the state of Ohio, the Juvenile Court is expected to

conduct its proceedings in accordance to statewide rules and laws, as well as its local rules defined under the guidance of the Rules of Superintendence set forth by the Ohio Supreme Court.

IV.B.2.

EXECUTIVE BRANCH DEFENDANTS

IV.B.2(a) 77.

OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION Defendant The Ohio Civil Rights Commission (“OCRC” or “The Commission”) is an

independent state government agency established in 1959 with statutory duties designated under Section 4112 of the Ohio Revised Code, and modeled after its federal counterpart the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). OCRC’s core mission is the enforcement of state discrimination laws, and the prescription and enforcement of related rules and regulations. 78.

The Commission derives its independent status from its autonomy within the state

government’s executive branch: The Commission is not under direct control of The Governor or The Governor’s Cabinet. In practice, such autonomy is only a fiction due to Ohio Office of the Attorney General’s conflicting authority and control over all aspects of the Commission’s litigation and legal representation. 79.

The decisions, determinations and orders of the Commission are subject to judiciary

review under ORC 4112.06.

But no such remedy exists in the particular scenario of a

complainant aggrieved by the Commission’s final determination of “no probable cause”, because of the state courts’ current application of ORC 4112.05(H), which requires OCRC to 31

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 45 of 411 PAGEID #: 1635

issue “findings of facts”. In Ohio, a finding of facts under ORC 4112.05(H) consisting of a basic conclusory statement is considered “adequate” under Ohio common law, resulting in inadequate judiciary review due to a state court’s limited permissible scope of appellate review. 80.

OCRC, as a program or activity, has been a recipient of federal funds during relevant

times of this action through federal agency contracts and project grants, such as CFDA 30.002 and CFDA 14.401, respectively, and with totals of $2,299,771 for FY 2012, $2,102,462 for FY 2013 and $2,010,122 for FY 2014. These totals do not include additional federal funding received under CFDA 14.195.

IV.B.2(b) 81.

RICHARD T. GARCIA Defendant Richard T. Garcia (“OCRC Investigator” or “Garcia”) is an employee of the

Ohio Civil Rights Commission. Defendant Garcia’s job title is Investigator and his responsibility includes the investigation of discrimination charges for the Commission’s Columbus Branch. His principal office is in Columbus, Ohio. Defendant OCRC Investigator Garcia is being sued in his official capacity, and in his individual personal capacity.

Defendant Garcia handled the

investigation of Jurado’s complaint to the OCRC against Brooksedge Daycare for discrimination.

IV.B.2(c) 82.

BRADLEY S. S. DUNN Defendant Bradley S. S. Dunn (“OCRC Reconsideration Supervisor” or “Dunn”) is an

employee of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. Defendant Dunn’s job title is Reconsideration Supervisor and his responsibility includes re-examining information gathered during a Commission’s original investigation, review any additional information provided by the parties, and make a final recommendation for the commissioners. His principal office is in Akron, Ohio, 32

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 46 of 411 PAGEID #: 1636

but works on reconsideration cases for the Columbus Branch.

Defendant OCRC

Reconsideration Supervisor Dunn is being sued in his official capacity, and in his individual personal capacity. Defendant Dunn handled Jurado’s Reconsideration petition of his two dismissed complaints against Brooksedge Daycare for discrimination and retaliation.

IV.B.2(d) 83.

OHIO OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Defendant Ohio Office of the Attorney General (“OOAG”) is one of several

departments that make up the executive branch of Ohio’s state government. The OOAG is headed by the Ohio Attorney General, who serves a term of 4-years in elected office. The Attorney General is entrusted by statute to function in the broad role of the state’s chief legal officer, which includes a number of distinct duties that at times may conflict with each other. For example, the attorney general acts as the state’s top law enforcement official for protecting Ohio families and its citizens through different programs and by supporting the investigative efforts of other state and local law enforcement agencies. At the same time, the Attorney General and the OOAG act as the state’s top prosecutor for fighting crime, while also functioning in the capacity of chief counsel for the state, whose duties include providing legal advice and representation to state government agencies and state officials in all legal matters. 84.

OOAG is made up of almost 30 divisions or sections, such as the Bureau of Criminal

Investigation (“BCI”) and the Civil Rights section among others. Even when only some of OOAG’s sections are recipients of federal funds, the prohibitions under Title VI apply equally to all its sections, given that the OOAG is defined as the overarching program or activity. During

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 47 of 411 PAGEID #: 1637

relevant times to this action, the OOAG has been a recipient of federal funds totaling in excess of $26M in 2013 alone. 85.

The $26M+ in federal funds were disbursed to Defendant OOAG by federal agencies

through block, formula, project and discretionary type grants, as well as cooperative agreements, including: (a) CFDA 16.803, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants Program (JAG) Sub-grants 2012-JG-A02-6251, 2013-JG-A02-6251, 2011-JG-A02-T1292 (through 12/31/13), (b) CFDA 16.742 Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Grants Program, awards S2014-CD-BX-0057, 2013-CD-BX-0047, (c) CFDA 16.741 DNA Capacity Enhancement and Backlog Reduction Program 2013-DN-BX-0088, 2014-DN-BX-0062; (d) CFDA 16.554 National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) 2012MUMUK008, (e) CFDA 20.600 State and Community Highway Safety Officer Training 18X9204020OH13; (f) CFDA 16.575 Crime Victim Assistance 2013VAGX0027; (g) CFDA 16.576 Crime Victim Compensation 2013VCGX0030; (h) CFDA 16.750 Support for Adam Walsh Act Implementation Grant Program 2013AWBX0010; (i) CFDA 16.560, National Institute of Justice Research, Evaluation, and Development Project Grants; (j) CFDA 16.590, Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program; (k) CFDA 16.746, Capital Case Litigation; (l) CFDA 93.775 State Medicaid Fraud Control Units, among others.

IV.B.2(e) 86.

CAROLYN E. GUTOWSKI, ESQ. Defendant Carolyn E. Gutowski (“Gutowski” or “Assistant AG”), a white American

female of Caucasian descent, is an Assistant Attorney General under the Civil Rights Section of the OOAG. The Civil Rights section of the OOAG provides legal representation services to the

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 48 of 411 PAGEID #: 1638

Ohio Civil Rights Commission in discrimination cases. The section receives some of the federal funds from OCRC that are collected from the reimbursement payment programs. Her principal office is in Columbus, Ohio. Defendant Gutowski is being sued in her official capacity and her individual personal capacity. Defendant Gutowski had an active role and involvement in the investigative stage of the process and final determination by OCRC of Jurado’s two complaints against Brooksedge Daycare for Discrimination and Retaliation, and their reconsideration by the Commission.

IV.B.3.

PRIVATE CORPORATE-TYPE DEFENDANTS

IV.B.3(a) 87.

PETROFF LAW OFFICES Defendant Petroff Law Offices, LLC (“Petroff” or “Petroff Law Firm”) is a law firm

engaged exclusively in the private practice of domestic relations law and is an Ohio-registered domestic limited liability company with entity number 1697694. The law firm’s two partners, Erika Smitherman and Ron Petroff, have been representing Defendant Kathrine Jo Hernandez (Lambert) since November 2012 in the child custody case. They both have been working in tandem as opposing counsel to Plaintiff Jurado in the child custody litigation, in which he is the respondent.

IV.B.3(b) 88.

A.S. LECLAIR COMPANY, INC. D/B/A BROOKSEDGE DAYCARE Defendant A.S. LeClair Company is a privately owned child care center doing business

under the trade name of Brooksedge Daycare in Hilliard, OH (“Brooksedge” or “Brooksedge Daycare”). Defendant Brooksedge is a type of state regulated “child day care” that can only operate if licensed by the state through Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (“ODJFS”).

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 49 of 411 PAGEID #: 1639

Regulated child day care centers are inspected by ODJFS prior to and after receiving a license to verify compliance with state and federal requirements.

They are also inspected or

“investigated” when a complaint is filed with ODJFS. 89.

Defendant Brooksedge Daycare is owned and operated by Amy LeClair since its

incorporation in 2007 as an Ohio corporation-for-profit company, with entity number 1720645. Since October 2012, Brooksedge Daycare has been managed by Amy LeClair and Jessica Jividen, both as Co-Directors. Plaintiff N.G. was enrolled in Brooksedge in September 2012 at 3 months of age, and was cared for by Brooksedge’s caretakers continuously until October 9, 2013 when, at the age of 15 months, Plaintiff N.G. was permanently dismissed from the facility by the daycare directors. 90.

Defendant Brooksedge Daycare was the subject of complaints filed with ODJFS, and

was the Respondent in an administrative complaint investigated by OCRC for discrimination and retaliation—both filed by Plaintiff Jurado in July 2013 as the result of licensing violations and Brooksedge’s participation in a scheme to commit fraud upon the court, both motivated by ethnic bias. 91.

Defendant Brooksedge Daycare is the Plaintiff in the civil case 13-CV-011378, which

was filed in October 2013 as a civil lawsuit against Jurado in the General Division of the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County. The case is currently pending and its discovery phase active.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 50 of 411 PAGEID #: 1640

IV.B.3(c) 92.

EAGLE SCHOOL OF HILLIARD, INC. D/B/A THE GODDARD SCHOOL – HILLIARD II Defendant Eagle School of Hilliard is a privately owned child care center doing

business under the trade name of The Goddard School – Hilliard II in Hilliard, OH (“Goddard School” or “GS Hilliard Daycare”). Defendant The Goddard School – Hilliard is owned by Wilson “Bill” Eagle and Defendant Kimberly “Kim” Eagle. Mr. and Mrs. Eagle’s Corporation-for-Profit has been registered in Ohio since 2001 with entity number 1283344, for the management and operations of two distinct daycare facilities in Hilliard, OH—both franchisees of the national chain The Goddard Systems, Inc. based out of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. The Goddard Systems, Inc. is not a named defendant in this action. 93.

Just like Defendant Brooksedge, Defendant The Goddard School of Hilliard II is a type

of state regulated “child day care” that can only operate if licensed by the state through Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (“ODJFS”), and subject to licensing compliance inspections and investigations upon receipt of complaints. 94.

Defendant The Goddard School’s caretakers have been providing out-of-home care

for Plaintiff N.G. on a full-time basis since October 17, 2013—two days after he was enrolled by Defendant Lambert. Defendant The Goddard School’s caretakers provided care for Plaintiff N.G. on a limited part-time basis between mid-January 2014 and January 2015, because he was dual-enrolled in a second Goddard School facility in Westerville, OH operated and managed by owners other than Mr. and Mrs. Eagle. Defendant The Goddard School of Hilliard resumed the care of the child on a full-time basis in 2015 after the disenrollment of the child from the

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 51 of 411 PAGEID #: 1641

Westerville facility—the 2nd forced dismissal by daycare providers within his first 2.5 years of life. 95.

Defendant the Goddard School serves children covered by publicly funded child care

subsidies, and therefore is a program or activity recipient of federal funds under Title VI, and subject to its prohibitions and regulations.

IV.B.4. IV.B.4(a) 96.

PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ERIKA SMITHERMAN, ESQ. Defendant Erika Smitherman (“Smitherman”), a white American of Caucasian

descent, is a licensed attorney and partner at the Petroff Law Firm and co-counsel for Defendant Lambert in the child custody case. Before private practice, she worked as staff attorney for Judge Elizabeth Gill, who is the Lead Juvenile Judge for the Franklin County Common Pleas Court, Division of Domestic Relations & Juvenile Branch.

Defendant

Smitherman also worked as an Assistant Attorney General for Defendant OOAG under two different sections prior to working in private practice.

IV.B.4(b) 97.

KATHRINE JO HERNANDEZ (LAMBERT) Defendant Kathrine “Kathy” Jo Hernandez (“Lambert”) is the mother of Plaintiff N.G.

and petitioner in the custody case currently being litigated with Jurado as the respondent. Defendant Lambert, who uses the last name Hernandez since adopting her first husband’s last name, is a non-Hispanic white American of Caucasian descent, and a friendly key witness for Defendant Brooksedge in the lawsuit filed against Jurado.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 52 of 411 PAGEID #: 1642

98.

Defendant Lambert works as an executive for Express, Inc., currently holding the

position of Human Resources Director. Plaintiff Jurado and defendant Lambert have known each other since 2010, when both worked together for the fashion retailer (Express Fashion Operation). 99.

Defendant Lambert is the main link between Jurado’s court cases, including the

custody litigation and this civil rights action, and Defendants Brooksedge, the Goddard School of Hilliard, Amy LeClair, Gretchen Wilson and Kim Eagle.

IV.B.4(c)

AMY LECLAIR

100. Defendant Amy LeClair (“LeClair”) is the owner and co-Director of Brooksedge Daycare, and a white American of Caucasian descent. Plaintiff Jurado has known Defendant LeClair since September 2012, when his son Plaintiff N.G. was first enrolled at the Brooksedge Daycare. 101. Defendant LeClair was the only witness for Defendant Brooksedge during the investigation by OCRC of Jurado’s discrimination complaint. Defendant LeClair was also a friendly key witness for Defendant Lambert and was expected to present testimony during the first part of the trial in January 2015. Defendant LeClair was never called as a witness by Defendants Smitherman and Lambert when they changed their strategy at the 11th hour, just as new evidence emerged in January 2015 that linked Defendants the Goddard School and Brooksedge to the same scheme of collusion with Defendant Lambert.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 53 of 411 PAGEID #: 1643

IV.B.4(d)

ANGELA ALEXANDER SAVINO, ESQ.

102. Defendant Angela Alexander Savino (“Attorney Savino” or “Alexander-Savino”) is a licensed attorney that works for the law firm Perez & Morris, LLC. Attorney Savino and her employer are counsel for Defendant Brooksedge Daycare, providing representation in the civil lawsuit against Jurado and provided representation during the OCRC investigative and adjudicative process against Brooksedge. The law firm Perez & Morris, LLC is not a named defendant in this action.

IV.B.4(e)

GRETCHEN WILSON

103. Defendant Gretchen Wilson (“Wilson” or “Ms. Gretchen”) is a female white American of Caucasian descent and the director of Defendant the Goddard School – Hilliard II, and oversees classroom aspects of the daycare operations, including curriculum and supervision of lead teachers and caretakers. Plaintiff Jurado has known Defendant Wilson since October 2013, after his son, Plaintiff N.G. started attending the center as a replacement for Brooksedge Daycare. 104. Defendant Wilson is a key witness for Defendant Lambert in the child custody case. Defendant Wilson already provided witness testimony during the first part of trial proceedings conducted in January 2015. Her testimony itself is key evidence supporting the allegations in this action.

IV.B.4(f)

KIMBERLY “KIM” EAGLE

105. Defendant Kimberly Eagle (“Eagle” or “Kim Eagle”) is a female white American of Caucasian descent and the owner of Defendant the Goddard School – Hilliard II, and oversees 40

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 54 of 411 PAGEID #: 1644

the financial and back-office operations of the company’s two daycare facilities, including the overseeing of the school’s Director and Assistant Director Functions. Plaintiff Jurado has known Defendant Kim Eagle since October 2013, after his son, Plaintiff N.G. started attending the center as a replacement for Brooksedge Daycare. Most recently, Defendant Eagle testified as a witness during the March 17, 2015 proceeding in the Juvenile court for restricting Jurado’s access to their facility.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 55 of 411 PAGEID #: 1645

IV.C. CO-CONSPIRATORS IV.C.1.

STATE ACTORS

IV.C.2.

PRIVATE ACTORS

(a) Blythe Bethel

(p) Kathy Hernandez (“Lambert”)

(b) Terri Jamison

(q) Erika Smitherman

(r) Petroff Law Offices

(d) Franklin County Common Pleas Court, Division of Domestic Relations & Juvenile Branch

(s) Amy LeClair

(e) Amy Stone, ODC-SCO

(u) Angela Savino

(f) John Doe, SCO

(v) Gretchen Wilson

(g) Jane Doe III, SCO

(w) Goddard School Hilliard II

(h) Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Ohio Supreme Court

(x) Kim Eagle

(t) Brooksedge Daycare

(y) Jane Doe II

(i) Richard Garcia, OCRC (j) Bradley Dunn, OCRC (k) Ohio Civil Rights Commission (l) Carolyn E. Gutowski, OOAG (m) Jane Doe, OOAG (n) John Doe II, OOAG (o) Ohio’s Office of the Attorney General

IV.C.3.

OTHER UNNAMED CONSPIRATORS OR NAMED CONSPIRATORS NOT NAMED AS DEFENDANTS

106. Various Persons and Entities who are known and unknown to Plaintiffs, and not named as defendants in this Civil Rights action, have all participated as co-conspirators with

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 56 of 411 PAGEID #: 1646

named Defendants in the offenses alleged herein, have engaged in concerted action, and have made statements in furtherance of the conspiracy. 107. The conspirators not named as defendants include, and are not limited to:  The attorney retained by Defendant attorney Bethel to boost the harassment against Jurado, Bradley Frick, Esq.  The psychologist and Bethel’s long-established partner she recommended to the Juvenile court to perform evaluations of the parties, Dr. Jeffrey Smalldon  The OCRC investigator assigned to Jurado’s second complaint for retaliation against Brooksedge, Beyan H. Asoba  Defendant Lambert’s long-time friend and licensed counselor, Bethany Dwinnell  Non-elected officers from reviewing state courts, such as Doug W. Eaton, Court Administrator for Ohio’s Tenth District Court of Appeals  Molly Stevens and other caretakers from the Goddard School–Hilliard II  Defendant Lambert’s long-time friend and pediatrician Mark Muresan, M.D.  Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) and some of its agents

V. V.A.

SUMMARY OF CHRONOLOGICAL FACTS, EVENTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

PRE-CUSTODY DISPUTE

108. Summer 2010 - Plaintiff Jurado and Defendant Lambert started a romantic relationship, and learn about each other’s goals: Jurado was looking for a family and children of his own, but Lambert had different goals set for her. 109. In November 2011, Lambert and Jurado agreed to equally co-parent their unborn child, independently of their relationship status—both unmarried at the time.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 57 of 411 PAGEID #: 1647

V.A.1(a)

MARCH-JUNE 2012 - THE CHILD’S LIFE AT RISK BEFORE IT BEGAN

110. In March 2012, Jurado raised concerns to Lambert’s regular OBGYN about Lambert’s low iron levels and her non-compliance with treatment, amid the multi-factor high-risk pregnancy condition. Lambert, in her second trimester of pregnancy at the time, assured her doctor that there was nothing to be worried about. 111. In June 2012 and within weeks of her due date, Lambert was hospitalized on an emergency basis on orders by her high-risk pregnancy OBGYN specialist, due to a severe lifethreatening anemia that jeopardized the lives of the unborn baby and of Lambert. The condition was easily preventable.

V.A.1(b)

JULY-SEPTEMBER 2012 - JURADO AND LAMBERT SUCCESSFUL AT CO-PARENTING THEIR NEWBORN AT FIRST, WHILE THEIR RELATIONSHIP DETERIORATED

112. In June 2012, Jurado started a temporary contract work in Chicago, IL that required him to travel on a weekly basis. 113. In July 2012, Jurado became a first-time father. Lambert delivered her second child without major complications 15 years after her first child was born. At birth, their newborn was exactly in the 50th percentile for weight in the WHO Growth Charts. 114. In September 2012, Jurado and Lambert agreed to enroll their newborn at Brooksedge Daycare for out-of-home care while they were at work. Both parents were present on their son’s first day of attendance on September 24, 2012. Lambert was also dealing with breast milk production issues throughout this period.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 58 of 411 PAGEID #: 1648

115. In October 2012, Jurado started voicing concerns about the health of the child. Simultaneously, their relationship deteriorated significantly. 116. On November 2, 2012, Jurado and Lambert engaged in a heated argument originating from Jurado’s decision to pick-up their infant an hour earlier from daycare than the usual 5pm pick up time, together with safety concerns Jurado had brought up the prior week.

V.B.

NOVEMBER 2012 - CUSTODY LITIGATION BEGAN

117. On November 5, 2012, Lambert filed a complaint in Juvenile Court seeking full custody and a parenting schedule that included time for Jurado to be at the minimum required by law and supervised until the child would turn 18.

V.B.1.

118.

NOVEMBER 2012 - THE START OF THE CONSPIRACY - BROOKSEDGE AND LAMBERT ENTERED INTO FIRST AGREEMENT AND UNLAWFUL ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY – ACCESS DENIALS PROHIBITED BY ORC 5104.039(A) On November 5, 2012, the same day of Lambert’s filing of the custody case,

Brooksedge Daycare allowed Lambert to remove Jurado’s name as the natural father of the child from all the official forms. After this day, Jurado’s name did not even appear as an Emergency Contact. In the case of an emergency, he would have been the last person to find out. Without his name in forms, he was not allowed into the facility to see his son, except with authorization by Lambert, even when Lambert, the Brooksedge staff and administrators knew it was against their written policy, licensing rules and Ohio statute.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 59 of 411 PAGEID #: 1649

V.B.2.

NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2012 - LAMBERT EXERCISED AND ABUSED HER RIGHTS UNDER ORC 3109.042

119. Between November 5, 2012 and Mid-January 2013, Lambert set strict and limited time schedules and provided them on a piecemeal fashion for Jurado and his family to see the child and only under her supervision. Lambert knew that she could not exert that much control without colluding with Brooksedge to unlawfully deny Jurado access to see his son at daycare.

V.B.3.

NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2012 - CHILD’S WEIGHT-GAIN AND NUTRITIONAL PROBLEMS ALARMING FOR JURADO, HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS

120. Between November-December 2012, the low weight and wasting appearance of the child continued to increase to an alarming point. Both Lambert and the Pediatrician agreed that “it is just his size and nothing to worry about”. By the end of the year, the weight rate was still near 0.28% in the Growth Charts. 121. In early January 2013, Jurado learned that the daycare was prohibited by law to deny him access. He discussed it with daycare owner, LeClair, and she conceded that he would be allowed in based on the current state licensing rules and the law. 122. Sometime after his access to the daycare was restored, he inquired with the child’s caretakers regarding his own observations of cues that the infant was left hungry on a daily basis. The caretakers at Brooksedge confirmed that the child cried right after finishing his breast milk bottles but that “he eventually stopped [crying]”. 123. In January-February 2013, Jurado made an attempt to have their son evaluated by a nutritionist but Lambert opposed his decision. The appointment got cancelled.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 60 of 411 PAGEID #: 1650

V.C.

JANUARY 2013 - EQUAL SHARED PARENTING AND UNSUPERVISED PARENTING TIME WITH OVERNIGHTS ORDERED BY THE JUVENILE COURT

124. On January 23, 2013, Jurado and Lambert made their first appearance in court, and the first temporary order was issued with “shared parenting” (co-custody), and unsupervised parenting time for Jurado with gradual increases over the following 3-4 months, as well as overnights starting after six weeks from this date.

V.C.1.

JANUARY 2013 - JURADO NO LONGER RESTRAINED FROM FEEDING INFANT WHEN HUNGRY, RESULTING IN CHILD’S RAPID WEIGHT GAIN TO NORMAL LEVELS

125. Between January and April 2013, solid foods were introduced to the child as secondary sources of nutrients, followed by formula supplementation by Jurado and over Lambert’s objections. Their son finally started gaining weight at a normal pace, eventually reaching again the 50th percentile in the growth charts.

V.C.2.

FEBRUARY 2013 - INTRUSION WITH JURADO’S PARENTING TIME BEGAN

126. By mid-February 2013, not long after Jurado started exercising his court-approved parenting time, he started raising concerns with his attorney about intrusion by Lambert.

V.D.

MARCH 2013 - DEFENDANT BETHEL APPOINTED AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM

127. In March 2013, Defendant Blythe Bethel was named Guardian Ad Litem for the child, whose appointment by the court was prompted specifically by the unresolved disagreement between the parents Jurado and Lambert regarding health-related concerns about the child.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 61 of 411 PAGEID #: 1651

V.D.1.

MARCH 2013 - JURADO’S FIRST PEDIATRIC EXPERT WITNESS TO ADDRESS INFANT’S HEALTH ISSUES

128. In late-March 2013, the second-opinion pediatrician, Dr. Mastruserio, confirmed that the child had experienced weight-gain issues during the first six months of life, and explained the steps that she would have taken had she been the child’s pediatrician. She explained to both parents that, given the circumstances and Lambert’s challenges producing breast milk, supplementing with formula would be recommended because the benefits outweighed any drawbacks.

The pediatrician suggested a referral to a specialist to answer some of the

questions she was unable to answer, including any long-term effects of the nutritional deficiency the child experienced during the first six months of his life. The information was later shared with the attorneys and Bethel. 129. Between late-March and early-April 2013, Lambert breastfed the infant in Jurado’s presence for the last time. He again noticed as he had before that Lambert flickered and slapped the infant’s face as a method of “teaching the infant” not to pull or bite her nipples, even when he had yet to grow teeth. 130. In April 2013, after numerous requests and insistence from Jurado, Lambert finally agreed to (officially) increase the number of ounces of milk per feeding. 131. Sometime between April and May 2013, Dr. Mastruserio asserted with conviction that “we cannot discard the possibility that N.G. experienced Failure to Thrive” (FTT) during his first six months of life.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 62 of 411 PAGEID #: 1652

V.D.2.

APRIL 2013-COURT PROCEEDING BOTCHED BY BETHEL’S PREMEDITATED SCHEDULE CONFLICT

132. On April 17, 2013, the parties attended a court hearing, but the proceeding was never conducted, given that Defendant Bethel had participation in an ongoing trial she had scheduled for the same day and time in the same floor in the Juvenile Court building. It became evident that Bethel had chosen this date for the proceeding, knowing that she had a schedule conflict with an ongoing trial as a tactic to delay the enforcement of her initial recommendation of the 50/50 parenting schedule for Lambert and Jurado. 133. As established extensively in this action, all of Bethel’s initial recommendations given before she found out the true ethnicity and national origin of Lambert and Jurado were reversed instantly after she learned that “Hernandez v. Jurado” was not a custody case between two Hispanic parents, but instead, between a white-Caucasian mother and a Hispanic father. The only recommendation she did not reverse right away was the 50/50 parenting schedule recommendation because it would have been extremely obvious and would have exposed her racial/ethnic bias. Instead, Bethel colluded with Lambert and Smitherman to the delay of the enforcement of the 50/50 parenting schedule as much as possible.

V.D.3.

APRIL 2013 - CONFLICT ESCALATED UNDER BETHEL’S WATCH

134. In early-April 2013, Jurado offered to relinquish his portion of parenting time with overnight visitation as a result of the harassment and duress he was being subjected to. 135. During negotiations while waiting for Bethel to start the April 17, 2013 court proceeding, Jurado and Lambert reached an agreement—through counsel and in Bethel’s

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 63 of 411 PAGEID #: 1653

absence—for an interim parenting schedule covering three specific weeks during which Jurado would have an irregular travel schedule for work. During the same negotiations, Lambert disclosed Bethel’s position, for the very first time, regarding mandatory daycare attendance for the child. Also, the topic of psychological evaluations was brought up for the first time after Jurado presented evidence of stalking and harassment during his parenting time, including over 80 text messages sent by Lambert during a period of a few hours. 136. Starting on April 18, 2013, Jurado started the regular practice of turning all of his phones off, including cell phone and landline, during his parenting time. It was the only recourse left for him to be left alone and in peace during his time with his son. 137. Starting April 25, 2013, hostility, high-conflict and antagonism between Bethel, Lambert, Jurado, and even between the parties’ opposing counsel quickly turned into the rule and not the exception.

The agreement reached for the interim parenting schedule was

sabotaged by Bethel. Rifts between attorneys soared.

V.D.4.

APRIL 2013 - GAL BETHEL REFUSED PEDIATRICIAN’S REQUEST TO DISCUSS CONCERNS

138. On April 25, 2013, Dr. Mastruserio asked to speak with the Guardian Ad Litem, Blythe Bethel. She wanted to explain directly to the GAL her recommendation for a new pediatrician for the child (other than herself). On April 29, 2013, Bethel refused to talk to Dr. Mastruserio, or perform any investigation on the grounds of staying impartial.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 64 of 411 PAGEID #: 1654

V.D.5.

LATE APRIL 2013 - THE HARASSMENT, OPPRESSION AND MISCONDUCT STARTED TAKING A TOLL

139. By late-April 2013, Lambert and Jurado still had a moderate level of communication, despite their differences. Albeit some history of passive-aggressiveness, they both treated the other with basic civility—with exceptions that were far and few between— even during their frequent arguments and conflict, and welcomed each other in their homes. But after this point, the civility and communication dwindled.

V.D.6.

MAY 2013 - FIRST VISIBLE PHYSICAL INJURY TO THE CHILD WITHOUT NORMAL EXPLANATION; ALL CONSPIRATORS PARTICIPATED IN THE CONCEALMENT OF CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT

140. In Early-May 2013, Lambert dropped off the infant at Brooksedge with a highly visible black-eye. Lambert explained to the Brooksedge caretakers that the child had hurt himself with a Sippy cup. The recording from October 8, 2013 provides evidence that Brooksedge should have reported the black eye, as it captured the emergency room doctor at Nationwide Children’s Hospital discussing with Lambert his concerns about the black eye. As Lambert tried to conceal the cause of the infant’s black eye by downplaying the severity of the injury, the doctor firmly maintained his position by telling Lambert “* * * A ten month old with a black eye, I don't have a choice! Like that is a mandate. I would be breaking the law if I didn't report that!” (Emphasis Added.) Tr. NCH ER, Oct. 8, 2013 Part-II, page 1 (See Exhibit ). Defendant Bethel also helped covered up the seriousness of the black eye by dismissing it as “it happened several months ago”.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 65 of 411 PAGEID #: 1655

V.D.7.

MAY 2013 – LAW ENFORCEMENT INVOLVED AFTER A DAY OF AGGRAVATION AND STALKING

141. Friday May 10, 2013, one of Jurado’s parenting days he had looked forward to after returning from another business trip, became another major turning point in the case. Jurado was pressured into staying confined at his home with the child during his two days of parenting time as the result of Lambert and Bethel’s harmful tactics. This turned out to be the last time that either parent entered the other parent’s home, and the boundary set by Jurado is still in effect to this day. It was a rational decision and course of action to call non-emergency Columbus Police after seeing Lambert circling his apartment building on her car for almost an hour. But before he called the cops, he made sure he had tried everything, including requests to Mom pleading for her to vacate the vicinity.

V.E.

MAY 2013 – MENTAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL HARM PRODUCED BY EXTREME DISTRESS LANDED JURADO IN THE HOSPITAL

142. On Saturday May 11, 2013, Jurado and his son were picked up from the freeway by EMS personnel and taken to the Emergency Room, as they were headed to meet Lambert for a scheduled exchange of the child. Because of the symptoms, Jurado was first evaluated, tested and treated for a possible heart failure, during his eight (plus) hour-stay at the hospital.

V.E.1.

MAY 2013 - BETHEL UNDERMINED EFFORTS TO DIFFUSE CONFLICT

143. In May 2013, Jurado’s Licensed Counselor requested to speak with Bethel after the May 11, 2013 incident, especially since she had been monitoring the developments in the case for several months. Bethel at first agreed to talk to Jurado’s counselor, but refused to answer calls and emails the counselor sent her in May and June of 2013. 52

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 66 of 411 PAGEID #: 1656

144. On June 11, 2013, Bethel sent an e-mail with feedback regarding Jurado’s suggestion of using the “Parallel Parenting” approach that is recommended by experts as a way to keep conflictive parents disengaged and to minimize conflict.

Parallel Parenting is also

recommended in the Ohio’s official Parenting Guide published by the Supreme Court of Ohio, as well as the Parenting Guide of the State of Arizona. Defendant Bethel disparaged the Parallel Parenting approach by using an intentional fallacy, and without offering any other suggestion to alleviate the high-conflict atmosphere.

V.F. V.F.1(a)

MAY 2013 - JURADO’S FIRST ATTEMPTS TO SEEK HELP AND REDRESS WRONGS MAY-JUNE 2013 - JURADO’S COUNSEL WAS PUT ON NOTICE

145. In late-May early-June 2013, Jurado started confronting his attorney for her failure to address the conduct of Bethel, and the evident conflict of interest, given their friendship which was beyond the average professional relationship. Although his attorney did advocate and maintained her stance on the main pressing issues, even when they were contrary to GAL Bethel’s recommendations---which yielded absurd or illogical results for the most past—the attorney was in denial regarding any bias or misconduct from Bethel. 146. During the last face-to-face meeting they had to sort things out in June 2013, Jurado’s attorney finally conceded that there was something more behind Bethel’s behavior, attitude, and conduct. She referred to it as a “society thing” to avoid calling it gender or racial bias. The meeting, which took place a few weeks before the infamous July 8, 2013 court proceeding,

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 67 of 411 PAGEID #: 1657

concluded with their understanding that they were giving the attorney-client relationship one more chance.

V.F.1(b)

MAY-JUNE 2013 - JURADO CONDUCTED HIS OWN INVESTIGATION

147. Jurado looked into previous cases involving Bethel as GAL, and found witnesses that described her nature, attitude and conduct. At least two witnesses described Bethel’s history of engaging in what could be defined as racket schemes with Dr. Smalldon.

V.F.1(c)

JUNE-JULY 2013 - CONSULTATIONS WITH MULTIPLE FAMILY LAW ATTORNEYS

148. Jurado consulted with more than half dozen local attorneys. They all arrived to the same conclusion: Don’t waste time attempting to remove Bethel as GAL. Many of them confirmed that the process just doesn’t work; some explained her influence with the courts would make it impossible even if the system worked, and some showed alliance.

V.F.1(d)

JULY 2013 - FIRST CONTACT WITH THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

149. On July 1, 2013, Jurado visited the Moyer Judicial Center, and discussed his challenges regarding Bethel with representatives of the Children and Families Section, without much result. They directed Jurado to file a grievance with ODC regarding his concerns of misconduct by the GAL, Defendant Bethel. 150. The visit was followed up several weeks later with a call from Mr. Steve Hanson, then-manager of the Children, Families and courts Program of the SCO, and subsequent email correspondence regarding the oversight process for GALs, including the effectiveness of Superintendence Rule 48 as it applied to these specific circumstances. Their overall feedback,

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 68 of 411 PAGEID #: 1658

in short, explained that (1) each court had the authority to set forth their own rules in regards to the duties and role of GALs, (2) Sup.R. 48 was meant to set guidelines for the lower courts in respect to GALs but nothing more, (3) they were unable to determine if the new rules/guidelines were ineffective or not since Sup.R. 48 first went into effect in 2009, and (4) complaints about ethical violations and misconduct by GALs should be directed to ODC.

V.G.

V.G.1.

JULY 2013 – FIRST MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENT OF CONSPIRACY — CONCERTED EFFORT TO COMMIT FRAUD UPON THE COURT WITH THE FABRICATION OF THE OVERINVOLVED FATHER BY DEFENDANTS BETHEL, SMITHERMAN, PETROFF LAW, LECLAIR, BROOKSEDGE AND LAMBERT JULY 2013 - BROOKSEDGE SECOND SIGNIFICANT INVOLVEMENT PERFECTLY TIMED – DAILY REPORT FALSIFIED THE WEEK BEFORE COURT HEARING

151. On July 3, 2013, Jurado uncover what would become a pattern of collusion between Lambert and daycare providers. He uncovered a falsified daily report sheet that had been written by a caretaker from Brooksedge during the time Defendant Lambert and the coDirector Jessica Jividen were on the premises in the afternoon of July 2, 2013.

V.G.2.

JULY 2013 - CONSPIRATORS HEADED BY BETHEL COMMITTED ONE OF THE MOST OVERT ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF CONSPIRACY TO DATE WHEN MADE FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT WITH THE GOAL OF DEPRIVING JURADO OF ACCESS TO FACILITIES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION AND REDUCE HIS PARENTING TIME

152. On July 8, 2013, during a status conference with Magistrate Matthews, Bethel informed the Court—in the presence of Smitherman and Petroff—that Jurado was visiting his son at Brooksedge twice a day, five days a week when they all knew that Jurado was spending 3-4 weekdays every week in Chicago during the previous 12 months. 55

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 69 of 411 PAGEID #: 1659

153. Due to the fraudulent misrepresentations made in Court, Jurado was unfairly labeled “Overinvolved Dad” by the court and by conspirators, resulting in his ban to visit his son at daycare.

V.H.

JULY 2013 - JURADO’S SECOND ROUND OF ATTEMPTS SEEKING HELP

V.H.1(a)

JULY 2013 - JURADO REACHED OUT TO OOAG AND OTHER ENTITIES SEEKING HELP

154. In July 2013, Jurado made contact with representatives from multiple sections of the OOAG seeking help regarding the misconduct and abuses without success.

V.H.1(b)

JULY 2013 – JURADO RECEIVED SUPPORT FROM OHIO HISPANIC COALITION (OHC)

155. After reviewing Jurado’s evidence and learned about the facts, OHC made a direct referral to OCRC.

V.H.1(c)

JULY 2013 – JURADO CONSULTED WITH EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION EXPERT WHO REFERRED HIM TO ODJFS

156. On July 3-4, 2013, after uncovering the falsified report by Brooksedge and in anticipation of Defendants’ engaging in misconduct at the upcoming hearing on July 8, 2013, Jurado sought the guidance and input from a professional with extensive experience with daycare providers and licensing rules, who is also the owner of a language school specializing in early childhood education. She explained how some of the actions and conduct of Brooksedge were licensing violations that are taken seriously by regulators and that ODJFS were setup to receive and investigate those type of complaints.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 70 of 411 PAGEID #: 1660

V.I.

JULY 2013 - SCOPE OF THE CONFLICT SUDDENLY EXPANDED – ODJFS AND OCRC AS FIRST STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES INVOLVED DUE TO BROOKSEDGE CONDUCT

157. Jurado filed charges of discrimination against Brooksedge with OCRC, and complaints of licensing violations with ODJFS, given the apparent collusion of Brooksedge with Bethel and Lambert, and the non-compliance identified by those Jurado consulted with.

V.I.1.

JULY 2013 - LICENSING VIOLATION COMPLAINTS FILED WITH ODJFS

158. On July 5, 2013, Jurado bypassed ODJFS’ standard process of a telephone hotline for reporting licensing complaints against daycare facilities, and instead sought direct contact with senior staff and leadership. He was able to engage ODJFS officials who appeared receptive, and capture all the details he presented. He offered evidence but they explained that he would be contacted by the licensing agent(s) if necessary during their investigation in order to get additional information or evidence from him.

V.I.2.

JULY 2013 – DISCRIMINATION CHARGE FILED WITH OCRC

159. Around July 9, Defendant Garcia met in person with Jurado to go over the complaint process after receiving the referral directly from the Ohio Hispanic Coalition. Jurado shared his concerned about retaliation by Brooksedge after learning of the discrimination charges, but Garcia explained that Jurado would be protected from Retaliation and that OCRC also investigates and prosecutes retaliation given that Jurado was engaging in a protected activity.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 71 of 411 PAGEID #: 1661

V.I.3.

JULY-AUGUST 2013 - DEFENDANTS TAMPERED WITH JURADO’S KEY PEDIATRIC EXPERT WITNESS

160. Around July and August 2013, Defendants Bethel and Lambert—with the participation of Dr. Muresan, corruptly exerted undue influence upon Jurado’s Key Expert Witness Dr. Mastruserio, resulting in her recantation of her earlier assertions and broke communications with Jurado.

V.I.4.

SEPTEMBER 2013 – STATEMENTS MADE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY: DEFENDANT LECLAIR ACCUSED BETHEL OF MAKING MISREPRESENTATIONS AND FRAUD UPON THE COURT AND IMPLICATED BETHEL AND LAMBERT ON A SCHEME THAT RESULTED IN COMPLAINTS FILED WITH STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

161. On September 6, 2013 a video recorded meeting was held between Jurado and the daycare owner, LeClair, during which the owner made specific statements implicating Bethel and Lambert in the premeditated action of misleading the court and accused Bethel of deceptive conduct. Specifically, she asserted that almost every statement and information Defendant Bethel provided to the Magistrate on July 8, 2013 that reportedly came from LeClair were not simple misunderstandings but outright fabrications. LeClair contended that the collusion between Bethel and Lambert, along with Bethel’s deceptive conduct were the reasons for Jurado being banned from visiting his son at daycare and were accountable for the involvement of State Government Agencies investigating the complaints filed against her daycare.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 72 of 411 PAGEID #: 1662

V.I.5.

SEPTEMBER 2013 - BROOKSEDGE CONTINUED COLLABORATING WITH LAMBERT IN INTERFERING WITH JURADO’S PARENTING TIME – WHILE OTHER CHILDREN PAID A HIGH PRICE BY BEING EXPOSED TO HEALTH RISKS AND PLAINTIFF N.G. DEPRIVED OF PROPER CARE

162. On September 12, 2013, Plaintiff N.G. was sent home along with other children that showed similar symptoms of fever and diarrhea. It turned out to be a severe condition that lasted 7 days. At the end of her parenting period after a day and a half, Lambert dropped him off at Brooksedge the morning of September 16, 2013 claiming that the child’s diarrhea and other symptoms were completely gone. Brooksedge colluded with Lambert to prevent Jurado from caring for the child on that day by misreporting his condition, but also exposed other children to a communicable disease. Ultimately, Plaintiff N.G. was precluded from being cared for by his father, Plaintiff Jurado.

V.J.

V.J.1.

AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2013 - DEFENDANTS ENTERED INTO NEW AGREEMENT TO CARRY OUT THE LAWSUIT SUBSIDIARY SCHEME – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF INJURIES TO THE CHILD TO FRAME JURADO FOR INVOLVING CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AND AUTHORITIES WHICH FORMED BASIS FOR LAWSUIT AUGUST 2013 – JOHN DOE II AND JANE DOE II ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH BETHEL AND SMITHERMAN TO INTERFERE WITH ODJFS INVESTIGATIONS, AND TO OBTAIN THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE LAWSUIT SUB-SCHEME

163. In mid-August 2013, ODJFS concluded its investigation and issued its report after the meeting Jurado had with department officials in early July. The handling of the investigation and resulting report had evident irregularities and ODJFS eventually conceded about the

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 73 of 411 PAGEID #: 1663

mishandling of their investigation during a second meeting in September 2013. Present factors and indicators ruled out the irregularities as random events.

V.J.2.

AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2013 – BETHEL’S LONG-ESTABLISHED PARTNER IN RACKET SCHEMES DR. SMALLDON BEGAN HIS KEY PARTICIPATION IN THE MASTER CONSPIRACY AND ASSUMED STRATEGIC ROLE IN LAWSUIT SUB-SCHEME; BETHEL ENGAGED IN CONCEALED COMMUNICATIONS WITH LECLAIR, SMITHERMAN, ALEXANDER-SAVINO AND DR. SMALLDON FOR THE PLANNING OF THE LAWSUIT SCHEME

164. Between August and September of 2013, Defendants Bethel, LeClair, Smitherman, Alexander-Savino and Dr. Smalldon established ongoing secret communications by phone and e-mail in regards to the complaints Jurado had filed and in the plotting of a lawsuit, as e-mails uncovered between November 2014 and January 2015 show. 165. These secret communications, in which Bethel was the intermediary between Dr. Smalldon and the other Defendants, were in clear contradiction of ethical rules set by the state psychology board for the proper conduct of forensic experts, as well as the rules of superintendence that prohibit Guardians Ad Litem to divulge any information about their case. In addition, Dr. Smalldon, who was already half-way through the evaluation of Lambert and Jurado, had a unique and powerful role in the plan given that he was strategically positioned to know Plaintiff Jurado’s susceptibilities and thus had the ability to arrange different factors and events to obtain a precise outcome for framing Jurado.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 74 of 411 PAGEID #: 1664

V.J.3.

SEPTEMBER 2013 – ODJFS RECEIVED FEEDBACK ABOUT IRREGULARITIES WITH THEIR HANDLING OF THE INVESTIGATION AND INVITED JURADO TO MEET WITH NEW SET OF DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS; ODFJS CONCEDED THE MISHANDLING OF THEIR INVESTIGATION, COMMITTED TO CORRECT THE FAILURES; SECOND ROUND PRODUCED EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT IRREGULARITIES

166. In mid-September 2013, Jurado is invited to a meeting at the ODJFS offices after receiving his feedback about their poor handling of their first investigation of Brooksedge licensing violations. Contrasting Brooksedge claims in their lawsuit alleging that Jurado filed more complaints against them with ODJFS; Jurado only identified short-comings with ODJFS handling of the process. During this meeting, ODJFS admitted that that their handling of the investigation had some flaws that were the result of restructuring their internal organizational hierarchy, and made the commitment to redo the investigation a second time. A month or so later, their second report showed even more significant inconsistencies and results that contradicted information exchanged during the last meeting. 167. On September 9, 2013, to confirm his doubts, Jurado met with representatives from Action for Children, who confirmed Jurado’s concerns about the violations committed that should have been substantiated with the evidence available. It was clear that ODJFS inspection report and investigation were not affected by simple errors, but by irregularities that were intentional.

V.J.4.

SEPTEMBER 2013 - CHILD’S UNUSUALLY FREQUENT HEAD INJURIES RAISED EYEBROWS IN THE COMMUNITY; JURADO’S UNRESOLVED CONCERNS REVIVED

168. From late August through October 2013, the child suffered injuries while at Brooksedge that at first did not raise any red flags, until they started to occur with more

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 75 of 411 PAGEID #: 1665

frequency and severity. Jurado started to get concerned, along with the child’s paternal grandparents, other relatives, family friends, and parishioners.

V.J.5.

SEPTEMBER 2013 - JURADO AND HIS ATTORNEY PURSUED THE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE HIGHER-QUALITY DAYCARE PROVIDERS

169. In September 2013, Jurado explained to his attorney that selecting a daycare for a child was not much different than choosing the better school district among different ones that parents may consider separately. At that point Jurado, believed the increasingly frequent head injuries experienced by Plaintiff N.G. were the result of poor quality of care by Brooksedge and were not necessarily done intentionally. They approached Defendant Bethel, who as GAL, was seemingly receptive to the idea and asked Jurado and his attorney to provide her with any recommendations for other daycares that may offer higher quality of care.

V.J.6.

LATE SEPTEMBER-EARLY OCTOBER 2013 – LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT JURISDICTION, ENCOURAGED JURADO TO GET FORMAL INVOLVEMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AS WELL AS CHILDREN SERVICES

170. Around late-September 2013, fellow parishioners who shared Jurado’s concerns regarding the frequent head injuries of the child referred him to the juvenile team of a local police station that was nearby. An officer who was on duty at the time reviewed information and at least one recording provided by Jurado and, after clarifying that his department did not have any jurisdiction in the case, prompted Jurado to get law enforcement involved, as well as children services given the seriousness of the situation.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 76 of 411 PAGEID #: 1666

V.J.7.

OCTOBER 2013 - CHILD TAKEN TO EMERGENCY ROOM AFTER SUSTAINING MORE SEVERE HEAD INJURY, FOLLOWED BY INVOLVEMENT OF CHILDREN PROTECTIVE SERVICES, AND CULMINATED IN BROOKSEDGE’S PERMANENT DISMISSAL OF CHILD AND FILING OF LAWSUIT AGAINST JURADO

171. On Monday October 7, 2013, only two days after Jurado had completed and sent his attorney a write up of his recommendations for a new daycare provider, including detailed documentation of the incidents that had been taking place at Brooksedge, Jurado was informed that the child had just sustained another head injury. The new injury closely followed two incidents that had occurred the previous week that also resulted in other injuries. As Jurado, told his attorney by e-mail on that same day, he was even more alarm given the fact that Jurado had never been called in the middle of the day for any of the previous injuries. He would always find out at the end of the day when picking up the child. When he received the call from Brooksedge, he was also told that the injury was more serious than all of his previous ones. At the time and for most of the time between then and the present, Jurado did not have any reason to not think the last injury was another random accident but with shorter frequency. But after the recent finding set of secret e-mails among Defendants surfaced, there is good indication that, knowing how Jurado was going to react, they induced the injuries the child had suffered to frame Jurado. 172. On October 8, 2013, due to the child’s demeanor the previous evening, Jurado decided that morning on his way to daycare drop off to instead take the child to the Emergency Room. The ER doctor, who learned about the frequent injuries to the child from Jurado’s write up to his attorney he had completed two day earlier, gave his medical recommendation for the child to be evaluated, but Lambert refused to let the child be evaluated. The ER doctor then 63

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 77 of 411 PAGEID #: 1667

recommended the involvement of a social worker. The two of them concluded that the involvement of Children Services was needed.

V.J.8.

OCTOBER 2013 – DEFENDANT BETHEL’S OVERT ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY – UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH FRANKLIN COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICES

173. The same day on October 8, 2013, shortly after the disclosure of the ER doctor and social worker that a referral was being made to Children Services, Lambert contacted Defendant Bethel as well as Brooksedge to warn them about an impending investigation. Almost immediately, Defendant Bethel contacted the Children Services agency to interfere with their investigation by corruptly exerting undue influence and to suggest that Jurado had maliciously instigated the agency’s involvement. Bethel’s time log utilized for her itemized billing serves as evidence of her unexpected contact with the agency. considering that GALs are expected to contact the agency after an investigation has been completed. Also, the recording from October 28, 2013 serves as evidence of Bethel’s interference.

V.J.9.

OCTOBER 2013 – BROOKSEDGE PERMANENTLY DISMISSED THE CHILD FROM THE FACILITY AND FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST JURADO AS SEEMING REACTION TO THE TRIGGERING EVENTS OF THE EMERGENCY ROOM VISIT AND INVESTIGATION BY CHILDREN SERVICES

174. Around October 9, 2013, Lambert announced that Plaintiff N.G. was no longer allowed back at Brooksedge, and Defendants Bethel, Lambert, Brooksedge and LeClair created the appearance that the trip to the ER and involvement of FCCS is what triggered the decision to expel the child and file the lawsuit against Jurado, as e-mails from Bethel to Jurado and all the parties in the case show, as well as Brooksedge complaint in the civil lawsuit. But the secret

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 78 of 411 PAGEID #: 1668

e-mails from at least a month earlier between Bethel, LeClair and the other Defendants clearly show the lawsuit was planned weeks before the last head injury and the visit to the ER, establishing the premeditated infliction of the child’s injuries with the goal of framing Jurado into taking the child to the Emergency Room and cause a downstream effect.

V.K.

V.K.1.

OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2013 - OOAG AND OCRC JOINED THE LAWSUIT SUB-SCHEME AND THE MASTER CONSPIRACY’S SUBSIDIARY PLAN FOR CAUSING FINANCIAL HARM TO JURADO LATE OCTOBER 2013 - OOAG INTIMIDATED JURADO TO CAUSE A CHILLING EFFECT ON THE EXERCISE OF HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

175. On October 22, 2013, a state official from within the OOAG organization intimidated Jurado over the phone, and installed fear in him to further advance the objectives of the conspiracy. As Jurado tried to defend himself and show that he was not the offender and that he had plenty of evidence to prove it, the state official cut him off as he said to Jurado “I don’t want to hear of what you have to say” and made threats of criminal prosecution against Jurado if he would continue to pursue the matters.

V.K.2.

OCTOBER 2013 - OOAG’S DEPRIVED JURADO OF HIS CIVIL RIGHTS, COLLUDED WITH OCRC, AND ENCOURAGED OCRC INVESTIGATORS SUCH AS DEFENDANT GARCIA TO ENGAGE IN MISCONDUCT, AS OVERT ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY SUB-SCHEME OF THE LAWSUIT

176. Around mid-October 2013, Jurado started experiencing a degree of animosity from Defendant Garcia as Garcia was getting ready to start his investigation of the discrimination charges against Brooksedge.

For the next several weeks, Garcia engaged in misconduct

including his attempts to access ADR confidential information that he was unauthorized to

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 79 of 411 PAGEID #: 1669

access, among other acts, including Garcia’s e-mail messages to Jurado indicating that Jurado was not welcomed in the Rhodes State Office Tower, and discouraged him from coming back to the OCRC offices or to use the free service for notarization of complaints that OCRC offers to any grievant.

V.K.3.

OCTOBER-NOVEMBER - 2013 - JURADO REPORTED IRREGULARITIES WITH OCRC’S HANDLING OF INVESTIGATION OF THE SAME NATURE EXPERIENCED WITH ODJFS

177. On October 24, 2013, Jurado contacted the office of constituent services at the central offices of OCRC, and explained the irregularities he was experiencing, including misconduct by Defendant Garcia. 178. On November 21, 2013, the office of constituent services acknowledged that Jurado had been the target of misconduct. Unfortunately, that did not stop OCRC Defendants from continuing to abuse and deprive Jurado of his constitutional rights.

V.K.4.

NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2013 - EVIDENCE SURFACED OF OOAG INTERFERENCE WITH STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES RESULTING IN DENIAL OF JURADO’S ACCESS TO PUBLIC GOVERNMENT FACILITIES AND SERVICES, ADJUDICATION OF COMPLAINTS BEFORE THEY WERE FILED, AND DETERMINATIONS OF PENDING CASES BEFORE INVESTIGATIONS HAD STARTED

179. Around late-November, early-December 2013, Jurado discovered documents and email communications between Defendants Gutowski and Garcia showing their agreement to decide the outcome of Jurado’s complaints in favor of Brooksedge before the investigation started. It also shows their agreement to issue a No Probable Cause (NPC) for Jurado’s retaliation claim before he even filed it.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 80 of 411 PAGEID #: 1670

V.K.5.

V.K.5(a)

NOVEMBER 2013 – MARCH 2014 – CONCERTED ACTION BY DEFENDANTS OOAG , GUTOWSKI, OCRC, DUNN, LECLAIR AND ALEXANDER-SAVINO CONTINUED TO HARM JURADO AND FURTHERED THE GOALS OF THE CONSPIRACY OOAG AND OCRC TOOK COURSE OF ACTION KNOWING THAT THE RESULT WOULD FACILITATE AND EVEN REINFORCE RETALIATION EFFORTS BY BROOKSEDGE

180. At the point of the collusion between OCRC and OOAG to deprive Jurado of his right to Due Process and Equal Protection, Defendants Gutowski and Garcia knew that Jurado’s intentions to file a new charge of retaliation against Brooksedge was due to the lawsuit they had filed against him. And they also knew the repercussions of a determination of NPC for both charges of discrimination and retaliation: Their prejudging and predetermined decision to find in favor of Brooksedge would strengthen the lawsuit, or even worse, it would help a frivolous lawsuit survive a Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment.

V.K.5(b)

DEFENDANT OCRC, IN CONNIVANCE WITH DEFENDANTS ALEXANDER-SAVINO AND BROOKSEDGE, FABRICATED AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE WITH THE EEOC TO FRAME JURADO FOR FILING FALSE CLAIMS

181. On December 27, 2013, Defendant Alexander-Savino filed the First Amended Complaint on behalf of Brooksedge in their civil lawsuit against Jurado, in which he is accused of making a “dual filing with the OCRC and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission” while being aware that “he was never an applicant for employment with Brooksedge nor employed by Brooksedge”. Brooksedge First Amended Complaint, Dec. 27, 2013 pages 7-8. 182. As soon as he read the allegations, Jurado made a number of inquiries until he found that the origin of the allegation against him in regards to charges filed with EEOC was a set of documents OCRC provided to Alexander-Savino that falsely indicated that Jurado had

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 81 of 411 PAGEID #: 1671

submitted a dual charge with OCRC and EEOC. When Jurado confronted OCRC officials, they claimed “it was just a mistake”. The set of documents and forms indicating that Jurado had filed charges with the EEOC were signed by OCRC Director Aman Mehra. 183. Several indicators were identified that strongly support one inference over any other possible inferences: (i) after the document with false information was identified; it took Jurado multiple attempts to get OCRC to admit to the “error” in writing. Such serious mishap should not require a grievant to invest significant efforts to seek out OCRC to remedy the harmful conduct of the Columbus branch. Finally after Jurado escalated the challenges with the central office, Investigator Beyan Asoba wrote an e-mail to Alexander-Savino explaining that the forms indicating a charge with the EEOC were due to a “clerical error”. E-mail by Beyan Asoba, Jan. 8, 2014; (ii) the actual forms received by Alexander-Savino are only used for OCRC internal purposes. Their first error of creating a charge with the EEOC that did not come from Jurado, was compounded with the second error of sending out to a respondent forms that are only used between OCRC and EEOC; (iii) Even after receiving official confirmation that the EEOC charges were not filed by Jurado, Defendants Alexander-Savino, Brooksedge and LeClair have insisted in maintaining their allegation against Jurado in the Complaint after 15 months since their knowledge that he never filed a charge with the EEOC; (iv) the production of the set of documents falsely indicating that Jurado had filed a charge with the EEOC was not an isolated incident as already established throughout this complaint and supported by incontrovertible evidence.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 82 of 411 PAGEID #: 1672

V.K.5(c)

DEFENDANT DUNN WITHHELD KEY EVIDENCE DURING HEARING IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSIONERS AND MADE MISLEADING STATEMENTS

184. On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Jurado and Defendants Alexander-Savino and LeClair made a personal appearance in front of the Commissioners for a last chance to address them directly before the adjudication of their case. A personal appearance during the administrative hearing in front of the Commissioners consist of 5 minutes given to each side to make a final argument on their favor, but after the Commissioners hear the case as presented by the assigned investigator or reconsideration supervisor, such as Defendant Dunn. 185. Defendant Dunn, performing in an impartial role when presenting a case, doesn’t get a time limit imposed to his presentation of the case and of (his version) of the facts. In this instance, Defendant Dunn performed instead as an advocate for Brooksedge, by merely repeating verbatim the same conclusory allegations and defenses originally provided by Brooksedge—as if the allegations had been substantiated as his own findings of fact—even when Alexander-Savino and Brooksedge did not provide any evidence supporting those claims and defenses. At the same time, Defendant Dunn withheld from the Commissioners key evidence that had been provided by Jurado that substantiated his allegations of discrimination and retaliation. 186. For example, Defendant Dunn had been in possession of many of the recordings described in this complaint as evidence of the conspiracy, such as the statements made by the Emergency Room doctors, the judgment entry from the court declaring the injuries sustained by the child as “concerning”, and even LeClair’s statements confirming the misconduct aimed at Jurado and unlawful acts by Bethel. In fact, Defendant Dunn knowingly used statements made 69

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 83 of 411 PAGEID #: 1673

by Defendant Bethel against Jurado, even when he knew that LeClair had made allegations against her and Jurado had also made allegations of discrimination against Bethel. 187. Defendant Dunn also made misleading statements to the Commissioners when he referred to an email sent by Jurado to LeClair and manipulated the meaning and context of Jurado’s comments in the letter, even when he knew of the exact meaning based on a recording of Jurado and LeClair discussing the same topic early on. All the actions taken and statements made by Dunn on March 13, 2014 were in furtherance of the conspiracy without a doubt.

V.K.6.

2014-2015 - DEFENDANTS ALEXANDER-SAVINO, BROOKSEDGE AND LECLAIR SWIFTLY REAPED THE RESULTS OBTAINED BY UNLAWFUL MEANS OF OCRC AND OOAG DEFENDANTS TO KEEP THE LAWSUIT ALIVE FOR THE LONG-TERM PERVASIVE HARM BEING INFLICTED TO JURADO IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY

188. Defendants LeClair and Alexander-Savino were cognizant of the evidence withheld by Dunn, his misleading statements and the interference and collusion between OOAG and OCRC to alter the outcome of the investigation, and have deliberately used OCRC and OOAG’s unlawful conduct to boost their lawsuit and inflict more harm upon Jurado and for longer, including financial harm and the accumulation of debt by Jurado depriving him of any chance for legal representation.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 84 of 411 PAGEID #: 1674

V.L. V.L.1. V.L.1(a)

OCTOBER 2013 – CONSPIRACY SUB-SCHEME TO CAUSE FINANCIAL HARM AND UNDUE HARDSHIP STARTED OCTOBER 2013 - AFTER FOUR MONTHS OF UNEMPLOYMENT, JURADO SOUGHT ECONOMIC RELIEF JURADO SOUGHT RELIEF WITH THE JUVENILE COURT BY ASKING TO MODIFY HIS CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION – NO ACTION TAKEN

189. In July 2013, Jurado’s contract for the project in Chicago reached its intended end date, and Jurado became unemployed for the next several months. With the sharing of all the child’s expenses by half with Lambert, the excessive child support monthly obligation of $1,200.00, and the inflated cost of Litigation due to Bethel’s successful High-Conflict stratagem, Jurado quickly started living under precarious conditions that required the assistance of family and friends constantly and every month until the present time.

V.L.1(b)

DEFENDANTS BETHEL, SMITHERMAN, PETROFF AND LAMBERT IMPOSED MANDATORY DAYCARE ATTENDANCE FOR THE CHILD DURING THE TIME JURADO WAS UNEMPLOYED AND ABLE TO CARE FOR THE CHILD

190. Between July 2013 and December 2013, even when Defendants were aware of Jurado’s financial condition, they purposely created the additional burden for Jurado to have to pay daycare tuition, during the time he was living off his credit cards and financial assistance from his relatives and friends, and when he could have cared for the child and saved closed to $800/month on daycare tuition and driving back and forth.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 85 of 411 PAGEID #: 1675

V.L.1(c)

JURADO SOUGHT RELIEF WITH THE JUVENILE COURT BY ASKING TO MODIFY HIS CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION – NO ACTION TAKEN

191. On October 2013, Jurado filed a Motion with the Juvenile Court to modify the amount of child support he was paying, given that Lambert had been making close to 6 figures a year, on top of bonuses and other perks. The Juvenile Court refused to hear Jurado’s motion for many months. Finally in 2014, only after Jurado filed his Original Action in Mandamus and Prohibition with the SCO, Judge Jamison addressed his Motion but ill-intentioned. Without reasonable excuse of justification, Defendant Jamison dismissed Jurado’s motion and hearing only a few minutes after it had gotten started on August 4, 2014.

V.L.2.

OCTOBER 2013 - COMMUNICATED WITH DEFENDANT LAMBERT AND THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (CSEA) TO OFFER A PLAN THAT INVOLVED ONLY TWO MONTH OF PARTIAL PAYMENTS, FOLLOWED BY RESUMED PAYMENTS IN FULL IN ADDITION TO BACK PAY

192. In late-October 2013, Jurado notified in writing Defendants Lambert her counsel that he would not be able to pay his child support obligation in full for a short period of time. Specifically, he indicated that he would be making partial payments for only the TWO months of November and December 2013 and would resume the full payments in January 2014 along with the payment of arrears.

V.L.3.

OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2013 - DEFENDANTS LAMBERT AND SMITHERMAN FILED CONTEMPT SHOW CAUSE MOTION IN BAD FAITH

193. Defendants Lambert and Smitherman did not respond to Jurado’s communication and instead filed a Motion for Contempt with the court asking “for Jurado to be punished”. No other explanation besides bad faith and intimidation could explain their conduct especially

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 86 of 411 PAGEID #: 1676

when Lambert received an $11,000 bonus around the same time, while Jurado struggled financially, and especially because until that point, he always took financial responsibility for his son seriously and never missed a payment. In fact, he voluntarily paid thousands of dollars before the custody action was filed.

V.L.4.

DECEMBER 2013-FEBRUARY 2015 - JURADO STARTED THE NOW TOO-COMMON MONTHLY RECURRING EFFORTS TO RAISE FUNDS AMONG FAMILY AND FRIENDS TO SUPPORT HIMSELF AND HIS SON

194. Starting in 2014, Jurado sought economic help from friends and family on a regular basis, even when he had secured a full-time job. Because the hardship endured and debt accumulated could not be reversed having still overinflated litigation costs, excessive child support, and high monthly medical expenses as a direct result of the effects of the conspiracy and their intentional infliction of emotional distress. 195. By mid-year in 2014, Jurado had successfully obtained charity contributions from one of the catholic organizations in Central Ohio. Although it was a significant relief, Jurado had officially turned into a beggar among acquaintances and relatives and friends.

V.L.5. V.L.5(a)

OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2013 - NEW DAYCARE SELECTION PROCESS EXPOSED COLLUSION, PREMEDITATION, DECEIT AND ABSURD RESULTS DEFENDANT BETHEL GAVE DAYCARE SELECTION INCENTIVE FOR BECOMING ANTAGONISTIC AND ADVERSARIAL PROCESS

196. Defendantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; armament aimed at Plaintiff, such as persecuting Jurado with the threat of Contempt, imposing on him unnecessary daycare tuition, enforcing excessive child support obligations, imposing the extra financial burden of litigation due to the lawsuit, and causing

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 87 of 411 PAGEID #: 1677

Jurado to incur in excessive attorney fees in the custody case due to Bethel’s free advocacy for Lambert and her high conflict environment that forced Jurado’s attorney to over-engage, were apparently not causing enough damage to Jurado based on their standards. As a result, during the execution of the initial stages of Lawsuit sub-scheme, Defendants devised a new plot as a functioning extension of Brooksedge premeditated dismissal of the child. 197. The new extension to Brooksedge-sponsored scheme consisted of the selection of the new daycare facility for the child that met two requirements: (1) that it would be located as far away as possible from Jurado’s residence to create additional time and financial burden on him, (2) that the administrators of the daycare facility would be suitable candidates for participating in the ongoing and ever expanding master conspiracy aimed at Jurado. The result was the unilateral and forced election of Defendant Goddard School as the new facility. Their specific location added the burden of driving 100 miles for Jurado during his parenting days. 198. Evidence of this extension plan to the Brooksedge scheme can be seen with the conduct of Defendants Smitherman, Lambert and Bethel during the daycare selection process, which was marred with dishonesty, concealment, and more unlawful acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. Even more proof can be seen in the transcript of the hearing from December 20, 2013, during which the daycare selection process was discussed and Defendants Smitherman, Bethel and Lambert gave perjured testimony when addressing the court as witnesses.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 88 of 411 PAGEID #: 1678

V.L.5(b)

THE SHORT TIMEFRAME IMPOSED BY BETHEL FOR SUBMITTING RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE ULTIMATE RESULT DEMONSTRATED GODDARD SCHOOL WAS CHOSEN BEFORE BROOKSEDGE PERMANENT DISMISSAL OF THE CHILD

199. The existence of dozens of other daycare facilities equidistant from Lambert’s residence and her recommendation of the farthest located facility from Jurado’s home after barely one day of searching shows evidence that Goddard School of Hilliard had been selected before the child was expelled by Brooksedge.

V.L.5(c)

THE OUTCOME IS ABSURD IF IT RESULTS IN THE DETRIMENT OF THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD

200. Defendants Bethel and Lambert had created so much hype and emphasis on the importance of consistency for the child. Yet, the disruption caused by the location of the new facility interfered with the child’s sleeping routine and even dinner times.

Defendants

acknowledged this fact during the December 20, 2013 hearing but at the same time were indifferent to the negative consequences for the child.

V.M. OCTOBER 2013 - JURADO BEGAN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF SUSPECTED CONSPIRACY AND BEGAN TAKEN PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES V.M.1.

PROFESSIONALS CONSULTED BY JURADO SHARED CONCERNS OF COLLUSION BETWEEN BETHEL AND PSYCHOLOGIST, STARTED TAKING PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES

201. Between May 2013 and January 2014, Jurado engaged two respected forensic experts (psychologists) in preparation for what was anticipated to be the result of Dr. Smalldon’s evaluation—when framed within his long established practice of employing racket schemes with Defendant Bethel in custody cases—and given his participation in the conspiracy. His collusion with Bethel, now confirmed by the recent uncovered email communications that 75

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 89 of 411 PAGEID #: 1679

were kept in secret throughout the case, was so evident that one of the forensic experts encouraged Jurado to undergo an independent evaluation, which Jurado completed when Dr. Smalldon was still half way through his.

V.M.2.

OTHER MEASURES TAKEN INCLUDED INCREASED USE OF RECORDER AND INDEPENDENT VALIDATION OF ASSERTIONS AND CLAIMS MADE BY OTHERS

202. The common thread identified in the collusion among Defendants included Deceit, Concealment and Fraud. As a result, a large amount of document and multi-media evidence was amassed during the last two and a half years.

V.N. V.N.1.

NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2013 - CONSPIRACY SUB-SCHEME TO FRAME JURADO FOR NEGLECTING AND CAUSING CHILD INJURIES RESUMED DECEMBER 2013 - LAMBERT’S JOINT ACTION WITH GODDARD SCHOOL DAYCARE PERFECTLY TIMED – INCIDENT REPORT FALSIFIED WEEKS BEFORE START OF TRIAL

203. On December 10, 2013, within weeks of the start of the trial in the custody case, Jurado discovered a falsified incident report that contained fabricated injuries that the child allegedly showed when Jurado dropped him off one morning. Luckily, Jurado was scheduled to pick up his son at the end of that same day, and successfully contested the fabricated injuries. The daycare owner and assistant Director confirmed that the injuries noted were non-existent and simply suggested it was an error. 204. On December 11, 2013, the daycare director Defendant Wilson explained to the daycare owners, Mr. and Ms. Eagle, and to Jurado that the reason for the “wrong” information to be written by the teachers is due to Lambert’s insistence that the report had to describe those injuries and the teachers complied to appeased her. Defendant Wilson’s explanation and 76

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 90 of 411 PAGEID #: 1680

her implication of Lambert in the falsified report was recorded by Jurado without Wilson’s knowledge.

V.N.2.

DECEMBER 2013 - CHILD’S SAFETY AT RISK WHEN DEFENDANTS COLLABORATIVE ACTION SUCCEEDED IN COERCING JURADO TO DRIVE CHILD ACROSS FRANKLIN COUNTY DURING SNOW STORM TO COMPLY WITH THEIR MANDATORY DAYCARE ATTENDANCE

205. On December 6, 2013, Jurado was compelled to drive Plaintiff N.G. across town through a snow storm in order to appease Bethel and Lambert given their ongoing harassment aimed at enforcing the mandatory daycare attendance for the child. Given their pattern clearly established of their fervor of keeping the child away from Jurado even on his parenting days, their treatment of Jurado as a second-class citizen is constantly putting the well-being of the child at risk. Using his phone as a mounted video camera, Jurado video recorded Plaintiffs’ hazardous commute back home at the end of the day during the storm. The video also includes multiple snippets of newscasts broadcasted by stations from coast to coast announcing the storm going through Central Ohio, and reminding residents to stay off the road unless absolutely necessary.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 91 of 411 PAGEID #: 1681

V.O.

DECEMBER 2013-JANUARY 2014 – BEGINNING OF NEW SUBSIDIARY SCHEME TO COVER UP BETHEL’S UNLAWFUL CONDUCT AND TO RETALIATE - JUDICIARY BRANCH DEFENDANTS ENTERED THE AGREEMENT

V.O.1.

DECEMBER 2013 - FIRST COURT PROCEEDING PRESIDED BY DEFENDANT JUDGE JAMISON – COMPLETELY DEVOID OF OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, PRESENT EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES;

206. The December 20, 2013 proceeding conducted by Jamison for the first time, is also the first clear example of differential treatment of Jurado by Judge Jamison. Lambert had the opportunity to be heard, and Bethel did also but twice, and for the convenience of Smitherman, the court went into recess until the following year. As part of their scheme to commit fraud upon the court, Bethel, Smitherman, Petroff and Lambert managed to preclude Jurado from ever giving his testimony and present his evidence that most of the testimony provided by Defendants Bethel and Lambert were perjured.

V.O.2.

V.O.2(a)

DECEMBER 2013-JANUARY 2014 - DEFENDANTS LAMBERT, BETHEL, SMITHERMAN AND PETROFF ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO COMMIT FRAUD UPON THE COURT AND COMBINED EFFORTS TO COMMIT OVERT ACTS RELATED TO THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER TO FORCE GODDARD SCHOOL OF HILLIARD AS THE SOLE OUT OF HOME CARE PROVIDER IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY DECEMBER 2015 – EMERGENCY EX-PARTE PROCEEDING AND TRO ISSUED AS A RESULT OF DECEIT

207. On December 13, 2013, Defendants Smitherman and Bethel filed an Emergency ExParte Motion for Restraining Order, initiated an Ex-Parte Court Proceeding without complying with several rules of procedure.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 92 of 411 PAGEID #: 1682

V.O.2(b)

DECEMBER 2013 – MISCONDUCT DURING EX-PARTE HEARING

208. On December 13, 2013, Smitherman and Bethel engaged in misconduct during the ex-parte hearing: (1) Used irrelevant facts and information solely to prejudice Jurado, including the lawsuit against Jurado instigated by themselves and was instituted as a sub-scheme to target Jurado; (2) Misleading the Court about the whereabouts of Jurado’s Counsel, (3) Withheld from the Court key information about the daycare selection process, (4) among other acts in furtherance of the conspiracy

V.O.2(c)

DECEMBER 2013 – MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF DECEPTIVE CONDUCT AND FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS DURING TRO FOLLOW UP PROCEEDING

209. the Transcript of the December 20, 2013 hearing shows several examples of deceptive conduct and other concerted action by Smitherman, Lambert and Bethel

V.O.2(d)

JANUARY 2014 - INTENTIONAL FILING OF UNAUTHORIZED CIV.R. 41(A) VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL TO PREJUDICE JURADO AND COMMIT FRAUD UPON DE COURT

210. On January 7, 2014, less than 24 hours before the court proceeding was scheduled to start, the hearing that was continued to January 8 got dismissed without an agreement by all parties or order of the court. Defendants filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, which contain references to Ohio Civil Rule 41(A), to withdraw their Ex-Parte Motion for Restraining Order. Their invalid and unlawful withdrawal was a joint act with malevolent intentions, such as precluding Jurado from exposing their deceit, depriving him of his right to due process, causing prejudice with the court

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 93 of 411 PAGEID #: 1683

V.O.3.

JANUARY 2014 - FILING OF GRIEVANCE AGAINST ATTORNEY BETHEL WITH OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL – OHIO SUPREME COURT

211. On January 6, 2014, Jurado filed a formal Grievance with ODC against the attorneyGAL Blythe Bethel for misconduct, RACIAL BIAS, deceptive and unethical acts, fraud, misrepresentations to the court, and other unlawful conduct. In addition to the standard grievance form Jurado completed, he included a 10-page supplementary statement of fact document, and 400+ pages of exhibits along with more than half-dozen audio/video recordings.

V.O.4.

V.O.4(a)

JANUARY 2014 - JURADO FORCED TO DISMISS HIS LAST ATTORNEY AMIDST MOUNTING DEBT AND HIGH UNPAID BALANCE FOR ATTORNEY FEES, SUB-SCHEME TO INFLICT FINANCIAL HARM AND UNDUE HARDSHIP SUCCESSFUL JURADO IMMEDIATELY UNABLE TO KEEP UP WITH CASE SCHEDULE AND ORDERS

212.

V.O.4(b)

JAN 2014 – JAN 2015 - JURADO FORCED TO CHOOSE BETWEEN PRESERVING HIS RIGHTS TO APPEAL AND SEEK REDRESS OR STAY COMPLIANT WITH CASE

213.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 94 of 411 PAGEID #: 1684

V.O.5.

JANUARY 2014 – 2ND COURT PROCEEDING PRESIDED BY JUDGE JAMISON – EMERGENCY HEARING ON HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS FOR THE CHILD, WITH LIMITED OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD

V.O.5(a)

DEFENDANT BETHEL MADE MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT

V.O.5(b)

DEFENDANT JUDGE JAMISON DID NOT ALLOW JURADO TO PRESENT ALL CLAIMS IN HIS EMERGENCY MOTION

V.O.6.

DECEMBER 2013-MAY 2014 - DEFENDANTS BETHEL, LAMBERT AND SMITHERMAN OVERWHELMED JURADO WITH MORE FILINGS FOR SANCTIONS, CONTEMPT AND OTHER PUNISHMENT

214. By January 2014, Jurado had Motions for Contempt and two Motions for Sanctions filed by Bethel, Smitherman and Lambert. They asked the Court “to punish” Jurado in several ways, including but not limited to preclusion of evidence and witnesses during trial.

V.O.7. V.O.7(a) V.O.8. 215.

JANUARY 2014 - JURADO DUAL-ENROLLED CHILD IN SECOND CHILD CARE PROGRAM WITH ULTIMATE AUTHORIZATION BY THE COURT DEFENDANTS BETHEL, LAMBERT AND SMITHERMAN COLLUDED IN THE HARASSMENT OF THE OWNER FOR DAYCARE FACILITY CHOSEN BY JURADO MARCH 2014 - ODC SUMMARILY DISMISSED GRIEVANCE FILED BY JURADO AGAINST BETHEL On March 3, 2014, Defendants ODC and Stone issued a determination letter claiming

that they are not authorized to investigate Jurado’s complaints against Bethel, under the pretext that she was acting as a Guardian Ad Litem. In their letter—which was also sent to Bethel—they directed me to raise any issues, concerns or complaints with the Court that appointed Bethel as GAL. Also, the determination letter gave no option for reconsideration.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 95 of 411 PAGEID #: 1685

V.O.9. V.O.9(a)

MARCH 2014 - THIRD COURT PROCEEDING PRESIDED BY JAMISON – EVIDENCE THAT JAMISON JOINED THE CONSPIRACY IN FULL JUDGE JAMISON DECLARED JURADO AN ADVERSARY OF THE COURT

216.

V.O.9(b)

JURADO UNSUCCESSFUL REQUESTS FOR COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL OR HYBRIDREPRESENTATION AS ALTERNATIVE

217.

V.O.9(c)

MAGISTRATE ORDERED AFFIDAVITS WITH SUPPLEMENTATION BY EXHIBITS BE FILED FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF ALL PENDING MATTERS

218.

V.O.10. APRIL 2014 - JURADO’S EARLY DISCLOSURE OF INTENT TO FILE ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION WITH OHIO SUPREME COURT V.O.11. MARCH-MAY 2014 - JURADO SOUGHT EVALUATION BY PEDIATRIC SPECIALIST WITHOUT DISCLOSING TO DEFENDANT BETHEL OR LAMBERT AS THE ONLY RECOURSE LEFT V.O.12. MAY 2014 - SMITHERMAN, BETHEL AND LAMBERT COLLUDED IN FILING FALSE POLICE REPORT OVER LONG HOLIDAY WEEKEND TO INTERFERE WITH JURADO’S PARENTING TIME V.O.13. JULY 2014 - AFTER FOUR MONTHS, JURADO HAD FINALLY RAISED ENOUGH FUNDS TO FILE HIS ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION WITH THE OHIO SUPREME COURT 219.

On July 18, 2014, Jurado was able to file an Original Action for Writs of Mandamus

and Prohibition with the SCO, to compel ODC to perform their duty of investigating his grievance against the GAL-Attorney; Jurado also named the Juvenile Court as a second

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 96 of 411 PAGEID #: 1686

Respondent, given that they also had been refusing to investigate, address or even hear Jurado’s Motion to Remove the GAL, in violation of court rules and state law.

V.O.13(a) NUMEROUS CAUSES OF ACTIONS IDENTIFIED IN COMPLAINT, SOME OF WHICH WERE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS. 220. In his original action in Mandamus and Prohibition, Jurado took the opportunity to include a handful of constitutional claims resulting from the arbitrary and unreasonable attitude assumed by the Juvenile Court and defendant Judge Jamison, which had been increasing gradually as their adversarial tone became more overt in response to Jurado’s intensified efforts to remove Bethel as the GAL in the case.

V.O.13(b) JURADO SOUGHT EMERGENCY STAY WITH THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 221. Concurrently with the filing of his complaint with the SCO, Jurado also sought a Stay on an emergency basis; his motion remained pending for a few days and allowed Defendant Judge Jamison to take a certain course of action, to undermine the effectiveness of Jurado’s filings.

V.O.14. JULY-AUGUST 2014 - JUDGE JAMISON TOOK COURSE OF ACTION TO RENDER MOOT EACH OF JURADO’S CLAIMS AND RELIEF SOUGHT WITH THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO BY MEANS OF DECEIT V.O.14(a) JUDGE JAMISON FIRST SUA SPONTE ISSUED GENERAL STAY 222.

On July 23, 2014, the Juvenile Court, on its own cognition ordered a general Stay in

the custody case, given that Jurado had file a Motion for Emergency Stay with the SCO the day before, July 22, 2014. That measure by Judge Jamison rendered Jurado’s Motion for Stay moot immediately. 83

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 97 of 411 PAGEID #: 1687

V.O.14(b) WITHIN DAYS AFTER JURADO WITHDREW HIS EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY WITH THE SCO, JAMISON LIFTED HER STAY 223. With the latest move by Judge Jamison, Jurado withdrew his Emergency Motion to Stay the Juvenile Court proceedings. A few days later, Judge Jamison lifted her Stay knowing that Jurado no longer had a pending Motion to Stay with the SCO. The initial Stay that went into effect by order of Judge Jamison was a staged procedural maneuver to induce Jurado to withdraw his Motion, which resulted in the resuming of Judge Jamison’s control over her case.

V.O.14(c) AUGUST 2014 - JUDGE JAMISON CONDUCTED PROCEEDING FOR MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT WITHOUT INTENTION TO REACH THE MERITS OF JURADO’S MOTION FOR RELIEF 224. On August 4, 2014, the Court conducted a hearing for Jurado’s Motion of Modification of Child Support, during which misconduct by opposing counsel was allowed, and the Judge summarily dismissed his Motion for allegedly not coming prepared to the hearing. Most importantly, during the proceeding, he introduced 70+ pages of evidence, all of which were given to the court and a 2nd set of copies were also given to opposing counsel /opposing party.

V.O.14(d) AUGUST 2014 - JUDGE JAMISON CONDUCTED PROCEEDING FOR REMOVAL OF BETHEL, AS APPOINTED-GAL, WITHOUT INTENTIONS TO COMPLETE HEARING. 225.

V.O.14(e) FIRST PART OF HEARING TO REMOVE BETHEL EXPOSED SIGNIFICANT MISCONDUCT; SECOND PART SET FOR CONTINUANCE TO AUGUST 27, 2014 226.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 98 of 411 PAGEID #: 1688

V.O.15. AUGUST 2014 - JUDICIAL TRANSGRESSIONS MORE OVERT AFTER THE FILING OF ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION AGAINST DEFENDANTS JUDGE JAMISON AND ODC; CARTE BLANCHE GIVEN TO JUDGE JAMISON BY THE ODC-SCO DEFENDANTS 227. Sometime in late-July 2014 or August 2014, after Jurado filed his Original Action in Mandamus and Prohibition against Judge Jamison and ODC, with the underlying theme of Bethel’s misconduct and unlawful discrimination, Defendants John Doe, Jane Doe III and ODC/SCO gave Defendant Jamison Carte Blanche to use whatever means necessary to “handle her Juvenile case”, to rein in Jurado in order to stop the embarrassment caused by a Hispanic citizen, and to offer Bethel all of the Court’s protection against a Hispanic complainant.

V.O.15(a) AUGUST 2014 – CONCERTED ACTION BY DEFENDANTS LAMBERT, BETHEL AND SMITHERMAN TO COLLUDE IN OPEN COURT AND ENGAGE IN WITNESS TAMPERING IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY; JUDGE JAMISON’S PARTICIPATION IN COVER UP 228. On August 1, 2014, during the proceeding to hear Jurado’s Motion for the Removal of Bethel from the case as GAL, Bethel and Smitherman engaged in concealed texting using their phones with participation of Lambert while Bethel was in the witness stand, in what can be characterized as beyond simple misconduct: Collusion and witness tampering in open court. 229. The irony of this incident is that the main goal of the court proceeding being conducted—in which the unlawful acts were committed by Bethel, Smitherman and Lambert— was to stop or to remedy the ongoing misconduct by Bethel and her allies. 230. Judge Jamison’s participation in covering up the unlawful acts by Smitherman, Bethel and Lambert became obvious when Jurado brought up the incident to the attention of the

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 99 of 411 PAGEID #: 1689

court. After a couple of questions by the court, Bethel admitted to using her phone but denied having communications with Smitherman. Judge Jamison contained the controversy within the context of Bethel’s witness credibility but refrained from making any further inquiries, as any other tribunal would have done. Jurado has documented similar cases and on each one, the Judge had made further inquiries, allowed the text messages to be discoverable or have confiscated the phones involved in the acts of witness tampering and witness coaching. Ironically, courtroom 65 has a signed at its entrance that warns about phone usage inside the courtroom being unlawful and specifies that confiscation of the phone would result from the disobedience of the rule.

Additional evidence of Judge Jamison’s full and conscious

participation in the concealment of the Defendants’ unlawful acts in this instance include her inaction for months at a time after Jurado file a motion to disqualify Smitherman, based on this incident of witness tampering along with other incidents. The motion was supported by two sworn affidavits of eyewitnesses that observed the conduct and acts of witness tampering on August 1, 2014.

When Judge Jamison finally allowed Jurado’s Motion to be heard, she

restricted his prosecution to the extent that he was unable to call Smitherman as witness, make specific inquiries or even read aloud certain portions of the rules of professional conduct.

V.O.15(b) AUGUST 2014 - JUDGE JAMISON ENGAGED IN SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS 231. Even when the transcript of the proceeding conducted on Aug. 4, 2014 (to hear Jurado’s request to modify his child support obligation amount) shows that there was mention of “the documents” that were given to the court, they were all “misplaced” after the hearing and have never been found since. In her Entry filed a day or two later, the Judge claimed that

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 100 of 411 PAGEID #: 1690

Jurado only presented the Court with one spreadsheet (as in one page) as evidence of his income. Her Entry also contradicts other facts observed on the hearing transcript. Judge Jamison then utilized the fraudulent entry as an exhibit for her Motion to Dismissed filed with the SCO on August 8, 2014. 232. Several court employees, including the Judge’s bailiff who made two set of copies of those documents during the short hearing, remembers the numerous documents and pages he had to copy for the court and for opposing counsel while the court had taken a short recess. Judge Jamison herself acknowledged in open court on January 2015 that her bailiff had made copies of all the documents supporting Jurado’s income and expenses during the previous proceeding to modify child support.

V.O.16. AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2014 - ODC, SCO DEFENDANTS AND JUDGE JAMISON ESCALATED THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE COVER UP & RETALIATION SUB-SCHEME V.O.16(a) FIRST STEPS TO THE DISMISSAL OF THE ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION AGAINST DEFENDANTS JUDGE JAMISON, ODC AND STONE 233.

On August 8, 2014, the Juvenile Court filed a Motion to Dismiss, for the dismissal of

Jurado’s entire action filed with the SCO. The respondent, the Juvenile Court and Judge Jamison, included as an exhibit the Entry issued previous week containing the judgment related to the hearing for modification of Child Support. As established in the previous paragraphs, the Entry was defective and contained misrepresentations. And as such, it is difficult not to suspect the purposeful intent to create prejudice. 234. On August 12, 2014, Defendant ODC filed a Motion to Dismiss, for the dismissal of Jurado’s action in Mandamus and Prohibition, asserting that: 87

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 101 of 411 PAGEID #: 1691

a. Jurado does not have a right to petition a Writ of Mandamus against them, and b. They don’t have a duty to investigate Jurado’s grievance against attorney-GAL Bethel c. "the Rules do not mandate or define the scope, breadth, or form of an investigation conducted by ODC” d. “The Rules do not require ODC to share the details of an investigation with the grievant”. e. Jurado had an available remedy at law which was an existing procedure for addressing concerns and complaints about GALs with the Juvenile Court, per Local Court rules. f. If the Juvenile Court would identify any unethical acts or misconduct, they had the duty to report the violations to ODC—implying that only then, they would investigate Jurado’s complaints of misconduct and discrimination (RACIAL BIAS).

V.O.16(b) NEW ALLEGATIONS OF JUDICIAL TRANSGRESSIONS AND IMPROPRIETIES FILED IN THE ORIGINAL ACTION IN THE OHIO SUPREME COURT 235.

On August 25, 2014, Jurado filed a miscellaneous motion with the SCO that included

additional claims of improprieties and possible retaliation by Judge Jamison, as it was evident in her Motion to Dismiss filed on August 8, 2014, which leveraged the Court Entry from the August 4, 2014 hearing that was marred with inconsistencies, inaccuracies and prejudicial remarks and statements.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 102 of 411 PAGEID #: 1692

V.O.16(c) AUGUST 27 HEARING NOT CONDUCTED BY INSTRUCTIONS OF ODC, SCO DEFENDANTS, PRETEXT TO SET CONTINUANCE TO SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 – A STRATEGIC DATE 236. On August 27, 2014, John Doe Instructed Defendant the Juvenile Court to Not Conduct the 2nd Part of Hearing Scheduled for that afternoon to Remove GAL Bethel, and Instead to set a second Continuance for 9/24/14, the day SCO would rule on Jurado’s Original Action in Mandamus and Prohibition against Judge Jamison. 237. Covert meeting conducted between Defendants ODC–SCO, John Doe and Jamison to elaborate on their Scheme for execution on Sept 24, 2014—which they anticipated with certainty that it would be the date when Jurado’s Original Action would be dismissed by the SCO. 238. Evidence of the covert meeting includes the continuance form issued by the Court that indicated the reason for the hearing not being held on that day, Aug. 27, 2014. The form specified that because of an ongoing trial proceeding being held by Judge Jamison would take precedence over Jurado’s hearing to remove Bethel. However, no trial took place on August 27, 2014 after 1pm, which is when the hearing was scheduled and when the continuance was issued. In fact, Judge Jamison courtroom was empty that afternoon, given that she had left the courthouse building sometime after 1pm. 239. Other evidence of their agreement among these co-conspirators is the fact that the SCO did dismiss Jurado’s Action the morning of September 24, 2014 and Judge Jamison engaged in conduct and decisions that afternoon that she had never done before, such as

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 103 of 411 PAGEID #: 1693

summoning Jurado to a backroom away from recording devices to prevent any type of transcript of proceedings from being available.

V.O.17. BROOKSEDGE LAWSUIT CONTINUED IMPOSING UNDUE BURDEN AND HARDSHIP ON JURADO 240. Discovery and production of documents became time consuming and attorney fee’s accumulate into high balance of debt.

V.P.

V.P.1.

SEPTEMBER 2014 - RETALIATION SOARED AS DIRECT RESULT OF THE REVEALING OF JURADO’S INTENTION TO SEEK FEDERAL RELIEF, AND THE DISMISSAL OF ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION BY SCO AS REINFORCEMENT OF THE CARTE BLANCHE GIVEN TO DEFENDANT JUDGE JAMISON SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 – KEY DATE: SCO DISMISSED JURADO’S ORIGINAL ACTION

241. Consistent with the instructions Judge Jamison received on August 27, 2014 from Defendants John Doe, Jane Doe III and ODC–SCO, Jurado’s Original Action in Mandamus and Prohibition against Judge Jamison was dismissed by the Higher Court just in time for the proceeding scheduled for that same day in the afternoon to conclude the hearing on Jurado’s Motion to Remove Bethel. 242. The timing of the dismissal of Jurado’s case in the Ohio Supreme Court was reinforcement of the Carte Blanche given to Defendant Jamison back in July 2014 and of the Plan conceived on August 27, 2014. Such reinforcement gave Judge Jamison confidence to continue with the overt abuses of authority and of Jurado’s Civil and Constitutional Rights

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 104 of 411 PAGEID #: 1694

during the two proceedings held that afternoon of September 24, 2014, and to continue the ever-increasing unlawful acts against Jurado since then through the present day.

V.P.2.

SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 – JUDGE JAMISON UNLAWFULLY CONDUCTED PROCEEDING IN CHAMBERS WITHOUT RECORDING

243. In the afternoon of September 24, 2014, as the scheduled hearing was about to start to resume the proceedings to Remove Bethel as GAL, Judge Jamison summoned Plaintiff Jurado (along with her co-conspirators Smitherman and Bethel) into a back room away from the court room and without any option to record the proceeding, in order to further deprive Plaintiff of his rights without leaving any evidence of the abuses or ability to produce a transcript.

V.P.3.

SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 – JUDGE JAMISON RETALIATED AGAINST JURADO BY CONDUCTING IMPROMPTU CONTEMPT HEARING TO GUARANTEE HIS UNLAWFUL INCARCERATION

244. After the conclusion of the unrecorded proceeding in Chambers, Judge Jamison proceeding to hold an impromptu hearing of Contempt, consistent with her threats against Jurado while in Chambers. Defendant Jamison’s Claim in her Motion to Dismiss filed with the SCO in August 2014 that the contempt hearing “had been vacated” and thus was “a moot issue” is an important consideration because the so-called vacated action was re-instituted only hours after the dismissal of Jurado’s case by the SCO, all consistent with the plot devised on August 27, 2014, among co-conspirators.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 105 of 411 PAGEID #: 1695

V.P.4.

NOVEMBER 20, 2014 – JUDGE JAMISON WILLFULLY DEPRIVED JURADO OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS AND ORDERED HIS IMMEDIATE UNLAWFUL INCARCERATION

245. A few minutes after the hearing had started, Jurado was instantly taken from the court room to an adjacent area by deputy sheriffs, stripped off his personal belongings, searched and padded, handcuffed for the first time in his 44 years of life, and locked in a holding cell with other inmates in uniform.

V.Q. V.Q.1.

DECEMBER 2014 – MCCASH AS DEFENDANT JAMISON’S ENFORCER AND THE CONSPIRACY’S CATALYTIC AGENT DECEMBER 2014 – DEFENDANT MCCASH HARASSED DAYCARE UTILIZED BY JURADO AND QUICKLY ACHIEVED THE NEXT OBJECTIVE OF THE CONSPIRACY: PLAINTIFF N.G. EXPELLED PERMANENTLY

246. In furtherance of the scheme that had started the year before by Bethel, Lambert, Smitherman and Petroff of keeping the child in a daycare that (1) would be willing to participate in the conspiracy, and (2) that would be located as far as possible from Jurado to further cause undue burden, McCash became hostile and initiated an e-mail altercation with the owner of the daycare utilized by Jurado. That combined with other actions by Defendant Lambert, the daycare immediately severed the agreement with Jurado and permanently dismissed the child from the facility. The owner had been complaining about harassment from Lambert for the past 11 months, and McCash expected that outcome. 247. After the incident, McCash intensely pursued the mandatory attendance of the child in the Goddard School of Hilliard 5 days a week even on Jurado’s parenting days, and while knowing that Jurado was able to care for the child, that Jurado was unable to pay for daycare at 92

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 106 of 411 PAGEID #: 1696

that point, and while knowing that such long drive was in the detriment of the best interest of the child because of the interference with his habitual schedule.

V.Q.2.

DECEMBER 2014 – DEFENDANT MCCASH CONSPIRED WITH LAMBERT, SMITHERMAN AND JUDGE JAMISON TO TORMENT, INTIMIDATE AND CAUSE PANIC AT JURADO’S HOME, WITH JAMISON’S GUIDANCE AND STEP-BY-STEP PARTICIPATION BY PHONE

248. On December 5, 2014, McCash, in close coordination with Lambert, Smitherman and Judge Jamison, intruded in Jurado’s life and home to cause panic, torment, and intimidate Jurado and his family during the incursion into their home.

The ultimate goal of their

conspiratorial incursion was to corruptly influence Jurado and his family as witnesses in the upcoming civil rights action by causing fear and intimidation, and to discourage Plaintiff Jurado from the pursuit of instituting this action in Federal Court, as he had given notice to them multiple times. The multiple hostile unannounced visits and intimidating presence of McCash inflicted substantial mental distress upon Jurado, on the 2 ½ year old Plaintiff N.G., and upon N.G.’s elderly grandparents, who took turns to call 911, given the alarming nature of the situation.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 107 of 411 PAGEID #: 1697

V.Q.3.

DECEMBER 2014 – COURT PROCEEDING AS A CONDUIT TO COVER UP, AND FOR CARRYING OUT THE NEXT PHASE OF THE SCHEME

V.Q.3(a)

COURT PROCEEDING TO BURY THE CONSPIRATORIAL ATTACK AGAINST OWNER OF DAYCARE UTILIZED BY JURADO

V.Q.3(b)

COURT PROCEEDING TO CONCEAL AND PERPETUATE THE INCURSION INTO JURADO’S HOME AND INTRUSION IN HIS LIFE AND PARENTING TIME

V.Q.3(c)

COURT PROCEEDING TO CARRY OUT THE START OF THE NEXT PHASE OF THE CONSPIRACY FOR THE SEVERANCE OF JURADO’S BONDING AND RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS SON AND THE LONG-TERM ALIENATION OF JURADO FROM PLAINTIFF N.G.

249. The Court Proceeding conducted on December 18, 2014 served as a platform for Defendants to carry out multiple acts in furtherance of the conspiracy as the transcript of the proceeding shows. For details of the allegations, refer to section VII.J.5 below.

V.R.

V.R.1.

DECEMBER 2014 –MARCH 2015 - DEFENDANTS GODDARD SCHOOL, GRETCHEN WILSON, KIMBERLY EAGLE ESCALATED THEIR PARTICIPATION WITH SMITHERMAN, LAMBERT AND MCCASH IN MULTIPLE OVERT ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY DECEMBER 2014 –JANUARY 2015 - DEFENDANTS GODDARD SCHOOL AND GRETCHEN WILSON SECOND OVERT ACT TO INTERFERE WITH PLAINTIFFS RIGHTS – INTERFERED WITH COURT INVESTIGATION AND MADE FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS TO COURT OFFICER

250. For details of these allegations, refer to section VII.F.4below.

V.R.2.

JANUARY 2015 - DEFENDANTS GODDARD SCHOOL’S AND GRETCHEN WILSON’S THIRD OVERT ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY – MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF PERJURED TESTIMONY AS LAMBERT WITNESS DURING FIRST PART OF TRIAL

251. For details of these allegations, refer to section VII.F.4(c)below

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 108 of 411 PAGEID #: 1698

V.R.3.

FEBRUARY-MARCH 2015 - DEFENDANTS GODDARD SCHOOL’S AND GRETCHEN WILSON ATTEMPTED TO FRAME JURADO BY ATTEMPTING AGAINST THE CHILD’S LIFE AND SAFETY; INSTILLED FEAR IN JURADO

252. For details of these allegations, refer to section VII.F.4(f)below

V.R.4.

253.

DEFENDANTS GODDARD SCHOOL’S AND GRETCHEN WILSON’S MOST RECENT OVERT ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY – UNPROVOKED DENIAL OF ACCESS TO FACILITY BY INTIMIDATION WITH UNPROVOKED VERBAL ABUSE, HUMILIATION AND EXPOSURE OF CHILD TO THOSE ATTACKS, RESULTING IN OBVIOUS EMOTIONAL DISTRESS TO THE CHILD For details of these allegations, refer to sections VII.F.4(d), VII.F.4(e), and VII.F.4(g)

below.

V.S.

V.S.1.

MARCH 2015 - JUVENILE COURT’S REINFORCEMENT OF MALEVOLENT CONSPIRATORIAL CONDUCT BY GODDARD SCHOOL DEFENDANTS AND OTHER COLOR OF LAW ABUSES MARCH 2015 –DEFENDANTS MCCASH AND JUDGE JAMISON ACTED UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW TO COVER UP WILLFUL ACTS OF CHILD ENDANGERMENT BY PERPETRATORS THE GODDARD SCHOOL, EAGLE AND WILSON IN CLOSE COORDINATION WITH CO-CONSPIRATORS LAMBERT AND SMITHERMAN—AS OVERT ACTS TO REACH THE GOALS OF THE CONSPIRACY

254. The March 17, 2015 Hearing served as Conduit for Defendants McCash and Judge Jamison to Overtly Cover Up Acts of Child Endangerment by Defendants the Goddard School, Eagle and Wilson in Close Coordination with Co-Conspirators Lambert and Smitherman;

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 109 of 411 PAGEID #: 1699

V.S.2.

MARCH 2015 – DEFENDANT JUDGE JAMISON ABUSED HER AUTHORITY WITHOUT RESTRAIN WHEN PROTECTING DEFENDANTS THE GODDARD SCHOOL AND EAGLE; JUDICIAL TRANSGRESSIONS INCLUDED COACHING THE WITNESS DURING DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION AND UNLAWFUL PRECLUSION OF INDISPENSABLE MATERIAL EVIDENCE

V.S.3.

DEFENDANT JUDGE JAMISON WILLFULLY DEPRIVED AND CONSPIRED TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFFS’ FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; OFFICIAL RATIFICATION OF INCREASED ALIENATION OF PARENT AND CHILD THAT HAD BEEN INTENSELY PURSUED BY DEFENDANTS LAMBERT, SMITHERMAN, GODDARD SCHOOL, WILSON, EAGLE AND MCCASH;

255.

V.S.4.

JAMISON’S ULTIMATE OVERT ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY’S SUBSIDIARY PLOT THAT STARTED OVER 2 YEARS AGO TO DEPRIVE JURADO OF EQUAL PROTECTION [OF THE LAW] IN RESPECT TO ACCESSING THE DAYCARE FACILITIES TO VISIT HIS SON

256. Judge Jamison latest judgment entry depriving Jurado of his right to use the Open Door policy and restricting his access and visits to his son to 1 hour a week establishes a pattern and consistent theme throughout the life of the conspiracy to discriminate and denied Jurado access to daycare facilities and to his son.

VI. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS – INTENTIONAL UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION VI.A. FIRST SIGNS OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION BY DEFENDANT BROOKSEDGE 257. Between November 2012 and January 2013, Defendant Brooksedge engaged in a practice that other daycares similarly situated would not have. It allowed Jurado’s name to be

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 110 of 411 PAGEID #: 1700

removed from initial enrollment documents and the administration proceeded to deny him access to the facility to see or visit his child in violation of ORC 5104.039(A). Brooksedge deliberately failed to comply with the law for the only reason of causing detriment to Jurado on account of his ethnicity and skin color, and favoring the wishes of Lambert, who is a whiteAmerican female, like everyone that was working at Brooksedge at the time, including the owner LeClair and the Co-Director. After two years since this incident, there has been no plausible explanation given by Defendants to prove otherwise. Brooksedge and LeClair first denied the incident, then admitted to the denial of access under the pretext that Lambert was the custodial parent and thus had the right to mandate the restriction, and then they blamed their â&#x20AC;&#x153;licensing agentâ&#x20AC;? from Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) who allegedly gave Brooksedge orders to deny Jurado the access. Between February 2013 and June 2013 there were other minor incidents that would have been considered subtle, except for the failure to report suspected abuse or neglect in one or two occasions, and the constant monitoring of Jurado to report details of his visits back to Lambert.

VI.B. RACISM BY GUARDIANS AD LITEM A REAL PROBLEM IN OHIO AND FRANKLIN COUNTY 258. The racially/ethic-motivated misconduct experienced by Jurado with Bethel is not only plausible, but highly probable, not only because of the irrefutable evidence and material facts of this case, but because it is a frequent occurrence experienced by many African American and Hispanic famillies. This is not to say that all Guardians Ad Litem (GAL) are biased or mischievous. There are excellent GALs that perform their duties with integrity. But it only takes a few to bring the system in disarray and cause harm to the vulnerable populations and to 97

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 111 of 411 PAGEID #: 1701

the reputation of those GALs that are honest and hardworking and truly care about the children. 259. It is also true that in every contested custody case, there is a winner and a loser, and some losers will become disgruntled parents that will lodge complaints against GALs. Clearly, this is not one of those cases, as Jurado started raising his concerns since early on during the pendency of the case, as demonstrated throughout this complaint.

VI.B.1.

LEGAL SCHOLAR’S VIEW OF RACIAL BIAS IN GAL PROGRAM

260. In the summer of 2013 and sometime after the events of July 8, 2013, Jurado learned that the challenges he was enduring as a result of Bethel’s misconduct were not unheard of or uncommon. At the time, he came across a treatise titled The Curious Case of the Guardian Ad Litem co-authored by Professor Katherine H. Federle, Professor of Law and Program Director at Moritz College of Law of the Ohio State University. In her writing, she exposes the phenomena experienced with GALs and the current system that allows conflict between race, class and the best interest standards. Attorneys are not prepared either by legal training or experience to determine what will be best for any particular child. 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.” This leaves considerable room for [racial] bias—personal and social, conscious and unconscious. * * * Because guardians ad litem are predominately white and middle class, what they know and value * * * is neither accessible to everyone nor necessarily the optimal way to rear children.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 112 of 411 PAGEID #: 1702

Indeterminacy is particularly disturbing in a system that historically has disadvantaged poor and minority families. 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. * * * [Guardians] exert extraordinary power over the direction of the case. [Racial] Bias may also lead guardians to assume a more adversarial posture with respect to parents. (Emphasis Added.) Katherine Hunt Federle & Danielle Gadomski, The Curious Case of the Guardian Ad Litem, University of Dayton Law Review (Vol. 36:3, 2011); Exhibit AC1-D1, pages [ ] of the Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits.

VI.B.2.

PRO SE COMPLAINANTS SEEKING HELP IN DEALING WITH GAL ISSUES ALMOST AN EVERY-DAY OCCURRENCE AT CAPITAL UNIVERSITY-SPONSORED SELF REPRESENTED RESOURCE CENTER IN FRANKLIN COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT BUILDING

261. Anyone that sits for three hours on any given day (Mon-Thu) at the Capital University Law School-Sponsored Self Represented Resource Center, located within the courthouse building for the Franklin County Common Pleas Court, Division of Domestic Relations and Juvenile Branch, will likely get a first-row view of one or more parents, most likely African American or Hispanic, asking for procedural help with the removal of their appointed Guardian Ad Litem; many of them visibly overwhelmed with frustration and helplessness as they describe very similar experiences: “the judge does not even want to hear about it”, followed by depictions of incidents and conduct that share the same common denominator: hostility and bias. After witnessing several of those parents while using the Center, Jurado asked the staff how often they hear these complaints about GALs, and the answer was a markedly “all the time”.

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 113 of 411 PAGEID #: 1703

VI.C. DEFENDANT BETHEL’S CONSCIOUS RACIAL-ETHNIC BIAS 262. The first five months of litigation in juvenile court were like any other ordinary custody case with its share of conflict but still below average as compared to many other custody cases. Despite their disagreements and problems, both parents generally maintained varying degrees of cooperation and communication while exercising equal parenting rights that had been granted by The Juvenile Court during the very first hearing in the case (shared parenting is still in effect as of the filing of this case). 263. The unresolved disagreement between the parents regarding health-related concerns about the child prompted the magistrate—that at the time presided over the case—to appoint Defendant Bethel as the GAL for the infant child on or around March 15, 2013. 264. A few weeks into her appointment, Defendant Bethel’s prejudice and passionate advocacy for Lambert became obvious as she purposely sparked discord between the parents and even between the parties’ counsel, while instituting any possible option to interfere with Jurado’s parenting time and his constitutional rights. It was not long before the entire case and Plaintiffs lives started taking a toll due to the Bethel’s covert aggression and harmful misconduct, which was driven by racism. In less than three months after her appointment, Defendant Bethel had turned the custody dispute into a high conflict case, now to a point of no return.

100

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 114 of 411 PAGEID #: 1704

VI.C.1.

NORMALCY AND IMPARTIALITY BEFORE LEARNING THE COLOR AND NATIONAL ORIGIN OF THE PARENTS; FIRST NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATIONS

265. The mother of the child (“Lambert”) has always tried to restrict, limit and control Plaintiff Jurado time with his son, including the time that their son is at daycare. In fact, the restrictions started long before the custody case was filed or the first GAL was appointed. For example, on their son’s very first day at daycare on 9/24/2012, Lambert tried to control for how long Jurado could stay in his first tour of the facility. The deterioration of their relationship motivated Lambert, due to her vindictive nature, to further limit and control Jurado’s time and relationship with his son as reprisal. 266. Soon after being appointed as GAL to the case, Defendant Bethel learned all the facts of the case through counsel from both sides. Almost immediately, and using her extensive 20+ years of experience, she gave the following objective recommendations and opinions in the case of “Hernandez vs Jurado”—two seeming Hispanic parents: a. The issue of Lambert intruding in Jurado's parenting time due to her alleged breast milk production limitations should be resolved with formula supplementation. b. The idea of Mom that the infant child is better off spending time at daycare than with Jurado for maintaining a routine or consistency or whatever other reason “is non-sense”. c. This is a case of 50/50 parenting schedule and shared parenting for allocation of rights and responsibilities (decision making). 101

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 115 of 411 PAGEID #: 1705

267. A day or two later, the GAL met for the first time with each parent and separately: The initial interview with Jurado, during which the GAL was still consistent with her initial recommendations was positive and in a friendly atmosphere. During that initial interview, the GAL learned about new facts, and was reminded about Jurado’s main concern: The health of the infant and his current pediatrician. Some of the facts and supporting evidence shared with the GAL, Defendant Bethel, included: a. Pictures of the infant child: The GAL was surprised and even alarmed to see the infant child’s thin, bony and “wasting” appearance. b. Concerns that the child showed signs of hunger after feeding, whether via bottled breast milk or direct nursing. The GAL agreed with Jurado that perhaps it was best to start supplementing with formula. c. Past history of stalking by Mom, as she reviewed phone longs and text messages initiated by Mom that were excessive and irrational over short periods of time. d. Instances in which Mom had put the baby’s life in danger, or had dismissed common sense judgment driven by her antagonism and desire to contradict Jurado during prenatal, neonatal period, and when the child was an older infant. e. The period of time in which Mom discontinued providing pumped breast milk bottles to Jurado, while continuing to provide the same to the daycare facility, all to justify her intrusion during Jurado’s bonding time with the child; and during

102

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 116 of 411 PAGEID #: 1706

which she also imposed very limited and “supervised” parenting time, all in retribution as soon as their relationship deteriorated. f. The continued efforts by Mom to intrude in Jurado’s parenting time with his son, even after the Court had granted him with a gradually-increasing parenting schedule without restrictions/unsupervised and overnights, which started with limited hours each week. At that point, the GAL had found reasonable those attempts by Jurado to limit the number of disruptions or bottle drop offs that Mom would make at Jurado’s place during his limited parenting/bonding time with his son—especially considering the concerns with the infant’s weight gain, Mom’s difficulties with breast-milk production, Jurado and GAL’s opinion that the child needed nutritional supplementation or formula, and the fact that Jurado only had about 15% a week of parenting time at that point in time. g. Despite his significant and valid concerns, Jurado still believed in Shared Parenting and felt strongly that their child needed both Mom and Jurado equally; But his concerns still needed attention.

VI.C.2.

DRASTIC REVERSAL OF OPINIONS WHEN LEARNED THAT “HERNANDEZ V. JURADO” WAS NOT A DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO HISPANIC PARENTS – MOTHER-FATHER EQUALITY PROVISION UNDER ORC 3109.042(A) IS ONLY APPLICABLE BETWEEN PARENTS OF SAME RACE, COLOR AND ETHNICITY

268. One or two days later, Defendant Bethel met with Lambert for the first time and— exactly within minutes after the initial interview with her ended—abruptly changed all previous recommendations and became adversarial towards Jurado without any reasonable explanation

103

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 117 of 411 PAGEID #: 1707

or justification. The only possible inference is that Defendant Bethel had learned who the parties really were: Jurado is a Hispanic parent, of Panamanian national origin, with dark skin and pronounced spoken accent and Defendant Lambert is a Caucasian, White-American mother without any Hispanic/Latino heritage (Hernandez is her previous husband's last name). a. Regarding the intrusion in Jurado's parenting time, the GAL suddenly dictated that Jurado is to allow Mom as many bottle drop offs as she desired and Jurado should “just deal with it”. The GAL contradicted her previous position about using baby formula and intrusion with Jurado-son bonding time, while ignoring all obvious signs that the infant child needed nutritional supplementation and that the limited amount of breast milk Mom was able to produce was not enough, given all the signs that the infant was still hungry after feedings and other symptoms. Also, the GAL’s newly-adopted posture disregarded Jurado’s efforts to be flexible and accommodate the nursing and feeding needs of Mom and infant. As important is the fact that both Mom’s and GAL’s posture was against the recommendation given in the Parenting Guide published by The Supreme Court of Ohio. For example, knowing that Mom would make bottle drop-offs as often as she pleased, Jurado was unable to make any plans, leave the house, or take the child anywhere—effectively confining him at his home as if under house arrest. b. The 50/50 parenting schedule recommendation by the GAL was not retracted at that point because it would have been too obvious. Instead, the GAL began to

104

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 118 of 411 PAGEID #: 1708

downplay her own recommendation of the 50/50 schedule by rationalizing that she couldn’t order anyone to do anything. That the only ones that could make that happen wear a black robe, referring to the magistrate and/or judge, and that Mom simply is not ready for such schedule. c. The GAL started putting substantial pressure to enforce her new recommendation for the infant son to spend each weekday at daycare (at least for 7 hours a day), even if Jurado was available to stay home with the child and even if it was against the current court order. Her recommendation—all in support of mom’s wishes— produced absurd results, and was against reason, common sense and contradicting substantive evidence (see next subsection below).

VI.C.3.

ALIGNED WITH LAMBERT’S GOALS THAT PRODUCED ABSURD RESULTS, AGAINST REASON AND AVAILABLE EVIDENCE AS SIGN OF INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION AND CONSPIRACY – MANDATORY & STRICT DAYCARE ATTENDANCE & FORCED CONFINEMENT OF THE INFANT CHILD

269. The newly stated recommendation from the GAL as of April 2013 that the child should stay in daycare instead of with his father, in defiance of the Court Order in place, was first rationalized by her alleged concerns that the child’s nap routine should not be disturbed. 270.

Another aggravating factor is that the GAL was aware of Jurado’s intense and

constant travel that his job demanded and that his time in Columbus was limited. Still, the GAL referred to Jurado’s attempts to see his son during weekdays as much as he could as “Parenting and convenience do not always go hand in hand”.

105

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 119 of 411 PAGEID #: 1709

271. Bethel then used the high-conflict nature of the case, which she had sparked herself, as a new rationale for imposing mandatory daycare attendance, after Jurado provided documentation proving that the nap routine and child schedule was not really an issue.

VI.C.4.

DIRECT EVIDENCE OF RACIALLY-MOTIVATED, ETHNIC-DRIVEN HOSTILITY: BETHEL’S RACIALLY CHARGED AND DEROGATORY LANGUAGE

272. July 8, 2013 was a day that marked the most important turning point of the case. The first half of the day was spent at the courthouse by all the parties, attorneys and GAL. On this date, the collusion between Defendants Lambert, Bethel, Smitherman, LeClair, Brooksedge and Petroff escalated and reached new levels. They collectively misled the Juvenile Court and made misrepresentations to Magistrate Matthews (see section

below) in regards to the frequency

of Jurado’s visits to see his son at Brooksedge and his interactions with the staff, which resulted in complaints filed in multiple state agencies against the daycare provider. On this date, Dr. Smalldon—who had been recommended by Bethel—was appointed by the court to perform psychological evaluations over Jurado’s objections, which resulted in Jurado’s dismissal of his attorney right outside the courtroom. It was also the day that Jurado heard the ethnic slur verbalized by Defendant Bethel. 273. Earlier that day while at the courthouse, Jurado was engaged in a conversation with his attorneys, when Defendant Bethel interrupted them for a second time, and asked Jurado’s attorneys to accompany her to a different area on the same floor, but by themselves. As Bethel turned around and started walking away, she uttered “damn wetback immigrants!” Jurado was caught off-guard but was not really surprised. By that point, Jurado had already been informed by his attorney that Bethel and LeClair were in a phone conference early that same 106

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 120 of 411 PAGEID #: 1710

morning, during which LeClair allegedly made several complaints about him. Also, it was not only the hostility he had experienced since Bethel’s appointment as Guardian Ad Litem a few months back, but that day in particular she acted with the upmost disdain toward Jurado: Did not greet him when she saw him for the first time, did not say a word to him when she interrupted Jurado’s meeting with his attorneys twice, and avoided eye contact altogether. Defendant Bethel finally took everyone away for “negotiations” leaving Jurado alone outside the courtroom for the next two to three hours while she, Lambert, Jurado’s attorneys and Lambert’s attorneys went to an undisclosed conference room. An hour and forty five minutes later, Jurado started looking for them unsuccessfully at the point he decided to dismiss his attorney before the start of the proceeding, given that she had already made it clear of her refusal to object to the appointment of Dr. Smalldon.

VI.C.5.

TORMENT, OPPRESSION AND PERSECUTION BY BETHEL BECAME A NORMAL PART OF JURADO’S DAILY LIFE

274. The ongoing and frequent instigation and harassment by Bethel was observed on day-to-day activities, over the smallest and most irrelevant matters such as the writing of emails. For example, the e-mail communications from 11/15/2013 shows Bethel nitpicking at Jurado because of her opinion of his writing style. It is even more concerning the fact that the specific issue(s) she was raising was caused by her own oversight and failure to read the entire e-mail thread. A few hundred e-mails sent by Bethel during her 18 months serving as GAL for Plaintiff N.G., have been collected as evidence of the ongoing aggression and pursuit of Jurado as a target.

107

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 121 of 411 PAGEID #: 1711

VI.C.6.

BETHEL - FROM GAL TO LAMBERT’S DE FACTO ADVOCATE

275. The following are just some of the many examples of evidence that prove the lack of impartiality, extreme adversarial posture against Jurado and passionate advocacy for Lambert’s interests, while recklessly neglecting the best interests of the child and showing criminal indifference to incidents and events in which the health and safety of the child was exposed to risks. The differential treatment of Jurado on the basis on his national origin and color of his sin can be established by her use of double standards, contradictions that consistently produced adverse results for Jurado, and her intentional fallacies to support conclusory allegations she repeated verbatim from Lambert even when they were all unsubstantiated.

VI.C.6(a)

BETHEL’S MARKEDLY UNBALANCED AVAILABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OFFERED TO LAMBERT AND TO JURADO; DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR JURADO AS WELL AS JURADO’S ENTIRE FAMILY

276. On numerous occasions, Defendant Bethel proved to be readily accessible for Defendant Lambert, while making herself available sparingly for Plaintiff Jurado. For all 18 months of her appointment as GAL, her communications and availability between Lambert and Jurado was markedly unbalanced. 277. For example, between April and May 2013, Defendant Bethel was uncooperative or non-responsive to Jurado’s emails requesting permission to exercise his rights and privileges by spending time with his infant son at home as allowed by the existing court order at the time. 278. In another instance, Defendant Bethel became completely inaccessible to Jurado and openly available for Lambert during incidents or events occurred in June 2013.

During

negotiations for an interim schedule deviation from the Temporary Orders for the then108

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 122 of 411 PAGEID #: 1712

upcoming Summer time of 2013 and visiting grandparents, Bethel provided Lambert the opportunity to make her case for restricting parenting time for the child’s paternal Grandparents while they visited from outside the U.S., after receiving Lambert’s request to discuss with her the interim schedule before she would issue her recommendation. 279. As predicted by Jurado when he shared his concerns with his then-attorney about not being afforded the same opportunity to speak with Bethel, Jurado’s request to Bethel for an opportunity to discuss and/or refute Lambert’s proposals/concerns was ignored.

Not

surprisingly, the Bethel’s recommendation turned out to be completely in favor of Lambert by siding with her on all the issues around the interim schedule and denied Jurado and his parents the opportunity to spend time with their grandson during weekdays, even when the Temporary Orders allowed him to have his son during the week without any daycare restrictions. Defendant Bethel was well aware that, although hers was a recommendation, it would tip the scale one way or the other making her recommendation effectively binding—especially considering that by the time this issue would be brought up to the court, summer time would be more than half way over, and the child’s grandparents visit would be over.

VI.C.6(b)

USING SKYPE DURING PARENTING TIME: DAMN IF HE DOES, DAMN IF HE DOESN’T

280. Even on smaller issues such as the use of Skype during parenting time, Bethel showed double standards. In June 2013, Bethel sided with Lambert on her request for using Skype to keep in contact with a One Year Old infant during the uninterrupted week of vacation of the other parent. Interestingly enough, during an earlier phone conference between the GAL and

109

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 123 of 411 PAGEID #: 1713

Jurado, she criticized him for voluntarily allowing Lambert to Skype with the child during his parenting time earlier in the case.

VI.C.6(c)

PARENTS’ FLEXIBLE WORK SCHEDULE

281. The email from 5/28/2013 sent by the GAL includes “Kathy does not have as flexible a work schedule as you”. The GAL’s advocacy for Lambert in every granular aspect became predictable after only two months since her appointment. In this case, her advocacy for Lambert alleged “inflexible” work schedule did not have any basis. In reality, Lambert’s position with her employer enjoyed a high-level of flexibility. The rigid nature of Jurado’s job and schedule was documented and discussed many times between the parties during parenting schedule negotiations. An “irregular” schedule is not synonym for “flexible” schedule.

VI.C.6(d)

INDIFFERENCE TO THE NUMEROUS MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS MADE BY LAMBERT WHILE APPREHENSIVE ABOUT TWO APPOINTMENTS MADE BY JURADO

282. On the same email from 05/28/2013, Bethel censured a referral that was made by Dr. Mastruserio, a 2nd opinion pediatrician that both parents consulted with and that Bethel had not objected to, even when she was made aware of that referral by the pediatrician a few months before. Bethel also wrote “I hope that these appointments are medically necessary. * * * I am getting somewhat concerned about what we are putting [name redacted] through if these appointments are not required” as she repeated verbatim the exact words from emails she received from Lambert in the two occasions in which Jurado attempted to seek medical care for the child on his own initiative, but turned out unsuccessful due to interference by Bethel and Lambert.

110

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 124 of 411 PAGEID #: 1714

283. In this example, the Bethel was reaching to conclusions and insinuating that the appointments made by Jurado were too many and unnecessary without having any evidence of either claim, and while refusing to talk to the 2nd pediatrician, or without even asking how many times Lambert had made non-routine appointments and if those were necessary. Meanwhile, Lambert had made 9 last-minute and unexpected medical appointments over the first 5 months of the year, not including regular checkups.

VI.C.6(e)

BETHEL’S I-HAVE-SEEN-MUCH-WORSE DOUBLE-STANDARD

284. In May 2013, Lambert took away from Jurado the full-featured stroller that they purchased together and that they had been sharing for the benefit of their son since July 2012. Lambert then provided Jurado with a mini-stroller that did not have any of the safety features of the original one, forcing him to purchase a new one when he was not prepared to incur in such expense. GAL Bethel’s opinion regarding the mini-stroller and Lambert’s behavior: No big deal given that she has seen “things that are so much worse”. 285. On the other hand, during a court hearing on Dec 20, 2013, Bethel testified in front of Judge Jamison about Jurado’s apartment and that it was just too small for the child when in fact, it was a 1,400 sq. ft. apartment with 3BR/2BA, as the transcript of this proceeding shows. When asserting a non-favorable opinion about any aspect of Jurado’s parenting, Defendant Bethel never applied the “I have seen much worse” standard.

111

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 125 of 411 PAGEID #: 1715

VI.C.6(f)

UNWARRANTED E-MAIL ATTACKS BY DEFENDANT BETHEL INITIATED BY LAMBERT’S ALLEGATIONS

286. On Martin Luther King Holiday (2014), Defendant Bethel engaged in an e-mail altercation against Jurado for “painting Kathy in a negative light”. Not only that Bethel, as GAL, consistently advocated for Lambert instead of the best interest of the child, but even censured Jurado for simply encouraging Mom to spend the day with their son, instead of leaving him at the daycare facility.

VI.C.6(g)

GAL BETHEL PROTECTED COMMUNICATIONS WITH LAMBERT AS IN ATTORNEYCLIENT PRIVILEGE

287. Since Defendant Bethel’s appointment as GAL in March 2013, she has written and transmitted several hundred emails addressed to all parties in the case, none of which included by quoting, as attachment or forwarding, any of the numerous communications she had exparte with Lambert and/or her attorneys. In contrast, she forwarded (openly or in secrecy) to all parties the few ex-parte communications that took place between her and Jurado. 288. A memorable example is the e-mail communications that took place on 1/2/2014. Defendant Bethel’s email started with the phrase, “I was contacted by Kathy”. In a response by Jurado’s then-attorney to the GAL, he referred to the GAL’s conduct and frequent emails as “utter absolute absurdity”. 289.

So far in 2014, there have been 4 attempts to subpoena the GAL file and so far they

all have failed for a variety of reasons: Due to GAL’s Motions to Quash granted by the Court, the Court not holding hearings in retaliation against Jurado, among other reasons. As of October 5, 2014, there is a pending Motion to Quash by the former GAL, as a result of the latest 112

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 126 of 411 PAGEID #: 1716

attempt to Discovery by Jurado after the GAL was removed from the case by the Court sua sponte. The GAL’s Motion to Quash is based mainly on 2 claims: (1) Subpoena is a fishing expedition; (2) Undue burden because Jurado asked to “review the whole file”. Those claims were made just days after Judge Jamison instructed Jurado, in front of Defendant Bethel, to simply make an appointment with Defendant Bethel’s office to review the file. When Jurado attempted to make the appointment with the GAL’s office the day after the Judge gave those instructions on 9/24, he was denied based of the assertion that because Defendant Bethel had just been removed as GAL, Jurado was no longer entitled to a review of the file. And instead, a Deposition of her would be necessary because it was the only proper way to review an Expert Witness underlying file, referring to statements made by the Judge that Defendant Bethel would be allowed to return to the case as an Expert Witness (for Mom as the only possibility) as she expressed the Court’s decision to remove the GAL from the case sua sponte without giving Jurado his opportunity to completely address all of his concerns and constitutional claims against the GAL. Defendant Bethel was quick to indicate the hourly rate that she would charge knowing that Jurado would not be able to afford it. Instead of trying to work it out with Jurado, Defendant Bethel simply imposed a new financial challenge to Jurado when indicated her $285/hr rate for her deposition as an expert witness. As of the filing of this instant first amended complaint, Bethel is still attacking Jurado’s attempts to subpoena her records.

VI.C.7.

BETHEL AS JURADO’S MAIN ADVERSARY IN THE CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS, PERSECUTED HIM AS HE PLACED THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD FIRST

290. In July 2013, while negotiating the summer vacation schedule with Lambert through her attorneys, as well as the new temporary orders dealing with a variety of stipulations of all

113

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 127 of 411 PAGEID #: 1717

aspects of parenting, the care of the child and parenting time in particular, Jurado was successful at proposing a rotating parenting time scheduled to be implemented on a regular basis. Although the new parenting plan consistent on a parenting time schedule different than the one recommended by Bethel, as the appointed GAL, and significantly different the one first proposed by Lambert, it was clearly in the best interest of the child and disregarded any convenience for the parents.

Despite the existing high-conflict, lack of cooperation,

antagonistic atmosphere, and increasing disagreements between the two parents in general, Lambert agreed with Jurado’s proposed 2-day/2-day rotating schedule that did not vary over week days or weekends, because it was unmistakably in the best interest of the child. It allowed both parents to have frequent contact with the toddler and neither parent would go too many days without seeing the child. This rotating schedule was one of several schedules recommended by the official Parenting Guides of the states of Arizona and Ohio, both published by their corresponding State’s Supreme Courts and developed by similarly appointed task forces. 291. When Jurado made reference to the Official Ohio’s Parenting Guide, it was obvious that none of the parties, attorneys or Bethel, as the appointed GAL, knew about its existence. In fact Defendant Bethel had already censured one or more recommendations made in the Guide which originated from the expertise of Child Development Professionals, researchers and carefully-selected authorities in the field. When Bethel learned that Lambert and Jurado had agreed on Jurado’s proposed 2/2 schedule, she commented that she thought it would be very inconvenient for the parents to be able to plan their weekends, etc. None of her feedback was every truly about the best interest of the child. 114

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 128 of 411 PAGEID #: 1718

292. As part of the same negotiations between Lambert and Jurado, Jurado suggested that they interpose a window of time every other day during each parent’s “uninterrupted” vacation week with the toddler, to allow the other parent to have high-quality time with the nonvacationing parent. One more time, both parents agreed without an issue on this new stipulation because it was in the best interest of the child. However, because they were running out of time due to Bethel’s imposed deadline for coming up with a mutually agreed temporary orders, Jurado was unable to propose additional changes or stipulations that were in the best interest of the child. For example, although the two non-consecutive vacation weeks for each parent in the summer were equal between them, Lambert truly did not believe the toddler was ready to spend so many days away from her. Jurado was also of the opinion that the child was still too young to be away from each parent for an entire week (and thus his lastminute suggestion on the time window every other day for the other parent to spend time with the child). But they ran out of time to freely discuss the matter prior to reaching the deadline.

293. The only reason for the summer vacation to be part of the parenting plan was the result of the continuous denial of Bethel, Lambert and her attorneys for the child to spend time with Jurado and the child’s paternal grandparents during weekdays while they were visiting from Panama, even when the court order in effect at the time designated about 2-3 weekdays as Jurado’s parenting time without any restrictions. Instead, Bethel imposed that the only time the child should be out of daycare is if the parents incorporate the uninterrupted summer weeks of vacation that is included in the Local Rules for parents to use as the minimal standards for all children regardless of age.

115

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 129 of 411 PAGEID #: 1719

294. Right after the temporary orders were signed and approved by the court, Jurado took his first vacation week with his son, given that the visit of the child’s grandparents in Columbus OH was soon coming to an end. The vacation week started without any issues as both Jurado and his son were having high-quality bonding time. Still, as he watched his God-sent one year old son sound sleep in his crib the first night, Jurado reflected on the difficult time his son would have at the end of the week re-adapting to his other home, bedroom and crib, and viceversa after spending 7 days/7 nights away from Lambert’s home. That same night, he sent an e-mail to Lambert explaining his concern and recommending that they convert the 3-hour window “for the other non-vacationing parent” to an overnight every other day, resulting in little disruption to the child’s evening and sleeping routine, while each parent could still enjoy their vacation week with the child within daytime hours. Lambert did not take well Jurado’s email. The next morning, she sent her first response e-mail with a negative tone, which indicated that she thought “something had happened with their child”. 295. When the e-mail exchanges came to Bethel’s attention, Bethel immediately started hounding Jurado with hostile e-mails and censuring him for attempting to change the recently approved temporary orders. When he demonstrated to Bethel that he even offered Lambert to take the overnights every other day with no strings attached and no expectation of reciprocity—given that his suggestion intended to keep the best interest of the child above everything else was now used to create a new instance of quarrel—Bethel accused him of acting disingenuous while “trying to appear as the better parent”. In the end, Lambert took the overnight Jurado had offered and for the benefit of the child, and did not reciprocate during her week of vacation with the child, as expected. 116

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 130 of 411 PAGEID #: 1720

VI.C.8.

BETHEL’S RACIALLY MOTIVATED MISCONDUCT RAMPED UP: BECAME INTEGRAL FIGURE IN THE OVERARCHING CONSPIRACY AGAINST JURADO

296. As established in section VI.E below, Defendant Bethel was the originator of one of the conspiracy agreements to create High Conflict, and effectively used the results in furtherance of the conspiracy to pursue the enforcement of her mandatory daycare attendance for the child, and to inflict undue hardship on Jurado, among other goals, solely driven by her racial and ethnic hatred. 297. Defendant Bethel also played a key role instigating and carrying out the conspiracy sub-scheme of the Civil Lawsuit filed by Brooksedge against Jurado.

VI.C.9.

BETHEL’S RACISM DROVE HER TO ENGAGE IN PATTERN OF UNLAWFUL CONDUCT AND ACTS OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT AGAINST HER OWN INTERESTS

298. Most of Bethel’s unlawful conduct and acts were centered on fraud, perjury and premediated misrepresentations in court. The fact that her constant deception became a pattern of unlawful conduct engaged against her own interests, establishes unlawful discrimination, agreement and participation in the conspiracy. Refer to section VII.D.5 below for specific facts and allegations of instances of fraudulent misrepresentations to the court.

VI.D. DISPARATE TREATMENT BY DEFENDANTS ODC AND STONE ON THE BASIS OF RACE AND ETHNICITY VI.D.1.

SIMILARLY SITUATED GRIEVANTS

299. 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 Jurado had filed. Although her claims were not 117

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 131 of 411 PAGEID #: 1721

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-Ohio4390, there is a reference to Ms. Lancaster filing a complaint with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel against attorney Susan Hulit-Burns. This fact should be easily substantiated by obtaining a copy of the determination letter from either Ms. Lancaster, or the ODC.

VI.E.

VI.E.1.

UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN THIS CASE NOT ONLY TARGETS PLAINTIFFS BUT ALL PATERNAL FAMILY MEMBERS BECAUSE OF THEIR PANAMANIAN ANCESTRY DISPARATE TREATMENT OF MINOR N.G.’S PANAMANIAN GRANDPARENTS BY DEFENDANTS BROOKSEDGE, LECLAIR, LAMBERT AND PETROFF LAW FIRM

300. Between December 2012 and July 2013, the child’s paternal grandparents were treated differently by Defendants only because of their Hispanic ethnicity as described in the sworn Affidavit of Milka Licona. Exhibit AC1-D2, pages 91-93 of the Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits. 301. E-mails from attorney Petroff from January 2013 show Defendants’ intention to allow the grandparents access to the daycare facility but only guarded or escorted, and after denying them access to the center for the entire length of their 6-week stay in Columbus, even when their son Jurado was listed as a parent of the child in the enrollment forms. 302. The affidavit of Milka Licona 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. 118

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 132 of 411 PAGEID #: 1722

VI.E.2.

OVERT COLLABORATION BETWEEN DEFENDANTS SMITHERMAN, MCCASH, LAMBERT, JUDGE JAMISON AND THE GODDARD SCHOOL TO INTENTIONALLY DISRUPT AND SEVER THE FAMILIAL BOND AND RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF MINOR N.G. AND HIS ENTIRE PATERNAL PANAMANIAN FAMILY

303. 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 familial ties, even when it is in the detriment of the child. 304. 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 situation 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. 305. Refer to section VII.A.1(t) below for additional information about the overt acts of Defendants to deny Jurado’s family access to the child. Also see Exhibit AC1-D3 with copies of these emails; pages 94–97 of the Appendix. 306. 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.

119

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 133 of 411 PAGEID #: 1723

VII. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS – THE CONSPIRACY VII.A. THE AGREEMENTS ENTERED BY DEFENDANTS FORMING THE MASTER CONSPIRACY VII.A.1. TO INTERFERE WITH CUSTODY AND PARENTING TIME BETWEEN PLAINTIFF JURADO AND PLAINTIFF N.G., JURADO’S MINOR SON 307.

One of the several agreements entered by the defendants that formed the initial

conspiracy, now the master conspiracy, is to interfere with Jurado and his minor son’s relationship, in order to hinder the forming of a strong bond between them, and strain any already successfully nurtured father-son relationship between Plaintiffs—and also between N.G. and his paternal grandparents, aunt and relatives with Panamanian ancestry

VII.A.1(a) LAMBERT’S INITIAL REVELATION OF HER STANCE THAT DAYCARE COMES BEFORE THE CHILD’S FATHER AND THAT JURADO’S PRESENCE AT THE FACILITY WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA 308. Sometime before the filing of the custody case in November 2012, Defendant Lambert overtly revealed her stance when Jurado explained (in the context of his intended finalization of his engagement in Chicago planned for December 1, 2012) that his intentions were to spend as much time with his son as he could between contract engagements/work projects to build a good father-son bond, similar to the opportunity Lambert had during her maternity leave, for which Jurado provided financial support.

She elaborated on her

explanation behind her belief that daycare attendance provided a number of benefits for children, and that any attendance disruption should be done on an exceptional basis. She was adamant to allow the child to be out of daycare for days or weeks at a time.

120

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 134 of 411 PAGEID #: 1724

309. On a different occasion also captured by recording, she tried to articulate her rationale for thinking that Jurado’s presence at the daycare facility was not a good idea. Some of her explanations included (i) “the daycare staff and other parents do not need to find out about our problems”, (ii) “Other parents are going to start complaining when they see you around without running a background check on you”, (iii) “the daycare staff will not feel comfortable with you at the facility”. At the time, both parents were co-parenting equally. 310. These early revelations—along with the text messages sent by Lambert during the child’s first day of attendance asking Jurado “don’t stay too long” referring to his first time visit and tour on the facility during Plaintiff N.G.’s first day of attendance in September 2012, and comments made by LeClair to Jurado in April-May 2013 referring to Lambert’s exact concerns about Jurado’s presence at the facility—are evidence of agreement between Lambert and her co-conspirators throughout the mortality

VII.A.1(b) LAMBERT AND BROOKSEDGE ENTERED INTO FIRST AGREEMENT TO JOINTLY CARRY OUT UNLAWFUL ACT FOR DENYING JURADO ACCESS TO THE FACILITY 311. Between November 2, 2012 and November 5, 2012, Lambert contacted one of the co-directors and explained that she was filing for full custody of her son without giving Jurado any notice. Lambert asked for her and Brooksedge’s help in precluding Plaintiff Jurado from seeing his son or even talking to his son’s caretakers about the infant’s weight-gain issues. Brooksedge suggested to Lambert that she could fill out a new enrollment form without including him as a parent or authorized person to see or pick up the child; and even when pursuant to ORC 5104.039(A) they were prohibited by law from denying custodial or noncustodial access to parents unless they were provided with a court order stating otherwise, 121

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 135 of 411 PAGEID #: 1725

they would simply play along and will not mention the rule if Jurado wouldn’t ask. They all knew that he was also never provided a copy of the Parent Handbook. The only motive Brooksedge had for breaking licensing rules and favor Lambert while creating undue interference between Jurado and his son is Jurado’s national origin and the darker tone of his skin. 312. Almost simultaneously as attorney Petroff was filing Lambert’s complaint for full custody in the Juvenile Court in the morning of November 5, 2012, Lambert was crossing out Jurado’s name from the initial enrollment form and filling out a new form as suggested by Brooksedge. They also collaborated in developing procedures if Jurado would try to see his son. 313. Between November 9, 2012 and early-January 2013, Lambert knowingly misled Jurado by making him believe he would get into trouble if he would even attempt to see his son at daycare because he was no longer “allowed”. Their actions also would result, in case of an emergency, for Jurado to be the last person to find out, since he was not even listed as an emergency contact in the facility attended by his son. 314. During the period ruled by ORC 3109.042, which gave Lambert “natural” custody of the child until their first appearance in court, she set strict time schedules and provided them on a piecemeal fashion for Jurado and his family from Panama to see the child and only under her supervision. She abused her authority to exert obsessive control and used the child as a manipulative tool against Jurado.

122

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 136 of 411 PAGEID #: 1726

315. On November 15, 2012 and half way through an extended stay in Chicago, IL, Jurado traveled to Columbus for less than 12 hours for the exclusive reason to see and spend a few hours with his son. Lambert only allowed him 15 minutes with their son early in the morning before daycare drop-off, even after he begged her to let him spend more time with his son. Once more, Lambert restated that Jurado was not “allowed” at daycare and Brooksedge confirmed by email that they would deny Jurado access to the facility without verbal or written permission by Lambert. 316. After investigating the rules and the center’s written policies, Jurado brought up with Defendant LeClair, owner and co-Director of the facility, that the Ohio statute, ODJFS licensing rules and their own policy should allow him access to the facility and to his son. LeClair finally conceded that all he had to do was to provide them with a copy of the child’s birth certificate or other legal document showing that Jurado was the child’s parent. Although Brooksedge stopped denying Jurado’s access during the first half of January 2013, he continued following Lambert’s “orders” due to her intimidating threats. He knew things would change after their first appearance in Court less than two weeks away.

VII.A.1(c) AFTER SHARED PARENTING WITH UNSUPERVISED PARENTING SCHEDULE IS IN EFFECT BY COURT ORDER, LAMBERT USES BREASTFEEDING, AND OTHER PRETEXTS TO CONSTANTLY INTERFERE WITH JURADO’S BONDING TIME WITH THE INFANT 317. Several dozen e-mails generated between January 2013-April 2013 show evidence that Lambert, while able to pump and provide Brooksedge with enough supply of breastmilk for the infant to last the entire day, used her alleged inability to produce enough breastmilk as a

123

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 137 of 411 PAGEID #: 1727

pretext for not letting Jurado exercise his parenting time free of interference, intrusion and conflict. 318. In one instance, Jurado offered Lambert the opportunity to facilitate her pumping and production of breastmilk by keeping their son just blocks from her place of employment at Jurado’s home, but she declined without giving a reasonable explanation. Defendant Lambert preferred to drive 50 miles round-trip in the middle of the day to nurse the infant, than to relinquish a few hours of her parenting time to allow the child to be cared for by Jurado instead of the Brooksedge care takers.

VII.A.1(d) LAMBERT’S INTERFERENCE WITH JURADO’S PARENTING TIME ESCALATE TO HARASSMENT AND STALKING 319. As described in detail in section , Defendant Lambert’s obsession for intruding into Jurado’s time and hindering the forming of the bond between father and son reached absurd levels of conflict, between March 2013 and May 2013, requiring Jurado to have to keep all of his phones turned off, and window curtains closed during his parenting time with his son, given Lambert’s continued harassment through phone and SMS calls, and attempts to intrude by her unannounced presence. 320. During a botched court proceeding scheduled for April 17, 2013, Jurado brought evidence of the excessive text messages and phone calls by Lambert during Jurado’s time with their infant son.

In that instance, Jurado produced the content of 80+ SMS messages

generated by Lambert during a single overnight stay of their child with Jurado.

124

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 138 of 411 PAGEID #: 1728

321. In April 2013, Jurado gave in to the duress he was being subjected to, and resorted to offering to relinquish his overnight parenting time in an attempt to minimize the tormenting and joint persecution between Lambert and Bethel, as he knew they were also aiming at injuring Jurado by inflicting extreme mental distress. As established throughout this complaint, Defendants eventually achieved their goal and cause Jurado to be taken to the Emergency Room, first in May of 2013 and more recently in February 2015.

VII.A.1(e) DEFENDANT BETHEL JOINED THE CONSPIRACY – MOTHER-FATHER EQUALITY PROVISION UNDER ORC 3109.042(A) FOR THE DETERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO PARENTS OF SAME RACE, COLOR AND ETHNICITY 322. Upon her appointment as GAL for Plaintiff N.G. in the custody case in mid-March 2013, Bethel learned all relevant facts, background and history of the case through each party’s counsel. Bethel immediately issued her preliminary recommendations that clearly showed she was applying the father-mother equality provision under ORC 3109.042(A) for the determination of parental rights and responsibilities. One of those recommendations included the 50/50 parenting schedule for Lambert and Jurado, rejection of mandatory daycare attendance, and disapproval of Lambert’s use of breastfeeding as pretext for constantly intruding in Jurado’s parenting time, all (opinions) of which were given before Bethel found out the true ethnicity and national origin of Lambert and Jurado. 323. After Defendant Bethel learned that “Hernandez v. Jurado” was not a custody case between two Hispanic parents, but instead, between a white-Caucasian mother and a Hispanic father, all of her initial recommendations were abruptly reversed, and became

125

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 139 of 411 PAGEID #: 1729

adverse to Jurado’s exercise of his parenting time with his son. Since that point in time going forward, it became evident that for Bethel, the equality provision for Father and Mother under ORC 3109.042(A) no longer applied. The only recommendation she did not reverse right away was the 50/50 parenting schedule recommendation because it would have been extremely obvious and would have exposed her racial/ethnic bias. Instead, Bethel colluded with Lambert and Smitherman to delay the enforcement of her own recommendation for the 50/50 parenting schedule as much as possible.

VII.A.1(f)

START OF CONCERTED EFFORTS BETWEEN BETHEL AND LAMBERT TO LIMIT JURADO’S PARENTING TIME: MANDATORY DAYCARE ATTENDANCE JUSTIFIED BY INFANT NEED FOR REGULAR NAP SCHEDULE AND CONSISTENCY

324. Before Defendant Bethel Joined the conspiracy around April of 2013, and even before she started her differential treatment of Jurado, Bethel heard Lambert’s constant pursuit for the child to stay in daycare even when Plaintiff Jurado was able to care for him. The feedback Bethel shared during her first interview with Jurado in April 2013 was “NON-SENSE” the fact that Lambert alleged that the infant child was better off spending time at the daycare than with Jurado, rationalized as an approach for maintaining a routine or consistency for the child and for his napping routine not to be disturbed. 325. A day or two later, Lambert met for the first time with Bethel, who immediately figured out that Lambert’s adopted last name “Hernandez” was just that and that she was white-American.

Immediately, her racial bias started to show when Bethel changed her

opinions abruptly and started the intense pursuit alongside with Lambert for enforcing

126

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 140 of 411 PAGEID #: 1730

mandatory daycare attendance against the best interest of the child, the interests of Jurado and in favor of Lambert’s posture.

VII.A.1(g) DEFENDANT BETHEL COLLUDED WITH LAMBERT AND SMITHERMAN TO DELAY THE ENFORCEMENT OF HER OWN 50/50 PARENTING SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATION 326. In mid-April 2013, Defendants successfully conspired to botch the April 17, 2013 court proceeding that would have resulted in the enforcement of the 50/50 parenting schedule. On that day, Lambert, Jurado and their attorneys all attended and were present at the courthouse only to find out that Defendant Bethel had participation in an ongoing trial she had scheduled for the same day and time in the same floor in the Juvenile Court building. It became evident that Bethel had chosen this date for the proceeding, knowing that she had a schedule conflict with an ongoing trial as a tactic to delay the enforcement of her initial recommendation of the 50/50 parenting schedule for Lambert and Jurado.

VII.A.1(h) BETHEL’S OVERT ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF INTERFERENCE WITH JURADO’S PARENTING TIME: MANDATORY DAYCARE ATTENDANCE BECAUSE OF HIGHCONFLICT NATURE OF THE CASE 327. The newly stated recommendation from the Bethel since the botched April 17, 2013 court proceeding that the child should stay in daycare instead of with his father, in defiance of the Court Order in place, was first rationalized by her alleged concerns that the child’s nap routine should not be disturbed. 328. To further decrease the amount of Jurado’s parenting time despite the court order in effect at the time, Bethel colluded with Lambert, Petroff and Smitherman, by imposing strict daycare drop off and pick up times for all five weekdays with no exceptions, and declared

127

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 141 of 411 PAGEID #: 1731

Jurado’s attempts to see his son during weekdays as much as he could or as soon as he was available after work as “Parenting and convenience do not always go hand in hand”. 329. The malevolent purpose of Bethel’s conduct regarding these restrictions is evident in the transcript of the Aug. 1, 2014 proceedings conducted for Bethel’s removal as GAL. During cross-examination by Jurado, Bethel admitted being well aware of Jurado’s job demands requiring intense weekly travel. Bethel also admitted for the record to knowingly purport Jurado’s involuntary out-of-state employment and travel situation, and the difficulties in seen his son as mere “Dad’s convenience” and a bad parenting trait that was not in the child’s best interest. 330. Between April and May 2013, Jurado provided documentation proving that the nap routine and child schedule was not really an issue and that under Jurado’s care, Plaintiff’s N.G. nap routine could even be enhanced. But Bethel was indifferent and kept silent about the new information. Instead, in May 2013, she moved to a new and second rationale for imposing restrictions and mandatory daycare attendance for Plaintiff N.G.: “this is an extremely high conflict case and keeping the child in daycare would be in his best interest”. The conspirators had reaped on their agreement to carry out the sub-scheme of creating a High Conflict environment, achieved mainly with Bethel’s tactics to spark high conflict (see ).

VII.A.1(i)

DEFENDANTS COORDINATED EFFORTS TO MINIMIZE THE TIME PLAINTIFF N.G. SPENT WITH HIS PATERNAL PANAMANIAN GRANDPARENTS IN THE SUMMER OF 2013 AND DURING THEIR OTHER VISITS

331. In June 2013, Defendant Bethel became completely inaccessible to Jurado and openly available for Lambert during negotiations for an interim schedule deviation from the Temporary 128

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 142 of 411 PAGEID #: 1732

Orders for the then-upcoming Summer time of 2013 and Plaintiff N.G.’s paternal grandparents visit from Panama. Bethel provided Lambert the opportunity to make her case for restricting parenting time for the child’s paternal grandparents during their stay in Columbus, after receiving Lambert’s request to discuss with her the interim schedule before Bethel would issue her recommendation. 332. As predicted by Jurado when he shared his concerns with his then-attorney about not being afforded the same opportunity to speak with Bethel, Jurado’s request to Bethel for an opportunity to discuss and/or refute Lambert’s proposals/concerns was ignored, as proven through a series of e-mails which were sent between Bethel, Lambert, Jurado and his attorney Massucci, all available as evidence in this action. 333. Not surprisingly due to her perpetual deceptive conduct, Lambert came up with the pretense that her parents were also visiting from out of town at the same time as Jurado’s parents were. However, Bethel and Lambert knew that Lambert’s parents had only been in town two times since Jurado met Lambert in 2010, and both times were always around the Thanksgiving holidays and never for more than 2-3 days. There had not been any instance of Lambert’s parents coming to visit during summer times, in contrast with the visits from N.G.’s Panamanian grandparents that lasted six weeks on average and were consistently during the summer season and over the winter holidays. 334. Not surprisingly, Bethel’s recommendation for the 2013 Summer schedule turned out to be completely in favor of Lambert by siding with her on all the issues around the interim schedule and denied Jurado and his visiting parents the opportunity to spend time with their

129

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 143 of 411 PAGEID #: 1733

grandson during weekdays, even when the Temporary Orders issue by the court allowed him to have his son during the week without any daycare restrictions. 335. There is no logical explanation or reasonable justification for depriving Jurado and his visiting grandparents from Panama of precious time with Plaintiff N.G., and for expecting them to sit at home and wait until the end of the day to then pick up Plaintiff N.G. from daycare after being cared for by strangers all day long. 336. These series of events in the summer of 2013 were not the first indication that Jurado’s entire family was also the target of the conspiracy. During the first instance of conspiracy between Lambert and Brooksedge Daycare between November 2012-January 2013, all the restriction imposed by unlawful means on Jurado were also imposed on Jurado’s family as well. In one instance, Brooksedge and Lambert granted Plaintiff N.G. grandparents’ request to visit the Brooksedge facility for the first time and to meet his caretakers. But they granted their request with absurd conditions, such as for Lambert to be present and for the Panamanian grandparents to be “escorted” by Lambert and Brooksedge administrators at all times, as if they were dealing with dangerous visitors. In reality, they were treating Plaintiff N.G.’s Panamanian grandparents as second-class citizens given the common motive among all conspirators in their conviction that Jurado and his Panamanian family and relatives are all deserving of limited rights and mistreatment. 337. Subsequent visits of Jurado’s parents and relatives between 2013 and 2015 have resulted in the same outcome even when the defendants committing the overt acts to keep them away from Plaintiff N.G. would vary from time to time.

130

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 144 of 411 PAGEID #: 1734

338. The last instance of unlawful discrimination against Jurado’s entire family, and example of this specific agreement of the master conspiracy to sever their relationship with Plaintiff N.G., took place between December 2014 and March 2015 during a series of overt acts carried out in furtherance and for the escalation of the ongoing conspiracy. Given Lambert, McCash and Smitherman’s knowledge that Plaintiff N.G.’s Panamanian grandparents come visit him from Panama for the entire month of December, they included—as one of the objectives of the planned incursion to Jurado’s home on December 5, 2014—the interference with and intrusion into the bonding time between Plaintiff N.G. and his Panamanian grandparents. The transcript of the Dec. 18, 2014 proceeding also shows Defendant Judge Jamison discussing the fact that Jurado and his parents, who were in town not just for December but indefinitely, would be caring for the child given that McCash had caused the forced disenrollment of the child from the daycare facility utilized by Jurado. Therefore, each overt act and concerted action carried out between December 18, 2014 and March 2015 to keep the child away from Jurado was anticipated by the conspirators to also have an effect with the time and relationship between Plaintiff N.G. and his Panamanian family. For example, (i) imposing the local rule for Holidays to keep the child away from Jurado for 11 straight days during the 2014 winter holidays also kept him away from his grandparents for 11 straight days, (ii) the indefinite suspension of Jurado’s parenting time that was maliciously premediated and prematurely enforced by conspirators and that is still in effect as of the filing of this instant amended complaint

has

also

severed

the

relationship

between

grandparents

and

child,

(iii) The court order issued by Defendant Judge Jamison on March 17, 2015 to limit the time

131

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 145 of 411 PAGEID #: 1735

the child spends in Skype with his Panamanian family to 15 minutes a week is another perfect example. 339. Around February and March 2015, Jurado sent e-mails to Lambert followed by SMS messages to confirm the delivery of the e-mails, inquiring if she would allow minor N.G.’s Panamanian grandparents, or Aunt that was visiting from Norway with N.G.’s toddler cousin, to see the child outside of the daycare facility, given that there was no court order in place preventing Lambert from doing so. Lambert chose to ignore Jurado’s requests and showed indifference toward the damage being done to the child’s relationship with his Panamanian side of the family.

VII.A.1(j)

BETHEL, LECLAIR, BROOKSEDGE, SMITHERMAN, PETROFF AND LAMBERT COMBINED EFFORTS TO PRECLUDE JURADO FROM VISITING HIS SON AT DAYCARE – THE FABRICATION OF THE OVERINVOLVED FATHER

340. After Smitherman, Petroff, Bethel and Lambert were successful at imposing mandatory daycare attendance with strict drop off and pick up times to limit Jurado’s parenting time during the first half of 2013, they moved to the second phase of this sub-plot: to keep Jurado from visiting Plaintiff N.G. at daycare to guarantee the diminishing of Plaintiffs bonding time and hinder their father-son relationship. Their first devised method involved perjured testimony and fraudulent misrepresentations in court, along with staging conflict between Jurado and the daycare staff, in order to fabricate “the overinvolved dad” as a profile that would fallaciously fit Jurado.

132

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 146 of 411 PAGEID #: 1736

341. The staged conflict was carried out with a falsified daily sheet written by a Brooksedge caretaker in collusion with Lambert and Jessica Jividen less than a week before a scheduled court hearing, which Jurado uncovered right away. 342. On July 8, 2013, during a court proceeding, Bethel alleged that she had a conversation with Defendant LeClair, about the incident from the previous week regarding the falsified report. In front of Magistrate Matthews, Defendant Bethel made premeditated misrepresentations in court that Plaintiff Jurado was visiting the daycare facility 2 times a day/5 days a week; that the workers felt intimidated and described him as aggressive; that other parents had been complaining about Jurado, and that his visits were stressful to Plaintiff N.G. Defendants Petroff and Smitherman were present during Bethel’s misconduct in court, and were also aware of the fraudulent nature of Bethel’s statements. Neither Petroff nor Smitherman made any effort or statements to aid the court in maintaining fairness and decorum in the court room because they were also part of the plot and have participated in the cover up efforts since then. 343. Based on the fraudulent allegations of Defendant Bethel, which were made in furtherance of the conspiracy, both Ms. Bethel and the Magistrate labeled Jurado an “overinvolved father”, and sought to have his access to the daycare restricted to only drop-offs and pick-ups.

Defendant Bethel’s allegations of the frequent visits of 5 days a week

contradicted her sound knowledge that Jurado had a job that required him to travel out of town every week during the preceding 12 months, just like Defendants Lambert, Smitherman and Petroff were also aware. Two months later, Defendant LeClair made convincing statements

133

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 147 of 411 PAGEID #: 1737

during a recorded meeting with Jurado accusing Bethel of perjury and of fabricating facts that were fraudulently presented in court. See sections .

VII.A.1(k) LAMBERT, BROOKSEDGE AND LECLAIR ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO PREVENT JURADO FROM CARING FOR HIS SON WHEN SICK ON HIS COURT-APPROVED PARENTING DAY, AND PRECLUDED MINOR N.G. FROM BEING CARED FOR BY HIS PARENT AND FROM RECEIVING UNDIVIDED ATTENTION WHILE SUFFERING SEVERE SYMPTOMS OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASE 344.

On September 12, 2013, Plaintiff N.G. was sent home along with other children that

showed similar symptoms of fever and diarrhea. It turned out to be a severe condition that lasted 7 days. Plaintiff Jurado cared for the child during the first two days, and closely followed the instruction of the child’s pediatrician and nurse, but noticed very little improvement in his condition during his two days of parenting time. Jurado reported this information to Lambert on the afternoon of the third day, when it was Lambert’s turn to care for the child. As if it was a competition, Lambert reported almost full improvement while Plaintiff N.G. was under her care, when in reality the child was still sick. 345. At the end of her parenting period after a day and a half, she dropped him off at daycare the morning of September 16, 2013 claiming that the child’s diarrhea and other symptoms were completely gone. Even when knowing that sick children have to be symptomfree for 24 hours prior to returning to their daycare facility, Lambert did not want to report his true condition for two reasons: To create the perception that she is better able to care for the child than Jurado, and also to prevent Jurado from caring for the child and for them to spend another day together peacefully at home. Lambert knew that if she would disclose the child’s

134

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 148 of 411 PAGEID #: 1738

true condition, Jurado would have stayed home with the child giving him his full attention, since it was his parenting day again. 346. Suspecting that his son was still sick, he called Brooksedge that Monday morning to see how he was doing. Co-Director Jessica Jividen reported to Jurado that the child was doing OK and that he did not have any symptoms. To confirm, Jurado sent LeClair an email around mid-morning asking about his son, but LeClair, did not get back to Jurado until after 1:30pm to let him know that his son was indeed sick and had been having â&#x20AC;&#x153;frequent diarrheaâ&#x20AC;? since his arrival in the morning. The licensing rules dictate that child daycare facilities must follow certain protocols to monitor children that are sick since their arrival in the morning, but by the time he was picked up, Plaintiff N.G. had already spent from 8:30am through 3pm at the facility having symptoms and Brooksedge was exposing other children to a communicable disease in violation of statewide rules. In addition, N.G. was precluded from being cared for by his father, Plaintiff Jurado. Later that day, Jurado and Lambert took the child to his doctor, and Lambert started debating with the pediatrician whether the child truly had diarrhea or not. The debate was memorialized via the recording of the visit. 347. The next day, Lambert and LeClair collaborated to make it appear as if Jurado was not properly communicating with anyone about the whereabouts or condition of the child. They both send him e-mails at different times on Tuesday September 17, 2013, pretending that they did not know why the child was not at the Brooksedge facility and that they had not heard from Jurado, even when LeClair had stated to Jurado several times that â&#x20AC;&#x153;ODJFS licensing rules require a child to be out of daycare if they have 3 or more diarrhea within a 24 hour period.

135

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 149 of 411 PAGEID #: 1739

The child cannot return to daycare * * *” LeClair e-mail to Jurado, Sep. 17, 2013 8:18am. At that point, Jurado realized that Lambert and Brooksedge were not taking the child’s illness or the required public health protocols seriously and decided to contact Ohio Department of Health (ODH) to inform himself about all the rules regarding sick children and the protocols daycare providers should follow. 348. During his contacts with ODH, Jurado learned that Brooksedge practices were noncompliant with the rules listed in the “communicable diseases poster” derived from licensing rules and statewide public health policies. Concurrently, Jurado learned that either ODJFS practices were also non-compliant with Public Health standards, or that ODJFS was being noncompliant with those standards only in the instance involving Brooksedge, LeClair and Jurado.

VII.A.1(l)

BETHEL AND LAMBERT PRECLUDED PLAINTIFFS JURADO AND TODDLER N.G. FROM STAYING HOME SAFELY ON HIS PARENTING TIME DURING SNOW STORM

349. On December 6, 2013, Jurado was compelled to drive his son, Plaintiff N.G. across town through a snow storm in order to appease Bethel and Lambert given their ongoing harassment aimed at enforcing the mandatory daycare attendance for the child. Defendants Bethel and Lambert interfered with Jurado’s and N.G.’s parenting time by precluding Jurado from caring for his son safely at home on a snow day, something a similarly situated parent and child would have been able to do. The distance to be driven was approximately 100 miles between Easton/New Albany to the west-most point of Franklin County on the west city limits of Hilliard, OH, with two roundtrips on the same day. For more details about the Dec. 6, 2013 incident, which was captured by video recording, refer to section .

136

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 150 of 411 PAGEID #: 1740

VII.A.1(m) DEFENDANT LAMBERT PRESSURED NEW DAYCARE FACILITY CHOSEN BY JURADO TO STRICTLY ENFORCE NO OPEN DOOR POLICY/VISITS FOR JURADO WITH THE INVOLVEMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT 350. Between January and March 2014, the owner of The Goddard School-Westerville (Executive Parkway), Jennifer Chambers, was harassed by Defendant Lambert given Lambert’s disapproval of the daycare chosen by Jurado for the care of N.G. during his parenting days. Her disapproval was based on the fact that Jurado was not being imposed undue burden with the driving on his son 100 miles away to Hilliard, and because having other caretakers and daycare facilities involved in the care of Plaintiff N.G. would make a lot more difficult the job of Defendants Wilson, Eagle and The Goddard School Hilliard-II in their role of co-conspirators. 351. During minor N.G.’s first week of attendance at the Westerville daycare facility, Lambert pressured Ms. Chambers to the point that she had to contact her private attorney, counsel for the Goddard School franchise headquarters and even contact Defendant Eagle, due to Lambert’s pursuit of the strict enforcement of the restrictions in the court order, which is also evidence that the restrictions existed only because of her self-serving interests. 352. Jennifer Chambers was compelled to enforce the order by the involvement of law enforcement, in case for example, that Jurado wanted to come in and use the open door policy to have lunch with his son. In such instance, Chambers instituted procedures for calling the police if Jurado were to attempt to do such act, but only due to the coercion of Lambert.

137

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 151 of 411 PAGEID #: 1741

VII.A.1(n) BETHEL AND SMITHERMAN ENCOURAGED LAMBERT IN HER FILING OF A FALSE POLICE REPORT TO HARASS AND INTERFERE WITH PLAINTIFFS LONG HOLIDAY WEEKEND TOGETHER 353. During Memorial Day weekend in 2014, Jurado experienced acts of intimidation and harassment by defendant Lambert as another attempt by conspirators to intrude and interfere with Jurado’s parenting time with his son Plaintiff N.G. Numerous emails sent the weekend of May 23, 2014 show Lambert intimidating Jurado with threats if he did not follow her version of the parenting schedule to be followed during the long weekend. Defendants Smitherman and Bethel were included as recipients in those emails, in which Lambert claimed that Bethel and Smitherman had confirmed her version of the parenting schedule, which was not consistent with the agreed order that was in effect at the time. 354. Despite Jurado’s explanations of why her version of the schedule did not apply, she threaten and insisted in taking “whatever steps I am able to from there”, referring to involving law enforcement to intrude in Jurado’s home and parenting time as she had done in the past. During the entire exchange of emails, Lambert never offered any logical explanation of why the court order was not enforceable, other than references to information “the GAL said” or that “I was told”. 355. The next day, Lambert followed through on her threats and attempted to get the police involved by filing a police report falsely accusing Jurado of “unlawful interference with custody”. Lambert’s actions were consistent with her pattern of conduct driven by ill-will and goal to sever the relationship between father and son.

138

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 152 of 411 PAGEID #: 1742

VII.A.1(o) DEFENDANT MCCASH CENSURED DAYCARE FACILITY UTILIZED BY JURADO FOR ALLOWING HIM TO PICK UP HIS SON EARLY THE DAY BEFORE THANKSGIVING LIKE MOST PARENTS DID WITH THEIR CHILDREN, AND FOR NOT CALLING THE POLICE TO ENFORCE THE “MANDATORY PICK UP TIMES” 356. Defendant McCash, consistent with his conduct and actions in furtherance of this sub-scheme, censured Ms. Chambers for allowing Jurado to pick up minor N.G. before 4pm on November 26, 2014, the day before Thanksgiving. Ms. Chambers had made an announcement the previous day that most parents would be picking up their children sometime after 12 noon the next day due to the beginning of the long Thanksgiving weekend. Jurado did not think twice and also picked up his son early that Wednesday for two reasons: Jurado wanted to spend as much time with his son given that they were not spending Thanksgiving Day and weekend together, and also because Jurado did not want minor N.G. to be one of the few children left behind at daycare for hours at a time, while most other children had gone home to spend time with their parents and family. 357. In the previous 12 months, there were numerous instances in which the child was one of the few attending daycare due to intense pursuit of Lambert, Bethel and Smitherman to enforcing the strict mandatory daycare attendance, ultimately serving as undeserving punishment for the child. Because this outcome clearly did not serve in the best interest of the child, it becomes a PLUS FACTOR for establishing Conspiracy and agreement between the Defendants. 358. In this instance, McCash position that was consistent with his co-conspirators, for wanting the child to suffer by being left behind at the daycare facility without the company of

139

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 153 of 411 PAGEID #: 1743

his parents or family, shows agreement with Defendants Lambert, Smitherman and others. This is especially true given that the result of their position, opinion and actions results in absurdity. The email dated Dec. 4, 2014 from Defendant McCash serves as evidence of his position and the agreement between McCash and his co-conspirators.

VII.A.1(p) DEFENDANTS JAMISON, LAMBERT, SMITHERMAN AND MCCASH PLANNED AND CARRIED OUT A DAY OF INTRUSION, INTIMIDATION AND PERSECUTION DURING JURADO’S PARENTING TIME IN EARLY-DECEMBER 2014 359. Throughout the afternoon of December 5, 2014, Defendant McCash made multiple attempts of incursion into Plaintiffs home in an aggressive and intimidating matter to ultimately deprive Plaintiffs of quality time, to cause distress and harass. This day marked the one single instance of an act in furtherance of the conspiracy that has caused the most harm to Plaintiffs and to Jurado’s family. 360. The multiple hostile unannounced visits and intimidating presence of McCash inflicted substantial mental distress upon Jurado, on the 2 ½ year old Plaintiff N.G., and upon N.G.’s elderly grandparents, who took turns to call 911, given the alarming nature of the situation.

VII.A.1(q) DEFENDANTS JAMISON, LAMBERT, SMITHERMAN AND MCCASH CONSPIRED TO KEEP PLAINTIFFS APART FOR ELEVEN (11) CONSECUTIVE DAYS DURING THE 2014 HOLIDAYS, AS A FIRST IN THE 2.5 YEARS OF LIFE OF THE CHILD 361. During the court proceeding conducted by Judge Jamison on December 18, 2015, Defendants put into effect the first step of their most recent and ultimate plot to interfere with Jurado’s custody and parenting time. In fact, the acts that have been engaged by Defendants in

140

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 154 of 411 PAGEID #: 1744

this latest coordinated effort went beyond furthering of the conspiracy. They escalated the objectives to be achieved from interference and intrusion to complete severance of fatherson relationship and the start of a long-term parental alienation effort. 362. This first step of the latest coordinated effort consisted of the abuse of Jamison and McCash authority under the color of law to impose the enforcement of a local rule for holiday parenting schedule that Lambert and Jurado have never followed because—in one of the few subjects they both agreed on—they have always known that young children like Plaintiff N.G. requires constant and frequent contact with both parents, which the local rule does not do. 363. Imposing the local rule on Lambert and Jurado by Judge Jamison and McCash was done without giving a rational explanation, as the evidence shows (see

). For example,

McCash made reference to having them follow the local rule “for the purpose of consistency”, yet, the local rule introduced the opposite effect. The premeditated concerted action for ulterior motives became evident because it gave them a pretext to start the permanent separation of Plaintiffs by justifying eleven consecutive days over the holidays that Jurado and minor N.G. were to be separated. This by itself represented a drastic impact to Plaintiffs bond and relationship given that they had never been separated for that long—not even half of that length of time.

141

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 155 of 411 PAGEID #: 1745

VII.A.1(r)

DEFENDANTS JAMISON, LAMBERT, SMITHERMAN AND MCCASH CONSPIRED TO EXTEND PLAINTIFFS TIME APART INDEFINITELY AFTER THE INITIAL PERIOD OF SEPARATION DURING THE 2014 HOLIDAYS, IN EFFECT CAUSING TOTAL SEVERANCE OF FATHER-SON BOND AND RELATIONSHIP NOW EXCEEDING 100 DAYS

364. During the same court proceeding conducted on December 18, 2014, Defendants implemented the second step in their latest coordinated effort to sever the relationship between Plaintiffs. It consisted of McCash staging a reason for Judge Jamison to issue an unconstitutional standing order that would summarily punish Jurado by suspending his parenting time, and the enforcement of the summary punishment would be triggered by the filing of a Motion by McCash before affording Jurado his constitutional right to due process. 365. The transcript of the December 18, 2014 proceeding shows McCash and Judge Jamison engaging in a topic that was outside the scope of the hearing regarding HIPPA forms that Jurado was asked to submit. Pursuing the HIPPA forms within this latest scheme served two purposes for the furtherance of the conspiracy: (i) to help tie lose ends by providing the conspirators

Figure 3 - Plaintiffs Jurado and N.G. before the unlawful separation of father and son in Dec. 2014

with the names of potential witnesses that Jurado would be using in his looming Civil Rights action, in order to perpetrate witness tampering as it had already been done successfully multiple times; (ii) to provide conspirators with a malleable method of staging Juradoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s non142

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 156 of 411 PAGEID #: 1746

compliance with court orders and guarantee the triggering of his summary punishment in the new standing order. In other words, when Judge Jamison issued her standing order for summary punishment condition upon Jurado’s completion of HIPPA forms, their intention was for McCash to file a Motion for Contempt alleging Jurado’s failure to follow the order, regardless of whether Jurado actually complied with the order or not. 366. The evidence is substantial that shows Jurado’s compliance and authentic efforts to follow the standing court order to prevent the suspension of his parenting time. The evidence shows McCash insincere communications and deceitful conduct at different times, including at the Contempt hearing held in January 2015. The Malevolent and Dark Conspiratorial Nature of the Standing Order, the suspension of Jurado’s parenting time and related proceedings is evident with Judge Jamison ruling resulting from the Contempt hearing in January 2015: Finding Jurado guilty of Contempt against the manifest weight of evidence provided by Jurado. But most importantly, Judge Jamison’s arbitrary and unreasonable decision to sentence Jurado to jail and intentionally defer the controversial suspension of Jurado’s parenting time for after the trial. Judge Jamison’s unwarranted decision to simply continue the summary punishment indefinitely shows that the HIPPA forms required to avoid the suspension were only a pretext, and the suspension of Jurado’s parenting time was expected to happen one way or another. 367. The result of defendants coordinated efforts to interfere with Jurado’s custody and parenting time is the uninterrupted separation of Jurado and his son since December 25, 2014 until the present day, and the deprivation of Plaintiff N.G.’s right to return to his home, sleep on his own bed and to the company and care of his father.

143

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 157 of 411 PAGEID #: 1747

VII.A.1(s) DEFENDANTS ENGAGED IN A REINFORCEMENT SCHEME TO RESTRICT BEYOND REASON AND OPPRESS JURADO DURING HIS TWO HOURS A WEEK VISITS, CONSISTING OF SETTING UP TRAPS TO STAGE A SAFETY RELATED INCIDENT AND FRAMING JURADO FOR ANY INJURIES SUFFERED BY THE CHILD, AS WELL AS A PREMEDITATED AND STAGED VERBAL ASSAULT, WITH PASSIVE AND ACTIVE AGGRESSION, AND HUMILIATION OF JURADO IN FRONT OF HIS OWN SON AND THE OTHER CHILDREN IN THE CLASSROOM 368. Between February 2015 and March 2015, defendants Lambert, Wilson, Eagle, Judge Jamison, McCash and the Goddard School-Hilliard-II engaged in a reinforcement scheme to restrict beyond reason, and to further oppress, intimidate, discriminate, and punish Jurado during his already-limited visits to Plaintiff N.G. at the facility—which consisted of three hours a week of supervised and restrictive contact with N.G.—culminating in outburst of verbal attacks, passive and active aggression and humiliation of Jurado in front of his own son and the other children in the classroom on February 24, 2015. 369.

It has been well established that Defendants Goddard School, Wilson, Eagle,

Lambert, Jamison and McCash share a common intention of harming Jurado by forcing his separation from his son. In the case of Jamison and McCash, their participation is driven by ethnic discrimination and retaliation; in the case of Lambert is discrimination, retribution for the failed relationship exacerbated by her vindictive nature; and the Goddard School, Wilson and Eagle’s dislike of Hispanics and their intentions to deny Jurado of access to their facility, to minimize his presence there and to treat him as a second class citizen. 370. The first evidence showing active participation in the conspiracy by Defendants Wilson, Eagle and the Goddard School was the falsified incident report containing fabricated

144

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 158 of 411 PAGEID #: 1748

injuries that the child allegedly suffered on December 10, 2013 at the hands of Jurado. The recordings of the events occurred in Dec. 10 and 11, 2013 and statements made by these Defendants in furtherance of the conspiracy offer additional support. The recordings captured their acknowledgment that the injuries in the report never existed and their allegations that Lambert was responsible for the false information written in the report. The second evidence or set of evidence include the recorded statements from Defendants admitting that they had provided McCash with false information (allegedly unintentional), and Wilson’s perjured testimony during the first part of the January 2015 trial. 371. During two consecutive visits by Jurado to the facility to see his son, Defendants Goddard School, Wilson and Eagle coordinated the staging of a “safety trap” by persistently enticing Jurado to take Plaintiff N.G. into the kitchen to Skype, ignoring their own safety rules and the big sign in the kitchen door prohibiting children from going inside the area, where they had arranged for the condition of the kitchen to cause an accident which most likely would have inflicted injuries on Jurado’s son, minor N.G. Evidence is substantial that shows and supports these facts and allegations including recordings of Jurado’s entire visits, letters and emails between Jurado and Defendants, and their conduct and reaction. 372. After their first plan failed, Defendants carried out a different plot to stage a situation of conflict and aggression and to falsely accuse Jurado of disrupting the classroom. The incident, which took place on February 24, 2015 involved teachers from other classrooms coming to minor N.G.’s classroom to help his teachers with the purpose of getting all the children in their cots for nap time earlier than usual, almost by 30 minutes. That course of

145

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 159 of 411 PAGEID #: 1749

action facilitated their staging that Jurado was engaging in conduct with his son that was disruptive to the children’s nap routine. This second plot also involved the enforcement of a rule created and enforced specifically for Jurado that prohibited him from lying in the floor for 15 or 20 minutes while he put his son to sleep. Defendant Eagle intentionally created confusion about the rule by first creating an exception and authorizing Jurado to lie down with his son for no more than 15 minutes, then pretending that the information was not communicated to the school. 373. The combination of the staged disruption of the classroom and enforcement of the rule against not lying down gave the lead teacher ammunition to start a spiteful verbal unprovoked attack against Jurado by the lead teacher of the classroom. She called Jurado “stupid” among other things while making allegations indicating that his mere presence was not welcomed in the room and asked him to leave the room in the most hostile and demeaning manner. The recording of the incident shows Jurado never raising his voice and simply being in shock, while at the same time, little N.G. can be heard crying and distressed by the teacher’s attack against his father, and his sudden separation from him during a time that was sacred for father and son. 374. Despite his skepticism, Jurado immediately reported the incident to Director Wilson, who could be heard in the recording giving excuses on behalf of the teacher, and said “I will talk to her”. Jurado left the facility right away after his visit was cut short, lasting only less than 30 minutes. Due to fear of the escalation of conflict or another attempt against the well-being of his son by the setup of other safety traps, Jurado avoided the facility altogether until he would

146

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 160 of 411 PAGEID #: 1750

see indications that a recurrence would be unlikely. Hoping to hear from Wilson, Eagle or the Goddard School, he waited patiently for two weeks until he realized that the combined efforts of Defendants to treat him differently—or to engage in total discrimination against Jurado in the basis of his national origin—included the unequal application of the center’s policies and procedures, especially the one regarding standard procedures to follow for parents to address issues and concerns with the school and vice versa. The standard procedures describe step by step the levels of escalation for issues or concerns to get addressed or considered. The inaction and indifference by The Goddard School, Wilson and Eagle regarding the last incident was an overt act of discrimination and evidence that they were not applying the existing policy equally. 375. After this realization, Jurado wrote a comprehensive and detailed letter describing the last incident, as well as the previous incidents and events involving the safety traps and addressed the letter to Wilson, the Goddard School and Eagle. However, no response was received by Jurado after several days and while Jurado had been deprived of access to the facility and to see his son for over two weeks. But as reinforcement to Jurado’s allegations that all the incidents had been carefully planned and staged with malevolent premeditation by the conspirators, which included Lambert, McCash, Smitherman and Judge Jamison, and their efforts to collectively discriminate against him, Jurado learned that Defendants Wilson, Eagle and the Goddard School-Hilliard II chose to share the letter with Lambert, Smitherman and McCash instead of trying to resolve the issues with Jurado. 376. Because the Goddard School, Wilson and Eagle, albeit voluntarily, were engaging in unlawful acts under the authority and protection of McCash and Jamison, it made sense that

147

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 161 of 411 PAGEID #: 1751

their reaction to the letter would be to ask McCash and Judge Jamison to enforce their pledged protection and authority by preventing Jurado from making allegations or taking other actions somehow. Evidence showing this interaction and their plot is substantial, and can also be strongly inferred with the fact that none of the defendants showed any concern or even curiosity in regards to the serious allegations Jurado made in his letter, and the possibility that that the safety and welfare of the child was being put at risk—not N.G.’s own mother, not McCash as N.G.’s appointed Guardian Ad Litem in charge of looking out for the best interest of the child, nor Judge Jamison whose main statutory duty is to act in the best interest of the child and on behalf of the child, which are the same duties under the parens patriae doctrine. 377. Soon after The Goddard School shared Jurado’s letter with Lambert, McCash and Smitherman, McCash filed a motion “for Emergency Review of the January 23, 2014” order, indicating their concern that if Jurado continues to visit his son at the facility with the existing controversies, the Goddard School had threaten with the disenrollment of the child. In short, Defendants’ main and only concern was whether Jurado was supposed to be visiting his son at the Goddard School and finding a way to keep Jurado away from the facility and from his son. Subsequently, the hearing was conducted on March 17, 2015 by Judge Jamison, who had predetermined the outcome of the hearing. The collusion between Defendants Eagle—who was called as a friendly witness and without giving Jurado proper notice in advance— Smitherman, Lambert, McCash and Judge Jamison was evident and overt before and during the court proceeding. For example, Defendant Eagle had been pre-coached by Smitherman and McCash, Judge Jamison engaged in substantial judicial misconduct, including the coaching of the witness, setting unreasonable and unfair limits to Jurado’s cross examination, did not 148

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 162 of 411 PAGEID #: 1752

allow Jurado to present key evidence such as the recordings, and allow hearsay, which was the main content of Defendant Eagle’s testimony. 378. Furthermore, Judge Jamison abruptly ended the hearing without giving Jurado an opportunity to give his testimony as a witness and denied Jurado’s oral motion for emergency matters, as Jurado tried to have the court address the real issues and concerns about the safety of the child, as stated in his letter. In the end, Judge Jamison or anyone else in the courtroom show any concerns for the Jurado’s allegations in his letter, and instead, the conspirators while in the courtroom engaged in wanton criminal indifference of the risks the child had been exposed to, or at least the possibility of such. As Defendant Jamison quickly concluded the hearing, she ruled—based only on hearsay—that Jurado was indeed disrupting the daycare staff and routines and ordered his access to the Open Door Policy revoked except for one hour a week that Jamison allowed Jurado to see his son, framed by a number of restrictions set by the Goddard School. The conspirators’ common goal of keeping Jurado away from the facility and from his son had been achieved.

VII.A.1(t)

379.

OVERT COLLABORATION BETWEEN DEFENDANTS TO INTENTIONALLY DISRUPT AND SEVER THE FAMILIAL BOND AND RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF MINOR N.G. AND HIS 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 familial ties, even when it is in the detriment of the child. 380. 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 149

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 163 of 411 PAGEID #: 1753

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 situation 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. 381. 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 at home in Norway and Panama. See Exhibit AC1-D3 with copies of these emails; pages 94â&#x20AC;&#x201C;97 of the Appendix. 382. The treatment of Jurado's

Figure 4 - Panamanian relatives of Plaintiffs visiting from Norway in 2014

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.

150

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 164 of 411 PAGEID #: 1754

VII.A.2. TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN A HIGH-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENT – HIGH-CONFLICT AS A SUB-SCHEME OF THE MASTER CONSPIRACY 383. Except for Defendant Drexel, who is the only named defendant not listed as a conspirator, all defendants and co-conspirators listed under section IV.C above entered this agreement and contributed with direct participation at some point in time during the ongoing conspiracy.

VII.A.2(a) OBVIOUS MOTIVES FOR DEFENDANTS’ AGREEMENT TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN HIGH CONFLICT 384. Defendants’ motives for creating intense conflict were several. (i) The first one was to have the perfect pretext to maintain Jurado’s son away from him and confined to a daycare center as evident in Bethel’s actions to align with Lambert’s interests when she used “high conflict” as a pretext to pursue the mandatory daycare attendance for the child. (ii) Another motive that became evident for sparking conflict was to over-inflate Jurado’s cost of litigation and attorney fees in the context of the custody case, given that Lambert did not require much help from her attorneys because of the dedicated advocacy offered by Defendant Bethel; and other staging of conflict outside the custody case would also harm Jurado financially, such as the Lawsuit by Brooksedge, all which ultimately contributed to the other overlapping agreement of the conspiracy to cause Jurado’s undue hardship; (iii) With the knowledge that Jurado doesn’t thrive in high conflict environments, the premeditated instigation of high conflict was also aimed to inflict substantial mental distress upon Jurado. This is evident in dozen of recordings showing Lambert purposely engaging in aggressive and hostile behavior

151

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 165 of 411 PAGEID #: 1755

during most exchanges with the child and in other occasions, without any provocation or rational explanation.

VII.A.2(b) DEFENDANT BETHEL DELIBERATELY STIMULATED THE OVER-ENGAGING BETWEEN PARENTS DURING CONFLICT AND BREACHED THEIR PERSONAL BOUNDARIES, IN COLLABORATION WITH LAMBERT 385. By ignoring basic personal and physical boundaries requested by Jurado—as he or anyone is entitled to—and by enabling and encouraging Lambert to over-engage in parenting affairs with Jurado, Defendant Bethel, as court-appointed GAL, created an antagonistic atmosphere. When she facilitated Lambert’s intrusion in Jurado’s parenting time and personal space, she intentionally instigated increasing levels of aggression and provided the case with the universal ingredient for sparking conflict, as demonstrated in the numerous emails included in exhibits filed in the grievance with ODC, in the Original Action for Writs with SCO, and in the Juvenile Court. In the specific incident that occurred on March 28 and 29 of 2013, Jurado was only trying to set some limits on the number of disruptions of his parenting time while still being flexible, given the history of concessions he had made, which ended up being abused. Yet, Bethel simply discounted those concerns and gave Lambert the green light to disrupt as often as she saw fit Plaintiffs’ time together, while contradicting her previous position that the infant was in need to supplement with formula. 386. Given the history of harassment and annoyance by Lambert as she lacked self-control at times and would call and send text messages incessantly during Jurado’s parenting time or forced her presence under varied pretexts, Jurado was now forced to spend his parenting time in hiding by turning off his phones, and keeping windows and blinds closed at all times—after it

152

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 166 of 411 PAGEID #: 1756

became clear that Bethel was using her position of power, as an officer of the court, to encourage and facilitate the behavior. Thus, the full support of the Bethel that allowed Lambert to stop as often as she pleased with the pretext of bottle drop-offs, not only invaded Jurado’s personal space, but forced him to always stay home with the child. Yet, Lambert was able to make plans, take the child places or visit friends given that Jurado never intruded in her parenting time in any way or force any type of restrictions on her time with the child. 387. Several Domestic Relations professionals monitoring the case agreed that attorney Bethel’s conduct was not appropriate for a GAL, and was likely the cause, or part, of the problem. But Jurado’s attorney, as well as several other attorneys consulted, agreed that there was not much Jurado could do to address his concerns or remove Bethel from the case.

VII.A.2(c) SABOTAGED NEWLY REACHED AGREEMENT AND CREATED RIFT BETWEEN PARTIES’ COUNSEL 388. On April 17, 2013, the parties attended a scheduled status conference in front of Magistrate Matthews, who presided on the case at the time. This day was chosen by Bethel intentionally so that it had to be set for continuance: She was not able to attend due to a trial she had scheduled at the same time. It was in Lambert’s best interest for the status conference not to be conducted as it was expected to result in increased parenting time for Jurado. 389. While in court, the parties and their counsel fervently discussed temporary changes to the parenting schedule for a 3-week period during which Jurado’s out-of-town work schedule would require him to work on weekends and extended hours. The exact work

153

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 167 of 411 PAGEID #: 1757

schedule was shared in a color printed document and the parties agreed to a modified parenting schedule. 390. A week later, as the parties were ready to sign off on the interim order containing the modified parenting schedule to start the next day, Bethelâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;supposedly without having any knowledge of what transpired during negotiations between the parties and counselâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;provided last-minute comments and recommendations regarding the terms of the temporary order, which caused havoc and enabled Lambert to request new self-serving modifications to the agreement previously reached while in court. The last minute interference delayed the sign-off of the temporary order, immediately affecting Plaintiffs time together by the loss of parenting days within the three-week schedule in question. 391. In addition,, because the recommendations from Bethel and modifications requested by Lambert defeated the purpose of having the modified parenting schedule, it resulting in a minimal amount of time Plaintiffs spent time together during Juradoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s limited amount of free time for the 3-week period. 392. The entire episode increased tension significantly between the parents and the attorneys. It triggered the most adversarial posture between attorneys after the failure of Smitherman, Petroff and Lambert to honor the original agreement. 393. There is a high probability that the parties would have settled the case in April 2013 without this incident. A previously scheduled 3-way settlement conference was cancelled due to the new levels of high conflict and adversarial atmosphere that had been ignited by the

154

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 168 of 411 PAGEID #: 1758

Bethel, who proceeded to use the high-conflict in furtherance of the conspiracy that was racially motivated, even when her personal financial gain was also a factor.

VII.A.2(d) BETHEL’S AND LAMBERT’S AGREEMENT TO EXERT HARMFUL AGGRESSION, INTIMIDATION AND HARASSMENT – ANOTHER OBJECTIVE OF THE CONSPIRACY REACHED 394. Between April and June 2013, the intrusions escalated to significant bullying, intimidation and aggression to the point that it became unbearable. As Bethel’s and Lambert’s joint pursuit was near successful, Jurado was forced to offer to relinquish his overnights with his son due to the harm being inflicted—something that he had fought so hard to get. He had come to the conclusion that making such significant sacrifice was the only temporary solution for the concerted persecution and oppression to stop. Because Jurado’s attorney convinced him to not relinquish the overnights as other solutions were put in motion, the failure of those solutions led to new levels of intrusion, aggravation and bullying causing emotional distress and anguish. The harm became so severe to the point that Jurado had to be taken to the Emergency Room by EMS in one occasion in May 2013. 395. The GAL’s main tactic for sparking conflict and promoting antagonism was through contradiction. This scheme became evident during the week of May 7-10, 2013: On her e-mail to Jurado on May 7, 2013, Bethel encouraged him to pursue the nutritional supplementation for the child with Formula by stating:

155

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 169 of 411 PAGEID #: 1759

I do not understand is why she [Lambert] does not give you extra milk when you get Noah. That should help you not having to call her at every feeding time to ask for more. And, if Kathy cannot produce enough milk to give you extra, then I think that we have answered the question here. She is simply not able to produce enough for the child and formula needs to be introduced. (Emphasis Added.) Bethel’s email to Jurado dated 5/7/2013 10:25am. But two days later, Bethel sent another email to both parents and their attorneys stating the opposite, including, Ari, while I appreciate your idea of Kathy bringing more milk to you in the morning to last you all day. However if she cannot produce enough for [redacted]'s entire stay with you at that time Then I do not believe it is unreasonable for her to be able to drop off milk later in the day. And, if she is just dropping the milk off on your porch, it is not like you are being put out in any way. (Emphasis Added.) Attorney B. Bethel’s email to all parties dated 5/9/2013 2:37pm. The premeditated contradiction was evident in this instance. In addition, the controversy was not whether Lambert could or not provide additional breast milk later in the day, because Jurado was not against it; it was about putting a limit on those drop offs to prevent abuse, as it turned out to be the case. The product of Bethel’s contradictions and the email she sent on 5/9/2013 is what took place the next day as described next. 396. Jurado’s parenting experience reached a turning point on Friday, May 10 2013. As feared, the already ongoing harassment by Lambert escalated when she felt entitled to stop by as frequent as wished to drop off pump breast milk for each half-ounce she produced to intrude in Jurado’s space as she walked in front of his all-glass front entrance/wall to leave bottles, followed by text messaging. Considering that Jurado had spent the first part of the week out of town for work and that Friday was his first day again with his son, he simply

156

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 170 of 411 PAGEID #: 1760

wanted peace, quiet and quality time for both Plaintiffs’ time together. But instead, Jurado and infant N.G. would have to spend two days with all his blinds closed and confined inside their home. Initially, during the child’s drop off at Jurado’s place, an argument ensued because Lambert’s conviction of not allowing formula supplementation and their different interpretations of Bethel’s emails. She proceeded to look inside Jurado’s fridge and through his kitchen cabinets. This turned out to be the last time that either parent entered the other parent’s home, and the boundary set by Jurado is still in effect to this day. Jurado conclude that the only course of action left was to call non-emergency Columbus Police after seeing Lambert circling his apartment building on her car for almost an hour. But before he called the cops, he made sure he had tried everything, including messages pleading for her to vacate the vicinity. 397. On that same Friday, May 10, 2013 throughout the day, Lambert stopped an excessive number of times to deliver single half-ounces of breast-milk and would leave them right outside his entrance door, as she was still trying to prove that she did not need formula supplementation to keep their child healthy. He noticed, as he had done a few other times in the past, that the liquid in some of the containers where much lighter than the rest. He proceeded to freeze two samples for lab testing at a later time, as he had suspected that Lambert was watering down her breast-milk supply in order to meet the demand—the true cause of the child’s earlier unthriving condition. By the end of the afternoon, Jurado had to call for help, given that he noticed Lambert circling his home in her car between drop offs. Lambert finally drove home after being asked by the police to do so.

157

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 171 of 411 PAGEID #: 1761

398. The next day, as Jurado was driving his son to the exchange with Lambert, he started feeling chest pains and difficulty breathing. Given that his infant son of 10 months of age was in the back seat of the car, he felt frightened and pulled on the side of the freeway before calling 911. EMS personnel found him and his son on the side of I-670 and drove them to the nearest hospital/ER. What his doctors and therapist concluded at a later time is that severe anguish and emotional harm was done and that would explain those symptoms and the reason Jurado—not known as a sufferer of anxiety/panic attacks—had to be taken to the emergency room and heart center and Grant hospital in downtown. 399. It has been obvious that the tactics used in the conspiracy—to inflict mental anguish and emotional harm—were carefully calculated. In this example, both defendants knew that from Sunday nights to Thursdays, Jurado worked up to 80 hours in a fast-paced, highly stressful environment in Chicago. 400. When Defendant Bethel learned about the events of that weekend, she proceeded to censor and denigrate Jurado. First, she questioned his ability to care for his son given his “medical condition”. Then she proceeded to criticize the involvement of police by Jurado. From that point forward, she applied duress and intimidation that discouraged him from involving law enforcement again. 401. Soon after Jurado’s therapist learned about the recent events, questioned the motives and decisions of the GAL and requested to speak with her. Ms. Sigl-Davis attempts to contact and communicate with Bethel went unanswered.

158

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 172 of 411 PAGEID #: 1762

402. Several Family Services professionals monitoring the case from a distance agreed that Defendant Bethel’s conduct was not appropriate for a GAL, and was likely the cause, or part, of the problem. But Jurado’s attorney, as well as several other family law professionals consulted, agreed that there was not much he could do to address his concerns or remove the GAL from the case, because of the court’s history of protecting its GALs and due to the prominence and influence Defendant Bethel had with the court, among other factors.

VII.A.2(e) AGREEMENT AND PARTICIPATION

BY ODJFS AND SOME OF ITS AGENTS

403. The handling of Jurado’s referral and complaint regarding Brooksedge licensing rules violations that he filed directly with ODFJS’ senior management and staff, not only shows unlawful interference with their functions of the same order as the interference OOAG’s carried out with OCRC’s investigation, but it also shows direct participation of ODJFS in both, the highconflict agreement of the conspiracy and the subordinate scheme of the Lawsuit against Jurado. 404. For example, on July 5, 2013, when Jurado first met with ODJFS officials at their facilities to discuss the issues and concerns regarding Brooksedge, Jurado discussed one incident that had occurred two or three months back but that was already reported. He also explained that the caretaker involved in that incident happened to be one of the few Brooksedge employees that Jurado still trusted, and the incident and set of circumstances demonstrated that most of the issues and concerns were derived from their quality of services and perhaps lack of training opportunities Brooksedge offered to their employees and caretakers, among other reasons. Jurado also discussed several other incidents that were more

159

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 173 of 411 PAGEID #: 1763

significant and that had not been reported before. To Juradoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s surprise, when the investigation was concluded and their inspection/investigation report issued, it did not mention many of the issues Jurado had brought up to their attention, and the one incident Jurado had clarified that it had been reported earlier was listed in their report as one of the complaints filed by Jurado that they investigated. There were many other irregularities with the report, the investigation and the overall handling of the complaints. 405. Jurado wrote a detailed letter to ODJFS Leadership including the senior officials he had initially met with, describing his concerns with the handling of the investigation. ODJFS responded with an invitation to their facilities again to discuss those concerns and Juradoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s initial complaints about Brooksedge licensing violations. The second meeting was hosted by a different team of managers than the first time. Just as the first meeting, the second meeting seemed to have been productive. The meeting participants and Jurado carefully reviewed each item in his letter, including his inquiry about the incident that he did not report as needing an investigation but that was included as such. 406. About a month later, ODJFS released a new report with the outcome of their second inspection/investigation into the allegations against Brooksedge. The second report and the handling of the second investigation were marred with more irregularities than the first one. And remarkably, the controversial incident that Jurado raised concerns because he did not reported as a complaint needing investigation but was included in the first report and investigated, it also appeared in the second report and emphasized, with the corresponding investigation. A reasonable mind can only infer one possible scenario: that such course of

160

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 174 of 411 PAGEID #: 1764

action by ODFJS was done on purpose to create discord between Jurado and the few employees from Brooksedge that Jurado had been able to trust and that didn’t appear to be participating in any collusion with Lambert or others at the facility.

VII.A.2(f)

BETHEL’S HARASSMENT, PERSECUTION AND OTHER ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CO-CONSPIRATORS TO CREATE HIGH-CONFLICT CONTINUE AFTER BEING REMOVED AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FROM THE CUSTODY CASE

407. Since the May 2013 incident until the end of 2014, the hostility and instigation of conflict by Defendant Bethel steadily continued even after her removal from the case on September 24, 2014, in close coordination with Lambert, Smitherman and her other confederates. 408. In Late November 2014, not long after Bethel’s removal from the custody case, a prominent local attorney—also known for his specialty in the realm of legal ethics and professionalism—formally entered his appearance in the custody case to represent Bethel in several pending matters, including her efforts to refuse Jurado’s access to the records pertaining to her work as GAL. When Jurado was served with the notice of appearance of Bethel’s attorney (the attorney of attorney Bethel), he found enclosed a letter of introduction from attorney Bradley Frick that contained threats and implied accusations that Jurado had been unethically working with one or more attorneys. Jurado was not surprised given that Bethel had aggressively accused him—while in court and captured in transcripts—of engaging the services of ghostwriters. Jurado’s filings in the multiple cases he has had have never been the product of ghostwriting while he was Pro Se, even when he had been aware that unbundled services are legal in Ohio.

Jurado was also aware that ghostwriting has always been a

161

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 175 of 411 PAGEID #: 1765

controversial issue, even to this day (in some jurisdictions more than others) because it can lead to “misconduct through pleadings” with potential for impunity—something that Jurado has never done. On the contrary, as Jurado demonstrates in this case, one of the common threads of the conspiracy is attorney and judicial misconduct by frivolous pleadings and fraudulent misrepresentations in court filings.

VII.A.2(g) BETHEL’S SUB-SCHEME OF THE CONSPIRACY TO MAINTAIN HIGH CONFLICT FOR HARMING PLAINTIFFS REMAINS IN EFFECT AS HER LEGACY AFTER BEING REMOVED: DEFENDANTS JUDGE JAMISON AND MCCASH PICKED UP WHERE BETHEL LEFT OFF 409. As described later in this complaint and substantiated in the 4000+ pages of exhibits and evidence accumulated over the pendency of the custody case, Defendant Bethel was successful at engaging the participation of others in her conspiracy with Lambert to interfere with Jurado’s parenting rights and other fundamental and civil rights, and to inflict financial, physiological and emotional harm. Those participants include Defendant Jamison, attorney Erika Smitherman as Lambert’s counsel and Defendant Thomas McCash, among other state actors, private individuals and non-parties to the case, as established throughout this complaint. The currently pending lawsuit filed by Defendants Brooksedge and LeClair with participation of attorney Alexander-Savino is just another of the many examples. 410.

From the point that Jurado start utilizing formal procedures for removing Bethel

from the case, the Juvenile Court position and role changed. The differential treatment received by Jurado as compared to Lambert, was elevated to hostility by the Court and acts in furtherance of the High-Conflict Sub-Scheme. For example, Defendant Jamison, in open court, declared Jurado an adversary of the Court in retaliation after he raised his concerns and

162

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 176 of 411 PAGEID #: 1766

constitutional claims against the GAL, Defendant Bethel, in March 2014 and tried to remove her from the case. This drastic change occurred only days after Defendant ODC had dismissed Jurado’s grievance against Bethel. Since then, the Court has consistently acted hostile against Jurado to this day. Therefore, the aggression was not only in furtherance of the High Conflict scheme, but was also in retaliation against Jurado. 411. Several months later, while under pressure due to Jurado’s filing of an Action for Writs with the Supreme Court of Ohio, Defendant Jamison removed Defendant Bethel as GAL and immediately appointed Thomas McCash as her successor, who had been hand-picked by a subset of the conspirators sometime before Bethel’s removal. 412. Not by simple chance and within two months after his appointment, Defendant McCash went unannounced to Jurado’s home without probable cause or justification and started harassing and intimidating Jurado and his elderly parents, causing alarm and distress to them, to their grandson Plaintiff N.G. who was at home at the time, and to Plaintiff Jurado. After he had been fully aware and in possession of extensive evidence of the past incidents, Defendant McCash performed an enhanced reenactment of the previous incident when Lambert harassed Jurado at his home, to the point that Jurado and his parents were compelled to call law enforcement to ensure their safety and peace of mind.

VII.A.2(h) DEFENDANT MCCASH DELIBERATELY ENGAGED IN HOSTILE CONDUCT AGAINST THE OWNER OF THE DAYCARE USED BY JURADO IN FURTHERANCE OF THE HIGHCONFLICT SUB-SCHEME 413. Defendant McCash engaged in acts of intimidation and harassment against the daycare owner used by Plaintiff Jurado, resulting in the immediate severance of the child’s 163

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 177 of 411 PAGEID #: 1767

enrollment and agreement with Plaintiff Jurado. It has been well established through court filings, proceedings and incidents outside the courtroom that having the child removed from that facility was an objective intensely pursued for almost 12 months by Defendants Bethel, Smitherman, Petroff Law and Lambert. Such sudden disruption caused havoc in Jurado’s already overwhelmed daily life, and inflicted harm to both Plaintiffs by adding 100 miles of driving on Jurado’s parenting days, which resulted in the undue burden of time, transportation and the re-adjusting of the child’s schedule, not to mention the effect to Jurado’s work schedule—given that defendants McCash, Lambert and Smitherman immediately pursued the mandatory daycare attendance of the child at the Goddard School in Hilliard on a full-time basis.

VII.A.2(i)

414.

DEFENDANTS GODDARD SCHOOL-HILLIARD II, WILSON AND EAGLE’S AGREEMENT TO JOIN AND PARTICIPATE WITH OVERT ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE HIGH-CONFLICT & HOSTILITY CONSPIRACY SUB-SCHEME One example of an overt acts in furtherance of Defendants’ agreement to create and

maintain high-conflict is the incidents that took place collectively at the Goddard School-Hilliard II in February 2015, when Defendants Wilson, the Goddard School-Hilliard II and Eagle carried out a scheme to intimidate and injure Plaintiffs by the staging of “safety traps” in their kitchen and coercing Jurado into taking little N.G. into the kitchen, despite the rules and warning signs in the kitchen door reading that children were not allowed, followed by intimidations as a coordinated effort when Jurado was verbally attacked, tormented and humiliated in the presence of his son and all the children in the class. The teacher’s aggressive and abusive remarks calling Jurado “STUPID” and her threats that he would not be allowed to see his son

164

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 178 of 411 PAGEID #: 1768

again also caused substantial emotional distress on Plaintiff N.G., as the recording of the incident shows.

VII.A.3. TO DOWNPLAY, COVER-UP, OR DENY ANY EXISTENCE OF HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES IF RAISED BY THE NON-WHITE PARENT JURADO VII.A.3(a) THE PRE-BIRTH INCIDENT 415. In March 2012, Jurado raised concerns to Lambert’s regular OBGYN about Lambert’s low iron levels and her non-compliance with treatment, amid the multi-factor high-risk pregnancy condition. Lambert, in her second trimester of pregnancy at the time, assured her doctor that there was nothing to be worried about. 416. In June 2012 and within weeks of her due date, Lambert was hospitalized on an emergency basis on orders by her high-risk pregnancy OBGYN specialist, due to a severe lifethreatening anemia that jeopardized the lives of the unborn baby and of Lambert. Lambert and baby experienced critical complications during their 3-day stay at hospital. Several pints of blood from the blood bank were used for transfusion. The condition was easily preventable.

VII.A.3(b) CHILD STRUGGLED OR AT RISK FOR FAILURE TO THRIVE DURING FIRST 6 MONTHS 417. At birth, Plaintiff N.G.’s weight was exactly in the 50th percentile for weight in the WHO Growth Charts.

165

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 179 of 411 PAGEID #: 1769

418. Between November-December 2012, the low weight and wasting appearance of the child continued to increase to an alarming point. Jurado, his family and friends, all shared the same concerns given the obvious low-weight appearance of the child. By 4-months of age, Plaintiff N.G.’s weight had plunged below the 1st percentile for weight in the WHO Growth Charts. On November 16, 2012, the measurement was exactly 0.26% in the growth charts. That same day, Lambert relayed Jurado’s concerns to the doctor. Both Lambert and her friendpediatrician Dr. Muresan agreed to report no concerns and adopted the intentional fallacy that “it is just his size and nothing to worry about”. By the end of the year, the weight rate was still near 0.28%. 419. Sometime after his access to Brooksedge daycare was restored, Jurado inquired with the child’s caretakers regarding his own observations of cues that the infant was left hungry on a daily basis. The caretakers at Brooksedge confirmed that the child cried right after finishing his breast milk bottles but that “he eventually stopped [crying]”. 420. In January-February 2013, Jurado made an attempt to have their son evaluated by a nutritionist but Lambert opposed his decision. The appointment got cancelled. 421. Between January and April 2013, solid foods were introduced to the child as secondary sources of nutrients, followed by formula supplementation by Jurado and over

166

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 180 of 411 PAGEID #: 1770

Lambert’s objections. Their son finally started gaining weight at a normal pace, eventually reaching again the 50th percentile in the growth charts. 422. In late-March 2013, Jurado was finally able to take his son for an evaluation and second opinion with Lambert’s attendance. Bethel was invited to participate but she declined. The second-opinion pediatrician, Dr. Mastruserio, confirmed that the child had experienced weight-gain issues during the first six months of life, and explained the steps that she would have taken had she been the child’s pediatrician. She explained to both parents that, given the circumstances and Lambert’s challenges producing breast milk, supplementing with formula would be recommended because the benefits outweighed any drawbacks. 423. The pediatrician--whose affiliation to Nationwide Children’s Hospital started since she was appointed on 11/19/1996 and has been the recipient of awards and honors—suggested a referral to a specialist to answer some of the questions she was unable to answer, including any long-term effects of the nutritional deficiency the child experienced during the first six months of his life. The information was later shared with the attorneys and Bethel. 424. By April 1, 2013, Jurado had already started to make a case to change the child’s pediatrician, a change that Lambert adamantly opposed. 425. Between late-March and early-April 2013, Lambert breastfed the infant in Jurado’s presence for the last time. He again noticed as he had before that Lambert flickered and slapped the infant’s face as a method of “teaching the infant” not to pull or bite her nipples, even when he had yet to grow teeth.

167

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 181 of 411 PAGEID #: 1771

426. On April 12, 2013, Jurado informed Lambert that he was taking their child to the Emergency Room on instructions given by the doctor’s office as far as reaching a threshold temperature of high fever. Lambert arrived first. Both parents wore security name tags with “Baby Hernandez” name, the name under which the child had been registered. 427. In April 2013, after numerous requests and insistence from Jurado, Lambert finally agreed to (officially) increase the number of ounces of milk per feeding. Jurado had been observing for the past 7 months that his son consistently showed signs of being hungry even right after his feedings. Previously, he had inquired with the caretakers from Brooksedge and they confirmed that the infant would consistently cry after finishing his bottles, but “he would eventually stop [crying]”. Almost simultaneously, Lambert started making a case that Jurado was “overfeeding” the infant. 428. In April 2013, Dr. Mastruserio asked to speak with the Guardian Ad Litem, Blythe Bethel. She wanted to explain directly to the GAL her recommendation for a new pediatrician for the child (other than herself). 429. On April 29, 2013, Defendant Bethel sent an email to the parties and their attorneys refusing to talk to Dr. Mastruserio, to perform any investigation, or to request a court hearing to address existing health concerns about the child on the grounds of staying impartial. 430. Between July and August 2013, Defendants Bethel and Lambert—with the participation of Dr. Muresan, a pediatrician-friend of Lambert—corruptly exerted undue

168

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 182 of 411 PAGEID #: 1772

influence upon Jurado’s Key Expert Witness Dr. Mastruserio. As a result, Dr. Mastruserio recanted some of her earlier assertions and broke communications with Jurado. 431. At least three other pediatricians or pediatric specialists that have evaluated the child or reviewed his records have agreed with Dr. Mastruserio that his weight and size measurements during Plaintiff N.G.’s first six months of life don’t look good.

VII.A.3(c) FIRST SIGN OF CHILD MALTREATMENT – THE BLACK EYE 432.

In Early-May 2013, Lambert dropped off the infant at Brooksedge with a highly

visible black-eye. Lambert explained to the Brooksedge caretakers that the child had hurt himself with a Sippy cup. This was exactly the period of time that the child had gotten new teeth and started a habit of biting adults. 433. Nursing mothers usually make the decision to stop direct-breast feeding when their infants enter this stage and instead continue to breast-pump only, because typically their infants would injure them inadvertently. Despite the risk, Lambert forced a situation and continued to direct-breastfeed until at least September 2013, even when there was already a history of the child hurting her breast earlier in the year before he had grown teeth. 434. Brooksedge failed to make a referral or report, even when they were trained to identify the difference between self-inflicted injuries and other types of injuries not selfinflicted, according to the strength limitations of an infant based on age, size, etc. The recording from October 8, 2013 provides evidence that Brooksedge should have reported the black eye, as it captured the emergency room doctor at Nationwide Children’s Hospital

169

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 183 of 411 PAGEID #: 1773

discussing with Lambert his concerns about the black eye. As Lambert tried to conceal the cause of the infant’s black eye by downplaying the severity of the injury, the doctor firmly maintained his position by telling Lambert “* * * A ten month old with a black eye, I don't have a choice! Like that is a mandate. I would be breaking the law if I didn't report that!” (Emphasis Added.) Tr. NCH ER, Oct. 8, 2013 Part-II, page 1 (See Exhibit ). Defendant Bethel also helped covered up the seriousness of the black eye by dismissing it as “it happened several months ago”. 435. The unlawful interference with ODJFS resulted in the complete indifference regarding the licensing violation by Brooksedge and decided not to investigate. The psychologist brought in by Bethel, Dr. Smalldon, also concealed the incident by leaving it out of his evaluation and report. Defendants McCash, Judge Jamison, Petroff and Smitherman also chose to look the other way. Defendants OOAG, Gutowski, OCRC, Garcia and Dunn were in possession of the October 8, 2013 video, but ignored it and withheld the information on their reports and from the Commissioners during the March 2014 hearing. Even Defendant Wilson made misleading statements under oath to help cover up the black eye incident while giving her witness testimony during trial in January 2015.

VII.A.3(d) DEVELOPMENTAL AND BEHAVIORAL CONCERNS 436. Between the summer and fall of 2013, Lambert reported to the child’s pediatrician overstated information about the developmental milestones of the child during several visits. For example, Lambert would report that the child could speak 20 words when evidence shows from the recordings that the child’s caretakers from Brooksedge, and the Goddard School-

170

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 184 of 411 PAGEID #: 1774

Hilliard II, reported that he only spoke two words or four at the most, consistent with the observations of other adults that had significant interaction with the child, including Jurado, that knew the child had a mild to medium delay in his speech development. 437. Jurado had also raised concerns regarding some unique behavioral patterns that the child was presenting, and that was supported by reports from his caretakers at daycare, but Lambert and Dr. Muresan showed indifference and skepticism with their denial of the factors and characteristics the child was presenting at the time. 438. When Jurado finally found an opportunity to get the child evaluated without the interference of Lambert and Bethel in 2014, the head Behavioral and Developmental Pediatric Expert at the Cleveland Clinic confirmed some of Jurado’s concerns and also found a correlation between the different symptoms and characteristics Jurado had observed. For example, Plaintiff N.G.’s inability to communicate at the same rate of other children his age contributed to his spikes of aggressiveness or temper tantrums which were cause by his frustration for being unable to communicate. 439. Although Jurado did not report any concerns with the child’s hearing, the pediatric expert at the Cleveland Clinic ordered routine tests that uncovered temporary hearing loss the child was suffering from frequent allergies and colds. The frequent allergies and colds was another concern raised by Jurado in the past and ignored by Lambert. According to the Cleveland Clinic expert, the temporary but recurring hearing loss was likely the explanation for the child’s speech delay, a condition minor N.G. was quickly overcoming.

171

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 185 of 411 PAGEID #: 1775

VII.A.3(e) COMMUNICABLE DISEASE - DEFENDANTS IN DENIAL REGARDING THE CHILD’S SEVERE DIARRHEA AS PRETEXT TO ENFORCE MANDATORY DAYCARE ATTENDANCE 440. As described in section

, Lambert entered an agreement with Brooksedge to

conceal the child’s true condition of experiencing frequent diarrhea with the sole purpose of preventing Jurado from caring for the child at his home, but unnecessarily exposed other children to communicable diseases.

VII.A.3(f)

THE FREQUENT INJURIES

441.

VII.A.3(g) DRIVING THROUGH SNOW STORM 442.

VII.A.3(h) LOW HEMOGLOBIN LEVELS & OTHER NON LIFE-THREATNING ISSUES 443.

VII.A.3(i)

PEDOPHILE IN MATERNAL FAMILY CIRCLE

444.

VII.A.4. TO FABRICATE OR STAGE HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES RAISED BY LAMBERT OR HER CO-CONSPIRATORS AS THE BASIS FOR ENGAGING IN A SCAPEGOAT MECHANISM AGAINST JURADO, REGARDLESS IF THE FABRICATION IS SOLELY FICTION BASED ON FRAUD AND PERJURY, OR IF THE FRAMING WOULD RESULT IN ACTUAL INJURIES TO THE CHILD VII.A.4(a) FINDING FAULT IN THE WALKER USED BY JURADO 445. As the recording of the visits to the pediatrician show, Lambert in tandem with her friend Dr. Muresan focused their energies in constant censuring of trivial parenting 172

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 186 of 411 PAGEID #: 1776

disagreement against Jurado, like his use of a “walker” for the child. Without knowing the measures he was taking, the fact that Jurado has no stairs at his house, and that he would use the walker in a wide open area in front of his home-as the video recording shows—Lambert and the pediatrician lectured, nitpick and censured Jurado for any issues they could find.

VII.A.4(b) THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF HEAD INJURIES 446. The frequent head injuries sustained by the child between August and October 2013 while under the care of Brooksedge seemed to be simple accidents, although preventable, especially the last one and more severe that trigger the visit to the Emergency Room on October 8, 2013—as Jurado felt necessary to make sure the frequent injuries were superficial and were of normal causation. Jurado also believed what the conspirators wanted everyone to believe: that the sudden disenrollment of the child from Brooksedge and ensuing lawsuit filed against Jurado were the result and the triggered reaction of Brooksedge and LeClair of the events that took place at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and the consequential involvement of Children Services to investigate possible child abuse or neglect by Brooksedge. 447. However, with the new evidence uncovered between November 2014 and February 2015 consisting of covert communications and e-mails between Bethel, Dr. Smalldon, LeClair, Smitherman and other co-conspirators that took place as early as August 2013, discussing their desire and plans to file a lawsuit against Jurado, it is evident that defendants staged the circumstances that led to the Emergency Room visit and investigation by Children Services, including the intentional infliction of the child’s injuries, in order to create the appearance that Jurado’s actions on October 8, 2013 of taking the child to the hospital and discussing with the

173

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 187 of 411 PAGEID #: 1777

doctors his concerns about the frequent injuries the child had been sustaining for the previous two months.

VII.A.4(c) THE KITCHEN SAFETY TRAPS 448. In February 2015, Defendants Wilson the Goddard School and Eagle carried out a scheme, organized by Lambert and Smitherman, to frame and injure Jurado and N.G.—or at least intimidate Jurado—by the utilization of “safety traps” in their kitchen and the coercion of Jurado into taking little N.G. into the kitchen with him, despite safety rules against it and warning signs in the kitchen door reading that children were not allowed. This happened in during two different visits in which each instance involved the participation of different conspirators within the Goddard School-Hilliard II.

VII.A.5. TO HARM PLAINTIFF JURADO AND DEPRIVE HIM OF A FAIR CHANCE IN THE CUSTODY CASE VII.A.5(a) UNDUE HARDSHIP CREATED BY CONSPIRATORS TO ENSURE JURADO’S DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT TO RETAIN PRIVATE COUNSEL COUPLED WITH JUDGE JAMISON’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE HIM WITH COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY 449. Using delaying tactics and procedural maneuvers to avoid granting Jurado with the economic relief he sought for months by the modification of child support, Defendants Judge Jamison, Lambert and Smitherman created an additional burden for Jurado given that 100% of his child support obligation had been in overage. While Lambert enjoyed a salary of six figures as an executive of a retailer, more than the income earned by Jurado, he had to pay around $1,300/month to her, in addition to the unnecessary child care tuition fees of $800.00 imposed by defendants, the insurance premiums for insurance coverage of both Plaintiffs, about

174

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 188 of 411 PAGEID #: 1778

$500/month in out of pocket medical expenses, and over $1,000/month in interest for the high credit card balances accumulated due to the over-inflation of Jurado’s attorney fees and litigation costs resulting from Bethel’s sub-scheme of high conflict. 450. The immediate result of Jurado’s financial crisis was his inability to keep his counsel as the unpaid balance of attorney fees was exceeding $8,000.00 by January 2014. Once Jurado began litigating the case Pro Se, the downstream ramifications were substantial, reducing his chances to keep up with litigation, for compliance with court orders, procedures and impact to his day-to-day life.

VII.A.5(b) CONTINUOUS DEPRIVATION OF JURADO’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS BY JUDGE JAMISON COUPLED WITH DEFENDANTS’ FRAUDULENT CONDUCT ALL CARRIED OUT IN CONCERT 451. With maybe one exception, every court proceeding involved the deprivation of Jurado’s right to present evidence, of his right to be heard, or to receive proper notice of the proceeding as the evidence shows. The ongoing fraudulent conduct by Smitherman, Bethel, McCash and Lambert during court proceedings and on their filings and pleadings also deprived Jurado of a fair chance during the course of the case.

175

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 189 of 411 PAGEID #: 1779

VII.A.6. TO PRE-ARRANGE OR PRE-DETERMINE EACH ONE OF JURADO’S ACTIONS, CASES, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS OR GRIEVANCES TO DISFAVOR HIM AND PRECLUDE THE DETERMINATION OF HIS CLAIMS ON THE MERITS VII.A.6(a) DEFENDANTS STONE AND ODC DISMISSED JURADO’S GRIEVANCE WITH PREMEDITATION TO AVOID ADDRESSING THE MERITS OF HIS CLAIMS AGAINST BETHEL 452. As it is argued in detail in Jurado’s Title VI Complaint filed with the U.S. DOJ, ODC deviated from customary procedures and the regular practices of meeting their statutory duties of investigating grievances. In the case of Jurado, they simply dismissed his case. See ODC’s Determination Letter in Exhibit AC1-H2, pages 170–172 of the Appendix. Each one of their arguments defending their conduct that were included in their Motion to Dismiss of Jurado’s Original Action in Mandamus and Prohibition were pretextual as Jurado established in his Title VI complaint. More information about the voluntary participation of ODC-SCO Defendants in the coordinated efforts to retaliate against Jurado is provided in section VII.A.9(a) below. Also a partial reproduction of Jurado’s Title VI complaint is included in Exhibit AC1-A2, pages 24–32 of the Appendix.

VII.A.6(b) DEFENDANTS OOAG, OCRC, GUTOWSKI, GARCIA AND DUNN PARTICIPATING IN THE PRE-ARRANGED DECISIONS OF JURADO’S COMPLAINTS AGAINST BROOKSEDGE BEFORE THEIR INVESTIGATION HAD STARTED 453. There is substantial evidence proving without a doubt that these Defendants jointly pre-determined Jurado’s complaints of discrimination and retaliation against Brooksedge Daycare before reaching a conclusion based on the merits of his complaints. These defendants also conspired to conceal from Jurado that his cases had been already pre-determined, as described in more detail in sections VII.F.2, VII.G.1 and VII.G.2 below. The e-mails between 176

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 190 of 411 PAGEID #: 1780

these Defendants and notes handwritten by Garcia showing the prearrangement of the outcome of Jurado’s cases have been included in Exhibit AC1-J1, pages 188–195 of the Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits, including their agreement to find “NPC” or no-probable cause on Jurado’s claim of retaliation before he filed his case.

VII.A.6(c) CONCERTED ACTION BETWEEN SMITHERMAN, JUDGE JAMISON, AND UNNAMED DEFENDANTS FROM THE TENTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, INCLUDING THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, DOUG EATON. 454. The full participation of Mr. Eaton and others from the Tenth District Court of Appeals of Ohio in the plot to avoid each one of Jurado’s appellate cases reaching a decision on the merits is evident considering the facts and the evidence available. In each of the three Appeals Jurado filed and that are still pending, the Appeals Court denied Jurado from the relief he was seeking of a Stay, even when he demonstrated that granting him the stay was a matter of rights and a matter of law. In a few instances, their Judgment entry did not have any explanation for the denials, and in other instances the reasons were obviously pretextual. In each of these instances, denying Jurado his Motions for Stay had as a purpose to render the appeal moot, given that the orders been appealed would have been a moot issue by the time the briefings would be filed and decided. By denying Jurado of a Stay in matters related to Contempt, for which Jurado faces jail time, these state actors were committing an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, specifically to enable the retaliation against Jurado. 455. The January 16, 2015 recording of their phone conversation along with e-mails sent between Jurado and Mr. Eaton show that the Denial of Jurado’s Motion for a Stay of the Order suspending his parenting time was pre-arranged before Jurado had even completed his filings.

177

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 191 of 411 PAGEID #: 1781

The recording of the phone call, which was made more than one hour before Jurado’s emergency brief was filed, captured the Administrator explaining to Jurado how he had “only” submitted the judgment entry (denying his Motion) in draft mode in the e-filing system because he was not sure if he would find other judges later in the afternoon to sign the order. Eaton’s tone of frustration came about due to the confusion created by another Judgment entry that had been issued on the same day for another one of Jurado’s Motions to Stay. Emails and the recording show how Eaton later tried to rationalize the disclosed information after he determined that the second denial was the source of confusion. Nevertheless, he never denied that the Order he had referred to earlier that day was indeed filed by him in draft mode with the signature of a panel of three judges, while they pretended to seem like they were waiting for Jurado’s brief before reaching a decision. 456.

In another instance, Jurado’s Motion to Stay was denied under unusual

circumstances. The filings and emails from Feb. 11, 2015 show Mr. Easton having knowledge that the filings by McCash in opposition to Jurado’s Motion to Stay had not been served. Nevertheless, he conspired to have the Judgment entry issue without giving Jurado a chance to respond. After Jurado filed a Motion for reconsideration with new arguments and pointing out the irregularities around the first entry, the Appeals Court denied his motion in their Entry filed on February 18, 2015. The entry included an explanation by the court that in itself constitutes a substantial irregularity. For instance, Jurado’s arguments in his initial motion were completely different than his reconsideration. In fact, comparing the two side by side is nearly impossible to find the same information or arguments between the two. Yet, the Judgment Entry stated

178

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 192 of 411 PAGEID #: 1782

that “appellant simply re-presents the same arguments he made in support of his motion for stay * * *”. 457. In the most recent over act in furtherance of the conspiracy, these state actors are clearly collaborating with Judge Jamison to guarantee Jurado’s incarceration from the first Contempt order he appealed in November 2014. The first Motion to stay denied under that appeal had as a goal to allow Judge Jamison to enforce the sentence and had Jurado serve jail time while depriving him of his right to appeal. After several months have passed and the matter has been fully briefed and ripe for adjudication, the Court schedules the matter for Oral Hearing to occur in May. The fact that there is no apparent reason or need for oral arguments, and that no party requested it shows that this was a premeditated act to allow Judge Jamison extra time to enforce the jail time, especially given that the Tenth District denies many requests for oral hearings from parties, and now without the need, they sua sponte scheduled one. Also the fact that Mr. Easton had denied multiple times Jurado’s request for oral hearing when dealing with emergency motions, having unnecessary oral arguments allows one to infer an ulterior motive. To make their participation in the conspiracy more evident, Judge Jamison sua sponte issued an order in mid-March 2015 (a few weeks ago) granting Jurado a motion for stay that he initially filed back in November 2014 but with a cash bond of $5, 279.23—an amount Judge Jamison knows Jurado is far from being able to pay. This Order is directly related to the Appeal that was recently set for Oral hearing, effectively delaying its adjudication. By looking at the Appellee’s Brief filed in that appeal and comparing it to Jurado’s brief, the conclusion any reasonable mind would reach is that Jurado should prevail.

179

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 193 of 411 PAGEID #: 1783

VII.A.6(d) IRREGULARITIES IN CONNECTION WITH JURADO’S AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION, REQUESTING THE CHIEF JUSTICE (SCO) TO REMOVE JUDGE JAMISON FROM THE CASE 458. Jurado filed an affidavit of disqualification against Judge Jamison in late-January 2015, after studying several other past cases that were successful and others that were not. To his surprise, the handling of his petition deviated from standard practices and previous rulings of the same court and Chief Justice. Jurado’s filing consisted of a 25+ page affidavit supported with almost 400 pages of exhibits. Judge Jamison’s response was under 10 pages and had one exhibit. In perhaps the fastest turnaround time possible, the Chief Justice issued an opinion that appeared to have relied only on the assertions of the Judge and without reading Jurado’s affidavit. It is evident because of the “main example” she referred to in the judgment entry was very different than the main example in Jurado’s filing. The fact that the Entry included mention of different dates in the affidavit but missed the most important date in Jurado’s affidavit related to his main example, which was also the most recent event. 459. The opinion in the Judgment entry denying Jurado’s affidavit for disqualification of Judge Jamison is tantamount of declaring that “a Judge does not demonstrate bias or prejudice when tells a litigant before the start of trial that, if he/she was ran-over by a car the week before, it is because he or she deserved it”. 460. The fact that the judgment entry was issued within one business day after Judge Jamison filed her response indicate a deviation from the norms. It is well known that most Motions and requests for Emergency Relief do not get adjudicated in a timely manner or as fast as the Movant would expect the higher court to do so. Rarely the higher court has ruled on an

180

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 194 of 411 PAGEID #: 1784

Emergency Motion within hours or a day after filing. But in this case, all the usual and important affairs were put aside to deal with the affidavit as if it was a matter of emergency. Similar to the conclusions one can infer by Mr. Eaton’s and the appeals court’s actions, the expedited consideration of the Affidavit was done with the sole purpose of denying Jurado of a remedy available to others under the same circumstances. Namely, the statute provides that the timely filing of an affidavit has a similar effect of a stay in the underlying case. Therefore, if Jurado’s affidavit would have been dealt with over a 2-month period as it is typical for other affidavits of disqualification with similar characteristics, the proceedings with Judge Jamison would have been stayed automatically. But a fast turnaround within the 7-day window prior to the next proceeding scheduled would offset the staying of the proceeding. In the example at hand, the proceeding that the affidavit was expected to stay or delay was for Jurado’s incarceration. Therefore, the goal of incarcerating Jurado at any cost continues to appear as one of the central themes in the conspiracy.

181

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 195 of 411 PAGEID #: 1785

VII.A.7. CONCEALMENT VII.A.7(a) COVER UP MISTAKES, WRONGDOING, BEHAVIORS AND ACTS BY MAIN CONSPIRATOR LAMBERT, INCLUDING ANY UNINTENTIONAL OR INTENTIONAL NEGLECT AND HARM TO THE CHILD. VII.A.7(b) COVER UP BETHEL’S MISCONDUCT AND DENY THE EXISTENCE OF ANY FORM OF RACISM OR DISCRIMINATION BY BETHEL OR ANYONE ELSE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THIS CASE. VII.A.8. INTERFERE WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS VII.A.8(a) ODJFS VII.A.8(b) OCRC VII.A.8(c) FCCS VII.A.8(d) ODC VII.A.9. RETALIATION 461. The first significant overt act of retaliation since the conspiracy began was the filing of the civil lawsuit against Jurado in October 2013. Although the lawsuit is in itself an act of retaliation, it was instituted as a subsidiary scheme under the overarching conspiracy and retaliation is just one of several objectives of the sub-scheme, as detailed in section VII.A.9(d) below.

VII.A.9(a) ODC-SCO DEFENDANTS ENTERED AGREEMENT WITH JAMISON , BETHEL AND OTHERS TO RETALIATE, CONCEAL AND PROTECT BETHEL 462.

On January 6, 2014, Jurado filed a formal Grievance with ODC against the attorney-

GAL Blythe Bethel for misconduct, RACIAL BIAS, deceptive and unethical acts, fraud, misrepresentations to the court, and other unlawful conduct. In addition to the standard

182

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 196 of 411 PAGEID #: 1786

grievance form Jurado completed, he included a 10-page supplementary statement of fact document, and 400+ pages of exhibits along with more than half-dozen audio/video recordings. 463. At the time of the filing, ODC confirmed that the filing could be amended at a later time, because Jurado had inquired as he intended to do so. They also stated that, until the Custody Case was over, an investigation could not start. Hearing that feedback, Jurado shared his ease given his concerns of retaliation by Bethel once she would find out about the grievance. 464. To his surprise, on March 3, 2014, Defendants ODC and Stone issued a determination letter claiming that they are not authorized to investigate Jurado’s complaints against Bethel, under the pretext that she was acting as a Guardian Ad Litem. In their letter—which was also sent to Bethel—they directed me to raise any issues, concerns or complaints with the Court that appointed Bethel as GAL.

Also, the determination letter gave no option for

reconsideration; therefore, it failed to comply with the Rules for the Government of the Bar. See ODC’s Determination Letter in Exhibit AC1-H2, pages 170–172 of the Appendix. 465. Two days later, in answering Jurado's inquiries based on ODC’s assertions in their determination 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 GAL’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

183

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 197 of 411 PAGEID #: 1787

misconduct allegations. See e-mail from Hon. Gina Palmer, Legal Director of the Juvenile Court. Exhibit AC1-H3, pages 173–174 of the Appendix. 466. 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 grievance 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. 467. 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 supporting information filed in the case with respondent. 468. Each one of ODC’s and Stone’s arguments defending their conduct that were included in their Motion to Dismiss of Jurado’s Original Action in Mandamus and Prohibition were pretextual as Jurado established in his Title VI complaint. Exhibit AC1-A2, pages 24–32 of the Appendix. 469. 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." (Emphasis Added.) Tr., Mar. 26, 2014, 72:15–73:5.

184

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 198 of 411 PAGEID #: 1788

The Partial transcript is included in exhibit AC1-H4, pages 175–183 of the Consolidated Appendix of Exhibits. 470. While the court went into a short recess, pages 79–81 of 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. 471. 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.

VII.A.9(b) JUDGE JAMISON OPENLY PROCLAIMED JURADO AS ADVERSARY OF THE COURT, A WEEK AFTER ODC’S DISMISSAL OF JURADO’S GRIEVANCE AGAINST BETHEL 472.

Starting in January of 2014, Defendants the Juvenile Court and Judge Jamison started

adopting an arbitrary and unreasonable attitude with lack of impartiality, which appeared to increase in proportion to Jurado’s efforts to address his claims of constitutional violations by the GAL and his efforts to remove her and align with the timing of Jurado’s filings with the ODC. 473. On Mach 13, 2014, Defendant Jamison declared Jurado an adversary of the court, as memorialized in the official court transcripts. 474. Some of acts and omissions by the Court include depriving Jurado of the opportunity to be heard, not hearing his motions (either by prohibiting him from fling them, by setting continuances, after continuances, or other means), and conducting proceedings that ignored

185

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 199 of 411 PAGEID #: 1789

court rules and statutory rights and duties, always in favor of the other party or the GAL, while ignoring their misconduct inside the court room.

VII.A.9(c) RETALIATION BY JUDGE JAMISON INTENSIFIED WITH THE SUPPORT AND BLESSING OF ODC-SCO DEFENDANTS AFTER JURADO’S FILING OF HIS ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION 475.

Between August 2014 and January 2015, the retaliation and conspiracy reached new

levels and peaked by the end of 2014, while the aggression and abuses against Plaintiff Jurado became overt and more severe. Two weeks after Jurado’s filing of his action for writs with the SCO, their differential treatment of Jurado by the Court became more obvious and the retaliation more pronounced. Their acts and omissions escalated to the point of permanently misplacing evidence, issuing court judgments with incorrect information in orders and journal entries. 476. After the partial hearing to remove Bethel was conducted on August 1, 2014, the participation and collusion of ODC-SCO defendants with the Juvenile Court increased, given that Bethel’s misconduct and unlawful acts were starting to get uncovered. This became evident at the scheduled hearing on August 27, 2014 to conclude the removal of Bethel. At the very last minute, Judge Jamison issued an order of continuance to Sept. 24, 2014. 477. This seemingly harmless course of action in fact was the result of collaboration with the Judiciary because: (a) 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. (b) The hearing scheduled for August 27, 2014 at 1pm for the removal of Bethel was not 186

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 200 of 411 PAGEID #: 1790

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. They were the only ones that could anticipate what was to occur on that date: The High Court would issue a judgment entry granting the dismissal of Jurado’s action. (c) 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. (d) 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. See exhibit AC1-H5, page 185 of the Appendix. 478. The retaliation culminated with the complete deprivation of Jurado’s rights to substantive and procedural due process, which took place on the same day that the SCO dismissed his complaint: (a) against the rules of Juvenile Procedure, the Court held a proceeding in Chambers and without an option to record the 2 hour proceeding, in order to avoid review by Appeal and to prevent Jurado from raising additional constitutional claims, (b) Defendant Jamison ordered Jurado to sign a Withdrawal of Motion form after being intimidated, as opposed to Sua Sponte dismissing the action to remove the GAL, (c) with no notice, or service effected prior to the proceeding, an impromptu Show Cause hearing was held on this same day without giving him the opportunity to prepare and over Jurado’s repeated objections. As the court precluded him to introduce evidence relevant to his defense and against statutory provisions that require the court to do so, the court found him in contempt and sentenced him

187

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 201 of 411 PAGEID #: 1791

to jail time. The court chose a date explicitly for the purpose of the sentence to be served over the Thanksgiving Holidays. 479. It is undisputable that the severe violations and offenses being committed in the last four months of 2014 have been the direct consequence of Plaintiff Juradoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s filing of his action in the Supreme Court of Ohio and his disclosure of his initiatives involving Title VI relief. As soon as he warned and gave formal notice of this impending action at different points in time between September and December 2014, defendant Jamison started conducting proceedings that delivered vengeance instead of justice. Indeed, Defendants the Juvenile Court and Jamison devised a strategy to first engage in the most effective and ultimate retaliatory acts and to make Plaintiff Jurado pay retribution, and also to protect both the Court and Defendant Bethel from embarrassment and liability. 480. The plan involved toning down the existing complaints against Defendants Bethel and Jamison, preventing additional cross-examination of Bethel as a witness, and discrediting Plaintiff Jurado and his claims, all while maximizing injuries to the Plaintiffs. The Juvenile Court swiftly put this plan into motion on or before September 24, 2014. The plan became obvious when Plaintiff Jurado was coerced and forced to sign a Withdraw of Motion form to halt the full evidentiary hearing against (to remove) Defendant Bethel half way through cross-examination. Defendant Jamison then â&#x20AC;&#x153;sua sponteâ&#x20AC;? removed Defendant Bethel as appointed Guardian Ad Litem in order to protect her from further prosecution within the case, and allowed her to return to the case right away as a private expert witness for the opposing party, who has also been at the center of the conspiracy. That same day, Defendant Jamison deprived Plaintiff

188

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 202 of 411 PAGEID #: 1792

Jurado of his right to due process and equal protection, and summarily found him in Contempt and sentenced him to jail time, with explicit instructions to be served over the Thanksgiving Holidays. 481. The key piece of the new plan was the new incumbent for the Guardian Ad Litem role that would replace Bethel. Given the weaknesses of the Guardian Ad Litem system and yet powerful reach as an arm of the court, the new GAL appointee would be the best one positioned to execute the rest of the plan. 482. Within hours of Bethel’s removal, Defendant Tom McCash was appointed as the new Guardian Ad Litem. By 9am the morning of September 25, 2014, the order of appointment had been filed with the clerk’s office. It is clear that at the point Defendant Jamison removed Defendant Bethel on September 24, 2014, Defendant Tom McCash had already been handpicked, briefed, engaged for the role of GAL and committed to such important assignment: Every objective identified by Defendant Jamison and her co-conspirators, including and especially those that Defendant Bethel had been trying to achieve but could not complete, would be coordinated and Defendant McCash would finish them all and fast—and so he did. 483. Roughly two months after his appointment, Defendant McCash successfully (i) advocated for the opposing party, maintained and protected communication between him, the child’s mother and her attorney using pretextual attorney-client privilege (ii) built a case against Father, (iii) created undue burden for Father and worsened his hardship, (iv) deprived father of as many fundamental, constitutional and statutory rights as possible while inflicting the most harm , (v) ensured that the child spent the least amount of time with Father, (vi)

189

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 203 of 411 PAGEID #: 1793

forced the child out of Father’s daycare permanently and confined him 5 full days a week—no exceptions, even on Father’s parenting days, and even if he is the only child left at the facility— to Mother’s daycare located at the west most point of the county and as far from Plaintiff Jurado as possible, (vii) used whatever means necessary, even forcefully, to prevent Plaintiff Jurado from caring for Plaintiff N.G. during weekdays and from spending quality time with the child, (viii) maximized the torment and intimidation that Father had already been enduring, (ix) interfered with the time the child could spent with his Hispanic paternal grandparents, (x) harassed, intimidated and tampered with potential witnesses that father could use in the custody case and in this Title VI action, (xi) found a suitable pretext to justify each of his actions, if not immediately, at least by the start of trial. 484. Three months after his appointment, Defendant Tom McCash, in a concerted effort with his co-conspirators, already had accomplished successfully all of their objectives and even exceeded them after 12+ months of their pursuit, ultimately to punish Plaintiff Jurado and inflict as much harm: (a) complete interference with his parenting rights, his bond and his relationship with the child N.G., and zero parenting time between Father and Son, (b) intrusion into Plaintiff Jurado’s home without valid reason in violation of his right to privacy and privacy of beliefs under the First and Fourth Amendments, (c) unlawful detention of Plaintiff Jurado, (d) interference with and deprivation of Jurado’s right to Appeal and his right of access to the courts, under the Ohio Constitution and the US Constitution (e) infliction of humiliation and distress, (f) tamper and intimidation of yet another key potential witness, (g) successful concerted efforts inside the courtroom to humiliate and deprive Plaintiff Jurado of the opportunity to be heard, or a fair proceeding, and of procedural due process during each of the 190

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 204 of 411 PAGEID #: 1794

proceedings conducted in the last three months of the year, causing more harm that during previous abuses in other previous proceedings throughout year, (h) prevented and ensured that Plaintiff Jurado is unable to have legal representation, either private or public. 485. The evidence showing that Defendant Jamison appointed Defendant McCash as her co-conspirator agent for the purposes of all malignant acts to be carried out is substantial. 486. The evidence in this case also establishes the existence of a pattern and practice engaged by Defendant Bethel and Dr. Smalldon, a forensic psychologist, involving a planned scheme of concerted acts that employ coercion against their target to accomplish a predetermined result based on unlawful motives, and using unlawful methods. Ultimately, this racket scheme has been used in furtherance of the conspiracies claimed by Plaintiffs under Section 1983 and Section 1985.

VII.A.9(d) EXAMPLES OF THE ESCALATING PATTERN OF ABUSE OF DISCRETION MOTIVATED BY RETALIATION

487. On 8/27/14, the Juvenile Court at the very last minute decided to not hold the 2nd part of the Hearing for Removal of GAL and set another continuance for the afternoon of 9/24. 488. On 9/24/14, the SCO granted Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (both ODC’s and the Juvenile Court’s), effectively denying me any and all means to address my complaints of misconduct and discrimination prohibited by law (because of race, color, religion, age, gender,

191

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 205 of 411 PAGEID #: 1795

sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or disability) committed by the attorney-GALCourt Officer. At that point, I deemed all my available remedies at law as being exhausted. 1 489. Whether by chance or not, the hearing for Removing the GAL was scheduled to resume with the Juvenile Court the same day that the SCO dismissed the Original Action case. The events that took place that afternoon of 9/24 in Courtroom 65 and in Chambers was indisputably a wanton display 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. 490. 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 respondents2.

VII.A.9(e) IN FURTHERANCE OF ONGOING CONSPIRACY 491. The next day after removing Defendant Bethel, the Juvenile Court hand-picked and appointed Defendant McCash as the new GAL. It was obvious that Defendant Jamison felt cornered and forced to remove Defendant Bethel, given all of the previous efforts by the court to protect her and cover up her wrongdoings. In fact, not allowing Jurado to resume the hearing that had started on 8/1/2014 to remove the GAL provides sufficient evident to infer 2

Refer to SCO 2014-10-06 Filing - Motion for Reconsideration, supra. Also see PDF with SCO Case 20141225 Docket item 4. 2 Refer to SCO 2014-10-06 Filing - Motion for Reconsideration, supra. Also see PDF with SCO Case 20141225 Docket item 4.

192

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 206 of 411 PAGEID #: 1796

that removing the GAL sua sponte only helped Defendant Bethel not to have to be confronted by Jurado for her misconduct. It is now clear that Defendant Jamison chose Defendant McCash with the main purpose of act in furtherance of the Defendant Bethelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conspiracy against Jurado.

VII.A.10. TO MAINTAIN A LAWSUIT AND A ONE-SIDED WAR OF ATTRITION AGAINST JURADO â&#x20AC;&#x201C; THE LAWSUIT AS A SUBSIDIARY SCHEME TO THE MASTER CONSPIRACY 492.

Conspirators planned several sub-schemes for the punishment of Jurado for

attempting to exercise his rights under sections 2000a and 2000a-1. The first punishment by Defendants Brooksedge, Alexander-Savino and LeClair, was the lawsuit that is currently active and pending in the general division of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court. 493. Between August and September of 2013, Defendants Bethel, LeClair, Smitherman, Alexander-Savino, Lambert and Dr. Smalldon established ongoing secret communications by phone and e-mail in regards to the complaints Jurado had filed and in the plotting of a lawsuit, as e-mails uncovered between November 2014 and January 2015 show. 494. These secret communications, in which Bethel was the intermediary between Dr. Smalldon and the other Defendants, were in clear contradiction of ethical rules set by the state psychology board for the proper conduct of forensic experts, as well as the rules of superintendence that prohibit Guardians Ad Litem to divulge any information about their case. In addition, Dr. Smalldon, who was already half-way through the evaluation of Lambert and Jurado, had a unique and powerful role in the plan given that he was strategically positioned to

193

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 207 of 411 PAGEID #: 1797

know Plaintiff Jurado’s susceptibilities and thus had the ability to arrange different factors and events to obtain a precise outcome for framing Jurado.

VII.A.10(a) BETHEL AS THE INITIAL AND MAIN INSTIGATOR OF THE LAWSUIT AGAINST JURADO BY THE DAYCARE FACILITY 495.

In early July 2013, Defendant Bethel and Mom first created a wedge between Jurado

and the daycare facility where his son was enrolled by involving the owner of the Brooksedge daycare facility in their deceptive efforts to have the court issue a restriction to prevent Jurado from visiting the daycare. 496. The deceptive efforts by Ms. Bethel and Mom resulted in complaints filed by Jurado in multiple state agencies against the daycare. 497. Ms. LeClair, the owner of Brooksedge daycare, confirmed during a meeting with Jurado on 9/6/13 that the GAL “made up” the statements that were reported to the Magistrate on 7/8/13 by Ms. Bethel. Ms. LeClair conceded that the animosity and friction arising from the multiple complaints filed by Jurado were in fact the responsibility of the GAL and Mom given their actions and misconduct. 498. After the 9/6 meeting between Ms. LeClair and Jurado, their relationship was restored. No more than a month had passed by when Mom and Ms. Bethel colluded again to erode the harmony that had just been renewed.

194

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 208 of 411 PAGEID #: 1798

499. In late September 2013 and early October, Jurado’s attorney accomplished what was perceived as the GAL’s willingness to consider other options for higher quality out-of-home care for the child. 500. On October 8, 2013, Jurado took his son to the Emergency Room for the latest of a series of head injuries. By a quirk of fate, Jurado had sent an email to his attorney only 2 days before the more serious head injury happened on 10/7/2013. In the email to his attorney, Jurado shared his concerns regarding the recent injuries the child had suffered while at daycare. Jurado explained his concerns to the Children’s Hospital ER doctor that, due to the frequency and not necessarily severity of the head injuries, significant trauma may have been inflicted that is not visible to the naked eye. Naturally, Jurado explained that they were going through a process of proposing new daycares to the court since Jurado was not satisfied with the quality of care of the current facility, without making accusations of purposeful abuse by the facility or by Mom. 501. The ER doctor recommended the involvement of a social worker and specific tests for the child to identify any unknown past injuries. After witnessing Mom behavior of hostility and defensiveness against Jurado while being protective of the daycare facility, both the social worker and the ER doctor were more inclined to report/make a referral to Franklin County Children Services (FCCS). 502. Having the GAL on speed dial, Mom immediately contacted Ms. Bethel as well as the daycare facility to give them a heads up that FCCS had been called and would be soon on their way to the facility. Immediately and in abuse of her role as officer of the court, Ms. Bethel

195

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 209 of 411 PAGEID #: 1799

(inappropriately) contacted FCCS the very same day that the child was at the ER, with the purpose of interfering, creating prejudice and to damage Jurado’s credibility with them. 503. During the initial interview with the FCCS case worker assigned to the case, Jurado shared his position that he didn’t believe child abuse had been committed by anyone at the facility and was uncomfortable hearing the word “perpetrators”. Jurado conceded that he had issues with the quality of care at the center but that they amounted to not enough training for employees and teachers as well as deficient oversight by the administration. 504. One more time, Defendant Bethel—acting as an officer of the court in the role of GAL—did not demonstrate any concerns regarding the child's condition and overall well-being. Instead, her focus was directed at finding any flaws or faults in Jurado's actions, while advocating for Mom' interests. Mom' intentions, as shown in the recordings/transcripts from the 10/08 ER visit, were to discredit Jurado's opinions and concerns while opening a new front of aggression: Creating the perception that the Daycare staff and administrators had been victimized. Both Mom and the GAL spread rumors and false allegations that Jurado had made explicit child abuse accusations against the child’s teachers at the facility. 505. As Ms. Bethel took advantage of the credibility inherited by her role of GAL, she abused the powers entrusted in her, continued her misleading conduct, and exhorted undue influence in the opinions of the ER doctor, ER social worker, FCCS case worker and supervisor.

196

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 210 of 411 PAGEID #: 1800

506. Two days after the day at the ER, the daycare facility permanently expelled the child, and proceeded to file a civil lawsuit against Jurado as a result of the instigation of Defendant Bethel and Lambert. 507. Although the lawsuit filed against Jurado a week after the ER visit intentionally created the perception that the involvement of FCCS as part of the ER visit is what triggered the civil action by the daycare, it became obvious that the lawsuit was part of the premeditated and systematic conspiracy being committed by attorney Smitherman, Defendant Bethel, Lambert and some of the daycare staff/administrators to cause an additional hardship for Jurado, emotional distress, and as a pretext to help Lambert gain full custody of the child. For example, (a) it was discovered at a later time that the GAL had been in contact with Defendant Alexander-Savino days before and after the ER incident, for the close coordination of the lawsuit sub-scheme and prepare for the filing of the civil lawsuit against Jurado; (b) the exact day when the lawsuit was filed, Lambert notarized an affidavit in support of her upcoming Motion to Modify the Temporary Orders (to take away time and custody rights from Jurado). The content of her Motion resembled the allegations made in the civil lawsuit filed against Jurado, all a good indication that the conspirators had been working closely together in framing Jurado to be the target of the civil lawsuit.

197

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 211 of 411 PAGEID #: 1801

VII.A.11. TAMPER WITH ADVERSE KEY WITNESSES VII.A.12. FABRICATE ALLEGATIONS, INCIDENTS AND EVENTS TO PUT HIM IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT

VII.B. OBJECTIVES AND GOALS OF THE CONSPIRACY VII.B.1. DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW VII.B.2. DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS VII.B.3. CREATE CHILLING EFFECT ON PLAINTIFF'S EXERCISE OF HIS 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS VII.B.4. CAUSE ECONOMICAL HARM VII.B.5. INTENTIONALLY INFLICT EMOTIONAL DISTRESS VII.B.6. INTERFERE WITH PLAINTIFF’S MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF HIS LIFE: PARENTHOOD AND HIS SON VII.B.7. DISCREDIT AND PREJUDICE BY DEFAMATION VII.B.8. INTERFERE WITH ABILITY TO ACCESS COURT, PRESENT DEFENSES, PROSECUTE CLAIMS, AND HAVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION

VII.C. BACKGROUND OF THE CONSPIRACY AND THE FAMILY LAW INDUSTRY VII.C.1. BACKGROUND 508. The underlying case of two unmarried parents makes up the backdrop of this case. Plaintiff Jurado and Defendant Lambert met at work in early 2010. Later that year, they became romantically involved and maintained a relationship that began strained and shortlived. Because their mutual communication and openness, they quickly found out that they had different goals in a relationship and were at different points in their lives. Jurado was looking for a serious and long-term commitment, to build a family and have children. In fact, having a child of his own was something Jurado had been longing for a while—a life purpose

198

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 212 of 411 PAGEID #: 1802

he knew he was missing then in his late thirties. Lambert was not looking for a committed relationship, neither wanted a new family, nor more children. She already had a teenage son, product of a marriage of many years that had dissolved a few years back—but that still functioned like a family, with the two households only a few blocks from each other—and neither parent, together since high school sweethearts, had been successful at moving on with their lives. But Jurado and Lambert decided to give it a try anyway. Jurado did not hold back. He got her a spare set of keys to his place, introduce her to his friends and talk to his family about her. Lambert was not reciprocal, but Jurado thought it was simply a matter of patience. She even convinced him to keep their relationship a secret at work. 509. Just after four months into the relationship, it all came to a halt after Jurado found out that Lambert was dating other people during the time she reportedly was at home with his teenage son. Jurado knew right then and there that, given the recent developments and emotional baggage from her past, they did not have a future together. So, he severed the relationship with no reservations, but it was not as simple as he thought. She immediately began pursuing him intensively—marking the start of a rollercoaster that went on for eight more months. Because they not only worked in the same offices but also worked on special projects together, he was unable to avoid her altogether, and feared that any clashes would jeopardize his career. As part of her pursuit, Lambert suddenly offered him everything she knew he had been looking for: a family, a baby, a long-term commitment. After a few months and with skepticism, he succumbed to her persuasion, and gave it another chance—only to find out that Lambert had a hard time letting go of her old ways. After seven months since the first break up, Lambert knew she was running out of options. So she tried a different recourse: She 199

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 213 of 411 PAGEID #: 1803

convinced Jurado to undergo therapy sessions with her friend and psycho-therapist of several years. He naively gave in one more time. By late spring in 2011, he found himself in a therapy session trying to be convinced by a licensed counselor that having other partners or “friends” was ok in a relationship, as long as Jurado learned to accept it and accept Lambert for who she was. That gave finality to the rollercoaster. By summer 2011, Jurado and Lambert were no longer trying, or so he thought. They had reached a mutual agreement to stay as friends and co-workers. 510. During the summer of 2011, Jurado did his best to move on. He made new friends, went on dates, and continued keeping a distance from Lambert. However, Lambert continued a subtle pursuit of Jurado and in a handful of occasions, under the guise of friendship, turned up at social events that Jurado attended and eventually at his place. Lambert offered Jurado for them to stay in a “casual” relationship but without seeing others. The second time she brought it up, he conceded that, not only the casual relationship would not work, but for them to stay in contact as friends was not a good idea. Lambert finally went along. For most of the fall of 2011, they kept their plan and maintained good boundaries, engaging in limited communications outside of work and mainly by email. In late fall, Jurado had fallen ill due to the excessive number of hours his job demanded—to the point that he had been contemplating resigning. Knowing that Jurado lived by himself and without any family in town, Lambert showed up at his place purportedly to help him and keep an eye on him. The next day after spending the night, he gently reminded her that it was not a good idea to do what she had done. That was the last time they spoke or saw each other until several weeks later.

200

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 214 of 411 PAGEID #: 1804

511. It was Sunday morning in late fall 2011 when Jurado received a text message from Lambert asking to meet to discuss an urgent matter. Later that same day, he found out that they had conceived a new life during her last stay at his place—several months after their relationship had officially ended, and the day before his resignation letter was to be filed at work.

Within days, they entered into an agreement to raise their then-unborn child together

and equally—even as unmarried parents. 512. For the next eight months, Plaintiff Jurado was equally involved and committed to his unborn child as Lambert was, throughout the pregnancy and in every sense—financially and otherwise. Even though he remained unemployed for most of that period, he dispensed of his savings to help cover the overall costs of being expecting parents and to make all the necessary purchases, including a crib, stroller and what was necessary for the arrival of their son, in both households. 513. At the same time, they both worked on trying to restore their relationship, but unfortunately, without much success. Compartmentalization helped them continue working in cooperation in regards to parenthood, and the particularities and special care of her high-risk pregnancy. 514.

By the time the child was 4 months old, Plaintiff Jurado’s commitment to the child

had not changed; and if anything, it had increased. Within the context of parenting, both had been successful at working together, without encountering any challenge with each other’s parenting skills. In fact, they agreed in most decisions regarding their newborn, except for some

201

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 215 of 411 PAGEID #: 1805

concerns Jurado was starting to raise about the health of his son and one or two instances of safety concerns. 515. Those mutual decisions included the enrollment of the child at the Brooksedge facility owned by Defendant LeClair in September 2012. As part of the enrollment process, Jurado was officially listed as the father of the child in any and all appropriate forms and documents. Subsequently, he became known by the Brooksedge staff and administrators as a parent of the child who was equally involved, starting with his visit to the facility during the “trial run” or very first day of the child’s attendance, on September 24, 2012. After that first day, he routinely picked up the child from daycare about twice a week. He was unable to pick him more frequently because he travel weekly out of state for a consulting project he had secured a few weeks before the child was born. 516. By mid-October 2012, Lambert—still unmarried and convinced that their deteriorating relationship was beyond repair—started exerting control and imposing unilateral rules regarding Jurado’s parenting time. They included restrictions around daycare pick up times, even when Jurado had very limited time in town, given his business travel schedule. 517. Suddenly, without warning, and in the midst of health issues of the unthriving child, Lambert filed a custody action in the Juvenile Court on November 5, 2012. She also dishonored the previous shared parenting agreement reached between her and Jurado a year earlier, and took full control of the custody and parenting time of the child for the next two and a half months. In her court filing, Lambert sought full custody of the child, the minimum non-

202

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 216 of 411 PAGEID #: 1806

residential parenting time allowed by law for Defendant Jurado, and also asked for all visitations to be “supervised” until the child would reach 18 years of age. 518.

During that period of 10 weeks, that included the 2012-2013 Holiday season, and

until the parties were able to make their first appearance in court, she used the child to manipulate and exert control over Jurado and his contact with the child, and also with Jurado’s family, who are all natives of the Republic of Panama—in effect abusing her rights under ORC 3109.042. One example of the obsessive control was in December ’12 - January ’13 period— during the Jurado’s family 6-week visit and Plaintiff Jurado’s break from work—they were only allowed to see the child on certain days and times that were dictated by Lambert in a piecemeal fashion, with no much advance notice. A second example of the obsessive control exerted occurred on Thanksgiving Day 2012. Lambert allowed Jurado to spend a portion of the day with the baby at her house but supervised. In that instance, Lambert ordered Jurado not to make certain noises while playing with his son, like whistling and smacking—the sound of a resounding kiss.

203

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 217 of 411 PAGEID #: 1807

VII.C.2. FAMILY LAW INDUSTRY HIGHLY PROFITABLE AND SUSCEPTIBLE TO WRONGDOING – A NATIONAL PROBLEM VII.C.3. GUARDIAN AD LITEM SYSTEM, EQUALLY POWERFUL AND DEFICIENT IN BOTH PRIVATE CUSTODY CASES, AND THOSE INVOLVING THE STATE AS A PARTY. VII.C.4. THE LOCAL BAR IN CENTRAL OHIO AND COLUMBUS IS VERY SMALL AND DIVERSITY IS VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT. VII.C.5. THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN COLUMBUS, BEING THE HUB AND CAPITAL OF OHIO, IS SHAPED BY THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE VII.C.6. ALL THREE BRANCHES OF STATE GOVERNMENT ARE PERMEATED, AND SUSCEPTIBLE, BY THE POWER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION—THE BAR

VII.D. UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES AND ACTS PERPETRATED BY CONSPIRATORS DEFENDANTS VII.D.1. UNLAWFUL ACTS BY OOAG VII.D.1(a) INTIMIDATION OF JURADO WITH THE INTENTION TO CAUSE A CHILLING EFFECT IN THE EXERCISE OF JURADO’S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND TO PREVENT HIM FROM FURTHER PURSUING HIS CLAIMS 519. For specifics in regards to the October 22, 2013 phone call between the OOAG state official and Plaintiff Jurado, refer to Section VII.F.1(a) “Recording from October 22, 2013 Showing State Official Representing Defendant OOAG Intimidating Jurado over the Phone and Instilling Fear” below.

VII.D.1(b) OOAG’S WILLFUL NEGLECT AND BREACH OF DUTY TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS, WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF EQUAL PROTECTION AND AS STANDALONE DUTY, WITHOUT REASONABLE EXCUSE OR JUSTIFICATION 520. In addition to OOAG’s intimidating acts against Jurado, OOAG failed in his duty to protect Jurado as he sought assistance to stop the continuous violations against him and his 204

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 218 of 411 PAGEID #: 1808

son, and the ongoing harm being caused to Plaintiffs, and for Intentional or Unintentional Child Neglect. See Smith v. Wade 461 U.S. 30 (1983).

VII.D.1(c) OOAG DEFENDANTS’ OVERT INTERFERENCE WITH OCRC INVESTIGATION AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF MISCONDUCT BY OCRC DEFENDANTS 521. Defendants Garcia, Dunn and OCRC started engaging in misconduct and actions to intentionally deprive Jurado of his rights. The unlawful conduct started at the same time concealed communications took place showing criminal conspiratorial agreement between Defendant Gutowski and Defendant Garcia. 522. See Section VII.F.2 “Recordings involving Defendants OCRC, Dunn and Garcia” and section Error! Reference source not found. “Error! Reference source not found.“ below.

VII.D.1(d) MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE AND ABUSE OF PUBLIC TRUST 523. See Section VII.F.2 “Recordings involving Defendants OCRC, Dunn and Garcia” below.

VII.D.1(e) OOAG’S INTERFERENCE WITH ODJFS AND UNDERMINING OF GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS

524. See Section V.I “July 2013 - Scope of the Conflict Suddenly Expanded – ODJFS and OCRC as First State Government Agencies Involved Due to Brooksedge Conduct” above.

205

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 219 of 411 PAGEID #: 1809

VII.D.2. UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES AND CONDUCT BY DEFENDANTS OCRC, DUNN AND GARCIA VII.D.2(a) DEPRIVED JURADO OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW WHEN DECIDED HIS CASES BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION EVEN STARTED AND EVEN BEFORE HE FILE HIS CHARGE AGAINST BROOKSEDGE 525. The E-mails and handwritten notes uncovered by Jurado around NovemberDecember 2013 show OOAG’s and OCRC’s agreement to decide the outcome of Jurado’s complaints in favor of Brooksedge before the investigation started.

It also shows their

agreement to issue a No Probable Cause (NPC) for Jurado’s retaliation claim before he even filed it. 526. After the covert communications between Garcia and Gutowski, Defendant Garcia engaged in wanton misconduct to harm Jurado and to deprive him of his civil rights, as many of his emails show. The recording from November 21, 2013 shows the reaction of shock endured by the liaison of the Commission’s constituent services, when she read the e-mail sent by Garcia to Jurado in his attempts to segregate him and treat him differently than other complainants because of his national origin.

VII.D.2(b) DISHONESTY AND CORRUPTION 527. On March 13, 2014, Defendant Dunn, encouraged by the acts of OOAG, engaged in fraudulent misrepresentations and wanton misconduct as shown in the recording of the public proceedings in front of the OCRC Commissioners, all in detriment of Jurado’s case against Brooksedge.

206

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 220 of 411 PAGEID #: 1810

VII.D.2(c) OCRC DEFENDANTS ENGAGED IN MISCONDUCT, INCLUDING DENYING JURADO OF EQUAL ENJOYMENT OF PUBLIC GOVERNMENT FACILITIES, AND WITHHOLDING OF KEY INFORMATION DURING ADJUDICATION PROCEEDING 528. The conduct of OCRC employees while conspiring with OOAG shows the premeditated agreement to deprive Jurado of his rights to Equal Protection of the Law and right to be free from Retaliation.

VII.D.3. ODC-SCO DEFENDANTS UNLAWFUL ACTS AND PRACTICES VII.D.3(a) DEFENDANTS’ DEPRIVATION OF JURADO’S RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW AND BREACH OF DUTY 529. Defendant ODC’s dismissal of the grievance Jurado file against Bethel in January 2014 constitutes intentional unlawful discrimination because similarly situated grievants that are white received a different response from ODC defendants, which included an investigation of their grievances—regardless of the outcome of their investigation. 530. In addition, all the arguments ODC made in support of their conduct included in their Motion to Dismiss filed with the Supreme Court of Ohio in case 2014-1225, were all pretextual, as Jurado’s detail report shows in his complaint filed with the Office for Civil Rights for the Office of Justice Programs under the US Department of Justice.

VII.D.3(b) ODC-SCO DEFENDANTS’ PARTICIPATION IN SCHEME TO RETALIATE AGAINST JURADO 531. The act of disclosing Jurado’s grievance to Defendant Bethel before the conclusion of the custody case, and their alleged unethical sharing of Jurado’s provided materials and exhibits

207

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 221 of 411 PAGEID #: 1811

with Defendant Bethel is just part of the substantial evidence showing ODC-SCO Defendants’ participation in the retaliation scheme with Judge Jamison and Bethel. 532. The events from August 27, 2014 and September 24, 2014 include a number of PLUS FACTORS that show the parallel behavior of ODC, SCO and Judge Jamison unlikely is a result from chance or coincidence. These events are detailed in section V.O.15 “August 2014 Judicial Transgressions More Overt after the Filing of Original Action in Mandamus and Prohibition against Defendants Judge Jamison and

ODC; Carte Blanche given to Judge

Jamison by the ODC-SCO Defendants 533. Sometime in late-July 2014 or August 2014, after Jurado filed his Original Action in Mandamus and Prohibition against Judge Jamison and ODC, with the underlying theme of Bethel’s misconduct and unlawful discrimination, Defendants John Doe, Jane Doe III and ODC/SCO gave Defendant Jamison Carte Blanche to use whatever means necessary to “handle her Juvenile case”, to rein in Jurado in order to stop the embarrassment caused by a Hispanic citizen, and to offer Bethel all of the Court’s protection against a Hispanic complainant.

VII.D.3(c) AUGUST 2014 – CONCERTED ACTION BY DEFENDANTS LAMBERT, BETHEL AND SMITHERMAN TO COLLUDE IN OPEN COURT AND ENGAGE IN WITNESS TAMPERING IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY; JUDGE JAMISON’S PARTICIPATION IN COVER UP 534. On August 1, 2014, during the proceeding to hear Jurado’s Motion for the Removal of Bethel from the case as GAL, Bethel and Smitherman engaged in concealed texting using their phones with participation of Lambert while Bethel was in the witness stand, in what can be characterized as beyond simple misconduct: Collusion and witness tampering in open court.

208

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 222 of 411 PAGEID #: 1812

535. The irony of this incident is that the main goal of the court proceeding being conducted—in which the unlawful acts were committed by Bethel, Smitherman and Lambert— was to stop or to remedy the ongoing misconduct by Bethel and her allies. 536. Judge Jamison’s participation in covering up the unlawful acts by Smitherman, Bethel and Lambert became obvious when Jurado brought up the incident to the attention of the court. After a couple of questions by the court, Bethel admitted to using her phone but denied having communications with Smitherman. Judge Jamison contained the controversy within the context of Bethel’s witness credibility but refrained from making any further inquiries, as any other tribunal would have done. Jurado has documented similar cases and on each one, the Judge had made further inquiries, allowed the text messages to be discoverable or have confiscated the phones involved in the acts of witness tampering and witness coaching. Ironically, courtroom 65 has a signed at its entrance that warns about phone usage inside the courtroom being unlawful and specifies that confiscation of the phone would result from the disobedience of the rule.

Additional evidence of Judge Jamison’s full and conscious

When Judge Jamison finally allowed Jurado’s Motion to be heard, she

restricted his prosecution to the extent that he was unable to call Smitherman as witness, make specific inquiries or even read aloud certain portions of the rules of professional conduct.

209

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 223 of 411 PAGEID #: 1813

VII.D.3(d) AUGUST 2014 - JUDGE JAMISON ENGAGED IN SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS 537. Even when the transcript of the proceeding conducted on Aug. 4, 2014 (to hear Jurado’s request to modify his child support obligation amount) shows that there was mention of “the documents” that were given to the court, they were all “misplaced” after the hearing and have never been found since. In her Entry filed a day or two later, the Judge claimed that Jurado only presented the Court with one spreadsheet (as in one page) as evidence of his income. Her Entry also contradicts other facts observed on the hearing transcript. Judge Jamison then utilized the fraudulent entry as an exhibit for her Motion to Dismissed filed with the SCO on August 8, 2014. 538. Several court employees, including the Judge’s bailiff who made two set of copies of those documents during the short hearing, remembers the numerous documents and pages he had to copy for the court and for opposing counsel while the court had taken a short recess. Judge Jamison herself acknowledged in open court on January 2015 that her bailiff had made copies of all the documents supporting Jurado’s income and expenses during the previous proceeding to modify child support. 539. August-September 2014 - ODC, SCO Defendants and Judge Jamison escalated their participation in the Cover Up & Retaliation Sub-Scheme” above and section V.P “September 2014 - Retaliation Soared as Direct Result of the Revealing of Jurado’s Intention to Seek Federal Relief, and the Dismissal of Original Action in Mandamus and Prohibition by SCO as Reinforcement of the Carte Blanche given to Defendant Judge Jamison” above.

210

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 224 of 411 PAGEID #: 1814

VII.D.3(e) ODC-SCO DEFENDANTS’ PARTICIPATION IS SCHEME TO COVER UP BETHEL’S UNLAWFUL CONDUCT AND CONCEAL THE CONCERTED ACTION BY CO-CONSPIRATORS 540. Beyond the refusal to investigate Jurado’s initial grievance, ODC and SCO has come in contact with information in Jurado’s pleadings and exhibits in his actions with the SCO that raise eyebrows, and there is no sign that they have attempted to investigate even when Jurado has made allegations of retaliation and misconduct by other attorneys besides Bethel.

VII.D.4. UNLAWFUL ACTS AND CONDUCT BY JUDGE JAMISON VII.D.4(a) DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF JURADO ON ACCOUNT OF HIS NATIONAL ORIGIN; COVER UP OF BETHEL’S MISCONDUCT AND THE COURT’S OWN OPINION ABOUT BETHEL DURING THE DEC. 20, 2013 HEARING; JUDGE JAMISON WILLFUL PARTICIPATION IN DEFENDANTS’ DEC 2013-JAN 2014 PLOT TO COMMIT FRAUD UPON THE COURT AND TO DEPRIVE JURADO OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS 541. Defendant Jamison’s first opportunity to conduct a full evidentiary hearing in Jurado’s and Lambert’s custody case came about on December 20, 2013. By then, Defendant Jamison had shown some degree of differential treatment against Jurado a week earlier when she knowingly issued an Emergency TRO that was non-compliant with court rules, allowed defendants Bethel and Smitherman to skirt multiple court rules during the TRO proceedings in detriment of Jurado, and also deprived Jurado from the opportunity to present his testimony as his own witness during the December 20, 2013 hearing. Still, the transcript of the proceeding shows that Judge Jamison was still not part of the conspiracy at that point, as it is evident throughout the transcript that her questions, comments and opinions were focused on the best interest of the child, and as a consequence, Judge Jamison was at odds with the conduct of Defendants Smitherman and Bethel, their actions and opinions in reference to the daycare

211

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 225 of 411 PAGEID #: 1815

situation, including the recent selection process of the new daycare and the mandatory daycare attendance that did not allow Jurado to care for his own child. The content of that proceeding and transcript is material evidence of Bethel’s misconduct, fraud and willful neglect of the welfare of the child. For details, refer to section VII.D.6(a) “Defendants Agreed to Give Perjured Testimony During the December 20, 2013 Court Proceeding” below. 542. Sometime between December 20, 2013 and the Emergency Hearing requested by Jurado on January 22, 2014, the first successful attempt by the conspirators to corruptly influence and interfere with the tribunal took place. The transcript of the January 22, 2014 proceeding shows an increase on the differential treatment of Jurado—as his first time acting pro se and Jamison’s evident aversion to his speech accent—and Defendant Jamison’s attempt to bury and obscure the proceeding from December 20, 2013 and its content. As Jurado attempted to impeach attorney Bethel’s testimony as GAL by referring to statements she made during the December 20, 2013 hearing and expose her fraudulent misrepresentations, Judge Jamison cut off his argument by ruling that any information from the Dec. 20, 2013 was off-limits given that the court lacked jurisdiction after Lambert’s voluntary dismissal of her Motion that was being heard at the time, even when Jurado insisted and objected. 543. Clear evidence exists that proves Judge Jamison’s actions to prevent Jurado from using the Dec. 20, 2013 testimony against Bethel to be pretextual: (1) In Ohio, a Court’s lack of Jurisdiction over a matter or action dismissed does not prevent the Court or limit its ability to use evidence, testimony or any other information or aspect of the dismissed action or

212

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 226 of 411 PAGEID #: 1816

proceeding for “collateral matters”, such as Contempt and Misconduct; (2) the Voluntary Dismissal of Lambert’s Motion filed on January 7, 2014 was invalid and unauthorized by law; (3) the Voluntary Dismissal of Lambert’s Motion filed on Jan. 7, 2014 was part of a plot to commit Fraud upon the court. For details, refer to section VII.D.6(b) “Concerted Action to Perpetrate Fraud Upon the Court and to Deprive Jurado of his Right to Due Process with the Filing of an Invalid and Unauthorized Voluntary Dismissal on January 2014 based on Precedent Set by State ex rel. Engelhart v. Russo, 2011-Ohio-2410” below. 544. In fact, Judge Jamison’s knowledge of the lack of validity of the dismissal became more obvious in two other distinct occasions when Jurado made references to the text under Ohio’s Civ. R. 41(A) subdivisions (1) and (2)—which allows Voluntary Dismissals by the Movant without an order from the court or agreement from the other parties as long as the proceeding has not started—when he made similar attempts to refer to the testimony from Dec. 20, 2013 and was prevented by Judge Jamison. There is no reasonable excuse or justification for Judge Jamison’s adamant stance to prevent Jurado from using her own opinion about Bethel’s actions and Bethel’s perjured testimony from the Dec. 20, 2013 proceeding.

VII.D.4(b) RETALIATION, COVER UP AND PREMEDITATED DEPRIVATION OF JURADO’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS DURING THE MARCH 13, 2014 PROCEEDING 545. From the point that Jurado start utilizing formal procedures for removing Bethel from the case and filing grievances against her starting in January 2014, the Juvenile Court’s position and role changed. The differential treatment received by Jurado as compared to Lambert, was elevated to hostility by the Court and overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. For

213

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 227 of 411 PAGEID #: 1817

example, Defendant Jamison, in open court, declared Jurado an adversary of the Court in retaliation after he raised his concerns and constitutional claims against the GAL, Defendant Bethel, and tried to remove her from the case. This drastic change occurred only days after ODC had dismissed Jurado’s grievance against Bethel.

Since then, Judge Jamison has

consistently acted hostile against Jurado to this day. Therefore, the aggression was not only in furtherance of the High Conflict scheme, but was also in retaliation against Jurado 546. The transcript of the March 13, 2014 captured Defendant Judge Jamison allowing attorney Petroff to present arguments for several minutes uninterrupted. “Mr. Petroff, that was a wonderful dissertation” was Judge Jamison’s interpolation before her attack against Jurado started. The transcript also shows how she preceded to overtly declared Jurado an adversary of the court without letting him talk. The transcript shows Jurado trying to present his argument and Judge Jamison cutting him off after every 2 or 3 words. As this treatment became a pattern from that point forward until the present day, Defendant Jamison would find an obvious pretext or an absurd explanation given that her actions do not have a reasonable excuse or justification. In this instance of the proceeding from March 13, 2014, Judge Jamison used the pretext that “the guardian must be paid in full for you to proceed. I think I was quite clear”. 547. Her excuse is marred with holes: (1) The previous order she issued on January 23, 2014 specifically stated that “The Court further ORDERS Defendant to begin payments to the Guardian Ad Litem immediately” and did not specify that Jurado had to pay the owed balance in full and did not specify any condition for Jurado to access the court, (2) in regards to making

214

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 228 of 411 PAGEID #: 1818

the payment to Bethel a condition for Jurado to file or schedule any Motions, state law and the US Constitution doesn’t allow a court to deny a party access to the court for failure to pay a financial obligation, (3) Jurado was not even allowed to explain that he had made 3 payments to Bethel totaling more than $2,300 since she issued the Entry in January 2014, even when he did not have enough to make ends meet, (4) Judge Jamison was required to investigate the reason for Jurado’s failure to make payments, if she truly made that order of having to pay Bethel in full, before enforcing summary punishment on Jurado, (5) Judge Jamison was required by the US Constitution and by state law to give proper notice with specific language if she was going to address any type of Contempt or Show Cause proceeding in regards to failure to pay the GAL. Given these facts, it is indisputable that Judge Jamison was retaliating because she did not have a reasonable excuse or justification. Most importantly, Judge Jamison was not only harming Plaintiff Jurado, but also harmed Plaintiff N.G., given that the two Motions scheduled for March 13, 2013 that she refused to hear, contained serious and substantial allegations of conduct by Bethel or the other Defendants that were in detriment of the child’s Best Interest and welfare—all for putting the interest of Defendant Bethel first and the objectives of the Conspiracy that included the protection of the co-conspirators including Bethel and the concealment of her unlawful conduct. VII.D.4(c)

DECEPTIVE CONDUCT AND OTHER JUDICIAL TRANSGRESSIONS DURING THE MANIPULATION OF JURADO’S ORIGINAL ACTION FILED WITH SCO AGAINST JUDGE JAMISON

548. As soon as Plaintiff Jurado filed an Emergency Motion to Stay with the SCO, Defendant Jamison issued a voluntary stay of proceedings to make Jurado’s Motion moot. As

215

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 229 of 411 PAGEID #: 1819

soon as the Motion for Stay was voluntarily dismissed for mootness, Defendant Jamison lifted the stay and continued with abuses and deprivation of rights, as described below. 549. On August 1 and 4, 2014, Jamison engaged additional manipulation of plaintiff action and claims in his complaint with the SCO, in order to render those claims moot by unlawful means. To moot Jurado’s claim regarding Child Support, Defendant Jamison held a hearing not giving Plaintiff enough time to prepare, and dismissed his Motion to Modify Child Support within minutes after the proceeding had started for pretextual reasons, such as lack of cooperation with opposing party in discovery, even though that was a separate matter and there was no evidence to support that finding other than Defendant Smitherman’s testimony. In fact, the allegations were set to be heard on a separate hearing at a later date. 550. Judge Jamison conducted the hearing for the removal of the GAL on August 1, 2014. Even with the disadvantage of (1) having no legal training or (2) experience representing himself in a full evidentiary hearing, and (3) not enough notice to properly prepare due to lack of service, Jurado was still able to prove misconduct by the GAL because of the overwhelming evidence and obvious facts: Through cross-examination of the GAL as a witness, it was set for the record that she didn’t have any defense for misleading the court in past proceedings, or for ignoring a Pediatrician that had asked to talk to the GAL on Jurado’s behalf about concerns with the infant child’s health. The court took a recess and set a continuance for August 27, 2014, even though Judge Jamison never intended to conclude the hearing as a form of participation in the scheme to protect Bethel’s unlawful conduct.

216

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 230 of 411 PAGEID #: 1820

551. During the same hearing to remove the GAL, an incident took place involving witness tampering and collusion in the courtroom between Defendants Lambert, Bethel and Smitherman.

The matter remained pending until January 2015, when Defendant Judge

Jamison participated in the cover up and protection of Bethel and Smitherman by restricting Jurado’s prosecution to the point that rendered him ineffective. 552. Judge Jamison lack of Candor and intentional misrepresentation is evident in statements to the SCO regarding “Vacated Motion” in her Motion to Dismiss filed with the Supreme Court of Ohio, case 2014-1225 filed in August 2014. In a dishonest manner, Judge Jamison misrepresented her intentions by stating that she had vacated the Motion for Contempt against Jurado. Then she acted in contradiction of her statement by holding the hearing of Contempt against Jurado in an impromptu manner the very same day the SCO granted her request for dismissal on September 24, 2014.

VII.D.4(d) SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE CONNECTED TO THE PROCEEDING TO HEAR MOTION TO MODIFY CHILD SUPPORT AND PLEADINGS FILED CONTAINING FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS 553. On August 4, 2014, Judge Jamison conducted a hearing for Jurado’s Motion to Modify Child Support, one that she never intended to hold or to complete. Judge Jamison felt compelled to do so only because of the Original Action Jurado had filed with the Ohio Supreme Court a few weeks earlier. 554. During the first minutes of the hearing, Judge Jamison learned that Jurado had brought a set of exhibits for the hearing and took a short recess to allow her bailiff to make copies. Even though the Bailiff has a copier machine right inside the courtroom, he decided to 217

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 231 of 411 PAGEID #: 1821

use another machine in the back offices because of the amount of pages that needed to be copied: More than 70 pages needed to be copied and from both sides. When he returned, he handed the set of copies to opposing counsel; and as he was returning the originals, Jurado asked if he had made copies for the court. The Bailiff responded “oh” and left the courtroom again to make a second set of copies. He then finally return and gave the original set to Jurado and the second set of copies to the court. 555. Judge Jamison resumed the proceeding and had Jurado on the witness stand with his exhibits. As Jurado was answering some questions while making arguments too as a Pro Se party, he realized that the documents were not in the right order and began to shuffle through the exhibits to find the ones he wanted to introduce at the moment. 556. Judge Jamison appeared impatient since her return from recess and immediately faulted Jurado for “not being organized as she had told him to be”. She then proceeded to summarily dismiss the hearing and Jurado’s motion, even when Jurado objected and asked repeatedly for a continuance for the following week. She just kept saying No, knowing that Jurado had been desperately waiting for at least 10 months for his motion to be heard. He had also made significant claims in his filings with the SCO supported by evidence, that he had been in a precarious situation and experiencing undue hardship created by Defendants and the litigation itself, while at the time having to pay $1,300 for child support each month to Lambert. 557. Judge Jamison knew that Lambert enjoyed a six figure salary, and had been receiving free advocacy from the GAL, defendant Bethel. She also knew that if Jurado was struggling

218

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 232 of 411 PAGEID #: 1822

financially, it was also affecting the child in one way or another given that the parents had 50/50 parenting time and shared custody. 558. Knowing that she and the Juvenile Court were about to file their Motion to Dismiss in Jurado’s action with the Ohio Supreme Court, Judge Jamison issued a Judgment Entry in the Juvenile Court docket on August 6, 2014, containing the Dismissal of Jurado’s Motion to Modify Child Support and further stated that “he produced only a spreadsheet, that he had prepared, as evidence of his income. He testified to business expenses” along with other misleading statements to prejudice to Jurado. The very next day, their Motion to Dismiss was filed for the dismissal of Jurado’s case in the SCO against the Judge, which contained only one exhibit: Judge Jamison’s fraudulent Judgment Entry that she willfully issued to deprive Jurado of his right to due process. 559. During the next 3 days, Jurado inquired and interviewed several Court employees in trying to find the exhibits that were provided to the court on Aug. 4, 2014, but they “appeared to have been misplaced”. Nevertheless, several of those employees made clear statements that they did remember the set of documents that were copied and given to opposing counsel and to the court and that “were certainly more than just a handful” and that the last time they were seeing is when the bailiff put them in the bench for the judge during the Aug. 4, 2014 hearing. 560. During the first part of the trial on January 2015, Defendant Lambert testified that she did receive a copy of Jurado’s exhibits on August 4, 2014, and even Judge Jamison during the same trial proceeding addressed the topic of the exhibits in support of Jurado’s income and

219

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 233 of 411 PAGEID #: 1823

expenses and acknowledged that her bailiff had made several copies of Jurado’s documents during the hearing for the modification of child support.

VII.D.4(e) FULL PARTICIPATION OF DEFENDANT JAMISON IN THE CONCEALMENT OF WITNESS TAMPERING AND COLLUSION IN OPEN COURT BETWEEN DEFENDANTS SMITHERMAN, BETHEL AND LAMBERT 561. On August 1, 2014, during the proceeding to hear Jurado’s Motion for the Removal of Bethel from the case as GAL, Bethel and Smitherman engaged in concealed texting using their phones with participation of Lambert while Bethel was in the witness stand, in what can be characterized as beyond simple misconduct: Collusion and witness tampering in open court. For details, refer to section VII.D.6(d) “Fraud Upon the Court by Witness Tampering and Collusion in Open Court by Defendants Smitherman, Bethel and Lambert with the Protection of Judge Jamison” below. 562. Although the usage of phones inside the courtroom is prohibited by statute and local court rules, Judge Jamison did not attempt to investigate any further or confiscated Bethel’s phone to enforce the law or to confirm if Bethel’s assertions were true, especially given that the subject matter of the hearing was to address Bethel’s misconduct, as the transcript shows. 563. Jurado filed two motions between September and November 2014 with details of the incident, legal arguments and evidence including notarized affidavits by witnesses that observed the unlawful conduct in the courtroom, but Jamison continued to be indifferent. 564. Jamison’s overt act to cover up and protect Defendants and their unlawful conduct can be seen in the proceeding held in January 2015, during which Judge Jamison was hostile

220

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 234 of 411 PAGEID #: 1824

against Jurado as he tried to make his case to address the incident of unlawful conduct from August 1, 2014, and consistently acted in favor of Smitherman. Judge Jamison restricted Jurado to such extreme that he was not allowed to call Smitherman as a witness, or make references to the text in the Rules of Conduct issued by the SCO. The transcript of the proceeding will show that Judge Jamison did not ask a single question or make any efforts to investigate the misconduct that occurred in her courtroom, unlike her aggressive advocacy against Jurado during proceedings implemented by Smitherman, Bethel, McCash and/or Lambert for Contempt or other actions against Jurado, during which Judge Jamison passionately questions Jurado and takes the role of prosecutor. VII.D.4(f)

FIRST OVERT ACT OF RETALIATION BY DEFENDANT JAMISON – JURADO SUMMONED TO BACKROOM AWAY FROM ANY METHOD OF RECORDING THE PROCEEDING TO FACILITATE JUDICIAL TRANSGRESSIONS AND ABUSE OF AUTHORITY AND OF JURADO’S CIVIL RIGHTS

565. After Plaintiff Jurado’s constitutional claims were made public through his filings with the SCO—including his deprivation of right to be heard at virtually every proceeding in front of Defendant Jamison (i.e. in contrast with the proceedings in front of Magistrate Matthews)— Jamison ordered Plaintiff into a back room away from the court room and without any option to record the proceeding, in order to further deprive Plaintiff of his rights without leaving evidence. The September 24, 2014 unrecorded proceeding in Chambers became a major controversy, given that Jamison intimidated and coerced Jurado and engaged in several other forms of abuse. This happened to be the only instance of an unrecorded proceeding in Chambers during the two years of the pendency of the case.

221

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 235 of 411 PAGEID #: 1825

VII.D.4(g) PLAINTIFF JURADO IS INTIMIDATED AND COERCED BY JUDGE JAMISON WHILE IN “CHAMBERS” AND ULTIMATELY FORCED TO SIGN A WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FORM 566. On September 24, 2014, during the unlawful proceeding in Chambers, Judge Jamison coerced Jurado into signing a form to give the appearance as if he voluntarily withdrew his motion to remove Bethel.

VII.D.4(h) SECOND OVERT ACT OF RETALIATION BY DEFENDANT JAMISON – IMPROMPTU CONTEMPT HEARING CONDUCTED WITH NO NOTICE AND WITHOUT AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OR A DEFENSE; JUDGE JAMISON IN THE ROLE OF PROSECUTOR AGAINST JURADO 567. Her acknowledgement that Contempt Show Cause hearing being conducted was not previously scheduled or service effected, Journal Entries confirming proceedings taking place in Chambers and without an option for recording with the intention to avoid review given Plaintiff’s previous constitutional due process claims. It resulted in a finding of Contempt and sentence of Jail time in a matter prohibited by court rules, state law and in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

VII.D.4(i)

THIRD OVERT ACT OF RETALIATION BY DEFENDANT JAMISON – JURADO IS DENIED A STAY HE SOUGHT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT AND LAW; JUDGE JAMISON’S WILLFULLY DEPRIVED JURADO OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW AND DUE PROCESS AND ORDERED HIS IMMEDIATE UNLAWFUL INCARCERATION

568. During the Contempt Compliance (purge) Hearing conducted on November 20, 2014, Jurado learned that Blythe Bethel had retained counsel to represent her in the juvenile case in matters that were still pending after her dismissal by the court as the appointed GAL, such as

222

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 236 of 411 PAGEID #: 1826

Jurado’s attempts to access the GAL file and the records of her investigations, her work and her communications throughout her appointment. In other words, an attorney hired another attorney to keep Jurado, who had been acting in a Pro Se capacity, at bay. Both were present and making up an audience to Jurado’s unlawful incarceration by Defendant Judge Jamison. 569. Judge Jamison first addressed Jurado’s Emergency Motion to Stay and summarily denied it over Jurado’s objections and arguments based on case law and related statutes. In the meantime, Defendant Smitherman while sitting next to Defendant Lambert, instigated the already existing hostility of Defendant Jamison toward Jurado by making fraudulent misrepresentations in regards to the payment of Bethel that the Judge had order the parties to make during the last September 24, 2014 proceeding. Smitherman willfully made a false assertion that Jurado had not paid Bethel and thus failed to comply with the court’s orders. Judge Jamison did not hesitate to play along and started questioning Jurado, as if taken the role of prosecutor, regarding the payment she ordered the parties to make to Bethel. 570. Jurado raised two objections: (a) the issue of Bethel’s payment was irrelevant to the hearing being conducted for contempt purge in regards to the payments allegedly owed to Lambert for the cost of the (manipulated) evaluation by Dr. Smalldon. (b) He was not required to prove his innocence about an accusation made without presenting any evidence in support of Smitherman’s allegations against Jurado. (c) Because the hearing was supposed to be only about the purge of the contempt finding for failure to make payments related to Dr. Smalldon’s evaluation, Jurado had not brought any proof or had come prepared to defend against the new

223

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 237 of 411 PAGEID #: 1827

accusations. As expected, Judge Jamison overruled Jurado’s objections and continued her hostile interrogative about the payments she ordered to be made to Bethel. 571. Finally Jurado decided to address Defendant Bethel who was sitting in the back of the courtroom between the audience, to ask her to confirm that he did pay her. Although Judge Jamison admonished Jurado for addressing a person not sitting on the witness stand, she allowed Bethel’s counsel to make an oral appearance, followed by his confirmation that Jurado had indeed paid Bethel. Nevertheless, Smitherman’s continued fraudulent and unlawful conduct had gone too far, even when Jurado had two pending motions to disqualify her, in which he documented in detail her fraudulent acts. But Jamison was clearly indifferent to Jurado’s motions and claims as her role in the conspiracy was, and has been, to protect all coconspirators and cover up their unlawful acts. 572. Soon after the topic of the payment to Bethel was addressed, Judge Jamison ordered Jurado to serve 5 days in jail and set the release bond amount to double the amount subject to the Contempt finding and purge hearing, knowing that he did not have the means to pay. Defendant Jamison then directed the deputy sheriff that was present in the courtroom to immediately detain Jurado and prepare him for booking. Jurado was instantly taken from the court room to an adjacent area, stripped off his personal belongings, searched and padded, handcuffed for the first time in his 44 years of life, and locked in a holding cell with other inmates in uniform. Defendants Lambert, Smitherman and Bethel watched with pleasure as they had finally seen the realization of their efforts to put Jurado behind bars by unlawful

224

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 238 of 411 PAGEID #: 1828

means, since their attempts to unjustly incarcerate him—for the sole purpose of inflicting harm and driven by racial hatred—started in November 2013, exactly a year earlier. 573. Later the same day, Judge Jamison recalled Jurado back to the courtroom and explained that the court had vacated its orders for lack of jurisdiction and he was free to go. Fortunately for Jurado, he had anticipated the outcome of the hearing and had filed an Emergency Motion for Stay with the Tenth District Court of Appeals, given that he had already filed his notice of appeal for Contempt finding and Purge proceeding. 574. Although the Stay sought by Jurado was also denied by the Appeals Court, the Court has not held the hearing again awaiting the result of the appeal of those orders, which are still pending adjudication.

VII.D.4(j)

DEFENDANT JAMISON’S COVERT PARTICIPATION AS LEAD IN CONSPIRATORIAL INCURSION INTO PLAINTIFFS’ HOME THROUGH CRIMINAL CONDUCT WITH PREMEDITATED ABUSE OF AUTHORITY UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW FOR THE PURPOSE OF WILLFULLY DEPRIVING PLAINTIFFS OF THEIR CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, WHICH RESULTED IN SUBSTANTIAL DISTRESS TO THE CHILD, AND DISTURBED AND ALARMED JURADO AND HIS ELDERLY PARENTS

575. On December 5, 2014, Judge Jamison fully engaged in joint action—through concealed

telephone

communications—with

co-conspirators

McCash,

Lambert

and

Smitherman to cause panic, intrude, torment, intimidate and demoralize plaintiffs Jurado, N.G. and N.G.’s elderly grandparents during the incursion into their home. Most importantly, the ultimate goal of their conspiratorial incursion was to corruptly influence Jurado and his family as witnesses in the upcoming civil rights action by causing fear and intimidation, and to

225

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 239 of 411 PAGEID #: 1829

discourage Plaintiff Jurado from the pursuit of instituting this action in Federal Court, as he had given notice to them multiple times. 576. Defendants Jamison’s premeditated abuse of authority under the color of law was part of the agreement entered with the Defendants named above to deprive Jurado’s family of their right to access the courts and to petition the government to remedy wrongs, their right to privacy in their home, their right to privacy of religion, plaintiffs’ right to the pursuit of happiness and Jurado’s fundamental right to parent his son 577. During the December 18, 2014 court proceeding, Judge Jamison stated in open court, and captured in the court transcript, that Plaintiff Jurado does not have the right to Privacy in his home during the pendency of the case—unlike other parents similarly situated. The absurdity of Judge Jamison order is evident considering that the case has been pending for almost 2.5 years with a GAL appointed during most of it; and for that length of time, a parent has to surrender his fundamental right to privacy and right to be left alone, especially in the situation when the parent did not institute the custody action. 578. Jurado’s parents that had come from Panama to visit and offer their help to Jurado for an extended period of at least 10 to 12 weeks decided to cut their visit short and flee town in fear after experiencing the incident from December 5, 2014 and after attending the court proceeding on December 18, 2014 that made it evident that Judge Jamison was not going to prevent more abuses, but on the contrary, was going to act in furtherance of the abuses.

226

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 240 of 411 PAGEID #: 1830

579. Defendant Jamison’s well-coordinated efforts with co-conspirators to ensure that Plaintiffs N.G. would be away from home, and away from his Dad, and to ultimately render her December 2014 entry clarifying the court’s position on the daycare issue ineffective and useless. 580. Defendant McCash itemized billing statement dated Dec. 31 2014 shows as evidence the extensive ex-parte communications between him and Defendant Jamison the day of the incursion—December 5, 2014. The conduct and statements made by the conspirators during the December 18, 2014 hearing also serves as evidence of their collusion to commit unlawful acts against Jurado’s family on December 5, 2014.

VII.D.4(k) JUDGE JAMISON’S OVERT ACTS DURING THE DEC. 18, 2014 COURT PROCEEDING TO CONCEAL THE UNLAWFUL AND CONSPIRATORIAL CONDUCT OF MCCASH, LAMBERT AND SMITHERMAN AND TO PROTECT DEFENDANTS FROM BEING PROSECUTED BY JURADO 581. Judge Jamison’s overt acts and conduct and during the December 18, 2014 proceeding to cover up the unlawful conduct of defendants McCash, Smitherman and Lambert, to conceal her own participation in the December 5, 2014 unlawful incursion and to protect them from any form of prosecution—all in furtherance of the conspiracy—are evident throughout the court transcript of the proceeding that show statements and conduct that only yield absurd results or don’t have a reasonable explanation. For details, refer to section VII.J.5 “Juvenile Court Entry dated Dec. 26, 2014, Drafted by McCash with Decisions Endorsed by Judge Jamison and Orders issued on Dec. 18, 2014

227

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 241 of 411 PAGEID #: 1831

582. The entry issued by Judge Jamison on December 26, 2014 shows substantial evidence of agreement and collusion between Defendants McCash, Lambert, Smitherman and Judge Jamison, for the reasons outlined below.

VII.D.4(l)

FIRST LAMBERT UNILATERALLY DETERMINES GENERAL RULES AND GUIDELINES TO BE FOLLOWED BY BOTH PARENTS, THEN ADOPTS AND ENFORCES THEM; SMITHERMAN AND LAMBERT PROCEED TO BADGER JURADO IF HE DOESN’T FOLLOW LAMBERT’S STANDARDS AS DE FACTO RULES; MCCASH FOLLOWS BY DRAFTING AND FILING A PROPOSE ORDER CONTAINING LAMBERT’S STANDARDS AND PRACTICES AS IF MANDATED BY THE COURT; JUDGE JAMISON ISSUES THE ORDER AS HERS WITHOUT HESITATION OR WITHOUT QUESTIONING THE REASONS

583.

VII.D.4(m) FORMALIZED JUDGE JAMISON’S RULING THAT JURADO DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND THAT MCCASH HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE UNANNOUNCED VISITS EVEN AFTER HE HAS COMPLETED HIS HOME VISITS/INVESTIGATION OR UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT DEVIATE FROM THE NORM 584.

VII.D.4(n) SHOWS THE INEXPLICABLE ORDER FOR JURADO AND LAMBERT TO FOLLOW THE LOCAL RULE FOR PARENTING TIME DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON 585.

VII.D.4(o) SHOWS THE PUZZLING DECISION TO MANDATE THAT THE NON-POSSESSORY PARENT WILL DETERMINE THE SCHEDULE FOR THE PARENTING HAVING THE CHILD TO FOLLOW DURING THEIR BREAK OR VACATION 586.

228

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 242 of 411 PAGEID #: 1832

587. Transcript Of Dec. 18, 2014 Court Proceeding With Judge Jamison Shows Multiple Overt Acts By Jamison and McCash In Furtherance Of The Conspiracy” below. 588. For example, when Jurado was close to establishing that the conduct of McCash was not in the best interest of the child—in regards to the harassment of the owner of the daycare utilized by Jurado, and his pursuit of the mandatory attendance of the child in Goddard School Hilliard miles away from Jurado, and even the enforcement of the mandatory attendance by the involvement of law enforcement in one instance in which most parents picked up their children early before a Holiday weekend, and Jurado did the same, which resulted in noncompliance with the (invalid and unconstitutional) order—Judge Jamison prevented Jurado from continuing by stating “we are not at the best interests yet”. 589. Another example is when Judge Jamison realized that Jurado’s parents were in court to present their testimony as witnesses of the Dec. 5, 2014 incident, she ruled that “this is not an evidentiary hearing”.

VII.D.4(p) CONCERTED ACTION ESCALATED BY DEFENDANTS JUDGE JAMISON, MCCASH, SMITHERMAN AND LAMBERT DURING THE DECEMBER 18, 2014 PROCEEDING TO PURPOSELY DEPRIVE JURADO OF PARENTING TIME, SEVER HIS BOND AND RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS SON AND CAUSE LONG-TERM PARENTAL ALIENATION 590. Prior to the end of the Dec. 18, 2014 proceeding, McCash and Judge Jamison made the decision to impose the local rule for parenting schedule during the Holidays, without a valid reason, given that the parents had never followed the local rule. The only explanation was that such course of action would separate Plaintiff Jurado from Plaintiff N.G. for 11 straight days

229

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 243 of 411 PAGEID #: 1833

during the holidays, when they have never been separated for even have of that length of time since the child was born. 591. In addition, Judge Jamison issued a standing order at the end of the proceeding to “enforce summary punishment by the suspension of his parenting time” if Jurado would fail to turn in HIPPA forms, effective from the moment McCash would file a Motion for Contempt. As expected, McCash denied getting all the forms and because Jurado allegedly missed 2 of the forms, his parenting time was suspended indefinitely and still is to the present day. 592. The combination of the 11 days of Holidays away and the unconstitutional order for summary punishment guaranteed the complete severance of the bond of parent and child bond and relationship.

VII.D.4(q) DEFENDANT JAMISON FIRST CONDONED FRAUD UPON THE COURT THAT HAD BEEN CAUSING SUBSTANTIAL HARM TO BOTH PLAINTIFFS, THEN ENGAGED IN UNLAWFUL COVER UP OF SMITHERMAN’S MISCONDUCT AND ABUSED HER AUTHORITY UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW TO PROTECT SMITHERMAN FROM FURTHER PROSECUTION FOR HER UNLAWFUL ACTS 593. On the Dec. 18, 2014 hearing, she stated “I don’t think you get to disqualify her attorney * * * I think you are trying to reach out into things that are totally irrelevant”.

VII.D.4(r) IN RESPECT TO DEFENDANT JAMISON’S ACTS AND UNJUSTIFIED CONDUCT HARMFUL AND ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFF MINOR N.G. 594. Defendant Jamison precludes Plaintiff from providing testimony and evidence during an Emergency hearing to address allegations that co-conspirators Lambert and Bethel were withholding medical care for the child, for an entire year.

230

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 244 of 411 PAGEID #: 1834

595. Defendant Jamison ignores imminent threat and refuses to hear Motion for Protective Order: In order to protect the identity and confidentiality of juvenile records, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Protective Order, given that co-conspirator Amy LeClair and Lambert were and are still trying restlessly to use the juvenile court records, which are confidential, to re-litigate the custody dispute under the disguise of the Civil law suit filed in the General Division of Franklin County Common Pleas Court—all in furtherance of the conspiracy. 596. Defendant Jamison engaged in deliberate indifference to the best interests of N.G. by refusing to provide relief to Plaintiff Jurado in respect to the Modification of Child Support. Dismissing the action and hearing, without finding out the impact of Plaintiff Jurado’s hardship on the child and the substantial disparity between the increased quality of living being enjoyed by Lambert compared to the reduced and strained quality of living imposed on Plaintiff Jurado, due to the excessive and overage payments above his child support obligation by law and the financial harm directly caused by the conspiracy. In furtherance of this deliberate indifference to the best interests of N.G., Jamison engaged in spoliation of evidence in regards to Plaintiff Jurado financial condition and income and to ultimately cause prejudice in his Action with the Supreme Court of Ohio. 597. The refusal by Defendant Jamison to include in an Entry the Court’s position in regards to the daycare restrictions and the confining of the child in a daycare facility without exceptions caused harm to the child for a year. On the transcript of the Dec. 18, 2014 court hearing, Defendant Jamison admitted that the issue was covered, discussed and clarified with the parties over and over (since December 2013). Yet, she deliberately waited a year to issue

231

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 245 of 411 PAGEID #: 1835

the opinion in an official entry, even when knowing that it continued to be a significant point of contention. 598. Defendant Jamison, again, engaged in deliberate indifference to the detriment of the child’s welfare and best interests by refusing to address the concerns and claims in Plaintiff Jurado’s Motion for Removal of GAL (Defendant Bethel). In furtherance of her deliberate indifference—as she placed last the interests of minor N.G., who has a Hispanic ancestry, while putting first the interests of Defendant Bethel and Defendant Lambert—she forces the disruption of the cross-examination of Bethel to protect her from being completely exposed as to her offenses. This deliberate act by Jamison in concert with the rest of the co-conspirators was not justified given the information, findings and facts revealed during the first portion of Bethel’s cross-examination and the fact that only 10% of the cross-examination was covered. Jamison knew of the potential damage to the conspiracy if the cross-examination would have been completed.

VII.D.5. UNLAWFUL CONDUCT AND ACTS BY DEFENDANT BETHEL 599. With few exceptions, most of Bethel’s unlawful conduct and acts were centered on fraud, perjury and premediated misrepresentations in court.

The fact that her constant

deception became a pattern of unlawful conduct engaged against her own interests, establishes unlawful discrimination, agreement and participation in the conspiracy.

232

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 246 of 411 PAGEID #: 1836

VII.D.5(a) COLLUSION TO COMMIT FRAUD UPON THE COURT FOR THE FABRICATION OF THE “OVERINVOLVED DAD” WHO SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO VISIT HIS SON AT BROOKSEDGE DAYCARE 600. Between September 2012 and January 2013 and prior to their first court appearance, Lambert successfully restricted Jurado’s access to the daycare facility to visit his son by unlawful means. During that time, she also claimed that the daycare staff and parents would have a problem with a parent spending time with his child while at the facility, even if it was just to feed the child his/her lunch. During that same period and prior to their first court appearance, Lambert successfully prevented Jurado from spending a full day with his son based on her rationale that it is more important for the child to follow the routine and scheduled offered at a daycare facility than for father-son to form a bond by spending uninterrupted quality time together. This occurred long before Defendant Bethel’s appointment as GAL in the custody case. 601. After his parenting rights were reinstated by the court on January 23rd, 2013, Jurado had normal interactions with the Brooksedge daycare staff and administrators. For the next 5 months, he continued picking up and dropping off his son at the daycare facility and visited his infant son during lunch/feeding times 2 times a week on average, during the few days that he was not working in Chicago, IL. 602. During the 5 months preceding the July 8 2013 hearing, there was not a single incident, event, dispute, argument or the like between Jurado and the daycare workers. However, he felt uncomfortable due to the fact that at least a couple of the workers were

233

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 247 of 411 PAGEID #: 1837

constantly communicating with Lambert to report Jurado’s activities that were being monitored. 603. Just days after her appointment as Guardian Ad Litem (GAL), Defendant Bethel assumed an adversarial position, showed unrestrained bias mainly motivated by racial/ethnical prejudice, and became an active advocate of Lambert and her interests. 604. During Bethel’s first 4 months in the case between March–June 2013, she established a set of rules for the child not to be with his father Defendant Jurado during the week, in support of Lambert’s efforts to limit Jurado’s time with his son. 605. Bethel’s restrictions affecting Jurado’s parenting time were intensely sought by her and by Lambert, despite the fact that Defendant Bethel was aware of Jurado’s amount of time out of state. 606. Much more than just being aware of Jurado’s weekly travel to/from Columbus and Chicago, Defendant Bethel interfered with and sabotaged the almost-successful negotiations of an interim parenting schedule change needed for Jurado to meet his obligations with his demanding work schedule in Chicago. 607. On July 8, 2013, during a court proceeding, Bethel alleged that she had a conversation with Defendant LeClair, Brooksedge owner, that same morning.

Defendant

Bethel reported to Magistrate Matthews that Plaintiff Jurado was visiting the daycare facility 2 times a day/5 days a week; that the workers felt intimidated and described Dad as

234

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 248 of 411 PAGEID #: 1838

aggressive; that other parents had been complaining about Dad, and that his visits were stressful to his son. 608. Based on the allegations of Ms. Bethel, both Ms. Bethel and the Magistrate labeled Jurado as an overinvolved father, and sought to have his access to the daycare restricted to only drop-offs and pick-ups. The GAL’s allegations of the frequent visits of 5 days a week contradicted her sound knowledge that Jurado had a job that required him to travel out of town every week for the previous 12 months. 609. Because the transcript of the Jul. 8, 2013 proceeding was not available to Jurado for several months, a day after the hearing Jurado obtained from Bethel, a written explanation of what was discussed in court regarding the topic of his visits to the daycare. 610. During a meeting that took place on September 6, 2013 between Jurado and Defendant LeClair at the daycare facility, the daycare owner made specific statements not only implicating but also accusing Bethel of deceptive conduct and of making premeditated misrepresentations in court.

Specifically, she asserted that almost every statement and

information the Bethel provided to the Magistrate during the July 8, 2013 proceeding that reportedly came from LeClair were not simple misunderstandings but outright fabrications. The video recording of the meeting between Jurado and LeClair, shows LeClair convincingly stating “LECLAIR: I never... No, I don’t think she misheard it. I think she made it up. I never used those words to describe you.” (Emphasis Sic.), referring to the alleged misrepresentations attorney Bethel made to the court, as she read the e-mail authored by Bethel to Jurado sent on July 10, 2013.

235

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 249 of 411 PAGEID #: 1839

611. If, only if, the declaration of the daycare facility owner casts some doubts, it is now incontrovertible the fact that the Bethel’s allegations of Jurado’s frequent visits of 2 times a day, 5 days a week contradicted her sound knowledge of his constant travel and time in Chicago for business every week for the past 12 months, as revealed by the transcript of the August 1, 2014 court proceeding conducted to hear Jurado’s motion to remove Defendant Bethel. In that instance, defendant Bethel’s fraudulent misrepresentations and other misconduct was exposed during Jurado’s cross-examination of Bethel. The official court transcript of the Aug. 1, 2014 proceeding memorialized her testimony under oath as she answered questions by Jurado: a. “You talked to me a lot about that” was attorney Bethel’s answer in regarding to her knowledge of Jurado’s work arrangement out of town. b. “I knew you flew back and forth between Chicago” was also her feedback when asked to review Jurado’s frequent flyer report issued by United Airlines. c. “I stated what I felt by those words that I just read to the Court. * * * I was not misleading, no.” was attorney Bethel’s answer to Jurado’s question about her statement “I am being told, coming twice a day, five days a week. It’s disruptive * * *” made in court during the July 8, 2013 proceeding, even when having full knowledge of Jurado being in Chicago 3-4 days a week, each week for preceding twelve months. 612. Finally, attorney Bethel was exposed as she tried to deceive the court one last time when she manipulated her answers to falsely indicate that the source of her testimony was

236

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 250 of 411 PAGEID #: 1840

personal knowledge or firsthand experience or observation. But as the court quickly learned, she was attempting to conceal the true source of her information, because it was mere inadmissible hearsay. But even if, arguendo, hearsay was admissible but the credibility of the daycare owner was in question, one should consider the details of LeClair’s accounts as she articulated them to Jurado during the taped meeting that occurred in September 2013. Any reasonable person that watches the video recording of the Sep. 6, 2013 meeting would be convinced that Defendant Bethel indeed fabricated the information and accusations she made against Jurado, given her knowledge of Jurado’s constant travel to Chicago. Q (Jurado). 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? A (Bethel). I knew that you were also spending a lot of time going to the daycare and an unusually - - a lot amount of time, Ari. Q (Jurado). You knew or you heard? Question - - yes or no. Did you know or did you hear? A (Bethel). I believe what the daycare director told me. (JUDGE JAMISON): So, the answer to the question is you heard. A (Bethel). Yes. (Emphasis Added.) Transcript of Court Proceeding – Hearing for Emergency Motion to Remove GAL, Aug. 1, 2014, at 88:11-25, 89:1-3. 613. Defendant Bethel made those highly accusatory statements to the court, even with full knowledge that they could not be true, as she was well aware of Jurado’s intense travel schedule to Chicago. However, she chose to withhold this key piece of information from the

237

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 251 of 411 PAGEID #: 1841

Court. As important is the fact that attorney Bethel was not acting alone. For example, the official transcript of the July 8, 2013 Court Proceeding reveals that both of Lambert’s counsel— attorney Smitherman and attorney Petroff—did not correct attorney Bethel or offered the whole truth to the court. In fact, Defendants Smitherman and Petroff representing Lambert reinforced Bethel’s deception and took part of the effort to misinform the court, with the ultimate goal of restricting Jurado’s parenting time and interfering with his rights.

VII.D.5(b) MISLEADS THE COURT ON HER INVOLVEMENT WITH SETTING DAYCARE RESTRICTIONS 614. Numerous emails from the Bethel, dating from April 2013 through July 2013, clearly show her directives and intent to set restrictions around daycare: Strict drop-off and pick-up times and No options for parents to stay home with the child even when they have a day off from work. Defendant Bethel made sure that any interim orders that were issued during this time included such stipulations. Since the July 8, 2013 hearing, Bethel made emphasis multiple times on her recommendation to restrict access/visits to the daycare. 615. During the December 20th 2013 hearing, when Judge Jamison asked whether the 9am-4pm restrictions were based on Bethel’s own recommendations as GAL or if that was mutually agreed upon by the parties, Defendant Bethel misled the court by stating “I really was not actually involved in the negotiation of the temporary order.”

238

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 252 of 411 PAGEID #: 1842

VII.D.5(c) GAL DECEIVED THE COURT WHEN QUESTIONED REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT DAYCARE SELECTION PROCESS AND EXISTENCE OF OPTION WITHIN REASONABLE DISTANCE OF BOTH PARENTS 616. During the December 20th 2013 hearing, when Judge Jamison asked the Bethel if the parties had looked at other options near interstate 270, Defendant Bethel misled the court by stating “none were provided”. 617. Defendant Bethel was well aware that the 2nd daycare proposed by Jurado was near 270 and within 9 minutes of Mom’s work location, as his proposal had explicit references to the advantages of this location for both parents. 618. Defendant Bethel also did not disclose to the Court that she had decided for the geographical location to be in the Hilliard vicinity, in support of Lambert’s recommendation for the location of the proposed new daycare, especially for reasons that were not valid. 619. Defendant Bethel had good reasons to withhold information from the court: the daycare selection process, which took place in October 2013 after the infant child was permanently expelled by the Brooksedge facility, is still to-date one of the best examples of GAL BIAS, deprivation of Jurado’s constitutional due process rights and parental rights, as well as complete disregard for the best interest of the child. In this instance, Bethel and Lambert conspired to choose a daycare location that was as far as possible from Jurado, in the westmost point of Franklin County, and at the start of winter season which meant Jurado would have to drive 100 miles total each day through snow on his parenting days with his son.

239

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 253 of 411 PAGEID #: 1843

620. In furtherance of the conspiracy spearheaded by Defendant Bethel and Lambert, Defendant McCash, through harassment and intimidation, managed to have the daycare facility utilized by Jurado suddenly sever their agreement with Jurado, leaving the child without daycare during Jurado’s parenting days. It only took Defendant McCash two months since his appointment as GAL to accomplish what Defendant Bethel and Lambert fervorously sought after for an entire year.

Immediately after the child was expelled, Defendant McCash

proceeded to advocate for the child to be confined to the facility in the west-most point of Franklin County, which was chosen by Lambert and Defendant Bethel a year earlier, even when there was plenty of evidence that such recommendation was not in the best interest of the child. Maintaining the child at the daycare facility chosen by Lambert 5 days a week would implicate that the child’s routine and daily schedule would be significantly disrupted due to the amount of miles required to commute between Father’s home and the daycare facility.

VII.D.5(d) WILLFUL NEGLECT AND BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE AND PROTECTION OF PLAINTIFF N.G.’S WELFARE AND BEST INTERESTS, FAILURE TO REPORT POSSIBLE CHILD MALTREATMENT, AND DISPARATE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF N.G. 621. There is substantial evidence, including recordings and dozens of e-mails showing Bethel’s criminal indifference to the risks minor N.G. was being exposed to, and the intentional or unintentional neglect by Lambert. Every act and conduct engaged by Bethel in furtherance of the conspiracy against Jurado and for discriminating against him had an adverse effect of Plaintiff N.G. also, and Bethel knowingly continue her conduct of neglecting and being indifferent to his well-being.

240

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 254 of 411 PAGEID #: 1844

VII.D.5(e) INTENTIONAL AND MALEVOLENT UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST JURADO ON THE BASIS OF HIS SKIN COLOR AND NATIONAL ORIGIN 622. There is abundant evidence that cannot be disputed regarding Bethel’s racism and ethnic bias, and her hostile and harmful conduct against Jurado. For specific facts and detailed allegations, refer to section VI.C above dedicated to demonstrating Bethel’s unlawful conduct and racial discrimination against Jurado.

VII.D.6. UNLAWFUL ACTS PERPETRATED JOINTLY BY DEFENDANTS LAMBERT, BETHEL, PETROFF AND SMITHERMAN VII.D.6(a) DEFENDANTS AGREED TO GIVE PERJURED TESTIMONY DURING THE DECEMBER 20, 2013 COURT PROCEEDING 623. During the December 2013 Hearing, Bethel gave misleading statements and perpetrated perjury when (1) Judge Jamison asked whether the imposed 9am-4pm daycare restrictions [and mandatory daycare attendance] were based on the GAL's recommendations or if that was mutually agreed upon by the parties and Bethel answered “I really was not much involved in the negotiation of the temporary order”, even though she knew she had a substantial involvement and influence on the negotiations and agreement regarding the July 2013 Temporary Orders. Both Petroff and Smitherman re-enforced Bethel’s perjured testimony by making statements such as “I think it was Massucci, Jurado’s counsel at the time, who negotiated the temporary orders”. Dozens of e-mails prove that, in close coordination with her co-conspirators, Bethel intensely pursued her directive of mandatory daycare attendance, even reaching an extreme when Bethel and Lambert pressured Jurado to drive with Plaintiff N.G. across down during a snow storm solely for the purpose of complying with the mandatory daycare attendance, even when government officials had declared December 6, 2013 a snow 241

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 255 of 411 PAGEID #: 1845

day and closed all schools in central Ohio. It remains undisputed that the true reasons for the pursuit and enforcement of mandatory daycare attendance have been to keep Jurado from spending time with Plaintiff N.G. and to deprive both Plaintiffs of their fundamental and constitutional rights; (2) Judge Jamison asked, within the context of the daycare selection process that the parties underwent six weeks earlier, if the parties had “looked at other options near 270 and Bethel answered “none were provided” while being well aware that both daycare facilities proposed by Jurado were either near I-270 or almost adjacent to I-270 and within nine (9) minutes of Lambert place of employment, which were reasonable options presented by Jurado, unlike the one imposed by Lambert and Bethel. Bethel also withheld key facts, such as her recommendation and decision to stay within the Hilliard vicinity consistent with her absolute support and advocacy of Lambert’s interests throughout the case. Bethel knew that choosing Hilliard as a geographical boundary leg to absurd results in respect to the daycare selection and to the best interests of the child. Defendants Lambert, Smitherman and Petroff also made similar statements in unison with Bethel’s dishonesty; (3) Bethel made accusations about Jurado’s conduct in direct relation to the Brooksedge lawsuit that were untrue and based on hearsay, while giving the appearance that she had first-hand experience about those facts.

VII.D.6(b) CONCERTED ACTION TO PERPETRATE FRAUD UPON THE COURT AND TO DEPRIVE JURADO OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WITH THE FILING OF AN INVALID AND UNAUTHORIZED VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL ON JANUARY 2014 BASED ON PRECEDENT SET BY STATE EX REL. ENGELHART V. RUSSO, 2011-OHIO-2410 624. On December 13, 2013, Smitherman and Bethel engaged in misconduct during the ex-parte hearing: (1) Used irrelevant facts and information solely to prejudice Jurado, including the lawsuit against Jurado instigated by themselves and that was instituted as a sub-scheme to 242

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 256 of 411 PAGEID #: 1846

target Jurado; (2) Mislead the Court about the whereabouts of Jurado’s Counsel, and the fact that this date chosen for the proceeding was premeditated, as they knew attorney Keith Golden, Jurado’s counsel, was on a one-day trip out of town and while being aware that the circumstances would have allowed the Ex-Parte Hearing to occur the following Monday without posing any risks for the child, (3) Withheld from the Court key information about the daycare selection process, (4) did not issue service of the pleadings or included a Certificate of Service, (5) No notice was given to attorney Golden, (6) No logic or reason existed to support the notion that a given daycare placement for a child’s out-of-home care should be considered an emergency, especially if it is a state-licensed facility, (7) No review hearing was set or scheduled as court rules require, (8) Did not disclose to the court that it was Defendant Bethel’s idea to approach the court on an emergency basis, even when attorney Smitherman is the one that filed the emergency motion, (9) Misrepresented the reasons for Jurado’s attempts to enroll the child in a second concurrent daycare facility. 625. On December 20, 2013 during the TRO Follow Up hearing, defendants engaged in substantial misconduct, made fraudulent misrepresentations and gave perjured testimony, all with the goal of prevailing in the matter of extending the TRO and obtaining a permanent order to force Plaintiff N.G. to attend Goddard School of Hilliard II and to prevent Jurado from changing or dual enrolling the child in another daycare facility.

Defendants’ interest in

achieving these specific objectives was significant given that defendant The Goddard School of Hilliard II had and still have an important role within the Master Conspiracy and in one or more of the subsidiary schemes, and given that the mere location of the facility imposed undue

243

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 257 of 411 PAGEID #: 1847

burden upon Jurado and compounded the harm they were already inflicting on him in numerous other ways. 626. Prior to going into recess for the December 20, 2013 proceeding, the court set a condition for the recess and for having Jurado agree to keep the status quo until the proceeding would resume on January 8, 2014: That both parents had to research and come up with proposals for a new daycare to be chosen somewhere between both parents geographical areas, given that “this is a Shared Parenting situation”, as stated by Judge Jamison at the time. Defendants Bethel, Lambert and Smitherman agreed to—or pretended to agree to—the conditions set by the Court because they knew that such course of action would allow them to continue imposing undue burden on Jurado, and would interfere with Jurado’s ability to earn for a living (as it was already established that the driving from/to Goddard School in Hilliard precluded him from accepting more hours of work his client was requesting of him), even when their intentions were to never complete the hearing. 627. Less than 24 hours later, during an exchange period where parents transfer care and responsibility of the child for their assigned parenting time, Lambert made a comment to Jurado about the Court’s “unilateral decision” to recommend a new daycare center equally accessible by both parents. 628. On December 31, 2013 and with full knowledge by both of her attorneys and Bethel, Lambert acted in denial that the Court had issued an order with an assignment for both parents, which confirmed that neither Lambert nor Bethel or Smitherman had any intentions to obey it. Even attorney Bethel, as the GAL then, had shared her dissatisfaction with the outcome

244

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 258 of 411 PAGEID #: 1848

of the December 20, 2013, which was close to its conclusion, except for Jurado’s testimony that was pending. On her e-mail from 12/31/2013 to Jurado, Lambert stated “It is not my understanding that there are any deliverables for court.” 629. On January 7, 2014, less than 24 hours before the Dec. 20, 2013 proceeding was scheduled to resume from recess, the hearing and Lambert’s Motion got dismissed without an agreement by all parties or order of the court. Lambert, Smitherman and Petroff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, which contain references to Ohio Civil Rule 41(A), to withdraw their ExParte Motion for Restraining Order. The fact that Lambert, Bethel, and attorneys Smitherman and Petroff knew of the circumstances and Jurado’s financial situation, combined with a preponderance of evidence that Defendants chose the Goddard School of Hilliard II daycare only because of its location being the most distant point west from Jurado in Franklin County, and because of the conscious participation and acceptance of a key role of Defendants the Goddard School of Hilliiard-II and Wilson in the Master Conspiracy, one can only conclude that their delay in filing the invalid Civ.R. 14(A) withdrawal—that took place as late as the day before the hearing was scheduled to resume—and the actual unlawful Dismissal of the Motion and Hearing were premeditated tactics to cause as much harm to Jurado as possible. For example, between December 13, 2013 and January 8, 2014, Jurado was restrained by the conditional court order from enrolling the child in a second daycare, resulting in his inability to accept and work more billable hours for his client.

245

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 259 of 411 PAGEID #: 1849

630. The premeditated course of action was also intended to prevent Jurado from taking the stand and to avert the court from making an unfavorable ruling for Lambert in regards to the controversy of the daycare selection. 631. As a result, Jurado lost the opportunity to (i) be heard, (ii) rebut the false accusations made by Bethel and opposing party, (iii) impeach Bethel’s testimony, (iv) make the court aware of instances of intrinsic and extrinsic fraud, misrepresentation and other misconduct by Defendants. These assertions could have been easily proven with the evidence Jurado had brought to court, including a binder containing several hundred pages of exhibits, visual aids, and video/audio recordings that were ready to be presented or played in either the initial December 20, 2013 proceeding or Part II of the hearing scheduled for January 8, 2014 that never took place. 632. The immediate result was not only the violation of Jurado’s due process rights, but also created substantial prejudice against him with the court, as it became evident during the next proceedings, given this court’s attitude toward him. 633. During the scheduled Status Conference in front of the Magistrate that same Tuesday January 8, 2014, which took place after the invalid dismissal of the full hearing, Petroff asked the Magistrate with Bethel and Smitherman’s support—in open court and with insistence—to sua sponte grant Lambert a Restraining Order to prevent Jurado from enrolling the child on a different or second daycare. The magistrate—being fully aware of the opinion that the Court had reached during the December 20, 2013 hearing, and considering the objections made by

246

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 260 of 411 PAGEID #: 1850

Jurado’s attorney, Keith Golden—denied the oral motion by Defendants.

In essence,

Defendants engaged in the practice of “Judge shopping” in furtherance of the conspiracy. 634. During the January 22, 2014 hearing for Jurado’s Motion for Emergency Custody, Judge Jamison learned from Jurado about the oral motion that was made by Defendants to Magistrate Matthews on 1/8/14, and did not take it well. However, Petroff’s explanation that he made such move to please his client, Lambert, who had asked him to try that approach, seemed to have justified that behavior to Judge Jamison’s Satisfaction. In reality, Judge Jamison had already been contacted and influenced by unnamed defendants to reprimand the Judge for her censure of Bethel’s actions and opinions and for the purpose of protecting Bethel from any claims arising out of her testimony during the December 20, 2014 hearing as well as any future action against Bethel.

VII.D.6(c) DEFENDANTS AGREED TO INTERFERE WITH JURADO’S PARENTING DURING 2014 MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND THROUGH UNLAWFUL MEANS, SUCH AS THE FILING OF A FALSE POLICE REPORT 635. On May 24, 2014, Defendant Lambert, with full support and guidance from her coconspirators, filed a false police report with the intent to disturb, disrupt and intrude in Jurado’s Parenting Time with Plaintiff N.G. The false police report claimed that Jurado was interfering with her parenting schedule and that he was keeping the child from her, even when Lambert was well aware of the stipulations of the orders that were in effect at the time, since they had been following them for a year.

247

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 261 of 411 PAGEID #: 1851

VII.D.6(d) FRAUD UPON THE COURT BY WITNESS TAMPERING AND COLLUSION IN OPEN COURT BY DEFENDANTS SMITHERMAN, BETHEL AND LAMBERT WITH THE PROTECTION OF JUDGE JAMISON 636. On August 1, 2014, during the proceeding to hear Jurado’s Motion to Remove Bethel as the GAL, defendants Bethel and Smitherman with the participation of Lambert engaged in concealed communications via phone SMS messages (“texting”) while attorney Bethel was still on the witness stand. 637. The official transcript of the August 1, 2014 proceeding shows Jurado asking Bethel about her usage of her phone during the brief court recess in the middle of Bethel’s testimony as a witness. The transcript shows Jurado asking questions about the unlawful communications between Bethel and Smitherman and also telling Judge Jamison about the incident. The transcript also shows Defendant Bethel admitting that she was using her phone but to communicate with her husband. 638. Although the usage of phones inside the courtroom is prohibited by statute and local court rules, Judge Jamison did not attempt to investigate any further or confiscated her phone to enforce the law or to confirm if Bethel’s assertions were true as the transcript shows, especially given that the subject matter of the hearing was to address Bethel’s misconduct. 639. Following the hearing, Jurado obtained two sworn affidavits notarized by a U.S. State Department officer of those present in the courtroom that witness the unlawful misconduct by Bethel, Smitherman and Lambert and filed them with the Juvenile Court along with a Motion to Disqualify Counsel filed on September 25, 2014 and a supplemental Motion to Disqualify Counsel filed on November 18, 2014. In his filings, Jurado documented in detail the evidence 248

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 262 of 411 PAGEID #: 1852

and accounts of the incident from August 1, 2014, and also included case law that established the expected action of the court in cases of texting with the witnesses while on the stand. But Judge Jamison continued to be indifferent to his claims and allowed Smitherman to continue making fraudulent statements and unfounded accusations against Jurado in every single court proceeding after August 1, 2014. 640. On January 2015, Jurado was finally allowed to have a hearing on his Motions. But consistent with Judge Jamison’s conduct throughout the case, he restricted Jurado to an extreme—including the preclusion of cross-examination of Smitherman as the main witness, and her refusal to allow him to read and make references to text in the Rules of Conduct of the State—that rendered Jurado ineffective. Jurado realized that his efforts were in vain and declined to continue the prosecution of his motion. The transcript of the proceeding from January 2015 will show that Defendant Jamison did not make any effort to question Smitherman or Lambert in connection to the incident from August 1, 2014, even when court rules allow it, and even when Judge Jamison engages in intense questioning of Jurado on every proceeding brought against him by Smitherman, Bethel or Lambert, such as the two contempt proceedings to date.

VII.D.7. UNLAWFUL ACTS BY DEFENDANT MCCASH VII.D.7(a)

DEFENDANT MCCASH MALICIOUS AND COORDINATED “UNANNOUNCED VISITS” TO CORRUPTLY INFLUENCE JURADO AND HIS FAMILY AS WITNESSES IN THE UPCOMING FEDERAL ACTION BY INTIMIDATION

641. Throughout the afternoon of December 5, 2014, Defendant McCash made multiple attempts of incursion into Plaintiffs home in an aggressive and intimidating matter to ultimately

249

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 263 of 411 PAGEID #: 1853

deprive Plaintiffs of quality time, to cause distress and harass. In fact, the intrusion into Plaintiffs’ private life was a way to retaliate for Plaintiff Jurado’s failure to follow his absurd mandate that Plaintiff Jurado had to drive 100 miles in one day just to keep his son confined to a daycare facility that was as far as possible from their home, which was the goal of getting the child expelled from the Westerville daycare center and one of the main objectives of the conspiracy. 642. December 5, 2014 was probably the instance with the most harm inflicted for a single day since the discrimination and conspiracy started, with McCash as the primary actor: McCash caused great distress for all four, from the 2 ½ year old child, to the almost-70 year old grandparents and Plaintiff Jurado as well. He specially alarmed N.G.’s elderly grandparents, who took turns to call the emergency line. In addition, all three adults had started their Holy Rosary while the child finished his nap, and McCash both interrupted them and stared at their rosaries when he finally forced them to open the door. During the few moments Plaintiff Jurado opened the door to confront him, he quickly scanned the living room, kitchen and as far as he could see. On this day, Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to privacy, against unreasonable and unauthorized searches and to privacy of beliefs were all violated among other rights. In the recently issued Guardian Ad Litem’s report that Defendant McCash filed with the court on January 7, 2015, he found noteworthy a “religious candle”. VII.D.7(b)

Malevolent And Intentional Acts Of Unlawful Discrimination By DEfendant McCash

250

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 264 of 411 PAGEID #: 1854

643. Defendant McCash censured Plaintiff Jurado for having in his living room a Time magazine’s edition of the Civil Rights movement issued in early 2014 with Dr. Martin Luther King in the cover. As seen in the illustration below, the heading on the magazine’s cover reads “Civil Rights in America, The Road to Equality and the Dream today”. McCash censured Plaintiff Jurado twice, for having this magazine at his home. First during the court hearing on December 18, 2014, and also in his recently issued Guardian Ad Litem report. He used it in the context of discrimination (or against it); especially after Plaintiff Jurado filed in the Juvenile Court his Notice of Filing for Relief under Title VI in

Figure 5 - Scanned cover of the "Civil Rights Magazine" found by Defendant McCash at Plaintiffs home, and later used against Plaintiff in Guardian report and to censure him in open court.

Federal Court. Defendant McCash has established through his conduct in the short time period of his assignment that he does not believe in the Civil Rights Movement, any such thing as discrimination and claims emerging for related wrongs should never be taking seriously. 644. Defendant Jamison concerted unjustified action to take child away from Father for weeks at a time: McCash choose to enforce the local rule for parents to follow regarding parenting time during Holidays. This occurred toward the end of the December 18, 2014 hearing and against reason or common sense, especially given the fact that the parents have never followed such schedule because it was one of the few things they could agree on since case turned high conflict. It was obvious that such last minute recommendation was solely because mother Lambert would end up having the child 11 days straight over the holiday

251

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 265 of 411 PAGEID #: 1855

break—when the child is away from either parent only 2 days at a time, and with a few exceptions 4 days at a time 645. Sworn affidavits of witnesses who describe the collusion and witness tampering that took place in open court between Defendant Bethel and opposing counsel, video recorded statements of a key witness accusing Defendant Bethel of deceptive conduct, fabricating information and making premeditated misrepresentations to the court, and a more recent transcripts of proceedings that memorialized the cross-examination of Defendant Bethel during which key facts were settled, such as Defendant Bethel not having a valid reason for ignoring a Pediatrician that had asked to talk to her on behalf of Plaintiffs about concerns with the infant child’s health, and not having a defense for misleading the court in past proceedings. Concurrent with the misconduct engaged by Defendant Bethel, the Court and Defendant Judge Jamison started adopting an arbitrary and unreasonable attitude with lack of impartiality, which appeared to increase in proportion to Plaintiff Jurado’s efforts to address his constitutional claims against the Guardian Ad Litem and to remove her. The court’s posture—in clear display of favoritism for three white-American females, Defendant Bethel, attorney Erika Smitherman, and the child’s mother, and antagonism against a Hispanic father—intensified rapidly until it reached a full scale retaliation scheme which included the denial of Plaintiff Jurado’s rights to defend himself, present evidence, to retain private counsel, and to get a court-appointed counsel. After twelve months of causing mental anguish to Plaintiff Jurado due to the imminent threat of being incarcerated unjustly and for retaliation, Defendants Judge Jamison and attorney Bethel, in collusion with third parties, finally succeeded in part when they deprived

252

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 266 of 411 PAGEID #: 1856

Plaintiff Jurado with the oldest and most protected liberty interest: His recent unlawful detention and incarceration. 646.

Given that the unlawful incarceration was short-lived due to the surfacing of an

Emergency Motion to Stay filed with the Tenth District Court of Appeals, the court escalated their aggression and retaliation by having Defendant McCash engage in acts of intimidation and harassment against the daycare owner used by Plaintiff Jurado, resulting in the immediate severance of their service agreement with Plaintiff Jurado. It has been well established through court filings, proceedings and incidents outside the courtroom that having the child removed from that facility was an objective intensely pursued for almost 12 months by Defendant Bethel along with third parties. A few days after the child was expelled from the daycare facility, Defendant McCash proceeded to intimidate and harass Plaintiff Jurado at his home, causing distress to the child, his elderly grandparents, and to Plaintiff.

The alarming effects of

Defendant McCash may be observed in the recorded 911 calls made by Plaintiff and his parents after Defendant McCash came to their home multiple times, and intensely banged on glass doors and windows, appearing as if he wanted to force his way in. Despite successful contact with Plaintiff over the phone, and the continued requests by Plaintiffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; parents for Defendant McCash to explain his presence (without opening the door), McCash finally desisted when Plaintiff was compelled to open the door allowing McCash to see who was inside their home. Plaintiff asked McCash to leave the premises and donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t come back because the police had been called.

253

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 267 of 411 PAGEID #: 1857

VII.D.8. UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES, CONDUCT AND ACTS BY DEFENDANTS BROOKSEDGE, LECLAIR, ALEXANDER-SAVINO, GODDARD-SCHOOL OF HILLIARD II, WILSON AND EAGLE VII.D.8(a) MISREPRESENTATION RELATING TO PROVISION OF CHILD CARE IN VIOLATION OF PROHIBITIONS PURSUANT TO ORC 2919.244 647. Both child care providers, Brooksedge Daycare and the Goddard School of Hilliard-II, their employees, administrators, legal representatives and owners, including Defendants Wilson, Eagle, Alexander-Savino, and LeClair, have knowingly misrepresented facts and information that relates to the provision of child care, substantially affecting the health and safety of children under their care, against the prohibitions under ORC 2919.224, a misdemeanor of the first degree. 648. As the evidence show, day care defendants have engaged in these unlawful and criminal acts multiple times during the time period of their participation in the conspiracy. 649.

VII.E. ONGOING CONSPIRACY SUCCESSFUL SO FAR 650. These account of the recent events are only an example of the systematic oppression, intimidation and harassment that Plaintiff Aristides Jurado has been subjected to for the past 21 months, inflicting emotional distress and other types of injuries and has resulted in two trips to the Emergency Room, has created an extreme hardship for Plaintiffs that has driving them to poverty requiring the financial assistance of friends, family and a not-for-profit charitable organization.

254

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 268 of 411 PAGEID #: 1858

651.

Defendant Blythe Bethel, a licensed family law attorney, has been at the center of

the conspiracy to interfere with and against Plaintiff Juradoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rights since her appointment as Guardian Ad Litem by the Juvenile Branch of Franklin County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Division. The conspiracy has been successful for the most part due to (a) Defendant Bethelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s abuse of the powers inherent as a court-appointed officer, (b) the long-standing pattern and practice of recipient programs (Defendants) to discriminate when providing services to their beneficiaries based on their sex, but mainly on their race and ethnicity, (c) the active participation of key actors, including the court-appointed custody evaluator, the petitioner in the custody case (the childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mother), counsel for the petitioner, Defendant Judge Jamison, and other parties that have had a peripheral influence on the custody case but that are non-parties to the case, (d) the financial constraints of Plaintiff Jurado, which have been exacerbated by the acts and omissions of Defendants, (e) a common motivating factor among all co-conspirators based on their conviction that Hispanics do not stand on equal ground with the rest of the population in terms of constitutional and statutory rights and that Mothers have more entitlements than fathers in matters of child custody and family law, (f) and the pre-existing scheme developed and perfected by Defendant Blythe Bethel and Dr. Jeffrey Smalldon over the years to pre-determine and secure the outcome of custody cases in favor of the party of their choosing based on unlawful criteria or self-serving objectives, such as financial gain or intentional unlawful discrimination. 652. As of the filing of this first amended complaint, Plaintiffs have been separated for more than three months, and Jurado has been denied his right to the use of Open Door policy

255

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 269 of 411 PAGEID #: 1859

at daycare facilities that is available to all parents in the state. Currently he is only allowed to see his son while at daycare ONE HOUR A WEEK, on the day and time of the daycare’s choosing.

VII.F. EVIDENCE SHOWING CONSPIRACY IS SUBSTANTIAL— HUNDREDS OF AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDINGS 653. Only about two dozen of the hundreds of recordings available have been reviewed and used so far for evidence showing unlawful conduct. The rest are still to be reviewed and transcribed. Below are just some examples of the recordings reviewed that substantiate the allegations in this action.

VII.F.1. RECORDINGS INVOLVING DEFENDANT OOAG VII.F.1(a) RECORDING FROM OCTOBER 22, 2013 SHOWING STATE OFFICIAL REPRESENTING DEFENDANT OOAG INTIMIDATING JURADO OVER THE PHONE AND INSTILLING FEAR 654. The recording from October 22, 2013 shows the participation of Defendant OOAG in acts of discrimination as well as in overt acts in furthering the conspiracy, by capturing a state official under Ohio’s Office of the Attorney General intimidating Jurado over the phone, and instilling fear in him as part of achieving one of the objectives of the conspiracy to cause a chilling effect on Jurado’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and ultimately preventing Jurado from pursuing the filing of grievances and petitioning the state government and judiciary for redress of the wrongdoings being committed by the conspirators. The recording captured the state official telling Jurado “I don’t want to hear of what you have to say” and making threats of criminal prosecution to Jurado if he would continue making accusations against the conspirators for putting the child’s health and safety at risk. He stated that he is also a law enforcement officer and he was doing Jurado “a favor” by warning him. 256

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 270 of 411 PAGEID #: 1860

655. The background of the phone call started in June-July of 2013 during Jurado’s second wave of attempts to reach out for help after he had enough information to show collusion between defendants Bethel and Lambert and his concerns about the child. In one instance, he reached out to defendant OOAG and spoke to several individuals in different sections of the agency. One of the individuals was a member of the BCI section. At that time, the agent explained that given the nature of Jurado’s concerns, he didn’t think BCI or OOAG could help. 656. Around September-October 2013 during his third wave of attempts to seek redress and stop the misconduct, Jurado was referred to the juvenile team of the Westerville Police department by a fellow parishioner, given the frequent visible head injuries the child had been sustaining during that period. Jurado met with detective (then officer) Chris Davis, who was very helpful even though the department did not have jurisdiction over any aspect of the case or over Jurado’s claims about the health and safety of his son. After reviewing a few items of the many Jurado had collected for evidence, Officer Davis urged Jurado to get Law Enforcement involved and even Children Services. Jurado then proceeded to explain that his dilemma was the fact that he was convinced that Defendant Bethel and others had been successful at interfering with the state and local governments because of their influence and reach of their network. Therefore Jurado was hesitant or uncertain as to which law enforcement agency to engage that would be the least susceptible to external influence or unlawful interference. Officer Davis was unable to recommend any specific agency but emphasized that given what he had seen, law enforcement should be involved. Jurado felt that Officer Davis made a significant contribution by giving Jurado reassurance that, as first time dad, he wasn’t overreacting to the facts or the circumstances surrounding the incidents and injuries to the child. 257

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 271 of 411 PAGEID #: 1861

657. After a few weeks, Jurado decided to give BCI a second try to at least obtain some guidance in regards to which law enforcement agency to use and address his concerns of unlawful interference. He then called and left a voice message on the week of October 14, 2013 for the same individual he had talked to a few months before within the BCI section. The following week, on October 21, 2013, the BCI agent returned Jurado’s call just as Jurado was headed to an important work meeting. Nevertheless, Jurado delayed his arrival to the meeting by a few minutes and briefly explained to the BCI agent his concerns about the well-being of his son, Defendant Bethel’s abuse of power and misconduct, and concerns of interference with any possible law enforcement investigation. In such brief conversation, Jurado had no opportunity to get into details. The BCI agent could not make much sense of it, but volunteered “to make some calls”, and asked for a few of the names of those involved. 658.

The follow up call the following day is the substance captured by the October 22,

2013 recording. Instead of being of any assistance to Jurado, the BCI agent treated him as the offender and—using Bethel’s exact phrases verbatim—accused Jurado of making false allegations against others without giving Jurado a fair opportunity to be heard or present his evidence, unlike the opportunity and treatment extended to Jurado by Officer Chris Davis. It was obvious that the BCI agent prejudged Jurado because of his speech accent combined with his obvious name of Hispanic heritage. The BCI agent also allowed the conspirators to corruptly influence him and interfere with his official duties, as Jurado had feared in the first place.

258

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 272 of 411 PAGEID #: 1862

VII.F.2. RECORDINGS INVOLVING DEFENDANTS OCRC, DUNN AND GARCIA 659. There are about a dozen recordings involving Defendants OCRC, Dunn and Garcia. Plaintiff Jurado herein offers three of them as the most significant ones: The recording from October 24, 2013, November 21, 2013 and March 13, 2014.

VII.F.2(a) RECORDING FROM OCTOBER 24, 2013, SHOWING THAT JURADO CONTACTED OCRC LEADERSHIP AT THE CENTRAL OFFICE AND WARNED THAT “SOMETHING DOESN’T FEEL RIGHT” 660. The recording shows Jurado’s concerns and suspicion of the conspiracy, weeks before he obtained hard evidence of interference in the OCRC investigations by OOAG. The recording captured the phone call between Jurado and Ms. Sandra Aukeman, the most helpful person inside OCRC and the only individual within the agency that Jurado feels certain that has taken no part or participation in the conspiracy.

During the call, Jurado explained his past

experiences of individuals interfering with ODJFS government functions and other agencies, and he was fearful that what he was observing and experiencing with OCRC was a result of the same interference. 661. Ms. Aukeman, who works directly with the Director of Enforcement & Compliance in central office an also functions as the liaison for the agency’s constituent services, explained in detail the history of the agency and their independent status unlike other “cabinet agencies”, and that they “are a commission for a reason”. She added that the Commission is not political and doesn’t allow those types of influences. 662. When Jurado gave the example of Defendant Garcia’s discouraging Jurado to come into the office to use their notarization services, stopping short of overtly telling Jurado not to 259

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 273 of 411 PAGEID #: 1863

access the public government building to deprive him of the enjoyment the services available to the public, Ms. Aukeman was understandably skeptical because she did not see a reason for such conduct from Investigator Garcia. 663. She gave Jurado some additional pointers for handling the retaliation claim given that he had just been served with the complaint from Brooksedge lawsuit in retaliation for the OCRC investigation. This recording shows evidence that Jurado anticipated the furtherance of the conspiracy by interfering with OCRC functions. It also shows Ms. Aukeman trying in good faith to give Jurado peace of mind in regards to the integrity of the institution.

VII.F.2(b) RECORDING FROM NOVEMBER 21, 2013, SHOWING THAT MS. AUKEMAN WAS NO LONGER SKEPTICAL AFTER REVIEWING JURADO’S DOCUMENTATION OF GARCIA’S MISCONDUCT

664. This recording also shows evidence that Jurado had a good reason to suspect OOAG even before he obtained hard evidence of their interference with the OCRC investigation and adjudication of the case. On this day, Jurado met in person with Ms. Aukeman in Central Office right after the first determination of No Probable Cause by OCRC, in respect to the discrimination charge. When she read the communications showing that Jurado was not welcomed in the building and emails proving bias and other misconduct by Garcia, such as his attempts to access confidential ADR records, Ms. Aukeman confirmed that Jurado’s experiences with the Commission and Garcia were not typical. In one instance the recording captured Ms. Aukeman’s reaction after reading one of the emails showing misconduct by Garcia and his treatment of Jurado, as she uttered “Wowwww!”

260

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 274 of 411 PAGEID #: 1864

665. Furthermore, the recording captured Jurado explaining to Ms. Aukeman why he suspected the OOAG to be at the center of the interference with the multiple state government agencies: because they are the only ones connected to all of them and have a strategic position that allows their influence in all of their regular business. Also, referring to the racial Bias from Bethel while performing her function of GAL, Jurado can be heard saying “it [racism against him] is like a cancer—it has spread everywhere”. Ms. Aukeman spent a good amount of time with Jurado and gave him pointers as to the reconsideration process. 666. Sometime after this meeting, Jurado obtained the full case file of the investigation of his discrimination complaint. The file contained notes and emails between Defendant Garcia and Defendant Gutowski reaching an agreement to rule in favor of Brooksedge even before the discrimination investigation started; and the agreement also included the determination of NPC (no probable cause) IF Jurado were to file a charge of retaliation. In other words, Jurado’s complaint about Retaliation against Brooksedge was decided before it was filed. Jurado’s discovery provided confirmation of his suspicions previously communicated to Ms. Aukeman and captured in these recordings with almost perfect precision.

VII.F.2(c)

RECORDING FROM MARCH 13, 2014 SHOWING MISCONDUCT BY DEFENDANT DUNN WHEN HE INTENTIONALLY WITHHELD KEY EVIDENCE

667. During the public hearing in front of the Commissioners for the final determination of Jurado’s request for reconsideration of his discrimination and retaliation charges against Brooksedge, Mr. Dunn acted in the role of advocate for Brooksedge, and the recording covered the entire hearing and his peculiar performance. Defendant Dunn repeated all the conclusory allegations made by Brooksedge verbatim as if they were his findings of fact even when there 261

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 275 of 411 PAGEID #: 1865

was no evidence to support them, other than an affidavit by Defendant LeClair. In addition, Dunn did not offer any evidence of weight that Jurado had provided and intentionally withheld factual evidence that would have resulted in a decision in favor of Jurado. The recording proves that Dunn intentionally withheld key information and evidence in furtherance of the master conspiracy and of the Lawsuit sub-scheme, including: 668.

(i) the opinion and reaction of Nationwide Children’s hospital ER doctor and social

worker in regards to the injuries sustained by the child while under the care of Brooksedge and their concerns and intention of making a referral to Children Services—all of it captured in a video recording that was provided to Defendant Dunn and the original investigators, 669. (ii) an audio recording of statements made by representatives from Action for Children on Sep. 9, 2013, in support of Jurado’s allegations that Brooksedge wrongly denied him access to the facility—Action for Children is the official provider contracted by ODJFS to provide training to all licensed daycare centers, along with other services that include helping child care centers maintain their license and pass inspections from ODJFS. 670. (iii) The video recorded statement of Amy LeClair admitting that she found reasonable Jurado’s actions of filing complaints against Brooksedge given the circumstances, and LeClair’s allegations that the situation that resulted in those complaints was the result of the actions of Defendants Bethel and Lambert, including accusations against Bethel of fraudulent misrepresentations to the court.

This video recording in the possession of

Defendant Dunn also included explanations by Jurado to LeClair of his true intentions and goal for filing the complaints. Jurado can be heard assuring LeClair that he was not trying to hurt her

262

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 276 of 411 PAGEID #: 1866

or her business, but instead he had hoped a proper investigation by the agencies would uncover who within Brooksedge was colluding with Defendants Lambert and Bethel. At the point that the video recording was taken, Jurado did not suspect LeClair to be involved in the conspiracy, but he was convinced one or more of her employees were. In an email that Jurado sent to LeClair after the meeting that was recorded, he again reiterated his earlier explanation of his objective for getting the agencies involved and made emphasis that “hurting you or your business is not my end-game” consistent with the discussion they had earlier that was video recorded. The recording from March 13, 2014 captured Defendant Dunn making misleading statements to the Commissioners when referring to Jurado’s email to LeClair. He took the email out of context and told the Commissioners that Jurado was admitting with the email that his end-game was to file those complaints, including the charges investigated by OCRC, with the sole purpose of gaining an advantage in his custody court case.

Because Dunn was in

possession of the recording of Jurado’s meeting with LeClair, he knew the meaning of Jurado’s email and what he was referring to with “his end-game”, but chose to withhold it from the Commissioners and instead maliciously use the email by manipulating its content to give it a different meaning. 671. (iv) The judgment entry issued by the juvenile court on Jan 23, 2014 that stated “The Court reviewed Defendant’s exhibits of the various injuries to the child. The Court does find that the number of injuries to the head, the black eye, and the unexplainable bruising to the child’s legs troubling * * * It is unreasonable to expect that a concerned parent who has a child in daycare and that child has experienced several incidents will not want to investigate the cause of the injuries.” This judgment entry happens to be the last act committed by Defendant 263

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 277 of 411 PAGEID #: 1867

Judge Jamison before she entered the conspiracy, and shows her focus on the best interest of the child as expected. After this entry was issued, the best interest of the child is clearly missing from every action, decision and conduct engaged by Defendant Jamison afterwards. 672. The four above are just a few examples of substantial amount of evidence in support of Jurado’s allegations of discrimination and retaliation against Brooksedge, that even if not enough to guarantee a finding of probable cause of discrimination, it would have certainly resulted in probable cause and substantiation of retaliation as final determination by the Commission. Furthermore, the recording captured when Defendant Dunn provided to the Commissioners a statement made by Defendant Bethel censuring Jurado and in favor of Brooksedge. Defendant Dunn’s misconduct can be further established with the fact that he was aware that Jurado had also made allegations of racial bias against Bethel, in addition to LeClair’s own allegations against Bethel of deceptive conduct and misleading the court. Dunn, despite his knowledge of these factors, still chose to rely on information sourced from Bethel and present it to the Commissioners in detriment of Jurado’s charges against Brooksedge. 673. Dunn took advantage of the weight of Bethel’s opinion in role as GAL, while at the same time, he was in possession of the Jan 23, 2014 court order and videos described above and chose to withhold them from the Commissioners simply because they would have cleared any doubts that Jurado’s complaints against Brooksedge were legitimate. This recording— along with the other recordings involving OCRC and the electronic correspondence showing misconduct by Garcia—helps establish and support Jurado’s allegations that the interference by OOAG not only affected the final outcome of the investigations but also encouraged OCRC

264

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 278 of 411 PAGEID #: 1868

and its staff to engage in misconduct with the sole purpose of depriving Jurado of equal protection of the law and his right to due process, in furtherance of the conspiracy.

VII.F.3. RECORDINGS INVOLVING DEFENDANTS THE JUVENILE COURT, JUDGE JAMISON AND THOMAS MCCASH VII.F.3(a) RECORDING FROM JULY 8, 2013 SHOWS THAT JURADO DID KNOW ABOUT BETHEL AND DR. SMALLDON’S PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF ENGAGING IN RACKETS BEFORE THE PSYCHOLOGIST APPOINTMENT TO THE CASE 674. This recording captured conversations with courtroom deputy outside in the hallway before the start and during the July 8, 2013 status conference presided by the magistrate, when Plaintiff Jurado asked the court to not conduct the proceeding because he was dismissing his attorney, and wanted to do so before any decision or orders would be issued (in respect to the appointment of the psychologist evaluator). The court failed to honor Jurado’s request. 675. The recording also includes Jurado’s discussion with his then-attorney right outside the courtroom during which he dismissed her after she refused to enter an objection to the appointment of the psychologist recommended by Defendant Bethel.

VII.F.3(b) RECORDING FROM SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 SHOWING THAT JURADO DID NOT VOLUNTARILY SIGNED THE WITHDRAWAL OF HIS MOTION FOR REMOVAL OF GAL 676. This recording, which was taken in the back (outside) of the courtroom, shows that Jurado did not willingly sign the Withdrawal of his Motion for the Removal of the GAL, which in turn supports the allegations that Defendants Jamison and Smitherman have made misrepresentations regarding the events from that day that led to the removal of Bethel as the GAL.

265

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 279 of 411 PAGEID #: 1869

677. This recording is not of significant value as compared to others because Jennifer Gibson, Judge Jamison’s secretary, is a key witness that can provide testimony that she asked Plaintiff Jurado to sign the Withdrawal form and Jurado refused in open court. She then returned the form without the signature to Defendant Jamison, who proceeded to approach Jurado at his table in the courtroom and vigorously ordered Jurado to sign the form. Other evidence that proves Defendant Jamison engaging in fraudulent misrepresentations about whether Jurado voluntarily signed the withdrawal of Motion for Removal of GAL and “asked for a new Guardian” includes her response to the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court in case 2015-AP-005 regarding Jurado’s Affidavit of Disqualification. In her response, she stated that she appointed Thomas McCash sua sponte as GAL.

VII.F.3(c)

OFFICIAL RECORDINGS OF THE 911 CALLS MADE BY JURADO AND HIS FAMILY DURING THE DECEMBER 5, 2014 CONSPIRATORIAL INCURSION TO JURADO’S HOME TO TORMENT AND FRIGHTEN HIS FAMILY, AND INTRUDE IN JURADO’S PRIVATE LIFE AND PARENTING TIME WITH PLAINTIFF N.G.

678. On December 5, 2014, Judge Jamison fully engaged in joint action—through concealed

telephone

communications—with

co-conspirators

McCash,

Lambert

and

Smitherman to torment and demoralize plaintiff Jurado, while also to causing panic for N.G. and N.G.’s elderly grandparents during the incursion into their home. 679. The multiple hostile unannounced visits and intimidating presence of McCash inflicted substantial mental distress upon Jurado, on the 2 ½ year old Plaintiff N.G., and upon N.G.’s elderly grandparents, who took turns to call 911, given the alarming nature of the

266

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 280 of 411 PAGEID #: 1870

situation. The recordings show the calls made by Jurado and his parents with a tone of agitation and tension, given McCash’s apparent intentions to force his way into their home.

VII.F.4. RECORDINGS INVOLVING DEFENDANTS THE GODDARD SCHOOL-HILLIARD II, KIM EAGLE AND GRETCHEN WILSON VII.F.4(a) RECORDING FROM DECEMBER 10, 2013 SHOWS JURADO EXPOSING A FALSIFIED INCIDENT REPORT CONTAINING FABRICATIONS OF INJURIES TO THE CHILD. 680. The falsified incident report was written by one of the child caretakers stating that Jurado had dropped off the child in the morning that same day with “a busted lip and bump in the forehead”. The recording includes his conversation with the daycare owner Kim Eagle and the assistant director at the end of the day when Jurado picked up his son and read the report. The recording included their conversation as they all proceeded to look at the child and confirmed that he did not have any “bump”. He had a red patch of skin similar to the ones he had in his back as he was being treated for eczema by the child’s pediatrician. Kim Eagle also acknowledged that the child did not have a “busted lip”, so she changed the report by crossing the previous statement and writing “chapped lips” to justify why the teacher wrote anything about the lips. In other words, the recording shows that the child’s injuries written in the report were a straight-forward fabrication, given the recorded acknowledgement of Kim Eagle and the assistant Director. 681. This recording conclusively shows a pattern of collusion between Lambert and the daycare providers she had chosen in two instances, because six months earlier the same type of irregularity occurred with the Brooksedge teachers that wrote a false report. (Refer to Recording from July 2, 2015 in Section VII.F.5(b) below.) The first incident with Brooksedge

267

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 281 of 411 PAGEID #: 1871

took place days before a scheduled court hearing, and the second instance of fraud by the falsification of an incident report by The Goddard School occurred only a few weeks before a scheduled proceeding for the start of trial.

VII.F.4(b) RECORDING FROM DECEMBER 11, 2013 PROVES THE DIRECT INVOLVEMENT OF DEFENDANTS GRETCHEN WILSON AND THE GODDARD SCHOOL-HILLIARD II AS CO-CONSPIRATORS WITH DEFENDANT LAMBERT 682. This recording covers a meeting Plaintiff Jurado had with Defendant Wilson and Defendant the Goddard School Hilliard-II owners Kim and Bill Eagle the morning after the falsified incident report was identified.

During the meeting, Jurado—believing in their

innocence—was compelled to explain what had occurred with Brooksedge six months before in July 2013 and how it turned into a lawsuit. Jurado also explained to them that he would go out of his way to make sure he would stay away from trouble and the reason for his serious concerns regarding the falsified report.

This recording memorialized Defendant Wilson’s

explanation of how the false information made it to the report. 683. Although Wilson had already left the school when Jurado picked up his son the day before in the afternoon and uncover the false incident report, she was at the facility when the report was written in the morning. She explained that it all started when Defendant Lambert called them after she received one of the pictures the daycare sends out frequently to parents. Wilson then described to Jurado and both daycare owners how Lambert “insisted that the picture showed a bump in the child’s forehead”. The recording captured Wilson’s assertion that the child’s two caretakers “thought it was eczema” and that Wilson herself thought it was eczema (or skin irritation/dryness). Wilson’s explanation concluded by saying that they wrote

268

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 282 of 411 PAGEID #: 1872

“bump” and busted lip in the incident report to appease Lambert, but “it was a poor choice of words”. She then apologized. 684. The significance of this recording increased five-fold twelve months later, when only weeks away from the scheduled trial in January 2015, Defendant Wilson denied that she ever implicated Lambert in the incident and Wilson’s misconduct went further than just denial. When Plaintiff Jurado read the GAL report issued a week before trial in January 2015, Defendant Wilson admitted that she had given Defendant McCash the following information that appeared in his GAL’s report: Ms. Wilson also discussed another incident report where there was a mark on [redacted] 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. (Emphasis Added.) Guardian Ad Litem Report, Jan. 7, 2015, page 8. A supplementary recording was made on January 13, 2015, when Jurado asked Wilson about the GAL’s report, since he was not sure where the inaccurate information had originated. Gretchen Wilson, with a straight face, reaffirmed that she had provided the information that appeared in the GAL and further explained that the information given is what she remembered because “it happened like 2 years ago”. 685. The recording also shows that Jurado confronted Gretchen in a non-aggressive manner about the falsehood of that statement, then he recited verbatim what she had said on Dec. 11, 2013 and disclosed to Wilson the existence of the recording from that meeting in

269

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 283 of 411 PAGEID #: 1873

which she implicated Lambert. She continued denying any wrongdoing. Both owners were nearby and heard most of the conversation between Jurado and Wilson. The recording captured Bill Eagle threatening Jurado that he would not allow him into the facility again to see his son. Plaintiff Jurado simply responded “I am sorry, forget I said anything” and finished asserting to them that he did not have the same rights as any other parent to make any complaints. 686. Defendant Wilson has continued her denial of any wrongdoing even during her testimony at trial a few days later. The transcript of the proceeding will show how she attempted to cover up the lies with more deceit. Both Bill and Kim Eagle stand by Defendant Wilson’s defenses and explanations that defy common sense.

VII.F.4(c)

RECORDING FROM JANUARY 9, 2015 THAT SHOWS GRETCHEN WILSON GAVE PERJURED TESTIMONY DURING TRIAL A FEW DAYS AFTER THIS RECORDING WAS MADE

687. Defendant Wilson’s fraudulent misrepresentations in regards to this recording involved two assertions: (1) that Wilson did not know why Plaintiff Jurado had asked her to call the police on January 9, 2015, (2) that the police asked Jurado to leave the premises, as if being expelled by the authorities as a delinquent. Kim Eagle was present in the courtroom during Wilson’s testimony under oath. 688. The first part of the recording included Jurado’s conversation with Wilson at the point he arrived at the center to visit his son on Jan. 9. Jurado explained Wilson the meaning of an email he had sent a few minutes earlier to Defendants McCash, Lambert, Smitherman and Wilson regarding his most recent court filing. He had filed an appeal of the order suspending 270

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 284 of 411 PAGEID #: 1874

his parental rights, and he believed that with the filing of the appeal, the order would be automatically stayed. Jurado also explained to her that he was not planning to create a difficult situation on that day. Instead, he wanted someone to take responsibility for denying him of his ability to take his son with him. He reminded her of what occurred with Brooksedge more than a year earlier when they denied him access to the facility by just saying so in an email, but later they did not want to take accountability because no one physically stopped him from entering the daycare in that instance.

Therefore, he just wanted either the GAL or Defendant

Smitherman to take responsibility if they disagree with Juradoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s assertions that the order was stayed. 689. Apparently, neither defendant was willing to take that responsibility so they put it back to the daycare to take ownership enforcing the order. Given that earlier that week, on January 6, 2015, the daycare had denied Jurado the ability to take his son with him when he could have because there was not a valid order in place, Jurado then insistent that someone would have to take responsibility for enforcing the new order provided by McCash to deny Jurado the ability to take home his own son. Both agreed that it simply meant they would have to call the local police department to formally enforce the order. The entire process, although a bit time-consuming, was a formality that Jurado thought it was the only way to place some accountability, and therefore Wilson knew exactly the reason for Jurado to ask for police involvement.

The recording shows that the officers arrived and were in the facility for less

than 10 minutes. When everything was clarified, the senior officer said â&#x20AC;&#x153;I can let all of you go nowâ&#x20AC;?, but asked the parents not to leave at the same time.

271

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 285 of 411 PAGEID #: 1875

690. Defendant Wilson testified at the trial in Juvenile Court that the officers asked Jurado to leave the premises as if Jurado was physically forced out by the officers. She insisted on her account of the incident even when Jurado asked if she may mean that they simply asked the parents to leave one first then the other. Because Jurado was precluded from introducing any evidence by Defendant Jamison, even though this was a very recent event, Defendant Wilson knew she could get away with fraudulent misrepresentations and perjured testimony with the goal of causing detriment to Jurado’s case during litigation. That is the value of the January 9 2015 recording.

VII.F.4(d) RECORDING FROM FEBRUARY 2, 2015 SHOWING THE CHILD, PLAINTIFF N.G. BEGGING HIS DAD TO TAKE HIM HOME DURING HIS VISIT AT LUNCH TIME 691. This recording shows the harmless nature of Jurado’s visits to his son, especially at lunch time. The recording also shows how the daycare owner, Kim Eagle, developed rules exclusively for Jurado to follow, as if he is different than anyone else, and the recording also provides evidence of the agreements reached between Jurado and Defendant the Goddard School that Defendants appear to deny after this recording was made, even when Jurado documented the discussion and agreements in his letter dated February 3, 2015 to the daycare. See Jurado’ Mar. 3, 2015 Letter, Exhibit LV-F, pages 003–004.

VII.F.4(e) SET OF RECORDINGS FROM FEB 5, FEB 6, FEB 9 AND FEB 12, 2015 THAT SHOW HOW JURADO FOLLOWED THE RULES AND AGREEMENTS PREVIOUSLY REACHED 692. These recordings are evidence that Jurado spent on average 2 hours a week visiting his son at The Goddard School-Hilliard II, and that many of the visits during those days were at the end of the day and not at lunch time. The recordings prove that there were no incidents,

272

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 286 of 411 PAGEID #: 1876

that Jurado did not cause disruptions to the class, that he was always polite with the children and teacher. The recordings are evidence of how much Jurado’s son loves to spend time with him and that Plaintiff N.G. misses his dad, Plaintiff Jurado., and that there is no reason for such unjust and harmful punishment of separating father and son.

VII.F.4(f)

SET OF RECORDINGS FROM FEBRUARY 18 AND 20, 2015 SHOW EVIDENCE OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN DEFENDANTS WILSON, THE GODDARD SCHOOL’S EMPLOYEES, OWNERS, AND LAMBERT

693. These two recordings show how far Defendants are willing to go to deny Jurado access to the facility and fabricate reasons to take away the few hours a week Plaintiffs had to spend time together. These recordings also prove that Defendants are willing to put the child’s safety and life at risk (one more time), in order to accomplish their goals. Both recordings were made during Jurado’s visits to his son, Plaintiff N.G. later in the afternoon and are evidence that Defendants made an agreement to participate in a scheme around the usage of Skype and the proper location for Plaintiff N.G. to talk to his paternal grandparents from Panama, with the objective of framing Jurado for causing injuries that would be inflicted to Plaintiff N.G. and ultimately having justification to ask the court to prohibit Jurado from visiting the facility altogether. 694. The first factor to consider is the agreement reached between Jurado and Kim Eagle on February 2, 2015 and Jurado’s email documenting the discussion. In Jurado’s letter dated Feb. 3, 2015, he asked for the appropriate location to use for the child to Skype with his grandparents, given that one of Kim Eagle’s rules was not to use Skype inside the classroom, and that Skyping would be the only exception for taking the child outside of his classroom.

273

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 287 of 411 PAGEID #: 1877

Interestingly enough, Kim Eagle never responded the letter and no one formally responed to Jurado’s question in his letter asking Kim Eagle to identify the proper place for Plaintiffs to use Skype. See Jurado’ Mar. 3, 2015 Letter, Exhibit LV-F, pages 003–004. 695. When Jurado visited his son in both dates of these recordings, he followed the rule and did not Skype inside the classroom. On each occasion, the child’s “lead teacher”, Ms. Melissa, said that she would not allow Jurado to take his son outside of the classroom unless she would hear from her superiors, even when she was made aware of the authorization given by Kim Eagle. 696.

In the first instance on February 18, Jurado left the classroom and left his son behind

to go look for Defendant Wilson, but she was absent. In her absence, Ms. Molly, a lead teacher from another classroom who was covering for Wilson, gave the authorization to Ms. Melissa to allow Jurado to leave the room with the child. Then, Jurado asked Ms. Molly if he could use the classroom in the back that was empty, she said Yes, and added “but you can use the kitchen” and proceeded to insist on Jurado taking the child into the kitchen. When Jurado asked if there was not a safety issue because of the large sign posted on the kitchen door that says “For Safety Reasons, Children Should Not Accompany Parents or Teachers into the Kitchen”, Ms. Molly said NO, that it would be fine. He then returned to the classroom and got his things and his son and went into the kitchen. But fortunately, he did not go too far in. Jurado became cautious because the light was off and was dark. He immediately noticed that the floor was extremely slippery and wet—it reminded him of when water and oil get combined. He did not

274

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 288 of 411 PAGEID #: 1878

think much of it at the time even when the kitchen would always be kept pristine and it was unusual to see the floor slippery and wet. 697. Plaintiffs proceeded to the empty classroom to Skype with his grandparents from Panama, and then returned to the classroom without any more incidents. The recording from Feb. 18, 2015 captured everything, including Ms. Molly asking Jurado to take the child into the kitchen against safety rules. See The Goddard School Kitchen Safety Sign, Exhibit LV-F, page 013. 698. Two days later, on February 20, Jurado went to the same process during his visit to spend time with his son. The teacher put Jurado in a position to have to ask each time, so he went to Defendant Wilson’s office and she gave the authorization without hesitation. But similar to the request from the previous visit, Ms. Wilson said that she “preferred” Jurado to use the kitchen instead of the empty classroom for the child to Skype with his grandparents. Jurado mentioned his concerns that taking the child into the kitchen would be unsafe and against the rules, but Ms. Wilson insisted as if Jurado assertions were incorrect and that there was not a safety issue. They both proceeded to the front of the kitchen that had the door closed and Jurado asked Defendant Wilson to read the warning sign in the kitchen door. After reading it, Ms. Wilson said “oh!” as if she did not know that it was unsafe for children or as if she had never seen the sign before, even though it had always been there. See picture of The Goddard School Kitchen Door with

275

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 289 of 411 PAGEID #: 1879

Safety Sign, Exhibit LV-F, page 014. The discussion ended at that point and Jurado went back to the classroom to get his son to the other classroom to Skype with his grandparents. 699. Before he went to the back classroom, he stopped by the kitchen to peek inside. No one was inside, and this time the lights were on and the floor was in similar condition as the previous time. He assumed that a contractor was working on running wiring because he also noticed hanging wires running down the wall and rolled up in the same area that was wet. No other significant incident took place on this day, and the recording captured Juradoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s experience including Defendant Wilson insistence that Jurado take his son, Plaintiff N.G. into the kitchen.

VII.F.4(g)

RECORDING FROM FEBRUARY 24, 2015 WAS THE LAST RECORDING CAPTURED RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS THE GODDARD SCHOOL-HILLIARD II AND WILSON.

700. This recording is a significant piece of evidence because it captured defendantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; next scheme in their attempts to keep Jurado out of the facility and away from the child. The recording covered a premeditated attack launched against Jurado and also shows the emotional and psychological harm being inflicted upon the child. On that day, Jurado stopped by during lunch time to visit his son. He was aware that lunch was already half-way underway, but putting his son to sleep for his nap was the most important part of the visit for Jurado, for several reasons, and the daycare knew about it. In addition Father and son had started a tradition by routinely spend a few minutes before the nap praying. 701. Jurado ran into Defendant Wilson at the entrance and she seemed displeased with his presence. He knew that one of the many new rules the facility put in place exclusively for

276

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 290 of 411 PAGEID #: 1880

Jurado—about not lying down next to the child to help him fall asleep for his nap—truly originated with Wilson’s intolerance of having a Hispanic lie down in the same room where her daughter is, given that Wilson’s daughter and Plaintiff N.G. share the same classroom. Given that Kim Eagle, as the owner of the facility, had reached an agreement with Jurado that authorized him to lie down for no more than 15 minutes to put his son to sleep after lunch and she also encouraged Jurado to visit his son during lunch time, he did not expect his visit on February 24 to be a problem. But Defendants The Goddard School, Gretchen Wilson, Lambert, McCash and Jamison put into execution their latest scheme to make sure that this would be the last time they had to deal with his presence at the facility and the last time he visited his son. 702. The Feb. 24, 2015 recording shows Plaintiff N.G. greeting his dad Plaintiff Jurado with excitement as usual, and covered the time Jurado sat with his son during the part of his lunch time. Two of his son’s friends joined Plaintiffs, father and son, as they chatted and had lunch. They asked Jurado to read them a book, and so he did. After a few minutes, Jurado asked the children, including his son, to go with their teacher to get their diaper changed as this was the usual routine between lunch and nap. This recording provides evidence that Defendant Wilson sent a team of teachers from other classrooms to help Plaintiff N.G.’s teachers complete their routines faster and get all children down for their nap faster and earlier than usual. Jurado knew that this was an unusual and exceptional practice. 703. After his son completed the routine of restroom break and diaper changed, Jurado skipped the usual short period of play time they would have after lunch, and took his son to his cot. Most of the other children were already lying down, but two more children still need to

277

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 291 of 411 PAGEID #: 1881

complete their restroom routine. A few minutes after Jurado lied down in the carpet next to his son’s cot, the lead teacher, Ms. Melissa, approached them and said the rules did not allow him to lie down, with a dry and short tone. Jurado immediately complied. The recording shows father and son simply having a harmless conversation about angels and God (“papa Dios”) during the time it would take the child to fall asleep, which was 20 minute on average with or without his fathers’ presence. But Plaintiff N.G. sat up just as his father did to comply with the teacher’s instructions. For the first time, the nap routine had been altered, and the child became more conversational until Jurado finally convinced him to lie down. 704. The recording captured the child asking his Dad repeatedly and innocently to please lie down with him. One can hear the 2.5 year old saying “lie down with me… lie down with me”. Given the impact the father-son separation since December has had to both Plaintiffs, Jurado proceeded to explain to the teacher that he was given authorization by Kim Eagle to lie down for no more than 15 minutes. That is when the attack suddenly started: First the teach said that Kim Eagle had told her that he was NOT allowed to lie down (contrary to the Feb 2 discussion and Jurado’s letter from Feb 3) and that he had to follow the rules because he was “not above the law”. The recording captured the teacher saying that “it makes [for Jurado to lie down] Ms. Gretchen uncomfortable” as well as the teacher’s aggressive and abusive remarks calling Jurado “STUPID” and her threats that he would not be allowed to see his son again. The recording captured the entire verbal attack, including the teacher mocking Jurado when he reacted just by saying “wow” as well as the teacher’s hostility as she told Jurado that she was tired of his presence in the room—referring to his presence as an interruption to her class.

278

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 292 of 411 PAGEID #: 1882

705.

The recording also captured the child getting agitated and distressed, as the

teacher accused Jurado of “letting him talk when he is supposed to be sleeping”. It became obvious that the reason for Defendant Wilson to send the other teachers to help out was to start nap time earlier and fabricate the appearance that Jurado was disrupting the child’s routine and the classroom routine, and provide an excuse to the attack. After several minutes of sustaining the attack, Jurado realized his presence was not welcomed in the room, no matter what rules he would follow or not follow, and proceed to gather his belongings and leave the room. The recording shows the degree of distress the child endured as he witnessed firsthand the attack against his father.

One could hear the child crying incessantly and Jurado

comforting him but only temporarily and finally the child yelling “Daddy! Daddy!” with a painful tone of voice, as Jurado walked out of the room. This was the last time Plaintiffs saw each other. 706. Jurado has not been able to return to the facility for more than two weeks now, for fear of another attack, for fear that the incidents will escalate, and for fear that the hostility will cause additional emotional harm to the child, as it appears that Wilson and The Goddard School-Hilliard II owners condone the teacher’s abusive treatment and the school’s treatment of Jurado as a second-class citizen. Defendant Wilson, as the school director, became aware of the incident as Jurado walked out of the facility on February 24, 2015. Although she said she would “talk to the teacher”, no one followed up with Jurado—not a single phone call has been made to reach out to Jurado since the incident. This last event made Jurado realize the significance of the events from Feb. 18 and 20. Their insistence for Jurado to take the child

279

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 293 of 411 PAGEID #: 1883

inside an unsafe area, the slippery floor and even the wires hanging and rolled up on the floor. It all had been carefully planned with one ultimate goal. 707. Jurado finally sent a letter on March 6, 2015 to Defendants Wilson and Bill and Kim Eagle as the owners of the daycare. In the letter, Jurado described in detail all of the incidents and events, explained his serious concerns and that their silence indicated their intentions of denying Jurado access to the facility, and asked for the situation to be corrected. See Jurado’ Mar. 6, 2015 Letter, Exhibit LV-F, pages 005–012. Instead of addressing the problem with Jurado, they shared the letter with co-conspirators Lambert and McCash, and have cut off all types of communication with Jurado. 708. Neither the child’s mother, Defendant Lambert, the child’s Guardian Ad Litem, Defendant McCash, or Defendant Judge Jamison appear to have any concerns about the safety and well-being of the child. Instead, McCash filed a “Motion for Emergency Review of the Court’s January 23, 2014 Order” on March 10, 2015. The filing is a clear indication that the only concern Lambert or McCash have is Jurado’s presence at the facility, which supports Jurado’s allegations that they all share the same goal and defendants entered an agreement to achieve their goal of depriving Jurado access to a public place of accommodation, his right to use the open door policy, and his fundamental parental rights. On March 11, 2015, Defendant Jamison set the hearing of McCash’s Motion for six days later on March 17, 2015. This is also a clear indication that Defendant Judge Jamison shares the same goals as the other co-conspirators, and continue to neglect the best interest of the child. For example, she could have asked the GAL or any of the parties to subpoena the daycare Director to appear at the hearing as

280

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 294 of 411 PAGEID #: 1884

Defendants Jamison and Smitherman did to Jurado’s physician with two day notice only. The outcome of the upcoming hearing can be easily predicted. 709. The purpose of the Motion is for Defendant Jamison to expand the current order suspending Jurado’s parenting time and address the ambiguity in respect to the use of the Open Policy for daycares that are available to all citizens of Ohio. The second purpose of the Motion is to open the opportunity for Judge Jamison to help cover up the unlawful conduct as she has consistently done, by simply alleging that the court did not find any misconduct or anything wrong without elaborating in the findings of fact. 710. In conclusion, Defendants entered an agreement to frame Jurado for causing injuries to the child had he blindly followed their instructions to take the child into the unsafe kitchen area. When their first scheme failed, they entered into a second agreement to frame Jurado for disrupting the classroom routine and to justify verbally abusing him to the point of instilling fear or in the alternative, to provoke a reaction from Jurado that would escalate the confrontation requiring the authorities to forcefully oust Jurado from the facility on a permanent basis—all while neglecting to consider the harm being caused to the child, and beyond neglect, intentionally exposing the child to imminent safety risks and putting his life on the line—motivated only by their racial and ethnic bias, given Jurado’s place of origin.

281

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 295 of 411 PAGEID #: 1885

VII.F.5. RECORDINGS INVOLVING DEFENDANT LECLAIR, BROOKSEDGE AND ALEXANDERSAVINO VII.F.5(a) RECORDING FROM APRIL 26, 2013 SHOWS THAT LAMBERT WAS ATTEMPTING TO CORRUPTLY INFLUENCE LECLAIR BEFORE SHE AGREED TO JOIN THE CONSPIRACY. IT ALSO SHOWS THAT THE CHILD CARETAKERS CONFIRMED CUES ABOUT CHILD UNDERFED 711. This recording captured a conversation between LeClair and Jurado. On one of his visits to see his son at Brooksedge, LeClair approached Jurado quietly while he was holding his son in the hallway, and without any solicitation, she stated what appeared to be a random comment at the time “so you know we don’t care at what time you pick up [redacted] drop him off, or how long you stay here” She also added that no parent has complained, is complaining or will complain simply because of your presence here. The recording also captured another short conversation they had at the point that Jurado was leaving. LeClair shared an anecdote about a grandparent that would stop by every single day to visit his grandson after he his work shift was over. It appeared as if LeClair was encouraging Jurado to stop by as much as he would have like. Later that day, Jurado recapped the statements LeClair made and sent them to his attorneys as well as to LeClair to use it as a future reference if necessary. 712. The fact that LeClair made those comments, which were similar but in negation to claims Lambert had been making since 2012, and soon Bethel adopted, that parents would complain due to Jurado’s presence at the facility and the rigid schedule for the child, was an obvious indication that Lambert had approached LeClair to try to convince her to make those claims in the negative.

282

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 296 of 411 PAGEID #: 1886

713. The recording also covered the child’s caretaker confirming to Jurado that his son had always cried when reaching the bottom of the milk bottle, but “he usually stops [crying] after a few minutes”.

VII.F.5(b) RECORDING FROM JULY 2, 2013 THAT COVERED JURADO’S ENTIRE 18-MINUTE VISIT SHOWS HOW BROOKSEDGE COMPLAINT IN THEIR LAWSUIT CONTAINS MISREPRESENTATIONS AND SHOWS THAT THE DAILY REPORT SHEET WAS COMPLETED WITH FABRICATED DETAILS 714. This recording captured every moment of Jurado’s visit and show the exaggerations and inaccuracies contained in Brooksedge’s pleadings in the filings on the civil lawsuit against Jurado, including information that Jessica Jividen provided to him when he stopped at the front desk, and demonstrates that the child’s caretaker wrote details about what the child was fed that did not occurred. Not surprisingly, the falsified Brooksedge report was identified just days before a scheduled court hearing, in which the content of the report would have had some significance had they gotten away with it. The almost identical tactic was used six months later by Defendants Lambert, Wilson and The Goddard School on December 10, 2013 when they falsified an incident report with fabricated injuries in their attempt to frame Jurado and make him look like an inadequate or neglectful parent and use it to Lambert’s advantage in the trial proceeding for the custody case that was scheduled a few weeks after the incident ocurred. The recording serves as evidence of the subsidiary scheme of the conspiracy related to covering up Lambert’s nutritional neglect of the child while creating the appearance that Jurado has a distorted perception of the child’s health, resulting in his overfeeding of the child. The recording is not of unique value given that (1) early childhood professionals have confirmed that it is impossible for the child to have eaten what Brooksedge claimed he did in the 12 283

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 297 of 411 PAGEID #: 1887

minutes Jurado was inside the classroom.(2) the child’s grandparents have provided sworn testimony as to what they put in the bag that Jurado took to the daycare facility.

VII.F.5(c)

715.

SET OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDINGS BETWEEN JUN-AUG 2013 SHOWING BROOKSEDGE STAFF LACKING OF ADEQUATE TRAINING WHICH ULTIMATELY IMPACTED THE QUALITY OF CARE THAT CHILDREN RECEIVED, INCLUDING PLAINTIFF N.G. In one instance for example, the recording of July 11, 2013, captured a child crying

unattended for several minutes non-stop, while the teacher moved from one shore to the next without even looking at the child. When Jurado finally asked “what is wrong with him?”, she responded: “he is just fuzzy all the time”. As Jurado learned soon enough, this was a clear violation of ODFJS licensing rules. On another occasion, a classroom that required two teachers with no exception would only have one when they would not wait for a roving caretaker to cover for them if they had to leave the room for any reason. Jurado. Jurado would reasonably think that his son could have been any of those children not been cared for properly.

VII.F.5(d) RECORDING OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2013 IS ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ONES BECAUSE IT SHOWS UNLAWFUL CONDUCT BY DEFENDANTS BETHEL AND LECLAIR. IT IS ONE OF THE BEST EXAMPLES OF COLLUSION AND STATEMENTS MADE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY 716. This recording helps establish that the July 8, 2013 events and incident that let up to it constituted one of the most significant overt acts engaged by the core conspirators in close collaboration with each other, especially because it involved fraud upon the court and resulted in immediate harm for plaintiffs given that the labeling of Jurado as “an overinvolved father” and subsequent restrictions put in place to prohibit him from visiting his son was the direct

284

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 298 of 411 PAGEID #: 1888

product of this set of concerted action. In this instance, there was direct participation of Defendants Lambert, LeClair, Petroff, Smitherman and Bethel.

The recording captured a

meeting that took place on September 6, 2013 between Jurado and the daycare owner, LeClair, during which the owner made specific statements implicating Bethel and Lambert in the premeditated action of misleading the court and accused her of deceptive conduct. Specifically, she asserted that almost every statement and information Defendant Bethel provided to the Magistrate on July 8, 2013 that reportedly came from LeClair were not simple misunderstandings but outright fabrications, as shown in this video recording. JURADO: Number two: you said to her [Bethel] something that I heard for the first time ever, that, um, that basically I come here too much. LECLAIR: I never said that. JURADO: OK, that, that other parents are complaining, that -LECLAIR: Never said that. JURADO: Uh-huh. LECLAIR: No other parents have -JURADO: That -LECLAIR: -- ever complained, Ari. JURADO: That... I understand. I’m -LECLAIR: They haven’t. * * * Certified Transcript LeClair-Jurado, Sep. 6, 2013 part-II pages 10. (See Exhibit LV-E1 page 078) The video shows other relevant details of the conversation, LECLAIR: -- and she took that, and she went with it. And so she is the one -or maybe she... I don’t know, she and Kathy both. [The cause of all the trouble] * * *

285

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 299 of 411 PAGEID #: 1889

JURADO: So what did she say about -- what about the – what about the parents being...? She [Bethel] said, “Oh, the parents are already complaining.” LECLAIR: I never said -- we didn’t even talk about that. JURADO: Well -LECLAIR: She and I didn’t talk about that at all. Certified Transcript LeClair-Jurado, Sep. 6, 2013 part-II pages 14. (See Exhibit LV-E1 page 082) LECLAIR: And, I mean, I don’t... I -- but I can tell you that I would not call her, though. Because I feel like that was probably what got us in this. [Blythe Bethel] * * * LECLAIR: I did not use the words “intimidating” and “aggressive.” Ever! JURADO: So you think she misheard you? LECLAIR: I never... No, I don’t think she misheard it. I think she made it up. I never used those words to describe you. (laughter) I wouldn’t call her again Certified Transcript LeClair-Jurado, Sep. 6, 2013 part-II pages 18–19. (See Exhibit LV-E1 pages 086–087)

And what Jurado and LeClair were referring to is the following misrepresentations

by Bethel made to the court on July 8, 2013: ATTORNEY BETHEL: And I spoke with her [LeClair] this morning at length before coming into Court. - - - they have an open door policy like most daycares do * * * I do have a problem when we have a parent that is, I'm being told, coming twice a day, five days a week. It's disruptive to the daycare – MAGISTRATE MATTHEWS: This is dad? ATTORNEY BETHEL: Yes. MAGISTRATE MATTHEWS: Uh-huh (affirmative response) ATTORNEY BETHEL: it's - - - it's disturbing to some of the other parents. * * * MAGISTRATE MATTHEWS: What's he - - - how long is he spending when he comes? 286

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 300 of 411 PAGEID #: 1890

ATTORNEY BETHEL: It depends. “And sometimes he {Jurado] just sits and watches everybody and that's very - - - and the words "intimidating" and "aggressive" were used today in my conversation [with LeClair]”. (Emphasis Added.) Tr. Court Proceeding, July 8, 2013, at 12:25–14:23. 717. Interestingly enough, Defendants Smitherman and Petroff were present and knew that this information was fraudulent given that they were also well aware of Jurado’s amount of time and travel out of the state—which made it an impossibility for him to be at the daycare 2/day, 5 times/week. But as accomplices, they chose to allow Bethel to continue her deceit to mislead the court, given that they were part of the plan and all shared the same purpose with Defendant Lambert, as the Transcript of the Jul. 22, 2014 court proceeding proves: “MR. PETROFF: * * * our request to rein in father's parenting time, which has been argued ad nauseam, should be completely shortened in the best interest of the child.” Tr. Ct Proceeding Jul. 22, 2014, at 5:7–10. With “our request” he was referring to the pursuit of Defendants Bethel, Lambert, Smitherman, and his own to get the Court to take away Jurado’s parenting time, driven by their racism/ethnic bias. 718. Not long after the meeting held on Sep. 6, 2013 that was recorded, covert e-mails uncovered recently show that Defendants LeClair, Bethel, Smitherman and the psychologist continued concealed communications in contradiction to LeClair’s assertion in the recording that “I wouldn’t call her again”. 719. Defendant Bethel continued to use deceit to cover up her misconduct from July 8, 2013 even throughout 2014. The proceeding conducted on August 1, 2014 for Jurado to

287

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 301 of 411 PAGEID #: 1891

remove her as GAL is hard proof, as seen in the transcript of this proceeding that covered Jurado’s cross-examination of Bethel: a. “You talked to me a lot about that” was attorney Bethel’s answer in regarding to her knowledge of Jurado’s work arrangement out of town. Transcript of court proceeding to hear Jurado’s motion for emergency removal of Attorney-GAL Bethel, page 61, lines 4-10, Aug. 1, 2014 (Exhibit ) b. “I knew you flew back and forth between Chicago” 3 was also her answer under oath when asked to review Jurado’s frequent flyer report issued by United Airlines. c. “I stated what I felt by those words that I just read to the Court. * * * I was not misleading, no.” 4 was Defendant Bethel’s answer to Jurado’s question about her statement “I am being told, {Jurado] coming twice a day, five days a week. It’s disruptive * * *” 5 made in court during the July 8, 2013 proceeding, even when having full knowledge of Jurado being in Chicago 3-4 days a week, each week for the preceding twelve months. Q (Jurado). 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? A (Bethel). I knew that you were also spending a lot of time going to the daycare and an unusually - - a lot amount of time, Ari. 3 4 5

GAL Tr. at 74:09-10 GAL Tr. at 85:13-19 GAL Tr. at 84:25–85:1-2

288

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 302 of 411 PAGEID #: 1892

Q (Jurado). You knew or you heard? Question - - yes or no. Did you know or did you hear? A (Bethel). I believe what the daycare director told me. (JUDGE JAMISON): So, the answer to the question is you heard. A (Bethel). Yes. (Emphasis Added.) Transcript of Court Proceeding – Hearing for Emergency Motion to Remove GAL, at 88:11-25, 89:1-3 (See Exhibit ).

VII.F.5(e) RECORDING FROM SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM ACTION FOR CHILDREN 720. On September 9, 2013, to confirm his doubts about the integrity of the ODFJS investigation regarding the misconduct by Brooksedge that was being concealed by ODJFS, Jurado met with representatives from Action for Children, who confirmed Jurado’s concerns about the violations committed that should have been substantiated with the evidence available. It was clear that ODJFS inspection report and investigation were not affected by simple errors, but by irregularities that were intentional. 721. This audio recording captured statements made by representatives from Action for Children on Sep. 9, 2013, in support of Jurado’s allegations that Brooksedge wrongly denied him access to the facility—Action for Children is the official provider contracted by ODJFS to provide training to all licensed daycare centers in central Ohio, along with other services that include helping child care centers maintain their license and pass inspections from ODJFS.

289

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 303 of 411 PAGEID #: 1893

VII.F.5(f)

RECORDING FROM OCTOBER 8, 2013 SHOWING ONE OF THE AGREEMENTS OF THE CONSPIRACY BEING PUT INTO ACTION RELATING TO THE COVER UP OF EACH OTHER’S MISCONDUCT EVEN WHEN RESULTED IN CHILD NEGLECT

722. Two separate recordings covering the events of October 8, 2013 constitute material evidence that the Nationwide Children’s Hospital Emergency Room doctor and social worker had concerns about the infant child’s injuries and subsequently made a referral to Children Services (refer to recordings of statements by ER staff). The recording shows the doctor giving his recommendation for treatment of the child, which Lambert summarily rejected. Then, the ER doctor recommended the involvement of a social worker. 723. After witnessing Lambert’s behavior of hostility and defensiveness against Jurado, while being over-protective of Defendant Brooksedge and showing lack of concerns and disregard for the injuries sustained by the child, the social worker and the ER doctor were more inclined to report/make a referral to Franklin County Children Services (FCCS). Having Bethel’s number on speed dial, Lambert immediately contacted her as well as the daycare facility and LeClair to give them a heads up that FCCS had been called and would be soon on their way to the facility. 724. The recording shows how Lambert tried to downplay the child’s injuries sustained while being cared for by Brooksedge, as well as the black eye he sustained during the time she was breastfeeding knowing that the child’s new teeth could inadvertently hurt her. The doctor can be heard rebutting Lambert’s illogical attitude: Dr. Scherzer: So the only injury that concerns me is the black eye. * * *

290

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 304 of 411 PAGEID #: 1894

Lambert: He hit himself with the Sippy cup. It wasn’t like the whole eye was black * * * Dr. Scherzer: And what we do, this is law. This is state law. * * * Dr. Scherzer: If a child has an injury that can't be readily explained by normal child […], we have to report that to Children Services. It has nothing to do with what my opinion is. Dr. Scherzer: IF WE SEE A PICTURE OF A 10 MONTH OLD WITH A BLACK EYE, I DON'T HAVE A CHOICE! LIKE THAT'S A MANDATE. I WOULD BE BREAKING THE LAW IF I DIDN'T REPORT THAT. That is a mandate for physicians, and nurses and social workers. (Emphasis Added.) Tr. NCH ER, Oct. 8, 2013 Part-II, page 1 (See Exhibit SCO-M, 2nd Video Recording in DVD).

Dr. Scherzer’s last statement also supports Jurado’s arguments that

Brooksedge failed to report the black eye in order to protect Lambert. 725.

Neither Lambert nor Bethel showed any concerns about the feedback from the ER or

the child’s injuries. They focused on framing Jurado to make him appear as if his concerns about the child were ill-intentioned and proceeded to instigate retaliation by Brooksedge. Interestingly enough, at the time, the conspirators made it appear as if this was the triggering event before the dismissal of the child and the filing of the lawsuit. But new concealed e-mail communications uncovered recently prove that Defendants had been planning the lawsuit and even the injuries to the child for at least a month prior to the incident with the purpose of putting Jurado in the position in which he found himself at the ER.

291

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 305 of 411 PAGEID #: 1895

VII.F.5(g)

RECORDING FROM MARCH 13, 2014 SHOWING THAT LECLAIR AND ALEXANDERSAVINO WERE AWARE OF THE EVIDENCE BEING WITHHELD BY DEFENDANT DUNN WHILE ENGAGING IN OTHER MISCONDUCT DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING IN FRONT OF THE OCRC COMMISSIONERS

726. Despite the fact that LeClair and Alexander-Savino were aware of the unlawful acts committed by Dunn to favor Brooksedge, they

VII.F.6. RECORDINGS INVOLVING DEFENDANT LAMBERT VII.F.6(a) SET OF RECORDINGS FROM NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 2013 SHOWING LAMBERT’S ABUSIVE CONDUCT, PROVING THAT THE MANDATORY DAYCARE ATTENDANCE AND CONFINEMENT OF THE CHILD ORIGINATED FROM LAMBERT’S SELF-SERVING INTERESTS 727. This set of recordings serve as evidence of unlawful conduct by Lambert when she gave perjured testimony during trial in regards to events that occurred during this time and her true reason for her compliance with the orders around forced daycare attendance.

VII.F.6(b) RECORDING FROM MARCH 4, 2013 THAT CAPTURE LAMBERT REFUSING TO ALLOW DOCTOR TO MOVE UP A LAB TEST A WEEK EARLY 728. This recording, along with many others, shows Lambert obsession with control and her tendency to withhold medical care for the child as a result of her antagonism and selfserving contradictions to Jurado’s input or concerns.

VII.F.6(c)

RECORDING FROM MARCH 28, 2013 WITH DR. MASTRUSERIO SHOWS THE CONSISTENT DISREGARD FROM LAMBERT AND OTHER CO-CONSPIRATORS FOR THE WELL-BEING AND BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD

729. The expert pediatrician can be heard explaining that only 2-3 months earlier the child did suffer from weight gain problems contradicting Lambert’s and her friend-pediatrician’s

292

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 306 of 411 PAGEID #: 1896

assertions that Plaintiff N.G. was just a small child. She also discussed the likelihood that the culprit regarding the under-nutrition of the child was Lambert’s breast-milk production limitations, as Jurado had suspected.

VII.F.6(d) SET OF RECORDINGS FROM JAN 18, 2013, APRIL 25, 2013 OCTOBER 2013 AND OTHER DATES SHOWING THE INABILITY OF THE CHILD’S PEDIATRICIAN TO PROPERLY CARE FOR THE CHILD AND LAMBERT’S DISREGARD FOR THE CHILD’S WELL BEING 730.

The set of Recordings captured the pediatrician’s lack of objectivity as he enabled

and contributed to Lambert’s priority of disparaging Jurado while neglecting the well-being of the child due to her antagonism. Just as Lambert did when the child was malnourished, and she and the pediatrician’s main focus was in proving that she could successfully produce enough breast milk in favor of Lambert’s ego, while ignoring the needs of the child, Lambert engaged in similar conduct in concert with the pediatrician in respect to other aspects of the child’s health. 731. For example, Jurado had gathered enough evidence from his caretakers to bring up concerns about the normal cognitive development and behavior of the child between 12 and 18 months, and the recordings show Lambert and the pediatrician focused on contradicting Jurado as opposed to investigating his concerns. 732. During a visit for urgent care to the child’s pediatrician recorded in October 2013, the recording shows Lambert first arguing with the pediatrician regarding the definition of diarrhea, as she tried to deny that the child had experienced diarrhea for a full week. When the pediatrician learned that there was evidence that the child had been sick for all those days, but at the same time Lambert was in denial and asserted that the child was healthy while under her 293

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 307 of 411 PAGEID #: 1897

care for one full day—half-way through the week-long episode—the pediatrician then proceeded to make excuses to cover up for her obvious denial of the condition of the child. 733. The pediatrician and Lambert have known each other for more than 15 years. This example of Lambert’s denial of the child’s health condition in this instance support Defendant Bethel’s opinion early in the case that Lambert suffered from “super mom syndrome”. Bethel made the statement before entering the conspiracy.

VII.F.6(e) SET OF MULTIPLE RECORDINGS THROUGHOUT 2013 AND 2014 PROVING THAT LAMBERT ENGAGED IN UNLAWFUL CONDUCT WHEN SHE PROVIDED PERJURED TESTIMONY IN COURT 734. These recordings show that Lambert engaged in unlawful conduct when she provided perjured testimony during several hearings and during trial, in respect to events, incidents and the behavior and conduct of Jurado and Lambert toward each other.

VII.F.6(f)

RECORDINGS FROM JULY 26, 2013 SHOWING LAMBERT’S COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR THE WELL-BEING OF THE CHILD DURING HOSPITAL VISITS

735. The recordings captured Lambert consistently arguing with doctors and hospital personnel in her efforts to downplay the reasons for Jurado to bring the child for medical care, in the same manner shown in the October 8, 2013 recording.

VII.F.6(g)

RECORDING FROM DECEMBER 6, 2013 SHOWS CONSPIRATORS AGAIN WILLING TO PUT THE CHILD’S LIFE AND SAFETY AT RISK AS A PRICE TO PAY TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS OF THE CONSPIRACY

736. This recording captured Jurado and the minor N.G.’s driving across town through a snow storm to solely to appease and avoid harassment by Lambert and Bethel. Their fervor of

294

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 308 of 411 PAGEID #: 1898

keeping the child from being cared by Jurado even on his parenting days, may explain why Defendants pressured Jurado to drive the child during a snow storm across the city totaling 100 miles, with the pretext of mandatory daycare attendance in Hilliard, even when the day had been declared snow day and all schools had been closed for the day. The video from Dec. 6, 2013 also contains multiple snippets of newscasts broadcasted by stations from coast to coast announcing the storm going through Central Ohio in the eve and morning before it arrived and also covering the storm as it passed showing accidents and the danger of being on the roads unnecessarily.

VII.F.7. RECORDINGS INVOLVING DEFENDANT BETHEL VII.F.7(a) RECORDING FROM APRIL 25, 2013 SHOWS EVIDENCE OF BETHEL’S EFFORT TO COVER UP AND BURY ANY SUBSTANTIATION OF MEDICAL ISSUES REGARDING PLAINTIFF N.G. TO PROTECT LAMBERT’S REPUTATION, AS WELL AS THE FIRST ATTEMPT OF WITNESS TAMPERING BY CO-CONSPIRATORS 737. The recording captured Jurado’s pediatric expert requesting to speak with the Guardian Ad Litem, Bethel, regarding Plaintiff N.G.’s health and medical care, but was shut out by Bethel and her confederates, including Lambert. The recording also shows Dr. Mastruserio explaining to Jurado why it was better to get a new pediatrician, other than herself, to replace Lambert’s pediatrician-friend Dr. Muresan as Plaintiff N.G’s main health care provider. Jurado can be heard confirming that they “could not discard the possibility of failure to thrive” as an explanation for what the child endured for the first 6-7 months of his life. Dr. Mastruserio also disclosed to Jurado the fact that the child’s pediatrician had called her earlier that morning out of the blues. She first thought he was calling to discuss the child’s health, but quickly realized that Lambert’s pediatrician-friend had called her to censure and discredit Jurado in regards to 295

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 309 of 411 PAGEID #: 1899

his concerns about the health of the child, and the fact that he had been advocating for a new pediatrician. Dr. Mastruserio can also be heard telling Jurado of her intentions to talk to the Guardian Ad Litem, Bethel, about the child. It was evident that Jurado’s pediatric expert represented a threat to the conspiracy.

VII.F.7(b) RECORDING FROM SEP. 6, 2013 OF THE MEETING BETWEEN LECLAIR AND JURADO 738. As established in detail in section VII.F.5(d) above, the meeting captured by this recording servers as evidence of the fraudulent misrepresentations and other unlawful conduct engaged by Bethel. It also shows that LeClair, Lambert and Bethel had been in agreement to deprive Jurado from his right to the full and equal enjoyment of the daycare facility and services, and from his right to parent his son and enjoy his court approved time with him.

VII.F.7(c)

[OFFICIAL] COURT RECORDING OF PROCEEDING FROM MARCH 26, 2014 SHOWING BETHEL’S HOSTILITY AND HATRED TOWARDS JURADO

739. The court recording of this proceeding, presided by Magistrate Matthews, captured Defendant Bethel’s attack against Jurado. Bethel—unaware that the court recording system was left on by the Magistrate as she left the courtroom during a recess—can be heard scorning Jurado with the most upmost hostile and harsh tone, first about he having his phone out even when the Magistrate allowed him, then accused Jurado of using a “ghost writer” clandestinely.

296

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 310 of 411 PAGEID #: 1900

VII.F.8. RECORDINGS INVOLVING CONSPIRATORS NOT NAMED AS DEFENDANTS VII.F.8(a) SET OF RECORDINGS FROM INTERVIEWS WITH DR. SMALLDON DATED AUG. 2013– OCT. 2013, SHOWING FRAUD AND DECEIT IN FACTS AND EVENTS ALLEGED IN HIS REPORT AND BY HIS TESTIMONY UNDER OATH 740. In addition to the misrepresentations made by Dr. Smalldon on his report and witness testimony, regarding comments made by Jurado in his interviews, other substantial evidence is available that shows his participation in the conspiracy, including witnesses used as collateral sources.

VII.F.8(b) JAN. 16, 2015 RECORDING OF PHONE CONVERSATION WITH DOUG EATON, COURT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE TENTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS WHERE HE ADMITTED TO FILING IN “DRAFT” MODE THE JUDGMENT ENTRY DENYING JURADO HIS MOTION FOR STAY 741. This recording along with e-mails sent between Jurado and Mr. Eaton show that the Denial of Jurado’s Motion for Stay was pre-arranged before Jurado had even completed his filings. The recording of the phone call, which was made more than one hour before Jurado’s emergency brief was filed, captured the Administrator explaining to Jurado how he had “only” submitted the judgment entry (denying his Motion) in draft mode in the e-filing system because he was not sure if he would find other judges later in the afternoon to sign the order. 742. Eaton’s tone of frustration came about due to the confusion created by another Judgment entry that had been issued on the same day for another one of Jurado’s Motions to Stay.

Emails and the recording show how Eaton later tried to rationalize the disclosed

information after he determined that the second denial was the source of confusion. Nevertheless, he never denied that the Order he had referred to earlier that day was indeed

297

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 311 of 411 PAGEID #: 1901

filed by him in draft mode with the signature of a panel of three judges, while they pretended to seem like they were awaiting for Jurado’s brief before reaching a decision.

VII.G. EVIDENCE SHOWING CONSPIRACY IS SUBSTANTIAL— MISCELLANEOUS E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE AND RELATED DOCUMENTATION VII.G.1. E-MAILS AND HAND-WRITTEN NOTES BETWEEN DEFENDANTS GUTOWSKI AND GARCIA PROVING AGREEMENT TO DEPRIVE JURADO OF HIS RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 743. Around concealed late-November, early-December 2013, Jurado discovered documents and e-mail communications between Defendants Gutowski and Garcia showing the agreement entered by OOAG and OCRC to decide the outcome of Jurado’s complaints in favor of Brooksedge before the investigation started and before Jurado had any opportunity to present his evidence. It also shows their agreement to issue a No Probable Cause (NPC) for Jurado’s retaliation claim before he even filed it. The e-mails also identify other OCRC participants in the agreement, such as Garcia’s supervisor and the Columbus Regional Director. 744. The handwritten notes and e-mails were all dated on or around October 15, 2014 and line up with the timing of the misconduct engaged by Defendant Garcia, which began against Jurado around the same time. Refer to Exhibit YM3-45 in pages [ ] of the Appendix of Exhibits.

VII.G.2. E-MAILS BETWEEN DEFENDANT GARCIA AND PLAINTIFF JURADO SHOWING GARCIA’S MISCONDUCT, DISPARATE TREATMENT OF JURADO, AND INTENTIONAL ACTS TO DENY JURADO HIS EQUAL UTILIZATION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND OF SERVICES OFFERED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT 745. More than half a dozen e-mails sent between October and November 2013 by Defendant Garcia to Jurado clearly shows the disparate treatment against Jurado. His e-mail 298

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 312 of 411 PAGEID #: 1902

messages, for instance, indicated Jurado that he was not welcomed in the Rhodes State Office Tower, and discouraged him from coming back to the OCRC offices or to use the free service for notarization of complaints that OCRC offers to all other grievant. Other e-mails show Garcia trying to obtain access to information he was not authorized to obtain, such as ADR records, and other e-mails asking Jurado in a demeaning manner to not send too much information constituting evidence. The audio recording

VII.H. EVIDENCE SHOWING CONSPIRACY IS SUBSTANTIAL— CONCEALED E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE 746. Most of the concealed e-mails described herein were found or uncovered relatively recent—between November 2014 and January 2015.

VII.H.1. E-MAIL DATED AUG. 1, 2013 FROM BETHEL, TO LAMBERT AND SMITHERMAN DISPARAGING JURADO AND GIVING ADVICE TO LAMBERT ON THE EXACT TOPICS TO BRING UP DURING INTERVIEWS WITH DR. SMALLDON 747. The e-mail sent by Defendant Bethel on August 1, 2013, while in the role of Guardian Ad Litem, shows the close communication between her, Lambert and Smitherman in which she disparaged Jurado behind his back and gives advice to Lambert on what to bring up or not during her interviews for the psychological evaluation with Dr. Smalldon.

VII.H.2. E-MAILS SENT BETWEEN MAY 2013 AND FEBRUARY 2014 BY BETHEL TO JURADO AND HIS COUNSEL PURPORTED TO BE CLOSE COMMUNICATIONS, BUT SECRETLY AND UNETHICALLY “BLIND-COPIED” TO CO-CONSPIRATORS LAMBERT, SMITHERMAN AND DR. SMALLDON 748. These e-mails serve as proof of Bethel’s alliance with Defendants, in contravention of her impartial role of court officer, Guardian Ad Litem, and “arm of the court”. Not only that she 299

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 313 of 411 PAGEID #: 1903

misled Jurado and his attorney in numerous occasions by letting them think they were engaging in a one-on-one communication, but confirmed the concern of Jurado and his attorney that Bethel was acting as Lambert’s advocate while protecting all of their communications as if they had attorney-client privilege. Evidence that has recently surfaced shows that defendant Bethel adopted the standard practice, during her 18 months of appointment as GAL, to blind copy all e-mail correspondences between her, Jurado and his counsel to Lambert, Smitherman and Dr. Smalldon, her long-established partner in the practice of “family law rackets”. On his e-mail from November 2013, attorney Keith Golden addressed Bethel by posting the following question: “Blythe, I have a procedural question ....why is it that you have opted only to publish my and Ari's emails for everyone to see? Since the first day I have joined the case I have not seen one (1) email from Kathy nor her counsel put out there for all to see? Please advise....” 749. On another e-mail from January 2014, attorney Golden addressed Bethel’s predictable advocacy for Lambert: “I recommend that you not charge anyone for your time on this”. 750. On his e-mail dated October 15, 2013, attorney Golden objected to Bethel’s conduct: “you have become quite predictable and accordingly, Kathy acts in a uncooperative aggressive manner towards Ari, knowing you will inevitably come down favorable to her and Ari acts in a vacuum of hopelessness on every issue I again call your attention to your authority under GAL S. Ct. Rule of Super 48.”

300

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 314 of 411 PAGEID #: 1904

VII.H.3. SET OF COVERT E-MAILS SENT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 2013 BETWEEN DEFENDANTS BETHEL, LECLAIR, SMITHERMAN AND LAMBERT DISCUSSING THEIR PLAN OF FILING A LAWSUIT AGAINST JURADO, AND INCLUDED COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN BETHEL AND HER ABETTOR DR. SMALLDON REGARDING THE LAWSUIT 751. These e-mails show Defendants’ agreement to execute a subsidiary scheme to the master conspiracy involving a frivolous lawsuit against Jurado.

Given that these

communications started as early as September, they are evidence that the triggering events that led up to the forced dismissal of the child and the filing of the lawsuit against Jurado by LeBlanc and Brooksedge did not happen by chance. These e-mails show that the increasingly frequent head injuries to Plaintiff N.G. that prompted Jurado to take him to the Emergency Room, which in turn resulted in the involvement of FCCS, were carefully planned and intentionally inflicted by Defendants as part of their scheme to frame Jurado and to form their basis for the lawsuit. This is especially evident with the involvement of Dr. Smalldon in those secret communications, who was half-way through the psychological evaluation of the parties and thus, positioned strategically to know Jurado’s susceptibilities, and to be able to anticipate an outcome with the combination of predetermined factors and events.

Dr. Smalldon’s

psychological report itself, issued in December 2013, support these claims, as well as his testimony as an expert witness during the first part of the trial in the custody case in January 2015.

301

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 315 of 411 PAGEID #: 1905

VII.H.4. EMAIL FROM OCT. 29, 2013 BETWEEN DEFENDANTS SHOWS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION COLLECTED DURING JURADO’S INTERVIEW WITH CHILDREN SERVICES AS PART OF THEIR INVESTIGATION, BEING LEAKED BACK TO DEFENDANTS AS THE PRODUCT OF BETHEL’S INTERFERENCE WITH AND UNDERMINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE AGENCY’S OPERATIONS. 752. The effectiveness of the reach of the conspiracy can be seen with Bethel’s successful interference with the operations of Franklin County Children Services (FCCS), after her initial call to them during infant N.G. visit to the E.R. The e-mail from October 29, 2013 shows confidential information that was obtained from Jurado during the FCCS standard probe process being discussed by Defendants after being leaked by local government officials.

VII.H.5. EMAILS SENT BETWEEN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER 2013 BY BETHEL TO ALL THE PARTIES BLASTING JURADO FOR TAKING THE CHILD TO THE E.R., FOR THE RESULTING INVOLVEMENT OF FCCS AND FOR THE DISENROLLMENT OF THE CHILD FROM BROOKSEDGE, WERE ALSO SENT IN SECRECY TO DR. SMALLDON BY THE USE OF BLINDCARBON-COPY (BCC) 753. The original hard-copies of these emails showing the inclusion of Bethel’s long-time partner Dr. Smalldon in secrecy confirmed the allegations in the previous paragraph that the series of events that led up to the filing of the lawsuit were carefully planned by the conspirators, with the full participation of Dr. Smalldon. More evidence of this assertion can be found during the cross-examination of Dr. Smalldon by Jurado during the first part of trial in January 2015. When Jurado asked how often the final recommendation and findings in his evaluation reports coincide with Defendant Bethel’s opinions, Dr. Smalldon answered “never because I never know what the opinions of the GALs are during the pendency of the cases and while the evaluation is underway… I just don’t talk to the Guardians to know that information”.

302

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 316 of 411 PAGEID #: 1906

When Jurado presented to him the newly uncovered emails by Bethel that were sent to him clandestinely, he answered “Oh, all Guardians do that… all the time”.

VII.I. EVIDENCE SHOWING CONSPIRACY IS SUBSTANTIAL— LAY WITNESSES, COURT EMPLOYEES AS WITNESSES AND OPINION TESTIMONY BY OTHER WITNESSES VII.I.1(a)

COURT EMPLOYEES AS WITNESSES THAT PROVIDED STATEMENTS ON AUGUST 12, 2014 IN SUPPORT OF CLAIMS OF INTENTIONAL SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE PERPETRATED BY JUDGE JAMISON

754. This recording captured confirmation from court employees (not recorded inside any courtroom) that more than 70 pages of exhibits were provided by Plaintiff Jurado to opposing party and to the court during the August 4, 2014 proceeding, in support of Plaintiffs’ claim of Spoliation of Evidence by Defendant Jamison. 755. After Defendant Judge Jamison dismissed Jurado’s Motion for modification of Child Support a few minutes into the proceeding, the 70+ pages of exhibits provided to the Court were “lost”. Two days later, on August 6, 2014, Judge Jamison issued a Judgment Entry misrepresenting facts from the August 4, 2014 hearing. In her Entry, she stated “He did not have any W2s or 1099 forms; he produced only a spreadsheet, that he had prepared, as evidence of his income. He testified to business expenses”. (See Entry dated August 6, 2014). A few days later, the judicial transgression escalated when the fraudulent Entry was used as the only exhibit attached to Judge Jamison’s Motion to Dismiss filed with the Supreme Court of Ohio in case 2014-1225.

303

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 317 of 411 PAGEID #: 1907

756. The purpose of Judge Jamison’s misconduct was to cause prejudice and to support her assertion to the high court that one of Jurado’s claims in his Original Action was now mooted, as one reason to dismiss the action. This recording memorializing confirmation by court employees of the existence of the 70+ pages of exhibits supporting the allegation of intentional spoliation of evidence by Defendant Jamison is not of significant value given that the existence of the spoliated evidence can also be proven with the transcript of the Aug. 4, 2014 proceeding in which references to “the documents” were made. 757. The transcript from the January 12, 2015 proceeding also supports the existence of the evidence that was spoliated, during which Judge Jamison convinced opposing counsel to stop pursuing allegations that Jurado had not comply with discovery orders in regards to his income and financial disclosures, because he indeed provided a good amount of documentation when the bailiff made copies for the parties and the court on August 4, 2014. The testimony from Defendant Lambert during the same proceeding confirmed the existence of the same spoliated evidence.

304

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 318 of 411 PAGEID #: 1908

VII.J. EVIDENCE SHOWING CONSPIRACY IS SUBSTANTIAL— TRANSCRIPTS OF COURT PROCEEDINGS, DOCKET ENTRIES, OTHER FILINGS AND FORMAL DOCUMENTATION VII.J.1.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDING FROM JULY 8, 2013 AS ONE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE OF CONCERTED ACTION IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY, WHEN HE WAS DECLARED “OVERINVOLVED DAD” AND NOT ALLOWED TO ACCESS THE DAYCARE AND VISIT HIS SON, ALL THE RESULT OF FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS BY CONSPIRATORS

758. Jurado and LeClair discussed at length, as seen in the September 6, 2013 recording, the events leading up to the hearing from July 8, 2013. The entire meeting was centered around the topic of the misconduct by Bethel an Lambert that resulting in complaints filed with multiple state government agencies. The transcript from July 8, 2013 shows Bethel engaging in deceptive conduct when she made fraudulent misrepresentations to the court in close coordination with Smitherman and Petroff. One of the many misrepresentations that Bethel made to the court on July 8, 2013: ATTORNEY BETHEL: And I spoke with her [LeClair] this morning at length before coming into Court. - - - they have an open door policy like most daycares do * * * I do have a problem when we have a parent that is, I'm being told, coming twice a day, five days a week. It's disruptive to the daycare – MAGISTRATE MATTHEWS: This is dad? ATTORNEY BETHEL: Yes. MAGISTRATE MATTHEWS: Uh-huh (affirmative response) ATTORNEY BETHEL: it's - - - it's disturbing to some of the other parents. * * * MAGISTRATE MATTHEWS: What's he - - - how long is he spending when he comes?

305

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 319 of 411 PAGEID #: 1909

VII.J.2.

RECORD OF PHONE CALL MADE IN JULY 2013 SHOWING CONCERTED ACTION BETWEEN LAMBERT AND BETHEL TO CORRUPTLY INFLUENCE AND TAMPER WITH JURADO’S EXPERT WITNESS, DR. MASTRUSERIO

760. The phone call made by Lambert to Dr. Mastruserio in mid-July 2013 in agreement with Bethel also shows that this was the last time anyone from the case had contact with the pediatrician before she abruptly discontinue contact with Jurado and recanted some of her previously made assertions and statements.

VII.J.3.

ITEMIZED BILLS FROM BETHEL SHOWING EXTENSIVE COMMUNICATIONS PROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN HER, SMITHERMAN AND ALEXANDER-SAVINO IN PREPARATION OF THE SUBSIDIARY SCHEME OF THE LAWSUIT PRIOR TO THE TRIGGERING EVENT

761. As part of her greed, Bethel expected to be compensated by her victims for the time she was spending engaging in unlawful conduct, without ever considering the possibility that she would be named defendant in a Civil Rights conspiracy action. phenomenon can be seen with Defendant McCash.

306

The exact same

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 320 of 411 PAGEID #: 1910

762. Bethel’s itemized bills for periods September and October 2013, especially the one dated Nov. 1, 2013, include entries of phone calls made between her, Smitherman and Alexander-Savino. This activity was carried out after Bethel’s review and assessment of the daycare facility had been completed. Even if not, a Guardian Ad Litem has no business having communications with other attorneys who are in the planning stages of filing a lawsuit against one of the parents. Ironically, Defendant Bethel had refused to talk to two health care professionals requesting to talk to her in Jurado’s behalf, and who were more closely related to the best interest of the child than an attorney getting ready to cause harm to one of the parents of her ward.

VII.J.4.

ITEMIZED BILL FROM DEFENDANT MCCASH SUPPORTING EXTENSIVE UNLAWFUL, EXPARTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEFENDANT JAMISON

763. McCash, showing consistent behavior as Defendant Bethel, allowed his greed to expose his unlawful conduct when he included in his itemized bill, extensive ex-parte communications with Defendant Judge Jamison. Ex-parte communications between GALs and the court are prohibited by the rules of superintendence in Ohio as well as the local court rules, especially if the nature of the communications involves a substantive matter relevant to the case. In the one instance from December 5, 2014, the day of the incursion into Plaintiffs private life and their home, he billed 5 hours for this day, during the time he harassed and intimidated Jurado, the child and his elderly grandparents. 764. McCash appeared two or three times outside of Plaintiffs’ home—unannounced, abruptly and with a hostile posture—in an attempt to get inside; and his premeditated acts of

307

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 321 of 411 PAGEID #: 1911

intimidation and persecution did not last more than 10 or 15 minutes each. Yet, the 5 hours in his billing statement were justified as, Unannounced home visit to Defendant. TC with Defendant. TC with Plaintiffs’ counsel re Defendants work phone. Second unannounced home visit to Defendant. Review with Judge re Defendants refusal for home visit = 5.00 hours GAL’s Itemized Bill by McCash, Dec. 31, 2014, page 2. This proves Plaintiffs allegations that Defendants Thomas McCash and Judge Jamison participated in the intentional intrusion of Jurado’s parenting time and in bad faith. Refer to Exhibit

in pages [ ] of the Appendix of

Exhibits. 765. Jurado recalls McCash holding his phone while at the entrance of his home, as if he had an active call in progress. If Judge Jamison was not only involved in the planning but also in the step-by-step execution of the incursion by giving McCash instructions in real-time, it may partially explain his allocation of 3 hours to “review with Judge”. 766. Evidence of wrongdoing and transgressions occurred on Dec. 5, 2014, related to the 5 hours billed for that day is Defendants Judge Jamison and GAL McCash during the December 18, 2014 hearing. They both pretended as if McCash was educating Judge Jamison on the Dec 5, 2014 incident for the first time, and never gave an indication that they had spoken prior to the Dec. 18, 2014 hearing.

308

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 322 of 411 PAGEID #: 1912

VII.J.5.

JUVENILE COURT ENTRY DATED DEC. 26, 2014, DRAFTED BY MCCASH WITH DECISIONS ENDORSED BY JUDGE JAMISON AND ORDERS ISSUED ON DEC. 18, 2014

767. The entry issued by Judge Jamison on December 26, 2014 shows substantial evidence of agreement and collusion between Defendants McCash, Lambert, Smitherman and Judge Jamison, for the reasons outlined below.

VII.J.5(a)

768.

VII.J.5(b)

FORMALIZED JUDGE JAMISON’S RULING THAT JURADO DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND THAT MCCASH HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE UNANNOUNCED VISITS EVEN AFTER HE HAS COMPLETED HIS HOME VISITS/INVESTIGATION OR UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT DEVIATE FROM THE NORM

769.

VII.J.5(c)

SHOWS THE INEXPLICABLE ORDER FOR JURADO AND LAMBERT TO FOLLOW THE LOCAL RULE FOR PARENTING TIME DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON

770.

VII.J.5(d)

SHOWS THE PUZZLING DECISION TO MANDATE THAT THE NON-POSSESSORY PARENT WILL DETERMINE THE SCHEDULE FOR THE PARENTING HAVING THE CHILD TO FOLLOW DURING THEIR BREAK OR VACATION

771.

309

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 323 of 411 PAGEID #: 1913

VII.J.6.

TRANSCRIPT OF DEC. 18, 2014 COURT PROCEEDING WITH JUDGE JAMISON SHOWS MULTIPLE OVERT ACTS BY JAMISON AND MCCASH IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY

VII.J.6(a)

THE COURT TRANSCRIPT SHOWS JUDGE JAMISON ATTEMPTING TO CONCEAL MISCONDUCT BY MCCASH

772. One example of the concealment is Judge Jamison response to Jurado’s concerns and allegations that specific actions and conduct of McCash were in detriment of the well-being and best interest of the child: “we are not at the best interests yet”.

VII.J.6(b)

THE COURT TRANSCRIPT SHOWS JUDGE JAMISON COVERING UP THEIR UNLAWFUL CONDUCT AND CIVIL RIGHTS ABUSES FROM DEC. 5, 2014

773. The transcript includes Jurado’s attempts to address his claims and concerns of the misconduct by McCash during the unlawful hostile intrusions two weeks earlier, and Judge Jamison responding “this is not an evidentiary hearing” when a suggestion was presented that Jurado would be calling witnesses that were already in the courthouse. However, Judge Jamison made assertions, in her filing with the Chief Justice of the SCO responding to Jurado’s Affidavit of Disqualification, that, He exaggerates the height and weight of the Guardian ad !item to make it appear that he instilled fear when attempting to make contact with Mr. Jurado and observe his parenting of the minor child as required by Rule 48 of the Ohio Rule of Superintendence. Judge Jamison Response filing with the SCO, page 2 (See Exhibit LV-E2, page 002). Defendant Jamison made an unfounded accusation against Jurado without having evidence or without being present during the incident, unless she is admitting that she was on the phone giving real time instructions to McCash during the entire altercation.

310

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 324 of 411 PAGEID #: 1914

VII.J.6(c)

THE COURT TRANSCRIPT SHOWS DEFENDANT MCCASH GIVING PERJURED TESTIMONY IN REGARDS TO THE DEC. 5, 2014 INCIDENT

774. His fraudulent misrepresentations during testimony can easily be proven with emails exchanged between him and the parties. For example, he state that Jurado did not provide information as to who would be caring for the child on Dec. 5. However, emails sent by Jurado prove otherwise. 775. Almost every other statement given by McCash during the Dec 18, 2014 proceeding constituted perjury, especially surrounding the controversial attack against the owner of the daycare used by Jurado, which resulted in the permanent expulsion of Plaintiff N.G. and the termination of the contract between the facility and Jurado.

VII.J.6(d)

THE COURT TRANSCRIPT SHOWS DEFENDANT MCCASH CAUSING DEFAMATION TO JURADO WHILE DEPRIVING HIM OF EQUAL PROTECTING, AND SHOWS DEFENDANT JAMISON DEPRIVING JURADO OF DUE PROCESS

776. The transcript shows McCash fabricating parental deficiencies and flaws against Jurado during his testimony under oath—such as the finding of the Civil Rights Magazine in his Living Room with Dr. Martin Luther King in the cover—to harm Jurado’s case, credibility and deprive him of Equal Protection. The transcript also memorialized Judge Jamison telling Jurado “we are here just to clarify the order” in trying to making desist when he was presenting his defense against McCash’ s claims against him and when he was close to proving the unlawful conduct by McCash.

311

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 325 of 411 PAGEID #: 1915

VII.J.6(e)

THE COURT TRANSCRIPT SHOWS CONSPIRATORS CARRYING OUT THE FINAL STAGES OF THE SUB-SCHEME TO FULLY DEPRIVE JURADO OF HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS BY FORCING A COMPLETE SEPARATION OF FATHER AND SON AND TO DEPRIVE HIM OF OTHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

777. The transcript shows how Defendants Jamison and McCash first imposed Lambert and Jurado to follow a local rule for parenting schedule during Holidays that they never followed before, and without justification. They knew that with such move, Jurado would be deprive of contact with his son for eleven straight days for the first time since Plaintiff N.G. was born. During the same proceeding, Judge Jamison issued an unlawful an unconstitutional entry with a standing order authorizing the summary punishment of Jurado by suspending his parenting rights before having the opportunity to present evidence or a defense. As a result, Jurado has been deprived of parenting time with his son now exceeding three full months.

VII.J.7.

CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ISSUED ON AUG. 27, 2014 FOR REMOVAL OF BETHEL SHOWS COLLABORATION BETWEEN DEFENDANTS JAMISON, ODC, SCO AND JOHN DOE IN THE SUB-SCHEME TO PROTECT BETHEL, COVER UP HER MISCONDUCT, AND RETALIATE AGAINST JURADO

778. The continuance form issued by the Court—just as the Proceeding was getting ready to start at 1pm on Aug. 27, for the second part of the Hearing for the Removal of Bethel as GAL—stated that Judge Jamison was requesting the Continuance to be set to September 24, 2014 due to another ongoing trial being presided by the Judge on that day. However, the trial proceeding was a pretext not to hold the hearing Jurado had been anxiously waiting for since August 1, 2014 when it went on recess, after the first part of the cross-examination of Bethel by Jurado.

312

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 326 of 411 PAGEID #: 1916

779. An independent investigation found that the trial being referred to in the Continuance form was only a pretext because it ended at 1pm, and Defendant Jamison was not on the courthouse building after 1pm on that day. Judge Jamison first received a call from John Doe instructing her to postpone the hearing and set a continuance specifically for September 24, 2014. Judge Jamison was subsequently summoned for a meeting with other coconspirators to discuss how to handle the September 24, 2014 proceeding and avoid more exposure of Bethel’s acts as the August 1, 2014 proceeding did. 780. John Doe, ODC and SCO were the only ones that knew the exact date the High Court would be issuing a decision on Jurado’s Original Action for Writs in which Bethel, Jamison and ODC were the subject matter. The discussion was focused on a detail plan that included Jamison conducting the Sep. 24 proceeding in Chambers, the first and only time in the two years of the pendency of the case, in order to prevent any type of recording or evidence of the content of the proceeding. The plan also included the incarceration of Jurado in retaliation for his public denouncing of unlawful discrimination by Bethel and by the Justice system.

VII.J.8.

TRANSCRIPT OF SEP. 24, 2014 COURT PROCEEDING PROVES RETALIATION BY JAMISON AND COMPLETE DEPRIVATION OF JURADO’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; SHOWS JUDICIAL TRANSGRESSIONS AND INDICATION OF PARTICIPATION BY ODC AND SCO

781. The transcript of the Sep. 24, 2014 proceeding shows how Judge Jamison followed through on their previously devised plan to cover up Bethel’s misconduct, conceal Judge Jamison’s handling of the matters, and the incarceration of Jurado for retaliation.

The

transcript includes objections by Jurado that the Show Cause/Contempt hearing was not

313

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 327 of 411 PAGEID #: 1917

previously scheduled, and Jamison not disputing the fact but still overruling his objections. It shows Judge Jamison preventing Jurado from presenting evidence and his defense, and includes statements by Jamison confirming that she had conducted an earlier proceeding in Chambers during which she Sua Sponte removed Bethel, but “not because she did anything wrong”.

Although the transcript does not show other overt acts in furtherance of the

conspiracy that occurred on that day, plenty of evidence described in this complaint shows the additional concerted action that took place on that day, including (a) Jamison’s approval for Bethel to return to the case as a paid expert witness for Lambert (b) the coercion of Jurado and forced signing of the withdrawal form for his Motion to Remove Bethel as GAL, (c) the hostile treatment of Jurado in Chambers by Bethel, Smitherman and Jamison, and Jurado warnings that he was seeking federal relief for their abuses an intentional deprivation of his civil rights.

VII.J.9.

DEFENDANT JUDGE JAMISON’S RESPONSE FILING IN CASE 2015-AP-005 TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF SCO SHOWING AT LEAST 10 INSTANCES OF INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATIONS AND DECEPTIVE CONDUCT

782. In her response to Jurado’s Affidavit of Disqualification, which she wrote herself, Defendant Jamison made numerous fraudulent misrepresentations, including

VII.J.9(a)

MISLEADING STATEMENT REGARDING THE INCIDENT FROM DECEMBER 5, 2014

783. Her statement involved McCash harassing Jurado and his family at their home. Defendant Jamison referred to Jurado as “He exaggerates the height and weight of the Guardian ad !item to make it appear that he instilled fear when attempting to make contact with Mr. Jurado and observe his parenting of the minor chi Id as required by Rule 48 of the Ohio Rule of Superintendence.” (See Exhibit LV-E2, page 002). However, it is virtually impossible for

314

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 328 of 411 PAGEID #: 1918

her to know what transpired on that day given that she was not there and there has not been any evidentiary hearing on the matter. In fact, when the parties tried to address the incident from December 5, 2014 and Jurado was going to call his parents as witnesses during the December 18, 2014 court proceeding, Defendant Jamison said “NO. This is not an evidentiary hearing” (See Exhibit LV-E1, page 198).

VII.J.9(b)

784.

DEFENDANT JAMISON MADE ANOTHER MISLEADING STATEMENT TO DENY JURADO’S CLAIMS OF HER DEPRIVATION OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS DURING THE SEP. 24, 2014 PROCEEDING. In her written response she stated that

Mr. Jurado's claims that he did not have notice of the Motion for Contempt and was deprived of his due process rights are unfounded. Service was made upon Mr. Jurado by certified mail on July 1, 2014 and the return receipt was filed with the Court on July 7, 2014 Judge Jamison Response filing with the SCO, page 2 (See Exhibit LV-E2, page 002). Even though those facts are true, she failed to mention that the service was made for the proceeding set for hearing on July 2014, only.

And after she stayed the custody case—and made another

misrepresentation to the high court of her filing in case 2014-1225 in which she stated that the hearing and motion for show cause “was vacated” in order to falsely moot Jurado’s claims in that action—she or anyone else filed a continuance for the hearing of the Motion for Show Cause from Defendant Lambert. 785. By only stating that service was effected upon Jurado in July 2014 without addressing whether the Show Cause/Contempt hearing was properly scheduled for September 24, 2014, she is intentionally deceiving the Chief Justice. In addition to Plaintiff Jurado’s claim that there

315

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 329 of 411 PAGEID #: 1919

is as no continuance or notification of such proceeding for Sep. 24, 2014, Jurado verified with the Clerk’s office and assignment office and both confirmed that there was no continuances filed between July 2014 and September 2014, except for Jurado’s Motion to Modify Child Support and his Motion for Removal of GAL. The docket only shows one Motion set for hearing on September 24, 2014. In support of Jurado’s allegation of this fraudulent misrepresentation by Jamison, the Court Entry that she issued on August 6, 2014, confirmed any and all pending matters set for hearing after that day: “This case is scheduled for further hearing on August 27, 2014, at 1:30 p.m., in front of Judge Jamison in Courtroom 65, on Defendant's Emergency Motion to Remove the Guardian ad Litem.” 786. Also, the transcript of the Sep. 24, 2014 proceeding shows that Jurado objected to the impromptu show cause because the court had not properly scheduled it and Defendant Jamison did not deny it. Instead, she overruled his objections after she asked “If you would have come tomorrow had you paid it? (See Exhibit LV-E1 pages 110-111). 787. Also during the proceeding in chambers earlier that afternoon of Sep. 24, 2014, Defendant Jamison acknowledged that the Motion for Show Cause was not supposed to be heard that day after Jurado brought up his concerns. Defendant Jamison responded, “the Court can hear motions in any order it pleases”. After experiencing many abuses in the proceeding in chambers, Jurado disclosed his intentions to pursue federal relief right before they moved back to the court room.

316

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 330 of 411 PAGEID #: 1920

VII.J.9(c)

DEFENDANT JAMISON MISREPRESENTED JURADO’S TESTIMONY IN REGARDS TO HIS INCOME FROM PRIOR YEARS

788.

Judge Jamison made misleading statements justified her refusal to provide a court-

appointed counsel (see Exhibit LV-E2, page 002). As seen in the transcript of proceedings from August 4, 2014, she did not allow Jurado to establish his income and instead, Judge Jamison uses the few pieces of information she coerced from Jurado before she dismissed his Motion and the hearing.

VII.J.9(d)

789.

DEFENDANT JAMISON ENGAGED IN DECEPTIVE CONDUCT WHEN IN HER WRITTEN RESPONSE, SHE FALSELY STATED THAT “MANY ATTEMPTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO ASSUAGE MR. JURADO'S FEELINGS OF PERSECUTION AND DEAL WITH HIS ACCUSATIONS” In page 2 of her response filing (Exhibit LV-E2 page 003) Judge Jamison made

assertions in reference to the Courts’ response to Defendants Lambert, Petroff, Smitherman and Bethel scheme to commit fraud upon the court and unlawfully prejudice Plaintiff Jurado in the events of December 2013/Jan 2014. First, Jamison referred to Defendant Lambert’s dismissal of her Motion for TRO on January 7, 2014 as “pursuant to Ohio Civ. R. 4l(A)” when she is well aware that such dismissal was unauthorized by the Ohio rules for civil procedure, specifically Civ. R. 4l(A)(1). 790. Not only that she allowed Lambert’s claims against Jurado be voluntarily dismissed after commencement of the proceeding, but she has engaged in the cover up and concealment of the unlawful misconduct by Lambert, Petroff, Smitherman and Bethel. And by treating such dismissal as a valid procedure, she is not only covering up and encouraging misconduct by the co-conspirators, but she is preventing Jurado or anyone from making references to the 317

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 331 of 411 PAGEID #: 1921

testimony provided and the Court’s opinions during the December 20, 2013 proceeding—given that Jamison disparaged Bethel’s role as GAL, her absurd opinions, and unreasonable conduct before she knew who Bethel really was and before Jamison joined the conspiracy. 791. Second, Jamison also made a misleading statement to create the appearance that her Order issued on Jan. 23, 2014 to allow each parent to have their own daycare was mainly her acquiescence to appease Jurado. “Mr. Jurado requested to use his own daycare center during his parenting time. An order was issued stating that each party could use the daycare center of their choice to alleviate conflict the parties had when using the same daycare center.” (Exhibit LV-E2 page 003). 792. In reality, Judge Jamison had initially made the recommendation, during the Dec 20, 2013 proceeding, of the selection of a single daycare that was equidistant to both parents because of their “shared parenting” status. Such recommendation is what was in the best interest of the child, and Plaintiff Jurado agreed with that approach. Due to the refusal of Defendants Bethel, Lambert, Smitherman and Petroff to accept Judge Jamison’s recommendation of discontinuing the enrollment and attendance of Plaintiff N.G. at the facility of Defendant The Goddard School of Hilliard II, Plaintiff Jurado was forced to use the only option he had left: to use dual facilities for the child. The unauthorized dismissal of Lambert’s action on January 7, 2013 regarding the daycare placement was part of the scheme to commit fraud upon the court by Lambert and her co-conspirators. 793. For example, an almost-identical scheme to commit fraud upon the Court was identified by the Ohio Eight District Court of Appeals in State ex rel. Engelhart v. Russo, 2011-

318

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 332 of 411 PAGEID #: 1922

Ohio-2410, and later affirmed by the Ohio Supreme Court in State ex rel. Engelhart v. Russo, 131 Ohio St.3d 137, 2012-Ohio-47.

Plaintiff Jurado documented extensively Defendants

scheme to commit fraud upon the court in their actions from December 2013 and January 2014 in his filing in the Juvenile court dated November 18, 2014 and titled “FATHER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT HIS MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF COUNSEL”, but Judge Jamison went out of her way to help conceal the unlawful conduct of Defendants Petroff, Smitherman and Lambert. (See Exhibit ) 794. In short, the true reason for Judge Jamison to allow the utilization of two facilities was simply to favor the co-conspirators in their fervor to keep the child in a facility located as far as possible from Plaintiff Jurado. In fact, Judge Jamison has used her approval of the usage of dual daycare facilities as a defense to Jurado’s allegations of her bias, because that is one of the few instances in which she created the appearance to be acting neutral.

VII.J.9(e)

DEFENDANT JAMISON’S RESPONSE CONTAINED ANOTHER DECEITFUL STATEMENT REGARDING THE EXISTING MANDATORY ATTENDANCE AND FOR THE CHILD TO BE CONFINED IN DAYCARE EVEN WHEN THE PARENTS WERE ABLE TO CARE FOR THE CHILD

795. The forced mandatory daycare attendance was the result of Defendants Bethel’s, Smitherman’s and Lambert’s intense pursuit to find ways to keep Plaintiffs father and son separated. Defendant Jamison misled the Chief Justice when stated that “There was a previous order that neither parent could talk the child early from the daycare center. This condition was lifted and the decision to pick the child up or drop the child off was left up to each parent and their work schedule”.

319

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 333 of 411 PAGEID #: 1923

796. Since December 2013, Judge Jamison did explain the Court’s position during multiple proceedings that the Court could not tell a parent that he or she could not pick up the child from daycare if they could care for the child themselves. In other words, she initially did not support such restriction but was adamant to include that opinion in an Entry knowing that without making the court’s position formally in the record, the old restriction would continue to be enforced. As a result, for exactly twelve months, the mandatory confinement of the child in a daycare facility continued to be a major point of contention between the parties and the GAL, and against the best interest of the child. 797. Finally on December 18, 2014, Defendant Judge Jamison reiterated the court’s position and finally include it in a formal court entry, but only because she knew that it would not have any effect for two reasons: Defendant McCash had successfully caused the child to be expelled from Jurado’s daycare, AND the conspirators, which included Jamison, knew that Jurado would never have the 50/50 parenting schedule again or be able to exercise his rights under the shared parenting plan. On the same day that Judge Jamison officially lifted the mandatory daycare attendance, their scheme to deprive Plaintiffs of their father-son relationship was put into motion. 798. In short, Defendant Jamison really did not do anything to allow the parents—or better said to allow Jurado, since Lambert did not case and was the initial instigator for the child’s confinement—to be able to exercise their right to care for their own child over the rights of strangers that were caring for them instead.

320

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 334 of 411 PAGEID #: 1924

VII.J.9(f)

DEFENDANT JAMISON’S RESPONSE TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE INCLUDED OUTRIGHT DECEIT IN REGARDS TO THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEW GAL.

799. She stated “He requested a new Guardian Ad Litem, he got a new Guardian Ad Litem”. Plaintiff Jurado never requested a new Guardian Ad Litem, and nowhere on the record shows that he asked for a new Guardian. Wanting the current GAL removed is not synonym of asking for a new GAL. It would be an absurd conclusion to even assume he wanted a new Guardian Ad Litem after having such a negative experience with the first one and knowing that the appointment of a GAL is not necessarily a requirement in those types of cases. 800. As important is the fact that, Plaintiff Jurado was not able to afford the cost of a GAL, and Defendant Jamison was well aware. Furthermore, Jamison made contradictory statements in that same response filing and other court entries that indicate Jurado did not ask for a new GAL.

“I did sua sponte appoint Thomas McCash as Guardian ad /item to conduct an

investigation” Judge Jamison response to the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Exhibit LV-E2 page 004.

VII.J.9(g) 801.

JAMISON’S RESPONSE INCLUDED MISREPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF BLYTHE BETHEL AND HER PERFORMANCE AS GAL THAT LED TO HER REMOVAL. (i) Her statement “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” is 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 (see Exhibit , showing e-mail from Blythe Bethel to Jurado confirming Jurado’s allegation that Judge Jamison allowed her to return as an expert

321

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 335 of 411 PAGEID #: 1925

witness). Given Jurado’s assertions that Bethel had been advocating for the interest of Lambert since her appointment, it would render her statement made about “felt to avoid any appearance of bias or impropriety” a complete absurdity. 802. (ii) Jamison created the false appearance that Plaintiff Jurado’s complaints about Defendant Blythe Bethel were simply the result of his disagreements with her report and recommendations. …filed a report as required by Rule of Superintendent 48, and it is considered an extraordinary remedy when a party disagrees with the Guardian ad Litem’s recommendation. Judge Jamison response to the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Exhibit LV-E2 page 004. Defendant Bethel filed her report in March 2014, but Jurado filed his motion to remove her in January 2014. In addition, most of the complaints are based on her conduct and not necessarily on her recommendation. Also, Plaintiff Jurado demonstrates throughout the case that his concerns about Defendant Bethel started almost a year earlier only a month after her appointment. By May 2013, Jurado was already seeking different forms of relief, including grievances. 803. (iii) Judge Jamison made fraudulent misrepresentations about the Court’s finding regarding Defendant’s Bethel conduct and performance in her role of GAL. “The Court did not find any bias or prejudice during Mr. Jurado's inquiry to Blythe Bethel during testimony. The Court removed Ms. Bethel even though she had conducted a full investigation” Judge Jamison response filing to the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Exhibit LV-E2 page 004. Those assertions are false. First, Jurado’s inquiry during the August 1, 2014 proceeding only covered

322

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 336 of 411 PAGEID #: 1926

10% or less of the evidence, exhibits and allegations he was making against Bethel, and Judge Jamison has validated that the proceeding was never resumed on September 24, 2015. (See Exhibit

with Jurado’s Motion for Judicial Notice and Judge Jamison entry dated granting his

motion and agreeing with him). Therefore, Judge Jamison could not know one way or the other how much investigating Bethel had done. Secondly, the transcript of the court proceeding from August 1, 2014 clearly established that Blythe Bethel failed to conduct a full investigation by refusing to talk to the pediatrician that had requested to talk to her, and also established that she misled the court on July 8, 2013 when Bethel told Magistrate Matthews that Jurado was visiting his son at daycare twice a day, 5 times a week, when she knew that he was spending most of his time in Chicago, Illinois. (See Exhibit with Transcript of Proceeding from Aug. 1, 2014).

VII.J.9(h)

804.

JUDGE JAMISON OUTRIGHT LIED ABOUT NOT CONDUCTING ANY PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN THE FILING OF JURADO’S ORIGINAL ACTION IN JULY 2014 AND THE SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 HEARING. “Once I became aware that Mr. Jurado had filed an Original Action for Extraordinary

Writs no other hearing was held until September 24, 2014.” Judge Jamison Response Filing, SCO Petition Case 2015-AP-005, Exhibit LV-E2 pages 004–005. It is not difficult to prove the falsehood of such statement. Exhibit LV-E5 pages 001–006 show Court Entries issued by Defendant Jamison, including her order for a general stay of the case issued on July 23, 2014, her subsequent entry issued on Aug 1, 2014 lifting the stay and her Judgment Entry issued on August 6, 2014 regarding the proceeding conducted on August 4, 2014, and also the August 1, 2014 proceeding.

323

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 337 of 411 PAGEID #: 1927

805. If her our court entries leave any doubts, Exhibit LV-E1 pages 294–330 contain a certified copy of the (partial) transcript of proceedings held on August 1, 2014. Clearly Judge Jamison statement about not conducting any hearings before September 24, 2014 is an intentional fabrication.

VII.J.9(i)

JUDGE JAMISON’S MISLEADING STATEMENT REGARDING JURADO’S ACTION AGAINST HER IN FEDERAL COURT.

806. Defendant Jamison made reference to this instant Civil Rights action against her by simply stating “I, Judge Jamison have not been served with a civil lawsuit that was filed in Federal Court.” Her statement is misleading because she tries to create the perception that this action against her would not cause bias simply because she has not been served, even though she has received a copy of the complaint.

VII.J.10. THE MAR. 13, 2014 TRANSCRIPT SHOWS JAMISON’S RADICAL CHANGE OF POSTURE AGAINST JURADO AS A SIGN OF ENTERING AGREEMENT WITH CO-CONSPIRATORS, AND TO RETALIATE AFTER RECENT DISMISSAL OF JURADO’S GRIEVANCE AGAINST BETHEL BY ODC 807. The transcript shows one of the most significant overt acts by Defendant Jamison in furtherance of the conspiracy when she declared Jurado an adversary of the court, and deprived him of his right to due process, while protecting the interest of Bethel. For details, refer to section VII.D.4(a) “Differential Treatment of Jurado on account of his National Origin; Cover Up of Bethel’s Misconduct and the Court’s Own Opinion about Bethel During the Dec. 20, 2013 Hearing; Judge Jamison Willful Participation in Defendants’ Dec 2013-Jan 2014 Plot to Commit Fraud Upon the Court and to Deprive Jurado of his Right to Due Process

324

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 338 of 411 PAGEID #: 1928

808. Defendant Jamison’s first opportunity to conduct a full evidentiary hearing in Jurado’s and Lambert’s custody case came about on December 20, 2013. By then, Defendant Jamison had shown some degree of differential treatment against Jurado a week earlier when she knowingly issued an Emergency TRO that was non-compliant with court rules, allowed defendants Bethel and Smitherman to skirt multiple court rules during the TRO proceedings in detriment of Jurado, and also deprived Jurado from the opportunity to present his testimony as his own witness during the December 20, 2013 hearing. Still, the transcript of the proceeding shows that Judge Jamison was still not part of the conspiracy at that point, as it is evident throughout the transcript that her questions, comments and opinions were focused on the best interest of the child, and as a consequence, Judge Jamison was at odds with the conduct of Defendants Smitherman and Bethel, their actions and opinions in reference to the daycare situation, including the recent selection process of the new daycare and the mandatory daycare attendance that did not allow Jurado to care for his own child. The content of that proceeding and transcript is material evidence of Bethel’s misconduct, fraud and willful neglect of the welfare of the child. For details, refer to section VII.D.6(a) “Defendants Agreed to Give Perjured Testimony During the December 20, 2013 Court Proceeding” below. 809. Sometime between December 20, 2013 and the Emergency Hearing requested by Jurado on January 22, 2014, the first successful attempt by the conspirators to corruptly influence and interfere with the tribunal took place. The transcript of the January 22, 2014 proceeding shows an increase on the differential treatment of Jurado—as his first time acting pro se and Jamison’s evident aversion to his speech accent—and Defendant Jamison’s attempt to bury and obscure the proceeding from December 20, 2013 and its content. As 325

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 339 of 411 PAGEID #: 1929

Jurado attempted to impeach attorney Bethel’s testimony as GAL by referring to statements she made during the December 20, 2013 hearing and expose her fraudulent misrepresentations, Judge Jamison cut off his argument by ruling that any information from the Dec. 20, 2013 was off-limits given that the court lacked jurisdiction after Lambert’s voluntary dismissal of her Motion that was being heard at the time, even when Jurado insisted and objected. 810. Clear evidence exists that proves Judge Jamison’s actions to prevent Jurado from using the Dec. 20, 2013 testimony against Bethel to be pretextual: (1) In Ohio, a Court’s lack of Jurisdiction over a matter or action dismissed does not prevent the Court or limit its ability to use evidence, testimony or any other information or aspect of the dismissed action or proceeding for “collateral matters”, such as Contempt and Misconduct; (2) the Voluntary Dismissal of Lambert’s Motion filed on January 7, 2014 was invalid and unauthorized by law; (3) the Voluntary Dismissal of Lambert’s Motion filed on Jan. 7, 2014 was part of a plot to commit Fraud upon the court. For details, refer to section VII.D.6(b) “Concerted Action to Perpetrate Fraud Upon the Court and to Deprive Jurado of his Right to Due Process with the Filing of an Invalid and Unauthorized Voluntary Dismissal on January 2014 based on Precedent Set by State ex rel. Engelhart v. Russo, 2011-Ohio-2410” below. 811. In fact, Judge Jamison’s knowledge of the lack of validity of the dismissal became more obvious in two other distinct occasions when Jurado made references to the text under Ohio’s Civ. R. 41(A) subdivisions (1) and (2)—which allows Voluntary Dismissals by the Movant without an order from the court or agreement from the other parties as long as the proceeding

326

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 340 of 411 PAGEID #: 1930

has not started—when he made similar attempts to refer to the testimony from Dec. 20, 2013 and was prevented by Judge Jamison. There is no reasonable excuse or justification for Judge Jamison’s adamant stance to prevent Jurado from using her own opinion about Bethel’s actions and Bethel’s perjured testimony from the Dec. 20, 2013 proceeding. 812. Retaliation, Cover Up and Premeditated Deprivation of Jurado’s Constitutional Right to Due Process during the March 13, 2014 Proceeding” above.

VIII. ALL LOCAL REMEDIES EXHAUSTED & ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE STATE FORUM 813. After almost two years of unsuccessfully petition the state government for the redress of wrongs committed by Defendants, and after more than a year seeking relief with the Supreme Court of Ohio with the Ohio Court of Appeals, Plaintiffs have not been granted their day in court. 814. In July 2013, Jurado sought the help and guidance of the administrative offices of the Supreme Court of Ohio, and of multiple sections of the Ohio Office of the Attorney General, as well as several other state and local law enforcement agencies without success. 815. Between July and August 2013, Jurado sought the help from state regulatory agencies and departments but those attempts failed after the unlawful interference of the conspirators, as well as their corrupt influence that resulted in the agencies’ participation in the conspiracy. 816. In September 2013, a local law enforcement agency, the Westerville Police Department, was able to provide limited assistance and guidance to Jurado.

327

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 341 of 411 PAGEID #: 1931

817. Between October-November 2013, during his second round of attempts to seek help with Defendant OOAG, Jurado immediately felt the backlash of retaliatory and intimidating actions of Defendant OOAG as it took an active part in the ongoing conspiracy against Plaintiffs, which was extended to the full participation of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and related named Defendants in this action. 818. Between January and March 2013, Jurado sought the help of Ohio’s Attorney Disciplinary System under the umbrella of the Supreme Court of Ohio concurrently as he sought the intervention of the Juvenile court in addressing his grievances and seeking redress for the wrongs of Defendants, but the result was more than reckless indifference and refusal to act. It marked the beginning of an era of tightly synchronized acts of retaliation and concealment by key actors within the Judiciary Branch, some but not all of them named defendants in this action. 819. In April 2014, Jurado attempted to file an original action in mandamus and prohibition with the SCO, as shown by his filings with the Juvenile Court, but the acts of the conspirators to inflict undue hardship prevented him to access the courts on a timely and effective basis. After Jurado was finally able to file his Original action with the Supreme Court of Ohio in July 2014, the transgressions and dark conspiratorial conduct of Juvenile Court defendants—including Judge Jamison—became overt and ever increasing, along with evidence of plus factors showing agreement and concerted action between the Juvenile Court Defendants, SCO Defendants and other conspirators within the Judiciary Branch, including the

328

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 342 of 411 PAGEID #: 1932

events that took place in August 1, 4 and 27 of 2014, as well as the incidents and events of September 2014. 820. In September 2014, the SCO granted Defendants Judge Jamison and ODC’s motion to dismiss Jurado’s original action without reasonable excuse or justification and without affording Jurado an opportunity to adjudicate his claims on the merits. The dismissal’s perfect timing synchronized with actions by Judge Jamison represents another PLUS FACTOR in support of the conspiracy. 821. In response to increasing acts of overt retaliation and abuse of her authority under the color of state law by Judge Jamison, Jurado sought relief from the Tenth District Court of Appeals between November 2015 and February 2015. In three separate instances, the court of Appeals denied Jurado the relief he sought as well as his right to Appeal without a valid explanation, reasonable excuse or justification, and without giving him a fair opportunity to adjudicate his claim on the merits.

Consistent with the evidence showing intentional

deprivation of rights committed by OOAG in concert with OCRC during the adjudication of Jurado’s charges of discrimination and retaliation, Jurado obtained evidence in January 2015 that the Tenth District Court of Appeals was pre-determining the outcome of Jurado’s motions and requests in violation of his constitutional rights to Equal Protection and Due Process under the Fourteen Amendment. 822. As ultimate evidence of the participation of SCO in giving Judge Jamison carte blanche to abuse her authority without restrain and in wanton disregard for the rights and protections of the U.S. Constitution, Jurado filed a Petition & Affidavit of Disqualification of Judge Jamison

329

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 343 of 411 PAGEID #: 1933

from the custody case in January 2015. The handling of the petition process, the turn-around time, and the content of the Judgment entry all establish new precedent in the determination of claims of bias against State Judges. As shown by the evidence and through the exhibits provided, the standards for determining whether Judge Jamison was bias and impartial deviated from the standards used for the adjudication of other grievants’ application for disqualification of the judges presiding on their cases.

IX. CLAIMS & CAUSES OF ACTION IX.A. PREEMPTION BY FEDERAL LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO STATE LAWS, PROCEEDINGS, PRACTICES AND OFFICIAL CONDUCT CLAIM I – PREEMPTION BY FEDERAL LAW 42 U.S.C. §2000D ET SEQ. (AS CODIFICATION OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964) 823. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-822 as if fully set forth herein. 824. Ohio’s Gov. Bar R. Rule V, as well as its Section 11, Division (E) conflicts with Federal Statutes 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., (Title VI, Sec. 601) and regulations promulgated by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and by the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) under 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1 (Title VI, Sec. 602), for compliance with enforcement of Title VI laws by recipients of Federal funds, as it significantly interferes with the methods by which the federal statute was designed to reach the purposes and objective of Congress. 825. HHS and DOJ regulations promulgated under Title VI, Section 602, such as 45 C.F.R. 80.3 and 28 C.F.R. 42.104, respectively, forbids recipients from utilizing “methods of

330

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 344 of 411 PAGEID #: 1934

administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program with respect to individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin.” (Emphasis Added.) 45 C.F.R. 80.3(b)(2); 28 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(2). In the instant case, Gov. Bar R. Rule V, permits SCO’s Disciplinary System, Disciplinary Counsel, and the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline to under-enforce Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(g) as compared to all other Rules of Conduct, resulting in Hispanics, Blacks, and other non-White grievants from being denied grievance investigations and other services regarding misconduct for unlawful discrimination by attorneys, court officers, and judges, in disproportion to WhiteAmerican grievants with claims of misconduct that are unrelated to unlawful discrimination. As such, the state rule(s) result in non-compliance and conflict with these federal statutes and regulations. 826. Pursuant to regulations promulgated by DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs and OMB Circular A-102, “Standard Assurances” were developed by Ohio’s Office of Criminal Justice Services (OMB 1121-0140) that all Grant applicants must pledge and adhere to after being awarded.

The Standard Assurances require recipients and sub-recipients to comply with

applicable Federal statutes, regulations, policies, guidelines, standards, recommendations and requirements such as Title VI statutes and regulations, inter alia, and standards that promote unbiased investigations. Those assurances also include the reporting by recipients and subrecipients of any complaints or lawsuits involving discrimination or civil rights claims by their clients or beneficiaries. Furthermore, guidelines developed by both HHS and DOJ require recipients and sub-recipients to develop a comprehensive policy for addressing discrimination 331

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 345 of 411 PAGEID #: 1935

complaints, including effective discrimination complaints procedures. The Office of Civil Rights under DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs have even made recommendations to State Administrating Agencies (“SAAs”) for their States to promulgate state law that provides a mechanism for handling discrimination complaints from subrecipients’ beneficiaries. 827. In contrast to the assurances, federal regulations and standards identified above, Ohio’s Gov. Bar R. Rule V creates obstacles, contradicts and interferes with the adherence of those assurances, and has allowed and continues to allow Defendant Ohio’s Disciplinary System to be non-compliant with Federal laws and regulations. For example, HHS and DOJ regulations 45 C.F.R. 80.6 and 28 C.F.R. 42.106, respectively, require recipients to provide information to beneficiaries and participants and make information available to them to apprise such persons of the protections of discrimination under Title VI. In contrast Gov. Bar R. Rule V makes those disclosures discretionary and evidence shows that beneficiaries are not provided with that information. Likewise, Gov. Bar R. Rule V(11)(E) and other stipulations under Bar R. Rule V require all proceedings and documents relating to review and investigation of grievances to be private, and deliberations to be confidential. And such lack of transparency facilitates the abuse of discretion and unlawful intentional discrimination with no available provision for a meaningful review. 828. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 601 states that “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” 42 U.S. Code § 2000d. Also HHS and DOJ

332

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 346 of 411 PAGEID #: 1936

regulations 45 C.F.R. 80.3(b)(1) and 28 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(1), respectively, prohibit specific discriminatory actions on the ground of race, color or national origin, such as (i) denying an individual of any disposition, service or benefits provided under the program, (ii) providing any disposition, service or benefit to an individual that is different from that provided to others under the program, (iii) subjecting an individual to segregation or separate treatment in any manner related to his receipt of any disposition or benefit under the program, and (v) treating an individual differently from others in determining whether he satisfies any requirement or condition in order to be provided any disposition, service or benefit under the program. Also, regulations 45 C.F.R. 80.3(b)(5) and 28 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(5) define the scope and forms of the prohibited discrimination to not be limited to the specific forms enumerated in that section of the regulations. 829. In the instance case in which Plaintiff Jurado filed a grievance against Defendant Blythe Bethel for unlawful discrimination under Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(g), the Office of Disciplinary Counsel did not comply with the federal law and regulations listed above, specifically Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Section 601, 28 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)(i) and

28 C.F.R. §

42.104(b)(1)(iii). The Disciplinary Counsel used as a defense—for summarily dismissing the grievance—the duties, authority and rights (or lack thereof) set forth under Ohio’s Gov. Bar R. Rule V, resulting in non-compliance and conflict with these federal statutes and regulations. 830. In the instance case in which Plaintiff Jurado filed a grievance against Defendant Blythe Bethel for deceptive conduct and other misconduct as established by Ohio’s Rules of Professional Conduct, the Disciplinary Counsel did not comply with the federal law and

333

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 347 of 411 PAGEID #: 1937

regulations listed above, specifically Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 601, 28 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(1)(i), 28 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(1)(ii), 28 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(1)(iii) and 28 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(1)(v). In defending the differential treatment of Plaintiff Jurado, the Disciplinary Counsel argued that the duties, (lack of) rights and authority to exercise discretion set forth under Ohio’s Gov. Bar R. Rule V allowed such treatment and disposition of the grievance. Given that ODC’s articulated reasons in their Motion to Dismiss (for Dismissal of Plaintiff Jurado’s Original Action with the SCO) to not investigate the grievance against Defendant Blythe Bethel were pretextual for the most part as supported by evidence and case law, and considering that other similarly situated non-minority grievants were treated more favorably and their grievances were investigated, intentional discrimination is established under McDonnellDouglas standards), and demonstrates that these state rules result in non-compliance and conflict with these federal statutes and regulations. 831. Defendants Stone and ODC engaged in unlawful discrimination when they treated Jurado and his grievance filed in January 2014 different than other grievances filed by similarly situated grievants that are white American. Two examples have been identified in which white American grievants have filed grievances against a Guardian Ad Litem for misconduct, with only making a subset of the claims Jurado made, for which not much evidence was provided, unlike the hundreds of exhibits, audio recordings and video submitted by Jurado. In those two instances, the grievances were investigated against the Guardians without making pretextual claims that ODC is not authorized to investigate grievances against GALs.

334

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 348 of 411 PAGEID #: 1938

832. When Justice O’Neill of the Supreme Court of Ohio was the subject of a grievance before he was elected Justice, the letter issued by ODC, following standard procedure, stated in part: “Please be advised that the enclosed grievance has been filed against you by James Trakas. Pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V, as referenced in Gov. Jud. R. II, the Disciplinary Counsel is required to investigate any matter filed with him or that comes to his attention. Accordingly, this office must obtain a response to such grievances, regardless of the form or ultimate sufficiency thereof. In accordance with Gov. Bar R.V, this investigation will be confidential.” (Emphasis Added.). In Jurado’s case the handling of his grievance did not follow standard procedure. 833. In Jurado’s Original Action in Mandamus and Prohibition filed in July 2014 in the Supreme Court of Ohio in regards to the refusal of the Office Disciplinary Counsel and Juvenile Court to investigate claims of discrimination and misconduct against attorney Bethel, Defendant ODC asserted multiple arguments in their Motion to Dismiss. As Jurado’s Complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice for Title VI violations clearly shows, each of ODC’s arguments for not investigating Jurado’s grievance are undoubtedly pretextual. (See ) 834. A prima facie case of unlawful discrimination by Defendant ODC has been established based on the McDonnell Douglas standard. Therefore, the disparate treatment practices engaged by Defendants Stone and ODC meet both, the legal definition of unlawful discrimination, and the scientific definition of unlawful discrimination, as outlined by the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) and by Dr. Camara Jones. (See )

335

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 349 of 411 PAGEID #: 1939

835. HHS and DOJ regulations 45 C.F.R. 80.7(e) and 28 C.F.R. 42.107(e), respectively, promulgated under Title VI, Section 602, prohibit intimidatory or retaliatory acts and require that the identity of grievants are kept confidential. Ohio’s Gov. Bar R. Rule V gives the Disciplinary System authority to disclose the identity of the grievants, which leaves grievants unprotected from retaliation. In the instance case, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel assured Plaintiff Jurado, at the time he submitted his grievance, that the investigation would not start or his identity revealed until the Juvenile case was over, in order for the case not to be affected. The fact that ODC revealed Plaintiff Jurado’s identity to Defendant Blythe Bethel and allegedly shared all submitted evidence by Jurado, indeed affecting the case by enabling and instigating retaliation and intimidation by Defendants Bethel and Judge Jamison, supports the claim that ODCs discrimination was deliberate and permitted by Ohio’s Gov. Bar R. Rule V, thus resulting in non-compliance and conflict with Title VI statutes and regulations. 836. Ultimately, Gov. Bar R. Rule V and Gov. Bar R. Rule V(11)(E)—which create or enable both adverse disparate impact and disparate treatment of minorities as opposed to prevent them—undermine the hierarchy of The Federation and thus are preempted by 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq. and its implementing regulations, and are invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

336

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 350 of 411 PAGEID #: 1940

CLAIM II – UNEQUAL TREATMENT AND UNFAIR PROCEEDINGS IN VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY OHIO STATUTE ORC 4112.05(H) AND RELATED OFFICIAL PRACTICES BY DEFENDANTS OCRC AND OOAG, ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §1983 837. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-822 as if fully set forth herein. 838. The statute enacted by Ohio’s legislature, ORC 4112.05(H), and related practices by

CLAIM III – UNEQUAL TREATMENT AND UNFAIR PROCEEDINGS IN VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY OHIO STATUTES ORC §§2505.09, 2505.12 AND 2505.16 AND RELATED COURT RULES, PROCEEDINGS AND PRACTICES BY DEFENDANTS JUDGE JAMISON AND JUVENILE COURT, ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §1983 839. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-822 as if fully set forth herein. 840.

337

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 351 of 411 PAGEID #: 1941

IX.B. COLOR OF LAW DEPRIVATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND FEDERAL STATUTORY RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983 CLAIM IV – INTENTIONAL UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000D ET SEQ., ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §1983 841. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-836 as if fully set forth herein. 842. Defendant Amy Stone, in her official capacity, has failed and continues to fail to comply with the statutes and regulations under Title VI. She has engaged and continues to engage in the disparate treatment of Blacks, Hispanics, other minorities, their infants and children citizens of the State of Ohio, including Plaintiffs, because of their race, ethnicity, national origin and color, resulting in their deprivation of Title VI rights, pursuant to Section 1983. 843. Defendant Amy Stone, in her personal capacity, has adopted a callous indifference to violations of the federally protected rights under Title VI of Plaintiff Jurado and Plaintiff N.G., and the harm being inflicted upon them, pursuant to Section 1983.

CLAIM V – UNINTENTIONAL UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000D ET SEQ., ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §1983 844. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-836 as if fully set forth herein.

338

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 352 of 411 PAGEID #: 1942

845. Defendant Scott J. Drexel, in his official capacity as Disciplinary Counsel, has failed and continues to fail to comply with the statutes and regulations under Title VI. He and his office have engaged in the practice that facilitates intentional and unintentional unlawful discrimination and produces adverse disparate impact of minorities, their infants and children, including Plaintiffs, resulting in the deprivation of their rights under Title VI, pursuant to Section 1983.

CLAIM VI â&#x20AC;&#x201C; UNEQUAL TREATMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. Â§1983 846. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-836 as if fully set forth herein. 847. Defendant Amy Stone, in her official capacity, has engaged and continues to engage in the unequal treatment of Plaintiffs because of their ethnicity, national origin and color, resulting in the deprivation of their constitutional rights of Equal Protection, pursuant to Section 1983. 848. Defendant Amy Stone, in her individual and personal capacity, has adopted a callous indifference to violations of the constitutional rights of Plaintiff Jurado and Plaintiff N.G. because of their ethnicity, national origin and color, pursuant to Section 1983.

339

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 353 of 411 PAGEID #: 1943

CLAIM VII – UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000D ET SEQ., ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §1983 849.

Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-836 as if

fully set forth herein. 850. Defendant Terri Jamison, in her judicial official capacity and under the color of law, and Blythe Bethel and Thomas McCash, in their official capacity and under the color of law as court-officers appointed by Defendant Jamison to be “arms of the court”, have engaged and continue to engage in intentional and premeditated differential treatment of Plaintiffs on the basis of color, sex and national origin/ethnicity, resulting in Plaintiffs’ deprivation of their rights be free from discrimination as granted by Title VI, pursuant to Section 1983. 851. Defendant Blythe Bethel and Thomas McCash, as private actors in their role of Guardians Ad Litem and advocates of the child, but acting under the color of law by proxy due to their exclusive power delegated by the state pursuant to statute, and with both overt involvement of a state official and without overt involvement, have engaged and continue to engage in intentional and premeditated differential treatment of Plaintiffs on the basis of color, sex and national origin/ethnicity, resulting in Plaintiffs’ deprivation of their rights be free from discrimination as granted by Title VI, pursuant to Section 1983. 852. Defendants Terri Jamison, Blythe Bethel and Thomas McCash, in their individual and personal capacity when performing functions outside of their official or explicitly delegated role, have adopted a criminal indifference to civil obligations and a reckless indifference to

340

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 354 of 411 PAGEID #: 1944

(their own and by others) violations of the federally protected rights under Title VI of Plaintiff Jurado and Plaintiff N.G., pursuant to Section 1983. 853. Defendants Terri Jamison, Blythe Bethel and Thomas McCash, in their individual and personal capacity when performing functions outside of their official or delegated role, have engaged and continue to engage in intentional and premeditated differential treatment of Plaintiffs on the basis of color, sex and national origin/ethnicity, resulting in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s right to be free from discrimination as granted by Title VI codified into federal law, pursuant to Section 1983. 854. Defendants Terri Jamison, Blythe Bethel and Thomas McCash, in their individual and personal capacity when performing functions outside of their official or delegated role, have conspired and continue to conspire to discriminate against Plaintiffs on the basis of color, sex and national origin/ethnicity, resulting in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s right to be free from discrimination as granted by Title VI codified into federal law, pursuant to Section 1983. 855. Examples of Defendant Judge Jamison’s undertakings, acts and actions outside of her judicial role include but are not limited to, (i) having communications by telephone or in person with co-conspirators such as the (concealed) communications with Defendant McCash on December 5 during the incursion into Plaintiffs’ home and private life, to harass, intimidate, coerce and inflict (additional) emotional distress during a 4-5 hour window, (ii) taking Plaintiff Jurado to a conference room with no option to record, while engaging in actions to intimidate, threaten and coerce Plaintiff Jurado on September 24, 2014, forcing him to sign a Withdrawal of Motion form (iii) Ex-parte communications with Defendant Bethel, Defendant

341

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 355 of 411 PAGEID #: 1945

McCash, and attorney Erika Smitherman, in furtherance of the conspiracy, such as on November 20, 2014, and in matters that were not urgent, known to others, and not set in the record and that Plaintiff Jurado only found out by accident, (iv) making misrepresentations as a respondent in court filings with the Supreme Court of Ohio, (v) the fraudulent destruction of evidence such as the 70+ pages of exhibits that the court received from Plaintiff Jurado during the proceeding on August 4, 2014, (vi) Other actions and instances not documented here, to be presented to this Court when appropriate or ordered. 856. Examples of Defendant Bethel’s undertakings, actions and acts outside of her role as officer of the court or Guardian Ad Litem for the Child motivated by racial/ethical bias and retaliation include, but are not limited to (i) disclosing information of the case to non-parties of the case; (ii) interfering with government agencies and undermining their functions, such as when Defendant Bethel made calls to Franklin County Children Services before their investigation started to divulge false information, to exert undue influence, and corruptly mislead and persuade them; (iii) when Defendant Bethel—beyond her refusal to investigate Plaintiff Jurado’s concern with the child’s health and her rejection of experts and professionals requesting to talk to her—actually engaged in acts to prevent, with premeditation, the Court from becoming aware of key facts and receiving information about Plaintiff Jurado’s concerns about the health of the child and in support of those concerns, like conspiring with the child’s mother to engage in misleading conduct leading to witness tampering of Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses and regular witnesses; (iv) Maintaining, protecting and defending client-attorney privilege with the opposing party in the custody case, such as when refusing to disclose several hundred emails, phone calls and text messages in total, between her and opposing party and 342

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 356 of 411 PAGEID #: 1946

between her and opposing counsel, both private co-conspirators, during the course of the case and during discovery in both the custody case and the civil lawsuit under the jurisdiction of two different courts; (v) engaged in unauthorized communications with the custody psychological evaluator Dr. Smalldon during the pendency of his investigation and evaluation—which they attempted to conceal, but nevertheless a normal part of their pattern and practice of conducting rackets in domestic cases—in furtherance of the conspiracy against Plaintiffs; (vi) acting as an (biased) referee, micromanager and adjudicator between the two parents (vii) advocating in and out of the courtroom consistently in favor of the personal interests of the opposing party and against Plaintiff Jurado in matters that were not connected with the best interest, and that sometimes resulted in adverse results for the child; in fact taking over the role of opposing counsel in several instances in which attorney Erika Smitherman ended up not participating or participating at minimum because there was no need to do so; (viii) always making arguments not centered in the best interest of the child, but instead centered on scorning and disparaging Plaintiff Jurado such as when, during a proceeding, Judge Jamison asked Defendant Bethel why did they (attorneys Bethel, Smitherman, Petroff, and their client) have so much fervor in taking away the parenting time of Plaintiff Jurado, and Defendant Bethel answered “because he is a manipulator”; (ix) hiring private counsel to represent her in the custody case—not long after her removal as Guardian Ad Litem, but while still dealing with matters directly related to her function as GAL (discovery, etc.)— in furtherance of her discrimination, retaliation and conspiracy against Plaintiffs, and to continue the harassment, hostility and aggravation—but now through counsel—such as when Plaintiff Jurado received a threatening letter from her attorney on the same day her attorney served Plaintiff Jurado with

343

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 357 of 411 PAGEID #: 1947

notice of his appearance in the juvenile case; (x) after her removal as GAL, returning to the child custody case as a private expert witness retained by the opposing party in the juvenile case, or as a regular witness with the original intent to be the private expert witness for the mother of the child.

CLAIM VIII – UNEQUAL TREATMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §1983 857. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-856 as if fully set forth herein. 858. Because Plaintiff minor N.G. and Plaintiff Jurado has not been afforded the same rights, benefits, protections and opportunities solely on the basis of their ethnicity, as enjoyed by white children and adults, respectively, in the custody proceedings and have been subjected to tougher punishments and penalties, as compared to those that white citizens are subjected to, defendants Bethel, McCash, and Judge Jamison in their personal, delegated and official capacities have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause—pursuant to Section 1983. 859. Defendant Terri Jamison, in her judicial official capacity and under the color of law, and Blythe Bethel and Thomas McCash, in their official capacity and under the color of law as court-officers appointed by Defendant Jamison to be “arms of the court”, have engaged and continue to engage in intentional and premeditated differential treatment of Plaintiffs on the basis of color, sex and national origin/ethnicity, resulting in Plaintiffs’ deprivation of their rights be free from unequal treatment under the Equal Protection clause, pursuant to Section 1983. 344

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 358 of 411 PAGEID #: 1948

860. Defendant Blythe Bethel and Thomas McCash, as private actors in their role of Guardians Ad Litem and advocates of the child, but acting under the color of law by proxy due to their exclusive power delegated by the state pursuant to statute, and with both overt involvement of a state official and without overt involvement, have engaged and continue to engage in intentional and premeditated differential treatment of Plaintiffs on the basis of color, sex and national origin/ethnicity, resulting in Plaintiffsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; deprivation of their rights be free from unequal treatment under the Equal Protection clause, pursuant to Section 1983. 861. Defendants Terri Jamison, Blythe Bethel and Thomas McCash, in their individual and personal capacity when performing functions outside of their official or explicitly delegated role, have adopted a criminal indifference to civil obligations and a reckless indifference to (their own and by others) violations of Plaintiffs rights be free from unequal treatment under the Equal Protection clause, pursuant to Section 1983. 862. Defendants Terri Jamison, Blythe Bethel and Thomas McCash, in their individual and personal capacity when performing functions outside of their official or delegated role, have engaged and continue to engage in intentional and premeditated differential treatment of Plaintiffs on the basis of color, sex and national origin/ethnicity, resulting in the deprivation of Plaintiffs rights be free from unequal treatment under the Equal Protection clause, pursuant to Section 1983. 863. Defendants Terri Jamison, Blythe Bethel and Thomas McCash, in their individual and personal capacity when performing functions outside of their official or delegated role, have conspired and continue to conspire to discriminate against Plaintiffs on the basis of color, sex

345

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 359 of 411 PAGEID #: 1949

and national origin/ethnicity, resulting in the deprivation of Plaintiffs rights be free from unequal treatment under the Equal Protection clause, pursuant to Section 1983.

CLAIM IX – UNLAWFUL RETALIATION AND INTIMIDATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000D ET SEQ., ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §1983 864. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-863 as if fully set forth herein. 865. Defendant Blythe Bethel, Thomas McCash, Terri Jamison in their personal, delegated and official capacities, and the Juvenile Court, have engaged and continue to engage in unjustified adverse actions and activities against Plaintiffs that amount to Retaliation and Intimidating Acts—because of Plaintiffs’ filing of grievances and complaints for unlawful discrimination and retaliation by Judge Jamison and Blythe Bethel, and because of Plaintiffs’ efforts to seek relief under Title VI—pursuant to Section 1983. 866. The aggression exhibited by Defendants Bethel and McCash and escalation of their abuses and the violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, as established throughout this complaint, have increased at the same rate and Plaintiff Jurado’s efforts to seek redress and whenever he filed Motions, appeals or complaints. And so far, no justification has been articulated for the actions in question, and the few times that they do, they provide absurd reasons that have been proven to be pretextual. 867. The two most noticeable instances of the escalated retaliation and with the most infliction of harm is the detention of Plaintiff Jurado in a manner unauthorized by law, and the

346

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 360 of 411 PAGEID #: 1950

complete separation of father and child that has now gone for almost two weeks and appears to be indefinite, producing irreparable harm to both Plaintiffs.

CLAIM X – UNLAWFUL RETALIATION AND INTIMIDATION IN VIOLATION OF THE PETITION CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §1983 868. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-863 as if fully set forth herein. 869. Defendant Terri Jamison, in her judicial official capacity and under the color of law, and Blythe Bethel and Thomas McCash, in their official capacity and under the color of law as court-officers appointed by Defendant Jamison to be “arms of the court”, have engaged and continue to engage in intentional and premeditated differential treatment of Plaintiffs on the basis of color, sex and national origin/ethnicity, resulting in Plaintiffs’ deprivation of their rights be free from retaliation, pursuant to Section 1983. 870. Defendant Blythe Bethel and Thomas McCash, as private actors in their role of Guardians Ad Litem and advocates of the child, but acting under the color of law by proxy due to their exclusive power delegated by the state pursuant to statute, and with both overt involvement of a state official and without overt involvement, have engaged and continue to engage in intentional and premeditated differential treatment of Plaintiffs on the basis of color, sex and national origin/ethnicity, resulting in Plaintiffs’ deprivation of their rights be free from retaliation, pursuant to Section 1983.

347

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 361 of 411 PAGEID #: 1951

871. Defendants Terri Jamison, Blythe Bethel and Thomas McCash, in their individual and personal capacity when performing functions outside of their official or explicitly delegated role, have adopted a criminal indifference to civil obligations and a reckless indifference to (their own and by others) violations of Plaintiffs rights be free from retaliation, pursuant to Section 1983. 872. Defendants Terri Jamison, Blythe Bethel and Thomas McCash, in their individual and personal capacity when performing functions outside of their official or delegated role, have engaged and continue to engage in intentional and premeditated differential treatment of Plaintiffs on the basis of color, sex and national origin/ethnicity, resulting in the deprivation of Plaintiffs rights be free from retaliation, pursuant to Section 1983. 873. Defendants Terri Jamison, Blythe Bethel and Thomas McCash, in their individual and personal capacity when performing functions outside of their official or delegated role, have conspired and continue to conspire to discriminate against Plaintiffs on the basis of color, sex and national origin/ethnicity, resulting in the deprivation of Plaintiffs rights be free from retaliation, pursuant to Section 1983.

CLAIM XI – OBSTRUCTION AND INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHT TO ACCESS THE COURTS IN VIOLATION OF THE PETITION CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1981, ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §1983 874. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-873 as if fully set forth herein.

348

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 362 of 411 PAGEID #: 1952

875. Defendants Bethel, McCash, Judge Jamison, in their personal, delegated and official capacities, along with Defendant Smitherman, obstructed and interfered with Jurado’s right to access the courts, and violated the Petition Clause of the First Amendment. By collectively and jointly causing undue hardship to Jurado, then denying court appointed counsel, and required Jurado to spend money he did not have submitting affidavits with exhibits for adjudication of matters that could have been heard in the courtroom and minimizing the cost to the parties. 876. When unable to comply, Defendants pursued sanctions and penalties against Jurado, for being non-compliant, even when they put him in the position of not being able to keep up with litigation.

CLAIM XII – UNLAWFUL INTRUSION AND DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF BELIEFS, IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §1983 877. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-873 as if fully set forth herein. 878. Defendants McCash and Judge Jamison in their personal, delegated and official capacities, worked in tandem to deprive Plaintiffs and Jurado’s parents of their right to privacy of beliefs as guaranteed by the First Amendment. On December 5, 2014, while completing their Holy Rosaries, Plaintiff Jurado and his parents from Panama were suddenly being harassed and tormented by the unannounced presence of Defendant McCash, who interrupted their traditional time of prayer multiple times. McCash seemed to be satisfied when Jurado open the door for a short moment to ask him to leave and McCash was able to visually scan the inside of

349

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 363 of 411 PAGEID #: 1953

Jurado’s home even though he had already been there. He stared at the rosaries still in Jurado’s and his parents’ hands. 879. During his GAL report issued at the beginning of January 2015, McCash was very critical of Jurado’s customs and religious commitment. McCash made comments about the candle he observed at Jurado’s home without serving much purpose. The candle was battery operated.

CLAIM XIII – UNLAWFUL INTRUSION AND UNREASONABLE SEARCH IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §1983 880. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-873 as if fully set forth herein. 881. Defendants McCash and Judge Jamison in their personal, delegated and official capacities, worked in unison to engage in acts to intentionally violate the prohibitions of the Fourth Amendment, by unlawfully intruding and attempting to access Jurado’s residence without probable cause or without a warrant on Dec. 5, 2014. Defendant McCash, guided step by step by Judge Jamison while on the phone was successful at visually searching inside Jurado’s home during the short moment that Jurado opened his entrance door.

CLAIM XIV – DENIAL OF UNALIENABLE RIGHTS IN VIOLATION OF THE NINTH AMENDMENT, ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §1983 882. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-873 as if fully set forth herein.

350

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 364 of 411 PAGEID #: 1954

883. Defendants Bethel, McCash, and Judge Jamison in their personal, delegated and official capacities, premeditatedly denied Jurado of his unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness by exerting oppression upon Jurado for over two years.

CLAIM XV – DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT TO A ZONE OF PRIVACY TO RAISE AND CARE FOR OWN CHILD IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §1983 884. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-873 as if fully set forth herein. 885. Defendants Bethel, Thomas McCash, and Judge Jamison in their personal, delegated and official capacities, deprived with premeditation, Jurado’s right to a zone of privacy to raise and care for his own son. The incident from December 5, 2014 is just one example of the deprivation.

CLAIM XVI – DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT TO MAKE OWN DECISIONS AS EDUCATORS AND PARENTS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §1983 886. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-873 as if fully set forth herein. 887. Defendants Blythe Bethel, Thomas McCash, and Terri Jamison in their Personal, Delegated and Official Capacities, intentionally deprived Jurado of his right to make his own decisions in regards to the out-of-home care of Plaintiff N.G. and to deprive Jurado from caring for his child at home during his approved parenting time.

351

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 365 of 411 PAGEID #: 1955

CLAIM XVII –INFLICTION OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHT AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §1983 888. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-873 as if fully set forth herein. 889. Defendants Judge Jamison and McCash have violated the protections afforded by the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments by imposing excessive, cruel and unusual punishment against Jurado. First, the punishment of the dismissal of Jurado’s Motion for alleged lack or organization of exhibits. Then the cruel and unusual pre-emptive summary punishment of suspending Jurado’s parenting time for missing two pieces of paper. The excessive punishment of incarceration for the same two missing pieces of paper, the second sentence of jail time within three months, and the cruel and excessive punishment of setting bond to twice the amount owed knowing that Jurado was unable to afford the initial amount, let alone the doubled amount. The enhanced punishment on March 17 to limit his visit to the daycare to 1 hour a week. 890. Jurado’s excessive punishment of his preclusion of evidence and witnesses during trial.

CLAIM XVIII – DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT TO FAIR PROCEEDINGS AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §1983 891. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-873 as if fully set forth herein. 352

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 366 of 411 PAGEID #: 1956

892. Defendants Blythe Bethel, Thomas McCash, Terri Jamison in their personal, delegated and official capacities along with Defendant the Juvenile Court, have deprived Plaintiff Jurado of the same rights to be parties, to give evidence, and protections in and outside the courtroom, as enjoyed by white citizens. 893. Defendant Blythe Bethel, Thomas McCash, Terri Jamison and the Juvenile Court, Amy Stone, and Ohio’s Disciplinary System have deprived Plaintiffs of the same rights to the full and equal benefits of all laws, opportunities and proceedings, as enjoyed by white children and adult citizens, especially when petitioning the state government and judiciary for redress of the wrongdoings being committed against.—according to Section 1983.

CLAIM XIX – DEPRIVATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §1983 894. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-873 as if fully set forth herein. 895. by Blythe Bethel, Thomas McCash, and Terri Jamison in their Personal, Delegated and Official Capacities.

353

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 367 of 411 PAGEID #: 1957

IX.C.

VIOLATIONS OF THE PROHIBITIONS UNDER TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 CLAIM XX – UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION BY DEFENDANT ODC IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000D ET SEQ., ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §2000D –7

896. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-873 as if fully set forth herein. 897. Defendants Stone and ODC engaged in unlawful discrimination when they treated Jurado and his grievance filed in January 2014 different than other grievances filed by similarly situated grievants that are white American. Two examples have been identified in which white American grievants have filed grievances against a Guardian Ad Litem for misconduct, with only making a subset of the claims Jurado made, for which not much evidence was provided, unlike the hundreds of exhibits, audio recordings and video submitted by Jurado. In those two instances, the grievances were investigated against the Guardians without making pretextual claims that ODC is not authorized to investigate grievances against GALs. 898. When Justice O’Neill of the Supreme Court of Ohio was the subject of a grievance before he was elected as Justice of the higher court, the letter issued by ODC, following standard procedure, stated in part: “Please be advised that the enclosed grievance has been filed against you by James Trakas. Pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V, as referenced in Gov. Jud. R. II, the Disciplinary Counsel is required to investigate any matter filed with him or that comes to his attention. Accordingly, this office must obtain a response to such grievances, regardless of the form or ultimate sufficiency thereof. In accordance with Gov. Bar R.V, this investigation will be

354

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 368 of 411 PAGEID #: 1958

confidential.” (Emphasis Added.). In Jurado’s case the handling of his grievance did not follow standard procedure. 899. In Jurado’s Original Action in Mandamus and Prohibition filed in July 2014 in the Supreme Court of Ohio in regards to the refusal of the Office Disciplinary Counsel and Juvenile Court to investigate claims of discrimination and misconduct against attorney Bethel, Defendant ODC asserted multiple arguments in their Motion to Dismiss. As Jurado’s Complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice for Title VI violations clearly shows, each of ODCs arguments for not investigating Jurado’s grievance are undoubtedly pretextual. (See ) 900. A prima facie case of unlawful discrimination by Defendant ODC has been established based on the McDonnell Douglas standard. Therefore, the disparate treatment practices engaged by Defendants Stone and ODC meet both, the legal definition of unlawful discrimination, and the scientific definition of unlawful discrimination, as outlined by the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Dr. Camara Jones. (See )

CLAIM XXI – UNLAWFUL INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION BY DEFENDANT THE JUVENILE COURT IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000D ET SEQ., ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §2000D –7 901. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-895 as if fully set forth herein. 902. Defendants Blythe Bethel, Thomas McCash, Judge Jamison and the Juvenile Court, have engaged and continue to engage in intentional and premeditated unlawful discrimination

355

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 369 of 411 PAGEID #: 1959

of Plaintiffs on the basis of color, sex and national origin/ethnicity—resulting in Plaintiffs’ deprivation of their rights be free from discrimination, under Title VI,—pursuant to Sections § 2000d and § 2000d–7. Jurado has been clearly treated differently than other white American parents, on the opportunities to present a defense, to make arguments inside the courtroom, in, lack of impartiality from Defendants. Another example of differential treatment based on national origin is the fact that Defendants are acting in similar manner toward Jurado’s family members too.

CLAIM XIX – UNLAWFUL INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION BY DEFENDANTS OCRC AND OOAG THROUGH THEIR AGENTS IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000D ET SEQ., ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §2000D –7 903. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-895 as if fully set forth herein. 904. Defendants Garcia, Dunn, Gutowski, the BCI agent, and other OCRC and OOAG officials as unnamed defendants herein intentionally deprived Jurado of his right to be free from discrimination on the basis of color, race or ethnicity. These Defendants engaged in premediated disparate treatment of Jurado when deciding his cases or charges before conducting their investigation or even before Jurado filed them, such as the instance of Jurado’s charges of Retaliation against Brooksedge Daycare, unlike their treatment and adjudication of charges filed by other similarly situated complainants that are not members of Jurado’s protected class.

356

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 370 of 411 PAGEID #: 1960

905. These Defendants also engaged in segregation and differential treatment when they denied Jurado his right to full and equal enjoyment of a public facility and its services that is owned by the state government and that is open to the general public. Defendant Garcia’s conduct and treatment of Jurado during their interactions is different than the treatment offered to other similarly situated complainants that are not Panamanians or of Hispanic heritage, as confirmed by OCRC’s office of constituent services. 906. Any defense or denial—whether successful or not in defending this claim—of disparate treatment on the basis of race, national origin or ethnicity by Defendant OOAG should be taken as an admission of guilt for unlawfully engaging in a pattern or practice to deprive complainants of their rights according to 42, U.S.C. §14141; this statute makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement to institute citizen complaint processes that treat complainants as adversaries, just like Jurado was treated by the BCI-OOAG official as shown by the evidence. See October 22, 2013 recording description under the section “Substantive Allegations – The Conspiracy” above.

CLAIM XIX – UNLAWFUL INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION BY DEFENDANT THE GODDARD SCHOOL-HILLIARD II IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000D ET SEQ., ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §2000D –7 907. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-905 as if fully set forth herein. 908. Defendant the Goddard School-Hilliard II has engaged and continues to engage in the differential treatment of Jurado, solely because of his skin color and national origin.

357

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 371 of 411 PAGEID #: 1961

Defendants treat differently similarly situated persons that are not of Hispanic heritage. The one example that both defendants consistently show differential treatment is how they apply their written policies to other similarly situated individuals as opposed to how they apply them to Plaintiffs.

The standard, written process to address issues that should be applied

consistently for all parents was not followed only when dealing with Jurado. Other examples include overt acts of humiliation, restrictions only applicable to Jurado, and the denial of the open door policy available by statute to all parents in the state.

CLAIM XXII – UNLAWFUL RETALIATION AND INTIMIDATION BY DEFENDANT THE GODDARD SCHOOL-HILLIARD II IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000D ET SEQ., ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §2000D –7 909. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-908 as if fully set forth herein. 910. Defendants the Juvenile Court, OCRC, ODC/SCO, OOAG, and the Goddard SchoolHilliard II, as programs or activities that receive federal funds, have engaged and continue to engage in unjustified adverse actions and activities against Plaintiffs that amount to Retaliation and Intimidating Acts—because of Plaintiffs’ filing of grievances and complaints for unlawful discrimination and retaliation against Defendants or because of Jurado’s disclosure of the intentions for filing a Civil Rights Action against them. 911. In the first instance, the Retaliatory acts perpetrated by Judge Jamison and Blythe Bethel, combined with Defendants ODC and Stone’s overt acts were the direct result of Plaintiffs’ efforts to seek relief under Title VI—under Sections § 2000d, § 2000d-1 and § 2000d–

358

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 372 of 411 PAGEID #: 1962

7, and the filing of discrimination in violation of the prohibitions of the State’s rules of professional conduct. 912. The Goddard School-Hilliard II’s most overt act of intimidation came about in February 2015 when Jurado was verbally assaulted, humiliated and tormented by the facility’s teachers in close coordination with its Director and Owner. The incident was followed by overt retaliation when they caused an emergency hearing to be held with their co-conspirator Defendant Judge Jamison to further deprive Jurado of his right to equal protection of the law, and to decrease the already-limited 3-hour a week visits he had with his son, now down to 1 hour a week as a result of their retaliatory actions 913. When Jurado raised his concerns of misconduct and differential treatment by the OCRC investigator, in agreement with Defendant the assistant AG, with the central office of OCRC, the misconduct and adverse actions by OCRC increased to the point of facilitating the civil lawsuit by Brooksedge that was already in place as a scheme for retaliation. 914.

The most recent retaliatory acts have been perpetrated by Defendant McCash and

Jamison in close coordination with Smitherman and other Defendants, including Jurado’s unlawful detention and his two jail sentences, along with the indefinite suspension of his parenting time and deprivation of his right to Open Door Policy of Daycare facilities.

359

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 373 of 411 PAGEID #: 1963

IX.D. CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH OR TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFFS’ CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY AND CIVIL RIGHTS ACCORDING TO 42 U.S.C. §§1983 AND 1985 CLAIM XXIII – CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND FEDERAL STATUTORY RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES AND PROTECTIONS PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. §1983 915. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-910 as if fully set forth herein. 916. Conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs of constitutional rights and protections by Defendants Bethel, McCash, Jamison, Stone, Garcia, Dunn, and Gutowski while acting under the color of law, in their personal, delegated and official capacities, jointly with Defendants ODC/SCO, OOAG and OCRC, and private Defendants Smitherman, Lambert, Petroff Law Firm, LeClair, Brooksedge Daycare, Alexander-Savino, Wilson, Eagle, the Goddard School-Hilliard II, also acting under the color of law. 917. Conspiracy to deprive Plaintiffs of their federal statutory rights and protections— including but not limited to the prohibitions against unlawful discrimination and retaliation under Title VI, equal rights to sue or defend, equal benefits of all laws and proceedings, and protection against private or official impairment under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981(a) and 1981(c), prohibitions and protections for deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983, by Defendants Bethel, McCash, Jamison, Stone, Garcia, Dunn, and Gutowski while acting under the color of law, in their personal, delegated and official capacities, jointly with Defendants ODC/SCO, OOAG and OCRC, and private Defendants Smitherman, Lambert, Petroff Law Firm, LeClair,

360

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 374 of 411 PAGEID #: 1964

Brooksedge Daycare, Alexander-Savino, Wilson, Eagle, the Goddard School-Hilliard II, also acting under the color of law.

CLAIM XXIV – CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS OR TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS, PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) 918. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-917 as if fully set forth herein. 919. Conspiracy to commit unlawful acts, through joint private conduct combined with state actors’ authority under the color of law, for interfering with Plaintiffs’ Civil Rights and directly and indirectly depriving them of the equal protection of the laws and their constitutional and federal statutory rights and protections, including the right to be free from retaliation, by Defendants Bethel, McCash, Jamison, Stone, Garcia, Dunn, Gutowski in their Personal, Delegated and Official Capacities, and Lambert, Smitherman, Petroff law Offices, LeClair, Brooksedge Daycare, Alexander-Savino, Wilson, Goddard School of Hilliard II, Kim Eagle, with the common intention to harm Jurado, only because of his skin color, and national origin, and N.G.’s Latino ancestry.

Plaintiffs were deprived of his constitutional right to Equal

Protection for most of 2013, 2014 and the first quarter of 2015.

CLAIM XXV – CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS AND TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT AND ACTS IN VIOLATION OF THE PROHIBITIONS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 2000A–2, UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983 920. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-919 as if fully set forth herein. 361

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 375 of 411 PAGEID #: 1965

921. Conspiracy to engage in acts and conduct prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 2000a–2, and against rights by Defendants Bethel, McCash, Jamison, Stone, Garcia, Dunn, and Gutowski while acting under the color of law, in their personal, delegated and official capacities, jointly with Defendants ODC/SCO, OOAG and OCRC, and private Defendants Smitherman, Lambert, Petroff Law Firm, LeClair, Brooksedge Daycare, Alexander-Savino, Wilson, Eagle, the Goddard SchoolHilliard II, also acting under the color of law. 922. Conspirators acted in close collaboration to deprive Plaintiffs of rights under sections 2000a, 2000a-1, as established with all documented events and incidents in the two daycare facilities throughout the case. 923. Conspirators acted in unison to make threats against Jurado and engaged in acts of intimidation for the purpose of interfering with his rights and privileges secured by sections 2000a and 2000a-1. One example of the acts of threats and intimidation is the collective incidents that took place at the Goddard School-Hilliard II, when Defendants Wilson and Eagle carried out a scheme to threaten Jurado by the utilization of “safety traps” in their kitchen and coercing Jurado into taking Plaintiff N.G. into the kitchen, followed by intimidations as a coordinated effort when Jurado was verbally attacked and humiliated in front of his son and all the children in the class. 924. Conspirators planned several sub-schemes for the punishment of Jurado for attempting to exercise his rights under sections 2000a and 2000a-1. The first punishment by Defendants Brooksedge, Alexander-Savino and LeClair, was the lawsuit that is currently active and pending in the general division of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court.

362

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 376 of 411 PAGEID #: 1966

925. The most recent and sub-scheme carried out to punish Jurado consisted of scheduling an emergency hearing to allow Defendant Judge Jamison to expand the summary punishment order to add more restrictions to Plaintiff Jurado’s time with his son, Plaintiff N.G., and to his already limited 3 hours a week visits to see his son at the Goddard School. The recent punishment enforces a one hour maximum a week for Jurado to see his son and visit him at daycare at the day and time chosen by the Defendants the Goddard School, Eagle and Wilson.

CLAIM XXVI – CONSPIRACY TO DETER, BY INTIMIDATION AND THREAT, THE PARTICIPATION IN THIS US DISTRICT COURT OF PLAINTIFFS AND WITNESSES & CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT, HINDER AND DEFEAT THE DUE COURSE OF JUSTICE, PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) 926. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-925 as if fully set forth herein. 927. Defendants Judge Jamison, McCash, Smitherman, Lambert, Alexander-Savino, Wilson, Eagle, the Goddard School, and ODC/SCO agreed to perpetrate acts of intimidation and harassment and threats and have engaged in concerted action to achieve one of the goals of the master conspiracy of hindering the due course of justice and interfere with Jurado’s access to this court—all with the ultimate purpose of preventing Jurado from instituting a Civil Rights Action and from seeking remedies for stopping the harm being inflicted. These actions by Defendants constitute over acts in furtherance of the ongoing conspiracy.

363

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 377 of 411 PAGEID #: 1967

928. Jurado’s unlawful detention, two sentences of jail-time, the unfair, harmful and unconstitutional order suspending his parenting time to punish him, and injure him by inflicting emotional distress and demoralization, persecution of Jurado’s physician, incursion to Jurado’s home, the tormenting of Jurado’s parents causing them to leave town, all took place right after Jurado’s disclosure of his intentions to seek federal relief in this court and also after Jurado’s filing of his initial complaint with this court. (see ). 929. Substantial evidence is available that shows the malevolent and dark conspiratorial conduct between defendants that resulted in Jurado’s necessity to institute 4 new actions since the initial filing of his Complaint in this court in January 2015, and his stay in the Emergency Room of OSU Wexner Medical Center to treat Jurado for the harmful effects of Defendant’s intentional infliction of mental distress and other criminal conduct. It is no coincidence that these incidents and events have been a clear obstacle for Jurado’s proper prosecution of this action and the securing of his key witnesses. Ultimately, Jurado filings, including this instant Amended Complaint were delayed three months due to Defendants’ violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2).

IX.E.

UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION AND PUNISHMENT UNDER 42 U.S.C. §2000a et seq. CLAIM XXVII –UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. §2000a ET SEQ.

930. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-873 as if fully set forth herein.

364

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 378 of 411 PAGEID #: 1968

931. Segregation and Discrimination on the basis of color and national origin by Defendants Amy LeClair, Brooksedge Daycare, Angela Savino, Gretchen Wilson, Goddard School of Hilliard II, Kim Eagle, at their daycare facilities, by depriving Plaintiffs the full enjoyment of the establishment and their right to be treated equally compared to similarly situated parents and children. 932. These Defendants have engaged in conduct and committed acts in violation of the prohibitions of 42 U.S.C. §2000a–2. One example of the acts of threats and intimidation is the incidents that took place at the Goddard School-Hilliard II collectively in February 2015, when Defendants Wilson and Eagle carried out a scheme to intimidate and injure Plaintiffs by the staging of “safety traps” in their kitchen and coercing Jurado into taking little N.G. into the kitchen, despite the rules and warning signs in the kitchen door reading that children were not allowed, followed by intimidations as a coordinated effort when Jurado was verbally attacked and humiliated in the presence of his son and all the children in the class. 933. The first punishment of Jurado for attempting to exercise his rights under sections 2000a and 2000a-1 was carried out by Defendants Brooksedge, Alexander-Savino and LeClair, when they filed the lawsuit against Jurado that is currently active and pending in the general division of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court. 934. The most recent act of punishment against Jurado, in violation of the prohibitions of 42 U.S.C. §2000a–2, consisted in the joint effort of scheduling an emergency hearing to allow Defendant Judge Jamison to expand the summary punishment order to add more restrictions to Plaintiff Jurado’s time with his son, Plaintiff N.G., and to reduce his already limited 3 hours a

365

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 379 of 411 PAGEID #: 1969

week visits to see his son at the Goddard School. The recent punishment enforces a one hour maximum a week for Jurado to see his son and visit him at daycare at the day and time chosen by the Defendants the Goddard School, Eagle and Wilson. Judge Jamison’s order also punishes Plaintiff N.G.’s Panamanian grandparents and other relatives by limiting the child’s time to Skype with them to 15 minutes a week.

IX.F.

STATE LAW AND COMMON LAW CLAIMS CLAIM XXVIII – VIOLATION OF STATE DISCRIMINATION STATUTES AND THEIR PROHIBITIONS UNDER OHIO REVISED CODE §§4112.02 AND 4112.99

935.

Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-934 as if

fully set forth herein. 936. Unlawful Discrimination by Defendants LeClair, Wilson, Eagle, Brooksedge Daycare, and the Goddard School-Hilliard II by depriving Plaintiffs from the full enjoyment of their facilities and equal treatment with similarly situated children and parents.

CLAIM XXIX – TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP 937.

Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-934 as if

fully set forth herein. 938. Tortious Interference with Jurado’s Business Relationships by Defendants Lambert and Smitherman by harassing, and creating undue burden for Jurado’s employer, physician, clients and daycare provider.

366

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 380 of 411 PAGEID #: 1970

CLAIM XXX â&#x20AC;&#x201C; COMMON LAW FRAUD 939.

Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-934 as if

fully set forth herein. 940. Fraudulent Conduct and reckless misrepresentations of existing material facts by Defendants Lambert and Smitherman, with the purpose of obtaining excessive and unwarranted child support payments and court orders for reimbursements of fabricated expenses.

CLAIM XXXI â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DEFAMATION 941. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-934 as if fully set forth herein. 942. Defamation by Defendants Lambert, Smitherman, LeClair, Wilson, Eagle, AlexanderSavino, Brooksedge Daycare, the Goddard School-Hilliard II And Petroff Law Offices, with the purpose of injuring Jurado, harm his reputation, affect his credibility, embarrass, humiliate, demoralize, expose him to public hatred and ridicule, ultimately inflicting emotional harm and adversely affecting his professional, personal and social relationships. 943. These Defendants intentionally, recklessly and negligently uttered or published with malice to third parties false statements or false information concerning Plaintiff Jurado that are defamatory to Plaintiff.

367

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 381 of 411 PAGEID #: 1971

CLAIM XXXII – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF PAIN, SUFFERING AND MENTAL DISTRESS 944. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-934 as if fully set forth herein. 945. “IIED” by Defendants Lambert, Smitherman, LeClair, Wilson, Eagle, Alexander-Savino, Brooksedge Daycare, the Goddard School-Hilliard II And Petroff Law Offices, with the purpose of harming Jurado through premeditated emotional abuse, harassment, humiliation and other malevolent acts, with the goal of depriving Jurado of his rights to be left alone, to pursue happiness, and to not be treated as a second-class citizen. The same defendants have caused, and continue to cause, psychological harm, abuse and trauma on Plaintiff N.G. with the abrupt separation and severance of his primary attachment figure, and ongoing psychological abuse with the distress caused by the frequent separation from his father during the reduced and restricted visitations, and psychological trauma from the incidents of verbal assaults against his father in his presence.

CLAIM XXXIII – COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY TO INFLICT EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 946. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-934 as if fully set forth herein. 947. Common Law Conspiracy by Defendants Lambert, Smitherman, LeClair, Wilson, Eagle, Alexander-Savino, Brooksedge Daycare, The Goddard School-Hilliard II And Petroff Law Offices, who engaged in private conduct and formed a partnership to maliciously target Jurado for nothing other than the color of his skin and his national place of origin, and intentionally cause 368

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 382 of 411 PAGEID #: 1972

emotional harm, pain and suffering, by engaging in premeditated emotional abuse, harassment, humiliation and other malevolent acts, with the goal of depriving Jurado of his rights to be left alone, to pursue happiness, and to not be treated as a second-class citizen. 948. The same defendants have conspired to cause psychological harm, abuse and trauma on Plaintiff N.G. with the abrupt separation and severance of his primary attachment figure, and ongoing psychological abuse with the distress caused by the frequent separation from his father during the reduced and restricted visitations, and psychological trauma from the incidents of verbal assaults against his father in his presence.

CLAIM XXXIV â&#x20AC;&#x201C; COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD, DEFAME, AND INTERFERE IN BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS 949. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-934 as if fully set forth herein. 950. Common Law Conspiracy by Defendants Lambert, Smitherman, LeClair, Wilson, Eagle, Alexander-Savino, Brooksedge Daycare, The Goddard School-Hilliard II And Petroff Law Offices, who engaged in private conduct and formed a partnership to intentionally cause emotional harm, pain and suffering, to harm by defamation in order to expose Jurado to public hatred and ridicule, ultimately inflicting emotional harm and adversely affecting his professional, personal and social relationships, and to interfere with business relationships. 951. These Defendants intentionally, recklessly and negligently conspired to utter or publish with malice to third parties false statements or false information concerning Plaintiff Jurado that are defamatory to Plaintiff. 369

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 383 of 411 PAGEID #: 1973

952. These Defendants committed the same unlawful acts described above, but also while acting under the color of law during their agreement with the State and its agents and while engaging in concerted action with state officials to willfully commit unlawful acts against Plaintiffs.

CLAIM XXXV – COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL INTERFERENCE WITH CUSTODY 953. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-952 as if fully set forth herein. 954. Common Law Conspiracy by Defendants Lambert, Smitherman, LeClair, Wilson, Eagle, Alexander-Savino, Brooksedge Daycare, The Goddard School-Hilliard II And Petroff Law Offices, in agreement with state officials to reach their common objective and intention of harming Plaintiffs by interfering with Jurado’s custody of his son, minor child N.G., collectively acting under color of state law and abusing such authority for the purpose of masking their criminal acts as lawful, to ultimately perpetrate offenses pursuant to ORC 2919.23(A)(1), a felony of the fourth degree, with civil liability under ORC 2307.50, all resulting in infliction of psychological harm upon Plaintiff N.G. and Plaintiff Jurado.

CLAIM XXXVI – COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY TO DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF NATIONAL ORIGIN 955. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-952 as if fully set forth herein.

370

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 384 of 411 PAGEID #: 1974

956. Common Law Conspiracy by Defendants Lambert, Smitherman, LeClair, Wilson, Eagle, Alexander-Savino, Brooksedge Daycare, The Goddard School-Hilliard II And Petroff Law Offices, in agreement with state officials to reach their common objective of harming Plaintiffs by segregating or depriving Plaintiffs of their right to be free from discrimination and disparate treatment as defined under ORC 4112.02 and 4112.99.

CLAIM XXXVII – COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY TO PERPETRATE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL OFFENSES AGAINST CHILDREN AND THE FAMILY IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW 957. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations and facts contained in paragraphs 1-956 as if fully set forth herein. 958. Common Law Conspiracy by Defendants Lambert, Smitherman, LeClair, Wilson, Eagle, Alexander-Savino, Brooksedge Daycare, The Goddard School-Hilliard II And Petroff Law Offices, in agreement with state officials to reach their common objective of harming Plaintiff N.G. by their willful neglect and breach of their duty of care and protection, by intentionally failing to report possible child maltreatment, abuse or neglect, by purposely inflicting physical injuries and psychological harm, and by threatening to inflict more harm,

pursuant to ORC

2919.23(A)(1)—with civil liability authorized by ORC 2307.50—ORC §§2151.031, divisions (B), (C), (D) and (E), 2919.22(A), 2919.22(B), 2151.011 et seq., 2151.421, 2151.421(M), and 3109.051(K). 959. Defendants’ offenses in violation of state laws protecting children’s welfare were supported by their criminal conspiracy to interfere with Plaintiffs’ constitutional and federal statutory rights by injuring or attempting to injury, intimidate and by creating a risk of injury to 371

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 385 of 411 PAGEID #: 1975

the minor solely driven by their racial and ethnic hatred pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§241, 242, and 245.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grants the following relief:

X.A. X.A.1. X.A.1(a)

RELIEF IN EQUITY PRELIMINARY AND IMMEDIATE RELIEF EXPEDITED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO ENJOIN ALL SIX (6) PENDING CASES INSTITUTED AGAINST JURADO OR BY JURADO IN STATE COURTS

960. Issue a preliminary injunction staying proceedings in all six pending cases that originated from the custody case, including the custody case because (i) of the ongoing intentional deprivations of rights and compounding harm, (ii) it is necessary in aid of this court’s jurisdiction. The six pending cases in state courts to be enjoined and their proceedings stayed are as follows: a. Case number 12-JU-014479 of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Branch. The case is going to resume its proceedings on April 9, 2015, including Contempt hearing, Modification of Child Support, and Final Trial, but it is prone to setting last-minute hearings without much notice, such as the one held on March 17, 2015 that was scheduled 6 days in advanced. The proceedings conducted in this case serve as the platform where the majority of the abuses under the color of law are taking place.

372

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 386 of 411 PAGEID #: 1976

b. Case number 14-AP-872 of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. This appeal was instituted by Jurado to prevent or slow down the abuses and unlawful conduct by Judge Jamison and the Juvenile Court. It has already been briefed and it is waiting adjudication. It is related to the Appeal of a Contempt order and purge proceeding. Under this case, Jurado have already been denied temporary relief he sought in the form of a Stay. c. Case number 2015-0240 of the Supreme Court of Ohio, filed recently, in February 2015, by Jurado as an Original Action in Mandamus and Prohibition, seeking a remedy to the deprivations of his Constitutional and statutory rights of a Stay by the Juvenile Court and the Tenth District Court of Appeals. Without a Stay, Jurado faces retaliatory incarceration before he is able to exercise his right to Appeal the decision of the Juvenile Court and Judge Jamison. This case with the SCO is directly related to the Juvenile Court case 12-JU-014479 and Appeal case 15-AP-0080. d. Case number 15-AP-0026 of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. This appeal was filed by Jurado in January 2015 to prevent or slow down the abuses and unlawful retaliatory conduct by Judge Jamison and the Juvenile Court in respect to the summary punishment enforced against Jurado before he was given an opportunity to be heard. Jurado sought a Stay of the Order with both the juvenile Court and the Appeals Court and both denied Jurado of the relief he was seeking. Without a Stay, the issue will be moot by the time the Appeal is fully

373

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 387 of 411 PAGEID #: 1977

briefed and adjudicated.

Therefore their denial of a Stay constituted a

deprivation of Jurado’s right to access the Court and to Appeal. The order in question is Judge Jamison standing (temporary) order suspending Jurado’s parenting time, going on for over three months now, and the harm inflicted to the young child, Plaintiff N.G., will be irreversible. e. Case number 15-AP-0080 of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. This appeal was filed by Jurado in February 2015 to prevent or slow down the abuses and unlawful retaliatory conduct by Judge Jamison and the Juvenile Court in respect to the second contempt finding against Jurado during a proceeding that was instituted in furtherance of the conspiracy—to incarcerate Jurado in retaliation for his public denouncing of unlawful discrimination by the GAL and the Judiciary Branch and for seeking relief in this court. f. Case number 13-CV-011378 of the General Division of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court.

This case has been thoroughly documented in this

complaint as one of the subsidiary schemes of the master conspiracy against Plaintiffs.

It was instituted on October 2013 by Brooksedge, LeClair and

Alexander-Savino with the joint efforts of Lambert, Smitherman, Bethel, Dr. Smalldon, Petroff Law firm, OCRC Defendants and OOAG Defendants. It has been a successful plot within the overarching conspiracy given that the injuries caused have been consistent, pervasive and ongoing, and most of its objectives have already been reached.

Defendants Alexander-Savino and LeClair are

374

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 388 of 411 PAGEID #: 1978

currently pursuing to cause additional undue burden to Jurado through the discovery phase and are also intensely pursuing monetary sanctions in bad faith and with malicious purposes. 961. There is a strong possibility that Jurado will remove case 13-CV-011378 from the State Court under

X.A.1(b)

EXPEDITED PRELIMINARY DECLARATION OR INJUNCTION TO ENJOIN TWO TEMPORARY ORDERS ISSUED BY JUDGE JAMISON BETWEEN DECEMBER 2014 AND JANUARY 2015 TO SUSPEND JURADO’S PARENTING TIME IN UNLAWFUL RETALIATION

962. Issue a preliminary injunction staying the two standing orders unlawfully issued by Defendant Judge Jamison in the Juvenile Court to sever the father-son bond and relationship and start the long-term parental alienation in furtherance of the conspiracy. In the alternative, issue a declaration that the two orders are invalid or unenforceable until further order of this court. Before these unconstitutional orders were issued, Jurado had exercised an equal-time shared parenting schedule during most of the pendency of the case, which is nearly equivalent to the age of Plaintiff N.G. The first Order or Entry was issued on December 18, 2014 and the second one was issued on January 9, 2015. (See )

X.A.1(c)

INJUNCTION TO STAY ORDERS OR DECLARATION THAT THE ORDERS ISSUED BY DEFENDANT JAMISON SINCE JULY 2014 ARE INVALID OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL

963. Issue a preliminary injunction staying several of the unlawful orders or judgment entries issued by Defendant Judge Jamisonretroactive since the judicial transgressions became overt and without restrain, which is after Jurado’s filing of his Original Action in the Supreme

375

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 389 of 411 PAGEID #: 1979

Court of Ohio in July 2014. Most of the orders are temporary orders, such as the dismissal of Jurado’s Motion to Modify Child Support dismissed on August 4, 2014 (entry dated Aug. 6, 2014), and entry from September 26, 2014 modifying how Jurado and Lambert made medical decisions for the child that was done without a hearing. There are also two final Judgment entries related to the finding of Contempt that were part of the overt acts in retaliation and in furtherance of the conspiracy issued on September 26, 2014 and January 22, 2015. Without staying these orders, Jurado will face incarceration before this Court has an opportunity to determine the merits of Plaintiff’s Constitutional and Civil Rights Claims.

X.A.1(d)

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS JAMISON, BETHEL, SMITHERMAN AND MCCASH

964. Issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to enjoin Defendants Jamison, Bethel, Smitherman, McCash, Lambert and any agent or representative acting on their behalf to preclude them from: 965. (i) Harassing, Contacting or corruptly influencing any of Jurado’s witnesses to this federal action or any other neutral party that may not be acting in their favor or in the interest of the conspiracy. For example, Jurado’s physician that was forced to appear in Court with less than 48 hour notice—by joint effort of Judge Jamison and Smitherman—as an act of intimidation because he issued a letter certifying Jurado’s incapacity and medical approval to avoid factors or situations that would create another health crisis, such as [certain] court proceedings. In February 12, 2015, Doctor Andrew Eilerman was compelled to drive from his clinic to the court house at two different times in the same day as Smitherman’s premeditated

376

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 390 of 411 PAGEID #: 1980

efforts—acting as an agent of the court—to impose undue burden, with the ultimate goal of causing aversion for treating and assisting Jurado in any way in the future. 966. (ii) Approaching Jurado’s home with the pretext of conducting a court investigation, especially when two home visits have been completed at Jurado’s home as well as Lambert’s home.

This restriction will ultimately prevent another recurrence of the incident from

December 5, 2014.

X.A.1(e)

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER TO PREVENT MORE PHYSICAL HARM OR THREAT OF HARM BY DEFENDANTS, AND TO PREVENT LAMBERT FROM MAKING ANY DECISIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF N.G. UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT

967. Issue a preliminary injunction or TRO, to prevent Defendant Lambert from making decisions on behalf or in regards to Plaintiff N.G., for his safety and protection, if this Court determines that Plaintiffs have established a prima fascia case of child endangerment, neglect, abuse or maltreatment or violations of federal or state laws related to the protection of children, including but not limited to 42 U.S. Code §13031. As of the filing of this first amended complaint, Jurado is a co-custodial parent, also known as co-parenting or shared parenting arrangement. 968. If this court determines that any parts or subsidiary schemes of the conspiracy, or conspirators have unintentionally neglected the welfare of the child, or have engaged in conspiratorial conduct and acts with the premeditated intention to put the child in harm’s way—as a means to achieve the goals of the conspiracy or in furtherance thereof—or have exposed the child to imminent risk of serious harm by the Defendants’ acts, or by their criminal

377

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 391 of 411 PAGEID #: 1981

indifference and failure to act, according to ORC 2151.031, divisions (B), (C), (D) or (E), ORC §§ 2919.22(A), 2919.22(B), 2151.011 et seq., and 2151.421, or 18 U.S.C. §§241, 242 or 245, then issue a preliminary declaration that minor N.G. is the victim of crime, and a Temporary Restraining Order or Order of Protection to prevent any of the conspirators from having contact with the child or authority to affect any aspect of the care of the child until further order of the court, in order to prevent additional physical and psychological harm to be inflicted or threats of harm in retaliation, concealment or furtherance of the conspiracy. The TRO should allow Lambert to have parenting time but only with professional supervision until further order of the court.

X.A.1(f)

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO STAY ORDERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING PLAINTIFFS IMMEDIATE AND TEMPORARY ECONOMIC RELIEF

969. Issue a preliminary injunction to stay the current order setting the Child Support Obligation that has been overdue for modification for over two years and have been used as a tool in furtherance of the conspiracy to cause financial harm and undue hardship to Jurado. No evidence will be found on the records of the custody case of a dispute over the facts regarding Lambert’s income to be the same or higher than Jurado income. On the other hand, the record will show how Defendants Smitherman and Lambert would make procedural maneuvers and engage in deceptive conduct to prevent Jurado from changing the Child Support obligation amount on the merits. The overage of child support payments made to Lambert is estimated to be in excess of $45,000.00.

378

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 392 of 411 PAGEID #: 1982

X.A.1(g)

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, RESTRAINING ORDER UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 2000a–3

970. Issue a preliminary injunction and restraining order against all conspirators defendants, but specially Defendants Brooksedge Daycare, LeClair, Alexander-Savino, Kim Eagle, Gretchen Wilson and The Goddard School-Hilliard II, to prevent them from continuing to engage in acts, conduct and practices prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 2000a–2, including (i) deprivation of Jurado of rights under section 2000a, 2000a-1, (ii) threats and intimidation for the purpose of interfering with his rights and privileges secured by sections 2000a and 2000a-1, and (iii) punishment against Jurado for attempting to exercise his rights under sections 2000a and 2000a-1. In the case of Brooksedge, Alexander-Savino and LeClair, their punishment is the lawsuit current active and pending in the general division of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court. In the case of the Goddard School-Hilliard II, Wilson and Eagle, they first threaten Jurado by the utilization of “safety traps” in their kitchen and coercing Jurado into taking his child into the kitchen, followed by intimidations as a coordinated effort when Jurado was verbally attacked and humiliated in front of his son and all the children in the class, and ultimately punished with the concerted action by defendants McCash, Lambert, Smitherman and Judge Jamison. The punishment consisted of scheduling an emergency hearing to allow Defendant Judge Jamison to expand the existing summary punishment order to add more restrictions to Jurado’s time with his son and to his already limited 3 hours a week visits to see his son at the Goddard School. The punishment currently enforces a one hour maximum a week for Jurado to see his son and visit him at daycare and the choosing of the weekday and time by the Daycare administrators.

379

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 393 of 411 PAGEID #: 1983

X.A.2.

PERMANENT RELIEF

X.A.2(a)

PERMANENT DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ENSURE FUTURE COMPLIANCE OF FEDERAL LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS BY JUDICIARY BRANCH DEFENDANTS

971. Issue permanent declaratory and injunctive relief as may be appropriate to enforce the compliance of federal laws and constitutional protections by defendants the juvenile court, Judge Jamison, Bethel, McCash and any other judiciary branch defendant and to preclude them from continuing the same or any future acts of discrimination, conspiracy and retaliation against Plaintiffs.

X.A.2(b)

DECLARATORY RELIEF REGARDING THE CORRUPT CONSPIRATORIAL CONDUCT OF DEFENDANTS JUDGE JAMISON AND ANY OTHER DEFENDANTS SHARING HER IMMUNITY FROM ยง1983 DAMAGES, WITH THE PURPOSE OF EXPOSING THE JUDICIARY TO PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

972. Issue a permanent declaration regarding any substantiated unlawful or criminal conduct of Defendants Judge Jamison and that of any other defendants enjoying immunity from ยง 1983 damages, given that judicial immunity was not designated to insulate the judiciary from all aspects of public accountability. The declaratory relief would also facilitate any potential criminal prosecution just as other citizens are subject to the same actions, and would facilitate the participation of the Judiciary in responding as parties to the action assuming they will provide material information to this civil action against the rest of the conspirators defendants.

380

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 394 of 411 PAGEID #: 1984

X.A.2(c)

DECLARATORY RELIEF REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF OHIO’S GOV. BAR RULE V AND AN ORDER TO ENJOIN FUTURE CONDUCT AND PRACTICES THAT INTERFERE WITH THE METHODS TO ENFORCE THE PROHIBITIONS OF TITLE VI.

973. Issue a declaration regarding the validity of the portions or subsections of Ohio’s Gov. Bar Rule V which are found in conflict with federal statutes. 974. Issue an Order to preclude state officials and defendants Amy Stone, Scott j. Drexel and ODC from continuing the existing practices or from conducting their investigations and proceedings in a manner that interferes with the established methods to enforce the prohibitions of Title VI against unlawful discrimination.

For example, the secrecy and

confidentiality of grievances and their investigation interfere with the transparency and other methods promoting impartiality that are used in the enforcement of Title VI.

X.A.2(d)

PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF REGARDING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ORC 4112.05(H)

975. Issue a declaration regarding the constitutionality of Ohio Revised Code section 4112.05(H) as currently interpreted by OCRC Defendants, OOAG Defendants and State Courts during judiciary review under ORC 4112.06, as the statute applies to complainants aggrieved with a finding of No Probable Cause by the Commission. 976. Issue an Order to compel OCRC Defendants to issue Findings of Fact in a manner that can allow proper review, consistent with the rights and protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution including Equal Protection and Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

381

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 395 of 411 PAGEID #: 1985

977. Issue an Order to preclude OOAG Defendants to hinder the establishment and enforcement of new practices and conduct consistent with this Court’s opinions and declarations.

X.A.2(e)

PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF REGARDING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ORC §§2505.09, 2505.12 AND 2505.16

978. Issue a declaration regarding the constitutionality of Ohio Revised Code sections 2505.09, 2505.12 and 2505.16 as it applies to Appellant Contemnors who face the risk of incarceration and that either cannot afford to cover the requirement of giving supersedeas bond or that the underlying order being the subject of the Contempt is not for the payment of money. 979. Issue an Order to preclude Defendants the Juvenile Court and Terri Jamison from using their authority to exercise discretion to apply these statutes in a manner inconsistent with the rights and protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution or inconsistent with the orders and declarations of this court.

X.A.2(f)

PERMANENT DECLARATORY RELIEF REGARDING THE STATUS OF PLAINTIFF N.G. AS VICTIM OF CRIME

980. Issue a preliminary and permanent declaration that Plaintiff N.G. has been a victim of crime by Custody Interference pursuant to ORC 2307.50(C), and a victim of crime by child endangerment according to ORC 2151.031(B) or status of abused child pursuant to ORC 2151.031, divisions (C), (D) and (E). Such declarations and findings are authorized to be issued by the court pursuant to each of the statutes specified above, and should serve the interests of justice if the allegations herein are substantiated, including the exposure to 382

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 396 of 411 PAGEID #: 1986

substantial risks of injury and attempts or successful acts to inflict physical and psychological harm by defendants.

X.B. X.B.1. X.B.1(a)

COMPENSATORY DAMAGES COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR ECONOMIC LOSSES COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR ECONOMIC LOSSES AGAINST DEFENDANTS STONE, JAMISON, BETHEL, MCCASH, GARCIA, DUNN AND GUTOWSKI IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITY

981. Award of compensatory damages to Plaintiffs for all compensation lost, and expenditures incurred as a result of the unlawful acts of defendants Stone, Jamison, Bethel, McCash, Garcia, Dunn, and Gutowski while acting under the color of law and outside the protection of their immunity.

X.B.1(b)

COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR ECONOMIC LOSSES AGAINST DEFENDANTS STONE, JAMISON, BETHEL, MCCASH, GARCIA, DUNN, GUTOWSKI IN THEIR OFFICIAL AND DELEGATED CAPACITIES, AND AGAINST THE JUVENILE COURT, OOAG, OCRC, AND SCO DEFENDANTS

982. Award of compensatory damages to Plaintiffs for all compensation lost, and expenditures incurred as a result of the unlawful acts of defendants Stone, Jamison, Bethel, McCash, Garcia, Dunn, Gutowski representing their state agencies OOAG, OCRC, AND SCO/ODC, including unlawful discrimination and retaliation under Title VI.

383

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 397 of 411 PAGEID #: 1987

X.B.1(c)

COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR ECONOMIC LOSSES AGAINST PRIVATE DEFENDANTS LAMBERT, SMITHERMAN, LECLAIR, WILSON, EAGLE, ALEXANDER-SAVINO, BROOKSEDGE DAYCARE, THE GODDARD SCHOOL-HILLIARD II AND PETROFF

983. Award of compensatory damages for all compensation lost, and expenditures incurred as a result of the unlawful acts of defendants Lambert, Smitherman, LeClair, Wilson, Eagle, Alexander-Savino, Brooksedge Daycare, The Goddard School-Hilliard II and Petroff Law Firm, who engaged in private conduct and formed a partnership to interfere with Plaintiffsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; civil rights, to intentionally inflict Emotional Distress, Pain and Suffering, to interfere with Plaintiffs business relationships, and to harm Plaintiffs by defamation and loss of reputation.

X.B.1(d)

COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR ECONOMIC LOSSES AGAINST PRIVATE DEFENDANTS LAMBERT, SMITHERMAN, LECLAIR, WILSON, EAGLE, ALEXANDER-SAVINO, BROOKSEDGE DAYCARE, THE GODDARD SCHOOL-HILLIARD II AND PETROFF ACTING UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW

984. Award of compensatory damages to Plaintiffs for all compensation lost, and expenditures incurred as a result of the unlawful acts of defendants Lambert, Smitherman, LeClair, Wilson, Eagle, Alexander-Savino, Brooksedge Daycare, The Goddard School-Hilliard II and Petroff Law Firm, while acting under the color of law during their agreement with the State and its agents and while engaging in concerted action with state officials to willfully deprive Plaintiffs of their rights.

384

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 398 of 411 PAGEID #: 1988

X.B.2.

COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR NON-ECONOMIC LOSES

X.B.2(a)

COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR NON-ECONOMIC LOSSES AGAINST DEFENDANTS STONE, JAMISON, BETHEL, MCCASH, GARCIA, DUNN AND GUTOWSKI IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITY

985. Award of general damages suffered as a result of the unlawful acts of defendants Stone, Jamison, Bethel, McCash, Garcia, Dunn, and Gutowski while acting under the color of law and outside the protection of their immunity, for which money is only a rough substitute, including but not limited to physical pain, humiliation and embarrassment, shock and mental anguish, loss of reputation, emotional distress and suffering 986. For general damages suffered as a result of Defendants (listed above) State Actors’ intentional deprivation of Plaintiffs’ rights and protections under federal law and the U.S. constitution.

X.B.2(b)

COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR NON-ECONOMIC LOSSES AGAINST DEFENDANTS STONE, JAMISON, BETHEL, MCCASH, GARCIA, DUNN, GUTOWSKI IN THEIR OFFICIAL AND DELEGATED CAPACITIES, AND AGAINST THE JUVENILE COURT, OOAG, OCRC, AND SCO DEFENDANTS

987. Award of general damages suffered as a result of the unlawful acts of defendants Stone, Jamison, Bethel, McCash, Garcia, Dunn, Gutowski representing their state agencies OOAG, OCRC, AND SCO/ODC, including unlawful discrimination and retaliation under Title VI, for which money is only a rough substitute, including but not limited to physical pain, humiliation and embarrassment, shock and mental anguish, loss of reputation, emotional distress and suffering.

385

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 399 of 411 PAGEID #: 1989

988. For the same general damages suffered but as a result of the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ rights and protections under federal law and the U.S. constitution.

X.B.2(c)

COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR NON-ECONOMIC LOSSES AGAINST PRIVATE DEFENDANTS LAMBERT, SMITHERMAN, LECLAIR, WILSON, EAGLE, ALEXANDERSAVINO, BROOKSEDGE DAYCARE, THE GODDARD SCHOOL-HILLIARD II AND PETROFF LAW FIRM

989. Award of general damages suffered as a result of the unlawful acts of defendants Lambert, Smitherman, LeClair, Wilson, Eagle, Alexander-Savino, Brooksedge Daycare, The Goddard School-Hilliard II and Petroff Law Firm, who engaged in private conduct and formed a partnership to interfere with Plaintiffs’ civil rights, to intentionally inflict Emotional Distress, to interfere with Plaintiffs business relationships, and to harm Plaintiffs by defamation and loss of reputation, for which money is only a rough substitute, including but not limited to physical pain, humiliation and embarrassment, shock and mental anguish, loss of reputation, emotional distress and suffering.

X.B.2(d)

990. Award of general damages suffered, for which money is only a rough substitute, as a result of the unlawful acts of defendants Lambert, Smitherman, LeClair, Wilson, Eagle, Alexander-Savino, Brooksedge Daycare, The Goddard School-Hilliard II and Petroff Law Firm, while acting under the color of law during their agreement with the State and its agents and while engaging in concerted action with state officials to willfully deprive Plaintiffs of their

386

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 400 of 411 PAGEID #: 1990

rights, for conspiring to engage in unlawful acts under state law, including conspiracy to unlawfully discriminate against Plaintiffs at the daycare facilities, to cause emotional harm, pain and suffering, to harm by defamation, to interfere with business relationships, and to interfere with Jurado’s custody of Plaintiff N.G.

X.B.2(e)

COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR NON-ECONOMIC LOSSES AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOR MENTAL SUFFERING, ANGUISH, LOSS OF SOCIETY OF THE MINOR RESULTING FROM THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE CONSPIRACY UNDER 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 AND 1985

991. Award of general compensatory damages suffered as a result of Defendants’ agreement to engage in unlawful acts and dark conspiratorial conduct to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights in wanton disregard for the prohibitions and protections of the US Constitution and Federal Statutes, which resulted in the interference with father and son relationship and with the significant separation of Plaintiffs causing non-tangible substantial harm.

X.B.3. X.B.3(a)

OTHER COMPENSATION FOR RECOVERY OF COSTS AND FEES REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND COMMON LAW

992. Award of costs related to instituting this action and, in the case that Plaintiffs are able to retain private counsel during the pendency of this action, award of reasonable attorney’s fees, both under common law and pursuant to ORC 2307.50(B)(3) against defendants Lambert, Smitherman, LeClair, Wilson, Eagle, Alexander-Savino, Brooksedge Daycare, the Goddard School-Hilliard II and Petroff Law Firm.

387

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 401 of 411 PAGEID #: 1991

X.B.3(b)

COSTS RELATED TO INSTITUTING THIS ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH 42 U.S.C. § 1920

993. Award compensation for the recovery of Plaintiffs’ costs associated with the litigation and instituting this action, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1920, against all defendants.

X.B.3(c)

ATTORNEYS’ FEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH 42 U.S.C. § 1988 FOR ALL 42 U.S.C. § 1983 CLAIMS

994. In case Plaintiffs are able to retain private counsel during the pendency of this action, award the recovery of attorneys’ fees, and expert fees if applicable, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for all 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against all defendants.

X.B.3(d)

ATTORNEYS’ FEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(b) FOR ALL 42 U.S.C. § 2000a ET SEQ. CLAIMS

995. In case Plaintiffs are able to retain private counsel during the pendency of this action, award the recovery of plaintiffs’ cost and attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(b) for all 42 U.S.C. § 2000a claims against defendants LeClair, Brooksedge Daycare, Alexander-Savino, Wilson, Goddard School of Hilliard II, and Eagle.

X.B.3(e)

ATTORNEYS’ FEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH 42 U.S.C. § 2000d–7(a)(2) FOR ALL 42 U.S.C. § 2000d ET SEQ. CLAIMS

996. In case Plaintiffs are able to retain private counsel during the pendency of this action, award the recovery of plaintiffs’ attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d–7(a)(2) for all 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. claims against defendants Brooksedge Daycare, Goddard School of Hilliard II, ODC, the Juvenile Court, OCRC and OOAG.

388

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 402 of 411 PAGEID #: 1992

X.C. X.C.1. X.C.1(a) 997.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST CONSPIRATORS ACTING UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANTS STONE, JAMISON, BETHEL, MCCASH, GARCIA, DUNN, AND GUTOWSKI IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITY Award of punitive damages to Plaintiffs against Defendants Stone, Jamison, Bethel,

McCash, Garcia, Dunn, and Gutowski, in their personal capacity, in an amount to be determined at trial for the main purpose of deterring future occurrences of the same premeditated unlawful and criminal conduct by Defendants and others in wanton abuse of their authority when acting under the color of law and while outside the protection of their immunity. For example, the result of the vicious misconduct by these defendants caused the separation and interference with Plaintiffs custody, ultimately inflicting mental suffering, anguish, and loss of society of the minor.

X.C.1(b)

PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST PRIVATE DEFENDANTS LAMBERT, SMITHERMAN, LECLAIR, WILSON, EAGLE, ALEXANDER-SAVINO, BROOKSEDGE DAYCARE, THE GODDARD SCHOOL-HILLIARD II AND PETROFF LAW OFFICES WHILE ACTING UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW

998. Award of punitive damages to Plaintiffs against Defendants Lambert, Smitherman, LeClair, Wilson, Eagle, Alexander-Savino, Brooksedge Daycare, The Goddard School-Hilliard II and Petroff Law Firm, while acting under the color of law during their agreement with the State and its agents and while viciously engaging in concerted action with state officials to willfully deprive Plaintiffs of their rights, for conspiring to engage in malevolent unlawful acts under state law, including conspiracy to unlawfully discriminate against Plaintiffs at the daycare facilities, to harm by defamation, to interfere with business relationships, and to interfere with

389

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 403 of 411 PAGEID #: 1993

Jurado’s custody of Plaintiff N.G., ultimately causing mental suffering, anguish, and loss of society of the minor. The amount of the damages is to be determined at trial for the main purpose of deterring future occurrences of the same premeditated unlawful and criminal conduct by Defendants and others.

X.C.2. X.C.2(a)

999.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST CONSPIRATORS ENGAGING IN PRIVATE CONDUCT PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST PETROFF LAW OFFICES, BROOKSEDGE DAYCARE, GODDARD SCHOOL – HILLIARD II, SMITHERMAN, LAMBERT, LECLAIR, ALEXANDERSAVINO, WILSON AND EAGLE Award of punitive damages to Plaintiffs against Defendants, in an amount to be

determined at trial for their vicious, dark and malevolent conspiratorial conduct and their engaging in unlawful acts under state law, including conspiracy to unlawfully discriminate against Plaintiffs at the daycare facilities, to cause emotional harm, pain and suffering, to harm by defamation, to interfere with business relationships, and to interfere with Jurado’s custody of Plaintiff N.G, ultimately causing mental suffering, anguish, and loss of society of the minor. The punitive damages are to be awarded for the main purpose of deterring future occurrences of the same unlawful and criminal conduct by Defendants and others when premeditatedly and maliciously collaborate to interfere with the civil rights of others and to engage in unlawful discrimination under state and federal law.

390

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 404 of 411 PAGEID #: 1994

X.D. X.D.1.

OTHER RELIEF DETERMINE IF THE STATE OF OHIO IS UNABLE TO OFFER PLAINTIFFS AN IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL FOR CONDUCTING CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS AND FOR ADJUDICATING PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES BETWEEN THE PARENTS; IDENTIFY OR SET UP AN ADEQUATE FORUM FOR THE SAME PURPOSE

1000. After this court adjudicates the claims in this action, and in the event that this court determines that the constitutional and federal law violations alleged by Plaintiffs were not indeed just random unauthorized acts of state officials, then this court may determine if the State of Ohio is unable to offer an impartial tribunal to Plaintiffs for conducting custody proceedings and for adjudicating parental rights and responsibilities between Lambert and Jurado, and without neglecting the best interest of the child. If this court finds that under the circumstances and after the history of the abuses against Jurado and his son over several years the State of Ohio is unable to offer an impartial tribunal, this Court may appoint or may help establish an adequate forum for the same purpose.

X.D.2.

APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF N.G.,

UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 2000a–3

1001. Because of all Conspirators Defendants named in this action have engaged in acts, conduct and practices prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 2000a–2, including the segregation and discrimination in the facilities operated by Brooksedge and The Goddard School-Hilliard II, Plaintiffs hereby seek preventive relief authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 2000a–3 as well as the appointment of attorneys for both Plaintiffs, or at least for Plaintiff N.G., given the economic circumstances and hardship that Jurado has been enduring and that is fully described herein.

391

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 405 of 411 PAGEID #: 1995

X.D.3.

AWARD PLAINTIFF JURADO WITH COMPENSATORY PARENTING TIME THAT WAS LOST BY THE CONCERTED ACTION OF DEFENDANTS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT OF DEFENDANT LAMBERT AS ONE OF THE GOALS OF THE CONSPIRACY

1002. Award of Make Up parenting time that Jurado lost as a result of the unlawful agreement of defendants to violate ORC 2919.23 and the provisions of ORC 3109.051 through lawful and unlawful means, driven by their common intention to harm Jurado for not being Caucasian. After defendants conspired to act under the color of law to mask their criminal acts as lawful for more than two years, they successfully achieved the unlawful purpose of interfering with Jurado’s custody of the child. Therefore, under the inherent authority of this court and statutory authority under ORC 3109.051(K), compensatory parenting time should be awarded to Plaintiff Jurado.

X.D.4.

ISSUE OTHER RELIEF AS THIS COURT DEEMS APPROPRIATE AND JUST

1003. Any other relief that this court may deem appropriate and that serves the interests of justice should be issued or awarded for the fair restitution to Plaintiffs, or for other reasons. 1004. An example of “Other Relief” may be request issued by this Court for the amicus participation by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, if it determines that such participation will meet special federal interests or important public interests.

392

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 406 of 411 PAGEID #: 1996

XI. CONCLUSION

Respectfully submitted,

Aristides (Ari) Jurado (305) 799-3323 Ari_jurado@qualineconsulting.com

393

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 407 of 411 PAGEID #: 1997

XII. 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)

2 24

ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ ŽĨ ǆŚŝďŝƚƐ Ͳ ,ĞĂůƚŚ ƌŝƐŝƐ ŝŶ KŚŝŽ Ͳ ,ŝŐŚ EƵŵďĞƌ ŽĨ /ŶĨĂŶƚ ĞĂƚŚƐ 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 Children’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

394

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 408 of 411 PAGEID #: 1998

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

ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ ŽĨ ǆŚŝďŝƚƐ Ͳ ZĂĐŝƐŵ ĂŶĚ hŶůĂǁĨƵů ŝƐĐƌŝŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶ ŝŶ 'ƵĂƌĚŝĂŶ Ě >ŝƚĞŵ ĂŶĚ ŚŝůĚ tĞůĨĂƌĞ ƐǇƐƚĞŵƐ͕ ĂŶĚ &ĂŵŝůǇ >Ăǁ ^ǇƐƚĞŵ ĂŶĚ /ŶĚƵƐƚƌǇ 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 MA–10 Transcript of court proceeding, Juvenile Court, August 1, 2014 107 EXHIBIT AC1–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

152

395

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 409 of 411 PAGEID #: 1999

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 Judge Jamison allowing Bethel as a paid expert witness

186

ƉƉĞŶĚŝǆ ŽĨ ǆŚŝďŝƚƐ : Ͳ WĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚŝŽŶ ŝŶ ^ĞĐ͘ ϭϵϴϯ ĐŽŶƐƉŝƌĂĐǇ ďǇ K Z Θ K ' 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

396

205

Case: 2:15-cv-00074-GLF-TPK Doc #: 12-13 Filed: 04/09/15 Page: 410 of 411 PAGEID #: 2000

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: 411 of 411 PAGEID #: 2001

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