Grendell Team Strategy: Hush Accusers, Insult Them, Blame the Media
Opinion
Rarely do I find it necessary to respond to or rebut a letter to the editor or other commentary directed toward the newspaper. Kim Laurie’s letter, however, warrants a response.
The strategy of the Grendell team — Laurie, John Ralph and the judge — is transparent: hush accusers, insult them, blame the media.
But there is nothing erroneous about the statement or reporting that Geauga County Juvenile Court Judge Tim Grendell’s efforts to hold Nancy McArthur in contempt of court for making disparaging remarks about him has cost the county now more than $25,000 in legal fees. And seeing their current PR campaign largely is being waged on the taxpayers’ time and dime, the cost is mounting.
Had Grendell not attempted to convene his own kangaroo court when McArthur bruised his ego in a thread of emails exchanged outside the presence of the court with a nonparty to a juvenile court proceeding, Geauga County taxpayers would never have needed to foot the bill for the consequences of his brazen disregard of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Laurie — and the judge — instead lay the blame on McArthur, stating she should have just submitted herself to Grendell’s court and acceded to his threats of fines and possible jail time.
And, contrary to Laurie’s assertion the hearing was not an attempt to hold her in contempt, the purpose of the show cause hearing was for McArthur to provide testimony and explain why she should not be held in contempt.
Laurie also asserts Grendell would not have presided over the hearing. As a hearing was never held, such an assertion is self serving. Let’s look instead at the facts. It was Grendell who denied on Jan. 7 a request from McArthur’s attorney to continue the Jan. 8 contempt hearing because of a prior commitment outside of Geauga County, not some “unbiased third party judge” sitting in his stead. And, it was Grendell who called a paralegal at the 11th District Court of Appeals on Jan. 8 to inform her he received the emergency stay order 10 minutes after the contempt hearing was scheduled to begin, not some “unbiased third party judge” sitting in his stead.
Fortunately, we are a nation of laws and one of those laws provides redress for a citizen seeking protection from a judge’s unlawful attempt to drag him or her into court. A citizen doesn’t have to surrender and take it, as Laurie and Grendell would have liked McArthur to do.
A citizen, like McArthur, can file a writ of prohibition with a superior court, in this case an appellate court, and ask that it direct a lower court, in this case a juvenile court, to stop doing something the law prohibits.
A citizen does not have to wait until after a contempt hearing to appeal a ruling when a “court, without authority, issues a . . . subpoena and show cause order to nonparty/nonwitness for purposes of restricting or punishing the exercise of free speech.” And what’s more, “when a judge patently exceeds his or her authority, the availability of an appeal is immaterial.”
Those are not the Maple Leaf’s words; those are the words of the 11th District Court of Appeals.
That is precisely what McArthur did when she sought protection against Grendell for exercising her right of free speech.
And, while Geauga County Prosecutor Jim Flaiz does represent the court in most matters, he also is required to follow an ethical code that governs the conduct of persons engaged in the practice of law. That code apparently prevented him from defending the actions of Grendell and his court.
Grendell apparently filed a grievance against Flaiz with the Ohio Supreme Court over remarks Flaiz made to the Cleveland Plain Dealer that ethical consideration prevented him from defending the judge. A grievance committee that reviewed Grendell’s complaint tossed it and the judge apparently appealed the dismissal of his complaint to the Ohio Supreme Court, which upheld the dismissal without the need of a hearing.
Rather than walk away from his pursuit of McArthur, Grendell instead chose to fight her with court-appointed outside counsel. Those lawyers have billed Geauga County more than $25,000 in legal fees.
Nowhere in any article published in the Maple Leaf has it been alleged or insinuated the county is paying McArthur’s legal fees. Any suggestion to the contrary is a blatant attempt to mislead the public.
And contrary to a letter Grendell recently sent Geauga County Commissioners, the Maple Leaf has not reported the commissioners blamed the wasteful expenditure of funds to him — although privately I am sure they do.
Laurie also calls McArthur’s complaint “baseless” — her boss has referred to it as “frivolous” and “meritless” — and claims an Ohio Supreme Court panel dismissed her lawsuit.
What? The only involvement of the Ohio Supreme Court — other than the reported upholding of the dismissal of Grendell’s grievance against Flaiz — was to appoint a three-judge appellate panel to hear McArthur’s complaint at the request of the 11th District — on which Grendell’s wife sits.
That visiting panel of judges did not dismiss her complaint; it unanimously denied Grendell’s attempt to dismiss it.
And Laurie is wrong in stating the court “wasn’t even asked to address her false statements at that point in the legal process.” In ruling on Grendell’s motion to dismiss the complaint, the panel was required to confine itself to the allegation within the four corners of McArthur’s complaint and accepted those allegations as true.
The three judges said McArthur had stated facts that “fall within the category of cases where courts have recognized prohibition as an available remedy” when a nonparty challenges an order that restricts the right of free speech.
McArthur was never required to prove her allegations, however, because Grendell finally walked away from their feud following nearly eight hours of mediation.
It was only after Grendell dismissed his subpoena and show cause order that McArthur voluntarily agreed to dismiss her appellate court action. According to the explicit language of the court orders, that was the sequence of events. After all, once Grendell walked away, what action could a higher court prohibit?
Finally, Laurie mentions mediator Andy Douglas’ statement there were other emails McArthur wrote and that “in the interest of good journalism,” those should be reviewed.
I agree and those emails can be read by clicking on the link attached to this article at www.geaugamapleleaf.com. (Many of the other pleadings, letters and rulings referenced above can be read as well through a corresponding link.)
I encourage the public to read those emails and draw your own conclusions. Decide for yourself who has wasted more than $25,000 of your money.
On a final note, if the juvenile court truly wants redress for language that reflects negatively on the integrity of the court and impedes the court in the administration of justice and protection of juveniles, start by looking in the mirror.
Editor’s Note: The following email was sent from Cheryl Koncler in Judge Grendell’s court to the Maple Leaf at 10:14 a.m. on Aug. 27, following the publication of the above editorial.
“John, Judge Grendell asked me to pass on to you that if you need help dealing with your apparent nervous breakdown, there are some very good mental health professionals in the area who can help you.”
The court was asked to confirm the judge’s words because the Maple Leaf intended to publish the email. As of 11 a.m., there has been no response.
