IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO,
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
State Ex Rel. ) CASE NO:
Bert Damian Lewis, )
769 Rue Center Ct. #i ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245 ) WRIT OF PROHIBITION
)
Relator, )
)
v. )
)
)
Honorable Victor M. Haddad, Judge )
Clermont County Court Of Common Pleas, )
General Division )
270 East Main Street )
Batavia, Oh 45103 )
)
Respondent. )
COMPLAINT
1. Relator, Bert Damian Lewis, pro se, respectfully petitions this Honorable Court
pursuant to Article IV, Section 2(B)(1)(d) of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. Chapter
2731, for the issuance of a Writ of Prohibition restraining Respondent, Judge Victor M.
Haddad of the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, General Division, from
exercising any further judicial authority over the matter styled State of Ohio v. Bert
Damian Lewis, Case No. 2025000360, due to structural conflicts of interest, retaliatory
prosecution, suppression of exculpatory evidence, and procedural irregularities that
render continued judicial proceedings constitutionally and jurisdictionally invalid.
2. This action arises from a criminal prosecution that is fundamentally flawed, both
constitutionally and jurisdictionally. The proceedings below rest upon perjured sworn
statements (Exh.1), structural conflicts of interest involving the complainant’s spouse
Page 1 of 15
(Exh.2), retaliatory prosecution initiated immediately following the exercise of protected
rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Exh.3), and systematic suppression of exculpatory
evidence and denial of court access (Exh.4). Collectively, these constitutional violations
render the underlying prosecution void ab initio and eliminate the Respondent court’s
jurisdiction to proceed.
3. Unless this Court intervenes to restrain Respondent from presiding over a
proceeding already fundamentally compromised by fraud, retaliation, and structural
conflicts of interest, Relator faces immediate and irreparable harm, including unlawful
extradition, violation of due process rights, and continued obstruction of meaningful
access to judicial remedies.
PARTIES
4. Relator, Bert Damian Lewis, is a United States citizen and longtime resident of
the State of California. Throughout all periods relevant to this action, Mr. Lewis has
resided outside the State of Ohio, continuously maintained a valid California driver's
license, and has had no lawful residence or domicile within Clermont County. Mr. Lewis
is the defendant named in State of Ohio v. Lewis, Case No. 2025000360, a criminal
matter currently pending before Respondent in the Clermont County Court of Common
Pleas. Mr. Lewis presently faces felony charges filed under seal just one day after he
formally notified the Clermont County Prosecutor’s Office of his intent to initiate
litigation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging civil rights violations perpetrated by
members of the Clermont County Sheriff’s Office and Prosecutor’s Office (Exh.1).
5. Respondent, the Honorable Victor M. Haddad, is a sitting Judge of the Clermont
County Court of Common Pleas, General Division, located at 270 East Main Street,
Page 2 of 15
Batavia, Ohio 45103. Respondent currently presides over the above-referenced criminal
matter and has issued orders therein despite formal notice of disqualifying structural
conflicts, prosecutorial misconduct, and fraudulent charging documents (Exh.2). Judge
Haddad has a longstanding professional association with both Stephanie Ross—Chief
Administrative Officer of the Prosecutor’s Office and the Court of Common Pleas—and
her spouse, Deputy Michael J. Ross, who is the lead state witness in the prosecution of
Mr. Lewis. These dual roles create a direct and unresolved conflict that undermines any
pretense of neutral judicial review (Exh.3).
JURISDICTION
6. This action is brought pursuant to Article IV, Section 2(B)(1)(d) of the Ohio
Constitution and R.C. Chapter 2731, which expressly grants this Honorable Court
original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs, including writs of prohibition,
necessary to prevent lower courts from exceeding their lawful jurisdiction.
7. A writ of prohibition is warranted when (A) a court or officer is about to exercise
judicial or quasi-judicial authority; (B) the exercise of such authority is clearly
unauthorized by law; and (C) no adequate remedy exists through ordinary legal
channels. (See State ex rel. Gilford v. Crush, 39 Ohio St.3d 174 (1988); State ex rel.
Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70 (1998)).
8. A writ of prohibition may issue even when a court possesses general subject-
matter jurisdiction if it is preparing to exercise judicial authority in a situation where
jurisdiction is "patently and unambiguously lacking." State ex rel. Ford v. Ruehlman,
149 Ohio St.3d 34, 2016-Ohio-3529, ¶ 62.
Page 3 of 15
9. As set forth in detail below, Respondent is exercising judicial authority over a case
that is (a) based upon a perjured affidavit submitted under penalty of perjury (Exh.1);
(b) prosecuted by an office compromised by an undisclosed and direct spousal conflict
of interest (Exh.2); (c) escalated in direct retaliation for Relator’s lawful exercise of
protected civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Exh.3); and (d) tainted by
procedural misconduct including suppression of exculpatory evidence and complete
obstruction of Relator’s access to judicial relief (Exh.4).
10. The trial court’s jurisdiction has been irreparably compromised by these
significant constitutional violations. No adequate remedy exists via standard appeal or
ordinary motion practice, as the Clerk has systematically obstructed the docketing of
Relator’s filings, and Respondent has already issued coercive orders without substantive
review of the presented evidence.
BACKGROUND FACTS
11. On or about March 14, 2020, Relator’s vehicle was involved in a two-vehicle
collision in Clermont County, Ohio. Deputy Michael J. Ross of the Clermont County
Sheriff’s Office responded to the scene but made no arrest, issued no citation, and
conducted no sobriety tests. Despite this, Deputy Ross subsequently executed and filed a
BMV Form 2255, falsely certifying under penalty of perjury that Relator had been
arrested for an OVI violation—thereby unlawfully triggering an Administrative License
Suspension (“ALS”) (Exh.1).
12. This certification, made under penalty of perjury, falsely attested that Relator had
been lawfully arrested. In reality, no arrest ever took place—no citation was issued, no
person was booked, no chemical test was administered, and no contemporaneous
Page 4 of 15
warrant or summons was ever issued (Exh.2). The ALS was imposed solely on the basis
of Deputy Ross’s knowingly false affidavit.
13. The ALS was imposed despite Relator’s status as a long-term resident and
licensee of California. At no point did Ohio authorities notify or coordinate with the
California Department of Motor Vehicles concerning this suspension, nor did they serve
Mr. Lewis with any notice in his state of domicile (Exh.3).
14. Following a warrantless “inventory” search of Relator’s vehicle post-collision,
deputies discovered a trace amount of a controlled substance. Relator possessed a valid
prescription for that substance—proof of which he later submitted to the Prosecutor’s
Office (Exh.4). Despite this exculpatory evidence, and without verifying the prescription
through OARRS or pharmacy records, two deputies under Deputy Ross’s direction filed
criminal complaints approximately six weeks later, alleging unlawful possession and
impairment (Exh.5).
15. On or about February 11, 2025, Relator contacted the Clermont County
Prosecutor’s Office in good faith, seeking to resolve what he believed was a clerical or
administrative error involving the ALS. He submitted documentation and
correspondence challenging the validity of the BMV Form 2255 (Exh.6).
16. At the time of this correspondence, Relator was unaware that the official
responsible for managing felony intake and overseeing the Grand Jury process was
Stephanie Ross, the spouse of Deputy Michael J. Ross—the very affiant of the contested
BMV Form 2255. Mrs. Ross received and processed Relator’s complaint without
disclosing her direct spousal conflict of interest (Exh.7).
Page 5 of 15
17. Over the next several months, Relator repeatedly submitted prescription
documentation, evidentiary correspondence, and formal written requests to the
Prosecutor’s Office, explicitly demanding exculpatory materials and requesting a formal
investigation into the false arrest certification. Although these submissions were
acknowledged by the Prosecutor’s Office, no corrective actions, disclosures, or
dismissals resulted, and the exculpatory evidence provided by Relator was actively
suppressed or ignored (Exh.8).
18. On or about June 11, 2025, Relator formally served the Clermont County
Prosecutor’s Office with a Notice of Intent to Litigate pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
explicitly naming Deputy Ross and additional county officials as potential defendants
based on civil rights violations and retaliatory actions (Exh.9).
19. On June 12, 2025, precisely one day after Relator served the Notice of Intent to
Litigate, the Prosecutor’s Office secured a sealed indictment charging Relator with six
aggravated felonies arising from the same 2020 incident (Exh.10). This indictment was
processed and submitted under the direct administrative oversight of Stephanie Ross,
the same official who initially received and handled Relator’s complaint and who
maintained an undisclosed spousal conflict of interest.
20. No formal service was executed, and the indictment remained sealed and
undisclosed for several weeks. Relator became aware of the indictment only upon
making direct inquiry about the status of his case. Neither the court nor the Prosecutor’s
Office provided Relator with formal notice or disclosure of the charges (Exh.11).
21. Between June 30 and July 7, 2025, Relator submitted approximately twenty-
seven filings to the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, including motions to
Page 6 of 15
dismiss, affidavits, evidentiary exhibits, and formal notices of conflict. Only seven of
these filings were accepted and docketed; the remaining submissions were summarily
rejected without hearing, explanation, or judicial consideration (Exh.12).
22. Among the filings summarily rejected without docketing were a Motion for
Judicial Notice specifically detailing Deputy Ross’s perjury (Exh.13), a Motion to Recuse
the Prosecutor’s Office based upon the undisclosed and direct conflict of interest
involving Stephanie Ross (Exh.14), and a Supplemental Civil Rights Brief thoroughly
documenting a pattern of misconduct over the preceding six months by officials in both
the Sheriff’s and Prosecutor’s Offices (Exh.15).
23. After rejecting these filings, court personnel explicitly instructed Relator to “stop
sending motions,” further advising that additional submissions would be discarded
without review or docketing. This directive was confirmed in a voicemail left by a staff
member of the Common Pleas Division, operating under the administrative supervision
of Stephanie Ross (Exh.16).
24. At no point did Judge Haddad issue a written finding or ruling addressing the
undisclosed conflict of interest involving Stephanie Ross, the documented perjury by
Deputy Ross, or the retaliatory motivation underlying the prosecution. Despite verified
complaints and appropriate statutory filings raising these critical constitutional
concerns, no remedial action was undertaken by the court to resolve or even
acknowledge the structural defects. Instead, the court proceeded to assert jurisdiction
without addressing the substantive issues presented (Exh.17).
25. Relator now faces six felony charges—each predicated upon Deputy Ross’s
perjured affidavit, prosecuted by an office compromised by an undisclosed conflict of
Page 7 of 15
interest, administered by that deputy’s spouse, and overseen by a court that has
systematically refused to docket or consider twenty filings expressly raising these
constitutional and jurisdictional defects. Deputy Ross has served as a key prosecution
witness for Prosecutor Mark Tekulve in numerous high-profile felony cases; a judicial
finding of culpability for perjury against Ross would severely jeopardize Tekulve’s
professional reputation and potentially compel the filing of appeals in hundreds of prior
cases. Notably, the felony indictment was secured exactly one day after Relator served
formal notice of intent to litigate civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Moreover, Stephanie Ross, who holds significant administrative authority over Grand
Jury operations and the administration of federal and state grants predicated on OVI
and ALS enforcement data, has actively suppressed exonerating evidence, compounding
conflicts of interest and significantly prejudicing Relator’s ability to mount an effective
defense.
GROUNDS FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
26. A writ of prohibition may issue to restrain a lower court from exercising judicial
authority in a proceeding where jurisdiction is “patently and unambiguously lacking.”
State ex rel. Ford v. Ruehlman, 2016-Ohio-3529, ¶ 62. Even where a court possesses
general subject-matter jurisdiction, prohibition is warranted if the specific judicial
action at issue exceeds the court’s lawful authority and no adequate remedy is available
through ordinary legal channels.
27. That standard is satisfied here. Respondent’s jurisdiction is void due to the
cumulative presence of four independent, disqualifying constitutional defects: (1)
falsified charging instruments predicated upon perjured testimony; (2) structural
Page 8 of 15
conflict of interest arising from the undisclosed spousal relationship involving the
primary witness and prosecution administrator; (3) prosecutorial retaliation evidenced
by the filing of felony charges one day after Relator’s protected notice of civil rights
litigation; and (4) systematic suppression of exculpatory evidence and court filings.
Each defect, standing alone, independently justifies issuance of the writ. Taken
collectively, they irreparably compromise the integrity of the proceedings, rendering
them constitutionally and jurisdictionally invalid.
A. The Prosecution Is Based on Falsified Charging Instruments
28. The foundational document in this prosecution—the BMV Form 2255 sworn by
Deputy Michael Ross—falsely certifies under penalty of perjury that Relator was lawfully
arrested on March 14, 2020. In reality, no arrest occurred on that date or at any time
thereafter (Exh.1). No citation was issued, no sobriety tests were administered, and no
custodial event took place. Deputy Ross’s false representation constitutes perjury under
R.C. 2921.11 and violates constitutional principles established in Franks v. Delaware,
438 U.S. 154 (1978).
29. The Administrative License Suspension (ALS) imposed solely through this
falsified affidavit set into motion a chain of unconstitutional actions, ultimately resulting
in a sealed indictment issued five years later. Because the indictment itself relies on
knowingly fabricated statements and false pretenses, the charging process is inherently
void ab initio. A court cannot lawfully exercise jurisdiction where probable cause has
been fraudulently manufactured through perjury and deliberate deception (Exh.2).
B. The Indictment Was Procured and Administered by a Conflicted Official
Page 9 of 15
30. The felony indictment against Relator was presented to the grand jury under the
direct administrative authority of Stephanie Ross, the spouse of the complaining
witness, Deputy Michael Ross (Exh.3). At the time the indictment was obtained,
Stephanie Ross served simultaneously as Chief Administrator for the Felony Division
and Grand Jury Unit of the Prosecutor’s Office and held significant administrative
responsibilities within the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, including
oversight of federal and state grants dependent upon OVI and ALS enforcement data.
31. This undisclosed spousal relationship constitutes a fundamental, structural
conflict of interest that inherently compromises the impartiality of the grand jury
proceedings and the resulting indictment. A court cannot lawfully maintain jurisdiction
over a proceeding where the administrator of the grand jury process shares direct
personal and professional ties with the primary prosecutorial witness and has actively
participated in the suppression of exculpatory evidence prejudicial to Relator’s defense
(Exh.4). Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927); Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556
U.S. 868 (2009).
32. Despite receiving formal complaints, evidentiary notices, and verified filings
explicitly identifying this conflict, Respondent failed to take any remedial action.
Stephanie Ross was permitted to remain in her conflicted administrative position,
overseeing crucial aspects of the prosecution without recusal or the appointment of a
neutral party. Such a failure to remedy or even acknowledge this structural defect
independently voids the court’s jurisdiction under both Ohio and federal law..
C. The Prosecution Was Retaliatory in Nature and Chronology
Page 10 of 15
33. On June 11, 2025, Relator formally notified the Clermont County Prosecutor’s
Office of his intent to initiate litigation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, explicitly naming Deputy
Ross and additional county officials in connection with the falsified ALS certification,
suppression of exculpatory evidence, and related civil rights violations (Exh.6).
34. The very next day—June 12, 2025—a sealed indictment was obtained against
Relator, charging him with six aggravated felonies stemming directly from the same
2020 incident (Exh.7). The immediate temporal proximity between Relator’s
constitutionally protected petitioning activity and the initiation of felony charges
strongly supports an inference of retaliatory motive, clearly violating established
constitutional protections as articulated in Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006),
and Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977).
35. The United States Constitution unequivocally prohibits prosecutions initiated as
retaliation for the exercise of protected free speech and the right of access to courts.
Courts are barred from exercising jurisdiction over proceedings commenced as punitive
responses to protected civil rights activity. Such retaliatory prosecutions are
constitutionally defective and inherently void as a matter of law.
D. The Trial Court Has Refused to Docket or Review Key Filings
36. Relator submitted at least 27 legal filings to the Clermont County Court of
Common Pleas—including dispositive motions explicitly detailing the above-described
misconduct. Only seven filings were accepted and docketed; the remaining submissions
were summarily blocked or discarded without hearing or explanation by court personnel
acting under the administrative supervision of Stephanie Ross (Exh.8).
Page 11 of 15
37. Among the suppressed filings were critical motions to dismiss based on Deputy
Ross’s perjury, requests for protective orders, notices and affidavits of indigency, and
formal motions for recusal due to conflicts of interest (Exh.9). None of these filings or
supporting exhibits were substantively reviewed or considered by Respondent prior to
issuing adverse rulings. Without meaningful court access or the ability to have motions
properly docketed and heard, Relator is effectively denied any adequate remedy at law.
38. As the United States Supreme Court has clearly emphasized, the right of access
to the courts is fundamental and constitutionally protected. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S.
817 (1977). Where a trial court actively obstructs or disables a litigant from presenting
valid defenses or having their motions considered, it forfeits its jurisdiction and renders
subsequent proceedings constitutionally invalid.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, based on the unrebutted and documented record of perjury,
retaliation, procedural obstruction, structural conflict of interest, and repeated
constitutional violations, Relator, Bert Damian Lewis, respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court issue an Order granting the following relief:
a) Appointment of a Neutral Special Prosecutor: Direct the trial court
to appoint an independent special prosecutor unaffiliated with the
Clermont County Prosecutor’s Office to handle all matters relating
to this prosecution, ensuring impartiality and eliminating the
identified structural conflict of interest.
b) Stay of Proceedings Pending Full Review: Grant a temporary stay of
all lower court proceedings, including extradition and warrant
Page 12 of 15
execution, until the constitutional and jurisdictional claims asserted
in the pending writ are fully resolved.
c) Order to Conduct Evidentiary Hearing: Issue an order directing the
trial court to conduct an immediate evidentiary hearing on the
jurisdictional defects and constitutional issues raised by Relator’s
suppressed motions and filings, and mandate that all such filings be
docketed and considered.
d) Order to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence: Mandate immediate
disclosure by the Prosecutor’s Office of all exculpatory evidence,
including previously suppressed documents, communications, and
records pertinent to Relator’s defense and motions.
e) Mandatory Recusal of Conflicted Parties: Order Respondent to
immediately recuse Stephanie Ross and Deputy Michael Ross from
any further involvement in the prosecution or administration of
Relator’s case, thereby remedying a direct and undisclosed conflict
of interest.
f) Referral for Ethical Review: Direct a referral of this matter to the
Ohio Disciplinary Counsel and Ohio Ethics Commission for
investigation into potential professional misconduct and ethics
violations identified in the record.
g) Order to Stay Enforcement of Extradition Warrant: Grant an order
expressly prohibiting the enforcement of any pending extradition
Page 13 of 15
warrants or custody actions against Relator until jurisdictional and
constitutional claims are adjudicated fully.
h) Neutral Review by Ohio Attorney General’s Office: Order the trial
court to refer this matter to the Ohio Attorney General’s Office for
an independent review and recommendation regarding the
appropriateness and legality of the indictment, charges, and
associated prosecutorial practices.
Dated: July 16, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
BERT DAMIAN LEWIS
chefdamianlewis@gmail.com
769 Rue Center Ct. #i,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
Tel: (754) 200-1970
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH APP. R. 19(A)
I certify that this Verified Complaint for Writ of Prohibition contains 3,114 total words,
excluding the portions exempted by App.R. 19(A)(1)(c), as calculated by the word count
function of the word-processing software used to prepare this document.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
BERT DAMIAN LEWIS
chefdamianlewis@gmail.com
769 Rue Center Ct. #i,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
Tel: (754) 200-1970
Page 14 of 15
VERIFICATION
State of Florida )
) SS:
County of Broward )
I, Bert Damian Lewis, being first duly sworn according to law, depose and state the following:
1. I am the Relator in the foregoing Verified Complaint for Writ of Prohibition.
2. I have reviewed the foregoing Complaint, and I affirm that the factual allegations contained
therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
3. All supporting documents referenced as exhibits within the Complaint are true and accurate
copies of original documents or faithfully reproduce their original content.
This verification is executed pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2731 and Rule 10(D) of the
Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.
______________________________
BERT D. LEWIS, RELATOR, PRO SE
Sworn to and subscribed before me this ____ day of __________, 2025
________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
Page 15 of 15
