UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
Case No. 1:25-cv-00481 COLE/LITKOVITZ

BERT DAMIAN LEWIS,

Plaintiff,
vs.

CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO ET AL

Defendant.
___________________________/

SUPPLEMENTARY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
This memorandum is submitted in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. It requests federal court intervention to

temporarily enjoin a retaliatory and constitutionally flawed state prosecution, initiated in bad

faith, to prevent further irreparable harm to Plaintiff and his constitutional rights.

I. INTRODUCTION
This case now demands federal intervention under the established exceptions to Younger v.

Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), based on ongoing, substantiated constitutional violations. What

began as a five year old, procedurally-deficient and dormant misdemeanor has been deliberately

escalated into a weaponized felony indictment and an instrument of retaliation aimed at silencing

a civil rights claimant for lawfully seeking redress against local government misconduct. Plaintiff

seeks narrowly tailored emergency injunctive relief to halt a state prosecution that has lost all

legitimate prosecutorial purpose and now serves only as a conduit for bad faith enforcement,

targeted harassment, and unlawful surveillance in direct response to Plaintiff’s protected activity

Page 1 of 20
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Since the initial filing of the Complaint in July, 2025, material new

evidence has emerged confirming the prosecution’s illegitimacy and the state’s functional

breakdown as a fair adjudicator. This includes forensic proof of the unlawful interception of

privileged legal communications and unlawful digital surveillance initiated only after Plaintiff

reported Deputy Ross for perjury. These intrusions, executed without notice or valid legal basis,

implicate the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments and reflect a coordinated pattern of

retaliatory harassment rather than a neutral law enforcement proceeding. This is no abstract

claim. The evidentiary record now includes timestamp-matched email access logs showing

Plaintiff’s legal correspondence was simultaneously opened by Deputy Ross’s CCSO account

and the restricted Clermont County Prosecutor’s Office Admin email account belonging to

Deputy Ross’s spouse (proving one user accessed both accounts at the same time) and digital

forensic evidence that a VPN tunnel was used on Plaintiff’s personal computer to route his traffic

through a masked AWS node to redirect sensitive email communications away from their

intended destinations. Additionally, Plaintiff has filed 35 evidentiary pleadings in the court with

jurisdiction for the fraudulent charges now pending, with 20 of those going missing from the

docket and the remainder being denied without reason. Among them: motions seeking recusal for

conflict, recognition of perjured affidavits, protection against retaliatory arrest, and judicial

notice of perjured testimony underlying the very charges against him. Each was facially

sufficient and supported by verified exhibits. Yet the court has refused to address the substance of

any of these requests for relief, ands is shielding, rather than correcting, structural misconduct.

In a direct attempt to obtain appellate review of active civil rights violations by the trial

court, Plaintiff filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Prohibition with the Ohio Twelfth District

Page 2 of 20
Court of Appeals. For over a week, the docket remained silent. Then, after Plaintiff followed up

with the court, an unidentified clerk informally notified Plaintiff that the writ had not been

docketed on the grounds that it must first be filed with the very trial court whose conduct it

sought to enjoin. That circular directive sabotaged the core function of the writ: to halt unlawful

proceedings before irreparable harm occurred. The obstruction was absolute. Although the

appellate court accepted an 800-page submission with four sworn affidavits, its clerk’s office

issued no acknowledgment, provided no tracking number, transmitted nothing to the trial court,

and created no record of the filing. The entire submission has disappeared into a procedural void.

As a result, Plaintiff was denied any route to appellate relief and left fully exposed to the

unchecked power of a trial court he has formally accused of constitutional violations and is being

sought for remand by the very Sheriff’s Office he initially implicated for perjury in February.

The felony escalation, filed one day after Plaintiff’s civil rights preservation notice and five

years after the underlying event, arose not from new evidence, but from Plaintiff’s exposure of

falsified police records and was done to chill the pressing of his § 1983 claim. That indictment

rests entirely on a sworn affidavit proven to be perjured by state records and further contradicts

the state’s own factual record in numerous instances. This is textbook Younger bad faith:

prosecution without probable cause, deployed to retaliate, chill protected speech, and extinguish

§ 1983 remedies before they can be exercised. With no adequate state relief available, a sealed

arrest warrant now hangs over Plaintiff’s liberty, intended to force remand, extract silence, and

forestall federal review. The pattern is unmistakable: surveillance, suppression, and retaliation,

all under color of law. The Court’s intervention is not only authorized, it is urgently required.

Injunctive relief should issue to enjoin further enforcement of the underlying charges and any

Page 3 of 20
warrant pending final resolution of these constitutional claims or a neutral party’s determination

that the charges have not been brought in bad faith solely to harass as it now appears.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Bert D. Lewis currently faces a felony prosecution in State v. Lewis, Case No.

2025 CR 000360 (Clermont County, Ohio), initiated less than 24 hours after he served the

Prosecutor’s Office a formal Notice of Intent to Litigate under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proximity

is not a coincidence, it is a textbook act of bad faith, retaliatory escalation. The indictment did

not arise from newly discovered evidence or neutral prosecutorial evaluation, but from Plaintiff’s

constitutionally protected act of whistleblowing: reporting sworn perjury by Deputy Michael J.

Ross and identifying systemic misconduct by the Clermont County Prosecutor’s Office. The

temporal connection is not merely suspicious, it is dispositive of retaliatory motive under

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 260–66 (2006), which recognizes temporal proximity and

official animus as powerful indicators of unconstitutional prosecution.

Yet timing alone is not the sole basis for federal intervention. The totality of circumstances

reveals a pattern of coordinated constitutional violations that have rendered the state forum

illusory as a venue for redress. These include, but are not limited to: (1) ongoing warrantless

surveillance of privileged legal communications; (2) suppression of exculpatory materials in

violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); (3) use of a perjured BMV Form 2255, filed

11 days late and contradicted by the factual record, as the sole predicate for felony escalation;

and (4) multiple conflicts of interest so blatant as to offend fundamental due process under

Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927). Specifically, the prosecution was initiated by Stephanie

Ross, Deputy Ross’s spouse, who held administrative authority over the Grand Jury and Felony

Page 4 of 20
Intake Division at the time the indictment was returned. Her marital relationship was never

disclosed and her role in overseeing the case arose directly from the formal misconduct

complaint naming her husband. This is structurally disqualifying under the due process

frameworks outlined in Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et Fils, 481 U.S. 787 (1987) and Caperton v.

A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009). Deputy Ross as also been a key witness in numerous

high-profile felony convictions for the prosecution, necessitating the prosecution’s recusal along

with Stephanie Ross’s, yet both went on to conceal these conflicts.

This misconduct is not isolated or historic, it is active, ongoing, and digitally traceable.

Press releases from June 2023 and June 2025 describe Deputy Ross’s role with the Clermont

County Sheriff's Office as being in cyber-forensic enforcement and regional surveillance. These

capacities align with forensic anomalies Plaintiff has recently discovered. Specifically, digital

read-receipt logs confirm that the same individual currently accessing Deputy Ross’s Clermont

County Sheriff’s Office email account is also simultaneously accessing the Prosecutor’s Office

administrative account “prosoffice@clermontcountyohio.gov;” opening private, case-sensitive

communications Plaintiff submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office with a strict expectation of

privacy. In multiple instances, both accounts registered identical timestamps down to the second,

an occurrence so statistically improbable that it is scientifically irrefutable evidence of

synchronized access from a single device. Interception of privileged legal communications

constitutes a direct violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2701 and an ongoing breach of Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendments. This is indicative of more

comprehensive surveillance, for which Deputy Ross had successfully attained a warrant in

Page 5 of 20
March to access all of Plaintiff’s online profiles predicated upon his perjured testimony given on

the invalidated BMV 2255.

The six felony charges now pending rest on that same falsified BMV Form 2255, which

Deputy Ross swore to under penalty of perjury, falsely asserting that Plaintiff was arrested and

refused chemical testing on March 14, 2020. No such arrest ever occurred, and the official crash

reports, dispatch logs, and booking records show no arrest for OVI occurred on that date, or any

other date after. The ALS form, submitted nine days outside the statutorily required timeframe,

was still fraudulently used to retroactively justify a sealed indictment abasing Plaintiff five years

later, and is the matter he now seeks relief of from this honorable court. The misuse of a

fabricated affidavit, coupled with the concealed spousal conflict, unauthorized surveillance, and

bad faith prosecution, strips away any presumption of legitimacy and further falls well beyond

the bounds of a constitutionally-sound proceeding. As established in Fieger v. Thomas, 74 F.3d

740, 750 (6th Cir. 1996), a prosecution initiated in bad faith or for purposes of harassment is not

entitled to Younger abstention. In addition, the Clermont County Court has refused to hear any of

Plaintiff’s motions, regardless of verified constitutional merit, until he submits to physical

custody, effectively barring judicial review and forcing unlawful remand as a prerequisite to

redress. This procedural blockade renders state remedies illusory and satisfies the “extraordinary

circumstances” exception under Younger and Trainor v. Hernandez. Federal courts must

intervene where state remedies are unavailable, compromised, or corrupted by structural bias.

Accordingly, the relief sought is by no means extraordinary or disruptive, it is

constitutionally compelled and deprives the state of nothing. Meanwhile this Court’s inaction

would ensure immediate and permanent harm unconstitutionally befalling the Plaintiff.

Page 6 of 20
Moreover, Plaintiff does not seek to evade prosecution, but asks the Court to pause a retaliatory,

procedurally defective, and constitutionally contaminated proceeding brought in bad faith until

neutral review can determine whether the prosecution’s very foundation, origin, predicate, and

purpose, are lawful, and not meant solely to harass and chill Plaintiff’s First Amendment Right to

redress a local government. No adequate state remedy exists where the tribunal is structurally

conflicted, the filings obstructed, the evidence falsified, and the prosecution weaponized. This

Court must act not merely to safeguard Plaintiff’s liberty, but to preserve the constitutional

integrity of judicial process itself.

III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a preliminary injunction may issue

where the movant establishes four interrelated criteria: (1) a strong likelihood of success on the

merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable harm in the absence of relief; (3) that the balance of

equities tips in the movant’s favor; and (4) that the injunction would serve the public interest.

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Leary v. Daeschner, 228

F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir. 2000). Within the Sixth Circuit, courts evaluate these factors holistically

and in combination, recognizing that no single factor is dispositive. Certified Restoration Dry

Cleaning Network, L.L.C. v. Tenke Corp., 511 F.3d 535, 542 (6th Cir. 2007). Critically, where

First and Fourteenth Amendment violations are alleged, such as retaliatory prosecution, denial of

court access, and unlawful interception of attorney-client communications, the irreparable harm

and public interest prongs are presumptively satisfied. Obama for America v. Husted, 697 F.3d

423, 436–37 (6th Cir. 2012) (irreparable injury is presumed where “constitutional rights are

threatened or impaired”); Bays v. City of Fairborn, 668 F.3d 814, 824 (6th Cir. 2012) (same).

Page 7 of 20
 Here, Plaintiff’s prosecution arises not from any legitimate law enforcement objective, but

from documented retaliatory intent, filed one day after Plaintiff lawfully notified the county of

intent to pursue civil rights claims. The charges themselves are rooted in a demonstrably false

sworn affidavit (BMV Form 2255) that contradicts the crash report, booking logs, and Plaintiff’s

Ohio criminal history. Plaintiff has submitted unrefuted evidence that the Prosecutor’s Office

concealed material conflicts of interest (including the involvement of Deputy Ross’s spouse as

both a key administrator and indictment coordinator), engaged in the unauthorized access of

privileged defense communications, and directly suppressed more than half of Plaintiff’s state

court filings without explanation or docket entry.

Federal courts are empowered, and in these circumstances obligated, to enjoin state

proceedings that proceed in bad faith, operate to harass, or exact immediate and irreparable harm

beyond the reach of normal state process. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 54 (1971); Fieger v.

Thomas, 74 F.3d 740, 750 (6th Cir. 1996). This case implicates each exception: (1) retaliation for

protected First Amendment activity; (2) manipulation and concealment of state procedures to

frustrate judicial review; and (3) digital surveillance of attorney-client exchanges without legal

process or disclosure. The injunction requested here is neither broad nor speculative. Plaintiff

seeks a narrow prohibition on the continued enforcement of a prosecution that has already

deviated from constitutional bounds. The balance of harms weighs heavily in favor of preserving

judicial access and preventing retaliatory arrest. No valid state interest is advanced by proceeding

on falsified evidence, nor by shielding a conflict-ridden prosecution from federal scrutiny. The

public interest, in turn, lies squarely in upholding the rule of law, enforcing federal rights, and

preventing state retaliation against whistleblowers seeking lawful redress. Accordingly, this

Page 8 of 20
Court is fully authorized, and constitutionally compelled, to issue preliminary injunctive relief

preserving Plaintiff’s liberty and enjoining the state proceeding pending final adjudication of the

federal claims now before it, or in the alternative, until a neutral review can determine whether

the prosecution’s charges are predicated upon lawful, good faith, and not in retaliation.

IV. ARGUMENT
A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Plaintiff has shown a compelling likelihood of success on the merits. The factual record

includes verified digital forensics, sworn affidavits, and state-supplied documents that

collectively establish a matrix of constitutional violations. These include suppression of

exculpatory evidence, retaliatory prosecution, warrantless searches, unauthorized surveillance,

and structural conflicts of interest, all now extensively documented and largely unrebutted.

Conversely, under settled precedent, any resulting conviction would be presumptively invalid.

See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).

a) First Amendment: Retaliation for Protected Activity

Plaintiff’s felony indictment was filed within 24 hours of serving formal § 1983 litigation

notice naming Deputy Michael J. Ross and the Clermont County Prosecutor’s Office.

This temporal proximity, when coupled with undisputed evidence of unauthorized access

to Plaintiff’s legal communications, satisfies the causal standard for a retaliatory

prosecution claim. See Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006) (requiring a

“retaliatory animus” linked to the initiation of charges). The State’s escalation from a five

year-old dormant misdemeanor to six sealed felonies, without new evidence and contrary

to the public record, further supports a strong inference of retaliatory motive.

b) Fourth Amendment: Unlawful Search and Seizure

Page 9 of 20
 Plaintiff’s digital records confirm repeated unauthorized access to confidential legal files

by state-associated IP addresses, including access within seconds by both Deputy Ross

and the internal Prosecutor’s Office email system. These intrusions implicate both the

Fourth Amendment and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. §

2701. In addition, a March 2025 search warrant targeting Plaintiff’s email was issued

based on the knowingly false 2020 BMV 2255 affidavit, which falsely claimed an arrest

that never occurred. Ross’s prior warrantless vehicle search on March 14, 2020,

conducted in the absence of lawful impound or probable cause, further supports a claim

for unconstitutional seizure.

c) Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments: Due Process and Equal Protection

The record confirms suppression of exculpatory evidence (including Plaintiff’s

prescription records) and reliance on a perjured ALS form long invalidated by state

records. These Brady violations are exacerbated by the State’s decision to reactivate and

upgrade the case in direct response to Plaintiff’s litigation activity. United States v.

Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996), affirms that such disparate treatment, absent a race-

neutral or evidence-based justification, violates equal protection. This Court has the

power to enjoin such prosecutorial misuse where no adequate state remedy remains. See

also Giglio, 405 U.S. at 153–54.

d) Sixth Amendment: Interference with Counsel and Adversarial Fairness

Multiple identical-timestamp access events confirm unauthorized entry into Plaintiff’s

protected legal materials. These acts violate the core guarantees of the Sixth Amendment,

including confidential attorney-client communication and adversarial parity. See

Page 10 of 20
 Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 556 (1977). The forensic specificity of these

intrusions, access logs, IP overlap, and packet traces, indicates deliberate state

surveillance, not inadvertent error.

e) Conflict of Interest and Structural Due Process Violations

The prosecution’s felony division administrator, Stephanie Ross, is married to the State’s

principal witness, Deputy Michael J. Ross. She supervised the indictment process while

simultaneously administering the office’s secure email infrastructure through which

Plaintiff’s legal materials were accessed. This undisclosed conflict violates fundamental

due process under Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927), and Caperton v. A.T. Massey

Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009). The failure to recuse or even disclose this entanglement

taints the entire proceeding. See also Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils, 481

U.S. 787 (1987) (due process is compromised where prosecutorial functions are exercised

by interested parties).

Moreover, Deputy Ross’s prior constitutional violations, specifically, the 2023 Miranda

breach in a high-profile homicide case, were never disclosed despite his central role in the

current prosecution. These prior acts, known to the Prosecutor, further reinforce the need for

independent scrutiny. Finally, every factual element of the felony case is rebutted by Plaintiff’s

authenticated exhibits, including crash reports, pharmacy verification, affidavits, and

timestamped digital records. The record already reflects significant Brady material withheld from

the defense, undermining confidence in the prosecution’s legality and credibility. Taken in

concert, these factors present not only a strong likelihood of success on the underlying claims but

a compelling case for immediate relief to prevent further irreparable harm. The prosecution of

Page 11 of 20
Plaintiff cannot proceed under a constitutional framework and must be restrained pending final

adjudication of these federal violations or neutral review of the prosecution..

B. Irreparable Harm
The continued prosecution of six felony charges, premised on unlawfully intercepted

communications, falsified and suppressed evidence, undisclosed familial conflicts, and numerous

other dispositive issues, poses an ongoing and constitutionally intolerable threat to Plaintiff’s due

process rights. These violations compromise the fairness of the proceedings and cannot be cured

after the fact. As the Supreme Court held in Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976), even brief

deprivations of constitutional rights amount to irreparable harm. Here, that harm is active and

escalating, justifying intervention. Plaintiff also faces a grave and immediate risk of physical

harm if remanded to custody under the control of the very individuals he has reported for serious,

potentially career-ending misconduct, raising urgent concerns for his personal safety and

reinforcing the need for immediate federal protection.

C. Balance of Equities and Public Interest

The equities strongly favor Plaintiff, who faces the imminent and unlawful deprivation of

liberty through a prosecution grounded in constitutionally defective procedures, including

suppressed exculpatory evidence, unlawful surveillance, and undisclosed conflicts of interest.

These violations not only threaten Plaintiff’s individual rights but erode the broader legitimacy of

the criminal justice system. The public interest is not served by convictions obtained through

tainted means; rather, it is best protected by upholding the constitutional guarantees of due

process, impartiality, and transparency in judicial proceedings. Ensuring accountability in this

case reinforces public trust in the rule of law and deters future abuses by state actors.

Page 12 of 20
D. Exceptions to Younger Abstention Apply

Federal intervention is appropriate and warranted where state criminal proceedings are

initiated in bad faith, for purposes of harassment, or under conditions so egregious that they

amount to extraordinary circumstances justifying equitable relief. See Fieger v. Thomas, 74 F.3d

740, 750 (6th Cir. 1996); Nivens v. Gilchrist, 444 F.3d 237, 241–42 (4th Cir. 2006). This narrow

but critical exception to federal abstention doctrine applies where the state proceeding is not

merely procedurally flawed, but fundamentally tainted in motive and execution. Here, the

deliberate manipulation of shared government email access to obtain confidential

communications, the unexplained suppression or disappearance of court filings, the concealment

of a material spousal relationship between a central witness and a member of the prosecution

team, the spouse of the Deputy accused of perjury administering the grand jury scheduling and

proceeding that indicted the accuser, and the lack of any escalation for five years until after

Deputy Ross was implicated in severe misconduct all point unmistakably to both bad faith,

harassment and extraordinary circumstances justifying equitable relief. Such conduct not only

invalidates the procedural legitimacy of the state’s case but also implicates systemic abuses of

power that threaten the integrity of the judicial process itself. Where state remedies are

compromised by this level of institutional misconduct, federal equitable relief becomes not only

permissible but necessary.

E. Supplemental Grounds: Structural Due Process Failure, Criminal Civil Rights

Violations, Brady Violations and Disqualifying Conflicts of Interest under State and
Federal Law
Beyond the Younger bad faith and harassment exceptions already satisfied, this matter

presents a paradigmatic case of structural due process failure that independently justifies federal

Page 13 of 20
intervention. When a state court system ceases to function as a forum for the fair and timely

adjudication of rights, abstention is no longer doctrinally appropriate. Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S.

415 (1979), and Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S. 434 (1977), authorize federal courts to enjoin

state proceedings where systemic obstruction forecloses constitutional redress. Here, the Twelfth

District Court of Appeals outright refused to docket a verified Writ of Prohibition, an

extraordinary but constitutionally protected vehicle for halting unlawful proceedings, despite

receipt of a full submission. This procedural disappearance is not merely irregular; it renders

state relief illusory. In such circumstances, federal jurisdiction is not only permitted but

mandated to preserve Plaintiff’s, and others similarly situated, access to justice.

Moreover, the operative facts demonstrate ongoing violations of Ohio Revised Code §

2921.45, which criminalizes any knowing deprivation of constitutional rights by public officials

under color of law. The conduct of the Clermont County Prosecutor’s Office, suppression of

more than twenty verified pleadings, coordinated digital interception of legal materials, and

deployment of a falsified BMV 2255 affidavit to trigger indictment within 24 hours of a § 1983

preservation notice, constitutes a textbook violation of ORC § 2921.45(A). This provision is

directly applicable to state actors such as prosecutors and court clerks and reinforces the federal

claim by showing that the state mechanism for safeguarding rights is itself compromised.

This breakdown is further exacerbated by a categorical structural conflict under Tumey v.

Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927), Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972), and Caperton v.

A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009). Stephanie Ross, spouse of the prosecution’s sole

testifying witness, oversaw the administration of Plaintiff’s grand jury indictment. This role

contaminates the proceeding with an unwaivable structural defect. Young v. United States ex rel.

Page 14 of 20
Vuitton et Fils, 481 U.S. 787 (1987), confirms that such participation by interested parties

violates basic fairness norms inherent to due process. No appellate or trial-level actor in Ohio has

acknowledged, let alone corrected, these defects.

The trial court now functions not as a neutral arbiter but as a conduit for selective

enforcement and retaliation. This is not the justice system contemplated by the abstention

doctrine. It is precisely the type of institutional failure against which federal equity jurisdiction

was designed to protect. For these reasons, in addition to those previously stated, Plaintiff

respectfully renews his request for emergency injunctive relief and asks this Court to recognize

that the state process is not merely defective, it is void in its constitutional legitimacy.

The prosecutorial conduct in this case demonstrates clear and egregious violations of Brady

v. Maryland and its progeny. From February through June 2025, Mr. Lewis submitted numerous

formal requests for critical exculpatory evidence, including the original BMV 2255 form,

bodycam and dashcam footage, tow logs, and custody documents, yet the Clermont County

Prosecutor’s Office persistently withheld all responsive materials. These are not minor

procedural oversights but sustained, knowing refusals to produce records already known to exist

and materially favorable to the defense, especially the BMV 2255 form which has since been

independently obtained and confirmed to contain perjured statements. Most notably, six months

ago, Mr. Lewis also furnished the Prosecutor’s Office with a copy of his valid medical

prescription for buprenorphine, which legally negates any basis for the related drug possession

charge filed against him. Yet despite receiving this exculpatory evidence in hand, the State has

taken no action to dismiss or amend the charge. Under Rule 3.8(d) of the Ohio Rules of

Professional Conduct, a prosecutor has a mandatory duty to disclose and act upon evidence “that

Page 15 of 20
tends to negate the guilt of the accused.” Instead, the State concealed this exculpatory material

while secretly preparing a grand jury indictment, a strategic ambush meant to deny Mr. Lewis

any opportunity to rebut Deputy Ross’s demonstrably false testimony before it was used to

support six felony charges. This sustained concealment and inaction constitutes a flagrant Brady

violation and renders the prosecution constitutionally infirm. It also prohibits the claim that any

of the prosecution’s charges have been filed in good faith.

Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated that the Clermont County Prosecutor’s Office has engaged

in sustained Brady violations and deliberate spoliation rendering the entire state process

constitutionally defective. For more than six months, prosecutors have possessed clear

exculpatory evidence and a valid medical prescription that negates the basis for the drug charge,

yet they have taken no corrective action. Instead, they have continued to conceal the falsified

BMV 2255 affidavit, failed to disclose basic arrest or inventory documentation, and actively

obstructed the defense’s filings in trial court. These violations are not isolated errors, they are

coordinated, strategic acts of suppression aimed at eliminating Plaintiff’s ability to defend

himself or expose the misconduct of a sheriff’s deputy proven to have submitted perjured

testimony.

Compounding this, the trial court judge has refused to appoint counsel despite Plaintiff’s

repeated and documented requests, and has denied every pro se motion and application for relief,

without explanation, without findings, and without addressing the verified evidence or sworn

affidavits accompanying each submission. At no point has the prosecution made a substantive

evidentiary showing. They rely entirely on a charging instrument disproven by state crash

reports, criminal history data, and the absence of any lawful arrest. The complete failure of both

Page 16 of 20
adversarial balance and procedural fairness has stripped the prosecution of any presumption of

legitimacy.

Under Younger v. Harris, abstention is unwarranted where a prosecution is initiated in bad

faith or under extraordinary circumstances. Both apply here. The state’s use of knowingly false

affidavits, the timing of the indictment one day after a formal § 1983 notice, and the blanket

suppression of judicial filings reflect not a neutral adjudicative process, but a retaliatory

campaign to silence a civil rights claimant and immunize official misconduct.

Plaintiff seeks immediate federal injunctive relief to restrain further prosecution under

these tainted conditions. No court should allow criminal proceedings to proceed where all indicia

of due process have been abandoned and where the state’s case rests on perjury, obstruction, and

targeted retaliation. Further, on July 28, 2025, the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas

issued a formal judgment denying Defendant’s pre-arraignment motion to dismiss, explicitly

refusing to consider any motion, regardless of its constitutional substance, until the Defendant

physically appears for arraignment. This policy was applied despite the filing of verified

evidence demonstrating perjured testimony, falsified arrest records, and retaliatory escalation.

The Court’s refusal to entertain dispositive due process and Brady-based challenges solely on the

basis of custodial status renders the state forum functionally unavailable and structurally

inaccessible for constitutional redress. Such a posture violates the principle that access to judicial

review must not be conditioned on surrendering to unlawful state custody (Preiser v. Rodriguez,

411 U.S. 475 (1973); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) holding that a “Plaintiff has a

constitutional right to "meaningful access to the courts" for the purpose of challenging his

confinement or the conditions of his confinement.” When a court insulates fraudulent

Page 17 of 20
indictments from scrutiny through procedural denial, it extinguishes the defendant’s right to

challenge the legitimacy of the process itself and transforms arrest into an instrument of

coercion. This denial reinforces Plaintiff’s entitlement to federal equitable intervention, as the

state remedy is not merely inadequate, it is affirmatively obstructed.

Additionally, Courts consistently recognize that when a party destroys or suppresses

material evidence, it is presumed that the evidence would have been favorable to the opposing

party. In this case, the Prosecutor’s Office has done precisely that: suppressed medical records,

concealed conflicts of interest, and neutralized the defense’s ability to litigate. Plaintiff reserves

all rights to seek declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief under federal and Ohio law for

these systemic violations, and to hold accountable those state actors who have converted a

prosecution into a mechanism of reprisal.

V. CONCLUSION

Federal courts are required to intervene in ongoing state criminal prosecutions where the

proceedings are initiated in bad faith or where state remedies are functionally inaccessible (See

Fieger v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 740, 750 (6th Cir. 1996)). The circumstances presented here illustrate

the exceptional conditions that justify federal intervention: when the state system ceases to

operate as a lawful forum and instead becomes an instrument of retaliation and constitutional

abuse.

The prosecution’s refusal to dismiss an unlawful possession charge despite authenticated

evidence establishing a complete legal defense, combined with the court’s continued

enforcement of an Administrative License Suspension, even though court records show no OVI

Page 18 of 20
arrest ever occurred, strongly suggest that all charges are being pursued in bad faith for the sole

purpose of harassment.

Plaintiff has exhausted every meaningful avenue within the state system, filing over thirty

motions, all supported by exhibits and sworn statements detailing pervasive constitutional

violations, including warrantless surveillance, fabricated evidence, conflicts of interest, and

retaliatory prosecution. These filings have been consistently ignored, denied without analysis, or

excluded from the record entirely, leaving Plaintiff without any viable procedural remedy. The

presiding judge has categorically refused to address Plaintiff’s requests for relief, even when

accompanied by voluminous evidence.

In this context, abstaining under Younger would not demonstrate respect for state processes

but would amount to a dereliction of federal judicial duty. The prosecution at issue is not flawed

merely in form, it is substantively corrupt, driven by undisclosed conflicts, intercepted privileged

communications, and demonstrably false charges. These proceedings were not revived following

a good faith reappraisal of the evidence, but as retribution for Plaintiff’s exposure of official

misconduct. This is not the administration of justice, it is its inversion.

Younger abstention does not shield prosecutions weaponized to punish individuals for

asserting their constitutional rights. As the Supreme Court emphasized in Mitchum v. Foster, 407

U.S. 225, 242 (1972), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was enacted precisely to ensure that federal courts

remain available when state processes fail to safeguard constitutional rights. That failure is

manifest here. Equitable relief is not just warranted, it is imperative. As the Supreme Court noted

in Mitchum v. Foster, ”The United States courts are further above mere local influence than the

county courts; their judges can act with more independence, cannot be put under terror, as local

Page 19 of 20
judges can; their sympathies are not so nearly identified with those of the vicinage; the jurors are

taken from the State, and not the neighborhood; they will be able to rise above prejudices or bad

passions or terror more easily. . . ." Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 460 (1871)” Accordingly,

and for the reasons outlined throughout this motion, Plaintiff respectfully urges the Court to grant

injunctive relief without further delay.

Dated: August 2, 2025 Respectfully submitted,

_____________________
BERT DAMIAN LEWIS
chefdamianlewis@gmail.com
769 Rue Center Ct. #i
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
Telephone: (754) 200-1970

Page 20 of 20
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Case No. 1:25-cv-00481 COLE/LITKOVITZ

BERT DAMIAN LEWIS,

Plaintiff,
vs.

CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO ET AL

Defendant.
___________________________/

[PROPOSED] TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER

SETTING HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Bert Damian Lewis’s Motion for

Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. ___), supported by a Verified

Declaration (ECF No. ___) and Memorandum of Law (ECF No. ___). The Court finds that:

Plaintiff has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of his claims under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, including First and Fourteenth Amendment violations, retaliatory prosecution,

and unlawful surveillance.

1. Plaintiff faces immediate and irreparable harm to his liberty, security, and constitutional

rights, including potential remand into the custody of officials he has credibly accused of

perjury, surveillance abuse, and harassment.

2. The balance of equities strongly favors Plaintiff, as the continuation of the underlying

state prosecution may cause irreparable injury, while Defendants are not prejudiced by a

temporary delay in proceedings already tainted by serious due process defects.

3. The public interest is served by ensuring accountability in the exercise of prosecutorial

authority and by preserving the integrity of judicial proceedings.

Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, the Court hereby ORDERS:

a) Temporary Restraining Order Issued: All proceedings in State v. Lewis, Clermont

County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2025 CR 000360, including pretrial
deadlines, custodial transfers, warrant execution, or other prosecutorial actions,
are hereby STAYED pending further order of this Court.
b) Custodial Protections: Defendants, including Deputy Michael Ross, Stephanie
Ross, the Clermont County Sheriff’s Office, and any related agents, are hereby
ENJOINED from exercising custodial control over Plaintiff or engaging in any
acts of surveillance, interference, or intimidation against Plaintiff or his family
during the pendency of this action.
c) Hearing Scheduled: A hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
shall be held on [insert date within 14 days] at [insert time] before this Court in
Courtroom ___ of the Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse, 100 East Fifth Street,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
d) Notice and Service: Plaintiff shall promptly serve Defendants with a copy of this
Order, the Motion for TRO/Preliminary Injunction, and supporting filings via any
available means, including electronic mail, certified mail, or personal service.
e) Duration of TRO: This Order shall remain in effect for fourteen (14) days from
the date of issuance unless extended by agreement or further order of the Court
pursuant to Rule 65(b)(2).
SO ORDERED.

Dated: ________________ _______________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Case No. 1:25-cv-00481 COLE/LITKOVITZ

BERT DAMIAN LEWIS,

Plaintiff,
vs.

CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO ET AL

Defendant.
___________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

enjoining further proceedings in State v. Bert Damian Lewis, Case No. 2025 CR 000360,

currently pending in the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas. This relief is urgently

necessary to prevent irreparable harm arising from an ongoing pattern of constitutional

violations, including unlawful interception of privileged defense communications, retaliatory

prosecution in response to Plaintiff’s protected whistleblower activity and civil rights advocacy,

and structural judicial improprieties—such as concealed conflicts of interest and perjury-tainted

grand jury administration—that have compromised the impartiality and legitimacy of the state

court process. Absent this Court’s intervention, Plaintiff faces not only a procedurally defective

trial but imminent physical risk in the custody of individuals named in this action, alongside the

continued suppression of exculpatory evidence critical to his defense.

Page 1 of 3
 Plaintiff respectfully moves this Honorable Court to issue an order granting the following

specific and narrowly tailored forms of equitable relief:

a) A Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, enjoining the State of Ohio and all agents acting under its authority

from proceeding further in State v. Bert Damian Lewis, Clermont County Court

of Common Pleas Case No. 2025 CR 000360, including all pretrial deadlines,

custodial transfers, and prosecutorial actions, pending resolution of this action.

b) An Order Directing Substitution of Neutral Prosecutorial Authority,

requesting that this Court recommend, or in the alternative require, that any

future state prosecution of Plaintiff be conducted by an independent, conflict-

free special prosecutor or be transferred to a jurisdiction unconnected to the

individuals named in this action, to preserve the structural integrity of the

proceedings and safeguard Plaintiff’s due process rights.

c) An Evidentiary Hearing on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. §

1983, including but not limited to alleged violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth,

Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, so the Court may make appropriate factual

determinations in support of equitable relief.

d) A Declaratory Judgment holding that the prosecution of Plaintiff under the

current indictment, as presently structured, violates Plaintiff’s clearly established

constitutional rights and is unsupported by probable cause, thereby constituting

unlawful retaliation, denial of due process, and structural conflict of interest in

violation of the United States Constitution.

Page 2 of 3
 e) A Protective Order enjoining Defendants, including but not limited to Deputy

Michael Ross, Stephanie Ross, and the Clermont County Sheriff’s Office, from

exercising custodial control over Plaintiff or engaging in any further acts of

retaliation, interference, or harassment while this federal action is pending; and,

if custody is ordered, that Plaintiff be housed in a facility under the supervision

of an independent authority not named in this action.

f) Any further relief this Court deems just and proper in the interests of justice and

the preservation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

A memorandum of law relevant to this request has been filed contemporaneously

herewith. This memorandum applies the governing standards under Rule 65 and relevant case

law demonstrating why Plaintiff’s request satisfies all four prongs required for injunctive relief.

Dated: July 30, 2025 Respectfully submitted,

_____________________
BERT DAMIAN LEWIS
chefdamianlewis@gmail.com
769 Rue Center Ct. #i
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
Telephone: (754) 200-1970

Page 3 of 3
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Case No. 1:25-cv-00481 COLE/LITKOVITZ

BERT DAMIAN LEWIS,

Plaintiff,
vs.

CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO ET AL

Defendant.
___________________________/

DECLARATION OF BERT DAMIAN LEWIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

STATE of FLORIDA )
) ss
COUNTY of BROWARD. )

Now comes Plaintiff BERT DAMIAN LEWIS, and having personal knowledge of the
facts contained herein, does hereby state the following:
1) I am the Plaintiff in the above-captioned civil rights action and submit this declaration
in support of my Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction, as well as the accompanying Memorandum of Law.
2) The statements set forth herein are based upon my personal knowledge and are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge. They are supported by documents and records that I
personally created, obtained, or submitted, and which are included as Exhibits to this filing.
3) On March 14, 2020, my vehicle was involved in a motor vehicle collision on Amelia-
Olive Branch Road in Clermont County, Ohio [Exhibit A1]. At no point before, during,
or after the incident was any person, myself included, placed under arrest, detained, or
advised that they were under arrest [Exhibit A2]. Clermont County Sheriff's Deputy
Michael J. Ross responded to the scene and was the officer responsible for
documenting the incident [Exhibit A1].

Page 1 of 12
4) Notwithstanding the absence of any arrest or detention at the scene or at the hospital,
Deputy Ross later submitted a BMV Form 2255 [Exhibit A3], in which he certified
under penalty of perjury that I had been arrested for operating a vehicle under the
influence (OVI). This certification is factually inaccurate. Official records maintained
by both Clermont County [Exhibit A2] and the State of Ohio [Exhibit A4] indicate
that no chemical tests were conducted, no field sobriety tests were administered, and no
individual involved in the March 14, 2020 incident was arrested based on probable
cause, either at the scene [Exhibit A1] or thereafter.
5) On February 11, 2025, I submitted a formal complaint to the Clermont County
Prosecutor’s Office concerning Deputy Michael J. Ross’s submission of a falsified
BMV Form 2255 [Exhibit B1]. Unbeknownst to me at the time, the complaint was
routed to Stephanie Ross, the Chief Administrator for the Grand Jury and Felony Intake
Division, who is also the spouse of Deputy Michael J. Ross. Mrs. Ross did not disclose
her marital relationship with Deputy Ross at any point during the proceedings [Exhibit
B2]. Despite the obvious and disqualifying conflict of interest, she continued to
supervise the operations of the Grand Jury and Felony Intake Division [Exhibit B3],
which ultimately returned an indictment against me approximately four months after I
filed my misconduct complaint concerning her husband [Exhibit B4].
6) A digital forensic analysis has revealed that the secure email accounts assigned to
Deputy Michael J. Ross by the Clermont County Sheriff’s Office [Exhibit C1], as well
as the secure administrative email account of the Clermont County Prosecutor’s Office
assigned to his spouse, Stephanie Ross [Exhibit C2], were accessed over an extended
period of time by the same electronic device [Exhibit C3]. The preponderance of
forensic evidence identifies the device as Deputy Ross’s personal iPhone [Exhibit C3].
This device has been used to access, and in certain instances intercept, privileged legal
communications and case-related materials, including emails containing evidentiary
documents and legal filings that directly implicate Deputy Ross in acts of perjury and
other forms of official misconduct [Exhibit C4].

Page 2 of 12
7) Read-receipt logs [Exhibit C5] and corresponding timestamp metadata reflect repeated

instances of identical-second collisions between two distinct Clermont County

government email accounts [Exhibit C6]. These timestamp collisions constitute
conclusive digital evidence of unauthorized surveillance originating from the secure
email account assigned to Deputy Michael J. Ross [Exhibit C7]. The targets of this
covert surveillance included attorney-client communications, protected attorney work
product, and whistleblower correspondence. Forensic examination further confirms
that this unauthorized access took place both prior to and following my issuance of a
formal spoliation notice on June 11, 2025 [Exhibit C7].
8) As detailed in my Verified Petition for Writ of Prohibition [Exhibit D1] and supporting
materials, I am currently facing six felony charges in the matter of State v. Lewis, Case
No. 2025 CR 000360. These charges are predicated upon the demonstrably false
statements made by Deputy Michael J. Ross on March 14, 2020 [Exhibit D2].
9) The felony charges referenced above were filed under seal on June 12, 2025 [Exhibit
D3], precisely one day after I served a formal Notice of Intent to Litigate under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 upon officials within the Clermont County Prosecutor’s Office [Exhibit
D4]. That notice identified multiple constitutional violations, including Brady
violations, deprivation of civil rights, and malicious prosecution.
10) On June 30 and July 7, 2025, I submitted a total of twenty-seven pro se filings to the
Clermont County Court of Common Pleas. Of these, twenty were either refused
docketing or obstructed by court personnel acting under the administrative authority of
Stephanie Ross [Exhibit D5]. The suppressed filings included a Motion to Recuse
Prosecutor Mark J. Tekulve, Stephanie Ross’s employer [Exhibit D8], and a Motion
for Judicial Notice [Exhibit D9] addressing the underlying perjury committed by her
spouse, Deputy Michael J. Ross [Exhibit B2]. On July 7, after submitting additional
documents via facsimile [Exhibit D10], I received a voicemail from the Clerk's Office
instructing me to "stop faxing" filings, and stating that "your entry has been denied"
[Exhibit D11]. No legal explanation for this denial was provided, nor has one been
issued to date.

Page 3 of 12
11) Public marriage records confirm the spousal relationship between Michael J. Ross and
Stephanie Ross [Exhibit B2]. Nevertheless, despite the conflict of interest posed by my
misconduct complaint against Deputy Ross [Exhibit B1], Stephanie Ross continued to
exercise administrative authority over the Grand Jury and Felony Intake Division [Exhibit
B3], which later returned an indictment charging me with six felonies [Exhibit B4].
12) As a result, I now face not only an unlawful and retaliatory prosecution but also a
credible, imminent threat of physical harm should I be remanded into the custody of
officials whom I have directly accused of perjury, evidence tampering, and
constitutional violations [Exhibit E1]. This threat is substantiated by authenticated
evidence of ongoing unlawful surveillance [Exhibit E2], falsified reports [Exhibit
A3], and coordinated retaliatory acts [Exhibit E3]. A recently updated digital
surveillance report prepared in response to breaches in my device’s network security
[Exhibit C7] confirms that both my electronic activity and physical location continue
to be covertly monitored, despite the prior revocation of authorized access and the
implementation of advanced firewall protections.
13) The digital surveillance infrastructure targeting my communications remains active and
presents an ongoing risk of irreparable harm. Specifically, a NordVPN tunnel has been
identified as routing data traffic through an Amazon Web Services (AWS) EC2 node
via port 8884. This configuration enables the interception of confidential
communications, including legal filings and privileged correspondence. The
persistence and operational capacity of this surveillance mechanism justifies the
issuance of immediate injunctive relief to prevent further violations of my
constitutional and statutory rights [Exhibit C7].
14) The imminent threat to my physical safety arises directly from the unauthorized and
covert monitoring of both my digital communications and real-time physical location.
As detailed in the most recent forensic surveillance report [Exhibit C7], unauthorized
access points continue to route my device activity through a NordVPN-AWS EC2 node
on port 8884. This setup enables both the interception of protected communications
and real-time geolocation tracking. The exposure of this sensitive data to individuals I

Page 4 of 12
 have formally accused of perjury, unlawful surveillance, and other serious misconduct
[Exhibit D4; Exhibit E4] has created a well-founded and continuing fear for my
personal safety and has substantially undermined my ability to secure my person and
property against retaliatory harm.
15) The retaliatory character of the prosecution and the misuse of investigative powers are
further confirmed by formal notices I received from Google [Exhibit E5] and
Facebook [Exhibit E6] regarding the execution of search warrants targeting my digital
accounts. On February 27, 2025, Google confirmed receipt of a search warrant issued
by the Clermont County Sheriff’s Office for access to my account, based on a legal
process initiated just two days earlier on February 25, 2025. Similarly, on March 3,
2025, Facebook informed me of a legal request from law enforcement to access my
Facebook account. These investigative actions were undertaken mere weeks after I
filed my misconduct complaint against Deputy Michael J. Ross on February 11, 2025
[Exhibit B1], following five years of complete prosecutorial inaction regarding the
March 14, 2020 incident [Exhibit E7]. Upon information and belief, the foundation for
these invasive warrants was Deputy Ross’s perjured BMV Form 2255 [Exhibit A3], a
document already established to be false and contradicted by multiple official records
[Exhibits A1, A2]. The timing, scope, and falsified basis of these digital surveillance
efforts clearly indicate a retaliatory misuse of law enforcement tools and constitute a
serious abuse of investigatory authority for improper purposes [Exhibits E9, E10].
16) Public sources consistently identify Deputy Michael J. Ross as a central figure in
digital investigations and surveillance operations throughout Clermont County, Ohio
[Exhibit E11]. Media reports from March 2024 [Exhibit E12] confirm that Deputy
Ross has collaborated with federal agencies including the FBI and Secret Service on
regional cybercrime matters, reflecting access to and familiarity with advanced
surveillance technologies. Public statements issued by the Clermont County Sheriff’s
Office in both June 2023 and June 2025 [Exhibit E14] further document Deputy
Ross’s role in leading digital safety and situational awareness training sessions,
indicating his operational engagement in digital monitoring practices. In a statement

Page 5 of 12
 dated December 27, 2024, Prosecutor Mark J. Tekulve publicly praised Deputy Ross’s
ability to extract and retrieve video files from digital devices, skills emblematic of
someone capable of executing unauthorized, targeted surveillance.
17) The prosecutorial process in this matter has been fundamentally compromised by
demonstrable conflicts of interest, breaches of confidentiality, and unlawful
surveillance [Exhibit C4]. These defects have irreparably undermined the adversarial
structure required for a legitimate prosecution. Given the pervasive nature of these
violations, no adequate remedy at law exists to restore the impartiality or integrity of
the charging process or to protect the confidentiality of ongoing legal correspondence
[Exhibit C7]. Judicial intervention is therefore necessary to preserve due process.
18) The digital forensic evidence presented here has been validated through methodologies
consistent with standards promulgated by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) and corroborated by peer-reviewed protocols [Exhibit E16]. When
considered in conjunction with the documented history of misconduct by Clermont
County officials [Exhibit F1], this evidence establishes a strong likelihood of success on
the merits of my civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Additionally, the procedural
deficiencies underlying the charging process, including the reliance on a falsified BMV
Form 2255 [Exhibit A3] and the complete absence of any lawful predicate for indictment
[Exhibit A1], further support my entitlement to injunctive relief.
19) The issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in this matter
serves the public interest by reinforcing the constitutional requirement that
prosecutorial power be exercised lawfully and without retaliatory motive. Allowing the
prosecution to proceed under the present circumstances, marked by documented
surveillance abuse [Exhibit C7] and intentional obstruction of legal filings [Exhibit
D11], would not only prejudice the accused, but also degrade public confidence in the
fairness and legitimacy of the criminal justice system. The balance of equities therefore
strongly favors the requested relief.
20) The sequence of events culminating in the present felony charges plainly illustrates a
retaliatory motive and a profound breach of prosecutorial integrity [Exhibit F2]. My

Page 6 of 12
 misconduct complaint against Deputy Michael J. Ross was formally submitted on
February 11, 2025 [Exhibit B1], and no legitimate investigation appears to have been
initiated prior to that date [Exhibit F3]. The indictment in State v. Lewis, Case No.
2025 CR 000360, was filed under seal on June 12, 2025, precisely one day after I
served a formal Notice of Intent to Litigate under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the Clermont
County Prosecutor’s Office [Exhibit D4]. This striking temporal proximity, when
combined with the evidence of unlawful digital surveillance [Exhibit C7] and
obstruction of court filings [Exhibit D11], constitutes compelling proof that the
prosecution is retaliatory and lacking in legitimate basis. Accordingly, this proceeding
qualifies as an exception to the Younger abstention doctrine, as one initiated in bad
faith and for purposes of harassment [Exhibit E3]. The prosecution is therefore
irreparably tainted by procedural misconduct [Exhibit F4], and a stay of the state
criminal proceedings is necessary to allow for full adjudication of these constitutional
issues in the context of my federal civil rights action [Exhibit F5].
21) The pervasive and well-documented pattern of misconduct in this matter [Exhibit F6],
including Deputy Michael J. Ross’s falsification of official documents under penalty of
perjury, the systematic obstruction of court filings by personnel acting under the
administrative authority of Stephanie Ross [Exhibit D5; Exhibit D10], and the
unauthorized surveillance and interception of privileged legal communications
[Exhibit E2], constitutes a direct violation of my rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth,
Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. These actions
infringe upon my rights to due process and a fair trial, protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures, and freedom from retaliation for engaging in constitutionally
protected speech and petitioning for legal redress. The structural contamination of the
adversarial process is profound, systemic, and incapable of correction without
immediate and meaningful judicial intervention.
22) The prosecution currently pending against me was initiated in bad faith and in direct
retaliation for my protected whistleblower activity [Exhibit E3]. The charges are
predicated on knowingly perjured evidence and lack any legitimate legal foundation.

Page 7 of 12
 Notably, the indictment, sealed and filed on June 12, 2025 [Exhibit D2], was entered
just one day after I served a formal notice of intent to pursue civil rights litigation
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [Exhibit D4]. The use of the falsified BMV Form 2255 as the
basis for expansive surveillance warrants and felony charges, following a five-year
period of complete investigative dormancy [Exhibit F7], provides compelling
evidence of retaliatory motive and a breakdown in lawful prosecutorial function
[Exhibit F8].
23) Further underscoring the pattern of misconduct, Deputy Ross has a prior disciplinary
history involving a documented Miranda violation in a 2003 triple homicide investigation
[Exhibit F9]. In that case, Ross continued interrogation after the suspect invoked the
right to counsel, resulting in suppression of a confession and nearly voiding the
conviction. This history was known to the Clermont County Prosecutor’s Office [Exhibit
F10] and illustrates a recurring disregard for constitutional protections, now reemerging
in the form of retaliatory action and concealment through the current prosecution.
24) The evidentiary record fails to establish any of the elements required to support the charged
offenses. There is no admissible evidence identifying me as the operator of the vehicle
involved in the March 14, 2020 incident [Exhibit G1]. The other party involved did not
sustain any serious injury [Exhibit G2], and in June 2020, voluntarily executed a full
release of all claims arising from the incident [Exhibit G3]. Public records show that the
State lacks any evidence of impairment, operation, or reckless driving necessary to support
charges under Ohio’s OVI statute or related traffic offenses [Exhibits A1, A4, G4].
25) The charge of drug possession is equally unsupported by the facts and law. I possess a
valid, ongoing prescription from my primary care physician for the medication in
question [Exhibit G5], and I submitted a complete four-year prescription history to the
appropriate authorities in February 2025 [Exhibit G6]. This documentation establishes
a full affirmative defense under Ohio law. Consequently, the possession charge, as well
as the derivative paraphernalia charge, are both legally deficient and unsustainable.
26) The administrative license suspension (“ALS”) issued against me [Exhibit G7] is
procedurally and substantively invalid for two independent reasons. First, as

Page 8 of 12
 established by official records, no arrest was ever made in connection with the March
14, 2020 incident that could legally support an ALS under Ohio Revised Code §
4511.191 [Exhibit A2]. Second, the ALS was submitted to the Ohio Bureau of Motor
Vehicles nine days after the statutorily prescribed deadline, rendering the suspension
procedurally defective and unenforceable under Ohio law [Exhibit G8].
27) Despite the absence of any incriminating evidence in public records [Exhibits A1–A4],
the existence of a complete and documented legal defense [Exhibits G5–G6], and the
presence of fatal procedural defects, both the prosecution and the court have allowed
these unfounded charges and the invalid ALS to remain pending for over five months
[Exhibit G9]. This continued prosecution defies the State’s clear legal obligation to
dismiss baseless charges and invalid administrative actions [Exhibit G10].
28) The court and prosecutorial authorities have not only failed to discharge their duty
under applicable legal standards but have continued to unlawfully maintain
proceedings against me despite irrefutable evidence showing: (a) no lawful basis for
the charges exists in the public record [Exhibits A1–A4]; (b) an affirmative legal
defense has been established [Exhibit G5]; and (c) critical procedural defects render
both the charges and ALS legally void [Exhibit A3]. The persistence of these charges
without evidentiary support constitutes a continuing violation of my rights and a failure
of prosecutorial and judicial responsibility [Exhibits G9, G10].
29) In addition to the aforementioned retaliatory actions, I have been subjected to ongoing
harassment in the form of repeated calls from unidentified numbers [Exhibit H4].
These calls consistently result in silent voicemails [Exhibit H5], often lasting between
10 and 30 seconds. On July 25, 2025, I received a particularly disturbing 114-second
voicemail containing no discernible speech but exhibiting extremely low signal energy
throughout [Exhibit H6]. The acoustic profile consisted of ambient noise with no
identifiable speech patterns, punctuated only by isolated spikes consistent with
handling noise. The intentional silence and duration of the message are consistent with
deliberate psychological intimidation and form part of a broader pattern of non-verbal
harassment.

Page 9 of 12
30) Most egregiously, and in clear violation of the boundaries of lawful law enforcement
conduct, I have learned that on no fewer than four separate occasions [Exhibit H7],
following my formal misconduct complaints against Deputy Michael J. Ross on February
11 and 13, 2025 [Exhibit H8], deputy sheriffs, including Deputy Ross himself, have
appeared at the home of my 66-year-old widowed and disabled mother. These visits were
unaccompanied by any lawful process or articulable law enforcement purpose. Given
their timing and context, these actions appear intended to intimidate and harass me
through proxy retaliation, targeting a vulnerable family member in an effort to cause
emotional distress and deter me from seeking legal redress [Exhibit H9].
31) Prior to the filing of my misconduct complaints, no law enforcement officer had ever
appeared at my mother’s residence in connection with any matter involving me.
However, just six days after I formally reported Deputy Michael J. Ross for
misconduct, he and several deputies arrived at her home in the middle of the night
[Exhibit H10], falsely claiming they were “looking for me.” This intrusion occurred
despite the Clermont County Prosecutor’s Office possessing direct, contemporaneous
knowledge that I was residing in Florida and had not lived in Ohio since 2003.
32) In July 2025, following a dispute with the State regarding its refusal to disclose
exculpatory evidence [Exhibit H12], I issued a written and direct critique of Assistant
Prosecutor Brian Shrive’s unethical conduct during a contentious email exchange that
also included Sheriff Chris Stratton. The very next day, Clermont County deputies again
visited my mother’s residence, where they aggressively coerced her into permitting a
search of her home. According to her subsequent account, the deputies subjected her to
public intimidation and humiliation, leaving her frightened and emotionally distressed.
Despite my having communicated directly with Sheriff Stratton the night before,
explicitly confirming my residence in South Florida, deputies returned just after
midnight, forcefully knocking on her door until she broke down in uncontrollable sobs.
33) On the day following the midnight visit, I sent an email to Sheriff Stratton and Assistant
Prosecutor Shrive, denouncing their actions as retaliatory and unconscionable. I stated
unequivocally that such conduct constituted a misuse of public resources and appeared

Page 10 of 12
 intended not to advance any legitimate investigative objective, but rather to terrorize a
66-year-old disabled widow as a means of applying psychological pressure on her son
[Exhibit H16]. I then notified all 99 members of the Ohio House of Representatives and
each member of the State Senate [Exhibit H17], emphasizing that such state-sponsored
intimidation is outrageous, unconstitutional, and must never recur.
34) On July 28, 2025, Clermont County formally refused to docket any constitutional challenge
to Plaintiff’s prosecution unless he first submits to arrest, despite verified evidence of
falsified affidavits and retaliatory escalation. This policy weaponizes custody to silence
whistleblowers and confirms that no fair or functioning remedy exists within the Ohio state
system. The federal court must now intervene to prevent further irreparable harm.
35) I do not ask this Court to permanently bar prosecution, but rather to pause the current
proceedings, proceedings irreparably tainted by procedural misconduct, and allow
neutral, conflict-free prosecutors to independently determine whether any lawful basis
for prosecution exists [Exhibit G11]. I have exhausted all available state remedies
[Exhibit H1], having attempted to file with the Clermont County Clerk of Courts
[Exhibit D10], the Twelfth District Court of Appeals [Exhibit H2], and the trial court
[Exhibit H3], only to face systemic obstruction and suppression at each juncture.
36) Accordingly, I respectfully urge this Court to grant the requested injunctive relief to
prevent further irreparable harm, protect fundamental constitutional rights, and ensure
that any future proceedings, if they are to occur, do so in a forum that is impartial,
lawful, and free from the influence of retaliation or conflicts of interest.
37) Because Defendants have not yet been formally served and I have simultaneously filed
an application for in forma pauperis status, advance notice to opposing parties is not
practicable. For the reasons set forth herein, immediate injunctive relief is necessary to
prevent ongoing and irreparable harm pending service and judicial scheduling.
38) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.

Page 11 of 12
Dated: July 30, 2025 Respectfully submitted,

_____________________
BERT DAMIAN LEWIS
chefdamianlewis@gmail.com
769 Rue Center Ct. #i
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
Telephone: (754) 200-1970

Page 12 of 12
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Case No. 1:25-cv-00481 COLE/LITKOVITZ

BERT DAMIAN LEWIS,

Plaintiff,
vs.

CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO ET AL

Defendant.
___________________________/

DESIREE A. MINTON’S DECLARATION

UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
STATE of OHIO )
) ss
COUNTY of CLERMONT )

Now comes DESIREE A. MINTON, having personal knowledge of the facts stated
herein, states as follows:
1. I am the mother of Bert Damian Lewis and reside at 769 Rue Center Ct #I,
Cincinnati, Ohio. I am 66 years old and am competent to make this declaration
based on personal knowledge.
2. My son, Bert Damian Lewis, has not permanently resided in the State of Ohio for
more than twenty years. During that time, I have allowed him to use my
residential address solely for the receipt of business or government-related mail.
3. On June 9, 2025, a deputy sheriff from Clermont County and an officer from the
Union Township Police Department arrived at my residence and advised me they
were present to arrest my son, Bert Damian Lewis.
4. I informed both officers that I reside alone, that my son was not present, and that
he does not live at my residence. I further informed them that he operates a

Page 1 of 2
 business in Florida and that any communications beyond mail service should be
directed to him there.
5. Despite my statements, the officers requested to enter my home to search for my
son. Due to fear and intimidation, I reluctantly consented to their entry. They
searched the premises and confirmed that I was alone. Upon leaving, they stated
that someone would “be back,” but did not provide a specific time or date.
6. In the early morning hours of June 10, 2025, I was awoken shortly after midnight
by violent pounding on my front door. As a woman living alone, I was frightened
for my safety and did not answer the door. The pounding persisted for
approximately five to ten minutes before ceasing.
7. Prior to February 2025, the police had never come to my home to question or
arrest my son, nor has any correspondence from any law enforcement entity been
sent to him addressed at my address.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct. Executed on July 27, 2025.
Dated: July 27, 2025 Respectfully submitted,

________________
Desiree A. Minton
desimalott61@aol.com
769 Rue Center Ct. #i
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
Telephone: (513) 307-0207

Page 2 of 2