Tracie M.

Hunter, Judge
PO Box 11007
Cincinnati, Ohio 45211
January 14, 2016
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
Supreme Court of Ohio
250 Civic Center Drive, Ste. 325
Columbus, Ohio 43215-7411
January 14, 2015
COMPLAINT: RE: PATRICK DINKELACKER CASE #B1400110; B1400199; B1501273
Dear Mr. Dove:
Please accept the enclosed grievance regarding Judge Patrick Dinkelacker in which he: openly
demonstrated his propensity of bias and prejudice; backdated a judicial entry in pretrial
proceedings; attempted to give the prosecutors an unfair advantage over Judge Hunter; and
intentionally delayed Judge Hunters trial over one year in violation of her constitutional rights to
achieve the special prosecutors expressed intent to delay retrial until her appeal was decided. In
direct violation of the Rules, he failed to disqualify himself although he served as a judge on
multiple cases that were presented as evidence against Judge Hunter in a prior trial. Although
Judge Dinkelacker has an interest in the outcome, he refuses to follow the Code of Conduct.
The Code of Judicial Conduct governs this complaint. As transcripts have not been prepared, I
have enclosed courtroom videos of the proceeding that give rise to this complaint.

In multiple pre-trial proceedings, Judge Dinkelacker violated Canons and Rules, including:
Canon 1,1 Rules 1.12 and 1.2;3 Canon 2,4 Rules 2.2,5 2.3,6 2.4,7 2.6,8 2.109 and 2.11.10
During a recent pretrial proceeding in which Judge Hunter argued a Motion to Dismiss based on
selective and malicious prosecution, it was shown that Judge Dinkelacker or an employee under
his control backdated a judicial entry. Ex. A Judge Dinkelacker, on record, blamed the backdated
document on his clerk and said he was not responsible as the Judge. When Judge Hunters
attorney argued that Juvenile Court staff similarly prepared her judicial entries, Judge
Dinkelacker determined that in his case it was acceptable, but in Judge Hunters case it was a
crime. Ex. B. Disk 1 Judge Dinkelacker was aware that a Juvenile Court employee testified over
1 Canon 1 A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of
the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

2 Rule 1.1. Compliance with the Law. A judge shall comply with the law.
3 RULE 1.2 Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary: A judge shall act at all times in a manner
that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the
judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

4 CANON 2: A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently and
diligently.

5 Rule 2.2 A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial
office fairly and impartially.

RULE 2.3 Bias, Prejudice, and HarassmentA judge shall perform the duties of judicial
office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice. (B) A judge shall not,
in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice,
or engage in harassment, including but not limited to bias, prejudice, or harassment
based upon race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age,
sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, and
shall not permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judges direction
and control to do so. (C) A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court
to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice, or engaging in harassment, based upon
attributes including but not limited to race, sex, gender, religion, national origin,
ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or
political affiliation, against parties, witnesses, lawyers, or others.

7 RULE 2.4 External Influences on Judicial Conduct(A)A judge shall not be swayed by public
clamor or fear of criticism. (B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or
other interests or relationships to influence the judges judicial conduct or judgment. (C) A
judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or
organization is in a position to influence the judge.

8 RULE 2.6 Ensuring the Right to Be Heard(A) A judge shall accord to every person who has
a legal interest in a proceeding, or that persons lawyer, the right to be heard according to
law. (B) A judge may encourage parties to a proceeding and their lawyers to settle matters
in dispute but shall not act in a manner that coerces any party into settlement.

one year ago that she, and not Judge Hunter, created the judicial entries that prosecutors accused
Judge Hunter of backdating. Id. She further testified that she was trained and supervised by
Connie Murdock, and not Judge Hunter. Judge Dinkelacker was aware of the testimony, but has
ignored the law in violation of Rule 1. 1. A Judge is required to dismiss a case where it is proven
that the alleged crime was not committed by the accused and where the evidence is destroyed.
A forensic computer expert retained by Judge Hunter recently confirmed that the Special
prosecutors Merlyn Shiverdecker and Scott Croswell, who had a duty to turn over exculpatory
evidence that proved the innocence of Judge Hunter, withheld admitting that computers were
intentionally destroyed by the Juvenile Court at the direction of Judge John Williams and court
administrator Curt Kissinger. Ex. C It is against the law to destroy or tamper with exculpatory
evidence, which they did after the grand jury was impaneled, but before Judge Hunter was

9 RULE 2.10 Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases (A) A judge shall not make
any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the
fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court, or make any nonpublic statement
that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.

10 RULE 2.11 Disqualification(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding
in which the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited
to the following circumstances: (1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a
party or a partys lawyer, or personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute in the
proceeding. (2) The judge knows that the judgeis any of the following: (c) Has more than a
de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding; (d) Likely to be a
material witness in the proceeding. (5) The judge, while a judge or a judicial candidate, has
made a public statement, other than in a court proceeding, judicial decision, or opinion, that
commits or appears to commit the judge to reach a particular result or rule in a particular
way in the proceeding or controversy. (6)The judge knows that the judges spouse or
domestic partner, , or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or
the spouse or domestic partner of such a person has acted as a judge in the proceeding. (7)
The judge meets any of the following criteria: (a) The judge served as a lawyer in the matter
in controversy or was associated with a lawyer who participated substantially as a lawyer in
the matter during such association; 36 (b) The judge served in governmental employment,
and in such capacity participated personally and substantially as a lawyer or public official
concerning the particular matter, or has publicly expressed in such capacity an opinion
concerning the merits of the particular matter in controversy; (c) The judge was a material
witness concerning the matter; (d)The judge previously presided as a judge over the matter
in another court.(B) A judge shall keep informed about the judges personal and fiduciary
economic interests, and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal
economic interests of the judges spouse or domestic partner and minor children residing in
the judges household. (C) A judge subject to disqualification under this rule, other than for
personal bias or prejudice under division (A)(1) of this rule, may disclose on the record the
basis of the judges disqualification and may ask the parties and their lawyers to consider,
outside the presence of the judge and court personnel, whether to waive disqualification. If,
following the disclosure, the parties and lawyers agree, without participation by the judge or
court personnel, that the judge should not be disqualified, the judge may participate in the
proceeding. The agreement shall be incorporated into the record of the proceeding.

indicted to hide malfeasance by John Williams and Curt Kissinger who ordered it. Upon
information and belief, Judge Dinkcelacker, he has failed to follow the law due to his political
ties and connections, and based on his previous involvement as an appellate judge on Judge
Hunters cases, including one he held her in contempt for following the rules of Hamilton
County Juvenile Court to protect children from harmful media exposure in order to successfully
rehabilitate them. The fact that these cases were used against Judge Hunter at trial makes him a
material witness against Judge Hunter in both the prior and current trial he presides over. Such
conduct is specifically prohibited in Rule 2.11. Enclosed are copies of several cases that were
used as evidence in the first trial, which the prosecutor indicated they plan to use in the trial in
front of Judge Dinkelacker. Not only does the rule specifically bar this type of conflict which
gives the appearance of bias, prejudice and partiality, how can one reasonably expect the jurist to
be objective when he made expressed personal views in the opinions denigrating Judge Hunter?
The judicial entry backdated September 3, 2015 by Judge Dinkelackers courtroom for a hearing
that did not actually take place until September 4, 2015 warrants the same treatment as that
rendered against Judge Hunter, criminal charges. Ex. A. Not only is the entry backdated to a date
prior to the actual hearing, it is signed by an unknown individual purported to be Judge Hunters
lawyer. Judge Hunter was not represented by counsel on September 4, but proceeded pro se after
her attorney withdrew at a motions hearing on September 4. The signature affixed above the line
designated as the attorney for defendant signature box is neither the signature of Judge Hunter
nor her former lawyer. Judge Hunter does not know who signed the document in Judge
Dinkelackers courtroom allegedly waiving her speedy trial rights as her attorney. Although
Judge Dinkelacker affixed another date under his signature, the judicial entry is prominently
stamped Entered September 3, giving the appearance that the order was entered by Judge
Dinkelacker on September 3. There were no motions filed requesting a continuance. It came
about when Judge Hunters attorney unexpectedly withdrew on September 4, 2015. Any action
taken September 3, 2015, unless ex parte, which is prohibited, would be illegal and unethical.
Subsequent incidents giving the appearance of impropriety or unethical conduct by Judge
Dinkelacker or staff under his control arose after Judge Hunters attorney withdrew on
September 4. On September 8, 2015, several media outlets began to widely report that Judge
Hunter had retained a new lawyer named Ellsworth Wilkes. Judge Hunter had never heard of this
attorney, nor retained his services. Numerous individuals contacted Judge Hunter and a noted
talk show began to discuss the news on the air. Senator Cecil Thomas, upon confirming that the
information was false sought to determine the source. He contacted TV station WCPO who
reported they acquired the information from the Hamilton County Clerks website. The Hamilton
County Clerks office denied that the information had ever been posted on the Clerk of Court
website. He even met personally with Clerk of Court Tracey Winkler. Pursuant to a subsequent
records request, Ms. Winkler wrote an official letter denying that the Court released false
information regarding Judge Hunter and said the courts IT department confirmed the same.
Although the court denied ever having entered entries into the courts computer system
identifying Wilkes as her attorney, information that is typically supplied by a Judge to the clerks
office upon an appearance by that attorney in his/her courtroom, someone in this instance
falsified information, and then covered it up. To prove that they in fact obtained the information
from the Hamilton County website and did not fabricate a story as it appeared, the General

manager of WCPO TV supplied Senator Thomas with a screenshot of the Hamilton County
Clerk of Court website showing that Ellsworth Wilkes had been entered into the court system as
Judge Hunters lawyer in cases #B1400110; #1400199 and B1501273. Ex. D The information
mysteriously disappeared from the Court Management System and they denied it was ever
entered in the system, unaware that WCPO had captured a screenshot before it was removed.
In addition to the conduct above, there were several other pretrial hearings before Judge
Dinkelacker that give the appearance of partiality and impropriety. Judge Dinkelacker indicated
on the record on multiple occasions that he engaged in non-transcribed chamber meetings that,
based on the Code of Judicial Conduct, were improper in nature. Ex. Disk 2 Based on his conduct
during these proceedings, he was clearly not impartial, but aiding the prosecutors. However,
when Judge Hunter filed an Affidavit of Disqualification twice, based on Judge Dinkelackers
involvement in multiple Juvenile Court cases that he decided on appeal as a First District Court
of Appeals Judge before his election to the Common Pleas Court, he denied bias and prejudice.
Contrary to his claim of objectivity, which led Chief Justice Maureen O Connor to conclude that
he was unbiased, despite cases in which he made disparaging comments about Judge Hunter
being admitted as evidence against her in trial proceedings, Attorney Firooz Namei told other
lawyers that Judge Dinkelacker was extremely angry with Judge Hunter. Mr. Nameis admissions
to members of the bar contradict Judge Dinkelackers written statements to the OSC.
Judge Dinkelacker attempted to force Judge Hunter to waive her right to speedy trial by
attributing continuances to her that were requested by the prosecutors and not Judge Hunter. Ex.
D. Judge Hunter refused to waive her speedy trial rights despite the unethical and illegal
pressure put upon her by the special prosecutors who insisted that Judge Hunter wait and see if
the conviction on one count would be upheld. The special prosecutors used the media to pressure
her to waive her speedy trial rights blaming her for the millions of dollars of taxpayer resources
that the special prosecutors via Joe Deters authorized to prosecute her. The media reported, per
the prosecutors, that if Judge Hunter waived her speedy trial rights and waited to see how the
First District Court of Appeals would rule, they would agree not to retry her if the conviction was
upheld; but if the conviction was overturned, they would retry her on the other eight charges,
plus a new one they added over one year later. Ex. E When Judge Hunter refused to agree to
waive her speedy trial rights and determined to go to trial as soon as possible, the special
prosecutors utilized Judge Dinkelacker to delay her trial through a series of backroom deals.
Judge Hunters trial was repeatedly delayed after special prosecutors requested a continuance.
Judge Dinkelacker secretly agreed in chambers to grant the continuances that they wanted, but to
attribute the continuances to Judge Hunter, who wanted to proceed with trial as the law directed.
Ex. Disk 2 During that hearing to argue their motion for continuance, Judge Dinkelacker berated
Judge Hunter on the record and reprimanded her attorney for withdrawing a motion to continue
he filed over her objection at the request of the prosecutors who were going out of town and
needed the continuance to be attributed to Judge Hunter to keep speedy trial from being at issue.
Id. In one instance, when Judge Hunter attempted to express on the record that she would not
waive her speedy trial rights, Judge Dinkelacker immediately yelled at her to be quiet, although
he had just asked her a question. He was trying to keep her from asserting her speedy trial right
on the record, in violation of Rule 2.6 that specifically requires a Judge to ensure that the
accused be heard and their rights protected. He admonished Judge Hunter to just play the

game, admitting on record that he knows they are playing a sick political game with her life.
Ex. Disc 1
When Judge Hunter, not being privy to nor in agreement with those backroom chamber deals,
asserted her desire to proceed with trial on the record, Judge Dinkelacker became visibly angry
and publicly reprimanded her for not doing what he stated that he and special prosecutors had
decided in chambers. They needed it. Id. Judge Dinkelacker further stated that the continuance
would be attributed to Judge Hunter, as they agreed in chambers giving the appearance of
impropriety as it was clear to all present that he was clearly assisting the state, which
demonstrated he is vested in the trial outcome. When Judge Hunter refused to agree to their deal,
Judge Dinkelacker revealed that it was contrary to what they decided in his chambers with
prosecutors and her lawyer, and warned that it better not happen again. He openly admonished
my lawyer who was visibly caught between doing what his client wanted, which was to proceed
with trial, versus what the special prosecutors wanted, which was to delay her trial.
Judge Dinkelacker stated that Judge Hunters trial would proceed June 1, 2015 and that nothing
would keep the trial from proceeding. However, the special prosecutors filed a Motion to Vacate
the Trial Date. Judge Dinkelacker granted their request, but attributed it to Judge Hunter. The
special prosecutors lied to the court when they filed a motion April 14, 2015 suggesting that the
continuance was necessary because Judge Hunter filed an Affidavit of Disqualification on April
1, 2015. Ex. F Justice O Connor had previously ruled timely and there was no reason to
anticipate she would delay any such ruling that would impact a trial two months away, when the
rule only requires an Affidavit of Disqualification to be filed within seven days of the next
hearing. Judge Hunter filed the Affidavit two months before the scheduled trial. There was no
reason for the prosecutors to not be prepared or to blame Judge Hunter for exercising her
constitutional right to request the removal of a judge with a clear interest in the outcome. There
was nothing to investigate, prepare or schedule when the trial was set for June 1. The prosecutors
were dishonest, as it was known that Mr. Croswell planned to take his annual trip to Michigan
during that timeframe. He wanted a continuance for that reason, not due to Judge Hunter.
Judge Dinkelacker helped the prosecutors achieve their goal of waiting for a conviction to be
upheld, as they requested, by continuing the trial at the prosecutors request, but attributing those
continuances to Judge Hunter in violation of the law. With his help, they achieved their goal.
As I have been indicted and charged with crimes for backdated entries, even after a Juvenile
Court case manager admitted that she created and dated entries in my courtroom at the direction
of her supervisor, Connie Murdock, the Executive Director of Case Management, and not Judge
Hunter then it would follow that Patrick Dinkelacker be criminally charged in the same manner.
Judge Dinkelacker killed an African-American woman when he crossed the centerline last year,
according to media reports, yet when he was sued by the family in a wrongful death action he
received a visiting Judge for his case. Judge Hunter requested a visiting judge, but was denied.
Why are there two sets of standards and rules being applied judges in Hamilton County?

Patrick Dinkelacker should have followed the law and disqualified himself, as the rules
specifically require when one is directly involved in the proceedings, has an interest in the
outcome as the enclosed exhibits demonstrate, and have openly expressed his partiality. Ex. G, H
Sincerely,
Tracie M. Hunter, Judge
Encl. Exhibits
Cc Department of Justice