• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Judge threatens me - Ohio - advice appreciated

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I have also found out that township employees and/or officials have researched my background - which includes being a firearms instructor and a RKBA/OC activist.

This morning I went to Hamilton County's courthouse for an "ex-parte" (I believe this means only one side is heard) hearing on my request for a protection order against Judge Ralph E. Winkler. Here was my filing:

"At the conclusion of the July 12, 2010 Green Township Board of Trustees meeting, Winkler, husband of Trustee Tracy Winkler, introduced himself as Judge Winkler. Without provocation, Winkler stated that he would "defend his wife's honor" if I questioned her integrity or called her a liar. Judge Winkler appeared upset about recent revelations of indecorous, illegal, or unethical acts of elected and top-level officials (i.e. of the Township). I believe that Winkler’s threat was both menacing and coercive, and was intended to dissuade me from investigating such matters. Further, Judge Winkler's actions conveyed a threat of physical harm should I continue to speak out about improprieties."

It seems implausible to me that one could get away with such a thing (and on top of it threaten my First Amendment rights), so I thought I'd throw the subject open for consideration.

I would very much appreciate any and all help.

Thank you.

Audio of threat
 
Last edited:

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
Lawyer up, carry a recorder, and be aware...

Good luck. Judges are a tighter-knit crowd than LEOs. I'm surprised you even got a hearing.

IF you can't get a restraining order, keep recording threats, and then take them all to the media.

Sometimes the Court of Public Opinion is our last resort...
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Definition of "threat" is often not a question of law, but of fact. That sounds like the case here and why ex-parte hearings would not be the appropriate path. A judge cannot decide a question of fact unless he is the trier of the case, i.e., no jury, both as to fact and law. You didn't say much about his exact words, but it sounds like a weak case based solely on what you did quote. Just my opinion.
 

AZkopper

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
675
Location
Prescott, Arizona, USA
I have no clue about Ohio law, but both CA and AZ are the same on 'threats'. They must be specific, with an immediate means of carrying them out.

For example, "you'd better watch your back, because one day you are going to end up dead" is not a legal threat in CA and AZ. Because there is no specific time frame or action threatened.

On the other hand, calling some one and saying "I'm comming over and I'm going to shoot you in the head", then in short order you drive to their house and park down the street, well that is a credible threat.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Definition of "threat" is often not a question of law, but of fact. That sounds like the case here and why ex-parte hearings would not be the appropriate path. A judge cannot decide a question of fact unless he is the trier of the case, i.e., no jury, both as to fact and law...
In Ohio, a hearing for a restraining order is held in two parts - the first ex-parte (one party), the second is both parties.

I am not (currently) asking for the judge to be charged criminally, I'm merely trying to find a part of the ORC (Ohio Revised Code) which allows for a restraining order based on one threat only.

For a number of reasons, I will not be hiring a lawyer.

...You didn't say much about his exact words, but it sounds like a weak case based solely on what you did quote...
I suggest listening to the audio.

Thanks to all.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I didn't hear anything that a court would call a threat.

Of course, my hearing stinks. Did he ever say what he meant?
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I didn't hear anything that a court would call a threat...
Nothing against you personally, but I really don't care if you or anyone else considers what was said to be a threat.

My SOLE interest for this thread is this (for those who have some legal aptitude/interest): have I missed something in the Ohio Revised Code that addresses the ability of a citizen to obtain a restraining order after a SINGLE instance of threat?

I thought I was in a good position today, but that may not be the case - hence my question.

Thanks to all who may be able to address that issue.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Nothing against you personally, but I really don't care if you or anyone else considers what was said to be a threat...

You post the audio and ask for advice, you're gonna get comments on the audio, especially after "suggesting" folks listen to the audio when they question the exact wording of the threat.

I'm gonna give you one more nickel's worth of free advice: Regardless of how many threats it takes to get a restraining order, you ain't getting one. I tried to be subtle. Now, I'll just flat-out say it: You've been threatened zero times and will not get that RO--no matter what the law says.

Moving on.
 
Last edited:

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
"Don't call my wife a liar" and "I'll stand up for my wife's honor" could be interpreted as suggesting to you that you may face a defamation lawsuit. Probably not actionable in the state where I practice -- which is not Ohio.


There is usually a procedure in state law for making complaints about injudicious actions by judges. You may wish to consider whether such a complaint is or is not a better route than a protective order at this point.

PS Please do not confuse the above blathering with legal advise.
 
Last edited:

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
...There is usually a procedure in state law for making complaints about injudicious actions by judges. You may wish to consider whether such a complaint is or is not a better route than a protective order at this point...
Yes, that is the conclusion I am rapidly coming to - but I'm still holding out hope that there may still be some way to go the protective order route.

I do have information on how to go the other route, however.

...PS Please do not confuse the above blathering with legal advise.
Or advice.


Thanks again.
 
Last edited:

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
"Don't call my wife a liar" and "I'll stand up for my wife's honor" could be interpreted as suggesting to you that you may face a defamation lawsuit. Probably not actionable in the state where I practice -- which is not Ohio.


There is usually a procedure in state law for making complaints about injudicious actions by judges. You may wish to consider whether such a complaint is or is not a better route than a protective order at this point.

PS Please do not confuse the above blathering with legal advise.
I agree. I don't feel the reasonable man would consider this a credible threat of violence. That being said, judges are held to a specific and stricter code of conduct than the average citizen. I just don't see this rising to the standard which would get a restraining order. But it very possibly does rise to the standard to file a complaint for official malfeasance. On the other hand, if the judge was responding to what he considered the threat by you of slander against his wife and was speaking in a legal responsive mode, you need to temper your words accordingly. There also exists a defense for simple assault called "fighting words" under Common Law. These are a usage of slander so objectionable and reprehensive that the reasonable man would be excused in physically assaulting the speaker. Just my interpretation from the limited facts at hand.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Pardon me for coming late to the party.

I have a very important question to ask: Why do you want a protective order, that will merely keep the person who happens to be an appointed/elected judge from being within x number of feet from you, or calling you on the telephone, while he is not acting in his official capacity as a judge? (OK, he will also have to surrender any firearms he possesses during the life of the protective order, if yu want to harass him over that.)

From what you posted he made the point of introducing himself as "Judge X", not "Mr. X, the husband of Mrs. X." As such, his statements to you seem to be trying to use the power of his position to gain an advantage in a strictly personal issue of "defending" his wife from accusations - whether theose accusations have a foundation in fact or not. That is clearly a misuse of the power of his position - a misfeasance and a malfeasance. For such conduct he needs to be reprimanded by the body that governs the conduct of judges.

You have been advised of the process of filing your complaint against him for his misfeasance/malfeasance. Yet you seem to want to persist in getting a protective order - the benefit to you or the public at large I cannot fathom.

Snce I am an inherently curious individual who likes to understand the motivation of folks, especially when they persist in a course of action that has little chance of providing benefit to them or accomplishing anything meaningful in the way of correcting improper official behavior, I ask for a personal favor. Explain why you want the protective order.

Thanks.

stay safe.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I have no clue about Ohio law, but both CA and AZ are the same on 'threats'. They must be specific, with an immediate means of carrying them out.

The nice thing is that a threat to inflict bodily harm, as in "I'm gonna kick your..." need be only witnessed by two or more people and backed up by a reasonable risk that the individual could indeed physically carry out his/her threat. They don't need to be massive people to be a reasonable risk, as any adult human who knows what they're doing can inflict serious damage on another in a split second, and you have no idea what they're capable of, but the very fact they're making the threat indicates that at least they believe they can take you on!
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
...You have been advised of the process of filing your complaint against him for his misfeasance/malfeasance. Yet you seem to want to persist in getting a protective order - the benefit to you or the public at large I cannot fathom...
I'm not going to go into great depth, not because you haven't asked a valid question, nor have you asked it rudely, but...

You've misread the timeline. The protective order had already been filed, and an ex-parte hearing held on it before I came here to ask my question about what seems to now be apparent - a single instance of threat is not sufficient to get a protective order. Of course my question is/was essentially "Am I correct"?

An official complaint will be undertaken.

In the meanwhile, my original question remains for those who can/are willing to address it. (and I mean no slight to you, Skidmark)

Thanks for your post.
 
Top