For years, I’ve been an investigative journalist peeling back the curtain on Ohio’s judicial system, exposing corruption, conflicts of interest, and a disciplinary process that seems rigged to protect the powerful. My latest investigation has led me to file a formal grievance with the Ohio State Bar Association’s Certified Grievance Committee on March 14, 2025, against Michelle A. Hall, Chief Assistant Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel. This isn’t just a personal vendetta—it’s a documented exposé of how Hall’s actions undermine justice, misrepresent facts, and shield Supreme Court justices from scrutiny. Buckle up, because the details I’m about to unpack reveal a system in crisis, and I’m not backing down until the truth is laid bare.

The Grievances: New Evidence, Serious Allegations

On January 14, 2025, I submitted a series of meticulously crafted grievances to the Ohio State Bar Association, targeting Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy (File No. C5-0396J), Justice R. Patrick DeWine (File No. C5-0391J), Justice Joseph T. Deters (File No. C5-0395J), former justices Michael P. Donnelly (File No. C5-0392J) and Melody J. Stewart (File No. C5-0393J), Justice Patrick F. Fischer (File No. C5-0397J), and Stephanie Hess, the former Deputy and Administrator of the Supreme Court. These weren’t recycled complaints from years past—they were fresh, specific, and backed by compelling new evidence that emerged after my earlier filings in 2023. The Ohio State Bar Association transferred them to Hall’s office on February 5, 2025, with my explicit authorization to investigate.

What did I allege? Let’s break it down:

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy: In Bibb v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel (2024-Ohio-1931), decided May 22, 2024, Kennedy admitted in her concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part opinion that the Supreme Court’s practice of labeling individuals like me as “vexatious litigators” under S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.03(B) violated Article IV, Section 2(B)(3) of the Ohio Constitution. She wrote, “We were wrong to do that, and I was wrong to join those decisions” (¶13). This bombshell directly undermines the Court’s March 3, 2023, decision to slap that label on me—a move I’ve long argued was retaliatory and lacked due process. That’s a breach of Canon 2 (impartiality and fairness) and Canon 1 (upholding public confidence in the judiciary).

Justice R. Patrick DeWine: I accused him of presiding over a case involving criminal allegations against his father, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine. Canon 2, Rule 2.11(A)(2)(c) of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct mandates disqualification when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned due to a close familial tie. This wasn’t some vague hunch—it’s a concrete ethical violation that didn’t fully crystallize in my awareness until after my 2023 filings.

Justice Joseph T. Deters: Deters sat on cases involving me despite my prior criminal allegations against him from his days as Hamilton County Prosecutor—allegations that wound up before the Supreme Court itself. Canon 2, Rule 2.11(A)(6)(b) requires recusal when a judge has personal bias, prejudice, or knowledge of disputed facts about a party. His elevation to the Court post-2023 makes this a new, ongoing conflict Hall should’ve probed.

Stephanie Hess: I alleged she illegally held dual roles as Deputy and Administrator of the Supreme Court, violating Ohio law. This isn’t just administrative trivia—it’s a fresh claim of misconduct that demands investigation, not dismissal.

These grievances weren’t frivolous rants. They cited specific ethical breaches under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, backed by evidence like the Bibb decision, which didn’t exist when I filed earlier grievances in May 2023. Under Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(D), Hall’s office is duty-bound to investigate credible allegations unless they’re plainly outside its jurisdiction or frivolous on their face. Mine were neither.

The Dismissal: A Pattern of Misconduct Unfolds

On March 13, 2025, Hall responded—not with an investigation, but with a stack of curt dismissal letters. Take File No. C5-0396J against Kennedy: she claimed I’d filed a grievance with “the same allegations” on March 3, 2023, dismissed on August 29, 2023, and thus warranted no further review. She repeated this line across the board—File No. C5-0391J (DeWine), File No. C5-0395J (Deters), you name it. But here’s where the story cracks wide open: her own records contradict her.

Check the August 29, 2023, dismissal letters—File No. C3-1250J (Kennedy), File No. C3-1251J (DeWine), File No. C3-1256J (Deters). They state my 2023 grievances were received on May 12, 2023—not March 3. That’s a two-month gap, and it’s no clerical slip. March 3, 2023, is the exact day the Supreme Court sua sponte branded me a vexatious litigator—an action I’ve fought as retaliatory, now bolstered by Kennedy’s Bibb admission. Hall’s claim that I filed grievances that day is absurd; I couldn’t have reacted to the Court’s ruling in real-time without seeing it. Her 2023 letters dismissed those earlier filings as mere disagreements with rulings, not ethical violations. My 2025 grievances, though, cite specific canons and new evidence like Bibb—a seismic shift she ignored.

This isn’t just sloppy paperwork—it’s a pattern of misconduct. Hall violated three core standards:

Failure to Investigate (Gov.Jud.R. II(5)(D)): She didn’t even mention Bibb or the new allegations in her dismissals. Her office is required to investigate unless the claims are frivolous or irrelevant. Mine were neither—yet she shut them down without a shred of analysis.

Prejudice to Justice (Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(d)): By arbitrarily dismissing my grievances, Hall undermined the disciplinary system’s purpose—to ensure judicial integrity. If she can ignore a Chief Justice’s admission of unconstitutional conduct, what’s left of accountability?

Dishonesty (Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(c)): Misrepresenting my 2023 filing date as March 3 instead of May 12 isn’t a mistake—it’s a deliberate dodge. It let her sidestep the new evidence and context, suggesting bias or pressure to protect the Court’s reputation.

The Stakes: A Judiciary on Trial

This isn’t about me—it’s about what Hall’s actions mean for Ohio. If the Chief Assistant Disciplinary Counsel can falsify dates, ignore evidence, and dismiss credible claims without investigation, the system’s a sham. My March 3, 2023, “vexatious litigator” label was a gag order to silence my exposés—now validated as unconstitutional by Kennedy herself. Yet Hall’s refusal to act suggests a deeper rot: a willingness to shield Supreme Court justices from scrutiny, no matter the cost to public trust.

I’ve appealed Hall’s dismissals to Disciplinary Counsel Joseph M. Caligiuri on March 13, 2025, demanding a reversal and an independent special counsel to investigate. Why independent? Because Hall’s office has a conflict—its reluctance to probe its own justices reeks of institutional protectionism. My grievance to the Certified Grievance Committee goes further: I want Hall investigated, sanctioned—reprimand, suspension, or disbarment—and my January 14, 2025, grievances reinstated for a real review.

The Evidence: Documents Don’t Lie

I’m not asking you to take my word for it. The proof’s in the paper trail:

March 13, 2025, Dismissal Letters: Hall’s claims of March 3, 2023, filings (e.g., File No. C5-0396J) are debunked by her own August 29, 2023, letters stating May 12, 2023 (e.g., File No. C3-1250J).

Bibb v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel (2024-Ohio-1931): Kennedy’s admission at ¶13 is a game-changer Hall ignored.

My Appeal to Caligiuri: Filed March 13, 2025, it dissects Hall’s errors and demands justice.

These documents—attached to my grievance—are public records I’ll make available on www.the-exposer.com. Read them. Judge for yourself.

The Fight Continues

This is bigger than one journalist’s battle. It’s about whether Ohio’s judiciary can police itself or if it’s a closed club where rules bend for the elite. I’ve been labeled a vexatious litigator, harassed, and dismissed, but I won’t stop digging. The Certified Grievance Committee has a choice: hold Hall accountable and restore faith in the system, or let her misconduct fester. I’m betting on the former, and I’ll be here, reporting every step.

Stay with me at www.the-exposer.com as I unearth more, share updates, and demand transparency. If you’ve got tips, evidence, or a stake in this fight, reach out—charlesltingler1991@gmail.com or (419) 890-3625. The truth doesn’t hide forever, and neither will I.