Attorney Dominic Mastruserio
Repeatedly Lied To The Appeals Court
And Deceived Trial Judge Judson Shattuck
Oops!! He Got Caught! Ruh-roh ...
What Will Happen To Dominic Mastruserio For Lying?
Cast Your Vote Here
What Will The Ohio Bar Eventually Do About Dominic Mastruserio's Deceit?
Lies To The Appeals Court
And Defrauds Judge Judson Shattuck Jr
On April 29, 2005, Dr. Louis Thibodeaux's Cincinnati PAS attorney, Dominic Mastruserio, filed an Appellee Brief with the Ohio First District Court of Appeals. In it, repeatedly, sometimes in back to back sentences, Mr. Mastruserio lied to the court.
One year later, on April 27, 2006, the mother's California brother, Mike R., filed a grievance with the Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio against attorney Dominic Mastruserio. Attorneys are considered "officers of the court" and are required by the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility to tell the truth and make honest representations. Mike R. accuses Dominic Mastruserio of intentionally lying, a very serious charge, which he proves in convincing fashion below.
Dominic Mastruserio has been advised by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel regarding Mike R.'s grievance against him.
Here is a redacted copy of Mike R.'s grievance against Dominic Mastruserio:
FACTS of the GRIEVANCE
April 27, 2006
AGAINST Attorney DOMINIC MASTRUSERIO Sup Ct #0031868
FILED BY Mike R
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
Supreme Court of Ohio
250 Civic Center Drive, Ste. 325
Columbus, Ohio 43215-7411
Dear Supreme Court of Ohio Disciplinary Counsel,
Here is the specific Ohio Disciplinary Rule that I believe Cincinnati attorney Dominic Mastruserio violated:
Ohio Rules of Court
Code of Professional Responsibility
DR 1-102. MISCONDUCT.
(A) A lawyer shall not:
(4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
[Effective: October 5, 1970; amended effective July 1, 1994; July 1, 1995.]
On April 29, 2005 -
In His Brief That He Filed With
The Ohio First District Court Of Appeals,
Dominic Mastruserio Intentionally Reversed Testimony, Essentially Lying
On October 18, 2004 -
In A Child Custody Trial Presided By
Visiting Judge Judson Shattuck,
Dominic Mastruserio Intentionally Defrauded The Foolish Judge,
Conning Him Into Believing Something That Wasn't So
Here is Mastruserio Lie #1 of 3
"On cross examination Mr. R acknowledges that this questioning of the child is a very usual thing for him to do. (Tp194)"
Appellee Brief, pages 7-8
April 29, 2005
That is a lie.
The actual testimony on page Tp194 is exactly opposite.
The truth is that I testified that it was "unusual" for me to question the child. The trial transcript page 194 demonstrates exactly opposite of how Mr. Mastruserio represented it.. [See EXHIBIT B]
Dominic Mastruserio clearly understood my answer to be "unusual" (he acknowledges it in the transcript) but intentionally reverses my court testimony in his brief to the Appeals Court to read "usual". Most likely, the deceitful Mr. Mastruserio counted on the Appeals Court taking him at his word as an officer of the court, and counted on them not actually checking the transcript to which he referred. Isn't that clever? Isn't that dishonest?
This is no small thing, Mr. Mastruserio was hoping to point blame at me for my nephew's anguished mental state, rather than where it belonged, upon his allegedly abusive clients, the boy's father and stepmother. To do that, Mr. Mastruserio was willing to lie.
See attached a copy of Exhibit B and here below the same testimony pasted. This is the trial transcript page number 194 that Mr. Mastruserio referenced in his appellate brief:
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
DR. LOUIS THIBODEAUX,
Plaintiff Case No. DR9702...
VS. Transcript of Proceedings
On Behalf of Plaintiff: Dominic Mastruserio, Esquire
On Behalf of Defendant: Richard Ducote, Esquire
and Richard Martin, Esquire
BE IT REMEMBERED that the above entitled cause
came on for hearing on the 18th day of October, 2004 before
the Honorable Judson Shattuck, Judge, sitting by special
appointment in the Court of Common Pleas, Division of
Domestic Relations, Hamilton County, Ohio, and was reported
by Dianna Robin Grippa, RMR, an Official Court Reporter in
and for the County of Hamilton, State of Ohio.
8 CROSS-EXAMINATION (OF MIKE R)
9 BY MR. MASTRUSERIO:
10 Q. After you, in August, had this conversation
11 with your nephew, you gave the Court a real good description
12 of the kind of conversation that you had with "P" at the
13 riding stables.
14 A. (Nodding head).
15 Q. You recall that?
16 A. At the February trial? Is that what you're
17 talking about?
18 Q. No, sir. You testified about eight, 10
19 minutes ago regarding your conversation with your nephew --
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. at the stables.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. Are you with me now?
24 A. I'm with you now.
25 Q. Okay. Is that normally the way that you have
1 conversations with your nephew?
2 A. In what regard? What is your specific --
3 Q. The way that you've described it.
4 A. Sitting on the bench?
5 Q. About questioning him.
6 A. That was a very unusual thing.
7 Q. So you're saying that that was unusual that
8 you would question him like that, right?
9 A. Yes. I've never discussed the abuse issues
10 that he's had with his father, ever.
11 Q. And you're sure about that?
12 A. Positive.
13 Q. Okay. Are you aware that the child made the
14 very statement to the school counselor that you've made --
15 A. What statement?
16 MR. DUCOTE: Objection. Hearsay. Assumes
17 facts not in evidence.
18 THE COURT: It's cross-examination.
19 MR. MASTRUSERIO: She testified. I want to
20 ask him if he knows.
21 THE COURT: It's cross-examination. Go ahead.
22 BY MR. MASTRUSERIO:
23 Q. Are you aware "P" has told the school
24 counselor exactly the opposite?
25 A. What did he say?
As you can read on lines 6 and 7 of page 194, I said "unusual", not "usual", and attorney Dominic Mastruserio repeated my answer. He well understood the difference.
It was not the answer Mr. Mastruserio desired - so he reversed it in his appellate brief. He intentionally deceived the Appeals Court so as to win custody of two children that his client is alleged to have sexually abused. Mister and Misses, this is very sick behavior on the part of Dominic Mastruserio. He cheated the process. He cheated the children. The damage done is extraordinary.
Were he to quote me accurately, Mr. Mastruserio likely would not quote me at all. My actual testimony does not support his client. Folks, there is no typo! No "Oops, I meant to write 'unusual'"!
Mr. Mastruserio's blatant, bald-faced deceit in behalf of an alleged child abuser is unconscionable, and goes against the Code of Professional Responsibility. What person reverses testimony and lies for an alleged child molester? Where is the decency? If Mr. Mastruserio lies with the lives of children in the balance, then in what situation would he not lie?
Mr. Mastruserio's lying must have had his desired effect because the Appeals Court found in his client's favor. We must assume Mr. Mastruserio calculated that his lying would have an effect. Otherwise, why would he lie?
Mastruserio Lie #2 of 3
"Mr R took "P" to the book store and purchased a copy."
Appellee Brief, page 8
April 29, 2005 [EXHIBIT A]
That is a lie.
The actual testimony found on page Tp197 is exactly opposite.
I testified that I bought the repugnant book to which he is referring, "Understanding The Borderline Mother", online at Amazon.com. Mr. Mastruserio's client was using the book to denigrate the children's mother and brainwash them into thinking she's crazy. Mr. Mastruserio, a compulsive liar, understood with absolute certainty that the child was not with me at any bookstore, and that I actually purchased my copy online. Most bookstores, as I learned, don't carry counter-culture crap of the kind Mr. Mastruserio's client twistedly used. Mr. Mastruserio clearly understood the manner in which the book was purchased yet lied about it to the Appeals Court all the same. His purpose was to paint a negative picture of me so as to bias the court against me. To do that, he unashamedly lied.
At minimum, Mr. Mastruserio hoped to muddy the water with his lies, and perhaps even cast blame on me rather than where it belonged, on the boy's wicked stepmother. She had been reading to him the whacko psychology book that had served to convince the poor boy that not only did his mother suffer from a borderline personality disorder (she doesn't) but he does too! The book states that the children of Borderline Personality Mothers are destined to suffer the same mental disease. The boy was listening when his wicked step-mother read that to him. [As an aside, Judge Shattuck ignored the entire sorry episode in his god awful decision, devoting zero words to the main issue in the trial.]
Here is the testimony from the October 18, 2004 transcript
1 Q. I didn't ask you that. I asked you --
2 A. That's how -- you asked me how he would
3 interpret that.
4 Q. How you would interpret --
5 A. You asked how he would interpret that. He
6 knew that I was protecting him from his father by not telling
7 his mother. That's the answer.
8 Q. Now, you went to the book store to buy this
9 book after you looked it up on the Internet, right?
10 A. Right.
11 Q. And was anyone with you?
12 A. No.
13 Q. And then you brought the book back to "P",
15 A. No.
16 Q.You didn't?
17 A. No.
18 Q. You didn't go through these things with him?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. I printed up a picture, and that picture
22 "P" tore up and threw it away personally. He wanted no
23 piece of that.
24 Q. Now, you live in California, right?
25 A. Yes, I do.
See lines 11 thru 20 of page 197, where I said "No" four straight times and Dominic Mastruserio acknowledged my answer. He well understood that my answer was "No" - that I had not purchased the book with the child in hand, had not gone to a bookstore with the child, had not perused it with the child. But that's not how he represented it to the Appeals Court, now is it? And that goes against the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Attorney Dominic Mastruserio intentionally reversed my testimony so as to deceive the Appeals Court. Obviously, Mr. Mastruserio has no respect for the court. He will reverse testimony when and where it suits him. And it usually suits him. I question the emotional stability of any attorney who lies like Dominic Mastruserio. Seriously, something must be wrong. Is it possible to deprogram a deceitful attorney?
Mastruserio Lie #3 of 3 (Fraud)
"Were you with your brother when he went to the book store and got this with "P"?"
Trial Transcript page 92
October 18, 2004
"Don't you recall your brother saying that when "P" was visiting with him in California, when you went out there with your son -- that this discussion came up, and "P" remembered the name of the book, and he took him to the book store and he picked the book out?"
Trial Transcript page 93
October 18, 2004
Those are lies and a fraud upon the court.
There is no such testimony.
Mastruserio made it up.
There were two trials. The first ended abruptly in Mistrial after three hours on February 17, 2004 when Judge Ronald Panioto recused himself.
Taking unfair advantage of the new trial judge, Judson Shattuck Jr., ten months later on October 18, 2004, attorney Dominic Mastruserio invented testimony that had not happened in the February Mistrial - "and he took him to the book store and he picked the book out" - and introduced the false representation to the witness and to the court. Mr. Mastruserio knew that his representation was false. His client was in trouble. He had no credible explanation for his client's twisted behavior. He had ten months to think of a story and decided upon this one, a fraud - which he delivered emphatically.
By perpetrating a fraud, Mr. Mastruserio wrongly damaged the credibility of the witness, a protective mother who seemingly could not or would not admit to testimony that according to Mr. Mastruserio, an officer of the court, everybody else had witnessed. Problem is, everybody hadn't witnessed it, which he knew. Mr. Mastruserio was counting on the foggy memory of ten months time, and that as an officer of the court, that all the fools in the courtroom would buy his revisionist and false story.
Clever? You bet. Mr. Mastruserio set in the new judge's mind the negative image of an uncle purchasing a counter-culture psychology book with child in hand, which hadn't happened at all. Call it a lie. Call it dishonest. Call it deceit. Call it a fraud. It's all those things.
Included with this complaint is Exhibit C, 55 pages of Mistrial Transcripts of my testimony from February 17, 2004. You will read that nowhere in that testimony "in front of Judge Panioto", do I testify that I "took him to the book store and ... picked the book out".
See here the actual testimony from Exhibit "A" - the October 18, 2004 Trial transcript. Mr. Mastruserio commits his fraud upon the court. Knowing that what he is about to represent to the court is a false representation, observe the care Mr. Mastruserio takes in setting up both the witness and the judge for his con.
Mr. Mastruserio On Redirect of Teresa T.Page 92
1 conversation that took place in August of 2003.
2 Q. Were you with your brother when he went to the
3 book store and got this with "P"?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Are you aware of that?
6 A. I did not have any knowledge of any of this at
7 all. The first time I knew about this book and Understanding
8 the Borderline Mother by this Christine Ann Lawson was the
9 day before Kira Kerstine's deposition in January of 2004.
10 Q. Okay. Now, that's --
11 A. I knew absolutely nothing about it.
12 Q. You didn't know anything about it?
13 A. Nothing.
(webmaster comment: Mastruserio sets the table for his con -
read how deceitful and clever he is - his version is a complete lie.)
14 Q. Do you remember your brother testifying in
15 January in front of Judge Panioto?
16 A. I remember him testifying.
17 Q. Right. Do you remember -- were you sitting in
18 the room when he testified?
20 Q. You were sitting next to Mr. Ducote and Mr.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And you heard his testimony?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Don't you recall your brother saying that when
1 "P" was visiting with him in California, when you went
2 out there with your son --
3 A. Um-hum.
4 Q. -- that this discussion came up, and "P"
5 remembered the name of the book, and he took him to the book
6 store and he picked the book out?
(webmaster comment: there is no such testimony - never happened -
but doesn't the mother look dishonest
for not admitting to what actually never happened?)
7 A. I was not privy to that conversation, nor was
8 any of that discussed with me.
9 Q. That's not what I asked you.
10 MR. DUCOTE: Excuse me. It is what he's
11 asking her.
12 MR. MASTRUSERIO: No, it's not.
13 MR. DUCOTE: That's -- her brother testified
14 exactly what she's saying; that he did it, that she wasn't
15 involved in it, and she said she heard her brother testify to
16 that. But that's not --
17 MR. MASTRUSERIO: All I am asking is if she
18 recalls her brother testifying.
19 MR. DUCOTE: But that's not relevant whether
20 she recalls her brother testified.
21 THE COURT: I don't know where he's going.
22 MR. MASTRUSERIO: It's important, your Honor.
23 THE COURT: Go ahead.
24 BY MR. MASTRUSERIO:
25 Q. My question was simple. Do you remember your
Neither the Court nor the opposing attorney could tell the relevance of where Mr. Mastruserio was going with this line of questioning. It hadn't occurred to them that he was totally fabricating events and struggling to defraud everyone - the opposing attorney - the witness - the judge.
In reference above to Dominic Mastruserio on page 93, line 21, the Court says, "I don't know where he's going?" To which Mr. Mastruserio responds, "It's important, your Honor." Damn right it was important. Where Dominic Mastruserio was going was a fraud upon the court, and yes, it was very important to him to defraud the witness and the court. There was no trip to a bookstore and Mr. Mastruserio knew it. It was a lie. Read the 55 pages of my testimony from February 17, 2004 and you will find no testimony about a trip to the bookstore with nephew in hand.
Facts of the Case
My name is Mike R and I live in California. I am the eldest brother of Teresa T., who was one of the litigants in a Hamilton County child custody case. The other litigant was Louis Thibodeaux, her former husband, who was alleged to have molested and abused their children. I was a witness in the case. Their case number at the Hamilton County Domestic Relations Court is # DR9702... .
The case was on appeal at the Ohio First District Court of Appeals. # C 0400...
The litigation has ended.
Exhibit A, an Appellee Brief filed by attorney Dominic Mastruserio on behalf of Louis Thibodeaux, and Exhibit E, a brief filed by attorney Richard Ducote on behalf of Teresa T., give a picture of the case. Please read both. But I caution that Mr. Mastruserio, as I demonstrate in this complaint, has absolutely no allegiance to the truth, and if it suits his purposes, and it often does, will misrepresent the facts.
This case involved a child custody dispute that started in 1997. The story is long and very involved. It would take about a hundred pages to tell it whole. Succinctly, my nephew and niece (now 13 and 9) have alleged over the years that their father, Dr. Louis Thibodeaux, physically abused and sexually molested them. My family is diametrically opposed to child molesters and shocked to encounter a court system that seemingly protects them.
To counter the abuse allegations, Dr. Thibodeaux's attorney, Dominic Mastruserio, used the discredited "Parental Alienation Syndrome", or PAS for short, theory as a defense. PAS is favored by child molesters, who often use it to win custody of their little victims. Rejected in the scientific community, PAS has found acceptance in Hamilton County's Domestic Relations Court and in some other courts. Any judge with half a brain rejects PAS. The walls reverberate in Hamilton County, however, with the wails of mothers who have lost custody of their abused children to the kids' tormentors. How would you like to be a pedophile and get legal custody of your victims? If you’Äôre lucky enough to be in Judge Panioto's Hamilton County court, and your attorney uses PAS theory, which Panioto accepts, then there is nothing to stop you from sexually abusing your children. All roadblocks have been removed. Nobody has the legal right to take your children to a therapist. If the mother, that bitch, complains that you're molesting her children, the PAS court will "sober her up" as the author of PAS put it, and take away her visitation. PAS courts punish allegations. Parental Alienation attorneys such as Dominic Mastruserio attack the parent making "allegations" (usually the mother) and any "unsubstantiated allegation" is assumed by them and the PAS court to be a "false allegation".
Questions that are posed by protective parents to possibly abused children are characterized by Parental Alienation attorneys as having coached the child. So questions are bad and should also be punished. If you have children, imagine being faulted for asking whether anyone was hurting them? Mr. Mastruserio spends a lot of time trying to establish that someone in the protective parent's family engaged in conversations or questioned the alleged victim(s). Any event like that is fodder for liars like Dominic Mastruserio. The legal strategy works in sick PAS courts like Hamilton County, also the perfect environment for compulsive liars like Mr. Mastruserio.
The Thibodeaux case has had many twists and turns. The very first attempt at a trial began in August 2000 but was postponed within minutes because the mother's new attorney, Richard Ducote, insisted on the mother's constitutional right to depose the court’Äôs PAS evaluator, Dr. Michael Borack, who had unethically recommended that the allegedly abused children be "deprogrammed", as if they had been brainwashed into believing they were abused. Judge Ronald Panioto, a proponent of PAS, reluctantly agreed to allow the Borack deposition - because of that pesky constitution.
Dr. Borack was thoroughly discredited (humiliated really), when he was forced to admit in his deposition that he hadn't the ability to assess sexually molested or abused children. In other words, the Panioto Court's so-called expert was nothing of the sort. He had no better ability to assess child sexual abuse than you or I. But you and I are not going around recommending abused children be deprogrammed - and that moron is.
Judge Panioto was motioned by the mother to reverse the effects of his incompetent court PAS evaluator, Dr. Michael Borack. But Judge Panioto refused to reverse, and worse still, refused to supplement the official record with his court evaluator's reports when the mother appealed his decision. Obviously, Judge Panioto's decision not to reverse and not to supplement the record was not in the best interests of the children. That particular decision drew the wrath of yours truly and I resolved to expose him.
After the appeals were exhausted in late 2003, the custody trial began in earnest on February 17, 2004, but as mentioned above, was declared a Mistrial by Judge Panioto after only three hours. Judge Panioto knew that his court had botched the case. That he and his administrators were guilty of wrongdoing (his top parenting division chief, Jayne Zuberbuhler, perjured herself in deposition testimony), and Panioto was looking for any excuse to get the hell out. He found it when one of his friends, a private investigator named Jim Simon, was mentioned in court testimony as a witness. Judge Panioto said that as a result he could not hear the case. This was complete and total nonsense because Judge Panioto had discussed the case (ex-parte) with Mr. Simon previously. But okay - goodbye and good riddance to a pro-abuser PAS jurist. I do believe the door hit him in the ass on the way out.
Judge Panioto left for others to clean up (and cover-up) his mess. He proved himself to be a typical bully who whomps on weaker people but runs home to mama when somebody tougher comes along. In his chambers, Judge Panioto wondered aloud whether anybody in Cincinnati had any "testicular fortitude"? But one week later while I was testifying that his court ordered "deprogramming of the children" was reminiscent of the 1960's Cultural Revolution in Communist China (mind-control, brainwashing of kids), Judge Panioto showed no "testicular fortitude" himself and quit on the spot. What a wuss!
Before leaving the case, Judge Panioto did take one stab at doing the right thing, ruling on February 10, 2004 that despite a 2000 Shared Parenting Agreement (that he knew was coerced as a result of Borack), he would allow into evidence all the sexual abuse allegations dating back to 1997. What's obvious to you and me was one giant leap for a PAS jurist. So we give him some smidgen of credit, though it was too little, too late.
The Ohio Supreme Court appointed as Judge Panioto's replacement a judge that Chief Justice Thomas Moyer once voted to reprimand in 1994, Judge Judson L. Shattuck Jr.. Chief Justice Moyer had taken exception in 1994 to Judge Shattuck's willingness to do what the trial judge in a Greene County case was unwilling to do, release a man from prison, and Shattuck did it without following the rules. Chief Justice Moyer's vote to reprimand was in the minority, and Judge Shattuck skated off unscathed. The complaint against Judge Shattuck is noteworthy because it showcases Judge Shattuck's willingness to do what other judges will not - step outside the lines, to cheat the system, to break the rules, to play games.
One of Judge Shattuck's first decisions in the Thibodeaux case shocked those familiar. He ignored the court order issued by Judge Ron Panioto which allowed the sexual abuse allegations into evidence, and instead Shattuck prohibited the allegations from being presented at trial. As the trial judge since the inception of the case in 1997, Judge Panioto knew that the sexual abuse allegations had not been litigated. Judge Shattuck, however, pretended to know better than the original trial judge and dealt the children and their mother a terrible legal blow. This protected everybody but the children, which was Shattuck's real purpose. The man is incredibly unethical, which I will prove at a later date.
Judge Shattuck also ruled to prohibit a respected and nationally prominent therapist from evaluating the abused children, who have not been assessed in five years. The children cry out for a therapist, and their father who has custody and admits they need therapy, dare not take them to a mandatory reporter of abuse lest they disclose yet again.
Adding insult to injury, Judge Shattuck faulted the mother in his decision for believing the "unsubstantiated allegations" that he would not allow her to prove in court. Unbelievable? You bet. I know what you're thinking, that this can’Äôt be? Think again.
Judge Shattuck awarded the alleged child molester, Dr. Louis Thibodeaux, full custody of his alleged victims without knowing if he were putting them in harm's way. He used the excuse that the father, the alleged child molester, was somehow better able to facilitate visitation. [see EXHIBIT D - page 19 attached] Nobody knows how the judge determined that as he contradicts himself by saying that neither side has anything kind to say about the other. The net result is that the protective mother does not have custody, has few rights, and sees her children only 16% of the time. This is her reward for bringing allegations of child sexual abuse to the Hamilton County PAS Court and seeking its protection.
Mr. Mastruserio lies a great deal in relation to the book, "Understanding The Borderline Mother". It was about the only big issue left by visiting Judge Judson Shattuck, who couldn't think of a way to clear a total path for the alleged child molester, Louis Thibodeaux.
In the February 2004 Mistrial, I testified as to how my nephew "P" had revealed to me in August 2003 at a horse stable in California that his step-mother Kelly Thibodeaux had been reading to him
Helping Her Children Transcend the Intense,
Unpredictable, and Volatile Relationship
The purpose of Louis and Kelly Thibodeaux's campaign was to denigrate the boy's real mother, Theresa T.; make the child believe that she is "crazy"- a word they admitted to using; and undermine the child's relationship with her. Court testimony revealed that Mr. Thibodeaux had full knowledge of the book and how it was being used. The Thibodeaux's obviously shouldn't be trusted with custody.
The step-mother was so successful in her reading of the "Borderline Mother" book that she convinced young "P" that not only did his mother and aunt suffer a borderline personality disorder (neither do), but that he, "P", does too. This was revealed in both deposition and trial testimony by "P" grade school therapist, Kira Kerstine. At present, "P" still believes that he has a serious mental disorder and there are no plans to get him help. Judge Judson Shattuck Jr. has blocked the mother's request to take him to a therapist and his father, Dr. Thibodeaux, won't do it. The boy is trapped.
In an ironic twist, Dominic Mastruserio knew that it was his client who was actually guilty of the very thing that he had been accusing the mother - parental alienation. Mr. Mastruserio's obvious goal was to obscure, muddy, or change entirely that reality. There was only one way to do that, and fortunately for Mr. Mastruserio, also his level of expertise. Lie!
Judge Shattuck's terse decision (it could have been written between his three way Skyline Chili and cheese coney) was appealed, and the briefs filed by both Mr. Mastruserio (see attached) and Mr. Ducote (see attached) were critical. Undoubtedly, both attorneys spent considerable time and effort on their briefs. If the decision were reversed, it would have been unlikely that even a pro-abuser jurist like Judson Shattuck, (he has a history of pro-abuser decisions in Greene County and elsewhere), could possibly award Mr. Thibodeaux custody of his children. The evidence against Thibodeaux was and still is, ample and compelling. The Appeals Court ruled in favor of Mr. Mastruserio's client, and so there will never be a trial on the merits.
While I believe Mr. Mastruserio's Appellee Brief is replete with deceit and misrepresentation, I limit myself here in this complaint to only those events to which I am directly connected.
Dominic Mastruserio's lies are black and white and easy to see. An investigation could take thirty minutes. It's all in the transcripts and in Mr. Mastruserio's brief. There isn't anything credible he can say or do now to change the official documents. Mr. Mastruserio's deceit, disrespect for the court and near total contempt for the rules are obvious.
This is Mr. Mastruserio's reputation in Cincinnati. He is well known for skullduggery and brazen lies. He has gotten away with it for so long because he is one of Chief Administrative Judge Ronald Panioto's best friends. They frequented nightspots together as far back as the 1970's. Opposing attorneys cannot challenge Mr. Mastruserio's habitual misconduct without drawing the ire of Judge Panioto. Other judges, magistrates, attorneys and court personnel look the other way because whistle blowers get axed. The mother in this case actually lost an attorney for that very reason. His parting words were, "I have to make a living in this town." I don't remember Clarence Darrow saying anything like that, do you?
Dominic Mastruserio lies with the ease and confidence that he will never get caught, or if he is, won't pay a penalty for it. He has no fear of the Ohio bar. This has been his life experience. Anybody who would lie with the safety of children at stake has completely lost his moral bearings, if he ever had them. In what venue will he not lie?
I am wondering if the Ohio Licensing Bar will countenance Dominic Mastruserio's dishonesty? I filed a complaint with you on these same issues in May 2005, but was kindly informed by you that it could not be investigated while the litigation was still pending. A technicality since removed.
I expect Mr. Mastruserio to lie to you in response to this complaint. I would like the opportunity to review any representation he makes, and would further relish the opportunity to confront him personally. I will travel at my own expense to Columbus to meet with you or attend any hearing on the complaint.
After indicting Vice-President Dick Cheney's aide Scooter Libby for lying, Special Prosecutor "P" Fitzgerald is quoted as saying, "Truth is the engine of our judicial system. Compromise the truth, and the whole system is lost."
Like Libby, Dominic Mastruserio compromised the truth. The process was lost. It was intentional. Libby could go to jail. Mastruserio should at least lose his license.
Whatever your decision or however you choose to handle it, you should know that it will be highly publicized after you're finished. We will let the public know whether it's okay to reverse testimony, to lie, to intentionally defraud the court ... or not. I will be very loud about it.
Mr. Mastruserio, by the way, agrees with me that he is a liar. For the better part of a year Mr. Mastruserio has been described on the very website that he tried to introduced as evidence, cincinnatipas.com, as a compulsive and congenital liar. If wrong, that's called slander. No honest attorney would allow his public reputation to be so scorched. Try doing that to any respectable lawyer. Mr. Mastruserio takes it 24/7 because ... he knows he is a liar. And we can say that anytime, anywhere. And do.
I'm hoping that somebody in Ohio in a position of authority has ethics, and maybe even some "testicular fortitude". There should be no place for men like Mastruserio in Ohio courtrooms. Your name(s) will either be placed in opposition to Mastruserio's dishonesty, or the sanctioning of it. Be comfortable with your decision, cause everybody is going to hear about it.
End of Grievance Against Dominic Mastruserio
So Are You Ready To See The Decision By The Disciplinary Counsel of the Ohio Supreme Court?
How Did You Vote? They'll do nothing? Reprimand? Suspension? Disbarment?
On March 1, 2007 the OSC completed their so-called investigation. The Mastruserio case had been originally assigned in May 2006 to attorney Brian Shinn, who quit the OSC in early January of 2007.
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Philip A. King started with the OSC on January 29, 2007. The Mastruserio case file was transferred to him days later and he completed it quickly in February 2007. Dominic Mastruserio telephoned the newcomer Mr. King that same month to discuss the case. Mr. King did not speak with Complainant Mike R. until after he mailed his decision.
In one of his very first decisions, Ohio Supreme Court Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Philip A. King decided to ...
Are you surprised? We're not. The Ohio Disciplinary Counsel routinely disciplines attorneys in issues regarding money or sex. But rarely anything else. That's because there is usually a paper trail in regards to money and sex that nails the sucker cold.
And while the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility states that attorneys may not "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation", the simple fact of that matter is that few lying, deceitful, dishonest attorneys are EVER disciplined in Ohio.
Those are words devoid of meaning. Young people often write in their emails "jk" for "just kidding". The OSC probably should do the same.
Here below on the left is Mr. King's entire decision quoted verbatim. On the right is Mike R's interpretation and commentary after each paragraph.
From Philip A. King,
OSC Assistant Disciplinary Counsel
"After investigation of your complaint, we have determined that further disciplinary action is not warranted.
Okay, Mr. King, why not?
The authority of this office is limited to investigating alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Please be assured that each and every complaint received by this office is treated with the utmost respect and concern. The complaint that you filed against Attorney Dominic Mastruserio was no exception to our policy. Pursuant to the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, we have reviewed your grievance. Yep, I know, "investigating alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility" is exactly why I came to you. Go on ... In your grievance, you allege that Mr. Mastruserio asked a question during cross-examination at trial in case number DR-9702... that misstated the evidence. You also allege that Mr. Mastruserio made two false statements in the subsequent appellate brief he filed in the Hamilton County Court of Appeals in appeal number C-040... . Essentially, you raise an evidentiary objection and dispute the merit of Mr. Mastruserio's appellate brief and propriety of the appellate court decision. Philip, stop with the "essentially" stuff. No detours. I'm not retrying the case, but rather, exposing a courtroom liar and providing the proof. You need to stick with whether Mr. Mastruserio made false statements and reversed my testimony in his appellate brief? It's really easy. Just look at the record written in Black and White and then apply common sense. Yes or no? I note that you were not a party to the lawsuit. However, in Ohio, the parties are provided an adversarial system, which allows them to make factual assertions and to challenge the assertions of the other parties. In this case, the trial and appellate courts were authorized to address any materially factual dispute raised by the parties. Moreover, a discretionary appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court would have been the appropriate vehicle to challenge the factual finding of the appellate court. The record does not reflect that the issues mentioned in your grievance were raised in the appeal or in a subsequent appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. Nonetheless, our office is not authorized to conduct a de novo review of the trial and appellate decisions, and your grievance cannot serve to challenge an appellate decision after the appellant failed to raise the issues with the court. Mr. King, you're a nice man. Maybe you're too young to remember Animal House, but in that movie the main character Otter made a speech that reminds me so very much of your diversionary paragraph. Here it is ...
Otter: Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests - we did.
[winks at Dean Wormer]
Otter: But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
As previously set forth, in accordance with our authority, the disposition of your complaint is limited solely to the question of whether Attorney Dominic Mastruserio may have committed a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Our investigation disclosed no ethical violations or improprieties in Attorney Dominic Mastruserio's representation; accordingly, your complaint is dismissed and our file on this matter is closed." My dear Mr. King, in a very polite and friendly conversation with me on March 7, 2007, you stated quite honestly, and correct, that Mr. Mastruserio had in fact made the two false statements that I allege and prove. Essentially, using your parlance, that Mr. Mastruserio reversed my testimony. You quoted Mr. Mastruserio as explaining that one was the result of a typo and the other a confused source. Nonsense. Lame excuses both and shame on you for buying. In your first month on the job, Philip, you go on record looking the other way at a courtroom liar. Not a good beginning. Sincerely,
Philip A. King
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel
Sincerely? I'm not too sure about that? postscript: And now you know why they gave the rookie the Mastruserio case.
Lie: "On cross examination Mr. R. acknowledges that this questioning of the child is a very usual thing for him to do. (Tp194)"
April 29, 2005 in Appellee Brief
Truth: "That was a very unusual thing." (Tp194)
October 18, 2004 in Trial Testimony
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion."