Lakota board member Darbi Boddy’s attorney wants prosecutor out; client accused of violating protection order

‘There are conflicts left and right in this,’ lawyer says; prosecutor disagrees and will file response.
Lakota Local Schools Board Member Darbi Boddy attends the board meeting Oct. 2, 2023 after a judge said she could attend. This follows the filing of a civil protection order against her by fellow board member Isaac Adi. WCPO/CONTRIBUTED

Lakota Local Schools Board Member Darbi Boddy attends the board meeting Oct. 2, 2023 after a judge said she could attend. This follows the filing of a civil protection order against her by fellow board member Isaac Adi. WCPO/CONTRIBUTED

Darbi Boddy, a Lakota Local Schools board member accused of violating a restraining order involving a fellow school board member, will return to court in January with a new attorney who is opposing the prosecutor assigned to the case, according to court records.

Boddy was issued a summons for the first-degree misdemeanor on Nov. 17 while attending a meeting at the Lakota Schools Central office on Princeton Road.

According to the citation issued by the Butler County Sheriff’s Office, Boddy attended the meeting where the “protected party Isaac Adi was present, which is a violation of protection order.”

Boddy left after receiving the citation, according to BCSO officials.

She was in the courtroom Nov. 29 for arraignment in county Area II Court. But the proceeding came to a halt when her former attorney Robert Croskery raised a question of conflict of interest for Judge Kevin McDonough to hear the case.

McDonough recused, and visiting Judge Jerry McBride was appointed by the Ohio Supreme Court to hear the case. McBride is a retired Clermont County Common Pleas judge.

Boddy was back in court Monday where new attorney Curt Hartman orally objected to the Butler County Prosecutor’s Office litigating the case, alleging a conflict since the office also represents legal matters of the school board.

“Ms. Boddy is a member of the local school board and (under statute) the prosecuting attorney is the statutory legal counsel for the school board. The alleged victim is also a member of the school board ... there are conflicts left and right in this,” Hartman said.

He said the judge accepted the oral motion to disqualify the prosecutor and is awaiting a response from the the prosecutor.

Assistant prosecutors from the county prosecutor’s office are assigned to all three area courts.

Butler County Prosecutor Michael Gmoser disagrees there is a conflict and says his office will file a response.

“He (Hartman) came in with a pronouncement that he wanted the state of Ohio to recuse itself on the basis that we are technically required to represent the board of education,” Gmoser said. “I have already done the research and we will be presenting the results of the research.”

Boddy signed a new time waiver of her speedy trial rights, but still has not been arraigned. Arraignment was set for Jan. 29 where the question of who will prosecute the case will likely be raised.

The first-degree misdemeanor carries a maximum sentence of 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Hartman is also talking over Boddy’s case in common pleas court over alleged contempt in violation of a civil protective order.

“I am a first amendment attorney,” Hartman said. “I am getting involved because I think this whole matter has been a miscarriage of the constitution and the first amendment.”

The back and forth in court over what Adi alleges is verbal harassment continues in Butler County Common Pleas Court.

Adi’s attorney, Robert Lyons, filed a motion in common pleas court Pleas Court last month asking Judge Greg Howard to “impose a term of incarceration, financial sanctions and award of reasonable attorney fees” because Boddy allegedly violated the terms of the civil protection order at a conference both are or were attending in Columbus.

Under the standard order, Boddy cannot come within 500 feet — the equivalent of 15 school buses lined up end-to-end — of Adi or into any building or place she “knows or should know the protected persons are likely to be, even with a protected person’s permission.” She is not allowed to tamper with any of his possessions, contact him in any way or encourage anyone else to harass him.

Croskery filed a motion asking Howard to terminate the protective order. He said Adi forced the interaction which is “inconsistent with his supposed fear of her.”

Adi filed for the order against Boddy in September, alleging on several occasions she harassed him and caused him such mental distress he had to be hospitalized. The decision from common pleas Magistrate Matthew Reed and approved by Howard said because Adi didn’t side with her on certain issues, Boddy “took every opportunity to exert pressure, bully, and, at times, punish petitioner by embarrassing him in front of others.”

Croskery appealed the order to the 12th District Court of Appeals on Sept. 21, asking that court for a partial stay of the order — that is in effect until September 2025 — so she could continue to attend school board meetings. The court denied the motion saying Boddy needed to ask the trial court first.

The 12th District then dismissed the case entirely.

Howard granted Boddy’s emergency motion Sept. 28 to partially suspend the order that she stay 500 feet away from Adi, with conditions while the appeal was at the 12th district.

Croskery filed a motion to vacate the protection order previously but it was stricken from the record because the case was pending in the 12th District. He has renewed his motion, in large part saying the court here had no jurisdiction over much of the case because the actions took place in Florida.

He also claims she has been exercising her right to free speech.

Croskery’s motion to “terminate the protective order,” filed with the lower court was withdrawn on Nov. 27 ,stating “in lieu of the motion, she (Boddy) is first renewing her motion to set a briefing and hearing date to her objections filed Sept. 27 (magistrate’s decision).”

Lyons filed a response on Nov. 30, stating the Sept. 27 filing is “erroneously characterized” as an objection to the magistrate’s decision and “the time for respondent to object to magistrate’s decision has run out.”

On Dec. 4, Howard issued an opinion noting the dismissal by the 12th District on Nov. 13 stating the the order issued Sept. 20 “controls.” He said the two motions for alleged contempt on Nov. 14 and on Nov. 22 will be set for a hearing.

About the Author