When a Court Orders Investigation and the Prosecutor Says “Do Not Present”
Calling Out Tony Cillo and Jack Hall, and Why This Conflict Cannot Stand
By Aaron Christopher Knapp
Investigative Journalist
Editor, Lorain Politics Unplugged
Introduction: This Is a Process Failure, Not a Personality Dispute
This article documents a structural and legal problem inside Lorain County government. It is not a political disagreement. It is not a personal feud. It is not an attempt to litigate allegations in the press. The issue examined here is whether executive branch officials exceeded their lawful authority by suppressing or halting a court directed investigative process while operating under unresolved and disqualifying conflicts of interest.
The underlying allegations against James McCann, Chief of the Lorain Police Department, are not adjudicated here. That is not this article’s role. The narrower and more consequential question is whether the process designed to test those allegations was lawfully allowed to occur at all, and whether the public can verify that it did.
The Phone Call: Tony Cillo Says the Sheriff Issued “Do Not Present”
I received a direct phone call from Tony Cillo, Lorain County Prosecutor, regarding my matter involving Chief McCann. During that call, Cillo stated that the Sheriff had issued a “do not present” directive on the case.
That statement is not incidental. It is the fulcrum of the legal problem.
If a judge directed that this matter be investigated, then neither the Sheriff nor the Prosecutor retains unilateral authority to suppress it. Once judicial authority attaches, executive discretion narrows rather than expands. Authority flows from the court, not from political convenience, internal agreement, or personal discomfort.
Judicial Direction Is Not Advisory
Ohio courts possess inherent authority to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings. When a judge directs that an investigation occur, the executive branch does not gain veto power. It becomes an agent of judicial authority, or it must formally step aside through recusal and disclosure.
A “do not present” instruction issued internally, without disclosure to or approval by the court, is not neutral discretion. It conflicts with the court’s authority and prevents review. Courts do not operate on informal assurances. They operate on records that can be examined, challenged, and appealed.
Calling Out Jack Hall: The Message Record Shows Entanglement, Not Independence
The documentary record of text messages involving Jack Hall, Lorain County Sheriff, demonstrates that he was not an arm’s length official detached from the controversy. The messages show political entanglement, personal reaction, and direct engagement with partisan disputes and retaliatory dynamics.
In that record, the Sheriff discusses being “burned,” being blocked, being excluded from events, and being “done covering for everyone.” He frames the situation as escalating, references criminal exposure, and speaks in a manner that is not neutral or detached. This is not analysis. This is documentation from the Sheriff’s own message history.
Source: Messages excerpted from the “Messages – Jack Hall” PDF record. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
Ohio conflict analysis does not require proof of bad faith. It requires avoidance of circumstances where impartiality may reasonably be questioned. This record demonstrates proximity to the dispute, not distance from it. Once that condition exists, Hall’s authority to intervene in or suppress a court directed investigation collapses.
Conflict removes authority. It does not redirect it.
See the Texts here:
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:va6c2:2b129d87-d220-40b7-aea0-ff90c1d0b06b
Calling Out Tony Cillo and Leah Prugh: A Prosecutor Cannot Be Both Adversary and Gatekeeper
This matter does not exist in isolation. At the time of Cillo’s statement, I was already engaged in ongoing disputes with the Lorain County Prosecutor’s Office itself, including Assistant Prosecutor Leah Prugh. Those disputes concern records, process, and the conduct of the office.
A prosecutor’s office cannot simultaneously act as an adversary to a complainant and as the gatekeeper deciding whether that complainant’s allegations will be investigated, presented, or suppressed. Once an office becomes a stakeholder, neutrality is no longer presumed. The office may not lawfully use its discretion to insulate itself, its allies, or its preferred outcomes from judicial visibility.
This is not about tone. It is about institutional alignment. When a prosecutor is in an active adversarial posture with the complainant, discretion must give way to recusal or referral. At minimum, conflict must be disclosed to the court whose authority triggered the investigation.
Layered Conflicts Create Structural Failure
This matter does not involve a single conflict. It involves multiple, compounding conflicts.
The Sheriff’s Office is entangled through political and personal involvement documented in the message record. The Prosecutor’s Office is entangled through ongoing adversarial disputes with the complainant and professional alignment within the same local justice ecosystem. Both offices sit inside the same power structure that a judge allegedly sought to have independently examined.
When multiple conflicted actors converge to halt a court directed process, the problem is no longer hypothetical. It becomes structural.
Discretion Versus Suppression
Prosecutorial discretion allows evaluation of evidence and charging decisions in matters properly before an office. It does not authorize preemptive suppression of information from a court that has ordered inquiry.
A declination memo issued after independent review is not the same as a “do not present” directive that blocks judicial visibility. The latter is not discretion. It is interference with the court’s ability to see what it ordered examined.
The Only Lawful Outcomes If a Judge Ordered Investigation
If a judge ordered an investigation, only three lawful outcomes exist.
The investigation occurred and the findings were reported to the court. Or the involved offices formally recused and notified the court they could not proceed. Or the court withdrew or modified its directive.
Quiet suppression by conflicted officials is not a lawful option.
Why Explanations After the Fact Do Not Cure the Defect
Conflicts must be addressed before authority is exercised, not after an outcome becomes inconvenient. Undisclosed conflict followed by suppression cannot be cured retroactively through explanation.
Courts cannot review what they are never allowed to see.
Final Closing: Disqualification Is Not Optional Here
At this point, the conclusion is unavoidable.
Neither Tony Cillo nor Jack Hall can lawfully be involved in any matter concerning me, my complaints, or any investigation touching Chief James McCann or the surrounding conduct. That is not a demand. It is the legal consequence of the record they themselves created.
Cillo cannot act as a neutral gatekeeper over my cases while his office is in active, documented dispute with me and while his authority is being exercised to suppress a court-directed process through an informal “do not present” instruction. A prosecutor does not get to decide whether a judge’s order deserves compliance, and a conflicted prosecutor does not get to decide anything at all in that posture. Once conflict attaches, authority ends.
Hall’s disqualification is even clearer. The text message record already produced establishes personal involvement, political entanglement, emotional reaction, and statements that no reasonable observer could reconcile with impartial oversight. Those messages alone are sufficient to destroy any claim of independence. They show proximity to the controversy, not separation from it. They show alignment, not neutrality. They show entanglement, not restraint.
And that is only the portion of the record already disclosed.
I have additional messages. They are substantially worse. They further document pressure, positioning, and conduct wholly incompatible with lawful investigative authority. I have not published them yet because restraint is part of responsible journalism. But restraint should not be mistaken for absence of evidence.
The law does not require me to publish everything to establish disqualification. It requires far less. It requires only that impartiality be reasonably questioned. That threshold has been exceeded.
This is not about embarrassment. It is not about retaliation. It is not about politics. It is about the rule that no one may be judge, prosecutor, investigator, and interested party at the same time.
If either man remains involved in my cases, then the process is no longer credible, the outcome is no longer legitimate, and any decision reached is structurally defective before it ever reaches the merits.
Conflict does not get cured by confidence.
It does not get cured by explanation.
And it does not get cured by silence.
It gets cured by removal.
Anything less is not discretion.
It is disqualification ignored.
Legal Disclaimer: This article is based on public records, documentary evidence, and firsthand communications. It is published for informational and journalistic purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. All allegations remain allegations unless and until adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction. Any referenced individuals are presumed innocent of criminal wrongdoing unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.
AI Image Disclosure: Any illustrative or promotional images used with this article may be digitally created or enhanced for commentary and editorial presentation and are not offered as literal depictions of real events unless expressly stated.
Copyright Notice: © Aaron Christopher Knapp. Lorain Politics Unplugged. All rights reserved.
About The Author
