“Dr.” Boehm Disclosed Shelby County Grand Jury Information In Complaint to ARDC –

Shelby Co. (ECWd) –

“Dr.” Chris Boehm of Findlay filed an ARDC complaint against the Shelby County State’s Attorney in what appears to be yet another set of incoherent ramblings filled with false and misleading information, including Grand Jury questioning. We have confirmed this complaint was closed a whopping 7 days after the State’s Attorney was notified of it.

We are covering key claims from the complaint because Boehm references our organization even though we have nothing to do with this.

“Dr.” Boehm believes the State’s Attorney violated Rule 4.3 “Dealing With Unrepresented Person” and claims he actually violated Rule 3.8 “Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor,”

Boehm points to an election petition objection and Grand Jury proceedings and makes some amazing claims that can’t be ignored.

Swearing in Witnesses

“I later learned from the Shelby County Clerk, who has participated in a number of these hearings, that this was not conventional or common to that proceeding.”

Knowing that statement to be false, I contacted the County Clerk to see if she did in fact tell Boehm what he alleged in the complaint.

“So, while I doubt my verbatim statement was as you quoted me since I am not that eloquent of a speaker, I imagine my statement was more along the lines of “I have never seen oaths given before”, would be a truer statement.”  (Full response at this link)

As can be seen at this link, the statement to the ARDC is not accurate and the video proves oaths were given in a previous hearing in Shelby County.  The Clerk was present for the administration of the oath so we are not sure how she has never seen oaths given before.

“the possibility of perjury was on the table.”

Only if you lie!

“The questions which caused me to assert the 5th were about how the copies of my petition were made, which had nothing to do with the basis of my objective.”

According to the actual video of the hearing, the question asked that resulted in his refusal to answer and pleading the 5th was about what time he submitted his paperwork in the clerk’s office, not about how copies of his petitions were made.

“At no point did Mr. Hanlon advise me of my right to counsel or right to remain silent before he started asking questions that were designed to make me incriminate myself. “

Mr. Hanlon was not on the Electoral Board as an attorney or Prosecutor.  He is an official board member assigned statutorily to that board and is not obligated to tell anyone of their right to counsel nor right to remain silent, but let’s talk about that.

Does “Dr.” Boehm expect us to believe he is not aware of his right to have counsel in that hearing?  Did he not read the rules adopted and provided to the people in that hearing?  Those rules clearly outline the objector may have an attorney.  As far as his right to remain silent goes, this was an objection hearing, not a criminal investigation but all that aside, does “Dr.” Boehm need to be educated that he has a right to remain silent?

Boehm alleges those questions were designed to make him incriminate himself. We must ask, how does one incriminate himself if he did not commit a crime? Is it possible the point of the questioning was the fact he did not have enough copies of his petitions and the time it took for Boehm to get them made somewhere in the courthouse resulted in his objection being filed too late, which would invalidate the objection as not being filed timely?

“The statements he extracted from that petition hearing are now pertinent to a grand jury investigation of the supervisor of assessments in Shelby County, Deborah Dunaway.”

Would that be the statement where Boehm admitted to only having 1 copy of the necessary documents when he walked into the courthouse yet magically more copies got made and turned in to the clerk?  Is the State’s Attorney, or anyone else that might have complained about this matter supposed to ignore that someone in the courthouse was involved in potential election interference?  We raised those concerns in our article on this matter. Why would those statements be pertinent to the Supervisor of Assessments Deborah Dunaway?  Is she the one who made copies for Boehm?  We asked in a FOIA and were told no such copies were made on that office’s copier.  Were we lied to?

“without advising me of my rights were later used by him to have an order of “use immunity” entered for the purpose of forcing me to testify in front of the grand jury, potentially exposing me to a meritless perjury charge”

Once again, it appears “Dr.” Boehm has a difficult time grasping the words in the document. Under the “use immunity” provision he was provided it is clear he would not be exposed to any perjury charge, meritless or otherwise provided he gave honest testimony.

“3. The witness, CHRISTOPHER Boehm, shall be granted immunity from prosecution in a criminal case as to any information directly or indirectly derived from the production of evidence from the witness at the hearing on February 29, 2024.“

The only way I could see Boehm getting exposed in a perjury charge would be if he were to provide false testimony, which was spelled out in the 4th item on the use immunity document found at this link.

“He clearly has a personal grudge against me and my family, and I believe he tried to use the objection hearing to set a perjury trap for me, and then attempted the same thing with the grand jury hearing and the immunity order.”

How does one come to such a conclusion when he is provided immunity for his honest testimony?

We will cover the response provided to the ARDC in another article that resulted in “Dr.” Boehm’s complaint being closed out in a seven-day window.

We are also working on getting copies of the other ARDC complaints filed which have also resulted in no wrongdoing.  We find it most telling none of the unsuccessful complaints have been disclosed by the local propaganda page Boehm operates.

We put “Dr.” in quotes above as we have yet to confirm Boehm received his claimed Doctorate. While we have no reason to believe he does not have it, we also have no confirmation he does, so we don’t want to attribute a degree to someone we have been unable to confirm earned such a degree. This justification is based on the alleged “Dr.” we sued in the Central District of Florida.  That person did not have the degree she professed to have.