| ► 03/04/10 Ethics complaint filed v. Chief Justice Thomas Moyer |
 |
 |
|
03/04/10 Ethics complaint filed v. Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer
Below is a verbatim copy of an ethics complaint filed this date v. Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer for serial violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct in regards to soliciting and/or accepting campaign contributions from Supreme Court employees.
Dave Palmer
The Watchdawg
URL: www.noethics.net
Folsom, California
March 5, 2010
Jonathon Coughlan
Chief Disciplinary Counsel – Ohio Supreme Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Re: Misconduct of Chief Justice Thomas Moyer
Canon 7 – (2) (a) (i) and (ii) – Campaign Solicitations, etc.
Canon 1 – Judge should uphold integrity of judiciary and avoid impropriety
Canon 1.2 – Judge should promote confidence in the judiciary
Rule 8.4 – Code of Professional Responsibility (c) (d) conduct involving
dishonesty, deceit/misrepresentation or prejudice to administration of justice
Dear Mr. Coughlan:
In early 2005, I filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission (Case No. 2005G-006) regarding the acceptance by Moyer of campaign contributions from retired visiting judges. Moyer was represented by attorney Donald Brey of Chester, Willcox & Saxbe.
Moyer’s primary defense was that “Contributions from Retired Judges were proper because they were not ‘state employees.’” He also asserted that he was unaware of the contributions. Of course this assertion doesn’t pass the involuntary laugh test!
At the time he put forth his “visiting judges are not state employee” defense, Moyer well knew that they were in fact “court employees.” During the 2005 Judges’ Retirement Forum, chaired by retired 5th District Court of Appeals Judge John R. Milligan, which was sponsored by the OJC (Ohio Judicial Conference), Judge Milligan presided over a forum titled: “Assigned Judges – Avoiding Social Security Taxes,” which stated:
In the early 1990s, the OJC (Ohio Judicial Conference) negotiated with OPERS, the Supreme Court (Moyer was Chief Justice at the time), and the Social Security Administration, a process for treating retired, assigned judges as employees of the court, rather than self-employed contractors. Not only did this change eliminate the requirement that retirement income be subject to social security tax, it garnered for the judges so serving liability insurance and an additional benefit from the state contribution to what is now a reemployment annuity in OPERS.”
As an Officer of the Court, Chief Justice Moyer had a sworn duty to inform the Elections Commission that retired assigned judges were in fact “court employees.” The same is true of his duty to so act in responding to an ethics complaint filed with Disciplinary Counsel. In failing to so act, Chief Justice Moyer engaged in dishonesty and deceit and his conduct was clearly prejudicial to the fair administration of justice.
What I find most disturbing about Chief Justice Moyer’s conduct is that he had the chutzpah to demand that the Ohio Elections Commission monetarily sanction me for several thousand dollars based on his specious assertion that my complaint was frivolous, something the Commission found wanting.
Canon 7 prohibits candidates from receiving “a contribution from any employee of the court who does business with the court in the form of a contractual or other arrangement in which the person, in the current year or any of the previous six calendar years, received as payment for goods or services aggregate funds or fees regardless of the source in excess of two hundred fifty dollars.”
The Text Boxes below deal with the following prohibited contributions:
Text Box 1 Moyer Retired Judge Contributions - 1998-2004
Text Box 2 Moyer Retired Judge Contributions - 1992-1993
Appellate Judges paid as Court Employees while sitting on Supreme Court
Ohio Revised Code 141.11 requires the Supreme Court to pay all sitting Appellate Judges $50 per diem per day for every day “sitting or performing any duty” incident to an assignment by the Chief Justice. Patently, these appellate judges were paid in excess of $250 as Court Employees for the six-years prior to making said prohibited campaign contributions to Chief Justice Thomas Moyer.
Pursuant to RC 141.11, Moyer’s acceptance of contributions from the following appellate judges who were paid with Supreme Court funds was clearly prohibited. There can be no dispute that these Appellate Judges were in fact Court Employees.
Text Box 3 Moyer Contributions from Appellate Judges
Text Box 4 Supreme Court Employee Contributions to Moyer
It is undisputed that attorney Mike Close was employed by the Supreme Court to represent it in regards to complaints I filed as to abuses involving state cars provided to justices and double-billing, etc. by retired visiting judges. While Mr. Close represented the Court he was a partner with Wiles, Boyle, Burkholder, meaning the firm/partners shared in the fees paid by the Court for Mr. Close’s work. Therefore, any contributions from the firm/partners/associates are in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Conclusion
With all due respect Mr. Coughlan, I must admit that I take great offense at being consistently pilloried by public officials in Ohio, Texas, California and elsewhere who find it convenient to thumb their collective noses at being exposed for engaging in unethical conduct.
Obviously I can appreciate the angst that these folks experience in having their dirty laundry exposed. However, I am nothing more than a freelance investigative reporter who has dedicated thousands upon thousands of uncompensated hours and incurred untold expenses in an attempt to alert the public to such misconduct. Put simply Mr. Coughlan, I’m nothing more then “the messenger.”
Please provide me with a copy of Chief Justice Thomas Moyer’s reply and the names of the Appeal Judges assigned to the panel to hear this complaint.
Sincerely,
_____________________
Dave Palmer
The Watchdawg
cc: Chief Justice Thomas Moyer
|