[Home] [Contact
Us
]
[Links]
|
Criminal Misdemeanor Complaints v. Moyer, et al. The following is a copy of a complaint regarding various criminal misdemeanors committed by Chief Justice Thomas Moyer and other justices of the Ohio Supreme Court, which was submitted to Columbus, Ohio City Prosecutor Richard Pfeiffer.
Richard C Pfeiffer, Jr Columbus City Attorney 90 W. Broad St. Columbus, Ohio 43215 614-645-7385 October 18, 2005 Dear Mr. Pfeifer: The following relates to violations of R.C. 102.03(D) by Chief Justice Moyer and Justices serving in 1993, 2003 and 2004. As the "Chief," Moyer is the most culpable because without his acquiescence, approval and urging these serial violations of criminal ethics laws could never have taken place. Summary of Criminal Conduct The following relates to violations of R.C. 102.03(D) by Chief Justice Moyer and Justices serving in 1993, 2003 and 2004. As the "Chief," Moyer is the most culpable because without his acquiescence, approval and urging these serial violations of criminal ethics laws could never have taken place.
The annual income/compensation realized from this unlawful conduct ranged between $5,000 to $11,000 (Moyer) a year, which is in addition to the legislatively set annual compensation paid to the Justices named above. O.R.C. Prohibits Moyer and Justices' Participation in Passing Resolution Increasing their Compensation Ohio Revised Code 102.03(D) states, "No public official or employee shall use or authorize the use of the authority or influence of office or employment to secure anything of value that is of such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence upon the public official or employee with respect that that person's duties." Ohio Ethics Commission Opinion No. 91-008 in interpreting RC 102.03(D) states in relevant part, "...R.C. 102.03(D) prohibits a public official from participating in any matter if the matter would provide such a definite and particular benefit for the official that his private interest could impair his independence of judgment or unbiased discretion in making his official decisions. It is apparent that an increase in the mayor's (Moyer's) salary would provide a definite benefit to the mayor's (Moyer's) personal financial interests, and that this financial benefit could impair the mayor's (Moyer's) objectivity and independence of judgment in determining, as a city official, whether the increase would be in the best interests of the city (State). See Advisory Opinion No. 91-007. Therefore, R.C. 102.03(D) would prohibit the mayor (Moyer) from participating to approve the enactment of an ordinance (resolution) granting him an increase in compensation." (Moyer, et al's.) Therefore, it is the opinion of the Ohio Ethics Commission, and you are so advised, that (1) Division (D) of Section 102.03 of the Revised Code prohibits a city mayor (Justice) from approving the enactment of an ordinance (resolution) which grants him an increase in compensation. Ohio Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion No. 92-016 states, "The Ethics Commission has stated that a public official is prohibited, by R.C. 102.03, from participating in any matter Ohio Const. 2.20 - Term of office and compensation of officers Ohio. Const. 2.20 states, "The general assembly, in cases not provided for in this constitution, shall fix the term of office and the compensation of all officers; but no change therein shall affect the salary of any officer during his existing term, unless the office be abolished." This language proves that the "legislature" sets compensation (salaries) for the justices and further states that "no change shall affect the salary (compensation) during the term of office. Patently, Moyer is not empowered by the Constitution to "effect a change" in the compensation (salary) he is paid. This power is constitutionally delegated to the general assembly (aka, "the people"). Ohio Const. §4.06 Election of judges; compensation states, "The judges of the Supreme Court..., shall, at stated times, receive, for their services compensation as may be provided by law, which shall not be diminished during their term of office." No mention that Moyer, et al. had the constitutional authority to increase their compensation by passing their so-called resolutions. Salary and Compensation Defined
The income earned by Moyer, et al. for use of state cars and fuel related to personal use had nothing to do with performance of official duties. Therefore, said income is clearly defined as compensation and/or salary, both of which are synonymous. Therefore, it is undisputed that in passing multiple resolutions that provided for increased compensation not only violated RC 102.03(D) it also constitutes a blatant and egregious "conflict of interest." Further Background and Facts Not only did Moyer, et al. engage in the criminal conduct set forth above, they also set out to violate IRS Rules on reporting the income they illegally earned. They also engaged in a "naked" violation of Sec. 6, Art. IV of the Ohio Constitution which states: "Judges shall receive no fees or perquisites..." And worst of all, they knowingly and intentionally underreported the income they earned from the personal use of said cars and in the process perpetrated serial frauds on the IRS, State of Ohio and Franklin, Lucas, Cuyahoga and Stark Counties. The irrefutable evidence of these tax frauds and Constitutional violations have been addressed in a letter dated September 2, 2005 to State Auditor Betty Montgomery, a copy of which can be found on my website at www.noethics.net under Ohio Reporter and titled: Conclusion Recently you prosecuted Gov. Taft for 4 criminal misdemeanors for violating Ohio's Ethics Laws. You've also prosecuted Taft's chief of staff Brian Hicks. It would be difficult to imagine a more egregious violation of criminal law than that engaged in by Moyer, et al. from 1993 to 2004. These are the people who claim to be the "last resort" in pursuit of justice. The sad truth is that, the only thing Moyer, et al., and in particular Moyer was and is interested in, is in lining their pockets with taxpayers funds regardless of criminal laws prohibiting said conduct. If the Chief Justice of Ohio's Court system is willing to "thumb his nose" at Ohio law to unjustly and illegally enrich himself and is not made to stand before the Bar to answer for said conduct, then how can your office in good conscience prosecute lesser beings in the future? Sincerely, David Palmer - The Watchdog
|
|
[Home] [Contact
Us |