Below you will find Justice Terrence O

Below you will find Justice Terrence O’Donnell’s motion to dismiss my elections complaint followed by his asinine, whining and false affidavit in support. Portions with a “blue font” are meant to expose the frivolity and/or untruthfulness of the statements made by O’Donnell and/or his attorney.

BEFORE THE OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION

Now comes respondent, Terrence O’Donnell, by and through counsel, and respectfully moves this Commission to dismiss the Complaint and for costs and attorney fees pursuant to Ohio Administrative Code Annotated 3517-1-13. The legal arguments supporting this motion are more fully set forth in the Memorandum in Support and the attached affidavit of Justice O’Donnell.

Ohio Administrative Code §3517-1-13(A) provides, in pertinent part, that in any action before the commission, if the allegations of the person who filed the complaint are not proved, the commission may find that the complaint is frivolous and may order the complainant to pay costs. Included among those costs is the payment of attorney fees by the complainant to parties required to defend against such frivolous actions.

As more fully set forth in the attached affidavit submitted by Justice O’Donnell, Mr. Palmer brings this action following the defense of a purported criminal matter filed by Mr. Palmer in Franklin County Municipal Court. The purported criminal action initiated by Mr. Palmer related to the use of Justice O’Donnell’s state vehicle. That matter was not brought or initiated by a prosecuting attorney and was summarily dismissed at the request of the Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney for lack of evidence (probable cause found by the Clerk of Court that O’Donnell had indeed committed the crimes alleged).

Moreover, Mr. Palmer was fully aware of the written Ohio Supreme Court policy regarding the use of state vehicles for personal and authorized purposes the basis which was the subject of the dismissed criminal allegation. Despite Mr. Palmer’s knowledge of the lawful use of these vehicles (not lawful to use state vehicles for partisan political campaigning) by Justices of the Ohio Supreme Court, he continues to challenge these uses (every citizen has a right and “duty” to challenge unlawful use of state property by public officials) thereby requiring the expenditure of time, effort, expense, and legal representation to refute his baseless charges (again, Clerk found probable cause O’Donnell guilty of criminal conduct).

The continued response to these senseless charges (must be claiming Clerk of Court is a buffoon), which in fact arise in complete accordance with an established court policy (court possesses no legal authority to institute policy allowing use of state property for political campaigning), are the very basis for which the legitimate, verifiable, ordinary, and necessary legal expenses are incurred. The fact that Mr. Palmer had knowledge of the Court’s policy (knowledge doesn’t make policy legal), yet chose to bring this frivolous action justifies the dismissal of this action and the recovery of costs and attorney fees in the defense of this action.

As such, Respondent respectfully moves this Commission to dismiss the above-captioned matter and award costs and attorney fees.

Mr. Terrence O’Donnell’s Affidavit

Thank you for your letter under date of March 9, 2005 advising that the Ohio Elections Commission has received a complaint alleging a violation of election law pursuant to RC 3517.13(O), Using Campaign Funds for Personal Use.

Pursuant to your request, I am submitting this response with respect to these allegations.

Specifically, the complainant, a pro se litigant, alleges the illegal expenditure of campaign funds for payment of legal fees to defend against what he perceived to be criminal charges which he admittedly filed with the Franklin County Municipal Clerk of Court (found probable cause crimes were committed by O’Donnell). But these were not criminal charges filed by a prosecuting attorney (Ohio law allows for Clerk to find probable cause crimes were committed) or a recognized government agency charged with enforcing the law (Clerk charged under Revised Code with power to find probable cause crimes were committed). Rather, the only party alleging any criminal activity was the pro se litigant, David Palmer (false-Clerk also alleged criminal activity by finding probable cause). Significantly, when reviewed by the prosecuting attorney for the City of Columbus, the entire matter was summarily terminated.

Importantly for purposes of the Ohio Elections Commission, the prosecuting attorney recognized that rather than constituting a criminal offense, the matters arose from the performance of official duties of a public office in appearing at the Mansfield Speedway to serve as Grand Marshall of a race (hyperbole in the nth degree).

In actuality, Palmer is aware of a written policy of the Ohio Supreme Court which authorizes members of the court to utilize state vehicles for personal use provided such use is accounted for on their individual income tax returns. That policy has determined the provision of court vehicle to be both reasonable and necessary for those who serve in the position on the court (determined by who?) And, see attached affidavit of Robert C. Johnson attesting to the fact that the undersigned properly accounted for personal use of the state vehicle on appropriate tax returns (reported political use at Marion Speedway on tax return? What tax return?)

Moreover, Palmer is fully aware of this policy and knows that members of the court are acting within the authorized policy in driving vehicles to events (partisan political events while trolling for votes?) and as evidence of his knowledge, see a copy of a complaint for Declaratory Judgment which Palmer has filed in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court seeking to obtain a declaration that the court policy on vehicle use is unconstitutional (violates law because it’s a perk!).

Despite his knowledge of the lawfulness of the use of these vehicles (false – no knowledge that personal use for partisan political purposes is lawful), Palmer continues to contest the judicial use of these vehicles (duty and right to so act) – which requires the expenditure of time, effort, expense and legal talent (what legal talent?) to respond and defend against such claims. In fact, in addition to presenting the matter to the Franklin County Municipal Court, Palmer also presented a grievance relating to these same matters with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. That matter was also dismissed as insufficient cause to warrant further investigation.

The reality of the situation is that as a result of engaging in conduct which completely complies with established court policy (violates the law), members of the court regularly are required to respond to complaints, grievances, charges, etc., submitted by David Palmer (if they didn’t engage in serial violations of the law and Code of Judicial Conduct, such action wouldn’t be necessary).

As Palmer is not an attorney (proudly so), he does not comprehend the nuances of reported case authority nor does he seem to comprehend the factual differences between the reported authority of the cases he presents. (nuances means the law doesn’t apply to Terrence, et al.?)

Here, the precedent he references in his complaint, Advisory Opinion 87-9 is wholly distinguishable from the facts in this case; and Advisory Opinion 96ELC-08 is wholly inapplicable to this situation.

What David Palmer ignores is an established court policy which has been in effect since Feb. 25, 2003, which permits as part of the discharge of official duties, the personal use of a state vehicle. Accordingly, while Palmer files bogus charges (Clerk found probable cause of crimes), he perceives himself as a prosecutor; he is not (concerned citizen exposing corruption). The duly authorized prosecutor dismissed Palmer’s allegations upon review. Palmer now asserts that the employment of counsel related to the bogus charges he filed constitutes a violation of law. However, the expenditure of these funds came in defense of the lawful discharge of the duties of public officials (waving checkered flag at race is an official judicial duty?) in conformity with a recognized court policy. As Lara Baker, the chief counsel of the Columbus City Prosecutor’s Office stated, “The grand marshal trip is permitted because such public-relations events are part of the duties of public officials.” (Emphasis added) Baker also said of the Columbus trip, “the side trip to the party (political party) was permissible.” (false because Baker was never quoted by the Columbus Dispatch).

Hence, the alleged charges filed by Palmer do not relate to criminal misdoing (that’s not what the Clerk said). Rather, in accordance with established court policy the conduct questioned by Palmer is in keeping with the legitimate, verifiable, ordinary and necessary discharge of the duties of a public official as articulated by Ms. Baker.

The relevant precedent that is respectfully submitted is Advisory Opinion 96ELC-06 where this Commission endorsed the use of campaign funds for legal fees for a member of the General Assembly in proceedings before the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee. Further, Advisory Opinion 87-9 stated that campaign funds could be spent for legitimate, verifiable, ordinary and necessary expenditures “related, according to accepted standards, to a duty of the public office.” That is exactly how Ms. Baker characterized the activity which Palmer alleges is criminal. The difference between Advisory Opinions 87-9 and 96ELC-08 and the instant case is that in those matters, legal fees had been expended resulting from criminal convictions where a prosecuting attorney properly initiated charges. That did not happen in this instance (no – it was the Clerk that found probable cause crimes were committed). Here, Palmer himself tried to initiate charges which the prosecutor terminated. These legal expenses are legitimate, verifiable, ordinary and necessary expenditures arising from conduct in conformity with established court policy.

Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the Elections Commission dismiss the within complaint and assess costs and attorney fees against David Palmer.

RETURN TO VIEW THE WATCHDOG’S RESPONSE AND DEMAND THAT O’DONNEL PRODUCE HIS TAX RETURNS FOR 2003 TO SUPPORT HIS SHAM CLAIM THAT HE PROPERLY REPORTED INCOME FOR PERSONAL USE OF A STATE CAR/FUEL ON HIS TAX RETURNS IN 2003.