Did Ohio Supreme Court Judge screw himself?

[troubleinwinter]

Pulling out an interesting detail from another thread. Larger issues here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=168686&mesg_id=168686&page=

"(ADDENDUM FROM THE NEWS EDITOR: There's no word yet on why, if Justice Moyer thought Attorney Arneback's contest of election was contesting his own election as Chief Justice of Ohio, he didn't recuse himself from the case immediately. Justice Moyer's failure to do so suggests that he has just made ruling on a case which, according to his written opinion, directly implicates his own personal and pecuniary interests. The News Editor and The Advocate Legal Department will be curious to see whether Attorney Arneback moves to recuse Justice Moyer from all further proceedings in the case, and/or files formal complaint with Ohio's equivalent of New Hampshire's Judicial Conduct Committee. The News Editor and The Advocate Legal Department believe that Justice Moyer's written decision may, if news reports are accurate, constitute a prima facie case of a violation of the American Bar Association's Model Code of Ethics, as well as any state-based reproduction thereof)."

http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[troubleinwinter]

4. I would NEVER play chess with Arnibeck.

I doubt he walks into court with a legal suit purely to get slapped by a judge who managed to hang himself. Time will tell, eh?

[The Doctor.]

10. You are a true chess player....

Indeed I cannot imagine this was a foolish move by Arnebeck either.

He knew that the judge should have had no choice but to hold up the motion.

But rather than play into Arnebeck's hands, he sacked his own queen.

Brave but stupid - he's out of this game.

[Doctor O]

143. I would play chess with Arnebeck n/t

[understandinglife]

11. Arnebeck (n/t)

[pointsoflight]

74. Nope, what Moyer did is against the code of ethics.

It's a very clear principle that a judge should not take any case on which he's named a defendent.

[read the law first]

76. What's your authority for that?

Or is that your opinion?

If you've got authority, I'd like to go and read it. Thanks.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[txindy]

29. Keep repeating that

It becomes true if you say it often enough. :eyes:

This judge just fried himself, legally. And I don't need to say it again in order for it to be true.

Oh, and welcome to DU. Oops, Tombstoned already! Shocking.

[TexasChick]

57. ROFL!!! n/t

[Peace Patriot]

32. Nonsense! Arnebeck is brilliant!

Please get informed before you toss off opinions like this (about Cliff Arnebeck):

Discussion of this whole matter in another forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x168686

The actual ruling:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/

AP article:

http://nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Ohio-Vote.html

It's quite clear:
that this is merely an early process ruling (standard procedure); that the ruling was "without prejudice" meaning Arnebeck can easily re-file; that Arnebeck had good grounds for combining the Prez and Chief Justice electon fraud cases; that Ohio law does not prohibit it (was ambiguous); that the Chief Justice just threw out a case regarding his own election, on a technicality (that he just sort of invented); that the Chief Justice has a serious conflict of interest on either case; that Arnebeck--as any topnotch lawyer--had thought through all of the possible rulings and implications, and that he will be re-filing the case (if he hasn't done so already).

Score one for Arnebeck!

[Liberty Belle]

3. Call the ABA & urge them to disbar Moyer. 202-662-1000

American Bar Association
740 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-1019
202.662.1000

[rockedthevoteinMA]

5. Well according to the nashuaadvocate website...

The nashua advocate is:

"The Nashua Advocate is an on-line news outlet published in Nashua, New Hampshire. This web-site is run -- and all reports compiled by Staff of The Advocate are posted -- by the News Editor. The News Editor is an attorney and author residing in New Hampshire."

http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

but I don't know - I don't have any clue when it comes to the law

[seito]

6. I think maybe...

I am certainly not a lawyer, but I believe that Arnebeck has a "method to his madness". This idea seems to have caused a bit of a stir here. :bounce:

[txindy]

33. "A bit of a stir"

You mean, like "A bit of a Class 5 tornado" or "A bit of a tidal wave?"
LOL! You do understatements very well.

Yes, flying monkeys are swooping everywhere these days. What to do? What to do? :evilgrin:

[seito]

42. Thank you txindy

I do try.. and yet I have made it onto at least one IGNORE list lol!!!

[texpatriot2004]

56. Okay, txindy, it's official you have the coolest little images

are they "avatars" where do you get them all. I love the guy tipping his hat.

[goclark]

91. I want new little smilies!

I love the little bear.
How do you import them into your messages?

[txindy]

126. Just type the URL into your post

Preview your post first, though, to make sure it's working. Don't hotlink to smilie sites that discourage it. Have fun! :hi:

[txindy]

125. Nope, they're smilies

You can find an endless supply fairly easily. Just do a search on smilies and hotlinking. There are some smilie sites that only permit downloads, not hotlinking (showing the smilie from their site), though, so read what each site says. Here's one that should get you going: http://www.clicksmilies.com/

[anamandujano]

145. i've been scouring the board for something uplifting

this just might be it

not just the smilies, the liklihood that arnebeck didn't quite goof up the original filing--awesome good news

[troubleinwinter]

147. Yup, I think we have some eggs in a very good basket with 'Ironback'

[texpatriot2004]

151. This is me sending you a message of thanks txindy

[goclark]

152. Wow thanks

[troubleinwinter]

7. Moyers should NOT have ruled on this.

[zann725]

128. By taking on the Election Fraud case, and filing this Complaint...

Arnebeck was really 'killing two birds with one stone'...since he said that the last few years he's been working on a case against illegal corporate funding of Supreme Court Justices in Ohio. So by filing this "dual-pronged" Complaint, Arnebeck was able to snare both Moyers (who he no doubt was quite familiar with for several years now), and also was able to enter the Presidential Election Fraud claim. I'll bet that technically since Moyers is going to be recused (or disbarred), BOTH the Electoral Vote over which he presided, as well as Moyer's rejection of the Complaint will both be deemed void! Brilliant, Cliff...brilliant!
I'll bet Hannity would REALLY like to scream you down after this!

[troubleinwinter]

137. I did not know this:

"he said that the last few years he's been working on a case against illegal corporate funding of Supreme Court Justices in Ohio."

Moyers was absolutely insane to sign that ruling.

'Ironback' Arnebeck for Supreme Court Justice! I think he's smarter than Moyers.

[troubleinwinter]

153. .

[ClassWarrior]

8. Well if he didn't...

...he can. :evilgrin:

NGU.

[troubleinwinter]

9. I wonder if Arnebeck tricked him into doing so? (fucking himself)

[loudsue]

20. Good 'un, Class Warrior!!

He sure can!!

:kick::kick:

[bleever]

23. LOL! Now THAT'S Class!

:7

[seito]

45. ROFLMAO!!!

Class, you are too much.

[anamandujano]

146. lol--it's never too late

[texpatriot2004]

12. troubleinwinter you bring up a fantastic point. How brilliant of

Arnebeck et al. This certainly would be a good way to get around the partisan judicial roadblock. Not to mention quite a meaty story for the media if it turns out that yet another Rethug has problems in the ethics department and this one could be disbarred. My guess, if this is a chess game Arnebeck is ahead, he just picked up an easy pawn.

BTW thanks rockedthevote for the background of the Nashua news editor.

[troubleinwinter]

17. Yes! Judicial Misconduct???? Hmm....

[texpatriot2004]

13. Ooops, another dupe

[troubleinwinter]

14. Anybody know off the top of yer head....

Was Arnebeck challenging Moyers' win?

I know I could go read the petition again, but just wondered if anyone had an off-the-top-of-the head rememberance.

[texpatriot2004]

15. That's what it sounds like but that would be a really obvious

conflict of interest, no?

[KittyWampus]

19. According To The Editor Of Nashua Advocate, NO! Moyers Mistakenly

read it as including himself.

That's dumb move #1

Dumb move #2 is that he didn't recuse himself IF he really believed he was a party to the suit.

[Straight Shooter]

24. The question is, did he in fact read it or was it summarized by a clerk?

Anyway, no matter, Judge Moyers will be having several double martinis tonight, and waking up in the morning with a major Arnebeck hangover.

[seito]

46. No Doubt n/t

[zann725]

129. LOL!

n/t

[MrUnderhill]

31. Edited...with apologies.

I was a bit quick to jump on The Nashua Advocate. Assuming he had misread the case entirely. In fact, he had only been given a piece of the petition (the TRO request), and not the document contesting the election.

He's since taken down the article and I see no reason to leave up a post slamming him.

Apologies.

[read the law first]

80. I read the complaint. The Nashua Editor is wrong.

The Complaint does include a prayer for relief that includes reversing both elections.

Ohio law requires the Governor to appoint a judge to preside over the Ohio Supreme Court race and appoints the Chief Justice or someone appointed by the Chief Justice to preside over the Presidential race.

The lawyers tried something. It didn't work. It's dismissed without prejudice. You just refile it as two suits. None of this is a big deal except that the Chief Justice who we didn't was is going to preside over the presidential race (that's kind of a big deal but not a huge deal).

[nashuaadvocate]

90. I was partly wrong and partly right, I think.

RTLF,

See my posts to Georgia 10, Mr. Underhill, and Trouble in Winter, below.

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate
http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

[KittyWampus]

94. At Any Rate, It's A Pleasure To Make Your Acquaintance.

You have a gift for writing...

Here's my favorite headline from your front page...

"N.Y. Times, Washington Post, and Cincinnati Enquirer Almost Break Votergate Wide Open; Stopped Only By Their Own Incompetence"

:D

[read the law first]

148. I will do so. Thank you. n/t

[insane_cratic_gal]

95. Paranoia

Always gets them in the end.. Perhaps he was worried his own election would be been fraud as well.

Invest in Diebold lately Moyers?

[bones_7672]

27. Yes, on page 41 of the petition Arnebeck contends fraud in Moyers election

[Peace Patriot]

54. Yes.

See my reply to #2 above. Arnebeck filed against both the Prez and state Supreme Court Chief Justice (Moyers) elections. (Both elections are tainted with election fraud, and the Prez case is affected by the Moyers case, not only by the evidence, but also because Moyers, newly elected in this election, presided over the Bush Ohio Electors casting their ballots this Monday, Dec. 13--an action that Arnebeck had filed a motion to stop them from doing, either now or on Jan.6. Moyers shouldn't be ruling on either of these cases!)

I just re-read the ruling, and here is something more:

In the dismissal "without prejudice" today, Moyers was careful to say that he was ruling only on the Prez election part of the complaint. But, you see, this, too, is a "technicality." He uses a questionable technicality to sever the two cases (the Prez election case, and his own election case), and then says that he is only acting on the Prez case. That's really splitting hairs! He's trying to say that he has no conflict of interest in doing this--but he clearly does!

[georgia10]

104. Yes.

p. 42.

"The true result was that Ellen Connally won the election for Chief Justice by at least 149,326 votes."

The suit also asked the court to issue a certificate of election for Connally.

[nashuaadvocate]

16. Brief (and minor) note from The Nashua Advocate News Editor --

The story posted on The Nashua Advocate has been amended -- only as to form, however, not content. A new version appears on the website now, with a link to Moss v. Bush, courtesy of BuzzFlash.com.

An early draft of the story used the phrase "Legal Department." That phrase was stricken from the story, per a Staff determination. The content of the story remains absolutely unchanged.

The Advocate continues to recommend that this story be reported on, and investigated. If the facts are indeed as have been reported, then there does -- indeed -- seem to be something to report and investigate upon here.

The News Editor
http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

[troubleinwinter]

18. The Addendum note, as posted on OP REMAINS.

......he has just made ruling on a case which, according to his written opinion, directly implicates his own personal and pecuniary interests. The News Editor and The Advocate Legal Department will be curious to see whether Attorney Arneback moves to recuse Justice Moyer from all further proceedings in the case, and/or files formal complaint with Ohio's equivalent of New Hampshire's Judicial Conduct Committee. The News Editor and The Advocate Legal Department believe that Justice Moyer's written decision may, if news reports are accurate, constitute a prima facie case of a violation of the American Bar Association's Model Code of Ethics.....

[troubleinwinter]

21. I have now edited the original post to delete "Legal Dept."

Thanks, nashua.

[nashuaadvocate]

22. Many thanks, troubleinwinter. n/t

[MrUnderhill]

25. This doesn't look like it is correct.

The decision says the Governor appointed a different judge for the portion of the case relating to the Chief Justice.

{¶ 4} On December 14, 2004, Governor Bob Taft designated Justice
Maureen O’Connor to hear that part of the petition constituting a contest of the
November 2, 2004 election involving the office of Chief Justice.

The article seems to pretend the judge fell in to the trap laid for him except that the dismissal of the suit shows that the trap failed.

[troubleinwinter]

26. Now I am surely stumped.

A Governor apportions lawsuits to various Supreme Court Judges?

The Exectutive dictates to the Judicial?

Maybe nashuaadvocate can explain a bit for us?

[MrUnderhill]

Ohio law contemplates a challenge to the Chief Justice's election.

Election challenges are heard by the CJ (or his designee), unless the CJ himself is one of the contestees... in which case the Governor selects a different judge to hear the case.

[troubleinwinter]

43. OH! Ok....

You can ignore my later questions about this, EXCEPT, I am surprised that Moyers was the one to sign it, since Moyers is named in it.

Also, I don't think nashuaadvocate never represented himself as an attny.... just helping us sort things out, here.

Thanks!

[nashuaadvocate]

28. I don't think Mr. Underhill is correct.

I have never heard of a single lawsuit being "split up" to different Justices. Any Justice with a conflict simply recuses himself from the entire lawsuit. The taint of conflict cannot be removed by "splitting" a lawsuit and/or the Justices who hear it. And we have not heard any evidence that Arneback filed *two* separate lawsuits.

Moreover, it would be a separation of powers violation for a Governor to appoint a Justice to hear *any* case.

So this smells like (unintentional) misinformation.

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate
http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

[troubleinwinter]

30. Hahahaha! "unintentional"!!!

And it was SIGNED by Moyers. Smells worse than "misinformation" to me.

[MrUnderhill]

34. Are you really an attorney?

And you've never heard of a case being partitioned to separate judges?

What's your area of specialization? Maybe you just do real estate law?

No offense, bu you completely misread the case. Your website claims that the judge misread the petition as being a challenge against his own race. Did you read paragraphs 49,102,103 or the second paragraph of the "prayer for relief"???

Moyer is a named defendant, his election is specifically contested, and the prayer for relief wants his election undone.

[rodeodance]

36. CNN just said the the technicality boo=boo will allow for a refiling.

[MrUnderhill]

39. Not news. We said this from the moment the ruling came out.

That's what "without predjudice" MEANS.

It wasn't the JUDGE'S "boo=boo" that allows it to be refiled... it's the fact that the dismissal doesn't speak to the facts of the case. Just that they will need to refile as two challenges and the one against Moyer will be heard by some other judge.

I'm not sure they WILL refile the one against Moyer. I syspect he was named just as a clever attempt to get him off the case. So it didn't work? No harm done.

[troubleinwinter]

38. "Moyer is a named defendant"

HOW can he have signed the judgement??? HOW culd he NOT have recused himself?

I do not understand the governor having a hand in the handling of the case.

[MrUnderhill]

41. THAT's what was hoped.

I suspect as long as he isn't ruling on the merits of the case (and perhaps consulted the judge assigned to his portion) he's probably OK.

"Without predjudice" really means there's no harm to the case in the end.

[read the law first]

84. Mr. Underhill is correct again. n/t

[TexasChick]

103. read the law first, remember the other night when I said Arnebeck was a

registered Repuketard? Well, I was wrong. He used to be. Other DUers let me know that he's now a registered Democrat. I just wanted to let you know that. I knew you were kind of weary of that.

[read the law first]

134. Thanks for the clarification. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

68. Ohio law says...

...that, in the case of a challenge to a Chief Justice's election, the Governor appoints a judge to hear that case. This is to keep all of the judges and the Chief himself out of the matter of who should judge the Chief's election.

(It's kind of comparable to the Prez of the US nominating people for the Sup. Court, and the Senate confirming. That's a mixing of powers, but who ELSE is there to nominate and confirm justices? Political impact is balanced by staggered terms of office of all parties. Same thing in this OH law--it tries to keep power of the Chief judge balanced by the power of the Gov, in the matter of who is to determine if the Chief was properly elected. It's so the Chief can't handpick that judge.)

Given this law, it seems to me that Chief Justice Moyer should have recused himself from making this ruling, and gotten the Gov. to appoint the judge to rule on it.

In the ruling, Moyer SAYS he's only ruling on the Prez case but that's B.S. (hair-splitting). The case he's ruling on has HIS name on it, as one of the defendants. Although he dismisses the Prez part of the case on a technicality (meaning it can be re-filed separately), the ruling could have a substantive impact on his own case (being severed from a Prez case with a common set of fraud allegations).

This is one helluva chess game that is being play. And I think Moyers just lost--because both in public perception and in law, he had a blatant conflict of interest in making this ruling, and has one on the Prez case as well. I'm not sure of the legalities here (it seems to me the Gov. could and should object--at least).

How can he rule on a case that has his name on it, and say that he's NOT ruling on a case that has his name on it. His merely saying this doesn't make it true. (The case before him had his name on it--it wasn't some theoretical severed case.)

The case against HIS election was retained--doesn't have to be re-filed. So it's HIS case that he ruled on--severing the Prez case from it.

That sure looks to me like it broke Ohio law. (I'm not a lawyer, but I am an experienced paralegal for public interest cases, and studied Constitutional law in college.)

Arnebeck will have to decide what he wants to do about this. I feel the matter is in very good hands.

[troubleinwinter]

70. Fascinating... thanks!

"Arnebeck will have to decide what he wants to do about this"

What are the options?

[read the law first]

83. Watch it with the "real estate law" cracks.

A "dirt lawyer" just rose in your defense.

[jsamuel]

98. I am more likely to believe a "dirt lawyer" than someone who calls someone

else a "dirt lawyer"

[read the law first]

133. say what? huh?

dirt lawyers call themselves dirt lawyers. it's an inside joke. ????

[troubleinwinter]

35. I went and read the judgement from Moyers again,

and what Mr.Underhill posts IS in Moyers' writing. WHAT on earth (in Ohio) is gong on???!!

[MrUnderhill]

37. An apology...

I didn't welcome you to DU. :hi:

And now I feel embarased for slamming you too hard in the other thread... you were just some blogger that got it all wrong.

Now you're a DUer (who got it all wrong)... and deserving of better treatment.

Welcome!

[nashuaadvocate]

40. No worries --

I am a criminal attorney.

And our information came from BuzzFlash.com, which includes Arneback's sixteen-page filing. We have not seen any other legal filings. Could someone direct us to them?

TNE

[MrUnderhill]

47. Sure...

Take the motion link in the Buzzflash article and change the "2" in the pdf to a "1".

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/12/images/MossvBush1.pdf

It's a pure image pdf, so I can't copy the text of the petition, but the paragraphs I cited are on point. It's pretty cut and dried that they contested both elections in one filing. The "Meat" of the petition is almost entirely about the Bush/Kerry race, but they threw Moyer in there to try to get him off the case. Clever. But that doesn't guarantee it would work... just worth trying.

[nashuaadvocate]

49. Apologies and thanks to Mr. Underhill; thanks to Dr. O As well.

BuzzFlash.com had the Motion for TRO as its primary document, but not the official contest of election (at the time our story was published, at least). We had not seen the official contest itself -- and are surprised that the Motion for TRO is so dramatically different from the contest. What The Advocate wrote regarding the content of the Motion for TRO was correct -- it was not correct regarding the contest of election, apparently, so we will retract the story pending further review.

Thank you for the correction.

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate
http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

[MrUnderhill]

52. A class act

Now I really feel bad for jabbing at you. :pals:

You're obviously a step up from the normal "blogger". That's journalistic integrity. Have a good evening... and if I don't run in to you again - A great Christmas!

[nashuaadvocate]

58. Merry Christmas to you as well! -- and --

-- I should note that The Advocate now has the full text of the Petition as a link from our main page.

We invite anyone interested in the decision to check it out.

TNE

[nashuaadvocate]

51. Apologies and thanks to Mr. Underhill; thanks to Dr. O As well.

BuzzFlash.com had the Motion for TRO as its primary document, but not the official contest of election (at the time our story was published, at least). We had not seen the official contest itself -- and are surprised that the Motion for TRO is so dramatically different from the contest. What The Advocate wrote regarding the content of the Motion for TRO was correct -- it was not correct regarding the contest of election, apparently, so we will retract the story pending further review.

Thank you for the correction.

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate
http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

[texpatriot2004]

48. So, did Mr. Underhill leave to get the docs he is referencing?

Oh, and there he is.

[MrUnderhill]

50. :-)

I can only type so fast...

And the server is really acting up for me tonight. Anyone else having problems?

[texpatriot2004]

55. Yeah, I am having some bug thing, it's wacky tonight.

[troubleinwinter]

60. OK, you guys, ya hafta fill us in with what you think on this stuff.

And yep, DU is a problem today.

[nashuaadvocate]

65. Okay..

...here's what I think. Mr. Underhill is probably right (I believe he said this) that Arneback was hoping, by contesting two elections in one Petition, to get Moyer off the case. Apparently, unbeknownst to me and some others, judge-splitting is allowed in Ohio under these circumstances.

The problem is, if the Petition *was* split to avoid the conflict-of-interest problem, then why was the Petition dismissed for citing two elections at once? It seems to me (speaking only for myself, not The Advocate) that one can't have it both ways: either the Petition was "split" and therefore was presumptively valid on the "two contests at once" issue, or the Petition was *not* split, and therefore Moyer couldn't sit on the case at all. Also, why doesn't the AP story by Mr. Welsh-Huggins mention this other judge who sat on fully 50% of the Petition (the Connally-Moyer portion)? And am I right that the Petition wasn't even sent to Connally?

I admit to still being confused. True, I'm a criminal attorney, not an election law attorney, but ethical standards apply across the board and I'm befuddled to think how they were actually followed here.

TNE

[troubleinwinter]

66. Thanks, TNE, for the additional "thinking material"

You sure have a point here: (taking liberties with editing your post in order to illustrate my question)

"if the Petition *was* split..... why was the Petition dismissed for citing two elections at once?"

[troubleinwinter]

67. Also, I don't get why it was under Moyers' signature....

If it was split, would there be other signature(s), and wouldn't the two parts be given sepatarte judgements?

It makes NO SENSE to me that it says the governor split the case, then acts as if it was ONE case.

[nashuaadvocate]

72. As I read the opinion...

...Justice Moyer is saying that the statute *mandates* that he sit on a contest of a presidential election, and therefore he -- and only he -- has the authority to rule on a Petition contesting such an election, *even if* the Petition is defective. Of course, the very statute he cites proves him wrong -- he could designate another Justice to hear *just* the contest of the presidential election! So why not do that? Let Gov. Taft select the Justice for the Moyer-Connally contest, then select another Justice (presumably, to avoid any appearance of impropriety or conflict-of-interest, at random -- e.g., as a continuation of the usual rotation of for Ohio S.C. opinions). Instead, he effectively rules on a Petition which involves him, when the statute -- if it is clear on anything -- is clear on the fact that the intent of the Legislature was *not* to allow Moyer to sit on *any* case contesting his own election.

I don't know, I'd love to hear from Mr. Underhill on this one -- why *isn't* this a conflict-of-interest, albeit an ever-so-slightly less egregious one than had been initially supposed?

TNE

[nashuaadvocate]

73. Good post by PeacePatriot on this same topic, above. n/t

[read the law first]

85. It's "split" because the statute requires it.

Even people who are evil as repugs are can sometimes correctly cite propositions of law.

Mr. Underhill is correct that the statute requires bifurcation.

[nashuaadvocate]

87. Well...

...RTLF, I'm not suggesting that bifurcation is not called for by statute, in the typical instance of a contest of election being filed. Clearly, the Legislature intended that presidential contests be heard by the Chief Justice, and that the Governor have the power to appoint an Associate Justice to hear any contest of a race for Chief Justice.

That said, when a matter of first impression arises -- and ought I assume that this is? I don't know -- I can't imagine why, faced with the prospect of either violating the judicial code of ethics (re: conflict of interest) or simply reading what the statute *says* and appointing an Associate Justice to hear the presidential suit (as the statute says he can), Moyer would opt for the strictest interpretation of the statute (not grounded in the language, actually, which is permissive, not mandatory) and consider himself "forced" to violate the ethical standards of his profession.

Can you shed light on this?

TNE

[zann725]

132. Because he thought he could...due to Repug Monopoly of OSC

...causing him to think he was above the law. AND because obviously he was desparate. Arnebeck spent the last few years on a case of illegal corporate contributions to Ohio Supreme Court appointments. Therefore it would be a good guess to assume that MOST of the Ohio S.C. (Moyer included) are not only caught in the dilemna of judging the Presidential Election Fraud case, but are all caught in the web Fraud (due to the 'influence' which 'bought' them appointments' to ultimately try this case one day).

Oh the irony of it all! Checkmate, suckers!

[read the law first]

82. Mr. Underhill is correct.

If you've got authority for the proposition that "it would be a separation of powers violation for a Governor to appoint a Justice to hear *any* case" I would like to read it. Not saying you don't. Just saying that if you do, I'd like to read it for my own edification.

[keepthemhonest]

44. I hope he did screw himself

I hope he gets in serious trouble.

thanks for the good news, this day is turning out to be pretty great after all

[Shalom]

53. Cool Question: Did the Repig Chief Justice of Ohio FUCK HIMSELF ?

Oops, pardon my language:

Did the Repig Chief Justice of Ohio "Cheney" himself ?

[liam97]

59. Does anyone know

If indeed they have hacked the recount then should it not be suspended - is it not going to be more damaging to go through with it?

[troubleinwinter]

61. The discussion here is regarding a particular aspect of the suit.

Please, let this stay on this subject, as there are other places for other aspects.

:)

[texpatriot2004]

78. Did you read the peacepatriot post that the nashua lawyer

referred to on the issue of conflict of interest? It was quite good. Splitting hairs, a technicality on the part of Moyers. It makes sense that the two cases are tied together and since Moyers was recently "elected" and the alleged fraud effected that race too, then he did rule on a case which, according to peacepatriot's post, the legislature clearly forbids. Is that what you got?

[lizzieforkerry]

69. We don't think so...

just giving us more evidence with every hour that passes type of thing.

[Melissa G]

63. ROFLMAO!!!!!!

:yourock:

[Zan_of_Texas]

150. You may mean the other dictionary meaning of "to Cheney" --

as in, to go duck hunting with a Supreme Court justice who is about to hear a case that affects you.

In this usage, "to Cheney" means to "flaunt all laws and ignore commonly accepted standards of avoiding conflicts of interest, because you're too big for your britches."

[johnaries]

62. What a GREAT Thread! Ya know, I was just wondering

while I was "relieving myself" (after a coupla post-work rum &cokes), if maybe Arnebeck had "tacked on" the SC issue just to establish a conflict of interest in order to get the SC justice to recuse himself. Then, I come back to DU and find this thread. Every time I think of something, you guys are already a step ahead of me. I LOVE DU! :bounce: I wouldn't play chess with Arnebeck..., well, unless I wanted to learn a few tricks!
edit: spelling Arenbeck, i mena Anreback, I mean Ironback, WHATEVER!

[troubleinwinter]

64. 'Ironback'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BlueDog2u]

71. Nice thread, everyone

You guys are all models of civil discussion. As a non-lawyer, I feel privileged to listen in on the debate.

This is certain an interesting new development.

:yourock:

[johnaries]

102. Kinda appropriate, don't you think?

I think I'm going to start calling him Cliff Ironback in all my posts!

[pointsoflight]

75. Again, this was planned folks. Great strategy by Arnebeck.

He included Moyer in the lawsuit on purpose. Had Moyer recused himself, that would've been a good thing in getting a partisan republican off the case. Now that he hasn't recused himself, despite the fact that it's very clear his should have, Arnebeck has him by the balls.

[texpatriot2004]

79. I think that an extreme amount of thinking has gone into this

whole strategy by many, many people for months, if not years. I agree, it's part of the plan. It's like the chess game. Plus, the media card is not a wild one at this point.

[New Earth]

86. i kind of get what you're saying but i'm confused

how is this good? i don't get it. if you can't tell already, i need straightforward brief statements that quickly get to the point, i have a terrible attention span :(

[zann725]

130. That also means one less Repub vote among Ohio SC Judges

in any later Decision which comes down from them now! Always helps to remove your opponent's King as early as you can!

[georgia10]

77. Hello all

LONG time lurker, first time poster :)

First off, I just wanted to say how great it is to come to a forum where people are so energetic and productive. You guys are quite impressive!

Now, about whether Chief Justice Monyers screwed himself. In two words: hell yes.

It is a paramount principle in judicial ethics that one cannot sit in judgment on his own case. Here, Chief Justice Monyers was clearly a named Defendant.

ABA's model code of ethics, which has essentially been adopted wholeheartedly by the Ohio Supreme Court, requires that justices make sure to avoid not only impropriety, but also any appearance of impropriety. There is nothing more improper than a judge decided a case where he is a named party. Even if the person were to make a completely unbiased decision based firmly in a proper application of the law, the mere fact that the judge is presiding over his own case undermines any credibility and weight the decision may have.

THat being said, there is ample precendent in Ohio law of judges having to recuse themselves for far less -- being related to the Defendant, having the same attornery as a party. Judicial ethics make this case very clear: the Chief Justice should have recused himself IMMEDIATELY.

To be honest, I think that is what Arnebeck expected. But the fact that the Chief Justice threw him a curve ball only works in Arnebeck's interest. Not only does the Chief Justice come off looking like someone who equates the Code of Judical Ethics with toilet paper, but it also reinforces a pattern that's been happening all over Ohio--from the recounts, to the requests of information: a deliberate attempt to take any and all means necessary to stonewall this process. It would have been quite acceptable for the Chief Justice to recuse himself from the case right away. And he probably knew he should, but figured he'd flex his muscles a bit.

Looks like the lawsuit is to be refiled very soon. If I were Arnebeck, I would file a motion to remove the Chief Justice from the presidential case as well. Remember, a critical part of the Bush/Kerry case is the anomoly of Connelly getting more votes than Kerry. The Chief Justice would have to rule on the merits of the Connelly votes either way. So I think Arnebeck has solid ground to remove him from the presidential election case as well. One less Republican on the case. Sounds good to me :)

[pointsoflight]

81. Welcome georgia. Been reading your great stuff on Kos! n/t

[texpatriot2004]

88. Oops, it was for troubleinwinter. My bad. n/t

[georgia10]

108. Thanks!

[nashuaadvocate]

89. Thank you!

I was beginning to think I'd gone crazy.

I may not be an Ohio attorney, but I'm familiar with ABA ethical standards and fail to see how this decision meets them.

Nor do I believe that Moyer was, as he appears to indicate in his decision, "forced" (my word) to sit on the case by Ohio statute.

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate
http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

[troubleinwinter]

96. Thanks for the look into this.

Yep, it seems to me that it actually places Arnebeck in the perfect position for Moyers' recusal from the whole thing.

I sure appreciate posts from so MANY of you to help us try to clearly understand this fascinating issue!!!

I think many of us have learned a lot during this whole mess about the election process and election law. That is good.

[nashuaadvocate]

100. Something just occurred to me...would love to hear thoughts on it...

...and it's something which seems so self-evident I'm certain I'll reveal myself to be an idiot for even suggesting it, but: even if the Petitions are severed, doesn't the presidential contest of election still use the Moyer-Connally race as demonstrative evidence of its claim, whether or not it mentions any formal contest of that race? And doesn't that mean that Moyer's near-gymnastic effort to remain on the case is a waste of time, because he'll simply have to recuse himself the second Arneback mentions his (Moyer's) name at the evidentiary hearing?

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate
http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

[georgia10]

107. Look at the last paragraph of my post #77

You're right.

The Connally/Moyers switcheroo plays a big part in the alleged fraud/irregularities alleged in the Kerry case.

[nashuaadvocate]

109. Oops -- sorry Georgia 10, I see it now. Good catch by you! n/t

[SueZhope]

110. Welcome georgia10

I brought over your excellent Kos link today ( Ohio Update)
So nice to see you here..:hi:

here you go if you missed it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=167777&mesg_id=167777

[georgia10]

118. thanks so much!

I feel special....

Guess I better watch all my typos next time if my work is making its way through the internets!

[SueZhope]

123. I am dyslexic so I would not notice LOL n/t

[Im with Rosey]

140. Please Georgia10...

Keep the sense of HUMOR you have displayed at KOS!

[pacalo]

127. You're every bit as impressive as the other great posts, georgia10...

I thank you & the other law-savvy DUers' input on this.

This thread tells me how clever John Kerry was in taking a backseat to the election fraud. If he had contested the election right off the bat, Bushitler would have gone directly to the Supreme Court as he did in 2000, & we know how that works. It seems like we have a much better chance at getting the corruption exposed with this cat & mouse contest on the state level.

And welcome to DU, georgia10! :hi:

[Turn CO Blue]

131. That's a nice "first post"!!! Jeepers! Welcome to DU n/t

[AtLiberty]

92. The ABA hardly scares the Bushies...

...One of the president's first actions was to kick them out of the US Supreme Court justice red light/green light process. Apparently, the Bushes still hold a grudge against the ABA after they gave Clarence thumbs down...

[texpatriot2004]

93. So can a judge issue a statement or ruling that says oops, I take

that back. What I meant to say was...

And another thing, can a political ego be snared by a lawsuit?
Snap, Gotcha. I mean, can a judge, a political person, some more so than others, be so on the defense, you know, wanting to look good and high and mighty that they make a quick judgment that is regrettable?

[aloneinva]

97. Why Aren't We In THe Streets?!?

They did it with effectivness in Ukrain when that election was stolen. Why not here? I'll go out tomorrow(will prolly get killed by bushnecks) but I'm willing to do it if we can get a movement going!

Lets not take this think lying down. We need to be vocal and fight!

[troubleinwinter]

99. There are other better threads for posting your subject, we are discussing

a particularity of a legal issue.

[texpatriot2004]

101. troubleinwinter did you see my question for you above?

[troubleinwinter]

105. Well, I'm doin my best to keep up,

but which one?

[texpatriot2004]

106. Reply # 61, here it is, I put it here

Did you read the peacepatriot post that the nashua lawyer
referred to on the issue of conflict of interest? It was quite good. Splitting hairs, a technicality on the part of Moyers. It makes sense that the two cases are tied together and since Moyers was recently "elected" and the alleged fraud effected that race too, then he did rule on a case which, according to peacepatriot's post, the legislature clearly forbids. Is that what you got?

[troubleinwinter]

111. Egads, I had overlooked that post!!

WHOA! Thank you so much for pointing it out.

Uh-oh. What is the course of action on this kinda crazy stuff? What a mess.

[texpatriot2004]

114. Yeah, I thought peacepatriot did a good job on this issue

just like the Nashua lawyer suggested. It seems to suggest that no matter what, Moyers was wrong to do anything but recuse himself. Is that what you understand from reading it?

[troubleinwinter]

120. I have no law background at all. But...

I can read and study what knowlwgeable people here explain, and weigh it all.

My conclusion is that Moyers fucked himself, and will be interested to see how it plays out.

I stand by my decision to NEVER play chess with Arnebeck!

[FogerRox]

144. Protest next to a local TV station

I live near NYC--and look whats going on----

http://www.51capitalmarch.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=New_Jersey

[georgia10]

112. RawStory headline

"Judge threw out suit questioning his own election"

Yep. That has a nice, impartial ring to it ;)

[troubleinwinter]

113. Hahaha! Way cool! Link? (I love Rawstory!)

[troubleinwinter]

115. I see, RAWSTORY will have it up soon at:

http://www.rawstory.com/

[georgia10]

116. story isn't up yet... 12 AM

http://www.rawstory.com

great headline though

[troubleinwinter]

117. My daughter's name is Georgia, and she's a LIBERAL!

[georgia10]

119. a liberal...eh?

as she should be :)

[troubleinwinter]

121. She was raised right! (I mean LEFT!)

[georgia10]

122. haha

clever!

And with that chuckle, I'm off to study. I look forward to catching up on all your posts tomorrow.

Goodnight all!

[troubleinwinter]

124. For you law types...

Do you expect there to be repercussions for Moyers having inappropriately ruled in this suit? Or is it "just one of those things"?

I guess someone would have to file a complaint? Would it be filed with the bar? What is the mechanism?

Filing against a State Supreme Court Justice would be awfully big, huh?

[read the law first]

135. Honestly? or for public consumption?

Honestly? Judges are usually their own judges as to whether there is a conflict (I know, I know). I honestly don't think anything will come of it. Especially a complaint to the ABA which is a voluntary membership and has no control over lawyers' practices.

Now, so that I don't get flamed: What a despicable outrage! I can not BELIEVE this! This outrageous lying sack of poop needs to be removed from the bench and placed in jail IMMEDIATELY! :toast:

[troubleinwinter]

136. I'll do it for ya: He's a sack of SHIT.

Added on edit: Oh, I guess that was a redundancy... he's a REPUBLICAN.

[read the law first]

139. Now that's what I was trying to say.

:toast:

[pilgrimsoul]

138. I think I understand why Moyers made such a bold move...

I did a little web search and learned that ethical complaints against Ohio attorneys get made to....<drumroll, please>

The Office of Disciplinary counsel, which is under the auspices of THE OHIO SUPREME COURT!

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/BOC/odc/#process

And as if that wasn't bad enough, any grievance filed with this agency gets run past a three-member committee who treats it as confidential UNLESS they determine the grievance has merit. Bet these 3 guys are Moyer's golfing buddies and their kids all go to private school together.

Folks, this is the good old boys' club at its most fundamental. Nothing is going to be done about this conflict of interest unless the general public raises hell with the media and forces it into the forefront. My suggestion is to flood every damn newspaper in Ohio with LTEs demanding that this be addressed. And get the Ohio Office of Disciplinary Counsel's phones ringing off the hook with angry calls about Moyer's conflict of interest.

If we can't win in the court of public opinion, these guys will continue to flout the law and do whatever they damn well please.

[newscott]

141. Like I said before

Modus Operandi of these guys.

[troubleinwinter]

142. Yowzie. Of course the fox guards the henhouse. You are right:

"flood every damn newspaper in Ohio with LTEs demanding that this be addressed. And get the Ohio Office of Disciplinary Counsel's phones ringing off the hook with angry calls about Moyer's conflict of interest."

It's the one hope we have, though slimmmm, to see justice against this good ol' boys' pal club.

[GetTheRightVote]

149. You tell me where to send them and I will, no problem