Reply #68: Ohio law says... [View All]

[Peace Patriot]

...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.