Originally Posted - November 4, 2006

return home

  This article deals with an ongoing scheme by elected officials in Ohio to silence those who have the courage to act as whistleblowers in exposing corruption involving public officials.

  The recent evidence of Ohio's pay-to-play schemes involving Tom Noe, et al. is somewhat synonymous with what is going on with Dr. Elsebeth Baumgartner and other whistleblowers.  In this instance, I'll call it "you play (expose us); you pay."  This writer has personally experienced this "play and pay" scheme here in the good ol' Buckeye State.

  As you'll see from the incontrovertible evidence below, if you blow the whistle on public corruption in Ohio, you're going to become a victim of those you've had the audacity to expose.  These corrupt officials are absolutely devoid of any ethics, morality and treat their oaths of office with total contempt.  In their world, whistleblowers are the real criminals!

State-sanctioned persecution and punishment of ex-attorney Elsebeth Baumgartner

  The primary players involved in this ongoing saga of official corruption in an attempt to permanently silence Dr.. Baumgartner are (a) Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, (b) Erie County Prosecutor Kevin Baxter, (c) retired judge Richard Markus, (d) retired judge Joseph Cirigliano, (f) retired judge Lawrence Grey, (g) Assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor Dan Kasaris, and a host of other enablers, lackeys and bit players too numerous to mention herein.

  This article is limited to examining the conduct of public officials who have cheerfully violated their oaths of office; manipulated the court system; knowingly violated a citizen's constitutional 1st Amendment rights, and did so for the sole purpose of punishing Ms. Baumgartner for exposing public corruption.

Brief history of ex-attorney Elsebeth Baumgartner's whistle-blowing activities

  Ms. Baumgartner discovered early on that public officials in and around the Sandusky, Ohio area were not living up to their oath of office.  Based on her findings, she attempted to remedy it by exposing those involved in various schemes to defraud the state and/or various government agencies.

  She also exposed corruption involving retired visiting judges, which included evidence that some of them were engaged in serial "thefts-in-office" by submitting false claims for hours never worked and/or for travel expenses they did not incur. 

  It cannot be disputed that numerous (i.e. 50 or more) retired visiting judges knowingly engaged in a wholesale raping of Ohio taxpayers over the past 10 or more years.  In fact, despite my "outing" of them several years ago, Chief Justice Moyer continues to employ them, thereby allowing further frauds to be perpetrated against Ohio's overburdened taxpayers.

No. 1▬Markus and Hypocrisy 101

  On March 3, 2001, while being interviewed by radio station WNYC of New York, Markus said, "We believe in our nation that you should have a right to express your views and express your views to the government!  And I, as part of that government, am quite willing to listen to other people's views." 

  Markus' conduct in filing sham criminal intimidation charges against Ms. Baumgartner because she had the audacity to "out" him as an allegedly dishonest and feeble-minded jurist proves beyond all doubt that his comments to WNYC were hyperbolic hogwash. 

  If he was being honest, Markus would have said, “We believe in our nation you do not have a right to express your views to the government.  And I, as part of that government, am quite unwilling to listen to other people's views, especially if those views expose my egregious misconduct”.

No. 2▬14-Count felony indictment of Ms. Baumgartner

  On or about June 20, 2005, Cuyahoga County assistant prosecutor Dan Kasaris (aka, "Mr. Wizard") obtained a 14-count felony indictment from a grand jury sitting in Cleveland, which included the following charges:

  10 counts of felony intimidation from June 2004 to March 2005.  Ohio's intimidation statute states, "No person, knowingly and by force, by unlawful threat of harm to any person or property, or by filing, recording, or otherwise using a materially false or fraudulent writing with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner, shall attempt to influence, intimidate, or hinder a public servants, party official, or witness in the discharge of the person's duty."

   3 counts of felony retaliation from June 2004 to November 2004.  Ohio's retaliation statute states, "No person, purposely and by forces or by unlawful threat of harm to any person or property, shall retaliate against a public servant, a party official, or an attorney or witness who was involved in a civil or criminal action or proceeding because the public servant, party official, attorney, or witness discharged the duties of the public servant, party official, attorney, or witness."

  1 count of felony possession of criminal tools

 from June 2004 to March 2005.  Ohio's criminal tools statute states, " No person shall possess or have under the person's control any substance, device, instrument, or article, with purpose to use it criminally."

No. 3▬Felony Intimidation

  Now, let's take a minute and review the alleged criminal conduct involving intimidation, retaliation and possession of criminal tools. 

  The Toledo Blade reported on July 16, 2005, that, Baumgartner was accused of using e-mail messages and legal filings to try and coerce favorable rulings from retired Judge Richard Markus.  Well isn't that special!  Filing legal papers to obtain a favorable ruling from a judge.  Isn't that what every lawyer in Ohio does on a daily basis when filing motions with a court?  Seems to me there's around 36,000 more criminal complaints that need to be filed.

  Why hasn't Gov. Bob Taft's lawyers filed intimidation charges against state Sen. Marc Dann, the Toledo Blade and/or their attorneys for trying to obtain favorable ruling from judges to force Taft to testify and/or turnover weekly memos he received from the Bureau of Workers' Compensation?  I guess in certain instances, a little friendly persuasion (coercion) is acceptable.

  The Blade further reported that prosecutor Kasaris said, "The e-mails were sent on the eve of a court hearing, or the lawsuits were filed on the eve of a court hearing.  The allegation is that those were used as a vehicle to get Judge Markus to do what they wanted him to do."  Isn't that deplorable?  Maybe Ms. Baumgartner should try persuading (coercing) Judge Markus to rule unfavorably on her motions.  Think that might work?  Well, at least it wouldn't be criminal, right!

  Kasaris said hat the lawsuits "not only threatened harm to his (Markus') reputation, but monetary harm to him."  Mr. Kasaris went on to tell the Sandusky Register (7/15) that, "A common tactic with paper terrorists is to file documents on the eve of a certain event in order to get the court to rule favorably for them."  Who is Kasaris trying to kid?  Is he really this stupid? 

  Ohio court files are chock full of documents filed by attorneys on the eve of a hearing and I can guarantee you that every one of them was aimed at obtaining a favorable court ruling.  Have you ever heard of a lawyer filing any document asking the court to rule unfavorably for them and/or their client?  Only a monumental buffoon would make such asinine statements!

  Now, let me see if I've got this right about intimidating a judge to obtain a favorable ruling because I certainly don't want to get arrested for so acting.  Do you?  I think that a little "reverse psychology" is in order here when seeking favorable rulings if you want to avoid going to jail.  In the following hypothetical court hearing, I'll play the attorney seeking a favorable ruling from Markus. 

PALMER:  As you know Judge, my client is now a paraplegic as a result of being run over by a UPS driver that was legally drunk. 

MARCUS: Mr. Palmer, I'm aware of it.  Just go ahead and tell me what damages you are seeking today.

PALMER: Your honor, my client has incurred nearly $1 million in medical expenses and it is estimated she will incur another $3 million over her lifetime.  Therefore, I am asking this court to order her to pay Nationwide Insurance $5 million to compensate it for the legal costs and embarrassment it has incurred in representing UPS and it's drunken employee.

MARKUS: Mr. Palmer, you're motion is denied and I take great offense to your overt attempt to coerce a favorable ruling from me.  Therefore,  I am hereby ordering that Nationwide and UPS pay your client $8 million.

No. 4▬Alleged Intimidating Statements

  I have reviewed some of Ms. Baumgartner's e-mails to Judge Markus ( I don't have them all) and various legal filings that make mention of him.  It would appear that some or all of the following statements have been construed as criminal conduct by Judge Markus (complaining witness) and Mr. Wizard (aka, "Dan Kasaris").

March 2004 Affidavit (Palm Beach County, Florida, states in part:

1. I have a doctorate in pharmacy and observed Markus exhibit many signs of cognitive decline/dementia.
2. I heard Markus discuss my case with Chief Justice Moyer.
3. Markus refused my request for a court reporter to record a pre-trial. (Judge Deb O’Neill suspended for same conduct)
4. Markus gave former attorney Ed Flask 90 days in jail for misusing his office to illegally obtain over $2 million, a sentence that was universally decried by law enforcement including the FBI as being soft on public corruption in mob-run Youngstown.
5. Well-respected criminal defense attorney William Sommers claimed Markus was mentally unfit due to his age to act as judge in the trial of Sheriff Demastry of Lancaster

08-05-04 @ 11:46 a.m. e-mail states:

  I certainly recognize that Mr. Mason is incapable of litigating and winning any case in a fair manner.  Obviously a man who is so cowardly that he seeks to arrest opposing counsel for reporting his crimes is the kind of man who will bribe a judge to throw a case.

08095-04 @12:59 pm e-mail states:

 “ I would suggest that any man who has a website promoting himself and his rent a judge service while continuing to try to pretend that you can act as a retired visiting judge in Ohio with a shred of integrity is disingenuous and fooling himself.  By tonight, thousands of residents in Northern Ohio in Ottawa and Erie Counties will know that Judge Markus and Dan Kasaris are trying to fix a court case involving this legal corruption whistleblower in order to put her in jail and steal her property.

08-05-04 at 2:08 pm e-mail states:

  “I don't think either one of you fully appreciate the anger the general public has in Erie and Ottawa counties over the continuing corruption in their courts, schools, and other government entities.  I am a born again Christian and not a violent person.  I detest violence but people are getting desperate in these tough economic times and if they suspect any officer of the court is ripping them off history teaches us they will rebel, and start taking the law into their own hands for no other reason than self defense.  I want to underscore this is not a threat from me.  I am only passing on comments from civically minded people who view it as their duty to remove corrupt government officers as Thomas Jefferson directed over 200 years ago.  You claim to be a judge.  Start acting like one and enforcing the Code of Professional Responsibility on Dan Kasaris." 

08-05-04 at 6:25 pm e-mail states:

  “This is a demand that you disclose to me by Noon tomorrow the names of all attorneys, insurance companies and or law firms that hired you as a private judge through your company Private Judicial Services, Inc. or with which you have interacted in any private case.  Also please fax a copy of your file stamped oath of office on file at the Ottawa County Common Pleas Court.  Please also provide a copy of your bond as well as the name of your statutory counsel for purposes of service.  If the documents are not timely received I will proceed to file appropriate lawsuits on the basis that you have no bond, or oath of office and are therefore impersonating a judge.  A failure to make full disclosure of your client lists and case involvements through your private company will be considered an admission of the existence of conflicts of interest in keeping with your duty as a fiduciary.

11-13-04 at 11:49 pm e-mail states.

  “Be sure to read Erie Voices next week as actual court documents proving Richard "Don't call me Dick" Markus's prior knowledge (and approval) of sexual abuse of children gets posted on the internet.  Gee, what will Lutheran Services think about their own non-Christian fiduciary?  In the meantime,  read this interesting story on how courthouse insiders protect thefts of public resources, sex crimes and case fixing to cover for each other.

11-23-04 Affidavit of Bias v. Markus states in part:

   a.  Markus is 74 years old and exhibited many signs consistent with cognitive decline/dementia and his entries are replete with false statements.

   b.  Chief Justice Moyer has consistently appointed inept or unethical judges to ensure that I was viciously targeted and abused by two sham criminal cases presided over by his friend, judge John Adkins of Circleville

   c.  Markus has demonstrated extreme bias and cruelty towards me in retaliation for exposure of an unconstitutional and illegal retired visiting judge system that personally injures me.

   d.  A Google search on Markus appears to show he’s Moyer’s “go to” judge when a politically connected white male is in trouble with the law and “justice” requests a soft sentence. (Ed Flash corruption case in Youngstown; Avon Lake Mayor Vince Urbin and Perkins Police Chief Timothy McLung all charged with public corruption.

   e.  I contend that Markus is either afflicted with senile dementia or intentionally entering false statements and improper entries in court in violation of criminal laws.

   f.  Markus is not dedicated to administering fair and impartial justice and is determined to deny me access to the courts.

 No. 5▬Retired Judge Richard Markus - Cleveland, Ohio

  Markus began working the retired judge circuit after Chief Justice Moyer's appointed him in 1989 to active duty.  Some of Markus' finer accomplishments are as follows:

April 2001 - Markus asked four Ohio newspapers, including the Cleveland Plain Dealer for their opinion on sentencing Vincent Urbin, ex-mayor of Avon Lake, Ohio on corruption charges.  As expected, they all declined Markus' idiotic request.  Have you ever heard of a judge asking editors to opine on the sentencing of a convicted criminal?  Markus violated the Code of Judicial Conduct; however, he was never disciplined by Chief Justice Moyer.

 .

  However, in early March 2001, Markus agreed to an interview with Bob Garfield of WNYC radio in New York. During the interview, the following discourse took place.

GARFIELD:  You asked newspaper editors to offer their opinions about a forthcoming sentencing.  What was your motivator?

MARKUS:  Ohio has a specific statute that directs that the judge at a sentencing hearing shall permit various persons to make any comments and may permit any others.  But to the extent that anyone can give me information that helps me apply those standards, I am pleased to receive it.

GARFIELD:  And sometimes a judge simply has to solicit this information?

MARKUS:  Well I didn't solicit it in that sense.  (Baloney, that's exactly what he did)  You know it's not unusual for news media to express their views.  (Really?)  That's what editorial opinions are for.  Seems to me that it would be more sensible if they wished to express such opinions that they do so before the sentencing occurs instead of afterwards.  I think of it as something like making a political endorsement shortly after the election occurs!  It has no impact then.  (Oh, I see.  Markus is willing to consider editorial opinions and likely letters to the editor in determining an appropriate sentence)

GARFIELD: What would motivate a judge after all these years on the bench to suddenly start seeking input from such an unexpected source?

MARKUS:  First I don't consider it an unexpected source, and I would like to suggest that all of these years, as you put it, it helps me to think and learn and consider other options that may help me do my job more effectively.

GARFIELD:  Had a newspaper editor weighted in with a point of view directly to the judge instead of on the editorial pages of the newspaper, do you think this raises ethical concerns?

MARKUS: Not to me.  We believe in our nation that you should have a right to express your views and express your views to your government!  And I, as part of that government, am quite willing to listen to other people's views. 

  This Markus guy is clearly a monumental idiot and pervasive liar, in my opinion.  Ohio law does not instruct nor does it require a judge to seek opinions from anyone prior to sentencing.  In fact, the only persons lawfully entitled to so act are the victims of a crime who are allowed under Ohio law to submit a "victim impact statement."   In fact, Ohio law requires the prosecutor to contact victims to see if they wish to file an impact statement.  Therefore, Markus' "finger-in-the-wind" polling technique is both illegal, unethical and evidence that he's a buffoon.  See: http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_030301_sentenced.html

No.  6—Markus, the Rent-A-Judge

  Markus has earned several hundred thousand dollars renting out his services for hourly fees as high as $275 an hour.  (Cleveland Scene)  A couple of years ago, I filed a complaint against Markus because he failed to disclose the dates, amounts paid and names of each person or entity that employed him as a private judge on his annual Financial Disclosure Statements. 

  Canon2(D)(3)(b) provides: "A judge shall also file annually a report of any quasi-judicial or extra--judicial activity (rent-a-judge) for which the judge received compensation.  This report shall include the date, place, and nature of any quasi-judicial or extra-judicial activity for which the judge received compensation, the name of the payer, and the amount of compensation received."

  Markus' disclosure statements do not comply with Canon 2 and Revised Code 102.2 because he failed to disclose said information.  I believe that Markus may have billed the State for hours working as a visiting judge while he was in fact billing clients as a rent-a-judge. 

  Clearly, any party involved in a case assigned to Markus by Chief Justice Moyer had an absolute right to know if the other party and/or it's attorneys had employed him at $275, which is five times what an elected judge earns.  However, Markus made sure that nobody would ever discover any potential conflict of interest by unlawfully failing to disclose such information. 

No. 7▬The Edward Flask corruption case

  In early 2000, Moyer appointed Markus to the Flask corruption case in Youngstown involving his conduct as director of the Mahoning Valley Sanitary District.   Flask plead guilty to two felonies and seven misdemeanors, which included accepting consulting fees of $1.7 from Blue Cross/Blue Shield from May 1993 through Aug. 1997 in return for steering contracts to it. 

  Flask faced 6 years in prison and a fine of $17,000; however, Markus sentenced him to 3 months in jail and a $5,000 fine.  The citizens of Mahoning County were outraged and as a result I personally traveled to Youngstown and met with them during a rally.  It appears that Moyer appointed Markus to assure that Flask would receive preferential treatment, which he certainly did. 

No. 8▬Markus overturned by appellate court

  In early 2004, Markus was assigned by Chief Justice Moyer to preside over a lawsuit filed by John Schuette against Liberty Township for violating Ohio's open meeting statute (Sunshine Law). Unbelievably, Markus dismissed the case "before either side developed any evidence and before the township ever filed an answer to the complaint. 

  On Aug. 19, a unanimous appeals court reversed Markus' unlawful and absurd dismissal of Shuette's lawsuit.  I wonder if Markus sought opinions on the case from the editors of the Delaware Gazette and Columbus Dispatch before he unlawfully dismissed Shuette's lawsuit.  This is just further evidence of an out-of-control; omnipotent jurist who clearly believes that he is "above the law" and is under no particular duty to follow it. 

  Ohio taxpayers were forced to spend thousands of dollars in having the appeals court overrule Markus' asinine dismissal. 

No. 9▬Theft-in-office?

   On 5-2-03, Markus billed Portage County 6.0 hours ($322.80) for trial work and Cuyahoga County 2.0 hours ($107.60) for research for prohibition response.  On the same day Markus claimed that he spent 8.25 hours teaching "Evidence Management" in Cleveland and received 8.25 hours of CLE credit.  Now, unless the CLE class began at midnight and ended at 8:18 am Markus is a liar.  And, it couldn't have started at 5:00 pm because it would have continued into the next day (the 3rd).  Either Markus is guilty of theft-in-office for bilking Portage and Cuyahoga County or he submitted a sham CLE claim.  I believe he's guilty of theft-in-office.

No. 10▬False CLE claim

  On 05-15-02, Markus submitted a claim that he spent 3.0 hours teaching at the 2002 annual Ohio State Bar Assn convention in Columbus and received 3.0 hours continuing legal education credit.  The following public records prove this claim is false.

  05-15-02 Markus bills Mahoning County for 8.0 hrs. ($424.80) for trial/travel time.  Markus' Ohio turnpike receipt proves he entered gate 218 at 4:50 pm and exited gate 187 at 5:37 pm; meaning he arrived home at about 6:00 pm.  It takes 2 hrs. and 48 minutes to drive from Markus' home to downtown Columbus, which means he could not have arrived until about 9:00 pm; however, nothing was scheduled at that time.  This proves he never earned the 3.0 hours CLE credit because he wasn't in Columbus.

No. 11▬Markus double-billing

  On two occasions in Dec. 2000, Markus submitted two separate compensation reports to the Supreme Court to be paid 16.0 hrs. for working in Lorain on the 14th and 15 of December.  Both reports, which I obtained from the Supreme Court clearly indicate that he was paid 32 hours because both entries have check marks from the Court next to them. 

No. 12▬Markus working weekends/legal holidays

  Markus would have us believe that he actually worked 8.0 hours on each of the weekend or holidays listed below.  I personally find such a claim to be without any merit whatsoever.  What about you?

No. 13▬Markus the Workaholic

  From Sept. 19 to Dec. 28, 2000, Markus claimed he worked sixty-one (61) consecutive 8.0 hour days and collected $24,642 on what is clearly a false claim.  There's many, many more examples of Markus claiming to be a workaholic.

No. 14▬Markus hosing taxpayers for absurd lodging expenses

  On Oct. 14, 2002, billed Fairfield County $79.69 to stay in a hotel in Ravenna even though he was only 45 miles from home.  On Nov. 30 and Dec. 2, 2004, billed Erie County $56.50 a night even though it was only 70 miles from home and he did the same thing on Aug. 8, 2004. 

  Apparently, at age 74 Markus can't handle driving less than an hour or so to sleep at home.  I know several insurance defense lawyers who told me that they could never get away with billing an insurer for doing what Markus did.  Of course Markus was hosing the taxpayers, which he obviously finds acceptable. To be fair, maybe Ohioans are safer by not having this senile-senior traveling the highways and byways. 

No. 15▬Markus - Standby Judge

  On the following dates Markus billed various counties even though he performed no judicial services of any kind.  In fact, he declares in his compensation reported that the work he performed was "standby."

  I wonder how many of the other 150 eight-hour or more days Markus billed Cuyahoga County wherein his performance was limited to "standby" duty.  His records clearly indicate that he also performed this valuable service for Franklin, Delaware, Stark, and other counties throughout Ohio.

  To be fair to Markus, he does not hold the State record for acting as a "standby visiting retired judge."  That distinction belongs to Judge Tommy Thompson of Columbus.  In 2002, Tommy billed 193 hours ($10,248) and in 2003 he billed 178 hours ($9,576) on 71 dates for acting as a "standby judge," which means he never "hit-a-lick."  There's many more stand-by judges who have billed tens of thousands of dollars for performing absolutely no judicial service on behalf of the taxpayers and many of them made campaign contributions to Chief Justice Moyer who has allowed this fleecing of Ohioans to continue unabated since 1987.

No. 16▬Is Judge Markus "Defamation Proof?"

  I certainly believe that when a so-called judge bilks the public as has Markus that, it would be nearly impossible to say anything about him that could be defamatory in nature.  The first time that Markus billed for judicial services that he did not in fact perform, he was nothing more than a common criminal, in my opinion.  To suggest that he can be defamed is comical at best.  After all, the evidence provided to me by the Supreme Court clearly establishes that he is a rather unaccomplished petty thief. 

  If Markus can be defamed, then wouldn't it be defamation per se to unduly criticize Jeffrey Dahmer's award winning recipe for rump roast?

No. 17▬Criminal tools (aka, "weapons") or WMD?

  According to prosecutor Kasaris, Ms. Baumgartner's laptop computer is now been labeled to be a criminal tool.  We certainly can't dispute anything a prosecutor claims, can we?  After all, he's a sworn officer of the court and he took an oath to never tell a lie. 

  An anonymous source provided me with a photo of Ms. Baumgartner's criminal tool.  I was somewhat aghast (e.g. it was like looking at a nude photo of Janet Reno)  when I saw the screensaver she was using.  Unfortunately, it appears that Ms. Baumgartner may well be a practicing sadomasochist.  What other explanation could there be? 

  Since a laptop computer is indeed a criminal tool, then why hasn't Gov. Taft. and/or Attorney General Jim Petro lobbied the legislature to pass a law requiring everyone owning such a weapon to register it with local law enforcement?  Can a law allowing Ohio citizens to carry "concealed laptop computers" be in the offing? 

  Then you have other weapons of mass dissemination (WMD) like tape recorders, cameras and video recorders, all of which are quite dangerous when used by news reporters, whistleblowers and/or other assorted ingrates.

No. 18▬Appropriate punishment for Ms. Baumgartner

  Ms. Baumgartner's conduct in exposing government corruption is very dangerous to our way of life, I mean a crooked politician's way of life.  If Ms. Baumgartner gets off with a slap on the wrist, what kind of message will that send to others seeking to expose corruption?  It would be a free-for-all!  Every politician's ability to earn a dishonest living would be at risk. 

  It is the awesome responsibility of the powers-to-be in Ohio to impose a sentence that will in fact send a message to any future Baumgartner clones.  And that message must be loud enough so that every potential whistleblower in the country gets it. 20 or 30 years in prison might just be the ticket to dissuade anyone else from exposing government corruption in the future. 

  At a time when Gov. Taft's approval rating among Ohioans is at an all time high (19%), I believe he has a duty to demand that the legislature pass a law making Ms. Baumgartner be sentenced to at least 20 years in prison.  We need a real deterrent to assure that all of Ohio's politicians can freely engage in corruption without worrying about being unfairly exposed.   

  If Gov. Taft does the right thing, then Ohioans will not have to be bored with mundane  stories about Tom Noe's run of bad luck in the coin business.  The same is true of other hard working investment companies (MDL, et al.) and their bosses.  Ohio newspapers, and in particular the Toledo Blade and Cleveland Plain Dealer should be run out of the state for continuing to run stories attacking the credibility of Gov. Taft, wannabe Governors and others for merely rewarding those contributors who were willing to risk millions of dollars by investing in the future of Ohio politicians and one party rule.

  Apparently, the editors of these for-profit newspapers don't believe in that old adage that, "you get what you pay for."  Should Noe, et al. be castigated for engaging in ol' fashioned capitalism?  I think not!  All they were seeking was a return on their substantial investments!  Isn't that what the American dream is all about

No. 19▬Columbus' Larry Brown criminally charged with intimidating appellate judges

  Mr. Brown has been the victim of Ohio's so-called justice system and in particular the egregious misconduct of retired visiting Judge Tommy Thompson of Columbus. 

  On May 17, 2005, after the Columbus appellate court denied his latest appeal on the 10th, Mr. Brown called the court and spoke to Court Administrator Kullman about the time allowed for filing a Motion for Reconsideration of the court's denial of his appeal.  On the very next day, Kullman, acting at the direction of judges Peggy Bryant, Patrick McGrath and Lisa Sadler (PMS) filed a criminal intimidation complaint with Detective J.P. Burns of the Franklin County Sheriff's department. 

  The criminal complaint states, reporting party states that between 09-23-04 and -05-06-04, a known suspect attempted to influence, intimidate, and hinder judges at the 10th Appellate District.

  On May 24, 2005, I filed an ethics complaint against these so-called judges who obviously lied that Mr. Brown intimidated them.  What's really going on here is an overt and appalling attempt to intimidate Mr. Brown.  Ohio law allows for Mr. Brown to file a motion for reconsideration of any appellate ruling.  To suggest that when a litigant lets it be known that he/she is going to so act that, such conduct constitutes criminal intimidation is scary to say the least.

  What's next?  Criminal intimidation charges when a non-attorney litigant files a notice of appeal regarding what he/she believes is an unjust and/or unlawful ruling by a judge?  Will Ohio's crème de la crème sitting on the Supreme Court rule that it is criminal intimidation if a non-attorney litigant (a) orally objects to a judge's erroneous rulings, (b) comments that the judge is biased, (c) the judge is incompetent, (d) the judge is lazy in not ruling on motion for 5 or more years, and/or (e) the judge has bilked the public by billing for hours never worked and/or travel expenses never incurred?

  How many years will Mr. Brown be imprisoned for having the audacity to question the efficacy of these judges ruling? 

No. 20▬Markus' sham claim of being intimidated

  The prosecutor claims that the contents of e-mails and/or legal filings by Ms. Baumgartner violated Ohio's intimidation statute in that she (a) threatened to defame Markus, (b) cause him financial harm, and/or (c) attempted to obtain favorable rulings from him.  Let's take a minute and compare Ms. Baumgartner's alleged intimidating communications regarding Markus with those of this writer in communicating with Chief Justice Thomas Moyer over the past 10 years.  Here's some excerpts of my letters.

Oct. 25, 1999 letter to Moyer:

--expect that you will continue to act like a coward and bigot in punishing my physically handicapped spouse.  It is apparent that you and the flunkies in your employ delight in punishing those most unable to fend for themselves.

--You record over the past 12 years proves that you are an apologist and enabler for crooked lawyers and judges.  You are even more of a scumbag and criminal then the flunkies you employ to do your dirty-work.

--You and your friends are without doubt the most corrupt and spineless individuals I have ever had the misfortune to come into contact with.  You are to say the least a bunch of "impotent cowards."

--The day will come when all of you will pay dearly for your misdeeds.  The reason my attempt to use the legal process to expose judicial/attorney misconduct was futile is because you are nothing more than a "nickel and dime parasite."

--I personally find you to be nothing more than a "piece of garbage."  You're worse than the criminals you front for.  They are nothing more than your designated "hit-men" who are acting on your behalf.  Obviously, you are contractually entitled to a reasonable share of the booty they have illegally obtained.

--If you or your flunkies persist in going after my wife again, I would suggest that you might not like my reaction.  Keep your slimy hands and those of your flunkies to yourself.  Act like a man for once in your life and come directly after me instead of my handicapped wife.

  It should be noted that after the media repeatedly reported on the investigations I did in exposing corruption involving retired judges and in particular Moyer's role that, this letter was personally "anonymously" delivered to to Jon Craig at the Columbus Dispatch in a plain manila envelope.  Wonder who was behind this delivery?  I don't wonder at all.  I'm sure that it was delivered pursuant to a directive from Moyer to one of the Court's employees while the employee was being paid by public funds.  Just another fine example of the cowardice and unethical behavior of Mr. Moyer. 

  In addition, Moyer provided a copy of this letter to the Ohio Highway Patrol and other law enforcement agencies under the guise that I was attempting to intimidate him and/or had threatened him.  The Ohio Highway Patrol refused to take any action because they did not deem the letter to be threatening and/or intimidating.  The Lucas County Sheriff reacted in the same manner. 

  I guess intimidation is in the eye of the beholder.  I believe that given Moyer's total lack of scruples, ethics and the fact that he is amoral, it would be impossible to intimidate Moyer into conducting himself in accordance with his oath of office.  The same can be said of Judge Markus and all of the Markus and Moyer clones who have, in my view, cheerfully bilked Ohioans out of millions of dollars over the past ten or more years.

  If I really thought that it was possible to intimidate Chief Justice Moyer into acting ethically and in accordance with Ohio law and the Constitution, I would have done so many, many years ago. 

Aug. 3, 1999 letter to Moyer

--In your so-called entry you suggest that my affidavits of disqualification are frivolous.  You threaten to impose sanctions if I file any more.  I am not impressed with your threat of sanctions and I find your suggestion of frivolity comical.  Apparently, you find it amusing when judges you employ repeatedly defraud the taxpayers of Ohio.

--I refuse to allow you or any government agent to threaten sanctions against me for engaging in constitutionally protected conduct in exposing judicial corruption.  I will not be dissuaded by your threats from continuing to see the removal of corrupt judges.

--Rather than protect the public from these criminal, you have chosen to attack the messenger (whistle-blower).  How would you explain your conduct in allowing these thefts of public funds to continue unabated year after year to the citizens of Ohio?

April 5, 2001 letter to Moyer

--The retired judges you assigned to my cases are liars, cheats, wife beaters, racists, womanizers, drunks, and nickel and dime parasitic thieves, and these are just some of their good points, Tom.

--The evidence I've compiled clearly indicates that you've assembled a "hit team" of ethical dwarfs and intellectual midgets that you've employed to do your bidding by punishing your enemies and rewarding your friends.

April 20, 2001 letter to Moyer

--It boggles the mind that you continue to ignore criminal conduct involving Yarbrough and other retired judges.  It appears that you have "numerical guidelines" you follow to determine whether a judge's conduct merits further assignments by you.

--I would like to know if there is some magical number of crimes a judge must commit before you determine he/she is not fit to judge my fellow citizens.  Is 500 crimes sufficient or must it exceed 1,000.  Or is there a specific dollar amount a retired judge must pilfer or a combination of both?

--It is indeed unfortunate that a public citizen is left with the sole responsibility of rooting out judicial corruption.  One would like to think that the oath of office you took meant something. 

--Thanks for your  inattention to this serious matter.