Originally Posted - November 18, 2006

return home

Former GOP fund raiser Tom Noe, friend of Republican superstars like President Bush and Ohio Gov. Bob Taft, has been found guilty of stealing more than $1.1 million from the coin funds he managed on behalf of the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation.

On Monday, Judge Thomas Osowik will sentence Noe for his conviction on 29 felony counts of stealing from the public, violating the public trust for the purpose of lining his own pockets. The maximum sentence he could receive is 72 years.

Prosecutors reportedly are seeking a 20-year term, using the analogy of the case in which a Columbus, Ohio attorney stole more than a million from his clients and was sentenced to 18 years. They want Osowik to levy fines and court costs against Noe totaling more than $5 million.

Not only do prosecutors want 20 years and $5 million, but they want Noe's state prison term to begin AFTER he serves his 27 months for the federal campaign finance convictions for illegally funneling month into President George W. Bush's election campaign.

Well, then there's the case of attorney Edward Flask who stole $1.8 million from the Ohio taxpayers in 2001 and Judge Richard Markus sentenced him to 90 days in jail, ruling that Flask didn't have to pay restitution because Markus claimed that there was no victim in the case.

And Markus is supposedly serving the taxpayers and citizens of northern Ohio?

Noe's attorneys have said that they believe a 10 year prison term would be appropriate. Perhaps they should use Markus' wisdom in sentencing Noe. After all, Noe took the money from the taxpayers, there's still over $13 million unaccounted for, and according to Markus' sage rationale, taxpayers can't be victims.

The difference between Tom Noe and Ed Flask is that Flask is an attorney, Noe is not and perhaps Markus was afraid if he was too harsh in his sentencing of Flask, Flask might reveal information of other public officials that might have been involved in public corruption and oops, maybe a judge or two might be implicated.

Flask, former director of the Mahoning Valley Sanitary District, had pleaded guilty to nine criminal felony and misdemeanor charges that he misused his position for his own personal gain, much the same as Noe.

Using Markus' rationale, he would like citizens to be so naïve as to believe that there is no public corruption. The Tom Noe, Bob Ney, Jack Abramoff cases all negate the Markus declarations of propriety of government.

Markus adjudicated the case in the Trumbull County Common Pleas Court, having been assigned to the case in Youngstown in 2000 by Chief Justice Thomas Moyer. Seems that Moyer assigns Markus a lot to cases involving public corruption. Could that just be a concidence?

Flask pleaded guilty to two felony violations of having an unlawful interest in a public contract, two misdemeanor violations of soliciting or receiving improper compensation, and five misdemeanor violations of having a conflict of interest.

Can you imagine that---a public official actually criminally charged with having a conflict of interest? Markus certainly should know what constitutes a conflict of interest as he seems to have engaged in a few of his own.

Each of the fourth degree felony counts carried up to 18 months in prison and a fine of up to $2,500, and each of the first degree misdemeanor counts carried up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000. Penalties could also have included restitution. The law also prohibited Flask from holding public office or any public employment for seven years.

Flask could have been sentenced up to six years in jail and fined $17,000.

Special Prosecutor Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County prosecuting attorney, stated at the time that the "admissions by Mr. Flask are the result of a long and complex investigation in which many agencies worked together to uncover a breach of the trust placed in a public servant. While sworn to serve the people, Mr. Flask instead chose to serve his own interests. Conviction of these nine charges reveals the serious consequences of such conduct."

Prosecutors asked for Flask to be sentenced to 3 years in prison.

Markus gave him 90 days in jail.

The citizens of Mahoning County were outraged and expressed that outrage to Moyer, demanding that Markus be removed from the then pending civil trial brought against Flask and a co-conspirator for the recovery of the public funds taken. Markus claimed that there was no "victim seeking restitution" of the nearly $2 million that Flask had pocketed.

It's time for citizens to be outraged again and seek to have Markus permanently removed from adjudicating any case anywhere in Ohio.

The two felony pleas resulted from Flask's authorization of a series of purchases by the Mahoning Valley Sanitary District from two vendors, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Ohio and Ohio Edison Company. While dealing with them in his public position, Flask was at the same time being paid as a consultant by these vendors. Flask admitted soliciting and accepting consulting fees in excess of $1.7 million from Blue Cross/Blue Shield from May 1, 1993 through Aug. 11, 1997, and $270,000 from Ohio Edison from March 22, 1991 through Aug. 11, 1997.

Markus is one of the most controversial figures in Ohio, with his lenient treatment of public figures criminally charged and particularly the abuse of his position to file complaints against a person whom he apparently he has targeted as his personal nemesis, former pharmacist and attorney, Elsebeth Baumgartner of Oak Harbor, Ottawa County.

He claims the allegations that she lodged against him and other public officials were false. Was there a police investigation? No. Her allegations were false because they said so, they denied that they had engaged in wrongdoing.

Why, just think of all the money that Ohio taxpayers could have saved. Instead of prosecuting Noe, all the state had to do was to have asked Noe if he did anything wrong. He would have said no and the taxpayers would have been spared the nearly $3 million in investigation and prosecution fees.

Taxpayers didn't have to worry about paying any money to investigate Baumgartner's claims. She was guilty because Markus and prosecutor Daniel Kasaris said so. Just read the Grand Jury minutes of the unsworn testimony of Kasaris and Markus rendered to obtain an indictment against Baumgartner sending Markus emails, criticizing his judicial performance and expressing her opinion that he's engaged in wrongdoing.
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/110806GrandJury.html

Markus has been the personal judge of Baumgartner since about 2001 and has intertwined his black robe with his personal animus towards the now disbarred attorney and anyone else who dares to criticize the judiciary, placing himself and his brethren on an unworthy pedestal. He apparently believes that judges should be exempt from criticism. While he was filing contempt complaints against her and calling Cuyahoga County district attorney William Mason to lodge a criminal complaint against Baumgartner, Markus claimed he had no bias against her, that he could be impartial and continued to sit in judgment of civil matters against her, rendering a judgment against her. Appearance of impropriety? Most definitely.

Markus says that Baumgartner has "disrespected" the judiciary and he appears hell bent, among others, to teach her a lesson for having dared to criticize him and disagree with his rulings, for having dared to exercise her First Amendment free speech rights. Markus says it's not proper for Baumgartner to make comments in a matter to "try to demean and embarrass the judge and the court".

When a judge and others in the legal and judicial profession wrongfully use their positions and make rulings contrary to the public interest, contrary to the Constitution, they are as accountable to the public as any other public servant, even more so. Judges are not immune from accountability. There needs to be a stricter and more stringent scrutiny of the judiciary, not less and a greater public outcry in order to effect the much needed changes in the judiciary. The judicial claim of judicial independence is like a runaway train, on a collision course for disaster.

Oh, heaven forbid that anyone should utter a discouraging word about a judge.

Markus has set the standard that when public officials violate the public trust and steal from the public, there are no victims and therefore no restitution is due. Now that he's responsible for the taxpayers having had to pay for his vendetta against Baumgartner, having her criminally charged for intimidation and retaliation, now he says that he wasn't intimidated. Let's have Markus pay for the costs of the Baumgartner case, all the questionably legal incarcerations he has caused. Why should Ohio taxpayers pay because Markus's feelings and ego were hurt.

In a article appearing in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Markus is quoted as saying that "Baumgartner didn't intimidate him but he compared intimidating a judge to bribing one: all that matters is the attempt".

We didn't find any statute in the Ohio Code for "attempted intimidation of a judge by the exercise of free speech" by telling him that he protects public officials, especially after he sentenced Flask to 90 days in jail and ruled he didn't have to repay the taxpayers anything. Talk about profiting from your crimes. Why, one could also say that Markus aided and abetted Flask, an accessory to stealing from the taxpayers so why wasn't Markus charged?

Although she vocally disagreed with Markus' 90-day sentence of Flask, then attorney general Betty Montgomery refused to file an affidavit of disqualification to remove Markus from the case although she said there clearly were victims in the case, namely the 300,000 residents who received their drinking water from the Mahoning Valley Sanitary District.

Citizens should have asked Montgomery why she wasn't looking out for the interests of the taxpayers who voted her into that office or was she afraid of opening Pandora's box, lest more incidents of public corruption come tumbling out into the open?

There are clearly victims in the Noe case too. Ohio taxpayers should hope that Judge Osowik doesn't decide to adopt Judge Richard Markus' inane thinking when sentencing Noe on Monday.

Richard Markus cost Ohio taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to prosecute Elsebeth Baumgartner because he was offended and insulted that she should have dared to disrespect him and criticize his rulings, rulings as in the case of Edward Flask not only warrant criticism, but seriously give rise to question Markus' overall fitness for office.

In order to have a judiciary that is respected and in which the public has confidence, there can't be two standards of justice---one for public officials including judges and one for citizens.

That's the first rule of Justice 101. Apparently Richard Markus needs to go back to class because, due to his actions, the public's confidence in the judiciary has been seriously impaired. 11-18-06

© 2006 North Country Gazette