Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re: Roger G. Temethy

January 14, 2011

IN RE: ROGER G. TEMETHY ROGER G. TEMETHY APPLICANT


Cite as

In re Temethy,

The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Fourth Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9860 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us

Commissioners: Randi M. Ostry, Presiding Karl C. Kerschner Elizabeth Luper Schuster

ORDER OF A THREE-COMMISSIONER PANEL

{¶1} On April 21, 2010, the applicant, Roger Temethy, filed a compensation application. The applicant alleges on September 8, 2003, while he was at work his former roommate Margaret Baum, her companion Mike Skufeeda, and various family members came to his residence and stole cash and numerous items. The applicant asserts his life was threatened, and Margaret Baum ultimately forced him into bankruptcy, which was filed on March 10, 2005 and discharged on June 15, 2005. The applicant asserts his attorney Teddy Sliwinski never told him about a restraining order that was issued against him or advised him of his rights under the Ohio Crime Victims Compensation Program. On June 2, 2010, the Attorney General issued a finding of fact and decision finding the applicant's claim should be denied for failure to file his compensation application within two years of the occurrence of the alleged criminal incidents pursuant to R.C. 2743.56(B)(2) and R.C. 2743.60(A). Furthermore, the applicant failed to prove he was a victim of criminally injurious conduct pursuant to R.C. 2743.51(C)(1).

{¶2} On June 7, 2010, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration. On July 30, 2010, the Attorney General rendered a Final Decision finding no reason to modify the initial decision. On August 6, 2010, the applicant filed a notice of appeal from the

July 30, 2010 Final Decision of the Attorney General. Hence, a hearing was held before this panel of commissioners on November 17, 2010 at 10:30 A.M.

{¶3} The applicant appeared at the hearing and Assistant Attorneys General Lauren Angell and Amy O'Grady represented the state of Ohio.

{¶4} The applicant was apprised of his right to counsel, however, he waived his right and chose to proceed pro se. The applicant asserted that he was a victim of four crimes: 1) he was defrauded into filing a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy action; 2) he was repeatedly subjected to threats of harm and/or death; 3) he was placed under a five-year restraining order which he had no knowledge of; and 4) he was illegally arrested in Lorain, Ohio without any probable cause. Finally, another restraining order was issued against him for one year without his knowledge. However, the most unlawful actions taken against him were promulgated by the Ohio Disciplinary Counsel in its refusal to take actions against attorneys and judges who wronged him with the use of the judicial process. Whereupon, the applicant concluded his remarks and presented Applicant's Exhibits 1-6 for the panel's consideration.

{¶5} The Attorney General stated after review of the applicant's compensation application, correspondence, and statements made at the hearing there appear to be 12 incidents of alleged criminal conduct. However, each incident is barred by the statute of limitations. In order for this panel to reach the merits of these incidents the applicant had to file his compensation application within two years of their occurrence, however, he failed to do so. Furthermore, the applicant failed to prove he was a victim of criminally injurious conduct, failed to timely file a police report, and engaged in substantial contributory misconduct.

{¶6} In response to the Attorney General's statements, the applicant asserted the statute of limitations should not apply since when a lay person goes to an attorney he should be able to rely on the attorney for proper advice and to inform him of the availability of any remedy that may be afforded to him, including the Ohio Victims of Crime Compensation Program. The failure of his attorney to inform him of the Program should not be imputed to him. Whereupon, the hearing was concluded.

{¶7} R.C. 2743.56(B)(2) states:

"(B) All applications for an award of reparations shall be filed as follows:

"(2) If the victim of the criminally injurious conduct was an adult, within two years after the occurrence of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.