Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Reading the information in the local media has made me draw the following conclusions. I hope someone can tell me I am wrong and that things are really much better that I comprehend they are!

1. The City Council approved the south annexation in direct contempt of the Court of Fairfield County.
2. The City Council approved the south annexation despite an injunction filed properly and legally by Violet Township.
3. The City Council refuses to forward a citizen?’s petition to the Board of Elections of Fairfield County that they are bound by the Constitution of the State of Ohio to do. They are therefore in contempt of the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio.

I quote from the Ohio Revised Code:

?§ 2705.02 Acts in contempt of court.
Text of Statute
A person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished as for a contempt:
(A) Disobedience of, or resistance to, a lawful writ, process, order, rule, judgment, or command of a court or officer;

Before I search the ORC further to determine what the possible penalties are for the alleged crime of contempt of a County Court and Contempt of the Supreme Court (the least of which I?’ve seen is 30 days imprisonment), I?’ll wait to see if someone can tell me I am all wrong about what I have observed so far.

Hypothetically, if the Council Members voting in favor of these alleged crimes are found in Contempt of Court:
1. Will they be arrested and taken away in handcuffs?
2. Will Chief Fuller be the arresting department or will Sheriff Phalen?
3. Will the local media, including Columbus for a change, be privy to when the arrests will be made so they can have the appropriate photographers and cameramen available?
4. Is Rep. Tim Shaffer, who is authoring, or has authored language prohibiting convicted felons from holding public office aware of what is going on regarding this alleged situation? It sure seems like a good start for enforcement.
5. If the City Council is convicted of contempt, does this constitute a violation of their oath of office, therefore mandating their immediate removal from office?
6. Should the Mayor, City Manager and City Law Director also be charged and arrested with the appropriate media coverage for their publicly documented involvement in this alleged crime?
7. Assuming that the alleged Darryl Berry and the alleged Lee Gray will, of course, post bail for these people, can they retake their seats in Council Chamber while out on bail?
8. Assuming that the answer to number 7 is no, is it incumbent upon Mr. Shaver, who is publicly not tied to these alleged crimes, to appoint new Council members and does the new Council appoint the Mayor?

Thank you in advance for anyone who can either answer some of my questions or advise me that I am blowing things way out of proportion in my comprehension of the information presented to us.




By Inquisitor

South Annexation



Dear Inquisitor:

I unfortunately voted for the South Annexation. I was, however , completely unaware of the pending legal action and any injunction. Although I personally disagree with the annexations, I voted for the accepting the annexations purely as a procedural matter so that the city could collect tax revenues on the properties. At that time, I believed the annexations were approved and that there were no further legal actions pending. Moreover, we were advised by the city attorney that it was necessary to vote for acceptance at this time as we would otherwise not be allowed to collect for this tax year.

If there were pending legal actions, it was certainly incumbent upon the law director and the city manager to bring this information to council's attention. I certainly was not aware of the existence of any injunction. I cannot speak for the other council members. If there was an injunction, then we should not have even voted on the issue.

This is an extremely serious matter for me. Aside from the problems this creates for me as a public official I am, as a lawyer, also an officer of the court. I am deepely disturbed if the law director and city manager encouraged us to vote on this issue despite a court order forbidding the annexation until further order of a court. Could you please provide me with a copy of the injunction.




By Daivd Shaver

Injunction information


As the Contact person for PATA I?’m well aware of the case # for the injunction that this email chain has referred too. Out of the Fairfield County Courts, Judge Clark, and case # 2002 CV 00645. This case was filed on 9/06/02 and the injunction was reportedly issued on 9/13/02.

What?’s the payback?

Mr. Shaver, with all due respect, if you?’re going to justify annexation of farmland as needing to be processed as emergency to get the tax dollars into the City?’s coffers it?’s not fooling anyone.

Farmland has a low tax valuation and on top of that it usually gets an additional reduction called current agricultural use value (CAUV).

Factor in the costs associated with this annexation... legal fees ?– Yup (you know the City has been picking up that tab) and the annexation inducement costs on sewer or water and I don?’t buy the argument. Why don?’t you or these newspaper reporters ever ask (and demand) the BREAK EVEN time of payback on these expenses.

All your really doing is getting the land and using it as a method of getting more loans and debt from the lending institutions as additional collateral. This Council isn?’t getting more money in the coffers their just getting us deeper and deeper in debt.


By A-count-ant