MOUNT VERNON — Council for the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has requested Scott Pullins’ request for remand be overruled.
related documents
Pullins' request to strike count four and for sanctions for frivolous conduct against relator (PDF)
Relators's memorandum objecting to respondent's request for remand (PDF)
Pullins' Request for Judicial Notice (PDF)
Pullins' Request for Remand (PDF)
Adobe Acrobat Reader required to read pdf
related articles
More counts filed against Pullins April 9, 2009
Panel recommends Pullins be suspended May 13, 2010
Pullins files lengthy objection June 4, 2010
Ohio Supreme Court to decide Pullins’ fate June 12, 2010
Pullins asks for psych evaluation June 17, 2010
Pullins’ request for remand overruled June 29, 2010
Supreme Court issues four rejections to Pullins July 21, 2010
Hearing date set for Pullins August 5, 2010
In documents filed last week with the Ohio Supreme Council, disciplinary council Michael Murman said Pullins’ request was filed 14 days after the original deadline to file objections. In addition, Murman stated Supreme Court rules allow for only one argument of objection. Pullins filed his original objection June 3.
“The rules apply to the recent decision cited by [Pullins] as a basis for remand that contains argument, including citations to other cases,” Murman said.
Under the same reasoning, Murman asked the court to strike Pullins’ request for judicial review of a decision filed by the Knox County Court of Appeals.
Murman further stated the panels which heard the disciplinary case did not find reason to question Pullins’ “mental competency.”
“Accordingly, the request for remand for the purpose of having respondent examined by a psychiatrist is not well taken,” he said.
In documents filed Monday, Pullins asked the Supreme Court to strike Count 4 of the original complaint of misconduct, which revolves around Pullins’ issue of subpoenas on a case that had been stayed by the Knox County Court of Common Pleas.
Pullins said the issues with Count 4 were already investigated and found to be without merit.
“It is clear that the board heavily relied upon this count in their recommendation and report for which [I] was seriously prejudiced and harmed,” Pullins stated.
Because Pullins feels Count 4 has already been addressed by the courts, he has requested sanctions for frivolous conduct be placed against Murman.
“It is well settled law in Ohio that an attorney that files a claim or complaint barred by Res Judicata (a judgment or final ruling), is subject to sanctions for frivolous conduct. The same is true in a disciplinary action; in fact, such an act might even constitute prosecutorial misconduct,” Pullins said.
Requests with the clerk’s office of the Ohio Supreme Court as to when decisions would be rendered on this filing have yet to be answered.
