UPDATE
16:42 2 July, 2025- The actual filing that Judge Hein ordered unsealed where Foley’s lawyers asked to withdraw the plea deal is still not posted. What was posted, was the Judge folding in to Rion, allowing him to withdraw his plea- and getting his facts wrong right from the start:
Following sentencing, the Defendant was confronted with an action in the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County. See Case CA 30525. Accordingly, the Defendant filed his motion to vacate the sentence and to withdraw his plea.
Foley and his lawyer, Rion, filed the sealed document to withdraw his plea as mentioned in Hein’s ruling to unseal:
On inquiry by the Court, and without objection from Defendant’s counsel, the Defendant’s motion to withdraw plea as filed June 17, 2025 is ordered to be unsealed and made available for public view.
Let’s be clear, I filed the action, CA 30325 on June 24th at 8:43 am. See this post [1].
Last I checked, the 17th is a full week before I filed on the 24th. Is Judge Hein senile? Are facts totally disregarded in this court?
The clerks office has still not unsealed the original filing to withdraw the plea, and misfiled mine as vs Foley’s office- not Foley personally. More stupidity.
Here’s Hein’s decision from today:
Now, this is where it gets really juicy. Do I have standing to appeal Hein’s decision to the 2nd district court of appeals? Obviously these great legal minds who spent almost a year trying to figure out how Foley keeps his paycheck, either are all incompetent, or involved in criminal racketeering. This is Dayton after all, where the Feds called it a “culture of corruption” before they walked away barely scratching the surface.
And, how long should we have to wait for the prosecution to restart on all 12 original charges?
Hein had the nerve to write as a reason to justify his action:
The Court finds that the prejudicial effects against the Defendant include (1) time and expense of defending litigation in the Court of Appeals, (2) uncertainty of litigation outcomes, (3) potential removal from holding elected office and (4) irrevocability of the outcome if removed from office by the Court of Appeals.
If Foley wanted to avoid the “time and expense of defending litigation in the Court of Appeals” the simple answer is, don’t be a criminal. But, then, I guess it’s all OK to pay off a visiting judge- because none of this makes sense. Hein must be removed from this case and it’s questionable if the State Auditors “Special Investigation Unit” is competent to make a case at this point. The whole reason for the investigation is to remove bad actors from office and they’ve failed. Miserably.
Dayton Daily news reporter Sydney Dawes and I tried to talk to the judge, to ascertain when we’d get access to Rion’s original filing to remove Foley’s No Contest plea, and in that conversation, tried to point out the dates were wrong on the excuse. Obviously, Hein didn’t listen.
There is only one way the public can ever trust any of the people involved in this action- and that would be a complete unsealing of all documents and evidence. This is a public official, engaged in public service and the public has a right to know.
17:51 PM Judge Hein also filed yet another order clarifying sealing of the pleadings, because apparently, I didn’t list them all in my post. He added:
- 10/21/2024 Motion for Franks Hearing/Motion to Suppress filed by Jon Paul Rion
- 11/22/2024 States Objection to Defendants Motion to Dismiss filed by Jon Paul Rion
- 11/22/2024 States Objection to Defendants Franks and Suppression Motion filed by Jon Paul Rion
- 01/21/2025 Decision Overruling Branch 1 of Motion to Suppress
- 02/04/2025 Decision – Motion to Suppress Evidence
- 04/18/2025 Memorandum Supplemental Filed by Jon Paul Rion
- 04/18/2025 Notice of Filing of Sealed Emailed Exhibits filed by Thomas N. Anger
- 04/23/2025 Memorandum Supplemental Filed by Jon Paul Rion (stamped Filed in Error)
- 05/16/2025 Response to Defendants Supplemental Memorandum filed by Thomas N. Anger
- 05/28/2025 Entry Denying Motion to Suppress Evidence
Then he mentions all the ones I had listed from Dec 23, 2024. (Thank’s your honor- I actually have a job, and didn’t make it all the way through the docket). So he adds on the end- as if to remind the Criminal Clerks office to unseal the Foley filing to withdraw his plea, that started today off.
Any pleadings filed herein which are currently sealed which are not listed above shall promptly be made available for public inspection
So, he’s still fine keeping the public in the dark. Here’s that order:
Below is what I wrote right after the hearing,
The expressions on visiting Judge’s Jonathan Hein’s face told more of the story than anything that was said. Unfortunately, my camera was trained on the legal puppets in the theater of the absurd, which was the reason for the hearing this morning in Courtroom 2 on the Third Floor of Montgomery County Common Pleas Court.
Hein was listening to the lawyers for the felon, Michael J Foley, Montgomery County Clerk of Courts (for now). Jon Paul Rion and his co-counsel were trying to say that “we worked out a deal, it was a very big deal, where our client would plea no contest to only two of the 12 charges he was facing for being a criminal while in office, in exchange for a slap on the wrist and he gets to keep his fat paycheck with power over a whole bunch of patronage jobs- well, just because, that’s what we thought we agreed to,” of course- that’s my summary of his argument. Hein was trying his damnedest to keep from laughing out loud. The grin on his face and his slight head head bobbing looked more like he was at a comedy show, instead of a hearing- because, well, he was.
And the biggest clown, Michael J. Foley, well, he sat this one out.
The worthless attorneys from the State of Ohio Auditor’s “Special Investigative Team” stood there and said, “well, we can’t object because there is no decided case law/legal basis for us to hold this felon to the deal we wasted almost a year negotiating. If he want’s to change his plea, and waste more of the taxpayers time and money- and keep breaking the law, while we take yet another year to try him on ALL of the indicted counts, well- that keeps our jobs protected.” Again- my summary- you can watch the video yourself.
Rion also claimed that it’s because I filed the Quo Warranto that he had to withdraw the plea. Never mind I filed it a week after he filed (under seal) his argument for Manifest Injustice as a way to withdraw a plea deal after sentencing. Lying in court is something only lawyers get away with. And while Judge Hein didn’t question the timing, he did ask if Rion was saying that the Quo Warranto was already settled and Foley was to be removed? Because, basing your arguments on predicting the future is something only reserved for the current President of the United States- not the rest of us common folks.
Rion also seemed to claim that the ORC wasn’t absolutely clear about the removal based on what he agreed to settle on. This wasn’t supposed to happen- Mikey the Crook, was supposed to not lose his job, despite breaking the law and being sentenced to a slap on the wrist. This is the kid glove treatment political folks in this county get. Anyone else, would be in the pokey already. Next thing you know, he’ll be asking the taxpayers to fund his defense, like he’s entitled to qualified immunity of something.
Hein did agree that Rion’s motion to withdraw the plea shouldn’t be sealed. That was one of the arguments that I was going to make in an Amicus filing that I chose not to file. It was pretty clear that Hein not only knew I had filed the Quo Warranto, and was in the courtroom with a camera (he at one point turns and “asks” the public if we had access. The real question now is, why is anything still sealed? The “sensitive nature” of the other counts that were dismissed by this plea deal – the public has every right to see- and to be able to evaluate if justice is being done. If they only knew the level of criminality that Foley is currently NOT on the hook for- there may be outrage.
Need a reminder of what’s been sealed?
DEFENDANT FOLEY, MICHAEL J
12-20-2024 – Visiting Judge Franks Hearing – Defendant’s Motion for Franks Hearing – SEALED
12-20-2024 – Visiting Judge Franks Hearing – Search Warrant for Clerk of Court’s Office – SEALED
12-20-2024 – Visiting Judge Franks Hearing – Search Warrant for Examining Computers – SEALED
12-20-2024 – Visiting Judge Franks Hearing – Audio of All Recorded Calls – SEALED
12-20-2024 – Visiting Judge Franks Hearing – Plaintiffs Response to Defendant’s Motion for Franks Hearing – SEALED
12-20-2024 – Visiting Judge Franks Hearing – Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Motion for Franks Hearing – SEALED
12-20-2024 – Visiting Judge Franks Hearing – Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss – SEALED
12-20-2024 – Visiting Judge Franks Hearing – Plaintiffs Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss – SEALED
12-20-2024 – Visiting Judge Franks Hearing – Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Motion to Dismiss – SEALED
12-20-2024 – Visiting Judge Franks Hearing -Transcripts of Recorded Call Placed on 10/31/2022 – SEALED
12-20-2024 – Visiting Judge Franks Hearing – Transcripts of Recorded Call Placed on 11/1/2022 – SEALED
12-20-2024 – Visiting Judge Franks Hearing -Transcripts of Recorded Call Placed on 11/2/2022 – SEALED
12-20-2024 – Visiting Judge Franks Hearing – Montgomery County Clerk of Court Technology Policy – SEALED
You’d think he’s Nan Whaley- who somehow has the feds using the Glomar Defense to hide all her dirty dealing recordings that were played to the grand jury. The difference Foley doesn’t understand is that Whaely must have turned into a confidential informant as part of her deal- and Foley hasn’t been able to rat on anyone else (mostly because he hires criminals like Debbie Lieberman instead).
Here’s the document:
As of this writing, the judge has issued a motion to unseal the Foley filing for withdrawing the plea- including his grounds for proving “manifest injustice” but seeing as it’s directing Foley’s office to do it- who knows when it will get done. Filed 10:20 am today
On inquiry by the Court, and without objection from Defendant’s counsel, the Defendant’s motion to withdraw plea as filed June 17, 2025 is ordered to be unsealed and made available for public view. AND IT IS SO ORDERED AND DECREED.
Foley has 28 days to respond to my Quo Warranto. If Judge Hein sits on his ruling long enough, we could end up in court and Foley could be removed from office. Or, if he enters to not allow the with drawl, stating that Rion failed to meet the bar of “Manifest Injustice”- Foley will instantly appeal, and the process could be delayed including my action.
Hein clearly said, whatever he did today, would have to stand up to the scrutiny of the next higher court.
But, if he decides to unseal the whole thing, the court of public opinion might permanently be swayed on the legitimacy of this deal that took almost a year to work out. All this time, Foley’s been cashing a check, breaking more laws and getting away with it. Your only hope, unfortunately, is pinned squarely on my back if we make it to court. All I can say is sorry. The people deserve better.
One last note, I’d like to thank all of you who have recently either signed up for a recurring donation [2], or made a one off. I’ve spent half my work day today filming, editing, writing, to keep you informed. I am not independently wealthy, or rich enough to hire a lawyer to do what I’ve done. I depend on the support of my friends. Thank you- you know who you are.
When Mr Rion “claimed that it’s because I filed the Quo Warranto that he had to withdraw the plea ” isn’t that the same as saying the ORC is valid? I am suprised they didnt check out what the felony status would do. It is a common prohibition. I doubt they can cite an example where it has been waived.
Additional comment:
In Ohio, a felony conviction generally prohibits an individual from holding public office, unless the conviction is reversed, annulled, or the person receives a pardon. Additionally, certain offenses like bribery or embezzlement, even if not felonies, can also disqualify someone from holding public office according to the ACLU of Ohio.
Ohio law states that a person convicted of a felony is “incompetent to be an elector or juror, or to hold an office of honor, trust or profit” according to the Ohio Attorney General.
That is according to Google.
A lot of work. Thank you, David