The Court Told Me to File to Remove Mat Heck, Here’s what I told them.

When the Second District Court of Appeals dismissed my quo warranto case against Montgomery County Clerk of Courts Mike Foley, they didn’t just sidestep the Ohio Constitution. They practically invited me to file the next one against Montgomery County Prosecutor Mat Heck.

I instead, filed a “Motion to Reconsider” today, with a request to certify the case to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Article II, Section 38 of the Ohio Constitution says it clearly:
“Laws shall be passed providing for the prompt removal of public officers… for any misconduct involving moral turpitude or for other cause provided by law”

The legislature followed that directive by creating Chapter 2733 of the Ohio Revised Code, the quo warranto statute. It says that either the Attorney General, a county prosecutor, or a person “entitled to the office” can bring an action to remove someone unlawfully holding office.

Here’s the problem. If the prosecutor refuses to act, no one else can. The courts have decided that an ordinary citizen isn’t “entitled to the office,” even when that citizen is qualified to hold it. So when a corrupt official’s friend in the prosecutor’s office looks the other way, there is no remedy. That’s not a government of laws. That’s a protection racket.

In my Motion for Reconsideration, I argue that as a qualified elector of Montgomery County, I am “entitled to the office” under R.C. 2733.06. The Clerk of Courts position has no special qualifications. Any registered voter living here can run for it. If that’s not “entitled to the office,” then the statute is meaningless.

I also point out that Foley’s conviction was real. On June 17, 2025, he pled no contest, was found guilty of Unauthorized Use of a Computer (F5) and Solicitation of Political Contributions from Public Employees (M1), and was sentenced to community control sanctions. Under R.C. 2921.41(C)(1), that conviction permanently disqualified him from holding public office. The later withdrawal of his plea doesn’t erase the disqualification. The statute is self-executing. The moment the finding of guilt was entered, his office was vacant.

The Second District itself just reaffirmed that principle in State v. Sheppard, 2025-Ohio-4882, ¶¶ 18–24. Once a sentence has been imposed, a plea can only be withdrawn to correct a “manifest injustice.” A change of heart isn’t enough. In Foley’s case, his lawyer Jon Paul Rion filed a motion to withdraw almost immediately, and Judge Jonathan Hein granted it without any finding of manifest injustice. There was no claim of coercion, confusion, or constitutional defect. Just political panic and a friendly ruling.

If Foley weren’t part of Montgomery County’s political protection network, he’d already be out of office. Instead, the court is pretending that none of this happened, while the prosecutor looks the other way.

By ruling that only the prosecutor can bring a quo warranto action, the Second District has effectively declared that the Constitution’s command for prompt removal doesn’t matter. If the prosecutor refuses to act, nothing happens. And if that’s the rule, then the next step is obvious: file to remove the prosecutor for neglect of duty under R.C. 309.05, based on his statutory obligations in R.C. 309.08(A). When the officer charged with enforcing the law refuses to enforce it, that’s neglect of duty.

This isn’t theoretical. Heck’s refusal to act on Foley’s disqualification is just one of many failures. There’s a long record of selective enforcement, political favoritism, and looking the other way when friends of the system are involved. The court’s ruling practically dares me to use that record in a new case.

Meanwhile, I still have to face a CSPO hearing that Foley filed, apparently believing that somehow getting a protection order against me would absolve him of his crimes against the taxpayers. It’s another piece of the same delusional strategy: try to silence the person pointing out the obvious instead of addressing the misconduct itself.

The bottom line is simple. Ohio’s Constitution requires prompt removal for misconduct. The Ohio Revised Code provides no real way to enforce that when prosecutors refuse to act. The courts have closed the door to citizen enforcement. That leaves only one path: holding the prosecutor accountable.

If the Constitution means what it says, it has to apply even in Montgomery County.

This case isn’t over. It’s the start of the next one.