Title: In re Disqualification of Jackson

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF JACKSON. 
KISTLER v. KISTLER 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Jackson (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Statutory right to seek disqualification of 
a judge is an extraordinary remedy not to be invoked in a frivolous manner 
— Filing of repeated affidavits of disqualification can result in the 
imposition of appropriate sanctions. 
(No. 98-AP-147 — Decided December 29, 1998.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, 
Domestic Relations Division case No. 96-DR-136. 
 
MOYER, C.J.  This affidavit of disqualification filed by defendant Victor 
Nial Kistler seeks the disqualification of Judge S. Farrell Jackson from further 
proceedings regarding the above-captioned case. 
 
I note that this is the third affidavit of disqualification filed by affiant in this 
case since March 1998.  The two previous affidavits (98-AP-039 and 98-AP-128) 
were found not well taken and were denied.  In addition, affiant filed a motion for 
reconsideration in 98-AP-128, which was overruled, and has submitted numerous 
letters relative to his claim of bias and prejudice against Judge Jackson. 
 
In his most recent filing, affiant alleges “[n]ew serious abuses by the Judge” 
and attaches two letters in support of his claim.  Affiant’s allegations are nothing 
more than a restatement of the claims made in his prior affidavits and numerous 
communications with this court, all of which relate to legal rulings made by Judge 
Jackson and the quality of legal representation received by affiant.  As stated in 
previous rulings, these allegations do not support a finding of bias, prejudice, or 
other disqualifying interest.  Accordingly, this affidavit of disqualification is found 
not well taken and is denied.  The case shall proceed before Judge Jackson. 
 
2
 
Affiant is reminded that “[t]he statutory right to seek disqualification of a 
judge is an extraordinary remedy not to be invoked in a frivolous manner [and] * * 
* the filing of repeated affidavits of disqualification can result in the imposition of 
appropriate sanctions.”  (Citations omitted.)  See In re Disqualification of Millard 
(1992), 74 Ohio St.3d 1235, 1236, 657 N.E.2d 1343, 1344.  While affiant 
legitimately may question the legal rulings made by Judge Jackson in the 
underlying case, the appropriate forum to raise this question is appellate review 
and not the filing of repeated affidavits of disqualification and other 
communications with the Supreme Court.  Affiant may be liable for sanctions 
should he file another affidavit of disqualification that raises issues more 
appropriately addressed in another forum.