Satellite Camp Fifth Floor - Supreme Court of Ohio RICK MATSA is an attorney, architect, landlord, and real estate agent, who over the past two decades has earned a substantial amount

^8^°/ -

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

In re: • ^. ^., ,^ % ^ /

Aristotle R. MatsaAttorney Reg. No. 0006182

CERTIFICATION OF DEFAULT

Richard A. Dove (0020256)Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline65 South Front StreetFifth FloorColumbus, Ohio 43215(614) 387-9370richard.doveksc.ohio.itov

Aristotle R. Matsa (0006182)#0006182FCI AshlandSatellite CampPO Box 6000Ashland, KY 41105

,.....,.,.,,,,,,,.,,,--------- ;

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

In re:

Complaint against

Aristotle R. Matsa

Respondent

Disciplinary Counsel

Relator

CERTIFICATION

Gov. Bar R. V, Section 6a(A)

Pursuant to Rule V, Section 6a, of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the

Bar of Ohio, I hereby certify that the respondent in the above-captioned matter has failed to

file an answer to the formal complaint certified to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances

and Discipline on December 13, 2013.

Attached to this certification is an affidavit setting forth the attempts to serve the

complaint on the respondent and copies of documents referenced in the affidavit.

^ ditRICHARD A. DOVESecretary, Board of Commissionerson Grievances and Discipline ofthe Supreme Court of Ohio

STATE OF OHIO

COUNTY OF FRANKLINss:

AFFIDAVIT

I, Richard A. Dove, having been duly sworn according to the laws of Ohio, hereby depose andsay:

I am the Secretary to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Disciplineof the Supreme Court of Ohio ("Board"). Pursuant to Rule V of the SupremeCourt Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, I am responsible for servingcertified disciplinary complaints on the parties and maintaining the records ofcases certified to the Board.

2. On December 13, 2013, a formal complaint was certified to the Board in thematter of Disciplinary Counsel v. Aristotle R. Matsa, Board Case No. 2013-072.

On December 13, 2013, a notice and copy of the certified complaint were sent viacertified mail to the respondent at FCI Ashland, Satellite Camp, PO Box 6000,Ashland, KY 41105. The address to which the certified mail was sent is therespondent's current address reflected on the formal complaint.

4. On December 18, 2013, the Board received a return receipt from the United StatesPostal Service acknowledging the receipt of the documents at the addressreferenced in ¶3.

On January 3, 2014, the Board received from the respondent a motion forstay/continuance and request for guidance/inquiry on the Board and its secretary.

6. On January 7, 2014, the Board's chair granted the respondent's motion to stayfurther proceedings referenced in ¶5 and advising the respondent that he shall filehis answer with the Board within twenty days of any order or decision thatconcludes, terminates, or otherwise disposes of any direct appeal or the last dateon which a timely appeal may be perfected.

On May 20, 2014, the Board received from the relator a motion to lift stay ofproceedings.

On May 20, 2014, the Board's chair granted the relator's motion referenced in ¶7and ordered the stay entered on January 7, 2014 vacated and advising therespondent to file his answer to the formal complaint on or before June 16, 2014.

9. On May 28, 2014, the Board received from the respondent a limited appearancewith full reservation of rights of Respondent for the following purposes: 1)memorandum contra Relator's motion to lift stay of proceedings; 2)

motion/request for continuing stay/continuance and/or motion fordismissal/closure; 3) notice of continuing appeals of right; 4) jurisdictional notice;and 5) second request for guidance/inquiry of the Board and its secretary.

10. On May 29, 2014, the Board's chair overruled the respondent's motionsreferenced in ¶9 and advising the respondent to file his answer to the formalcomplaint on or before June 16, 2014.

11. On June 23, 2014, a notice of intent to certify the respondent's default was sent tothe respondent at the address referenced in ¶3.

12. As of the date of this affidavit, the respondent has not filed an answer to theformal complaint pending before the Board or otherwise responded to thecertification of the complaint or the notice of intent to certify his default.

13. Attached to this affidavit are true and accurate copies of the following documentscontained in the case file that is maintained in the Board offices:

a. The formal complaint certified to the Board on December 13, 2013(Attachment A);

b. The return receipt showing the respondent's receipt on December 18, 2013of the certified mail sent to the address referenced in ¶3 (Attachment B);

The respondent's motion referenced in ¶5 (Attachment C);

d. The entry referenced in ¶6 (Attachment D);

The relator's motion to lift the stay referenced in ¶7 (Attachment E);

f. The entry referenced in ¶8 (Attachment F);

g. The respondent's motions referenced in ¶9 (Attachment G);

h. The entry referenced in ¶10 (Attachment H); and

The notice of intent to certify the respondent's default sent to therespondent's address listed on the formal complaint on June 23, 2014.(Attachment I).

2

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

Richard A. e (0020256)Secretary, Board of Commissionerson Grievances and Discipline

Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence this 28tt' day of July, 2014.

MICHELE PENNINGTONNotary Public, State of i

My Commission Expires Ol 1'1

In re:

Complaint against

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RECE I V GD

ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE OF

THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Aristotle R.1VIatsa, Esq. 68142-061FCI AshlandSatellite CampP.O. Box 6000Ashland, KY 41105

Attorney Registration No. (0006182)

Respondent,

Disciplinary Counsel250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 325Columbus, Ohio 43215-7411

Relator.

r. _y p1^ 2 ÂSO<^

Lv Sbi

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSON GRIEVANCES & DISCIPLINE

a 072 ^No.

COMPLAINT AND CERTIFICATE

(Ru.e V :;fT.a,r O,,uy,rem_------..., e Court Rules forthe Government of the Bar of Ohio.)

-3 k

^, ^ .. . _

, L

Now comes the relator and alleges that Aristotle R. Matsa, an Attorney at Law, duly

admitted to the practice of law in the state of Ohio is guilty of the following misconduct:

1. Respondent, Aristotle R. Matsa, was admitted to the practice of law in the state of Ohio

on October 29, 1984. Respondent is subject to the Code of Professional Responsibility,

Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules for the (iovernment of the Bar of Ohio.

2: On December 22, 2009, respondent was indicted in the United States District Court for

the Southern District of Ohio under:

® 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a): Corruptly Obstructing, Impeding, and Impairing the Due

Administration of the Internal Revenue Laws (1 Count),

ATTAC;HMEN'I' A

• 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2): Aiding and Assisting in the Preparation and Presentation of

False and Fraudulent U.S. Income Tax Returns for Estates and Trusts (15

Counts),

• 31 U.S.C. §§ 5314 & 5322(b) & 31 C.F.R. §§ 103.24 and 103.27(c) &(d): Failing

to File Report on Foreign Bank Account (1 Count),

• 18 U.S.C. § 371: Conspiracy to Commit Federal Offenses (1 Count),

• 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b): Witness Tampering (2 Counts),

• 18 U.S.C. § 1001: False Statement (1 Count), and

• 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a): Obstruction of Justice (1 Count).

3. On Apri120, 2012, respondent was found guilty of all counts after a jury trial.

4. On November 2, 2012, respondent was sentenced to 85 months in prison and 3 years of

supervised release. He was ordered to pay $388,000 in restitution, a fine of $265,000,

$61,912 in prosecution costs, and a special assessment of $2,200.

5. On December 10, 2012, the Supreme Court suspended respondent on an interim basis for

his felony conviction.

6. The facts underlying respondent's conviction are contained in the superseding

indictment, which states:

Introduction

1. Defendant, ARISTOTLE R.IVIATSA, a/k/a Rick Matsa, a/k/a Ricky Matsa, a/k/a Dr. R.

Matsa, a/k/a AR Matsa (hereinafter, "RICK MATSA"), was a citizen of the United States

("U.S.") and a resident of the State of Ohio.

2

• 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2): Aiding and Assisting in the Preparation and Presentation of

False and Fraudulent U.S. Income Tax Returns for Estates and Trusts (15

Counts),

31 U.S.C. §§ 5314 & 5322(b) & 31 C.F.R. §§ 103.24 and 103.27(c) &(d): Failing

to File Report on Foreign Bank Account (1 Count),

• 18 U.S.C. § 371: Conspiracy to Commit Federal Offenses (1 Count),

• 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b): Witness Tampering (2 Counts),

• 18 U.S.C. § 1001: False Statement (1 Count), and

• 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a): Obstruction of Justice (1 Count).

3. On April 20, 2012, respondent was found guilty of all counts after a jury trial.

4. On November 2, 2012, respondent was sentenced to 85 months in prison and 3 years of

supervised release. He was ordered to pay $388,000 in restitution, a fine of $265,000,

$61,912 in prosecution costs, and a special assessment of $2,200.

5. On December 10, 2012, the Supreme Court suspended respondent on an interim basis for

his felony conviction.

6. The facts underlying respondent's conviction are contained in the superseding

indictment, which states:

Introdeic.tlan

1. Defendant, ARISTOTLE R.MATSA, a/k/a Rick Matsa, a/k/a Ricky Matsa, a/k/a Dr. R.

Matsa, a/k/a AR Matsa (hereinafter, "RICK MATSA"), was a citizen of the United States

("U.S.") and a resident of the State of Ohio. 2

2. RICK MATSA is an attorney, architect, landlord, and real estate agent, who over the past two

decades has earned a substantial amount of income from these activities, as well as from the

interest income generated from funds held in various domestic bank accounts. Despite

earning taxable income,ltICK MATSA has paid virtually no federal income taxes by taking

actions to conceal and disguise his interests in the various entities he controls, and by filing

false personal, corporate, and trust income tax returns.

3. Defendant LOULA Z. MATSA, a/k/a Zacharoula Matsa, a/k/a Zacharoula L. Matsa, a/k/a

Dr. L. Matsa (hereinafter, "LOULA MATSA"), was a citizen of the U.S. and a resident of the

State of New York. LOULA MATSA is the mother of RICK MATSA.

Background

THE INCOME TAX SYSTEM

4. The Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), an agency within the U.S. Department of Treasury,

was responsible for administering and enforcing the federal revenue laws and regulations

regarding the ascertainment, computation, assessment, and collection of income taxes owed to

the U.S. by its citizens and residents.

5. According to the revenue laws of the U.S., citizens of the U.S. are obligated to pay taxes on

their worldwide income from whatever source derived.

6. In order to accurately assess and collect taxes, the IRS must, among other things, determine

taxpayers' actual income, credits and deductions. To accomplish this, the IRS uses, among

others, the following means:

o Individuals: In general, individual taxpayers report their income and other relevant

3

items to the IRS each year by filing U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns, including

Forms 1040 and 1040A.

o Corporations: In general, all domestic corporations in existence for any part of a tax

year must file an income tax return for that year, whether or not they have taxable

income. A corporation generally must file a U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return,

Form 1120, to report its income, gains, losses, deductions, credits, and income tax

liability.

o Trusts: In the U.S., domestic trusts must file a U.S. Income Tax Return for Estates and

Trusts, Form 1041, for each taxable year during which the trust has $600 in income or

the trust has a non-resident alien as a beneficiary. The Form 1041 must accurately

report to the IRS all income earned by the trust and any distributions of the corpus of

the trust or the income earned by the trust.

7. In general, a trust is a legal entity in which the legal and beneficial ownership of property is

separated. A grantor is the person who provides the property to be held in the trust. The .

trustee or fiduciary is the person who manages the property, and is legally required to act for

the benefit of the beneficiaries, the ultimate owners of the property.

8. A "grantor trust" is a term used in the Internal Revenue Code to describe any trust over which

the grantor or other owner retains the power to control or direct the trust's income or assets. If

a grantor retains certain powers over, or benefits in, a trust, the income of the trust will be

taxed to the grantor, rather than to the trust. If a trust is a grantor trust, then the grantor is

treated as the owner of the assets, the trust is disregarded as a separate tax entity, and all

income is taxed to the grantor.

4

9. A "simple trust" is a term used in the Internal Revenue Code to define a trust that: (a) is not a

grantor trust; (b) is required to distribute all income annually; and (c) does not distribute the

corpus of the trust or make charitable contributions: If a trust is required to distribute income

annually, the trustee must file a Schedule K-1, Beneficiary's Share of Income, Deductions,

Credits, etc., attached to the Form 1041 filed with the IRS, identifying each beneficiary's

name, address, and identifying number, and reporting the beneficiary's share of income,

deductions, and credits from the trust.

10. The Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.S.C. § 5311 et sea., is a statutory and regulatory scheme that, in

part, requires persons, including U.S. citizens and residents, who have financial interests in,

signature authority, or other authority over, banks, securities or other financial accounts in excess

of $10,000 in foreign countries to report such information to the federal government. To this

end, the Bank Secrecy Act requires covered persons to report their foreign transactions and

accounts in a document called the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts ("FBAR"),

and known as Form TD-F 90-22.1 ("Form TD-F"), pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 5314(a); 31 C.F.R. §

103 et sea.

11. The IRS was responsible for administering, maintaining, and reviewing, among other forms, the

Form TD-F. Any United States citizen and resident with signatory or other authority over, or

any financial interest in, foreign financial accounts with a combined balance of more than

$10,000 during any time in the tax year, was obligated to file the Form TD-F by June 30 of the

following calendar year. The government relied on these forms t® monitor offshore transactions

and ensure compliance with U.S. laws.

5

General Allegations

12. RICK MATSA created and operated certain corporations, trusts, limited liability companies,

churches, and other entities, in a manner done to create the appearance that the entity was owned

and controlled by others, including his mother, LOULA MATSA. He used these nominee

entities to disguise his income and assets from the IRS. Through these nominee entities RICK

MATSA operated his businesses, purchased real and personal property, held funds in domestic

and foreign bank accounts, and concealed his financial activities from the IRS.

RICK MATSA'S BUSINESSES AND ASSOCIATED ENTITIES

13. Since at least 1983, RICK MATSA has been a licensed real estate broker in the State of Ohio.

RICK MATSA has operated a real estate brokerage business, and the leasing of real estate,

through several entities, including:

a. The Spectrum Companies, Inc., incorporated on or about June 26, 1979 in the

State of Delaware;

b. Landmarks U.S.A., incorporated on or about September 19, 1983 in the State of

Ohio; and

c. Protidea Limited, incorporated on or about September 19, 1983 in the State of

Ohio.

14. Beginning in or around 1979, through the present,l2ICK MATSA was the founder, president,

and majority shareholder of The Architects Spectrum Ltd., inc., an architectural services

business incorporated on or about July 13, 1979 in the State of Ohio.

15. After graduating from law school in 1984 and obtaining his law license, RICK MATSA

6

estate companies, and architectural firm are all operated out of the commercial space located at

728 N. High Street, Columbus, Ohio, and have been since approximately 1984, through the

present.

21. RICK MATSA transferred title to this building from his natne to his mother's name, LOULA

MATSA, in or about September 1985. Since the title transfer, RICK MATSA has continued to

operate and manage the rental units at 726-728 N. High Street, Columbus, Ohio.

22. RICK MATSA rents the residential apartments above the commercial space through, among

other entities, Protidea Limited.

23. RICK MATSA rents the commercial space at 726 N. High Street to an art gallery.

The,,Meal Avenue House

24. The two-story house at 2233 Neil Avenue, Columbus, Ohio is primarily a rental property, which

rents apartments to students of a local university through, among other entities, Protidea Limited.

25. RICK MATSA transferred title to this building from his name to his mother's name, LOULA

MATSA, in or about September 1985. Since the title transfer, RICK MATSA has continued to

operate and manage the rental units at 2233 Neil Avenue, Columbus, Ohio.

The Farm

26. In or about September 1991, RICK MATSA purchased an approximately 150-acre farm in

Hocking County, Ohio, titled in the name of The Spectrum Companies, Inc. as Trustee under the

terms of the Orlinda Historic Society and Land Trust.

27. From in or about September 1991, until in or about 2000, RICK MATSA and his family resided

at the farm in Hocking County, Ohio, using it as their primary residence.

8

28. RICK MATSA funded the purchase of the farm with, among others, funds from accounts held

in the nanie of The Spectrum Companies, Inc., OFM Electro SA Trust, Research Magna Trust,

and Trans Oceanic Trust.

The Worthington Home

29. In or about April 2000, RICK MATSA purchased a single-family residence located on Park

Overlook Drive, in Worthington, Ohio, titled in the name of Zacharoula LLC, a then-newly

formed corporation.

30. From in or about April 2000, through in or about his divorce in 2003, RICK MATSA, his wife,

and his daughter resided at the Worthington home, using it as their primary residence.

31. RICK MATSA continued to reside at the Worthington home with his daughter after he and his

wife separated and divorced.

32. RICK MATSA funded the purchase of the Worthington home with, among others, funds from

accounts held in the name of OFM Electro SA Trust, Research Magna Trust, Trans Oceanic

Trust, and Zorin Trust.

RICK MATSA'S USE OF NOMINEE BANK ACCOUNTS

33. RICK MATSA caused the opening of multiple bank accounts in his name and in the name of

nominees transferring both personal and entity funds, including, but not limited to, the entities

described in paragraphs 13 through 19.

34. RICK MATSA used these nominee bank accounts for both personal and business activities,

including, among others things, depositing rental income, facilitating business ventures,

generating interest income, transferring substantial funds within domestic and foreign bank

accounts, and hiding income and assets from the IRS.

9

TAX RETURN HISTORY OF THE TRUST ENTITIES

35. RICK MATSA caused the preparation, signing, and filing with the IRS of trust tax returns,

Forms 1041, for at least five separate trust entities, from at least 1996 through at least 2007. The

names of the trusts are:

a. Spectrum Trust;

b. Research Magna Trust;

c. Trans Oceanic Trust;

d. Zorin Trust; and

e. OFM Electro SA Trust.

36. For the years 2000 through 2005, The Spectrum Companies, Inc. was the named trustee for each

of the above named trusts as listed on the Forms 1041 filed with the IRS.

37. For the years 2000 through 2005, the Schedules K-1 that were attached to the Forms 1041

reported an individual named "Mekenkamp" or "Mekencamp" as the beneficiary, with an

address of "Windmolen Broeks Weg, 7606 JM Almelo, Holland," and no further identifying

information.

38. For the years 2000 through 2005, each of the Forms 1041 reported that interest income was

earned by the trusts and was distributed to the beneficiary each year. Each of the trusts claimed

an income distribution deduction that wiped out any tax due and owing by the trusts.

39. For the tax years 2000 through 2005,each of the Forms 1041 were signed by a tax return

preparer after they were already prepared and caused to be prepared by RICK MATSA.

40. After RICK MATSA became aware of the grand jury investigation, each of the Forms 1041 for

tax years 2006 and 2007 were prepared and signed by a different tax return preparer.

10

41. Beginning in tax years 2006 and 2007, LOULA MATSA was the named trustee for each of the

above named trusts as listed on the Forms 1041 filed with the IRS.

42. Beginning in tax years 2006 and 2007, the Schedules K-1 that were attached to the Fornis 1041

reported, among others, The Spectrum Companies; Inc. as the new beneficiary.

43. For the tax years 2006 and 2007, each of the Forms 1041 reported that interest income was

earned by the trusts and was distributed to the beneficiary each year. Each of the trusts claimed

an income distribution deduction that wiped out any tax due and owing by the trusts.

44. In reality, the above referenced trusts were fraudulent, abusive, and shams, because, among other

things, RICK MATSA was the owner of the assets and retained an economic interest in, and

control over, the trusts' assets after the supposed transfer of the assets to the trusts. The trusts

merely functioned as the alter-ego of RICK MATSA and their nominee owners, including,

among others, his mother LOULA MATSA. As a result, RICK MATSA and the nominee

owners remained liable for all taxes due and owing.

T vTAX RE RN HISTORY OF RICK MATSA

45. RICK MATSA caused the preparation, signing, and filing with the IRS of individual income tax

returns, Forms 1040 and 1040A, from at least tax years 1985 through 2006, with the exception of

2004 and 2005 when he did not file. In each of these tax years, RICK MATSA reported

minimal or no income, and virtually no income tax due as follows:

Tax Year Listed Occupation Total Income Income Tax Due

1985 Lessor $-11,324 $0

1986 Attorney $-15,220 $0

11

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

Attorney

Prop Manager

Prop Manager

Prop Manager

Prop Manager

Prop Manager

Prop Manager

Property Manager

Property Manager

12

$-20,961

$-25,676

$-12,831

$-2,306

$-2,494

$8,974

$13,973

$1,783

$9,569

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$107

$0

$0

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Property Manager

Property Manager

Property Manager

Property Manager

Property Manager

[Not specified]

[Not specified]

Homemkr/Par't

Did Not File

$9,899

$3,033

$-2,169

$-6,360

$-5,798

$20,954

$13,130

$9,004

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

Did Not File

Parent $6,092 $0

46. From in or about tax years 1985 through 2000, RICK MATSA reported the rental property

income and expenses associated with the Short North Building and the Neil Avenue House on

his individual income tax returns, even though in or about September 1985, RICK MATSA

transferred title to these properties from his name to his mother, LOULA MATSA.

47. From in or about tax years 1985, and 1988 through 2003, RICK MATSA worked as an attorney

at his law firm. During that same period, he did not report on his Forms 1040 any income earned

from his law practice.

48. For the tax years 1986 and 1987, RICK MATSA reported some income earned from "legal

services" on the Schedules C of his Forms 1040. However, on these Schedules C, he reported

losses of $98 and $670, respectively.

49. In or about 2002, RICK MATSA attempted to cause the preparation, signing, and filing with the

13

IRS of a false individual income tax return for tax year 2001 showing a transfer of both the Short

North Building and the Neil Avenue House from him to Zacharoula, LLC.

50. In or about 2002, RICK MATSA caused the preparation, signing, and filing with the IRS of a

false Form 1040 for tax year 2001 reporting a gain from the sale of his Short North Building and

Neil Avenue House that never took place.

51. After the filing the false Form 1040 for tax year 2001, RICK MATSA stopped reporting rental

property income and expenses associated with the Short North Building and the Neil Avenue

House on his individual income tax returns.

52. For the tax year 2003, RICK MATSA caused the preparation, signing, and filing with the IRS of

a Form 1040A, which is also known as the "Short Form." This two page Fonn does not contain

many of the schedules typically attached to the Form 1040, which is also known as the "Long

Form." As a result, RICK MATSA did not file the required schedules and forms used to report

his interest in, signature authority, and other authority over funds he maintained in a foreign

bank account during 2003.

53. For each of the tax years 1996 through 2006, including 2004 and 2005, RICK MATSA failed to

report on his individual income tax returns any interest income earned by the trusts named in

paragraph 3 5.

TAX RETURN HISTORY OF THE SPECTRUM COMPANIES, INC.

54. RICK MATSA caused the preparation, signing, and filing with the IRS of corporate income tax

returns, Forms 1120, on behalf of The Spectrum Companies, Inc., from at least tax years 2000

through 2007, corresponding to the period of July 2000 through July 2008.

55. For the tax years 2000 through 2002, The Spectrum Companies, Inc.'s Forms 1120 did not list

any paid tax return preparer and were not signed by RICK MATSA.

14

56. For the tax years 2000 through 2002, The Spectrum Companies, Inc.'s Forms 1120 reported no

taxable income or profits. As a result, The Spectrum Companies, Inc. paid no income taxes

because it reported its total income, taxable income, and the income tax due for these tax years as

follows:

Tax Year Total Income Taxable Income Income Tax Due

2000 $-18,386.56 $-67,534.29 $0

2001 $-2,977.51 $-65,137.65 $0

2002 $-18,752.73 $-42,225.60 $0

57. After RICK MATSA became aware of the grand jury investigation, The Spectrum Companies,

Inc. filed delinquent Forms 1120 that reported total income, taxable income, and the income tax

due as follows:


2003 $27,367.00 $-17,254.00 $0

2004 $60,289.00 $-6, l 70.00 $0

2005 $90,084.00 $37,720.00 $5,658

2006 $129,121.00 $97,078.00 $21,257

2007 $188,481.00 $109,933.00 $26,124

58. For the tax years 2000 through 2007, The Spectrum Companies, Inc.'s Forms 1120 were false as

they reported rental property income and expenses associated with the Short North Building and

the Neil Avenue House. However, RICK MATSA titled these properties in the name of

LOULA MATSA, and they remained in her name continuously since in or about September

1985.

15

59. For the tax years 2000 through 2007, The Spectrum Companies Inc.'s Forms 1120, were false

because, among other things, they reported no compensation was paid to officers, and no salaries

and wages were paid to any employees.

TAX RETURN HISTORY OF LOARM AND LOGZP

60. RICK MATSA caused the preparation, signing, and filing with the IRS of corporate income tax

returns, Forms 1120, on behalf of LOARM, for tax years 1993 through 2002, excluding 1996,

and on behalf of LOGZP, for at least tax years 2003 and 2004.

61. For the tax years 1993 through 2002, excluding 1996, the LOARM's Forms 1120 did not list a

paid tax return preparer and were not signed by RICK MATSA.

62. For the tax years 1993 through 2002, excluding 1996, the LOARM's Forms 1120 reported no

taxable income or profits. As a result, the LOARM paid no income taxes because it reported its

total income, taxable income, and the income tax due for these tax years as follows:


1993 $18,354.87 $-41,632.71 $0

1994 $11,436.79 $-42,144.52 $0

1995 $33,216.82 $-34,078.85 $0

1996 N/A

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

$62,432.44

$29,64402

$611.52

$-19,238.82

$-32,245.80

$-70,086.14

$-46,402.23 $0

$-85,342.15 $0

$-92,322.82 $0

$-115,124.52 $0

$-113,541.53 $0

$-115,751.60 $0

16

63. After RICK MATSA became aware of the grand jury investigation, the LOGZP filed delinquent

returns that reported total income, taxable income, and the income tax due as follows:

Tax Year Total Income Taxable Income

2003 $86,294.00 $30,402.00

Income Tax Due

$4,560

2004 $82,324.00 $55,224.00 $8,806

64. For the tax years 2003 and 2004, the LOGZP's Forms 11201ist a paid tax return preparer and

were not signed by RICK MATSA.

65. For the tax years 1993 through 2004, excluding 1996, the LOARM and the LOGZP's Forms

1120 were false because, among other things, they reported no compensation was paid to

officers, and no salaries and wages were paid to any employees.

THE INVESTIGATION

66. In or about May 2006, a federal grand jury investigation was initiated concerning RICK

MATSA, his business activities, his associates, and, among other things, the entities, properties,

and bank accounts described in paragraphs 13 through 65.

67. Shortly after May 2006, RICK MATSA, LOULA MATSA, and others learned of the criminal

grand jury investigation.

68. On or about September 19, 2006, LOULA MATSA and others, presented sworn testimony

before the grand jury pursuant to grand jury subpoenas.

COUNT ONE

26 U.S.C. § 7212(a)

(Corruptly Obstructing, Impeding, and Impairing the

Due Administration of the Internal Revenue Laws)

69. The Grand Jury hereby incorporates and re-alleges the factual allegations contained in

17

paragraphs 1 through 68 of this Superseding Indictment, as if fully set forth herein.

70. From in or about 1985, through on or about the date of this Superseding Indictment, the exact

dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in the Southern District of Ohio and elsewhere, the

Defendant,

ARISTOTLE R. MATSA,

did corruptly obstruct and impede and endeavor to obstruct and impede the due administration of

the internal revenue laws of the United States concerning the ascertainment, computation,

assessment and collection of federal income taxes of the following: (i) himself; (ii) his mother,

LOULA MATSA; (ii) the trust entities named in paragraph 35; (iii) the corporate entities named

in paragraphs 13 through 15, and paragraphs 17 through 19; (iv) and the persons paid by the

above-named corporate and trust entities, by committing, among others, the acts described in

paragraphs 71 through 95.

71. RICK MATSA would and did disguise his income and assets by changing the names on bank

accounts from his own individual name to the name of nominee corporate entities that he

controlled.

72. RICK MATSA would and did disguise his income and assets by changing the names on bank

accounts from his own individual name and the name of various nominee corporate entities to

the name of trusts that he controlled.

73. RICK MATSA would and did disguise his income and assets by creating and titling bank

accounts in the name of various nominee corporate entities, trusts, and churches that he

controlled.

74. RICK MATSA would and did transfer ownership of his income and assets to fraudulent,

abusive, and sham trusts that he created and controlled.

18

75. RICK MATSA would and did use his mother's personal bank accounts to commingle personal,

corporate, and trusts funds.

76. RICK MATSA would and did transfer to and place title of his assets in nominee owners,

including, among others, LOULA 1VIATSA, The Spectrum Companies, Inc., LOGZP,

Zacharoula, LLC, and Metro Universal Life Church, Inc.

77. RICK MATSA would and did operate his businesses using nominees as principals and agents

who he directed to sign documents and conduct financial transactions on his behalf and on behalf

of his businesses including, among others, The Spectrum Companies, Inc., The Architect

Spectrum Ltd., Inc., LOARM, LOGZP, and Protidea Limited.

78. RICK MATSA would and did pay for personal expenses through the use of credit cards held in

nominee names, including, among others, LOULA MATSA, Dr. E. Matsa, Dr. R. Matsa,

Spectrum Companies, Inc., and Architect Spectrum, Inc.

79. RICK MATSA would and did use funds transferred into and held in trust accounts he controlled

to purchase real and personal property, including, among others, The F'arm and the Worthington

home, which he and his family enjoyed for personal purposes.

80. RICK MATSA would and did appropriate funds from trusts accounts he controlled held for the

benefit of legal clients including, among others, O.S., for his own personal expenditures and

business purposes

81. RICK MATSA would and did hire different tax return preparers for the preparation of federal

income tax returns of behalf of himself, hisnominee corporate entities, and associated trusts

including, among others, The Spectrum Companies, Inc., The Architect Spectrum Ltd.; Inc.,

LOARM, LOGZP, and the trusts named in paragraph 35. These tax return preparers were not

inforrned of all the facts and relationships existing between RICK MATSA and the various

19

entities.

82. RICK MATSA would and did cause nominees, who had no knowledge of the business and no

access to any financial and accounting records, to sign federal income tax returns filed of behalf

of his nominee corporate entities and associated trusts including, among others, The Spectrum

Companies, Inc., The Architect Spectrum Ltd., Inc., LOARM, LOGZP, and the trusts named in

paragraph 35.

83. RICK MATSA would and did provide false information to the nominees that signed the federal

income tax returns filed of behalf of his nominee corporate entities and associated trusts

including, among others, The Spectrum Companies, Inc., The Architect Spectrum Ltd., Inc.,

LOARM, LOGZP, and the trusts named in paragraph 35.

84. RICK MATSA would and did file and cause to be filed false individual income tax returns,

Forms 1040 and 1040A, under the penalties of perjury, as described above.

85. RICK MATSA would and did fail to file and cause not to be filed individual income tax returns,

Forms 1040, for tax years 2004 and 2005, despite earning sufficient income to trigger the filing

obligation.

86. RICK MATSA would and did file and cause to be filed false corporation income tax returns,

Forms 1120, on behalf of, among others, The Spectrum Companies, Inc., LOARM, and LOGZP,

as described above.

87. RICK MATSA would and did file and cause to be filed false income tax returns for estates and

trusts, Forms 1041, on behalf of, among others, Trans Oceanic Trust, OFM Electro SA Trust,

Spectrum Trust, Zorin Trust, and Research Magna Trust, as described above and in Counts Two

through Sixteen of this Superseding Indictment.

88. RICK MATSA would and did fail to create, maintain, and file with the IRS Forms W-2, "Wage

20

and Tax Statements," Forms 1099-MISC, "Miscellaneous Income, and any other forms used to

report to the IRS monies paid to individuals who performed services on behalf of, and who

received any distributions from, the nominee corporate entities that he controlled, including,

among others, The Spectrum Companies, Inc., LOARM, and I,OGZP.

89. RICK MATSA opened and caused to be opened a foreign bank account in The Netherlands,

account no. XX.XX.XX.434 at ING Bank, through which he transferred substantial funds from

trust accounts which he controlled through nominees, as described above and in Count Seventeen

of this Superseding Indictment.

90. RICK MATSA would and did file and cause to be filed the "Simple Form," Form 1040A, for

tax year 2003 which did not include a Schedule B, which was required to be filed with the IRS to

report his interest in, signature authority, and other authority over a foreign bank account in

2003.

91. RICK MATSA would and did fail to file and cause not to be filed the required forms to report

his interest in, signature authority, and other authority over a foreign bank account, no.

XX.XX.XX.434 at ING Bank in The Netherlands, during 2003 on Schedule B and Form TD-F,

as described above and in Count Seventeen of this Superseding Indictment.

92. RICK MATSA would and did provide and cause to be provided false, incomplete and

misleading information and documents to the tax return preparers that he used to prepare his

individual income tax returns, Forms 1040.

93. RICK MATSA would and did provide and cause to be provided false, incomplete and

misleading information and documents to the tax return preparers that he used to prepare

corporate and trust income tax returns on behalf of, among others, The Spectrum Companies,

Inc., The Architect Spectrum Ltd., Inc., LOARM, LOGZP, and the trusts named in paragraph 35.

21

94. RICK MATSA would and did make and cause to be made material false misrepresentations to

the IRS and a federal grand jury concerning his businesses and personal activities, and the

ownership and control of, among others, The Spectrum Companies, Inc., The Architects

Spectrum Ltd., Inc., LOARM, LOGZP, and the trusts named in paragraph 35, as described above

and in Count Eighteen of this Superseding Indictment.

95. RICK MATSA would and did withhold and cause others to withhold records from the IRS and a

federal grand jury concerning his businesses and personal activities, and the ownership and

control of, among others, The Spectrum Companies, Inc., The Architects Spectrum Ltd., Inc.,

LOARM, LOGZP, and the trusts named in paragraph 35, as described above and in Count

Eighteen of this Superseding Indictment.

All in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7212(a).

COUNTS TWO THROUGH SIXTEEN

26 U.S.C. § 7206(2)

(Aiding and Assisting in the Preparation and Presentation

of False and Fraudulent U.S. Income Tax Returns for Estates and Trusts)


paragraphs 1 through 65 of this Superseding Indictment, as if fully set forth here.

97. On or about the dates stated as to each count listed below, in the Southern District of Ohio and

elsewhere, the Defendant,

ARISTOTLE R. MATSA,

did willfully aid and assist in, and procure, counsel, and advise the preparation and presentation

to the Internal Revenue Service of the following U.S. Income Tax Return for Estates and Trusts,

Forms 1041, by and for the following entities, for the following tax years, which were false and

22

fraudulent as to a material matter, in that said returns each falsely reported that -- (i) the trust was

entitled under the provisions of the Internal Revenue laws to claim a deduction in the following

amounts for income distributions to the beneficiary; and (for those returns specified below) that

(ii) the beneficiary was "Mekenka.np;" whereas, as the Defendant then and there well knew and

believed the trusts were not entitled to claim these deductions, and the interest income earned

during the tax years specified was not distributed to the named beneficiary:

DATE TAX NAME OF AMOUNT OF NAMEDCOUNT [RETURN YEAR TAXPAYER INCOME BENEFIC Y

WAS TRUST E D ANDFILED CLAIMED AS

DISTRIBUTED

2 4/15/04 2003 Spectrum Trust $19,448.57 N/A

3 5/2/04 2003 Research Magna $6,326.55 Mekenkamp

Trust

4 5/2/04 2003 Trans Oceanic $6,326.55 Mekenkamp

5 4/27/04 2003 Zorin Trust $6,326.55 N/A

6 5/5/04 2003 OFM Electro SA $6,326.55 N/A

Trust

7 10/28/05 2004 Spectrum Trust $16,804.56 Mekenkamp

23

8 10/26/05 2004 Research Magna $5,817.17 Mekenkamp

Trust

9 10/21/05 2004 Trans Oceanzc $5;817.17 N/A

Trust

10 10/20/05 2004 Zorin Trust $5,817.17 N/A

11 10/26/05 2004 OFM Electro SA $5,817.17 Mekenkamp

Trust

12 5/24/06 2005 Spectrum Trust $27,575.65 N/A

13 6/2/06 2005 Research Magna $1,807.60 N/A

Trust

14 6/5/06 2005 Trans Oceanic $1,807.60 N/A

Trust

15 6/5/06 2005 Zorin Trust $1,807.60 N/A

16 5/30/06 2005 OFM Electro S.A. $1,807.60 N/A

Trust

All in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7206(2)a

COUNT SEVENTEEN

31 U.S.C. §§ 5314 & 5322(b) &

31 C.F.R. §§ 103.24 and 103.27(c) & (d)

24

(Failing To File Report of Foreign Bank Account)



99. In or about 2003, RICK MATSA enlisted the help of a long-time friend, C.M., to help him open

a bank account in The Netherlands, a foreign country, in RICK MATSA's name.

100. On or about August 5, 2003, RICK MATSA caused approximately $300,000 to be transferred

by wire from a Protidea Limited Trust a/k/a Zorin Trust account at Huntington National Bank in

Columbus, Ohio, to account no. XX.XX.XX.434 in ING Bank, The Netherlands.

101. From in or about August 2003 until in or about November 2003, funds in excess of $10,000 were

maintained at ING Bank, account no. XX.XX.XX.434, held in the name of "De heer Aristotle R.

Matsa 728 North High Street Columbus Ohio USA."

102. On or about November 18, 2003, RICK MATSA caused approximately $304,786 (EUR

263,679.04) to be transferred by wire from ING Bank in The Netherlands to a Citibank savings

account, no. XXXXXX7798, held in the name of RICK MATSA's mother in the United States.

103. On or about June 30, 2004, in the Southern District of Ohio and elsewhere, the Defendant,

ARISTOTLE R. MATSA,

a citizen and resident of the United States, who during the calendar year 2003 had a financial

interest in, and other authority over, a financial account in a foreign country, which account

during 2003 exceeded $10,000.00 in aggregate value, willfully failed to file Form TD F 90-22.1,

Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, as required by law, to wit: Defendant failed to

file Form TD F 90-22.1 disclosing his financial interest in, and other authority over, account no.

XX.XX.XX.434 in ING Bank in The Netherlands.

25

All in violation of Title 31, United States Code, Sections 5314 and 5322(b) and Title 31,

Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 103.24 and 103.27(c) and (d).

COUNT EIGHTEEN

18 U.S.C. §371

(Conspiracy To Commit Federal Offenses)



105. From in or about June 2006 and continuing through to the date of this Superseding Indictment, in

the Southern District of Ohio and elsewhere, the Defendants,

ARISTOTLE R. MATSA

and

LOULA Z. MATSA

did knowingly and willfully conspire, combine, and agree with each other and with unindicted

co-conspirator G.P., together with others known and unknown to the grand jury, to commit

offenses against the United States, that is:

(A) to corruptly influence, obstruct, and impede, and to endeavor to influence,

obstruct, and impede the due administration of justice, in violation of Title

18, United States Code, Section 1503;

(B) to knowingly make and cause others to make materially false declarations

under oath in a federal grand jury proceeding before any court of the United

States, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623;

(C) to knowingly and willfully make and cause to make materially false and

fraudulent statements or representations in any matter within the

26

jurisdiction of the executive branch of the government of the United States,

in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.

Obiect of the Consniracy

106. It was an object of the conspiracy that RICK MATSA, LOULA MATSA, unindicted co-

conspirator G.P., and others contacted by RICK MATSA, would and did mislead and conceal

evidence from the grand jury and its investigating agents.

Manner and Means of the Conspiracy

As a part of the conspiracy, and in order to further its objectives, t2ICK MATSA,

together with LOULA MATSA and unindicted co-conspirator G.P., as well as with others

known and unknown to the grand jury, would and did carry out the conspiracy using the

following manner and means:

107. It was a part of the conspiracy that RICK MATSA, LOULA MATSA, and their co-conspirators

would and did withhold records and other evidence from the grand jury and its investigating

agents after receiving a grand jury subpoena.

108. It was further part of the conspiracy that RICK MATSA, LOULA MATSA, and their co-

conspirators would and did agree to make materially false statements to the grand jury and its

investigating agents.

109. It was further part of the conspiracy that RICK MATSA would and did prepare and attempt to

prepare his co-conspirators, including LOULA MATSA, and others, to make materially false

statements to the grand jury and its investigating agents.

110. It was further part of the conspiracy that RICK MATSA would and did prepare and cause the

preparation of documents containing false representations to be submitted to the grand jury and

its investigating agents.

27

111. It was further part of the conspiracy that RICK MATSA's co-conspirators would and did sign

and submit documents with false representations to the grand jury and its investigating agents.

112. It was further part of the conspiracy that RICK MATSA's co-conspirators, including

LOULA MATSA, would make materially false statements under oath to the grand jury.

Overt Acts in Furtherance of the Cons pirae

In furtherance of the conspiracy and to accomplish its objectives and purposes, the

following overt acts, among others, were committed by one or more of the co-conspirators, in the

Southern District of Ohio and elsewhere:

113. In or about July 2006, RICK MATSA prepared and influenced witness C.M. to make false

statements to the grand jury conducting the investigation described in paragraph 66 and its


114. In or about August 2006, RICK MATSA prepared and influenced co-conspirator G.P. to make

false statements to the grand jury conducting the investigation described in paragraph 66 and its


115. On or about August 24, 2006, co-conspirator G.P. made false and misleading statements to the

investigating agents of the grand jury conducting the investigation described in paragraph 66.

116. In or about September 2006, RICK MATSA and co-conspirator G.P. withheld documents from

the grand jury conducting the investigation described in paragraph 66 and its investigating agents

after receiving a grand jury subpoena.

117. In or about September 2006, RICK MATSA and co-conspirator LOiJLA MATSA withheld

documents from the grand jury conducting the investigation described in paragraph 66 and its

investigating agents after receiving a grand jury subpoena.

118. In or about September, 2006, RICK MATSA prepared and rehearsed with co-conspirator

28

LOULA MATSA to provide false representations to the grand jury.

119. On or about September 19, 2006, co-conspirator LOULA MATSA made false representations

under oath to the grand jury.

120. On or about September 19, 2006, co-conspirator G.P. made false representations under oath to

the grand jury.

121. On or about September 20, 2006, RICK MATSA, through his attorney, made false

representations to the executive branch of the government in a letter submitted by his attorney.

122. On or about September 25, 2006, RICK MATSA drafted and caused the drafting of a letter

containing materially false representations for co-conspirator G.P. to sign and submit to the

executive branch of the government.

123. On or about September 25, 2006, co-conspirator G.P. signed and submitted a letter containing

materially false representations to the executive branch of the government.

124. In or about October 2006,12ICK MATSA prepared and influenced witness A.S. to make false



125. In or about August 2008, RICK MATSA prepared and influenced witness A.S. to make false



All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

COUNT NINETEEN

18 U.S.C. §1512(b)

(Witness Tampering)


29

paragraphs I through 68, and 106 through 125 of this Superseding Indictment, as if fully set forth

here.

127. In or about July 2006, in the Southern District of Ohio and elsewhere, the Defendant,

ARISTOTLE R. MATSA,

did knowingly and corruptly persuade and attempt to persuade witness C.M., and did engage in

misleading conduct toward C.M., with the intent to influence, delay, and prevent the testimony

of C.M. in an official proceeding, specifically the federal grand jury investigation then being

conducted in the Southern District of Ohio described in paragraph 66, by (i) attempting to

mislead C.M. into believing that C.M. was the true owner and beneficiary of certain trusts and

funds held by those trusts in the United States so that she would convey that belief to the grand

jury and its investigating agents; and (ii) by influencing C.M. to falsely state to the grand jury

and its investigating agents that she was the true owner and beneficiary of certain trusts and

funds held by those trusts in the United States.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(b)(1).

COUNT TWENTY

18 U.S.C. §1512(b)

(Witness Tampering)


paragraphs 1 through 68, and 106 through 125 of this Superseding Indictment, as if fully set forth

here.

129. In or about October 2006, in the Southern District of Ohio and elsewhere, the Defendant,

ARISTOTLE R. MATSA,

30

did knowingly and corruptly persuade and attempt to persuade witness A.S., and did engage in

misleading conduct toward A.S., with the intent to influence, delay, and prevent the testimony of

A.S. in an official proceeding, specifically the federal grand jury investigation then being

conducted in the Southern District of Ohio described in paragraph 66, by (i) attempting to

mislead A.S. into believing that work done and materials provided by A.S. for and to RICK

MATSA was not for and to RICK MATSA; and (ii) attempting to mislead A.S. into believing

that work done and materials provided by A.S. for and to RICK MATSA and for and to O.S., a

client of RICK MATSA, was paid for separately, so that A.S. would repeat that to the grand

jury and its investigating agents; and (iii) by influencing A.S. to falsely state to the grand jury

and its investigating agents that he had received separate payment for the work done on behalf of

RICK MATSA and O.S., a client of RICK MATSA, rather than state that all the work done

was paid for with funds held in trust for O. S

All in violation of'I'itle 18, United States Code, Section 1512(b)(1).

COUNT TWENTY-ONE

18U.S.C.§1001

(False Statement)


paragraphs 1 through 68, and 106 through 125 of this Superseding Indictment, as if fully set forth

here.

131. On or about September 25, 2006, in the Southern District of Ohio and elsewhere, the Defendant,

ARISTOTLE R.IVIATSA,

did knowingly and willfully make and use a false writing and document, and aided and abetted

the making and use of a false writing and document, knowing the same to contain a false,

31

fraudulent, and fictitious material statement, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive

branch of government of the United States; to wit, Defendant wrote and caused to be written a

letter dated September 25, 2006, signed by co-conspirator G.P., and addressed and delivered to

the U.S. Department of Justice and United States Attomey's Office, stating that:

(a) "I [co-conspirator G.P.] have always been the sole shareholder of this

corporation [LOARM], and it is my firm";

(b) "[t]he [law] practice in Columbus, Ohio is and has always been mine [co-

conspirator G.P.'s]"; and

(c) "[t]he entities on [the] `Subpoena Attachment' are not `. . . associated with

Mr. [Aristotle R.] Matsa' as suggested by your letter. They are or were for

the most part my clients [co-conspirator G.P.'s] and the clients of my law

practice";

when Defendant 1ZiCK MATSA then and there well knew and believed that such statements

were false, in that Defendant RICK MATSA was the true owner of the corporation in

Columbus, Ohio, originally known as LOARM, and later LOGZP, and that the entities on the

subpoena attachment which accompanied the subpoena served upon G.P. were actually

associated with Defendant RICK MATSA.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 and Section 2.

COIJNT TWENTY-TW®

18 U.S.C. § 1503(a)

(Obstruction of Justice)

32

132. The Grand Jury hereby incorporates and re-alleges the factual allegations contained paragraphs 1

through 68, and 106 through 125 of the Superseding Indictment as if fully set forth here.

133. From in or about June 2006 through the date of this Superseding Indictment, in the Southern

District of Ohio and elsewhere, the Defendant,

ARISTOTLE R. MATSA,

did corruptly influence, obstruct and impede and endeavor to influence, obstruct, and impede the

due administration of justice, and aided and abetted the same, as set forth in [Counts Seventeen

and Eighteen].

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503(a) and Section 2.

7. Respondent's conduct violates DR 1-102(A)(3) & Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(b) [A lawyer shall

not engage in an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty or

trustworthiness]; DR 1-102(A)(4) & Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(c) [A lawyer shall not engage in

conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation]; DR-1-102(A)(5) &

Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(d) [A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the

administration of justice]; and DR 1-102(A)(6) & Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(h) [A lawyer shall

not engage in conduct that adversely reflects upon his fitness to practice law].

33

CONCLUSION

Wherefore, pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V, the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rules

of Professional Conduct, relator alleges that respondent is chargeable with rnisconduct; therefore,

relator requests that respondent be disciplined pursuant to Rule V of the Rules of the

Governinent of the Bar of Ohio.

Office of Disciplinary CounselScott J. Drexel*Disciplinary Counsel Designate

Donald M. Scheetz {0082422)Âssistant Disciplinary Counsel250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 325Columbus, Ohio 43215-7411614.461.0256

*Admitted in California, application for admissionpending in Ohio

34

CERTIFICATE

The undersigned, Joseph M. Caligiuri, Chief Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, of the Office ofDisciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio hereby certifies that Donald M. Scheetz isduly authorized to represent relator in the premises and has accepted the responsibility of .prosecuting the complaint to its conclusion. After investigation, relator believes reasonablecause exists to warrant a hearing on such complaint.

: December 2, 2013

^

Josepl. CaligûriChiefAsistant isciolin rv Counsel

Gov. Bar R. V, § 4(I) Requireme'dtsfor Filing a Complaint.(1) Definition. "Complaint" means a formal written allegation of misconduct or mentalillness of a person designated as the respondent.***

(7) Complaint Filed by Certified Grievance Committee. Six copies of all complaints shall befiled with the Secretary of the Board. Complaints filed by a Certified Grievance Committee shallbe filed in the name of the committee as relator. The complaint shall not be accepted for filingunless signed by one or more attorneys admitted to the practice of law in Ohio, who shall becounsel for the relator. The complaint shall be accompanied by a written certification, signed bythe president, secretary, or chair of the Certified Grievance Committee, that the counsel areauthorized to represent the relator in the action and have accepted the responsibility ofprosecuting the complaint to conclusion. The certification shall constitute the authorization ofthe counsel to represent the relator in the action as fully and completely as if designated andappointed by order of the Supreme Court with all the privileges and immunities of an officer ofthe Supreme Court. The complaint also may be signed by the grievant.(8) Complaint Filed by Disciplinary Counsel. Six copies of all complaints shall be filed withthe Secretary of the Board. Complaints filed by the Disciplinary Counsel shall be filed in thename of the Disciplinary Counsel as relator.(9) Service. Upon the filing of a complaint with the Secretary of the Board, the relator shallforward a copy of the complaint to the Disciplinary Counsel, the Certified Grievance Committeeof the Ohio State Bar Association, the local bar association, and any Certified GrievanceCommittee serving the county or counties in which the respondent resides and maintains anoffice and for the county from which the complaint arose.

35

2. dlriicie Number

1 1111 I 111 1 11

7196 9008 9111 7656 4046

3. Serv9ce'Type GERTEF3tnD h8A6LTM

4. ii2strictetf t?eiivety? (Extra Fee) Yes

1. Article Addressed to:

NY^. 6 - r$d by ^ga$e E=FInC 47eFf7'ij^)

^1t Pl^^r®C. S^gnâtur^

D,x•' s delPvery address ditterent from item 3?iS YES, enter delivery address below:

Aristotle R. Matsa Refcreneg azt'arra3at9on

# 000618?13-072 Matsa Pc materialsFCI Ashland Satellite Camp

F.O. Box 6000Boc/g&dAshla;•d, K^` 4l 1.43$

F'S Farrrr 3811, January 2005 Domestic Returr, Receipt

ATTACHMENT B

ED Agentq Addres:

q Yes{^ No

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLIIVE OF


In re:

Complaint against Aristotle R. Matsa, Esq.

Attorney Registration No. 0006182 . No.: 13-072

Respondent,

. ^r..

1 f..'

Relator.

MOTlOlal FOR STA`y 1 CCINTINUANCE

AND

RECeUEST FOR GUIDANCE 1 IhIOiJIRY OF THE BOARÎTS SECRET,q^


Now comes Aristotle R. Matsa, noting that the nature of this Motion and Request are posed so as to

bring to the Board certain matters of a preliminary nature. To quote an esteemed Jurist, I am turning to

you, my colleagues and peers, for your help, assistance, and guidance as to this matter, given that I have

certain concerns and questions which I would appreciate your assistance in addressing. I note that as I

proceed through this process all I can ask is the same that you would want were our places reversed: a

process which is fair in substance and not only in appearance. I wish to cooperate fully and need your

guidance to do so. Hence, given that I am not able to communicate from my current situs in any other

fashion, I am communicating in this manner.

ATTACH=MENT C

Some time ago, this matter was discussed with the Honorable Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Donald

M. Scheetz, Esq., on or about March 5, 2013, when he telephoned me at FCI Ashland. We discussed the

logic of a stay / continuance / or other form of abatement of this proceeding as I pursued my appellate

rights, while I served my sentence. During that conversation I believe that Mr. Scheetz and I had a very

amicable and productive conversation. He was very helpful and I appreciated his input, help, and

concern. As a result of that conversation Mr. Scheetz stated that he would be "closing his file."

As you know, I am in a Federal Prison, and in no way am I now nor have I ever been a threat to the

public. It is my understanding that I am no longer licensed and given my current circumstances one

certainly would expect that. One of the questions is how the process of deciding what is appropriate as

to my professional future is to proceed. After my conversation with Mr. Scheetz, he indicated by letter

that he would move the board to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal in my

criminal case. My understanding was that this matter would be stayed at least until I had pursued all of

my appellate remedies; and quite frankly given the evidence and information which continues to

surface, for the reasons which are more fully discussed herein, it seems to make sense to stay this

matter until I can personally appear, provide testimony, subpoena individuals, research the applicable

law, and do all of the things which it is physically impossible to do while in a Federal Prison. Without

these things it is impossible to present you with the facts which are necessary for you to make a fair

adjudication. I believe that this is nothing less than that which you would do for a client or want for

yourselves were the roles reversed.

Recently Mr. Scheetz, Esq., by letter, indicated that he would proceed with this matter. I could only

conclude that he was under the mistaken impression that my appeals were over, thus the attached

letter dated November 25, 2013 was sent to him (please see Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated

herein by this reference as if fully rewritten herein verbatim). As noted in the letter my appeals of this

criminal matter are continuing and ongoing. I did not ever receive any letter responding to my

November 25, 2013 inquiry and I have never been provided with any copies of the motion to the Board

referenced in Mr. Scheetz's the letter dated March 5, 2013. Thus, given the limitations of my current

status I know of no other way to make these inquiries, requests, and to seek your assistance regarding

this matter.

This motion is written and filed for primarily two reasons, noting that there are questions posed

herein to the Board / the Board's Secretary. Your literature, including that titled 'Prehearing

Instructions' (Rev. 3/2012), emphasizes communication and cooperation. That has been my lifelong

policy as well. The first reason is to obtain guidance and / or direction regarding the above captioned

matter. The second reason is to respectfully request, in the interests of expediency and fairness, that

this matter be continued / stayed for the reasons enumerated herein. For ease of communication and

clarity this writing is presented alternatively in the first and third person.

I should point out early on that this writing is only a limited appearance to request a stay/

continuance for the numerous reasons indicated herein, to convey background information and to seek

advice / guidance and information. On advice of counsel it is not an appearance for any other purpose

and is provided / submitted with an express reservation of rights by Mr. Matsa, with no waiver of

improper service, ineffective process, other deficiencies, due process, equal protection, right to counsel

of choice and the like. It is my understanding that this is an opportunity for you to judge me and what

should come of me professionally, in context and thus for you to decide what is fair under the

circumstances after you have been presented with complete information, presented at a hearing with

witnesses and the ability for you and all parties to ask questions. It is not possible for me to respond

within twenty (20) days of December 19, 2013 given my present circumstances, lack of access to any

relevant rules, laws, cases, materials, the internet, any Ohio relevant research, that there is a pending /

continuing appellate process, and for the reasons which are more fully enumerated herein.

As to requests for information and inquires, some begin as follows (noting again that statements

pertaining to me are interchangeably referred to by my proper name so as to maintain the flow of the

sentences) along with a brief introduction:

(1) Mr. Matsa has maintained himself in a professional manner for decades and has, while

respectful of the process, consistently maintained his complete innocence of the recent offenses

charged. It should be noted that he has endured multiple prior actions, which, just as the current

situation, were all instigated by his ex-spouse who engaged in two abductions of his daughter and

improper conduct, on two continents. Mr. Matsa consistently prevailed and was exonerated /

successful in all of those prior actions. He was granted sole exclusive custody of his daughter, and the

current matter was instigated by his ex-spouse to exact revenge due to the ex-spouse's lack of success in

all of the prior actions. When released Mr. Matsa hopes to be able to present his case before you / your

governing body / board; but, that is not possible at this time due to his incarceration.

(2) This motion is written in part to request your kind assistance and or direction as regards these

matters. Mr. Matsa has and will always be a supportive and cooperative member of the professional

community.

(3) Mr. Matsa wishes to cooperate fully with the Board, the members and the disciplinary counsel,

noting that in his current situation it is impossible for him to reasonably prepare or appear for a hearing

nor to present information otherwise in writing, nor through a representative given that he does not

have any access to his files, records, equipment, and or other tools necessary to make any presentation.

The facts of his case are unique; and, all of the items necessary to communicate with you / the board

and disciplinary counsel are inaccessible so long as he is incarcerated. The exhibits necessary for a fair

presentation of this matter exceed 300,000 pages, not including other documents, witnesses, and the

like.

(4) Mr. Matsa has given formal notice of his continuing pursuit of the appellate process and his

rights therein; and, continues to have other counsel that is continuing, within the appropriate statutory

deadlines, to pursue his vindication as to the recent actions which are the subject of concern. Other

counsel is not appearing in this disciplinary action. Accordingly, until all judicial remedies are pursued

and decided, the determination of the charges against him are not final and a reversal could eliminate

any negative suggestion as to his qualification for licensure / the return of his license. The manner in

which the Board's concerns are addressed is dictated by the determination of matters which are not yet

resolved. This is further complicated by other disturbing revelations which have come to light and which

will likely impact your future deliberations. Equally importantly, it is on advice of his other counsel /

attorneys, inappropriate and thus impossible for him to comment on matters which are still being

litigated. As attorneys you certainly can empathize with the delicate nature of the current status of

these matters and the need to give such a proscription.

(5) Given that his appeal /the appellate process is still in progress, that Mr. Matsa asserts his

innocence, that the underlying complaint is in litigation, and that the adjudication is not final, it is

respectfully requested that you consider and or advise as to the following:

(i) Mr. Matsa, as indicated above, asserts his innocence and as noted that the underlying

matters are being actively litigated. Is there a means to put this matter in stasis until a decision and his

release so that he may appear before you / the governing body to present evidence, testimony,

mitigating or exculpatory information and the like?

( ii) Mr. Matsa advises that from November 2, 2012 to January 9, 2013 he has been / was in

what is listed by the federal government as "in transit." Since then he has been at the Ashland Federal

Prison Satellite Camp. He has not authorized anyone to accept service of process on his behalf, nor to

waive it, by any means; nor for anyone to accept such mail on his behalf, and /or then "sit" on it or

otherwise prevent him from having it for extended periods of time or indefinitely. The effect of certified

mail "green" return cards is void as they are not signed by him and his due process, equal protection and

other constitutionally protected rights are abrogated by such a process that does not provide effective,

timely, or actual notice for any meaningful process, presentation or review.

(iii) Alternatively, perhaps you might consider it appropriate to continue an indefinite

suspension until he is either exonerated or released, so that he may have an opportunity to appear

before you to explain the circumstances of the underlying matters, present other exculpatory evidence,

present other mitigating factors and most importantly, to give you an opportunity to judge him fairly

with complete information. There is no reason for a "rush to judgment". If such an alternative is

acceptable, Mr. Matsa of course, would waive indefinitely any involved time limits or deadlines that

would interfere with such a fair course; i.e. obviously he is willing to agree to what is typically described

as "waiving time" should you deem that necessary or appropriate.

(iv) Mr. Matsa asserts that in no way do the underlying matters (even arguing arguendo, if true,

when placed in context, noting that the allegations of professional misconduct are expressly denied)

impact his ability to practice, and that he will not in any way practice until he is exonerated or appeals to

and receives permission to practice again by the licensing authority. None of the allegations, which are

expressly denied, involve his professional license vis-a-vis any possible harm to nor breach of any public

trust.

(v) In any event, during a stay or indefinite suspension the public is fulfy protected and Mr.

Matsa is not deprived of equal protection or due process during his incarceration. Afterward, he can

appear personally before your body; and, after you have heard the facts the licensing authority (Board)

would be able to make an informed and fair decision considering the totality of the matter.

(vi) Mr. Matsa has and always will respect any and all decisions of the licensing authority

(Board) and fully cooperate. He is reaching out to you for help and guidance under these unfortunate

circumstances. At this time, without access to any files, records, etc. and while incarcerated it is

physically for him and for anyone on his behalf to review no less master the matter so as to present a

defense, nor to present mitigating or exculpatory information for you to consider.

Mr. Matsa looks to you for suggestions as to the best way for all concerned to proceed and provides

the following additional information. As indicated above, he is willing to cooperate fully and follow your

fair advice believing that based on your experience you may have suggestions of which he has no

knowledge.

I ask with great humility and request that you do not rush to judgment based upon a reading of the

Complaint which is in substance just a word for word rendition of the indictment. As filed, the

complaint includes matter dating back to 1972 when I was 15 years old. The complaint having brought

these matters into issue leaves me no alternative other than to have to respond accordingly. This is in

fact a matter which arose from an, to say the least, unpleasant divorce. There is much more to this

matter that meets the eye. Without a full vetting of all the facts you will no doubt assume that the

distorted presentation, dating to events in my teenage years, before you is indicative of a failing of my

fitness to practice law. This could not be further from the truth, but you must have the whole story to

judge me fairly.

As I humbled myself before Judge Sargus, I do so before you, to ask that you apply your sense of

justice and fairness; and, that we do not make a mockery of that justice system which you, like I, have

sworn to uphold. The only thing asked is your patience as my future is in the balance. If the situation

were reversed you would want nothing less.

I ask that you not make haste to consider my fate, hoping that you realize your humanity and the

frailty that it brings with it. Many that have proclaimed their innocence serve years incarcerated only

for society to learn later that an accuser who only sought to further their own ends bore false witness to

save their present state, only to have their falsehood exposed later on. A recent example is in the case

of Michael Morton, an innocent Texas man who spent 25 years in prison and has now been exonerated,

and in which matter the prosecutor accused of having deliberately withheld evidence from the court to

make his case stronger, has plead guilty.

I ask of you a stay, in continuance of this proceeding until I am in a position where I can avail myself

of the due process and equal protection which the rules of law speak of as being sacred.

I ask that this matter be continued for the following reasons:

(A) I am in the process of pursuing the appeals which are my right. As you read this the time

to appeal my conviction to the United States Supreme Court has not run. I asked the Disciplinary

Counsel to allow me to pursue my appeals and he did so until December 2, 2013. For reasons unknown

to me by letter dated November 22, 2013 Mr. Scheetz, Esq. on behalf of Disciplinary Counsel, said that

he intended to go forward with the complaint. By letter dated November 25, 2013, I corresponded with

him per the letter attached hereto as Exhibit A which is incorporated fully herein by this reference as if

rewritten herein verbatim. I did not ever receive any reply. Nonetheless, I am in the process of pursuing

my appellate rights. in so doing, it is premature to condemn me professionally prior to the last die being

cast.

I am no threat to the public. I am in a prison in another state. I see no possible reasonwhy the

State of Ohio should wish to prevent me from pursuing my appellate remedies orjudge me prematurely.

On advice of counsel, I must not and thus cannot discuss the allegations which are still before me.

(B) To present my case before you, I need access to cases, statutes, rules, and the like. In this

prison, located in another state, there is no access whatsoever to the laws of the State of Ohio, the Ohio

civil and evidentiary rules, the Ohio case law, the Ohio code of professional responsibility, and rules such

as Gov. Bar R.V, Gov.Bar R. IV, the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints Before the

Board (BCGD Proc. Reg.), Becker, Guttenberg and Snyder, Ohio Law of Professional Conduct (2007-2008

ed.), Chapter 4, BCGD Proc. Reg. 9, BCGD Proc. Reg. 7, the Civil Rules, the Rules of Evidence, the "Guide

for Counsel Presenting Oral Evidence Before the Supreme Court", Gov. Bar R. Section 11(A) and BCGD

Proc. Reg. 10, just to mention a few. It is tantamount to blindfolding me, cutting my hands off and then

telling me to respond. What harm could there be to waiting until I am in a setting where I have access

to the tools of my profession so that I may represent myself?

(C) At my current situs there is no word processing access, no high-speed copier, no legal

research pertaining to Ohio and other limitations which make it impossible for me to represent myself

before you. if you have fairness in your hearts and believe in due process, equal protection and equity

of law you will not force me to respond without the simple tools of our trade. Unfortunately, the things

that we take for granted are not available in this Federal prison.

(D) Perhaps more significant, is that from prison, I do not and cannot have access to the

literally hundreds of thousands of documents to which access is necessary for me to represent myself

before you. Please do not tell me that access to these documents is to be denied and that I must simply

rely on what little memory I have left.

(E) New evidence has surfaced but has not been unsealed, which speaks volumes to the issues

which are the subject of your Complaint against me. I cannot avail myself and thus present my defense

which is dependent on the sealed and unsealed information which is essential to your making a fair

determination and judgment of not only the issues in my case; but, what would be a fair resolution to

the matter of my professional future.

(F) I have a right to subpoena witnesses, however, here in another state, it is impossible for me

to expect or compel witnesses to travel from Ohio to another state to give testimony. How do I exercise

my rights and receive due process and equal protection if you are to proceed against me in my current

situs. Certainly waiting until I am able to return to Columbus, Ohio would be much more convenient for

the Board as well as the many witnesses who must be called for a fair determination of this matter.

(G) I have participated in an extensive non-residential drug and alcohol treatment program

which lasted more than six months and my care professionally is ongoing. It would certainly be more

appropriate for you to allow time for that rehabilitation process to continue without distractions or

disruption. See Exhibit B attached hereto and fully incorporated herein by this reference which

documents my participation in just one of many programs here at FPC Ashland. There are further

programs which are an integral part of the rehabilitation process. Rushing to judgment is unnecessary

when it would be more appropriate to allow for full use of all available resources; noting that this would

be appropriate as to a fair ultimate determination.

Given that I do not have access to any of the rules and am forced to proceed only from memory, I

believe that the purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether or not I have violated the rules and

if so, to decide what should be done to me professionally.

III

I have asked that this matter be stayed for many reasons, the primary of which can be

summarized as follows:

(i) so that I can continue with my appeals;

(ii) so that when it is appropriate I can receive a fair hearing before you; and,

(iii) so that you can then determine what sanctions are appropriate.

There is much that I need to present and which I believe you need to hear and consider. I wish to

be heard by you in person, in a fair hearing where I can present evidence and witnesses.

The Complaint which you have been presented with relates back to events beginning in 1972

when @ was 15 years old. Disciplinary Counsel has determined that this is an appropriate time frame

within which to judge a 57 year old man. So be it. As my entire life is to be placed under the judgment

of your watchful eyes it is imperative that I be permitted to present all of the evidence necessary to

respond to the Complaint. Disciplinary Counsel has decided where to begin, thus I must be permitted to

respond to the totality of the charges. Please do not unfairly pick and choose what you will consider out

of context. If you are to judge my life as relates to these matters to your Complaint, then you must

judge it all, completely and fairly. Please be mindful that there is no attempt on my part to include the

countless documents which must be a part of your record if you are to put in context the last 42 years of

my life. From here I do not have the ability to present this information. In item IV below I proffer only

two (2) items so that you may understand the mountain which I face. Please read them carefully. They

are relevant though by no means intended to be comprehensive.

tV

Proffered herein are a couple of other items which I believe are relevant and may shed some

light upon the complexity of this matter given that they only scratch the surface despite their

voluminous nature:

Firstly, Exhibit C which are letters from former clients, friends and professional people who have

known me for many years; and,

Secondly, Exhibit D to this motion, my letter to Judge Sargus in the underlying case, with its own

additional attachments and exhibits which provides another view and perspective other than that which

the one-sided Complaint presented. All of these items are fully incorporated herein by this reference as

if rewritten herein verbatim. Additional supportive materials, transcripts, records, evidence, and

exhibits are available for your review.

V

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I have been told by an Ohio Supreme Court Justice that is not

just fairness but the appearance and perception of fairness which is essential for the justice system to

function. That is all I ask of you. Please stay this matter until my appeals have taken their course; and, I

am in a position where and when I can communicate the unfairness of the presentation of my life which

has been put before you in the Complaint. I appreciate your kind consideration in these matters.

Respectfully Submitted,

Aristotle R. Matsa

Federal Prison Camp

PO Box 6000

Ashland, Kentucky 41105

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned does hereby certify that on the day of January, 2014, the

attached original and four copies of this document were served upon the Board and also collectively

upon opposing counsel Donald M. Sheetz, Esq., Assistant Disciplinary Counsel for Scott J. Drexel,

Disciplinary Counsel Designate, Joseph M. Caligiuri, Chief Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, all collectively at

250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 325, Columbus, OH 43215-7411. The panel is unknown at this time and

has not been served directly but rather this document is served by this filing with the Board / the

Board's Secretary. In additional copy has been provided so that it may be date-stamped as being filedand returned to the submitter.

Aristotle R. Matsa

In re:

Complaint against

FILEDBEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON

GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE JAN ^ ^ 2014

OF BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSTHE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO ON GRIEVANICES & DISCIPLINE

Case No. 2013-072

Aristotle R. Matsa

Respondent


Relator

ENTRY

This matter comes before the chair of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline on Respondent's January 3, 2014 motion to stay further proceedings in this matter.

As a result of Respondent's felony conviction, the Supreme Court imposed an interim suspension

pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V, Section 5(A) on December 10, 2012. In re Matsa, 2012-Ohio-5808.

Gov. Bar R. V, Section 5(C) requires this Board to defer any hearing in a pending

disciplinary proceeding that is based on a criminal conviction "until all appeals from the

conviction * * * are concluded." The formal complaint certified by this Board on December 13,

2013 alleges that Respondent violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, all of which

allegedly arise from Respondent's criminal conviction or activities that formed the basis for that

conviction. Respondent indicates his intention to pursue further appeals of his criminal

conviction.

ATTACIIMEN'I' D

Accordingly, Respondent's motion to stay this proceeding is granted and these

proceedings are hereby stayed during the pendency of any direct appeal taken from Respondent's

criminal conviction, subject to further order from the Board.

The parties are further ordered:

1. To notify the secretary of the Board, by means of a motion or other pleading filed in this

case of the status of Respondent's direct appeal from his criminal conviction, including:

(a) the issuance of any order or decision that terminates or otherwise disposes of any

pending or mpending direct appeal from Respondent's criminal conviction, thus

resulting in affirmation of Respondent's criminal conviction; or (b) that the time for filing

an appeal has expired and that Respondent has not filed said appeal.

2. Respondent shall file an answer to the December 13, 2013 complaint certified by this

Board within twenty days of either of the following: (a) any order or decision that

concludes, terminates, or otherwise disposes of any direct appeal filed by Respondent,

thus resulting in the affirmation of Respondent's conviction; or (b) the last date on which

a timely appeal may be perfected.

So ordered.

avid . Tschan.tz, aard Chair

^

per authorization

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE OF


In re:Aristotle R. Matsa, Esq.Registration No. 68142-061FCI AshlandSatellite CampP.O. Box 6000Ashland, KY 41105

Attorney Reg. No. 0006182

Disciplinary Counsel250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 325Columbus, Ohio 43215-7411

Relator

Case No. 13-072

FILEDMAY 2 0 2014


RELATOR'S MOTION TO LIFT STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

By Entry filed January 7, 2014, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline ("Board") stayed further proceedings in the above-referenced matter pursuant to Gov.

Bar R. V(5)(C) during the pendency of any direct appeal taken byRespondent from his criminal

conviction in United States ofAmerica v. Aristotle R. Matsa and Loula Z. Matsa, U.S. Dist.

Court (S.D. Ohio) Case No. CR-2-09-297.

In its Entry, the Board also directed the parties to notify the Secretary of the Board by

means of motion or other pleading of the status of Respondent's direct appeal from his criminal

proceeding, including the issuance of any order or decision that terminated or otherwise disposed

of any pending or impending direct appeal from Respondent's criminal conviction, thus resulting

in affirmation of the conviction.

A'fTACH NIEN'X` E

Pursuant to the Board's January 7, 2014 Entry, Relator hereby notifies the Board that, as

explained below, Respondent's direct appeals from his criminal conviction have now been

exhausted. As a result, Relator respectfully submits that the Board should now lift its stay of

proceedings and that it should order Respondent to file his response to the certified complaint in

this matter.

In an Opinion filed October 25, 2013, in United States ofAmerica v. Aristotle R. Matsa,

Case No. 12-4353, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment of

conviction of Respondent. A copy of the Sixth Circuit's opinion is attached hereto as Appendix

A and is incorporated herein by this reference.

Thereafter, on January 23, 2014, Respondent filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the

United States Supreme Court in Aristotle R. Matsa v. United States, Case No. 13-882.

Respondent's petition for writ of certiorari was subsequently denied by the United States

Supreme Court on March 3, 2014. A copy of the Supreme Court's docket sheet reflecting its

denial of Respondent's petition for writ of certiorari is attached hereto as Appendix B and is

incorporated herein by this reference.

With the United States Supreme Court's denial of his petition for writ of certiorari,

Respondent's direct appeals from his criminal conviction in the U.S. District Court for the

Southern District of Ohio in Case No. CR-2-09-297 have now been exhausted.

In light of the foregoing, Relator respectfully moves the Board for an order lifting the

stay of proceedings in the above-referenced matter and for the Board's issuance of an order

directing Respondent to file an answer to the December 13, 2013 complaint certified by the

Board.

Conclusion

For all of the reasons stated herein, Relator respectfully submits that the Board should lift

its stay of proceedings in the above-referenced matter and that it should direct Respondent to file

his answer to the certified complaint within twenty days of service of the Board's order.

Respectfully submitted,

Scott J. D*xell(0091467)

250 Civic Ce'tAer Drive, Suite 325Columbus, Ohio 43215-7411614.461.0256614.461.7205 - [email protected]

Certi4icate of Service

I hereby certify that the foregoing Relator's Motion to Lift Stay of Proceedings was

served via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this 20th day, of May, 2014, upon:

Aristotle R. Matsa, Esq.Registration No. 68142-061FCI AshlandSatellite CampP.O. Box 6000Ashland, Kentucky 41105

Scott J. D e elDisciplin CounselCounsel for Relator

APPENDIX A

Case: 12-4353 .ocument: 006111862884 Fifed: 10,_-,/2013

NOT RECOIVIlVIENDEID FOR PUBLICATIONFile Name: 13a0920n.06

No. 12-4353

Uli'ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

United States of America,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

V.

Aristotle R. Matsa,

Defendant-Appellant.

)))))))))))

Page: 1

FILEDOot 25, 2013

DEBORAH S, HUNT, Clerk

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THESOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Before: MERRITT, GIBBONS, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

MERRITT, Circuit Judge. A jiuy found Aristotle "Rick" Matsa guilty of various charges

for concealing his assets fi•om taxing authorities and obstructing an investigation ofthe concealment.

Matsa now challenges his conviction on three grounds: 1) the district couit's decision to remove his

counsel of choice violated his Sixth Amendment rights; 2) the prosecution engaged in systematic

nusconduct that deprived him of due process; and 3) the authorities obtained an invalid search

waiTant by failing to inform the magistrate about their confidential infor7nant. For the following

reasons, the judgment of the district coini is affirmed.

1. Background

Matsa was a licensed real-estate broker and lawyer in Ohio. He routinely reported losses or

ininunal incom.e froin his businesses, such that from 1985 to 2006 he paid a. total of $107 in federal

income tax. His legal troubles began when Chrissoula Matsa, his wife at the titne with whom he was

Case: 12-4353 )ocument: 006111862884 Filed: 1L,_3/2013 Page: 2

No. 12-4353United States v. Matsa

undergoing divorce proceedings, tipped off law enforcement to his shady dealings. A subsequent

investigation by the federal grand jury revealed a number of dubious practices, including the use of

phony trusts to mask personal assets, the failure to report rental income, and the transfer of property

(though not acttaal controI) to friends and relatives. During the investigation, Matsa failed to conlply

fitlly with the govenunent's subpoena of his records. Based on this conduct, the grand jury indicted

Matsa for one count of con•upt interference vvitli administration of the internal revenue laws, 26

U.S.C. § 7212(a); fifteen counts of assisting preparation of false tax retuins, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2);

one count of failing to report a foreign bank accoui.it, 31 U.S.C. §§ 5314, 5322(b); one count of

conspiracy to obstruct jiastice, 18 U.S.C. § 371; two courits of witness taiupering, 18 U.S.C. §

1512(b); one count of making a false statement, 18 U.S.C. § 1001; and one count of obstxliction of

justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a). The grand jiuy also indicted Mat.sa's niother for conspiracy to obstruct

justice and tried them together. A juiy found Matsa guilty on all counts after a five-week trial, and

the cotu•t sentenced him to a. teizn of 85 months' iinprisonnient. This appeal followed.

II. Removal of Counsel

The removal of Matsa's cotmsel, Tlioinas Tyack, concerns the obstiuction counts. As part

of the grand juiy investigation, the goveriunent subpoenaed Matsa for records connected to his

various law offices, businesses, and tiusts. Matsa. responded through Tyack, who wrote a letter to

the prosecutor stating that Matsa did not control most of the requested documents. However, a later

search of Matsa's honie and office pursuant to a warrant revealed docunients covered by the

subpoena. The obstruction charges were based in part on Matsa's response to the subpoena through

Tyack.

-2-

Case: 12-4353 -ocument: 006111862884 Fi€ed; 10,_j12013 Page: 3

No. 12-4353Unitea'States v. Matsa

The goveixunent moved for Tyack's removal as coiuxsel, arguing that his role in sending the

letter would make him a necessary witness at trial. The dishict cotu•t conducted two hearings on the

question and ordered two rounds of briefing. During the course of these proceedings, a compromise

was suggested whereby Matsa would stipulate to the contents of the letter without naining Tyack

and would also stipulate to waive any sort of defense claiming reliance on Tyack's advice. By the

first stipulation, it was intended that the juiy would not learn of Tyack's role in sending the letter

and thereby draw conclusions about his trial perfoixnance. The second stipulation was intended to

reniove the possibility that the goveininent would call Tyack to rebut Matsa's claiun that he

responded to the subpoena solely based on Tyack's advice. However, Matsa refiised to accept the

stipulations on the ground that they were too broad, and no further compromise was reached that

might have narrowd the wording.

The district court granted the govegxunent's motion and removed Tyack as counsel (though

neither the court nor the prosecutor accused Tyack of wrongdoing). It held that Matsa was likely

to raise an advice-of-counsel defense and that Tyack was tlierefore likely to be called as a witness

at trial. The court found that disqualification would not cause Matsa substantial hardship because

Tyack could help substittite counsel and because trial had been continued. Citing Second Circuit

precedent, the court altei-natively held that Tyack would be acting as an "unswrn witness" because

he might preseiit his fix-st-hand knowledge of the facts without allowing the govenunent an

opportunity for cross-examination.

The Sixth Ainendment's riglit to counsel of choice is not absolute. There is a presumption

that non-indigent criuninal defendants will have counsel of choice, but that presumption may be

-3-

Case:12-4353 )ocument:006111862884 Filed:lL,_5/2013 Page: 4

No, 12-4353United States v. Matsa

overcome by a showing of "serious potential" that counsel's continued representation will create

a conflict of interest. United States v. Wheat, 486 U.S. 153, 164 (1988). A district court has broad

discretion to reniove counsel for a. potential conflict, even if the defendant wishes to waive the

conflict. The Sixth Circuit applies a deferential standard of review to a district court's judganent that

reinoval is required. Such a judgnient will be reversed only if "arbitrary" or "without adequate

reasons." Uirited States v. Swafford, 512 F.3d 833, 839 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Uraited States v.

Mays, 69 F.3d 116, 121 (6th Cir. 1995)).

Considering the facts of this case, the district court's decision to remove Tyack was not

arbitrary. Tyack was closely involved in the alleged obstruction through his response to the

govei-nment's subpoena. Had the issue been linuted to the question of whether the contents of the

letter were true-that is, whether Matsa was in fact the custodian of the records requested in the

subpoena-then the govelYiinent might have established its case without having to call Tyack to the

stand. But Matsa's express refiisal to waive ai a.dvice-of-counsel defense raised a realistic

possibility that Matsa would attempt to sluft blanie to Tyack rather than defend the tiuth of the

sta.tements in the letter. Because Matsa and Tyack were the only two people privy to the

circunistances sLuTounding the response to the subpoena, the government was likely to require

Tyack's testimony. As the district court correctly recognized, a "lawyer shall not act as advocate

at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless ... disqualification of the

lawyer woi.ild work substantial hardship on the client." ABA Model Rules of Prof'1 Conduct

3.7(a)(3). It was not arbitrary for the district court to conclude that substitution of counsel would

not work significant hardship, even though Tyack had represented Matsa for a number of years aud

-4-

Case: 12-4353 ;ocument:006111862884 Fi€ed:1G,_,)/2013 Page: 5

No. 12-4353U^tited States v. Matsa

was very familiar with his affairs. Tyack would be available to Matsa's new counsel, and plenty of

tiine remained before trial.

Matsa's arguanents to the contraiy are not persuasive. He cites a number of distiict court

opinions to argue that the court in this case might have adopted alternatives to disqualification.

However, it was witliin the district court's discretion to choose disqualification given the facts.

Matsa also claims that the govei7mient pursued renloval in bad faith and that the district cotu-t failed

to consider that possibility. This argiunent reflects the requirenient that a court consider whether

tlie goveriunent has sought "to `nianufactiu-e' a confiict in order to prevent a defendant from laaving

particularly able defense courisel at his side." Wheat, 486 U.S. at 163. Though the court did not

find, in so inany words, that the govenunent pursued removal in good faith, this oinission is not fatal

to its ruling. The record gives no reason to believe that the govenunent "manufactured" the conflict

that led to Tyack's reinoval or that, as Matsa puts it in his brief, the motion to remove was "purely

tactical."

Indeed, Matsa inakes no colorable allegation that the goveinment appended the obstiuction

charges to the indictinent siunply to get Tyack offthe case. His prinaary complaint, ratlaer, is that the

goveriunent's proposed stipulations were too broad to have been pursued in good faith-in

particular, that they would have forcedMatsa.to waive the advice-of-counsel defense as to all counts

in the indictment. But ifan advice-of-counsel defense `vould have required Tyack's testimony, there

would have been a coiiflict regardless of whetlier the defense was raised against the obstiuction

charges or against some otlaer count.

-5-

Case: 12-4353 .ooument: 006111862884 Filed: 10, _j/2013 Page: 6

No. 12-4353Uriited States v. Matsa

In sum, our review of the record and of the facts of this case shows that the district court did

not abuse its discretion by removing Tyack as counsel.t

IIg. Prosecutoria! Misconduct

Matsa claims a potpourri of prosecutorial bad acts that he believes require reversal of his

coiiviction. The disputed conduct occurred both prior to and during trial. Additionally, Matsa

claims the cumulative effect of the prosecution's conduct warTants reversal.

A. Pretrial Coizduct

Matsa identifies four categories of pretrial prosecutorial misbehavior: 1) intimidation of

witnesses before the grand jury; 2) obstruction of Matsa's pre-deposition access to a witness who

was the nained beneficiary of one of Matsa's trusts; 3) threats toward defense cotulsel; and 4)

violation of at.tomy-client privilege.2 Matsa raised these arguments in various inotions to dismiss

the indictinent, which the district coiu-t denied. A federal cotu-t's authority to dismiss an indictment

stems from its supeavisoiy powers. See Uiaited States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 46 (1992). Refiisal

to dismiss an indictment is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lee, 359 F.3 d 412, 417

(6th Cir. 2004).3

1 Because we hold that the particular facts of the case justified the district coiut's conclusion that Tyack waslikely to testify, we decline to address the district court's broader, altemative rationale that Tyack was an "iuiswornwitness." Cf. United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924, 933-34 (2d Cir. 1993).

2 ` Matsa also argued before the district: court that the prosecutor acted improperly by tlireatening to indict hismotl►er ifhe did not plead guilty-a threat that came to fruition. Though Matsa mentions this incident in the facts sectionof his brief, he does not develop any sort of argument about why it requires reversal of his conviction. We therefore donot conisider whether the prosecutor acted improperly by threatening to uidict Matsa's mother. See Ti•eesh v. Baglei,,612 F.3d 424, 434 (6th Cir. 2010).

3 Matsa argues that the district court should have assessed pretrial miscoiuluct by using the test articulated inUnited States r. Deitz, 577 F.3d 672 (6t1► Cir. 2009). However, Deitz applies to clainis of misconduct at trial. Whenalleged misconduct occurs prior to trial, the question of whether to dismiss the indictment is left to the district court's

-6-

Case: 12-4353 ;ocument; 006111862884 Filed: 10,-j/2013 Page: 7


1. Witness intimidati®tt. Matsa claims the prosecutor acted improperly by accusing several

witnesses of lying in their testiunony to the grand jury. For example, in questioning one witness

before the grand juay, the prosecutor said, "Now you lied to us within ten minutes today." Matsa

also alleges that, during the grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor told anotlier witness in the

hallway that he plaimed to "tlu•ow swords" and that the witness nught not wish to fall on a sword

for Matsa.

Though Matsa claims these actions deprived hun of due process by forcing witnesses to

conform their testimony to the prosecutor's will, the facts alleged do not state a due process

violation. An individual has no constitutional right to present witnesses at a grand jiuy proceeding,

see W1lliams, 504 U.S. at 51-52, and Matsa did not renew lus objection at txial. Rather, Matsa's

claim must be analyzed under the standard established in Bank ofNova Scotia v. Uiaited States, 487

U.S. 250 ( 1988). Uiader this standard, an indictnient should be dismissed for prosecutorial

misconduct before the grand jtuy only "ìf it is established that the violation substantially influenced

the grand juiy's decision to indict,' or if there is `grave doubt' that the decision to indict was free

from the substantial influence of such violations." Id at 256 (quoting Ut7zted States v. Mechanik,

475 U.S. 66, 78 (1986)).

Assuming that the prosecutor's comments were indeed improper, the district couit did not

abuse its discretion by fuiding a lack ofprejudice. As the parties agree, the comments at issue were

made before a predecessor grand juiy-not the graiid juiy that ultimately retuiued the indictment.

discretion.

-7-

Case: 12-4353 >ocument; 006111862884 Fi[ed: 10,_,)/2013 Page: 8


Therefore, any violation did not "substantially influence[] the grand jtuy to indict." Bank ofNova

Scotia, 487 U.S. at 256.4

2. Obstruction of access to a witness. Matsa alleges that the government denied hizn a fau-

trial by blocking access to a witness prior to the witness's deposition. However, Matsa does not

adequately explain the circumstances of the alleged obstruction, and the government disputes it

altogetlier. Even if the goverm-nent in fact blocked access to the witness, Matsa still was able to

question the witness at the deposition itself. Matsa does not explain liow a defendant is denied a fair

trial when he actually had an opportuauty to question a witness. The district court did not abuse its

discretion by refusing to dismiss the indictuient on this ground.

3. Threats toward defense counsel. Matsa complauis of several aggressive statements the

prosecutor made to his attorneys prior to trial. For exaiuple, the prosecutor threatened to report

Tyack to the Ohio Bar Association and told another attorney that "your client better watch out and

you better watch out too." The attorneys testified at a motion heai-ing that these statements were

"chilling" and caused thenl to proceed with "great caution" in discoveiy. The district court found

that the comments were iinproper but did not prejudice Matsa such as to require disnlissal of the

indictinent. This was not an abuse of discretion. Matsa points to case law condemning personal

4 Though it has no bearing on whether the district court's pretrial ruling was correct, several of the witnessesin question testified for the governinent at Matsa's trial and admitted they lied to the grandjury, Matsa suggests thatthe witnesses' change of heart might have stenanaed from coercion in the grand jury proceedings. However, Matsa didnot claim below that the governnlent deprived him of trial witnesses, and the issue on appeal is liunited to whether thedistrict comt erred by refusing to dismiss the indictinent in its pretrial niling. Matsa did submit a inotion for new trialin which he incorporated his pretrial misconduct motion and claimed curnulative prejudicial effect. This arginnent isaddressed in Part IILC below.

-8-

Case: 12-4353 ôcument:006111862884 Filed:1G,_.j/2013 Page: 9

No. 12-4353Urdited States v. Matsa

attacks on defense counsel during trial, but the statements in question did not occur before the jury

at trial. Matsa received-and continues to receive-vigorous representation.

4. Attorney-client privilege. A search of Matsa's home and office yielded some 300,000

documents and recordings, many of which involved Matsa in his capacity as an attorney. Matsa

moved to suppress privileged n-iaterial discovered in the search and to dismiss the indictnient

because privileged material was used to obtain it. The district court laeld tlaat, even if it was

otlierwise privileged, the uiaterial in question fell within the cri.me-fraud exception to the privilege

because it contained conversations in wliich Matsa attempted to obstruct the investigation and

tainper with tvitnesses. See Utaited States v. Zo1iri, 491 U.S. 554, 562-63 (1989) (discussing crinie-

fi•aud exception). The court therefore refiised to disYniss the uidictment. On appeal, Matsa simply

repeats his claim that the governuient used privileged material and speciFies no legal or factual ei7-or

in the district court's holding. Accordingly, refusal to dismiss the indictnient or bar use of the

records in question was not an abuse of discretion.

B. Conduct at Trial

Matsa clauns two categories of misconduct at trial: 1) that the prosecutor iunproperly

expressed his personal beliefs tluough comments and facial expressions and 2) that the prosecutor's

questioning of witness Ross Gillespie improperly solicited Gillespie's coiiunentary on Matsa's

truthfulness. We review this claim de novo. United States v. Deitz, 577 F.3d 672, 694 (6th Cir.

2009). In deteiYnin.ing whether reversal for prosecutorial misconduct is warranted, the key question

is whether the prosecutor acted botli improperly and flagrantly so, wluch in turn requires assessing

the misleading nature, extent, and deliberateness of the conduct alongside the overall strengtli of the

-9-

Case: 12-4353 ocument: 006111.862884 Filed: 10/-,j/2013 Page: 10

No. 12-4353Uruted States v. Matsa

government's case. Id. Flagrant misconduct requires reversal, but non-flagrant violations do iiot

unless the government's case was weak and the coiut failed to ciue the violation. Ia'

1. Commentary and facial expressions. Matsapoints to two specific episodes of improper

conunentary. In the first, the prosecutor grunted, snickered, and shook his head while questioning

a witness. In a sidebar conference, the trial judge admonished the prosecutor to be careful. Matsa

does not claim that this sort of conduct peivaded the proceedings, and isolated incident.s during a

five-week t.rial do not require reversal. Uriited States v. Colliiis, 78 F.3d 1021, 1039 (6th Cir. 1996).

The second episode regards the prosecutor's cross-examination of Matsa. Duriiig

questloning, the prosecutor suggested on nlilltlple occasions that Matsa was "blaming" others for

his conduct. Viewed as a whole, the prosecutor's questioning, while charged, was not flagrantly

improper. The suggestion that Matsa was blaming others was not geared to mislead but ratlier to

attack Matsa's direct testimony, a proper fiuiction of cross-exaniiiiation. Matsa had an oppoi-huvity

to respond-and did respond-to the not.ion that he was shifting responsibility. Moreover, the judge

provided a cure by striking one comment fi-oin the record. Argumentative questioning of this nature

is not the sort of commentary that has required reversal in the past. Cf. UnitedSlates v. Car•ter•, 236

F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2001) (requiring new trial where prosecutor's closing argumentinisclaaracterized

evidence and accused defense counsel of lying). The prosecutor's style of cross-exaniination niay

not have been ideal, but it did not render the trial so unfair as to create reversible error.

2. Questioning of Ross Gillespie. Gillespie was a former Matsa egnployee who testified

for the goveinnient. During direct examination, the prosecutor played portions of tapes in which

Matsa discussed his firm's handling of a par-ticular trust and Gillespie's role as an employee at the

-10-

Case: 12-4353 ocument:006111862884 Filed:10/-./2013 Page: 11


fu7n. The prosecutor then elicited Gillespie's testiuiony that stateinents in the recordings were not

truthfiil. Matsa ar,giies that this questioning was improper because "credibility determinations are

meant for the jury, not witnesses." Urzited States v. Dickens, 438 F. App'x 364, 370 (6th Cir. 2011).

There is indeed a body of case law establishing that one witness should not be asked directly

whether another witness is lying-particularly where a prosecutor seeks to pit a testifying defendant

against a law enforcement officer's inculpatoiy testimony. See id at 369-70. However, the

questioning at issue here did not approach the line drawn by that case law. The prosecutor did not

ask Gillespie to conunent oti the veracity ofMatsa's trial testimony. Rather, he questioned Gillespie

about practices of Matsa's fnln based on Gillespie's personal kiiowledge. If Gillespie's testimony

punctured Matsa's credibility, that is because the cliarges put Matsa's honesty at issue. There was

nothing improper about this line of questioning.

C. Cmnulative Effect

Matsa claims the cinnulative effect of the behavior discussed above requires reversal. He

raised this claim in a motion for a new trial, wliich the district coint rejected. When a defendant

raises a claim of curnulative prosecutorial miscoiiduct, a new trial will not be granted unless the

defendant can show "that the combined effect of iiidividually liainiless errors was so prejudicial as

to render his trial fundaznentally unfair." United States v. Tnijillo, 376 F.3d 593, 614 (6th Cir.

2004). Matsa cannot satisfy this standard. Matsa has identified soine possible isolated improprieties

in the prosecutor's conduct at trial, but this conduct was not so peivasive as to require a new trial.

Moreover, Matsa's argument that the prosecutor's pretrial conduct rendered the entire five-week

hial unfair is unconvincing. The district court did not err by refusing to grant a new trial.

-11-

Case: 12-4353 icument: 006111862884 Filed: 10, -f12013 Page: 12


IV. Suppression of Evidence

Acting pursuant to a search warrant, law enforcenlent agents removed about sixty boxes of

documents fi•om Matsa's home and office. Matsa moved to suppress this evidence for lack of

probable cause to support the wairant and inoved also for a hearing under Franks v. De.lawrn•e, 438

U.S. 154 (1978). The request for a Franks hearing was based on the claiin that the wa.trant

application contained false and niisleading infonnation from a confidential source whose identity

was not revealed to the magistrate. Tliis source ttuned out to be Matsa's wife at the tinie. The

district court took some testiniony but ultimately declined to ltold a complete Franks hearing and

rejected the motion to suppress.

Though Matsa cites Frarrks in his brie£ he does not claim the district coui-t eired by refiising

to hold a Franks hearing. Rather, he argues that "this Cotirt should find that the totality of the

circuinstances do not support a finding of probable cause" because the agent who subinitted the

wan•ant application knew Matsa's wife was unreliable yet failed to coiroborate her information.

Therefore, the only question before us is whetherthe warrant application established probable cause.

Cf. United States v. Thomas, 605 F.3d 300, 307 (6th Cir. 2010).

When this court reviews a denial of a motion to stippress, it reviews the district cotut's

conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear eiror. Uriited States v. Brown, 715 F.3d

985, 989 (6th Cir. 2013). However, a magistrate's probable cause deterinination will only be

reversed if the magistrate's decision to issue the warrant was arbitraiy. Id. There is probable cause

to issue a warrant when there is a fair probability, given the totality of the circumstances, that

evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched. Id.

-12-

Case: 12-4353 icument: 006111862884 Filed: 10,_ ,/2013 Page: 13


When a warrant affiant depends on a confidential informant who is not known to be reliable,

the affiant should corroborate the infoiniant's story. See Thomas, 605 F.3d at 307. Matsa argues

that the affiant here failed in this duty, but the district colu-t made a fa.etual fmding to the contrary.

There is no apparent error in this fmding. Though Matsa mines discrepancies between the

informant's story and the affiant's corroboration, this smacks ofthe sort of"hypertecluiical" analysis

of probable cause that this court has clearly rejected. See, e.g., Uiuied States v. WoosleV, 361 F.3d

924, 926 (6th Cir. 2004).

More inZportantly, review of the warrant application as a whole reveals that thei-e was ample

cause to issue the warrant. The infoilnant's information amoiuited to two pages of a tliirty-six page

application, which also relied on the affiant's personal suzveillance, docurnentaiy evidence, and

inteiviews with other named Matsa associates, including one who a.dnutted lying to the grand jury

at Matsa's behest. The ma.gistrate's decision to issue the wairant was not arbitrary and the district

court did not err by refitsing to suppress the evidence.

V. Conclusion

The district court did not unproperly remove Matsa's attorney, because that attorney was

likely to becoane a witness at trial. Moreover, the prosecutor's conduct does not warrant reversal

and Matsa's suppression argunaent is meritless. Accordingly, the judgment of the district cotu-t is

affirmed.

-13-

APPENDIX B

Docket for 13-882

RIT TflF T HE UNITED STATES

No. 13-882Title: Aristotle R. Matsa, Petitioner

V.

United StatesDocketed: January 23, 2014Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth CircuitCase Nos.: (12-4353)Decision Date: October 25, 2013

----Date--- ------- Proceedings and Orders---------------------

Page 1 of 1

Jan 23 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 24, 2014)Feb 7 2014 Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.Feb 12 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 28, 2014.Mar 3 2014 Petition DENIED.

-aName--------------------ti ------- Address---------,^--^^^--- -- Phone---,4ttorneys for Petitioner:Timothy P. O'Toole

Counsel of Record

Party name: Aristotle R. MatsaAttorneys for Respondent:Donald B. Verrilli Jr.

Counsel of Record

Miller & Chevalier Chartered655 Fifteenth St., N.W.Suite 900Washington, DC [email protected]

Solicitor GeneralUnited States Department of Justice950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC [email protected]

(202) 626-580(

(202) 514-221;

Party name: United States

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-882.htm 5/20/2014

FILED

In re:

Complaint against

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON MAY 2 0 2014GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

OF ON GRIEVANCES & DISCIPLiNETHE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Case No. 2013-072

Aristotle R. Matsa

Respondent


Relator

ENTRY

This matter comes before the Board chair upon consideration of Relator's Motion to Lift

Stay of Proceedings.

On January 3, 2014, Respondent filed a Motion to Stay this matter for the purpose of

pursuing direct appeals of his criminal conviction. By order dated January 7, 2014, the Board

chair granted Respondent's motion pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V, Section 5(C), stayed further

proceedings in this matter, and ordered the parties to file a motion or pleading with the Board

upon disposition of any direct appeal from Respondent's conviction.

Relator's motion indicates that Respondent's conviction was affirmed by the Sixth

Circuit Court of Appeals on October 25, 2013 and that his petition for a writ of certiorari was

denied by the United States Supreme Court on March 3, 2014. Relator has thus demonstrated

good cause to have the stay of this matter vacated.

Accordingly, Relator's motion is granted and it is hereby ordered that the stay entered on

January 7, 2014 is vacated. Respondent is further ordered to file an answer to the formal

A'1"TACYIN'tENT F

complaint certified on December 13, 2014 and subsequently served on Respondent.

Respondent's answer shall be filed on or before June 16, 2014. Upon receipt of Respondent's

answer, the secretary shall assign this matter to a hearing panel for further proceedings pursuant

to Gov. Bar R. V, Section 6.

avid E. Tschant; oard Ci'air

per authorization

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS F^^^,^D

ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE OF

THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO MAY 2 8 204

In re:


Complaint against Aristotle R. Matsa, Esq

Attorney Registration No. 0006182 . No.: 13-072

Respondent,


Relator.

LIMITED APPEARANCE WITH FULL RESERVATION OF

RIGHTS OF RESPONDENT FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES:

(1 ) MEMORANDUM CONTRA RELATOR`S MOTION TO

LIFTSTAY OFPROCEEDINGS

(2) MOTION / REQUEST FOR CONTINUING STAY I CONTINUANCE

AND OR

MOTION FOR DISMBSSAL I CLOSURE

(3) NOTICE OF CONTINUING APPEALS OF RIGHT

>_4) JURISDICTIONAL NOTICES

AND

151 SECOND REQUES°G FOR GUIDANCE / INQUIRY OF THE

BOARD AND ITS SECRETARY

l°l°' G^^^.;^^'x^^

Now comes Aristotle R. Matsa, who on January 3, 2014 filed a limited appearance with full

reservation of rights for the purpose of bringing to the Board's attention certain requests, and for the

purpose of requesting certain guidance from the Board and its Secretary.

The Board was very thoughtful in staying this matter, such consideration being greatly appreciated.

As to the "Guidance / Inquiry of the Board and its Secretary", there was no response.

Mr. Matsa wishes to bring certain matters to the Board's and the Board's Secretary's attention as

fo I lows:

(1) There have been significant events and developments in Mr. Matsa's case since his conviction.

On advice of his counsel those matters and their ramifications remain part of the attorney client

privileged communications between him and his attorneys. To that end, until the next appeal is filed in

his criminal case, he has been instructed not to file or make public documents or make any statements

regarding those matters.

(2) The Relator's 'Motion to Lift Stay of Proceedings' is premature at best. There are multiple

appellate remedies available to Mr. Matsa. Some of these are constitutional in origin and others are

statutory. One of the most obvious is relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, although this is not the only avenue

of appellate relief open to him. So, even looking just at this one statutory remedy, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

2

§ 2255(f), the one-year period is sometimes tricky to calculate because the statute provides four

possible dates from which the statute begins to run, and then says to run the period from "the latest" of

these. Using the shortest and most conservative calculations, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (f)(1), the period

permitted for filing would be March 3, 2015. It is obvious that March 3, 2015 is approximately ten (10)

months in the future. This is an appeal as of right, with a clear statutory basis. It certainly seems

premature to rush to judgment on a licensing issue where there is no risk to the public as Mr. Matsa is

not able to practice under any circumstances, and is not even in the State of Ohio.

(3) There would be substantial irrevocable prejudice to Mr. Matsa by putting him in a position

where he has to pick and choose what he can and cannot disclose in a disciplinary hearing before the

Board while at the same time he and his attorney(s) are pursuing his lawful statutory and constitutional

remedies.

(4) With an abundance of caution and respect for the Board and our system of jurisprudence, Mr.

Matsa maintains that there has been a miscarriage of justice. There were seven (7) cases including

appeals on two continents, where on the same or similar underlying accusations made by the same

individual who was the instigator of these charges, Mr. Matsa prevailed and was exonerated in all of the

prior actions. Perhaps the full faith and credit of those collective prior actions should have prevented

the current state, as surely all of the Judges who presided over the prior proceedings and found Mr.

Matsa credible and the instigator not credible were not without wisdom. It is not impossible for a jury in

case number eight (8) to make a mistake. This is especially likely in a situation where there are facts and

circumstances of which theJury/Judge and Mr. Matsa (named Respondent herein) were either

unaware or were otherwise misrepresented to them.

3

(5) Mr. Matsa is fufly aware that it is not for the Board to determine innocence or guilt; but, that

the Board must weigh the totality of all factors and make a learned determination of what is the

appropriate disposition of Mr. Matsa's professional life.

The above is simply an abbreviated summary of some of Mr. Matsa's concerns. Jurisdictional

concerns are discussed below. If the Board decides to move forward while Mr. Matsa's hands are tied

and he is still pursuing his appellate remedies, justice cannot be served. There is no risk, prejudice, or

downside to the Board in exercising judicial restraint. Alternatively, there is great prejudice to Mr.

Matsa, who after a stellar and unblemished professional career may be forced to follow his attorneys'

advice and remain mute pending his appeals.

In his limited appearance, by Motion filed on January 3, 2014, Mr. Matsa raised various matters

which were never addressed by the Board and / or its Secretary. These preliminary matters will be

raised herein, in an abundance of caution, as they go to the heart of a fair process. Rather than refer to

portions of the prior Motion, for the convenience of the Board, those matters will be raised and / or

inquired of here again. As this writing covers multiple matters and also proffers written matter for

consideration of the entire Board (and not knowing nor having any access to the Board's rules) it is

respectfully requested that this entire writing not only become part of the record; but that, it be shared

/ circulated, including all exhibits and attachments, to the entire Board and the Board's Secretary as well

as the full Supreme Court for their kind consideration.

11

4

To quote an esteemed Jurist, I am turning to you, my colleagues and peers, for your help, assistance,

and guidance as to this matter, given that I have certain concerns and questions which I would

appreciate your assistance in addressing. I note that as I proceed through this process all I can ask is the

same that you would want were our places reversed: a process which is fair in substance and not only in

appearance. I wish to cooperate fully and need your guidance to do so. Hence, given that I am not able

to communicate from my current situs in any other fashion, I am once again communicating in this

manner.

Some time ago, this matter was discussed with the Honorable Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Donald

M. Scheetz, Esq., on or about March 5, 2013, when he telephoned me at FCI Ashland. We discussed the

logic of a stay / continuance / or other form of abatement of this proceeding as I pursued my appellate

rights, while I served my sentence. During that conversation I believe that Mr. Scheetz and I had a very

amicable and productive conversation. He was very helpful and I appreciated his input, help, and

concern. As a result of that conversation Mr. Scheetz stated that he would be "closing his file." This was

in fact the appropriate course of action, judicial economy aside, the reasons for not following this course

being unknown to Mr. Matsa.

As you know, I am in a Federal Prison, and in no way am I now, nor have I ever been a threat to the

public. It is my understanding that I am no longer licensed and given my current circumstances one

certainly would expect that. One of the questions is how the process of deciding what is appropriate as

to my professional future is to proceed. After my conversation with Mr. Scheetz, he indicated by letter

that he would move the board to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal in my

5

criminal case. My understanding was that this matter would be stayed at least until I had pursued all of

my appellate remedies; and quite frankly given the evidence and information which continues to

surface, as well as for the reasons which are more fully discussed herein, it seems to make sense to stay

this matter until I can personally appear, provide testimony, subpoena individuals, research the

applicable law, and do all of the things which it is physically impossible to do while in a Federal Prison.

Without these things it is impossible to present you with the facts which are necessary for you to make a

fair adjudication. I believe that this is nothing less than that which you would do for a client or want for

yourselves were the roles reversed.

Recently Mr. Scheetz, Esq., by letter, indicated that he would proceed with this matter. I could only

conclude that he was under the mistaken impression that my appeals were over, thus the attached

letter dated November 25, 2013 was sent to him (please see Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated

herein by this reference as if fully rewritten herein verbatim). As noted in the letter my appeals of this

criminal matter are continuing and ongoing. I did not ever receive any letter responding to my

November 25, 2013 inquiry and I have never been provided with any copies of the motion to the Board

referenced in Mr. Scheetz's letter dated March 5, 2013. Thus, given the limitations of my current status

i know of no other way to make these inquiries, requests, and to seek your assistance regarding this

matter.

This motion is written and filed for several reasons, noting that there are questions posed herein to

the Board / the Board's Secretary. Your literature, including that titled 'Prehearing Instructions' (Rev.

3/2012), emphasizes communication and cooperation. That has been my lifelong policy as well. The

first reason is to obtain guidance and / or direction regarding the above captioned matter. The second

reason is to respectfully request, in the interests of expediency and fairness, that this matter be closed,

dismissed or continued / stayed for the reasons enumerated herein. For ease of communication and

clarity this writing is presented alternatively in the first and third person.

This writing is only a limited appearance to request closure or stay / continuance for the numerous

reasons indicated herein, to convey background information and to seek advice / guidance and

information. On advice of counsel, it is not an appearance for any other purpose and is provided /

submitted with an express reservation of rights by Mr. Matsa, with no waiver of improper service,

ineffective process, other deficiencies, due process, equal protection, right to counsel of choice and the

like. It is my understanding that this is an opportunity for you to judge me and what should come of me

professionally, in context, and thus for you to decide what is fair under the circumstances after you have

been presented with complete information, presented at a hearing with witnesses and the ability for

you and all parties to ask questions. It is not possible for me to respond in any manner at this time given

my appellate remedies are still being pursued, given my present circumstances, lack of access to any

relevant rules, laws, cases, materials, the internet, any Ohio relevant research, that there is a pending /

continuing investigation relating to the ongoing appellate process, and for the reasons which are more

fully enumerated herein.

III

As to requests for information and inquires, some begin as follows (noting again that statements

pertaining to me are interchangeably referred to by my proper name so as to maintain the flow of the

sentences) along with a brief introduction:

7

(1) Mr. Matsa has maintained himself in a professional manner for decades and has, while

respectful of the process, consistently maintained his complete innocence of the recent offenses

charged. It should be noted that he has endured multiple prior actions, which, just as the current

situation, were all instigated by his ex-spouse who engaged in two abductions of his daughter and

improper conduct, on two continents. Mr. Matsa consistently prevailed and was exonerated /

successful in all of those prior actions. He was granted sole exclusive custody of his daughter, and the

current matter was instigated by his ex-spouse to exact revenge due to the ex-spouse's lack of success in

all of the prior actions. When released Mr. Matsa hopes to be able to present his case before you / your

governing body / board; but, that is not possible at this time due to his incarceration. It serves no

purpose to order him to respond to a complaint which is essentially only a copy of the indictment which

he continues to appeal'.

(2) This motion is written in part to request your kind assistance and or direction as regards these

matters. Mr. Matsa has and will always be a supportive and cooperative member of the professional

community.

There are approximately thirty nine (39) definitions in some way relating to the subject of appeals and or the definitions

thereto. Mr. Matsa has and continues to declare his innocence. He has every right to pursue all appellate avenues and

remedies.

The use of the words direct appeal in the Relator's memorandum and elsewhere is an indeterminate misnomer in that a direct

appeal, as defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition 2004, is "An appeal from a trial court's decision directly to the

jurisdiction's highest court, thus bypassing review by an intermediate appellate court. Such an appeal may be authorized, for

example, when a case involves the constitutionality of a state law." In Federal appellate practice such appeals are normally notpermitted nor appropriate; however, there are many other appellate avenues available to Mr. Matsa.

There has been no appeal directly to the jurisdiction's highest court, and thus despite Relator's reported decisions there has

been no 'direct appeal' and thus no basis to terminate any stay. Mr. Matsa has not exhausted "direct-appeals" as defined in

and by the 'law'. More importantly, in fact the only relevant issue as to the stay is whether or not Mr. Matsa has exhausted all

of his federal appellate remedies. The answer to that question is in the negative. Mr. Matsa is actively pursuing and permitted

further appellate avenues to redress the wrongs which have been wrought upon him; and thus, it is at the very least verypremature (assuming arguendo that there is jurisdiction) to consider moving ahead with any issues of licensure while appellate

remedies are still being pursued. Such would be highly prejudicial to a fair process.

Certainly issues of jurisdiction or the lack thereof are relevant as well and mention of the lack of subject matter and the lack

of personal jurisdiction are asserted and addressed elsewhere herein.

(3) Mr. Matsa wishes to cooperate fully with the Board, the members, and the disciplinary

counsel, noting that in his current situation it is impossible for him to reasonably prepare or appear for a

hearing, nor to present information otherwise in writing, nor through a representative given that he

does not have any access to his files, records, equipment, and or other tools necessary to make any

presentation. The facts of his case are unique; and, all of the items necessary to communicate with you

/ the board and disciplinary counsel are inaccessible so long as he is incarcerated. The exhibits

necessary for a fair presentation of this matter exceed 300,000 pages, not including other documents,

witnesses, and the like.

(4) Mr. Matsa has given formal notice of his continuing pursuit of the appellate process (please

see Footnote 1, supra), and his rights therein; and, continues to have other counsel that is continuing,

within the appropriate statutory deadlines, to pursue his vindication as to the recent actions which are

the subject of concern. Other counsel is not appearing in this disciplinary action. Accordingly, until all

judicial remedies are pursued and decided, the determination of the charges against him are not final

and a reversal could eliminate any negative suggestion as to his qualification for licensure /the return of

his license.

The manner in which the Board's concerns are addressed is dictated by the determination of

matters which are not yet resolved. This is further complicated by other disturbing revelations which

have come to light and which will likely impact your future deliberations. Equally importantly, it is on

advice of his other counsel / attorneys, inappropriate and thus impossible for him to participate in a

hearing / process nor to respond or comment on matters which are still being litigated. As attorneys

you certainly can empathize with the delicate nature of the current status of these matters and the need

to give such a proscription.

T4^ $uJ3rme Irntrt .>af JrBOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES & DISCIPLINE

65 SOUTH FRONT STREET, 5T" FLOOR, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-3431Telephone: 614.387.9370 Fax: 614.387.9379

www.supremecourt.ohio.gov

DAVID E. TSCHANTZ

CHAIR

PAUL M. DE MARCO

VICE- CHAIR

June 23, 2014

Aristotle R. Matsa#0006182FCI Ashland, Satellite CampPO Box 6000Ashland, KY 41105

Re: Disciplinary Counsel v. Aristotle R. Matsa, Case No. 2013-072

Dear Mr. Matsa:

RICHARD A. DOVE

SECRETARY

HEIDI WAGNER DORN

COUNSEL

On December 13, 2013, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Disciplinecertified a formal complaint naming you as the respondent in the above-captioned disciplinarymatter. A copy of the enclosed complaint was sent to you via certified mail and service wascompleted on December 18, 2013. As of the date of this letter, the Board has not received youranswer to the formal complaint or a motion to extend the time for filing an answer.

Pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V, Section 6a, you are hereby notified that the Board will certifyyour default to the Supreme Court thirty days from the date of this letter. To avoid certificationof default, you must file an answer to the formal complaint with the Board prior to the expirationof the thirty-day period. No extension of time to file an answer is authorized by the rule.

Please note that the certification of default may result in your immediate suspension fromthe practice law by the Supreme Court of Ohio.

If you have questions regarding this matter, please contact the Board of Commissionerson Grievances and Discipline at (614) 387-9370.

^=- -'iice y,

^1_Lr

Richard A.T D e

Enclosurecc: Donald M. Scheetz, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel

Scott Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel

ATTAC I I NWN1' I

my rights and receive due process and equal protection if you are to proceed against me in my current

situs? Certainly waiting until I am able to return to Columbus, Ohio would be much more convenient for

the Board as well as the many witnesses who must be called for a fair determination of this matter.

(G) I have participated in an extensive non-residential drug and alcohol treatment program

which lasted more than six months and my care professionally is ongoing. It would certainly be more

appropriate for you to allow time for that rehabilitation process to continue without distractions or

disruption. Your actions, if not considered carefully and with consideration of my situation and ongoing

care, may adversely impact the ongoing rehabilitative process. As evidence of this mitigating factor,

please see Exhibit B attached hereto and fully incorporated herein by this reference which documents

my participation in just one of many programs here at FPC Ashland. There are further programs which

are an integral part of the rehabilitation process. Rushing to judgment is unnecessary when it would be

more appropriate to allow for full use of all available resources; noting that this would be appropriate to

a fair determination.

Given that I do not have access to any of the rules and am forced to proceed only from memory, I

believe that the purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether or not I have violated the rules and

if so, to decide what should be done to me professionally.

v

I have asked that this matter be closed or indefinitely stayed for many reasons, the primary of

which can be summarized as follows:

17

(i) so that I can continue with my appeals;

(ii) so that when it is appropriate I can receive a fair hearing before you;

(iii) so that you can then determine what sanctions are appropriate; and,

(iv) so that the rehabilitative process may continue unimpeded.

There is much that I need to present and which I believe you need to hear and consider. I wish to

be heard by you in person, in a fair hearing where I can present evidence and witnesses.

The Complaint which you have been presented with relates back to events beginning in 1972

when I was 15 years old. Disciplinary Counsel has determined that this is an appropriate time frame

within which to judge a 57 year old man. So be it. As my entire life is to be placed under the judgment

of your watchful eyes it is imperative that I be permitted to present all of the evidence necessary to

respond to the Complaint. DisciplinaryCounsel has decided where to begin, thus I must be permitted to

respond to the totality of the charges. Please do not unfairly pick and choose what you will consider out

of context. If you are to judge my life as relates to these matters to your Complaint, then you must

judge it all, completely and fairly. Please be mindful that there is no attempt on my part to include the

countless documents which must be a part of your record if you are to put in context the last 42 years of

my life. From here I do not have the ability to present this information. In item VI below I proffer only

two (2) items so that you may understand the mountain which I face. Please read them carefully. They

are relevant though by no means intended to be comprehensive. As there was no mention of them nor

any review as I do believe that the contents are relevant to my request, they are included herein for

18

your convenience, incorporated herein as if rewritten herein verbatim, should be kept on file as part of

the record; and, are proffered for your and the Court's consideration as part of your deliberations

should you decide to proceed.

VI

Proffered herein are a couple of other items which I believe are relevant and may shed some

light upon the complexity of this matter given that they only scratch the surface despite their

voluminous nature:

Firstly, Exhibit C, which are letters from former clients, friends and professional people who

have known me for many years; and,

Secondly, Exhibit D to this motion, my letter to Judge Sargus in the underlying case, with its own

additional attachments and exhibits which provides another view and perspective other than that which

the one-sided Complaint presented. All of these items are fully incorporated herein by this reference as

if rewritten herein verbatim. Additional supportive materials, transcripts, records, evidence, and

exhibits are available for your review.

Vn

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I have been told by an Ohio Supreme Court Justice that is not

just fairness but the appearance and perception of fairness which is essential for the justice system to

function. That is all I ask of you. Please stay this matter until my appeals have taken their course; and, I

19

am in a position where and when I can communicate the unfairness of the presentation of my life which

has been put before you in the Complaint, or close your file and allow me the opportunity to re-apply

should I ever seek to practice, given that I am no longer a licensed attorney. I appreciate your kind

consideration in these matters.

Respectfully Submitted,

Aristotle R. Matsa

Federal Prison Camp

PO Box 6000

Ashland, Kentucky 41105

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned does hereby certify that on the day of May, 2014, the

attached original and four copies of this document were served upon the Board and also collectively

upon opposing counsel Scott J. Drexel, Esq., and Donald M. Sheetz, Esq., Assistant Disciplinary Counsel,

Joseph M. Caligiuri, Chief Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, all collectively at 250 Civic Center Drive, Suite

325, Columbus, OH 43215-7411. The panel is unknown at this time and has not been served directly

but rather this document is served by this filing with the Board / the Board's Secretary. An additional

copy has been provided so that it may be date-stamped as being filed and returned to the submitter.

Aristotle R. Matsa

20

In re:

Complaint against

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON FILEDGRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE MAY 2 9 2014

OF BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSTHE SI7PRFME COURT OF OHIO ON GRIEVANCES & DfSCiPLIM1lE

Case No. 2013-072

Aristotle R. Matsa

Respondent


Relator

ENTRY

This matter comes before the Board chair upon consideration of Respondent's May 28,

2014 motion/request for continuing stay/continuance and/or for dismissal/closure.

Upon consideration, Respondent has failed to demonstrate circumstances that reasonably

preclude him from answering the allegations contained in the formal complaint. Further, there is

no basis in Gov. Bar R. V for dismissing or closing this case and allowing the Respondent to

reapply for admission at a later date.

Accordingly, the Respondent's motions are overruled. Respondent shall file an answer to

the formal complaint on or before June 16, 2014 as ordered in the May 20, 2014 entry.

AI`T.4CnIr, ^g^.,̂ NT fif

Respondent's motion sets forth his intention to pursue collateral challenges to his

criminal conviction. Should he elect to pursue those challenges, the request to stay further

proceedings can be presented to and ruled on by the chair of the hearing panel to which this

matter is assigned.

David E. I schantz, ard Chair

per authorization

where prosecutors hid key evidence from the defense for decades. Some prosecutors have a 'convict at

all costs' mentality, despite the fact that such an approach is contrary to all ethical and professional

precepts.

Mr. Matsa is exercising statutory appellate rights which do not require leave for filing or appellate

consideration. The Campbell case demonstrates the severe and sinister effects of prosecutorial

misconduct on a person's life which occurred repeatedly over the course of a decade_ Mr. Matsa, an

individual who is no longer licensed to practice law is simply requesting that you close or indefinitely

stay any proceedings pending appellate review of various matters. Many cases state that the purpose of

the judicial system is to seek truth and justice, not to rush to judgment nor to allow a 'convict at all

costs' mentality which ignores our most basic constitutional tenants and concepts of jurisprudence.

I ask that you close this matter or continue any proceedings until I am in a position where I can avail

myself of the due process and equal protection which the rules of law speak of as being sacred.

I ask that this matter be closed, dismissed, and / or continued for the following reasons:

(A) Mr. Matsa is in the process of pursuing the appeals which are his right. As you read this

the statutory time to appeal his conviction has not run. The denial of certiorari has not finalized his

conviction and such, by definition, was not a direct appeal. Mr. Matsa asked the Disciplinary Counsel to

allow him to pursue his appeals and Disciplinary Counsel did so until December 2, 2013. For reasons

unknown, by letter dated November 22, 2013 Mr. Scheetz, Esq. on behalf of Disciplinary Counsel, said

14

that he intended to go forward with the complaint. By letter dated November 25, 2013, Mr. Matsa

corresponded with him per the letter attached hereto as Exhibit A which is incorporated fully herein by

this reference as if rewritten herein verbatim. Mr. Matsa also filed a motion and requests for guidance

on January 3, 2014. The requests were not responded to. He does appreciate the current stay, believes

that the circumstances which made it appropriate have not changed, and further suggests that the

closure of this matter, as originally agreed by Disciplinary Counsel, would be most appropriate. Mr.

Matsa did not ever receive any reply to any of his questions. Nonetheless, as indicated above, he is in

the process of pursuing his appellate rights. In so doing, it is premature to condemn him professionally

prior to the last die being cast.

I am no threat to the public. I am in a prison in another state. I see no possible reason why the

State of Ohio should wish to prevent me from pursuing my appellate remedies or judge me prematurely.

On advice of counsel, I must not and thus cannot discuss the allegations which are still before me.

(B) To present my case before you, I need access to cases, statutes, rules, and the like. In this

prison, located in another state, there is no access whatsoever to the laws of the State of Ohio, the Ohio

civil and evidentiary rules, the Ohio case law, the Ohio code of professional responsibility, and rules such

as Gov. Bar R.V, Gov.Bar R. IV, the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints Before the

Board (BCGD Proc. Reg.), Becker, Guttenberg and Snyder, Ohio Law of Professional Conduct (2007-2008

ed.), Chapter 4, BCGD Proc. Reg. 9, BCGD Proc. Reg. 7, the Civil Rules, the Rules of Evidence, the "Guide

for Counsel Presenting Oral Evidence Before the Supreme Court", Gov. Bar R. Section 11(A) and BCGD

Proc. Reg. 10, just to mention a few. It is tantamount to blindfolding me, cutting my hands off and then

telling me to respond. What harm could there be to waiting until I am in a setting where I have access

15

to the tools of my profession so that I may represent myself? Can you make all of the above available to

me?

(C) At my current situs there is no word processing access, no high-speed copier, no legal

research pertaining to Ohio, and other limitations which make it impossible for me to represent myself

before you. If you have fairness in your hearts and believe in due process, equal protection, and equity

of law you will not force me to respond without having even the most basic simple tools of our trade.

Unfortunately, the things that we take for granted are not available in this Federal prison.

(D) Perhaps more significant, is that from prison, I do not and cannot have access to the

literally hundreds of thousands of documents to which access is necessary for me to represent myself

before you. Please do not tell me that access to these documents is to be denied and that I must simply

rely on what little memory I have left.

(E) New evidence has surfaced but has not been unsealed, which speaks volumes to the issues

which are the subject of your Complaint against me. I cannot avail myself and thus present my defense

which is dependent on the sealed and unsealed information which is essential to your making a fair

determination and judgment of not only the issues in my case; but, what would be a fair resolution to

the matter of my professional future.

(F) I have a right to subpoena witnesses, however, here in another state, it is impossible for me

to expect or compel witnesses to travel from Ohio to another state to give testimony. How do I exercise

16

(5) Given that his appeal / the appellate process is still in progress, that Mr. Matsa asserts his

innocence, that the underlying complaint is in litigation, that the adjudication is not final, and that there

are statutory appellate options which he is pursuing; thus, it is respectfully requested that you consider

and or advise as to the following:

(i) Mr. Matsa, as indicated above, asserts his innocence; and, as noted, the underlying matters

are being actively litigated. Is there a means to put this matter in stasis until a decision and his release

so that he may appear before you / the governing body to present evidence, testimony, mitigating or

exculpatory information and the like?

(ii) Mr. Matsa advises that from November 2, 2012 to January 9, 2013 he has been / was in

what is listed by the federal government as "in transit." Since then he has been at the Ashland Federal

Prison Satellite Camp. He has not authorized anyone to accept service of process on his behalf, nor to

waive it, by any means; nor for anyone to accept such mail on his behalf, and /or then "sit" on it or

otherwise prevent him from having it for extended periods of time or indefinitely. The effect of certified

mail "green" return cards is void as they are not signed by him and his due process, equal protection and

other constitutionally protected rights are abrogated by such a process that does not provide effective,

timely, or actual notice for any meaningful process, presentation or review. You are on notice of these

procedural defects.

(iii) Mr. Matsa did not renew his license nor was he able to complete his continuing education,

thus he was not and is not an attorney at law. That is to say that as of those events he was no longer

licensed. He was not on notice as to any pending action prior to the above events. This would be no

different than his having resigned or otherwise surrendered or terminated his licensure prior to any

pending action. There can be no continuing jurisdiction over one who is not licensed; and against whom

10

there was no properly noticed proceeding. Any purported notice afterward is void on its face and of no

force or effect.

(iv) It might be appropriate to continue an indefinite suspension until he is either exonerated or

released, so that he may have an opportunity to appear before you to explain the circumstances of the

underlying matters, present other exculpatory evidence, present other mitigating factors and most

importantly, to give you an opportunity to judge him fairly with complete information. There is no

reason for a "rush to judgment".

(v) Alternatively, as his license lapsed before ever being served with service of process, there is

neither personal nor subject matter jurisdiction; and, this matter should be closed or dismissed. It goes

to reason that should he ever wish to practice he would have to either appear before the Board or

reapply to the Supreme Court for a license.

(vi) Mr. Matsa asserts that in no way do the underlying matters (even arguing arguendo, if true,

when placed in context, noting that the allegations of professional misconduct are expressly denied)

impact his ability to practice, and that he will not in any way practice until he is exonerated or appeals to

and receives permission to practice again by the licensing authority. None of the allegations, which are

expressly denied, involve his professional license vis-a-vis any possible harm to nor breach of any public

trust.

11

(vii) In any event, during a stay or indefinite suspension, the public is fully protected and Mr.

Matsa is not deprived of equal protection or due process during his incarceration. Afterward, he can

appear personally before your body; and, after you have heard the facts the licensing authority (Board)

would be able to make an informed and fair decision considering the totality of the matter.

(viii) Mr. Matsa has and always will respect any and all lawful decisions of the licensing

authority (Board) and fully cooperate. He is reaching out to you for help and guidance under these

unfortunate circumstances. At this time, without access to any files, records, etc. and while incarcerated

it is physically impossible for him and for anyone on his behalf to review no less master the matter so as

to present a defense, nor to present mitigating or exculpatory information for you to consider_ Thus as

he is precluded from participating, giving testimony and otherwise cooperating, something which he

clearly wants to do, he would be judged by you in abstentia.

Mr. Matsa looks to you for suggestions as to the best way for all concerned to proceed and provides

the following additional information. As indicated above, he is willing to cooperate fully and follow your

fair advice, believing that based on your experience you may have suggestions of which he has no

knowledge.

1\/

I ask with great humility and request that you do not rush to judgment based upon a reading of the

Complaint which is in substance just a word for word rendition of the indictment. As filed, the

complaint includes matter dating back to 1972 when I was 15 years old. The complaint, having brought

12

these matters into issue, leaves me no alternative other than to have to respond accordingly. This is in

fact a matter which arose from an, to say the least, unpleasant divorce. There is much more to this

matter that meets the eye. Without a full vetting of all the facts you will no doubt assume that the

distorted presentation before you, dating to events in my teenage years, is indicative of a failing of my

fitness to practice law. This could not be further from the truth, but you must have the whole story to

judge me fairly.

As I humbled myself before Judge Sargus, I do so before you, to ask that you apply your sense of

justice and fairness; and, that we do not make a mockery of that justice system which you, like I, have

sworn to uphold. The only thing asked is your patience as my future is in the balance. If the situation

were reversed you would want nothing less. There is no constitutional basis in this case or fact pattern

for denominating one appeal over another as direct or indirect. In the present context of a statutory

appeal which is as of right, the result of forcing a hearing that one is effectively precluded from

participating in is tantamount to having no hearing at all. Please refer to footnote 1, supra which is

incorporated here as if rewritten verbatim.

I ask that you not make haste to consider my fate, hoping that you realize your humanity and the

frailty that it brings with it. Many that have proclaimed their innocence serve years incarcerated only

for society to learn later that an accuser who only sought to further their own ends bore false witness to

save their present state, only to have their falsehood exposed later on. A recent example is in the case

of Michael Morton, an innocent Texas man who spent 25 years in prison and has now been exonerated,

and in which matter the prosecutor accused of having deliberately withheld evidence from the court to

make his case stronger, has pleaded guilty. Also see In re Campbell, No. 14-20293 (5th Cir. May 13, 2014)

13

Documents

Satellite Camp Fifth Floor - Supreme Court of Ohio RICK MATSA is an attorney, architect, landlord, and real estate agent, who over the past two decades has earned a substantial amount