The Exposer exists to publish verified, substantiated facts. That is the standard I hold myself to here. I am not your lawyer. I am writing as the defendant and affiant whose filings and exhibits are already in the record.

The core issue

Ohio’s falsification statute makes it a crime to knowingly make a false statement when the statement is made in any official proceeding. The statement I am pointing to is Judge Reeve W. Kelsey’s representation to the Supreme Court of Ohio, in the affidavit of disqualification matter, that “to the best of his recollection” he was not aware I had asked police to investigate his authority to preside. I allege that statement is false. I allege it was knowingly false. The reason is simple: the paper trail shows I put the law enforcement angle directly in front of him, I served him electronically, and he set a hearing on the motion that raised the issue.

What Judge Kelsey told the Supreme Court

In the affidavit of disqualification proceedings, the opinion summarizes Judge Kelsey’s response this way: he said, to the best of his recollection, he was not aware that I requested police investigate his authority to preside. That statement matters because it is used to knock out the appearance of retaliation theory. The opinion then treats my claim as speculation partly because the judge “denies knowledge.”

If the denial of knowledge collapses, the analysis built on it collapses with it.

What I put in writing, and how it reached him

On August 9, 2023, I sent an email to the Port Clinton Police Department requesting the filing of a police report against Judge Reeve Kelsey for falsification under O.R.C. 2921.13, tied to my criminal case and his statements about his appointment. I also sent a substantially similar request to the Ottawa County Sheriff the same night.

Days later, I filed my Motion To Recuse. In the memorandum supporting that motion, I stated that I had engaged law enforcement to initiate a criminal investigation against Judge Kelsey and that I had initiated legal proceedings to compel a criminal investigation. That is not vague. That is not a stray remark. That is the central factual premise for recusal: if a litigant is actively pursuing a criminal investigation of the presiding judge, the judge’s impartiality is reasonably questioned. I then certified service. My certificate of service states that a copy of the Motion To Recuse was forwarded to Judge Reeve Kelsey through electronic means as a courtesy. So the record shows two things at once: the motion explicitly references my law enforcement actions, and the motion was electronically served on the judge.

The judge’s own docket action shows awareness

The court issued an order stating that on August 14, 2023, I filed a motion to recuse, and that the court set a hearing date for all pending motions on September 8, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. The same order confirms the hearing date.

This matters because it defeats the attempted posture of ignorance. A judge need not agree with my allegations to know they exist. In this record, the judge had at least three direct pathways to know: The motion itself states the law enforcement actions. The motion was electronically served on him. The court set a hearing on the motion to recuse.

Why this is an “official proceeding” problem

O.R.C. 2921.13(A) covers knowingly false statements made in any official proceeding.

Ohio defines “official proceeding” broadly as any proceeding before a judicial or other governmental agency or official authorized to take evidence under oath. Judge Kelsey’s denial of knowledge was made as part of the Supreme Court disqualification process, which is a judicial process, and it is the type of setting where a judge’s factual representations about what he knew and when he knew it are relied on to decide whether he stays on a case.

Why I say the statement was knowingly false

Falsification requires “knowingly.” I cannot crawl inside a man’s head. I can prove notice, service, and follow up actions. That is exactly what the record shows. I served the recusal motion electronically and it contained the law enforcement investigation fact pattern. The court set a hearing on that motion. Then, when asked directly in the later Supreme Court proceeding, he claimed he was not aware of my police investigation request.

On these facts, the “I was not aware” representation becomes extremely difficult to defend as a good faith mistake. At minimum, it is irreconcilable with the existence of an electronically served motion that literally says I was engaging law enforcement about him, followed by a scheduled hearing on that motion.

He did not say “I was aware of the motion but I do not recall the police report detail.” He denied awareness of the very premise.

Why I am publishing this

A judge is powerful. A judge’s words carry weight. When a judge makes a factual claim in a high level judicial proceeding, that claim shapes the outcome. It shaped mine. As a Catholic, I treat truth telling as non negotiable, especially when it is tied to the administration of justice. Bearing false witness is a serious sin because it deforms judgment, harms the innocent, and corrodes public trust. If the judiciary wants trust, it cannot run on convenient forgetfulness.

What readers should take from the record

Read the sequence and decide whether the “not aware” claim can survive it.

I requested police involvement about Judge Kelsey. I told the court in my recusal memorandum that I engaged law enforcement to initiate a criminal investigation against him and sought to compel one.

I certified that I electronically served Judge Kelsey with that filing. The court then set a hearing on my motion to recuse.

Later, Judge Kelsey represented to the Supreme Court that he was not aware of my request that police investigate his authority. That is the contradiction. That is why I allege falsification under O.R.C. 2921.13(A)(1).