HOUGH THREATENS THE GFP while Jessica H Donahue Rhodes writes a letter from the Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel which reveals she is a complete idiot!!

By Rina McCoy/Cosmos Communicator Editor

Well if you ever heard that saying, “She is not the sharpest knife in the drawer,”  certainly a good example was made yesterday the 8th of September when the Gilmer Free Press published the latest results from the latest misconduct complaint against Gerald B Hough, and the questionably accurate letter written by Jessica H Rhodes of the Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel

“The Office of Disciplinary Counsel showed their true colors and their obviously corrupt ways in front of ALL OF CENTRAL WV yesterday as the action was delivered almost instantly over the internet via the Gilmer Free Press!”

In the wee hours of the morning Thursday, Gerald B Hough Gilmer County Prosecutor was anxious and chomping at the bit to get the latest news of disciplinary action being dismissed that had been brought against him the last week of August.

“First thing in the morning the article containing the complaint against Gerry Hough was posted proudly on the GFP for all to see!”

Only, (which comes as no surprise) Hough threatened the GFP with law action if they didn’t immediately publish the letter written by Rhodes!

“Your failure to print this dismissal by the disciplinary counsel will be added to the evidence of your malicious, intentional, tortious conduct against me   …”

So the GFP was forced to print the letter they had not even had time to verify as authentic, but no matter, for it turned out to be totally authentic and the author of the letter from the office of the ODC turned out to be a complete idiot that did not understand the case at all!

In fact, not only did the attorney in Charleston not understand the case, she completely ignored the key evidence which re-set the two year statute to file a complaint, or  …. “Why would I have bothered filing the complaint,” stated the citizen claiming wrongdoing!

Good point! Not only was the letter poorly written, but the letter completely ignored the key evidence that substantiated the entire complaint.

Simply put, Hough paid a STATE WITNESS to lie on the stand and say she owned property she did not own.

NEW EVIDENCE which was a concept the very inept lawyer for the disciplinary board could not seem to grasp was left out of the letter entirely.

“You people down there are some corrupt Son’s of Bitches …aren’t you!”

…were the first words that  Rhodes heard in response to her failed attempt at covering for the crimes of Gerald B Hough,  according to a witness at the scene!

Obviously the ODC has proven itself to be corrupt and the entire day long ordeal was witnessed by all of Central West Virginia yesterday.

The VICTORY Gerry Hough wanted to celebrate yesterday was short lived, for it only lasted for two hours.  The ODC was notified of their mistakes and complaints are being readied to be filed against them for their possible unlawful and illegal conduct in their attempt to cover for the crimes of Gerald B Hough.

“A letter posted below explains that as of 11:18am yesterday the complaint against Hough has been officially refiled and accepted!”

The ODC was warned that any more attempts to cover up the criminal activity of public officials would result in a federal law action being filed against them in US District Court.

The entire article from the front page of the GFP appears below!

From 10:59am yesterday until 10:28am this morning there were 31,136 page views on the Gilmer Free Press and many of those people read this article that brings you the REAL TRUTH!

G-FYI™: Our Gilmer County Prosecutor Cannot Just Simply Ask? He Threatens Instead!


The following documents were just received from Mr. Gerry Hough, Gilmer County’s Prosecuting Attorney via e-mail:
Ghazzem*: You are quick to publish Daniel Bingman’s revenge-driven hate messages on your so-called Free Press website. Almost all of them are anonymous and appear to be various hate group members, when they are authored by the same Cuyahoga Falls (censored).

Here’s what the WV Office of Disciplinary Counsel thought of Bingman’s recent ethics complaint: “Accordingly, it has been determined that your complaint does not allege a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the complaint will not be docketed for investigation, but will be closed without further action. Mr. Hough was not required to respond to this complaint.” (A full scan of the two page dismissal letter is attached)**
Let me remind you that your June 7th defamatory attack message remains copied and ready to file in a suit against you for your intentional efforts to destroy my professional and personal reputation.

Your failure to print this dismissal by the disciplinary counsel will be added to the evidence of your malicious, intentional, tortious conduct against me and, by your promotion of Bingman’s twisted notions, my entire family.
Your public retraction and personal apology for the June 7th message will successfully relieve the need to file against you for a judgment against your real estate properties and the business fixtures/equipment owned by you and/or Ramco Technologies.

Pursuant to the Gilmer Free Press’s policy of publishing newsworthy material, the documents are provided for public information.

The letter from the State Bar is self-explanatory to absolve Mr. Hough from culpability with the Dan Bingman controversy.

Nothing related to Mr. Hough was done intentionally by the Gilmer Free Press to dishonor his reputation, to adversely affect him monetarily, or to impugn his family in any way.

Should anyone misinterpret otherwise, a public apology is extended to Mr. Hough.

Accordingly, Mr. Hough’s voluntary involvement as an elected official to keep the public informed is admirable, and his proffering to render all his charges against the Gilmer Free Press null and void is accepted in good faith.

The mission of Gilmer Free Press is, at all times, to seek the truth and to report the news.

This affords readers opportunities to form their own opinions, a guaranteed constitutional right in these United States of America.

Mr. Hough is an elected official and with that position come certain responsibilities.

As a Public Servant, Mr. Hough must ensure that everyone is afforded the freedom of speech as dictated by the United States Constitution.

Denying taxpayers access to the truth is risky at this point, as the next election of Public officials may very well rid Gilmer County of a Public nuisance or two.

For one, the public has the right to ask questions, and answers must be given.

A lack of response can be construed as complacency.

Simply ignoring and avoiding issues is not acceptable to the taxpaying public who do not get a satisfactory return on their investment.

We have invited Mr. Hough to a public forum to set the record straight.

It would appear that Mr. Hough prefers threats to diplomacy.

Should Mr. Hough agree to a public forum – and then if any of the issues mentioned are found to be inaccurate – we will publicly apologize.

The Gilmer Free Press takes a neutral position on all issues, and Citizens are free to express themselves.

Mr. Hough is not only a public official with additional responsibilities to the community, he is also a citizen.

Like anyone else he can simply submit his opinion and it will be published after verification process.

Mr. Hough is the only reader who has ever used threats to get his comments published.

That is not necessary.

Regarding Mr. Hough’s accusation that all the comments are from Mr. Bingman, that is absolutely false.

Once again our Prosecutor is doing the very thing he accuses others of doing.

Perhaps these threats give us even more reason to further protect our citizen’s identity.

Otherwise, we would all be in danger of losing our property to the very person who is supposed to protect us from such action.

Maybe Mr. Hough should concentrate on improving his own real estate portfolio, as I’m sure it could use some remodeling to bring it up to code.
* Since Mr. Hough insists to use the first name, which includes his hate and threat messages in Farsi, the correct spelling is: Ghassem!

**  The attachment sent by Mr. Hough has not been verified by the Gilmer Free Press.

The second complaint was time barred not found inappropriate for action by the ODC but it’s hard to get lawyers to check lawyers.  Too bad the ongoing fight with Bingman isn’t the only problem the Prosecutor has.  I notice he didn’t apologize for not collecting “years” of those unpaid oil & gas co. taxes nor has he apologized for not prosecuting rapists, or plea dealing felonies to misdemeanors or revealing the issuance of false subpoenas in his name. The Gilmer Free Press gives the people a voice and for that we are forever grateful.

Comment by Get over it Gerry  on  09.08  at  08:27 AM

The BACK TAX BILLINGS and the TITLE OPINION that proved guilt were not accepted as evidence on purpose and the ODC will receive notice of their wrongdoing and a law action may follow.

The BACK TAX BILLINGS and the TITLE OPINION that were not accepted reset the statute and the details of this may be reported by another mainstream news source.

I think now we can be guaranteed of corruption at the Supreme Court level.

In the letter it asked for proof that Roanna Rafferty was paid and the proof is at the County Clerks office and the Sheriffs office but they made that evidence unavailable.

The SHERIFF has that check and is suppressing that evidence and Metz is making that evidence unavailable to the Supreme Court.

We proved subornation, but the important evidence, the newly found evidence that resets the statute was not recognized on purpose.

Corruption at the highest court level is truly sad.

The letter from ODC did not mention the Title Opinion or the BACK TAX BILLINGS.

Comment by Council of Concerned Citizens  on  09.08  at  09:29 AM

The SECOND complaint IS NOT time barred because ODC said they did NOT receive new evidence of Back Tax Billings and Title Opinion.

The NEW EVIDENCE resets the statute.

ODC is saying they never received the tax billings and the title opinion that proves the guilt of Hough.

They don’t want to receive it, is why they said they did not receive the billings and opinion.

Rachael C is fully aware of this fact that new evidence resets the two year statute.

So now another complaint against Hough is being drafted with new evidence NOT recognized being sent again.

Comment by Concerned Citizen  on  09.08  at  09:35 AM

Mr. Hough, the only way your reputation can be tarnished is by your own words and actions.  The people of this county know how to make their own decisions and changing the subject will not change that.
You haven’t had time for us since the day you were elected, running your law clinic and realty agency while holding office on a part time basis and teaching at GSC.
Later, you officially closed the law clinic and realty company but opened a storage business.  Your teaching job takes many miles of travel to Summersville campus today and a lot more of your time. You insisted on being full time Prosecutor.
Now you want a student to handle the job of collecting unpaid taxes you didn’t have time to take care of.  Are you more worried about offending the oil & gas companies so hand over the job to less experience? After all, if he or she misses a few who will know? When are you going to put all of these past dues in the paper so we know who owes what? question

Comment by Got Time?  on  09.08  at  11:40 AM

This is the biggest crock of you know what. This prosecutor instead of doing his job to fight crime, he is harassing the members of the community who are providing a service? What is he doing about multiple criminals at the college?

Comment by Disgusted  on  09.08  at  12:12 PM

He is complaining about us using an alias to remain anonymous. But it is ok for him to do it on his retort hate site which he promoted in his ads paid for by taxpayers’ money in local newspaper!

Comment by Hmmm  on  09.08  at  12:17 PM

The only person hurting Hough and his family is Gerry himself by his bizarre behavior.

Comment by Rno317  on  09.08  at  12:20 PM

Complaint Filed:
Rachael L. Fletcher Cipoletti, Esquire
Chief Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
City Center East
Suite 1200 C
4700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE
Charleston, West Virginia 25304
(304)558-7999 Fax (304)558-4015

Dear Rachael,

Please let this document represent a request for reconsideration and an appeal of the decision signed and investigated by Jessica H Rhodes. Obviously you did not consider all of the evidence much to our disappointment since we have been investigating the wrongdoing in this case for seven years and found several false facts brought before the courts knowingly.

The evidence that proved Gerry Hough paid Roanna Rafferty is at the Gilmer County Clerks office and the office of the Sheriff of Gilmer County. I discussed this issue with Sheriff Metz, but he has not as yet turned over to us that evidence, but it will be brought forward, so that excuse of no proof is a very weak argument on behalf of the Supreme Court considering the cost to fight this case in the West Virginia Courts for five years.

We were billed for back taxes in October of 2010 for property the 14th district circuit court and the West Virginia Supreme Court said we did not control or pay taxes on. It was our responsibility to pay taxes on the 1/6th the state of West Virginia refused to recognize because the title was pulled from the land books intentionally and we have a witness to bring forward.

Actual crimes were committed to cover up evidence brought in my case.

The evidence of the title opinion proves Roanna Rafferty DID NOT OWN the 1/6th she testified that she owned.

I hereby enter the title opinion as evidence in this request for reconsideration or appeal.

I hereby enter the back tax billings proving we were responsible for taxes the West Virginia Court said Roanna Rafferty owned that she did not own.


Therefore my 2nd complaint is NOT time barred.

Let this document serve as a request for reconsideration using new evidence, and for an appeal of my complaint against Gerald B Hough Gilmer County Prosecutor.


Dan Bingman

Comment by Dan Bingman  on  09.08  at  12:26 PM

Appeal: Complaint is re-filed and BACK ON!!

Mr. Bingman,

By letter dated September 8, 2011, you have been advised that we are in receipt of your dissatisfaction with the disposition of your most recent complaint.

I am treating your letter as an appeal of the dismissal pursuant to Rule 2.4(b)(1) of the Rules of Lawyer Disciplinary Procedure.  This matter will be placed on the agenda of an upcoming meeting of the Investigative Panel of the Lawyer Disciplinary Board and will be reviewed by all members of the Panel.  The Panel consists of both lawyer and non-lawyer members.  You will be notified in writing of their decision.



Rachael L. Fletcher Cipoletti, Esquire
Chief Lawyer Disciplinary Counsel

Office of Disciplinary Counsel
City Center East
Suite 1200 C
4700 MacCorkle Avenue, SE
Charleston, West Virginia 25304
(304)558-7999 Fax (304)558-4015

Comment by Dan Bingman  on  09.08  at  12:27 PM


  1. The office of the ODC and Gerry Hough may be in a little more trouble than they know with their attempt to hide and suppress evidence yesterday. Being caught red handed is going to prove embarrassing to all concerned. When you knowingly suppress key evidence as was witnessed yesterday, that person should in all rights look forward to serving some time in prison.

  2. A case should never be brought to court by a Prosecutor who has not used due diligence to establish the facts. Just because a person says they own something doesn’t make it true. There are records to be checked and it takes a little longer than a 10 minute court recess. When Hough could not locate the 1/6th claimed, the court should have been notified (despite his embarrassment) a mistrial declared and perjury charges brought against the Prosecutors witness in my opinion. We have all seen the tax tickets, we know the property disappeared from the land books and that land titles are maintained in the County Clerk’s Office. It would have taken time to back search the records, locate the last time it had been taxed, who the owner was and see the correction made. It is quite simply pre-trial finding of fact. This did not happen. Yet in 2010 it magically reappeared, back taxed without question and sold at tax sale. The document was needed from 2004-2006 in Circuit Court and 2007 for a WV Supreme Court decision that was extremely close. Because there was no title proof of ownership, the jury, and the court could not know that there was equal ownership in a property dispute that somehow turned into a criminal case, although experts say it should have been a civil action all along. As for expert witnesses as to the value of anything, show us the credentials! To pay someone for a subjective opinion that can have such an impact on another life without verification of the facts through any other source is just unbelievable. We have all heard the audio of a much more experienced person assessing the value in question in the presence of the paid “expert”. It was obvious she was not a qualified expert on the subject and at that point was only concerned both of them would be called to court to testify to the value required to get the conviction.

    The new evidence in this case proves that it should not be time-barred. It proves that due diligence was not practiced and a human being suffered severely as a result. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel needs to take a long, hard look at the facts. It is their role to oversee the conduct of attorneys practicing in the State of W.V. whether in private practice or elected office. Those in public office should be held to the highest standards. The purpose of the law is to serve the people, not to persecute, suppress or endanger their rights. The repeated threats made by Attorney Hough to take the money and home of anyone without legal action in process represent unethical conduct in and of itself. Multiple threats against private citizens with accessing their computer and outrageous charges of illegality for exercising their free speech, while using public funds to advertise this in the name of the office of the Gilmer County Prosecutor, is not only unethical but also illegal. He is not the only attorney in this county to use threats in such a manner but the ODC should make such an example of this case as to ensure that he would be the last. It is their duty. It is their job. It is what’s right.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s