The judge in Oxford who is fighting two lawsuits in the Ohio Supreme Court has asked the high court to dismiss the case about the rape flier at Miami University.

Judge Rob Lyons was sued by a local newspaper last year after he sealed the files of a former Miami University student who admitted posting a “How to get away with rape” flier on campus.

Court records show Lyons originally accepted a guilty plea by the student to a minor misdemeanor and the parties agreed to seal the records. After the newspaper filed suit it came to light Lyons has been using the wrong Ohio Revised Code number to seal thousands of records for years. When Lyons realized his error, he allowed the student to withdraw his disorderly conduct plea, the assistant prosecutor decided not to pursue the case further and Lyons sealed the records.

The newspaper alleges the court records should be unsealed because the plea reversal was improper and Lyons didn’t follow the proper procedures for sealing the records. The first lawsuit spawned a second lawsuit by the newspaper asking that all of Lyons’ sealed cases be revealed.

Under the law, convicted felons must wait three years before they can apply to have their records sealed. People convicted of misdemeanor crimes must wait a year, and people who have been acquitted, or otherwise had their case dismissed, can apply immediately.

Lyons said he has always sealed minor misdemeanor cases immediately, and the practice went on in the Area I Court long before he got there. Lyons attorney in the second case George Jonson said in his opinion state law allows this practice because the statute is “silent” on the issue of minor misdemeanors.

In the rape flier case, Lyons is still represented by Assistant Prosecutor Dan Ferguson. Prosecutor Mike Gmoser asked to be removed from the other case because he has a conflict of interest. Ferguson filed a brief with the high court Friday, asking the court to dismiss the case, for a number of reasons, but largely because the newspaper has no standing.

“The petitioner newspaper seeks to insert itself into judicial and prosecutorial functions that determine the outcome of the underlying criminal case,” Ferguson wrote. “Even if respondent illegally allowed the reversal of the defendant’s plea, which respondent does not concede, to allow a newspaper to insert itself into the manner of conduct of a criminal case would be exceedingly dangerous and unprecedented. This is an ominous medaling in judicial and prosecutorial functions which must not be tolerated.”