Just as I thought, you have no source to backup your claims. You just makeup whatever you want to believe. Makeup whatever version of events you want. Makeup whatever morality you want. Just like Eve did.
The money changers were Jewish.
Roman coins could not be accepted at the Temple because they had the Emperor's picture on them. In order to buy an animal to sacrifice, you had to exchange Roman coins for coins acceptable at the Temple, specifically Tyrian shekels.
The money changers were basically unpaid volunteers. The Mishnah Shekelim (1:3) says that they were compensated only for the coinage they lost to breakage (people would literally break coins into pieces back then to make change, etc).
The Mishnah also says they were watched like hawks by Temple authorities on the alert for any skimming.
This raises some question as to why Jesus would have attacked the money changers. They weren't doing anything wrong, they weren't making any profit or ripping anybody off and they were actually serving a necessary function under Jewish law. A lot of scholars (JD Crossan is a prominent example) think for this reason that the assault on the money changers was not an attempt to "cleanse" the Temple, but was an attempt to stop the Temple from functioning altogether - that it was an assault (symbolically at last) on the institution of the Temple itself. There were groups of Jews who regarded Herod's Temple as illegitimate.
The Qumran sect, for example, rejected temple sacrifice, substituted repentance and baptism and said that the Temple had been replaced by their "body," which was what they called their own community or ecclesia so to speak.