Accuser of Christine O'Donnell LIED, charges Complaint to D.C. Bar seeking Disbarrment

The FREEDOMIST ^ | June 13, 2011 | Paul Collier

[Real Cynic No More]

Melanie Sloan knew she was lying or would have known with the slightest investigation (which an attorney is required to undertake).

So, as a minimum she was negligent in performing her professional duties, or as a maximum, she lied. Either way, sounds as if she has a bar problem, much as Clinton did.

[Vendome]

How do we know Christinne O’Donnell didn’t commit perjury?

She made a lot of outlandish claims.

What was with the Witch thing?

Wonder why she didn’t win?

[Vendome]

(Christine) O'Donnell calls extending jobless benefits a 'tragedy' ("like Pearl Harbor")
The Hill ^ | 12/8/10

Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2010 6:41:02 AM by earlJam

By Shane D'Aprile - 12/07/10 10:22 PM ET

Christine O'Donnell on Tuesday compared the "tragedy" of extending unemployment benefits to Pearl Harbor and the death of Elizabeth Edwards.

"Today marks a lot of tragedy," O'Donnell, the Tea Party-backed GOP Senate candidate from Delaware, said Tuesday night during an appearance in Virginia.

"Tragedy comes in threes," O'Donnell said. "Pearl Harbor, Elizabeth Edwards's passing and Barack Obama's announcement of extending the tax cuts, which is good, but also extending the unemployment benefits."

O'Donnell continued: "The reason I say this is a tragedy is because his announcement of economic recovery was more of a potpourri of sound bytes. It's like he took a little bit of what each party wanted and put it together. It's not a solid plan constructed on sound economic principles."

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

 

“Tragedy comes in threes,” O’Donnell said. “Pearl Harbor, Elizabeth Edwards’s passing and Barack Obama’s announcement of extending the tax cuts, which is good, but also extending the unemployment benefits.”

 

The above statement can be found on several videos recorded at the event:

Right at the beginning of the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReyeEtXXKgg
Posted by ericarhendry at Youtube

remarks at the 2:15 mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJhC0o3B0Zk
Posted by GlenSColen at Youtube

Here is the offending remark as seen on Anderson Cooper
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioeiIjCQcbA
Posted by SuchIsLifeVideos at Youtube

And again here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEbD82B0X-A
Posted by PresidentObama3

Again, Yawn remarks at the 1:50 mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc2-u_85_jg
Posted by claymore4freedom at Youtube

 

[Munz]

Will anything actually come of it though?

[Vendome]

That’s Jonathan Moseley does.

He makes frivilous claims and likes to plow a field several times, no matter that is a pile of sand.

But hey, if it makes if it’s therapeutic for him....

[Vendome]

That’s what Jonathan Moseley does.

He makes frivolous claims and likes to plow a field several times, no matter that is a pile of sand.

But hey, if it’s therapeutic for him....

(fixed)

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

“Think about it: I could declare myself a candidate every year, declare all kinds of expenses (travel, meals etc.) and never get a single signature or mount a real campaign.”

Reminds me of Dennis Kucinich!

[Scythian]

I swear I did not have anything to do with this! Ask the Bushies, they'll vouch for me !! Un-hand me dammit, Romney needs to be elected or the country is doomed. O'Donnell was a practicing Witch, one of my 33rd degree Mason buddies told me, it's all true, it's all true ...

[Moseley]

Christine will lose this suit. I can’t imagine a judge saying, “yes they were mean to you so let’s take away their ability to practice law.”

It is not a suit. It does not go to a judge.

It is against the rules of the D.C. Bar to file a frivolous criminal complaint or to lie officially while representing a client. Melanie Sloan did both. Your lack of imagination does not change what the rules say.

[Gondring]

So, which of the townhomes is Miss O'Donnell claiming was her personal residence, and which townhome was the campaign headquarters, and which townhome was her sister's residence, and which townhome was David Hust's?

IIRC, Christine O'Donnell's voter registration listed her address as 1242 Presidential Dr. David Hust's was 1242 Presidential Dr. Her campaign was listed as 1242 Presidential Dr. ChristinePAC filed as 1242 Presidential Dr. And did she not state, herself, that she was living at the campaign headquarters and "splitting" the rent? If not, then why did she pay some small payments payments to her campaign (labeled 'rent') after the campaign paid the full rent and utilities?

My personal opinion is that Melanie Sloan is a slime, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of irregularities with Christine O'Donnell!

[Moseley]

Still nothing will happen because it was during a campaign.

It doesn't matter. A lawyer cannot file a frivolous criminal complaint. In fact that makes it worse. A lawyer cannot threaten criminal prosecution or seek prosecution to gain advantage in some other context. Using a criminal complaint to try to swing an election is an even worse violation of the D.C. Bar rules.

Furthermore, this is not about defamation.

[Vendome]

Wait!

Presidential Drive?

Was that in Centerville?

I use to live on Presidential Drive.

[Vendome]

Litigious Litigant.

[Moseley]

And did she not state, herself, that she was living at the campaign headquarters and "splitting" the rent?

No, Gondring, she did not say that.

The headquarters was at 1242 Presidential Drive.

However, that is not where Christine ever lived.

She used that address for her voter registration and car registration and to receive her mail. That is a LEGAL RESIDENCE, not her ACTUAL residence. It is a mail drop.

I have been to Christine's ACTUAL residence, where we had a group work meeting. Christine cooked me pork chops when everyone else wanted to eat pizza, because I am on the Atkins diet.

1242 is not where Christine ever lived.

See:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/christine-odonnell-wont-rule-out-third-party-run

[Logical me]

Nothing will happen. Communists Democratic party is exempt from the law and they get a medal for vote swaying lies.

[darkangel82]

I’m no lawyer but I’m sure lying to the FEC is a crime.

[DJ MacWoW]

I think so too. We’ll soon see if liars pay the price.

[Moseley]

WIDEAWAKE varies from type by saying something respectful and raising at least some arguably interesting and relevant questions: It seems to hinge on the technical question of whether O'Donnell was legally a candidate or not at the time in question. There may be DE case law on this question or they may not - but in New York it is a not a matter of whether you say you are a candidate but whether you have sufficient number of petitions to establish candidacy. I highly doubt that "purchasing campaign software" or "testing the waters" has any legal value whatever. Think about it: I could declare myself a candidate every year, declare all kinds of expenses (travel, meals etc.) and never get a single signature or mount a real campaign. Legally there needs to be a minimum standard. Simply filing may not meet it.

WIDEAWAKE, the question of what it takes to get on the ballot is entirely different. That is governed by State law. For example, a person could raise and spend $20,000 and then fail to qualify for the ballot, say, in a big State like California. Those expenditures would still be legitimate campaign expenses.

Recall what is going on here. Christine had $456 in cash left over at the end of 2008 and about $19,000 and change in unpaid expenses for 2008. By the end of 2009, Christine had paid down most of those 2008 expenses, and paid off the rest in 2010.

So the only money for Christine to spend in 2009 came from DONATIONS that Christine received, from face to face meetings. During 2009, Christine met face to face with people, explained to them personally what she was doing with her 2010 campaign, and told them she was running for U.S. Senate. In response, they handed her donations for her campaign.

So the people who gave her the money knew that she was running for U.S. Senate. They talked to her personally, one on one. They wanted her to run for U.S. Senate in 2010, and wanted to give her the money to make it happen.

Testing the waters is a well-recognized legal category. A potential candidate IS allowed to raise donations and incur expenses including travel and meetings at restaurants with potential donors, potential volunteers, potential advisors, potential endorsers, potential campaign vendors, potential campaign workers. If taking a donor on a ferris wheel ride at a county fair is what it takes to get a $1,000 donation, then it is a legitimate campaign expense.

If the expenses served a campaign purpose, they are legitimate.

For example, when Christine filled up with gas in Maryland on I-95, then later that day had a MODEST lunch (like around $19) with a potential campaign donor IN WASHINGTON, D.C., then filled up with gas IN WASHINGTON, D.C. THAT SAME DAY -- this is obviously a legtimate campaign trip from Delaware to meet with potential donors in Washington, D.C.

Just like with any other job, if you incur expenses to run for office, these are legitimate expenses. If you meet with a potential client over lunch, you damn well expect your employer to pay for it. If you drive 110 miles away for your job, you damn well expect your job to pay for the gas.

[Gondring]

"Melanie Sloan for her client Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington falsely claims that in 2009 Christine O'Donnell was not a candidate for office [...]"

Would you please point me to where this claim is made? Thanks!

[Moseley]

Vendome asks: How do we know Christinne O’Donnell didn’t commit perjury

None of this depends upon anything that Christine O'Donnell said or did not say. In order to hang Melanie Sloan, this complaint depends exclusively on information that Melanie Sloan eitehr knew or should have known herself, from public information. As an attorney, Melanie Sloan knew that she had no factual basis for making her accusations.

To make the complaint against Melanie Sloan as strong as possible, it does not require believing anything that Christine O'Donnell said or relying on any information unknown to Melanie Sloan. It is easier to hang Melanie Sloan using independent, objective information.