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

The FREEDOMIST ^ | June 13, 2011 | Paul Collier

[Moseley]

http://freedomist.com/2011/06/melanie-sloan-christine-odonnell-attacker-faces-legal-ethics-issues-bar-complaint-filed-by-jonathon-moseley/

Melanie Sloan, Christine O'Donnell attacker, faces Legal Ethics issues- bar complaint filed by Jonathon Moseley

The Freedomist is following the political hack attack attempted by Melanie Sloan (CREW uses Christine O'Donnell complaint as fundraiser- how lies, slander, and libel gets Melanie Sloan funded- Freedom News) and her progressive cronies (Man throws nephew under bus to attack Christine O'Donnell- The David Keegan Story) who seem to have some unnatural fear of Christine O'Donnell, the Delaware Tea Party Senate Candidate who upset the progressive Mike Castle in the GOP primary  (O'Donnell WINS!), only to see  the Delaware State GOP turn against her (Teaparty's Delaware Senate loss pinned on establishment GOP refusal to act- Tea Party News) to assure a progressive victory in the form of Chris Coons (now a proud progressive Senator from the progressive state of Delaware).  We stumbled upon this gem from a Virgina Website that outlines a bar complaint against the progressive Melanie Sloan (One down, one to go- FEC tosses out Christine O'Donnell complaint) for her attempt to use the FEC (Breaking Exclusive: Crew Director uses own Father to levy FEC charges against Christine O'Donnell- Tea Party News ) to silence any opponent to her Soros-funded progressive dream for America:

BAR COMPLAINT Against MELANIE SLOAN
re: Frivolous Charges Against
CHRISTINE O'DONNELL
Spreading Lies By David Keegan

from http://www.defenseforvirginia.com/ODonnell.html

Jonathon Moseley today filed an official complaint with the District of Columbia "Bar" asking that Melanie Sloan be disciplined or disbarred, responding to false charges brought against 2010 Delaware U.S. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell from D.C. lawyer Melanie Sloan.

Jonathon Moseley commented:  "Melanie Sloan violated numerous D.C. Bar rules and committed perjury in her complaint (sworn to under 18 USC 1001) and in her false public statements about Christine O'Donnell. A lawyer may not make false statements in the course of representing a client, even in non-legal contexts. Here, Melanie Sloan's many false statements were clearly intended to cause governmental resources to be used in furtherance of her clients' private agenda. D.C. Bar rules require a lawyer to promptly inform authorities upon discovering that a previous complaint is false."

Proof that Melanie Sloan's accusations against Christine O'Donnell are false is chronicled in detail in Jon Moseley's Complaint. A copy of the Complaint against Melanie Sloan filed with the D.C. Bar on June 13, 2011, can be downloaded by CLICKING HERE (recommend using the right click button on the mouse and selecting "SAVE AS" option).

Jon Moseley's affidavit regarding admissions made to him by David Keegan can be downloaded by CLICKING HERE (recommend using the right click button on the mouse and selecting "SAVE AS" option).

Moseley further commented: "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, thus questioning the legality of travel and meeting expenses charged to O'Donnell's campaign. However, Sloan knew or could easily have discovered that Christine O'Donnell filed her Statement of Candidacy for the 2010 election on March 20, 2009; told WDEL radio in Delaware on February 13, 2009 that she was putting together a campaign for the 2010 U.S. Senate election; purchased campaign software on January 8, 2009; and in December 2008 posted an ambiguous 'testing the water' encouragement to her supporters about possibly running in 2010. Melanie Sloan violated the rules of the D.C. Bar by calling Christine a criminal when Sloan knew or should have known that Christine was in fact legitimately preparing a U.S. Senate campaign as early as January 2009."

Jonathon Moseley further explained: "Melanie Sloan based her false statements and frivolous complaint on the affidavit of David Keegan. But David Keegan admits he left O'Donnell's campaign in August 2008. David Keegan loaned Christine O'Donnell's campaign $2,300 on July 25, 2008, which was paid back on August 1, 2008. Sloan claims to have interviewed Keegan extensively. Melanie Sloan admits in her own voice that Sloan's accusations concern 2009 and 2010 campaign spending. An attorney could not rationally believe that David Keegan who left in August 2008 could give Melanie Sloan a factual basis for accusations about 2009 and 2010 campaign expenses. During 2008, Christine O'Donnell had a professional accountant, Timothy Koch, an expert in campaign finance, supervising the 2008 campaign. Melanie Sloan should have known that David Keegan would not have loaned Christine's campaign $2,300 in July 2008 if Keegan saw financial irregularities before he left in mid-August 2008. Although Keegan claims he saw spending for meals or shopping in 2008, none of those expenses show up in the campaign's spending in 2008. Sloan should have known that the campaign never actually paid for the expenses that Keegan complains about, and Keegan doesn't know anything about 2009 or 2010."

Jon Moseley also explained: "Melanie Sloan also lied for her clients C.R.E.W. and Delaware voter Leonard Togman accusing Christine of living at 248 Presidential Drive, which Sloan claims was also the campaign headquarters (in paragraph 8 of Sloan's complaint - click here) . However, 248 Presidential Drive is the commercial office of Mid-Atlantic Realty. Nobody lives in Mid-Atlantic Realty's office space. Melanie Sloan obviously did not conduct any investigation into the truth of Sloan's accusations. As an attorney, Sloan knew that Christine's use as the campaign headquarter address as her 'legal residence' does not mean that is where Christine personally lives. If Sloan had investigated before swearing under 18 U.S.C. 1001, she would have known that Christine told the news media at least 18 days before Sloan filed C.R.E.W.'s September 20 complaint that Christine does not actually live at the address she publicly discloses as her 'legal residence.' A 'legal residence' is not a personal residence."

Moseley also commented: "David Keegan's accusations are all the more strange because Keegan was supposed to be raising money for Christine O'Donnell's 2008 U.S. Senate campaign. He complains extensively about the lack of money in the campaign, although Keegan was supposed to go out and raise the money that he complains O'Donnell's campaign lacked."

NO information learned from Christine O"Donnell, her legal team, campaign, or PAC is included, discussed or reflected in Moseley's Complaint or associated documents, except what was publicly and openly disclosed on or before September 20, 2010. To prove guilt by Melanie Sloan, only information that Melanie Sloan either knew or would have known if she had conducted the inquiry required of an attorney is used to establish violations by Sloan. Private information that Melanie Sloan could not have discovered on or before September 20, 2010, would not prove Melanie Sloan's violations of the D.C. Bar's Rules, except to the extent that Melanie Sloan's private interviews with her own witness David Keegan would have alerted Melanie Sloan that Melanie Sloan's claims and statements were then and are now false.

The Complaint against D.C. attorney Melanie Sloan alleges that (a) Sloan made false statements in the course of representing a client in violation of the D.C. Bar's Rule 4.1(a), Rule 3.3(a)(1), Rule 3.3(a)(4) (amplified by Rule 3.9), and Rule 8.4(c), and (b) Melanie Sloan filed frivolous complaints lacking in merit, that is based upon allegations that Melanie Sloan knew to be false in violation of the D.C. Bar's Rule 3.1, Rule 3.3(a)(2), and Rule 8.4(c), and (c) Sloan threatened and sought criminal prosecution to improperly gain advantage in an election, possibly a violation of Rule 8.4(g). Moseley became aware of the violations by Sloan while researching the false accusations against Christine O'Donnell, but ultimately had a professional duty under Virginia's Rule 8.3 to turn over the information to the D.C. Bar.

Jon Moseley was required to file this Complaint by Rule 8.3 of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, which requires attorneys to inform the relevant authority of evidence of likely misconduct. As distasteful as such an 'informant' rule may seem, and perhaps it should be repealed, it is currently the governing authority regulating the legal profession as it now stands.

Jonathon Moseley was the initial Treasurer for Christine O'Donnell's U.S. Senate campaign in Delaware in 2008, and was Christine O'Donnell's campaign manager for her primary in 2008, during which Christine O'Donnell successfully won the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. O'Donnell and Moseley won the campaign that Moseley ran for O'Donnell in 2008. Moseley developed and wrote a lawsuit for O'Donnell in 2005 and advised Christine O'Donnell's private marketing business as a marketing consultant over several years with regard to writing and reviewing contracts, etc.

Jon Moseley is also serving as Initial Treasurer for a candidate for U.S. Senate in Maryland for the 2012 election and Treasurer for another candidate for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania for 2012, both of which will soon announce officially.

DUE TO SIZE, the Exhibits attached are broken up into three groups of documents:

First group of Documents:  www.jonmoseley.com/DCBarExhibits1.pdf

Second group of Documents:  www.jonmoseley.com/DCBarExhibits2.pdf

Third group of Documents:  www.jonmoseley.com/DCBarExhibits3.pdf

Melanie Sloan on CBS News, September 17, 2010

Melanie Sloan on on CNN, September 17, 2010

Melanie Sloan on Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, September 20, 2010

Melanie Sloan on Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN, September 20, 2010

Melanie Sloan on Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN, September 21, 2010

Melanie Sloan on Rick's List on CNN, September 21, 2010

Melanie Sloan on MSNBC's Ed Schultz program, September 21, 2010

Although sworn before a Notary on June 4, 2011, Jon Moseley's Complaint against Melanie Sloan with the D.C. Bar was not actually filed until June 13, 2011.  The D.C. Bar will most likely take several weeks to review the matter and process it before starting to consider it.  The first step will probably be to forward a copy to Melanie Sloan and ask for her response.  The D.C. Bar will probably not begin to look at the Complaint until receiving Melanie Sloan's response up a month from now.

[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.