From my friend Sevil Kalayci:
"The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence: Hate the man who is better off than you are. Never under any circumstances admit that his success may be due to his own efforts, to the productive contribution he has made to the whole community. Always attribute his success to the exploitation, the cheating, the more or less open robbery of others. Never under any circumstances admit that your own failure may be owing to your own weakness, or that the failure of anyone else may be due to his own defects -- his laziness, incompetence, improvidence, or stupidity." --American economist Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993)
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Saturday, January 14, 2012
BREAKING NEWS: Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry APPEALING Federal lawsuit to appear on GOP Presidential ballot
At 9:51 PM Newt Gingrich APPEALED, and at 4:13 PM on Saturday, Gov. Rick Perry APPEALED the decision of Federal Judge in Richmond, to appear on the March 6, 2012, Republican presidential primary ballot. So the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide if Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry should be on the ballot in Virginia.
Friday, January 13, 2012
"NO" says Federal Judge to Virginia Presidential Primary Ballot Lawsuit by Rick Perry
News Release
FEDERAL JUDGE RULES "NO" ON LAWSUIT
TO EXPAND VIRGINIA PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY BALLOTS --
Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul Will Be on the
March 6, 2012 Republican Primary Ballot in Virginia
Contact: Jon Moseley (703) 656-1230
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA (JANUARY 13, 2012) -- "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" but TOO LATE to do anything about it, was the ruling of United States District Court Judge John A. Gibney on January 10, 2012, in the Federal lawsuit filed by Governor Rick Perry. Perry sued in late December to appear on Virginia's ballot, after only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul qualified for the Republican primary. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman "intervened" and joined the lawsuit.
Judge Gibney ruled that RIck Perry's lawsuit is absolutely correct: Virginia's restrictions on who may circulate ballot access petitions is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in light of prior U.S. Supreme Court precedent -- see below.
However, the Judge ruled that he could not provide a "remedy' to the other candidates, because they did not in fact submit 10,000 ballot petition signatures and it is simply too late in the process to be fixed.
Explained Virginia attorney Jonathon Moseley: "Had a candidate actually collected ballot petitions using out-of-state circulators, for example, and wanted those otherwise ineligible petitions to be counted, Judge Gibney clearly would have ordered those petitions to be counted. Judge Gibney would have stricken the requirement that circulators be Virginia residents. But now there simply isn't time for candidates to run out and collect 10,000 ballot petitions, even if they use out of state circulators, free of the restriction that RIck Perry challenged."
Judge Gibney's final order can be downloaded at:
http://www.JonMoseley.com/PerryCourtOpinion.pdf
On January 6, 2012, the Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman joint legal brief was filed and (a) fleshed out in detail the Constitutional precedents proving RIck Perry's main assertion, and (b) answering the biggest problem about the case -- what to do about it?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77464274/Brief-in-Support-of-Amended-Complaint-of-Intervenors
The greatest weakness in Rick Perry's lawsuit had been what remedy or solution Rick Perry would ask the U.S. District Court to provide.
Rick Perry's lawsuit argues that it is unconstitutional for Virginia's General Assembly to require ballot petition collectors to be Virginia residents (either registered voters in Virginia or eligible to register to vote in Virginia).
http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/12/Perry-VA-Ballot-Access.pdf?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=pressRelease
This is strongly based upon a surprisingly similar United States Supreme Court precedent Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundtion, 525 U.S. 182 (1999). The U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that it is unconstitutional -- i.e., too great a burden on political expression, activiity, and "speech" -- to limit those who can gather the petitions to only registered voters in a State.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/525/182/case.html
The primary reason the circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional is that States have not shown any reasonable justification for the limitation. Because the limitation does not appear to serve any real purpose, its burden on political expression is too great. The restriction burdening a fundamental Constitutional right is not narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate state interest.
But Rick Perry's lawsuit suffered from a huge problem: If Judge Gibney agreed with Perry's argument, what could be done at this late date to cure the problem?
If RIck Perry were allowed the right to bring in out-of-state petition circulators, he would still have to collect another 4,000 valid signatures, plus a margin of error, in a very short window of time. That seemed entirely impractical.
The Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman legal brief argued that because the petition circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional, the entire ballot petition scheme under Va. Code 24.2-545(B) must be thrown out in its entirety.
In effect, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman argued that the petition circulator residency requirement is not "severable" from the rest of Va. Code 24.2-545(B). It's all or nothing. The entire statutory plan falls, if part of it falls.
Thus, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman asked for the United States District Court to strike the entire statutory scheme for ballot petitions, and forcefully argue that the outcome of this is that all Republican presidential candidates must appear on the March 6, 2012, Republican primary ballot.
###
FEDERAL JUDGE RULES "NO" ON LAWSUIT
TO EXPAND VIRGINIA PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY BALLOTS --
Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul Will Be on the
March 6, 2012 Republican Primary Ballot in Virginia
Contact: Jon Moseley (703) 656-1230
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA (JANUARY 13, 2012) -- "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" but TOO LATE to do anything about it, was the ruling of United States District Court Judge John A. Gibney on January 10, 2012, in the Federal lawsuit filed by Governor Rick Perry. Perry sued in late December to appear on Virginia's ballot, after only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul qualified for the Republican primary. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman "intervened" and joined the lawsuit.
Judge Gibney ruled that RIck Perry's lawsuit is absolutely correct: Virginia's restrictions on who may circulate ballot access petitions is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in light of prior U.S. Supreme Court precedent -- see below.
However, the Judge ruled that he could not provide a "remedy' to the other candidates, because they did not in fact submit 10,000 ballot petition signatures and it is simply too late in the process to be fixed.
Explained Virginia attorney Jonathon Moseley: "Had a candidate actually collected ballot petitions using out-of-state circulators, for example, and wanted those otherwise ineligible petitions to be counted, Judge Gibney clearly would have ordered those petitions to be counted. Judge Gibney would have stricken the requirement that circulators be Virginia residents. But now there simply isn't time for candidates to run out and collect 10,000 ballot petitions, even if they use out of state circulators, free of the restriction that RIck Perry challenged."
Judge Gibney's final order can be downloaded at:
http://www.JonMoseley.com/PerryCourtOpinion.pdf
On January 6, 2012, the Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman joint legal brief was filed and (a) fleshed out in detail the Constitutional precedents proving RIck Perry's main assertion, and (b) answering the biggest problem about the case -- what to do about it?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77464274/Brief-in-Support-of-Amended-Complaint-of-Intervenors
The greatest weakness in Rick Perry's lawsuit had been what remedy or solution Rick Perry would ask the U.S. District Court to provide.
Rick Perry's lawsuit argues that it is unconstitutional for Virginia's General Assembly to require ballot petition collectors to be Virginia residents (either registered voters in Virginia or eligible to register to vote in Virginia).
http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/12/Perry-VA-Ballot-Access.pdf?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=pressRelease
This is strongly based upon a surprisingly similar United States Supreme Court precedent Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundtion, 525 U.S. 182 (1999). The U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that it is unconstitutional -- i.e., too great a burden on political expression, activiity, and "speech" -- to limit those who can gather the petitions to only registered voters in a State.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/525/182/case.html
The primary reason the circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional is that States have not shown any reasonable justification for the limitation. Because the limitation does not appear to serve any real purpose, its burden on political expression is too great. The restriction burdening a fundamental Constitutional right is not narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate state interest.
But Rick Perry's lawsuit suffered from a huge problem: If Judge Gibney agreed with Perry's argument, what could be done at this late date to cure the problem?
If RIck Perry were allowed the right to bring in out-of-state petition circulators, he would still have to collect another 4,000 valid signatures, plus a margin of error, in a very short window of time. That seemed entirely impractical.
The Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman legal brief argued that because the petition circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional, the entire ballot petition scheme under Va. Code 24.2-545(B) must be thrown out in its entirety.
In effect, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman argued that the petition circulator residency requirement is not "severable" from the rest of Va. Code 24.2-545(B). It's all or nothing. The entire statutory plan falls, if part of it falls.
Thus, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman asked for the United States District Court to strike the entire statutory scheme for ballot petitions, and forcefully argue that the outcome of this is that all Republican presidential candidates must appear on the March 6, 2012, Republican primary ballot.
###
Thursday, January 12, 2012
GALLUP -- TWICE AS MANY VOTERS ARE CONSERVATIVE THAN LIBERAL
Running conservative candidates is the winning move.
Running more liberal candidates is the losing move.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/Conservatives-Remain-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics
January 12, 2012
Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.
Overall, the nation has grown more polarized over the past decade
PRINCETON, NJ -- Political ideology in the U.S. held steady in 2011, with 40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives.
Running more liberal candidates is the losing move.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/Conservatives-Remain-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics
January 12, 2012
Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.
Overall, the nation has grown more polarized over the past decade
PRINCETON, NJ -- Political ideology in the U.S. held steady in 2011, with 40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Federal Judge HALTS printing of VIRGINIA BALLOTS for March 6 Primary
News Release
FEDERAL JUDGE REVERSED COURSE JANUARY 10:
ORDERS IMMEDIATE HALT TO PRINTING OF VIRGINIA BALLOTS --
FEDERAL JUDGE PREDICTS ALL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
Will Be on the Republican Primary Ballot in Virginia
Contact: Jon Moseley
(703) 656-1230
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA (JANUARY 10, 2012) -- Stop printing the ballots for Virginia's primary was the Order of United States District Court Judge John A. Gibney on January 10, 2012, in the Federal lawsuit filed by Governor Rick Perry. Perry sued in late December to appear on Virginia's ballot, after only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul qualified for the Republican primary.
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/VA-Ballot-Access-Order-of-Gibney.pdf
Judge Gibney earlier said no to the same request on December 29, 2012, denying then Rick Perry's motion for an injunction to stop the printing of the ballots. Virginia's State Board of Elections indicated they would print the primary ballots on January 9, 2012, and were required by Federal law to mail the ballots to overseas military and civilian voters by January 21, 2012.
But Judge Gibney reversed himself in a January 10, 2012, Order, commanding a halt to the printing of primary ballots. Gibney's injunction expires at 11:59 PM on January 13, 2012, the same day that Gibney will hold a hearing on the "merits" (substance) of the lawsuit. The expiration date of the injunction indicates that Gibney expects to issue a final ruling the same day as the one and only real hearing in the case. That is an extremely fast turn-around for such a momentous lawsuit.
Even more striking, the Federal Judge signalled that he is likely to order that all Republican presidential candidates will appear on Virginia's primary ballot. Gibney wrote: "The Court finds that there is a strong likelihood that the Court will find the residency requirement for petition circulators to be unconstitutional. The authorities make clear that circulating petitions for candidates is a form of protected speech, and that the Commonwealth has a heavy burden to justify the restriction on speech by showing not only that the limitation achieves a valid state interest but also that the limitation is no broader in scope than necessary to achieve that purpose. Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999); Lux v. Judd, 651 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 2011). As in all strict scrutinty cases, the state has a difficult task to demonstrate the propriety of its limitations on protected speech. For this reason, the Court believes that the plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits, at least on the issue of the validity of the residency requirements."
Although it is possible that Judge Gibney could still refuse to change the Virginia ballot, he is strongly leaning toward granting the request of the other presidential candidates to be included in the March 6 primary.
Gibney halted the ballot preparation because of a compelling legal brief filed jointly by Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman. Judge Gibney had ordered that all of the Presidential candidates should have the opportunity to participate in the Rick Perry lawsuit.
On January 6, 2012, the Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman joint legal brief was filed and (a) fleshed out in detail the Constitutional precedents proving RIck Perry's main assertion, and (b) answering the biggest problem about the case -- what to do about it?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77464274/Brief-in-Support-of-Amended-Complaint-of-Intervenors
The greatest weakness in Rick Perry's lawsuit had been what remedy or solution Rick Perry would ask the U.S. District Court to provide.
Rick Perry's lawsuit argues that it is unconstitutional for Virginia's General Assembly to require ballot petition collectors to be Virginia residents (either registered voters in Virginia or eligible to register to vote in Virginia).
http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/12/Perry-VA-Ballot-Access.pdf?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=pressRelease
This is strongly based upon a surprisingly similar United States Supreme Court precedent Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundtion, 525 U.S. 182 (1999). The U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that it is unconstitutional -- i.e., too great a burden on political expression, activiity, and "speech" -- to limit those who can gather the petitions to only registered voters in a State.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/525/182/case.html
The primary reason the circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional is that States have not shown any reasonable justification for the limitation. Because the limitation does not appear to serve any real purpose, its burden on political expression is too great. The restriction burdening a fundamental Constitutional right is not narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate state interest.
But Rick Perry's lawsuit suffered from a huge problem: If Judge Gibney agreed with Perry's argument, what could be done at this late date to cure the problem?
If RIck Perry were allowed the right to bring in out-of-state petition circulators, he would still have to collect another 4,000 valid signatures, plus a margin of error, in a very short window of time. That seemed entirely impractical.
Enter the excellent Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman legal brief, which solved this problem.
The Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman legal brief argues that because the petition circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional, the entire ballot petition scheme under Va. Code 24.2-545(B) must be thrown out in its entirety.
In effect, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman argue that the petition circulator residency requirement is not "severable" from the rest of Va. Code 24.2-545(B). It's all or nothing. The entire statutory plan falls, if part of it falls.
Thus, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman ask for the United States District Court to strike the entire statutory scheme for ballot petitions, and forcefully argue that the outcome of this is that all Republican presidential candidates must appear on the March 6, 2012, Republican primary ballot.
Rather than looking at the petition gatherer residency requirement in isolation, Judge Gibney was now persuaded to consider the entirety of Va. Code 24.2-545(B) invalid as a unit.
However, one requirement for an injunction is the likelihood of success on the merits. That is, a judge will only issue an injunction if it appears likely that the party requesting an injunction has a very strong case for winning at the final hearing.
As a result, Judge Gibney issued the extraordinary comment quoted above (which is necessary and legal valid for the balancing test for issuing an injunction):
"The Court finds that there is a strong likelihood that the Court will find the residency requirement for petition circulators to be unconstitutional. The authorities make clear that circulating petitions for candidates is a form of protected speech, and that the Commonwealth has a heavy burden to justify the restriction on speech by showing not only that the limitation achieves a valid state interest but also that the limitation is no broader in scope than necessary to achieve that purpose. Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999); Lux v. Judd, 651 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 2011). As in all strict scrutinty cases, the state has a difficult task to demonstrate the propriety of its limitations on protected speech. For this reason, the Court believes that the plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits, at least on the issue of the validity of the residency requirements."
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/VA-Ballot-Access-Order-of-Gibney.pdf
The purpose of making this comment was to explain why an injunction was appropriate for him to order at this time.
###
FEDERAL JUDGE REVERSED COURSE JANUARY 10:
ORDERS IMMEDIATE HALT TO PRINTING OF VIRGINIA BALLOTS --
FEDERAL JUDGE PREDICTS ALL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
Will Be on the Republican Primary Ballot in Virginia
Contact: Jon Moseley
(703) 656-1230
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA (JANUARY 10, 2012) -- Stop printing the ballots for Virginia's primary was the Order of United States District Court Judge John A. Gibney on January 10, 2012, in the Federal lawsuit filed by Governor Rick Perry. Perry sued in late December to appear on Virginia's ballot, after only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul qualified for the Republican primary.
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/VA-Ballot-Access-Order-of-Gibney.pdf
Judge Gibney earlier said no to the same request on December 29, 2012, denying then Rick Perry's motion for an injunction to stop the printing of the ballots. Virginia's State Board of Elections indicated they would print the primary ballots on January 9, 2012, and were required by Federal law to mail the ballots to overseas military and civilian voters by January 21, 2012.
But Judge Gibney reversed himself in a January 10, 2012, Order, commanding a halt to the printing of primary ballots. Gibney's injunction expires at 11:59 PM on January 13, 2012, the same day that Gibney will hold a hearing on the "merits" (substance) of the lawsuit. The expiration date of the injunction indicates that Gibney expects to issue a final ruling the same day as the one and only real hearing in the case. That is an extremely fast turn-around for such a momentous lawsuit.
Even more striking, the Federal Judge signalled that he is likely to order that all Republican presidential candidates will appear on Virginia's primary ballot. Gibney wrote: "The Court finds that there is a strong likelihood that the Court will find the residency requirement for petition circulators to be unconstitutional. The authorities make clear that circulating petitions for candidates is a form of protected speech, and that the Commonwealth has a heavy burden to justify the restriction on speech by showing not only that the limitation achieves a valid state interest but also that the limitation is no broader in scope than necessary to achieve that purpose. Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999); Lux v. Judd, 651 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 2011). As in all strict scrutinty cases, the state has a difficult task to demonstrate the propriety of its limitations on protected speech. For this reason, the Court believes that the plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits, at least on the issue of the validity of the residency requirements."
Although it is possible that Judge Gibney could still refuse to change the Virginia ballot, he is strongly leaning toward granting the request of the other presidential candidates to be included in the March 6 primary.
Gibney halted the ballot preparation because of a compelling legal brief filed jointly by Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman. Judge Gibney had ordered that all of the Presidential candidates should have the opportunity to participate in the Rick Perry lawsuit.
On January 6, 2012, the Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman joint legal brief was filed and (a) fleshed out in detail the Constitutional precedents proving RIck Perry's main assertion, and (b) answering the biggest problem about the case -- what to do about it?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77464274/Brief-in-Support-of-Amended-Complaint-of-Intervenors
The greatest weakness in Rick Perry's lawsuit had been what remedy or solution Rick Perry would ask the U.S. District Court to provide.
Rick Perry's lawsuit argues that it is unconstitutional for Virginia's General Assembly to require ballot petition collectors to be Virginia residents (either registered voters in Virginia or eligible to register to vote in Virginia).
http://www.rickperry.org/content/uploads/2011/12/Perry-VA-Ballot-Access.pdf?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_campaign=pressRelease
This is strongly based upon a surprisingly similar United States Supreme Court precedent Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundtion, 525 U.S. 182 (1999). The U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that it is unconstitutional -- i.e., too great a burden on political expression, activiity, and "speech" -- to limit those who can gather the petitions to only registered voters in a State.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/525/182/case.html
The primary reason the circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional is that States have not shown any reasonable justification for the limitation. Because the limitation does not appear to serve any real purpose, its burden on political expression is too great. The restriction burdening a fundamental Constitutional right is not narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate state interest.
But Rick Perry's lawsuit suffered from a huge problem: If Judge Gibney agreed with Perry's argument, what could be done at this late date to cure the problem?
If RIck Perry were allowed the right to bring in out-of-state petition circulators, he would still have to collect another 4,000 valid signatures, plus a margin of error, in a very short window of time. That seemed entirely impractical.
Enter the excellent Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman legal brief, which solved this problem.
The Gingrich / Santorum / Huntsman legal brief argues that because the petition circulator residency requirement is unconstitutional, the entire ballot petition scheme under Va. Code 24.2-545(B) must be thrown out in its entirety.
In effect, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman argue that the petition circulator residency requirement is not "severable" from the rest of Va. Code 24.2-545(B). It's all or nothing. The entire statutory plan falls, if part of it falls.
Thus, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman ask for the United States District Court to strike the entire statutory scheme for ballot petitions, and forcefully argue that the outcome of this is that all Republican presidential candidates must appear on the March 6, 2012, Republican primary ballot.
Rather than looking at the petition gatherer residency requirement in isolation, Judge Gibney was now persuaded to consider the entirety of Va. Code 24.2-545(B) invalid as a unit.
However, one requirement for an injunction is the likelihood of success on the merits. That is, a judge will only issue an injunction if it appears likely that the party requesting an injunction has a very strong case for winning at the final hearing.
As a result, Judge Gibney issued the extraordinary comment quoted above (which is necessary and legal valid for the balancing test for issuing an injunction):
"The Court finds that there is a strong likelihood that the Court will find the residency requirement for petition circulators to be unconstitutional. The authorities make clear that circulating petitions for candidates is a form of protected speech, and that the Commonwealth has a heavy burden to justify the restriction on speech by showing not only that the limitation achieves a valid state interest but also that the limitation is no broader in scope than necessary to achieve that purpose. Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999); Lux v. Judd, 651 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 2011). As in all strict scrutinty cases, the state has a difficult task to demonstrate the propriety of its limitations on protected speech. For this reason, the Court believes that the plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits, at least on the issue of the validity of the residency requirements."
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/VA-Ballot-Access-Order-of-Gibney.pdf
The purpose of making this comment was to explain why an injunction was appropriate for him to order at this time.
###
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
POLITICAL BOOT CAMP -- HOW TO: HERE IS A TACTIC CHRISTINE O'DONNELL COULD HAVE USED & YOU CAN LEARN FROM:
Tea Party 2.0 is a project of the Northern Virginia Tea Party to teach tea party activists how to move beyond waving signs to changing the country. The tea party needs to learn the political techniques of success. So here is an idea that occurred to me:
Christine O'Donnell's Facebook posts appear on my Facebook wall, along with those of my 3,700+ other Facebook friends.
And my speciality is coming up with ideas -- political ideas, business ideas, legal ideas, rhetorical ideas, big ideas, little ideas, good ideas, bad ideas, smart ideas and dumb ideas. I was working on coming up with ideas for her to use making the most of her political circumstances, and habits continue.
Christine has been very intensely involved in, and fascinated with, watching the GOP debates and GOP primaries with great interest, and tweeting on every development and twist and turn. When the debates come on, Christine sets everything else aside and everything else stops.
So a case study occurs to me:
What Christine could have done was hold A HIGH DOLLAR RECEPTION / DINNER PARTY / COCKTAIL PARTY to watch the debates and primary returns WITH HIGH DOLLAR DONORS TO HER CHRISTINEPAC, instead of just sitting on her couch at home tweeting.
But to do these things, you have to listen to where the ideas come from. I am posting this publicly, so that if someone rips off my idea, there will be a record of where the idea came from.
Christine O'Donnell's Facebook posts appear on my Facebook wall, along with those of my 3,700+ other Facebook friends.
And my speciality is coming up with ideas -- political ideas, business ideas, legal ideas, rhetorical ideas, big ideas, little ideas, good ideas, bad ideas, smart ideas and dumb ideas. I was working on coming up with ideas for her to use making the most of her political circumstances, and habits continue.
Christine has been very intensely involved in, and fascinated with, watching the GOP debates and GOP primaries with great interest, and tweeting on every development and twist and turn. When the debates come on, Christine sets everything else aside and everything else stops.
So a case study occurs to me:
What Christine could have done was hold A HIGH DOLLAR RECEPTION / DINNER PARTY / COCKTAIL PARTY to watch the debates and primary returns WITH HIGH DOLLAR DONORS TO HER CHRISTINEPAC, instead of just sitting on her couch at home tweeting.
But to do these things, you have to listen to where the ideas come from. I am posting this publicly, so that if someone rips off my idea, there will be a record of where the idea came from.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Is RON PAUL appealing to Jew hating ANTI-SEMITES?
Blaming "International bankers" has been an anti-Jewish conspiracy theory for several centuries. Ron Paul excuses CONGRESS who VOTES TO SPEND THE MONEY and instead blames "central banking" and the monetary system for Federal spending and national debt.
I am watching Ron Paul speak on C-SPAN. This is from his own words, not what any one else says about him.
CONGRESS, who spends the money, gets a pass in Ron Paul's world.
Instead, Ron Paul's CENTRAL theme is that over-spending is caused by THE BANKSTERS - historically a very well-known CODE WORDS FOR JEWS -- who have secretly stolen our "sound money" and secretly taken control of our nation.
The clear meaning that "international banking interests" = Jews goes back several centuries, and is deeply ingrained among Ron Paul's supporters. It is not something easy to miss.
Ron Paul bends over backwards to AVOID blaming Congress, who actually does spend the money. Ron Paul is intentionally creating a SCAPEGOAT of bankers for all of our problems. This is the same theme in the early Nazi party of scapegoating all of Germany's ills on the Jewish financial interests and bankers in Germany in the 1930's.
The supposed Jewish conspiracy to steal our "sound money" to enslave our country sounds like the scare of Commies trying to steal our precious bodily fluids by putting fluoride in our drinking water.
Ron Paul could not be unaware that he is strumming those strings. He knows what he is doing. He might not be an anti-semite himself. But he is knowingly throwing gas on the fire of anti-semitism and hatred of Jews, who are perceived to control the banking system.
I am watching Ron Paul speak on C-SPAN. This is from his own words, not what any one else says about him.
CONGRESS, who spends the money, gets a pass in Ron Paul's world.
Instead, Ron Paul's CENTRAL theme is that over-spending is caused by THE BANKSTERS - historically a very well-known CODE WORDS FOR JEWS -- who have secretly stolen our "sound money" and secretly taken control of our nation.
The clear meaning that "international banking interests" = Jews goes back several centuries, and is deeply ingrained among Ron Paul's supporters. It is not something easy to miss.
Ron Paul bends over backwards to AVOID blaming Congress, who actually does spend the money. Ron Paul is intentionally creating a SCAPEGOAT of bankers for all of our problems. This is the same theme in the early Nazi party of scapegoating all of Germany's ills on the Jewish financial interests and bankers in Germany in the 1930's.
The supposed Jewish conspiracy to steal our "sound money" to enslave our country sounds like the scare of Commies trying to steal our precious bodily fluids by putting fluoride in our drinking water.
Ron Paul could not be unaware that he is strumming those strings. He knows what he is doing. He might not be an anti-semite himself. But he is knowingly throwing gas on the fire of anti-semitism and hatred of Jews, who are perceived to control the banking system.
Moderate Republicans Search for a Mirage: The Lazy Man's Candidate
On a Delaware political blog, a moderate Republican argued:
My analysis and response, from Jonathon Moseley:
REALLY? The smear ads against Romney — remember I am arguing that *ANY* Republican will be smeared, because the standard play book continues to work so this comment concerns only the Romney variant of what will be thrown against ANY Republican nominee — will drive Independent voters in to the arms of Obama.
The moderate disease is the perennial search for “the lazy man’s candidate” — a candidate who will win without any effort. Moderates and RINO’s long for the candidate they can watch from their couch, eating potato chips, who will coast to an easy victory. However, there is no easy way to snatch power away from the other team. It will require hard work, house by house, block by block, and news release by news release countering lies, smears, and propaganda.
TV ads that have already been written, but you haven’t seen them on TV yet, will paint Romney as the Monopoly game fat cat rich robber baron. Obama will say Romney is the 1% versus the 99%, that Romney is Wall Street. They will say Romney is the problem, that caused the mortgage melt down crisis. Romney is the reason you are out of work, they will say. Romney is one of the guys who stole your house in foreclosure (that’s a silly argument, but that is the kind of superficial nonsense that Democrats use as propaganda).
Of course, the news media will join Obama’s “Hallelujah chorus” as the Obama back-up singers. “Obama and the News midgets” will sing whatever song Obama wants, plastering the country wall to wall with Obama’s message — no matter who the candidate is.
We will face thousands of stories about how Mitt Romney is everything that you feared about the Republican Party: Rich Wall Street bankster who stole your house.
“Bain Capital: Mitt Romney became rich working for Bain Capital. Mitt Romney will be a TAILOR MADE villain for them. Did you know that Bain Capital gutted companies and made a lot of money, in part, by laying off a lot of poor and middle class Americans? Do you know that Bain Capital got a federal bailout and Mitt Romney made lots of money off of it?”
TOWN HALL: 7 REASONS WHY MITT ROMNEY'S ELECTABILITY IS A MYTH
Remember that Barack Obama raised and spent 3/4′s of a BILLION dollars in 2008 — and he still has that fundraising mailing list. Obama will have gigantic amounts of money to run ads depicting Romney as one of the Wall Street banksters who hae wrecked the country.
By the time the Obama campaign gets done with Mitt Romney, Romney will have to go into hiding out of fear of being tarred and feathered by angry mobs of unemployed people.
Really? That is why Herman Cain was leading the pack? He was taken out only by sniper fire, not because people wanted someone experienced with and infected by life inside the Beltway.
If you want experienced leadership, then Newt Gingrich is your man. Newt was 3rd in line to be President as Speaker of the House. That means that Newt was already trained on and briefed on top secret information, developments, and procedures in case he needed to step in as President. As Speaker, he has already led the Congress. To accomplish anything a President must be able to rally Congress to pass his legislation. Newt has actually done that before. Newt has actually balanced the Federal budget (Bill Clinton resisted and was dragged kicking and screaming, by Newt, into balancing the budget.) Newt has actually reformed government programs like welfare. Newt has actually saved social security and medicare by extending their financial lives and financial stability, for a season. Newt actually led a Republican revolution.
So it is not about experience.
It is about the futile search for the lazy man’s candidate, which is chasing a mirage.
The problem is not finding the perfect candidate.
THE PROBLEM IS A REPUBLICAN “ARMY” THAT DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO FIGHT THE BATTLE.
We keep searching for the perfect general to lead an unruly, disorganized, undisciplined Republican “army” that cannot organize lunch without fighting and breaking up into 10 different factions (about lunch).
The problem is not in our leaders, dear friends. The problem is in oursselves.
Also, most independents will support Mr. Romney. You will also see some democrats cross over and vote for Mr. Romney.
My analysis and response, from Jonathon Moseley:
REALLY? The smear ads against Romney — remember I am arguing that *ANY* Republican will be smeared, because the standard play book continues to work so this comment concerns only the Romney variant of what will be thrown against ANY Republican nominee — will drive Independent voters in to the arms of Obama.
The moderate disease is the perennial search for “the lazy man’s candidate” — a candidate who will win without any effort. Moderates and RINO’s long for the candidate they can watch from their couch, eating potato chips, who will coast to an easy victory. However, there is no easy way to snatch power away from the other team. It will require hard work, house by house, block by block, and news release by news release countering lies, smears, and propaganda.
TV ads that have already been written, but you haven’t seen them on TV yet, will paint Romney as the Monopoly game fat cat rich robber baron. Obama will say Romney is the 1% versus the 99%, that Romney is Wall Street. They will say Romney is the problem, that caused the mortgage melt down crisis. Romney is the reason you are out of work, they will say. Romney is one of the guys who stole your house in foreclosure (that’s a silly argument, but that is the kind of superficial nonsense that Democrats use as propaganda).
Of course, the news media will join Obama’s “Hallelujah chorus” as the Obama back-up singers. “Obama and the News midgets” will sing whatever song Obama wants, plastering the country wall to wall with Obama’s message — no matter who the candidate is.
We will face thousands of stories about how Mitt Romney is everything that you feared about the Republican Party: Rich Wall Street bankster who stole your house.
“Bain Capital: Mitt Romney became rich working for Bain Capital. Mitt Romney will be a TAILOR MADE villain for them. Did you know that Bain Capital gutted companies and made a lot of money, in part, by laying off a lot of poor and middle class Americans? Do you know that Bain Capital got a federal bailout and Mitt Romney made lots of money off of it?”
TOWN HALL: 7 REASONS WHY MITT ROMNEY'S ELECTABILITY IS A MYTH
Remember that Barack Obama raised and spent 3/4′s of a BILLION dollars in 2008 — and he still has that fundraising mailing list. Obama will have gigantic amounts of money to run ads depicting Romney as one of the Wall Street banksters who hae wrecked the country.
By the time the Obama campaign gets done with Mitt Romney, Romney will have to go into hiding out of fear of being tarred and feathered by angry mobs of unemployed people.
The American people are fed up with inexperienced leadership.
Really? That is why Herman Cain was leading the pack? He was taken out only by sniper fire, not because people wanted someone experienced with and infected by life inside the Beltway.
If you want experienced leadership, then Newt Gingrich is your man. Newt was 3rd in line to be President as Speaker of the House. That means that Newt was already trained on and briefed on top secret information, developments, and procedures in case he needed to step in as President. As Speaker, he has already led the Congress. To accomplish anything a President must be able to rally Congress to pass his legislation. Newt has actually done that before. Newt has actually balanced the Federal budget (Bill Clinton resisted and was dragged kicking and screaming, by Newt, into balancing the budget.) Newt has actually reformed government programs like welfare. Newt has actually saved social security and medicare by extending their financial lives and financial stability, for a season. Newt actually led a Republican revolution.
So it is not about experience.
It is about the futile search for the lazy man’s candidate, which is chasing a mirage.
The problem is not finding the perfect candidate.
THE PROBLEM IS A REPUBLICAN “ARMY” THAT DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO FIGHT THE BATTLE.
We keep searching for the perfect general to lead an unruly, disorganized, undisciplined Republican “army” that cannot organize lunch without fighting and breaking up into 10 different factions (about lunch).
The problem is not in our leaders, dear friends. The problem is in oursselves.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Endorsing Newt Ginrich for President in 2012 Republican Primary
By Jonathon Moseley
Here are some of the reasons that I endorse Newt Gingrich for President in the Republican primaries:
Only one candidate for President has actually blocked socialist medicine despite an overwhelming push by the entire nation's establishment:
Newt Gingrich, who blocked "Hillary Care" in the 1990's.
Only one candidate for President has actually signed socialist medicine into law:
Mitt Romney.
Only one candidate for President has actually reduced government:
Newt Gingrich.
Only one candidate for President has led the way in Republican politics.
Newt Gingirch. I am watching Mitt Romney on C-Span from New Hampshire right now, as Romney calls for an "Opportunity Society."
Who coined that phrase?
Newt Gingrich.
Where did Mitt Romney learn this concept from?
Newt Gingrich.
Newt Gingrich was teaching the conservative movement as a leader and intellectual innovator 20 years ago, and ever since.
Only one candidate for President has actually led a Republican revolution, in the 1990's, when the GOP took over the US House for the first time in 40 years:
Newt Gingrich.
And unlike the last time the GOP took control a long time ago, this time the Republican take over has stuck. With a slight wrinkle, what Newt Gingrich built in the US House of Representatives has lasted and survived the test of time.
Newt Gingrich was already the Speaker of the House -- 3rd in line to be President in case of any emergency, if the President and Vice President were lost.
Newt Gingrich is not only a determined revolutionary for cutting government and increasing freedom but is a knowledgeable and experienced veteran capable of actually getting it done, not just talking about it.
One of the main reasons why conservatives "cave" in Washington is because
they don't know HOW to get things done..
Conservatives grind to a halt, and cave to the establishment, not because they lose their principles, but because they don't know how to fight and overcome the resistance of the D.C. establishment.
Newt Gingrich not only wants to reform America, but he knows how to actually beat the establishment and get his policies enacted.
Here are some of the reasons that I endorse Newt Gingrich for President in the Republican primaries:
Only one candidate for President has actually blocked socialist medicine despite an overwhelming push by the entire nation's establishment:
Newt Gingrich, who blocked "Hillary Care" in the 1990's.
Only one candidate for President has actually signed socialist medicine into law:
Mitt Romney.
Only one candidate for President has actually reduced government:
Newt Gingrich.
Only one candidate for President has led the way in Republican politics.
Newt Gingirch. I am watching Mitt Romney on C-Span from New Hampshire right now, as Romney calls for an "Opportunity Society."
Who coined that phrase?
Newt Gingrich.
Where did Mitt Romney learn this concept from?
Newt Gingrich.
Newt Gingrich was teaching the conservative movement as a leader and intellectual innovator 20 years ago, and ever since.
Only one candidate for President has actually led a Republican revolution, in the 1990's, when the GOP took over the US House for the first time in 40 years:
Newt Gingrich.
And unlike the last time the GOP took control a long time ago, this time the Republican take over has stuck. With a slight wrinkle, what Newt Gingrich built in the US House of Representatives has lasted and survived the test of time.
Newt Gingrich was already the Speaker of the House -- 3rd in line to be President in case of any emergency, if the President and Vice President were lost.
Newt Gingrich is not only a determined revolutionary for cutting government and increasing freedom but is a knowledgeable and experienced veteran capable of actually getting it done, not just talking about it.
One of the main reasons why conservatives "cave" in Washington is because
they don't know HOW to get things done..
Conservatives grind to a halt, and cave to the establishment, not because they lose their principles, but because they don't know how to fight and overcome the resistance of the D.C. establishment.
Newt Gingrich not only wants to reform America, but he knows how to actually beat the establishment and get his policies enacted.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Accuser of Christine O'Donnell LIED says official Complaint to D.C. Bar
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.
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.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Eugene Delgaudio -- Always controversial: by Jon Moseley
Meet one of the most colorful politicians in Virginia -- Eugene Delgaudio. When it comes to getting attention Delgaudio brings a rich assortment of tricks to the picture. Delgaudio is controversial -- loved by many conservatives, a walking scandal to liberals.
Delgaudio has been an elected member of the Board of Supervisors for more than a decade. He is a wealth of experience and knowledge on how to run elections. Some of Delgaudio's innovative tricks for winning elections are among the best around.
For example, after winning election, Delgaudio stood in the median strip of the busiest highway with a sign saying "THANK YOU" and bowing deeply to the voters in the traffic. This rich photograph was too good for news media to resist. So this photograph of Delgaudio appeared on the front cover of all the newspapers -- free publicity for Delgaudio's next run for re-election, of course! If it is a question of seeking publicity, Delgaudio pleads guilty.
Delgaudio takes every opportunity to be helpful in the community of Sterling. His email blasts are frequent -- but useful. Some politicians schedule an email and then try to think up a reason. Eugene Delgaudio looks for a reason first, but he notices things that most politicians miss. Fun community events, weather alerts, road construction, high school sporting events, activiites for kids, helpful hints -- things that people really care about. Voters look forward to the helpful information. And every two years they remember at the polls.
I have never seen a politician who more enthusiastically stays involved with people in the commmunity all during his term. And he has survived many attempts to kick him out of office.
Delgaudio chose a signature color: orange. Everything about his campaign is orange. He passed out orange whistles for the kiddies, and wears his signature orange hat everywhere. So far, he has not yet taken to wearing oranges clothes.
Yet curiously, the other side of Eugene Delgaudio is quote unusual, too. Unlike some of the Western Supervisors, Delgaudio isn't rich. In his day job, Eugene Delgaudio runs Public Advocate http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/, which went from seeking the impeachment of Bill Clinton for lying about having sex with intern Monica Lewinsky to now opposing the homosexual agenda.
The respected Supervisor whom liberals can't get out of office in Loudoun, elsewhere is busy protecting the boy scouts from child pornographers and gay predators. Delgaudio does not exactly admit his activism to Loudoun voters.
Delgaudio's fund-raising and attention-getting would make Richard Viguerie proud.
Unlike the staid official Delgaudio in Loudoun County, the fund-raising and activities for Public Advocate are incendiary. Delgaudio warns about TSA agents screening passengers who had been charged with child pornography. Another post cries: "Lawless Gay Lynch Mob Breaks Firm's Legs For Boss Obama--Cripples Defense of Marriage Team In Broad Daylight"
In his curious role at Public Advocate, Delgaudio warns of homosexuals molesting underage girls and boys and possibly trafficking in child pornography with young girls and boys. Apparently it works.
Delgaudio has been an elected member of the Board of Supervisors for more than a decade. He is a wealth of experience and knowledge on how to run elections. Some of Delgaudio's innovative tricks for winning elections are among the best around.
For example, after winning election, Delgaudio stood in the median strip of the busiest highway with a sign saying "THANK YOU" and bowing deeply to the voters in the traffic. This rich photograph was too good for news media to resist. So this photograph of Delgaudio appeared on the front cover of all the newspapers -- free publicity for Delgaudio's next run for re-election, of course! If it is a question of seeking publicity, Delgaudio pleads guilty.
Delgaudio takes every opportunity to be helpful in the community of Sterling. His email blasts are frequent -- but useful. Some politicians schedule an email and then try to think up a reason. Eugene Delgaudio looks for a reason first, but he notices things that most politicians miss. Fun community events, weather alerts, road construction, high school sporting events, activiites for kids, helpful hints -- things that people really care about. Voters look forward to the helpful information. And every two years they remember at the polls.
I have never seen a politician who more enthusiastically stays involved with people in the commmunity all during his term. And he has survived many attempts to kick him out of office.
Delgaudio chose a signature color: orange. Everything about his campaign is orange. He passed out orange whistles for the kiddies, and wears his signature orange hat everywhere. So far, he has not yet taken to wearing oranges clothes.
Yet curiously, the other side of Eugene Delgaudio is quote unusual, too. Unlike some of the Western Supervisors, Delgaudio isn't rich. In his day job, Eugene Delgaudio runs Public Advocate http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/, which went from seeking the impeachment of Bill Clinton for lying about having sex with intern Monica Lewinsky to now opposing the homosexual agenda.
The respected Supervisor whom liberals can't get out of office in Loudoun, elsewhere is busy protecting the boy scouts from child pornographers and gay predators. Delgaudio does not exactly admit his activism to Loudoun voters.
Delgaudio's fund-raising and attention-getting would make Richard Viguerie proud.
Unlike the staid official Delgaudio in Loudoun County, the fund-raising and activities for Public Advocate are incendiary. Delgaudio warns about TSA agents screening passengers who had been charged with child pornography. Another post cries: "Lawless Gay Lynch Mob Breaks Firm's Legs For Boss Obama--Cripples Defense of Marriage Team In Broad Daylight"
In his curious role at Public Advocate, Delgaudio warns of homosexuals molesting underage girls and boys and possibly trafficking in child pornography with young girls and boys. Apparently it works.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Obama is a Muslim, say 20% of Americans in ABC News
In 2009, I wrote an article for US News and Views exploring President Barack Obama's odd behavior towards religion -- choosing to give a speech at Catholic Georgetown University, but then covering up symbols of Christ (Obama could have just spoken from the East Room of the White House); announcing overseas that America is not a Christian nation; and praising the historic role of Islam in America's history. (While Islam has played a major historic role in the world, it has played no role at all in the history of the United States, other than Muslims of Northern Africa declaring war on America when Thomas Jefferson was President, caused Jefferson to send the Marines to Tripoli.) Obama told a New York Times reporter that the Muslim call to prayer -- a screaching howl -- is one of the most beautiful sounds on Earth, and then sang it from memory with a perfect Arabic accident.
In order to try to smear conservatives like Christine O'Donnell, Mother Jones then falsely reported that I claimed Barack Obama was a "SECRET MUSLIM" -- like a secret agent skulking around in a trenchcoat with a secret decoder ring. Of course I never said any such thing. But that's the news media for you. In 2010, Christine O'Donnell's campaign cut me a check to reimburse the last of my 2008 campaign expenses for her campaign, so Mother Jones assumed I was working on her 2010 campaign, and that Christine must also think like I do. (Of course, Christine always has her own opinions about everything, and doesn't automatically buy into anyone else's views. Christine would be far more likely to debate me on anything than to agree with my opinion.)
Instead, I explored events in the news and raised questions about whether Barack Obama's experience at Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Chicago political club -- sometimes called a church -- afforded Obama with an understanding of and encounter with the real Jesus Christ. I argued that Rev. Wright focused mainly on politics and rarely if ever seemed to mention Jesus Christ as Savior. Thus, how could one expect Obama to have encountered a Jesus he never really heard about?
Now, ABC News reports that 43% of Americans don't understand Obama's religion and 20% of Americans believe that Obama is currently a Muslim. (I documented that Obama clearly was a Muslim as a child, apparently believes he has become a Christian, but clearly does not understand what it means to be a Christian.)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/amid-crises-president-obama-prays/story?id=13250087
Of course, with all due respect to the religious power of Obama's BlackBerry, and ABC News' attempts to defend our Dear Leader, the problem is that 20% of Americans realize that there is more to becoming a Christian than simply attending church or telling the news media that one is a Christian. Jesus spent most of His ministry on Earth lambasting religious leaders for falsely believing themselves to be in good standing with God. Jesus spent most of His time challenging the legitimacy of people's inadequate encounters with God and their incomplete relationship with God.
So the religious authorities at ABC News declare that one-fifth of the country "falsely" believes that Obama is a Muslim. To ABC News, if one issues a press statement, that alone decides their religion.
ABC News, like many, have never figured out that for many religious Americans, it takes more to become a member of a religion than simply to issue a press statement. It is a common saying among many Christian groups that if you go out and sit in the garage, that does not make you a car. Sitting in a church pew does not make you a Christian, either. For many Christians, there is a more involved and elaborate process to becoming a Christian. And by their standards, Obama -- like many superficial participants in American culture -- has not yet taken that step.
As I argued in my 2009 article, which Mother Jones smeared, I hope that Obama will encounter the real Jesus Christ and complete his journey towards salvation in Jesus Christ. I compared Obama in 2009 to Abraham Lincoln in that regard.
In order to try to smear conservatives like Christine O'Donnell, Mother Jones then falsely reported that I claimed Barack Obama was a "SECRET MUSLIM" -- like a secret agent skulking around in a trenchcoat with a secret decoder ring. Of course I never said any such thing. But that's the news media for you. In 2010, Christine O'Donnell's campaign cut me a check to reimburse the last of my 2008 campaign expenses for her campaign, so Mother Jones assumed I was working on her 2010 campaign, and that Christine must also think like I do. (Of course, Christine always has her own opinions about everything, and doesn't automatically buy into anyone else's views. Christine would be far more likely to debate me on anything than to agree with my opinion.)
Instead, I explored events in the news and raised questions about whether Barack Obama's experience at Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Chicago political club -- sometimes called a church -- afforded Obama with an understanding of and encounter with the real Jesus Christ. I argued that Rev. Wright focused mainly on politics and rarely if ever seemed to mention Jesus Christ as Savior. Thus, how could one expect Obama to have encountered a Jesus he never really heard about?
Now, ABC News reports that 43% of Americans don't understand Obama's religion and 20% of Americans believe that Obama is currently a Muslim. (I documented that Obama clearly was a Muslim as a child, apparently believes he has become a Christian, but clearly does not understand what it means to be a Christian.)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/amid-crises-president-obama-prays/story?id=13250087
Despite Obama's public professions on religion and spirituality, many Americans continue to doubt the president's faith.
Nearly one in five Americans incorrectly believes that Obama is a Muslim, according to a poll by the nonpartisan Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released late last year.
The poll found the number surveyed who knew correctly that Obama is Christian actually declined, from 48 percent in March 2009 to 34 percent in August 2010. Forty-three percent of Americans now say they don't know what Obama's religion is at all.
[snip] The Obamas, once regular churchgoers, have not formally joined a new church since moving to Washington, D.C., and have publicly attended services less than a dozen times.
But sources familiar with the president's personal life in the White House say Obama remains a faithful Christian, practicing his beliefs regularly in private with family and the aid of his BlackBerry.
Of course, with all due respect to the religious power of Obama's BlackBerry, and ABC News' attempts to defend our Dear Leader, the problem is that 20% of Americans realize that there is more to becoming a Christian than simply attending church or telling the news media that one is a Christian. Jesus spent most of His ministry on Earth lambasting religious leaders for falsely believing themselves to be in good standing with God. Jesus spent most of His time challenging the legitimacy of people's inadequate encounters with God and their incomplete relationship with God.
So the religious authorities at ABC News declare that one-fifth of the country "falsely" believes that Obama is a Muslim. To ABC News, if one issues a press statement, that alone decides their religion.
ABC News, like many, have never figured out that for many religious Americans, it takes more to become a member of a religion than simply to issue a press statement. It is a common saying among many Christian groups that if you go out and sit in the garage, that does not make you a car. Sitting in a church pew does not make you a Christian, either. For many Christians, there is a more involved and elaborate process to becoming a Christian. And by their standards, Obama -- like many superficial participants in American culture -- has not yet taken that step.
As I argued in my 2009 article, which Mother Jones smeared, I hope that Obama will encounter the real Jesus Christ and complete his journey towards salvation in Jesus Christ. I compared Obama in 2009 to Abraham Lincoln in that regard.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
MIKE CASTLE ILLEGALLY USED CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR PERSONAL EXPENSES -- Christine O'Donnell Did Not
Violations of campaign finance laws were committed NOT by Christine O'Donnell, but apparently instead by former Congressman Mike Castle, the candidate for U.S. Senate in Delaware, as revealed in his Federal Election Commission campaign finance reports.
Unlike O'Donnell who was clearly a candidate for office in January 2009, Mike Castle did not file a Statement of Candidacy for the U.S. Senate until September 30, 2009, and did not have any valid campaign committee for the 2010 election cycle until October 19, 2009 (when he filed an amended Statement of Organization). Castle never created (or amended) a campaign committee for the 2010 election cycle until October 19, 2009.
As a result, none of Mike Castle's expenses from January 2009 through October 2009 would qualify as legitimate campaign expenses -- at least if we apply the Delaware Republican Party's own bizarre standards from their attacks on Christine O'Donnell. Castle's supporters of out-of-touch old guard Republican insiders set the standard while accusing O'Donnell. Should we then apply the DEGOP's own standard or not?
Starting in December 2009, the Delaware Republican Party spread rumors that Christine O'Donnell had a supposedly suspicious pattern of campaign expenses in her 2009-2010 campaign finance reports. A dossier of smears on O'Donnell raised "questions" -- that is , overtly claimed -- that Ms. O'Donnell used campaign funds for personal expenses. "The Email," February 1, 2010.
Yet O'Donnell's "pattern" was similar to Mike Castle's "pattern" of campaign spending, except that O'Donnell declared herself a candidate (technically, exploring a candidacy for office) in January 2009, whereas Mike Castle did not actually become a candidate until September 2009. (Actually, O'Donnell's pattern of campaign spending in early 2009 is more obviously proper than Castle's.)
The DEGOP's lies were based upon the falsehood that O'Donnell was not a candidate for office at the time the expenses were incurred. In fact, she undeniably was.
From January 2009 through June 2009, Mike Castle used campaign funds for:
$587.64 for food & beverage at CAFE GELATTO, paid on February 6, 2009. (Remember: Castle's Statement of Candidacy was filed October 19, 2009.)
$2,588.88 for food & beverage at the Capitol Hill Club restaurant in Washington, DC, paid between March and May 2009. Again, Castle filed his Statement of Candidacy in October 2009. The U.S. Senate campaign was up in Delaware, not in Washington, D.C. However, Castle was a Congressman in D.C., eating out in Washington, D.C. off of campaign contributions.
$245.77 at WHO'S COOKIN' for FOOD & BEVERAGE, paid on 3/27/2009
$594 at FLOWERS BY YUKIE between January and March 2009.
$219.80 at HAPPY HARRY'S on 1/14/2009
$13,499.35 in unspecified credit card charges, creating a "slush fund" for Mike Castle's expenses that are not identified on FEC reports.
$873.70 at the TIMBERLAKE restaurant down in Washington, D.C., not in Delaware where the campaign was, paid on 12/19/2008. Castle was of course a sitting Congressman at the time. However, his personal expenses for food down in Washington, D.C. should not be paid out of his campaign funds up in Delaware. Congress was in its Christmas recess on December 19, 2008. Food related to either Castle's Congressional activities or personal living in Washington, D.C. should not be paid out of campaign funds for the election up in Delaware.
$120.00 at GALLAGHER & GALLAGHER for food & beverage paid on 4/29/2009.
$1,298.67 to COMCAST cable from January 2009 through June 2009 -- again months before Mike Castle was actually a candidate.
$500 for gala tickets to the Chowder & Marching Club -- IN MARYLAND! This was not an event in Delaware.
$546.25 to AMTRAK for travel from March 2009 to May 2009 - before Castle was a candidate.
Mike Castle -- although an elected official for almost 40 years -- has somehow amassed a personal fortune worth over $3.5 million. Perhaps we've discovered part of Mike Castle's road to riches: Pocket his congressional salary, then live off of campaign donations for his personal living expenses? At least if those accusations are hurled without any foundation at O'Donnell, might we ask the same questions about Mike Castle? Or are questions about certain people off limits?
While Christine O'Donnell was clearly a candidate for U.S. Senate in January 2009, so that all of her campaign expenses are legitimate, it is Mike Castle who fails the very same test advanced by the Delaware Republican Party. The smears spread by the DEGOP were then handed to Ginger Gibson at the Delaware News Journal, who published a March 2010 hit piece smearing O'Donnell. These charges were later picked up by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in a criminal complaint based on David Keegan's affidavit.
On March 20, 2009, O'Donnell filed a "Statement of Candidacy" for the 2010 U.S. Senate race with the Federal Election Commission. In December 2008, O'Donnell posted a message on her 2008 campaign website urging volunteers to keep their campaign signs for probable use in 2010. In January 2009, O'Donnell began informing supporters privately of her status as an exploratory candidate for the 2010 U.S. Senate race. Her campaign finance reports show trips to Washington, D.C., to meet with donors and potential supporters, as well as meetings in Delaware with potential donors and supporters.
The Statement of Candidacy is normally filed only after a person has been a candidate for a while, and exceeded a $5,000 threshold of donations or expenses. So O'Donnell was a candidate prior to March 20, 2009. Castle, however, exceeded the $5,000 donation / expenditure threshold very early in 2009, but Castle did not file his Statement of Candidacy until October 2009. Therefore, Castle did not have the intent to be a candidate until October, and from January through September 2009 was using campaign funds for personal purposes. At least, that is the very same argument used by insiders in attacking Christine O'Donnell.
The Delaware Republican Party started in December 2009 -- weeks after Karl Rove's attempts failed at co-opting the tea party movement for Mike Castle -- to circulate smears, likes, and slander against Christine O'Donnell. The "DEGOP" was obligated to remain neutral among primary candidates for the Republican nomination until the State GOP endorsing convention held March 13-14, 2010, in Rehoboth Beach. Instead, the DEGOP not only launched assaults to sabotage Christine O'Donnell to help left-wing Mike Castle (a fiscal liberal and social liberal), but did so with savage personal attacks which were lies and slander.
With this kind of dishonesty by Tom Ross and the Delaware Republican leadership, it is time to start over with a fresh team of leadership for Delaware's Republican future.
Unlike O'Donnell who was clearly a candidate for office in January 2009, Mike Castle did not file a Statement of Candidacy for the U.S. Senate until September 30, 2009, and did not have any valid campaign committee for the 2010 election cycle until October 19, 2009 (when he filed an amended Statement of Organization). Castle never created (or amended) a campaign committee for the 2010 election cycle until October 19, 2009.
As a result, none of Mike Castle's expenses from January 2009 through October 2009 would qualify as legitimate campaign expenses -- at least if we apply the Delaware Republican Party's own bizarre standards from their attacks on Christine O'Donnell. Castle's supporters of out-of-touch old guard Republican insiders set the standard while accusing O'Donnell. Should we then apply the DEGOP's own standard or not?
Starting in December 2009, the Delaware Republican Party spread rumors that Christine O'Donnell had a supposedly suspicious pattern of campaign expenses in her 2009-2010 campaign finance reports. A dossier of smears on O'Donnell raised "questions" -- that is , overtly claimed -- that Ms. O'Donnell used campaign funds for personal expenses. "The Email," February 1, 2010.
Yet O'Donnell's "pattern" was similar to Mike Castle's "pattern" of campaign spending, except that O'Donnell declared herself a candidate (technically, exploring a candidacy for office) in January 2009, whereas Mike Castle did not actually become a candidate until September 2009. (Actually, O'Donnell's pattern of campaign spending in early 2009 is more obviously proper than Castle's.)
The DEGOP's lies were based upon the falsehood that O'Donnell was not a candidate for office at the time the expenses were incurred. In fact, she undeniably was.
From January 2009 through June 2009, Mike Castle used campaign funds for:
$587.64 for food & beverage at CAFE GELATTO, paid on February 6, 2009. (Remember: Castle's Statement of Candidacy was filed October 19, 2009.)
$2,588.88 for food & beverage at the Capitol Hill Club restaurant in Washington, DC, paid between March and May 2009. Again, Castle filed his Statement of Candidacy in October 2009. The U.S. Senate campaign was up in Delaware, not in Washington, D.C. However, Castle was a Congressman in D.C., eating out in Washington, D.C. off of campaign contributions.
$245.77 at WHO'S COOKIN' for FOOD & BEVERAGE, paid on 3/27/2009
$594 at FLOWERS BY YUKIE between January and March 2009.
$219.80 at HAPPY HARRY'S on 1/14/2009
$13,499.35 in unspecified credit card charges, creating a "slush fund" for Mike Castle's expenses that are not identified on FEC reports.
$873.70 at the TIMBERLAKE restaurant down in Washington, D.C., not in Delaware where the campaign was, paid on 12/19/2008. Castle was of course a sitting Congressman at the time. However, his personal expenses for food down in Washington, D.C. should not be paid out of his campaign funds up in Delaware. Congress was in its Christmas recess on December 19, 2008. Food related to either Castle's Congressional activities or personal living in Washington, D.C. should not be paid out of campaign funds for the election up in Delaware.
$120.00 at GALLAGHER & GALLAGHER for food & beverage paid on 4/29/2009.
$1,298.67 to COMCAST cable from January 2009 through June 2009 -- again months before Mike Castle was actually a candidate.
$500 for gala tickets to the Chowder & Marching Club -- IN MARYLAND! This was not an event in Delaware.
$546.25 to AMTRAK for travel from March 2009 to May 2009 - before Castle was a candidate.
Mike Castle -- although an elected official for almost 40 years -- has somehow amassed a personal fortune worth over $3.5 million. Perhaps we've discovered part of Mike Castle's road to riches: Pocket his congressional salary, then live off of campaign donations for his personal living expenses? At least if those accusations are hurled without any foundation at O'Donnell, might we ask the same questions about Mike Castle? Or are questions about certain people off limits?
While Christine O'Donnell was clearly a candidate for U.S. Senate in January 2009, so that all of her campaign expenses are legitimate, it is Mike Castle who fails the very same test advanced by the Delaware Republican Party. The smears spread by the DEGOP were then handed to Ginger Gibson at the Delaware News Journal, who published a March 2010 hit piece smearing O'Donnell. These charges were later picked up by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in a criminal complaint based on David Keegan's affidavit.
On March 20, 2009, O'Donnell filed a "Statement of Candidacy" for the 2010 U.S. Senate race with the Federal Election Commission. In December 2008, O'Donnell posted a message on her 2008 campaign website urging volunteers to keep their campaign signs for probable use in 2010. In January 2009, O'Donnell began informing supporters privately of her status as an exploratory candidate for the 2010 U.S. Senate race. Her campaign finance reports show trips to Washington, D.C., to meet with donors and potential supporters, as well as meetings in Delaware with potential donors and supporters.
The Statement of Candidacy is normally filed only after a person has been a candidate for a while, and exceeded a $5,000 threshold of donations or expenses. So O'Donnell was a candidate prior to March 20, 2009. Castle, however, exceeded the $5,000 donation / expenditure threshold very early in 2009, but Castle did not file his Statement of Candidacy until October 2009. Therefore, Castle did not have the intent to be a candidate until October, and from January through September 2009 was using campaign funds for personal purposes. At least, that is the very same argument used by insiders in attacking Christine O'Donnell.
The Delaware Republican Party started in December 2009 -- weeks after Karl Rove's attempts failed at co-opting the tea party movement for Mike Castle -- to circulate smears, likes, and slander against Christine O'Donnell. The "DEGOP" was obligated to remain neutral among primary candidates for the Republican nomination until the State GOP endorsing convention held March 13-14, 2010, in Rehoboth Beach. Instead, the DEGOP not only launched assaults to sabotage Christine O'Donnell to help left-wing Mike Castle (a fiscal liberal and social liberal), but did so with savage personal attacks which were lies and slander.
With this kind of dishonesty by Tom Ross and the Delaware Republican leadership, it is time to start over with a fresh team of leadership for Delaware's Republican future.
In the words of Christine O'Donnell's Accuser David Keegan
Here is the man who is lying about Christine O'Donnell in a complaint brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), using as a Delaware voter, Melanie Sloan's father, Leonard Seymour Togman. The Togmans are majors donor to Joe Biden and Tom Carper.
David Keegan's Facebook photograph (he has since changed its settings). David Keegan is the star "witness" being used to bring accusations against Christine O'Donnell re: her campaign's finances"
Here is the champion of propriety IN HIS OWN WORDS
Unfortunately, one must point out that the above is a pornographic, sexual, anatomical reference from the sleazy article in Gawker published shortly before, in the most offensive possible, crude, graphic terms. Can you imagine any male candidate, the nominee of the Republican Party in both 2008 and 2010, being referred to this way?
Now, remember: This is a guy who volunteered for O"Donnell's campaign in 2008, when O'Donnell was the Republican nominee for U.S Senate. Would any normal person actually work for a candidate and then be talking about the Republican nominee's private parts? Is that a normal, well-adjusted person? A person who claims to have been working FOR the 2008 Republican nominee is talking about her sexual anatomy? It sounds rather doubtful that such a person ever supported O'Donnell for office with that kind of an attitude.
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE FACEBOOK PAGES AS CUT AND PASTE FROM FACEBOOK
These posts were at a Facebook Group on investigating Christine O'Donnell, but Keegan has since changed the display settings on his posts.
What do you think? Give David Keegan a call at: (302) 239-5889
David Keegan's Subdivision, where he has no visible means of support. Who is paying David Keegan for his lifestyle?
Who is paying for this McMansion, since David Keegan seems to have no job, as he had no job in 2008? His employment history and current employment is invisible.
David Keegan's Facebook photograph (he has since changed its settings). David Keegan is the star "witness" being used to bring accusations against Christine O'Donnell re: her campaign's finances"
Here is the champion of propriety IN HIS OWN WORDS
David Keegan She is only the third generation in her family to walk upright. See, apes are still evolving. Also explains that "hairy" thing.
November 3, 2010 at 3:31pm
Unfortunately, one must point out that the above is a pornographic, sexual, anatomical reference from the sleazy article in Gawker published shortly before, in the most offensive possible, crude, graphic terms. Can you imagine any male candidate, the nominee of the Republican Party in both 2008 and 2010, being referred to this way?
David Keegan Hope you don’t find this too offensive and feel free to remove it but something just occurred to my dirty mind. Regarding the allegations that Tom Ross and Mike Castle have been stalking her and hiding in her bushes: I just realized that they must have been the first men to ever get into Christine O’Donnell’s bush!.
September 4 at 12:18pm
Now, remember: This is a guy who volunteered for O"Donnell's campaign in 2008, when O'Donnell was the Republican nominee for U.S Senate. Would any normal person actually work for a candidate and then be talking about the Republican nominee's private parts? Is that a normal, well-adjusted person? A person who claims to have been working FOR the 2008 Republican nominee is talking about her sexual anatomy? It sounds rather doubtful that such a person ever supported O'Donnell for office with that kind of an attitude.
David Keegan Just a dumb b*tch with a grudge.
October 23, 2010 at 8:41am
David Keegan Who created this group? Post a more appropriate picture of the witch.
November 3, 2010 at 3:35pm
David Keegan Ding Dong the Witch is DEAD! The Wicked Witch is DEAD!!!!!!
November 2, 2010 at 8:19pm
David Keegan At the beginning of my final staff meeting with her 2008 campaign, they prayed that she would be elected " to help bring this country under Christian control". That was the last straw for me. I consider myself to be a conservative Christian but only as far as letting it guide my own conscience, not to control the lives of others. She is way, way out there. Keep the pressure on!
November 5, 2010 at 8:24am
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE FACEBOOK PAGES AS CUT AND PASTE FROM FACEBOOK
These posts were at a Facebook Group on investigating Christine O'Donnell, but Keegan has since changed the display settings on his posts.
What do you think? Give David Keegan a call at: (302) 239-5889
David Keegan's Subdivision, where he has no visible means of support. Who is paying David Keegan for his lifestyle?
Who is paying for this McMansion, since David Keegan seems to have no job, as he had no job in 2008? His employment history and current employment is invisible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
