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

The FREEDOMIST ^ | June 13, 2011 | Paul Collier

[stormer]

A product of Princeton and Oxford like Christine O'Donnell shouldn't have any trouble with her veracity. She's a scholar, after all. Oh, wait...

[Moseley]

GONDRING ASKS: "Melanie Sloan for her client Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington falsely claims that in 2009 Christine O'Donnell was not a candidate for office [...]" Would you please point me to where this claim is made? Thanks!

Click on the links for the TV interviews by Melanie Sloan. She says it many times in her own voice.

[ontap]

Guilty!!!

[kalee]

She sued ISI? For what?

[Gondring]

That’s what Jonathan Moseley does.

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

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

And maybe he can get a few more checks from contributors' money next campaign season!

[Lancey Howard]

Yikes! Guilty as sin. What a pig.

[Gondring]

It’s Greenville...Greenville Place Apartments.

Sure it’s not Greenville you were thinking of? That’s just down the road from Centerville, I think.

[Gondring]

Thanks...I’ll check them out.

[Labyrinthos]

Now that I understand — Thanks.

[Gondring]

Adn don’t forget how she lied to potential donors to try to get contributions, claiming she’d won 2/3 of counties in Delaware in her previous election—when she was actually trounced soundly in 2/3 and didn’t win any.

[Gondring]

The headquarters was at 1242 Presidential Drive.

However, that is not where Christine ever lived.

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

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know details of Delaware, but it seems to me that she's still playing fast and loose with things.

It seems to me that Delaware uses the term "permanent residence" for where voter registration should be. For example, Title 15 § 1704(c)(3) seems to try to confirm this: "Certify that the address at which they are currently registered to vote is their correct address and place of permanent residence." (my emphasis)

So is she falsifying her permanent residence or what?! There seem to be procedures for keeping the voter registration address confidential, so it seems she could have done that legally.

It's amusing to watch the spinning, though.

BTW, I'm all in favor of personal privacy. I just have a problem with her questionable veracity.

[Vendome]

Won’t be getting any from me after what he called my two years ago.

I contributed to Christine’s campaign and hoped she would win, if only to stick it to Mike Castle and his nasty daughter.

I had met them 1997 to get involved in DE Republican and found them pretty acerbic.

[Moseley]

The procedure Christine O’Donnell used is the correct procedure to keep her address confidential.

And, her actual residence is in the same voting precinct.

So she is eligible to vote in that precinct. She resides in the same precinct, but NOT at 1242 Presidential Drive.

And she disclosed this to officials when registering.

[Moseley]

ISI fired CHristine in February 2004 24 minutes after learning that Christine had talked to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — which is completely illegal. A company cannot retaliate against an employee for discussing their rights with the EEOC.

Christine O’Donnell’s lawsuit against ISI is posted at:

http://www.supportchristine.com/ODonnellISILawsuitt.pdf

It was discussed extensively at:

http://www.delawarepolitics.net/odonnell-sec-complant-dismissed/

[wideawake]

She sued ISI? For what?

She sued under Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) auspices on grounds that she lost her job at ISI because her successor at her job was male and she was therefore fired because she was a woman. She also sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. She was asking for quite a bit of money as I recall - something like 8 figures.

[wideawake]

This has nothing to do with New York. And these two people lied in a complaint to the FEC which was later tossed out.

Again, it is a legal question of what exactly constitutes candidacy. When the complaint is reviewed, there will be more information.

[DJ MacWoW]

The complaint to the FEC was tossed by the FEC. I think that should be a clue that the complaint had no merit. It remains to be seen if it will be viewed as a lie meant to smear and destroy.

[wideawake]

I'm referring to the complaint to the bar, not the already-dead FEC complaint.

[Moseley]

She sued under Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) auspices on grounds that she lost her job at ISI because her successor at her job was male and she was therefore fired because she was a woman

Not correct. Not a bad attempt, but not exactly accurate.

Christine was fired 24 minutes after telling ISI leaders that she had asked the EEOC about her rights as an employee. ISI previously thought she was asking the EEOC about vacation policy. When Christine emailed back that she was asking them NOT about vacation policy but about their disparate treatment, ISI fired her. That is illegal.

BEFORE being let go, Christine asked the EEOC -- and me as well as an attorney at the time -- about ISI having a woman with 15 years experience report to a man just out of college who had no marketing experience other than a little training CHristine herself had given him.

Christine headed a department, but when her male boss went on sabbatical, ISI wanted to make sure that a woman was under the "covering" of a man. So they put a 15 year veteran of marketing under a man who was not qualified for the job.

The Position Description required at least 5 years experience. Doug Schneider had less than 2 years, most of it Christine training him and him packing up books sold for shipment or answering the phones.

So a man who did not meet the qualifications of the position was put into a position he could not qualify for, and a woman with 3 times as much experience as required was ordered to report to a man -- so that no woman would be a leader standing alone. Every woman had to have a man "covering" her in ISI's culture.

After that, the case went to a hearing before the unemployment commission, WHERE CHRISTINE WON, AND ISI LOST. ISI made all the same arguments to the Administrative Law Judge, but lost. So the only hearings that ever happened showed Christine the winner, and ISI's arguments were rejected as not credible.

[DJ MacWoW]

The complaint to the Bar is because of the false FEC complaint.