Some of Stainbrook faction not living at addresses & have criminal records including manslaughter – Supreme Court rejects Stainbrook
The Toledo Free Press has a story online about a press conference held today by Jeff Simpson & Paul Hoag where they called into question not only the residence of several of the Stainbrook Central Committee faction, but criminal records. (link). Part of the article:
During an April 30 press conference, Simpson said the candidates in question were recruited by the Jon Stainbrook “faction;” Stainbrook also claims to be the executive committee chairman of the LCRP.
At least eight candidates have criminal backgrounds Simpson said he feels comfortable disclosing. The criminal backgrounds include convictions of theft, preparation of marijuana for sale, possession of cocaine, gross sexual imposition and manslaughter.
“You have to wonder who [Stainbrook’s] bringing in. Are these the type of people who Republicans will identify with when they make their vote on Tuesday?” Simpson said.
Also related to the Lucas County Republican Party is the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner made the correct decision in appointing a replacement for Lynn Olman according to the Blade (link):
COLUMBUS — The Ohio Supreme Court Friday unanimously rejected an attempt by Jon Stainbrook to force Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to appoint him to the Lucas County Board of Elections.
The court found that Ms. Brunner acted within her authority when she refused to accept conflicting recommendations for a four-year term on the board from competing factions claiming control of the county Republican Party. Instead she made a third choice, Toledo attorney Ben Marsh, not recommended by either side.The court noted that Lucas County Common Pleas Court had ruled that neither faction had complied with election rules and that the Ohio Republican Party State Central Committee had not resolved the dispute by the time the March 1 deadline arrived for Ms. Brunner to act.
“Are these the type of people who Republicans will identify with when they make their vote on Tuesday?”
Yes they are.
April 30th, 2010 at 4:49 pmGee, G,
I am afraid I must disagree…I’d at least like to know the person I am voting for actually lives at the address they claim.
Trust me, I am a forgiving soul and can overlook a a feloneous foible or two…but c’mon, I think the LCRP can do better than this.
Just my thoughts…
mj
April 30th, 2010 at 5:54 pmI’d agree Mindy, though I know Sensor was just joking, people should know if those running are living at the address they claimed. I also agree that not all felonies the same.
April 30th, 2010 at 5:57 pmWhy am I not surprised…
And Sensor- I do hope you were joking. No wonder why people don’t trust those involved in politics! Look at the rag-tag bunch known as the Stainbrook faction.
This just takes the cake. Manslaughter? GSI? You can’t compare a few spoons to that…
Let’s hope the Board of Elections and others do take this seriously, and do their due diligence to correct this.
April 30th, 2010 at 7:04 pmThey could very well be legally allowed to run for office. In Ohio voting rights are: automatically restored upon release from confinement; felon must register to vote and when it comes to running for office? Being convicted of involuntary manslaughter or any manslaughter or murder charge does not appear to stop you from holding office but certain types of theft do – (link to ORC) – however using a false address would appear to be a problem.
April 30th, 2010 at 8:17 pmHave they matched the candidate and the charges? I am interested to see who has convicted of manslaughter and gross sexual imposition.
Again the rank and file GOPers will get to decide some of this next week. Stainbrook takes on Jonathan Binkley, and Megan Gallagher squares off against the Simpson lady for the state central committee.
April 30th, 2010 at 8:43 pmI’m not surprised either…
But this is also on the Simpson side as well.
How about the guy running for Central Committee in Toledo District 8J, who claims to live above a bar on Monroe Street, but really lives in Perrysburg??
What about that, Jeff?
== Ken ==
April 30th, 2010 at 8:51 pmYes, I have some of the names but I’m verifying information before I post it here and who wins the Binkley versus Stainbrook and Gallagher versus Simpson will really have no bearing on who controls the party. That will come down to who controls the Central Committee Seats here in Lucas County.
April 30th, 2010 at 9:04 pmTrue Lisa, but it might be kind of embarassing if 10,000 Republicans or how many would vote for Binkley/Simpson over Stainbrook/Gallagher, if the Stain faction would win the local committee battle.
Kind of send a mixed message.
and this scenario could happen.
April 30th, 2010 at 9:31 pmI don’t disagree as far as the message but the actual control issue will come down to turnout…
April 30th, 2010 at 9:38 pmWOW! This is better than Desperate Housewives!!!
May 1st, 2010 at 12:22 am^ LOL!
As the Lucas County GOP Turns!!!!
May 1st, 2010 at 9:31 amKen, my sweet,
While I can’t speak for Jeff, I can tell you I did hear “that guy” was ‘livin’ downtown and driving all the old men crazy”.
But, what do I know?
C-U soon!
mj
May 1st, 2010 at 10:23 amHi, MJ #13…
Nice to hear from you again.
Yes, “that guy” spends his time in Toledo and Findlay a lot, but mostly in Perrysburg. I have pics of the little red sports car sitting in a driveway, and interviews with the neighbors.
However, that will change once he reads this.
== Ken ==
May 1st, 2010 at 11:08 amThe basic problem with our local Republican Party is not all that different than the basic problem with the national Republican Party. It’s a problem of the hypocrisy of too many Republican activists.
The average Republican voter is a good person who has a different view of government than does the average Democratic voter, also a good person. Most Republican and Democratic voters share the same goals: to have our communities and the nation move forward in the best possible way for the most people possible. They have honest disagreements about how we achieve those goals.
Have too many Democratic and Republican activists let their constituents down by abusing their powers when holding elected or appointed positions of power while committing crimes and/or sins? Yes! Then, what’s the difference?
For decades now, we’ve heard the Republican mantras over and over again of “law and order” and/or “family values”. For decades now, whenever a Democratic leader, or even a relative of a Democratic leader, does anything wrong, the Republicans jump all over it. Republican activists usually say something like, “See?! That’s what you get when you support godless, immoral Democrats! Those Democrats have such low moral standards in THAT political party!” But if a Republican activist or their relative does something wrong, and a Democrat (or even a news source) dares to criticize them, the critic is labeled as immoral and unfair!
Most Democratic activists have a better sense of knowing that we all are flawed human beings. Republican activists act as though only Democrats are flawed.
The bottom line for this thread is that, Lisa, I’m not at all surprised that you are so forgiving of one’s past trangressions. Republicans: get over it! If you don’t want someone elected, who otherwise meets the requirements to run, but offends your sense of morality…BEAT HER/HIM!!
May 1st, 2010 at 11:14 amOh, Ken,
That’s just silly!
I’m guessing you may have photos of Barbie’s sports car all over hell’s half acre! No place that thing would turn up would surprise me! Woof.
But, how does that answer the question that you seem to have candidates running for central committee that don’t live where they claim they do? At least the abode above the bar is habitable and inhabitated. I think you are missing the mark on this one.
As I recall it was your camp that, way back in the day, decided it was perfectly acceptable to question a candidate’s residency. Why the shock and outrage? This is a play straight from the MeKelJo handbook. All ya gotta do is make sure the candidates can back up where they said they lived when they signed their petitions to run for office. That shouldn’t be so difficult.
Or is it?
mj
May 1st, 2010 at 8:59 pmMJ #16 wrote..
“All ya gotta do is make sure the candidates can back up where they said they lived when they signed their petitions to run for office.”
That’s true. I just wanted the voters in District 8J to know that one of the Republican candidates won’t be around most of the time, while the other candidate has a business and lives in the District.
Let the voters decide.
== Ken ==
May 2nd, 2010 at 8:10 amKen,
The voters have a lot to decide…shame some won’t have the opportunity to base that vote on fact, for example if the candidate actually lives in the neighborhood they say they do.
Your claim of one 8J cnadidate not living in his neighborhood has now been pubically disputed, and for all intents and purpose shown to be worng.
What about the other neighborhoods with candidates with fake addresses?
It’s just cheesy for a classy guy as yourself to go after “that” guy…even if you have been prompted/demanded to do so. Don’t you think that will just open way to many cans of nasty worms?
At any rate, let us hope that when presented with more and different ‘facts’ the voters will decide as they see fit.
May 2nd, 2010 at 9:21 amOkay Ken and Mindy can you reveal who the hell you two are talking about?
May 2nd, 2010 at 11:10 amHaving read the Blah online, Tom Troy wrote “Mr. Simpson provided reporters with the Lucas County Common Pleas Court case numbers that correlate with names of candidates on the ballot, but the connections could not be immediately verified.”
Maybe it’s because he didn’t bother to actually look them up.
For those readers here at the jungle, allow me to provide the same information from the press packets;
Stainbrook Recruit, Candidate in Oregon 3, in January 1997, with accomplices, burst into the home of the victim dressed as a Toledo Police Officer, in a vain attempt to steal cocaine and cash. He ordered the victims, including a 13-year-old girl onto their stomachs, where the victim was shot in front of her.
Stainbrook Recruit, Oregon 3, involuntary manslaughter, 1st degree felony, aggravated burglary with a firearms specification, 1st degree felony, aggravated robbery, 1st degree felony, served 11 years incarceration. (attached is the appeal of one of his co-defendents)
http://statecasefiles.justia.com.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/ohio/sixth-district-court-of-appeals/2002-ohio-382.pdf
Stainbrok Recruit 16K – Gross Sexual Imposition, 3rd degree felony CR-85-5306
Stainbrook Recruit,13D Felony Theft 6 months prison, G-4801-CR-199802159, G-4801-CR-199505311
Stainbrook Recruit 13D – Grand Theft, Felony,
Stainbrook Recruit 13D – Escape Felony 3rd degree
Stainbrook Recruit 15H – Felony Robbery G-4801-CR-199506743
Stainbrook Recruit 11F – Possession of Cocaine Felony, served 2 yrs G-4801-CR-200001402
Stainbrook Recruit 9J – Attempted Trafficking in Counterfit controlled substances, (misdemeanor) G-4801-CR-200101031
Stainbrook Recruit 8J – Grand Theft Felony 5th degree G-4801-CR-199902680
Stainbrook Recruit, 15G – Attempted Trafficking Counterfeit Controlled Substances (felony 5th degree) 8 months prison G-4801-CR-200401131,
Stainbrook recruit 15G, again, attempted Preparation of Marijuana for Sale (1st degree misdemeanor, 6 months prison) G4801-CR-200003124
Again, these are the case files provided by the Simpson press conference. Let the readers decide.
May 2nd, 2010 at 11:23 amDesperate Housewives CSI anyone?
May 2nd, 2010 at 12:09 pmTapia? Really? That guy fled and was on the run for more then a year if I am not mistaken.
Lee Abbey was the victim. I remember that murder very well.
May 2nd, 2010 at 3:07 pmChad-
Tapia is not the recruit. I suggest you go to the Board of Elections website and check out who live in Oregon 3 and is on their certified list of central committee candidates.
Then you’ll have the name…
May 2nd, 2010 at 5:50 pmHenri #20
You list a lot of names, but why not be consistent?
I mentioned the Republican Candidate in District 8J who really doesn’t live in that District. But what about his arrest, which he pled guilty to in front of Judge Franks, back in 2006?
Since he is your boyfriend I’m sure you know all about it.
Henri, let those without sin cast the first stone.
== Ken ==
May 2nd, 2010 at 6:24 pmIn the middle of my crim law cramming, and I would love this defense to work – “let those without sin cast the first stone.” LOL
Let’s not degrade Jesus Christ by bringing His words into this petty political battle.
May 2nd, 2010 at 7:23 pmTom-
Glad to hear you are ‘cramming’ with the books… what better way to spend the weekend. Oh, the days with my own books…
You are right, Christ should never be degraded in such a way.
As for KT, let me ask you, what is it about those who are ACTUAL convicted felons and worse that you are okay with versus those who have not been convicted of a crime?????
May 2nd, 2010 at 8:56 pmhenri,
Granted, the person in question KT is referring to has a shady past. I’m not all thrilled about it, personally, but here’s my point.
It wasn’t the fact that the “Stainbrook LCRP” dismissed him. he was embraced and feted with a decent job in the organization.
It was the fact that this person resigned from the “Stainbrook LCRP” and wandered into the “other” camp that makes the difference to KT. Otherwise this person of interest KT refers to wouldn’t be a topic.
And not only did this individual resign, but he also took the Stain Playbook® and various other skeletons with him upon departure.
So KT can smokescreen all he wants, but the person KT references was an “intimate part of the Stain team”…
and “KT”? He’s only one person. How many allegedly filed fraudulent paperwork in your camp? Is there any due dilligence coming from Jon Stainbrook? It is “Jon’s job” to make sure everybody is above board, right?
May 3rd, 2010 at 6:03 amBrian Maxson wrote:
Oh… I think many people would say “he” took with him, only what he brought to the MegKelJo mosh-pit.
And, I think even the most casual observer would say, the the Stain Playbook® comes with only one play, “Where’s my Lawyer?!”
Carry on…
May 3rd, 2010 at 11:54 amrogue wrote:
ROTFLMAO!
Absolutely that’s seems to be the stainiacs only known strategy in life- LAWSUIT!!!! (imho)
Can’t wait to see his next chapter when he loses his behind!
May 3rd, 2010 at 12:57 pm“Let’s not degrade Jesus Christ by bringing His words into this petty political battle.” –Tom
I don’t see anything Christlike in the mudslinging done by anyone in local politics. Maybe that is the true definition of SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
In other words, politicians aren’t expected to love their neighbors, and good Christians aren’t expected to get involved in political mud slinging.
Tom Mo… I think there is a broken link or something on your name.
May 3rd, 2010 at 4:03 pmChristlike was the words of Christ being used – “He who is without sin…” by Ken. Dragging Christ’s quotes into a political battle is senseless, as I said before.
I’m aware of my link.
May 3rd, 2010 at 5:56 pm