O'Reilly ad gets more scrutiny
Sharon Coolidge reports:
A three-member panel of the Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found probable cause Monday in a disciplinary complaint against Attorney Jim O’Reilly, who is running for the 1st District Court of Appeals.
The complaint, filed by Cincinnati attorney Steve Goodin on behalf of O’Reilly’s opponent, Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Patrick Dinkelacker, alleges misconduct by O’Reilly. Specifically, the complaint says O’Reilly’s television advertisement is false.
The complaint will now go before another three member panel of the board for an evidentiary hearing. If misconduct is found, the Ohio Supreme Court could impose sanctions ranging from requiring O’Reilly to pull the ad, to fines or even sanctions on O’Reilly’s law license.
“I am not worried,” O’Reilly said. “I know when we get to the hearing stage, just as with the Ohio Elections Commission, there will be a positive outcome.”
The finding comes after a member of the Ohio Elections Commission calling O’Reilly’s attack ad misleading. But the four-member commission found no probable cause that the ads are false.
O’Reilly’s ad says Dinkelacker jailed an alleged rape victim, made an error that allowed Larry Flynt to go free and continue selling pornography in Hamilton County and prosecuted the only death penalty case commuted by Gov. Bob Taft.
Goodin argued that all three claims are false and misleading, a violation of judicial canons that forbid a judicial candidate from running a television ad that is false, or if true, that would be deceiving or misleading.
“It’s factual that Judge Dinkelacker was involved in these cases, but it is extremely misleading to say the cases were overturned because of his actions,” Goodin said.
An Enquirer analysis of O’Reilly’s ad shows:
It’s dubious that Dinkelacker’s handling of the case allowed Flynt to continue to sell pornography. There’s no guarantee Flynt would have been convicted in 1999 - and it was the prosecutor who initially agreed to the deal.
Dinkelacker did jail a woman who alleged she was raped in 2003, after she failed to appear in court. But she later admitted she lied about parts of her story - testifying that she agreed to have sex with the defendant for $20. The man she accused was acquitted.
Taft granted clemency to Jerome Campbell, a man Dinkelacker helped put on death row. But the decision, made when he was an assistant prosecutor, had more to do with the DNA than the prosecution.
13 Comments:
Typical wRong wingnut whackos:
When they don't like the message, shoot the messenger !
HAD ENOUGH, VOTE4 Judge - O'Reilly !
This O'Reilly law professor is nothing more than a puffed up old windbag. So full of himself & not a clue in the real world.
Electing him to the 1st Court would be the biggest mistake this county could ever make. That windbag would be turning loose all sorts of criminality.
This clown isn't qualified. The things he's accused Judge Dinkelacker of shows he's not qualified & doesn't have the first idea of Court proceedings.
I don't have a law degree, but on the first airing of Windbag O'Reilly's ads, I questioned as to whether he got his law degree out of a Rice Krispies box.
Once he loses this election, UC Law School would be wise to fire his behind as to develop into a heavyweight law institution that could give Virginia Law School a run for its money.
Here Sharon Coolidge goes again, catering to the Republicans
Who was it on the Enquirer that "analyzed" the ads, and what are the qualifications of that person/persons to make such an analysis?
Who released this information??? It is a violation of the canons for an attorney to release information regarding reports to the disciplianary council until and unless the complaint has made a final determination of wrong doing.
Whoever released this info has violated the law.
The idea is that attorneys are held to be innocent until the tribunal has made a finding otherwise - then, it becomes public record.
Dinklelacher has shown HIS true colors - like Blackwell's - of muckraking in order to influence the outcome of an election.
Hmmm... I think that's another complaint against the republican candidate for office - attempting to influence the outcome of an election , by violating the code of ethics and disciplinary rules for attorneys
The muck gets deeper.
Anyone who's met Jim O'Reilly knows what a thoughtful, reasonable lawyer he is. Anyone who's ever appeared before Dinkelacker knows that he's just another prosecutor in the room. That guy is as a dumb as a rock. For the appeals court, you need someone who can think and write, not issue one-liners.
Dinkelacker's real mistake with Flynt was in not throwing the whole case out in the first place.
Putting O'Reilly on the Court of Appeals would be like making Dr. Phil chief of surgery at UC. Why not, they are both doctors right? The bottom line is this, how do you review a murder case on the Court of Appeals if you have never even been in a court room? I wouldn't let O'Reilly defend me on a speeding ticket.
Putting a wRong wingnut endorsed whacko on the bench is "corporate welfare" that caters to the "culture of corruption' !
HAD ENOUGH, VOTE O'REILLY !
( an independent voice )
Concealment the Propaganda game at the fishwRap ?
Ohio Elections Commission Finds Probable Cause of False Statements Made by Hartmann
Taft, Blackwell, Hartmann -- More of the Same
October 24, 2006 - Columbus OH – Following a classic “Willie Horton” type TV attack ad, Republican Secretary of State candidate, Greg Hartmann has sunk to a new low in attacking Democratic candidate Jennifer Brunner’s judicial record with his second ad, this time exploiting the tragic death of a child. This comes on the heels of a finding by the Ohio Elections Commission today that there is probable cause that Hartmann has lied about how Brunner handled the case referred to in the first ad. Hartmann brags about his experience as a prosecutor having handled “hundreds of violent felonies” but lied about information in his TV ad that any experienced prosecutor would know.
“The truth is that Greg Hartmann is a political operative who will do anything to try and pull Jennifer Brunner back in a weak attempt to move himself ahead,” said Patrick Gallaway, Brunner press secretary. Hartmann served as executive director to the Hamilton County Republican Party while working in the county prosecutor’s office. Numerous memos in his personnel file demonstrate that he had trouble showing up to work and had his pay docked for being absent without leave.
The Ohio Elections Commission in a unanimous vote today found that there is probable cause to find that Hartmann lied about the “light sentence” referred to in his first TV attack ad. This from the candidate who says he is “the next generation of Republican leadership.”
In a climate where negative TV ads are the subject of media pieces, the Ohio Elections Commission’s preliminary finding indicates that Hartmann will be more of the same, using lies like Ken Blackwell and Bob Taft1 and proliferating government corruption.
“We wish Mr. Hartmann could offer Ohio voters positive ideas and address the real issues facing the next Secretary of State,” added Gallaway. “Instead, Hartmann knows he does not have the election and business experience to match Brunner, as confirmed by endorsements from Columbus Dispatch, Dayton Daily News, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Akron Beacon Journal, Youngstown Vindicator, Lorain Morning Journal and Canton Repository,” continued Gallaway.
Tell the truth and run on the real issues Greg.
Not only did Dink put a woman in jail. He's proud of it. The way I found out about it was visiting his website and reading an enquirer artical linked from his site. They guys a monster.
My only question is, 'Is Goodin on the staff of Dinkelacker, or is he blaming councilman Jim O'Reilly for his embarrasment when he lost his case for the 'Concerned Wyoming Citizens'.
If I didn't know that Dink was a joke, Goodins endorsement alone would be enough to get me to vote against him.
I have respect for Dinkelacker, but it is clear that O'Reilly would contribute much more to the Court of Appeals.
However, Goodins is a humongous blowhard who is completely incompetent and clearly has a personal vendetta against O'Reilly.
Jim is one of the smartest people I've ever met; saying he is a legal scholar is an understatement if I've ever heard one.
People in the legal profession understand that a legal scholar is much more valuable on the Court of Appeals than a trial judge. Jim's experience is much more extensive and impressive and he would work harder and do a better job.
Want proof that this is a personal vendetta by Goodin against current City of Wyoming Councilman O'Reilly? All one needs to do is visit the "Concerned Wyoming Citizens" PAC website. This is the group that Goodin defended in court this past summer hoping to stop construction of a public pool(and lost by a unanimous vote by the Court of Appeals).
See here: http://www.geocities.com/concernedwyomingcitizen/
"Consider voting for Patrick Dinkelacker over Jim O'Reilly in the Court of Appeals race (recall that O'Reilly, who is a Wyoming City Councilman, did not want to hear from citizens through a forum or a vote). Click here to read more."
Why doesn't the Enquirer find out more about Goodin's personal issues with O'Reilly? Much more to this story if you dig a little deeper...
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.
<< Home