Monday, January 11, 2010

Stainbrook 'deems' Kriner and Olman resigned from BOE

Well, I think the latest maneuvering by Jon Stainbrook in his effort to maintain control of the Lucas County Republican Party is just delusional. I really have no other word for it.

To recap, a group of central committee members voted to suspend the rules at a duly-called meeting, voted to remove Stainbrook and central committee chair Megan Gallagher from their positions, and then elected new chairmen with Paul Hoag in charge of the central committee and Jeff Simpson as the chairman of the party.

First Stainbrook denied that any such meeting and removal had taken place.

Then Stainbrook filed suit in federal court to keep the new group from meeting and from identifying themselves as the LCRP. The judge did not grant that request, determining that Stainbrook did not present a likelihood of succeeding in his suit.

Of course, The Blade weighed in with their own version of events and reporting.

And then Stainbrook got his supporters to recommend him for appointment to the Board of Elections position currently held by Lynn Olman.

But the latest communication from Stainbrook takes the cake. Here are copies of the letters he sent to Patrick Kriner and Lynn Olman (click for larger image):

As you can see, Stainbrook asserts that Kriner and Olman, in exercising their rights as elected members of the LCRP central committee to vote on business at a meeting, have somehow "caused constructive or implied resignations" of their positions "in the LCRP its central committee, and executive committee."

Um...right. Did he send this letter to everyone who voted for Simpson or just the two whose jobs he's trying to get for himself?

Stainbrook must be delusional to think that any central committee member who voted on business before that body had "implied" their resignations from the LCRP. Certainly, none of them expected to be presumed to have resigned from their elected positions on the central committee as a result of voting at a meeting. Furthermore, membership on the executive committee is based upon the bylaws of the party. The party chairman cannot 'assume' any member has resigned simply because they exercise their right to vote as a member of the central committee. The only members of the executive committee Stainbrook can 'remove' are the ones he appoints - and Kriner and Olman certainly are not in that group.

Stainbrook goes on to "accept and ratify" the imaginary resignations and to order them to "cease and desist in any further representations that you are in any way affiliated with the LCRP."

That Kriner and Olman are registered Republicans, former elected officials, and Kriner is a past party chairman obviously slipped Stainbrook's mind. They can't simply stop any representation that they are affiliated with the LCRP - they're Republicans, for goodness sake!

I think Stainbrook has lost it. His plans for complete control have fallen apart and I think he's falling apart as well. How else do you explain these desperate attempts?

And did you note Stainbrook's signature? I can't help but wonder what a handwriting analyst would say about that!

I'm sure there is more to come. I'm currently reviewing a 15-page letter Stainbrook's attorney sent to the BOE in anticipation of tomorrow's meeting.

Strangely, the letter states:

For the reasons set forth below you are required by law to cancel your proposed Saturday meeting.

The BOE doesn't have a meeting scheduled for Saturday's Tuesday morning. Apparently the attorney isn't very good at keeping track of which meeting he wants the BOE to cancel....

Stay tuned!


Hooda Thunkit (Dave Zawodny) said...


"And did you note Stainbrook's signature? I can't help but wonder what a handwriting analyst would say about that!"

Now I am not a professional handwriting analyst, and I don't play one on TV, but is (Sue/Jon's so-called signature (to me) exhibits a frantic attempt to escape from some imaginary trap/cage of one's on doing; note the appearance of pacing from on end to the other.

As usual I offer this opinion freely and let the reader judge as to its accuracy value.

(Maybe I should have prefaced my statement with, IMNHO ;-)

Hooda Thunkit (Dave Zawodny) said...



on = no

own = yes

Thanks :-)

Google Analytics Alternative