Stainbrook plays tape of privately recorded conversation for Blade…
When I watched Fox Toledo last night, and saw this coverage I thought at first someone other than Desiree Lyonette had her position eliminated since that happened almost a month ago. When you read the Blade, it confirms this is about Lyonette but it also confirms what has been stated time and time again, that Jon Stainbrook records phone conversations with people without telling them the call is being recorded.
Mr. Stainbrook yesterday played for The Blade an audio recording of Mr. Olman telling him one week ago that Ms. Lyonette’s job performance was the reason for her termination, but without details.
Lynn Olman claims that was his understanding and states it was a private conversation.
Newsflash for anyone, including Lynn Olman, it’s been known that even before Jon Stainbrook became the chair for the Lucas County Republican Party that he tape records phone conversations, there is no such thing as a private conversation or an off the record conversation with him. So…I recommend not saying anything that you would not say on the record and I personally recommend recording the conversation yourself, that way? Anything he says is equally transparent…
I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t comment in depth on the legality of this, from my understanding of Ohio law; a person is allowed to tape record private conversations without permission for note keeping purposes and if in a public location, I’m not sure what happens from a point of law if those conversations are not recorded in a public location and then released without the person’s permission for being taped/released given.
Perhaps some day all of these recordings will make one heck of a book…If I end up in it? I want royalties…
Recording Phone Calls and Conversations
If you plan to record telephone calls or in-person conversations (including by recording video that captures sound), you should be aware that there are federal and state wiretapping laws that may limit your ability to do so. These laws not only expose you to the risk of criminal prosecution, but also potentially give an injured party a civil claim for money damages against you.
From a legal standpoint, the most important question in the recording context is whether you must get consent from one or all of the parties to a phone call or conversation before recording it. Federal law and many state wiretapping statutes permit recording if one party (including you) to the phone call or conversation consents. Other states require that all parties to the communication consent.
Unfortunately, it is not always easy to tell which law applies to a communication, especially a phone call. For example, if you and the person you are recording are in different states, then it is difficult to say in advance whether federal or state law applies, and if state law applies which of the two (or more) relevant state laws will control the situation. Therefore, if you record a phone call with participants in more than one state, it is best to play it safe and get the consent of all parties. However, when you and the person you are recording are both located in the same state, then you can rely with greater certainty on the law of that state. In some states, this will mean that you can record with the consent of one party to the communication. In others, you will still need to get everyone’s consent. For details on the wiretapping laws in the fifteen most populous U.S. states and the District of Columbia, see the State Law: Recording section. In any event, it never hurts to play it safe and get the consent of all parties to a phone call or conversation that you intend to record.
Who must give permission to record a telephone or in-person conversation?
Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). This is called a “one-party consent” law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. Furthermore, if you are not a party to the conversation, a “one-party consent” law will allow you to record the conversation or phone call so long as your source consents and has full knowledge that the communication will be recorded.
In addition to federal law, thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have adopted “one-party consent” laws and permit individuals to record phone calls and conversations to which they are a party or when one party to the communication consents. See the State Law: Recording section of this legal guide for information on state wiretapping laws.
When must you get permission from everyone involved before recording?
Twelve states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These “two-party consent” laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Although they are referred to as “two-party consent” laws, consent must be obtained from every party to a phone call or conversation if it involves more than two people. See the State Law: Recording section of this legal guide for information on state wiretapping laws.
Can you record a phone call or conversation when you do not have consent from one of the parties?
Regardless of whether state or federal law governs the situation, it is almost always illegal to record a phone call or private conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent from at least one party, and could not naturally overhear. In addition, federal and many state laws do not permit you to surreptitiously place a bug or recording device on a person or telephone, in a home, office or restaurant to secretly record a conversation between two people who have not consented.
Federal law and most state statutes also make disclosing the contents of an illegally intercepted telephone call illegal. See the section on Risks Associated with Publication in this guide for more information.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:39 amFrom the above, I’m not sure about the legality of releasing a private conversation to a media outlet, but what type of sane person would exhibit this behavior, especially a person in a ‘leadership’ position. This is a characteristic generally observed with paranoid schitzophrenia. Anyone know much about this chairman?
February 20th, 2009 at 9:55 amInteresting. One has to wonder if Stainbrook learned the conversation taping methods at a certain institution on S. Detroit? Why would Mr. Olman even accept phone calls from this creep? I’m sure Olman was doing his best to not make waves with stainbrook but now can chalk this up as a lesson learned.
This may be why the blade is so kind to stainbook in their articles. (stainbrook = good, all others who disagree with him = bad) It is fairly well known that JR Block and stainbrook are friendly and have been for many years. Just how many tapes does stainbrook have on block? Inquiring minds want to know….
February 20th, 2009 at 10:05 amThanks, I read a similar piece to that when this issue first came up months ago, that’s how I was able to determine that it appeared you do have the ability in Ohio to tape record someone without their consent. Where the question got fuzzy in researching was can you release that tape recorded conversation if it’s not been done in public and the person did not consent.
Example from the Ohio Bar Association:
Q: I recently learned that one of my friends has been tape recording all of our telephone conversations without ever telling me. Is he allowed to do that?
February 20th, 2009 at 10:05 amA: Yes. Ohio law allows telephone conversations to be tape recorded as long as one party to the conversation knows and consents to its being recorded. The law does not, however, allow your friend to use the tape recording for an improper purpose. For example, your friend could not use the tape recording to blackmail you, nor could he give the recording to your former spouse during a divorce proceeding. Also, your friend is not permitted to tape record a conversation between two other people without their permission.
Dan Demann wrote:
Since I am not a doctor I wouldn’t want to take a stab at a diagnosis. Possibly the voices in his head made him do it.
February 20th, 2009 at 10:14 amGuys…let’s be nice, remember this is the place where we all try to be civil.
February 20th, 2009 at 10:18 amAs if it wasn’t hard enough to get solid conservative minded people to step up and get involved in the local Republican party. If your are an electable R from this area like Tom Waniewski or Mark Waggoner, you better be smart enough to keep your distance from the party like they have.
Nice job Jon. Just when I thought the party couldn’t be deeper in the hole.
I’ll take JoAnne Wack and Bob Reichert over you any day.
February 20th, 2009 at 10:26 amMy own experience, in Ohio, with recording phone conversations. Without going into details there were some going’s on in my divorce that caused one or more of my children to request, through their counselor and Guardian ad Litem, that their phone calls with their father be recorded so someone would understand the distressing nature of the calls.
The Court’s position on the matter was that any party in Ohio has a right to record, overtly or covertly, any conversation in which they are a party. There is no need to notify any other parties, so long as the recording party is a participant in the conversation.
February 20th, 2009 at 10:32 amkateb wrote:
But can they be released to the media, with intent to discredit, embarass, blackmail or shame?
Yours represents a legal case.
The chairman’s represents a paranoid demeanor, constantly believing people are working around him, afraid of obsolescence, and a ‘gotcha’ mentality.
February 20th, 2009 at 10:37 amDan, that is a gray area, but you would think with the Blade’s legal staff they would have checked on that, there could be a difference between hearing it and them releasing it to the public but regardless, since it was out there that this was being done, what the Blade did in this case was publicly confirm what others have speculated on in regards to conversations being recorded.
Even if it is 100% legal, it should be known that your conversations are being recorded. People place a lot of trust on their belief that if they state a conversation is off the record or if they believe it is in private that it will stay that way. It’s clear that you do not have that expectation with Jon Stainbrook. Considering Lynn should have been aware of previous incidents, including at least one with Doug Haynam where it was known Jon recorded a conversation and then brought up the use of that conversation, he should have had or at least now should have the expectation that anything he says will be released to the public.
February 20th, 2009 at 10:47 amPeople tell me things off the record on a fairly regular basis, if I started violating their confidence and started blogging about things told to me, I’d lose credibility fairly quickly and word would get out that I can’t be trusted.
Most times all the information does is give me a lead on a story or give me background on a story that helps me understand the context. The eventual goal is to get someone to go on the record or to find something I can release publicly on the story or be able to confirm/deny a rumor.
I’ve experienced having things told off the record to someone not staying that way, which creates the same response from me as it would from anyone else, you learn not to tell that particular person, in one case it was a reporter, anything off the record again.
February 20th, 2009 at 10:56 amsir john talbot wrote:
Now there is your book! Stain has been trying to peddle his Noe book deal for years but from what I hear nobody will pick it up due to lack of credibility (huh, go figure). Imagine if stain turned the tables and wrote his book on Block with all the recorded stuff he probably has! I can see the title now; Unholy Alliance, Pimping for Press! *Disclaimer; this statement is hypothetical, any likeness to reality is purely coincidental.*
February 20th, 2009 at 11:25 amAre we once again overlooking the obvious? Lynn Olman told the Chairman one thing and the Blade another…I do believe Lynn got caught in a fib!This calls into question the character of Olman more than Jon. At least Jon has “proof” of what was said and Olman is left looking suspect.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:04 pmGiven Mr. Stainbrook’s past struggles with mental instability, this type of behavior should come as no surprise to anyone. His 1998 incident has been obviously devastating and we should all keep his mental and physical well-being in prayer.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:45 pmMindy, Mindy, Mindy
Are you really that empty headed? Maybe you have trouble interpreting what you are reading. Where in the story do you see Lynn Olman stating something other than this;
Reached last night, Mr. Olman did not dispute the recording but described it as a private conversation.
“What I told Jon was my understanding,” Mr. Olman said.
The story does appear that Kriner and Olman have a difference of opinion in why this employee was let go.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:45 pmSo it looks like once again, you chose the wrong side. Must you always defend this bizarre individual no matter how foolih you appear to others? Face it, stainbrook is not the messiah you think he is, he is single handedly destroying what was left of the LCRP, and stainbrook is certainly of questionable moral, ethical, and human character.
Lemmings….
Sir John-
Please don’t lump all those who consider themselves loyal to the party, lemmings. Not all are a bunch of Stain-troopers, ya know… some are actually capable of independent thoughts, with high moral character!
February 20th, 2009 at 12:55 pmRyan J. Austin wrote:
Add the 2002 arrest of his “girlfriend” Meghan Gallagher and his own brushes with the law, that could certainly push someone over the edge.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:55 pmhttp://swampbubbles.com/bubble/stealing-medicine-sick-patient-toledo-hospital-lucas-county-gop-central-committee-chair
Henri- My apologies, I certainly do not lump all Republicans in that category as I am a fellow Republican. The GOP is much larger than that fool. That comment was for those who blindly follow stainbrook no matter what ridiculous/paraniod behavior he displays. Stain-troopers as you so aptly put it.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:01 pmTabbot,
True to form you missed the point. If a trusted elected official like Lynn Olman could be relied upon to keep all his stories straight, there would be no need to tape him, would there??
Now that Olman gets caught in a lie, you are quick to blame Mr Stainbrook. Just how long will you and your ilk keep blaming Jon for everything from the fact that Sunday follows Saturday and the moon rises at night.
And you think I am empty headed! Sheeesh.
mj
February 20th, 2009 at 1:25 pmCan anyone recall the last time Stainbrook did anything positive for the Lucas County Republican Party?
He’s prbably upset it is one less position he can’t eventually fill with a former rock-in-roll drummer.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:02 pmmindy wrote:
Is that an admission from the Stain camp that all conversations with the chairman are taped?
Is there any wonder the successful GOP elected officials (Sears, Wagoner, Waniewski) have no affiliation with Stainbrook?
February 20th, 2009 at 2:19 pmMindy, if you read my post…it states:
The article does not suggest Lynn Olman lied, it does however suggest that he should have been more careful as to what he said, especially to someone who has already made it clear that he wants him to step down and has taken issue with him in the past. As you’ll note, I don’t find Olman totally blameless in this scenario, there have been previous cases of phone conversations being recorded without consent.
Kind of a “let the caller beware” type if disclaimer if you will.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:35 pmIt seems to me the Jon Stainbrook is shooting himself in the foot with this kind of behavior. Who is going to want to have a conversation with him, or even take him seriously when he pulls antics like this? But, then it seems like everyone in the political arena is a big goof ball around here.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:52 pmI suppose this incident is Jon’s idea of “fighting corruption in the Lucas County GOP.” The problem is that he has severed all ties with the upstanding Republican leaders of our county. And if anyone tries to extend an olive branch his way, you may as well read the Blade the following day to view your complete conversation published for the world to see. There’s no way to communicate with this guy.
I have known Lynn Olman for a few years, and I have no reason to question his ethics. He is an upstanding businessman, former state representative, and a fervent supporter of Republican candidates in our area. Can I say the same thing for Mr. Stainbrook? Not in the least. His threats against key Republicans, lackluster efforts in finishing paperwork for candidates, questionable financial filings for the LCRP during the McCain campaign, and his general disdain toward anyone who he thinks has crossed him leads me to side with Olman every time.
No wonder Stainbrook is afraid to call a meeting for the LCRP central committee; he’s afraid that people might speak up about the crap they’ve been drug through thanks to him and his cohorts.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:25 pmRyan J. Austin wrote:
A friend who reads the blog asked me what this meant and I would bet there are a few who don’t remember or weren’t around, so I will explain what I think this means.
Back in 98 the stain worked in PR for Larry Kaczala at the LC Auditors office. There was a controversy surrounding the stain (rumor has it he was taking nude shots of drunks girls at parties and hanging them in his office. The auditors office is a close knit group and didn’t take kindly to this.) At any rate, the stain was demoted from PR to data entry or something like that, went from an office to a cubicle. At that point the stain was on medical leave claiming he could not work in the space provided due to his “claustrophobia”, the story later changed and he had some sort of knee problem. Anyhow after he was demoted he decided to run for auditor against Larry K in the primary and got his ass kicked like he does in all the races he has entered.
So thats the info for today, a little dusty but still relevant. There are also rumors/speculation about the stain doing a stint in a mental hospital but thats a little hard to prove since there are laws that protect his privacy. You just need to find a fellow patient to chat with about that. From the sounds of it you may be able to find them in the LCRP!
February 20th, 2009 at 6:13 pmSo much to say, so little time.
Concerned Voter wrote:
The littany of information that could go in a book or on this blog right now about this maniac is astounding. Someday he’ll push it one too far. I’m kind of hoping it’s soon. A little cathartic writing would do this soul some good.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:28 pmStainbrook is doing what he always has done. He is a predator, he seeks out and manipulates his way through low budget tactics. Lynn o is his latest victim. This guy reminds me of the villain in the 90’s movie Manhunter. His delusional image of himself leads him a wave of sinister behavior. Behavior the common man would classify as insane, yet he sees as normal. There are a few loose screws in his camp as well as his head.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:39 pmDoes anybody else hear music? I can just make out the lyrics……
Oh! I know this one – “another one bites the dust”.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:42 pmhey folks…we liberals and democrats love this.. and i think john stainbrook is the best thing to happen to the republican party…i hope it self destructs
February 20th, 2009 at 8:44 pmLYNN OLMAN IS AN HONEST MAN WHO DOES THE RIGHT THING. HE JUST NEEDS TO STAY AWAY FROM THE STAN
February 20th, 2009 at 8:49 pmSORRY LISA I WILL BE NICE BUT YOU KNOW HOW MUCH I HATE THE 46TH HOUSE DISTRICTS DO NOTHING STATE REPRESENTATIVE
February 20th, 2009 at 8:53 pmDan Demann wrote:
Great question. I don’t know.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:25 pmWhy does Michael Friedman only type in all caps. Having a stroke is no excuse!
February 20th, 2009 at 10:07 pmThere are certainly many others (besides John Stainbrook) with questionable character in both political parties in Lucas County.
A true test of character is what one does (when faced with a decision or dilemma) when no one else is looking. If all would follow that test and do “the right thing” we would have better representatives in government and more “real” people working on behalf of the citizens they are supposed to represent!
February 20th, 2009 at 11:38 pmNah…I’ll just ignore this post for the moment. I was tempted to join in on the Stainbrook pile-on with some anecdotes about the sleaziness and unsavoriness of this clown, but Jon Stainbrook’s own actions speak louder than any old stories I could dredge up.
But anyone who is stupid enough from this point forward to say more than “Hi Jon” or “Go f**k yourself Jon” to Stainbrook deserves whatever Jon drags them into. The Stain is more than untrustworthy – he is absolutely toxic.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:32 amGoing to be very interesting to see if GOP City Councilman George Sarantou will run his mayoral campaign with Stainbrook at his side.
February 21st, 2009 at 5:09 amron jeremy wrote:
freidman is about as smart as a box of rocks. He was that way before the stroke.
February 21st, 2009 at 7:58 amSarantou may as well. They both come from the Olympia Snowe wing of the party.
February 21st, 2009 at 8:20 amOnce again…I would be amiss if I let someone I have affection for get pummelled this page and say nothing. The experiences I share related to the chairman are MINE, not what I heard, not what my cousin’s best friend said…what I have experienced. Since I moved back to Toledo, Jon has been friendly, welcoming and hospitable. I cannot fathom someone not being able to talk with Jon
The foreign concept to the GOP is that Jon gives his loyality and expects it back…you get one chance to screw it up…then well…you may find yourself outside the benelovency. So with that in mind, I can see why there are those that seem to think they can’t work with Mr. Stainbrook.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:27 amMindy, I think it’s clear that there are many who have had a different historical experience with Jon Stainbrook.
If you ignore every single comment here that is a slam at him, the truth still remains that he is tape recording conversations with people without their knowledge and consent and will share them with the media.
That no matter how you feel about him, you do not have the expectation of privacy, confidentiality or trust. In politics the ability to have at least a limited level of trust is important.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:45 amMindy will you marry me? This way I can tell you I am not having an affair and you can believe me, not what history shows.
February 21st, 2009 at 10:05 ammindy wrote:
So Jon screws up continuously and gets a free ride. Anyone else is shit out of luck if they make a mistake. Now I know why the stain has so many friends. But, he must be doing something right to keep you so pleased Mindy.
February 21st, 2009 at 10:07 amLisa,
February 21st, 2009 at 10:12 amI couldn’t agree more with you on the issue of trust..one must give trust to get trust. I wish that message could get through to the likes of Sarantou, Olman, Kriner, Riechert, et al…Do I need to continue the laundry list??
Mindy – Maybe you should so those who are on the “shit list” are aware of the threat.
February 21st, 2009 at 10:17 amMindy is like many people, who see a different side of a person either because they’ve not yet experienced it, or they don’t want to accept what others are saying could be true. She has the right to her opinion.
I think we’ve all done it, my father warned me about my second husband as an example, he was right in that scenario, he was however wrong about a few of the men in my life. Like one man who at the time was a used car salesman who went on to much bigger and better things here in Lucas County.
I’ve met Jon, I’ve talked with Jon, he can display a very charismatic side and as long as you don’t disagree with him or at least openly disagree with him, everything is fine. There are other people in this community that I’ve taken issue with, disagreed with and pointed out less than flattering information on, that was true. Most of them realize my part is not done out of malice or hatred.
There are a few people that when they are blogged about they create a great deal of controversy/discussion, Jon is one of those. Not blogging about scenarios that involve him is not an option, especially ones like this one. All I can do is when needed remind people to not go overboard on their comments.
February 21st, 2009 at 10:24 ammindy wrote:
This whole discussion is moot. The successful GOP candidates are working around Stainbrook anyway. I was at the Sears-Wagoner victory party last November, and everyone was laughing how the only two successful Lucas GOP candidates held their victory party in Wood County and didn’t even bother to invite the chairman or his merry crew.
One of Sears guys told me they would give the chairman signs to make him feel involved and important, while the real work was done internally and independently.
John Kasich released his statewide team, and many counties had numerous members. Stainbrook’s ragamuffin bunch received an explicit slight.
This is beyond a trust issue. Successful candidates do not and will continue to not work with the chronically unsuccessful Jon Stainbrook, regardless how many threats he makes about smearing candidates in the Blade. Nobody trusted Jon to begin with, so this revelation of phone tapping isn’t earth shattering, it just adds another dimension of crazy to Stainbrook’s resume.
But yeah, keep deluding yourself, Mindy, that respect comes with a leadership position, and does not have to be earned.
February 21st, 2009 at 10:28 amMindy, we could debate who violated the trust first, but that would be pointless since it doesn’t appear you want to look at this from the other side.
I’d suggest that by making it known you are tape recording people and having used it as a threat in the past, that doesn’t help build bridges of trust.
It’s the responsibility of the chairman of the Lucas County Republican Party to be the one to unite the party, to inspire people to join him. To bring back people into the fold, it’s not the responsibility of the candidates/elected officials. The Lucas County Democratic party is an example of this, while the unity that is touted to exist does not exist in quite the level it is portrayed, and there is just as much of a history of game playing and back stabbing, it comes down to party leadership…If Ron Rothenbuler did what Jon Stainbrook did as far as tape recording private phone conversations and then released them to the media? He wouldn’t be party chairman for very long…
February 21st, 2009 at 10:31 amblast from the past wrote:
This explains so much. Thanks for sharing. Mindy do you have any insight?
February 21st, 2009 at 10:42 amFrom a fact checking standpoint, the Blade does confirm some of that while being reported from Jon’s point of view:
February 21st, 2009 at 10:52 amClayton…
Sure, I will respond…Back in ‘98 I was young and had a good attitude! I was in nursing school in Marion Ohio and I had no connection what so ever to Toledo.
When you read a post of mine I will keep it related to what I know or what I have experienced, not rehashed grist from the ancient rumor mill.
Hope this helps.
ps…Lisa, while I can’t specifically speak to Jon’s job description, I am sure he would be happy to discuss it with you!
mj
February 21st, 2009 at 10:56 amMindy, your ps was comical if you truly are as connected with Jon as you say you are.
The avenue of communication with me is the same for him as it is with anyone. Nor does my position change towards the items I post based on that, despite the fact that has been trotted out there from time to time as a claim. I’m fairly confident I understand the job description of a party chairman.
The reality is what it is, if this was done by the chairman of my party? People would be demanding he resign and I would expect that the Ohio Democratic Party would also step in.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:09 amJM33 writes in post 46,
“I was at the Sears-Wagoner victory party last November, and everyone was laughing how the only two successful Lucas GOP candidates held their victory party in Wood County”
Nice that the two candidates chose not to support businesses in Lucas County, but then again it wasn’t that large of an event since the fatcats and lobbyists who support those two probably didn’t make it in from Columbus for the party anyway!
JM33, I think that’s only funny in a sad way and may speak volumes about those candidates and their commitment to Lucas County!
February 21st, 2009 at 11:26 amMark wrote:
Dansack you lost. Pull up your big boy underwear and get over it. The senate district runs into Wood County so your argument only sticks against Sears.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:30 amUnfortunately Mark, our Democratic party and some of it’s membership can not claim to be taking the higher road when it comes your comment about commitment to Lucas County or even Ohio at times…
February 21st, 2009 at 11:32 amClayton…We have several Mark’s that comment here.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:34 amBARBARA SEARS COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THE PEOPLE OF THE 46TH DISTRICT SHE IS A FAT CAT AND IS ONLY IN IT FOR THE POWER AND THE MONEY. ALSO MR NOT AGAIN YOU ARE THE DUMB ASS AND SMART AS A BOX OF ROCKS.. YOU CANT EVEN SPELL MY NAME CORRECT IT IS FRIEDMAN NOT FREIDMAN YOU STUPID IDIOT
February 21st, 2009 at 11:38 amClayton,
Nixon lost in 1960 and came back to win two terms as President. Our form of government requires having a loyal opposition to policies which favor the few over the many and politicians who do the same. We’re not going away in NW Ohio, so deal with it.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:55 ammichael l. friedman wrote:
FYI – When you type in all caps it is considered rude and you really just appear an angry liberal, try softening it up a bit. It also makes you look like the “stupid idiot”. Looks like not again made the forgivable mistake of forgetting the i before e except after c rule. Or maybe not again simply doesn’t care enough about what you think to give a crap about how your name is spelled.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:56 amLisa…
My ps to you regarding Jon’s job description was purly tongue-in-cheek! Meant only as an attempt at humor…no offense intended!
But ya gotta admit Mr Stainbrook is good for the blog ratings…
Jon c…I have it on good authority I am just not the marrying kind but I am flattered at your offer!
mj
February 21st, 2009 at 11:58 amAs this slowly becomes a free-for-all against Mike Friedman, Not Again, Barb Sears, Mark Danforth, etc, let’s not lose sight of the fact that Jon Stainbrook appears to be taping phone calls, and using them as he deems necessary to make a point.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:05 pmMark wrote:
Then Dansack should have run again! Face it, Sears was a much easier candidate to beat than Wagoner. Maybe Dansack is really gathering steam to run against Wagoner again in 2012.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:06 pmI can see the momentum building……….
Honestly Mindy? I’d rather not have that be the reason people come here. It’s actually a disappointing thing to me that much more important issues don’t get the same level of discussion that topics like this one generate.
One of the tenets that I’d love to eliminate would be the concept of negativity drives traffic. It is however one I’ve accepted comes with the territory and that if I want to point out something I personally feel is wrong that involves certain members in our community, this will happen. Though there is still a small part of me that hopes that someday that could change. It would be tempting to not just post about those who create this, but then I’d be totally admitting defeat and I’m not quite ready to do that.
As an aside? I wasn’t offended, considering all that I’ve experienced since I started doing this? My skin has become pretty thick and thankfully I have not lost my sense of humor.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:07 pmmindy wrote:
If you ever change your mind I’ll be waiting
February 21st, 2009 at 12:08 pmThank you GMAC, that is the basis of this original post and is something that should be the main focus.
So far no one has disagreed with me that if this had been done by the Democratic Party Chair not only would people here in Lucas County demand his resignation but that the Ohio Democratic Party would get involved.
In the past when this came up, there was no confirmed evidence beyond hearsay and rumors, now it is 100% confirmed thanks to this Blade article.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:11 pmI should add, after reading Maggie’s post on this, she states that the recording of this private conversation between Jon Stainbrook and Lynn Olman took place at party headquarters, that is where it was taped, which means Mr. Olman did not select to discuss this issue with Mr. Stainbrook on the phone, he thought it was a private conversation in the party headquarters building that was tape recorded…
She also raises some thoughts that this is more than just a simple issue of trust.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:39 pmAs a member of the democratic party executive committee, what stainbrook did would never happen in our party, and i would have gotten chris redfern involved as part of the ODP exec committee
sorry folks but mr not again and I do not get along…he is an ultra right wing neo-con, he makes rush limbaugh and billo the clown look like liberals
February 21st, 2009 at 1:28 pmJM33 wrote:
JM- If you go to the rechargeohio site, http://www.rechargeohio.com/index.php/about/68, you will notice that there are many counties with only one person onboard, and in searching our surrounding counties, most did not have a party chairman as their organizing chairperson.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:46 pmI wonder where the leadership is in the GOP when something like this happens? We are blessed to have a few republican elected officials in Lucas County. Who knows? Maybe they’ll stand up and be counted.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:47 pmmichael l. friedman wrote:
I love it when you make a fool of yourself freidman, which is every time you open your mouth.
Actually, I am a moderate, and I am pro choice.
February 21st, 2009 at 5:50 pmI don’t actually think there is anything that exists on this planet that could make Rush Limbaugh look like a liberal. I mean seriously……
February 21st, 2009 at 6:31 pmLisa – in #62 you mention that more important issues do not get discussed, and I really agree with that. I started to write about that very issue last night but didn’t. I refer to stories about the Intermodal and they get only a handful of responses. Toledo is a natural for an Intermodal facility and I am afraid it is going to fall by the wayside. A Toledo Intermodal ties in with the Light Rail System people are talking about too. There is going to be Federal money available for this type of business as well as Green developments and we are going to miss it.
February 21st, 2009 at 7:40 pmI am a lifelong Democrat and I am a current member of the Lucas County Democratic Party Central Committee. Lucas County, as every county in Ohio, benefits from two viable political parties. The Stain’s actions are reminiscent of the types of things that have divided the Lucas County Democratic Party. Although I have never heard of, or seen, evidence that secret taping went on by the “A” or “B” team Democrats, would I be shocked if this were revealed? Heavens no!!
Don’t get me wrong. I take great pleasure when there are Democratic victories over Republicans, in general. I believe strongly that the overall Democratic policy positions are far superior to those of Republicans. But the county, the state, and the nation are better served when the candidates and elected officials of the two parties concentrate upon articulating their views on vital issues. This practice is sabotaged when a party activist cannot openly discuss issues with a party Chair. That’s the real issue here.
For the record also, I have a lot of respect for many Republicans. Even though I’ve disagreed with their public positions, some have been very open to listening respectfully to the other side of issues, and finding areas of agreement. Among these are some of the people mentioned above: George Sarantou, Lynn Olman, and Mark Wagoner.
And, finally, multiple kudos to Ron Rothenbuler for repairing the rift in the Lucas County Democratic Party, at least enough to keep the animosity to a minimum between factions. The Republicans need someone like him, or, if you prefer a Republican example, the late Jim Brennan, to create the atmosphere of true competitiveness in the county again. Even at age 61, I am, perhaps, naive still. I truly believe that honest public debate leads to better government. I guess I’ll go to my grave still believing this. And that’s a very non-partisan statement, from a very partisan person!
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:34 amVery well said, Dale!
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:07 pmThe calls for resignation have begun:
http://kylesisk.typepad.com/sisker/2009/02/what-the-heck-is-going-on-in-toledo.html
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:19 pmDan Demann wrote:
I’ll sign that petition. Hopefully Stainbrook learns from Richard Nixon and resigns before this continues to spiral out of control.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:28 pm