Swing State Project

« OH-02: Paul Hackett National Press | Main | Campaign Manager Joe Braun »

Thursday, July 28, 2005

Emphatic Denial from Joe Braun

Posted by DavidNYC

Editor's note: We have received the following emphatic denial from Joe Braun of the Schmidt campaign. At present, we are removing the materials in question. We will keep you apprised of any further developments in this story. We are printing Mr. Braun's denial in full.

I have reviewed the materials posted on your blog site that make outrageous and libelous allegations about me. I emphatically deny these allegations are true and demand that you remove them immediately from your website now that I have placed you on notice of their false nature. As you are aware, I am not a public official and you do not enjoy any type of qualified privilege to place patently untrue and malicious statements about me on your blog. I am an attorney who regularly lectures on libel and slander at a local school and am very aware of the current state of both Ohio and federal law in this area. If you will not remove these outrageous statements and retract them as unfounded I will pursue all legal avenues available, including but not limited to, an injunction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio seeking to have them removed and holding you libel for damages associated therewith.

Please be guided accordingly.

I would appreciate an immediate response.

Sincerely,

Joe Braun

UPDATE: (Bob) Steve Gilliard disagreed with the post in question:

Now, I disagree with Bob, there is nothing perverted about BDSM. It's perfectly acceptable, as private behavior. It isn't my taste, but neither is yogurt.

Posted at 06:43 PM in Site News | Technorati

Comments

Of course, only 48 hours ago Jean Schmidt was denying being a rubber stamp.

Posted by: Bob Brigham at July 28, 2005 07:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

He seems rather whipped up about it to me. It obviously stung a little.

It's a pity he didnt show the same vigor and verve when he was busy sliming hackett - he ought to be careful about threatening lawsuits - he isnt the only Lawyer in Ohio.

anyhow, maybe Jeff Gannon will run a story about it all ?

Posted by: Pounder at July 28, 2005 09:02 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Hi, I love this blog and I'm very excited about the possibility of a democratic win in the race on Tuesday. Definitely keep up the good work! I do have to say though, that I was a bit disappointed by the post attacking the campaign manager's personal behavior. I think that if progressives are going to claim to be about minding your own business when it comes to other people's personal choices, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, we need to be above labeling people as "perverts" for their personal behavior. I understand that this can be tough in a crucial political race, especially when people on the other side are engaging in FAR WORSE tactics, so I certainly don't have anything against you nor do I think it was malicious. Nor do I have too much sympathy for the offended party, who probably should know how to let that stuff bounce off him. In any case though, I think we need to try to be above making personal attacks on political opponents if at all possible. (During the Swift Boat crap last Summer, I would have had no problem if Kerry or anyone on his team called the President a liar and a coward as often as possible, despite the fact that it's pretty much ad hominem. In that case it was completely deserved.)

Posted by: laser72 at July 28, 2005 09:08 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

uhhhh...
"I am an attorney who regularly lectures on libel and slander at a local school and am very aware of the current state of both Ohio and federal law in this area.
...
...holding you libel "

Libel?

liable (adj)
1. Legally obligated; responsible: liable for military service. See Synonyms at responsible.
2. At risk of or subject to experiencing or suffering something unpleasant. Used with to: liable to criminal charges; liable to diabetes.
3. Likely. Often used with reference to an unfavorable outcome: In a depression banks are liable to fail.

just sayin'.

Posted by: Jo Fish at July 28, 2005 09:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Public official he is not, but public figure he appears to be, and that is what matters.

If even a football coach is a public figure and therefore gets the "Actual Malice" and "Clear and Convincing" standards, a campaign diirector for a congressional race, where almost all speech is political, would certainly be a "Public Figure". He has put himself into the discourse and must take what comes. I would think he has a tough row to hoe if he wants to get out of "Public Figure" status.

If he's a lawyer, he knows that he's full of crap.

My guess is that he's just trying to dominate you.

And he ain't real good at it, either!

Shame - no good at the one thing he loves.

I feel his pain. (That should make him feel a tad better!)

Posted by: Quaker at July 28, 2005 09:19 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Either Joe Braun has been "set up," or he's lying.

The BDSM profiles, whose screenshots are shown on Annatopia's site (http://annatopia.com/archives/001313.html), refer to Braun's AOL email address.

Everyone should follow this link to decide for themselves if he's been set up or lying. The information there will cause people to wonder: is he a kinky BDSM master, or is this some other "deanofcorn" whose email address, age, height, weight, and residence happen to be the same as Joe Braun's?

Note that I have not drawn a conclusion in this message. I am merely pointing to information on another site, and telling readers to decide for themselves. Braun would not be able to sue anyone for their remarks unless they come right out and say that it's him. I'm clearly not saying that -- as I said, there is a possibility that he could have been "set up" or that there is another "deanofcorn" who, like Braun, is a 5'10 195# Cincinnati resident.

Posted by: eightball at July 28, 2005 09:21 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I said it before, but the post got taken down... Hackett should come out with the following statement:

"I am sad to see this campaign turn to negative personal attacks. I want to go on record as publicly condeming those who would try to make the sexual practices of my opponent's campaign manager an issue in this campaign. I call on Jean Schmidt to similarly condemn those who have attempted personally attack me and my millitary service."

take the high road on negative campaigns, and at the same time put it out their that this guy isn't into the repub's definition of family values. that's what rove would do, and they would win.

Posted by: BenR at July 29, 2005 12:04 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

BenR- that's a pretty disgusting strategy you've outlined. Whether it would work or not is irrelevant to me. If the Hackett campaign did something so slimy, sleazy, pathetic, I would certainly regret the money I contributed to them. It still would probably mean that they're the more innocent party in this campaign, given the shit from the republicans about his military service. But I cannot support parties or candidates who play games like that and I'm having a hard time tonight tolerating people who do approve of them.

Posted by: laser72 at July 29, 2005 12:31 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The BDSM profiles, whose screenshots are shown on Annatopia's site (http://annatopia.com/archives/001313.html), refer to Braun's AOL email address.

Not really. It's just that the local part "deanofcorn" of Braun's AOL.COM email address is the same as the user name of the BDSM profile.

BUT:
Anna from annatopia.com emailed me an explanation (hopefully she'll update her post in that regard):
Before the profile got taken down, she registered with the BDSM site and sent the deanofcorn user an email via the website's interface and got a bounce from AOL via the BDSM mail server indicating that the "deanofcorn@aol.com" mail address was in fact connected to the "deanofcorn" profile (which you couldn't find out just by looking at the profile).

So there you have it.

Posted by: fxd at July 29, 2005 02:15 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I wouldn't sign up for Joe Braun's class on libel, since he appears to have never heard of the concept of prior restraint. But I didn't agree with the concept of the original post, and I think it probably would have cost us more votes than it gained, if anyone who wasn't already pro-Hackett read SSP, that is.

Posted by: Steve M at July 29, 2005 04:56 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

God yes I hope he sues.

You guys need to write him a letter begging him to sue.

Like Gilliard says, it's all about the discovery.

Posted by: Dan at July 29, 2005 09:33 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

As a disclaimer, I do not offer this as legal advice to any party, but to edify the public. No one should rely on this in proceeding or not proceeding with making potentially libelous or slanderous remarks but instead shold consult an attorney.

I wouldn't go jumping to the conclusion that a campaign manager is a "public figure" or that his personal sex life is a "matter of public concern." On the other hand, I'm not sure Braun should go jumping to conclusions that he ISN'T. Doing a quick LEXIS search for "defamation" as a core term and the word "campaign manager" in the case, I get four cases with local and state campaign managers as plaintiffs in defamation suits.

Two say they are public figures, two say not. These seem to rise and fall on the particular characteristics of the case. I'm not sure that anyone can say with certainty how this case would come out.

Campaign manager as public figure:

Kilbane v. Sabonjian, 347 N.E.2d 757 (Ill. App. 1976)
Nevada Indep. Broadcasting Corp. v. Allen, 664 P.2d 337 (Nev. 1983)

Campaign manager not public figure:

Lewis v. Vallis, 255 N.E.2d 337 (Mass. 1970)
Greaney v. Ferrer, 718 N.Y.S.2d 58 (App. Div. 2000)

And, Steve M., I'm not sure how a private letter threatening action constitutes a prior restraint. Only a government restraint, like an injunction from a court or a requirement that one's comments be "passed" by a government review board, would be a prior restraint.

Posted by: crimlawyer05 at July 29, 2005 11:44 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Sorry, I missed his threat at the end about the injunction. I take the last comment back, Steve M. I should have read more carefully.

Posted by: crimlawyer05 at July 29, 2005 11:54 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Sorry for the multiple posts:

Is this the same Joe Braun? Does anybody have a bio on him?

http://www.kernel.uky.edu/1995/spring/041095/041017.html

Posted by: crimlawyer05 at July 29, 2005 12:27 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Oh, yes, I believe it is. The only Joseph Braun listed in Martindale-Hubbell is a 1995 graduate of U of Kentucky, and 1998 U of Toledo Law School.

http://www.strausstroy.com/profiles.html (click on Braun).

Read the Kernel article linked to above -- not much tolerance for "deviant" sexual behavior from Mr. Braun.

To quote Mr. Braun, in reference to homosexuals: "when they make a public proclamation of what they do and how they do it, they shouldn't bitch when people look at them funny."

Something about glass houses and stone-throwing comes to mind . . . .

Posted by: crimlawyer05 at July 29, 2005 12:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I feel sorry that Democratic campaigns have consistently have had their jobs complicated even further by the obviously high strung people (who might even have a stick up their ass) like laser72.

There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with what BenR suggested, and I might add, it's pressure from people like laser72 that make Democrats afraid to stand up for anything at all, and that laser72 attacked and threatened the Hackett campaign because BenR merely suggested it is what fuels the "wooly-headed liberal" perception so many of have Democrats and liberals.

OK, keep going like this... and see Republicans win in perpetuity

: It still would probably mean that they're the more innocent party in this campaign

You're damn right it would, and it's not "more innocent"... they're *innocent* period. If they take Ben up on his suggestion, they've done NOTHING wrong at all!

However, I disagree with one thing BenR said Rove wouldn't limit himself to "the high road"... he would do whatever is necessary to win. He'd take the low road himself and have the candidate take the low road if he thought it would win them an election.

Posted by: progressivemuslimnj at July 29, 2005 01:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment