|
|
| Also listed in: Ohio Bloggers |
There were times last fall in Ohio that I thought Scott Pullins wanted Ken Blackwell to win, more than Ken Blackwell did.
The blogosphere can be the Wild West of the electronic age. If there was a GOP gunslinger it was Mr. Pullins. Not subject to the juvenile name-calling of Matt Naugle, whose antics included taking a golf-club to a Bob Taft Bobblehead doll, Pullins nonetheless went down a fruitless track of resurrecting lies about Ted Strickland’s sexuality and, at the same time, made public innuendo about Barbara Sykes having dinner with a friend who is a lobbyist in town.
It was gutter. But then again, politics in Columbus for years has been gutter – there just weren’t blogs to provide an outlet for the innuendo. When journalists have the responsibility to ferret out truth, much of the innuendo never gets printed and thank god rightfully so.
As a blogger, just last fall, PO heard allegations about a prominent state legislator who was having an affair with two staffers. When the staff members found out about each other, we heard they received significant government bonuses; we also heard innuendo about a state legislator caught compromised with a young man in a car. PO reported neither, determining it as unsubstantiated innuendo – self-policing (which is why names are not part of this post and I can categorically say I have no idea if they are true or not true.)
So, while I personally felt Mr. Pullins’ allegations against then-Congressman Strickland and Rep. Sykes were factually vacuous and morally repugnant – I wondered if this was the future of blogs. I also wondered about those who said they were appalled by Pullins’ rumor-mongering – then worked hard to spread the same misinformation. Are the sins of the blogs, so much different from the sins of those whispering in the Statehouse shadows?
But, there is a line in this medium and Mr. Pullins has a habit of crossing that line – and his wife has now joined him.
Last Monday, PO’s former Online Director Eric Vessels’ wife, Holly, received a call from someone identifying herself as Mrs. Pullins. According to her note-taking, the call went as follows:
Katherine Pullins called our home this morning at a little before 12 p.m.
When the phone rang, the number was blocked, and Eric answered.
The woman did not identify herself to him, but simply asked for Holly. When I got on the phone she said "you don't know me, but my name is Catherine Pullins, I live in Knox County, my husband is Scott Pullins."
Me: OK
K: Your husband owns a website called plunderbund
me: yes
K: on that website your husband has continually posted things about my husband. Is your husband an attorney?
Me: no
K: Are you an attorney?
Me: no
K: Do you have a job?
Me: yes
K: Does your husband have a job?
Me: yes
K: Are you homeowners?
Me: yes
K: OK. Well my husband is an attorney and I have asked your husband to remove a post that is attacking our business, and I have not heard back from him. I am a calling you to let you know that if the post is not taken down, we will file a lawsuit against you, and we can garnish your wages, and your husband’s wages, and take your home.
ME: I understand where you're coming from, but I don't appreciate you calling my home and threatening me and my family with a lawsuit. Don't call my home and threaten me
K: I'm not saying we are going to file a lawsuit, I'm saying we could file a lawsuit. I'm just trying to speak to you wife to wife because you and your husband are partners, and you stand to lose everything if he doesn't remove that post
ME: ok. I don't follow my husband’s blog. I have nothing to do with my husband's blog
K: Well he continually allows JOSEPH, who posts anonymously, to post things about my husband. And now he's attacking our business, and I am sick and tired of this. I'm not going to put up with this anymore.
ME: ok. Can you please tell me your names again so that I can go back through the blog and read the threads so that I can be more educated when talking to my husband?
K: Yes. Our last name is Pullins. p-u-l-l-i-n-s
ME: ok. I will go back through and read the posts so that I can know what's going on. So what you are saying is that JOSEPH recently posted something that you want removed from the site, and Eric has not responded to your email request to remove the posting?
K: That's correct. If Joseph was man enough to include his email in his post, I would have contacted him directly. But since he's not, and since your husband owns the blog, it's his responsibility, and you guys are the one's that are going to end up getting sued, if not by us, by someone else down the road.
Mrs. Pullins was obviously busy on Monday’s Memorial Day holiday. She also emailed Buckeye State Blog’s Jerid in New Hampshire with the following email which he posted:
Jerid:
I see you have pulled down the horrible comment made about me and physically threatening my husband. However, you have failed to address the issue of how you will stop this from happening in the future. As I told you in my previous email, that comment has been cut and pasted into another website and now is forever "out there". You are responsible for that comment, since it was allowed to be posted on your website.
You were very quick to hold me accountable for my posts on your website, demanding that I disclose myself. I now expect you to hold other posters to the same standards. I also want all posts that contain personal attacks
against my husband to be taken down immediately. It is okay to publish comments that attack his opinions, however, it is not okay to publish comments that attack him personally.
Additionally, I expect you to demand that each poster who posts about Scott to identify themselves, just as you demanded of me. Again, Jerid, as a future attorney, you should start taking responsibility for the things you publish. And, frankly, your disclaimer that you are not responsible for the opinions of so others is hogwash. It is your site and therefore you are responsible for all content.
I expect a response Jerid. I have had enough of the crap bloggers post under the guise of "freedom of speech." And, since you allowed that horrible post to stand unchecked, then you are most definitely responsible for it.
Kathy Elliott Pullins
Perhaps Mr. Pullins is regretting the conundrum he created in his zeal to attack Congressman Strickland and Rep. Sykes with bedroom innuendo, now that he is on the receiving end. Or, perhaps as some in the blogosphere have predicted, Mr. Pullins wants to run for State Representative. But in reality Mrs. Pullins’ blog-fatigue may in fact have been brought on by a run of very contentious and public scrapes brought on by her husband’s own activity that includes:
• A January 27, 2007, Columbus Dispatch article where Mr. Pullins filed suit against an alleged cyberstalker. The Dispatch reported:
“Pullins went to court last week, shortly after Curious Mind posted excerpts from a public record: a Knox County sheriff's office report on a domestic violence complaint involving Pullins and his wife.”
“No charges were filed after Kathy Pullins withdrew her Nov. 17 statement, which the police report said involved threats made over the phone. Mr. Pullins said that deputies were called when his in-laws overreacted to an argument he had with his wife, and that he never threatened her.”
• The Plain Dealer of October 25, 2006, reported on the conservative tabloid media reporting on rumors of Congressman Strickland’s (now Governor) sexuality fueled by Mr. Pullins although he acknowledged he had no substantiation :
“Busy fanning the flames of this conflict has been an unlikely Blackwell supporter - Scott Pullins, a Mount Vernon lawyer who heads the Ohio Taxpayers Association. A former ally of ex-House Speaker Larry Householder, Pullins frequently clashed with Blackwell in 2004 when Blackwell and federal authorities were investigating the fund-raising practices of Householder and his top aides. No charges were ever filed.”
“Pullins has repeatedly questioned Strickland's sexuality in interviews and on his political blog. Recently, he took his attacks to a new level, publishing lurid allegations about Strickland without any evidence.”
“Pullins said as much in a disclaimer he included: "WARNING: As I stated above, these are entirely rumors at this point with no substantiation whatsoever!"”
• The October 26, 2006, Plain Dealer reported that Mr. Pullins has criticized a conservative economics professor with name-calling and sued GOP State Representative Thom Collier for libel:
“Trashed Richard Vedder, an economics professor at Ohio University, calling Vedder "a slobbering, drunken old fool.” Vedder a conservative Ohio icon and no friend of progressives, nevertheless has a long and impressive list of accomplishments and awards .
“Pullins, a lawyer, sued Collier pro se for libel in Knox County Common Pleas Court after Collier ripped Pullins in a story in the Canton Repository.’’ The story reported that the city of Canal Fulton was paying Pullins $200 an hour to represent the city in negotiations with the Eastern Shawnee tribe of Oklahoma to build a casino in Stark County - never mind that none of the tribe's many efforts to dot Ohio with Indian casinos have done anything but help enrich lawyers and consultants.
"This guy's in trouble every week," the story quoted Collier as saying about Pullins. "He attacked me in the newspaper. He sent information to members (of the Legislature) to try to keep the appointment from taking place. He helped my Democratic opponent. He helps who pays him. He proved himself for who he is. He's a scoundrel, liar and cheat."
The story quotes Pullins as responding: "He can call me those names, but I've never cheated anyone or anything. He has."
Earlier this week, Pullins was forced to apologize for suing Collier. He told a Knox County court that he sued Collier, believing that he was responsible for a "public relations campaign'' being waged largely on local internet Web sites. Pullins later learned that the information posted on the sites was not associated with Collier, he said.
The visiting judge asked Pullins to apologize, according to the Mount Vernon News. "Pullins apologized without qualification and the matter was dropped,'' the newspaper said.
• In a June 7, 2006, Plain Dealer article, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell subpoenaed Pullins for his role in a heated State Senate primary campaign.
The article stated: In the Schmidt-Niehaus race, Niehaus won by 22 votes after the Taxpayers Association spent more than $130,000 on ads that characterized Niehaus as "anti-taxpayer" even though Schmidt voted for last year's 20 percent state sales tax increase and Niehaus opposed it.
• In the June 2, 2002, Plain Dealer, we learn that Pullins, as the head of the National Taxpayer Association, flip-flopped by supporting tax increases – then insisting they weren’t increases at all. “When is a tax increase not a tax increase? Apparently, when the Ohio Taxpayers Association says it's not,’’ Stephen Ohlemacher wrote.
“The association told state lawmakers in a memo last week that a vote to increase cigarette taxes and impose a new tax on trusts would not violate lawmakers' pledges not to raise taxes. Each term, dozens of lawmakers sign a no-new-taxes pledge circulated by the association.
“Now, for the second time in six months, the association has given its blessing to what can be defined only as a tax increase.”
While Mr. Pullins and I have long had a cordial relationship from my days as an aide at the Statehouse (just last week I received a rare note from him on one of my columns) we disagree on most points almost all of the time. Nevertheless, I have not seen or felt the club of Goliath that these public instances reveal.
But, I have to say regardless of that cordiality, a law license in Ohio is not a club for revenge. The Ohio Revised Code is not designed as an enticement to bully the wives of bloggers, or to settle scores with ideological rivals and political enemies, or even to split hairs over rumor and innuendo.
The Bully of the Blogosphere has to understand that a line is crossed when all he publishes is little more than rumor, or name-calling or unsubstantiated gossip.
Indeed, if Mrs. Pullins is feeling blog fatigue and that is what set her on course last Memorial Day to use her husband’s legal knowledge as a bully club in her phone call and her email – the fault “dear Brutus” may lie deep within the dormers of their own eyes.
The great Kansas Newspaper Editor William Allen White once defined news as “The facts reported simply and fairly, and truth will take care of itself.” So in the end, regardless of how blogs evolve, and whether the juvenile name-calling, bullying, and bedroom whispers in electronic type are written -- truth just will take care of itself.
You don’t have to reply to outrageous rumor. You don’t have to defend what you know to be true and right. And you do not have to bully or threaten lawsuits when truth is righteous and conscience is clear.
Just ask Ted and Frances when you pass by the big house in Bexley.
Truth does take care of itself.
Update From Brian Rothenberg:
[Having reviewed the comments below in this weeks Shadows it appears that the point of the column is lost on some. Rather than humbling those that choose to use this medium in bullying fashion, the response has been largely to move the rumble of others over to POs site. So let me in advance caution readers that the comment section below is the worst rather than the best of what blogs have to offer. I've toyed with deleting the entire thread but in the end let it stand as a record -- a metaphorical exclamation point if you will -- to the problem that led to the need for the column to begin with.]
reason enough right there to stand up to the so-called "bully of the blogosphere"!!
Good column on Pullins but it might be wise for those of us to the left of center to remember it's not only the yo-yo's on the right who abuse the blogosphere (and truth). Neither side has crystal clear purity surrounding it.
With that said, in my opinion it does seem that the right is the sleaziest and most despicable when it comes to such writing. But, of course, that's my bias and reflects what I read and sometimes pay attention to.
Your column, on the other hand, seemed to me to be well-documented, thoughtful, honest, and about something that matters. Hard to ask for more than that.
Bill
* 4 eggs
* 1 1/4 cups vegetable oil
* 2 cups white sugar
* 2 teaspoons vanilla extract
* 2 cups all-purpose flour
* 2 teaspoons baking soda
* 2 teaspoons baking powder
* 1/2 teaspoon salt
* 2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
* 3 cups grated carrots
* 1 cup chopped pecans
*
* 1/2 cup butter, softened
* 8 ounces cream cheese, softened
* 4 cups confectioners' sugar
* 1 teaspoon vanilla extract
* 1 cup chopped pecans
DIRECTIONS
1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C). Grease and flour a 9x13 inch pan.
2. In a large bowl, beat together eggs, oil, white sugar and 2 teaspoons vanilla. Mix in flour, baking soda, baking powder, salt and cinnamon. Stir in carrots. Fold in pecans. Pour into prepared pan.
3. Bake in the preheated oven for 40 to 50 minutes, or until a toothpick inserted into the center of the cake comes out clean. Let cool in pan for 10 minutes, then turn out onto a wire rack and cool completely.
4. To Make Frosting: In a medium bowl, combine butter, cream cheese, confectioners' sugar and 1 teaspoon vanilla. Beat until the mixture is smooth and creamy. Stir in chopped pecans. Frost the cooled cake.
Eine halbe Tasse Staubzucker
Ein Viertel Teelöffel Salz
Eine Messerspitze türkisches Haschisch
Ein halbes Pfund Butter
Ein Teelöffel Vanillenzucker
Ein halbes Pfund Mehl
Einhundertfünfzig Gramm gemahlene Nüsse
Ein wenig extra Staubzucker
... und keine Eier
In eine Schüssel geben
Butter einrühren
Gemahlene Nüsse zugeben und
Den Teig verkneten
Augenballgroße Stücke vom Teig formen
Im Staubzucker wälzen und
Sagt die Zauberwörter
Simsalbimbamba Saladu Saladim
Auf ein gefettetes Backblech legen und
Bei zweihundert Grad für fünfzehn Minuten backen und
KEINE EIER
Bei zweihundert Grad für fünfzehn Minuten backen und
Keine Eier ..
Ryan Fissel
But have you ever really read what was said about my wife and defended by some left wing bloggers.
I think the line was "Kathy's pu**y is so loose that f**king her would be like throwing a hotdog down a hallway."
To me that is beyond the pale and fighting words as far as I'm concerned. If those are the kinds of folks that you want to defend then go for it.
You can put links in your comments.
A link to the disgusting comment you assert was made would help the reader verify that your assertion is in fact true.
What is ironic is that your wife herself is reported to have called people skanks and fat pigs in a recent court hearing. You simply cannot claim the high ground here given this.
Speaking of fighting words, what would you think of someone's wife calling your wife threatening to sue you and take your house? Friendly conversation?
I'm very glad to see you have the humility to apologize without qualification. Maybe you can get your wife to do so to mine. That'd be nice.
As we were exiting the courtroom, your father in law was trying his best to intimidate those in attendance by blocking the isleway out the door. 2 attendees from Apple Valley nearly had to crawl over him to get out of the door. Your wife was standing outside the doorway trying to identify each person as they left, glaring at them, and called one gentleman, who isn't even a poster, a "fat pig". He said, "excuse me?" and your wife claimed she was talking about "my husband". You Scott, are a liar. You lied under oath, and you are lying on here.
Scott, you were not even in the courtroom when your wife made the remark to Ms. St. Jean, so how can you say she never called anyone any names?
Its pretty hilarious that you have called me and my family vile names for a year, but you're now up in arms because you think you heard my wife call someone a skank.
Your wife marched into the Courtroom Thursday for your hearing regarding the illegal subpoenas, followed closely by your father-in-law, and made a beeline for where I was seated, and sat in front of me (she and your father in law were eventually asked to move by the Court Baliff). Your father-in-law got 'in my face,' announced who he was, and I replied that I was certainly aware of who he was, as I had seen him following me around town taking my picture. Your wife sat down in front of me, looked at me, and insulted me in front of several witnesses.
Your wife later stood outside the courtroom door (along with your in-laws) at the end, staring down those who came to support me, making it difficult for them to exist the courtroom, trying to intimidate to the end, and spewing insults, calling one man in particular a fat pig.
She was also observed walking by those who wished to view the proceedings on Friday saying, very loudly, and in a juvenile manner "P.U."
Do not lie to the people on this blog. There are witnesses. And as they have already shown that they support me in my fight against your bullying and intimidation tactics, I am sure they will also testify to your wife's nastiness, her insults, and your entire family's attempts to intimidate, even in a Courthouse. It should also be noted that your wife was observed taking down the license numbers of all the cars who were entered by those attending the hearing.
Don't try to cover this up Mr. Pullins. She was observed by many witnesses. And we in Mount Vernon are awfully, awfully tired of your entire family.
1/19/2007 - Charged with stalking Scott Pullins and his family.
1/9/2007 - Found liable for $9369.24 PLUS INTEREST AT 10% PER ANNUM FROM 9/5/04 AND COSTS to The Ohio State University
11/8/2005 - Found liable for $638.52 PLUS INTEREST AT 10% PER ANNUM FROM 9/16/03 AND COSTS to Credit Adjustments Inc.
1/10/2005 - Charged with Two Counts of Felony Theft and Two Counts of Felony Forgery, both Fifth Degree Felonies. Entered diversion program.
4/29/2004 - Found liable for $680.41 PLUS INTEREST AT 10% PER ANNUM AND COSTS to Capital One Bank
5/10/2001 - No Seatbelt/Passenger
4/9/1999 - Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol
5/18/1997 - Failure to Register Dog
2/7/1996 - Open Container
4/5/1994 - Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol
12/21/1989 - Driving Under Suspension or Revocation
6/21/1989 - Reckless Operation
5/15/1987 - Driving Under Suspension or Revocation
12/5/1985 - Failing to Display Valid Plates
4/17/1983 - Speeding
6/15/1983 - Passing Bad Checks
No one cares about her record... except you. It doesn't diminish the validity or relevance of her statements regarding your actions and the actions of your family.
You lost TWICE in court last week in your crusade against Ms St Jean. Move on, Scott. Focus on salvaging what's left of your public reputation and your dignity.
Better reread the revised Code of Ethics buddy - you just broke a few by posting a 24 year history of my quite colorful life - which no one cares about - you see, I'm not a lawyer - you are - for now - I'm just the person in Mount Vernon whose standing up to the 'bully of the blogosphere' - with the support of the majority of community, the common pleas, appellate, and Ohio supreme courts
Want to share with these goodo people how you were FORCED to apologize in the hearing regarding the illegal subpoenas you filed by the sitting Judge, and how your ludicrous CPO attempt was throw out of court by our local Common Pleas Judge, and you were given a lecture on FREE SPEECH? Hm? I was NEVER charged with stalking good buddy - another lie saved for posterity
Oh yeah - want to tell the good people here how you testified Friday that you have been treated by a psychiatrist for the last year, and a psychologist for the last six months, but that you couldn't remember either of their names during the hearing Friday? Want to try to explain that to everyone?
Better yet, how about telling all of this your clients, so that they can be advised of your mental stability, or lack thereof
Oh, and thank you for posting...........it's much appreciated...........
In fact, if you read the post closely, I believe it addresses such decorum.
I also consider it as vile as the innuendo about our Governor. They both represent the disingenuous ideas of a mind bereft of logic.
Publically apologize to the Stricklands and I'd personally call on the blogger to publically apologize to your wife.
True enough. A link would have sufficed (if such a comment actually is out there on some blog). Try googling that quote. Comes up with no matches.
And look at who posted it ... "User from Mount Vernon, OH". The person simply says , "I" and "my wife", and does not self-identify as Scott Pullins.
Click on the "User from Mount Vernon, OH" link, and an error page pops up. Strange.
Maybe this is NOT Mr. Pullins, or it is Mr. Pullins and he is storing away "nuts for the winter" by posting vile comments about his wife here at Progress Ohio. It's impossible to tell WHO this "User from Mount Vernon, OH" is, to someone reading the blog.
I can't tell you why my name doesn't show up, it does on my screen.
Scott Pullins
scott@pullinsreport.com
We then gave Ms. Sykes, the lobbyist, and her campaign multiple opportunities to deny, comment, or ask us not to print it. They refused to do so.
So if I'm a group, and I want to sic the OTA on a political enemy, to whom do I send the check -- and what will this cost?
Kind of like the Dems who are supposedly against the war and against the civil liberties encroachments of various patriot acts (state and federal), yet still continue to vote for legislators who were enablers on these issues.
Then there is the LGBTQ support for Strickland after he said (9 months ago):
"I have not and do not support same-sex marriage, period." - Ted Strickland (Cleveland News Channel 5)
SOURCE: Link
I thought that was a bigger issue, but ironically bloggers harping on his sexuality served as a smokescreen that prevented Ohioans from finding out that Strickland opposed "equal protection under the law".
I know that Equality Ohio knew about this at the time - yet they blindly pushed ahead with their support for Ted. Not exactly progressive, IMHO.
I am damn sick and tired of you country moralists trying to shove your brand of "morality" down our throats. You did it in 2004 with your sick marriage amendment that was so bad even Gov. Taft and the Chamber of Commerce was against. Who the hell gives you the right to make moral judgements for the rest of us?
As for the rest of you, publishing poems in German and Spanish was pure intellectual masturbation. I don't know any of the rest of you. . . whether you played a part in provoking retaliation.
Does Mt. Vernon have a newspaper? What the hell is it reporting on down there?
I don't know what is happening in Knox County, but why don't you get on I71 and take a drive up here and spend a couple days finding out why this state has been going down the tubes for years? This formerly great state has become a laughingstock, the type of state we used to joke about when talking about "backward" Southern states.
Why don't you direct some of your energy to kicking some butt in the legislature which appears more interested in regulating strip clubs than getting this state back on its feet. That sounds like something Scott Pullins would be interested in since he's so fascinated by the sexual behavior of others.
Mt Vernon News ---> Link
As was stated earlier, the truth does take care of itself. I'm truly sorry to have brought Mr. Pullins to this good forum - he has long troubled our community, and given it much grief, and I have no desire to give him an excuse to act in such a way on your blogsite
I will be content to allow the Courts to deal with him...........they've been doing an excellent job so far..........
When the troll on this thread didn't understand, the recipe-writer followed up, not with silence, but with a German recipe for a sweet treat. Why German? Well, that particular recipe is read in German by the vocalist for the band Tool on their Aenima album. It sounds incredibly evil as read, but is of course actually a candy recipe. It is a joke played on the listener. In this case, one needs to know the punchline to Tool's joke before one can understand the blogospheric ridicule being directed toward the troll.
No deconstructed joke is ever funny, but rather than intellectual masturbation, the Spanish poem was a flailing response to a meta-in-joke represented by the German recipe.
Join us next week as we discuss sock puppets.