Page 1


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT Review No. 11-6574 The Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics, by a vote of no less than four members, on April 29, 2011, adopted the following report and ordered it to be transmitted to the Committee on Ethics of the United States House of Representatives. SUBJECT: Representative Jean Schmidt NATURE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION: Representative Jean Schmidt may have received free legal services that are considered gifts under House rules. Since 2008, three lawyers for the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund ("TALDF") have represented her in various legal matters related to a complaint that she filed with the Ohio Election Commission against Mr. David Krikorian, a challenger to her congressional seat. The Turkish Coalition of America ("TCA") has paid the TALDF lawyers a total of approximately $500,000 for the legal services provided to Representative Schmidt during the past three years. TCA currently pays the lawyers to represent her in an ongoing defamation suit that she filed against Mr. Krikorian in Ohio state court. Representative Schmidt has not paid for any of the legal services. If Representative Schmidt accepted free legal services without establishing a legal expense fund, she may have violated House rules. She also may have violated House rules and federal law by not including the free legal services as gifts on her financial disclosure statements. RECOMMENDATION: The Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics recommends that the Committee on Ethics further review the above allegations because there is substantial reason to believe that Representative Schmidt: (1) accepted legal services from TALDF without establishing a legal expense fund; and (2) failed to report the legal services on her financial disclosure statements for calendar years 2008 and 2009. VOTES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE: 6 VOTES IN THE NEGATIVE: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 0


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR STAFF DESIGNATED TO PRESENT THIS REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE ON ETHICS Omar S. Ashmawy, Staff Director & Chief Counsel.


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended FINDINGS OF FACT AND CITATIONS TO LAW Review No. 11-6574 I.

INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................4 A.

Summary of Allegations .................................................................................................. 5

B.

Jurisdictional Statement ................................................................................................... 5

C.

Procedural History ...........................................................................................................5

D.

Summary of Investigative Activity .................................................................................. 6

II.

TALDF LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDED TO REPRESENTATIVE SCHMIDT ...... 6

A.

Law, Regulations, Rules, and Standards of Conduct ....................................................... 6

B.

TALDF Has Provided Legal Services to Representative Schmidt for Nearly Three Years ................................................................................................................................7

C.

Representative Schmidt Received an Advisory Opinion from the Committee in 2010 13

D.

Relevant and Material Information May Not Have Been Provided to the Committee Concerning the Nature of the Legal Services ................................................................ 14

E.

TCA Has Paid Approximately $500,000 to Three Law Firms for the Legal Services Provided to Representative Schmidt .............................................................................. 17

F.

Representative Schmidt Accepted Additional Legal Services After Receiving the Advisory Opinion ........................................................................................................... 18

G.

Representative Schmidt Did Not Disclose the Legal Services She Received on Her Financial Disclosure Statements for Calendar Years 2008 and 2009 ............................ 19

III.

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 20


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CITATIONS TO LAW Review No. 11-6574 On April 29, 2011, the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics (the "Board") adopted the following findings of fact and accompanying citations to law, regulations, rules, and standards of conduct (in ita#cs). The Board notes that these findings do not constitute a determination that a violation actually occurred.

I. INTRODUCTION In 2008, the Turkish Legal Defense Fund ("TALDF") began providing legal services to Representative Schmidt in connection with a complaint that she filed against Mr. David Krikorian before the Ohio Election Commission. In 2009, TALDF continued to provide the legal services at no charge to Representative Schmidt. In September 2009, Representative Schmidt requested a written advisory opinion from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (the "Committee")1 concerning payment of the legal services. She did not request a written opinion prior to accepting the legal services. In February 2010, the Committee on Ethics wrote an opinion advising Representative Schmidt that she could pay for the legal services by either establishing an approved legal expense fund to pay for the legal services or using campaign funds. The opinion was based on the facts that Representative Schmidt presented to the Committee. The letter from the Committee expressed its understanding that Representative Schmidt was awaiting a bill from the TALDF lawyers and that the legal services had not been paid. Apparently, relevant information concerning the nature of the payment of the legal services was not provided to the Committee. For example, it was not disclosed that the Turkish Coalition of America ("TCA") had already paid the TALDF lawyers approximately $300,000 for Representative Schmidt’s legal services at the time of the advisory opinion. TCA paid the expenses for Representative Schmidt since 2008 and continues to pay for legal services in 2011. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was renamed the Committee on Ethics in the 112t~ Congress. 4


CONFIDENTIAL

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended A. Summary of Alle~ations

The Board finds that there is substantial reason to believe that Representative Schmidt violated House Rule 25, clause 3 by accepting legal services from TALDF, which the TCA paid for prior to her receiving approval from the Committee of a legal expense fund. The Board finds that there is substantial reason to believe that Representative Schmidt violated House Rule 26, clause 2 and the Ethics in Government Act by failing to report the legal services that she received from TALDF as gifts on her financial disclosure statements for calendar years 2008 and 2009. B. Jurisdictional Statement

The allegations that are the subj ect of this review concern Representative Jean Schmidt, a Member of the United States House of Representatives for the 2nd District of Ohio. The Resolution the United States House of Representatives adopted creating the Office of Congressional Ethics ("OCE") directs that, "[n]o review shall be undertaken.., by the board of any alleged violation that occurred before the date of adoption of this resolution.’’2 The House adopted this Resolution on March 11, 2008. Because the conduct under review occurred after March 11, 2008, the OCE has jurisdiction in this matter. C. Procedural History

The OCE received a written request for a preliminary review in this matter signed by at least two members of the Board on January 24, 2011. The preliminary review commenced on January 25,2011.3 The preliminary review was scheduled to end on February 23,2011. At least three members of the Board voted to initiate a second-phase review in this matter on February 22, 2011. The second-phase review commenced on February 24, 2011.4 The second-phase review was scheduled to end on April 9, 2011.

2 H. Res. 895, ll0th Cong. §l(e), as amended (the "Resolution"). 3 A preliminary review is "requested" in writing by members of the Board of the OCE. The request for a preliminary review is "received" by the OCE on a date certain. According to the Resolution, the timeframe for conducting a preliminary review is thirty days from the date of receipt of the Board’s request. 4 According to the Resolution, the Board must vote on whether to conduct a second-phase review in a matter before the expiration of the thirty-day preliminary review. If the Board votes for a second-phase, the second-phase begins when the preliminary review ends. The second-phase review does not begin on the date of the Board vote. 5


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 10. The Board voted to extend second-phase review for an additional period of fourteen days on April 5,2011. The second-phase review ended on April 23,2011. 11. Representative Schmidt submitted a written statement, under Rule 9(B) of the OCE’s Rules for the Conduct of Investigations, on April 25, 2011. 12. The Board voted to refer the matter to the Committee and adopted these findings on April 29, 2011. 13. This report and findings were transmitted to the Committee on May 18, 2011. D. Summary of Investigative Activity 14. The OCE requested and received documentary and, in some cases testimonial information, from the following sources: (1) Representative Schmidt: (2) Representative Schmidt’s Chief of Staff; (3) TCA President; (4) TALDF Lawyer 1; (5) TALDF Lawyer 2; and (6) TALDF Lawyer 3. II. TALDF LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDED TO REPRESENTATIVE SCHMIDT A. Law~ Re~ulations~ Rules~ and Standards of Conduct Gifts 15. Pursuant to House Rule 25, clause 5(a)(1)(A)(i), "[a] Member . . . of the House may not knowingly accept a gift except as provided in this clause. " 16. Under House Rule 25, clause 5(a)(3)(E), the gift rule exempts "a contribution or other payment to a legal expense fund estabfshed for the benefit of a Member, officer, or employee that is otherwise lawfully made in accordance with the restrictions and disclosure requirements of the [Committee]. "


CONFIDENTIAL

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 17. The Committee ’ Legal Expense Fund Regulations provide that "[n]o contribution shall be solicited for or accepted by a Legal Expense fund prior to the Committee’s written approval of the completed trust document (including the name of the trustee). ,,5 18. "Pro bono legal assistance for other purposes shall be deemed a contribution subject to the restrictions of these regulations. ,,6 Financial Disclosure 19. Under House Rule 26, "the provisions of title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 19 78 shall be considered Rules of the House as they pertain to Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, officers, and employees of the House." 20. The Ethics in Government Act provides that "[e]ach report filed pursuant to section 101 (d) and (e) shall include a full and complete statement with respect to the following... . The identity of the source, a brief description, and the value of all gifts aggregating more than the minimal value as estabBshed by section 7342(a)(5) of title 5, United States Code, or $250, whichever is greater, received from any source other than a relative of the reporting individual during the preceding calendar year ....

B. TALDF Has Provided Legal Services to Representative Schmidt for Nearly Three Years TALDF in General 21. TCA created TALDF in late 2007 or early 2008.8 The purpose of TALDF is to protect the legal rights of Turkish Americans.9 TALDF works primarily on defamation and free speech matters. 10

5 Memorandum from Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to All Members, Officers, and Employees Regarding Legal Expense Fund Regulations, dated June 10, 1996 ("Legal Expense Fund Regulations") (Exhibit 1 at 11-6574_0003). 6 Id. The Legal Expense Fund Regulations allow the acceptance of pro bono legal services under the following limited circumstances: "to file an amicus brief in his or her capacity as a Member of Congress; to bring a civil action challenging the validity of any federal law or regulation; or to bring a civil action challenging the lawfulness of an action of a federal agency, or an action of a federal official taken in an official capacity, provided that the action concerns a matter of public interest, rather than a matter that is personal in nature." Id. 7 5 U.S.C. app. 4, § 102(a)(2)(A). s Memorandum of Interview of TALDF Lawyer 1, March 28, 2011 ("TALDF Lawyer 1 MOI") (Exhibit 2 at 116574_0006); Memorandum of Interview of TCA President, April 8, 2011 ("TCA President MOI") (Exhibit 3 at 116574_0012). 9 TALDF Lawyer 1 MOI (Exhibit 2 at 11-6574_0006); TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012). 10 TALDF Lawyer 1 MOI (Exhibit 2 at 11-6574_0007); TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012).

7


CONFIDENTIAL

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 22. TALDF provides legal services to its clients on apro bono basis.11 The entity is funded by the TCA.12 23. If there is a legal matter in which the client is awarded monetary damages, the money is

divided between the client and the TCA.13 The TALDF lawyers do not receive any portion of a damage award.14 24. TALDF has two lawyers in Washington, DC: TALDF Lawyer 1 and TALDF Lawyer 2. TALDF Lawyer 1 is employed at the law firm of Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc.15 TALDF Lawyer 2 is employed at the law firm of Saltzman & Evinch, P.C.16

25. TALDF Lawyer 3 is local counsel in Ohio for Representative Schmidt and is employed at the law firm of Chester, Willcox & Saxbe. 17 26. The TALDF lawyers are similar to independent contractors for TALDF.18 Each law firm

bills TCA an hourly rate for legal services performed on behalf of TALDF.19 TCA pays for the services.2° 27. TCA retained a registered lobbyist in 2008 until the lobbyist, George Hochbrueckner,

terminated the registration effective December 31, 2008.~1 28. The TCA President told the OCE that he is the head of TCA’s congressional outreach

group.~ He spends approximately fifty percent of his time working on congressional outreach, which involves meeting with Members of Congress to discuss the Armenian genocide resolution and Greek and Turkish issues.~3

TALDF Lawyer 1 MOI (Exhibit 2 at 11-6574_0007); TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012). 12 TALDF Lawyer 1 MOI (Exhibit 2 at 11-6574_0007); TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012). 13 TALDF Lawyer 1 MOI (Exhibit 2 at 11-6574_0007). 11

15]d. at 11-6574

0006.

16 Memorandum of Interview of TALDF Lawyer 2, March 28, 2011 ("TALDF Lawyer 2 MOI") (Exhibit 4 at 116574_0016). 17 TALDF Lawyer 3 Response to OCE Request for Information, dated February 11,2011 ("TALDF Lawyer 3 RFI Response") (Exhibit 5 at 11-6574_0020). 18 TALDF Lawyer 1 MOI (Exhibit 2 at 11-6574_0006). 2° ]d"

21 George J. Hochbrueckner & Associates, Inc. Lobbying Report for TCA dated January 15, 2009 (Exhibit 6 at 116574_0027). 22 TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0011-0012). 23Id. at 11-6574 0011.

8


CONFIDENTIAL

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 29. The TCA President told the OCE that he has not registered as a lobbyist because he only educates legislators.24 TALDF and Representative Schmidt 30. Since 2008, TALDF has provided legal services to Representative Schmidt related to various legal matters between her and Mr. David Krikorian.2~ 31. In 2006 or 2007, Mr. Krikorian visited Representative Schmidt’s congressional office in Washington, DC. ~6 He came to the office to meet with Representative Schmidt to request her support for the Armenian genocide resolution.~7 32. According to Representative Schmidt’s Chief of Staff, Mr. Krikorian became belligerent because Representative Schmidt would not commit to voting for the resolution.~8 33. In November 2007, the TCA President first met Representative Schmidt when he overheard her discussing the Armenian genocide resolution at a campaign fundraiser at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington, I)C.~9 34. He introduced himself and offered to provide her with information about the Armenian genocide issue)° 35. The TCA President told the OCE that he saw Representative Schmidt frequently in 2008 as she attended various TCA events and events with the TCA political action committee.31 36. During the same period in 2008, the TCA President believes that he spoke with Representative Schmidt’s Chief of Staff at least once per month.~2

24]dat 11-6574

0012. 25 TALDF Lawyer 1 Response to OCE Request for Information, dated February 14, 2011 ("TALDF Lawyer 1 RFI Response") (Exhibit 7 at 11-6574_0030); TALDF Lawyer 1 Legal Service Invoices ("TALDF Lawyer 1 Invoices")

(Exhibit 8 at 11-6574_0033-0057); TALDF Lawyer 2 Response to OCE Request for Information, dated February 17, 2011 ("TALDF Lawyer 2 RFI Response") (Exhibit 9 at 11-6574_0059-0063); TALDF Lawyer 2 Legal Service Invoices ("TALDF Lawyer 2 Invoices") (Exhibit 10 at 11-6574_0065-0072); TALDF Lawyer 3 RFI Response (Exhibit 5 at 11-6574_0022-0025); TALDF Lawyer 3 Legal Service Invoices ("TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices") (Exhibit 11 at 11-6574_0074-0161).

26 Memorandum of Interview of Representative Schmidt’s Chief of Staff, April 6, 2011 ("Chief of Staff MOI") (Exhibit 12 at 11-6574_0163). 27]d. at 11-6574 0164. 28 ]d.

3° 29idTCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012). " 31 ]d. at 11-6574

0012-0013.

32Idat 11-6574 0013.


CONFIDENTIAL

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 37. Representative Schmidt’s Chief of Staff explained to the OCE that he first met the TCA

President when the TCA President visited Representative Schmidt’s office to lobby him on the Armenian genocide resolution.33 38. In 2008, Mr. Krikorian ran as an independent candidate challenging Representative Schmidt for her congressional seat. 39. The TCA President recalls that in late spring of 2008, Mr. Krikorian circulated an email

that criticized Representative Schmidt for attending campaign fundraisers with Turkish Americans.34 The TCA President was furious about the email and there were internal discussions at TCA about whether TALDF should take any legal action in the matter.~ 40. During the week before the November 4, 2008 election, Mr. Krikorian placed pamphlets

on cars outside of Representative Schmidt’s church that accused her of various activities, including accepting "blood money" from the Turkish Government to deny the Armenian genocide.~6 41. On November 3, 2008, TALDF posted on its website a statement that it "requested the

Attorney General of Ohio, Nancy H. Rogers, to open a criminal investigation under Ohio law into signature Armenian verbal thuggery employed by Armenian American independent candidate David Krikorian against Representative Jean Schmidt.’’~7 42. TALDF Lawyer 1 remembered that his first meeting with Representative Schmidt about providing legal services occurred in her congressional office in late November 2008)8 2008 Legal Services 43. According to the TALDF lawyers, TALDF first provided legal services for Representative Schmidt in her case against Mr. Krikorian before the Ohio Election Commission.39 She alleged in the case that Mr. Krikorian made false statements about

33 Chief of Staff MOI (Exhibit 12 at 11-6574_0165). 34Idat 11-6574 0164. 35 TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0013). 36 Chief of Staff MOI (Exhibit 12 at 11-6574_0164).

37 TALDF Requests Criminal Investigation in Ohio, November 3, 2008, http://www.taldf.org/ohio.html (Exhibit 14 at 11-6574_0172). 3s TALDF Lawyer 1 MOI (Exhibit 2 at 11-6574_0007) 39 TALDF Lawyer 1 RFI Response (Exhibit 7 at 11-6574_0030); TALDF Lawyer 2 RFI Response (Exhibit 9 at 116574_0060-0061); TALDF Lawyer 3 RFI Response (Exhibit 5 at 11-6574_0022-0023).

10


CONFIDENTIAL

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended her during the 2008 campaign that violated the Ohio state law prohibiting unfair political campaign activities.4° 44. The TALDF lawyers began working on this matter in late 2008.41 The lawyers billed their legal services on behalf of Representative Schmidt to TCA.42 45. The amount of fees and expenses and legal services for 2008 was approximately $3,905.43 46. TCA paid the TALDF lawyers for the legal services performed on behalf of Representative Schmidt.44 2009 Legal Services 47. In early 2009, the TALDF lawyers prepared Representative Schmidt’ s complaint for the Ohio Election Commission matter, which they filed on April 29, 2009.45 48. The lawyers filed an additional complaint with the Ohio Election Commission on behalf of Representative Schmidt on July 21, 2009.46 49. On October 1, 2009, the Ohio Election Commission found in favor of Representative Schmidt, concluding that Mr. Krikorian made false statements about her.4v 50. In 2009, the lawyers also represented Representative Schmidt in Mr. Krikorian’s appeals of the Ohio Election Commission decision.4s 51. The TALDF lawyers billed their 2009 legal services on behalf of Representative Schmidt to TCA. 49 4o Jean Schmidt v. Mr. DavidKrikorian, Ohio Election Commission Case No. 2009E-003, April 29, 2009 ("Initial OEC Complaint") (Exhibit 15 at 11-6574_0175-0178). 41 TALDF Lawyer 2 Invoices (Exhibit 10 at 11-6574_0065); TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices (Exhibit 11 at 116574_0074-0075).

42 TALDF Lawyer 1 and TALDF Lawyer 2 sent the bills for their legal services directly to TCA and TALDF Lawyer 3 sent his bills to TALDF. See TALDF Lawyer 1 Invoices (Exhibit 8 at 11-6574_0033-0057); TALDF Lawyer 2 Invoices (Exhibit 10 at 11-6574_0065-0075); TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices (Exhibit 11 at 11-6574_00740161). TCA paid the bills. TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012). 43 TALDF Lawyer 2 Invoices (Exhibit 10 at 11-6574_0065); TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices (Exhibit 11 at 116574_0076-0077). 44 TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012). 45 Initial OEC Complaint (Exhibit 15 at 11-6574_0175-0178). 46 Jean Schmidt v. Mr. DavidKrikorian, Ohio Election Commission Case No. 2009E-012, July 21, 2009 (Exhibit 16 at 11-6574_0180-0182).

47 Letters from Ohio Election Commission to Bruce Fein, dated November 13, 2009 (Exhibit 17 at 11-6574_01840187). 4s TALDF Lawyer 1 RFI Response (Exhibit 7 at 11-6574_0030); TALDF Lawyer 2 RFI Response (Exhibit 9 at 116574_0061); TALDF Lawyer 3 RFI Response (Exhibit 5 at 11-6574_0023).

11


CONFIDENTIAL

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 52. The amount of fees and expenses and legal services for 2009 was approximately $289,280.5° 53. TCA paid the TALDF lawyers for the 2009 legal services performed on behalf of Representative Schmidt.51 2010 Legal Services 54. On February 21, 2010, the TALDF lawyers filed a Motion for Leave to file an Amicus

Brief on behalf of Representative Schmidt in a federal lawsuit that Mr. Krikorian brought against the Ohio Election Commission in the Southern District Court of Ohio. 52 The suit challenged whether the Ohio Election Commission had the right to make its findings in the 2009 matters concerning Representative Schmidt.53 Representative Schmidt was not named as a party to the lawsuit.54 55. The TALDF lawyers later filed an amicus brief on behalf of Representative Schmidt in the case. 56. On June 8, 2010, the TALDF lawyers filed a defamation lawsuit on behalf of

Representative Schmidt against Mr. Krikorian. Representative Schmidt seeks $6.8 million dollars in damages. 56 57. Mr. Krikorian’s federal lawsuit against the Ohio Election Commission was dismissed on

October 19, 2010.57 58. The TALDF lawyers billed their 2010 legal services on behalf of Representative Schmidt to TCA. 58 49 TALDF Lawyer 1 and TALDF Lawyer 2 sent the bills for their legal services directly to TCA and TALDF Lawyer 3 sent his bills to TALDF. TALDF Lawyer 1 Invoices (Exhibit 8 at 11-6574_0033-0057); TALDF Lawyer 2 Invoices (Exhibit 10 at 11-6574_0065-0072); TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices (Exhibit 11 at 11-6574_0074-0161). TCA

paid the bills. See TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012). 50 TALDF Lawyer 1 Invoices (Exhibit 8 at 11-6574_0033-0044);TALDF Lawyer 2 Invoices (Exhibit 10 at 116574_0066-0069); TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices (Exhibit 11 at 11-6574_0078-0116); TCA Legal Expenses for 2009 and 2010 ("TCA Legal Expenses") (Exhibit 18 at 11-6574_0189).

51 ~,g,g, TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012). 52 DavidKrikorian v. Ohio Elections Commission, et al., S.D. Ohio Civ., Motion of Amicus Curiae Jean Schmidt for

Leave to File an Amicus Brief in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injtmction, dated February 21, 2010. 54]d 53 TALDF Lawyer 2 RFI Response (Exhibit 9 at 11-6574_0062). " 55 ]d.

56 Id.; Jean Schmidt v. David Krikorian and Krikorian for Congress Campaign Committee, Court of Common Pleas

Clermont Cotmty, Ohio, Case No. 2010 CVC1217, Jtme 8, 2010 (Exhibit 19 at 11-6574_0191-0223). 57 TALDF Lawyer 2 RFI Response (Exhibit 9 at 11-6574_0062).

12


CONFIDENTIAL

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 59. The amount of fees and expenses and legal services for 2010 was approximately $205,401.59 60. TCA paid the TALDF lawyers for the 2010 legal services performed on behalf of Representative Schmidt.6° 2011 Legal Services 61. Representative Schmidt’s defamation lawsuit against Mr. Krikorian continues in 2011.61 62. The TALDF lawyers are currently providing legal services and TCA is paying for the legal services.62 C. Representative Schmidt Received an Advisory Opinion from the Committee in 2010 63. Representative Schmidt did not request an advisory opinion from the Committee prior to

the TALDF lawyers providing her legal services in 2008.63 64. Representative Schmidt’ s Chief of Staff told the OCE that he spoke with staff at the

Committee in early 2009 about how to pay for the legal services.64 65. On August 31, 2009, Representative Schmidt’s Chief of Staff was deposed in the matter

before the Ohio Election Commission. He was asked whether he had "made some kind of filing with the House Ethics Committee that would allow the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund to fund this legal action against Mr. Krikorian.’’6~ Representative Schmidt’s Chief of Staff answered that he had not made such a filing.66

5s TALDF Lawyer 1 and TALDF Lawyer 2 sent the bills for their legal services directly to TCA and TALDF Lawyer 3 sent his bills to TALDF. TALDF Lawyer 1 Invoices (Exhibit 8 at 11-6574_0033-0057); TALDF Lawyer 2 Invoices (Exhibit 10 at 11-6574_0065-0072); TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices (Exhibit 11 at 11-6574_0117-0161). TCA

paid the bills. See TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012). 59 TALDF Lawyer 1 Invoices (Exhibit 8 at 11-6574_0045-0057);TALDF Lawyer 2 Invoices (Exhibit 10 at 116574_0070-0072); TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices (Exhibit 11 at 11-6574_0117-0161); TCA Legal Expenses (Exhibit 18 at 11-6574_0189). 6o See TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012).

61 TALDF Lawyer 1 RFI Response (Exhibit 7 at 11-6574_0030). 62 Id.; See TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012).

63Representative Schmidt MOI (Exhibit 13 at 11-6574_0169); Chief of Staff MOI (Exhibit 12 at 11-6574_01650166). 64 Chief of Staff MOI (Exhibit 12 at 11-6574_0164). 65 Deposition of Barry P. Bennett, dated August 31, 2009 (Exhibit 20 at 11-6574_0247). 66 ]d.

13


CONFIDENTIAL

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 66. On September 17, 2009, Representative Schmidt wrote a letter to the Committee "to seek

guidance regarding the payment of legal fees associated with a case in which my campaign and I are now involved.’’6v 67. On January 21, 2010, Representative Schmidt amended her request for guidance "due to changed circumstances" since the original letter.6. 68. On February 26, 2010, the Committee provided Representative Schmidt with an advisory

opinion. The scope of the advice is limited to payments for two legal matters, which are "legal work already completed during the [Ohio] Elections Commission proceedings, and future legal work on [Representative Schmidt] behalf in the appellate case in Ohio Court.’’69

69. The Committee advised that "the establishment of a legal expense fund and the use of

campaign funds are both permissible options for payment of legal expenses in connection with both past and future proceedings, subj ect to the limitations [in the advisory opinion] ..70 70. The Committee also advised that "before you may begin accepting or soliciting for donations to cover past and future legal expenses as described above, the Committee must approve your proposed trust agreement.’’71 D. Relevant and Material Information May Not Have Been Provided to the Committee Concernin~ the Nature of the Legal Services 71. The advisory opinion from the Committee to Representative Schmidt states that the

"Committee will take no adverse action against you in regard to any conduct that you undertake, or have undertaken, in good faith reliance upon this advisory opinion, so long as you have presented a complete and accurate statement of all material facts relied upon, herein, and the proposed conduct in practice conforms with the information you provided, as addressed in this opinion.’’v2 72. In the advisory opinion, the Committee also reserved the right to rescind, modify, or terminate the opinion: "However, the Committee will rescind an advisory opinion if 67 Letter from Representative Schmidt to Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, dated September 17, 2009 (Exhibit 21 at 116574_0270). 68 Letter from Chair Lofgren and Ranking Member Bonner to Representative Schmidt, dated February 26, 2010 ("Advisory Opinion") (Exhibit 22 at 11-6574_0273). 69 Letter from Chair Lofgren and Ranking Member Bonner to Representative Schmidt, dated February 26, 2010 ("Advisory Opinion") (Exhibit 22 at 11-6574_0274). 70 Id. at 11-6574 0273. 71 Id. at 11-6574 0277. 72 Id. at 11-6574 0279.

14


CONFIDENTIAL

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended relevant and material facts were not completely and accurately disclosed to the Committee at the time the opinion was issued.’’73 73. Pursuant to the advisory opinion, "[t]here is no restriction under the Committee’s Legal

Expense Fund Regulations that would bar the establishment of such a trust fund to pay past legal expenses, so long as no sofcitation or receipt of donations occurred before the Committee’s written approval of the trust agreement. ,,74 74. The advisory opinion relies on facts that Representative Schmidt and her staff provided concerning the prior payments of the legal expenses. TCA Paid for Representative Schmidt’ s Legal Services Prior to Written Approval of a Legal Expense Fund 75. In the advisory opinion, the Committee indicated that it was under the impression that

Representative Schmidt’s attorneys had worked approximately 200 hours and have not billed Representative Schmidt or received any payments for their services.75 76. The advisory opinion mentions that "[t]o date, Mr. Fein estimates that 200 hours have been worked by the attorneys in your case, but you have not yet been billed as you are awaiting this Committee’s guidance regarding the permissibility of the proposed options for payment of legal expenses in this matter.’’76 77. The following relevant and material information appears not to have been provided to the

Committee as of the date of the advisory opinion: (1) Representative Schmidt’s lawyers had worked more than 500 hours in her cases;77 (2) Representative Schmidt’s lawyers sent their bills to TCA;78 and (3) TCA had paid Representative Schmidt’s lawyers approximately $293,000 for services received in 2008 and 2009.79

73/d" 74 Id. at 11-6574_0277(emphasis added). 76]d 75 Id. " at 11-6574 0274. 77 TALDF Lawyer 1 Invoices (Exhibit 8 at 11-6574_0033-0044); TALDF Lawyer 2 Invoices (Exhibit 10 at 116574_0065-0069); TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices (Exhibit 11 at 11-6574_0076-0116).

7s TALDF Lawyer 1 and TALDF Lawyer 2 sent the bills for their legal services directly to TCA and TALDF Lawyer 3 sent his bills to TALDF. See TALDF Lawyer 1 Invoices (Exhibit 8 at 11-657_0033-0057) TALDF Lawyer 2 Invoices (Exhibit 10 at 11-6574_0065-0072); TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices (Exhibit 11 at 11-6574_0074161). 79 TALDF Lawyer 1 Invoices (Exhibit 8 at 11-6574_0033-0044)~ TALDF Lawyer 2 Invoices (Exhibit 10 at 116574_0065-0069)~ TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices (Exhibit 11 at 11-6574_0076-0116).

15


CONFIDENTIAL

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 78. The President of TCA told the OCE that TCA pays all of the legal expenses for TALDF

from its general operating account,s° 79. The TALDF lawyers are employed by separate law firms.81 Each law firm submits its

legal bills to TCA.82 80. TCA pays for the legal fees and expenses for each attorney performing legal services for

Representative Schmidt.s3 81. TALDF provides free legal services to all of its clients,s4 TCA pays the TALDF lawyers

for their services,s~ TCA Has Not Sought Reimbursement from Representative Schmidt 82. TALDF Lawyer 1 and TALDF Lawyer 2 explained to the OCE that they never send bills

to TALDF clients,s6 TCA pays for their legal fees.87 83. TALDF Lawyer 1 and TALDF Lawyer 2 told the OCE that they were under the

impression that they were providing their legal services at no cost to Representative Schmidt.ss 84. TALDF Lawyer 1 testified in a deposition during the matter before the Ohio Election

Commission that he told Representative Schmidt and her campaign that "we would not charge them legal fees.’’~9 85. The TCA President told the OCE that he does not bill anyone for the payments that TCA

gives to TALDF.9° TCA has never sought reimbursement for such expenses.91

8o See TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012). 81 TALDF Lawyer 1 MOI (Exhibit 2 at 11-6574_0006); TALDF Lawyer 2 MOI (Exhibit 4 at 11-6574_0016);

TALDF Lawyer 3 RFI Response (Exhibit 5 at 11-6574_0020). 82 TALDF Lawyer 1 and TALDF Lawyer 2 sent the bills for their legal services directly to TCA and TALDF Lawyer 3 sent his bills to TALDF. See TALDF Lawyer 1 Invoices (Exhibit 8 at 11-6574_0033-0057); TALDF Lawyer 2 Invoices (Exhibit 10 at 11-6574_0065-0072); TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices (Exhibit 11 at 11-6574_00740161). TCA paid the bills. See TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012). 83 See TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012). 84TALDF Lawyer 1 MOI (Exhibit 2 at 11-6574_0007).

85 Id.; TALDF Lawyer 2 MOI (Exhibit 4 at 11-6574_0017-0018); TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012).

86TALDF Lawyer 1 MOI (Exhibit 2 at 11-6574_0007); TALDF Lawyer 2 MOI (Exhibit 4 at 11-6574_0017-0018).

87 TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012). 88 TALDF Lawyer 1 MOI (Exhibit 2 at 11-6574_007-008); TALDF Lawyer 2 MOI (Exhibit 4 at 11-6574_0018). 89 Deposition of Bruce Fein, dated August 31, 2009 (Exhibit 23 at 11-6574_0310). 9o TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012).

16


CONFIDENTIAL

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 86. The TCA President explained that he has not had conversations with Representative Schmidt about payments for the legal services.92 87. Representative Schmidt told the OCE that TALDF did not offer to provide her free legal

services and that she discussed the possibility of a contingency fee, but that option was not pursued.93 Her statements are not consistent with the statements of the TALDF lawyers and TCA President about payments for the legal services. E. TCA Has Paid Approximately $500~000 to Three Law Firms for the Legal Services Provided to Representative Schmidt 88. The TALDF lawyers provided the OCE with statements for legal fees and expenses that

they billed for Representative Schmidt’s legal matters from 2008 through the December 2010.94

89. Based on these invoices, the lawyers charged legal fees and expenses totaling

approximately $498,587.95 96 90. According to the lawyers, they have received payment for the fees and expenses.

According to the TCA President, TCA paid for these expenses. 91. Representative Schmidt’s defamation suit against Mr. Krikorian is ongoing in 2011 and

the TALDF lawyers are representing her in this matter.98 92. Representative Schmidt has not received any invoice for these services and TCA never

intended to send her an invoice for these services.99 TCA paid for the services out of its general operating budget in the same manner that it pays for all TALDF clients.l°°

92]d"

93 Representative Schmidt MOI (Exhibit 13 at 11-6574_0169). 94 TALDF Lawyer 1 Invoices (Exhibit 8 at 11-6574_0033-0057); TALDF Lawyer 2 Invoices (Exhibit 10 at 116574_0065-0072); TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices (Exhibit 11 at 11-6574_0074-0161); TCA Legal Expenses (Exhibit 18 at 11-6574_0189). 95 TALDF Lawyer 1 Invoices (Exhibit 8 at 11-6574_0033-0057); TALDF Lawyer 2 Invoices (Exhibit 10 at 116574_0065-0072); TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices (Exhibit 11 at 11-6574_0074-0161); TCA Legal Expenses (Exhibit 18 at 11-6574_0189). 96 TALDF Lawyer 1 MOI (Exhibit 2 at 11-6574_0007-0008); TALDF Lawyer 2 MOI (Exhibit 4 at 11-6574_0017). 9: TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012). 98 TALDF Lawyer 1 RFI Response (Exhibit 7 at 11-6574_0030). 99 TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0013); TALDF Lawyer 1 MOI (Exhibit 2 at 11-6574_0007). lOO TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012).

17


CONFIDENTIAL

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended F. Representative Schmidt Accepted Additional Legal Services After Receivin~ the Advisory Opinion 93. As mentioned above, on February 26, 2010, the Committee provided Representative

Schmidt with a written opinion advising that she could pay for the TALDF legal services by either establishing a legal expense fund or using campaign funds. 94. With respect to establishing the legal expense fund, the Committee advised

Representative Schmidt that "[n]o contribution may be solicited for or accepted by a fund prior to the Committee’s written approval of the completed trust document and the trustee.’’1°1

95. After receiving the February 26, 2010 advisory opinion, Representative Schmidt did not submit a request for approval of a legal expense fund until July 19, 2010.l°2 96. On June 8, 2010, Representative Schmidt filed a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Krikorian seeking $6.8 million in damages. 103 97. The TALDF lawyers represent her in this matter and TCA pays their legal fees. Request for Approval of Legal Expense Fund 98. On July 19, 2010, Representative Schmidt wrote a letter to the Committee requesting approval of a legal expense fund.l°s 99. On August 11, 2010 Representative Schmidt requested that the Committee approve a contingency fee agreement in connection with the $6.8 million defamation lawsuit.

101 Advisory Opinion (Exhibit 22 at 11-6574_0275). Under the Legal Expense Fund Regulations, pro bono legal services are considered to be contributions to a legal expense fund and thereby cannot be accepted without the Committee’s written approval of the trust document. Legal Expense Fund Regulations (Exhibit 1 at 11-6574_00020004). The Legal Expense Fund Regulations allow the acceptance of pro bono legal services under the following limited circumstances: "to file an amicus brief in his or her capacity as a Member of Congress; to bring a civil action challenging the validity of any federal law or regulation; or to bring a civil action challenging the lawfulness of an action of a federal agency, or an action of a federal official taken in an official capacity, provided that the action concerns a matter of public interest, rather than a matter that is personal in nature." Id. at 11-6574_0003. 102 Letter from Representative Schmidt to Chair Lofgren and Ranking Member Bonner, dated July 19, 2010 ("Request for Legal Expense Fund Approval") (Exhibit 24 at 11-6574_0389). 103 Jean Schmidt v. David Krikorian and Krikorian for Congress Campaign Committee, Court of Common Pleas Clermont County, Ohio, Case No. 2010 CVC1217, June 8, 2010 (Exhibit 19 at 11-6574_0191-0222). lO4 TALDF Lawyer 1 RFI Response (Exhibit 7 at 11-6574_0030; TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012). lO5 Request for Legal Expense Fund Approval (Exhibit 24 at 11-6574_0389). lO6 Letter from Representative Schmidt to Chair Lofgren and Ranking Member Bonner, dated August 11, 2010 (Exhibit 25 at 11-6574_0391-0392). 18


CONFIDENTIAL

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 100. She also requested permission to use a legal expense fund to pay for legal services that

the TALDF provided in connection with the amicus brief filed in Ohio federal court in February 2010. Request for Approval of Contingency Fee Agreement 101. On August 26, 2010 the Committee requested that Representative Schmidt provide a

copy of the proposed contingency fee agreement for the defamation lawsuit.1°7 Although the lawsuit was filed on June 8, 2010, the proposed contingency fee agreement is dated August 26, 2010.l°8 Based on the information before the OCE, a final contingency fee agreement was not executed. 102. TALDF Lawyer 1, who signed the August 26 proposed contingency fee agreement, told

the OCE that the TALDF legal services for the defamation suit are not part of a contingency fee agreement.l°9 The services are provided pro bono similar to the other legal services TALDF has provided to Representative Schmidt.11o 103. He explained that he and the other lawyers will not receive any part of a monetary

judgment from the defamation suit. If damages are awarded, half of the award is for Representative Schmidt and the other half is for TCA.111 The TALDF lawyers are paid whether or not there are damages awarded in the matter. 104. As result, the TALDF lawyers’ payment is not contingent on the outcome of the case.

TCA pays the lawyers based on the hours billed for work on Representative Schmidt’s matter. 112 G. Representative Schmidt Did Not Disclose the Legal Services She Received on Her Financial Disclosure Statements for Calendar Years 2008 and 2009 105. Representative Schmidt filed her Calendar Year 2008 Financial Disclosure Statement on

May 13, 2009. 106. Representative Schmidt answers "No" to the question "Did you, your spouse, or a dependent child receive any reportable gift in the reporting period (i. e., aggregating more than $335 and not otherwise exempt)?" 113 107 Email from Heather Jones to Joe Jansen, dated August 26, 2010 (Exhibit 26 at 11-6574_0394). 108 Proposed Contingency Agreement between TALDF and Representative Schmidt, dated August 26, 2010 (Exhibit 27 at 11-6574_0396). 109 TALDF Lawyer 1 MOI (Exhibit 2 at 11-6574_0007-0008). ll°]d, at 11-6574 l12]d" 111

0007.

19


CONFIDENTIAL

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 107. Representative Schmidt filed her Calendar Year 2009 Financial Disclosure Statement on May 15, 2010. On July 15, 2010, she amended the filing. 108. In the original and amended statements, Representative Schmidt answers "No" to the question "Did you, your spouse, or a dependent child receive any reportable gift in the reporting period (i. e., aggregating more than $3 3 5 and not otherwise exempt)?" 114 III. CONCLUSION 109. The Committee issued detailed guidance explaining the steps that Members must follow

to solicit or receive donations to pay legal expenses. 110. The Legal Expense Fund Regulations require that a Member first receive approval to

establish a legal expense fund before receiving cash or in-kind donations (e.g., pro bono legal services). 116 111. The Legal Expense Fund Regulations state thatpro bono legal services are contributions to a legal expense fund and cannot be accepted without the Committee’s written approval of a legal expense fund.117 112. For example, the Committee recently responded to a Member’s request for approval to

acceptpro bono legal services.l~8 The Committee advised the Member that "it would not be permissible for you to solicit or acceptpro bono or reduced-fee legal representation in connection with the ongoing disciplinary proceedings, absent the establishment of a legal expense fund for such purpose.’’~9 113. In this review, TCA and TALDF told the OCE that legal services were provided to

Representative Schmidt on apro bono basis.

113 Representative Schmidt Amended Calendar Year 2009 Financial Disclosure Statement, dated July 15, 2010 (Exhibit 28 at 11-6574_0398).

114 Representative Schmidt Amended Calendar Year 2008 Financial Disclosure Statement, dated May 13, 2009 (Exhibit 28 at 11-6574_0398); Representative Schmidt Amended Calendar Year 2009 Financial Disclosure Statement, dated July 15, 2010 (Exhibit 29 at 11-6574_0411).

115 "Legal l16]d

Expense Fund Regulations (Exhibit 1 at 11-6574_0002); House Ethics Manual 63-65.

117 ]d. The Legal Expense Fund Regulations allow the acceptance of pro bono legal services under the following limited circumstances. See supra note 101. 118 Letter from Chair Zoe Lofgren and Ranking Member Jo Bonner to Representative Charles B. Rangel, dated October 29, 2010 (Exhibit 30 at 11-6574_0432). The Board notes that this advisory opinion to Representative Rangel was issued only to him and cannot be relied upon by any other individual or entity. The letter is cited here l19]d" only as an example of the application of the Legal Expense Fund Regulations.

2O


CONFIDENTIAL

Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions ofH. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 114. TCA has paid approximately $500,000 to three law firms for legal services provided to Representative Schmidt in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. 115. Representative Schmidt did not receive permission from the Committee to establish a

legal expense fund prior to accepting the legal services. Representative Schmidt told the OCE that she has submitted a request to the Committee for approval of a legal expense fund. 116. The Board is not aware of the status of Representative Schmidt’s request for approval of

the legal expense fund. However, even if a legal expense fund is approved, TCA has already paid for the legal services and does not seek reimbursement. 117. In conclusion, the Board finds that there is substantial reason to believe that

Representative Schmidt violated House Rule 25, clause 3 by accepting legal services from TALDF, which TCA paid for prior to her receiving approval from the Committee of a legal expense fund. 118. The Board also finds that there is substantial reason to believe that Representative

Schmidt violated House Rule 26, clause 2 and the Ethics in Government Act by failing to report that she received legal services from TALDF as gifts on her financial disclosure statements for calendar years 2008 and 2009. 119. For these reasons, the Board recommends that the Committee further review the

allegations described above concerning Representative Schmidt.

21


EXHIBIT 1

11-6574 0001


394

HOUSE ETHICS MANUAL

Legal Expense Fund Regulations MEMORANDU]Yl TO ~ MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AND EMPLOYEES1 From: Committee on Standards of Official Conduct Nancy L. Johnson, Chairman Jim McDermott, Ranking Democratic Member Date:

June 10, 1996

The new gift rule exempts "a contribution or other payment to a legal expense fund established for the benefit of a Member, officer, or employee that is otherwise lawfully made in accordance with the restrictions and disclosure requirements of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct," as long as the contribution is not from a registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal (House Rule 25, clause 5(a)(3)(E)). In light of this new rule, and pursuant to its authority there under, the Committee hereby issues regulations explaining its "restrictions and disclosure requirements" for legal expense funds. The regulations set forth below supersede the Committee’s prior policies under the old gift rule2 and take effect as of July 1, 1996. The prior policies remain in effect until that date. Legal Expense Fund Regulations A Member, officer, or employee who wishes to solicit and/or receive donations, in cash or in kind, to pay legal expenses shall obtain the prior written permission of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.3 °

The Committee shall grant permission to establish a Legal Expense Fund only where the legal expenses arise in connection with: the individual’s candidacy for or election to federal office; the individual’s official duties or position in Congress (including legal expenses incurred in connection with an amicus brief filed in a Member’s official capacity, a civil action by a Member challenging the validity of a law or federal regulation, or a matter before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct); a criminal prosecution; or a civil matter bearing on the individual’s reputation or fitness for office.

1 These regulations have been updated in several respects, including to reflect certain Committee policies established after the regulations were originally issued, and the renumbering of the House Rules that occurred at the beginning of the 106t~ and 107th Congresses. bee House ]~tbies M3uu3l, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 49-50 (1992). ~ Permission is not required to solicit and/or receive a donation in any amount from a relative or a donation of up to $250 ~rom a personal friend.

11-6574 0002


Appendices

395

The Committee shall not grant permission to establish a Legal Expense Fund where the legal expenses arise in connection with a matter that is primarily personal in nature (e.g., a matrimonial action). A Member, officer, or employee may accept pro bono legal assistance without limit to file an amicus brief in his or her capacity as a Member of Congress; to bring a civil action challenging the validity of any federal law or regulation; or to bring a civil action challenging the lawfulness of an action of a federal agency, or an action of a federal official taken in an official capacity, provided that the action concerns a matter of public interest, rather than a matter that is personal in nature. Pro bono legal assistance for other purposes shall be deemed a contribution subject to the restrictions of these regulations. A Legal Expense Fund shall be set up as a trust, administered by an independent trustee, who shall oversee fund raising. The trustee shall not have any family, business, or employment relationship with the trust’s beneficiary. Trust funds shall be used only for legal expenses (and expenses incurred in soliciting for and administel"ing the trust), except that any excess funds shall be returned to contributors. Under no circumstances may the beneficiary of a Legal Expense Fund convert the funds to any other purpose. A Legal Expense Fund shall not accept more than $5,000 in a calendar year from any individual or organization. A Legal Expense Fund shall not accept any contribution from a registered lobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal. 10.

Other than as specifically barred by law or regulation, a Legal Expense Fund may accept contributions from any individual or organization, including a corporation, labor union, or political action committee (PAC).

11.

No contribution shall be solicited for or accepted by a Legal Expense Fund prior to the Committee’s written approval of the completed trust document (including the name of the trustee). No amendment of the trust document is effective, and no successor or substitute trustee may be appointed, without the Committee’s written approval.

12.

Within one week of the Committee’s approval of the trust document, the beneficiary shall file a copy of the trust document with the Legislative Resource Center (B-106 Cannon House Office Building) for public disclosure.

11-6574 0003


396 13.

HOUSE ETHICS MANUAL The beneficiary of a Legal Expense Fund shall report to the Committee on a quarterly basis, with a copy filed for public disclosure at the Legislative Resource Center: a) any donation to the Fund from a corporation or labor union; b) any contribution (or group of contributions) exceeding $250 in a calendar year from any other single source; and c) any expenditure from the Fund exceeding $250 in a calendar year. The reports shall state the full name and street address of each donor, contributor or recipient required to be disclosed. Beginning October 30, 1996, these reports shall be due as follows: Reporting Period January 1 - March 31 April 1 - June 30 July 1 - September 30 October 1 - December 31

14.

Due Date

April 30 July 30 October 30 January 30

Any Member or employee who established a Legal Expense Fund prior to July 1, 1996 shall make any necessary modifications to the trust document to bring it into compliance with these regulations and shall disclose the trust document with his or her first quarterly report of the 105th Congress on January 30, 1997. Reports of receipts and expenditures shall be due beginning October 30, 1996, as stated in paragraph 13, above. Use of Campaign Funds for Legal Expenses

This Committee has stated (in Chapter 4 on campaign activity) that Members may use campaign funds to defend legal actions arising out of their campaign, election, or the performance of their official duties. More recently, however, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) issued regulations defining impermissible personal uses of campaign funds, including using campaign funds for certain legal expenses. Any Member contemplating the use of campaign funds for the direct payment of legal expenses or for contribution to a legal expense fund should first contact the FEC.

11-6574 0004


EXHIBIT 2

11-6574 0005


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW IN RE: REVIEW No.: DATE: LOCATION:

TIME: PARTICIPANTS:

TALDF Lawyer 1 11-6574 March 28, 2011 Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 10:00 am. to 10:45 a.m. (approximately) Kedric L. Payne Paul J. Solis

SUMMARY: The OCE requested an interview TALDF Lawyer 1, who is an attorney with the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund ("TALDF"), on March 28, 2011, and he consented to an interview. TALDF Lawyer 1 (the "witness") made the following statements in response to our questioning: The witness was given an 18 U.S.C. ยง 1001 warning and consented to an interview. He signed a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the case file in this review. The witness explained that TALDF is a unit of the Turkish Coalition of America ("TCA"). The witness believes that TCA was established in 2005 or 2006 and TALDF was established in 2007 or 2008.

His firm, Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc. is his current employer. TCA pays the firm for the work that the witness performs on behalf of TALDF. The witness explained that he is more like an independent contractor with TALDF. TALDF was created to protect the legal rights of Turkish Americans and focuses on free speech cases. TALDF receives various requests from individuals requesting legal services. 5. The witness screens potential cases and determines if the cases are consistent with the TALDF mission.

MOI - Page 1 of 4

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

11-6574 0006


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended

The witness told the OCE that a case usually aligns with the TALDF mission if it supports Turkish Americans being able to participate in open public discourse and protects Turkish Americans from any type of discrimination. TCA funds TALDF. As a result, the witness’ law firm bills TCA for the hours he works on behalf of TALDF and TCA pays the law firm. There is no retainer agreement and the bills are based on the amount of time the witness spends working on a matter. TALDF provides legal services at no charge to its clients, on a "pro bond’ basis. The witness stated that its customary to thinkpro bono, although TCA and the client may share damage awards in a specific case.

If there is a legal matter where a TALDF client wins a monetary judgment, the money is divided between TCA and the client. Neither the witness nor his TALDF colleague receives any portion of monetary damages awarded in a legal matter. 10. Examples of TALDF clients include a professor who has a defamation suit and a student who has a civil rights case. 11. TALDF has not represented any federal, state, or local or public official other than Representative Schmidt. 12. The witness believes that he first met Representative Schmidt in November 2008. 13. He first learned of Representative Schmidt from Lincoln McCurdy, who is the President of TCA. Mr. McCurdy told the witness that Representative Schmidt was interested in filing a complaint with the Ohio Election Commission against David Krikorian. The witness does not know who initiated the contact between Mr. McCurdy and Representative Schmidt. 14. Near the end of November 2008, the witness met with Representative Schmidt in her Washington, DC office to discuss the complaint. He believes that her current Chief of Staff, Joe Jansen and her former Chief of Staff, Barry Bennett attended the meeting. The witness believes that Joe Jansen was acting as her lawyer at the time. At the meeting, they discussed filing a case with the Ohio Elections Commission.

15. The witness explained that TALDF’ s legal services were provided at no charge to Representative Schmidt and that was his understanding at their first meeting. 16. Although the complaint was discussed in November 2008, it was not filed until April 2009 because TALDF was waiting for "ethics" approval.

MOI - Page 2 of 4

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

11-6574 0007


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 17. The witness did not know at the time whether "ethics" approval meant approval from a congressional entity or the Federal Election Commission. He did not know what aspect of the representation had to be approved. 18. In April 2009, Mr. Bennett told the witness that ethics approval had been received and action could be filed because it was approved by ethics.

19. The witness had been working on the case while waiting for client approval. 20. The witness hired Donald Brey as local counsel for the Ohio Election Commission matter. The witness told the OCE that Representative Schmidt referred Mr. Brey to him. TCA pays Mr. Brey’ s legal fees. 21. TALDF represented Representative Schmidt in matters involving Mr. Krikorian’s appeal

of the Ohio Election Commission decision, an amicus brief in federal court, and a defamation suit against Mr. Krikorian. Representative Schmidt was alerted to all of these actions. 22. With all of these matters, the witness understood that TALDF was providing pro bono services to Representative Schmidt. Further, there was no written agreement for scope of services to be provided to Representative Schmidt.

23. He considered each of the matters to be related to the Ohio Election Commission complaint that was discussed in the first meeting of November 2008. The defamation suit was contemplated at the time of the Ohio Election Commission complaint and at other times during discussions with Representative Schmidt. 24. The witness stated that the legal services for the defamation suit are not part of a

contingency fee agreement. The services are pro bono like the other services provided. However, there is an understanding that if there is a monetary judgment, it will be equally divided between Representative Schmidt and TCA. The witness will not receive any part of a monetary judgment. 25. When asked about a complaint that Representative Schmidt’ s campaign filed before the

Federal Election Commission against Mr. Krikorian in 2009, the witness said that he was not involved in this matter. 26. Mr. Bennett mentioned a legal trust fund to the witness, but the witness "does not care

one way or the other if a fund pays for the legal expenses." He will not receive the money, but it will reimburse TCA. The witness stated that the back and forth with ethics lawyers over a legal trust fund was "not an inflection point" in the battery of litigation.

MOI - Page 3 of 4

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

11-6574 0008


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended This memorandum was prepared on March 29, 2011, based on the notes that the OCE staff prepared during the interview with the witness on March 28~ 2011. I certify that this memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on March 28, 2011.

Kedric L. Payne Investigative Counsel

MOI - Page 4 of 4

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

11-6574 0009


EXHIBIT 3

11-6574 0010


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW IN RE: REVIEW No.: DATE: LOCATION:

TIME: PARTICIPANTS:

President of Turkish Coalition of America ("TCA") 11-6574 April 8, 2011 Turkish Coalition of America 1025 Connecticut Avenue Washington, DC 20036 2:10 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. (approximately) Kedric L. Payne Paul J. Solis

SUMMARY: The OCE requested an interview with the President of the Turkish Coalition of America ("TCA"), on April 8, 2011, and he consented to an interview. The TCA President (the "witness") made the following statements in response to our questioning: The witness was given an 18 U.S.C. ยง 1001 warning and consented to an interview. He signed a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the case file in this review. The witness told the OCE that was involved in creating TCA with Dr. Yakin Ayasya. TCA was created in February 2007. TCA is a 501(c)(3) organization that is intended to educate the general public about the Turkish American community; empower the Turkish American community; and bridge gaps between the general public and the Turkish American community.

The organization is divided into several groups: Capitol Hill outreach; community outreach; scholarship program; and the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund ("TALDF"). TCA is also involved in organizing trips for Members of Congress and it has a political action committee. The witness is the head of the group involved in Capitol Hill outreach. The group also has one full-time employee and one part-time employee. The witness told the OCE that he spends about 50% of his time working on congressional outreach. This group works with the Turkish Caucus, which is comprised of Members of Congress. The Capitol Hill outreach group encourages Members to join the Turkish Caucus and it provides educational materials to Members concerning Turkey. MOI - Page 1 of 4

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

11-6574 0011


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 7. The Capitol Hill outreach group meets with legislators concerning the Armenian genocide resolution. The group also meets with legislators concerning Greek and Turkish issues.

The witness told the OCE that no one in TCA’s Capitol Hill outreach group is registered as a lobbyist. He explained that he is not registered as a lobbyist because he only educates legislators. TALDF was created in late 2007 or the beginning of 2008. The entity was created because Dr. Ayasya wanted an organization to help Turkish Americans that were victims of discrimination. 10. The witness described TALDF as an anti-defamation entity. TALDF becomes involved

in legal matters when the lawyers identify a case and decide to accept it or when Turkish Americans request TALDF’s legal assistance. 11. The TCA funds TALDF. The witness approves all TCA payments to TALDF and controls the TCA budget. 12. These approvals include all payments to TALDF lawyers Bruce Fein and David

Saltzman. 13. The money that TCA uses to pay TALDF comes from TCA’s general budget. The

witness told the OCE that the TCA does not seek any reimbursements or payments from TALDF clients. TCA also does not solicit funds from any other sources to pay for TALDF expenses. 14. The witness is involved in pre-approving new TALDF legal matters. He attends meetings about new matters. The approval decisions are done by a consensus of the witness; Guler Koknar, TCA Vice President; Bruce Fein; David Saltzman; and the TCA Chairman Dr. Ayasya. This group meets approximately four times per year to make decisions on new matters for TALDF. 15. The witness believes that he first met Representative Jean Schmidt in November 2007 at

a fundraiser for Ohio Republicans at the Capitol Hill Club. He attended the fundraiser because the TCA PAC made a campaign contribution for the event. 16. During the event, he overheard Representative Schmidt discussing the Armenian

genocide resolution. He introduced himself and explained to Representative Schmidt that he worked for TCA. He offered to provide her with material concerning the Armenian genocide issue.

MOI - Page 2 of 4

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

11-6574 0012


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 17. The witness told the OCE that Representative Schmidt collected information from

sources representing all sides of the Armenian genocide issue and independently decided that she could not support the resolution. He believes that she publicly stated that she could not support the Armenian genocide resolution in December 2007. 18. He believes that near late spring 2008, he received an email, possibly from a Turkish

American. In the email, David Krikorian criticized Representative Schmidt for attending campaign fundraisers with Turkish Americans. This email had been sent to various recipients and the witness is not sure who sent it to him. 19. The witness was furious when he read this email because it made him feel that Turkish

Americans could not participate in the political process like everyone else without being criticized. 20. He recalls that in the summer of 2008 there were internal discussions at TALDF about

whether they should take any legal action in the matter. 21. The witness is not certain if he approached Representative Schmidt and offered TALDF

services or if she asked him whether TALDF could provide services. 22. He told the OCE that he saw Representative Schmidt a few times after he received the Krikorian email and they discussed news about Mr. Krikorian. During these discussions, the witness may have mentioned TALDF to Representative Schmidt. 23. He saw Representative Schmidt frequently in 2008 because Representative Schmidt

attended TCA events. Also, the TCA PAC was involved in events with Representative Schmidt. 24. The witness also spoke with Representative Schmidt’s Chief of Staff, Barry Bennett, at

least once per month in 2008 and they discussed the Krikorian matter. 25. The witness recalled Mr. Bennett asking him something about payment for legal services.

He explained that he either told Mr. Bennett to reach out to Bruce Fein or he may have told Bruce Fein to reach out to Mr. Bennett. When asked if Mr. Bennett discussed a contingency fee with him, the witness stated that he did not recall that he did. 26. The witness told the OCE that before TALDF could proceed with assisting

Representative Schmidt with filing the complaint with the Ohio Election Commission, Mr. Bennett mentioned something about "ethics." 27. He was not involved in any further discussions about payment for the legal services and

never talked to Representative Schmidt about payment for services.

MOI - Page 3 of 4

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

11-6574 0013


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended This memorandum was prepared on April 11,2011, based on the notes that the OCE staff prepared during the interview with the witness on April 8, 2011. I certify that this memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on April 8, 2011.

Kedric L. Payne Investigative Counsel

MOI - Page 4 of 4

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

11-6574 0014


EXHIBIT 4

11-6574 0015


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW IN RE: REVIEW No.: DATE: LOCATION:

TIME: PARTICIPANTS:

TALDF Lawyer 2 11-6574 March 28, 2011 Saltzman & Evinch, P.C. 655 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 2:05 p.m. to 2:45 a.m. (approximately) Kedric L. Payne Paul J. Solis

SUMMARY: The OCE requested an interview with TALDF Lawyer 2, who is an attorney with the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund ("TALDF"), on March 28, 2011, and he consented to an interview. TALDF Lawyer 2 (the "witness") made the following statements in response to our questioning: The witness was given an 18 U.S.C. ยง 1001 warning and consented to an interview. He signed a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the case file in this review. 2. The witness is a principle at the law firm of Saltzman & Evinch, P.C. He has been employed with the firm since 1993. He provides legal services to the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund ("TALDF"). The services include informing Turkish Americans of their legal rights and reviewing requests for legal representation from Turkish Americans. This litigation part of the work is what the witness does most of the time for TALDF.

The TALDF selects legal matters based on whether the cases are within its mission. Also approval from the Turkish Coalition of America ("TCA") was needed before TALDF could accept a legal matter. 5. The witness told the OCE that he is a junior litigator for TALDF and Bruce Fein is the senior litigator. 6. The witness has been with TALDF since it began in 2008.

MOI- Page 1 of 3

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

11-6574 0016


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended

7. He believes that TALDF’ s first litigation matter was a complaint that was filed on behalf of Representative Schmidt against David Krikorian in early 2009. The witness explained that he bills TCA for his legal services, quarterly based on the number of hours worked and TCA then makes payments to Saltzman & Evinch, P.C. The hourly rate is a negotiated hourly rate. He believes that he first became aware of the matter involving Representative Schmidt in January 2009, when he received a phone call from Bruce Fein. On the call, Mr. Fein told the witness that the president of TCA, Lincoln McCurdy, had a conversation with Representative Schmidt about TADLF representing her in the matter. 10. The witness first met Representative Schmidt in the spring of 2009 at a meeting in her

office. He was in her office to meet with her then Chief of Staff, Barry Bennett. The witness told the OCE that Mr. Bennett was the main point of contact for Representative Schmidt’ s office. 11. During the spring of 2009, the witness began drafting an outline of a complaint against

Mr. Krikorian to be filed with the Ohio Election Commission ("OEC"), and then waited for approval from Representative Schmidt and TCA. TCA approved the draft complaint in February 2009. 12. The witness stated that it was his impression that TALDF was waiting to file the

complaint because Representative Schmidt was seeking approval from the House Ethics Committee. The witness told the OCE that he believed ethics approval was needed to determine if Representative Schmidt could be a plaintiff in a matter and if the legal services could be provided at no charge. 13. The witness stated that at the time, February 2009, TALDF expected no money from

Representative Schmidt. 14. TALDF filed the complaint with the OEC in April 2009 after Mr. Bennett told Mr. Fein that ethics approval had been received. Conversations about ethics issues did not continue after this point. 15. There was no written retainer agreement outlining scope of representation for

Representative Schmidt. TALDF does not usually enter into written agreements with clients expect in one case. 16. After the OEC issued its decision, Mr. Fein then told the witness to gather his invoices for the legal services because Representative Schmidt may reimburse for the expenses. However, Representative Schmidt’s office never requested the invoices.

MOI - Page 2 of 3

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

11-6574 0017


CONFIDENTIAL Subj ect to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 17. Once fully engaged in the legal matters, TALDF often interacted with Representative Schmidt’s Chief of Staff. 18. The witness’ involvement in the other matters concerning Representative Schmidt began

to diminish. He told the OCE that in connection with the OEC complaint, the TALDF assisted Representative Schmidt with legal matters related to Mr. Krikorian’s attempt at appealing the decision, an amicus brief, and a defamation suit. 19. According to the witness, TALDF understood that all of these legal services were

provided on apro bono basis. 20. He also explained that the defamation suit had been contemplated since the initial conversation about filing the OEC complaint. The suit was not filed until 2010 because TALDF was monitoring Mr. Krikorian’s response to the OEC decision. 21. The witness did not assist Representative Schmidt with the complaint that her campaign

filed against Mr. Krikorian before the Federal Election Commission in 2009. 22. The witness was shown an email concerning "Lawyer Hours on Jean Schmidt Related Litigation", (Schmidt_0015). He explained that the hours included in the email were estimated projections of hours that he would spend on the legal matters. He told the OCE that these hours did not reflect actual hours worked. This memorandum was prepared on March 31,2011, based on the notes that the OCE staff prepared during the interview with the witness on March 28, 2011. I certify that this memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on March 28, 2011.

Kedric L. Payne Investigative Counsel

MOI - Page 3 of 3

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

11-6574 0018


EXHIBIT

11-6574 0019


Chester Willcox & Saxbe, LLP 65 East State Street, Suite 1000 Columbus~ OH 43215 MAIN: 614.221~ FAX: 614.Z21.4012 WWW,CWSLAW.COM

DONALD C. BREY DIRECT: 614.334~

February 11,2011 Omar S. Ashmawy Staff Director and Chief Counsel Office of Congressional Ethics 425 3rd Street, SW. Suite i 110 Washington, .DC 20024 Re:

January 27, 2011 Request for Information

Dear Mr. Ashmawy: Pursuant to your January 27, 2011 Request for Information, enciosed find a CD containing the following documents (in Tiff format): Bates Number

Documents

DCB_OCE-0001 through 0002

DCB February 11, 2011 Cover Letter

DCB_OCE - 0003 through 0006

Brief Description of Legal Matters

DCB_OCE- 0007

Request for Information Certification

DCB_OCE - 0008 through 0009

Ledger History

DCB_OCE- 00010 through 00095

Redacted Copies of Invoices

On February 2, 2011, I spoke with Investigative Counsel Kedric Payne, who stated that your office is only interested in our redacted bills and the evidence of what we were paid for our legal services. Thus, we have redacted from the bills produced the detailed description of the work performed. While there are many pleadings, transcripts and exhibits that are in the public record in the cases in which I have represented Jean Schmidt, my understanding is that you are not seeking those documents, but only the documents showing the cost and payment for the legal services provided by us.

DCB OCE

0001

11-6574 0020


Omar S. Ashmawy February 11, ?.011 Page 2

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance to your office. .,ry truly yours,

Donald C. Brey

DCB OCE - 0002

11-6574 0021


BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF LEGAL MATTERS

Since 2008, Donald C. Brey and his law firm have appeared on behalf of Jean Sehmidt before: (1) the Ohio Elections Commission (and administrative appeals fi’om the OEC); (2) federal court; and, (3) Ohio Commoil Pleas Court. All of these appearances related to Jean Schmidt’s efforts to protect herself against David Kxikorian’s decision to lmowingly and recklessly disseminate falsehoods about Jean Schmidt 1.

The Ohio Elections Commission False Statement Cases.Two days before the November 4, 2008, general election (at which Jean Sclmlidt was

standing for reelection to Congress), David Krikorian disseminated fliers - including at the parking lots of the church where Jean Schmidt worshiped - in which Krikorian said that Jean Schmidt was "taking money fi’om a foreign government [Turkey] that is killing our soldiers",

ii

that "Jean Schmidt has taken $30,000 in blood money fi’om Turkish gove~:mnent sponsored political action committees to deny the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenian men, women and children by the Ottoman Government during World War II", and that "This information is public record and can be fotmd on the Federal Elections Commission data base" [as this statement references facts that suppo~ the statements that Turldsh government sponsored political action committees donated $30,000]. Jean Schmidt filed two Complaints before the Ohio Elections Commission regarding these statements, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 3517.21(B)(10), which makes it a violation to "[p]ost,-publish, circulate, distribute, or otherwise disseminate a false statement concerning a candidate, either lmowing the same to be false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, if the statement is designed to promote the election, nomination, or defeat of the candidate". The Complaint in OEC Case No. 2009E-003 was flied on April 29, 2009. The

DCB OCE - 0003

11-6574 0022


Complaint in OEC Case No. 2009E-012 was filed on July 21, 2009. The two cases were consolidated and tried together. The two consolidated Ohio Elections Commission cases were hard fought. David Krikofian was represented by experienced Ohio election and first amendment lawyers, as well a~ by prominent lawyers based in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.. After months of discovery (including depositions in Ohio, Washington D.C. and I(entucky), motions, procedural arguments and two full days of trial, the Ohio Elections Commission unanimously found that each of the above quoted statements were false and that there was clear and convincing evidence that David Krikorian had lied by making them in violation of R.C. 3517.21(B)(10). That is, the Ohio Elections Commission unanimously found, by dear and convincing evidence, that David I(rikorian falsely accused Jean Schmidt of directly or indirectly receiving money from the Turldsh government, either lcnowing that these statements were false, or with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity (which is the standard of New York Times v. Sullivan (t964), 376 U.S. ~54). David ILrikofian’s achninistrative appeals of these two Ohio Elections Commission cases to the Franklin County Comrnon Pleas Court (Schmidt v. Krikorian Franklin County C.P. Case Nos. 09CV-11-17707 and 09CV-11-17709) were subsequently dismissed, and David Krikorian chose to forgo any appeal of the February 25, 2010, Judgment Entry of the Franklin County Com~ of Common Pleas dismissing his appeal fi’om the Ohio Elections Colnmission’s findings that he lied about Jean Schrnidt. 2.

Krikorian’s Federal Court Action Instead, David ILrikorian filed a federal lawsuit (Kt’ikorian v. Ohio Elections Commission

et al. Southern Dist. Otfio Case No. 1:10-CV-103) in which David Krikorian challenged flue Ohio

2

DCB OCE - 0004

11-6574 0023


Elections Commission’s right to make findings against INn for lying about Jean Schmidt. Originally, David I~rikorian filed his federal lawsuit in the Nol~hern District of Otfio under a different case number. But this transparent attempt to "forum shop" resulted in the Northern District promptly transferring the matter to the Southern District of Ohio. This federal court action was, in effect, an attempt to use the federal courts to void the Ohio Elections Commission’s findings that David Krikorian had lcnowingly and recklessly lied about Jean Sclamldt. While David Krlkorlan did not name Jean Schmidt as a party, we filed amicus curiae briefs on behalf of Jean Schmidt responding to the merits of David Krikorian’s claims, and urging the court to dismiss Krikofian’s lawsuit on Youi~ger abstention grounds. On October 19, 2010, Judge Susan Dlott dismissed David ga’ikorian’s federal lawsuit. 3.

The Ohio Common Pleas Court Defamation Action In an ideal world, after the Ohio Elections Commission Complaints were filed, or at least

after the Ohio Elections Commission found probable cause that David Krikoriaaa had lied, David Krikorian would have ceased his lies about Jean Schmidt receiving money from the Turkish government or its agents. Unfortunately, Jean Schmidt’s hopes that the Ohio Elections Commission cases would deter David Krikorian from continuing his defamations of Jean Schmidt were dashed by David Kriko~5an’s decision to repeatedly state that he "stand[s] by all of the statements that [he] naade" about Jean Sehmidt, that Jean Sclunidt "is a paid puppet of the Turkish government involved in their denial campaign to suppress the truth about the Armenian genocide", that "Sclmaidt is bought and paid for by the Turkish lobby", that "the Turkish government is behind those contributions" and the like. Thus, on June 8, 2010, al~out a moNh before the statute of limitations would have expired on the earliest of Krikorian’s republished statements, a defamation complaint was filed in State Court regarding these defamatory

DCB OCE - 0005

11-6574 0024


statements. Schmidt v. Kriko~’ian, Clermont County (Ohio) Common Pleas Court Case No. 2010-CVC-!217 is a continuation of the two Ohio Elections Commission cases and the Federal ease in that it also involves effolls by Jean Sehmidt to obtain redress for David ga’ikorian’s lles about her or efforts by David Ka’ikorian to continue to publish those lies with impunity.

4845-0362-2920, v. I

4

DCB OCE

0006

11-6574 0025


EXHIBIT 6

11-6574 0026


Clerk of the [louse of Representatives Legislative Resource Center B-106 Cannon Buddma Washinaton, DC 2051~

Secretary of the Senate Office of Public Records 232 Hart Budding Washinaton, DC 20510

http:/ilobbyinadisclosure.housc.ao~ http:i/www.sen atc.aov/lo bbv ~ .=:_:.:.==__= .............. _.:.o_ .._x ................................... ............................................ _ -

LOBBYING REPORT

Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5) - All Filers Are Required to Complete This Page 1. Registrant Name El Organization/1.obbying Firm ~ SelrEmployed lnrlividual George J. tfochbrueckner & Associates, Inc.

2. Address

~ Check if different than previously reported

Addressl

Private Road, Edgemere Park

City

Laurel

Address2 P.O. Box 637 State

NY

Zip Code 11948

Country

USA

3. Principal place of business (if different than line 2) City

State

4a. Conlact Name

Zip Code

Country.

b. Telephone Number c. E-mail

5. Senate ID#

~ International Number

Mr.

George Hochbrueckner

7. Client Name

~

Self

18375-1003542

(63 I) 29s-/ Check if client is a state or Iocal government or instrumentaliO,

6. House ID#

Turkish Coalition of America

322940037

TYPE OF REPORT S. Year 2008

Q1 (I/1-3/31) ~ Q2 (4/I-6/30)

Q3 (7/1-9/30) ~ Q4

(10/1- 12/31)

9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of this report 10. Check if this is a Termination Report~Z~r--

Termination Date 12/31/2008

11. No Lobbying Issue Activity

INCOME OR EXPENSES - YOU MUST complete either Line 12 or Line 13 12. Lobbying

13. Organizations

INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period EXPENSE relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period were: Less than $5,000

~

$5,000 or more

~.!

5; 10,000.00

Provide a good faith estinaate, rounded to the nearest $10,000, of all lobbying related income from the client (including all payments to the registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on behalf of the client).

Less than $5.000

~

$5,000 or more

~

14. REPORTING Check box to indicate expense accounting method. See instructions for description of options. [] Method A. Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only [] Method B. [_j Method C.

Signature

$

Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code Reporting amounts under section 162(c) of the Internal Revenue Code

Date

01/15/2009

Printed Name and Title George J. Hochbrueckner, President v6.0.1c

Page 1 of 2

11-6574 0027


Registrant

George J. Hochbrueckner & Associatcs, Inc.

Client Name

Turkish Coalition of America

LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbyiug on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate page for each code, provide information as requested. Add additional page(s) as needed.

15. General issue area code I

EDU

i (one per page)

i Education

16. Specific lobbying issues

ITurkish-American issues. 17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies

Check if None

"U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. U.S. SENATE

18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area First Name

Last Name

i~ ~-g-~- ...................... LHochbrueckner

Covered Official Position (if applicable)

Sui"fix

[ .....

U.S. Congressman 1987-1994

19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above

Check if None

Printed Name and Title George J. Hochbrueckner, President v6.0.1c

Page 2 of 2

11-6574 0028


EXHIBIT 7

11-6574 0029


Omar S. Ashmawy Staff Director a~.~d Chief Counsel Office of Co-~~g-ressional Ethics 425 3m Street, SW, Suite 1110 Washingf, on, D.C. 20024 f~e: I{E6~UEST FO~[{ INFOFtMATION Dear Mr. A.shr~,.awy:

My response to your fiarma,’y 27, 2011. ~equest for Information in d~e dine. frame 2008~present is as follows: !; TALDF has provided legal services Co .[{epresentative Jean Sehmidt concerning a Complaint she filed with ~he Ohio Elections Commission under Ohio law a]].egiiag intentional misstat:ements of facl; to affect the outcome of her congressional race in 2008 by opponent David Krikorian, The case was adjudicated ove~’ two days of hem’ings ~n 2009 in favor of Schmidt on counts of intentional f~lse statements. 2. TALf)F provided legal services to Sehmidt in the appeal of t;l~.e OEC’s decisions ~o the Ohio Com’t of Common Pleas, which concluded in her favor. 3. TALDF provided legal services to Schmidt as ami.eus curiae in opposing Da%d K~’ikoria.n’s suit agai~st, the Ohio Elections Comn.~.issio~ in 2010 in the United States District Courts fbr ~he Northern and Southern Districts Ohio cha!lenging the constitutionality of the OEC and i.ts three rulings against, ~ikoria.m The U.S. District Court fbr ~,he Southern Disl:rict of ultima.tely dismissed the suit. 4. TALDF has provided legal services to Sehmidl: m her pe~ding defhmation suit a.gai~.st David tG’ikorian and the Krikorian ~or Congress Committee the Ohio Court of Commo~ Pleas, Clermor~t County. Various motions remain outstanding. 5. The costs of ffALDF’s !ogal services, e~aumerated above and provided by me, are attached as Exhibit !. Please alert me if you need anything

TALDF 0001 11-6574 0030


Sincerely,

BRUCE FEIN Senior Counse] TALDF

TALDF 0002 11-6574 0031


EXHIBIT 8

11-6574 0032


TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 INVOICE January 29, 2008 Lincoln McCurdy Re: Legal Services

January7:8 hrs.

Cost per hr: $400.00

Please make payable to Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc.

TALDF 0004 11-6574 0033


TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

February 25, 2009 INVOICE Lincoln McCurdy Turkish Coalition of America RE: Legal Services

Feb. 98hrs. Feb. 13hrs. Feb.

-8

-4 hrs.

Cost per hr: ~400.00

Please make check payable to Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc. Many thanks. Bruce

TALDF 0005 11-6574 0034


TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

INVOICE Lincoln McCurdy RE: Legal Services (March 2009)

March 9.

March 13-

.6 hrs.

March 19-

,-4 hrs.

Cost per hour-S400.O0

Please make check payable to Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc. Many thanks. Bruce

TALDF 0006 11-6574_0035


TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

INVOICE Lincoln McCurdy RE: Legal Services (April 2009) April 4:8 hrs.

April 10:3 hrs.

Cost her hour: $400.00

TALDF 0007 11-6574 0036


Turkish American Legal Defense Fund INVOICE Lincoln McCurdy RE: Legal Services (April 28-May 2009)

May 6:1 hr.

May 13-12 hrs, 1 May 14:12 hrs.

May 15:8 hrs. May 18:3 hrs.

May 27:4 hrs.

Cost per hour: $400.00

Please make check out to Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc. Manythanks. Bruce

TALDF 0008 11-6574 0037


TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

INVOICE Lincoln McCurdy Re: Legal services (June 2009) 1. June 4-5-10 hrs

3. June 15-4 hrs.

5. June 17-2 hrs.’

11. June 29-8 hrs.

Cost per hour-$400.O0

Please make check payable to Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc. Many thanks. Bruce

TALDF 0009 11-6574_0038


Turkish American Legal Defense Fund

Lincoln McCurdy RE: Legal Services-July 2009 July 1-12 hrs

July 9-8 hrs. July 10-8 hrs.

July 17-8 hi.

July 27-4 hrs.

Cost per hour: $400.00

Please make check payable to Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc.

TALDF 0010 11-6574_0039


TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

INVOICE Lincoln McCurdy RE: Legal Services (August 2009) August 6-4 hrs. August 7-4 hrs, August 8-8 hrs.

August 10-4 hrs. August 12-4 hrs. August 14-8 hrs. August 2:$-5 hrs August 22-8 hrs. August 23-8 hrs. August 24-8 hrs.

August 28-8 hrs. August 30-4 hrs. August 31-8 hrs.

Cost per hour: 5400.00

Please make check payable to Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc. Many thanks. Bruce

TALDF 0011 11-6574_0040


TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

INVOICE Lincoln McCurdy RE: Legal Services (Sept. 2009) Sept. 1-8 hrs., Sept. 2-8 hrs Sept. 3-8 hrs.

Sept. 24-8 hrs. Sept. 26-8 hrs. Sept. 28-8 hrs. Sept. 29-8 hrs. Sept. 30-8 hrs.

Cost per hour-S400

Please make check payable to Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc. Many thanks. Bruce

TALDF 0012 11-6574 0041


TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 1025 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036

INVOICE Lincoln McCurdy Turkish Coalition of America RE: Lel~al Services (October 2009) Oct. I

12hrs.

Cost per hour: S400.00

Please make check out to Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc. Many thanks. Bruce

TALDF 0013 11-6574 0042


TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

INVOICE Lincoln McCurdy RE: Legal Services

November 29-4 hrs.

November 30-2 hrs.

December 9-8 hrs.

December 10-4 hrs. "

December 19-Shrs.

December 20-8 hrs

TALDF 0014 11-6574 0043


December 22-6 hrs.

Cost per hour: $400.00

TALDF 0015 11-6574 0044


TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

INVOICE Lincoln McCurdy

RE: Legal Services (January 2010)

January 18 ’ 8 hrs.

January 21 hrs.

January 23-i 8 hrs. January 24hrs, January 26.8 hrs. January 28January 29-

:-6 hrs.

,2 hrs.

Cost per hour: $400.00 Please make check to Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc.

TALDF 0016 11-6574_0045


TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEF

INVOICE Lincoln McCurdy Re: Legal Services (Feb. 2010) February 1 :

-4 hrs.

,-4 hrs. -2

February 3: hrs.

February 9:

February 10: -6 hrs. February 11: 8 hrs.

February 16: 15 minutes. February 16: ~ -20minutes.

TALDF 0017 11-6574 0046


February 17: ............ 25 minutes. February 17: minutes.

February 18:

30 minutes. Feb. 18: minutes. February 18:

_ .4 hrs. February 19: 10 hrs. :-8 hrs.

February 20:

February 21" 20 minutes. -9O

February 21" minutes

February 25: !

Febnmry 26:

~o

20 minutes.

TALDF 0018 11-6574 0047


Cost per hour: $400.00

TALDF 0019 11-6574_0048


TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND BILLING STATEMENT: FEB-MARCH 2010

4. March 1: 1.25 hrs.

6, March 2: 4 hrs.

7. March 3:

.7 hrs.

TALDF 0020 11-6574 0049


Cost per hour: 5400.00

TALDF 0021 11-6574 0050


Turkish American Legal Defense Fund Billing Statement April 2010

5. April 16: 2 hrs. 7. April 19: ~-

4 hrs. 8. April 20: hrs.

f 10. April 22: -2 hrs. 11. April 23: hrs. 12. April 26: ,-4 hrs.

14. April 28: 8 hrs.

Cost her hour: S400.00

TALDF 0022 11-6574 0051


TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND BRUCE FEIN BILLING STATEMENT MAY 2010 1.

May 4, 2010: 8 hrs. 8 hrs.

2, May5, 2010:

4. May 10, 2010:

-6 hrs. 5. May 12, 2010:

-8 hrs. 6. May 13, 2010: -8 hrs. 7. May :[4, 2010: -Shrs. 8. May 19, 2010: hrs. ( 10. May 24, 201U: 4 hrs. 11. May 26, 2010: -6 hrs.

12. May 28, 2010: 2 hrs.

Cost per hour: ~400.00

TALDF 0023 11-6574 0052


Turkish American Legal Defense Fund Bruce Fein’s July, 2010 Billing Statement

July 7: ~ hr.

Cost per hour: ~;400.00 Please make check to: Bruce Fein & Associates, inc.

TALDF 0024 11-6574 0053


TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND BRUCE FEIN BILLING STATEMENT SEPTEMBER 2010

Sept. 20:

¯ 8 hrs. Sept, 26: -8 hrs. Sept. 27:

Sept. 29: , 4 hrs.

Cost per hour: 5400.00

TALDF 0025 11-6574 0054


TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND BRUCE FEIN’S BILLING STATEMENT FOR OCTOBER 2010

3. OctoberlS:

-8 h rs. 4. October 12: .~

-8 hrs. October 19:

.6 hrs. 6. October 20: , 6 hrs.

10. October 27: . 11. October 28: ,

1 hr.

-8 hrs. Cost per hour: $400.00

TALDF 0026 11-6574 0055


Bruce Fein’s Billing Statement for the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund November 20:~0 November ~: .8 hrs. November 2:.

i--5 hrs. November 15:

November 16:

-8 hrs. November 18:

hr.

Cost per hour: $400.00

TALDF 0027 11-6574 0056


Bruce Fein’s Turkish American Legal Defense Fund Billing Statement December 2010

December 14: r 2 hrs.

Cost per hour: 5400.00

TALDF 0028 11-6574 0057


EXHIBIT 9

11-6574 0058


SALTZMAN

& EVINCH,

P, C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

METR 0’PO LtTdu~ S~UAIKE 655 FWYEEN’rH STREET, ~ F S~ LOBBY, SUITE 225 WASHINOTOm, DC 20005-570I

DA~.D S, SALTZ~La’~

]:;ebrum), ~17, 2011

Mr: Omar Ashmawy; S~aff Director and Chief Counsel Office of Congressional Ethics United States t].ouse of RepresentaUves 425 3’~i Street, SW Suite 1110 Washingkon, I)C 20024

P,O. Box 895 Washington, DC Re: Request for Information; Legal Sere’ices ko Regbdean Schmidt Dear Mr, AsEm:awy: Enclosed please find all. informa{ion in my possession relevant ~o your requesk for information of January 27, 2011. I spoke on January 28, 201:1 with Investigative Counsel Kedric Payne, who s{a~ed that wmr office is interested in evidence of what my firm or .I was paid for legal services on. R~p. Schmidt’s behalf. Thus, we have redacted from the invoices produced descriptions of the work performed, As the inw?ices also include information pertaining to numerous matters unrela~ed to Rep. Schmidt, sud~ information has also been redacted. The invoices [aIly 87.3 hours of Iegal services on Rep. SchmidUs behalf, bilIed at an hourly rate of $325. Please understand that I have done additional, though not substant~at, work on Rep. Schmidt’s matters but have not yet submitted invoices for payment.

i wil.{ also submit this information via electronic mail in a pdf file to Mr. as he and I discussed by telephone earlier today. Please advise m.e if [ can be of further assistance to yore- office.

..,.~,.~.- .,;,--..~ ><.,~ %(

/."" David Saltzm.an

Salt 001

11-6574 0059


Brief Description Of,Legal Matters on Behalf of Rep. Jean Schmidt Since 2008, David Saltzman and his law firm have provided legal services on behalf of Jean Schmidt in her actions before: (l) the Ohio Elections Commission (and administrative appeals from the OEC); (2) federal court; and, (3) Ohio Common Pleas Court. All of these related to Jean Schmidtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s efforts to protect and preserve her reputation against falsehoods disseminated by David Krikorian, twice a congressional candidate in Ohioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s second district. 1.

The Ohio Elections Commission False Statement Cases. Two days before the November 4, 2008, general election (at which Jean Schmidt was

standing for reelection to Congress), David Krikorian disseminated fliers - including at the parking lots of the church where Jean Schmidt worshipped - in which Krikorian stated that Jean Schmidt was "taking money from a foreign government [Turkey] that is killing our soldiers", that "Jean Schmidt has taken $30,000 in blood money from Turkish government sponsored political action committees to deny the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenian men, women and children by the Ottoman Government during World War II", and that "This information is public record and can be found on the Federal Elections Commission data base" [as this statement purports to reference facts that support the statements that Turkish government sponsored political action committees donated $30,000]. Rep. Jean Sehmidt filed two Complaints before the Ohio Elections Commission regarding these statements, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 3517.21(B)(10), which makes it a violation to "[p]ost, publish, circulate, distribute, or otherwise disseminate a false statement concerning a candidate, either knowing the same to be false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, if the statement is designed to promote the election, nomination, or defeat of the candidate". The Complaint in OEC Case No. 2009E-003 was filed on April 29,

Salt 003 11-6574 0060


2009. The Complaint in OEC Case No. 2009E-012 was filed on July 21, 2009. The two eases were consolidated and tried together. The two consolidated Ohio Elections Commission cases were hard fought. David Krikorian was represented by experienced Ohio election and first amendment lawyers, as well as by prominent lawyers based in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. After months of discovery (including depositions in Ohio, Washington D.C. and Kentucky), motions, procedural arguments and two full days of trial, the Ohio Elections Commission unanimously found that each of the above quoted statements regarding Rep. Schmidt were false and that there was clear and convincing evidence that David Krikorian had lied by making them in violation of R.C. 3517.21(B)(10). That is, the Ohio Elections Commission unanimously found, by clear and convincing evidence, that David Krikorian falsely accused Rep. Jean Schmidt of directly or indirectly receiving money from the Turkish government, either knowing that these statements were false, or with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity (which is also the standard for public figure defamation in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)). David Krikorian’s administrative appeals of these two Ohio Elections Commission cases to the Franklin County Common Pleas Court (Schmidt v. Krikorian, Franklin County C.P. Case Nos. 09CV-I1-17707 and 09CV-11-17709) were subsequently dismissed, and David Kdkorian chose to forgo any appeal of the February 25, 2010, Judgment Entry of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his appeal from the Ohio Elections Commission’s findings that he lied about Jean Schmidt. 2.

Krikorian’s Federal Court Action Instead, David Krikorian filed a federal lawsuit (Krikorian v. Ohio Elections Commission

et al. Southern Dist. Ohio Case No. I:10-CV-103) in which he challenged the Ohio Elections

Salt 004 11-6574 0061


Commission’s right to make findings against him for lying about Rep. Jean Schmidt. Originally, David Krikorian filed his federal lawsuit in the Northem District of Ohio under a different case number. But this transparent attempt to "forum shop" resulted in the Northern District promptly transferring the matter to the Southern District of Ohio. This federal court action was, in effect, an attempt to use the federal courts to void the Ohio Elections Commission’s findings that David Krikorian had knowingly and recklessly made false statements about Rep. Jean Schmidt. While David Krikorian did not name Rep. Schmidt as a party, we filed amicus curiae briefs on he behalf responding to the merits of David Krikorian’s claims, and urging the court to dismiss Krikodan’s lawsuit on Younger abstention grounds (Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)). On October 19, 2010, U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott dismissed David Krikorian’s federal lawsuit. 3.

The Ohio Common Pleas Court Defamation Action In an ideal world, after the Ohio Elections Commission Complaints were filed, or at least

atter the Ohio Elections Commission found probable cause that David Krikorian had lied, David Krikorian would have ceased his lies about Rep. Jean Schmidt receiving money from the Turkish government or its alleged agents. Unfortunately, Jean Schmidt’s hopes that the Ohio Elections Commission ruling and written reprimands would deter David Krikorian from continuing his defamations were dashed by David Krikorian’s decision to repeatedly state that he "stand[s] by all o]~ the statements that [he] made" Rep. Schmidt, that she "is a paid puppet of the Turkish government involved in their denial campaign to suppress the truth about the Armenian genocide", that "Schmidt is bought and paid for by the Turkish lobby", that "the Turkish government is behind those contributions" and the like. Thus, on June 8, 2010, about a month

Salt 005 11-6574 0062


before the statute of limitations would have expired on the earliest of Kdkorianâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s republished statements, Rep. Schmidt filed a defamation complaint in State Court regarding these statements. Schmidt v. Krikorian, Clermont County (Ohio) Common Pleas Court Case No. 2010-CVC-1217 is a continuation of the two Ohio Elections Commission cases and the Federal ease in that it also involves efforts by Jean Schmidt to obtain redress for David Krikorianâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lies about her or efforts by David Krikorian to continue to publish those lies with impunity.

Salt_O06 11-6574_0063


EXHIBIT 10

11-6574 0064


I.EGAL DEFENSE FUND

To:

Mr. G. Lincoln McCurdy Turkish Coalition of America, Inc. TALDF Fees for September 1 - December 15, 2008

INVOICE David S. Saltzman Saltzman & Evinch, PC

U.S. Soc. See. No, ~ DC Bar No. 436201 Firmâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Employer Identification No.~

. (9.2 hrs.).

Time: I hrs. @ $325/hr. = $1 (Atty. David Saltzman) Expenses: AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE:

US$1

Please remit via mail to the Saltzman & Evinch PC at 655 15~a St., N.W., Suite 225-F, Washington, DC 20005, or via telegraphic transfer as follows:

David S, Saltzman

Salt 007 11-6574 0065


LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

To-

Mr. O. Lincoln MeCurdy Turkish Coalition of America, Inc.

Re:

TALDF April 1, 2009 - June 30, 2009

INVOICE U.S. Soc. See. No. ~ DC Bar No. 436201 Firmâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Employer Identification No. ~

David S. Saltzman Sallzman & Evinch, PC

For: hrs.)

1 June 30:

Time: ~hrs. @ $325/hr. = ~(Atty. David Saltzman) Expenses:

($5.00).

AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE: Please remit via mail to the Saltzman & Evinch PC at 655 15th St., N.W., Suite 225-F, Washington, DC 20005, or via telegraphic transfer as follows:

David S. Saltzman

Salt 008 11-6574 0066


LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

Mr. (3. Lincoln McCurdy Turkish Coalition of America, Inc. TALDF July. 1, 2009 - Sept. 30, 2009

INVOICE David S. Saltzman Saltzman & Evinch, PC

U.S. Soe. See. No. ~ DC Bar No. 436201 Firmâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Employer Identification No. ~

For: (Ju]

Time: ~ hrs. @ $325/hr. = $~1 (Atty. David Saltzman)

AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE: Please remit via mail to the Saltzman & Evinch PC at 655 15th St., N.W., Suite 225-F, Washhagton, DC 20005, or via telegraphic transfer as follows:

David S. Saltzman

Salt_O09 11-6574_0067


LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

Mr. G. Lincoln McCurdy Turkish Coalition of America, Inc. TALDF Oct. 1, 2009 - Dee. 31, 2009

INVOICE David S. Saltzman SalUtman & Evinch, PC

For:

U.S. Soc. See. No. ~ DC Bar No. 436201 Firmâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Employer Identification No. ~

Oct 1- Oct 31:

I - Nov 30:

1 - Dec 31

Time: ~ hrs. @ $325/hr. = $~ (Atty. David Saltzman)

AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE: Please remit via mail to the Saltzman & Evinch PC at 655 15th St., N.W., Suite 225-F, Washington, DC 20005, or via telegraphic transfer as follows:

Salt 010 11-6574 0068


David S. Saltzman

Salt 011 11-6574 0069


LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

To:

Mr. G. Lincoln McCurdy Turkish Coalition of America, Inc. TALDF Jan. 1, 2010- March 31, 2010

INVOICE David S. Saltzman Saltzman & Evinch, PC

U.S. Soc. See. No. ~ DC Bar No. 436201 Firmâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Employer Identification No. ~

For:

Time: ~ hrs. @ $325/hr. = ~ (Atty. David Saltzman) Expenses: (none) AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE:

US$ ~

Please remit via mail to the Saltzman & Evineh PC at 655 15t~ St., N.W., Suite 225-F, Washington, DC 20005, or via telegraphic transfer as follows:

Salt_012 11-6574_0070


David S. Saltzman

Salt 013 11-6,~74 0071


LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

Mr. G. Lincoln McCurdy Turkish Coalition of America, Inc. TALDF April 1 - June 30, 2010

INVOICE David S. Saltzman Saltzman & Evinch, PC

U.S. Soc, See. No. ~ DC Bar No. 436201 Firmâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Employer Identification No. ~

For:

June:

Time: i hrs. @ $325/hr. = $~ (Atty. David Saltzman) Expenses: (none) AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE:

US$ /

Please remit via mail to the Saltzman & Evinch PC at 655 15th St., N.W., Suite 225-F, Washington, DC 20005, or via telegraphic transfer as follows:

David S. Saltzrnan

Salt 014 11-6574 0072


EXHIBIT 11

11-6574 0073


Inquiry: General - Ledger History Client: 13292- TURKhZH AMERICAN LEGAL DEF~..NSE Matter: 24 - Schmidl v. Krlkorian Type Bill Date Cash / PPD 1 Bill 112858 01/15/2009 0.0l 2 Bill 114023 02/13/2009 0,00 0,00 3 Bill 114189 0311712009 4 Cash 112858 04/13/2009 915,00 5 Cash 114189 0411312009 65.00 6 Bill 114895 04/13/2009 0.00 7 Bill 115628 05/1512009 0.00 8 SIlt 117002 06/15/2009 0.00

g ~sh

114895 07/06/2009

1,170,00

115628 07/06/200S 1t7002 0710612009 117109 07/15/2009 117933 08/14/200~ 117002 08/1712009 117109 08/17t2009 117933 08/1712009 118573 09/10/200~ 119254 10/15t200E 120356 11/13/200S 120855 12111/200~ 114895 01/11/2010 117002 01/11/2010 117109 01/11/201C li7933 01/11/201C 118573 01/111201C 119254 01/11/201C 120356 011ilt201C 120855 01111/201C 121316 01115/201( 121986 02/12/201(: 122678 031121201~ 121316 03/241201C 121986 041/13/201[ 122678 04/131201[ 123392 04!19/201C

1,890.84 13.73 0.00 0,00’ 5,710.77 1,776,81 3,431.99 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 13,73 17,55 3,400.71 20,921.16 38,263.02 34,534,63 11,641.03 3,559.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,203,76 10,456.14 9,864.44 0.00

Bill 124114 051114/201C Cash 123392 061071201C Bill ......... 124974 06!11/201( Cash 124114 06!28/201 ( Bill 125608 07115/201 ( Cash 124974 081041201( Cash 125608 081041201( Cash 125608 08104/201 ( Adj 124974 081111201( Bill 126852 081131201( BiI[ 127133 09113/’201( Cash 120852 09/301201 ( BiI} 128317 10/t41201( Cash 127133 111011201( Cash 12831? 11/011201( BiIl 128728 11/11/201( Bill 129453 i12110t201 ( Bill i 3055, ’01/17/201 ‘1 Cash 128728 02!02/201 ’1

0.00 2,754,62 0.00 1,194.20 0.00 2,651.27 249.47 2,651,27 0.00 0.00 0.00 882.46 0.00 t79.44 10,234.62 0.00 O.OO 0.00 11,557.80

10 tl 12 13 t4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Cash Cash Blll Bill Cash Cash Cash BEll Bill Bill Bill Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Bill BIll Bill Cash Cash Cash BiII

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

Fees 916.00 O.OD 65.00

9~5,0o

65.00 1,170.00 1,852.50 5,720.00 1,170.00 1,852.59 9.23 5,070.00 20,835.50 5,7"t0.77 1,669.29 0.00 36,867.00 30,132.50 5,315.50 910.00 0.00 0.00 3,400.71 20,835.50 36,867.00 3O, 132.50 5,315.50 910.00 1,202.50 10,164.50 1,202.50 10,164.60 9,535.50 2,632.50 1,173.50 2,632.50 2,600.G0 1,173.50 2,405.00 2,600,00 0.00 2,405,(~0 0.(30 877.50 130.OO B77.50 9,753.00 130.00 9,753,00 11,358.50 18,688.51~ 4,830.00 11,358.5(]

Expenses Surohg/’rax/Int A/R Balance 0.00 0.00 915.00 0.00 0.00 915.00 0,00 0.00 980.00 0.0O 0.00 65.00 0.00 O.OO 0.00 0.00 13.73 1,183,73 38.34 O.OO 3,074.57 17.55I 4.50 8,816.62 o.0o 0.O0 7,646.62 38.34 0.00 5,755.78 4.5(; 0.00 5,742.05 106.521 0.00 10,918.57 3,431.99 85.66 35,271.72 0.00 0.00 29,560.95 I06.52 O.O0 27,785.14 3,431 0.00 24,353.15 1,345.01 51,01 62,616,17 4,038.59 363.54 97,150.80 5,388.81 936.72 108,791.83 1,199.89 1,449.29 0,00 13.73 112,337.28 0.00 17.55 112,319.73 0.00 0.00 108,919.02 0,00 85.66 87,997.86 1,345.01 51 o01 49,734.84 4,038.59 363.54 15,200.21 5,388.81 936.72 3,559.18 1,199.89 1,449.29 0.00 1,26 0.00 1,203.76 291.64 0.00 11,659.90 310.88 18.06 21,524.34 1.26 0.00 20,320.58 291.64 0.00 9,864.44 310.88 18.06 0.00 122.12 0.00 2,754.62 20.70 0,00 3,948.82 122.12 0.00 1,194.20 51,27 41,32 3,886.79 20.70 0.00 2,692.59 495.74 0.00 5,593.33 51.27 0.00 2,942.06 249.47 0.00 2,692.59 246.27i 0.00 41.32 0,00 .41.32 0.00 4.96 0.00 882.46 49.44 0.00 1,061.90 4.961 0,00 179,4=1 481.52 0.00 10,413.96 49,44 0,00 10,234,52 0,00 481,52 0,00 199.30 0,00 11,557.80 1,331.36 0,00 31,577.66 90.52 473.66 36,971.84 t 99.30 0,00 25,4t4.0,4

User: DWR

Page: 1

DCB OCE : 0008

11-6574 0074


Inquiry: General- Ledger History Client: t3292 - TURKISH AMERICAH LEGAL DEFENSE Matter: 24 - Schmldt v. Krikorian

User: DWR Comment

1 From bill #1 t 2858 2 From bill #’t ’14023 3 From bill #114189 4 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 5 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 6 From bill #’1 ’14895 7 From bill #1 "15628 8 From bill #117002 9 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE ’10 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE ~t TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 12 From bill #117109 13 From bill #117933 14 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE t5 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE "16 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE "17 From bill #118573 18 From bill #1 ‘19254 "19 From bill #120356 20 From bill #120855 - 21-- TURKISH AMERICAN LEG,~,L ~3EFENSE 22 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 23 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 24 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 25 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 26 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 27 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 28 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 29 From bill #121316 30 From bill #121986 31 From bill #122678 32 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 33 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 34 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 35 From bill #123392 36 From bill #124114 37 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 38 From bill #124974 39 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 40 From bill #125608 41 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 42 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 43 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 44 W{O INTEREST 45 From bill #126852 46 :From bi11#127133 47 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 48 From bi11#1283t7 49 :TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 50 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 5t IFrom bill #128728 52 From b111#129453 53 From bill #130554 54 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE

Page: 2

DCB OCE - 0009

11-6574 0075


CHESTER WILLCOX & SAXBE L.L.P. Attorneys and Counselors at Law 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213

Fax 614/221-401~

January 15, 2009 Billing 12/31/2008 Invoice# 112858 DCB Our File 13292 00024

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICIJR AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice

$0.00 (0.00)

PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)

$o.oo

9~5.oo

Total Fees TOTAL NEW CHARGES

$915,00

TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$915,00

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE PAYMENT FEE (1.5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE.

RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE - 0010

11-6574 0076


CHESTER WILLCOX & SAXBE L.L.P. Attorneys and Counselors at Law Telephone 614~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213

F.E,I, No, 31-4422499

January 15, 2009 Billed through 12/31/2008 Invoice Number 112858 Our file# 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C!O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUR AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DG 20036

REDACTED

Schmidt v. Krikorian Balance forward as of invoice January 1,1900 Payments received since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$0.00 (0.00)

$o.oo

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB

BREY, DONALD C.

3.00 hrs 3.00 hrs

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

305.00 /hr

$915.0O $915.00

915.00 $915.00 $915.00

DCB OCE - 0011

11-6574 0077


CHESTER WILLCOX & SAXBE L.L.P. Attorneys and Counselors at Law 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213

Fax 614/221-4012

February 13, 2009 Billing 01/31/2009 Invoice# 114023 DCB Our File 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025.CONNECTICUR AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice

$915.00

PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)

$915.00

TOTALBALANCEDUE ON ACCOUNT

$915.00

(0.00)

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE PAYMENTFEE(1,5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER30DAYSFROM DATE OFINVOICE.

RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE - 0012

11-6574 0078


CHESTER WILLCOX & SAXBE L.L.P. Attorneys and Counselors at Law Telephone 614~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213

No. 31-4422499

February 13, 2009 Billed through 01/3112009 invoice Number 114023 Our file# 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEtN RESIDENT’ SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUR AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WA6HINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian Balance forward as of invoice January 15, 2009 Payments received since last invoice

$915.00

(0.00)

Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$915.00 ’

TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE PLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$0.00 $915.00 $915.00

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,2009., THE FIRM INCREASED THE PRICE OF PHOTOCOPIES FROM $.15 TO $.18. THIS PRICE CAPTURES ONLY OUR ACTUAL COST AND APPLIES TO BLACK AND WHITE AND COLOR COPIES,

DCB OCE - 0013

11-6574 0079


CHESTER WILLCOX & SAXBE L.L.P. Telephone 614~

Attorneys and Counselors at Law 65 East State Street St~ite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213

Fax 614/221-4012

March 17, 2009 Billing 02/2812009 Invoice# 114189 DCB Our File 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUR AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) Total Fees

.$915.00

(o.oo) $915.00 65.00

TOTAL NEW CHARGES

$65.00

TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$980.00

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE PAYMENT FEE (1,5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE.

RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE - 0014

11-6574 0080


CHESTER WILLCOX & SAXBE L.L.P. Attorneys and Counselors at Law 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215.4213

F.EI. No. 31-4422499

March 17, 2009 Billed through 02/28/2009 Invoice Number 114’189 Our file# 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR I025 CONNECTICUR AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian Balance forward as of invoice February 13, 2009 Payments received since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$915,00

(o.oo) $915.00

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB

BREY, DONALD C,

0.20 hrs 0.20 hrs

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE PLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

325.00 /hr

$65.00

$65.00

65.00

$6&oo $915.00 $980.OO

DCB 0CE -

0015

11-6574 0081


CHESTER WILLCOX & SAXBE L.L.P. Attorneys and Counselors at Law 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213

Fax6141221-4012

April 13, 2009 Billing 03/31!2009 Invoice# 114895 DCB Our File 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUR AVE., N.W., SUI’~E 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)

$980.00

(o.o0) $980.00

Total Fees Late Payment Charge TOTAL NEW CHARGES

1,170.00 13.73 $1,183.73

TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$2,163.73

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE PAYMENT FEE (1,5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE.

RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE - 0016

11-6574 0082


CHESTER WILLCOX & SAXBE L.L.P. Attorneys and Counselors at Law Telephone 614~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213

F,E,L No. 31-4422499

April 13, 2009 Billed through 03/31/2009 Invoice Number 114895 Our file# 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND ¯ C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUR AVE,, N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

REDACTED

Schmidt v. Krikorian Balance forward as of invoice March 17, 2009 Payments received since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$980.00

(0.00) $980.00

DCB OCE

0017

11-6574 0083


13292

00024

Invoice# 114895

Page 2

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB

BREY, DON~LD C.

3.60 hrs 3.60" hrs

325.00 /hr

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LATE PAYMENT CHARGE ON PAST DUE BALANCE TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE PLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$1,t70.00 $1,t70.00

1,t70.00 13.73 $1,183.73

$980.00 $2,163,73

DCB OCE -

0018

11-6574 0084


CHESTER WILLCOX & SAXBE L.L.P. Attorney~ and Counselor~ at La~ Telephone 6141~ 65 East 8tat~ Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213

Fax 6141221-4012

May 15, 2009 Billing 04/30/2009 invoice# 115628 DCB Our File 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNEGTICUR AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)

$1,1 83.73

Total Fees TOTAL NEW CHARGES

1,852.50 38.34 $1,890.84

TOTALBALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$3,074.57

Total Expenses

(o.oo) $1,183.73

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE PAYMENT FEE (1.5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE.

RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE - 0019

11-6574 0085


CHESTER WILLCOX & SAXBE L.L.P. Attorneys and Counselors at Law 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213

F.E.L No. 31-4422499

May 15, 2009 Billed through 04/30/2009 Invoice Number 115628 Our file# 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND CIO BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUR AVE,, N,W,, SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

REDACTED

Schmidt v. Krikorian Balance forward as of invoice April 13, 2009 Payments received since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

EXPENSES 04/30/2009 PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.18

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

$1,183.73 (0.00) $I,183.73

38.34 $38.34

DCB OCE

0020

11-6574 0086


13292

00024

Invoice# 115628

Page 2

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB

BREY, DONALD C.

5.70 hrs 5.70 hrs

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE PLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

325.00 /hr

$t,852.50 $1,852.50

1,852.50 38.34 $1,890.84 $1,183.73 $3,074.57

DCB OCE - 0021

11-6574 0087


CHESTER WILLCOX & SAXBE L.L.P. Telephone 614~

Attorneys and Counselors at Law 65 East State Street Suite I000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213

Fax 614/221-4012

June 15, 2009 Billing 05/31/2009 invoice# 117002 DCB Our File 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUR AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice

$3,074.57

PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)

$3,074.57

Total Fees Total Expenses Late Payment Charge TOTAL NEW CHARGES

5,72O.OO 4.50 17.55 $5,742.05

TOTALBALANCEDUE ON ACCOUNT

$8,816.62

(0.00)

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE PAYMENT FEE (1 t5% PER MONTH} CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE,

RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE - 0022

11-6574 0088


CHESTER WILLCOX & SAXBE L.L.P. Attorneys and Counselors at Law 65 East State Street Suite 1000,’Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213

F,E.I. No. 31-4422499

June ~ 5, 2009 Billed through 05/31/2009 Invoice Number 1"17002 Our file# 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUR AVE,, N.W,, SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

REDACTED

Schmidt v. Kdkorian BaIance forward as of invoice May 15, 2009 Payments received since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$3,O74.57 (0.00) $3,074.57

DCB OCE 0023

11-6574 0089


13292 00024

Invoice# 117002

EXPENSES 05/31/2009 PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.18

Page 2

4.50

$4.50

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB

BREY, DONALD C..

I7.60 hrs 17.60 hrs

325.00 /hr

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED LATE,PAYMENT CHARGE ON PAST DUE BALANCE TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE PLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$5,720.00 $5,720.00

5,720.00 4.50 17.55 $5,742.05 $3,074.57 $8,816.62

DCB OCE - 0024

11-6574 0090


CHESTER WILLCOX & SAXBE L.L.P. Attorneys and Counselors at Law 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213

Fax 614/221-4012

July 15, 2009 Billing 06/30/2009 Invoice# 117109 DCB Our File 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUR AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)

$8,816.62 (3,074.57) $5,742.05

Total Fees Total Expenses TOTAL NEW CHARGES

5,070.00 106.52 $5,176.52

TOTALBALANCEDUE ON ACCOUNT

$10,918.57

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE PAYMENT FEE (1.5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE.

RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE - 0025

11-6574 0091


CHESTER WILLCOX & SAXBE L.L.P. Attorneys and Counselors at Law 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213

F.E.I. No. 31-4422499

July 15, 2009 Billed through 06/30/2009 Invoice Number 117109 Our file# 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C!O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNEGT]CUR AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DO 20036

REDACTED

Schmidt v. Krikorian Balance forward as of invoice June 15, 2009 Payments received since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$8,816.62 (3,074.57) $5,742.05

DCB OCE - 0026

11-6574 0092


13292

00024

Invoice# 117109

EXPENSES 06/30/2009 DELIVERY CHARGE 06/30/2009 PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.18

14.00 92.52

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

$106.52

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB

BREY, DONALD C,

15.60 hrs I5.60 hrs

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE PLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

325,00 /hr

$5,070,00 $5,070.00

5,070.00 106.52 $5,176.52 $~,742.05 $10,918.57

DCB OCE - 0027

11-6574 0093


ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

Telephone 614~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/221-40"12

August 14, 2009 Billing 07/31/2009 Invoice# 117933 DCB Our File # 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SU ITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt V. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD -" Payments received since last invoice PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)

$10,918.57

Total Fees Total Expenses Late Payment Charge TOTAL NEW CHARGES

20,835.50 3,431.99 85.66 $24,353.15

TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$35,271.72

(0,00) $10,918.57

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE PAYMENT FEE (1.5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE.

RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE - 0028

11-6574 0094


C H E STE 1] WI LLC 0 ~,~S AXi] E ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

PH. (614~

65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 432t5-4213 August i4, 2009 Billed through Invoice Number Our file#

FIN 31-4422499

07/3i/2009 117933 13292 00024

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W.,’SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DO 20036 "-

Schmidt v, Krikorian Balance forward as of invoice July 15, 2009 Payments received since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$10,918.57

(0.00) $10,918.57

DCB OCE - 0029

11-6574 0095


13292

00024

Invoice# 117933

Page 2

DCB OCE 0 0 3 0

11-6574 0096


13292 00024

Invoice# 117933

EXPENSES 07/31/2009 MILEAGE 07/3i/2009 PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.18 07/31/2009 TRANSCRIPT

Page 3

268.40 198.54 2,965.05

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

$3,431.99

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB

BREY, DONALD C.

MEL

LEWIS, MARY E. - Law Clerk

61.70 hrs 8.70 hrs 70.40 hrs

325.00 /hr 90.00 /hr

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL EXPENSE~; INCURRED LATE PAYMENT CHARGE ON PAST DUE BALANCE TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE PLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$20,052.50 $783.00 $20,835.50

20,835.50 ,3,431.99 85.66 ¯ $24,353.15 $10,918.57 $35,271.72

DCB OCE - 0031

11-6574 0097


CHESTER WILLCOX SAXB E ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

Telephone 6141~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/221-4012 September 10, 2009 Billing 08/31/2009 Invoice# 118573 DC8 Our File # 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) Total Fees

$35,271.72 (10,918.57) $24,353.15

TOTAL NEW CHARGES

36,867.00 1,345.01 51.01 $38,263.02

TOTALBALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$62,616.17

Total Expenses Late Payment Charge

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE PAYMENT FEE (1.5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE.

RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE - 0032

11-6574 0098


CIIESTER WiLLCO

SAXI]E

ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

PH. (614~

65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 432t5-4213

FIN 31-4422499

September 10, 2009 Billed through 08/31/2009 Invoice Number 118573 Our file# 13292 OOO24 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND CtO BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR I025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DG 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian Balance forward as of invoice August "14, 2009 Payments received since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$35,271.72

(lo,918.57) $24,353.15

DCB OCE - 0033

11-6574 0099


13292

00024

Invoice# 118573

Page 2

DCB OCE - 0034

11-6574 0100


13292 00024

Invoice# 118573

Page 3

DCB OCE - 0035

11-6574 0101


13292 00024

EXPENSES 08/31/2009 08/31/2009 08/31/2009 08/31/2009

Invoice# 118573

HOTEL/MEALS WHILE TRAVELING MILEAGE PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.18 WESTLAW RESEARCH

Page 4

368.79 145.20 809.10 21.92

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

$1,345.01

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB

BREY, DONALD C,

EJW

WATTERS, ELIZABETH J.

107,90 hrs 6.10 hrs 114.00 hrs

325.00 /hr 295.00 /hr

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED LATE PAYMENT CHARGE ON PAST DUE BALANCE TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE PLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$35,067.50 $1,799.50 $36,867.00

36,867.00 1,345.01 51.01 $38,263.02 $24,353.15 $62,616.17

DCB OCE - 0036

11-6574 0102


CHESTER WILLCOX SAXI] E ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

Telephone 614/~ 65 East State StFeet Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/221-4012 October 15, 2009 Billing 09/30/2009 Invoice# 119254 DCB Our File # 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE,, N,W,, SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice

$62,616.17

PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)

$62,616.17

Total Fees Total Expenses

(0.00) 30,132.50 4,038.59 363.54

Late Payment Charge. TOTAL NEW CHARGES

$34,534.63

TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$97,~50.80

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE PAYMENT FEE (1.5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE,

RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE -

0037

11-6574 0103


CHESTER WILLC

E

ATTORNEYs & COUNSELORS AT LAW

PH, (614~

65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 October 15, 2009 Billed through Invoice Number Our file#

FIN 3t-4422499

09/30/2009 1 "19254 132£2 00024

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND CtO BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE,, N,W,, SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian Balance forward as of invoice September 10, 2009 Payments received since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$62,616.17

(0,00) $62,616.17

DCB OCE - 0038

11-6574 0104


13292

00024

Invoice# 119254

Page 2

DCB OCE - 0039

11-6574 0105


13292

00024

EXPENSES 09/30/2009 09t30/2009 09130/2009 09/30/2009

HOTEL/MEALS WHILE TRAVELING PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.18 TRANSCRIPT WESTLAW RESEARCH TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

Invoice# 119254

Page 3

1,291.17 1,216.80 1,366.55 164.07 $4’,038.59

DCB OCE -

0040

11-6574 0106


13292 00024

Invoice# 119254

Page 4

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB EJW DAS

BREY, DONALD C. WATTERS, ELIZABETH J. SCOTT, DEBORAH A.

66.20 hrs 11.50 hrs 27.50 hrs 105.20 hrs

325.00 /hr 295.00 /hr 190.00 /hr

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED LATE PAYMENT CHARGE ON PAST DUE BALANCE TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE PLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$21,515.00 $3,392.50 $5,225.00 $30,132.50

30,132.50 4,038.59 363.54 $34,534.63 $62,616.17 $97,150,80

DCB OCE

0041

11-6574 0107


CHESTER WI LLC OX , _ SAX B E ATTOR N EYS & COUNS ELORS AT LAW

Telephone 614f~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/221.4012

November 13, 2009 Billing 10/31/2009 invoice# 120356 DCB Our File # 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE,, N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice

$97,150.80

PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)

$97,150.80

Total Fees

5,315.50 5,388.81 936.72 $11,641 .O3

Total Expenses Late Payment Charge TOTAL NEW CHARGES TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

(0.00)

$108,791.83

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE ~AYMENT FEE (1.5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE,

PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE - 0042

11-6574 0108


C HE STE B Wi LLC O~SA~B E ATTORNI~Y~ & CC)UN$1~LOR$ AT LAW

PH, {614~

65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 432t5-4213

FIN 31-4422499

November 13, 2009 Billed through 10131/2009 Invoice Number 120356 Our file# 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND GfO BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR I025 CONNECTICUT AVE,, N,W,, SUITE 1000 WASHINGTONo DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian Balance forward as of invoice October 15, 2009 Payments received since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$97,150.80

(o.oo) $97,150.80

DCB OCE - 0043

11-6574 0109


13292 00024

Invoice# 120356

EXPENSES 10/31/2009 MEALS !0t31/2009 OVERNIGHT DELIVERY 10/3t/2009 PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.18 10/3t/2009 TRANSCRIPT 10/31/2009 WESTLAW RESEARCH

Page 2

46.60 64.28 14.58 4,632.4O 630.95

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

$5,388.81

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB EJW DEA

BREY, DONALD C. WATTERS, ELIZABETH J, ABBOTT, DIANE E.- Paralegal

15.80 hrs 0.40 hrs 0.50 hrs 16.70 hrs

325.00 /hr 295.00 /hr 125,00 /hr

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED LATE PAYMENT CHARGE ON PAST DUE BALANCE TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE PLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$5,135.00 $t18.00 $62.50 $5,315.50

5,315.50 5,388.81 936.72 $11,641.03 $97,150.80 $108,791.83

DCB OCE - 0044

11-6574 0110


CHESTER WILLCO ’ SAXB E ATTORNEY’=; & COUNSELORS AT LAW

Telephone 614/~ 65 East 8tare Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 4321~-4213 Fax 6141221-40"t2 December 11,2009 BiIling 11/30/2009 Invoice# 120855 DCB Our File # 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)

$108,79 i .83

(0.00) $108,79I .83

910.00 1 ,t99.89 1,449.29 $3,559.18

Total Fees Total Expenses. Late Payment Charge TOTAL NEW CHARGES TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$112,351.01

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE PAYMENT FEE (t,5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE.

PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE -

0045

11-6574 0111


CHESTER WILLCO SA B E ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

PH. (614~

65 East State Street SuRe 1000, Co{umbus, Ohio 4321.~.4213

FIN 31-4422499

December 11, 2009 Billed through 11/30/2009 Invoice Number 120855 Our file# 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERIC~,N LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, [3G 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian Balance forward as of invoice November 13, 2009 Payments received since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

EXPENSES 11/30/2009 OVERNIGHT DELIVERY 11/30/2009 PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.18 11/30/2009 TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

$108,791.83

(o.oo) $108,791.83

16.73 3.96 1,179,20 $1,199.89

DCB OCE - 0046

11-6574 0112


13292 00024

Invoice# 120855

Page 2

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB

BREY, DONALD C.

2.80 hrs 2.80 hrs ¯

325.00 /hr

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED LATE PAYMENT CHARGE ON PAST DUE BALANCE TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE PLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$910.00 $910.00

910.00 1,199.89 1,449.29 $3,559.18 $108,791.83 $112,351.01

DCB OCE -

0047

11-6574 0113


ATTOR N EYS & COU N$ ELOR5 AT LAW

Telephone 6141 ~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 6141221-4012 January 15, 2010 Billing 12/31/2009 Invoice# 121316 DCB Our File # 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krlkorlan BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)

$112,351.01 (112,351.01)

$o.0o

TOTAL NEW CHARGES

1,202.50 1.26 $1,203.76

TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$1,203.76

Total Fees Total Expenses

DUE UPON RECEIPT LATE PAYMENT FEE (1,5%-PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE,

PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE - 0048

11-6574 0114


CHESTER WI LLC O SAXI] E ATTORN ~YS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

PH. (6t4~

65 East State Street Suite t000, Columbus, Ohio 43215.4213 January"l 5, 2010 Billed through Invoice Number our file#

FIN 31-4422499

12/31/2009 121316 13292 00024

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N,W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian Balance forward as of invoice December 11,2009 Payments received since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

EXPENSES I2/31/2009 PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.18

$112,351.01 (112,351.01)

$o.oo

1.26

DCB OCE - 0049

11-6574 0115


13292

00024 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

Invoice# 121316

Page 2 $1.26

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB

BREY, DONALD C.

3170 hrs 3.70 hrs

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

325,00 /hr

$1,202.50 $i,202.50

1,202.50 "1,26 $1,203.76 $1,203.76

DCB OCE - 0050

11-6574 0116


CHESTER WI LLC O)(,, SAXB E ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

Telephone 614/~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/221.4012 February 12, 2010 Billing 01/3t/2010 Invoice# I21986 DCB Our File # 13292 00024 TURKISHAMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N,W,, SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) Total Fees Total Expenses

$1,203.76 (0.00) $1,203.76

TOTAL NEW CHARGES

10,164.50 29t.64 $10,456.t4

TOTALBALANCEDUE ON ACCOUNT

$11,659.90

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE PAYMENT FEE (1.5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE.

PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE - 0051

11-6574 0117


ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT L.AW

65 East State Street Suite t000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213

PH. (614~

February I2, 2010 Billed through Invoice Number Our file#

FIN 31-4422499

01/3~/2010 12~986 13292 00024

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE "i000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v, KrJkorian Baiance forward as of invoice January 15, 2010 Payments received since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$1,203.76

(o.oo) $1,203.76

DCB OCE - 0052

11-6574 0118


13292

00024

Invoice# 121986

Page 2

DCB OCE - 0053

11-6574 0119


13292

00024

Invoice# 121986

EXPENSES 01131/2010 DELIVERY CHARGE 01!31/2010 PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ 8.18

Page 3

58.00 233.64

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

$291.64

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB SDM EJW DAS CBM

BREY, DONALD C. MORRISON, SARAH DAGGETT WATTERS, ELIZABETH J. SCOTT, DEBORAH A. MURPHY, CHRISTOPHER B. - Law CJerk

26.60 hrs 0.30 hrs 0.40 hrs 5,70 hrs 1.60 hrs 34.60 hrs

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE PLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

325.00 /hr 285.00 /hr 295.00 /hr 200.00 /hr 110.00 /hr

$8,645,00

$85.50 $118,00 $1,140,00 $176,00 $10,164,50

10,164.50 291.64 $10,456.14 $%203.76 $1t,659.90

DCB OCE 0054

11-6574 0120


CHESTER WILLCOX, SAXI] E ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

Telephone 614/~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/221-4012 March 12, 2010 Billing 02!28/2010 Invoice# 122678 DCB Our File # 43292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) Total Fees Total Expenses Late Payment Charge TOTAL NEW CHARGES

$11,659.90

(o.oo) $11,659.90

9,535.5O 310.88 18,06 $9,864,44

TOTALBALANCEDUE ON ACCOUNT

$21,524.34

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE PAYMENT FEE (1,5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE,

PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE 0055

11-6574 0121


CHESTER WI LLCO SAXI] E ATTORN EYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

PH. (6t4~

65 East State Street Suite i000, Columbus, Ohio 432i5-4213 March 12, 2010 Billed through Invoice Number Our file#

FIN 31.4422499

02/28t2010 122678 13292 00024

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND CfO BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W,, SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DG 20036

Schmidt v. Kdkorian Balance forward as of invoice February i2, 2010 Payments received since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$11,659.90

(0.00) $11,659,90

DCB OCE

0056

11-6574 0122


1329~ 00024

~-"-

Invoice# 122678

Page 2

DCB OCE

0057

11-6574 0123


13292

00024

Invoice# 122678

EXPENSES 02/23/2010 U.S, DISTRICT COURT,; Invoice # 1:10-cv-00103; FILING

02/28/2010 02/28/2010 02!28/2010 02/28/2010 02t28/2010

FEE PRO HAC VICE DELIVERY CHARGE .LEXIS RESEARCH PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.18 OUTSIDE PHOTOCOPY SERVICE WESTLAW RESEARCH

Page 3

200,00 32.50 7.41 64.62 3.10 3.25

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

$310.88

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB

BREY, DONALD C.

JHB

BEEHLER, JASON H,

28.70 hrs t.30 hrs 30.00 hrs

325.00 /hr 160.00 thr

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED LATE PAYMENT CHARGE ON PAST DUE BALANCE TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE PLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$9,327.50 $208,00 $9,535.50

9,535.50 310.88 18.06 $9,864.44 $tl,659.90 $21,524.34

0058

11-6574 0124


CHESTER WILLCO SA B E ATTORNEYS & CQUNSELORS AT LAW

Telephone 614~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213

Fax: 614/221-4012

April 19, 2010 Billing 03/31/2010 Invoice# 123392 DCB Our File # "13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorlan BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) Total Fees Total Expenses

$21,524.34 (21,524.34)

$o.oo 2,632.50

TOTAL NEW CHARGES

122.12 $2,754.62

TOTALBALANCEDUE ON ACCOUNT

$2,754.62

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE PAYMENT FEE (1.5%-PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE,

PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE - 0059

11-6574 0125


C H E STE B WI LLC 0 ~S AXB E ATTORNEYS &COUNSEl.ORS AT LAW

65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215.4213 April t9, 20t0 Billed through Invoice Number Our file#

FIN 314422499

03!31/2010 123392 13292 00024

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND c/o BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v, Kfikorian Balance forward as of invoice March 12, 2010 Payments received since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

EXPENSES 03/31/2010 MILEAGE 03/31/2010 PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $,18 03/31/2010 PARKING TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

$21,524.34 (21,524.34)

$o.oo

07.50 1.62 13.00 $122.12

DCB OCE - 0050

11-6574 0126


13292 00024

Invoice# 123392

Page 2

SUMI~IARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB

BREY, D.ONALD C.

8.’~0 hrs 8.10 hrs

TOTALPROFESS1ONALSERVICES TOTAL EXPENSESINCURRED TOTAL OFNEW CHARGESFORTHISlNVOICE TOTALBALANGEDUE ON ACCOUNT

325.00 /hr

$2,632.50 $2,632.50

2,632.50 122.12 $2,754.62 $2,754.62

DCB OCE - 0061

11-6574 0127


CHESTER WI LLC O)( SAXB E ATTORNEYS 8,: COUNSELORS AT’ lAW

Telephone 614t~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/221.40t2 May 14, 2010 Billing 04/3012010 Invoice# 124114 DCB Our File # 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice

$2,754.62 .

PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)

$2,754.62

Total Fees Total Expenses TOTAL NEW CHARGES

1,173.50 20.70 $1,194.20

TOTALBALANCEDUE ON ACCOUNT

$3,948.82

(0.00)

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE PAYMENT FEE (t.5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE.

PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE - 0062

11-6574 0128


ATTORNEYS & (I:OUN~;ELOR~; AT LAW

PH. (614)~

65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 432t5-42t3 May14, 2010 Billed through Invoice Number Our file#

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND CiO BRUCE FEtN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N,W. SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

FIN 3t-4422499

04/30/2010 124114 13292 00024

REDACTED

Schmidt v. Krikorian Balance forward as of invoice April 19, 2010 Payments received since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$2,754.62

(0.00) $2,754.62

DCB OCE - 0063

11-6574_0129


13292

00024

Invoice# 124114

Page 2

REDAOTED EXPENSES 04130/2010 PHOTOCOPYSERVICE @ $.18

20.70

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

$20.70

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB

BREY, DONALD C.

CBM

MURPHY, CHRISTOPHER B. - Law Clerk

2.90 hrs 2.10 hrs 5.00 hrs

325,00 /hr ii0,00 /hr

$942.50 $231.00 $1,173,50

TOTALPROFESSIONALSERVICES TOTALEXPENSESINCURRED TOTAL OFNEW CHARGES FORTHISlNVOICE

1,173.50 20.70 $’1 ,’194.20

PLUS PASTDUE BALANCE(DisregardifPaid) TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$2,754.62 $3,948.82

DCB OCE - 0064

11-6574 0130


CHESTER WILLCO SAXB E ATTORNI~YS & C:OUNS~I_ORS AT LAW

Telephone 614/~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 432t5-4213 Fax 6t4/221-4012 June 11,2010 Billing 05/31/2010 Invoice# 124974 DCB Our File # 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)

$3,948.82 (2,754.62) $1,194.20

TOTAL NEW CHARGES

2,600.00 51.27 41.32 $2,692.59

TOTALBALANCEDUE ON ACCOUNT

$3,886.79

Total Fees To’~al Expenses Late Payment Charge

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE PAYMENT FEE (1.5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE,

PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE - 0065

11-6574 0131


CHESTER WI LLCO)( SAXB E ATTOR N EYS & COU NS ELORS AT LAW

PH. (614~

65 East State Street Bulte 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213

June "11,2010 Billed through invoice Number Our file# TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N,W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

FIN 3t-442’;49g

05/31/2010 124974 13292

00024

REDACTED

Schmidt v. Krikorian Balance forward as of invoice May 14, 2010 Payments received since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

EXPENSES 05131/2010 LEXIS RESEARCH

$3,948.82 (2,754.62) $1,194.20

5.65

DCB OCE

0066

11-6574 0132


[3292

00024

Invoice# 124974

EXPENSES 05/31/2010 PACER RESEARCH SERVICE 05/31/2010 PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.18

Page 2

18.80 26.82

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

$51.27

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB

BREY, DONALD C.

8.00 hrs 8.00 hrs

325.00 /hr

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED LATE PAYMENT CHARGE ON PAST DUE. BALANCE TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE PLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$2,600.00 $2,600.00

2,600.00 51.27 41.32 $2,692.59 $1,194.20 $3,886.79

DCB OCE

006 7

11-6574 0133


CHESTER WILLCO)(, SAXB E ATTORN I~YS & GOUNSI~.ORS AT lAW

Telephone 614I~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 6141221.4012 July 15, 2010 BiiIing 06/30/2010 Invoice# 125608 DCB Our File # 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RFSIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., 8UITF= 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) Total Fees

$3,886.79 (1,194.20) $2,692.59

TOTAL NEW CHARGES

2,405.00 495.74 $2,900.74

TOTALBALANCEDUE ON ACCOUNT

$5,593.33

Total Expenses

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE PAYMENT FEE (1.S% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES " OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE,

PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE - 0068

11-6574 0134


ATTORNEYS & COUNSF. LORS AT LAW

65 East State Street Suite t000, Columbus, Ohio 43215.4213 July i5, 2010 Billed through Invoice Number Our file# TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND CIO BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

FIN 31-4422499

06130/2010 125608 13292 00024

REDACTED

Schmidt v. Krikorian Baiance forward as of invoice June 11, 20t0 Payments received since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$3,886.79 (1,194.20) $2,692.59

DCB OCE - 0069

11-6574 0135


13292

00024

Invoice# 125608

EXPENSES 06/07/2010 CLERK OF COURTS, CLERMONT; Invoice # 06072010; FILING FEE 06t30/2010 DELIVERY CHARGE 06/30/2010 PHOTOCOPY" SERVICE @ $.18 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

Page 2

200.00 216.00 79.74 $495.74

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DGB

BREY, DONALD C,

7.40 hrs 7.40 hrs

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS iNVOICE PLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

325,00 /hr

$2,405.00 $2,405,00

2,405.00 495.74 $2,900.74 $2,692.59 $5,593,33

DCB 0CE - 0070

11-6574 0136


CHESTER WI LLC ATTORNI~YS & COUN$1~LORS AT LAW

E

Telephone 614/~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/2214012 August 13, 2010 Billing 07/31/2010 Invoice# 126852 DCB Our File # 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNISCTICUT AVE., N.W,, SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice Adjustments Applied

$5,593.33 (5,552.01) (-41.32)

PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) Total Fees Total Expenses

$o.oo 877.50

TOTAL NEW CHARGES

4.£6 $882.46

TOTALBALANCEDUE ON ACCOUNT

$882.46

DUE UPON RECEIPT LATE PAYMENT FEE (1.5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE.

PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

.!

DCB OCE - 0071

11-6574 0137


CHESTER WI LLC O SAXI] E ATTORNEYS & COLJNSELORS AT LAW

PH, (614~

65 East State Street Suite t000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 August 13, 2010 Billed through Invoice Number Our file#

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

FIN 31-4422499

07131/2010 126852 13292 00024

REDACTED

Schmidt v. Krikorian BaIance forward as of invoice July 15, 2010 Payments received since last invoice A!R adjustments made since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

EXPENSES 07/31/2010 PACER RESEARCH SERVICE

$5,593.33 (5,552.01) (-41.32)

$0,00

4.96

DCB OCE -

0072

11-6574 0138


13292

00024 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

Invoice# 126852

Page 2 $4.96

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB

BREY, DONALD C.

2,70 hrs 2.70 hrs

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

325.00 /hr

$877.50 $877.50

877.50 4.96 $882.46 $882.46

DCB OCE

0073

11-6574 0139


CHESTER WILLCO ,}L ,SAXBE ATTOR N EYS & COU NS ELORS AT LAW

Telephone 6141~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, CoIumbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/221.4012 September 13, 2010 Billing 08/31/2010 Invoice# "127133 DCB Our File # "13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CON NECTICUT AVE,, N ,W., SU ITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) Total Fees Total Expenses

$882.46

(0,00) $882.46 130.00 - 49.44

TOTAL NEW CHARGES

$179.44

TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$1,061.90

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE PAYMENT FEE (1.5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE,

PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE - 0074

11-6574 0140


CHESTER WILLCO)(. SAXB E ATTORNEYS & (:~:OUNSELORS AT LAW

pH. (614)~

65 East State Street Sqite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 4321~-4213

FIN 31-4422499

September 13, 2010 Billed through 08/31/2010 Invoice Number 127133 Our file# 00024 13292 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON~ DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian Balance forward as of invoice August 13, 2010 Payments received since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

EXPENSES 08/31/20i0 CONFERENCE CALl-

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

$882.46

(0.0o) $882.46

49.44 $49.44

DCB OCE

0075

11-6574 0141


13292

00024

Invoice# 127133

Page 2

,SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB

BREY, DONALD C.

0.40 hrs 0.40 hrs

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE PLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

325.00 /hr

$130.00 $130.00

130.00 49.44 $’179.44 $882.46 $1,061,90

DCB OCE

0076

11-6574 0142


CHESTER WILLCO SAXI] E ATTOR NI~YS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

Telephone 6141~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215.4213 Fax 614/221-4012 October 14, 2010 Billing 09/30/2010 Invoice# 128317 DCB Our File # 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) Total Fees Total Expenses

$1,061.90 (882.46) $179,44 9,753.00 481.52

TOTAL NEW CHARGES

$10,234.52

TOTALBALANCEDUE ON ACCOUNT

$10,413.96

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE PAYMENT FEE (1.5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE.

PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE - 0077

11-6574 0143


CHESTER WILLCOX SA B E ATTORN EYS & C:OUNSI~LORS AT LAW

PH. (614~

65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 4321.~.4213 October 14, 2010 Billed through Invoice Number Our file#

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEtN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N,W. SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DO 20036

FIN 31-4422499

09/30/2010 128317 13292 00024

REDACTED

Schmidt v. Krikorian

Balance forward as of invoice September 13,2010 Payments received since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$1,061.90 (882,46) $179.44

DCB OCE - 0078

11-6574 0144


13292

00024

Invoice# 128317

Page 2

REDACTED

EXPENSES 09/30/2010 09/30/2010 09f30/2010 09/30/2010

HOTEL/MEALS WHILE TRAVELING MILEAGE PHOTOCOPY SERVICE FOR THE MONTH @ $.18 OUTSIDE PHOTOCOPY SERVICE

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

235.86 155.5O 87.66 2.50 $481.52

DCB OCE - 0079

11-6574_0145


13292 00024

Invoice# 128317

Page 3

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB SDM EJW CBM

BREY, DONALD C. MORRISON, SARAH DAGGETT WATTER$, ELIZABETH 3. MUF~PHY, CHRISTOPHER B. - Law CIerk

23.20 hrs 2.00 hrs 4.60 hrs .-. 2.60 hrs 32.40 hrs

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE PLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

325.00 /hr 285.00 /hr 295.00 /hr 1"10.00 /hr

$7,540.00 $570.00 $1,357.00 $286.00 $9,753,00

9,753.00 481.52 $t0,234.52 $t79.44 $10,413.96

DCB OCE - 0080

11-6574_0146


CHESTER WILLCO SAXI] E ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

Telephone 614~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/221.40t2 November 11,2010 Billing 10/31/2010 Invoice# 128728 DCB Our File # 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v, Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)

$10,413.96 (10,413.96)

$o.o0

TOTAL NEW CHARGES

11,358.50 199.30 $11,557.80

TOTALBALANCEDUE ON ACCOUNT

$11,557.80

Total Fees Total Expenses

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE PAYMENT FEE (1,5%’-PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE,

PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE -

0081

11-6574 0147


CHESTER WILLCO}( SAXI] E ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS; AT LAW

65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213

FIN 31-4422499

November 11, 2010 Billed through 10/31/2010 Invoice Number 128728 Our file# 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR t025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

REDACTED

Schmidt v. Krikorian Balance forward as of invoice October 14, 2010 Payments received since last invoice Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$10,413.96 (10,413.96)

$o.o0

DCB OCE - 0082

11-6574 0148


13292

00024

Invoice# 128728

Page 2

R£DAOTED

DCB OCE

0083

11-6574 0149


13292

t~,,~ice# 128728

00024

Page 3

REDACTED_

EXPENSES 10131/2010 PHOTOCOPY SERVICE FOR THE MONTH @ $.18 10131/2010 TRANSCRIPT 10/31/2010 WESTLAW RESEARCH TOTAL DISBURSEM_ENTS

117.90 70.O0 1 t .4O $199.30

DCB OCE

0084

11-6574 0150


13292 00024

Invoice# 128728

Page 4

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB SDM EJW CBM

BREY, DONA.LD C. MORRISON, SARAH DAGGETT WAFTERS, ELIZABETH J. MURPHY, CHRISTOPHER B. - Law Clerk

14.00 hrs 4.80 hrs "~7.t0 hrs 3.60 hrs 39,50 hrs

TOTAL PROFESSIONALSERVICES TOTALEXPENSESINCURRED TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THISINVOICE TOTALBALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

325.00 /hr 285,00 /hr 295.00 /hr 110.00 /hr

$4,550.00 $t,368.00 $5,044.50 $396.00

$11,358,50’

1 t ,358.50 199.30 $’11,557.80 $1 t,557.80

i

DCB OCE 0085

11-6574 0151


CHESTER WILLC O)( SAXB E ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

Telephone 614/~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/221-40t2 December 10, 2010 Billing 11/3012010 Invoice# 129453 DCB Our File # 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice

$11,557.80

PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)

$11,557.80

Total Fees

(0.00) 18,688.50 1,331.36

Total Expenses TOTAL NEW CHARGES

$20,019.86

TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$31,577.66

DUE UPON RECE1FT

LATE PAYMENT FEE (1,5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE,

PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE -

0086

11-6574 0152


ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

PH. (614)~

FIN 31-4422499

65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213

December 10, 2010 Billed through 11/30/2010 Invoice Number 129453 Our file# 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 4025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

REDACTED

Schmidt v, Krikorian

Balance forward as of invoice November 11,2010 Payments received since last invoice

$1 t,557.80

Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$1’1,557.80

(o.oo)

DCB OCE - 0087

11-6574 0153


13292

00024

Invoice# 129453

Page 2

REDACTED

DCB OCE - 0088

11-6574 0154


13292 00024

Invoice# 129453

Page 3

REDACTED

DCB OCE - 0089

11-6574 0155


13292

00024

Invoice# 129453

Page 4

-REDACTED

EXPENSES 11/30/2010 11t30/2010 1 t/30/2010 11130/2010 11/30/2010 tl/30/2010 11/30/2010

CONFERENCE CALL DELIVERY CHARGE MILEAGE OVERNIGHT DELIVERY PHOTOCOPY SERVICE FOR THE MONTH @ $,18 TRANSCRIPT WESTLAW RESEARCH

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

53.68 2t 6.00 145.50 109.46 222.66 402.50 181.56 $1,331.36

DCB OCE - 0090

11-6574 0156


13292

00024

Invoice# 129453

Page 5

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB EJW

gREY, DONALD C. WATTERS, ELIZABETH J.

35.90 hrs 23.80 hrs 59.70 hrs

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE PLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

325.00 /hr 295.00 /hr

$11,667.50 $7,021.00 $18,688.50

18,688.50 1,331.36 $20,0t9.86 $11,557.80 $31,577.66

DCB OCE

0091

11-6574 0157


CHESTER WILLCO)( ,SAXB E ATTORNI£YS & COUNSI~LORS AT’ LAW

Telephone 614t~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 432t5-4213 Fax 614/22i-4012 January 17, 2011 Billing 12/31/2010 Invoice# i30554 DCB Our File # 13292 00024 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian BALANCE FORWARD Payments received since last invoice PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)

$31,577.66

(o,oo) $3t ,577.66

4,830.00 90.52 473.66 $5,394.18

Total Fees Total Expenses Late Payment Charge TOTAL NEW CHARGES TOTALBALANCEDUEON ACCOUNT

$36,971.84

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE PAYMENT FEE (1.5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCES OVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE.

PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE - 0092

11-6574 0158


ATTORNEYS & COUNSI~IOR$ AT LAW

PH. (614)~

65 East State Street Suite t000, Columbus, Ohio 43215.4213 January t7, 201i Billed through Invoice Number Our file#

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND C/O BRUCE FEIN RESIDENT SCHOLAR 1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000 WASHINGTON, DC 20036

FIN 31-4422499

12131/2010 130554 13292 00024

REDACTED

Schmidt v. Krikorian Balance forward as of invoice December 10, 2010 Payments received since last invoice

$31,577.66

Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$31,577.66

(0.00)

DCB OCE - 0093

11-6574 0159


Invoice# 130554

13292 00024

Page 2

REDACTED

EXPENSES 12131/2010 LEXIS RESEARCH 12131/2010 OVERNIGHT DELIVERY 12/31/2010 PHOTOCOPY SERVICE FOR THE MONTH @ $.18 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

3.41 14.39 72.72 $90.52

DCB OCE

0094

11-6574 0160


13292

00024

Invoice# 130554

Page 3

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS DCB I=JW

BIREY, DONALD C. WATTERS, ELIZABETH J.

13.50 hrs i.50 hrs "I~.00 hrs

325.00 /hr 295.00 /hr

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED LATE PAYMENT CHARGE ON PAST DUE BALANCE TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE PLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid) TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$4,387.50 $442.50 $4,830,00

4,830.00 90.52 473.66 $5,394.18 $31,577.66 $36,971.84

DCB OCE - 0095

11-6574 0161


EXHIBIT 12

11-6574 0162


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW IN RE: REVIEW No.: DATE: LOCATION: TIME: PARTICIPANTS:

Representative Schmi dt’ s Chi ef of Staff 11-6574 April 6, 2011 425 3ra St., SW Washington, DC 20024 2:00 p.m. to 2:55 p.m. (approximately) Kedric L. Payne Paul J. Solis

SUMMARY: The OCE requested an interview with Representative Schmidt’ s Chief of Staff, who is now her former Chief of Staff, on April 6, 2011, and he consented to an interview. Representative Jean Schmidt, who is a Member of the United States House of Representatives and represents the 2nd District of Ohio. Representative Schmidt’s Chief of Staff made the following statements in response to our questioning:

The witness was given an 18 U.S.C. § 1001 warning and consented to an interview. He signed a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the case file in this review. The witness is currently a partner at BKM Consulting, which provides various services to political campaigns. He has been employed there since approximately May 2010, which is when he left his employment with Representative Schmidt. He became employed with Representative Schmidt shortly after she was elected in 2005. He served as her Chief of Staff from that time until he left in 2010. As Chief of Staff, the witness supervised all functions of the congressional office. Prior to working for Representative Schmidt, the witness worked for at least three other House Members including Representative Kevin DeWine. The witness told the OCE that he volunteered for Representative Schmidt’ s campaign committee, but the campaign never employed him. The witness first met David Krikorian in Representative Schmidt’ s office in 2006 or 2007. The witness told the OCE that Mr. Krikorian came to the office claiming he was the President of the Ohio Armenian Association. MOI - Page 1 of 4

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

11-6574 0163


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended Mr. Krikorian came to the office to ask Representative Schmidt to support the Armenian genocide resolution. During the meeting with Representative Schmidt, Mr. Krikorian became belligerent because Representative Schmidt would not commit to voting for the resolution. The witness told the OCE that in 2008 Mr. Krikorian campaigned against Representative Schmidt and constantly attacked her in the Armenian media. 10. During the week before the election in November 2008, Mr. Krikorian put pamphlets on

cars at Representative Schmidt’s church. The pamphlets criticized Representative Schmidt and included allegations that she accepted "blood money" from the Turkish government. These types of statements occurred after the election as well. 11. As a result of Mr. Krikorian’s pamphlets and other statements that he made about Representative Schmidt, the witness and Representative Schmidt began considering possible legal actions against Mr. Krikorian following the election in November 2008. The witness told the OCE that he and Representative Schmidt took no action until January 2009. 12. In January 2009, Mr. Krikorian continued to make public statements about

Representative Schmidt. 13. The witness was familiar with the Ohio Election Commission ("OEC") and its ability to adjudicate false statements partly because Mr. Krikorian had filed complaints against Representative Schmidt with the OEC. 14. During the first quarter of 2009, Bruce Fein called the witness and said that he wanted to

help Representative Schmidt pursue legal action against Mr. Krikorian and said he worked for the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund ("TALDF"). The witness knew Bruce Fein from his work with Representative DeWine. Mr. Fein then visited Representative Schmidt’ s office to meet. 15. The witness told the OCE that Mr. Fein suggested that the legal fee arrangement should

be a contingency fee. Mr. Fein suggested that Representative Schmidt could sue Mr. Krikorian for millions of dollars based on his statements about her. 16. The witness was not certain whether the services could be provided under a contingency

fee based on House ethics rules and federal election law. He contacted the Federal Election Commission ("FEC"), the House General Counsel’s Office, and the House Committee on Ethics to get approval of the arrangement for legal services.

MOI - Page 2 of 4

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

11-6574 0164


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 17. The witness explained to the OCE that Mr. Fein "never" talked about providing legal services at no charge and "definitely wanted to do a contingency fee." Mr. Fein was the first person to suggest a contingency fee.

18. The witness knew Mr. Fein because Mr. Fein had previously worked for Representative Mike DeWine. The witness had worked for Representative DeWine’s campaign. 19. The witness also knew Lincoln McCurdy of the Turkish Coalition of America CTCA"). Mr. McCurdy had visited the witness in Representative Schmidt’s office to lobby him on the Armenian genocide resolution. He met Mr. McCurdy in 2007 or 2008.

20. The witness never discussed the possibility of filing a complaint against Mr. Krikorian with Mr. McCurdy. 21. Although he was waiting for ethics approval on the legal fees, he did not instruct Bruce

Fein to delay filing the complaint with the OEC. The witness stated that at the time he did not know who would pay for the services, but Representative $chmidt wanted to go to court. The witness told the OCE that if the legal services were not approved by the Committee on Ethics he expected that Representative Schmidt would use personal funds to pay for the legal services. 22. The FEC told him that campaign funds could be used to pay for the legal services if the Committee on Ethics approved such use. 23. The witness contacted the Committee on Ethics and had numerous conversations with the staff about how to draft a letter requesting approval of the legal services. 24. The witness asked whether Representative Schmidt could pay for legal expenses with

campaign money or have a contingency fee agreement. These conversations lasted several weeks to months. 25. The Committee on Ethics explained to him the possibility of establishing a legal expense

fund. At that time, the witness’ personal understanding was that legal expense funds had never been used other than for defense issues. However, the Committee on Ethics’ counsel told him that she thought the fund could be used for Representative Schmidt’s situation as well. 26. The witness told the OCE that the Committee on Ethics counsels told him not to accept any bill for the legal services during this time. 27. The witness’ first formal request for Committee on Ethics approval of the legal fees is in a letter dated September 17, 2009 (Schmidt_0029). He drafted the letter to the

MOI - Page 3 of 4

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

11-6574 0165


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended

Committee on Ethics on behalf of Representative Schmidt requesting approval of the legal fees. 28. When asked why there was a time lapse between the first meeting with Mr. Fein and the

September 17, 2009 request, the witness stated that he was waiting for the Committee on Ethics to provide him with the final language for the request letter. 29. In response to the letter, the Committee on Ethics asked the witness for information about the amount of hours the attorneys had worked on the legal matters. 30. As a result, the witness wrote a letter to the Committee on Ethics, dated October 8, 2009 (Schmidt_0031), explaining that the attorneys had worked â&#x20AC;&#x2122;just shy of 200 hours". 31. The witness also provided the Committee on Ethics with a letter from Bruce Fein to

Representative Schmidt stating that the attorneys agreed to represent her on a contingency fee basis. The witness does not know when this letter about the contingency fee was written. 32. The witness told the OCE that he believes on January 21, 2010, he sent a letter or email

to the Committee on Ethics to amend the request for approval of a contingency fee. He said that the Committee on Ethics advised him that the approval of the legal services could happen quicker if he removed the request for a contingency fee. 33. He explained that the TALDF attorneys provided legal services for the appeal of the OEC matter as part of the representation in filing the complaint with the OEC. 34. TALDF submitted an amicus brief on behalf of Representative Schmidt in federal court

in Ohio without the witness knowing that the brief was going to be filed. He was not alerted to the filing until after it had been done. 35. Although the witness received the advisory opinion from the Committee on Ethics in

February 2010, he was not involved in establishing a legal expense fund. He does not know why the request for approval of legal expense fund was not sent to the Committee on Ethics until July 2010. He explained that he was no longer employed with Representative Schmidt by July 2010. This memorandum was prepared on April 7, 2011, based on the notes that the OCE staff prepared during the interview with the witness on April 6, 2011. I certify that this memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on April 6, 2011. Kedric L. Payne Investigative Counsel MOI - Page 4 of 4

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

11-6574 0166


EXHIBIT 13

11-6574 0167


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW IN RE: REVIEW No.: DATE: LOCATION: TIME: PARTICIPANTS:

Representative Jean Schmidt 11-6574 March 31, 2011 2464 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515 10:40 am. to 11:40 a.m. (approximately) Kedric L. Payne Paul J. Solis Joe Jansen

SUMMARY: Representative Jean Schmidt is a Member of the United States House of Representatives and represents the 2nd District of Ohio. The OCE requested an interview with Representative Schmidt on March 31, 2011, and she consented to an interview. Representative Schmidt (the "witness") made the following statements in response to our questioning: The witness was given an 18 U.S.C. § 1001 warning and consented to an interview. She signed a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the case file in this review. The witness told the OCE that she decided that she wanted to file a complaint with the Ohio Election Commission ("OEC") against Mr. Krikorian in November 2008. This decision was the result of an extended period of time of Mr. Krikorian making public statements criticizing the witness. At that point the witness felt she had to do something about Mr. Krikorian’s statements. She knew Bruce Fein from her years of serving in Congress. Mr. Fein was aware of Mr. Krikorian’s public statements about the witness. He offered the legal services of the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund ("TALDF") to assist the witness with the complaint against Mr. Krikorian. She could not recall how or when these discussions with Mr. Fein began. The witness has known Lincoln McCurdy, president of the Turkish Coalition of America ("TCA"), for about four or five years from his work on Capitol Hill. The witness stated that she did not have a discussion with Mr. McCurdy about TALDF’s legal representation but does not know whether her previous Chief of Staff had such discussions.

MOI- Page 1 of 3

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

11-6574 0168


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended

5. The witness was familiar with the TCA through the Congressional Turkish Caucus, which she joined. The witness told the OCE that TALDF did not offer to provide the legal services to her for free. She discussed with Mr. Fein the possibility of a contingency fee, but this option was not pursued. She is not sure why it was not pursued and she does not recall when these conversations occurred. The witness stated that, between her and TALDF, she was the first to discuss paying for the legal services. The parties also discussed the possibility of having the witnessesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; campaign committee pay for the legal services or establish a legal expense fund. When asked if she instructed the TALDF attorneys to delay filing the OEC complaint, the witness stated that she did not. 10. The witness stated that Mr. Fein selected the local counsel, Donald Brey. She told the

OCE that she knew of Mr. Brey for many years from his work with the Ohio Republican Party. She told the OCE that she did not recommend him and was surprised to learn that he was local counsel. 11. The witness continues to work with the Committee on Ethics to establish a legal expense

fund, but the issue has not been finalized because the Committee on Ethics is uncomfortable with the trustee that she initially selected. 12. She told the OCE that ethics advice concerning payment for the TALDF legal expenses was first requested during the summer of 2009. Her then Chief of Staff, Barry Bennett, informally asked for this advice. The advice was requested in order to determine whether everything was fight and proper with accepting TALDF legal services. 13. Later in September 2009, a formal written request was submitted to the Committee on

Ethics. When asked why she waited until September 2009 to make the formal request, the witness stated that it just felt like the right time to do it. 14. The witness received an advisory opinion from the Committee on Ethics in February

2010. When asked why there was a delay between her receipt of the advisory opinion and her July 2010 request for approval of a legal expense trust, the witness stated that she and Mr. Bennett were trying to select a trustee. 15. Concerning the later legal actions taken by TALDF on her behalf, the witness stated that

TALDF continued to be her legal counsel because she did not want to change attorneys

MOI - Page 2 of 3

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

11-6574 0169


CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended unless necessary. The witness stated that there was an understanding that she would pay for all of the legal services rendered. 16. Mr. Bennett was the primary point of contact between the witnessâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; office and TALDF. This memorandum was prepared on April 4, 2011, based on the notes that the OCE staff prepared during the interview with the witness on March 31,2011. I certify that this memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on March 31, 2011.

Kedric L. Payne Investigative Counsel

MOI - Page 3 of 3

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

11-6574 0170


EXHIBIT 14

11-6574 0171


TALDF Requests Criminal Investigation in Ohio

HOME YOUR RIGHTS ISSUES & CASES COMMENTS CONTACT LIN KS

Page 1 of 2

ISSUES & CASES TALDF REQUESTS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN OHIO ARMENIAN AMERICAN VERBAL THUGGERY PROVOKES CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION REQUEST Washington DC, November 3, 2008 - The Turkish American Legal Defense Fund today requested the Attorney General of Ohio, Nancy H. Rogers, to open a criminal investigation under Ohio law into signature Armenian verbal thuggery employed by Armenian American independent candidate David Krikorian against Representative Jean Schmidt. The Congresswoman represents the 2nd district of Ohio, and is running for re-election. The criminal lies under that Krikorian recently splattered against Ms. Schmidt are emblematic of the religiously and ethnically bigoted campaign tactics that Armenian Americans celebrate, directly or indirectly, against congressional candidates who refuse to salute their narrow, close-minded, fanatical anti-Turkish agenda. Ohio’s Revised Code makes criminal intentional falsehoods calculated to impact elections. Other candidates for Congress who have been similarly victimized by Armenian American verbal thuggery in the 2008 election cycle include Steve Cohen (Tenn.), Virginia Foxx (N.C.), Charles Hahn (Calif.), Robert Wexler (Fla.), and Jill Morgenthaler (Ill.). Kirkorian’s criminal lies about the Congresswoman and her campaign supporters are posted on the Internet at krikorianforcongre$$.¢om. The Armenian American’s posting in substance falsely accuses Congresswoman Schmidt of bribery and Turkish Americans who have made campaign contributions for her of paying bribes, i.e., that she bargained for campaign contributions from Turkish Americans in exchange for a promise to take official actions in Congress in opposition to perennial "Armenian genocide" resolution in the House of Representatives: "Representative Jean $chmidt has taken $30,000 in blood money to deny the genocide of Christian Armenians by Muslim Turks." Contrary to the Krikorian’s lies, there was no quid pro quo or any irregularity whatsoever in the campaign contributions for Congresswoman Schmidt. As is customary in political campaigns, contributors make financial contributions to candidates who support the policy positions of which they approve. In fact, Armenian Americans and their political action committees scrupulously confine their contributions to candidates who support or pledge to support "Armenian genocide" resolutions. Congresswoman Schmidt’s opposition to the Armenian genocide resolution is readily explained by historical facts. Her conclusions accord with renowned Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis of Princeton University, who has been consulted by the White House under President George W. Bush, and others of comparable academic prestige. The Congresswoman, based on her independent research does not believe the tragic events of World War I, in which both Armenians and Turks were killed in harrowing numbers, constituted genocide--an accusation that has never been proven in a court of law. She further maintains that the historical question is not appropriate for Congress to legislate. The Turkish American Legal Defense Fund has written a letter to Attorney General Rogers urging a criminal investigation and prosecution of David Krikorian under Ohio campaign and false statement laws, Ohio Revised Code, section 3517.02 and section 2921.13(A)(2), respectively. To paraphrase attorney Joseph Welch’s rebuke to Communist witch hunting Senator Joe McCarthy, have Armenian Americans no sense of decency, at long last? Have they left no sense of decency?

http://www.taldf.org/ohio.html

11-6574 0172


TALDF Requests Criminal Investigation in Ohio

Page 2 of 2

TALDF will oppose any assault from any quarter on the right of Turkish Americans to participate fully in the American political process, including voicing their opinions on issues impacting Turkish -American relations or otherwise. Home I Your Rights I Issues & Cases I Comments I Contact I Links Turkish American Legal Defense Fund - TALDF 1025 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 1000, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-370-~, Fax: 202-370-1398

http://www.taldf.org/ohio.html

11-6574 0173


EXHIBIT 15

11-6574 0174


5chmidt for Congre:~ 8280 Montgomery Rd., 5te. 204 (3ndnnati, OH 45236

Mr. David Krikorian 8132 Camargo Woods Court Cindnnati~ OH 45243~2206

COMPLAINT

Jean 5chmidt, file th}s Complaint under Oh}o Revised Code .<;e~ion 35!7.153 and aver the following under oath: I)

J have represented the Second Congressional t~ls~ri~t of Ohio M the United .States Cangress since Januarf 2007:

for re-ele~tion in 2008. 3) Dav}d Kdkorian, r~mtin8 as an independent, was one of ray opponents in the general election he!d on. November 4; 2008° 4) Each of the false statements enumerated below were designed to promote his candidacy for Congress and to defeat my re-ele~tion bid.

s)

I have ~ever received a donation ii~ order "to Deny the Genocide of Christian Armenians by Muslim Turks/’ t have never accepted an’~hing of va~ue in return for being influenced under lg U.S.C 2.01.

Mr, Krikorian ,~_s~t~d;~ -=, "Represe!!tatfve ~ean 5chmidt Has Taken ~30,000 in Blood Money to Deny the Genocide of Christian Armenians by Mush’~ Turks," Exhibit i

facts M at least two respects in violation of Ohio Revised Code Section ..,5,:7,21(A)(I0),

DKSub 0024 11-6574 0175


~ have never %fen~ed" an Armenlan genocide. My position as a Member of Congress has consistently been that the subject is not a fit question for Congress; and, that based on rny knowledge of the historical record ! cannot, at present, characterize the tragic events of 19:!5 in World War [ as an Armenian "~enocfde," which has a ve~ strict meaning. As a Member of Congress, I have neve¢ ~ted on an Armenian genocide resolution. I suppoR the formation of an international independent commission of exper~ to resolve the matter definitively.

9)

Mr. Krikorian’s can~pail~n website u~dermines his .~wn false accusation. The website recounts a statement in my office on March 29, 2007, which does not deny genodde, but expresses a~nosticism: "At this time [Jean Schmidt] does not have enough information to ~hara~eriz~ these deaths as 8er~ocide especially when those responsible are ~ong de~d.*’ The website also quotes from a statement made in ~y o~ce on May 2~, 2007, ]n which ~ do not deny genocide, but make a different po#~t about the exactin~ standards of proof counseling hesitation before leaping to a conclusion: "The United Nation, s describes #eno.dde as carrying out acts intended to ’~estroy, tn who~e or h~ par~, a national, ethn~q racial, or religious group.’ fn this ~nstance, it was ve~ difficult to k~}ow intent," On Nowmber 2, 2008, Mr. Krikorian addressed a letter to~ ~My Supporters and the People of ~he Second Co~re.~sional District." It contatns several ~<now~n~y false statements of fact in violation of Ohio Revised Code Section 3517.2:1(A){:[0)o Exhibit 2.

.t.l.} Paragraph 2 of the letter asserts: "l demand [Jean Schmidt’s] immediate withdrawal from this race and her apology to the people of the United States of America for the crime she [~as committed against our An~erica~ soldiers and humanity t)y denying the undisputed fac~s of the Armenian Genocide." :12)As elaborated in paragraphs 8 and 9 ofthis Complain, t, J have not "denied" the Armenia~ Genocide. (in addition, the "facts" are #or "undisputed," Reputable American who question the appropriateness of the genocide tabe~ for the tra6ic e~,ents of 19151926 inci~Jde famed Middle East expert Bernard Lewis of P~inceton University, the late 5tan£ord Shaw of LLC.I..A, Justin McCarthy oftl~e University of lo~isv~i#e. Guenter of the University of Massachusetts, Nor~an ltzkowitz of Princeton University, 8r~an G. Avigdor Low o[ Brande~s University, Mi~ael M:. Gt~.~ter of Tennessee Te~h, P~:erre Oberling of Hunter College, the late Rederic DavJson of George Washin#ou University, M~chael Radu o[ Foreign Policy Research Institute, and military hfstorian Edward Erickson. Outside of the United States yet more ~cholars have endorsee a cof~tragenocide ana~ys~s of the history of the Ottoman Armenians, amo~g them Gilles Ve~nstein of the College de France, Stefano Tr[nchese of the University of Chietf, AUgUSto 5in~gra of the U~iversity of Romae--Sapie~za, Norman Stoa.e o~ BJlkent University, and the historian Andrews Many, o: of tf~e Unive[sity of London).

DKSub 0025 11-6574 0176


;[3) Paragraph 3 of the November 2, 2008 }otter repeats the false assertion that Jean Schmidt °"deni[es]" the Armeri)an Genocide. 3.4) Paragraph 4 of the November 2, 2008. Getter further repeats the false assertion ~hat Jean .Schm.idt insanely "derd[es]...t~e Christian Armenian Genocid~ at th~ hands of the M~slim ~oman Empire." It also largely repeat~ the daubl:y-fa[sa statement in Krikorian’s website for the reasons set fo~h in paragraphs 8 an~ 9 of this Complaint: "Jean 5chm~dt has taken ~30,0~ ~n b~ood money from T~rk~sh ~ponsored action comm~ees to deny the slaughter of t.5 m~llion Armenian men, women, and cNidrm~ by t~e Ottoma~ Turkish Government during World War L" ~ addition, the statement makes the false assertion that I received campaign contributions from "Turkish government sponsored" poli[k’al actio~ commf~ees. No political action commiH.ee that donated to my campaign was %urkish ~ovemment sponsored.*’ True copies o~ th e affidavits of Lincoln McCurdy and Demir Karsan. Treasurer and President Turkish Coaiitio.n USA PAC and Turkish American Heritase PAC, respectively, are a~ached a.~ Exhibit 3.

Paragraph 7 of the November 2, 2008 letter again falsely accuses me of "den[ying]" the "Arm onion genodde" for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 8 and 9 of this Complaint. Paragraph .1.0 of the November 2, 2008 letter falsely asserts: "Jean Schmidt has taken 530,000 in b[oo~ money from Turkish government sponsored politico| action committees and Turkis.h ~eople in 2008 in exchange for helping.them to cover-up the mass murder of ~,S million Ch dstians. This information is public re~ord and can be found on the Federal Election Commission database at ~}}f£(v~.F~:~." Exhibit 4,

As set forth in paragraph 5 of this Complaint, i have never accepted a political contribution in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act (including inaction}. Ag set forth }n paragraph !4, I did not receive any campaign contributions from political action com~,-nittees "sponsored" by the Turkish governmenL ~9} The Website ~.t~Lv.~.~’~C.~2 does not .substantiate that political action committees tidal made contributions to me were sponsored by the Turkish ~overnment, nor does it identify campaign do~ors b y ancestry. In other words, the website does r~ot corroborate thIB~ ~*[urkish people" made donations to my 200£ congressional campaign,

20) It would be a crime under federal Jaw for the Turkish governrne~t (or any foreign national~ to fund a political actior~ comlTfittee that made donations to a federal candidate see~in~ ejection to Congress, among other federal offices. 2 U.5.C. 44~e. 2!) it would be a crime ui~der federal law for "Turkish people" to make contributions to feb:feral political campaigns for Congress, an!oa~ other federal offices, if the donor were not an American dtizon or permanent ~esk~nt al~en, 2 U,S,C 437 g(d), 4~:]:e[b),

DKSub 0026 11-6574 0177


22) Paragraph 3[4 of the November 2, 2008 letter repeats the false accusation that .lean 5chmidt has "deni [ed]" the Armenia~ ge~ocide for the reaso~s set ~or~h in paragraphs 8 and 9 of thi~ Complaint. Exhibit 2.. i debated Mr. Krikorian on three occasions durinl.~ the 2008 campaign. In none of those debates did he assert that I had solicited or received $30,000 from Turkish Americans, Turkish people, or Turkish political action committees for be~n6 influenced in the performance of my official duties as a Member of Congress re~rd~ng Armenian genocide resolution s. 24) I have spoken: to Mr. Krikodan face-.to-face on I occasion in my co~gre~siona! office. In that meetin~ he did not accuse me of receivin~ campaign contfibution~ in return for bei~g t~fluence~ ~n the performance of my o~cial duties as a Member of Congress~ 25) Neither Mr. Krikori,~n nor his agents ever inquired of me, my staff, or my campaign committee as to whethe~ ~ had made any promL~es or commitments to l~eing influenced in the performance of my official duties about the Armenian genocide resolution h~ return for ~ampaign contributions from "Turkish people" or "~rur~ish government sponsored political action committees." 26) In Mr. KrikoHanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ema]l excharlges with Bei~ LaRocco of my staff, it was related tO him that my knowledge of the facts and the currently available evidence had not convinced me of the Arme~d~n ge~ocide claim. Exhibit 5,

Wherefore, Jean Schmidt for Congress requests that the Commission conduct a hearing and is:sue a finding that David Krikorlar~ violated Ohio Revised Code Section 3517.21(A)110) during the 2008 general election campai~ in the Second Congress~ona~ District of Ohio by knowingly making false statements o~ fact as set forth in this Complaint, to ~ssue a public reprimand, and to gra~t such other relief that the Commission find just and equitable i~ [he chcum stances.

Further affiant sayeth ~ot.

DKSub 0027 11-6574 0178


EXHIBIT 16

11-6574 0179


~AN SCtlMII)’I" Schmidt for Congress 8280 Montgomery Road, Suite 204 Cirminnafi, ONo 45236 Complakiant, Case No. DA~,qD KRIKORIAN 8132 Camargo Cincinnati, Ohio 45243-2206 Respondent. C 0 ~It’L AINT

DKSub_O046 11-6574 0180


7.

Th~ abow quo~d ~at~rn~t ~ not t5 only fal~:hood oon~a~n~d ~ ~

Exk~ib~t A. C~her fhI~ ~t~m~n~ ~n th~ a~h~d. E~i~ A, a~’~ the subje~ of pe~ding Ohi~ Elections Con~ission Case No. 2009E-003. 8.

~e a~ q~.m~d sen~ falmly acc~s me, Jean 8d~idL of %~king money

~oma gmvi~ go~emmcn~ that i~ kilt~g ou~ soldiers". ~ cmx~cxt ~s 9. The above quoted statem~nl is t~Ise. 10.

David ~dan eith~ ~ows ~at the above qtlo[~t s~te~e~t iS NIs*~ o~ has made

false s~tement wiRt ~eC~ess disregard of iks ~ or Palsi~y, I 1. Moreowr, the sm~t.enee immedia~ly folio,Mug Ne above quot~ s~aement ~’qNe tink~ flyer is being M&ly NslHbu{~d aeros~ lge a~.ond distNc~ in the last days of INs e:ampo~t season to expo~ Je~ Schmidt as a bc~ycr of A.me~can his{ory and i~e~" Chris~iau Ii~ith." The linked flye~ to whic~ Ex~bit A mfe~ ~s a{~ached hereto as Exhibit B. The, ~eiN~a~s of Exhibit A will anti, stud thal J~n Seh~idt has taken. $30,000 m bl~d money from a foreign go,cart ~hat is killing ~ ~ldiers. 1~. Neifl~er i nor my CampaiN~ CommRtce have ~ve~."t~[en] money from a gove~mnent’, let along ~om % fomi~ government fl~at is NllNg our 11. ltis a viota~on efR.C. 3517.2I~)(i0) to: "’Post, publish, cffcuhte, disNbu~, o; otherwise Nss~inate a thtse s{atement concerning a c~N~te, .tither ~ow~g the: ~o be false or wi~ recMevs dim~gard of wheth~ it was l~dse or not, if the slat.emmet ~s de~fign~ to promote ~m election, nomination, or de:f}at ofNe cm~didate." 12. David K~kori~ has violated R.C. 3517.21(B)(10)

2

DKSub 0047

11-6574 0181


WI~EREFORE, Complainant requests that Respondent be lb~md in violation of R.C. 3 517~2I (B)(I 0), aztd that he ~ ~propfia~Iy s~cfi~ned~

.~,~

~

Swor~ to l?efo~ me rand subscri~il my present, thisi~.. ~ay of July,

DKSub 0048

11-6574 0182


EXHIBIT 17

11-6574 0183


21 W~ }3tong S~eet, Sw_’t~ Colnmb:m, Ohio 43 215

BRUCE BRUCE FBIN 1ff25 CONNECTIUOT AVE, WASI-11NGTON, DC 20015

COMMISSION ALLOWED 3I-tt3, ~OLLOWINO STA’I’E~NTS ~O B~.V~qTHDRA\VI~ gY TKE COMPLAINANT:

"t’I-tE COMMJSSION FOUND NO VIOLATION OF §~517.21 (B)( I 0) AS TO THE FOLLOWING ST A’I" ~M~qT AS ~LATES.TO 1"~ ~FNRF~fJE IN ~:-~IS S1"~rgMEN r TO THE ASSERTION THAT "rufgish p~p~e gave 130,000 TO lean

DKSub_O092 11-6574 0184


P~g~ 2 of ~

AN ADMINISTRATIVE DISMISSAL WAS DECLARED AS 3’0

orl g STATEMENT:

7.) "J~{n Scohmidt has taken $30,000 in blood mor~ey fi’om Turtd~h government sponsored pohtical action ~omn-Att~s mad "Darkish people in 2008 in exchange for helping them to cover~up the masa murder of ! ,5 million Cl’ristians." TIlE CONDCIISSION FOUND A VIOLATION OF R.C. §35t7,2!(B)(10) BY CLEAR AND CONVtNC.1NO EVIDENCE AS TO THE STATEMENT: 5.) "Jean Sehmidt has taken $30~000 in blood money from Turkish gove~Tm~ent ~2oonso~’ed po~itic~ a~tiou m~t~e~, to den~ sluu~ter c~f 1.5 miltio~ ~menin~ me~ women and ehi!dren by the Ottoman "Purldsb Govermnent &~ring World War 2’i-1E COMMISSION I-’OLrND A VIOLAT]ON OF R.C. }351221~)( 10} BY CL.E~ AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE AS TO THE FOLLO~NG S’I’ATEM~NT AS IT RELA’[~S ~ THE R~EI~NCE IN Tills STATEMENT TO ~ ASSERTION ’~rkiSh gov~ne~t sponso~d ~l~ti~ action co~N~ gave $30,000 to Jean Sc, Nnid~ ana or to Sct~nidt Nr ~nN~s ~mpaign

AS A PENALTY FOR THE VIOLATIONS FOLrND BY THE COMMISSION IN THIS CASE, ’t~E COMlvItSSION DETERMINED THAT THF.RE WAS GOOD CAUSE PRESENT NOT TO REFER THE MA’rTER FOR FURTHER PROSECUTION ~U’F INSTEAD TO [S[4151?., A LET’rER OF PI}BLtC REPRIMAND.

DKSub 0093 11-6574 0185


~o ~rthc~ action ~equ’2cd of?yo~ by ~h~ Com~s."~iom pursuant to O~0 ttevisefl Code ~i!9, A Hotlce ~f Appeal mt~st be filet in ~

~ ~!1 ca~;cs, pi~s¢ us~ ~b¢ OEC Caa~No. li~t~ at fl~ topof ~* lett~ when cor~p~ding with Commission: If ~o.a ~av~ any que, Son, pI~s~ f~l ffe~ to V:<ay tre2y ~,

DKSub_O094 11-6574 n~g


~a¢~ No, 2,909E~0t 2

Ohio

kqlling ~’4r sotdie~’.~ AS A PEI~AL£Y FOI’~’I2qP. V!OLA’UON FOtND BY Tt-PE, COMMISSION T~S CASE~ "f}Lg COMMIS~ON DECEIVED ~RAT 3"~E WAS CAIJSE P~SE>~ NOT TO ~i?R ]~.g ~%~R FOR FURTI~R

and S~ing r~qui~n~t~ ~ ~ eompli~ with no later th~ 30 da~ afl~ th~

wit~fin 30 &ys ~ ~ the d~ of N~ [~t~r. ~t pr~ly notarized aN~vRs

required o[N~ by {h~ Commission.

d~y~. ’1"~ Nofite mn.~t be flied wtfl~ the Comm~slon and a~o at Ihe C[t~rk~

DKSub_0096 11-6574 0187


EXHIBIT 18

11-6574 0188


E o ,o &

BF O0 1 11-6574 0189


EXHIBIT 19

11-6574 0190


THE COIJRT OF COM~I[ON PLEAS Ol~ CLERMONT COUNTY, 0~0 J-EA2N SCHMIDT Schnfidt ~or Congress 8280 Mor~tgomery Road, Suite 204 c:mc~at~, O~m 45~6

JUDGE HADDAD

;DAVID KRIKORLAN 8 t32 Camargo Woods Couat Ckncirmati, Ohio 45243-2206

KRIKO:I~AN FOR CONGRESS CA2vlPAIGN COMMI’VFEE 2 i 5 Main Street Mitlbrd, OH, 45 ] 50 Defendants. COMPLAINT Plaintiff Je~ Schmidt hereby file~s her complaint again~ Dethnda~ts [3avid Krikofian

ar, d the Krikofian *br Congress campNgn committee and a!leges as £ollows: NATURE OF THE CASE Complaint alleges cau~e~ of action for defamation ~md seeks compensatory and punitive d~tnages. Dcfen&mts’ de.f~natory statemenl~ accused Plaint~ in various respects, uf compIici~ in c~pai~ finance crimes, bribe~% pctj~uy, or obsln~cfion of justice. They p~blished w~th ill=wit1 or spite towards Pla~tiff and Mth knowledge of ~he:ir Nisity c~r reckless Nsregard of whether fiaey were false or noL Defendants are se~M defamers A the petifieal domain, which justifies a stiff deterrent in punitive damages to prevent chronic coatamin,~.tion of the, electoral process.

DKSub_0059 11-6574 0191


~TRISDICr[ON AND VENUE

Ch~r 2305.01. Vcnne is prope.r in C1~rmom Connty ~d~r ~vil R~ 3~)0) ~d (~ babus

it is wbcm Defendants conducted aoliv~" wNcN g~v~ Ns~ to PIMni~i~s claims for r~li~f or att or p~ ofNe clMms for relief ~rose~ PART~S 3,

N~liff, Jean Sehmidg was a ~gti.cd ~aiIbl~ as the f~st woman to

sontliern Ohi6 in t~e U.8. Ito~e of Representatives. She ho!~ a B.A., in PotRicaI Sde~ce ~om fl~e UNversi~ of Cind~ati. PINndff S&midt gas d~ieat~ over 35 years to iaboring for the Clem~ont cmmty Republican Party. Before entering na~onal polities, Pldnliff se~ed for eleven years as x to~vnship trustee ~d ~for fi~,e, ye~s i.n fl~e ONo House of Representative.. Sh~ has l~een a M~ ef Congress reNesenting the second disMet of .Ohio N. the !tous~ of Rep,esenlaNv~ sin~ she M~ph~ in a speci~ elecgon ~ 2~5. P1Nntiff Sc~-~idl d~feated Defendant Ktikotian, ~en an independeni, ~ the 2008 c.ongr~ss~onrd election. 8he is a cm~didae ag~dn in 2010, seek~g a fourN te~m in Con~eas. She is a m~ber ofNe R~ubticma Pa~y. 4.

Defendm~l, David KfikoNm~, is eith~ the cu~eN or foyer m~aging mem~r of

Paro@ Productions, LLC, a CNcinna~ basra pro6ucer and dis~ibu~or of novelW pla~g cards. In 2C~09, ~he ONo Nec~ions Co~nission v~ted b publiety reprimand Defen~t K~kona.n for mNioious iMsdmods he p~btL~hed about the Pfah~fiff on {he eve of Ihe 2008 eIection. senior .memb~ amd forme~ Chai=n~m of ~ie Armenim~ Na, ional Commi~ee of ONo, a. local branch of the ~m.enim~ NationaI Committee of America (ANCA). tt ig the l_Niled States a~a of the AmaeNgm Revolutionary Federation, a foreign polificaI pmâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ty based in fl~e Republic of

DKSub_O060 11-6574 0192


A~men]a and which ~so holds seats in the national mg~mbty of Lebanon. Kxiko.dan ~urr~n/iy re~id~s at 8I 32 Camargowood~ Ct, ~Cin~a~, Ohio 45243. 5,

During ~e, 0~o Elector, s Co~Hssion hearings in. 2609, Defendant David

Kfi~ofi~ ac~owledged fl~at he is r~o~ible for ~e a~ions of the c~gn commi~ee entitled "i~koriaa for C~n~ess," a C~Defend~t i~ ~is ease. D~g Defendm~t’s 20!0 "~ikorian for Congr~s" was h~adq~ered ~a 215 MNn S~eeE Milib~d, OH, 45150. ke~mer is Nat5~ BNI~. HerNa~er, Defend~mt David ~ikofi~ ~d ~kofi~ for Congress stroll be ~efe~ed to together as "the Defendant2’ BACKGROUND 6.

Most Americans of ~menim~ ~ee~’y take pride in their he,{lade

disparaging Ihose of other naIio~mt or ~N~ie backgrounds. However, ce~aln hoe groups have usarped the terms ’%m~enlmf’ and ~’A~e~ian Amebean" ins w~q ~at is n~epmsentative of the charac{er of most Americans of Ar~ne~an ~cestry. "It~se seIf-sIyled ~enian ~nericm~ leaders and orgmfiz~tions have a long hLstory of accruing m~y wrson who dedi,ms to endor~ the fl~es~s tha the Ottoman Armenim~ tragedy during World W~ I constitutes the crime of genocide of bring a pNd dupe of tee Gov~:rmnent of’l~t~:key or o:,mpliciI in the alleged ge.nodde 7.

Most Armenim~. Americas do ~ot intimidate, harass, tk~eate~, o~ reso~

violence against person, org~iza{ions, or covm~{es ~,at <~spute Ne ~Mmenian genocide tgesis. No,hind in this CompI~fint :i~ in~Med t~ mNig~ or can aspersion o~ ArmeN~ ~a~.erica~s as a. ~o!tp or ~ a~bute to them thTe conduct and characte~ of the hate groups ~md te~orist orgaalzaliong that have chosen to IabeI ~emselves "~menian" or "~me.~ian American". 8.

Two prominent ~-mmHan tcarofist orgm~Jzalions, the ~M~neMan Secret Axmy for

1he Liberation of Armenia ("ASALA") m~d the Justice Cor~dos of tim ~me;im~ Oenodde

3

DKSub 0061

11-6574 0193


("JCAG’), the former st.ill extant in Lef~anon, were labeled by t}~e FBt as {he most dmgerous terrori~ organizations in ~ tJN~ed States in ~e 1970s ~d I%0s. "~ey l~ave co~r~ged ~ores of te~ori~ acts on U,S. soil agNnst "rur~sh oftidals, pmons of TurNs~ d~scent, and persons whmn {hey beIieved disported tt~eir on~mens~oM ~de.m~d~ng of’lNrkish Anneni~ ASALA ~d JCAO ~e ~sponsible for 16 killings in NoNa Americ~ incl~ding five Tur~st~ diplomats, one law cnfgreeme~t o#icer, ~d ten eivitians. Even ~I.C.L.A. Professor Shaw’s home was firebombed in m*Niafion fi~r Ns academic resemeh on the issue~ 9.

O~!ser, leas xS.olent, hate grm~s and Mte ~oup a~e~nts have used different

of intimidation, tacl~cs to achie~’e &eir goa~s, inclu~ng ohmactor ~sassinadom 10. "I]~e firsi t~me Defendant ~k~ri~ met PMniiff Schmi~1t wins in Pta~tif~’s congressioaal oNces, prio~ to the 2008 oleorio= ~ycle. Defendan{ Kri.kori~ demanded thai Plaintiff Sehmidt ~e.come a co-spot,or:of a retention eondenxN~g ihe gover~vnm~t of Turkey and branding as "gmocide" the war orimes com~n{~ed in ~e ~om~m Empire a century ago. ~en Plaintiff ScNnidt declined ~ ~aediatety b~ome a s~=mr of such a ~solu~on ~d said sBe l~,at she would n~d to study ~e issne f~, Defendant ~iko~ begm~ sc~nming at her, ca!ling her names, and tI~realening to rNn her polili~lly. ~e inter~ew ended soon ~erea!ler. t I. Du~ng tge 2008 election cycle, ~fendm~t ~o~ian ran agaNsl ScIm~id! ~,:d Democratic nominee Victoria WulsN, as an Ndepe~de~at and as a selgs~ted Reagan conse.rva*ive. He placed.tNrd in the coniest. 12.

On the eve r~f the 2008 ge~erN election, De*?nd~t:s p~b!iety di~;seminated

mat~fiats accusing Pta~iff Schmidt of being a paid dupe, which she is not. 2~ese c~pai~a materials ~Mselv accused Plaintiff ScNnidt of tang money g’om th~ "rurMs1~ r2c ~,en~nent tiom 2~r~sh Govermne~t political actions con~miItees to deny tge Armen}an t~olocanst, and

DKSub 0062

11-6574 0194


falsely stated that this information, was a matter of public record on th~ F~&~al EI~fions Co~ss.m~ s webmt~. 13. Plain~i~ Sd~dl brawly h¢Id her ~mmd ~ refi~sed to be s~nsoring ~e ~fi-T~key resol~on despite Mr, KNkofia~’s ~re~t~ and deapit~ her h~owl~ge office }ga~ou of terrorism by ce~ain soil:styled Arme~m~ ~oups in ,he United S~t~. 14, In October 2009, *he Ohio Elections Coimi~ion fo~d %at Defendant KrJkorian had lied aNml PtaNtiff Se~idt and vot~ to i~gue lhree public reprho~dg to Defender ~Norian for 1he malicious falsehoods *hat he publish~ about PN~iff Je~ of ~e 2008 election. 15.

After ~e 2008 eI~.~ion, Defender ~ikoriad becmne a member of the

" Democratic Party by . ~d entered the 2010 ra~ {br ~he seat held. Representative Sc~mt. D~ing his 20t0 prN~ary cm~paign, Def~n&ml K~Noriaa was centred by state m~d local leaders of his o~m pony for making disparaging comments aBant the Asian-Indian name of Yal~n~.~chilL On May 4, 2010, Defender I~kofian was deleted in Ne 20!0 Dem~-aflc P~n~ by 8m-ya O~ >Aj_g2.1_. I S S../2I A~;MENT: ...................... 16. In 2009, Plai~I~i" flied two eompiNnts agNnst DeNndant David K~i.koria~ ~I~re the Ohio Elections Commisaion for several counts of mNicions iNse sNtemenks abou~ Plaintiff intended to h~fluenee, tM outcome ~f the 2008 election for ,he second congressiona! dis*xiet of O]do trader O1~ Revised Code 3517.2t(B}(10). On the eve of ballofing in November 2008, Defender distributed a flyer and an attacked let~et to voter~ in his disi,ict contahing ~te following statements wi~ fhctuat connoIafions: (a) J~ 8chmidt has taken $30,000 i~ blood money fi’om T~rkish govemmeat sponsored pol~ticd action eommi~ees ~o dew the slaughter of

DKSub 0063

11-6574 0195


! ,5 million .A.rme~i~a m~.~ wemen a~d children by the O~oma~ "rm~sh Gov~em dt~g W~Md W~ ! (Sc~m~dt v, KSkori~ OEC 2009E~003,.591.-60~)~ ~} "~is ~o~tion (’lk~rkish gowr~unmt sponsored politicaI action ~mmilt~ gave $30,000 to J~ Schmidt or the Sckmidt for Cong~s c~pai~ co~itte~) is punic ~¢ord and can be fo~d on ~e FEC ~tab~e at h~://w~w.FEC~gov (Sct~midt v, Kriko~an, OEC 2009E~003, 615--628); ~n~i, (c) people of Ohio’s secor~d d~rict to ask Nemse~ves if o~ Rep~esen~f~ve shoNd be ~ing money ~om a f<~rei~ goven~ent [;r~key] tt:at is ~ing o:~r soldiers (Sc~: v. ~ofi~, OEC 2009E-012, 627-630). 17: On October !~ 2009, The Ohio Nee~io~s Colnm~ssion nfle~t that the th.re~ a~egN~o~s reN~ed to above were Mse accoNi~g to ele~ and convincing e~dea~; arM, D,fendant Kriko~ian Nf!~er knew ~hey vge~e N~se or acted wiih reckles~ disregard ofwhefl~er were false or not whe~ he publ~st~ed ~hem. (Sekmidt v, KrN~3rian~ OEC 2009E~%3, 2009E~012, 606, 627, 630), ~e OI~o Elections Commission deten~.ined that Defender ~orian had h~owi.r~gly tied about Plaintiff ScNi~id~ in Ns effort to def?a1 her N th~ ek:ctio~, Olfio’s election laws. "~e ONo Elecl[o~s Commission voted to [sam k-xte~ of reprimand to Defe~daN Krikofian for n’taNng ~ese false statemen~ of Net as refl~ed in E~ibits I ~d. 2 atvaehe~ ~ereto~ 18. Defendant ~ik~ian appealed the ONo Electim:~ CommisNon’s decisiork appeals were dim~fissed, making Ne:OlN]+:s rulings final ~ndgments, which, trigger Ne doc,~ines of res judiea~a and eo!lateraI es~oppet. 19.

~e respective chairmen of ~he Dem~c~al~c Pray chapters in Hatnilton ~d

~e ~ce~i~ly publicly condemned D:eNndan~ ~iko~ipm,s paten~ racial Clermor~t cou~t~..s bigo~W. A.ccor~ing to published repo~s~ Krike~i~ ~ejora~ive}y c~n’maented abon~

DKSub 0064

11-6574 0196


group m.Cle~ont Co~.ty. ~.[e u~e,md ~rds. to the effect ~at ~yon¢ with a n~n¢ like fl~at W~s ur~eleaable. ~e two chai~ rea~ wi~ a le~er ch~acterizing the retook ~ "at be~ ~nsensitDe ~d ~ worst ... racist." "i~ey proelNmed fl~eir agreement M~ ~e ~ews Repub]ican Pa~y PINnfiff Sehmidt: "[~e have heard ~om several sconces that you have made tim of S~rga Y~aneh h s nine. New, for once, we find o~selves in agreement Mth the comments of Je~a 8ehmldt in the ~ramen~ she m~es in the a~aehed lett~. Like you, has put ge~ energy hato his c~pN~, ~m~ INe you, he has won m~y Mends aIong ~e way. is deepIy dist~rbing to us ~at y.ot~ wouN ~qe his n~e, wNch is ob~’io~sly dmqved 5ore his e~e he,rage, agNn~, him in a denigrating mamaer, especially given hdw s~engly yon value and celebrate your o ~ hentag . 2& Pla{~fiff Sc/h~Ndt earlier expressed her views on Defend.ar~t’s sneering at Yalam~cNli’s nm~e and anees~y in a separate letter to Defendant. She wrote: ~’T~te pt~ose fl~s te~er is m give you.fak w~i~g ~at I wi[1 not stana by and allow you to ur~ ~,acism 1o yore opponent’s n~e as was reported to me by those attending a recent speech you gave. 1 re~.nfiy Nesenled a report ¢m a preser~la/ion you made to a ~,ete~n’s ~oup in. Clermont Co~.. Ye~¢ remar~ there were offe~Nve to al! wt~o ~’,d eve~ ~e hint of radmn a~aIting, ym¢ presentation yo~t referred m yot~ op~nent repeatedly by drmnatieally m~d phoneti~iy pm.nou~ci>g Ns. n~e. Pokiug fun at his l~eritage w~s appallNg eno~gh but you~ nezt con~.mm:tt wag way over the line. You s~ted, according {o those veterans present, ’Now do yot~ really thing a N~y ~g.th a ~ame t~e t~at has a ch~ce at ev~ being e.lectedT Mr, N¢iko~’~aa, I do ,~ot ~firfl¢ t~ resMents of Ohio’s Second Co,~g.ressionat District a~e racists. I am shock~:t by bdmvior, Fur0~er, [ ~¢,dI1 ,mr alIow your prej udlce to go tmanswe~ed. You oxve Mr. :~

7

DKSub_0065 11-6574 0197


and the I~:diax~-A.merican community m~ @ology. ~o~n~h I doubt fl~at one ~s fo~heo~ng given your ~story~ Pte~se .conduct yo~self ~n ~ ma~er fi~g the office y~u seek. Racism h~s no place in ~ao debate, pe~od, PI~e be ~ss~ed that I ~dlI continue to ~ak t~p a~ut such should it continue. I ~ow you ~e new to ~e Democratic P~y but I would venue m guess ~at such behavior ~mll be part~cuI~ly o~ ~v ~. 2!. ~en MS~C’s liberal co--curator Keith O1bermmm ~med Defender K~.ko~an ’~he wor~ person in the world" for this behavior o:n April 30, 2010, Defender resoSe~ to his sound~ack thst h~.s detra~o~s ~ inv~ably finoncial]y compromised. Yal~c~li had been employed as abraM manager at Procter & Gamble, i~e. Kr~oH~ had ~en ~q ~ paid Ibr by Procte~ & G~mbte, Inc. d~ging M~. Olbem~arm’s Countdown show, Defbndmat isst~mtly charge: "Keith Olbermann is a buffoon fbr ~ot: checking ~s s~t~xces, not:even bothering to.check. But here’s ~e thing ~ w~li sta~e for the:record: Last ~fi~ht’s pro~am w~ spo~:o:ed by Procter & Ganxble’s Oil of O]ay brand, whi.ch is the c, xact br~d that Y~n~nchili worked for. So how Nd ~ey cover ~at sto~ last NgN’! Because I’m s~e that Kciti~ Olbermam~ is not r~ding fl~e Ci~tci~afi press, So our folks iNnk that ~he O11 of Otay br~d people - Procter and Gamble in paNeular ....were advancing their former employee: And ~at’s how i~ goI la there, [,.., ]I thfak [Olbennam~,]: ~s reading from his script, So ~mehow got ~u~ h: there.. And how did it get ~ut in N:.~e. ~,. J1, look at the rela~io~hi~ betw:e:: ~:e story

22, ML Olbemaann responded: %’o flesh ~his o~t a bit: a) ~.o adve,rti~ez "sponsors" ~he show, We have commerciais, but b)I don’t even see the a& on the show in the sg~dio. We checked- wlnich could be sl~nsor~J by Cmsley Rad:.o and I wouldn’t ~,, N.c¯ .v, A~d c ) we ........

DKSub 0066

11-6574 0198


evidmxtly Mr, Krikorian didn’t ~now .-- and ws ran no Oil of Olay a& on Friday; non~ from ’ l;roeter & ~ble, A e~veat: local ~bl~ ope~tors do ~et a few m~utes ~ ~o-ar to sell. It’~ possible somewhere on Friday ~a 0il of Otay spot ran d~g Co~dow~ ~n a g{ve~a ci~. But ~ose ~ots ~u~ly go to smiler advertisers, and even if they d6n’t, we ~en’t told about them, would r~ever ~ow who ~ey were, ~d get no mon~ ~om. them." He later added: "OK, now Pm told by a~ o~ine viewer fl~at P&G ads popped up ~fore the show eon~enl on-line, 23. Defendant Kr~o~a h~ p~bHcJy ded~ ~s passion to promote UniJed ~d intemati~nal ~cepl~a~ o£ the ~esis ~]~a~ "gencdde of Chris~i~ Asme~x~ans by Muslim Tm’k.s" oec.urxed ~n 1915. Defend~I percei, ve.~ aW dissenter J?om l£s ~ew as a mor~l]y b~k~pt enemy. Ead~ of the malidous def~aIory raise statements published by Defe~dar~t ~.bout Plaintiff and ~;~o~eled bdow were born of ~heae I~n mot[v~lions. 24. "lhe c~m~.n~! and d~f~a~0ry accusations ~hat ?De~e~&mt Kriko~J~ l~as seJatly leveIed against Plak~’t" Sd:~nJdt are p~t of a l~ger endeavor to resmJ to violm~.c~, accusations of crhne, or i~fimida~ion aga~t perso~ who c~Ilenge ~y pe~ of their thes~s, The endeavor led ~n !~ge measure by ~e ~eni~ Nation~ Cm~ni~ee of Amefic~ ("b~glA"), Defend~I ~ko6an has r~e~tty zoned ~ ~e ctmkm~ of ~he ANCA’s OI~io b~z~ch, whom he remains senior membeg. 25. A~CA’s apotogJa for A~.enian terrorism v~.der the bannc~ of llae Genocide ~hcsis f~ds }ts high water m~k in .fo~n~ ,~CA Cba~mmn Mo~radTop~ian. h~ 1999, ~he United States indicted "]~pdias, then ~ O;~io resi&nt, ~or terrorist-lisked hate ¢r~mes. X-~e ~dlegedIy possessed mach~e guns sad stored more tl~an ]00 pounds of tfigh eaplosDes ~e~r a sta~on adjacent to a day care ce~ter h~ Bedford, Ohio. }1!s ~ndictme~t connected him ~o

9

DKSub_0067 11-6574 0199


tmorkst attacks in fl~e United ~ates: the 5ombNg of the Tuikish Mission at the Uni{ed Nations Plaza on O~t~b,.~ 12, 198:0; fine bombing at ~e Turkish Consuiate in Beverl.y Hills rm November 20, 1981; and, both the a~Iempted bombing of the offices of Ne He.notary Turkish Consul Oenerali in Philadelphia and his assassination on October 22, I982."~ "lhe indic~me~ also charged Topaliart MN trairdng Armen~m~ youths at: a summer c&mp in. the use of submachine guns and exploding booby traps, stealing munitions, and di~a~chNg indi~duals to Beirut for ~ainNg M~

26. After Topal~ian pled g~i!ty ~o screen of ttae above eh~ges, induding ~hose related to ~e storage of ~,~apons ~d "m~stable explosDes in Bedford, ANCA-Western ~egion t~urellcd lfim ~fl~ a "Freedom Awful" ~2~r Ns dedication ~o adwmcing N:o ~meN~ Cau~~ At the September 24, 2000 banq~aet ~.~ his tmnor, the master of cer~oNes declared, ~For more ~t~ ~c~ dec.aries, Mourad TopNian has be~n ~ne of the most acg.ve~ visible, and c:onsis~ent: tmblic

he g~ adv~ced t~e cause of liberty and jt~s~i~ Nr 5ae Arme~Sm~ nat~on aM ch~apioned d~e i~e:â&#x20AC;&#x2122;reased ~nvolvement ~f Axmenian Arneri~s in fl~e American political process." Some ~en weeks Ia~er, ge la~e U.8. Dist~cl Judge Ann Ndfich, N.D. ONo, sentence,] Nm to 37 mon~as imprisonment; 27. Defendant Krikorian ~as t~dtly deNnded or excused Mourad Topal~an by his Nil~re to speak ot~t against him, )~st as silence by Muslim leaders in tim U!!ited States .a~er tile attacK~ of 9/~! would indicate acq~aiescence or endorseme~t of the terrorist abomina~on, Defendz~t Krik.ori~ has never ,?oiced disapproval of Mm~.rad Topalian or of

!0

DKSub 0068

11-6574 0200


terrori..vn nnde1~aken to brkng publM~y or avenge tSe alleged kistofical grievance of the

28. Defendamt Kr~korim served as d~airman of ANCA’s Ohio braa~eh tmtil Ms entry into lcmlit~ and rem~ a sm~ior ANCA member. ANCA publishe, l a~ effusive statement

political..rapport tbr Defendant or, May, 6, 2010. ±Mnong ot~e.r tb_ings, ANCA’s press release

An’nenian American Congressio,ml Candidate David Krikorian - a staunch advocate of first amen&-nent ~eech and an outspoken opponent of genocide denial - garnered 38% of the Democratic primary vo~e in Ohio’s second district - succmmbing to baseless a~tacks by Republican incumbent Re.p. Jea~ Schmidt and I3emocrafic opponents, Ie~’ied jus~ days prio~ m the Nima~ vote, re~ed ~he A~eni~ National Commit*co of America "David’s commitment to n~pming a positive, grassroots campaign reflecting lhe ~eavs and vMues of Ohio’s 2nd Congressional disMct were met ~th. inc~m~Bent ~meaim, G~nocide done, --Rep. Jean ScNnidt’s ~alse accusations ~d politieN scheming d~igned to kn~k mat he~ tougt~est Democ.mtic opt)oI~c.N from November genera! election,s," saig ~CA ~tern Regior~ Chainn~, Steve M~smbkm. "L~N Democratic Pa~y leaders fo!!ow~ Sc~dt’s dis~ffon’nation cam~i~ in loc~ep ~d in IM process did a grave disservice to Ohio 2nd digrict voters."

Rep. Schmidt, a perennial darling of the Turkish lobby for her oppositio~ to CongressionN Iegislation ~fft~m~ng the Armenian Genocide, has consistently targetM Kfikofia~ .... most notabty bfin~g charges l~.fore ff~e O~tio Nection Commission in 2009 to cover ~ap rei~renc:es to ’I~ki~h Ameriam c~npaig~a con.~ibutiona oste~ksibly submitted in ret,~ Nr her denial of am Mmc~firm Genocide .... ~

29. Plaintiff Sc1~nidt’s prior complaints and the tb.ree p~btie repfimaMs issued to Defendant Kxikofia~ by the Ohio EI.ecfions Commission in fl~ resolution o~ cases OEC 2009E-

11

DKSub 0069

11-6574 0201


003 and OEC 2009E-012 wer, insu.ftieient to deter his implaeabl~ campaign of def,~mation against Plaintiff. 39. On J~y 2, 2009, Asb~ez,com, ~e online ve~ion of the ~ba~ez n~wspap~, sdf4~M oN~M pub~cation of {he ~m~ian RevolutionaW FeSeration of the W~stem U,~t~ ~mral C~iteee, punished ~ interview with Defender I~ikoriau ~*ifl~, "O¢~gos to Represent David K~ofi~ Aga~t Genocide DeNe~."’~ The inten~ewer ~k~ D~fend¢mt ~ikori~ about his aecusafioms agNnst PIa~tiff Sc~di dm~g t~e 2008 c.on~essionN c~pai~- Defendant ~koHm~ asse,~ed as fact, a~ong other things, *hat IJe~ Sch~i~dt ~_~K~~~_~J__.~....~~EC [Ohio Electiom~ ~[~!~?1 to hide her 9ositions ~d hide who’s ~.dina her e~{N!~," Defendant Kfiko~a~ also asse~ed ~ fact "Nst like she [Jc~ Sctamidq ~#oted ~o bailout WN! 8m~et wN1e ~~..~)ousands of dolia~ ~om the bm~ng.~d~k~]~..~¢..gg~{~!!es to deng~eno~idc wNle ~j~. mrmey ~am Tur~sh ~terest PA 31. The statem~ts ~eferenced ~ p~aph 30 ~se~ or imply ~e fotloM~g acts of moral ~,~imde or crimes ~ c~ be proven tru~ or false: (a) ~at P1Mntiff continues m hide fl~e sources of her e~npMgn *)nding fi~ vidation of the Feder~ Elections ~pNga Act, 2 U.S,C. 434, 441e, 441f, 437g(d);. 0~) that Plaintiff h~ ~ow~¢y accepted money from a ~lifi~l actim~ ten,hitter fimded by TurNsh nat~nOa in violation of *~derN cmnapNgn finite laws, 2 U.S,C, ~le, 441f, 437g(d); and, (c) that Plainfiffhas aceepterl bribes ~ lhe ~b~m of eampai~ congibutiom from WalI Street and Turkish interest PACa in exch~ge for oNeiat acts in violagon of I8 U.S.C. 20I(b)(2).

DKSub 0070

11-6574 0202


3Z The ~atemen~s refe.~¢nccd in paragraph 30, individually m~d taken ia ff~e context of ~h~ cn~i~ intc~w published by Asb~¢~com on J~y 2, 2009, ~e d~f~t~ry b~zaus¢ f~sely impute to ~ gI~1~ co~up~lo~, de~it and lhe ~n~ssion of c.r[~ offen~cs in a m~er int~ded to rain ~ r~putation ~d ~t~m ~f Pl~nfiff pmfassionatly aM. p~mon~ly. They w~r~ fa~ ass~ons published by D~nd~t with ~-w~ll or ~te to~rds P!~ntiff, ~d wi~ k~oMedge of~e~r faM~ or ~fl~ a rec~ d~sregmd of wheflmr ~ey weze f~se or not, 33. D~ng ~e inte~iew published on 7uiy 2, 2009, by Asbarez.com, Defender ~ikori~m fimh~ decided.: "t signal b_ y..~y~vdfi!!~ my eam~gn did during N~e 2008 election=’" 34~ By m~ng the ~atement referen~d in para~aph 33, Defend~t ~ikorian repubtish~ ~e fac~uN a~sertio~ Nready deemed false mM made ~ knowl~Ige of Neir or wi~h rec~ess disregard of whether ~hey were fNse or not by the ONo Elez~ions Commission in.2009 under Ohio Revised C~de 3517.2! (B)(10). The OEC concl:uded that ~e fo!towfi~g tt~ee ~se~io~ were pubHsheA by ~f~ndmt ~N knoM~ge c,f their ~hlsity ~r w~ a reckless disregmd fi.~r ~ether they were ~a]se or not by ct~ and conv~c~g evider~ce: (a) 1~ ScM~idt has ~en $30,000 in bIood money fi’om T~kish government sponsored politica~ action conm~ees to deny the slaughter of I~5 million ~mcnian men, women ~d chil~en by the Ottoman 2Nrk~sh Gove~ent d~ing World W~ I (8chmidt v~ Kr~kofia~, OEC 200AE-003,591606); (b) ~s hdDrrn~ion (T~kish gove~nent s~nsored p~Iifi~l action commieees gave $30.000 to Jc.a:a ~. eb~dt and/or to the Selmfidt ibr Congress c~tpaign committ~) ~mrd ~d can be found on the ~EC datable at hitp:h~.FEC.gov (Sclma~dt OEC 2009E~003, 615-628); and, (e) I ask the people of Ohio’s sec.ond eongression~ district to ~sk themselwes if our Represenia~ive s~ould be taking money ~oni a foreign govermnent ~a’t is ~tling o~ sold~e:txs (Schmidt v. Krikori~, OEC 2009E-012, 62%630). Krah,r~an s appeals of

DKSub 0071

11-6574 0203


the OEC’s "ger~ic:ts ha~t¢ beer~ dismissed, and ~e "~;-rdicts are now final ~md ad)~dicaiions to bo given coll~erM estop~I ~ff~ct in this litigation regarding th~ falsi~" ~:~f ~atemen~ ~d their p~blicafion Mth knowledge of thdr f~siiy or ~ rec~ss disre.g~rd of whefl~er ~ey ~re f~se or not+ See Exhibits 1 and 2 afla~hed 35. "l~e sIatement ref~aced Ju p~graph 33 is def~natory beeawse is accuses Plaintiff Se~dt of ~olations of 2 U.S.C. 434, ~le, 441~ 437g(d), 5 U.S.C. 7342@), a~d the Emolumenta Clau~. ef~e United S~tes ~n~it~fion, .&~cle l, section 9, douse g. 36. ~** allegations made, by Defender in 2008 were in*ended exdusivdy for in fl~e sevonO dis~ict of OMo. "~e reader~lfip of Asbarez corn, however, is. not co~ned residents of a &~ific geo~apl~l i~:~iom By reiterating h~ ,~ee intenfiomd ties about Plaintiff to thc readers of Asbarez.com, Def~n&mt effectively republished them betb,~ mafi~etg ~)f the English-speWing world, "I3m statement refm’e.~d in paragrapg 33 independently dmnaged PIMntiWs repntatio~ ~d was ~derstood by its readers to incorporate, among fl~ings, the ~r~ ~te~fiond defamatory li~ ~-ikorim~ ~ made about ScN~dt adjadicated by ~he OEC in 2009. 37, Du~ng ma August 27, 2009 [ntexview published by The A.m:~eni~m Repo~er new~aper in ~ article entitled 1~ ~ngessmnN ran, Da~d Kfikor~an b ban~ag on tke people: Says he’s ’tmde~whelmed’ wi~ Mme~ian-Ame.~an svpport so t~, ’" D~fend~I Kfikv~fi~ spoke ou* again :against Plaimiff Scbmi&, m&ing two :mo~ defamatory a!tegado.ns that can be proven tree or t~lse with knowledge of their t~dsiW or wkh r~.kless disreg~d of whe*her they were fidse o~ i~ot m-~d win ilI.-will or spite to~xds Plaintiff.

14

DKSub 0072

11-6574 0204


38. Defendant Krikofim~ said: "~Wha__lkj_can’t call !’the fimds Re10.~ Schmidt moa~I c~ms~ ~t.~ b]o~ d n n~, You

~os[tio~ thag_~g.}ad no id~ ~y she ~ th~ ~ient of ~.S~s$ thtr~ how stupid fl~at ~o~ds," Defender ~ofi~ ~so asse~ed as facg tl~a: =,, ,the Tmkis~ov~cn~ is be~nd ~ose ~n~bufions ~.~.~.~..~ght to feel

39. "f~e statements referenced ~ paragaph 38 ~e de~mmtow because they accuse Plah~fiff Sc~idt o£ fl~e fol!owing a~s of mor~~piR~ds or crime: (a) ~b~t Plaintiff accepted c,~pai~ fund~g from the "~k~sh gov~ment in cfi~nal violation of 2 U, S,C, 441 e, 437g(d); (b) that Pier;tiff has hiddez~ ~d continues to ~w~e~ the source of ~s~paign co~.t~g.bmi0ns in criminfl.vio]afion ofths Federal Elections Cmnpaign At.t, 2 U.S.C. 434,441t; 433g(d); (c) that Pl~ngff is gutl~ of a~¢cpffv.g money ~ exchange for mx official act in criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. 201@)(2), ~d (d) fl~at Plainaff is ~ilVy of ~0my vmder Ohio Revised Code section

40. "itxe statemen.~s refe, enced in p~a£~ph 3 g ~mpute to Pl~fiff 8chmidt co.up, on,

esteem of PI~ntiff professionalIy ~d personally. They axe fact~ml asscgdons, published by Defendant with D.I-MII o~ spi*e tow~ds Plaimiff and ~th knowledge 0f {he~ t~alsiw o~ v~Jth reckless disrega, d of w},e~ they were false or 4i. In Ns interview wiR~ ~Fne ~MmeNan Repo~er published on Aug,~st 2Z 2009, Defendant .~[korian Mso asse~l~:d r~ fact that: "... ScNmid~ is bong~..:~!~.~aid .ibr ~ the

DKSub 0073

11-6574 0205


42. In the statement ref~nc~cl in paragraph 41, Dei~.ndant ~oNan Pl~dff ~c[mfidl of accep~g money ~ ex~h~ge for o~cia] ~s-in violation of

43. "[he statement referenc~ .N p~aph 4I is defeznat~ be~u~ it imputes to Plain~ %h~dt co~ption and ~ ~ssio~.~ ~f cfimia~ acts in a manner intended to r~in the ~utafion ~d esteem of Pl~nfiff professionally ~d person~y. It is a fac~sI pub]ibhed wi~ Hl-~ll ~d spite tow~ds Pl~fiff ~d ’with ~owledgo of its falsib* or reeM~s disreg~d of whethez it w~ fMse or not. 44. ~ inte~’iew with Defender ~ofimt published by The Arme~im. MirrorSpectator on A-txgt~st 28, 2009~, con~ins two moxe defamatory s&atements. Defender ~k~rian asserted as fa~L among ~lher Hfings, ~ regard to S¢~idt’s deposfiion tmde~ oath ~ the pcnding case of Scbm~dt v. ~kor~an before the OEC, fl~at "@~L{Plaint~ff Schmidt~est~ that she had no id~ that she ~ ~s ~e leading recipient of Tur~sh lobb~Qn~y in ’08... She said fl~a! ~he never ~oke of the ~eNan C~nocide re.mtufion at any. of the T~kish fimdr~sers hem on her b~f~ which from ~.¢.~f~.y.¢_~.~_l~hable,.. Sh~is a li~k~heZs not ~edible. ~ ~fink it’s obvious ~at ~vo we&s.~.~[ieN~j.~g $11 00Q ot--]l~k~s_~jfo_~.y..Do._

45, ~[]~e statements referenced in paragraph ~ contain the asse~cn that can be prove~x tree er raise ~N PlaNtiff Schm[dt ac~,pted bfib~ and itlegN e~n~paiga [~.cm ~e Turkish gove~nent in ~ioIatien of 18 U.S~C, 201~)(2) and 2 U.8,C. 44te, 437g(d);

DKSub 0074 11-6574 0206


and, that she committ~xt ix~rjmy and obstract[on of j~fice ~ her deposition K~ori~ i~ ~ola~ioa of Ohio Revised Code secfio~ 2921.t 1 aud 292t.32. 46. ~ ~teme.n~ referen~d M pmag~ph 44 ~s¢~t or imply the follow~g morM ~tmd~ ~ e~es: (a) ~at PIa~fiff h~ intenfim~Mly con~ed th~ so~e of c~pd~ eon~bufions in crimh~al viol~{en of the Federal Elections CampM~ 437g(~; @) ~t Pla~tiffh~ a~ept~ bribes, a criminal o.ffe~e ~at g~dt pe~ed her~eg and obs~e~d justice in he, deposi@o~ Oolation or Ot£o Revised Code seetio~ 292t.ll and 2921.32; ~d, (d) that due to Pt~mi~s ~teged ¢~inality, Plah~tiffis a ah~efifl hummq b~ing m~t for p~bli~ 47. ~e sta, ements re.f~renced in paragraph 44 are defmat ~U because ~ey ~l~tt~ to PlMnt{ff Sdm~idt ~o~ption., f~and, mxd the co~rm~isslon of cdmffud turin the repu~tion and ~steem of P!Ont[ff" professionally and pers~matly. They ar~ faecal mvse~tior~, published by Defendm~l with ilI-will or spite tow~ds P~agt~ff N’~d witk knowledge of ~ek f~s~ty or a r~M~ dis~eg~d for whethe~ ~ey were fal~ or 48. In t~s hate~iew with The Amae~ma Minor-Spectator published oa Augmt 28, 2~09, Det~ndant K~.kori~ Oso assmed ~ I~act: "S.J~e ~s basica!I~m.med bg fhe T~kish Iobb for tMI sworn devosition and it’s a shmme to see a. sigin~g~asio~at r~presen~ttive

49. "Ihe siatemen~ referenced it~ p.~agrq~h 48 accuses Pl~ntiff Sc~id! of obs~ction of j-6stice ~ a p~pet of -the TurDsh lobby in viMation ef Ohio Revised Code sections 2921A I and 2921.32. 50. "!~ a~a{emont rcf~rm~.ced in p~agraph. 08 is deihmatory .because it imputes to Plai.~.{i~f acts of deceit, co1"mption, and crim{~alig, It is a fac~M ~sertion n-rode by Defendant

17

DKSub 0075

11-6574 0207


with ill-x~qlI, or spite towards Pta~ntiff and with lmowI~dg~ of its falsity or a r~c~c~s disrcg~d for

51.

In a telev~s~ ~nt~rview w~ A~e~ian-~efie~ a~tM~ P~e~ M~sulian (a

pan,san joum~ for ~[t-~r~z~n Arme~ Television ~d Director of the ~CA-We~tem ~eg]oa Bo~d of Dir~tors) La S~ember of 200.~’, Defendant Kfikofi~ ~sse~ as facL ~mng other ~n~, the following: ’q stand ~ statements .~..!...~le t~at my.opponent in ~e .~13~+d~.~.~_.~.~..~presentafive of Ohio’s ~eeond eon~si~n_~ldis~i_ c!~ is a pa~d puppet ~e Turkish government ~vo]v~ in ~eir de~ c~ap~, to ~p~r~s ~e ~m~ a~ut ~e An~eni~ gen~id e." 5Z The s~tement of fact that c~m be prov~ t~e or f~se referenced ~n p~a~aph 5 is that Plai~tiff receives money ~om the Goverrm~ent of Turkey in exch~age for official acts reg~ding ~e perem~N .~neNan gen.oe~de resolufio~ in~od~eed in ~e U.S, Co~gress, 7he atateme~i is deS~atory Became i~ accus~ Pl~di~tiff of bribery in violation of i8 U.S.C. 201~)(2) ~d of illcga3 reemipt of money ~om a foreign gov~ent in violatien of ~e Emolm~eals Claus~ ~fNe Const~k~t~n and 5 U,~.C. 7342(h)~ 53. The statement ~fereneed fi~ p~agmph 51 was published by Defendam with ~tl or spite tow~ds Ptai~Nff ~d-Mfi~ ~owledge of its f~siv or wit~ recN~ disrega~ of whether i~ was false or not 54, The ha~q~. Nat the o~.li~e pubficaion of s-ach a perNcio~s accusafio~ eat~ u~n fl~e reputation of PIainfiff is both obvious and diffimflt to overcome. At present, over 11,000 v~ewers have accessM tiffs ~ideo on 2 outube, cern ~flone, 2Ne video is neaty impossible to remove r)om

~ A~aiIabI~, at ht~.9:I/t~,~,yo~t~tb~:.co~t~/watch?wEl~2I~hLV~iA&fe:~ture-reIateO,

DKSub 0076

11-6574 0208


55. Neith~.r Dcf~ndan~ Kr’tkorian nor any m~mbe.r of ~ko~an for Congre~ had ~v~r ~nquired of Pl.aintfff 80~dt, her s~aff, or her camp~gn com~ee ~ ~o ~e ~ of ~cc~gafions of erbnin~ity or otb~se. S~ p~ag~aph 25 of~ a~tached E~bit 3. 5& Pta~t~ff Se~n~dt h~ never ~’de~ed" that ~e O~om~ ~eni~ ~agedy ~orld W~ I mighi constitute ff~e e~m of gem~dde. Her position as a Member of Con~ has consistently been ~at ~e subj~ ~s not a fit question for Con~es~; and, that based on h~ knowledge of~ historical record sh~ c~og at prt~t, o~r~eri~ ~ae ~agie event~ of I915 in World War I ~ ~ ~a~an "genodde," which has a v~ s~ct !eg~ m~ning und~ C~nodde Convention of 194g and ~e U.S.c.fim~M code, I8 U.&C. 109t. As a member of Confess, she has never ~,oted on a resolut~on c~Hng these hi~tofic~ ~venm genocide. She sappo~s &e fo~afion of m~ international independent commission of expels t~ re.solve the matter defini~vdy, See E~ib~t 3, .p~agraph g; Exhibit 4, page 1. 57. Plaintiff So,rid{ has nev~ accepted an~hing of wlue in remm for the peffo~¢e of ~m offidal aO (or ~e ehd~ not rake ~ offieial xenon), wN& wood ~ a federal come under 18 U,8.C, 201 (b)(2). See Exhibi~ 4,. p~a.grap~ 5 & 14; E~bit 4, pages 1-3, 58. It woNd be a cri~ne under federal law for the T~kish governmem (¢r any m*Jonat) to f~nd a ~lifiea] action ~mmi*te9 lhat rome donations m a f~eral ~ndidae s~Mng etectio~ ~o ~ng-~ss, among otha IVder~H of~.s. 2 U,8.C. 437 g(d), 59, R would be a m-ime ~nde~ federal law for i~rkish people to m~e con~butions federal political ~mnpaigns for Congress, among other federO offices, if the do~o~ were not Ameriem~ eiti~n or pem-~m~em resident alien. 2 U,8.C. 4~7 g(d), 441e(b)~ 60,

The de~m~a*o~y statements em~memted he,~in ~e indt~4dual.ly m~d collectively

ru~ous to Naintiff professionally, looail>; nationally, ~d abroad. ThW have each

DKSub_0077 11-6574 0209


caused Ptaintiff gener’zd m~d ~ec[aI damage.~ in the _fo~n of pet~t m~d ~repaable inj~y to her repmafion, 61. As a d~rect m~d pro~m~e ~e~t~t of t~e def~mto~ ~marks publish~I by Defender ~’~ori~, many ONo citizens were ted to ~e ~at Pla~nfiffScNnidt w~ guilty of ¢~fimi~lly accepting ~p~gn contrib~tim~s from a forei~ government, ~a~ she w~s gt~l~, of b~b~’, w~j~y ~d obs~u~m~ of justice, and Nat her loy~ty ~s t~ tim Republi¢ of T~y ~eu of the U~tM S~s. PMntiffBe~idt’s public ~aag, ~ been i~cp~ably d~ageff. 62.

As a dkect and proximate ~s~t of ~e def~atm~ ~n~ punished by

Def~ndm~t refe~nced in tiffs complak~t, PMmiff SN~mi& is now diNiked by m~y who fee~ s~’ongty about ~he geaodde intcrpre~tion of O~oman A~eni~ h~to~ ~ d~s De~nd~t KrJkor[~m, as well as by flaose who n.ow believe ~N she took money ~om/nstmmentaIities office TurNsh gove~cn~ ~ a quid pm quo. De!bndat~t’s .defamNo~ statements have caused PtMntiff s~ess, emotional dispels, and mental p~ ~d 63. The ~a~ements referen~ .herein sfigmafi~ N¢ P]Nnfiff ~ bring ~il~ of cfirn~ ~f mo~M tu~imde and disloyalty to the United States. They have diminished a~d will oomimm ~o ~Nnish her oppmttmities to speak, to ~te, to publish, to be int~iewed, and to pt~blic opiNo~ rind views on U~Jted States-rr~key relxtiot?s and ~he NstoU of A~eMana. 64. DeI~ndan{s made ~ge s~a~emen~s re{~renced herein wi~ actual r,m~ee ~d ,~o~:tgfa! a~d willfial i~tent ~o t~m ~e PlaY,lift. lt~e s{atements were made with disreg~d tbr their truth or fiOsi~ or ~ knowledge of their fNsity ~d with w~ton and reckle, s disregard of the reputa~.ion amd ~ghks of tt~e Plaimiff. Defen&m{s lacka{ maso~able grom~.d for

DKSub 0078

11-6574 0210


making t.he s~atements eammerdted he.rein. Indeed, Defendants knew their stalemenis wen Ii~ wt~en fl~ey made 6.5. Plaintiff ScbaMdt is entitled m punffive ttamages irt oMer t~ deter the use of intentionally false orimirtat a~cusations against candida~ to ~:dslead the ele~ora*e and to inhibi~ or confound full and fair debate abou{ Ottoman Armenian hi.stor~, both. in and out of Congress. The United State-s Supreme Co~N elaboraIed on the eviIs of intentional Ees to lhe democratic-. process in Garrison ~. Louisiana, 379 U.S, 64, 75 (1964): Althougg honest utterance, even if inaccurate, may further the fruitful exercise of the fight of free speech, it does not fo!!ow tha~ the lie, knowingly and delia.rarely pt~blished about a public official, should enjoy a like immunikv. At ~e time the First Amen&neat w~ adopted, as t~ay, fl~.ere were those unscrapulo ,us enough aM skillfui enough lo use the ~telibera~e o~ reckless falsehood as an effective political tool to unseat ~e public servam or eve~ toppIe an adm~inistrafion. Cf .Ri~smat~ Democracy and Defmnat~on: Fair Gaane a~d F-air Cotrm~ent I, 42 Co!, L. Roy. I085, 1088-ti11 (1942)~ That speech is used as a ~oo~ for political ends does not m~omatically Bring it ur~der the protective mantle of the Constitution. For fl~c as¢ of fl~e kno’~ tie as a tool is at once at odds wifl~ khe p~emises of democratic g~vemment and with the orderly manner in which economic, ,~cia!, or political change is to be effected. Calculated fi~.lsehood f?!Is into thN class of which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas; and are of s~~¢l~ stight soeiN value as a step to trull5 t~at say be,xe~[it thN may be derived from them is etearly outwei~ed by ~e social ir~tere,st in order and morality ...." Chal?lir~x!9, ~, New Hampshire, 315 568, 572. 66. Krikorian’s iml~enitence after receiving three reprimands from the OEC tbr intentiona! lies about Plai~atiff is transparem. He has unsuccessfully brought suit in. the United States District Court .for the Southern District of Ohio seeki~g a legal sancmaxy to (a:,nfinue Io

Case No. i:I0-cv-00103, (a~empting to awae t]~at the First Amendment provides a bianket

for all speed~ during a political campaign). Pt~fitive d:maages aze imperative to deter 21

DKSub 0079

11-6574 0211


Defet~dc~nt from continuing to harass, inIimidate, and vex Pl~ntiff with ~o~ng fhlsehood~ ~o fl~e dc~ment of PlMnli~ Ne dem~ratie pro~ and the voters of Ohio, COI~T I- DEF~ON PER SE 67.

Plaintiff h~c.o~orates by reference into ~Ns co~t fl~e prying ~egafio~ of ~is

eompMnt. 68.

Du~hlg the ~nterview published o~ 7~|y 2, 2009, Defendant Krikorima asserted as

~act: "She’s Uean S~idt j.~)_ ~eat~ed ~~g~ ~d is us~g fl~e OEC to hide h~ ~osidons ~d Nde who’s Nn(~N~npNgns/’ 69. Xt can be woven true or f~ise whether Plaintiff hm Ndden fl~e sour~s of her campaign contributions. Defendant’s statement accuses Pl~ntiff of m-imNNiW in vioIation of fl~e FederM Elections Campaign Act, 2 U.S.C. 434, 441f, 437g(d). The statement was punished with iH-wi~l or spite towards PINnt[ff m~d wifl~ know~edg~ of its Nsi~ or with a reckless d~s~egard for wt~etl~er it was Nlse or not. 70~ "#~e publication of ~is statement caused genera] m~d swsiN day, ages to fl~e Plaiat[d~2 De#:ndm,ts knew, anti@a*.cd, for&saw, and intended Nat tge NNcmcnt would bc r~d by persons throt~ghout ~e United States mud tim woad as~d wou~d ~Nmage Ne repu~tion of ~e Piaintiff. 25e statement has adversely affected Ne PNintifgs profeasionN crediNlity, speaking, Plaintiff Schmi& writing, interview, media, and fnn&raising oppommities0 ca~:~sh~g psychologiea! tratmaa anti suffering m~d monet~uy ~osses.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference into this count the preceding al!egati~,,ns of this

22

DKSub 0080

11-6574 0212


72. D~h~g the it~t~vi~w published on July 2, 2009, Defendant t~ct: ",~t t~¢c sh~ .(Jean ~..y~ to b~t Wall ~treet M~ile ~f!~ho~s~ds of

acoesti~g.~~m "i~rklsh kxtercst PA(Xs)~ 73, DeI>a~d~t’s statement acc,~.e~ Plaintiff of ~owingly ae~fi~.g money from. a. political action eommitte~ ~ded by T~kist~ natiomIs in viota~n of f~deral campN~ laws, 2 U.S.C, 441e(a)(1)(2); ~ of aceepfing bdb~ N the fo~ of c~-pai~ ~om WN1 Street ~d TurkNh interest PACs ~ exch~ge fi~r o~dN acts in violation of 18 U:S,C, 74, TMs statement w~ punished by Defen~ with iII-w~l or s~i~e tow~s and wi~h knowledge of its falsi~y or w~fl~ ~eckless disregard ~br whether it was Nls~ or not, 75, ~ihe puNication of this st~tCar~e~t ca~ed general ~nd special d~nages io the Plaintiff. Defendants )~ew, anticipated, foresaw, and intended that the statement wonld be mad by ~rsons {Dougho~{ ~e U~_dted Stales and the worid ~d would d~ag~ Ptaintif£ "fNe statemcnt has adversely affected the Plai~tifPs pmfess~onM c~-ediNlity, sp~aMng, writing, intewie% meOa, and Nnd~raising oppormrfi~ies, causing Plaintiff Scl~midt pwchologlcd trazmaa and sutt~h~g.aad monet~y losses~ COI.NT III-- DEFAMATION PER SE

complNnt, 77.

D~ng the inte~wiew pt~btlshed on July 2, 2009~, by Asba’ez:com, Defenda,t

Krikorian decl~ed: ~’I ~and ~?~?)g my cm~B?.~&.~A.sJ~Vi,-~’ the

23

DKSub 0081

11-6574 0213


de~med ~se and mad~ w~!h ~owlodg~ of their falsi~ or with r~c~ di~g~d of wh~ they wcm t~!s¢ or ~ot by th~ OMo £1~c~om Co.fission in 2009 ~der Ohio Revised Code 3517.2I.~)(t0). ]~ OEC concluded that ihe foHo~ng tt~ s~t~raen~ had connotations ~d were published by D~fend~t wi~h ~mwl~ge of their ihlsity or wi.~ a

has t~en $30,000 in blood money ~om Turkh:h gove~t spo,~omd ~lificM a~llon cmr~iRces to deny ,h~ slm~ghter of 1.5 n~ltion ,~ei~ men, women ~d chil&en by Ogoman TmMsh Government &~i~g World W~ ~: (8dmxidt v. Kfikofian, OEC 2009E-003~ 59t606); (b) TN~ ~nfonnafion (Tn~kish goven~me~R sponsored p~litieal action eommit~e~ $.’30,000 to Je~m ,.ctm~dt an,rot to ~x¢ Sc£idt fo~ Con~ss cecnpaign comn:dt-tee) is pubtic record and cm~ be -fo~md on the FEC datab~:e at http:dx~v~VEC.go, (Schnfid* v. OE. 2009D003, 615--628); and, (c) I ~k the people of Ohio’s second con~esslonal ~strict to ask ~e,~lves if our Representative should ~ taMng money from a fbmi~ go~,emment that Ri!ti~g our soldiers (8chmidt v. ~ikorian, OEC 2009E-012, 627~30), See ~e at~ched Exhibits I ~d 2. 79. ~ikorian’s appends of tl~e OEC’s verdicts have b~n Osmissed, aad fl~e ~ now final and definitive adjudications ~o be gi~’en coHmerd mloppe! efihct in ~fis Ii~gation as:re the .al:a,¢ o~ Defendm~ s Olegations :and their pubtlcatioa ~ malice. 80. "[l~e statement re~brene~d i~ paragraph 77, 1~ context, aec~mes Schm~d:t of money from a foreig~ govenwt~ent in violation of 5 U.S.C. 7342~) arid ~he Emohmien~:s Clm~e of the U.S. Cons,itu~on, A~icle I, section 9, clm~se 8; of bfibe~T i~ violation of !8 201(b)(2); and, of receiving fih.g 1 eampa{gn c0ntribt~tions in violation of 2 U.S,~. 441e,

24

DKSub 0082

11-6574 0214


437g(d). "rhese aecusagor~ of crime against Plaintiff were p~blished wi~l~ ill--wit1 o~ sgite towards Pla~t~ff ~d with ~owledge of their fNsi~ er wit~ rec~ess dist~g~d of whe~cr ~ey were ~alse or not. 81. "I~e publi~m of ~e statemenls caused gene~al and ~l~eial d~ages to ~e Yta~/iff. Defendants knew, ~/ieipale~ -~resaw, ~d intended flaat ~e statements would ~ read by persoas ~o~g~out the UNfed States ~d ~e world ~d would d~age ~e reputation of the PlNntiff. "~e stateme~cs ha~e adve~:sety affected the Plainf~s pr~fessionM erediblgV, speaNng, ~ifing, intc~iew, media, and grad-raising oppo~es, causing Plaiat~ ScI~idt psyeho!ogi~ wauma ~d ~uffering and mo~etary losses.

82.

PlaJ~aliff ~ncoq~ora~es by ret~re~ce i~to this count ~e precedNg allegNion~ of th~s

complaivt., 83.

Dttring an August 27, 2009 i~.,terview publist-~ed by °t’i~e Aa°m~.nian Reporter ~

aNcIe entifl~ "Irt co~gressionaI ran, Dax, id ~ikorian ~s banking on the people: Says ~:r~de~,,Letmed witt~ ~menian-American support so f~, Defendaat Krikofan made felIo~ng state~n~ent with a det~atory Nc~al asse~ien that couI~ be proven tree or

"blood money"? Of eo~se ~t is ’~blood money q You have ~ep~esen~atJ-ve Ma.o is money ~om a foreig)~.~9}_~. Schmidt said i~ t~er ~osifion ~Sat sloe t~ad no idea. ~5~y sI~e was

Def~:nd~t Krik~riaa also asserted a~ facl t1~ai: "...the T~kisi~Kovemment is i~ehind those

DKSub_O083 11-6574 0215


84. ~e statements ret%~enced in paragraph 83 are deI=amatory because Lhey accuse Plah~iff Sc~dt of Ne fofIow~g, acts of moral t~itnde o~ cgme: :(a) ~at Pl~n~ff a~.ted eampN~ Nn~ng from ~he â&#x20AC;&#x2122;FurNsh govenmaent i~ cfi~NnN violalion of 2 U.S,C. 441 e, 437g(d); @) ~at Plah~fiff h~ hidden ~d confinn~ to zonee~N ~e ~u~.e of e~t~pNgn eon~b~ffons c~al violation of~e Federal Elections Camtxdgn Act, 2 U.S.C~. 434, 44tf, 437g(8); ~d~ (c)

85. The statements referenced in paragaph 83 am deNmato~ b~cause they i.mpute to Pla~tiff 8~dt comiption, #and, and the commiss~o~ of c~m~nal acts in a rammer i~tended ~in ~u reputa~on a~d esteem of Pi~ntiff professionatly and pmonaI!y. They ~e asse~ons, punished ~th ilI-Mlt or spi{e towards Plaint~ff and ~h k~ow.tedge of t~eir falsi~y ;~r with reckless d~sregard of whether ~hey were fhlse or not. DefEnd~m~ v~ placed oa specific notice ~at ~cse s~a~emenkq were f~se dt~Sng the dis~:,very pmcessi~.g eh OEC hearNgs held re~:olve cKs~s 2009E-~03 m~d 2009E-0t2. See E~ÂŁbit 4 atta~ed hereto. 8& ~e publica~on of ~he slatemeu~s caused 8eneral ~d Speci~ day,rages to PIaindff. Defendank~ knew, antidpated, foresaw, m~d intended Nat the statements would be read by persons t~oughout th~ United Stat~ a~d t~e world and would ~mage the reputa~oa~ PIainfi~2 ~e stat~ents have adversely a~cted the ! lam~ff~ professional c~edibili~, speakJng~ ~I~ng, inle~ew, media, ~d Nnd-.ralS~ng opportunities, cat~s~ng Plaintiff Sc~mid~ psycIioIo~cal trauma amd ~uffering mad monetary

87.

Plaintiff inco~orat~ by reference into ~g~s comet the preceNng allegador~ of ~is

complah~L

DKSub 0084

11-6574 0216


88. During an August 27, 2009 interview published by 12ae ~--m~iarl Reporter in an a~J~I~ entitl~ "In con~ession~I run, Da~:d K~ikofi~ is b~ing on the "pe~le: Says he’s ’tmd~*h~lmed" .~ ~me~-~elic~ suppox~ so f~," Defenda~l ~ori~ ~.s~r~d ~

~esen~fiws sell out like ~at,~ 89. Defendant Kfikofi~’s statement accuses Plaintiff ~c~idt of accepting money exch~ge for offid~ acts h~ ~olation of I8 IJ.S.C. 20I(b)(2), It is def~at~iy because ~putes to PlMntiff Set,hi& ~mption ~d ~e ~mmission of crhninal acts in a ma~er in*ended to: mi~ ~he reputation and esteem of PIMnfiff pro~gssiomlly ~d personally. ~,e sla~eme~* was published with ilbs~II or spite towards PIah~tiff, and with ~owledge of their ~dsity or with reeMess disregard of whether they were kaise or not. DeNnd~t was placed on specific notice dia~ tt~ese s~temc~ts we~ 2Mse durk~g tt~e discow:a-y ~rocessing et~ OEC h~ld to resolve cas~ 2009E-003 and 2009E-012. See Exhibit 4 a~ached hereto, pages 90. The publication ef this state.ment cansed general and special damages t~ Plaintiff. DefeMants knew, anticipated, fbcesaw, and Ntended fl~at fl~e stateme~at would be read by persons t~ou~out tt~e UNIe~ Slates ~d ~e world ~d would &rouge fl~e reputation of Plaintiff. Tl~e s~iten:tent has adversely affected the PlaintitPs pro~ssional e~dibili~ speaNng, wclting~ ir~te~Mew, media, and i~ud~-~aisJng oppor’nmitigs, causing psychoi~g’~eal tr~m~a and suffering mad monetary lo~ses. COU-NT VI - DEFAMATION PER SE 91. compIair~L

27

DKSub 0085

11-6574 0217


92. In his August 28, 2009 interview w}tl~ The Armenian Mirror-Spectator; DeFendant Krikoriart asserted as ih~t, mno~g other fhings, ttmt "She’s ~Plak~tiff’ Sd~tmidt is~a l~_~e’s rmt credible. I think it’s obvioug ~hat two weeks afler reeeiving._$_l..l_~000 of Turkish !obby_.m_o_.n..e._X.5~_~e j~qins the T~Idsh cauen,-- and claims there’s no

~qu~d ....vro q:noo She’s art embaw~ssment lo the

dis*ric,{ andto the 93. The statement contains the assertio~ ~at can be proven m~e or false that Plaintiff St~lur~idt accepted bribes aud illegal campaign contributions from the Tttxkish government in violation of 18 Uo&C. 20 l(b)(2) mad 2 U.&C. 441e, 437g(d), aad that she committed peOmT.’ and obstruction ef justice, in !~er deposition in Schmidt v. ttrikorian i,~ violation of Otfio Revised Code see!ions 2921. I I and 292I 94, "iNe s,a~eme~t referenced in p~agn:aph 92 asserts or implies the follow~mg acts of ¯ more! turpitude or .er~mes: :(a)th~tt P~aS~iff t~as in{e~ionally ccmcealed *J:m sou.tee of campaign contribulions in c.riminal *iola~ion of ~he Fe&rN Nections Cmnpaign Aci, 2 1J.S.C. 434, 437g(d); (b)t!?a~ Plaintiff has acxzep{ed bribes= a criminal oSferse ~ander 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2); (c) thai Scoluaidt pmjnred herself and obstructed j?as~ice in her deposition ~ £’ch,nidtu ~ik:o,’~an violation of O[~io Revised Code segfio~aa 2~21.I 1 a,~d 292!.32; ~md, (d) that due 1o NtegeA mlndnNity, PlaiNiff is a sl~ameNI human being -unit *br publia 95. Tee statement referenced in p~graNa 86 is defamatory because it impn*es P1Nnliff Schmidt conuption, fi’at~d, a~r! tl~e eomraiss~on of criminal acts in a mavme~" h~te~ded to rain the repu~t~on ~d esteem of PIa~fff NoNssion~diy ~d personally~ ’I~:aey are fac~al ass~ions, pub!is}~ed by De.t~ndm~.t widq ilt,Mtl or spi*e mwa~ds Plain*iff and Mth knoMedge tI~eir.Ntsi{y or a reckless:disregard {br whether:they were *~ts~ or not. t)et?~danl wa~ pieced

DKSub 0086

11-6574 0218


specit~c notice that these sta~emer~ts were false dvxLng rite discovery process in ~e OEC heaing~ held to resolve cases 21)09E-0:03 .~d 2009E-0!2. S~ Exhibit 4 attached hereto, pag~ 1-3. 962 ’~e puNieation of ~is sta~meat ea~ general ~d ~iN d~ages to PI~ff. Defenders k~ew, ~tMpated, foresaw, ~ad ~t~deg that the s~tement woNa be ~ead by persons througt~oat ~e U~ked States and Ne world ~d would d~q~age the reputation of Plalnfi~ ~e s~tement h~s adversely affeebzd the PINnfifPs professio~I eredibiti~, ~e~i~g, ~fing, inte~iew, media, ~d f~d--rNs[ng oppo~Nties, causing Plaintiff Schmk~ p~choIe~cN ~.a ~d m~ffefing ~d monet~y losses, COUNT V-~ ~-~ DEgAMATtON PER SE 97.

Pl~tiff~co~porates by reference into ~ ~otmt the preening allegations of

comp~Nnt 98. N his Augus~ 28, 2009 inlerview with ~e A~neni~ Minor-Spectator,

pg~m~m~_~F~ ~e T~sh lobb~.fg~y_JSg!..sworn deposition ~d it’s a shine to see a sitting .~2qO~jN~.~resen~ative act fn the wa~ she acted~?’ 99. The ~xement is defmt~atoxy because it accuses PINnfiff Sehmidt of pev~y and o~s~ion of justice in viotafion of fine Ohio Revis~ Co~e sections 2921.I1 and 2921.32 ir~ a manner Ntended ~o ~in Ne rc~tation and esteem of Plai~afiffFroi?ss~onMly and 100. 25e s~Ne~m was published Mfl~ ill-will or spire towards Plaintiff ~d with k.noMedge of its faIsity or with recNess disreg¢~d of whe~er it wa~ £Mse or not. was placed on o~ecitie notice thN t~e:~e statements were N]se dudx~g (he d~scovery process in OEC he~ngs held to resolve cases 2009E-003 m~d 2009E-012. Se~ IF’,xhigi~ d attached hereto, page 5.

29

DKSub 0087

11-6574 0219


10I. ’Die publication of d~{s ~ta/~-ment catmed g~nemt aad .sp~ial damagc~ ~o tho Plaiufiff. D~feadm~.ts km~w, anticipated, foresaw; trod intended that ~ statement would b~ read by persons thJroughout th~ U~fited St-ate~ m~d the world and would d~age the reputation of the Phintiff. The statement l~as adversely affec~ted the Ptainfift’~ professionM credibility, speaking, writing, Nterview, media, and fimd-rai~ing oppm~aNties, causing PIa~ntiff Schmidt psyeho!ogi~M tramna and suffering and raonetar] losses,

1(~2.

PlainIiffincorpom!es by reference into this oom~t N~ t~c,eding att~gafi~ms of this

complaint. 103.. ~n an ir~terview with Arme,~fian-Ameriem~ ac{ivi~ Peter M~rsnl~an in September of 2009, Dcfendan~ Krikofian sta{ed the follo~ng: "I sI~d }~e statements that I .madq2, that [~pponent in the ]~st election, the c!!rr~nt representative of Oliio’s secor~d

1.04. ~e statement ~f ~hct ~ha~ can be proven ~me or money from the Govermne~t of "lh~key in exchange for ofliciN acts regarding the perenniN Armeni~ genocide r~so!~fions in~odueed in ~e ’U.S; Con~e~. The statement is deihmatory because g accuses Pla~tiff ofbfibe~ i~ vioiation of 18 U~S.C, 201(b)(2) and of i~egal receipt of

t05, ~e statement was puMished by De~ndant with ill-wi!I or sp~te ~o~ards Pla~ti~ and Mth kmowledge of its falsiV: or wi~i re,Ness N~regard of whefl?er it was ~Mse or not. Defendant was placed on specific notice ~aI ~cse statements wer~ fitlse darh’~g the discovery

30

DKSub 0088

11-6574 0220


process in fl~e OEC hearings hdd to re.solve eases z009E-003 anti 2009E-012. See Exhibit 4 a~ached herelo,

Wtt~EFORE, Plaintiff demands )udgment again-;, tâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.ae De~ndanig, joi~tty cmd severely,

(a)

Compen~lory damages i~ file amount of $500,000 on each Coun{; PurdtNe damages in the, amount of $350,000 on ead~ Cmmg

(0

Pre-judgmsnt and pos~-jndgment interest on each Cotmt~ and, Such other and fm%er relief to which PIalntiff may be entitIe& Respectfully submitted,

65 g~t State Street, Suite Colurabus, ONe 4.3215 2~t~pg,:me: (6t4) 22i~ Facsi~rdle: (614) 221--40t2 EmNI:

OF COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF:

Bruce Fei~ (DC Bar 446615) 1025 Cmmecticut Ave~, NW Suit~ 10% Washington, D.C. 2003{; Mobile: Offioe: 202-370Facsimile: 202-448q664 EmNI: ~{~thelicN~e! dgroup.~om

DKSub 0089

11-6574 0221


David Saltaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;anan (DC Bar 655 15~ 8t,-~ Suite 22 5-F W~ngton, D,C, 20005-57~1 Office: 202~37~ Mobile: ~ Fac~le: 202-637-9876 Em~k

DKSub 0090 11-6574 0222


EXHIBIT 20

11-6574 0223


DKSub 0218 11-6574 0225


DKSub 0220 11-6574 0227


DKSub 0222 11-6574 0229


DKSub 0224 11-6574 0231


DKSub 0226 11-6574 0233


DKSub 0228 11-6574 0235


DKSub 0230 1116574 0237


2

DKSub 0232 11-6574 0239


DKSub 0234 11-6574 0241


DKSub 0236 11-6574 0243


’4 4 ©

DKSub 0238 11-6574 0245


t~

DKSub 0240 11-6574 0247


DKSub 0242 11-6574 0249


DKSub 0244 11-6574 0251


DKSub 0246 11-6574 0253


©

o

[_


DKSub 0248 11-6574 0255


DKSub 0250 11-6574 0257


g


DKSub 0252 11-6574 0259


DKSub 0254 11-6574 0261


DKSub 0256 11-6574 0263


t’9~O-t’L~9- I, I, Zcj~o-qn$),l(3


:i

DKSub 0258 11-6574 0265


99~:0 ~’/,..£9- I,, I,,

6cJ~o-qns~la


DKSub 0260 11-6574 0267


DKSub 0261 11-6574 0268


EXHIBIT 21

11-6574 0269


Schmidt 0029 11-6574 0270


Schmidt 0030 11-6574 0271


EXHIBIT 22

11-6574 0272


26. 2010 Th.e H onorable J cm~ Sclam U.S, t louse o f P, epresenta1.i yes 238 Can~on }tot~se Office Building \V;~4",:".o;,"m D(-’ ?, " ! ~ Dear Colleague: ]’his responds to yotir letter of September t 7, 2009, seeking an ad~,isory opinion regarding two options for paymem o[" legal exp, enses incurred in connectio~a with a case s:ou filed in 2009 regarding false campmgn statements.: As discussed below, the cstabfiskment of a legal expense fund and ihe use ofcampaigr~ funds are both permissible options for payment of tegN expenses in connectio~ with bod~ past {rod t’umre proceedings, subject to the limitations below. FACTUAL BACKGROUND According to your letter a.na additioaal information provided to Committee counsel, tl:e background in this matter is as t2)llows. In the 1]~aal days of the 2008 general election campaign, one of your opponents. ][)avid Krikofim~. d~stributed materials accusing you of accepting a $30.000 bribe from the Government of Turkey in exchange tbr denying or coverh~.g up tlae genocide of Armenians in Turkey dtMng World War I. The campaign materials also called {br ~:our immediate ~:esignmion t}em your con,~/essionaI seat and/or Your defeat at the polls in the 2008 general election. You were re-elected in the November 2008 general election. In ApriI 2009, you filed a sworn complaint against Mr. Krikorian with tke Ohio lTfec.tions C.omu,lbsion (Election Commission), whicta has jurisdictiul~ ovcr thlse campaign statements under Ohio law. See Ohio Roy. Code ~ 3517.2.1. Based on the Blecfion Commission’s .]urisdicdon, yo~ 11led the complaint as a candidate with },oar campaign committee address, lt~at complainl sought: (1) a finding by the Elections Cf mm~.ssmn that Mr. Krikor.ian ~,,iolated ¢ 35!7.2i bv maki~g lhlse campaign statements: (2) a public reprimand; mid (3) any od~er appropriate relief’. On or about October 1, 2009, you received a finding of l]acl from the i~Iccdons Commission that th.ere was clear and convincing evidel:ce that Mr. Krikoriat~ made fi:~.lse statements wlt}~ malice. I_!nder Ohio law. you were required co tiie any ci~,it acm)n seeking damage.~ C~)ur~ of Common [)leas { Ohio Court~, t;o iaR’r th~.n one war ft’om the chute of l’..fil]’r.tctior....’~’.~ that

Schmidt 0001

11-6574 0273


The.I Ionomble Jem,, Schmidt [)age 2 time period has expired, you will not be filing a civil action to recover damages i~ this mm~er, However. Mr. Krikorian has filed an appeal in the Ob.io Court seeking ~o ~.rvermrn the administrative ruling by the EIection C’ommissiort. Bmh yon and the Ohio A+..tor.rtey General are named parties in the appeal, and you will itwur additional legal fees to participate in those proceedings. Filmily. Mr. Krikorian has m.-o filed a civil suit in .ti~deral co~.~rt chahengmg the constitutionality of the Elections Commission ruling. You are not a m~.med p,~rIy to this federal cram case and do not anticipate any involvement in that separate litigation° You have not used your House s~a.f’{" or campaign staff to :~upport this litigation. BarD" 13ennett, your chief of sta.ff, is familiar with the case. but his ollicial h~volvemen{ has been limited ~o assistil:g House General Coanse| wi{h regard to discovery req.uest res.po~ses, being deposed concerni~g snch discovery requests, and working with the Committee to obtain guidance on the issues m your September 17. 2009, letter. Your attorney in this matter has been Bruce Fein of the Tm’kish American Legal Defense Fund ITALDF). You have not signed any retainer or representation agreement ~ith Mr. Fein, but he did provide you wifl~, a proposed contingency fee contract. Becanse you are no~ tilir~g any ch.:il action to recover damages, you wil! not be entering into lhe cot~.dngcncy fee contract with Mr. Feim To da~e, Mr. Fein estima+,,es that 200 hours have been worked bv the mtorneys in your case. but, yot~ have not ye~. been bitled as 3-ou are awaiting {his Committee’s guidance regarding ~he permissibiliIy of the proposed options fc~r payment o~" legal expenses in this matter. According to intbrmation in public databases and Web sitcs, TALDF’ is a prqiect of the "l"urkish Coalition nf America (TCA)0 TCA is a § 501(c)(3) organization under the Internal Revmme Code, which has employed registered federal lobbyists under the Lobbying Disclosure Act in {he past} It appears that TA[.DF issued a press release and request lbr a criminal inves~iga~km against Mr. K.r~korian on November 3, 2008, regarding the same a~legarions ofl;?Jse campaign statemems ’;hat underlie your complaint with the Election~ Commission. Both TALDF and TCA issued statements regardh~g the favorable ruling in your case on Oclober 2. 2009. You sc:ek Commit~,ee guidm~ce regarding two options lbr paying legal expenses both lbr legal work already cor~:pleted during the Elections Commissim~ proceedings, and future legal work o,~. your behalf in the appellate case in the Ohio Court: 1o 1)istabli.~hing a Legaf Expense Fur~.d under the Commil.tee’s regulations: or 2. U~drig campaig,~ funds t"t, om vo,.~r prineipal campaign committee Yo:.~ have not yet contacted the Federal EIect{on Committee ~l:l£C] regardh~g either of ti~ese options. !:mr intend ~.o consult with ~he FEC after you receh~e the Commit~ee°s opinion as to whm is pcrmissibie ~mder House rules. 13aci~ of these options are discussed sepm-meiy below.

$chmidt 0002 11-6574 0274


Page 3

Under a provision oI’ the git’~ rule, a Membcro oflicer, or employee may accept "a contribution or other payment 1o a legal expense Rind established tbr the benefit of [.ll’~c ofi3cial] thin i.s otherwise [awfully made in accordance with tlm restrictions m~d disclosa~re requirements of the Committee on S~andards of Official Conduct.,‘3 Under the Committee’s Legal Expense Fund rcgu~atioas, a Member may no~ receive or solidt donations to such a l~.md withou~ prior approval of the Trust agrcemem by the CommitteeJ Under the Committee’s ~,egulamms, , .-’. .. a fired may be estabiished only when the legal expenses arbe in com~cction with one of the fbtb:)wing rnm~ers: The indriVid~aal’s candidacy for or election ~o l~deral office:

The individual’s official duties or posh,;on in Congress (includi~g a matter before the Standards Committee)~ ¯

A criminal prosecmion; or civil matter bearing on the individual’s reputation or fitness for office.:

The (.omm~.~tc~. ~ ¯ ’+ ,, w’ill not grant permission, to establi~ a fired when legal expenses arise m connection wit}~ a matter that is primarily personal in .~ature, such as a m~trimoniat actmn, 1 he rules governing the operation of a I..ega! F.xpense Fund inclnde: No contribution may be soficited Ibr or accepted by a fired prior {o the C.~mmmee s ",srmen apl.ro~a~ of the completed ~rum document and the trus t~¢:?’ A fund must be established as a trust, administered by a trustee who is entirely inJependent of the Member and has no ~tmily, bnsiness or employment relationship with the Member;~

Trnst funds can be used only to pay legale.xpcnse~-,," ’ ’"_ or the expenses incm’red in solicit.{ng fbr or adminisJ:cring the [.rll,su.9

~

S.,e Standards Committee Lega~ Expeuse gu~d Regnlath:ms ~*; ~. ]~ ,’.kmc 1996), .~’tw,i:~ted #~

:

LEF Reg~alatkms ~: 2

Schmidt_O003 11-6574 0275


The Ho,~orable Jean Schmidt Page -1 A fund may not accq~t more {Itan $5../)00 in a calendar year ~rom. any individual or organization, bin, in accordance with tl~e gi[’t rule. no contribt~tion may be accepled fi’om a register~:d lobbyist or [breign agent:

Excess ftmds mus{ be ~:eturned 1o the contributors:’~ and A fund may not pay 17or legal services for anyone other than the t~amed beneficiary except with the Committee’s wr,tten permission Written C.ommit~ee pmm,ssion is also required for any amendmen~ of the trust document and any change in the trustee. ~z Once a Legal Expense Trus~ agreement l~as been approved by the Committee. the Member must file an executed copy with the Office of the Clerk, Legislative Resource Cemer whicl~ is placed on the public record.~’:~ In addition. Members must file quarterly repm~s on the p-t~bli.c record regarding certain contributions and vxpe.nduures under the Comrm,tee s re,-,ulations. 14

Tt~e Committee has lo~g advised Members ~o consult with the Committee prior to using campaign funds *~,.~r legal expenses to ensure that the legal services are ones d~at tl.~e M.ember may properly pay witt~ campaign fimds. House Rule 23, clause 6 provides as tbllows: A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner ........ shall keep the campaign [:unds of such individual ~s-°q)armc’ " ~}om the personal -[~t~ds of suc.h individual:

may not convert campaign funds to -personal use in excess an mnotm.t represeming reimbursemer~v lbr legitimate and veri fiabte campaign expendittu-es; and except as provided in clause lt~_.! of rute [24], may not expend f’aads l’rom a campaign accotmt[] oi such. individual that are not attributable to bona fide campaign or polifical purposes, \¥hile tt~e rule pe~. mits the use of campaign fronds fi)r ";bor~.a fide campaign or political purposes." it does m.;t include a defi~ition of that phrase. The Committee has long ad~.qsed tlm.t LEF Re~z~lations r ’7.

Schmidt 0004 11-6574 0276


The Honombl~. ~an Schm~dt

Members have wide discretion :o determit~e whether any particular expenditure would serf’s: such purposes, provided thai ~.he Member does no~ cor~veK campaign flmds to personal or ot~cial uses (other than as permitted by t[ouse Rule 24, clause l(b)),l~ Put another way, the ruie is ~ot interprmed "’Iu limit the use of campaign lhnds strictly to a Member’s reelection campaign:" but instead is interpreted "broad.ty to encompass the traditional polivically-related activities of Members of Congress." ~ In accordance with these pri~aciples, the Committee i~as determined that it i~; generally permissible m~.der House rules fi)r a Member to use campaign fi.mds to pay ~br d~c Member’s own legal l~es which arke ’s,in cormectio~ with the Member’s campaign, . election, or the pedbrrnance. , of official, duties. ~v

The legat expenses you incurred in connection with the Elections Commission action were directly related. {o your canmdacy fbr federal of[ice in A)~8 - one of the specific permissible types of acIions under ~l~e Committee’s Legal Expense Fund regulations. "I"heretbre. it woukt be generally permissible for you to establish and solicit lbr a legal expense fund to pay these fees already incurred. Moreover. the legal expenses to be incurred in. the Ohio Court case that appeals the EIection Commission’s ruling m’e also directly related to your candidacy fbr ~?dera[ olT~ice in 2008. There%re, ~t would be generally permissible {~r you to solicit .t;.~r a legs expense i~nd to pay these current and }~ature legal t~es as we~l, There is no restriction under the Committee’s Legal Expense Fund Regulations that would bar ihe establislm:ent of such a trust t~md to pay past legal expenses so .long as no solicitation, or receipt of donations occulted betbr¢ 1he Committee’s written approval of tlm ~rust agreemem. Thus. bel.’ore you may begin accepting or soliciting for do,rations ~o cower past an.d ihture legal expenses as described above, the C.ommittee mu.st approve your proposed trusl agreemem, if you are irate.rested in pursuing this optima., piease comact the Committee With a te’~ter seeki~g approval of a specific legal expense fund with a draft lrusl agreemet~t and nomination o 1" a trustee pursuant to the (2 ommittee’ s reguh’4ions discuss~:d a b, ox:e.

&s an alternative, we conclude that it is v:ithin. your discretion to use campaign [’unds for your legal expresses already incurred in connection with tl~e Elect~ons Commission action because these expenses are ~k~ a legav![ actioa arising out of your candidacy for federa! offic.~, as wall as your o~’ficial duties and responsibilities. Since no money damages w~re awarded in tMs cage° the pay:.~cm of legal expenses fbr this action does not implicate the prohibiti,,m ot~

Schmidt_O005 11-6574 0277


The .H or.,orabte Jean sch~ a ldt. Page 6 conversion of campaign thnds to pets(real use, tt is also within your discr~:tion to use cmnpaig:~ tkmds fl.)r your legal expenses ].n connection with t!~e pending Ohio Court case that appeals ~he Election Commisskm~s ruling mattar because d~ese expenses m’e for a legal action arising out of the same t~acts re!afing to your candidaW a~d official duties at isst~e i~ the Election Commission amion, This authority extends to expenditure of thnds from your prh~cipaI campaign commitiee for past legal expenses in connection with {he proceedings at the Elec~ions Commission and c-urren~ m:~d future legal expenses in connectim~ with the Ohio Court ~:ase appealing the Election Cornmiss~on ruling. Finally, as a reminder, you sl~oald be caudous to avoid any appearance of special favors or addi~;ional access for TAM)F or TCA based on your business relationship with ~hese groups. TCA did employ registered lobbyisIs in die past, and very Iikel.y will con.tinue ~o have issues pending oelore L:ongress." Accordingly, we advise yon ,o keep in mind these sm.~dards of conduct during t:he time you are working with TAI,I)F

Pursuat~t ~.o the Federal Elec:ti0n Cmnpaign Act, the FEC adminis{ers a separate set of restrictions on ~he use of" campaig~a funds; Atthough our ~mderstandi~g is tI~at, th.c FEe generally pemnits fl~e use of campaign fi.mds and lhe estabtishmen~ oY legal expense fimds for lega! expenses arising out of a Member’s congressional campaign and official duties, interpretation of FEe regulations is outside this Corrm~ittee’s jurisdiction. If you have not already done so, you should consult with. the FEe to determine wlmther either course of" conduct is permissible under the appl{cabl.e law and reg~flations. The response above constitutes ala advisory opinion concerning the application oi7 House R.~les ,;a "~ and 25 and the Code of Ethics fbr Governmem Service. Tt~e ~bllowi~g limitafio~-~s apply to this opi~aior~: T.hi.s advisory opinion i:s issued o,~ly ~o Representative Jeaa Sc.hmidt, the requestor o1" this opinion. This advisory opinion cannot be relied upon by any other in.dividua.l or emirv This advisory v~pinion is limited to the provisions of [he Hous~a roles m~d the Code of Ethics for Government Service specifically noted above. No opinion is expressed or implied herein, regarding the application of a~y other [~’deral, state~ or toeal statute, rule. regulation, ordinance, or other law that may be applicable to the proposed conduct described in this letter. inchtding, without limitation, ’,he lnternat Revenue Code and ~he Federal Elec ~ion Camt2aig~ Act.

Schmidt 0006 11-6574 0278


Vhis advisory opinion witI ~ot binc! or obligate any entity o.zher tI~a~,-~ the Committee on Standards <~t Officiai Conduct o1: the I?nited Slates l!{ouse oi7 Repre.senIatives. This advisory c, pinion is limited it~ scope to t[~e specific proposed conduct described in this letter and does not apply ~o any olher conduc~, including that which appears similar in nature or scope to that described in this letter. "[’he Committee wiI! take t~o adverse action against you in regard to any conduct th.at you tmdertake, or have andertaken, in good I~tith reiiance upon this advisory opinion, so long as yon have presented a complete and accurae statement of all material i’acts relied ~;tpo~ herein, a~d the proposed conduct in practice conforms with the information you provided, as addressed in t!~is opinion. Changes or other deve|opmems m the Iax~ {.including. but not limited to. the Code of Official Conduct. House rules. Committee guidance, advisory opinions, statutes, regulations or case law~ may affec~ the analysis or donclusions drawn h~ this advisory ropimon. The Committee reserves ~he right to reconsider ~he questions and issues raised in this advisory opinio~ a~d to rescind., modify, or terminate d~is opiniota if required by the interests of the House. However. the Commiltee will rescind an advisory opinion only if relevant and materia{ f~cts were nm completely a~.d acc~.~raely disclosed to fhe Commiaee at the time the opinion was issued. In the event that this adviso~w opinion is modified or terminated, d~e Committee will not take any adverse action against you with resi?eCt ~ any acii.on .taken in good faith rel.iance upon t:his advisory opinion so long as such conduct or stlch action was promptly discontinued upon notification of the modification or tm’miaation of this advisory opinion.

It" you have an\, further quest~.ons, please conmc.~ the Committee’s Office of’ Advice and l.:2duca.tion at extension 5-7103. Sincerely.

Zoe Lofgren Ct:air

Schmidt 0007

11-6574 0279


EXHIBIT 23

11-6574 0280


D

DKSub 0110 11-6574 0282


DKSub 0112 11-6574 0284


o


DKSub 0114 11-6574 0286


DKSub 0116 11-6574 0288


o


DKSub 0118 11-6574 0290


DKSub 0120 11-6574 0292


2


DKSub 0122 11-6574 0294


©


DKSub 0124 11-6574 0296


DKSub 0126 11-6574 0298


DKSub 0128 11-6574 0300


.L


DKSub 0130 11-6574 0302


.2

DKSub 0132 11-6574 0304


.2

DKSub 0134 11-6574 0306


DKSub 0136 11-6574 0308


DKSub 0138 11-6574 0310


DKSub 0140 11-6574 0312


8

DKSub 0142 11-6574 0314


o

DKSub 0144 11-6574 0316


DKSub 0146 11-6574 0318


DKSub 0148 11-6574 0320


8


d

DKSub 0150 11-6574 0322


2

DKSub 0152 11-6574 0324


.2

DKSub 0154 11-6574 0326


c


DKSub 0156 11-6574 0328


8


DKSub 0158 11-6574 0330


DKSub 0160 11-6574 0332


DKSub 0162 11-6574 0334


o~


DKSub 0164 11-6574 0336


2

DKSub 0166 11-6574 0338


.5,


DKSub 0168 11-6574 0340


DKSub 0170 11-6574 0342


DKSub 0172

11-6574 0344


DKSub 0174 11-6574 0346


8

8

DKSub 0176 11-6574 0348


DKSub 0178 11-6574 0350


DKSub 0180 11-6574 0352


.,4


DKSub 0182

11-6574 0354


c


DKSub 0184 11-6574 0356


DKSub 0186 11-6574 0358


¢ ¢

DKSub 0188 11-6574 0360


2

J

DKSub 0190 11-6574 0362


DKSub 0192 11-6574 0364


©


DKSub 0194 11-6574 0366


DKSub 0196 11-6574 0368


DKSub 0198 11-6574 0370


DKSub 0200 11-6574 0372


DKSub 0202 11-6574 0374


DKSub 0204 11-6574 0376


DKSub 0206 11-6574 0378


DKSub 0208 11-6574 0380


DKSub 0210 11-6574 0382


c


DKSub 0212 11-6574 0384


DKSub 0214 11-6574 0386


DKSub 0215 11-6574 0387


EXHIBIT 24

11-6574 0388


Schmidt 0013 11-6574 0389


EXHIBIT 25

11-6574 0390


Schmidt 0016 11-6574_0391


Schmidt 0017 11-6574 0392


EXHIBIT 26

11-6574 0393


Thursdayt A,:!§~st 26, 2010 10:44

{::}~ath~.’r ,Jones Commi~.tee on Standards of Official Conduct U:S, House of Representatives Wa.si-fington, DC 20515 Phone: (202} 225-7t03

Schmidt 0018 11-6574 0394


EXHIBIT 27

11-6574 0395


Schmidt 0019 11-6574 0396


EXHIBIT 28

11-6574 0397


11-6574 0401


$1,001 - $15,000 $50,001 - $10O.O00 $100,001 - $250~.000

$2s0,ool $~.ooo,oo~ - $5,000,0o0 $&0oo,ool - $2B 0oo, o,oo ’~$25,000,001 - $50,000.000 ~’ Over $5~,d00.000 ~ _ DIVIDENDS NONE ,

m

RENT .INTEREST ’ CAPITAl- OAIN’-8 EXCEPTEOtBLIND TRUST Other Type ot Ir~come (Specify)

None

I ~0~ - $I,000

Sf.Ooo,~ - ~,~&O~

m~

11-6574 0402


United States House of Representatives Financial Disclosure Statement for Calendar Year 2008 Jeannette H. Schmidt

Listing of real estate assets held by various family partnerships and jointly with siblings. Jean Schmidt owns 25% of all of the partnerships listed below. OT Realty Enterprises LLC Percentage owned: 25% Comer of Loveland Miamiville Rd & Branch Hill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140 Land leased to Walgreen Pharmacy Value of percentage owned - $250,000 - $500,000 Net Income for percentage owned for 2008 - $15,000 - $50,000 (rent)

(2)

OT Realty Enterprises LLC II Percentage owned: 25% Comer of Loveland Miamiville Rd & Branch Hill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140 Land leased to Kroger Value of percentage owned - $250,000 - $500,000 Net Income for percentage owned for 2008 - $15,000 - $50,000 (rent)

(3) OT Realty Enterprises LLC III Percentage owned: 25% Comer of Loveland Miamiville Rd & Branch Hill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140 Land to be developed in the future Value of percentage owned - $50,000 - $100,000 Net Income for percentage owned for 2008 - zero (4) Jennifer Black Et All

Percentage owned: 25% Comer of Loveland Miamiville Rd & Branch Hill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140 Land adjacent to OT Realty Enterprises LLC II Value of percentage owned - $50,000 - $100,000 Net Incorne for percentage owned for 2008 - $1,000 - $2,500 (rent)

(5) Gus Hoffman Second Family Limited Partnership Percentage owned: 25% Corner of Loveland Miarniville Rd & Branch Hill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140 Farm Land Value of percentage owned - $500,000 - $1,000,000 Net Income for percentage owned for 2008 - $2,500 - $5,000 (farm crops)

11-6574 0403


(6) RTJJ LLC Percentage owned: 25% Comer of Loveland Miamiville Rd & Branch Hill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140 Farm Land Value of percentage owned - $1,000,000 - $5,000,000 Net Income for percentage owned for 2008 - $2,500 - $5,000 (farm crops) (7) RTJJ LLC Percentage owned: 25% Moore Rd. & Bantam Rd., Clermont County OH Vacant property Value of percentage owned - $50,000 - $100,000 Net income for percentage owned for 2008 - zero

(8)

R.TJJ LLC

Percentage owned: 25% 1232 SR 28, Milford, OH 45150 Commercial Rental Property Value of percentage owned - $50,000 - $100,000 Net Income for percentage owned for 2008 - $2,500 - $5,000 (rent) (9) RTJJ LLC Percentage owned: 25% 1236 SR 28, Milford, OH 45150 (SR 28 & Floyd Place) Residential Rental Property (3 small homes & vacant lots) Value of percentage owned - $100,000 - $250,000 Net Income for percentage owned for 2008 - $2,500 - $5,000 ( 10)RTJJ LLC Percentage owned: 25% SR 132 & Judd Rd. Vacant Land Value of percentage owned: $15,000 - $50,000 Net Income for percentage owned for 2008 - zero

11-6574 0404


x


LOgO


EXHIBIT 29

11-6574 0410


11-6574 0414


$1,000,001 - $5,000,O00 $25,000,O01 - $50,000,000 x

0~,~ ~i~..<.~., " ~ ,-

EXCEPTED/BLIND TRUST Other Type of fncome (Specify)

None

--

$~,oo~ - $2,5oo $2,501 - $5,000

~s,oo~ - $so,ooo

-<_

Over $5,000,000

x

11-6574 0415


United States House of Representatives Financial Disclosure Statement tbr Calendar Year 2009 Jeannette H. Schmidt 771 Wards Corner Rd. Loveland, OH 45140 Listing of real estate assets held by various family partnerships and jointly with siblings. Jean Schmidt owns 25% of all of the partnerships listed below. (1) OT Realty Enterprises LLC

Percentage owned: 25% Comer of Loveland Miamiville Rd & Branch Hill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140 Land leased to Walgreen Pharmacy Value of percentage owned - $250,000 - $500,000 Net Income for percentage owned for 2009 - $15,000 - $50,000 (rent)

(2)

OY Realty Enterprises LLC II Percentage owned: 25% Comer of Loveland Miamiville Rd & Branch Hill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140 Land leased to Kroger Value of percentage owned - $250,000 - $500,000 Net Income for percentage owned for 2009 - $1.5,000 - $50,000 (rent)

OY Realty Enterprises LLC III Percentage owned: 25% Comer of Loveland Miamiville Rd & Branch Hill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140 Land to be developed in the future Value of percentage owned - $50,000 - $100,000 Net hacome for percentage owned for 2009 - zero

(4) Jennifer Black Et All Percentage owned: 25% Corner of Loveland Miamiville Rd & Branch Hill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140 Land adjacent to OT Realty Enterprises LLC II Value of percentage owned - $50,000 - $100,000 Net Income [’or percentage owned for 2009 - $1,000 - $2,500 (rent) ~5) Ous Hoffman Second Family Limited Partnership Percentage owned: 25% (’orner of Lovetand Miamiville Rd & Branch [Ii[l : Guinea Pike, [.o\’eland. Oil 45140 Farm Land Value of percentage o\~ned - $500,000 - $1,000,000 Net lnc~me f’~r percentage ~wned ft~r 200q - %2~S00 - %5,0)f~ (farm er~pa)

11-6574 0416


Râ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;JJ LLC Percentage owned: 25% Corner of Loveland Miamiville Rd & Branch tlill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140 Farm Land Value of percentage owned - $1,000,000 - $5,000,000 Net Income for percentage owned for 2009 - $2,500 - $5,000 (farm crops) RTJJ LLC Percentage owned: 25% Moore Rd. & Bantam Rd., Clermont County OH Vacant property Value of percentage owned - $50,000 - $100,000 Net income for percentage owned for 2009 - zero (8) RYJJ LLC Percentage owned: 25% 1232 SR 28, Milford, OH 45150 Commercial Rental Property Value of percentage owned - $50,000 - $100,000 Net Income for percentage owned for 2009 - $2,500 - $5,000 (rent) (9) RI"JJ LLC Percentage owned: 25% 1236 SR 28, Milford, OH 45150 (SR 28 & Floyd Place) Residential Rental Property (3 small homes & vacant lots) Value of percentage owned - $100,000 - $250,000 Net Income for percentage owned for 2009 - $2,500 - $5,000 (10)RTJJ LLC Percentage owned: 25% SR 132 & Judd Rd. Vacant Land Value of percentage owned: $15,000 - $50,000 Net Income for percentage owned for 2009 - zero

11-6574 0417


6 I,t~O-t~L~9- I, I,

0 Z


X

o

=J~VHO~Ind


000’000"095 000’000’0~$ -~00’000’~$

0


0

O00’Og$

30NVHOX3

4


2


Z


EXHIBIT 30

11-6574 0427


PZ~,NKhqG REPUBLICAR MEMgER

ON5 HUNDRED EILEVEN’(N CONGRESS

COMV~TTEE ON STANBA~S OF OFFICIA!. CONDUCT

~U ITE H1"--2, ’T~E CAPITOl,

O~tober ,~9, 201(~ ’ihe Honorable Charles B~ Rangel U. S, House of Represmltatives 2354 R~bum He,me Of~ce Building WasNngton, DC 20515 Dear Colleague:

]hm ~.esponds to yo~r ~e~,.e, o~ Oc~obc.~. 25, 2010, request.iu.g Comm]d,e,, guidarme cn a~,,,kmg and accepting pro bongo o~ reduced-f~’c legal representation ~,~ com~cction with the disoiplina3, proeeedh~gs currently pe~di.ng against you before t~m Corcm~it{ee, In your letter, you smm, "I am asking the Committee to approve my seeking.., covmsej. L.on a~ro bone or md~med fee basis] withot~ me or O-~e cram.sol being accused of seeking, receN[ng or providing gift representation." You a[so state, "In fl~e alte~five, ~e Conm~gee cm ~range Ibr tl~e House to pay for my cout~.sel)" We have cons~nmd yon.y reouest as a requeg for an advisory opiNon ~om fl~e Cc, mmi~ee’s Offie~ of Advice a~d Ectucation) White _T-[ouse R’tfies authorize the Committee to ce, ns{der requests for advisory opinicms, such authori*y is limited to "the general propriety of any current or propo~d c.onct~aet;’ of the {nquiring individual2 Moreover, in providing written re,spouses to req.ues~s for an oph~ion, She Cmrmait~ee has a tong-established policy of ad.&essing "the condtmt o~ly of the ~nquidag indiv::dual, or of persons for whom the i.nqmring individual is responsible as [the] employing a~thority.’’3 Beea-ase your lob:or does not provide specific details abo~.,t how or from Whom yo~ would seek leg’,d representation, we cannot dePmitive[y address wbetl~er Ne aeti vi.ties described [,~ your ~e[ter are pernfissible under applicable House n,.ies, laws, regulations o~ ether appEcable standards of conduct. We can, however, offer you some genera~ guida~aee on the roles and standards of conduct appiieable to Members of the House that m’e relevant b your inquiry, 1.

I~At_,. I UAL BA C KGRO U N D According to yore, 1 e.t~er and puNi c!y-avai[able rr,,ateri m,~, the bad~grotmd on. fl~ ~s matter is as follows, The Committee has been em~duoting forn:m~ disoi?lNa,3~ proceedings into allegations li~at * [%~ House Rule 11, d. 3(a)(4); Co*~-~-~fittee, Rxde 3(b), :’~ Ho~e Rule 1 i, el, 3(a)(4), ~ Con~ni~oe Rub 3(d),

11-6574 0428


The Ho~.orm.Ie Page 2010, ~ in~estiga~ve s~b~o~m~fi~ee ~r~m~smit~ed a Statem~t of Alleged Viola~on (SA~V)to th.e Committee. You are currency sc~ed~Aed to appear oe+ore ’ ~ an a@idica~ot3, subcommi~ee o~ November 15, 2010, fi~r m~ adj admatoD’ searing on ~e Nlegafiox~s charged in the SAY, o,. ~e proce~dlngs, yon were represented by *he Washingtoa, D.C, law ~ To date, ~this "~s," fi~n of Zucke~m~Spa~der: tep~:e~en~aim~, has generated legal biils of over $2 milikm. To date, you have largely used fmads from your prindpN campaiga convnlgee *o pay those expe~ases~ However, as 0f October 14, 2010, Zuckennax~ Speeder ~*h&ew from servh-~g as your oom~sel. As of the dNe of Y0~ ieRer, you have been u~mNe m seem’e new emmsel to represent yo~. in ~l~s Your October 25, 2010, let~ter inquires about the permissibility of two opticms for secu.rir~g ~md accepting legM assism~ce: (1) i~av~!g fi~e House pay for your eouasel; or (2) d}owkng yort to solMt private counsel to represent you o~a apro bono (five)or reduc.ed-fi~e basis, The ren~abnder of IBis letter Novide8 general guidance on eaela of these options in turn, ~ ~ .... r~7 IL LEGAL AU.r.HOIRII ~ AND ANALYSIS A, CtmnseI Paid by he House Your first proposal is that the. Committee or floe House of Rcq?rese~.tafives as a wtmle pay for any fu~hor legN costs incited in compeer.on with *l~e adjudication_ of ~is matter, A provMon i,~ fl~e Co~mi~ee’s niles Wo~ide~ a respoMent in disciplh~mT Noceedings before Ne Co~mnittee with the right to be roprcs,m~d b,~ co~m~ei~* I-{ov~-er, tiae rule ~so expressiy provides that ~y s~ch representation is "to be provided at the respondent’s ow~: expense."s %h:us. ~J~e Commi~ee, in promulgafi~g its ~.es, has weighed and rejected the optio~ 0f the governme~ paying !l~r legal representa~en ibr individuals whom the Conm~gee is Nvesfigafiug. A federal s~at~te also restricts ti~e we of House fund~ to the p~poses ggr Which those fcmds were appropriated.~ Puxsuan~t ~o this a~at~te, troy Nnda og*he House ma:y be us~.t or pay Nr, the oNcM governme~tal duties of Ne Member, committee, or ot~er office Nnds were @propfiated, Because your le~gi reproach:Otiose for purposes of tf-~e disciplinary procee~ngs before tl~e Co~:dttee is a matter wholly re!ated to yo,~r m~ official d~aties, fl~e House o~her tb.a:~ ~mds @propriated to your congressio~N o~iee ~br the amdac.t of oNci~ congressional business (i2e., your Membe~?a Represe~,ta*ionN A~!owmace, 0r M~Q could be expmded for Nat pu~ose under ’:~ ~ta~u~e. ~"’ -~.~e However, we note that the Cm~it~ee on House : Admln~s~atlo*h raffler fl~m.~ flds Committee~ l~as jurisdictkm over the approvaI of reimbursements from your MRA]

~ 31 U,S,C~ §1301(a). 7 We und~stand tMt the Com:nRtee on Ho~se Adn~nls~a~on has daem~kted timt ~he ~ost of legal

Admin:, M~m~er s Ham~oo:c, a~ i ("Ordinary and necessaW ~pe.,~:~es [nOtaTed by the Member, . h~ support 0fthe

11-6574 0429


In sum,, it appears that Co:-omi~t¢o ru[es~ House regulations, and a re, dote] s~alute would prohibit the }.louse fi:om pro:,id]ng you. with lsegai representation for ~h¢ renta~ning phases of the diadplinary proceedings before the Co~mnit~ee. Soliciting or Accepting Free or Redueed-l?ee .Legal Services The second option addressed in your le~er havolves you seeking private c,otmsd :o repro.sent you on a no-cost ox reduced f~e basis, This proposal hnpIicates ethics provisions goretailed ac, ccptsnc~ of." gifts and solicitatios o f things of value. House, roles define the term ’~gift gratuity, tkvor, discount, e~tm~:ainmenl, hospitality, tbrbearm~ce, or other item having monetat’y value. The :erm includes glf~s of services, trainiag, trat~spo~ta~ian, lodging, and m~:als, whet.her provided in kind, by purchase of a ticket, payment advance, or reimbursement after tim expense has been irtc~t~red 9 °l~e definition of gL*i e×pressly hMudes gifts of services. Thus. the value of legal services provided m a Member at no cos.: wo~ld be deemed to b,, a gift under the g:fl rule. ~dembers may net accept m~y g~fl, exceN as specifically permitted by House roles. ~: One of the permissible exceptions to the proNbit{on on g:Rs ~s tbr eontdbuticms tr, a kgal expense ~d. by someone other fla~ a ~egis~ered !obby~st or agen~ of a foreign pr~eipaL~z ’[his except[on provides tlm~ a Member, officer, or emp!oy~e may accept ’~a conh’ibution or other payment m a legal expense l~d es’:abl~shed for ~:e benefit of a Member .... officer, or empIoyee of the House that is otherwise tawRd[y made in acoordm~ce with the restrictions ~d disdos~we requ~:e.ments of the Committee on Standards of Offic~N Conduct’’~ The Committee has expressly stated fl~at such a ~d is permissible fo~ legN expenses float m~ise m eom~ection with a ma~er concerning ’~)]he ~ndividu~J’s &:~es or position :n Co~e~s (i:?.cI~ding a. ma~ter . -, ,,!4 befi~re the if you Nd establish a ~,alid legal expm~se trust in relation to S tandards Comm~teej. ~" ’,~.o ins matter, you would be permitmd to solic:t ut t?a.t~on8 ~ t~e trust of :~oney o:"::~-K~id ’ " services (inchNing free or disco~mted legN services), provided such solicitations and donafim~s were Member’s e*~eial at:d represeatationa| duties {o ihe dk~{ric.t fi’om which elected m’e re.~b~rsable")....(emph~ia added). ~ General ethics p~-~c~ [es for tin legN proNss~on also may restrict the House ~em serving as cour~e] to both ~he Committee and com~se! m ~e defense ~n *his g~er. 6’ee, e,g., Ak?A, Model Rules of Professio~N Conduct R. 1.7. ~ Honse Rule 25, d. 5(a)(2)(A)~ ~o As a generN nm~er, l.he amomt of any discount on the cost of]offal fees ofibred to a Mea:qber based N~ that NNviduN’s o~¢ial sta~ wend be deemed a gi~ Rn puJt~osea ~f ti~e g[fi rate. Se~: Hmtse Rule 25, cl, " Ifoua, Ruie 25, el, 5(a)(1)(A)(i); see also Hott~ ~u[c 23, cl 4 ~ gee House Rale 2g, el. :(a)(3)(E).

11-6574 0430


The Honorable Charles B. Ral~gd Page 4

made in compsianee wil2a Committee .regulat~ons regarding legal expense trustS. I5 The est~blisNag, mMntaJN~N, and p~ov~dh~g public disc!os~e about such af~d are contained appendices ~o the 2008 .~N~s¢ E~hics ~&nuaL ~ In addition, because an importa~at aspect of a Member’s respoi~s~bility is re;orese!~til~g the in matters in -w!fich the federM k~teres~ of Ns eo~utu~nts ~’= ~ ~ govei~m~en~ has ~ interest, the Co~ni~e has detemfined that pro bone assistmnee to p~micipa~e h~ ce~ actions im~olving t!~e 2hderal government Nlls witN~ fl~e gi~ ~ale exception for c.ontrib~tion~ to leg~ expense ~ds~~7 Specificaily, as stated iii the 2008 ~buse ENics Mammal, a Men~er may a~co~pt two bone tegN assist~ce, wiflmut INfit, ,or ~.e ~o,iowmg p~rposes: To file an .ani.¢us brief in his or her capadty as a member of To participate h~ a dVfl action ~hahengmg t~e validity of any federal lawor regulation; or To participate M a civiI action challenging ihe la’~’ulness of an action of a federal agency~ or a~ action of a. ed~.~ al. of~c~al taken in an official ~apac~ty, provid ed that the action concern s a matter ofpubUc Nteresg rather thm~, a ma~er ~a; is personal m watt:e? ’.Use Committee has porto.fired tl~e acceptance of pro bo~o legal sere’ices for the pu~t~oscs listed above because such services woukl be to enable a Member Io fulfill Ns ~ffieial &~fies as a~ advocate fez the greater good of his consfiVdents d’ae ~o the m~bjeot mattcr of the litigations,~ That pfindple of aetMng Ne greater good wo’:dd no~ be met d’avugt’,_ pro-viging legai services +,o defend an individual Member agains~ allege:dons of m{scor..&tc,~ by ar~ iudividual Member i,~ a disciplinau action by the Commii~ee,~°

~~ ,9~e 2008 HoarSe EtMes Manua~ at 65:

~" See id at 64, 65; see a£’o Bgack’~ Lwa’ Dic~fonary, 8fl~ e~. (}Vest 1999) ~t 1240,41 (defiNng "pro bone" ,[bleh~g or invotvirg uncompensated legal services pe~ormed [es~eciaI]y] Nr the public good"). ~o Beza-ase yo’ar letter does not provide specific, details about how or fium whom you would ~eek su(h represen~tion, we emmet as noted above, defitfidwly adO-cSs whether any oiher exoep*k)~ to the }teaSe girl rule may potonfia!ly apply h~ fl?ia ~m~er, 5~e Heine Rule. 25, el. 5. For exmnpl~, We no~:e Na~ the Corm~ittee has, ~n ~hc approv~ ar~ Unso~cited ~vdu~d fee atrangem~t of!?er~d by a inv/firm !~ a Member, However, ~t 8}:ou~d be noted ]?~o~m! majors based on Ne personal fiiend~Np exception to the gift role. ,gee House Ku]e 2:5, c!, 5(~)(3)(D).

11-6574 0431


I~ae Jenorable Chades B. Rea.g~l

!n ~y ease, ~i lea.oral ~tamte prohJbit~ Members and House staff f~om soliciting a~.~ of vakm.2~ T]As s~at~te gives this Co~ee, as the so.pe~sing ethics offi~ ~br the House. the au~orky 1o issue rules or reg~ations providing for reasonable exceptions to fl~is prohibition,~’: Under ;Ns aulhorigr, Ne Committee has pemai~ed Members to solicit ~Sr a le_g:,aI ext.~ens~. ~md east has been established and approved by the L.on~x~e in accordance with the Legal Expense Fund Regqdaions.~s The Co~mi~ec has nevex approved the soliciiation of p~o bone legal se~wices incurr~ h~ eo~ecfion wi~ a disciplina~, ma~er befo~e ~he Comn~ tree, unless the solicitation was tier the donmion of goods or se~ices to a valid legal expense ~vst establ~sbvA For that purpose, Based on the foregoing autho~ty ar,.d precedent, because the subject maV,:er of the Co~mNRee ~nvesfigation coneet~s your ~x~duet, rather ~an tlae ~t[ons of the i~dera! government, wo~id not be permissible Ibr you to solMt or accept pro i)rmo or reduced-fee l.egM represen~tion in co~e~ion with the ongoing disoipli~y proceedings, absent the es/ab~s1~em of a legal expense fired for sud~

Accordingly, as explained more fully abrade, Rouse ~d Committee rules and the applieable fede, ral sta~*es would prahibit the House fi:om paying for yore" legal representation, In addition, it is likely that, absent the esmblislvnent of a valid legal expense, fund for !t~at purpose~ you rnay not solicit o, accept pry bone or reduced-fee representation reiated ~.o t,h~ disciplinary proceedings before the Committee. While not proposed as an option in your totter, it would 5e pe~xnis~ible for yea to estabiish a legai expense fia~ad to accept c, ontributions of: (i) money that could be ~tsed to defray any legal expenses recurred in c, om~ection with the o~gomg Committee discipliner)" proceedings; or (2) in-M~d, donations of free or discounted legal services [br the same pt~rpose. As stated above, any such Iegal expense fired wou!d have to be esmbHsBed m~d make, tainted in accordance v,qih tSe Cormnittee’s Legal Expense l:und Regulations, LIMITATION S The response above: constitutes an advisory opinion concerning the application of House Rt~e !10.. etaase 3; House Rule 23, elm~se 4.; House Rule ~.:, clause 5; Committee R~u.le 3; Commfittee R~le 26; rite L~ga[ ~xpe~ae Nmd Regulations, 5 I.!,S,CI § 7353; and 31 § 1301. The fbllowing limitader~s apply to khis This advisozy opinion is issued only ~c Representative Charles B, Range!~ the requester of this opinion, Tliis advisory opinion calil.iot be relied ~po~ by any othe.r in.d~idua! e~ emity0

2~ gee Legal Expens~ Fund Regulations, r@rNted in 200~ !louse Eth~s Ma~a~ at 394"96; ~ea a;so 2008

11-6574 0432


Pag= 6 TbXs advisory opinion i~ I~m~ed to the pmv~sions of House rules and ~-egula~iorls and federal statute specifically noted above. No opizi.on is expressed or implied hereh~ regardi~g the app~.ication of any other federal, state~ or Ice.at statute, rule, regulatio~ ordi~artee, or other ~aw that may this This ~tvisory opi~fion will not bhad or ~o!iga.~e any ent.ity el:her tha~ t.l.xe Cor~m.xigee or~ Staa~dards of Official Condu~ of the United States House of Represe~tatives. °t’t~s advisory o~.?~ni.on i.s limited in scope to tke specific proposed conduct described in tl-ds le~er and does not apply to m~y other conduct, h~cl:ading ~.~..at which, appears similar in nature or scope to that described irt this le*ter, The Cortm~ittee will take ~o adverse action against yea i~ regard to m~y conduct that you tmdzrmkc, o~ I~m~e undertaken, in good ~a~& reli~.ce upo~ this adviso~’ opir~on, so long as you have presm~ted a eompiete m:~d accurate statement of N1 material facts rel~ed upon t~.erein, and the Noposed conduct in prac{~ce eerdbr~r~ wRh *he in~n~.a~ton you provided, as addressed in this Changes o,’ other developmems in the law (including, but not limi~ied ,to, ~he Code of Of*iei.aI Conduct, Hot~se rt~.ies, Con-anittee g~aid~m.ce, advDory opiNo,~s, statutes, regulatioi~8 or cast la~,g) may afl"cc:t the analysis or eonch~sior, s &aw~a i~ flSs advisory opi~ion. The Committee reserves !he right to reconsider tl~e question, s am.d issues rai~ed 5:1 I}tis advisot3~ opinion m~.d to rescind, modify, or terminate ~.his opi,~ion if reqv~h’ed by tSe i~.teres;s of the Hous. eo However; the Commikr.ee witl rescit~_d an advisory opi~ion only if relevant and materM {he~s were no~ completely and accurately disclosed to tt.~e Committee at the tkme ,the opitaion was issaed. I_a ’the event that ~his advisory opS~ion i~ moditSed or termina*ed, the Co,rmfittee wii1 r, ot take any adverse action against you with respect re any actio~ taken ia good fait~ relia~ace ~pon fl-~is advisory opinion so long as such coadnc{ or such so*ion was Nompfly discontinued upon nolifleatio~.~ of the modificati on or termination of ins advisory opir~ion.

If you have any ~drth~.r ciues*km.~., including f~_~rther informatio,~ ca establishing a legal defense fur~d, please eo~.~acZ the C’o,rmqittee’s O~ee of Advice aJad Education at extel~siort 5-71 Sir~cere].y,

Chair

Jo Bomber Ranking Republicaa Me,nber

11-6574 0433


Full ethics committee report on Rep. Jean Schmidt  

Full ethics committee report on Rep. Jean Schmidt

Advertisement
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you