! ,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