Full ethics committee report on Rep. Jean Schmidt

CONFIDENTIAL

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

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICSUNITED 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, onApril 29, 2011, adopted the following report and ordered it to be transmitted to the Committee onEthics of the United States House of Representatives.

SUBJECT: Representative Jean Schmidt

NATURE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION: Representative Jean Schmidt may have receivedfree legal services that are considered gifts under House rules. Since 2008, three lawyers for theTurkish American Legal Defense Fund ("TALDF") have represented her in various legal mattersrelated to a complaint that she filed with the Ohio Election Commission against Mr. DavidKrikorian, a challenger to her congressional seat.

The Turkish Coalition of America ("TCA") has paid the TALDF lawyers a total ofapproximately $500,000 for the legal services provided to Representative Schmidt during thepast three years. TCA currently pays the lawyers to represent her in an ongoing defamation suitthat she filed against Mr. Krikorian in Ohio state court. Representative Schmidt has not paid forany 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 bynot including the free legal services as gifts on her financial disclosure statements.

RECOMMENDATION: The Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics recommends that theCommittee on Ethics further review the above allegations because there is substantial reason tobelieve that Representative Schmidt: (1) accepted legal services from TALDF withoutestablishing a legal expense fund; and (2) failed to report the legal services on her financialdisclosure statements for calendar years 2008 and 2009.

VOTES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE: 6

VOTES IN THE NEGATIVE: 0

ABSTENTIONS: 0

CONFIDENTIAL


MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR STAFF DESIGNATED TO PRESENT THIS REPORT TOTHE COMMITTEE ON ETHICS Omar S. Ashmawy, Staff Director & Chief Counsel.

CONFIDENTIAL


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 ThreeYears ................................................................................................................................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 CommitteeConcerning the Nature of the Legal Services ................................................................14

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

F. Representative Schmidt Accepted Additional Legal Services After Receiving theAdvisory Opinion ...........................................................................................................18

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

III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................20

CONFIDENTIAL



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 thefollowing findings of fact and accompanying citations to law, regulations, rules, and standards ofconduct (in ita#cs). The Board notes that these findings do not constitute a determination that aviolation actually occurred.

I. INTRODUCTION

In 2008, the Turkish Legal Defense Fund ("TALDF") began providing legal servicesto 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 toRepresentative Schmidt. In September 2009, Representative Schmidt requested awritten 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 RepresentativeSchmidt that she could pay for the legal services by either establishing an approvedlegal expense fund to pay for the legal services or using campaign funds. The opinionwas based on the facts that Representative Schmidt presented to the Committee. Theletter from the Committee expressed its understanding that Representative Schmidtwas awaiting a bill from the TALDF lawyers and that the legal services had not beenpaid.

Apparently, relevant information concerning the nature of the payment of the legalservices was not provided to the Committee. For example, it was not disclosed thatthe Turkish Coalition of America ("TCA") had already paid the TALDF lawyersapproximately $300,000 for Representative Schmidt’s legal services at the time of theadvisory opinion. TCA paid the expenses for Representative Schmidt since 2008 andcontinues 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


A. Summary of Alle~ations

The Board finds that there is substantial reason to believe that Representative Schmidtviolated House Rule 25, clause 3 by accepting legal services from TALDF, which theTCA paid for prior to her receiving approval from the Committee of a legal expensefund.

The Board finds that there is substantial reason to believe that Representative Schmidtviolated House Rule 26, clause 2 and the Ethics in Government Act by failing toreport the legal services that she received from TALDF as gifts on her financialdisclosure statements for calendar years 2008 and 2009.

B. Jurisdictional Statement

The allegations that are the subj ect of this review concern Representative Jean Schmidt, aMember of the United States House of Representatives for the 2nd District of Ohio. TheResolution the United States House of Representatives adopted creating the Office ofCongressional Ethics ("OCE") directs that, "[n]o review shall be undertaken.., by theboard of any alleged violation that occurred before the date of adoption of thisresolution.’’2 The House adopted this Resolution on March 11, 2008. Because theconduct under review occurred after March 11, 2008, the OCE has jurisdiction in thismatter.

C. Procedural History

The OCE received a written request for a preliminary review in this matter signed by atleast two members of the Board on January 24, 2011. The preliminary reviewcommenced on January 25,2011.3 The preliminary review was scheduled to end onFebruary 23,2011.

At least three members of the Board voted to initiate a second-phase review in this matteron February 22, 2011. The second-phase review commenced on February 24, 2011.4The 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 forconducting 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 beginswhen the preliminary review ends. The second-phase review does not begin on the date of the Board vote.

5

CONFIDENTIAL


10. The Board voted to extend second-phase review for an additional period of fourteen dayson 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’sRules 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 April29, 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 testimonialinformation, 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 notknowingly 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 otherpayment to a legal expense fund estabfshed for the benefit of a Member, officer, oremployee that is otherwise lawfully made in accordance with the restrictions anddisclosure requirements of the [Committee]. "

CONFIDENTIAL


17. The Committee ’ Legal Expense Fund Regulations provide that "[n]o contribution shallbe solicited for or accepted by a Legal Expense fund prior to the Committee’s writtenapproval 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 tothe restrictions of these regulations. ,,6

Financial Disclosure

19.

20.

Under House Rule 26, "the provisions of title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 19 78shall be considered Rules of the House as they pertain to Members, Delegates, theResident Commissioner, officers, and employees of the House."

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 morethan 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 thereporting individual during the preceding calendar year ....

B. TALDF Has Provided Legal Services to Representative Schmidt for NearlyThree Years

TALDF in General

21. TCA created TALDF in late 2007 or early 2008.8 The purpose of TALDF is to protectthe legal rights of Turkish Americans.9 TALDF works primarily on defamation and freespeech 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 at11-6574_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 civilaction challenging the validity of any federal law or regulation; or to bring a civil action challenging the lawfulnessof an action of a federal agency, or an action of a federal official taken in an official capacity, provided that theaction 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 11-6574_0006); Memorandum of Interview of TCA President, April 8, 2011 ("TCA President MOI") (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_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


22. TALDF provides legal services to its clients on apro bono basis.11 The entity is fundedby the TCA.12

23. If there is a legal matter in which the client is awarded monetary damages, the money isdivided between the client and the TCA.13 The TALDF lawyers do not receive anyportion of a damage award.14

24. TALDFTALDFTALDF

has two lawyers in Washington, DC: TALDF Lawyer 1 and TALDF Lawyer 2.Lawyer 1 is employed at the law firm of Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc.15

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 atthe law firm of Chester, Willcox & Saxbe. 17

26. The TALDF lawyers are similar to independent contractors for TALDF.18 Each law firmbills TCA an hourly rate for legal services performed on behalf of TALDF.19 TCA paysfor the services.2°

27.

28.

TCA retained a registered lobbyist in 2008 until the lobbyist, George Hochbrueckner,terminated the registration effective December 31, 2008.~1

The TCA President told the OCE that he is the head of TCA’s congressional outreachgroup.~ He spends approximately fifty percent of his time working on congressionaloutreach, which involves meeting with Members of Congress to discuss the Armeniangenocide resolution and Greek and Turkish issues.~3

11 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).

15]d. at 11-6574 0006.16 Memorandum of Interview of TALDF Lawyer 2, March 28, 2011 ("TALDF Lawyer 2 MOI") (Exhibit 4 at 11-

6574_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 11-

6574_0027).22 TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0011-0012).

23Id. at 11-6574 0011.8

CONFIDENTIAL


29. The TCA President told the OCE that he has not registered as a lobbyist because he onlyeducates legislators.24

TALDF and Representative Schmidt

30. Since 2008, TALDF has provided legal services to Representative Schmidt related tovarious legal matters between her and Mr. David Krikorian.2~

31. In 2006 or 2007, Mr. Krikorian visited Representative Schmidt’s congressional office inWashington, DC. ~6 He came to the office to meet with Representative Schmidt torequest her support for the Armenian genocide resolution.~7

32. According to Representative Schmidt’s Chief of Staff, Mr. Krikorian became belligerentbecause Representative Schmidt would not commit to voting for the resolution.~8

33. In November 2007, the TCA President first met Representative Schmidt when heoverheard her discussing the Armenian genocide resolution at a campaign fundraiser atthe Capitol Hill Club in Washington, I)C.~9

34. He introduced himself and offered to provide her with information about the Armeniangenocide issue)°

35. The TCA President told the OCE that he saw Representative Schmidt frequently in 2008as she attended various TCA events and events with the TCA political actioncommittee.31

36. During the same period in 2008, the TCA President believes that he spoke withRepresentative 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 February17, 2011 ("TALDF Lawyer 2 RFI Response") (Exhibit 9 at 11-6574_0059-0063); TALDF Lawyer 2 Legal ServiceInvoices ("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.

29 TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012).3° id"

31 ]d. at 11-6574 0012-0013.

32Idat 11-6574 0013.

CONFIDENTIAL


37. Representative Schmidt’s Chief of Staff explained to the OCE that he first met the TCAPresident when the TCA President visited Representative Schmidt’s office to lobby himon the Armenian genocide resolution.33

38. In 2008, Mr. Krikorian ran as an independent candidate challenging RepresentativeSchmidt for her congressional seat.

39. The TCA President recalls that in late spring of 2008, Mr. Krikorian circulated an emailthat criticized Representative Schmidt for attending campaign fundraisers with TurkishAmericans.34 The TCA President was furious about the email and there were internaldiscussions 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 pamphletson cars outside of Representative Schmidt’s church that accused her of various activities,including accepting "blood money" from the Turkish Government to deny the Armeniangenocide.~6

41. On November 3, 2008, TALDF posted on its website a statement that it "requested theAttorney General of Ohio, Nancy H. Rogers, to open a criminal investigation under Ohiolaw into signature Armenian verbal thuggery employed by Armenian Americanindependent candidate David Krikorian against Representative Jean Schmidt.’’~7

42. TALDF Lawyer 1 remembered that his first meeting with Representative Schmidt aboutproviding 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 forRepresentative Schmidt in her case against Mr. Krikorian before the Ohio ElectionCommission.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 11-

6574_0060-0061); TALDF Lawyer 3 RFI Response (Exhibit 5 at 11-6574_0022-0023).10

CONFIDENTIAL


her during the 2008 campaign that violated the Ohio state law prohibiting unfair politicalcampaign activities.4°

44. The TALDF lawyers began working on this matter in late 2008.41 The lawyers billedtheir 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 ofRepresentative Schmidt.44

2009 Legal Services

47. In early 2009, the TALDF lawyers prepared Representative Schmidt’ s complaint for theOhio Election Commission matter, which they filed on April 29, 2009.45

48. The lawyers filed an additional complaint with the Ohio Election Commission on behalfof Representative Schmidt on July 21, 2009.46

49. On October 1, 2009, the Ohio Election Commission found in favor of RepresentativeSchmidt, concluding that Mr. Krikorian made false statements about her.4v

50. In 2009, the lawyers also represented Representative Schmidt in Mr. Krikorian’s appealsof the Ohio Election Commission decision.4s

51. The TALDF lawyers billed their 2009 legal services on behalf of Representative Schmidtto 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 11-

6574_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); TALDFLawyer 2 Invoices (Exhibit 10 at 11-6574_0065-0075); TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices (Exhibit 11 at 11-6574_0074-0161). 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 11-

6574_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_0184-

0187).4s TALDF Lawyer 1 RFI Response (Exhibit 7 at 11-6574_0030); TALDF Lawyer 2 RFI Response (Exhibit 9 at 11-

6574_0061); TALDF Lawyer 3 RFI Response (Exhibit 5 at 11-6574_0023).11

CONFIDENTIAL


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 ofRepresentative Schmidt.51

2010 Legal Services

54. On February 21, 2010, the TALDF lawyers filed a Motion for Leave to file an AmicusBrief on behalf of Representative Schmidt in a federal lawsuit that Mr. Krikorian broughtagainst the Ohio Election Commission in the Southern District Court of Ohio. 52 The suitchallenged whether the Ohio Election Commission had the right to make its findings inthe 2009 matters concerning Representative Schmidt.53 Representative Schmidt was notnamed as a party to the lawsuit.54

55. The TALDF lawyers later filed an amicus brief on behalf of Representative Schmidt inthe case.

56.

57.

On June 8, 2010, the TALDF lawyers filed a defamation lawsuit on behalf ofRepresentative Schmidt against Mr. Krikorian. Representative Schmidt seeks $6.8million dollars in damages. 56

Mr. Krikorian’s federal lawsuit against the Ohio Election Commission was dismissed onOctober 19, 2010.57

58. The TALDF lawyers billed their 2010 legal services on behalf of Representative Schmidtto 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 2Invoices (Exhibit 10 at 11-6574_0065-0072); TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices (Exhibit 11 at 11-6574_0074-0161). TCApaid 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 11-

6574_0066-0069); TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices (Exhibit 11 at 11-6574_0078-0116); TCA Legal Expenses for 2009and 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 TemporaryRestraining Order and Preliminary Injtmction, dated February 21, 2010.53 TALDF Lawyer 2 RFI Response (Exhibit 9 at 11-6574_0062).54]d"

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


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 ofRepresentative 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 thelegal services.62

C. Representative Schmidt Received an Advisory Opinion from the Committee in2010

63.

64.

65.

Representative Schmidt did not request an advisory opinion from the Committee prior tothe TALDF lawyers providing her legal services in 2008.63

Representative Schmidt’ s Chief of Staff told the OCE that he spoke with staff at theCommittee in early 2009 about how to pay for the legal services.64

On August 31, 2009, Representative Schmidt’s Chief of Staff was deposed in the matterbefore the Ohio Election Commission. He was asked whether he had "made some kindof filing with the House Ethics Committee that would allow the Turkish American LegalDefense Fund to fund this legal action against Mr. Krikorian.’’6~ RepresentativeSchmidt’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 2Invoices (Exhibit 10 at 11-6574_0065-0072); TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices (Exhibit 11 at 11-6574_0117-0161). TCApaid 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 11-

6574_0070-0072); TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices (Exhibit 11 at 11-6574_0117-0161); TCA Legal Expenses (Exhibit18 at 11-6574_0189).6o See TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012).61TALDF Lawyer 1 RFI Response (Exhibit 7 at 11-6574_0030).62Id.; 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_0165-0166).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


66. On September 17, 2009, Representative Schmidt wrote a letter to the Committee "to seekguidance regarding the payment of legal fees associated with a case in which mycampaign and I are now involved.’’6v

67. On January 21, 2010, Representative Schmidt amended her request for guidance "due tochanged circumstances" since the original letter.6.

68. On February 26, 2010, the Committee provided Representative Schmidt with an advisoryopinion. 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, andfuture legal work on [Representative Schmidt] behalf in the appellate case in OhioCourt.’’69

69.

70.

The Committee advised that "the establishment of a legal expense fund and the use ofcampaign funds are both permissible options for payment of legal expenses in connectionwith both past and future proceedings, subj ect to the limitations [in the advisoryopinion] ..70

The Committee also advised that "before you may begin accepting or soliciting fordonations to cover past and future legal expenses as described above, the Committeemust approve your proposed trust agreement.’’71

D. Relevant and Material Information May Not Have Been Provided to theCommittee 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 youundertake, or have undertaken, in good faith reliance upon this advisory opinion, so longas you have presented a complete and accurate statement of all material facts reliedupon, herein, and the proposed conduct in practice conforms with the information youprovided, as addressed in this opinion.’’v2

72. In the advisory opinion, the Committee also reserved the right to rescind, modify, orterminate 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 11-

6574_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


relevant and material facts were not completely and accurately disclosed to theCommittee at the time the opinion was issued.’’73

73. Pursuant to the advisory opinion, "[t]here is no restriction under the Committee’s LegalExpense Fund Regulations that would bar the establishment of such a trust fund to paypast legal expenses, so long as no sofcitation or receipt of donations occurred before the

,,74Committee’s written approval of the trust agreement.

74. The advisory opinion relies on facts that Representative Schmidt and her staff providedconcerning the prior payments of the legal expenses.

TCA Paid for Representative Schmidt’ s Legal Services Prior to WrittenApproval of a Legal Expense Fund

75. In the advisory opinion, the Committee indicated that it was under the impression thatRepresentative Schmidt’s attorneys had worked approximately 200 hours and have notbilled 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 havebeen worked by the attorneys in your case, but you have not yet been billed as you areawaiting this Committee’s guidance regarding the permissibility of the proposed optionsfor payment of legal expenses in this matter.’’76

77. The following relevant and material information appears not to have been provided to theCommittee as of the date of the advisory opinion: (1) Representative Schmidt’s lawyershad worked more than 500 hours in her cases;77 (2) Representative Schmidt’s lawyerssent their bills to TCA;78 and (3) TCA had paid Representative Schmidt’s lawyersapproximately $293,000 for services received in 2008 and 2009.79

73/d"

74 Id. at 11-6574_0277(emphasis added).75 Id. at 11-6574 0274.76]d"

77 TALDF Lawyer 1 Invoices (Exhibit 8 at 11-6574_0033-0044); TALDF Lawyer 2 Invoices (Exhibit 10 at 11-

6574_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) TALDFLawyer 2 Invoices (Exhibit 10 at 11-6574_0065-0072); TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices (Exhibit 11 at 11-6574_0074-161).79 TALDF Lawyer 1 Invoices (Exhibit 8 at 11-6574_0033-0044)~ TALDF Lawyer 2 Invoices (Exhibit 10 at 11-

6574_0065-0069)~ TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices (Exhibit 11 at 11-6574_0076-0116).15

CONFIDENTIAL


78.

79.

The President of TCA told the OCE that TCA pays all of the legal expenses for TALDFfrom its general operating account,s°

The TALDF lawyers are employed by separate law firms.81 Each law firm submits itslegal bills to TCA.82

80.

81.

TCA pays for the legal fees and expenses for each attorney performing legal services forRepresentative Schmidt.s3

TALDF provides free legal services to all of its clients,s4 TCA pays the TALDF lawyersfor their services,s~

82.

83.

TCA Has Not Sought Reimbursement from Representative Schmidt

TALDF Lawyer 1 and TALDF Lawyer 2 explained to the OCE that they never send billsto TALDF clients,s6 TCA pays for their legal fees.87

TALDF Lawyer 1 and TALDF Lawyer 2 told the OCE that they were under theimpression that they were providing their legal services at no cost to RepresentativeSchmidt.ss

84.

85.

TALDF Lawyer 1 testified in a deposition during the matter before the Ohio ElectionCommission that he told Representative Schmidt and her campaign that "we would notcharge them legal fees.’’~9

The TCA President told the OCE that he does not bill anyone for the payments that TCAgives 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); TALDFLawyer 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).83 See TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012).84TALDF Lawyer 1 MOI (Exhibit 2 at 11-6574_0007).85Id.; 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).87TCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012).88TALDF Lawyer 1 MOI (Exhibit 2 at 11-6574_007-008); TALDF Lawyer 2 MOI (Exhibit 4 at 11-6574_0018).89Deposition of Bruce Fein, dated August 31, 2009 (Exhibit 23 at 11-6574_0310).9oTCA President MOI (Exhibit 3 at 11-6574_0012).

16

CONFIDENTIAL


86. The TCA President explained that he has not had conversations with RepresentativeSchmidt about payments for the legal services.92

87. Representative Schmidt told the OCE that TALDF did not offer to provide her free legalservices and that she discussed the possibility of a contingency fee, but that option wasnot pursued.93 Her statements are not consistent with the statements of the TALDFlawyers and TCA President about payments for the legal services.

88.

E. TCA Has Paid Approximately $500~000 to Three Law Firms for the LegalServices Provided to Representative Schmidt

The TALDF lawyers provided the OCE with statements for legal fees and expenses thatthey billed for Representative Schmidt’s legal matters from 2008 through the December2010.94

89.

90.

91.

92.

Based on these invoices, the lawyers charged legal fees and expenses totalingapproximately $498,587.95

96According to the lawyers, they have received payment for the fees and expenses.According to the TCA President, TCA paid for these expenses.

Representative Schmidt’s defamation suit against Mr. Krikorian is ongoing in 2011 andthe TALDF lawyers are representing her in this matter.98

Representative Schmidt has not received any invoice for these services and TCA neverintended to send her an invoice for these services.99 TCA paid for the services out of itsgeneral 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 11-

6574_0065-0072); TALDF Lawyer 3 Invoices (Exhibit 11 at 11-6574_0074-0161); TCA Legal Expenses (Exhibit18 at 11-6574_0189).95 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 Legal Expenses (Exhibit18 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


93.

94.

F. Representative Schmidt Accepted Additional Legal Services After Receivin~ theAdvisory Opinion

As mentioned above, on February 26, 2010, the Committee provided RepresentativeSchmidt with a written opinion advising that she could pay for the TALDF legal servicesby either establishing a legal expense fund or using campaign funds.

With respect to establishing the legal expense fund, the Committee advisedRepresentative Schmidt that "[n]o contribution may be solicited for or accepted by a fundprior to the Committee’s written approval of the completed trust document and thetrustee.’’1°1

95. After receiving the February 26, 2010 advisory opinion, Representative Schmidt did notsubmit 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 requestingapproval of a legal expense fund.l°s

99. On August 11, 2010 Representative Schmidt requested that the Committee approve acontingency 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 theCommittee’s written approval of the trust document. Legal Expense Fund Regulations (Exhibit 1 at 11-6574_0002-0004). The Legal Expense Fund Regulations allow the acceptance of pro bono legal services under the followinglimited circumstances: "to file an amicus brief in his or her capacity as a Member of Congress; to bring a civilaction challenging the validity of any federal law or regulation; or to bring a civil action challenging the lawfulnessof an action of a federal agency, or an action of a federal official taken in an official capacity, provided that theaction 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


100. She also requested permission to use a legal expense fund to pay for legal services thatthe TALDF provided in connection with the amicus brief filed in Ohio federal court inFebruary 2010.

Request for Approval of Contingency Fee Agreement

101. On August 26, 2010 the Committee requested that Representative Schmidt provide acopy of the proposed contingency fee agreement for the defamation lawsuit.1°7 Althoughthe lawsuit was filed on June 8, 2010, the proposed contingency fee agreement is datedAugust 26, 2010.l°8 Based on the information before the OCE, a final contingency feeagreement was not executed.

102. TALDF Lawyer 1, who signed the August 26 proposed contingency fee agreement, toldthe OCE that the TALDF legal services for the defamation suit are not part of acontingency fee agreement.l°9 The services are provided pro bono similar to the otherlegal services TALDF has provided to Representative Schmidt.11o

103. He explained that he and the other lawyers will not receive any part of a monetaryjudgment from the defamation suit. If damages are awarded, half of the award is forRepresentative Schmidt and the other half is for TCA.111 The TALDF lawyers are paidwhether 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’smatter. 112

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

105.

106.

Representative Schmidt filed her Calendar Year 2008 Financial Disclosure Statement onMay 13, 2009.

Representative Schmidt answers "No" to the question "Did you, your spouse, or adependent child receive any reportable gift in the reporting period (i. e., aggregating morethan $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 0007.111l12]d"

19

CONFIDENTIAL


107. Representative Schmidt filed her Calendar Year 2009 Financial Disclosure Statement onMay 15, 2010. On July 15, 2010, she amended the filing.

108. In the original and amended statements, Representative Schmidt answers "No" to thequestion "Did you, your spouse, or a dependent child receive any reportable gift in thereporting period (i. e., aggregating more than $3 3 5 and not otherwise exempt)?" 114

III. CONCLUSION

109.

110.

111.

112.

113.

The Committee issued detailed guidance explaining the steps that Members must followto solicit or receive donations to pay legal expenses.

The Legal Expense Fund Regulations require that a Member first receive approval toestablish a legal expense fund before receiving cash or in-kind donations (e.g., pro bonolegal services). 116

The Legal Expense Fund Regulations state thatpro bono legal services are contributionsto a legal expense fund and cannot be accepted without the Committee’s written approvalof a legal expense fund.117

For example, the Committee recently responded to a Member’s request for approval toacceptpro bono legal services.l~8 The Committee advised the Member that "it would notbe permissible for you to solicit or acceptpro bono or reduced-fee legal representation inconnection with the ongoing disciplinary proceedings, absent the establishment of a legalexpense fund for such purpose.’’~9

In this review, TCA and TALDF told the OCE that legal services were provided toRepresentative 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 DisclosureStatement, dated July 15, 2010 (Exhibit 29 at 11-6574_0411).115 Legal Expense Fund Regulations (Exhibit 1 at 11-6574_0002); House Ethics Manual 63-65.l16]d"

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 RepresentativeRangel was issued only to him and cannot be relied upon by any other individual or entity. The letter is cited hereonly as an example of the application of the Legal Expense Fund Regulations.l19]d"

2O

CONFIDENTIAL


114. TCA has paid approximately $500,000 to three law firms for legal services provided toRepresentative Schmidt in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.

115. Representative Schmidt did not receive permission from the Committee to establish alegal expense fund prior to accepting the legal services. Representative Schmidt told theOCE that she has submitted a request to the Committee for approval of a legal expensefund.

116.

117.

118.

119.

The Board is not aware of the status of Representative Schmidt’s request for approval ofthe legal expense fund. However, even if a legal expense fund is approved, TCA hasalready paid for the legal services and does not seek reimbursement.

In conclusion, the Board finds that there is substantial reason to believe thatRepresentative Schmidt violated House Rule 25, clause 3 by accepting legal servicesfrom TALDF, which TCA paid for prior to her receiving approval from theCommittee of a legal expense fund.

The Board also finds that there is substantial reason to believe that RepresentativeSchmidt violated House Rule 26, clause 2 and the Ethics in Government Act byfailing to report that she received legal services from TALDF as gifts on her financialdisclosure statements for calendar years 2008 and 2009.

For these reasons, the Board recommends that the Committee further review theallegations 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 ConductNancy L. Johnson, ChairmanJim McDermott, Ranking Democratic Member

Date: June 10, 1996

The new gift rule exempts "a contribution or other payment to a legalexpense fund established for the benefit of a Member, officer, or employee that isotherwise lawfully made in accordance with the restrictions and disclosurerequirements of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct," as long as thecontribution 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 itsauthority there under, the Committee hereby issues regulations explaining its"restrictions and disclosure requirements" for legal expense funds. The regulationsset forth below supersede the Committee’s prior policies under the old gift rule2 andtake 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 writtenpermission of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.3

° The Committee shall grant permission to establish a Legal Expense Fundonly where the legal expenses arise in connection with: the individual’scandidacy for or election to federal office; the individual’s official duties orposition in Congress (including legal expenses incurred in connection with anamicus brief filed in a Member’s official capacity, a civil action by a Memberchallenging the validity of a law or federal regulation, or a matter before theCommittee on Standards of Official Conduct); a criminal prosecution; or acivil 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 ofthe 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 relativeor 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 Fundwhere the legal expenses arise in connection with a matter that is primarilypersonal in nature (e.g., a matrimonial action).

A Member, officer, or employee may accept pro bono legal assistance withoutlimit to file an amicus brief in his or her capacity as a Member of Congress; tobring 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 federalagency, or an action of a federal official taken in an official capacity, providedthat the action concerns a matter of public interest, rather than a matter thatis personal in nature. Pro bono legal assistance for other purposes shall bedeemed a contribution subject to the restrictions of these regulations.

A Legal Expense Fund shall be set up as a trust, administered by anindependent trustee, who shall oversee fund raising.

The trustee shall not have any family, business, or employment relationshipwith the trust’s beneficiary.

Trust funds shall be used only for legal expenses (and expenses incurred insoliciting for and administel"ing the trust), except that any excess funds shallbe returned to contributors. Under no circumstances may the beneficiary of aLegal Expense Fund convert the funds to any other purpose.

A Legal Expense Fund shall not accept more than $5,000 in a calendar yearfrom any individual or organization.

A Legal Expense Fund shall not accept any contribution from a registeredlobbyist or an agent of a foreign principal.

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

11. No contribution shall be solicited for or accepted by a Legal Expense Fundprior to the Committee’s written approval of the completed trust document(including the name of the trustee). No amendment of the trust document iseffective, and no successor or substitute trustee may be appointed, withoutthe Committee’s written approval.

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

11-6574 0003

396 HOUSE ETHICS MANUAL

13.

14.

The beneficiary of a Legal Expense Fund shall report to the Committee on aquarterly basis, with a copy filed for public disclosure at the LegislativeResource 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; andc) 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 Due Date

January 1 - March 31April 1 - June 30July 1 - September 30October 1 - December 31

April 30July 30October 30January 30

Any Member or employee who established a Legal Expense Fund prior toJuly 1, 1996 shall make any necessary modifications to the trust document tobring it into compliance with these regulations and shall disclose the trustdocument with his or her first quarterly report of the 105th Congress onJanuary 30, 1997. Reports of receipts and expenditures shall be duebeginning 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 Membersmay use campaign funds to defend legal actions arising out of their campaign,election, or the performance of their official duties. More recently, however, theFederal Election Commission (FEC) issued regulations defining impermissiblepersonal uses of campaign funds, including using campaign funds for certain legalexpenses. Any Member contemplating the use of campaign funds for the directpayment of legal expenses or for contribution to a legal expense fund should firstcontact 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


MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW

IN RE:REVIEW No.:DATE:LOCATION:

TIME:PARTICIPANTS:

TALDF Lawyer 111-6574March 28, 2011Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc.1025 Connecticut Avenue, NWWashington, DC 2003610:00 am. to 10:45 a.m. (approximately)Kedric L. PaynePaul J. Solis

SUMMARY: The OCE requested an interview TALDF Lawyer 1, who is an attorney with theTurkish American Legal Defense Fund ("TALDF"), on March 28, 2011, and he consented to aninterview. TALDF Lawyer 1 (the "witness") made the following statements in response to ourquestioning:

The witness was given an 18 U.S.C. § 1001 warning and consented to an interview. Hesigned a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the case file inthis 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 TALDFwas established in 2007 or 2008.

His firm, Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc. is his current employer. TCA pays the firm forthe work that the witness performs on behalf of TALDF. The witness explained that heis more like an independent contractor with TALDF.

TALDF was created to protect the legal rights of Turkish Americans and focuses on freespeech cases. TALDF receives various requests from individuals requesting legalservices.

5. The witness screens potential cases and determines if the cases are consistent with theTALDF mission.

MOI - Page 1 of 4 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS

11-6574 0006

CONFIDENTIAL


The witness told the OCE that a case usually aligns with the TALDF mission if itsupports Turkish Americans being able to participate in open public discourse andprotects Turkish Americans from any type of discrimination.

TCA funds TALDF. As a result, the witness’ law firm bills TCA for the hours he workson behalf of TALDF and TCA pays the law firm. There is no retainer agreement and thebills 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. Thewitness stated that its customary to thinkpro bono, although TCA and the client mayshare damage awards in a specific case.

If there is a legal matter where a TALDF client wins a monetary judgment, the money isdivided between TCA and the client. Neither the witness nor his TALDF colleaguereceives 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 studentwho has a civil rights case.

11. TALDF has not represented any federal, state, or local or public official other thanRepresentative 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 Presidentof TCA. Mr. McCurdy told the witness that Representative Schmidt was interested infiling a complaint with the Ohio Election Commission against David Krikorian. Thewitness does not know who initiated the contact between Mr. McCurdy andRepresentative Schmidt.

14. Near the end of November 2008, the witness met with Representative Schmidt in herWashington, DC office to discuss the complaint. He believes that her current Chief ofStaff, Joe Jansen and her former Chief of Staff, Barry Bennett attended the meeting. Thewitness 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 toRepresentative Schmidt and that was his understanding at their first meeting.

16. Although the complaint was discussed in November 2008, it was not filed until April2009 because TALDF was waiting for "ethics" approval.


11-6574 0007

CONFIDENTIAL


17. The witness did not know at the time whether "ethics" approval meant approval from acongressional entity or the Federal Election Commission. He did not know what aspectof the representation had to be approved.

18. In April 2009, Mr. Bennett told the witness that ethics approval had been received andaction 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 Commissionmatter. 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 appealof the Ohio Election Commission decision, an amicus brief in federal court, and adefamation suit against Mr. Krikorian. Representative Schmidt was alerted to all of theseactions.

22. With all of these matters, the witness understood that TALDF was providing pro bonoservices to Representative Schmidt. Further, there was no written agreement for scope ofservices to be provided to Representative Schmidt.

23. He considered each of the matters to be related to the Ohio Election Commissioncomplaint that was discussed in the first meeting of November 2008. The defamationsuit was contemplated at the time of the Ohio Election Commission complaint and atother times during discussions with Representative Schmidt.

24. The witness stated that the legal services for the defamation suit are not part of acontingency 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 equallydivided between Representative Schmidt and TCA. The witness will not receive any partof a monetary judgment.

25. When asked about a complaint that Representative Schmidt’ s campaign filed before theFederal Election Commission against Mr. Krikorian in 2009, the witness said that he wasnot involved in this matter.

26. Mr. Bennett mentioned a legal trust fund to the witness, but the witness "does not careone way or the other if a fund pays for the legal expenses." He will not receive themoney, but it will reimburse TCA. The witness stated that the back and forth with ethicslawyers over a legal trust fund was "not an inflection point" in the battery of litigation.


11-6574 0008

CONFIDENTIAL


This memorandum was prepared on March 29, 2011, based on the notes that the OCE staffprepared during the interview with the witness on March 28~ 2011. I certify that thismemorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on March 28, 2011.

Kedric L. PayneInvestigative Counsel


11-6574 0009

EXHIBIT 3

11-6574 0010

CONFIDENTIAL





TIME:PARTICIPANTS:

President of Turkish Coalition of America ("TCA")11-6574April 8, 2011Turkish Coalition of America1025 Connecticut AvenueWashington, DC 200362:10 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. (approximately)Kedric L. PaynePaul J. Solis

SUMMARY: The OCE requested an interview with the President of the Turkish Coalition ofAmerica ("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 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 theTurkish American community; empower the Turkish American community; and bridgegaps between the general public and the Turkish American community.

The organization is divided into several groups: Capitol Hill outreach; communityoutreach; scholarship program; and the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund("TALDF"). TCA is also involved in organizing trips for Members of Congress and ithas a political action committee.

The witness is the head of the group involved in Capitol Hill outreach. The group alsohas one full-time employee and one part-time employee. The witness told the OCE thathe 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 itprovides educational materials to Members concerning Turkey.


11-6574 0011

CONFIDENTIAL


7. The Capitol Hill outreach group meets with legislators concerning the Armeniangenocide resolution. The group also meets with legislators concerning Greek andTurkish issues.

The witness told the OCE that no one in TCA’s Capitol Hill outreach group is registeredas a lobbyist. He explained that he is not registered as a lobbyist because he onlyeducates legislators.

TALDF was created in late 2007 or the beginning of 2008. The entity was createdbecause Dr. Ayasya wanted an organization to help Turkish Americans that were victimsof discrimination.

10.

11.

12.

The witness described TALDF as an anti-defamation entity. TALDF becomes involvedin legal matters when the lawyers identify a case and decide to accept it or when TurkishAmericans request TALDF’s legal assistance.

The TCA funds TALDF. The witness approves all TCA payments to TALDF andcontrols the TCA budget.

These approvals include all payments to TALDF lawyers Bruce Fein and DavidSaltzman.

13.

14.

The money that TCA uses to pay TALDF comes from TCA’s general budget. Thewitness told the OCE that the TCA does not seek any reimbursements or payments fromTALDF clients. TCA also does not solicit funds from any other sources to pay forTALDF expenses.

The witness is involved in pre-approving new TALDF legal matters. He attendsmeetings about new matters. The approval decisions are done by a consensus of thewitness; Guler Koknar, TCA Vice President; Bruce Fein; David Saltzman; and the TCAChairman Dr. Ayasya. This group meets approximately four times per year to makedecisions on new matters for TALDF.

15.

16.

The witness believes that he first met Representative Jean Schmidt in November 2007 ata fundraiser for Ohio Republicans at the Capitol Hill Club. He attended the fundraiserbecause the TCA PAC made a campaign contribution for the event.

During the event, he overheard Representative Schmidt discussing the Armeniangenocide resolution. He introduced himself and explained to Representative Schmidt thathe worked for TCA. He offered to provide her with material concerning the Armeniangenocide issue.


11-6574 0012

CONFIDENTIAL


17. The witness told the OCE that Representative Schmidt collected information fromsources representing all sides of the Armenian genocide issue and independently decidedthat she could not support the resolution. He believes that she publicly stated that shecould not support the Armenian genocide resolution in December 2007.

18. He believes that near late spring 2008, he received an email, possibly from a TurkishAmerican. In the email, David Krikorian criticized Representative Schmidt for attendingcampaign fundraisers with Turkish Americans. This email had been sent to variousrecipients 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 TurkishAmericans could not participate in the political process like everyone else without beingcriticized.

20.

21.

22.

23.

He recalls that in the summer of 2008 there were internal discussions at TALDF aboutwhether they should take any legal action in the matter.

The witness is not certain if he approached Representative Schmidt and offered TALDFservices or if she asked him whether TALDF could provide services.

He told the OCE that he saw Representative Schmidt a few times after he received theKrikorian email and they discussed news about Mr. Krikorian. During these discussions,the witness may have mentioned TALDF to Representative Schmidt.

He saw Representative Schmidt frequently in 2008 because Representative Schmidtattended TCA events. Also, the TCA PAC was involved in events with RepresentativeSchmidt.

24.

25.

26.

27.

The witness also spoke with Representative Schmidt’s Chief of Staff, Barry Bennett, atleast once per month in 2008 and they discussed the Krikorian matter.

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 havetold Bruce Fein to reach out to Mr. Bennett. When asked if Mr. Bennett discussed acontingency fee with him, the witness stated that he did not recall that he did.

The witness told the OCE that before TALDF could proceed with assistingRepresentative Schmidt with filing the complaint with the Ohio Election Commission,Mr. Bennett mentioned something about "ethics."

He was not involved in any further discussions about payment for the legal services andnever talked to Representative Schmidt about payment for services.


11-6574 0013

CONFIDENTIAL


This memorandum was prepared on April 11,2011, based on the notes that the OCE staffprepared during the interview with the witness on April 8, 2011. I certify that this memorandumcontains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on April 8, 2011.



11-6574 0014

EXHIBIT 4

11-6574 0015

CONFIDENTIAL





TIME:PARTICIPANTS:

TALDF Lawyer 211-6574March 28, 2011Saltzman & Evinch, P.C.655 15th Street, NWWashington, DC 200052:05 p.m. to 2:45 a.m. (approximately)Kedric L. PaynePaul J. Solis

SUMMARY: The OCE requested an interview with TALDF Lawyer 2, who is an attorney withthe Turkish American Legal Defense Fund ("TALDF"), on March 28, 2011, and he consented toan interview. TALDF Lawyer 2 (the "witness") made the following statements in response toour questioning:


2. The witness is a principle at the law firm of Saltzman & Evinch, P.C. He has beenemployed 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 reviewingrequests for legal representation from Turkish Americans. This litigation part of the workis what the witness does most of the time for TALDF.

The TALDF selects legal matters based on whether the cases are within its mission. Alsoapproval from the Turkish Coalition of America ("TCA") was needed before TALDFcould accept a legal matter.

5. The witness told the OCE that he is a junior litigator for TALDF and Bruce Fein is thesenior 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


7. He believes that TALDF’ s first litigation matter was a complaint that was filed on behalfof Representative Schmidt against David Krikorian in early 2009.

The witness explained that he bills TCA for his legal services, quarterly based on thenumber 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 inJanuary 2009, when he received a phone call from Bruce Fein. On the call, Mr. Fein toldthe witness that the president of TCA, Lincoln McCurdy, had a conversation withRepresentative Schmidt about TADLF representing her in the matter.

10. The witness first met Representative Schmidt in the spring of 2009 at a meeting in heroffice. He was in her office to meet with her then Chief of Staff, Barry Bennett. Thewitness told the OCE that Mr. Bennett was the main point of contact for RepresentativeSchmidt’ s office.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

During the spring of 2009, the witness began drafting an outline of a complaint againstMr. Krikorian to be filed with the Ohio Election Commission ("OEC"), and then waitedfor approval from Representative Schmidt and TCA. TCA approved the draft complaintin February 2009.

The witness stated that it was his impression that TALDF was waiting to file thecomplaint because Representative Schmidt was seeking approval from the House EthicsCommittee. The witness told the OCE that he believed ethics approval was needed todetermine if Representative Schmidt could be a plaintiff in a matter and if the legalservices could be provided at no charge.

The witness stated that at the time, February 2009, TALDF expected no money fromRepresentative Schmidt.

TALDF filed the complaint with the OEC in April 2009 after Mr. Bennett told Mr. Feinthat ethics approval had been received. Conversations about ethics issues did notcontinue after this point.

There was no written retainer agreement outlining scope of representation forRepresentative Schmidt. TALDF does not usually enter into written agreements withclients expect in one case.

After the OEC issued its decision, Mr. Fein then told the witness to gather his invoicesfor the legal services because Representative Schmidt may reimburse for the expenses.However, Representative Schmidt’s office never requested the invoices.


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 RepresentativeSchmidt’s Chief of Staff.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

The witness’ involvement in the other matters concerning Representative Schmidt beganto diminish. He told the OCE that in connection with the OEC complaint, the TALDFassisted Representative Schmidt with legal matters related to Mr. Krikorian’s attempt atappealing the decision, an amicus brief, and a defamation suit.

According to the witness, TALDF understood that all of these legal services wereprovided on apro bono basis.

He also explained that the defamation suit had been contemplated since the initialconversation about filing the OEC complaint. The suit was not filed until 2010 becauseTALDF was monitoring Mr. Krikorian’s response to the OEC decision.

The witness did not assist Representative Schmidt with the complaint that her campaignfiled against Mr. Krikorian before the Federal Election Commission in 2009.

The witness was shown an email concerning "Lawyer Hours on Jean Schmidt RelatedLitigation", (Schmidt_0015). He explained that the hours included in the email wereestimated projections of hours that he would spend on the legal matters. He told the OCEthat these hours did not reflect actual hours worked.

This memorandum was prepared on March 31,2011, based on the notes that the OCE staffprepared during the interview with the witness on March 28, 2011. I certify that thismemorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on March 28, 2011.



11-6574 0018

EXHIBIT

11-6574 0019

Chester Willcox & Saxbe, LLP65 East State Street, Suite 1000Columbus~ OH 43215

MAIN: 614.221~FAX: 614.Z21.4012

WWW,CWSLAW.COM

DONALD C. BREYDIRECT: 614.334~

February 11,2011

Omar S. AshmawyStaff Director and Chief CounselOffice of Congressional Ethics425 3rd Street, SW. Suite i 110Washington, .DC 20024

Re: January 27, 2011 Request for Information

Dear Mr. Ashmawy:

Pursuant to your January 27, 2011 Request for Information, enciosed find a CDcontaining the following documents (in Tiff format):

Bates Number

DCB_OCE-0001 through 0002

DCB_OCE - 0003 through 0006

DCB_OCE- 0007

DCB_OCE - 0008 through 0009

DCB_OCE- 00010 through 00095

Documents

DCB February 11, 2011 Cover Letter

Brief Description of Legal Matters

Request for Information Certification

Ledger History

Redacted Copies of Invoices

On February 2, 2011, I spoke with Investigative Counsel Kedric Payne, whostated that your office is only interested in our redacted bills and the evidence of whatwe were paid for our legal services. Thus, we have redacted from the bills produced thedetailed description of the work performed.

While there are many pleadings, transcripts and exhibits that are in the publicrecord in the cases in which I have represented Jean Schmidt, my understanding is thatyou are not seeking those documents, but only the documents showing the cost andpayment for the legal services provided by us.

DCB OCE 0001

11-6574 0020

Omar S. AshmawyFebruary 11, ?.011Page 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

ii

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",

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 Secretary of the SenateLegislative Resource Center Office of Public RecordsB-106 Cannon Buddma 232 Hart BuddingWashinaton, DC 2051~ Washinaton, DC 20510

http:/ilobbyinadisclosure.housc.ao~ http:i/www.sen atc.aov/lo bbv~ .=:_:.:.==__= .............. _.:.o_ .._x ................................... ............................................ _ - LOBBYING REPORTLobbying 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 Address2 P.O. Box 637

City Laurel State NY Zip Code 11948

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

City

4a. Conlact Name

State Zip Code

b. Telephone Number c. E-mail~ International Number

(63 I) 29s-/

Check if client is a state or Iocal government or instrumentaliO,

Mr. George Hochbrueckner

7. Client Name ~ Self

Turkish Coalition of America

Country USA

Country.

5. Senate ID#

18375-1003542

6. House ID#

322940037

TYPE OF REPORT S. Year 2008 Q1 (I/1-3/31) ~ Q2 (4/I-6/30)

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

Q3 (7/1-9/30) ~ Q4 (10/1- 12/31)

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

Less than $5,000 ~

$5,000 or more ~.! 5; 10,000.00

Provide a good faith estinaate, rounded to the nearest $10,000,

were:

Less than $5.000 ~

$5,000 or more ~ $

14. REPORTING Check box to indicate expenseof all lobbying related income from the client (including allpayments to the registrant by any other entity for lobbyingactivities on behalf of the client).

Signature

accounting method. See instructions for description of options.

[] Method A.

[] Method B.

[_j Method C.

Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only

Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8) of theInternal Revenue Code

Reporting amounts under section 162(c) of the InternalRevenue 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 registrantengaged in lobbyiug on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate page for each code, provideinformation as requested. Add additional page(s) as needed.

15. General issue area code IEDU i Education i (one per page)

16. Specific lobbying issues

ITurkish-American issues.

17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies"U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. U.S. SENATE

Check if None

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

First Name Last Name Sui"fix

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

Covered Official Position (if applicable)

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. AshmawyStaff Director a~.~d Chief CounselOffice of Co-~~g-ressional Ethics425 3m Street, SW, Suite 1110Washingf, 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 Sehmidtconcerning a Complaint she filed with ~he Ohio Elections Commission underOhio law a]].egiiag intentional misstat:ements of facl; to affect the outcome ofher congressional race in 2008 by opponent David Krikorian, The case wasadjudicated ove~’ two days of hem’ings ~n 2009 in favor of Schmidt oncounts of intentional f~lse statements.

2. TALf)F provided legal services to Sehmidt in the appeal of t;l~.e OEC’sdecisions ~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 opposingDa%d K~’ikoria.n’s suit agai~st, the Ohio Elections Comn.~.issio~ in 2010 in theUnited States District Courts fbr ~he Northern and Southern DistrictsOhio cha!lenging the constitutionality of the OEC and i.ts three rulingsagainst, ~ikoria.m The U.S. District Court fbr ~,he Southern Disl:rict ofultima.tely dismissed the suit.

4. TALDF has provided legal services to Sehmidl: m her pe~ding defhmationsuit a.gai~.st David tG’ikorian and the Krikorian ~or Congress Committeethe Ohio Court of Commo~ Pleas, Clermor~t County. Various motions remainoutstanding.

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 000111-6574 0030

Sincerely,

BRUCE FEINSenior Counse]TALDF

TALDF 000211-6574 0031

EXHIBIT 8

11-6574 0032

INVOICEJanuary 29, 2008Lincoln McCurdy

Re: Legal Services

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036

January7:8 hrs.

Cost per hr: $400.00

Please make payable to Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc.

TALDF 000411-6574 0033


February 25, 2009

INVOICE

Lincoln McCurdy

Turkish Coalition of America

RE: Legal Services

Feb. 9-8hrs.Feb. 13-hrs.Feb. -4 hrs.

-8

Cost per hr: ~400.00

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

Many thanks.Bruce

TALDF 000511-6574 0034


INVOICE

Lincoln McCurdy

RE: Legal Services (March 2009)

March 9.

March 13-

March 19-

.6 hrs.

,-4 hrs.

Cost per hour-S400.O0


Many thanks.

Bruce

TALDF 000611-6574_0035


INVOICE

Lincoln McCurdy

RE: Legal Services (April 2009)

April 4:8 hrs.

April 10:3 hrs.

Cost her hour: $400.00

TALDF 000711-6574 0036

INVOICE

Lincoln McCurdy

RE:

Turkish American Legal Defense Fund

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 000811-6574 0037


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


Many thanks.

Bruce

TALDF 000911-6574_0038

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.




TALDF 001011-6574_0039


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 hrsAugust 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


Many thanks.Bruce

TALDF 001111-6574_0040


INVOICE

Lincoln McCurdy

RE: Legal Services (Sept. 2009)

Sept. 1-8 hrs.,Sept. 2-8 hrsSept. 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


Many thanks.Bruce

TALDF 001211-6574 0041

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND1025 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W., SUITE 1000

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036

INVOICE

Lincoln McCurdyTurkish 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 001311-6574 0042


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 001411-6574 0043

December 22-6 hrs.


TALDF 001511-6574 0044


INVOICE

Lincoln McCurdy

RE: Legal Services (January 2010)

January 18 ’8 hrs.

January 21

January 23-i

January 24-hrs,January 26-

January 28-January 29-

8 hrs.

.8 hrs.

hrs.

:-6 hrs.,2 hrs.


Please make check to Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc.

TALDF 001611-6574_0045

INVOICE

Lincoln McCurdy

Re:

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEF

Legal Services (Feb. 2010)

February 1 :

-4 hrs.

,-4 hrs.

February 3: - -2hrs.

February 9:

February 10:

February 11:

February 16:

February 16: ~

-6 hrs.

8 hrs.

15 minutes.

-20minutes.

TALDF 001711-6574 0046

February 17: ............

minutes.

February 17:

minutes.

February 18:

Feb. 18:

February 18:

minutes.

25

30 minutes.

_ .4 hrs.

February 19:

10 hrs.

February 20: :-8 hrs.

February 21"20 minutes.

February 21"minutes

February 25: !

-9O

Febnmry 26:20 minutes.

~o

TALDF 001811-6574 0047


TALDF 001911-6574_0048


BILLING STATEMENT: FEB-MARCH 2010

4. March 1:1.25 hrs.

6, March 2:

4 hrs.

7. March 3: .7 hrs.

TALDF 002011-6574 0049


TALDF 002111-6574 0050

Turkish American Legal Defense Fund Billing StatementApril 2010

5. April 16:

2 hrs.

7. April 19: ~-

4 hrs.8. April 20:

f10. April 22:

11. April 23:hrs.

12. April 26:

-2 hrs.

hrs.

,-4 hrs.

14. April 28:8 hrs.

Cost her hour: S400.00

TALDF 002211-6574 0051

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND BRUCE FEIN BILLING STATEMENTMAY 2010

1. May 4, 2010:

2, May5, 2010:

4. May 10, 2010:

5. May 12, 2010:

6. May 13, 2010:-8 hrs.

7. May :[4, 2010:-Shrs.

8. May 19, 2010:

8 hrs.8 hrs.

-6 hrs.

-8 hrs.

hrs.

(10. May 24, 201U:

4 hrs.11. May 26, 2010:

hrs.

12. May 28, 2010:

2 hrs.

-6

Cost per hour: ~400.00

TALDF 002311-6574 0052


Bruce Fein’s July, 2010 Billing Statement

July 7: ~hr.

Cost per hour: ~;400.00

Please make check to: Bruce Fein & Associates, inc.

TALDF 002411-6574 0053

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDBRUCE FEIN BILLING STATEMENT SEPTEMBER 2010

Sept. 20:¯ 8 hrs.

Sept, 26:-8 hrs.

Sept. 27:

Sept. 29: ,4 hrs.


TALDF 002511-6574 0054

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

3. OctoberlS:-8 h rs.

4. October 12: .~

October 19:-8 hrs.

6. October 20: ,.6 hrs.

6 hrs.

10. October 27: . 1 hr.11. October 28: ,

-8 hrs.


TALDF 002611-6574 0055

Bruce Fein’s Billing Statement for the Turkish American Legal Defense FundNovember 20:~0

November ~:.8 hrs.

November 2:.

November 15:

i--5 hrs.

November 16:

November 18:-8 hrs.

hr.


TALDF 002711-6574 0056

Bruce Fein’s Turkish American Legal Defense Fund Billing Statement

December 2010

December 14: r2 hrs.


TALDF 002811-6574 0057

EXHIBIT 9

11-6574 0058

SALTZMAN & EVINCH,ATTORNEYS AT LAW

METR 0’PO LtTdu~ S~UAIKE655 FWYEEN’rH STREET, ~F S~ LOBBY, SUITE 225

WASHINOTOm, DC 20005-570I

]:;ebrum), ~17, 2011

P, C.

DA~.D S, SALTZ~La’~

Mr: Omar Ashmawy; S~aff Director and Chief CounselOffice of Congressional EthicsUnited States t].ouse of RepresentaUves425 3’~i Street, SWSuite 1110Washingkon, I)C 20024

P,O. Box 895Washington, 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 requeskfor information of January 27, 2011.

I spoke on January 28, 201:1 with Investigative Counsel Kedric Payne, who s{a~edthat wmr office is interested in evidence of what my firm or .I was paid for legal serviceson. R~p. Schmidt’s behalf. Thus, we have redacted from the invoices produceddescriptions of the work performed, As the inw?ices also include informationpertaining to numerous matters unrela~ed to Rep. Schmidt, sud~ information has alsobeen 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, thoughnot substant~at, work on Rep. Schmidt’s matters but have not yet submitted invoices forpayment.

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 00111-6574 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 Schmidt’s efforts to protect and preserve her reputation against falsehoods

disseminated by David Krikorian, twice a congressional candidate in Ohio’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 00311-6574 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 00411-6574 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)).

19, 2010, U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott dismissed David Krikorian’sOn October

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 00511-6574 0062

before the statute of limitations would have expired on the earliest of Kdkorian’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 Krikorian’s lies about her or efforts

by David Krikorian to continue to publish those lies with impunity.

Salt_O0611-6574_0063

EXHIBIT 10

11-6574 0064

I.EGAL DEFENSE FUND

To: Mr. G. Lincoln McCurdyTurkish Coalition of America, Inc.

TALDF Fees for September 1 - December 15, 2008

David S. SaltzmanSaltzman & Evinch, PC

INVOICE

U.S. Soc. See. No, ~DC Bar No. 436201

Firm’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 00711-6574 0065

LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

To- Mr. O. Lincoln MeCurdyTurkish Coalition of America, Inc.

Re: TALDF April 1, 2009 - June 30, 2009

INVOICE

David S. SaltzmanSallzman & Evinch, PC

U.S. Soc. See. No. ~DC Bar No. 436201

Firm’s Employer Identification No. ~

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 00811-6574 0066

LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

Mr. (3. Lincoln McCurdyTurkish Coalition of America, Inc.

TALDF July. 1, 2009 - Sept. 30, 2009

INVOICE


U.S. Soe. See. No. ~DC Bar No. 436201


For: (Ju]

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


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_O0911-6574_0067

LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

Mr. G. Lincoln McCurdyTurkish Coalition of America, Inc.

TALDF Oct. 1, 2009 - Dee. 31, 2009

INVOICE

David S. SaltzmanSalUtman & Evinch, PC

For: Oct 1- Oct 31:



I - Nov 30:

1 - Dec 31

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



Salt 01011-6574 0068

David S. Saltzman

Salt 01111-6574 0069

LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

To: Mr. G. Lincoln McCurdyTurkish Coalition of America, Inc.

TALDF Jan. 1, 2010- March 31, 2010


INVOICE



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_01211-6574_0070

David S. Saltzman

Salt 01311-6,~74 0071

LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

Mr. G. Lincoln McCurdyTurkish Coalition of America, Inc.

TALDF April 1 - June 30, 2010

INVOICE


U.S. Soc, See. No. ~DC Bar No. 436201


For:

June:

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

Expenses: (none)

AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE: US$ /


David S. Saltzrnan

Salt 01411-6574 0072

EXHIBIT 11

11-6574 0073

Inquiry: General - Ledger HistoryClient: 13292- TURKhZH AMERICAN LEGAL DEF~..NSEMatter: 24 - Schmidl v. Krlkorian

Type Bill Date Cash / PPD1 Bill 112858 01/15/2009 0.0l2 Bill 114023 02/13/2009 0,003 Bill 114189 0311712009 0,004 Cash 112858 04/13/2009 915,005 Cash 114189 0411312009 65.006 Bill 114895 04/13/2009 0.007 Bill 115628 05/1512009 0.008 SIlt 117002 06/15/2009 0.00g �~sh 114895 07/06/2009 1,170,0010 Cash 115628 07/06/200S 1,890.84tl Cash 1t7002 0710612009 13.7312 Blll 117109 07/15/2009 0.0013 Bill 117933 08/14/200~ 0,00’t4 Cash 117002 08/1712009 5,710.7715 Cash 117109 08/17t2009 1,776,8116 Cash 117933 08/1712009 3,431.9917 BEll 118573 09/10/200~ 0,0018 Bill 119254 10/15t200E 0,0019 Bill 120356 11/13/200S 0.0020 Bill 120855 12111/200~ 0.0021 Cash 114895 01/11/2010 13,7322 Cash 117002 01/11/2010 17,5523 Cash 117109 01/11/201C 3,400.7124 Cash li7933 01/11/201C 20,921.1625 Cash 118573 01/111201C 38,263.0226 Cash 119254 01/11/201C 34,534,6327 Cash 120356 011ilt201C 11,641.0328 Cash 120855 01111/201C 3,559.1829 Bill 121316 01115/201( 0.0030 BIll 121986 02/12/201(: 0.0031 Bill 122678 031121201~ 0.0032 Cash 121316 03/241201C 1,203,7633 Cash 121986 041/13/201[ 10,456.1434 Cash 122678 04/131201[ 9,864.4435 BiII 123392 04!19/201C 0.0036373839404142434445464748495051525354

Fees916.00

O.OD65.00

9~5,0o65.00

1,170.001,852.505,720.001,170.001,852.59

9.235,070.00

20,835.505,7"t0.771,669.29

0.0036,867.0030,132.50

5,315.50910.00

0.000.00

3,400.7120,835.5036,867.003O, 132.50

5,315.50910.00

1,202.5010,164.50

1,202.5010,164.60

9,535.502,632.50

Expenses0.000.000,000.0O0.000.00

38.344.50o.0o

38.344.5(;

106.5213,431.99

0.00I06.52

3,4311,345.014,038.595,388.811,199.89

0,000.000.000,00

1,345.014,038.595,388.811,199.89

1,26291.64310.88

1.26291.64310.88122.12

Surohg/’rax/Int0.000.000.000.00O.OO

13.73O.OO

17.55I

0.O00.000.000.00

85.660.00O.O00.00

51,01363.54936.72

1,449.2913.7317.55

0.0085.6651 o01

363.54936.72

1,449.290.000.00

18.060.000.00

18.060.00

A/R Balance915.00915.00980.00

65.000.00

1,183,733,074.578,816.627,646.625,755.785,742.05

10,918.5735,271.7229,560.9527,785.1424,353.1562,616,1797,150.80

108,791.83

112,337.28112,319.73108,919.02

87,997.8649,734.8415,200.213,559.18

0.001,203.76

11,659.9021,524.3420,320.58

9,864.440.00

2,754.62Bill 124114 051114/201C 0.00Cash 123392 061071201C 2,754,62Bill ......... 124974 06!11/201( 0.00Cash 124114 06!28/201 ( 1,194.20Bill 125608 07115/201 ( 0.00Cash 124974 081041201( 2,651.27Cash 125608 081041201( 249.47Cash 125608 08104/201 ( 2,651,27Adj 124974 081111201( 0.00Bill 126852 081131201( 0.00BiI[ 127133 09113/’201( 0.00Cash 120852 09/301201 ( 882.46BiI} 128317 10/t41201( 0.00Cash 127133 111011201( t79.44Cash 12831? 11/011201( 10,234.62BiIl 128728 11/11/201( 0.00Bill 129453 i12110t201 ( O.OO

Bill i 3055, ’01/17/201 ‘1 0.00Cash 128728 02!02/201 ’1 11,557.80

1,173.502,632.502,600.G01,173.502,405.002,600,00

0.00

2,405,(~00.(30

877.50130.OOB77.50

9,753.00130.00

9,753,0011,358.5018,688.51~

4,830.0011,358.5(]

20.70122.12

51,2720.70

495.7451.27

249.47246.27i

0,004.96

49.444.961

481.5249,44

481,52199.30

1,331.3690.52

t 99.30

0,000.00

41,320.000.000.000.000.00

.41.320.000.000,000.000,000,000,000,00

473.660,00

3,948.821,194.203,886.792,692.595,593.332,942.062,692.59

41.320.00

882.461,061.90

179,4=110,413.9610,234,52

0,00

11,557.8031,577.6636,971.8425,4t4.0,4

User: DWR

Page: 1

DCB OCE : 0008

11-6574 0074

Inquiry: General- Ledger HistoryClient: t3292 - TURKISH AMERICAH LEGAL DEFENSEMatter: 24 - Schmldt v. Krikorian

1 From bill #1 t 28582 From bill #’t ’140233 From bill #1141894 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE5 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE6 From bill #’1 ’148957 From bill #1 "156288 From bill #1170029 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE’10 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE~t TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE12 From bill #11710913 From bill #11793314 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSEt5 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE"16 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE"17 From bill #11857318 From bill #1 ‘19254"19 From bill #12035620 From bill #120855

- 21-- TURKISH AMERICAN LEG,~,L ~3EFENSE22 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE23 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE24 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE25 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE26 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE27 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE28 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE29 From bill #12131630 From bill #12198631 From bill #12267832 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE33 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE34 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE35 From bill #12339236 From bill #12411437 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE38 From bill #12497439 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE40 From bill #12560841 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE42 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE43 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE44 W{O INTEREST45 From bill #12685246 :From bi11#12713347 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE48 From bi11#1283t749 :TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE50 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE5t IFrom bill #12872852 From b111#12945353 From bill #13055454 TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE

User: DWRComment

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, 2009Billing 12/31/2008Invoice# 112858 DCBOur File 13292 00024

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICIJR AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt v. Krikorian

BALANCE FORWARD

Payments received since last invoice

PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)

Total Fees

TOTAL NEW CHARGES

TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

DUE UPON RECEIPT

$0.00

(0.00)

$o.oo

9~5.oo$915,00

$915,00

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

RETURN THIS PAGE WITH PAYMENT

DCB OCE - 0010

11-6574 0076


Telephone 614~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213F.E,I, No, 31-4422499

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC!O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUR AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DG 20036

January 15, 2009Billed through 12/31/2008Invoice Number 112858Our file# 13292 00024

REDACTED


Balance forward as of invoice January 1,1900Payments received since last invoicePast Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$0.00(0.00)$o.oo

SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS

DCB BREY, DONALD C. 3.00 hrs3.00 hrs

305.00 /hr $915.0O$915.00

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE


915.00$915.00$915.00

DCB OCE - 0011

11-6574 0077


65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/221-4012

February 13, 2009Billing 01/31/2009Invoice# 114023 DCBOur File 13292 00024

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025.CONNECTICUR AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036


BALANCE FORWARD



TOTALBALANCEDUE ON ACCOUNT

DUE UPON RECEIPT

$915.00

(0.00)$915.00

$915.00

LATE PAYMENTFEE(1,5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCESOVER30DAYSFROM DATE OFINVOICE.


DCB OCE - 0012

11-6574 0078


Telephone 614~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 No. 31-4422499

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEtNRESIDENT’ SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUR AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000WA6HINGTON, DC 20036

February 13, 2009Billed through 01/3112009invoice Number 114023Our file# 13292 00024


Balance forward as of invoice January 15, 2009


Past Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$915.00(0.00)

$915.00 ’

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

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,2009., THE FIRMINCREASED THE PRICE OF PHOTOCOPIESFROM $.15 TO $.18. THIS PRICE CAPTURESONLY OUR ACTUAL COST AND APPLIES TOBLACK AND WHITE AND COLOR COPIES,

$0.00$915.00$915.00

DCB OCE - 0013

11-6574 0079


Telephone 614~ 65 East State Street St~ite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/221-4012

March 17, 2009Billing 02/2812009Invoice# 114189 DCBOur File 13292 00024

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUR AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036


BALANCE FORWARD



.$915.00

(o.oo)$915.00

Total Fees 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 BALANCESOVER 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF INVOICE.


DCB OCE - 0014

11-6574 0080


65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215.4213 F.EI. No. 31-4422499

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLARI025 CONNECTICUR AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036

March 17, 2009Billed through 02/28/2009Invoice Number 114’189Our file# 13292 00024


Balance forward as of invoice February 13, 2009Payments received since last invoicePast Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$915,00

(o.oo)$915.00


DCB BREY, DONALD C, 0.20 hrs0.20 hrs

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE

PLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)


325.00 /hr $65.00$65.00

65.00

$6&oo$915.00$980.OO

DCB 0CE - 0015

11-6574 0081


65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax6141221-4012

April 13, 2009BillingInvoice#Our File

03/31!2009114895 DCB13292 00024

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUR AVE., N.W., SUI’~E 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036


BALANCE FORWARDPayments received since last invoicePAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)

Total FeesLate Payment ChargeTOTAL NEW CHARGES


$980.00(o.o0)

$980.00

1,170.0013.73

$1,183.73

$2,163.73

DUE UPON RECEIPT

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


DCB OCE - 0016

11-6574 0082


Telephone 614~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213F,E,L No. 31-4422499

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND ¯C/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUR AVE,, N.W., SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036

April 13, 2009Billed through 03/31/2009Invoice Number 114895Our file# 13292 00024

REDACTED


Balance forward as of invoice March 17, 2009



$980.00

(0.00)$980.00

DCB OCE 0017

11-6574 0083

13292 00024


DCB BREY, DON~LD C.

Invoice# 114895 Page 2

3.60 hrs 325.00 /hr $1,t70.003.60" hrs $1,t70.00


LATE PAYMENT CHARGE ON PAST DUE BALANCE




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 43215-4213Fax 6141221-4012

May 15, 2009Billinginvoice#Our File

04/30/2009115628 DCB13292 00024

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNEGTICUR AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036



$1,1 83.73

(o.oo)$1,183.73

Total Fees

Total Expenses

TOTAL NEW CHARGES

TOTALBALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

DUE UPON RECEIPT

1,852.5038.34

$1,890.84

$3,074.57



DCB OCE - 0019

11-6574 0085


65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 F.E.L No. 31-4422499

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDCIO BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUR AVE,, N,W,, SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036

May 15, 2009Billed through 04/30/2009Invoice Number 115628Our file# 13292 00024

REDACTEDSchmidt v. Krikorian

Balance forward as of invoice April 13, 2009



$1,183.73(0.00)

$I,183.73

EXPENSES04/30/2009 PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.18

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

38.34

$38.34

DCB OCE 0020

11-6574 0086

13292 00024


DCB BREY, DONALD C.


5.70 hrs 325.00 /hr $t,852.505.70 hrs $1,852.50

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED




1,852.5038.34

$1,890.84

$1,183.73

$3,074.57

DCB OCE - 0021

11-6574 0087


Telephone 614~ 65 East State Street Suite I000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/221-4012

June 15, 2009Billing 05/31/2009invoice# 117002 DCBOur File 13292 00024



BALANCE FORWARDPayments received since last invoice


Total FeesTotal ExpensesLate Payment ChargeTOTAL NEW CHARGES


$3,074.57

(0.00)$3,074.57

5,72O.OO4.50

17.55$5,742.05

$8,816.62

DUE UPON RECEIPT

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


DCB OCE - 0022

11-6574 0088


65 East State Street Suite 1000,’Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 F,E.I. No. 31-4422499

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUR AVE,, N.W,, SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036

June ~ 5, 2009Billed through 05/31/2009Invoice Number 1"17002Our file# 13292 00024

REDACTEDSchmidt v. Kdkorian

BaIance forward as of invoice May 15, 2009Payments received since last invoicePast Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$3,O74.57(0.00)

$3,074.57

DCB OCE 0023

11-6574 0089

13292 00024 Invoice# 117002 Page 2

EXPENSES05/31/2009 PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.18

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS


DCB BREY, DONALD C.. I7.60 hrs17.60 hrs

325.00 /hr

4.50

$4.50

$5,720.00$5,720.00


LATE,PAYMENT CHARGE ON PAST DUE BALANCETOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICE

PLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

5,720.004.50

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

DCB OCE - 0024

11-6574 0090


65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/221-4012

July 15, 2009BillingInvoice#Our File

06/30/2009117109 DCB13292 00024




Total FeesTotal ExpensesTOTAL NEW CHARGES


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

5,070.00106.52

$5,176.52

$10,918.57

DUE UPON RECEIPT



DCB OCE - 0025

11-6574 0091


65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 F.E.I. No. 31-4422499

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC!O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNEGT]CUR AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DO 20036

July 15, 2009Billed through 06/30/2009Invoice Number 117109Our file# 13292 00024

REDACTEDSchmidt v. Krikorian

Balance forward as of invoice June 15, 2009Payments received since last invoicePast Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

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

DCB OCE - 0026

11-6574 0092

13292 00024

EXPENSES06/30/200906/30/2009

Invoice# 117109

DELIVERY CHARGEPHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.18

14.0092.52

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS $106.52


DCB BREY, DONALD C, 15.60 hrsI5.60 hrs

325,00 /hr $5,070,00$5,070.00


TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICEPLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)


5,070.00106.52

$5,176.52$~,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 43215-4213Fax 614/221-40"12

August 14, 2009Billing 07/31/2009Invoice# 117933 DCBOur File # 13292 00024

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SU ITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036

Schmidt V. Krikorian

BALANCE FORWARD -"Payments received since last invoicePAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)

$10,918.57(0,00)

$10,918.57

Total Fees

Total Expenses

Late Payment Charge

TOTAL NEW CHARGES


20,835.503,431.99

85.66$24,353.15

$35,271.72

DUE UPON RECEIPT



DCB OCE - 0028

11-6574 0094

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

PH. (614~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 432t5-4213 FIN 31-4422499

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W.,’SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DO 20036 "-

August i4, 2009Billed through 07/3i/2009Invoice Number 117933Our file# 13292 00024

Schmidt v, Krikorian

Balance forward as of invoice July 15, 2009



$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 Page 3

EXPENSES07/31/2009 MILEAGE07/3i/2009 PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.1807/31/2009 TRANSCRIPT

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

268.40198.54

2,965.05

$3,431.99


DCB BREY, DONALD C.MEL LEWIS, MARY E. - Law Clerk

61.70 hrs8.70 hrs

70.40 hrs

325.00 /hr90.00 /hr

$20,052.50$783.00

$20,835.50

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTOTAL EXPENSE~; INCURREDLATE PAYMENT CHARGE ON PAST DUE BALANCETOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICEPLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

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 EATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

Telephone 6141~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/221-4012

September 10, 2009Billing 08/31/2009Invoice# 118573 DC8Our File # 13292 00024

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036




Total Fees

Total Expenses

Late Payment Charge

TOTAL NEW CHARGES

TOTALBALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

$35,271.72

(10,918.57)

$24,353.15

36,867.001,345.01

51.01$38,263.02

$62,616.17

DUE UPON RECEIPT



DCB OCE - 0032

11-6574 0098

CIIESTER WiLLCO SAXI]EATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

PH. (614~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 432t5-4213 FIN 31-4422499

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDCtO BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLARI025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DG 20036

September 10, 2009Billed through 08/31/2009Invoice Number 118573Our file# 13292 OOO24


Balance forward as of invoice August "14, 2009Payments received since last invoicePast 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 Invoice# 118573 Page 4

EXPENSES08/31/2009 HOTEL/MEALS WHILE TRAVELING08/31/2009 MILEAGE08/31/2009 PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.1808/31/2009 WESTLAW RESEARCH

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

368.79145.20809.1021.92

$1,345.01


DCB BREY, DONALD C,EJW WATTERS, ELIZABETH J.

107,90 hrs6.10 hrs

114.00 hrs

325.00 /hr295.00 /hr

$35,067.50$1,799.50

$36,867.00


TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED




36,867.001,345.01

51.01$38,263.02$24,353.15$62,616.17

DCB OCE - 0036

11-6574 0102

CHESTER WILLCOX SAXI] EATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

Telephone 614/~ 65 East State StFeet Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/221-4012

October 15, 2009Billing 09/30/2009Invoice# 119254 DCBOur File # 13292 00024

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUT AVE,, N,W,, SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036




$62,616.17

(0.00)$62,616.17

Total Fees

Total Expenses

Late Payment Charge.

TOTAL NEW CHARGES


30,132.50

4,038.59

363.54

$34,534.63

$97,~50.80

DUE UPON RECEIPT

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


DCB OCE - 0037

11-6574 0103

CHESTER WILLC EATTORNEYs & COUNSELORS AT LAW

PH, (614~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 FIN 3t-4422499

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDCtO BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUT AVE,, N,W,, SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036

October 15, 2009Billed through 09/30/2009Invoice Number 1 "19254Our file# 132£2 00024


Balance forward as of invoice September 10, 2009



$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 Invoice# 119254 Page 3

EXPENSES09/30/200909t30/200909130/200909/30/2009

HOTEL/MEALS WHILE TRAVELINGPHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.18TRANSCRIPTWESTLAW RESEARCH

1,291.171,216.801,366.55

164.07

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS $4’,038.59

DCB OCE - 0040

11-6574 0106

13292 00024


DCBEJWDAS

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


66.20 hrs 325.00 /hr $21,515.0011.50 hrs 295.00 /hr $3,392.5027.50 hrs 190.00 /hr $5,225.00

105.20 hrs $30,132.50






30,132.50

4,038.59363.54

$34,534.63

$62,616.17

$97,150,80

DCB OCE 0041

11-6574 0107

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

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

November 13, 2009Billing 10/31/2009invoice# 120356 DCBOur File # 13292 00024

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUT AVE,, N.W., SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036


BALANCE FORWARD



Total Fees

Total Expenses

Late Payment Charge

TOTAL NEW CHARGES


$97,150.80(0.00)

$97,150.80

5,315.505,388.81

936.72$11,641 .O3

$108,791.83

DUE UPON RECEIPT

LATE ~AYMENT FEE (1.5% PER MONTH) CHARGED ON ALL UNPAID BALANCESOVER 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 EATTORNI~Y~ & CC)UN$1~LOR$ AT LAW

PH, {614~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 432t5-4213 FIN 31-4422499

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDGfO BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLARI025 CONNECTICUT AVE,, N,W,, SUITE 1000WASHINGTONo DC 20036

November 13, 2009Billed through 10131/2009Invoice Number 120356Our file# 13292 00024


Balance forward as of invoice October 15, 2009Payments received since last invoicePast Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$97,150.80

(o.oo)$97,150.80

DCB OCE - 0043

11-6574 0109

13292 00024 Invoice# 120356 Page 2

EXPENSES10/31/2009 MEALS!0t31/2009 OVERNIGHT DELIVERY10/3t/2009 PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.1810/3t/2009 TRANSCRIPT10/31/2009 WESTLAW RESEARCH

46.6064.2814.58

4,632.4O630.95

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS


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

$5,388.81

15.80 hrs 325.00 /hr $5,135.000.40 hrs 295.00 /hr $t18.000.50 hrs 125,00 /hr $62.50

16.70 hrs $5,315.50

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTOTAL EXPENSES INCURREDLATE PAYMENT CHARGE ON PAST DUE BALANCETOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICEPLUS PAST DUE BALANCE (Disregard if Paid)TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

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 EATTORNEY’=; & COUNSELORS AT LAW

Telephone 614/~ 65 East 8tare Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 4321~-4213 Fax 6141221-40"t2

December 11,2009BiIling 11/30/2009Invoice# 120855 DCBOur File # 13292 00024




$108,79 i .83

(0.00)$108,79I .83

Total Fees

Total Expenses.

Late Payment Charge

TOTAL NEW CHARGES


910.001 ,t99.891,449.29

$3,559.18

$112,351.01

DUE UPON RECEIPT

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


DCB OCE - 0045

11-6574 0111

CHESTER WILLCO SA B EATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

PH. (614~ 65 East State Street SuRe 1000, Co{umbus, Ohio 4321.~.4213 FIN 31-4422499

TURKISH AMERIC~,N LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, [3G 20036

December 11, 2009Billed through 11/30/2009Invoice Number 120855Our file# 13292 00024


Balance forward as of invoice November 13, 2009Payments received since last invoicePast Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$108,791.83(o.oo)

$108,791.83

EXPENSES11/30/200911/30/200911/30/2009

OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.18

TRANSCRIPT

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

16.733.96

1,179,20

$1,199.89

DCB OCE - 0046

11-6574 0112

13292 00024


DCB BREY, DONALD C.

Invoice# 120855

2.80 hrs 325.00 /hr2.80 hrs ¯

Page 2

$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, 2010Billing 12/31/2009Invoice# 121316 DCBOur File # 13292 00024


Schmidt v. Krlkorlan

BALANCE FORWARD



Total Fees

Total Expenses

TOTAL NEW CHARGES


$112,351.01

(112,351.01)

$o.0o

1,202.501.26

$1,203.76

$1,203.76

DUE UPON RECEIPT

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


DCB OCE - 0048

11-6574 0114

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

PH. (6t4~ 65 East State Street Suite t000, Columbus, Ohio 43215.4213 FIN 31-4422499

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N,W., SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036

January"l 5, 2010Billed through 12/31/2009Invoice Number 121316our file# 13292 00024


EXPENSESI2/31/2009

Balance forward as of invoice December 11,2009Payments received since last invoicePast Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.18

$112,351.01(112,351.01)

$o.oo

1.26

DCB OCE - 0049

11-6574 0115

13292 00024 Invoice# 121316 Page 2TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS $1.26


DCB BREY, DONALD C. 3170 hrs 325,00 /hr $1,202.503.70 hrs $i,202.50



TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICETOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

1,202.50"1,26

$1,203.76$1,203.76

DCB OCE - 0050

11-6574 0116

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

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

February 12, 2010Billing 01/3t/2010Invoice# I21986 DCBOur File # 13292 00024

TURKISHAMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N,W,, SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036




Total Fees

Total Expenses

TOTAL NEW CHARGES


$1,203.76

(0.00)

$1,203.76

10,164.5029t.64

$10,456.t4

$11,659.90

DUE UPON RECEIPT



DCB OCE - 0051

11-6574 0117

ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT L.AW

PH. (614~ 65 East State Street Suite t000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 FIN 31-4422499

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE "i000WASHINGTON, DC 20036

February I2, 2010Billed through 01/3~/2010Invoice Number 12~986Our file# 13292 00024

Schmidt v, KrJkorian

Baiance forward as of invoice January 15, 2010Payments received since last invoice


$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 Page 3

EXPENSES01131/201001!31/2010

DELIVERY CHARGEPHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ 8.18

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

58.00233.64

$291.64


DCBSDMEJWDASCBM

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

26.60 hrs0.30 hrs0.40 hrs5,70 hrs1.60 hrs

34.60 hrs





325.00 /hr285.00 /hr295.00 /hr200.00 /hr110.00 /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] EATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

Telephone 614/~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/221-4012

March 12, 2010Billing 02!28/2010Invoice# 122678 DCBOur File # 43292 00024







$11,659.90

(o.oo)$11,659.90

9,535.5O310.88

18,06$9,864,44

$21,524.34

DUE UPON RECEIPT

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


DCB OCE 0055

11-6574 0121

CHESTER WI LLCO SAXI] EATTORN EYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

PH. (6t4~ 65 East State Street Suite i000, Columbus, Ohio 432i5-4213 FIN 31.4422499

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDCfO BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W,, SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DG 20036

March 12, 2010Billed through 02/28t2010Invoice Number 122678Our file# 13292 00024

Schmidt v. Kdkorian

Balance forward as of invoice February i2, 2010Payments received since last invoicePast 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 Page 3

EXPENSES02/23/2010

02/28/201002/28/201002!28/201002/28/201002t28/2010

U.S, DISTRICT COURT,; Invoice # 1:10-cv-00103; FILINGFEE PRO HAC VICEDELIVERY CHARGE.LEXIS RESEARCHPHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.18OUTSIDE PHOTOCOPY SERVICEWESTLAW RESEARCH

200,00

32.507.41

64.623.103.25



DCB BREY, DONALD C.JHB BEEHLER, JASON H,

28.70 hrs 325.00 /hr $9,327.50t.30 hrs 160.00 thr $208,00

30.00 hrs $9,535.50




9,535.50310.88

18.06$9,864.44

$tl,659.90$21,524.34

0058

11-6574 0124

CHESTER WILLCO SA B EATTORNEYS & CQUNSELORS AT LAW

Telephone 614~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax: 614/221-4012

April 19, 2010Billing 03/31/2010Invoice# 123392 DCBOur File # "13292 00024


Schmidt v. Krikorlan

BALANCE FORWARD



Total Fees

Total Expenses

TOTAL NEW CHARGES


$21,524.34

(21,524.34)

$o.oo

2,632.50

122.12

$2,754.62

$2,754.62

DUE UPON RECEIPT

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


DCB OCE - 0059

11-6574 0125

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

65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215.4213 FIN 314422499

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDc/o BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036

April t9, 20t0Billed through 03!31/2010Invoice Number 123392Our file# 13292 00024

Schmidt v, Kfikorian

Balance forward as of invoice March 12, 2010Payments received since last invoicePast Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$21,524.34(21,524.34)

$o.oo

EXPENSES -03/31/2010 MILEAGE03/31/2010 PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $,1803/31/2010 PARKING

07.50

1.62

13.00


DCB OCE -0050

11-6574 0126

13292 00024

SUMI~IARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS

DCB BREY, D.ONALD C.

Invoice# 123392

8.’~0 hrs 325.008.10 hrs

TOTALPROFESS1ONALSERVICESTOTAL EXPENSESINCURREDTOTAL OFNEW CHARGESFORTHISlNVOICETOTALBALANGEDUE ON ACCOUNT

Page 2

/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 EATTORNEYS 8,: COUNSELORS AT’ lAW

Telephone 614t~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/221.40t2

May 14, 2010Billing 04/3012010Invoice# 124114 DCBOur File # 13292 00024



BALANCE FORWARD



$2,754.62 .

(0.00)$2,754.62

Total Fees

Total Expenses

TOTAL NEW CHARGES


1,173.5020.70

$1,194.20

$3,948.82

DUE UPON RECEIPT

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


DCB OCE - 0062

11-6574 0128

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

PH. (614)~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 432t5-42t3 FIN 3t-4422499

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDCiO BRUCE FEtNRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N,W. SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036

May14, 2010Billed through 04/30/2010Invoice Number 124114Our file# 13292

REDACTED

00024


Balance forward as of invoice April 19, 2010



$2,754.62

(0.00)$2,754.62

DCB OCE - 0063

11-6574_0129

13292 00024

EXPENSES04130/2010 PHOTOCOPYSERVICE @ $.18

Invoice# 124114

REDAOTED

Page 2

20.70



DCB BREY, DONALD C.CBM MURPHY, CHRISTOPHER B. - Law Clerk

2.90 hrs 325,00 /hr $942.502.10 hrs ii0,00 /hr $231.005.00 hrs $1,173,50

TOTALPROFESSIONALSERVICESTOTALEXPENSESINCURRED

TOTAL OFNEW CHARGES FORTHISlNVOICE

PLUS PASTDUE BALANCE(DisregardifPaid)


1,173.5020.70

$’1 ,’194.20

$2,754.62

$3,948.82

DCB OCE - 0064

11-6574 0130

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

Telephone 614/~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 432t5-4213 Fax 6t4/221-4012

June 11,2010Billing 05/31/2010Invoice# 124974 DCBOur File # 13292 00024





Total Fees

To’~al Expenses

Late Payment Charge

TOTAL NEW CHARGES


DUE UPON RECEIPT

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

2,600.0051.2741.32

$2,692.59

$3,886.79



DCB OCE - 0065

11-6574 0131

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

PH. (614~ 65 East State Street Bulte 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 FIN 3t-442’;49g

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N,W., SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036

June "11,2010Billed through 05/31/2010invoice Number 124974Our file# 13292

REDACTED

00024


Balance forward as of invoice May 14, 2010Payments received since last invoicePast Due Balance (Disregard if Paid)

$3,948.82

(2,754.62)

$1,194.20

EXPENSES05131/2010 LEXIS RESEARCH 5.65

DCB OCE 0066

11-6574 0132

[3292 00024

EXPENSES05/31/2010 PACER RESEARCH SERVICE05/31/2010 PHOTOCOPY SERVICE @ $.18

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS


18.8026.82

$51.27


DCB BREY, DONALD C. 8.00 hrs8.00 hrs

325.00 /hr $2,600.00$2,600.00



LATE PAYMENT CHARGE ON PAST DUE. BALANCE



2,600.00

51.27

41.32

$2,692.59$1,194.20

$3,886.79

DCB OCE 0 0 6 7

11-6574 0133

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

Telephone 614I~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 6141221.4012

July 15, 2010BiiIing 06/30/2010Invoice# 125608 DCBOur File # 13292 00024

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRFSIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., 8UITF= 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036




Total Fees

Total Expenses

TOTAL NEW CHARGES


$3,886.79

(1,194.20)

$2,692.59

2,405.00495.74

$2,900.74

$5,593.33

DUE UPON RECEIPT

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


DCB OCE - 0068

11-6574 0134

ATTORNEYS & COUNSF. LORS AT LAW

65 East State Street Suite t000, Columbus, Ohio 43215.4213 FIN 31-4422499

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDCIO BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036

July i5, 2010Billed through 06130/2010Invoice Number 125608Our file# 13292

REDACTED

00024


Baiance forward as of invoice June 11, 20t0Payments received since last invoice


$3,886.79

(1,194.20)

$2,692.59

DCB OCE - 0069

11-6574 0135

13292

EXPENSES06/07/2010

06t30/201006/30/2010

00024 Invoice# 125608

CLERK OF COURTS, CLERMONT; Invoice # 06072010;FILING FEEDELIVERY CHARGE

PHOTOCOPY" SERVICE @ $.18

Page 2

200.00

216.0079.74



DGB BREY, DONALD C, 7.40 hrs7.40 hrs

325,00 /hr $2,405.00$2,405,00


TOTAL EXPENSES INCURREDTOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS iNVOICE



2,405.00

495.74

$2,900.74

$2,692.59

$5,593,33

DCB 0CE - 0070

11-6574 0136

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

Telephone 614/~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/2214012

August 13, 2010Billing 07/31/2010Invoice# 126852 DCBOur File # 13292 00024

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNISCTICUT AVE., N.W,, SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036


BALANCE FORWARD


Adjustments Applied


$5,593.33

(5,552.01)

(-41.32)$o.oo

Total Fees 877.50

Total Expenses 4.£6


TOTALBALANCEDUE ON ACCOUNT $882.46

DUE UPON RECEIPT



.!

DCB OCE - 0071

11-6574 0137

CHESTER WI LLC O SAXI] EATTORNEYS & COLJNSELORS AT LAW

PH, (614~ 65 East State Street Suite t000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 FIN 31-4422499


August 13, 2010Billed through 07131/2010Invoice Number 126852Our file# 13292

REDACTED

00024


BaIance forward as of invoice July 15, 2010Payments received since last invoiceA!R adjustments made since last invoice


$5,593.33

(5,552.01)

(-41.32)

$0,00

EXPENSES07/31/2010 PACER RESEARCH SERVICE 4.96

DCB OCE - 0072

11-6574 0138

13292 00024TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

Invoice# 126852 Page 2$4.96


DCB BREY, DONALD C. 2,70 hrs 325.00 /hr $877.502.70 hrs $877.50



TOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THIS INVOICETOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

877.504.96

$882.46$882.46

DCB OCE 0073

11-6574 0139

CHESTER WILLCO ,}L ,SAXBEATTOR 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, 2010Billing 08/31/2010Invoice# "127133 DCBOur File # "13292 00024

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CON NECTICUT AVE,, N ,W., SU ITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036



$882.46

(0,00)$882.46

Total Fees 130.00Total Expenses - 49.44


TOTAL BALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT $1,061.90

DUE UPON RECEIPT



DCB OCE - 0074

11-6574 0140

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

pH. (614)~ 65 East State Street Sqite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 4321~-4213 FIN 31-4422499

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000WASHINGTON~ DC 20036

September 13, 2010Billed through 08/31/2010Invoice Number 127133Our file# 13292 00024


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

$882.46(0.0o)

$882.46

EXPENSES08/31/20i0 CONFERENCE CALl-

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

49.44

$49.44

DCB OCE 0075

11-6574 0141

13292 00024

,SUMMARY OF BILLED AMOUNTS

DCB BREY, DONALD C.


0.40 hrs 325.00 /hr $130.000.40 hrs $130.00






130.00

49.44

$’179.44

$882.46

$1,061,90

DCB OCE 0076

11-6574 0142

CHESTER WILLCO SAXI] EATTOR NI~YS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

Telephone 6141~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215.4213 Fax 614/221-4012

October 14, 2010Billing 09/30/2010Invoice# 128317 DCBOur File # 13292 00024





$1,061.90(882.46)$179,44

Total Fees

Total Expenses

TOTAL NEW CHARGES


9,753.00

481.52

$10,234.52

$10,413.96

DUE UPON RECEIPT



DCB OCE - 0077

11-6574 0143

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

PH. (614~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 4321.~.4213 FIN 31-4422499

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEtNRESIDENT SCHOLAR1025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N,W. SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DO 20036

October 14, 2010Billed through 09/30/2010Invoice Number 128317Our file# 13292

REDACTED

00024


Balance forward as of invoice September 13,2010



$1,061.90(882,46)$179.44

DCB OCE - 0078

11-6574 0144

13292 00024 Invoice# 128317 Page 2

REDACTED

EXPENSES09/30/201009/30/201009f30/201009/30/2010

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

235.86155.5O

87.662.50


DCB OCE - 0079

11-6574_0145

13292 00024


DCBSDMEJWCBM

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


23.20 hrs 325.00 /hr $7,540.002.00 hrs 285.00 /hr $570.004.60 hrs 295.00 /hr $1,357.00

.-. 2.60 hrs 1"10.00 /hr $286.0032.40 hrs $9,753,00



9,753.00481.52

$t0,234.52

$t79.44$10,413.96

DCB OCE - 0080

11-6574_0146

CHESTER WILLCO SAXI] EATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

Telephone 614~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/221.40t2

November 11,2010Billing 10/31/2010Invoice# 128728 DCBOur File # 13292 00024




$10,413.96

(10,413.96)

$o.o0

Total Fees

Total Expenses

TOTAL NEW CHARGES


11,358.50199.30

$11,557.80

$11,557.80

DUE UPON RECEIPT

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


DCB OCE - 0081

11-6574 0147

CHESTER WILLCO}( SAXI] EATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS; AT LAW

65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 FIN 31-4422499

TURKISH AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDC/O BRUCE FEINRESIDENT SCHOLARt025 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., SUITE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036

November 11, 2010Billed through 10/31/2010Invoice Number 128728Our file# 13292

REDACTED

00024


Balance forward as of invoice October 14, 2010Payments received since last invoice


$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 00024 t~,,~ice# 128728 Page 3

REDACTED_

EXPENSES10131/201010131/201010/31/2010

PHOTOCOPY SERVICE FOR THE MONTH @ $.18TRANSCRIPTWESTLAW RESEARCH

TOTAL DISBURSEM_ENTS

117.9070.O01 t .4O

$199.30

DCB OCE 0084

11-6574 0150

13292 00024


DCBSDMEJWCBM

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

Invoice# 128728

14.00 hrs4.80 hrs

"~7.t0 hrs3.60 hrs

39,50 hrs

325.00 /hr285,00 /hr295.00 /hr110.00 /hr

Page 4

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

$396.00$11,358,50’

TOTAL PROFESSIONALSERVICESTOTALEXPENSESINCURREDTOTAL OF NEW CHARGES FOR THISINVOICETOTALBALANCE DUE ON ACCOUNT

1 t ,358.50199.30

$’11,557.80$1 t,557.80

i

DCB OCE 0085

11-6574 0151

CHESTER WILLC O)( SAXB EATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

Telephone 614/~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 Fax 614/221-40t2

December 10, 2010Billing 11/3012010Invoice# 129453 DCBOur File # 13292 00024



BALANCE FORWARD



$11,557.80

(0.00)$11,557.80

Total Fees

Total Expenses

TOTAL NEW CHARGES


18,688.50

1,331.36

$20,019.86

$31,577.66

DUE UPON RECE1FT

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


DCB OCE - 0086

11-6574 0152

ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW

PH. (614)~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213 FIN 31-4422499


December 10, 2010Billed through 11/30/2010Invoice Number 129453Our file# 13292

REDACTED

00024


Balance forward as of invoice November 11,2010



$1 t,557.80(o.oo)

$1’1,557.80

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

EXPENSES11/30/201011t30/20101 t/30/201011130/201011/30/2010tl/30/201011/30/2010

CONFERENCE CALLDELIVERY CHARGEMILEAGEOVERNIGHT DELIVERYPHOTOCOPY SERVICE FOR THE MONTH @ $,18TRANSCRIPTWESTLAW RESEARCH

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

53.682t 6.00145.50109.46222.66402.50181.56

$1,331.36

DCB OCE - 0090

11-6574 0156

13292 00024


DCB gREY, DONALD C.EJW WATTERS, ELIZABETH J.


35.90 hrs 325.00 /hr $11,667.5023.80 hrs 295.00 /hr $7,021.0059.70 hrs $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 EATTORNI£YS & COUNSI~LORS AT’ LAW

Telephone 614t~ 65 East State Street Suite 1000, Columbus, Ohio 432t5-4213 Fax 614/22i-4012

January 17, 2011Billing 12/31/2010Invoice# i30554 DCBOur File # 13292 00024





TOTALBALANCEDUEON ACCOUNT

$31,577.66

(o,oo)$3t ,577.66

4,830.0090.52

473.66$5,394.18

$36,971.84

DUE UPON RECEIPT



DCB OCE - 0092

11-6574 0158

ATTORNEYS & COUNSI~IOR$ AT LAW

PH. (614)~ 65 East State Street Suite t000, Columbus, Ohio 43215.4213 FIN 31-4422499


January t7, 201iBilled through 12131/2010Invoice Number 130554Our file# 13292

REDACTED

00024


Balance forward as of invoice December 10, 2010



$31,577.66(0.00)

$31,577.66

DCB OCE - 0093

11-6574 0159

13292 00024 Invoice# 130554 Page 2

REDACTED

EXPENSES12131/201012131/201012/31/2010

LEXIS RESEARCHOVERNIGHT DELIVERYPHOTOCOPY SERVICE FOR THE MONTH @ $.18

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

3.4114.3972.72

$90.52

DCB OCE 0094

11-6574 0160

13292 00024


DCB BIREY, DONALD C.I=JW WATTERS, ELIZABETH J.

Invoice# 130554

13.50 hrs 325.00i.50 hrs 295.00

"I~.00 hrs

/hr/hr

Page 3

$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




IN RE:

REVIEW No.:DATE:LOCATION:

TIME:PARTICIPANTS:

Representative Schmi dt’ s Chi ef of Staff11-6574April 6, 2011425 3ra St., SWWashington, DC 200242:00 p.m. to 2:55 p.m. (approximately)Kedric L. PaynePaul 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 Representativesand represents the 2nd District of Ohio. Representative Schmidt’s Chief of Staff made thefollowing statements in response to our questioning:


The witness is currently a partner at BKM Consulting, which provides various services topolitical campaigns.

He has been employed there since approximately May 2010, which is when he left hisemployment 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, thewitness supervised all functions of the congressional office.

Prior to working for Representative Schmidt, the witness worked for at least three otherHouse Members including Representative Kevin DeWine.

The witness told the OCE that he volunteered for Representative Schmidt’ s campaigncommittee, but the campaign never employed him.

The witness first met David Krikorian in Representative Schmidt’ s office in 2006 or2007. The witness told the OCE that Mr. Krikorian came to the office claiming he wasthe President of the Ohio Armenian Association.


11-6574 0163

CONFIDENTIAL


Mr. Krikorian came to the office to ask Representative Schmidt to support the Armeniangenocide resolution. During the meeting with Representative Schmidt, Mr. Krikorianbecame belligerent because Representative Schmidt would not commit to voting for theresolution.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

The witness told the OCE that in 2008 Mr. Krikorian campaigned against RepresentativeSchmidt and constantly attacked her in the Armenian media.

During the week before the election in November 2008, Mr. Krikorian put pamphlets oncars at Representative Schmidt’s church. The pamphlets criticized RepresentativeSchmidt and included allegations that she accepted "blood money" from the Turkishgovernment. These types of statements occurred after the election as well.

As a result of Mr. Krikorian’s pamphlets and other statements that he made aboutRepresentative Schmidt, the witness and Representative Schmidt began consideringpossible legal actions against Mr. Krikorian following the election in November 2008.The witness told the OCE that he and Representative Schmidt took no action untilJanuary 2009.

In January 2009, Mr. Krikorian continued to make public statements aboutRepresentative Schmidt.

The witness was familiar with the Ohio Election Commission ("OEC") and its ability toadjudicate false statements partly because Mr. Krikorian had filed complaints againstRepresentative Schmidt with the OEC.

During the first quarter of 2009, Bruce Fein called the witness and said that he wanted tohelp Representative Schmidt pursue legal action against Mr. Krikorian and said heworked for the Turkish American Legal Defense Fund ("TALDF"). The witness knewBruce Fein from his work with Representative DeWine. Mr. Fein then visitedRepresentative Schmidt’ s office to meet.

The witness told the OCE that Mr. Fein suggested that the legal fee arrangement shouldbe 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 contingencyfee based on House ethics rules and federal election law. He contacted the FederalElection Commission ("FEC"), the House General Counsel’s Office, and the HouseCommittee on Ethics to get approval of the arrangement for legal services.


11-6574 0164

CONFIDENTIAL


17. The witness explained to the OCE that Mr. Fein "never" talked about providing legalservices at no charge and "definitely wanted to do a contingency fee." Mr. Fein was thefirst person to suggest a contingency fee.

18. The witness knew Mr. Fein because Mr. Fein had previously worked for RepresentativeMike 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 onthe Armenian genocide resolution. He met Mr. McCurdy in 2007 or 2008.

20. The witness never discussed the possibility of filing a complaint against Mr. Krikorianwith Mr. McCurdy.

21. Although he was waiting for ethics approval on the legal fees, he did not instruct BruceFein to delay filing the complaint with the OEC. The witness stated that at the time hedid not know who would pay for the services, but Representative $chmidt wanted to goto court. The witness told the OCE that if the legal services were not approved by theCommittee on Ethics he expected that Representative Schmidt would use personal fundsto pay for the legal services.

22. The FEC told him that campaign funds could be used to pay for the legal services if theCommittee on Ethics approved such use.

23. The witness contacted the Committee on Ethics and had numerous conversations with thestaff about how to draft a letter requesting approval of the legal services.

24. The witness asked whether Representative Schmidt could pay for legal expenses withcampaign money or have a contingency fee agreement. These conversations lastedseveral weeks to months.

25. The Committee on Ethics explained to him the possibility of establishing a legal expensefund. At that time, the witness’ personal understanding was that legal expense funds hadnever 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’ssituation as well.

26. The witness told the OCE that the Committee on Ethics counsels told him not to acceptany bill for the legal services during this time.

27. The witness’ first formal request for Committee on Ethics approval of the legal fees is ina letter dated September 17, 2009 (Schmidt_0029). He drafted the letter to the


11-6574 0165

CONFIDENTIAL


Committee on Ethics on behalf of Representative Schmidt requesting approval of thelegal fees.

28. When asked why there was a time lapse between the first meeting with Mr. Fein and theSeptember 17, 2009 request, the witness stated that he was waiting for the Committee onEthics 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 aboutthe 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 ’just shy of 200 hours".

31. The witness also provided the Committee on Ethics with a letter from Bruce Fein toRepresentative Schmidt stating that the attorneys agreed to represent her on acontingency fee basis. The witness does not know when this letter about the contingencyfee was written.

32. The witness told the OCE that he believes on January 21, 2010, he sent a letter or emailto the Committee on Ethics to amend the request for approval of a contingency fee. Hesaid that the Committee on Ethics advised him that the approval of the legal servicescould 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 OECmatter 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 courtin Ohio without the witness knowing that the brief was going to be filed. He was notalerted to the filing until after it had been done.

35. Although the witness received the advisory opinion from the Committee on Ethics inFebruary 2010, he was not involved in establishing a legal expense fund. He does notknow why the request for approval of legal expense fund was not sent to the Committeeon Ethics until July 2010. He explained that he was no longer employed withRepresentative Schmidt by July 2010.

This memorandum was prepared on April 7, 2011, based on the notes that the OCE staffprepared during the interview with the witness on April 6, 2011. I certify that this memorandumcontains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on April 6, 2011.



11-6574 0166

EXHIBIT 13

11-6574 0167

CONFIDENTIAL




IN RE:

REVIEW No.:DATE:LOCATION:

TIME:PARTICIPANTS:

Representative Jean Schmidt11-6574March 31, 20112464 Rayburn HOBWashington, DC 2051510:40 am. to 11:40 a.m. (approximately)Kedric L. PaynePaul J. SolisJoe Jansen

SUMMARY: Representative Jean Schmidt is a Member of the United States House ofRepresentatives and represents the 2nd District of Ohio. The OCE requested an interview withRepresentative Schmidt on March 31, 2011, and she consented to an interview. RepresentativeSchmidt (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. Shesigned a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the case file inthis review.

The witness told the OCE that she decided that she wanted to file a complaint with theOhio Election Commission ("OEC") against Mr. Krikorian in November 2008. Thisdecision was the result of an extended period of time of Mr. Krikorian making publicstatements criticizing the witness. At that point the witness felt she had to do somethingabout 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 theTurkish American Legal Defense Fund ("TALDF") to assist the witness with thecomplaint against Mr. Krikorian. She could not recall how or when these discussionswith 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 statedthat she did not have a discussion with Mr. McCurdy about TALDF’s legal representationbut 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


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 herfor free. She discussed with Mr. Fein the possibility of a contingency fee, but this optionwas not pursued. She is not sure why it was not pursued and she does not recall whenthese conversations occurred.

The witness stated that, between her and TALDF, she was the first to discuss paying forthe legal services.

The parties also discussed the possibility of having the witnesses’ campaign committeepay for the legal services or establish a legal expense fund.

When asked if she instructed the TALDF attorneys to delay filing the OEC complaint, thewitness stated that she did not.

10. The witness stated that Mr. Fein selected the local counsel, Donald Brey. She told theOCE that she knew of Mr. Brey for many years from his work with the Ohio RepublicanParty. She told the OCE that she did not recommend him and was surprised to learn thathe was local counsel.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

The witness continues to work with the Committee on Ethics to establish a legal expensefund, but the issue has not been finalized because the Committee on Ethics isuncomfortable with the trustee that she initially selected.

She told the OCE that ethics advice concerning payment for the TALDF legal expenseswas 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 whethereverything was fight and proper with accepting TALDF legal services.

Later in September 2009, a formal written request was submitted to the Committee onEthics. 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.

The witness received an advisory opinion from the Committee on Ethics in February2010. When asked why there was a delay between her receipt of the advisory opinionand her July 2010 request for approval of a legal expense trust, the witness stated that sheand Mr. Bennett were trying to select a trustee.

Concerning the later legal actions taken by TALDF on her behalf, the witness stated thatTALDF continued to be her legal counsel because she did not want to change attorneys


11-6574 0169

CONFIDENTIAL


unless necessary. The witness stated that there was an understanding that she would payfor all of the legal services rendered.

16. Mr. Bennett was the primary point of contact between the witness’ office and TALDF.

This memorandum was prepared on April 4, 2011, based on the notes that the OCE staffprepared during the interview with the witness on March 31,2011. I certify that thismemorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on March 31, 2011.



11-6574 0170

EXHIBIT 14

11-6574 0171

TALDF Requests Criminal Investigation in Ohio Page 1 of 2

HOME

YOUR RIGHTSISSUES & CASES

COMMENTSCONTACT

LIN KS

ISSUES & CASES

TALDF REQUESTS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN OHIOARMENIAN AMERICAN VERBAL THUGGERY PROVOKES CRIMINALINVESTIGATION REQUEST

Washington DC, November 3, 2008 - The Turkish American Legal Defense Fund today requestedthe Attorney General of Ohio, Nancy H. Rogers, to open a criminal investigation under Ohio lawinto signature Armenian verbal thuggery employed by Armenian American independent candidateDavid Krikorian against Representative Jean Schmidt. The Congresswoman represents the 2nddistrict of Ohio, and is running for re-election. The criminal lies under that Krikorian recentlysplattered against Ms. Schmidt are emblematic of the religiously and ethnically bigoted campaigntactics that Armenian Americans celebrate, directly or indirectly, against congressional candidateswho refuse to salute their narrow, close-minded, fanatical anti-Turkish agenda. Ohio’s RevisedCode makes criminal intentional falsehoods calculated to impact elections. Other candidates forCongress who have been similarly victimized by Armenian American verbal thuggery in the 2008election cycle include Steve Cohen (Tenn.), Virginia Foxx (N.C.), Charles Hahn (Calif.), RobertWexler (Fla.), and Jill Morgenthaler (Ill.).

Kirkorian’s criminal lies about the Congresswoman and her campaign supporters are posted onthe Internet at krikorianforcongre$$.¢om. The Armenian American’s posting in substancefalsely accuses Congresswoman Schmidt of bribery and Turkish Americans who have madecampaign contributions for her of paying bribes, i.e., that she bargained for campaigncontributions from Turkish Americans in exchange for a promise to take official actions inCongress in opposition to perennial "Armenian genocide" resolution in the House ofRepresentatives: "Representative Jean $chmidt has taken $30,000 in blood money todeny 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 thecampaign contributions for Congresswoman Schmidt. As is customary in political campaigns,contributors make financial contributions to candidates who support the policy positions of whichthey approve. In fact, Armenian Americans and their political action committees scrupulouslyconfine 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 byhistorical facts. Her conclusions accord with renowned Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis ofPrinceton University, who has been consulted by the White House under President George W.Bush, and others of comparable academic prestige. The Congresswoman, based on herindependent research does not believe the tragic events of World War I, in which both Armeniansand Turks were killed in harrowing numbers, constituted genocide--an accusation that has neverbeen proven in a court of law. She further maintains that the historical question is not appropriatefor Congress to legislate.

The Turkish American Legal Defense Fund has written a letter to Attorney General Rogers urginga criminal investigation and prosecution of David Krikorian under Ohio campaign and falsestatement laws, Ohio Revised Code, section 3517.02 and section 2921.13(A)(2), respectively. Toparaphrase 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.html11-6574 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 participatefully 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 LinksTurkish American Legal Defense Fund - TALDF1025 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 1000, NW Washington, DC 20036Phone: 202-370-~, Fax: 202-370-1398

http://www.taldf.org/ohio.html11-6574 0173

EXHIBIT 15

11-6574 0174

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

Mr. David Krikorian8132 Camargo Woods CourtCindnnati~ OH 45243~2206

COMPLAINT

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

I) J have represented the Second Congressional t~ls~ri~t of Ohio M the United .StatesCangress 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 generalelection he!d on. November 4; 2008°

4) Each of the false statements enumerated below were designed to promote hiscandidacy 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 Armeniansby 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 BloodMoney 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 002411-6574 0175

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

9) Mr. Krikorian’s can~pail~n website u~dermines his .~wn false accusation. The websiterecounts 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 enoughinformation to ~hara~eriz~ these deaths as 8er~ocide especially when those responsibleare ~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 UnitedNation, 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~}owintent,"

On Nowmber 2, 2008, Mr. Krikorian addressed a letter to~ ~My Supporters and thePeople of ~he Second Co~re.~sional District." It contatns several ~<now~n~y falsestatements 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 withdrawalfrom this race and her apology to the people of the United States of America for thecrime she [~as committed against our An~erica~ soldiers and humanity t)y denying theundisputed 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 Americanwho question the appropriateness of the genocide tabe~ for the tra6ic e~,ents of 1915-1926 inci~Jde famed Middle East expert Bernard Lewis of P~inceton University, the late5tan£ord Shaw of LLC.I..A, Justin McCarthy oftl~e University of lo~isv~i#e. Guenterof 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~:erreOberling of Hunter College, the late Rederic DavJson of George Washin#ou University,M~chael Radu o[ Foreign Policy Research Institute, and military hfstorian EdwardErickson. Outside of the United States yet more ~cholars have endorsee a cof~tra-genocide ana~ys~s of the history of the Ottoman Armenians, amo~g them GillesVe~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~ BJlkentUniversity, and the historian Andrews Many, o: of tf~e Unive[sity of London).

DKSub 002511-6574 0176

;[3) Paragraph 3 of the November 2, 2008 }otter repeats the false assertion that JeanSchmidt °"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 theM~slim ~oman Empire." It also largely repeat~ the daubl:y-fa[sa statement inKrikorian’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 ~ponsoredaction comm~ees to deny the slaughter of t.5 m~llion Armenian men, women, andcNidrm~ by t~e Ottoma~ Turkish Government during World War L" ~ addition, thestatement makes the false assertion that I received campaign contributions from"Turkish government sponsored" poli[k’al actio~ commf~ees. No political actioncommiH.ee that donated to my campaign was %urkish ~ovemment sponsored.*’ Truecopies o~ th e affidavits of Lincoln McCurdy and Demir Karsan. Treasurer and PresidentTurkish Coaiitio.n USA PAC and Turkish American Heritase PAC, respectively, area~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 taken530,000 in b[oo~ money from Turkish government sponsored politico| actioncommittees and Turkis.h ~eople in 2008 in exchange for helping.them to cover-up themass murder of ~,S million Ch dstians. This information is public re~ord and can be foundon 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 politicalcontribution 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 politicalaction com~,-nittees "sponsored" by the Turkish governmenL

~9} The Website ~.t~Lv.~.~’~C.~2 does not .substantiate that political action committeestidal made contributions to me were sponsored by the Turkish ~overnment, nor does itidentify campaign do~ors b y ancestry. In other words, the website does r~ot corroboratethIB~ ~*[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 foreignnational~ to fund a political actior~ comlTfittee that made donations to a federalcandidate 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 tofeb:feral political campaigns for Congress, an!oa~ other federal offices, if the donor werenot an American dtizon or permanent ~esk~nt al~en, 2 U,S,C 437 g(d), 4~:]:e[b),

DKSub 002611-6574 0177

22) Paragraph 3[4 of the November 2, 2008 letter repeats the false accusation that .lean5chmidt has "deni [ed]" the Armenia~ ge~ocide for the reaso~s set ~or~h in paragraphs 8and 9 of thi~ Complaint. Exhibit 2..

i debated Mr. Krikorian on three occasions durinl.~ the 2008 campaign. In none of thosedebates 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 theperformance of my official duties as a Member of Congress re~rd~ng Armeniangenocide resolution s.

24) I have spoken: to Mr. Krikodan face-.to-face on I occasion in my co~gre~siona! office. Inthat meetin~ he did not accuse me of receivin~ campaign contfibution~ in return forbei~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 campaigncommittee as to whethe~ ~ had made any promL~es or commitments to l~eing influencedin the performance of my official duties about the Armenian genocide resolution h~return for ~ampaign contributions from "Turkish people" or "~rur~ish governmentsponsored political action committees."

26) In Mr. KrikoHan’s ema]l excharlges with Bei~ LaRocco of my staff, it was related tO himthat my knowledge of the facts and the currently available evidence had not convincedme of the Arme~d~n ge~ocide claim. Exhibit 5,

Wherefore, Jean Schmidt for Congress requests that the Commission conduct a hearing andis: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 byknowingly making false statements o~ fact as set forth in this Complaint, to ~ssue a publicreprimand, and to gra~t such other relief that the Commission find just and equitable i~ [hechcum stances.

Further affiant sayeth ~ot.

DKSub 002711-6574 0178

EXHIBIT 16

11-6574 0179

~AN SCtlMII)’I"Schmidt for Congress8280 Montgomery Road, Suite 204Cirminnafi, ONo 45236

Complakiant,

DA~,qD KRIKORIAN8132 CamargoCincinnati, Ohio 45243-2206

Respondent.

Case No.

C 0 ~It’L AINT

DKSub_O04611-6574 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 athtse 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 ornot, 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 004711-6574 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 004811-6574 0182

EXHIBIT 17

11-6574 0183

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

BRUCEBRUCE FBIN1ff25 CONNECTIUOT AVE,WASI-11NGTON, DC 20015

COMMISSION ALLOWED 3I-tt3, ~OLLOWINOSTA’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 THEASSERTION THAT "rufgish p~p~e gave 130,000 TO lean

DKSub_O09211-6574 0184

P~g~ 2 of ~

AN ADMINISTRATIVE DISMISSAL WAS DECLARED AS 3’0orl g STATEMENT:

7.) "J~{n Scohmidt has taken $30,000 in blood mor~ey fi’omTurtd~h government sponsored pohtical action ~omn-Att~s mad"Darkish people in 2008 in exchange for helping them to cover~upthe masa murder of ! ,5 million Cl’ristians."

TIlE CONDCIISSION FOUND A VIOLATION OF R.C.§35t7,2!(B)(10) BY CLEAR AND CONVtNC.1NO EVIDENCEAS TO THE STATEMENT:

5.) "Jean Sehmidt has taken $30~000 in blood money from Turkishgove~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 theOttoman "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 ASTO THE FOLLO~NG S’I’ATEM~NT AS IT RELA’[~S ~ THER~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 THECOMMISSION IN THIS CASE, ’t~E COMlvItSSIONDETERMINED THAT THF.RE WAS GOOD CAUSE PRESENTNOT TO REFER THE MA’rTER FOR FURTHER PROSECUTION~U’F INSTEAD TO [S[4151?., A LET’rER OF PI}BLtC REPRIMAND.

DKSub 009311-6574 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~ whencor~p~ding with Commission: If ~o.a ~av~ any que, Son, pI~s~ f~l ffe~ to

V:<ay tre2y ~,

DKSub_O09411-6574 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, COMMISSIONT~S CASE~ "f}Lg COMMIS~ON DECEIVED ~RAT 3"~E WASCAIJSE 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_009611-6574 0187

EXHIBIT 18

11-6574 0188

E

o ,o &

BF O0 111-6574 0189

EXHIBIT 19

11-6574 0190

THE COIJRT OF COM~I[ON PLEASOl~ CLERMONT COUNTY, 0~0

J-EA2N SCHMIDTSchnfidt ~or Congress8280 Mor~tgomery Road, Suite 204c:mc~at~, O~m 45~6

;DAVID KRIKORLAN8 t32 Camargo Woods CouatCkncirmati, Ohio 45243-2206

KRIKO:I~AN FOR CONGRESSCA2vlPAIGN COMMI’VFEE2 i 5 Main StreetMitlbrd, OH, 45 ] 50

Defendants.

JUDGE HADDAD

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_005911-6574 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 pm’ty based in fl~e Republic of

DKSub_O06011-6574 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 006111-6574 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 006211-6574 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 ~d entered the 2010 ra~ {br ~he seat held by ". . 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

S../2I A~;MENT: ......................O~ >Aj_g2.1_. I S

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 006311-6574 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

Clermor~t ~ecou~t~..s ~ce~i~ly publicly condemned D:eNndan~ ~iko~ipm,s paten~ racial

bigo~W. A.ccor~ing to published repo~s~ Krike~i~ ~ejora~ive}y c~n’maented abon~

DKSub 006411-6574 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_006511-6574 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 wlnichcould be sl~nsor~J by Cmsley Rad:.o and I wouldn’t N.c .v, A~d c ) we-

DKSub 006611-6574 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_006711-6574 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:’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 006811-6574 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 - astaunch advocate of first amen&-nent ~eech and an outspokenopponent of genocide denial - garnered 38% of the Democraticprimary vo~e in Ohio’s second district - succmmbing to baselessa~tacks by Republican incumbent Re.p. Jea~ Schmidt andI3emocrafic 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 campaignreflecting lhe ~eavs and vMues of Ohio’s 2nd CongressionaldisMct 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 fromNovember genera! election,s," saig ~CA ~tern Regior~Chainn~, Steve M~smbkm. "L~N Democratic Pa~y leadersfo!!ow~ Sc~dt’s dis~ffon’nation cam~i~ in loc~ep ~d in IMprocess did a grave disservice to Ohio 2nd digrict voters."

Rep. Schmidt, a perennial darling of the Turkish lobby for heroppositio~ to CongressionN Iegislation ~fft~m~ng the ArmenianGenocide, has consistently targetM Kfikofia~ .... most notabtybfin~g charges l~.fore ff~e O~tio Nection Commission in 2009 tocover ~ap rei~renc:es to ’I~ki~h Ameriam c~npaig~a con.~ibutionaoste~ksibly submitted in ret,~ Nr her denial of am Mmc~firmGenocide .... ~

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 006911-6574 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 007011-6574 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-003,591-

606); (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 007111-6574 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 007211-6574 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 007311-6574 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. Mirror-

Spectator 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 007411-6574 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 007511-6574 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 007611-6574 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_007711-6574 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 007811-6574 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 thefruitful exercise of the fight of free speech, it does not fo!!ow tha~the lie, knowingly and delia.rarely pt~blished about a publicofficial, should enjoy a like immunikv. At ~e time the FirstAmen&neat w~ adopted, as t~ay, fl~.ere were those unscrapulo ,usenough aM skillfui enough lo use the ~telibera~e o~ recklessfalsehood as an effective political tool to unseat ~e public servamor eve~ toppIe an adm~inistrafion. Cf .Ri~smat~ Democracy andDefmnat~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 endsdoes not m~omatically Bring it ur~der the protective mantle of theConstitution. For fl~c as¢ of fl~e kno’~ tie as a tool is at once atodds wifl~ khe p~emises of democratic g~vemment and with theorderly manner in which economic, ,~cia!, or political change is tobe effected. Calculated fi~.lsehood f?!Is into thN class ofwhich "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas; and are ofs~~¢l~ stight soeiN value as a step to trull5 t~at say be,xe~[it thN maybe derived from them is etearly outwei~ed by ~e social ir~tere,st inorder and morality ...." Chal?lir~x!9, ~, New Hampshire, 315568, 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 007911-6574 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

Plaintiff h~c.o~orates by reference into ~Ns co~t fl~e prying ~egafio~ of ~is67.

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,

writing, interview, media, and fnn&raising oppommities0 ca~:~sh~g

psychologiea! tratmaa anti suffering m~d monet~uy ~osses.

Plaintiff Schmi&

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 008111-6574 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~ 59t-

606); (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 008211-6574 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.

PlaJ~aliff ~ncoq~ora~es by ret~re~ce i~to this count ~e precedNg allegNion~ of th~s82.

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_O08311-6574 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 ’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~£bit 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 008411-6574 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.

91.

compIair~L

COU-NT VI - DEFAMATION PER SE

27

DKSub 008511-6574 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 inviolation 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 008611-6574 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 008711-6574 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,

PlainIiffincorpom!es by reference into this oom~t N~ t~c,eding att~gafi~ms of this1(~2.

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 008811-6574 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-;, t’.ae De~ndanig, joi~tty cmd severely,

(a)

(0

Compen~lory damages i~ file amount of $500,000 on each Coun{;

PurdtNe damages in the, amount of $350,000 on ead~ Cmmg

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, SuiteColurabus, ONe 4.32152~t~pg,:me: (6t4) 22i~Facsi~rdle: (614) 221--40t2EmNI:

OF COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF:

Bruce Fei~ (DC Bar 446615)1025 Cmmecticut Ave~, NWSuit~ 10%Washington, D.C. 2003{;Mobile:Offioe: 202-370-Facsimile: 202-448q664EmNI: ~{~thelicN~e! dgroup.~om

DKSub 008911-6574 0221

David Salta’anan (DC Bar655 15~ 8t,-~Suite 22 5-FW~ngton, D,C, 20005-57~1Office: 202~37~Mobile: ~Fac~le: 202-637-9876Em~k

DKSub 009011-6574 0222

EXHIBIT 20

11-6574 0223

DKSub 021811-6574 0225

DKSub 022011-6574 0227

DKSub 022211-6574 0229

DKSub 022411-6574 0231

DKSub 022611-6574 0233

DKSub 022811-6574 0235

DKSub 02301116574 0237

2

DKSub 023211-6574 0239

DKSub 023411-6574 0241

DKSub 023611-6574 0243

’4 4©

DKSub 023811-6574 0245

t~

DKSub 024011-6574 0247

DKSub 024211-6574 0249

DKSub 024411-6574 0251

DKSub 024611-6574 0253

©

o

[_

DKSub 024811-6574 0255

DKSub 025011-6574 0257

g

DKSub 025211-6574 0259

DKSub 025411-6574 0261

DKSub 025611-6574 0263

t’9~O-t’L~9- I, I,Zcj~o-qn$),l(3

:i

DKSub 025811-6574 0265

99~:0 ~’/,..£9- I,, I,,6cJ~o-qns~la

DKSub 026011-6574 0267

DKSub 026111-6574 0268

EXHIBIT 21

11-6574 0269

Schmidt 002911-6574 0270

Schmidt 003011-6574 0271

EXHIBIT 22

11-6574 0272

26. 2010

Th.e H onorable J cm~ SclamU.S, t louse o f P, epresenta1.i yes238 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 regardingtwo options for paymem o[" legal exp, enses incurred in connectio~a with a case s:ou filed in 2009regarding false campmgn statements.: As discussed below, the cstabfiskment of a legal expensefund and ihe use ofcampaigr~ funds are both permissible options for payment of tegN expensesin 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:ebackground 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 tlaegenocide 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 the2008 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.tionsC.omu,lbsion (Election Commission), whicta has jurisdictiul~ ovcr thlse campaign statementsunder 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~atcomplainl 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~erappropriate relief’. On or about October 1, 2009, you received a finding of l]acl from thei~Iccdons Commission that th.ere was clear and convincing evidel:ce that Mr. Krikoriat~ madefi:~.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 000111-6574 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 theadministrative ruling by the EIection C’ommissiort. Bmh yon and the Ohio A+..tor.rtey General arenamed parties in the appeal, and you will itwur additional legal fees to participate in thoseproceedings. Filmily. Mr. Krikorian has m.-o filed a civil suit in .ti~deral co~.~rt chahengmg theconstitutionality of the Elections Commission ruling. You are not a m~.med p,~rIy to this federalcram 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 beenlimited ~o assistil:g House General Coanse| wi{h regard to discovery req.uest res.po~ses, beingdeposed concerni~g snch discovery requests, and working with the Committee to obtainguidance on the issues m your September 17. 2009, letter.

Your attorney in this matter has been Bruce Fein of the Tm’kish American Legal DefenseFund 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 anych.:il action to recover damages, you wil! not be entering into lhe cot~.dngcncy fee contract withMr. Feim To da~e, Mr. Fein estima+,,es that 200 hours have been worked bv the mtorneys in yourcase. 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 InternalRevmme Code, which has employed registered federal lobbyists under the Lobbying DisclosureAct in {he past} It appears that TA[.DF issued a press release and request lbr a criminalinves~iga~km against Mr. K.r~korian on November 3, 2008, regarding the same a~legarions ofl;?Jsecampaign statemems ’;hat underlie your complaint with the Election~ Commission. Both TALDFand 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 lbrlegal work already cor~:pleted during the Elections Commissim~ proceedings, and future legalwork 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~eseoptions. !:mr intend ~.o consult with ~he FEC after you receh~e the Commit~ee°s opinion as to whmis pcrmissibie ~mder House rules. 13aci~ of these options are discussed sepm-meiy below.

$chmidt 000211-6574 0274

Page 3

Under a provision oI’ the git’~ rule, a Membcro oflicer, or employee may accept "acontribution 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 requirementsof the Committee on S~andards of Official Conduct.,‘3 Under the Committee’s Legal ExpenseFund rcgu~atioas, a Member may no~ receive or solidt donations to such a l~.md withou~ priorapproval of the Trust agrcemem by the CommitteeJ

Under the Committee’s ~- , .-’. ..,egulamms, a fired may be estabiished only when the legalexpenses 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 matterbefore 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 mconnection wit}~ a matter that is primarily personal in .~ature, such as a m~trimoniat actmn, 1 herules governing the operation of a I..ega! F.xpense Fund inclnde:

No contribution may be soficited Ibr or accepted by a fired prior {o theC.~mmmee s ",srmen apl.ro~a~ of the completed ~rum document and thetrus t~¢:?’

A fund must be established as a trust, administered by a trustee who isentirely inJependent of the Member and has no ~tmily, bnsiness oremployment relationship with the Member;~

Trnst funds can be used only to pay legale.xpcnse~-,," ’ ’"_ or the expensesincm’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_O00311-6574 0275

The Ho,~orable Jean SchmidtPage -1

A fund may not accq~t more {Itan $5../)00 in a calendar year ~rom. anyindividual or organization, bin, in accordance with tl~e gi[’t rule. nocontribt~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~amedbeneficiary except with the Committee’s wr,tten permission WrittenC.ommit~ee pmm,ssion is also required for any amendmen~ of the trustdocument and any change in the trustee. ~z

Once a Legal Expense Trus~ agreement l~as been approved by the Committee. theMember must file an executed copy with the Office of the Clerk, Legislative Resource Cemerwhicl~ is placed on the public record.~’:~ In addition. Members must file quarterly repm~s on thep-t~bli.c record regarding certain contributions and vxpe.nduures under the Comrm,tee sre,-,ulations. 14

Tt~e Committee has lo~g advised Members ~o consult with the Committee prior to usingcampaign funds *~,.~r legal expenses to ensure that the legal services are ones d~at tl.~e M.ember mayproperly 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 excessan mnotm.t represeming reimbursemer~v lbr legitimate andveri fiabte campaign expendittu-es; and

except as provided in clause lt~_.! of rute [24], may notexpend f’aads l’rom a campaign accotmt[] oi such. individualthat are not attributable to bona fide campaign or polificalpurposes,

\¥hile tt~e rule pe~. mits the use of campaign fronds fi)r ";bor~.a fide campaign or politicalpurposes." 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 000411-6574 0276

The Honombl~. ~an Schm~dt

Members have wide discretion :o determit~e whether any particular expenditure would serf’s: suchpurposes, 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 ~otinterprmed "’Iu limit the use of campaign lhnds strictly to a Member’s reelection campaign:" butinstead is interpreted "broad.ty to encompass the traditional polivically-related activities ofMembers of Congress." ~

In accordance with these pri~aciples, the Committee i~as determined that it i~; generallypermissible m~.der House rules fi)r a Member to use campaign fi.mds to pay ~br d~c Member’sown legal l~es which ’s, .arke in cormectio~ with the Member’s campaign, election, or thepedbrrnance. , of official, duties. ~v

The legat expenses you incurred in connection with the Elections Commission actionwere directly related. {o your canmdacy fbr federal of[ice in A)~8 - one of the specificpermissible 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 paythese fees already incurred. Moreover. the legal expenses to be incurred in. the Ohio Court casethat 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 legsexpense 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 thatwould bar ihe establislm:ent of such a trust t~md to pay past legal expenses so .long as nosolicitation, or receipt of donations occulted betbr¢ 1he Committee’s written approval of tlm ~rustagreemem. Thus. bel.’ore you may begin accepting or soliciting for do,rations ~o cower past an.dihture legal expenses as described above, the C.ommittee mu.st approve your proposed truslagreemem, if you are irate.rested in pursuing this optima., piease comact the Committee With ate’~ter seeki~g approval of a specific legal expense fund with a draft lrusl agreemet~t andnomination 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 foryour legal expresses already incurred in connection with tl~e Elect~ons Commission actionbecause these expenses are ~k~ a legav![ actioa arising out of your candidacy for federa! offic.~, aswall as your o~’ficial duties and responsibilities. Since no money damages w~re awarded in tMscage° the pay:.~cm of legal expenses fbr this action does not implicate the prohibiti,,m ot~

Schmidt_O00511-6574 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 ~heElection Commisskm~s ruling mattar because d~ese expenses m’e for a legal action arising out ofthe same t~acts re!afing to your candidaW a~d official duties at isst~e i~ the Election Commissionamion, This authority extends to expenditure of thnds from your prh~cipaI campaign commitieefor past legal expenses in connection with {he proceedings at the Elec~ions Commission andc-urren~ m:~d future legal expenses in connectim~ with the Ohio Court ~:ase appealing the ElectionCornmiss~on ruling.

Finally, as a reminder, you sl~oald be caudous to avoid any appearance of special favorsor 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 issuespending oelore L:ongress." Accordingly, we advise yon ,o keep in mind these sm.~dards ofconduct 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 ofrestrictions on ~he use of" campaig~a funds; Atthough our ~mderstandi~g is tI~at, th.c FEe generallypemnits 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 ofFEe regulations is outside this Corrm~ittee’s jurisdiction. If you have not already done so, youshould consult with. the FEe to determine wlmther either course of" conduct is permissible underthe appl{cabl.e law and reg~flations.

The response above constitutes ala advisory opinion concerning the application oi7 HouseR.~les "~ 25,;a and and the Code of Ethics fbr Governmem Service. Tt~e ~bllowi~g limitafio~-~sapply to this opi~aior~:

T.hi.s advisory opinion i:s issued o,~ly ~o Representative Jeaa Sc.hmidt, therequestor o1" this opinion. This advisory opinion cannot be relied upon byany other in.dividua.l or emirv

This advisory v~pinion is limited to the provisions of [he Hous~a roles m~dthe Code of Ethics for Government Service specifically noted above. Noopinion is expressed or implied herein, regarding the application of a~yother [~’deral, state~ or toeal statute, rule. regulation, ordinance, or otherlaw that may be applicable to the proposed conduct described in this letter.inchtding, without limitation, ’,he lnternat Revenue Code and ~he FederalElec ~ion Camt2aig~ Act.

Schmidt 000611-6574 0278

Vhis advisory opinion witI ~ot binc! or obligate any entity o.zher tI~a~,-~ theCommittee on Standards <~t Officiai Conduct o1: the I?nited Slates l!{ouseoi7 Repre.senIatives.

This advisory c, pinion is limited it~ scope to t[~e specific proposed conductdescribed in this letter and does not apply ~o any olher conduc~, includingthat which appears similar in nature or scope to that described in thisletter.

"[’he Committee wiI! take t~o adverse action against you in regard to any conduct th.at youtmdertake, or have andertaken, in good I~tith reiiance upon this advisory opinion, so long as yonhave presented a complete and accurae statement of all material i’acts relied ~;tpo~ herein, a~d theproposed conduct in practice conforms with the information you provided, as addressed in t!~isopinion.

Changes or other deve|opmems m the Iax~ {.including. but not limited to. the Code ofOfficial Conduct. House rules. Committee guidance, advisory opinions, statutes, regulations orcase law~ may affec~ the analysis or donclusions drawn h~ this advisory ropimon. The Committeereserves ~he right to reconsider ~he questions and issues raised in this advisory opinio~ a~d torescind., modify, or terminate d~is opiniota if required by the interests of the House. However. theCommiltee will rescind an advisory opinion only if relevant and materia{ f~cts were nmcompletely a~.d acc~.~raely disclosed to fhe Commiaee at the time the opinion was issued. In theevent that this adviso~w opinion is modified or terminated, d~e Committee will not take anyadverse action against you with resi?eCt ~ any acii.on .taken in good faith rel.iance upon t:hisadvisory opinion so long as such conduct or stlch action was promptly discontinued uponnotification 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 andl.:2duca.tion at extension 5-7103.

Zoe LofgrenCt:air

Sincerely.

Schmidt 000711-6574 0279

EXHIBIT 23

11-6574 0280

D

DKSub 011011-6574 0282

DKSub 011211-6574 0284

o

DKSub 011411-6574 0286

DKSub 011611-6574 0288

o

DKSub 011811-6574 0290

DKSub 012011-6574 0292

2

DKSub 012211-6574 0294

©

DKSub 012411-6574 0296

DKSub 012611-6574 0298

DKSub 012811-6574 0300

.L

DKSub 013011-6574 0302

.2

DKSub 013211-6574 0304

.2

DKSub 013411-6574 0306

DKSub 013611-6574 0308

DKSub 013811-6574 0310

DKSub 014011-6574 0312

8

DKSub 014211-6574 0314

o

DKSub 014411-6574 0316

DKSub 014611-6574 0318

DKSub 014811-6574 0320

8

d

DKSub 015011-6574 0322

2

DKSub 015211-6574 0324

.2

DKSub 015411-6574 0326

c

DKSub 015611-6574 0328

8

DKSub 015811-6574 0330

DKSub 016011-6574 0332

DKSub 016211-6574 0334

o ~

DKSub 016411-6574 0336

2

DKSub 016611-6574 0338

.5,

DKSub 016811-6574 0340

DKSub 017011-6574 0342

DKSub 017211-6574 0344

DKSub 017411-6574 0346

8

8

DKSub 017611-6574 0348

DKSub 017811-6574 0350

DKSub 018011-6574 0352

.,4

DKSub 018211-6574 0354

c

DKSub 018411-6574 0356

DKSub 018611-6574 0358

¢

¢

DKSub 018811-6574 0360

2

J

DKSub 019011-6574 0362

DKSub 019211-6574 0364

©

DKSub 019411-6574 0366

DKSub 019611-6574 0368

DKSub 019811-6574 0370

DKSub 020011-6574 0372

DKSub 020211-6574 0374

DKSub 020411-6574 0376

DKSub 020611-6574 0378

DKSub 020811-6574 0380

DKSub 021011-6574 0382

c

DKSub 021211-6574 0384

DKSub 021411-6574 0386

DKSub 021511-6574 0387

EXHIBIT 24

11-6574 0388

Schmidt 001311-6574 0389

EXHIBIT 25

11-6574 0390

Schmidt 001611-6574_0391

Schmidt 001711-6574 0392

EXHIBIT 26

11-6574 0393

Thursdayt A,:!§~st 26, 2010 10:44

{::}~ath~.’r ,Jones

Commi~.tee on Standards of Official ConductU:S, House of RepresentativesWa.si-fington, DC 20515Phone: (202} 225-7t03

Schmidt 001811-6574 0394

EXHIBIT 27

11-6574 0395

Schmidt 001911-6574 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 ’~-

m$25,000,001 - $50,000.000 ~’

Over $5~,d00.000

NONE~ _ DIVIDENDS,

RENT.INTEREST ’CAPITAl- OAIN’-8EXCEPTEOtBLIND TRUST

Other Type ot Ir~come

(Specify)

None

I ~0~ - $I,000

Sf.Ooo,~ - ~,~&O~

m~

11-6574 0402

Jeannette H. Schmidt

United States House of RepresentativesFinancial Disclosure Statement for Calendar Year 2008

Listing of real estate assets held by various family partnerships and jointly with siblings. Jean Schmidtowns 25% of all of the partnerships listed below.

OT Realty Enterprises LLCPercentage owned: 25%Comer of Loveland Miamiville Rd & Branch Hill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140Land leased to Walgreen PharmacyValue of percentage owned - $250,000 - $500,000Net Income for percentage owned for 2008 - $15,000 - $50,000 (rent)

(2) OT Realty Enterprises LLC IIPercentage owned: 25%Comer of Loveland Miamiville Rd & Branch Hill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140Land leased to KrogerValue of percentage owned - $250,000 - $500,000Net Income for percentage owned for 2008 - $15,000 - $50,000 (rent)

(3) OT Realty Enterprises LLC IIIPercentage owned: 25%Comer of Loveland Miamiville Rd & Branch Hill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140Land to be developed in the futureValue of percentage owned - $50,000 - $100,000Net Income for percentage owned for 2008 - zero

(4) Jennifer Black Et AllPercentage owned: 25%Comer of Loveland Miamiville Rd & Branch Hill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140Land adjacent to OT Realty Enterprises LLC IIValue of percentage owned - $50,000 - $100,000Net Incorne for percentage owned for 2008 - $1,000 - $2,500 (rent)

(5) Gus Hoffman Second Family Limited PartnershipPercentage owned: 25%Corner of Loveland Miarniville Rd & Branch Hill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140Farm LandValue of percentage owned - $500,000 - $1,000,000Net Income for percentage owned for 2008 - $2,500 - $5,000 (farm crops)

11-6574 0403

(6) RTJJ LLCPercentage owned: 25%Comer of Loveland Miamiville Rd & Branch Hill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140Farm LandValue of percentage owned - $1,000,000 - $5,000,000Net Income for percentage owned for 2008 - $2,500 - $5,000 (farm crops)

(7) RTJJ LLCPercentage owned: 25%Moore Rd. & Bantam Rd., Clermont County OHVacant propertyValue of percentage owned - $50,000 - $100,000Net income for percentage owned for 2008 - zero

(8) R.TJJ LLC

Percentage owned: 25%1232 SR 28, Milford, OH 45150Commercial Rental PropertyValue of percentage owned - $50,000 - $100,000Net Income for percentage owned for 2008 - $2,500 - $5,000 (rent)

(9) RTJJ LLCPercentage 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 - $250,000Net Income for percentage owned for 2008 - $2,500 - $5,000

( 10)RTJJ LLCPercentage owned: 25%SR 132 & Judd Rd.Vacant LandValue of percentage owned: $15,000 - $50,000Net 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 x0~,~ ~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 RepresentativesFinancial Disclosure Statement tbr Calendar Year 2009

Jeannette H. Schmidt771 Wards Corner Rd.Loveland, OH 45140

Listing of real estate assets held by various family partnerships and jointly with siblings. Jean Schmidtowns 25% of all of the partnerships listed below.

(1) OT Realty Enterprises LLCPercentage owned: 25%Comer of Loveland Miamiville Rd & Branch Hill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140Land leased to Walgreen PharmacyValue of percentage owned - $250,000 - $500,000Net Income for percentage owned for 2009 - $15,000 - $50,000 (rent)

(2) OY Realty Enterprises LLC IIPercentage owned: 25%Comer of Loveland Miamiville Rd & Branch Hill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140Land leased to KrogerValue of percentage owned - $250,000 - $500,000Net Income for percentage owned for 2009 - $1.5,000 - $50,000 (rent)

OY Realty Enterprises LLC IIIPercentage owned: 25%Comer of Loveland Miamiville Rd & Branch Hill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140Land to be developed in the futureValue of percentage owned - $50,000 - $100,000Net hacome for percentage owned for 2009 - zero

(4) Jennifer Black Et AllPercentage owned: 25%Corner of Loveland Miamiville Rd & Branch Hill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140Land adjacent to OT Realty Enterprises LLC IIValue of percentage owned - $50,000 - $100,000Net Income [’or percentage owned for 2009 - $1,000 - $2,500 (rent)

~5) Ous Hoffman Second Family Limited PartnershipPercentage owned: 25%(’orner of Lovetand Miamiville Rd & Branch [Ii[l : Guinea Pike, [.o\’eland. Oil 45140Farm LandValue of percentage o\~ned - $500,000 - $1,000,000Net lnc~me f’~r percentage ~wned ft~r 200q - %2~S00 - %5,0�)f~ (farm er~pa)

11-6574 0416

R’I’JJ LLCPercentage owned: 25%Corner of Loveland Miamiville Rd & Branch tlill / Guinea Pike, Loveland, OH 45140Farm LandValue of percentage owned - $1,000,000 - $5,000,000Net Income for percentage owned for 2009 - $2,500 - $5,000 (farm crops)

RTJJ LLCPercentage owned: 25%Moore Rd. & Bantam Rd., Clermont County OHVacant propertyValue of percentage owned - $50,000 - $100,000Net income for percentage owned for 2009 - zero

(8) RYJJ LLCPercentage owned: 25%1232 SR 28, Milford, OH 45150Commercial Rental PropertyValue of percentage owned - $50,000 - $100,000Net Income for percentage owned for 2009 - $2,500 - $5,000 (rent)

(9) RI"JJ LLCPercentage 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 - $250,000Net Income for percentage owned for 2009 - $2,500 - $5,000

(10)RTJJ LLCPercentage owned: 25%SR 132 & Judd Rd.Vacant LandValue of percentage owned: $15,000 - $50,000Net Income for percentage owned for 2009 - zero

11-6574 0417

6 I,t~O-t~L~9- I, I,

0

Z

o

=J~VHO~Ind

X

0

000’000"095

000’000’0~$-~00’000’~$

0 O00’Og$

30NVHOX3

4

2

Z

EXHIBIT 30

11-6574 0427

ON5 HUNDRED EILEVEN’(N CONGRESS

COMV~TTEE ON STANBA~S OFOFFICIA!. CONDUCT

O~tober ,~9, 201(~

PZ~,NKhqG REPUBLICAR MEMgER

~U ITE H1"--2, ’T~E CAPITOl,

’ihe Honorable Charles B~ RangelU. S, House of Represmltatives2354 R~bum He,me Of~ce BuildingWasNngton, 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~,,,kmgand 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.ona~ro bone or md~med fee basis] withot~ me or O-~e cram.sol being accused of seeking, receN[ng orproviding gift representation." You a[so state, "In fl~e alte~five, ~e Conm~gee cm ~range Ibr tl~eHouse 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, SheCmrmait~ee has a tong-established policy of ad.&essing "the condtmt o~ly of the ~nquidagindiv::dual, or of persons for whom the i.nqmring individual is responsible as [the] employinga~thority.’’3

Beea-ase your lob:or does not provide specific details abo~.,t how or from Whom yo~ wouldseek 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 appEcablestandards of conduct. We can, however, offer you some genera~ guida~aee on the roles andstandards 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 asfollows, 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.IePage

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.eCommittee. 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, lawfi~n of Zucke~m~ ~Spa~der: To date, ~this " ~ s , "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 paythose expe~ases~ However, as 0f October 14, 2010, Zuckennax~ Speeder ~*h&ew from servh-~g asyour oom~sel. As of the dNe of Y0~ ieRer, you have been u~mNe m seem’e new emmsel to representyo~. 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 tosolMt private counsel to represent you o~a apro bono (five)or reduc.ed-fi~e basis, The ren~abnder ofIBis letter Novide8 general guidance on eaela of these options in turn,

~ ~ .... r~7IL 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 forany 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 withthe right to be roprcs,m~d b,~ co~m~ei~* I-{ov~-er, tiae rule ~so expressiy provides that ~y s~chrepresentation is "to be provided at the respondent’s ow~: expense."s %h:us. ~J~e Commi~ee, inpromulgafi~g its ~.es, has weighed and rejected the optio~ 0f the governme~ paying !l~r legalrepresenta~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 fcmdswere appropriated.~ Puxsuan~t ~o this a~at~te, troy Nnda og*he House ma:y be us~.tor pay Nr, the oNcM governme~tal duties of Ne Member, committee, or ot~er officeNnds were @propfiated, Because your le~gi reproach:Otiose for purposes of tf-~e disciplinaryprocee~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

: -~.~e ~ta~u~e. However, we note that the Cm~it~ee on Houseexpmded for Nat pu~ose under ’:~ ~ " ’Admln~s~atlo*h raffler fl~m.~ flds Committee~ l~as jurisdictkm over the approvaI of reimbursementsfrom 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 wouldprohibit the }.louse fi:om pro:,id]ng you. with lsegai representation for ~h¢ renta~ning phases of thediadplinary 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.sentyou on a no-cost ox reduced f~e basis, This proposal hnpIicates ethics provisions goretailedac, 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 :ermincludes glf~s of services, trainiag, trat~spo~ta~ian, lodging, andm~: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 servicesprovided m a Member at no cos.: wo~ld be deemed to b,, a gift under the g:fl rule. ~dembersmay 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 kgalexpense ~d. by someone other fla~ a ~egis~ered !obby~st or agen~ of a foreign pr~eipaL~z ’[hisexcept[on provides tlm~ a Member, officer, or emp!oy~e may accept ’~a conh’ibution or otherpayment m a legal expense l~d es’:abl~shed for ~:e benefit of a Member .... officer, orempIoyee of the House that is otherwise tawRd[y made in acoordm~ce with the restrictions ~ddisdos~we requ~:e.ments of the Committee on Standards of Offic~N Conduct’’~ The Committeehas expressly stated fl~at such a ~d is permissible fo~ legN expenses float m~ise m eom~ectionwith a ma~er concerning ’~)]he ~ndividu~J’s &:~es or position :n Co~e~s (i:?.cI~ding a. ma~ter

S . -, ,,!4befi~re the tandards Comm~teej. if you Nd establish a ~,alid legal expm~se trust in relation toins matter, you would be permitmd to solic:t ~" ’, ~ " ’ "ut t?a.t~on8 ~.o 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~iaadded).

~ 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~gdPage 4

made in compsianee wil2a Committee .regulat~ons regarding legal expense trustS. I5 Theest~blisNag, mMntaJN~N, and p~ov~dh~g public disc!os~e about such af~d are containedappendices ~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 thek~teres~ of Ns ~’= ~ ~eo~utu~nts in matters in -w!fich the federM govei~m~en~ has ~ interest, theCo~ni~e has detemfined that pro bone assistmnee to p~micipa~e h~ ce~ actions im~olving t!~e2hderal government Nlls witN~ fl~e gi~ ~ale exception for c.ontrib~tion~ to leg~ expense ~ds~~7Specificaily, as stated iii the 2008 ~buse ENics Mammal, a Men~er may a~co~pt two bone tegNassist~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 anyfederal lawor regulation; or

To participate M a civiI action challenging ihe la’~’ulness of anaction of a federal agency~ or a~ action of a. ed~.~ al. of~c~al takenin an official ~apac~ty, provid ed that the action concern s a matterofpubUc 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 listedabove 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,~ Thatpfindple of aetMng Ne greater good wo’:dd no~ be met d’avugt’,_ pro-viging legai services +,o defend anindividual Member agains~ allege:dons of m{scor..&tc,~ by ar~ iudividual Member i,~ a disciplinauaction 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(hrepresen~tion, we emmet as noted above, defitfidwly adO-cSs whether any oiher exoep*k)~� to the }teaSe girl rule maypotonfia!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 ~hcapprov~ 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~.~ ofvakm.2~ T]As s~at~te gives this Co~ee, as the so.pe~sing ethics offi~ ~br the House. theau~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 easthas been established and approved by the L.on~x~e in accordance with the Legal Expense FundRegqdaions.~s The Co~mi~ec has nevex approved the soliciiation of p~o bone legal se~wicesincurr~ h~ eo~ecfion wi~ a disciplina~, ma~er befo~e ~he Comn~ tree, unless the solicitation wastier 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 theCo~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 inco~e~ion with the ongoing disoipli~y proceedings, absent the es/ab~s1~em of a legal expensefired for sud~

Accordingly, as explained more fully abrade, Rouse ~d Committee rules and theapplieable 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~atpurpose~ 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, itwould 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~gomgCommittee 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 beesmbHsBed m~d make, tainted in accordance v,qih tSe Cormnittee’s Legal Expense l:undRegulations,

LIMITATION S

The response above: constitutes an advisory opinion concerning the application of HouseRt~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!~ therequester of this opinion, Tliis advisory opinion calil.iot be relied ~po~ by any othe.rin.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 andfederal 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 maythis

This ~tvisory opi~fion will not bhad or ~o!iga.~e any ent.ity el:her tha~ t.l.xe Cor~m.xigeeor~ 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 describedin tl-ds le~er and does not apply to m~y other conduct, h~cl:ading ~.~..at which, appearssimilar 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 youtmdzrmkc, o~ I~m~e undertaken, in good ~a~& reli~.ce upo~ this adviso~’ opir~on, so long as youhave presm~ted a eompiete m:~d accurate statement of N1 material facts rel~ed upon t~.erein, and theNoposed 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 ofOf*iei.aI Conduct, Hot~se rt~.ies, Con-anittee g~aid~m.ce, advDory opiNo,~s, statutes, regulatioi~8 orcast la~,g) may afl"cc:t the analysis or eonch~sior, s &aw~a i~ flSs advisory opi~ion. The Committeereserves !he right to reconsider tl~e question, s am.d issues rai~ed 5:1 I}tis advisot3~ opinion m~.d torescind, modify, or terminate ~.his opi,~ion if reqv~h’ed by tSe i~.teres;s of the Hous. eo However; theCommikr.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 ’theevent that ~his advisory opS~ion i~ moditSed or termina*ed, the Co,rmfittee wii1 r, ot take anyadverse action against you with respect re any actio~ taken ia good fait~ relia~ace ~pon fl-~isadvisory opinion so long as such coadnc{ or such so*ion was Nompfly discontinued uponnolifleatio~.~ 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 legaldefense fur~d, please eo~.~acZ the C’o,rmqittee’s O~ee of Advice aJad Education at extel~siort 5-71

Chair

Sir~cere].y,

Jo BomberRanking Republicaa Me,nber

11-6574 0433

Date post:	22-Feb-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jordan-kellogg
View:	237 times
Download:	0 times