Whatsoever a woman soweth, that shall she also reap
In another epic attempt to render its editorial pages completely irrelevant, the Oregonian takes a swipe at the Brading campaign for informing House District 49 voters of their Representative's less-than-moral conduct involving an underaged girl who was allegedly sexually assaulted by Minnis' brother-in-law:
Wrong again, O Editorial Board. This has much to do with the Legislature and everything to do with Karen Minnis.
Karen Minnis and her husband claim they didn't believe the underaged girl when she claimed that Tuck Minnis was sexually harassing her. Yet they (the two of them) paid the girl off with $20,000 to make the case go away. Any reasonable, objective individual can certainly reach the conclusion that Karen Minnis is a party to covering up and protecting her brother-in-law in this matter. This information comes directly from John Minnis' OWN AFFADAVIT.
Further, the girl in question claims that she was retaliated against in her job by Karen Minnis for making the claims against Tuck Minnis.
The people involved with FuturePAC and the Brading campaign are laying out the facts in this matter as they know them to be. Period. This incident speaks to a fundamental lack of good character and judgement on the part of Karen Minnis. And the public not only has a right to know, they need to understand the character of the person representing them in Salem.
Another aspect of this series of incidents that really stick in my craw have to do with John Minnis himself. In a column dated October 29, Steve Duin says that John Minnis claims he didn't believe the allegations but still reported it to his supervisor, Sgt. Bob Wallicker.
In no way does reporting this to his supervisor constitute a fulfillment of his legal obligation to report. If such a report took place, there would have been a criminal investigation of Tuck Minnis. Its evident that both Karen and John Minnis worked to shield Tuck from this.
Karen Minnis was personally involved in all aspects of this incident. She personally managed the restaurant after Tuck was demoted is directly accused of retaliating at work against the young girl in question. John Minnis discussed Karen's activities and personal state of mind in his affadavit on this matter. Moreover, Karen and John Minnis are the only two members of the LLC who own the restaurant. I find it very difficult to believe that she had no involvement in choosing to pay this girl off and settle the case.
For a while it looked like Brading and his supporters would stick to the issues. But apparently the high road doesn't lead in or out of District 49. Last week "The Friends of Rob Brading," funded by the House Democrats' political action committee, rolled out a television ad linking Minnis to Mark Foley, the Florida Republican chased from Congress for sexually harassing young male pages.
The Democrats' sleazy ad cites a 1995 lawsuit against a pizza restaurant owned and operated by a corporation consisting of Minnis and her husband, John. A 17-year-old former employee at the restaurant filed a civil complaint against John Minnis, his brother Tuck and the corporation, alleging sexual assault, sexual harassment and wrongful discharge. The lawsuit was settled with a $20,000 payment to the girl.
None of this has anything to do with the Legislature, or with Karen Minnis. It's just more poison injected directly into the lungs of Oregon politics.
Wrong again, O Editorial Board. This has much to do with the Legislature and everything to do with Karen Minnis.
Karen Minnis and her husband claim they didn't believe the underaged girl when she claimed that Tuck Minnis was sexually harassing her. Yet they (the two of them) paid the girl off with $20,000 to make the case go away. Any reasonable, objective individual can certainly reach the conclusion that Karen Minnis is a party to covering up and protecting her brother-in-law in this matter. This information comes directly from John Minnis' OWN AFFADAVIT.
Further, the girl in question claims that she was retaliated against in her job by Karen Minnis for making the claims against Tuck Minnis.
The people involved with FuturePAC and the Brading campaign are laying out the facts in this matter as they know them to be. Period. This incident speaks to a fundamental lack of good character and judgement on the part of Karen Minnis. And the public not only has a right to know, they need to understand the character of the person representing them in Salem.
Another aspect of this series of incidents that really stick in my craw have to do with John Minnis himself. In a column dated October 29, Steve Duin says that John Minnis claims he didn't believe the allegations but still reported it to his supervisor, Sgt. Bob Wallicker.
In no way does reporting this to his supervisor constitute a fulfillment of his legal obligation to report. If such a report took place, there would have been a criminal investigation of Tuck Minnis. Its evident that both Karen and John Minnis worked to shield Tuck from this.
Karen Minnis was personally involved in all aspects of this incident. She personally managed the restaurant after Tuck was demoted is directly accused of retaliating at work against the young girl in question. John Minnis discussed Karen's activities and personal state of mind in his affadavit on this matter. Moreover, Karen and John Minnis are the only two members of the LLC who own the restaurant. I find it very difficult to believe that she had no involvement in choosing to pay this girl off and settle the case.
posted by carla at 2:06 PM
|
<< Home