I am sure some of you by now have seen the article in the Free Press about the civil case between Iott and some of his son's potential roommates down at Ohio State a couple of years ago. I'd like to see the actual complaint, but some choice excerpts from the article (quoting the complaint):
"In addition to anticipatorily breaching their obligations to Plaintiffs, and despite their obligations of good faith and fair dealing to Plaintiffs, Defendant Richard Bradley Iott has made unacceptable threats and comments to Plaintiffs, all young college students, who asked him to fulfill his written obligations, including the following comments by Mr. Iott:
* “A threat to force upon his son’s roommates another tenant ‘from a Third World nation that practices small animal sacrifices and glorify stealing as an art form:’
* “Inviting litigation, as Mr. Iott would find ‘great sport’ in causing litigants to spend more than his own contractual obligation; and
* “Attempting to intimidate his son’s college roommates to pay his obligations or face eviction.”
* Included as evidence is the Aug. 12, 2008, e-mail from Richard Iott to Wade. The e-mail address listed is one that is known as Richard Iott’s personal e-mail, it is signed, “Mr. Iott.”
And before Wulfie comes in here whining, yes I know that anyone can file a lawsuit and yes, this case was dismissed (read "settled") before trial (as are 90% of cases). But if you knew your candidate was handling small potatoes conflicts like this, doesn't it make you wonder how he would handle a real dispute?
Case dismissed-means case dismissed, i.e., it never happened. Goodnight everyone.
He is an arrogant prick with money. Not a good combo.
Character means something. This is a window into the man Rich Iott. We will hear all the give and take blathering on into infinity but it all comes down to character.
Wulfie, it should be noted that the case was dismissed by the plaintiff after the parties settled.
See for yourself. Here's the docket:
But the real point here is that, if indeed Iott sent those emails, what does that say about him?
Alas - the rage of angered college roomies...
I have had my own experiences. A fellow did not want to clean and it seemed to him I should be fully responsible for everything. I said, if you really don't want to help - you can leave.
Next thing I know it was reported everywhere that I had "kicked him out" and he would sue because he was on THE LEASE. I wish I would have thought of small animal sacrifices...
Yeah, character means something-when snatching up 147K from known felons.
Stay on topic: if indeed Iott sent those emails, what does that say about him?
I say he never did it. He wasn't found guilty-get over it!!!
You guys have to be kidding me...
This is a joke - an absolute Joke!
The Nazi reenactor issue - I spend a lot of time at Wildwood Park every year and they have Civil War reenactments all the time. Are we going to bar anyone who portrays a Southern Rebel for seeking office?
Like I said - all of this is a joke.
The only answer for the left is "You are a racist" or oh my gosh.... "you are a mean bully."
I always try to be very open minded but if you fall for this ignorance when you vote you deserve your food stamps each week!
So many people are getting sick of this - find a new avenue please and quit catering to ignorance.
I say he never did it. He wasn't found guilty-get over it!!!
There is no guilty or not guilty, it was a civil case. My point is that someone who sends those kinds of emails is a petulant man-child who does not have the temperament to serve in Congress.
That's exactly the kind of person we need in Congress, one who won't molly coddle young hoodlums. We already have a petulant man-child in Washington-unfortunately residing in the White House.
When does a person not have the right to use the legal system to defend a contractual agreement. What do you advocate? Fighting in the street? Poisoning someone's food? What is the Liberal response to problem resolution? Rioting?
This thread is silly.
*** Not an Iott supporter and don't want a LARP'er as a representative ***
Wow, just read the article. Rich Iott was threatening college students? Really?
Wulf, just because it was dismissed doesn't mean it never happened. These kids made allegations and had the emails to back them up.
What gets me is his assertion that the college kids should pay his son's share of the rent. Isn't this guy loaded? What, he couldn't buy his son's way out of the lease?
And note that the plaintiff isn't making allegations against Iott's son -- which you would expect when someone breaks a lease -- but against Iott himself. This isn't about breaking the lease, it's about making threats.
How can anyone in their right mind vote for this guy?
How old was his son? If he was over eighteen, he should pay his own way out of any lease. If someone was threatened, why didn't he call the police? If someone threatened me, I would call the police station, not the Spitzer Building. People like Iott have to deal with creative hustlers all the time.
By creative hustlers, you mean the students who were to be his son's roommates?
No, I mean people who look for "deep pockets" to stick their hands into. Who brought the suit, anyway? I'd like to read the origional docket myself, the bits and pieces provided are useless as far as trying to determine what happened. You should just post the case number, followed by "Iott did it". I would save all of us time.
I bet it was Iotts maid that sent those emails while cleaning one day. I can see it now. Poor Richie leaves his office for a split second because he sees a tiny kitten trapped in a tree. When he goes to save the feline his evil Democratic maid sets out to destroy him. That Zoila is a tricky bitch!
But-he gets to keep his money, and we all know: "Money talks, and bullshit walks"
Well, he has plenty of both dunnit he?
My guess from the "anticipatory repudiation" language:
Defendant Iott (either dad or son) backed out of a commitment to pay rent -- perhaps the kids figured the living situation wasn't going to work? perhaps they were poking fun at Iott's son for having a dad that walks around in a Nazi uniform? Who knows.
Apparently settled. Payment was probably made by Iott.
Still doesn't dismiss such statements, if there is proof.
Iott is done. If these statements are true, then he should just withdraw.
It is certainly telling that a guy who dresses up as a Nazi uses a racially-charged threat like "I'll send you a new tenant from a Third World nation that practices small animal sacrifices and glorify stealing as an art form’
I certainly agree, IF--HE--SAID--IT. But since I haven't read anything about an admission, we have to go by "Innocent until proven guilty", or don't we? The case was, I believe, dismissed. He did, however, admit to being in the picture.