Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Scott Pullins -- Runnning for State Rep? UPDATED: No

UPDATE: See Scott's comment.

Soon after I took down the comment about Kathy Pullins I suspected something was up with the Pullins family aside from wife Kathy wanting to be clear rumors circulated by Scott’s many enemies. Searching for “Scott Pullins” pulled up a “Pullins for Ohio” website I hadn’t seen before. A correspondent noted that it was registered in 2003.

But it had been updated. Across the bottom a legend read “Copyright 2007.” One of the items on the feeds page was a feed from the Eye on the Statehouse blog that Buckeye Institute launched only a couple months ago. The site proclaimed itself to be “Under Construction,” so I’ve been keeping an eye on it.

Today the site is a blank page, but the title in the address bar has changed.

Here’s the screenshot:



And the detail:



If that doesn't work on your computer, it says "Scott Pullins for State Representative."

For a guy who has worked overtime the past year generating oppo research and accumulating enemies on both sides of the aisle, this is a ballsy move. He has to know what an appealing target he is going to be. Of course if he continues, Cafaro-like, to threaten litigation against his critics, maybe not ballsy so much as bullying.

And yes, the email is en route to Chez Pullins, but the mere fact that the website is moving in this direction is worth noting.

11 comments:

Paul Ackerman said...

Blank but not empty.

First, looking at the internal viewable webcode for the blank page you see this description:

The home page of Scott Pullins for State Representative

And then there is these meta keywords (some duplications):

ohio taxpayers association
the pullins report
pullins
thom collier
thomas collier
tom whiston
thomas whiston
whiston
whiston pharmacy
ohio house
ohio house gop
ohio house republicans
ohio general assembly
ohio house republican campaign committee
jon husted
bill harris
larry householder
ted strickland
marc dann
ohio general assembly
thomas collier
ohio house republicans
ohio house gop
bill harris
ohio house
the pullins report
thomas whiston
marc dann
pullins
jon husted
jennifer brunner
tom whiston
ohio house republican campaign committee
whiston
collier
state representative
whiston pharmacy
ohio house of representatives
thom collier
ohio taxpayers association
ted strickland
scott pullins
tom collier

Finally, I looked at the Secretary of State's website for any fillings with the last name of "Pullins"

His committee, "Scott Pullins For Ohio" was created by a designation of Treasurer filing on 7/21/2004. Interestingly, the office filed for was "Undeclared" which is the first time I've ever seen that. Also, the district filed for was "0".

There was an Annual Report filed on 1/31/2005 with all $0.00 amounts.

There was a Semi Annual Report filed on 8/3/2005 with all $0.00 amounts.

Finally, there was a Termination filing on 8/29/2005 also with all $0.00 amounts.

Jill said...

Scott - I love it. Great - you know - REPORTING. :)

Pho said...

Paul, thanks for the info.

To clarify a couple of things. The former title, until today, was "Scott Pullins for Ohio." If you Google "Scott Pullins" that's what you still see and you can look at a very bare-bones cached version that includes the C 2007 line.

Now the thing has the title ". . .for State Rep." I just checked out the Page Info which told me that the page was last modified at 1:36. It's now 1:44. That sounds to me like the techs are working to get this up and running.

No response to my email yet.

Paul Ackerman said...

The SOS office is notoriously behind the times on filings.

As a regular consumer of their data and a provider of it as well, I really, REALLY hope that Brunner gets this cleaned up.

Anyway ... a call to the Knox County BOE could give more current information if there has been a recent filing.

Since he had filed a termination he would have to file a new Designation of Treasurer before doing any fundraising.

I'd call but I'm in a meeting (and shouldn't be doing this!)

The Pullins Report said...

You've found an old site that I've been cleaning up. Scott Pullins for State Representative was an old update that got published by accident.

The page should be pointing to my blog but hasn't updated yet. I had forgotten about the site but it kept showing up in google listings.

I have no intention either now or in the future to run for public office. Thanks but no thanks.

Scott A. Pullins
scott@pullinslaw.com

Anonymous said...

Scott Piepho:

I have read your post about the removal of the comment and I did not say it was okay to write an article about it. In fact I said:

"Thanks for the reply. Here is what I don't understand. Some anonymous person repeats a false and defamatory statement about me, one that is truly a character assassination. You allow that remark to stand on your blog, for almost a year without requiring the poster to identify his/her self. Yet when I contact you and tell you it is false, it has been linked to a former employee who evidently has been disgruntled for years, (I haven't worked with her since 2000), you express a need to allow it to stand in some form or other. I understand the point the poster was trying to make with that comment. I just think that the point has been made in the past 9 months and it can be removed.

Just because it was posted somewhere other than your blog does not make the statement true, nor does it necessarily bear repeating. As an attorney I would think that you would understand the ramifications of letting a defamatory comment stand unchecked. Additionally, that original post was made by this person from her place of employment and she was ultimately fired for it, for obvious reasons.

I do understand lots of things about blogging. What I understand is that if, used responsibly, blogging can make dramatic changes in political policy and create critical thinking on important topics. However, I also
understand that blogging allows cowards to anonymously post whatever they want to, without any ramifications, and bring undue emotional distress to the ones they write about, whether it is true or false.

As I stated, it is your blog and I can only ask you to take down the post. I do think, however, that your request to name me is unfair, given the fact that you aren't going to identify the anonymous poster.

As for Scott, he is a wonderful husband and an amazing father. I disagreed with his whole "ted is gay' slant, however, in the end he chose to move forward with it. He became fair game for it, and has been criticized endlessly for it.

Please, take down the post and let me have some peace."

Now you write another article referencing the fact that I contacted you. The fact that I contacted you should not be something you trot out or continue to trot out. I contacted you because I believe you allowed disparaging, untrue comments about me to be published on your site. And while referencing me in your little article you managed to take another potshot at my husband, again calling him a douchebag.

Ask your wife if she would like anyone who called you a douchebag. Ask your kids if they would respect someone who called you a douchebag.

The difference between my husband and so many of the Ohio liberal bloggers is that he puts his name on everything he writes, including posts on other blogs.

Frankly, I think bloggers hurt themselves when they start potshotting each other and when they allow anonymous posts to their sites. It diminishes significantly their credibility. And what about bloggers who continue to post without identifying themselves? Why do they do this? Are they ashamed of their words? Are they cowards?

I have continuously asked my husband if he is a public figure. He may or may not be. I know that I am not a public figure, so why would you allow ANY comment about me to your website? And, as a member of the BAR and an officer of the court, why would you call another member of the Bar a douchebag? Seems to me that is a violation of your professional ethics.

Please do not talk about me anymore on your site. Please do not make any more inferences from the fact that I asked you to take down a post.

All of you bloggers and posters who take such joy out of anonymously attacking people should stop and think about how you would feel if it happened to you or a loved one. If you are so proud of your mean, spiteful words, why don't you put your name and address on them?

Kathy Elliott Pullins

Anonymous said...

Kathy, you ARE a public figure. You are an elected official of AVPOA.
Also, you are wrong about who posted that comment. I KNOW who posted it, and it was NOT buckeyefan.

also anonymous said...

An elected board member of a private, members-only association is a public figure? Are you nuts?

anonymous too said...

Oh c'mon Kathy/Scott/Kathy's folks/also anonymous... We all know who you are so you can take that mask off now.

Anonymous said...

You ARE a public figure. You campaigned in Apple Valley (which has quite a few property owners), residents voted for you, you then sued when you were kicked off the board. YOU put yourself out there. Weren't you also highly involved in the Knox Co. Chamber of Commerce? You are also the wife of a public figure. HE made himself public when he started posting crap about the governor.
I am entitled to have an opinion about you and your entire family. This post is MY opinion.
Your husband is a douchebag. Wonder what they call a douchebag's wife?
Again, this post is my opinion and may or may not be entirely true.

Pho said...

ENUF!!

I am shutting down this thread and comments on the other post. The case of Pullins and Pullins v. The World can be tried in another venue.

I knew. I knew at the core of my being that my good deed on Kathy's behalf would not go unpunished. And frankly, I brought it on myself. I thought the clues added up to something -- Kathy asking/telling bloggers to take stuff down, Pullins for Ohio appearing updated, then taken down with the "For Representative" title. Thought I had it and I didn't.

I apologize to you, Kathy for jumping to the conclusion that you were up to something and to you, Scott for running the story without a confirmation check. While I'm at it, I apologize to the BSBers who got into the act and to everyone who got excited at the prospect of high political drama and to the ideals I just expressed today and in retrospect did not live up to. I am sorry I am sorry I am sorry.

I am not sorry for the previous post, however. I made it clear to Kathy that if I agreed to take down someone's comment I would post about why and identify her as having made the request. After the email she reproduced I explained the reason the comment had been left up -- essentially the same as the post from the weekend. We've also had follow-up communications including one in which I noted that my attempts to keep people from ragging on her for making the request appeared to be working.

She's never said boo about any of it until now. Now she doesn't like today's post and suddenly she is aggrieved about the previous one. When my five-year-old does this to my ten-year-old I tell her it won't fly and it won't fly here either.

As to the rest of you, BE GONE. I am quit of the Pullins family. God willing Scott will not again do something outrageous like run to Jerome Corsi to play conservative martyr or something newsworthy like run for public office, and I can live a long happy life without typing the name Pullins again. Ever.

No go. And trouble me no more.