MD: O’Malley lies about DUI, did not disclose on bar exam?
posted at 9:18 am on October 25, 2006 by Ian
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
This could cost him the election:
Martin O’Malley was arrested on a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol in August 1987 but was later found not guilty of the offense, aides to the Baltimore mayor said last night, responding to media inquiries.
O’Malley, the Democratic nominee for governor in Maryland, was a 24-year-old law student at the University of Maryland at the time. The arrest occurred in the early morning as O’Malley was returning to his parents’ home in Montgomery County, aides said.
O’Malley could be disbarred if he did not disclose the charge of driving under the influence, of which he was found not guilty, to the Maryland Bar Association.
Guess who was blamed for O’Malley’s arrest and possible disbarment:
Aides to O’Malley blamed the media interest on Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.’s campaign. O’Malley is challenging the Republican incumbent in the Nov. 7 election and has been leading in polls.
Yes, it’s all Ehrlich’s fault that O’Malley was pulled over under suspicion of driving drunk and then lied about it for almost 20 years.
***
The Washington Post endorses Gov. Ehrlich.
UPDATE: I changed the post to remove references to DUI because it may confuse the reader that I was implying O’Malley was found guilty of a DUI, even though it is noted that he was not guilty.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
When was the last time a Democrat acted like a responsible adult and accepted responsibility for their mistakes? It’a always someone else’s fault. I’m surpried he didn’t blame President Bush.
liberty on October 25, 2006 at 9:23 AM
It is President Bush’s fault.
Wade on October 25, 2006 at 9:25 AM
Surprised too since it was probably Bush’s fault. Everything is Bush’s fault.
/note sarcasm
xanadu1015 on October 25, 2006 at 9:26 AM
Ha, we’re thinkin’ the same thing lol.
xanadu1015 on October 25, 2006 at 9:26 AM
If there was no conviction, why should he report it to the Maryland Bar Association?
pullingmyhairout on October 25, 2006 at 9:29 AM
Associated Press and CNN are reporting that they have 16mm home movie footage showing Karl Rove and the State Patrol officer exchanging cash and breathalizers.
Limerick on October 25, 2006 at 9:31 AM
It seems, according to the article, the MBA has a rule where you must report it.
Typical liberal response, trying to get around the matter instead of addressing it directly.
But if this was a Republican, you’d be all over it.
Ian on October 25, 2006 at 9:33 AM
OK, it’s my first post, and I think I’m about to defend a Democrat (yuck). If he was found not guilty, what the hell is the problem? There is no DUI unless he was convicted. Just being arrested doesn’t (or shouldn’t) cause repurcussions later.
Peretz Rickett on October 25, 2006 at 9:37 AM
What is there to report? I was grabbed by the police once in my teens when there was some vandalism in my neighborhood. After having my mother explain to the arresting officer that I was not in town when the incident transpired, I was promptly let go.
Should I be required to list this incident when I run for Congress??
GregH on October 25, 2006 at 9:38 AM
No Greg. You’re a Democrat. You have a pass.
Gregor on October 25, 2006 at 9:42 AM
I hate to say it, Ian, but this could backfire and cost Ehrlich the election, even if Ehrlich had nothing to do with it. Ehrlich will have difficulty trying to prove his innocence in the matter, which, at the very least, could take him off message. If the Maryland Bar Association looks into this and so much as contemplates disbarring O’Malley, Ehrlich could get creamed. I truly hope not, but it could happen. This is what politics has become. Then again, this kind of stuff has been happening in Louisiana for eons…
Aunt B on October 25, 2006 at 9:42 AM
Well boo-freaking-hoo. Uhh, in case any leftards have forgotten, didn’t they try to do the same thing to Bush in 2000? About a week before the election, they just haaaaapend to stumble upon (wink, wink) some DUI he got when he was younger. Hey Dems, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!!
BigOrangeAxe on October 25, 2006 at 9:45 AM
Ian, I’m conservative. I was just asking a question, not trying to skate around anything. I was just saying, that if there wasn’t a conviction, he didn’t break the law. I didn’t know about the MBA rules that state that if you are even arrested that you must disclose it. That’s all I wanted to know.
pullingmyhairout on October 25, 2006 at 9:47 AM
In Texas, being convicted of a class B misdemeanor, or being arrested for a class A misdemeanoer or felony can get you a revocation of your concealed handgun license. Simply having an arrest can have consequences in many contexts to give people an incentive to not even approach misbehavior when the standards need to be kept high.
urbancenturion on October 25, 2006 at 9:54 AM
To apply to the Maryland Bar Association you must. If you have a problem with that I suggest you direct your position to the MBA and not distort the subject by changing the direction fro the MBA to Congress. Nice try.
Wade on October 25, 2006 at 9:55 AM
I most definitely am NOT a Democrat. But I’ll take the pass.
GregH on October 25, 2006 at 10:00 AM
A look at the current online MD Bar Admissions Forms indicates a requirement to submit a certified complete driving record for the three years prior to the application, even if the record is squeaky clean. It would be a really huge problem if the admitted DUI was within the three year time period and it is not reflected on the driving record submitted. Of course, this is assuming the application forms were the same as the current forms when his application was submitted.
News2Use on October 25, 2006 at 10:01 AM
I’m not harping O’Malley for the DUI, however if isn’t such a big deal, what’s the big deal with disclosing it to the public?
As News2Use just noted above, it’s required to report your driving record.
Ian on October 25, 2006 at 10:07 AM
Sorry pullingmyhairout, I didn’t mean to mark you as a liberal, just noting the liberal response.
Ian on October 25, 2006 at 10:08 AM
Ian, what’s up with jumping all over pullingmyhairout? She isn’t a moonbat whose been trolling this place. She’s cool.
Another thing. You say that…
The articles said you provided said he was found not guilty of DUI. Maybe I’m missing some sort of nuance here, but it sure sounds like you keep implying he got or recieved a DUI. Nothing doing. If he was found guilty, yeah sure. He got a DUI. But he didn’t. I think your wording here is poorly chosen.
If you got arrested for DUI and were found innocent, I’d be pissed if “Crooks and Liars” started going arround saying Ian of HotAir got a DUI. Cuz it wasn’t true. Same thing here.
The real issue here is if he didn’t reveal this to the Maryland Bar. He was 24. That is a full grown man. And he was a law student. And now he’s a lawyer. If the law said he had to disclose any and all arrests, and he didn’t, that is a big deal. That is what he can be hammered on.
Anyway, since I don’t want a pissing match, here is a peace offering. In the Washington post article you linked, I found the following:
Well, now I’m confused. Has the economy been in the doldrums ever since Bush took over? Or is muscular? I don’t think it can be both!
My vote: Economy’s been just fine.
EFG on October 25, 2006 at 10:11 AM
More info needed. Big difference between not guilty and innocent. Why was the record not expunged?
Wade on October 25, 2006 at 10:14 AM
NOT GUILTY? Highly unlikely. Police will only arrest someone for DUI if there is obvious evidence - breathalizer, can’t stand up….. Back in the day first offenders were given “probation before judgement” or null pros. If a second offense occurred the first case would be prosecuted. O’Malley has a reputation for twisting the truth - this will NOT help him.
iam7545 on October 25, 2006 at 10:16 AM
EFG,
I thought the article did justice when it noted, and I quote, “found not guilty”.
To make you happy, in the first reference to DUI, I changed it to “not-guility DUI”.
My apologies, I thought that if you read the portion of the article that I quoted, that I wouldn’t have to note it again.
***
I don’t think it was poorly choosen words, it would be different if his not guilty status was not mentioned.
Ian on October 25, 2006 at 10:18 AM
The Washington Post endorsed a Republican candidate? That must be really bad news for the Democratic campaigns in Maryland.
januarius on October 25, 2006 at 10:27 AM
Ian;
No problem brother.
Keep up the good work. You do bring great stuff to HotAir.
EFG on October 25, 2006 at 10:32 AM
Rumor has it O’Mally was last seen playing golf with the ‘not-guilty’ OJ Simpson in hopes of finding the guilty party.
Wade on October 25, 2006 at 10:34 AM
So in essence this case is like Harold Ford, Jr.’s Playboy football party: not that big a deal in and of itself, if he’d just been honest about it. But he didn’t choose to do so.
ReubenJCogburn on October 25, 2006 at 10:45 AM
Why the hell can’t these people just come clean? Look, if someone says to me
I’ll respect them much more than someone who tries to lie and bluff his way through something.
dalewalt on October 25, 2006 at 11:01 AM
If North Korea’s nuclear program (started in the early 90’s?) is Bush’s fault, no reason this couldn’t have been his fault too.
High Desert Wanderer on October 25, 2006 at 11:06 AM
I think we need one thing answered. Does the MBA demand that all arrests be declared?
If so, and he did not declare the arrest, then this could be a big deal, if not then its no big deal.
But without that question being answered we really can’t weigh in on it. Any one know a MD lawyer?
Wyrd on October 25, 2006 at 11:18 AM
GregH…Just for your edification I would like to clarify the difference between your run in with the law and Mr. O’Malley’s. You were stopped on suspicion of a crime. What would be classified as a “Terry Stop”. A Terry Stop is when a police officer has reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has been committed or is about to be committed. O’Malley was arrested for DUI. That means that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. In order to get a warrant for O’Mallery’s arrest a judge and/or magistrate of the court was presented the evidence by the arresting officer based on the evidence an arrest warrant was issued. Once the case is taken to court the burden of proof is higher changes from probable cause to beyond a reasonable doubt. Since O’Mallery was found not guilty one must assume the higher burden was not met at trial.
SPIFF1669 on October 25, 2006 at 11:37 AM
Wyrd, Ian has the answer to your question posted above, and it even includes a link.
O’Malley lies, then tries to blame that on Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. How liberal of him!
DannoJyd on October 25, 2006 at 11:43 AM
The Republican party stands for truth, honesty, honor, all that good stuff. The Democrat party has taken the “anti” position on these issues. So they don’t have to tell the truth, confess “sins”, honor campaign promises, defend the nation, etc. Their party platform is in support of absolute self-absorption.
stonemeister on October 25, 2006 at 11:59 AM
” When was the last time a Democrat acted like a responsible adult and accepted responsibility for their mistakes? It’a always someone else’s fault.”
It is not getting any press whatsoever, but here in California we have a similar situation with Jerry Brown who is running for Attorney General. He has not met the requirement that a candidate for such office be admitted to the California Bar for five years immediately preceding their election.
Has he accepted responsibility for his not being eligible to run for the office??? Of course not. He is fighting it tooth and nail. Has refused service (lawsuit to prove he is ineligible) fought an expedited hearing to have the matter decided BEFORE the election. Basically he has done everything possible to avoid a hearing on the merits of his MERITS as a candidate.
He would rather try to win first and deal with the issue later, all at the expense of the people of California. And they say Republicans disenfranchise the vote/voters.
America1st on October 25, 2006 at 12:07 PM
When a person is being vetted for certain forms of security clearance in the military, a virtually complete life history is documented. Schools from kindergarten up, addresses, jobs, three family references, five non-family references, three job or service-related references, every legal or criminal matter in your life.
Failure to disclose an arrest, REGARDLESS of case outcome, can disqualify you for the clearance.
So apparently this state bar association wants to know about the legal history of its member. That’s so unfair, seeing as how its an association of LAWYERS.
If a Democrat uncovers dirt on a Republican, it’s the Republican’s fault for having the dirt. If a Republican uncovers dirt on a Democrat, it’s the Republican’s fault for doing the digging.
Good DAY!
Freelancer on October 25, 2006 at 12:26 PM
And GregH, a proper analogy to your incident would be if he had been pulled over under suspicion if DUI, but released after a negative breathalyzer test, and never charged. He was charged, the case went to court.
There are books written on how to get a not guilty verdict against a DUI charge. The police hardly ever file the charge without solid evidence, and still many get off.
Freelancer on October 25, 2006 at 12:29 PM
In New York, when I applied to the bar, you had to disclose arrests, not just convictions.
Not that I had any arrests.
Though someone I know did and had to disclose a trespass arrest for swimming in someone’s pool under the mistaken belief that he had permission.
You wouldn’t want total scum being admitted to the bar just because they had been acquitted, right?
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 25, 2006 at 12:43 PM
The story was incomplete…Karl Rove was the arresting officer…Condi sold him the alcohol..O’Malley came from a broken home…he was waterboarded and drank to forget the terror.
right2bright on October 25, 2006 at 12:49 PM
Section 11.a of the application for the Maryland Bar Exam contains the following question:
“The following is a complete record of all criminal proceedings (including traffic citations, arrests, and summonses)to which I am or have ever been a party. I have listed here all motor vehicle citations for moving violations (including all speeding citations) and excluded only occasional parking violations.”
As you can see they require an applicant to list all citations, arrests or summonsses. No distinction made for whether any resulted in convictions.
So, if he neglected to include his citation for DUI, he did not fully meet the disclosure requirements.
BacaDog on October 25, 2006 at 2:27 PM
Thanks to Freelancer and Spiff for the clarification. Points taken.
GregH on October 25, 2006 at 2:32 PM
“You know what?
(Satire of DU/Kos conspiracy theories)
It’s possible that George Bush (W) was an under-aged bartender who got Ted Kennedy drunk at that party on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969…Karl Rove IS a genius!!!!
Doug on October 25, 2006 at 2:49 PM
The application for the Maryland Bar exam requires one to answer the following in section 11(a):
“The following is a complete record of all criminal proceedings (including traffic citations, arrests, and summonses) to which I am or have ever been a party.”
As you can see, the requirement, in part, includes citations. There is no mention of prosecution or guilt.
If, in fact, he neglected to include a DUI citation, he’s guilty of omitting that from his application. For this reason alone, he can be disbarred.
I am Bacadog and I approve this message……….
BacaDog on October 25, 2006 at 2:50 PM
Sorry for the duplicate post. It took over 30 minutes for the 1st one to show up.
BacaDog on October 25, 2006 at 3:41 PM
I think this post is unfair.
(1) this is only a DUI, I dont see that as a big deal. it is not a crime “of moral turpitude” in legal parlance.
(2) the guy was found not guilty, doesnt that mean he should have a clean slate? why did he “lie for 20 years” because he didnt advertise that he was charged and then acquitted?
kaltes on October 25, 2006 at 4:09 PM
Kaltes, you think the post is unfair. Tell me what part of the Maryland (and for that fact most any state)Bar Application you think one is allowed not to fill out honestly. If it says “any violation or charge” than you put down your DUI, it probably would not disqualify you, you would just have to explain it. It would disqualify you if you falsely filled out your application. It is one of the last acts of law school and bar exams to seperate out people who do not have the moral courage to tell a “hard” truth, apart from the weak who tell an “easy” lie.
right2bright on October 25, 2006 at 4:32 PM
Kaltes,
The application for the Maryland Bar Exam has many requirements. The section concerning any criminal proceedings falls under Section II “Character Questionaire”. In this section an applicant must reveal his credit worthiness, give character references, employment history, schools attended and degrees, and criminal history.
The applicant certifies that they have responded “fully and candidly” and that their responses are “accurate and current”. The applicant must also declare that “under the penalties of perjury” the matters and facts in the application are “true and correct”.
Even if, as you say, a DUI were “no big deal”, the rules of the Maryland Bar say it is. The fact of the matter is that a DUI would not preclude him from taking the exam and being admitted. He would however have a lot of explaining to do.
In your 2nd point, your right. He does have a “clean slate” as far as convictions go. Again, however, the application requires disclosure of “citations” among other things.
He did not disclose the citation for DUI, therefore his responses were not accurate, true or correct.
Those are the rules, clearly stated in the documents. He chose to violate the rules by failing to disclose. He can be brought up before the bar and sanctioned or suspended.
I’m BacaDog and I approve this message…….
BacaDog on October 25, 2006 at 4:53 PM
A complete list? Does that include those that were sealed and/or expunged? Does that include being detained but not arrested?
Never mind, I couldn’t remember them all anyway.
htom on October 25, 2006 at 5:04 PM
Are you considering a run?
Rick on October 25, 2006 at 5:17 PM
I think that DUI/OUI/DWI is a “big deal”…big enough to be a felony in certain circumstances. The MBA apparently requires disclosure of the arrest, not just a conviction, and Mr. O’Malley chose not to disclose: he is a “liar”. Further, his “record” will include the arrest and its disposition: guilty, not guilty, null pros, continued w/o a finding (CWOF).
Note: Mr. O’Malley was not found “innocent”. He was found “not guilty”. Big difference (I am not aware of any state that has a finding or plea of “innocent”).
dcs2244 on October 25, 2006 at 5:29 PM
Kaltes,
It is not a question of “only a DUI” or having a “clean slate” it has more to do with a person disclosing these things, embarrassing as they may be, when required by a organization he/she wants to join.
Freelancer pointed out in his post…
Many moons ago, when I was a minor, I was arrested for trespassing.
In my case the DA dropped the charges so I never went to trial.
A few years later I went to see a USAF recruiter and one of the questions was “Have you ever been arrested?”
I asked arrested or convicted? He said arrested.
I told him about that time. He reached down for a book flipped to the job I wanted, read from the book something like “This charge does not disqualify a person for AFSC (security clearance was required). He then made a few notes in my folder, later on I was told I passed the background check, went in for 4 years and got out.
If O’Malley had told the truth on his application I doubt this would be an issue today. Instead he decided to lie and now it is coming back to haunt him (as it should).
F15Mech on October 25, 2006 at 6:24 PM