The Battle of the Karens

Filed in National by on August 23, 2011

Finally, Karen Hartley Nagle might be useful. From the News Journal:

Karen Hartley-Nagle, 49, alleges Stewart, her senior adviser, Elliott Jacobson, and Kelly Services wrongfully terminated her for missing seven days of work to prepare for and attend court hearings in March, according to a suit filed Monday in Kent County Superior Court.

Hartley-Nagle also accuses Jacobson, Stewart’s former chief of staff and currently a senior adviser to the commissioner, of sexual advances. Stewart was on vacation Monday and had not seen the suit. She commented on some parts of it but not others. Jacobson would not comment on the contents of the lawsuit. […]

After Hartley-Nagle’s firing, Jacobson attempted to purchase the two-story Dover home that Hartley-Nagle rented and allow her to stay in the home temporarily at no financial cost, according to court documents. The arrangement would have come with conditions, Hartley-Nagle said in her complaint. “In exchange for becoming her landlord, Jacobson wanted Plaintiff to submit to having an intimate relationship with him,” the complaint said.

The complaint goes on to quote from an April 23, 2011, email that it says Jacobson sent to Hartley-Nagle.

“I wanted to start the long journey to adonishood, becoming half the man I am today so that you would find me as irresistible as I find you,” Jacobson wrote, according to the complaint. “And finally, I wanted us to get past the façade of small talk and trivia and make the trip down the long and winding road into each other’s undiscovered countries we call our heart and soul.”

I will wait after you stop laughing. Adonishood? Oh. My. God. I am not sure what to make of the unwanted “sexual advances” allegation. I hope Karen is not making that up, because I do not want to see an otherwise credible lawsuit be tarnished by what could be salacious nonsense. And I say that because I cannot picture Elliot Jacobson making sexual advances of any type, whether wanted or not. Then again, Jacobson has acknowledged that the email came from him. So if this part of the lawsuit is true, and Jacobson has a long history of improper advances and sexual harassment, wow. What an asshole. He must be fired immediately.

But here is the part of the lawsuit to resonates with me.

Since taking office in 2009, the lawsuit alleges, Stewart used Kelly Services to get around a state hiring freeze and the number of people the Legislature authorizes her to employ “to get insiders and friends hired and placed” at the Department of Insurance

Stewart defends the practice of hiring from a temp agency, but did not address allegations that she packed the department with cronies. She also says she did not fire Hartley Nagle, as KHN did not report to her, she reported to Kelly Services.

About the Author ()

Comments (162)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. skippertee says:

    Typical response from the HEAD of a company caught in a catastrophic and PUBLIC malfeasance.” I saw or heard NOTHING!”

    And HAHAHA- The NJ really screwed up.They put some beast’s picture up instead of KWS!
    The photo-ed has got to go!

  2. puck says:

    Oh man… (covers both eyes)… I really don’t want to know about all this stuff (peeks out with one eye).

  3. anonone says:

    “Finally, Karen Hartley Nagle might be useful.”

    Nothing like dismissing a woman with strong progressive views who actually ran for office as a Democrat in Delaware.

    But you’re just keeping it classy, right, Del Dem?

  4. jason330 says:

    This sounds crazy eight ways to Sunday. They’ll have to hold all the depositions in a carnival fun house.

  5. puck says:

    My parents had my adonishood snipped off when I was a baby.

  6. mediawatch says:

    Skippertee: “The photo-ed has got to go!”

    Actually, she’s already gone. They eliminated the position two months ago in their most recent round of cuts.

    I’m with Jason on this one — it’s a carnival side show that should run right up to primary season. All that’s missing is a cameo appearance from our state auditor, who should have interesting things to say about hiring temps and manipulating hiring freezes.

  7. Delaware Dem says:

    Oh please, Anonone. I am dismissing a three time loser who has never met a lawsuit she didn’t file.

    She’s our Mike Protack, or better still, Christine O’Donnell.

    It is nothing about her being a woman or a progressive.

  8. DelawareFlyOnTheWall says:

    The email sent by Jacobson on April 23, 2011, sent after KHN was let go, indicates a desire for intimacy that apparently had not happened up to that point! I guess KHN never noticed that sexual harassment has to happen on the job not after it has ended.

  9. Geezer says:

    With apologies to Leon Phelps, this disgusts the Ladies Man.

  10. puck says:

    “sexual harassment has to happen on the job not after it has ended.”

    Good point. If this is the case, and no other facts emerge, then you have to wonder if the whole purpose isn’t to put the mash note in the public record.

    Violating the “absence for court” rule sounds like a stronger case though.

  11. MJ says:

    A1 had nothing to add to the conversation, so he decided to play on the “DD is picking on a woman” thread again. It’s really tiresome, A1. Can’t you come up with anything original?

  12. skippertee says:

    Oh Karen Hartly-Nagle,
    will you be my toasted bagel?
    Or shall I lie there at your feet?
    And flog my dummy and beat my meat?”-Elliot Jacobson’s id

  13. anonone says:

    MJ, it is just funny to read a blog where cassandra_m endlessly complains about liberals and progressives not running in primaries while Del Dem dismisses one that has as useless.

  14. puck says:

    a1 – you are right, but it is simply a tiny irony to smile at, not a big deal. Nobody expects the contributors here to all be singing from the same hymnbook on everything.

  15. liberalgeek says:

    I just threw up a little in the back of my throat.

    I wish KHN luck on this one and hope that, if nothing else, it costs Jacobson his job at the DOI.

  16. Anon4Once says:

    Is it just me, or does drama seem to follow her? She’s either completely paranoid or she has really bad luck.

  17. skippertee says:

    “My tongue yearns to plunge down your nightingale throat.
    My lips seek your ears to murmur my sweet delights.
    My hands roam the full expanse of the geography I seek to conquer.
    My manhood stirs anew from it’s long slumber” EJ”s ID

  18. Anon4Once says:

    Also, while ‘Adonishood’ is a little on the creepy side, it was very bad form to publicize an email where a man is obviously taken with her.

  19. puck says:

    If you are taken with someone, you ask her out for coffee. You don’t try to buy her apartment so you can rent it back to her.

    Every sex scandal in politics starts with somebody releasing private information. It was bad form to keep a blue dress just for the stain.

  20. Geezer says:

    “If you are taken with someone, you ask her out for coffee. You don’t try to buy her apartment so you can rent it back to her.”

    Look up an image of Mr. Jacobson. I think it would take something stronger than coffee.

  21. MJ says:

    Did you follow KHN’s campaign in 2008? We would have been better off not running anyone. She said nothing that excited me to vote for her. She reminded me of the Socialist Workers Party people who show up to every progressive protest march in DC claiming to support the reason behind the protest when we all knew they were only out there for themselves.

  22. puck says:

    Have you been paying attention to Democratic politics lately? The only reason to vote for a Democrat now is because the Republican is worse. That is what is supposed to energize you now.

  23. Another Mike says:

    “Also, while ‘Adonishood’ is a little on the creepy side, it was very bad form to publicize an email where a man is obviously taken with her.”

    Was the email sent from his state account? If so, it’s fair game — and likely against whatever acceptable use policy the state has.

    Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to get my Adonishood back to work.

  24. I just need to know whether he capitalized the ‘a’ in Adonishood.

    I could then riff on the psychological implications of the capital/no capitalization question for the rest of the week.

    And, speaking of ‘riffing’ AND psychological implications, if Elliot has had romantic feelings for two Karens, he would not be Delaware’s only current public official who has acted on his romantic impulses towards two women with the same first name.

    Just sayin’…

  25. sisyphus says:

    Is this Delaware Liberal or women haters of the world united. Also a lot of punishing the victim and/or shooting the messenger. Conjures up images of those that suggest that we ask to be raped or sexually harassed because we wear a mini skirt or go in a bar unescorted. With regard to the campaign KHN ran for congress, I recall reading a well reasoned position paper on the economy and the banking system in which she documented that Mike Castle was one of the leading recipients of campaign contributions from the banks and the financial institutions.

  26. MJ says:

    Sissypuss – go away. You add nothing to the conversation here. I hear that batshitcrazypolitics.net is open and waiting for your drivel.

  27. Geezer says:

    “Is this Delaware Liberal or women haters of the world united.”

    So criticism of a woman equals hating all women? Keep in mind, it’s Delaware Liberal, not Delaware Kneejerk Liberal.

    I have spoken to KHN dozens of times. She’s a nice person, though monomaniacal about regaining custody of her children, and I have never bought her side of that story as anything but what it is — one side of a story, concerning which we have not heard the other. The next Family Court case that ends with both sides happy will be the first in history.

    As a political candidate, KHN was utterly out of her depth, just as KWS is as insurance commissioner. What KHN knows about banking extends no further than her PIN number.

    A trained dog could have looked up Castle’s campaign contributions from banks. You know who else ranks high on those lists? Carper and, at the time, Biden. Delaware is a banking center, in case you hadn’t noticed. ANYONE we elect will protect the banking system.

  28. Dana Garrett says:

    I really don’t understand what relevance people’s thoughts about KHN as a political candidate has to do w/ the seriousness and credibility of the allegations she has brought in this lawsuit. While we don’t know yet Elliott Jacobson’s side of the story, the email he sent to her, even if it was sent after she left the IC’s office, is arguably suggestive of at least romantic feelings he had for her for an extended period of time, and the attempted purchase of her home w/o the requirement that she pay rent would be, if true, suspicious on its face.

  29. sisyphus says:

    Mj I guess there’s something more childish than making fun of someone’s name, but you top that with batshitcrazy.net. reminds one of ucantbefnserious. With a zinger like that, I just don’t know how to respond

  30. Anon4Once says:

    I don’t think her political candidacy has anything to do with this. I just think she feels very much at home in a deposition.

    Some people thrive on drama and attention. A kind voice and a sweet face don’t negate the possibility that she might have narcissistic tendencies with a touch of paranoia.

  31. Dana Garrett says:

    But even people with “narcissistic tendencies with a touch of paranoia” can be fired unfairly and sexually harassed.

  32. anonone says:

    Maybe not, Dana. We learned today that a man won’t be prosecuted if he rapes a women who has a history of lying and there are no witnesses.

  33. anon2 says:

    “Since taking office in 2009, the lawsuit alleges, Stewart used Kelly Services to get around a state hiring freeze and the number of people the Legislature authorizes her to employ “to get insiders and friends hired and placed” at the Department of Insurance.”

    I’ve been saying this for months, and I’ve stated this on DL several times. KWS has been getting around the hiring freeze by hiring her buddies like KHN through temp services and paying them beefy wages. This is why the Captive Bureau is in the red.

    I’m not sure why KHN is suing over it, she was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the whole scam.

    That’s it. Just wanted to point out that it looks like I was right.

    Maybe now someone can investigate the money pit crony factory that is the Insurance Commissioner’s office.

  34. Geezer says:

    “We learned today that a man won’t be prosecuted if he rapes a women who has a history of lying and there are no witnesses.”

    How wonderful it must be to know what happened in a situation you didn’t witness.

    “I really don’t understand what relevance people’s thoughts about KHN as a political candidate has to do w/ the seriousness and credibility of the allegations she has brought in this lawsuit.”

    Somebody else brought it up in relation to what we should think of her credibility. Maybe I misread the comment, but it seemed to me the commenter thought that, because she ran as a progressive, we ought to automatically believe her about this.

    “even people with “narcissistic tendencies with a touch of paranoia” can be fired unfairly and sexually harassed.”

    Yet such people will find their credibility under question. Should they not?

  35. anonone says:

    I don’t know what happened, Geezer, and I don’t claim to know. All I know is that they are dropping the charges against DSK because she had a history of lying and they didn’t think they could get a jury to believe her – not because they didn’t believe she was raped or because they did not have physical evidence.

    I can’t say that I disagree with their decision, either.

  36. MJ says:

    And Sissypuss proves my point once again. He/she brings nothing to the discussion. Buh-bye.

  37. jason330 says:

    I don’t think that I am breaking news to note that KHN has a reputation for trading on a kind of cuckoo, flirty vibe. People who have interviewed her have commented on how strange it is to get that vibe in a business context. Someone who trades on a cuckoo, flirty vibe can be sexually harassed, but it ads to the weirdness of this whole story.

  38. Geezer says:

    “All I know is that they are dropping the charges against DSK because she had a history of lying and they didn’t think they could get a jury to believe her – not because they didn’t believe she was raped or because they did not have physical evidence.”

    Funny, but you said it was a rape, so I assumed you “knew” that, too.

    And the prosecutor of the West Memphis 3 thinks that, despite DNA evidence, they’re still guilty — even though the DNA evidence points to one of the poor kids’ lowlife shitkicker stepfathers. So I don’t put great stock in what prosecutors think about much. Most of them are lawyers too crappy to get private-sector jobs, and many of the dozens I have met are self-righteous assholes to boot.

  39. anonone says:

    Do you have a link or some proof for these allegations of “trading on a kind of cuckoo, flirty vibe” or are you just doing a classic blog post smear to discredit her?

  40. Dana Garrett says:

    “Yet such people will find their credibility under question. Should they not?”

    Probably not so much when you’ve got a respondant admitting that he wrote an email like that one.

  41. anonone says:

    Geezer, I am not disagreeing with you, nor do I have a solution. Rape is a horrible crime, and being falsely accused of rape is equally horrible.

  42. Dana Garrett says:

    Oh, come on. The DSK case is a no brainer. His defense was going to be that he walked out nude from the shower, didn’t know she was in the room but when he saw she was, he.decided to proposition her w/ that nude fabulous old body as his principal appeal, and she consented to sex on the spot. If anyone believes that consensual sex goes down like that, they are living in male sexual fantasy lala land. She was most probably raped and the prosecution used her lies about non-relevant aspects of her life as a pretext to let a powerful wealthy man walk free.

  43. anonone says:

    One could easily argue that she was looking for a payday and willing had oral sex with him specifically to get the semen evidence of a sexual assault.

    The bottom line is that it would be easy for the defense to establish reasonable doubt so the prosecution folded.

  44. Geezer says:

    Dana: Add to that the loud whispers about DSK’s past behavior and it’s pretty easy to conclude he is, at best, a sexual predator. On the Jacobson case, I suppose we’ll see, but I don’t think KHN would make this up. But those are just my biases at work, and I don’t know what extenuating circumstances the men involved might claim.

    One more facet to the DSK case: He was in line to run for the presidency of France. It’s not beyond possibility that his foes, knowing his sexual predator predilections, used this woman to set him up. That’s not very likely, but stranger things have happened.

  45. Paul says:

    What’s this “blame the victim” bullshit? Quit bashing Karen Hartley Nagle. You idiots should know better than to doubt anything negative coming out about Karen Weldin Stewart and her right hand man Jacobson who run the corrupt cesspool DOI strictly to enrich themselves and the other cronies. Stewart will never fire Jacobson because he knows too much about her and how she’s been abusing the office, and because she’s too stupid to function without him.

  46. Geezer says:

    Get bent, Paul. You’ve been singing this tune for a couple of years now and still haven’t offered a single piece of evidence to back it up. Put up or shut up.

  47. Paul says:

    @geezer: What the fuck are you talking about. Old age and drugs must have fried your brain. Either that or they have you on their payroll. We don’t buy your denials of that any more, so get lost. You have no credibility.

  48. Geezer says:

    Fuck yourself, Paul. I’m as critical of her as anyone. But I don’t like assholes who make unsubstantiated claims. Show me some proof. Don’t have any? Then it’s you with the credibility problem, pal. Show me something or fuck off.

  49. Paul says:

    Geezer, I really don’t give a shit what you think. Neither does anyone else.

  50. MJ says:

    Actually, Paul, many of us have a lot of respect for Geezer’s comments and insight. You don’t have any cred, so come up with proof to back your statement or bugger off.

  51. Thank you Paul for bringing such reasoned discourse over here.

    If I didn’t know any better, I’d think that you are to Karen Harpy-Nagle what that multiple aliases guy is to Karen Weldin Stewart.

    A brainless flunky.

  52. anon says:

    None of you know the damn truth, but as usual bashing KHN. If you think KHN is stupid enough not to have all her t’s crossed, you as usual underestimate her. There is plenty to come out and she will be vindicated. KWS has been a liabilty in the insurance dept, betting KHN has some good information about the “running” of the insurance dept as well. How do you know there are’nt witnesses? Good luck with bashing the most progressive candidate to run for Congress in years.

  53. anonone says:

    Karen Harpy-Nagle?

    Are all of you in full smear mode today?

    Yesterday, DD said she was useless; Jason said she has “a reputation for trading [for what?] on a kind of cuckoo, flirty vibe;” and today El Som calls her a “Harpy.”

    Nice smear job, boys. Just nice.

  54. anon says:

    The job DL did on her when she was running was filled with sexist, shitty comments and gossip. Same now. You know nothing, none of you your just taking swipes that prove how gossipy you are with no facts. Dispicable.

  55. jason330 says:

    Hermano, Where there is smoke… Do you think all of these bright lights of the DE blogiverse just decided to make shit up? I guess it is possible. But c’mon man.

  56. anonone says:

    jason, thanks for providing even more innuendo to hide your lack of substance. Good job. Nice to see all the boys at DL throwing sexist names and disparaging remarks at a former female Democratic candidate for Congress while all the DL women remain silent.

    I suppose you believe that Castle was a better Representative than KHN would have been, too.

  57. jason330 says:

    You know what Hermano – I don’t give a flying fuck about any of this, so I’ve commented my last comment. I stand by my observation that KHN has a reputation for trading on a kind of cuckoo, flirty vibe, 100%.

    J330 out.

  58. I’ve ALWAYS called her Karen Harpy-Nagle. I’m not a smearer-come-lately. I think the monicker fits just as well as Tiny Tony DeLuca, Charles ‘Bouvier de Flanders’ Copeland and Monsignor Lavelle.

  59. anon says:

    Let’s face it, none of the people the Democrats ran for Congress since S.B. Woo have been exactly the brightest bulbs. Williams, Miller, Donnelly, Spivack, Hartley-Nagle – all failed miserably. None of them stood a chance against Castle, so the Democrats just let whoever wanted to run, run. KHN was the nominee merely by default, not because she was an outstanding, super-progressive candidate.

  60. And wasn’t Karen “H” Nagle and her small coterie of admirers among those who destroyed Common Cause of Delaware? I’m pretty sure they were.

  61. jason330 says:

    Spivack was hamstrung by a primary challenge mounted by some dumbass vanity candidate who went supernova negative on him right out of the gate.

  62. anonone says:

    “ALWAYS” doesn’t make it right and “harpy” is a particularly vicious and sexist label for a woman, and is much more offensive than any of your pet-names for men.

    I doubt that you would use pet-names that degrade and stereotype around race or gender-preference, so why is it acceptable to use one for a woman?

  63. jason330 says:

    Try me. What is your race or gender preference?

  64. anonone says:

    Spivack ran a terrible campaign. Period. End of story.

  65. jason330 says:

    Spoken like some hetero, white-bread-Caspar-the ghost-looking-motherfucker.

  66. anonone says:

    LOL. Not even close, j330, but funny.

  67. You know what I find offensive? Vanity candidates who run as if they’re the stars of their own private reality shows.

    Like Christine O’Donnell, Karen Harpy-Nagle and Mike Prozac.

    And Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin at the national level.

    Don’t get mad at me at pointing out so many women. They’re the most prominent, so go write yourself a Masters thesis on why that’s the case instead.

    As deluded as most politicians can be, I HATE the dissolving of the lines between politics and reality TV. We can’t afford it, especially now.

  68. anon says:

    Jason: you must be living with or know women who are as you describe. Karen Hartley-Nagle has always been friendly, smiling and smart, it’s why voters liked her. Jason: your cuckoo, flirty vibe thing is totally asine. You wonder why good progressive women do’nt want to run for office and get into this snake pit. Read the remarks here by men, and then take your pointy finger and point it back at yourselves. You have no facts, you have no inside information all you do have is is snippy, snarky, gossip which DL has become known for. Spivak was so much in debt with the campaign prior he even mortgaged his house and is still paying off that debt the delaware demorats left him with. And Jason, we know what you are…a white male with gender bias, you proved it with your remarks.Jason are you referring to Michael Berg as the “vanity candidate”? Spivak not only ran a terrible campaign he didnt have a handle on the issues.

    Next question: what does this lawsuit have to do with running for congress? She won the primary remember? Its interesting how you all turn on real progressives who do know the issues. Karen worked her ass off the that Congressional seat, even Castle admitted she gave him a run for his money.

  69. anon says:

    Elsom: To put Karen Hartley-Nagle in the Odonald, Palin, Bachman category tells me you dont know the difference between a real progressive and a right winger. Damn you have changed my mind about your being an expert on much.

  70. jason330 says:

    If you say so sweetheart.

  71. anon says:

    I say so.Prove otherwise…and do keep throwing out your experience with women you have known and then throw it against all women.

  72. anon says:

    Elsom: been listening to the gossip and smear campaign re: Common Cause…again you have no facts, only hearsay. The Board at Common Cause ran it like their own organization. They did themselves in, when it was pointed out they werent operating by the rules. I guess in your pea brain, John Flagherty was a problem too.

  73. jason330 says:

    Got it. By the way, did I mention that KHN has a reputation for trading on a kind of cuckoo, flirty vibe. I did? Okay. That’s all I have to say about that.

    Wanna make me stop saying that? Cinchy. Don’t comment in this thread.

  74. anon says:

    Jason: exactly how many times did you have any conversations or be in the company Karen Hartley-Nagle to make such idiotic comments. Flirty, cuckoo…when, where! Everyone who knows her, met her spent time with her knows your a flaming idiot for even making such a statement. Your just mad because the guy DL supported, got his ass kicked and didnt have a shot at winning the primary.

  75. anon says:

    Oh Jason: am I supposed to be intimidated by your remark, dont comment in this thread? Your a real bully arent you.

  76. jason330 says:

    That must be it.

  77. Anon4Once says:

    I have met her, I know her and I have spent time with her. She is not stupid. She’s very friendly and pretty bright. She is also a drama magnet with a propensity to blow things out of proportion. Not sure why, as I am not a psychoanalyst.

    Dana G – If you were being sued by someone who had history of getting into courtroom/public skirmishes with people, wouldn’t you want that history considered before your reputation was damaged?

  78. puck says:

    I haven’t met KHN. But there are plenty of guys trading on a deep voice and an alpha-male vibe. Same thing.

  79. anom1 says:

    Why do you worry about what El somnambulo , Jason 330 or the fat geeze has to say. Everyone knows the first two are gay and are scared of women and geezer’s comments depends on what drugs he’s taking so he can justify his miserable existance!

  80. anonone says:

    El Som,

    The female candidates you mentioned haven’t done anything that male candidates haven’t done. And, you know, Palin and Bachman have actually won elections.

    Ridicule their positions all you want; I have no problem with that. But using degrading and sexist language and names for female politicians only serves to perpetuate female stereotypes and set back the cause for gender equality in this country and the world.

    I don’t think that you would call black or gay politicians racist or homophobic names; why you can’t show the same respect for women is beyond me.

    Frankly, I can’t understand why you, in particular, would even try to defend calling a female a “harpy.”

  81. I have no respect for would-be politicos who run their lives as if they would just as soon be reality TV stars.

    Paint me however you want. People like Christine O’Donnell and KHN are no better than Kim Khardashian, and deserve no more respect than that. If that somehow makes me anti-feminist in your Bizarroworld, have at it. I personally think that those in the media who enable such people are the anti-feminists, but what do I know?

    And cite me the male equivalents to Bachman and Palin. Donald Trump? That’s a good one, should’ve included him since he is no stranger to reality TV. Rudy and Newt are pretty close, but then I’ve never shrunk from pointing out their foibles.

    And by anon’s non-answer answer, I stick by my claim that K ‘H’ N played a key role in killing Common Cause of DE. Apparently, it was justified, according to anon. OK.

  82. jason330 says:

    Indeed. Which is the bigger affront to the cause of feminism? The act, or commenting on the act?

  83. anon says:

    ElSom: You know nothing about Common Cause and what happened because you werent there. You have only heard “rumors” from those who sat on that board for years and continuously violated the bylaws. When they were called on it…they started a mean and vicious campaign not only against John Flagherty, KHN, and many others, but they destroyed Delaware Common Cause in the process. Now there is another Common Cause which has done nothing on the level as the past Common Cause. The other things you wrote about KHN are the same lies and deceptions put out by the same people who were responsible for the take down of Common Cause. What does KHN have to do with the Khardashians, or Christine O’donald? It just proves you know nothing about truth, your just continue to spread the same ole vicious lies. If you knew the real truth you, you would be hanging your head in shame. I find it most interesting that your comments re: Karen Weldin Stewart and how irresponsible and unqualified she is for Insurance Commish, has suddenly turned against KHN who had the courage to file a lawsuit against people within that agency who are committing alleged acts that should be brought out publicly.

  84. anon says:

    The male equivalents to Palin and Bachman? How about P-rick Perry, or the corporate whore Mitt Romney, or the shyster Newt Gingrich. Jason your play on words gets you nowhere, you have already made your vile and vicious statements with no proof.

  85. anon says:

    and to Puck: Sorry about your confusion…KHN doesnt have a deep voice! In fact, she has a very pleasant soft voice. Again, piling on gives you no credibility. Your just makin it up! DL is discrediting itself by permitting these “males” to write crap and throw it against the wall to see what sticks.

  86. anon says:

    I find it most interesting that your comments re: Karen Weldin Stewart and how irresponsible and unqualified she is for Insurance Commish, has suddenly turned against KHN who had the courage to file a lawsuit …

    Being right on a single issue doesn’t clean up one’s screwed-up past.

    Jason are you referring to Michael Berg as the “vanity candidate”? Spivak not only ran a terrible campaign he didnt have a handle on the issues.

    The 2006 primary for Congress featured KHN and Spivack. Spivack won.

  87. anonone says:

    Male equivalents to Bachman and Palin? How about Joe Lieberman, Michael Steele, or even John Edwards, for starters.

    But I wouldn’t expect El Som to refer to Lieberman using an anti-semetic name or to Steele using a racist name. So I was surprised that El Som thought it was fine to refer to a woman using a derogatory sexist name.

    That’s all. There is nothing “Bizarroworld” about wanting to see people not speak about other people using language that perpetuates ugly stereotypes.

  88. Dana Garrett says:

    “Dana G – If you were being sued by someone who had history of getting into courtroom/public skirmishes with people, wouldn’t you want that history considered before your reputation was damaged?”

    The only courtroom skirmishes I know of are the ones where she tried for years to get visitation with her kids. Because she could not afford an attorney, she operated pro se. She also utilized public media to put pressure on the court system. She eventually won her case. If I felt the system unfairly kept me from my kids, I also would try almost anything to get access to them. My hunch is that she ran for political office to raise her profile to make it difficult for a Family Court Judge to continue denying her access to her kids. If I am right, it worked. That would be a checkmate on the system that no one here could accurately describe as dumb.

    Now if she is litigation-happy in other respects, I know nothing about it. What other litigation has she brought? How many times? As far as I am concerned, if it was only about her kids, she not only gets a pass but my applause as well.

  89. anon says:

    Dana: Thank you. Finally someone who knows the truth and telling it. These libs would love for this non story to continue without facts. I know of noone she has sued other than the ex whose a millionaire and a republican player and used the system to keep her from seeing her kids for years. Applause, applause. KHN has done more to change the Family Court prejudiced system than anyone I know in this State. She has challenged them again and again. Applause is the absolute dead on response.

    Karen, John Flagherty and other mothers who were dealing with a biased non family court system which they documented and brought to the publics attention proved how terrible these courts treat women and children. The courts break up families and much harm is done because some workers in these agencies can be bribed, are bribed and it was being exposed. It was exactly this matter that the ole Board at Common Cause did some dastardly behind the scene acts to prevent the child/family advocates from taking on Family Court. (there are emails to prove it).

    I hope Karen not only wins this case but gets enough money to sue the entire Judicial System. When the truth comes out about how courts have treated this woman and many others like her she will have a best seller on her hands.

  90. Well, here (I hope) is the opinion on the case filed by KHN and that Michael Dore (remember him?). Sounds like stunt litigation to both me and the judges:

    statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/delaware/court-of…/70070-0.pdf

    If this link doesn’t work, just type Michael Dore and Delaware into a google search and you will find it first on the list.

    Not arguing the merits of the case, just arguing the zaniness of the law suit. It’s simply not a serious suit. They sued EVERY SINGLE JUDGE in Family Court. So, the latest anon’s arguments that she only sued her alleged Rethug ‘player’ ex-husband is untrue.

    And, Common Cause deserved to die b/c of the ‘dastardly’ things they did to keep the Dore/KHN legal circus from polluting Common Cause.

    Edit: Link doesn’t work. Maybe one of our techmeisters can attach it.

  91. anon says:

    Family Court is biased against women? Really? Bullshit. What about its bias against fathers who want to gain custody of their children?

  92. anon says:

    I would like to rephrase, Family court isnt prejudiced against women, they do it to everyone. Equal opportunity injustice. Re: the case El Som is referring to…that was a case for Open Government. Get your facts straight El Som. That case actually affected having more openness in family court.

  93. anon says:

    To open up the court you have to sue every judge and commissioner to follow the law and the Consitution of the State of Delaware that states, “all courts must be open”. Next?

  94. anon says:

    That case actually affected having more openness in family court.

    No, it didn’t affect anything. Those two chuckleheads lost resoundingly. The court tossed their bullshit arguments and sent them packing. It was a stupid grandstand play that had absolutely no impact whatsoever on opening up the court.

    http://statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/delaware/court-of-chancery/70070-0.pdf

  95. As the decision made clear, certain types of litigation, including divorce and child custody, are not required to be open to the public. Nor, frankly, do I think they SHOULD be open. The only victims would be family members, especially children.

    BTW, as someone who worked in constituent services for over 20 years, I cannot count the number of men who called to just spew at the alleged favoritism that Family Court showed towards women. And, based on the vitriol, I have to conclude that the Family Court generally got it right, at least in those instances.

    You know, I’d forgotten about this stuff. But the more that comes out, the more I remember the ‘fusion’ candidacies, the crazy lawsuits, the torching of Common Cause. I especially remember why these two characters should never be voted into public office.

    As to their alleged ‘progressivism’, I could not find a single item online to confirm this.

    I DID find these responses to a candidates’ questionnaire on the environment, when alleged progressive Michael Dore ran against one of my favorite legislators, Diana McWilliams. As an ‘independent Democrat’ in the general. Decide which one strikes YOU as more progressive:

    http://vote-de.org/issue.aspx?state=de&election=de20061107ga&office=destatehouse6&issue=cdeenvironment

    And his issue response to Vote-DE. Org also was left blank.

    Them thar are the true facts, whichever of you ‘anon’s is really Michael Dore.

    And I also found this campaign commercial for KHN. Couldn’t decide whether it was more like the Moonies or the Mormons:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae_-IfsVXZQ

  96. Rebecca says:

    anon on 2011 Aug 26 at 12:46,
    She did not win the primary. She lost to Spivack by 20 points.

  97. anon says:

    Ron Polliquin filed the case in Chancery Court. Chancery ruled the case must be filed in the Supreme Court. They did’nt pursue at that point, because they achieved what they wanted! More openness in Government and as a result we now have audio recordings for $25, instead of transcripts costing $3. a page that can run into thousands of dollars. Petitioners who previously couldnt afford the astronomical costs of transcripts, can now have documents they need to refer to when representing yourself or with an attorney. Another example is the new audio recording system for Family Court as the old system was flawed. There have been many more changes and more are needed.

  98. Dana Garrett says:

    Well, it’s perfectly obvious to me why KHN would sue Family Court over the openess issue. She wanted witnesses to how she and her case was treated in the courtroom. Also, and more importantly, she creates the incentive for a Judge not to rule against her visitation petitions lest it appear that the Judge was merely retaliating against her for suing the Judge. So in order to maintain the appearence of objectivity, the Judge is incentivized to rule in her favor. That’s shrewd. I would do the same for the sake of seeing my kids.

    Thus, so far, no one has produced any evidence, separate from her visitation case strategy, that she is litigation happy.

    As far as the fusion candidacies are concerned, I’m sorry they’ve ended. Ending them served no PUBLIC interest, only dominant political party interests.

    As far as the Common Cause debacle is concerned, I witnessed a chunk of it. I never got the argument that KHN was was the cause of the problem. What I witnessed seemed to indicate that her prinicipal accuser made “arguments” that required more diagnosis than rebuttal. I also witnessed a couple other people capitalizing on the situation in order to try to make Common Cause adjunctive of the DE Democratic Party.

    But I do agree with ES that generally divorce, custody and visitation cases should be kept private.

  99. anon says:

    Dana: As I recall Delaware was one of 7 states where fusion is permitted. The Democratic Party (?) hated fusion even though it was lawful. I dont agree with ElSom that divorce, custody and visitation cases should ALL be kept private, I believe that is a decision the parties involved should make. There are too many time when a poor woman/man with no money, no experience with courts, and no money to pay a lawyer goes pro se and is so overwhelmed and intimidated, she/he often needs a person there in the court to support him/her, like an advocate. For me, thats what openness is all about. It shouldnt be left to a Judge (as the one who has been keeping KHN from her children all these years) to make sure no witness is there to see how badly he mistreats her or others. just sayin.

  100. They did nothing in pursuit of open government. It was all in pursuit of a successful resolution of THEIR OWN case. They USED open government types for their own means, and when the open government types realized that KHN/Dore were simply out for themselves, they tried to correct their error and fell to the mighty wrath of the whackos.

    Anyone reading the opinion can see that you’re spinning as fast as you can. Can I call you Mike? It must be great to seem relevant for two days. Tomorrow may be a disappointing day. I think there’s a Khardashian wedding on the docket. And a hurricane.

    Bottom line is that these two were one-trick p(h)onies who gamed the political system, helped destroy Common Cause, and made total fools of themselves.

    As we can see, their narcissism extends to revisiting this crap over here. I’m done, already bored, and NCIS reruns beckon.

  101. anon says:

    Rebecca: she won the primary against your boy Jerry and Mike Miller…what decade are you living in. KHN had 55.4%, Mike Miller had 34.5, and Jerry Northinton had l0.1…do you forget facts?

  102. anon says:

    Whats going on here at DL? Are you all working for Karen Weldin Stewart and Elliot now or what. What does the fact that KHN ran for Congress have to do with the lawsuit which started this conversation. Why are you attempting to put a focus on KHN, and not Karen Weldin Stewart’s wrong doing? Answer please.

  103. anon says:

    This lawsuit confirms what you all have been saying for the past 2 years, and yet by attacking Karen Hartley-Nagle your providing cover to Karen Weldin Stewart and Elliot for the problems “you said” they were doing? Whats up with that?

  104. anon says:

    Have anyone of you actually taken ANY serious action to stop what Karen Weldin Stewart and Elliot are doing in the Insurance Dept and to the consituents of this State. Hypocrisy reigns at DL.

  105. anon says:

    KHN lost the 2006 primary to Spivack. She won the 2008 primary, defeating the delusional Micheal “That’s Not A Typo” Miller (himself a two-time nominee!) and the even more delusional Jerry Northington.

    When you look back at that string of losers, it’s sad to realize the Democratic Party had multiple chances to take Castle down and blew every single one of them because they let wackadoos like Miller, Spivack and KHN be on the ballot.

    ==========================================

    On a tangent:

    Custody, neglect and abuses cases – absolutely should be confidential. Anything involving children.

    Divorce cases and protection from abuse cases that do not involve children should absolutely be public.

  106. anon says:

    No Elsom: I am not Mike. However I do have first hand information, and have read materials you have not. The only one spinning here is you because nothing you have posted can stick. Either you dont know what it is to be an advocate, or you do’nt care how Family Court treats families. You know you can actually read the lawsuit on line.

  107. MJ says:

    Let’s get back to the topic – Elliott “I haven’t seen my pinga in decades” Jacobson, KWS, and what may or may not be a legitimate legal claim. Enough with KHN running for Congress.

  108. anon says:

    anon @ 6:49 p.m.: Then provide a link.

    There are an awful lot of self-righteous, self-important, self-promoting people who call themselves “advocates,” when they’re truthfully nothing more than advocates for themselves.

  109. Paul says:

    @ anon and MJ:
    Thanks for stating what needed to be said at least 50 comments ago. All these diatribes against KHN are like prosecutors beating up rape victims with their prior totally irrelevant history.

    Funny though that crazy uninformed Geezer who must not have read the recent DOI audit report or last year’s by the CRI isn’t getting on your case like he did mine.

  110. anon says:

    Something to think about. The connections between politics and family court:
    1. Karen’s ex husbands mothers pictures is prominently displayed in the lobby of Kent County family court.
    2.The first gal assigned as Guardian ad litem for KHN’s children, the GAL’s husband was rewarded with a job working for the ex- husband.
    3. The next Gal was a former top aide for Mike Castle and never met or ever spoke to KHN’s children.
    4. Karen won an appeal to the Supreme Court. The appealable item on the audio recording disappeared from the recording and couldnt be argued in the Supreme Court.
    5. Her ex-husbands company bundled campaign contributions just like in the Tigani case.
    6. Former Governor Tribbet worked for KHN’s ex husband for over 20 years.
    7. Karen won her case a few weeks after she won the primary.
    8. Karen had to go against 5 attorneys working for her ex and in the end she prevailed in that case. Of course her millionaire husband has her back in court. This case has been going on since 2000 and he still stalks her.
    9. Tom Wagner is a partner with KHN’s ex in a hotel venture in Dover!
    10. All the Judges in Kent County had to recuse because they new the ex and his family! A judge had to be assigned to come up from Sussex.

    Are you beginning to connect the dots between politics, connections and family court?

  111. anon says:

    No, I’m connecting the dots between life in a small state and a paranoid wackjob who hates her ex-husband with a passion. He may be scum, but that doesn’t make her any less of a nut.

    Nor does her nuttiness make what EJ and KWS allegedly did right, I hasten to add.

    But it does make people who know her background more than slightly skeptical of her current claims.

  112. anon says:

    Are you the ex?

  113. Jason says:

    I only know Karen Hartley Nagle casually, not long after the 2008 election against Castle she helped me find help for my sisters kids. She had recently had surgeries for breast cancer and I had to wait a couple weeks to meet with her. She was friendly and helpful.

    At the time, I did not get the impression she hates her ex-husband, although it looks like she should. When asked about him, KHN dismissed her ex’s actions, only said she was used to the things he did to harass her and focused on having fun with her kids.

  114. Geezer says:

    I don’t know who “Paul” is, but until he comes up with one single fact to back up his contentions about Karen Weldin Stewart, why should I care what he thinks? I’ve heard all the allegations, Paul, about a thousand times, and not just from you. Yet NOT ONE SINGLE DOCUMENT has been produced to prove these allegations of malfeasance. Not one. I think she’s unqualified for the job. I think it’s a travesty she got elected. I would LOVE to see proof of what you allege. But all your repetitions of the allegations are not worth one single document. Please produce it. And figure out who your actual enemies are before you start pissing on people, or don’t be surprised if I think you’re just a big, flaccid dick.

    “Anon” is the same person who always spells John Flaherty’s name with a “g,” and she’s always ready to gum up the works with her “activism,” again, picking fights with people who aren’t her enemies because she can’t hold her temper. Karen Hartley Nagle ran for office for exactly the reason Dana speculated. She was “progressive” only because she took advice from this anon — and taking advice from her is all the proof you need that KHN didn’t know her ass from her elbow about politics. As the list above showed, what she knew was that if you had friends, you could influence the court.

    “The job DL did on her when she was running was filled with sexist, shitty comments and gossip. Same now. You know nothing, none of you your just taking swipes that prove how gossipy you are with no facts. Dispicable….none of you has inside knowledge.”

    This is another dead giveaway. This person is obsessed with inside knowledge.

    “I suppose you believe that Castle was a better Representative than KHN would have been, too.”

    By light years. KHN does not have the education, experience or temperament to serve in Congress. Sorry. The K Street lobbyists would have eaten her alive.

    “using degrading and sexist language and names for female politicians only serves to perpetuate female stereotypes and set back the cause for gender equality in this country and the world.”

    And demanding special treatment for women doesn’t? One reason I like this site is that it’s not dominated by common scolds who mistake their pet set of biases for “progressivism.” If you want to know why independents want nothing to do with liberalism, look no further than Political Correctness Police like anonone.

    Finally, I wouldn’t have said boo about Karen Hartley Nagle, whom I have both interviewed and spoken with off the record, if somebody hadn’t mischaracterized her as having “strong progressive views.” She was a puppet for a couple of other people with strong progressive views, but I believe she was mainly interested in getting her kids back. I understand why she did what she did, but ultimately that’s as bad for the public as what her husband allegedly did — use political prominence for personal gain. Real progressive.

    PS: Is it really a progressive ideal to take KHN’s word for everything in her child-custody case? To the best of my knowledge, her ex-husband has never given his side of the story. Or is fairness no longer something liberals value?

  115. anon says:

    Geezer: you didnt address any of the issues outlined. Its 10:00pm time for your meds.

  116. Geezer says:

    “Divorce cases and protection from abuse cases that do not involve children should absolutely be public.”

    I disagree. Too many unsubstantiated allegations are made in divorce cases for that to be a good idea. Unless, of course, your goal is to force parties to reach settlements because they don’t want those allegations made public.

  117. anon says:

    Geezer: its not about his or her side. Its about what the kids want, and I personally know what they want because they have told me.

  118. Geezer says:

    What “issues outlined”? The “issues” about the insurance commissioner’s office? That’s your proof that she and Elliot are getting “millions of dollars in kickbacks”?

    Look back at this thread, dear. It’s mainly full of your hysterical attacks on people who dare to hold opinions about Karen Hartley Nagle that don’t align with yours. Do you really think the content-free vitriol you’ve spewed here makes either her or you look better? You probably do. You’ve never been right before, why should you start now?

    You’re nothing but a loudmouth who can’t accomplish anything. Don’t blame me for your troubles.

  119. anon says:

    Geezer: Divorce and protection from abuse cases are already open. Judges have discretion to keep the kids out of the courtroom. Children are permitted to speak with the Judge in chambers. No one is trying to make children testify in open court. And yes, some cases can be closed but Judges are permitted to do that even in open hearing.

  120. Geezer says:

    “its not about his or her side. Its about what the kids want, and I personally know what they want because they have told me.”

    Bull. That’s not how Family Court decides, and it’s not how they should decide. If you want us to stop talking about her, stop yourself. As usual, you’re doing her more harm than good.

  121. Geezer says:

    “Divorce and protection from abuse cases are already open.”

    Since when?

  122. anon says:

    I never said anything about proof that Karen S. or Elliot are “getting millions of dollars in kickbacks”. Nor does the lawsuit just filed. Do you know something we dont know? Look back at the thread yourself. The comments from early this morning have been nothing but attacks on KHN. Stating facts is not a hysterical vitrol but presenting a different side.

    Nobody blames you for anything…its time for meds Geezer your over the top.

  123. So KHN is basically suing KWS for firing her from a temp job that she wasn’t legally entitled to, but that KWS gave her as a favor? THAT’S what friends are for.

    I’m surprised that this ‘open government’ advocate didn’t blow the whistle while she was working there. OK, that’s not true.

    I do, however, hope against hope that the ‘Adonishood’ e-mail exists. It could rise to the top of several year-end best-of lists.

    And my experience with people urging others to ‘take their meds’ is that they’re off their own. This way lies madness.

  124. anon says:

    Oh I thought you knew everything. Do some research! As to how the Family court decides, its precisely how they are supposed to decide, the children are the important people in the dispute.

  125. anon says:

    Family Law Commission meeting Minutes from May 12, 2011: under the current statute all criminal hearings, protection from abuse hearings, and child support hearings are open to the public. While custody visitation, guardianship, adoption termination of parental rights, dependency, neglect, paternity, and divorce/alimony property division, are held in private.

  126. Geezer says:

    OK, so I did read back. This thread wasn’t about Karen Hartley Nagle until Paul showed up and started insulting everyone who dared share opinions of this public figure that he didn’t like. Rather than debunk anything that was said, he got ugly. Then you started in and it got even uglier, as it always does once you get involved, because personal insults are your stock in trade.

    By the way, keep up the personal attacks and I’ll start getting ugly too.

  127. Geezer says:

    So in other words you were wrong. Divorces aren’t public. What that has to do with anything being debated here I don’t know.

    I do know this: I have every right to share my opinion about someone I have talked to many times who has aired her personal problems in public in an effort to get what she wanted (the fact that she’s perfectly justified in wanting it is beside the point).

    Again, what “issues” have I failed to address? This thread isn’t about Family Court, it’s about Karen Hartley Nagle’s latest lawsuit. Now how about you address the points I brought up?

  128. Geezer says:

    “As to how the Family court decides, its precisely how they are supposed to decide, the children are the important people in the dispute.”

    So what? Their opinion of whom they prefer to live with is not how the cases are decided. The judge, not the children, decides what’s best for them.

    Again, this has nothing to do with the thread.

  129. Geezer says:

    One more item on KHN: She’s exactly like Christine O’Donnell, in that she presents herself as the damsel in distress and so tends to draw protective types as her advocates. I disagree with Jason about it being a “flirty” vibe. It’s more a “help me” vibe.

  130. anon says:

    ElSom: you havent thought your comment through. Do you actually believe an attorney would put themselves on the line without proof? It was Geezer attempts to character assassinate me (as he always does) while he himself is not up to date on the law. I believe someone up the thread also made a “take your meds” statement first. Touche.

    Geezer you might want to read up on child custody law as well. It is precisely how family court judges view cases…children first. As far as your attempts to out me, I could do the same, but then I am nice person.

  131. anon says:

    Just WHO has helped Karen Hartley-Nagle, care to share. From what I have seen she helped herself and many other people.

  132. Geezer says:

    No you’re not. You’re no nicer than I am. I am aware that children come first. But what they want does not mean her ex — I assume he’s Mr. Nagle? — doesn’t have his side of the story. You are obviously highly biased, being a friend of Karen’s. And I said I was unaware divorces are public; lo and behold, they’re not, so you weren’t correct either. So what?

    I am not assassinating your character, and I am not trying to out you. It’s not my fault you don’t know how to spell “Flaherty.” I am describing what you do and why you fail. If you took my advice you would get more of what you want, but you’d apparently rather give advice than take it.

    By the way, a lawyer taking a case is not evidence that the case has merit. Cases without merit, filed by lawyers, are tossed out of court every day.

  133. Geezer says:

    WHo has helped KHN? Give me a freaking break. Ever heard of Mike Dore? You? You just keep digging deeper and deeper. Why don’t you do her a favor and drop it?

    Standing up to Family Court was not something she did because she has progressive views. It was done for personal reasons. It might have furthered progressive goals — I certainly don’t think so, but you can disagree — but it was not a progressive act.

  134. anon says:

    HaHaHa! Mike Dore was helping her, you must be kidding or as usual guessing. Karen was constantly managing the damage Mike Dore created. Standing up for injustice is always a progressive view. If we the people never challenged injustices whereever they are, we wouldnt have any rights at all.

  135. anon says:

    I think you should check out her lawyers background. Some fly by night attornies will take any case (for the money), but that is certainly not the case here.

  136. anonone says:

    In geezer’s world, sexism and calling women names that perpetuate the worst sexist stereotypes is just fine. Anyone who disagrees is part of the “political correctness police.”

    Do you feel the same about racist and homophobic names and stereotypes? Because there is no difference.

    And liking “this site [because] it’s not dominated by common scolds who mistake their pet set of biases for “progressivism” is a joke – this site is almost nothing but scolds who mistake their political party affiliation for “progressivism.”

    Almost, but not all.

  137. Geezer says:

    “sexism and calling women names that perpetuate the worst sexist stereotypes is just fine. Anyone who disagrees is part of the “political correctness police.”

    Do you feel the same about racist and homophobic names and stereotypes? Because there is no difference.”

    You just keep on proving my point. “Harpy” perpetuates “the worst sexist stereotypes”? Really? That’s the WORST sexual stereotype? You make it impossible to parody you. You’ll notice I don’t use these terms. I don’t think she’s a harpy, either — I said I think she’s a nice person. But I have no use for your high horse. You should get off it once in a while.

    I save my outrage for cases where someone actually suffers. You feeling someone else’s pain doesn’t meet the threshold.

  138. Geezer says:

    “Mike Dore was helping her, you must be kidding …Karen was constantly managing the damage Mike Dore created.”

    See, there you go with your one side of the story again. I spoke with Mike Dore many times, too. Maybe your view is he wasn’t helping her, but that’s not how he saw it.

    “Standing up for injustice is always a progressive view.”

    No, it’s not. Not when you’re standing up to it for yourself. If Karen could have won custody without helping a single other soul, she’d have taken that deal in a New York minute.

    Entering public life for your personal gain is NOT a progressive view. And your destruction of Common Cause in your effort to turn it, too, into an instrument for getting what she wanted certainly wasn’t progressive. It was selfish. I’m not going to change my mind, and I’ll keep posting as long as you do.

  139. Geezer says:

    So who is her lawyer?

  140. anon2 says:

    Shouldn’t we be examining the charges about the ICs office? Sure, there are the juicy parts about that troll Jacobsen, but then we all knew he was a creepy troll, the only surprise is that he’s waxing poetic to KHN instead of KWS, maybe that’s why KHN got fired.

    But I’m more interested in the other charges.

    Like using a temp service to funnel her buddies like KHN into the ICs office, paying them high salaries and giving them cushy jobs, all while driving the Captive Bureau into the red.

    The Captive Bureau should be in the BLACK. It should be generating a beefy revenue stream that would go directly into the General Fund, so it could be used for the good of ALL Delawareans and not just a handful of KWS best friends. old boyfriends, and campaign supporters.

  141. Her lawyer is the barrister rassler, Ron Poliquin. He’d take ANY case for publicity.

    There are thousands of attorneys in Delaware, many of them respected nationally. THIS is who KHN has aligned herself with for years and years now:

    http://delawareliberal.net//2009/09/17/neck-breaking-news-rasslin-invades-the-political-arena/

    Tell me again how only a top-flight lawyer would take this case…

  142. Geezer says:

    Anon2: Is somebody stopping you from examining this? Would you recognize the “best friends, old boyfriends, and campaign supporters” on an employee list?

  143. anon says:

    The News Journal article said KHN’s attorney is “Sidney Liebesman”.

    Finger & Slanina, LLC
    http://www.delawgroup.com/sid.php

  144. Geezer says:

    The web site says Mr. Liebesman litigates civil rights cases. I’m not sure how KHN’s set of allegations fits into that picture. Please realize that even if everything she says is true, it doesn’t necessarily mean she’ll win in court.

  145. anon says:

    I would like to see the case go all the way to jury trial. I’m sure much about Karen Weldin Stewart, Elliott Jacobson and the Department of Insurance will come out then. Who knows what is in those closets.

    I wonder if I can get a contract to sell tickets for the trial.

  146. Go to the bleeping front page of the linked lawsuit, and Ron Poliquin’s name is front and center.

    Stunt lawsuits call for lawyers who perform stunts.

  147. Let’s take a closer look at Ron Poliquin, shall we?:

    http://poliquinlaw.com/

    Please allow me to quote from Poliquin’s own business website. Guaranteed all quotes are verbatim:

    “…your employer cannot retaliate against your for raising a claim- even if you claim is mistaken.”

    “…there is a strict statute of limitations regarding FLSA claims and waiting on your rights may distinguish them.”

    Kids, rule of thumb. If your prospective lawyer can’t even afford a proofreader, don’t hire him.

  148. anon says:

    @ El Somnambulo, you’re obsessed with Ron Poliquin. According to the information out there, Poliquin represented her many years ago for an open government case they did not pursue forther and that was it. He is not KHN’s attorney.

    KHN’s attorney is Sidney Liebesman and it looks like he’s a kick-ass well-respected attorney.

  149. Thank you for defining my obsessions for me. I never knew that the spandex-clad body of ‘The Honorable’ inhabited my subconscious, but you’ve certainly set me straight. Or, maybe ‘straight’ isn’t the right word, have to have a serious discussion with my wife…

    I wasn’t really involved in all the drama surrounding KHN/Dore/anon/Flagherty/et al the first time around. Not even sure I was blogging yet at the time.

    NOW I understand why it was so polarizing.

    What I’ve learned is that what we have here is yet one more attention whore who has missed the spotlight. I don’t give a shit about her never-ending lawsuits and her never-ending manipulations.

    She chose to exploit the political process and to masquerade as a candidate solely to promote her own, and ONLY her own, situation.

    KHN is just another in a line of narcissistic would-be reality TV stars who have no place in the political process.

    What’s really bad is that some of these people actually get elected. See Stewart, Karen Weldin.

    I’m obsessed with having honest and credible people run for, and get elected to, political office. KHN and her Mindless Minions define the type of people I don’t ever want to see in political power.

  150. anon says:

    El Somnambulo, I don’t care what your obsessions are or if you are straight, although I will note that straight men don’t typically feel the need to point out that they are straight.

    You stated that KHN is polarizing, yet on this site a small group of people viciously attacked a woman who apparently did nothing to you. In fact, most said she was very nice. It’s clear the polarizing actions are not coming from KHN. Can you see that your actions could be construed as polarizing?

    I was encouraged to see someone taking a stand from DOI and maybe we could clean up that office. I wish KHN success.

  151. Geezer says:

    Viciously attacked? Words have meanings. Calling someone a “harpy” might be offensive, but it’s not “vicious,” despite anonone’s opinion. Now let’s look at the attacks on KWS.

    “They put some beast’s picture up instead of KWS!”

    “You idiots should know better than to doubt anything negative coming out about Karen Weldin Stewart and her right hand man Jacobson who run the corrupt cesspool DOI strictly to enrich themselves and the other cronies.”

    An attack on her looks, followed by an unsubstantiated one on her alleged theft of funds.

    This isn’t about attacks on women, it’s about attacks on Karen Hartley Nagle, and a couple of her supporters — one in particular — refusing to allow anyone else to voice an opinion.

    The most vicious attacks on this thread have come from “anon,” and they were supposedly “defending” KHN by attacking anyone who doesn’t share anon’s high opinion of her.

    Can’t say I’m surprised. Discord follows wherever anon pitches her tent.

  152. DelawareFlyOnTheWall says:

    Has anyone read the complaint yet with all of the speculaton, defense, chatter, etc.? It is here: http://www.delawareonline.com/assets/pdf/BL178464823.PDF

  153. jason330 says:

    Everybody is just trying to muddle through this mess of a world as best they can and everybody is going to make mistakes. I started out laughing at all of this, but reading that makes me sad for everyone involved.

  154. Geezer says:

    I’m no lawyer but I’ve had to read hundreds of legal filings over the years. This one is, as DFOTW notes, full of allegations that have no bearing on the case as presented. Unless she’s claiming that firing her was part of a set-up so Jacobson would have leverage over her for sexual predation purposes, I don’t see where any of that is pertinent to the case. Even if this is all true, unless she has something in writing she’s not going to get very far.

    There is, however, one important reason to include all these extraneous allegations: Court filings are protected from libel charges. That is, the suit can allege that KWS and EJ were doing all sorts of illegal and unethical things, and even if KHN were lying, the allegations can be quoted without a media outlet worrying about being sued for reporting them.

    In short, this lawsuit reads more like payback than an effort to regain a job that, allegations aside, she did not actually have. Even if KHN was told that her employment through Kelly was a scam, she still was hired through Kelly, which is — it’s right there in its name — a provider of temporary jobs. As such, I’m pretty sure normal firing procedures do not apply. And — I’m pretty sure this is a salient point — she had been working there, according to the lawsuit, for TWO WEEKS. Even as a full-time employee, she would have been on probation. Again, I’m pretty sure normal job protections would not apply.

    As I said, I’m no lawyer, but this reads more like an attempt to uncover unethical behavior at the IC office than a legitimate lawsuit.

    If you want to read a “progressive” motive into it, though, you’re going to have to explain why KHN waited 17 months after the fact to make it public.

  155. KHN wasn’t a victim of wrongdoing, she was a co-conspirator–if her own brief is to be believed.

    The brief claimed that the IC hired her through a temp agency and PROMISED HER A MERIT SYSTEM APPOINTMENT ONCE THE HIRING FREEZE WAS LIFTED:

    “4. At the time Plaintiff agreed to work at DOI, she was promised to be employed for the term of Stewart’s tenure as Insurance Commissioner and to be converted to a merit employee (employed by the State of Delaware) as soon as the hiring freeze was lifted.”

    By the plaintiff’s own admission, she took several days, weeks off, really, to prepare and to represent herself, pro se, in several court proceedings. The brief maintains that this led to her unfair firing.

    I don’t know about you, but if I hire through a temp agency, it would mean that I need someone temporarily, and the temp is of no value to me if they don’t show up on a consistent basis.

    Lest anyone think that I’m defending Stewart and/or Jacobson, let me just point out that, if true, the alleged promise that they made to KHN is Delaware Way malfeasance. Someone, the AG, the Auditor, maybe the Feds, should investigate whether any other connected cronies were hired through temp services in violation of the hiring freeze. It would be delicious irony if this, of all things, brings down the boiler-room operation known as the Office of the Insurance Commissioner.

    But spare me any tears for the allegedly-wronged Karen Harpy-Nagle. She knowingly, by her own admission, conspired in a scheme to get herself a cushy Merit System job to which she was not entitled.

    Memo to KHN: If you ever try this scheme again, wait until you actually get the Merit System job before you stop showing up for work.

  156. KHNvictim says:

    I have first hand experience with KHN and she is a joke. Even when she did have custody of her children she never took care of them. Over the years she has exploited men for their money. In essence she is a classy prostitute. She has over and over again used the legal system to get what she wants. If anyone “dares” to go against her she threatens them with a lawsuit or to have them arrested. Everyone is wasting their time on a woman who just wants attention and money. It would be better for everyone to drop it and sweep it under the carpet for it is an out of this world idea that she could win this. The woman is too unstable to ever succeed in these actions.

  157. Belinsky says:

    Liebesman has bounced around like a pinball. She won’t pay him either.

  158. JenniK says:

    “KHNvictim” sounds like another sock puppet post of Elliott Jacobson’s. That bullshit description of Karen Hartley Nagle applies totally to the fake lying insurance commissioner, too, especially the “classy prostitute” part although “classy” isn’t the right word. Except KWS doesn’t have any kids. Good thing since she hates them.

  159. DelawareFlyOnTheWall says:

    JenniK, KHNvictim tells it like it is. It would seem the users of this website are so hellbent on bashing the DOI you all overlook the serious transgressions of KHN. KHN has always blamed others for her own mistakes and continually claims she is the victim by others. Conversely, she has a long list of victims of those who were once close to her. It is sad but true. Please read the complaint by KHN. I listed the link earlier around post 150 something. Read it and you will find it is a way to get inside the head of the woman and learn about whats going on up in there.

  160. JenniK says:

    @ DelawareFlyOnTheWall: How many more aliases are you going to come up with? Give it a rest. Your bitch KWS has had it and that’s the truth.

  161. DelawareFlyOnTheWall says:

    Sorry about your luck! Your shallowness precedes your intuitive intelligence! Dont bother to the read the entire complaint it would cause you a migrane!

  162. Joanne says:

    Can someone do some fact checking for anon please?

    Whether this is KHN or one of her blind followers, there always seems to be some kernel of truth that otherwise gets morphed into a tragic, farfetched untruth.

    In fact, this kind of relentless manipulation of facts does not prove any conspiracy between politics, the Family Court, or anything else. It more resembles the unfortunate chaos of disturbed and ill informed minds.

    Speaking of fact checking, did it occur to anyone (KHN supporter or not) to inquire as to how she scored the special gig with the Insurance Commissioner’s Office? I mean – the professional resume that she has made public doesn’t exactly support credentials that one might expect in such a position. Anyone with any experience with this woman could easily have predicted that this situation would end up in litigation. It’s the only kind of plan she is capable of executing.

    Let’s face it: at 49 years old, her only talent has an expiration date, so she is going to have to find something else to live off of.