My response to a recent letter from my ex's attorney

David

Attorney at Law

Cincinnati

October 21, 2013

Beth

Cincinnati, OH 45202

Dear Ms. S,

I am writing in response to your October 17, 2013 letter.  I deny your unfounded allegations.

I have vented and I readily admit that I have no respect for Raymond Lambert.  I also understand that I am not alone. 

Ms. Hanna’s promotion is between her and her board.  My understanding that her relationship with Mr. Lambert was consensual and of mutual benefit to both of them.  Again, whether or not that had anything to do with her promotion is board function.   I do have my opinion on this matter.  

Early on I offered complete confidentiality and a non-disclosure agreement.  Your client rejected this.  You drafted the language in the divorce decree.

However, before pursuing frivolous litigation, I would suggest that you review the timeline between her leaving the family home, the subsequent board meeting, executive session and her subsequent purchase of furniture for Mr. Lambert, and the Ohio Ethic regulations.  I believe she moved out on June 5, 2012.  The board meeting and her performance were led  by Raymond Lambert on June 29^th.  On July 9^th she purchased a $400 gift to Mr. Lambert and had it delivered to his home.  I believe you have a copy of the receipt for the furniture in your divorce file that your client admitted to purchasing.

I would suggest to you that the Ohio Ethics law may also be applicable in this matter.  It is my understanding that this applies to school officials. 

(D) No public official or employee shall use or authorize the use of the authority or influence of office or employment to secure anything of value or the promise or offer of anything of value that is of such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence upon the public official or employee with respect to that person's duties.
(E) No public official or employee shall solicit or accept anything of value that is of such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence upon the public official or employee with respect to that person's duties.
(F) No person shall promise or give to a public official or employee anything of value that is of such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence upon the public official or employee with respect to that person's duties.

II. Conflict of Interest

Violations of R.C. sections 102.03, 102.04 and 102.07 are first-degree misdemeanor criminal offenses, punishable by a fine of up to $1000 and/or a maximum of 6 months in jail. See R.C. sections 102.99(B); 2929.21.

As you implied in your letter, professional licenses are valuable.

I also thought this was interesting:
Adultery Article 134 UCMJ
Elements.
(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;
(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and
(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Retired members of the uniformed services who are entitled to retirement pay are also subject to the UCMJ, as are retired reservists who are receiving hospital care in the VA system

How to file a complaint

http://www.daig.pentagon.mil/File_Ccc.aspx

I also understand that the treasurer of Connections Academy is currently under indictment.

If there is an issue with Ms. Hanna’s employment, I would suggest that it may be related to the recent report card of Connections Academy.  I believe this is accurate:

Standards met	15
Standards possible	24
Enrollment	3,123
Letter grades
Standards met	D
Performance index	C
Value added (explained below)	F
Gifted student value added	NR
Disabled student value added	F
Lower 20% value added	D
AMO	F
4-year graduation rate	F
5-year graduation rate	F

Exercising my First Amendment Rights, I have shared information with friends, neighbors, and colleagues .  One of which was a neighbor and ex-employee of Connections Academy.  I frankly was surprised on how much he disliked (a gross understatement) Ray Lambert and Marie Hanna.  His health has not been good and he believes that Marie and Ray may have made disparaging remarks about him, interfering with his employment prospects.   He was not at all surprised about their relationship.  I think he indicated that they both should be fired.  I think he is still in contact with Connections Academy employees.  You might ask Ms. Hanna if any of her employees have talked to any ex-employees.  I also have a private blog which I find therapeutic.  It deals with betrayal, ethics, honor, and charter schools.  I doubt that Ms. Hanna, Mr. Lambert or Connections Academy would enjoy reading it. 

I understand that Thomas XXXX and David XXXXX have shared information about their mother with friends.  I have advised them that ethics are critical in a business environment.   As Ms. Hanna has told me in the past, Cincinnati can be a small town.  

I presume that you client will stipulate that the United States Constitution applies to any threatened litigation.  I understand that Ms. Hanna has received a substantial settlement in the divorce and is more than capable of prosecuting a frivolous lawsuit.  Please be advised that I am equally prepared to vigorously defend myself, including appropriate counter claims, against unfounded allegations. 

Your allegation that I have somehow violated Federal Communications laws is equally unfounded.  I have never had access to Ms. Hanna’s passwords, however, I do have access to my computer, which she shared, my internet, and my printer.  At the time she was married, careless, vehemently denied any inappropriate relationship with Mr. Lambert and indicated she was not seeking a divorce.

Please complete your investigation before making any other unfounded allegations.  I would suggest that you start with the Connections Academy staff.  If, for consideration, your client wants to revisit a non-disclosure agreement, please let me know.

I appreciate your attention to this matter.

Sincerely

David