(**NOTE: I apologize for the misspelling of “Implications” in my previous headlines, admittedly my spelling and grammar are poor, and spell check doesn’t always catch my errors. I hope that any spelling or grammar mistakes I make in my stories won’t stop you from reading the stories which are intended to get at the truth. Thank you to those that brought the error in my ways to my attention.)
The best place to start, as it is in any case, is at the beginning of course. To be clear, this case began with this EEOC complaint by Bolton alleging gender discrimination in the local office of the United States Attorney General. The complaint evolved to where we are today in a civil litigation by Bolton against her previous employer, United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and our Government.
There are a number of key elements in Bolton’s complaint, but one that may stand out for some of you is the remedies she sought in here complaint:
I personally make note of the fact that her remedies do not include any type of monetary remedies for herself, or a specific demand for equal pay. The remedies she sought in her EEOC complaint appear to be an effort at establishing some type of structure and equality in the Office.
I can’t of course get into Bolton’s mind and determine if her end goal was monetary in nature rather than a legitimate concern for gender equality, but the evidence as far as the EEOC complaint is concerned tends to support a desire to clean-up the “good ol boy” control of the office.
Her remedies also requests a response to her FOIA regarding salary information for the office in which she worked. If you have ever done an US Government FOIA request you would know that depending upon the case it may take years to obtain a response from the Government. As we will see later her FOIA request was eventually honored in typical Government fashion and her FOIA request, among other things it would appear, lead to USA Michael Ormsby accusing Bolton of a number of serious Felony Crimes similar to those alleged against Hillary Clinton.
One of the things we all should consider when formulating an opinion regarding the Bolton case is that Bolton was NOT the only individual making an EEOC compliant, there were others alleging the same conduct by other gals in the office. If this case isn’t settled, which there is a high probability of, I’m sure those facts will be brought out in depositions and at trial.
I always enjoy reading the comments section of the SR when stories like the Bolton case become public. I have the advantage of knowing who all the people making comments are and in most cases involving criminal justice issues exactly what information has been provided to the SR, so I het a kick out of some of the comments made by people who know absolutely nothing about the case.
One of the things I like to do with my stories is attempt to get input from both Conservative and Liberal viewpoints, in this case especially gals. The dynamics of this case are interesting, at least in my opinion, since we have a Obama appointed local US Attorney accused of gender discrimination at a time when gender discrimination is a hot topic, we have a Presidential Candidate being scrutinized by the FBI for National Security Breaches, we have a former local US Attorney appointed during the Bush Administration during who’s time the “good ol boy network” is alleged to have been an issue, and a Conservative Spokane County Prosecutor who’s name comes up in the lawsuit. So who better to reach out to than the Conservative Voice of the Spokesman Review, Sue Lani Madsen?
As fate would have it however my poor spelling did me in!
The more I get into this case the more interesting it becomes and this is Part One of a series.