Outrage

Greg reports that Steve Chapman is planning to continue his lawsuit against Black Velvet Bruce Lee.

My understanding is that Chapman never withdrew from the campaign, he just forgot to file for the convention.  Now this?

Steve is on the verge of going down as the worst candidate in Virginia history.  I wonder if Corey Stewart or Bob Fitzsimmonds realize how much this is hurting their reputations as well?

Comments

[James Young]

Apparently, there is some dispute over at Virginia Centrist.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11256048&postID=114874228093408089

[AWCheney]

There is no question that this is going to wash over anyone who is closely associated with Chapman, not just FitzSimmonds and Stewart.

[James Young]

And once again, Black Velvet Bruce Lee ... er, Anke W. Cheney cranks up the smear machine!

What a surprise.

[James Young]

One question that I have is, how do you explain BVBL's disappearance and removal of all of his/her posts, Ben? At least one explanation --- perhaps not accurate, nor even the best one --- COULD be fear of liability.

[Russell Harrison]

BVBL was occasionally harsh, but I don't think he has ever been proven wrong. Suing people to prevent them from criticizing a candidate for public office is not just wrong, it is un-American. Chapman isn't just attacking BVBL, he's attacking free-speech. We need to remember who is helping him.

[AWCheney]

I always post under my own name, as Jimmy boy is quite aware. I don't know who BVBL might be, but I say more power to him...or her!!!

[Mitch Cumstein]

I raise my glass to BVBL. His was never a smear campaign, it was a quest for truth about a candidate that has been anything but truthful. Good work, my friend. You will be missed.

As for Bob and Corey, folks shouldn't forget about this. Supporting Chapman, who is obviously a very flawed and unqualified candidate, should indicate to all voters that they are either simply out for themselves above the good of the citizens or are just cosmically stupid. Regardless of which, this should make voters think twice before supporting either of them in the future.

re original query in post: I've always assumed tht Fitzsimmonds and Stewart and a few others in that little, internally self-validating clique have absolutely no concern about their reputations. You couldn't begin to explain half the things they do if they were at all interested in what most people thought of them. there's some kind of insulating bubble that puts people like that so out of touch. The only time they ever get any sort of reality check is when they get slammed in an election or get flummoxed by more adroit politicians (and that doesn't seem to take much). But neither of them has to cope with election losses until next year. It probably still seems like a long way off so there's plenty of time to look silly before the reckoning.

[James Young]

That's a good point, AWCheney; so far as I am aware, you DO always post under your own name. I guess the tone of the BVBL website, its details and apparent activity as an opposition research operation, and your participation in the charges brought against Chapman causes me to wonder whether you were feeding information garnered during your stint as Harry's primary campaign manager, or since, to its owner/posters. Were you?

As for your post, Russ, I wouldn't throw the phrase "un-American" around lightly. Furthermore, I dispute your notion that Chapman is "Suing people to prevent them from criticizing a candidate for public office," or threatening such a suit. Presumably, if suit is filed, it will be upon a cognizable and tenable cause of action for libel and/or slander. That is not "Suing people to prevent them from criticizing a candidate for public office."

[James Young]

BTW, Ben, if Chapman wins his suit, does he (as well as those you attack here) get an apology from you? I don't know the merits, but victory is the ultimate revenge.

[Not Jack Herrity]

James, I'm confused. You talk often of smear campaigns and your favorite people, those of us who post "anonymously."

Since you are so quick to defend Steve Chapman, can you provide evidence that the charges against him are false or reckless?

I know, I know, I'm beneath your response threshold. But I figured maybe you had a policy change since you responded last week to a well-written post by Jaded JD, a fellow anonymous blogger.

NJH

[James Young]

And BTW, AWCheney/Crone/OWW, it's never "Jimmy." That's my ten-year-old son, and notwithstanding his ability to speak at your level (actually, considerably above it), he doesn't post here. "Jim" or "James" is appropriate for my friends.

You may address me as "Mr. Young."

[James Young]

NJH, have you actually read my posts? As usual with my critics, you utterly misrepresent what I have said.

I've have NEVER been "quick to defend Steve Chapman." I have, on the other hand, been quick to attack people who make wild and belittling charges anonymously. BVBL's disappearance and removal of his posts perhaps demonstrates that he/she fears liability.

Anke- Call him Willie. He hates that.

[Riley, Not O'Reilly]

I understand that Bob FitzSimmonds has already signed on with Jackson Miller.

That's bad news for Jackson. Jackson needs to pray that Corey Stewart doesn't get on board too or he's in trouble.

[Mitch Cumstein]

James:

I don't think that BVBL folded up the tent because "he/she fears liability." I think it's pretty clear that Chapman has absolutely no case against the blog or its author(s). No, I think BVBL simply accomplished his/her goal of exposing the hard, cold truth about Chapman. And now that Chapman's campaign is finished, so is BVBL's task.

I don't think we'll ever know the whole story on the various issues that BVBL brought to light regarding Chapman. But, hopefully, this is a cautionary tale for anyone seeking public office: Don't misrepresent yourself or your accomplishments. Enterprising bloggers are out there to get to the bottom of it all.

[Not Jack Herrity]

James - er - Mr. Young - I have read your posts. That's my point. I don't think the charges are so wild. Say what you want about BVBL being an attack dog, but can you actually refute what he says? Usually when you want to file a defamation case, you want to make sure the facts are out there first. Chapman and his "Counsleors" have made no effort to do that.

Furthermore, you have to admit that the "Faisal & Gill" thing is a tad sketchy. From all indications, they are almost anonymous themselves. I tried tracking these guys down and it appears the firm either does not exist or is so new that no one yet knows about them. Faisal Gill was a Bush appointee who was suspended from his DHS job over his failure to disclose his connections with the company of convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi.

Anonymous or not, when someone gives you enough detail you have to respond to the substance of their claims. There is nothing illegal about being anonymous.

NJH

[anon]

Mr. Harrison- Plain and simple BVBL charged that Chapman did not graduate high school (not true-- which = possible slander). That Chapman did not have a contract with Arlington National Cemetery (not true--which= possible slander) That Chapman lives in Dale City--not in the 50th (not true--possible slander)...etc. When you put out information in a public forum with the intent on harming a person or their reputation then it is most likely slander and there's a lot of case law on point. I am sure the legal counsel that Chapman has is well equip to handle this case and are no match for Greg, BVBL, or Anke which all most likely will be part of this legal case. I hope they all have lawyers on speed dial. Lesson the of day--Actions have consequences and the politics of personal destruction will not be tolerated.

[Russell Harrison]

James,

I don't use the term "un-American" lightly, and didn't in this case. In this country we debate our opponents. We don't (or at least shouldn't) bludgeon them into silence through the courts. If BVBL lied, Chapman should provide evidence to show it. He hasn't. His only response has been to threaten through a lawyer. That's not how Democracies work. Doing so is un-American.

[AWCheney]

"Anke- Call him Willie. He hates that."

Anon.4:01PM, I'd prefer to call him nothing, but he keeps calling me out...and he does so remind me of a petulant child.

"Faisal Gill was a Bush appointee who was suspended from his DHS job over his failure to disclose his connections with the company of convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi."

NJH, would that be this company?:

JUNN06_05 MAR-JAC Poultry Inc. - P.O.Box 1017 - Gainesville - GA - 30503 Poultry Company - Gainesville GA 5/6/2005 1500 1500 (from Chapman's SBE financial disclosure report)

I understand that this company had been under investigation by Homeland Security for several years at the time that this contribution was made.

[AWCheney]

I am sure the legal counsel that Chapman has is well equip to handle this case and are no match for Greg, BVBL, or Anke which all most likely will be part of this legal case. I hope they all have lawyers on speed dial."

Since I am in such good company, I'm sure they won't mind if I borrow their rallying cry...bite me!...and bring it on.

[Not Jack Herrity]

Anke: That is one company Alamoudi was associated with. There are several. That company had more problems with immigration violations than homeland security.

Anon 7:04 - If the allegations are not true, prove it. If no one provides the evidence, there is no malice because these are all verifiable allegations. Either he graduated or he didn't, and either he had the Arlington contract or he didn't. This is not he said-she said wife beating stuff, it can all be verified factually. If any of this stuff were untrue, a good lawyer would provide the documentation in his "bully" letter. Who knows, maybe Young will enter as counsel and show us all up.

NJH

[AWCheney]

NJH,

"Affidavit traces financial probe of poultry firm

By REBECCA CARR
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
WASHINGTON -- A newly released court document sheds light on the link
between a Georgia poultry company and a web of Virginia companies and
nonprofits suspected of supporting radical Islamic terrorists.

Mar-Jac Poultry, a large poultry processor in Gainesville, allegedly
transferred millions of dollars to the businesses and charities in a
suspicious manner, according to an affidavit filed by David Kane, a
federal investigator with the Department of Homeland Security's
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, in federal court in the
Eastern District of Virginia."

Google MARJAC-Poultry, Inc., Investigations and you'll find lots more.

[Not Jack Herrity]

I stand corrected - just proves I'm not up on my terrorism. :)

Last I heard they had been raided for having a bunch of illegal workers at one of their factories.

NJH

[James Young]

Ben, this is just delicious! Like I said, NJH, I don't KNOW the merits, but IF Chapman's threatened suit succeeds, there are many who will owe him an apology. And it's nonsensical to suggest, IF that happenstance occurs, that it is somehow "un-American" for someone to pursue a meritorious lawsuit.

As for AWCheney/Crone/OWW's posts, it is fascinating to read them and realize that, just like the moonbat Left, she has nothing to offer but hatred.

[AWCheney]

Petulant again Jimmy? Actually, the rest of us are talking facts. I haven't figured out WHAT you're talking about, within the realm of reason that is.

[Mitch Cumstein]

It is intersting, Anke. While BVBL did a commendable job in tracking down verifiable facts about Chapman's past, Jim offers nothing. He simply launches into his typical ad hominem attacks, offering to us that the statements can't be true because BVBL is obviously such a bad person. Sad, really.

[Not Jack Herrity]

Okay, Mr. Young, now you are back to "IF" his lawsuit succeeds. But you have steadfastly refused to discuss with me the standard of review that such a lawsuit requires in order to succeed. It is nearly impossible for a public official to succeed in this type of lawsuit without first establishing:
1. That BVBL's facts are wrong.
2. That BVBL "recklessly" published his manifesto despite knowing the facts were wrong.

The reckless bar is a very high bar to meet, especially when it involves protected political speech, which is what BVBL's blog qualifies as. Lawsuits just don't meet this standard. The reason attorneys pursue them is to force unwitting bloggers to expend legal fees defending themselves.

You've also ducked invitations to weigh in on the legitimacy of "Gill & Faisal," a firm whose very existence has been in doubt for several reasons, including that they seem to "share" space with a Limited Liability Corporation and misspelled several words on their letterhead, including "Counselor." They also were very careful not to call themselves "attorneys" at law.

Mr. Young, which is it? If you think the lawsuit will succeed, why? We've heard from several attorneys (including myself) who think this is bogus, but you seem to think there is some merit to it, so I'm trying to figure out what your arguments are.

NJH

[James Young]

NJH says that I have "steadfastly refused to discuss with me the standard of review that such a lawsuit requires in order to succeed." You're absolutely right, NJH. I am guilty. The blogosphere is a singularly lousy place to discuss "standard[s] of review," particularly with those whose legal credentials are unknown.

[James Young]

Let me rephrase "whose legal credentials are unknown." What I should have said was "those who hide their identities, and hence, their legal credentials, or lack thereof." Unless you're willing to put your name on it, NJH, spare us your pretensions. I scrupulously have avoided discussions of the merits, or the legal standards, as both are outside of my areas of knowledge and expertise. It seems to me that most responsible course (one that you and most commenters don't take) is to recognize that such a lawsuit --- like virtually any lawsuit --- MIGHT succeed. Hence, I'm not "back to 'IF' his lawsuit succeeds"; "'If' his lawsuit succeeds" is where I have ALWAYS been, unlike those who irresponsibly and with already-established hostility towards Chapman assert in ignorance that it MUST fail. I merely noted that, if it does succeed, many commentators in the blogosphere will have to decide how they'd like their crow prepared.

As for you, Mitch and AWCheney/Crone/OWW, I'm hardly surprised that two who offer little but bile and hatred (one, while hiding his identity and lack of credibility; the other, who ham-handedly lied about her complicity in bringing criminal charges against an opposing candidate) would find credibility in a website whose owner, likewise, offered little but innuendo and hatred, and now has disappeared into the ether, possibly out of fear of liability.

[Not Jack Herrity]

That's okay, Mr. Young. Those of us who know what we are talking about will fill that void with the facts.

The lawsuit has no chance of succeeding. The bar is set too high. NYT made sure of that.

BTW, the Blogosphere is a poor place for your one-man crusade against anonymity. But your venomous outraged attacks sure are fun. Do you treat your co-workers this way too?

NJH

[James Young]

That's very impressive, NJH. Your credentials simply floor me. Obviously, you know much more about the subject than virtually anyone else, and back that up by putting your reputation on the line.

Actually, I suppose your anonymity is why you feel so free to misrepresent what others have actually said.

[Not Jack Herrity]

This is not about credentials, Mr. Young. It's about the free exchange of information and ideas. You don't need my credentials and I don't need yours. Tell me where my analysis is wrong.

NJH

[AWCheney]

I'm sure he can't NJH, which is why the bluster. Maybe a first year law student could chime in and offer an opinion from his perspective? By the way Jimmy...what the devil is OWW? Are your "slurs" (to use YOUR word) now coming in code?

[James Young]

You're right, NJH: what it's about is facts. But then, I didn't claim --- as you did --- to possess a credential to bolster my analysis while hiding my identity, thereby making that credential utterly unverifiable.

One of the differences between you and I is that I concede that I don't have all of the facts, and therefore has scrupulously avoided discussion of other than the tone of and motivation behind the attacks upon Chapman, while you make all manner of claims about the merits of his legal case and his counsel while utterly lacking complete information. You (and your "Amen" chorus, the sleazy AWCheney) are constantly on the attack, yet you know only what you read in the blogosphere (well, OK, AWCheney obviously thinks she knows whatever sleaze she helped dig up as Harry's primary campaign manager in 2005). Which brings me to an interesting question: Why would individuals would spend so much of their time investigating and attacking Chapman? Sounds like a lot of resources (even in this day of cheap, easy, and frequently inaccurate Internet research) to expend to destroy a 28-year-old man whose main offense for many seems to be that he dared to challenge (and embarrassed, with 45% of the primary vote) an 80-year-old incumbent who allowed himself to be rolled on an unnecessary tax increase by a Governor of the opposing party. It has all of the hallmarks of a well-organized and well-funded opposition research operation.

[James Young]

As for AWCheney/Crone/OWW/OAB, if you don't like name-calling, I would suggest that you refrain from it. To put it in terms someone as childish as you would understand, you started it.

[AWCheney]

"Why would individuals would spend so much of their time investigating and attacking Chapman?"

Would it be, perhaps, because we consider him to be an embarrassment to a Party, to which we've devoted a considerable portion of our lives, already has enough problems?

[AWCheney]

Now, what does OAB mean?...and you still haven't explained OWW. I think the boy has lost it...he's speaking in tongues.

[Not Jack Herrity]

Again, Mr. Young, credentials mean nothing to this argument. Nor does anonymity. This forum is about the exchange of ideas, not a contest to see whose diploma is larger. If you hate anonymity, why do you continue to post in forums where anonymity is permitted and even encouraged?

I have made a claim, and your refusal to put forward your own point of view essentially concedes the issue. You attack Anke and me without once addressing the issues, then have the gall to begin calling her names? What a gentleman you are.

NJH

[James Young]

NJH, you have explicitly made quite clear your beliefs on the subject of credentials and anonymity. You just don't get it, do you? You are perfectly entitled to remain anonymous. Sadly, there is little that I can do about it. But if --- as you did --- you choose to remain anonymous, don't make some elaborate and pretentious claim about possessing a credential which --- because of your anonymity --- remains unverifiable.

As for the "calling her names," I only responded in kind. Perhaps you can direct a little of your righteous indignation even-handedly, rather than in service of your position.

[Not Larry Sabato]

I'm 99% sure about who NJH is. If I am correct, than I can verify his impressive legal credentials.

[AWCheney]

Now, what names have I called you...Jimmy? It is a form of your name. You've been calling me "names," in a genuine attempt to be hurtful, for about a year now. I think I have a little latitude here.

BTW Jimmy, you can stop trying to be hurtful...it just makes you look like a cad, and worse. You have no idea how thick-skinned I can be, so it's really not having the desired effect. I still want to know what OWW and OAB is supposed to mean. ;-)

[James Young]

Ben, he still maintains anonymity. My point is that someone who maintains anonymity is not legitimately entitled to lay claim to a credential unless he sheds that anonymity so that it is verifiable. It's a question of responsibility.

AWCheney, you apparently don't know the difference between "thick-skinned" and "thick-headed." And, of course, you use "a form of [my] name" --- one that I don't use, BTW --- to belittle. You reap what you sow. If you don't like it, stop.

But there you go again! Just like you did with the charges filed against Chapman: disclaiming responsibility while at the same time admitting it! You're a great one for speaking out of both sides of your mouth, AWCheney/Crone/OWW/OAB.

And "trying to be hurtful"!?!?! There you go again, AWCheney/Crone/OWW/OAB, confusing an effort to hold you responsible for your despicable and dishonest behavior as Harry's primary campaign manager with someone "trying to be hurtful," and in the process, belittling that effort. What arrogance!

[AWCheney]

He's still speaking in tongues and won't translate. Oh well.