« Yawn.... | Main | 20,000 Comments!!!! »


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Chapman Lawsuit Continues:


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Eh, I think they're not going to comment on the case because it has nothing to do with them. Perhaps their silence is their own condemnation of it? Any number of explanations, but just because they don't talk about a lawsuit against a blog doesn't mean that they're all for it.

Not Larry Sabato

I disagree. I worked for Chap 5 years ago, and people still blame him for stuff I do. Steve worked for Corey, and the Fitz was a big backer of Steve's. They both owe us their opinions.


It may be particulary hard to prove any malicious intent by Greg L. He claims to have worked on Chapman's behalf in the campaign to unseat Harry Parrish. I wasn't there, so I don't know if he did or not, but presuming he can prove that he was a strong supporter...

Of course, Chapman could have ended all of this long ago, before it went mainstream, and when it was still confined to the few dozen people who read blogs regularly in PWC. He could have shown his diploma, contract, etc. to his one-time supporter Greg L. (or even a rival blog). If he'd have done that on day one, and told them to cease & desist (and politely chide them to blow it out their collective asses), he would have emerged the winner - on more fronts than just one.

Instead, he has emerged a goofball. Perhaps a wrongly accused goofball, but a goofball nonetheless.

Perry Masonary

It may be ridiculous from a political standpoint, but the case should probably proceed. There is very little case law to date on blogs and libel, but this is an issue that bloggers must come to grips with -- even political blogs where actual malice is assumed difficult.

Vincent Harris

This is ridiculous.

Bob, and Corey should both...I agree.

Earl Hickey


While I respect your disagreement with BVBL's "style" I have seen some posts here authored by you, which come pretty close to BVBL's "style" (the match.com profiles come to mind). What was his "style"? Important, well-documented stories about a candidate, who in your own words, "came within a few percentage points..." of winning. Say what you want about BVBL, he did the residents of the 50th a great service. His humor was cutting and he pulled no punches, but he did good work. The MSM failed in their duty to inform the electorate. BVBL picked up the slack, Greg continues the fight. That Chapman would try to run for office with all of the crap he had in his knapsack insulted every voter in the 50th. The suit focuses on 2 statements:

1) Chapman lost his contract to clean gravestones at Arlington.

2) Chapman dropped out of highschool, and there is no known record of his completing,

The validity of these two statements will be established in court (to Chapmans chagrin I suspect). However, BVBL broke several more stories, all equally supported with documentation found in the public record. Have we forgotten about these? Lawsuits AGAINST Chapman, handing out sample ballots, lack of grammer in public press-releases (which would support the drop-out theory IMHO).

Greg and BVBL are blogger-heros in my book. I too call on Bob and Corey to denounce this, but they won't. They symbolize everything that is wrong with the party. If only we had more Jackson Millers....


Chapman is a pro-life hero and t pray's that he will be a candidate, again. He sure ruffles the feathers of the liberals and the RINOS. That is proof that he is on to something good.

NOVA Scout

Stewart and Fitzsimmonds have their own well-known shortcomings. However, just becaue they seemed willing to set the bar low at one time and support Chapman doesn't mean they have any responsibility for opining on this lawsuit one way or the other. Fitzsimmonds seems to have some connection to Faisal Gill, the name partner in Chapman's lawyer's firm, but that doesn't mean he engineered the suit. If he did, that's just another reason for him to lose yet again in his quest for public office, a quest that seems to have gotten off to a not very resounding, very premature start. This is all very low level nonsense that is fairly far away from the only real political issue - how do candidates use the political process to provide Virginians with quality government services.

Greg Letiecq

I would be very surprised if Bob Fitzsimmonds had anything to do with the filing of the lawsuit. I consider Bob a friend, and have contributed to his campaign for the Senate as well as attending his campaign kickoff. Bob would have far more sense than to encourage frivolous lawsuits against his own supporters and campaign contributors.

So unless you have some evidence to support it, hold back on any theories like this. I think it's a really weak theory, and I'm kinda speaking from the inside of this situation.

Not Larry Sabato

Greg, here's my problem with you. I never said Bob had anything to do with filing the suit. You basically just took a non-existant comment and responded to it.

I said he has close ties to Chapman and should denounce it.

Greg Letiecq

I was responding to NOVAScout. I should have been more specific.

As far as Bob denouncing Steve, that would be personally satisfying to me but I'm not going to try to pressure him into it.

Russell Harrison

I'm with Not on this one (we are on a first name basis). Fitzsimmonds and Stewart made Chapman. Chapman is now attacking some of our best and most important activists through a lawsuit that is an affront to the Constitution and to the freedoms that Republicans are supposed to support.

Fitzsimmonds and Stewart need to publicly tell Chapman to stop, or at least repudiate his lawsuit. They put Chapman in a position where he could do this kind of damage - they have a responsibility to the party to get him to stop.

James Young

At the risk of being accused of endorsing NoVA Scout's gratuitous attacks, he correctly notes that they don't "have any responsibility for opining on this lawsuit one way or the other."

As for Russell's comment, I would ask this: What is it that you fear from having this matter fully litigated? That the idiocy of your statement that these are "some of our best and most important activists" might be demonstrated? How is it, after all, that someone like BVBL, who cowers in anonymity, is one "of our best and most important activists"? Do you know something that the rest of us don't? If so, unmask him or her!

And Ben, I've never blamed Chap! for the stuff that you do.

Russell Harrison


This is what I fear:

I fear having to ask permission from the courts to speak my mind. I fear living in a country where reasonable people don’t bother speaking up because they are afraid of a lawsuit. I fear the intimidation Chapman’s lawsuit was designed to instill in people will become the norm. I fear living in a community where political activist stay at home because they don’t want to bankrupt their families by annoying the wrong people.

Neither Greg nor BVBL did anything wrong. While rude and occasionally over the top, they were just exercising their first amendment rights. By suing them, Chapman is trying to steal those rights. I fear he has succeeded.

That’s what I fear – and so should you.

James Young

No, Russell, what you fear, and what you should fear, is being held liable for irresponsible attacks. If Chapman's lawsuit has merit --- I've admitted repeatedly that I don't know whether it does, which you, too, should admit --- then it's not about "ask[ing] permission from the courts to speak [your] mind." It's about being held responsible if you smear someone. The simply fact is that you don't know whether Greg and BVBL "did anyting wrong." If they did, they should be held liable. If they didn't, and can back up their claims, then Chapman's lawsuit will promptly be dismissed.

James Young

And BTW, Russell, according to some, I've said some pretty outrageous things. Then again, I've NEVER been sued for doing so. So either what I said wasn't so outrageous, or those comments are well-based in fact, and the attacks that I suffer because of them are simply the peurile complaints of those who can't stand a little truth.


"And BTW, Russell, according to some, I've said some pretty outrageous things. Then again, I've NEVER been sued for doing so."

That's because you tend to attack reasonable people with some class (does the "hatemongering" against Sean Connaughton ring a bell?). The difference is...Chapman falls more in your class.

James Young

Wow! AWCheney accuses me of hatemongering. That's kind of like being accused of lying by Bill Clinton.

My criticisms of Connaughton have been directed at his policies and/or behavior (for instance, criticizing his lying after losing a convention straw poll; subsequently, trying to pack a County GOP meeting with, among others, known Democrats; and having his supporters propose rules changes in an effort to stifle GOP critics).

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment


NLS Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Facebook Fan Page


    Blog powered by Typepad