Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...
video production in Manassas and Prince William County

Possible Voter Fraud In The 51st District

By Greg L | 18 May 2007 | 51st HOD District, PWCRC | 39 Comments

Critical Update: The language in the 51st District call in question here was indeed taken from the RPV Party Plan. See update at the bottom of this post.  See also “An Apology“.

The Prince William County Republican Committee reissued it’s convention calls on April 24th for the 51st District and for Clerk of the Court races in order to comply with some technical issues that the RPV raised. When doing so, PWCRC Chairman Tom Kopko quietly inserted additional language into the qualifications section that has likely encouraged voter fraud in the 51st District. I again call for Tom Kopko to resign as Chairman of the Prince William County Republican Committee, and for the attorney general to immediately commence an investigation in regards to possible voter fraud in the 51st District.

The original language of the call, as issued on February 5th is as follows:

Qualifications for Participation

All legal and qualified voters of the 51st House District under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, regardless of race, religion, national origin or sex, who are in accord with the principles of the Republican Party, have not participated in Virginia in the nomination process of a party other than the Republican Party after March 1, 2004, and who, if requested, express in open meeting either orally or in writing as may be required, their intent to support all of its nominees for public office in the ensuing election, may participate as members of the Republican Party of Virginia in its mass meetings, party canvasses, conventions, or primaries encompassing their respective election districts, as provided for in the Republican Party Plan.

The reissued call by Tom Kopko on April 24th was changed to this:

Qualifications for Participation

All legal and qualified voters of the 51st House District under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, regardless of race, religion, national origin or sex, who are in accord with the principles of the Republican Party and who, if requested, express in open meeting either orally or in writing as may be required, their intent to support all of its nominees for public office in the ensuing election, may participate as members of the Republican Party of Virginia in its mass meetings, party canvasses, conventions or primaries encompassing their respective election districts.

In addition to the foregoing, to be in accord with the principles of the Republican Party, a person otherwise qualified hereunder shall not have participated in Virginia in the nomination process of a party other than the Republican Party after March 1, 2004. A single exception shall be approved for a voter that renounces affiliation with any other party in writing, and who expresses in writing that he/she is in accord with the principles of the Republican Party and intends, at the time of the writing, to support the nominees of the Republican Party in the future. Any voter that utilizes the foregoing exception, and thereafter participates in the nomination process of a party other than the Republican Party, shall not have the benefit of the exception thereafter.

A person who has made application for registration and meets all other qualification requirements, but whose name does not appear on the local registration books solely because of the books having been closed in connection with a local election, will nevertheless be deemed a legal and qualified voter. (emphasis added)

The second paragraph was required by RPV, and the addition of this paragraph was the basis for reissuing the call. But what of the third paragraph? That language appears nowhere in the RPV Party Plan, and is actually contradictory to the language in Article 1, Section A, which states:

1. All legal and qualified voters under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, regardless of race, religion, national origin or sex, who are in accord with the principles of the Republican Party, and who, if requested, express in open meeting either orally or in writing as may be required their intent to support all of its nominees for public office in the ensuing election may participate as members of the Republican Party of Virginia in its mass meetings, party canvasses, conventions, or primaries encompassing their respective election districts. (emphasis added)

So what is the effect of this surprise third paragraph? Under normal circumstances, a credentials committee will validate the delegate list with the state board of elections, and disqualify any delegates who are not registered to vote. With this additional language, the attempt here is to include anyone who has applied for voter registration regardless of whether the application is accepted or not. This provides an incentive in this convention for a candidate to solicit the submission of fraudulent voter registration applications so that these normally disqualified people will be accepted as delegates to a convention. It is inconsistent with the Party Plan, and provides a clear incentive to commit voter fraud.

The rumors I have heard about the filing of suspicious voter applications are specific to the 51st District. If they are accurate, it would constitute compelling evidence that Faisal Gill and Tom Kopko have engaged in a conspiracy to commit voter fraud in the 51st District. This needs to be investigated immediately, and Tom Kopko must immediately step down as Chairman of the Prince William County Republican Committee if this convention, should it happen, is to have any semblance of being a fair process of selecting a nominee for the 51st District.

I am outraged. Others should be as well.

UPDATE: A few readers, including Tom Kopko point out that subsection 5 of the party plan contains the following language:

5. A person who has made application for registration and meets all other requirements of Section A, but whose name does not appear on the local registration books solely because of the books having been closed in connection with a local election, will nevertheless be deemed a legal and qualified voter.

I was wrong. There was no attempt by Tom Kopko to deviate from the rules of the Republican Party Plan.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.

39 Comments

  1. charles said on 18 May 2007 at 11:05 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg, you are ignoring the part that explains why this is necessary, and in fact this is one change necessary to avoid challenge under the voting rights act:

    solely because of the books having been closed in connection with a local election

    As the courts ruled in the case of Tom Delay, a person’s qualifications for voting are based on their rights ON THE DAY of the election. Since our voting rights are based on the person’s qualification to vote, and that person’s qualification to vote is based on their voting eligibility not NOW but at the time of the election, there is a problem of a “chicken and egg”.

    This problem is recognised by courts, and since registration is not considered a burden, that registration can be required to qualify the voters.

    Except for one problem: that additional burden is acceptable onl because the registration is trivial. And there is an issue — our voting registration shuts down from time to time around local elections, in order for those local elections to have up-to-date printouts, etc. But since our convention isn’t under SBE control, the shutdown dates for those elections can interfere with the reasonable voter registration time leading up to our convention.

    I guess this would be one thing in the “pro” column for doing a primary if there are other primaries, since it is that which causes the difficulty.

    To obviate that difficulty, if a person has registered to vote, but that registration is being held SPECIFICALLY because NO registrations are being accepted at the time, we are going to let them vote. Otherwise, you will have a reasonable chance that a person who was coming up to the convention time could file for registration at a reasonable advance time but be denied his right to vote simply because the state registrar’s schedule didn’t take our convention into account.

    I suppose some could find that additional burden as a reasonable one in exchange for avoiding a possibly fraudulent voter. But in fact the opportunity to use this in that way is small. We have other ways to check that a person is a valid citizen of the district, and with proof that the registration was filed, there is only the slightest chance that the registrar will later reject someone who registered but that our credentials committee will have accepted them.

    And since the credentials committee is made up equally with both candidate’s representatives, there is ample control by each candidate to ensure the other candidate isn’t trying to slip in people from outside the district, or who will NOT qualify to vote.

    I’ve sent off your complaint to Tom, so I’m sure he’ll provide the appropriate legal information to those who show up Monday night.

    BTW, I again have to laugh at this “secret” clause which was so secret that it’s published in the paper, sent out in e-mail, and on every new delegate form, and in the hands of both candidates. Some secret, almost as secret as the “secret donations” showing up on the publicly accessable disclosure forms, the “secret payment” that was also on those forms and discussed in open meeting, and my favorite, the “hidden company” that was at the address in public documents and found with a 10-second google search.

    You guys have a very strange definition of “secret”.

  2. Greg L said on 18 May 2007 at 11:23 am:
    Flag comment

    I never said that this was “secret”. Let’s try not to re-word what I wrote.

    Voter registration is “closed” in terms of participating in an election or primary for the express purposed of allowing the registrar to properly validate applications. That “closing” of the book is codified in Virginia code section 24.2-416 a means to prevent voter fraud.

    It is my opinion that attempting to subvert this process is a violation of the law.

  3. charles said on 18 May 2007 at 11:29 am:
    Flag comment

    BTW I checked with the state registrar, and here I believe is the issue.

    For primaries, the SBE cuts off voter registration 29 days before the election. With the primary on June 12, that means that the registration cut-off date was May 13.

    But our convention delegate registration is set to expire May 21, 2007.

    That means that if Julie Lucas were to find a delegate this weekend, but that person (not knowing they were going to be a delegate) hadn’t filed as a registered voter, they would not be able to get registered by June 2nd.

    IN fact, the SBE site says: “Applications postmarked or received after the deadline will be held and processed after the election. ”

    So we are in a situation where delegates might be signed up for the conventions, be legally allowed to vote, have properly registered to vote, but because there is a primary on June 12th, their registrations will be held arbitrarily past our convention deadline.

    Whereas if there was no primary on the 12th, their registrations would have been handled in a day or two, plenty of time. IN fact, if this were a “special election called by the governor”, the “hold” period for registrations would only be 7 days, not 29.

    I will say that your worries about voter fraud are not frivolous, and if some delegates require this exception it is imperative that all the other requirements (which by themselves should prove the person would be eligible) be meticulously examined.

    If your raising this point for partisan purposes has the side effect of raising awareness so that the credentials committee does the job fully and accurately, that will be a good thing.

    They will have plenty of time to do so, as the forms are all due May 21st. I would anticipate that the people from each candidate’s campaign on the committee will be extra-vigilant to ensure the other candidate’s delegates are legally allowed to vote. Neither candidate would pick incompetent people for this most critical of tasks.

  4. charles said on 18 May 2007 at 11:33 am:
    Flag comment

    On the other hand, while your concern is valid, my guess is your rumors have at best a 50/50 chance of being true, and that’s only because in every election some people mistakenly try to register in the wrong place or when they are not actually eligible to vote.

    Your suggestion that either Faisal Gill, Tom Kopko, or Julie Lucas would take advantage of this clause to commit voter fraud is without foundation, and could be libelous.

  5. James Young said on 18 May 2007 at 11:49 am:
    Flag comment

    Actually, Charles, the real problem may be that Julie is not being as well-received among Republicans as Greg might like. Disparaging and casting into doubt the process is, therefore, the last gasp of a failed effort to harm someone he loathes, and whose law firm represents someone who may well get a judgment against him.

  6. anon said on 18 May 2007 at 11:51 am:
    Flag comment

    I do know that is the EXACT same language as used in the Loudoun County call.

  7. Tom Kopko said on 18 May 2007 at 11:54 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg you are a boy crying wolf.

    http://www.rpv.org/plan.html

    It’s always been there and is in effect for every party activity from monthly meetings to canvasses.

  8. God Bless America said on 18 May 2007 at 11:57 am:
    Flag comment

    That 3rd paragraph comes right out of Article I, Section A of the PRV Plan of Organization. I don’t agree with it…………but, it is in the plan.

  9. anon said on 18 May 2007 at 12:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    I surely hope that we are going to require the new voter applicant to show ID indicating a permanent address in the district. And also prove that they are domiciled at that residence as required by Virginia law (such as a utility bill in their name, etc.) And, of course, new registrants should prove that they are indeed American citizens (such as by a birth certificate or other appropriate paperwork).

    I certainly hope we won’t just be taking Joe Schmoe’s word that he has submitted his voter registration application and that he is sure to be approved.

  10. Greg L said on 18 May 2007 at 12:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    Regardless of the intent here, legislative committee chairmen do not have the legal authority to change the meaning of Article 1, Section A of the party plan. Since the party plan is under the supervision of the courts under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, unless pre-clearance was granted by the courts in regards to this specific language, this would open up a huge can of worms. There’s no indication that it has.

    Now that this huge opening has been so helpfully provided, I have heard that there are indications that someone is trying to take every advantage of it as possible. Given that Faisal Gill successfully agitated for credentialling persons who were not registered to vote on the floor of the County Convention last summer, it doesn’t come as much surprise that he may be acting in a manner consistent with his past behavior on this subject.

    I may be able to obtain more information on specifics of this today, and will update everyone as soon as I do.

  11. anonymous said on 18 May 2007 at 12:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg,

    You should do a little more research before firing this crap off.

  12. anon said on 18 May 2007 at 12:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    “A person who has made application for registration and meets all other requirements of Section A, but whose name does not appear on the local registration books solely because of the books having been closed in connection with a local election, will nevertheless be deemed a legal and qualified voter.”

    I certainly understand the legitimate reason for this paragraph being in the RPV plan and the call.

    But… how do we determine that an applicant’s name is not on the books SOLELY because of the closing of the books. The only way we could do that is to do the same thing that the board of elections would do — verify one’s legitimate right to vote by checking state ID, proof of domicile, and US citizenship.

    Is that the plan?

  13. Jonathan Mark said on 18 May 2007 at 12:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    This whole thing is about rounding up immigrants, possibly illegal ones, and getting them to vote at the convention even though they are not registered voters.

    Listen to this doubletalk:

    “”"To obviate that difficulty, if a person has registered to vote, but that registration is being held SPECIFICALLY because NO registrations are being accepted at the time, we are going to let them vote.”"”

    In that case the person has not actually been registered to vote yet, has he? You cannot have it both ways.

    It is like saying that if someone receives a drivers license, but the drivers license is being held because no drivers licenses are being issued at the time, we are going to let them drive.

    No drivers license, no drivee. No voter registration, no votee.

    “”"Otherwise, you will have a reasonable chance that a person who was coming up to the convention time could file for registration at a reasonable advance time but be denied his right to vote simply because the state registrar’s schedule didn’t take our convention into account.”"”

    Reverse logic here. The voter should take the closing dates for registration into account. Those of us who have heard of last minute “voter” dragnets by Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) loyalists in 8th District Democratic conventions should be concerned.

    “”"We have other ways to check that a person is a valid citizen of the district,”"”

    Already a problem. You are not a valid citizen of any district. You are a citizen of the USA. But that doesn’t mean you can vote in 51st district elections.

    “”"and with proof that the registration was filed,”"”

    We hear this logic all the time. So and so filed to be a citizen, so he should be able to work in the US while waiting for his green card. Virtually every illegal alien who ever filed for citizenship has made this argument at the time of his arrest. It is a bogus argument.

    “”"there is only the slightest chance that the registrar will later reject someone who registered but that our credentials committee will have accepted them.”"”

    What is a “slightest chance?” People who are are ineligible try to vote all the time. The imprisoned terrorist Sami Al-Arian, on behalf of whose son Faisal Gill stormed out of the White House, voted. Sami Al-Arian was never a US citizen but he voted.

    What is Kopko going to do if a flood of immigrants with papers show up who are not registered to vote? Is Kopko going to check their possibly fraudulent papers?

    “”"And since the credentials committee is made up equally with both candidate’s representatives, there is ample control by each candidate to ensure the other candidate isn’t trying to slip in people from outside the district”"”

    Forget about outside the district, I am concerned about OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY.

  14. Jonathan Mark said on 18 May 2007 at 12:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    It just occurs to me. Many people are denied the right to vote becaue of felony convictions. Are we to assume that Kopko, Gill et al will be able to tell who has a felony conviction?

    Many felons voted in the 2000 Florida elections. There were even significant numbers of Republican felons in Miami-Dade who voted.

    Between the felons and the illegal aliens this idea ought to be a non-starter. What if the convention results are close and boil down to a few votes either way?

    It is better to me safe than sorry.

  15. John Light said on 18 May 2007 at 12:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jim, you state: “the real problem may be that Julie is not being as well-received among Republicans as Greg might like”. You know what, for once, I agree with you.

    Greg would like 100% support for Julie Lucas, but instead, it looks like 65-75% will be supporting her. Ms. Lucas was the FIRST Republican elected to office in the Neabso District. Ms. Lucas won with 65% of the vote - more than any other person running in that election cycle.

    Please remind me…what were YOUR numbers when you ran for office??? While I commend you for not being like Charles but actually DOING something and have done something for the Republican Party in the past, I do take great issue with you making the blatently false statement that you made here.

    So again, I ask, is it because she is a woman that you are against her and you are jealous because she did something you could not (you have been against her since day one of her entering politics with no justified reason why), or, is it because you consistently support the wrong candidates for local office and after getting spanked all these years you have become a bitter person???

  16. Lars Wiechmann said on 18 May 2007 at 12:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Who in the world would meet all these qualifications as far as support for the party candidates, residency, legal voter qualifications in the 51st, and be engaged enough to want to participate in a nominating process for the Virginia House of Delegates and STILL NOT BE REGISTERED TO VOTE BY MAY 13TH? I’d like to meet these people…are they from Mars?

  17. Lars Wiechmann said on 18 May 2007 at 1:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    And also, I agree with anon 12:05pm. I hope there will be a requirement for these people in question to bring proper documentation to the credentials committee so it can be determined who they are, where they live, and their citizenship status.

    Can somebody please outline the process that will be in place to determine how these non-registered, but “applied for” voters who “meet all other qualification requirements,” will “be deemed a legal and qualified voter.”

  18. John Light said on 18 May 2007 at 1:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    THIS is why we need a Primary instead of a Convention. Plane and simple, Tom CANNOT be trusted. Faisal CANNOT be trusted. Together, they CANNOT be trusted. Neither one of these people have an ounce of honor to their name and would not know how to spell honor if you spotted them the first four letters. And yes, I have no problem whatsoever saying that to either of them in person.

    When November comes, is it a convention that takes place between the Republican and the Democrat??? No, it is not. People of BOTH parties go to the poles and vote for their candidate. When State and National Conventions are run, they are done by honorable people (we may not like what the OTHER party has to say, but the elections are fair). But, when you have someone without honor (read Tom Kopko) who lies to Ms. Lucas when he talked to her asking her thoughts on a Primary vs a Convention, who lies about being a paid consultant to the spokesman of a terrorist supporting organization, then lies to state officials by reporting he made $1000 then later amends to $2000, you know that ANYTHING that is put forth by him is suspect.

    There is NO WAY Faisal can sway the swing voters and DEFINITELY no way he can reach across the asile and get Dems to vote for him. Veterans are offended by him because of his appearing in uniform on his campaign lit and his OBVIOUS failure to maintain US Navy height/weight standards (see OPNAVINST 6610.H, page 51).

    Oh, and for ANYONE who says I don’t have a horse in this race because I don’t live in the 51st, please let me know at what point Charles and Jim Young moved INTO the 51st??? As taxpayers in the Commonwealth of Virginia, we ALL have the right to voice our concerns. Now, if I lived in tbd, Virginia…

  19. John Light said on 18 May 2007 at 1:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    OOPS, make that OPNAVINST 6110.1 H dated 15 August 05 for the Navy regulations concerning Physical Readiness from the Chief of Naval Operations. My apologies.

  20. Jonathan Mark said on 18 May 2007 at 1:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    I would like to state this a second time. There is NO WAY that Kopko and Gill can know who is a felon and who is not a felon. Even government election officials have difficulty determining who is a felon.

    For that reason alone any participation by unregistered voters in the convention will corrupt the results. This idea for allowing non-registered voters (i.e., felons) to participate in the convention ought to be a non-starter.

  21. anonymous said on 18 May 2007 at 1:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’ve seen your apology post, so I do not want to pile on too much here. But you do need to be careful of what you post. For a guy with an ongoing legal situation, you sure are quick to post unsubstantiated allegations.

  22. Lars Wiechmann said on 18 May 2007 at 2:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    This is a political blog anonymous 1:24pm…..a free exchange and discussion of ideas (well..hopefully). Maybe Greg L. got one technical point wrong (which he has graciously recanted, then even apologized to those he may have offended).

    But the important point here is, once agan, he has initiated a very important discussion and what we as ordinary citizens can do to make things better. What could be more important than having a LEGAL, non-corrupt election? If the hard questions are not asked about integrity in the process, then this election will be open to all sorts of questions (and maybe legal proceedings) down the road.

    I’m sad to say, we seem to be heading down an ugly path never before seen in Prince William County — a potentially illegitimate election.

  23. Jonathan Mark said on 18 May 2007 at 2:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    The unsubstantiated stuff gets corrected. The truth does not get corrected. Just like in the print media.

    As a candidate for office Faisal Gill is a public figure. Just Google Faisal Gill and see how controversial and public Gill is.

    Gill is also extremely litigious, perhaps because like CAIR he also has jihad-enabling in his past to hide. However, as a public figure Gill can only win a suit if there is reckless disregard of the facts. In this case Greg thought he knew what was in the RPV but did not know, perhaps because of oversight.

    No harm, no foul, nothing more than meritless lawsuits and stay of deportation filings for illegal immigrants from Faisal Gill and Asim Ghafoor’s law firm.

    How is the suit involving release of classified information about Asim Ghafoor and the Saudi al-Haramain foundation coming? Kind of a nice how-do-you-do for a candidate for a Republican nomination. Here is some suggested text for the http://gillfordelegate.com website:

    “Elect Faisal Gill, law partner of Asim Ghafoor, who while representing one of his several Globally Designated Terrorist Organization clients was the subject of surveillance and is now suing.”

    Why does Ghafoor keep representing illegal immigrants and U.S. Treasure Globally Designated Terrorist Organizations?

    Ghafoor has a right to represent these people, but that doesn’t mean that Ghafoor’s law partner Gill has a right to be elected to public office without anyone complaining about it.

    It is free country. We are right to complain about Gill to whoever will listen.

  24. John Light said on 18 May 2007 at 2:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    I can remember when people were kicked out of the military for less than what is against Faisal at this time. Oh, Faisal supporters, pull not out the race card for you know that this has NOTHING to do with race. Robert Hansen who (this is for you Jim Young) had his children in Catholic schools was a traitor to this land and deserves nothing short of the death penalty.

    Faisal has no regard for doing what is right and I SERIOUSLY question his patriotism to the United States. If ONLY he was running as a Democrat, the naysayers on the Right would see the light. Like Kopko, Faisal cannot be trusted to do what is right for the 51st and will in his own words, he is “not going to Richmond to make friends.” Faisal Gill, born fighting.

  25. charles said on 18 May 2007 at 3:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    JLight, actually Faisal is not in trouble nor are any non-lucas supporters at all concerned with him using his family pictures in campaign literature, and Faisal takes and passes his physical just like all other military, despite the Carney types here who think they can guess people’s height and weight by looking (or in your case, by simply reading what other people write, as you aren’t in the PWC committee).

    Further, your remark “questioning his patriotism” is much more suited to the democratic party than ours. That kind of support is something Lucas could use a lot less of. Sometimes people are unfairly judged by the people they hang around with, and your remarks are just the kind that can hurt candidates who don’t distance themselves appropriately.

    “While I commend you for not being like Charles but actually DOING something and have done something for the Republican Party in the past”

    I’m sure Jim thanks God every day he is not like me. Class comment there, Deacon.

  26. John Light said on 18 May 2007 at 3:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    Amazing, he is a member of a 2 person law-firm with one of the members OPENLY supporting/representing terrorist organizations and we are NOT to question him on his terrorist ties??? This would be like a Minister working with an athiest during the week saying, “Hey, it’s not MY job to convert him!!!”

    Jim Young stated, rightly so, on a post that he has the fortunate pleasure to cherrypick (not his words) his court cases, thus securing his track record of never having lost a case. The same could be said of Faisal. He has the right and obligation to say, “You know what!!! I am no longer going to associate with a lawfirm that represents illegals and terrorists and I will go work for another or make my own firm.”

    But then, that would mean taking the moral high road and for a guy who is “committed to spending $50,000 of his own money in this race”, taking ANYTHING with the word “moral” in it just won’t happen.

    Hey Faisal, why don’t you just take your money and pay off all your speeding tickets and call it a day???

  27. AWCheney said on 18 May 2007 at 3:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    Faisal Gill is currently the greatest asset that the Democrats have here in Prince William County. If he becomes the nominee, the Democrats will surely get a pick-up, particularly if they have a more credible candidate waiting in the wings (which I’m sure DPV is planning, or attempting, to provide), awaiting the outcome. This will open a door which, given the current political climate, will not easily (if ever) be closed. Food for thought.

  28. charles said on 18 May 2007 at 3:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    Lars Wiechmann asks who would sign up for delegate and not yet be registered.

    Conventions are a great way to get new people registered and into the party. They require the candidates, staffs, and volunteers to canvass neighborhoods door by door, looking for people who can be convinced to give up a saturday to support them.

    It is often the case that while doing so, you find people who are new to the area, or people who simply are NOT involved for whatever reason in politics, but can after a discussion of issues and concerns decide that a particular candidate is worthy of a morning’s work.

    People DO get registered, and ARE brought into the party, through this process. It’s one of the good things about a convention.

  29. John Light said on 18 May 2007 at 3:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    It’s my understanding that Paul Nichols, a local attorney, is thinking about running as a Dem. This guy is a SHARK in the courtroom and will have a FIELD day with Faisal.

  30. charles said on 18 May 2007 at 3:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    “I really still expected more of you, Greg. You are disappointing me more and more. You are better than this, or at least I thought you were.”

    Thank you for acknowledging your error. I was hopeful that this was another mistake on your part, and not deliberate, and I fully accept your explanation that it was.

    Please understand that, given the proximity of the language Tom had to the language you quoted above (on the same page, in the same section, 3 items down), and your assertion that you could not find the language in the party plan (when a search would find it easily), I did have some doubts that you could have missed it by accident.

    I thank you also for linking this to the previous error you made regarding the party plan. You had, in prior cases not associated with Chapman/Gill, always been willing to admit error, which is good for all of us because we all make mistakes.

    I guess it might be time for you to take a minute and read through the rest of the RPV plan just for future reference :-)

  31. Jonathan Mark said on 18 May 2007 at 3:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"This guy is a SHARK in the courtroom and will have a FIELD day with Faisal.”"”

    Faisal can kiss his enormous backside goodbye.

  32. anonymous said on 18 May 2007 at 4:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    As a lawyer myself, I can tell you that litigators DO NOT make good politicians. They are generally far to abrasive, and that turns people off. Skill in law, business or other professions does not usually translate well into success in politics. Politics is a profession unto itself, and the skillsets needed to succeed are unique.

  33. James Young said on 18 May 2007 at 5:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    John, as someone who has repeatedly broken bread in my home, and at whose home my children frequently played and stayed, I would really like to know what it is that made you so gratuitously nasty in response to my SPECULATION (”the real problem MAY BE that Julie is not being as well-received among Republicans as Greg might like”). I made no “blatantly false statement”; I speculated, and at this point, it’s ALL speculation about the outcome. Including yours. But if Julie numbers among her supporters the kind of people who would engage in the kind of attacks that you do (it’s not as though I couldn’t respond in kind, but I won’t), I suspect that many of Faisal’s supporters will have difficulty mustering up much enthusiasm for her candidacy, if nominated. I can’t for the life of me understand why you would associate yourself with this claptrap, but I obviously misjudged our relationship if you have so little regard for my opinions about another whom I number among my friends as to attack me in this matter for simply supporting that friend.

    And as for “blatantly false statements,” let’s look at yours. “[Y]ou have been against her since day one of her entering politics with no justified reason why.” I don’t know where you get your information, but that is patently false. While I supported her opponent in her first race, there was a rather significant GOP split. Moreover, as Julie would probably confirm, I have told her that, if I knew then about her opponent what I know now, I would have supported Julie (her opponent was recommended to me by a respected co-worker, who knew her well). And criticizing her for her support for Buck Waters for the GOP nomination for Delegate against Scott Lingamfelter (which she has privately explained to me) is hardly “against her since day one of her entering politics;” most would simply call it a difference of opinion. I remember well her letters attacking me at the time, including her penchant for buying into every lie told to her by Hector Quintana and the rest of the tax advocate crowd, demonstrating highly questionable judgment, and her gratuitous attacks demonstrating utter ignorance of my record. I likewise remember well her childish attacks upon Scott for moving from Lake Ridge into the district and daring to run, as though her record of residency in Neabsco were much longer when she dared to put herself forward for public service. As for your suggestion of sexist motivation in my decision to support Faisal over Julie, that is patently nonsense. I suspect that people like Michele McQuigg, Demaris Miller, Ann Keast, and Mary Hill would find your statements as nonsensical as I do, as you probably would has you not suspended your reason to function in full attack mode.

    And there is, of course, no comparison between a traitor who sends his children to Catholic schools — historically, plenty of traitors to their nations have been Catholic… and every other religion — and a man being savaged for associations with Islamicists who chooses to educate his own children outside of madrassas. It is difficult to imagine that an Islamicist would expose his own young children to Catholicism or any other form of Chrisianity in a denominational school.

    The simple fact is that Julie’s most vigorous supporters here don’t give a tinker’s dam as to whether they win “dirty,” relying mainly upon the smears of: (1) a Democrat whose comments border, at best, on racism; and (2) a host who is being sued (so far, successfully, as the case was not dismissed out of hand) by someone represented by Faisal’s law firm. Heretofore, I would have expected better from you, your understandable loyalty to Julie notwithstanding. If your comment is the kind of nonsense that Julie’s supporters feel that they have to resort to in order to win the nomination, it bodes well for Faisal. And certainly, Julie deserves better.

    As for the rest, I give Greg credit for admitting his error, rather than merely casting it down the “memory hole.” It would be even better if he would bother to read the source documents BEFORE launching an attack that is … completely consistent with his attack mode against anyone who dares to support Faisal Gill.

    And it is certainly interesting to discover how many people who sometimes wax demagogic about the “big tent” want to close prematurely the flaps in contravention of the State Party Plan.

  34. Lars Wiechmann said on 18 May 2007 at 5:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Conventions are a great way to get new people registered and into the party.”

    Wouldn’t it be great that the first thing these new people to the party learn is that we have integrity in our nominating processes in Prince Wiliam County.

    It will also be a nice thing to let “new” people know that if you wait until the last minute to register to vote for an election, be prepared to produce the necessary documentation to prove your indentity, your residency, and your citizenship.

  35. charles said on 18 May 2007 at 7:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    Lars Wiechmann said on 18 May 2007 at 2:11 pm:
    “This is a political blog anonymous 1:24pm…..a free exchange and discussion of ideas (well..hopefully). Maybe Greg L. got one technical point wrong…”

    He has apologized, so this isn’t about him, but about your judgment. He wrote a post the entire message of which was that Tom had written a never-before-seen clause surrupticiously into the call in order that he and Gill would conspire together to commit voter fraud. The entire basis for that was false, as the clause was actually IN the RPV.

    Your statement is like CBS’s justification for using forged documents against Bush in 2004 — that the documents were “fake, but accurate”. That got a producer fired, and Dan Rather retired.

    Jonathan Mark said on 18 May 2007 at 2:39 pm:
    “The unsubstantiated stuff gets corrected. The truth does not get corrected. Just like in the print media.”

    Spoken like a real liberal. In real life, the unsubstantiated (read made-up) stuff doesn’t GET printed. When someone regularly prints unsubstantiated stuff, a lot of it never gets corrected because no one has time to correct every single error. After you’ve done 5 or 6 “unsubstantiated” things, your ability to be “trusted” is pretty much shot.

    But for the democrats, they love to just make stuff up again and again, and figure that whatever doesn’t get laughed off the stage might actually stick. I guess I could make up a dozen charges about any candidate, and I might get lucky and hit one they can’t immediately refute, but that’s hardly “truth”, or anything like what the “print media” does.

    Believe it or not, in print, even on the opinion pages, any statement of fact has to be backed up. Quotes need to be sourced, statements of fact need to have references. The “I’ve heard it somewhere” trick doesn’t wear well in the real world.

    John Light said on 18 May 2007 at 3:10 pm:
    Amazing, he is a member of a 2 person law-firm with one of the members OPENLY supporting/representing terrorist organizations and we are NOT to question him on his terrorist ties???

    There are more than two people in his firm, and the information about his partner are allegations, not facts. I would imagine that his partner would strongly defend himself against this if he cared a whit what you thought of him. I’ve never met the man so I can’t vouch for or against him, but since I’m sure you have never met the man you ought to think twice about what your faith teaches you about accusing others of wrongdoing without direct knowledge.

    He’s not running for office, he’s not a public figure, so you also might think about the much lower bar the courts set for libel and slander in that instance.

    John Light said on 18 May 2007 at 3:14 pm:
    “It’s my understanding that Paul Nichols, a local attorney, is thinking about running as a Dem. This guy is a SHARK in the courtroom and will have a FIELD day with Faisal.”

    John, I am still guessing you have little actual experience talking with Gill, so your opinion on this matter is useless. However, to the degree he’s a “shark”, I doubt Julie Lucas is well-trained to deal with such a candidate.

    Faisal is a graduate of law school, a JAG in the military, and has a wealth of experience in government. While I only know the two from listening to them speak to the committee and at a kickoff, Gill is the better of the two in that regard. This is NOT a comment on either candidate’s platforms or suitability for the position, I only mention it because you brought it up.

    Jonathan Mark said on 18 May 2007 at 12:21 pm:
    “This whole thing is about rounding up immigrants, possibly illegal ones, and getting them to vote at the convention even though they are not registered voters.”

    This must be an example of one of those “unsubstantiated charges” that get corrected. And only JM could explain why given all immigrants aren’t allowed to vote he felt compelled to add “possibly illegal ones”. Is he suggesting that one of the candidates has a large hispanic outreach of some sort?

  36. Jonathan Mark said on 18 May 2007 at 7:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"I suspect that many of Faisal’s supporters will have difficulty mustering up much enthusiasm for her candidacy, if nominated.”"”

    That feeling is in many cases mutual. Even most posters on BVBL, probably not a group that is very accepting of the gay lifestyle, voted to go with the “homo” instead of with the “terrorist” if Faisal is nominated.

    “”"a man being savaged for associations with Islamicists”"”

    It is COMPLETELY REASONABLE, patriotic and ecumenical to savage Faisal Gill for his association with Islamists such as Abdurahman Alamoud and Abdullah Al-Arian. Wikipedia states the following: “Islamism is a term used to denote a set of political ideologies holding that Islam is a political system not just a religion. Islamism holds that Islamic law (sharia) must be the basis for all statutory law of society; that Muslims must return to the original teachings and the early models of Islam; and that western military, economic, political, social, or cultural influence on the Muslim world is against Islam.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist

    Islamism is incompatible with either conservative or liberal ideologies. Persons who argue otherwise are at best chumps and suckers, the kind of person who Stalin once called “useful idiots.”

    “”"who chooses to educate his own children outside of madrassas.”"”

    Whoop de doo.

    “”"It is difficult to imagine that an Islamicist would expose his own young children to Catholicism or any other form of Chrisianity in a denominational school.”"”

    The problem is Gill and his law partner Asim Ghafoor’s employment by Islamists such as Abdurahman Alamoudi and al-Haramain.

    “”"The simple fact is that Julie’s most vigorous supporters here don’t give a tinker’s dam as to whether they win “dirty,” relying mainly upon the smears of: (1) a Democrat whose comments border, at best, on racism; “”"”

    James Young is a misogynist then. If opposing Alamoudi’s former chief lobbyist makes one a racist then surely opposing Julie makes one a misogynist.

    “”"a host who is being sued (so far, successfully, as the case was not dismissed out of hand) “”"

    Faisal is litigious. That does not make Faisal’s critics incorrect. If anything it makes us more correct, since litigious plaintiffs such as CAIR often have something to hide.

    “”"it bodes well for Faisal.”"”

    Still chug-a-lugging that Faisal kool-aid, I see. Do you actually believe that you are going to put this guy over in November? Nothing bodes well for Faisal’s political ambitions.

    “”"completely consistent with his attack mode against anyone who dares to support Faisal Gill.”"”

    “Dares?” And this is the guy who you think will win in November? Someone whose own supporters think of themselves as daring to support him?

  37. Jonathan Mark said on 18 May 2007 at 8:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"Jonathan Mark said on 18 May 2007 at 2:39 pm:
    “The unsubstantiated stuff gets corrected. The truth does not get corrected. Just like in the print media.”

    Spoken like a real liberal.”"”

    Spoken like a real reader of BVBL, where, indeed, the unsubstantiated stuff gets corrected. We saw an example of it today.

  38. Lars Wiechmann said on 18 May 2007 at 9:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Charles, the voting issue may have been brought up in a very bad way initially in this thread but it does not diminish its importance. The most important point in this thread is that if we are to keep integrity in the voting process, there needs to be close scrutiny of these folks who “apply” to be registered voters but are not recognized by the SBE yet as voters. These new people need to bring some pretty tight documentation to prove they are legitimately eligible to vote in this convention.

    That’s all I was saying – I’m just worried about the underlying issue. I don’t care about all this …..”so and so” accused me of something…”so and so” lied or got it wrong…..”so and so” hurt my feelings stuff that sometimes tends to fill these threads. I don’t care to participate in the personal, back and forth attacks. I’m just trying to figure out how this problem can be fixed.

    I’d like to hear from someone in charge of credentials at the 51st District convention to please explain what process will be in place to make sure there is clean, legal seating of delegates that takes place and those not eligible to be registered voters are NOT allowed to vote.

  39. Jonathan Mark said on 19 May 2007 at 12:58 am:
    Flag comment

    I would like to know how the 51st District convention committee intends to stop felons from voting at the convention.

Comments are closed.


Views: 2433