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

“But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger”

By Greg L | 30 May 2006 | Blogs, 50th HOD District | 14 Comments

Faisal Gill is apparently not tired of public scrutiny. He has served in some capacity on the Steve Chapman campaign and hosted a fundraiser for Chapman, and has since decided to take on the task of exacting revenge on BVBL for the effect he had on the race. After having his junior attorney send BVBL a laughably unprofessional threat, he has now been calling around trying to uncover the identity of Black Velvet Bruce Lee and making liberal use of legal threats in order to coerce information. I have no indication that this is being done at Steve Chapman’s behest.

Only Faisal Gill is not licensed to practice law in Virginia. This hasn’t escaped the attention of Jaded JD, who provides exhaustive analysis of multiple potential breaches of professional conduct in his post What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. My guess is that Faisal is going to be answering a lot of questions pretty soon.

You’d think that someone who has already appeared on the radar screens of Michelle Malkin, Jihad Watch and Salon.com regarding a failure to disclose some potentially shady connections while employed with the Department of Homeland Security would be a little more deliberate about what he does. But when you’re after vengeance, and have a law degree, I suppose the allure of acting as an attorney in a professional capacity is hard to deny. It’s the “if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail” problem.

Now I’ve met Faisal, and he seemed like a nice guy to me, and I just can’t figure out how that nice guy would want to do all of this. My hope is that soon we can put to rest all the loose ends of the Steve Chapman campaign, come together and work hard to ensure we get good representation in the House of Delegates come September.

My thanks to Jaded JD, who if nothing else restores my confidence in those who practice law, which was beginning to look pretty sordid. And who picks some awesome post titles.

And BVBL, if you’re out there, snail mail me a copy of that nice letter you got from Jad.



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.

14 Comments

  1. Charles said on 31 May 2006 at 2:02 am:
    Flag comment

    I don’t believe that threatening people with lawsuits requires you to have a license to practice law.

    I could threaten you with a lawsuit right now — and if I followed through, I’d hire a lawyer who has a license to practice in Virginia.

    I didn’t know Faisal when the DHS stuff came out, but I know him a bit now, and it it one of those “defining moments” which showed how easy it is for people who don’t know someone personally to try to destroy their lives by playing up the mistakes that all of us make.

    Every day I read some blogger or some commenter calling for another person to lose their job over some perceived error.

    And it dawns on me that, if we all got our way, most of america would be unemployed. You have to know someone who has been attacked, I guess, before you can really understand how these attacks take a personal toll, tear down people, can ruin their lives.

    I try, but often fail, to keep my attacks for what people believe, or what they say, rather than on the person. My response to a policy argument isn’t to point out someone’s criminal past, or question their living arrangements, or any of hundreds of other things people do to tear down their opponent when they don’t have an argument.

    Oddly, it’s often people who have taken offense at an attack on a friend’s positions, who turn around and make personal, vindictive attacks on thier opponents. They should know better.

    I lose a lot of respect for people who are so eager to tear down their fellow human beings, over politics.

    I’d say some people should be ashamed of themselves, but I find by the time people have sunk to character assassination, they are immune to public calls for shame — and often come back from the brink only in their quiet places where they confront their God and receive his reprimand.

    Sorry, sometimes I slip into a bit of a moralistic funk.

  2. Anonymous said on 31 May 2006 at 4:45 am:
    Flag comment

    How is it character assination to point out facts of record?

  3. Anonymous said on 31 May 2006 at 6:30 am:
    Flag comment

    Charles,

    You never cease to amaze me. You would try to defend the Devil himself, saying he must have a good reason for wanting our souls.

  4. Anonymous said on 31 May 2006 at 7:07 am:
    Flag comment

    Don’t fall in to the trap of thinking just because someone is “nice” or “a good guy” that they are a good person. Guys like Faisal, Bob, Denny and Corey are very nice to you when they are trying to get you to join their little group, but watch out if you end up on their bad side. Then you get to see their true personality. What you are seeing with BVBL and this lawsuit, for those of us who have known this group for a while, it is no surprise.

  5. Anonymous said on 31 May 2006 at 8:12 am:
    Flag comment

    When you attack a person with hurtful and slander postings that are easily proven false you shouldn’t be shocked when a person sets out to defend himself. While some of BVBL posting were correct (as missing the deadline, spelling errors) the Chapman Legal Team are not going after him for those points. It was the high school dropout charge and the Arlington charge that will be the main reason for BVBL’s undoing. Why don’t you post on these specific points. I would be very interested in BVBL and his lacky’s “Defense”. I suspect that they will ignore this post and continue to attack a group of people. It makes it easier since you most likely don’t have a defense. Look forward to your response. Come on please respond as I am waiting for your reply.

  6. Not Jack Herrity said on 31 May 2006 at 10:24 am:
    Flag comment

    Charles, you seem to forget that Faisal Gill is making the best efforts he can to destroy “Black Velvet Bruce Lee,” whomever he is. People are “tearing” Faisal down because he’s chosen to take a very low-road approach.

    It is not illegal to threaten someone with a lawsuit, that much is correct. What is illegal is to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. This is drilled into the head of any good lawyer, even one who graduated from American (just a joke, y’all). Repeat after me: you must be a member of the bar before practicing law in a given jurisdiction. There are loads of other potential violations here, but I don’t write as well as Jaded JD so I’ll leave it to him.

  7. James Young said on 31 May 2006 at 10:39 am:
    Flag comment

    Hmmmm, NJH, seems like Faisal Gill is not “making the best efforts he can to destroy” BVBL; seems to me like he has SUCCEEDED in destroying BVBL, at least in its prior incarnation. I wonder whose credibility and welcome in the GOP will be utterly destroyed when his or her identity is established?

    And, of course, Charles makes a good point; Faisal is of course permitted to act as an attorney in litigation in Virginia, so long as he associates local counsel, as I have done on numerous occasions in the past.

    It is truly funny that there are those who seem to be scoring Faisal for using his legal credentials to bludgeon others in the service of his political agenda, particularly since they are doing precisely the same thing in their attacks upon his ethics. If they believe that he has committed a violation, file a charge. When it is resolved, we can speak intelligently about whether he has committed a violation. Of course, to do so, these anonymous/pseudonymous legal commentators would have to overturn the rocks under which they hide and actually put their names to something, rather than lobbing anonymous smears at Faisal.

    It seems there are good reasons why so many of these distinguished practictioners of the legal profession in the blogosphere post under pseudonyms.

  8. Riley, Not O'Reilly said on 31 May 2006 at 11:14 am:
    Flag comment

    I have to agree with Jim Young on this. It is common practice for attorneys who are not licensed in a particular jurisdiction to associate with local counsel on particular cases. This could be an instance where Faisal is associating with a member of his firm who is admitted in Virginia. The important thing to note, however, is that Faisal did not sign that letter and I would imagine he would allow whoever in his firm is admitted in Virginia to take the lead on it.

  9. Greg L said on 31 May 2006 at 12:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    I don’t know enough about the rules attorneys operate under to say one way or the other whether what happened is right or not, but Jaded JD is and seems to feel that there are some significant questions that need to be answered. I’ll defer to his analysis, which appears to this layman to be exhaustive and well informed.

    What BVBL has done, and I try to continue, is to present factual information that is relevant to the discussions related to our political process. If the information is not correct, I will do my very best to correct it in a timely fashion.

    It is a huge stretch to construe this as defamation if the facts happen to be inconvenient to those whom they relate. When the truth can be tarred as “personal, vindictive attacks”, and “character assasination”, our political process is at risk.

    Who is afraid of the truth?

  10. TVU said on 31 May 2006 at 12:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    It would appear that Chapman, and Gill are afraid of the truth. I think that this is going to be a very costly affair for Chapman, and especially Gill. I hope that he has no dreams about running for office. The blogs are taking this pesonally, and they have long, electronic memories.

  11. Anonymous said on 31 May 2006 at 5:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg and et al,

    You have failed to respond on point to the previous post. Apparently it seems that you are afraid to respond to the specific slander charge. Unfortunately, you seem intent on focusing on fax numbers and letterhead. Don’t you have a defense for your dispicable accusations against Chapman? In case you forgot, the specific response I am looking for is your defense to the High School Drop out charge and the Arlington business accusation. I will hopefully see a reply instead of the distraction tactic you have employed.

  12. Greg L said on 31 May 2006 at 9:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous Coward 8:12AM:

    BVBL, and to a lesser extent myself, have posted factual information about the qualifications, behavior and experience of a candidate for public office. No one has provided any evidence to contradict the information we provided. If posting factual information, or at least information that we reasonably believed to be factual and offered to correct if provided evidence, is a violation of law every political pundit out there is equally guilty.

    Truth is the ultimate defense. Bite me.

  13. TVU said on 1 Jun 2006 at 8:36 am:
    Flag comment

    “When you attack a person with hurtful and slander postings that are easily proven false you shouldn’t be shocked when a person sets out to defend himself.”

    Then why didn’t he, when he had ample opportunity to do so? Where’s your proof? Better brush up on the case-law here. Gill has nothing.

  14. James Young said on 1 Jun 2006 at 3:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    No one is afraid of the truth, Greg. Obviously (and I’ll violate slightly my own rule here), the truth is an absolute defense to the type of lawsuit being contemplated, at least as I understand it.

    Which brings me back to my contempt for anonymity/pseudonymity. If BVBL were an honorable man/woman, he/she wouldn’t have hidden under the cloak of anonymity/pseudonymity. If the charges made here were meritorious, he/she has little fear of liability. If he/she feared the political consequences of having made them is simply dishonorable. But disappearing (maybe) and erasing prior posts suggests that he/she has much to fear.

    I have frequently said that I haven’t the foggiest idea whether the charges (many peurile and sophomoric) made here and elsewhere against Chapman were true or false. Nevertheless, the fact that someone was unwilling to associate his/her name with most of them, as well as the despicable and belittling tone in which they were made, renders them immediately suspect.

    As for the later posts on this thread, who knows? Getting back to my rule about blogosphere legal analysis, none of us (save perhaps Greg) has complete information, and certainly, none of us is an expert on this area of the law. I have to say that I truly hope that the lawsuit has merit, because the campaign being run against Chapman on the prior incarnation of this site was vile and despicable, and has all of the hallmarks of an organized opposition-research campaign. And if Chapman’s suit can bring to light all of the individuals behind it, then he will do no less a service to the GOP than (some have suggested) he did by getting out of the race, and will have done perhaps more.

Comments are closed.


Views: 2422