Go to BeeHiveSites.com to learn more!
Julie Lucas Website Goes Live
By Greg L | 8 February 2007 | 51st HOD District | 24 Comments
The website for Julie Lucas, candidate for the Republican Nomination in the 51st House District is now live, although there’s still a little more content that needs to get posted. Unique among candidate websites in Prince William County, this even contains YouTube video. The photo gallery contains a few pictures from the last PWCRC meeting, where she was the only candidate who thought to show up on time and hand out campaign materials, making the meeting look like a Julie Lucas rally for all the lapel stickers that were visible.
I’ll be closely watching the endorsements page, as I hear that there may be a surprise or two there for us.
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.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
24 Comments
Views: 919
Loading ...
Good looking website - looks like another fine Ditch production! He’s the best!
Endorsements are going to fun to watch. Who will abandon Gill as time goes by? Will her friend and Presidential candidate, Jim Gilmore lend his name?
It’ll be a fun contest to watch. Although I personally have nothing against Faisal and think he’d be fine candidate - now may not be the time. If Julie gets through the nomination I’d predict she’ll win the general with a better then 60% on her side, regardless of who runs for the D’s.
Julie is by far the better candidate. Her support of the republican party and sundry of candidates over the years, plus her own contributions to Virginia politics and Prince William County is certainly proof positive of her dedication to Republican values.
I don’t really understand how those reasons make her a better candidate. Faisal has also has supported teh Republican party over the years. He has also contributed to Virginia politics and Prince William County politics. Faisal has also always fought for Republican values. I’m not saying your wrong “CONVA”, I’m just saying Faisal matches up with all those reasons. So, I really don’t see how those reasons make Ms. Lucas better.
A recent comment on another blog, by a frequent commenter here, has already begun to cast aspersions in Ms. Lucas’ direciton. Apparently Gill is being tagged by some (gosh, can we guess who???) as the “real” republican because Lucas once supported Buck Waters. She will soon be tarred with the RINO label. Wait for it.
After seeing his representative at the most recent PWCRC meeting rail about the absolute importance of a clean and positive campaign, it would be laughable for the Gill campaign to start trotting out negative attacks on someone who actually has a record as an elected official while he derides anyone who seeks to examine his own record, such as it is.
Yeah, talk about “issues” and “policy”. I can’t wait.
Oh, and FWIW, one of those frequent commenters managed to get himself banned indefinitely from BVBL today. I expect the quality of the discussion to improve substantially as a result.
Apparently the Gill people still aren’t giving up in their quixotic quest to put a former lobbyist for Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council in the House of Delegates.
Real Republicans (and real Dems) won’t support convicted terrorists like Alamoudi. That makes Alamoudi lobbyist Faisal Gill the ultimate RINO.
“”"Faisal has also always fought for Republican values.”"”
Faisal was the chief lobbyist for the American Muslim Council. It is now defunct. The AMCs terrorist founder and leader Abdurahman Alamoudi is now in jail.
The values of AMC and Alamoudi were not those of the Republican Party. Faisal Gill was not fighting for Republican values when he was their chief lobbyist.
“Oh, and FWIW, one of those frequent commenters managed to get himself banned indefinitely from BVBL today. I expect the quality of the discussion to improve substantially as a result.”
This speaks volumes to your maturity. The quality of a discussion on such issues is usually in proportion to the number of viewpoints at the table.
Although, I agree with you on many issues, I would have to agree with JY that often the tone and content of your postings gives rise to questions regarding your beliefs and intent. Although questioning the background and qualifications from an objective standpoint is quite appropriate, associating those issues with the rantings of a group of potential nutlogs without considering the objective merit of their positions is not, unless of course you wish to discard any pretense of objectivity.
In that lies the problem with many of your postings as you are quick to ally yourself with those whose initial reactions, positions and comments mirror your own. Although understandable, if you do not take their motivations into considerations, you may wind up with considerable egg on your face, issues with your credibility and as has been well documented, the potential for litigation.
Again, I agree with many if not most of your positions, it is merely some of your perceived affiliations and subjective assertions that give me pause. Further, this is by no means a defense of JY or his positions, although I agree with many of his positions as well, I do not march in lock-step regarding others.
That having been said, I hope that the focus on the current candidates will turn to policy and not personal issues. Although I share your concerns regarding electability in a general election, I would prefer to lose an election wherein the other option is the installation of a candidate whose support of fiscally responsible/conservative policies and/or constiuents concerns are potentially suspect. Is that an indictment of Lucas or Gill, no, as there has been virtually no discussion of any substantive issues to this point.
“”"That having been said, I hope that the focus on the current candidates will turn to policy and not personal issues. “”"
What issues Gill lobbied for when he was the chief lobbyist for the terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council is issue-related. If Gill keeps running we will emphasize that.
For instance, here was the position of the American Muslim Council in the aftermath of 9-11. This is an extremist position. Gill worked for the AMC as its chief lobbyist in the aftermath of 9-11.
“”"The American Spectator reported in its 12/17/2003 edition:
If the crack research team at the FBI had looked at the AMC website in the aftermath of September 11, however, this is what it would have found under the heading, The Law Says You Don’t Have to Talk to the FBI: “The FBI is looking for information to use against you, your family and/or your community. The FBI has a history of harassing and harming minority and immigrant communities. Some people are spending a long time in jail because they or their friends talked to the FBI.…FBI agents are trained to get you to make incomplete or contradictory statements — which later can be used against you in court. It is better to say nothing.”"”"
The question of what Gill was doing when he was lobbying for this organization which discouraged Moslems from talking to the FBI is POLITICAL!!!! We are not discussing Gill’s romantic life or his children’s athletic activities. We are discussing Gill’s POLITICAL LOBBYING for Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council.
No matter how much Gill’s supporters insist that we are dealing with the personal and not the political when we complain about Gill’s employment by the AMC, the issue will not go away.
mom, as long as people behave themselves, they’re welcome here. It’s not the viewpoints that I try to control, as I’ve allowed folks to provide input from a variety of perspectives and will continue to do so. Browse a few threads, and you’ll see for yourself.
And so far, I am unaware of any affiliations I have are that would give anyone pause.
Gill’s performance in the various events he was supposedly in charge of during
n his leadership position in the PWCRC and the defunct Tax Payers outfit is an indication of how he would perform in Richmond. He utterly failed in every one of his obigations.
Anyone who has followed this site and others knows that [redacted]. Good riddance!
[Ed note: since the individual in question can’t come and defend himself, I hope we can refrain from discussions of him. Let’s try to live to a higher standard, OK?]
Higher standards isn’t a word I much associate with BVBL.
Well, JM is still here, so I guess the conservative republican, not the democrat, was suspended after the last thread’s pissing contest between the two. Of course, JM supports Greg while JY didn’t.
JM, you’d like to think that your rantings would solve your “problem” for you. I don’t know if you noticed, but Jim Moran is still your congressman, the republicans won’t even run a credible candidate, nor will your party bother to primary him in a serious matter. Just in case you were somehow under the delusion that you had some influence.
Why would we drop support for a good man simply because some democrat and some flamethrower have decided that work he did as a private citizen for a muslim organization is somehow disqualifying because the head of that organization was later found to have terror ties? There is no evidence whatsoever that ANYTHING Gill did had anything to do with those terror activities, or that Gill did anything to support or in any way encourage any activity that was terror-related.
But as a person with a security clearance, those issue weren’t simply taken at their word, but rather a government agency did a thorough investigation of claims of terror connections. So unlike most people running for political office, we have a man who was vetted by a serious process and found untainted by the scandals he is now being charged with by the typical democrat method of “asking the question”.
With democrats, it’s never the truth of the matter, but rather the seriousness of the charges. It’s not enough that the federal government’s own investigators cleared Gill of any wrongdoing, for some democrat blogger there is still a “question” that can only be answered if, what, Gill breaks attorney-client confidentiality? Swears on the Bible that he did nothing wrong? What?
The funniest thing is the suggestion by JM that Gill could simply “answer a question” and the problem would go away. Nothing Gill could say would “answer” Gill’s baseless charges.
We know how Greg feels about Gill, because we all remember how Greg went after Gill personally and harshly when Chapman first filed his lawsuit. Greg can now pretend that his attacks on Gill aren’t about the lawsuit, but they WERE about the lawsuit, they were made before Gill announced he was running for anything, and they continue to this day.
I wish I could think of some good snarky thing to say in honor of JY, but I’m not the writer he is…..
While I’m at it, Batty noted in the other locked thread that my blog is underread and boring.
It’s true. Stuff like this blog draws people like car wrecks to Nascar and fights to ice hockey and human tragedy to American Idol.
Thanks for the compliment.
You believe the investigation was thorough and that the outcome was not politically motivated because those who did the investigation said so. I believe differently, and that the timing of events and unresolved questions posed by the senate finance committee point to it being politically motivated. That difference of opinion is fine, although I would be interested in what it is that gives you such confidence.
“”"Well, JM is still here, so I guess the conservative republican, not the democrat, was suspended…”"”
I am not a Dem. You can ask the Lee District Dem Committee where I live.
“”"JM, you’d like to think that your rantings would solve your “problem” for you.”"”
What problem?
“”"I don’t know if you noticed, but Jim Moran is still your congressman, the republicans won’t even run a credible candidate, nor will your party bother to primary him in a serious matter. Just in case you were somehow under the delusion that you had some influence.”"”
All very true.
“”"”Why would we drop support for a good man simply because some democrat and some flamethrower have decided that work he did as a private citizen for a muslim organization is somehow disqualifying because the head of that organization was later found to have terror ties?”"”
It would depend on what work Gill did for the AMC. It was an extremist organization. Here is what the AMC said in the aftermath of 9-11. Gill was their chief lobbyist in the aftermath of 9-11:
“””The American Spectator reported in its 12/17/2003 edition:
If the crack research team at the FBI had looked at the AMC website in the aftermath of September 11, however, this is what it would have found under the heading, The Law Says You Don’t Have to Talk to the FBI: “The FBI is looking for information to use against you, your family and/or your community. The FBI has a history of harassing and harming minority and immigrant communities. Some people are spending a long time in jail because they or their friends talked to the FBI.…FBI agents are trained to get you to make incomplete or contradictory statements — which later can be used against you in court. It is better to say nothing.””””
Why was Gill lobbying for such an organization in 2001?
“”"There is no evidence whatsoever that ANYTHING Gill did had anything to do with those terror activities, or that Gill did anything to support or in any way encourage any activity that was terror-related.”"”
It is not a crime to tell Moslems not to talk to the FBI, but that doesn’t mean that the chief lobbyist for a group that does so should be elected. Julie Lucas has no such baggage.
“”"But as a person with a security clearance, those issue weren’t simply taken at their word, but rather a government agency did a thorough investigation of claims of terror connections.”"”
No, because telling Moslems not to talk to the FBI is not a crime. Working for such an organization did not make Gill a security risk.
“”"So unlike most people running for political office, we have a man who was vetted by a serious process”"”
Gill is being vetted by a serious process now. Elections are serious.
We want to know what Gill did for Alamoudi’s AMC, when and why. Did Gill and Alamoudi communicate? About what? What causes did Gill lobby for? Was he aware that the AMC was telling Moslems not to talk to the FBI?
“”"and found untainted by the scandals”"”
That is quite a stretch. He was found not to be a security risk. I don’t assert that he was, merely that the political positions he took as chief AMC lobbyist were unsavory.
“”"he is now being charged with by the typical democrat method of “asking the question”. “”"”
You object to asking questions now?
“”"”With democrats, it’s never the truth of the matter, but rather the seriousness of the charges.”"”"
I want to know the truth of the matter. What did Gill do for Alamoudi and when did he do it?
“”"It’s not enough that the federal government’s own investigators cleared Gill of any wrongdoing,”"”
You mean any crime. Wrongdoing and crime are different. Al Sharpton committed no crime. Farrakhan as far as we know committed no crime. Wrongdoing encompasses crimes but also includes wrongful acts which are legal.
The AMC telling Moslems not to talk to the FBI in the aftermath of 9-11 was wrong but not a crime. Why was Gill the chief lobbyist for the AMC?
“”"for some democrat blogger there is still a “question” that can only be answered if, what, Gill breaks attorney-client confidentiality?”"”
Gill has never claimed that he worked for the AMC as an attorney. He claimed that he was a consultant and director, government relations.
But you have raised another question. Did Gill perform work for the AMC covered by attorney-client privilege? Thank you for raising this question. It is a good one. Did Gill represent Alamoudi as Alamoudi’s attorney?
“”"Swears on the Bible that he did nothing wrong? What?”"”
Gill should tell us what he did for the AMC, when he did it, what positions he lobbied for and what his relationship was with Alamoudi. He can swear on a book or not, I don’t care about that.
“”"The funniest thing is the suggestion by JM that Gill could simply “answer a question” and the problem would go away.”"”
A candidate who has never held elective office and won’t answer questions about an extremist organization that he worked for is a weak candidate, and will only get weaker as he stonewalls.
“”"Nothing Gill could say would “answer” Gill’s [sic] baseless charges.”"”
He could answer the question of what he did for Alamoudi’s AMC, when he did it, how much total he was paid for it, what issues he lobbied for on behalf of the AMC, etc.
“”"Greg can now pretend that his attacks on Gill aren’t about the lawsuit, but they WERE about the lawsuit, they were made before Gill announced he was running for anything, and they continue to this day.”"”
Greg seems sincere in his opposition to Gill, as you seem sincere in your support for him. Is everyone who disagrees with you insincere, and you are the only one who is true to his beliefs?
Since I cannot speak his name, go to the former commenter’s blog for a dose of his hard hitting “analysis” of this situation. Highly entertaining.
JM:
I just realised what you are complaining about. Do you think that the FBI does NOT take people’s statements and use them against them? Muslims had a valid reason to be cautious about talking to the FBI without counsel following 9/11, despite the fact we all wanted full cooperation.
Scooter Libby, a brilliant lawyer and counsellor to the vice President, is currenty on trial for charges that could put him in jail for years. His crime? Making statements to an FBI investigator that were deemed to be deliberately false. If he had claimed his 5th amendment rights throughout the investigation, he would not be on trial today. He spoke to investigators, cooperated with the authorities, and he could end up in jail, in a case where there was no crime to be investigated, and the only “crime” found was Libby making false statements.
If it could happen to Scooter Libby, well-connected high-powered lawyer, what chance did an average Muslim-american have that something they might say would be misconstrued as incriminating?
Now, if they were advocating attacking FBI agents, that would be a different story. But as a Muslim support organization, their recommendations were sound.
I have no idea if Gil would agree or disagree with me on this, but you are way off base attacking a group for advising people not to speak freely to investigators after 9/11. It was their right not to talk, and I won’t fault an organization for advising people of their rights.
I realise that nobody in virginia is a “democrat” or “republican”, but I’ve seen your web site and other than your obsession with Moran there is little on your site that would be seen as anything other than supportive of the democratic party philosophy. I’d be happy to be shown otherwise, and I retract the label democrat as I think nobody should be labelled without their consent.
As to Gil’s association, you were doing well for a little while, but then you slipped saying that “political positions he took as chief AMC lobbyist were unsavory”. I thought you were asking him to tell you what he did for them? What political positions did Gil take as a lobbyist? Was he a lobbyist, or their consultant?
I misused the term “attorney/client privilege”, which is I think a specific legal term. I would imagine that his contract with the organization included a confidentiality clause, which he would be bound by, but I don’t know that to be the case, it is however a common clause in consulting contracts.
Have you actually asked him any of your questions? Posting them on your blog, or in this blog, isn’t really asking. Have you e-mailed him a list of questions?
JM: I don’t know who I am supporting yet in the election. As it isn’t my district, I may end up not supporting either candidate. I often don’t declare support for one candidate over another in primaries, because I like to write about issues, not about the personalities.
If there were attacks on Lucas that I had knowledge of and thought were unfounded I’d be defending her as well. I’m not a personal friend of either, and have only passing personal contact with Gill (and none that I am aware of with Lucas). I haven’t donated money to either of them.
I would happily vote for Gill in the general election, but again I’m not in that district.
“”"JM:
I just realised what you are complaining about. Do you think that the FBI does NOT take people’s statements and use them against them?”"”
I am appalled. Gill’s employer or client the American Muslim Council exhorted American Moslems as a group not to talk to the FBI in the aftermath of 9-11.
“”"Muslims had a valid reason to be cautious about talking to the FBI without counsel following 9/11, despite the fact we all wanted full cooperation.”"”
Observe Charles’s euphemism “to be cautious.” Gill’s employer/client the AMC said “to say nothing.”
“”"Scooter Libby, a brilliant lawyer and counsellor to the vice President, is currenty on trial for charges that could put him in jail for years. His crime? Making statements to an FBI investigator that were deemed to be deliberately false.”"”
Does Gill agree with Charles that no one should talk to the FBI?
“”"If he had claimed his 5th amendment rights throughout the investigation, he would not be on trial today.”"”
How was the FBI supposed to solve the 9-11 attacks if no one would talk to them?
“”"He spoke to investigators, cooperated with the authorities, and he could end up in jail, in a case where there was no crime to be investigated, and the only “crime” found was Libby making false statements.”"”
Why was Gill the chief lobbyist for the AMC which took the extremist position that no Moslem should not talk to the FBI?
“”"If it could happen to Scooter Libby, well-connected high-powered lawyer, what chance did an average Muslim-american have that something they might say would be misconstrued as incriminating?”"”
How was the FBI supposed to solve the 9-11 crime without citizen cooperation?
“”"Now, if they were advocating attacking FBI agents, that would be a different story. But as a Muslim support organization, their recommendations were sound.”"”
Is that Gill’s position then, that his employer/client the AMC was correct in telling Moslems not to talk to the FBI in the aftermath of 9-11?
“”"I have no idea if Gil would agree or disagree with me on this, but you are way off base attacking a group for advising people not to speak freely to investigators after 9/11.”"”"
Gill’s employer/client the AMC told Moslems “to say nothing.” Charles changes this so it is “not to speak freely.”
“”"It was their right not to talk, and I won’t fault an organization for advising people of their rights.”"”
Gill’s employer/client the AMC told Moslems not to talk to the FBI. If you find no fault in that then it does not surprise me that you are a Gill supporter.
“”"there is little on your site that would be seen as anything other than supportive of the democratic party philosophy.”"”
The Lee District Democratic Committee does not agree with you that I am a Democrat, and twice denied me membership. Nor do I.
“”"I’d be happy to be shown otherwise, and I retract the label democrat as I think nobody should be labelled without their consent.”"”
Well, I do not consent for you to label me as a Democrat. The LDDC denied me membership, and that means that I am not one of them.
“”"As to Gil’s association, you were doing well for a little while, but then you slipped saying that “political positions he took as chief AMC lobbyist were unsavory”. “”"
The positions of the AMC were unsavory, including telling Moslems not to speak to the FBI. Gill was their chief lobbyist. He represented the AMCs unsavory positions.
“”"I thought you were asking him to tell you what he did for them?”"”
I am.
“”"What political positions did Gil take as a lobbyist?”"”
A good question. Why won’t Gill answer it?
“”"Was he a lobbyist, or their consultant?”"”
Or both?
“”"I misused the term “attorney/client privilege”, which is I think a specific legal term.”"”
You raised the question of whether Gill represented the AMC as an attorney, and I would like to know the answer to your question.
“”"I would imagine that his contract with the organization included a confidentiality clause,”"”"
I would imagine that you don’t know, don’t care, and don’t want anyone else to know what Gill did for the AMC.
“”"which he would be bound by, but I don’t know that to be the case,”"”
Is Gill’s work for the AMC covered by a confidentiality clause? What clause? What contract? Gill should show us this contract. Did the contract cover Gill’s work for the convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi?
“”"it is however a common clause in consulting contracts.”"”
What was Gill’s employment contract with the convicted-terrorist founded and headed AMC, if he had one?
“”"Have you actually asked him any of your questions?”"”
Charles approves of Gill’s employer/client telling Moslems not to talk to the FBI. Yet he tells me to talk to Gill.
“”"Posting them on your blog, or in this blog, isn’t really asking.”"”
Why don’t you ask Gill? Gill is not planning to sue you. He is planning to possibly sue me.
“”"Have you e-mailed him a list of questions?”"”
It amazes me that you defend Gill’s employer/client telling Moslems in general not to talk to the FBI. Then you turn around and tell me to talk to Gill! You are a hypocrite.
JM, you think the FBI was solving the “9/11″ attacks by randomly questioning muslims? Maybe you do. I doubt Gill shares my position on this, but you should ask him when you ask him the other questions you keep saying you want him to answer.
You ended with: “It amazes me that you defend Gill’s employer/client telling Moslems in general not to talk to the FBI. Then you turn around and tell me to talk to Gill! You are a hypocrite.”
I couldn’t even figure out a clever way to parse that so I could point out how stupid it is. Let me start with the obvious — I didn’t tell you to “talk” to Gill, I asked if you had actually bothered to E-mail him to ASK YOUR QUESTIONS.
I guess you have not, in which case your complaints about him not ANSWERING your questions is both silly and meaningless.
Then let’s take the absurd notion that you talking to Gill would equate to a Muslim being interrogated by the FBI searching for suspects after 9/11.
Or we can step back and marvel at your apparent shock that people have the right not to be interrogated by law enforcement without legal protection, and your anger that a group would actually seek to educate people about their rights as Citizens under our constitution.
As I said, I have no idea what Gill’s position is on this, and apparently JM has a dread fear of communication with Faisel so JM probably won’t ask either.
JM wrote a bunch of other things between his first and last absurd comments.
“be cautious” is not a euphemism. To be cautious, you might well refrain from interrogations by the FBI, without legal protections, which is not a euphemism for a lawyer or an agreement.
The FBI can get all the cooperation it needs, even if people are advised that they don’t have to talk to them. Nobody has to freely talk to police, yet police solve crimes all the time, because people choose to talk. Telling people they don’t have to talk doesn’t mean they won’t talk.
I don’t no how crazy a person has to be to argue about not being a democrat in response to a post that says “I retract my statement that you are a democrat”. Although I imagine your rejecting for the committee has more to do with your rabid opposition to a sitting democrat congressman than your political philosophy. Some people can’t take yes for an answer.
As I clearly stated that I have no idea what Gill’s position is on your question, your interspersing the childish “Does Gill agree with Charles” is absurd, as Gill isn’t reading this blog and you are apparently more afraid of sending him an e-mail than a muslim might have been to talk to the FBI.
“”"JM, you think the FBI was solving the “9/11” attacks by randomly questioning muslims?”"”
The AMC told people after 9-11 not to talk to the FBI: “It is better to say nothing.” Some will find find that outrageous. The trick will be to make sure voters know.
“”"but you should ask him when you ask him”"”
Anything I said to Gill could and would be used against me in court when he sues me. Gill is already suing BVBL.
“”"the other questions you keep saying you want him to answer.”"”
It may be better if Gill continues to stonewall.
“”"Then let’s take the absurd notion that you talking to Gill would equate to a Muslim being interrogated by the FBI searching for suspects after 9/11.”"”
The AMC told Moslems not to say anything to the FBI. You have changed the AMCs “say nothing” to a remark about interrogation.
“”"Or we can step back and marvel at your apparent shock that people have the right not to be interrogated by law enforcement without legal protection,”"”
The AMC told Moslems after 9-11 to “say nothing.”. Period.
“”"and your anger that a group would actually seek to educate people about their rights as Citizens under our constitution.”"”
The AMC telling Moslems after 9-11 “it is better to say nothing” to the FBI was interference in the investigation of the crime.
“”"”be cautious” is not a euphemism.”"”
You replaced what the AMC said with your own euphemistic paraphrase.
“”"The FBI can get all the cooperation it needs”"”
The FBI does not get all the cooperation it needs in solving some crimes, including the AMCs own crimes. Did Alamoudi launders money for 8 years with no one else knowing or suspecting?
“”"even if people are advised that they don’t have to talk to them.”"”
The AMC told Moslems NOT to talk to the FBI.
“”"Nobody has to freely talk to police, yet police solve crimes all the time, because people choose to talk.”"”
The AMC told them NOT to talk.
“”"Telling people they don’t have to talk doesn’t mean they won’t talk.”"”
The AMC told Moslems NOT talk to the FBI.
“”"Gill isn’t reading this blog”"”
Perhaps. But how would you know that?
“”"and you are apparently more afraid of sending him an e-mail than a muslim might have been to talk to the FBI.”"”
Your hypocrisy is apparent. You approve of the AMC telling Moslems not to talk to the FBI but you want me to talk to someone who is going to sue me for what I say. Gill is already suing BVBL.