Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

A Lie Exposed

By Greg L | 8 June 2007 | Prince William County | 53 Comments

One of the more annoying rumors that has been relentlessly promoted by critics of Sheriff Glendell Hill is that Hill has somehow forced gunowners to jump through a bunch of extra hoops in filing BATF Form 4 applications that aren’t authorized by law. This obscure-to-most form is the one used to apply for a license for fully automatic firearms, short-barrel rifles and shotguns, and silencers. One of the steps in this license application process is for that BATF Form 4 be signed by the local law enforcement official, and in Prince William that would be either the Sheriff or the Chief of the Prince William County Police Department, who would conduct a background investigation of the applicant. This rumor is a reckless lie.

Supporters of Jim Fotis, who I steadfastly believe has absolutely nothing to do with this, have been badgering me for months saying that Sheriff Hill has refused to sign these forms, which is false, and that Sheriff Hill requires this extra form which is not authorized by law. Even if he did, I see no evidence that it would be inconsistent with the law for him to require one in order to obtain his signature. The evidence they provide in order to support this claim is only available on the website for a firearms dealer by the name of Innovative Tactical, and not available anywhere else. I’ve looked pretty hard, and so has this supporter of Jim Fotis, and no one can seem to identify an independent source for this document, which you can find by clicking here.

There’s a real problem with this form, however. It is rather obviously a fraud.

As you can see above, the space where someone is supposed to write in the answer to the question has “<click>” printed in the space. Is someone expected to tap this part of the paper with their pen? In the dozens of emails I have received from this individual, who has relentlessly badgered me about posting this somehow damning piece of evidence which would “prove” to gun owners that Glen Hill is secretly a gun-grabber, I have gently advised him that this document is inauthentic, and that this topic is so esoteric to such a small segment of second amendment enthusiasts that it’s unlikely to be considered relevant by the vast majority of voters. Don’t get me wrong here — I want the Sheriff to sign off on these BATF Form 4’s like he is supposed to. Every indication is that Sheriff Hill has done so.

Anyone with an ounce of sense would realize after being informed that this document is clearly a fake, and would stop trying to promote this fanciful forgery. Not so this individual, who are recently today has continued to promote this obvious falsehood as if it were a fact, when he knows it is not. This sort of atrocious behavior may be legally actionable, but it certainly is politically stupid. Trying to promote forgeries as the truth has resulted in a number of major scandals in recent times, particularly when bloggers have been involved in the story.

It gives me great pleasure to demonstrate, I hope conclusively, that the detractors of Sheriff Glen Hill are engaging in the reckless promotion of outright lies and are not at all trustworthy. This reflects very poorly on the candidates they so fervently support. Let this be a lesson to them about the right way to engage in the political debate, and that it is a very poor choice of tactics to relentlessly badger a blogger into supporting a candidate with false information.

You lie, and I’m going to catch you. You do everything possible to frustrate and enrage me, and I’ll work hard at it.

Goodbye, Mr. Ted Deeds of Fairfax County, Chief Operating Officer of the Law Enforcement Alliance Of America, who is pictured on the left in the photo below:

I do not believe you will be missed.

UPDATE:  For those who still might think that Sheriff Hill has been refusing to sign BATF Form 4 applications, during his tenure in office Glen Hill has signed 129 of these applications, and denied 6 on the basis of the applicant’s failure during a background check based on drug convictions and/or crimes of violence.  So much for that hogwash.

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.


  1. AWCheney said on 8 Jun 2007 at 12:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    YES!…This is better than banning “Interested Party” aka Ted Deeds, Greg! For the first time since he introduced himself here, I’m looking forward to his responding. So Ted, where are ya boy?

  2. Al Bundy said on 8 Jun 2007 at 1:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg - Smooth work. I don’t have a horse in this race, as I am no longer a resident of the Commonwealth, but this whole thing just reeked from the start. For the anal-retentive like myself, note the use of ‘you’ instead of ‘your’ in question 7 of the alleged form. A typo which an official form probably would have had caught and repaired in the proofreading phase.

  3. anon said on 8 Jun 2007 at 1:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    On June 6, commenter Henry, apparently a Hill supporter, said this:

    “I just received a mailer from Fotis - just another pack of lies. He, as IP does, asserts Hill is anti-gun claiming there is some “secret” form to fill out before you can buy a gun.”

    Does anyone else have a copy of this mailer? Is it from Fotis? Does it allege a “secret” form?

    If true, it appears that Fotis himself is a part of spreading the lie and it is not just his “supporters”.

  4. Henry said on 8 Jun 2007 at 2:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    Update on the mailer - looks like there are two versions - one mailed to gun club members which has most of the lies, and another softer version that went out to teachers - you need to look at the gun club version. Fotis’ signature is on both versions with a ” paid for and authorized by Fotis for Sheriff ” disclaimer at the bottom.

    And I do support Hill, now. I cannot believe that these politicians or their aides, can lie so boldly and expect to get away with it - good work Mr L - maybe you should be the police Chief ????

  5. Henry said on 8 Jun 2007 at 2:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    for Greg - 18.2-172. Forging, uttering, etc., other writings.

    If any person forge any writing, other than such as is mentioned in §§ 18.2-168 and 18.2-170, to the prejudice of another’s right, or utter, or attempt to employ as true, such forged writing, knowing it to be forged, he shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. Any person who shall obtain, by any false pretense or token, the signature of another person, to any such writing, with intent to defraud any other person, shall be deemed guilty of the forgery thereof, and shall be subject to like punishment.

    18.2-168. Forging public records, etc.

    If any person forge a public record, or certificate, return, or attestation, of any public officer or public employee, in relation to any matter wherein such certificate, return, or attestation may be received as legal proof, or utter, or attempt to employ as true, such forged record, certificate, return, or attestation, knowing the same to be forged, he shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.

    Maybe you need to bug Ebert again….

    [Ed note: I think Ham Sandwich would do an equally effective job of investigating cases of criminal political corruption. http://www.votehamsandwich.com ]

  6. pundit-106 said on 8 Jun 2007 at 2:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well well well. Look who got caught with his pants down. I have always been a firm believer that you reap what you sow, and it appears that ole Teddy has gotten his. This expose was right on time. You can not hide behind your keyboard anymore IP. Nope. I told you from the start that this county wasn’t to be toyed with but you wouldn’t relent.
    The sad thing is, you hijacked this site and spoke the gospel in a condemning tone, creating a mirage of truth. Clearly the voters see the deception you and your ilk are accustom of spewing. Glen Hill is a good man who has done his very best to make good on every promise he made. Your facts aren’t anything remotely close to truth. It was propaganda at the highest level. The people will choose the best man on Tuesday and it won’t be Fotis. If anyone else should be enraged about this it should be Mike Messier. You have muddied the waters with your candidate to the point that Mike wasn’t even a topic. Go home Ted and blog no more. Buh Bye.

  7. Austin said on 8 Jun 2007 at 3:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    PLEASE MAKE SURE EVERYONE YOU KNOW VOTES ON TUESDAY. Mr. Messier has a strong group of supporters, Glen will need everyones help!

  8. pundit-106 said on 8 Jun 2007 at 3:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    By the way Anonyn, I do have a copy of the flier and it does clearly say that hill has “created his own special secret gun approval form” It also touts Fotis in publicity photos, shaking the hand of Tom Seleck. As if that helps PW County any. It is last minute propaganda at its worst. It is utterly shamefull that an outsider can come in here wielding his hired biographers to write a cozy story about the perfect candidate. Send this guy home on the 12th. Let some other town in america fall prey to his agenda.

  9. AWCheney said on 8 Jun 2007 at 3:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Your facts aren’t anything remotely close to truth. It was propaganda at the highest level.”

    With all due respect pundit, I’d say that was propaganda at the LOWEST level. ;-)

  10. vote4hill said on 8 Jun 2007 at 4:31 pm:
    Flag comment


    You are right to remind everyone here to get everyone they know to the polls on June 12 to Vote for Sheriff Hill. Primaries are what they are and Sheriff Hill needs everyone’s support at the polls!!!!!!!!! See you on June 12!


  11. vote4hill said on 8 Jun 2007 at 4:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    Can it be? We are done with the secret form? Oh my goodness it is a fraud…imagine to everyone’s surprise that this form is in fact a FRAUD. I am not even going to engage IP about this developing story. Seems IP may have not had such a good day.

    Greg thanks so much for setting the record straight and researching this to the extent that you did for the citizens to know the truth!

    AW…we still have work to do…Nice speaking with you!


  12. Not Again said on 8 Jun 2007 at 4:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    Okay, clearly this there is a lot to set straight.

    The form is NOT A FRAUD and Greg L. either knows that or has simply declined to confirm it.

    Sheriff Hill has a gun form that is ‘extra-statutory’. Sheriff Hill has used it against some would-be gun owners and its very existence and the problems associated with it, up until very recently were, effectively “secret”, hence its ‘working title’: Sheriff Hill’s Secret anti-gun form.

    I have, as recently as this very week sent Greg to yet another independent source to confirm the existence of this form.

    Greg, did you check it out before calling this a fraud and me, a liar?

    That source was none other than a local gun store (unlike Greg, I will not reveal here so as not to put his future business ‘at risk’ from a vengeful Sheriff Hill — I’ll leave it to Greg’s honor to confirm and share this with you all). Since then, on this very blog, several Hill supporter have gotten copies of the form in question and they have begun to mount a defense of Sheriff Hill and his ’special’ form.

    So, where is the truth here?

    As I explained to Greg, the above copy of the form (posted on a business’ website) was posted by the owner of the business as an aide to his clients (posted due to that evil capitalist impulse I fear).

    I am no computer expert but as I understand it, it was done in a computer application commonly called PDF, that among other things, can allow folks to type their text in the respective fields to make completing the form easier (after you type in your data you can print the form all neat and finished). If you look at the sample above you can see the symbol where the applicant fills in their data.

    The business owner made this form available for his customers to make it easier for them to complete this form. As was routinely done, when the would-be gun buyer completed it, the paperwork was turned into Sheriff Hill’s Dept for processing….

    Does anyone think that if the whole form were a fraud that there wouldn’t have been some kind of prosecution/backlash? Why would a business with no axe to grind, a business that is tightly regulated and monitored, want to do anything that even hinted at inpropriety? It defies common sense.

    I personally have heard from multiple gun owners who have been denied approval by Hill AND were mad at what they felt was terrible (hostile, inconsistent) treatment by Hill’s department. As I told Greg and he accurately relayed, no one individual that I could find was willing to lend his name to publicy challenge the incumbent Sheriff. (that does not make their claims untrue… it makes them scared)

    So, two separate, independent gun stores in Virginia — with no reason to lie — had this form (or versions of it). Multiple gun owners told me first-hand of what they had experienced. Greg said he would see if such a form existed at the Sheriffs office and get back to me. Greg indicated that he could find no such form.

    Since this story ‘broke’ online several Hill supporters said they too have obtained this form themeslves and, predicably, being Hill supporters, skipped over the fact it existed to take the position it was okay by them.

    So Greg, where is the lie (unless everyone in the whole world is “in on it”)?

    CLEARLY THERE IS A FORM and the copy posted on the business’ website fairly shows the content of Sheriff Hill’s up-to-now, ‘pretty secret’ form. This form, as you commented upon it in your own post above, is NOT authorized by statute…. Heck not even BATFE encouraged it…. as you know because I sent you the text from the actual BATFE form.

    So according to Greg Hill’s form is:
    - a fraud
    - a lie
    - inauthentic
    - or real and not a problem for Greg because a.) it is not directly prohibited by statute, or b.) helps Hill sign-off as approving the gun buyer

    Except that you tacitly admit Hill has just such a form…. Hill supporters have either seen copies of it or have copies of it themselves…. So which is true Greg?

    Did Hill or did Hill not have a special form, with his name and his authorization, created so that he could ask would-be gun oweners quesitons that I, as a member of the pro-Second Amendment community, find offensive?

    Please don’t tell the world that the above copy of the form does not represent what is Hill’s form simply because the person posting it posted it in such a way that it could be completed and turned into Hill for processing. That would be silly in the extreme.

    I would be remiss if I did not also note that you say Hill claims to have approved 126 of these would-be gun owners. That is GREAT. This is the very first I have heard of such a number. I wish I had that data earlier, I did not.

    I see you say, that Hill ‘claims’ to have nixed 6 on the basis of, “the applicant’s failure during a background check based on drug convictions and/or crimes of violence”. I would ask a couple of questions… How many IN TOTAL applied?

    How many applicants were told that they would not be approved at the very first step and therefore did not apply (as you know this used to happen across the commonwealth until Right-to-Carry became law folks were told not to appply because some Gov’t official in charge would not approve it anyway)?

    What credability do you feel the Sheriff has on this topic:

    So the numbers are what: 126 approved, 6 nixed for ’cause’ and ___ not approved for other reasons, and ____ intimidated/convinced not to apply because they were told they would not likely be approved?

    You see, the form asks about military service, kids in the home, about your job… presumably there must be right or wrong answers to these questions… surely some of these are ‘disqualifiers’ or else why did Sheriff Hill chose to ask them….

    If they serve no purpose than aren’t they exactly as I charactorized them.. needless hoops not authorized by statute.

    You said, “Even if he did (have such forms), I see no evidence that it would be inconsistent with the law for him to require one in order to obtain his signature.” (paranthetical added)

    You also said in an earlier thread on this issue, “but even if that’s true……., it’s not likely a big deal to most voters ….. this is real down-in-the-weeds stuff.”

    So are you defending Sheriff Hill having such a form or not?

    I get it that YOU don’t think the from’s existence and the insight it gives into Sheriff Hill much import, I get it that you don’t think it will be important to many folks… but I am free to disagree with that sentiment and do so, strongly. Speaking just for me as I always do, I support all gun owners and the Second Amendment equally; no Sheriff should get away with coming up with his or her own “approval scheme” for gun owners… it is wrong and the light of day should shine upon it!

    This is NOT rhetorical…. So how can it be a fraud/fake/lie, if Hill, in point of fact has and is using such a form?

    And yes, for the hyper technical out there obviously no graphic image can ever be the ‘real’ form; it is an image of a form. The fact that someone scanned a form, put it into a PDF format is not what most folks consider a departure from the ‘real’ from itself…. We can’t (yet) put real paper on the computer. The fact that the only person to yet post the form on the web did so for capitalistic reasons and in so doing made it so his customers could complete it, does not make it a ‘fraud” in any common meaning of the word.

  13. Not Again said on 8 Jun 2007 at 4:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    For all, IP has adopted the writing name ‘Not Again”

  14. UN_IP2 said on 8 Jun 2007 at 5:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Like we all couldn’t figure that out!!!

  15. Thumper said on 8 Jun 2007 at 5:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    Where is this form? I’ve bought 2 guns in Prince William (neither of them Class 3) and I didn’t have any secret forms. Rumor has it that Hill, Deane (PWC Chief) AND Skinner (Manassas Chief) all sign off on Class 3 related stuff.

    Though Fotis has received VCDL endorsement though his posting in the blog jumped the gun before official announcement.

    I still recommend Hill for Sheriff because regime change isn’t needed nor wanted in my opinion.

  16. UN_IP2 said on 8 Jun 2007 at 5:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, you booted Mr. Deeds before using the name IP. His rhetoric is the same, just different writing name. We thought we were rid of him once, MUST we be forced to hear from him again??

  17. AWCheney said on 8 Jun 2007 at 5:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    I thought it sounded familiar Teddy boy. Do you really think that the people here are so stupid as to believe anything you have to say. Between your real identity and those links to investigative reports your former members have so kindly provided us, whatever credibility you MAY have had with a very few people (as well as that of your guy Fotis…you can take full credit for that) is totally shot. Pack it in Ted…you fellas are toast.

  18. AWCheney said on 8 Jun 2007 at 5:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    And btw Ted…I am even MORE resolved to make sure your boss gets absolutely no traction in the political scene here in Prince William County. In addition, thanks to you, there seem to be others who want a piece of that action.

  19. Not Again said on 8 Jun 2007 at 5:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg has not booted me.

    As you can plainly see we are in the midst of a rather heated disagreement!

    You need not worry I will be gone from this forum in few days.

    Thumper, yes, Fotis has been endorsed by all the gun groups… some expressly were mad about the treatment Sheriff Hill was giving gun owners.

    I did not jump the endorsement, just the public announcement of same.

    I believe Sheriff Hill declined to even complete the VCDL survey. So what does that tell you about his Second Amendment position?

    Sheriff Hill’s special form in question is, as Greg correctly points out, relate to BATFE’s Form 4. So unless you were under that you probably would never know aobut Hill’s formerly secret gun buyer form…. until now that is.

  20. JasonCW said on 8 Jun 2007 at 5:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    Again with the form - nobody cares IP/Ted/NA .. Just becuse you change your name doesn’t change the lies you preach as gospel.

  21. Not Again said on 8 Jun 2007 at 5:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    In case any readers missed it from the other thread the following was posted by the Hill supporters….

    Come on now fellas, you gonnna jump in here and tell the good folks that the form DOES exist!??

    vote4hill said on 7 Jun 2007 at 7:46 pm:
    Henry made a post about this form yesterday. Apparently he actually went up to the Sheriff’s office to investigate it for himself. It is some ATF form for fully automatic weapons, silencers, sawed off shotguns etc. His post is around here somewhere and it did answer alot of questions. …..

  22. Not Again said on 8 Jun 2007 at 5:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    And there is this….

    JasonCW said on 7 Jun 2007 at 10:04 pm:
    Ok - I looked at the mystery form - you can get one at the front window at the Sheriff’s Office.

  23. Super Trooper said on 8 Jun 2007 at 6:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ok Space cowboys there are no special forms,,,,,Hello more smoke and mirrors

  24. AWCheney said on 8 Jun 2007 at 6:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    “I did not jump the endorsement, just the public announcement of same.”

    What do you think “jump the endorsement” means, Ted? But I guess it takes more wherewithal than you have displayed here to figure things like that out…such as the promises Glen Hill made and KEPT to voters of PWC.

    I also find it fascinating how you take comments posted by people who PROVED you wrong about your “secret form” and then try to spin them into precisely the opposite meaning. Sorry pal, people around here apparently are not as stupid as you seem to think. If your experience has been that your feeble, and rather ignorant, rhetoric is believed, your practice on others must have provided you with a VERY low bar.

  25. AWCheney said on 8 Jun 2007 at 7:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    Give it up Ted…everybody has your number now. All you can accomplish is to dig your boss a deeper political grave. Worse, there’s enough information, along with the appropriate links, from people FAR more credible than you that will probably lead to more digging into you, your boss, and your organization. It’s obvious you don’t know us at all here in Prince William County. The FBI is already here, actively investigating some of our politicians at the behest of some of us who take pride in our county…it sounds like (from the links) there are some federal agencies who should be interested in you guys too.

  26. vote4hill said on 8 Jun 2007 at 7:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    You have got to be kidding me….this is nuts. Has anyone looked at any of the links that have been provided on this guy? Oh my goodness..how can you possibly take this guy seriously? I am bewildered…and I must admit surprised…So here it is folks the “secret form” is not a secret form….It is an ATF form for Class III weapons..fully automatic weapons…the one Greg posted for us all to see is the one Ted keeps referring to..it is a fraud..that’s right a fraud….lets move along Ted…all of this has been established time and time and time again. Although we may never hear from you after the Primary….you will here from us…an alliance has been formed and you can take full responsibility for burying your friend and employer Jim Fotis, in the political sense of course…Good Job Ted!

    Ted is trying so very hard to find something anything to discredit our Sheriff…Sheriff Hill…I wonder what lies will come next?


  27. pundit-106 said on 8 Jun 2007 at 9:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    If “Not again” thought that he could spin under another name, he should have tried not to be so long winded and self indulgent. But then again he just can’t help himslef can he? As I have asserted in the past, IP-Not again or who ever you are these days, has used this forum to fulfill his own short comings. To live vicariously through his pal, Mr. Fotis. Does it surprise anyone that he would resurface under a new name and continue to spin his poo poo?

  28. AWCheney said on 8 Jun 2007 at 9:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    Pundit, Fotis is more than his “pal”…he’s his boss. Remember how he insisted that he was “a volunteer in the purest sense of the word?”

  29. anon said on 8 Jun 2007 at 10:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    I wonder how fast “IP” would have a job in the sheriff’s office if Fotis won?

    I’d bet … yesterday.

    Is this dejavu all over again. ;)

    Another power hungry boss.

    With pie-in-the-sky dreams for the sheriff’s office.

    And his employees are doing his political work and lying in the process.

    Gosh, that sounds vaguely familiar.

  30. AWCheney said on 8 Jun 2007 at 10:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    All too familiar, anon. I’ve been saying all along that it sounded like Fotis’ agenda sounded just like Stoffregen’s with a R attached to it rather than a D. Doesn’t matter what the tag is, it still stinks.

  31. pundit-106 said on 8 Jun 2007 at 10:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    The names have changed but the players are scarily similar. Quid pro quo I beleive is the term. Of course he has been promised a seat next to the infamous Mr. Fotis. My fault AWCheney, I forgot the nature their relationship. IP has been working very hard for his present and future boss. He has fallen short of the mark though. Lets hope he doesn’t work on commission. Because this sale just fell through.

  32. Below The Beltway said on 8 Jun 2007 at 10:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    A Lie Exposed In The Prince William County Sheriff’s Race…


  33. Super Trooper said on 8 Jun 2007 at 11:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    HAHAH good stuff IP please be more pathedic.

  34. Not Again said on 9 Jun 2007 at 5:03 am:
    Flag comment

    So, do I take your collective responses to mean that those who are Hill supporters have no problem with Sheriff Hill creating a special form for would-be gun buyers to complete…

    Despite the fact that the Sheriff lack a legal footing to create such a form

    Despite the fact that the incumbent Sheriff, seeking re-election chose to include totally inapporopriate and irrelevant questions on his from.

    Are all Hill supporters on here of one voice that the “ends justify the means”? The Sheriff can do whatever he wasnts, be as unfair and as hostile as he wants to any sub-group of gun onwers and its all ‘okay’ by you because it is part of Sheriff Hill just doin his job.

    I think there are voters out there, who support the Second Amendment, who would disagree.

  35. AWCheney said on 9 Jun 2007 at 8:32 am:
    Flag comment

    You can take the collective responses to mean that NOBODY BELIEVES A WORD YOU SAY Ted. You have become irrelevent to this subject matter and would be wise to move on. You’ve done sufficient damage to Fotis already, and I thank you. I can’t say it’s been a pleasure.

  36. Lars Wiechmann said on 9 Jun 2007 at 11:51 am:
    Flag comment

    If Fotis is paying Ted Deeds to help him with his campaign, I think Fotis should get his money back.

  37. AWCheney said on 9 Jun 2007 at 12:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    Perhaps he is paying him Lars, we know for sure that Fotis is Ted Deeds boss at the LEAA. Fotis is the General/Executive Director and Deeds is the Operations Director.

  38. AWCheney said on 9 Jun 2007 at 1:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    “I was talking with someone concerned about the Second Amendment and Hill’s gun owner hostile record and a whole new issue arose.”

    Talking to yourself in the mirror this morning Ted? Careful you don’t fracture your brain trying to figure out what other lies you can put out there…I know you must be straining it since you’ve shown your capabilities to be limited to repeating the same things over, and over, and over…..

  39. JasonCW said on 9 Jun 2007 at 1:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    Lets all just quit engaging this pyscho- no matter want you tell him he spins it -

    I am sure Fairfax has a special form too for his kind - probably titled “Civil Mental Commitment”

  40. AWCheney said on 9 Jun 2007 at 1:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    It gets worse Jason…he’s posted what appears to a press release in the comments section of the “Glen Hill” thread alleging all of his accusations, aka lies, to be the work of Greg. He’s really done it now, especially if he DID post it through media contacts as a release. Teddy here has really crossed the line.

  41. Greg L said on 9 Jun 2007 at 1:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    The comment in question, which claims to speak on my behalf about an investigation that I have never conducted, and claims I am about to make some announcement of which I know nothing about, has been deleted.

    I have also blocked the IP addresses that Mr. Ted Deeds has used to access this site at my server. His outrageous behavior will no longer be tolerated.

    Ted Deeds is a fraud and a persistent liar. I am deeply disturbed that Jim Fotis would ever want to associate with someone so thoroughly reprehensible, and deeply concerned that this reprobate would be granted any position of authority within the LEAA. His behavior is outrageous.

    Instead of taking time to rage against his despicable behavior, instead I am going to knock on doors for the rest of the afternoon and urge voters to vote for Glen Hill on June 12th.

  42. AWCheney said on 9 Jun 2007 at 1:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Good for you Greg!!…I applaud you!

  43. UN_IP2 said on 9 Jun 2007 at 2:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    THANK YOU Greg for taking the much needed and appreciated steps in regards to Mr. Deeds.

    AWCheney - “Perhaps he is paying him Lars, we know for sure that Fotis is Ted Deeds boss at the LEAA. Fotis is the General/Executive Director and Deeds is the Operations Director.” I believe the point, is, and should be that LEAA has been paying Mr. and Mrs. Deeds’ salaries as well as Mr. Fotis’ salary for them to campaign for Mr. Fotis. Who is to say what other funds from LEAA have been used for the campaign as well. All of those poor LEAA members who truly believed their hard-earned money was being used to support 2nd Amendment Rights as well as Victim Rights. Hopefully this will be an eye-opener for them as well.

  44. Lars Wiechmann said on 9 Jun 2007 at 2:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well..then it needs to show up on the SBE disclosure forms after the primary. I’ll be looking and for their sake I hope they report it.

  45. AWCheney said on 9 Jun 2007 at 2:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    You’re absolutely correct UN_IP2…I should have made that distinction. Which begs the question: Has anyone seen any of the Campaign Finance Reports for the Sheriff’s race? Does the name “Deeds” show up in any of Fotis’ expenditures. That might be interesting to find out.

  46. AWCheney said on 9 Jun 2007 at 2:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    Lars, can you find that information on a Sheriff’s race at the SBE? I’ve probably not looked in the right place, but all I’ve ever been able to find is State Senate and HOD reports.

  47. AWCheney said on 9 Jun 2007 at 2:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    …and Gov., Lt. Gov., and Att. Gen., of course.

  48. anon said on 9 Jun 2007 at 3:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    “One agency tasked with policing groups like the LEAA is the Internal Revenue Service. But the IRS doesn’t appear to be interested. It has designated the non-profit LEAA as “a social welfare organization.” Under this tax designation, the LEAA can legally “educate” voters about issues but, it cannot advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate. The IRS forbids such organizations from “direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.” When big money is the key to demolishing political opponents, the biggest advantage that any “social welfare” group like the LEAA enjoys is that it is legally allowed to keep all its donors, even the largest ones, hidden.”

    So, Fotis’s organization can’t legally endorse him; I wonder, however, if they can spend “company time” (and thus money) endorsing him.

  49. AWCheney said on 9 Jun 2007 at 4:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well anon, if money is being misappropriated and/or laundered by individuals in a tax exempt organization, perhaps the FBI Frauds Division might be interested. There’s also the Postal Service Criminal Division if they have been soliciting funds through the mail for purposes other than those specified. I’m sure that there’d be LOTS of Federal Agencies that might want to take a look if some research produces evidence of something fishy going on. Just a matter of putting it into the right hands.

  50. Super Trooper said on 9 Jun 2007 at 4:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    IP and Fotis both are frauds and Fotis is a liar. Just look at the Potomac news

    1/2 a page of just Lies. Why would you run for an office built on integrity when

    you lie to the taxpayers. Just sad.

  51. Greg L said on 9 Jun 2007 at 8:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    anon, a “social welfare organization” is a 501(c)(4) under the tax code, and is allowed to advocate for or against candidates. Contributions to a 501(c)(4) are not tax-deductible.

    A 501(c)(3) “charitable organization” cannot advocate for or against a candidate or a a specific piece of legislation, but donations to it are tax deductible.

    I believe you are confusing these.

  52. anon said on 9 Jun 2007 at 10:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    If so, then I didn’t confuse them, the newspaper that I quoted from did so. Perhaps I should have known not to trust that source.

    Here’s what is on the IRS website:

    “The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditure it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f).”

  53. Super Trooper said on 12 Jun 2007 at 12:00 am:
    Flag comment

    Come back IP IP wow we miss you Need more funny stuff come back but oooohhhhh you cant soooo sad

Comments are closed.

Views: 2552