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

Paul Nichols Arrested For Assaulting A Cop

By Greg L | 9 October 2009 | 51st HOD District | 88 Comments

Delegate Paul Nichols was taken into custody for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer?  Not good.

This was the subject of a mail piece that hit the 51st District today, which doesn’t tell us about the disposition of the case, but it does give the broad overview of what the incident involved.  Apparently Paul Nichols and someone else were in the outer banks in 2006 and got pulled over on suspicion of DUI.  The officer calls for backup.  Almost an hour later, an ambulance is called to the scene and Nichols is placed under arrest for “resist, delay, obstruct” and “assault on a law enforcement official.” 

A year later, without anyone knowing that this happened, Nichols is elected to the House of Delegates, representing the 51st District.  Now they do.

Since the mailer doesn’t mention a conviction, I think it’s safe to assume that the charges were dismissed or reduced, and that Paul Nichols was not convicted of assaulting a police officer.  Lawyers tend to get pretty lenient treatment from the courts sometimes, and Nichols wasn’t the only one to benefit from this.  His opponent last election, also a lawyer, managed to pretty much get off on a reckless driving charge in Fairfax County that was pending during the 2007 election season.  Only this time Nichols isn’t running against another attorney with a questionable driving record.  They’re running against someone they’re referring to internally as “Captian America,” although I don’t imagine the moniker is supposed to be flattering.

I can see this being a game-changer in what is looking like a really close contest.  The Anderson campaign is saying their polling as of about two weeks ago put the contenders neck-and-neck, and that was before any of the mail started dropping.  In something running this close, it doesn’t take much to put you over the top.

This might do it.



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. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

88 Comments

  1. Harry said on 9 Oct 2009 at 2:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, isn’t there more to this story?

  2. Greg L said on 9 Oct 2009 at 2:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    Undoubtably. I don’t know more than I’ve presented here, though.

  3. Freedom said on 9 Oct 2009 at 3:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    OK Harry, I give up….what’s the rest of the story?

  4. Anonymous said on 9 Oct 2009 at 3:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    Actually, I think less of Anderson for having people dig this deep for info of qustionable value (no conviction? Is this document even real?) for sending out the flyer. That’s not the kind of person I want representing me in Richmond.

    It’s like saying so and so doesn’t beat his wife… what’s the point?

  5. Greg L said on 9 Oct 2009 at 3:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ridiculous.

    What candidate would NOT do opposition research on his opponent, and bring to light any behavior by them that might call into question their suitibility for office? By this same standard, are you condemning Creigh Deeds for dragging out something that he wrote twenty years ago? This happened around the time of the last election cycle, not twenty years ago.

    If the document isn’t real, I invite you to contact the Dare County, NC where this happened and check with them. I’ve verified this. The idea that a campaign would fabricate something like this is ridiculous, and the suggestion it could be fake smacks of utter desperation.

  6. Anonymous said on 9 Oct 2009 at 4:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    Whats wrong Harry? Why are you still defending the guy who fired your ass as his legislative assistant after you said some reasonable remarks about the PW County School Board?

  7. Freedom said on 9 Oct 2009 at 5:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    I guess he’d rather have a Delegate who assaults a police officer…so long as he wears a “D”! :(

  8. Question said on 9 Oct 2009 at 6:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    Wait a minute… doesn’t he have to report an arrest to the Bar???

  9. REG said on 9 Oct 2009 at 7:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    PRINCIPLES OF PROFESSIONALISM FOR VIRGINIA LAWYERS
    Preamble
    Virginia can take special pride in the important role its lawyers have played in American history. From Thomas Jefferson to Oliver Hill, Virginia lawyers have epitomized our profession’s highest ideals. Without losing sight of what lawyers do for their clients and for the public, lawyers should also focus on how they perform their duties. In their very first professional act, all Virginia lawyers pledge to demean themselves “professionally and courteously.” Lawyers help their clients, the institutions with which they deal and themselves when they treat everyone with respect and courtesy. These Principles of Professionalism serve as a reminder of how Virginia lawyers have acted in the past and should act in the future.

    Principles
    In my conduct toward everyone with whom I deal, I should:
    • Remember that I am part of a self-governing profession, and that my actions and demeanor reflect upon my profession.
    • Act at all times with professional integrity, so that others will know that my word is my bond.
    • Avoid all bigotry, discrimination, or prejudice.
    • Treat everyone as I want to be treated—with respect and courtesy.
    • Act as a mentor for less experienced lawyers and as a role model for future generations of lawyers.
    • Contribute my skills, knowledge and influence in the service of my community.
    • Encourage those I supervise to act with the same professionalism to which I aspire.

    Do you think he held up these principles from V I R G I N I A S T A T E B A R 2008–2009 Professional Guidelines?

  10. Anonymous said on 9 Oct 2009 at 10:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg is correct about Anonymous 3:35 being off base. There is nothing wrong with opposition research.

    This is an example, however, of poor reporting. Reputable commentators wouldn’t promote this sort of story without first finding out the outcome. What if it turns out the charges were dropped because the officer mistook Nichols for someone else? Greg seems perfectly willing to speculate that as a lawyer Nichols got off leniently; why not conclude that the charges were bogus? My guess is that there is nothing real here or Anderson would have included it in the mailer. If that’s the case, this might and should end up being a problem for Anderson. An ethical person would not put this out if the the charges were dropped; it would be deliberately misleading the public into thinking Nichols committed a crime of some sort. Is that the sort of person Anderson is?

    More evidence that this is likely nothing is that Nichols would have to report it to the Bar, and if there was something to it he would have been reprimanded in some fashion — an easy thing to check out.

  11. The Donkey said on 9 Oct 2009 at 11:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    Some police often charge people with assault and resisting arrest for little more than arguing.

    An arrest without a conviction says very little indeed.

  12. G-Fan said on 9 Oct 2009 at 11:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    As much as I hate to admit it, The Donkey has a point. Remember all the stuff the Manassas Park cops pulled at the Rack and Roll?

  13. ... said on 9 Oct 2009 at 11:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    “More evidence that this is likely nothing is that Nichols would have to report it to the Bar”

    If he didn’t, how would they know? Unless they had some reason to conduct a background check on him, they wouldn’t.

  14. Anonymous said on 9 Oct 2009 at 11:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Where does it indicate that Paul Nichols got pulled over for suspicion of DUI? I don’t see that anywhere on the report.

  15. ...said reply said on 9 Oct 2009 at 11:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    …said 11:06 - they would know because North Carolina would report it to the Virginia State Bar. I think Anderson may have got some bad advice on this. If there is no conviction, his reputation is going to be tarnished. The sexual predator thing was a legitimate criticism of a bill Nichols voted for. If there is no conviction, Anderson is going to be on record trying to mislead the public.

  16. Greg L said on 9 Oct 2009 at 11:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    He wasn’t the driver, I understand. He may have intervened when the driver was being taken into custody.

    More details to follow, as soon as I’m able to get them.

  17. Anonymous said on 9 Oct 2009 at 11:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    Did Paul Nichols fire Harry Wiggins? My understanding is that these guys are good friends, and records show that Harry has been giving to Paul’s campaign. Where is Freedom getting his information? Or is he just making it up?

  18. Anonymous said on 9 Oct 2009 at 11:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    Then Greg why would you report this without first having the facts?

  19. Pro-Anderson said on 9 Oct 2009 at 11:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’ve got a bad feeling about this. If there was a conviction Rich would have put it in the mailer. If there wasn’t, Nichols has the money to rake him over the coals for misleading the public. I’m worried Rich got bad advice on this.

  20. Anonymous said on 9 Oct 2009 at 11:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    Appears that the arresting officer is no longer with the police department. I assume you called the Southern Shores Police Department Greg. Did they say anything about the outcome of the matter?

  21. Journalism? said on 9 Oct 2009 at 11:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg said at 11:15 p.m., “more details to follow, as soon as I’m able to get them.”

    That’s the difference between reputable journalism and the kind of garbage that permeates blogs like this. A reputable journalist would not have posted this without getting all the relevant available facts, particularly when it’s easy enough to find out if there was a conviction. This is not just sloppy, it’s unethical.

  22. Anderson Supporter said on 9 Oct 2009 at 11:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    Trust me everyone. Rich is an honorable guy. There has to be some sort of conviction or Rich would not have sent out the mailer. It was probably just a small fine that Nichols negotiated and that Rich was advised not to include because it would take away from the seriousness of the arrest. It is not unusual, after all, for lawyers to bargain things down.

  23. Anonymous said on 10 Oct 2009 at 12:05 am:
    Flag comment

    Nice try Anderson Supporter, but then why didn’t the Anderson campaign give Greg the details? Also, if they did enough research to find the arrest, they certainly know the outcome. If there was a conviction, no matter how small, they would no doubt have said in the mailer that Nichols was “convicted” and just left out the fine, or whatever. No, I think your man got some bad advice. I bet you there is no conviction, and if there isn’t he is going to lose every true independent’s vote he might otherwise have gotten once the Nichols campaign runs an ad exposing it. Your guy’s ethical lapse may have just handed the election to Nichols.

  24. Pat.Herve said on 10 Oct 2009 at 6:33 am:
    Flag comment

    Apparently Paul Nichols and someone else were in the outer banks in 2006 and got pulled over on suspicion of DUI.

    Sure makes it sound like Paul Nichols was pulled over for DUI…. nice spin.

  25. Logical Thinker said on 10 Oct 2009 at 6:44 am:
    Flag comment

    Anon 12:05AM, obviously you’ve been up so late worrying about this that you are delusional (maybe at the campaign HQ?). Regardless, you don’t get it. If Nichols was arrested for resisting and assault, a conviction isn’t really important here. People who are public officials or even aspire to be public officials don’t confront cops and get arrested for it. You must have a pretty low estimate of independent voters if you think they won’t think this is behavior completely unbecoming of a public official. They may not be as partisan as Ds and Rs, but they obey the law!

    Do you want a Delegate who resists arrest and assaults a cop to be the role model for your community? Do you want him making the laws? Do you think cops will trust the judgment of a man like that to represent them in Richmond? Maybe when you get some sleep you’ll figure this one out. Nichols is in deep trouble here. Don’t fool yourself.

  26. Anonymous said on 10 Oct 2009 at 7:05 am:
    Flag comment

    Can’t say I’m too surprised by this. The rumors out of Richmond are that Nichols is referred to as “Frat Boy” due to his frequent late nights on the bar scene.

  27. Reality Check said on 10 Oct 2009 at 7:16 am:
    Flag comment

    Oh yeah, let’s hold a blogger to the standards of mainstream media. That’s a rich idea. Complain that he didn’t spend hours tracking down every minor detail on a breaking story before he posted. Well, if you’re unhappy that this wasn’t as thoroughly researched as a Washington Post expose, I guess you can ask for your subscription money back.

    Seems like someone’s campaign staff sure are spending a lot of time on the blogs here. Greg, how about tracking down all those Ip addresses and letting us know how many of them come from a law office in Woodbridge? The desperation here is palpable.

  28. Greg L said on 10 Oct 2009 at 7:33 am:
    Flag comment

    Don’t know what the IP’s track to specifically, but Anonymous, Anderson Supporter, Pro-Anderson, said-reply and Journalism are all the same Comcast IP. Pretty much all the comments attacking me and Rich Anderson are one person posting under different names.

  29. One more Comcast person said on 10 Oct 2009 at 8:12 am:
    Flag comment

    Everyone on Comcast in Woodbridge pretty much shares the same IP address. It’s not one person, there are just a lot of folks (myself included) that think you did a poor job of reporting here.

    [Ed note: Your IP is different, for example. I’ve logged over 30,000 different IP addresses that are part of Comcast’s IP address space, so the notion that they’re all NAT’ed through the same IP is incorrect. They’re allocated though a number of DHCP servers, and seem to remain assigned to the same customer for about 60 days.]

  30. ... said on 10 Oct 2009 at 8:28 am:
    Flag comment

    “…said 11:06 - they would know because North Carolina would report it to the Virginia State Bar.”

    Why would they do that? They may not know that he is a lawyer, and even if they do, they may not have a policy to report it to the bar.

  31. ... said on 10 Oct 2009 at 8:32 am:
    Flag comment

    “Everyone on Comcast in Woodbridge pretty much shares the same IP address. ”

    Don’t speak of things which you have no clue about. Comcast IPs do not change very often (months), absent specific action by the user to make them change.

  32. ... said on 10 Oct 2009 at 8:35 am:
    Flag comment

    “They may not know that he is a lawyer”

    ‘They’, in this case, refers to the person, if any, whose job it is to report things like this to the bar.

  33. Brian Faughnan said on 10 Oct 2009 at 8:44 am:
    Flag comment

    For commenter(s) suggesting there needs to be a journalistic standard applied here, the appropriate response is ‘when the mainstream media do their jobs - and actually try to find and report on stories like this one - then they can apply their standards.’

    There’s no reason for a blogger not to post something that the MSM has either missed or ignored for years. Let Nichols go to the WaPo and tell his side of the story; he obviously knew he was arrested. If he wanted a ‘fair accounting’ he’s had nearly 3 years to initiate one.

  34. Anonymous said on 10 Oct 2009 at 8:51 am:
    Flag comment

    “The Donkey said on 9 Oct 2009 at 11:00 pm: Flag comment
    Some police often charge people with assault and resisting arrest for little more than arguing.”

    I believe that charge is called “Contempt of Cop.”

  35. Casanova Frankenstein said on 10 Oct 2009 at 9:06 am:
    Flag comment

    Paul Nichols needs to respond to this.

    This is not just something that Greg put up here.

    This is a mailer being sent to voters in the 51st Dist.

    As a lawyer, Nichols should have known better. But perhaps his ego as PWC’s Denny Crane overcame common sense.

  36. NotTimothyGeithner said on 10 Oct 2009 at 9:41 am:
    Flag comment

    Is it customary to put one’s work address instead of home address on arrest reports or does Delegate Nichols live at his law office? Perhaps someone should check his voter registration over the years or tax status over the years?

  37. Freddie said on 10 Oct 2009 at 10:16 am:
    Flag comment

    There goes the FOP endorsement.

  38. Greg S said on 10 Oct 2009 at 10:27 am:
    Flag comment

    does Delegate Nichols live at his law office? Perhaps someone should check his voter registration over the years or tax status over the years?

    Paul lives about 2 miles from his office. I don’t think you have a case here.

  39. J. Tyler Ballance said on 10 Oct 2009 at 11:39 am:
    Flag comment

    What is interesting, is how many of you simply presume that being charged means that the man is guilty of something. To you who believe that cops are always good and honest, I invite you to take a tour in reality sometime soon.

    Cops, just like other people, lose patience and overstep their authority. This happens a lot more since the 9/11 hysteria was seen by law enforcement as a green light to do anything that they want. The Bush Administration poured gas on that fire with their anti-terrorism maneuvers that handed even more power to government agencies.

    Today, any time a citizen questions the use of force or the detention of anyone by a cop, that person is either charged or threatened with the charge of obstruction. There has been a long tradition of an, “us versus them” mentality among police, where the citizens are the, “them.” This divide has grown far worse during the terrorism hysteria era in which we now live.

    This is one reason I advocate that police jobs be limited to just a few years and that only detectives and senior administrators have careers in law enforcement. When an officer knows that he/she will have to return to the real world and earn a living after a short four years as a cop, they relate to the citizens as peers, rather than to treat us as their enemy.

    I was not aware of Mr. Nichols until now, but he sounds like the kind of Man who will fight for the rights of our citizens and against injustice, wherever injustice occurs. I am sending Mr. Nichols a donation, asking that he keep fighting for us in the House of Delegates.

    Thanks for the heads-up on this attempt to smear Mr. Nichols.

  40. Harry said on 10 Oct 2009 at 12:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    The rest of the story: Paul and a member of the Washington Redskins, along with 10 others were on a golf outing in Nags Head, NC. An officer pulled over one of the cars that was caravaning, Paul was not the driver. Paul was assaulted by the officer after getting out of the vehicle, the officer attempted to cover up his assault by charging Paul with assault. The officer left the police force less than 30 days after the assault on Paul, the charges against Paul were dismmissed. At least a dozen witnesses saw the whole scene, Paul never raised a finger, hand or anything else, this was a rogue cop engaging in a cover up. Rich Anderson knew the entire story. Anderson’s mail piece tells you eveything you need to know about Anderson’s character and how loosely he plays with the truth, particularly when he knew the facts of the situation. This was the mailing of a desperate campaign and a candidate who offers no solution other than hate and evil.

  41. Greg L said on 10 Oct 2009 at 12:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    Harry,

    Are you speaking for the campaign here?

  42. Harry said on 10 Oct 2009 at 12:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Re: Anderson Supporter: I too thought Rich was a decent person, eventhough I support Nichols, Anderson’s true personality is now evident: SLIME.

  43. Harry said on 10 Oct 2009 at 12:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, I don’t speak for the campaign, as you are aware, I just know the facts.

  44. Greg L said on 10 Oct 2009 at 12:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    Harry, Seeing that you work for the campaign, although not in a paid status as evidenced by campaign finance disclosures, I would imagine that the only way you would publicly comment on the campaign is if you had official authorization to do so. I have to assume, unless otherwise informed, that when you speak about the Nichols campaign that it is official, and sanctioned by Paul Nichols.

    Just trying to make sure that if I quote this in the future, I get the attribution right.

  45. Harry said on 10 Oct 2009 at 12:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, i am a volunteer like many others, I do not “work” for the camapign, I have not be authorized or not authorized to speak for Paul, if you want a quote from Paul, you’ll need to speak to him. I do not speak for Paul.

  46. Harry said on 10 Oct 2009 at 12:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Efrem, when was the last time you were institutionalized?

  47. Logical Thinker said on 10 Oct 2009 at 1:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    Looks like Harry was given the mission to float a straw man defense. Interesting. So he’s out with some Redskins playing golf…at 11:32 PM (see the top of the arrest report above where it says 23:30 hours). Must be night golf under the lights or maybe they were at the putt-putt course with a case of Bud..

    Then Harry wants us to believe that this was a rogue cop that just started beating up Nichols. Right. I get it. The cop was riding around looking to pick a fight at 11 PM and Nichols was the unfortunate victim?

    OK, let’s get real for a moment. Anybody with a brain knows that when a car gets stopped by the police, you NEVER get out of the car until the officer instructs you to do so. Police are always worried about getting outnumbered, and when folks get out of the car, a threatening environment results.

    If Nichols got out as Harry says he did, then that act alone would be considered by most police officers as potentially dangerous. If Nichols had been drinking, that would make it more volatile. I would bet that what he was doing was trying to intercede for his pal and it went bad. Good citizens don’t challenge cops during police stops. They say “yes sir” a lot and behave, unless they are drunk, egotistical, self-important, or just plain stupid. Take your pick.

    Thanks, Harry for this unique insight. I have no doubt that the campaign sent you out to do this. Dig, Greg.

  48. Greg L said on 10 Oct 2009 at 1:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    Just to make things more intersting, Harry is now emailing me and saying I’ve violated some section of the Virginia Code (which he won’t specify), committing a Class 1 misdemeanor, and that I better behave. Until he starts demanding hush money from me, I’m not going to take it seriously, though.

    It sure has been a strange week.

  49. Anonymous said on 10 Oct 2009 at 2:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, Harry is probably talking about the Virginia law that makes it illegal to intentionally distribute someone’s social security number, even if it is already in a public document. I don’t see Nichols’ social security number in anything you posted, so I think you’re okay. Might want to check it out though to be safe.

  50. Greg L said on 10 Oct 2009 at 2:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, just in case that nine digit number could have been, I’ve edited the pic to remove it. Regardless of what the law requires, I wouldn’t want to do that anyways.

  51. Harry said on 10 Oct 2009 at 3:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, as I emailed you, there are 2 violations, found the second one yet?

  52. Harry said on 10 Oct 2009 at 3:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    Logical Thinker, no one sent me to do anything, btw, I was giving Greg a heads up in a private email to correct his miscreant behavior.

  53. David Rosier said on 10 Oct 2009 at 3:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    I was undecided about the candidates. Not any longer. Anyone who would send out a flyer like this is unethical. I am now supporting Nichols.

  54. Mike W said on 10 Oct 2009 at 4:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    We’ll see how this turns out, but would anyone be surprised to learn that “Frat-boy” has no conviction? Even if he does not, the arrest, in the context of Paul Nichols’ well-earned Frat-boy reputation, raises serious questions in the minds of voters about his judgment…particularly in the minds of voters who want one of us representing all of us in Richmond. This is a “chicken coming home to roast” for Frat-boy. Two years ago, Frat-boy’s campaign used innuendo and FABRICATION to raise doubts about his opponent’s judgment…to get Frat-boy elected…and this time, had the shoe been on the other foot, the Nichols’ campaign would have fabricated a mug shot, paired the fake photo with the arrest report, and released it in frequent mailers. How can Frat-boy call the release of this information slime in comparison to his billboard ad? He cannot. Frat-boy will need to buy his way out of this jam with mega-TV time and make the point that his opponent will do more harm than a disengaged incumbent.

    Since we don’t have all the facts, perhaps there are two sober witnesses out there who can state that the officer dragged Frat-boy from the car and beat him without provocation, then lied to cover himself? Short of this, it is Frat-boy and not the Anderson camp that has some ‘xplaining to do.’ If Nichols was not arrested, his ironic defense: “Frat-boy, no conviction.”

    …and yes, the double meaning was intentional.

  55. Advocator said on 10 Oct 2009 at 5:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’ve got to agree with the Nichols’ supporters on this one. Sending out a report of an arrest without giving the disposition of the charge(s) is irresponsible and bad judgment.

    The last time I was stopped for speeding (by a state police), the officer said to me, “Sir, would you care to step out of the vehicle?” I said, “No ma’am, I wouldn’t.” She immediately drew her 9mm and called for backup with the other hand. I have not doubt that if I had not explained that I thought she was giving me a choice that I would have been run in for resisting. Some cops are just a bit too touchy, and some actually invite confrontation. Unless this charge was followed by a conviction, it should not reflect badly on Mr. Nichols.

  56. Greg L said on 10 Oct 2009 at 5:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    You know Harry, I’m tired of this crap from you. Bite me. You go run to Ebert and file a complaint. You go out there and harass a blogger with frivilous and unwarranted criminal complaints all you want.

    We’ll see how this turns out.

  57. Mike W said on 10 Oct 2009 at 5:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Advocator…I’ve been warned about the perils of “driving while black,” but frankly, I’ve never been warned about a potential “beat down” from a female cop. Thanks for the tip. You may have saved me from the mistaken notion that female cops are good at deconflicting unwarranted tensions…guess yours “went rogue.” Good that you had the “balls” to stay put.

    Back to the issue…Frat-boy, Paul Nichols, has earned a reputation: “Charter member of ‘I Felta Thigh’ Fraternity.” OK, I’m joking, but jokes like this only resonate because there is the kernel of truth. Does Paul have a reputation as a hard drinking party boy? Which “L.A. Law” character is he? Arnold Becker, the divorce lawyer? He’s seeking to represent us. “Not convicted” is not a vote of confidence…given his reputation…even wthin his Democratic party. We partisans can argue, but this is not a court of law. This is something that the sensible center will decide.

    I think the sensible center will agree with me: the unanswered questions raise more concern over the judgment of Paul “Frat-boy” Nichols than Rich Anderson.

  58. Chris Royse said on 10 Oct 2009 at 6:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    For the record, though I do not reside in the 51st, Rich is my guy and I think he will be an excellent Delegate. This information, however, means absolutely nothing and without the back story there is no hit to Paul’s character. If Paul should be convicted on anything, it’s for making a horrible television commercial.

  59. Former Officer said on 10 Oct 2009 at 7:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    This might be quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever seen posted on the net. This guy is not quite right.
    _______________________________________________________

    J. Tyler Ballance said on 10 Oct 2009 at 11:39 am: Flag comment

    What is interesting, is how many of you simply presume that being charged means that the man is guilty of something. To you who believe that cops are always good and honest, I invite you to take a tour in reality sometime soon.

    Cops, just like other people, lose patience and overstep their authority. This happens a lot more since the 9/11 hysteria was seen by law enforcement as a green light to do anything that they want. The Bush Administration poured gas on that fire with their anti-terrorism maneuvers that handed even more power to government agencies.

    Today, any time a citizen questions the use of force or the detention of anyone by a cop, that person is either charged or threatened with the charge of obstruction. There has been a long tradition of an, “us versus them” mentality among police, where the citizens are the, “them.” This divide has grown far worse during the terrorism hysteria era in which we now live.

    This is one reason I advocate that police jobs be limited to just a few years and that only detectives and senior administrators have careers in law enforcement. When an officer knows that he/she will have to return to the real world and earn a living after a short four years as a cop, they relate to the citizens as peers, rather than to treat us as their enemy.

    I was not aware of Mr. Nichols until now, but he sounds like the kind of Man who will fight for the rights of our citizens and against injustice, wherever injustice occurs. I am sending Mr. Nichols a donation, asking that he keep fighting for us in the House of Delegates.

    Thanks for the heads-up on this attempt to smear Mr. Nichols.

  60. Slick said on 10 Oct 2009 at 7:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    Judging by all the commentary, this story has hit a raw nerve and has the lefty socialists scampering like cockroaches when the light is turned on. Run, pinkos! Run!

    Obama lied, the economy died!

  61. Advocator said on 10 Oct 2009 at 8:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Not quite sure what your point was, Mike W, but yes, it was a good thing that all came out with just a speeding ticket.

  62. Freedom said on 10 Oct 2009 at 9:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    Wow, I can’t believe some of you….:) Over the last 40 years or so, I’ve received two speeding tickets and two more “warnings.” On one occasion, I felt that the police officer was a bit “smarty” in the conduct of their job. Nevertheless, knowing that I was “on the spot,” I had the common sense (in my own self interest) to keep my mouth shut, keep my hands to myself and be outwardly respectful with a “Yes Sir/No Sir/I didn’t realize Sir, and I’ll be careful not to do it again, Sir.” Wilmpy of me, perhaps.

    However, I knew that in my best interest, it was no time to be anything but respectful of the law enforcement officer, and for me to be “smarty” in return (much less belligerent or assaulting) would not have served me well. That is just good common sense in the interest of self preservation? Of course, if mistreated I’d have dealt with that in front of the Judge. I suspect that many of you have had similar experiences.

    The Officer may well have been over-zealous, I don’t know, but surely a sober defense lawyer who has the advantage of “connections” within his profession would know that it’s not good judgment to “take a cop on” at the scene. Further, if the cop were truly out-of-line, I would expect that a responsible defense attorney would recognize the situation for what it was and behave himself on the scene — then, to lucidate the occurrence and publicize his experience through channels to ensure that we “common citizens” didn’t fall victim to similar treatment. Further, to have done so would have cleared his name and prevented such acrimonious revelation as this.

    Conviction is not the issue; none of us were there to know exactly what happened, but it’s certainly a matter of poor conduct and poor judgment of a defense attorney who under normal circumstances should have known better.

  63. Someone who owns a vacation home at OBX said on 10 Oct 2009 at 9:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    Harry’s full of shit.

    The local police know what side their bread is buttered on down there. You have to be seriously out of line to even have an encounter with the police, much less “assaulted.” I can count the times I’ve seen a car pulled over on highway 12 on the fingers of one hand over the span of 20 years.

  64. Kevin C. said on 11 Oct 2009 at 2:57 am:
    Flag comment

    Has EVERYONE lost sight of the FACT that we’re dealing with a lawyer who LIES for a living? Since WHEN is telling the truth, “Slinging mud?” This isn’t the first time Nickles has tried to make Rich Anderson look bad for making the public aware of what a low-life Nickles is. Don’t forget that it was the Potomac News that labeled Nickles SLIMEY during the last election. This CLOWN voted to allow criminals to work in our schools near our children. Nickles is NOT FIT for public office! This DIRTBAG has made a career of ruining peoples’ lives. People need to take the BLINDFOLDS off!

  65. Charles said on 11 Oct 2009 at 7:15 am:
    Flag comment

    Story made the paper. Faisal Gill knew about this in 2007, but didn’t use it. And if Greg had known it in 2007, I doubt he would have used it either.

    You’d think after the Jeanne Davis fiasco with legal records of her opponent last year, people would have learned to scrub personal information from these documents before sending them out as flyers. It makes no difference if the document is true, people guard their privacy and tend to react negatively to stories where a candidate’s personal information is disclosed.

    Nichols had the arrest “expunged”, which means he remembered it and thought it was important — so he should have disclosed it back in 2007, and been done with it. IF he had a Redskin to back up his story, it would have blown over. My guess is he didn’t trust the electorate to handle the story, plus he was too busy running false flyers against Faisal Gill (flyers that the paper cited as over the line, for which they called Nichols dishonest).

    So you could say this is payback, but in any case I don’t think this is going to help Anderson, except with voters who were already going to vote for him.

  66. Tom Andrews said on 11 Oct 2009 at 7:33 am:
    Flag comment

    One of the many hueristics of political campaigning is “don’t do anything to lose support”. As an Anderson supporter, I’m confused as to the the logic being used when sending out the mailer. It is of no political value other than to somewhat tarnish the sterling reputation Rich had as a different type of political candidate. People are tired of this type of campaigning and while consultants and talking heads will show numbers that suggest going negative (especially late) works, I think the mailer was a colossal mistake. I’m a die hard Republican and even I just shook my head and said “so what-this stuff is meaningless”. In a small campaign such as the 51st I believe the risk benefit calculation wasnt done correctly on this one. I hope Rich gets back to telling people why they should vote for him rather than why they shouldnt vote for Nichols. Look at what has happened to Deeds. Same concept, larger scale.

  67. Charles said on 11 Oct 2009 at 9:25 am:
    Flag comment

    I’m surprised they didn’t just leak it to bloggers. Not that it would be any better of an attack that way, but at least it wouldn’t get dirt directly on the candidate.

    It’s how democrats do most of their smears — get Ben Tribbett to run it, which means the Washington Post will make it a front-page news story.

  68. Mike W said on 11 Oct 2009 at 2:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    J Tyler Ballance, you said, “I was not aware of Mr. Nichols until now, but he sounds like the kind of Man who will fight for the rights of our citizens and against injustice, wherever injustice occurs. I am sending Mr. Nichols a donation, asking that he keep fighting for us in the House of Delegates.” By your logic, Rodney King should run for Congress.

    The fighting that Nichols did was not in Richmond; it was in North Carolina… reported after Paul “Frat-boy” Nichols consummed a bit of liquid courage. Assault of a cop and legislative triumphs are two very different things.

    Again, we partisans can argue all day. To you, Paul Nichols can do no wrong; to me, Frat-boy (as his own party privately calls him) is an embarrassment, who advocates his party’s state-wide budget priorities over the interest of his district, the 51st.

  69. Anonymous said on 11 Oct 2009 at 3:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Guess some of you have forgotten about the Manassas Park cops and the Rack and Roll.

  70. Liberty said on 11 Oct 2009 at 3:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    Here’s a great quote from a mental giant at 9:28 on 10 October:

    “Conviction is not the issue; none of us were there to know exactly what happened, but it’s certainly a matter of poor conduct and poor judgment of a defense attorney who under normal circumstances should have known better.”

    Now that makes a lot of sense.

  71. Gnarly said on 11 Oct 2009 at 3:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m so torn here. I support Rich Anderson, but I know Paul Nichols to be a good, sincere person.

    I’m almost ALWAYS pro law enforcement, but I’m a former resident of the Outer Banks where I managed bars and nightclubs. My last 2 years living there I worked in two different establishments in Duck, NC (the jurisdiction just to the north of Southern Shores. In that capacity, I came to know MANY law enforcement officers in each of the towns along the beach.

    Without elaborating too much, most of the other police from other jurisdictions used to joke about how incompetent and out-of-control Southern Shores policemen could get…and I have 2 good friends who used to serve on that force who left for that very reason.

    I would bet ANY amount of money that Paul Nichols was arrested for no reason at all and the fact that there was no conviction is because someone with good sense determined that no violation took place. I’m sorry that the Anderson campaign used this “arrest report” and implied there was guilt when the justice system determined that there wasn’t a violation of law. When this type of thing is done, we are no better than the Constituion hating left-wingers who, among other things, don’t believe in INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

  72. Unfree said on 11 Oct 2009 at 3:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Liberty, you need to cut Freedom some slack. Logic, common sense, and now loyalty and class, don’t seem to be his strong suit. He used to tell everyone on this site how great Nichols was and pretend to be Nichols’ friend. Now he’s not only supporting Nichols’ opponent, which is okay by itself, but has stooped to slinging mud at Nichols. Pretty low class.

  73. Anonymous said on 11 Oct 2009 at 4:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    This is payback. Nichols ran a slimy campaign in 2007. What’s ironic is that he is getting slimed by the same Republicans who helped him slime Gill. Poetic justice anyone. The only downside is that Rich Anderson had a clean reputation going into this. That’s forever gone now.

  74. Slick said on 11 Oct 2009 at 9:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    Erkel LIED, the economy DIED!

  75. Bo said on 12 Oct 2009 at 3:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    Paul Nichols is a crook, and I have all the proof which is a matter of record with the Commonwealth of Virginia. He claims to be a man of integrity, and he wants to make claims to having the following Principles,
    In my conduct toward everyone with whom I deal, I should:
    • Remember that I am part of a self-governing profession, and that my actions and demeanor reflect upon my profession.
    • Act at all times with professional integrity, so that others will know that my word is my bond.
    • Avoid all bigotry, discrimination, or prejudice.
    • Treat everyone as I want to be treated—with respect and courtesy.
    • Act as a mentor for less experienced lawyers and as a role model for future generations of lawyers.
    • Contribute my skills, knowledge and influence in the service of my community.
    • Encourage those I supervise to act with the same professionalism to which I aspire.

    None of this is applical to Paul Nichols, and I can prove it to anyone that wants to know about his Judicial tampering within his role as an honest attorney or a man of conviction and integrity. He in no way deserves to serve as a Delegate in the House of Representatives. If anyone can assist me in exposing his criminal act that he perpetrated upon me, I would greatly appreciate it. This is a story that will make headline news and blow him right out of the race, not mention the other attorny’s and the Judge that was involved in this Criminal Act. He may have gotten away with his charges being dropped, but I assure you he won’t be able to escape this story, because I can back up everything with a paper trail. Paul Nichols you may run but you cannot hide because the truth will always find you out. If there are any reporters that would like to know about this you can reply to this post. I am going to post my email address or my real name because welive in a world that is full of crooks and I am tired of being a victum by our governmnet. Prayerfully someone with a concious will help me to expose this crook.

  76. Bo said on 12 Oct 2009 at 3:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    Sorry, I said I was going to post my email address, but that was a mis type error. I am NOT going to post it. Sorry about the mistype.

  77. Bryanna said on 13 Oct 2009 at 9:04 am:
    Flag comment

    Is it customary in any attack on an opponent to disclose their personal information and place them at risk for identity theft or other potential endangerment? NO.

    BAD judgement Anderson.

    We need common sense in Richmond. Nichols gets my vote.

  78. Brian Leeper said on 13 Oct 2009 at 1:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    This information was probably obtained with a FOIA request.

  79. bill potts said on 13 Oct 2009 at 3:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    Is this the brian leeper who used to work for Verio?

  80. Kevin C. said on 15 Oct 2009 at 4:48 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg S said on 10 Oct 2009 at 10:27 am: “Paul lives about 2 miles from his office. I don’t think you have a case here.”

    Nickles owning a house about two miles from his office does NOT necessarily mean HE lives there. WHO knows WHO lives there? This is not the first time his “residency” has been called into question. I’ve heard it suggested that he doesn’t even LIVE in the 51st?

    One thing I DO know is, if his WIFE got the house in his DIVORCE (although, obviously it would have been kept in his name in order to PAD his balance sheet), then he does NOT live there.

    Anyone know why the PROFESSIONAL LIAR would list his OFFICE as his “RESIDENCE?”

    Wouldn’t have anything to do with his QUESTIONABLE character, would it?

  81. Bryanna said on 15 Oct 2009 at 7:39 am:
    Flag comment

    Kevin C. you really have a stick up your butt over Nichols. Are you a former disgruntled employee or did his law firm sue you and win?

    Paul is an extremely honorable man. Attacking him on the basis of being la awyer is unfair.

    Doesn’t Corey Stewart negotiate international trade deals (guns) that some may find offensive?

    Get my point?

  82. Kevin C. said on 15 Oct 2009 at 11:30 am:
    Flag comment

    Bryanna said on 15 Oct 2009 at 7:39 am: “Are you a former disgruntled employee…”

    Believe me, I’m sure YOU can work for people you don’t respect but ME, never!

    For you to say Nickles is an, “…extremely honorable man.” only brings YOUR decision making ability into question. The world is FULL of (two legged) SHEEP!

    You’re the kind of employee who says, “Don’t worry, we’ll get the people out just as soon as the RAIN stops. Ain’t we doin’ a HECK of job?”

    Or, even more likely, “Don’t worry about those guys who just want to learn how to STEER airplanes, I’m sure they’re a bunch of EXTREMELY honorable men.”

  83. Freedom said on 16 Oct 2009 at 8:35 am:
    Flag comment

    How many different aliases do you use Bryanna, 6, 7? :)

  84. bill potts said on 16 Oct 2009 at 12:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    PAUL NICHOLS will “WIN” this election hands down. Get over it you Flakes….

  85. lp said on 19 Oct 2009 at 4:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Paul Nichols the attorney should have known full well not to get out of the car during a traffic stop unless invited out by the Police officer. He is slime! After a 20 year career in law enforcement I am sure he was probably warned to get back in the car and he refused to do so, thus the arrest. The only reason it was dismissed is because the key witness,one of the officers, left the agency before the trial. That is how he got it expunged, pure luck that was all. By the way, last time he ran for office, one of the people carrying a huge sign of his on their car, and I suspect it was his wife, blew right through a stop sign right in front of me. That shows you this families regard for obeying the laws of this State.

  86. Kevin C. said on 20 Oct 2009 at 3:54 am:
    Flag comment

    lp said, “…and I suspect it was his wife…”

    Only if it is, or was, his NEW wife because, and I have this on VERY good authority, he CHEATED on his wife for SEVEN years with his (or A) secretary.

    lp said, “He is slime!”

    Now, with THAT, you hit the nail RIGHT on the HEAD !!!

    How SOON people forget!

    Back during the ‘06 election, when it was the Potomac News they, having had GUTS and SENSE labeled Nickles, “SLIMY!”

    Funk & Wagnall:
    SLIME: n. 1. Any soft, sticky, or DIRTY substance. 3. A mucous exudation from the bodies of certain animals, as fishes and snails…(a SLUG is more like it, leaving a TRAIL of slime)

    SLIMY: 3. [As it applies to Paul F (for FU**STER) Nickles] SLIMELIKE, FOUL!

  87. Rosscoe P said on 20 Oct 2009 at 4:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    I was nearly arrested on the OBX for nothing more than “looking the wrong way” in the eyes of the cops. Look at the arrest date….it is the off season, trust me when I tell you those cops have nothing better to do than go looking for trouble in order to keep their jobs.

    I bet nothing happened to Nichols because there was no proof he did anything in the first place.

  88. know him said on 4 Nov 2009 at 1:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    He won’t marry the woman he is living with

Comments are closed.


Views: 6094