92 Responses to “The Chicago Way Comes to Virginia”

1. jack
   September 21st, 2009 @ 5:55 pm

   Is it easier to read the big letters when you’re “gstoned”?

2. Cathymac
   September 21st, 2009 @ 7:53 pm

   The anonymity and timing of this information is very telling. Did Poisson do some polling in the last 2 weeks and call up some “friends” for help?

   Face it, Tag has been making headway – he is a strong candidate that is very appealing, particularly in the current political environment. It is much easier to take a man down with a compliant local press than actually debate the issues.

   The article in the Independent is written as if it is from a tabloid, it is disgusting. Those that want to stand up for Geddie Jr will have a hard time on this one, he is showing himself to be the hack that he is.

   A public display of support for Tag is needed at this time. Write letters to the editor, show up at Tag’s events, give money and stand up for this good man.

3. Loudoun Insider
   September 21st, 2009 @ 7:58 pm

   This is such BS. The Dems are getting hysterical.

4. Marjorie
   September 21st, 2009 @ 8:09 pm

   FYI: Our government at work, against us

   Subject: HR 1388 has passed without our knowing it…

   One more reason for the Hard Left to call us racists, since we vehemently oppose what was done here: You just spent $20,000,000 to move members/supporters of Hamas, a terrorist organization, to the United States; housing, food, the whole enchilada.

   HB 1388 PASSED

   Whether you are an Obama fan, or not, EVERYONE IN THE U. S. needs to know….

   Something happened…. H.R. 1388 was passed, behind our backs. You may want
   to read about it.. It wasn’t mentioned on the news… just went by on the ticker
   tape at the bottom of the CNN screen.

   Obama funds $20M in tax payer dollars to immigrate Hamas Refugees to the USA .
   This is the news that didn’t make the headlines…

   By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3
   million in “migration assistance” to the Palestinian refugees and “conflict victims”
   in Gaza .

   The “presidential determination”, which allows hundreds of thousands of
   Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States, was signed and
   appears in the Federal Register.

   Few on Capitol Hill, or in the media, took note that the order provides a free ticket
   replete with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their
   overwhelming support to the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the
   parliamentary election of January 2006.

   Let’s review….itemized list of some of Barack Obama ‘ s most recent actions since
   his inauguration:

   His first call to any head of state, as president, was to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of
   Fatah party in the Palestinian territory.

   His first one-on-one television interview with any news organization was with Al
   Arabia television.

   His first executive order was to fund/facilitate abortion(s) not just here within the
   U. S. , but within the world, using U. S. tax payer funds.

   He ordered Guantanamo Bay closed and all military trials of detainees halted.

   He ordered overseas CIA interrogation centers closed.

   He withdrew all charges against the masterminds behind the USS Cole and the
   “terror attack” on 9/11.

   Now we learn that he is allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refuges to
   move to, and live in, the US at American taxpayer expense.

   These important, and insightful, issues are being “lost” in the blinding bail-outs
   and “stimulation” packages.

   Doubtful? To verify this for yourself: http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2009-02-04
   -E9-2488

   PLEASE PASS THIS ON…. AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW

   WE are losing this country at a rapid pace.

5. Tom Seeman
   September 21st, 2009 @ 8:31 pm

   The Independent shows its low standards by printing an anonymous accusation made without credible evidence on something that did not happen over a decade ago.

   The story is ridiculous on its face to anyone who knows Tag, as I do. The Army investigated and found it ridiculous too, as all charges were dropped.

   This, of course, should have been the end of it. But John Geddie has turned his newspaper into a hack leftist site, engaged in repeating a specious claim against a strong Republican candidate who is looking like he will knock off a favorite Democrat.

   More, this is the type of trash reporting that keeps good people out of politics. They look at this and say “I don’t need that.” This is, of course, the goal of the smear artists.

   Not that lack of evidence will stop our local leftists. They’re desperate for dirt, and will do Poisson’s dirty work for him.

   As Greg says, it’s the Chicago way.

6. The Bulletproof Monk
   September 21st, 2009 @ 8:38 pm

   I call on Poisson to lighten his staff of the SOB who slipped this jewel out.
   Poisson assured our boy he was going to run a campaign on the up and up. How dare his minions muddy the water in an otherwise clear contest.

7. Cathymac
   September 21st, 2009 @ 10:09 pm

   I’ll take it one step further and call on Poisson to denounce this article and the person that leaked it, and apologize to Tag and his Family.

8. The Bulletproof Monk
   September 21st, 2009 @ 10:23 pm

   One has to wonder if the SEIU has moved into Poisson land, too. Seems right up their alley.

9. GStone
   September 21st, 2009 @ 10:24 pm

   Don’t hold your breath. Del Poisson was at back to school night at Potomac falls grinningfrom ear to ear. His campaign as well as the state party should be ashamed. This was a new low in local politics.

10. Cathymac
    September 21st, 2009 @ 10:32 pm

    We’ll see if Del Poisson’s smug little face shows up at Riverbend MS tomorrow night, he might be faced with a couple angry parents.

11. Cathymac
    September 21st, 2009 @ 10:34 pm

    Sorry – Riverbend on Wednesday night, wonder where the great Chicagoan will be tomorrow night?

12. Barbara Munsey
    September 21st, 2009 @ 10:42 pm

    Dean, et al: the AFL-CIO PAC Working America has been here since Poisson’s first campaign, along with Kaine.

    The SEIU “volunteers” for Miller.

    On the other thread, can you copy and paste the full text of his Twitter re strange goings on?

13. Grasping. At. Straws.
    September 21st, 2009 @ 11:11 pm

    You folks are way too funny. John Geddie cites court documents and a sworn statement from 1996 or whatever and you suggest it came from the Poisson campaign? They put this woman up to this in the mid-90s? Please. She even says in the article that she hopes Tag is doing good things now.

    Since when are court documents and military records not fair game in politics? Especially when someone like Tag Greason is running on his military record and values?

    It’s newsworthy. You all know it and that’s why you’re hyperventilating in trying to find blame with David Poisson, who I’m pretty sure has never been charged with fondling his genitals before cleaning up with baby wipes.

14. The Bulletproof Monk
    September 21st, 2009 @ 11:33 pm

    I listed the URL. Particular attention to the
    “12:29 PM Sep 12th from txt” entry.

    And what’s up with LeeJ Land???
    “For information on restoring your account please call customer service as soon as possible

    When/If you call our support help line, please have your site name ready. “

15. The Bulletproof Monk
    September 21st, 2009 @ 11:37 pm

    Hey Grasping…I heard you were a member of NAMBLA, and if you were running for office…all I had to do was voice that.
    You and I know it isn’t true (is it??) but the folks I paraded it out in front of might not. Is is desperation born of last hour panic in seeing support erode? Is it just too easy to pass up as the lazy effort that doesn’t require alot of work to float?
    Sure it is. Comeback and debate the substance, you coward!!

16. Barbara Munsey
    September 21st, 2009 @ 11:39 pm

    Thanks Dean, but I can’t bring up the full text.

    re the op, funny, but when I got back from out of town last night, McGimsey had responded to an ancient thread about the bike coordinator, defending it, and then this a.m. it’s all gone.

    Maybe she put up a post to no one before she closed up shop?

    Who knows.

17. Grasping. At. Straws.
    September 21st, 2009 @ 11:46 pm

    Bulletproof Monk, if you put in a sworn statement that I’m a member of NAMBLA and I’m charged with a crime because of that, then yes it might be the same thing here.

    Here are the facts as we know them. A woman in Greason’s unit charged that he fondled his genitals in front of her. Greason was charged with a crime.

    Bulletproof, again because I know you have difficulty comprehending, if I’m charged with a crime, salacious or not, it would probably come up if I was running for office.

    In pretty much every local election the issue of traffic tickets comes up. I’m of the mind that indecently jerking off in front of a woman who doesn’t want that is much worse than a traffic ticket.

18. Grasping. At. Straws.
    September 21st, 2009 @ 11:56 pm

    Oh, GStone, do you know what dismissed without prejudice means? That’s not the good one for Tag.

    Dismissed w/o prejudice means the complainant can bring the case back at anytime.

    If it were dismissed with prejudice, that would look better for Tag.

19. GStone
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 12:10 am

    Straws
    You don’t get it. They dug up an old story, one that had been settled with full dismissal of all charges. Tag along with others were falsely accused. Poisson or supporters knowing full well decided to use the 13 year old story in order to blunt Tags progress. This is political hackery at its worse. Stop defending such wretched behavior.

20. BlackOut
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 12:11 am

    Grasping, you should read the article and not get so stimulated by this story. TAG was not charged with anything, he was accused. At least that’s what an anonymous source has apparently told Geddie. Big difference bone head.

    Before you jump all over me as some TAG apologist, I have been a supporter of Poissons from the beginning and voted for him every chance I got. Heck he’s my hero for knocking out Dick Black.

    Hell with as crazy as this day has been it was probably Greg L who tossed this story to Geddie. Very similar if you ask me.

21. BlackOut
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 12:16 am

    You can debate dismissed with prejudice, charges, or no charges, etc all you want but at the end of the day, no trial, no charge. It appears to have been investigated and when it fizzled out was nothing more than a disturbing the peace issue. Even that didn’t stick.

22. Larry
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 12:48 am

    BlackOut, I find this whole topic very annoying like you do, but if wr are stipulating that the charges were disnissed without prejudice theb there had to be ‘charges’ of some kind. Obscenity in public or whatever, that’s a charge.

    And on why it was eventually dismissed without prejudice, all anyone on both sides of this are doing is spexulating. But I have one question, if this began in the mid 90s, why did the government continue to seek prosecution until 06?

    If it were investigated and found to be without merit, why did it drag on for a decade?

23. The Bulletproof Monk
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 8:29 am

    Blackout…I’m remembering why I prefer your company over the political hacks that push this crap.I know that you are a Poisson man, and I appreciate that even you want to see a clean contest devoid of outright untruths.

24. The Bulletproof Monk
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 8:34 am

    Grasping…this may surprize you….but there ARE men and women in the business world who will use the system (with unsubstantiated lies)to their benefit.If they have to fabricate information to knock their rivals back in a contest for a position, they don’t hesitate. Personally, I’d like nothing better than having charges leveled at them after the discovery of their ineptness in trying to skate the system.

25. gstone
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 8:51 am

    If any of you believe this happened without Del Poisson’s knowledge, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

    I hang this pathetic event where it belongs, around David Poisson’s neck. He hears the footsteps of defeat. Desperate men engage in desperate acts. Any respect I had for this guy just left the building.

26. BlackOut
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 9:43 am

    Larry,

    This may help you with “dismissed without prejudice”.

    “When a lawsuit is dismissed, the court may enter a judgment against the plaintiff with or without prejudice. When a lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice, it signifies that none of the rights or privileges of the individual involved are considered to be lost or waived. The same holds true when an admission is made or when a motion is denied without prejudice.

    The inclusion of the term without prejudice in a judgment of dismissal ordinarily indicates the absence of a decision on the merits and leaves the parties free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action, as though the dismissed action had not been started. Therefore, a dismissal without prejudice makes it unnecessary for the court in which the subsequent action is brought to determine whether that action is based on the same cause as the original action, or whether the identical parties are involved in the two actions.

    The purpose and effect of the words without prejudice in a judgment, order, or decree dismissing a suit are to prohibit the defendant from using the doctrine of Res Judicata in any later action by the same plaintiff on the subject matter. The doctrine of res judicata (from the Latin, “a thing decided”) is based on the importance of finality in the law. If a court decides a case, the subject of that case is firmly and finally decided between the persons involved in the suit, so no new lawsuit on the same subject may be brought by the persons involved. Therefore, the words without prejudice protect the plaintiff from a defendant’s res judicata defense.

    A court may also enter judgment with prejudice, however. This signifies that the court has made an adjudication on the merits of the case and a final disposition, barring the plaintiff from bringing a new lawsuit based on the same subject. If a new lawsuit is brought, a defendant can properly invoke res judicata as a defense, because a court will not relitigate a matter that has been fully heard before. Often a court will enter a judgment with prejudice if the plaintiff has shown bad faith, misled the court, or persisted in filing frivolous lawsuits.”

    Source: West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.

27. BlackOut
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 9:49 am

    Stoner, you are jumping to conclusions just like “grasping” and the other stimulated operatives are. Without proof David can’t be considered involved.

    Obviously someone who wants TAG to lose and Dave to win did this, and I have said that’s the real story hear. Someone from the DPV would be a most likely source. Very similar to when the push poll was done against Dave last cycle. I don’t think Lynn Chapman had anything to do with the push poll, most likely someone from the RPV did it. Both events are equally disgusting. Another good reason to keep away from either party and be an independent thinker.

28. BlackOut
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 9:55 am

    Larry, it didn’t drag on for decades. It was a closed matter until some slimy party hack decided to resurrect a decades old event that had no merit, and use it for some political chicanery.

29. squiddy
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 10:08 am

    “until some slimy party hack decided to resurrect a decades old event that had no merit, and use it for some political chicanery.”

    Hmm, sounds like every Deeds tv commercial I’ve seen so far.

    Not a word about issues facing Virginia.

    It’s a shame, but this thread is aptly titled. And what’s worse is that such tactics work.

    Tempting to bring back some old-time tactics ourselves …

30. gstone
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 10:12 am

    BO
    Having seen Del Poisson last night at BTSN at Potomac Falls grinning ear to ear at the news I find it difficult to believe his camp was not in the loop at some level. If not step up and decry the foul. I will not hold my breath.

31. Cathymac
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 10:17 am

    Does anyone know if the “without prejudice” judgement is routinely used by a judge if the plaintiff has no action for a considerable period of time, like the woman in this case? Years and years went by and she did nothing with her complaint, even after the charges were reduced – so I suspect at some point the court ends it all while preserving her right to continue in the future.

    Read the analysis on http://www.hoodalthunkblog.com, it is excellent.

32. Grasping. At. Straws.
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 10:59 am

    BlackOut, this was finally dismissed in 2006. Considering it began in the mid-90s, I think it’s safe to say it dragged on for at least on decade.

33. Cathymac
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 11:13 am

    Grasping, Even Geddie’s piece implies it was the woman’s fault for dragging it out, the inaction on her part sounds like it led to the court finally saying – enough is enough – you’ve had 13 plus years, come back if you decide to persue. She obviously isn’t interested in pursuing it again and I suspect it is because it isn’t true.

34. gstone
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 12:04 pm

    Cmac

    I agree. Ric James has this thing nailed. He did a great service by disassembling this POS story.
    He takes the Independent to task and rightfully so while asking the questions these so called journalists should have asked while investigating the story.

    Great work Ric ! at least someone is asking the right questions.

35. Wolverine
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 3:33 pm

    I’m late coming in here. I had to let the bruises heal up after that whupping by Cathymac because of some of my previous positive comments concerning the Loudoun Independent.

    Look, this specific story was poorly done; and, as Ric James points out very well, the reporters did not do all the homework they should have before going with it. I’ve spent a lot of time in my life dealing with covert action (the international equivalent of political “dirty tricks”), sometimes doing it but more often trying to mitigate the efforts by the pros on the other side. Like Ric, I am smelling some rats all over the place on this one.

    In my considered opinion, the LI fell prey to a pretty good political dirty trickster. Why so? Because the publisher and editor are still basically journalistic rookies, albeit ambitious ones. Moreover, the LI being a small weekly local based in an old house in Ashburn, with limited staff and limited funds, I suspect the trickster thought he could swing his deal with an up-and-coming news organization lacking the true resources to dig through the story adequately in the way outlined by Ric James. It’s not like the LI could call on its “bureau” in New Orleans or elsewhere for investigative help.

    In effect, the rookies at LI, having played fairly well through much of the game finally threw that errant pass that cost them points big time. That’s too bad. It probably cost them a very big hunk of their readership — all because of an old story that is chock full of holes. You would have thought they might have learned something from the Dan Rather episode in 2004. Now, that was a real pro who really blew it!

    For all those ready to swallow this hook, line, and sinker and go after Greason because of it, I can only say that this could have been worse. It could have been a dead girl found in a car underwater; a certain national political icon diddling around with a certain famous movie actress while the faithful wife was preoccupied with a home makeover; a prominent and married political candidate found having funsies on an ocean-going yacht with a curvy young lady not his wife; or even a married guy having a one-on-one cigar and pizza party in his office with a willing gal young enough to be his daughter. To be fair, I can throw in a chap with a penchant for secret travel to South America and another who forgot to leave it in Las Vegas. Oh, but let’s crucify Gleason for an unproven and denied incident which is old, inadequately reported, and full of journalistic holes.

    Some of you make so much of the fact that the LI actually examined the 1996 complaint. Look again at what the LI wrote; two non-coms; others in the lady’s platoon; even hostility with a co-worker’s wife. While this might not prove to be the case, don’t you think a really good investigator would start sniffing out the possibility of a serial accuser? Just a thought for all those who wish Tag Gleason nothing but grief.

    Oh, and the plaudits because the lady expressed “concern” for Gleason and any possible effect her story might have on the good he is doing now. You make me laugh. Clever covert action trick. Express “concern” for your intended target and then proceed to put the shiv in his back. Some of you make it too easy for the tricksters.

36. gstone
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 3:41 pm

    Wolve

    Good comments. You provide needed insight and perspective. As you point out Ric is engaged in actual critical thought and should be commended.

37. Wolverine
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 4:31 pm

    Thanks, Stoner. Ric always seems to bring some sense into a debate. I just noticed that I have been sticking an “l” instead of an “r” into Greason’s name on occasion. Maybe because all the nasty stuff being slammed at Tag reminds me of an old episode of “The Honeymooners.” “Bam, to the moon!!”, as Jackie used to say it.

    BTW, do you recall the last meeting at Park View on the gang problem in Eastern Loudoun? I cannot swear to it, but I believe I spotted Tag in the auditorium that night. Tell me, have you ever seen Poisson at one of those meetings? I can’t recall it. And I believe Sugarland Run, Sterling Park’s closest partner in all these woes, is part of his delegate district. Tom Rust hosted the last one. Interesting.

38. Barbara Munsey
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 4:31 pm

    I think Wolverine hits the nail on the head with the idea of a professional dirty trickster, and the Independent perhaps losing readers over it.

    I think that may be the point of whoever initiated the exercise.

    See tscg.biz, then look at some of Miller’s associates.

    If the LI is tainted (and any potentially unfriendly blogs. Joe took down a pretty bizarre post here yesterday–what the heck was that about?), where is the eastern Loudoun coverage for the eastern Loudoun delegate races?

39. BlackOut
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 4:50 pm

    Wolverine, nice post. I wouldn’t doubt if LI was actually given the transcripts of those interviews and Getti took them at face value. This story was wrapped in a bow for him. If the interviews did take place by Getti, then my guess is they were part of the bio sheets given to him in the package and the package included cell phone numbers to the interviewer candidates. I’ll say it again, the real story here is who gave Getti the story? Maybe a real reporter will investigate Getti.

40. gstone
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 5:14 pm

    Wolv:
    Yes, Tag was in the audience at the last meeting. Tag is very interested in what has transpired in Sterling specifically with regards to crime, drugs, gangs and the effects of the NOVA Gang task force. He and I have had many discussions surrounding all of these issues. I hope you will know that information and briefings he gets from me these issues are unvarnished.

41. sally
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 5:22 pm

    “Without prejudice” just means that the prosecutor withdrew the complaint, and there was no trial–no findings on the merits. It is like the complaint or “charge” was never filed, and the complainant has the right to reform the complaint and start over.

    The prosecutor did it unilaterally. The Judge has to sign an order asking that a complaint be withdrawn. Tag’s attorney inevitably signed it, just agreeing that the complaint could be withdrawn under the law, that’s all. And when something like this is withdrawn, it is without prejudice for another complaint, that is better supported, to be refiled.

    This is a completely bogus issue, to bring up something that was formally withdrawn.

42. gstone
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 5:27 pm

    Sally:
    Bogus it is !

43. Cathymac
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 5:35 pm

    Wolv, I’m not beating you up about the LI but I don’t have the faith in Geddie, Jr that you do. This story may have been wrapped in a bow, but the recipient loves bows, and wrapping, and he enjoyed being handed a story that will do in an up and coming Republican that “looks too good to be true”. So while I can’t disagree with the professional plant scenario, or the naivete of the staff, there is a serious doubt in my mind that Geddie wasn’t just waiting for this to come along – and along it came! He snatched it up and printed it.

    Let me put it this way, if this deceptive “story” had been about David Poisson, do you thing Geddie and his naive staff would have sucked it up and regurgitated it back out without so much as a common sense glance? Just from having a read of a couple editions of the LI, I can say – no he would not.

    The rat be found out eventually, I just hope it is before the election is over and the dots can publicly be connected. This story is going out in print at the end of the week, this is just the beginning of the fallout. I hope the good people of Loudoun can smell a hit job when it lands on their doorstep. I also hope the good people of Loudoun refuse to read the LI, it is nothing but a slanted rag when it comes to LC politics.

44. Cathymac
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 5:36 pm

    Thanks Sally, my questions about the “without prejudice” dismissal were sincere.

45. gstone
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 5:41 pm

    Do you know what happens when you use the loudoun Independent to line the bottom of your birdcage ?

    Your bird will fly upside down and crap on himself.

46. sally
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 5:41 pm

    The Government went to a lot of trouble and expense, to file this. The lady got the full force of our Government to believe her, and to go after Tag. She was not ignored.

    My guess is there was some statute of limitations, that the complaint had to be filed within a certain amount of time (two years)– and they rushed to file something in 1996 to met that limitation. And then the prosecutor tried to do something with the complaint, and could not justify going forward. Either the lady had some serious credibility issues like serial complainer? documented emotional issues? documented liar? or it looks like from some of the blogs Tag had proof he was not even there when she said he did this– or the lady was unreliable in other ways–and the Government felt stupid going forward. Trust me, Government attorneys are a pretty proud bunch and they do not just withdraw a case (and admit to the Federal Court or any other judge that they were incorrect in bringing it) for no good reason.

47. Had Enough
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 5:43 pm

    Cathymac “Does anyone know if the “without prejudice” judgement is routinely used by a judge”

    In most criminal and civil cases, the final judgement is required to be prepared in advance by counsel for the defendant and the plaintiff, the judge then uses the prepared judgement that he agrees with in accordance with his decision.

    That’s the easiest way I can explain it.

    All paperwork and forms are submitted by the attorneys, the judge does not want to be bothered with that, he only wants prepared judgements that he agrees with to place his signature on.

48. sally
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 5:46 pm

    Loudoun Independent should be pressured not to print this article, which is defamatory to TAG and hurtful to his family. They should be hearing from their online readership on this– that it is a disgusting hit piece, inappropriate and false in many respects.

49. Cathymac
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 5:51 pm

    Sally, I agree and am headed over to make that point on the website, Geddie Jr can be emailed this message personally as well.

50. sally
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 7:17 pm

    Duke Lacrosse players come to mind?

    Prosectors are SUPPOSED to withdraw complaints when they have no evidence. When they have no evidence and try to proceed, they lose their licenses to practice law, like the prosecutor in the Duke case–too stubborn to admit he was wrong to bring the case in the first place, that the complainant had a lot of issues….

51. Wolverine
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 11:17 pm

    There is one other thing which bothered me about some of the reactions to this story in the comments section of the LI Website. That was the subtle or not so subtle implications that the Army might have deliberately botched this one because they somehow were not inclined to pursue a case like this — the “good old boys” thing all over again.

    You have got to remember that this was the mid-1990’s, not the mid-1970’s. I was not in the military in the 1990’s but I was in a sensitive government position. I can recall that this business of getting serious about sexual harassment in the workplace started up in the early 1980’s, when I was obliged to sit through my first educational film show on the subject — not very pleasant since it was narrated by that all around a**hole named Ed Asner.

    However, when it really hit the fan was in the early 1990’s after Clinton came to power. Some big changes all around on virtually every aspect of women in the workplace. I have to bite my tongue to say this, but the Clintonistas actually did some good work in this area — except that they eventually overdid it and started up a climate of distrust and mistrust in the male-female relationships in many offices. Some got a case of the nerves just wondering if they could ask a female co-worker for a date. However, complaints were followed immediately by investigations and repercussions if found to be true, I can assure you of that. That was what I saw at the time. If I could, I would tell you some rather interesting stories. But I can’t.

    If guys like me in my job were under that kind of pressure in the mid-1990’s, I do not see how the U.S. Army could have just ignored those types of complaints and thought no one higher up would notice and come down on them, especially in the Clinton era. As I said, I wasn’t in the military itself then, although I dealt with enough officers in my work; but I do suspect the people at Fort Polk took this thing seriously when it was reported (1996) and eventually found out that it was not a viable case. It would have been even tougher on them if the complaint had been bucked upwards because someone thought they weren’t addressing it seriously. Now, how that Lousiana court fit into all this, I do not know. But that’s the way I saw it from a Federal government perspective in the 1990’s.

52. sally
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 11:42 pm

    From the article published, the complaint was brought in Federal District Court, with a Federal Judge. This was not in a military court.

    To me, it looks like an over zealous federal prosecutor, who got the case late believing the complainant but not doing adequate investigation, filed it in a hurry, then realized he had no case. The prosecutor took his sweet time trying to figure out how to go forward with a case, any case (disturbing the peace), and could not, so he withdrew the complaint in its entirety. They do not like to do that, does not make them look good. In fact, things like this are very bad for federal prosecutors’ reputations.

53. dans
    September 22nd, 2009 @ 11:45 pm

    M.C. Dean Inc., the owner of the Independent, donated to Greason’s campaign.

    http://www.vpap.org/donors/profile/index/134392

    Wonder how they feel about Geddie’s editorial ? Might be worth a call from anyone curious about where they stand…

    http://www.mcdean.com/contact/contact.htm

54. Grasping. At. Straws.
    September 23rd, 2009 @ 12:15 am

    So the paper’s owner donated to Greason the Republican but the paper is also Democratic? C’mon you guys.

    If you don’t like the story, that’s fine. I’m not going to argue it was some journalistic masterpiece, but let’s not pretend the Independent is some bastion of liberal thought.

55. Grasping. At. Straws.
    September 23rd, 2009 @ 12:23 am

    I also notice courtesy of that link that the owner donated to Tom Rust. That might explain the much more egregious hit job on Stevens Miller last week that was based on no records, no sources but just some whacked out blog post.

    I assume this crowd will also be calling for that story to be removed. Right?

56. Cathymac
    September 23rd, 2009 @ 7:20 am

    Link the Miller piece, was it an editorial?

57. Cathymac
    September 23rd, 2009 @ 7:49 am

    Additional paragraphs to the LI story and analysis on Ric’s site:

    http://www.hoodathunkblog.com/2009/09/loudoun-independent-puts-some-research-into-greason-story-and-finds-greasons-innocence-supported/

58. Barbara Munsey
    September 23rd, 2009 @ 8:32 am

    re 56, Cathymac, the Miller Piece in question is filed under “The Dartboard” on the site, which is far more editorial in nature than news.

    Miller denied an anonymous blogpost that said he had called other supervisors “bigots” in an executive session to discuss the final candidates to be interviewed for County Administrator, then went on to say he was concerned about diversity in the process and didn’t know whether to go to the NAACP about it or not.

    Somehow, the sockpuppets populating both the Greason and Miller stories, along with some prominent Democrats under their own names, feel the stories are commensurate in that they are anonymous smears against candidates which somehow prove a political bent on the part of the paper, yet different in that Miller is obviously the innocent victim of dirty politics while Greason is obviously vile.

    IOW, don’t look for any logic.

    Look for Miller to put out a piece that the headline “proves” he is a champion of minority issues (and will Neighborhood Listens suddenly activate about it?), thereby wiping out his abandonment of Phyllis Randall to be a VLF posterboy, much as his grandstanding on a 19% paycut wiped out his earlier comments of record on not being paid enough.

59. Barbara Munsey
    September 23rd, 2009 @ 8:34 am

    Sorry, 10% paycut–prominently featured in a Herndon paper reviewing his Kaine fundraiser.

60. dans
    September 23rd, 2009 @ 11:44 am

    “So the paper’s owner donated to Greason the Republican but the paper is also Democratic? ”

    Newspapers do wander off the reservation, or haven’t you noticed ?

    “Miller denied an anonymous blogpost that said he had called other supervisors “bigots””

    This is not news, it would be news if the other supervisors denied that report. This type of snide remark is right up Miller’s alley.

61. Wolverine
    September 23rd, 2009 @ 2:49 pm

    Barbara Munsey hits a key point in the first para of #58. The “Dartboard” in the LI is an opinion column.

    The problem for the LI, in my opinion, is that they are somewhat space and staff limited. This means they cannot or do not do what a major paper does (or should do): have a political event covered in straight news in a news section and clearly marked opinion pieces in the editorial section. Political events are being covered in the LI by a single item, which means an intermingling of news reporting and opinion. This, of course, can often be confusing to the reader, who, if not aware of the meaning of “Dartboard”, may get upset because they believe they are reading slanted news. The LI needs to find a way to clearly separate the political news from the political commentary and to ensure that the commentary is more clearly advertised as such. I say this, of course, knowing that many of the major papers these days have done us all a disservice by infusing their news articles with opinion and damaging their own journalistic credibility.

    Grasping for Straws brought up a good point about the Miller article in the LI. I myself was somewhat confused by that one. My impression from the opening paragraphs was that the LI was going after Miller, precisely because the article opened with a focus on the street demonstration. Then, all of a sudden, we were into the news reporting on the event. After that came some very kind words for Miller such as “smart campaign” and “strong campaign.” So, what was I reading? A news article with a lot of opinion thrown in or political commentary?

    In the end the layout and the different foci in the article made me feel like I was reading commentary with a bit of news thrown in. On top of that, the difference between the opening focus on the demonstration and the ending focus on Miller’s campaigning made me feel like I was reading commentary cobbled together by two different people with opposing political preferences. I can see how Grasping assumed that this was a hit piece against Miller — the placement and focus of the opening paragraphs seemed to indicate just that. The LI just has to learn how to work these things better through better separation of news and opinion.

    Look, I’m going to get a bit personal here. The publisher of LI is Amy Burns. Her editor is John Geddie Jr. Both of them lost parents much too early — parents who were the chief players in the Loudoun Easterner for many years. After Amy’s mother passed away, the LE was sold and Geddie Sr. moved out, eventually deciding to try a new paper, the Independent. He then passed away tragically. It seems to me that both these kids so revered their parents and the work these parents had done in Loudoun County that they decided to try to carry on that work through providing the rest of us with newspaper coverage of local events. (All of us should have kids who love and respect their parents in that way.) Neither one had to do this thing. Geddie Jr., for instance, is a law school grad, not a journalism school grad. Both of them could have gone on to far different endeavors. Instead, they are doing this thing and, quite obviously, feeling their way along in many respects.

    The upshot is that their effort is turning out to be almost all we have in the way of Eastern Loudoun news focus. Other papers have folded. WAGE radio is gone. The Times-Mirror has never done a good job, in my opinion, in covering Eastern Loudoun, even with their Easern Loudoun edition. So, in return for the efforts of Amy and John, I am willing to look past political opinion with which I may not necessarily agree to get the other benefits from having a local paper. And I ask how that is any different from my approach to any other paper, such as the Post or the Times? The LI is their paper, not mine or anyone else’s. If there are those who don’t like the political opinion in the LI, maybe they should get together to start up their own paper. That’s the way our newspaper business has always worked.

    Now, having said all that, I do urge Amy and John to do a better separation and demarcation of the news and the political commentary. And I will also say that the article on Tag Greason was a way big mistake from which much can be learned.

62. Barbara Munsey
    September 23rd, 2009 @ 3:31 pm

    Wolverine, I keep focusing on your comment that prompted my post #38, more so now that you’ve reiterated my fear: if this paper is taken out (perhaps through some dirty tricks), what will rush in to fill the eastern Loudoun news vacuum during the eastern Loudoun races?

    Given that Miller’s attack ads debuted yesterday, and are entusiasticly being linked about in private emails and twitters from the core group of the usuals, I don’t want to think I have my answer.

63. Cathymac
    September 23rd, 2009 @ 3:46 pm

    Wolv, I appreciate your sentimentality here, but holding editors and owners of newspapers to journalistic standards is not something out of left field. I don’t care if Amy and John were plumbers or indians in their former careers, and I’m sorry they lost their parents, as we all do. It’s great that they want to follow in their footsteps, but desire will get you only so far. Unfortunately (as you said) they are mixing apples and oranges with their commentary and news stories, and pissing off half of their readers constantly. It looks to me like the other side is as confused about their reporting as I am.

    I have no desire to start a local paper and have very little opinion either way whether the LI should stick around. I commented that I didn’t like Geddie before the Greason story and he has proven me correct, he is no journalist. Having a local paper is fine and dandy, but one with ethics and standards is preferred. For now I read the LI as a defensive mechanism, like I do the WashPo.

    Have you heard the old statistic that people are 10 times more likely to share their dissatisfaction with a product or service than share their satisfaction? People will be hearing about my dissatisfaction.

64. Wolverine
    September 23rd, 2009 @ 4:05 pm

    Well, Cathymac, show me where in this country anybody is successfully holding newspapers to “journalistic standards.” Almost all of journalism has now become advocacy journalism. As a result, the papers are dying out and much of the TV media is losing audience. Where did all the newspaper readers and writers of letters to the editor go? Right here.

    Instead of continuing to try to fix the journalism problem, we have sought alternative methods of political expression. And even here there is often very little in the way of checks and balances on what is printed. In short, we are in a journalism and news pickle; and, if the LI can make the necessary adjustments you and I both seek, we have a chance to save at least some element of the other system. I’m willing to give the LI a chance to feel their way through this thing and arrive at the best possible position. I bet you will see some changes for the good after this firestorm. Like Barbara, I cannot imagine living in a place where I have no local paper. Muy bad, senora!!!

65. Cathymac
    September 23rd, 2009 @ 4:15 pm

    This we can agree on Wolv, newspapers are dying and for the very reasons you stated. The LI will die too if they keep it up. Again, I’m not a print media person so if the LI goes the way of the dinosaurs – so be it!

66. Cathymac
    September 23rd, 2009 @ 4:18 pm

    Wolv, read this and try not to spit, cuss or run out the door screaming. The insanity at the LI continues:

    http://www.loudouni.com/news/editorial/2009-09-22/editorial-does-it-matter

67. Wolverine
    September 23rd, 2009 @ 4:38 pm

    Hmmm. The LI is feeling the heat. A bit of self-defensive bluster now, but we’ll see what the future direction is.

    “spit, cuss, or run out the door screaming”

    Shame on you, Cathymac! You’ve been spying on me! I spit, cuss and run out the door screaming whenever an illegal parks in my reserved parking spaces. Don’t need an LI editorial to do that!

68. zimzo
    September 23rd, 2009 @ 7:49 pm

    It’s pretty ridiculous that you guys think repeating every wacko rumor about Obama is fair game and then you go nuts when someone reports a news about a Republican based on publicly available records. You guys thought that Clinton’s private life should be news so why not this?

69. Cathymac
    September 23rd, 2009 @ 8:57 pm

    Because Clinton was guilty, Tag is not. BTW, Welcome Back Zimzo.

70. Jack
    September 24th, 2009 @ 12:06 am

    Lying under oath is NOT part of one’s “private life.”

71. Wolverine
    September 24th, 2009 @ 12:48 am

    Just took a look at the Not Larry Sabato blog on the Tag Greason thing. Man, there are some weird posts over there. Why, you’d think Tag had been accused of using a cigar as a sex toy during a private pizza party in the Oval Office or something.

72. Grasping. At. Straws.
    September 24th, 2009 @ 8:06 am

    You guys all do realize that the LI based its story off of sworn statements and court documents, right? And those types of documents should be public record.

    And I’m not sure how anyone can say without doubt that Tag is either guilty or innocent of these charges. They were dismissed without prejudice, meaning this woman can bring the charges back at anytime.

    They are strange charges, I’ll admit, but as someone else said on one of these forums they are weirdly detailed to a point of sounding very plausible.

    The outrage really is fake on the part of many here. You all cry over fake stories like an Obama birth certificate, but criminal charges aren’t newsworthy.

73. Cathymac
    September 24th, 2009 @ 9:01 am

    Grasping: Not sure if you have been reading along but there have been several good rebuttals to the charges, the reporting and your points – specifically hoodathunk’s Ric James’ columns and commentary. It’s pointless to go over it all again when you can easily scroll through the comments and links.

    As for charges sounding plausible, I’m sure you are aware of the bevy of charges that have sounded “unique” and detailed that have been completely bogus. Sally brought up the Duke Lacrosse case – which is probably the most prominent. Feel free to research this case all you want.

74. BlackOut
    September 24th, 2009 @ 10:06 am

    Grasping, do you have something new to bring to the table, or are you just trying to keep a dieing story alive?

75. Wolverine
    September 24th, 2009 @ 5:17 pm

    Interesting twist in all this. The Blue Virginia blog is taking the Loudoun Independent to task for an article stating that Stevens Miller called other members of the BOS “bigots.” According to Blue Virginia, the LI is nothing but a hack for the right wing. The Monk caught this and weighed in with the contradictions in the Greason case. John Geddie Jr. appears to be taking it on the head from both directions at the same time.

76. dans
    September 24th, 2009 @ 5:59 pm

    Wolv,

    Guess Jr. forgot why his Dad named the paper “Independent”..

77. G. Stone
    September 24th, 2009 @ 6:18 pm

    To his credit Tag has moved on he is talking about Jobs, the Economy, Small business and moving our NOVA economy forward in some pretty tough economic times. Let the disciples of deception wallow in this crap. This campaign is about issues.

78. The Bulletproof Monk
    September 24th, 2009 @ 10:50 pm

    And like Deeds…Poisson seems to be putting all of his eggs in a basket with a hole in it.

79. Wolverine
    September 25th, 2009 @ 3:56 am

    G. Stone — I need your e-mail address. Have Joe send it to me.

80. sally
    September 25th, 2009 @ 9:06 am

    On the Loudoun Independent blog, a person claiming to be her husband and posting under at least 5 different names “Dave” “Edward” “David” “David Edward” etc says that he met her after the sister filed the first complaint. He says it was ignored (maybe because the sister filed it and not the so called victim.) He says he was so upset that he helped her file a second complaint. Several times he explodes in foul language, threatening scary stuff. Then later he blogs that “we” were never notified of any of the proceedings, or that the case was dismissed. He seems to have taken ownership of the claim, and pretty controlling. She did not want the article in the paper or her name revealed, but there it is–in a blog.

    The only notices would have gone to her–not to him. I find it hard to believe that she did not know, and find it easier to believe that she ignored the notices and has hidden this from her angry and abusive sounding husband, who insisted she go forward with the charge in 1996. He has an explosive temper, and maybe just maybe she got caught in some sort of exaggeration or “story” for sympathy to her sister, that got repeated to her new husband–who got upset about it all and forced her to file a complaint. How else can it be explained that she would not follow the case, not know anything? I find it hard to believe that she was not properly notified by the prosecutor or the Court.

    He says she is still waiting for her day in court? Still pretending to her “husband?” But she has not been keeping up with it? She says she does not want this in the paper but he is blogging saying he hopes to slam Tag Greason’s career (who he has never met.) Sounds to me like she married a control freak, who does not honor her wishes, who she cannot be totally honest with…who forced this on her, out of misguided “honor” because she could not admit to him that she was flawed, and may not always tell him the whole truth…and she is afraid of him…

    Crazy reading, and sorry for you Tag. And your family…

81. Cathymac
    September 25th, 2009 @ 10:10 am

    I saw the back and forth on the LI from the “husband” and his posts were erratic. Even stranger, there is another poster that is claiming to be a conduit for this couple.

    It’s very bizarre, and I’m glad Tag is looking past this injustice and focusing on the issues facing LC. I just got a mailer of Tag’s – it looks great and frames the proper issuses.

82. Loudoun Insider
    September 25th, 2009 @ 10:53 am

    All this talk of LI!

    I wish I was posting to chime in on this mess – I should be back up in a week or two.

    The Independent leadership has obviously made a conscious decision to become the tabloid of Loudoun County. Why not just call it the Loudoun Enquirer? The Miller story they ran was ridiculous (and I am no big Miller fan), based on an anymous sources blog post for a blog that gets very little traffic. This story and its subsequent editorial are absolute frigging messes. They slam both sides of the political aisle, but one thing they both have in common is an astonishing lack of thoroughness and a generall gossipy way about them. That is typically more blog fare than newspaper fare, but it fits with a paper in bankruptcy trying to keep its head out of the quicksand. I do guarantee it is driving their web hits up and I haven’t seen that many comments on a local newspaper site in some time. It’s working in driving eyes to the website but I think it wil backfire in the long run, especially with advertisers if the general public opinion of it goes down the crapper.

    Speaking of crap, I’ve always been used to seeing bad language on blogs, and heck I’ve used plenty myself. But I’ve never seen a newspaper let people get away with writing shit and fuck in comments, which seem to be favorite words of the “husband”. More indication of the gutter-dredging of Geddie and Burns.

83. Cathymac
    September 25th, 2009 @ 11:11 am

    LI, I tend to agree on your Miller story analysis, and I am not fan of Miller either. Loudoun Enquirer is correct.

84. sally
    September 25th, 2009 @ 11:28 am

    I just spoke with Mr. Geddie, and asked him who had given him information. He said it was not “local” as in Loudoun… that he had emails and telephone calls on this (that he would not reveal), but in terms of other research had only gotten the court records, spoken to Tag, his campaign manager, his former commander, and the lady (not her husband) He would not tell me if he had discussed this with Poisson or his campaign.

    Also I told him the husband was posting under a lot of names, and using very foul and aggressive language. He has not been reading the blog posts, he said he did not realize this.

    Then, he proposed he would delete the posts, and I asked him not to do that, because it shows how crazy this couple seems and shows so many inconsistencies that look like lies–so he is going to insert (expletive) for the swear words…

    The “husband” seems abusive, and incredibly angry for someone who never met Tag, or bothered to wonder why his wife did not want to file the complaints, or how the case got dismissed without his knowledge of it (did she just not tell him?)

    Strange, and it’s too bad that this junk is out there for such a nice guy as Tag is, and for his really wonderful family.

85. Cathymac
    September 25th, 2009 @ 12:15 pm

    Sally, look on there now – the husband just went ape-shit. I say save the posts in case LI deletes them.

86. Barbara Munsey
    September 25th, 2009 @ 12:37 pm

    One thing that might narrow this down a bit is if the website at the paper would display IP addresses–NOT EMAILS for all posts.

    It would not conclusively prove who anyone is, but if the DesRosier posters are a set of sockpuppets, as some seem to think, a set of IPs in differing locations (maybe some local?) would go a long way to debunking some of the hysteria.

    This blog and Hoodathunk had a good result in getting the paper to address some issues.

    Maybe the next step is to ask that some of the vitriol and confusion be remedied through a posting of IPs?

87. Wolverine
    September 25th, 2009 @ 2:49 pm

    Research time. In various posts on the LI website the alleged husband posted under “Edward”, “Dave”, and “David Desrosier”, mostly as “Edward.” One blogger, calling himself Henry Hale, claimed that the alleged victim had called him. Hale said that her name was “Sherry DesRosier”

    Major David Edward DesRosier and Sgt Sherry M. DesRosier, husband and wife with two kids. Go to Google and plug in “Sherry DesRosier” On page one you will find a 2005 story and photo which includes this couple from The Honolulu Advertiser. Go to the White Pages and plug in his name. You will get their (apparently) current address and phone number. BTW, Maj. Dave appears to have been a heavyweight weight-lifting titlist in Hawaii.

    This appears to be the couple in question. Not evidence, however, that it is they who are doing the posting on the LI blog.

88. LoCoVa
    September 25th, 2009 @ 3:02 pm

    Why don’t we call it what it is: politics as usual. Dirty tricks, anonymous sources, scandalous charges that are unsubstantiated all mark this assault on the electorial process.

    Now, while I do NOT agree with Tag Greason on many issues, I will not stand by and see a good man’s name ruined due to rumor and innuendo. The Loudoun Independent should not have published the story, since 1) the case was dismissed, and more importantly,2) he was not convicted of anything. This story was nothing more than an effort to inject some drama and scandal into a fair and clean campaign. To run such a story is unacceptable, if not irresponsible.

    The Tag Greason I met is a good businessman, interested in his community, and believes in the family values that he claims to believe in. It is evident by his life. To run a story such as this is shameful.

    Shame on you, Loudoun Independent, shame on you.

89. The Bulletproof Monk
    September 25th, 2009 @ 6:05 pm

    Hale is a political neanderthal. His two-faced and hypocritical past was called in the thread by our own Blackout…
    In combination with Ric James (bitch), and Sally ….they’re really having a difficult time of this (supposed to be a slamdunk) smear job.

90. BlackOut
    September 27th, 2009 @ 5:22 pm

    An entire news cycle has run since this article and no other media outlet has picked it up. I still want to know who is behind this story?

91. Cathymac
    September 27th, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

    Did the story come out in print?

92. Wolverine
    September 27th, 2009 @ 9:08 pm

    Blackout, you completely nailed it in your last post on the LI website. It certainly does appear to me that Major David DesRosier is being “pumped” by someone around here. That was evident from his very first post (22 Sept., 16:22, last sentence in caps) which demonstrated total confusion between the 2007 school board election and the 2009 delegate election — in fact, complete ignorance about the 2009 election. Now he comes out with a few details on the 2007 election but still shows a lack of in-depth knowledge — as in the fact that Greason ran as a write-in candidate and garnered an unusually large number of votes. The capper was his latest claim that Greason has a “checkered past.” This smacks of the DesRosiers being fed a slanted line and not bothering to do their own double check of the facts on the internet. Very surprising since both are educated professionals, he a dietician/nutritionist and she apparently having gotten a degree in psychology or close to getting one in Hawaii. BTW, Major DesRosier was in charge of food and nutrition at Fort Polk in the late 1990’s, which is how he met Sherry apparently.

Leave a Reply