LCSO Morale In The Crapper

By Loudoun Insider

The average deputy on the street is more and more unhappy as their pay and work hours get messed with while the bigwigs get a raise and are seemingly never in the office.  This video was making the rounds at the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office recently, and it sent the brass into a tizzy.  Of course if I were a deputy out on the street every day in this situation I wouldn’t be very happy either.  Especially while the head honcho is out on leave selling sports drinks while collecting his $154,000 county salary.


Comments

  • sally says:

    OK LI, I point out an obvious flaw in your logic, and you attack me. And you pride yourself for integrity? I have no ties to Simpson, just asking a very logical question.

    You obviously can’t produce any “memo” nor can your “source” and this all looks like a joke, a very bad one at that.

    Ask your pal Scott York for the “memo” if it exists…. or the oh so “decent” Mr. Burton, who pulls permits and threatens people over blue roofs, but can’t do one thing about GUDI community wells… or Sally Kurtz who thinks arithmetic errors and statistical false claims are just fine to justify the CBPO… those people sure care about truth… you would think they would give you their constant blogger friend the memo that would prove his (their?) case against Simpson…

    Or just give us the date of the memo, to whom it was written, who wrote it….

    It does not exist, in my opinion, and you are either being played or you are playing with the rest of us…

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    You really need to get ahold of yourself, Sally. I don’t know the details of this dispute, as I have stated several times now. If the sources invovled can get it, I will be happy to post it. As I repeated earlier, if it comes down to a dispute between the deputies on the street and Steve Simpson, I will take the side of the deputies. I don’t think Simpson can be trusted. Period. That’s my opinion, and you are obviously on Team Simpson in this dispute. Do your own investigation if you are so incensed about this and post the results here, or with the other bloggers on your side.

  • sally says:

    I don’t think the information on this piece can be trusted. Period. There are reasons why hearsay is not allowed to convict people of crimes.

    LI, you are on thin ice with libel here, and I have told you before, you just cannot do this. That’s why none of the papers are reporting it… republishing false facts/conclusions will get you in a ton of trouble… it is not just opinions being pushed here, but factual accusations, and they are not well supported…

    You need to ask for hard evidence before you run with stuff like this, and I say this to you as a friend, you are being used otherwise… Get the memo and put it up, or pull this thread, is my advice to you.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    You are off base here, Sally. That is my opinion, by the way, and not libelous. Neither is posting a video about policies at a public agency, made by someone inside that agency. I did not make that video, and will truthfully testify to that fact should I be subpoenned in someone’s baseless libel suit. Steve Simpson is a public figure, and he has a huge hurdle to cross to sue anyone for libel. Maybe you’ll be providing the legal advice on that one.

    This post stays up. I am not being used. Someone sent it to me, I found it hilarious and well done, and I posted it for discussion. You and any other Simpson supporter gets their opportunity to challenge it here in comments.

  • sally says:

    Republishing a lie is the same as making the lie. For example the 4 million dollar suit I sent you in an email about the teenager in Norfolk who a reporter described as “pushing” another boy instead of saying “allegedly” pushing. The paper was sued, not the person who made the original statement. And the paper lost. Big. You have a responsibility to publish truthful things, not libelous smears based on misunderstandings, personal issues, or political agendas…

    Some of this sounds more like factual accusations than opinion to me…. just MY opinion…

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Are you trying to threatne me in a round about way, Sally??? There is a huge difference between a newspaper story about a minor and a blog post about a public agency led by a public figure in an election year. That video was made by someone with first hand experience with the basffling personel policies at LCSO. Someone with much more experience in those matters than either one of us. It’s on YouTube – go sue them.

  • Ravi Oli says:

    Ms. Sally, it is with much respect and heartfelt tidings that Ravi must advise you that your quest to convince Mr. LI that you are right and he is wrong is a misguided misuse of your time. You would have more success growing plantains in a field spiked with salt than you will in challenging the views of Mr. LI. You would be more likely to climb the north face of Mt. Everest, while being out of shape, than changing Mr. LI’s perceptions.

    Ravi humbly pleads with you Ms. Sally to vacate your debate with Mr. LI, as it is among the most futile of undertakings. As they say where Ravi is from, Ms. Sally, “Be calm in arguing; for fierceness makes error a fault, and truth discourtesy.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    When can I expect to be served, GOBGN???

  • sally says:

    How come you deleted my last comment, which said have it your way, dig your own hole? Are you now selectively deleting comments to try to manipulate the message? Wow.

  • sally says:

    REPEAT, the courts are rapidly reacting to internet blogging and the post above may not be accurate. Also, it is very easy to find out who is posting, so an anonymous post will not help….

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    No wow whatsoever Sally – I did not delete any comment, and I just checked the moderation and spam queues. Are you sure you hit submit before typing out another? You said it again, and it was not deleted, and you can (as I am sure you will) keep saying it again and again and again if you so desire. Until I get sick of mindless repitition and tell you to cut it out, which I am getting very close to doing. Again, have one of your other blogging pals take this issue up to defend Steve Simpson.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    The Simpson people can sue YouTube to take that video down if it’s so libelous. I am not hosting it, the link to YouTube is embedded here from YouTube. You can watch it on YouTube yourself by clicking on the YouTube logo on the bottom bar. Here’s a direct link:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOgcepWWfQY&feature=player_embedded

  • sally says:

    Sorry you don’t like what I say, but it is meant to be helpful. Are the links above supposed to be legal advice? Not sure they are accurate, especially the bit about blogs not responsible for comments… and what commenters say…

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    I haven’t even had a chance to look at the links yet, and they’re from an entirely new IP, I have no clue where they came from and if they are helpful to my side or your side. I am not worried one bit about libel in this situation.

  • sally says:

    Editors Note, your links are not reflective of the current law in Virginia. The links are stories that are very old/out of date. The Legislature changed the law in Virginia in 2009, and there is a ton of very recent case law, throughout the circuits in Virginia.

  • BlackOut says:

    sally, I thought you had left TC in the recent purge coup. Didn’t you say you were leaving with the other antagonists? If I recall it was right after you unsuccessfully lobbied LI to have my blog posts taken down.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    I’m sure sally is the first to defend LI’s First Amendment rights, raise hell against frivolous lawsuits and criticize statements that might be considered chilling to the free exchange of ideas.

  • Sally,
    What factual inaccuracies are you talking about, and what proof of your own do you have that any FACT stated by LI is in the slightest bit wrong?

  • sally says:

    “The average deputy on the street is more and more unhappy as their pay and work hours get messed with while the bigwigs get a raise and are seemingly never in the office.”

    Take the first sentence of this blog for example, lots of factual statements (like their pay and work hours are being “messed” with, etc.)

    You guys think this is just fine, I don’t. You will not convince me that this is a good expose, and not just based on unfounded, unsubstantiated facts. Loudoun Hunter says there was a memo that the Sheriff claims he never received, that told Simpson he was wrong, but if that were the case, the memo would be the news, not the rumor… in my opinion…

    This is a questionable blog post, in my opinion, and I do not think it flatters LI. That is my opinion and I am sticking with it!

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Sally, LCSO morale amongst the deputies is horrible. Deputies have to work extra hours before they get overtime now, while the brass got the same increase in pay, but don’t have to work the extra hours. Some of the head honchos there also aren’t in the office much, especially Simpson himself. This is all from people inside LCSO, I’m nt making any of it up. You also will not find anyone working there willing to say that on the record for obvious reasons. Why do you think there are four candidates for Sheriff from the Republican side? Simpson needs to go, that’s why.

  • sally says:

    The statement in the video is the “messing with ” is illegal and unethical, larceny. Libel. THe statement by Loudoun hunter is that Simpson got a memo that income was due to his deputies, that he should have known he was not paying them enough. Libel, in my opinion, unless there is an actual memo, and I seriously doubt that.

    I think these deputies have some good points, but they are going from A to Z on hearsay and not facts, and it is not fair to blame Simpson for County personnel policy that he has no control over..

    And you are publishing these accusations, I think you can be held responsible for their factually incorrect assertions.

  • sally says:

    And a psuedo name protects nothing. It is easy to find out who has made these posts, especially people in the Sheriff’s Office should know that.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Dear legal eagle, please go back and review NY Times v. Sullivan. If you think discussing the personnel policies of a public agency and the public figures who control such policies is libel, you are worse off than I ever realized.

    It is absolutely not easy to find out who made these comments, especially if they use an anonymizer. Even I cannot figure most people out, especially if they put in a fake email address and I have no ability to cross reference an IP with an earlier named comment. The only way you’re going to find out is to get a court order for the servers. Good luck with that one. Will the County Attorney be filing that suit on behalf of LCSO? It looks like you’re trying to scare away potential commenters.

  • sally says:

    I am not going to debate a 1964 case with you when the law has been evolving rapidly in response to the internet. There have been plenty of political websites shut down, and I have sent you some of the cases and news reports– the courts are coming down hard on the games people play to try to win elections, with other people’s reputations…

    Not trying to scare anyone, but if a court is involved, guaranteed, the “anonymous” poster will be known, and thinking you are posting anonymously could be naive.

    Again, if there is a memo where the County told Mr. Simpson that he was not properly paying his deputies, then produce it and stop with the smears that he is “messing with” their pay, “larceny” etc… If you publish a lie, you are responsible just as much as the person who said the lie.

  • BlackOut says:

    Wikileaks is still running. I am sure any legal exploration has much bigger fish to look at than a repost of a video that has already appeared on a public website.

    Bark Bark…ah where did the tree go?

  • Intriguing says:

    “There have been plenty of political websites shut down”

    Sally, can you back this statement up with any citations? I don’t disagree that the law is evolving as relates to the internet and defamation or libel cases, but I have yet to hear about any cases that are of a political nature.

    Also, are you familiar with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996? It states that no provider or user of an interactive computer service (i.e. a blog owner or operator) shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider (i.e. a poster on a blog or another website such as YouTube).

  • sally says:

    I have been reading recent decisions in Virginia, and forwarded LI a decision from a Norfolk judge– also the Gen Assembly made some big changes in our law in 2009 — mostly in reaction to teenage suicides, about posting on the internet, but it applies to blogs as well…

  • Intriguing says:

    I am familiar with legislation that has been enacted in response to teen suicides (where social media attacks have been a factor).

    Social Media attacks on a private juvenile citizen are quite different than comments about elected public officials on a political blog, as I’m sure you would agree.

    Even with changes to Virginia law, any state law can’t trump a federal act, or a section of a federal act, can it?

  • sally says:

    No, often State law controls. In fact, the States have jurisdiction of all matters not specifically delegated by our Constitution to the Federal government…

    Obamacare, good example of that issue being litigated.

  • BlackOut says:

    sally, Intriguing asked for political websites that had been shut down. You referenced that there were plenty. Shouldn’t be hard to at least point us to a couple. Where are they?

    Can you also tell us how you are equating teenage suicide laws to blogs? I’d be real interested in how you justify that stretch of the imagination.

  • BlackOut says:

    Oh wait maybe I am pushing to much…I guess if the government shut them down they wouldn’t be available in a google search, and since they were shut down there is no evidence to a link. Darn, I love it when the government covers their tracks when they violate first amendment rights.

  • sally says:

    I sent the info to LI earlier, and he is free to ignore it. It is his blog, but the law is evolving with many circuits ruling on it.

    Otherwise, do your own research!

  • BlackOut says:

    LI, please share the examples of political websites that have been forced closed; the ones sally apparently has sent you under super secret cover referenced in her recent comment. Or is this another credibility hit on sally?

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    I am so over this thread, which has gone way off topic. Sally sent me a link to a newspaper story about someone winning a judgement against a newspaper for mentioning an assault by a minor in an article without using the word allegedly. Absolutely not germaine to the bogus libel issues Sally raises in this thread.

  • sally says:

    LI, I sent you other emails in the last year about judges taking down political websites.

  • BlackOut says:

    LI, this isn’t off topic. sally has asserted that what has been re-posted is libelous. She has backed up this claim by saying that common law supporting bloggers being charged for things like this and has claimed she has examples via shut down political websites.

    Her reference in support of someone “winning a judgment against a newspaper for mentioning an assault by a minor in an article without using the word allegedly” is ludicrous and I agree not germain. That leaves us with the possibility of proof political websites have been shut down.

    Seems to me we are pretty close to the truth here. sally has refused to post her proof as a grudge against me. From her statement you have the proof. I assume you have little interest in providing the links as it would support her effort to get you in trouble. So I’d say it’s up to sally to post the goods, or we can close this episode as another instance where we have found issues with sally’s claims.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    I am way past caring – this thread is really over the hill.

  • sally says:

    BO, you may find this hard to believe, but I have actually tried to help LI by sending him information that I thought he should know or find useful. Sometimes LI and I disagree, but often I think he is right. I think he is intelligent. You, on the other hand, are simply blindly argumentative. I do not feel compelled to either 1.) educate you or 2.) help you. So, do your own research and post carefully.

  • BlackOut says:

    Well then we come to an impasse for others to judge.

    I am intrigued with your defense being you’ve given proof to LI to help him and support his argument. Apparently he didn’t seem to think it was worth using, wasn’t relevant or just didn’t matter. I assume you support his judgment since you think he’s intelligent and is often right.

    I have done my own research. Certainly not an expert at it but I do know how to use the googler. I can not find any court ordered censorship of political blogs. They just don’t exist. I think you made up the claim like you have on other occasions for other arguments you push. I imagine publicly you’ll disagree.

  • Oracle says:

    Sally’s use of “friendly advice” to derail this thread and potentially snuff out any further discussion of low morale at LCSO ought to make Simpson proud (in my opinion.) There ain’t nothing like changing the topic and intimidating people when you don’t want the truth to come out. On the other hand, if you do want the truth to come out, you should push for an independent group to survey LCSO deputies regarding morale and their confidence in Simpson as a leader. Simpson would never allow this kind of survey (in my opinion,) even though it would help voters make an informed decision. This could be done at very low cost thanks to the internet, and I’m sure one of Simpson’s opponents would offer to pay for it. (Sally, did you notice the extra words I added? Thanks for the advice!)

  • sally says:

    BO, I have not made up anything, as LI well knows–that is your specialty, making up stuff!

  • Intriguing says:

    Sally, if I am correctly intrepreting what BlackOut said, he isn’t saying that you made anything up as a matter of fact, but is offering his opinion that you made something up to support your claim. By using the words “I think,” he fluidly drifts into the realm of putting forth his opinion, or at least that’s how it reads to me.

  • sally says:

    Look, I have tried to help LI, and have routinely sent him interesting things by email for a while. I am not going to do a treatise here for people who can’t find circuit court decisions on google. Legal research is generally not done on google, but through something like Nexis.

    These decisions are “unreported,”– so you cannot find them all bound up in a book like you find the Va S Ct decisions in a law library. To know about them you would either have to follow the law through professional publications, like I do, or go to the circuits and search. There have been some news stories about some of these political blog cases, one particular in Norfolk, and I have sent them to LI because I thought he might find them useful…

    Since you guys are so smart, you don’t need me to tell you anything, and if you think I am wrong, then have your own opinion.

    I did not derail this thread, I merely pointed out that the logic of assuming Simpson was responsible for the pay issues was flawed, and incorrect. Of all the posts I have seen LI put up, this one is quite superficial and amateurish in its lack of facts to base conclusions on, and I think it is an unfair smear. Quite on topic.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Thanks for your conern, Sally. I think this issue has been discussed to past the point of death. I am not worried about libel in this instance or in any other instance in my blogging existence. I know my limits.

  • BlackOut says:

    Lexis is a pay for service and not available to most. Since you have access it is disingenuous to expect anyone to find our “source”. So don’t chastise others for doing their own research with tools that are available to them. In my opinion, this is more proof there is no political blog censorship. Jeez, if you had it you would have used it. It certainly would have been easier than continuing this cat and mouse divert from the diverted subject tactic.

  • sally says:

    You can go to the Loudoun County Law Library in the Courthouse and use Lexis for free.

    You are welcome LI. Despite our disagreements on many things, I would hate to see you get sued.

  • sally says:

    And LI, I appreciate some of the posts that you have put up, especially for Raspberry Falls, because I really feel for those families, and think you were very helpful in getting the word out about their plight. I hope there can be a good resolution of their problems soon, and that the dye trace test will go through. People are sick and that is not right, not in this county, in this Country, with the resources that we have available. Politics should not trump true health safety and welfare.

Leave Comment