GOBGN Starting To Panic

By Loudoun Insider

I have to stop using GOBN (Good Old Boy Network) and stick with GOBGN (Good Old Boy and Girl Network).  The Loudoun GOBGN is largely a “Republican” club, although there are some notable Democratic parts.  The Dems have their own clique, but they have been out of power too long and the current crew at the BOS is hopelessly fragmented, and most will soon be out of power, again. 

This will put Republicans back in control and some people are salivating at that possibility.  Some believe the Republicans will control the growth of government and taxes (that didn’t work out so well last time), but many key players are salivating at the opportunity to control the government and sell access to it.

While control of the BOS is indeed a big deal, the real panic is setting in at the increasing liklihood of the GOBGN law enforcement duo going down in flames.  Think about it – if you want to engage in all sorts of self dealing, influence peddling, and questionable land deals, you better have the Sheriff and the Commonwealth’s Attorney in your pocket.  And indeed they do – Simpson and Plowman subjugate themselves to the GOBGN all the time. 

While Simpson is dealing with lots of bad publicity lately, what you’ve seen so far is only the tip of that rotten iceberg.  Believe me, ALOT more is coming on several fronts, and Simpson is done.  Plowman isn’t quite as sloppy or arrogant, but please notice he hasn’t said a peep about the recent Simpson shenanigans, and he won’t.  They’re both owned by the same people.  Expect Plowman to get tied into several Simpson scandals, and don’t forget he has his own self made messes to deal with.

While Simpson has four announced Republican challengers, at least one of them is put up by Simpson’s people, and one is put up by Plowman’s people.  They’re diversons to spread the field and help elect a weak candidate, and it is highly likely that one or more will end up “pulling a Simpson” and running as an “Independent” in the fall.  Simpson needs multiple candidates to win, and the GOBGN will help him find those extra candidates.  Plowman has a formidable Democratic challenger in the works, but rumors persist that a dark horse conservative candidate could appear last minute.  I doubt any such last minute entrant would win, but it would force Plowman further to the right and hurt him.  

Neither of these guys has an easy road ahead, and the thought of them losing not only frightens them but many others kneee deep in various schemes.  It is clearly obvious that we need an entirely new clean slate in these two positions, and I think there will be bi-partisan support to make that happen.  More to come in the months ahead.


Comments

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Jack Ryan once again proves he is clueless, and also has problems with the English language, along with honoring his own commitments.

  • sally says:

    LI, I think Charlie’s statement at the end was a joke. Obviously we have no “police” in Loudoun–except the State troopers.

    And I have had private conversations with Charlie where he said the same thing that he says in the substance of his post. He is sincere, and extremely knowledgeable/competent to give opinions, given his expertise and familiarity with Loudoun and other jurisdictions.

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    I love Charlie King (in a purely platonic manner of course!), but that was an odd statement, and even his fans must admit that it is not in his best interests to publicly complain about the CA or the Sheriff.

  • […] a recent comment on Too Conservative, Amy Kelly, a paid campaign advisor for Ron Speakman said in defending Ron Speakman’s […]

  • Charlie King says:

    Sally is right. My comment about not talking to the police is a joke. It reflects the fact often the most damning evidence the police gather against my clients are their own words.

    LI–thanks for qualifying your statement about how you feel about me. I wouldn’t some folks in the eastern part of the county to get upset.

    You need to know my comments about the Commonwealth’s Attorney are not influenced by any fear of retribution. It’s hard to comprehend if you do not work in the criminal justice system, but the opportunity for the Commonwealth’s Attorney or Sheriff to have their assistants and deputies respectively single out an attorney they do not care for is practically nill.

    First, I have never negotiated a plea directly with either Jim Plowman or Jim Fisher. In the cases I have defended clients charged with serious crimes or public corruption or involve sensitive issues, I have dealt with one of Mr. Plowman’s assistant prosecutors or a special prosecutor from another county.

    My impression is in the serious cases I have handled within his office, Mr. Plowman’s role has been to monitor the case and perhaps approve a plea bargain discussed between myself and the prosecutor handling the case.

    Second, good prosecutors in their private moments, have said to me they go out of their way not treat a defendant differently because they do not care for their attorney. I have to indicate this rule is not followed in Mr. Plowman’s office.

    Third, Jim Plowman could not give an order to his assistant prosecutors to treat Charlie King’s clients better or worse than anyone else. You would have to know the integrity of people involved, they simply would not do it.
    it.

    LI, I enjoy your blog because you try to get at the unvarnished truth and let the chips fall where they may. You also have a low bullsh-t threshold.

    I am no different. I assure you if I thought Mr.Plowman unfit for office, I would be very vocal in saying so. I agree with you the Tate case, before it was handed over to a special prosecutor, could have been handled better. What I am not following is your argument Mr. Plowman’s actions in the Tate case render him unfit for office when he otherwise very competently has discharged his duties to the citizens of Loudoun County.

  • Charlie King says:

    Correction.
    Last sentence in paragraph 7 should read: “I have seen nothing to indicate that this rule is not followed in Mr. Plowman’s office.”

  • BlackOut says:

    I found this webpage fascinating and spent more than a several minutes playing with the different views. Make sure to look for the data filters. It shows how important college educations are now viewed amongst folks in the US and breaks it down by region.

    http://chronicle.com/article/Adults-With-College-Degrees-in/125995/

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    The issues with Plowman go beyond the Tate case.

  • Ryan Cool says:

    So does Mr York have a college degree?
    Not that it really makes a difference because there are plenty of educated idiots running around with more letters after their name than appear in their name (some including their middle name)

  • sally says:

    Ryan, he won’t answer you. He is in charge of a billion dollar budget, huge decisions, reading hundreds/thousands of pages of reports every week…. takes a good student, someone capable of study, to do this…

    Some say this Board simply relies on what staff tells them — because they cannot read or understand the issues… so staff hides things, twists things, misleads them, and that explains a lot of why we are where we are today.

    Even with Ches Bay, the stakeholder process was set up, we voted on what was “consensus” and voted to clearly exempt, for example, farm ponds, storm ponds, storm water facilities,,, and also private roads. We voted with consensus for 35 foot buffers, and relied on State data, the State Watershed Implementation Plan, and the Obama EPA for that buffer width.

    Staff does not like what we did so they refuse to use the word “consensus” and try to water it down by saying things like we voted on the 35 foot buffers but there was strong opposition to it– by the paid PEC lobbyists, who got to be “stakeholders” even though they may not even own land in the County.

    The true volunteer stakeholders who do own land in the County have been ignored. Staff has even taken the things we voted on with consensus and rewritten them in a form that we did not vote on, adding in language and limitations, making our votes meaningless…

    We have a Phd who worked for Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr and Clinton, who is an expert statistician whose job was to review EPA reports, and who has expertise specifically in hydrology, and he says the conclusions staff keeps touting, that 78 percent of our streams are impaired etc are “false claims” based on “simple arithmetic errors” and worse, using biased and flawed, inappropriate testing protocols, making statistical claims based on misuse of facts/protocol/math or incompetence.

    What does the Board do? they ask staff if there were misunderstandings? staff simply says yes, the Phd and the public, which includes a lot of other Phds and attorneys (I am not the only one) and incredibly educated people, are all “confused.” Bull. And more Bull. Staff runs this county and they simply do not tell the whole truth, and have mislead our Board more than once–because our Board does not have the brains to even question them.

    That’s why we need to get good honest people involved who will ask the hard questions and make the difficult decisions and reign in the out of control staff who would love to grow government, and write in job security for life with incredibly over reaching legislation like the CBPO.

    Another article to peruse: Montgomery Homeowners Shocked their Backyard is a NO Mow Zone for the Environment, must remove flower garden, basketball hoop, and stop mowing or face a $2500 fine– find it on the front page of the metro section of the Wash Post yesterday. Will try to post it later… a preview of what staff wants for Loudoun, permission to plant flowers and mow…

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Sally, who is the mastermind behind the staff’s actions? Who coordinates this sophisticated shadow government?

  • G.Stone says:

    Sally, who is the mastermind behind the staff’s actions? Who coordinates this sophisticated shadow government?

    No shadow Gov’t , just the like minded with an aggenda. Having been to almost every public input sessions to include stakeholder meetings this thing is as clear as it gets. There are those within county Gov’t who have an aggenda, want the CBPO as a conduit to build a LC EPA. They want a division within Gov’t with an environmental mission statement seperate from building and development. The introduction of talk about ” Shadow Govt’s ” is misdirection.

  • Eric the 1/2 troll says:

    “They want a division within Gov’t with an environmental mission statement seperate from building and development.”

    I do not know about “they” or who “they” are or what their “aggenda” (sic) is – it would help to name names or risk the claim of hyperbole.

    But what is wrong about having an environmental department that is separated from building and development. Why should they answer to the development industry? Talk about a shadow government!

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Ok.

    Who is in charge of the “like-minded with an agenda”?

  • G.Stone says:

    Laura Edmonds woulds be one. Chief cheeleader and minister of misinformation.

    Having attended 3 community meetings on the CBPO and hear with my own ears Ms. Edmonds answer the same question 2 different ways based on reaction to opposition having exposed her intial answer as crap, I knew I was in the middle of a propoganda event(s).

    Another conversation I had with a LC staffer after the Potomac District meeting( self described as a staff scientist, I have his card somewhere in my office )that was such a blatent attempt to mislead that I was shocked. I told others after the fact that had he worked for me I would have fired him. His attitude was I have provided the information and your questions are to be ignored because I am a scientists and you are a dumb ass. It was after this meeting months ago my then suspicions were confirmed and have now been cemented.

  • G.Stone says:

    sorry for misspelling and such, i cant find my glassses

  • Justin Time says:

    Getting old is a b**tch.

  • sally says:

    Since they put Gem Bingol and Ed Gorski on all the volunteer committees to review and propose policy to the Board, and then they stack these groups (Like the REDC, where they are going to appoint Gem Bingol as the “environmental” appointee) with PEC appointees, and so Gem Bingol as chairman of the WTARC and the Watershed Study group talks to Ed Gorski on other committees, and the PEC planning staff/attorneys etc. do all the work to write legislation help our own staff prepare staff reports– it is no wonder what the PEC wants is everywhere and in all committees… and given that papers like Loudoun Times Mirror are too lazy to do any real reporting and simply publish the professional press packages prepared by the PEC– even the Press is “led.”

    I challenge you all to read Mr. Coffey’s short report on the Versar Stream Study and if you are not persuaded by his assertion that false statistical protocols, simple arithmetic, and improper selection of test sites rendered the Stream Assessment the County is relying on invalid by absolutely “false claims” then I don’t think you want to know the truth.

    Loudoun Environmental has links to the Versar Report (Loudoun’s stream assessment) and to Mr. Coffey’s analysis of that report. Please look at the actual documents and make up your own mind.

    Anyone who supports the CBPO will not be re-elected, there is just no way–people from all walks of life are upset.

    By the way, purcellville gazette is having another CBPO poll–

  • sally says:

    Sorry, in the post above, I said Loudoun Environmental, meant to say Loudoun Environmental Council, lecva.org

    Look at the facts yourself, and make up your own mind.

  • Eric the 1/2 troll says:

    There you have it, edmound, Laura Edmounds, Gem Bingo, and Ed Gorski are the one coordinating the shadow government in LC. You’ve heard it from the horses…..um….mouth…..

  • FYI, I deleted the comment that supposedly came from Scott York. It looks like it was an imposter

  • Jack Ryan says:

    “But what is wrong about having an environmental department that is separated from building and development.”

    Eric – taxpayers don’t want to pay for this large piece of fecal matter. I know you are a taker, but the givers have had enough with this hockey stick science fraud…Coffee’s report was very compelling, thank you Sally for sharing this info. with the public.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “Eric – taxpayers don’t want to pay for this large piece of fecal matter. I know you are a taker, but the givers have had enough with this hockey stick science fraud…Coffee’s report was very compelling, thank you Sally for sharing this info. with the public.”

    What hockey stick science fraud? I get so tired of people that find data to support their positions instead of establishing a position based on good data — on both sides of environmental issues.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    Jack, a “taker”…really Jack? THAT is the best thing you can come up with as to why you think an environmental department should be answerable to the development industry? Because I, Eric the 1/2 troll, am a “taker”? If this is an example of your ability to debate public policy issues, its a damn good thing you failed in your election campaign. Weak, dude, very weak. Ravi had you pegged.

  • sally says:

    Edmund the report is on the LECVA.org website, and it is by a prominent scientist who worked for Carter and Clinton– and he says the loudoun stream assessment has “false claims” “simple arithmetic errors” blatant “bias” and “incompetent” lack of concern for standard testing protocols. He is a statistician with an expertise in Hydrology, and his job in the Executive Office of the White House was to review EPA studies.

    See it for yourself, before you make any more silly remarks…

    http://www.LECVA.org

    RAVI only shows up when the argument is lost, to divert attention from that fact… he will be here soon!

  • BlackOut says:

    Ravi is omnipresent. He has a gift from god to solidify arguments after great debate and draught, to then speak of wisdoms where wisdoms are void.

    It’s interesting to note, Ravi’s country may still be in an early stage of evolution, the ability to smell is a most important sense for survival. In our modern times most of us have lost that acuteness of the nose. Ravi’s primal ability to smell out a rat has been demonstrated on many occasions here at TC. Where some may miss the odious, Ravi will capitalize. Ravi is using his survival skills to provide us great insight. (here is a secret to those Ravi haters and cartoon aficionados, strong curry is Ravi’s kryptonite.)

    So I disagree with Sally’s observation. Ravi has been very precise in his observations and in his ability to sniff out agendi. I can imagine Sally, LL and Jack have taken great offense to this gift that Ravi has shared with us.

    I too wait for Ravi to grace us with more wisdom.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    “Only an attorney may be able to determine whether there was a possible violation of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act…” Coffey wrote. “If it is determined that a fraud investigation should be pursued with [Attorney General Ken] Cuccinelli, I would be happy to provide technical support.”

    Spoken like a totally unbiased “scientist”. I am sure his “study” was pro bono – maybe he chalks it up to business development. How much might he charge the Cooch in his “retirement” for expert witness testimony?

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Sally, that LECVA site smells a little fishy don’t you think? Do you wonder who is financing it? How about all the non-partisan and un-biased words used on it like “land grab” and “Miller’s rant” and the rest…

    It really is a bit silly.

    And I can’t find the noted scientist Mr. Coffey’s report on the site. Could you link me directly to it?

    Now, I don’t support the CBO, as you must remember from some time ago.

    I also don’t support hyperbole, misdirection, and other silliness when discussing matters of import.

    Coffey’s analysis could be legitimate, but I’m a lot less likely to think so if he is associated with this shady looking site and over-the-top remarks to the board as attributed to him.

    I don’t know which group to trust less: bumbling county staff or shady “environmental” groups.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Is this the noted scientist I’m supposed to believe?

    http://www.rpvnetwork.org/profile/DrJerryLCoffey?xg_source=activity

  • sally says:

    “partisan and unbiased words like “land grab””– those are the Independent Scott York’s words that LEC simply quoted in an accurate fashion.

    Dr. Coffey was first hired by Jimmy Carter and worked for Clinton…. and he is not happy with faux/sloppy partisan science. Did you read Dr. Coffey’s report or just dismiss it out of hand?

    He says you won’t find invertebrates where they “tested” for them. As you know the County claims the absence of micro invertebrates proved the streams were impaired. Coffey says they could not test where protocol demanded, landowners denied access– that they needed to test in established streams draining at least 340 acres (as marked by the USGS map)– and instead they tested in the outer reaches of the streams, draining very few acres. and the absence is really just an indicator of “youth” that the stream was not mature enough to have developed these kinds of colonies… and not to mention the rain, the temperature, and the fact that the Versar report itself says the test is not conclusive and should be redone…

  • Ravi Oli says:

    Mr. Blackout, Ravi prays that there is much saffron in your future. There are three things that must now be said, and perhaps a fourth thing:

    1. Let it be known that Ravi is opposed to the CBPO in its current form.

    2. Let it also be known that Mr. Jack Ryan proves that he is a Chucklehead with almost every utterance.

    3. Ravi cannot regard Mr. Coffee as anything more than the producer of hot, steamy coffea canephora robusta and coffea arabica. Mr. Coffee wakes Ravi each morning and is little more than a giver of refreshing beverages.

    4. Mr. Coffee is pushing a bad brew to those who would believe anything to support their position. Ravi will risk responding to the siren’s call, when the siren answers the following questions about Mr. Coffee’s report:

    After considering the potentially relevant indicators of stream impairment, what steps, protocols, and accepted tests were conducted to detect the presence of fecal coliform bacteria or animal waste pathogens?

    What were the levels of dissolved oxygen detected within the subject streams that were tested?

    Was the presence of phosphorus used as an indicator of stream impairment? What about nitrogen levels? As is broadly accepted, non-point source nitrogen loads are significantly heavier from the atmosphere than from manure and fertilizer.

    Ravi does not believe that any of these factors were highlighted in Mr. Coffee’s summary analysis, and therefore must conclude that the assertions put forth were inhibited from the onset by hypotheses that were hydro- logically impaired in their construction, and that inadequately failed to estimate or consider the ramifications of these issues to the full extent necessary. Until and unless someone can demonstrate that Mr. Coffee’s report conclusively explains the criteria used in the formulation and synthesis of results acquired from field testing, and equate these results in a manner that is not intented to obfuscate or confuse the issues at hand, then there isn’t much contained within the report that is truly of merit, let alone worth discussing. Indeed.

  • sally says:

    Ravi, if you look at the stream assessment, there are two parts: the habitat assessment and then the benthic assessment. The habitat assessment measured the dissolved oxygen and the phosphorus/nitrogen– and looked at other factors like stream buffers. Dissolved oxygen was generally excellent, showing that aquatic life should be able to thrive. As for the phosphorus/nitrogen, the assessment showed our streams are getting better. Overall for the habitat assessment 94 percent of our streams were in the top 2 (of 4) categories– and very good, with 20 percent in the top category of a quality comparable to streams in our national parks.

    The benthic test was never meant to be a stand alone test, but a “check” on the standard protocol used by the DEQ and EPA, the dissolved oxygen and habitat study..

    The benthic testing is the entire basis of the “78 percent of our streams are stressed” statement, even when the stream report noted that the benthic testing should be re-done (preferably in the Fall) and was not conclusive for a variety of reasons…

    Mr Coffey analysed the statistical claims of both the habitat and benthic study and found simple arithmetic errors and statistical errors that amounted to either incompetence or fraud, and noted other basic flaws with the testing and the report. He is an expert in hydrology and in statistics– so quite qualified to review the stream assessment which made statistical conclusions, like the “78 percent” claim.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    Sorry – wrong thread. I reposted correctly.

Leave Comment