One vote makes the difference

The Gertrude Stein Democratic Club has rescinded its endorsement of Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) for re-election in this year's primary.
On Monday night, Mendelson won with 60 percent of the vote, beating out challenger A. Scott Bolden. He had 67 out of 112 votes. I reported the results in today's District Extra.
But member Phil Pannell objected, arguing that Mendelson did not have exactly 60 percent of the vote.
Club officials ruled that night that 59.82 percent rounded up to 60 percent, but treasurer Darrin Glymph said yesterday that rounding up was a mistake.
"According to Roberts Rules of Order, you cannot round up in an endorsement," he said. "He needed 68 votes."
"The whole thing was about integrity of the club," he said.
Mendelson will not only lose out on the endorsement. He will also lose the $1,000 contribution approved by the membership, Glymph said.
---Nikita Stewart

By David Nakamura |  July 13, 2006; 6:00 AM ET
Previous: Traveling Tony, Part III | Next: Election Countdown

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Great. Today in print The Post reports that Mendelson won the Stein Club endorsement.

Here, on a blog read by 25 people and the 73 aliases of Jonathon Rees, they run a correction.

It must be nice being the incumbent.

What's next?

"Mendelson Cures Cancer"

"Mendelson Single-Handedly Battles Crime Wave"

Or maybe something with a closer connection to reality:

"Eighty Years In Office: Mendelson Hasn't Done A Damn Thing"

Posted by: whatever | July 13, 2006 10:16 AM

That's great to hear that the Stein endorsement won't go to the P.M. guy. Bolden was instrumental in making sure that there was a diversity seat with two Gertrude Stein members on the DC Democratic State Committee. He may not support all/every issue in the gay or any other community, but he is reasonable, responsible, responsive, and respected. He cares about people and is an effective leader. He is a leader for all the people and will do the right thing. No matter what the endorsement, the P.M. guy is history.

Posted by: No matter what the endorsement, DC Voters want Bolden for At Large Council -- Let' Make it Happen in | July 13, 2006 10:28 AM

When does the Post plan to publlish an article to this effect on the front page of the Metro? Now this is good news. P.M. guy loses endorsement as quickly as he gets it.

Posted by: This news should make the front page of the Metro section tomorrow | July 13, 2006 10:30 AM

This blog probably won't stay up long because it is not flattering to an incumbent West of the Park. Incumbents generally get the good press and labor endorsements and almost Stein endorsements.

Posted by: | July 13, 2006 10:58 AM

Nice to see the Bolden supporters out in full force in the blogosphere. Maybe you should encourage your candidate to get out too, for instance get out of his car and campaign instead of sitting in his ginormous SUV honking his horn at the Woodley Park Metro station....

Posted by: Adams Morgan | July 13, 2006 11:20 AM

So true -- this Bolden series of aliases on this blog are so tiresome ("that PM guy...") The candidate himself is also unimpressive, and there's enough Chamber of Commerce influence on the Council. Sadly, he's got a reasonable shot of taking the seat.

Posted by: hear hear | July 13, 2006 11:39 AM

Impressive or not, he is going to win. Bolden enjoys meeting with people and talking. And he does have a nice SUV doesn't he? And the P.M. guy has a nice straw hat, We all have our favorites.

Our comments only get tiresome when you have nothing to say about the P.M. guy.

We could use a little business savvy and real leadership on the Council. Take a few lessons. Business does contribute to the economy of this city and job creation. Duh. Get with the program. If the P.M. guy was doing anything worthwhile, his tenure on the council wouldn't be coming to an end.

And I can't be believe he is the labor's candidate. He was the first to support legislation taking away the right's of the workers. P.M. sounds real strong and a great advocate as long as there is no agreement or cameras rolling.

And what about that vote to give the police more cops. He didn't want to do that and commented that he did it reluctantly. Where has he been while these people are getting killed? Doesn't he get the sense of urgency. Don't worry anymore P.M. guy. You won't have to vote in the best interest of the people much longer. Take a break and enjoy the summer while A. Scott Bolden continues to walk the streets, meeting and greeting people and letting them know what others have concluded long ago. Bolden is the best man for the job and P.M. guy has to go.

Posted by: No alias -- The P.M. guy has to go in 2006 | July 13, 2006 12:22 PM

By the way, glad you got to see Bolden at the Metro campaigning. He's just fantastic. He got somebody's attention and thanks for spreading the word that Bolden cares about Metro too and how he can improve the daily commute for D.C. residents. And I bet his children and their friends love being carried in his SUV. It's a great family car.

Posted by: District voter ready for change on the council | July 13, 2006 12:44 PM

Don't you lovethe irony of upper-middle class inhabitants of Ward 3 arguing over SUVs. Tell me, is there another ward in the city with more SUVs per capita than Ward 3. I love it when liberals get into the whole more-liberal-than-thou b.s. It's when their true hypocricy starts to show. (And I am also a liberal...the difference is I know how to think for myself and recognize and admit my own shortcomings.).

Posted by: Ironic | July 13, 2006 02:36 PM

the liberals doing the complaining were likely at the CP metro to ride it, not see an SUV/Bolton show, even if it was free.

Nice to see The Current endore Phil. Bolton's more show than go. Not to say we wish he were otherwise, it'd be nice to see him go!

Posted by: Dupont | July 13, 2006 04:32 PM

Well, congratulations on the Current endorsement, P.M. guy. We give you your props for that endorsement. We expect you to be as gracious the next time Bolden wins an endorsement.

We won't get all of the liberals either, but surely a significant number of the moderates.

Plan on congratulating Bolden on September 12, 2006. He will be voted in the new Councilmember at large.

And there is nothing riding in a SUV or any other car. You work hard, you get want you want and enjoy life as best you can. You don't hate on a person for buying and riding a car that he likes. That's so Marxist.

Posted by: Doesn't matter, Bolden's the Man for the People and will win in September | July 13, 2006 04:48 PM

You're right, because those liberals riding the metro simply left the SUV at home.

Hey, I have no problems with SUVs. What I do have a problem with is this holier-than-thou b.s. that permeates the Holder v. Mendelson fracas. As fas as I am converned, all politicians are crooks. If they're not kissing babies, they're stealing their candy.

Posted by: Glover Park | July 13, 2006 04:57 PM

I support Phil Mendelson. I think it's fair to mention the Bolden flip-flop on gay marriage on the blog here, right? I know the bolden supporters have a simply enthralling explaination for how bolden says one thing to ministers, and another to a gay club. I'm reminded of John Kerry's "I voted for the war, before I voted against it" train wreck. I wonder what the ministers are thinking now? Will they back a business-friendly candidate who may or may not be for or against gay marriage?

Posted by: I support Phil | July 13, 2006 05:17 PM

Now let's clear the air (pun intended). As an environmentalist, I think Mr. Bolden, along with Orange, Fenty, Patterson, and anyone else on or thinking about the council should be ashamed of themselves driving around in a gas-guzzling, pollution-belching, road-ripping SUV. Elected officials are seen as role models, like it or not. You may like the SUV, but do the right thing and set an example. Boys and their toys.

Posted by: Environment | July 13, 2006 05:25 PM

"If they're not kissing babies, they're stealing their candy." Fool! The kissing is just a distraction for the stealing part! Anyone knows they're best done at the same time!

Just kidding, of course. For real now:
GP only posted that because (s)he knows a high turn-out favors Fenty!

Posted by: none | July 13, 2006 05:30 PM

Get a life. There's an SUV at every other home and they are owned by average citizens and plenty of women too. They are great cars. No one talks about your car. Live a little and let everyone be entitled to the car of their choice. They have to pay the notes.

Bolden is not going to let the marriage issue become a wedge issue. People need to do what they have do in the privacy of their homes and give government a break. Mr. Bolden will clear the air on the issues of the day. Did the reporter get it right? Whatever. Everybody can't be for every issue and maybe he didn't want to offend any of his friends in that community. He's a kind and caring soul. Sure would be nice if there were other issues of importance in this city. Doesn't look like the Stein group was going to endorse him anyway no matter how much a friend he continues to be to this group of citizens.

While some use certain issues to divide people, the rest of us will work toward the good of the city, SUV and all.

Posted by: | July 13, 2006 05:34 PM

There have been some other incumbents that racked up a lot of endorsements, but they didn't win. Names escape me right now, but we will add the P.M. guy to the list.

Posted by: | July 13, 2006 05:39 PM

I guess it's time for Rees and the crew to start on the comment line now. We've had our say.

Posted by: | July 13, 2006 06:50 PM

Being anti-gay could win a lot of votes in ward 5, 6, 7 and 8.

In ward 3 where I live, people here to do care where Bolden stands on gay marriage. They care more about taxes and our schools, and there is where Bolden is shinning as PM is the bind much of the rising taxes.

Posted by: No More PM | July 13, 2006 07:55 PM

Well, Bolden wants lower taxes and better schools. Vote Bolden. I like that.

Posted by: | July 13, 2006 08:37 PM

phil mendelson has leroy thorpe on his side.

Posted by: martine vose | July 13, 2006 08:58 PM

Doesn't matter how much money Bolden has in his warchest. It takes lots of money to beat an incumbent. Whatever it takes to get the P.M. guy out and new blood such as Bolden in. We're in it to win it. What a candidate that A. Scott Bolden is.

Posted by: | July 13, 2006 09:09 PM

Now that the info about Rees is out at http://jonathanrees.blogspot.com/ it will be easy to point Ward 3 residents to a single source of up-to-date and reliable fact about Jonathan Rees. He can't hide behind a smoke screen anymore.

Posted by: | July 13, 2006 10:23 PM

Never in my life have I read a more revolting and more patently false "blog" than the one to which Rees has linked to above.

There's apparently no tactic too low, too sleazy, to immoral for him.

It's honestly one of the most shameful things I've ever seen. Only a person without a conscience would allow himself to be part of something that terrible.

The city is full of lawyers. I encourage some of you to contact Mr. Summersgill about bringing a libel suit. Pro bono, if you have to -- no one should be allowed to do what that scumbag Rees is attempting to do with impunity. A restraining order -- another one -- is probably the only way to stop this maniac.

Posted by: | July 14, 2006 09:08 PM

I hope the Post does not take down these libelous messages, and that someone's got a record of the blog they point to.

It's an open and shut law-suit.

Posted by: RRR | July 14, 2006 10:15 PM

Has Ward 3 come to this?

Posted by: | July 15, 2006 01:50 AM

What on the jonathanrees.blogspot.com website is false? It mostly links to websites which predate Rees's candidacy and uses his own words and actions against him.

Where on the website is it cited that it was created by Bob Summersgill?

Posted by: ^^^^^ | July 15, 2006 07:07 AM

Fair, honest criticism of Jonathan Rees perfectly fine: http://jonathanrees.blogspot.com/ As a candidate for office he should understand that.

As for the blogs that Jonathan Rees has created about the people who criticize Rees: shame on Jonathan Rees.

Posted by: | July 15, 2006 10:10 AM

Rees: Your understanding of libel suits is as poor as your understanding of English syntax, ethics, marketing, human behavior and history. To name but a few of your areas of weakness.

You, by virtue of claiming to be a candidate, and by using privately-owned media to trumpet your imaginary virtues, are now considered a public figure. Thus, the bar for libel is FAR higher as it applies to people criticizing you.

However, the bar for libelling a private citizen is far far lower. You fool. Read about it in any undergrad pre-law text.

Posted by: | July 15, 2006 12:10 PM

"The foregoing is self-evident"

Hey! One of the Eight Ways To Spot A Rees Alias post!

I win!

Posted by: | July 15, 2006 12:11 PM

Rees:

The party's over dude. Your behavior online has finally caught up to you, and everyone in DC (and beyond) finally knows what kind of immoral and unstable person you are.


And attempting to libel the people who stand up and speak the truth only does further damage to you. You're only sabotaging yourself at this point. it's actually painful to witness.

Posted by: | July 15, 2006 12:14 PM

PLEASE IGNORE THE INTERNET TROLL!

He only wants attention

Posted by: thanks | July 15, 2006 12:45 PM

Please note that every time Rees gets caught in a lie, he starts ranting about gay people in a pathetic attempt to divert your attention.

Posted by: AnyoneButReesin06 | July 15, 2006 12:47 PM

go away rees.

And continue to ignore him please. That nutcase is unworthy of anyone's attention.

Posted by: | July 15, 2006 01:16 PM

I don't care how many "flyers" rees' imaginary team supposedly handed out last night.

He's still an unethical lunatic.

Posted by: snore | July 15, 2006 01:17 PM

All today's anti-gay, pro-rees posts have been brought to you by Jonathan Rees, the Candidate Who Has Nothing Better To Do On A Saturday Than Troll The Internet pretending to be Regular Citizens Who Support Rees

It's one of the saddest things I've ever seen. Pray for him.

Posted by: ABR2006 | July 15, 2006 01:50 PM

The man in his own words: jonathanrees.blogspot.com

The more you read, the sadder the story gets.

Posted by: - p - | July 15, 2006 01:52 PM

No one's ever "attacked" rees' family members.

Unless calling someone's wife "fictional" constitutes an attack.

Or reprinting posts by Rees himself in which he claims to have a) 2 children, a boy and a girl b) 3 children, twin girls and a boy AND c) two girls and one boy, all different ages.

Oooh! scary attacks! But falsely accusing someone of being a pederast? Yeah, that's not an attack, is it?


:-)

Posted by: | July 15, 2006 01:55 PM

IGNORE THE TROLL

Posted by: | July 15, 2006 01:56 PM

Bahahahahahhahaha

Posted by: ^^^^^ | July 15, 2006 02:42 PM

http://www.idcinc.com/


According to the company website, they sell toothbrushes for 30 dollars. No wonder the hospital system is in the dumps.

I guess Rees and that Michael Griffiths are real con artists, just like the www.yourahcc.org scam they have been trying to pull off.

Posted by: Cannot fool me | July 15, 2006 02:53 PM

What polls are you looking at when you cite that 70% of DC Residents are opposed to the lgbt community? Polls I have seen contradict that significantly. Further, Candidate Rees has a wiaver stating he will not spend more than $500 on his campaign. If he is receiving funds as you imply, then he is in deep violation of the conditions by which he is conducting his campaign. Indeed, the flyers he has printed and distributes cost money. The toner etcetera cost money. I would guess he has violated the terms of the financial waiver, but also doubt anyone at the DCBOEE will care.

Posted by: A Questioner | July 15, 2006 03:32 PM

A. Scott Bolden, candidate at large D.C. Council, supports and works well with people of all races, faith, age, gender, persuasion, ethnicity, class, and so forth. He will not let any issue about any group of people become a wedge issue and he understands that that is a strategic tactic by design.

Bolden stands for the people and will work with the people to make D.C. a better place to live, work, enjoy, worship, do business. Bolden walks with people and stands up with them and for them. He will continue to work with people in all walks of life. Bolden will continue to push for quality education, affordable housing, lower/equitable taxes, voting rights, public safety, youth programs/alternatives to crime. He will be a strong voice and effective leader on the council. No more, no less. Bolden is leadership for change. Bolden for the next DC Council member at large.

Posted by: Voting for Bolden to Make D.C. an even Better Place to Live | July 15, 2006 03:48 PM

At PG County Hospital Center is so obviously Rees.

Pathetic.

Posted by: heehee | July 15, 2006 03:49 PM

If Bolden or any other camp is sharing campaign staff or in any other way connected with Rees, he's off my short list of candidates.

One is known by the company one keeps. And Rees-Rivera is the worst kind of scumbag.

Posted by: abr2006 | July 15, 2006 03:50 PM

Scott Bolden is running for at large D.C. council. Some of us have yet to meet Mr. Rees and learn about him through the comments to the blogs. We respect the rights of all candidates that run and D.C. voters.

We do not engage in attacks on other candidates running for the various offices. And we try to be sort of gentle with the opposition, but sometimes we misbehave and get carried away by the moment and the opportunity to alert the public to the truth.

We are meeting or have met a number of Ward 3 Council candidates and look forward to working with the next elected Ward 3 Council member.

To those that choose to vote for Scott Bolden because he is right on many or most of the issues and will make a strong leader, we appreciate your faith, trust, and confidence in Bolden. Anybody else you choose to vote for in addition to Bolden, we respect your right to do so. Thank you for supporting A. Scott Bolden.

And we stay on D.C. Wire because we love the comment line and the energy and creativity of those that participate. It's all good. We try to reach voters and respond to issues in every way and venue we can. Enjoy your day.

Posted by: D.C. Voter for Bolden | July 15, 2006 04:13 PM

The pro-Bolden posters sounds a bit like a Rees post to me. I'm not convinced they aren't connected, frankly.

Posted by: | July 15, 2006 04:32 PM

Jonathan Rees posts a whole bunch of messages after anyone else mentions the Rees-info blog,

http://jonathanrees.blogspot.com/

He does this to make it harder for other people to find this blog. But as time goes on more and more people are becoming aware of jonathanrees.blogspot.com/. I would't be surprised to find this all-about-Rees blog mentioned in a newspaper soon.

Posted by: | July 15, 2006 04:54 PM

^^^^^^^

More laughable spew from the hands of Mr. Rees's keyboard.

Posted by: ^^^^^ | July 15, 2006 05:29 PM

Frankly, it doesn't matter who you think the pro-Bolden posters are. We are who we are and we monitor and participate in the blogs just like you and keep as anonymous as the rest of you. We're here to respond to your every inquiry and comment. We are pro-Bolden supporters, nothing more, nothing less. We leave all that other stuff to the P.M. guy. We're legit. The Bolden team loves to communicate with the voting public. Talk to you again soon.

Posted by: Excited about the possibility of a new day on the Council with Bolden At Large | July 15, 2006 05:39 PM

Bolden believes that people should be tried through the judicial system as the law requires. Bolden does not support pedophiles. That is against the law in case you want to know. He does not prejudge people and believes people are innocent until found guilty; however, he does believe in setting up safeguards and laws to prevent predators and criminals for taking advantage of the innocent. Does the P.M. guy hold similar positions? Is he moving the law effectively to protect citizens?

Posted by: | July 15, 2006 06:37 PM

Something you'll never see:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Mindy Silverman, Jonathan Rees' campaign manager, will have a press conference to deny the charges in http://jonathanrees.blogspot.com/ At this press conference reporters will have a chance to ask Ms. Silverman questions about the charges made against Jonathan Rees in the increasingly popular blog, http://jonathanrees.blogspot.com/

As a candidate, I'd like to see a Rees interview with the press in response to this blog. But since the blog is true Rees will only continue to use the Internet, mostly DC Wire, to try and change the subject.

Posted by: | July 15, 2006 07:59 PM

Who won the Ward 8 Dems endorsement on Saturday, July 15th at Washington Highlands Library?

Posted by: | July 15, 2006 08:48 PM

Go away Rees.

You're persona non grata throughout the blogosphere.

Bob Summergsill rocks!

You, however, are a complete jackass.

Posted by: | July 16, 2006 01:01 AM

"Will not do such".

I spot one of the Eight Ways!!!


Rees you're an idiot.

Posted by: | July 16, 2006 01:25 AM

I read that Jonathan Rees has been invited to participate on August 10th in a candidate's forum with other candidates for Ward 3 City Council.

I predict that Rees will be a no-show. He wants to avoid having to answer questions in public.

Posted by: | July 16, 2006 10:56 AM

I would like to write something funny and pointed about JRRees and his postings, but I notice the WP folks with their even handed liberal philosophy delete such items but keep the sad and inane anti-gay, anti-Sommersgill, anti-Sam Brooks, postings and slander posted by the Rees therapy group. Makes you understand why the Washington Times keeps gaining in circulation numbers.

Posted by: WP Insanity | July 16, 2006 12:04 PM

You must be new, man. Rees' posts get pulled about once a day. They just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Tick-tock, Post.

Posted by: | July 16, 2006 12:09 PM

What happens when none of this Rees support materializes on September 12? There is no Rees support, no organization, no hidden Catholic vote for Rees, or anything, just a lot of hate on a blog. He is postioned number 3 on the ballot after Rice and Strauss. Bye Bye Rees.

Posted by: Ward 3 Realist | July 16, 2006 02:40 PM

People here need to get real.

I spoke to Bob Gordon, Mary Cheh and Cathy Wiss and they all agree that Rees is a very serious contender in their race.

Bob Gordon said that he thinks the race may turn out to between Rees and Strauss the way things are looking right now.

Posted by: | July 16, 2006 02:52 PM

I doubt any of you live in ward 3 otherwise you would see that Rees and Strauss of the most aggressive campaigns with Goulet coming in third.

Posted by: | July 16, 2006 02:55 PM

After reading the obvious anonymous posts by Rees above all I can says is: Poor, sad, sick little man.

Is there no one in his life who cares enough about him to help keep him from embarassing himself? It seems not and I think that's the most tragic part of all. If he weren't so mean-spirited and criminally devious, I'd be inclined to want to get him some help myself. But his track record of vengeance and sleaziness makes him seem more an abuser than a victim. I guess that explains him in part. Whatever though. Anyone who has to spend all day pretending to be people who support him, because no real people will - and specifically posting about how much support he has, is obviously desperate. Again, tragic.

Posted by: sad | July 16, 2006 04:36 PM

Yeah. The Catholic groups are REALLY going to love his foul-mouthed, sexually-explicit, libel. Not to mention the whole bearing false witness thing ;-)

Good luck with that, Rees.

Posted by: Catholic voter | July 16, 2006 04:38 PM

(Not to mention his trolling on Swingers blogs!)

Posted by: | July 16, 2006 04:39 PM

Bob Gordon Mary Chech and Cathy Wiss would say no such thing about Rees' campaign. Believe me.

The anonymous poster above (hmmmm, who could it be?) is completely making that up.

Posted by: Insider | July 16, 2006 04:43 PM

He probably did call all three candidates. And he probably HEARD "Yes, Jonathan. You are the greatest." But that's not what they said. He hear things, Rees does. Has grandiose, narcissistic fantasies. Part of his illness, I imagine.

Posted by: | July 16, 2006 04:46 PM

I don't want to jinx things by saying this, but notice how Jonathan Rees hasn't posted recently on City Paper's blog and some of the other places in cyberspace he used to annoy. I think that one of the reasons for that is that within hours of where Rees posts somebody's going to point out the beautiful blog that tells all about him:

http://jonathanrees.blogspot.com/

And as much as Rees likes to spread his vile stuff, he really, really dislikes anyone knowing about this blog (too late for that) since it's the truth.

Posted by: | July 16, 2006 06:58 PM

Rees got the endorsement of the AHCC (see yourahcc.org) and do a websearch of the same. You will find a cached version of Rees's first website which shows the endorsement of the sham organization.

Posted by: AHCC is a sham | July 16, 2006 10:09 PM

Despite what you bickering ninnies think, I believe that the ward 3 race is between Rees, Rice and Strauss.

Posted by: | July 17, 2006 08:07 AM

Since Rees won't be participating in any debates, hides from reporters, is being marginalized on various Internet forums, claims to not be spending more than $500 on his campaign, and now is dogged by http://jonathanrees.blogspot.com/ , Rees is basically a non-candidate.

Posted by: | July 17, 2006 08:17 AM

Where is the discussion on the Ward 8 Dems endorsement meeting? Who won the endorsement? Who did well? Or is this another controversial straw poll? Or do you wait until a challenger wins one and loses another so that it can be a draw or considered a fluke or so that you can lift up and tear down all in one commentary?

Posted by: Observer | July 17, 2006 10:23 AM

Scott Bolden bested Mendelson 144-78 in the Ward 8 endorsement vote.

Bolden won a Ward 1 straw poll and also the Ward 6 straw poll in June.

Mendelson has some organizational endorsements, but has not won any endorsements decided by voters.

Bolden is also endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police.

Posted by: Eight | July 17, 2006 11:21 AM

Glad to see that somebody is keeping up with other groups that are endorsing. Bolden seems to be doing quite well for himself. People are beginning to flock to him as they start to pay attention to the election and see that they want a little more than what they've had the last eight years.

Posted by: Citizens Now Tuning Into 2006 Races | July 17, 2006 02:22 PM

Because Bolden won the Ward 8 Endorsement, they will figure out a way to underreport it or ignore it or talk about some controversy. This time it will be that the weather was hot and so people couldn't come out. Bolden must have made the weather hot to deter voters from coming out. He rarely gets the accolades that he deserves.

Posted by: | July 17, 2006 02:25 PM

Thanks, Jonathan.

See more.

jonathanrees.blogspot.com/

Posted by: ^^^^^ | July 17, 2006 07:28 PM

This heat wave inures to the benefit of Rees campaign as all his rivals are staying indoors but it appears that his Latino crew are out there in record force, and we see his stuff popping up every day in different parts of the ward.

I guess that this is due to the fact that Latinos come from the hot climates of Central America and are use to this heat.

Posted by: EYES ON WARD 3 | July 17, 2006 08:19 PM

Rees, you're too late. So give it a rest.

Because of all your antics over the past months, everyone already knows who and what you are. Your record is now immortalized on the Internet and anyone who Googles Jonathan Rees will quickly figure out that you're a big joke.

Blog after blog has detailed records of your impersonating various people, your weird statements, your psychotic behavior. You can't escape your past and you can't escape the facts.

For anyone who's reading this: Just Google "Jonathan Rees City Council" or "Jonathan Rees Ward 3" Rees can post and post on DC Wire until he's blue in the face, but there's nothing, absolutely nothing, he can do about Google.

Posted by: | July 17, 2006 08:44 PM

Ward 8 Democrats require 2/3 vote of the membership who are present and voting at an endorsement meeting in order to endorse a candidate. That is a high threshold to reach. Only Norton in the Delegate race and Gray in the Council Chair's race reached and exceeded the 2/3 threshold on Saturday. They were the only two who were endorsed. Bolden got 62% of the vote and missed the endorsement. Approximately 270 Ward 8 Dems attended. A no endorsement line was on the ballot for each office.

Posted by: Ward 8 Democrats | July 17, 2006 09:11 PM

I could post 100 things on different blogs, say it is you and then turn around and tell people that you did it.

My evil act then becomes a part of the internet record, but I know I did it, you did not, but there is nothing you can do to reverse what I have done. Yet, as far as Google is concerned ---- you did it!

People are not that dumb not to realize how easy it is to post things here on the internet under any name you want.

Posted by: | July 17, 2006 10:11 PM

Like the man said, all of this is part of Rees' "desperate gasp." What else is he going to do but post here? He can't afford campaign literature or yard signs; he's hiding from all public forums and the media.

Sure, not that many people read this blog and that's the point: Rees has reached a dead end.

Some people will encouter his name and they'll Google Rees and find out that all that's been said in Summersgill's blog is true. But as was pointed out, even without http://jonathanrees.blogspot.com/ Google will reveal all.

Posted by: | July 17, 2006 10:15 PM

How did the Ward 1 Dems Endorsement meeting turn out? It is good to see attention turning toward the Council Chair and At Large Council races. It looks like the gap of undecideds is starting to narrow in favor of the challengers. Win or lose at the endorsement meetings, the challengers are getting their names out there.

Posted by: | July 18, 2006 06:52 AM

How do we know that Rees' Price Georges Hospital Center ID, posted on

http://jonathanrees.blogspot.com/

is a fake? Well, for one thing, it's a really poor cut and paste job. For another, the ID card has no expiration date on the front. Also the ID card calls Rees the "Administrator" of the entire hospital!

Posted by: | July 18, 2006 09:02 AM

Are council members really serious about crime? Are they being supportive of the police force? What about this emergency legislation? Will they sit on this legislation like other important crime proposals? Any time people are dying it is an emergency. Maybe if we put their jobs on the line, crime will be an emergency but then the worse one does in D.C. sometimes the greater he/she is rewarded.

Posted by: Concerned about Crime in DC -- Can we get some solutions, help from the council | July 18, 2006 10:38 AM

Rees just hit a new milestone when it comes to absurd lies. On the one hand, Rees proclaims that his Prince Georges Hospital Center ID is real, and then goes on to write, "The fact that some factors on that badge may have been erased, Rees probably did it to keep people out to harass from knowing certain things."

So Rees is saying that his hospital ID is real, but he altered it. No kidding: Anyone looking at that ID would conclude that Rees cut and pasted information into it.

If you haven't seen Rees' faked ID, you can view it here:

http://jonathanrees.blogspot.com/

Do we want to elect somebody who forges hospital ID cards?

Posted by: | July 18, 2006 11:23 AM

Isn't it time for a new article? This is one is getting stale.

Posted by: | July 18, 2006 11:50 AM

August 10th - WARD 3 Council Candidates FORUM

DATE: Thursday, August 10, 2006
PARTICIPANTS SO FAR: Bill Rice, Jonathan Rees, Eric Goulet, Sam Brooks, Paul Strauss, Catherine Wiss

TIME: 12 TO 1:30 PM
PLACE: FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, 1717 Massachusetts Avenue NW #600 (Dupont Circle Metro - South Exit)

Posted by: Rees to speak August 10 | July 18, 2006 06:35 PM

So, we are having a Ward 3 Candidates forum at 1717 Massachusetts Ave. NW on August 10.
Why is the forum being held in Ward 2? The last I looked, 1717 Mass. Ave. NW is east of Dupont Circle. Could this be a troll at work?

Posted by: Truth Seeker | July 18, 2006 09:35 PM

Cool. I also saw that Jonathan Rees will be at the August 10th forum on a Ward 3 blog: http://wardthreedc.blogspot.com/

Posted by: | July 18, 2006 10:02 PM

Ramon Rivera

SAYS:

Rees did not accept the offer by WTOP to debate on August 4, 2006, and any representation that he did is false.

Rees argues that debates are worthless tools of modern day campaigning, 99% of the voters do too and he prefers dealing with voters on a different level.

Posted by: Ramon Rivera | July 18, 2006 10:53 PM

Is it true that the two term incumbent, the PM guy, barely squeaked by with a victory at the Ward 1 Dems? There were less than a total of 100 votes cast for Bolden and P.M. The turnout was low and it was a very hot day. No endorsement, but it does mean that Bolden is quite competitive in Ward 1 and that people came from across the Ward to support challenger Bolden. There is hope in 2006.

Posted by: | July 18, 2006 10:58 PM

Ward 1 Democrats required 60% of those present and voting to cast a ballot for a candidate in order for an endorsement to occur. Gray was endorsed for Council Chair over Patterson. I understand Mendelson got 48 votes to Bolden's 42. No one received 60%

Posted by: DC Democrat | July 18, 2006 11:12 PM

Ward 3 candidate Rice who is suppose to have the most money is reported broke now and is holding a August 4 fundrasing dinner at $500 a plate to continue his campaign.

A lot of people got an email invitation to this dinner.

Also, Erik Gaull is broke and closed down his campaign headquarters in Tenleytown.

Posted by: | July 18, 2006 11:14 PM

You can call WTOP and ask Mark Seagraves if Rees in fact declined his offer to debate and Mark Seagraves will tell you that is correct.

Where the belive came that Rees accepted is erroneous.

Posted by: Ramon Rivera | July 18, 2006 11:49 PM

Rees isn't actually backing down from appearing at the August 10th candidate's forum? There are announcements all over the place that he's going to finally, finally appear in public. I've read the information on http://wardthreedc.blogspot.com/ as have a lot of other people.

If Rees is going to back down, he should say so in person or through is campaign manager, not from a made up campaign staffer. If he can't even speak for himself, that's really sad.


August 10th - WARD 3 Council Candidates FORUM

DATE: Thursday, August 10, 2006
PARTICIPANTS SO FAR: Bill Rice, Jonathan Rees, Eric Goulet, Sam Brooks, Paul Strauss, Catherine Wiss

TIME: 12 TO 1:30 PM
PLACE: FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, 1717 Massachusetts Avenue NW #600 (Dupont Circle Metro - South Exit)

Posted by: | July 19, 2006 08:16 AM

Hello, I am Rod Steiger.

For your consideration.

It is September 13, 2006. You turn on your TV with your first cup of coffee to gather up the news from last nights election results.

You hear that REES WINS.

You have just entered the TWILIGHT ZONE.

Posted by: | July 19, 2006 06:22 PM

Regarding the Ward 1 results that were so close, Other Ward 1 Dems straw poll, Ward 8 and Ward 6 straw poll win, it seems like voters are starting to say:

Anybody But Phi - ABP or rather, Anybody But the PM Guy (ABPMG)

Posted by: Anybody But Phil in 2006 | July 19, 2006 07:48 PM

If Fenty, Mendelson and Patterson loses, we will have knocked down hard the left wingers of DC politics and maybe we will see more moderate minded leaders running this city who will do more to bring down rents, taxes and the social engineering.

Posted by: | July 19, 2006 08:13 PM

Previously, the Stein Democrats, GLAA and other groups gave Fenty very bad ratings. So why now are these various lgbt groups behind him?

This does not make sense!

Posted by: | July 19, 2006 08:15 PM

The PM guy will probably only win where he lives in ward 3 but barely.

Posted by: | July 19, 2006 08:27 PM

I don't know about the PM guy winning in Ward 3 either. They may be on to him. What is really doing or has he done? People are escaping from jail and juvenile crime is awful. We can't afford to stay the course. Abandon ship.

Posted by: Anybody but the PM Guy | July 19, 2006 09:31 PM

http://www.dcist.com/archives/2006/07/19/ward_3_weirdnes.php

Posted by: | July 19, 2006 11:13 PM

http://www.dcist.com/archives/2006/07/19/ward_3_weirdnes.php

Posted by: | July 19, 2006 11:14 PM

Mendelson, a.k.a., the P.M. guy, is losing steam. Don't let him buy your vote. He doesn't even know what he stands for and has to wait on Patterson to tell him what to do and how to do it.

Posted by: | July 20, 2006 06:38 AM

Thanks for the links to that new information about Jonathan Rees. I also looked at Rees' website, which is equally full of hot air and lies. Exactly how many dozens of aliases has Rees used? Must be at least three or four dozen.

Posted by: | July 20, 2006 09:01 AM

If we had a good Chair, Council Judiciary Committee that didn't hold onto legislation forever, the city probably could have gotten a better emergency crime bill. How can you have a curfew for honest, innocent kids that is 10 p.m. You can barely get from the movie on the subway by then. Hopefully law biding kids won't be harassed.

In the future, we need a Judiciary Chair that can work with the mayor and be proactive with the legislation instead of waiting until an emergency to do the right thing. No one could trust the current Judiciary Chair to produce legislation and bring it to a hearing in less than a year unless it was about the need to indicate calories on a chain restaurant menu. Crime was never a priority, or at least not in the wards that were impacted apparently.

Posted by: | July 20, 2006 09:46 AM

After following this link http://www.dcist.com/archives/2006/07/19/ward_3_weirdnes.php
to Jonathan Rees website and learning what he stands for and wants to do, I am going to vote for him as none of his opponents have even offered to act to bring down our taxes, increase our deduction levels on our tax filings or.....

My friend Josh over at the Common Demoniator said that nobody should trust the word of Martin Austermuhle as he has lenghty criminal record and is a bit of a radical, and it would be no surprise if Martin is not all of these aliases.

Posted by: | July 20, 2006 11:11 AM

The only advantage Rees has over his opponents is what I call the Rivera Gang who blanketed all of ward 3 again in six nights with Rees flier if anybody has noticed.

I live on Fesseden Street NW and last night at 1:30 AM I saw them on my street.

If Rees prevails on September 12, it will be only because of the Rivera Gang.

Posted by: | July 20, 2006 11:21 AM

Besides being an awful person, now Rees is a chicken, too: He won't face other candidates or the voters.

We seriously don't want to elect somebody who hides from the voters.

Posted by: | July 20, 2006 03:37 PM

A. Scott Bolden, candidate, At Large D.C. Council, beat out the P.M. guy at the Ward 5 Dems endorsement meeting. Go Scott. You are raking in the votes from the grassroots, every day citizens. Citizens want a man with guts that can stand up for people and say what needs to be said and do what needs to be done. I bet if he were chair of the Judiciary Committee, he wouldn't need death upon death in D.C. to compel him to do something and write some legislation.

We need a council member that is proactive and is up on the issues that really matter to D.C. residents.

Go Bolden. We need you. Continue to win and represent all the good people of Washington, DC.

Posted by: Bolden is connecting with citizens that want new leadership in 2006; Retire PM guy | July 22, 2006 06:40 PM

The P.M. guy even had the Sierra Club out at the Ward 5 Dems spreading mistruths. So many of the ward's citizens worked on the waste transfer station issues that they scoffed at the silly negative signs. The Club didn't realize that some of the Ward 5 citizens that have taken on the transfer stations since the early 90s are Mr. Bolden's staunchest supporters. They know that whatever cause Mr. Bolden takes on, he is going to go after it with all he has and will be focused and successful. In contrast, the P.M. guy may give a few remarks as if he is standing for the people, but then he is not successful. No results. He stands by himself and doesn't get anything done. And he doesn't really protect the workers.

P.M. guy doesn't really push much other than what should be on restaurant menues. Can you imagine what a hit crime might take in DC if he were as focused on reducing crime via legislation as he was with trying to get the industry to put the ingredients on menues? If the P.M. guy didn't have the media looking out for him, he would already be toast.

Posted by: | July 23, 2006 08:08 AM

We all must live with it. That is the nature of the blog and the comment line. Democracy/free speech is not always pretty or convenient and we respond how we must. When you can do no more, just stand.

Live long and prosper.

Posted by: | July 23, 2006 12:46 PM

That's all right dude, too. I don't mind going back and forth with you. Communication is what it's all about. Besides, we're all making friends here and just loving it. Now you enjoy your day and continue to share your opinions on the issues and on what makes life work for you. God bless America.

Posted by: | July 23, 2006 01:28 PM

Whatever. We're all just one big family. After more that 160 comments and over a week with this article, I think it could use an infusion of new information and I am so glad to see your friendly, prolific, informative responses. I like that word presumptuous, too. Must have hit a nerve or too. Didn't mean to make you angry. And please, continue to share your thoughts and vision for D.C. But I guess you were waiting for another comment on the original blog. That's good. It's been awhile. After about 100 comments people tend to lose focus on the original piece. I think the opinions on that have just about fizzled out. But we are all eager to hear what others have to say, particularly the disgruntled one that like to control what is said in this medium. I think somebody likes the word, "dude" too. We can go with that. KInd of Dukes of Hazzard kind of talk. Has a real flare.

Posted by: | July 23, 2006 01:44 PM

Here's a little something to think about when the comment lines get to you and you find that you cannot control other people's comments, perceptions, speech, or thoughts. Go in peace, my friend.

Shawn Stockman Lyrics
Song: Stand Lyrics
I'll Stand even when life has got me down
And my hopes and dreams nowhere to be found
Still I Stand cause I know I'm too close to give up now
I'll put it all in your hands and just Stand (yea yea)

Chorus
Stand even when nights seem cold and
Stand when you can't feel your soul and
Stand when your dark past won't seem to go away
(Help me say) You can Stand

God is right by your side and
He will make everything alright
So if you can lift your hands
There's a plan and just Stand

If I cry it's alright
Cause it may be just what I need (hum)
Cause everybody hurts sometimes and
Every heart needs relief
Still I know where to go
To the one who understands
So no matter what tomorrow may bring
Still I Stand

Chorus

Everybody help me say Oh...Stand
Even if you fall still know that you can just Stand
Oh...

If you can lift your hands
There's a plan if you just Stand
If you

Posted by: | July 23, 2006 01:55 PM

How kind of you to correct the spelling. Surely you were an A student in spelling in school. We really need you to continue to assist with spelling check and editing. You perform a noble service.

Be blessed. We shall continue to pray for generosity in helping others. Hope we can continue to count on the kindness of strangers. Hope I didn't make in typos or grammatical errors this time. Thank you for setting me straight.

Posted by: | July 23, 2006 05:56 PM

I think I know why Jonathan Rees has been absent from this blog, and apparently other blogs. Rees has been out putting flyers on cars throughout Ward 3. These flyers are in sealed, white envelopes and tucked under car's windshield wipers.

It is illegal to place campaign flyers on cars.

Posted by: | July 23, 2006 10:13 PM

The flier I and many of my friends got from Rees across the ward were not placed under our windshield wiper but thrown upon the hoods of our care below the window.

Rees people whacked ward 3 in about 6 nights according to friends I have in Palisade to Chevy Chase.

I guess tossing them up on the hoods of a car is not illegal.

I will say that Rees people move fast, hard and I am one who takes him very seriously even if some of you think he is a joke.

Posted by: | July 23, 2006 10:35 PM

I agree, all candidates should be taken seriously. Heck, we all were sure Gore was going to whip Bush big time!

Posted by: | July 23, 2006 10:39 PM

Did anybody in ward 3 get that postcard from Bill Rice?

It only says and no more: Only Bill Rice Can Fix Our School!

Wow... Where has he been the last ten years when we needed him? It is like Superman Returns.

Posted by: | July 23, 2006 10:45 PM

If Mendelson on his website is getting all of these endorsements, then why is he behind in the polls?

Posted by: | July 23, 2006 10:52 PM

Rees litter was all over my street yesterday. I guess the wind and carelessness of "Team Rees" made it possible for people to make good use of his campaign flyers, by using them to clear the tree boxes of canine excrement.

How appropriate.

Posted by: | July 23, 2006 11:11 PM

I love reading these anti-Rees postings.

How much more jealousy can you guys spew out?

What you say reaps of utter envy as it cannot be seen any other way.

Keep it up Rees until these freaks have a nervous breakdown.

Posted by: | July 24, 2006 12:30 AM

Sometimes, I think these organizations that offer up endorsements are out of touch with its members.

Both Stein and GLAA surely prefer Mendelson but most gays I know do not.

Posted by: | July 24, 2006 12:46 AM

Putting any flyer on a car, whether it's on the windshield or under the wiper, is illegal.

Jonathan Rees' has been operating his campaign by breaking the law.

Posted by: | July 24, 2006 07:57 AM

Every ward 3 candidate has been breaking the law by:

1. Placing their posters on traffic lights;
2. Placing their yard signs on public space;
3. Making campaign calls after 9 PM;
4. Giving bogus names and addresses of contributors; and
5. The list goes on.

Posted by: | July 24, 2006 09:51 AM

I have taken photographs of violations of the law by Sam Brooks, Erik Gaull, Eric Goulet, Bill Rice, Robert Strauss and Jonathan Rees.

Posted by: Roaming Eyes | July 24, 2006 09:56 AM

I suspect that Jonathan Rees has been placing his flyers in unmarked envelopes on cars to avoid being cited.

Rees is not only breaking the law, but he's trying to hide his illegal activities from the police, the Board of Elections and the press.

Posted by: | July 24, 2006 10:06 AM

The law about placing matters on car windows speaks of COMMERCIAL SOLICITATIONS.

I think political literature, religious literature, non-profit literature does not fall within the boundaries of COMMERCIAL SOLICITATION.

Posted by: | July 24, 2006 10:16 AM

Why does you focus on Rees when Goulet, Gaull and Strauss are bigger law breakers?

Posted by: | July 24, 2006 10:18 AM

1. The law against putting flyers on cars applies to candidates for political office.

2. Jonathan Rees is trying to keep his illegal activity from being discovered by putting his flyers in unmarked envelopes.

It's often not the crime that's the problem -- it's the cover-up. And in this case, Jonathan Rees is taking active measures to prevent the authorities from discovering his illegal campaign practices.

Rees' putting flyers in envelopes raises another issue: These envelopes cost money, and it's very likely that Rees has spent more than the $500 he's allowed. Jonathan Rees has told the Board of Elections that he will be spending less than $500 on his campaign, so that he does not have to file a financial statement. But it appears that Rees is in violation of that, too.

Posted by: | July 24, 2006 11:00 AM

Rees writes that he's using discarded envelopes and that he getting them from "behind these print shops." Bull. Rees is lying again.

These envelopes are "defective," as Rees claims. What is defective is are Rees' lies.

Rees is definitely violating the law by placing flyers on cars. Rees may also be spending far more than the $500 total that waives the requirement that he file a financial statement with the Board of Elections. That could be a very serious campaign law violation.

Posted by: | July 24, 2006 07:02 PM

About his flagrant violations of the law, Rees writes, "You have to have documented evidence of it." So now he's flouting the law, too.

As for evidence: How does Rees think that people know about his illegally placing flyers on cars in the first place?

Posted by: | July 24, 2006 09:01 PM

TEAM REES has completed the 3rd and final round of the ward 3 homes.

Every since launching my new website two weeks ago, it has had 3,007 hits taking all first times hits to both sites to 15,600 and around 4,200 return hits.

This ward 3 race with nine (9) candidates has been very interesting, and I think it I fair to say, that none of us can be sure who the winner will be.

No matter how it turns it, it has been lots of fun and that is the most important think because the biggest risk is never having taken one.

Posted by: Ward 3 Prima Dona | July 25, 2006 10:50 AM

I guess if continuously littering the streets illegally with "campaign flyers" is campaigning; if spamming the blogospere is campaigning; if blanketing the ward during the peak of "vacation season" for the final time is campaigning, then yes, it probably was successful.

The real candidates will be running advertisements in local papers, and doing several mailings and appearances in the stretch run to September 12th.

Of course, Team Rees hasn't thought of that.

Posted by: ^^^^^ | July 25, 2006 11:29 AM

I disgree with the peeople posting herein as I believe that you can win an election by using just fliers.

I live off Mass Ave and I have only seen Rees stuff several times but none of the other candidates have bothered to come my way.

Furthermore, everybody in my condo association has met Rees and he does not appear to be a bad person. None of the other candidates have come to our association meeting.

If all of you think Rees is not getting out to meet voters then you have not really been keeping up with him.

Posted by: | July 25, 2006 03:40 PM

Jonathan Rees came to a condo association meeting? Really? What building? When was the meeting?

No, you didn't meet with Jonathan Rees because you *are* Jonathan Rees.

Posted by: | July 25, 2006 03:50 PM

I think most of the people posting here are idiots and I laugh at you for your silly little games.

It is you fools why the WP is not adding more threads to this blog because you have ruined it for everyone with your hate for this man Rees.

Posted by: | July 25, 2006 06:05 PM

GLBT PRO CHOICE SMOKERS FOR REES

On July 12, D.C. Councilmembers Adrian Fenty, Kathy Patterson, Phil Mendelson, and David Catania received special awards from a richly-funded smoking prohibitionist group for making D.C.\'s looming 2007 mandatory smoking ban a reality, announced in conjunction with an International Tobacco Control conference held in Washington.

D.C. Councilmembers Adrian Fenty (currently running for mayor), Kathy Patterson (currently running for council chair), and Phil Mendelson (currently running for re-election) were the sole original supporters of a failed total ban bill first introduced in 2003 -- the subject of a December 2003 day-long marathon D.C. Council public hearing at which hundreds of hospitality and nightlife service professionals, operators, producers, owners, patrons, and other supporters -- including from the LGBT community -- testified against passage until nearly midnight.

Gay D.C. Councilmember David Catania (currently running for re-election) authored the mandatory smoking ban bill which passed the D.C. Council on January 4, 2006, after several hours of rancorous debate which followed another previously-held and day-long marathon public hearing at which local hospitality and nightlife patrons, employees, even producers, business owners, and advocates again spoke out against a total and mandatory ban until late into the night. Stacks of signed cards from
nightclub, bar, and restaurant workers - including Gay and Lesbian employees, both non-smokers and smokers -- were also presented.

The law will not go into effect until January 1, 2007, at nightclubs, bars, lounges, and restaurant bar areas. Mandatory smoking ban author David Catania testified that this delay was intended \"to give employees a chance to make some financial accommodations, either change careers or at least have a good head start on saving some money so that once this is implemented for them to be able to sustain themselves.\"

Mayor Anthony Williams refused to sign the bill, citing his opposition to a complete ban due to the negative economic impact expected to be the result of a total and mandatory ban at many of the city\'s small business hospitality establishments comprising the largest private sector industry, biggest taxpayer, and major employer in the nation\'s capital.

See Rees\' Political Platform At:
http://www.dc2006.net


Posted by: GLBT PRO CHOICE SMOKERS FOR REES | July 25, 2006 06:50 PM

Oh, but that could not possibly be, for Jonathan Rees has sanctimoniously rejected any responses to PACs, haas rejected any offers of public appearances, including forums with his rivals, has rejected responses to any questionaires, all in the name of running a campaign clear of any strings or ties to public organizations.

So now Rees is suggesting he has received monies from a federally registered PAC?

I think the better answer is that he has spent more than $500 on paper, printing ink cartridges, envelopes and his cheesy website, in clear violation of the waiver he has signed with DCBOEE.

Posted by: A Questioner | July 26, 2006 07:37 AM

Oh, but that could not possibly be, for Jonathan Rees has sanctimoniously rejected any responses to PACs, haas rejected any offers of public appearances, including forums with his rivals, has rejected responses to any questionaires, all in the name of running a campaign clear of any strings or ties to public organizations.

So now Rees is suggesting he has received monies from a federally registered PAC?

I think the better answer is that he has spent more than $500 on paper, printing ink cartridges, envelopes and his cheesy website, in clear violation of the waiver he has signed with DCBOEE.

Posted by: A Questioner | July 26, 2006 07:38 AM

I think Rees has stayed within the $500 limit.

A better question is, is there possibly a PAC or two out there behind Rees who are actually filing with FEC showing that they are spending money on Rees. This would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Remember, there was this PAC that was spending money for Linda Cropp with all those signs THINK CROPP.

Often federal PACS will back local candidates. Hell, the Unions do it every election time.

I believe Rees is playing by the rules but somebody else out there is clearly backing him, but who?

Posted by: | July 26, 2006 09:23 AM

The Northwest Current has made its endorsement in the Ward 3 Council race. The local newspaper has decided to Support either Chevy Chase ANC Commissioner Robert Gordon or GWU Law Professor Mary Cheh.

They give the nod to Ms. Cheh based on her experience with the broader legislative duties of the Council. Mr. Gordon was acknowledged for his percieved strengths in constituent services, an endorsement that many in his Chevy Chase ANC would question.

The early endorsement by the newspaper may help separate the wheat from the chaff in the crowded Ward 3 race.

Posted by: Ward3dc Blogger | July 26, 2006 10:21 AM

The post by Ward3dc Blogger is not from me, if I make a post I will cross reference it to my blog. http://wardthreedc.blogspot.com or ward3dc.com

Please come up with your own name and blog.

Posted by: The Real Wardthreedc blogger | July 26, 2006 11:05 AM

I think anyone with eyes can see the difference between Ward3dc and wardthreedc.

Perhaps if your blog was not simply shilling for Linda Cropp, it would be more interesting.

Posted by: Ward3dc Blogger | July 26, 2006 11:07 AM

Your a copy blogger.

Posted by: Real Ward3 blogger | July 26, 2006 11:31 AM

While Mary Cheh is a wonderful person, her chances of winning the ward 3 race is slight. The legislative experiences of Mary Cheh is little or none, as the public record will support.

Davis Kennedy is out of touch with reality. Mr. Kennedy only interviewed the top 4 candidates with the most money in contributions and thus he thinks that makes a good candidate.

If Mr. Kennedy was not drunk half of the day, he would realize having money is not a key to being a goood candidate.

Robert Gordon would have been better choice.


Posted by: | July 26, 2006 11:50 AM

We all suffer from time to time a few errors like in your post the second sentence is a fragment and in the third the "to" should be too.

The quality of the ideas are not soley expressed in grammer alone.

As for why I posted here about another blog being so close to one I run. I just wanted to set the record straight.

I do not make a practice of spamming other blogs sorry to those that are offended.

Regards,

http://ward3dc.com


Posted by: WardthreeDC Blogger. | July 26, 2006 11:55 AM

This is all entertaining but could the WPost be bothered to put a a few new paragraphs up every week or so. Maybe one reporter could spend 20 minutes a week. just a thought. & if Rees is spending beyond his legal limit, can't he be reported to Boee of OCF? with all this devotion to Rees commentary, you'd think someone would file a complaint.

Posted by: &&& | July 26, 2006 12:31 PM

Maybe it is the fact that these threads turn into attacks on Rees why the WP does not bother creating new threads.

Suspecting someone has over-spent is one thing have proof is another.

Posted by: | July 26, 2006 03:21 PM

Voters in ward 3 are filing a record number of complaints against candidates who are overwhelming them with jumbo campaign posters.

Eric Goulet, Paul Strauss and Erik Gaull are proving to be major offenders.

D.DOT has been in discussion with Eric Goulet to end this rampage or risk fines.

Despite the many endorsements that have been made so far in the ward 3 race, the Washington Post states that this year they will not make any endorsements as it concerns the ward races.

Limited polling done by several groups puts the following in front, in each race concerning ward 3 based upon 1,000 voters having been polled.

Mayor - Fenty (42%)
Chair - Vincent Gray (60%)
At Large - A. Scott Bolden (63%)
Ward 3 - Jonathan Rees (38%)

To keep up with ward 3 matters, see this blog http://wardthreedc.blogspot.com

Posted by: | July 26, 2006 04:19 PM

To what polling organization can we attribute the 38% to Jonathan Rees?

Posted by: BlaHAAHAAAA | July 26, 2006 05:09 PM

Hello, do you plan on updating this thing?

Posted by: Is this Blog dead? | July 26, 2006 05:59 PM

These political polls are clearly being done at the grocery stores.

It is my understanding that the Wash Post has people asking people when they come out from buying their groceries who would they vote for if the election was held today. Is this an accurage guage?

The only reason Rees might (now) have an advantage is because he has flooded ward three with his cheap fliers and reached more voters than the other candidates have. Let us see if this holds up for the next five weeks before the primary as I am sure everybody else will be blitzing.

Posted by: | July 26, 2006 06:23 PM

I do not trust these political polls!

I think all of the newspapers have their favorite candidates, and they are twisting the poll results to favor their preferred.

I stopped trusting long ago what the newspapers say.

Remember last time how the Wash Post said Barry would lose and Barry won! There is the proof you cannot trust the newspapers and their polls!

Posted by: | July 26, 2006 06:31 PM

We just won a great victory in the State of Washington. The Supreme Court of that state ruled that homosexuals have no right under their state constitution to marry!

This was just the latest in a stream of pro-family victories in the courts, many of them unexpected.

Including the Washington state ruling, those who oppose homosexual marriage have won six important cases during the month of July. Two of these victories were substantive. The most important victory came in New York on July 6, when the state\'s highest court ruled that same-sex couples do not have a right to marry. Another key victory came in Nebraska on July 14 when a federal court upheld that state\'s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The amendment was the broadest and most restrictive in the nation, so both sides considered it the most vulnerable to a court challenge.

In Georgia, Tennessee and Massachusetts, courts upheld the legality of past or pending ballot initiatives to ban same-sex marriage. All three cases, however, hinged on technicalities in state law, not on sweeping constitutional issues. In Connecticut, a trial court upheld a state law banning same-sex marriage. But that was a lower-court ruling, almost certain to be appealed, so neither side in the debate has put much stock in the decision.

Click here to see the entire ruling by the Washington Supreme Court

The battle now will shift to the individual states. This is where AFA On-line is the strongest. We expect to continue our battle in support of traditional marriage in the months to come.

If you consider our efforts important, would you please consider making a small donation by clicking here. We will continue to keep you informed.

Posted by: DC PRO FAMILY COALITION | July 26, 2006 06:44 PM

I read that endorsement of Mary Cheh in the Northwest Current newspaper.

It is buried in the middle of the paper, on the left side, one column and their reasoning was very shallow at best.

Mary Cheh has no experience in government at all, her limited role in helping Kathy Patterson on that police/protest matter was nothing major, but the Northwest Current has lowered itself to showing it is as bad as the Wash Post in not knowing how to guage a good candidate.

Mary Cheh also made it clear to voters that she would be a very part-time council member and we deserve better.

Finally, Mary Cheh and her campaign has fizzled out in the last six weeks as nobody has seen her anywhere on the campaign trail. her posters are fading away and she is not knocking on doors.

Maybe this plug by the Northwest Current is an effort to salvage a dying campaign.

Posted by: | July 26, 2006 08:31 PM

To the person above (probably Rees) who questions Mary Cheh's capabilities as our next Ward 3 representative, let me set the record straight, as someone who has known Mary a long time and fully supports her candidacy for the City Council.

1) The endorsement is on their editorial page, which has a consistent position on each issue of the Northwest Current. The endorsement is hardly "buried" on the left side of the paper. The column takes up the entire height of the full newspaper. It is hardly a little blurb.

2) Her role in governance includes the oversight she provided a few years ago, which led directly to landmark legislation which other jurisdictions are studying to adopt elsewhere. In addition to the probes she did of the MPD and DCFD, she has also been involved at the highest levels of governance of non-profits and in the governance of the Faculty at GWU. If you know anything about faculty governance, you obviously know that there is so little at stake that the tensions are very high. Mary Cheh's ability to provide leadership in the faculty at GWU shows that she has the fortitude and gravitas to be an effective council member for the city.

Mary Cheh has made it clear that her obligations to GWU are very limited, as she will be teaching one class. Her estimation is that the preparation time and actual time on campus will still enable her to fulfill her full obligations in the City Council, to the tune of 60/70+ hours per week. I do not know where or if you work, but the time Mary anticipates spending in her time on the council, both in legislative sessions, oversight sessions, and mose importantly, with constituent services will be significant.

Mary Cheh has spent significant time on the campaign knocking on doors, campaigning at Metro stations, attending community events and hosting meet and greets with constituents. She averages upwards of 12-18 events per week.

Mary Cheh has run and managed a vigorous campaign which is reaching voters at all corners of the Ward. She has excited several key constituencies with her keen legal mind, and her no-nonsense approach to legislative duties. She is also one of the purely nicest people in the race, she understands the issues and is able to talk to minutia of the details of various initiatives, etc.

She is the lone candidate dissenter to the fluffy crime bill passed by the Council this week, and has outlined a substantive multi-point platform for real solutions for crime in the city. This is something that Candidate Fenty hasn't even done.

Mary has been out in front on the issue of development and smart growth in the Ward. Her pronouncements for Transit Oriented Development have been way out in front of most of the other candidates. I can easily rebuke the statements made by the Northwest current regarding this important issue where Candidate Robert Gordon is concerned.

Indeed, Mary provide the most reasonable choice for Ward 3 citizens where the combination of legislative activity, agency oversight and constituent services are concerned.

Posted by: I *heart* Mary Cheh | July 26, 2006 09:48 PM

Jim Bubar for Congressional Delegate.

He's A LOT funnier than Eleanor.

Sometimes, it's even intentional.

Posted by: lost cause incarnate | July 27, 2006 01:23 AM

I can understand where Strauss may have some points, but Rice's experience is that of a journalist and press flack for DDOT. Where are his credentials or expereince better than the other candidates where creating legislation, managing Agency oversight, or otherwise acting as an effective council member.

He claims to be the ontly candidate with the expertise to fix our schools, but what expertise is that? He sadly claimed credit for successes at DDoT under Dan Tangherlini's management. Since when does the spokesman get involved with engineering decisions, safety issues or other areas of agency reform? It was simply an embarressment to watch him at the forums stake this claim.

And Rees having the necessary experience? Since when? He has claimed to have worked at some apartment buildings, and as a paralegal, and now as an office assistant for a local dentist. These are not professional experiences which measure up to that of a Councilman, when compared to the other candidates in the race.

Posted by: ^^^^^ | July 27, 2006 06:31 AM

Rees was one of the chief lobbyists overseeing other lobbyists on Capitol Hill for the international food company Royal Ahold which is the parent company of Giant Foods here in Metro DC. That in itself shows that he has more legislative experience than his rivals.

Rees is not an assistant to a local dentist but the business manager of a dental organization that runs clinics at various nursing homes and hospitals.

Many people attempt to discredit Rees background but the Washington Times, Washington Examiner and the City Paper have looked into those claims and found no flaws in what Rees has said about his past or they would have quickly reported that Rees has been lying.

The media has been looking into the backgrounds and claims of the candiadtes, have spoken up when necessary and they have again found now falsehoods in Rees claims.

I agree on the Bill Rice matter.

Last night when I was going to the Tenleytown metro, I saw a good number of his fliers on the ground and when I picked one up and read what it said, it was more than an over-statement.

Posted by: | July 27, 2006 07:42 AM

If we are going to question any candidate then we need to stop the deliberate lying many here are doing solely to benefit the candidate of their choice.

My only qualm with Rees is that he may be too pro-business, anti-gay and does not play the game according to the old rules and likes spitting in the face of the establishment.

Posted by: | July 27, 2006 07:47 AM

For years, ward 3 voters have been crying for lower income taxes, lower property taxes and an increase in the their standard deduction rate along with a smaller DC Government. Rees is the only ward 3 candidate who is pandering to those issues while all his rivals are out in left field attempting to catch butterflies.

Rees campaign flier is telling ward 3 voters to vote for him because he will seek those things that most ward 3 voters have been crying for.

I have always said, if Rees wins, it will be a form of ward 3 tax revolt and not so much a win for Rees per se just like if Bolden beats Mendelson it will be more a vote against Mendelson than for Bolden.

Hate me for saying it, accuse me of being Rees but Rees is a hard pill for some to swollow, but this guy is doing a better job of telling voters what I sense they want to hear and his rivals are talking old news.

If you are not talking to ward 3 voters about their pocketbooks then you will probably not go far.

Posted by: | July 27, 2006 07:58 AM

Again if Rees has been lying about his history, I am sure the media would have exposed it long ago so who do you people think you are fooling?

Posted by: | July 27, 2006 11:08 AM

Why is Bill Rice the presumed front runner?

Is it because he has the most money?

A careful look will show that he has the least amount of yard signs, the least amount of posters up, he is seen in public less than the other candidates, and the only thing he is doing is paying off Washington Post people at the Metros to insert his flier inside the newspapers when handing them out to people getting off the Metro.

I have always wondered where people in the media get their info to say who is in front.

Bill Rice is being backed by the biggest sleaze balls in DC politics: E.G. Max Brown, Marie Drissel and down the line.

By the way, Bill Rice claims in a recent mailing that only he can fix our schools, but he could not put the chain back on his bike when it came off and was helped on that score by a courier!

Also Bill Rice lied by claiming he was once a reporter for none other than the Washington City Paper on that insert those Washington Post people are putting inside The Express!

Posted by: Who Wrote This To Loose Lips | July 27, 2006 11:10 AM

I am sure the media has probably already done a background on all the candidates and they have mocked some but not Rees from all I have read.

I love reading all of these jealous postings about Rees as that is all that they are.

Posted by: | July 27, 2006 11:19 AM

This one really cracked me up,

"Rees was one of the chief lobbyists overseeing other lobbyists on Capitol Hill for the international food company Royal Ahold which is the parent company of Giant Foods here in Metro DC. That in itself shows that he has more legislative experience than his rivals."

So how does one go from managing an IMF building, supposedly out of college, to being a paralegal, to the above, before landing at that two-bit Institutional Dental Care, Inc (www.idcinc.com). Michael Griffiths is a scam artist, as evidenced by that health group that "endorsed" Rees last year (www.yourahcc.org) -- hey Jonathan, I thought you weren't taking endorsements!! -- and now Rees claims this company that sells $30 toothbrushes to the elderly is something to be prooud to be a part of.

Posted by: Nose burns from hot coffee | July 27, 2006 12:47 PM

I looked up the company that Rees supposedly works for, Institutional Dental Care. The entity is not in good standing with DCRA and does not show up on the books in Maryland, Delaware or Virginia either.

They claim to have a DC Headquarters up in North East, but appear to be not legally in operation. And Rees claims to be the business manager?

There is something shady about that.

Posted by: Interesting | July 27, 2006 05:21 PM

Is Mary Cheh broke already?

http://www.marycheh2006.com/events/upcomingevents.htm

It seems like most of the ward 3 candidates are having 2nd or 3rd funraisers.

I too got Chehs mailing and she totally ignores economic issues but that is typical of lawyers who are well know to have bad business judgment.

If you cannot properly manage your own campaign funding to make it stretch out intelligently, how can people trust that our tax dollars will be properly managed.

Cheh is the fourth candidate to go broke so early on and need a fundraiser to continue!

Posted by: | July 27, 2006 07:45 PM

What do you get from that link that makes you think Cheh is out of money? Seems to me she, and all of the "real" candidates are out there meeting constituents and raising their visibility.

It beats the heck out of littering the streets with sealed envelopes of grade school quality campaign flyers.

Posted by: blaHAAHAAAA | July 27, 2006 08:44 PM

No, Rees is a joke and a complete nobody. Just more people know about him today than a year ago.

jonathanrees.blogspot.com

Posted by: BlaHAAHAAAA | July 27, 2006 08:52 PM

Rees is still hiding. Every now and then Rees dares to place a lie online about how he's met with some group, but the truth of the matter is that Rees is quite afraid of meeting the public.

He's afraid of people finding out about his relationship with IDC; he's afraid of the press talking to his so-called campaign manager, Mindy Silverman; he's afraid that somebody will actually call him on where he went to school; he's afraid that people will unravel the whole Daro Reality thing.

Rees will continue to stay in the shadows. And that's probably a good thing.

Posted by: | July 27, 2006 08:54 PM

Another lie from "Team rees".

https://esos.state.nv.us/SOSServices/AnonymousAccess/CorpSearch/CorpSearch.aspx

No hits in the State of Nevada for IDC, Inc., Institutional Dental Care, Inc., or Michael Griffiths, or any of the other names cited above.

I think it is shady.

Keep on lyin'!

Posted by: BlaHAAHAAAA | July 27, 2006 09:00 PM

Of course, this is coming from the candidate who cannot give a straight answer. It ain't my responsibility to be forthcoming about my educational, employment and professional backgrounds. That distinction belongs to the candidate, who continues to lie and hide behind the curtain of truth, like a two year old who got caught painting the television with paint.

Teem Rees claimed earlier today on this forum that Rees's company was registered to legally do business in the State of Nevada. After a 12 second search, this proved to be a lie.

So is Rees the business manager (as he claims) of a company not licensed to do business in the District of Columbia? The DCRA website will tell you that IDC and a number of other Michale Griffiths enterprises are entities not in good standing, with a string of "involuntarily revoked" certificates.

That doesn't seem like a good business practice to me, but then, I am not the one with twenty (20) years MORE business experience than my rivals, lol.

Posted by: BlaHAAHAAAA | July 27, 2006 09:16 PM

Ok, smarty pants, explain why on the link you provided, there is a note dated 11-12-1999 stating "involuntary dissolution"?

I repeat the question, is IDC a real, certified company as of 2006?

Where does Rees work, or does he?

What a crock.

Thanks for making my evening.

Posted by: BlaHAAHAAAA | July 27, 2006 10:03 PM

I am speechless. Candidate Rees is even more of a dumbass than I could have ever imagined.

Posted by: A Questioner | July 27, 2006 10:12 PM

What the heck does Jonathan Rees do for a living? The IDC dental company ends in a dead end and the Dr. Griffiths-Rees connection seems odd and very uncertain.

I know that Rees has posted false information about his education and past employment online, so it wouldn't surprise me if he has lied about his current employment.

Posted by: | July 27, 2006 11:34 PM

IDC gets most of its contracts from the United States Government, DC Government, Government of the Commonwealth of Virginia and other governmental bodies.

If their operations were illegitimate then I do not know why all these governmental bodies keep giving them contracts, utilize their services along with national corporations like HR Manor Care, Beverly and others doing the same.

As for its operations in general and legal standing, that is not my concern, and you are always welcome to challenge it at any time via DCRA or any other governmental agency that regulates business like IDC.

Furthermore, Mayor Williams mother is a client of ours, several DC Superior Court judges like Greg Jackson is a client and the long list of powerful people in DC are also clients, and I doubt they would do business with us if we were illegitimate or a sham operation.

As for other parts of my work history, I am sure that it can easily be found at the DC Office of Tax and Revenue under the FOIA.

Grow up people as enough people know me and know what I say about myself is factual and your game playing does not slow me down or stop me as you seem to enjoy hearing yourselves lie a lot.

Posted by: Jonathan R. Rees | July 28, 2006 02:05 AM

I would think the "Business Manager" of a large and "credible" organization such as Institutional Dental Care would know the basics, such as where is the company incorporated and in good standing.

So far, you, Mr. Rees, have provided DC, MD, VA, DE, NV and nor OR with no postivie hits.

Meanwhile, as long as you are here, you claimed initially on your website and endorsement from the AHCC (if you google "youahcc.org" you get a cahced version of your website). This is a supposed 501 3corganized by the same Michael Griffiths. However this organization, like all of the others owned by your "boss" enjoyed involuntary dissolution from DCRA. All the meantime, there is a live website which collects donations from unsuspecting web-surfers.

Since you took the endorsement of this organization early on, can you give an explanation? Why did you take their endorsement then, but are now eschewing endorsements?

Where do you work?
Do you work?

Posted by: BlaHAAHAAAA | July 28, 2006 06:55 AM

I provide no such information. Maybe it was you attempting to deceive others into believing it was me. It was not me.

Furthermore, I do not own IDC and if you feel that information is necessary, then you can contact the owner and ask.

Posted by: Jonathan R. Rees | July 28, 2006 06:58 AM

Involuntary Dissolution takes place when a company does not nor has to under law submit annual reports. It does not indicate that a company has dissolved.

You obviously do not understand the law.

Dr. Griffiths reputation with the DC and other governments is inpeccable and beyond reproach.

You can challenge him any time you would like and you will come up the loser.

Posted by: Jonathan R. Rees | July 28, 2006 07:08 AM

While it is true that "involuntary dissolution" is as you state, you have also been asked where your company is incorporated. You have provided several jurisdictions with none to date being one where it is incorporated and in good standing.

A "Buisiness Manager" in most organizations would know the answer to such a basic question.

And, aren't we a tad paranoid to consider that someone (such as me) is posting as you to decieve others into thinking your are the crackpot that you are? Believe me, you need no such help.

By the way, what was your beef with Judge Urbina back in 2001?

Posted by: BlaHAAHAAAA | July 28, 2006 07:13 AM

IDC was originally incorporated in Delaware.

My beef with Judge Urbina is that I testified before the U.S. Congress why he should not be nominated to the federal bench on behalf of the Fathers Rights Project just as about 35 other groups testified against him. Our reason was that he had a lenghty history of being pro-business in his rulings and biased against the little guy.

My testimony is on record at the U.S. Senate - Committee on the Judiciary.

Posted by: Jonathan R. Rees | July 28, 2006 07:17 AM

At the same time I testified against Judge Urbina, I testified favorably for Judge Gladys Kessler.

Posted by: Jonathan R. Rees | July 28, 2006 07:22 AM

While it is true that IDC was incorporated in Delaware, like the other jurisdictions you have cited, DC, MD and OR, the entity was "involuntarily dissolved" in each in the late 1990's.

So I ask again, where is IDC legally chartered to operate in the United States? A business manager should have the answer to that basic question.

Back to Urbina, is your behavior on the Columbia Heights Listserve by you and your "associate" Roy Stewart (aka Ramon Rivera" appropriate and suitable for the City Council:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/columbia_heights/message/3664

(As a refreasher, you can start with that post and work your way to the ugly conclusion a few days later back in February, 2001.)

Posted by: BlaHAAHAAAA | July 28, 2006 07:32 AM

You criticize me so is it a crime that I and others criticize people we do not agree with. This seems very common here in DC.

IDC is lincensed in many states and by the US Government. If you disagree then file a comnplaint.

As far as the DC and Federal Governments are concerned, I work for IDC, I pay my taxes and I am licensed by both authorities.

Posted by: Jonathan R. Rees | July 28, 2006 07:36 AM

I am glad you are on the record now stating that using multiple aliases and posting fraudulent and potentially libelous websites about people is perfectly ok.

I think that goes to the core of Jonathan Rees the candidate, and more sadly, Jonathan Rees the human being.

I feel bad for you, but I also wish you would crawl back into the hole you came from.

Posted by: BlaHAAHAAAA | July 28, 2006 07:50 AM

I did not go on the record and admit that I did any such thing. Now you are concluding matters that I did not say or concede to.

I have never published anything that was libelous and when I do publish matters, I always have evidence in hand to sustain the claim.

Posted by: Jonathan R. Rees | July 28, 2006 07:54 AM

The fact that I disagree with you on an issue, about another person and etcetera does not make me a bad porson although you may think so, but that table could be turned, and I could say you are a bad person because you hold a different view.

My my it so nice to be so arrogant and believe that your way is the right way.

Maybe you should crawlk back in the hole you crawled out of.

Posted by: Jonathan R. Rees | July 28, 2006 07:59 AM

So if you follow the thread from 2001 on the Columbia Heigth Yahoo Group, it became more than evident (proof was in the IP addresses of the "various" posters) that you, Jonathan R. Rees, posted under several aliases and from the same IP address.

It is conclusive evidence.

You did the same thing in 2005 on various Yahoo Groups based in Ward 3. Again, conclusive evidence.

You can go on and deny it, or deflect attention elsewhere, but facts are facts, and unless you honestly believe that Yahoo! is part of the wide conspiracy against you, then the blogosphere reading these posts will come to their won conclusions, which sadly, do not bode well for you as a candidate or human being.

By the way, what issue do we disagree on that promted you to make the following observation, "The fact that I disagree with you on an issue, about another person and etcetera does not make me a bad porson although you may think so, but that table could be turned, and I could say you are a bad person because you hold a different view"?

Posted by: BlaHAAHAAAA | July 28, 2006 09:37 AM

Your allegations above are totally untrue.

The fact that several people using the same network do and say things does not mean that I am doing it.

What proof do you have that those IP addresses are real and not doctored or re-created by someone in disagreement? You have no such proof.

Sorry kid but your argument is weak and unsubstabtiated by any reliable source other than what you claim is valid but not shown to be such.

I too can doctor and post IP addresses or I too can create email accounts with Yahoo to look like it is you.

Give it a rest as nobody takes you seriously but yourself.

Posted by: Jonathan R. Rees | July 28, 2006 10:11 AM

I think anyone going to the "view source" within any Yahoo post can see the IP trail of said post. That the comments from you, "Roy Stewart", Teresa Biddy, Paulie Walnuts and others, just on the Columbia Heights group from 2001 all came from the same providers, same times (inlcuding very late at night, so don't claim they came from the public library again) and were called out at the time by those posting, as being from the same IP address, is proof.

That the same thing happened again with you, Roy Stewart (aka Ramon Rivera), Angela Biddy, Kathleen Roddy, Nichole Sherry Dixon, Michael Griffiths, Suzanne Jackson (now there's a laugh) and others in the Glover Park, Tenleytown and Ward3dc Yahoo groups in 2005, is such a coincidence so as not to be believed.

You can deny it all you want, but the facts are the facts, and they do not present well for you as a serious candidate for office, much less a kind human being.

I think your ex-wife had the right idea to get the heck away from you and make sure your children had no relationship with you.

You are a lonely middle-aged man with scant little to show for your meager little life. And now you spend your time pretending to be a candidate for office and belittling real people who are actually doing good things in the community and in their professional lives.

I pity you as much as you revolt me.

Posted by: BlaHAAHAAAA | July 28, 2006 10:33 AM

Sorry Charlie but you lose again on this issue!

I could create an account with Yahoo using your name. Then I could join all groups, post and do it for years leading people to believe it is YOU.

Then I could turn around and tell everyone look, see it is YOU and I have your IP address/trail when in fact it is not YOU but me doing it.

Get the point. What you say is a lie and not proof as anybody could do it.

Case close STFU!

Posted by: Jonathan R. Rees | July 28, 2006 06:43 PM

Mr. Rees, you realize that the actions in question were done 5 years ago when no one knew or cared who you were, and further that you instigated the activity on the listserv in question by spamming some crappy websites you had designed. Those posts established your identity. The subsequent posts by "other people" only followed the IP trail you had alreadt established, on topics only you seem to care about, and at times that only you were posting.

Your defense of these activities today only make you appear more foolish.

Just a thought.

Posted by: Ward 3 Voter | July 28, 2006 09:28 PM

Wrong...Five years ago I had as many detractors as I do today who did not agree with my position on many issues, and they are just as dishonest in their tactics are you have been since you are the same person no matter what name or no name you assign to your posting here.

Do you think readers are so stupid they do not see that it is just one person posting your anti-Rees attacks? Then you are dumber than you say I am.

The fact you disagree does not make what I may or may not have said right or wrong as there will always be people who agree and not.

I do not mince words and I will say what I think and if you do not like it, then too bad as I am not here to please you a nobody.

Get a life. You are not powerful enough to take me on and your lies are so easily seen through by the five people reading this blog.

Posted by: Jonathan R. Rees | July 28, 2006 11:36 PM

Wow, I am out for a day, and look at the fireworks.

And Rees, you think this is all one person who has been houdning you for five+ years?

Wow.

Those aren't gnats flying around your head..

Posted by: ^^^^^ | July 29, 2006 06:51 AM

Jonathan, the thing you are failing to grasp is that no one cared who you were 5 years ago, and, except for your incessant spam campaign which seemingly started about a year ago, no one cares who you are today.

You have clearly demonstrated that you are not fit for elected office, and any sense of political viability exists in your own head and fantasy world.

I agree with the poster above who said they pitied you.

Posted by: ^^^^^ | July 29, 2006 08:55 AM

Thanks for the insight, "Ramon", or Roy, or Jonathan.

You make the rest of us see things more clearly.

Posted by: ^^^^^ | July 29, 2006 02:37 PM

Personal Corruption 101

Go look at the number of lawsuits filed on behalf of Jonathan Rees which were dismissed within weeks of filing.

Go look at the number of inflammatory posts Rees and his "sidekick" Ramon Rivera have made on this and other internet forums.

Sheesh.

Posted by: ^^^^^ | July 29, 2006 03:25 PM

Without disclosing who I am, I am the moderator of several Yahoo list servers and I can honestly say that Mr. Rees was the first to be wantonly attacked within weeks of beginning his campaign and I do not blame him and his supporters for striking back.

While most of the candidates in ward 3 rely on having posters on poles competing with five others, Mr. Rees is smart by taking his paper to the back roads of the ward as people at least know what he stands for as posters do not cut it in my book.

I would suspect some of your jerks are behind the attacks on my mayoral candidate of choice. Thus nothing you do or say here will help or hurt anyone but go ahead and kick yourselves all you want as people are wise to you.

All of you need some serious counseling as I am sure each of you have a lot about your past we could make issue with.

Posted by: | July 29, 2006 09:30 PM

I think you will find that Mr. Rees brought this on himself by spamming the blogosphere in very inappropriate ways. The record speaks for itself, and the pattern goes back at least to 2001.

But thanks anyway, Jonathan.

Posted by: ^^^^^ | July 29, 2006 09:35 PM

Thanks Jonathan.

Posted by: ^^^^^ | July 29, 2006 10:58 PM

You are one sick and misconstrued puppy.

Get a life.

Posted by: BlaHAAHAAAA | July 31, 2006 08:58 AM

Don't forget to flag Rees' newest libel-blog. The faster you respond to the content of that blog by flagging it, the sooner Blogger will take it down for inappropriate content.

Blogger's been good about taking down Rees' other sites, but while he's more or less banned from most online areas--City Paper, DCist.com, dc.metroblogs.com, endless area listervs, and the like, Blogger is something that we'll have to be conscientious about and police ourselves to a certain extent.

Rees, being as dumb as he is, is quick to let us all know when these sites go up. So if we respond immediately, these hateful sites won't stay up very long. That last one, IMO, stayed up far too long. Let's do a good deed and spare Rees' victims as much harrassment as possible.

As always, keep the word out about this psychopath. Every time, I inform a Ward three voter about Rees and hear them tell me they won't be voting for him, it makes me a little bit gladder.

And, Washington Post--maybe you should just shut these comment threads down. This place seems to be ground zero for Rees' slander.

Posted by: Down with Rees | July 31, 2006 11:36 AM

The proof has been well documented by the various listserv managers and blog administrators. Rees has simply been shucking and jiving, pretending that we all live in his kook-ass, low-rent fantasy world of his where up is down and right is left, playing the "I'll say it's not true over and over again" game while everyone with a brain knows which end is up.

Point blank: Debate over whether Rees uses aliases and impersonations is over. It is a fact with foundations that have been means-tested, peer-reviewed and proven to be bulletproof. It is now accepted as a given, and from this point forth, the community shall move forward and treat these facts as part of the given circumstances when dealing with Rees.

The only people who are left debating it are either Rees and his many aliases or people too baldly stupid to be worth considering a part of the conversation. Those two groups by the way are not mutually exclusive.

And...we're done.

Posted by: The Proof? It's all around you. | July 31, 2006 01:53 PM

The post at July 31, 2006 01:51 PM should have read thusly:

"I am Rees, and regardless of my stance w/r/t gays--who I, Jonathan Rees see as a threat to America--I am alone in this city in supporting my campaign. Come September, the voters will ignore me, cast no votes for me and shut me, a sicko bastard, down."

We apologize for the inconvenience.

Posted by: CORRECTION | July 31, 2006 01:57 PM

The post at July 31, 2006 01:57 PM should have read thusly:

It has been proven.

We apologize for the inconvenience.

Posted by: CORRECTION | July 31, 2006 01:58 PM

Is it me, or are the above three posts completely incoherant?

Posted by: BlaHAAHAAAA | July 31, 2006 01:58 PM

Well, since I entered in the last entry, there were three more, so is it me, or were the previous 6 entries (excluding mine) incoherant?

Posted by: BlaHAAHAAAA | July 31, 2006 02:00 PM

They are rendered incoherent because there were once some Rees posts there that the above posts referred to. Dare we imagine that the Post has finally clamped down?

Posted by: Explaining the Incoherence | July 31, 2006 02:09 PM

I think the Post actually benefits economically by allowing this craziness to take place.

Think of it. No crazy postings and there ia almost nobody posting here!

As long as the Post allows it, it generates advertising $$$.

On another subject about ward 3. Is anybody other than me getting pissed off with all those jumbo signs from Paul Strauss?

Posted by: | July 31, 2006 07:18 PM

Strauss, Goulet, Catania...the new, larger signs are horrid.

Meanwhile there seems to be an ongoing battle between Strauss, Gaull, Goulet and Rice on the main thouroughfares.

Enough is enough.

Posted by: | July 31, 2006 10:07 PM

I think too many posters on the streets will turn people off to those candidates.

I think a more subdued approach like a simple pamplet, a greeting and move on is needed.

Posted by: | August 1, 2006 05:27 AM

Actually, Mary Cheh, Erik Gaull, Eric Goulet, David Catania and Paul Strauss should not get our vote because they have really offended us by overwhelming us with those stupid posters.

One poster every block is fine but not 10.

I think all of us should send them a message and not vote for them.

Furthermore, Goulet, Rice and Strauss have been subjecting voters to their silly bickering over those stupid posters and that show me how unqualified they are to hold office.

Mary Cheh should not get our vote either because of her deception over how she can hold down a teachers job and represent us on the council. No way can she do both. Also, she is more leftist than Kathy Patterson, her agenda would drive up taxes in a big way and she is now in the pocket of a highly selfish special interest group. Write her off too.

Posted by: | August 1, 2006 07:42 AM

Thanks for the above, Jonathan.

Posted by: BlaHAAHAAAA | August 1, 2006 09:28 AM

I'm writing off Jonathan Rees. He's profane and offensive. Libelous and scummy. And the man is a huge liar. A liar of epic proportions. He's not just unqualified to hold office, he's categorically unfit by every conceivable measure.

Posted by: The Write Off | August 1, 2006 10:10 AM

Washington Post Radio will be airing a series of Ward candidate debates this week.

All shows are live and air at 7 PM
1500 AM or 107.7 FM

Delayed broadcast Newschannel 8 at 10 PM the following night.

Debates:
Tuesday, August 1, At-Large Candidates
Wednesday, August 2, Ward 5 Candidates
Thursday, August 3, Ward 6 Candidates
Friday, August 4, Ward 3 Candidates
Monday, August 7, Republicans
(Ward 1 was on Monday, July 31)

-------------------------------------------

Posted by: Who will Be Missing? | August 1, 2006 05:37 PM

CITY PAPER BASHES WARD 3 CANDIDATE MARY CHEH FOR VIOLATING IRS LAW

STAKING A DISCLAIMER

There's nothing like a few glowing testimonials from high-profile friends to boost a political neophyte's credibility. If you're lucky, you might even be able to tack a few recognizable names or organizations onto your campaign lit.

Ward 3 council hopeful Mary Cheh has some sweet endorsements on her literature and a mailing that she figures ended up in the hands of about 15,000 residents.

Nan Aron, executive director of the Alliance for Justice, says she admires Cheh's "fierce dedication to fairness, equal rights, and civil liberties." Cheh is called "a phenomenal friend of animals and all who love and care for them," by Washington Humane Society Executive Director Howard Nelson. Renee DeVigne, one of the deans of George Washington University Law School, where Cheh teaches, says that "[s]tudents love professor Cheh...because she inspires them to care about their community."

These community leaders have something in common beyond their praise for Cheh: They all work for nonprofit organizations barred by the Internal Revenue Service from involvement in partisan political activities.

Cheh appears to have overlooked that part of the IRS code. She not only included approved accolades from friends on her mailing but also listed their titles and organizations. Her lit did not include a disclaimer distancing those quoted from their organizations.

Nelson, who says he hasn't seen the literature, calls the naming of his organization an error. "It certainly was not authorized." He characterized his endorsement as "a personal quote. It actually has nothing to do with the Washington Humane Society or my role at WHS." Nelson seems to have a good grasp of the IRS code. "We are a 501(c)(3), and we never participate in any political campaigns." He's e-mailed Cheh asking her to "remove the quote or subtext it, like on her Web site."

It's a little too late for adding disclaimers, unless he expects Cheh to go rooting through every mailbox from Cleveland Park to Palisades.

It's not as if Cheh didn't know that the use of the quotes with organizations needed to be explained to protect her friends from IRS scrutiny. All the statements were approved, but below all the quotes on her Web site, Cheh gives the reader this message: "(*Affiliations are listed for informational purposes only.)"

Cheh would have been wise to take a peak at the Alliance for Justice Web site. The group's nonprofit advocacy project is designed to give tax-exempt organizations "a better understanding of the laws that govern their participation in the policy process." It even includes a little fact sheet. Check item No. 1 under how an organization can protect itself from violating the laws governing political activity: "Requir[e] officers...acting as individuals engaged in partisan political activity to clearly state that they are acting in their individual capacity, not on behalf of the organization..."

After the Cheh campaign was contacted by the Washington City Paper, this message was posted on her Web site:

"A recent mailing from my campaign included quotes from people who were identified with their institutional affiliations. There was no attempt to suggest that these were endorsements from the institutions themselves. But since there was no specific disclaimer, the reference to designations could have left that impression with someone. I regret that, although, again, this was not the intent nor do I think anyone would reasonably believe that the designations were anything more than information identifying who was making the statement. To avoid even possible ambiguity, all future mailings will have specific disclaimers."

Cheh might have been surprised that any reasonable person might see the endorsements as, well, endorsements, but she was quick to lay blame on her own campaign. "I screwed up, what can I say?"


Posted by: | August 3, 2006 06:51 PM

CITY PAPERS CALLS CANDIDATE SAM BROOKS ENEMY OF WORKING PEOPLE

POLITICAL POTPOURRI
• Ward 3 contender Sam Brooks is all about being different. He's young, new to the ward, full of new ideas, and now certainly a new kind of Democrat who doesn't mind pissing off the unions. Brooks is the first candidate in the race to benefit from an independent expenditure from a political action committee openly hostile to labor. Red, white, and blue fliers that look strangely similar to Brooks' own campaign lit have been distributed around the ward carrying the disclaimer: "Paid for by Citizens for Empowerment PAC."

The PAC is funded by gigantic concrete maker Miller & Long and electrical contractor MC Dean. Both companies are open shops and help fund the political opposition to the city's stadium-project labor agreement, which gave preference for construction contracts to union companies.

The flier is pretty standard fare and carries Brooks' signature "new" ideas of creating a commission on school closings and splitting Emergency Medical Services from the fire department. But a new bullet point is tacked onto the end: "Fair and Open Bidding: allowing union and nonunion companies the same rights to compete for construction work."

Brooks says he had no idea the mailing was about to hit the streets. He did meet with the PAC board along with several other Ward 3 candidates.

Posted by: Loose Lips | August 3, 2006 07:00 PM

Every ward 3 candidate has been attacked by the local newspapers for either illegal or unethical behavior except Rees.

Maybe this is why there is so much hate for Rees as he may be the only honest ward 3 candidate running.

Jenny Lloyd

Posted by: Jenny Lloyd | August 3, 2006 07:42 PM

I think the voters of ward three should thank Candidate Sam Brooks for his many mail-outs warning us about the incompetence and dishonesty of Candidate Mary Cheh who seems to have lost all sense of deceny in this ward three race because of her desire to win.

http://www.angelfire.com/crazy/sambrooks/letter.pdf

Mary Cheh sadly has turned over her campaign to some of the biggest crooks in ward three who are using her to get what they want.

Thank you Washington City Paper for exposing Mary Cheh and her dishonest ways.

Posted by: | August 3, 2006 09:58 PM

Maybe the reason Rees hasn't been attacked by any of the local newspapers is that they know he doesn't exist!

Posted by: Ghostbusters | August 3, 2006 10:01 PM

Hey Ghostbuster...wishful thinking. Sigh but he does. Lol

Posted by: | August 3, 2006 10:25 PM

I find it funny that the person who most recently brought the "Cheh Letter" to light appears to not exist.

I also find it funny that "Loose Lips" is posting here.

I also know Jenny Lloyd of Ward 3. I checked with her. She did not post the above.

I hope the Washington Post takes notice.

Posted by: BlaHAAHAAAA | August 3, 2006 10:33 PM

Damn more frauds.

Posted by: | August 3, 2006 10:52 PM

The reason the newspapers haven't criticized, or praised Rees is because there's nothing even remotely newsworthy about Rees' campaign. He will not even garner a single percentage of the vote.

Posted by: Jenny is actually Rees. | August 4, 2006 10:18 AM

Don't forget: Tonight, Friday August 4th, the Washington Post Radio will be conducting a forum at 7:00pm for the candidates seeking the Ward 3 Council seat. The forum (at 7:00pm) will be on 1500AM or 107.07FM and will be moderated by Mark Segraves of WTOP news. The forum is scheduled to be re-broadcast on Cable TV Channel 8 on Saturday, August 5, at 1:00pm and again at 10:00pm. ( Any bets on which non-existent Ward 3 candidate won't attend?)

Posted by: Ghostbusters | August 4, 2006 12:53 PM

Thanks, Jonathan.

Posted by: ^^^^^ | August 6, 2006 07:56 AM

Smart money is starting to take bets: Will the non-existent Ward 3 candidate break 100 votes and exceed maybe 1 percent of the total vote? Or will the write-ins beat him? September 12th after 8:00pm should be fun for all except for the non-existent candidate!!!

Posted by: Ghostbusters | August 6, 2006 12:54 PM

OMG, that is rich.

By the way, if anyone wants a good laugh at Rees' expense, check out the ward3dc Yahoo Group.

Posted by: ^^^^^ | August 6, 2006 02:41 PM

I listened to that forum Friday and it does appear that Sam Brooks has lied.

Posted by: | August 6, 2006 03:53 PM

to my fellow rees watchers...the esteemed candidate has provided this answer to the NW Current about his online activities:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ward3dc/message/386

Feel free to get in touch with the reporter with screen shots and links to things you have seen over the last year.

Posted by: a Rees Watcher | August 9, 2006 08:09 AM

I don't know about Gordon, but my contacts in the media tell me they believe that Rees does not exist. Hence, they ignore him and don't waste print or space on him.

Posted by: Ghostbusters | August 13, 2006 06:21 PM

On Monday night, the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club endorsed candidates in the city's Ward races including Ward 3. As the city's main Gay political organization, its endorsement carries great weight. I was unable to attend, but I am told JR Rees worked the membership to gain the endorsement. Does anyone know if he or someone else was endorsed by the Clib?

Posted by: Queen for a Day | August 15, 2006 06:13 PM

The In-Towner on Candidate Rees (so much for no bad publicity)

...We cannot say the same about the most vocal and in-your-face angry candidate, Jonathan Rees. He has so absolutely polarized everyone he has come into contact with, has become infamous for his over-the-top rants, his personal character attacks on individuals who disagree with him, and worse that we fear his presence on the Council could completely destroy any hope for continued collegiality which is essential if it is to function effectively.

Posted by: ^^^^^ | August 15, 2006 09:59 PM

Hey WPost, have you figured out that all the real people have gone away leaving only a cluster of someone's imaginary friends to post the same ole drudgery? Maybe it's time to update the blog and get in there and do some old fashion moderating.

Posted by: >>> | August 16, 2006 12:14 PM

Hey Wash Post now that Martin Austermuhle and all his aliases and Ramon Rivera and his have taken their crap elsewhere, let's move on.

Posted by: | August 16, 2006 04:21 PM

I think this blog is dead and they forgot to bury it.

Posted by: | August 17, 2006 01:38 AM

For what it is worth, the Stein Dems made no endorsement for the Ward 3 race.

Now, back to the banter.

Posted by: Back on Topic | August 18, 2006 03:38 PM

For what it is worth, the Stein Democrats should have tipped a bit and endorsed Eric Goulet. Their voting sytem should not result in a stalemate.

Posted by: | August 18, 2006 08:59 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company