Psycho

Did I touch a nerve in your gay body? On Nov. 7, 2006, seven more states will close the door on you Brankdc to get married in and in 2008, eight more plan to do the same. Where will you go to get married Bfrankdc....The Netherlands?

DC Voter your claim is totally false. In the ward 3 race, the other candidates complained about others in the race being behind the attacks on them. Many running were slinging mud at each other. Your claim is a purposeful lie just as you are a lie.

When working on Capitol Hill from 1990 - 2004, I heard first hand from several senators that if DC was granted statehood, we would have our first state run by homosexuals and this was a compelling reason why statehood should never be given DC. I CONCUR WITH THE HIDDEN REASONING ON THE HILL WHY DC SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED STATEHOOD. My former rival Mary Cheh's says that she is a devout Catholic but her official stance on GLBT issues as seen on her website is in total defiance of the Catholic Church and deserving of ex-communication by the laws of the Catholic Church. Read Cheh's Anti-Catholic Stance on GLBT issues > http://www.marycheh2006.com/issues_glbt.htm

THE MARK FOLEY SCANDAL There have been others who have asserted that I am a “homophobe”. My answer to that is, not so, as there is no such creature. There are people out there who oppose homosexuality because it is volatile of their religious beliefs or they see such as being against the natural order which is a classification I subscribe to. The Mark Foley Scandal showed me that when it broke, homosexuals cannot be trusted. Not one major homosexual organization went public and condemned Foley’s obvious acts and/or the act of pedophilia, but all such groups went into a lockdown mode. The fact that they did this shows me that homosexuals cannot be trusted to police their own, to act to build public trust that not all are like Foley and why we should not fear their behavior or what other say is their hidden agenda of recruiting new from among the young and vulnerable. Even Foley suggested that he would not have become a latent homosexual if it had not been for his indoctrination by a priest. This act by Foley lends itself to the belief that nobody is born homosexual but it is a learned behavior. We can argue this issue indefinitely, there will be many of his on both sides of the camp on this issue but for the benefit of DC Watch readers, YES, I oppose the GLBT community in all they seek like same sex adoption and marriage but I do not oppose any other right granted them to date.

Bfrankdc, Who are you? The Boogeyman?

Bfrank or whomever you are or are not, Ramon Rivera's full name legally is: Ramon Roy Jose Stewart-Rivera. The DC Superior Court lists him in a tax matter as Roy Stewart-Rivera. He isn 50 years old. He is a relative of mine by marriage but a distant one. He was living here in DC up until October 1 but moved back to Caguas, Puerto Rico. Does that answer your question.

If you go and look at what DC Watch posted for Joe DeLuth then you will see that Joe DeLuth listed his email address as joe.deluth@gardener.com not joe.deluth@gardeners.com. Thus Joe gave a phony email address. Gary Imhoff already admitted that he erred and Joe's IP address was not the same as mine.

All evidence accumulated supports the fact that Bfrankdc and Truthseekers were a part of this sham here on DC Pages, DC Watch, etc., as their IP addresses match that of former posters JT Frank, Frank B and others here and on other list servers. JOE DELUTH IS A BIG PHONY On October 15, 2006, a person named Joe DeLuth using the email address of joe.deluth@gardender.com wrote: Rees’ Anti-Jewish Message Joe Deluth, joedeluth@gardener.com Kindly don’t post any more messages from Jonathan Rees, who admits to being both homophobic and anti-Semitic. You can read about that yourself at http://www.crackcity.blogspot.com. There is the most recent blog entry from Jonathan Rees ["Jewish Gangsters in America," October 14]. He does not deserve to have a forum on themail. This very same Joe DeLuth had posted elsewhere false allegations about my person, and his postings were linked to JOE STERNLIEB at a company called EASTBANC and also to the server IP address belonging to MARY CHEH FOR CITY COUNCIL at the PN Hoffman Company where Mary Cheh has her campaign headquarters. Subsequently thereafter, Gary Imhoff who is the moderator of TheMail at DC Watch asked on October 18, 2006, all of you to ignore what Joe Deluth wrote: Dear Real People: Please ignore the message in the last issue of themail from “Joe DeLuth.” “Joe DeLuth” is what is known in blogger slang as a “sock puppet,” a false identity used to simulate support for or opposition to a person or position. I have matched the address of the computer from which it was sent to another poster, and have determined that it was a spoof or prank E-mail, designed merely to provoke controversy. As you know, themail is an open forum, and I don’t normally try to check or confirm a poster’s identity. Luckily, over the years there have been few attempts at gaming themail with fake E-mails, and even fewer fakes have actually been published. I’m embarrassed when it happens, and I’ll be a little more vigilant in the future. Gary Imhoff themail@dcwatch.com http://www.dcwatch.com/themail/2006/06-10-18.htm In an effort to find out who Joe DeLuth was, I wrote to the people at Gardener.com which is Gardener Supply Company in Maine. Here is their response: -----Original Message----- From: Gene Pokropski [mailto:genep@gardeners.com] Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 10:24 AM To: jrrees2006@verizon.net Subject: re: Joe Deluth Hello Mr. Rees, We received your fax requesting information on Joe Deluth. Unfortunately, we do not have anyone working here by that name, and the domain for our company is gardeners.com, not gardener.com. The email also is not the normal format for our email addresses. We have no idea who this is or where the emails could actually be coming from. Sorry we could not be of more help. Sincerely, Gene P genep@gardeners.com Gardener's Supply Customer Service The reality is, many of the former Ward 3 city council candidates were under attack on the internet by supporters and campaign staffers of Mary Cheh, most of these attacks came under different screen names, but they all came from the server IP addresses at EastBanc, PN Hoffman Company, accounts owned by Joe Sternlieb and his wife Linda Singer who used a long string of phony names like Joe DeLuth, Joe Kerr DC, DC Jendesign and also by Anne-Marie Baristow who is Mary Cheh’s campaign manager. Mary Cheh and I use to talk on a daily basis but when I confronted her with the evidence of what her campaign staff and supporters were doing to her rivals, she stopped talking to me and her husband was very upset because the JIG WAS UP and Mary Cheh could no longer play that innocent school girl garbage. Mary Cheh did not offer to get her people to stop, she did not apologize and if by some rare chance Mary Cheh would deny this, then we are confronted with some of the very best computer hackers who made it look it was all coming from Mary Cheh’s many staffer at their homes, places of work and Mary Cheh’s campaign headquarters.

Over half the residents in the District of Columbia do not partake in its political process, do not give a ***brown trout*** about its mayor or city council, and sees DC Government as a puppet for the US Congress. The perception of the DC Government and DC in general terms outside of DC is even worse. Besides the high rate of crime, drug use, government corruption and more, DC has become a place where the cost of living is unreasonable and out of control. Despite the fact DC’s population goes up and down, it is still down 200,000 people from two decades ago, and people are maintaining a shorter residency period in the District of Columbia. Things might get better in DC for about 8% of the population but not for anybody else, and DC will see in the next ten years another economic downfall.

Was this sentance on your part intended as a joke: "I heard that Foley immediately apoligized for his actions. He promised to turn over a new page :"

Early today, Luke Wilbur reported that Gary Imhoff had stated to him that Jonathan Rees' IP address was that of a Joe Deluth. This morning, Gary Imhoff sends Luke and Rees an email stating he erred: Read this > From: themail@dcwatch.com [mailto:themail@dcwatch.com] Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 12:27 AM To: Jonathan Rees; Martin Austermuhle; Luke Wilbur Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Rees' Anti-Jewish Message]] For your information, I am forwarding to all of you all four messages that I have received from "Joe Deluth." I am going to have to backtrack on the definite identification of "Joe Deluth" with Jonathan. As an amateur in reading headings, I have been reading the headings in my E-mail program, and therefore misidentifying the IP addresses of the servers that forward to themail@dcwatch.com as the originating addresses. I have gone to the webmail copies of these E-mails, and the originating IP addresses of the Joe Deluth E-mails are not the same as those for Jonathan Rees.

By: Ramon Jose Stewart-Rivera There are computer hackers out there in DC you know by the screen names of Bfrankdc, Joe_kerr_DC, Joe Deluth, Luke20008 and others, and all 100 + screen names they have, are all the same three jokers. They fool 99% of the smartest of us because, they know most of us are not computer savvy enough to catch onto their game. Anybody who does not like you and wants to embarass you, can easily hack your email address and email IP address and begin sending out emails making it look like it is coming from you. Once you send them an email, they have your email address and it is just 1,2, 3 and they have your email IP address to boot, and then they are on their way to send out emails galore in your name and under your email IP address. The purpose of this blogspot is to show you how to tell if someone is impersonating your email address and what you can do after you find out that they are. The reason you need this skill is that you may receive return emails that look like they originated from you but which bounced . Most commonly, these emails will have been sent to third party addresses you are unfamiliar with and did not send anything to. In running this website, we have frequently been the target of several unknown persons who were impersonating (also called "spoofing") our source email address. Most often, this happens during times that there is a widespread virus infestation, and the symptom is that our email inbox gets flooded by emails that look like they were returned but which we never sent. Below is an example returned email message sent by someone who was spoofing our email address, which we have color-coded to show how this works: This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. Message violates a policy rule set up by the domain administrator Delivery failed for the following recipients(s): ewhr@edwards.com ----- Original Message Header ----- Received: by mail6-kan (MessageSwitch) id 1062107549539335_11622; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 21:52:29 +0000 (UCT) Received: from LIZAVETA (h-66-134-52-82.LSANCA54.covad.net [66.134.52.82]) by mail6-kan.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9257174762 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 21:52:03 +0000 (UCT) From: To: Subject: Re: Wicked screensaver Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:50:29 --0700 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_NextPart_000_00467D97" Message-Id: 20030828215203.C9257174762@mail6-kan.bigfish.com The boldfaced blue lines indicate information about the environment that the email was sent from. The red boldfaced lines above indicate the email program that was used to send the message. This information must match our information precisely or it is bogus. The route of delivery is in reverse order with the most recent on the top of the message. Therefore, the "mail6-kan.bigfish.com" server was the last mail server to receive this message before it bounced, and was returned. The blue area above says the IP address that the mail was sent directly from was "66.134.52.82". This is NOT our IP address. The User Agent the email was sent from (which was "66.134.52.82") was the wrong IP address, so it can't be ours. The first step in knowing that the above information about you is incorrect is to send yourself an Email. When you get it back, examine the header information. In Microsoft Outlook, you can do this from the View->Options menu. The following dialog box will pop up showing you the message header at the bottom. The content of the header tells you your specific information. The bottom area that says "Internet headers" is the area you want to examine. We cutoff the bottom part of the header so you couldn't see our specific info. Below is the header that appeared in an email that we sent ourself that has been modified to protect our privacy, so you can see what is looks like without finding out how to spoof us. The header below is something that a user can't modify or spoof, so it can't be fabricated or rendered incorrect in order to fool you, because it is generated by the computer and the email program you are using as the message is sent out: Return-path: Received: from ms-mta-01.socal.rr.com ([10.10.4.125]) by ms-mss-02.socal.rr.com(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.12 (built Feb 13 2003))with ESMTP id <0hkc00bhvnlq9u@ms-mss-02.socal.rr.com> forchansen3%san.rr.com@ims-ms-daemon; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:56:14 -0700 (PDT)Received: from orngca-mls02.socal.rr.com(orngca-mls02.socal.rr.com [66.75.160.17]) by ms-mta-01.socal.rr.com(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.12 (built Feb 13 2003))with ESMTP id <0hkc00dgmmlq5n@ms-mta-01.socal.rr.com> for chansen3@san.rr.com(ORCPT johnhamilton@aol.com); Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:34:39 -0700 (PDT)Received: from UserMachineName (99-99-99-99.aol.com [99.99.99.99])by orngca-mls02.socal.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.3) with SMTP id h7SLq2b13382 for; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:52:02 -0700 (PDT)Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:02:57 -0700From: John Hamilton Subject: TesetTo: John Hamilton Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1Content-transfer-encoding: 7bitImportance: NormalX-Priority: 3 (Normal)X-MSMail-priority: NormalOriginal-recipient: rfc822;chansen3@san.rr.com. Notice that the IP address of "99.99.99.99" above does not match the source IP of the person above who was impersonating our email address. That persons address was "66.134.52.82". Also notice that an email send program was used by the imposter that did not match the one we use. The header above shows in red that we use "Microsoft Outlook IMO" while the imposter is using "Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000". Consequently, it's very easy to tell that the email wasn't ours and that there is an imposter out there who is impersonating us. Why would someone want to impersonate us? Well, for starters, although they might not be able to infect us with a virus because we are using virus software and are immune, they might try indirectly to make trouble for us. For instance, they might send us bogus emails like that above to convince us that we have a virus so that we will want to: · Slick our computer and completely reinstall everything to get rid of the problem. · Buy virus software and install it. Sometimes, they will even send an email to your computer offering a virus program for a massive discount that is actually snoopware that they can use to steal information off your computer and monitor your operations! Don't buy virus software through the internet or email! Always purchase locally from a trusted source. · Spend money on a computer professional to diagnose whether we have a problem, which we obviously don't. The above can be a very effective approach to make trouble against people who are computer illiterate. If you have read this article and understand it though, then the dishonest techniques listed above don't work against you! How do we catch these imposters and get them in trouble? If you wanted to find out whose IP address this was, you would go to SamSpade.org and look up the owner: http://www.samspade.org Type in the above IP address "66.134.52.82" on the line with the button next to it that says "IPWhoIs" and then click on the button. Below is what you get: Trying whois -h whois.arin.net 66.134.52.82 Error - couldn't connect to server Trying whois -h whois.arin.net 66.134.52.82 OrgName: Covad Communications OrgID: CVADAddress: 2510 Zanker RdCity: San JoseStateProv: CAPostalCode: 95131-1127Country: USReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.laserlink.net:4321/NetRange: 66.134.0.0 - 66.134.255.255 CIDR: 66.134.0.0/16 NetName: COVAD-IP-2-NETNetHandle: NET-66-134-0-0-1Parent: NET-66-0-0-0-0NetType: Direct AllocationNameServer: NS1.COVAD.NETNameServer: NS2.COVAD.NETComment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLEComment: Comment: for abuse issues, please contact abuse-isp@covad.comComment: Reassignment information for this block of addresses can be found at rwhois://rwhois.laserlink.net:4321/RegDate: 2001-07-13Updated: 2003-05-13TechHandle: ZC178-ARINTechName: Covad IP Admin TechPhone: +1-408-434-2108TechEmail: ip_admin@covad.com AbuseHandle: CART-ARINAbuseName: Covad abuse reporting team AbusePhone: +1-703-376-2830AbuseEmail: abuse-isp@covad.com OrgAbuseHandle: CART-ARINOrgAbuseName: Covad abuse reporting team OrgAbusePhone: +1-703-376-2830OrgAbuseEmail: abuse-isp@covad.comOrgNOCHandle: CIN-ARINOrgNOCName: COVAD IP NOC OrgNOCPhone: +1-888-801-6285OrgNOCEmail: noc-ipservices@covad.comOrgTechHandle: PRN-ARINOrgTechName: Nicoll, Peter ROrgTechPhone: +1-408-434-2108OrgTechEmail: pnicoll@covad.com# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2003-08-27 19:15# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database. This is very useful information, because now we have someone to complain to! We can write the abuse email address above, at "abuse-isp@covad.com" and tell them that the IP address of "66.134.52.82" is spoofing or impersonating our email address and ask them to terminate the account of the offender and tell us who it is so we can prosecute them. Make sure you include the original email you received back so they can use that information to trace the offender down and nail him. Here was that email: This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. Message violates a policy rule set up by the domain administrator Delivery failed for the following recipients(s): ewhr@edwards.com ----- Original Message Header ----- Received: by mail6-kan (MessageSwitch) id 1062107549539335_11622; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 21:52:29 +0000 (UCT) Received: from LIZAVETA (h-66-134-52-82.LSANCA54.covad.net [66.134.52.82]) by mail6-kan.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9257174762 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2003 21:52:03 +0000 (UCT) From: To: Subject: Re: Wicked screensaver Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:50:29 --0700 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_NextPart_000_00467D97" Message-Id: <20030828215203.c9257174762@mail6-kan.bigfish.com> Now we are getting somewhere!

Bfrankdc, You are Martin Austermuhle and all the other aliases we see here. Second, you are a bad liar because if Gary had matched my IP address to such when it was an attack on me saying I hate JEWS when I am Jewish, then I am sure Gary would have said such on TheMail. Nice try Martin but your lies are catching up with you!

Bfrank, You are a pathological liar! You did not speak to Gary Imhoff. Gary Imhoff asked people to ignore the lie that you Austermuhle under another alias posted on DC Watch accusing me of being bigoted.

Bfrankdc, Admitted, I added what Gary Imhoff said to what he wrote. You have never proven to anyone who you really are. Next, Gary Imhoff spoke with me and others about the whole matter before he published what he did and all was laid out as to the scheme that was taking place. You can easily dispel all be agreeing to meet Luke Wilbur and I and proving you are not Austermuhle, Linkins or Summersgill. Until then, my allegation stands.

From: themail [mailto:themail@dcwatch.com] Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 2:18 AM To: themail Subject: Sock Puppet in themail, October 18, 2006 Sock Puppet in themail, October 18, 2006 In Re: Bfrankdc, Joe Deluth, Joe_Kerr_DC, Joycemarie et. al. A/k/a Martin Austermuhle Dear Real People: Please ignore the message in the last issue of themail from "Joe DeLuth." "Joe DeLuth" is what is known in blogger slang as a "sock puppet," a false identity used to simulate support for or opposition to a person or position. I have matched the address of the computer from which it was sent to another poster, and have determined that it was a spoof or prank E-mail, designed merely to provoke controversy. As you know, themail is an open forum, and I don't normally try to check or confirm a poster's identity. Luckily, over the years there have been few attempts at gaming themail with fake E-mails, and even fewer fakes have actually been published. I'm embarrassed when it happens, and I'll be a little more vigilant in the future. Gary Imhoff DC WATCH themail@dcwatch.com P.S. All above named identities were linked to Martin Austermuhle, Bob Summersgill and Jason Linkins.

Luke, Just above you Bfrank_dc admits he is Martin. Read what he says. He acknowledges his blog and claims it now makes him famous.

Luke, Here is Martin Austermuhle’s blog he erected attacking me every day! http://jonathanrees.blogspot.com/ Look on DC pages and you will see what Austermuhle posts on his blog is done at the same time Bfrank_DC posts the same on DC Pages. Austermuhle is Bfrank_dc, Truthseeker and Factchecker. Austermuhle is chronic liar and has lied to DC Pages for over a year that he is not Bfrank_dc, Truthseeker or Factchecker but he is. He has not offered DC Pages any real proof who he is and Austermuhle fears me in more ways that one. Austermuhle works together with another one of his gay lovers Jason Linkins A/k/a Blogger Dceiver. I have so many friends who seem to know more about who is who than I do and when I make allegations, it comes from reliable sources and they suggest that Luke ask that Bfrank_dc come forward and prove who he is and Luke you will see it is Austermuhle. Despite my faults, at least I am not a criminal, I did not start a race riot on campus and I am not risking myself for AIDS like Austermuhle does by sleeping with different men all the time. Jonathan R. Rees

The people of ward 3 want you to believe that they are politically correct, non-racist but not true. I have seen how a good number reacted when an African American or Hispanic moved in the area. Yep, they are champions of your civil rights bas long as you stay on the other side of town.

Nothing conjures up the what a real man is than, the image of Humphrey Bogart. DC could use a mayor of the likes of Humphrey Bogart. A real man, not some crack smoking, brain damaged or sissy ass *happy person** type we have been stuck with ever since Home Rule was granted us. DC desperately needs Boggie!

Luke, One bartender at The Fireplace named Chuck and one at Remingtons named Paulie both said they knew Martin Austermuhle, he was a infrequent patron and his gay affair with many including Brooks was no secret. I did not identify the home on Wisconsin as being that of Brooks. I do not know whose home he was emerging from with his hair messy as if he came out of a sand storm. As for Martin Austermuhle's criminal past and association with the Communist Party, they is easily found by Googling his name and scrolling. Martin Austermuhle works in Georgetown at the Embassy of Venezuela and is in effect their propoganda point man and when you Google him, you will see some of his writings defending Hugo Chavez. Also, if you scroll back, you will see a posting or two where Martin Austermuhle admits to having ridden his bike to the upper NW side of the city to be at locations like The Raven Bar & Grill and other locations far away from his home on The Hill and stated such to dispute claims I had made.

Former ward 3 council candidates Gaull, Goulet, Rice and Wiss are openly supporting Republican Theresa Conroy over their own Democratic Party candidate Mary Cheh. Even the Northwest Current Newspaper has of late not be so supportive of Mary Cheh. The following has been posted in many list servers by agents of the above named candidates: Some of you are finally opening your eyes and taking a closer look at the "other candidate." You are beginning to listen to Theresa Conroy. You have been listening to Mary Cheh and is this what you want? 1) Part-time employee and law professor at George Washington University. 2) Part-time Councilmember -- part-time representation for you. 3) Would raise property taxes. 4) The Comprehensive Plan as written should be approved. 5) Would use law students to respond to constituent services 6) Never been to an ANC meeting or a meeting of her citizen's association. 7) Constitutional Law professor --up to date on imminent domain issues. 8) Backed by developers and Kathy Patterson. It is your right to vote as you see fit, but voting along party lines when your party's candidate does not represent you is foolish. Both candidates, Conroy and Cheh, will be listed on the ballot. Continue to study the issues and be informed before you go to the polls on November 7. Vote for the person you want on the Council who will represent and address issues of concern to you and your community. Ward 3 needs a Councilmember who can make a decision based on fact not influence from campaign funders.

WHY NONE OF THE WARD 3 CANDIDATES ARE SUPPORTING MARY CHEH If voters have been paying attention, none of the former eight (8) ward 3 candidates are supporting Mary Cheh in the upcoming general election on November 7, 2006. During the Ward 3 DC City Council race, many Ward 3 voters were concerned about Mary Cheh's ability to detach herself from her employer George Washington University, and everyone from WTOP radio and voters made strong issue of this in light of the fact that Mary Cheh ultimately sold her soul to developers like Akridge, East Banc and PN Hoffman. Early on in the Ward 3 race, someone started cranking out attacks on Mary Cheh using GWU stationary and mailing it out to at least 10,000 voters per pop. One such letter was directed to news reporter Tom Sherwood of NBC4 TV in Washington, DC. While it was intentionally written poorly to mislead, it was none the less actually written by a disgruntled, rival professor at GWU who was never keen about Mary Cheh! It turns out that GWU most definitely wanted one of their own on the DC City Council, it was considering several of their professors, but settled on Mary Cheh because of her friendship with Council Member Kathy Patterson. This decision to bypass others for Cheh stirred up resentment. Initially, Mary Cheh thought these attacks on her were coming from a rival candidate but they were not, but in fact were written inside GWU Law School, done on official not reproduced GWU Law School stationary and mailed out in official GWU Law School envelopes using one of the GWU's mailroom postal meter machines. Yet this rival professor was not alone. There were other disgruntled GWU professors but you have to step outside the walls of GWU to know why, but I can sum it up as being a war between rival developers who were supporting different Ward 3 candidates. The plot is much thicker and dirtier than voters can comprehend. The bottom line is, Akridge, East Banc and PN Hoffman via their agents spent money, time and labor to pick the Ward 3 candidate they felt they could easily manipulate. They created a organization called Friends of Joe Sternlieb to handle the search for their puppet, interviewed all of the candidates and concluded, Mary Cheh was the most hungry to win and most likely to do their bidding, and thus Joe Sternlieb advised all they should back Mary Cheh. This is what triggered the anger. Subsequently thereafter, Mary Cheh’s supporters took to the internet to begin a campaign of bashing all of her rivals where Joe Sternlieb under various aliases (Joe_Kerr_DC, Joe Deluth and others), his wife Linda Singer under the aliases of DC_Jendesign and others, and Cheh’s campaign manager Anne-Marie Baristow using the alias Joycemarie20008 and others started bashing Cathy Wiss, Paul Strauss, Bill Rice and Robert Gordon whereby most of these alias attacks were all linked back to Mary Cheh’s campaign headquarters inside the PN Hoffman Building and the PN Hoffman server and to the server over at East Banc. When this was made an issue, all of Mary Cheh’s people moved quickly to delete the evidence but not fast enough for people to get a Google snap-shot of their bad behavior. The foregoing is 100% factual, the other candidates know how it all went down and the public's fear that Mary Cheh is in the pockets of GWU and other developers was on the dime. So if people are wondering why the other eight (8) ward 3 candidate have not come out in support of Mary Cheh or asked their supporters to vote for her on November 7, 2006, then maybe it is because Mary Cheh sold her soul to The Devil and only cared about winning no matter who she and her people wrongfully offended with their actions. This is why I am one Democrat who will jump party lines on November 7 and vote for Republican Theresa Conroy because Mary Cheh lied to me, lied to the voters and allowed her supporters to launch attacks on her rivals and each one of them know the Cheh backers who were doing this to them.

Failed DC Ward 3 city council candidate Bill Rice, a former employee of the District Department of Transportation has of recent been running around boasting how after his failed effort to get elected, he was awarded a "Contract" from the District Department of Transportation that is sweet as pie, but did not say what kind of contract it was, how much is involved or what he will do. Is this just another dirty deal officials of the Government of the District of Columbia are engaging in unknown by the taxpayers and bypassing the bidding process?

During the Ward 3 DC City Council race, many Ward 3 voters were concerned about Mary Cheh's ability to detach herself from her employer George Washington University and everyone from WTOP radio and voters made strong issue of this in light of the fact that Mary Cheh ultimately sold her soul to developers like Akridge, East Banc and PN Hoffman. Early on in the Ward 3 race, someone started cranking out attacks on Mary Cheh using GWU stationary and mailing it out to at least 10,000 voters per pop. One such letter was directed to news reporter Tom Sherwood of NBC4 TV in Washington, DC. While it was a intentionally written poorly to mislead, it was none the less actually written by a disgruntled, rival professor at GWU who was never keen about Mary Cheh! It turns out that GWU most definitely wanted one of their own on the DC City Council, it was considering several of their professors, but settled on Mary Cheh because of her friendship with Council Member Kathy Patterson. This decision to bypass others for Cheh stirred up resentment. Initially, Mary Cheh thought these attacks were coming from a rival candidate but they were not, but in fact were written inside GWU Law School, done on official not reproduced GWU Law School stationary and mailed out in official GWU Law School envelopes using one of the GWU's mailroom postal meter machines. Yet this rival professor was not alone. There were other disgruntled GWU professors but you have to step outside the walls of GWU to know why, but I can sum it up as being a war between rival developers who were supporting different ward 3 candidates. The plot is much thicker than voters can comprehend but it was all quite dirty. The bottom line is, Akridge, East Banc and PN Hoffman via their agents spent money, time and labor to pick the ward 3 candidate they felt they could easily manipulate, they created a organization called Friends of Joe Sternlieb to handle the search for their puppet, interviewed all of the candidates and concluded, Mary Cheh was the most hungry to win and most likely to do their bidding, and thus Joe Sternlieb advised all they should back Mary Cheh. This is what triggered the anger. The foregoing is 100% factual, the other candidates know how it all went down and the public's fear that Mary Cheh is in the pockets of GWU and other developers was on the money. This is why I am one Democrat who will jump party lines on November 7 and vote for Republican Theresa Conroy because Mary Cheh lied to me, lied to the voters and allowed her supporters to launch attacks on her rivals and each one of them know the Cheh backers who were doing this.