Jim Spiess, a convicted felon and Catherine Crabill supporter, is a “liaison” for the “Virginia Tea Party Patriots Foundation”.

From an e-mail that someone else received and forwarded to me:

Hi, my name is Jim and I am one of the two liaison officers of the Virginia Tea Party Patriot Federation. We formed a little over 6 months ago. Right now I believe we have around 30 Tea Party/912 groups in our Federation. We believe that by showing the Commonwealth of Virginia that we are becoming more organized that they will pay more attention to us, and it is starting to pay off. All groups still act autonomously, but we now have a group to bounce ideas off of and we can help each other in other ways too. Let me know if you are interested in joining up with us, you can call me or email me. Hope to hear from you soon.

Merry Christmas,
Jim Spiess
Virginia’s 99th District Tea Party

Those tea party folks are making themselves look oh-so-brilliant. Lay down with dogs, wake up with fleas.

And once again, my agnosticism towards the tea party “movement” has been validated.

Cross-posted at On The Right and Virginia Virtucon.

7 thoughts on “Jim Spiess, a convicted felon and Catherine Crabill supporter, is a “liaison” for the “Virginia Tea Party Patriots Foundation”.”

  1. In our current times, any one of us, could be dragged into court be convicted of a crime. All it would take would be a lie from one citizen. As wild as this seems, it happens ALL the time.

    Anyone who have watched our courts in action knows this fact of our current system. Those who have large financial resources can get a lawyer and mitigate charges. Those without great resources are typically convinced to plead guilty to a supposed “lesser charge” even when they are guilty of nothing. They plead guilty simply to stop the pain, with most not knowing that the conviction will follow them forever afterward.

    I don’t know about Mr. Spiess, but apparently he served whatever sentence that was meted out and having done so, should be restored in his rights as a citizen. Once someone has been punished by our system, we as a society, must not continue to punish the man for mistakes he may, or may not, have made in the past.

    While your intent was to smear Mr. Spiess, you have unwittingly illuminated an ongoing problem with our “justice” system, in that, once a debt to society is paid, such men and women must be restored as full citizens, and treated as valued contributors to our country.

  2. First let me say the felony was 17 years ago, when I drank and yes I did inhale with the drugs. Since then I have been sober and clean for over 15 years, joined a church, participated in giving back to the community. I have started two successful businesses and hire over 20 employees currently. They have 401k’s and health insurance with dental. I pay half of that, I use to pay 100%, but because of what this government is doing to small businesses I had to cut back. I also laid off half of my employees last year because of what our great government is doing to small business. And yes you will find that I killed a pit bull a few years ago and was found guilty for it. The jury fined me one dollar because the judge told them I could not use self defense. This dog and two other dogs that were owned by the same person were threatening my family. I would not stand by and wait for my 5 year old son to be attacked by these dogs. I called for help but the dog warden was a drinking buddy of the dogs owner. Do your best to smear me, but my family and my friends know who I am. You guys really amaze me that you can attack me, someone who is repentent and works for free to help his fellow man. While Obama has how many convicted felons in the White House who are not repentent and they are fleecing the poor people of this Country. Good job guys, need I say more of your intelect?

  3. I’m not sure of how many “convicted” felons Mr. Obama has working for him, however, he certainly has a few that but by sheer luck haven’t been. Don’t get me started on SEIU or ACORN, as I believe Mr. Spiess and myself could go on and on in agreement about that bunch of criminals.

    As far as what rights Mr. Spiess or any other convicted felon should have restored, I will leave that to the courts. Whether or not a convicted criminal has made penance to society is up to the individual. Just because someone has “done the time” as Mr. Garber states above, doesn’t necessarily make them an automatic model citizen. This, however, was not the original question at hand. The original argument Mr. Watson, several others, and myself had with Mr. Spiess was at its core the question of why someone who may or may not have voting rights himself, was the figurehead of our local Crabill… I mean tea party organization. I have no negative feelings about the tea party movement as a whole, but I have always felt that our local bastion of conservatism was hijacked by Mr. Spiess and others as a campaign vehicle for Ms. Crabill. It was never intended to be a campaign movement, but a movement available to EVERYONE, to raise awareness of the ills of big government, taxation without representation, socialistic agendas and the like.

    The dialog between myself and Mr. Spiess shed quite a bit of light on how he was patently unwilling or unable to be civil in his discussions of the issues. Beyond that, he was just plain mean–for lack of a better way of explaining it–in his discourse. Name calling and unsubstantiated political positions were and seem to still be his modus operandi. Is this a personal attack? No. It is merely an observation based on the information I have.

    Interestingly, when his past is brought up he only makes note of the dog case involved in one of his convictions. He never brings up the malicious wounding conviction. Perhaps he feels that this instead would be taken less lightly by those of us not in PETA. Perhaps this second conviction was over a misdeed that was drug or alcohol-fueled, but it did indeed occur and it is indeed in the public record.

    As a Christian myself, I wholeheartedly forgive Mr. Spiess for his transgressions. I am proud of his lengthy sobriety, as I believe alcohol and drug addictions are never truly cured (read as empathy, not disdain). I also harbor no hard feelings as to his comments or our disagreements, however I do feel that we should all be willing to acknowledge and account for our past, present, or future mistakes. He seems only willing to do so when confronted with them. We should also realize that if we plan to be the lead player in a political organization, that these same mistakes might make us more of a liability than an asset to said organization. Perhaps the interest of the organization would be betters served with us in the background. My two cents….

  4. Charles,

    To be fair to Mr. Spiess, while he was originally charged with malicious wounding (a Class 3 felony), he was convicted of the lesser-included felony offense of unlawful wounding, a Class 6 felony, by the Lancaster County Circuit Court on July 22, 1994 (Offense Date: October 16, 1993). According to information provided to me, the victim in that case was Mr. Spiess’ father-in-law at the time.

    Regarding Mr. Spiess’ dog incident, he was convicted of maliciously administering poison to an animal, a misdemeanor, by a jury of the Lancaster County Circuit Court on September 22, 2000 (Offense Date: February 7, 1999, well after Mr. Spiess stopped “inhal[ing] with the drugs”). While Mr. Spiess accurately notes that the jury fined him $1.00 as his punishment, the reason “the judge told [the jury that Spiess] could not use self defense” is likely because the allegation in the case was that Spiess used strychnine to poison two dogs belonging to his neighbor, resulting in the death of one. Kind of different from shooting a pitbull as it lunges after your small child (though, as a convicted felony, if he had done that he would have been facing a mandatory five years in the penitentiary for possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a violent felony). Doesn’t diminish the cowardliness of the act, though.

    As those on my e-mail list will recall, it’s similar to the distinction I made between inadvertantly writing a bad check because one has transposed numbers in his checkbook versus intentionally writing a check (for the filing fee for the 99th District Republican nomination, for example) knowing that one lacks sufficient money in one’s account to cover it, but relying upon one’s “overdraft protection” to cover it. That’s fundamentally dishonest.

    Context is important.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *