April 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Curb market committee questions | Main | Doughboys »

Mar 01, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Joe Killian

Much fuller stuff coming from Inside Scoop today.

Had 15 inches for today's story.

A. C.

"a videotape of Riddleberger having sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 25"

My ability to forgive people for their past transgressions has a very high threshold, but not that high. Very, very unfortunate that people like that are allowed to have children.


how old were they when they met, jodi and barret?

Steve Harrison

So I'm guessing the "producing child pornography" charge was dropped?


Mr. Riddleberger's past is not an argument against his ideas (and even less so against Jeff Hyde's).

So putrid is this affair that this late and hesitant foray into the stink will be my one and only.


It speaks volumes when Roch's comments make Ed look scummy.

Joe Killian

There is now more here:


In response to a question in this thread...

I did ask Jodi and Barrett Riddleberger about when they met. She is NOT -- I repeat NOT -- the young woman in question from the court case.

They met after this incident and were married when Jodi was 19. Although this -- even their dating -- was technically a violation of the parole he was on for five years after the conviction (there was a provision saying he could not have even friendships with women two whom he was not related who were under 21). He was never brought up on any violations of parole, or there are no records of a violation.

Jodi said she was aware of the conviction a week after their first date. Barrett Riddleberger said he couldn't speak to whether his beginning to date someone was under 21 was a violation of his parole -- he couldn't remember -- but that he'd never been brought up on a violation.

They mat at the Lawndale Baptist Church, which they still attend.

Account Deleted

Good god, that is rich. For every con that has gone to jail for failing a drug test while on probation, Barrett Riddleberger owes. Big time.

Joe Killian

That should say "to whom" -- sorry. Cell phone fingers.


So where's the story on how a local blogger started all this last year with a lie, accusing Nancy Vaughan of doing something that she didn't happen.

That's not deemed worthy of coverage at this blog, and apparently not worthy of coverage to Killian and John Robinson. I think we all understand perfectly why that's the case.


I also note comments are not enabled at the Inside Scoop article.

Why is that the case, Killian?

Joe Killian

The thing about Jeff Martin's blog post is in my post at the Inside Scoop. I even called and talked with Martin to clarify.

Comments are usually not enabled on certain types of N&R stories or blog posts -- sexual crimes and sexual crimes involving minors usually fit into that category.

Fred Gregory


Why do you continue to allow certain comenters to repeatedly question Riddleberger's right to father and raise children; and call what he was convicted of pedophilia ?

I guess next Killian will track down the 15 year old female ( now 35 ) and keep the slime going and " report " how the trauma of this encounter has impacted her life. Who knows, his work ( and that of his ace source Stench ) may gain the atention of the HR Dept. at the National Enquirer or the Globe .

Like Roch Smith I was hesitant to comment on this smarmy effort to destroy a family.

I too hope it will also be my last.

You, yes you, you know who you are. Your bitter walllowing in scahdenfreude , whining over the fact that Riddleberger didn't get violated over a hyper- tecnical violation is, well, not right in a variety of ways. You know what I mean.

Joe Killian


I could have reported on this many months ago.

I didn't when it wasn't news. Now it is. I've tried to write it in a way that's fair and have talked to all the principles -- the Riddlebergers included -- and allowed them to have their say in this.

I haven't -- and have no plans to -- talk to the victim.

Account Deleted

Fred: We obviously don't share the same vision of justice or morality. When I served as a magistrate I put young black males in jail on a daily basis for failing a drug test while on probation. Most of those where for marijuana, stemming from a marijuana or other petty drug dealing conviction.

I'd have to say a rich boy stringing his sexual abuse of a minor case out for almost two years to get a reduced charge, no jail time and then escaping the same minor probation violations that land hundreds of guys in jail every day in this state is an affront to justice, decency and morality.

I guess if your are rich, smoking hot and love God then you can get away with whatever you want in white America.

One thing you can't get away with is claiming the moral high ground with this type of perverted skeleton dancing in your closet. Especially when law and order and morality Republicans and conservatives have spent years railing about the failed probation and parole system in this state.

Like I said, rich, real rich.


The suggestion that sex crime conviction was somehow a secret that could be "outed" seems odd to me when a simple google search of the guys name turned up a record of it. In fact, it seems the fact of the sex crime was pretty widely known for a long time. What's interesting to me is that democrats (the usual targets of this guy's attacks) didn't ballyhoo the conviction. It was fellow republicans who (allegedly) did it in a fit of cannibalism.

So anyway, now that its the topic of discussion, will we hear these folks arguing that former sex offenders and other criminals who claim they've found God should be treated like everyone else? Should we strike those offenders off the sex crimes registry?

I would normally agree with Roch101's comment. But it's hard to credit condescendingly righteous rhetoric of "family" and Christian values from a guy who made a sex film with a 15 year old.


- They met after this incident and were married when Jodi was 19. -

how old when did they meet

Heavy Early

I don't expect many people on this blog to understand this, but believing in God is not a one-shot, lightening bolt kind of thing. It's a work in progress. Being a Christian does not mean you are better than anyone else, or that you somehow have a get-out-of-jail-free card that allows you to commit sin with impunity, knowing that all will be forgiven.

There is such a thing as confession, reconcilliation, penance and yes, avoiding the occasion of sin.

Christ did say, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." He also told the woman being stoned, after forgiving her of her sin, "go and sin no more." That's the part of the bargain Christians are commanded to uphold. And that's the tough part.

As far as I am concerned, what Barrett Riddleberger did is between him and God. His faith compells him to be open and up front, even confrontational with his Christianity. I happen to believe that one's faith is more of a personal thing. But I am with Barrett all the way with his belief in Christ and his need for forgiveness. Because I've needed it, too.

A.C obviously has some issues with people of faith. Even though he comes across as a miserable, ignorant, misbegotten creep, he is still in need of prayer. So I'm praying for you, A.C whether you like it or not.

Account Deleted

@Heavy Early: "Even though he comes across as a miserable, ignorant, misbegotten creep, he is still in need of prayer. So I'm praying for you, A.C whether you like it or not."

Perfect example of the type of Xtianity that makes me want to vomit. You dare to quote scripture about Christ and then end with a sentence like that?

Two things come to mind:

1. Christ also said that whatever measure you use to judge, you will also be judge by. So people who get up and spout off about "libruls" and "them" and compare a belief in progressive politics to a mental illness will get no quarter.

2. Somewhere Solomon wrote that God will not hear the prayers of the unrighteous and I am pretty sure the Lord said to get the beam out of your own eye before you talk about the speck in another's eye. How dare you spout off about praying for someone seconds after you spew hate in their direction.


>>You dare to quote scripture about Christ and then end with a sentence like that?

And THIS is why (imo) Ed is furthering this discussion. Hypocrisy in the name of GOD ALMIGHTY, it's not just for breakfast anymore Anita Bryant. F@cking gorgeous trainwreck, this. Just...wow.


"The thing about Jeff Martin's blog post is in my post at the Inside Scoop."

I'm talking about this post:

"Priceless. I got the info and used it to burn a councilwoman, a rabid bunch of Christofascist upstarts and the person who brought it to me. I never divulged the subject, content or source of the info."

This is not the first time Martin has pulled a stunt like this

Martin lied, slimed Nancy Vaughan, admitted it, and the lie led to the Riddleberger statement. Yet somehow, you (and Cone and others) don't think that's worthy enough to report.



"A.C obviously has some issues with people of faith."

He's not the only one, as evidenced above, and evidenced by Martin in the blog comment I just provided.

Joe Killian

According to the Riddlebergers and Hyde fellow Republicans, not a blogger who was saying he believed this was coming from Nancy Vaughan, caused their statements.

Hyde says he believed Vaughan spread it around last year because of the blog post, but he didn't make any public statements about it.

Jodi Riddleberger made the first public statements that led to Ed's original post on the matter here. In that statement, and later in an interview, she said it was establishment Republicans who had come to the group to try to force Hyde out of the race with the info. She didn't say then or later to me that she was inspired to make that statement by Jeff's post.

Should I report that Jeff is gleefully taking credit for events that the principles in the story don't say he caused but only flavored in that they believed the conviction made the rounds much earlier than when it came to a head recently because of an event that blogger cryptically described and attributed (or attributed without evidence -- there doesn't appear to be an actual lie so much as cryptic intentional misdirection) to Vaughan?

Steve Harrison

Bubba, if a politically active Democrat had the same criminal baggage as Riddleberger, and Ed's alleged conspiracy of Liberal commenters kept harping about how the more important issue was what some blogger said, you'd probably say something like:

"Typical behavior from the moral relativists here, trying to deflect attention away from one of their own, blah blah blah."

Seriously. It might be enlightening if we found out what you thought about that whole indecent liberties thing. We already know how you feel about blogger utterances and such.


Fish and barrels.


Who was the first blogger who mentioned the criminal incident and the perpetrator by name?

Was it not Dr. Guarino?

Fred Gregory

( Note: I said I wasn't coming back here but I can't let dissembling go unchallenged )


I was also a magistrate. I married people, issued search warrants, set bond for persons arrested, issued arrest warrants based upon probable cause among other things. But I did not have the authority to violate someone's probation and neither did you. You are, AGAIN, being slick and cute with the way you word things.

You also exaggerate in order to give the impression that a technical violation of probation without a new criminal charge , should lead to incarceration. Wrong ! 1.


A probation officer in order to violate someone would have to go through all sort of hoops including going before a District Court judge and present his evidence, and only first if the PO made his own judgement that what the probationer had done justified this last resort.

Let it rest Inspector Javert !

Account Deleted

Fred: I said that I put them in jail. Which I did daily on an order for arrest for probation violation with mandatory bonds set by a judge. I never stated that I determined a violation of probation or parole.

As a witness and a defendant in court I have sat and watched young men taken away for a piss test and then sent to the jail for failing the test.

As a reporter I have also sat for hours in both district and superior court in two different states and watched the parade of probation violations for things as minor as not paying the monthly fee, missing an appointment, failing a drug test, leaving the county, the list goes on and on.

But Barrett Riddleberger had money I'll bet and never served an hour in jail, let alone prison where he rightly belonged for filming himself having sex with a 15-year old girl. I wonder if Joe Killian can tell us what the original charges where? I wonder if the affidavits for search warrants detail the specifics of Riddleberger's crimes and are still available at the courthouse?

I wonder if next time I hear a conservative talk about the broken probation system in North Carolina if they will use Riddleberger's willful scorn toward the terms of his probation as an example?

I doubt it because he looks so nice in that suit and you know he loves Jesus.

Heavy Early

Jeff, how do you know how much money Riddleberger did or did not have? Your bias is showing with every successive post.


"According to the Riddlebergers and Hyde fellow Republicans, not a blogger who was saying he believed this was coming from Nancy Vaughan, caused their statements."

I don't recall reading that anywhere. Can you document that from your notes?

Or should I wait until I can get that information directly from the Riddlebergers?

Here's what you DID say:

"Hyde and Riddleberger said their impression that Vaughan was involved came from this post by local blogger Jeff Martin from last year, during Hyde's unsuccessful State Senate Campaign against Vaughan's husband Don Vaughan, a Democrat."

Given what we know, you can't just blow that line off, as if it makes no difference in Martin's part of this thing.

"....there doesn't appear to be an actual lie so much as cryptic intentional misdirection to Vaughan?"

Martin's historical record suggests otherwise.

Maritn has a documented history of so-called "cryptic intentional misdirection" which has damaged people. You know it, and Cone knows it. More importantly, his victims know it. And Nancy Vaughan is not the first city council member to have experienced unpleasant interactions with Martin.

"It might be enlightening if we found out what you thought about that whole indecent liberties thing."

Irrelevant. Martin's intent and actions precipitated this whole thing. Martin said it, and Hyde and the Riddlebergers believed it.

I think it's time to ask Nancy Vaughan about what Martin did to her, and to see if she intends to do do something about it.

Billy The Blogging Poet

Wow, Fec goes fishing for Crappy and catches a Sperm Whale! How cool is that?


"Fish and barrels"

You're the fish......and always have been.

Joe Killian

From my Inside Scoop blog post:

According to Hyde and Riddleberger's wife Jodi, the co-founders of C4GC, group members knew the story was on the edge of surfacing publicly for a few months. Then, though they declined to give names or details, they say some fellow Republicans came to them as Hyde announced his candidacy and implied that the whole story would blow up at an inconvenient time if he didn't get out of the race.

"I was told this information by dear friends who had a meeting with a couple of people and they were blind-sided with this information," Riddleberger said in an interview over the weekend. "We're talking Republicans — not only Republicans but political establishment folks."

Also from that post, but quoted from Hyde's comments on the C4GC Facebook:

"The Vaughan camp is not responsible for this recent release, however, they did spread it around the first time. It is Ruling Class Republicans, elitists, paranoid party people that have gotten their hands on this info and now, somehow, hope to use it to discredit a Constitutional, Conservative movement."

Clearly both the Riddlebergers and Hyde through Vaughan was involved in digging it up last year -- though I can't say what they think now.

But they're all on record now saying fellow Republicans are trying to use the information against Hyde -- and I can't say who they are or how they got that info or who they are, since the Riddlebergers and Hyde couldn't or didn't want to say themselves.

Jodi Riddleberger claims a meeting of four Republicans took place at which the pressure was applied and she heard about it from friends.

Hyde said Republican friends brought it to him and speculated it would be used against him by "establishment Republicans," which he said he believed would happen.

All the other salacious stuff aside it is really a fascinating story of political maneuvering within a single party. That happens in both parties sometimes -- but right now's an interesting moment because of this conservative activist vs. "establishment Republican" thing the party's facing right now, as evidenced here.

But real people's lives are also being impacted as a result.


I think it's time to ask Nancy Vaughan about what Martin did to her, and to see if she intends to do do something about it. - Bubber.

She did do something about it; she contacted me on Facebook and asked if I'd help her start a blog.


"But real people's lives are also being impacted as a result."

Really sad, isn't it Joe? I mean, who would want to be a party to that, huh?
I can just see you shaking your head in your distaste at the whole sorry spectacle.

Joe Killian

Distasteful is sometimes part of the job.

I can't make things like this not happen. But I can report what's happened in as accurate and respectful a way as possible and allow the principles in the story to speak to the events of the day.


"She did do something about it; she contacted me on Facebook and asked if I'd help her start a blog."


So what did you do?


"We know what you meant, Ed."

Like Martin, he has a history.


Bubba, who are you carrying water for? Is it the republican establishment or the soon-to-be new GOP head honcho?

Whoever it is, just please stop embarassing yourself.


I told her Voldemort wouldn't allow it.


"Whoever it is, just please stop embarassing yourself."

Who the frack are you?

Light Late

Heavy Early: You vastly overestimate the thought other people put into your religious beliefs. They are not hostile, they just don't care. At least until you say that what a convicted sex felon did is between him and his God. Then they say, yeah, fine, it's also between him and the law. And if he wants to get up and lecture us about right and wrong, then they say, consider the source. Religion is not a free pass.

Heavy Early

Light, isn't that what I said? Religion is not a free pass; nothing in my previous entry stated that it was. "It's also between him and the law." That's true; but that ship has sailed. Mr. Riddleberger was given a suspended sentence and probation; he served it and that's that.

I regret saying what I did about A.C. Mea culpa. I guess I was still smarting from him calling me a "Jesus freak," and suggesting that I "love pedophiles." It was a stupid thing for me to say about him and I take it back and apologize.

But Light, I disagree when you say other people are not hostile to my relgious beliefs. People on this blog have called belief in God a "fairy tale." "Jesus freak" is hardly a term of endearment. We're not staging "Godspell" here; it's not 1972 (or whenever that play came out). I believe there remains a hard core group of people, most of whom reside on the left, who hold people of faith in contempt. The intolerance and yes, bigotry they display against Christians and people of faith is amazing. It is in direct contradiction to their impression of themselves as fair-minded, tolerant people.

Having said that, it is absolutely true that Christians are their own worst enemies. The examples of Christians who espouse a "do as I say not as I do" are too numerous to list here. Adding Mr. Riddleberger to that list is valid. I agree; what he did as a 25 year old is reprehensible.

But...I do believe a person can change. And I do believe seeking forgiveness from God and trying to live a life in the Word can be a life-changing experience. But like I said, it's not a one-shot deal. Plenty of Christians screw up. Look no further than me for another fine example of that.

I'm guilty of judging too fast and too harshly. I try to do better. My hope is folks on this board who believe Christians are fools and dolts will do the same.

tk solomon

so what have we leanred

1) the godless go into politics then archive their conquests

2) the godly make the tape then go into politics

i disrespectfully withhold affiliation with either cult until i have reviewed the evidence of both cases

Ed Cone

Heavy, I appreciate your comments, and also your patience and willingness to reflect on your own words as you carry on in a medium that is not always conducive to thoughtful back-and-forth. I also believe people can grow and change, and I know that religion can play a positive role in that process, and other ways.

But so what if someone called your beliefs a fairy tale? You don't believe the things they believe, and vice versa, and you have no problem expressing your own views.

AC's remarks were rude, but you seem to be arguing some sort of special privilege for religious belief, perhaps especially your own brand of religious belief.

Why is it OK to tell someone they're going to hell for their beliefs, or that their understanding of cosmology is wrong, but not OK for someone to say your beliefs strike them as incredible?

The comments to this entry are closed.