Adam Hill admits to impersonating opponent

January 19, 2012

Adam Hill

By KAREN VELIE

San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Adam Hill admitted Wednesday he impersonated his political opponent, and now says it was just a joke.

On Jan. 6, the San Luis Obispo Tribune printed a letter to the editor from Sheila Blake, asking readers to help her convince LAFCO to vote against annexing the proposed Los Robles Del Mar development into the city of Pismo Beach. The issue has divided many in the South County beach community.

On the same morning, Hill left the following message on Blake’s answering machine, calling her names and claiming to be Ed Waage, Hill’s opponent in the District 3 supervisor race.

“Hi Mrs. Blake, I read your letter in the Tribune, are you a communist, or a socialist, or both or maybe a Marxist, this is Ed Waage. Just wanted to let you know what I thought,” the message says.

Listen: Download Mp3

After listening to the message which she claims she did not think sounded like either candidate, she called Waage to tell him about the impersonation. Blake then allowed Waage to make an audio copy of the call, which he provided to CalCoastNews.

“I am disappointed that Adam Hill would make a phone call and pretend the phone call was from me,” Waage said.

On Monday, Hill received the following questions from a reporter and subsequently refused to answer questions about the phone message after being provided a transcript of the Blake call.

“I have a voice message that was left on an answering machine of a Pismo Beach resident who had an opinion letter in the Tribune,” a CalCoastNews reporter wrote in an email to Hill. “And while the call says it is from Ed Waage, several people contend it is you. How do you respond to allegations you made the phone call?”

Hill responded in an email on Monday saying the questions were “malicious, gotcha stuff,” and that he hoped the reporter was “confident that the constant campaign of defamation” against him “could not be proven to show actual malice.”

On Wednesday evening, Blake says Hill, a good friend, called to explain that he had made the call as an “innocent joke.”

“I acted so swiftly to call Ed (Waage), Adam (Hill) never got a chance to call back and tease me about the call,” Blake said even though it had been nine days since she had provided the tape to Waage.

Hill said Wednesday he did not remember making the call when asked about it on Monday.

“I did not even know what the heck you were asking about when you emailed me the night before you ran your story,” Hill wrote in an email on Wednesday.

The Save Price Canyon website has quoted Hill as telling its group that he is against the two large proposed developments that are winding their way through the system. In an interesting twist, planners involved in one of the proposed developments also contend Hill has said he is supporting their project.

When asked in four separate emails if he supports the Save Price Canyon group or those attempting to develop the property, Hill refused to answer, instead asking, “Why the hate?”


Loading...
165 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

He has never stoke me as the joking type


Please also allow me to add that I don’t find it funny coming from him.

Earlier resent him I now feel sorry for him.


This wasn’t a prank. I don’t buy that for a second. Hill had nine days in which to deal with this and he was very specifically contacted BEFORE yesterday’s story where he had the chance to deal with it maturely and failed:


>>Hill said Wednesday he did not remember making the call when asked about it on Monday


>>“I did not even know what the heck you were asking about when you emailed me the night before you ran your story,” Hill wrote in an email on Wednesday.


He forgot. Yeah right. Hill tripped and fell off the ship alright… but he missed the lifeboat. He’s drowning in his own devious fabrications.


SLORider, ITA. Putting it in a timeline really shows what a bizarre story it is. And you are correct, the last thing about not knowing he’d called, is strange. Then the “why the hate” answer to a simple question does, as someone said, makes him sound like a 13-year-old talking about “haters.”


We’ve all heard about the logical fallacy of “attacking the messenger.” Well, for Hill, it appears to be his mantra.


I’m not a lawyer. The following is provided just for the sake of discussion..


There is a California regulation regulating “false personation (529-PC)


For information and examples, visit:


http://www.shouselaw.com/false-impersonation.html#1.1


I believe the “additional act” requirement could be satisfied by at least 3 different reasons.


BTW, in the SLO Superior Court, bail is set at $10,000.


—————-


PC653M(A) M 1 ANNOYING TELEPHONE CALL; OBSCENE OR THREATENING 2,000.00 NAP C Y


M 538g Fraudulent Impersonation of Public Officer or Employee 2,500 + Ct.


I don’t believe any of those apply. Read the actual text of the penal code and you will note there are very specific requirements for each. This is a matter for the electorate to deal with plainly ridiculous behavior of an elected and paid official.


He is more guilty of a crime that disrupts and harms our county than those 15 arrested over a year ago by the NTF for distributing medical cannabis…who by the way all cases have been dismissed after hundreds of thousands of taxpayers dollars have been wasted! Prosecute this poor excuse for a human being. I doubt seriously he can run again, I think he should at least spend 6 months in jail and think about his lame way of governing in our county……this guy was the main man on the county supervisors board….shame on you Adam! Burn baby Burn!


Making that kind of phone call and giving your opponent’s name as the caller is false personification. It fits every definition I read.


There are some different types that apply to only police, for instance. However, there are also other regulations that are of a broader category.


All there has to be is the additional action, and I can think of three of them.


A Stupid Is As A Stupid Says!


As a district 3 voter you have lost my re-election vote!


It’s only “Goodbye, Mr. Hill” if the Disrict 3 voters choose to replace him.


As much as most of the posters on this site agree that he continues to act as a petulant jerk, my sense is that there are many in that district that still support him. As unbelievable as that sounds.


We all get the kind of government that we deserve.


I know his friends as well and they would lie cheat and steal for him, as well as ruin someone’s life while doing so! He won’t run again though….not after this! He needs to spend some time in solitude thinking about his evil ways. 6 months should do it!


You don’t wait a week and a half to say “April Fools!” after pulling a prank on a friend.


AHA ! When one goes to the LTE in the Tribune by Sheila Blake, one gets the context. Ms. Blake is an opponent of the Price Canyon expansions, AND she had published her phone number and encouraged others to call her; thus inviting this type of activity.


Understanding this, the comment was so ‘over the top’, that it now can be seen as being done in jest…but it went awry.

Intended to be an ‘inside’ satire, but it went further than Hill anticipated.

It stands to reason that Hill might best avoid this type of attempt at humor.


She invited this kind of activity? You must be one of those type that says a woman that dresses provacitively invites rape! So what if she posted her phone number. I am on the opposite side of the debate on Price from her but WOULD NEVER have called joke or other wise. It is her opinion in which she is entitled. You let these things get settle in board meetings by a majority of who does or doesn’t want this. Not by harrassment.


Astounding ! Worst strawman argument ever.

Hill was not attacking Blake ( I think she knows that now ) . It was absurd, meant to be a private joke between two parties, and not serious at all.

It’s just a typical ‘tempest in a teapot’.


BUT, this is why I say that those that are not good at satire should refrain from it.

Same advice goes for those without a sense of humor.


Actually my thought is a lot of people (myself one) loves a good joke. But one with a BRAIN knows when to and when not to kid about things. Hmm maybe this was one of those times.


Oh, I agree !


People who live in glass houses shouldn’t walk around naked !


Or stoned.


Or BOTH !


I agree. I have neighbors that are better left clothed.


Hey, I resemble that remark!


I don’t buy that “joke” BS. In the first place, Blake didn’t even recognize his voice. Come on. Hill wrote her because of her letter to the editor. He didn’t like it, and he let her know it.


Unfortunately, being the weiner that he is, he didn’t want to take responsibility for it. So he blamed it on Waage.


And attacking the reporter for asking one question–blaming all of his problems on this “constant campaign of defamation.” Really? Those who criticize him for the huge conflict of interest in his screwing the COLAB leader at the same time he sits on the board that funds COLAB–it’s OUR fault that he can’t either recuse himself from voting or keep it in his pants.


SLO politics is getting like one LOOONG Steven King book, and I don’t mean that in a good way, either.


COLAB….you mean Dee Torres?? She is the CAPSLO director. A great organization that assists our growing homeless population.

Also apparently, A. Hill’s current love interest. Doesn’t say much for her choice in men.


And, of course, the Board of Sups does not fund COLAB. But with the right change next November they might consider it. And, yes, I’m just kidding.


I don’t know if Dee Torres is involved with Adam Hill or not. But please at least get verifiable facts correct. Ms. Torres is not the CAPSLO Director. She is the head of their Homeless Services division.


CAPSLO does a lot more than just Homeless Services. (Head Start programs are the largest.) Even at that, I don’t see how her work has anything to do with her choice of men — assuming you are correct.


You’re correct re: Ms. Torres CAPSLO position, thank you.


My point was to differentiate CAPSLO from COLAB.


Thanks for the correction! I got confused there with the acronyms–never my strong suit.


Why would you believe someone that lied about who he was? You’re far too kind to Mr. Hill. It’s a “joke” because he got caught.


Are you kidding me? You should spend some time in solitude with mr. hill! You have to be one of his neighbors…..crooked and ignorent!


But Blake says Hill is a “good friend.” A good friend would have her phone number.


The CCN article states Hill is against the Price Canyon expansion.


Hill is a paranoid, nasty piece of work, blaming everyone else for the messes he creates. This time he got Blake to take the fall for him.


And to “slobody” who posted on Monday’s story, now you know Karen is AGAIN correct (of course Adam, oops, I mean “slobody”) you knew that. This man is either imbalanced or has a substance issue. Let’s help him by not reelecting this sick person! What elected official does this type of stuff?


Adam Hill to call CalCoastNews racist in 3…2…1….