Olsen Loves Jury Trials, Unless He’s on Trial
In case you missed it earlier today, the petition for a Writ of Quo Warranto by David Johnston, challenging Eric Olsen’s residency, was dismissed on procedural grounds by Judge Ferris. It wasn’t dismissed because it lacked merit, as some sources wrongly reported. It’s a BIG distinction!
Olsen’s legal residency was not decided in today’s hearing. The judge did not make a finding that Olsen was a legal resident of Stafford. You can read more about today’s hearing here.
In this post, I want to address the hypocrisy that is Eric “Law & Order” Olsen. At today’s hearing, Judge Ferris advised Olsen that he had a right to a jury trial if he so wished. Olsen said that he didn’t want a jury trial and that he was fine with a bench trial, before launching into a challenge of the whole hearing on procedural grounds.
This is the same guy that had the following to say, when he announced his run for Stafford County Commonwealth’s Attorney:
I’ve tried many jury trials ladies and gentlemen. I can tell you that there is no better arbiters of justice then twelve citizens chosen at random, asked to come into court and take a day off and decide the facts of the case and administer justice. I believe in the jury system.
What a hypocrite! This is just another example of how duplicitous Olsen can be.
The topic of jury trials is somewhat complicated for the average person, but it’s an important one to understand. The Commonwealth of Virginia is part of a minority of States that allow the Government to force a jury trial. If the Defendant wants a jury trial then under the Constitution he/she can have one, but the Defendant also has the right to waive that right. If a Defendant waives their right to a jury trial, the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office does not need to insist on a jury. Why you ask?
First and foremost, jury trials are slow and expensive. Every other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth understands that fact. So they have jury trials about 15 percent of the time while Stafford has them about 95 percent of the time.
As the Free Lance-Star previously reported:
Olsen and Chichester have relied heavily on jury trials throughout their careers. In fact, Stafford was second only to the massive Fairfax County in the number of juries convened in 2010. Stafford had 79, according to figures compiled by the state Supreme Court.
Spotsylvania County, with a population similar to Stafford’s, had 13 jury trials last year.
This is a point of pride for Olsen, who prefers to let county residents determine the outcome of trials.
Yeah, Olsen takes pride in jury trials as long as they don’t involve him. Something is seriously wrong with this picture. Fairfax County is massive and Stafford has the second most jury trials to them?!
Jury trials are typically very slow and it could take an entire day to try a jury case. In Fredericksburg, where bench trials are the rule, Judge Willis can knock out six trials to Stafford’s one. Plain and simple, jury trials just clog up the entire system. As Independent Stafford County Commonwealth’s Attorney candidate Tim Barbrow puts it,
In addition to the cost of a jury trial to the taxpayer, the policy of requesting a jury trial in nearly every criminal case puts a strain on the entire judicial system. The Circuit Courts also hear a wide variety of civil cases including divorce, child support, custody, adoption, lawsuits between private parties, condemnation, and personal injury and medical malpractice. By tying up the Court’s docket with unnecessary requests for jury trials in the majority of criminal cases, most of which never go to trial, the citizens of Stafford County often have to wait months if not years to have their civil cases heard.
Jury trials are incredibly expensive. Each jury costs the taxpayers of Stafford County about $2,300. That doesn’t sound like much for one trial, but Olsen and Chichester ask for a jury trial in nearly every case. The Clerk of the Court spent ¾ of a million dollars on jury trials last year. That is money coming directly from the taxpayers of Stafford County.
Olsen likes to say that the money is from Richmond and not Stafford, but he is flat wrong. Go ask the Clerk of the Court!
I’ve said it time-and-time again, we need to start making smarter fiscal decisions in the county; otherwise, we will continue to divert funds away from education, transportation and public safety (e.g. see the wasteful public radio communication system). If a Defendant doesn’t want a jury trial, don’t force one on taxpayers!
This is another example of Olsen saying one thing and doing another. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
On November 8, let’s vote for a new direction by casting a vote for Tim Barbrow!
Did Timothy McLaughlin Break the Law?
LeavingMyMarc.com has attained “publicly available
information” that raises some pretty serious issues about Timothy “Tim” McLaughlin’s, candidate for Spotsylvania Supervisor in the Chancellor District, actions leading up to his run for Board of Supervisors.
Based on publicly available information, we have discovered some pretty concerning information regarding McLaughlin’s residency.
In the Free Lance-Star’s recently published Voter’s Guide, Tim McLaughlin claims to have lived in Spotsylvania County for 9 years and lists himself as a retired Marine Corps officer. Based on information we’ve gathered, McLaughlin retired from the United States Marine Corp in 2009. So based on this timeline, McLaughlin was in the service between 2002 and 2009 while living in Spotsylvania County. During this time he claimed 1003 NW 167th Avenue, Pembroke Pines, FL 33028 as his “legal residence.”
So you ask, what’s the problem here? The problem is that McLaughlin sold his home on April 29, 2005 (recorded on 5/9/05); however, between 2005 and 2009, he continued to claim his Florida address as his “legal residence.”
[This act] allows military members to pay taxes, register vehicles and vote, etc., in their “state of legal residence,” rather than the state they are stationed in. This can sometimes result in a tax advantage because several states exempt military pay from state taxes.
Does that mean a military member can change their “legal residence” anytime they want, and therefore avoid paying state taxes? Not quite. Under the law, “legal residence” is the place that the military member intends to live after they separate or retire from the military. It’s the place that they consider their “permanent home.”
[…]
The easiest proof is “physical presence in the state.” If you are currently stationed in a state, and wish to make it your permanent home, it’s generally pretty easy. If you are not currently stationed in the state you wish to make your permanent home and have never been stationed there, it become [sic] much harder. Generally, you need a specific address, not just the state in general. You can show your intentions to become a legal resident by registering to vote in the new state, by titling and registering your car in the new state (notifying your old state of the change), by getting a driver’s license in the new state, or by preparing a new last will and testament (indicating your new state as your legal residence). Buying real property in the new state will also reinforce your claim.
Unless you can show clear intentions, the military will probably not allow you to change your “legal residence.”
So, if McLaughlin bought a home in Spotsylvania County, which he has, and sold his Florida residence in 2005, he clearly did not intend to live in Florida after he separated (and did not have a physical presence any longer in the state). He clearly intended to live in Spotsylvania County, which is also why he established a business there. What it does appear that he intended to do is to avoid paying Virginia State Income taxes! After all, Florida doesn’t have a state income tax.
Making matters worse, he continued to vote in Florida using the address of the residence he sold in 2005. According to public records, he voted absentee in Florida in 2006, 2007 and 2008 using the residence that he sold in 2005 as his “legal residence.” So not only has he avoided paying Virginia State Income taxes, but has he also committed voter fraud?
I’d love to stop right there, but it gets even worse. According to Broward County records, his vehicle remained registered at the Florida home he sold in 2005. He re-registered it in 2006 and 2008 using that same address. According to Florida, in order from him to have registered his vehicle there, he would have had to provide his “Florida address of residence.” He did that by providing an address of a home that he sold in 2005. It’s clear why he didn’t want to re-register his vehicle in Spotsylvania County. He didn’t want to pay the car tax?!
He should have registered his car within 60 days of moving here, after he sold his home in Florida in 2005.
So there you have it. While all the hard working folks in Spotsylvania County were paying their taxes, McLaughlin was doing everything he could do to avoid paying them. Sounds illegal to us?! He also continued to vote where he clearly no longer resided. Voter fraud?
McLaughlin would have you believe that he has been living here for nine years, all the while he has done everything he can to claim “legal residency” in another state where he sold his home over six years ago.
And, yet another example of a local candidate who believes that he is above the law (see Eric Olsen). Integrity matters. Our local elected officials need to be held to the same standard that all of us would be held to – and maybe even higher.
Frankly, I don’t understand why anyone would support this guy in the first place. The Chancellor District already has one of the best Supervisors in the entire region in Hap Connors. You don’t have to take my word for it. Many Democrats and Republicans have endorsed Hap because he gets things done and knows how to work effectively across party lines. Constituents in the Chancellor District would be well served in returning him to office on November 8.
PWC Judge Denies Writ of Quo Warranto in Olsen Case on Procedural Grounds, Merits Not Heard
This afternoon Eric “Law & Order” Olsen was in court to answer questions on whether he was a resident of Stafford County and, thus, eligible to run for Stafford County Commonwealth’s attorney.
Prince William County Judge Lon Edward Ferris, Stafford County judges had recused themselves, indicated that he was prepared to immediately move forward and hear the case. He advised Olsen that he had a right to a jury trial. Olsen said he was prepared to move forward, without a jury trial, and have the case heard by the judge but had some procedural concerns (we’ll get to this in a minute). That was one of the more comical parts of the entire hearing. We’ve heard Olsen time-and-time again suggest that jury trials are the only fair way to go. What a hypocrite. We’ll have more to say on jury trials in a separate post.
Of note, David Johnston’s attorney, John L. Bauserman, Jr., presented the court with new allegations. As we mentioned previously, Olsen switched his voter registration in September of this year to 133 Onville Road. Bauserman said that he had been presented evidence by a private investigator that Olsen’s supposed neighbor, at that address, had never seen anyone come or go from that property. He also said that they had also been provided information that the electricity meter was not active; thus, suggesting that the home didn’t even have electricity. He argued that in order to present the merits of the case that he would need to be able to call witnesses. If they were to move forward today, he wouldn’t have the ability to call any witnesses.
Olsen then argued that he wasn’t aware that the judge had actually issued the Writ of Quo Warranto, based on the petition to do so, and began challenging it on procedural grounds. At times he was so nervous that you could see him visibly shaking.
During his arguments on the procedural matters, he protested the merits of the case quite loudly. At one point Olsen protested so loudly that the judge told him to return to the law challenging the procedural issues. Olsen seemed extremely angry and seemed to present the opinion that no one should have the right to challenge him. Would an innocent person try to get a case thrown out on procedural grounds?
The two major procedural issues had to do with standing and the filing time. Olsen argued that Johnston didn’t have standing to actually file the petition and that such a petition couldn’t even be filed until after the election. Bauserman believed that his client did have standing and that the law makes clear that such a petition must be filed within 30 days of an election.
Ultimately, the judge ruled that Johnston did not have proper standing to file the petition and that such a petition couldn’t be filed until after the election. On standing, it’s my understanding (I’m not a lawyer) that the judge ruled that the only person that could file such a petition would either be the Commonwealth or an opponent of Olsen’s in the election. That would mean that Olsen’s opponent, Tim Barbrow, would have to file something.
Based on my conversations with some attorney’s, they aren’t completely sold on the standing or filing ruling. It’s quite possible that Bauserman will appeal it. Personally, we feel, that Barbrow should file something right away. Voters deserve to know the truth!
I just can’t believe that a voter in Stafford County doesn’t have standing to actually file such a petition in court. Why should we, as a voters and residents of the county, not be able to challenge a candidate’s residency for a constitutional office to represent Stafford County? If you live in Stafford County, don’t you have a vested interest? After all, why should he be allowed to appear on the ballot, if he doesn’t live in Stafford County?
The merits of this case were never given a hearing. Stafford County voters deserve to hear all the evidence, not after an election but before. Olsen has displayed a disturbing pattern, throughout this campaign, of thumbing his nose at the law (e.g. trademark infringement, accepting campaign contributions from a foreign national, not listing his campaign headquarters on his campaign financial disclosure forms and this continued issue of residency). An innocent man doesn’t hide behind procedure. Is this what Stafford County voters should expect from him, if elected. Let’s hope that it doesn’t come down to it.
Stafford County voters deserve a Commonwealth’s Attorney that displays integrity and trustworthiness at all times. While the legal wrangling continues, Stafford County voters can take care of business on November 8 by electing Independent candidate Tim Barbrow to this critically important position!
Breaking News: PWC Judge to Hold Hearing in Case Against Eric Olsen Tomorrow
UPDATE: The hearing time is actually 2 pm tomorrow. It will also be taking place at Stafford County Circuit Court.
In a dramatic development this afternoon, LeavingMyMarc.com has learned that a Prince William County Judge has ordered a hearing for tomorrow at 2:30 2 pm in Johnston v. Olsen. This can’t be good news for Olsen.
For those not already aware, a lawsuit was filed this past Friday by Stafford County resident David Johnston challenging Eric “Law & Order” Olsen’s qualification to be on the ballot as a candidate for the Office of Commonwealth’s Attorney for Stafford County. The challenge is based on the assertion that Olsen has never established residency in Stafford County.
Has his streak of thumbing his nose at the law, without any consequences, finally run out? We can only hope so! Just to recap, in a few short months, he has infringed on a well known trademark, accepted illegal campaign donations for a foreign national, had his residency called into question and hasn’t reported his campaign HQs on his campaign finance disclosure forms.
The only question that remains is when the mainstream media will finally report this story. It’s huge one and could have major implications moving forward. Voters deserve to know the truth!
What is The Truth About Eric Olsen?
In 2008, when Eric Olsen ran for Fredericksburg Commonwealth’s Attorney he had the following to say about his residency, “I have lived in the city [of Fredericksburg] my whole life.”
In the voter’s guide that was just published by the Free Lance-Star, he now claims to have lived in Stafford County for “Eight years.”
So what is it Eric, were you lying in 2008 or lying in 2011? With the tangled web he has spun, with regards to his residency this year, it’s possible that he can’t even remember the truth.
I can see it now. In 2015, Olsen will be campaigning for Spotsylvania County Commonwealth’s Attorney and will claim that he was a resident (in utero this time) there too for several weeks. It’s clear that he will say anything to get elected.
This speaks directly to issues we have raised regarding serious questions about his integrity. Whether it’s infringing on a well-known trademark, accepting a campaign contribution from a foreign national, lying about his residency or not fully disclosing information on his financial disclosure forms, time and time again he fails to live up to the high standards one would expect for someone running to be the chief law enforcement officer in Stafford County.
At the end of the day, one’s integrity and trustworthiness are paramount in defining one’s ability to lead effectively. While the issues are also critically important, it’s those defining characteristics that are at the top people’s minds when evaluating candidates.
In the race for Stafford County Commonwealth’s Attorney, only one candidate possesses the integrity and trustworthiness to garner our respect and our votes for this critically important position. That candidate is Tim Barbrow!
The Virginia Administrative Code’s Residency Requirements
We’ve written extensively on various issues (see here, here and here) involving a recent lawsuit filed by Stafford County resident David Johnston challenging Eric “Law & Order” Olsen’s qualification to be on the ballot as a candidate for the Office of Commonwealth’s Attorney for Stafford County.
To be able to vote and seek office in Stafford County, Olsen must be a resident of Stafford County.
According to the Virginia State Board of Elections:
Under the Virginia Constitution, a prospective voter must be a resident of the precinct where he seeks to register. In order to establish “residency”, a prospective voter must show that (1) he has an actual physical place of abode in the precinct, and (2) he is domiciled there.
Some have asked us, what does it mean to be “domiciled”? According to the Virginia Administrative Code (1VAC20-40-10), a “domicile”
means a person’s primary home, the place where a person dwells and which he considers to be the center of his domestic, social, and civil life…Once a person has established domicile, establishing a new domicile requires that he intentionally abandon his old domicile.
We’ve spoken quite a bit about his places (see here and here) of abode and whether they were even valid addresses, but let’s make a big assumption that they were valid. The issue then falls to whether or not he is domiciled there.
According to the substantial facts and attendant circumstances presented in Johnston’s legal filing,
(a) Defendant Olsen’s family did not accompany him in his alleged move to Stafford County; and,
(b) Mr. Olsen’s teenage minor child remained in the Fredericksburg City Public Schools during all relevant times addressed herein, including at the present time of the filing of this petition; and,
[…]
(e) Mr. Olsen listed his home as for Sale by Owner, but listed the home at a selling price that upon information and belief was far in excess of its fair market value; and,
(f) Upon information and belief, Mr. Olsen frequently did not stay in said garage at 1257 Poplar Road during the relevant period of time, but instead continued to use his home in the City of Fredericksburg as his principal place of abode and dwelling, in company of his wife and teenage son.
Olsen has readily admitted that his wife and child did not accompany him in his alleged move to Stafford and that his son remains in Fredericksburg City Public Schools. Based on what is known to us at this time, we also believe that there is ample evidence to suggest that Olsen frequently did not stay in his garage apartment and instead continued to use his home in the City of Fredericksburg as his principal place of abode.
It’s clear to us that Olsen considers his home in Fredericksburg to be “the center of his domestic, social and civil life.” I don’t think this is a leap by any stretch of the imagination.
His home is also not listed by any realtor and it is being listed for sale by simply putting a “for Sale by Owner” sign in his front yard. Based on the filing, it suggests that Olsen has priced his home “far in excess of its fair market value.” I think it’s fair to say that he doesn’t intend to “intentionally abandon his old domicile” until the election results are clear. Let’s not forget that he finished dead last in a three-way race when he ran for Commonwealth’s Attorney in the City of Fredericksburg in 2008.
On November 8, we’ll be voting for Stafford County resident Tim Barbrow for Commonwealth’s Attorney. We won’t only be voting for him because of his Stafford residence, but also because he clearly is the better candidate with the best vision for Stafford County. He is well respected within the community for his integrity and trustworthiness – important qualities for this position.
Another Day, Another Law Broken By Olsen?!
Unless you have been living under a rock, you are no doubt already aware of the lawsuit filed this past Friday by Stafford County resident David Johnston challenging Eric “Law & Order” Olsen’s qualification to be on the ballot as a candidate for the Office of Commonwealth’s Attorney for Stafford County. The challenge is based on the assertion that Olsen has never established residency in Stafford County.
Yesterday, we wrote about a new wrinkle in the residency challenge. LeavingMyMarc.com first reported that Eric Olsen was registered to vote at 133 Onville Road in Stafford County (at least as of September). This is despite the fact that he has never lived there. As recently as Saturday in the Free-Lance Star, Olsen still maintained that he legally resided at his illegal garage apartment off Poplar Road:
Olsen said the Fredericksburg home is for sale. His wife and their children live in the city home while Olsen is renting an apartment in a home on Poplar Road.
According to the Virginia State Board of Elections:
Under the Virginia Constitution, a prospective voter must be a resident of the precinct where he seeks to register. In order to establish “residency”, a prospective voter must show that (1) he has an actual physical place of abode in the precinct, and (2) he is domiciled there.
He is clearly not domiciled at 133 Onville Road, nor has ever been domiciled there. He has repeatedly claimed to be living at 1257 B Poplar Road in a purported “illegal” garage apartment.
We still maintain that he has never abandoned his domicile in the city of Fredericksburg, despite where he claims to be living right now, and believe that Olsen is not a legal resident of Stafford County; thus, he is not able to run for the Commonwealth’s Attorney position in Stafford County.
Putting all of this aside for a moment, Olsen now claims on his website that his campaign headquarters is now located at 133 Onville Road, Stafford, VA 22556. James and Karen Moncure currently own this home. So what’s the problem? The problem is that none of Olsen’s campaign finance disclosure reports show any expenditure to the Moncure’s for rent. His reports also do not show any sort of In-kind contribution from the Moncure’s for the headquarters. So what is Olsen trying to hide? And, so we have another example of what appears to be him breaking the law!
The reality is that the Moncure’s could sure use some money from Olsen, so they can pay off the taxes that they owe. According to the Treasurer’s Office, they owe $624.23 (which includes interest) in outstanding taxes on this property.
So exactly who are James and Karen Moncure? They’re relatives of Daniel Chichester. Chichester is pulling out all the stops and calling in all of his family connections to ensure that his handpicked successor wins.
For the past 72 years, Chichester and his dad have run the Stafford County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office. He will stop at nothing to make sure that that his family legacy lives on through Olsen, even if that means helping him to cheat the system in an effort to establish residency in Stafford County.
If this was anyone else pulling this sort of stuff, you could rest assured that Chichester and Olsen would be throwing the book at them. You see there are those with family connections that are “above the law” and there is everyone else. In Stafford County, we call this the good ‘ol boy network.
Is it too much to expect that someone running for Stafford County Commonwealth’s Attorney, to become the chief law enforcement officer, should be held to the highest of standards? This continued skirting of the law by Olsen raises serious questions on his integrity and trustworthiness (i.e. “Law & Order”-gate, illegal campaign donation from a foreign national, his residency and not reporting his campaign HQs on his campaign finance reports). Olsen should be held to, at least, the same standard as he holds others – which are exceptionally high.
It’s time to put an end to the 72-year-old dynasty and vote for an individual who holds himself to the very highest ethical standards and is respected amongst all citizens, regardless of party, as being fair and having the best interests of the community at heart. That’s why we will be supporting Independent candidate Tim Barbrow for Stafford County Commonwealth’s Attorney on November 8. The choice couldn’t be any clearer!
Twitter
Facebook
Youtube
RSS