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!

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!

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!

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!

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.

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!

It looks like Eric “Law & Order” Olsen’s string of thumbing his nose at the law has finally caught up with him.

Stafford County resident David Johnston has formally filed a Petition for a Writ of Quo Warranto pursuant to §8.01-636(A)(4) and §8.01-637 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to challenge the qualification of Eric L. Olsen to be on the ballot as a candidate for the Office of Commonwealth’s Attorney for Stafford County.

The press and supporters of his republican primary opponent first raised the question on Olsen’s residency back in July. Press reports, at the time, reported that he had moved out of his house in the City of Fredericksburg and into a garage apartment off Poplar Road in Stafford – while his wife and son remained at the family home in the city.

According to Johnston’s filing today, the garage apartment wasn’t even a valid residence:

(13) On defendant Olsen’s Certificate of Candidate Qualification, Olsen swore under oath that he resided at 1257B Poplar Road, Stafford, VA 22556.

(14) Upon information and belief, the residence otherwise known as and located at 1257 Poplar Road is zoned for one (1) residential home.

(15) Upon information and belief, the zoning ordinance(s) of Stafford County does not allow for a second address on a residential parcel zoned for one residence.

(16) Upon information and belief, there were no occupancy permits issued by Stafford County for a second dwelling at 1257 Poplar Road.

(17) Upon information and belief, there is no address on record in Stafford County known as “1257B Poplar Road.”

(18) Upon information and belief, defendant Olsen purportedly moved into a garage located on the same property as the residence located at 1257 Poplar Road without the requisite or corresponding intent to abandon his usual place of abode and residence in the City of Fredericksburg and without the requisite or corresponding intent to permanently or indefinitely reside at that location on Poplar Road.

Additionally, according to the filing, Olsen “gave as his Post Office address on the Statement of Candidate Qualifications the mailing address of the Office of Commonwealth Attorney in Stafford County which is P.O. Box 66, Stafford, Virginia 22556.” Wowsers!

The illegal apartment notwithstanding, it’s also clear from the filing that Olsen has no intention in abandoning his long established domicile in the City of Fredericksburg until after the results of the election are clear.

To show just how serious he is about selling his home, according to the filing, it is currently for sale by owner and listed well in excess of its fair market value. He clearly doesn’t want to sell it until he sees if he wins. I’d hedge my bets if I were him too. After all in 2008, he ran for Fredericksburg Commonwealth’s Attorney and lost in a three-way race – finishing dead last.

According to the filing, the facts are clear in this case that Olsen never intended to abandon his residence in the City of Fredericksburg and establish a new domicile in Stafford County:

(24) There are substantial facts and attendant circumstances present in the instant case which show that candidate Olsen never intended to abandon his residence in the City of Fredericksburg and establish a new domicile in Stafford County, including, but not limited to, the following:

(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,

(c) Mr. Olsen purportedly was staying above a garage that was not zoned for occupancy and the address given by candidate Olsen on his Statement of Qualifications was not an address recognized by Stafford County; and,

(d) That candidate Olsen used as his mailing address the Post Office Box for the Office of the Commonwealth Attorney; 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.

I’m sure that Olsen never knew that he actually has to live in Stafford County to run for office in Stafford County. Just like he never knew that he couldn’t infringe on a well-known trademark or that he couldn’t accept campaign contributions from foreign nationals. You’d think that someone running for Commonwealth’s Attorney would pay particular attention to the law and not continuously run afoul of it?!

Given the facts of this case, things are not looking too good for Olsen’s candidacy. On the bright side, he has four whole years to establish permanent residency in Spotsylvania County. As the old adage goes, “If at first [or second] you don’t succeed, try, try and try again.”

You can read the full petition here.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Barbrow does a great job of highlighting the current lack of prosecutorial discretion in Stafford’s Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office. As Barbrow so eloquently states, “Justice is not like a baseball cap where one size fits all.”

In citing the now infamous “McMissile” case, Barbrow states in no uncertain terms, “there will be no McMissile cases on my watch.” Thank goodness!

Under his watch, he pledges to fully participate in the Drug Court Program. Stafford County is the only jurisdiction within the area that doesn’t participate in this program. This program allows a first-time offender to avoid a felony conviction by participating in a yearlong, rigorous drug court program. If they fail to complete this, they are then convicted of a felony and receive a six-month sentence. Statistics show that the drug courts work, “Virginia’s Drug Court felony recidivism rate is 5.9% as compared to a 50% felony recidivism rate for other Virginia drug offenders handled in traditional ways of probation or incarceration.”

Not only do they work, but they are also way cheaper than incarceration. On a side, I previously wrote a post on how Stafford County pays $60 per day for each inmate versus $21 per day on each student. Participation in drug courts should be a no-brainer.

He also highlights the fact that there has been a 300 percent increase in the office’s budget over the last decade. We are now spending 54 percent more, per capita, then Spotsylvania County. The size of the staff of the commonwealth’s attorney’s office has also tripled over this same time period. Barbrow concludes that “despite these huge increases in funding crime continues to rise in Stafford County.” He pledges to better maximize the resources of the office in order to save taxpayers money and get results.

He also talks about the need and benefits of a more culturally diverse office, which I covered at length recently. One new tidbit that I didn’t know is that in 72-years there has only been a single African American employed as an assistant commonwealth’s attorney – currently there are none.

Barbrow also stresses the importance of hiring attorney’s who live in the area. Barbrow explains, “Currently, more than three-fourths of the Commonwealth Attorney’s employed by Stafford County do not live in Stafford or the surrounding areas. It’s important because prosecutors should reflect the values of the community.” I couldn’t agree more with Barbrow.

He also notes how important it is that Commonwealth’s Attorney’s don’t “play fast and loose with the rules.” He points out how his opponent was forced to “take down campaign ads because they infringed on someone’s trademark,” how he “accepted an illegal contribution from a foreign national,” and how questions continue to swirl on his residency.

Tim Barbrow is just the sort of fresh voice we need after 72-years of the same family controlling the office. The Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office shouldn’t belong to one family, but all the residents of Stafford County. On November 8, let’s vote for a new direction in Tim Barbrow for Stafford Commonwealth’s Attorney!

Click here to view the embedded video.

Geez, when I suggested that Sheriff Charlie Jett’s visions of flash mobs looting Stafford County convenience stores were affecting his policing strategy, during the #BananaMan brouhaha, I had no idea that several weeks later that Fredericksburg would be the sight of a “dangerous” Thriller flash mob at Quaker Steak & Lube in Central Park.

If this happened in Stafford, we could only imagine the response by Sheriff Charlie. We know how he treats kids in banana suits (especially in an election year). How about teens dancing to Michael Jackson’s Thriller?

It’s clear that his policing strategy can use a major reboot. Stafford County has seen five consecutive years of increased crime, including a 47% increase in violent crime. It would have been even higher, but recently Sheriff Charlie suddenly found a six (6) year old “glitch” in HIS 2005 crime numbers – how convenient right before an election.

It’s time for a new policing strategy. On November 8, you can help Stafford County change course and move in the right direction by voting for Chuck Feldbush for Stafford County Sheriff!

George Washington Supervisor Harry Crisp has strongly endorsed Charles Latimer for the seat he will be vacating later this year, as he chose not to seek re-election. Per the Free-Lance Star:

It has been my a pleasure to serve the residents of the George Washington District on the Stafford County Board of Supervisors for the past four years. The experience has been rewarding; however, I chose not to run for re-election in order to spend more time with my family.

Charles Latimer has my full support in the election for this seat. Mr. Latimer is a retired Marine master gunnery sergeant and is currently employed as a human resources program manager.

He has been an active member of our community as a coach for youth football, as a mentor for the Big Brothers Big Sisters program, and as president of his homeowners association.

Mr. Latimer will put the well-being of residents above partisan politics. He will work hard to preserve the remaining open spaces in the George Washington District, to invest in our kids through strong support for our schools and parks and recreation programs, to fix our roads, to provide good public safety, and to protect and preserve our natural and cultural resources.

Charles Latimer is the best choice to continue the tradition that the voters of George Washington District have strongly preferred for the past 12 years.

Very well said by Harry. Enough can’t be said about the great job Harry has done representing the George Washington District over the last four years. Thank you, Harry!

Filling Harry’s shoes will be a tall order, but Charles is clearly the right person for the job! On November 8, 2011, let’s continue the “tradition that the voters of George Washington District have strongly preferred for the past 12 years” by voting for Charles Latimer.

You can learn more about Charles by visiting his website.