Posts tagged ‘Commonwealth’s Attorney’
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.
Barbrow: “Justice is not like a baseball cap where one size fits all”
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!
Barbrow Continues to Impress in Stafford Commonwealth’s Attorney Race
I can’t tell you how impressed I am with Tim Barbrow (I-Stafford) and the refreshing vision he has for the Stafford County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office.
Barbrow is running to replace retiring Stafford County Commonwealth’s Attorney Daniel Chichester.
From his official campaign website:
I will bring a new direction to the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office in Stafford County. If elected, I will:
- Work effectively with prosecutors in the surrounding communities. Given the close proximity of the surrounding communities, it is absolutely essential that local law enforcement and the respective Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Offices work together in fighting crime. Criminals do not stop at the county line.
- Fully participate in the regional Drug Court Program. It is a win-win situation for first time drug offenders and the community. The offender receives the intensive treatment necessary to overcome their addiction, probation, and the opportunity to avoid a felony conviction rather than incarceration. The community gets an individual who has beaten the addiction that caused them to commit crime and avoids the costs of incarceration and possibly future crimes.
- End the policy of requesting a jury trial in nearly every criminal case. It is an unnecessary practice which wastes valuable court resources and tax dollars and clogs up the courts. Stafford County has access to three (3) of the best Circuit Court Judges in the area, one of whom is the former Commonwealth’s Attorney for the City of Fredericksburg and another who is a former deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney for Stafford County.
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. I will not hesitate to request a jury trial when appropriate. But I will also trust our distinguished Judges to hear criminal cases as well.
- Hire a more diverse staff with an emphasis on hiring attorneys who live in the area. The Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney should reflect the constituency it serves. As a result, I will make it a priority to ensure that our staff reflects the cultural diversity of Stafford County. The ability to effectively communicate and to connect with witnesses and victims is essential to effective prosecution. It is important to have prosecutors who live in the area because the Office should reflect the values of the community.
- Use my prosecutorial discretion to pursue a just outcome in every case. Justice is not like a baseball cap where one size fits all. I will try to do the “right thing” and seek justice in every case, regardless of whether the victim or defendant is rich or poor, and regardless of race or gender or ethnicity. I will never try to obtain a conviction by using deceit or trickery. As a prosecutor, I will be tough but fair.
- Use a more creative approach in the Juvenile Court System to rehabilitate juvenile offenders and expand the outreach of the Office into the schools and community. It is essential that we use all of the resources available to intervene with the young people in Stafford County in order to divert them from a path of crime and addiction. As with adults, I will fully participate in the regional drug court program. I will work closely with the school system and other agencies to identify problem areas and to monitor youthful offenders.
- Operate a more fiscally responsible office. From the year 2000 to the present, the budget for the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office has risen from just over one (1) million dollars to nearly three (3) million dollars. We are spending 54% more per capita on the Commonwealth’ Attorney’s Office in Stafford County than Spotsylvania County. The number of prosecutors employed by the office has risen dramatically over the past ten (10) years. Despite this increase in funding, since 2005, overall crime in Stafford County has increased by 60% and violent crimes have increased by 66%.
- Respect the parties. I will treat everyone who comes into contact with the Office with respect and courtesy. The judicial system can be a very stressful environment for all involved. The stakes involved are often great. Emotions can run high. But everyone involved in the process, including witnesses, family members, and attorneys are entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.
- Protect the citizens of Stafford from violent offenders and repeat offenders. My number one priority is to protect the citizens of Stafford County to the best of my ability. I will be tough when it comes to the prosecution of violent offenders and repeat offenders. There are individuals who commit crimes that are so heinous or violent or who continue to commit crime again and again that need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I will not hesitate to ask for lengthy sentences for these individuals.
On November 8th, I’ll be voting for Tim Barbrow for Commonwealth’s Attorney. A new direction is just what Stafford County needs!
Milde’s 40 Million Dollar Memory Problem
If I were Paul Milde (R-Aquia), I’d too want to forget all about the $40 Million public safety radio communication system. I recently wrote about how bad of a deal this was for Stafford taxpayers.
At last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting, the board was presented with an updated Telecommunication Plan – which was to be voted on as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Director of Planning and Zoning, Jeff Harvey, got things started by presenting the key points of the proposed Telecommunication Plan – which is meant to address broadband communication in its various forms and the guidelines for placement of towers throughout the county. Of particular note, the plan “encourages the placement of telecommunication towers on county owned properties.”
What ensued was an unexpected discussion on tower leases and the public safety radio communication system between Anthony Romanello and Paul Milde.
Milde wondered whether it was “legal” for the county to be in the business of building towers and leasing towers to individual users.
Romanello said, “We certainly could have as part of our public radio communication system. The direction from the board, which was probably six years ago now, was no new towers. So we made a conscious decision to work with the existing infrastructure that was in the county, which is why were in most cases we are leasing.”
Milde then realizing that he had stepped in it shot back to Romanello that he wasn’t talking about the public safety radio communication system. If I were Milde, I’d try to avoid talking about this at all costs. After all, he voted for Sheriff Jett’s outrageous deal in the first place.
Romanello responded by saying that “I understand that but that would have been an opportunity to go into that business and then to have leased out that space or the existing capacity to the private sector.”
As I’ve previously noted, Supervisors including Milde and Mark Dudenhefer (R-Garrisonville) had previously directed the consultant to “only consider the existing shorter towers [(existing infrastructure)] rather than a potentially less expensive option with fewer taller towers.” Cost containment was not a requirement.
I’m not suggesting that we should have built the towers on county-owned land, but no consideration was given to cheaper options. Romanello’s quote suggests that had we built the towers and leased out any remaining capacity to the private sector that we could have generated revenue for the county. Instead, we negotiated many “sweetheart” long-term leases with outrageous annual escalation rates. What an outstanding job by Sheriff Jett, Milde and Dudenhefer.
I had previously noted my opposition to the way that the radio system was financed – through more expensive Lease Revenue Bonds versus cheaper General Obligation Bonds. Lease Revenue Bonds guarantee repayment from the revenues generated by a specific revenue-generating entity associated with the purpose of the bonds. In Romanello’s example, leasing out excess capacity on the towers would have generated revenue; thus, a case could have been made for these more expensive bonds, if the revenue generated was enough to justify them. However, I still believe voters should have had a say on a procurement of this size.
Where was Milde’s curiosity when he was voting in favor of the public safety radio communication system in the first place? Milde “doesn’t know what the tower owners are charging per spot”? Obviously he has a short-term memory. Let’s review a few examples of what he voted for.
The Thorny Point tower site is costing us $57,000/year with a 15% escalation rate every five years and the Powell tower site is costing us $51,000/year with the same escalation rate as Thorny Point, as a few examples. Let’s not forget that the Free-Lane Star is earning $1.3M from us for one of the towers over the next 30 years (hmm, I wonder). I’ve also been told that the Free-Lance Star had been approached for many years by many parties to lease this tower and those parties were repeatedly turned aside. I guess Jett and company offered them a deal that they couldn’t refuse.
I never cease to be amazed. Thank goodness voters have other options this year: Chuck Feldbush (I-Stafford) for Sheriff, Tim Barbrow (I-Stafford) for Commonwealth’s Attorney and Dean Fetterolf (I-Rock Hill), Charles Latimer (D-George Washington) and Fred Sweat (D-Griffis-Widewater) for Supervisors.
Olsen Broke Law By Accepting Donation From Foreign National
Left: Eric Olsen (R-Stafford), Right: Urs Kirchhofer
I’m bewildered by how someone who is running to be Stafford County Commonwealth’s Attorney continues to thumb his nose at the law?
Three weeks ago, I discovered what appeared to be an illegal campaign donation to Eric “Law & Order” Olsen (R-Stafford) from a foreign national – this on the heels of “Law & Order-gate.”
According to sources close to his campaign, he claimed that he did not know that he wasn’t allowed to accept donations from foreign nationals. Are you kidding me!
This isn’t Olsen’s first run for office – after all he ran for the same office in the city of Fredericksburg in 2008 (and lost). I guess if things don’t work out in Stafford, there’s always Spotsylvania County…
The Virginia State Board of Elections has now confirmed that the contribution “was in fact from a foreign national.” They also indicated that they’ve “been told that this contribution has been returned to the donor.”
So will retiring Stafford County Commonwealth’s Attorney Daniel Chichester launch an investigation of his handpicked successor? I’d say the odds aren’t great. If this was anyone else, I have to believe that Olsen and Chichester would be pursing him or her with great vigor.
I won’t be holding my breath.
Thank goodness voters have a choice on November 8th. We need a candidate who is as concerned with following the law as he is in enforcing it. Tim Barbrow (I-Stafford) is just that person.
Twitter
Facebook
Youtube
RSS