Comments (1)

By Marc, November 4, 2011 11:01 pm

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!

Comments Off

By Marc, November 4, 2011 5:45 pm

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!

Comments Off

By Marc, November 3, 2011 6:30 am

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.

Comments Off

By Marc, October 27, 2011 9:53 pm

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!

Comments Off

By Marc, October 6, 2011 11:31 pm

At last night’s Stafford County NAACP Candidate Forum, the Stafford County Commonwealth’s Attorney candidates were asked the following question: “Do you feel that Stafford needs cultural change in its’ judicial system and, if so, in what areas?”

I find it incredible that in over 20 years that the Stafford County Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office has only employed a single African American employee.

Tim Barbrow believes, and so do I, that “you cannot serve the community effectively unless your staff reflects the cultural diversity of the community.” If elected, he will “hire a more diverse staff that has ties to the local community.”

Eric Olsen’s response to the same question was far different. He goes on to say, “I’m having a hard time understanding how a question about cultural changes turns to issues of race. I can tell you that in my 22 years, when we have an opening, we hire the best qualified person.”

Huh, Eric?! He clearly doesn’t understand that the ability to effectively communicate and connect with witnesses and victims is essential to effective prosecution. How does one African American employed in the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office over the last 20-years reflect the cultural diversity of Stafford County? It doesn’t!

It’s outrageous that Olsen would also suggest that there just weren’t any qualified African Americans who applied. “It’s an insult to suggest that during that 20 year period of time, in all of the vacancies that have occurred in the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office, there was only one qualified African American in 20 years,” said Barbrow.

We agree with Barbrow that this is absolutely “outrageous!” What would even be more “outrageous” is if Olsen won. We clearly need a new direction in Stafford County’s Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office. That new direction starts with Tim Barbrow.

Comments Off

By Marc, October 3, 2011 4:41 pm

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!

Comments (2)

By Marc, September 22, 2011 10:16 pm

The Banana Man controversy just continues to grow – you know the student who was handcuffed and placed in a police car for running down the sidelines during halftime of a high school football game in a banana suit, suspended 10 days from school and is now facing possible expulsion.

According to WUSA9.com, his mother Tavia Thompson says “she was stunned to find her son handcuffed in a police car when she got to the game.”

I also just got done speaking to a reliable source that was working the game and noted how aggressive deputies were acting throughout the game – even before the incident.

I’m so glad that Sheriff Jett (R-Stafford) is taking my article on increased crime in Stafford County so seriously. Clearly, the Banana Man posed an imminent danger to the community and it was necessary to handcuff him and throw him in the back of a squad car. This isn’t exactly what I had in mind when I wrote the post. He wasn’t arrested and no charges have been filed yet, but I hear that Eric Olsen (R-Stafford) is on the case – that’s after he finishes returning the illegal campaign donation.

It’s clearly time for a change in Stafford County. Thank goodness that we have two folks who more concerned in keeping us safe then arresting and charging bananas – my vote is for Chuck Feldbush (I-Stafford) for Sheriff and Tim Barbrow (I-Stafford) for Commonwealth’s Attorney.

Be sure to sign the petition to Free Banana Man here.

Just how ludicrous is all of this, check out an NBC Washington interview below:

Just how bad are things getting in Stafford County? We are now the laughing stock of the entire region.