Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Paul Ebert Competes In Worst Prosecutor Competition

By Greg L | 31 December 2007 | Fairfax County, Prince William County | 36 Comments

Commonwealth’s Attorneys Robert Horan and Paul Ebert have made the final cut in The Agitator’s competition for “Worst Prosecutor Of The Year” award, beating out thousands of other candidates to get into the final five.  Make sure you visit and help ensure Northern Virginia gets the recognition it deserves, as our finest have some really tremendous competition, and it’s going to be hard to beat some of the other candidates.

Here’s our write-up:

Horan and Ebert each had an opportunity to launch an investigation into the massive corruption and civil rights violations taking place in Manassas Park, Virginia in the David Ruttenberg/Rack ‘n’ Roll Pool Hall case. Despite ample evidence uncovered by yours truly and Virginia politics blogger Greg Letiecq, as well as the findings of a Virginia State Police investigator also recommending a formal investigation, both declined.

Ebert and Horan are both long-serving prosecutors, firmly entrenched in Virginia’s good ol’ boy network. Ebert’s been such an awful public servant, his recent reelection campaign (for which he faced no real opponent) inspired a write-in campaign for a ham sandwich. Horan gets bonus points for his refusal to find anything on which to indict Fairfax County police officer Deval Bullock, the man who somehow accidentally shot and killed unarmed, nonviolent gambling-on-football-games suspect Sal Culosi during a SWAT raid. Not that that decision should be terribly surprising. Horan hadn’t brought a single indictment against a police officer in 40 years on the job.

Horan retired in September. Ebert won reelection this year.

It’s hard to handicap our chances this year, but it’s certainly an honor to be noticed.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.

36 Comments

  1. Turn PW Blue said on 31 Dec 2007 at 3:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    What an…honor. While Ebert and Horan rank up there, it’s hard to put them ahead of some of the others in the running (specifically Forrest Allgood). Seriously, if you had to have Ebert or Allgood, who would you want in your county?

  2. Dolph said on 31 Dec 2007 at 4:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    I appreciate the fact that Paul Ebert has some of the most worthless scum in the world in prison and on death row. Same with Horan. That cannot be overlooked when looking at years of service as a prosecutor.

    Glass half full? Half empty? In my world, a lot full.

  3. anonymoustoo said on 31 Dec 2007 at 4:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    I agree with Dolph. IMO Ebert has done a good job. You notice who was given the task of prosecuting the DC sniper case.

  4. 999 said on 31 Dec 2007 at 9:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    anonymoustoo said on 31 Dec 2007 at 4:35 pm:
    I agree with Dolph. IMO Ebert has done a good job. You notice who was given the task of prosecuting the DC sniper case.

    A ham sandwich could have prosecuted that case with the same results.

  5. Good Time Charlie said on 1 Jan 2008 at 9:28 am:
    Flag comment

    Paul Ebert has several outstanding assistant prosecutors that have worked several yrs. in his office. Jim Willett, Rick Conway, Sandy Sylvester are the best prosecutors in Northern Virginia (possibly the state). When Paul Ebert finally steps down I hope his senior assistant Mike Dixon runs for office. He has the respect of all the members of the CAO, and the local police departments. He manages that office like clockwork, and when necessary, steps into the courtroom and prosecutes courtroom dockets like a skilled surgeon. I would hate to have members of Paul Ebert’s staff replaced if he lost an election. It is the reason I hope he remains in office or retires and supports Mike Dixon as his replacement. Even if you are not a Paul Ebert fan, you would love having Dixon as an elected official. After 13 years of dealing with him in PWC law enforcement circles I can guarantee you he is the best person to replace Ebert. The secret to Ebert’s sucess is the work of his staff.

  6. Peaches said on 1 Jan 2008 at 11:08 am:
    Flag comment

    Only two groups dislike Ebert: criminals and bloggers. Ebert has the most experienced office in the state, with more than a few Republicans both on staff and as alumni. Why else has he been unopposed since ‘87?

  7. Billyboy said on 1 Jan 2008 at 11:34 am:
    Flag comment

    Ebert, best in class… Unopposed since 1987? If thats true it says it all.

  8. Beth said on 1 Jan 2008 at 11:48 am:
    Flag comment

    Ebert has been a saving grace in Prince William County and anyone who has bad words against him has to be an A Hole!!. Maybe we do have a good ole boy network but like they saying goes ‘if it ain’t broke, DON’T FIX IT!! Rave On Good Ole Boy EBERT!!

  9. Lafayette said on 1 Jan 2008 at 11:58 am:
    Flag comment

    Billyboy,
    First off Happy New Year!
    Ebert being unopposed two decades? This speaks VOLUMES (IMHO). Each and every death penalty case in PWC has ended w/ a guilty conviction. Please, correct me if I’m wrong here. That’s saying something in my book.

  10. Billyboy said on 1 Jan 2008 at 12:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    Lafayette,

    Amen sister… Put em down like the dogs they are..

    Happy New Year….

  11. Krusty said on 1 Jan 2008 at 4:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    Who inspired the campaign for a HamSandwich? What a lack of respect for the office itself! Greg L evidently couldn’t find anyone to run against Ebert. Certain defeat maybe?

  12. Greg L said on 1 Jan 2008 at 5:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    Last I checked, I wasn’t the one responsible for candidate recruitment in Prince William County. There’s a Republican committee with a chairman that is supposed to be responsible for that, so if you want to complain about that, the proper recipient would be a Mr. Tom Kopko. Even though, I did reach out to a few folks who I thought were good candidates, and they declined. The last guy who challenged Ebert ended up the target of a ten year campaign to destroy his law practice, from what I’m told.

    The initial idea came from Jim Riley, and I helped to promote it. If you think it denigrates the office, you apparently aren’t very familiar with the current officeholder’s antics. Trying to have Ebert removed in some fashion is probably the most respectful thing one could do for the dignity of this office one can possibly undertake.

    While others were out there trying to either ensure the quality of these constitutional officeholders, or improve them, let me guess where you were at the time: on the couch, perhaps? Stuffing bon-bons into that piehole you’d later use to complain about those who actually bothered to do something this election cycle?

    I thought so.

  13. Loudoun Insider said on 1 Jan 2008 at 5:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    Many are behind you on this, Greg. This looks like a coordinated Ebert defense effort. The GOBN is doing the same thing in Loudoun County with Plowman and his ignoring political corruption.

  14. Anonymous said on 1 Jan 2008 at 5:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Krusty on 1 Jan 2008 at 4:29 pm:
    Greg L on 1 Jan 2008 at 5:00 pm:

    Owwwwwwww!

  15. Peaches said on 1 Jan 2008 at 5:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    Co-ordinated Ebert defense? No, just folks who know the office and know the courthouse. Want to find out about Ebert? Ask cops, lawyers, courthouse employees; anyone with actual knowledge.

    Like I said, those who dislike Ebert are criminals he put on death row and bloggers who need something to rant about.

  16. Lafayette said on 1 Jan 2008 at 5:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Peaches,
    I agree with you whole heartedly.
    I have to wonder…what he Ebert were a Republican? We more than likely would’ve never heard word one about a “write-in”.

  17. Krusty said on 1 Jan 2008 at 6:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg L- The web master said: “… let me guess where you were at the time: on the couch perhaps? Stuffing bonbons into that piehole you’d later use…” Guess I can’t complain about uncouth langugage in this blog, since the master himself is the one using it. I must have touched a V E R Y sore spot.

    And, yes, it denigrates the office!!!! And, yes, you DO try to recruit condidates in PWC even if it isn’t, as you state, your responsibility.

  18. Krusty said on 1 Jan 2008 at 6:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    “candidates”

  19. Dolph said on 1 Jan 2008 at 7:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Lafayette,

    Just out of curiousity, has anything, EVER, been said about any democrat in non-disparaging terms? Ah yes, Paul Nichols…but there is a reason.

  20. Lafayette said on 1 Jan 2008 at 7:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dolph,
    Mr. Nichols is the only one I know of. Of course I’ve only been around since May ‘07. I can only speak for that time frame.
    Well, I guess it’s like the old saying goes “there’s exception to every rule”. Oh, there’s always a “good reason” for these exeptions.

  21. Greg L said on 1 Jan 2008 at 8:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dolph, if you think Republicans get a pass here, talk to Steve Chapman, Faisal Gill, Tom Kopko, Maureen Caddigan, or Eugene Delgaudio. This site started out with an offensive against Republican candidates, fer cryin out loud. I’ve even been known to tell readers to thank Jim Webb when he’s occasionally voted well.

    If you think this is the epitome of the Republican party echo chamber, you haven’t been cruising around the blogs a whole lot.

  22. Greg L said on 1 Jan 2008 at 8:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    Oh, yes, that fantastic prosecutor Paul Ebert, who couldn’t manage to get a conviction on either one of the Bobbits. The guy who gets convicted violent felons out of prison early without notifying their victims so they can play with the undercover cops. The guy who may well be getting official court records improperly altered in order to support this little group of criminal rogues he has running around doing his dirty work with the help of corrupt police officers. The guy who made sure his son got special treatment after he assaulted a police officer and put him in the hospital for a month. The guy who exacts long-term professional revenge against anyone who dares run against him.

    Oh yeah, we’re mighty proud of Paul Ebert.

  23. Dolph said on 1 Jan 2008 at 8:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    Oh my comments had nothing to do with Republicans….only with Democrats. Far be it from me to imply that Republicans get a pass. I will let you all fight that out. I don’t go where angels fear to tread.

  24. Lafayette said on 1 Jan 2008 at 8:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    GregL,
    Lorena Bobbit had one of the best defense attorneys around.
    This was truly one of a kind. I had just drove by the drop off point that morning when I heard about on the way to work. This story did not help my morning sickness let me tell ya.

    Young Ebert(son) was just that YOUNG and DRUNK! I was around here back in the day. This cop a bad reputation. Not only that he was off duty working as a bouncer. Maybe, you should ask Glendell about the cop. I think he was still a cop then. I’m not 100% certain. I’m not saying Ebert’s son shouldn’t have been prosecuted however, he did egg the “bouncer” on. They were BOTH very much in the WRONG.

  25. Dolph said on 1 Jan 2008 at 8:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    I would probably do a little research into the poor assaulted police officer before I got in too deep. You might want to check to see if he was on duty or working as a bouncer. You might also want to make other inquiries about previous departmental disciplinary actions taken against said cop and why. Things aren’t always as they appear.

    Does anyone seriously think that either Bobbitt was supposed to do serious jail time? And would you have wanted them to?

  26. Krusty said on 1 Jan 2008 at 10:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    Too bad you all missed the New Year’s concert from the Vienna opera house, hosted by Walter Cronkite, on Ch. 26. It was WONDERFUL!!! Could see myself there dancing in a swishing taffeta gown! One can dream, can’t one? Good night!

    [Ed note: comment edited.]

  27. 999 said on 1 Jan 2008 at 11:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Krusty said on 1 Jan 2008 at 10:38 pm:
    Too bad you all missed the New Year’s concert from the Vienna opera house,

    Perhaps you (Krusty) can make it next year. Maybe Walter will save a waltz for you if you behave! HAPPY NEW YEAR - FELIZ ANO NUEVO!

  28. 999 said on 1 Jan 2008 at 11:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dolph said on 1 Jan 2008 at 8:32 pm:
    Does anyone seriously think that either Bobbitt was supposed to do serious jail time? And would you have wanted them to?

    YES and YES. Both of them are retards.

  29. Krusty said on 2 Jan 2008 at 5:40 am:
    Flag comment

    999, I’d LOVE to be in Vienna next New Year. Ein gutes neues Jahr!

  30. Anonymous House Of Pancakes said on 2 Jan 2008 at 6:28 am:
    Flag comment

    Krusty, You are a fool. The only reason you’re blogging so smuggly is that you hav’nt had the unfortunate experience of crossing him (Ebert). You wouldnt have to be guilty of anything. Simply be inconvenient for him.

    Greg knows much more than he discusses on this blog. Not only are you blind to the dangers he and his family might face for even discussing some of these subjects, you mock him for his effort. Ebert has the power to take your property, liberty, and your life.

    I, for one, respect him for standing… and editing out any trash that implies he should be frightened for doing so.

    Does that answer your???????????

  31. Loudoun Insider said on 2 Jan 2008 at 12:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    I don’t care how good Ebert is at prosecuting standard run of the mill criminal cases if he is a complete ignoramous in regard to political corruption. I am sure we can find someone who will look at ALL cases without obvious bias and insider dealings.

  32. Batson D. Belfrey said on 2 Jan 2008 at 2:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    While I have often been accused of being a shill for Greg, or being in “lock-step with him, but on the subject of Paul Ebert, reasonable people can disagree. I think that Ebert has done a very good job as CA for PWC. From what I have been told, his office is non-partisan, with Republicans and Democrats holding all manner of senior positions. The office’s conviction record is very impressive.

    Does Ebert come across as a “good ole sourthern boy” sometimes? Sure. Does he have his detractors? Yes. You cannot serve as long as he has and not have made a few enemies. The citizens seem pretty satisfied with him.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Dixon or Conway weren’t “annointed” to succeed him. Either one would be a good CA to replace him. Until that time, I know that the CA’s office under Ebert will continue to do a good job for the citizens of PWC.

  33. Lafayette said on 2 Jan 2008 at 2:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    Batson,
    I agree completely with your comments regarding our CA and his office, and am pleased to see such an accurate description.
    Ray Morrogh got elected to replace Horan last November. The prosecutors that have worked under Ebert and Horan have gotten on the job training that most could only dream of. I think either Dixon or Conway would be a fine replacement, and I don’t think too many would argue with that.
    There’s one thing that seems to get lost in the conversation here of the CA’s office, and that is the fact they know what will fly with each of these judges and what won’t. The other thing is the CA’s office has to work with the information provided to them from the investigators.

  34. Dolph said on 2 Jan 2008 at 8:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    Batson,

    Chiming in here with an “I agree.”

  35. Riley said on 3 Jan 2008 at 4:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    Actually Peaches, there is a third group aside from “criminals and bloggers” that doesn’t like Ebert — anyone who is in a position where they must rely upon Paul Ebert to seek justice for them. The sheer incompetence from both Ebert AND some of his staff that I and others have experienced is just staggering. Truly, a ham sandwich could have done just as good a job.

  36. Good Time Charlie said on 4 Jan 2008 at 6:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    Riley……….if you would like to see the definition of incompetence in the prosecution of criminal cases, just review cases handled by other C.A. offices throughout the state. I am not a Paul Ebert fan but I do admire the work that comes from his office.

    Please expand on how you are qualified to evaluate and comment on the quality of casework handled in the courthouse.

Comments are closed.


Views: 4272