"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
Pitch in with the Prince William Young Republicans and help defeat Obama in 2012!
Peter Farrell Update
By Greg L | 3 August 2009 | Manassas Park | 21 Comments
The curious case of Peter Farrell continues to grind along, and recently I got some interesting information from an inside source that might answer the question about why this is all happening. This source says that Farrell indeed lives in one of his properties in Manassas Park, but is being targeted because he suggested that the City of Manassas Park was paying too much for a City Attorney, and the Governing Board might want to consider cutting the salary on that position in order to save some scarce dollars. Nobody plays hardball like the cabal in Manassas Park, it would seem.
In many localities, the municipal staff weilds pretty considerable power, and I don’t consider it beyond the realm of possibility that Dean Crowhurst, the City Attorney for Manassas Park might not have appreciated this rare demonstration of fiscal sanity when it would mean mean a pay cut for him. The person who suggested a little cost savings at Crowhurst’s expense ends up with an unusual criminal indictment that’s going to cause a lot of heartburn for a while, but may well utlimately go nowhere if Farrell does indeed maintain a reidence in Manassas Park.
It’s a nice shot across the bow, albeit with a pretty big gun when you get Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul Ebert to fire it off. Maybe this is how the Governing Board and the municipal staff, which have a very cosy relationship, manage to maintain control. Screw with us, and we’ll cut your freakin’ head off.
This is going to be interesting. Too bad there aren’t any others on the Governing Board likely to stand up for the taxpayers and help collapse this cabal and their outrageous behavior.
I wonder who filed the complaint against Farrell…
UPDATE: Check out the comments for additional updates on this.
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.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
21 Comments
Views: 1634
Loading ...
They are a seriously dangerous bunch, who apparently have a lot of crooked turf to protect. My gut says, there is so much more at play there than we all even begin to suspect and one thing is becoming increasingly clear — Paul Ebert is in on the “take.”
I hope and pray Mr. Farrell beats back these trumped up charges, but I also worry that once he does he might want to think about sleeping with one eye open and surround himself with lots of security technology and recording devices.
Sound familiar?
A tangental point that has been missed thus far in this case is, if indeed Peter Farrell is found to have violated the law, the possible collusion of E.J. Scott, Chairman of the Manassas/Manassas Park Democrat Committee. If found guilty, it would indicate that Ms. Scott either did a very poor job of vetting a candidate, or, supported Mr. Farrell’s candidacy with a “wink and a nod”. I think this question has been overlooked, since Manassas Park historically has been without an active Democrat committee. This changed during the 2008 election cycle. The Democat committee actively worked in Manassas Park. So, one needs to ask the question; did Ms. Scott know exactly where Mr. Farrell is/was living during the time he secured his party’s nomination?
Peter Farrell was their only candidate besides Suhas Naddoni. They could have run 3 other people (two more city council candidates and one for Mayor).
Peter got the nomination by default. There wasn’t another choice, other than not running anyone at all.
Do local committees “vet” candidates? I’ve never noticed a committee member following around potential candidates to see where they go at the end of the day.
Not that I’ve ever heard about. Any “vetting” that happens is the result of competition and there was none in this case.
There was a vetting…
I know a guy that used to work at Farrell’s dealership. He told me this whole thing is a big setup by City Attorney Dean Crowhurst because Farrell was questioning the 3 or 4 hundred thousand dollars the city has been paying him for legal services for years.
He said Peter Farrell has been living in Manassas Park since around 2005 in Blooms Crossing and recently bought a couple or three houses in the park.
As GL says “ I wonder who filed this complaint and what is their true motive?”
Brian Leeper said on 4 Aug 2009 at 8:11 am: Flag comment
Peter Farrell was their only candidate besides Suhas Naddoni. They could have run 3 other people (two more city council candidates and one for Mayor).
Peter got the nomination by default. There wasn’t another choice, other than not running anyone at all.
And I believe he got the most votes in the election Brian. In fact more than twice as many as you did.
“And I believe he got the most votes in the election Brian. In fact more than twice as many as you did.”
Yes, he did. I imagine that having that (D) on the ballot was a big help there.
What I find interesting, by the way, is that Peter is more of a fiscal conservative than many of the ex-Republican-independents on city council.
Of course he has a business so he knows well what the impact of out-of-control spending is.
When you work for the government, it’s a little hard to get that perspective.
If he does live in Bloom’s Crossing since 2005, shouldn’t there be a record of it in the tax assesment database? The only properties are the cape cods in the old part of MP.
He’s renting a house in Bloom’s Crossing, is my understanding.
By:
“Anonymous said on 4 Aug 2009 at 9:06 am:
Flag comment
There was a vetting…”
Well, if ever there was definitive answer to whether local committees “vet” nominees, this is it. You have persuaded me to your point of view with your insightful post.
The local GOP committees do vet their candidates, even if only one candidate files for the nomination. If the nomination occurs in a convention or mass meeting, the nominations committee examins the qualifications of the candidate, to include age, residency, etc. and then fowards a report of their findings to the entire assembled meeting, who then vote between qualified candidates competing for the nomination. If there is only a single candidate, the chairman does the vetting, prior to announcing the nomination.
Well, that’s the way it’s supposed to work.
It has, however, been my experience that the way things are SUPPOSED to work and the way they ACTUALLY work are not always the same.
So, the nominations committee follows people home at the end of the day to see where they go? Very intensive.
However, if it’s really a matter of me filling out a form and telling you where I live, then THAT is not “vetting”.
In my experience, local committees do not vet candidates in such a way as to have determined factually whether or not this person lived in MP.
Here’s another update:
The Commonwealth’s Attorney office is actually refusing discovery, and haven’t even provided Farrell with a copy of the indictment against him. Anyone who thinks this is a straight-up case of someone not residing in the right place might want to ponder why the Commonwealth’s Attorney office is failing to follow the law and will not provide Farrell with even the most basic information about the charges against him.
This absolutely stinks to high heavens. It is a huge violation of due process rights to withhold discovery and even a copy of the indictment when a defendant is supposed to be preparing to defend himself. How in the heck is Farrell supposed to conduct a defense when the prosecutors won’t even tell him in any detail what the charges against him happen to be?
This is outrageous. Not even Democrats should ever be treated in such fashion.
….And the Manassas Park/Ebert thugocracy have already seen that the only thing you can do about it is to start filing massively expensive lawsuits in Federal Court to protect your Constitutional rights…..and they know that a small businessman will go belly-up in legal fees before justice is served. Then the thugocracy will stop at nothing in spending taxpayer dollars to defend their position in any court of the land so they can continue to hide their dirty little secrets, while violating the rights of their own citizens.
This is VERY scary….we are seeing history repeat itself here….and the outrage is essentially nonexistent.
“The Commonwealth’s Attorney office is actually refusing discovery, and haven’t even provided Farrell with a copy of the indictment against him.”
This is precisely the way that David Ruttenberg was treated during the entire Rack N’ Roll fiasco…and the only way that such tactics can be successful is with the complicity of the entire Prince William County legal system (Courthouse Gang: judges, prosecutors, etc.). We’ve long said that this went well beyond the Park. Perhaps now people will begin to realize that David sacrificed his wealth, health, and future at the alter of truth not merely to salvage his own reputation (he would have been FAR better off just walking away), but to bring an evil to light that was a danger to all citizens of the community. You reap what you sow…and you continually re-elect them. It’s not that they THINK that they can do whatever they want to anybody without consequence…it’s that they CAN!
I posted today somewhere on this thread and just want comment again that, while there is some chance that Peter is blameless THIS time, he has been found guilty in federal court of business fraud in 2001. Also, I doubt sincerely that he had the funds to buy two or three houses in the past 5 years. He was essentially broke when my attorneys sought a lien on his business to ensure he would pay the court fees. This is not some well-off fellow doing the government a favor in the Kennedy noblesse oblige tradition.
I just saw on the paper that he resigned on Friday and charges were dropped on Monday. Sounds like someone made a deal.