For the second installment in this series, let’s take a look at the often-underappreciated elections happening in Prince William, ones that have a far larger impact on our lives than some of the legislative races that we like to talk about more often. Those that hold the Sheriff, Clerk of the Court and Commonwealth’s Attorney offices can either make your lives a nightmare or seem utterly irrelevant based on who they are and what they do. If you’re not certain about this, peruse some of the stories about more rural counties in Virginia where “good old boy” networks use the powers of such offices to prey on the people.
Sheriff: This one is pretty easy, since Glendell Hill is the only candidate on the ballot. For year’s we’ve had cronies of the ridiculously corrupt Lee Stoffregan attempt to weasel their way back into power, but after getting trounced two cycles in a row it seems they’ve finally given up. Perhaps someday a reasonable candidate will emerge where we can have a thoughtful discussion on what the Sheriff’s office might be doing differently, but so far no one with anywhere near the intellectual ability of an animate object has arisen to do so. It might be a worthwhile exercise someday.
Special Note: yes, you Stoffregan trolls who are constantly trying to bombard me with your ridiculous nonsense, I am purposefully writing this to poke you in the eye. I am so fed up with the constant barrage of obvious falsehoods and ridiculous drivel you bombard me with that I am increasingly tempted to reveal your personal identities and embarrass you publicly for the nuisance you make of yourselves. Go crawl back under a rock where you belong. I’d support an open communist for office before I’d give anyone you trot out a second look.
Commonwealth’s Attorney: Few people seem to realize just how awful a job Paul Ebert has done in this office, because most of us lead lives where what goes on in criminal prosecutions is of no consequence to us and we don’t pay attention. Unfortunately for some, Ebert made his office consequential to them in ways that boggle the mind:
- A father was sent to jail because of a terrible accident where one of his children died, not because that prosecution served the cause of justice, but justified as one of those ridiculous “this will send a message” excuses. Yeah, as if any parent needs to be threatened with the possibility of jail time as encouragement to avoid accidents with their children. This family ended up getting harmed twice, once by a tragic accident and then a second time because it served nothing but Ebert’s ego.
- Ebert will announce an investigation any Republican candidate at the behest of a political ally for any reason, only to announce shortly after the election is over that no charges will be filed. It’s happened multiple times in recent years, and the political rationale is plainly evident in that no other investigations by Ebert’s office ever seem to merit press conferences, much less even being acknowledged to the press. Even when there actually is clear evidence that a violation of the law has happened, for example with Steve Chapman, Ebert never actually files charges but puts on this kabuki dance solely as a show for the press. When Democrats are the subject of an investigation, Ebert refuses comment, but when Republicans are the subject, he holds a press conference about it. On other occasions, Ebert refuses to even acknowledge official complaints of unlawful political misconduct. Unethical doesn’t even begin to describe the problem here. The Commonwealth’s attorney office is not a political propaganda operation.
- Ebert’s vaunted experience apparently hasn’t taught him about the constitutional protections guaranteed to defendants, as he’s been rebuked by judges multiple times for misconduct. You’d think after 47 years in office he’d at least be able to understand the Bill of Rights. Denying these constitutional rights puts convictions at risk, and has in fact allowed murderers to have their convictions vacated which in most cases means they get to walk right out of jail.
- Ebert’s “high ethical standards” are well demonstrated by the carnage he has inflicted on the careers of anyone with the temerity to challenge him in an election. It got so bad that a few of us staged a write in campaign for Ham Sandwich as a protest which got more write-in votes than any other election in anyone’s memory. Ethics actually look like what Harry Parrish would do, which was to win the election and actually be nice to the loser because pounding their life into the dirt afterwards would be something that would never have occurred for him to do.
- Ebert’s office was notorious for a while for telling rape victims that they’d be prosecuted for false reporting, and in at least one instance a child died as a result of the prosecutor’s office deciding to shield a criminal from prosecution. This isn’t being tough on crime, this is protecting rapists and murderers from the consequences of their actions.
It is phenomenally dangerous to liberty to have the rule of law undermined like this. Mike May is by every indication of his record as a county Supervisor a man of integrity and character who will vastly improve this office. He deserves your vote.
Clerk of the Court: Michele McQuigg is running for re-election against someone I’ve never heard of before, whose made no effort to establish a record of public service in the community and pretty much on the basis of her disagreement with McQuigg entering as a plaintiff in Rainey v. Bostic, the case that ultimately foisted gay “marriage” on us. I can somewhat understand that people might have differing views on that case and how it was decided, but for an attorney to believe that it was wrong for a Clerk, who was materially impacted by the circumstances of the case and the implications of a decision, to file as a plaintiff is utterly ridiculous. Constitutional officers absolutely have a right to participate in litigation that impacts the operation of the office they hold and allow the court to render a decision. Had McQuigg decided not to comply with the court’s decision, then we might have a legitimate basis for complaining, but that’s not the case here. McQuigg has, and continues to follow the law, as the requirements of the office demand. This pathetic excuse for an attorney apparently believes that a political correctness test must apply regarding any litigation involving a Clerk’s office, and of course the standard for this test is dictated by her. Anyone proffering this outrageous argument should have their license to practice law reviewed, not elected to office.
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.
Leave a Reply