Category: John Brownlee

John Brownlee claims he wants to “reduc[e] drug dependency”, but why did he oppose the building of a drug treatment clinic in Roanoke County?

I should preface this post with this statement: If someone is selling (distributing) illegal narcotics, I think they should be locked up in prison for an appropriate amount of time. If someone is arrested for using or possessing illegal drugs, I also believe that they should be locked up unless they have a genuine desire to get clean. To stop using drugs cold turkey is almost never effective and can result in serious medical problems from withdraws. I also believe a distinction should made between someone that becomes addicted to a drug that they were legally and properly using (e.g., OxyContin) and then have to seek illegal means to satisfy their addiction, versus a drug that they decided to start using because it looked ‘fun’. The best way to treat certain drugs problems is by using methadone (which is used to treat opiate addiction, including addictions to OxyContin), like it or not. It’s not a perfect solution since the patients then needs methadone in their system to function, but it’s better than having someone addicted to an drug that they’re acquiring through illegal means.

Back in 2003, the Life Center of Galax proposed building a methadone drug treatment clinic in Roanoke County. They already ran two similar facilities, one located in Galax and the other in Tazewell County. According to the Life Center, approximately 75 people were commuting to Galax every day from the Roanoke area for treatment, resulting in a commute of over 90 miles and one and a half hours. Predictably, the various fearmongers and moral panickers in the area raised hell and objected to the facility being located in their neighborhood.

While the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Zoning Appeals consider the appropriateness of the facility, John Brownlee entered the fray and spoke before the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors stating there was “anecdotal evidence” that the drug treatment facility could result in an increase in crime. ((Laurence Hammack. “U.S. ATTORNEY WARNS OF DRUG DEALERS AT CLINIC; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TOOK NO ACTION ON THE PROPOSED CLINIC.” The Roanoke Times. 15 Oct 2003: LexisNexis.)) Someone should tell Mr. Brownlee that “anecdotal evidence” isn’t evidence. This guy was a prosecutor at the time, right?

When confronted by a reporter from The Roanoke Times who had statistics that showed there had been no increase in crime as result of the Life Center’s facilities in Galax and Tazewell County, this is what Brownlee is reported to have said:

But after his presentation to the board, Brownlee acknowledged that in Galax and Tazewell County – where the Life Center of Galax operates the only two methadone clinics in Southwest Virginia – police say they have not encountered problems with drug dealing around the clinics.

The one case of suspected drug dealing turned out to be unfounded, Life Center officials have said, and Galax Police Chief Rick Clark has confirmed that the clinic is not a problem for law enforcement.

It may be that police and clinic officials have worked effectively in Galax to prevent possible problems, Brownlee said. But, he said, his intent Tuesday was to warn Roanoke County officials about what could happen here. ((Laurence Hammack. “U.S. ATTORNEY WARNS OF DRUG DEALERS AT CLINIC; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TOOK NO ACTION ON THE PROPOSED CLINIC.” The Roanoke Times. 15 Oct 2003: LexisNexis.))

So, instead of Brownlee basing his statements on real evidence including statements from the police chief of Galax, not “anecdotal evidence” as he did, Brownlee decided to play into the fearmongering and moral panicking of some of the residents and officals of Roanoke County.

But this story gets even weirder: The Life Center eventually dropped their plans for building the clinic in Roanoke County due to oppression from the community and elected officials. By 2004, however, another company developed plans for building a methadone drug treatment clinic in the city of Roanoke. Again, there was the same fearmongering and moral panicking by citizens and elected officials.

While this plan went ahead, Brownlee was mum until then-City Councilman and now-Vice Mayor Sherman Lea brought up the fact that Brownlee’s opposition to methadone clinics seemed to be selective since he hadn’t come before the Roanoke City Council to express his concerns to the proposed clinic in the city. Here’s how The Roanoke Times reported the exchange between Lea and Brownlee: ((Todd Jackson. “BROWNLEE SLIGHTED CITY, LEA CONTENDS.” The Roanoke Times. 2 Nov 2004: LexisNexis.))

Brownlee said he would be glad to give the same assessment regarding the proposed city clinic, “but nobody in the city has raised the issue with me.”

[…]

When told of Brownlee’s remarks, Lea didn’t dispute that no one in the city has contacted the U.S. attorney. But Lea said Brownlee, in his public position, should have realized the need to speak out on Roanoke’s situation the same way he did in the county.

Lea said he will write Brownlee a letter this week inviting him to speak at the council meeting Nov. 15. ((Todd Jackson. “BROWNLEE SLIGHTED CITY, LEA CONTENDS.” The Roanoke Times. 2 Nov 2004: LexisNexis.))

However, Brownlee did not speak at the November 15 meeting of the Roanoke City Council. Why? According to now-Vice Mayor Lea, Brownlee could not speak because he could not secure the permission of the United States Attorney General. Seriously, he claimed that the United States Attorney General had to approve his comments. ((Sherman Lea. “Re: Question on John Brownlee and methadone clinic in the city of Roanoke.” E-mail to the author. 8 Mar 2009.)) Does anyone else really believe that the U.S. Attorney General personally approves each and every public appearance by all 93 United States Attorney? Yeah, me neither.

Regardless, the facility in the city of Roanoke and opened in 2005. According to a follow-up story by The Roanoke Times in 2009 dealing with the clinic that was successfully built in the city of Roanoke, they reported that 1,000 people had been treated at that facility since it opened in January 2005. In 2008, there had been only 14 police calls to the facility, “mostly for minor reasons such as a false burglar alarm or reports of suspicious activity that didn’t turn out to be serious.” In 2007, there were 34 police calls, “most of which involved the trigger-happy burglar alarm.” For comparison, according to a police spokeswoman, a nearby business had 42 calls for police services in 2008. One neighbor made the following comment: “I don’t even know that place is up there.” And according to the same story, property values for the 16 homes on the street had all gone up. ((Laurence Hammack. “Methadone clinic fails to trigger any disasters: Despite earlier fears, the clinic has brought neither increased crime nor depressed property values.” The Roanoke Times. 25 Jan 2009: LexisNexis.))

Now, on John Brownlee’s campaign website he claims that he “reduc[e] drug dependency” but doesn’t actually say how he plans on accomplishing that. ((“Fighting Drug Dealers and Reducing Drug Dependency.” John Brownlee for Attorney General. John Brownlee for Attorney General. 29 May 2009 <http://www.johnbrownlee2009.com/issues-drugs.htm>.))

John Brownlee also brags on no less than three pages of his website how he managed to secure $634 million from Purdue Pharma, the maker of the painkiller OxyContin, for violating consumer protection laws in their marketing of the drug. ((“Consumer Protection and Corporate Governance.” John Brownlee for Attorney General. John Brownlee for Attorney General. 9 Mar 2009 <http://www.johnbrownlee2009.com/issues-consumer.htm>.)) ((“Former U.S. Attorney John Brownlee Announces Campaign for Attorney General.” John Brownlee for Attorney General. John Brownlee for Attorney General. 9 Mar 2009 <http://www.johnbrownlee2009.com/nr-052008.htm>.)) ((“Meet John Brownlee.” John Brownlee for Attorney General. John Brownlee for Attorney General. 9 Mar 2009 <http://www.johnbrownlee2009.com/aboutJohn.htm>.)) So, apparently Brownlee believes that the government should be able to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from a drug company, but he also apparently believes that people that have become addicted to their drug — which Brownlee describes as “highly addictive and dangerous” ((“Former U.S. Attorney John Brownlee Announces Campaign for Attorney General.” John Brownlee for Attorney General. John Brownlee for Attorney General. 9 Mar 2009 <http://www.johnbrownlee2009.com/nr-052008.htm>.)) ((“Meet John Brownlee.” John Brownlee for Attorney General. John Brownlee for Attorney General. 9 Mar 2009 <http://www.johnbrownlee2009.com/aboutJohn.htm>.)) — shouldn’t have a place to go to receive treatment for their addiction. Again, these are people that were legally prescribed a drug which they became addicted to due to no fault of their own.

These stories are a perfect example of the problems with John Brownlee. For one, whenever he makes a decision or statement he goes off half-cocked: Whether it’s statements regarding the criminal impact that a drug treatment clinic will have; how his position on abortion is more conservative than Ken Cuccinelli’s — it isn’t; and Ken Cuccinelli’s military service in the Marine Corps.

Second, he also seems to have trouble with the truth. He claims that he’ll be “glad” to speak to the Roanoke City Council about their proposed clinic, but then claims that the United States Attorney General won’t let him speak. Yeah, right. You could also throw in some things from the the previous paragraph. He’s either makes comments and decision while being completely ignorant of the subject or he’s just lying.

Third, he’s a political animal. Even the folks at The Roanoke Times noticed this way back in October of 2003, opining that everything that Brownlee does seems to be motivated by politics. ((“ROANOKE’S POLITICAL U.S. ATTORNEY”. The Roanoke Times. 16 Oct 2003: LexisNexis.))

Do you really want someone like that as your Attorney General? Do you even want him as the Republican nominee for Attorney General?

Compare and contrast Bob McDonnell and John Brownlee on Brownlee’s “moral test” of legislation.

Sorry to rehash, but so the quote is fresh in the minds of everyone, from Virginia Lawyers Weekly:

Brownlee also set himself apart from the other candidates with a comment about how he would judge the constitutionality of a law passed by the General Assembly. While Cuccinelli and Foster pledged to apply a strict constitutional test, without regard to personal feeling, Brownlee said he would add a “moral test” to the equation.

“As attorney general, I would represent the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia. So I would add that second layer, that second tier,” he said.

Brownlee’s moral filter is “an entirely new conception of the AG’s role in Virginia” commented Virginia Commonwealth University political science professor Robert Holsworth on his blog, Virginia Tomorrow. Holsworth, who attended the debate, suggested that Brownlee’s comment leaves him open to criticism often aimed at liberals – that he would impose personal views in place of a strict interpretation of constitutional language. ((Peter Vieth. “Three GOP candidates for Virginia AG spar in Roanoke.” Virginia Lawyers Weekly. 23 Feb. 2009. LexisNexis.))

Here’s what Bob McDonnell had to say in a live-blog Q&A with Ben Tribbett of Not Larry Sabato. First the question:

Question: Mr. Attorney General, to the extent that you continue to participate (and have made it this far down the thread), thank you for again entering the blogosphere. My question:

Is it your policy to defend against ALL challenges to the acts of the General Assembly, and, if so, how do you ensure zealous advocacy of those positions with which you personally disagree and may consider not only bad but also potentially dangerous?

Thank you for participating.

– J.Sarge

And McDonnell’s response:

Answer: That is an excellent question, and I thank you for asking it. My job as Attorney General is to defend the statutes of Virginia from attack against claims of unconstitutionality or other legal actions. As such, I make no judgement on the law based on how I may have voted in the General Assembly. We are currently defending statutes in court based solely on the law, and applicable legal principles not personal philosophies.

Pretty amazing that Brownlee is proposing something that is in such contrast with the philosophies of the person at the head of the Republican ticket this year, no?

John Brownlee seems to think it’s the Attorney General’s job to veto legislation too, will impose “moral test”.

From Virginia Lawyers Weekly:

Brownlee also set himself apart from the other candidates with a comment about how he would judge the constitutionality of a law passed by the General Assembly. While Cuccinelli and Foster pledged to apply a strict constitutional test, without regard to personal feeling, Brownlee said he would add a “moral test” to the equation.

“As attorney general, I would represent the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia. So I would add that second layer, that second tier,” he said.

Brownlee’s moral filter is “an entirely new conception of the AG’s role in Virginia” commented Virginia Commonwealth University political science professor Robert Holsworth on his blog, Virginia Tomorrow. Holsworth, who attended the debate, suggested that Brownlee’s comment leaves him open to criticism often aimed at liberals – that he would impose personal views in place of a strict interpretation of constitutional language. ((Peter Vieth. “Three GOP candidates for Virginia AG spar in Roanoke.” Virginia Lawyers Weekly. 23 Feb. 2009. LexisNexis.))

If Brownlee attends to represent the people of Virginia then he will do his job as Attorney General if elected, not the job of the General Assembly or the Governor. He is not running for a position in the General Assembly, he’s running for the job of running — in former Attorney General, and Republican candidate for Governor Bob McDonnell’s words — the state’s “law firm”. ((“Role of the Office of the Attorney General.” Attorney General of Virginia. 6 Apr. 2009 <http://www.oag.state.va.us/OUR_OFFICE/Role.html>.)) The point of a law firm is to zealously represent your client, in this case, the state of Virginia.

And speaking of Bob McDonnell: I’ve never been a big fan of McDonnell, especially with his involvement with HB3202 and its unconstitutional, unelected, regional taxing districts and “abusive driver fees”. But the one thing that really annoyed me was when one blog (might have been Not Larry Sabato) was asking why Attorney General Bob McDonnell continued to support both the regional taxing districts and “abusive driver fees” to court challenges. Uh…maybe because it’s his job?

And how do you know, in advance, on what side of an issue Brownlee’s “moral test” will fall on? Imagine this scenario: The General Assembly passes a law prohibiting abortion in all cases, with an exception for the mother’s health; no exceptions for rape or incest. Brownlee supports rape and incest exceptions to a ban on abortion, would he override the will of the legislature and not support and advocate the constitutionally of the bill because it doesn’t pass his “moral test”?

Another question, what politicians are the closest to the people that they are supposed to be representing? A member of the executive branch? Not really. How often does the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, or Attorney General send out constituent surveys to all 7,700,000 of their constituents? Not bloody often. Delegates and Senators on the other hand, with Delegates representing around 71,000 people, and Senators representing around 177,000 people, are a lot closer to the people than the AG. Not to mention that Delegates are up for election every two years. The Attorney General? Every four.

For years, conservatives thought that if you control the legislature, you could pass bills that as long as they were not unconstitutional, the courts wouldn’t have a problem with it. So, for years, conservatives ran campaigns about what type of legislation they would support if elected. Then the courts came along and decided to take over control of legislation and ignore previous court precedents, use international law, or just make stuff up if the judge disagreed personally with the legislation that had been voted on and approved by the public’s elected representatives.

And I’m not just talking about abortion in Roe v. Wade, you have the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) overturning decades of precedent and ruling that there’s a constitutional right to same-sex sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas and ruling that juveniles couldn’t be executed in Roper v. Simmons. In both Lawrence and Roper, you also had the SCOTUS citing international law.

Then conservatives realized, “Oh look, let’s focus on getting judges appointed to the bench!” So, after years of trying to get that accomplished, now we have someone that claims to be a conservative running for an office in the executive branch, whose job it will be to defend the constitutionality of bills passed by the legislature, talking about imposing a “moral test” on legislation. So, not only do conservatives have to get conservatives elected to the legislature, judges that won’t act in an “activist” nature, we have to worry whether a Republican Attorney General will support the legislation in court!

You know folks, there’s a reason that John Brownlee isn’t a federal judge right now.

A couple years ago, in 2007, John Brownlee was being considered for a judgeship in the Eastern District of Virginia. However, his bestest buddy John Warner (Warner has a “close relationship” ((Laurence Hammack. “Federal Fast Track Slows for Brownlee.” The Roanoke Times. 2 Mar 2007. A1: LexisNexis.)) with Brownlee’s father) choose not to recommend his name to President Bush for the position. Anyone want to know why?:

U.S. Attorney John Brownlee’s bid to become a federal judge, considered by some to be on a rapid ascent, has run into turbulence.

Brownlee received lukewarm endorsements this week from two bar associations — and no backing at all from another three — as questions surfaced during the judicial screening process about his prosecutorial discretion and other “credible adverse information.”

In a 6-5 vote, the Virginia State Bar’s judicial nomination committee found Brownlee to be qualified. It was the only close vote as the committee deemed six candidates qualified and another five highly qualified for federal judgeships in Richmond and Alexandria.

“The committee notes that substantial concerns arose from significant and credible adverse information” obtained about Brownlee, a report from the state bar read. But because the bar was unable to fully investigate those concerns before the deadline for recommendations, “the committee is unable to opine as to Mr. Brownlee’s integrity, temperament and impartiality,” the report stated.

The report does not explain what the “adverse information” is, and state bar executive director Thomas Edmonds declined to elaborate.

“The documents speak for themselves and they are carefully worded,” Edmonds said. “Obviously, the vote and the comments reflect some concern.”

Another concern raised by the bar dealt with the extent of Brownlee’s courtroom experience, and discrepancies between what he said about that qualification in a written application to the bar and in a later interview with the nomination committee.

Brownlee, who has overseen federal prosecutions in the Roanoke-based Western District of Virginia since 2001, declined to comment Thursday.

Several cases during his tenure have created considerable controversy, including the fraud prosecution of former National D-Day Memorial Foundation president Richard Burrow, which ended in two hung juries.

Also, the case of pain specialist Dr. Cecil Knox, accused of health fraud and illegal distribution of prescription painkillers, devolved from a sweeping indictment on hundreds of charges to just a few convictions.

The state bar’s comments were not the only bump in the road this week for Brownlee, whose strong political connections have been cited by a University of Richmond law professor and other legal observers who believe he might have an inside track to a judgeship.

The Virginia Women Attorneys Association, another bar group asked to rank judicial candidates, also raised concerns. In a report sent Tuesday to U.S. Sens. John Warner and Jim Webb, the VWAA noted that Brownlee was the only one of 13 candidates to receive unsolicited letters in opposition to his becoming a judge and none in support of his bid.

[…]

Also this week, the Virginia Bar Association, the Virginia Defense Attorneys Association and the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association released names of candidates they found to be qualified. Brownlee’s name was not on either list. ((Laurence Hammack. “Federal Fast Track Slows for Brownlee.” The Roanoke Times. 2 Mar 2007. A1: LexisNexis.))

“Lukewarm” endorsements from two bar associations and refusals from three others to endorse him. He didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being confirm, so he decided to wait, and when he saw an opportunity to run for an elected office — in this case Attorney General — he took it.

And this wasn’t one bar association, it wasn’t two; it was three that refused to endorse him. And another two gave him “lukewarm” endorsements, for crying out loud! And this guy wants to be our next Attorney General!

Does anyone else think that someone should tell John Brownlee it isn’t the Attorney General’s job to prosecute criminal cases?

I swear, every other word that comes out of John Brownlee’s mouth is about how he used to be a prosecutor, as if that has any bearing on the Attorney General’s Office.

Maybe he should check out the Attorney General’s Office’s website. As one page notes, “[t]he Office of the Attorney General is the Commonwealth’s law firm. Its clients are the Virginia state government and the state agencies, boards and commissions that compose that government.”

On the list of “duties and powers” for the office (Id.), the only reference to prosecuting cases appears in the eight bullet stating, “[c]onduct or assist criminal investigations and prosecutions in certain limited cases” [emphasis mine].

Remember, also, that current Republican candidate for Governor and former Attorney General, Bob McDonnell, was responsible for the information on that website until a couple weeks ago.

Is Brownlee not familiar with Virginia law or something? After all, the guy has been doing federal, not state, cases for the past decade or more. Maybe he should consult Va. Code § 2.2-511 [emphasis mine throughout]:

A. Unless specifically requested by the Governor to do so, the Attorney General shall have no authority to institute or conduct criminal prosecutions in the circuit courts of the Commonwealth except in cases involving (i) violations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (§ 4.1-100 et seq.), (ii) violation of laws relating to elections and the electoral process as provided in § 24.2-104, (iii) violation of laws relating to motor vehicles and their operation, (iv) the handling of funds by a state bureau, institution, commission or department, (v) the theft of state property, (vi) violation of the criminal laws involving child pornography and sexually explicit visual material involving children, (vii) the practice of law without being duly authorized or licensed or the illegal practice of law, (viii) with the concurrence of the local attorney for the Commonwealth [the locale’s elected Commonwealth’s Attorney], violations of the Virginia Computer Crimes Act (§ 18.2-152.1 et seq.), (ix) with the concurrence of the local attorney for the Commonwealth, violations of the Air Pollution Control Law (§ 10.1-1300 et seq.), the Virginia Waste Management Act (§ 10.1-1400 et seq.), and the State Water Control Law (§ 62.1-44.2 et seq.), (x) with the concurrence of the local attorney for the Commonwealth, violations of Chapters 2 (§ 18.2-18 et seq.), 3 (§ 18.2-22 et seq.), and 10 (§ 18.2-434 et seq.) of Title 18.2, if such crimes relate to violations of law listed in clause (ix) of this subsection, (xi) with the concurrence of the local attorney for the Commonwealth, criminal violations by Medicaid providers or their employees in the course of doing business, or violations of Chapter 13 (§ 18.2-512 et seq.) of Title 18.2, in which cases the Attorney General may leave the prosecution to the local attorney for the Commonwealth, or he may institute proceedings by information, presentment or indictment, as appropriate, and conduct the same, (xii) with the concurrence of the local attorney for the Commonwealth, violations of Article 9 (§ 18.2-246.1 et seq.) of Chapter 6 of Title 18.2, (xiii) with the concurrence of the local attorney for the Commonwealth, assisting in the prosecution of violations of §§ 18.2-186.3 and 18.2-186.4, and (xiv) with the concurrence of the local attorney for the Commonwealth, assisting in the prosecution of violations of § 18.2-46.2, 18.2-46.3, or 18.2-46.5 when such violations are committed on the grounds of a state correctional facility.

In all other criminal cases in the circuit courts, except where the law provides otherwise, the authority of the Attorney General to appear or participate in the proceedings shall not attach unless and until a petition for appeal has been granted by the Court of Appeals or a writ of error has been granted by the Supreme Court. In all criminal cases before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court in which the Commonwealth is a party or is directly interested, the Attorney General shall appear and represent the Commonwealth. In any criminal case in which a petition for appeal has been granted by the Court of Appeals, the Attorney General shall continue to represent the Commonwealth in any further appeal of a case from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.

I’m sure there’s a locale somewhere looking for a qualified Commonwealth’s Attorney, if John Brownlee wants to prosecute criminal cases, maybe he should go there.

Why can’t John Brownlee stop lying about Ken Cuccinelli?

As defined by Webster:

Main Entry:
3lie

Function:
verb

Inflected Form(s):
lied; ly·ing

Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English lēogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lŭgati

Date:
before 12th century

intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

transitive verb
: to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble>

The Virginia Senate recently voted to remove the triggerman rule that is currently in place in regards to capital murder cases.

As the law is currently, with the exception of cases of murder for hire, murder for an “continuing criminal enterprise”, or terrorism; to charge someone with capital murder and then pursue the death penalty, the person charged must be the triggerman in the murder. Principles in the second degree — which are people that assist in the commission of the crime — can, however, be charged with first degree murder.

Cuccinelli was the lone Republican to vote against the removal of the triggerman rule. He cited his reasoning in an e-mail two weeks ago to people on his mailing list:

For some time now, John Brownlee has deliberately distorted my position on the death penalty. As a candidate for Attorney General, I do not take distortions and misrepresentations lightly, and neither should you. Virginians have grown weary of distortions and half truths in politics, and unfortunately, this is not the first time this has happened in this race. The last time he did something like this, I called him on the phone and discussed it with him personally.

But when these sorts of distortions continue, my response is not to distort things myself, but to point out my competitor’s distortions. That let’s you, the voters of Virginia, factor this information into your decision about who to support for AG. Let’s face it, when you vote for someone for office, you get more than a package of positions, you get that person too.

So you have the information yourself, I have always been a supporter of Virginia’s death penalty law. In the Senate, I have consistently fought against Democrats’ efforts to impose a death penalty moratorium – and I have opposed efforts to allow endless appeals in death penalty cases.

As a State Senator, I have voted to extend the death penalty to people who murder trial witnesses, judges and law enforcement officers. And as your Attorney General, I am committed to upholding the death penalty verdicts of our juries and will work to defend and strengthen our capital punishment law from intrusions and attempts by the left to derail it.

I also have supported and will continue to support the death penalty under the current exceptions to the “triggerman rule” for (1) terrorism (including the beltway sniper case), (2) murder for hire, and (3) criminal enterprises/gangs. However, there have been legislative attempts to completely eliminate the triggerman rule, which I believe would be too broad an expansion. That’s the only expansion of the death penalty that I have ever opposed, while supporting other expansions and always defending our current death penalty statute.

So the next time you hear John Brownlee or one of his surrogates giving a distorted rendition of my position supporting capital punishment, print this out and hand it to Mr. Brownlee.

Brownlee also falsely states “[o]n his campaign Web site, Brownlee said the triggerman rule complicated the state’s efforts to seek the death penalty against Washington area sniper John Allen Muhammad. Whether Muhammad or a juvenile accomplice fired the shots that killed 10 people in 2002 was an issue during his trial” (The Washington Post). Um, excuse me, but John Allen Muhammad was charged with capital murders done in the commission of terrorist activity. As I pointed out above, and as Cuccinelli did in his e-mail, there is no triggerman rule when it comes to capital murder charges involving terrorism. Does Brownlee know anything at all about the John Allen Muhammad trial or the hell that citizens in this area had to put up with when John Allen Muhammad was running around killing or shooting everyone from children to the elderly?

Brownlee also claims that since Cuccinelli doesn’t support the abolition of the triggerman rule, ipso facto, he doesn’t support law enforcement. Here’s just a small sample of things Cuccinelli has done for the law enforcement community:

Privately:

Cuccinelli was “a longtime friend” of Fairfax County Police Officer Michael S. Garbarino according to The Washington Post, one of two Fairfax County police officers who were killed in the line of duty during the Sully police station shootout in 2006. The Richmond Times-Dispatch covered Garbarino’s funeral and reported the following:

State Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, R-Fairfax, fought back tears several times during his remarks. At one point, he turned to Garbarino’s daughters and told them their father was a leader, a teacher and a hero.

“He’s a father you can be proud of forever,” he said.

Cuccinelli would later represent both Garbarino’s and Detective Vicky O. Armel’s families in a civil suit against their murderer’s parents for negligence and wrongful death. He managed to secure $300,000 for each victim’s family.

While in the General Assembly, this is just a small sample of legislation that Ken Cuccinelli has been involved with:

2003 session: Co-Patron (Virginia’s term for co-sponsorship of legislation) on two resolutions remembering the late Troopers Charles Mark Cosslett (HJ 895) and Michael T. Blanton (HJ 899), both of whom were killed in the line of duty. Co-Patron of legislation that expanded the definition of “sexually violent predators” and allowed for easier civil commitment procedures (SB 1149). Co-Patron of legislation that created the Child Pornography Images Registry to allow for easier prosecution of child pornography cases; also increased the punishment for child pornography cases (SB 1153). Co-Patron of legislation requiring state buildings to have Code Adam procedures in place; created the Virginia Amber Alert Plan (SB 1204).

2005 session: Chief Patron of legislation that expanded the requirements of overtime compensation for law enforcement officers (SB 873). Co-Patron of legislation that would have “[p]rovide[d] for funding of continued health insurance and death benefit payments for eligible state employees under the Line of Duty Act”, which covers law enforcement officers (SB 878).

2006 session: Chief Patron of legislation that would have ensured that state law enforcement officers received the same expanded overtime compensation requirements that were passed in 2003 (SB 657). Chief Patron of legislation that expanded the definition of “sexually violent predators” and expanded the ability of the Office of the Attorney General to access child protective services records (SB 694). This piece of legislation was incorporated into a larger bill, SB 559, which significantly revamped the state’s Sex Offender Registry, which Cuccinelli was also a Co-Patron of. Co-Patron of legislation that increased penalties for people that commit sex crimes when they should be on the Virginia Sex Offender Registry, but haven’t registered (HB 561), which was incorporated into HB 984. Chief Patron of legislation that would have made “several changes in the process and procedures afforded to [law enforcement] officers under the procedural guarantee act, including right to counsel, notice of allegations, and a prohibition against a complaining officer being in charge of an investigation” (SB 697). Co-Patron of a resolution commending the Virginia Capitol Police and its head, Colonel George B. Mason, Jr. (SJ 296). Co-Patron of a resolution celebrating the life of Officer Seneca B. Darden of the Norfolk Police Department, who was killed in the line of duty (SJ 5035).

2007 session: Again the Chief Patron of legislation that would have made “several changes in the process and procedures afforded to [law enforcement] officers under the procedural guarantee act, including right to counsel, notice of allegations, and a prohibition against a complaining officer being in charge of an investigation” (SB 776).

2008 session: Co-Patron of legislation that would have given the expanded overtime compensation requirements that were passed in 2003 to employees of the Virginia State Police (SB 269). Chief Patron of SB 76 and Co-Patron of SB 355 that would have made “several changes in the process and procedures afforded to [law enforcement] officers under the procedural guarantee act, including right to counsel, notice of allegations, and a prohibition against a complaining officer being in charge of an investigation”.

Unfortunately, this is just the latest in a long series of lies from Brownlee and his camp. Last week, it was lies from Brownlee (and his crazy blog supporters) regarding Cuccinelli’s service in the Marine Corps.

The earliest instance that I can find (July 2008) were claims from Brownlee that he was just as conservative as Cuccinelli on the issue of abortion; that he and Cuccinelli both supported raped, incest, and a mother’s health exceptions to a ban on abortion. As D.J. McGuire pointed out, Cuccinelli does not support rape and incest exceptions; Cuccinelli follows the “Catholic Doctrine” when it comes to abortion: a total ban except for an exception for the mother’s health.

Does Brownlee have absolutely no idea what he’s talking about; or does he just go around lying?

Is it safe to call John Brownlee (Republican candidate for Attorney General) a clown yet?

If nothing else, he’s a liar.

Right now, John Brownlee is battling Ken Cuccinelli (and David Foster for that matter) for the Republican nomination for Attorney General.

In a single bio on a single website, Cuccinelli’s bio notes that he served as a Second Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps. A couple of Brownlee’s loony-ass blog supporters started a swan-song wondering why Cuccinelli doesn’t mention his Marine Corps service more often, and, ipso facto, he must be lying about it.

As Virginia Virtucon noted a couple days ago, Cuccinelli was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant following completion of the Marine Corps’s Office Candidate School (OCS) at Quantico; was deactivated while he completed law school; and after he got his JD, the Marine Corps determined that they had enough lawyers. Cuccinelli requested a transfer to infantry, which was denied, and he was RIFed (reduction in force) out of the Corps. Cuccinelli doesn’t consider his service in the Marine Corps remarkable and as significant as compared to those that fought and died for this country while in the Corps and the other branches of the military. Now, those same loony-ass Brownlee supporters are demanding that Cuccinelli release his military records to prove this.

Brownlee is going around claiming that he is the only veteran that’s running for Attorney General this year (Virginia Virtucon again [different link]). If Cuccinelli was to point out that he served in the Marine Corps, completed OCS, and was then discharged, he would come off as being petty.

The fact that Brownlee is also claiming to be the only veteran running for AG also begs this question: Why are his loony-ass blog supporters attacking Cuccinelli’s Marine Corps service? As Shaun Kenny points out (Id. in comments section), the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Ironically those same Brownlee supporters aren’t demanding that Brownlee release his own military records. However, since they won’t, I am. How do we know that Brownlee was in the United States Army? Are we to trust him at his word when Riley at Virginia Virtucon has already shown him to be a liar?

Of course, even if Brownlee does release his military records, I’m not voting for him if he’s the Republican nominee come November.