Warren County Report

On Dec. 19, Llewellyn made available to the local media a response to an e-mail circulated by Bill Pierceall the previous day.

“Understand one thing Mr. Pierceall: on Jan 1, 2008 I no longer have to tolerate your BS and slander and I look forward to the opportunity to hear you explain to a judge how what you say and write is NOT slander and liable,” Llewellyn wrote Pierceall by AT&T “Blackberry.”

Llewellyn’s terse message came in the wake of an e-mail Pierceall distributed to a list of 47 recipients, including local media, elected officials, political Party heads and private citizens. Pierceall’s Dec. 18 e-mail, entitled “Courthouse Records: A Pattern Emerges” alleges to chronicle the courthouse paper trail of Llewellyn’s mid-2004 purchase of the 201-acre Catlett Mountain property.

In it, Pierceall revisits earlier questions he has raised about potential conflicts of interest from Llewellyn’s tenure as a sitting county supervisor and land developer and former County Attorney Doug Napier’s role as Llewellyn’s corporate attorney while also serving as county attorney.

“Llewellyn has used the same threat of libel against other critics, notably Mr. Hoover. It is his way of chilling criticism and avoiding having to answer uncomfortable questions,” Pierceall said of Llewellyn’s Dec. 19 message.

In the past Llewellyn has publicly addressed the fact that at a 2004 closed board meeting on possible county land acquisition, when it immediately became apparent the subject was a property – Catlett Mountain – he was also interested in purchasing, he made board and staff aware of the fact and left the meeting.

Insider trading?

In his e-mail Pierceall questions how Llewellyn immediately secured a loan for $1.65 million on a property he just purchased for $550,000, outbidding the county.

“Did Marathon Bank take comfort in knowing that the County Attorney was also your agent for the property? Did the bankers have this type of information and, if so, where did they get it? Did you give it to them? We are asked to believe the information about possible County use of the Catlett Road property as a western bypass right-of-way was still locked away behind the closed doors of the closed meeting [where Doug Napier and Doug Stanley were present],” Pierceall wrote.

Contacted Dec. 19, Napier said while he was Llewellyn’s attorney he didn’t recall ever working on the Catlett Mountain purchase and said he has never fed any information on county purchasing strategies or prices to Llewellyn.

Concerning Stanley’s possible role in what he views as a Machiavellian land-purchasing strategy, Pierceall wrote, “It was a full 18 months after your purchase on 7 Sept 2004 when Douglas Stanley, on 7 March 2006, made a suitable-for-public-consumption dog and pony show presentation before the BOS. Putting lipstick on the pig, so to speak, Stanley promoted, at considerable length, a western bypass route through your Catlett Road property … Stanley cited 30-year-old ideas, outdated plans, old traffic studies, and his personal opinions.”

Concerning Pierceall’s reference to a 2006 “dog and pony show” pushing the need for a western bypass through Llewellyn’s property, Stanley said such a road through that area has been a part of the county’s 20-20 Transportation Plan since 2000/2001. He also said Pierceall’s e-mail insinuation VDOT had pooh-poohed the notion such a road might be of value to the community was untrue.

Stanley noted that increases in local traffic and a documented upswing in through traffic in the area made planning for future transportation alternatives a logical one. He also recalled that the county’s had been the lowest of what he believes were a total of four bids on the Catlett Mountain property.

Llewellyn calls the allegations he and county staff worked together on land deals for personal profit absurd, untrue – and as of Jan. 1 legally definable as slander and libel. In the past Llewellyn has pointed out he and Napier are lifelong friends and business associates. He also commended Stanley for his professionalism and personal integrity.

“I guess we’ll have to see if this continues after Jan. 1,” Llewellyn said of Pierceall’s yearlong e-mail assault.

Slander or question

In an e-mail response to Llewellyn the evening of Dec. 19, Pierceall references Wikipedia definitions of slander and libel and questions Llewellyn’s hostile stance.

“Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements.” Pierceall quoted from Wikipedia. “The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the defendant was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff’s reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.” Pierceall goes on to cite a variety of legal defenses to slander and libel litigation.

“I am no legal scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but I believe everything I have written is defended by one or more of the above referenced defenses to a libel/defamation lawsuit.

“You may disagree, that is your privilege. However, in your position as an elected public official, I encourage you to exercise debate in a public forum to discuss any or all of the issues raised. There usually are two sides to every public disagreement; I would like to hear you speak publicly to the issues raised,” Pierceall told Llewellyn.

History & info

Pierceall’s criticism of Llewellyn in lengthy, widely distributed e-mails has proceeded throughout the past year and recent political campaign – a losing one for Llewellyn. Questioned on Dec. 19 about his suddenly upping the ante with the threat of litigation, Llewellyn explained.

“I have met with attorneys in the past and they verified what I know, that as a political figure I have to have thicker skin. On Jan. 1, I will no longer have to put up with that BS,” Llewellyn said, referencing the end of his term as the North River supervisor. “The bottom line problem is I’m not going to take too much more of this.”

The “this” Llewellyn referenced are what he asserts are factual inaccuracies and innuendos of criminal behavior against him and others. Referring to the Dec. 18 Pierceall e-mail, questioning the cost of the Catlett Mountain property and subsequent bank loans held against the property, Llewellyn said, “It was so factually inaccurate and the math was so terrible I can’t figure out where he got some of his numbers from. And his insinuations were all wrong.”

Among those insinuations are that Llewellyn has used his political position and friendships to make a series of land purchases where potential bypass routes have been discussed by the county.

“He talks about me purchasing land on the northside because now there is discussion of a bypass there – but what he doesn’t know is that I own all the land next to it.”

Of the information contained in his e-mail, Pierceall said, “I gathered my info by actually going down to the courthouse and using their computer to search the real estate data base for key words such as ‘Llewellyn,’ ‘Catlett Road,’ ‘Swan Farm.’ I spent a tidy sum at fifty cents per page to make hard copies of the various documents the searches revealed.”

Tune in next year for Round 2 of the Rumble in the Jumble of Warren County politics.