Court examines whether recall claims match voter petition

By Valerie Cury

A recall effort targeting Purcellville’s Vice Mayor Ben Nett is now focused on whether the case being pursued in court aligns with the allegations voters approved when they signed the recall petition.

On Dec. 22, 2025, Stafford Commonwealth’s Attorney Eric L. Olsen filed a Bill of Particulars listing seven grounds for pursuing Nett’s removal. According to Nett’s attorney, Jennifer L. McGovern, who represents him through counsel retained by the Town’s insurance carrier, says none of these grounds correspond directly to the claims included in the petition circulated among Purcellville voters.

On Jan. 12, McGovern filed a Respondent’s Motion to Strike and Demurrer on Nett’s behalf. A demurrer is a legal motion arguing that the claims as stated are legally insufficient for the court to proceed. The motion contends that the recall cannot move forward based on allegations that were never presented to or approved by voters.

Under Virginia law, a recall petition must clearly state the acts or omissions that form the basis for removal. Prosecutors can clarify those allegations in a Bill of Particulars but they may not introduce entirely new claims after signatures have been gathered. McGovern told the court that Olsen’s filing introduces allegations not included in the petition.

“The Bill of Particulars ignores the allegations made in the Removal Petition and asserts entirely new grounds which have not been verified under oath by the qualified voters of the Town of Purcellville,” McGovern wrote. She said many of the claims are vague and fail to give Nett adequate notice of the accusations against him.

The recall petition signed by voters alleges that Nett engaged in misconduct, including violations of Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act, misuse of office, incompetence, neglect of duty, and conflicts of interest. The petition specifically references Nett conducting Town business using personal email and phone accounts and his involvement in the termination of former Town Manager Rick Bremseth and the hiring of Kwasi Fraser without adequate public process. These allegations have not been adjudicated or proven in any court proceeding.

Olsen’s Bill of Particulars, in contrast, includes new allegations that were not listed in the petition. According to McGovern, these allegations fall outside the pleadings and concern matters unrelated to the claims presented to voters, including conduct pertaining to Nett’s service as a Town of Purcellville police officer and issues involving municipal administration and compliance.

McGovern told the court that many of these allegations involve conduct outside Nett’s duties as a Town Council member. She also said several claims are vague, lack dates or factual detail, and were never sworn to by voters, leaving Nett without proper notice of the claims. 

Some allegations involve actions Nett does not have authority to take, such as hiring a consultant or offering positions in the police department, or assume legal duties that do not exist, such as agreeing or not agreeing with consultant findings.

The motion asks the court to strike the Bill of Particulars in full and dismiss both the removal petition and the petition for a rule to show cause, with prejudice. McGovern wrote a recall is limited to the allegations voters approved when they signed the petition.

The court has not yet ruled. At this stage, the case is focused on whether the allegations in the Bill of Particulars align with the claims presented to voters, not on assessing the validity, accuracy, or substance of the allegations themselves.