OP-ED: DELGAUDIO PROSECUTOR PUNTS! by John P. Flannery

Supervisor Delgaudio pretending to be a criminal (actual photo)

Source (picture): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BWMgydjhOc

The Arlington County prosecutor, Theophani K. Stamos, looking into the gay-bashing Loudoun County Sterling Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio, never invited the grand jury to vote on whether Mr. Delgaudio committed any crime.

She identified one crime, then said Mr. Delgaudio couldn’t commit it, and took the voting decision away from the grand jury. 

Mr. Delgaudio’s counsel said afterwards that Delgaudio “cooperated fully.”  How is it then that the prosecutor never asked Mr. Delgaudio to testify before the Grand Jury “under oath?” 

Mr. Delgaudio has been a political trickster since 1987 at the helm of Public Advocate.  Mr. Delgaudio wore a black and white striped convict’s uniform that year on Capitol Hill, waved placards at passing Senators, insisted U.S. Supreme Court Nominee, Robert Bork, was too tough on crime for criminals to support him, expecting this opaque irony would somehow convince Senators to vote for his confirmation.  They didn’t.  58 Senators said “No.”  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BWMgydjhOc

Delgaudio’s political theater since has only confirmed his rudeness and bigotry, particularly toward gays.

Not too long ago, Public Advocate allegedly hijacked a copyrighted marriage photo of a gay couple, photo-shopped it, and published it in a political campaign attack on an unrelated Colorado State Senator who supported civil unions.

In order to support his questionable political antics, Delgaudio raises money for Public Advocate, $1.1 million in 2011 (and he paid himself $133,000 that year). http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/521/521112449/521112449_201112_990O.pdf

It was little surprise therefore that the Grand Jury focused on Mr. Delgaudio’s fund-raising. 

Mr. Delgaudio hired Donna Mateer as an aide but, instead of having her work on County business, responding to constituents, County staffers, and other Supervisors, Mr. Delgaudio gave her a script to arrange meetings for Mr. Delgaudio to raise funds to retire his campaign debt. 

Mateer worked on County time at taxpayer’s expense.  According to the Grand Jury, “Supervisor Delgaudio was the one responsible for certifying time and attendance records for his BOS aides.”  Presumably, Mr. Delgaudio certified Ms. Mateer as working for the County when she was not.

Delgaudio told anyone who would listen that he was really raising funds for a local football league, and not his campaign. 

The Grand Jury reported, however, that they heard sworn testimony that Mr. Delgaudio was not raising funds for the football league.  This was a missed opportunity for the prosecutor to ask Mr. Delgaudio under oath why his public statements were at odds with what the Grand Jury had learned. 

The Grand Jury considered perjury charges for a pastor believed to serve as a conduit for cash contributors to give to Mr. Delgaudio.  An envelope memorialized a $5,000 contribution close in time to a Board vote by Delgaudio when he changed his position on the construction of a Loudoun County building.

The prosecutor was blind to any charge by the salaried Mr. Delgaudio misleading the County paymaster because, she said, he was not “full time.”  When the Board doubled its Member’s salary in 2008, the reason the Board offered was that one couldn’t serve as a Supervisor and hold a conventional job.  One Supervisor said you had to be retired or rich to serve. 

Chairman Scott York reportedly said there were days you could pay him $200,000 and it wouldn’t compensate what he did for the County.

An additional question is, does this mean, the prosecutor did not consider any other possible charges, not grand or petit larceny (18.2-95,96), nor embezzlement (18.2-111), nor fraudulent entries (18.2-113), not obtaining money under false pretenses (18.2-178), nor false statements to obtain property or credit (18.2-186)?

It feels like the prosecutor proposed “reforms” as a sop for denying the Grand Jury any opportunity to vote on the testimony it considered.  It’s also ironic -- the thought of reform -- when our Board opposes even an ethics policy. 

From the beginning of this grand jury investigation, it was clear it was going nowhere.   This same prosecutor would have had to reverse her first opinion, before there was a Grand Jury, when she cleared Mr. Delgaudio in record time.

Some asked months ago, why do we need to file a petition by the citizens of Sterling to remove Supervisor Delgaudio?

It’s because only the people can possibly rid themselves of politicians like Supervisor Delgaudio.

OP-ED: INALIENABLE RIGHTS by John P. Flannery

Chloris, the family pig

If you listened to the talking heads on last Sunday’s Shows, you may have come away with an uneasy feeling about how the U.S. does its business, particularly in the embarrassing matter of the most famous whistle blower since Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon papers – we’re talking about Edward J. Snowden and his disclosures about how our government has been vacuuming up our private information at home and abroad.

We should first review the especially lawless and bellicose remarks of Republican U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham from South Carolina. 

Senator Graham would rather have Hong Kong disregard the serious legal issue raised by the Brooklyn federal indictment charging Snowden with “espionage,” namely, that the treaty we signed states that Hong Kong need not extradite an American if the underlying indictment is deemed “political” (and espionage charges are almost always considered “political”). 

Of course, given the right charges, Hong Kong might have decided to extradite Snowden.  But these charges, namely, “espionage,” appear to have been drafted by politicians who wanted a headline instead of by smart criminal lawyers who might have found criminal charges that didn’t run afoul of the extradition treaty.

Fox News Sunday Anchor Chris Wallace weakly insisted the extradition failed because Hong Kong was “legalistic” -- for actually insisting the United States satisfy the terms of the extradition treaty we signed.

Graham blusters and fulminates about using our nation’s considerable raw economic force against any nation state that would "harbor" Snowden. 

It’s fascinating how these guys in our government leak what they wish, but anyone who releases information revealing their lies and misconduct, triggers a manhunt to the ends of the earth to bring him down and shut him up – and we have the proof of this in the case of Snowden.

In fact, Senator Graham said, "I hope we'll chase him (Snowden) to the ends of the earth, bring him to justice and let the Russians know there will be consequences if they harbor this guy."

Apparently Snowden was going to catch a flight in Russia elsewhere and never actually enter Russia.

"They (Russia) want to be part of the world community, the (World Trade Organization). They want a good relationship with the United States. They should hold this felon and send him back home for justice," Graham said.   So much for the lawful process we’ve endorsed in various treaties including with Russia. 

Increasingly, we are instructed by our government’s misconduct that our government believes might makes right.  That's how empires act.  This nation was created because Great Britain was an empire dictating what we colonials could and couldn't do.  We’ve at last become what we decried at the birth of our own nation.

Another instructive exchange occurred on ABC, when several correspondents topped each other, with all but the hand-slapping high-5s, on how desperate Snowden must be going from country to country, asking what Snowden thinks he'll find “that’s better” in these other nations where he’s seeking asylum.

These correspondents ignored what prompted Snowden’s status, as a man without a country who so loved his nation he had to leave to save it from its government’s excesses.

As for the “high-5ing” question, what Snowden hopes to find, is a safe haven where he can avoid torture, and a confinement dark and solitary, like what Army Sergeant Bradley Edward Manning suffered for exposing the lies our government told about how we were warring in the mid-East.

The media has been subpoenaed and scrutinized itself but somehow fails to connect the dots from those intrusions by government into journalism with what Snowden has disclosed is happening to everyone else including media.

One ray of illumination was an op-ed from media maven, Max Frankel, the former New York Times Executive Editor, in a piece titled, "Where Did Our Inalienable Rights Go?" 

Frankel rightly said there's a big difference between an individual deciding to share information on social media and the government ensnaring private individuals in criminal prosecutions that can result in prison time based on the government sucking up every bit of information it can about our associations from phone and email records in the absence of any suspicion or charges. 

Until Snowden’s disclosures, Frankel notes, this “top secret” enterprise was “publicly denied, even in Congressional hearings.”  We still don’t know who has access to these storage bins of information about us.  Nor can we trust a malleable secret court to protect us.

We have pundits aplenty and public officials in every direction who believe the United States can do anything it wants, and play the bully we condemn in every other nation state.

Shame on these pundits and public officials who lack the wit of our family’s pet pig, Chloris.

IMMEDIATE RELEASE: FLANNERY REQUESTS STATISTICAL BREAKDOWN OF BLACKS ARRESTED IN LOUDOUN COUNTY

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: John P. Flannery

Cell: 202-365-5060; Phone: 703-771-8344

JonFlan@aol.com ; www.JohnPFlannerv.com

June 24, 2013

FLANNERY REQUESTS COURT STATISTICS ON PROPORTION OF BLACKS ARRESTED IN LOUDOUN COUNTY

____________________________________

      John P. Flannery, who recently charged that the Confederate Soldier Statue should be removed from the Courthouse has served a request on the Loudoun Circuit and District Court for statistics that show the proportion of criminal arrests that charge Blacks.

     

      [Text of full letter is available at - http://bronxgadfly.blogspot.com/2013/06/foia-request-of-loudoun-courts-re-black.html ; see earlier statement on taking down the confederate soldier statue at - http://bronxgadfly.blogspot.com/2013/05/take-that-confederate-statue-down-by.html  

     

      Citing a “growing awareness that the Confederate soldier statue standing in front of the Courthouse represents disunity, lawlessness and slavery,” Flannery said he agreed with this view and said that “the statue not only offends but it chills access to and compromises trust in this Court and the regularity of its proceedings at the Circuit and District Court levels.”

     

      Based on his observations, Mr. Flannery said that “there is a fear that this symbol means that persons of color are not being treated as equal by the Courts despite the promise of ‘equal justice before the law.’"

      Flannery cited one person, Johnny Chambers, who was interviewed by local Channel 9 who said, "It's hard to get justice when you get people that live in this area, that run this county, that believe in this system," pointing at the Confederate soldier statue.

      Flannery said a Deputy Clerk, Jennifer Grant, reportedly said years ago that "there were certain things people didn't talk about."  He said the “current staff at the Court have told me the same thing …”

     

      “I'm requesting certain information to test the proposition how we treat the black citizens we arrest in this County and whether, as is believed, blacks are arrested in disproportion to their representation in the Loudoun County population.”

      Flannery said “the court case information on-line … plainly indicate[s] the race of every person arrested..” and is “also maintained in the aggregate in a database …”

      For example, Flannery said, “Johnny Chambers' case is available on-line, his race plainly identified, so that one may consider the charges against Mr. Chambers and know precisely what disposition he received.”

      He stated that, “Johnny's charge was marijuana possession” and “there is a recent study that states, while there is no proportional difference between and among blacks and whites as to the use of marijuana, there is a dramatic and significant over-representation of blacks arrested for possession of marijuana, reflecting an apparent policy of prosecutorial discrimination.”

     

      [See study at - http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/061413-mj-report-rfs-rel4.pdf  .]

      Flannery requested information under FOIA that, Flannery said, “is believed to be readily available in the court's records to consider [1] the proportion of all adult arrests in Loudoun County that are black citizens, [2] of all drug and narcotics offenses that are black citizens, [3] of all marijuana possession charges that are black citizens, and [4] all disorderly conduct charges that are black citizens.”

# # #