Mobile Website | Login | Register
Staff Directory | Advertise | Subscribe | About Us
Business Government Politics Region Crime/Public Safety Education People E-edition Ashburn Hamilton Hillsboro Lansdowne Leesburg Lovettsville Middleburg Purcellville River Creek Round Hill Sterling
Basketball Football Youth Wrestling Gymnastics Swimming Volleyball Baseball Track Golf Cheer Cross Country Schedule Scores
Brambleton Community of Faith Hangin in the Nosebleeds Journal Entry Loudoun Essence Made in Loudoun Odd Angles River Creek & Lansdowne South Riding Sterling, Cascades & CountrySide
This Week's Slideshow Browse All Galleries Your Best Dish Featured Video The Virginians
  • Announcements
  • Autos
  • Jobs
  • Legals
  • Homes
  • YardSales
  • Submit an Ad
  • Newspaper Advertising Online Advertising
    Classified listings Homes section

    Federal lawsuit filed against Delgaudio’s Public Advocate

    photoSupervisor Eugene Delgaudio (R-Sterling) gives shout outs at his birthday party on Jan. 7, 2010, at Glory Days Grill. He used his birthday to raise funds for his campaign. Times-Mirror File Photo/Lisa Johnson

    It was of little surprise today when a gay couple targeted by Loudoun County Supervisor Eugene Delgauio filed a federal lawsuit in Colorado against Delgaudio’s nonprofit organization, the Public Advocate of the United States.

    In June, Public Advocate of the United States sent out political mailers in Colorado for a state Senate race that used an altered image of the couple, Tom Privitere and Brian Edwards, kissing. Verbiage was added questioning, “State Senator Jean White’s idea of family values?”

    White, a supporter of civil unions, was squaring off against an incumbent in a Republican primary.

    The announcement of the lawsuit came Wednesday on a conference call with Privitere, Edwards, photographer Kristina Hill and a representative of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights advocacy group assisting in the suit.

    “My name is Brian Edwards, and my husband, Tom Privitere, and I are here today to take back the beautiful moment in our lives that was reflected in our engagement photo before it was hijacked by a hate group,” Edwards said on the call.

    The original image’s copyright belongs to Hill, who shot the celebratory photos of the New Jersey couple.

    The lawsuit lists Edwards, Privitere and Hills as plaintiffs and Public Advocate as the defendant. Representatives from the SPLC undersigned the complaint, which alleges the couple’s photo was stolen and misappropriated. “Now, instead of representing love, the photo represents the hatred and discrimination that gay people must still endure in our society,” Christine Sun, an SPLC attorney, said.

    “We’re asking primarily for a few things: one is a declaration that Public Advocate’s acts were illegal, and also we are asking for monetary damages which will be proven as filed,” Sun said.

    The engagement photo was stolen off the couple’s personal blog, according to Edwards.

    photoSupervisor Eugene Delgaudio’s nonprofit group altered a gay couple’s engagement photo for a political flyer in a Colorado senate Republican primary. The original photo, top, was taken by photographer Kristina Hill. Hill holds the copyright. Photo Courtesy/LGBT Magazine, Brian Edwards, Tom Privitere

    SPLC sent Delgaudio a cease and desist letter in July. Sun said they did not receive a response from Delgaudio (R-Sterling) or anyone from Public Advocate.

    Delgaudio has been largely silent in addressing the charges head on. In June, he said he doesn’t have time to respond “to every allegation groups bring against” him.

    In March, the Times-Mirror was among the first to report Delgaudio’s organization’s listing as an active anti-gay hate group by the SPLC, an internationally recognized civil rights non-profit . The designation was based on research compiled through hate group publications and websites, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports.

    According to the SPLC, “all hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”

    The four-term Loudoun supervisor founded Public Advocate in 1981.

     

    Comments

    The Bulletproof Monk - I am a graphic artist and I can tell you copy right laws protect your photographs even if you put them up online and the public can view them. You own the rights to that photo still. No one may reuse that image without permission.

    Delgaudio does not stand a chance in court.


    The Post article makes it sound like Delgaudio has a hard time separating his activities as the leader of a hate group and being a Supervisor.  Hopefully he gets nailed on abuse of his office and wasting taxpayer funds on his “day job”.

    I do think Delgaudio staying power is due to voter apathy in Sterling rather than widespread approval of his platform.  Turnout for BoS elections is low to begin with.  I’d bet is even lower in Sterling than it is elsewhere in the county.  So a few hundred wingnuts come out and vote for Eugene, a few others blindly vote GOP every time no matter who it is, and everyone else stays home.  It is too bad this story didn’t come out closer to an election, maybe some people could be mobilized off their couch.


    @Monk
    “The engagement photo was stolen off the couple’s personal blog, according to Edwards.”
    How is that “very PUBLIC”? I’m not so sure you should be going around calling people slow-witted.


    It’s no wonder why most US taxpaying americans are digusted with politics and the appearance of corruption. Most of these politicians couldn’t work in a real world company, their egos would get in the way. Let’s see the reason he keeps getting elected… nobody runs against him or the 500 or so people that are registered to vote in his area, either don’t show up or vote for him.


    “Monk, are you serious!  This has nothing to do with boys.  It’s about abusing taxpayer money and resources for Delgaudio’s campaign fund.”

    See….right here is where the slow-witted get side-tracked. 

    “My name is Brian Edwards, and my husband, Tom Privitere, and I are here today to take back the beautiful moment in our lives that was reflected in our engagement photo before it was hijacked by a hate group,” Edwards said on the call”

    Tell me again that this article is about hiding money. It’s about a very PUBLIC picture being used by someone that they didn’t want using it.


    Nice heil hitler pose delgaudio


    This lawsuit will also bring revelations about Public Advocates financing and expenses. 

    Now there is going to be some interesting reading.  I hope the IRS is paying attention.


    Now that it has come to light Delgaudio was/is co-mingling his staffs and compute resources for both his job as Supervisor and his role as a candidate; one has to say he probably was doing the same with his responsibility with Public Advocate.  This isn’t a stretch, he apparently was using his PA staff to manage his county staff.

    So as this lawsuit progresses it is not out of the realm of possibilities that county computers potential hold important discovery data associated with this copyright lawsuit.  I certainly hope, as taxpayers, we aren’t shouldered with the bill of supporting Delgaudio’s defense or subpoena requirements for this data. 

    Heck if I was going after Delgaudio for the copyright charge, I’d be all over the county computers.


    workhardlearntoread: To be considered an anti-gay hate group or individual requires one to habitually engage in the propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Simply opposing marriage equality isn’t enough to qualify.

    Whether you personally are guilty of hate I don’t know, but you do sound like a crybaby. Marriage equality is happening in this great nation, because marriage is good for individuals and good for society - a view that is solidly conservative. If you don’t wish to marry someone of the same gender, don’t. But it has nothing to do with this lawsuit, or with Eugene’s other unlawful behavior.

    Even hate groups are required to promote their ideologies within the parameters of the law.


    @workhardgetahead: Public Advocate is being sued for copyright infringement and misappropration of a likeness, not for anyone’s views on who can marry and who cannot. Or do you think it is okay to break the law if the victims are gay? Even if you do, one of the victims was the photographer. I don’t know if she is gay or not, so you may have to do some digging before you decide if it is okay to violate her rights.


    >One of the main reasons marriage was created was >so a couple could pro-create. The last time I >checked 2 members of the same sex can’t do that.

    1) Marriage has always been about property and inheritance rights.  Don’t believe me? Look it up and look closely at what happens when a couple divorces.

    2) What about male/female couples that cannot or do not want to have children? Do they have a “real” marriage in your eyes?

    3) There are 1138 federal benefits, rights and responsibilities associated with marriage, none of which have anything to do with procreation. Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for.

    >Now you have the libs trying to redefine marrage >and if you don’t fall lock step in with them >you’re a hater. Sorry (no you’re not), I will >continue to support traditional marriage and >traditional values and if that makes me a hater, >so be it

    Which of the 8 types of traditional biblical marriage are you referring to?

    1.Polygynous Marriage
    Probably the most common form of marriage in the bible, it is where a man has more than one wife.

    2.Levirate Marriage
    When a woman was widowed without a son, it became the responsibility of the brother-in-law or a close male relative to take her in and impregnate her. If the resulting child was a son, he would be considered the heir of her late husband. See Ruth, and the story of Onan (Gen. 38:6-10).

    3.A man, a woman and her property — a female slave
    The famous “handmaiden” sketch, as preformed by Abraham (Gen. 16:1-6) and Jacob (Gen. 30:4-5).

    4.A man, one or more wives, and some concubines
    The definition of a concubine varies from culture to culture, but they tended to be live-in mistresses. Concubines were tied to their “husband,” but had a lower status than a wife. Their children were not usually heirs, so they were safe outlets for sex without risking the line of succession. To see how badly a concubine could be treated, see the famous story of the Levite and his concubine (Judges 19:1-30).

    5.A male soldier and a female prisoner of war
    Women could be taken as booty from a successful campaign and forced to become wives or concubines. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes the process.

    6.A male rapist and his victim
    Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes how an unmarried woman who had been raped must marry her attacker.

    7.A male and female slave
    A female slave could be married to a male slave without consent, presumably to produce more slaves.

    and of course …

    8.Monogamous, heterosexual marriage
    What you might think of as the standard form of marriage, provided you think of arranged marriages as the standard. Also remember that inter-faith or cross-ethnic marriage were forbidden for large chunks of biblical history and anti-miscegenation laws were in effect in this country until June 12, 1967.


    Skid row, thanks for posting the Amendment to the VA. Constitution. I’m also very proud that we were able to pass that into law. Now only if we can get it in the US Constitution. I can’t stand how all of these Homosexual sympathizers can’t tolerate our beliefs and we get attacked and called names but they expect us to tolerate theirs and if we don’t we are called haters and homophobes. I will always stand up and vote for Eugene Delgaudio. Am I a hater because I don’t support a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman? One of the main reasons marriage was created was so a couple could pro-create. The last time I checked 2 members of the same sex can’t do that. Now you have the libs trying to redefine marrage and if you don’t fall lock step in with them you’re a hater. Sorry, I will continue to support traditional marriage and traditional values and if that makes me a hater, so be it.


    SkidRow, you know what’s sinful? Stealing and bearing false witness. Delgaudio did both when he misappropriated the picture and changed the background. And he broke the law of the US and Colorado while doing it.


    Folks, it doesn’t matter whether the plaintiffs are gay or straight.  What Mr. Delgaudio and the Public Advocate did was flat-out wrong and illegal.  He hijacked that photo for his own purposes, without permission.  Listen, if someone used one of your photos, let’s say it was from posted in the Washington Post, that you gave permission to use, and then suddenly it was found in another publication, without your permission, you’d be very upset, right?  Same principle here.  If Mr. Delgaudio had quietly put the matter to rest and perhaps apologized to the plaintiffs, none of this would have gone public.  Instead, his silence and defiance have made this a big public news event, especially since he’s an elected, public figure. Big problem!


    Don’t be gullible Satchmo. This lawsuit is just part of the homosexual agenda to strike back at people who don’t support their sinful behavior.


    This lawsuit will obviously get expensive and require Delgaudio to turn over computer files.  Since he has a propensity to co-mingle county and private business functions, the prudent investigative thing to do is to confiscate his county computer resources. It is likely pertinent evidence resides within the county computers. Who’s going to pay for that?  I sure hope the county passes along any IT costs for the pending subpoena to Public Advocate.  As a tax payer I certainly don’t want to pay for that.


    I would like to know why York seems to think this is a personnel harrassment issue;  rather than an issue of county tax and resource abuse.  We need to hear something from the BOS and Chairman York on this issue.


    I suspect in a few days we may see Delgaudio come out of the closet himself.  His self-hate agenda has gone way beyond funny.  He’s an embarrassment and I guess we can hope Loudoun will wake up and retire this fool in the next election—if the courts don’t do it before then.

    Check today’s Post…yet another lawsuit against our moron-in-residence.  LTM can’t seem to get a handle on the story and doesn’t report it, but that’s OK.  Those of us who read other news sources know the score.

    Bye Eugene.  It can’t happen fast enough.


    Monk, are you serious!  This has nothing to do with boys.  It’s about abusing taxpayer money and resources for Delgaudio’s campaign fund.


    Seems he’s been attracting a lot of attention lately.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/for-loudoun-supervisor-eugene-delgaudio-blurred-lines-on-fundraising/2012/09/25/2ec1e206-eca7-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html


    Wow….does this mean they regret leaving the closet? Grow a backbone boys. Everybody isn’t crazy about your choices….just like you aren’t crazy about some of ours. The problem is, you boys think you are owed….but we’re all just a bunch of haters. That’s the thing about opinions….like posteriors, in America, everybody is entitled to their own.


    Great article by the Post today as well.  Page A-1 embarrassing Loudoun County.  Commenters wondering how anyone can vote for this man.


    SkidRow, you are quick to post the law of Virginia, but just as quick to ignore the laws of the United States and of Colorado, where copyright infringement and misappropriation of a person’s likeness are illegal, no matter what the constitution of Virginia says about who may, and who may not, get married.


    So glad that I live in Virginia.


    Virginia Constitution (Ratified November 7, 2006)
    Section 15-A. Marriage

    That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

    Get Our Headlines Via Email
    Tuesdays:  
    Thursdays:

    StayConnected

    Follow Us
    on Twitter

    News | Sports

    Like Us
    on Facebook

    News & Sports

    Join Our
    Email List

    Sign up for
    weekly updates
    The Loudoun Times-Mirror

    is an interactive, digital replica
    of the printed newspaper.
    Open the e-edition now.

    Loudoun Business Journal - Summer 2014

    Loudoun Business Journal - Spring 2014