Welcome to LoudounTimes.com
Loudoun Times-Mirror

Arlington commonwealth’s attorney to remain the prosecutor in Delgaudio case

Arlington County Commonwealth's Attorney Theo Stamos (D) will officially serve as the prosecutor in the ongoing recall effort to remove Loudoun County Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio (R-Sterling), a judge in Loudoun County ruled March 25.

Retired judge Paul Sheridan dismissed a motion by local attorney John Flannery to have Stamos disqualified from the proceedings. Sheridan, a former Arlington County judge, appointed Stamos to the case earlier this month after Loudoun Commonwealth's Attorney Jim Plowman was granted a recusal.

All Loudoun Circuit Court judges were also recused from the hearings.

The case centers around allegations Delgaudio misused public assets and abuse elected office. Several hundred of Delgaudio's constituents filed a petition in January to have the four-term supervisor removed. Central to the petitioners claims are that Delgaudio used public funds to conduct political fundraising for his nonprofit conservative lobbying organization, Public Advocate of the United States, which has been designated an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Delgaudio's foes say the Sterling supervisor's inflammatory rhetoric and fervent anti-gay views have contributed to dysfunction within Loudoun County government.

Stamos is familiar with the case – a primary reason Flannery sought to have her removed and another prosecutor appointed. Stamos led a special grand jury investigation into basically the same allegations last year. That examination included testimony from dozens of witnesses and information-gathering in private, and Stamos, at the conclusion, opted not to bring forward an indictment against Delgaudio.

Flannery argued that, given Stamos' extensive history of the case, the Arlington commonwealth's attorney is biased and doesn't "believe in the cause."

"This is a case that is set for a fight," Flannery said, and he claimed Stamos is not interested in that fight.

Stamos did not directly respond to Flannery's sentiment. She has previously said she will serve at the direction of the court as it pertains to the Delguadio case. Sheridan has insisted Stamos handle the matter for the commonwealth, and he has repeatedly praised her integrity and upstanding work within the judicial system.

In court March 25, Stamos said her objective is to “further the best interest of the commonwealth,” not necessarily the “best interest of the petitioners.”

Delgaudio appeared in court, but he did not speak. He's being represented by Leesburg attorney Charlie King.

In other action, Judge Sheridan narrowed the scope of several subpoenas King issued against opponents of Delgaudio. Sheridan reasoned that many of the subpoenas, including those against LGBT activists Jonathan and David Weintraub, were too broad and unnecessary.

Flannery argued that King submitted the subpoenas strictly to “vex and harass” those who dislike Delgaudio.

The case resumes in Loudoun County Circuit Court May 6 at 11 a.m.

This story has been updated from an earlier version.

Contact the writer at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Related coverage:

-Southern Poverty Law Center defends ‘hate group’ designation of Delgaudio

-Judge will ask Arlington commonwealth’s attorney to serve in Delgaudio case

For more information on the Delgaudio case, including a link to last year's special grand jury report, click here.


Why yes David I do.  Thanks for asking, now that it’s miles off the main page!

Just getting a chuckle at your demure thanks to Satch for filling you in, since you’re so far on the “outside” of the issue.

And yes, this will be interesting, all the way through.

This thread has left me wondering whether Ms. Munsey understands what the word “subpoenaed” means. Presently, I’m leaning toward “no.”

Egg on your face or incompetent, whatever you want to call it just like when he runs for office Flannery loses. He lost the battle and soon the war but Eugene will give him a front row seat during the victory celebration at the end of this battle, white flag indeed but not by me!

You win some you lose some.  For Flannery the most substantial wins came in the form of the subpoena scope reductions.  Flannery was most animated and effective when he was discussing the broad political nature of the subpoenas.

Forsooth, I thought the object of Flannery’s exercise was to be rid of CA Stamos. Now instead he is held in awe as king of the subpoena squishers with a front row seat. We should just add Flannery as our great debater even though he does not win the coveted prize. A footnote to the proceedings, nothing more!

If Delgaudio were smart. he’d have his attorney have him declared incompetent to stand trial.

lol David!  If you’ve been subpoenaed you’re not on the outside.

Yes, it is an interesting case, and will remain so as it progresses.

Yup. I was there. Satchmo got it right.

Thanks for that summary, Satchmo. This is turning out to be a more interesting case than it appeared to be from the outside.

Thanks Satchmo 4 details.  “On the contrary Flannery was not sent packing.”  869 comments w/out info. OR doesn’t read.

Statue waves white flag.

Thanks 2 Satchmo 4 details. “On the contrary Flannery was not sent packing.” 869 comments w/out info. OR doesn’t read.

Statue waves white flag.

On the contrary Flannery was not sent packing.  He was a legitimate and valuable part of today’s proceedings.  He did not win his argument to remove Stamos but it was a very important debate.  Evident by the amount of attention Judge Sheridan gave to the matter and to the amount of time he gave Flannery for testifying.  At the end of the day the right decision was made.  Stamos is not prejudiced but her involvement.  If this exercise had not been played out as professional as it had we would be left with doubt.  Great job by Flannery, Judge Sheridan and Ms. Stamos. 

Further Flannery was welcome at the table next to Stamos, much to the chagrin of Stamos.  I think the Judge is relying on Flannery to help flush out some of the nuances of this unprecedented case.  Also, Flannery said as much at the end that he was taking a back seat going forward but would be vigilant to the legal protection requirements of his client the “Sterling Deserves Better” crowd.  I think the judge appreciated his approach.

This article really misses the fireworks associated with the subpoena denials.  Judge smacked on King about the over reaching nature of the actions.  Called them political.  Over and over said “sustained, and overruled” to most of the clauses.  He explained he was saying overruled because he anticipated the inevitable object from King.  At the end the overbearing subpoenas were rightful limited in scope. 

And it would be fair to say Judge Sheridan at some point asked King how he was doing? Referencing the heavy defeat of his over-reaching subpoenas.  King smirked and the Judge said, you are doing a good job, any young attorney should be digging into every crevice he can to gain and advantage for his client.  (paraphrasing of course)

It would be a tragic unintended consequence if the industriousness of Mr. Delgaudio’s political enemies impedes Mr. Flannery’s campaign to remove the Confederate statue from the Courthouse.

Flannery sent packing again by Judge Sheridan, the third time I hope he is held in as much contempt as we have for him. Starting to dry up some and resemble Don Imus who has a face made for radio. Delgaudio should be glad Flannery and such are out of the way but not so happy that Stamos remains after all she is no Plowman.

Post a comment

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Comments express only the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of this website or any associated person or entity. Any user who believes a message is objectionable can contact us at ltmeditor@loudountimes.com.

More News

The Loudoun Times-Mirror

is an interactive, digital replica
of the printed newspaper.
Click here for all e-editions.