Welcome to LoudounTimes.com
Loudoun Times-Mirror

Delgaudio opponents seek to have Arlington commonwealth’s attorney removed from case

The group of Sterling residents seeking to recall and remove Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio (R-Sterling) from office has moved for dismissal of the Arlington County commonwealth's attorney from the ongoing case.

Leesburg attorney John Flannery, on behalf of the Citizens of Sterling petitioners, filed the motion in Loudoun County Circuit Court Friday, four days before Delgaudio is scheduled to return to court for a hearing on the recall petition.

In the motion, Flannery states that Arlington Commonwealth's Attorney Theo Stamos (D) “is unlikely to change her pre-determined opinion on this third review of Mr. Delgaudio. And this time we have another aggravating factor -- Ms. Stamos plainly disputes the rationale for the statutory remedy that the Sterling citizens invoked to make this petition.”

Stamos previously led a special grand jury investigation into allegations Delgaudio misused public assets by having a publicly funded legislative aide conduct political fundraising at the taxpayers' expense, something at odds with county policy. The special jury did not bring forward an indictment against Delgaudio, but highlighted several questionable practices by the controversial and staunchly-conservative Delgaudio.

Flannery's motion goes on to state:

"The appointed counsel, the Honorable Theo Stamos, the Commonwealth Attorney for Arlington County, told counsel for Donna Mateer, Mr. Stevens Miller, Esq., that she did not want to be appointed but acceded because this Court asked her; she made a similar remark to undersigned counsel in a separate conversation.

"When Ms. Stamos accepted this appointment, she had considered the matter of Mr. Delgaudio's alleged misconduct twice before and stated publicly on both occasions that she didn't believe there was any reason to go forward with any investigation of Mr. Delgaudio. There is every reason to believe that she has not changed her mind.

"Indeed, the conduct of Ms. Stamos with regard to how she responded on the two prior occasions, and the conversation that Ms. Stamos had with undersigned counsel after the filing of this petition and appointment by this Court, confirms that this is a cause that she cannot embrace as an advocate and that she considers frivolous and repugnant."

Stamos could not be immediately reached for comment.

Flannery also filed a motion Friday to quash any subpoenas from Delgaudio's attorney, Charles King, seeking information from members of the Citizens of Sterling executive committee.

The Leesburg attorney renewed his previously-denied "motion to intervene" on behalf of the Citizens of Sterling "to defend against the frivolous subpoenas that Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio, by his counsel, Charles King, has now served on petitioners’ Executive Committee."

This is a developing story.

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.

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


Oops. David W., not Dave W.

Case is > than sex; discrimination in all forms is hate. Girl kicked out of lynchburg xtian for not being feminine enuf?

Dave W. - Hear hear!

Chris, I believe you are smarter than this comment would indicate.

First of all, the action brought by the citizens of Sterling is based, from what I’ve read, on the findings of the Grand Jury that Mr. Delgaudio has confused fundraising for his political campaign (“Retire Delgaudio campaign debt”) with his role as supervisor (evidence in that same Grand Jury report that he has also had his county aides report to the office manager of “Public Advocate” notwithstanding).

However, if the Sterling citizens’ action *were* related to the activities of “Public Advocate,” your characterization of those activities as being merely a “stand for traditional marriage” is wildly inaccurate. You know, of course, that Mr. Delgaudio’s counsel has (frivolously, because it is irrelevant to the case) subpoenaed the Southern Poverty Law Center for its research process leading to “Public Advocate” being designated an anti-gay hate group. Now, stop and think: Do you honestly believe that such a designation would be made for merely advocating a so-called “traditional” definition of marriage? Are you familiar with the *other* groups on the SPLC’s short list of anti-gay hate groups? Please tell me that you are not that gullible and silly.

Then, in the next paragraph, you depart entirely from your specious claims about “marriage” stands and start talking about Loudoun County’s Human Resources Handbook. This document contains the policies pertaining to county employment, including a nondiscrimination policy that requires employment decisions to be based on job qualifications and skills only, not unrelated personal characteristics like race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and Veteran status, to name a few. Consider this idea “radical” if you like, but: a) Virtually no one agrees with you. Something like 85% of Virginians think that sexual orientation should not be a factor in public sector hiring, and that’s based on a poll taken more than 10 years ago; b) Heterosexuality, in case you were unaware, is a sexual orientation. Just as Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and the adherents of any other faith are protected from discrimination by the policy, people of all sexual orientations are protected by the policy. So your claim that this policy “creates special protections” for any one group is patently false, dumb, and frankly beneath you.

Your “argument” reveals a considerable amount of projection: Obviously you are carrying around some sort of grudge against Stevens Miller. Perhaps you would benefit from carrying it to a therapist’s office instead.

When Supervisor Delgaudio’s counsel said at an earlier hearing that he was reserving the decision of judge vs. jury, he was accused on this chat board of venue shopping. Now it seems like Delguadio’s opponents are judge shopping.

I also find it interesting that accuser Donna Mateer is being represented by none other than long-time anti-Delguadio proponent Stevens Miller.

I’ve argued all-along that this case is motivated by those who take issue with Delguadio’s stand for traditional marriage and his day job advocating that stance. In other words, if Delguadio had just stifled his opinions and towed the politically correct line, “Sterling Deserves Better” would not exist.

Think back to when Stevens Miller was serving on the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors with Delgaudio. What was their fiercest and most public battle? It was Degaudio’s opposition to Miller’s radical pro-homosexual employment policy, creating special protections only for gay, transgender, etc. employees, which was passed by the [then] Democrat-controlled Board.

Miller never forgot that, and Donna Mateer’s case gave him a ripe opportunity for political payback. Can one argue with a straight face that Miller’s representation of Mateer, coupled with Delguadio’s embrace of traditional marriage and his past with Miller, is pure coincidence?

I need some help here is Flannery doing this pro bono? Please Theo do not accept his offer of help! You could go elsewhere but the law is still the same so the whole effort by sterling deserves better is nothing more then good publicity for Eugene. Can’t beat him with votes and you can’t get the court to oust him better luck next time.

Flannery wanted to be on the team and when the judge said if Theo Stamos wants you then you’ll be on the team. Now it’s a case of sour grapes by looking at Flannery’s picture. This number of people in this recall equal 22% of the people who voted for Delgaudio. Even Al N. did better then that with 38%. Sterling deserves better and that’s what we have with Eugene!

Stamos needs to recuse herself also. She has already made her decision. Pick someone farther away from the county. Delgadio should resign. Problem solved!!

The Delgadio opponents aren’t happy when an attorney or judge recuses themselves from the case and now they aren’t happy when they appoint one.  Ya’ll can’t have it both ways.

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.