realloudoun

Still marveling at the avalanche of utterly irrelevant arguments pouring forth from embattled and perennially ethically challenged Loudoun supervisor Eugene Delgaudio (R-Sterling) and his very loyal Loudoun GOP followers, we spent the last day doing some actual legal research and consulting legal authorities about how petitions for removal of a public officer work in Virginia, and what the legal merits of the case against Delgaudio are.

The summary first:

• The only procedure available in Virginia for removal of an unfit public official is the legal proceeding provided for in Virginia code 24.2-233. This is not a recall, in which a vote is held in a special election; it is rather much more akin to an impeachment proceeding, in which a case is heard on the merits, by a Circuit Court, and a legal decision rendered by the court after a “quasi-criminal” trial in which both parties are permitted to call and cross-examine witnesses under normal courtroom procedures of due process.

• Although the action must be initiated by a petition signed by a number of registered voters equaling 10 percent of the turnout in the last election, and stating in general terms the reasons for removal of the officer, the petitioners are not a party to the case; it is prosecuted by the Commonwealth, and the prosecutor’s duty is “to further the best interest of the Commonwealth, not the interests of the respective petitioners.” Thus who the petitioners are, or what their supposed motivations may be, is completely irrelevant.

• The clear legislative intent of this statute, according to a holding by the Virginia Supreme Court, is “to provide a speedy remedy for the removal of corrupt and unfaithful officials.” It is not necessary to show that the official violated any laws, but rather only that the official is guilty of “misuse of office,” “neglect of duty,” or “incompetence.”

• Although the bar is high for success in such actions, and the law is uncomfortably vague, there is considerable evidence already in the public record to make a legally plausible case for Delgaudio’s removal on the grounds of misuse of office, though probably not on the other two possible grounds of incompetence or neglect of duty. Continue reading →

Delgaudio responds!

True to form, perennially ethically challenged hate group president and Loudoun supervisor Eugene Delgaudio (R-Sterling) yesterday brushed aside the legal action to have him removed from office by announcing in his “news[sic]letter”:

“A former losing liberal candidate is in the media again, today, unhappy with my four times re-election success as Sterling Supervisor,” before adding modestly, “Sterling is getting the best Sterling District Supervisor possible right now—and every day.”

Meanwhile, Delgaudio’s youthful attorney Charles King was in the media again repeating Delgaudio’s favorite excuse that anyone who points out his client’s gross, documented ethical misconduct is merely a political opponent (whom Delgaudio in the past has itemized as “the lying liberal media,” people who “hate Sterling,” people who are against the Boy Scouts and family values, people “who refuse to defend the flag,” etc etc etc), picking on Eugene because of his “provocative views on national social and family issues.”

King also repeated the Delgaudio fable that Eugene wants nothing more than “to have the opportunity to prove” his innocence of the charges Continue reading →

The long anticipated legal action to have perennially ethically challenged Loudoun Republican supervisor Eugene Delgaudio (R-Sterling) removed from office is going forward at last: yesterday papers were filed in Loudoun Circuit Court to begin the process.

Under Virginia’s somewhat unusual recall law, an elected official can only be removed for “for neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties when that neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties has a material adverse effect upon the conduct of the office,” and it is up to the court to make that determination. But the law requires quick action: Delgaudio will now have a maximum of 10 days to file a reply “to show cause why he should not be removed from office,” and the court must set an early date for the trial, taking precedence over every other case on the docket.

Just as a reminder, the grand jury that investigated Delgaudio last year — and even the rest of the all-Republican Board of Supervisors itself (after stalling for a year) — found a heap o’evidence of Delgaudio’s blatant misuse of office Continue reading →

Creepy sex-obsessed conservative weirdo state senator Dick Black (R), right, with close personal friend Scott York (R)

Only Dick Black could cast his abrupt decision to chicken out of running for Congress as a noble, high-minded sacrifice made for the greater good of mankind  . . . and, of course, which is much the same thing in his crowd, “to protect the Commonwealth from the Democrat’s left wing agenda, and to prevent the expansion of Medicaid from going forward.”

So Black “explained” in an incomprehensible statement released just two days after announcing the official launch of his campaign to fill retiring congressman Frank Wolf’s seat.

Black, the darling of unregenerate homophobes and misogynist religious fanatics Continue reading →