Connect with us


Colonial family cemeteries retain early immigrant history



Colonial Virginia churchyards were not always the first preferences for burials. The custom was to bury the dead at home. While uncommon today, family (or private) cemeteries were a matter of practicality during the colonial settlement of America. The farm itself served as the burial ground. These family graves may be found in many places in various types of communities throughout the state. If a municipal or religious cemetery had not been established, settlers would seek out a small plot of land, often in wooded areas bordering their fields, to begin a family plot. Often, two families from adjoining properties would arrange to bury their dead together. Later on, during the 18th century, pastors complained about this practice because it meant they had to travel to plantations and farms to oversee funerals. The ideal situation during the Colonial period in English colonies was to bury the dead in churchyards located in close proximity to church buildings. Churchyard burials remained standard practice into the 20th century for European Americans and other cultures in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

The Ewing clan headed by William Ewing settled in the lower Shenandoah Valley more than 280 years ago. The Ewing’s are one of Stephens City’s oldest families dating back to 1737 before Frederick County and Stephens City (formally Stephensburg) were founded. The Ewing Family Cemetery was established prior to the first local church graveyards. Living on the frontier, the very earliest Ewing settlers had no professional stone workers to hire when their loved ones died. They would either craft simple wooden markers or wooden crosses to mark recent burials. Gravestones tended to be of a lesser size and most often fashioned from softer types of stone such as limestone and slate, which were easier to quarry, cut and carve. Often times field stones and roughly carved rocks were employed with names and dates scratched onto the stone.

Map of Stephens City circ 1974, courtesy Ray Ewing

The cemetery property was part of the original acreage of William Ewing who acquired more than 625 acres from Josh Hite. Hite had received a grant of 100,000 acres from the Virginia governor and council in the late 1720’s with the stipulation that 100 families be settled within two years. Ewing and his descendants came and farmed their land for 175 years.

The cemetery is located within the Southern Hills housing development in Stephens City at the end of the Brandenbury Court cul-de-sac. The property was once included in the Julian Carbaugh farm. The burial plots reside high on a hill overlooking the Shenandoah Valley with beautiful views of the Blue Ridge Mountains looking east and the Alleghany Mountains to the west.

Ray Ewing was born in a house that resided on Fairfax Pike (Route 277) near the old homestead. His family later moved in the 1940s to a house on Germain Street behind the Methodist Church. “I couldn’t be prouder that my ancestors are some of the first families to migrate here,” Ray Ewing said. “Knowing that one’s ancestors have lived in a community for more than 280 years really helps you to appreciate your roots,” he said. “It’s reassuring to look along Main Street at sights in the historic old town and know that your great, great grandfather observed these very same sights.”

The Ewing Cemetery was enclosed in 1994. A 50 foot by 60 foot wire fence was erected to protect the existing headstones from cattle grazing on the then Julian Carbaugh property. A great deal of brush and several trees were removed so that the grave markers could be more readily identified. During this time a number of headstones were unearthed increasing the number of Ewing family burial stones from 9 to 16. Four stones or parts of stones are illegible and the Ewing’s have not yet been able to identify who they may have been. Town Elders cited that at one time there were 20 headstones located here.

Ewing Family Cemetery, courtesy Mark Gunderman

Twelve of the old headstones which could be accurately identified were replaced with newer ones courtesy of the Ewing Family Association in advance of a September 2008 dedication ceremony. The cemetery is currently surrounded by a new metal fence and appears to benefit from regular lawn maintenance.

John Ewing born in 1648 and died 23 Sep 1745 (aged 96–97). John emigrated from Londonderry, Ireland to Pennsylvania (Chester County) with his sons William and Samuel and their families in 1729. After remaining in Chester County for some years after William and family moved south, it is fair to believe in his last years John moved down to Virginia to be closer to his sons. John is buried in the Ewing Cemetery.

William Ewing born 1711 and died 27 Dec 1781 (aged 69–70). William Ewing was born 1711 in Carnshanagh, Ireland, to John and Janet McElvaney Ewing. With his family, William came to Pennsylvania in 1729, and in April 1737, William moved down from Pennsylvania just six years after the first European American settlements began. William is the ancestor of the Stephens City Ewing’s. William is buried in the Ewing cemetery.

Samuel B. Ewing born 1719 and died 24 Aug 1798 (aged 78–79) Samuel B. Ewing married Margaret McMichael or McMeekin. They moved from Chester County, Pennsylvania to Frederick County, Virginia, and then, on to Kentucky. Samuel returned to Virginia and is buried in the Ewing Cemetery.

Margaret E. Ewing Carr born 1750 and died 18 Jun 1815 (aged 64–65).  Samuel’s daughter, Margaret married her cousin Robert Ewing in 1790. Old headstone for Margaret read “Margaret Ewing died June 18, 1815, Age 62 years.” Margaret is buried in the Ewing Cemetery.

Elizabeth Tharp Ewing born 1732 and died 17 May 1816 (aged 83–84). John’s wife Elizabeth married in 1750 and was buried in the Ewing Cemetery.

Elizabeth Ewing McGinnis born March 2, 1763 and died 7 Dec 1820. Elizabeth Ewing (aged 57) was the fourth child of William and Elizabeth. Elizabeth married John McGinnis and lived near Stephens City. Old headstone read, “McGinnis died Dec 7, 1820 aged 57 years.” Elizabeth is buried in the Ewing cemetery.

Joshua Ewing born unknown and died 24 Jul 1824 (aged 26 years). Very little is known about Joshua’s life. Joshua is buried in the Ewing cemetery.

Mary Ewing McBean born March 31, 1765 and died 17 Sep 1825 (aged 60). Mary Ewing, the second daughter of William and Elizabeth Ewing, was born. Mary, called Pollie, married Mr. McBean. Old headstone read, “Mary McBean died Sept 17, 1825 Aged 60 years.” Mary McBean is buried in the Ewing cemetery.

Robert Ewing born 28 Feb 1761 and died 7 Oct 1826 (aged 65). Robert is the son of William Ewing and is buried in the Ewing cemetery.

Sarah M. Nelson born 21 Nov 1831 and died 7 Dec 1831 (aged 16 days). Old headstone for infant daughter read “Sarah M. daughter of Moses and Elizabeth Nelson died Dec. 7, 1831 aged 16 days.” Sarah is buried in the Ewing cemetery.

Mary J. Nelson born 18 Oct 1834 and died 13 Nov 1834 (aged 26 days). Old headstone for infant daughter read “Mary J. daughter of Moses and Elizabeth Nelson died Nov. 13, 1834 aged 26 days.” Mary J. is buried in the Ewing cemetery.

Elizabeth Ewing Nelson born 28 Oct 1793 and died 25 Dec 1856 (aged 63). Margaret and Robert’s daughter, she married Moses Nelson. Old headstone read, “Elizabeth wife of Moses Nelson died Dec. 25, 1856 aged 63 years.” Margaret is buried in the Ewing cemetery.

Janette McElvaney Ewing born 1663 and died unknown. Married to John Ewing in 1683 and buried in the Ewing family cemetery. No headstone has yet been located.

Margaret McMichael Ewing born 1723 and died unknown. Married to Samuel B. Ewing in 1744. No headstone has yet been located.

There once was a county road beginning at Rt. 277 (Fairfax Pike) and working its way for about one mile to the old Ewing property. When modern housing development began, all of the last remnants of the original Ewing homestead and outbuildings were demolished along with Ewing Lane. A later home was built outside of the development and used the old Ewing road. The developers were required to construct a private entrance to that property and chose Ewing Lane for the new street, thus memorializing the family homestead.

Mark P. Gunderman
Stephens City, Virginia

Share the News:


Process in Local Government



So, a fellow Councilmen is interested in exploring the option of naming a road after our 45th President. Oh boy! POLITICAL SUICIDE!!! The local newspaper is not thrilled (to say the least).

And now our Mayor has published a Press Release denouncing it as well. A press release that was sent to me at 4:55 PM and posted to Facebook a mere hour later without any responses to the discussion generated by the Councilmen being thrown under the Presser (pronounced “Bus”).

When Councilmen Lloyd asked me if I would help him bring this to the Agenda, I said yes. And why would I do that? Well, staying clear of any and all political agendas, I said yes because this was a topic that he wanted to bring to the work session. And you need two councilmen to agree to it. If I want to bring a topic onto the Agenda, I hope that he will second those in the future.

During the Work Session, this past Monday, you can see the thoughtful discussion that Council was having regarding the topic. It was a third item raised by Councilmen Lloyd during our open discussion session of the meeting. Considering the Pros and Cons of a topic is what thoughtful representatives of the people are supposed to do, no? Councilmen Lloyds’ point regarding the fact that 67% of Warren County did actually vote for the 45th President of the UNITIED STATES OF AMERICA was valid. And those voters do feel upset and disenfranchised. On the Cons side, we have to consider costs. Where does it lead? How will the public feel about it?

I had a discussion with Councilmen Lloyd on the topic the other day when he asked if I would be willing to second it, just so it could make it on the Agenda in a WORK SESSION. He wasn’t asking me to bring it to a vote or even if I would vote for it. Just to help him bring something to a work session to discuss. I expressed to Councilmen Lloyd that I did not believe that this would ever get through to a vote. I told him that he could consider trying to raise private funds to cut public costs. I reminded him that we’d need to learn about president (SIC) regarding renaming of roads. I suggested that he try to find a single-home owner street that would be in favor or a business in a similar situation as the one Councilmen Meza raised during the work session – CBM Mortgage got their lane renamed “Hometown” so they could use it in marketing materials.

Now let’s go to the Press Release issued tonight – It felt to me like “cancel culture” on full display, in the form of a Press Release from our own Mayor?


Are we not able to discuss issues or even bring them to the table for discussion without them being cancelled beforehand?

I get it. If you don’t think it is a good idea – don’t vote for it. If you think it is an issue, express that in the work session. It’s good government. And in a County where 67% of the population voted for #45 – I’m not sure you need to go on the offensive against bad press on this one.

We already have enough other things deserving of actual Press Releases at this time, don’t we?

Joseph McFadden
Front Royal, Virginia

Share the News:
Continue Reading


Submitted Commentary: Is information free in Front Royal?



From: Front Royal Town Councilman Joseph McFadden

During a presentation on FOIA by Town Attorney Doug Napier, which is available on the Town Website if you wish to watch the entire presentation, I was given a lot to think about.

During the presentation, I wrote down questions. Some were answered at the time I asked them (at the completion of the presentation) and others were to be answered with information either provided to me or that I would have to dig up (which I was willing to do). It was emailed to me in a spreadsheet the following day thanks to a competent staff able to generate a report for me.

I’ll present some facts and figures here and the subsequent answers I learned by reviewing the spreadsheet I was given.

In the presentation, I was told that in the Calendar Year 2021 (Jan 1- Jan 19, 2021) there had already been 91 FOIA requests submitted to the Town of Front Royal. I was told that if that rate continued, we would face 1700-1800 FOIA requests in this year alone. Considering the issues we’ve already faced (Old: EDA Lawsuit, Afton Inn and Happy Creek project. NEW: Article 47 Lawsuit, Sexual Harassment, and Firing of former employee Lawsuit), I thought the number believable.

According to the document: There were 7.

I followed that statement up with a question regarding how many did we get in 2020 so that I could look at the trends and see if it was high, or normal for a month-to-month statistical comparison. I like processes and I like tracking trends.

According to the document: There were 87.

It would be a 2,011% jump in the number of FOIAs if we were to hit 1700-1800 predicted (I used 1750, splitting 1700 and 1800, as my number and 87 as the originating number to determine that percentage). That’s quite a jump.

Trying to wrap my mind around how there could be such a discrepancy in these numbers, I thought back on hearing in the presentation about FOIA requests that had 15,000 or even 80,000 pages in the request. But again those numbers don’t match up.

I heard that many of the requests take a lot of time to review because “Some laws are not easy to decipher.” Well, I’ll just leave that there. Shouldn’t we have a staff member that is an expert on this to field the massive volume of FOIA requests? That was my thought at the time.

I was told that we billed the staff hours used to fulfill the requests. Later, I asked to clarify if the staff was paid hourly as a contractor or yearly salary as an employee and if these FOIA requests were only being completed during overtime hours? They are salaried employees, and the searches are completed during normal business hours. And in fact, the searches are often farmed out to department heads to complete.

Specifically, I asked that if it is in the scope of work of a staff member and not done outside of normal business hours, how can we then bill the requestor?

And my follow-on question is that if the FOIA is for my emails, couldn’t I simply pull them at no cost to the citizen?

Based on section 6 of the VA FOIA Advisory Commission’s Guide that I took the time to read before the meeting – Section 2.2.3704.1: “6 – A public body may make reasonable charges not to exceed its actual cost incurred in accessing, duplicating, supplying, or searching for the requested records. No public body shall impose any extraneous, intermediary, or surplus fees or expenses to recoup the general costs associated with creating or maintaining records or transacting the general business of the public body. Any duplicating fee charged by a public body shall not exceed the actual cost of duplication. All charges for the supplying of requested records shall be estimated in advance at the request of the citizen as set forth in subsection F of 2.2-3704 of the Code of Virginia.”

That doesn’t seem to talk about charging for salaried employees to do what is part of their job duties, such as pulling emails when there is a FOIA request. We have search features in Microsoft Outlook that makes searching super fast and easy. And indexing on a server is also pretty fast. I should know, I once advised a DOD agency looking for a way to archive all their historical records being pulled from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq onto closed secret computers so that they could be searched by historians and journalists. And I got very familiar with how quickly indexing of documents and emails happens and can be accessed real-time.

I learned that some FOIA requests are “fishing expeditions” or submitted “to harass.” I also learned that it is charged this way to “be fair to everyone.”

However, upon review of the data provided to me, I saw that there were a few repeat requestors (out of the total 94 in the spreadsheet) but that not everyone got a bill. I found my dad’s name on the list. I followed up with him. He was not billed. If everyone is billed and treated fairly, why wasn’t he?

I learned that we have never been fined for not completing an FOIA request.

I am now awaiting the answers to several questions about the obvious discrepancies I saw between what I was told in the work session and what was delivered in the form of reportable and quantifiable data.

But I am also waiting to find out 2 key things:
1. If we collect money from an FOIA request for salaried time, where does that money go once collected?
2. How much money did we collect from FOIA requests in 2020?

Stay tuned if you are as interested in this as I am.

Remember, until only a few weeks ago, I was just a citizen like you!

(Originally posted on the councilman’s social media site)

Share the News:
Continue Reading


We can agree to disagree, but never to the point of being narrow-minded



On January 21, a group of concerned citizens went to a BOS meeting to declare Warren County a “Constitutional Sanctuary County” against the COVID-19 pandemic.

First, I believe we need to stop with the fearmongering from our state health officials and governor! We have lived with this pandemic for over a year now, which we have learned a great deal and can, by all means, use our God-given brain to make health decisions for ourselves!

Second, if you are sick or have come in contact with an infected person, do the right thing, get tested, stay at home for 7 to 10 days and get on with life!

All along we were told by CDC, NIH, even our general M.D.’s to use the 3 things that help stop the spread: Hand cleaning, mask-wearing, (when out in crowds), the social distancing of 6ft., which by the way should always be the case with stopping illnesses.

But no, some in our government want to take away our rights and freedoms and call it for the good of the nation.

Really? Then how come some elected officials get to carry on their lives any way they want, but we can’t?

I call that “a narrative” to power over the rights and freedoms of our Constitutional laws!

To the email writer, calling those residents “selfish patriots” was uncalled-for. Name-calling never did settle things, it just keeps the solutions from being talked about in a manner which all can come together.

We can agree to disagree, but never to the point of being narrow-minded.

Let’s take this issue of being restricted to conduct our lives and businesses seriously. We were not made to live in a bubble, our bodies will either adapt and fight or die. Either way, all flesh will die, that’s a given.

Fear will kill far worse more than any pandemic or war!

Tenia Smith
Front Royal, Virginia

Share the News:
Continue Reading


Odors and Town Processes – a theoretical seminar



Recent newspaper accounts report Front Royal work crews were out trying to find out where a strange odor was coming from. – All they had to do is open the door to the Town Council meeting. The work crews had to suspend their search due to a broken water main. I think they should notify Mr. Tederick. He is great with redundant water pipes.

Let’s explore that thread briefly before we talk about morals, ethics and legalities. In a page straight out of Machiavelli’s “The Prince” or maybe from the Sopranos, Tederick’s meteoric rise through the political hierarchy.

How did he get here? Well, he was appointed to a Grand Jury. Due to his leadership capabilities he became Chairman of the panel. Using his investigative skills, he signed the indictment for Hollis Tharpe – the charge? Frequenting a bawdy house. Long, goofy story short: Hollis had to resign as mayor but later all charges dropped.

“We have no mayor!” Was the cry that went out. The Gentle Knight Tederick stepped up and said, “Send Me!”, or something like that. Thus, without public input, Ta Da, he became mayor.

But one of his driving passions was to put in a redundant water line up the Route 340 North Corridor. Why? Well, just like the excuse for the destruction of Happy Creek, it was “well we had never done it, so we had better do it”. Really? How about “The Power Plant wants it”. Really? If they want it, why won’t they pay for it?

Or could it have been because he allegedly had a relative working for the developer that wanted to put in 800/600/200 units for senior citizens and low-income housing. Well, it all fell apart when it was pointed out that:

  1. There was no water. We were in the midst of a drought at the time. So Matthew had the Town Manager do a water consumption study – Damn, it came back – no water (and eventually doomed the guy).
  2. There was no capacity at the Waste-Water Treatment Plant.
  3. Traffic. Damn, the Sheriff said that they didn’t support the development.

Matthew was stumped. What to do?

First, get rid of that troublesome Town Manager. So, according to various staff members, he began to bully the guy, to such an extent he had enough and quit.

“We have no Town Manager!” Was the cry that went out. Once again, the Gentle Knight to the rescue.

So now, plans are underway for the pipe. The engineering firm selected was the same one that botched the Happy Creek destruction. We must save money! So Matthew fired the Town Tourism Board. Why? Well to save money, he said, oh by the way, allegedly to get rid of the head of it. So the solution? Pay a contractor $600,000 dollars to do it; evaluate themselves on their efficiency with a set of criteria nobody knows but them; and do it all “behind the famous closed door”.

Well, he rolled through the destruction of Happy Creek making that beautiful. Issues regarding that fiasco are continuing.

CARES money. After throwing a temper tantrum with those County Supervisors who had the temerity to ask for the required paperwork, Mr. Tederick went to the Chamber of Commerce and had them distribute the money! Legal? Well, the lawyer said it was okay. Questionable?  Because you are asking a non-government entity to do the government’s job. He could have asked the EDA to do it but, well, we have seen how the Town deals with them. But why the Chamber of Commerce, have they ever done anything like this before? No. Could it be an example of rumored “friendly backscratching” circling Magic Matt. Nah! That would be unethical.

Wasn’t there a video on the Royal Examiner showing Matthew standing in the wreckage of Afton Inn telling a reporter that “we finally have a plan to move forward”. No he didn’t, the Town still doesn’t.

Then there was a Taj Mahal of police stations built with cafeteria etc. All based on Town Council input. There they were at the Grand Opening, Tederick, Holloway, and their pal Meza, grinning away. Off to the side was the new head of the EDA. How would he know that the Town would have no “moral, ethical or legal” requirement to pay for it. Yep, one morning the hirsute wanna-be Jacob Meza allegedly was driving down the street and Shazam (thanks to Gomer), there was a police station sitting there! How did that get there? What a surprise, surprise, surprise it must have been to find that there.

Gomer Pyle – Public Domain Photo

Well life goes on here in Mayberry: Meza was caught off guard when confronted with his conflict of interest (Recuse is defined as to withdraw from the decision-making process because of personal interest or unfairness). His personal interest? Other than his position on the Valley Health staff and his bosses staring him down and the purported big bonus. Really, no problem here folks. Why? Because a lawyer who just so happened to own nearby land said so. Moral? No way. Ethical? But legal?

But that’s okay. He was reborn as a Town Council person after it was found that Town Council members don’t fall under Council “jurisdiction”.

Once, on the Titanic a lawyer saw the iceberg looming dead ahead. Should he notify the captain and save people’s lives? No, because he had recently bought ice cube rights for that glacier and he might be held responsible. After all, there were no laws that said he had to say anything. Later, he was one of the first in the lifeboat. When questioned, he said “The law was changed to women, children and lawyers first”.

And that’s why it’s legal. So class, we have learned that morals and ethics are subject to vast interpretation. Tony Soprano once said, “If I do it, it’s ethical and if the lawyers say it, it’s legal”.

Fred Schwartz
Warren County, Virginia

Share the News:
Continue Reading


Fraudulent Elections



historically speaking

It was a dark day on Jan. 6 as Congress planned to confirm the Electoral College vote for the next president. Around 1 p.m. a group of pro-Trump protesters pushed their way into the Capitol building, disrupting the official count as Congress was forced into lock down. The issue at hand was the President’s claims of voter fraud and a stolen election.

This was by no means the first contested election in the U.S. The 1800 and 1824 elections were both decided in Congress. The 1876 and 2000 elections were both decided in the courts. Let’s also not forget the South seceded from the nation in 1860 because of Lincoln’s election. In fact, in 2001, 2005 and 2017 some Democrats protested the final confirmation vote the same way some Republicans did this year. In these cases, the Vice Presidents acted like Mike Pence this year and did their duty and confirmed the vote even with political pressure not to do so.

The differences between this current election and the past ones were that the controversies did not involve a sitting president. They were always between two new candidates. 1800 did have an incumbent president in the race, but the controversy was between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Trump is the first sitting president to contest his defeat. The other more important difference was those election controversies were all handled peacefully, except 1860. Yes, there have been many protests over elections, but trying to take the Capitol to obstruct the vote is unprecedented.

There have been other elections with fraud claims, most recently, the 2016 election that Democrats claimed foul because of Russian influence. Yet, the one I think is important because of the behavior of the candidates is not remembered today as controversial but at the time was called out by many as fraudulent.

Today, when discussing the 1960 election, most think of the young charismatic John F. Kennedy manhandling and crushing the much older Richard Nixon in the first televised debates. I would argue this is a false memory. For one, Nixon was only four years older than Kennedy and, two, this was one of the closest elections in history. The closeness of the election meant that several states were swing states and just one or two of them going the other way meant a difference in the president.

Two of the states that could have gone either direction were Texas and Illinois. Both ultimately voted for JFK, but not without some controversy. In Texas it was claimed that JFK’s V.P., Lyndon Johnson, used undue influence and fraud to guarantee a Democratic win. Yet it was Illinois that captured the nation’s attention, especially the mayor of Chicago, Richard Daley. Daley is one of the men credited with the quote, “Vote early and vote often.” On election night, he called JFK to tell him basically that, with a little luck and some help from some friends, he would win the state. Daley was a mayor either loved or despised, depending on your political leaning, but no one questioned his power over the city and even the state. Daley was rumored to be involved in ballot stuffing, especially in Cook County, that turned the state towards Kennedy.

The cries of corruption were minimal on election night and ultimately JFK was the victor. It was after the election that the rumors began to build. The man more than any other who began to beat the drum of fraud was a reporter and friend of Nixon, Earl Mazo. He began to investigate the rumors and wrote a series of articles detailing his evidence. He had found graveyards in Chicago where all the permanent residences had voted. The story that most stuck out was the 56 voters whose residences all turned out to be the same abandoned house. Yet as interesting as these stories were, most were never published at the insistence of Nixon.

Nixon asked his friend to stop running the stories. His request was not because he felt they were untrue. In fact, Nixon, for the rest of his life, privately insisted the election was stolen from him, and many from his administration insisted they had evidence of fraud. What Nixon believed, however, was that in the midst of the Cold War his nation could not afford a challenge to democracy. Recounts were requested, but after a couple of legal challenges failed, Nixon did what was best for the nation and stepped aside. It was Nixon’s job as sitting Vice President to confirm the votes for Kennedy in the same ceremony that was interrupted Jan. 6 with Pence. Nixon did what Trump could not. Whether or not there was fraud, Nixon believed there was. But he put his ego aside for the good of the nation and did not resist.

While all of Trump’s court challenges were completely legal, almost all of them were found by several courts to be without merit. We have seen similar actions in many elections. Where Trump will be remembered with infamy was his refusal to accept the outcome even after the courts rejected him. The difference may be this: eight years later Nixon ran a second time and won. However, after Jan. 6, even Trump’s staunchest supporters turned on him, making any effort for a second run obsolete.

Dr. James Finck is an Associate Professor of History at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma in Chickasha. He is Chair of the Oklahoma Civil War Symposium. Follow Historically Speaking at

Share the News:
Continue Reading


Long-time Meza ‘fan’ perspective on council appointment



There are those who have no problem expressing their opinion. I happen to be one of those people. So I thought I would now express my opinion on the appointment of Jake Meza to Town Council.

Since this was a pre-planned appointment, Mr. Meza did not have to spend a penny on a campaign for the November election.


Paul Gabbert
Front Royal, Virginia

Share the News:
Continue Reading