EDA civil case judge considers more defense motions to remove defendants

Several more Economic Development Authority civil defendants were in court Thursday morning, July 30, to hear their attorneys echo past EDA defendant counsel arguments on dismissal of their clients from one or the other of the EDA’s two civil litigations now totaling at least $26 million.

Present from the nine-defendant list of people and companies named in the April 14, 2020, filing of a civil action seeking “not less than $4.45-million” in actual damages and $350,000 in punitive damages were William T. Vaught Jr. and Rappawan Inc. principal Stuart R. Vaught and Walter and Jeannette Campbell of Century 21 Realty. Dismissal motions were also argued for Tracy L. Bowers of TLC Settlements LLC, though she did not appear to be present for those arguments. Not having motions before the court were Service Title of Front Royal LLC and agent Victoria L. Williams.

Chief 26th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Bruce D. Albertson of Harrisonburg presided over the 8:30 a.m. hearing that ended a 11 a.m. with the judge taking the various defense motions under consideration.

More motions in the EDA civil litigation against a second set of defendants were heard Thursday morning in the Warren County Courthouse.

Those motions began with Robert Light and Joseph Silek Jr. representing William T. Vaught Jr. and Rappawan Inc. Other than Silek and Light, the latter who presented the Vaught-Rappawan motions case, and EDA attorneys Vivian Giles and Sean Hutson of Sands Anderson who countered the defense motions, all other attorneys were present by remote telephone connections to the courtroom. Those remotely connected attorneys generally cited agreement with Light’s initial presentation for Vaught/Rappawan, adding specifics of the allegations against their clients, to call for their removal from the civil suit list of defendants.

At issue for all defense attorneys was an alleged lack of specific actions in the EDA complaints against their clients that proved they were aware of being part of an alleged conspiracy to defraud and misdirect EDA assets in conjunction with central civil suit defendant, former EDA Executive Director Jennifer McDonald. Also contended for all defendants were arguments that the nature of those allegations indicated that Statute of Limitations timelines on bringing charges had expired by the time the EDA civil litigation against their clients was filed.

Plaintiff attorneys Giles and Hutson countered that there was, indeed, detail of the participation of the defendants in alleged schemes utilizing real estate transactions to move EDA funds through McDonald companies in order to “launder” stolen EDA money and give it the appearance of legitimacy through those real estate transactions from which all involved parties allegedly saw profit from.

According to the EDA Complaint, the Vaught-Rappawan case utilized TLC Settlements to move $2-million of EDA money into McDonald’s DaBoyz real estate company to purchase several parcels from Rappawan with that money, which was then sold back from DaBoyz to Rappawan at a $600,000 loss a month later.

While not present with no motions before the court, the shadow of primary EDA civil defendant Jennifer McDonald was present in the courtroom Thursday. ‘They were duped,’ EDA attorney Vivian Giles said of the past EDA board, pictured here with McDonald on the job in Sept. 2018. On Thursday Defense attorneys argued the same for their EDA civil case clients, to which plaintiff counsel countered – BUT they profited, the EDA lost assets.

“Through these transactions over just a month’s time, Defendant Rappawan and Jennifer McDonald effectively laundered stolen money from the EDA. McDonald put $650,000 of the EDA’s cash in her pocket; Rappawan got back all the land originally sold and put $250,000 in stolen EDA cash in its pocket. The EDA, of course, got neither land nor its money back,” paragraph 75 on page 15 of the 30-page complaint states.

Of moving money through a bank into a real estate deal for someone other than the source of the money (in this case the EDA), Giles told the court, “Transactions like this just don’t happen when you pocket $600,000 in one month. Money in the bank makes it clean? – It’s a drug dealer’s dream – but it doesn’t work like that. Were they unjustly enriched? – Absolutely. If we’re wrong let a jury decide,” Giles told the court.

She told Judge Albertson that the defendants were essentially trying to make evidentiary arguments best suited for trial, during pre-trial motions. – “This is Discovery,” she said of defense arguments seeking additional clarity on the plaintiff’s case against their clients.

The statute of limitations arguments largely revolved around a debate on the nature of the charges and when the EDA actually became award of the alleged theft, embezzlement, and misdirection of their assets.

Of the defendant counsel assertion then EDA Board of Directors Chairman Greg Drescher had signed off on one of the enabling transactions, legitimizing it as EDA business, Giles told the court, “Mr. Drescher was duped, like the EDA was. What was happening was not discovered till much, much later.” – Which is essentially what defense attorneys are arguing for their clients.

How much later we will find out the result of Thursday morning’s legal arguments is unknown. Judge Albertson did not give a hint as to a timeframe for his ruling. To this reporter’s knowledge, thus far no EDA civil case defendant removal motion has been successful.