Crime/Court
Legality of Meza council appointment will be re-argued orally third week of September
A date of September 22, at 10:30 a.m. has been set by Warren County Circuit Court Judge William W. Sharp to again hear oral arguments in support of plaintiff (Paul Aldrich) and defense (Jacob Meza, Town of Front Royal) filings on the court’s decision to re-hear a citizen challenge of Meza’s appointment/election to council on January 4th, four days after the term he did not run for reelection to, expired. Plaintiff counsel David Downes was seeking an August date further in front of the November 2nd Special Election to fill the final year of the council seat term vacated by Chris Holloway when he was elected mayor in November 2020, taking office January 1, 2021.
Meza is not running to continue into that final year of Holloway’s old council seat term. With the filing deadline passed, only Warren County Republican Committee Treasurer Amber Morris and Bruce Rappaport, a conservative independent who lost the Republican Committee endorsement to Morris, have filed to be on the ballot in the November Special Election.
Speaking of “elections”, how the term “elected” in Section 47 of the Front Royal Town Charter upon which the plaintiff case is based, is finally interpreted by the court could cast a larger shadow over the judge’s final ruling on the issue. In a letter to plaintiff attorney Downes and defense counsel Heather Bardot dated July 15, Judge Sharpe addresses his promise to resolve the case prior to the November 2, 2021, Special Election to fill the final year of the old Holloway council seat term.
“I intend to keep my word … the citizens of the Town of Front Royal deserve to have this matter resolved,” the judge wrote of that pre-Election Day resolution of the case promise, continuing, “As I have already noted, though the Complaint in this case challenges the validity of Mr. Meza’s office, if the Plaintiff’s position is right, then it is quite possible that the validity of the claims to office of other current council members and the mayor may also be in question.”
A potential impact on the mayor’s or other council members seats stems from initial May 25th hearing discussion on whether the relevant Section 47 wording could be interpreted as preventing elected town officials from running in General Elections for one year after their previous term had expired.
That Section 47 wording is: “No member of the council of the Town of Front Royal shall be appointed or elected to any office under the jurisdiction of the council while he is a member of the council, or for one year thereafter.” (underscore added)
However as previously observed during the May hearing, with an 84-year precedent in place of council members and mayors running for re-election since the 1937 passage of the Town Charter, the likelihood of such a judicial re-interpretation might seem remote. In fact, Downes noted that the plaintiff is not pursuing such an interpretation of the Charter wording, adding that what he termed “a methodical analysis” of relevant historical documents, which he cited as “the Virginia Constitution of 1776, the Virginia House of Delegates Rules of Procedure from 1912, Robert’s Rules of Order from 1915, the Town Charter of 1937” among others “shows that the framers of the charter were clearly addressing an election by councilmen and not a general election by the public.”
In addition to jurisdictional issues and legal standing of the plaintiff to challenge Meza’s “appointment” or “election” by his four Republican Committee colleagues to council on January 4, it continues to be the context of the words “appointed” and “elected” as it applies to council actions in Charter Section 47 around which the case revolves.
Much of the written arguments filed by the two sides in the wake of Judge Sharp’s decision to re-examine and re-hear those arguments, echo points made during the May 25 hearing. As reported in Royal Examiner’s story on that hearing, “Bardot pointed to the absurdity of the Section 47 wording” if it was interpreted to mean council could “appoint” someone who was already a council member to a council seat. So, she asserted that Charter Sections 6D and 9 applied to filling council seats, rather than Section 47.
In her Demurrer filing for dismissal, Bardot pointed to Section 6D wording on filling council vacancies: “The council may fill any vacancy that occurs within the membership of council for the unexpired term, provided that such vacancy is taken within 45 days of the office becoming vacant,” Section 6D states. No reference to a one-year hiatus per appointments is made here, Bardot noted.
Citing the inclusion of the words “appointed or elected” Judge Sharp’s initially ruled that Section 47 applied only to paid staff appointments, not council member appointments. Sharpe said it seemed clear that the Town Charter’s intent, dating to its 1937 adoption, was not to prevent council members from running for re-election for a year. So, the court sided with Bardot’s stance for the defense that Sections 6 and 9 of the Charter were the applicable sections on council appointments, rather than Section 47.
In the first round of oral arguments, as he likely will again on September 22, Downes countered that it was “dangerous to take one word out of context” in trying to decipher the intent of town fathers 84 year ago. The plaintiff counsel argued that the Section 47 wording referred to two distinct and different actions: 1/ appointment to a town staff position while being a council member, or within a year of having been a council member; and 2/ “election” as in acquiring a council majority consensus for reappointment to a council seat within a year of leaving council voluntarily, like Meza by not seeking reelection, or involuntarily, as in being voted out of office by the public.
Some have contended Meza did not run in 2020 because he may have believed he would have lost after a controversial year in office surrounding his employer Valley Health and his flip-flopping on recusals from discussion and votes in authorizing a $60-million County-Town EDA loan to help finance construction of a new hospital without a Maternity Unit.
Plaintiff Paul Aldrich and his counsel contend Meza’s appointment/election by four of his County Republican Committee colleagues (the vote was 4-1) was the very type of political cronyism Section 47 of the Town Charter was designed to prevent.
And so the two legal sides continue to circle and counter the other’s points of contention on jurisdiction, authority of the plaintiff’s challenge and how long-dead town fathers used the English language 84 years ago.
Stay tuned, as a final decision on these issues has been promised by the court before November 2, 2021, one might guess by the end of September or early October at the latest.
Crime/Court
McDonald Criminal Convictions Sentencing Hearing, Part 2, Set for Late May
In the wake of the April 9, Part One Sentencing Hearing of former Front Royal-Warren County Economic Development Authority Executive Director Jennifer McDonald, the website court calendar of the 10th Western District of Virginia has finally posted a date for Part Two of that hearing. That date is Wednesday, May 29, 2024, on the 10 a.m. docket in the Harrisonburg federal courthouse where McDonald was convicted of 30 criminal counts related to the FR-WC EDA “financial scandal” circa 2014 to 2018. Those who have followed that story since it began unraveling, including on these pages from the fall of 2016 to late 2018, will recall an estimated $26-million in EDA assets was moved to unauthorized or what is now believed to be fraudulently presented uses. Trial testimony indicated McDonald moving about $6.5 million to her personal use unauthorized by the then EDA Board of Directors.
As reported in our coverage of that April 9 hearing, Part Two will hear Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon’s rulings on a number of objections filed by both the prosecution and defense counsels to the precedence of evidence submitted by the other side in written summaries to the court leading up to the April 9th start of McDonald’s sentencing hearing. Also argued on April 9 were “Forfeiture” of defendant McDonald assets, “Restitution”, and “Special Conditions” being sought at sentencing from both the prosecution and defense. While Judge Dillon ruled on a number of these objections on April 9, she took some under advisement, seeking written support from both sides to their motions arguments.
In addition to those rulings, prosecution and defense counsel are expected to make final arguments in support of their sentencing proposals, and Judge Dillon will set a date for Part Three of the Sentencing Hearing. Part Three is when the 47-year-old McDonald is anticipated to find out the court’s ruling on arguments for relative leniency to prison sentencing guidelines, six years, by her legal team versus the prosecution’s high-end request. The prosecution is seeking a 22-year sentence with 24 months sought for an Aggravated Identity Theft conviction of McDonald regarding the use of Truc “Curt” Tran’s name in one involved “financial scandal” real estate transaction, tacked on to a total of 240 months (20 years) being sought on McDonald’s other 29 convictions on fraud and money laundering counts.
Crime/Court
Major Online Child Protection Operation Nets Arrest in Warren County
In a crackdown on internet crimes against children, the Warren County Sheriff’s Office, in collaboration with the Northern Virginia/DC Metro Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force, has announced the arrest of Steven C. Sherman, a 57-year-old man from Inwood, WV. This arrest is part of a broader effort to combat the online solicitation of minors in the region.
The operation, which began covertly on February 28, 2024, involved undercover officers posing as minors online to identify and apprehend individuals attempting to exploit children. Mr. Sherman reportedly initiated unsolicited contact with an investigator who was posing as a juvenile under the age of 15. Over the course of their communications, he allegedly requested lewd photos and engaged in the transmission of obscene materials, believing he was interacting with a young girl.
On April 16, 2024, following a detailed investigation and with the assistance of the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office, Mr. Sherman was arrested without incident and is currently held at the Eastern Regional Jail. Facing serious charges for his actions, he appeared before a magistrate and was ordered to be held without bond, pending extradition to Virginia. His court date is May 9, 2024, at the Warren County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
The Warren County Sheriff’s Office has expressed gratitude towards the Berkeley County Sheriff’s Office for their support in the operation and emphasized the importance of inter-agency cooperation in tackling such critical issues. The community is also encouraged to come forward with any information related to soliciting or exploiting minors by contacting Criminal Investigations Sergeant M.R. Ramey at (540) 635-7100 or via email at mramey@warrencountysheriff.org.
This case highlights the ongoing risks and challenges posed by online interactions and the importance of vigilance in protecting vulnerable populations, especially children, from exploitation. The Warren County Sheriff’s Office remains committed to fighting against internet crimes targeting children and urges the public to report any suspicious activities.
As this case progresses, the community hopes for a resolution that reinforces the safety and security of its children and serves as a deterrent to others who might exploit the internet’s anonymity for harmful purposes.
Crime/Court
Warren County Sheriff’s Office Cracks Down on Online Crimes Against Children
In a move to protect children from online predators, the Warren County Sheriff’s Office has made a notable arrest following a proactive undercover operation aimed at the online solicitation of minors. This operation took place in the Warren County and Front Royal areas, showcasing the department’s commitment to safeguarding the community’s vulnerable youth.
The operation came to a head on Wednesday, March 27, 2024, when Samuel Funkhouser, a 33-year-old man from Romney, West Virginia, reached out to an undercover investigator posing as a juvenile under 15. During their communication, Funkhouser requested inappropriate photos and content, believing he was interacting with a young girl. He also sent obscene materials to the investigator, some of which included illegal content involving bestiality. This unsolicited and disturbing interaction was initiated entirely by Funkhouser, leading to swift actions by law enforcement.
The investigative team, part of the Northern Virginia/DC Metro (NOVA/DC) Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force, coordinated by the Virginia State Police, worked diligently to identify and locate Funkhouser. On April 10, 2024, they executed their arrest with the support of the Hampshire County Sheriff’s Office. Funkhouser was apprehended without incident and is now held at the Potomac Highlands Regional Jail. He faces a court date on May 15, 2024, with no bond offered due to the severity of the charges.
The Warren County Sheriff’s Office urges the community to remain vigilant and report any suspicious activities concerning the exploitation of minors. Investigator C.J. McDaniel, who can be contacted at (540) 635-7100 or cmcdaniel@warrencountysheriff.org, is leading the call for community support to bring further perpetrators to justice.
This case highlights the critical importance of inter-agency collaboration, as the Hampshire County Sheriff’s Office played a vital role in the successful capture of Funkhouser. The Warren County Sheriff’s Office extends its gratitude to all partners involved in this operation and remains steadfast in its resolve to combat internet crimes against children. The community is encouraged to stay informed and engaged in protecting every child from the dangers of online predators.
Crime/Court
Two Former Warren County Deputies Indicted for Murder in 2022 Death of Elderly Man Following Traffic Stop
Two former deputies of the Warren County Sheriff’s Office, Zachary Fadley, 31, and Tyler Poe, 27, have been indicted on murder charges relating to the April 2022 death of 77-year-old Ralph C. Ennis. This decision comes after an incident following a traffic stop in Front Royal, Virginia, where Ennis, who was reportedly suffering from dementia, was tackled and subsequently died.
The Virginia State Police announced these indictments this week, noting that the incident began when deputies observed Ennis driving erratically on Route 522. The situation escalated after a short pursuit, ending in a parking lot where the confrontation occurred.
According to police reports, Ennis appeared confused during the encounter. Family members have indicated that he was suffering from dementia at the time. After being tackled and restrained by the deputies, Ennis was hospitalized with a severe head wound and died in hospice two weeks later. While the state medical examiner initially cited natural causes related to Alzheimer’s complications as the cause of death, the actions of the deputies led to further investigation.
Last year, both deputies were also indicted on charges of malicious and unlawful wounding, with those cases still pending. These latest indicators introduce more severe allegations, indicating a shift in the prosecutorial approach to the case. Fadley and Poe were arraigned this Monday and released on bond.
This case highlights ongoing concerns regarding law enforcement interactions with vulnerable populations, particularly the elderly and those with mental health issues. It also raises questions about the use of force and the responsibilities of law enforcement to handle such situations with greater care and understanding. The trials for the original charges have been delayed, and the community is closely watching to see how justice will be served in this tragic incident.
FRPD Dash Cam – Ralph Ennis
FRPD Body Cam – Ralph Ennis
Crime/Court
Mark Egger’s $5,000 Civil Defamation Case Against Stevi and Cameron Hubbard Dismissed – But is That The End?
After counsel Jeremiah Egger rested the plaintiff’s case in his client, and father, Mark Egger’s $5,000 civil defamation suit against Stevi Hubbard and her daughter Cameron Thursday morning in Warren County General District Court, defense counsel Phillip Griffin rose to argue for dismissal of the civil claims action. Griffin told Judge Christopher E. Collins there was not enough substantive evidence presented by the plaintiff to continue the civil, small claims court case.
In addition to a preponderance of personal opinions on what the photo-shopped graphic at the center of the defamation claim presented, as well as the submission of plaintiff exhibits without the presence of the authors of that evidence related to the criminal investigation undertaken at the request of plaintiff Egger or his witnesses, defense counsel zeroed in on his key point. That point was no plaintiff evidence submitted of document-able damages suffered by Mark Egger as a result of the Hubbards’ believed circulation of a photo-shopped graphic of Egger in a light-colored, hooded robe.
Plaintiff Mark Egger and several other plaintiff witnesses described the superimposed garb as a “KKK” robe. Egger’s civil claim for $5,000 in damages was based on the circulation of the graphic on vehicles parked at a Samuels Public Library Board of Directors meeting in 2023 during the CleanUp Samuels Library (CSL) movement to remove LGBTQ-themed books from the library, particularly its children’s section. Both Egger and the Hubbards were involved in that library material dispute on opposing sides, Egger for removal, the Hubbards in support of maintaining the LGBTQ-themed material under guidelines established by library staff and board of directors members.
After hearing both sides argue for or against dismissal, Judge Collins recessed court for what he estimated as a 10-minute break to ponder what he had heard and relevant case law precedents. Fifteen minutes later he returned to court and granted the defense’s dismissal motion, citing a lack of any evidence of financial or personal harm to the plaintiff as a result of the Hubbards alleged actions surrounding circulation of the photo-shopped graphic of Egger.
Referencing plaintiff witness testimony in response to questions about how the flyer placed on Library parking lot car windshields during a Library Board of Directors meeting attended by both Egger and the Hubbards impacted their perception of Egger, Judge Collins observed, “All I heard was ‘If I didn’t know Mr. Egger, maybe’ — I’ve seen no evidence this flyer harmed his reputation.” The judge also noted that “I may have lost some sleep over this” did not meet the case law damages standard.
As previously reported surrounding earlier hearings in the case last year, Mark Egger claimed the circulated graphic he attributed to the Hubbards portrayed him as a KKK-dressed person, implying violent support of anti-black racism. Such a portrayal had negatively impacted his personal credibility and possibly cost him lost piano students due to the racist caricature, Egger asserted.
However, the Hubbards said and presented graphic support that the robed outfit superimposed on an image of Mark Egger, rather than a KKK reference, was of a hooded “Capirote” uniform once more commonly donned by European Catholics, particularly in Spanish areas, as part of an Easter season repentance for one’s sins ritual dating back as far as the Spanish Inquisition era. Egger, like many in the CSL movement, is a self-identified Catholic with background connections to Christendom College and/or St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in Front Royal.
In fact, defense cross-examination questions: “You were involved with the Clean Up Samuels effort for some time, weren’t you?” (“Not true” Egger quickly replied) and “You’re a member of the Catholic Church?” both brought objections from plaintiff counsel, as to relevance.
After the judge’s ruling for dismissal while leaving the courtroom, plaintiff Mark Egger, who has declined to speak to this reporter following earlier hearings, handed me a printed note, saying, “This is my comment.” Appearing to address the above-referenced CSL Samuels Library book removal controversy he had appeared to support in public comments to elected bodies, that piece of paper read: “There is no such thing as ‘transgender’. A boy cannot become a girl, and a girl cannot become a boy.”
On the defense side, Stevi and Cameron Hubbard let their attorney, Phillip Griffin, speak for them. “We’re glad that the judge made the proper decision and we’re relieved, the Hubbards have been under a fair amount of stress for the last nine months or so, since this originated,” Griffin observed. Defense counsel also addressed potential follow-up actions in the wake of Judge Collins dismissal of the civil claims against his clients.
“The Virginia Code says that if you are successful in defending a 1st Amendment case, which is a defamation of character, freedom of speech-type case, that you may recover all your attorneys fees. And so we are going to decide when and where the appropriate time to make that request is. It’s clear that the judge did not want to address that issue today. So, we’ll have to come back on another date,” Griffin explained.
It was asked if that implied additional litigation related to this case. “So, the judge made the comment that if you accuse somebody of a crime and it turns out they didn’t do it, then you can get opened up to a defamation case. And as you heard from the evidence, there was a request that a law enforcement investigation be opened up directed towards the Hubbards, both of them,” Griffin noted, adding, “And that’s something we’ll consider when we make the claim for attorney’s fees.”
Crime/Court
Part 1 of 3-Part McDonald Sentencing Hearing Draws Judicial Request for Written Support of Motions Arguments Taken Under Advisement
In the first of what is now forecast to be a three-part sentencing hearing for former Front Royal-Warren County Economic Development Director Jennifer McDonald, Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon heard arguments from federal prosecutors and federal court-appointed defense attorneys on several aspects of the evidence to be presented during this sentencing hearing. That evidence included what we counted as 30 “Objections”, largely from the defense side, to the precedence of evidence submitted by the other side in written summaries to the court leading up to Tuesday’s Phase One start of McDonald’s sentencing. Also argued were “Forfeiture” of her assets, “Restitution”, and “Special Conditions” being sought at sentencing from both the prosecution and defense. While Judge Dillon ruled on a number of these objections, she took some under advisement, seeking written support from both sides to their motions. She then estimated a one-week break to review submitted material prior to starting Part Two of the sentencing hearing, and the setting of a date for Part Three when the 47-year-old McDonald is anticipated to find out the court’s ruling on arguments for relative leniency (6 years) by her legal team, versus 22 years near the top end of sentencing guidelines by federal prosecutors.
One correction from our sentencing preview story, the prosecution is seeking a 22-year sentence, not 24 years, still near the upper sentencing ranges, with the 24-months sought for Aggravated Identity Theft by McDonald against Truc “Curt” Tran tacked on to a total of 240 months (20 years) on McDonald’s other 29 convictions on fraud and money laundering counts.
That Judge Dillon has taken a firm hold of the context of this sentencing hearing on McDonald’s 30 criminal convictions related to the unauthorized and/or fraudulent use and movement of EDA assets estimated in the millions of dollars was her opening the hearing at 9 a.m. April 9, with the observation, “We’re here for Part One” of the sentencing hearing. Near the end of the sentencing hearing’s Part One around 3:15 p.m. Tuesday afternoon, the judge noted she was taking arguments on the Restitution aspect “under advisement”.
In addition to the prosecution and defense counsels arguments upholding their side of the case law on their motions for lesser or harsher sentencing of McDonald, three witnesses were heard from on April 9. They were recently retired Front Royal-Warren County Economic Development Board of Directors Chairman Scott Jenkins, Cherry Bekaert financial investigator Scott McKay, and former FR-WC EDA Administrative Assistant to Jennifer McDonald, Michelle “Missy” Henry. All three were called by the prosecution. In turn they illustrated various economic, financial, and personal impacts of McDonald’s now-convicted-of financial crimes.
First called, Scott Jenkins, not only described the current financial insolvency of the FR-WC EDA in the wake of the estimated $26-million “financial scandal” during McDonald’s leadership during which she is believed to have diverted $6.5 million to her personal benefit, but also a rise in mistrust between the involved municipal entities, the Town of Front Royal and Warren County’s elected, decision-making bodies, and both municipalities’ co-founded over half a century ago quasi-governmental institution, the FR-WC EDA. That distrust arose in great part, Jenkins described, from the Town of Front Royal pulling out from its 34% share of the cost of the EDA-overseen construction of Leach Run Parkway within the town limits, as well as other arguments against shared liability for EDA “financial scandal” losses.
One might note that those lack of shared liability arguments came despite the Town’s proactive involvement in enabling EDA financial scandal era projects, most notably the ITFederal $10-million loan now believed to have been acquired under false pretenses orchestrated by McDonald, and some believe then-Sixth District of Virginia U.S. Congressman Bob Goodlatte. Goodlatte, who in 2017 pushed an initiative to remove third-party ethical oversight of the U.S. Congress, trumpeted ITFederal as a great economic development partner for this community. It appeared that partnership would be built on myriad federal contracts totaling $140-million, that it turned out ITFederal only had the opportunity to bid on.
Michelle Henry described her friendship and long-time co-worker status with McDonald dating to 2012, and the impact of being associated with the financial improprieties from that administrative assistant’s relationship to McDonald. She described being called to her home where she was arrested in 2019 and shackled in front of a young grandchild, and then spending 30 days in jail after losing her job on the presumption of being involved in McDonald’s now convicted-of crimes. Asked if it affected her, Henry replied, “It changed everything about me … Everything about me is different. Everything I viewed about people,” she said, adding that for a time she couldn’t hold a job — “I couldn’t think straight,” she said. She noted a community-wide assumption of guilt and hostility directed, not only toward McDonald, but her way as well after she was arrested. The charges against Henry were eventually dropped, as they were against most, if not all, locally charged believed co-conspirators due to local prosecutors running up against speedy trial statutes and then change of venue moves.
Henry and defense counsel sparred over Henry’s description of being “found innocent” criminally and civilly versus having the charges dropped and not refiled. In opening its cross examination of Henry defense counsel posed these questions: “Jennifer McDonald didn’t arrest you? Jennifer McDonald didn’t file charges against you?” to make the point that Henry’s negative experience was not generated by their client, but rather by the legal and law enforcement systems reaction to the EDA “financial scandal” investigation.
Perhaps Henry’s most tellingly emotional comment began about an unnamed friend: “I spoke at my best friend’s funeral. This isn’t far from that,” she said of her testimony at Part One of the now three-phased McDonald sentencing hearing.
Cherry Bekaert financial investigator Scott McKay sparred with lead defense counsel Andrea Harris on a dizzying array of financial transactions uncovered by his company’s review of several years of EDA financial transactions and annual audits once suspicions began to surface. This line of cross examination helped reveal part of the defense’s strategy in seeking a lesser sentence, as McDonald’s attorneys noted a lack of due diligence oversight of McDonald’s EDA transactions from all levels of involved entities. That included the appointed EDA board of directors and the two municipal elected bodies that appointed that EDA board. It may be noted that the Town voluntarily gave up EDA board appointment authority in 2012 after being relieved of operational funding responsibility of the EDA as part of another effort not to double tax town citizens for services provided county-wide, as they are citizens of both the town and county.
But that was then, this is now. Stay tuned as Parts Two and Three of the latest chapter of what has evolved into this community’s own soap opera, crime drama, continue to play out in the federal courthouse in Harrisonburg, Virginia, in the coming week or weeks.