For a short, one-agenda item meeting called to discuss and vote on appointment of legal representation for the County Supervisors against the Removal Petition filed with the Circuit Court on October 18, Friday morning’s (October 25) Special Meeting of the Warren County Board of Supervisors was “Must See Royal Examiner TV”.
But let’s set the groundwork first and give some time for the popcorn, pizza, and/or wings to arrive for the show.
A fairly large public attendance was present for the 10 a.m. meeting’s convening – and a lot was about to happen in less than 15 minutes.
Following Chairman Dan Murray’s now traditional call for a moment of silent prayer for healing in the community in the wake of the now $21.3 million EDA financial scandal that has gained statewide and occasionally national notoriety, and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Nation and its Laws, the meeting got right down to its one order of business.
Without board discussion, Tony Carter took the floor to read a motion citing the Virginia Public Procurement Act as exempting putting the legal representation out to bid per any “prior County policies with respect to such contracts.”
The motion passed 5-0.
Carter then read motions for that representation “by the County Attorney and James Cornwell” for the other four supervisors, who each in turn abstained from voting on the appointment for representation of them as individual supervisors.
Linda Glavis then returned the favor for Carter, who abstained on the vote for his representation, which also passed 4-0.
Jason Ham of the Litten Sipe Law Firm has been appearing as County Attorney at meetings since the September 13th to 15th departure of Dan Whitten for Prince George County. Ham later verified that Cornwell was with the Litten Sipe firm.
Then the fun began.
The meeting’s slated business taken care of, Shenandoah District Supervisor Tom Sayre asked for the floor. Despite some hesitancy from the chair, Sayre was given that floor from which he launched into a prepared statement citing his past questioning of EDA officials about their Workforce Housing Project and consequent civil defamation legal battles with former EDA Executive Director Jennifer McDonald.
But Sayre may have flirted with at least breaking tradition or procedural rules removing politics from the actual action of public service, by turning his statement in defense of his past actions regarding the EDA into a campaign speech by calling out his Shenandoah District opponent Walter Mabe.
“I don’t know where my opponent was, but I and a few others were in the trenches before any solid evidence had been produced of this extreme breach of EDA and law enforcement trust,” Sayre stated.
At that point a woman in the audience seated in the center of a near front row began laughing out loud. She later identified herself as Kris Nelson, main Removal Petition gatherer for Sayre’s Shenandoah District. Undeterred, Sayre continued as silence returned to the point where he reintroduced his political opponent into his statement.
“My record as a board of supervisor will continue to remain clean. As a supervisor I will continue to be a part, unlike my opponent who has only recently appeared at board meetings, and who has never cast a vote in a past election,” Sayre continued at which point several people interrupted from the audience.
It appeared that among those, leading social media County critic Kristie Atwood attempted to call a Point of Order objection on the conduct of the meeting as several people continued to yell down Sayre’s now campaign-toned presentation.
“There will be no yelling out,” Chairman Murray cautioned the public present.
Murray then noted the political turn Sayre’s statement had taken and suggested to the Shenandoah District Supervisor that he “wrap up where you’re at this moment” which Sayre did, ending with a “Thank you very much” that failed to garner a “You’re welcome” from anyone present.
Atwood then attempted to call another “Point of Order” from the public seating area which led to a strong admonishment from the Chair, likely as Points of Order by Roberts’ Rules of Order under which local boards generally conduct their meetings, appear to allow such procedural objections to be made only by “a member” of the convened body.
The relevant portion of “Section 23 – Point of Order” reads, “When a member thinks that the rules of the assembly are being violated, he can make a Point of Order (or ‘raise a question of order,’ as it is sometimes expressed), thereby calling upon the chair for a ruling and an enforcement of the regular rules.”
Obviously that was Murray’s understanding as he said, “If I have to bang the gavel one more time I’m going to ask the Sheriff’s (deputy) to escort you out. Calling out from within, the board will not tolerate personal attacks from anyone,” Murray said as one person in the audience chimed in, “We’re aware of that,” as Murray continued, “or any other participants in the proceedings.”
Murray’s admonishment was not just to the crowd, but as he later verified his just silenced fellow supervisor who stirred the crowd up with the campaign turn of his non-agenda presentation.
As continued calls came from the crowd, Carter called a motion for adjournment.
“We are adjourned,” Murray responded, banging his gavel a last time, not for the removal of a disruptive citizen, but with the meeting’s business concluded, of all citizens, including the board members – if not in the permanent manner the Recall Petitioners envision.
“We don’t get to talk?” one person asked incredulously – though a quick glance at the brief one-page Special Meeting Agenda, copies of which lay by the entrance door, indicated no Public Comments section such as are included twice during regular bi-monthly board meetings.
The crowd continued to yell at the departing board, one loud, “You wonder why you’re recalled,” directed their way; followed by, “You just gave us a lot of material for Monday” that latter comment a reference to the first court hearing on the Removal Petition. Petitioners are seeking immediate removal of the entire County Board even before the Show Cause Hearing is resolved, as it is unlikely to be Monday.
Both the initial Removal Petition Show Cause Hearing and a slew of defense motions to quash the misdemeanor misfeasance and nonfeasance indictments against County (and EDA) officials at the base of the Removal Petition are on the Warren County Circuit Court Docket Monday, October 28.
So hopefully the snacks are in tow and you’re ready to settle in to watch it all transpire in real time in this Royal Examiner video:
Evidentiary issues delay Michelle Henry hearing to January 23
Commonwealth’s Attorney Bryan Layton and Michelle Henry co-counsel David Hensley and Ryan Nuzzo were granted a joint motion to continue a scheduled preliminary hearing to January 23, at 8:45 a.m.
Judge Bruce D. Albertson granted the continuance after Layton agreed with Hensley’s observation that complications in digitizing the voluminous amount of materials related to the EDA financial fraud investigation and Special Grand Jury documentation leading to criminal indictments related to that investigation had prevented Discovery Motion materials from yet being made available to the defense.
“We have nothing to review, none whatsoever,” Hensley told the court.
Layton told the court that progress had been made in the digitization process the Virginia Supreme Court has suggested to deal with an unusual amount of evidence and documentation related to the EDA criminal and civil cases. However, he observed that, “Unfortunately we are in an unusual situation with a great deal of Discovery material.”
Estimates of the involved material in previous hearing discussions has ranged from 700,000 to one million pages; an amount that has drawn the attention of the Virginia Supreme Court according to Warren County Circuit Court Clerk Janice Shanks.
“We are in rare waters,” Judge Albertson observed of the evidentiary situation.
He ruled that both sides, including legal staffs and the defendant, could have access to available Special Grand Jury transcripts related to the two felony embezzlement charges former EDA Administrative Assistant Henry faces. However the judge told the attorneys that while those Special Grand Jury materials could be reviewed, they could not be copied and must be kept confidential within the legal teams working the case.
In seeking a date for the continued hearing, Albertson noted he would be in Warren County January 22nd through 24th for a three-day trial on the EDA-related criminal charges against Donnie Poe. Henry’s hearing, during which a trial date may be set in her cases, was set prior to the start of Poe’s trial’s second day.
Henry was arrested on June 24 on two felony counts of embezzlement for the “unlawful use, disposal, conversion, embezzlement of property of the EDA”. Her arrest came exactly one month after her former boss Jennifer McDonald’s first arrest (May 24) on what has since climbed to 32 felony indictments against the former EDA executive director related to financial fraud allegations.
Dates attached to the Henry’s warrants are for actions occurring between October 1 and December 30, 2016 and September 1, 2014 to December 30, 2016. Henry was cited for involvement in dispersal of assets tied to the B&G Goods retail operation in the old Stokes Mart building that the EDA purchased in 2014, as well in a possible scheme related to the building’s purchase.
“MCDONALD is suspected of colluding with HENRY, LAMBERT, and possibly POE to acquire the Stokes Mart property under false pretense to facilitate several different embezzle schemes of which payments herein as repairs and maintenance for B&G or paid directly to LAMBERT are approximately $21,000,” CPA fraud investigator Cherry Bekaert wrote in its EDA financial investigation report.
Texts between Henry and McDonald that are part of the Cherry Bekaert report on its investigation of EDA financial affairs indicate discussion between the two of investment stakes in the B&G Goods business.
Due to judge transfers and recusals Henry spent a month in jail before Albertson, the chief presiding judge of Virginia’s 26th Judicial District took over the bulk of EDA cases. On July 23 Albertson granted Henry a $2500 secured bond on the two charges against her.
EDA hearings done for the day – Let’s go get McDonald again
Maybe that’s the reason the larger Warren County Circuit Courtroom “A” wasn’t available to move into to accommodate the full house in diminutive Courtroom “B” for the EDA criminal and County Supervisors Removal Petition hearings Monday morning – new indictments brewing from the EDA Special Grand Jury that often meets in the larger Courtroom A.
According to the Rappahannock-Shenandoah-Warren County Regional Jail website former EDA Executive Director Jennifer McDonald was arrested Monday afternoon on four new felony indictments related to the EDA financial scandal.
She was arrested by the Virginia State Police and booked at 1:25 p.m., an hour-and-25 minutes after the Removal Petition Show Cause Hearing adjourned at noon to close the day’s open court proceedings regarding the EDA. She was released just over an hour later at 2:26 p.m. on what appeared to be a $5,000 secured bond.
If our memory serves us that is McDonald’s third arrest, raising the number of financial felony charges she faces to 32. She was arrested on four initial counts on May 24, saw that number climb to 14 while incarcerated without bond as a flight risk. She was eventually granted bond by new presiding Judge Bruce D. Albertson on July 31. Albertson took over EDA cases as Judge Clifford L. Athey Jr. left for the Virginia State Appeals Court.
The 42-year-old McDonald was arrested on 14 new charges on August 23, the same day her husband Samuel North and business partner Donald Poe were arrested on related charges, Poe for the second time after first being charged on three counts in the EDA case on July 23. After spending the weekend in jail, all three were bonded out Monday, August 26.
On Monday, October 28, McDonald was out on a $50,000 secured bond on the 28 previous charges she has been arrested on. Noting the fluid nature of the Special Grand Jury investigation regarding his client, at an earlier hearing McDonald’s criminal attorney Peter Greenspun had asked for some arrangement to prevent repeated, prolonged incarcerations for every new charge levied against his client.
Perhaps that ability to post a smaller, secured bond to obtain immediate release is that arrangement.
The new charges are Fraud, Uttering; Larceny – Embezzlement – $200 plus; Money Laundering – Financial Transaction from known felony activity; and Fraud – Obtain money by false pretenses, $500 (or more).
County officials, EDA board members have good day in court – will it last?
After hearing combined arguments from attorneys for 11 of 13 County municipal and Economic Development Authority defendants present on why ancient English Common Law did not create 21st Century legal grounds for criminal prosecution regarding unintentional dereliction of the oversight duty of their office, Judge Bruce D. Albertson ruled for those defendants.
Also on Monday Albertson denied a Removal Petition request that all five sitting County Supervisors be immediately removed from the conduct of their office prior to the resolution of a Show Cause Hearing on that Removal Petition filed October 18.
“For me as a judge to act now is potentially influencing the outcome of the election,” Judge Albertson observed in denying immediate removal.
However in a possible harbinger of things to come, the judge added that “there are other conceivable outcomes civil and criminally” as to a potential final resolution of this citizen-elected official dispute.
On a motion by defense counsel for the supervisors that petition was sent to the County Registrar for verification that the required 10% of county voters in each voting district signing the petition, were in fact registered county voters. A return date of November 22 at 8:45 a.m. was set to get the result of that Registrar’s Report.
More on that initial Removal ruling later, but first to the court decision quashing the criminal charges against those county supervisors, the county administrator and past and present EDA board members.
After retiring to chambers to consider his ruling after an hour and seven minutes of legal arguments and counterarguments, 13 minutes later Judge Albertson returned to sustain the collective motions to quash the three misdemeanor indictments against all 11 defendants whose attorneys were present and participating in the arguments.
Upon that ruling, an observing co-counsel for Tom Sayre and Tony Carter, whose counsel was not present due to a scheduling conflict, both rose to ask that they or their client be included in the ruling, drawing some laughter from a packed courtroom.
“That makes sense,” Judge Albertson said, allowing the joining of the two in the judgment as had been discussed earlier were the ruling to go that way.
Albertson noted he was unable to find any evidence codifying misfeasance and nonfeasance as prosecutable misdemeanor offenses in the Commonwealth of Virginia, even under English Common Law at the base of U.S. law. He said the only related legal reference to the two charges he could find was in a 1967 civil case in England.
“What else is out there? It’s like finding a black hole by the gravity moving around it,” Albertson said, noting that the closest DCC Code that was found to bring the charges under was “solicitation”.
Solicitation of what, the court may have asked.
Acting Commonwealth’s Attorney Bryan Layton argued that while “as ill-defined as it may be, there is a legal precedent” for the charges, in arguing against the motions to quash the indictments.
Several attorneys jumped on that argument.
“ ‘As ill-defined as may’ be is repugnant to Virginia Law,” David Crump, who represented four defendants, replied to Layton’s assertion of precedent.
“ ‘As uncertain and vague as it is’ supersedes due process and fairness and is repugnant to the Virginia Constitution,” David Silek, representing former EDA Treasurer William “Billy” Biggs, added.
As Royal Examiner reported on September 8, of the three “feasance” failings of public office only malfeasance is codified as criminal by the Virginia Legislature, and that as a misdemeanor offense, though one that could lead to more serious charges.
The dividing line between malfeasance and misfeasance and nonfeasance is intent.
Malfeasance is defined as “intentional conduct that is wrongful or unlawful” while nonfeasance is defined “as a failure to act where there was a duty to act” and misfeasance is described as “conduct that is lawful but inappropriate”.
All the charges relate to the County and EDA Boards’ continued allowance of former EDA Executive Director Jennifer McDonald to operate without oversight, restrictions or direct supervisory control as a financial investigation of EDA affairs was closing in on her between September and late December 2018. McDonald resigned under mounting pressure from that Cherry Bekaert financial fraud investigation on December 20, 2018, admitting to liability for the return of $2.7 million in EDA assets. The EDA claims her liability is much higher.
The misdemeanor indictments cited McDonald’s movement of around $309,000 to her own benefit during that four-month period at the end of 2018, setting the groundwork for the charges. While the EDA civil litigation is seeking return of a total of $21.3 million now, due to the one-year statute of limitations on misdemeanor charges, earlier transactions could not be included in the indictments.
Removal on hold
Helping fill Circuit Courtroom B Monday morning were a number of citizens involved in the Removal Petition filed against all five County supervisors on October 18. As noted above, they left disappointed.
Not only was their request for immediate removal of the Warren County Board of Supervisors denied, but the foundation of their petition, the criminal misdemeanor indictments against the supervisors regarding a lack of due diligent oversight of EDA operations the last four months of 2018 were quashed as not legally prosecutable by Virginia law, no matter how deep you dig back to its roots in English Common Law.
Following adjournment, Removal Petition attorney Tim Johnson said he did not believe the quashing of the criminal indictments was a major blow to the Removal initiative. While no longer under criminal indictment for a lack of supervisory oversight of EDA finances at the hands of an executive director under increased scrutiny, misfeasance and nonfeasance can be “grounds for impeachment of a high official” Johnson told the press outside the courtroom.
So involved supervisors still on the board in the wake of the November 5 Election can be held accountable for past failures, Johnson believes. As noted during the hearing two of those supervisors, Board Chairman Dan Murray and Linda Glavis are not seeking reelection. Tom Sayre is running for reelection against Walter Mabe in the Shenandoah District. And Archie Fox and Tony Carter are not up for reelection for another two years.
With the citizen petition filed with the Court, the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office has taken up the Removal case for the plaintiffs. Acting Commonwealth’s Attorney Bryan Layton called the citizen loss of faith in their County elected officials “an unusual circumstance in my experience”.
In arguing for the plaintiff’s request for the immediate suspension of the supervisors said he believed “the damage to the public trust is so severe” as to justify the immediate suspension of their powers to govern.
County Attorney Jason Ham and co-counsel Jim Cornwell countered that there was no basis in the facts of the citizen petition to justify such a radical suspension of the municipal government function.
Cornwell said in arguing four such cases he had never seen immediate removal authorized by the court. The only case he was familiar with where the judge did order removal, with a six page Opinion he noted, was a Norfolk City Treasurer who had been convicted on six embezzlement charges – “Here’s there’s none of that,” Cornwell argued. “There is some vague reference that ‘something may happen.’ There is no evidence, it is a feeling of some people … Why suspend on an opinion?” he asked the court.
At the request of the Commonwealth, Albertson retired to chambers to watch Royal Examiner videos of two county meetings, on October 1 and October 25, with counsel from both sides before rendering that decision. Arguing on behalf of the petitioners, Layton said he believed the videos illustrated the unusual and high level public “loss of faith in the Board of Supervisors” due to the EDA financial fraud situation.
Court adjourned at 11:20 a.m. and reconvened at 11:42 a.m. following the video viewing.
Judge Albertson observed of what had been viewed, as one video segment that “devolved into yelling” and another that had been “very respectful” in its conduct of public speakers expressing themselves.
County Attorney Ham summarized what he had seen as less than ten people expressing public dissatisfaction at the hiring of legal counsel for the supervisors at taxpayer expense. He argued against overturning the electoral will of the full voting population of the county for a vocal minority of its citizens.
Layton countered that while only 10 citizens may have spoken publicly, many more were there in support of those 10; and the citizens’ petition when verified would represent 10% of the voting population, not just 10 citizens.
However Judge Albertson denied the immediate removal request.
He called it a “drastic remedy” adding that the Removal Petition itself was a “drastic measure” itself and perhaps a “pressure valve” on public discontent.
And as noted above, he worried over a judicial action that could influence a looming legislative election just two week away and alluded to other possible legal directions this citizen-elected official dispute might take.
EDA plows toward future amidst multiple, evolving litigations
The largely revamped, yet still embattled Front Royal-Warren County Economic Development Authority held its October monthly meeting Friday morning, October 25.
The EDA board went through monthly Executive, Finance, Assets, and Communications Committee reports before getting an Executive Director’s report from Doug Parsons.
Two Board officer appointments were made and approval of the Greehan, Taves & Pandak Law Firm as the independent EDA legal counsel was finalized.
Into the meeting Board Chairman Ed Daley suggested the EDA move aggressively to determine exactly who is owed how much by whom related to the various litigations the EDA is involved in related to the Cherry Bekaert financial fraud investigation conducted from September 2018 into 2019.
The EDA civil litigation is seeking recovery of what has risen to $21.3 million allegedly misdirected or embezzled during the tenure of former Executive Director Jennifer McDonald. The Town of Front Royal has also filed a lawsuit against the EDA claiming “up to $15 million dollar” in misdirected or otherwise lost assets.
The Town also withdrew from a joint Town-County-EDA effort to smooth out future EDA operations and participation in an EDA Reform Committee, though both the EDA and County government continue to retool EDA operations.
See the monthly meeting updates, discussions and votes in this Royal Examiner video:
I’ll see your $12 million dollars, and raise you another $1.5 million
On October 9, attorneys for ITFederal and its principal Truc “Curt” Tran filed a $13.5 million countersuit in response to the Front Royal-Warren County Economic Development Authority’s $21.3 million dollar civil litigation in which Tran and his company are named as two defendants liable for the return of over half of the EDA assets being sought for recovery.
Tran claims “substantial damages and reputational harm” to him and his company “from wrongful and deceitful acts that the Warren EDA – through its former Executive Director, Jennifer McDonald – committed against them”.
Tran also seeks a declaratory judgment that the $10 million dollar bank loan he and ITFederal received through the EDA “is a validly authorized transaction by the EDA” and “is not in default”. Tran notes in his countersuit that he is current on his monthly loan payments of $42,160 on a 30-year payback term beginning in January 2016.
Tran’s civil litigation counter attack on the EDA came five days after the EDA filed an amended complaint, adding detail of alleged fraudulent representations made by and/or on behalf of Tran/ITFederal in enabling his acquisition of the single largest amount of EDA assets being sought for recovery in its embezzlement and financial fraud scandal.
Those assets include the balance of the $10 million bank loan achieved by the EDA on Tran’s behalf in early 2016 and related vendor (minimum of $392,249) and direct payments (minimum of $1.43 million) to the company adding at least another $1.82 million dollars to the ITFederal portion of the EDA lawsuit.
So in claiming he was the one defrauded by the EDA and its former executive director, Tran has upped the EDA ante of about $12 million dollars filed against him by $1.5 million dollars – talk about high stakes gambling.
The amended EDA complaint cites Tran as in default on the $10 million dollar EDA/First Bank & Trust loan despite past admitted renegotiations on its terms.
“To date, ITFederal has not satisfied the Construction Targets for either the $2 Million Deed of Trust or the $10 Million ITFederal Borrower Note,” the Amended EDA complaint states, citing the absence of an occupancy permit at this point.
“On information and belief, little to no proceeds of the ITFederal loan have been applied to the ITFederal Project. On information and belief, Defendant Tran has converted a substantial portion of the proceeds of the ITFederal loan to his personal benefit.”
The EDA’s Amended Complaint notes that on October 4, the day it was filed, “the Warren EDA provided notice of default to ITFederal as required by both the $2 Million Promissory Note and the $10 Million ITFederal Borrower Note,” and adds that it believes ITFederal “cannot cure the default within the time allotted by the $10 Million ITFederal Borrower Note.”
As one can see, the amended EDA litigation and Tran’s countersuit paint distinctly contrasting portraits of what the dueling litigations contend happened in Tran’s acquisition of the estimated $12 million dollars in EDA assets.
The Tran/ITFederal Countersuit contends, “The Warren EDA – through Ms. McDonald, who had apparent, actual and/or implied authority to act on its behalf – materially misled Mr. Tran and ITFederal through both affirmative misrepresentations and concealment.”
However the EDA’s Amended Complaint repeatedly references actions by “Defendant Tran and Defendant McDonald” alleged to have been made in concert, falsely presenting Tran, his company and its potential to the EDA Board of Directors and Town and County officials.
“Defendant Tran and Defendant McDonald represented to the Town, the County and the Warren EDA multiple times that (a) Defendant Tran was a high-net worth individual, (b) he did not need any financial assistance from the Town, County and the Warren EDA to make the ITFederal Project financially viable, (c) ITFederal/VDN Systems had procured a $140 million contract with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to provide information technology services on a long-term basis and (d) Defendant Tran had the endorsement and support of the U.S. Congressional Representative Robert Goodlatte (Rep. Goodlatte) in connection with the ITFederal Project,” the amended EDA lawsuit asserts.
That is followed by eight more paragraphs alleging coordinated efforts by Tran and McDonald to misrepresent the financial and business potential of ITFederal and its CEO to local officials. Among those allegations was that Tran didn’t need the $10 million dollar loan but would accept it at the behest of Rep. Goodlatte, who it has been represented by EDA officials wanted the loan to help attract further redevelopment clients to the Avtex Brownfield site in his Sixth Congressional District; that Tran would actually pay the $10 million loan back in 60 to 90 days; and that federal EB-5 Visa Program financing was coming to the project.
Tran attorneys are sure to point out that those “Defendant Tran and Defendant McDonald represented” assertions most often continue to elaborate “through Defendant McDonald”.
As Royal Examiner observed as the ITFederal scenario was developing from our launch in October 2016 through 2018, the elusive Tran generally let the EDA executive director take the point in responding to questions from municipal officials or the press about his project at the EDA controlled Brownfield site.
Tran’s Countersuit filing asserts that McDonald forged his signature at least twice to give the impression he was the “secret investor” in the Criminal Justice Training Academy Project; and at least one other time to indicate his involvement “related to real estate deals in which he had no involvement”.
The suit also alleges McDonald “falsely misrepresenting” that the EDA had received a State grant for the ITFederal construction project at the Avtex site; and that McDonald misled Tran about the environmental suitability of the Royal Phoenix Business Park site at the former Avtex Superfund site to the point of telling him the soil was “so clean you could eat off it.”
“These fraudulent actions have unnecessarily entangled Mr. Tran and ITFederal in this matter, resulting in the Warren EDA frivolously suing this respectable businessman and his company where they are victims of the Warren EDA’s and its Executive Director’s wrongdoing,” the Tran Countersuit states.
However Tran was singing a different tune to the press during an on-site visit December 20, 2018. During a lengthy EDA board closed session after which it was announced McDonald had resigned by email earlier that day, Tran was asked about the possibility McDonald might be terminated or asked to resign following the closed session.
“I heard about this and it’s blowing my mind. Oh that would be sad. She’s done so much for this area of the county and the town to redevelop, and even me – I was just about to move on and she,” Tran hesitated before adding of the prospect of a turnover at the top of the EDA, “So, so, we have to go do this with the next guy’s ideas or something?”
How things have changed in the wake of several “next guy’s” ideas – one civil suit filing in which Tran and his company have been cited as liable for around $12 million dollars in restitution to the EDA and McDonald somewhere considerably over $3 million; not to mention 28 felony financial criminal indictments against the former EDA executive director Tran once put so much faith into to present his development plans to local officials.
All County supervisors now have attorneys and motions dates set
Three Warren County Supervisors who had not yet retained legal counsel during an initial September 27 court appearance of County and EDA officials charged with misdemeanor misfeasance and nonfeasance regarding an absence of due diligent oversight of former EDA Executive Director Jennifer McDonald were back in court Monday morning, October 21.
Those supervisors, Tony Carter, Linda Glavis and Archie Fox appeared either with counsel or with letters to the court from their attorney. The 9 a.m. Warren County Circuit Court docket of Judge William Sharp was adjourned at 10 a.m. to allow Judge Bruce Albertson to record the trio of supervisors’ legal representation and set motions hearings dates. Albertson appeared by video hookup from his Harrisonburg Courtroom. Sharpe has recused himself from hearing all EDA related matters.
Glavis and Fox were slated for the Monday, October 28, 9 a.m. docket when a preponderance of the 14 County and EDA board members motions to quash the three misdemeanor charges against them will be heard, along with Discovery Motions should the effort to have the charges dropped fail.
Due to a scheduling conflict of Carter’s attorney Caleb Kershner, the Happy Creek Supervisors Motions Hearing date was scheduled for November 21, at 4 p.m. It was noted that another attorney scheduling conflict had Supervisor Tom Sayre’s Motions Hearing date set for November 19, though that date did not work for Carter’s Leesburg-based attorney either.
Fox is represented by John Swerling, out of Alexandria, and Glavis by Bruce Blanchard of Reston.
Next Monday will be a busy and crucial day for EDA related hearings. In addition to motions to quash the criminal misdemeanor charges against the bulk of the 14 current or past public officials charged with failing to provide adequate oversight of Jennifer McDonald’s actions as EDA chief executive, the first hearing date on the Removal Petition of all five County supervisors filed on Friday is also slated for that day’s morning docket. That petition is seeking to immediately suspend the supervisors “from performing their duties in office until the Show Cause hearing is held”.
Removal Petition attorney Timothy Johnson said that while technically the Show Cause (as to why the supervisors should not be removed) Hearing could be held on that initial court date, experience says that additional Respondent motions may push the hearing date out.
Should that happen and were the judge predisposed to grant the motion to immediately suspend the supervisors from their duties pending the Show Cause hearing it remains to be seen how the County government would function as to any necessary board votes on appropriations or budgetary matters, etc. Johnson said the court could appoint people to fill the roles of supervisors, though the more likely path would be that the motion for immediate suspension would not be granted to allow the uninterrupted function of County government to continue.