Thanks to Patch for reporting on this story. This was actually the first ruling by a court in connection with our request for these documents under the Freedom of Information Act. Our previous court action applied to different documents, and did not produce a ruling relevant to yesterday's case. We have filed an appeal from yesterday's ruling and are awaiting a hearing date from the Circuit Court.

Stevens Miller
Executive Director
Real Advocate PAC

What do Eugene Delguadio, Eminent Domain and Erectile Dysfunction have in common? If you take the first initials of all three you get a foul stench that is not emanating from rotting flowers. Others being smeared with this substance include Scott York, Janet Clarke, Tim Hemstreet, Investigators Dan Wright and Amy Hutchens, Loudoun County Attorney Jack Roberts, Commonwealth Attorney Jim Plowman, Commonwealth Attorney Theo Stamos, Judge Dean Worcester and last but not least the Human Resource Department people who got rid of Donna Mateer! Since Theo Stamos does not have the paperwork in front of her she has asked for protection sight unseen. In this day and age waiting for the Virginia State Troopers to pick up the information from Jack Roberts and have it delivered does not pass the smell test. We now have e-mail, fax capabilities, thumb drives and the postal service all capable of getting the info to CA Stamos. If you need help with the postage i am willing to pitch in.

Mr. Miller, since you are also Ms. Mateer's attorney, why not have her sign a release so that your pac can publish the documents, which it has already received from her?

Barbara, I would imagine part of the request is to provide insight into what the county and York has been evaluating. It isn't just about the documents or their content. Hopefully they will also reveal who saw the documents. I am still wondering who the mysterious second person is. The one York can't recall. Was it Plowman or Delgaudio. Or maybe someone else. It's a shame when you can't FOIA stupidity. We certainly haven't been getting any straight answers from those who have seen the documents.

There's apparently some confusion regarding what makes a document "public." If it's obtained via FOIA, the content is unquestionably public. If it's obtained from any other source, even if that source releases it, that isn't necessarily the case. Further, the reason we are seeking the documents the county has is that it will prove conclusively what they have and when they had it.

Jonathan, I would be more cautious about indiscriminately accusing everyone who ever knew about these documents with participating in a cover-up. We disagree with Judge Worchester's decision yesterday; that doesn't mean he's part of a cover-up. Similarly, the Human Resources office had nothing to do with Donna Mateer being fired. She (and the other aides Delgaudio fired when they dared to question what he was doing) wasn't a county employee. All that HR had the power to do was to take her statement and give it to York and Clarke, which they did.

What we know is that York and Clarke had the package of documents from Mateer in March, and that, as of yesterday, they were in the possession of the county attorney and had not yet been delivered to CA Stamos, despite her having been appointed as special prosecutor three weeks ago, and despite our having been told that we should be patient and wait for the investigation to "conclude," when it apparently hasn't yet commenced.

Satchmo, I understand the emphasis on getting it from FOIA in order to determine whether what York gave the attorneys is exactly the same as what Ms. Mateer gave the pac (although whatever is received in the FOIA doesn't necessarily conclusively prove that).

Since early on, I've been chewing on the fact that the director of the pac undertook to represent Ms. Mateer, that the pac trumpeted the difference in what was given to them and what was first given for review (without publishing anything other than a picture of a letter next to a picture of files, along with some quite carefully funny comments on news articles that one should "see the amazing difference" by visiting the pac blog, where yes, the pictures looked different!), yet equally carefully sidestepped various urgings from even sympathizers to publish the documents they now had:

http://www.realadvocate.org/blog0/real-advocate-prevails-in-foia-court-action/#comments

Re "please read our publication policy under Mission. There are good reasons for not doing what you suggest that you may not have thought about" in the discussion there, after linking to mission and then linking again to publication policy, way down the scroll is the following: "Additionally, there could be legal liabilities with respect to documents obtained from sources other than FOIA."

(cont.)

One question I have had since the beginning (which is pretty consistently blown off) is whether any of the documents submitted, in particular any donor or contact lists, may be proprietary, in which case potentially makes Ms. Mateer liable if she copied them and gave them to someone else, either another government official or the pac, or entered them into public record by either placing them on a county server, etc.

It provides a possible out for the pac to pursue them through FOIA, but if they were improperly entered into record that may not be enough of an out, especially for Ms. Mateer, even if the pac director is her attorney. Perhaps especially if the pac director is her attorney--that has a whiff of its own conflict, or could if someone even other than Delgaudio has grounds to file a complaint if anything proprietary is published, even as a result of being entered into public record.

So while it sounds good to maintain a "non Wikileaks" policy, continuing to generate lawsuits and press with no hard info EVEN THOUGH the info is in hand tends to make this much more political (and why not? It's a pac after all! lol) than good-government oriented, i.e. we still have no proof of wrongdoing, let alone what kind and whether it extends into, as has been reported through the blogosphere and on the network news in other states, being "under investigation by the FBI for using public resources to run a hate group".

So, are any of the documents proprietary in any way, and if so does the pac or Ms. Mateer bear any liability even if they are obtained through FOIA?

Barbara, it's an interesting question to ponder if documents are proprietary. I wonder what Delgaudio or York would say about that? Good luck getting the answer to your question from them. It's likely not an issue as Robert's didn't use it as a defense in protecting the documents from disclosure. If there was a proprietary issue I am sure he would have used it to protect the disclosure that Ms. Stamos requested.

Further, IF they were proprietary it would probably be just as much an issue for Delgaudio. How did he get a proprietary list and did he use it inappropriately?

The critical issue here is, very little has been disclosed in this secret effort to bury the problem for Delgaudio's benefit. If there was some level of honesty or transparency that revealed genuine concern for taxpayer money then we wouldn't be dreaming up conspiracies or pontificating on a bunch of what-ifs.

I am still waiting for the Board to publicly take a stance on this issue. That's were the real crickets are chirping.

That is a very interesting question, Barbara. I think the person who could best clear that up for us is Mr. Delgaudio himself, since he'd be able to tell us if any of the documents Ms. Mateer handed over to the Chairman were, in fact, proprietary. Of course, he'd be obligated to explain who owns the documents. Is it the non-profit hate group Public Advocate of the United States, which Mr. Delgaudio runs? Or is it his campaign PAC Friends of Eugene Delgaudio? You've done a fantastic job speculating on this matter up until now, so please tell us, which one do you think it is, Barbara?

Mr. Weintraub do not put words in my mouth. I said this case stinks and it does. All associated with it are getting smeared with the crud involved.
Sad it is if what you say about Human Resources is true I would hope there is a HR person out there who would review and recognize what Donna Mateer did and hire her. If she broke a proprietary agreement because of campaign ethic violation instructions by her supervisor is she not correct to have blown the whistle? Sounds like she used the proper chain of command and then she was fired.
Was Tim Hemstreet the person besides York and Clarke to see the documents initially?

I doubt it was Hemstreet who was the mysterious second viewer of the documents. If it was York would have an easier time "remembering" who he gave them to. I would guess it was someone within the political chain of command.

Satchmo, Delgaudio could very easily have a list that has proprietary restrictions, depending on how it was compiled, who compiled it, whether they sell that service and so on.

The question for the investigation is whether or not there was an improper use of county resources to politically fundraise (possibly using lists that may or may not have restrictions on copying, publishing, sharing--and which, as donor lists? would be very useful to a budding pac)

The question of copying, sharing or publication of any possibly proprietary documents whose contents don't necessarily prove the subject of the investigation, yet to date have generated several lawsuits, a handful of news articles, and a lot of blog pixels is a whole separate question, still unanswered.

Which leaves room for a lot more lawsuits (potentially on both sides), a lot more news releases, a lot more blogging...

Mr. Nevarez, I have no idea. I've asked some specific questions which the pac has yet to answer, leading me to believe there is either some liability involved (and indicates some desire on their part to protect Ms. Mateer even as they use her for political purposes), or that there's more smoke than actual fire, in which case continuing to file suit and issue press releases is far more effective to the political purpose than publication (or even the investigation).

Barbara, I'll play devils advocate here.

So let's say Delgaudio did pay for the Igor list. I am sure the sales and use contract would have delineated a use policy and certainly would have authorized the use of the list for the fund raising Delgaudio planned for it. That's usually how those things go. List provider sells list to user who must disclose the intended use.

So, since Delgaudio has claimed he used the Igor list for youth football fundraising, one could easily conclude Delgaudio could have nipped this entire thing in the bud by playing the card you seem to think he has? All Delgaudio needed to do was to say I bought the list for youth football fundraising and here's the contract. If this was a proprietary list then Delgaudio should reveal the terms for his own benefit. He would be publicly exonerated of charges he used the list for nefarious means. If it is not a proprietary list (which I am betting on) then there is nothing to pontificate about here vis-a-vis the Mateer/Miller legal issue.

Jonathan, staff aides are not county employees. They are essentially political appointees, employed at will by individual supervisors. Yes, I think Donna Mateer did exactly the right thing using the only channel available to her, and she was summarily fired as a result. There should be whistle-blower protections for any employee in government.

We don't know who the second person is. York initially said he would not identify the two people with whom he shared the documents, then two weeks later identified Janet Clarke as one, and "I do not recall" as the other.

Only one problem with that Satchmo, and one you may not like: by the time he could have played that card if it is even in the pack, wouldn't she already be liable for having shared it? IF it is in fact something that triggers liability by doing so.

My understanding is that the right to public disclosure is a *lot* more complicated than just whether the list itself might be proprietary, but it doesn't really matter. Real Advocate's policy across the board is not to release material obtained from any source other than FOIA.

Having said that, it's pretty evident even absent a real investigation that this list was not used to raise funds for LLBFL. If it had been, the WaPo reporter would have been able to find someone on the list who had been given Delgaudio's specific fundraising letter for LLBFL at the meeting Ms. Mateer set up with them, entering said meeting into something called the "Eugene 2012 Campaign Schedule." It's not that such a letter doesn't exist - Delgaudio splashed it all over his website two days after he realized he had told the reporter that he gave these potential donors political material instead. His action appeared very defensive. All that it showed is that he was very anxious about what his former aides had disclosed, and that he had nothing with which refute it.

Theo Stamos now has the documents from County Attorney Jack Roberts.

Source?

Theo Stamos office returned my e-mail from this morning with a call a few minutes ago. Call and ask them if you like they seem very polite and well informed!
telephone number 703 228 4410

Times up David. Did you call and verify!

You are the one that asked for the source so read into it anything you wish to. My name is spelled with a capital J mister.

Mr. Nevarez, please show me where I said my questions were more important? Your accusation is itself an attempt to derail, by attacking me for asking questions, and attributing motivation in the process. Nice Alinsky, IOW.

Yes, the pac does have legal obligations, as you are well aware, having run for political office yourself. I note that their registration on VPAP announces they will be filing on paper as opposed to electronic documentation, until they trigger the $10K mark. I look forward to their first filing that may be more easily available online, as opposed to asking to read the paperwork in Richmond during business hours.

Satchmo, devil's advocate is in itself a potential red herring, and none of us will know until the investigation is complete. Or on this small matter of my question (which, as noted to Mr. Nevarez, is no more important than any other), until the pac stops prevaricating and diverting and answers whether they or their client would be liable if they published the documents without having obtained the (perhaps dubious?) insurance of receiving them through FOIA first, even though they already have them.

Barbara, I think I effectively removed the issue of Ms. Mateer having any reason for concern of releasing the documents, especially when related to propriety or legalities. That is a call and timing she and her attorney have complete control over. I have also added a parallel concerns from Delgaudio's view; if we are hunting red herrings which I believe we are. I also think this excellent back and forth has established a solid justification to continue to ask for documents via FOIA.

So you and I will have to leave it at that. I have enjoyed the banter.

As I have been asking, if it is not a matter of concern but simply a call between Ms. Mateer and her attorney, who is also director of the pac, then why not publish the docs?

Why continue to ask for them in court, and demur publishing what they already have because of legal issues beyond the ken of the average person?

Yes, FOIA is valuable. But the red herring is that this is primarily a good government exercise, and not political fundraising of its own, iow yes, banter is primarily what all of this is so far.

David, you are so funny! That's the same thing you said to me last year when Jonathan was quoted on the news and in the UK press as a member of the atheist group displaying with SkeleSanta and the letter from Jesus, etc.

I asked if he had been correctly identified as a member of the group, and you said "Lol! Jonathan is not an atheist".

When I said that was not what I asked, you got huffy and said the same thing, "asked and answered" (move along, nothing to see, shut up).

When it turned out that you were both members and networking with the group to have all religious displays removed, you got even more irate at me for pointing it out and linking it.

I understand quite well that you don't want me asking that question (which still doesn't make it any more important than any other question).

You have a nice day too.

David it has been proven that no matter where you jab the tigress (Barbara Munsey) it's bad for the jaber.
It's to bad Obama's whistle blower legistration would not have proted Donna Mateer and the other aides. I do hope Stamos gets a look at the FBI report on the aides

Its always interesting to see the mental gymastics of said tigress who appears to believe research via FOIA to be an exclusive right. Specifically, she routinely questions the merit/motives of those using FOIA to either oppose her politics or her sponsors/friends/colleagues, usually characterizing their use of the law to be a costly annoyance, for a questionable cause, self-serving, etc.... Transparency is important no matter the politics of those in control.

Gymnastics and transparency of government, that is

Indeed. Any gymnastics that are necessary to protect her precious Mr. Delgaudio (friend, sponsor or colleague?), regardless of his deeds. It's entirely transparent in the other sense of the word.

Now, tell me again, WHY the Board can vote to censure Delgaudio? And WHY Delgaudio can't be relieved of all committee duties during the investigation? Is it because the other Board members don't have the authority to do these things? Or is it because they are closing ranks to protect one of their own? Good ole Eugene must be given the assumption of innocence.....he's not an anti-immigrant racist until proven guilty, he's not a hate-mongering homophobe until proven guilty, he's not using his staff for political fund raising until proven guilty. Thank goodness that Loudoun County is such a tolerant place, unless, of course you are an immigrant, a GLBT person, or disagree with Eugene's world view. TIME FOR A CHANGE!