The following Press Release from Charlie King tells why Scott York is not fit to be in office in Loudoun County and why we need to boot him out on Tuesday.
November 1, 2015
For Immediate Release
Contact: Charlie King
REPUBLICAN NOMINEE FOR CHAIRMAN RESPONDS TO YORK MAILER
Republican Candidate for Board Chairman Charlie King responded to a mailer distributed by Scott York:
“In his latest mailing, Scott York criticizes me for successfully defending Sterling Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio, who has ably served the residents of Sterling for fifteen years, is devoted to his family, and is man of strong faith,” said King.
King said: “By attacking me, Scott York inadvertently raised the central unanswered question from the Delgaudio case. While representing Supervisor Delgaudio, I interviewed two credible people who described how Chairman York received an envelope filled with $5,000 in cash from a real estate developer in 2011. These funds never appeared on any of Chairman York’s campaign finance reports,” said King.
King believes Chairman York’s delay in acting on the complaint filed by Donna Mateer likely stemmed from his own fear of being investigated.
“The image of the Chairman of the Board receiving a large amount of cash in an envelope troubled me deeply. When an elected official receives a large amount of cash, the quiet inference is report it, if you want, or buy groceries,” said King.
The Special Grand Jury heard testimony about similar transactions. Their final report said: “After uncovering evidence that the retired pastor had provided money to members of the Board of Supervisors that indicated he may have committed perjury, the Jury summoned him to testify again.”
The report continued: “Another witness close to the retired pastor testified that he had seen the retired pastor provide envelopes to members of the Board of Supervisors with what he assumed were donations though he was unaware of the amount.”
“From my investigation, with one exception, I learned the “money” in these envelopes contained cash – small green rectangular pieces of paper embossed with the images of deceased American historical figures, not checks,” said King.
“Since Mr. York believes my representation of Supervisor Delgaudio is relevant to this campaign, I contend the final disposition of the $5,000 in cash given Mr. York is more relevant, especially given his recent actions in lying to the Chamber of Commerce and Loudoun Times Mirror about his re-election plans. I have always wondered what Mr. York did with the money. I call on Mr. York to account for the unreported $5,000 cash contribution he received in 2011. Mr. York’s reluctance to sign a simple ethics pledge highlights a huge problem with land use applicants and political contributions. I will be a different kind of Chairman, I will clean up Loudoun County Government,” said King.
For months I was a solid King supporter, and then for a few more months Charlie’s exclusively negative campaigning had been pushing me closer and closer to the edge.
But this is the final straw. This is a disgusting accusation to be made without proof.
“While representing Supervisor Delgaudio, I interviewed two credible people who described how Chairman York received an envelope filled with $5,000 in cash from a real estate developer in 2011.”
Who are these people? Why don’t they come forward? How do we know Charlie didn’t just make that up?
For that matter, how did they know how much money was in the envelope? Do we really think a developer would show the cash to witnesses before giving it to Scott?
If Charlie were running on anything except unsubstantiated accusations, I would be the first to support him as the Republican nominee. But unfortunately he hasn’t given me one single reason.
It is painfully obvious that you have always been a York supporter.
The accusations are not unsubstantiated. They are completely factual.
1) I literally just took the King sticker off my car this week.
2) By “unsubstantiated” I mean they have not been publicly substantiated in any way that I can verify. Let me know if I’ve missed it, or if anything comes out. Though you’dd think that if King has anything really substantial, he would not have held on to this until the last minute.
3) Simply stating that something is “completely factual” does not count as substantiating. Neither does appealing to hearsay from unnamed witnesses. Just think verifiable, and you’ll have an idea of what I mean.
Please see Loudoun GOPer’s post above. I am shocked that there’s anyone who can’t figure this out, especially those with legal backgrounds.
I’m shocked too. I surprised TBE doesn’t know the difference between claims that can be verified independently, and claims for which we only have the word of the claimant.
In this case, King is claiming that two people told him that scott received $5k from a developer in an envelope. We do not get to know (as far as I can tell) who they are, whether they really did tell Charlie that, or whether they even exist.
If that sounds like evidence to you, I don’t know how to respond.
Surely you have read a newspaper. Reporters do not reveal their sources. You must accept that they have verified what they are reporting.
I hope this helps.
Newspapers ostensibly do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the election. (Of course sometimes they are hiding one.) But from the candidate himself, this kind of thing is laughably incredible.
These are claims that were made UNDER OATH during a GRAND JURY SESSION. They were outlined in the grand jury report. The developer (aka ‘retired pastor’) made the statements himself.
This is not rocket science.
The only Grand Jury report I can find makes no mention of $5,000 cash given to York. Delgaudio yes, York no.
But then again, I only have Google on my team. If you show me what you’re referring to, I will happily concede that you are right and I am wrong.
King doesn’t have bumperstickers, he has magnets.
Didn’t York get quite a bit of criticism on his delay in looking into the Delgaudio allegations? I think we know why. He’s lucky it’s been this long without anyone bringing it up, but he opened the floodgates with his hit piece on King.
This was information that came out under oath during the grand jury investigation. Just about anybody that knows anything about Loudoun County politics over the last 20 years knows exactly who the ‘retired pastor’ is who gave him the money.
Giving York the money is not a crime. Not reporting it as a campaign finance contribution, however, does make it a crime, because that means York received personal financial gain from someone who has business before the Board of Supervisors.
But lets face it. This is not the first time that Scott York has personally gained from a developer that had business before the board. Does anybody remember the “contest” that Scott York won back in the 90’s? It was a bank, I believe, that had a development project coming before the Board.
Then there is the time in 2005-06 when Scott York was hired by ServiceStar, a developer of gas stations and convenience stores that York had helped out twice previously. After being put on the ServiceStar payroll, he still sat in on meetings between county staff and his employer, which was a clear violation of the law. Still waiting for that to be investigated, though.