POLITICAL CHICANERY IN THE OLD DOMINION
|
|
Since my conviction of politically motivated and, in my judgment, deliberately misinterpreted charges many friends and citizens have asked me to tell them "my side of the story." How did it come to pass that I, a civic-minded family man, husband, father of seven children, and politically nonpartisan newly-elected school board member became the first elected official in the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia to be indicted, convicted, and contrary to State law ordered by a local Judge to forfeit office? This is my response to them, and anyone interested in the truth from my perspective. To begin with my case had absolutely nothing to do with "justice" and everything to do with "politics." What we had in my case was an individual politically accused of soliciting "gifts" when, in reality, he had quite legally sought to retire his election debt in asking for campaign contributions specifically allowed by law. My problems with the political-judicial establishment began when I became one of the first six elected members to the City of Virginia Beach School Board. It seems that school boards nationwide are in the midst of an increasingly negative political environment that appears to be orchestrated by forces determined to destroy our public school system. In Virginia Beach this disturbing phenomenon extended to citizen school board members as illustrated with my case and that of the remaining members of the 1994/95 public school board. None of us were prepared for the mean spirited and politically driven forces that awaited our term of office. I was targeted by an attorney I defeated in the general election, his retired father, and their organized group. Their political campaign of misinformation against me culminated with a Commonwealth Attorney, sympathetic to their agenda, singling me out for a political indictment. This indictment was for seeking campaign contributions that are, in fact, allowed by law to every citizen! Selective prosecution happens to be against the law, yet in my case the Courts neglected to consider this troubling reality. In the judicial process that followed I was also denied due process of law guaranteed by the United States and Virginia Constitution. Again the Courts turned a blind eye and allowed this obvious injustice, as well as the disenfranchisement of the majority of voters in a general election. It is not an exaggeration to point out that in my case lie the seeds for the potential destruction of America's electoral system in today's politically expedient environment. "In politics , it doesn't matter what the truth is. What matters is what people believe the truth is." Dr. Larry Sabato, University of Virginia political scientist In retiring a legitimate campaign debt from my successful election to the City of Virginia Beach School Board, May 3, 1994, I sent letters seeking campaign contributions to retire my modest $4,600 debt. It should be no surprise to learn that politicians do raise campaign contributions in running for public office. Despite this political reality my solicitation was portrayed as scandalous! What followed was an expensive and personally draining ordeal for me and my entire family. I spent my own money in defending myself against these bogus charges, thereby saving the taxpayers a minimum of $25,000 in legal expenses. The School Board paid the legal expenses of the remaining members. Political conviction notwithstanding, I did nothing that was unlawful in my campaign fundraising activities. As a matter of record I was in full compliance and within the advice and guidelines given me by the State Board of Elections. * The State Board of Elections is the authority for State and Local campaigns for public office. All laws, rules,
and regulations for campaign financing are regulated through this board. On being informed that questions had arisen, concerning nine letters, I again contacted the State Board of Elections. Their official, Mary King, and I reviewed all details in this fundraising effort. It was determined I was in legal compliance, with the exception that I had inadvertently omitted a required disclosure statement, "Authorized by Charles W. Vincent," Ms. King suggested that I should send a second letter, with the required disclosure, to correct this technical error. In complying with their advice I was ambushed with criminal charges. Virginia Beach Commonwealth Attorney, Bob Humphreys, omitted his own disclosure statements in the past. Was this a "willful" violation of law? His argument to my Jury was that I was "given a manual" which "contained the law." Therefore, the Jury should infer "I knew the law" as it was misinterpreted by him. It is hypocritical for him to hold me to standards he does not hold himself. After all, he was "given a manual" which "contained the law," as well as the entire Code of Virginia! As our Chief Enforcement Officer, and no novice to elective office, his job is to know the law. The argument could just as easily be made that Mr. Humphreys "willfully broke the law." Reprinted article - The Virginia Observer, Friday, June 16, 1996 Chief Enforcement Officer Breaks Law VIRGINIA BEACH - Commonwealth Attorney Bob Humphreys violated state law. However, It is unlikely that he will prosecute himself. In an extremely unusual move, Humphreys, himself Republican, took sides in this week's GOP primary. Humphrey chose to endorse Ed Schrock for the State Senate over the other Republican candidate, Wally Erb. Schrock won the primary by a 9 point edge. A shift of just 5 percent would have given Erb the edge needed to win. Humphreys used his name on a large reverse logo envelope that also carried a letter from him urging Schrock's nomination. But neither the letter nor the envelope carried the disclaimer noting who authorized the political materials. The Republican-controlled State Board of Elections has mailed election requirements to all candidates stating the following; "Identification" Section 24.2-1014 of the Code of Virginia requires that the source of all campaign material, including sample ballots, be identified. The following authority statement must be printed on any campaign material published or ordered to be printed by the candidate's campaign committee: "Authorized by (insert name of candidate)." "Penalties" "You must pay a $50 civil fine if you fail to include this required authority statement on any piece of campaign material. If found guilty of willful failure to include the required authority statement, you may be punished by a fine of $2,500 and a sentence of one year in jail, either or both." Technical errors such as these, of course, follow every election cycle. They are clearly inadvertent, not "willful" violations of law. If we prosecuted every technical error virtually all our public officials could be indicted and brought to trial. So we must ask, just why did Mr. Humphreys commence his unprecedented, unfounded, and unwarranted attack on me, and then the remaining members of the Beach school board? The only explanation I can surmise is that it was for political reasons. The headline in the "Metro" section of our local paper was "Beach School Official Could get 9 years in Jail and $22,500 in Fines!" The crux of the article was that I had, in effect, violated the public procurement act by soliciting campaign contributions from architectural firms seeking school contracts. This was simply not true. I did not violate the public procurement act. Let us examine this little known law; Virginia Code 2.1-639 Et. Seq. Includes 2.1-639.4, which states in pertinent part as follows; No officer or employee of a state or local government or advisory shall: 5. Accept any money, loan, favor, service, or business or professional opportunity that reasonably tends to influence him in the performance of his official duties. This subsection shall not apply to any political contributions actually used for political campaign or constituent services or purposes and reported as required by Chapter 9 (24.1-251 et. Seq.) Of Title 24.1... (Emphasis added) My solicitation of a campaign contribution fully complies with the law, or "Virginia Code." These charges were, and remain, absolutely bogus. The argument that campaign contributions are now "gifts" is bogus. I was simply trying to retire a lawful campaign debt, within the advice and regulations that I was given by the State Board of Elections. I was not "crossing palms with silver" or "lining his pockets" as was alleged by Commonwealth Attorney Humphreys to the local media. Any campaign contributions received were reported as required by Virginia Code 2.1-639.4 (5) and Chapter 9 (24.l-251 et. Seq.) of Title 24.1. They were, and still are, a public record in the Voter Registrar's Office. I certainly did not deliberately break the law, as charged. Was Mr. Humphreys "crossing palms with silver" or "lining his pockets" when he raised campaign
contributions (some questionable) during, and after, his elections to public office? All I can assure you is this
-- unless an individual is independently wealthy, he must rely on campaign fundraising in accordance with laws
that are regulated by the State Board of Elections. My solicitation wasn't much different from that of many elected
local and State officials. Check the public records. Campaign fundraising is a legal activity. I find it discomforting to have an individual such as Bob Humphreys as our Commonwealth Attorney, and believe his political "gotcha" games contribute nothing positive to our public school system or our children's education. Knowing I was innocent of "willfully" breaking any laws I was not about to resign an office that I had campaigned hard for - and won! I was elected by the citizens of Virginia Beach, not Bob. My political detractors went to great lengths to discredit me. The media obliged them by reporting a scandal that, in reality, did not exist. I have heard it said "they never let the facts get in the way of a good story." Of course criticism comes with being an elected official. One's religion, education, just about anything, is open to ridicule. In the business of politics, this type of character assassination is known as "sliming." It has become a regular part of our political landscape because it is so effective. Just "sling the mud - some is bound to stick." The State Board of Elections told me that I broke no law and had a "political" problem. Well, if I
broke no law, how can the judicial system uphold a "guilty" verdict? Politics is the only explanation.
I have actually been told that "when politics is involved, the law goes out the window." The law becomes
"whatever they want it to be." Such conduct subverts the judicial process. No wonder people have become
so cynical. Since Virginia Beach Commonwealth Attorney Bob Humphreys is so concerned with "ethics," or even the appearance of impropriety, I would like to know how he can possibly justify his failure to prosecute criminal (felony) charges against an individual, and then accept hefty campaign contributions as reported? Reprinted article - The Virginia Observer, Friday, October 14, 1994 Humphreys Glass House Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Living in one of the biggest glass houses on the east coast is Virginia Beach Commonwealth's Attorney Bob Humphreys. And he is not throwing stones per se. He's throwing one big rock at newly-elected school board member Charles Vincent. Mr. Vincent, it seems, sent out letters asking for contributions to pay off his campaign expenses. The bad part was that he solicited funds from persons who might be doing business with the education system. We don't think that's right, but every elected official does it. Mr. Vincent claims that he ran his plan by the State Board of Elections and was told his action was perfectly legal. Mr. Humphreys wants to charge Vincent, claiming what he had done was somehow illegal. If that is indeed the case, Mr. Humphreys will have to get a rock pile, because he will find that almost every member of the Virginia Beach City Council received contributions from either someone they regulate or authorized purchases or services. Mr. Humphreys cannot pick and choose his cases. If he prosecutes one, he must prosecute all. And one of them may be himself. At one point in time, he failed to take a case to court and later wound up with a $1,000 campaign contribution. In another case, Mr. Humphreys was given information detailing a claim that the ServiceMaster Company had spent big bucks to influence school officials to award the company a $6 million dollar-plus contract. This was a serious case and Humphreys had the name of each official the company tried to influence. The big law-and-order man did absolutely nothing. There is supposed to be an equal application of justice in America for all citizens. But not in Mr. Humphreys eyes. Justice is not blind in Virginia Beach, it has tunnel vision and focuses only on what Mr. Humphreys wants to selectively see. In October 1994, less then six months after being sworn into office, I was indicted on nine misdemeanor ethics charges, and through a prominent local attorney I was offered a "deal" that involved my resignation from the school board. As a matter of honor I rejected this "deal" and, in retrospect, realize that this was the real problem: my refusal to resign office as politically demanded. At this juncture my fate had already been determined. Let us examine this so-called ethics law that was misinterpreted to apply to legitimate campaign contributions; Virginia Code 11-75 "solicit or receive gift, money, or thing of value" Virginia Code 11-80 "willful violation of this provision will be a class one misdemeanor" 11-75 does not state "campaign contributions" that are allowed under 2.1-639.4 (5) does it? Even if it did, a violation of 11-75 carries no monetary or other penalty. 11-80, however, contains the provision of "willful" that makes it a class one misdemeanor. Anybody with an IQ above a peanut would know that I had no "willful" intent to break any law. I followed the State Board guidelines, with the exception that I inadvertently omitted a required disclosure statement on nine letters. An apple is not an orange, and "gift, money, or thing of value" does not apply to legal campaign contributions specifically exempted in Virginia Code 2.1-639.4 (5)" This subsection shall not apply to any political contributions actually used for political campaign or constituent services or purposes and reported as required by Ch. 9 (24.1-251 et Seq.) Of Title 24.1" If our legislators intended campaign contributions to be included in the proscribed restrictions, they could have done so simply by adding "campaign contributions" in Virginia Code 11-75. If not, I dare say that most of our elected officials are at risk of indictment on similar charges. It is obvious that our lawmakers did not intend to have Virginia Code 11-75 apply to campaign contributions that are allowed under another law! If so, how could the State Board of Elections be unaware of it? And if the State Board was unaware, please explain to me, just how am I supposed to be? It defies logic. If I was "willfully" trying to break the law, I certainly would not have bothered seeking State Board of Election guidelines, or sent letters through the U.S. Mail. If I was trying to be "willful" I would have made an effort to conceal my actions. The simple truth is that I had no intention of breaking any law and, as a matter of record, did not. My unfortunate experience validates the perception that the law, depending on the political circumstances, can be misinterpreted at whim. After the fact, the argument was brought forward that I should not have solicited campaign contributions from architects seeking school business. "Looks bad" they say. Oh really? The State Board of Elections tells us "you can solicit from anyone, as long as any contributions received are deposited in your campaign account and reported." How is a novice elected school board official, a parent of seven children, stepping forward to serve our community schools, to know the politics of "looks bad" simply by following legitimate State Board of Elections regulations and advice? Past Governor George Allen was criticized for accepting $100,000.00 from Smithfield Foods, Inc. at the same time his administration was preparing litigation against them in connection with their pollution problems in the Pagan river, and employees violating state and federal laws. Was this wrong? Did the Governor violate any laws? Was he perhaps, "willful"? I don't believe he was, but it sure "looks bad." We did not see our past Governor indicted, forced to resign, or brought to trial. As a matter of fact, even after all the media criticism, Smithfield Foods, Inc. contributed an additional $25,000.00 to his campaign! The truth is, all campaign financing "looks bad" in the political climate of today. It is a politically charged issue. And it does not help the matter to have a sanctimonious hypocrite such as Mr. Humphreys, a Commonwealth Attorney who should know better, prejudicing the media with inflammatory comments such as "crossing palms with silver" and "lining his pockets." This type of comment serves no legitimate prosecutorial purpose, and appears to be designed to inflame public opinion. How can anyone really defend himself once such a nasty perception has been unfairly conveyed to the public in this manner? I was politically assassinated. Prior to trial Mr. Humphreys boasted to my attorney, "I've ruined him... he might as well resign" adding that "if he resigns... he can avoid trial." I'm not a quitter, and I refused to resign on his bogus charges. At trial we did not put on a defense because Virginia Beach Circuit Court Judge Thomas Shadrick led us to believe that he understood that prosecutor Humphreys had failed to enter any evidence of the willful intent necessary for conviction. The jury was given the definition of "willfulness" or "willful act" in Instruction Number 9 and in that instruction they were told that "willful act" is an act done voluntarily and intentionally with the specific intent to do something that the law forbids. How in the world am I to know that I am doing something the law forbids by simply following directions given me by State Board of Election officials! They say Virginia Code 2.1-639.4 (5) allows elected officials to do exactly what I have done. This is why we must report our contributions. This criminalization of a legal political activity is an absolute abuse of prosecutorial discretion. From the official trial record - Comments made by Circuit Court Judge Thomas Shadrick at the end of the prosecutions
case against me. The following is from pages 395 & 396 of the official trial record; MR. HUMPHREYS: And I would only disagree to this point, Your Honor. I think there has to be evidence at this point in the case from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that he willfully violated the article, and that's where I guess you and I might differ. THE COURT: No. That's what I'm -- that's what I'm struggling with here is that where -- you know, clearly, if there was evidence in this case that when he became a school board member, all new members had an orientation meeting at which the attorney for the school board went over the ethical provisions of 11-73 through 80; that they discussed that; or clearly, if there was evidence that he had his -- policy manual opened during a meeting and made reference to the statute; or clearly if he had a discussion with somebody and said, I've read this statute, and I don't agree with it. I'm going to go ahead and do it anyhow. But in this case, I don't know of any evidence thus far that indicates that he was even aware of this provision other than the fact he was given a manual that contained that provision in it; but there's no evidence that he ever opened this manual other than -- you know, there is no evidence that they studied the manual. That they were required to study the manual. He may have been swamped with paperwork for the first meeting and just set these manuals aside thinking I'll look at them later when I have time. MR. HUMPHREYS: Well, maybe you and I are never going to agree on the interpretation or the application of the word Willful, Your Honor" Unfortunately the Jury was not present when Judge Shadrick spoke these words at the end of the prosecution's case. It was decided no defense was necessary. We thought that the Judge would appropriately, at this point, dismiss this goof-ball case! After all, without any evidence of "willful" acknowledged by the Judge, at this critical point, there was no case! Unfortunately he did not. He sent the case to the jury, and they brought back nine misdemeanor guilty verdicts. We go to our Courts expecting justice. We are supposed to be a nation governed by laws. Politics in the courtroom is an abomination. Innocent people pronounced guilty diminish the foundations of our legal system and shame us all. Justice demands the correct interpretation of the law, and my exoneration. Am I to be denied justice because I was elected to the City of Virginia Beach School Board at a politically charged time? I do not blame the Jury for their error. They simply did not understand that Virginia Code 11-75 deals with "gifts, money, or thing of value" and did not apply to legitimate campaign contributions allowed by Virginia Code 2.1-639.4 (5) Mr. Humphreys, as prosecutor, was not about to educate the Jury about legitimate campaign fundraising, or the fact that 11-75 does not even have "campaign contributions" listed in its prohibition. In my opinion this is tantamount to intentionally misleading the jury on campaign finance law and, as such, is unethical conduct on his part. Furthermore, since we rested the case at the time we thought Judge Shadrick would dismiss it, procedurally we could not put on a defense. Two State Boards of Elections officials could have given testimony that would have clearly settled these bogus charges once and for all. No defense was entered, and the Jury heard only Mr. Humphreys side of the story. The Judge, after taking the case under advisement, for approximately six weeks because of his "concern over the willful issue," finally set aside any reservations he once had expressed. Without taking into consideration the political consequences he accepted the Jury verdicts of guilty. This sham conviction allowed Mr. Humphreys to set his sights on the rest of our school board members and, within months, they too went down in flames facing bogus misinterpreted legal charges! Please understand that I have no disrespect for Virginia Beach Circuit Court Judge Thomas Shadrick, my only criticism of him is that he pontificates more then he judges, and I believe that he made a political decision in my case. If not a political decision, why did he deny me due process? He ordered my immediate removal from the City of Virginia Beach School Board, for misdemeanor convictions, while my verdict was under appeal! The Jury did not ask for this, they simply gave me a fine. The Virginia Code defines the correct procedure for removal of any elected official from office, and defines the civil procedure to do this. Even an elected official under felony conviction cannot be removed from office prior to his appeal's being heard under State law. So why was I ordered out of office, for misdemeanor convictions, before my first appeal had even been heard? Was this justice, or political expediency? In my judgment it was the latter, which ultimately set the stage for the political circus that followed. Of the eleven members of the 1994/95 City of Virginia Beach School Board (Six elected, five appointed) 8 resigned, 5 under duress/threat of indictment. I had been the first political target. After my "kangaroo court" trial, in which I was pronounced guilty with absolutely no evidence of "willful" intent proven whatsoever, it's not surprising that the majority of the school board members chose resignation rather then risk trial. The two remaining board members, who refused resignation, were more fortunate. In their first trial they were pronounced "not guilty." Prior to their second trial, necessitated by Mr. Humpreys obstinate refusal to drop his remaining charges, Circuit Court Judge Glen Tyler dismissed them altogether. He ruled that the law had been misinterpreted by Mr. Humphreys. Judge Tyler, in my opinion, had the courage to put an end to this political chicanery by correctly interpreting the law. It should have been obvious, from the very beginning, that no board member acted with any "willful" (criminal) intent whatsoever. Application of statute 11-75 to campaign contributions has given this law a meaning that was never intended. Using the law as a political weapon is a miscarriage of justice. Is a school board seat really worth the prosecution and wrongful conviction of an innocent man? What a cynical use and shameful abuse of the law. I am the ONLY elected official in the history of Virginia to have had a legitimate campaign solicitation interpreted to be a violation of the so-called (11-75) ethics statute. It was the FIRST time this law was allowed to be politically misinterpreted, and the FIRST time anyone was ever prosecuted under it. |
|
No legal advice is given on this Website or Webpage
Send comments to American Injustice
Copyright © 1997 - 2005 by American Injustice, Inc. All rights reserved
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107,
this material is distributed without profit or payment
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.