Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Fact Checking The May-LaRock Race

By Greg L | 23 May 2013 | Loudoun County | 37 Comments

I had no doubt the Joe May-Dave LaRock primary campaign was going to get a bit testy with a June 11th primary coming up so quickly.  Recently that testiness got somewhat bizarre as the campaigns traded charges and counter-charges that are hard for the average voter to make much sense of, so we’re going to dig through them for you.

It starts out with a mailer from the May campaign alleging that Dave LaRock is “trying to hide his arrest record,” and says that LaRock was “arrested for unlawful entry and destruction of a woman’s property”, “ordered to pay $305.78 in restitution, and ordered to stay off her property and have no future contact with her.  LaRock fired back with a robo-call saying “by now you’ve probably received Joe May’s latest attack piece that says I have an arrest record.  That is not true.”

So let’s do some digging here.  They can’t both be right.

On July 28th, 2012 an Deputy was dispatched to a location near the intersection of Route 9 and Route 704 in Hamilton, VA.  The victim claimed that a sign for her business that was hanging on her fence had been stolen on or about July 14th and a friend had encountered a man with that sign in the bed of his truck.  The officer then requested warrants for a violation of VA Code 18.2-121 and 18.2-137 that are releasable on summons and the accused was identified as David Larock.  An arrest warrant for LaRock for a Class 1 misdemeanor was issued that same day with a notation that execution by summons was permitted at the officer’s discretion.  The warrant notes “EXECUTED by arresting the Accused named above” but there is no indication that LaRock was actually taken into custody.  He may have, or may not have, although I suspect it unlikely that he was.

The case was heard on September 11th, 2012 in General District Court.  The unlawful entry charge was “nolle prossed” and the destruction of property charge was given a continuance of 12 months with a condition that $305.28 in restitution be paid along with $81 in court costs, that LaRock stay off the property where the offense and have no contact with the victim.  Nothing has happened in the case since then, but LaRock will probably have another court appearance in September where the judge will likely “nolle prosse” the outstanding charge.

What makes this so interesting was that LaRock tore down a sign advertising a porn shop in West Virginia that was advertising in Loudoun County, which was noted in the complaint.  In that part of the county, people don’t think you’re a bad guy at all for tearing down crap like that, they give you a slap on the back and an “attaboy.”  I bet that everyone who had to drive past that sign while it was up was hoping that someone would wreck that sign and LaRock is the first guy that got fed up enough to do it.  Should it have been handled by zoning enforcement instead of an angry citizen?  Sure.  I just don’t imagine voters in that district are going to care a whole lot about that.

So was LaRock trying to hide something?  No.  Was he arrested?  The paperwork seems to indicate that but in the quite likely case that LaRock was not taken into custody his statement that he was never arrested from his perspective could be absolutely honest, albeit technically inaccurate according to a check mark on a form.

My suggestion for the remaining weeks of this race is LaRock send out a mail piece with him tearing up porno advertisements with “Go ahead and arrest me for this!” emblazoned across the top while Joe May can send out a mail piece of him posing with a West Virginia business owner talking about how he’s the only candidate in the race that respect the rule of law and private property rights.

For technical marks, they both get failing grades here.  As for the rest, it’s your call.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.


  1. Lovettsville Lady said on 23 May 2013 at 2:20 am:
    Flag comment

    Most people in our part of Loudoun think Dave LaRock is a hero for taking down that disgusting, pornographic, sign! Busloads of children had to pass that sign everyday on their way to school. Parents hated having to explain to their children why there was nude woman on a sign. What did it mean? Why wasn’t she wearing clothes? What does it mean?

    Oh, and let’s not forget, the sign advertised a pornography business in West Virginia which is not legal in Virginia. The sign was ILLEGAL and had been reported numerous times to the authorities who did nothing. After many weeks, Dave LaRock stood on public property and took down the sign. He never set foot on the woman’s property, but he did take down an illegal pornographic sign on a public right of way.

    Dave LaRock has never hidden what happened. I wrote about it back in March. The story garnered Dave LaRock more support for his campaign! http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/and-so-it-begins-smears-and-mudslinging-in-loudoun-county/ If this old story is the best May can do, he’s got a long way to go. May clearly doesn’t understand the people in his district if he doesn’t think that they wanted that pornographic sign removed from the street!

    The porn shop owner now has another porn sign on her lawn, along with two Joe May signs! I bet ol’ Joe is very proud to have the support of the owner of a pornography store in West Virginia! She seems to be very fond Joe May. She even left a message on his Facebook page asking for his signs. They’re Facebook friends. His staff was happy to oblige and took signs to her house. I wonder if Joe and his many staffers have visited her store?

  2. Lovettsville Lady said on 23 May 2013 at 2:24 am:
    Flag comment

    One more thing, Dave LaRock was never arrested or taken into custody for anything. He was given the equivalent of a traffic ticket. Joe May lied about that too.

  3. Pornographers for Joe May said on 23 May 2013 at 7:26 am:
    Flag comment

    Joe May stands shoulder to shoulder with West Virginia’s finest purveyors of porn.

  4. G.Stone said on 23 May 2013 at 7:50 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg. I have had a few discussions with Larock and his supporters on this very issue.

    Let me start by saying I hope Larock wins. Joe May’s record on taxes and guns suck.

    Having said that, I wish Larock and his supporters would have the intellecual honesty to admit what he did was wrong. They hang their hat on the fact that the message on the sign was offensive and therfore Larock had the right to destroy private property. In other words David Larocks moral outrage is so superior that it trumps the law.
    Who gives a shit that the ” community” agrees with him that the sign was offensive. I agree the sign was offensive! That does not however provide us the cover required to take the law into our own hands.

    Larock has told me he took the sign down because it offended him. Well guess what abortion doctors offend me, so using the Larock Logic or lack thereof, I should be well within my right to walk up to the Abortionist and punch him in the nose because his actions offend me. My moral position allows me to plant one on this guys nose because he is engaged in wretched activity albeit legal. NO.

    Larock would have been better off saying to me and others who might have activly supported him that what he did was wrong and he should not have done it. Instead he doubled down on stupidity and made himself a moral crusader above the law. Sorry, that dog don’t hunt.

    I am a constitutional conservative. Davids actions were not those of a constitutional conservative, but those of a guy who twists conservatism like a pretzel to match his own religious and moral beliefs. The sad part is some , friends many, have bought this line of crap hook line and sinker.

  5. AJ K said on 23 May 2013 at 2:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    It offends me that Mr. LaRock stole someone else’s property (a sign that he (and many others) didn’t like.)

    It offends me that Mr. LaRock’s disrespect for existing laws and processes (that we all are supposed to respect) is applauded because ‘we agree with that particular viewpoint at that time’

    If offends me that Mr. LaRock lacked the courage and moral superiority to publicly take down the sign, in front of a camera, press, media circus and demand to be arrested to make the very point he may claim.

    A candidate running for our party nomination that refuses to respect our laws should not be sent to Richmond to make them.

  6. Pornographers for Joe May said on 23 May 2013 at 4:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    I gots me 3 4×8 Joe May signs right outside my porn shop. Plus the hookers at the brothel next door have May signs in all the bedroom windows. I understand the May campaign even supplied stickers to put on all of their clients’ condom wrappers. Joe May is our kinda people!

  7. AJ K said on 23 May 2013 at 5:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Lovettsville Lady said on 23 May 2013 at 2:24 am:

    One more thing, Dave LaRock was never arrested or taken into custody for anything. He was given the equivalent of a traffic ticket. Joe May lied about that too.”

    So what happened between the date of the crime on 7/14/12, the issuing of the warrant of arrest on 7/28/12, and Dave’s appearance in court on 9/11/12 where the prosecutor entered the motion of nolle prosequi (Law-talking for ‘Pay the lady for what you stole and broke and I’ll make this go away in a year’)???

    Dave took and busted up the property of another, got caught, paid them for their loss, and Dave’s existing record (whatever you want to call it) of this sorry event, will be removed from the public record in September.

    Precisely the kind of guy we want as Republican nominee in November. Macaca anyone?

    Remind me never to drive the equivalent in Lovettsville.

  8. Wow said on 23 May 2013 at 7:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    “I wonder if Joe and his many staffers have visited her store?” Wow, Jeanine Martin. Your mouth knows no bounds.

  9. Wow said on 23 May 2013 at 7:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    And good grief stop calling the sign pornographic. If there was literal nudity on the sign it would have gotten taken down for reasons other than being too large. I can just picture Dave flipping out about the mannequins in Victoria Secret, breaking the glass and running off with them.

  10. Stephen Spiker said on 23 May 2013 at 7:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    We’re debating the morality of pornography? Did I fall asleep and wake up in 1950?

  11. Scout said on 23 May 2013 at 8:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    I can’t figure out why a person of the quality of Joe May keeps going back to the General Assembly. He would have been typical of the public servant of the 18th Century - someone of considerable accomplishment in other areas who donates time to the public good. These days, he’s trooping with crows, to borrow the Bard’s phrase. Loudoun is very lucky to have someone of his calibre in the legislature.

  12. Lovettsville Lady said on 23 May 2013 at 10:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    Oh, I see my little stalker is now haunting this site. Everyone knows who I am so your pathetic efforts to ‘out’ me are just that, pathetic. One might think that you just moved here from Vermont, or something.

    Many of us don’t think we’re lucky to have someone representing us who has voted for two largest tax increases in Virginia’s history. The most recent huge tax hike supported by May will raise ALL of our taxes on July 1st, including a 20% increase in our sales tax, with NO new roads proposed in Loudoun county. None. Not a one. Many of us don’t think we are well represented by someone who has a C- rating from the NRA because he does not support our Second Amendment Rights. Many of us in Joe’s district don’t think we are well represented by a delegate with a 75% approval rating from NARAL, the largest pro abortion group in the country.

    You see, the majority of voters in Virginia’s 33rd district are conservatives. In our district 77% support the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms. The majority support smaller government and lower taxes, not the massive $6 BILLION tax increase that Joe May voted for this year. The majority of people in the 33rd, nearly 70%, are pro life, not pro abortion. So pray tell how does Joe May well represent voters in the 33rd district? He is against what the citizens of the 33rd support!

  13. Scout said on 24 May 2013 at 5:26 am:
    Flag comment

    I guess that explains Joe’s popularity in that district, LL. He’s been around for a long time. Amazing charisma, that, that enables him to continue to represent a district where so many people are against him.

  14. AJ K said on 24 May 2013 at 11:07 am:
    Flag comment

    If that premise were true, then there would be a decent and worthy challenge to Del. May. If the only reason to vote for Low-Information La Rock is that he’s not Joe, the 33rd will stick with the devil they know rather than the unprincipled thief they don’t.

    I got issues with people that go into a frenzy about a graphic of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH.) LaRock’s conviction(s) put him in the same camp. What other graven images are offensive to Taliban Dave? Is he going to be busting up the statue of the Confederacy outside of the courthouse or putting burkha’s and veils on the mannequins in the porn/smut shop across the street?

    When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.

  15. Wow said on 24 May 2013 at 11:42 am:
    Flag comment

    There’s a difference between conservatives and Tea Party conservatives. Just because the majority of this district is Republican doesn’t mean they’re as crazy as you. I’ve talked to so many people who realize that–oh my God–sometimes taxes are good/necessary :O

    And it’s so easy to address Dave’s NARAL argument. Joe got ONE 75%. Out of nine rankings. Two others are 17%, one was 25%. The rest were zeroes. In three rankings from Planned Parenthood he got all zeroes. In six rankings from the Virginia Society for Human Life, he only got two that weren’t 100%–an 86% and a 92%.

    The problem with looking at one or two imperfect rankings and saying they define Joe May’s consistent behavior is…obvious. These organizations don’t take into account that when politicians vote against a bill, they don’t necessarily disagree with the principle behind it–sometimes bills are poorly written. This was the case with the three-bill package that Joe voted against in 2012 to get his 75% rating from NARAL (NARAL looked at 4 pieces of legislation, one was objectively pro-life, hence the 75%). The bill included a statement that unborn fetuses are human, required informed consent and ultrasounds before abortion. These were things that Joe actually voted for multiple times in the past. Joe voted against it this time for the same reason many other conservatives voted against it–it was full of problems. Jill Vogel, the Senate sponsor, even pulled her support.

    So if we realize that sometimes bills are poorly written and should simply be rejected on those grounds, a few non-zero NARAL rankings or non-100 Society for Human Life rankings don’t tell us anything about Joe’s actual stance on abortion. If you look at his consistent, average rankings, they approach nearly 0% from pro-choice organizations and 100% from pro-life organizations. And if you decide to think for yourself and just look at his actual voting record, you will never find a vote that is actually pro-abortion.

    It’s so funny how Dave and his supporters throw around one 75% rating and claim that this means he votes “FOR abortion 75% of the time.” So hilariously ignorant.

    What is Dave going to do about the size of government? As one delegate in the House with a huge amount of problems that call for government action, and with no political experience/respect/proven leadership ability? How is he going to address transportation after swearing to never raise taxes (which are necessary to fund any road construction)? I’ve asked him ALL of these questions MULTIPLE times and friends of mine have asked him IN PERSON. And he has NO response. All he does is distort Joe’s sensible, conservative voting record. The great thing about Joe when compared to Dave is that he doesn’t alienate people with extremist rhetoric. He understands that in order to get things done in politics, negotiation with and compassion for those who disagree with you in some areas is necessary. I have seen none of that in Dave. I see nothing but hateful attacks from him and supporters like you, who would go so far as to imply that Joe and his interns would frequent a porn shop. How stupid, ignorant and insensitive of you. You will never be a part of anything other than a small minority of radical right-wingers who have latched onto the Republican party like so many leeches, forever sucking the life out of it until it is weak enough to be consumed by the democratic party.

    You are everything that people detest in “conservatism.”

  16. Wow said on 24 May 2013 at 11:53 am:
    Flag comment

    Well, I guess I might’ve gone a little overboard there. My apologies.

    But please, you can attack Joe’s record. You can even stretch the truth and misinterpret things and force Joe and his team to go to voters personally and explain. But try to have some respect for others. Hateful statements like the one in your first post are what alienate other people and prevent cooperation. If the Republican Party/conservatism is ever going to make a comeback, we need sympathy and unity–not the hatred that I see in nearly all of your posts.

  17. AJ K said on 24 May 2013 at 12:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, I fear this topic has become too offensive toward Candidate LaRock and I think we can expect Dave and his crack team of arrest-defying lawyers to begin taking down any/all ’signs’ of discussion. On the other hand, maybe it’s just a technical glitch with ‘nothing to see here, move along.’ We shall see… or we will not.

  18. Not LL Cool J said on 24 May 2013 at 2:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    So the sign was declared “illegal” by LL, LaRock, and some others, BUT NOT THE SHERIFF. I think LaRock should run for sheriff. That’s who his beef is with.

    One of the reasons LL said it was illegal (on another blog) was that it advertised an out of state business - that is bedrock conservatism, … let’s scrap the uniform commercial code. We don’t want anything to do with those other 49 states.

    If the sign was on the right of way, as LL says, then the pornographer lady who was advertising her out of state smut shop should go tear up a bunch of LaRock signs I’ve seen on rights of way.

    LaRock is a “hero” because he took the law into his own hands - just the kind of guy we want to give wider power as a state delegate. Maybe we should give him a big Beauford Pusser stick to wield around Richmond.

    It was OK to take down the sign because “people” didn’t like its content or the people it was targeted to. Good idea, let’s ban Jews from Loudoun County.

    As LL said, the woman in the picture had no clothes on - so let’s ban art in Loudoun, like Van Gogh’s Nude Woman Reclining, Rembrants Bathsheba, Adam and Eve by Albrecht Druer, Venus Rising by Jean Leon Gerdome, and Nu Sur La Plage by John William Goodward

    Maybe since Cuccinelli (that’s NOT an American name by the way) can’t shake the black guy from his ticket, Dave LaRock can just do the job for him

  19. Lovettsville Lady said on 24 May 2013 at 4:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    WOW, whatever Joe’s paying you, it’s not enough.

    This past year, Joe’s NARAL rating was 75%. Only ONE republican in Richmond had a higher rating.

    Where else in Loudoun is nudity on public display? Nowhere. It’s illegal. It’s also illegal to have signage that advertises an out-of-state business. But hey, the porno store owner loves Joe May! He’s her guy. Just like so many other democrats, she loves Joe.

    Reducing taxes reduces the size of government. Increasing taxes increases the size of government. Joe May voted for massive tax increases. LaRock will not vote to increase taxes but will vote to repeal the massive tax increase thrust upon us by Joe May. Those increases expand the size and scope of government. People in the 33rd district want LESS government controlling their lives and curtailing their freedoms. The more money the government takes, the more freedom and liberty we lose. It’s not a difficult concept.

    LaRock wants to get the government out of our purses and pockets. He wants the government off our property, and off our guns! It’s pretty simple. If you want smaller government and more freedom to spend your money as YOU chose, and not how the government chooses to spend it, you need to vote for Dave LaRock. If you want someone who will have an A+ rating from the NRA and not a C-, you need to vote for Dave LaRock. If you want someone who will have a 0% rating from NARAL and not a 75% rating, you need to get out on June 11th and vote for Dave LaRock.

  20. Lovettsville Lady said on 24 May 2013 at 4:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    Included in Joe May’s massive tax hike is a tax in internet sales. Soon be able to thank Joe May every time you pay that internet tax on everything that you buy online.

    Interesting letter to the editor from a former supporter of Joe May. Like me, she voted for him in the past but won’t this time. He’s not fooling us again!

    During the 20 years that Joe May has been in office, the state has grown by 20% and the state budget has grown by 200%!

    This sounds like Joe May was for abortion before he was against abortion. Was he lying then, or is he now?

    This Berryville voter feels like many of us, we can’t afford Joe May! He’s taxing us to death!

  21. Loudoun Lady said on 24 May 2013 at 5:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Maybe since Cuccinelli (that’s NOT an American name by the way) can’t shake the black guy from his ticket, Dave LaRock can just do the job for him”

    What the heck?

  22. G.Stone said on 24 May 2013 at 5:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    As usual this has devolved into utter stupidity.

    Your choices are a guy who sucks on taxes and guns and a guy who thinks he the Sheriff of Nottingham . Fantastic.
    All LaRock had to do was get in front of this in an honest way and it would be of little value to the May campaign. But because he doubled down , now he has to contend with it until the election. Brilliant !

  23. Wow said on 24 May 2013 at 9:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    I do wish I got paid for my blogging work. That would be cool.

    Re: “Porn lady.”
    Good, people who love equal freedom love Joe. People who think they’re standards are ALWAYS above everyone else’s and have no problems taking the law into their own hands love Dave. And the last time I checked, swimming suits weren’t porn. I can only imagine how Dave might react if he saw the mannequins in Victoria Secret at the mall. I can also imagine that he might be arrested again.

    Re: Government size/taxes.
    So, if the government took no money at all, we’d have perfect liberty–according to your “simple” logic, Jeanine. I guess perfect liberty is anarchy, with leads to tyranny. Seems legit.

    Re: Abortion and gun control.
    Please stop with the rankings from lobbyist organizations and think for yourself. Here’s your homework: read up on Joe’s actual record and come back tomorrow with some practical examples of “pro-abortion” or “anti-second amendment” votes.

  24. Scout said on 24 May 2013 at 9:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    LL seems to be struggling to explain why Joe May keeps getting elected. I think her theory is that no one likes him. Go figure.

    My theory is that someone in Loudoun likes the job he’s doing.

  25. Fed Up said on 25 May 2013 at 1:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    Why can’t we get some candidates that can tell me why I should vote for them, not why I shouldn’t vote for their competition? All these slam tactics do is turn off voters or send them to the other option. No wonder turnout is abysmal, who wants to get pumped up to vote when the options don’t include ‘none of the above’? At least with the incumbent the seniority gets better committee assignments. Wish I could come up with a better reason….or choice.

  26. SleighBells said on 28 May 2013 at 7:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jeanine Martin - Delegate May’s voting record for pro-life legislation is 89% from 2006-2011 (34 bills) and 92% in 2004-2005 - you can easily find this info here : http://www.naralva.org/in-our-state/your-legislators.shtml.

  27. Greg L said on 28 May 2013 at 7:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Sleighbells, you’re going to point people to NARAL as an authority on who is pro-life?

    I don’t think they have any understanding of the concept. By citing them, I have to wonder if you do, either.

  28. AJ K said on 30 May 2013 at 2:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    LL: LaRock wants to get the government out of our purses and pockets. He wants the government off our property, and off our guns!

    Unless of course, our Nominee decides to confiscate and destroy that property. Some pigs are more equal than others. Which guns doesn’t Dave like?

    FU: “Why can’t we get some candidates that can tell me why I should vote for them, not why I shouldn’t vote for their competition?”

    Because when there is not sufficient reason to vote for Taliban Dave, you campaign to sell ‘LaRock being equivalent to Not-May. This is why Dave has no political identity outside of ‘I’m not Joe.’ Which means that if Dave is successful in the primary, he is doomed in the general and in subsequent races — He can’t run as Not-Joe then.

    SB/GL — “Delegate May’s voting record for pro-life legislation…”

    typo — makes a better hit with pro-_choice_ but I’m still trying to fathom Serial Tax Hiker (I see them with backpacks along Rt. 7 all the time)

    We Republicans are supposed to pick the best person to go to Richmond and act in the best interest of the Commonwealth and it’s inhabitants. It’s the actual definition of Republican. But seems like some folks are arguing that Joe should just go and vote the way that most people want… the tyranny of the majority. Which means that we can instead elect a Dave Clown to go push the button marked Conservative on every vote. One would think that guys claiming to be Constitutional experts like 1789-Dave and our White House Occupier would know this stuff.

    Also, seems to me that you can predict guys like Farris will endorse those with the most zeroe$. Wonder why.

    Misrepresenting Joe’s record, Joe’s votes, and Joe’s positions along with tortured wrangling of “I never been arrested because I successfully arranged/ducked being served until the actual court date where I appeared and got probationed” seems to indicate less integrity than the May campaign calling a sign-grabber and law-breaker ‘a sign-grabber and law-breaker.’

  29. The Bulletproof Monk said on 2 Jun 2013 at 7:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    Wow… so sorry, but I didn’t publish your crap at my blog…mostly, because I have standards. If you debated and interjected any worthwhile content — that’d be one thing, but unabashed lies and regurgitated drivel don’t cut it at my site….because I don’t suffer fools.
    Grow up and bring your A game and let’s see if you’re worthy. What I’m reading from you here equates with some third graders letters to Santa Claus.

  30. The Bulletproof Monk said on 2 Jun 2013 at 7:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Scout…libtards out here love him. That’s why we waited till there was a rather important democrat primary the same day. That way, in order to save Joe, libtards will have to diss their man Herring.

  31. The Bulletproof Monk said on 2 Jun 2013 at 7:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    Don’t worry, though. Joe will soon diss the Republicans after the primary and will display his real colors.
    Writing a long and colorful post for that date, and calling it “Primary Colors”. Get it???

  32. Paige Critchley said on 2 Jun 2013 at 11:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    LaRock & The “Pornographic” Sign

    It is time the public heard the truth about the alleged “pornographic sign” briefly posted in July 2012 on my property along Rt. 9 and the unwarranted, illegal and vigilante-style actions David LaRock took concerning it without regard for the legitimate due-process rights of others within the law. He willingly and knowingly broke the law. He physically removed and destroyed the sign because he did not like it. However, eventually, he was brought to justice in the Loudoun County General District Court where the judge ordered him to repay me the cost of producing the sign and further ordered LaRock not to contact me or to trespass on my property. The Court further scheduled a probation review for David LaRock for September 11, 2013.

    A variety of false statements have been made about the sign in question and about what it portrays. I own an adult novelty store in Bunker Hill, WV doing business as Sensual Nights. As the name suggests, we sell sensual items and accessories that are intended to enhance adult sensual relationships. Lingerie, massage lotions, adult novelties, etc. are the products we offer – not unlike those offered in Victoria Secret and Spenser’s Gifts retail stores. Our stylized name with a bikini clad woman seated on the capital S in Sensual is trade/service marked nation-wide, and we use the cartoon “pixie” style model wearing boots in our advertising. Never are either of these, both of which were featured on the sign in question, “nude” figures as LaRock’s supporters have suggested.

    I had the sign, a copy of which one can view on the Sensual Nights or Paige Critchley Facebook pages, produced and mounted it on a fence facing Rt 9 in early July 2012 to advertise my store. At the time I posted the sign I was unaware that the county had passed a “sign ordinance” sometime in, I believe, 2011 that prohibits one exhibiting signs advertising businesses unless the business is being conducted on the same property. I own and live on the property on Rt. 9 where I exhibited the sign, but my business was located elsewhere. Contrary to accusations, the sign was exhibited in only one place, on my property, never elsewhere and in particular at no time were there “mini versions” of this sign exhibited “everywhere in right of ways” across the county. Further, it was exhibited on my property for less than two weeks, not months as some LaRock supporters have claimed.

    The Loudoun County Zoning office advised me of the restrictions on signage according to the ordinance less than one week after the sign had been exhibited and told me that I had ten days to either remove the sign or obtain a permit for the sign. I fully intended to comply with the directive to remove the sign within ten days. However, David LaRock chose to trespass on my property and to destroy and remove the sign before I did so. Presumably, Mr. LaRock feels he is above the law and has the right to exercise his own vigilante “justice” rather than operate within our country’s justice system.

    Numerous statements have been made by LaRock and his supporters regarding this situation that I wish to set straight. In addition to those mentioned above, specifically the following claims have been made:

    -Claims were made that this sign in question exhibited “nude” females. Absolutely not true. See for yourself as the sign is posted on the Sensual Nights Facebook page or on my personal Facebook page.
    -Claims those miniature versions of this sign were exhibited along various rights of way throughout the county. False. We have never produced or displayed other versions of this sign.
    -Claims that the sign was “pornographic” in nature. False again. I seriously doubt that the content of this sign could ever be described as “pornographic” as defined in Webster’s New World Dictionary.
    -Claims that the sign was exhibited along Rt. 9 or elsewhere on “abandoned property.” Again, untrue. The sign was never exhibited anywhere but on the property I own and where my occupied home is located.
    -Claims that my sign advertised so-called “strip clubs.” Absolutely not true. Sensual nights is not a “strip club,” and no such club was even mentioned on the sign.
    -Claims that the sign advertised “women for hire.” Unbelievable, ridiculous and absolutely untrue! Where this absurd accusation came from I will never know.
    -Claims that the sign “featured a topless female and became the talk of the neighborhood. Repeated calls by Dave [LaRock] and the neighbors to the sheriff’s department over several months’ time were to no effect. The sign was illegal and a public nuisance, but no action was taken.” Incredible! The sign was up for less than two weeks in July 2012 and there was never a “topless” female depicted on it.

    I find the claims made by LaRock and his supporters in this situation beyond belief. How can such falsehoods be uttered by politicians or anyone who claims to honestly and faithfully represent the people of his or her constituency? Some people will apparently stoop to the lowest, despicable level to be elected to public office. Who would want such a person representing their interest in local, state or Federal office? Certainly not me. I assure you I won’t be voting for David LaRock.

    Sincerely yours,

    Paige M. Critchley

  33. Pornographers for Joe May said on 3 Jun 2013 at 12:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    Howdy, Paige! Welcome to our Pornographers for Joe May coalition. Can we interest you in putting a “Pornographers for Joe May” bumpersticker on your car?

  34. Loudoun Lady said on 3 Jun 2013 at 2:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    Paige, Just out of curiosity - what did you think the response from the public would be in Western Loudoun to your “Sensual Nights” poster? I have yet to hear of one person that thought the sign was appropriate, however I have heard many complaints. Perhaps you will admit it was inappropriate?

  35. Wow said on 4 Jun 2013 at 11:32 am:
    Flag comment

    Hey! More red herrings! Not sure why I expected anything else from LaRock supporters. Two important things in Paige’s post: 1) LaRock lied multiple times about the situation to twist it in his favor (i.e., saying the sign was porn and that the law hadn’t acted), and 2) he’s willing to take the law into his own hands because he believes his standards are superior to anyone else’s. But those things don’t bother tea-partyers these days–it’s one of Joe’s nine NARAL ratings that they’re up in arms about.

  36. Booyah said on 6 Jun 2013 at 4:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    The sign was just as appropriate as the store window displays on the corner of Market and King streets in the center of downtown Leesburg - which is a much more prominent location than Ms. Critchley’s fence - and are legally displayed……

  37. Wedding Dresses said on 15 Aug 2013 at 6:43 am:
    Flag comment

    Fantastic function! Which is the sort of facts that ought to be discussed across the world-wide-web. Shame about the find engines because of placing this particular publish uppr! Seriously in excess of as well as talk to this web site. Thank you Is equal to)

Leave a Reply

Views: 4357