Trespassing Charges Against School Board Member Dropped

The Loudoun County Commonwealth’s Attorney has dropped trespassing charges against School Board member Joy Maloney, almost three months after she was arrested at a Donald Trump campaign rally.

Maloney’s trial was scheduled for Nov. 9, but Commonwealth’s Attorney Jim Plowman filed a nolle prosequi on Oct. 24 to abandon the charge in the case.

Maloney, 45, was accused of interfering with a line waiting to get inside the Aug. 2 Trump rally at Briar Woods High School. A Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office report said she stepped in front of several attendees waiting to go inside. She was asked to go back in line, but refused to do so and then sat on the ground, according to the report.

Organizers then revoked her ticket and she continued to refuse to leave.

Maloney, wearing a “Love Trumps Hate” sticker, was charged with trespassing and taken into custody. A magistrate released her on a $1,000 unsecured bond. She has denied that she tried to prevent people from entering the school.

In court Sept. 14, Maloney’s attorney, Alex Levay, objected to the trespassing charge, arguing that the contract with the Trump organization only covered the auditorium, that Maloney had a ticket, and that she did not have criminal intent to trespass, a necessary standard for a conviction under Virginia law.

“Not only do we have the right of assembly under the First Amendment, but she had a ticket to be there, and she was outside the school building,” Levay said afterward. “There was no legal basis. Whoever the witnesses are that they want to bring in to court, it’s not going to change the law and the facts on the ground.”

9 thoughts on “Trespassing Charges Against School Board Member Dropped

  • 2016-11-02 at 1:39 pm
    Permalink

    There have been plenty of opportunities to zing Joy “Pat” Maloney up until now and I haven’t. Why now? Because she is a school board member and is, as the political class is apt to do, getting away with something that years ago would have lead an honorable person to resign. The justice system is doing nothing. The School Board itself won’t even censure her when she clearly deserves it. We have a sitting School Board member behaving like an infant ON SCHOOL PROPERTY and there are no negative consequences whatsoever. Any student in the LCPS system would have been treated much more severely.

    If all she gets is ribbed by on online blowhard for having a bad hair life, then she should consider herself lucky.

    What should have happened?

    1. She should have resigned
    2. She should have been censured by the School Board
    3. She should have incurred a fine or some other minor legal repercussion.

    What actually happened? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It just goes to show corruption isn’t just a national issue, it is a local one too.

  • 2016-11-01 at 4:35 pm
    Permalink

    Apparently David Dickinson does not realize how wrong his comments about Joy Maloney are and how poorly they reflect on Dickinson’s character.

    Are school board members Jill Turgeon and Erick DeKenipp about to apologize publicly to their fellow board member for their very public playing of the role of judge, jury, and executioner? Don’t hold your breaths. My sincere gratitude to the members of the board from the rest of the county for their refusal to join in the mob mentality of the members from the western part of the Loudoun County.

    • 2016-11-02 at 12:46 am
      Permalink

      Charlie McKeon plays the role of simpleton.

      1. OJ wasn’t convicted of killing his ex-wife. That clearly did not mean he didn’t commit the crime, only that a jury didn’t find proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because we have an idiot Commonwealth Attorney who just completely undermined the LCSB (they are being sued in their personal capacity in federal court btw, I don’t think Plowman did them any favors) on constitutional rights doesn’t mean Joy wasn’t illegally trespassing.

      2. Greg Hardy was not convicted of abusing his girlfriend. Ray Rice pleaded not guilty and had his charges cleared after a few months. Is Charlie to have us believe that Greg and Hardy deserved an apology from the NFL for being suspended without having convicted?

      McKeon is unbelievably sanctimonious and….. wrong. If you want, I’ll be happy to post case law in which the courts clearly say folks in Maloney’s situation must obey police officers and then adjudicate the matter in the courts. Maloney did not. She disobeyed an order from the police. Suppose opposing groups had an escalating argument in the same location. Are we to believe that these parties should have refused to obey an LCSO order to move because they thought they weren’t trespassing? Should they have stood their ground until one side snapped?

      Maloney violated the law. Even if you can’t understand that, she demonstrated horrible judgment by refusing an order of law enforcement. And her ultimate goal was to try to disrupt the free expression of a political party (to disrupt the Trump speech along with the boys who turned their back). Maloney is no different than the pampered brats on campus who try to block certain ideologies from even being aired. She is a wannabe tyrant even if you agree with her philosophy. It shows weakness and contempt for the democracy. DeKenipp was absolutely correct in trying to sanction her.

  • 2016-11-01 at 11:50 am
    Permalink

    Yet again, one set of laws for the politically connected. And another set of laws for everyone else.

  • 2016-11-01 at 11:39 am
    Permalink

    I’ll go low if it is funny. You can’t look at the picture and not remember you have some pots and pans that need scrubbing.

    In my defense, I’ve taken more than a few online hits.

    • 2016-11-01 at 1:44 pm
      Permalink

      David, yes, I would say you are entitled to strike back. I’m not denying that as the other side never practices what they preach and you have taken more than your fair share.

      I’m just saying I don’t care for folks attacking appearance. It has nothing to do with who a person is and distracts from the real issues. I don’t mind such shots on me as I really couldn’t care less. But not everyone is so thick skinned.

      I would much prefer your normal rational critiques of the state of affairs in Loudoun politics.

  • 2016-11-01 at 9:26 am
    Permalink

    Regardless of what the judge says, she is still guilty of a bad hairdo.

    • 2016-11-01 at 9:52 am
      Permalink

      Now DD, let’s refrain from the personal attacks especially on appearance. Just because Joy Maloney is the quintessential hypocrite (Joy supported banning me from my kids schools because of my LCPS criticism, even the public playgrounds during the evening and weekends, while claiming she herself had a right to “speech and assembly” at the entrance to the building while it was being used for another lawful purpose) doesn’t mean we should stoop so low. It reflects poorly on us and has nothing to do with the competence, ethics or character of Joy and her supporters. Your arguments are nearly always rational and spot on. Respectfully, let’s continue in that vein.

  • 2016-11-01 at 7:35 am
    Permalink

    Mr. Plowman and Mr. LeVay are simply incorrect. First, there are only 3 possibilities:

    1. Maloney was appropriately arrested for failing to leave school grounds being used to stage attendees at a rally. The grounds in front of the school are what is known as a “non-public forum” and she has no right of access. In this case, Plowman simply was unwilling to support the LCSO deputies who told her to protest somewhere else.

    2. Maloney had a constitutional right to be on those grounds even after being asked to go to the back of the line and her refusing by sitting down. Furthermore, it is the policy of Loudoun County to remove such obstructionist activists. If so, that means that not only can the LCSO deputies be sued by Maloney for violating her rights but the County/LCSO are liable as well.

    3. Same as #2 except that it is not the policy of the County/LCSO to remove such activists. In this case, only the LCSO deputies are liable.

    Clearly, Plowman thinks either #2 or #3 is applicable. Thus, Plowman has just thrown the LCSO deputies who legally did their job under the bus as usual. Plowman is a complete idiot. Read these federal cases that demonstrate just because land is publicly owned, you do not always have a right for indiscriminate use. The LCSO were the appropriate authority to ask an individual who was interfering with the lawful activities of others on those grounds (people standing in line). As soon as she refused to proceed to the back of the line, and then refused to leave after sitting down, she trespassed.

    Plowman must think anybody can just go sit on the LCAO’s front step and even law enforcement can’t do anything about it. We know he doesn’t believe this. He is just corrupt and is protecting yet another Loudoun official from the rules that everyone else must play by.

Leave a Reply