LTEs: LaRock Arrest Raises Questions

Dear Editor,

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 Sept. 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 Spencer’s Gifts retail stores. Our stylized name with a bikini clad woman seated on the capital S in Sensual is trade/service marked nationwide, 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 (or attached to this story) – 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 (and in this story about the incident)
• 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

Dear Editor,

David LaRock feels it is perfectly fine to repeatedly attack Joe May, but now that his record is in the spotlight he’s resorting to whining and, even worse, lying. Mr. LaRock has denied being arrested last year for destruction of private property. The arrest warrant is public record. Why wouldn’t he just admit he was arrested, explain and move on. Is he really so simple to believe he can mislead the voters in the district by denying the facts are the facts? It would be humiliating to have this man represent us. 

If his first instinct is to lie to us about being arrested how does he expect to gain enough trust to hold public office? I don’t like the negative aspects of campaigns as much as anyone else, but Mr. LaRock has a character problem that is clearly deep enough to matter in this race. The circumstances of the arrest and his denial of it happening is very disturbing.

Clint Good
Lincoln, VA

Dear Editor,

For months Mr. LaRock has attacked Delegate Joe May’s record. He has distorted Joe’s position on the issues for his own political gain. He has called Delegate May a liar and said nasty things about him publicly. With Mr. LaRock constantly questioning Joe’s record and character it is only right that his character and record be on the line as well. For Mr. Larock his record includes an arrest for unlawful entry and destruction of personal property.

Now Mr. LaRock has tried to claim this is a non-issue because of the nature of the sign he destroyed. This is completely missing the point and why Mr. LaRock cannot be our representative. It does not matter what the sign he destroyed said. He willfully broke the law because he disagreed with something. Where is this line drawn? Do we want a legislator who believes the law can be broken when it fits his view or agenda? There are authorities and laws that would have taken care of the issue. Indeed zoning officials were already addressing it.

Last night I received a robo-call from Mr. LaRock denying he was ever arrested. I find this astounding. The warrant of arrest is a public document, which anyone can get from the circuit court. The fact that Mr. LaRock feels comfortable lying to the voters of the district about being arrested is more telling than the arrest. He should have come clean and admitted he made a mistake. Instead he is throwing up smoke and mirrors and accusing Joe of being negative. We have enough politicians who feel the law does not apply to them. We do not need more like Mr. LaRock.

Josiah Moore
Purcellville, VA

Dear Editor,

It is one thing to have a run in with the law. It is quite another to lie to the voters you are looking to represent about having a run in with the law. If Mr. LaRock had come clean about his arrest last year for trespass and destruction of private property he may have still stood a chance of winning my vote. However he has put out a robo-call denying his arrest and posted his denial on Facebook for everyone to see. This is mind-boggling to me. The arrest warrant, which Mr. LaRock signed, is public record. Why revert to lying when you have a chance to come clean and earn respect through honesty.

This shows Mr. LaRock’s true character. Faced with the opportunity to make a hard call Mr. LaRock chose the easy path. In his first test in the public spotlight he instinctively lied to the voters. Mr. LaRock cannot be trusted to represent us. I may disagree with Delegate May on some issues but he is a man of unquestionable character and I value that above all. My vote is for Joe May. 

Neil Burns
Leesburg, VA

Dear Editor,

All registered voters can participate in the June 11 Republican open primary for the 33rd House of Delegates District. I will not vote for Mr. LaRock, because his campaign is based on: 1) criticizing his opponent Delegate May’s actions, and 2) complaining about issues without offering solutions. He states we have bad traffic and taxes are too high – though provides no details on addressing these issues. LaRock’s inflexible, ultra conservative views, inability to see the big picture, and lack of legislative proposals and political negotiating experience, will not
achieve what is best for our district as a whole.

I will vote for Delegate May, with an established record of proposing solutions and working within and across party
lines to implement legislation to improve numerous issues, including transportation and taxes. Delegate May has helped make difficult and complex decisions, and implement recent transportation and tax legislation that is most beneficial for our district in the long term. HB2313 adds a small percentage to Virginia’s already low taxes (34th of 50 states), and will lessen our heavy traffic (worst in the nation), improve degrading road infrastructure, and increase
economic growth, providing more and higher paying jobs as well as significant new business tax revenues, lowering taxes for residents. Note Virginia was 45th of 50 states in transportation spending in 2011.

Our district is a very desirable place to live – low taxes, low unemployment and high incomes. Virginia legislators
will have to collaborate to maintain our high quality of living – though LaRock and his tea party politics of inaction and short-sightedness, will not accomplish this.

Delegate May is the obvious choice on June 11. 

Katherine Williams, Leesburg