We have been discussing lawyers and professors nailed as drug dealers. Now close to my home, the former mayor of Fairfax City will enter a plea in a meth-for-sex prosecution. R. Scott Silverthorne, 51, is reportedly ready to plead guilty after allegedly offering an undercover officer methamphetamine in exchange for an orgy at a Tysons Corner hotel. Silverthorne told The Washington Post that 2015 was a “terrible year” due to political challenges. 2017 has the makings of a much much worse year.
He is the son of a former Fairfax City mayor, Frederick Silverthorne, and served nine full terms on the City Council from 1990-2008. He ran for office on the priority of promoting “a healthy lifestyle.” Silverthorne was later laid off from his job as a director of recruitment with the National Association of Manufacturers and was heavily in debt. The filed for bankruptcy and lost his home to the bank.
The Fairfax police stated that “In late July, the Organized Crime and Narcotics (OCN) Division received information about a possible distributor of methamphetamine and immediately began an investigative inquiry. . . “a suspect was identified who was allegedly distributing methamphetamine through a website used to arrange for casual sexual encounters between men.”
In 2015, Silverthorne publicly stated that he had cancer at a meeting of the Fairfax City Council.
The undercover detective reportedly arranged to meet Silverthorne at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Virginia’s Tysons Corner. Once there, the police say that “Silverthorne provided methamphetamine to the undercover detectives.” Once arrested, he reportedly confessed.
The case appears rock bottom for a once successful politician and professional. The plea is clearly a logical move in light of the evidence.
What do you think the appropriate sentence should be?
Bill, you are correct that “none are so blind as those who will not see.” But that sort of blindness is all on your end. I would suggest you look in the mirror when you toss that phrase around but since you are willfully blind you won’t be able to see the poster child for that proverb staring back at you.
Steve – like other supporters of the disastrous War on Drugs, you are unable to justify why we should continue it. Logic has no place in your viewpoint, and that’s as unfortunate as it is dangerous.
There is no disaster.
None so blind as those who won’t see. You need to read the book I just told Paul about.
Bill, I’ve taught logic and I can say with complete assurance you’re guilty of the charge you’re making against Paul. Just as an example, your “right wing blowhard” assertion is pure ad hominem (in addition to being insulting) since you imply Paul is not to be believed because of it. Your statement that “hungry people steal food” and that ipso facto Paul seeks to make hunger a crime is both a nonsequitur since it’s not hunger than would be the crime but the stealing of the food and a Strawman since Paul never made nor impiied that argument. And most importantly, your argument that the government has better things to do than prosecute this crime is the fallacy of relative privation. You’ve also poisoned the well against Paul with your condescending comments and committed the moral high ground fallacy. That’s all I can find at first blush but since you read the book, I’m guessing you can find a lot more.
mespo – we are back to the good old days of faulty logic.
Some never left ’em!
You shouldn’t use terms like logic when you clearly don’t know what it means. Meth, or methamphetamines, are available as a schedule II medication, but are only legal with a prescription for valid reasons. First, the meth you find on the street, the kind this mayor was dealing, is “cooked” in illegal meth labs with toxic chemicals such as battery acid, drain cleaner, lighter fluid, paint thinner, drain cleaner, engine cleaner, etc.
Consequently it’s often lethal and it can easily cause permanent brain damage and cardiovascular damage. The illegal labs pose a fire and explosion danger to anyone in homes nearby or just w’alking down the street.
By your hysterical, irrational tone I’m going to go out on a limb and guess you are a libertarian. At the very least you hold the same view on the “war on drugs” as libertarians. So I’m going to head off your next exercise of illogic at the pass. No, making it legal and manufacturing in legal labs would not make it appreciably more safe. Because it’s highly addictive, with most street meth user. s reporting addiction after first use. Which is why it’s only legal with a prescription; it’s only safe to use in prescribed doses under medical supervision. Recreational use doesn’t qualify. In fact, unlike alcohol it virtually impossible to use meth recreationaly.
This is why I despise libertarians. They are not pro-freedom but rather the best ally the totalitarian left ever had. The libertarian position creates a demand for the welfare state. I’ve been around lots of meth addicts (there is no such thing as a casual meth user). Due to their addiction they can’t hold down jobs. They will have to steal to support their habit. Their life revolves around the drug. One category of victim of meth users are their children. I know more than a few meth heads who are divorced (it’s impossible to live with a meth addict) and retain custody of their children because courts are biased against fathers in favor of mothers. They spend all the childi support on the drugs. Their is no food n the house for the kids. So the fathers have to either go through a lengthy and expensive court battle to sue for custody, or report their ex-wives to CPS.
So your irrational position on drug legalization creates a criminal class and wards of the state. You libertarian types work hand in glove with the left by creating the demand for their statist, freedom-destroying policies. In fact, next to the totalitarian left libertarians are the biggest class of enemies of freedom. In many ways you’re worse because libertarians obtusely deny you’re aiding and abetting the totalitarian left. You have amply demonstrated you are incapable of logic. You insist it meth dealing/meth use are victimless crimes simply because your preferred policies demand that it be seen as such, mountains of evidence that you’re wrong be damned.
I look forward to you spewing more unthinking, irrational venom toward the people who are exercising logic on this thread.
He shouldn’t have even been arrested. Entrapping people for arranging consensual sex between adults in a society that is supposed to be all about liberty and freedom is immoral and a huge waste of taxpayer money.
There are plenty of illegal acts that cause harm to individuals and society at large. Target White collar crimes and internet scams. Doing THAT would be a reasonable expenditure of taxpayer funds. All of the usual special interest groups would still be able to profit from targeting crimes that SHOULD be illegal.
The cops opened an investigation into a meth dealer. Of course he should have been arrested. The fact that he’s a perv is almost beside the point.
STEVE –
Can you explain WHY, in your opinion, he should have been arrested? Why do you think it’s right to arrest anyone for a victimless crime? S.B. bettors? Men who pay for sex by giving women chocolate etc.? People wearing towels around their head held in place with a radiator fan belt?
Dealing meth is not a victimless crime. So your excuse making gets shattered to bits right out of the gate.
Steve – who is victimized by using Meth?
Anyone who lives around, with, or is employed by meth users.
You really believe that. don’t you? Why stop there? Why not include drinkers, smokers, cussers, immigrant bashers, and other people who don’t think/reason logically?
bill mcwilliams – I am not sure what state you live in, but in all states meth is an illegal substance. To trade it for anything: money, sex, car, etc. is illegal. Is that simple enough for you?
Nevada is the only state with legalized prostitution, so if he was buying sex, regardless of the method of exchange, it is illegal. Is that simple enough for you?
A first year law student could win this one. Hell, even Obama could win this one.
Paul
You’re saying it’s illegal, so that’s why it should be illegal. You aren’t the only one, Paul. But if you ever decide you’d like to learn a little bit about how to recognize nonsense like you’re promoting, here’s an easy to read book with no big words to confuse you. You should read it.
https://www.amazon.com/Nonsense-Herrings-Sacred-Everyday-Language/dp/0975366262/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1486936609&sr=8-3&keywords=nonsense
bill mcwilliams – I am saying it is illegal because the law says it is illegal. It could not be clearer. BTW, meth is not a victimless crime. Meth addicts steal to pay for their habit, or they sell themselves on the street. They spread HIV, and other blood-borne diseases. They share needles, which makes it worse.
P.S. You simply don’t realize how silly you sound. Hungry people will steal food – by your (illogical) reasoning, hunger should be a crime. The Drug laws are the cause of the crimes you mentioned. W.F. Buckley recognized that drugs should be legalized, and I read a WSJ article many years ago that stated if Heroin was legal, even the most strung out junkie could get all they needed for 25 cents – or less per day.
End the war, and you’ll see the cartels go out of business, city streets would be safer, and on and on. The largest drug cartel in the world (aka CIA) might have to find another source of funds for false flag operations, assassinations, terrorism etc.
You want to continue the status quo. The cartels love people like you.
bill mcwilliams – your argument is not with me, but with the legislature. Talk to them. Convince them to change the law. Personally, I am for legalized prostitution, not drugs.
You are a moral coward if you support legalizing one victimless crime but not others. Do you maybe have a personal interest in legalizing prostitution?
bill mcwilliams – I have no personal interest in legalizing prostitution. I came from a city were there was a blind eye turned to prostitution. It was controlled at the edge of the city. I was their paper boy for several years and they tipped big. We had a minimal sex crime rate.
PS
“Talk with the legislature”. Really. You are either very naive and ignorant of how things work in the real world – or else that’s the best cop-out you could come up with. Which is it, Paul?
bill mcwilliams – if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. So far, you are part of the problem. Do you really want to be part of the solution or just moan and groan?
P.S.
You wouldn’t stand a chance going up against Obama. I’ve read a final exam he gave to his students at the U. Chicago School of law, and I seriously doubt you would even UNDERSTAND the questions, much less respond to them any more intelligently than your performance here today.
bill mcwilliams – he probably got the exam from another prof and just fobbed it off as his own. Happens all the time with new teachers. And his T.A.s did the grading, assuming he actually graded them.
PS
And of course you should be ashamed of yourself for making such scurrilous, unfounded charges – but you’re comfortably numb in your arrogant ignorance.
bill mcwilliams – can you prove I am wrong?
Oh brother – didn’t they tell you in Junior college that the burden of proof is on the proponent of an argument?
PROVE YOUR CASE – or shut your trap.
bill mcwilliams – prove your case by proving me wrong.
Paul – what is your source for this attempted smear of President Obama?
bill mcwilliams – that’s ex-President Obama to you. Reread what I posited.
No, it’s proper to refer to all former presidents as I did. Didn’t you know that? Now, stop being a wimpy weasel: what is your source for your attempted smear of President Obama? Right. You don’t have one. IOW, you’re a right wing blowhard who makes up lies.
bill mcwilliams – it is actually proper to call them by their last office before being President. So it would be Senator Obama. Now as to his classroom behavior, it is typical of some teachers to do what I said. I spent a long time in academia.
Maybe people knew about this guy’s behavior for sometime and just turned their heads?
You do wonder what the local police knew. I doubt it was a complete surprise when the man operating that website turned out to be the mayor.
I doubt the local pols knew about the meth and the orgies. Homosexual men are at pains to keep the really gross stuff off stage, a project in which the media co-operate.
I bet they knew it all. Cops hear from everybody they arrest and most are motivated to talk their way out of trouble.
Cannot help but note he is 51 frigging years old and arranging orgies and dealing drugs. Purveyors of the official idea in this country (and almost all academics are, and quite a few lawyers as well) will tell us we’re scoundrels if we surmise that this might be functionally related to his homosexuality.
Applying the New York Penal Law as a frame of reference and noodling around a bit, here you have attempts at patronizing a prostitute, provision of street drugs, and consensual sodomy. The 1st and the 3d are class b misdemeanors for which the punishment is properly reduced by half given that it’s an attempt and not the act, reduced by about 1/2 for the guilty plea, and reduced by some factor due to the absence of previous offenses. So the sentence for these alone might be roughly 8 days in jail (with the Sheriff having the discretion to release the inmate once 2/3 of that sentence has been served.
As for the drug charges, it’s tough to say because the quantum he was providing is unspecified news articles. Generally, provision of street drugs should have a sentence determined by a formula in which the quantum of a substance is an important argument.
Maximum sentence without possibility of parole.
Sure. Take pity on him. He was down and out. Unemployed. Lost his home. Filed bankruptcy. But, folks, somehow, someway, he had enough money to get his hands on some meth. That, of course, he had enough money to purchase. True desperation.
There should be no deal, whatsoever, until and unless he reveals his source of the meth. Yeah. That’s right. Make him work for a deal with the prosecutor. Force him to give up the name or names of those supplying this poison and cooking up this crap, in the community, or put him away. It’s as simple as that.
Well, it’s never as simple as that. Given that his father was a former mayor, I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that the family has some pretty strong and heavy contacts in the community. Yeah. I know. Wild guess. I’m also going to predict that he will never serve a day of jail time and that the plea deal, about to transpire, will go something like this–a suspended imposition of sentence, where he will be placed on probation, two to five years, conditioned upon him entering and successfully completing some type of rehab for the drug and sexual addiction from which he will, undoubtedly, claim that he suffers. That’s about it. Maybe some community service. Maybe. He’s gonna skate on this one. He’ll claim some sort of sexual addiction. Some type of drug addiction. His longstanding familial contacts, within his town, are going to allow him to easily get off. No pun intended.
Sounds like a snowflake, to me. SOB, SOB. “The devil made me do it….. ” why can’t people just suck up adversity anymore? People like this are two-dimensional. They lack character and can’t think of anything beyond th end of their noses.
There is an entitlement mentality in politicians that has drifted toward that of royalty. We need a purge, a Cultural Revolution as it were.
Not sure what his sexual preferences have to do with anything.
$500 fine, OP treatment program and 100 hours community service seems fair if he has no prior convictions.
Who, and/or what, he was propositioning for sex, with the promise of meth, happens to be a part of the story. The facts. So that it doesn’t offend your sensibilities, should the term “persons” be used in the article, as opposed to the use of the word “men” be employed? Should gay individuals only be portrayed and painted in the most positive and glowing manner, where their crimes, of inducing strangers for sex in exchange for meth, are concealed, with the term “person” so as not to cast a disparaging light on the very unhealthy lifestyle which many lead? Check out the statistics regarding drug and alcohol abuse among gay, bisexual and transgender individuals, not to mention the frequency of sexually transmitted diseases. Both are off the charts. Should I not mention that as well? Will the Thought Police be knocking at me door to take me to a reeducation camp, where I will be beaten, into submission, until I claim that two men, engaged in a homosexual relationship, is as acceptable, normal and sacrosanct as the relationship and union shared by my grandparents? Never gonna happen.
As far as the picture, above, is concerned–where the twisted and sick perv is photographed with all of those sweet and innocent-faced, young boys–I’d question every single one of them as to whether Mayor McQueer ever propositioned any one of them, as well.
My door, not me door, although me door sounds kinda nice.
Thanks for respecting my opinion. I’m sorry if my sounding reasonable offended you.
It’s the lack of reason that’s offensive.
let’s see what happens at his sentencing. The question posed by JT was what should the appropriate sentence be. Not what do I think subjectively it should be. Go back and please read the charges. Was there any sexually related charges against him? Your lack of being able to read on a 6th grade level and then fly off your moral high horse is offensive, pal. This is about a distribution of a controlled substance just in case your shallow cranium needs a translator.
Wait! I speak Bam Bam, duh da bad man sold drugs.
Get it?
Trust me, nitwit. I more than comprehend. The fruitcake mayor distributed meth. Did that offend your sensibilities? I can only imagine why, and it’s not because some village has the unfortunate distinction of having you as a mayor. The village idiot, yes, but not the mayor.
I rest my case. You have done absolutely nothing to prove anything you ranted about above has to do with his sexual behavior and the charges brought against him.
Sorry the justice system isn’t up to your taliban minded ways.
Paedophilia is disproportionately homosexual in character. IIRC, however, it’s a pretty odd taste in the gay subculture and the gay lobby has no apparent interest in going to bat for paedophiles. Pederasty, however, is quite common, and the next item on the check-list is likely to be an effort to establish a culture within the bar which will incorporate an attitude of indifference to the seduction of adolescents by homosexual men. Prosecutorial discretion will be applied and charges will not be brought, and judges will arbitrarily dismiss the charges if they are brought. The traffick in pornography was made legal this way, even though penalties were still on the books.
Please site any case law that you can please to back up your assertions.
It’s CITE, not SITE, you big illiterate.
I’ll have to admit I think mechanical errors are probably less of a sin towards”illiteracy” than reading comprehension.
At least I can understand what was actually written and simply answer a question.
I suggest some self help for your deficiencies, but you might want someone else to read it for you.
http://www.readingrockets.org/helping/target/comprehension
Prosecutorial discretion and arbitrary rulings by trial judges are not incorporated into case law.
Do you have any evidence–besides what your backwoods, hillbilly acquaintances continuously spout–that “Paedophilia is disproportionately homosexual in character”?
It’s not terribly difficult to locate in sociological research on sexual behavior. The number that sticks in my head is that about 30% of all molestations of prepubescent children are male-to-male in character, but I’d have to go back and check the literature.
And just what is a: “casual sexual encounter”?
Let me get this straight. No pun intended. The guy was bent. He goes on-line and discusses sex acts between himself and other men AND offers meth as part of the deal? This is about as odd and fruit as it gets. Maybe he will posit PTSD as a defense. Where the frig is Fairfax? Is this in Virginia? As an aside: was that state named after a virgin? Like: virgins are welcome or something? And why is the dork smiling in the photo? Was this what he posted on-line? And who is next in line?
Fairfax, named after Lord Fairfax, is in Northern Virginia.
Crime by a person in a position of public trust deserves the maximum. Say what you want but harsh sentences in public cases affect the behavior of others.
Standard sentencing range for the crime to be convicted