I applaud the board's action.

Posted by edwardharrigan (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Great, so my tax dollars paid to defend an 1diot who kept a naked pic of a student on his PERSONAL cell phone for months and failed to alert the police or parents involved...Someone please tell me why Loudoun County feels sorry for a career teaching professional who made this incredibly stup1d and questionable decision?

Posted by steves_66 (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Steves_66, please read between the lines. By doing this very type of thing, they can raise out taxes and claim its because the school system has no money. Good day, ph

Posted by Funnyguyva (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

steves_66, your tax dollars paid to bring this absurd baseless case against Mr. Oei in the first place. Suggest you direct any unhappiness towards the Commonwealth's Attorney Jim Plowman in the next election.

Posted by ddiggs (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's the least they could do for him.

Posted by dingus5 (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with ddiggs. steves' outrage is misplaced. But let me guess, he's a Republican so people like Jim Plowman can do no wrong.

Posted by koolkat_1960 (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Before anyone else comments on how the Board did something wrong: The news article is unfortunately incomplete. Past news stories point out that Oei did nothing wrong. The WashPost even wrote an editorial in April saying that he was mistreated by having criminal charges brought against him for him just doing his job. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

See also Oei's own WashPost OpEd article setting out everything that happened. (It is url-cited in the WashPost editorial. I hope that none of us ever goes through what this educator did. The whole story is just astonishing that this could happen to someone who was just doing his job.

Posted by stevelizz (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Folks, I'm not outraged (just perplexed) nor am I a republican who agrees with lynch mobs mentality. What I believe in is punishing anyone associated with the exploitation of children. Do you really want a prosecuting attorney who doesn’t persue a potential child pornographer? The facts seem simple, Oei possessed a questionable pic of an underage student, right? On his personal phone, right? For months, right? Without notifiying the police or parents, right?
I’m an IT project manager with no formal training in working in an environment that involve children. Even I am smart enough to know uploading a questionable pic of a naked underage child on my personal phone is wrong! Seize the original student’s phone, lock it in the school’s safe then investigate! Elementary (get it) my dear Watson.
Why don’t you folks see that this man took his phone which contains a naked pic of an underage child home with him for months and see that as a potential crime?

PS, FunnyGuyVA, I think you're onto something here!!

Posted by steves_66 (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you, steveliz, for citing everyone to the background for this payment. The School Board did the right thing for a dedicated employee trapped in a Kafkaesque situation.

Posted by davidfairfax (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is the cite for Oei's story about his ordeal. Kafkesque is the proper word.
http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.com/n...

To the Washington Post reporter -- Please amend you story so that a unknowning reader does not believe the criminal charges were correctly brought against him and that the charges were just dismissed because of a legal technicality.
The School Board did the right thing. Kudos to them.
On the otherhand, as a lawyer, I am embarrassed at how the legal system can be abused and how innocents can be hurt.

Posted by stevelizz (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hopefully steves_66 has now had a chance to read the original articles and re-formulate an opinion? Maybe the same opinion that the judge reached?

Posted by jlstapleton (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve_66 says: "...possessed a questionable pic...for months...without notifying police, right?" No, wrong. He followed the proper protocol and he was prosecuted by an overzealous attorney who wants to be seen as tough on alleged pornography so he can get elected Attorney General some day. I agree with ddigs: suggest you turn your outrage on the out-of-control Mr. Plowman who wasted your tax dollars on a bogus case.

Posted by SSnyder1 (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Finally, justice for an unjust action! Yes, good people of Loudoun COunty Vote JIM PLOWMAN OUT, if he has the temerity to run again. While Mr. Oei's action to have the pic of the naked girl might have been thoughtless it was NOT pornography, had Commonwealth Atty Plowman used the good judgement the citizens of Loudoun COunty assumed he had, hence their voting him into office, this would have never happened. And truthfully, the horrid, lying and vindictive mother of the lying child who knew the identity of the naked girl found on his cell phone yet lied, which started this mess, who wanted revenge for her son's suspension for pulling down the pants of another girl, not the naked one on his cell phone. So go find the mother of this deliquent and complain to her for wasting taxpayer money - your money, to the tune of more than what the Loudoun COunty School Board just reimbursed Mr. Oei.

Posted by vexvet (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They probably had to do this since the charges were dismissed. Any outrage is misplaced.

Posted by DCDowntown (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jlstapleton: I've followed this case for a while and though I want to believe Mr Oei didn't have bad intentions his decision making is very questionable. You read my previous comments, are the facts I laid out true? If so then the DA has to pursue it, you wouldn't want your daughters naked pic on a grown man's phone for months, would you?

This case stinks all the way around, I just wish Oei didn't take a 15 yr old's advice and uploaded the pic to his personal phone...

Posted by steves_66 (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@steve_66 - The whole point of child pornography laws is to prevent adults with 'bad intentions' from harming children. If you don't beleive Mr. Oei is a closet nonce, then how can his prosecution as a child pornographer make sense? There's absolutely nothing in his long record as an educator to suggest he has deviant tendencies, yet this was precisely what his prosecution implied. A lapse of judgement in his handling the matter - possibly. But did this merit Plowman's year-long prosecution of him as a child pornographer? Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Posted by simian77 (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Perhaps Loudon County should levy a particular tax and juggle the budget to cover this: 1/3 of the costs should be applied through a tax applied to the boy's mother (as the person who was vengeful enough to report this to the police in the first place), 1/3 similarly applied to Prosecutor Plowman personally (for his abuse of power), and the remaining 1/3 removed from the office of the County Prosecutor's budget.

Posted by Chasmosaur1 (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am happy for the family; the school board did the right thing. I
f you've followed this story then you know that the whole thing stank from the beginning with the vengeful parent, right up until the end when Assistant DA told the judge she did not "feel" Mr. Oei should be working within LCPS.
Good for the school board.

Posted by ams40 (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

steves_66 wrote: "Great, so my tax dollars paid to defend an 1diot who kept a naked pic of a student on his PERSONAL cell phone.."

Get your facts straight. The cell phone was not his and he did not take the photo. Also the judge found the "photo was not sexually explicit enough to constitute child pornography".

Posted by ahashburn (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

your tax dollars at work paying to get a sex offender off!!!!

Posted by jwilsonte (anonymous) on June 24, 2009 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Apparently those responsible for the false charges and the outlandish prosecution are now on this board trying to continue the smear. Have they no shame?

Posted by EdwardMyers (anonymous) on June 25, 2009 at 12:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Oei, congratulations! LCPS has done the right thing even though Mr. Plowman did not. You have won on every level, and taught me that a few men in high places can do some down low deeds for all the wrong reasons. I do not mind chipping in some of my tax dollars for this expense. I do mind chipping in my tax dollars for this stupid charge and resulting trial. How much did that cost?

Mike Jeck

Posted by mikejeck (anonymous) on June 25, 2009 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jwilsonte,you should not be calling someone who had all the charges dismissed a sex offender. You must not know anything about this case!
The school board did the right thing!I have had the opportunity to meet and speak with Mr. Oei, to hear his story. This was a year of hell for him and the emotional cost far outweigh the finacial cost. I hope now he and his family can begin healing.

Posted by Babyduck1974 (anonymous) on June 25, 2009 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If there was any justice in the world, the AG who brought the case forward should be liable for the legal fees. And fired.

Posted by staticvars (anonymous) on June 25, 2009 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Great, so my tax dollars paid to defend an 1diot who kept a naked pic of a student on his PERSONAL cell phone for months and failed to alert the police or parents involved...Someone please tell me why Loudoun County feels sorry for a career teaching professional who made this incredibly stup1d and questionable decision?

Posted by steves_66
___________________________________

This is an absolute lie. This man was instructed to place the photo onto his phone by his supervisors. It was done in the course of an investigation into a student's sexting activities and he made law enforcement aware of its existence from the very beginning. Stupid people like you, who lie about serious matters like this are why this man's reputation has been dragged through the mud. I hope he sues you're lying as$ until it hurts.

Posted by lostinthemiddle (anonymous) on June 25, 2009 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If the extent of Loudoun County's liability is merely this poor guy's legal fees, then the county should count its lucky stars for this HUGE bargain.

Posted by cpnich (anonymous) on June 25, 2009 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SSnyder1: Where have you read "proper protocol" is uploading an indecent pic to your personal phone? I've spoken with many people involved with education, none of them feel Oei followed any school system's written policy on pic's involving naked students.

lostinthemiddle: In all the articles I've read I don't remember Oei's supervisors instructing him to upload the photo to his personal phone (SSnyder1, are you reading this?). I read it was the boy who recommended the pic get sent from the boy's phone to Oei's phone because Oei couldn't figure out a way to upload any other way. (Duh, call your IT specialist). Oh, and calling me stupid for voicing my opinion tells us anyone living with you must be miserable. It's ok for other opinions to exist, no need to get rude.

ahashburn: I never stated Oei took the picture.

simian77: Thank you for being one of a few who recognize Oei made a bad decision. I've read Oei has a clean history and that does make me feel that he simply made a bad decision and didn't have ill intentions. But a DA must investigate a potential child pornographer, they start somewhere and perhaps this was Oei's start?

Posted by steves_66 (anonymous) on June 25, 2009 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A Loudoun county judge threw out the case. The school board voted to re-imburse Mr. Oei's legal costs. Sadly, it is obvious from some posts on this board that even this 100% level of vindication is not enough to restore Mr. Oei's good name. I don't know if he can bring any legal action against the Commonwealth Attorney's office for malicious prosecution, but if he can I hope he does.

Posted by nilpo34 (anonymous) on June 25, 2009 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Commonwealth Attorney's office should have been required to pay his legal fees and more. This incompetent case was a real injustice against Mr Oei.

Posted by etwc (anonymous) on June 26, 2009 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

steves_66: first of all, the picture Mr. Oei had on his phone was not child pornography...Secondly, he was doing his job as advised by the principal, Ms. Forester.It's not his fault he's not the best high tech being when it comes to sending pictures from phones to the computer. Lastly, the only thing the tax dollars are paying for are the costs of the prosecution. So don't say they "paid to defend an 1diot"

Posted by yalewilliams (anonymous) on June 27, 2009 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Loudoun school system dropped this poor man like a hot potato. Wasted our tax money on filing charges. They should be ashamed, and yes, they should pay his legal fees. Loudoun County is simply too big for it's britches.

Posted by kris2 (anonymous) on June 29, 2009 at 6:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I've read the articles that are referenced in the comments and had followed the story somewhat in the news. What ever happened to being presumed innocent until proven guilty? Frankly, I think the mother who called the sheriff should be publicly named. Might be a lesson for those want to blame someone else when their kid has committed an act they don't like.

Posted by terryhil (anonymous) on June 29, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DARN RIGHT HE SHOULD BE REIMBURSED!
Innocent until proven guilty----that's the American way??? right???
WRONG!!!! This man's professional and community REPUTATION has been destroyed a prosecutor who resembles Senator McCarthy.
Nothing can restore a man's good name.

LCPS ADMINISTRATION is NOT supportive of staff members accused of child mistreatment. Even a questionable accusation by a child results in immediate removal of the the LCPS employee. Would you like to be escorted out your place of work, given little information why it was taking place, then spent WEEKS away from the job? Then you are found innocent after social services has investigated the charge and return to work, and you must answer everyone's questions and deal with the rumor mill.

The shame is not on this fine gentleman, but on the prosecutor and the central office administrator at LCPS.

Posted by LoudounPatriot (anonymous) on June 30, 2009 at 7:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Over the last year and a half Ting Yi Oei showed courage and grace in the face of unimaginable stress. He's an example to anyone who is combatting injustice. We should be proud we have such a talented and dedicated educator in our midst.

If you figure the County's expenses on the prosecution side probably equalled Oei's defense costs, we are probably looking at a total combined expense for this case of over $400,000. How many teachers could have been hired, how many students could have been taught, how much classroom equipment could have been bought with this money? And that's not all because the County lost the value of Oei's services for over a year.

Mr. Plowman shows the danger and the high cost of electing people with poor judgment to high office. I hope he leaves public service after his term is up because he has failed the public's trust in him.

Posted by murphy005 (anonymous) on July 1, 2009 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So this case cost taxpayers over $400,000? That would mean Plowman's office spent over $230,000. I always thought they worked on a fixed budget, but I guess I was wrong. Apparently, they contract their legal services out to attorneys who pad their bills even more than the LCPS counsel claims Oei's attorneys did!

Posted by Loudountag (anonymous) on July 2, 2009 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Loudountag,

Oei was reimbursed $35,000 by his union for costs incurred defending himself against the first misdemeanor charge in 2008. So add that to the $167,000 and it brings his costs to over $200,000 not counting interest and penalties incurred by rapidly assuming so much debt.

Plowman incurred costs on behalf of the citizens of Loudoun County for himself and his legal staff, for Judge Horne, for convening a grand jury, for selecting an independent judge to hear motions, for general court costs, arresting officer and booking costs, overhead for the use of public buildings . . . it took a lot of county tax money to enable Mr. Plowman simply to show up in Court.

Posted by murphy005 (anonymous) on July 6, 2009 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Murphy, Plowman's costs are fixed. We pay the salary of all those people whether they work or not. The real cost is an opportunity cost of not spending the time to prosecute other crimes. If we assume the CA office pursued this case because there were no other more serious crimes than we can save taxpayer money by reducing headcount in the CA office.

Posted by EdwardMyers (anonymous) on July 9, 2009 at 12:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ed,

Point taken about fixed costs. But Plowman essentially ran up the County's liability by making the risky judgment to prosecute Oei. In effect, Plowman's decision to pursue this case was like incurring unsecured debt which, on account of his poor judgment, Plowman wasn't able to eliminate by getting a conviction.

Furthermore, in measuring opportunity costs you also need to factor in the County's opportunity cost of losing Oei's services for a year, not to mention what else Loudoun County Public Schools could have spent the $167,000 on that they used to reimburse Oei.

However you look at it Plowman made a very expensive mistake.

Posted by murphy005 (anonymous) on July 11, 2009 at 6:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)