Virginia Consumer’s Response to Erin Barr’s Assistant CA LaFey
To: Erin Barr, Commonwealth’s Attorney and Assistant CA LaFey
From: Andie Driffill, Director of Virginia Consumer Inc.
Date: July 2, 2026
Subject: RE: Systemic Unlicensed Work and Regulatory Capture in Chesterfield County
Mr. LaFey,
Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, your reply illustrates why it was necessary to create the Virginia Consumer nonprofit. The organization exists not just to track bad actors in the private sector, but to outline how the public sector is shielding them from accountability, whether it be accidental or intentional.
Touting 16 attempted prosecutions over two years (some against the same defendant) while hundreds of complaints and violations are reported does not disprove my point; it illustrates it. Furthermore, reiterating that your office prioritizes prosecuting low-level, unlicensed workers while allowing the Class A, B, and C general contractors who hire them to shield themselves from criminal liability is a remarkable confirmation of a systemic failure.
Your recitation of Virginia Code § 18.2-200.1 relies on a fundamentally flawed premise: that the work at my home was completed. It was not. The fact that the project was left unfinished and structurally defective is verified by third-party contractor reports and extensive photographic evidence.
The only reason your office is unaware of this is because DPOR’s Director of Adjudication, Samuel "Free" Williams, removed those photographs and reports from the Informal Fact-Finding (IFF) documentation. I possess the recorded hearing where I attempted to reference this evidence on the record, only for Mr. Williams to interject that he removed the photographs and expert reports stating that they "didn't make it into the record."
The records were, however, utilized by the investigation department at DPOR to bring the charges and are available for FOIA disclosure, so we know the records are in DPOR’s possession. DPOR’s adjudication department is demonstrating a bias towards satisfying members. From not allowing complainants like myself to have legal representation while respondents do, to removing evidence without cause or justification, the process is one-sided.
Williams did the same in a recent case that was televised. DPOR hearings are open to the public, but Williams had reporters exit to a side room on the request of a member who was improperly disposing of trash in a local waterway. The member clearly had jurisdiction over the process even with the media present.
Respectfully, if there is to be an unsolicited analysis of my past case, ensure the legal research is accurate to the timeline. The contractor laws and statutory dollar thresholds have since changed under recent General Assembly updates. Applying current statutory definitions to prior case scenarios leads to legal error rather than understanding.
Reliance on the § 54.1-1101(A)(15) exemption is not aligned with the facts. The very statute you provided caps that subcontractor exemption at $25,000. As a matter of judicial record in Chesterfield County Circuit Court, this subcontractor was paid over $26,000. By the exact text of the law, the exemption is legally moot.
Mistakes occur when officials rely on captured regulatory boards to dictate their office’s flawed legal conclusions versus listening to the public who provides the actual documentation. This is, again, my point—that the regulatory board and prosecutor are complicit, whether they understand it or not, in undermining the facts and preventing prosecutions with delays and basic mishandling of information.
This is a systemic failure to protect the public you serve.
My case, as an example, took over 15 months. Your office could, in the interest of public safety, advise the General Assembly to enact a provision stopping the clock when a consumer files a timely complaint with DPOR. CAs could offer input to the AG’s office to improve the process.
More importantly, I’d like to return to the purpose of my inquiry. I did not ask your office to review my closed DPOR case. I approached you as the director of a consumer advocacy organization to protect families with active statutes of limitations. I asked you to review the nearly 20 active lawsuits directly against Gregoire and set an appointment to discuss new suits against his associates to address the ongoing construction fraud happening under your jurisdiction. Deflecting to my personal timeline to justify ignoring current victims is transparent and only serves to establish that your office is denying responsibility.
The statutory requirement of three misdemeanor convictions within 36 months to trigger a felony is a bad-faith framework. When an administrative agency like DPOR fails to meet APA guidelines, but uses a partial compliance to hide that fact—and it is allowed—citizens lose time and will struggle to adhere to the statute of limitations for circuit court. In a broken and overloaded system like Virginia’s, this is mathematically impossible.
This is a circular loop of unaccountable officials showing clear favoritism to institutional members and donors. Your office’s choice to filibuster again by hiding behind an administrative process that has been thoroughly exposed is disappointing. The goal was for your office to review ongoing crimes against the citizens you are elected to protect and prevent additional harm.
My optimism is wearing thin, and I can see why Chesterfield is becoming the preferred location for data center investment with such little concern for the wellbeing of the families who live here.
Unsurprisingly disappointed, but civically engaged,
Andie Driffill
Director, Virginia Consumer Inc.
