Council won't pay Pelham's lawyer

Feb 27, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Hopewell News

In a stalemate 3-3 vote Tuesday night, City Council decided that Councilor Brenda Pelham's $15,000 in legal fees will not be paid by the city.

Comments
1 - 19 of 19 Comments Last updated Mar 5, 2013
richard head

Wilmington, DE

#2 Feb 27, 2013
Hopewell city council operates a lot like those bozos in DC,can't agree on anything..........Hopewell going down the tubes in 10..9..8..7..6..........sad
AT A GLANCE

Englewood, CO

#3 Feb 27, 2013
richard head wrote:
Hopewell city council operates a lot like those bozos in DC,can't agree on anything..........Hopewell going down the tubes in 10..9..8..7..6..........sad
Right you are Dick. If it wasnt for some really good citizens in hopewell it would have been gone a long time ago.
AT A GLANCE

Englewood, CO

#4 Feb 27, 2013
They can sell the beacon to raise funds for this deperate situation.
Mansion Hiller

Hopewell, VA

#5 Feb 27, 2013
If those 3 Councilors are SO generous and want the tax payor to pay Pelham's legal fees, let those 3 all "chip" in and pay the the fees and leave the tax payors dollars out of this. She is lucky she wasnt found guilty.
Who Cares

Baltimore, MD

#6 Feb 27, 2013
Are you kidding me? This woman actually has the nerve to talk about "honor"? I would not consider this situation an exoneration. It is merely semantics. She pleaded nolo contende. A latin word for not admitting guilt. Then to have the case held for a year to see if this criminal behavior happens again is a crock. Is the court system really in the business of holding criminal charges to see if that person will do it again? So under this notion, a person that robs two stores can have that charge held for a year to see if they persist in the same behavior? Did they think she really would have committed this act again if she was caught and then knew they would be watching her to see if she does it again? I am glad they did not waste taxpayers money on this. She should pay if she created the problem! I wonder if she will pay a discounted fee for the attorney now that they now public funds won't be paying for it? Thank you to the city counsel members that used commonsense and voted against this. The old counsel that agreed to pay are not in office for a reason.
VN Vet

Hopewell, VA

#7 Feb 27, 2013
She was found guilty, just let off because she is a fatazz black. Ain't no way a white person would get away with what she did. Racism in the town and country is so bad, but it is reverse what it used to be. MLK must be rolling over in his grave.
more

Hopewell, VA

#8 Mar 1, 2013
Pelham may sue Hopewell Proress Index reports today She is not happy
Who Cares

District Heights, MD

#9 Mar 1, 2013
Well, I'm not happy with decisions she made. I guess this is one of those typical moves to avoid responsibility.
VN Vet

Hopewell, VA

#10 Mar 1, 2013
She ought to go door to door in her ward and ask for money from her "people". They voted for the dumb-fat-azz, they deserve her, so let them pay for her.
More BS

Richmond, VA

#11 Mar 1, 2013
Who Cares wrote:
Are you kidding me? This woman actually has the nerve to talk about "honor"? I would not consider this situation an exoneration. It is merely semantics. She pleaded nolo contende. A latin word for not admitting guilt. Then to have the case held for a year to see if this criminal behavior happens again is a crock. Is the court system really in the business of holding criminal charges to see if that person will do it again? So under this notion, a person that robs two stores can have that charge held for a year to see if they persist in the same behavior? Did they think she really would have committed this act again if she was caught and then knew they would be watching her to see if she does it again? I am glad they did not waste taxpayers money on this. She should pay if she created the problem! I wonder if she will pay a discounted fee for the attorney now that they now public funds won't be paying for it? Thank you to the city counsel members that used commonsense and voted against this. The old counsel that agreed to pay are not in office for a reason.
I agree with what you have said. Ms. Pelham was found guilty of the 3 charges against her. The 'Judge' I use that term loosely, found her guilty but chose to set aside any verdict for a year to see if Ms. Pelham could stay out of legal trouble. As long as Ms. Pelham did not get in to any trouble for a year the 'Judge' would then dismiss the charges. Unfortunately this happens in Hopewell more than you know depending on who you are.

I wonder if this "Verdict" for Ms. Pelham was made as part and partial payment from the GOB fellowship for services rendered while on City Council. Seeing as Ms. Pelham is part of the gang of four that are owned by the GOB. Part of the GOB fellowship involved a certain Circuit Court Judge.

"On Sept. 7, 2011.

During a hearing on that day, Pelham pleaded no contest to three conflict-of-interest counts in exchange for Herring's motion to dismiss 10 other misdemeanor indictments against her. In keeping with the plea agreement, the judge last year dismissed 10 of the 13 counts, issued no finding on the remaining three and continued the matter until Wednesday.

Because Pelham stayed out of trouble and abided by the conditions of the agreement over the past year, Herring moved to dismiss the remaining counts Wednesday and have them permanently expunged from her record." This from the Times Dispatch.

"Herring said Pelham clearly violated the law, but only because she misunderstood the "technical requirements" of disclosing her employment. The prosecutor said Pelham did not benefit or attempt to benefit from her votes on school matters before the council, and "there's no indication that she exerted any inappropriate influence."

Pelham has said that she believed she had satisfied her disclosure requirements by stating her ties to the school system in a statement of economic interests that all Virginia elected officials are required to file annually.

"It was a lesson well-learned," Pelham said Wednesday, adding that she "didn't read the fine print."

Seems pretty clear to me that Ms. Pelham is aware of the fact that she broke the Law. I for one see no reason as to why the City of Hopewell should pay her legal fees. Yes, technically she has been exonerated, not for the conflict of interest charges, because she stayed out of trouble for a year.
Hopewell Lady

Hopewell, VA

#12 Mar 1, 2013
Pelham lied under oath when she testified that she did not understand or was not aware of her responsibilities to disclose. Her "NO CONTEST" plea was an admission of guilt. I'll be damned if the taxpayers should pay any of her outrageous legal fees.
Mary Lou

Hopewell, VA

#13 Mar 1, 2013
I am extremely proud of Councilors Walton, Shornak, and Edwards for voting against paying her legal bills. Of course the other 3 would, without doubt, side with Pelham but that's just a given. Walton, Shornak, and Edwards truly care for and stand up for the citizens of Hopewell. Pelham doesn't seem to understand that by pleading no contest she was NOT found not guilty. But then, she does seem to bend the truth to suit her needs so I'm sure this is just another one of those times. I am stunned that the people of her ward keep electing her to council. Yet another reason why Hopewell needs to be rid of the ward system and should convert to citywide elections.
Who Cares

Washington, DC

#14 Mar 2, 2013
Now she is talking about a lawsuit against the city to pay her bills. This is B.S.! How do you say that you are not guilty when you plead No Contest!?!
More BS

Richmond, VA

#15 Mar 2, 2013
Who Cares wrote:
Now she is talking about a lawsuit against the city to pay her bills. This is B.S.! How do you say that you are not guilty when you plead No Contest!?!
You must first understand the Liberal personís mindset; in her mind now that the final 3 charges have been dropped she is innocent!!! The plea does not matter it is the end result. The record will be expunged and therefore she will have no criminal record. No criminal record means she did nothing wrong. That is why she can go on TV and say she was found innocent, she has been vindicated, and her name cleared. It is the Liberal way.

This is just but an example of the 'Criminal Justice' system in Hopewell. Often timeís people blame the Hopewell Police Department for NOT doing their jobs (Sometimes this may be warranted). The real problem as I see it is the Hopewell Court System i.e.'Judges'. Often timeís cases are pre decided before it even goes to court. The Judge has already made up his/her mind before taking the Bench.

Sometimes 'Judges' decisions are based upon the person charged. Sometimes it is the Lawyer for the Defendant. The Hopewell Court System is most definitely a Good Ol Boy system. Lady Justice is not blind in Hopewell; her blindfold has holes in it.

As long as these Good Ol Boy 'Judges' continue to be appointed Hopewell will continue to slide into disrepair and become Petersburg.
VN Vet

Hopewell, VA

#16 Mar 2, 2013
I;m not taking up for Hopewell, but the problem is everywhere. The GOBs supported Pelham, and the judges are part of the GOB system. Corruption at every turn. Just remember these clowns when it is time to vote again. The real problem is the uninformed voter putting these idiots back in office.
More BS

Richmond, VA

#17 Mar 3, 2013
VN Vet wrote:
I;m not taking up for Hopewell, but the problem is everywhere. The GOBs supported Pelham, and the judges are part of the GOB system. Corruption at every turn. Just remember these clowns when it is time to vote again. The real problem is the uninformed voter putting these idiots back in office.
Yes the problem is everywhere, but it is worse in Hopewell. The Criminal's are not afraid of Hopewell Courts. They are afraid more of the Courts surrounding Hopewell. Just food for thought.
VN Vet

Hopewell, VA

#18 Mar 3, 2013
People forget that certain groups are entitled and need special treatment. At least that is what they think. This BS thinking has got to stop, or this country is doomed.
gimmeabrake

Hopewell, VA

#19 Mar 4, 2013
She was warned by not one but two city attorneys about her conflict and her response was that "everybody knows where I work" thus she was guilty of arrogance not ignorance of the law and no one especially elected official shooud think they are above the law. Not one cent of taxpayer money should go to pay her attorney fees which btw she stead fastly refused to even tell the public what the actual amount was////Why did the other 3 friends on her gang of 4 vote to pay without actually knowing what the amount was??? Let the real estate mafia pay...bout time they actually invested in something
VN Vet

Hopewell, VA

#20 Mar 5, 2013
She thinks she is above the law because she is black(like Obama thinks he is emperor). It is a mental flaw with the liberal mind, called insanity.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ettrick Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Would you hire an unlicensed, uninsured contra... Thu Buddy Mitchell 35
SOL scores a mixed bag for area schools Thu Rife 1
Question Aug 25 Really 2
Transgender woman says guard ordered her out of... Aug 23 Samantha 1
Smell Aug 23 jkkk 5
See what Hopewell Contractor does not stand beh... Aug 21 uh oh 24
Dozens to be rounded up in record-breaking drug... (Mar '13) Aug 20 jason jones 16
•••
•••
Ettrick Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Ettrick Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Ettrick People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Ettrick News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Ettrick
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••