Hicks: Dismissal of case against supe...

Hicks: Dismissal of case against supes 'flawed'

There are 129 comments on the Hampton Roads Daily Press story from Nov 3, 2008, titled Hicks: Dismissal of case against supes 'flawed'. In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

"Her legal analysis is just plain wrong," said Hicks, referring to S. Catherine Dodson, a deputy commonwealth's attorney in Virginia Beach, who on Friday asked that the charges be dismissed, saying there was ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.

Embarrassed

Hayden, ID

#21 Nov 4, 2008
I'm afraid if these four stay in office, you aint seen vindication yet!
Embarrassed

Hayden, ID

#22 Nov 4, 2008
Lazy Lawyer wrote:
Just as we suspected, some knew Dodson did not invest time nor care to this case.
Just as we suspected, in the language the judge used in "trying to find someone to take the case", is not an equal playing ground for the justice SGJ held true too nor the people who demanded justice.
Had there been nothing to substantiate the the SGJ findings,
it could have saved tax dollars and time.
Dodson did not succor this case.
Apparently she had no intention of hanging around Gloucester for Christmas (or Thanksgiving)

“Resistance is futile”

Since: Jul 08

Military brat, from all over

#23 Nov 4, 2008
Was I right, or was I right? I said it before and I'll say it again, money is power, and it will get you what you want. Now, to all those who signed the petition to have these four removed, you should be shaking in your shoes right now. The fab four have been set free in the courts, the petition will become null and void on a technicality or for some other such reason (do you really think they only have one judge in their pockets?), and the fab four will have a hit list that has been verified by the registrar. If you are a business owner, better move out of town now before you are forced to close. If you signed the petition and think you have nothing to lose, just wait until a crime is commited against you, nolle prosequi all the way. To the fab four, please bend over so I can plant my soft lips on your gracious and holy rear-ends and kiss & make-up. I never signed the petition, please don't come after me. I had your back the whole way, I can't wait to vote you back into office next time.
WISE-UP PEOPLE, money is power, and they ain't afraid to use it.
Facts

Gloucester, VA

#24 Nov 4, 2008
The High and Mighty wrote:
Was I right, or was I right? I said it before and I'll say it again, money is power, and it will get you what you want. Now, to all those who signed the petition to have these four removed, you should be shaking in your shoes right now. The fab four have been set free in the courts, the petition will become null and void on a technicality or for some other such reason (do you really think they only have one judge in their pockets?), and the fab four will have a hit list that has been verified by the registrar. If you are a business owner, better move out of town now before you are forced to close. If you signed the petition and think you have nothing to lose, just wait until a crime is commited against you, nolle prosequi all the way. To the fab four, please bend over so I can plant my soft lips on your gracious and holy rear-ends and kiss & make-up. I never signed the petition, please don't come after me. I had your back the whole way, I can't wait to vote you back into office next time.
WISE-UP PEOPLE, money is power, and they ain't afraid to use it.
New definition for WIMP & SUCK UP --The High & Mighty.Fear for signing petition--JOKE BRING THEM ON. High and Mighty's new post name.
WIMPY!
Vampires Suck

Livermore, CA

#25 Nov 4, 2008
Facts I totally agree with you. H&M must a butt holy roller. They are singing a tune too soon with dark blood suckers getting to pounce on 2 of them
for sure. These holy butt rollers and pals are in for a bigger surprise. They just don't get it at the moment. They AINT got the cash to clash.
Right On

Gloucester, VA

#26 Nov 4, 2008
Karen wrote:
To What's Next: Need to read up on your law, you can not file a civil suit against a Special Grand Jury members. They are doing their civic duties as citizens and serving their county. What is next, is that you should sit on a Grand Jury and see how the process works. If you read the Gazette you will see that there are numerous court cases in this county that are Nolle Prosequi, which means unwilling to prosecute. These cases are Nolle Prosequi by CA Hicks, he still gets credit for them on his stats but doen't have to do any work to get that stat. Where have citizens of this county been this has been going on for years. CA Hicks doesn't want to do the work to take anyone to trial. We had someone break in our house and the case never went to trial and we never got any restitution from the persons that were arrested. CA Hicks was a joke in court. So pay attention when you read the paper and see all those cases that are Nolle Prosequi and remember what that term means.
Not entirely correct Karen. A civil suit couldn't be filed against any of the SGJ members for anything they did inside the courtroom. Now if a particular member of the SGJ chose to spread unsubstantiated gossip outside the courtroom that could be proven to have tarnished the reputation of a BOS member....then they are not protected from civil action.
You are however correct that Hicks is worthless!
Right On

Gloucester, VA

#27 Nov 4, 2008
Right On wrote:
Hicks is talking out of both sides of his mouth!! His report concluded with the same thing Ms. Dodson presented in court...not enough evidence. Come on Hicks...don't whine...it's not very becoming of a CA :)
Lazy Lawyer - your jibberish sounds familiar...have you posted around here before ;-)
I posted the above post previously and received 3 "clueless" judgings. I'd love for somebody to contest what I stated. What was the conclusion of Hick's report released in Feb 08??

If "Dodson's legal analysis is just plain wrong", the why didn't Hicks prosecute them in February? Its an easy question...sombebody take a stab at the answer.
STILL WATCHING

Gloucester, VA

#28 Nov 4, 2008
Right On wrote:
<quoted text>
I posted the above post previously and received 3 "clueless" judgings. I'd love for somebody to contest what I stated. What was the conclusion of Hick's report released in Feb 08??
If "Dodson's legal analysis is just plain wrong", the why didn't Hicks prosecute them in February? Its an easy question...sombebody take a stab at the answer.
That's simple, In February he only had the information from the 3 supervisors who were willing to talk to him. In July there was all the additional information that the SGJ obtained when they interviewed individuals under oath. I would think he had a great deal more information in July than he had in February to make a decision.
what if

Gloucester, VA

#29 Nov 4, 2008
Right On wrote:
<quoted text>
Not entirely correct Karen. A civil suit couldn't be filed against any of the SGJ members for anything they did inside the courtroom. Now if a particular member of the SGJ chose to spread unsubstantiated gossip outside the courtroom that could be proven to have tarnished the reputation of a BOS member....then they are not protected from civil action.
You are however correct that Hicks is worthless!
it does say in the wording of the law that all of the vote would not be given, only the foreman to say a majority, that if one votes against it cast doubt. since all voted for this on the sgj, that does change the rule. I cannot find anywhere it's been done though.
Right On

Gloucester, VA

#30 Nov 4, 2008
STILL WATCHING wrote:
<quoted text>
That's simple, In February he only had the information from the 3 supervisors who were willing to talk to him. In July there was all the additional information that the SGJ obtained when they interviewed individuals under oath. I would think he had a great deal more information in July than he had in February to make a decision.
When you say "in July there was all the additional information that the SGJ obtained when they interviewed individuals under oath", what indiviudals are you referring to? BOS members or others?
Right On

Gloucester, VA

#31 Nov 4, 2008
what if wrote:
<quoted text>it does say in the wording of the law that all of the vote would not be given, only the foreman to say a majority, that if one votes against it cast doubt. since all voted for this on the sgj, that does change the rule. I cannot find anywhere it's been done though.
What in the world are you talking about?
Judge

Gloucester, VA

#32 Nov 5, 2008
Whats Next wrote:
The whole arguement of Lazy Lawyer sounds like sour grapes!!
It is nice to see that Peggy Bowditch, Kirby Smith, Molly Boon, Tommy Wheat, Louise Theberge, and Robert Hicks well thought out and planned political attack on the BOS is finally starting to reach it's end.
When the SGJ members are served their civil suit papers next, perhaps we will all learn the truth. Or maybe we will have to wait until the state bar review of Hicks, but either way, we will find out.
You can't sue Grand Jury members!!!! No where ..no how!!!
Reasonable

Ponte Vedra Beach, FL

#33 Nov 5, 2008
"Reprehended?"
Gardenfairy

United States

#34 Nov 5, 2008
That prosecutor was either lazy, didn't care or thought it was over her head. Grand jury members said privately that they enough to prosecute and what we knew was just the tip of the iceberg.
Dodson never interviewed Hicks and never even looked at the grand jury testimony. Great legal representation for the people of Gloucester, right?
And as for any of the 4 indicted retaliating against citizens in this or the petition case, even they wouldn't be that stupid. Would they?
Whats next

Newport News, VA

#35 Nov 5, 2008
Judge wrote:
<quoted text> You can't sue Grand Jury members!!!! No where ..no how!!!
We shall see!! Remember, the charges were dismissed with prejudice. Not just dismissed, dropped or nolle pros.
Right On

Gloucester, VA

#37 Nov 5, 2008
Gardenfairy wrote:
That prosecutor was either lazy, didn't care or thought it was over her head. Grand jury members said privately that they enough to prosecute and what we knew was just the tip of the iceberg.
Dodson never interviewed Hicks and never even looked at the grand jury testimony. Great legal representation for the people of Gloucester, right?
And as for any of the 4 indicted retaliating against citizens in this or the petition case, even they wouldn't be that stupid. Would they?
Do you honestly believe that Dodson "never even looked at the grand jury testimony"? I'm sure SGJ members would say privately that they had enough to prosecute...what would you expect them so say?

“Jacob's Sookie”

Since: Nov 07

Hamilton,Va SOBX

#38 Nov 5, 2008
Right On wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you honestly believe that Dodson "never even looked at the grand jury testimony"? I'm sure SGJ members would say privately that they had enough to prosecute...what would you expect them so say?
Now that the election is over and the Gaelic has had little sleep- 17 hours of counting. Sigh & Yawn lets see if I can do this w/o snapping off your head.

Dodson is not and should not ever try a case
outside her legalease of experience.

Lousy Lousy representation.

One should go back and read the law on the removal process. There are some items you have failed to remember about the selection process for GJ & SGJ. Also it will educate you on HOW far Hick's could be involved in this case before the judge removed him.

It all has been said before in the posts re: the subject. Just find it.
Right On

Gloucester, VA

#39 Nov 5, 2008
Gaelic-Ioudaious wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that the election is over and the Gaelic has had little sleep- 17 hours of counting. Sigh & Yawn lets see if I can do this w/o snapping off your head.
Dodson is not and should not ever try a case
outside her legalease of experience.
Lousy Lousy representation.
One should go back and read the law on the removal process. There are some items you have failed to remember about the selection process for GJ & SGJ. Also it will educate you on HOW far Hick's could be involved in this case before the judge removed him.
It all has been said before in the posts re: the subject. Just find it.
Yeah Gae....go get some sleep....that post was bad....even for you.

I still get a kick out of how your harping on how bad the representation was....something I alluded to the same day she was named...yet you insisted she would do just fine.

“Jacob's Sookie”

Since: Nov 07

Hamilton,Va SOBX

#40 Nov 5, 2008
Gardenfairy wrote:
That prosecutor was either lazy, didn't care or thought it was over her head. Grand jury members said privately that they enough to prosecute and what we knew was just the tip of the iceberg.
Dodson never interviewed Hicks and never even looked at the grand jury testimony. Great legal representation for the people of Gloucester, right?
And as for any of the 4 indicted retaliating against citizens in this or the petition case, even they wouldn't be that stupid. Would they?
If the dismissed were to attempt this action it is going to take some money and good lawyers to combat this disease.

I would suggest talking with lawyers prior to
any surprises- should they be dumber than dumb to attempt this action.

Indicted
and dismissed: The people had / have freedom of speech through the SGJ discoveries and prior to questioning any malfeasance the dismissed were charged with.

Why would they think a personal injury suit at this point is feasible? MANY ITEMS will come up against the dismissed for starters.
personal injury suits bring OUT every dot and tittle of lives or so it seems these days.

Fois Scot S^ith Shalom

“Jacob's Sookie”

Since: Nov 07

Hamilton,Va SOBX

#41 Nov 5, 2008
Right On wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah Gae....go get some sleep....that post was bad....even for you.
I still get a kick out of how your harping on how bad the representation was....something I alluded to the same day she was named...yet you insisted she would do just fine.
I am glad you get a KICK out something.
But,righton it was a bad selection by the judge.
Regardless of WHOM WAS being prosecuted.

I thought she might do - might is ify.
She was outside her field of experience.
Kinda like a felon being defended by a family attorney who specializes in divorce.
That is MY point of contention at this point nothing else. Make sense?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Gloucester Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Newport News man gets 138 years in deadly home ... Tue nekeeshas 1
News Woman, Son Convicted in Mouse-In-Soup Scam (Apr '06) Mon brooke 6
News Charges that guard had sex with inmate sent to ... (Jan '10) Feb 17 Martin garey 11
Review: iLoveKickboxing- Newport News (Aug '16) Feb 14 edy 83
News Residents tired of unruly CNU students (Sep '08) Feb 12 sick of babysitting 407
Flashing Boobs (Jun '15) Feb 9 testy 22
love (Nov '09) Feb 2 Martin garey 7

Gloucester Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Gloucester Mortgages