The judge that released Jason Scott B...

The judge that released Jason Scott Betts

Created by Judge Roy Bean on Jan 7, 2009

89 votes

Click on an option to vote

criminally negligent homicide

must have been family

worthy of a lawsuit

permanently chained to betts

publicly whipped once a month

life without parole

ride the lightning

public apology and reparation

tested for any brain activity

lacks any redemptive qualities

Dave Baves

Charlottesville, VA

#1 Jan 10, 2009
Low life judge!

Scottsdale, AZ

#2 Feb 18, 2009
Saint Bernard

Scottsdale, AZ

#4 Mar 6, 2009
Triple Murderer Sentenced
Johnson City Press Forum Index -> News
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 6
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:52 pm Post subject: Triple Murderer Sentenced
01/17/08 - Judge Larry B. Kirksey sentenced John Ray Gullion to five consecutive life terms at the courthouse in Marion, Virginia. This was surprising due to the fact that Judge Isaac Freeman "banned" Judge Kirksey from the courthouse for his relationship with "Angie Robinson", a married employee. Prosecuter Roy Evans directed all female employees not to be alone with Judge Kirksey, after bailiffs entered his locked chambers and found the two together.
Back to top
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 6
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 1:09 pm Post subject:
Carol Trammell said that Isaac got so drunk at the Fiddlers Convention one year, that he was arrested.
Back to top
Joined: 02 Mar 2008
Posts: 6
Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:28 pm Post subject: BAD JUDGE
Isaac St. Clair Freeman is a clown. He is more embarrassing to the bench than Mickey Shull. He will not be reappointed by the House and Senate. He practices law from the bench and makes up the Rules as he goes. If a cell phone rings in his courtroom, he puts its owner in a cell. He is the COURT JESTER, so to speak.
Back to top
If U Only Knew

Georgetown, KY

#5 Mar 8, 2009
I just want to say something... I have a topic on this forum called "Deadbeat Dads" and the reason I have to deal with that deadbeat dad in the first place is b/c of Judge Freeman... Thanks a lot a-hole!!!

Scottsdale, AZ

#6 Mar 9, 2009
Judge criticized over gun permit denials
Daniel Gilbert/Bristol Herald Courier
Published: April 20, 2008
ABINGDON, Va.– Bill Hubble’s military discharge papers from 1947 did not pass muster for demonstrating competency with a handgun, a Smyth County circuit court judge ruled in November 2006.
It was not the first time that Judge Isaac St.C. Freeman had denied a concealed handgun permit to an honorably discharged veteran, even though such status qualifies an applicant for a permit under Virginia law.
In the last year, two of Freeman’s rulings on concealed weapons permits have been repudiated by a higher court and by legislators who last month passed a bill clarifying the state code. One lawmaker lodged a formal complaint with the Virginia Supreme Court about Freeman’s demeanor and rulings.
It was Hubble, 78 years old when he applied for a permit, who precipitated the legislative inquiries that tacked on eight words to the state code – which become effective in July.
Hubble had hoped to settle things by meeting with Freeman, but after a testy encounter in which the judge stood by his ruling, Hubble got on the phone to state lawmakers.
Among those he called was state Delegate Joseph P. Johnson Jr., an Abingdon Democrat who himself had been honorably discharged from military service.
"A discharge is a discharge, and the law is the law," Johnson said in a telephone interview.
The Code of Virginia lists proof of an honorable discharge as one of the standards for demonstrating competency with a handgun and states that "no applicant shall be required to submit to any additional demonstration of competence."
"In the code and the law, it’s acceptable," said Johnson. "I don’t know for what reason it was not acceptable" in Hubble’s case, he said. Calling Freeman’s ruling a "misinterpretation, maybe," Johnson introduced a bill adding the following language: "nor shall any proof of demonstrated competence expire."
Hubble, a tall, snowy-haired octogenarian, said: "It shouldn’t have had to go through the legislature. It’s my right as a citizen."
"I will not accept it"
The tiff that eventually reached the General Assembly began with a letter Freeman wrote on Aug. 22, 2006, in response to Hubble’s application.

Scottsdale, AZ

#7 Mar 9, 2009
"Dear Mr. Hubble," Freeman wrote, "You must complete a proper handgun/weapon course before I will sign your application.... The proof of training you submitted was a discharge from the U.S. Navy, which occurred in December of 1947. I will not accept it."
A week later, Hubble arrived without an appointment at the Washington County Courthouse hoping to speak with another judge about the issue. He met with Freeman.
Freeman did not respond to interview requests for this article or to written questions submitted to his secretary.
But some basis for Freeman’s rulings can be gleaned from court records, in which the judge also wrote an account of his meeting with Hubble.
In Freeman’s version, Hubble refused to take another weapons course and threw the judge’s letter at him.
"He got very angry, threatening to go as far as he could – regardless of the cost – to get me," Freeman wrote in a note in Hubble’s court file.
Hubble reviewed and disputed that account, calling it "completely and totally untrue."
In November 2006, Freeman denied the permit, noting that Hubble "has not demonstrated competency."
Several months earlier, Freeman had given similar instructions to an Army veteran who submitted his discharge papers as proof of competency.
"You will need to submit an updated certification exhibiting your competency with a handgun," Freeman wrote to Jefferson Dale Baldwin Sr. on May 26, 2006.
Both the Smyth County sheriff and commonwealth’s attorney had signed off on his application, and Baldwin was stunned by Freeman’s letter.
"Every county that I know of around us honors an honorable discharge," Baldwin, 80, said in a telephone interview. "But [Freeman] didn’t. I don’t know what his problem is."
Baldwin opted to take a firearms course and his permit was granted the following month. "There was no point in appealing. Not with that guy."
Kevin Austin, a 32-year-old emergency medical worker, took a different tack when his application for a permit was denied, a month after Hubble’s was rejected.
Austin had submitted a certificate for a state-approved hunter education course when he applied for a permit. The sheriff and commonwealth’s attorney found no disqualifying factors and added their signatures to his application.
Freeman, however, demurred, noting that Austin completed the training course 18 years ago – at age 13. "I do not consider it sufficient proof of competency," he wrote to Austin in an October 2006 letter, recommending the applicant take "an up-to-date course."

Scottsdale, AZ

#8 Mar 9, 2009
After Austin pressed the issue, citing the code section on competency, Freeman again advised him to submit further proof. "Otherwise, I will deny your application and allow you to proceed through the appeal process," Freeman wrote on Nov. 16, 2006. He denied Austin’s permit a month later, indicating "failure by petitioner to demonstrate proof of competency."
In explaining his rationale for denying the permit, Freeman appears to conflate the legal required age for filing a permit – 21 – with an applicant’s age at the time competency was demonstrated.
"He showed proof only that he took a hunter safety course before he was 21 ... Petitioner must be 21 to make application," Freeman wrote.
Austin appealed the ruling, and in June 2007, the Virginia Court of Appeals ruled in his favor, instructing the lower court to grant the permit. In its opinion, the court noted that Austin had demonstrated competency with a handgun and that none of the 20 disqualifying criteria "involve the length of time between the petitioner’s firearm training and the application for a permit."
A pink Post-it note in Austin’s court file, dated the day the appeals court opinion was filed in Smyth County Circuit Court and bearing Freeman’s initials, reads: "Save this for Judge Kirksey or Judge Lowe." He granted the permit the following month.
Questions of discretion
Judges infrequently deny concealed weapon permits, according to court personnel.
Washington County Clerk Patricia Phipps said two permits have been denied so far this year out of about 300 applications received. Last year, five out of 820 applications for permits were denied.
A clerk in Smyth County said that about 3 percent of applications are rejected per year. The county granted 300 permits in 2007.
But gun-rights activists recall a time when denials were more common, and the wording of the law much looser. Before the code was amended in 1995, the section on handgun permits left issuance to the judge’s discretion.
A bill introduced that year by former state Sen. and now U.S. Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr. struck language instructing judges to weigh an applicant’s character, demonstrated need for a concealed weapon, and physical and mental competence in issuing a permit.
Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizen’s Defense League, said that though the language is now much tighter, "we’re forever having these extralegal requirements."
Freeman’s name "has popped up probably more than any judge," Van Cleave said by phone.
Complaints about Freeman, he said, have ranged from his recent rulings on handgun competency to requesting that an applicant interview with him personally in 2005.
"Some of these far western counties seem to still be living in the past," he said.
Freeman, though, is relatively new to the bench. He was appointed as a general district court judge in 2003 and moved up to the circuit court in 2005.

Scottsdale, AZ

#9 Mar 9, 2009
Before becoming a judge, Freeman had a general law practice in Marion for 29 years. He graduated from Virginia High School and attended the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, and worked from 1966 to 1971 as an aide to former Congressman William C. Wampler Sr., father of the currently serving state senator.
Freeman, who twice ran unsuccessfully for state office as a Republican, said in an unrelated telephone interview last month that he "never anticipated being a state judge, ever."
Legislators weigh in
In his short time on the bench, Freeman has generated what one legislator described as "significant concerns."
Sen. Phillip P. Puckett, D-Lebanon, lodged a formal complaint against Freeman with the state Supreme Court. In a letter to Chief Justice Leroy Rountree Hassell Sr., Puckett wrote that Freeman "obviously is holding these applicants to a higher standard than the Code of Virginia requires, and is not following the law as required."
Puckett also criticized Freeman’s judicial demeanor "with regard to attitude, abuse of judicial power, and indifference to other individual’s opinions and concerns."
Delegate Johnson, who sponsored the bill on Hubble’s behalf, supported Freeman’s appointment to the bench and has practiced in his court. He said in an interview that he would not take a "Monday morning quarterback view" and that Freeman "does a good job" as judge.
Delegate Charles W. Carrico Sr., R-Independence, said he spoke at length with Freeman about handgun permits and also wrote him a letter saying he found no "recency requirement for training" in the state code.
"Therefore," Carrico wrote, "none should be interpreted."
Sen. William C. Wampler Jr., R-Bristol, who also supported Freeman’s nomination to the bench, wrote in support of Hubble, but declined to comment on the case specifically.
Hubble, for his part, conceded that he does not really need a concealed weapons permit. Once an avid bird hunter, he said he has not bagged a grouse in years.
"A friend talked me into the durn thing," he said of his reasons for applying.
But his resolve hardened, he said, " ’cause that guy told me I couldn’t have it."
On March 28, Hubble filed another application for a permit.
His court file is unusually thick for this type of civil case. In addition to his application, there are letters of support from state legislators and a sheriff, the Court of Appeals decision in Kevin Austin’s case, and the stapled text of House Bill 873, with its eight italicized words.

Scottsdale, AZ

#10 Mar 9, 2009
Political ties often key for attaining position on the bench
Daniel Gilbert/Bristol Herald Courier
Published: March 30, 2008
The political connection for Isaac St. Clair Freeman, a circuit court judge in Marion, Va., came through the father of a current legislator.
Freeman was a top aide to William Wampler Sr.– a U.S. congressman and father of the current state senator – from 1966-71.
Freeman, a Bristol Virginia native, was himself a candidate for state office, ultimately unsuccessful in bids as a Republican for the Senate in 1975 and the House of Delegates in 1982.
In a telephone interview, Freeman said he was approached in 2002 by Delegate Joseph P. Johnson Jr., a Democrat, and William Wampler Jr., a Republican, about a vacant judgeship. He was appointed as a general district court judge in 2003 and moved up to circuit court in 2005.
Buck Fever

Scottsdale, AZ

#11 Mar 14, 2009

Chicago, IL

#12 Mar 23, 2009
your name

Montréal, Canada

#14 Apr 5, 2009
| In The Circuit Court for the City of Bristol |
|Patrick J. Mannix, Sr.|
| Case |
|No. CL07 - 386 - 01 |
|Marc Bernier |
|Motion to Remove Presiding Judge |
|Comes now your plaintiff and respectfully requests that the presiding |
|judge be removed from this case on the following grounds:|
|Judge Isaac St. Clair Freeman has violated the Canons of Judicial Conduct |
|for the Commonwealth of Virginia.|
|CANON 3 A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially |
|and diligently.|
|A judge must not independently investigate facts in a case and must |
|consider only the evidence presented.|
|During the course of the hearing on the entry of the Final Order, the |
|Trial Judge stated that he had retrieved various public records of law |
|suits that Mannix had been involved in.(Tr. Transcript - 2/27/08 - p.|
|10). The public records referred to by the Trial Judge were filed in the |
|Court file. None of the public records were marked “filed”. Neither was |
|the “date and time of filing” noted on the filed documents or by whom |
|filed. The parties were not notified of the filings by the Trial Judge.|
|During the hearing upon the Demurrer, the Trial Judge asked counsel for |
|Bernier if he had filed a request for costs and attorney fees in Bernier’s|
|Demurrer.(Tr. Transcript - 9/18/07 - p. 27).|
|Bernier’s counsel responded that he had not done so but would be filing a |
|motion for sanctions asking for costs and attorney fees.|
|The appeal of the case did not involve a trial on the merits. No discovery|
|of any type, depositions of witnesses or other work occurred in the |
|Circuit Court. The hearing on the Demurrer occurred on September 18, 2007,|
|and lasted a very short period of time.|
|On September 23, 2007, Judge Freeman delivered a sermon at Old Glade |
|Presbyterian Church.|
|( |
|3 )|
|Judge Freeman announced to the congregation that he is a "Judge," and that|
|his job is to "administer justice." (pause) "Well that is a joke! I don't |
|administer justice.... I follow the rules.".......... In the last two |
|years, two of Judge Freeman’s rulings on concealed weapons permits have |
|been repudiated by a higher court and by legislators who last year passed |
|a bill clarifying the state code. One lawmaker lodged a formal complaint |
|with the Virginia Supreme Court about Judge Freeman’s demeanor and |
|Mannix filed a subpoena for the bookkeeper of the law firm who signed the |
|affidavit and a subpoena duces tecum for the billing records for the |
|hearing on October 26, 2007. The Trial Court at the hearing on October 26,|
|2007, quashed Mannix’s subpoena duces tecum for the billing records and |
|witness subpoena for the employee of the law firm who signed the affidavit|
|over the objection of Mannix. Mannix, by counsel, employed just for the |
|sanction hearing objected to the receipt of the affidavit as evidence upon|
|the grounds that it violated the hearsay rule. The Judge responded that |
|affidavits do not violate hearsay rules and admitted the affidavit as |
|evidence of the sum to reimburse the law firm for attorney fees and costs.|
|(Tr. Transcript - 10/26/07 - p. 8). At the hearing, the Judge granted |
|Bernier’s Motion for Sanctions.|
your name

Montréal, Canada

#15 Apr 5, 2009
|Bernier’s counsel prepared a Final Order and filed a Notice of Hearing for|
|the entry of the Order for February 27, 2008. A written list of objections|
|to the entry of this Order was filed by Mannix’s counsel itemizing each |
|objection which stated the authority for the objection. The Trial Judge |
|overruled the objections and entered the Final Order on February 27, 2008.|
| Mannix, as result of the improperly filed documents, filed a Motion to |
|Vacate and Set Aside the Final order of February 27, 2008. The Trial Judge|
|denied the Motion and the Order of February 27, 2008, became final.|
| The Order of February 27, 2008, requiring pre-docketing review was raised|
|by the Trial Court suasponte insofar as it pertains to the Marc Bernier |
|Show or Bernier Broadcast Services, Inc. Neither the Marc Bernier Show or|
|Bernier Broadcast Services, Inc. were parties to the litigation. The Court|
|did not have any jurisdiction to grant relief to anyone other than the |
|party to the litigation. Neither Mannix nor Marc Bernier requested this |
|action and no prior notice was given to the parties that the Trial Court |
|intended to so act. No evidence was introduced in the record evidencing |
|that Mannix had abused his right to access the Trial Court’s docket and |
|warranting the pre-docketing review. For example, there was no evidence |
|showing any abuse of process or the filing of frivolous pleadings by |
|Mannix. Because the record lacks evidence of the due process procedural |
|requirements, the Trial Court’s sua sponte Order, which places barriers |
|upon the full access of Mannix to the Court is, therefore, contrary to |
|basic due process and requires reversal. This case was not dismissed upon |
|the merits but upon a Demurrer that only considers the sufficiency of the |
|pleading. Without a determination of the merits of the case, it was |
|improper and inappropriate that such pre-docketing review be obtained |
|prior to filing any future suit.|
| The defendant, Marc Bernier Show, was dismissed in the General District |
|Court and was therefore not a party in the Circuit Court.. Bernier |
|Broadcast Services, Inc. had never been a party of the litigation.|
|Rule 3:16 provides that a new party may be added on motion of the |
|plaintiff (not the defendant) by Order of the Court. A new party may |
|intervene only by leave of Court. No Order to Intervene was filed by the |
|Marc Bernier Show or Bernier Broadcast Services, Inc. as required by Rule |
|3:14 of the Rules of Court. Neither Marc Bernier Show or Bernier Broadcast|
|Services, Inc. were defendants. This portion of the Final Order is plainly|
| The relief granted by the Court was not requested by the Marc Bernier |
|Show or Bernier Broadcast Services, Inc. and was therefore error and |
| That during the course of the hearing on the entry of the Final Order,|
|the Trial Judge stated that before reaching a decision on the case he had |
|gone into the public records and obtained a history of the prior cases |
|that Mannix had been involved in as a litigant.(Tr. Transcript - 2/27/08 |
|- p. 10). The Court file did reveal that public records had been inserted |
|in the Court file concerning public records that designated the name of |
|Mannix as a litigant. However, these records were not properly |
|authenticated and introduced into evidence nor were they properly filed by|
|noting and attesting the date of filing as required by Rule 3:3 of the |
|Rules of Court and Section 17.1-129, Code of Virginia,(1950), as amended.|
your name

Montréal, Canada

#16 Apr 5, 2009
|Mannix believes that these improperly filed and unauthenticated documents |
|retrieved by the Trial Judge may have influenced his decision in awarding |
|sanctions of such a significant sum for a case that would have required |
|only a minuscule amount of time and effort to defend. It is Mannix’s |
|belief and opinion that these documents obtained by the Trial Judge may |
|have tainted the decision of the Court on the issue of sanctions as it |
|pertains to this specific case. Since no testimonial or documentary |
|evidence was considered by the Court and the case was dismissed solely |
|upon the pleading (warrant-in-debt), it is obvious that Mannix has every |
|reason to suspect that these public record documents may have been |
|influential for the Trial Judge to reach the decision that was made..|
| It is unfortunate that Mannix was not in a position to require that the |
|documents be authenticated and properly admitted under the Rules of |
|Evidence. Trial Judge’s should base their decision upon the evidence heard|
|and introduced in Court by the parties. Trial Judge’s have no duty or |
|obligation to search for evidence of their own in any particular case.|
|Unlike hunting seasons established by the Game Commission to regulate the |
|hunting period activities for certain species of game, a closed season |
|always exists for Judges in reference to hunting for evidence.|
|The hunters of evidence should be no one other than the parties to the |
|litigation and not the Trial Judge who has a duty to properly admit or |
|reject evidence that is offered for introduction. Trial Judges should at |
|no time become pro-se hunters of evidence because “evidence season” is |
|never open for Trial Judges.|
| Complaints about Judge Freeman have ranged from his recent rulings on |
|handgun competency to requesting that an applicant interview with him |
|personally in 2005.|
|Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizen’s Defense League,|
|said that though the language is now much tighter, "we’re forever having |
|these extralegal requirements." |
|Judge Freeman’s name "has popped up probably more than any judge," Van |
|Cleave said by phone.|
|"Some of these far western counties seem to still be living in the past," |
|he said.|
| In his short time on the bench, Freeman has generated what one legislator|
|described as "significant concerns." |
|Sen. Phillip P. Puckett, D-Lebanon, lodged a formal complaint against |
|Judge Freeman with the state Supreme Court. In a letter to Chief Justice |
|Leroy Rountree Hassell Sr., Sen. Puckett wrote that Judge Freeman |
|"obviously is holding these applicants to a higher standard than the Code |
|of Virginia requires, and is not following the law as required." |
|Sen. Puckett also criticized Judge Freeman’s judicial demeanor "with |
|regard to attitude, abuse of judicial power, and indifference to other |
|individual’s opinions and concerns." |
|Mannix lodged a formal complaint with the Judicial Inquiry and Review |
|commission about Judge Freeman’s demeanor and rulings.|
|WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that his motion be granted.|
|Patrick J. Mannix, Sr.|
|Certificate of Service |
|This is to certify that a true copy of the foregoing instrument was mailed|
|to Eric Wagaman Reecher, Esquire, Elliott, Lawson & Minor, on this 2nd day of April, 2009.|
| Signed |
|Patrick J. Mannix, Sr.|
Cate Hughes RN

Waitsfield, VT

#17 Aug 13, 2010
Every single poster in this thread is the same...Patrick Mannix Sr.

Murfreesboro, TN

#18 Aug 13, 2010
i guess i should post, just so Mr. Mannix is not alone. I'm the fellow who in 2005 was asked to come in for a interview with Judge Freeman concerning my permit. It was a renewal, and should have been quick and painless. However, after receiving the call from the judge's assistant, I refused the interview and called Phillip Van Cleave with the VCDL. He called the judge's office, and also faxed in the sections of code pertaining to this issue. After hearing nothing for about 2 weeks, I called the Clerk's office. My permit was ready and had been since the day after my call. Then, in 2007, my father-in-law, yet another Army Vet, received a similar letter from Judge Freeman saying that his honorable discharge was not accepted as proof of compentency. After talking to Mr. Van Cleave and Delegate Carrico, Freeman recused himself from the matter, and Judge Lowe signed off on his permit.

Hermitage, TN

#19 Aug 14, 2010
Heres the funny thing,permit DENIED because the guy would NOT take the REQUIRED hand gun training course.

Murfreesboro, TN

#20 Aug 26, 2010 missed the point, i think. a vet with an honorable discharge has the required training and meets criteria set by Virginia law. Judge Freeman was violating the law and trying to make up his own laws as he went along.

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.

Marion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Akers 3 hr Bryan 16
Inauguration Day Supper 6 hr Alexi 16
Automotive connection closing again 7 hr Automotive Connec... 8
Meth and thieves in adwolfe 9 hr Your Name Here 24
oh where art thou ... "wilbur"...???? 9 hr HeatherB 3
jamie grubb (Dec '10) 11 hr Johnathan Tyler 5
Jeff Johnson 12 hr oh what a sight 8

Marion Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Marion Mortgages