The Supreme Court appeal

Nov 20, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Hampton Roads, Virginia, news, sports, weather, real estate, jobs and cars from the Daily Press -- dailypress.com

Another day, another lawsuit in Richmond. Although this time it's an appeal. The 40 Gloucester petitioners filed an appeal Wednesday with the Virginia Supreme Court, saying that the $80,000 in sanctions levied against them by Judge Westbrook J. Parker violates the First and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution.

Comments
1 - 20 of 317 Comments Last updated Jan 12, 2010
First Prev
of 16
Next Last
Think about it

De Soto, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Nov 20, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

I'm no lawyer, but based on what I read, it should be a slam dunk.
Cym

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Nov 20, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Think about it wrote:
I'm no lawyer, but based on what I read, it should be a slam dunk.
Cym thinks you lie about your ability to read.......
spike

Jackson Center, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Nov 20, 2009
 
Think about it wrote:
I'm no lawyer, but based on what I read, it should be a slam dunk.
You are basing that slam dunk on one side's story. The side you happen to agree with. Best to wait and see what happens next. Because it is seldom as easy as anyone would like it to be.
Reaper

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Nov 20, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Has anyone noticed that Michelle must share some genes with Nancy Pelosi? Both of them are plain ugly.
Think about it

De Soto, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Nov 20, 2009
 
spike wrote:
<quoted text>
You are basing that slam dunk on one side's story. The side you happen to agree with. Best to wait and see what happens next. Because it is seldom as easy as anyone would like it to be.
Yes, it is seldom as easy as anyone would like, however, the cases cited by Mr. Emmert are very compelling and not just one reason for setting aside the award of fees, but multiple reasons. I'm not naive enough to think Troy will roll over and concede, but case law by the state Surpreme Court seems to be on Emmert's side.
Cym

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Nov 20, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Think about it wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it is seldom as easy as anyone would like, however, the cases cited by Mr. Emmert are very compelling and not just one reason for setting aside the award of fees, but multiple reasons. I'm not naive enough to think Troy will roll over and concede, but case law by the state Surpreme Court seems to be on Emmert's side.
You miss the point because you see only what you want to see. Though none can be unbiased, you could at least attempt to entertain the idea that others could have an opposing view with merit. Such one eyed bias....
another

Hayes, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Nov 20, 2009
 
The Sanctions Statute
The sanctions imposed in Benitez originated with Virginia’s sanctions statute, Code (1950)§8.01-271.1. This statute is modeled on Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 (with one important distinction, which we’ll discuss below). The statute requires that every “pleading, written motion, and other paper” in the case be signed by an attorney (or by the party only, if he’s proceeding pro se). That signature acts as a certification that, among other things, there is a well grounded factual basis for each assertion in it, based on the signer’s belief “formed after reasonable inquiry.” If a paper is signed in violation of this requirement, then the court can sanction the person who signed it, or his client, or both.

Note that the statute does not require that the assertions be in fact true, or even that they must ultimately be proven at trial. The only requirements are that the signer must believe them to be well grounded, and that that belief must be based on a reasonable inquiry.

Do remember that they expected the to resign, not go to court, and that the petitioners stated, in the press, that they did not expect, to win...
Think about it

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Nov 21, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Cym wrote:
<quoted text>You miss the point because you see only what you want to see. Though none can be unbiased, you could at least attempt to entertain the idea that others could have an opposing view with merit. Such one eyed bias....
You should practice what you preach. You've been on the other side of my beliefs from the beginning and yet you don't entertain anyone's opposing view. You even go so far as to insult those who disagree with you. So maybe you need to look in the mirror when using the word biased...
Cym

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Nov 21, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Think about it wrote:
<quoted text>
You should practice what you preach. You've been on the other side of my beliefs from the beginning and yet you don't entertain anyone's opposing view. You even go so far as to insult those who disagree with you. So maybe you need to look in the mirror when using the word biased...
You are such a liar. I speak very well with those who have iq's over 19, better with those over 100, and extremely well with those over 140.......guess that speaks to why we don't get along.
Think about it

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Nov 21, 2009
 
Cym wrote:
<quoted text>You are such a liar. I speak very well with those who have iq's over 19, better with those over 100, and extremely well with those over 140.......guess that speaks to why we don't get along.
Liar?*chuckles*.. well, you have your opinion and I have mine. But you continue to prove my point by slamming my IQ. You have no idea what my IQ is, my educational background, my work experience, etc, yet you continue to make abusive comments when you don't agree with me. But then, you've shown those who visit here, your true self so I don't need to justify anything to you.
Cym

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Nov 22, 2009
 
Think about it wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar?*chuckles*.. well, you have your opinion and I have mine. But you continue to prove my point by slamming my IQ. You have no idea what my IQ is, my educational background, my work experience, etc, yet you continue to make abusive comments when you don't agree with me. But then, you've shown those who visit here, your true self so I don't need to justify anything to you.
Blah Blah Blah...
Think about it

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Nov 22, 2009
 
And once again, you add nothing to the the forum and nothing to the debate. And you call yourself intelligent, yet you can't even debate an illiterate...*L*
Cym

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Nov 22, 2009
 
another wrote:
The Sanctions Statute
The sanctions imposed in Benitez originated with Virginia’s sanctions statute, Code (1950)§8.01-271.1. This statute is modeled on Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 (with one important distinction, which we’ll discuss below). The statute requires that every “pleading, written motion, and other paper” in the case be signed by an attorney (or by the party only, if he’s proceeding pro se). That signature acts as a certification that, among other things, there is a well grounded factual basis for each assertion in it, based on the signer’s belief “formed after reasonable inquiry.” If a paper is signed in violation of this requirement, then the court can sanction the person who signed it, or his client, or both.
Note that the statute does not require that the assertions be in fact true, or even that they must ultimately be proven at trial. The only requirements are that the signer must believe them to be well grounded, and that that belief must be based on a reasonable inquiry.
Do remember that they expected the to resign, not go to court, and that the petitioners stated, in the press, that they did not expect, to win...
Ah, but they did expect to do whatever it took no matter what the cost to the taxpayer..........almost their own words.
Digby ought to be paying the bill...
IQ Report

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Nov 22, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Cym wrote:
<quoted text>You are such a liar. I speak very well with those who have iq's over 19, better with those over 100, and extremely well with those over 140.......guess that speaks to why we don't get along.
I'd gauge your IQ at around 18.5 and that may be stretching it.
Cym

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Nov 22, 2009
 
IQ Report wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd gauge your IQ at around 18.5 and that may be stretching it.
OOOOOOOOOOOOO, someone to play with!!!!!!!!!
Carolyn

New Bern, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Nov 22, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I am praying for the 40 petitioners that the court will find favor with them.

When voters can't petition against elected officials we need to stop having elected officials. At that point each man for himself is an easier pill to swallow.
another

Hayes, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Nov 22, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

2

voters can petition against, elected officials, but it has to follow law, not mob rule...just because a bunch of gossips are upset, does not give them the right, to take the officials to court...they are elected citizens, and still have the same rights as all citizens..this web page will explain it all to you,, http://www.opengovva.org/index.php
and another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Nov 23, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

another wrote:
voters can petition against, elected officials, but it has to follow law, not mob rule...just because a bunch of gossips are upset, does not give them the right, to take the officials to court...they are elected citizens, and still have the same rights as all citizens..this web page will explain it all to you,, http://www.opengovva.org/index.php
NICE LINK!!!!!!!! But i cannot find the article related specifically to petitioning...could you be additional help, please?
another

Hayes, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Nov 23, 2009
 
Rivera v. Long (Norfolk Circuit Court)(on costs and attorneys' fees)
Rivera v. Long (Norfolk Circuit Court)(on costs and attorneys' fees)(9/27/2006): Judge rules on cost prevailing plaintiff should pay for copies of general registrar's records, as well as on attorneys' fees for the plaintiff's attorney.
White Dog Publishing v. Culpeper Board of Supervisors
White Dog Publishing v. Culpeper Board of Supervisors (9/15/2006): In considering certain newspaper publishers' application for a writ of mandamus, the circuit court erred in finding that a county board of supervisors did not violate the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by going into a closed session at a particular meeting and erred in failing to award reasonable costs and attorney's fees under the Act. Because the purpose of the closed session was not the formation or modifications of a procurement contract, it did not fall within the statutory public contract exemption of § 2.2-3711(A)(30), and special circumstances did not make an award of fees and costs unjust.
Fly on the Wall

Gloucester, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Nov 23, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

another wrote:
Rivera v. Long (Norfolk Circuit Court)(on costs and attorneys' fees)
Rivera v. Long (Norfolk Circuit Court)(on costs and attorneys' fees)(9/27/2006): Judge rules on cost prevailing plaintiff should pay for copies of general registrar's records, as well as on attorneys' fees for the plaintiff's attorney.
White Dog Publishing v. Culpeper Board of Supervisors
White Dog Publishing v. Culpeper Board of Supervisors (9/15/2006): In considering certain newspaper publishers' application for a writ of mandamus, the circuit court erred in finding that a county board of supervisors did not violate the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by going into a closed session at a particular meeting and erred in failing to award reasonable costs and attorney's fees under the Act. Because the purpose of the closed session was not the formation or modifications of a procurement contract, it did not fall within the statutory public contract exemption of § 2.2-3711(A)(30), and special circumstances did not make an award of fees and costs unjust.
You still miss the point. At the time the petitions were done and filed, none of the charges had been dismissed, so the petitions were done in a good faith effort, as to the information AT THE TIME. Also, the petition suit was a civil case that was non-suited. Go look at the right to petition statute.... unless the suit is found " in the supervisor's favor."... no legal fees may be assessed to the governing body. In a non suit, there is no winner and there is no preference given to either party....That isn't any-ones particular opinion, that is the law.... too bad Judge Parker decided to ignore the law and make up his own version.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 16
Next Last

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.

Other Recent South Hill Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
VA VA Property Tax Exemption for Veterans, Question 2 (Oct '10) Aug 1 Time Flys 2,546
VA VA Property Tax Exemption for Elderly and Disab... (Oct '10) May '14 Nitty Gritty 1 1,356
VA Missing Va. Girl Alive, Man In Custody (Dec '10) Apr '14 Jim 1,433
JOIN AJAKAJA BROTHERHOOD FOR WEALTH,FAME,AND PR... Feb '14 Mr Desmond Salami 1
Sabrina Humple (Feb '14) Feb '14 Yoyo 1
Am looking for suggarmum plz whats app m 002773... (Jan '14) Jan '14 Ben 10 1
Why can't i get a car loan at a good rate? (Dec '13) Dec '13 bomibejejoq 2

Search the South Hill Forum:
•••
•••
•••

South Hill Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

South Hill People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

South Hill News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in South Hill
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••