The Supreme Court appeal

The Supreme Court appeal

There are 317 comments on the Hampton Roads, Virginia, news, sports, weather, real estate, jobs and cars from the Daily Press -- dailypress.com story from Nov 20, 2009, titled The Supreme Court appeal. In it, Hampton Roads, Virginia, news, sports, weather, real estate, jobs and cars from the Daily Press -- dailypress.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads, Virginia, news, sports, weather, real estate, jobs and cars from the Daily Press -- dailypress.com.

Think about it

United States

#22 Nov 23, 2009
Fly on the Wall wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Good point. It certainly will be interesting when the Surpreme Court hears this case and makes it's ruling. Poetic justice would be served if the court ruled in favor of the 40 and orders the supervisors to pay their own legal fees for defense against the petitioners. As for the criminal fees, I think the statues are clear on that, unfortunately, the county must pick up the costs if the Board votes that way.

I do find it questionable on the method of the fee payment (which has already been paid to the attorneys). I think the county needs an invoice outlining the costs incurred rather than a resolution from the board on the total amount. I would like to see the New Board to look into this to see if the amount charged by the attorney's were indeed reasonable.
Joy in Gloucester County

Norfolk, VA

#23 Nov 23, 2009
I agree. I can't imagine any government agency paying any monies until a proper, itemized accounting of the charges is presented. It sure seems odd that the County Administratoe is so willing to overlook the necessity of an invoice.
Cym

Gloucester, VA

#24 Nov 23, 2009
it's amazing that the clerk accepted the petitions since the petitions should only have been accepted AFTER a conviction, of course that assumes one if following the law.
Carolyn

Rocky Mount, NC

#25 Nov 23, 2009
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
Did you really say "a bunch of gossips"? From my reading of Gloucester's election returns, the "gossips" seem to represent about 82% of the voters.
sigh

Gloucester, VA

#26 Nov 23, 2009
I guess you missed the "OR" at the end of #1 in the following quote:

" 24.2-233. Removal of elected and certain appointed officers by courts.

Upon petition, a circuit court may remove from office any elected officer or officer who has been appointed to fill an elective office, residing within the jurisdiction of the court:

"1. For neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties when that neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties has a material adverse effect upon the conduct of the office, or

2. Upon conviction of a misdemeanor pursuant to Article 1 ( 18.2-247 et seq.) or Article 1.1 ( 18.2-265.1 et seq.) of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 and after all rights of appeal have terminated involving the:......"
Cym

Suffolk, VA

#27 Nov 24, 2009
sigh wrote:
I guess you missed the "OR" at the end of #1 in the following quote:
" 24.2-233. Removal of elected and certain appointed officers by courts.
Upon petition, a circuit court may remove from office any elected officer or officer who has been appointed to fill an elective office, residing within the jurisdiction of the court:
"1. For neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties when that neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties has a material adverse effect upon the conduct of the office, or
2. Upon conviction of a misdemeanor pursuant to Article 1 ( 18.2-247 et seq.) or Article 1.1 ( 18.2-265.1 et seq.) of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 and after all rights of appeal have terminated involving the:......"
Sigh, again.
I guess you didn't read the petitions.....
This was one of a lengthy previous discussion, the
wording of the petitions made them baseless. If they
had been worded differently, they might have been successful.
One of the things I have called Harvey on, a few times,
is to see if a recall process is viable. My reading of the
current code, says it is not. If the petitioners really
wanted something good to come of their work, they'd continue
to pursue code supporting recall and recall election. But
they have not. It is sad to see someone put so much effort
into a narrow goal when so much of a broader goal could
be accomplished. What a waste of effort.
Think about it

Mechanicsville, MD

#28 Nov 24, 2009
Cym wrote:
<quoted text>Sigh, again.
I guess you didn't read the petitions.....
This was one of a lengthy previous discussion, the
wording of the petitions made them baseless. If they
had been worded differently, they might have been successful.
One of the things I have called Harvey on, a few times,
is to see if a recall process is viable. My reading of the
current code, says it is not. If the petitioners really
wanted something good to come of their work, they'd continue
to pursue code supporting recall and recall election. But
they have not. It is sad to see someone put so much effort
into a narrow goal when so much of a broader goal could
be accomplished. What a waste of effort.
But you missed the point of the petitions. From where I sit, I always knew the petitions were a very long shot. I can't remember when a petition drive worked and Gloucester tried this back in 1992. I think the petitioners even knew it was a long shot. But the petitions made their point. It brought to light wrong doings of these board members. It got the word out and made the people pay attention to their government. And it has brought back accountability to the people by board members around the area. It makes all people check their elected officials. And the results of the recent election proves my point.
clewis

Hayes, VA

#29 Nov 25, 2009
You really said truth in your last post, TAI. Even though the petitions did not succeed per se, they helped wake up and energize all these good citizens--and they helped bring about that overwhelming defeat in the last election.
Cym

Norfolk, VA

#30 Nov 25, 2009
Think about it wrote:
<quoted text>
But you missed the point of the petitions. From where I sit, I always knew the petitions were a very long shot. I can't remember when a petition drive worked and Gloucester tried this back in 1992. I think the petitioners even knew it was a long shot. But the petitions made their point. It brought to light wrong doings of these board members. It got the word out and made the people pay attention to their government. And it has brought back accountability to the people by board members around the area. It makes all people check their elected officials. And the results of the recent election proves my point.
We obviously disagree on what was wrong. Seems to me you just want to argue until you 'win'. AGAIN, there was nothing 'technically' wrong with the actions of the board. Just a very bad string of newspaper reporting from Mr. Sabo. Very bad. Very, very, bad. Very, very, very, very bad. Very bad newspaper writing. The recent election does not prove that something was done wrong, that is a false conclusion from very bad logic. It does prove that some of the media, some of the time, is powerful. But we can fix that.

So if you want to continue on this diatribe of nonsense, we can. I can post repetetive posts, just like you, over and over and over again until someone 'wins'. Wouldn't that be fun? I like fun. I like this type of nonsense. It seems almost psychotic in a way. Makes it even more fun.

At least you're being civil.
Cym

Norfolk, VA

#31 Nov 25, 2009
clewis wrote:
You really said truth in your last post, TAI. Even though the petitions did not succeed per se, they helped wake up and energize all these good citizens--and they helped bring about that overwhelming defeat in the last election.
The petitions proved something? They proved that 40 people had bad judgement and should have consulted a lawyer. They proved that 40 people plus their followers don't want to talk civily. They proved that around 4000 people can be herded like sheep. They proved that 40 people are more interested in nepotism than getting along. The only good is that the courts directed that matters like this should be settled in the election polls rather than the courts, and that this travesty should never have happened and should not happen in the future.
Had to say it

Hayes, VA

#32 Nov 25, 2009
Cym wrote:
<quoted text>The petitions proved something? They proved that 40 people had bad judgement and should have consulted a lawyer. They proved that 40 people plus their followers don't want to talk civily. They proved that around 4000 people can be herded like sheep. They proved that 40 people are more interested in nepotism than getting along. The only good is that the courts directed that matters like this should be settled in the election polls rather than the courts, and that this travesty should never have happened and should not happen in the future.
You are as full of it as the turkey used to have.(get my meaning)
Think about it

United States

#33 Nov 25, 2009
Cym wrote:
<quoted text>We obviously disagree on what was wrong. Seems to me you just want to argue until you 'win'. AGAIN, there was nothing 'technically' wrong with the actions of the board. Just a very bad string of newspaper reporting from Mr. Sabo. Very bad. Very, very, bad. Very, very, very, very bad. Very bad newspaper writing. The recent election does not prove that something was done wrong, that is a false conclusion from very bad logic. It does prove that some of the media, some of the time, is powerful. But we can fix that.
So if you want to continue on this diatribe of nonsense, we can. I can post repetetive posts, just like you, over and over and over again until someone 'wins'. Wouldn't that be fun? I like fun. I like this type of nonsense. It seems almost psychotic in a way. Makes it even more fun.
At least you're being civil.
And you're not being civil. You call what I write as a "diatribe of nonsense", yet you call me uncivil. I don't mock what you write, I just reiterate my position. And just so you know, all I did was post my opinion laced with facts. And I will say it again and again. RESSLER AND CREWE PRESSURED SCUDDER TO RELEASE SURETIES THAT WEREN'T READY TO BE RELEASED. That was wrong. You can say what you want, but I have intimate knowledge that it is true. Lacy Smith gave Jay the choice to do what Ressler and Crewe wanted or he'd be fired. "Is this the hill you want to die on" Remember that quote? Just because Ressler and Crewe deny it, doesn't make me wrong. OJ said he didn't kill his wife, but we all know he did. And the hiring of Lacy Smith was wrong. Lacy Smith testified he WAS hired BEFORE Jan. 1st. And a contract was ready and signed before the Jan. Board meeting, he testified to that. So call it what you want, but those four didn't have the power to hire Lacy Smith until they met and voted it officially IN PUBLIC.

This isn't about winning, it's about the truth. You and the four are quick to blame the media, but they have made huge mistakes and I have yet to hear Ressler admit she did anything wrong. At least TA had the guts to say she was wrong.
Think about it

United States

#34 Nov 25, 2009
Cym wrote:
<quoted text>The petitions proved something? They proved that 40 people had bad judgement and should have consulted a lawyer. They proved that 40 people plus their followers don't want to talk civily. They proved that around 4000 people can be herded like sheep. They proved that 40 people are more interested in nepotism than getting along. The only good is that the courts directed that matters like this should be settled in the election polls rather than the courts, and that this travesty should never have happened and should not happen in the future.
This had nothing to do with nepotism. You call me liar for stating facts I know to be true, yet you call 4000 people ignorant who can't make up their own mind. I don't call that being civil. And if the courts think it should be settled at the polls, then why does the code of Virginia allow for recall petitions. Sounds like and activist judge, something a good Republican like you claim should be totally against.
Jojo

Gloucester, VA

#35 Nov 25, 2009
Think about it wrote:
<quoted text>
And you're not being civil. You call what I write as a "diatribe of nonsense", yet you call me uncivil. I don't mock what you write, I just reiterate my position. And just so you know, all I did was post my opinion laced with facts. And I will say it again and again. RESSLER AND CREWE PRESSURED SCUDDER TO RELEASE SURETIES THAT WEREN'T READY TO BE RELEASED. That was wrong. You can say what you want, but I have intimate knowledge that it is true. Lacy Smith gave Jay the choice to do what Ressler and Crewe wanted or he'd be fired. "Is this the hill you want to die on" Remember that quote? Just because Ressler and Crewe deny it, doesn't make me wrong. OJ said he didn't kill his wife, but we all know he did. And the hiring of Lacy Smith was wrong. Lacy Smith testified he WAS hired BEFORE Jan. 1st. And a contract was ready and signed before the Jan. Board meeting, he testified to that. So call it what you want, but those four didn't have the power to hire Lacy Smith until they met and voted it officially IN PUBLIC.
This isn't about winning, it's about the truth. You and the four are quick to blame the media, but they have made huge mistakes and I have yet to hear Ressler admit she did anything wrong. At least TA had the guts to say she was wrong.
Yep, repetitious until you win. And then you bitch about others who do it. Sad.
Jojo

Gloucester, VA

#37 Nov 25, 2009
Meagan wrote:
<quoted text>
His posts DO NOT deserve an answer. By answering him, you validate him and he just keeps coming back. He is not worth it. We know who he his...a real joke. Please just ignore him if at all possible. Most of the posters that I know have just stopped reading anything that he posts. He really isn't that difficult to ignore.
And you're just adding to it!
Think about it

United States

#38 Nov 25, 2009
Jojo wrote:
<quoted text>Yep, repetitious until you win. And then you bitch about others who do it. Sad.
The truth hurts, huh.
Jojo

Gloucester, VA

#39 Nov 26, 2009
Think about it wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth hurts, huh.
????
clewis

Hayes, VA

#40 Nov 26, 2009
"His posts DO NOT deserve an answer. By answering him, you validate him and he just keeps coming back. He is not worth it. We know who he his...a real joke. Please just ignore him if at all possible. Most of the posters that I know have just stopped reading anything that he posts. He really isn't that difficult to ignore."
another

Gloucester, VA

#41 Nov 26, 2009
Think about it wrote:
<quoted text>
And you're not being civil. You call what I write as a "diatribe of nonsense", yet you call me uncivil. I don't mock what you write, I just reiterate my position. And just so you know, all I did was post my opinion laced with facts. And I will say it again and again. RESSLER AND CREWE PRESSURED SCUDDER TO RELEASE SURETIES THAT WEREN'T READY TO BE RELEASED. That was wrong. You can say what you want, but I have intimate knowledge that it is true. Lacy Smith gave Jay the choice to do what Ressler and Crewe wanted or he'd be fired. "Is this the hill you want to die on" Remember that quote? Just because Ressler and Crewe deny it, doesn't make me wrong. OJ said he didn't kill his wife, but we all know he did. And the hiring of Lacy Smith was wrong. Lacy Smith testified he WAS hired BEFORE Jan. 1st. And a contract was ready and signed before the Jan. Board meeting, he testified to that. So call it what you want, but those four didn't have the power to hire Lacy Smith until they met and voted it officially IN PUBLIC.
This isn't about winning, it's about the truth. You and the four are quick to blame the media, but they have made huge mistakes and I have yet to hear Ressler admit she did anything wrong. At least TA had the guts to say she was wrong.
He was told to do his job, or he is fired...To do his job
Think about it

Casa Grande, AZ

#42 Nov 27, 2009
another wrote:
<quoted text>He was told to do his job, or he is fired...To do his job
He was doing his job. Holding the sureties until the work was completed and approved. They weren't. There was still outstanding approvals by VDOT remaining. The county had not received confirmation for it. So he did his job, by holding the sureties. If he would have released them, then he would have broken the law.

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.

South Hill Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
How to cancel my free lotto account? (Nov '13) Dec '17 Zake ahmed 8
Symbol has to go (Aug '17) Aug '17 bulk 1
My son is doing a report on Gordie Howe.Do any ... (Nov '13) May '17 bulk 3
best ebony pics (Jan '17) Jan '17 ernest 1
TV Service (Jan '16) Jun '16 bulk 2
dennis keith edmonds (Mar '09) Mar '16 Okey 6
News Gas pipeline on schedule, despite failed pressu... (Aug '15) Aug '15 Buffpeace777 1

South Hill Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

South Hill Mortgages