Gloucester 40 case goes before state ...

Gloucester 40 case goes before state Supreme Court

There are 29 comments on the Hampton Roads Daily Press story from Jan 9, 2011, titled Gloucester 40 case goes before state Supreme Court. In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

One attorney calls it a case that defines what kind of society we live in. Around noon on Tuesday, the " Gloucester 40" will have their case heard by the Virginia Supreme Court.

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

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Just had to say it

Hayes, VA

#1 Jan 10, 2011
Does anyone think the Gazette, Daily P or Glo Q will cover this historical event?
Think about it

Hayes, VA

#2 Jan 11, 2011
The Daily Press did a good job on it. Have to wait to see what the Gazette will do. I doubt we'll see anything in the Glo Quips.
Just had to say it

Hayes, VA

#3 Jan 12, 2011
Why not? Do you think they have to shovel all the dirt(which they mostly cover) out of the way first?
Don-in-Gloc

Gloucester, VA

#4 Feb 28, 2011
Recaps (2 parts) of why this case has gone forward, for anyone who needs a refresher. Ruling may be announced this week.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/feb/2...

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-p...
dumbbunny

Gloucester, VA

#5 Mar 2, 2011
Don-in-Gloc wrote:
Recaps (2 parts) of why this case has gone forward, for anyone who needs a refresher. Ruling may be announced this week.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/feb/2...
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-p...
Ruling WILL be announced this week.
Don-in-Gloc

Gloucester, VA

#6 Mar 4, 2011
Can we put this discussion to bed now and concentrate on Novembers election?

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2011/...
Justice

Gloucester, VA

#7 Mar 4, 2011
Just had to say it wrote:
Does anyone think the Gazette, Daily P or Glo Q will cover this historical event?
The gazette-Journal had 2 reporters in the courtroom this morning.
The Gloucester 40 have prevailed! Take that Fab 4!
Justice

Gloucester, VA

#8 Mar 4, 2011
Don-in-Gloc wrote:
Can we put this discussion to bed now and concentrate on Novembers election?
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2011/...
What is this Bill? Now that your buddies lost, you want to put this to bed? Not so fast dude. Maybe they need to pay the county back the money they voted on to pay their legal fees. THEN we can put this to bed!
Don-in-Gloc

Gloucester, VA

#9 Mar 4, 2011
Justice wrote:
<quoted text>
What is this Bill? Now that your buddies lost, you want to put this to bed? Not so fast dude. Maybe they need to pay the county back the money they voted on to pay their legal fees. THEN we can put this to bed!
Not Bill, nor an associate nor a relative to Bill/Cym/Dr D. Just anxious to get to November and be rid of the remaining Fab 3. Hopefully unity will then return to the BOS.
Justice

Gloucester, VA

#11 Mar 4, 2011
Don-in-Gloc wrote:
<quoted text>
Not Bill, nor an associate nor a relative to Bill/Cym/Dr D. Just anxious to get to November and be rid of the remaining Fab 3. Hopefully unity will then return to the BOS.
Gotcha. Sorry.
Think about it

Hayes, VA

#12 Mar 4, 2011
This is a happy day for justice and the people. It shows that citizens DO matter when it comes to what government does.

More importantly, it shows that if you're a supervisor with a private agenda that isn't in the best interest of the people, you will be shown the door. It may have to wait until the next election, but it will happen.

But more importantly, if a group of people (like the Gloucester 40) want to petition their government, they don't have to fear sanctions. Even though the General Assembly acted, this ruling shows why the people should not be help liable.

This makes my weekend. Yipppeee
hmm

Gloucester, VA

#13 Mar 5, 2011
If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed
or made in violation of this rule, the court, upon
motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon
the person who signed the paper or made the motion, a
represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction,
which may include an order to pay to the other party
or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses
incurred because of the filing of the pleading,
motion, or other paper or making of the motion,
including a reasonable attorney’s fee.

What the court claimed was the petitioners did not make the motion, that the Commonwealth made the motion.
hmm

Gloucester, VA

#14 Mar 5, 2011
the person who signed the paper or made the motion, a
represented party, or both,

is in bold type..
banana

Gloucester, VA

#15 Mar 5, 2011
I signed, we signed in droves. Let them sue us all. The final decision will still be at the polls. I'll be there working for ones who love this community and the people.
Think about it

Hayes, VA

#16 Mar 5, 2011
Tsk, tsk, still grasping at that last straw, aren't you? I just wonder who's going to foot the bill for all the legal work since the the new board took office. They fab 4 are now the foul 3 who don't have the votes to put this expense on the taxpayers!

*GASP* Maybe they'll have to pay it themselves! Oh my! That's something they haven't done yet!
Dr D

Suffolk, VA

#17 Mar 8, 2011
Oh, look what I missed while I was gone....Juicy. Let's see what's in the writing before commenting....all we know so far is that the fines were dismissed because the 'state' prosecuted the case. Which is understandable and reasonable. But then you know my opinion, it's not the 40 that should be paying the fine anyway, the 40 are just sheeple. The people who should be fined are the people who started this, and one of them has asked me to kindly keep my mouth closed with comment to his role in this matter. He asked nicely. I still think that his speech to the Rotary was in bad legal form. The other that should be fined is simply a very bad reporter.
As for the 40's role......well such hate comes back to bite ya.
As for petition, well we all knew that this wasn't about the right to petition, it was really about the money. How do I know? Because the CA said so, to me personally. And because not one of the 40 has the balls, the guts, to get up and work for any clarity on the current petition code. None of them. I know because I proposed to them when the petition first was questioned,that they should work to fix the code, none did, they just wanted to grip about the fine. It was only about the money.
The most interesting part of this case will be if the judges have the guts to stand up and clarify the petition code so that future glousterians will not be able to act so ignorantly. We should read the ruling. If the judges clarify the code, then at least one thing positive will come out of this caboodle's butt. Anyone found an online copy of the ruling?
banana

Gloucester, VA

#18 Mar 8, 2011
Dr. D , the ruling has been online since the day it was issued. The proper term is Gloucestonians and having been a predecessor to current events I can assure you that many attempts have been made to clarify the petition process including efforts by those currently involved in the removal saga. I strongly disagree that any one Rotary member could be singled out for sole responsibility in this matter and assure you that though a few may have been sounding boards, thousands were outraged by the actions of 4 Supervisors and hundreds were involved in efforts to oust them. As for your disparaging remarks to "said reporter" you count but one of many who dilligently reported the truth. Judges, as many of the general assembly and their appointed representatives will almost always follow the path of least resistance especially when it comes with perks. When you declare that none of the 40 has guts to work for clarity you insult not just them but all who preceded and all to come. Get your facts straight. I am related to one who has and will continue to do so until their dying breath.
Dr D

Gloucester, VA

#19 Mar 8, 2011
Banana, we don't always agree, but you always put things nicely and eloquently.
Think about it

Hayes, VA

#20 Mar 8, 2011
At Dr. D. I've been saying all along the 40 weren't on the hook for the sanctions because they didn't file the petitions with the court, the Commonwealth did. Yet you continued to blame the 40, until now. Well, at least you know when you're wrong even if you won't admit it.
hmm

Gloucester, VA

#21 Mar 8, 2011
the attorney that certified the petition, was the the CA... which was at fault..The ruling imply's that the abuse of the Judicial System comes from the CA,, NOT being impartial, while using the guide lines of the law. The CA was not suppose to represent the petitioners, but the Commonwealth which would mean he should have followed his first ruling, that NO laws were broken. Which would mean he COULD not certify the petitioner's request, because he knew they were false claims..That is why the lines were high lighted within the ruling...The CA is the Commonwealth Attorney NOT the 40's attorney which is how he acted..Just because the Grand Jury Wrote the BS that they came out with did not mean the CA had to certify the the report instead he should have explained their error..All in All means the 40 were played as the fools they are..by the players..

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
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.

Gloucester County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Crime 22 mins ago 11:57 a.m.8 arrested, 1 at la... (Mar '17) Jan 3 jh12va 3
News The first 100 days in LGBT rights (Apr '17) Jul '17 meh plus 3
News Justice Department Honors Gavin Grimm Despite F... (Jul '17) Jul '17 meh plus 1
News Stafford High transgender senior speaks out on ... (Dec '16) Apr '17 sara69 2
News Man sentenced to 5 years for soliciting Glouces... (Feb '17) Feb '17 meh plus 1
News 4 juvenile suspects identified in vandalized Ch... (Dec '16) Dec '16 meh plus 1
News Trump and Transgender Student Rights - An Early... (Nov '16) Nov '16 meh plus 1
More from around the web