Virginia Trial Lawyers Association ta...

Virginia Trial Lawyers Association takes on Gloucester 40 case

There are 51 comments on the Hampton Roads Daily Press story from Jun 9, 2010, titled Virginia Trial Lawyers Association takes on Gloucester 40 case. In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

The Gloucester 40 have some new friends at the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, an organization with the motto, "Preserving and protecting justice for all Virginians." The association has filed an amicus brief with the Virginia Supreme Court, written by Charlottesville attorney John E. Davidson, arguing that Judge Westbrook J. Parker misused a ...

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

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
sage bush

Gloucester, VA

#1 Jun 10, 2010
Don't forget the meet 'n greet Monday at First Presbyterian at 6:30pm, come by and meet the 40 and give them your thanks for standing up and doing what's right.

Thank you VTLA for your amicus brief in addition to the briefs written by the ACLU and the Jefferson Institute on the behalf of the 40 petitioners.
Thyme

United States

#2 Jun 12, 2010
Excellent!
just a idea

Gloucester, VA

#3 Jun 14, 2010
Did any of you read this brief?? Wow, it blasts the 40 more so than the 4. If any of you are dumb enough to think that this helps you case for a appeal you are wrong. Everybody on this form knows that the criminal charges were bogus, and that the petitions would fail, yet proceeded with them anyway. This brief is proof that the Appeal is DEAD in the water.
Reading Rainbow

White Stone, VA

#4 Jun 14, 2010
just a idea wrote:
Did any of you read this brief?? Wow, it blasts the 40 more so than the 4. If any of you are dumb enough to think that this helps you case for a appeal you are wrong. Everybody on this form knows that the criminal charges were bogus, and that the petitions would fail, yet proceeded with them anyway. This brief is proof that the Appeal is DEAD in the water.
Here's just a (sic) idea for you. Bill, you're still an idiot.
just a idea

Gloucester, VA

#5 Jun 14, 2010
Reading Rainbow wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's just a (sic) idea for you. Bill, you're still an idiot.
So what upsets you more? the fact that the 40 truly abused the judicial system, or that the leaders of the 40 suckered the followers to do their dirty work. Do you feel that the leaders of the group should have to pay the entire amount, or Hicks for his role, maybe the grand jury?
Think about it

Fredericksburg, VA

#6 Jun 14, 2010
I don't know what you were reading bill, but the brief I read clearly and concisely stated Judge Parker was wrong with the sanctions. And if you're using your interpretation of this brief to hone your legal skills on your own lawsuit, then may I suggest you quit while you're ahead.

True poetic justice would be the judge sanctioning you for your bogus lawsuit, the difference in what the BOE set your property value and the price you're asking.
Cym

Gloucester, VA

#7 Jun 14, 2010
You people are such bigoted idiots. Bill didn't make those posts.....its a wonder you can find your way out of the sheets in the morning. Gawd I hope none of you reproduced.
another time

Hughesville, MD

#8 Jun 14, 2010
Think about it wrote:
I don't know what you were reading bill, but the brief I read clearly and concisely stated Judge Parker was wrong with the sanctions. And if you're using your interpretation of this brief to hone your legal skills on your own lawsuit, then may I suggest you quit while you're ahead.
True poetic justice would be the judge sanctioning you for your bogus lawsuit, the difference in what the BOE set your property value and the price you're asking.
That isn't Bill, Think, that sounds like one of the 4. Sounds very angry, making stuff up, like we haven't read the brief.
Gettin nervous I guess.
another time

Hughesville, MD

#9 Jun 14, 2010
just a idea wrote:
Did any of you read this brief?? Wow, it blasts the 40 more so than the 4. If any of you are dumb enough to think that this helps you case for a appeal you are wrong. Everybody on this form knows that the criminal charges were bogus, and that the petitions would fail, yet proceeded with them anyway. This brief is proof that the Appeal is DEAD in the water.
Uhh huh. Right.
just a idea

Gloucester, VA

#10 Jun 15, 2010
another time wrote:
<quoted text>
That isn't Bill, Think, that sounds like one of the 4. Sounds very angry, making stuff up, like we haven't read the brief.
Gettin nervous I guess.
Then reread the brief, knowing that a ex supervisor, was one the list of petitioners, and that the Commonwealth attorney had already stated that no laws were broken, but that he could take a HAM sandwich before a grand jury and get charges. Then the grand jury report. Poor politics is not a crime, everybody knows this, except for the 40 followers.
just a idea

Gloucester, VA

#11 Jun 15, 2010
the brief states, HOW could the lay person know that the charges were on thin Ice. IS this not a total insult, to the 40, but then again so many stated on these pages that they knew, the charges would not fly, and that neither would the petitions, yet they had to try. YA think that these pages are not part of the evidence??
Think about it

Kilmarnock, VA

#12 Jun 16, 2010
The big difference here is there are lawyers who aren't dropping this case because they don't want to go through it, unlike the "special prosecutor". As a matter of fact, there are lawyers all over the state who are jumping to the defense of the forty.

And the brief I read stated, that the forty didn't bring the charges, the Commonwealth did and thus the Commonwealth was the one who could have been sanctioned.
Cym

Gloucester, VA

#13 Jun 16, 2010
Think about it wrote:
The big difference here is there are lawyers who aren't dropping this case because they don't want to go through it, unlike the "special prosecutor". As a matter of fact, there are lawyers all over the state who are jumping to the defense of the forty.
And the brief I read stated, that the forty didn't bring the charges, the Commonwealth did and thus the Commonwealth was the one who could have been sanctioned.
Interesting point. But the 40 were the one's to petition attempting to use the state code. They used it code inaccurately. I believe you are correct in that the commonwealth did file before the petition. BUT The sanctions were not against the petitioners for the charges though, the sanctions were for abusing the legal system, the attempt to remove. The attempt to remove was not filed based on sound argument, but on false argument. Thus the sanction. Sounds like the defense is trying to 'muck' the issue by misrepresenting the facts. Shouldn't fly. Don't get me wrong, I seriously don't think the 40 ought to have to pay....they were led down a rotten path by an idiot CA and an immoral reporter, those are who ought to be paying. The 40? Well they were just stupid..........
Think about it

Kilmarnock, VA

#14 Jun 17, 2010
Cym wrote:
<quoted text>Interesting point. But the 40 were the one's to petition attempting to use the state code. They used it code inaccurately. I believe you are correct in that the commonwealth did file before the petition. BUT The sanctions were not against the petitioners for the charges though, the sanctions were for abusing the legal system, the attempt to remove. The attempt to remove was not filed based on sound argument, but on false argument. Thus the sanction. Sounds like the defense is trying to 'muck' the issue by misrepresenting the facts. Shouldn't fly. Don't get me wrong, I seriously don't think the 40 ought to have to pay....they were led down a rotten path by an idiot CA and an immoral reporter, those are who ought to be paying. The 40? Well they were just stupid..........
I don't agree. First of all, the forty weren't "stupid". Using your arguement that they were following the CA, then why not trust a lawyer who has repeated been re-elected. He was their expert, like it or not. So calling them stupid is not valid and not to the point of this. Secondly, according the code, sanctions must be placed against the person or persons filing the petitions, which was the Commonwealth of Virgina. According to the code, the petitioners did what they thought was right (and I still believe they were right and it should have been heard by the courts, but that's another story) and the Commonwealth of Virginia filed for removal. I believe the Trial Lawyers Asssociation is correct in their filings, but as we all know, we're just armchair law experts and this won't be decided until the State Surpreme Court rules on the sanctions.
Reading Rainbow

White Stone, VA

#16 Jun 17, 2010
Cym wrote:
<quoted text>Interesting point. But the 40 were the one's to petition attempting to use the state code. They used it code inaccurately. I believe you are correct in that the commonwealth did file before the petition. BUT The sanctions were not against the petitioners for the charges though, the sanctions were for abusing the legal system, the attempt to remove. The attempt to remove was not filed based on sound argument, but on false argument. Thus the sanction. Sounds like the defense is trying to 'muck' the issue by misrepresenting the facts. Shouldn't fly. Don't get me wrong, I seriously don't think the 40 ought to have to pay....they were led down a rotten path by an idiot CA and an immoral reporter, those are who ought to be paying. The 40? Well they were just stupid..........
You really have some nerve calling anyone an idiot, stupid, or immoral. You will learn alot more about sanctions soon. Even if your lawsuit never makes it before a judge.
*lol* inaccurate code, abusing the legal system, false argument, muck, ought to pay sanctions *lol* at Mr. Kettle
just a idea

Gloucester, VA

#17 Jun 17, 2010
Think about it wrote:
The big difference here is there are lawyers who aren't dropping this case because they don't want to go through it, unlike the "special prosecutor". As a matter of fact, there are lawyers all over the state who are jumping to the defense of the forty.
And the brief I read stated, that the forty didn't bring the charges, the Commonwealth did and thus the Commonwealth was the one who could have been sanctioned.
only with the understanding that the lay person is too stupid, to understand the code, playing on that the typical Gloucester citizen is stupid too know better. there is the flaw with this brief, had a Lawyer filed the petition, he would have been sanctioned.
just a idea

Gloucester, VA

#18 Jun 17, 2010
So I would guess the court should go through the list of petitioners, to see which ones should have known better, which ones knew that the charges were on thin ice, and which ones should have known.
just a idea

Gloucester, VA

#19 Jun 17, 2010
Or is it the person whom accepted the petitions for the commonwealth? That should be sanctioned.
Think about it

Warsaw, VA

#20 Jun 17, 2010
just a idea wrote:
<quoted text>only with the understanding that the lay person is too stupid, to understand the code, playing on that the typical Gloucester citizen is stupid too know better. there is the flaw with this brief, had a Lawyer filed the petition, he would have been sanctioned.
Read the code. Only the Commonwealth can file the for removal after the petitions were certified by the Clerk of the Court. I guess the Commonwealth was wrong, according to your arguement.

Your bias is blinding your judgement. But then, I'm sure you're one of the few who still think the whole thing is this vast conspiracy perpetrated by a few disatisfied voters. That's the real flaw in your reasoning as the past election proved that theory wrong.
Cym

Owings, MD

#22 Jun 18, 2010
Think about it wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't agree. First of all, the forty weren't "stupid". Using your arguement that they were following the CA, then why not trust a lawyer who has repeated been re-elected. He was their expert, like it or not. So calling them stupid is not valid and not to the point of this. Secondly, according the code, sanctions must be placed against the person or persons filing the petitions, which was the Commonwealth of Virgina. According to the code, the petitioners did what they thought was right (and I still believe they were right and it should have been heard by the courts, but that's another story) and the Commonwealth of Virginia filed for removal. I believe the Trial Lawyers Asssociation is correct in their filings, but as we all know, we're just armchair law experts and this won't be decided until the State Surpreme Court rules on the sanctions.
Go back and read the code on when a petition can be filed. Guilt must be proven first, It's quite clear in the code. It doesn't matter what was right or wrong in the petitioner's eyes when it comes to filing, they, like the rest of us are bound by law. Our other resource is to change the law. But the FACT is that the petitions were very incorrectly filed. VERY. It does not matter that the petitioners 'thought' they were correct. To make the point, ignorance of the law, is not a valid argument. You are mixing 'moral' arguments with 'legal' arguments. That doesn't fly either.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
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 The first 100 days in LGBT rights Jul '17 meh plus 3
News Justice Department Honors Gavin Grimm Despite F... Jul '17 meh plus 1
News Crime 22 mins ago 11:57 a.m.8 arrested, 1 at la... (Mar '17) Jun '17 Heroinkills 2
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