Dumler Trial Date Set

Dumler Trial Date Set

There are 55 comments on the NBC29 Charlottesville story from Mar 30, 2013, titled Dumler Trial Date Set. In it, NBC29 Charlottesville reports that:

A trial date has been set for the case to remove an Albemarle County Supervisor from power.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC29 Charlottesville.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
GreeneGhost

Charlottesville, VA

#45 Apr 3, 2013
Cvillian wrote:
To all of you citing the staute, it all comes down to whether or not he has shown neglect and that his job as supervisor has been materially adversely effected. He tries to say that his legal problems haven't effected his role as supervisor. But ince his arrest, he hasn't had a single townhall meeting, his tweets have all but dried up, his official supervisor's facebook posts likewise, he cancelled all his appearances for 20 days after 2 days in jail due to his arrest, he resigned from all his boards committees and commissions so no meetings for those, no fundraisers, in fact, from weeks before his arrest through Dec 31, 2012, he raised NO money at all. This has been going on now for 6 months, that's ONE THIRD the amount of time he's been in office! For 4 months, he has to spend 28% of his time in jail, and a lot of time and money on legal defense, court-ordered psychologist visits...it just goes on and on. How can he claim his arrest and conviction and jail time has not caused him to neglect his role as supervisor? It's there in black & white, online, in the print media, broadcast on radio & TV. You can actually measure the negative adverse effect this has had on his job as supervisor.
Dumler's effectiveness is a highly subjective thing and should not be confused with a "neglect of duty", which is narrowly defined as a failure to perform a requirement of the office, which does not include townhall meetings, tweets, Facebook postings, or even participation on boards and commissions.
Good Luck Scottsville

Palmyra, VA

#46 Apr 3, 2013
With just a few mouse clicks you can find that this process has been tried several times in Virginia, all of them failed. My guess is we are stuck with this low life until his term is up and who knows he may get reelected, stranger things have happened.

As far as the people seemly from out of the Scottsville district commenting? I live in the Scottsville district, my mail comes to a Scottsville address, I shop at the Scottsville food lion but when I post to this forum sometimes it says I'm in West Virginia or Texas even Pa and Ohio. So don't let the location displayed in the forum mislead you, it's not reliable.

Just buckle up and hang on, we are in for a long pointless ride...
Central non Fidelis

Charlottesville, VA

#47 Apr 3, 2013
Dumler probably has a pants tent at the prospect of a date.
abcd

Scottsville, VA

#48 Apr 3, 2013
Just makes you wonder what makes him think he is the "only" person worthy of representing the good people of Scottsville. I imagine that most people would not had voted for him had they known how disrespectful he was to women. Man up Chris and go away!
Sure

Charlottesville, VA

#49 Apr 3, 2013
abcd wrote:
Just makes you wonder what makes him think he is the "only" person worthy of representing the good people of Scottsville. I imagine that most people would not had voted for him had they known how disrespectful he was to women. Man up Chris and go away!
Well, the good people did elect him.....
Cvillian

Charlottesville, VA

#50 Apr 3, 2013
@GreeneGhost - Dumler said himself that attending the BOS meetings was only a "small part" of his job. His brochure also states that as a supervisor that he had been to over 1,000 meetings in 2012. He actually brags about it! You see, it's not just the votes he makes on the BOS, but the listening to his constituents that makes him a supervisor, by his own public testimony. That's what Dumler himself is saying. But his 3 meetings a day have dried up to next-to-none. That shows a material adverse effect. The staute does NOT state that he has to be proven unable to do his job, just that his neglect has caused material adverse effects. And it has. The judge will decide whether or not the material adverse effects are enough to remove him.
Native

Charlottesville, VA

#51 Apr 3, 2013
Cvillian wrote:
@GreeneGhost - Dumler said himself that attending the BOS meetings was only a "small part" of his job. His brochure also states that as a supervisor that he had been to over 1,000 meetings in 2012. He actually brags about it! You see, it's not just the votes he makes on the BOS, but the listening to his constituents that makes him a supervisor, by his own public testimony. That's what Dumler himself is saying. But his 3 meetings a day have dried up to next-to-none. That shows a material adverse effect. The staute does NOT state that he has to be proven unable to do his job, just that his neglect has caused material adverse effects. And it has. The judge will decide whether or not the material adverse effects are enough to remove him.
Reasonable people with a teacup full of commonsense would have be done with this months ago. Why does it take the Judges and the legal system so long to get anything of value accomplished? This man will be up for reelection before we see the end of this embarrassing mess.
GreeneGhost

Charlottesville, VA

#52 Apr 3, 2013
Cvillian wrote:
@GreeneGhost - Dumler said himself that attending the BOS meetings was only a "small part" of his job. His brochure also states that as a supervisor that he had been to over 1,000 meetings in 2012. He actually brags about it! You see, it's not just the votes he makes on the BOS, but the listening to his constituents that makes him a supervisor, by his own public testimony. That's what Dumler himself is saying. But his 3 meetings a day have dried up to next-to-none. That shows a material adverse effect. The staute does NOT state that he has to be proven unable to do his job, just that his neglect has caused material adverse effects. And it has. The judge will decide whether or not the material adverse effects are enough to remove him.
You are misreading what the law states, and a "material adverse effect" can ONLY apply IF there has been a neglect of some legal duty, an illegal misuse of office, or incompetence, which is legally defined as a diagnosed mental deficiency. What Dumler may have said in a political campaign is not lawfully relevant in this proceeding.
Cvillian

Charlottesville, VA

#53 Apr 3, 2013
Greene Ghost - You're not getting it. First of all, Dumler IS neglecting his role as supervisor, proven by his cancelling meetings, not holding town halls, resigning from committees and commissions. These ARE all part of a supervisors job. The *current* brochure, a campaign piece albeit, says he had 1,000 meetings in 2012. Since October, he's had no public forums outside the BOS, and few private meetings or functions. The point is, that WILL be used as evidence to show how he is neglecting roles he once took as a supervisor, and in a BIG, not small, way. The judge has a lot of leeway in many considerations of this case, including what constitutes neglect of the office, and what is considered material adverse effects. The biggest adverse effect might be the loss of trust by his constituents. Who knows where this trial will go. It's all new to all of those involved. It's now up to Doucette to make the case for the plaintiff. You and I could fight this out right here, but why bother. Watch what happens between the big dogs (Scottsville v Dumler) and let the judge decide.
GreeneGhost

Charlottesville, VA

#54 Apr 3, 2013
What I am not getting is HOW anyone can divine under Virginia law that which does not exist.

Please provide the section of Virginia law that requires ANY member of the Board of Supervisors to hold meetings and town halls or to be a member of various boards and commissions. If the law is not there, a VIRGINIA judge cannot make it up and the special prosecutor already understands his limitations therein, even if general public does not. The judge is not going to order Dumler's removal unless "material adverse effect" stems from:

A. Neglect of DUTY (as specified by law).

B. Misuse of office.

C. Incompetence in the performance of those DUTIES.

No matter how much anyone may wish Dumer would simply go away, or worse, NONE of these conditions exist and the court will not serve to satisfy those wishes. Any judge is going to have to say, "If you want him gone, vote him out of office."
Roger_O_Vernout

Charlottesville, VA

#55 Apr 4, 2013
Hey Greene! What part of Cvillian's statement don't you understand? To wit: "You and I could fight this out right here, but why bother. Watch what happens between the big dogs (Scottsville v Dumler) and let the judge decide. "

The judge will decide and that will be that. Continuing down your legal discourse will not change the outcome in court. It seems to me there are good arguments on both sides.
GreeneGhost

Charlottesville, VA

#56 Apr 4, 2013
Roger_O_Vernout wrote:
Hey Greene! What part of Cvillian's statement don't you understand? To wit: "You and I could fight this out right here, but why bother. Watch what happens between the big dogs (Scottsville v Dumler) and let the judge decide. "
The judge will decide and that will be that. Continuing down your legal discourse will not change the outcome in court. It seems to me there are good arguments on both sides.
Actually, I have no dog in this "fight".

But, the petition is a non-starter, the outcome a foregone conclusion. Yet, those who cannot understand that will rail against the judge for denying it based upon the law as it is currently written, because they want to imagine possibilities that do not exist under the law, including seeing "good arguments on both sides." The law is narrowly written and, accordingly, can only be narrowly construed.

No matter how compelling Dumler's removal may be, this action will NOT work and is a waste of the Commonwealth's resources.

Now, what is it that YOU don't understand?
Roger_O_Vernout

Charlottesville, VA

#57 Apr 4, 2013
Uh, Greene, don't get your panties in a knot. I understand perfectly well, from talking to attorneys watching this case, that the Judge has a lot of leeway in determining what defines "neglect" in this case, and what defines "material adverse effects". It is you and Bill Marshall who have come to forgone conclusions as you have read the law. It's still up to a great deal of judicial interpretation. I don't know you Greene, here online, but Bill Marshall's informative comments are legion, but his prognostications don't always come to pass. Let's leave it like that, and leave Cvillian, who seems quite determined, out of this altogether. If you end up being correct, please come back to these posts and give me your best told-you-so. But for now, I'm unconvinced. Open, yes, but not convinced.
GreeneGhost

Ruckersville, VA

#58 Jun 2, 2013
Perhaps, you need a new set of attorneys. Virginia judges tend to NOT read a great deal into sparsely-written laws, and Va. Code 24.2-233 itself depends upon a law not yet enacted: the legal duties of a Virginia county board of supervisors member. As a result, Judge Higgins made the decision she did, because she had no options to do otherwise.
The Dude

Spotsylvania, VA

#59 Jun 2, 2013
GreeneGhost wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I have no dog in this "fight".
But, the petition is a non-starter, the outcome a foregone conclusion. Yet, those who cannot understand that will rail against the judge for denying it based upon the law as it is currently written, because they want to imagine possibilities that do not exist under the law, including seeing "good arguments on both sides." The law is narrowly written and, accordingly, can only be narrowly construed.
No matter how compelling Dumler's removal may be, this action will NOT work and is a waste of the Commonwealth's resources.
Now, what is it that YOU don't understand?
It's becoming clearer and clearer to me that there was a political agenda from the get go, and I'm in the Dumler should step down crowd.

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.

Law Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Michigan sued after gay couples are rejected fo... 1 min Clark 14
News Government seeks prison time for Weiner in sext... 13 min UN Disaster 11
News Anti-Gay Obama Graffiti Vandal to Spend 90 Days... 2 hr Imprtnrd 16
News Trump pardons former Sheriff Joe Arpaio 3 hr Chicagoan by Birth 1,260
News Crime 44 mins ago 12:22 p.m.Rogersville pediatr... 4 hr Dr Spek 72
News Lewisburg pain doctor under federal investigation (Feb '13) 12 hr Knowstomuch 39
News California Gov. Jerry Brown hasn't decided yet ... 14 hr Wildchild 1
More from around the web