Early last week I filed a complaint against the Virginia Supreme Court because of a major factual error in the Court's decision to dismiss the jury verdict in the Pryde/Peterson case holding Virginia Tech accountable in the April 16, 2007 rampage. Here is that complaint:
COMPLAINT
MAIL TO: Judicial Inquiry and
Review Commission
Post
Office Box 367
Richmond,
Virginia 23218-0367
Note: The Commission does not accept far or email complaints
Name of Judge
Justice Cleo E. Powell
Location of Court Supreme Court of
Virginia, 100 N. Ninth
Street Richmond, Virginia
Street Richmond, Virginia
Date of Incident Opinion by Justice Cleo
E. Powell October 13, 2013
Case Name or Number:
Factual error—decision in appeal of wrongful death suits
Factual error—decision in appeal of wrongful death suits
Name and telephone numbers of persons who witnessed
the judge’s conduct: Supreme Court Justices Kinser, Lemons, Goodwyn,
Millette, Russell, and Lacy (804) 786-6455. Robert T. Hall of Hall & Sethi,
Reston, Virginia (704) 925-9500. William Broaddus, McGUIREWOODS (804) 775-1000.
Description of what the judge said or did that you
believe was improper: On
October 31, 2013, Virginia Supreme Court Justice Cleo E. Powell issued an
error-ridden opinion reversing the jury verdict in the case of the Commonwealth
of Virginia v. Grafton William Peterson, Administrator of the Estate of Erin
Nicole Peterson, Deceased, et. Al. (From the Circuit Court of Montgomery
County, William N. Alexander, II, Judge Designate.) On page 2 of Justice
Powell’s decision she writes: “Although officers from the Virginia Tech Police
Department were the first on the scene, (continued)
Name Daytime
(Please Print) David
S. Cariens Telephone:
given
Address given
___________________________________________ Date January 17, 2015
Signature
Note: The Commission
does not accept unsigned complaints
(continued)
“the Blacksburg Police Department led the investigation.”
The exact opposite is true. The Virginia Tech Police
Department led the investigation. Both Virginia Tech Police Chief Wendell
Flinchum and Blacksburg Police Chief Kim Crannis testified, under oath to that
fact in direct questions from William G. Broaddus. (See attachments A and B,
photocopies of Chief Flinchum’s and Chief Crannis’s answers to Broaddus’s
questions.) In another question from
Broaddus, Chief Crannis testified that she offered assistance to Chief
Flinchum. (See attachment C). On another occasion, and in a response to
Broaddus’s question, Flinchum testified “we called the Blacksburg police for
assistance.” (See attachment D.) In a video clip of Virginia Tech President
Charles Steger’s press conference on the evening of April 16, 2007, which was
shown to the court, President Steger states, “The Blacksburg Police Department
were also on the scene assisting the Virginia Tech police …” (See attachment E.)
I am also enclosing the agreement between the town of
Blacksburg and Virginia Tech, stating that “2. All law enforcement personnel
responding to an emergency request as described in this agreement will report
to and take direction from the Chief of Police of the requesting agency or
his/her designee.” (See attachment F.)
Also, I am enclosing a letter from Blacksburg Police Chief
Kim Crannis to me confirming that on the morning of April 16, 2007, the
investigation was conducted in accordance with the legal agreement between the
town and school. (See attachment G.)
I believe that Justice Cleo E. Powell violated two Canons of
the Canons of Judicial Conduct for the
State of Virginia. They are Canons 1 and 2.
CANON 1.
A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.
A.
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to
justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining
and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those
standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be
preserved. The provisions of these Canons are to be construed
and applied to further that objective.
Commentary:
Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the
law, including the provisions of these Canons. Public confidence in the
impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to
this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this Canon diminishes public
confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government
under law.
I am not accusing Justice Powell of lying, but by writing a
decision containing a factual error of this magnitude (involving the worst
school shooting in this nation’s history), she has done irreparable harm to “an
independent and honorable judiciary [which] is indispensable to justice in our
society.” She has violated Canon 1. If
Justice Powell were a student in one of my classes, I would flunk her. (See
attachment F, my biography.)
CANON 2.
A JUDGE SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF
IMPROPRIETY IN ALL OF THE JUDGE'S ACTIVITIES.
A.
A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at
all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary.
Commentary:
It is against the
law to introduce false or wrong facts into court proceedings. By wittingly or
unwittingly allowing a factual error into her decision, Justice Powell has, at
minimum, been complicit in the violation of the laws of the State of Virginia.
This is tantamount to the impropriety of the first order and does not promote
“public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”
Furthermore, Justice Powell’s decision casts serious doubts on the integrity,
thoroughness, and objectivity of the Supreme Court of Virginia. The decision
should be withdrawn and the verdict of the Circuit Court of Montgomery County,
Virginia should be reinstated.
If you have any questions about the above complaint, please
contact me.
Yours
sincerely,
David
Cariens
No comments:
Post a Comment