Following the filing of my complaint with the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission, I wrote the Virginia Attorney General's office asking his office to look into possible improprieties. Here is that letter:
Kilmarnock,
Virginia 22482
January
19, 2015
Mark Herring, Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Commonwealth of Virginia
900 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia
23219
Attorney General Herring:
I have filed a complaint with the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission against Virginia Supreme
Court Justice Cleo E. Powell. The complaint centers on a major factual error in
her October 31, 2013 decision to throw out the jury verdict holding Virginia Tech
liable in the Pryde and Peterson lawsuit against the school. (My complaint and
the evidence are attached).
Justice Powell wrote that the Blacksburg Police were in
charge of the investigation of the killings on April 16, 2007, but in fact it
was the Virginia Tech Police Department. I have been involved in and teach
intelligence and crime analysis for nearly 50 years. (My bio is attached.) This
is a stunning factual error, and as I said in the complaint, if one of my
students made this mistake I would flunk him or her.
Both Blacksburg Police Chief Kim Crannis and Virginia Tech
Police Chief Wendell Flinchum testified under oath that it was the Virginia
Tech Police who were in charge. (The testimony is included in the complaint.)
The question arises how could such an error of this
magnitude make it into the Supreme Court’s decision when the evidence before
the court states the opposite? Indeed, there are at least five references in
the testimony that the Virginia Tech Police Department was in charge.
It is against the law to introduce false evidence or facts
in a court of law. It must certainly be against the law to feed false facts to
a Supreme Court justice; facts that are contained in a ruling involving the
worst school shooting in this nation’s history. The error is so great that it
casts doubt on the court’s integrity, objectivity, and truthfulness.
I am not accusing Justice Powell and the court of being untruthful,
but I am arguing that for this ruling to stand uncorrected is tantamount to
condoning factual errors at the highest level of the state’s judiciary.
Because of the factual error in the Pryde and Peterson
decision, there is a very real possibility that the two families’ civil rights
were violated. There is also the possibility of some form of public corruption
in the form of undue influence on the court.
I am asking that the Attorney General’s office investigate
whether or not there is a civil rights violation and how a factual error on
that scale could make it into a major Virginia Supreme Court decision.
Yours
sincerely,
David
Cariens
No comments:
Post a Comment