Book Signing Shepard's Center Richmond, Va.

I will be doing a two-part lecture and book signing at the St. Luke Lutheran Church on February 23rd and March 2nd. The lecture/signing is sponsored by the Shepherd's Center of Richmond and will be from 11:00 a.m. until noon both days.

St. Luke's is located at 7757 Chippenham Parkway, Richmond, Virginia 23225. The public is invited--there is no charge to attend.

VIRGINIA TECH REVIEW PANEL REPORT: THE FIX WAS IN

One of the members of Governor Kaine’s Virginia Tech Review Panel, Aradhana Sood, has co-authored a book (The Virginia Tech Massacre: Strategies and Challenges for Improving Mental Health Policy on Campus and Beyond by Aradhana Bela Sood and Robert Cohen) in which she reveals disturbing facts about the instructions the Virginia Tech Review Panel was given.

            Even for the causal reader of the report, it was clear that the panel wanted to report without holding anyone accountable. Indeed, the report was a telling testament to the art of investigating a crime with the purpose of preventing litigation. Now we have the proof.

            Dr. Gerald Amada, one of the founders and directors of the Mental Health Program, City College of San Francisco, wrote a highly critical review of the Sood and Cohen book. Here is what he says about the instructions given the panel:

“It is particularly telling, I believe, that Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine thrust on the commission a directive to focus on they incident itself (the massacre) and not other ‘related issues’ (page10), such as presumably, those pivotally important antecedents that clearly led up and contributed to the massacre. To her credit, Sood acknowledges that the state wanted to avoid any findings that might have liability implications. ‘The specter of possible litigation was ever-present.’ (page 10), she points out …”

            Dr. Amada’s critique can be found in PsycCRITIQUES, January 12, 2015, Vol. 60, No. 2, Article 1 © 2015 American Psychological Association

RADIO INTERVIEW

Below is a site you should be able to go on and listen to my interview today on 99.1 F.M.

Preview attachment Cariens20150206InterviewXTRA99.1FM.MP3

Cariens20150206InterviewXTRA99.1FM.MP3

RADIO INTERVIEW ON FRIDAY AT 8:30 A.M.

Tomorrow, Friday February 6th, I am being interviewed on the Neal Steele show about my complaint against Virginia Supreme Court Justice Cleo E. Powell. The interview will be carried streaming on Xtra 99.1 FM Gloucester, Virginia.

APPARENTLY FACTS DON'T MATTER--THE JUDICIAL INQUIRY AND REVIEW COMMISSION

I received a response from the Judicial Inquiry And Review Commission to my complaint about the stunning error in Virginia Supreme Court Justice Cleo E. Powell's decision overturning the jury verdict in the Pryde and Peterson lawsuit against Virginia Tech.

The letter simply states the Commission "has no authority to review a judge's rulings and decisions." The Commission completely ignores the error and the probability that someone is not telling the truth. Rather than get on top of the situation and correct a written blunder of monumental proportions, both the Virginia Supreme Court and the Judicial Inquiry And Review Commission are content to let the error stands. Again, the objectivity and integrity of Virginia's legal system is seriously questioned and the inaction in the face of a Supreme Court decision based on a fact that is not true only leaves me speechless.

The Pryde and Peterson's civil rights and guarantees, under the law, to a fair and impartial hearing in court have been violated.

Here is response I received:

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission

P.O. Box 367

Richmond, Virginia 23218-0367

(804) 786-6636

Fax: (804) 371-0650

January 22, 2015

Mr. David Cariens

Xxxx

Kilmarnock, Va. 22482

Dear Mr. Cariens:

This is in response to your complaint to the Judicial Inquiry & Review Commission, dated January 17, 2015, alleging that a justice issued an erroneous opinion in an appeal. The Commission has no authority to review a judge’s rulings and decisions.

                                                                        Sincerely,

                                                                            Signed

                                                                        Robert Q. Harris

                                                                        Assistant Counsel

THE ACLU--SO MUCH FOR DEFENDING INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS TO FAIR AND IMPARTIAL COURTS

On November 3rd I sent a letter to Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, Executive Director of the ACLU in Richmond, Virginia, asking if her organization would help me with my complaint against Virginia Supreme Court Justice Cleo E. Powell.

I met Ms. Gastanaga in White Stone, Virginia where I asked to look at my argument. Her body language clearly indicated she did not welcome my request, but because I asked in the presence of others, she agreed to look at it. She also said she is a personal friend of Justice Powell. I naively hoped that if she could not help, but saw merits in my case, she would refer the complaint to someone else in the ACLU.

It is now nearly three months since I wrote Ms. Gastanaga. She has not responded and apparently does not intend to acknowledge my letter. Clearly, the old boy/old girl network is at work. In this case it is especially disappointing because of the high standards the ACLU ascribes to.

“ACLU MISSION STATEMENT. Since its founding in 1920, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been the guardian of liberty, working in the nation's courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve individual working rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws of the United States.”

LETTER TO THE VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL ABOUT THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT

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