Doing Nothing is Not an Option

The Connecticut massacre defies description; it takes your breath away; it is a nightmare. Actions to prevent the slaughter of innocent children and adults cannot wait—the time is now for calm, non-partisan thinking and action.

There are things we can do here on the Northern Neck. First, we cannot allow our elected officials to run and hide from the needed, candid conversation. Second, we must make increased mental health a basic part of the solution.

Virginia has suffered two school shootings. Yet, in many respects our schools are no safer than before April 17, 2007. We need to talk calmly; we need to reject violence in every form. But here in the Northern Neck we elect an official arrested for domestic abuse, some have bumper stickers—“locked and loaded,” others scream and yell breaking up political discussions.

Elected officials often won’t communicate with the family of a school-shooting victim; specifically, Congressman Robert Wittman and state Delegate Margaret Ransone. Since the murder of our daughter-in-law, I have spent considerable money and time to help make our schools safer, I have written two books addressing the subject and I am co-writing another with the Virginia Tech families.

I have written both Wittman and Ransone with questions and comments on school safety. Both have at least two families with members who have been killed or wounded on college campuses—but that apparently counts for nothing. Ransone simply never answers. Wittman either never answers or his office obfuscates. Defending the Second Amendment and keeping guns out of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill are not mutually exclusive.

If the politicians won’t even talk about what needs to be done to prevent mass murders--nothing will be done. Nothing is not an option; the slaughter of 20 beautiful little children and six wonderful adults is proof of that. 

VIRGINIA TECH FOIA REQUEST

December 10, 2012

Mr. Larry Hincker

Vice President University Relations

315-F Burruss Hall (0229)

Blacksburg, Va. 22482

Re: Freedom of Information Request

Dear Mr. Hincker:

At the suggestion of Lynda Turrieta-McLeod, FOIA Administrator, Attorney General’s Office, I am submitting the following requests to you.

1. Would you send me all documents pertaining to the amount of money spent by Virginia Tech in appealing the Department of Education’s ruling that Virginia Tech violated the Clery Act?

2. Would you also send me any documents in possession showing payments or contributions to payments by any individuals, organizations, or foundations on behalf of Virginia Tech in the appeals process?

Thanking you in advance,

                                                                                    Sincerely,

                                                                                    David Cariens, Jr.

                                                                                    

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S INADEQUATE RESPONSE

           

            The Attorney General’s Office response to my Freedom of Information request pertaining to the Pryde and Peterson lawsuit against Virginia Tech is--not to release any documents. This lack of transparency regarding school shootings in Virginia is the norm and raises troubling questions. Consistently, pertinent information to these crimes has not been shared with investigators or the public.

            The failure of the State Police and the ATF to give documents concerning Seung-Hui Cho’s gun purchases to the Governor’s Review Panel Report means a critical part of the puzzle is missing for both investigators and the public.

            This pattern of not sharing vital information to people investigating school shootings is all too frequent in Virginia. At the time of the shooting at the Appalachian School of Law, the police and Attorney General’s office refused to make information public pertaining to a threat that one of the victims received.

            Now, the Attorney General’s office refuses to make public any documents pertaining to its hiring of Dr. Dennis Mileti as an expert consultant for the state in the Pryde and Peterson trial. So, the question remains, why was Mileti paid over $27,000.00 in consultation fees? He appears to posses few if any qualifications to give expert testimony on mass shootings. Was this some sort of ‘ole boy’ network at work? I am really at a loss to see what Mileti could supply that is worth $27,000.00.

            If you look at Mileti’s biography he specializes in natural disasters, earthquakes, and volcanoes. The Attorney General did not call him to testify. Here is Mileti’s biography:

            Dr. Mileti is Professor Emeritus at the University of Colorado at Boulder, where he served as Chair of the Department of Sociology and as Director of the Natural Hazards Center—the U.S.’s national clearinghouse for social and behavioral science research on hazards and disasters.

            Dr. Mileti is the author of more than 100 publications, most of which are on the societal aspects of hazards and disasters. His book Disasters by Design summarized and assessed knowledge in all disciplines and U.S. national policy for hazards and disasters. He was the founder and coeditor-in-chief of the all-hazards and all-disciplines journal Natural Hazards Review.

            He has served on a variety of advisory boards, including the Committee on Natural Disasters in the National Research Council; the Board of Visitors to FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute; the Board of Directors of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute; the Advisory Board to the U.S. Geological Survey’s Research Program on Earthquakes and Volcanoes; the Expert Advisory Panel for the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s study of evacuation of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11; the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Expert Panel for the Army Corps of Engineers’ assessment of the New Orleans levee failures, for which he was given the Outstanding Civilian Service Medal by the Department of the Army; and as a member of the California Seismic Safety Commission. Dr. Mileti is currently a member of the START Center at the University of Maryland, which is a Department of Homeland Security National Center of Excellence for research on terrorism. He also serves on the NRC’s Committee to Evaluate the U.S.’s National Tsunami Warning Program and on the Board of Directors of the Southern California Earthquake Center.

Here is the response from the Attorney General’s office:
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

Office of the Attorney General

December 6, 2012

David Cariens

Kilmarnock, Virginia 22482

            Re:  Freedom of Information Request

Dear Mr. Cariens;

            This office is in receipt of your request for records made in accordance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, 2.2-3700 et seq.

            You have asked for several different categories of documents pertaining to Dr. Dennis Mileti, an expert witness retained to testify in the Pryde and Petersen trial. You requested the “document review” itemized by Dr. Mileti as well as Dr. Mileti’s review of “documents from their expert,” “Laughery deposition and attachments,” and Dr. MIleti’s review of “Morva documents.”

            Counsel’s communications with Dr. Mileti including counsel’s requests that Dr. Mileti review certain documents were done in anticipation of litigation, and were made for use during litigation. They reflect counsel’s legal theories and constitute the work product of defense counsel. These materials are work product prepared for use in litigation and will be withheld pursuant to Virginia Code 2.2-3705 (3) which creates an exclusion from the Freedom of Information Act for such work product.

            Dr. Mileti’s “write up of draft opinions,” notes of telephone conversations with Ed.  Spencer, Kim O’Rourke, Lisa Wilkes and attorneys, and the unobtrusive indicators study are not in the possession of this Office. Furthermore, and such documents created by Dr. Mileti for use in litigation constitute work product which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Virginia Code 2.2-3705.1 (3).

            “Deposition guidance for our attorneys,” “bibliography preparation for deposition” and any notes, records or documents related to “position plan development,” were created by Dr. Mileti for use in the litigation and they constitute work product which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Virginia Code 2.2-3075.1 (3).

            None of the documents you refer to in paragraphs 5 and 6 of your letter of November 26, 2012 are in the possession of this office.

            All of the documents that you have requested relate to an expert witness retained to testify in a lawsuit. As such, these materials, which approximate 500 pages, constitute “work product complied specifically for use in litigation” pursuant to Virginia Code 2.2-3705.1 (3). For this reason, these documents will not be released.

                                                                      Sincerely,

                                                                           signed

                                                                      Peter R. Messitt

                                                                      Senior Assistant Attorney General

Rebutting Bowes

Richmond Times-Dispatch

Letter-to-the-Editor

Editor:

The recent article by Mark Bowes on gun sales and reduced crimes may be a classic example of manipulation of the facts. First, the Times-Dispatch asked VCU Professor Thomas Baker to do their research. Baker studied under pro-gun Professors Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz at Florida State. The paper apparently wanted the end result to be pro-gun rights. There are scholars whose research is not tainted by past associations. Second, the spike in Virginia gun sales is probably an anomaly directly attributable to the hysteria (fed by manufacturers and gun shop owners to increase sales) that President Obama is going to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Therefore the results (and conclusions) are skewed.

The Times-Dispatch has retreated from the outstanding investigative journalism done in connection with the shooting at Virginia Tech. The paper now outsources its work. With the departure of reporter David Ress, the Times-Dispatch apparently has not found anyone to carry on his hard-hitting research and writing.

David Cariens

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST CONCERNING THE PRYDE/PETERSON LAWSUIT

In reviewing the expenses incurred by the Virginia Attorney General’s office incurred in connection with the Pryde/Peterson trial, I came across a puzzling bill for over $27,000.00 for an “expert” in earthquake and natural disasters. I have therefore filed a Freedom of Information request to determine how and why the state used Dr. Mileti.

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli

Office of the Attorney General

900 East Main Street

Richmond, Va. 23219

REF: Freedom of Information Request

Attorney General Cuccinelli:

Dr. Dennis Mileti was paid $27,097.64 for his expertise in connection with Pryde and Peterson trial, according to Mileti’s itemized expenses provided to me by your office on July 12, 2012. Please provide me all written documents, notes, and materials referred to in Dr. Mileti’s invoices dated July 30, 2011, August 29, 2011, September 29, 2011, February 22, 2012, and March 15, 2012. I would specifically like the package to include, but not be limited to, the following:

1.     All written documents and notes pertaining to his teleconferences with all attorneys, as well as with Kim O’Rourke, and Lisa Wilkes. The Write-up of draft opinions referred to in Dr. Mileti’s invoice for the period of July 13, 2011-July 28, 2011.

2.     All written material pertaining to Dr. Mileti’s “document review and opinion formulation.”

3.     The deposition “guidance preparation for our attorneys” referred to in the August 29, 2011 invoice.

4.     All notes, records, and documents related to the “position plan development” referred to in the invoice dated September 29, 2011.

5.     The “scope unobtrusive indicators study” referred to in the February 22, 2012 invoice, as well as all notes and documents from the “unobtrusive indicator teleconference w/Ed Spence” referred to in the same invoice.

6.     All documents and notes referred to by “case preparation” in the March 15, 2012 invoice.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

                                                                                    Yours sincerely,

                                                                                   

                                                                                    David Cariens

                                                                        

Reinstate Steger

Attorneys for the two Virginia Tech victims’ families who sued the school for failing to warn that a killer was on the loose on April 16, 2007, have appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court to reinstate school President Steger as a defendant.

There are, however, serious questions whether the families have a chance. The Virginia court system is politicized, and judges seem to care more about ideology than about truth.

Unlike other states’ Supreme Courts, Virginia’s highest court usually rules based on the far right ideological premise that organizations, businesses, and government agencies have absolutely no obligation to warn despite overwhelming evidence of imminent violence. The need-to-warn concept is “foreseeablility.” Other states’ courts recognize it; Virginia’s supreme court usually doesn’t.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers correctly argue that Steger has not been truthful in recounting April 16, 2007.  Following the shooting, Steger hired a crisis-management firm. That team prepared Steger for a Meet the Press interview that aired on September 23, 2007 in which he said a suspect was taken into custody after the dormitory double homicide—two hours before the Norris Hall massacre. Steger’s words were a lie. If Steger will lie on national television, can we believe anything he says?

Evidence in court documents, in the Governor’s Review Panel Report, and Steger’s own words show that he has repeatedly been less than candid and frequently untruthful.

Virginia judges are appointed by the state legislature. Brutally powerful right-wing politicians tried to derail the families’ lawsuit. These same politicians will work behind-the-scenes to ensure Steger is not held accountable.

When I wrote the book on Virginia’s first school shooting at the Appalachian School of Law, our Kilmarnock lawyer asked me, “How many corrupt judges have you uncovered?” I hope none of those, or like-minded, judges are on the Virginia Supreme Court.

            

Cuccinelli—One White Lie After Another

There seems no end to the depths the Virginia Attorney General will sink in order to deny justice to the families of the victims of the Virginia Tech shootings.

 The Attorney General’s office has appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court to overturn the jury decision that Tech failed to live up to its obligation to warn the campus that a killer was on the loose.  In fact, the Attorney General’s office may have broken the law in writing the appeal. You cannot represent to a court something that you know is false—and that is what the Attorney General’s office appears to have done. Furthermore, if you present something to a court leading to an incorrect inference because you have not presented all the facts, it is tantamount to a lie. And Cuccinelli’s office appears to have done that as well.

In describing the morning of April 16, 2007, Cuccinelli’s denies a duty to warn because “multiple police forces on the scene did not believe the campus was in danger.” That is simply not true. The erroneous decision that the dormitory double homicide was a “domestic incident” was the decision of one man alone—Chief Wendell Flinchum. Furthermore, the dead male was gay; there was no reason for the dead female’s boyfriend to be jealous.

Without presenting evidence (because there is none), Cuccinelli’s office says school President Steger “understood … that the perpetrator likely left the campus” and did not warn. The Attorney General appears to believe that a killer is any less dangerous after committing murder than before?

Finally, the Supreme Court is not told of the thirteen bloody footprints leading away from the crime scene and a bloody thumbprint on a doorknob leading to a stairwell and a building exit. That alone is evidence to warn immediately.