OFF LINE FOR SEVERAL DAYS

I will not be posting for at least a week. I leave today for Richmond and hip replacement surgery tomorrow. I hope to resume next weekend or soon after.

JUDICIAL INQUIRY AND REVIEW COMMISSION--MOR COVER UP

    

On January 17, 2015, I filed a complaint against Justice Powell and the Virginia Supreme Court with the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission. I included my evidence to support my contention that the law had been broken and that Justice Powell had probably broken the two Canons of Judicial Conduct cited above (see my previous postings for the details of Justice Powell’s apparent crime).

Here is the response I got:

Dear Mr. Cariens:

This is in response to your complaint to the judicial inquiry and 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,

s/Robert Q. Harris

Assistant Counsel

The problem with Mr. Harris’ response is that the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission does have the right to investigate whether or not someone, in this case a Justice of the Supreme Court, has broken the law. Also, had I been a rich man, I could have hired a lawyer to pursue my complaint, but that would have cost tens of thousands of dollars.

The other problem is the inequality of the justice system in Virginia. If I had introduced false evidence in any court proceeding in the State of Virginia, I would have received a heavy fine and probably a jail sentence. The old boy/old girl legal club struck in order to save the reputation of Virginia Supreme Court Justice Cleo Powell—so much for the justice system being blind. (To be continued)

SO MUCH FOR THE ACLU

On November 3, 2014, 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 her to look at my argument the Virginia Supreme Court had broken the law in its decision to throw out the jury verdict in the Pryde and Peterson lawsuit against Virginia Tech. 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 Cleo Powell, the Virginia Supreme Court justice who broke the law by introducing false evidence into the court’s unanimous decision to overturn the jury’s decision to hold Virginia Tech accountable for not warning the campus on April 16, 2007.  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 over three years since I wrote Ms. Gastanaga. She has not responded and apparently does not intend to acknowledge my letter. In this case it is especially disappointing because of the ACLU’s high professional standards.

“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.”

My only conclusion is that Ms. Gastanaga’s personal friendship with Virginia Supreme Court Justice Powell, outweighs not only her word, but the law itself. (To be continued)

VIRGINIA TECH: EVERYTHING WAS IN PLACE TO WARN

Everything was in place to warn the Virginia Tech campus on the morning of April16, 2007, but no one issued a warning. The school had all the means necessary to alert and lockdown the campus, but school officials dithered over wording and alert.

Over two and one half hours elapsed between the double homicide and the mass murder in Norris Hall. There was plenty of time to warn and to lockdown. But the school did next to nothing. So, to this day the basic question remains unanswered, why didn't the university issue a warning?

Virginia Tech had warned many times before. Indeed, a scant eight months before the Tech rampage, the school administration had set a standard for warning the university community. In the fall of 2006, a prisoner in the Blacksburg jail, William Morva, escaped and killed two people. There was no indication that Morva was on or near the campus, yet Virginia Tech warned and locked the campus down.

On April 16, 2007, there was a double murder in the middle of the campus. Thirteen bloody foot prints led from the crime scene to an exit stairwell; there were spent bullet shells on the floor but no weapon. The school issued no warning even though it was obvious the killer was on the loose. Had a lockdown of the campus been implemented, lives would have been saved. The administrative failure allowed two students to go to their French class where they were among the first of the 30 students and teachers killed in Norris Hall.

The identity of who was in charge is critical to understanding what happened on April 16, 2007.  And those in charge who did not act should be held accountable. There are two men who had the authority to warn—then-President Charles Steger and then-Virginia Tech Chief of Police Wendell Flinchum. A strong argument can be made that the inaction of these two men led to the death of 30 people in Norris Hall and the wounding of 17 others.

No one, or no organization was willing to hold the two men accountable for their inaction.

One of the most egregious failures in dealing with accountability was the Virginia Supreme Court, which introduced false evidence (breaking the law) in overturning the jury decision holding Virginia Tech accountable for incompetence.

Virginia Supreme Court Justice Powell’s decision incorrectly says the Blacksburg Police Department was in charge of the investigation on the morning of April 16^th. That is not true. Under sworn testimony both the Blacksburg and school police chiefs testified it was the Virginia Tech Police Chief who was in charge.

The Court is entitled to its opinions, but not its own facts. (To be continued)

PUBLIC CORRUPTION PAR EXCELLENCE

   

I have always taught my students that our judges and justices, despite their personal leanings (conservative or liberal) would, in the end, let the facts and evidence of the case guide their decisions. I have been terribly wrong.

As some of you probably know, the Pryde and Peterson families, parents of the students killed at Virginia Tech, refused to settle with the state. They filed a lawsuit, not to get money, but to get people under oath and to bring the facts out into the open.

The trial was a devastating indictment of Virginia Tech. On March 14, 2012, a jury awarded the two families $4 million each. But Virginia has sovereign immunity and the judge had to reduce the award to $100,000 each.

The money was not the issue; it was never the issue. The two families wanted to get truth out and the school’s incompetence exposed.

 

Then-Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli appealed the decision to the Virginia Supreme Court, one of the most conservative state supreme courts in the nation; a court that believes there are next to no situations where a person or organization can be held responsible for someone else’s actions.

I felt the case against the school was so overpowering that even the Virginia Supreme Court could do nothing else but uphold the jury verdict. Indeed, it is not common for any Supreme Court to overturn a jury verdict. But in what appears to a politically motivated action, the Virginia Supreme Court did just that, and in an error-ridden decision that broke the law, overturned the ruling.

It is against the law for a Supreme Court justice to introduce false evidence into a case or the review of a decision. But that is exactly what Justice Cleo E. Powell did. On October 13, 2013, Justice Powell and all the Court Justices, in a unanimous decision, signed off on a decision overturning the jury verdict.

Page two of that reversal contains a critical factual error. Justice Powell wrote that on the morning of April 16, 2007, "Although officers from the Virginia Tech Police Department were the first on the scene, the Blacksburg Police Department led the investigation." That is not true.

The Virginia Tech Police Department under Chief Wendell Flinchum was in charge. There is a legal agreement between Blacksburg and the school stating, that the police department (Virginia Tech) requesting assistance will retain control of the investigation.

I have a letter from Blacksburg Police Chief Kim Crannis stating the investigation was conducted in accordance with the agreement. I have that agreement. I also have read the five volumes of the trial and both Chief Crannis and Chief Flinchum testified under oath that Chief Flinchum was in charge.

I believe Justice Powell has broken the law, obstructed justice, and violated two Canons of the Canons of Judicial Conduct for the State of Virginia. They are Canons 1 and 2.

CANON 1

JUDICIARY.

A. A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY

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.

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.

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.

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.

WHY IMPORTANT

This error is important because, as stated above, it is against the law to introduce false evidence into any court proceeding. It is important because the Virginia Supreme Court has re-written history. The Blacksburg police chief did not have the authority to warn and lockdown the campus. Powell’s decision alters the historical record, obscuring the fact that Virginia Tech Police Chief Flinchum failed in his duties to the school, faculty, staff, and students.

I have read the five-volume transcript of the Pryde and Peterson trial proceedings and nowhere is there reference to Chief Crannis being in charge of the investigation.

Below is an example of the testimony, taken directly from the trial transcripts, stating that Virginia Tech Police Chief Wendell Flinchum was in charge of the investigation:

Virginia Tech Police Chief Wendell Flinchum's testimony that he was in charge of the investigation:

Q: I want to be clear about this, this was a Virginia Tech police investigation. Is that correct?

A: It was, yes.

Q: And you were in charge and you were responsible.

A: I was responsible, yes. ...

Blacksburg Police Chief Kimberly Crannis's testimony that Flinchum was in charge of the investigation:

Q: This was a Virginia Tech investigation, right?

A: Yes, it was.

Q: And Chief Flinchum was in charge?

A: Yes, he was.

Q: But you were providing support as you just indicated?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: The conclusion that you tentatively reached with respect to a domestic homicide that you just testified to, was that a topic of conversation between you and Chief Flinchum?

A: Yes, it was. ...

(To be continued)

MORE CORRUPT THAN I THOUGHT

“If it is not independent, it is not worthy of trust. Investigations have to have integrity and they have to have fairness. If they don’t have that, they are not dependable for anyone.”    John Dowd, Former MLB Special Council

Since Angela Dales’ murder at the Appalachian School of Law on January 16, 2002, we, as a nation, appeared to have lowered our standards so much that it is relatively easy for people with low intellect, little character, and a healthy dose of incompetence to buy the people we have put our trust in—our politicians, lawyers, and judges. When I did my research for this chapter the magnitude of the dishonesty and corruption hit me like a kick in the stomach. The situation is stunningly distressing.

VICTIMIZING THE VICTIMS

Just when you think the gun manufacturers and National Rifle Association (NRA) have sunk about as low as they can go, they come up with something even more outrageous: Make dead victims’ families pay court costs of any legal action.

The gun makers and NRA have long engaged in nefarious lobbying activity that has undercut public safety. Now they have persuaded politicians to adopt laws making the victims of gun violence pay the legal fees for challenging what appears to be their self-proclaimed, sacrosanct position above the law.

In September 2014, the Brady Center announced a lawsuit on behalf of Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, accusing Web site companies of negligence for selling weapons to the Aurora, Colorado theater shooter, James Holmes. The Phillips daughter, Jessica Ghawi, was killed in the shooting. The lawsuit charged the companies with negligence for selling weapons (including ammunition, body armor, tear gas and other equipment used in this assault) to someone as obviously unstable as Holmes. Holmes ended up killing 12 and wounding 70 others on July 20, 2012 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.

Senior U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch of the District of Colorado dismissed the Phillips’ suit against four Web sites because Colorado and federal laws shield firearms and ammunition sellers from liability based on a customer’s wrongful acts. Phillips et al. v. Lucky Gunner LLC et al., No. 14–cv–02822, 2015 WL 1499382 (D. Colo. Mar. 27, 2015).

Both federal and Colorado laws protect gun makers and sellers from being held responsible for selling arms to people who are a danger to themselves and others. Colorado, however, has taken this a step further, requiring plaintiffs to pay the court costs of the gun makers and sellers.

Lucky Gunner and Sportsman Guide (two of the companies selling to Holmes) have already filed motions for $220,000 in legal costs. According to press reports, another arms dealer, BTP Arms, wants $33,000. BTP Arms request will probably fail because the law does not cover the two tear gas grenades Holmes bought from BTP Arms, nor does the law cover the four pieces of body armor he bought from bulletproofbodyarmorhq.com.

The Phillips’ lawsuit underscores the reality that the average citizen is nearly helpless in the face of the wealth and power of the NRA, gun manufacturers, and gun sellers. The Phillips’ lawsuit is a shocking example of just how disadvantaged the average citizen is. The average citizen has virtually no recourse against the power elite—weapons manufacturers and the gun lobby.  (To be continued)