Welcome to Unalienable Rights Foundation!

· Home
· AvantGo
· Content
· Downloads
· Members_List
· Stories_Archive
· Surveys
· Top
· Topics
· Web_Links

     What Are/Is

The Unalienable Rights Foundation

Inalienable Rights

Dillon Rule

Citizens Guide - Impeachment

     Random Headlines

UARF Civil Rights Case Management
[ UARF Civil Rights Case Management ]

·Donald Edwards is no longer Associated with this Foundation
·Accomack County Circuit Court Missing Index and Records
·Josh Thompson / UARF Civil Rights Case Manager
·Who in Northampton County Govt. Forged Public Records?
·How to ''impeach'' the Northampton County Board of Supervisors


What is a UARF Fellow 

     CNN LAW
·Court upholds limits on Navy sonar training
·Slain wife accuses husband from the grave
·Prosecutors drop parent-killing case
·Priest accused of lying in mob investigation
·Inmate shot dead after brazen escape
·Juror: Judge and jury pressured me to convict
·Man convicted for Internet hoax death
·Zoloft killer's 30-year sentence appealed
·Girl who shielded mom is a hero at school
·Holloway disappearance hits cold case file


     Instructions For Replying to Our FOIA


Instructions for Responding to
Our FOIA Request to You Click Below

Unalienable Rights Foundation: Public Watch Dog

Search on This Topic:   
[ Go to Home | Select a New Topic ]

 Illegal separate emoluments or privileges for Judges and Lawyers

Public  Watch  Dog

Courts Daily Violate the U.S. CONSTITUTION

The mere fact that the Journal acknowledges that a Public reprimand is rare makes our Case

What is the violation, you ask?

The Constitution of Virginia [1971]

Article 1 Bill of Rights.

Section 4. No exclusive emoluments or privileges; offices not to be hereditary. — That no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.

When a judge or lawyer violates the promulgations that touch and concern [1] their position under which they hold a position under the government of this state or [2]  a license/privilege granted by the state the discipline/punishment they receive for such violations of the promulgations should not be withheld from the people of this Commonwealth.    Yet we see where in-fact that is not the case. When we  see that the Legislature and the Courts of this Commonwealth have special privacy rules for its members, in which the bad conduct or the failure to follow the rules, that touch and concern judges and lawyers of the Commonwealth are not disclosed we in fact have exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community.  Is this not a violation of the Constitution of Virginia?



D.C. Circuit Issues Rare Public Reprimand of Lawyer"These failings were not a matter of mere oversight or poor law practice housekeeping," court says about attorney.

(l-r) Patricia Millett, Robert Wilkins, and Judith Rogers.

A lawyer in Washington who showed “a palpable lack of respect for both this court and the disciplinary process" received a rare public reprimand Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Kevin McCants, a solo practitioner in Washington, was disciplined for failing to take action on behalf of his client and failing to communicate with the client. The three-judge panel also chided him for demonstrating a “cavalier attitude” toward the court’s orders during the disciplinary process. The case is sealed except for the reprimand. Few other details are known.

“Moreover, it is also clear that these failings were not a matter of mere oversight or poor law practice housekeeping,” Judges Judith Rogers, Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins wrote in the reprimand. “In addition, [McCants] has offered inconsistent explanations for his conduct, suggesting a distinct lack of candor. This lack of candor, among other factors, counsels against diversion and in favor of discipline.”

In a phone interview on Wednesday, McCants said he didn’t file pleadings because he refused to represent the client, who had been difficult to work with. The client, whom McCants declined to name, citing the confidentiality of the disciplinary proceedings, “was looking for an ineffective [assistance of counsel] claim from the start,” he said.

"It was just unfortunate," McCants said. “I’m prepared to move past it."

Unlike a suspension or disbarment, the reprimand doesn’t affect McCants’ ability to practice in the court. He has no history of discipline in the D.C. Bar, which he’s been a member of since 2005.

The Office of Bar Counsel investigates hundreds of complaints each year against members of the D.C. Bar, but they're much less common in the federal courts.

Lawyers who practice in the federal trial and appeals courts typically belong to the bars of those courts, separate from membership in the D.C. Bar. The federal courts each have their own disciplinary system. The D.C. Circuit on average handles about 20 discipline cases each year, according to court records.

Most disciplinary matters in the D.C Circuit involve lawyers who were already disciplined elsewhere or lawyers convicted of a crime. Cases that arise from allegations of misconduct before the D.C. Circuit, known as original discipline, are in the minority, said Barry Cohen, chairman of the D.C. Circuit’s Advisory Committee on Admissions and Grievances. The committee investigates disciplinary cases and makes recommendations to the court, which ultimately decides whether to sanction a lawyer.

Cohen, a member of the committee since 2008, said he could only recall a handful of original-discipline cases. He declined to comment on the McCants matter.

“This is the court of appeals, it’s not like a trial court. What happens in courts of appeals? People file papers, they have oral arguments—there’s not a lot of ways that bad things can happen there,” Cohen said.

Arthur Burger, who leads the professional-responsibility practice at Jackson & Campbell in Washington, said that the smaller pool of high-caliber lawyers who typically practice in the D.C. Circuit was one reason it was unusual to see the court take disciplinary action against a lawyer.

The court can refer disciplinary matters to the Office of Bar Counsel to investigate rather than pursue them internally. The Office of Bar Counsel does not track how many referrals it receives from the D.C. Circuit, Bar Counsel Wallace “Gene” Shipp Jr. said.

“We have relationships with all of the courts to make referrals to us,” Shipp said in an email. “Sometimes we work together on cases or they refer the matter us to conduct the investigation.”

When the D.C. Circuit does take up a case, it could be that the judges want to send a message to the lawyers who practice in that court, Burger said.

“They may want to put down a marker for their expectations of the lawyers that appear in the circuit,” Burger said. “This is a way for them to set that marker and not necessarily be beholden to the priorities or the timing or the perspective of bar counsel.”


Posted by editor on Tuesday, August 04 @ 07:52:19 MST (4041 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

 Are Ivy League Law Schools Anti-Christian

Public  Watch  Dog New Page 1

Image result for ivy league

Ivy Leagues do not practice diversity and equal opportunity 

If you are White / Christian / and don't believe the world doesn't owe you a living

If you oppose affirmative action and believe in equal opportunity

Believe marriage can only occur between an man and a woman

Ivy League Schools don't want you

By these standards Ivy League Schools should be awarding honorary degrees to all member of the Libertarian Party

An ideology contrary to the Ivy League's  religious roots


Professor Says Ivy League Stiffs Conservative Justices

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is awarded a Doctor of Laws honorary degree at the 263rd commencement of Princeton University in Princeton, N.J., on June 1, 2010.  The hood is presented by Douglas W. Clark, the University's Chief Marshal for University Convocations.

Are the nation’s Ivy League schools giving short shrift to conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices when they confer honorary degrees? A survey by one law professor suggests the answer is yes, and that the reason is ideology.

Of the 14 honorary degrees bestowed by Ivy League institutions to living justices, 12 went to those on the high court’s left side, said conservative legal scholar John McGinnis of Northwestern University School of Law. The two exceptions, from Brown and Yale, went to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a moderate conservative, he said.

“Honorary degrees are the highest symbol of recognition that universities can bestow,” McGinnis wrote in a recent post on the Online Library of Law and Liberty. “And the Ivy League retains the greatest reputation for excellence in American higher education. Thus, it is of more than a little interest that these institutions find excellence overwhelmingly in justices on the left of the judiciary.”

McGinnis, in an interview, said he is “generally interested in the question of the influence of elites on the structure of law, and, of course, the Ivy League is that.” That general interest became particular, he added, when he read that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was to receive another honorary degree. He decided to examine which justices were receiving Ivy League universities’ honorary degrees.

Ginsburg, perhaps the court’s most liberal justice, is the record holder with honorary degrees from every Ivy League university except Cornell, which doesn’t award them, he said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor has one each from Princeton and Yale—her alma maters. Justice Samuel Alito Jr., who graduated from both of those schools, has yet to be recognized.

Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens and David Souter—also viewed as left of center—have one each from the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton and Harvard, respectively.

And how about the court’s main conservatives: Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. (Harvard College and Harvard Law graduate), and justices Antonin Scalia (Harvard Law), Anthony Kennedy (Harvard Law) and Clarence Thomas (Yale Law)? No Ivy League honorary degrees.

“What makes this performance even more obviously ideologically driven is that these academic institutions have neglected the one who has had the most academic influence—Antonin Scalia,” McGinnis wrote. “Regardless of whether one agrees with him, his textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in constitutional interpretation have been driving the academic debate. And Chief Justice John Roberts is widely regarded as a very able chief—the first among equals—as well as perhaps the best oral advocate of his generation.”

Perhaps the Ivy League schools tried to bestow honorary degrees on the court’s living conservative justices but ran into practical problems—schedule conflicts, etc.—or even a dislike of honorary degrees?

“It’s possible, of course,” McGinnis said. “Still, it’s interesting that the only people with schedule conflicts or problems are the justices on one side of the court. That’s not a very powerful reason.”

Institutional values

Honorary degrees, it is believed, began with European institutions in the late Middle Ages. In America, George Washington received one of the first—in 1776 from Harvard, the nation’s oldest university. Today, most universities that confer honorary degrees do so upon recommendations by committees comprising faculty, administrators, trustees or others.

In his book, “Versions of Academic Freedom: From Professionalism to Revolution,” literary theorist and legal scholar Stanley Fish rejected the notion that an honorary degree award is a strong statement of a university’s own values. He wrote: “By conferring an honorary degree, a university recognizes the significance—in the sense of magnitude—of the recipient’s labors; it does not endorse them.”

McGinnis’ colleague, Andrew Koppelman, represents the law school on Northwestern University’s honorary degree committee, and he rejects Fish’s view of those degrees.

“Fish is obviously wrong about the significance of honorary degrees,” he said. “Suppose that a university gave an honorary degree—while he was still alive—to Osama bin Laden, in recognition of the fact that he managed to have political effects of enormous magnitude. Would Fish support that?

“But even if you applied Fish’s standard, it would be odd that Sotomayor and not Scalia gets honorary degrees,” Koppelman said. “Thus far, Scalia’s work on the court has been far more significant.”

As for McGinnis’ survey, Koppelman, who is to the left of McGinnis, said, “I agree with John on this one. His evidence of political bias is pretty overwhelming.”

Yale Law School does not give out honorary degrees—the university does the bestowing. Yale’s website lists its criteria for the awards: "Since the commencement of 1702, the Yale Corp. has awarded honorary degrees to recognize outstanding achievement. Currently, the honorary degrees awarded annually at the university’s commencement are the highest honors conferred by Yale. From Martin Luther King Jr. to Frank Lloyd Wright and Cole Porter, those who have received honorary degrees represent collectively the aspirations of this institution.”

From the political realm, honorary degree recipients have included Hillary Clinton and presidents George W. Bush and Gerald Ford, according to the university.

As to whether ideology is a factor, a university representative said, “We wouldn’t have information for you on the work of the honorary degree committee regarding the candidates they may consider. We only announce the names of degree recipients.”

A Princeton spokesman declined to discuss details about any individual considered for an honorary degree, but said they are awarded only if 80 percent of a committee comprising trustees, faculty and students approves. The full board of trustees makes the final decision.

“Ideology plays no role in making decisions about honorary degrees. Please note that we awarded our honorary degree to Justice Sotomayor in 2001, long before she was named to the Supreme Court,” the spokesman said.

Conservatives honored

So what universities have awarded honorary degrees to the high court’s conservative justices? Here is a sample:

Roberts: College of the Holy Cross.

Scalia: William & Mary, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, Marymount University, University of Notre Dame.

Kennedy: New York University, University of the Pacific.

Thomas: College of the Holy Cross, The John Marshall Law School.

Alito: Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law; St. Mary’s College in Notre Dame, Indiana, Seton Hall University School of Law.

McGinnis believes the different treatment of justices on the right and left “offers some indirect evidence” that professors on the right also suffer discrimination at elite law schools.

“After all, the faculty and the administration of the law schools likely have some influence on who gets honorary degrees,” he wrote. “And no doubt there is likely to be a similar message in many classrooms about which justices are worthy of emulation.”

Read more:

Study: Supreme Court’s Not as Liberal as People Think

Justices' Financial Reports Shed Light on Alito 'Unrecusal'

How Do Supreme Court Justices Manage to Get Along?

Three Justices Swap Stories at Yale Law School

Justice Clarence Thomas Asks a Question—at Yale

Posted by editor on Monday, August 03 @ 15:20:49 MST (3372 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

 President is [b]ound to resist force by force.

Public  Watch  Dog

“If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is

not only authorized but bound to resist force by force. He does not

 initiate the war, but is bound to accept the challenge without

 waiting for any special legislative authority. . . . Whether the

President in fulfilling his duties, as Commander in-chief, in

suppressing an insurrection, has met with such armed hostile

resistance . . . is a question to be decided by him.Prize

Cases, 2 Black 635, 668, 670 (1863).

buy medicines online pharmacy brand viagra online medicine online shopping generic dostinex Last news canadian pharmacy cialis optimise medicine use.

Posted by editor on Friday, September 05 @ 03:27:10 MST (5552 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

 Hon. Andrew P. Harris, M.D. / Discussing the Affordable Care Act

Public  Watch  Dog
The Federalist Society
The Washington, D.C. Lawyers Chapter Presents its
February D.C. Lunch 
Hon. Andrew P. Harris, M.D.
United States House of Representatives,
Discussing the Affordable Care Act
For more upcoming
 events: Click here

  DATE: Friday, February 21, 2014
  TIME: 12:00 noon - 1:30 p.m.


  LOCATION: Tony Cheng's
                          619 H Street, N.W.
                          Washington, D.C.
                          Third Floor

  COST: $15 Member, $20 Non-Member (includes lunch)

Please click here to register online for the D.C. Lunch. You can also choose to pay at the door by completing your registration online. Please include the names of all registrants. 

If you would like to purchase a table, contact Juli Nix at

juli.nix@fed-soc.org for details.


The Federalist Society
buy medicines online pharmacy brand viagra online

Posted by editor on Thursday, February 06 @ 09:15:17 MST (8832 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

 Politics on the Bench — a Judge's View of Partisanship at Play

Public  Watch  Dog

Politics on the Bench — a Judge's View of Partisanship at Play

Dianne McGarey, of Ankeny, Iowa, holds a sign during a rally by gay marriage opponents

Jianne McGarey, of Ankeny, Iowa, holds a sign during a rally by gay marriage opponents

Photo: AP / Charlie Neibergall

As more state courts across the United States render difficult decisions about same-sex marriage, the political firestorm that engulfed the Iowa Supreme Court three years ago over its marriage ruling is receding in public memory.

The Iowa episode has currency today, however, especially given soaring special-interest spending in judicial elections that threatens to turn judges into politicians-in-robes. My experience at the center of the Iowa storm, meanwhile, has only strengthened my own belief in the importance of keeping politics out of the courtroom.

In 2010, Iowa voters removed two colleagues and me from the court in a retention (yes-or-no) election. Well-funded out-of-state groups and other critics fueled the ouster drive, decrying a unanimous 2009 court ruling. That decision held an Iowa statute denying civil marriage — and the benefits flowing from that status — to same-sex couples violated their right to equal protection under the Iowa Constitution. Following the ruling, the members of the court were attacked as activist judges and members of a ruling class.

Public debate about the merits of court decisions is a healthy aspect of a democratic society, yet the unprecedented Iowa ouster campaign delivered a message of intimidation and retaliation. That message is utterly inconsistent with the concept of a judiciary charged with the responsibility to uphold the constitutional rights of all citizens, not just the constitutional rights of the majority.

Unfortunately, this effort to politicize impartial courts is not receding. A report just released by two nonpartisan groups, Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, finds that in the 2011-2012 judicial election cycle nationwide, TV advertising rose to a record $33.7 million, and special-interest groups and political parties spent a record $24.7 million toward this advertising and other election materials.


As a result, a crisis of public confidence in the courts is brewing. Eighty-seven percent of voters believe judicial campaign spending and independent expenditures influence courtroom outcomes, according to a poll by the report's authors.

What these disturbing facts do not reflect is how politicization influences the way our courts make decisions. On this issue, I'd like to give an inside view.

Courts of last resort approach decision-making in two strikingly different ways, I've concluded from my experience and from talking to judges in other states. This difference separates impartial courts that deliberate collectively, and politicized courts that approach decisions along philosophical or ideological lines.

When judges holding diverse perspectives pursue a collegial approach to decision-making, we effectively hold each other accountable to the rule of law. A collective wisdom is brought to bear when judges listen to, and find value in, their colleagues' different perspectives.

This collective approach delivers far better decision-making than that of courts politicized through judicial elections. Politicized courts become mini-legislatures composed of judges with preordained views who believe their opinions must be represented. When judges are chosen because they represent a philosophy or ideology, a collegial effort is no longer possible. Whoever has a majority carries the day. In this setting, how can the rule of law be applied impartially if the law shifts back and forth, depending upon the presence of a Democratic or a Republican majority? And how, then, shall the public keep its confidence in the integrity of courts?

Today, I still believe the best judicial decisions are made when judges are insulated from politics. And despite my experience in 2010, I continue to believe that judicial merit selection systems like Iowa's, incorporating a nonpartisan screening commission and gubernatorial appointment, offer the best defense against politicized courts.

buy medicines online pharmacy brand viagra online

Posted by editor on Thursday, January 23 @ 04:21:19 MST (4272 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

 'West Memphis Three' member warns against a politicized justice system

Public  Watch  Dog

'West Memphis Three' member warns against a politicized justice system

It's been 16 months since Damien Echols walked out of the prison where he spent 18 years for his purported role in the murder of three 8-year-old boys in West Memphis, Ark. Echols and his two co-defendants—Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley—became known as the "West Memphis Three," and they had fought in the courts for nearly two decades to clear their names.

The three were teenagers in 1993 when the killings occurred, and Echols found himself cast by authorities as the ringleader; police and prosecutors argued, based on little more the suspects' taste for heavy metal music, their perceived role as outsiders in the community and a questionable confession by Misskelley, that they killed the boys during a satanic ritual. Echols was sentenced to death and Baldwin and Misskelley to life in prison.

Click here to read more on Law.com

For full article

Posted by david on Sunday, December 16 @ 02:00:00 MST (3233 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

 Cake Walk is over for judicial appointments?

Public  Watch  Dog

DECEMBER 06, 2012

Posted by david on Sunday, December 09 @ 18:40:04 MST (3390 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

 State election board votes for AG investigation into voter registration dumping

Public  Watch  Dog New Page 1


Office of the Attorney General

Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II

Attorney General

900 East Main Street

Richmond, Virginia 23219


FAX 804-786-1991



Contact: Brian Gottstein, Director of Communication

bgottstein@oag.state.va.us (best contact method)




State election board votes for AG investigation into voter registration dumping


RICHMOND (October 24, 2012) -- Statement from Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli:


"The State Board of Elections held a special meeting today and requested that my office look into the allegations of voter registration dumping in Rockingham County. This office will perform a thorough investigation of these very serious allegations. Violations of election laws will not be tolerated in the commonwealth. Citizens must feel confident that one of our most precious rights-the right to vote-is protected and that the electoral process is a secure and democratic one. We will do everything we can to ensure that.


"In performing our duties in this matter, we look forward to working with local authorities and the state police to root out any and all violations of law that may have occurred."

Under current Virginia law, the attorney general's office could not open an investigation until today's unanimous request from the State Board of Elections, or a request from a local commonwealth's attorney or a local electoral board was made.


The attorney general is the only official in the commonwealth who has statewide prosecutorial authority. For this reason, Attorney General Cuccinelli supports legislation that would give the office concurrent authority with local commonwealth's attorneys to investigate and prosecute election law violations without awaiting a formal request from any other entity. This would allow the Office of the Attorney General to work across all jurisdictions with law enforcement and local prosecutors to investigate and punish violators.


More about Attorney General Cuccinelli


Photos of the attorney general


A copy of this news release may be found on the attorney general's web site here.


Like us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterFind us on PinterestView our videos on YouTubeView our photos on flickr

# # #


If you did not get this news release directly from our office, then

Join Our Mailing List

This email was sent to forensic.editor@helpcom.net by bgottstein@oag.state.va.us |
Office of the Attorney General of Virginia | 900 East Main St | Richmond | VA | 23219

Posted by DAVID on Thursday, October 25 @ 05:31:51 MST (14690 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

 State Police, others investigating reports of criminal actions by officials in t

Public  Watch  Dog

State Police, others investigating reports of criminal actions by officials in town of Hallwood

HALLWOOD (January 19, 2008) - - Officials of this tiny Eastern Shore town are under investigation by more than one agency for government corruption, relating to destruction of documents, abuse of authority, and other unspecified potential crimes, sources tell the Virginia News Source.

According to sources close to the investigation, State Police investigators on Tuesday went to the private workplace of town clerk Angela Taylor demanding town council records.

The source said she told them she was keeping them in her home and accompanied police there to retrieve them. One key tape recording is missing.

Sgt. Michelle Cotton, a spokesperson for the State Police said, "We can't comment on ongoing investigations."

The investigations were launched after Hallwood Town Councilman James Dean reported to the Virginia Beach-based Unalienable Rights Foundation (UARF) numerous government irregularities, including that he was unable to get copies of minutes or tapes of town council meetings.

UARF launched an investigation and filed several unsuccessful Freedom of Information Act requests for documents. UARF President David Lindsey said the town's clerk, mayor and others stonewalled attempts to get documents.

It was then that criminal investigators were contacted.

Dean, said that after being elected to council, a citizen by the name of John Smith, a Baltimore resident, who has a second hand sales business in Hallwood, was told that the town had changed the zoning laws and his business was no longer legal.

In one council meeting a member of the council said it was their intent to 'run Smith out of town,' Dean said. The tape on which that statement was recorded appears to be the only one missing from Ms. Taylor's possession, Dean said.

"I started looking into the case because I believed Smith had been done wrong and public officials were harassing him," Dean said.

Lindsey said, "My understanding is that the town council changed the zoning and they are now telling Smith because of the new zoning, his ongoing business can't continue there and they have denied him a renewal of hisbusiness license."

Lindsey pointed out that in an April 20, 2007 case of Alexandria City Council v Mirant Potomac River LLC, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled "that once a business is operating and legal, even if the law is changed, the business can continue to operate as before. In other words the business has a vested right under Sec. 15.2-2307 of the Virginia Code."

Smith told Dean that council member and Hallwood Vice Mayor Alma Poulson was upset with him because he had outbid her son for the property on which he had his business and that was why the town was trying to force him out of business.

Dean said the police chief was used to cite Smith for zoning violations and he was prosecuted by Eastern Shore State Del. Lynwood Lewis, who wrote UARF in July, " "This is to advise that I am responding on behalf of the Town of Hallwood as the Town's attorney..."

Searching documents UARF found that "The Code of Virginia section 15.2-1542.d says: town attorneys can prosecute criminal misdemeanor cases with the concurrence of the commonwealth's attorney and authorization of the town.." UARF found no documentation of that authority being given Lewis."

Accomack County Commonwealth's Attorney Gary R. Agar, tried to be cute in responding to Lindsey by putting parenthesises around (UN) in Unalienable Rights Foundation as though it was spelled incorrectly, and said he hadn't authorized Lewis to prosecute for the county of town.

[Lindsey, irritated by stupidity of legal professionals, sent him a copy of the Declaration of Independence where the word is written 'Unalienable' and suggested Agar get his own copy out and read it.

Lindsey said that all of the criminal cases prosecuted by Lewis for the town are illegal and all convictions, obtained by Lewis, therefore are subject to being dismissed.

Francina V. Chisum, clerk of the Accomack County General District Court, in a letter to Lindsey said, "As a practical matter, it is extremely rare for a county of town attorney to prosecute a criminal or traffic case in this court. We cannot recall any such cases in the year 2007."

Lindsey said, "We know that's a lie. Lewis prosecuted 4 cases against John Smith."

Since this finding by UARF, Lewis revised his previous statement of being the town's attorney, writing, "While I from time to time represent the Town of Hallood in legal matters as requested by them, I am not on permanent retainer as the town atrtorney. I have a separate office and a completely independent practice of which they (the town) are but one of many."

He had requested a $5 FOIA fee from Lindsey, but when Lindsey sent it to him and after deciding he wasn't the town's attorney really, Lewis returned Lindsey's $5 bill saying, "I do not collect bills outstanding for any of my clients...".

Dean said he had to file FOIA requests to get copies of town meeting records and was unable to get the tape about running Smith out of town. "Taylor acknowledged making the tape, but said she subsequently destroyed it," he told VNS.

When approached by the state police this week, Taylor said she wasn't aware that all records of cities, counties, and towns are governed by the state's public records law - which not only requires they be maintained by such governments, but copies must be filed with the Virginia State Librarian in Richmond for archiving.

"I heard she turned white as a sheet when the police showed her that law," Dean said, "saying she really didn't know she had to do that."

Sources said the investigations are far from over and there could be criminal indictments.


Posted by DAVID on Wednesday, October 17 @ 19:39:04 MST (3550 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 1)

 Economic Theory, Civic Virtue, and the Meaning of the Constitution

Public  Watch  Dog

 2011 National Student Symposium  
  Capitalism, Markets, 
& the Constitution

Travel Reimbursement


The National Office will provide travel reimbursement to registered members of the Federalist Society's national organization.  Information on becoming a member is available by clicking here.

This travel reimburment will cover 50% of air, bus, train, gas, and rental car travel expenses.  If students choose to drive and carpool with at least two other students, the national organization will cover as close to 100% of travel expenses as their budget permits.  Solo drivers will be reimbursed 50% of their gas expenses.  Please note, this travel reimbursement is applicable for travel only, and not for hotel accomodations.  For more information, click here.

The Federalist Society
1015 18th Street, NW
Suite 425
Washington, DC 20036



Panels and Debates:
  • Economic Theory, Civic Virtue, and the Meaning of the Constitution
  • Federalism and Interstate Competition
  • The Welfare State and American Exceptionalism
  • Economic Uncertainty and the Role of the Courts
  • A Debate on Economic Freedoms and the Constitution
  • The U.S. Financial Crisis: Causes and Consequences
Speakers will include:
  • Hon. Clarence Thomas, United States Supreme Court (Banquet Keynote Speaker)
  • Hon. Brett M. Kavanaugh, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
  • Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
  • Hon. J. Harvie Wilkinson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit
  • Hon. Debra Livingston, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
  • John Allison, Former Chairman and CEO of BB&T Corporation
  • Jonathan H. Adler, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
  • Randy Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center
  • David Barron, Harvard Law School
  • Clayton Gillette, New York University School of Law
  • Michael A. Heller, Columbia Law School
  • Renee Lettow Lerner, George Washington University Law School
  • Nelson Lund, George Mason University School of Law
  • Paul Mahoney, University of Virginia School of Law
  • John McGinnis, Northwestern University School of Law
  • Neomi Rao, George Mason University School of Law
  • Paul Stephan, University of Virginia School of Law
  • Peter Wallison, American Enterprise Institute
  • G. Edward White, University of Virginia School of Law
  • More Speakers to be Announced Soon...


For details on travel and hotel information, please visit
  the University of Virginia Federalist Society's

DATES:  February 25-26, 2011
LOCATION:  University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA

Safe Unsubscribe
This email was sent to lindsey@uarf.us by kbeer@fed-soc.org.
The Federalist Society | 1015 18th Street, NW | Suite 425 | Washington | DC | 20036

Posted by david on Thursday, December 02 @ 14:22:27 MST (2299 reads)
(Read More... | Score: 0)

     T R A N S L A T I O N S
Translations Language
Helpcom Spanish Spanish

Helpcom French

 Helpcom German German
Helpcom Italian Italian

     Categories Menu
There isn't content right now for this block.

     Big Story of Today
There isn't a Biggest Story for Today, yet.

     Old Articles
Monday, November 15
Friday, October 09
· Cindy Kucharski's Letter to Senator Vitter
Thursday, June 04
Saturday, May 09
· The Mexican US Border Follow Israel's Lead A Wall
Friday, May 08
· ACTIONS not within the scope of the powers of the corporation, are void
Tuesday, March 24
· Do Educators Deny Deaf Children Fairness Doctrine in Education
Monday, March 16
· UARF Supports HOV in Successful Protest
Monday, February 23
· Do Educators Deny Deaf Children Fairness Doctrine in Education
Saturday, February 21
· Local Municipal Power Is By Grants From State
Wednesday, February 04
· Official Bared From Proceedings When Potential for Conflict Exist
Tuesday, November 04
· VOTE EARLY - VOTE OFTEN Jacob Tenny - Cook County
Monday, October 27
· Accomack's Supervisors' Violation of Dillion Rule
Wednesday, September 03
· 15 Year Old 4th Cir Case Says 2 Sign Limit Infringed on Freedom of Speech
Tuesday, February 12
· Booze Shuts Down Church

     US Supreme Court Today

301 Moved Permanently

" target="new">301 Moved Permanently




     Is What I Got From UARF from UARF?
Is what you got really from UARF

Web site powered by Web Hosting USA

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © MM - MMXIII by the UnAlienable Rights Foundatation.

WWW http://www.uarf.us

You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php or ultramode.txt
Copyright, MMVIII, Unalienabe Rights Foundation (UARF), All Rigths Reserved
Page Generation: 0.76 Seconds