Categories
News

Judge explains: Motions still to be ruled upon in Confederate statue lawsuit

Judge Rick Moore got one big issue out of the way in the two-years-long lawsuit against the city and City Council for its 2017 vote to remove statues of Confederate generals: The monuments of generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson are indeed war memorials under state code, which prohibits their removal.

In court May 1, he started off the status hearing by explaining his April 25 ruling, because of misunderstandings that he said had occurred.

“It was a critical decision, but it is not the end of the court case,” said Moore, who took the opportunity to note the two boxes of case files and how busy he is to explain why it has taken so long to get rulings on the motions that have been filed. “This is just one case. I’m just one judge. This is an important case, but not the only one I have.”

The lawsuit was filed by 13 plaintiffs, including the Monument Fund and the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who allege councilors Wes Bellamy, Bob Fenwick and Kristin Szakos unlawfully voted to remove a statue of Lee donated to the city by Paul Goodloe McIntire. The vote to remove Jackson was added to the suit after August 12, 2017, when councilors Mike Signer and Kathy Galvin joined the unanimous vote to oust the Confederates.

All of the councilors were in court except for Fenwick, as were a number of the plaintiffs, including Frank Earnest with the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who has traveled from Virginia Beach for hearings over the past two years, Monument Fund organizer Jock Yellott, and Dickie Tayloe, whose First Family of Virginia was once one of the largest slave owners in the state.

Moore did issue a ruling, and denied a plaintiffs’ motion to keep the defense from using equal protection under the 14th Amendment as part of its case. That argument says because the Civil War was fought primarily over slavery, the statues are part of an effort to intimidate African Americans.

“Equal protection being constitutional, it would be hard for me to say you’re not going to argue that,” he said. “I’m not in a position to say the defendants cannot prevail on that.”

Yet to be ruled upon is a motion to determine whether councilors had statutory immunity when they voted to remove the statues, and Moore said that’s next on his list.

Plaintiffs attorney Braxton Puryear complained that councilors had not provided depositions or discovery that would help him determine whether they acted with gross negligence when they voted to remove the statues, a key in determining immunity.

Legal powerhouse Jones Day is representing pro bono all of the councilors except Fenwick, and attorney Esha Mankoti said that’s why the issue needs to be decided immediately, because if councilors have immunity, their emails would be protected as well.

“That argument has the flavor of a circular argument.” said Moore, who said he sympathized with the plaintiffs, who have been asking for discovery for two years. “You don’t postpone the depositions,” he said.

He said the emails they sent each other the night before the vote could be the “smoking gun” if councilors said, “We can do what we want.”

Still, the judge wasn’t ready to say council’s actions amounted to gross negligence.

Moore also needs to decide on the city’s argument that a 1997 law that prohibited the removal of war memorials is not retroactive, as well as what issues can go before the jury in the September trial.

Outside the courthouse, plaintiff Buddy Weber felt “very good” about the recent ruling that the statues are war memorials.

However, activist Ben Doherty described Moore’s ruling as buying into the Lost Cause narrative because it neutralizes what is “overt white supremacy.”

Attorney Janice Redinger, who is not involved in the case, says, “I think there’s a chilling effect that these legislators may be personally liable for passing an ordinance. Look at all the unconstitutional laws passed by the General Assembly.”

 

 

 

Categories
News

County warning: School board activists go to trial

Five anti-racist activists were in court October 30, following their arrests at an August 30 special meeting of the Albemarle County School Board. But many community members feel like only one was handed down the verdict she deserved.

While Lara Harrison’s trespassing charge was dropped, four others were convicted of trespassing or obstruction of justice.

“There’s a little history to this,” said defense attorney Janice Redinger, who represented Harrison and Andrea Massey. Both moms were charged with trespassing after allegedly disrupting and refusing to leave the Albemarle County Office Building where the school board meeting was taking place.

At an August 23 meeting, the activists—many with the Hate-Free Schools Coalition of Albemarle County—showed up to speak during the public comment session to ask the school board to ban Confederate imagery and other hate symbols from the division’s dress code. Most didn’t get the chance.

Redinger said in court that Harrison was the only person allowed to speak before the school board shut the meeting down for alleged disruption. Activists were snapping their fingers in agreement with Harrison’s comments, “the least disruptive thing that one can do in order to share your support,” Redinger pointed out. But the school board alleges other disruptive activity such as cheering.

The aborted meeting was continued August 30, but the school board did not allow for any public comment. So some activists decided to hold their own “community meeting” in the lobby outside of Lane Auditorium, she said.

These activists, including Harrison, began chanting, singing, and clapping for their cause. Alleging that they were still disrupting the meeting happening inside of the auditorium behind closed doors, County Executive Jeff Richardson testified that he approached Harrison and another woman and asked multiple times, “Please quiet down or you will have to leave.” He said he never specifically directed any officer to begin making arrests. “My goal was for the group to just quiet down.”

Richardson said he turned to Lieutenant Terry Walls and expressed concern that the activists weren’t quieting down or leaving, and Walls testified that he then began making arrests, starting with Harrison.

Redinger argued that the arrest was unconstitutional because Richardson never explicitly directed Walls to break out the handcuffs, and only Richardson had the authority to make that call.

Judge William Barkley agreed, and dropped Harrison’s charge. Harrison then took a seat in the gallery of the courtroom—among dozens of supporters from the local activist community—to learn the fate of the other three defendants.

“It was vindicating for that moment to hear that the judge agreed that it was an unjust arrest,” says Harrison. “At the same time, I felt very anxious for my co-defendants.”

Massey, Redinger’s second client, wasn’t as lucky. She was inside Lane Auditorium peacefully protesting with tape over her mouth, holding a large banner that said, “RACISTS DON’T GET RE-ELECTED.”

Witnesses agreed that the board meeting remained uninterrupted until an unnamed woman burst into the room to call for help, yelling that activists outside were being “brutalized” by police. Board Chair Kate Acuff ordered her out, and Massey, speaking for the first time, said, “You’re being ridiculous.”

“Immediately, without resolution, without delay, Kate Acuff ordered her to leave and directed the police toward [Massey],” said Redinger. Though Acuff read a statement at the beginning of the meeting, which said any disruption would result ejection, Redinger argued that Massey couldn’t have disrupted the meeting, because it had already been disrupted when the woman barged in and called for help. For that reason, Redinger said there were no grounds to arrest Massey.

But the judge said Massey’s failure to leave after being asked to by Acuff and an officer was enough to find her guilty of trespassing.

Defense attorney Andrew Sneathern adopted Redinger’s argument for his client, Sabr Lyon, who was inside the meeting with Massey, and was also found guilty of trespassing.

With tape over her mouth, and holding her own sign, Lyon stepped away from her seat and moved closer to the podium at the front of the auditorium. But Sneathern said she never said word until she was being arrested.

According to prosecutor Juan Vega, Acuff gave Lyon a warning and asked her to leave. Her arresting officer testified he wasn’t specifically asked to arrest her and said he attempted to get her to leave without being arrested. Lyon allegedly said, “It’s up to you,” and left peacefully when he cuffed her and escorted her out. The judge found her guilty of trespassing.

Last up was Francis Richards, who got caught in the commotion outside of the auditorium. He said he saw a man grab a friend of his and he inserted himself between them to protect her.

The man turned out to be Deputy Police Chief Greg Jenkins, who was in plainclothes and who testified that he announced he was an officer. But several others testified that they didn’t hear him and had no idea who he was.

Defense attorney Bruce Williamson examined video of the chaos, and said if Jenkins ever truly announced his position, no one reacted. And while Jenkins testified that he had a badge, handcuffs, and a gun, Williamson said they weren’t visible.

Richards, who was charged with trespassing and obstruction of justice, was found guilty of the latter.

The prosecutor asked for a 60-day jail sentence for Richards because his encounter was physical, and 30-day sentences for Massey and Lyon. He wanted all of the activists to be banned from the county office building and school board meetings for two years.

The judge suspended the sentences on the condition of good behavior for two years, but chose to convict them to send a message.

Samantha Peacoe, who was also arrested for obstruction of justice, entered a plea deal before the trials and was sentenced to 30-days with all time suspended.

“We’re disappointed but not surprised by the judge’s upholding of white supremacy by targeting and finding guilty peaceful protesters that should have never been arrested in the first place,” says Harrison. “Every time we’re faced with the state trying to silence us and intimidate us into stopping what we’re doing, we just show up stronger.”

Walt Heinecke, an associate professor at UVA who observed the trials, says he found them “troubling and problematic.”

“[It] was just a spectacle orchestrated by the school division, the county government, and the commonwealth’s attorney to signal a message to citizens who want to actively participate in dissent in government processes that they will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,” he says.

It’s as if public dissent has become illegal, he adds.

“I’d like to remind everybody that when I was a teenager during the ‘60s and early ‘70s, there were dissenters in American blowing up banks, blowing up government installations,” he says,  “and now we’ve gotten to a point where if someone snaps their fingers, it’s a national security threat.”

Categories
News

Spycam settlement: Fired city employee gets lawyer’s fees

fired Charlottesville Fire Department mechanic, who found a bottle of booze allegedly planted in his desk and a city-installed spycam to catch him with the contraband, was reinstated to his job a year ago. It took a bit longer for the city to agree to pay the $16,000 in legal fees he racked up fighting his termination. Last week, the city’s insurance company agreed to an undisclosed settlement amount, according to his attorney.

“I’m glad it’s over with and it’s done,” says J.R. Harris, who returned to work last March. “I hold no grudge.”

“We’re happy they were willing to settle,” says attorney Janice Redinger. “I applaud the city for doing that in an area of law in which they might have prevailed.”

The city is not owning up that any payment will be made to Harris. “I have absolutely no comment about a settlement,” says Assistant City Attorney Allyson Davies, who demanded to know how a reporter was aware of one. She would neither confirm nor deny a settlement to Harris had been made. “No comment,” she reiterated.

Harris, a teetotaler who had repaired the city’s fire trucks for 15 years, as well as the personal vehicles of many in the department, received a letter of termination in October 2014 that cited possession of alcohol and shoddy workmanship.

During a 10-hour hearing February 23, 2015, attended by a couple dozen firefighters in support of Harris, Redinger said her client was set up and a paper trail created to justify the termination. His immediate supervisor claimed he found a bottle of alleged alcohol in Harris’ desk, and a decision was made to install a spycam in his office.

From more than a week’s worth of surveillance, the city provided one three-minute grainy video showing Harris taking the bottle, wrapping it and removing it. Harris contends he removed it so the person who put it there wouldn’t hide alcohol in his desk again.

The city’s case wasn’t enough to convince a three-person personnel appeals board, which issued a one-sentence statement three days after the hearing saying it disagreed with the decision to fire Harris.

Harris got his job back, as well as back pay and benefits, but still left hanging was the $16,000 he spent on attorney fees.

A year ago, Human Resources Director Galloway Beck said there’s no legal authority for the city to reimburse employees for personal legal expenses—even if the city’s actions caused the employee to require a lawyer.

Redinger filed a notice of claim, but never filed a lawsuit, which she acknowledges would have been a tough case to make. “Virginia law is not particularly employee friendly,” she says.

Harris does not report to the two supervisors who made the case to fire him, and he says things have been going well since he returned to work. “They’re treating me good,” he says. “They don’t bother me, they don’t hassle me.”

Within two weeks of Harris returning to work March 23, then-chief Charles Werner announced his retirement. He was succeeded by Andrew Baxter, whom Harris praises. “The new chief is awesome. He went above and beyond to make sure I feel comfortable.”

And Harris says his fight for his job and for attorney fees was never about the money. “I just don’t want it to happen again to any firefighter or city employee,” he says.