Taxpayers might get supervisor's legal tab

The suporvisors legal fees should be returned to them. The case was dismissed with prejudice after all. This was nothing but a political witch hunt that had no grounds. They have successfully defended themselves and should not have to pay the legal fees that it took for them to do so.

No, I disagree.

Sandra Day O'Conner stated in a review writing for the majority, explained that placing the burden on the media defendants could muzzle free speech by news organizations fearful of law suits".

The four disenters, on the other hand, were concerned that this ruling could be a "blue print for character assassination"and was contrary to society's strong interest in protecting innocent people from damaging statementsthat could ruin ones rep.'

In short, the Press and the people have still maintained by the one vote margin, LAWS, albeit a narrow margin, Burger, Rehnquist, White agreed,
which concern had a higher priority"

Falwell V Hustler

In short: Falwell was awarded, and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's
decision. AFTER the Supreme Court reviewed the case, it rendered a unanimous verdict that PUBLIC figures who are victims of satire,- even when it is outrageous, may NOT sue for damages, it over turned the $200,000 judgment won by Falwell"

Lampoon's Politics for pets's sake-

People V BOS- just does NOT seem plausible.
Or BOS V People or DP, does NOT seem plausible.

Language above is taken from the Landmark Cases and Bill of Rights. FYI

Just a Thought wrote:

The suporvisors legal fees should be returned to them. The case was dismissed with prejudice after all. This was nothing but a political witch hunt that had no grounds. They have successfully defended themselves and should not have to pay the legal fees that it took for them to do so.

Wrong on all points.

They should be escorted out and given the boot.

Well folks, we knew this was coming. The tale of the Fab 4 will continue on for some time. Egos keep them afloat.
The taxpayers owe them nothing but the "Boot", as Gaelic so aptly put it.

Oh ye brainless Gloucestonian rabble rousers - did you not see this coming when you started this ignorant process? You can not convict people of crimes they did not commit - at least not yet. Next time read what the laws actually say you are about to charge someone with; and then compare the actions of the perpetrator against them carefully. The evidence must be clear and irrefutable. The petitions are more ignorance beyond belief. Don't you know that the people of Gloucester County will have to pay for all that too? Don't you know they never were guilty of what they were charged with? It doesn't matter whether or not you were in favor of their actions. Don't you know that much of what has been done is now clearly slander and defamation of character? Stop following the deranged leaders of the BOS insurrectionists. Stand by people, if those supervisors are not grace filled, forgiving people the war has only just begun on an individual and corporate level.

Blasted Buffoonery wrote:

Oh ye brainless Gloucestonian rabble rousers - did you not see this coming when you started this ignorant process? You can not convict people of crimes they did not commit - at least not yet. Next time read what the laws actually say you are about to charge someone with; and then compare the actions of the perpetrator against them carefully. The evidence must be clear and irrefutable. The petitions are more ignorance beyond belief. Don't you know that the people of Gloucester County will have to pay for all that too? Don't you know they never were guilty of what they were charged with? It doesn't matter whether or not you were in favor of their actions. Don't you know that much of what has been done is now clearly slander and defamation of character? Stop following the deranged leaders of the BOS insurrectionists. Stand by people, if those supervisors are not grace filled, forgiving people the war has only just begun on an individual and corporate level.

The Judge convicted them, not the people.
You keep forgetting the entire process, the SGJ FOUND evidence that led to the convictions.

So, if grace fills anything, it would tetotal many. If they HAD the grace to rise above, they would act like politicians WHO knew the laws they were intrusted too. However, they have IMO tarnished the entire Town of Glo. and as long as it continues on their part, EGO is standing far from GRACE.

The COURTS spoke for the people.

Blasted Buffoonery wrote:

Oh ye brainless Gloucestonian rabble rousers - did you not see this coming when you started this ignorant process? You can not convict people of crimes they did not commit - at least not yet. Next time read what the laws actually say you are about to charge someone with; and then compare the actions of the perpetrator against them carefully. The evidence must be clear and irrefutable. The petitions are more ignorance beyond belief. Don't you know that the people of Gloucester County will have to pay for all that too? Don't you know they never were guilty of what they were charged with? It doesn't matter whether or not you were in favor of their actions. Don't you know that much of what has been done is now clearly slander and defamation of character? Stop following the deranged leaders of the BOS insurrectionists. Stand by people, if those supervisors are not grace filled, forgiving people the war has only just begun on an individual and corporate level.

Yeah, and I bet you think OJ Simpson was innocent of killing his ex-wife and Ron Goldman too. Just because the special procescutor didn't go through with the trial, doesn't mean they were innocent. It just means she was too lazy to pursue it. If there had been a trial and the "facts" came out, then you could claim victory for them, otherwise, it's tandemount of them "getting away with it".

Think about it wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, and I bet you think OJ Simpson was innocent of killing his ex-wife and Ron Goldman too. Just because the special procescutor didn't go through with the trial, doesn't mean they were innocent. It just means she was too lazy to pursue it. If there had been a trial and the "facts" came out, then you could claim victory for them, otherwise, it's tandemount of them "getting away with it".

I feel sorry for those of you who won't accept what has come to pass. It's as if you are saying 'if the system agrees with me, it works; if the system doesn't agree with me then it is broken.' You can't have it both ways. Hicks should have known better, and actually, I think he did, that's why in his original report he was not going to pursue it. Unfortunately, for all he changed his mind, for whatever reasons. Take heart...this issue will be resolved...at the ballot box where it should have stayed to begin with. Don't get me wrong, its a good thing that so many people are now paying attention to their local gov't, but you have to work within the system, imperfect tho it may be.

As for the supervisors recouping their legal costs...Hicks knew about that possibility as well, I am sure. I understand their desire to do so, but I wish they would leave it alone...it will only bring more negativity and ugliness out in our community. Unfortunately, depending on the amount of the costs, not pursuing them may not be an option if it means personal financial ruin.

Hicks is at the root of this. The people went to him with legitimate concerns; those concerns remain unaddressed today. He dug this hole. He mismanaged the Special Grand Jury and then, when it came back with its charges, he mismanaged the prosecution of those. He could have said "The Commonwealth declines to prosecute these charges because they do not rise to the level of crimes that should be taken forward" or "...because they are actually not crimes under the Code of Virginia." (The special prosecutor has made clear that the charges were brought without an understanding of or reference to the laws.) Instead he charged every indictment, even the Sheriff's. That was patently stupid. He quickly stopped the charges against the sheriff (so WHY CHARGE HIM THEN AS FOR DISMISSAL????) and completely bungled the charges against the four Supervisors. He should have to pay these legal fees! We should write a petition to remove HICKS! And then we need to hire a new attorney to finally do what we asked: get this rude, ignorant, self-serving trash OFF OUR BOS!

Friend of Gloucester wrote:

Hicks is at the root of this. The people went to him with legitimate concerns; those concerns remain unaddressed today. He dug this hole. He mismanaged the Special Grand Jury and then, when it came back with its charges, he mismanaged the prosecution of those. He could have said "The Commonwealth declines to prosecute these charges because they do not rise to the level of crimes that should be taken forward" or "...because they are actually not crimes under the Code of Virginia." (The special prosecutor has made clear that the charges were brought without an understanding of or reference to the laws.) Instead he charged every indictment, even the Sheriff's. That was patently stupid. He quickly stopped the charges against the sheriff (so WHY CHARGE HIM THEN AS FOR DISMISSAL????) and completely bungled the charges against the four Supervisors. He should have to pay these legal fees! We should write a petition to remove HICKS! And then we need to hire a new attorney to finally do what we asked: get this rude, ignorant, self-serving trash OFF OUR BOS!

Blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah,
blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, balh, blah?
blah.
blah blah.

Friend of Gloucester wrote:

Hicks is at the root of this. The people went to him with legitimate concerns; those concerns remain unaddressed today. UR BOS!

If I remember correctly, some of 'those concerned' who went to Hicks were actually ON the Special Grand Jury. Something's fishy about that!

ASH wrote:

<quoted text>
If I remember correctly, some of 'those concerned' who went to Hicks were actually ON the Special Grand Jury. Something's fishy about that!

Man, the stink of fish is gettin thickerer by the day......

Error and Ommissions for Professionals concerning this jungle of thieves lamenting over suing every thing with legs.

If it came down to it, Mr. Hick's would have the above, but, it will be a hell of a fight ....!

Or Risk Insurance whatever applies.
Just an example as in the school board suit, insurance paid that out, if any was paid.

Good Gawd-

Antagonists are nipping on that money trail -when THEY should be placing their lives BACK order.

you were told when the sgj report came out that the charges didn't match the laws. Hicks should never have allowed this to go to court. Now we have to investigate how this got into the court. Was the police officer used as a security guard or a investigator. First we were told he was a investigator now we are told he was a security guard, which is it? Were the people on the SGJ that stupid or were they lead by someone?

I would NOT ever make accussations I could not back up though.

Reasoning this out, I would leave Mr. Hick's out of the post arena of jackals.

Bashing the man is not nice is it? &
Boils down to manners in the end.

Hanoverians-Saxon wrote:

Error and Ommissions for Professionals concerning this jungle of thieves lamenting over suing every thing with legs.
If it came down to it, Mr. Hick's would have the above, but, it will be a hell of a fight ....!
Or Risk Insurance whatever applies.
Just an example as in the school board suit, insurance paid that out, if any was paid.
Good Gawd-
Antagonists are nipping on that money trail -when THEY should be placing their lives BACK order.

I am NOT cluelss dork.

what if wrote:

you were told when the sgj report came out that the charges didn't match the laws. Hicks should never have allowed this to go to court. Now we have to investigate how this got into the court. Was the police officer used as a security guard or a investigator. First we were told he was a investigator now we are told he was a security guard, which is it? Were the people on the SGJ that stupid or were they lead by someone?

Hmmmm, let me hazard a guess here. Sounds like Hicks isn't as clean as thought. Sounds like he ducked out to keep from exposing something he was afraid of, or he was protecting something. Wonder what it was. Sounds like yhou know what it is. Care to share details?

read the article again, you tell me

what if wrote:

read the article again, you tell me

I'd start with Graham Blake. But it sounds like you have a secret you're keeping. Give us a jump start.

from what we hear in the press issues are investigated long before charges are brought before the grand jury, the SGJ was suppose to be a investigative body to find out if discussed doings were illegal. a investigating body brought forth by our Gloucester Court System. this is not only our court system but the state of VA court system. if you think that we are playing a game we are not. what happens when the court screws up we are about to find out.