• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Skidmark proceeding to trial - Sept 13th, 2011

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
In what will ultimately be understood as a very good thing, this will proceed to trial as scheduled on June 21st.

Today several motions were heard, amongst which was one by Skid's attorney (User) requesting dismissal w/prejudice. In response Mr Poindexter, the commonwealth attorney, whimpered (I am told) a motion that the sole charge remaining (brandishing) be nolle prossed unless User would apologize for verbiage (in motions) not favorable to certain plaintiffs - that would have been a hanging sword. The judge did not permit the charges to be withdrawn.

I would expect that the judge has experienced some frustration (irritation) over the lack of timely response from the prosecution. not having the clerk's files complete and the high profile exposure from a case that should never have been pursued. The bench intimated that the defense has a valid case and it should/would be heard. Overall, User indicated that he was quite pleased with the outcome today. I am too.

It was a long, but interesting day - left home at 7:00 AM and just got back a short while ago.

Reference to previous thread:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?86931-Surry-Saga-%28Skidmark%29-amended-to-4-19-!!!!&p=1512511&posted=1#post1512511

[strike]On May 17th edited to reflect new trial date of Oct 11, 2011[/strike]

As of may 18th, new trial date is Sept 13th, 2011.
 
Last edited:

jmelvin

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,195
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
Thanks for the information Grapeshot. This sounds as though the judge has heard some information that has piqued his interest regarding the mis-behavior of the prosecution and the prosecution's witnesses and wants to hear the full discussion so that it becomes a part of court record (if it isn't already).
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
dan.jpg
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
No weapons in undefined area of Surry Municipal Bldg.

Several hours after arriving and inside talking to Skid outside the security perimeter (not past the metal detector, court room security point and sitting on a bench in the public area) I was called over by a Deputy and told you can't have a gun in here.

No argument from me - I just requested a supervisor. Was told that he would get the Sheriff. After waiting for about 10 minutes, the Deputy came back and told me that he owed me an apology and that indeed I was OK there, outside the court room waiting area and not passed the security check point. Note there is a sign that reads in part: No Weapons In Courtroom.

But that it NOT the end of the story.

When court commenced, Mr. Poyndexter requested that the judge clarify where weapons were to be restricted with the comment, "There are armed men out there!"

The judge apparently decided that the entire end of the building closest to the courtroom should be weapons free - indicating that a physical barrier should be the determination. Isn't that what the security check point is? There is no other barrier.

Note that entering through this public entrance there is no sign listing what is not allowed. Anyone can come in, turn left to other offices or wait in the hall (several benches) w/o passing through the security check.

The next available entrance is about 200 ft away and requires one to pass through a set of doors (physical barrier) which takes you right back to the courtroom hall to get to restrooms. You end up about 30 ft. from where you started and seemingly now illegal, even though you have not breached the secured area.

Then there is the question of what else is not allowed in that 1/2 of the building - are all items that are restricted from the courtroom/past the security check point i.e. cell phones, cameras, knives, recorders so restricted too? Where is the yellow line? :banghead:
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Several hours after arriving and inside talking to Skid outside the security perimeter (not past the metal detector, court room security point and sitting on a bench in the public area) I was called over by a Deputy and told you can't have a gun in here.

No argument from me - I just requested a supervisor. Was told that he would get the Sheriff. After waiting for about 10 minutes, the Deputy came back and told me that he owed me an apology and that indeed I was OK there, outside the court room waiting area and not passed the security check point. Note there is a sign that reads in part: No Weapons In Courtroom.

But that it NOT the end of the story.

When court commenced, Mr. Poindexter requested that the judge clarify where weapons were to be restricted with the comment, "There are armed men out there!"

The judge apparently decided that the entire end of the building closest to the courtroom should be weapons free - indicating that a physical barrier should be the determination. Isn't that what the security check point is? There is no other barrier.

Note that entering through this public entrance there is no sign listing what is not allowed. Anyone can come in, turn left to other offices or wait in the hall (several benches) w/o passing through the security check.

The next available entrance is about 200 ft away and requires one to pass through a set of doors (physical barrier) which takes you right back to the courtroom hall to get to restrooms. You end up about 30 ft. from where you started and seemingly now illegal, even though you have not breached the secured area.

Then there is the question of what else is not allowed in that 1/2 of the building - are all items that are restricted from the courtroom/past the security check point i.e. cell phones, cameras, knives, recorders so restricted too? Where is the yellow line? :banghead:

Very strange indeed.

I bet Peter, and maybe even VCDL, will make their life hell for this transgression. Carry into a courthouse is a big deal.

Problem is we really need a precise definition of what a courthouse is and is not.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Glad I had my lightning bolt with me this time!

The Commonwealth's Attorney was pretty disconcerted by the motion to dismiss, and was set to either nolle pros. the case in order to bring it back in a new and different way (thus starting this process all over), or alternatively, to move to have the charge amended to assault (on the theory that the security guard believed that it was likely that Paul might actually have touched him with the finger, again, starting the process all over again). The Judge decided to suspend consideration of the Commonwealth's motion to nolle pros., and continued to my motion to dismiss. He decided that this case is very much like the "flare gun" case, Morris v. Commonwealth, and said he was obligated to follow precedent. I argued that the point I had made in my motion regarding the definition of the word, "brandishing", had not been considered by the Morris court, and Morris had been actively engaged in threatening people and he showed off the flare gun in order to demonstrate that he had the present and available means to carry out his verbal threats, while in this case, the Defendant was basically passive - even if you believe everything stated in the Commonwealth's bill of particulars, the facts don't picture the Defendant as actively engaged in attacking anyone. He was told to leave (the public highway) and refused to do so (because the Sheriff's office had been called and he wasn't dumb enough to believe that the deputies would consider his side favorably if he'd split before they go there). Even if Skidmark had been challenging the security guard, it was a passive challenge - the challenge to the guard, according to the bill of particulars, was the invitation to, "move me, big boy.". Skidmark was not alleged to have made any threat or gesture other than the allegation that he pointed his finger and he "touched his gun" during the conversation. Because the case is distinguishable from Morris, that case is NOT precedent - the facts central to the holding in the case are not the same as the facts in this case, and the definition of "brandishing" didn't get the same analysis as that presented in the motion.

However, we decided that the judge had made a good decision, because going to trial in June is better than having to worry about starting over.
 
Last edited:

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Very strange indeed.

I bet Peter, and maybe even VCDL, will make their life hell for this transgression. Carry into a courthouse is a big deal.

Problem is we really need a precise definition of what a courthouse is and is not.

There is a court definition Thundar.
I think the Judge settled it though. Carry is prohibited beyond the metal detector.

Poindexter did a lot of nitty bitching today and behaved almost like a child having temper tantrums.

There was really a lot of ground covered the Judge handled it pretty well.

I have 3500 stills to look through including some pictures I've been trying to get for months, and 150 video clips.
Jane took pages of notes in the courtroom and I'm beat.

Grapeshot did his usual good job of covering the high ground. We had a number of locals come up to us and offer support. Apparently more than the Administration are following these threads.
 

jmelvin

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,195
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
Very strange indeed.

I bet Peter, and maybe even VCDL, will make their life hell for this transgression. Carry into a courthouse is a big deal.

Problem is we really need a precise definition of what a courthouse is and is not.

From my understanding there is existing Virginia case law regarding the defined area of a courthouse which is off limits to firearms carry by the general public. I've been searching this dang forum for a few minutes and I can't find it. It seems that Skidmark brought it up maybe a year ago in some post where there was a question of this same sort.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
From my understanding there is existing Virginia case law regarding the defined area of a courthouse which is off limits to firearms carry by the general public. I've been searching this dang forum for a few minutes and I can't find it. It seems that Skidmark brought it up maybe a year ago in some post where there was a question of this same sort.

Grapeshot brought it up there too:lol: (It's a court of appeals ruling I think)
 

jmelvin

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,195
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
I was right, but I was a couple years off.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?41220-Can-t-carry-into-the-courthouse

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LEE COUNTY V. EDGAR BACON, COMMISSIONER OF ACCOUNTS OF LEE COUNTY, April 28, 1975, Record No. 740711.

"... we held that the building was not in its entirety the courthouse; that only that portion of the building appointed for the use of the circuit court constituted the courthouse...."
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Grapeshot brought it up there too:lol: (It's a court of appeals ruling I think)

What is the courthouse?

we held that the building was not in its entirety the courthouse; that only that portion of the building appointed for the use of the circuit court constituted the courthouse; and that the council of the city of Hopewell was authorized and empowered to control the use and occupancy of all other parts of the building.
The present case is controlled by our holding in Egerton. Here the undisputed facts show that the courthouse building, as in Egerton, was occupied jointly by the circuit court and various county officials and employees, and the office occupied by the Commissioner was not located in that part of the building appointed for the use and occupancy of the circuit court.

Only that part of the courthouse building necessary for the use and occupancy of the circuit court constituted the courthouse, and the court has control over the assignment of space in such area. The governing body of the county has control of the use and occupancy of all other areas of the building. Thus, the 1958 order of the circuit court assigning office space to the Commissioner in that part of the building which did not constitute the courthouse was not binding. Moreover, to hold that the court had the authority and power to assign offices to certain county officials in the courthouse building would nullify the provisions of Code § 15.1-258, which require the governing body of the county to provide the Commissioner and other officials named in the statute with offices in the courthouse, if space is available.
http://www.virginia1774.org/CourthouseArea.html
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
The Securiguard Lawyer had a long talk with one of the Deputies before Grapeshot was told he couldn't wear his gun there.

Notice the look when he left. As he drove by he took pictures with his cell phone.

[video=vimeo;22634886]http://vimeo.com/22634886[/video]
 

45acpForMe

Newbie
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
<snip>......However, we decided that the judge had made a good decision, because going to trial in June is better than having to worry about starting over.

So in the judges opinion the reason he denied the motion to dismiss was that he thought a precident was established??? Based on the facts and lack of competency in the prosecution he would be happy to grant the motion and put this thing to rest.

I hate our legal systems "grinding" slowness. While June isn't that far away an innocent man still has this affecting his life daily!!! Doesn't seem like justice to me... yet!
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
The Securiguard Lawyer had a long talk with one of the Deputies before Grapeshot was told he couldn't wear his gun there.

Notice the look when he left. As he drove by he took pictures with his cell phone.

Hope he got my "good" side. :lol:
 

riverrat10k

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
1,472
Location
on a rock in the james river
OK, just spent thirty minutes typing this up, then lost it all. Short version.

One supporter was turned away from the courtroom for wearing shorts. He went out and bought a pair of jeans!

Commonwealth's Attorney tried to get the Sheriff to remove OC'ing supporters from in front of the CH. Judge said we were ok where we were, I think.

CA wanted more time to review User's motions; judge would have none of that. CA stated had been on vacation last week.

Judge shot down User's motion to dismiss on various technical matters (User's technicalities). Judge would have none of that, said CA's paperwork was close enough.

Conjecture here. I think the hearing was originally about trying to quash User's supeona's to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to produce security camera tapes; the motion to dismiss was an opportunity. Conjecture off.

Outcome of the above was User and an assistant from the Attorney General's office, representing VDOT who operates the ferry, agreed that security tapes of the incident were unrecoverable, no matter what demands User filed. Some other things about witness lists, also.

As to adressing the facts in the motion to dismiss, the Judge apparently thought those issues would be determined at trial. Here is the statute.

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

It seemed that the Judge agreed with User's claim, and the CA did not object, that no person "pointed or held any firearm".
That leaves the part "or brandish... in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm....in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured." No firearm was pointed or held so I think the case will be tried as to this latter part of the code, maybe defining brandish?

The complainant's statement said he was fearful, the most fearful he had ever been as a security guard. This was an interesting statement, as at no time was any evidence ever given in the complaint that any gun, not Skid's or the complainants, nor two deputies, nor other security guards who were present, was ever drawn. Conclusion by me: not that darned scared or Skid would have been cuffed and stuffed, or at least disarmed at some time during the encounter.

At one point near the end, the CA pointed his finger! (gasp!) at Skidmark and stated "If this was (another VA locality) he would have been shot!" Hyperbole, IMO. This was interesting. The assertion leads to the questions: Are they just nicer and more tolerant in Surry? and also Does Surry enforce the law differently than other localities in VA? Glad the CA's scenario DID NOT HAPPEN! Whew!

There may be more, but I am beat. Best of luck to Skid. I am a bit ashamed to admit, it was a very entertaining day for me personally; I feel a bit guilty about that. Learned a lot.

Oh, talked to a local on the way out of town. They were unaware of the case. Gave them a thumbnail. Woman said her husband traveled the ferry daily for work and had had his own problems with security.
 
Last edited:

riverrat10k

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
1,472
Location
on a rock in the james river
So in the judges opinion the reason he denied the motion to dismiss was that he thought a precident was established??? Based on the facts and lack of competency in the prosecution he would be happy to grant the motion and put this thing to rest.

I hate our legal systems "grinding" slowness. While June isn't that far away an innocent man still has this affecting his life daily!!! Doesn't seem like justice to me... yet!

CA attempted to nolle prosse (sp?) the charge, which would have given him until Oct. 29 to refine and refile the charge, or change the charge entirely. User objected and the Judge agreed. The CA backpedaled some in court trying to change the charge to assault. Apparently this was a proceedural faux pas as the judge would have none of it.

LOL on your second comment. I felt like I was watching a TV soap opera or reading the Mark Trail comic strip, where it takes a week for a character to fart. Not to make light. After watching this, IMO, "justice" is time consuming and expensive.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
After watching this, IMO, "justice" is time consuming and expensive.

That is what they (Sheriff's Dept., Securiguard, VDOT, magistrate and CA ) where counting on -what can one person do against their "Authority."

Guess what Surry - there's more than one of us and we stand together ...........and we do things the RIGHT way.

There never was any intent to do other than enjoy a ride and see the fall foliage. Any discomfort felt by those in "Authority" is a direct result of their own ineptitude. They could have ended this charade some time ago.

Justice will be no less sweet in June.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
Shame resources have to be spent on something like this
On the other hand, it makes perfect sense to clog the courts.

The New Hampshire Courtroom Legal Opposition Group ("NH-Clog") website is out of date, but the spirit is still alive and in effect. They're part of the "Never Take a Plea"movement. The underlying theory is, government "efficiency" is essential to the mass violation of rights seen in American courts every single day.

Just like you "shouldn't talk to cops", you also "shouldn't take a plea" and "shouldn't cooperate".

Shut up, stand firm, and make them prove it.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
Aw man... But hopefully it'll set some precedent where the judge falsely thinks it already exists...

No threats were made, Flare Gun case does not apply. Entirely different facts, so the 'precedent' of it does not apply.

How often do they get it wrong on purpose? Surry is starting to look like Circus...
 
Top