Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...
video production in Manassas and Prince William County

County Files Motion For Lawsuit Dismissal

By Greg L | 31 October 2007 | Prince William County | 18 Comments

The Manassas Urinal-Massager is reporting that Prince William County has filed a motion to have the lawsuit filed by the Woodbridge Workers Committee dismissed on the basis that none of the plaintiffs have demonstrated they have actually been harmed by the county’s resolution in support of the rule of law.  This is entirely consistent with one of the criticisms that Help Save Manassas raised soon after the lawsuit was filed, and probably the strongest argument for dismissal that the county could have raised.  Here’s what Help Save Manassas said earlier this month about this baseless abuse of our court system:

The plaintiffs in this action have not suffered any harm, but are filing a lawsuit because they are concerned about something that may happen in the future. In order to file a lawsuit, plaintiffs must to prove that they have suffered actual harm, and the vast majority of plaintiffs in this case cannot in any way do so. To the extent that these plaintiffs are concerned about racial profiling, it is only because of the irresponsible and inflammatory statements by members of the illegal alien lobby which have told them this will unavoidably happen. Holding our Board of County Supervisors legally responsible for the irrational fear that the plaintiffs and their attorneys themselves have fostered within the immigrant community is outrageous.

The reporting by the MJM is incredibly shallow on this critical legal matter, and while they provided extensive coverage of this lawsuit, when the county responded to it all it merited was a pretty uninformative drive-by reporting that this motion had been filed.  There’s not a single quote from the filing, a quote from any county official, or a reaction from anyone who might be interested in this matter.  When this baseless lawsuit was filed, though, this got extensive coverage.  One might suspect a degree of bias here.

At least you’d think they’d be interested in quoting from the motion.  How are residents to evaluate this if they don’t have any substantive information about what the county has done on their behalf?  As usual, reading the MJM isn’t going to make you smarter about local politics, it’ll just leave you more confused.  This is unfortunate, as the reporters they have are definitely capable of doing better, if only the leadership at the MJM would allow them to.

If any readers have access to the motion, it would be a great service to the residents to have it posted in the comments section.

Note: this post reflects the opinions of the author, and does not represent the policy or position of any organization or political party.  



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.

18 Comments

  1. NoVA Scout said on 31 Oct 2007 at 8:37 am:
    Flag comment

    The defense seems to be that the measures enacted by the BOCS will not have the effects that their supporters said they would have. Amusing, yes? If that is the case (and I suspect it well may be), we than have the spectacle of the plaintiffs chasing the palapable, but legally elusive ill will that underlay the resolution and the defendants trying to stave this off by claiming that what they did doesn’t have much relation to the rhetoric of why they said they did it.

  2. freedom said on 31 Oct 2007 at 8:58 am:
    Flag comment

    Well now, if THAT isn’t a twist…:) :) “…will not have the effects that their supporters said they would have.”

    No, I don’t think that’s the defense at all….seems pretty elemental to me…until someone is unjustly harmed by the enactment of the resolution, there is no need being in the courtroom.

  3. Anonymous said on 31 Oct 2007 at 8:58 am:
    Flag comment

    NoVA Scout on 31 Oct 2007 at 8:37 am:

    HUH? Can you put that comment in English?

  4. freedom said on 31 Oct 2007 at 9:05 am:
    Flag comment

    ok…:) :) A lawsuit can be filed at any time. If the enacted resolution resulted in unjust harm to me, I could file suit against the county. However, I don’t have much of a case until that occurs….filing suit, just because the “potential” exists that I MIGHT BE harmed isn’t much of a case.

    The defense of the County doesn’t have a whit to do with whether the measures enacted by the BOCS will not have the the desired effect or not.

  5. Vigilant1 said on 31 Oct 2007 at 9:05 am:
    Flag comment

    Did anyone catch Kaine’s spin on the radio that he is doing everything possible to protect us from illegal immigration. He has “his” national guard troops on the border with Mexico protecting the U.S. and has “his” State Police checking on the immigration status of suspected illegals. I thought he said he would NOT involve the State Police and illegal immigration is a Federal problem. There must be an election coming up soon.

  6. Anonymous said on 31 Oct 2007 at 9:23 am:
    Flag comment

    Anybody have a link to PWC’s Answer and Motion in this lawsuit?

  7. Rob Smalls said on 31 Oct 2007 at 10:02 am:
    Flag comment

    NoVA Scout said on 31 Oct 2007 at 8:37 am:
    “The defense seems to be that the measures enacted by the BOCS will not have the effects that their supporters said they would have. ”

    No, their defense is that what the plaintiff said WILL happen has not happened, and that the plaintiff has based their entire lawsuit on a maybe, which doesn’t pass the smell test when determining if a law is harmful in court. The plaintiff has to prove the measure has done the harm they say it does, and it has not.

  8. Advocator said on 31 Oct 2007 at 10:21 am:
    Flag comment

    Mr. Smalls and Nova: Do either of you (or anyone else) have a link to the County’s response to the complaint? It’s difficult to assess the equities without having the documents themselves.

    Thanks

  9. James Young said on 31 Oct 2007 at 12:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    I think it is unwise to comment on legal matters in a forum such as this, particularly as to technical matters like motions to dismiss, ripeness, standing, etc.

    I am torn as to whether it is laymen or lawyers who are more unwise in doing so.

  10. anon said on 31 Oct 2007 at 12:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    I wouldn’t worry James Young. One would have to assume that folks here actually knew what they were talking about and/or that there were actual facts involved in the discussions or the blog itself. Don’t think that’s an issue.

  11. Advocator said on 31 Oct 2007 at 4:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    A similar lawsuit against the state of OK was dismissed Monday. Reported at For The Cause (http://www.forthecause.us/):

    Federal Judge Tosses Hispanic Group’s Lawsuit Against Oklahoma
    A Tulsa federal judge Monday dismissed a Hispanic organization’s lawsuit challenging Oklahoma’s new immigration law, saying the group and several unnamed individuals lack standing to bring suit.U.S. District Judge James Payne dismissed the case without prejudice, which means that another lawsuit can be filed.The law, part of which are scheduled to go into effect Nov. 1, was challenged by the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, two churches, Mexico Lindo Restaurants and several John and Jane Does.Payne said the coalition and its Oklahoma chapter lack standing because the lawsuit alleges no injury on the part of the group or any of its members. He also found lack of standing in the two churches’ contentions that the law has negatively affected their memberships and their stated fear that they will be subject to felony prosecution if they continue to transport undocumented aliens. However, Payne pointed out that his ruling does not close the courthouse door. “While a constitutional vetting of HB 1804 would serve the interest of all parties to this litigation, the interest of the public would best be served by a sharpening of the issues presented prior to such a vetting,” he wrote. “Such a sharpening can only be achieved through a suit brought by plaintiffs with well-defined injuries causally connected to HB 1804.”

  12. freedom said on 31 Oct 2007 at 8:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    We understand that you “think unwise,” jimmy…:)

  13. Anonymous said on 31 Oct 2007 at 9:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    $1,000 fine and/or 1 year in jail for transporting or harboring an illegal alien in Oklahoma beginning at midnight.

  14. Vigilant1 said on 31 Oct 2007 at 9:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    News item from Oklahoma re federal judge thowing out suit brought about by illegal alien advocates to stop Oklahoma law becoming effective 1 November. Maybe the tide is turning…..FINALLY!

    http://www.koco.com/news/14475678/detail.html

  15. James Young said on 31 Oct 2007 at 10:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    We understand that you act cowardly, “freedom.”

  16. manassascityresident said on 1 Nov 2007 at 9:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous said on 31 Oct 2007 at 9:06 pm:
    $1,000 fine and/or 1 year in jail for transporting or harboring an illegal alien in Oklahoma beginning at midnight.

    OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  17. freedom said on 2 Nov 2007 at 8:22 am:
    Flag comment

    those who need to know me, do, jimmy….and quite frankly I somehow don’t see your particular need…:)

  18. James Young said on 2 Nov 2007 at 10:18 am:
    Flag comment

    Sure thing, “Fredo.” Whatever you say.

Comments are closed.


Views: 1996