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

Another Win For Rack n’ Roll

By Greg L | 3 January 2008 | Rack & Roll Scandal | 18 Comments

I’ve gotten word tonight that the Supreme Court of Virgina has ruled against the City of Manassas Park today and denied a writ of certiorari seeking to overturn a decision favoring Dave Ruttenberg, owner of Rack n’ Roll billiards.  As soon as the decision is released, I’ll have more on this.

Ruttenberg was not even allowed to file a brief in this case or present arguments, and still he won.  That should speak very loudly as to the legal position of the city in it’s attempts to destroy this innocent man.  The Park is out of control, and if Ruttenberg can hang on here he just might be able to get some measure of justice.

It’s well overdue.  This has been an outrage.

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.


  1. Not A.E. Dick Howard said on 3 Jan 2008 at 11:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    The Supreme Court of Virginia does not refuse an appeal by denying certiorari and does not award an appeal by granting certiorari. That would be the Supreme Court of the United States.

  2. David from RACK N ROLL said on 4 Jan 2008 at 1:04 am:
    Flag comment

    The following is quoted from a Circuit Court opinion:

    “The sellers subsequently appealed this Decree to the Supreme Court of Virginia. Certiorari was denied on July 18, 2005.”

    The complete opinion:

    ….and here:

    Hoar filed a Petition for Certiorari to the Virginia Supreme Court, which was granted.

    Complete quote:


    What was Greg thinking?

  3. Advocator said on 4 Jan 2008 at 10:11 am:
    Flag comment

    Dave - You gonna be open for Mardi Gras?

  4. James Young said on 4 Jan 2008 at 11:19 am:
    Flag comment

    “Not A.E. Dick” should not speak of things about which he does not know. Like the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court of Virginia decides whether to take cases on writs of certiorari.

    Virginia has (or did, as of 1994/95) a rather odd procedure, however, insofar as the petitioner on a writ of certiorari is allowed to present oral argument to a three-judge panel, which decides whether the Court will take the case. The respondent is allowed to file a brief opposing the petition for a writ of certiorari, but is not allowed to present argument. If cert. is granted, then both parties present oral argument.

    You should double-check your facts though, Greg. While I have no doubt that Dave was not permitted to present argument against granting the writ, I am all but certain that he was permitted to file an opposing brief.

    Of course, if he wasn’t allowed to, he probably saved a few bucks. ;-)

  5. One Voice said on 4 Jan 2008 at 12:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Lawyers are the most criticized profession around. Sooo why does everyone try to be one????!!!! :)

  6. AWCheney said on 4 Jan 2008 at 1:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    David would have been permitted to file an opposing brief…if the attorney to whom he has paid a fortune over the last couple of years, and who seems to have the interests of Manassas Park foremost in mind at every turn had bothered to notify David that an appeal HAD been filed. The court notified his alleged attorney, not him.

  7. Dolph said on 4 Jan 2008 at 3:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    Perhaps David’s alleged attorney needs to be brought up before the bar. It sure sounds like it.

  8. Not A.E. Dick Howard said on 4 Jan 2008 at 4:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    The Supreme Court of Virginia does NOT award or refuse appeals on petitions for certiorari. The Court awards or refuses appeals on petitions for appeal. See Rule 5:17(a). The exceptions are appeals awarded on a petition for rehearing after petitions for appeal have been denied, Rule 5:20, or an appeal of right in a capital case. Rule 5:22. The Court awards a writ of certiorari only to expand the record on appeal. Code § 8.01-673(A).

    It is James Young who speaks of what he does not know.

  9. park'd said on 4 Jan 2008 at 4:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    I hope Dave wins 10 million, bankrupts the city, and then we return to PWC again where we can get some competent leadership for a change. Why these clowns have not been indicted for racketeering is yet another failure in the justice system. Good ole’ boys at every turn scratching each others’ backs…

  10. James Young said on 4 Jan 2008 at 11:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, “Not A.E. Dick,” like Greg, I did get the terminology wrong (it is petition for APPEAL, not “certiorari,” but then, I was writing from memory regarding that single occasion I had to file such an opposition, nearly 13 years ago. A mistake in terminology, which I freely confess. Mea culpa.

    However, I DID get the procedure right, a fact which you manage to breeze right over.

  11. Not A.E. Dick Howard said on 5 Jan 2008 at 2:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    The procedure was never in dispute. The term of art was. Do you often seek congratulations for being correct on a point never in contention? Your excuse that your last involvement in an appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia was 13 years ago is unavailing. You should have looked before you leapt, but you were too distracted by the (mistaken) opportunity to (falsely) accuse someone of being stupider than you. That seems to be a pattern in your blogging behavior that I hope does not pervade your real life.

  12. James Young said on 5 Jan 2008 at 4:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    Perhaps I was “too distracted by the (mistaken) opportunity to (falsely) accuse someone of being stupider than you,” “Not A.E. Dick.”

    Then again, perhaps I read that part of Greg’s post which said “Ruttenberg was not even allowed to file a brief in this case or present arguments.”

    Yours is a pretty bold claim for someone who posted a comment which failed to explain to Greg that his terminology was incorrect, and that his relation of the procedure was partially incorrect.

    Nevertheless, I will take to heart your comment regarding my “blogging behavior.” After all, you clearly know from whence you speak.

  13. Golem said on 6 Jan 2008 at 10:15 am:
    Flag comment

    Boy, you guys are something else. The incorrect use of the term “Writ of Certiorari,” in describing the January 2, 2008 action of the Va. Sup. Ct., i.e., its refusal to grant MP’s Petition for Appeal regarding the Prince William Circuit Court’s decision that David’s permit to operate the pool hall was a property right, was not Greg’s fault or David’s fault or even James Young’s fault. It was my fault. While I was familiar with Rule 5.17(a), and the term “Petition for Appeal,” I heard a number of experienced lawyers use the term “certiorari” in discussing the unsuccessful action that the City took to challenge the Circuit Court decision. I used the term in describing to David what had happened at the Supreme Court. It seems it got passed on to Greg. BLAME ME.

    The bottom line, Ladies and Gentlemen, is that, barring a successful Petition for Rehearing” (unlikely), just as David has claimed in his multimillion dollar suit in the Federal court, the permit, along with the ABC license and the business itself, was David’s legal property. As alleged in the Federal suit, the City unconstitutionally fabricated evidence, and commited perjury with respect to that evidence, in order to illegally take from David that property. In fact, that unconstitutional taking continues at this very minute with the City’s recent revocation of the same permit based, as they themselves admitted, on the same fabricated evidence and perjury.

    If David wins his appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, all of this, including the current unconstitutional taking discussed above, will be presented before a Federal jury. To be honest with you, I can’t wait.

    PS. I also enjoy watching the City spend large sums on lame legal efforts like the “Petition for Appeal.” First they tried to convince the public that they really won the Circuit Court permit case and then they spent a small fortune trying to appeal the decision they really won. I’ve always enjoyed watching big time $300+/hr lawyers run in circles. Not much fun, though, for the tax payers of Manassas Park.

  14. park'd said on 6 Jan 2008 at 11:12 am:
    Flag comment

    The mayor and council (no caps since they don’t deserve them) really should be brought in front of the tax payers to explain their blatant wasting of our tax dollars. The only problem with that scenario is that 90% of the town is illegal and could care less what these so called “leaders” do as long as they leave them alone and don’t join in with PWC and start cracking down.

    What can a few Manassas Park CITIZENS do to take the mayor and council to task on this blatant wasteful expenditure of our tax dollars while the city is on the brink of bankruptcy due to foreclosures and already rampant wasteful city spending (Police HQ, town center, and 35Mill school)?

    I’m already at the brink of what I can afford to spend as it is with the outrageous taxes this town charges. $350 a month in taxes on a $275k townhouse (if I’m lucky) is just an utter outrage. This can’t continue. How have the FBI and State Police not come in here yet, arrested these clowns, and returned us to PWC yet?

    Golem: Have you any advice for us CITIZENS of the park on what we can do to bring the mayor and council to task for this or are we just screwed?

  15. MP Resident said on 6 Jan 2008 at 11:28 am:
    Flag comment

    “$350 a month in taxes on a $275k townhouse (if I’m lucky) is just an utter outrage.”

    Try $200k.

  16. MP Resident said on 6 Jan 2008 at 11:37 am:
    Flag comment

    As for what you can do…that depends on whether the MP Republican Committee engages in the same shenanigans it did when Brendel was in charge of it.

  17. Golem said on 6 Jan 2008 at 2:01 pm:
    Flag comment


    This Ruttenberg mess started in 2001 when David had the unbelievable audacity to report MP’s now head of narcotics to his MP Police superior about defamatory remarks alleging David’s participation in drug use/dealing. It is now 2008 and, despite numerous sting and set-up attempts by authorities, David has never been found to have any such dealings.

    You don’t have to believe me, but I know for a fact that David never engaged in such activity or any of the other malfeaseances that MP authorities have attributed to him. The important thing, however, is that those MP authorities, and in that regard I include the Mayor, the Chief of Police and the City Attorney, also know full well, after 7 years of unsuccessfully trying to get David, that the allegations against David (including their attempt to blame him for the Kevin Brendel pornography farce) are not supportable. Unfortunately (for them), in their eagerness to railroad David they failed to understand his background (he comes from a family of lawyers) and tenacity with the result that they now face a federal suit in which they are defendants (the Mayor and Chief of Police, not the City Attorney) not only in their official capacity but also in their personal capacity.

    I believe that the MP authorities are quite concerned about David’s suit and their own personal liability. I believe that they are quite willing to spend tax payer dollars to protect themselves even knowing that their activities were improper and unconstitutional. I don’t know if there is a recall procedure for Manassas Park, but if there is it should be employed based on their obsession with their self interest to the detriment of the well being of MP citizens. Further, whether or not there is a recall procedure, there should be a grass roots effort in the next election to oust the Mayor and the current council and put in place people who will protect constitutional rights, and other interests, of MP citizens and business people, rather than looking out for themselves. Their first order of business should be to fire the Chief of Police and the City Attorney.

    With all due respect, park’d, and fully appreciating your sincerity and interest in what’s gone on in this matter, I don’t think any of the foregoing will happen. What I’ve learned in all this is that the average guy doesn’t really care about protecting rights until his own rights are violated. Because of this self interested officials can get away with murder and nothing is done. Police and prosecutors will cover for police malfeasance and nothing is done. Without substantial technical ability and financial resources you can’t even wage a battle agianst the odds, you have to lay down and die. In many respects, constitutional rights are nothing but a mirage in this country and, realizing that after more than 60 years, I feel very sad.

  18. Info news magazine » certiorari said on 11 Jan 2008 at 7:38 am:
    Flag comment

    […] Another Win For Rack n?? Roll […]

Comments are closed.

Views: 3105