Woody v. Carter

After reading the brief description of the case, I thought it necessary to add a couple of additional details. I was listed as one of the defendents. With the exception of comprehensive plan blogs that I use professionally, I don't blog. Carol Lindstrom (who does blog and has a public information blog at www.depotdazed.com) and I did, however, attend a few Christiansburg Town Council meetings to voice opposition to a proposal to site some cookie cutter townhomes being sited across the street from my depot (built in 1868 and in the National Regsiter) and within the boundaries of a National Historic District.

According to Mr. Woody's lawyer, we were added to the suit because we were seen talking to the two women who have the ThinkChristiansburg blog at a public meeting before a public body. When all was said and done, Mr. Woody's law suit cost roughly $9,000 in legal fees. As a professional comprehensive planner, as a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, and, at the time the suit started, a public planner for the surrounding County, who specializes in public input and citizen participation process, Although I was, in fact, in the process of winding down my service with the County, I was still a public employee at the time the suit was filed and had to endure constant comments and a long string of "dirt" jokes during my final two months of public service.

During my tenure with the County, I designed the public input process, which won innovation awards for public participation from the Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association and the Virginia Association of Counties, and won the "planner of the year" award from the Citizens Planning Education Association of Virginia. I say this not to crow, but to make a larger point. I remain deeply disturbed by the implication that attending public hearings and voicing opposition to development that would clearly harm a neighborhood (or by extension, any other proposal) is grounds for inclusion in a SLAPP suit.

As someone who has spent a career encouraging people to get involved, be active, and stand up for their towns and their neighborhoods and their communities, I am appalled by the suit, not so much by my individual inclusion, but by the chilling message that it sends. What is left, finally, in a participatory democracy, when participation is rewarded with lawsuits and ill-afforded legal fees? What happens when those suits are filed against poor neighborhoods or against others who ill-prepared to defend their right to voice concern.

Perhaps, what I find most distrubing, is that Virginia, like others, does not require that the plaintiff in a SLAPP suit to pay the legal fees of those he or she has wrongfully or frivolously accused. In Virginia, judges have the discretion to order payment of fees, but only use that discretion in approximately 5% of the cases. In the final analysis, there is no mechanism to make wealthy developers or others think twice and no mechanism, other than countersuits which do little more than inflate already unaffordable legal costs more, to discourage the use of SLAPP suits.

Until the time when the State and the Courts recognize the value of public participation and the right of citizens to speak and adjust laws to strongly discourage SLAPP suits, individuals and organizations who benefit from diminished public participation and who use the legal system as a strong arm to silence opposition, perceived or real, will continue to manipulate the system and the public to their own ends.

Thank you for allowing me a space to comment.

Meghan H. Dorsett, AICP Cambria Planning Group
Formerly Montgomery County Department of Planning and GIS Services
Christiansburg, Virginia

The plaintiff has notified defendants' attorneys that he plans to appeal the judges decision to sustain the demurrers (dismiss the case). Although the demurrers were sustained with leave to amend (he could correct his paper and submit again) the plaintiff chose to appeal with the original pleading.

The court order sustaining the demurrers was dated October 31, 2008. The plaintiff has yet to actually petition the court with the appeal. The petition deadline is January 31, 2009, ninety days from the court order.

It appears that the plaintiff's procedure is to wait until the bitter end of any period to file paperwork, so we can expect that nothing more will happen until the end of January 2009.

As a defendant in this case, I see that sort of delay as further harrassment. Of course that's an "opinion" not a fact.

Thank for you updating us on this case.  If the plaintiff does file a notice of appeal, please let us know.

Mr. Woody's attorney filed the petition to appeal with the Virginia Supreme Court on January 26, 2009. We are case number 090189. I'm reading a wonderful book called "The Collapse of the Common Good: How America's lawsuit culture undermines our freedom." Perhaps Woody v. Carter et al will be an example in the next edition.

Doesn't the plaintiff need to clearly demonstrate a legally documented & factual loss of business? While I grasp the concept of hurt feelings when dealing with public criticism, a claim of such magnitude seems to demand proof equal to such a claim.

This smacks of a school yard fight, complete with dirt. I suspect had the protest even been restricted to solely the blog, it would still be at this stage. Which is patently an
" I'll show you," litigation and pathetic in the current state of the economy.

A writ panel of the Virginia Supreme Court will hear from the plaintiff as to why the Court should accept the appeal. The plaintiff's counsel is requesting to do this by phone. Apparently a case important enough for the Virginia Supreme Court is not important enough for plaintiff's counsel to drive the three hours to Richmond.

The writ panel is scheduled for April 1, 2009. No kidding.

Thanks for the update, Terry.

Late afternoon on April 10, my ACLU attorney, Rebecca Glenberg, sent me an email. Here's what she said:

"I've just received an order from the Supreme Court denying Woody’s petition for appeal. He has no further avenues for appeal, so that concludes the case."

WOOT!

Please feel free to email with questions. I appreciate the interest and support the Citizen Media Law Project gave to this case and to our efforts speaking truth to power.

Congratulations and thanks again for keeping us updated.  We appreciate your help in making the database a success.

On April 22, 2009 the plaintiff filed a Petition for Rehearing with the Virginia Supreme Court. (I guess being told "no" means nothing to the plaintiff.) Rebecca Glenberg, my ACLU lawyer, told me there was no deadline for the Court to accept or deny the petition.

On June 12, 2009 my ACLU lawyer sent me another email. "Woody's petition for rehearing denied." Yay?

We've heard this song before, and cynicism is outweighing relief at this point.

The plaintiff has an affection for filing lawsuits; look at how many times you see "Woody, Roger" in Virginia court records. This particular threat may not be over.

Thank you for your continued interest.