'Fire of indignation': Dumler controversy-- and questions-- continue

While the budget was on the agenda at the February 25 Albemarle Board of Supervisors meeting, the resignation of Scottsville Supervisor Chris Dumler was the agenda of 13 people speaking during the public comment portion of the meeting, one of whom was escorted out after dropping the f-bomb.

Indeed, the controversy surrounding Dumler since he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor sexual battery January 31 has not diminished, with an odd coalition of Tea Party and Occupy protesters united in demanding that he step down.


The Board of Supervisors unanimously censured Dumler at his first meeting after the plea, and voted 3-2 that he resign– a purely symbolic gesture since they don't have the power to remove him. A petition is circulating to remove him from office, and his appearance at a February 16 Democratic breakfast was canceled following a death threat.

The issue is putting pressure on county Democrats from those who say the party is placing politics over supporting victims of sexual assault to maintain the board's 3-3 split and avoid the chance of a Republican being appointed to Dumler's seat, which would give the GOP a 4-2 majority.

Dumler, 27, spoke to the Hook before the February 25 supes meeting and says he's received more emails of support than against him– and that he's not going to resign. "The decision to resign is between me and people in the district," he says.

"I can publicly be remorseful for things I've done in my private life," he says. "Most people can differentiate between my private life and my duties as a supervisor."

More quietly, some are wondering exactly what went on that caused a forcible sodomy charge– a felony carrying a five-year minimum sentence– to be pleaded down to misdemeanor sexual battery with 30 days in jail and a psychosexual evaluation.

Dumler, who plans to make a public statement in the near future, says he's limited in what he can say due to the plea deal. The absence of detailed information has led to rampant speculation.

"It could be any number of reasons we don't know," says Hook legal expert David Heilberg. "Even if he is otherwise defendable, [a plea] is a certain outcome. It doesn't ruin the rest of his life, he doesn't lose his law license. He won't be a registered sexual offender.

"From the commonwealth's perspective," continues Heilberg, "it's either a flawed case or they are wanting to spare the victim. Some just can't go through testifying."

Other factors could play into the plea decision, such as credibility, says Heilberg. "I've heard that there are disgruntled girlfriends. Some of these [incidents] were delayed reporting. That doesn't make the commonwealth's case stronger."

"That's something that's troubling, not knowing the facts," says Scottsville School Board member Steve Koleszar, a Democrat. "Since there wasn't a trial, we don't know what's the underlying situation."

Despite the petition going around for Dumler's removal, Koleszar says he's not aware of a groundswell in Scottsville for Dumler to resign. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," he adds.

"There is minimal outrage," agrees Scottsville Weekly publisher Bebe Williams.

That wasn't the case at the Monday night Board of Supervisors. Jamie Morgan, who protested at the February 16 Dem. breakfast, was the first speaker after board Chair Ann Mallek warned that citizens should address the entire board, not individuals, and there would be "no tolerance for disruptive behavior."

"I demand rapist and perpetrator Chris Dumler's resignation," said Morgan. "You are a disgrace to your community, your gender, and your position."

"Please address comments to all of us or sit down," said Mallek.

"You will resign, Chris Dumler," said Morgan. More than two dozen people in Lane Auditorium stood up in support, some of them carrying signs that read, "No sexual batterer on board."

Thirty minutes later, plainclothes police removed Morgan from the meeting at the end of public comment after she dashed up to the microphone and tearfully screamed, "He's rolling his eyes. He is rolling his f##king eyes."

Marijuana reform activist Jordan McNeish told the board it was a conflict for Dumler to vote on the budget because one of the items was funding for Offender Aid and Restoration, which will monitor Dumler following his 30-day jail sentence that begins March 8.

"A convicted sexual batterer is not fit for public office," said Rio District resident and mother of a college-age daughter Constance Stevens. "A fire of indignation has been lit and is burning out of control."

Earl Smith, who is gathering signatures on a petition in the Scottsville District to remove Dumler from office, mentioned that Dumler previously remarked he might sign the petition. "Chris, would you like to sign the petition?" asked Smith, holding up a clipboard.

Republican Randolph Byrd admitted he was trying to politicize the situation, and suggested the board come to an agreement to replace Dumler with a Democrat to retain parity.

"Every meeting, we're going to show up over and over," threatened Byrd. "You can be recalled for material adverse effects."

Of 14 people commenting to the board about Dumler, Tom Olivier, the former chair of Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club and a southern Albemarle resident for 30 years, was the only person who spoke in support of Dumler.

"I think we're better off when we let elections decide who represents us," said Olivier. "I know Mr. Dumler has worked hard to meet with constituents." He added, "I value Mr. Dumler as a person, and as a neighbor, and as a supervisor."

After 35 minutes of overwhelming anti-Dumler comments, the hearing for the budget began.

Last week, Supervisor Ken Boyd, who voted for Dumler to resign, said he'd had two people ask him to look into issues in Scottsville because they didn't want to deal with Dumler. "It's awkward," says Boyd. "It's uncharted waters for us, and it is disruptive. I'm afraid we're going to have protesters." That was before the February 25 meeting.

"Personally, I've lost confidence in Chris," says Boyd. "I didn't know him that well. You have to believe people are sincere and honorable, and I'm not sure I believe that about Chris."

Despite three of his board colleagues symbolically voting to oust him, Dumler says his interactions with Republicans Boyd, Duane Snow and Rodney Thomas are professional. "They've been very courteous to me," he says.

He insists he can continue his job as supervisor, despite the line-up of citizens at the meetings calling for him to go. "It's not easy," he concedes."I don't think that impacts my ability to do my job."

And he points out, "Ninety percent of the work doesn't get done at public meetings.

At the February 6 meeting at which Dumler was censured, several people said they were irked by Dumler's smile .

He wasn't smiling Monday night.


Sounds like Jamie needs some mood stabilizers. We should all run around screaming and swearing every time someone rolls their eyes. Good luck having teenage daughters Jamie!, although I suspect you got other issues going on.

Jaime's doing a great job! Keep it up!

Mr Olivier is 100% correct. This is for the people of his district to choose who they would like to represent them.

If the other Supervisors choose to not listen to his opinions they do so at their own peril as he still retains one vote.

If some constituents have an issue with him then they should utilize email.

As for Ken Boyd losing confidence in Dumler. If he thinks that sexual proclivities affect his judgment on zoning and other matters than that is his perogative. When it comes time for his reelection and he chose to ignore solid discussion from Mr Dummler and makes ignorant decisions that hurt his constituency I am sure they will reward him with retirement

"Mr Olivier is 100% correct. This is for the people of his district to choose who they would like to represent them."

As usual Bill, you make no sense. Jimi Hendrix makes no mention of the people of 'his [Dumler's] district to choose...' He (Hendrix) is talking about Jamie's performance - which was awesome...

Just stop writing because you write the dumbest stuff...

It amazes me how many people are ready to burn him at the stake when they know absolutely nothing. Not a single one of us reading this story have any facts at all. We have made our own judgements. Stop condemning someone until you have the full 100% accurate facts. Everyone is basing their information on this rumor, or that rumor. She said this, he said that. I don't see Scottsville suffering for what he's done for the county. How many other people who ran for office were actually out there, walking the roads, looking at the facts before making a judgement? They all sat in their offices reading reports by others. And quite frankly, what politician doesn't have a seedy sexual past? Isn't that part of the job description anyway?!

It's not "rumor", Annoyed. It's a conviction which he will go to jail for. And before you respond, spare us the whole but-poor-Chris-couldn't-afford-a-defense...bla bla bla...

To all those who 'support' Chris, which is it? He simply "didn't do it", or he couldn't afford an attorney?

How The Hook inserted a quote from failed-pot-legalizer Bebe Williams is comical. Bebe would have no clue about any objection to Dumler beyond what he sees on Valley Street between the funeral home and the police station. Remember, 3,700 people voted in the election within the Scottsville District, and Scottsville itself has around 500 voters.

The most impact the Dumler Dilemma has on Scottsville is that it makes the town look ridiculous. But there you have it...the new star of the local Dems.

Koleszar is just expressing the moral relativism that is the trademark of the liberals: "Let he who is without sin..." As though sexual battery as a "sin" is on a par with, say, cursing out your neighbor or lusting after someone's wife.

R.I.P.: Hunter Thompson

It's not as simple as that. Something inappropriate may have happened but we don't know. It was obviously a person with whom he had a consensual intimate relationship. He very well may have taken the plea rather than take the chance that a jury would believe the lady in a he said she said scenario. Only he knows for sure what his motive was in accepting the plea, but he took the safe choice in regards to his future rather than rolling the dice with a jury. I personally think he should step down because it is clearly a distraction and makes him look like an arrogant jerk who feels privileged or entitled. Which I suspect is how he ended up in the situation in the first place.

actually, there was a wide cross-section of people who spoke at the BOS meeting last night: school teachers, moderates, liberals, republicans, tea party people...mostly just regular family-oriented people who aren't willing to stand by doing nothing while a serial sex predator (and that's exactly what he is) is allowed to sit on the Board. the thirteen who spoke were FAR from radicals.

yes, jamie morgan got very upset. i was there. i saw dumler SINGLE HER OUT, make eye contact, and deliberately roll his eyes at her. what some of you don't seem to understand is that dumler's actions effected morgan so much because they were predatory in nature. no doubt about that. the eye-rolling was his way of saying, "what i did to these women doesn't matter. yeah i did it, and you cant stop me because i'm on the Board of Supervisors and you are just a peon." again, i was there: his actions struck me as downright predatory and implicitly threatening.

i'm not in favor of outbursts at meetings like this. i did speak at the meeting and was very calm. many other people spoke and were very calm. for ms. morgan, this is a very emotional issue. frankly, what i saw seemed like re-traumatization. i would ask you who comment here to show some sensitivity. she's young, 21 years old, and it takes a lot of courage to speak out publicly like she did. i wish lisa provence had done a better job portraying the civil, very rational people who spoke last night, as opposed to focusing on ms morgan's (understandable) rage. it was a cross-section of our community. you could find these people in church groups or PTA meetings. they are level-headed, practical people, as far from radical as could be.

most, like me, were there reluctantly. i've never spoken at any government meeting before. but this issue has turned into an absolute fiasco, and it sends the worst possible message to the community about the deeply rooted and widespread cultural problem of sexual violence. dumler is a vicious man, make no mistake about that. the people who spoke did so because our "leaders" are failing us. badly. what has to happen is this: higher-ups in the local democratic party have to realize that their support of dumler is ruining their reputation. each day that goes by with dumler on the BOS shows their lack of basic integrity. they need to step forward, show some ethical leadership, and stop the bleeding. they need to rebuke cynthia neff's disingenuous and machiavellian stance of support for dumler, and force him to resign. until then, what alternative do concerned citizens have but to speak out?

Dear mr "real bill marshall"

I was reffering to the actual article.

"I think we're better off when we let elections decide who represents us," said Olivier. "I know Mr. Dumler has worked hard to meet with constituents." He added, "I value Mr. Dumler as a person, and as a neighbor, and as a supervisor."

I am sorry if I confused you there with my statements but from the lloks of things it seems that you believe that Jimi was complementing Jamie when I am pretty sure his implication was that she might be a little high strung....(to say the least)

Well said, Satchel!
And all who go to these meetings to speak your mind and voice your concerns, please, please, please continue to do so!
Oh, and, Lisa Provence has the propensity to, on occasion, leave a few glaring details out. BUT, it makes the article that much more sensational, now doesn’t it?!

This is yet again about a bunch of sexually frustrated females wanting to punish any male they come accross who offends them. They want saints, not real men who are given to mistakes. It is no wonder the American birth rate is declining. Who, in their right mind, want to take their chances with a modern American female.

30 days or 60 days?

That plea says all but 60 days suspended. ???

"want him to resign" He was not convicted of raping anybody. Get your facts strait.

The smartest reason of all for him to pead out is because of ignorant emotional irrational immature people like Jamie Morgan who are ready to hang him at the first break of dawn when she wasn't even there.

Do you think he could afford to risk his very life to someone like her being on the jury?

I admit that the late reporting, the lack of physical evidence, the ex girlfriend coaxing her to do it, the set up recorded call getting him to apologise (for being drunk and what a bad lay? ) etc etc would have me lean hard on the prosecution before I took away a mans freedom for 20 years but is hoping for people like me worth the risk of one person like her sneaking past with an agenda to hang him? Not on his life it ain't.

If the other supervisors don't like the distraction then too bad. He is there to represent his district and if they still want him then no one else is to say otherwise.That is why we have elections. They censured him. That should be the limit of their interference.

It seems that Liberalace only has a problem with pot activists who support Mr Dumler. Well known pot activist Jordan McNeish, who started the anti-Dumler FB page, gets a pass from Liberalace.

Jamie Morgan's histrionics last night were laughable. After the meeting, she was bragging on FB that she punched a police officer. I've known pre-adolescent girls who were less shrill and more mature than Morgan.

First off, not everyone demanding Dumler's resignation associates with either the Tea Party or Occupy folks. I do not understand why people, especially democrats keep trying to label people on this matter.
Of course Dumler is gonna say he has supporters - that is PR 101. As for Kolesczar, he needs to get out more and wander the district. Again, he is puttying on the typical democrat response of altering the reality of the situation. Under what rock is he hiding?
And Bozo Williams, he does not speak for anyone except himself. He is a yellow journalist that puts together a weekly rag of a piece of paper that is joke in and of itself. He, Dumler, Kolesczar, Olivia and other democrat big mouths in Scottsville have brought shame and embarrassment to Scottsville.
Dumler is an arrogant young man who should have never been elected. We have his current supporters to thank for fooling the Scottsville electorate.

Oh I'm sorry Bill Marshall... He forced her to have anal sex after he forgot a condom and she said not happening then... did i get it right that time? I have my facts straight. That...in my book... is RAPE!

Bill Marshall get YOUR facts straight. He wasn't CONVICTED because he took a PLEA BARGAIN.

The false moral indignation from the peanut gallery continues. Solid reporting job by Lisa Province.

I was listening to the podcast last night, and I'm excited that the new "face" of the anti-Dumler movement is Jamie Morgan. What a shrill little girl. Charging at the microphone, calling police officers "pigs," swearing at Chairwoman Mallek ... keep up the great work, Jamie. You'll have whipped up some sympathy for Dumler in no time.

Considering he was never accused, charged, or convicted of rape, the amount of libel and slander that some folks at last night's meeting were courting is impressive. But hell, we can't let facts get in the way of a little political opportunism and misdirected outrage, can we?

And satchel, before you describe the folks last night who spoke against Dumler as a "cross section" of anything, I suggest you contact the local Jefferson Area Tea Party and the Occupy movement for their membership rolls (if they keep such things). I heard the names announced - with one exception (maybe it was you?), every single one of them was either an Occupy-er or a Tea Partier. Do a little research, friend (research would also tell you there were never three victims who brought charges - Dumler was charged once, and only once. I imagine if the cops who you claim are so anti-Dumler COULD have brought additional charges, they would have, which tells you everything you need to know). And as for "being in contact" with a "relative of the first victim" ... triple hearsay isn't going to cut it in a court of law, and I'm of the opinion it shouldn't cut it in the court of public opinion either. Get a grip.

Let's see, what else is laughable in the above comments ... the false dichotomy offered between whether or not he "did it" or couldn't afford the exorbitant attorneys fees these cases tend to rack up? Or "Scottsville Resident," who doesn't seem to understand that elections have consequences, and his next crack at Dumler in any meaningful way will be November, 2015?

The saddest thing about this whole affair in my mind is what it's brought out in this community. The hypocrisy, opportunism, misdirected anger, judgmental reactions ... I really thought this community was more enlightened. How very disappointing.

@Bill Marshall: The rape thing could be real. Sodomy, anal rape, I know he wasn't convicted but he was arrested for same. The point is, if someone calls him a rapist, he could sue for libel or slander depending if it were spoken or written (in this case both). But please note, if he were to do that, Chris Dumler would again face his accusers as witnesses, not plaintiffs, who would then attest to the rape in civil court. Interesting chess match here. Dumler won't sue for libel or slander because he can't win and he knows it. Bill, you need to talk to the women involved about his behavior before spouting off about what really happened. Without that tête-à-tête, you're just opining without facts or details.

@Yawn: to paraphrase you
The saddest thing about this whole affair in my mind is what it's brought out in Chris Dumler. The hypocrisy, opportunism, misdirected anger, judgmental reactions ... I really thought CHris Dumler was more enlightened. How very disappointing.

Disgusted - he wasn't "convicted" (and could never have been convicted) because he was never charged with rape. How about you get your facts straight?

@Yawn...you summed up your position with one word in the last paragraph: "enlightened." The keyword from libs who want moral relativism and believe the other side to be intellectually inferior. I even hear defenders of Dumler comparing his fitness to another supervisor who they lament is "in the pocket of local businesses," as though Boyd's leanings somehow equate to sexual battery. Oh, and we must know that those who object to an admitted sexual batterer being in a position of authority in our community are not enlightened enough to let him just walk and continue that great political career that the local (and many statewide) Dems envisioned when he defeated Norwood.

And who are the bedwetters speaking up in favor of his royal backdoor man? Are they a cross section of citizens? Nope...even now, Rooker has his finger to the wind and sees the direction of the breezes.

Here is the bottom line chap: Dumler was a pseudo-rising star in the local Dem party at the tender age of 27, a well educated outsider who was financed around 80% or more by people outside the Scottsville district. He was going places. He was being viewed long term...maybe Delegate, maybe--even--Congressman someday. He was also arrogant, misogynistic, prone to mistakes, abusive of alcohol and of women. Whether or not that was known by Grisham, Payne and the other local bigwigs who paid for him to be elected, no one knows. There is very little sympathy for Dumler and that small dribble only comes from hardcore local lefties who cannot believe what has happened. They have a lot at stake in this wunderkind and are now bewildered.

But, alas, all the king's horses and all the king's men will not be able to put this little arrogant, self-believing, narcissistic, abusive, wretched soul together.

You are damn right people are indignant. I'm glad they are. This guy casts votes and proposals that affect the entire county. Albemarle deserves much better.

R.I.P.: Wilbur Mills

Hey guys! Yawn's back using big words! Albeit he always uses the same little, shall we call them, catch lines! Like, 'false moral indignation'. I love that one! Oh, and ‘peanut gallery’. Speaking of peanut galleries, why don’t any of you Dumler supporters show yourselves? Your face of support is Dolores Rogers (speaking of pea[nuts]). Common! Come on out! Dumler says he has all of these emails of support!! Who are you guys? I would LOVE to know!!
Yawn, why is Chris going to jail? Why did Chris apologize? Why is Chris getting counseling?
Please say because he didn't have the money to go to trial!! Please say it! I love it when you Dumler supporters say that!!

Haha. The fact that the "other side" is intellectually inferior notwithstanding, I tend prefer dealing in things like "facts" (which have a well known liberal bias). Here are two facts for you:

1) You don't know what happened in that room. Dumler does. Sure, he's biased, and likely not very credible. But at least he has some knowledge. You and your ilk have none, save for the merest slivers that drip out through the cracks of the courthouse and the police department. Hearsay doesn't fly in a court of law - at least for me and others who are intellectually honest, it shouldn't in the court of public opinion.

2) There is no process by which Dumler can be recalled. If his greatest contribution to politics is serving for four years and all he manages to do in that time is throw some monkey wrenches in the "work" of the likes of Ken Boyd, it'll likely be better than the contributions many of the hypocrites and judgmental know-nothings make in their lives.

As I've said before, I doubt very much that Dumler runs again. If I were the victim of such hypocrisy, judgmentalism, slander, libel, and misdirected anger and hatred, I'd serve my four years (and my 30 days, but that's another matter) and bid us adieu. I certainly don't approve of what he apparently does in his private life, but I was and remain very impressed with how he's voted and what he publicly does to keep constituents informed - I doubt very much the Scottsville District elects someone like him again, either. So I'd save save your indignant energy for November, 2015, 'cause you're in with Dumler for the long haul.

If this story had national attention, it would have a different ending. All of you with connections -- make the call.

Dumler is apparently gleeful that he has pulled another one over on his constituents. He is truly in need of Remorse Training and also needs weekly sessions with a shrink.

The young woman who made her point by screaming and cursing .... needs to be taught how to protest. She doth protested a little too much and actually hurt the cause. Anyone who is friends with her needs to explain that to her -- and keep her from doing it again. No points for rape survivors were made with her f*ing rants.

I wouldn't donate a dime to several "feminist" organizations - they failed to step up to the plate.

John Grisham gave Dumler $5K -- has he made any comments?

Wow, Yawn...so, so poetic. I’m moved. Too bad everything you say is candy coated in crap. Come to the next BOS meeting. We'd love to hear from you! Please say you will! Will you? Will you come to the next BOS meeting and publically share your point of view?
*Pam, I think Grisham gave 20k.

Scumbag, regardless . . . that's the bottom line. My dearly departed Mother used to say the Democrats would support a dead guy. I don't care about politics, but I do care about a lack of respect for and physical assault on women. He's a sexual batterer, pleaded and sentenced, and a jerk who needs to go home to Georgia. We don't want your ilk around here!

Sad. Wonder if he just rolled his eyes and smirked when/if she told him to stop, no, I don't want that. Wonder if we got a glimpse of what happened. Makes me ill.

Yawn, by the way, the UVA law student who had a warrant filed one week before January 31st, played your boy Dumler and his lawyers like bunch of fiddles. She knew turning the heat up one week before the preliminary would leave the defense begging for a deal!
I mean, we can only assume she’s a lawyer now too, right? ;-)

For all of those attacking the "defenders" of dumler on this thread and the other one, the fact is his "defenders" seem to have a common theme. They think that people not in his district should not be granted the power to throw him out of the office that he was elected to fair and square. They think that perhaps he pled out because it was the lesser of two evils and perhaps the reason he was even offered a deal was because the accusations were either not as credible as some would claim or at least not provable enough to convince a jury.

That does not mean that people nessasarily "support" him as much as they have a healthy respect for the rules of law and the concepts of due process that we were all supposed to be taught in school.

@ Hello - the affidavit's up online, and it was sworn out in front of a magistrate in December (though not filed until January, which I'm fairly certain based upon my read of 19.2 is illegal). Odd that it wasn't covered by the press until a week before - likely a fluke, though maybe part of a conspiracy. Most likely just the press digging around a week before the preliminary hearing for anything new. Ah well.

"Ah Well", is right.
And I'd imagine your reading of 19.2 is wrong. Read it again. Also, I'd say fluke. No conspiracy exists here.
OH, by the way, Rooker's calling for Dumler to resign!
Are you going to visit Chris in Jail?
I own you.

There are several facts in this case that are not known by anyone except Mr. Dumler and the young lady or ladies in question. For four years, I served as an assistant to the District Attorney in one of the five boroughs of New York City. In my experience, the "he said, she said" types of cases are impossible to adjudicate. I sat in courtrooms on many occasions and listened to cases that the boss thought might be subject to appeal. The "sex" crimes that made it to court were always "he said, she said". When a relationship conducted in private becomes a matter of public concern, it becomes a question of what really happened and who is telling the truth. There is no way in this matter to determine absolute truth. Why Mr. Dumler accepted a plea bargain is known only to him and his attorney. Speculation in this entire is dead wrong. He didn't rape anyone. It is unlikely that force was an issue. When does yes become no? When you play with fire you get burned. This entire matter has absorbed more time and effort than it is worth. Attacking campaign donors is idiotic. Check the donors for the rest of the Supervisors. And consider their behavior. There are a few sinners among the group. If you are not a sinner, you aren't alive. Think about it.

@Recovering Attorney: The reason these cases aren't prosecuted is because people like you ask "When does yes become no?". It's always no...but like the Chief of UVA Police, you must feel that what starts can't be stopped.

Unfortunately, most cases are "unclear" because you choose to believe the man that it was consensual. It's only "he said/she said" because no man will admit to committing a crime. Hell, stealing a computer is also he said/she said (Did you steal it? No? But it's in your car!)

Then why is rape a felony crime if it's so "gray"? Does she have to be dead and covered in semen for you to acknowledge it was a rape?

I'll bet local folks with political aspirations will think twice about sleeping around with "good girls" (women who cry rape when they get a reputation for giving it up too easy). Too many shrill harpies with nothing to do looking to crucify them with absolutely no knowledge of the situation.

I regret nothing. As far as "punching the police officer"...I posted on face book something along the lines of " i didn't mean to raise my hand to a police officer".

@Recovering. Dumler was brought in for questioning back in October. 45 minutes later, he was handcuffed and brought to jail. 50k in bail. Since then there was a plea. He pled guilty to sexual battery. He's going to do 30 days. Mia culpa, and he has to enter therapy (if he hasn't already).
What do we need to think about?

Right on, Jamie!! Keep up the good fight!!!

Jamie....you have everyone's attention. be calm. Be eloquent. And realize you only have one chance to make a point.

@Jamie - did you also not mean to call him a pig? It was loud enough to be heard on the audio podcast, so I imagine many in the auditorium heard it was well ... sort of undercuts any suggestion that you "didn't know he was an officer" when you call him a pig. You're lucky they didn't charge you with a class 6 felony, assaulting a law enforcement officer.

great, yawn. now here come the ad-hominem attacks. the issue isnt jamie. it's dumler. or didnt you know that?

In this town, you villify the women and honor the rapists. Nothing will ever change.

Did no one notice that there were four (4!) police officers guarding and protecting the supervisors? Two were plains clothes and two were uniformed. Really? Dumler and the board are so scared that they needed four officers? That should scream volumes to everyone. Dumler's trumped up death threat charge is now costing us double for security. All four officers jumped in to escort Jamie out. Quite a bit of overkill there. Hey Chris, no one wants to harm you, they just want you gone. You duped us. You pretended to be for the protection of women against sex crimes, while committing them yourself. You pretended to be an enlightened politician and you turned out to be an old fashioned womanizer. You pretended to be a new kind of honest politician, and yet you lied to us, to the press, and to the women you violated, including you lied to your own girlfriend (geez, how many women do you have to cheat on her with before she dumps you?). THIS is why you will never find peace in Albemarle County. No one will forget what you have done, and many will never forgive you. This feeling among the citizens of Albemarle County is not some false outrage, it is real. Some women feel it more powerfully than others. But faking the outrage? Nonsense.

@Satchel - my only point was and remains that there are many among us that live in glass houses, and need be mindful of that fact before we cast stones.

Hey Yawn: Rooker & Mallek have called for Dumler's resignation. See it here:

Congratulations to Jamie and the protesters. They heard you!

I hope the dirtbag fights for his seat for a long, long time. Every day that passes with Dumler still on the board is another day that he and his allies (notably drunk driver Cynthia Neff) drag the Democrat party down to the sewer.

What a bunch of rubes.

@Yawn. Your posts get shorter and shorter (verbiage-wise). Run out of words, sweet-heart?
Again, I own you ;-)

The man is always guilty......


Here is the unedited and uncensored video of Jamie Morgan's removal from the Board of Supervisors chambers.

The entire county pays Dumler's salary:


2. Salaried Board Members: Members of the Board of Supervisors and Planning
Commission are paid an annual salary as established by county ordinance and state




The following are examples of unacceptable conduct:

21. Criminal convictions for acts of conduct occurring on or off the job which are plainly
related to job performance or of such a nature that to continue the employee in the
assigned position could constitute negligence in regard to the County’s duty to the public
or its employees. *
* May result in immediate dismissal."


This policy does not apply to elected officials and for good reason.... just watch the link above of jamie freaking out and then imagine her dating anyone on the board and freaking out when they went in for a kiss....Remember these women say ANY unwanted contact is "rape" uless you have the permission form signed in triplicate and faxed to the department of records prior to any actual touching anywhere anytime.

Elrceted officials serve at the pleasure of the electorate and no one else in order to prevent duly elected people being set up by political enemies. So imagine a black or gay supervisor who was falsely accused of shoplifiting or assault or even sexual asault and they could be removed for a misdameanor. People would simply find a way to remove their enemies from office by false or exxagerated allegations.

I am not saying that that happened here at all I am simply repeating the mantra that elected officials need to be fired by the people they represent and not someone from a different jusrisdiction who thinks he is a bum. Look at Clinton... he used his power and influence in office to play hide the cigar and essentilaly ruined a girls life. Was it rape ? No but I am sure the trauma she suffered is comparable on a lot of levels. If he were just an employee he could have been fired but under the law he had to be impeached. That is fair.

So you can hound Dunler to resign and there is now talk you may suceed, or you can hold his constituents or political party guilty for having him on the roster and that is fine, but no one can have him fired nor should they be able to. If he were convicted of a felony than the law would require it. He was not and they cannot.

Bill, do you sit down and try to come up with the stupidest things to write? You’re comparing what went on with Lewinsky and Clinton in the White House – which was consensual, by the way – to what Dumler has forcibly done to numerous women. Yes, numerous. How do I know, well, cause I know.
Ok, I see your point, legally he can’t be forced out; there was no felony. But the people have/are spoken/speaking and the guy’s gonna be gone.
Why do you keep yammering on? You start every post bashing women, then make some ridiculous simile to other elected officials, then you state fact that everyone knows already.

bill marshall's posts jumped the shark long ago. at this point, he just looks like a bitter old man who was rejected by women all his life. i'm sorry, bill. you genuinely have my sympathy. but instead of spending your time posting here, i'd really recommend you find a therapist who can help with these issues of rejection, neglect (mom?), and anger.

hello and satchel

The reason I resate the obvious is because people keep restating that they believe they have the right to take out an elected official.

You think my rants are defending his right to shove his privates into someone elses privates and it is not. My statements are twofold

1) It is for the voters of his district to unseat him and not a bunch of people people who want revenge.

2) If women want things to change then women need to step up to the plate and take the responsibility to step up to the plate and go after abusers using the laws in place to do so. When a woman waits and does not preserve evidence and conspires with ex girlfriends etc etc then she undermines her own credibility. It would be a miscarriage of justice to allow convictions on such flimsy evidence. I am quite sure that if a teenage boy came forward and accused one of these cackling hens of having sex 6 months ago the woman would like it if the judge or jury asked for more evidence other than "she did it"

My woman "bashing" consists of expecting women to honor the rule of law. Women are equal not special.

Part of "the rule of law" in Virginia is that there is no statute of limitations for rape, forcible sodomy, or any felony. So women, obeying and respecting the law, may bring charges for these crimes at any time.

speaking up is correct... there is also no statute of limitations on due process either and if all we have is a month old accusation without any evidence then don't blame the Commonwealth if they cannot get a conviction. Women are not being "punished" for not coming forward... the law is simply providing the same protections to an accused as it does to an accuser. So someone can go scream like a spoiled child at a public hearing or accept that we are a country of laws and educate women of the need to preserve evidence as soon as possible. If that is too hard then perhaps the correct approach would be to work on making that part of it as least stressful as possible. Expecting all men to be gentlemen is like expecting all women to act sane at public meetings. It simply won't happen. So the answer is to educate men as best as possible to be responsible for not only their own behavior but to also look out for those around them and for women to look out for each other, and not nessasarily excericse their "right" to get so drunk they wander around bad neighborhoods or strange bedrooms and to come forward right away if something bad happens so the law can help you seek the justice you deserve.

This article may be about dumler but going forward it is about the people who might be victims of one of the other abusers out there.

Voters won't forget how Mallek and Rooker supported Dumler. To say their judgement is questionable is an understatement.

Dumler situation now picked up by international media (UK Mail).

the Mail Online has picked up the story:

Pam February 26th, 2013 | 8:11pm

@Recovering Attorney: The reason these cases aren't prosecuted is because people like you ask "When does yes become no?". It's always no...but like the Chief of UVA Police, you must feel that what starts can't be stopped.
I don't get this Pam. You are saying "yes" is always "no"? I am pretty sure some women (and men) want to have sex when they say yes.


B. Definitions of Employment
1. Regular
a. Full-Time:
b. Part-Time:
c. Probationary:
2. Salaried Board Members: Members of the Board of Supervisors and Planning
Commission are paid an annual salary as established by county ordinance and state


@red: You missed my point ... or maybe in my haste I typed an unintelligible comment.....so let me restate....

Recovering Attorney said that "In my experience, the "he said, she said" types of cases are impossible to adjudicate".

And my point is, these cases are always he said/she said. No man is going to admit to committing rape - he is going to say that it was consensual. The Prosecution believes him and then it is up to the woman to prove that she said no. If a couple is courting (do they still do this?) and are kissing, she is saying yes to kissing. But when he wants more, she says no. So where is the Line? He crosses the line but everyone says she wanted it. It's clear to me but not to most people that when a man crosses the line, it is rape.

And I made the case that every crime is he said/she said situations - a TV is stolen, a cop picks up the perp and asks "did you steal it" and the perp will say no. The response from a perp is always no - because no one will admit guilt freely. You can recover the TV, but you can't as easily recovery your virginity or sanity after a rape.

Bill Marshall made the asinine comment "Remember these women say ANY unwanted contact is "rape" unless you have the permission form signed in triplicate and faxed to the department of records prior to any actual touching anywhere anytime."

Bill, spend some time with women who are raped. The trauma stays with them for the rest of their lives. Treating them so rudely tells me that you will never understand.

Sergio .. what is your point? A school teacher doesn't teach all kids but everyone pays their salary and they are hired and fired by the school system.

A board member is technically employed by the voters in his district so although the paycheck comes from all taxpayers his constituents decide his/her fate.

Re: Bill Marshall's comment about sexual proclivities not affecting one's judgement on zoning matters. etc... f***ed is f***d up. I see sexual offenders get off with nothing in the way of treatment and nothing in the way of punishment all the time. And it's not a matter of which works or which works best ... both are needed.. and neither works when family, friends, and the public collude in minimizing and denying the problem. Dumler is laughing at you ... and leering at your daughter or granddaughter.

Re: Bill Marshall's comment about sexual proclivities not affecting one's judgement on zoning matters. etc... effed is effed up. I see sexual offenders get off with nothing in the way of treatment and nothing in the way of punishment all the time. And it's not a matter of which works or which works best ... both are needed.. and neither works when family, friends, and the public collude in minimizing and denying the problem. Dumler is laughing at you ... and leering at your daughter or granddaughter.

Agree with Wog.

Weird similarities between Thomas Jefferson and Chris Dumler:

•Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia
•Chris Dumler attended the University of Virginia

•Thomas Jefferson served as President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Virginia state legislator and Governor
•Chris Dumler serves on the Board of Supervisors.

•Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence.
•Chris Dumler was arrested last fall on a charge of forcible sodomy.

•Thomas Jefferson was terrified of public speaking.
•Chris Dumler's public relations firm Payne, Ross and Associates, could not be reached for comment.

•Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address in March 1801, pleaded for national unity, insisting that differences of opinion were not differences of principle.
•Chris Dumler in January, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor sexual battery.

•Thomas Jefferson invented the iron plow. An important tool in hillside planting.
•Special Prosecutor, Jeffery W. Haislip is a tool

•Thomas Jefferson collected biological samples from the Lewis and Clark Expedition
•Police collected DNA from Dumler

•Thomas Jefferson believed in life liberty and the pursuit of happiness
•Chris Dumler believes he is entitled

•Thomas Jefferson was hated by the Federalists
•Everyone hates Chris

•Thomas Jefferson was a farmer
•Chris Dumler is an admitted sex offender

•Thomas Jefferson was a bit of a "Foodie"
• and Chris Dumler is a convicted sex offender.

Freaky ain't it?

To Recovering Attorney: You correctly say that "[t]here are several facts in this case that are not known by anyone except Mr. Dumler and the young lady or ladies in question." But then you say that Dumler "didn't rape anyone" and that it is "unlikely that force was an issue." How do you know that?

Lewis just won the internets...

"And my point is, these cases are always he said/she said. No man is going to admit to committing rape - he is going to say that it was consensual. The Prosecution believes him and then it is up to the woman to prove that she said no. "

Why do you presume the prosecutuion believes the accused?

It is what they call "innocent until PROVEN guilty" deal with it!

I recognise that relationships are tricky and there are negotiations as things progress. So NO does mean no.. so thats fine.. but it is up to the woman to then change her behavior and say... "not now" or "not yet", or "lets slow this down" or some other way of modulating the encounter if they are not interested in a total shut down.

If on the other hand you are on a"date"and some guy tries to shove his business up your business then say "stop" and if he does not stop right away say "this is rape" If he still doesn't stop then do what you have to do (fight or flight) and go to the hospital and police right away and swear that you said "stop this is rape" and he didn't stop. that will go a long way to helping society help you get a cretin off the street. So many people here want the constitution tossed aside but if we had 100 people who said that a guy sold them drugs on differrent occasions with no drugs or cash then they simply don't have a case.

Accept that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Hey Ponce, what do you think could have prevented Dumler from going to jail? I mean, if an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, what do you think Chris Dumler could have done to prevent his guilty plea and sentence? When he goes to jail, what sort of advice do you think it would be good for him to ponder?

Certainly Chris Dumler is responsible for his fate to a certain degree? How could he have avoided what's happened?

We're all ears.

I suppose he could make better choices when it comes to his alcohol intake and to where he puts his penis. The sodomy accusation not withstanding the next morning he apparently was fine with what happend as his defense was that he believed it was consensual.

Now on the other hand if perhaps the girl had used the term "stop this is rape" he may have stopped and cleared up the misunderstanding before it went too far. (i don't know as I was not there but I would doubt very seriouslythat if she had said that and gone to the police right away that the charges would have been so readily reduced. )

I am not defending dumler but I do believe that in america we need proof before we take a persons liberties away and those lobbying for public indignation being considered as evidence is wrong

I guess its only men who are sexual wack jobs...


Cynthia Neff first contended Dumler didn't have the "$100,000.00" it would take for him to fight his charges in court. In an interview today, Dumler said he wasn't willing to spend the "$45,000.00" it would cost him for the fight - inconsistently echoing Neff's claim of his lack of defense funds.

Dumler is on the Advisory Council of the Legal Aid Justice Center. Wouldn't you think as such he could have gotten some pro-bono assistance from them? Just wondering.

Let's make this a Trifecta....Dumler, Mallek and Rooker all leave. MALLEK and ROOKER are nitwits and are trying to NOW save THEIR hide on their stupid earlier decision to NOT have Dumler leave. Now MALLEK and ROOKER are recognizing what dumb (*&^&*@#$# they are and are attempting at "DOING THE RIGHT THING". I hope everyone in the MALLEK and ROOKER districts remember this when it is THEIR time for re-election. They need to go, as well.

Chris Dumler gave up his right to trial in the courts, and now he wants to try his case in the court of public opinion. I read that on line. But Chris, if you think you will receive vindication, I am not seeing that. When you search the Worldwide Web, the negative outweighs the positive, and in fact, it is hard to find anything nice about you. The more you talk, the worse things seem to get. You need to keep quiet now. You are acting like a child. You can't say "I plead guilty but I'm innocent" and expect people to believe anything you say. You should go home to Stone Mountain and stay with your mother and father for a while Chris. You don't need counseling as much as you need your mother.

The rest of the news:

Woman Involved in Dumler Sex Case Speaks Out


@ amanda -- "Cynthia Neff first contended Dumler didn't have the "$100,000.00" it would take for him to fight his charges in court. In an interview today, Dumler said he wasn't willing to spend the "$45,000.00" it would cost him for the fight - inconsistently echoing Neff's claim of his lack of defense funds."

$45,000 sound like quite a lot to risk when considering the high potential for limited reasoning skills or hidden agendas of those who might make up a jury. Many of the comments so far including your own point to the legitimacy of that concern.

So Dumler's innocence isn't worth $45,000- or to put it another way he would rather go to jail for 30 days then pay $45,000. He's a lawyer and said this? I don't understand this logic in the slightest. It seems like a really good reason to go into debt if you're innocent.

To me it says one thing, that Dumler thought "once the other victims come forward I'm toast"

St. Halsey nailed it.

Ponce, thanks for admitting that it was Chris' decision to put his penis where it shouldn't be that resulted in his jail sentence. The fact that "he was fine" with what transpired that night obviously is immaterial to the accusation of forcible sodomy, isn't it? I mean, do we care if a thief is "fine" with the possession of stolen property?

He is an admitted perpetrator of sexual battery and will be going to jail as a result of his crime. Chris Dumler could have avoided all of this by making different decisions. His poor judgment and decisions are the only reason he's in this situation.

If he had not been allowed to plead I am sure his "innocence" as to the forcible sodomy charge would have been worth the 45k and probably more. But when the question became having a misdemeanor record and 15 weekends in jail vs an expenditure of 45k plus a risk of his law license and livleihood when he is only 27 it doesn't take a lawyer to know which advice to reccomend be taken. I doubt that there are many people innocent or not who would take that risk after reviewing the downside. Especially since it is obvious that there are scorned women out to bring him down. If you look at how he is being villifyed then it seems that as far as the courts go he made a wise decision.

It seems like he apperantly comes off as a nice guy and then gets very aggressive in the bedroom and crosses boundaries that should not be crossed. It finally caught up with him and he is paying a price for it legally and obviously in the court of public opinion. He has been neutered for two years while on probation and hopefully will change his ways.

So if you believe that he comitted forcible sodomy you might feel cheated if you believe that he crossed boundaries without the intent to harm or injure ( maybe he thought she might like that as some women do... regardless of that jamie and kim think) then the law worked.

He will pay the price. He retains his job unless those he represents force him out and hopefully everyone involved learned a lesson. (even if that lesson is to be careful who you go home with)

I mean, do we care if a thief is "fine" with the possession of stolen property

If the "thief" does not know that the neighbor has a problem with him using his truck and then has him arrested the next week for theft because he found out he took it off road while he was using it then what you have is someone who took advantage and a disagreement about what "using" the truck meant. So the proscecuter would reduce the charge to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle which is a misdemenaor, the guy would apologise , deal with the snetence and follow his probation. But he should not be thrown out oi elected office for it unless the people in HIS district recall him.

Bill, deal with the fact that people other than you have reactions regarding sex crimes that differ from crimes of possession. If I insert something inside of your body that you don't want there, it's a little different from using your truck.

It may be that you have an emotional maturity level that is lower than everyone else, or it may be that you have sociopathic tendencies which reduce your ability to be empathetic. But for whatever reason, your comments and reasoning is far outside the mainstream.

Best of luck to you.

Well so far the courts have agreed with my reasoning.

And from the released facts of the case he didn't "insert" something in her body she didn't want there she just didn't like the way he handled the insertion.

I am not unsypathetic to the the fact that women are often assulted by men I just think that women have more ability to help prevent the total number of incidents than men do. Women want men to not consume so much alcohol that their asgressive side comes out but want to themselves drink to a point of stupididty and then make men go to jail because they took advantage of your lowered inhibitions. There is obvioiusly a line to be distinguished between lowered inhibitions and obliterated intoxication and a lot of the women posting here don't even want to acknowlegge that. Too bad. The courts do.

The women on this thread have blamed UVA and its refusal to prosecute sex crimes and I agree but their case is undermined, not by men but by the very women they purport to protect. These girls get sloshed and enjoy lots of sex and then when they finally wake up and realize that the guy they woke up with was a lot uglier or poorer or less popular than the guy they went to bed with they want a way out. No dice. Deal with your own stupid behavior. It is not mens fault thatt hey seldom feel remorse after having sex with an ugly girl. They just take the ribbing and move on. The guy is a pig who is now exposed. The law is protecting the voters in his district from people like jamie morgan taking away their duly elected reprsentative.

The law worked exactly as it should and if all the circumstance were to repeat themselves with any other board member male or female the courts would treat it the same way.

So hate the guy and make sure he is blacklisted but none of it will do any good towards reducing the number of sexual assaults that do go on.

I stiull contend that my suggestions would reduce the number of incidents more than all the other suggestions combined. If you want to start locking people up for unproven accusations based solely on one persons word over the other you have anarchy within months.

Bill Marshall,
Why are you protecting him? Forcible sodomy IS rape. Look up the federal definition. I have spoken to the survivors and their families. I know what happened. Do not use my presentation style to invalidate my emotions. When I called out Dumler in tears after he directly rolled his eyes and made faces at me, some of the people around me used my reaction to attempt to demonstrate that what I say cannot be trusted - in other words, that I must be "a drama queen" if i'm letting those around me see me that upset. For someone to be that upset over anything so seemingly small to the male audience must mean that I'm not thinking within reason. The term "gas-lighting" is used to describe manipulative behavior used to confuse people into thinking their reactions are so far off base that they're crazy. Terms like "chill out" or "you're freaking out" are phrases women have been conditioned to accept. They effectively render some women emotionally mute, and steals their most powerful tool: their voice. I will not be quieting down anytime soon. And much of what you are saying is incorrect. I am not trying to argue I am just giving you the facts.

Also, telling women to prevent rape is ridiculous. Teach men NOT TO RAPE. Thoughts like that is were victim blaming gets its roots. It is not a women's fault if she gets raped. It is the man's fault for raping her. Just because a women is drunk does not give men the right to rape her.

Nothing in Bill's comment refuted this statement:

"you have an emotional maturity level that is lower than everyone else .... you have sociopathic tendencies which reduce your ability to be empathetic."

Teaching men not to rape is like teaching me how to ... oh, forget it..

Hello, you are certainly entitled to your opinion but you are mistaken about me playing devils advocate. I am not. I am trying to point out to the "real" morons here.that do not understand that like it or not the Constitution and the rule of law takes precedence over vigilanti justice.

The people like Jamie who are calling for his ouster are asking for something that is not legal to do. She just wanted to berate a public official in a public forum because she thinks he is a bad person. If she wants to publicly berate him that is her right but the board has addressed the issue censured him, which is the limit of their authority and it is WRONG for her to demand that they do more when there is nothing more than they can or should do.

This is an action for the voters in his district and should remain that way to preserve the integrity of the system. The fact they some people here don't even understand the most basics of how our system is supposed to work says much more about them than it does me.

As for the actual legal charges I think the guy is not a rapist.I do think he is a sexual batterer which is different. I think from all that I have read is that he is a lousy lay who likes to ride girls roughshod when given the chance. He crossed a line into sexual battery for which he plead guilty and was sentenced for. There are people who think he was guilty of more and are upset that he was let off so easy. Well my suggestions were that in the future the victim needs to preserve evidence better and come forward sooner in order to give the prosecuter something to work with. We cannot toss out due process for the accused under any circumstances no matter how shrill or upset people like jamie get.

In the 1920s people made accusations against blacks and juries took the word of a white person over a black person because they wanted an outcome they deemed "righteous" and we have spent 80 years trying to fix that. Well now because jamie feels "righteous" she thinks we should take the word of one person over another because she has a preconcieved notion that any man that doesn't see her point of view is a rapist as she has accused not only me but anyone else who spoke up on this thread. It doesn't work that way and her rants both here and on video are exactly why we need due process protections. I have said repeatedly that rapists should be dealt with but we need to follow the law to do it. I have also said the best way to get the evidence is to come forward as soon as possible and preserve it. The statute of limitation is irrelevant if you have no evidence. I also suggested that fi reporting is too difficult then we need to make it easier, free and private. These are all sound recomendations to help the prosecuters in the future. How does that makie me an ally of rapists? It doesn't.

As to the teaching men not to rape mantra, I addressed that too, most men do not rape. Most men do not tolerate rape , Most men would stop a rapist in progress and probably beat the hell out of the guy while waiting for the cops. But most men are at home with their own life and not in a womans apartment with her and the guy she brought home from the bar. Or the guy she is dating. Or the guy she is making out with in the parking lot behind a club. So common sense says that it is incumbent on a woman to look out for herself and accept that there are enough sexual predators out there that she needs to not voluntarily loweer her defenses with excessive drinking anymore than a mailman needs to forget his pepper spray for loose dogs. It is simply the most pragamatic way of reducing the number of sexual assualts and rapes that we can all agree happen too often.

It may not seem fair or even be "fair" but life is not fair and if our goal is to try prevent as many assaults as we can than women need to participate in that by helping society help them. If people like jamie want to keep their head in the sand they can drink, party, leave their doors unlocked, the keys iin the ignition of the car and keep their passwords on their bank account abc123. They can do all of that and technically they are a victim. Some people will feel sorry for whatever happens to them. I will feel sorry for them for being so immature that they put some kumbuyya notion over common friggin sense and actually think they deserve sympathy for thinking that society should care more about them then they do about themselves.

I will still put my suggestions up over anyones here and see which would actually help the problem.

I contend there was a time when people had enough shame to step down voluntarily when caught being a scumbag.
Legal or not, consensual or not, Dumler is a scumbag. Guys who do what he does are scumbags: cheating on girlfriends, inserting his penis in a woman's anus...scumbag. Dirtbag. And he doesn't even have the shame or sense to resign in disgrace. And some people still support him, even if by silence (Neff et al). Unbelievable how low we have slouched.

On a much lesser note, calling cops "pigs" is so 1968...you harm your cause when you do that, Jamie. The police are there to serve and protect. Like the military (aka "baby killers") they don't make the policy...they only enforce it. Please consider apologizing to the officer and the Albemarle S.O. They will understand you were upset. I would be upset too if some scumbag convicted sexual batterer rolled his eyes at me.

It seems that Anyone demanding resignation or removal of Supervisor Dumler (D-Albemarle) must ALSO DEMAND removal or resignation of DELEGATE FARISS (R-Albemarle) for the same reasons: gender violence!

Where is that petition? We will sign it.

The Daily Progress reported in October 2011, during the campaign that Mr Fariss won:

http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/article_38e ...
Wednesday, October 26, 2011.

Republican candidate Matt Fariss of Rustburg was named in an emergency protective order in 2002 that required him to stay away from a Lynchburg woman. Fariss campaign manager said Wednesday that Fariss was not available for comment....
Fariss, who has refused to talk to The News & Advance of Lynchburg about any of his legal issues, is getting financial support from state Republican Party officials for his campaign, which is making heavy use of mailed brochures. Some of them describe his family values.
A Lynchburg police officer asked a city magistrate to issue an emergency protective order on March 9, 2002, that required Fariss to stay away from a Lynchburg woman.
The officer request said the woman stated to me that Fariss broke through her back door to gain entry into her house when she told him to leave. History of violence.

The Police report notes 'History of violence'.

If anyone has not demanded the resignation or removal of Honorable Mr Fariss - for history of violence - one wonders about motivations in demanding resignation or removal of Honorable Mr Dumler - for history of violence. Are there clearly and objectively non-partisan moral reasons to demand one resignation and not the other?

The current petition being circulated in Scottsville District cites only "documented questionable behavior" as the cause for signing. WE HAVE 'documented questionable behavior" regarding Mr Fariss: the Police report notes "History of violence'.

The 'questionable behavior' in both situations is history of violence! Both have that that documentation in the public record.

Where is that petition? We will sign it.

dude, quit trolling this with your Farriss story- it's about Dumler!
As Charlie Brown said more than once, "AAAAUGH!"

re: Mark's comment- "Guys who do what he does are scumbags: cheating on girlfriends, inserting his penis in a woman's anus...scumbag."

There sure are a lot of scumbag men out there if Mark's characterization is correct.

I don't consider junk women's magazines authoritative sources, but this article does link to the primary source. http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/dating-blog/rise-in-anal-sex-statistics

"But the "big story," as Slate writer William Saletan puts it, is anal sex! In 1992, a similar survey found that 16 percent of women aged 18-24 had tried it. Now the number is more like 40 percent. And in 1992, the highest percentage of women in any age group who admitted to anal sex was 33 percent. Now it's 46.

Saletan goes on to say: "The last time I looked at the anal sex data, I figured that most women who reported having done it meant they'd tried it just once. I was wrong. … One-third of these women say they've done it in the last month. Among all women surveyed, the number who reported anal sex in their most recent sexual encounter was three percent to four percent. That's a lot of butt sex. And remember, this is what women are reporting. If anything, they're probably understating the truth.""

Hey Jamie why don't you try directing all your hysterical vitriol to your cats since they're the only ones who are going to be interested in what you have to say when you hit the wrinkle wall in about 5 years.

Respectfully to those ignoring the OBVIOUS similarity in our concern that both Honorable Mr Dumler and Honorable Mr Fariss are serving despite public documentation of intentional violence: why ignore the intentional violence of one and not another? We believe that documented intentional violence should make a person - by default - unfit for elected or appointed public office. Of course, the individual may present reasons, and overall the burden of unfitness. Can you supply any statement from Mr Fariss declaring that he is 'fit despite documented intentional violence'? We have found none, and we do not accept Mr Dumler's explanation so far; and so, wth principled fairness, we reject as unfit both Mr Dumler and Mr Fariss.

Respectfully, some appear to state that the documented violence of Mr Fariss did not involve sexual intercourse of this or that type. That is entirely off the point: documented intentional violence if the point, whether sexual violence, gender violence, abuse of children, torturing animals, etc.

Further, making a claim that anal intercourse - per se - is sufficient cause against Mr Dumler is archaic and stupid, and therefore is not dispositive of the case. Have you asked Honorable Mr Snow or other officials if he or she has ever gone down down there? If the type of intercourse is dispositive - which we say not - they why not ask everyone seeking office to complete a full sexual history for presentation to the public? We further disagree that sexual deviance, or sexual criminal offense, is dispositive of the case. IN FACT, adultery is a sexual criminal offense under Virginia law! Have you ever asked Honorable Mr Boyd or other officials if she or he has every committed adultery? In fact, we might agree that adultery should disqualify any candidate for elected or appointed office; BUT, because THE SEXUAL CRIMINAL OFFENSE of adultery is SO COMMON in Virginia - as is deviant sexuality - that we would have few candidates to stand of office if these were measures of fitness for service.