'Admitted' behavior: Judge denies Dumler motion
-
Attorney Jessica Phillips was unable to get the case to remove Dumler from the Albemarle Board of Supervisors dismissed. Protester Steve Peters positioned his sign for the TV cameras.photo by lisa provence -
Lynchburg Commonwealth's Attorney Mike Doucette says in the absence of case law, he has to rely on common sense to make his case to remove Dumler.photo by lisa provence -
Green-jacketed Lena Seville discusses why she was removed from the courtroom with an Albemarle sheriff's deputy.photo by lisa provence
Unlike his last appearance in court as a defendant, a freshly shaved Chris Dumler came before a judge April 29 seeking to have the petition for his removal from the Albemarle Board of Supervisors thrown out– to no avail. Judge Cheryl Higgins ruled against him in a case that has very little precedent in Virginia.
Dumler's attorney, Jessica Phillips, argued that the petition for Dumler's removal from office citing "admitted and documented questionable behavior" was too vague, and that special prosecutor Mike Doucette's bill of particulars, which specifies how Dumler's conviction of misdemeanor sexual battery had a "material adverse effect" on his ability to perform his job as a supervisor, made a "giant leap" from what was in the petition.
"Questionable behavior– we don't know what that means," said Phillips. "If it's for a misdemeanor conviction, that's not enough reason to remove him from office." Virginia law specifies the removal of elected officials who've been convicted of felonies.
The bill of particulars noted the canceling of two town hall meetings in October after Dumler was arrested for felony forcible sodomy, his inability to attend to his elected duties while incarcerated October 18, and recusing himself from voting on the Keene police gun range.
"Some supervisors have never held town hall meetings," said Phillips. She pointed out that other supervisors have recused themselves from votes, and have been unavailable to constituents while on vacation.
The alleged derelictions of duty listed in the bill of particulars are not actual duties," said Phillips. "They're having Mr. Dumler do things other members of the board are not required to do."
Special prosecutor Mike Doucette, who is commonwealth's attorney in Lynchburg, noted the paucity of case law on the removal of Virginia elected officials, and he cited a case going back to the 1920s to justify the bill of particulars that listed specifics not found in the citizen-signed petition.
He also asked the judge to rule on Dumler's motion to strike the bill of particulars first, because if the court granted it, "We can't go further and would probably non-suit it," he said. Dumler had filed a demurrer as well, and because the case hung on the bill of particulars, there would be no point in arguing the demurrer, Doucette added.
Judge Higgins asked him to argue both.
Doucette called the removal a "quasi-criminal matter" and as commonwealth's attorney, his job was to represent the commonwealth, rather than the petitioners or the victims.
"The code requires grounds for removal in detail," Doucette told Judge Higgins. With the petition only stating "admitted and questionable behavior," it was up to the prosecutor to come up with specific grounds, he said.
"If the court accepts those arguments, it's gutting the statute," protested Phillips. For instance, she objected to the item that said Dumler's one night in jail after he was arrested (and before he started serving a 30-day sentence on weekends) had a material adverse effect on his ability to perform his job.
"We're talking one day," said Phillips. "That's saying a supervisor can't take a Friday off."
Judge Higgins agreed with the defendant that the special prosectuor could be gutting the statute– but said she had to look at the motion in the light most favorable to the commonwealth, and didn't find that in this petition, which noted Dumler's "admitted and documented questionable behavior." Dumler pleaded guilty to sexual battery in a plea agreement.
For Higgins, "admitted" was the key word in her decision, she said. She made an immediate ruling and she denied the motion to strike.
In denying the demurrer, Higgins said that Dumler's being incarcerated and incommunicado, not holding town hall meetings, and resigning from several committee positions could be considered neglect of duty– although she was not ruling that it was.
Afterward, Dumler and Phillips walked through a smaller-than-usual gauntlet of four sign-carrying protesters, and declined to comment. Dumler has been serving his 30-day sentence on weekends, and he did a nine-day stint in jail earlier in April. He'll appear at his first Board of Supervisors meeting since then on May 1.
Virginia's removal law is not the same as a recall, Doucette said outside the Albemarle Circuit Court. "The removal statute is not exercised all that much to the degree that there are appellate decisions," he said "Sometimes you just have to say what is common sense."
He said he'd spent the previous day trying to find case law. And while he's been a prosecutor for 29 years, this is only his second elected-official removal case in his career. "If this was a robbery or cocaine prosecution," said Doucette, "I've got those down."
The judge ordered that the 500-plus signatures that petitioner Earl Smith collected be verified, and Dumler is scheduled to go to trial May 20.
"I'm happy she's letting it go forward," said Smith. "We're not being represented." He disputed Dumler's contention that canceling town hall meetings wasn't a neglect of duty.
"If you come on the scene and do these new things and bring us into the 21st century, and you take away those things upon which you were elected," said Smith, "you should step down."
48 comments
Treat a lady like meat and expect the grinder.
This guy just doesn't get how much people despise him and what he did. Neither did Rooker and Mallek until they received a huge outcry from voters (this is what happens when party comes before a basic sense of morality).
In denying the demurrer, Higgins said that Dumler's being incarcerated and incommunicado, not holding town hall meetings, and resigning from several committee positions could be considered neglect of duty– although she was not ruling that it was.
So if a different Board member gets cancer and misses meetings while they are at chemo, and a bunch of right wing nutjobs disrupt their town hall meetings to a point where they can't hold one.because the board member is pro life then all we need is 500 or so signatures to get them ousted despite the fact that they were elected?
This judge needs to represent the voters not the "commonwealth"
I guess she graduated from UVA.
The law is on his side and she needs to respect that. The prosecuter from Lynchburg should have fessed up and said " I got nothin"
She needs to remember that his political "adversaries" yanked him off committees because of their personal moral outrage. That is the the unethical act that should be dealth with.
To all you Dumler apologists and sex-abuse deniers, you who prognosticated the Judge would throw out the case at the hearing, you were dead wrong!
The judge says the case will move forward. So Bollocks, Former Frat Brat, Ponce, Bill Marshall, all y'all, you were wrong!
You will be wrong again when the Judge forces him from office. You have lost your credibility here, just like Dumler. Some of us know what the testimony will be already, and the Judge won't like it one bit. The trouble with all of your diatribes is that you think you are right. When a couple dozen witnesses come forth, high-powered, elected, appointed, or citizens and claim that Dumler cannot do his job, and then Dumler and a few Scottsville residents testify to the contrary, who do you think the Judge will believe?
This part of the case is over Ponce/Dumler, so quit trying to re-try it here. On to March 20. Dumler hasn't had a victory in court yet, and he won't get one then either. Hell hath no fury!
For a lawyer, Chris Dumler is batting zero for three, with much bravado leading up to each at bat. First he said he was not guilty and that he would mount a vigorous defense, but in the end, he took a plea bargain and admitted his guilt. During that case, his lawyers tried to get his computer back that the police had taken for evidence, and he was denied that motion. Then this trial comes along and he again has been mounting a public defense against the petition to remove only to find that his motions today were denied.
Going forward, Dumler will find a very harsh reality at court on the 20th. I hope that his supporters have learned a thing or two now that this is going to a trial. They kept saying this would be thrown out, or that the Judge would never hear the petition, or that the petition doesn't address the statute. Enjoy your defeat, Dumler supporters. Please give some thought to how Chris Dumler has LOST now 3 times in a row in court. He's serving a jail term. Give it up, Dumler and his supporters.
This battle is now over. Dumlers only chance hung on this hearing, that I gave a 50-50 chance either way. He goes to trial, he looses...and he knows it. He can try to play tricks with the petition, the bill, etc... but it will not matter.
At this point, he might be looking for the Judge to remove him from office. If that happens, I suspect he will appeal (because he wants to be known for precedent) and he will file personal suits against as many people as he can. Anyone who has called him a rapist, etc...so be thoughtful in your comments. If he is removed, he can show actual harm in a defamation suit for the loss of income.
And, BTW, I was surprised that someone didn't mention what I consider the improper use of the demurrer. It was so poorly composed it was nearly NOT a demurrer...but it makes no difference now.
And BTW...take 2:
The death threat. Has anyone looked into the possibility that the man might have filed a FALSE POLICE REPORT?
That is ILLEGAL as well, would be a new charge, and a direct conflict of interest with his responsibilities as a BOS member.
Did anyone notice the big smile Dumler sported when he made his exit yesterday?
Is the man really that happy?
Very odd man-Dumler.
I think that the Judge let it go forward so that when she rules that he stays under the law it is on the merits and not a technicality. That saves her backside and gives her more of a forum to explain the law to the people who don't quite get it.
The hearing will be between him and his constituents and whether or not he can effectively represent them to the MINIMUM standard. So the Judge will need to look at the list of his REQUIRED duties and check them off. She really can't use the arguments that women are afraid to send an email to him to voice their opinion, and she can't argue that people are disgusted by him and his character for the simple reason that the district could elect a person with a FELONY RAPE conviction or a convicted MURDERER and there would be nothing they could do as long as he got a majority vote. Malfeasance in office that affects the voters is one thing. Misdemeanor sexual assault is what he AND the Commonwealth agreed was the crime that occured and he cannot be Judged harsher than that by an officer of the Court regardless of how she "feels" . She does not have the right to seek retribution for for anyone inside or outside his district. She has no more right to deny him access to do his job than the Arkansas Government did to keep black children out of Schools in the 1960s.
I suppose Dumler could just get some Democrats from Boyds district and have them testify whether Dumler is doing a "better" job than Boyd. That shouldn't be too hard to find.
@E-Ville:
The First Amendment gives us all the right of free speech, so long as we are expressing an OPINION. It does NOT give us the right to make statements of fact that are not fact.
If he files suit and can show actual loss due to defamatory statements, the court will award him damages.
The case law on defamation, and what makes it different than free speech is substantial.
I was only reminding those who might need reminding to be careful because I think this is the only avenue he has at this point. The hurdle was yesterday, and now ...it's over.
Tired of the excuses..... If you actually had any principles you would accept that the bigger picture here is more important than Dumler. And according to the adjuication he didn't rape anybody. For the record, I have never "excused" or defended his actions, only his right to remain in office.and in reality I am defending the right of the electorate to choose who they want within the confines of the statute and the statute does not include sexual assault, It only includes hate crimes and drug related crimes which leads me to believe that other elected officials considered the issue and included those two and wanted all other misdemeanors excluded to avoid situations like this. If you want to change the law then lobby for it as others are doing., but you can't see a guy dancing in his underwear today and say "there ought to be a law" and arrest him for it. You need to pass a law, and then see if he dances again.
The real problem is people like YOU who are so selfish that you want retribution that the law does not allow. You are not entitled to it and thats a good thing because perhaps one day you will hit a dog with your car while you are changing the radio and the law will hit you with a misdameanor but some PETA nut will folllow you to work and try and get YOU fired. Hopefully if that happens your employer will have rules in place that need to be followed just as Dumlers has rules that his "employers" put in place to protect him from being railroaded because someone is "unhappy" with an outcome of a legally settled matter.
Your inablity to understand this does not make you right.
Bill, in the same spirit you admonish those for wanting the law to change, I would suggest you wait until the decision is handed down after the May 20 hearing. It's not for you to say that the law does not allow his removal from office because, you see, you are not a judge. And the judge in this case just decided against Dumler.
Pipe down and listen up to what the judge decides. Your inability to understand that the petitioners have the right to a hearing and a potential redress of grievances does not make you right.
@Meanwhile: I used the word rape as an example, and under existing VA law, he did not "rape" anyone, nor (as you noted) has he been accused or convicted of rape. If someone were to say "John Doe is a rapist", and he was not, a court could easily award him damages, especially if there was actual damage (loss of salary) If someone were to say "I believe John Doe is a rapist because I consider sodomy to be rape" It's a different story altogether.
But again, I was only trying to remind folks how slippery I believe this man to be, and that I think he is the type of person who would file a suit for damages. I have sat through more defamation suits (both successful and not) than I care to remember, so I am clear...thanks.
@Bill: I remember that you have, since the start of all of this, advocated for the legal process. The legal process is working. Now that the case is going to trial, the judge has wide latitude in her opinion. It will not be difficult to show that this man can't represent his district. I really believe this is over. Maybe 2% chance he stays. Interestingly, the code provides for the appeals process to be concluded before removal under most sections, but not this one.
Have you thought about what needs to happen to ensure a special election is conducted ASAP? It can be done, and then the district voters will be choosing their representation. I am operating under the assumption that is what you want.
I hear you Not Ponce, but my point is that it would be up to a jury to decide that someone committed defamation for calling someone convicted of sexual battery, and who is alleged to forcibly penetrated someone anally, a "rapist".
I understand that the laws of Virginia are what they are. What I'm saying is that by most people's standards (and these are the people that would comprise a jury), forcible anal sodomy is rape. Be pretty hard for Dumler to prove damages with all the negative stories in the press about him (which exploded after his admitting his crime in court, under oath).
Most likely the guy wishes he could forget all of this altogether and not have this tawdry stretch of his life become the focal point of his efforts for any longer than they need to be.
It's like this: If someone were to say, "OJ Simpson is a murderer." Do you really believe that OJ Simpson would sue this person for defamation or slander? He was never convicted of murder, but to prove defamation, he would have to prove that the statement is untrue. The burden of proof switches when you accuse someone of defamation.
@Meanwhile: You wrote "...not have this tawdry stretch of his life". I would be willing to bet that Dumler engaged in this activity before and, short of having effective psychiatric treatment, will be doing this for many, many years to come.
Now on to the 20th!
The system (the prosecutor and the judge) gets to define what neglect is in this case, and also what "material adverse effects" are. They even get to define what the "job" is of supervisor. There is so little actually mandated by any job description or by law, that in order for the judge to determine if the job has been neglected , she needs to know what the job actually is! That's where other supervisors come in. They can define the job. The prosecutor will make his case as to what defines material adverse effects. If the judge buys it, Dumler can be removed.
Dumler will make his case to the contrary. He hasn't been very good in court, though. In fact, since 2008, out of 14 times he has been cited or sued or had to have personal dealings with the courts, he has only had two cases dismissed, and the rest he lost - from simple traffic infractions to debt collection to sexual battery. He lost two recent decisions from the court that were extremely important to him - getting his computer back from the police last fall, and Monday's suck-the-wind-right-out-of-you loss to have the recall/removal thrown out.
Meanwhile and not ponce, I am glad they got the petition done as that is a legitimate part of the process. If the Judge removes him then so be it, as that is her peragative. I am unaware of the appeal procedures if he is removed. I do currently believe that the law is still in dumlers favor if we follow a logical flow chart.
1) he was elected to a given term.
2) Once elected there is no way to recall him except for behavior that has materially affected his ablility to do his job. (or the felony or defined misdemeanors)
3) We then need to define what his minimum "job" requirements are. (I think it is to be able to have the mental capacity to read and understand proposed legislation and to vote or abstain as he chooses and that is it as far as requirements go)
4) . The judge needs to look only at those minimum requirements and nothing else for the simple reason that his character is to be decided in the voting booth and you don't get a do-over except as prescribed by law.
The reason I am still pounding away is to counteract those who call him a rapist and me an apologist etc etc all the time ignoring the importance of the electoral process. I think his chances of keeping his job are pretty high. I might be wrong and if I am I won't say he was wronged, but I will respectfully disagree.
If we changed some facts it would be a no brainer. If he had been a black man fighting pitbulls and pleaded guilty to misdemeanor animal cruelty I don't think the judge would say that that affects his abilities to make decisions. He may choose to abstain from any SPCA issues and half the population who are pet owners may hate him but half the people who saw what Bill Clinton did hated him too. If they went for his job the NAACP would be all over it.
If he were a gay man convicted misdemeanor sexual assault and claimed it was just a misunderstanding I don't think that it would have gone this far either. People would have attributed it to a "miscommunication" or some such and if they went after him the gay lobby would have gone beserk.
But he is a young white presumabaly priveledged "darling" (as people repeatedly put it) and that makes him fair game for every woman who wants to carry the battle flag for womens rights. Their anger is okay with me and they can follow him around with a sign, but when they attempt to badger him out of office they are using an innappropriate forum because the people in his District deserve a voice in county politics and the protesters are thwarting that.
So I think the judge should toss it on its face and the board should accept that ruling and stop cheating the people in his district of their representaion He deserves the same privledges of every other Board member.
But once again, I will accept the ruling however it falls.
Bill, you always make the mistake of framing the argument your way,
e.g.
"3) We then need to define what his minimum "job" requirements are. (I think it is to be able to have the mental capacity to read and understand proposed legislation and to vote or abstain as he chooses and that is it as far as requirements go)
4) . The judge needs to look only at those minimum requirements and nothing else"
See, this is your undoing. This is how you prognosticated that the judge would throw out the petitions. You were wrong. Your mistake is *presuming* that's all that is required of a supervisor. That is not all. The current and former supervisors in Albemarle County will attest to that. So will Dumler's FORMER behavior as a supervisor vs. how he conducts his office today. The judge will decide based on that premise, not some "minimum" requirement of the office. This judge has such huge leeway in this case that the letter of the law can be thrown out now, sorry to violate your legal sensibilities.
Dumler's mistake is similar: He thinks he knows the law and how it works! Surprise!! He thinks he knows the electorate and it works. Surprise!! He thinks he knows women and how they work. Surprise!! His hubris will follow him wherever he goes.
That man Dumler basically just got here, I mean, he's only been here a few years and as a resident not a student only maybe four years now. So what's the big deal whether he stays or leaves I mean the man blew into our county not his and just broke the law all over the place and got his self arrested and into debt and to do that girl like that! He is in jail and everyone is so mad. We don't need that kind of man around here. I mean why does he stay here? This is not his place. This is our place. Who does he think he is?
Cvillian, I think the judge let the hearing stand to avoid backlash, but I still believe that she most certainly could have chosen to throw them out on solid grounds. I also HOPE that the judge puts the LAW above the petty losers who want him punished in this court for something he was already punished for in another court.
and I disagree with his former behavior vs his current behavior. If your grade drops from an "A" to a "D" you are still passing the class ... and once again the LAW is what matters. The Judge needs to be very respectful of the electorate which is way larger than the 580 signatures that were gotten. And if the judge is going to get to the nitty gritty then she needs to look at how long it took those signatures to be aquired. I would imagine if people were as incensed as the few nut jobs testifying at the hearing they would have had 1000 signatures in a matter of just a few days.
We have a horse race.
Easy there Bill.
You said " I also HOPE that the judge puts the LAW above the petty losers who want him punished in this court for something he was already punished for in another court. "
There's just a "few" petty losers who want him punished. The rest of us just want him gone. There's a bit of slight of hand here. While you (and Dumler) are watching the protesters and the p/o'd women, the rest of us just really want him gone for his hubris and his lack of public trust at this point, and because of what he did. The petition signers are just the tip of the iceberg. There are a lot of regular ol' citizens who talk about this almost daily in the district.
Lawyers always ask the "reasonable" question. "Would you say that it is reasonable that an electorate would want Chris Dumler to resign after his arrest and conviction on forcible sodomy and sexual battery charges?"
This is reasonable. Him staying is not.
Mr. Dumler lost his best shot at keeping his job as supervisor this past Monday at his hearing.
Lawyers always ask the "reasonable" question. "Would you say that it is reasonable that an electorate would want Chris Dumler to resign after his arrest and conviction on forcible sodomy and sexual battery charges?"
Well, most lawyers would know that he was not convicted of "forcible sodomy" so that is not the question they would ask.
A reasonable lawyer however might pose the question as to whether you can toss a guy out of office when the statute doesn't provide for it just because people think they got gypped.
For gawdsake , Ponce -
Lawyers always ask the "reasonable" question. "Would you say that it is reasonable that an electorate would want Chris Dumler to resign after his arrest for forcible sodomy and conviction on sexual battery charges?"
This is reasonable. Dumler staying in office is not!
And Ponce, the statute DOES allow for his removal, IF the judge determines that.
It is beyond me how this female Judge seem to be siding with the so-called prosecutor. How is he derelict in his duties because of his past actions? All he has to do is cast a vote from time to time. Are these Democrat judges and prosecutors requiring this man to prove that he is NOT derelict? This is traditional Damocrat Party justice. What cowards Democrats and feminists are. why not a recall vote. Afraid of the results? I think so.
Roger...... the statute does not allow for removal for the misdemeanor. If the judge removes him it can only be on the inability to do his job.
And I don't think what he was "charged" with is relevant. They could have "charged" him with murder but if he didn't murder anybody and was convicted of failing to report a death by suicide the murder charge would be irrelevant too. When the state and the victim accepted the plea deal it was because the state "legally "agreed that he didn't rape anyone, but that instead he was guilty of sexual battery.
His friggin job is to vote on legislation and protect and improve his district. As long as he does that he is doing his job. Where he spends his weekends ain't nobodies business but his. If one of the other board memebers came out of the closet and was spending his weekends in a hotel rom with a tribe of transgender gypsies that would be his business and he should not be impeached.
Change the law for next time but don't enforce a law that has yet to be written, much less debated on the merits.
@Bill Marshall...I love it when a man's posts are rife with misspellings and he elects to use the term "no brainer" in his writings!
R.I.P.: Fred Rogers
Liberalace I recognise your superior spelling abilities. I acknowledge them. But I was sexually assaulted by three girls at once about 5 times over a spring break weekend a few decades ago and ever since my spelling has been horrific.
Either that or I just concentrated more on the meaning of words vs their spelling. As a product of the C-ville schools and its zoo atmosphere there was not time to do both and survive,
These bad spellers did okay though so I think I will too:
http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com/2012/01/24/15-famous-thinkers-who-co...
Small minds and those with no real arguments, focus instead on the trivial, like spelling and syntax errors, and failing tha,t make personal attacks on others. These people only magnify their own failings
If every elected official in this country was thrown out of office for doing what Mr. Dumler did, there would be many empty chairs in government offices, etc. There was no trial and as such the accuser or accusers were never heard. What really happened? Only two people know.
I have no idea why Mr. Dumler took the plea bargain, but remember the old saw about lawyers who represent the themselves have fools for clients.Lawyers, from my point of view, tend to over think matters. Perhaps this happened in this case. The Puritans died off a long time ago. Maybe it's time to let the puritanical values die as well. This whole matter really needs to go away.
Recovering Attorney - Puritan values are against rape? Gee, I didn't know Puritans were the only ones against rape. Is that why you want puritan values to die? Because that's what the original victim accused Dumler of 'forcible sodomy' a.k.a. anal rape. Two other complainants known to the Commonwealth also said Dumler raped and forcibly sodomized them.
Wish all you want, Dumler and other rape-excusers - but this whole matter is NOT going to go away..
Recovering Attorney has a strange set of values. If he has a daughter and she was given the "Dumler treatment", I wonder if his values would suddenly become "Puritan". How desperate are some women that they would date that dufus?
Ponce,
I can see Roger's point about the statute allowing for Dumler's removal. That's what was determined by the judge. She said the trial can go forward, which now makes the notion that Dumler can be removed under this statute valid. Whether he is removed or not under the statute is for the judge to decide. This has been decided by the Judge, and since you're not a judge, her opinion trumps yours. So Ponce, in just one comment, you have attempted to retry the original case, and now the last hearing as well. The decisions in each of those cases has been decided. Move on to May the 20th already.
Civillian...... the statute does not allow for removal for the misdemeanor. If the judge removes him it can only be on the inability to do his job.
And I don't think what he was "charged" with is relevant. They could have "charged" him with murder but if he didn't murder anybody and was convicted of failing to report a death by suicide the murder charge would be irrelevant too. When the state and the victim accepted the plea deal it was because the state "legally "agreed that he didn't rape anyone, but that instead he was guilty of sexual battery.
His friggin job is to vote on legislation and protect and improve his district. As long as he does that he is doing his job. Where he spends his weekends ain't nobodies business but his. If one of the other board memebers came out of the closet and was spending his weekends in a hotel rom with a tribe of transgender gypsies that would be his business and he should not be impeached.
Change the law for next time but don't enforce a law that has yet to be written, much less debated on the merits.
I am not "retrying" anything. I didn't retry the originl case. I simply stated the fact that according to the State of Virginia he didn't rape anybody.Don't blame me because the victim didn''t preserve evidence and the prosecuter couldn't close the deal without proper evidence. I also stated my belief that the judge should intefere as little as possible and that the real victims of this attempt to get him fired are the residents of his district that want him to stay. The judge to me has an obligation to not accept any testimony or even consider the opinions of those outside the district. They have no business meddling into the affairs of the voters and they should not get to decide whether he stays or goes. The judge can despise him and what she thinks he did but she has an obligation to obey the law just as much as he does.
We wil se what happens but it is not a slam dunk for the firing either.
Ponce, you said "Don't blame me because the victim didn''t preserve evidence and the prosecuter couldn't close the deal without proper evidence." While I do not agree with your position in this case, I do usually admire your logic. But here you are making an assumption with which many would not agree. I could easily say, "Mr. Dumler was allowed to plead guilty to the lesser charge only because the victim, knowing that Mr. Dumler is an attorney with excellent knowledge of how to bend the law in his favor, and knowing that Mr. Dumler is backed by wealthy and powerful political supporters, and also knowing that it is customary in rape cases for the victim to be vilified, asked the Commonwealth Attorney to come to a plea agreement with Mr. Dumler so that she would not be subjected to the legal equivalent of assault all over again." If I said that in a post, you would call me out for making an assumption. You cannot assume in this case.
Erin's is just the latest, but there have been many mentions here of Dumler having some magical power over the courts because he is lawyer. Does everyone forget that courtroom proceedings usually involve lawyers and that as a relatively young lawyer with less experience, Dumler probably doesn't know anywhere near as many tricks as his older peers? Y'all did read the article before jumping to the comment section didn't you?
Hi, wondrin! Mr. Dumler has far greater knowledge of the law and how the judicial system works than does the average citizen. A quick glance at the list of donors to his political campaign, as well as a quick survey of the local democrats who came out in public support of Mr. Dumler before the plea agreement, would be enough to intimidate anyone with their collective power and wealth.
Having said that, I did NOT assume that this was the case. I was replying to Ponce, who made (uncharacteristically for Ponce) an assumption in his post. I was stating a hypothetical to illustrate that making an assumption was detrimental to his argument. Sorry you missed that.
Erin I think the issue would "assumption" verse "assertion."
There are two sides to this, Both supported by evidence.
She may quite well have been villified on the stand but that is nessasary unless you are okay with someone going to jail because she "said so"
The lesson in all of this (and for all the haters I have been saying this since day one) is to realize we need to create a reporting system whereby women can call ahead and go to the hospital throuhgh a side door away from the gaggle of people waitng in the ER eavsedropping, and we need to have a special police person trained in taking the rape report and preserving evidence so that the prosecuter will have as many tools as possible to support the charges. It may be horrific but if women do not accept this challenging responsibility then people will stay on the street to hurt others. Tragedy strikes and you can try and educate people all you want (which will help some) but the fact of the matter is that a small percentage of men will rape regardless of the law, just like a percentage of men and women will lie, steal, embezzle, beat thier kids and murder. In order to get them off the streets we need evidence.
Just imagine if the zealots spent half the energy on this as they have trying to get this neutered dog fired,how much better off we would be.
There are two Conservatives now running for city council. Why not see if they will promise to try and implement my ideas? You might be surprized at how receptive they would be.
Feminism has made it so women are not nearly as revered as their mothers and grandmothers. When women say they don't "need" a man then they often get what they ask for.
"Mr. Dumler was allowed to plead guilty to the lesser charge only because the victim, knowing that Mr. Dumler is an attorney with excellent knowledge of how to bend the law in his favor........."
That is what YOU say,,,, I say the prosecution had NOTHING to go on but the word of a woman who found out he was cheating on his gitlfriend and a jilted girlfriend from half a dozen years ago who says that she was raped three times (but kept coming back for more?) That is some pretty thin evidence to put someone away for 20 plus years. and I would bet the prosecuter was very happy to have this settled this way rather than face a huge loss. She most probabaly didn't want to go through with it, but I also heard her say in her own words on the radio that she had nothing to do with the people who started calling for his resignation.
So now what we just might have is a girl who wanted this to all go away and a bunch of crazy women who took it upon themselves to cause a ruckus which foreced this girl out of the shadows and into the spotlight. And it might just all be for nothing if he keeps his seat.
Ain't that a bishch
Ponce...buddy...you missed it. I was NOT asserting that such was the case...I was using a hypothetical to point out the fact that you had made an assumption about why a plea bargain was reached that was actually detrimental to the force of your argument. I have no idea why specifically the plea bargain was reached, and really it is moot to my opinion. Mr. Dumler pleaded guilty, and cannot therefore logically expect his constituents to believe he is innocent. THAT is my position.
Erin, Can we presume from your logic that he has been deemed innocent of forcible sodomy since the state dropped that charge?
No, Bill, you cannot. Mr. Dumler did not plead to that charge, and it did not go to trial, so I have no idea whether he is innocent or guilty of forcible sodomy. I am simply taking Mr. Dumler at his word when he pleaded guilty to sexual battery. He swore in a court of law that he committed the crime. How can he then expect his constituents to believe he did not?
Erin, everyone in this country is presumed to be innocent of a crime until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court that the accused is guilty. So, you do know that Dumler is innocent of any charge that has not been proven or which he did not plead guilty to, or at least you should if you're a high school graduate.
re:"Dumler is innocent of any charge that has not been proven or which he did not plead guilty to (sic)"
This is not true. He is PRESUMED innocent. This presumption is not necessarily correct. It is up to a court to figure out whether the presumption of innocence is correct.
So Erin is absolutely, %100 correct when he/she says "I have no idea whether he is innocent or guilty of forcible sodomy".
The presumption not having been proven, cannot be assumed to be correct, which you seem to want to do.
You MAY be correct in assuming that the presumption is correct, but Erin is rock-solidly, 100% correct is correctly assessing that the innocence or guilt of Mr. Dumler has not been proven.
Hope that helps!
Capt. Dumler will have further days in Court if President Obama has his way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/possible-military-...
This is NOT a good time to be a convicted sex offender AND a military officer. He could face imprisonment, but most certainly a discharge.
Right you are, Civillian! - Check out: http://www.chrisdumlermustgo.com/Take_Action/... . Lots of helpful links to our elected officials - most of them Democratic BTW - who we can contact! Yep, Air Force sex abuse scandal has much in common with Dumler sex abuse scandal. LOL it would be great if President Obama called out Dumler. After all he's a father of two teenage daughters himself; don't imagine he's too fond of sex abusers.
Something for Dumler to mull over in jail this weekend!