That certainly appears to be the case. Sick, huh?gunderwood wrote:So what you're saying is that the state destroyed evidence which didn't support its case.allingeneral wrote:*** UPDATE ***
Paul Henick went to court on 04 January and his case was continued until 15 March 2011. It seems that the prosecutor in the case (the same guy who prosecuted the Michael Vick case) wasn't very prepared and hasn't answered many of the subpoenas and official requests from Skidmark's attorney, Dan Hawes (username "user" on our forums). Additionally, the video tapes of the incident at the Surry Ferry were somehow not removed from rotation and were actually recorded over!
Skidmark Legal Defense Fund
- allingeneral
- Site Admin

- Posts: 9678
- Joined: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:38:25
- Location: King George, Virginia
- Contact:
Re: Skidmark Legal Defense Fund
- VBshooter
- VGOF Silver Supporter

- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:14:27
- Location: Virginia Beach
Re: Skidmark Legal Defense Fund
Seems strangely convenient don;t it? After all they can;t have the states hired goons looking bad to the public when they have the chance to nail some poor "Dangerous" gun owner that didn;t do a damn thing wrong.
"Not to worry, I got this !!! " "Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John ParkerRe: Skidmark Legal Defense Fund
I did a search and couldn't find if this has been addressed, but is there any talk, assuming this case gets thrown out, that Skidmark could sue for damages for malicious prosecution? Like they say, money talks and you-know-what walks. Pain in their pocketbook is the only thing that would register with these thugs, so they'll think twice before prosecuting people in the future in similar cases.
- allingeneral
- Site Admin

- Posts: 9678
- Joined: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:38:25
- Location: King George, Virginia
- Contact:
Re: Skidmark Legal Defense Fund
I'm sure it's being considered, but the first step is to get through the criminal side of it all.
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Re: Skidmark Legal Defense Fund
March is all but over and I would like a Skidmark update.

- fireman836
- Sharp Shooter

- Posts: 406
- Joined: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:10:56
- Location: Accomac
Re: Skidmark Legal Defense Fund
The trial was continued until April. I think it's on the 15th.
Yes I carry a Bible and a Gun, your point.
Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (meaning: "A defence of liberty against tyrants")
Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (meaning: "A defence of liberty against tyrants")
Re: Skidmark Legal Defense Fund
Thanks for the update. I had to do a search for this post. Maybe it could be made into a sticky or a new sticky started called "Skidmark's Fair and Speedy Hearing".

-
OakRidgeStars
- VGOF Gold Supporter

- Posts: 14108
- Joined: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:13:20
Re: Skidmark Legal Defense Fund
This thread will be marked as "Sticky" in the General Discussion section for now.
-
OakRidgeStars
- VGOF Gold Supporter

- Posts: 14108
- Joined: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:13:20
Re: Skidmark Legal Defense Fund
Also, the trial date was postponed to June 21st. There is an updated thread on OCDO as well.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... -June-21st
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... -June-21st
- gunderwood
- VGOF Platinum Supporter

- Posts: 7189
- Joined: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:28:34
Re: Skidmark Legal Defense Fund
KaosDad wrote:Takes a long time to fabricate evidence, don't it?
sudo modprobe commonsense
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.
FATAL: Module commonsense not found.
Re: Skidmark Legal Defense Fund
Be sure you click the PERSONAL tab, and then click the GIFT button, This will eliminate PayPal taking a cut of your contribution.
- dorminWS
- VGOF Platinum Supporter

- Posts: 7163
- Joined: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:00:41
- Location: extreme SW VA
Re: Skidmark Legal Defense Fund
Exactly what is the status of this defense fund? I contributed $100 a while back. Do they have an unexpended balance, or are they running on empty?
"The Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
Gun-crazy? Me? I'd say the gun-crazy ones are the ones that don’t HAVE one.
Gun-crazy? Me? I'd say the gun-crazy ones are the ones that don’t HAVE one.
- allingeneral
- Site Admin

- Posts: 9678
- Joined: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:38:25
- Location: King George, Virginia
- Contact:
Re: Skidmark Legal Defense Fund
I just got a message back from the attorney in this case indicating that the fund is in good shape right now, so no further assistance is needed at this time.dorminWS wrote:Exactly what is the status of this defense fund? I contributed $100 a while back. Do they have an unexpended balance, or are they running on empty?
I and many others really appreciate the assistance that has been provided to this point.
-
user
Re: Skidmark Legal Defense Fund
It is true that everyone other than the Judge and the VDOT terminal manager are non-white. It is also true that the prosecutor has made a bit of a fuss about it. He claims that the complaining witness used the phrase, "move me, big boy" during the course of a conversation. Skidmark denies ever having said such a thing, but as near as I can tell, none of that has any relevance to the charge of brandishing a firearm. Even if the statement were true, what has it got to do with whether or not Skidmark was "making a shameful and ostentatious display" of his firearm in a way that would make a reasonable person think he was about to be shot? I'm taking that stuff as basically posturing nonsense by the prosecution; psychological warfare, if you will, and best ignored.
Where we are right now is the issue of the lost video data. There are six camera placements around the place where this incident purportedly happened, and the people connected with the case (the complaining witness, the terminal supervisor, and the Surry Co. deputy sheriff) could have saved the digital video data easily, but declined to do so. That video data would show either that Skidmark did, or did not, engage in the physical behavior necessary to establish the offense of brandishing, and is therefore crucial to the case. We demanded production of the data early on, but by the time I'd gotten involved and figured out that it ought to be useful, it was already on the way to being destroyed. I engaged a technical guy licensed by DCJS to examine the machinery to recover the data, which may have been possible at that time, but they wouldn't give us access or even tell us what kind of machinery there was. By the time the Court was in a position to rule on motions and arguments, there was no question that the video data was irretrievably gone.
Now there is a motion pending, to be heard at 9:00 o'clock a.m. on Sept. 13, in the Surry Co. General District Court, to dismiss the case for failure to preserve the crucial exculpatory evidence that the defense needed to be able to prepare for trial appropriately. (By the way, state regulations require that the data be saved for a period of three years.) The burden of going forward with evidence, however, is on the defense as the proponent of the motion. If the court denies the motion, then we will proceed to trial on that same day.
Where we are right now is the issue of the lost video data. There are six camera placements around the place where this incident purportedly happened, and the people connected with the case (the complaining witness, the terminal supervisor, and the Surry Co. deputy sheriff) could have saved the digital video data easily, but declined to do so. That video data would show either that Skidmark did, or did not, engage in the physical behavior necessary to establish the offense of brandishing, and is therefore crucial to the case. We demanded production of the data early on, but by the time I'd gotten involved and figured out that it ought to be useful, it was already on the way to being destroyed. I engaged a technical guy licensed by DCJS to examine the machinery to recover the data, which may have been possible at that time, but they wouldn't give us access or even tell us what kind of machinery there was. By the time the Court was in a position to rule on motions and arguments, there was no question that the video data was irretrievably gone.
Now there is a motion pending, to be heard at 9:00 o'clock a.m. on Sept. 13, in the Surry Co. General District Court, to dismiss the case for failure to preserve the crucial exculpatory evidence that the defense needed to be able to prepare for trial appropriately. (By the way, state regulations require that the data be saved for a period of three years.) The burden of going forward with evidence, however, is on the defense as the proponent of the motion. If the court denies the motion, then we will proceed to trial on that same day.
- allingeneral
- Site Admin

- Posts: 9678
- Joined: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:38:25
- Location: King George, Virginia
- Contact:
Re: Skidmark Legal Defense Fund
Thanks for the update Dan!
- dorminWS
- VGOF Platinum Supporter

- Posts: 7163
- Joined: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:00:41
- Location: extreme SW VA
Re: Skidmark Legal Defense Fund
Well, 452 miles is a bit far to come and root for Skidmark. But I'll certainly be pulling for the ole boy from out here 'mongst my mountains.
Funny - - - the weight of opinion among those who have traced my family's roots is that the first of our set arrived in Surry County in 1635. But if I've ever been in Surrey county it was briefly and when I was just a boy. Reckon I ought to go there some day and look around - - - but maybe I ought not open carry while I'm at it, huh?
Funny - - - the weight of opinion among those who have traced my family's roots is that the first of our set arrived in Surry County in 1635. But if I've ever been in Surrey county it was briefly and when I was just a boy. Reckon I ought to go there some day and look around - - - but maybe I ought not open carry while I'm at it, huh?
"The Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
Gun-crazy? Me? I'd say the gun-crazy ones are the ones that don’t HAVE one.
Gun-crazy? Me? I'd say the gun-crazy ones are the ones that don’t HAVE one.
Re: Skidmark Legal Defense Fund
Yes.
Thank ya for the update.
Thank ya for the update.
Re: Skidmark Legal Defense Fund
And since they won't do that they will extract a bit of revenge by trying to bankrupt him!cowards who won't man up and admit their mistake
Just remember though, turnabout is fair play. Karma can be a real b!tch.
Life Member IDPA & GOA. NRA Certified Instructor (Safety, Pistol, Personal Defense)[/center]
Re: Skidmark Legal Defense Fund
Any updates on this? Is it still on for September 13th?


