I was informed that the Judge has decided to hold a hearing, and his assistant gave me three different dates. She also copied the deputy district attorney Areshini Pather in the email. However, in her response to the date I selected she only sent the email to Platania, and mentioned she had just spoken to him over the phone prior to responding to me. It does however appear that Ms. Pather is going to be the prosecutor appearing, since she responded via email this morning saying she was unavailable for an April hearing. I was not pleased to have the motion further delayed, but at least the apparent confirmed hearing date isn't too far off.
I am unsure if this hearing is due to Platania attempting to contest the release of the files. I was rather surprised he would be crazy enough to fall into that trap over a minor request as this. Unless of course there is more in that file than just my pre-sentencing report, but I have no reason to believe that after the Clerk's comments on the contents. If all it is is a pre-sentencing report, I can't imagine Platania wasting everyone's time by trying to fight that. Not to mention that a hearing is not going to work out well for Platania's office, in fact it's the last thing he should want to do. The events of 2006 look extremely shady on his part and that of the Charlottesville police. Even the brief summary in the motion makes them look bad, and I didn't even go into everything or accuse them of wrongdoing (I'll post that motion again at the bottom of this post).
The assistant specifically said that it was the Judge who wanted to have the hearing however, so perhaps this had nothing to do with Platania contesting the release of the documents. Perhaps the Judge is annoyed that the prosecution has delayed so long in a response. After all I stated my concerns to the Clerk on why Platania hadn't responded. Given the motion was filed in August, Platania has had no excuse for letting it drag on this long. The assistant also only scheduled 30 minutes for the hearing, saying she felt it shouldn't take long.
I would think that any contesting response from the prosecutor would involve a motion. They really haven't had the time to file one between the time I spoke with the Clerk and when the Assistant first got back to me about a hearing. If the prosecution did file one in that short of time, it only shows how they have been deliberately delaying the motion to unseal. Perhaps their response is still on the way in the mail and will come in the next couple days, but I would think either the Clerk or the Assistant would have mentioned it.
I wouldn't be surprised however if the prosecution had communicated ex parte on this privately through an email without copying me (which they are not allowed to do). In the responses to the Assistant's emails on arranging the hearing date, both prosecutors seemed to not like hitting "reply all". Thanks to this I feel there is a high possibility of some ex parte communication that I have not seen. If such actions are going on I would caution the prosecution, as lawyers have been disciplined for ex parte communications (one such example here). They may not be taking this case seriously right now, but I'm very aware of what they aren't allowed to do and I'm definitely keeping an eye for any missteps like that. I'll wait to see if any documentation turns up in the mail.
However, it is far more likely that the Judge has requested the hearing in order to call out the prosecution. The wording of his Assistant lends a high amount of weight to this belief. I would imagine that no Judge would appreciate a district attorney delaying a motion in this way. After all, I think his request for the prosecution's response was a result of the prosecution's actions listed in the motion. As you'll see in the re-posted motion, the actions of the police and prosecution look very suspect. This wasn't my intention when writing it, I merely wanted to go over the justification on why I needed the file unsealed. I could have easily gone into more detail and made my other accusations, but these were not appropriate for a motion asking to have files unsealed. Merely stating a few facts of the case however makes the Charlottesville law enforcement look very bad.
I think the Judge felt this as well and wanted Platania to get involved. By ignoring the motion and delaying comment, I think Platania may have pissed off the Judge and perhaps this is why we are having a hearing. Again, we'll see in the next couple weeks whether a copy of any motion from the prosecution shows up in the mail. If there is no motion or any documentation bringing up their challenge, then I don't think the prosecution requested the hearing.
While this hearing works out in my favor, it wasn't what I planned or expected and thus it changes things just a little bit. I was planning to head down within a couple weeks of hearing a resolution on the motion. But now there is a concrete date that I'm required to be in Charlottesville. Which can create a potential issue if there is a conflict later with work.
Before this hearing was arranged, I could delay the trip if there was a problem at work. That is no longer an option. But getting this felony removed, my name cleared, and the guilty parties held responsible is far more of a priority. So work will have to wait while I get my life back. If anything this hearing forces me to move forward regardless of my worries and fears, so it was probably for the best in that regards. Though it doesn't help me be any less stressed - I had a fear of courtrooms even before my life was ruined in one.
Obviously if I'm going to be there for a hearing, I need to make the most of the trip. My first stop will be with the Charlottesville Police Internal Affairs to get that ball rolling and the investigation off the ground. The initial plan was afterwards to confront Platania prior to my visit with the media. I wanted to confront him to see if he would finally cooperate before I had to air out all the accusations against him and the police to the news stations.
Had Platania actually been willing to cooperate by dismissing the charge against me and filing felony charges against Michelle Manweiler, I would have been open to some deals and agreed to limit the damages the Charlottesville city and law enforcement was facing. One example is that I would have agreed to not bring up a lot of the behavior and actions of Charlottesville law enforcement to the media. I also would not have publicly requested any criminal investigations of the involved departments, allowing the police to handle their issues internally without any heat from the media.
I would have been open to more depending on what was asked and how much cooperation I received - and depending on what I found to be fair and acceptable. As I said before, if one party came forward to fix this I would have agreed to make a deal to limit what that party faced to the greatest extent I possibly could. Make this easier on me and my family, and I make it easier for you. But this hearing changes things now.
I can't pass up contacting the media first. Having a court hearing greatly increases the interest of the news stations in Charlottesville. I have no choice but to take advantage of that opportunity if I want to get my life back. I'll admit I'm also quite angry at Platania's behavior and want to see him answer for his actions. He has more than demonstrated that he believes he is above the law. Since Platania decided to play around with this motion, it has now come back to bite him in the ass. Instead of going to Platania first, think I'll go to the media instead with my accusations in order to force Charlottesville law enforcement into fixing their mistake.
I think it'll cause some major damage and absolute loss of trust in the police department. It may take decades before anyone ever again trusts the police and district attorney's office in Charlottesville. Already the police department has issues getting recruits and keeping officers because of the situation in Charlottesville. Imagine what will happen once all the allegations of this case come out. People will wonder why a rich white UVA alumni gets away with lying to police, especially when she seriously harmed people in the process. The public will also wonder why the prosecution has worked hard to protect her from answering for her crimes. There are at least two felonies that can be filed against Michelle Manweiler with more than enough evidence to back it up. Yet Platania won't lift a finger, and people are going to question why he's refusing. They will rightfully conclude that Platania did something wrong in 2006 that he is trying to cover up.
The police initially had the option to put the majority of the blame on Michelle Manweiler, and Platania could have blamed his former boss for the result as well. It would have certainly made things less disastrous for them. They will lose that ability once I've gone to the media with this case. They have already lost a lot of the opportunity to play innocent, given that they can't claim they aren't aware of the allegations and evidence against Manweiler. Not lifting a finger to investigate or fix this until May is not going to look good. If they truly believe they will come out of a scandal like this intact, then perhaps the police and the DA's office really need to take that massive hit.
I likely will not post anything further until the hearing is resolved, I have a lot to get ready for after all. The only thing likely to change this decision is any actions from the prosecution prior to my trip to Charlottesville (either a motion showing up in the mail or other such contact). Just before I make the trip to Charlottesville I plan on closing the blog to public viewing. I don't want to risk Manweiler trying to get off the hook from all the evidence getting broadcasted on TV before she's even been charged.
When reading through the motion I filed below, ask yourself how bad this looks for the Charlottesville law enforcement. Then keep in mind that there is even more involved that was not brought up in this motion. Those items not mentioned are even worse than what was mentioned here. What conclusion do you think the public and the media will draw from just the events listed in this motion?
No comments:
Post a Comment