In Montgomery County Circuit Court Thursday morning, Judge Roy Grubb heard demurrers from the plaintiff Roger Woody through his attorney, B.K. Cruey, and the defendants, Terry Ellen Carter and Tacy L. Newell, through their attorneys.

Two other defendants named in the lawsuit which was filed May 1, 2008, Meghan Dorsett and Carol Lindstrom, were present, but were not a part of Thursday’s proceedings.

Others present at the hearing included members from four different media outlets, as well as friends and family members of the defendants.

Woody, a local developer and landowner, filed the lawsuit asking for $10 million dollars in actual damages and another $350,000 in punitive damages.

Woody alleges that the four woman conspired to harm his business, interfering with contractual relations and libeling him through postings on the website, ThinkChristiansburg.com, which is operated by Carter and Newell-Foutz.

Woody further claims that the website and a “local newspaper” (Roanoke Times) were used to publish false and misleading information by himself and his business, Showcase Home Builders. (The Roanoke Times was not named as a party to the lawsuit.)

In court Thursday morning, attorney Jonathan Rogers, who represented Carter on behalf of the ACLU, stated that the suit should be dismissed based on the fact that The Complaint Fails to State a Claim for Tortuous Interference, The Complaint Fails to State a Claim for Business Conspiracy Under Virginia Code §§ 18.2-499 and 500, The Complaint Fails to State a Claim for Insulting Words Under Virginia Code § 8.01-45 and The Plaintiff does not have Standing to Raise Claims on Behalf of Showcase Home Builders, LLC.

Rogers went on to say that this was a strategic lawsuit against public participation. He further stated that these were opinions and the First Amendment protects them.

“This country was founded on the First Amendment,” said Rogers. “These people have a right to express their opinion.”

Rogers also added, “We know he [Roger Woody] doesn’t like their website and we know he [Roger Woody] wants to shut them down.

Guy Harbert, III., the attorney for Newell-Foutz echoed the same arguments that Rogers made on behalf of his client.

Rogers referred to the Woody suit as a “Slapp Suit.”

Both attorneys argued that these statements, such as “Mount Woody”, “Woodyville” and “new ghetto” remarks were opinions, which are protected by the First Amendment.

B.K. Cruey, attorney for Woody, stated that his client had every permit required by law and the hold up on the dirt pile was with the Department of Environmental Control.

Cruey further stated that Woody’s activities were lawful and some of the defendants actions were unlawful.

He further argued that the defendants caused his client the loss of sales on property and town homes.

Cruey also asked the court, “Can you use a website to attack someone?” and “What purpose was their actions against him [Woody].

Cruey further noted that the demurrers of Terry Ellen Carter and Tacy L. Newell-Foutz should be overruled and dismissed and that Woody be granted a trial by jury.

Judge Grubb then stated he would issue his ruling in this case in six weeks.

An individual who wished to remain anonymous but has experience in First Amendment issues told EverythingNRV.com, “Charges of conspiracy are generally hard to prove. It will take much more than just these people being friends or business partners. The real concern is the “opinion” thing. People are entitled to their opinion, and I don’t think Woody’s lawyer is suggesting they are not. I think the issue is would the average “Joe” on the street, reading this website for the first time, know whether these were opinions or facts? Is there enough of a disclaimer on the writings that clearly defines what a person is reading? But, that’s just my opinion”, he ended.

After court, Carter said, “I was hoping that the judge would have made his decision this morning. This has been going on since May.”

Carter also was very grateful for the turnout of friends and other concerned citizens who believe in their cause and the protection of First Amendment rights.

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Dirt pile
written by citizenRealism, August 03, 2008

It's a pile of dirt; a giant mud-pile, let's go play. Unless, if you are a 5-year-old that "gets away,"..you might die. The very steep slopes are death-defying. If the EPA has a concern about moving it, where were they (if they were aware of it) when it was "constructed." Some local officials have been quoted as it being "beautiful..sign of ..(NOT an excact quote, just a synopsis of a comment.)" Previously, the Christiansburg Town Manager said that it is "Mr. Woody's property (stay off)." Well, perhaps fencing it would help those too young to read, and "no trepassing" signs would be handy for landscape viewers that seek a vantage point. I know of a nearby townhome owner that is apprehensive about the negative affects of property values, corrosion/mudslide possibilities, and current negative marketability their properties (so they rented them, rather than try to sell them), let alone, the dirty job of removing the dirt...that may infiltrate their residences, as the mountain was made. Where did that dirt come from? Was it at tax-payer's expense, such as from the removal of a defunct on-ramp near Farmview Road? I just wish the money being spent on this effort could be dontated to the humane society, or to food-banks for citizens.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

What a wag
written by NRVA Citizen, August 01, 2008

Expert, but that's just my opinion. Naughty, naughty.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +3

Name

Email

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Add Comment