|
|||||
|
Free speech lawsuit will go to jury trial
The lawsuit was filed by Robert Steinburg after he was removed from the commissioner's public meeting room during a hearing on Oct. 18 last year, and arrested when he refused to confine his remarks to the topic of the hearing. Instead of speaking to the commission's decision to delay a vote regarding which way garage doors should face in the Tarrington subdivision, he focused his comments on the abandoned coalmines there. The Tarrington rezoning for 725 upscale homes off Robious Road was approved by the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors in May 2002. Prior to moving to North Carolina, Steinburg was president of the Old Gun Civic Association. The officer arrested Steinburg for disorderly conduct, a Class I misdemeanor. He was handcuffed and taken to a magistrate. At a court hearing on Dec. 14, the County Attorney's Office dropped the charge. Citing "security issues," Public Affairs Director Don Kappel declined to say who or how the sheriff deputy was signaled to escort Steinburg from the speaker's podium. It is not known whether the deputy decided on his own to arrest Steinburg. Prior to rejecting the county's request to dismiss Steinburg's lawsuit on Sept. 8, Payne viewed the county's videotape of the commission meeting and interrupted County Attorney Steve Micas numerous times, disagreeing with his defense of Midlothian Planning Commissioner Dan Gecker and Chairman Sherman Litton. Payne noted repeatedly that they treated Steinburg different from others who spoke during the public hearing. According to Payne, the tape showed Steinburg becoming upset when he felt Gecker was not paying attention during his three minute remarks. Steinburg then criticized Gecker for being "rude and inattentive." "Gecker flew off the handle and got angry with [Steinburg]. That's what you need to address," Payne told Micas during the hearing. "[There's the] inference that Litton was defending Gecker who thought he was being attacked," continued the judge. As chairman, Litton ran the commission meeting, and he instructed Steinburg to confine his remarks to the motion to defer. Payne wanted to know why "Litton allowed other speakers to speak about the merits of the issue," but Steinburg was not. Gecker asked the development attorney "substantive questions" about Tarrington, the judge pointed out. "[Gecker] didn't ask [the attorney] about the deferral." "The actions of the [commission] chairman were entirely appropriate...because of a qualified immunity defense," Micas responded. He cited case law to support his argument that a chairman can confine the discussion to a specified topic. In his civil suit, Steinburg's attorney, Jim Thorsen, wrote that his client "...suffered extreme humiliation, embarrassment, fear, emotional upset and physical pain and suffering because of his very public arrest and the extensive public televised broadcast of the commission hearing...and the reporting of the same in numerous local newspapers..." Calls to Thorsen by this newspaper were not returned. Payne asked Thorsen why Steinburg was seeking a judgment against the commission. "There's no relief I can grant," the judge advised, indicating the commission's policy wasn't the cause of the suit. The suit also doesn't claim malicious prosecution, but Thorsen might consider adding it. "We have all the ingredients for malicious prosecution," he told the judge. Thorsen also erroneously alleged that speakers had to sign up seven days in advance to speak to the commission. Micas corrected him. Payne urged Thorsen and Micas to complete their depositions quickly since the court date was a month away. County critic Brenda Stewart has already been deposed, and Thorsen said he wanted to depose four or five others. |
|||||