Swanenburg v. Boward CL1400580V-04 Case File Logswanmail
Swanenburg's Sad Saga Ends! On April 1, 2015 Swanenburg's Sad Saga ended when a jury found for the defendant effectively ending his four year reign of legal terrorism against his former assistant coach.
A Motion for Sanctions was filed on April 22, 2015 against Swanenburg and his attorney, D. Hayden Fisher essentially arguing that Swanenburg and Fisher violated the rules of the court.
§ 8.01-271.1. Signing of pleadings, motions, and other papers; oral motions; sanctions.
Except as otherwise provided in §§ 16.1-260 and 63.2-1901, every pleading, written motion, and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in his individual name, and the attorney's address shall be stated on the first pleading filed by that attorney in the action. A party who is not represented by an attorney, including a person confined in a state or local correctional facility proceeding pro se, shall sign his pleading, motion, or other paper and state his address.
The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that (i) he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper, (ii) to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and (iii) it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. If a pleading, written motion, or other paper is not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the pleader or movant.
An oral motion made by an attorney or party in any court of the Commonwealth constitutes a representation by him that (i) to the best of his knowledge, information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law, and (ii) it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed or made in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed the paper or made the motion, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper or making of the motion, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
Caution: This document contains repugnantly racist language
Transcript from a Motion for Sufficiency hearing conducted on October 21, 2014. Swanenburg's attorney spends much of the hearing complaining about WilliamsburgLax.com and it's author. Nonetheless, Swanenburg changed many of his admissions from deny to admit.
Plaintiff's [Swanenburg] Answers to Defendants First Set Interrogatoriesswanmail
Caution: Very graphic and offensive language contained within Swanenburg's answers to Defendant's first set of Interrogatories. Interrogatory #12 is particularly disturbing.
Swanenburg Suspension & Termination Letters March 2010swanmail
"...you may have engaged in inappropriate conduct to include excessive profanity and berating of players."
"We have discussed your conduct before.."
"The University is terminating your employment..."
Hayden Fisher "false and misleading" answers in US Courtswanmail
The Court concludes that Fisher should be sanctioned for his reprehensible conduct. The minimum appropriate sanction sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct in the future is the denial of Fisher’s Application. Fisher will not be permitted to practice before this Court.
The Court finds Fisher’s conscious decision to withhold information concerning the public reprimand violated the duty of candor Fisher owed to the Court.* The certification made by Fisher in his Application was materially incorrect. It was both false and misleading.
*Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct provides: “A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal.”
Swanenburg v. Boward CL1400580V-04 Case File Logswanmail
Swanenburg's Sad Saga Ends! On April 1, 2015 Swanenburg's Sad Saga ended when a jury found for the defendant effectively ending his four year reign of legal terrorism against his former assistant coach.
A Motion for Sanctions was filed on April 22, 2015 against Swanenburg and his attorney, D. Hayden Fisher essentially arguing that Swanenburg and Fisher violated the rules of the court.
§ 8.01-271.1. Signing of pleadings, motions, and other papers; oral motions; sanctions.
Except as otherwise provided in §§ 16.1-260 and 63.2-1901, every pleading, written motion, and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in his individual name, and the attorney's address shall be stated on the first pleading filed by that attorney in the action. A party who is not represented by an attorney, including a person confined in a state or local correctional facility proceeding pro se, shall sign his pleading, motion, or other paper and state his address.
The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that (i) he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper, (ii) to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and (iii) it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. If a pleading, written motion, or other paper is not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the pleader or movant.
An oral motion made by an attorney or party in any court of the Commonwealth constitutes a representation by him that (i) to the best of his knowledge, information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law, and (ii) it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed or made in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed the paper or made the motion, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper or making of the motion, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
Caution: This document contains repugnantly racist language
Transcript from a Motion for Sufficiency hearing conducted on October 21, 2014. Swanenburg's attorney spends much of the hearing complaining about WilliamsburgLax.com and it's author. Nonetheless, Swanenburg changed many of his admissions from deny to admit.
Plaintiff's [Swanenburg] Answers to Defendants First Set Interrogatoriesswanmail
Caution: Very graphic and offensive language contained within Swanenburg's answers to Defendant's first set of Interrogatories. Interrogatory #12 is particularly disturbing.
Swanenburg Suspension & Termination Letters March 2010swanmail
"...you may have engaged in inappropriate conduct to include excessive profanity and berating of players."
"We have discussed your conduct before.."
"The University is terminating your employment..."
Hayden Fisher "false and misleading" answers in US Courtswanmail
The Court concludes that Fisher should be sanctioned for his reprehensible conduct. The minimum appropriate sanction sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct in the future is the denial of Fisher’s Application. Fisher will not be permitted to practice before this Court.
The Court finds Fisher’s conscious decision to withhold information concerning the public reprimand violated the duty of candor Fisher owed to the Court.* The certification made by Fisher in his Application was materially incorrect. It was both false and misleading.
*Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct provides: “A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal.”
In the Application, Fisher certified to the Court that he had “not been reprimanded in any court nor ha[d] there been any action in any court pertaining to [his] conduct or fitness as a member of the bar.” Upon review of the Application, the Court took judicial notice of the fact that Fisher had been publicly reprimanded on January 30, 2014 under procedures established in Part Six, § IV, ¶ 13-15.B.4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. In the Matter of Douglass Hayden Fisher, VSB Docket No. 13-032-094098 (3d. District Subcommittee, Sec. II 2014). The Virginia State Bar entered its reprimand of Fisher after two hearings conducted on
December 20, 2013 and January 23, 2014. The Virginia State Bar found that Fisher had violated several Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, the Virginia State Bar found that Fisher had violated rules pertaining to diligence, communication, safekeeping of property, and declining or terminating representation. Fisher did not appeal the reprimand to the Supreme Court of Virginia. See Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Part VI, § IV, ¶13-26.
Fisher's Application to US Bankruptcy Courtswanmail
Fisher explained that after speaking with another attorney about the matter, he decided that disclosure of the public reprimand was not necessary. Fisher advised that he had filed the Application in haste at the request of a client. Fisher explained that he had wanted to avoid drawing attention to the disciplinary action taken by the Virginia State Bar. Fisher contended that he did not mislead the Court by failing to make the disclosure requested in the Application because the reprimand was public. Fisher argued that, as the reprimand had come from an agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia, and not from the Supreme Court itself, there had been no action in “any court” pertaining to his conduct or fitness. Accordingly, he concluded that disclosure of the reprimand
was not technically required.
Swanenburg's Opposition to Motion for Sanctions. Ironically, Swanenburg through his attorney, D. Hayden Fisher now suggests that it is the defendant that is using the legal system to bully him.
Swanenburg and his attorney file 3 lawsuits that extend over the course of 4 years, nonsuit in the middle of a trial and now accuse the defendant of piling on the paper.
ORDER
(Contempt ofCourt for Failure to Appear)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on a rule requiring Counsel for Plaintiff, Douglass Hayden Fisher, Esquire, to show cause why he should not be held in Contempt of Court for failure to appear before the Court for an Initial Pretrial Conference, which occurred on July 10, 2014. A copy ofthe rule was personally served on Counsel for Plaintiff by the U.S. Marshal.
At the show cause hearing on August 5, 2014, the Court held Counsel for Plaintiff in CONTEMPT OF COURT and ORDERED Counsel for Plaintiff to pay a $200 fine
within ten (10) days ofthe date ofthis Order. Payment SHALL be made to the Clerk, U.S. District Court
The Honorable Timothy S. Fisher, Seventh Judicial Circuit rules that Swanenburg's previously non-suited defamation case will proceed as Defamation per quod and that Defamation per se is Dismissed with Prejudice.
Judge Fisher also strikes 3 paragraphs from the amended complaint and leaving two others subject to evidentiary rulings.
Swanenburg's letter as part of his continuing actions against the coach that replaced him after what he refers to as his "unlawful termination".
This letter was apparently written over two years after his alleged discovery that predicated his first lawsuit. In this letter Swanenburg states that he will be filing at least two additional suits. Swanenburg also makes additional allegations against his former assistant coach with allegations allegedly obtained in discovery presumably from deposition testimony of another assistant coach who was part of the coaching staff that succeeded Swanenburg.
Swanenburg also invokes the tragedies at the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech in a seemingly despicable attempt to bring legal scrutiny on to his former assistant coach.
Letter written by Swanenburg on June 24, 2010 apparently pleading his dissatisfaction with the university after his departure. The letter appears to be in response to the university's denial of his request for a board hearing.
Swanenburg's letter claims that the university intentionally harmed him, and "to fire a coach in the middle of a playing season suggests gross misconduct".
Swanenburg also invokes the tragedy involving the lacrosse programs at the University of Virginia.
Ironically, the letter is dated June 24, 2010 which is the same day that Swanenburg pleads that defamatory comments were made about him. Apparently, the letter is significant because it appears to be the beginning of the potentially frivolous litigation that has now lasted over 4 years.
Swanenburg Nonsuit Order in Tortious Interference Caseswanmail
Nonsuit with prejudice order in tortious interference case against Boward. Nonsuit was asked for by plaintiff's attorney after sanctions were heard and court's decision was pending. Shortly after this order Swanenburg filed his second defamation case against Boward essentially arguing the same elements that were plead in this case.
Swanenburg Second Defamation Suit against CNU Lacrosse Coachswanmail
Swanenburg's second defamation suit against Boward. This suit alleges that Boward is now responsible for declining enrollment in Capital Lacrosse enrollment. Swanenburg now seeks $500,000 in compensatory and $350,000 in punitive damages. Suit was filed after Swanenburg was granted nonsuit in first defamation suit. Swanenburg now complains that defendant is tortiously interfering with his lacrosse business, does not specify damages.
Motion for Sanctions in Swanenburg v. Boward. Sanctions contend that the actions Swanenburg has taken against Boward are filed for improper purpose. September 2013
Filed in the Circuit Court of Newport News, January 2014. In his amended complaint Christopher T. Swanenburg claims Tortious Interference with Economic Expectancy in Plaintiff's Lacrosse Business Interests. Swanenburg pleads camps "dwindling enrollment" and was forced to cancel his day camp due to lack of enrollment.
Amicus Curiae for Virginia Press Associationswanmail
The Supreme Court of Virginia granted a motion filed by the Virginia Press Association and other media organizations to be a friend of the court in a case involving The Virginian-Pilot.
Attorneys on behalf of the VPA and eight media organizations on June 28 filed a motion to participate as amicus curiae in the case Philip D. Webb v. Virginian-Pilot Media Companies LLC. On July 30, the court granted the motion despite objections from the plaintiff.
"Upon consideration whereof, the motion is granted and the brief amici curiae is considered filed," the court document reads.
ALL EYES ON RAFAH BUT WHY Explain more.pdf46adnanshahzad
All eyes on Rafah: But why?. The Rafah border crossing, a crucial point between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, often finds itself at the center of global attention. As we explore the significance of Rafah, we’ll uncover why all eyes are on Rafah and the complexities surrounding this pivotal region.
INTRODUCTION
What makes Rafah so significant that it captures global attention? The phrase ‘All eyes are on Rafah’ resonates not just with those in the region but with people worldwide who recognize its strategic, humanitarian, and political importance. In this guide, we will delve into the factors that make Rafah a focal point for international interest, examining its historical context, humanitarian challenges, and political dimensions.
In the Application, Fisher certified to the Court that he had “not been reprimanded in any court nor ha[d] there been any action in any court pertaining to [his] conduct or fitness as a member of the bar.” Upon review of the Application, the Court took judicial notice of the fact that Fisher had been publicly reprimanded on January 30, 2014 under procedures established in Part Six, § IV, ¶ 13-15.B.4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. In the Matter of Douglass Hayden Fisher, VSB Docket No. 13-032-094098 (3d. District Subcommittee, Sec. II 2014). The Virginia State Bar entered its reprimand of Fisher after two hearings conducted on
December 20, 2013 and January 23, 2014. The Virginia State Bar found that Fisher had violated several Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, the Virginia State Bar found that Fisher had violated rules pertaining to diligence, communication, safekeeping of property, and declining or terminating representation. Fisher did not appeal the reprimand to the Supreme Court of Virginia. See Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Part VI, § IV, ¶13-26.
Fisher's Application to US Bankruptcy Courtswanmail
Fisher explained that after speaking with another attorney about the matter, he decided that disclosure of the public reprimand was not necessary. Fisher advised that he had filed the Application in haste at the request of a client. Fisher explained that he had wanted to avoid drawing attention to the disciplinary action taken by the Virginia State Bar. Fisher contended that he did not mislead the Court by failing to make the disclosure requested in the Application because the reprimand was public. Fisher argued that, as the reprimand had come from an agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia, and not from the Supreme Court itself, there had been no action in “any court” pertaining to his conduct or fitness. Accordingly, he concluded that disclosure of the reprimand
was not technically required.
Swanenburg's Opposition to Motion for Sanctions. Ironically, Swanenburg through his attorney, D. Hayden Fisher now suggests that it is the defendant that is using the legal system to bully him.
Swanenburg and his attorney file 3 lawsuits that extend over the course of 4 years, nonsuit in the middle of a trial and now accuse the defendant of piling on the paper.
ORDER
(Contempt ofCourt for Failure to Appear)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on a rule requiring Counsel for Plaintiff, Douglass Hayden Fisher, Esquire, to show cause why he should not be held in Contempt of Court for failure to appear before the Court for an Initial Pretrial Conference, which occurred on July 10, 2014. A copy ofthe rule was personally served on Counsel for Plaintiff by the U.S. Marshal.
At the show cause hearing on August 5, 2014, the Court held Counsel for Plaintiff in CONTEMPT OF COURT and ORDERED Counsel for Plaintiff to pay a $200 fine
within ten (10) days ofthe date ofthis Order. Payment SHALL be made to the Clerk, U.S. District Court
The Honorable Timothy S. Fisher, Seventh Judicial Circuit rules that Swanenburg's previously non-suited defamation case will proceed as Defamation per quod and that Defamation per se is Dismissed with Prejudice.
Judge Fisher also strikes 3 paragraphs from the amended complaint and leaving two others subject to evidentiary rulings.
Swanenburg's letter as part of his continuing actions against the coach that replaced him after what he refers to as his "unlawful termination".
This letter was apparently written over two years after his alleged discovery that predicated his first lawsuit. In this letter Swanenburg states that he will be filing at least two additional suits. Swanenburg also makes additional allegations against his former assistant coach with allegations allegedly obtained in discovery presumably from deposition testimony of another assistant coach who was part of the coaching staff that succeeded Swanenburg.
Swanenburg also invokes the tragedies at the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech in a seemingly despicable attempt to bring legal scrutiny on to his former assistant coach.
Letter written by Swanenburg on June 24, 2010 apparently pleading his dissatisfaction with the university after his departure. The letter appears to be in response to the university's denial of his request for a board hearing.
Swanenburg's letter claims that the university intentionally harmed him, and "to fire a coach in the middle of a playing season suggests gross misconduct".
Swanenburg also invokes the tragedy involving the lacrosse programs at the University of Virginia.
Ironically, the letter is dated June 24, 2010 which is the same day that Swanenburg pleads that defamatory comments were made about him. Apparently, the letter is significant because it appears to be the beginning of the potentially frivolous litigation that has now lasted over 4 years.
Swanenburg Nonsuit Order in Tortious Interference Caseswanmail
Nonsuit with prejudice order in tortious interference case against Boward. Nonsuit was asked for by plaintiff's attorney after sanctions were heard and court's decision was pending. Shortly after this order Swanenburg filed his second defamation case against Boward essentially arguing the same elements that were plead in this case.
Swanenburg Second Defamation Suit against CNU Lacrosse Coachswanmail
Swanenburg's second defamation suit against Boward. This suit alleges that Boward is now responsible for declining enrollment in Capital Lacrosse enrollment. Swanenburg now seeks $500,000 in compensatory and $350,000 in punitive damages. Suit was filed after Swanenburg was granted nonsuit in first defamation suit. Swanenburg now complains that defendant is tortiously interfering with his lacrosse business, does not specify damages.
Motion for Sanctions in Swanenburg v. Boward. Sanctions contend that the actions Swanenburg has taken against Boward are filed for improper purpose. September 2013
Filed in the Circuit Court of Newport News, January 2014. In his amended complaint Christopher T. Swanenburg claims Tortious Interference with Economic Expectancy in Plaintiff's Lacrosse Business Interests. Swanenburg pleads camps "dwindling enrollment" and was forced to cancel his day camp due to lack of enrollment.
Amicus Curiae for Virginia Press Associationswanmail
The Supreme Court of Virginia granted a motion filed by the Virginia Press Association and other media organizations to be a friend of the court in a case involving The Virginian-Pilot.
Attorneys on behalf of the VPA and eight media organizations on June 28 filed a motion to participate as amicus curiae in the case Philip D. Webb v. Virginian-Pilot Media Companies LLC. On July 30, the court granted the motion despite objections from the plaintiff.
"Upon consideration whereof, the motion is granted and the brief amici curiae is considered filed," the court document reads.
ALL EYES ON RAFAH BUT WHY Explain more.pdf46adnanshahzad
All eyes on Rafah: But why?. The Rafah border crossing, a crucial point between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, often finds itself at the center of global attention. As we explore the significance of Rafah, we’ll uncover why all eyes are on Rafah and the complexities surrounding this pivotal region.
INTRODUCTION
What makes Rafah so significant that it captures global attention? The phrase ‘All eyes are on Rafah’ resonates not just with those in the region but with people worldwide who recognize its strategic, humanitarian, and political importance. In this guide, we will delve into the factors that make Rafah a focal point for international interest, examining its historical context, humanitarian challenges, and political dimensions.
Military Commissions details LtCol Thomas Jasper as Detailed Defense CounselThomas (Tom) Jasper
Military Commissions Trial Judiciary, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Notice of the Chief Defense Counsel's detailing of LtCol Thomas F. Jasper, Jr. USMC, as Detailed Defense Counsel for Abd Al Hadi Al-Iraqi on 6 August 2014 in the case of United States v. Hadi al Iraqi (10026)
Responsibilities of the office bearers while registering multi-state cooperat...Finlaw Consultancy Pvt Ltd
Introduction-
The process of register multi-state cooperative society in India is governed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. This process requires the office bearers to undertake several crucial responsibilities to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory frameworks. The key office bearers typically include the President, Secretary, and Treasurer, along with other elected members of the managing committee. Their responsibilities encompass administrative, legal, and financial duties essential for the successful registration and operation of the society.
How to Obtain Permanent Residency in the NetherlandsBridgeWest.eu
You can rely on our assistance if you are ready to apply for permanent residency. Find out more at: https://immigration-netherlands.com/obtain-a-permanent-residence-permit-in-the-netherlands/.
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
1. Return to Case Main Menu Logoff
Newport News Circuit - Civil Division
Pleadings/Orders Detail
Case Number: CL1100872P-03
Filed Type Party Judge Book Page Remarks
06/23/11 Initial Filing PLT DP COM :
07/19/11 Order SCHEDULE ORDER
08/30/11 Order JUDGE PUGH RECUSE
09/01/11 Order JUDGE FISHER DESIGNATED
01/03/12 Order TF RULING ON HEARING 102711
01/06/12 Answer DEF TF TODD D. BOWARD
06/25/12 Order DEF TF SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED
10/04/12 Order TF REF STLMT CONFERENCE
01/14/13 Order DP SCHEDULING ORDER
04/04/13 Order TF RULING ON HEARING 021913
04/04/13 Order TF TRANSFER TO JUDGE FISHER
05/23/13 Order TF RULING ON HEARING 052313
08/26/13 Order PLT TF PLT MOT IN LIMINE DENIED
08/26/13 Other - Catch All TF JUROR IDENTITY AFFIRMATION
09/27/13 Order TF JURY ORDER 082613 - 082713
10/28/13 Other - Catch All TF 1ST OPINION LETTER
10/29/13 Other - Catch All TF 2ND OPINION LETTER
11/20/13 Final Order TF RULING ON HEARING 10-24-13
Return to Case Main Menu Logoff
Build #: 3.6.32.1