Alan Graf
Editorâs note: This is a copy of the letter that Graf recently sent to Floyd County Circuit Judge Michael Fleenor:
You may recall that when you first took office as Presiding Judge of the 27th Judicial Circuit, Floyd Circuit Court, I wrote the court asking you to consider taking down the Confederate statue in front of the Floyd Courthouse. At that time, I was not licensed in Virginia. I was licensed in Oregon and Tennessee.
Subsequent to my letter to your office, I became a member of the Virginia Bar through reciprocity as the laws in Virginia changed allowing me to do so. My prime motivation in becoming a Virginia lawyer was to take on a lawsuit that would seek to remove the statue in front of the Floyd County Courthouse. I concur with Honorable Judge Charles N. Dorsey that âthe continued presence of the Confederate monument, in its present location . and with its present content, obstructs the proper administration of justice .â See Attached
Critical Vendors Aren't Immune from Lawsuits to Recover Preferential Transfers | Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP jdsupra.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from jdsupra.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
A Roanoke County judge last week ordered the Confederate statue near the Roanoke County Courthouse moved â or the courthouse moved.
This is a remarkable order on many levels beyond simply our ongoing reappraisal of what the Confederacy was all about and whether those associated with it should be honored.
Hereâs the most remarkable thing of all: This appears to be the first time in Virginia that a judge has ordered a statue outside the courthouse removed. You could fairly call this unprecedented.
There are multiple instances of judges ordering portraits of Confederate figures hanging inside a courthouse taken down.
A Nevada advertising agency asked the Ninth Circuit on Friday to revive its bid for coverage of losses sustained because of government pandemic restrictions, saying the district court misinterpreted a key requirement for coverage in favor of a Chubb unit.