Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 10 · column 4 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
trial court “or at least the authority of the trial court to think in error," the judge continued, noting that the justices had not dealt with the correctness of his reasons in granting the restraining order.
After going over the order "with a fine tooth comb" and questioning both counsels in depth, the Supreme Court Justices didn't say either that they disagreed with Robertson’s ruling, Konick countered. "The rules are very clear." he maintained, arguing that Lynn was required to state ALL his objections to the restraining order in his petition to the Supreme Court. “Now, they didn’t get what they want so they're trying to change it so they won't be in contempt." he charged.
"You could file a temporary injunction alledgihg nuisance." Robertson replied. “I’ll hear you on it—Saturday. Sunday." He again restated his intent in his restraining order to restrain only what the BZA order granted. “They may well be trying to weasel in and our...Frankly. I think it will be very difficult to have anything (on the NPFA's Castleton property) with this restraining order." the judge stated, approving Lynn’s request for rewording.
Contempt Charged
Less than 48 hours later. Judge Robertson was back in court, this time in Rappahannock for contempt proceedings initiated by Konick against the NPEA on behalf of adjoining and nearby landowners.
At the outset. Robertson noted that if the contempt hearing was conducted that day in a summary proceeding and the NPEA found guilty of violating the restraining order, the stiffest penalty that could be imposed was a $50 fine or ten days in jail. To exceed the limits proscribed in the Code, the matter would have to be set over for a jury to determine punishment, he added.
“There are 14 or 15 parties in this room today who want their rights protected and they took their case all the way to the Supreme Court of Virginia and they feel the Supreme Court ruled there was to be no camp meeting on that property this year." said Konick. He maintained that by holding its meeting, the NPEA was in contempt of Robertson's restraining order and asked the Judge "to set out for all parties to hear what is and is not permitted under the restraining order as amended.” Robertson responded that he couldn't see how Konick’s clients would be prejudiced if the contempt hearing was held at a later time. "If they continue in contempt, they will continue to dig more deeply into the trouble that they're in with this court," he warned. Konick stated that he would show evidence of irreparable harm to his clients, should the camp meeting be allowed to continue. Lynn countered that he hadn’t been notified of the petition for contempt until late the previous evening and so wasn't as prepared as he should be to represent his clients. He questioned, in addition, whether the issue of irreparable harm was
86.5%