Candidate objects to suspension of suit's final order

Like This? Click Here to Recommend

By Sally Voth -- svoth@nvdaily.com

WOODSTOCK -- Shenandoah County Board of Supervisors candidate Mark Prince is objecting to Circuit Court Judge Dennis L. Hupp's decision to suspend a final order he'd issued in Prince's civil suit against the board.

Prince, who is challenging District 5 Supervisor Dennis Morris for his seat in the Nov. 3 election, accused Shenandoah County Administrator Vince Poling and the Board of Supervisors of violating the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.

In March, Shenandoah County General District Court Judge Norman deVere Morrison, who has since retired, ruled there was insufficient evidence to prove that Poling violated the act.

Prince then appealed the decision to the Circuit Court.

But, he withdrew the appeal, and on Sept. 29 Hupp signed a final order allowing withdrawal.

However, County Attorneys Donald and Jay Litten filed a motion for sanctions against Prince and his attorney, Bradley Pollack, earlier this month, saying Prince was using the court system in an effort to further his political aspirations.

The motion specifically refers to Prince having county officials deposed in relation to his appeal, and then withdrawing that appeal in order "to harass and for the political purposes of Mark Prince in seeking election to the Board of Supervisors."

On Oct. 15, Prince filed an objection to Hupp's Oct. 14 order suspending the final order and retaining jurisdiction to hear the case.

Prince's objection and motion to reconsider says the Sept. 29 order "is binding."

"[The] Shenandoah County Board of Supervisors cannot unilaterally attempt to breach it, and the Court cannot allow such breach," it says.

In an Oct. 16 letter to Hupp, Pollack says that Donald Litten had put the supervisors, Prince and the court in "a very awkward situation."

"Last month, his son, J. Jay Litten, and I amicably and prudently settled this case to the complete satisfaction of the County and Mr. Prince which importantly, removed this case from a hotly contested political campaign," it says. "Shockingly, a week later, the
senior Mr. Litten wrongly drew you into this case and, in turn, into the political contest. Mr. Prince hoped that you would rule that such a motion was out of order; or that you would have merely not ruled on the matter and allowed the twenty-one days to run.

"Unfortunately, pursuant to your practice of giving all litigants full and fair opportunity to have all of their concerns aired, you did something that the senior Mr. Litten did not even request: You suspended the agreed Final Order in this case which might now allow Mr. Litten and Mr. Prince to argue post agreed Final Order sanctions against each other. But you did so before I shared with you the binding case law regarding agreed orders which I failed to file with this Court until yesterday."

The letter asks that Hupp take up the matter as soon as possible.

In a letter dated Oct. 21, Hupp asks Donald Litten to respond to Prince's objection and motion to reconsider.