Author: Stanley Bolten
The Office of the Attorney General of Virginia has filed a “defective” brief, as Brian’s labels the Appellee’s brief in opposition to Brian D. Hill’s two pending appeals. Brian D. Hill is formerly USWGO Alternative News. The two pending appeals concern two court orders denying Brian’s motion for either a judgment of acquittal or motion for a new trial by jury. This is within the Court of Appeals of Virginia, a state court. The Attorney General’s opposition brief argued that if Brian proves destruction of Brady material evidence by the Commonwealth Attorney or Martinsville Police Department, then it would be considered intrinsic fraud which could “obscure” the alleged “facts” of guilt presented to a jury. When a party does not comply with multiple court orders, it is usually a contempt of court. When a party fails or refuses to comply with court orders for discovery material, the judge can decide to allow the adverse party in a case to push for an “adverse inference” allowing a jury to be instructed on the fact of destruction of evidence by the government prosecutor favorable to the other party in a criminal case or civil case. Usually destruction of evidence is a sign that the case prosecuted may have been a weak or unfounded case.
Here are the documents of the reply by Brian D. Hill calling the Attorney General’s brief “defective” and not addressing every assignment of error in both pending appeals. It had some very harsh language against the opposition brief and pointed to arguments and evidence which may very well prove that the brief of the Appellees is defective as Brian claimed it was. As well as documents of the filed appeal briefs accepted by the Court. All of those are very important as reference documents and materials in this article.
proof-of-service-10-29-2022.pdf – Proof of email service upon respondents in both pending appeals
Email pasted in HTML format (link)
reply-appeal-brief-oct-29-2022.pdf – Reply brief opposing the opposition brief by the Appellees. Brian is asking the Court of Appeals of Virginia to disregard the defective arguments or claims or erroneous claims made by Appellees.
Xfinity Connect VACES eFiling submissio..(2).pdf – VACES successful submission of reply brief and proof of service
Xfinity Connect VACES eFiling submissio…pdf – VACES successful submission of reply brief and proof of service
Hill, Brian – CAV Appellee Brief – 0289 and 0290-22-3.pdf – Appellees brief which Brian Hill responds to as “defective” in his reply brief, filed within a day after the Appellees file this exact brief.
Hill, Brian – CAV Motion to Consolidate – 0289 & 0290-22-3.pdf – Motion to consolidate both appeals, filed by Appellees
Here are the accepted appeal briefs on record with the assignments of errors.
Court of Appeals of Virginia, Amended opening brief, no. 0290-22-3, Brian David Hill v. Commonwealth of Virginia; City of Martinsville.pdf – Email serving what was filed. A letter to the Clerk with two versions of the appeal brief for appeal case number 0290-22-3. Version 1 and version two have word count differences in an attempt to comply with the restrictive word count by the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Amd-appeal-brief-aug-25-2022-1.pdf – amended appeal brief version 1 for appeal case number 0290-22-3
Amd-appeal-brief-aug-25-2022-2.pdf – amended appeal brief version 2 for appeal case number 0290-22-3
Letter-clerk-aug25-2022.pdf – Letter to Clerk with the two different versions as to what the differences as between the two being proffered to the CAV
Court of Appeals of Virginia, Amended opening brief, no. 0289-22-3, Brian David Hill v. Commonwealth of Virginia; City of Martinsville.pdf – Email serving what was filed. A amended appeal brief, accepted by the Court of Appeals of Virginia
Amd-appeal-brief-aug-17-2022.pdf – amended appeal brief for appeal case number 0289-22-3
See the screenshots of the case status since October 3, 2022. The reply briefs have not been added to the ACMS Appeal Case Management System yet.
The reply brief, amazingly was filed one day after the Appellees filed their opposition brief requesting dismissal of Brian’s two pending appeals after requesting in a separate motion to consolidate both appeals.
Brian still has more recent two motions asking for a new trial by jury on the basis of disproving the elements of the charged crime, as well as based on witness JaCody Cassell of The Chimney Sweep business in Rocky Mount, VA, but they were also denied by the Judge Giles Carter Greer, and the appeals for those motion denials are still pending, and have yet to receive the record from the Trial Court at this time.