Police Confirm Investigation Of Abingdon Magistrate’s Office
By David Crigger/Bristol Herald Courier
Employee records and court documents show how a local magistrate directed business to his father, a bail bondsman.
BRISTOL, Va. – The Virginia State Police confirmed Tuesday it is investigating accusations that the Abingdon-based magistrate’s office falsified documents to steer bail bonds to a relative.
Following a Sunday front-page article in the Bristol Herald Courier – the result of the newspaper’s two-month investigation – a State Police spokesman asked the newspaper Tuesday for its evidence collected while researching the story.
State Police investigators fear official records both in the magistrate’s office and with former magistrates might be illegally destroyed once a subpoena is issued, Sgt. Michael Conroy said.
“As [the Herald Courier] stated in the article, some documents have already been destroyed,” he added.
The Herald Courier declined to turn over any of its records.
“Journalists cannot be used as arms of law enforcement or anyone else,” said J. Todd Foster, the Herald Courier’s managing editor. “While we appreciate the State Police being bold enough to ask, and for trying to expedite its investigation, we will resist on ethics grounds any attempts to gain our records. If subpoenaed, we will move to have it quashed.”
When told that Tuesday, Conroy said, “I thought you’d say that. ... At least we tried.”
Sunday’s article detailed how John C. “Tiny” Mullins III falsified court records the evening of April 18, 2008, and early the next day to hide questionable dealings with his father, a local bail bondsman. The son used fellow magistrate Norman Dayton Harris’ electronic computer signature to sign three separate bail bond forms to release from jail three defendants awaiting a court hearing. Each time, the freed defendant had hired Tiny Mullins’ father, J.C. Mullins Jr., of Abingdon Bail Bonds.
Harris admits giving Tiny Mullins the computer pass code to the electronic signature.
The Virginia Supreme Court, which oversees the state magistrate system, fired Tiny Mullins and forced Harris to retire in May, three weeks after the newspaper first sought public documents relating to the scheme.
Sgt. Conroy also confirmed that the newspaper’s initial inquiries into the magistrate’s office two months ago sparked the State Police probe.
The “story called to light the investigation,” Conroy said.
The newspaper began its investigation with a public records request to the Virginia Supreme Court for the bondsman’s 2008 client list. Also sought were the employee time sheets of Tiny Mullins and Harris to show who worked when Harris’ electronic signature was used.
The time sheets for Tiny Mullins – both his personal records and copies filed in the Abingdon magistrate’s office – had been destroyed, despite state law requiring the documents be saved for three years.
Only Harris’ time sheets remain.
| (276) 645-2549
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
“...speak to the listen,” the mayor said.
WHAT?????
_____________
In other action, the council voted 3-2 to return Rector and Bowman to the Bristol Virginia Utilities board of directors.
THEIR SONS WILL BE HAPPY TO HEAR THAT!!!!!
THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SYSTEM OF “JUST US”
THROW ALL OF THE BUMS OUT!!!!!
Washington County General District (Prepayable) ***
Civil Case Details Page : GV06000192-00
Case Number: GV06000192-00 File Date: 01/25/2006 Case Type: Warrant In Debt
Debt Type: Number of Plaintiffs: 01 Number of Defendants: 01
Plaintiff # 1 Information:
Name: FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA
Judgment: Plaintiff
Attorneys:
Plaintiff Attorney: GREENBERG
Defendant Attorney:
Defendant # 1 Information:
Name: MULLINS, JOHN C; III
Judgment: Plaintiff
Defendant # 2 Information:
Name:
Judgment:
Appeal Information
Appealed Date: Appealed By:
Hearings
Number Date Time Result Hearing Type
01 03/20/2006 09:00 AM Continued
02 04/17/2006 09:00 AM Default Judgment
Judgment: Plaintiff Judgment Amount: $4,296.65
Other Amount: Interest Award: 6 % FROM 4/17/06
Cost: $38.00 Attorney Fees:
Possession: Writ Issued:
Is Judgment Satisfied: Date Satisfied:
Homstead Exemption Waived: No
Other:
No, the courts can over-ride the reporters confidentiality in some rare instances. I would highly doubt this would be one of them. Laws exist on a federal and state level and im no lawyer, maybe the “future article” may cover reporter confidentiality exceptions for us.
In this case I wouldn’t presume evidence would be hard to come by considering one magistrate already admitted to wrongdoing and was forcefully retired.
I understand the part about confidential sources not wanting to be identified and have no real argument there. So let me make sure that I understand this part: if it comes down to the VSP and the Commonwealth of Virginia not being able to prosecute this case because they can’t come up with enough documented evidence and you had (apparently have) that evidence, you would continue to withhold your documents and let this alleged law breaker walk? Don’t know about the ethics of the situation, but I’d say that the morality of it sure stinks.
Freedom of Press is extremely important. It’s a freedom that can’t be used just when we want to. It has to be applied as an ethical standard in news organizations. Im sure the reporter would love to see justice served just as much as we would, but in order for him to retain his professional integrity he needs to apply freedom of press to every article he writes. Just like the doctor/patient priveledge, attorney/client priveledge, or many others provided by our constitution.
Terry: The situation you outline could not be more different. Here’s the bottom line: If confidential sources thought we would turn over their documents to law enforcement, they wouldn’t come forward at all. And the public would never know about corruption and scandals. If the AG of the United States could have ordered Woodward and Bernstein to turn over their source documents, Nixon would have served out his term.
The Virginia State Police should investigate Judge Isaac St. Clair Freeman for falsifying this Court Order.
http://media.tricities.com/tricities/images/files/ElectronicMediaRequest.pdf
“Before taking the bench, Freeman sent word to a bailiff denying a request by the Bristol Herald Courier to photograph the hearing. The judge did not inform Mannix nor Reecher of the request, and did not give the newspaper a chance to plead its case, as provided for in Virginia law.“
—Daniel Gilbert
Reporter / Bristol Herald Courier
Published: April 19, 2009
http://www.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/he_sues_and_loses_but_pat_mannix_has_only_begun_to_fight/23120/
I understand that one must protect a source when they are given a “journalists” word that the information given would be held in the strictest of confidence. I get that. But, what we are talking about here is handing over copies of documents that were public record that anyone could have obtained. The State Police are afraid that the documents will be destroyed illegally thus makiing them unavailable to them. This is not an ethics issue at all. This is a public news organization cooperating with the local State Police Department to criminally charge someone that has committed a crime. You made no promises to anyone to obtain these records, therefore; you would not be breaking any ethics codes in providing them to anyone else.
It sounds to me that your paper is harboring ill feelings toward the situation that happened with the Bristol Police and you are going to take it out on the VA State Police. You are a local paper that has a duty to your public to provide information when it is available, you have failed your community and the protectors of you and the community that you live in by taking this position.
OK, JTF, I guess maybe you’ll have to pardon my ignorance on this topic, but when the media is denied info from a particular organization or source, you cry foul and immediately invoke the FOIA and even go as far as to sue. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, why does it all of a sudden become a “100 percent black and white ethical issue” that you should not have to give up any information that you gathered? Please explain the difference between you having the documents or wanting them. What am I missing here? Cooperating with the Virginia State Police in their investigation doesn’t put you in their “pocket.” My mind is open.
Advertisement