1

Public Has No Confidence in Judiciary and Judge James P. Fisher

Abuse of Power, Judicial, Prosecutorial and Investigative Misconduct:
A Compilation

*Note* While eight examples have been received to date, there are others that have come to light, however those
who reached out are fearful to go on record; some are attorneys who practice before this judge .

You will see that Judge Fisher exhibits a pattern of sex discrimination and appears to target women
and their counsel. Of the first six cases presented since Fisher became a judge, all actions are
against a woman or her attorney. This is another form of abuse eroding the public’s confidence,
and Fisher should be harshly punished.

Synopsis: Judge Fisher has engendered and continues to create a culture of fear in the Loudoun County
Courthouse which is limiting zealous advocacy as attorneys are fearful of being held in contempt and being
jailed. He has especially chilled advocacy among female attorneys and others, who have expressed fear
of arguing too forcefully as they are caretakers of children and cannot afford to be jailed. In several recent
cases he has falsified the record or ordered courtroom personnel to sign orders. We should all be
concerned when a judge falsifies records, manufacturers evidence, or represents that his false records are
evidence. As discussed below, Fisher often uses conclusory opinion language to create false facts and
false records to justify his actions (see the cases of Katie Orndoff and Rachel Virk as set forth below). No
justice can be served when a judge fabricates the record or when the people have no confidence in the
court as a result of this judge’s misdeeds.

Such lack of public confidence exists with Fisher. Fisher’s behavior is a continuation of a pattern of behavior
exhibited when he was a prosecutor. In that role, he was found by a Circuit Court judge to have engaged
in prosecutorial and investigative misconduct. He also improperly interfered with employment decisions
regarding police officers in Fauquier County. Fisher has created a judicial legacy in which he intimidates
witnesses, engages in improper judicial investigations, bullies counsel, ignores the law, and engages in a
sort of vigilante justice and cronyism that supports his personal, rather than impartial perspective of justice.
Fairness and due process cannot be depended upon with Fisher presiding.
 2

Thankfully, court records, transcripts, audio records, and video recordings are available in several recent
cases; all demonstrate Fisher’s improper and illegal actions and demonstrate why the public has no
confidence in his ability to sit impartially as a judge. The cases demonstrate that Fisher has punished
lawyers for not permitting him to illegally investigate matters; he has intimidated and punished witnesses
after illegally investigating cases; he has ordered an illegal assault and blood draw on Ms. Orndoff; he has
subjected women to strip searches under the fallacy of “summary contempt” findings. He has declared
new laws enacted by the General Assembly “unconstitutional” because he doesn’t agree with them. Most
egregiously, he has made up “facts” and created a false record to cover his mistakes. He has brought
disrepute to the office and violated the community’s trust and has managed to discourage domestic
violence and sexual assault victims from reporting the crimes perpetrated against them.

1. The Case of Ms. Katie Orndoff

Cited with Contempt of Court, arrested, strip-searched, jailed, forced blood draw by Fisher during
felony domestic violence jury trial.

On September 7, 2021, Katie Orndoff testified against her abuser who had punched her repeatedly in the
face while she was driving and was facing felony charges for domestic abuse, having previously been
convicted of domestic abuse two times before. Based on court security camera footage, Ms. Orndoff’s
arrival at the courthouse, meetings with detectives, and testimony for more than 1.5 hours revealed no
indications of intoxication or being “under the influence”. No juror indicated that they could not hear or
understand Orndoff while she was testifying. Fisher, of his own accord or “sua sponte,” halted
questioning and released the jury, stating: “You appear to be under the influence of narcotics or some
other substance.” At no time did Fisher make any representation of what specific action of Orndoff led to
that conclusion or explain how he could draw a conclusion that someone was under the influence of
“narcotics”. Then, in contravention of eight subparts of the Judicial Canons (1A; 2A; 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5),
3B(7), 3B(9), 3B(11) – see *note at end) which it is believed that he has also violated in other cases
listed here, Fisher began an illegal investigation of Orndoff’s activities outside of the courtroom.
Ultimately, he declared Orndoff in “summary contempt,” sentenced her to 10 days in jail, and illegally
ordered a post-conviction blood draw.

After two days and significant public outcry over his treatment of an abuse victim, Orndoff obtained a
delayed appeal that Fisher conditioned on her providing urinalysis. Later, Fisher filed supplemental
orders in Orndoff’s case and in the underlying abuse case in which he made unsupported “findings of
fact” for which there is no basis in the video and audio records of the hearing.

In an effort to counter civil protest over his improper actions, Fisher declared Orndoff’s answers over 1.5
hours of testimony to be non-responsive (Orndoff answered all questions), in violation of orders (there
were none), incoherent (she was clearly understood at all times), lethargic (she was just the opposite and
was somewhat animated), alternating between high and low speech (not present except when
emphasizing an answer). He also declared that she was rocking in her chair (not true), almost fell out of
her chair (not true), and at one point was almost prone in her chair (not true).

Then, two weeks after finding Orndoff in contempt, Fisher wrote and placed an order in the abuser’s case
file in which he directly lied about court activities, police reports, and his own personal illegal investigation
outside of the courtroom. Fisher had some conversation with the Sheriff’s department (which again
violated the judicial prohibition on ex parte communications) and falsely wrote in an order that he had a
hearing with the Defense and Commonwealth Attorney (no such hearing took place), that the Defense
made a motion to compel Orndoff’s urinalysis results (no such motion to compel was made), that he
determined it to be Brady/exculpatory (no data from Sept 9 could be exculpatory for an assault that took
place 14 months earlier), and then he ordered the Sheriff to file with the Clerk of Court the following: “On
or about September 9, 2021 results of urinalysis of Katie Orndoff CR 36777-00 showing illegal narcotics
as well as intoxicating levels of other substances: to wit Methamphetamines and Marijuana.”
 3

It is unknown how Fisher could have such alleged results of a urinalysis unless he engaged in an
illegal ex parte investigation as no such results were ever presented in Court. Further, it appears
that Fisher made up “facts” for the record as no results were ever presented because there was
no documentation at the time of the order of any urinalysis results, no urinalysis exists to this
day that shows any narcotics or any levels (let alone intoxicating levels) of any substance in
Orndoff, as urinalysis only detects prior presence and not levels. Additionally, a urinalysis cannot
distinguish between legal and illegal prescription medicines. For example, according to her
counsel’s objections, prescription Adderall and Prozac will appear as amphetamines and
methamphetamines, and cannabis, Adderall and Prozac can be traced in urine up to 30 days after
consumption for some substances. As a result of the Order by the court, the Sheriff then created
a document dated September 23 which does not mention narcotics or intoxicating levels. It is
disturbing that the Sheriff created a document at the order of a court to help create a false record.

Fisher’s attempt to change the record two weeks after Orndoff’s “contempt” finding appears to be based
on an illegal and unethical investigation by a sitting judge who purposefully lied about conduct in court
and “quotes” from a non-existent Sheriff’s report. Fisher demonstrated that he has no respect for the
truth, and that he is willing to alter court records and lie to protect himself.

On Sept. 8, 2021, Orndoff filed a Motion to Vacate, which was scheduled for Sept. 23rd. Again, without
respect for Orndoff’s rights, and to avoid more publicity, Fisher entered an order removing Ms. Orndoff’s
case from the docket, stating that the matter was “without merit and is final”. A press conference and
protest was held on Sept. 23 at the courthouse steps. An Emergency Motion to Extend the Court’s
jurisdiction and consider Orndoff’s Motion to Vacate was submitted by Orndoff through counsel on Sept.
27. Recognizing the public outcry, but trying to distance the case from the 23rd, the Emergency Motion
was granted and the first available date for it to be heard is October 21 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2D.
Should the matter not be vacated, an appeal will follow.

2. The Case of Ms. Rachel Virk, Esq.

Cited with Contempt of Court, arrested, strip-searched, jailed as Defense Counsel for asking for
Fisher’s rationale and clarification on a ruling in the courtroom.

On January 31, 2020, Fisher orally and improperly found Rachel Virk, an attorney, in summary criminal
contempt of court for repeatedly asking him to clarify the legal basis of his order after he continually
refused to do so. Virk did this so she could create a proper record for appeal. Fisher, knowing his ruling
was inconsistent with the law, held Virk in contempt and called her disrespectful. Video and audio
records demonstrate that at all times Virk was professional and polite and did not raise her voice. Fisher
deprived Ms. Virk of her due process rights as he failed to abide by both the Constitution requiring notice
and the statutory provisions limiting the use of summary contempt and requiring notice. Fisher
imprisoned Ms. Virk unconditionally for one night and imposed a $250 fine. Ms. Virk was strip-searched
and subsequently released a day later, on Feb 1, 2020, from the Loudoun County Adult Detention
Center. Despite the finding, Fisher failed to sign a written order finding the contempt, but instead, without
any authority, ordered his clerk to issue an “order of commitment.” The “commitment order” (Form DC-
352) entered by the clerk, improperly characterized the contempt as civil, despite well-established law to
the contrary. This illegal order of the Clerk was declared a nullity by the Court of Appeals. Ms. Virk is
suing the Clerk of Court and Sheriff for their part in her false imprisonment. Fisher relies on judicial
immunity.

Virk describes the shock of being strip-searched and says Judge James Fisher’s behavior sends a
chilling message to other attorneys and witnesses.
https://www.wusa9.com/mobile/article/news/local/virginia/loudoun-judge-james-fisher-history-of-
detaining-witnesses-lawyers-contempt/65-5fc1dd32-3c4e-456a-9020-d4ff873d1396
 4

3. The Case of Ms. Beatriz Giron

Fisher forces a woman to conduct a hearing without notice and summarily cancels her existing
2-year domestic violence protective order because the docket “was already backed up”.

Ms. Giron was granted a 2-year protective order in General District Court (GDC) against her ex-boyfriend
on December 3, 2019, for stalking and criminal trespass. Ms. Giron’s ex-boyfriend filed an appeal of the
GDC Order to the Circuit Court. Ms. Giron was diligently on the look-out for the notice of a new hearing
date. Between the months of January - August 2020, she consistently checked in with the court on, at
least, a monthly basis to see if a date had been scheduled for the appeal. She was never served and did
not receive notice of a hearing date via USPS.

On August 20, 2020, Ms. Giron called again to check in and was informed that her hearing was
scheduled for August 24, 2020, only 4 days away (not enough time to comply with a rule to submit
evidence within a week’s time). When Ms. Giron asked which courtroom the hearing would take place in,
she was told that it would be virtual, and the clerk was unable to tell her the specific method or
technology (e.g., phone call, Zoom, WebEx, etc.) to be used for the virtual hearing. Ms. Giron reached
out to Lauren Permison, Civil Division Supervisor; Amy Bain, Docket Manager; and Lisa Cockerille, Case
Manager with the Victims Witness Program, for guidance on how she could submit her evidence, which
included video, pictures, emails, text messages, affidavits from 4 witnesses, a letter from her therapist,
and proof of a previous protective order filed by her alleged abuser’s ex-wife for domestic violence
against her. Permison confirmed that Ms. Giron was never served, and suggested Ms. Giron file a Motion
for Continuance; Giron immediately did so on August 21 which would have allowed her time to submit
evidence and have proper Notice of Hearing.

On August 24th Ms. Giron contacted the court and was told to wait for a return phone call or email for
confirmation on method for the hearing to be conducted. Within the hour, Ms. Giron was contacted via
phone and instructed the hearing was to take place telephonically right then and there. During the call,
Ms. Giron informed Judge Fisher of the circumstances, and that Permison had confirmed that she was
not properly noticed. Fisher ignored the Motion for Continuance, indicating he was going to hear the case
at that moment because the Court’s “docket was already backed up.” Ms. Giron then asked Judge Fisher
how she was supposed to have a fair trial absent being able to present her evidence. Fisher signaled the
hearing was to proceed regardless. Ms. Giron was forced to participate in the case which was only a “he
said/she said” presentation, since she was refused the opportunity to submit video, photos, 9-1-1
recordings, and other evidence because she was unaware of the court date, and her continuance denied
by Fisher. She was unable to line up witnesses to corroborate her story in the very short time frame,
though a number were willing to testify. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Fisher dismissed Ms.
Giron’s case, and removed the 2-year protective order, telling defendant “If I see you again, I will throw
him in jail.” The defendant gets a pass and does not face any consequences.

Giron was advised by attorneys Jerry and Jonathan Phillips and Bradley Chase that she had a right to
appeal the matter, but that it would be useless to ask for reconsideration as Fisher “has a reputation for
not admitting that he is ever wrong and even if there is a valid reason, he is prone to denying
reconsideration because that would mean he would be admitting to having made a mistake.” Fisher
never advised Giron that she had the right to an appeal. Once again, a woman in a domestic abuse
situation is given disrespectful treatment by Fisher.

4. The Case of Ms. Erin Hillary Page

Judge Fisher personally disapproves of the fact that Page was having an adult relationship and
engaging in consensual sex while in a drug treatment program (which had no impact on her
ability to successfully complete the program), terminates her participation in the program and
sentences her to over 4 year’s prison time though she’s in compliance with the program’s
Handbook.
 5

In June 2019, Page, a 43-year-old woman, pled guilty to two counts (for violating §18.2-248) pursuant to
a written plea agreement (a contractual obligation with the court), in which she agrees to be assigned to
a Drug Court Program. The program prohibits participants from having sexual relationships with other
Drug Court Program participants but not with other consenting adults. If she successfully completes the
program, her criminal prison sentence would be eliminated. A participant can be removed from the
program for violating its rules or engaging in intractable behavior that prevents their completion of the
program. By statute, “intractable behavior” is defined as “behavior that, in the determination of the court,
indicates an offender’s unwillingness or inability to conform his behavior to that necessary to his
successful completion of local community-based probation the program or that is so disruptive as to
threaten the successful completion of the program by other participants.” Intractable behavior usually
means a person continues to use or sell illegal drugs.

During the program, Page is granted furlough to attend a non-Drug Court, in-patient treatment program
for drug addiction in Oxford, MS. While in MS, Page develops a legal, consensual relationship with
someone who has not been identified. At a hearing after Page’s return, when Fisher learned that she had
developed a relationship with someone, he inquired whether that involved sex. Page admitted that she
was having sex and Fisher removed Page from Drug Court and sentenced her to over 4 years in prison.
He rationalized that Page, an adult 43-year-old woman, who committed no violation of the program or
crime, exhibited “intractable behavior,” stating that having a “growing relationship” with someone which
included sex, was not “the best use of her time”. “To me,” Fisher stated, “that is intractable behavior.”

Page was not prohibited from having consensual adult relationships with individuals not in the Loudoun
Drug Court Program and there was no evidence that Page was having sex with a treatment participant.
Page is still in prison serving her more than 4 year’s sentence. Currently, this case is at the Court of
Appeals of Virginia, Record No. 0565-21-4. There is no record of Fisher ever punishing a male for
having consensual sex.

5. The Case of Mr. Robert Bruce, Esq.

Judge Fisher issues four Show Cause Orders against an attorney because the attorney will not
violate his ethical obligations.

Judge Fisher was involved in a month’s long incident with a practicing Northern Virginia attorney from
October to December 2020. This incident, as reported on by Virginia Lawyers Weekly, resulted in Fisher
issuing four Show Cause Orders against Robert Bruce and threatening to remove Bruce as counsel in
retaliation for not violating his ethical obligations upon Fisher’s Order.

Robert Bruce represented a woman with a record of charges in Loudoun County Circuit Court on Oct. 8,
2020. Bruce’s client was in Circuit Court after an appeal of an adverse finding in the General District
Court. By statute, appeals from the General District Court are heard de novo which means that the case
is treated as if the General District Court hearing never occurred. It is a violation of a defendant’s
rights for the Court to become aware of anything that transpired in the General District Court or
to consider anything fact or sentence from the General District Court. During a hearing, Fisher
asked Bruce to tell him the outcome of the case in the General District Court in terms of sentencing.
Bruce, consistent with his obligations to his client, refused to answer and informed Fisher of his ethical
obligation and reminded Fisher that this was a de novo hearing. Fisher then ordered Bruce to tell him the
 6

answer. When Bruce again refused, citing his ethical obligations, Fisher stated that Bruce had an ethical
obligation to obey the lawful orders of the Court and wrongly inferred that his order was lawful.

Bruce's refusal to address his client’s legal history frustrated Judge Fisher. He faulted Bruce for
persisting “even after being advised of his duty, as an officer of the court, of candor to the tribunal,”
according to the record. Fisher issued a Rule to Show Cause for Bruce to show why he should not be
held in contempt for refusing to answer Fisher’s question.

Then in a subsequent hearing, when Bruce was held up in another Court and called local counsel to
inform the judge that he was running a few minutes late, which is the routine professional practice, Fisher
removed the case from the docket, and in an apparent targeting of Bruce issued another Rule to Show
Cause why he should not be held in contempt for being late to a hearing.

Fisher issued a third Rule to Show Cause, again improperly targeting Bruce in retaliation for upholding
his ethical obligation to his client, which alleged Bruce had drafted too long of a pleading and had
submitted his pleadings too late in advance of another Nov. 19, 2020, hearing. Constitutionally there
can be no limit on the length of a pleading in a criminal case nor can there be a scheduling limit
that prevents a criminal defendant from presenting or making any argument to the Court. In
support of his Rule to Show Cause, Fisher improperly and deliberately asserted a civil briefing limitation
requiring motions to be submitted 14 days in advance and mandated that briefs be limited to five pages.
Fisher refused to hear Bruce’s motion at that time.

In response, Bruce later filed three separate pleadings on Dec. 3, 2020, that were compliant with these
restrictions, but Judge Fisher still faulted Bruce for “cutting and pasting” from his original 17-page
pleading. Additionally, Fisher falsely alleged that Bruce had used an inaccurate felony plea agreement
form, which had already been submitted and rejected by Fisher on Oct. 8. Upon rejection of the plea
agreement with the Commonwealth, Fisher was ethically required to recuse himself from the case.
He refused to do so, improperly asserting that the rule on plea agreements did not apply to probation
violations. Fisher issued his fourth Rule to Show Cause against Bruce for resubmitting the plea
agreement.

Throughout these proceedings, Bruce filed three motions for Fisher to recuse himself from the case.
Fisher declined each time despite the appearance that Fisher was retaliating against Bruce for
not revealing the results of the General District trial as he had requested. Bruce asked for a jury
trial for any of the alleged contempts as they did not meet the requirements for summary contempt.
Fisher refused.

Fisher ultimately threatened to remove Bruce as counsel for these alleged ministerial infractions, and
instead of dismissing Bruce, Fisher appointed co-counsel on Dec. 22, 2020, which was not requested by
the Defendant.

Bruce had to hire an attorney to represent him in court on the retaliatory Rules to Show Cause. The
matter is still not finalized though Bruce has performed 10 hours of community service and
attended continuing legal education classes in an apparent agreement to avoid having him, a
practicing attorney, face the expense of a trial for contempt.
 7

6. The Case of Patricia Mineve Coppage

Judge Fisher chose to ignore newly passed legislation contrary to his ethical obligations to
uphold the law.

Patricia Meneva Coppage was charged with violating mandatory rules and requirements of her
supervised probation. The Virginia General Assembly passed a bill earlier this year that defined some
probation terms as ‘technical violations,’ modifying Virginia Code §19.2-306.1. This modification limited
the court’s ability to take action to enforce orders, regardless of how many individual infractions occur,
and was designed to prevent a person from having their entire probation revoked due to a minor
technical violation of probation.

As a former prosecutor and Judge known for giving the maximum sentence available to him,
Fisher appears opposed to the new law. In June 2021, at a hearing for bond pending the hearing on
probation violation, Fisher denied Coppage bond and denied the application of the new law regarding
technical violations, declaring them unconstitutional. He also denied the constitutionality of the
ability to apply the new statute to violations that occurred prior to July 1, 2021, authority for
which is expressly presented in the new statute.

In refusing to adhere to the law, in Ms. Coppage’s case, Fisher ruled that this code modification by the
General Assembly was an unconstitutional violation of the Constitution of Virginia, because it violated
Virginia’s separation of powers. Fisher argued that the statute “[stripped] the court of the final decision-
making authority as to the disposition of any first case of probation violations.”

Fisher’s ruling illustrates an unwillingness to uphold the rights entitled to probationers.

Furthermore, it underscores Judge Fisher’s reluctance to comply with and enforce Virginia law as
it is written, the duty tasked to him as a judge.

Fisher as Commonwealth Attorney for Fauquier County

7. The Case of Lorenzo Lee Bean, III, Esq.

Judge David H. Beck granted a Motion to Dismiss the Bean Case for Prosecutorial and
Investigative Misconduct against Fisher as Commonwealth Attorney (and his team) for Fauquier
County in August, 2015. Judge Beck dismissed seven felony charges after finding that Fisher, as
Commonwealth Attorney, engaged in improper behavior with respect to the investigation and
conduct of this case which warranted dismissal in order to protect Defendant’s due process
rights. https://www.fauquiernow.com/fauquier_news/article/fauquier-judge-tosses-embezzlement-
charges-against-lawyer-2015

Lorenzo Bean was a practicing attorney whose secretary was embezzling from his trust account. Fisher
convened a special grand jury to investigate the matter. Like a regular grand jury, the Commonwealth
Attorney may not participate in or be present at the deliberations and investigation of a special grand
jury. The special grand jury is, however, entitled to its own attorney upon request. The Commonwealth
Attorney cannot assume a dual role and be both a special counselor to a special grand jury and the
prosecutor as this is both a legal and ethical conflict of interest (§ 19.2-210). The sanctity of neutrality
and independence of a special grand jury would not be protected if this were to be permitted.

Despite the clear legal prohibition, Fisher had himself appointed as the special counselor to the
special grand jury, and in that role either he or his senior staff attorneys were present during the
deliberations of the special grand jury and gave them advice on whether to bring charges against
 8

Bean. In addition, Fisher’s office, and its investigator, Bradley Gregor, had allegedly conspired with
William Sterling, an investigator for the Virginia State Bar, illegally obtaining investigative reports of
the Virginia State Bar for use in this case; these reports were confidential and not subject to public
dissemination. Their use and Sterling’s sharing of this information violated the rights of the defendant.

Further, by acting as special counsel to the special grand jury, Fisher not only violated § 19.2-210, but
he used the role of special prosecutor to secretly subpoena Bean’s financial records and avoid
having to give him notice pursuant to Virginia Supreme Court Rule 3A:12(a) so that Bean would be
aware of the requests and could have sought to quash the production of the requested documents.

The Circuit Court found that the prosecution improperly led the special grand jury to conclusions and
failed to correct misleading statements from a state police investigator who testified in the secret
proceedings. Such misconduct affected the independent deliberation of the grand jury.

“The [prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty
whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all and whose
interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be
done…while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his
duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to
every legitimate means to bring about a just one.” Quoted from the pleading citing Berger v. United
States and Tuma v. Commonwealth.

It is unknown exactly how many other cases are subject to being overturned because of Fisher’s illegal
appointment as special counselor to the special grand jury while he and his office also acted as
prosecutor.

8. The Case of Mr. Carl Matthew “Matt” Ferguson (Former Police Officer/Detective)
Fisher throws his weight around and Warrenton Detective Ferguson was framed and terminated
as was Warrenton Town Manager, Brannon Godfrey.

It is highly irregular for the Commonwealth Attorney to insert himself not just in the hiring process of a
Chief of Police (COP) (following the “resign-or-we’ll-fire you” town action re: Fisher’s friend, now former
COP Louis Battle), not to mention creating a mountain out of a molehill regarding an off-duty officer (and
others) drinking and engaging in horseplay with a woman at a local restaurant and bar following Battle’s
exit (See attachments: “Fisher Letter 1,” 3 pages, and “Fisher Letter 2”).

Fisher called in the state police to investigate the incident. He destroyed an officer’s life (a 24-year
veteran policeman who had worked in Prince William County, Fairfax County, and then Warrenton) and
the officer (Ferguson) was unexpectedly terminated after a finding of not guilty by Judge Ashwell, despite
the pressures placed by (and perhaps on) Special Prosecutor Verlain. Fisher may have had his thumb on
her, too. Fisher also leaked information to the press on Ferguson and defamed his character as
Ferguson was not complying with the deal that Verlain put in front of him. Fisher kept threatening to put
Ferguson on the Brady List, even after the not guilty verdict. Ferguson knew if he was placed on the
Brady List, he would never work in law enforcement again.

https://www.fauquiernow.com/fauquier_news/article/fauquier-state-police-investigate-warrenton-town-
cops-2018?fbclid=IwAR3NE1FszGgahU-7All0vMZeTNaECQ0jZ3WXhRDlAOgY3LpytXt5fiSa3Ik

https://www.fauquier.com/commonwealth-attorney-james-fishers-oct-3-letter-to-warrenton-mayor-carter-
nevill/pdf_3180d828-ce85-11e8-89d2-4b5de153daaf.html
 9

https://www.fauquier.com/news/mayor-warrenton-police-officers-under-investigation-for-off-duty-
incident/article_7d5ef904-ce86-11e8-acfe-
efaa22d6d22d.html?fbclid=IwAR1NcuaJ9uxdxdGub_BhTp5scJSYPuP2j2L2zUkDkYbsmy98KAfmmsF9T
Ys

But before all these shenanigans, COP Lou Battle was asked to resign or be fired after the below tasing
incident (described at the link), which upset Fisher and Councilmember Kravetz as reportedly Battle was
a dear friend of both men; apparently, Battle was the one that tased the man who surrendered (body
worn camera footage exists), walking out of the home with hands above his head following a ruling that
excessive force could not be used when a suspect was unarmed and not resisting arrest:
http://www.fauquiernow.com/index.php/fauquier_news/article/fauquier-warrenton-police-take-armed-
man-into-custody-4-2018?fbclid=IwAR10wz1XJT0f6ni_Q1sXfw2ZQ0yjgYbCdo2ap8A0ix9O-rI4dx1Nhi-
EA84

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals had just issued a ruling about when police could use tasers. The
department had completed training based on the ruling and it was well-understood by police officers, but
for their very own COP.
Yates v. Terry: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/151555.P.pdf and
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/151191.P.pdf

Following this incident, Kravetz wrote up an award nomination suggesting that the Town Council or PD
should recognize former COP Battle with a valor award or some such award for the handling of the
incident with the tased man. [As previously mentioned, Battle, Kravetz, and Fisher appear to be close
friends who had each other’s backs no matter the situation. This desire to award the ousted COP
seemed odd to most who declined to make the award to Battle.]

COP Battle “retiring” to spend more time with family:

https://www.fauquier.com/news/warrenton-police-chief-lou-battle-retiring/article_db27614a-4db0-11e8-
b252-13437eff4932.html?fbclid=IwAR3tHY1UuhwqnWjZ50BQeVjQOei7mizc-
t1xsn9dj0Tvd8eM8WR4JscMjYw

Town Manager Brannon Godfrey was fired for a supposed delay in reporting; neither the Town Council
nor the County Board of Supervisors had ever fired its chief executive. “Council members and the mayor
recently had questioned Mr. Godfrey’s handling of a new police chief’s recruitment, an incident
involving off-duty town cops in a local bar…”
https://www.fauquiernow.com/fauquier_news/article/fauquier-warrenton-council-votes-5-2-to-fire-town-
manager-2018?fbclid=IwAR1xnzl7SpoU_ZQX3r_KwTJXA2RIMafvKoC10Hr5G-nq8qXJc4hkbHUiFP4

“The top choice [for Police Chief] also apparently had worked in Culpeper, according to a letter
Commonwealth’s Attorney James P. Fisher sent to Mayor Carter Nevill and the seven-member
town council. In that Sept. 25 letter, Fisher questioned the selection process and raised concerns about
what he learned as the special prosecutor in a police shooting case in Culpeper [where Godfrey had
previously worked]. That apparently stopped the hiring process. Godfrey had planned to offer the position
to a candidate [also of Culpeper] by Oct. 1, according to a document he prepared this summer.”
https://www.fauquiernow.com/fauquier_news/article/fauquier-warrenton-police-chief-hiring-process-
stalled-2018?fbclid=IwAR2xq3lEra2qyvUnXXBRBvk48xvDD1-xOq1gxWjVZ9NcLDHjKZzB9kFS_Pc
Number one on the hiring list and presumed next COP was Rick Pinksaw of Culpeper; he’s now COP in
Emporia. Number two on the list was a former assistant chief of the Warrenton Police Department who
had left because of Battle and no longer wanted the job. Apparently, Fisher and Kravetz were infuriated
at the prospect that Pinksaw was about to be offered the COP position and thought an intervention was
necessary; reportedly, the two friends were already upset that buddy, Battle, was forced to leave and
blamed Town Manager, Godfrey.
 10

https://www.fauquiernow.com/fauquier_news/article/fauquier-warrenton-policeman-faces-charge-in-bar-
incident-2018?fbclid=IwAR07YU3Q9aChszkpEq21H6IT4IyMyiP8BCDCdEfsbw-oMXO2M7akViHZ23w
(See “not guilty” ruling by Judge Ashwell, last attachment) Officer Ferguson was represented by attorney,
Scott Hook, now the Fauquier County Commonwealth’s Attorney.

https://www.fauquier.com/news/update-warrenton-police-officer-acquitted-in-assault/article_25ef18ae-
5273-11e9-be50-67e5f5a60add.html

https://www.fauquiernow.com/fauquier_news/article/fauquier-town-policeman-not-guilty-in-bar-assault-
case-2019

Fisher had about a month remaining as the Commonwealth Attorney prior to investiture and start as a
new judge at the Loudoun County Courthouse in 2019. Some feel that Fisher overstepped and this
“horseplay incident” was a ruse used as a political ploy to get rid of Godfrey and stop Pinksaw’s hiring as
the new COP, and to show the police department was in disarray since friend, Lou Battle, was removed
as police chief. Fisher appears to have sent a letter to the police department in retaliation for Officer
Ferguson’s challenging the fraudulent charges brought against him in court (by another Fisher friend,
Attorney David Dischley; the woman with the fractured nose had apparently no intention of bringing suit),
but also because Officer Ferguson was found not guilty (see last attachment) based on no probable
cause, no assault and battery so no real victim. Angela Verlain was assigned Special Prosecutor in this
matter and pressured a state trooper months later to pursue drunk in public and disorderly conduct
charges against Ferguson. The Trooper stated he found no probable cause, however, Fisher
ordered/authorized an assault and battery warrant for Ferguson anyhow.

Following the not guilty verdict, Ferguson expected to return to work as a full-time detective at Warrenton
County PD, however he was pressured to resign. During his 3-year tenure at the department, Officer
Ferguson (promoted to Detective, another reason the men were out celebrating):
• Received a promotion to Corporal
• Trained four officers as a Field Training Officer
• Was recognized with a Life Saving Award from the department
• Was awarded Officer of the Quarter by the department
• Received two Valor Awards from the Fauquier Chamber of Commerce
• Received MADD Award for DUI enforcement

_____

*NOTE: From The Canons of Judicial Conduct

“Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair and competent judiciary will
interpret and apply the laws that govern us. The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts
of justice and the rule of law. Intrinsic to all sections of these Canons are the precepts that judges,
individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to
enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system. The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the
resolution of disputes and a highly visible symbol of government under the rule of law. The Canons of
Judicial Conduct are intended to establish standards for ethical conduct of judges. They consist of broad
statements called Canons, specific rules set forth in Sections under each Canon and Commentary. The
text of the Canons and the Sections is authoritative.”