V I R G I N I A :

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PETERSBURG

In Re:The Petition of Several Citizens of the City of Petersburg and the Commonwealth of Virginia to be Granted Access to a Grand Jury to Provide Evidence Concerning Criminal and Unethical Activity in the Community and/or by Governmental Authorities, Agencies or Officials

Case No.: ___________

MOTION FOR THE HONORABLE PAMELA S. BASKERVILL

TO RECUSE HERSELF FROM THE TRIAL OF THIS MATTER

Come now Several Citizens of the City of Petersburg, by their counsel, Neil Kuchinsky, Esquire, and move that the Honorable Pamela S. Baskervill recuse herself from consideration of this matter. In support of this Motion, the Petitioners state as follows:

1. The matters which Several Citizens intend to bring before the Petersburg Grand Jury, and ultimately, a Special Grand Jury include, but are not limited to, matters relating to the dissolution of the Hospital Authority of the City of Petersburg. In an order dated May 16, 2003 (see Exhibit "A" attached) regarding Reverend Grady W. Powell, et als., Petitioners; Petition for Dissolution of the Hospital Authority of the City of Petersburg (CH03-189), the Honorable James F. D'Alton, Jr., stated as follows:

It appearing that all the judges of this court are so situated in respect to this case as to render it improper, in their opinion, for them to preside at the trial; therefore, Thomas V. Warren, James F. D'Alton, Jr. and Pamela S. Baskervill recuse themselves from the trial of this case.

If Judge Baskervill's participation would have been improper for that case, her participation would be improper in this case,

for the same reasons.

2. Furthermore, in a letter to Samuel P. Johnson, III,

Esquire at the law firm of Shell, Johnson, Andrews & Baskervill, and Virginia W. Powell, Esquire and Mark D. Epply at the law firm of Hunton & Williams, dated May 20, 2003, Judge D'Alton advised counsel of his knowledge that the Virginia Supreme Court would be designating the Honorable Donald H. Kent to preside in that matter in the future (see Exhibit "B"); the fact that one or more of the three judges who found their participation in that case would be improper, and participate in recommending a substitute to be designated by the Supreme Court of Virginia creates obvious, if unintended, appearance problems (not to mention appearance issues as to the Virginia Supreme Court).

3. It is quite likely that the testimony of one or more of the Several Citizens will touch upon actions taken or not taken by one or more of the Honorable Pamela S. Baskervill's former law firm, associates or partners, i.e., the firm of Shell, Johnson, Andrews & Baskervill, where Judge Baskervill's husband and father work and have financial interests;

4. Judge Pamela S. Baskervill has previously taken the position, as on August 21, 2003, that it is within her judicial power to prevent witnesses from appearing before a Grand Jury, even when the avowed purpose of their appearance is not to seek an indictment, but only to bring matters to the attention of a Grand Jury so that they might determine whether an investigation should ensue;

5. The Several Citizens maintain that there is no legal

requirement that they provide any further detail to this court before being permitted to appear in front of the Petersburg Grand

Jury; to attempt to force them to do so would provide the Honorable Judge Baskervill with advance knowledge concerning potential allegations, and could well compromise the secrecy of the Grand Jury proceedings and any ensuing investigations that might result;

6. Counsel has attached the "Cannons of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia" to this Motion as Exhibit "C". Cannon 2(A) states that "A Judge shall . . . act at all times in the manner that promotes public confidence, the integrity and partiality of the judiciary." Cannon 2(B) states that "A judge shall not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the Judge's judicial conduct or judgment"; the commentary to Cannon 3 states that, "A judge must not independently investigate facts in a case and must consider only the evidence presented"; Cannon 3(B)(11) states, "A judge shall not disclose or use for any purpose, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, non-public information acquired in a judicial capacity";

7. Cannon 3(E) states that, "A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where . . . the judge has . . . person knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts . . . (c) The judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge's spouse, parent, or child wherever residing, or any other member of the judge's family residing in the judge's household, has an

economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding or have more than a de minimis interest

that could be substantially affected by the proceeding; (d) The judge or the judge's spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of the, or the spouse of such a person: (i) is a party to the proceeding, or an officer . . . (iii) is known by the judge to have a more than de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding; (iv) is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

These are at least some of the judicial ethical considerations that may or should be relevant in Judge Baskervill's consideration of the recusal motion; but certainly the most momentous one is avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.

8. Counsel represents to the court that based on his personal knowledge and regardless of the fairness of such perceptions, there are a number of citizens in this judicial circuit who would believe, without any hesitation, that there would be an appearance of impropriety should the Honorable Pamela S. Baskervill not recuse herself from consideration of this matter;

9. Furthermore, the Petitioners aver that it would be improper for this court to arrange for and recommend to the Virginia Supreme Court a specific substitute judge for designation, rather than having that court find its own appointee.

WHEREFORE, the Petitioners, by counsel, pray that the Honorable Pamela S. Baskervill will recuse herself from this matter, and seek the designation of another judge in a manner which would not create even the appearance of impropriety.

SEVERAL CITIZENS OF THE

CITY OF PETERSBURG

By:

Counsel