When George Allen was sworn in as Governor of Virginia, everyone recognized the tall, handsome former football star, but who was that short bald man standing in front of him administering the oath of office? Why, that was none other than Harry L. Carrico, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Take a poll. Ask 1000 Virginians to identify Harry L. Carrico. Not more than two or three out of one thousand Virginians will recognize this name. Nevertheless, over the entire course of the last 36 years, Harry L. Carrico has been the most powerful man in Virginia.

Everyone knows that the American Civil War ended in 1865, when Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox, Virginia, even though Lee was not even the commander in chief of the Army of Virginia, much less of the entire Southern Army, when he surrendered. Similarly, everyone knows that President Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, even though Lincoln did not actually free the slaves. Lincoln never advocated freeing the slaves, Lincoln never said that he intended to free the slaves and Lincoln possibly never would have freed the slaves, had he lived. The slaves were actually freed by his successor, President Andrew Johnson, after Lincoln was dead. President Johnson freed the slaves when the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was signed in December, 1865, eight months after Lincoln had been killed. Lincoln, in his Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, only "freed" the slaves held by the enemy. Lincoln never freed the slaves held in northern slave states such as Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri.

Now, we have Justice Harry L. Carrico to continue the battle which has not been completely lost.

Harry L. Carrico was born on September 4, 1916. He has been a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia since 1961 and has been Chief Justice since 1981. Harry L. Carrico was appointed to the Supreme Court during the period when Virginia was leading the battle which had shifted from the Appomattox Battle Grounds to the courts. The infamous 1954 decision of Brown vs. Board of Education had ordered the Virginia School System to be racially desegregated. It is generally forgotten that this shockingly short six page United States Supreme Court decision concerned the school segregation laws in four states: Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia and Delaware. The full title of the case was: Brown vs. Board of Education and Davis vs. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia et al. . Please look up that decision in the law books. It is to be found on page 483 of Volume 347 of the United States Supreme Court Reporter. It can be found in almost any library.

The lawyers on that case included J. Lindsay Almond representing the Prince Edward County School Board and Thurgood Marshall representing the petitioners. On the strength of his staunch defense, J. Lindsay Almond was twice elected Governor of Virginia and became one of the few men ever twice to hold that office, since the Governor of Virginia cannot succeed himself. Thurgood Marshall, on the strength of winning that and 37 other major civil rights cases in the United States Supreme Court, was later made a justice of the Supreme Court itself.

The 1954 decision of Brown vs. Board of Education was only the beginning of the battle, not the end. It would be another decade before the schools were actually desegregated in Virginia. Among the leaders in the struggle against the integration of the school system was Harry L. Carrico. On the strength of this, he was appointed justice of the Virginia Supreme Court in 1961.

Opponents of school segregation unfairly found a way around Justice Carrico by filing cases in the federal courts rather than the state courts. The federal judges in Virginia were of a like mind as Justice Carrico. They had essentially been appointed by the Virginia state senators, with traditionally rubber stamp approval by the United States Senate, but their rulings could be appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court, which was in the hands of the Commie Loving Liberal, Earl Warren.

Time and time again, in case after case, Justice Carrico and the other state and federal judges sitting in Virginia had their decisions overruled and reversed by the Commie pinko fag United States Supreme Court headed by Earl Warren. Warren was invariably listed as the author of the unanimous decisions, almost none of which Warren actually wrote. The actual brains of that court were not Warren (who had none) but rather were Klu Klux Klan member Hugo L. Black, joined by Douglas, Harlan, Brennan and later Marshall himself. Warren was a pinhead former Governor of California who had no judicial qualifications whatever and who wrote virtually nothing. Almost all of his published opinions were actually written for him by other members of that court. It was considered unseemly for anyone other than the Chief Justice to be listed as the author of such sweeping decisions.

In contrast, his loyal opponent below, Justice Harry L. Carrico, wrote his own stuff. Almost every major decision of the Virginia Supreme Court, particularly those involving school segregation, civil rights and states rights, was written by Justice Carrico, even while he was still a junior justice.

There is a long list of cases in which Justice Carrico and the other Virginia judges were reversed in rulings by the so-called "Warren Court". These include Griffin vs. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, 377 US 218 (1964) and Green vs. County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia 391 US 430 (1968).

The most grievous blow of all occurred when Justice Carrico was reversed by the Commie pinko fag Warren Court after Justice Carrico ruled that blacks were not allowed to marry with and co-habit with whites in Virginia.

Here are the words of Justice Harry L. Carrico, as published in the case of Richard Loving vs. Commonwealth of Virginia , 147 South Eastern Reporter, 2nd, page 80.

"A State is empowered to forbid marriages between persons of African descent and persons of other races or descents. Such a statute does not contravene the Fourteenth Amendment. .... Laws forbidding the intermarriage of the two races ... have been universally recognized as within the police power of the state. ... The holding in the Brown case, that the opportunity to acquire an education is a right which must be made available on equal terms, cannot support a claim for the intermarriage of the races or that such intermarriage is a right which must be made available on equal terms."

On page 82, Justice Carrico further wrote:

"A great legal truth which has always been recognized [is] that there is an overriding state interest in the institution of marriage. Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature."

In conclusion, Justice Carrico ruled that "the defendants, Richard Perry Loving, a White person, and Mildred Jeter Loving, a Colored person, did unlawfully and feloniously go out of the State of Virginia for the purpose of being married with the intention of returning to Virginia and afterwards did return to Virginia and cohabited as man as wife". However, Judge Carrico observed that the trial court had ordered as punishment that they leave Virginia. Justice Carrico ruled that this sentence was improper and reversed and remanded for imposition of a new sentence which may include confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years.

This decision, like so many other decisions by Justice Carrico, was overruled by the Commie pinko fag United States Supreme Court in Loving vs. Virginia , 388 US 1 (1967).

Because Justice Carrico found that so many of his decisions were being reversed and overruled by the Commie pinko fag United States Supreme Court, he crafted a method to stop this. The method concerns the fact that the United States Supreme Court and other federal courts take only certain kinds of cases. Only cases where the rulings fit into a certain mold are taken by the federal courts. For this reason, a judge can make his decision "appeal proof" by writing it in such a way that the appellate courts cannot or will not take it.

This is the reason that, for the past 30 years, almost none of Justice Carrico's decisions have been reversed.

For example, Justice Carrico recently rescued us from the scourge of lesbianism in the case of Bottoms vs. Bottoms , 457 South Eastern Reporter, 2d, Page 102 (1995). (Subsequent Reported decision in the same case). In this case, Sharon Bottoms, an admitted lesbian, had custody of her two-year-old son taken away from her and awarded to a third party. Previously, the father had lost custody of the child to the mother. The lesbianism of the mother had not been known to the courts at the time of the first ruling. It was only discovered as an issue well after the second case was under way. The Family Court and the Circuit Court, following previous rulings by Justice Carrico, held that a lesbian mother was barred from having custody of a child as a matter of law, and awarded custody to the third party. The Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed in a strongly worded opinion, and ordered the child returned directly to the mother, without further hearings.

However, the mother never got her son back, not even briefly, because only a few hours after the Court of Appeals ordered the little boy returned to his mother, and before that ruling could be put into effect, Justice Carrico stayed the ruling by the Court of Appeals.

In a final ruling which came down more than one year later, Justice Carrico's court issued a "final judgment" awarding custody to the third party. However, instead of ruling on the issue of lesbianism, Judge Carrico's court held that the award of custody could be justified on independent grounds, including the fact that the mother "had participated in illicit relationships with numerous men, had contracted venereal disease" and "felt that her individual rights were as important as her child's".

In summary, Justice Carrico's court held that there were independent grounds for giving custody of the child to the third party, even though none of these grounds had been cited by the trial court as the basis for its ruling. This trial court had ruled that the lesbianism of the mother had rendered her unfit per se from having custody of a child. Had this ruling been upheld, the case almost certainly would have gone to the United States Supreme Court and been reversed. However, by ruling as it did, Judge Carrico's court made the case appeal proof to the United States Supreme Court. Moreover, by entering a "final judgment" without the normal remand to the lower courts, Judge Carrico ensured that the case would never come up again and that under no circumstances would the mother ever get her little boy back.

There have been hundreds of rulings by Justice Carrico. For example, in 1985 there was the case of a lawyer named Walter R. C. Stamper from Southwestern Virginia near Roanoke. An undercover agent had approached the lawyer saying that he needed legal representation in two drug dealing cases. However, he had no money. He only had three pounds of marijuana. Therefore, he offered to pay the lawyer for his legal services by giving the lawyer three pounds of marijuana.

The lawyer accepted the offer and put the three pounds of marijuana in his car. While driving down the road, the lawyer realized that he was being followed by sheriff's deputies. The lawyer threw the three pounds of marijuana out the window. However, the marijuana was recovered. The lawyer was arrested and convicted of possession of marijuana and sentenced to six years.

While upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court of Virginia remanded in a 6-1 vote. Justice Carrico was the sole dissent. The six member majority ruled that since the lawyer was a prominent member of the legal community who would lose his law license if convicted of a felony, the case should be remanded for possible reduction of the charge to a misdemeanor. Only Justice Carrico felt that the felony conviction should be upheld. Upon remand, the felony charge was reduced. Wayne R. C. Stamper kept his law license and continues actively to practice law and to represent clients in Virginia to this day.

Another case concerned Richard Morrissey, the Commonwealth's Attorney for Richmond. Morrissey was caught red-handed taking bribes. A woman had been raped and her rapist arrested. The family of the perpetrator offered to pay $50,000 to have the charge dropped. Morrissey told the rape victim about this offer, except that he told her that $25,000 had been offered, not $50,000. The woman accepted the offer and took the $25,000. Morrissey did not keep the remaining $25,000 for himself. Rather, he had the money broken into small checks and delivered to public charities which were expected to endorse Morrissey for re-election.

Morrissey's own staff in the Commonwealth's Attorney's office found out about this and ratted on him. Morrissey was indicted. In view of the felony indictment, the Virginia State Bar suspended Morrissey from the practice of law, which meant that Morrissey could not act as the Commonwealth's Attorney.

Morrissey filed a petition in court. The Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals both upheld the suspension of the law license. However, in a surprising and unprecedented move, the Virginia Supreme Court granted Morrissey an emergency hearing and re-instated the law license until after the election was over. Once the election was over, and Morrissey was not re-elected, the suspension was allowed to take effect.

These cases all seem to be vastly different, but each of these rulings has a common thread. In each case, the contestants are the rights of the individual against the power of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Whether is be the little colored child who just wants to go to school against the school board which does not want to admit him, the mother who wants nothing more than to keep her own son against the Commonwealth which wants to take the child away and give it to a random third party, the interracial couple that wants to get married against the Commonwealth which prohibits that, or even a scoundrel like Morrissey who was never a member of the old-boy network but who nevertheless was the Commonwealth's Attorney and who represented the power of the state, Chief Justice Harry L. Carrico always rules in favor of the state. Judge Carrico always sides with the established authority.

We can all sleep better because of this.

Sam Sloan

Here are links:

Contact address - please send e-mail to the following address: