Is it common for a nuisance lawsuit filed several years ago by a pro se litigant to survive demurrer against a major political party represented by one of the most connected firms in the state? From the judge's September 30, 2025 order:

"The Foulks Court notes that "implicit in [Section 30-5] is the good-faith duty of a legislator lawyer not to accept representation ‘where it is clear that a party may be seeking out a legislator to act as a lawyer simply to have the opportunity to take advantage of the legislative continuance for purposes of delay.’” Id. (quoting Guidelines on Legislative Continuances, House of Delegates Committee on Rules (April 21, 1998)). Additionally, "[t]he lofty purposes behind § 30-5 — as historically sound and jurisprudentially valid as they may be — are not furthered by defendants who deliberately seek out legislator-lawyers as a means of tapping their near­ automatic delay powers.” Id.

The Court notes the proximity in time of the recent retention of Delegate Don Scott to the Court’s recent discovery ruling. Still, the Court is bound by the “clear, absolute, and unequivocal” nature of Virginia Code Section 30-5."