Updated Wednesday 5:39 p.m. with comment from Misjuns’ lawyer.
The city of Lynchburg has sought a restraining order against a member of its own city council following a social media post it claims constitutes a “threatening and sinister” case of witness tampering leveled against the deputy superintendent of Lynchburg City Schools.
Filed in U.S. District Court on Friday, the city’s motions call into question the conduct of at-large council member Marty Misjuns leading up to the scheduled July trial for a free speech lawsuit he filed against the city in 2021. At the time, he was a captain with the Lynchburg Fire Department. He had posted cartoons on his Facebook page that some considered transphobic. The city disciplined him, he filed suit, and the city later fired him. It’s that suit that is now coming to trial.
On June 6, a post about Deputy Superintendent Reid Wodicka appeared on Misjuns’ candidate Facebook page, screenshots of which were filed as exhibits to the motions. Wodicka was a defendant in Misjuns’ initial lawsuit from his prior stint as Lynchburg’s interim city manager and was later dropped from the case. But he stated in a court filing on Friday that he expects to be called in as a witness for the trial.
The Facebook post harks back to Misjuns’ initial complaint and includes highlighted selections from Wodicka’s recent deposition, in which he said he got “dozens” of emails at the time from Misjuns supporters — largely about “political issues” — that he didn’t respond to.
As a preface in that post, Mijsuns asked: “[H]ow should conservative parents feel knowing he ignored the pleas of conservative citizens when he worked in city hall, but catered to those that believe boys should be allowed in girls [sic] bathrooms?”
The crux of Misjuns’ lawsuit stemmed from a cartoon he posted to a Facebook page, on which he identified himself as a “public figure,” that some in the community decried as transphobic. (He also has a personal Facebook page, separate from the one he has used for his political activities.)
Whether the city violated Misjuns’ right to freedom of speech on the issue is a matter to be decided at trial. But city lawyers jumped ahead a little in Friday’s filing.
“He was terminated, in part, related to bullying and retaliatory behavior,” the motion reads. “Knowing his propensity to attack, the City attempted to keep the names of these witnesses confidential.”
Lawyers asked Misjuns “if he would attempt to exact retribution, from his current position as a Lynchburg City Councilman, against any of these City employees,” the city’s motion states. “He refused to state that he would refrain.”
And because Misjuns tagged and alerted his 11,000-some followers to last week’s post about Wodicka, the city holds that the post is an example of such retribution — an intimidating form of witness tampering.
“It is an open call to ‘conservative parents’ and supporters of the plaintiff to contact Dr. Wodicka’s current employer, the school system, to express their outrage, and possibly to demand his termination,” the city stated. “It is a call to action.”
Wodicka has reported the conduct to the Lynchburg Police Department, the statement continues, which has in turn referred it to the FBI.
Federal law holds witness tampering as a criminal offense that can be punished by a fine or prison time, which the city cited in its motion before stating that “Misjuns’ conduct cannot be repaired simply by removing the post.”
Lawyers representing the city have asked the court for a temporary restraining order requiring Misjuns to take down the post. Though they indicated that Misjuns’ lawyers didn’t respond to their correspondence, the post is no longer visible.
In a statement Wednesday, Misjuns’ lawyers said their client “has every right to address the political issues in the city” and the city’s motions amount to an effort to “try this case in the news and impact potential jurors.”
“It’s clear that our client did not threaten or intimidate anyone. Our client agreed to and took down the post in advance of the city’s self-imposed deadline. The city filed their motion anyway. This is another blatant attack on free speech.”
The city’s lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.
By titling the post “#TranscriptLeaks – Installment 1,” Misjuns “has clearly announced the intent to intimidate and threaten other witnesses,” the city states, which is why it’s also seeking a preliminary injunction in court.
“Mr. Misjuns must not be allowed to intimidate additional witnesses with impunity through threats of siccing on them angry mobs to get them fired from their jobs immediately prior to trial,” court documents read.
No hearing has been scheduled on the city’s motions. Misjuns’ overall case is set for trial in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia on July 23.
Also on Friday, Lynchburg Circuit Court dismissed Misjuns’ appeal of his censure by the city council for bad behavior.
