The noise about Justice Spike Maynard in the Massey Coal situation is quite silly. He has been loudly criticized for voting on the appeal of a case against Massey Coal, because he knows the CEO, Don Blankenship. His critics note that Chief Justice Maynard ran into Mr. Blankenship in Monaco.

I've practiced law in Fairmont for 30 years. I'm the most liberal "Joe Manchin Democrat" you know, not some conservative apologist. I take lots of cases to the Supreme Court. Every time I go there, Justice Maynard and I get into a heated argument with raised voices, sharp comments and honest indignation, and then he never votes my way. However, the thought has never crossed my mind that Justice Maynard's rulings are motivated by influences, or anything other than his honest opinion of the law.

Just about everybody complaining about the Massey case has very strong (multimillion-dollar) financial interests in getting the ruling changed or very strong ties to other candidates for the court. To the critics, it comes down to dollars and cents, not sense.

The "secret Monaco photos" trotted out by the critics reveal what no one has ever bothered to deny, that Chief Justice Maynard knows Mr. Blankenship. This is West Virginia. If a judge goes to any meeting of a statewide group, he will see lots of people he knows. Everybody, judges included, act polite and friendly when not in the heat of a case. Do we need to get our judges from Idaho?

What has been missing from news accounts is any meaningful discussion of what really happened in the Massey case. Maybe we should look at what really happened:

1. The decision was written by Justice Davis, not Justice Maynard.

2. The decision does not kiss Massey. Justice Davis says, "We [including Justice Maynard!] wish to make perfectly clear that the facts of this case demonstrate that Massey's conduct warranted the type of judgment rendered in this case. However . . . we simply cannot compromise the law in order to reach a result that clearly appears to be justified." In other words, Massey did something bad, that's obvious, but the law has to be applied as it is and not as we would like it to be in special cases.

3. The decision says that there are two independent reasons that Massey won, and that either finding required that Massey win.

First, sophisticated corporations with lots of high-priced lawyers doing million-dollar deals entered into a contract which said that "All actions brought in connection with this Agreement shall be filed in and decided by the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Virginia. . . ."

The noise about Justice Spike Maynard in the Massey Coal situation is quite silly. He has been loudly criticized for voting on the appeal of a case against Massey Coal, because he knows the CEO, Don Blankenship. His critics note that Chief Justice Maynard ran into Mr. Blankenship in Monaco.

I've practiced law in Fairmont for 30 years. I'm the most liberal "Joe Manchin Democrat" you know, not some conservative apologist. I take lots of cases to the Supreme Court. Every time I go there, Justice Maynard and I get into a heated argument with raised voices, sharp comments and honest indignation, and then he never votes my way. However, the thought has never crossed my mind that Justice Maynard's rulings are motivated by influences, or anything other than his honest opinion of the law.

Just about everybody complaining about the Massey case has very strong (multimillion-dollar) financial interests in getting the ruling changed or very strong ties to other candidates for the court. To the critics, it comes down to dollars and cents, not sense.

The "secret Monaco photos" trotted out by the critics reveal what no one has ever bothered to deny, that Chief Justice Maynard knows Mr. Blankenship. This is West Virginia. If a judge goes to any meeting of a statewide group, he will see lots of people he knows. Everybody, judges included, act polite and friendly when not in the heat of a case. Do we need to get our judges from Idaho?

What has been missing from news accounts is any meaningful discussion of what really happened in the Massey case. Maybe we should look at what really happened:

1. The decision was written by Justice Davis, not Justice Maynard.

2. The decision does not kiss Massey. Justice Davis says, "We [including Justice Maynard!] wish to make perfectly clear that the facts of this case demonstrate that Massey's conduct warranted the type of judgment rendered in this case. However . . . we simply cannot compromise the law in order to reach a result that clearly appears to be justified." In other words, Massey did something bad, that's obvious, but the law has to be applied as it is and not as we would like it to be in special cases.

3. The decision says that there are two independent reasons that Massey won, and that either finding required that Massey win.

First, sophisticated corporations with lots of high-priced lawyers doing million-dollar deals entered into a contract which said that "All actions brought in connection with this Agreement shall be filed in and decided by the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Virginia. . . ."

Second, the "same transactional facts" about the same contracts had already been decided in court in Virginia. The Supreme Court determined that the case never should have been filed in West Virginia. You get your "day in court." These litigants had theirs, in Virginia and years ago.

Justices Albright and Starcher voted against Massey. I genuinely like and respect both of them. I agree with their reasoning in this case. It is Justices Albright and Starcher's sworn duty to disagree when they honestly think that the majority is wrong, and they did so with strong language and honestly held opinions. It's also Justices Davis, Benjamin and Maynard's sworn duty to vote what they think is right. No one there was acting with evil motives, just honest disagreement.

Justice Benjamin wrote a concurring opinion. He concludes that "with due respect to my dissenting colleagues, this case does not present a close call on the basis of the rule of law. It simply does not." Justice Benjamin is a really smart guy, knows a lot of law, and he, too, nearly always votes against me. Some years ago, another justice, my great friend and mentor Frank Cleckley, made a ruling that cost me personally around $15,000. I was not overjoyed with that ruling, but I knew that personalities had zero to do with it.

No doubt, philosophy affects court rulings. Let's not pretend otherwise. In the last campaign, all the candidates (including Justice Maynard) were very upfront with their beliefs. The people voted. Don Blankenship would be an idiot to pour money into my campaign. But the law would mean nothing if Don Blankenship couldn't get just as fair a shake based on the rule of law as any other citizen.

This month, the Supreme Court reheard the Massey case without Justice Maynard and Justice Starcher and again ruled in Massey's favor. Those justices were replaced by the senior circuit judge in West Virginia, Fred L. Fox II, and another very senior judge, Donald Cookman.

Also lost in the shuffle is the fact that Justice Maynard ruled against Massey in 2006 in refusing Massey's appeal of an order banning coal slurry injection over an aquifer by a Massey subsidiary.

Justice Maynard is a public figure and he has signed up to be criticized publicly. If you want to say that he is wrong in a case because you think he's too conservative, that is fair criticism. But the critics should have the guts to say that they think he's too conservative and tell the public that they should vote for the other person because she or he will rule differently. By telling fairy tales and spinning conspiracy theories, Justice Maynard's critics are trashing the truth.

Justice Maynard has been a judge long enough that he could retire and start drawing a judicial pension. Then, based upon his reputation, he could go to work at a big law firm and make a few hundred thousand dollars a year for doing a third of the work he does now. Justice Maynard is at the Supreme Court because he is an honest servant of the law. He will continue to vote against me nearly every time. "Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you."

Curry is a lawyer with Curry & Swisher in Fairmont.