DRAFT CL09-376 PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GREIVANCES Exhibit A23.08a
Page 1 of 15 Written Special Appearance Exhibit A23.08a inclusion by
reference of having 39 pled Requests for Specific Written Reply or default admission with VFOIA;
VIRGINIA:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE
NORFOLK AND PORTSMOUTH BELT LINE RAIL
ROAD COMPANY, et. al.
v. Case
No. CL09-376
RUSSELL P. DAVIS, et. al.
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GREIVANCES
Containing Separately Set Out:
WRIT OF ERROR CORAM VOBIS - WRIT OF DECEIT- MOTION
TO MODIFY ORDER for cause of FRAUD and MALFEASANCE - MOTION
TO RENDER LAWFUL ORDER - MOTION TO QUASH
November 5th. 2009 Trial - and - NOTICE
OF APPEAL - Based
upon the many duly objectioned felonious partisan actions of the of Judge Brown in (VA8.01-499)
combination with the felonies of Mike Melis, assistant attorney general, the
officers of Judge Brow’s court, including the other judges of Chesapeake and
the BELT LINE attorneys, and including the felonious actins of the Justices of
the Virginia Supreme Court (see initial counterclaim and crossclaim Exhibit A1
and subsequent motions giving VA18.2-482 and 18USC4 obligatory notice).
Additional objections to
entered orders and unentered orders reportedly approved by Judge Brown
MOTION FOR A NEW and this time LAWFUL TRIAL by
impartial jury and pro tempore judge
In
support of the above is this MOTION FOR ENTRY
INTO EVIDENCE as evidence of probable felony significantly under conclusive
admission by BELT LINE such that a special prosecutor of unusually high integrity and transparency,
perhaps Virginia Beach’s Harvey Bryant, is obligatory, as is a duly stipulated pro tempore judge and civil jury
trial previously demanded-of-right as filed and served on March 17th,
2009
00.00)
Now comes Russell P. Davis, to make the
above named motions contained in this PETITION
FOR REDRESS OF GREIVANCES
to the three separate branches of government in Virginia. This Petition
for Redress of Grievance is not contempt of court but is an obligation
established by VA18.2-482 and 18USC4.
|
CL09-376
PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit
A23.08a Page 2 of 15 Written Special
Appearance Exhibit A23.08a inclusion by reference of having 39 pled Requests
for Specific Written Reply or default
admission with VFOIA; |
And particularly to do so in making
his reproof in this written special appearance upon this court of unmitigated
disqualification, whose disqualification established by its operation outside
the authority of Virginia and United States Law.
Therefore, upon my witness of many
felonies perpetrated by the court’s officers I am duty-bound to obey the
requirements of 18USC4 and VA18.2-482 as well as the requirements of the “Laws
of Nature and of Nature’s God” having authority that is duly recorded in our
nation’s
birth certificate where said birth
certificate was made under the authority of the ancient law common to all
Englishmen(footnote
#01)
and signed in unanimity by the duly authorized hands of our People’s sovereign
legislative authority. That duty is laid
on me with greater particularity in:
|
Leviticus 19:17 'You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart.
Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt. Luke 17:3. If your brother acts wrongly, reprove him; and if he is sorry, forgive him; Which provides the overall strategy behind my endeavor in this action; With a reward motive laid on me by: Proverbs
28:23
He who rebukes a man will in the end
gain more favor than he who has a flattering tongue. Proverbs 9:8 Reprove a wise man, and
he will love you. Proverbs
10:10 And cautionary advice is laid on me by: John 3:20 Every one who is doing wicked things hates
the light, and does not come unto the light, so that his works may not be
detected. Proverbs
9:7
He who reproves a wicked man invites
abuse. Ezekiel 3:26 and I will make your tongue stick to the roof of your mouth, that you shall be mute, and shall not be to them a reprover; for they are a rebellious house. And also
a view on what is apt to occur if I am lax in the diligence or quality of my
reproof: Proverbs 29:1 He, that being often reproved and hardeneth his neck,
shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy. Proverbs 15:32 He who refuses
correction despises his own soul- Leviticus 19:17 - Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his
guilt. |
|
CL09-376
PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit
A23.08a Page 3 of 15 Written
Special Appearance Exhibit A23.08a inclusion by reference of having 39 pled
Requests for Specific Written Reply or
default admission with VFOIA; |
|
But
ultimately the outcome is apt to be determined in accord with: Romans 1:28 “And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God
delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not
convenient;” |
00.01) Said officers of the court
have perpetrated a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same object evidencing a design to reduce the honorable
role of the judiciary, particularly in Chesapeake Virginia and in the Supreme
Court of Virginia to the role of absolute despotism.
00.02) Those
abuses and usurpations include extensive felony perpetrations of A) VA18.2-111
statutory embezzlement such that the Code of Virginia defines said courts as
being a “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization”, B) VA18.2-111 with §18USC1341.
Frauds and swindles and 18USC1513e in processes violating “§ 19.2-10. Outlawry abolished”, and C) VA18.2-481(5)
statutory treason.
00.03) Upon
the witness of said long train of abuses,
were
the judiciary and their officers, ALL of whose offices are OWNED by the
Sovereign People of Virginia and let out only as an AGENCY to be received in,
and bound by oath, trust, and the duly authorized records of law duly
established by our Sovereign Legislative authority, it is Russell P. Davis’
right and his duty, as established by God and implemented in the Constitution
and Statutes of Virginia and the United States to make such enumeration of said felonies by officers of the court as to
justify and require our Governor to act in accord with his oath to:
"ARTICLE V Executive Section 7. Executive and administrative powers. The Governor shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. “ . . .” and shall have power to embody such forces to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and enforce the execution of the laws."
|
CL09-376
PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit
A23.08a Page 4 of 15 Written
Special Appearance Exhibit A23.08a inclusion by reference of having 39 pled
Requests for Specific Written Reply or
default admission with VFOIA; |
00.05)
When the offending
justices and judges are so removed from office for felony misconduct they will
lose their retirement benefits, their standing in the community, and
according to their more than three class II felony convictions lose
their freedom even from suspended sentence.
00.06) IF the offending justices, judges and their officers each promptly tender our Governor with THEIR RESIGNATION and take their part in the proposed honorable labors described in the “Well-Formed Settlement and Accord”, perhaps there is a way under our law that the outcome does not have so wastefully an exacting judgment. Even though our statutes require that the offending justices, judges and their officers must eventually must be indicted by a grand jury, it is possible that full pardons be granted for services rendered to the Commonwealth under the “Well-Formed Settlement and Accord” and it is possible that indictments could be lawfully dismissed with prejudice as a result of performance under that “Well-Formed Settlement and Accord”. The ten million dollar judgment due from the BELT LINE in accord with our laws regarding BELT LINE conclusive admissions assigned to the Russell P. Davis’ controlled “Virginian’s Sovereignty Legal Defense Fund, Inc.” shall be able to sustain said labor with appropriate stipend. The offending justices, judges and officers of the court have been offered a very convenient path to their redemption.
00.07) But
the oath bound duty of our constitutional officers and their subordinates is
not a partisan issue, neither is the required replacement of ALL those
justices, judges and subordinate officers who by perpetrating VA18.2-481(5)
have treated their oath as if it were chaff.
|
CL09-376 PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit
A23.08a Page 5 of 15 Written
Special Appearance Exhibit A23.08a inclusion by reference of having 39 pled
Requests for Specific Written Reply or
default admission with VFOIA; |
For
that cause I demand that such voluntary resignations be submitted before our
new governor takes office, but the execution of those resignations shall be
subject to our Governor’s timing such that replacements can be established in
an orderly fashion.
00.08) Should
said justices, judges and officers of the court demonstrate intransigent moral
turpitude after such reproof there will be little cause for those officers to
ask that the “Virginian’s Sovereignty Legal Defense Fund, Inc.” ease their redemption.
Given
the extent of the anticipated labor it would be most inconvenient if the
“Virginian’s Sovereignty Legal Defense Fund, Inc.” were to labor in the company
of wicked men.
Our Governor’s oath of office also requires
that he act according to:"ARTICLE VI Judiciary Section 11. Incompatible activities. No
justice or judge of a court of record shall, during his continuance in
office" . . . " engage in any other incompatible activity"
such as felony.
00.09)
Those
justices and judges who have not previously tendered their resignation and
claimed their place within the “Well-Formed Settlement and Accord” and have
given evidence of probable cause to believe that they perpetrated said
statutory felonies must be arrested on their felony and removed from office
while that felony charge is given due process in accord with :
and
said felony charge has not been dismissed by anything other than a ‘not guilty’
verdict by a jury hosted by a proper pro
tempore judge.
|
CL09-376
PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit
A23.08a Page 6 of 15 Written
Special Appearance Exhibit A23.08a inclusion by reference of having 39 pled
Requests for Specific Written Reply or
default admission with VFOIA; |
00.10) The use of the state
police in the fulfillment of the Governor’s oath is required because the
sheriff in Chesapeake gives more than probable cause evidence that he is party
to that VaRICO array of VA18.2-111, VA18.2-481(5), Grand Larceny, US Mail/Wire
Fraud and 18USC1513e felony retaliation. The Commonwealth Attorney’s office in
Chesapeake is also tainted with felony in this matter.
00.11) Given
the Code of Virginia established disqualification inherent in Chesapeake courts
and in all Judges subordinate to the Justices under pending indictment, a
suitably stipulated pro tempore judge
and suitably stipulated special prosecutor needs to be appointed and great care
must be taken in oversee the honorable appointment of grand jurors and
jurors. Virginia Beach’s Harvey Bryant
is suggested a a possible special prosecutor and Gary Amos is suggested as a
possible pro tempore judge.
00.12) Our
Governor’s performed oath to our Constitution is the most certain, timely and
appropriate remedy. Our Governor’s
action is the remedy required by our Constitution and Code. The optional JIRC remedy is untimely and insufficient to forestall
visibly intended additional felony. Such a JIRC remedy would not meet the Constitutional
requirement that “The Governor shall take care that the
laws be faithfully executed”.
|
CL09-376
PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit
A23.08a Page7 of 15 Written
Special Appearance Exhibit A23.08a inclusion by reference of having 39 pled
Requests for Specific Written Reply or
default admission with VFOIA; |
|
the requirements of the “Laws of
Nature and of Nature’s God” have authority duly recorded in our nation’s
birth certificate where said birth certificate was made under the authority
of the ancient law common to all Englishmen(footnote
#01) (( as written within each Englishman’s heart by
their creator, yet, with the law somewhat obscured by personal appetites such
that the ancient recourse to jury
trial is a reasonable approach to discovering the law that is common to all, by
tending to offset one person’s particular distortions of appetite with
another’s such that the true law may be DISCOVERED by the ruling not created
by the ruling. That which is revealed
from the combined hearts of the jury is recognized as being the Common Law
when the paired chain of duty and chain of right existing between all levels
and members of human nature is seen as being restored to balance by the
jury’s judgment. And after long
testing and recognition of the balance existing in such judgments the
discovered law is commonly accepted as being the common law. Injustices that have occurred in judgment
left a bad taste or smell that commonly made people not want to remember them
often. As the centuries passed in this
fashion the people’s expression of the law written in their hearts by God
improved so that the Common Law gained a bit of reverent respect and
injustices were less frequently justified under the law of the English
people. Also in that God was the
source of the law, the absolute rights of individual men were known to come from
God NOT from civil society that those absolute rights could be taken by any
tyrant that was so bold as to conceit that as far as some particular
Englishman was concerned that the TYRANTS rule was the law. In as much as such conceits removed – for
a time - the balance in the paired chain of duty and chain of right that is
anchored in God the Creator, people recognized that such tyranny was a wrong
that was not without remedy. Those
absolute rights and duties are unalienable.
Though by ignorance, fraud and self deception it may at times make it
appear that those rights and duties have been severed -BUT while a human lives he may always reclaim
what is unalienable without limitation; and so long as God lives God may
always reclaim what is unalienable without limitation. ) |
00.13) Hereby comes Russell P.
Davis, to make the above named motions
in written special appearance upon this court of unmitigated disqualification. Said court’s operation outside the authority
of Virginia’s Law in personal felony violation of VA18.2-481(5) by the court’s
officers, on this day November 4th, 2009, to move the Court to enter into
evidence these accusations made according to Virginia’s true duly authorized
law applicable to the BELT LINE’s joint (VA8.01-433)
combination (VA8.01-499)
in wrong-doing raised on Counterclaim (VA8.01-233)
upon which dismissal has never been consented to by CL09-376 defendant Russell
P. Davis as require by statute and where
said Counterclaim and crossclaim (VA8.01-433)
is raised as Russell P. Davis’ statutory duty by 18USC4 and VA18.2-482 until
that duty is complete. Hereby are pled
requests for specific written reply with VFOIA record request in opposition and
objection to the BELT LINE’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim and in support of
all other motions I have scheduled by written special appearance and upon which
Judge Brown has refused to rule particularly as it relates to the essentially
total BELT LINE admission by default and replication such that
CL09-376
PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit
A23.08a Page 8 of 15 Written
Special Appearance Exhibit A23.08a inclusion by reference of having 39 pled
Requests for Specific Written Reply or
default admission with VFOIA; |
under Virginia law the extent of
BELT LINE culpability and liability is all but executed with the remainder to
be pled only being the establishment of joint wrongdoer grounds for indictment
as obligated by 18USC4 and VA18.2-481(5). Those felonious joint wrongdoers
include Judge John Brown. In this Judge
Brown’s rulings are in gross violation of a legion of Virginia and US Laws and
upon which CL09-376 is still in continuance according to the Code of Virginia §17.1-122.
Matters not determined to stand continued.
This is particularly true in that Judge Brown’s dismissal of
counterclaim ruling is objectioned and void because his ruling is in
VA18.2-481(5) felony violation of VA8.01-233(requiring
my consent), VA1-200
from Blackstone Book 1 Chapter 1:
“Magna Carta’s confirmatio cartarum9 [confirming charter], whereby
the great charter is directed to be allowed as the common law; all judgments contrary to it [ the common law and in VA as modified by act of the legislature]
are declared void”]
and
“to
none will we sell, to none deny, to none delay either right or justice“”for
injury done to him [in his goods, lands, or person], by any other subject, be
he ecclesiastical or temporal without any exception, may take his remedy by the
course of the law, and have justice and right for the injury done to him,
freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay”
and
“the pretended power of suspending, or dispensing with laws, or the
execution of laws, “” without consent of parliament, is illegal”
and VA1-248 .
Moreover, Judge Brown’s rulings upon the Oct.27th, 2009 hearing, having my Written Special Appearance
with that appearance by cause of Judge Brown’s operation of the court, not as
operating under the Laws of Virginia, but operating in trespass into
VA18.2-481(5) felony of statutory treason, are perpetrated in his personal
capacity only and are a fraud upon the Sovereign People of Virginia’s
Courts. The Written Special Appearance
filings are time stamped by the clerk such that Judge
|
CL09-376
PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit
A23.08a Page 9 of 15 Written
Special Appearance Exhibit A23.08a inclusion by reference of having 39 pled
Requests for Specific Written Reply or
default admission with VFOIA; |
Brown’s order representing Russell
P. Davis as making a non-appearance is a §18USC1341.
Frauds and swindles
that must eventually be presented to a grand jury for Judge Brown’s indictment
along with his other felonies and the felonies of his courts officers (BELT
LINE attorneys plus) that have been in part raised for judicial notice in the
pleadings of CL09-376. Moreover, if it
were in fact true that NO cause among the many presented sufficiently informed
the BELT LINE of the nature of the charge, that they could make a lawful
defense (mere denial that the BELT LINE does not know is a lawful defense) then
there could be NOTHING to dismiss with prejudice. But the facts of the matter are that there
was no BELT LINE defense made, nor was defense lawfully possible because by
Virginia law it is already conclusively established that the BELT LINE is
culpable as charged according to the preponderance of the evidence, as is Judge
John Brown. It appears highly illegal
and 18USC1513e felony for Judge Brown to rule as he did in a matter to which
Judge Brown is an on-the-face-of-it joint perpetrator named in the complaint
for indictment but not joined therein for civil remedy. A timely written reply specifically addressed
to this matter is requested.
|
MOTION TO QUASH November 5th. 2009 Trial 01.01) The
pleading of paragraphs 00) and 01.06 through 01.14 are herein incorporated by
reference as if full set forth herein. |
|||||
|
Motion for WRIT OF ERROR CORAM
VOBIS 01.02) The
pleading of paragraphs 00) and 01.06 through 01.14 are herein incorporated by
reference as if full set forth herein.
|
|||||
|
01.03) The
pleading of paragraphs 00) and 01.06 through 01.14 are herein incorporated by
reference as if full set forth herein. |
|||||
|
MOTION TO MODIFY ORDER FOR
FRAUD AND MALFEASANCE 01.04) The
pleading of paragraphs 00) and 01.06 through 01.14 are herein incorporated by
reference as if full set forth herein. |
|||||
|
Additional objections to entered orders and unfiled orders reportedly approved
by Judge Brown 01.05) The
pleading of paragraphs 00) and 01.06 through 01.14 are herein incorporated by
reference as if full set forth herein. |
|||||
|
01.06) The trial of this matter was set when not lawfully mature for
judgment and in VA81.2-485(5) violation of the Chesapeake Court Rules at http://www.cityofchesapeake.net/services/depart/circourt/pdf/Rules_Chesapeake_Circuit_Court.pdf regarding jury trial and docketing via
timely served praecipe. 01.07) For objectioned causes of
fraud upon the court by its officers and many other causes traversed here and
in prior motions still before Judge Brown (on hearing by written special
appearance yet not timely ruled upon) the court’s officers unconstitutionally
place Russell P. Davis outside the protection of the Laws. The conceit of the court’s presiding judge
and ALL the court officers having influence on CL09-376 and CR08-804 to
render Russell P. Davis civiliter mortuus [legally dead] or
banished-from-the-protection-of-our-laws is pure 18USC1513e and VA18.2-481(5)
felony by ALL such perpetrators and those who have joined therein in
effecting by malfeasance and fraud Judge Martin’s order that effects a
criminal violation of “§ 19.2-10.
Outlawry abolished” .
For these
causes setout sufficiently in this a previous pleading I DEMAND that the
court strike its criminally erroneous
scheduling of CL09-376 for Nov. 5&6, 2009 and the criminal conceit to
non-jury trial of the same. 01.08) Also, in augmentation of paragraph
01.01), NO Praecipe has been served on Russell P. Davis and
none is shown within the court’s online record. Immediately following are exhibited images
of the Court’s Case Information online database web site, regarding
CL09-376, as of November 2, 2009
9:27AM. Again NO Praecipe as required by the local
rules of the Court that our Constitution requires be used. For that additional cause the fraudulently
constructed feloniously illegal scheduling order purported to be issued in CL09-376 the 11/5 TRIAL NOT BY JURY process
must be quashed as it is profoundly and criminally illegal on many counts for
the courts officers to perpetrate.
01.09) Moreover I DEMAND that Judge Brown strike for error and
criminal fraud all his orders indicating that where in all pertinent hearings
I made Written Special Appearance, Judge Brown’s orders fraudulently indicate
that I made NO appearance at hearing as such constitutes fraud upon the court
perpetrated in VA18.2-481(5), VA18.2-111, §18USC1341.
Frauds and swindles and 18USC1513e retaliation felonies. 01.10) Moreover I DEMAND that Judge Brown strike for error and
criminal fraud all his orders regarding BELT LINE’s Motions to Dismiss and
non-suite because the Code of Virginia
does not permit such motion in that it
does not permit the judge to grant such motions in cases where a counterclaim has been FILED such as CL09-376 addressing of BELT LINE’s joint (VA8.01-433)
combination (VA8.01-499)
in wrong-doing raised on Counterclaim (VA8.01-233). If the BELT LINE sincerely thought that in alternatively
or combined claims the “pleading does not state a cause of action
or that such pleading fails to state facts upon which the relief demanded can
be granted” then the proper motion should have been by “§
8.01-273. Demurrer” with
fully stated particular grounds because a lawful ruling on that motion can
only be made upon the grounds of Demurrer pleaded with particularity, NOT
upon a general denial. Any counterclaim stated cause of action, not objected
to with particularity, is not among the causes of action lawfully addressable
by any ruling on Demurrer. 01.11 MOREOVER, I DEMAND that Judge Brown strike for error
and criminal fraud all his orders regarding BELT LINE’s Motions to Dismiss
and non-suite because the Code of Virginia does not permit the judge to sua
sponte give regard to defects in pleading such that he could grant the BELT
LINE a Motion to Dismiss:
“§
8.01-275. When action or suit not to abate for want of form; what defects not
to be regarded. No action or suit shall abate for want of form where the
motion for judgment or bill of complaint sets forth sufficient matter of
substance for the court to proceed upon the merits of the cause. The court shall not regard any defect or
imperfection in the pleading, whether it has been heretofore deemed
mispleading or insufficient pleading or not, unless there be omitted
something so essential to the action or defense that judgment, according to
law and the very right of the cause, cannot be given. “ without Judge Brown having perpetrated
VA18.2-111 and VA18.2-481(5) felonies openly in the records and public
witness of the court. 01.12) Moreover, any defects or imperfection that exist have been made
moot by BELT LINE’s admissions made conclusive according to the Code of
Virginia such that ANY attempt by Judge Brown to roll back the clock for partisan
benefit to the BELT LINE is additional counts of VA18.2-111 , VA18.2-481(5) and other
felony. 01.13) If
the BELT LINE had not been so arrogant that they owned the court, rather than
the Sovereign People of Virginia, the BELT LINE might have made a timely
filed motion for a § vscr-3:7 Bills of
Particulars
upon my counterclaim and crossclaim but they did not and now are deeply into
conclusive admission that such would be moot regarding BELT LINE
liability. Perhaps a full recitation
of the date and time of wrongdoing
might have been required at one time but such requirement is no longer
lawful in Virginia Circuit Court civil trials and those specifications are
not material significance to every permissible denial of wrongdoing in that
the places, times and dates, by default, are those within the bounds of
CL09-376 and most of the Felonies complained of were either perpetrated in
the pleadings filed and in evidence, or are specified by reference to
exhibit. Moreover conclusive default
admission establishes the claimed remedies of BELT LINE dollar liability and
specific performance. No further proof
is necessary for establishing default judgment ordering those remedies from
the BELT LINE. 01.14) But regarding the criminal culpability of those
wrongdoers in joint combinations with the BELT LINE, 18USC4 and VA18.2-482 still obligates
Russell P. Davis to continue
amending his counterclaim and crossclaim complaint and Russell P. Davis still authorized to do so by “§ vscr-3:9 Counterclaims. “ . . .“the defendant may file any counterclaim at any time up to 21 days after the entry of the court's order ruling upon all such motions “ because the court has never made a ruling upon my motions for an (amplified) bill of particulars. See
Memorandum of Law, Exhibit B02-CodeReInsuficientDismiss.doc A timely written reply
specifically addressed to every issue in paragraphs 00) through 01.14 here
newly raised and not under prior conclusive BELT LINE admission in CL09-376
is requested. |
This pleading now invokes Exhibit A23.08b as fully set
forth herein and continuing at paragraph 02.00).
I ask for these things. I affirm the forgoing as being true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and affirmed under the full respect due God’s witness of these transactions and under the full respect due our laws on perjury.
May
God Save our Commonwealth, our Nation, all our leaders and all our people.
May
that be so now, beginning with you and me.
Russell P.
Davis 1521 Quail Point Rd., Virginia Beach, VA 23454 757-651-2234
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE - In accord with §
vscr-1:12, true copies were filed with the Clerk, and I certify that on or before Nov 5th, 2009 this document was emailed and/or
faxed to: Harriet T. Reynolds hreynolds@cwm-law.com
; Nila D. Faison nfaison@cwm-law.com ; Conrod, R. Johan rjconrod@kaufcan.com
; dventker@ventkerlaw.com
; W. Ryan Snow WRSnow@cwm-law.com; I have in good faith conferred with Belt Line attorneys in an effort to
resolve the dispute without court action, and
continue to be available for that purpose.
|
CL09-376
PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit
A23.08b Page 1 of 8 Written
Special Appearance Exhibit A23.08b inclusion by reference of having 39 pled
Requests for Specific Written Reply or
default admission with VFOIA; |
Continuing
from page 15 of Exhibit A23.08a
02.00)
Evenually ALL felonies noticed to the courts of Virginia must be presented to a
Grand Jury for due indictment on true bill.
Without a “Well-Formed Settlement and Accord” (as amended and amendable)
none of the court officers acting as either principal or accessory in felony
can lawfully avoid becoming three-time felony losers short of perpetrating
additional felony as either principal or accessory. A
timely written reply specifically addressed to this matter is requested.
|
CL09-376
PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit
A23.08b Page 2 of 8 Written
Special Appearance Exhibit A23.08b inclusion by reference of having 39 pled Requests
for Specific Written Reply or default
admission with VFOIA; |
|
MOTION TO
MODIFY ORDER 04.00) For said causes of
fraud upon the court by means of VA8.01-499 combination in judicial
VA18.2-111 and VA18.2-481(5) felony MOTION
TO MODIFY ORDER is herein submitted for judgment. Given that the BELT LINES Motion to Dismiss
addressed no count of the counterclaim and admitted the rest of the
allegations by default on reply requested in motion such that their Motion to
Dismiss had all the effects of a demurrer and none of the lawful effects
givable to such a Motion to Dismiss.
Given that it is unlawful in Virginia civil complaint for BELT LINE to
effect a general denial of the issue and unlawful for Judge Brown to ratify
that effect to general denial of the issue in his ruling (see VFOIA Reply Request 28), I ask Judge Brown to
modify his ruling giving as many specific counts where the BELT LINE had not
the information needed to make what explicit denial is required under the law
of Virginia. To the best of my
understanding Judge Brown will not be able to render even one count or
instance of allegation that he might take as specific denial of the issue of
lawfully sufficient complaint. Taken
as demurrer the BELT LINE motion can still only lawfully receive ruling on
the specific instance and count of complaint denied by a so-what at law
argument of demurrer which presumes to make admission of the facts of the
matter and the law claimed pertaining to demurrer. In CL09-376 all the facts under motion with
specific request for specific reply, were the time of was of the essence of
the BELT LINE avoiding conclusive default admission under Virginia Law, have
substantially been admitted to by the BELT LINE already. What facts of the matter and the law that
remain have remained disputable by the BELT LINE have had, of necessity,
their time of reply shortened by the 10/27 hearing prematurely called by the
BELT LINE and Judge Brown. There are
no disputable facts remaining that could diminish the dollar
remedy and declaratory
remedy due Russell P. Davis and his assigns by the BELT LINE. Default summary judgment granting all such
claimed remedy is an option that the Court has in modifying its judgments. Once again I refer the court to the
previously pled advise Judge Brown referred me to accidentally: Romans 1:28 “And as they liked
not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate
sense, to do those things which are not convenient;” A timely written reply
specifically addressed to this matter is requested. |
05.00) Given the VaRICO legion of causes of action claimed
to BELT LINE VA8.01-499/500, VA8.01-433
and VA8.01-233 liability, with more yet to be
claimed as is the obligation of Russell P. Davis under18USC4 and VA18.2-48(5),
it seem highly unlikely that all claimed causes of action against the BELT LINE
could meet Judge John Brown’s objection other than it notices the felonies of
Judge John Brown, of his subordinates, of his peers and of his superiors. But such is the lawful obligation put upon
Russell P. Davis by 18USC4 and VA18.2-482 and retaliations upon Russell P. Davis
to dissuade him or disable him in obeying said laws are defined as criminal
under those statutes. Moreover, Russell
P. Davis is protected by the injunctions of VA, US and VA1-200 invoked English
Common Law in this Petition for Redress of Greivances. Such an objections and retaliations as
makeable by Judge John Brown is not lawful but instead perpetrates other counts
of felony. Seeing how the BELT LINE
denied NO particular count in their Motions to Dismiss, ALL original counts to
made claimed cause of action for BELT LINE liability and specific remedy are
(in any Virginia court not operating in VA18.2-481(5) insurrection against our
Constitution’s requirement that the rules of the court be
|
CL09-376
PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit
A23.08b Page 4 of 8 Written
Special Appearance Exhibit A23.08b inclusion by reference of having 39 pled
Requests for Specific Written Reply or
default admission with VFOIA; |
used in court) in conclusive admission (under §
vscr-1:4(e) , §vscr-3:11
) and additionally by default
to requested reply in new motion. The
full set of originally claimed remedies is also under default admission. Upon those claimed-causes-of-action having
claimed remedy in specific summary remedy upon which the BELT LINE may not now
lawfully contest there is no non-criminal purpose in Judge Brown making a call
for greater specificity of complaint and remedy. A
timely written reply specifically addressed to this matter is requested.
|
06.00)
I hereby move the court for lawful judgment on all my motions overlong due
and now before Judge Brown in §17.1-122
continuance. Refreshed motions have
already been tendered and lawful judgment thereon is demanded in accord with
Judge Brown’s obligation to obey the Virginia Supreme Courts rules and so
avoid VA18.2-481(5) felony. Of
particular necessity is the repeated motion asking for a lawful trial fully
judged by an impartial jury and presided over by a pro tempore judge. A timely written reply specifically
addressed to this matter is requested. |
|
CL09-376
PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit
A23.08b Page 5 of 8 Written
Special Appearance Exhibit A23.08b inclusion by reference of having 39 pled
Requests for Specific Written Reply or
default admission with VFOIA; |
|
07.00) For those causes of fraud
upon the court by means of VA8.01-499 combination in judicial VA18.2-111 and
VA18.2-481(5) felony NOTICE OF APPEAL
is hereby given. All CL09-376 pleading
of substance that I know of was by filing and written special appearance
therefore I order no transcript. A pdf statement of facts with hyperlinks to
the relevant sections of pleading will be submitted on disk. This includes pled in motion VFOIA requests
for the duly authorized records of law such that VA18.2-111, VA18.2-481(5), §18USC1341.
Frauds and swindles and 18USC1513e retaliation felonies in VA8.01-499
combination of wrongdoing by the courts officers and other wrongdoers are either
conclusively established or established by the statutory burden of proof to
be probable cause to bring indictment as the law of Virginia requires. Notice that the Justices of the Virginia
Supreme court are in that cause to be indicted. For those reasons the court cannot lawfully
and honorably act in any fashion except to order the case back to Circuit
Court for a lawful jury trial hosted by a suitable, stipulated and oathed pro
tempore judge. Notice the Petition
for Redress of Grievances contained herein that includes the whole matter
by reference such that the court may not lawfully take retaliation upon
Russell P. Davis or his people but may take up their honorable and profitable
to the whole Commonwealth place in the proposed amended “Well-Formed
Settlement and Accord”. |
|
CL09-376
PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit
A23.08b Page 6 of 8 Written
Special Appearance Exhibit A23.08b inclusion by reference of having 39 pled
Requests for Specific Written Reply or
default admission with VFOIA; |
08.00) For those causes of
fraud upon the court by means of VA8.01-499 combination in judicial VA18.2-111
and VA18.2-481(5) felony, Russell P. Davis, asks that Judge Brown rectify
himself by resigning as a judge and offering his services to Russell P. Davis’
proposed “Virginian’s Sovereignty Legal Defense Fund, Inc.” under stipend for
the work proposed in the amended “Well-Formed Settlement and Accord” that will
audit, cross-reference and annotate the Constitution and Code-of-Virginia. Given completion of due service under stipend
as restitution I would ask that Judge Brown be indicted only so that the burden
of his forever pending felony charges could be removed by dismissal for cause
of Settlement and Accord. Given Judge
Brown’s declaration of intent it is likely that the BELT and attorneys quickly
volunteer to settle in the manner proposed.
It is in the new Governor’s interests and duty to see that Mike Melis
takes a guilty plea so that by his fall
all the Justices and Chesapeake Judges shall fall with him if they have not
followed Judge Brown’s lead in tendering resignation and embracing the
“Well-Formed Settlement and Accord”. In
this fashion the Virginia Supreme Court can be restocked with judges who will
defend our Constitutions rather than usurp the Sovereign People’s legislative
authority and also defend Virginian’s from those who while out-of-state to
commit that same VA18.2-481(5) felony upon Virginians by US Mail/Wire
Fraud. In this fashion the Courts of
Chesapeake can be restocked with judges who will serve to make such indictments
and prosecution as are needed to so defend our Constitutions. There is no statute of limitations nor res
judicata upon those felonies nor the related intentional tort with civil remedy
once the indictments have been made .
The path out of condemnation that I propose is both easy for Judge
Brown, good for our Commonwealth, honorable, and allows Judge Brown to recover
his life from his trespass into felony.
When that task of “Virginian’s
Sovereignty Legal Defense Fund, Inc.” is
complete Lawyer John Brown will be in high demand because only ten or twenty
|
CL09-376
PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit
A23.08b Page 7 of 8 Written
Special Appearance Exhibit A23.08b inclusion by reference of having 39 pled
Requests for Specific Written Reply or
default admission with VFOIA; |
people in Virginia will know the
law in Virginia as well as he. If it
takes two years or so to complete the work Lawyer Brown will still find it to
be the most profitable “Well-Formed Settlement and Accord” he has ever seen. Consider the alternatives – they are all high
risk and shameful. My offer is very
safe, honorable and profitable in comparison.
All that is needed is for Judge John Brown to do what ever is needed for
Judge John Brown to regain a healthy appetite for righteousness. I imagine that the BELT LINE and its attorneys
will be convinced likewise. A
timely written reply specifically addressed to this matter is requested.
08.01) Please Take Judicial
Notice of the following:
§
8.01-380. D A party shall not be allowed to nonsuit a cause of action, without the consent of the adverse party
who has filed a counterclaim, cross claim or third-party claim which
arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the claim of the party
desiring to nonsuit unless the
counterclaim, cross claim or third-party claim can remain pending for independent adjudication by the court.
§
8.01-128.C Defendant as plaintiff in counterclaim “If it appears that the plaintiff was
forcibly or unlawfully turned out of possession” . . .” No verdict or judgment rendered under this
section shall bar any separate concurrent or future action for any such damages”
§
8.01-229.K Judge Brown’s Judgement not final and his assertion to the
contrary is a fraud upon the court: “If a criminal prosecution is
commenced and a grand jury indictment is returned or a grand jury indictment is
waived after the period within which a civil action arising out of the same set
of facts may be brought, a civil action may be brought within one year of the
date of the final judgment or order in the trial court, the date of the final
disposition of any direct appeal in state court, or the date on which the time
for noting an appeal has expired, whichever date occurs last, but no more than
ten years after the date of the crime or two years after the cause of action shall
have accrued under § 8.01-249,
whichever date occurs last. “
Constitution of Virginia ARTICLE IV Section 14. “No natural
person shall have a constitutionally protected property right to bar a cause of
action based on intentional tort”
Constitution of Virginia Article I - Bill of Rights Section 12. Right to petition the
government for the redress of grievances
|
CL09-376
PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit
A23.08b Page 8 of 8 Written
Special Appearance Exhibit A23.08b inclusion by reference of having 39 pled
Requests for Specific Written Reply or
default admission with VFOIA; |
Constitution of Virginia Article
VI Section
5. Rules of practice and procedure. The
Supreme Court shall have the authority to make rules governing the course of
appeals and the practice and procedures to be used in the courts of the
Commonwealth, but such rules shall not
be in conflict with the general law as the same shall, from time to time, be
established by the General Assembly.
Blackstone Book 1 Chapter 1 : “it is declared, that the pretended power
of suspending, or
dispensing with laws, or the execution of laws, “ ” without consent of
[legislature]parliament, is illegal.”
This pleading now invokes Exhibit A23.08c as fully set
forth herein.
I ask for these things. I affirm the forgoing as being true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and affirmed under the full respect due God’s witness of these transactions and under the full respect due our laws on perjury.
May
God Save our Commonwealth, our Nation, all our leaders and all our people.
May
that be so now, beginning with you and me.
Russell P.
Davis 1521 Quail Point Rd., Virginia Beach, VA 23454 757-651-2234
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - In accord with § vscr-1:12, true copies were filed with the Clerk, and I certify that on or before Nov 5th, 2009 this document was emailed and/or faxed to: Harriet T. Reynolds hreynolds@cwm-law.com ; Nila D. Faison nfaison@cwm-law.com ; Conrod, R. Johan rjconrod@kaufcan.com ; dventker@ventkerlaw.com ; W. Ryan Snow WRSnow@cwm-law.com; I have in good faith conferred with Belt Line attorneys in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, and continue to be available for that purpose.
|
CL09-376 PETITION
FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit
A23.08c Written
Special Appearance Exhibit A23.08c inclusion by reference of having 39 pled
Requests Page 1 of 17 for Specific Written Reply or default admission with VFOIA . |
Continuing
from Paragraph 08.01) of Exhibit A23.08b
|
MOTION FOR ENTRY INTO EVIDENCE 09.01) I hereby submit the
following as written into the Court’s record, this day, whereupon any additional
default by the BELT LINE is conclusive admission under the Code of Virginia. This
MOTION FOR ENTRY INTO EVIDENCE (Exhibit A23.08c ) is in support of the MOTION FOR INITIATING INDICTMENT and OFFERED PLEA
AGREEMENT as Further Amendment to the “Well Formed Settlement and Accord”( Exhibit A17) and
all other motions, Answer, Counterclaims, Crossclaims, here-to-for made, and
is pled
as requests for specific written reply and admit, and is pled in the form of
VFOIA record
requests upon Virginia’s duly authorized records of law contained in
Virginia’s Constitution
and Code. |
|||||||||||
|
09.02) Within the following specific
requests for written reply having lawful VFOIA record request response there
are particular NAMED PHRASES defined as below so that said requests might be
easier and briefer to read as a the boiler plate PHRASEs are hereby known in
advance and consistently defined so that what is known by this advance
definition may be understood by substitution rather than having to repeatedly
read the same phrase many times and each time the phrase is used. Said definitions are contained in the
following box:
09.03) The
following specific requests for written reply (hereby pled in motion) for
specific ADMISSION and/or specific lawfully DENIAL with both types of reply
consisting in lawful VFOIA record request response. A refusal to make lawful written reply specifically
addressing each issue raised is defined as a default resulting in
conclusive admission under the Code of Virginia. An unlawful reply will likely create
additional counts of felony by the addresses.
Again I refer you to your self-interests in taking that next step
towards righteousness offered in the amended “Well-Formed Settlement and
Accord”. |
Exhibit A23.08c Page 4 of 17
INDEX OF 39 plus INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS FOR
SPECIFIC WRITTEN REPLY EACH HAVING ITS OWN VFOIA RECORD REQUEST (of less than
two pages in each request with each request being separately set out )
Request Contents in Exhibit A23.07c
1. VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“The Laws of Virginia: Obligatory Diligence, Notice, Respect, Fidelity, Competence, Faithful Obedience to the Content of Virginia Law”
2. VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“#1 Defying, in unlawful combination (§18.2-499), the Code of Virginia’s Declaratory Judgment Statutes, § 8.01—184 and § 8.01—191, regarding ‘actual controversy’ can be §18.2-481(5) felony
3. VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“#2 Defying, in unlawful combination (§18.2-499), the Code of Virginia’s Declaratory Judgment Statutes, § 8.01—184 and § 8.01—191, regarding ’ discretionary’ can be §18.2-481(5) felony”
4. VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:#3 Defying, in unlawful combination (§18.2-499), the Code of Virginia’s Declaratory Judgment Statutes, § 8.01—184 and § 8.01—191, can be §18.2-481(5) felony
5. VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re: “Reasonable Specificity in VFOIA request”
6. VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“ ‘Public Body’
7. VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“Public body & members” #1
Request Contents in Exhibit A23.07d each separately set out
8. VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“Public body Member” #2
9. VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“Custodian of the Requested Public Record of Public Law”
10. VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“Color of the Laws Authority”
11. VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“BURDEN OF PROOF #1”
Exhibit A23.08c Page 5 of 17
12. VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“JUDGE & SHERIFF resisting “§ 2.2-3707”. . . “ H. Any person may photograph, film, record or otherwise reproduce any portion of a meeting required to be open. ”
13. VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“Defying, in unlawful combination (§18.2-499), the Code of Virginia’s Compulsory Disqualification to Rule established under Code of Virginia § vscr-6:3-3 “ . . .”(1) A judge shall disqualify himself “ . ..”in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned,“ . . .” is §18.2-481(5) felony, particularly when § vscr-6:3-3(1) is ‘deemed’ as being waived.
14. 14)VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“Defying, in unlawful combination (§18.2-499), the Code of Virginia’s Compulsory Disqualification to Rule established under Code of Virginia § vscr-6:3-3 “ . . .”(1) A judge shall disqualify himself “ . ..”in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned,“ . . .” is §18.2-481(5) felony
15. 15) VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re “Adulteration or fictitious representation of court records under the ‘control of the trial judge’ is § 18.2-111. “Embezzlement” as well as §18.2-481(5) “Treason”
16. 16A) through 16E) VFOIA
record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:
“Adulteration or fictitious representation of law can be § 18.2-111.
“Embezzlement” as well as §18.2-481(5) “Treason” and result in the perpetration
of US Wire or Mail Fraud and 18USC1513(e)
“Retaliation”
17. 17)VFOIA record request re: Enforcing unlawful process or order under the color of the Laws authority is §18.2-481(5) felony and makes the orders from that process VOID
18. 18A) VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re “Due Process of Law” Duty to provide “Assistance of Counsel for his Defense”
19. 18B) VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re “Due Process of Law” Duty to provide “Assistance of Counsel for his Defense”
Contents in Exhibit A23.07e
separately set out
20. 18C) VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re “Due Process of Law” Duty to provide “Assistance of Counsel for his Defense”
21. 19A) VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re: Citizen Complaint Access to the Grand Jury
Exhibit A23.08c Page 6 of 17
22. 19B) VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re: Citizen Complaint Access to the Grand Jury
23. 20) VFOIA record request driving MOTION re: “Defying, in unlawful combination (§18.2-499), the Code of Virginia §18.2-7, can be felony §18.2-481(5) , §18.2-111 and § 18USC1341. Frauds and swindles”
24. 21A) VFOIA record request driving MOTION re: “Defying, in unlawful combination (§18.2-499), the Code of Virginia § 8.01-443, by means of a claim to the statute of limitations
25. 21B) VFOIA record request driving MOTION re: “Defying, in unlawful combination (§18.2-499), the Code of Virginia § 8.01-443, by means of a claim to § vscr-3:2 res judicata
26. 22A) VFOIA record request driving MOTION re: “Defying, in unlawful combination (§18.2-499), the Code of Virginia § 8.01-233, by means of a claim to the statute of limitations
27.
22B) VFOIA
record request driving MOTION re: “Defying, in unlawful combination (§18.2-499),
the Code of Virginia § 8.01-233,
by means of a claim to § vscr-3:2 res
judicata
28.
22C) VFOIA
record request driving MOTION re: “Defying, in unlawful combination (§18.2-499),
the Code of Virginia § 8.01-233,
by means of a claim to any statute of limitations, can be felony
29. 22D) VFOIA
record request driving MOTION re: “Defying, in unlawful combination (§18.2-499)
the Code of Virginia § 8.01-233, by any means without the
defendant-giving-counterclaim’s consent can be felony §18.2-481(5)
, §18.2-111
and § 18USC1341.
Frauds and swindles”
30.
23) VFOIA record request driving MOTION re: “Defying,
in unlawful combination (§18.2-499)
the Constitution and Code of Virginia’s guarantee of jury trial of right, by any unlawful means can be felony §18.2-481(5)
, §18.2-111
and § 18USC1341.
Frauds and swindles”
31.
24) VFOIA record request driving MOTION re: “It
is felony for any Judge to conceit that they or another Judge could adulterate
the duly authorized law of Virginia.
32.
25) VFOIA record request
driving MOTION re: “Only Source of Duly Authorized Law in Virginia,
33.
26) VFOIA record request
driving MOTION re: “Court Officer fraudulent construct or representation of
law
34.
27) VFOIA record request
driving MOTION re: “Conceit to the existence of Case Law” by officers of the
court constitutes §18.2-481(5)
, §18.2-111
and § 18USC1341.
Frauds and swindles felony.
35.
28A) VFOIA record request
driving MOTION re: “Evidenced Judicial Insurrection obligates our Governor’s
immediate action “
Exhibit
A23.08c Page 7 of 17
Contents in Exhibit A23.07f separately set out
36.
28B) VFOIA record request
driving MOTION re: ““CL09-376 Evidenced Judicial Insurrection obligates our
Governor’s immediate action “
37.
29) VFOIA record request
driving MOTION re: Conclusive Admissions by default may not be later
contested and such impermissible argument may constitute §18.2-481(5)
, §18.2-111
and § 18USC1341.
Frauds and swindles felony.
38.
30) VFOIA request driving
MOTION re: “a general
denial”
is impermissible in the civil courts of Virginia
and may constitute §18.2-481(5)
, §18.2-111
and § 18USC1341.
Frauds and swindles felony
39. 31) VFOIA record request driving MOTION re: “a general denial” impermissible in the civil courts of Virginia if not
coincident with complete specific denial or specific objection upon every count
duly raised for obligatory response will result in conclusive default admission
upon every specific count not given specific reply,
Exhibit A23.08c Page 8 of 17
01) VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“The Laws of Virginia: Obligatory Diligence, Notice, Respect, Fidelity, Competence, Faithful Obedience to the Content of Virginia Law”
In
accordance with the VFOIA ,
·
REQUEST_ADDRESSEE_PHRASE
·
PLEASE_PROVIDE_PHRASE
l that would authorize said addressees to claim in some fashion that said addressees are NOT required by their office’s constitutional and statutory duty to have Diligently, Competently, Faithfully Noticed and Respected the CONTENT, TITLE and LOCATION of the public records of the duly authorized public law that is said agent’s official duty to administer to the people and so that said addressees can fulfill his official duty to Diligently Competently and Faithfully Obey the duly authorized public law
l such that said addressees may dissemble, adulterate, shuck, resist and/or defy the execution of following the Code of Virginia
“§ vscr-6:3-3 CANON 3.C.2) A judge shall require staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge” . . .”
“§ vscr-6:3-3 A Judge Shall Perform The Duties Of Judicial Office “ . . .” Diligently. A. “ . . .”(2) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. “ . . .”
“§ vscr-6:3-2 “ . . .” A. A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. “ . . . “
§ 19.2-265.2 & § 8.01-386 “Judicial notice of laws” “A. Whenever ”. . .” it becomes necessary to ascertain what the law ”. . .” of this Commonwealth, ”. . .”, of the United States”. . .” the court shall take judicial notice thereof whether specially pleaded or not”
“§ 2.2-3704.”
. . . “ B. A request for public records shall identify the requested records
with reasonable specificity. .” . . . “
Exhibit A23.08c Page 9 of 17
l such that said addressees may dissemble, adulterate, shuck, resist and/or defy and so thereby resist the execution any portion of the Constitution or Code of Virginia without said resistance being a §18.2-481(5) felony “resisting the execution of the laws” of statutory treason
l if so resisted by that addressees while purporting to act in the performance of official duties?
Exhibit A23.08c Page
10 of 17
02) VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“#1 Defying, in unlawful combination (§18.2-499), the Code of Virginia’s Declaratory Judgment Statutes, § 8.01—184 and § 8.01—191, regarding ‘actual controversy’ can be §18.2-481(5) felony
In
accordance with the VFOIA ,
·
REQUEST_ADDRESSEE_PHRASE
·
PLEASE_PROVIDE_PHRASE
·
in
particular:
“§ 8.01-184.
Power to issue declaratory judgments. In cases of actual controversy, circuit
courts within the scope of their respective jurisdictions shall have power to
make binding adjudications of right, whether or not consequential relief is, or
at the time could be, claimed and no action or proceeding shall be open to
objection on the ground that a judgment order or decree merely declaratory of
right is prayed for. Controversies involving the interpretation of deeds,
wills, and other instruments of writing, statutes, municipal ordinances and
other governmental regulations, may be so determined, and this enumeration does
not exclude other instances of actual antagonistic assertion and denial of
right. “
“§ 8.01-191.
Construction of article. This article is declared to be remedial. Its purpose
is to afford relief from the uncertainty and insecurity attendant upon
controversies over legal rights, without requiring one of the parties
interested so to invade the rights asserted by the other as to entitle him to
maintain an ordinary action therefor. It is to be liberally interpreted
and administered with a view to making the courts more serviceable to the
people.”
lsuch that said addressees may resist
the execution of Virginia’s Declaratory Judgment Statutes, § 8.01—184
and §
8.01—191 by asserting that a Virginia
Declaratory Judgment may only be had in “actual controversy”
where the term “actual controversy” is strictly construed as being a
controversy actionable at law, or even more strictly as being a controversy in
some existing legal action ?
Exhibit A23.08c Page 11 of 17
B)
And in further
amplification of the above: And in the matter of CL08-123, Exhibits G
and X-A
, addressing the US Mail Fraud by Chesapeake Zoning Administrator, Tim Davis
WITHOUT said addressees combining with persons opposing said declaratory
judgment in criminal violation of 18USC1513(e)
?
·
PHRASE_OF_4_REQUESTS_WITH_FILTER_CONDITIONS
·
While applying the above
“phrase_of_4_requests” for Replies to each of A) and B) in turn.
Exhibit A23.08c Page
12 of 17
03) VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“#2 Defying, in unlawful combination (§18.2-499), the Code of Virginia’s Declaratory Judgment Statutes, § 8.01—184 and § 8.01—191, can be §18.2-481(5) felony”
In
accordance with the VFOIA ,
·
REQUEST_ADDRESSEE_PHRASE
·
PLEASE_PROVIDE_PHRASE
·
in
particular:
“§ 8.01-184.
Power to issue declaratory judgments. In cases of actual controversy, circuit
courts within the scope of their respective jurisdictions shall have power to
make binding adjudications of right, whether or not consequential relief is, or
at the time could be, claimed and no action or proceeding shall be open to
objection on the ground that a judgment order or decree merely declaratory of
right is prayed for. Controversies involving the interpretation of deeds,
wills, and other instruments of writing, statutes, municipal ordinances and
other governmental regulations, may be so determined, and this enumeration does
not exclude other instances of actual antagonistic assertion and denial of
right. “
and
“§ 8.01-191.
Construction of article. This article is declared to be remedial. Its
purpose is to afford relief from the uncertainty and insecurity attendant upon
controversies over legal rights, without requiring one of the parties
interested so to invade the rights asserted by the other as to entitle him to
maintain an ordinary action therefor . It is to be liberally interpreted
and administered with a view to making the courts more serviceable to the
people.”
l
such that said
addressees may lawfully resist the execution of Virginia’s Declaratory Judgment
Statutes, § 8.01—184 and § 8.01—191
A)
by asserting that the
granting or entry of a Virginia Declaratory Judgment is optional or
“discretionary”
B) And in further
amplification of the above: And in the matter of CL08-123, Exhibits G
and X-A
, addressing US Mail Fraud by Chesapeake Zoning Administrator, Tim Davis,
WITHOUT said addressees combining with persons opposing said declaratory
judgment in criminal violation of 18USC1513(e)?
·
PHRASE_OF_4_REQUESTS_WITH_FILTER_CONDITIONS
·
While applying the above
“phrase_of_4_requests” for Replies to A) and B) in turn.
Exhibit A23.08c Page
13 of 17
04) VFOIA record
request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:#3 Defying,
in unlawful combination (§18.2-499),
the Code of Virginia’s Declaratory Judgment Statutes, § 8.01—184
and § 8.01—191,
regarding ‘Advisory Opinion’ can be §18.2-481(5)
felony
In
accordance with the VFOIA ,
·
REQUEST_ADDRESSEE_PHRASE
·
PLEASE_PROVIDE_PHRASE
·
in
particular:
“§ 8.01-184.
Power to issue declaratory judgments. In cases of actual controversy, circuit
courts within the scope of their respective jurisdictions shall have
power to make binding adjudications of right, whether or not
consequential relief is, or at the time could be, claimed and no action or
proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a judgment order or
decree merely declaratory of right is prayed for. Controversies involving the
interpretation of deeds, wills, and other instruments of writing, statutes,
municipal ordinances and other governmental regulations, may be so determined,
and this enumeration does not exclude other instances of actual antagonistic
assertion and denial of right. “
and
“§ 8.01-191.
Construction of article. This article is declared to be remedial. Its purpose
is to afford relief from the uncertainty and insecurity attendant upon
controversies over legal rights, without requiring one of the parties
interested so to invade the rights asserted by the other as to entitle him to
maintain an ordinary action therefor. It is to be liberally interpreted and
administered with a view to making the courts more serviceable to the people.”
l
such that said
addressees may lawfully resist the execution of Virginia’s Declaratory Judgment
Statutes, §
8.01—184 and § 8.01—191
A) by asserting, in any
form or variation, that a Virginia Circuit Court may not grant a duly
petitioned Declaratory Judgment because the court has dissembled the
Declaratory Judgment into an “Advisory Opinion” not binding on the parties of
the petition’s tribunal when a lawful Declaratory judgment is in fact binding?
B) And in further
amplification of the above: In an issue the includes complaint or opposition to
a federal felony ( such as in the matter of CL08-123, Exhibits G
and X-A
, addressing US Mail Fraud by Chesapeake Zoning Administrator, Tim Davis)
WITHOUT said addressees combining with persons opposing said declaratory
judgment in criminal violation of 18USC1513(e)?
l
PHRASE_OF_4_REQUESTS_WITH_FILTER_CONDITIONS
l While applying the above “phrase_of_4_requests” for Replies to each of A) and B) in turn.
Exhibit A23.08c Page
14 of 17
05) VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re: “Reasonable Specificity in VFOIA request”
In
accordance with the VFOIA ,
·
REQUEST_ADDRESSEE_PHRASE
·
PLEASE_PROVIDE_PHRASE
·
In particular:
l
that would authorize said addressees to resist the execution of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act(VFOIA) by claiming in some fashion that said
addressees is NOT required by his office’s constitutional and statutory
duty to have noticed and to know the CONTENT, TITLE and LOCATION
of the public records of the duly authorized public law that is said
agent’s official duty to administer to the people because
l
[In the Commonwealth of Virginia said officers of the court being agents of the
Sovereign People MAY lawfully dissemble, adulterate, shuck,
resist and/or defy the execution of following the Code of Virginia:
“§ vscr-6:3-3 CANON 3.C.2) A judge shall require
staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control
to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge” . .
.”
“§
vscr-6:3-3 A Judge Shall Perform The Duties Of Judicial Office “ . . .” Diligently.
A. “ . . .”(2) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain
professional competence in it. “ . . .”
“§
vscr-6:3-2 “ . . .” A. A judge shall respect and comply with the law
and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. “ . . . “
§ 19.2-265.2
& § 8.01-386
“Judicial notice of laws” “A. Whenever ”. . .” it becomes necessary to
ascertain what the law ”. . .” of this Commonwealth, ”. . .”, of the United
States”. . .” the court shall take judicial notice thereof whether
specially pleaded or not”
“§ 2.2-3704.”
. . . “ B. A request for public records shall identify the requested records
with reasonable specificity. .” . . . “
Exhibit
A23.08c Page
15 of 17
so that when VFOIA record
request is made upon said addressees with
A) specifically reasoned and particular
Boolean record request criteria addressing the CONTENT of said public
records then said addressees is NOT required by statute to know if
and where such requested duly authorized public record of the public
law actually does exist, or actually does not exist?
B) so that said addressees may lawfully
resist said VFOIA record request by replying in some fashion that approximates
“The VFOIA record request does not “identify the requested records with reasonable
specificity” as needed to meet the VFOIA’s § 2.2-3704.B
record request requirement” when that request is, in fact, VERY reasoned and
VERY specific
C) such that said resistances to the
execution of the VFOIA would not be a §18.2-481(5)
felony of “resisting the execution of the laws under the color of its
authority” if so resisted by that addressees
of the sovereign’s authority while purporting to act in the performance
of official duties?
l PHRASE_OF_4_REQUESTS_WITH_FILTER_CONDITIONS
l While applying the above “phrase_of_4_requests” for Replies to each of A), B) and C) in turn.
06) VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“ ‘Public Body’
In accordance with
the VFOIA ,
In
accordance with the VFOIA ,
·
REQUEST_ADDRESSEE_PHRASE
·
PLEASE_PROVIDE_PHRASE
l
that would authorize
said addressees to resist the execution of the Virginia Freedom of Information
Act(VFOIA) by claiming in some fashion that
“A sheriff’s office or a court of the
Commonwealth of Virginia does not meet the definition of a ‘public
body’ according to the terms the Virginia Freedom of Information
Act.”
·
PHRASE_OF_4_REQUESTS_WITH_FILTER_CONDITIONS
Exhibit
A23.08c Page 17 of 17
07) VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“Public body & members” #1
In
accordance with the VFOIA ,
·
REQUEST_ADDRESSEE_PHRASE
·
PLEASE_PROVIDE_PHRASE
l
that would authorize
said addressees to resist the execution of the Virginia Freedom of Information
Act(VFOIA) by claiming in some fashion that
l
“In the
Commonwealth of Virginia a sheriff’s office or a court, of type being
1. General District Court,
2. Circuit Court or
3. the Virginia Supreme Court,
is a public body excluded
by the VFOIA from the Sovereign People’s command that public body members
obey the VFOIA.”
·
PHRASE_OF_4_REQUESTS_WITH_FILTER_CONDITIONS
This pleading now invokes Exhibit A23.08d as fully set
forth herein.
I ask for these things. I affirm the forgoing as being true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and affirmed under the full respect due God’s witness of these transactions and under the full respect due our laws on perjury.
May God Save our Commonwealth, our
Nation, all our leaders and all our people.
May that be so now, beginning with you
and me.
Russell P. Davis 1521 Quail Point Rd.,
Virginia Beach, VA 23454 757-651-2234
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - In accord with § vscr-1:12, true copies were filed with the Clerk, and I certify that on or before Nov 5th, 2009 this document was emailed and/or faxed to: Harriet T. Reynolds hreynolds@cwm-law.com ; Nila D. Faison nfaison@cwm-law.com ; Conrod, R. Johan rjconrod@kaufcan.com ; dventker@ventkerlaw.com ; W. Ryan Snow WRSnow@cwm-law.com; I have in good faith conferred with Belt Line attorneys in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, and continue to be available for that purpose.
Exhibit A23.08d Page 1 of 19
Continuing from Page 17 of Exhibit
A23.08c
08) VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“Public body Member” #2
In
accordance with the VFOIA ,
·
REQUEST_ADDRESSEE_PHRASE
·
PLEASE_PROVIDE_PHRASE
l
that would authorize
said agents to resist the execution of the Virginia Freedom of Information
Act(VFOIA) by claiming in some fashion that
A)
“In
the Commonwealth of Virginia a Judge presiding over a court, of type being
General District Court or Circuit Court, is not quorum member of that
public body under his jurisdiction and is therefore not a public body member
as defined by the VFOIA and is therefore excluded by the VFOIA from the
Sovereign People’s command that public body members obey the VFOIA “ and/or
B)
“In
the Commonwealth of Virginia a Judge presiding over a court, of type being
General District Court or Circuit Court is a public body member
specifically excluded by the VFOIA from the Sovereign People’s command that
public body members obey the VFOIA.” And/or
C)
“In
the Commonwealth of Virginia a sheriff of a Commonwealth of Virginia Court is
not a public body member as defined by the VFOIA and is therefore
excluded by the VFOIA from the Sovereign People’s command that public body
members obey the VFOIA “
l PHRASE_OF_4_REQUESTS_WITH_FILTER_CONDITIONS
l While applying the above “phrase_of_4_requests” for Replies to each of A), B) and C) in turn.
Exhibit A23.08d Page
2 of 19
09) VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“Custodian of the Requested Public Record of Public Law”
In accordance with the VFOIA ,
In
accordance with the VFOIA ,
·
REQUEST_ADDRESSEE_PHRASE
·
PLEASE_PROVIDE_PHRASE
l that would authorize said addressees to resist the execution of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act(VFOIA) by claiming in some fashion that
“In the Commonwealth of Virginia an officer of this court is NOT
[an addresseesof the Sovereign People’s authority created to administer the public law to the people where said public law is contained in duly authorized public records of the public Law, where of necessity, that judicial officer must be a custodian of those public records in order to administer their content to the people]
such that said officer of this court may lawfully deny said VFOIA record request based upon member status as not being the custodian of the requested public record of public law.”
l
such that the particular act of that resistance would NOT be a
§18.2-481(5) felony of “resisting the execution of the laws under the color
of its authority” if so resisted by that addressees
of the sovereign’s Judicial authority while purporting to act in the
performance of official duties?
·
PHRASE_OF_4_REQUESTS_WITH_FILTER_CONDITIONS
Exhibit A23.08d Page
3 of 19
10) VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“Color of the Laws Authority”
In
accordance with the VFOIA ,
·
REQUEST_ADDRESSEE_PHRASE
·
PLEASE_PROVIDE_PHRASE
l
that would authorize
said addressees to resist the execution of the Virginia Freedom of Information
Act(VFOIA) by claiming in some fashion that
“A Sheriff, judge, justice or
other officer of the court serving officially in a court of the Commonwealth of
Virginia
does not have the “color of the
laws authority” established by his office and the uniform that represents
that authority to the people.”
l
such that an unlawful
act of “resisting the execution of the” VFOIA laws would NOT be a
§18.2-481(5) felony of “resisting the execution of the laws under the color
of its authority” if so resisted by that addressees
of the sovereign’s Judicial authority while purporting to act in the
performance of official duties?
·
PHRASE_OF_4_REQUESTS_WITH_FILTER_CONDITIONS
Exhibit A23.08d Page
4 of 19
11) VFOIA record
request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“BURDEN
OF PROOF #1”
In
accordance with the VFOIA ,
·
REQUEST_ADDRESSEE_PHRASE
·
PLEASE_PROVIDE_PHRASE
l
that would authorize
said officer of the court, in their official capacity, to unlawfully resist the
execution of the laws in the Virginia Freedom of Information Act(VFOIA) and
also thereby unlawfully resist the execution of any laws that were the subject
of that VFOIA request
A)
and lawfully escape the burden of proof requirement laid upon said
officer of the court by the Virginia Freedom of Information Act(VFOIA)
B)
And particularly to lawfully escape that burden of proof in regard to
resisting the execution of the VFOIA laws under the color of its (the laws)
authority as defined in §18.2-481(5)
beyond the need for two witnesses or confession in open court?
l PHRASE_OF_4_REQUESTS_WITH_FILTER_CONDITIONS
l While applying the above “phrase_of_4_requests” for Replies to each of A) and B) in turn.
Exhibit A23.08d Page
5 of 19
12) VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“JUDGE & SHERIFF resisting “§ 2.2-3707”. . . “ H. Any person may photograph, film, record or otherwise reproduce any portion of a meeting required to be open. ” . . . “
In
accordance with the VFOIA ,
·
REQUEST_ADDRESSEE_PHRASE
·
PLEASE_PROVIDE_PHRASE
l
that would authorize
said addressees to resist the execution of the Virginia Freedom of Information
Act(VFOIA) by claiming in some fashion that
A)“A sheriff’s office or
a court of the Commonwealth of Virginia does not meet the definition of a
‘public body’ according to the terms the Virginia Freedom of Information
Act.”
B) a Hearing, were the
public MAY be present, as in an open court of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
does not meet the definition of a “§ 2.2-3701.
Definitions. “ . . . “ "Open meeting" or " public meeting"
means a meeting at which the public may be present.” according to
the terms the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.”
C) a hearing in a public
body of the type “court of the Commonwealth of Virginia” having a public body
quorum member in the judge presiding over that meeting of the court, when not
specifically exempted by the VFOIA, is not obligated by “§ 2.2-3707”.
. . “ H. Any person may photograph, film, record or otherwise reproduce any
portion of a meeting required to be open.“
Exhibit
A23.08d Page
6 of 19
D) such that said
agent’s resisting the public’s right to bring the devices required to
implement the laws
of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act § 2.2-3707
( and Virginia Code VA§16.1-69.35:2) into the building to were that public meeting
exists would NOT be a §18.2-481(5)
felony of “resisting the execution of the laws under the color of its
authority” were those laws resisted are those of the VFOIA and those
applicable laws whose subject was to be recorded, particularly when such
recording is countermeasure upon the judicial officers’ motive to adulterate
the record of the court so as to hide
1. reversible error or
2. §18.2-481(5)
felony and resulting void order
l
if so resisted by that
addressees of the sovereign’s Judicial authority while purporting to act
in the performance of official duties?
l PHRASE_OF_4_REQUESTS_WITH_FILTER_CONDITIONS
l While applying the above “phrase_of_4_requests” for Replies to each of A), B) C) and D ) in turn.
Exhibit A23.08d Page 7 of 19
13) VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“Defying, in unlawful combination (§18.2-499), the Code of Virginia’s Compulsory Disqualification to Rule established under Code of Virginia § vscr-6:3-3 “ . . .”(1) A judge shall disqualify himself “ . ..”in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned,“ . . .” is §18.2-481(5) felony, particularly when § vscr-6:3-3(1) is ‘deemed’ as being waived.
In
accordance with the VFOIA ,
·
REQUEST_ADDRESSEE_PHRASE
·
PLEASE_PROVIDE_PHRASE
·