CL09-376 Petition for Redress of Greivances with 39 VFOIA RECORD REQUESTS (<= 2 pages each) Exhibit A23.08

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 5^th. 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 17^th, 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, but he who makes a man see his errors is a cause of peace.

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 :

Ø VA§ 19.2-191 “Functions of a grand jury”. . .”(2) To investigate and report on any condition that involves or tends to promote criminal activity, either in the community or by any governmental authority, agency or official thereof. ”. . .”

Ø VA§ 19.2-200. “Duties of grand jury. The grand jury shall inquire of and present ALL felonies”. . .”committed within the jurisdiction of the respective courts wherein it is sworn”. . .”

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;

^f^{ootnote #}⁰¹ (back) written

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.27^{th, 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 5^th. 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.

CL09-376 PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit _A23.08a

Page 10 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;

Motion for WRIT OF DECEIT

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” .

CL09-376 PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit _A23.08a

Page 11 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 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.

CL09-376 PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit _A23.08a

Page 12 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;

CL09-376 PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit _A23.08a

Page 13 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;

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:

CL09-376 PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit _A23.08a

Page 14 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;

“§ 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

CL09-376 PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit _A23.08a

Page 15 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;

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 A_23.08b 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 A_23.08b

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 A_23.08a

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.

MOTION FOR A NEW and this time LAWFUL TRIAL by impartial jury and pro tempore judge

03.00) In as much as the prior motions and the agreeable, lawful, amended “Well-Formed Settlement and Accord” is not promptly ordered by the judge according to BELT LINE conclusive default admissions, and the criminally contrived non-jury trial and trial date of CL09-376 continues in perpetration I hereby demand lawful judgment upon this “MOTION FOR A NEW and this time LAWFUL TRIAL by impartial jury and pro tempore judge” wherein the existing record of CL09-376 is preserved as the beginning basis for a lawful trial by jury with pro tempore judge as lawfully demanded by Russell P. Davis. A timely written reply specifically addressed to this matter is requested.

CL09-376 PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit A_23.08b

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

CL09-376 PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit A_23.08b

Page 3 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;

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 A_23.08b

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.

MOTION TO RENDER LAWFUL ORDER

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 A_23.08b

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;

NOTICE OF APPEAL

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”.

B01-CodeReAppeals.doc

CL09-376 PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit A_23.08b

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 A_23.08b

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 A_23.08b

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 A_23.08c as fully set forth herein.

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

CL09-376 PETITION FOR REDRESS OFF GREIVANCES Exhibit A_23.08c

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:

DECLARATIONS BEGIN:

REQUEST_PREAMBLE_ PHRASES =

“Chesapeake CL09-376 Exhibit A_23.08contains requests for specific written reply with VFOIA records and admission,

pled in opposition to the BELT LINE’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, and in support of Davis Exhibit A_23.05 Motion for Continuance and Exhibit A₁₇ MOTION FOR ORDER INITIATING INDICTMENT and OFFERED PLEA AGREEMENT as Further Amendment to the “Well Formed Settlement and Accord”

made in the form of VFOIA record requests addressed to the public body that is

Judge Brown’s court

with its addressee public body members being officers of the court whose office is to administer the public records of duly authorize law to the people, such that those officers must be stewards and custodians of those records, else they could not perform their job, and whereby they receive”+

Exhibit A_23.08c Page 2 of 17

“those records in trust by virtue of their office, and where those public body members are in particular, the BELT LINE attorneys of appearance in CL09-376: Ms. Harriet Reynolds, W. Ryan Snow and James Chapman”

;

REQUEST_ADDRESSEE_ PHRASES =

“will the addressee public body members,

being officers of the Virginia Code Commission (Virginia Code Commission General Assembly Building, 910 Capitol Street, 2nd Floor, Richmond, Virginia 23219 Phone: (804) 786-3591 Fax: (804) 692-0625) under judicial supervision , being particularly:

Delegate R. Steven Landes, R-D4, Chairman DelSLandes@house.state.va.us ;

Senator John S. Edwards, D-21, Vice Chairman district21@senate.virginia.gov ;

Senator Ryan T. McDougle R-D4 district04@senate.virginia.gov ;

but NOT Frank S. Ferguson, since he is apt to be wrongly influenced by the taint of 1) felony perpetrated by C. Phillips "Phil" Ferguson being possible ex-neighbor and kinsman from Suffolk, and 2) many felonies perpetrated by Mike Melis, being co-worker at the Office of the Virginia Attorney General

and these additional addressees,

being officers of the court in CL09-376, Under Judge Brown’s (presiding) supervision, being in particularly: Judge John Brown, Ms. Harriet Reynolds, W. Ryan Snow and James Chapman, R. Johan Conrod,, Moody Stallings, Sheriff John Newhart

and also addressed by these VFOIA record requests in VA§ 1-200 Petition of Ancient Right for Redress of Grievances are: Judge Everett Martin, ALL the joint and several Justices of the Virginia Supreme Court being officers of the court in (VA8.01-499) combination to a multitude of felonies with the felony of (BELT LINE executives, Mike Melis assistant attorney general, Judge Brown, Phil Ferguson, Mara Kane, and Judge Everett Martin)

wherein the said addressee officers, are ALL, according to the duly authorized laws of Virginia (as represented in the Constitution and Code of Virginia), held to the same standards of behavior and competence as a judge, wherein by office an officer of the court is deemed by the Code of Virginia to have already take notice of the laws and be competent therein, such that any VA18.2-111 or VA18.2-481(5) felony, under Virginia law, is deemed to be knowingly and willingly perpetrated; and when that felony is exposed by VFOIA record request that the burden of proof falls upon the addressees by authority of VFOIA statute of Virginia, ”

;

PLEASE_PROVIDE_ PHRASES =

“please provide that public record of Law, duly authorized by the Sovereign People, whose explicit expression of will is contained in the Virginia Constitution and statutes, that shows any authority granted by the Constitution of Virginia or

Statutes of Virginia to said addressees

that would authorize said addressee, under the color of their official capacity, to raise their 1. personal preferences, 2. personal loyalties or 3. personal habit of obeying a person of high social standing such as a judge or justice

above the Constitution of Virginia and Code of Virginia were those explicit instructions of the sovereign people are duly established by their sovereign legislative authority”

;

PHRASE_IN_PARTICULAR_LAW = ‘’;

PHRASE_SUCH_THAT_NEGATIVE/EVIL_ACT_PROSCIBED = ‘’;

PHRASE_SUCH_THAT_POSITIVE/GOOD_ACT_COMMANDED = ‘’;

PRASE_NEGATIVE_ACT_PROSCIBED_EQUALS_POSITIVE_ACT_COMMANDED_INCONTEXT = ‘’;

Exhibit A_23.08c Page 3 of 17

PHRASE_OF_4_REQUESTS_WITH_FILTER_CONDITIONS =

“Q1) WITHOUT said addressees committing a §18.2-481(5) statutory treason of “resisting the execution of the laws under the color of its authority”?

Q2) WITHOUT said addressees combining with persons of controversy opposing said action for civil or criminal remedy in criminal violation of the Code of Virginia §18.2-499 ?

Q3) WITHOUT said addressees wrongly using and/or adulterating the administration of the duly authorized records of law that are theirs to administer by virtue of their office which is a felony violation Code of Virginia §18.2-111 ?

Q4) WITHOUT said addressees’ perpetration of VA§18.2-111 constituting § 18USC1341. Frauds and swindles if such wrong, either directly or by derivative, is communicated by post or wire?

The requester can find no such public record of duly authorized law granting that authority to Addressees. A specific written REPLY is demanded of the Addressees; a reply that does not resist the execution of the letter of the VFOIA, and if no such duly authorized record of law exists ADMIT that such records do not exist to the addressees’ knowledge and by extension defined by the Addressees’ standing under the Code of Virginia, ADMIT that no such duly authorized lawful authority exists in Virginia as such a reply would satisfy these VFOIA record requests Q1), Q2), Q3) and Q4) of this request. Said requests for lawful written reply are submitted in Motion duly served and filed with the court such that every default in reply by the addressees shall be conclusively established by Virginia Law.”

DECLARATIONS END;

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 A_23.08c 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 A_23.08c 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 A_23.08c 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 A_23.08c 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 A_23.08c 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?

PHRASE_OF_4_REQUESTS_WITH_FILTER_CONDITIONS

Exhibit A_23.08c 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 A_23.08c 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 A_23.08c 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:

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 A_23.08c 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 A_23.08c 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:

“§ 2.2-3704.” . . . “ B. A request for public records shall identify the requested records with reasonable specificity. .” . . . “

Exhibit A_23.08c 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.

Exhibit A_23.08c Page 16 of 17

06) VFOIA record request driving a MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT re:“ ‘Public Body’

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 A_23.08c 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 A_23.08d as fully set forth herein.

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

Exhibit A_23.08d Page 1 of 19 Continuing from Page 17 of Exhibit A_23.08c

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 A_23.08d 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 ,

· 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 A_23.08d 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 A_23.08d 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 A_23.08d 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 A_23.08d 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 A_23.08d 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