va appellate brief
TRANSCRIPT
Comes now the principal Plaintiff-Petitioner, Harold E. Leist, individually, and
also on behalf of all persons so similarly situated in this action (together, “the
Class”), and submits the following:
A. Introduction and Nature of the Case
1. This is a multi-grounded civil rights action at law, at common law, and also
in equity, to vindicate and restore various rights of the Plaintiffs secured under
federal law, to vindicate and restore their various inalienable rights guaranteed
under certain portions of, and several Amendments to, the United States
Constitution, and for the Plaintiffs to claim all rights, damages, and forms of relief
obtainable under any available means.
2. In no way, shape, or form, do or will the Plaintiffs claim or assert, either
expressed or implied, any manner of rights or interests alluding to any aspect of
controversy under any state law, whatsoever, excepting only that a matter must be
fairly characterized as an act, practice, or policy of, or by, the state which exists or
functions in derogation of federal law or federal rights.
3. Further, the Plaintiffs expressly disclaim any such potential allusions to
matters arising solely under any state law or state rights, with, again, excepting
only that a given matter must or might be fairly characterized as an act, practice,
pattern, or policy of, or committed by, the state which exists or functions in
derogation of federal law or federal rights.
1
4. The Plaintiffs seek all available forms of declaratory, injunctive,
retrospective and prospective relief that correspond to the various causes of action
and prayers for relief herein.
5. This case involves applications of family law in a general nature, wherein
rightful custody of minor children is in dispute between natural parents, and where
the United States Constitution, and consistent, numerous, and binding stare decisis
of the United States Supreme Court, provides certain liberty, privacy, and family
interest protections to all such natural parents, and wherein various and numerous
Acts of Congress have provided similar, or even better, protections.
6. This case further involves significant amounts of what appears to be willful,
reckless, and/or negligent fraud, deceit, collusion, and/or abuse of powers by a
statewide and systemic pattern of obstructing, hindering, and/or otherwise
thwarting the rightful and lawful conclusions of due process during any such child
custody proceedings held within its own courts of law.
7. This case further involves allegations of widespread and standard practices
by the Commonwealth of Virginia to unlawfully discriminate in all areas of
domestic relations, within any related or ancillary proceedings, and especially
those matters directly concerning child custody and child support, often involving
bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, one gender or the other, and the same
practices being patently unconstitutional in their prevalent application.
2
8. Given the above serious and important natures of this case, the significant
implications to the general welfare, and the same including grievous and numerous
violations of civil and constitutional rights, this Court should afford special
attention thereupon, and impart expediency to the resolution of this action, all
pursuant to its authority under 28 USC § 1657 (a).
B. Parties to the Case
9. The parties consist of principal Plaintiff Leist, the putative plaintiff Class,
and the Defendants, including the Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Governor
Warner, Virginia Attorney General Kilgore, and Virginia Chief Justice Hassell.
Each is generally described below.
Principal Plaintiff Harold E. Leist
10.The principle Plaintiff, Harold E. Leist, is a United States citizen, a resident
of the State of North Carolina, and has a child custody case under the jurisdiction
of the Virginia state courts.
Statement and Description of the Plaintiff Class
11.The principle Plaintiff-Petitioner, and all putative co-plaintiffs, are United
States citizens, 18 years of age or older on the date of filing this action, with each
having conceived one or more natural children, of whom any one or more of which
is/are currently: (a) living; (b) residing within the jurisdiction of any court of the
United States; (c) not institutionalized; and, (d) of age in years so that the very
3
existence of such child(ren) either does, or could, give present or future rise to any
legal or equitable proceeding in any court for the payment, by such plaintiff, of any
form of child support, to any other person or party, in any form or method
heretofore established by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
12.Further, that each such above plaintiff has also been previously adjudicated,
by any judge of any court of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as a “noncustodial
parent”, or any other such similar term or phrase commonly applied to represent
that such plaintiff does not equally enjoy the same full sets and degrees of physical,
possessory, and legal rights to all aspects of the care, custody, and management of
said child(ren) that are recognized to belong to, or enjoyed by, the other natural
(commonly referred to as the “custodial”) parent of said child(ren).
13.Lastly, that each such above plaintiff, in addition to the above criteria, has
either: (a) never been formally convicted, in any competent court of the several
States or of the United States, and by proceedings performed with absolute
accordance to the full protections of all constitutional due process rights normally
afforded every criminal defendant, as having been either seriously abusive, or
seriously neglectful, to the health, safety, or physical or emotional welfare, of any
minor child – whatsoever – but, specifically excluding from the above criteria only
those circumstances wherein such prosecution was solely related to nonpayment of
child support; or, (b) obtained full reversal, vacation, overturning, or other like
4
purging, of each, any, and all such convictions in any one or more competent
courts of the several States, or of the United States.
Defendant Commonwealth of Virginia
14.The Commonwealth of Virginia is a sovereign, but inferior, republic body of
the United States, subject to the provisions of the United States Constitution, all
Amendments made thereto, and any express statutory Acts of Congress enacted by
the authority thereunder, having willingly joined the Union of the Several States,
and thereby also willingly subjecting itself to the supreme power of the Federal
Government, and is now made a direct defendant party to this action, through
binding service of process upon its representative leaders, and is also made a
defendant party by virtue of its vicarious liability, and/or liability as respondeat
superior, for the various actions, and/or inactions, committed, and/or neglected, by
its various subordinate officials, agents, employees, and/or any other
representatives that may be generally described herein, and/or by any other persons
functioning, and/or appearing, to represent the Commonwealth of Virginia in any
official manner, and/or by other persons, or entities, acting in concert with any of
the above persons or entities, as well as by its own neglect, and/or refusals, to act
to prevent, and/or correct, directly, and/or indirectly, various wrongs, harm, and/or
injuries to the Plaintiffs, and/or property of the Plaintiffs, including by criminal
acts, and/or by having conspired with any other persons to commit the same.
5
Defendant Commonwealth of Virginia is sued for all possible forms of relief under
the expressly clear and unambiguous provisions of 42 USC § 2000d-7.
Defendant Virginia Governor Mark R. Warner
15.Defendant Mark R. Warner is a United States citizen, a resident of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the Governor of the same, and is sued solely in his
official capacity thereunder for all available prospective relief in the injunctive and
declaratory senses.
Defendant Virginia Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore
16.Defendant Jerry W. Kilgore is a United States citizen, a resident of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the Attorney General of the same, and is sued solely
in his official capacity thereunder for all available prospective relief in the
injunctive and declaratory senses.
Defendant Virginia Chief Justice Leroy R. Hassell, Sr.
17.Defendant Leroy R. Hassell, Sr., is a United States citizen, a resident of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, the
presiding officer of the Judicial Council of Virginia, and is sued solely under both
such official capacities for all available prospective relief in the injunctive and
declaratory senses, and seeking such same forms of relief that may be available
under either or both of said official capacities.
C. Jurisdiction and Venue
6
18.Jurisdiction and venue over all subject matters herein are properly had and
held within this Honorable Court, pursuant to at least the following relevant
provisions of law:
a) Article III, Section 2, of the United States Constitution – regarding issues
risen under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States;
b) Article IV, Section 2, of the United States Constitution – regarding equal
protection of all privileges and immunities of citizens amongst the several
States;
c) Article VI of the United States Constitution – regarding the binding of
judges in every State under the supreme law of the land, and which same
consists of the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States;
d) 28 USC § 1331 – regarding issues arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States;
e) 28 USC § 1343 – regarding deprivations of rights, and/or privileges, of
citizens of the United States;
f) 28 USC § 1391 – regarding venue and defendants generally;
g) 28 USC § 1657 – regarding priority of actions, and temporary or
preliminary relief;
h) 28 USC § 1962 – regarding liens, by judgment, upon property within the
district;
7
i) 28 USC § 2201 – regarding creations of remedies and declarations of
rights;
j) 28 USC § 2202 – regarding further reasonable, necessary, or proper relief
available;
k) 28 USC § 2283 – regarding this Court's authority to stay proceedings in
any state court;
l) 42 USC § 2000b – regarding deprivations of civil rights within public
facilities; and
m) 42 USC § 2000b-2 – regarding individual remedies for deprivations of
civil rights within public facilities.
19.This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims by the
Plaintiffs that may be, or are so, related to the claims herein that they form part of
the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution,
pursuant to 28 USC § 1367.
D. Allegations of Law
20.The United States Supreme Court has long and consistently held that the
care, custody, maintenance, management, companionship, educational choices, and
all general child-rearing decisions related to one's children are fundamental rights
protected by the Federal Constitution.
8
21.As such, any actions by any person or entity, whether it be by a person acting
alone, in conjunction with another, directly or indirectly, by any state entity, or
demonstrated by a pattern of deprivations generally attributable to a state itself,
that intrude upon these fundamental rights, are patently unconstitutional until, and
unless, first validated by a substantially compelling state interest applied with strict
scrutiny, and then only performed in the least intrusive manner.
22.The state is not permitted to intrude upon these fundamental rights of the
natural parent without clear and convincing proof of demonstrable harm to the
child(ren) in question.
23.All natural parents existing under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of
Virginia are constitutionally entitled to be free of government intrusion into the
previously existing rights to care, custody, and management of their children,
unless there is clear and convincing evidence of proven harm, or of the threat or
danger of such harm, to the minor children in question.
24.The United States Supreme Court has consistently reminded that there is a
presumption that fit parents act in their children's best interests, and that there is
normally no reason for the state to inject itself into the private realm of the family
to further question fit parents' ability to make any decisions regarding their
children, unless there is first a compelling state interest.
9
25.All judges of the Commonwealth of Virginia that have jurisdiction over
domestic relations actions have each previously sworn their oaths, as required by
Virginia law, to uphold the guarantees and protections of the United States
Constitution, and the laws of the United States.
26.In addition, the same judges have various legal duties, under professional
conduct rules for attorneys, and/or various judicial conduct canons, to promote,
use, and restrict themselves to honesty, candor, impartiality, fundamental fairness
and similar qualities and traits of integrity, at all times during the litigation of any
legal proceedings.
27.Defendant Commonwealth of Virginia is subject to the provisions of the
United States Constitution, all Amendments made thereto, and any and all express
statutory Acts of Congress.
28.Defendant Commonwealth of Virginia, therefore, is also responsible for the
constitutional and legal compliance of any and all transactions conducted under the
supervision of its agents.
29.Defendants Warner, Kilgore, and Hassell have each, before taking their
respective offices, given sworn oaths to uphold and support the laws and the
Constitution of the United States.
10
30.Defendants Warner, Kilgore, and Hassell each have certain duties under law
to ensure that the constitutional rights of all United States citizens within their
scope of authority are protected.
31.Each of the Defendants is severally and jointly responsible for the welfare of
its citizenry, and for the ultimate protections of the rights of each United States
citizen within its jurisdiction, is also therefore responsible for ensuring that its
collection of judicial officers, by and through standard practices, policies, and/or
procedures, or any other means necessary, do not violate, on a systemic scale, any
of the federal laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to the widespread application
of family law, and of federal rights and privileges, in regards to the general
determinations of child custody between divorced, separated, and unwed natural
parents.
32.The Plaintiffs, as United States citizens and natural parents, have certain
inalienable rights and guarantees secured to them by the United States
Constitution, and/or by Amendments thereto, and as interpreted by the United
States Supreme Court, including the right not to have custody, care, and
management of their natural children taken away from them by the power of the
Commonwealth, without having first been proven as unfit parents by clear and
convincing evidence of substantial risk or danger to such children, in accordance
with due process of law.
11
33.Any natural parent has these same such rights and guarantees, regardless of
marital status.
34.The taking of child custody from an otherwise fit natural parent violates the
Constitution.
E. Allegations of Fact
35.Plaintiff Leist, and each putative plaintiff, whether a male or female, has
previously conceived one or more natural children with one or more members of
the opposite sex.
36.Plaintiff Leist, and each putative plaintiff, has previously appeared before the
jurisdiction of at least one Virginia state court to resolve custody dispositions of
said natural children, as between the rights of themselves, and the rights of the
opposing natural parents.
37.In each such aforementioned child custody determination, the inalienable
right to custody, care, and management of said natural children was taken from
Plaintiff Leist, and from each respective putative plaintiff, by the power of the
Commonwealth, but without the prerequisite findings of unfitness by clear and
convincing evidence, and without employing the constitutional doctrine of strict
scrutiny applied in a least intrusive manner, before taking away such custody.
38.In each same aforementioned child custody determination, the same
inalienable right to custody, care, and management of said natural children was
12
protected and upheld as to the parent opposing Plaintiff Leist, and as to the parent
which opposed each putative plaintiff, respectively.
39.Such an arbitrary taking and award of child custody between two fit natural
parents of the opposite sexes constitutes gender discrimination, and an act that is
violative of equal protection.
40.As a result, Plaintiff Leist, and each such putative plaintiff, has been
unlawfully injured in the care, custody, management, society, and companionship
of, and to, his or her such children.
41.Further, these arbitrary child custody determinations are done as a daily,
widespread, and continually applied practice or policy by Virginia state courts, all
in violation of the Constitution.
42.As a result of that unlawful standard practice or policy, should Plaintiff Leist,
or any such putative plaintiff, attempt to seek to regain his or her rightful custody
of such children using the Virginia state courts, there is no reasonable expectation
that the results would be any different, and the constitutional injuries to custodial
rights of their children would remain and continue.
43.The above-described facts constitute present, continuing, and also potential
violations of at least the following: (1) the unreasonable seizures prohibited by the
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) the prohibited
deprivations of life, liberty, and/or property, without due process of law, that are all
13
protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution; (3) the absolute impartiality of judicial proceedings demanded by the
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (4) the guarantees against
cruel and unusual punishments that are all secured by the Eighth Amendment to
the United States Constitution; (5) the protections of the privileges and immunities
of all citizens maintained by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution; (6) the full and equal protections of the law promised to all citizens
by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (7) the right to be
heard, as a party in a court of law, secured by the Sixth Amendment to the United
States Constitution; and, (8) the prohibitions against various forms of
discrimination that are found in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
F. Causes of Action
Count I: Defendant Commonwealth of Virginia is violating its duties under federal law
44.Plaintiffs reallege all paragraphs 1 through 43, supra, and incorporate them
herein by reference the same as if fully set forth. (H.I.).
45.Defendant Commonwealth of Virginia receives numerous forms of “Federal
financial assistance”, to compensate, in whole or part, expenditures made for
various programs and services that it either administers, enjoys, and/or provides,
14
but yet violates multiple statutory prohibitions against committing discrimination
by such corresponding services or programs.
46.Typically, each area of relevant federal law that provides for the
appropriation of federal monies also includes one or more companion statutes of
the United States Code that specifies prohibited discriminations, and then also
expressly waives immunity for a violative state, and further provides for all forms
of relief against a state that are available against any other entity.
47.The entire list of such “groups” of federal statutes that Defendant
Commonwealth of Virginia is alleged to be violating is rather large and involved,
and the Plaintiffs do not believe such a complete recitation of all applicable federal
statutes is necessary, when the same form of relief is available to the Plaintiffs by
only using the very limited examples given next below.
48.Several forms of “Federal financial assistance” are provided under Title 42,
Chapter 7, Subchapter IV, including under both Part A (TANF), and Part D (Child
Support enforcement).
49.Under Part A (TANF), multiple sections provide appropriations of the actual
funding, while § 601(a)(2) and (a)(4) clearly require the Commonwealth to use
such funding to promote marriage, and the formation and maintenance of two-
parent families – as directly opposed to purposely or recklessly creating higher
15
ratios of single-parent households – while § 608(d) provides links to the various
prohibitions against forms of discrimination.
50.Under Part D (Child Support), multiple sections provide appropriations of the
actual funding, while § 666(a)(5)(C)(i), as an example of routine discrimination
and violation by the Commonwealth, instructs that the Commonwealth must
provide notice of rights to both parents within the context of performing paternity
affidavits. The violation is that the Commonwealth unilaterally fails to inform both
such parents, by notice required under law, that they each have a constitutional
right to custody, barring unusual circumstances, and this omission is gender
discrimination by default application of the typical subsequent procedures to
determine custody.
51.In addition under Part D, the Commonwealth routinely fails its duties under §
669b to provide reasonable access and visitation programs to noncustodial parents,
which constitutes a denial of services, an act which, in itself, is further liable under
law. See 42 USC § 2000b-2.
52.Under various provisions of Title 42, Chapter 46, the Commonwealth
receives “Federal financial assistance” under the numerous programs of that
Chapter, for training of judges, training of prosecutors, training of various other
court personnel, and materials and supplies for the Commonwealth’s state
courthouses, judges, prosecutors and various other court personnel.
16
53.Yet, 42 USC § 3789d(c)(1) prohibits the very form of discrimination (sex)
that is routinely practiced by the Commonwealth’s state courts in the above
described custody matters.
54.Likewise, the Commonwealth’s standard practice or policy of disparate
discrimination in the above described custody determinations violates the gamut of
intended unisex services and programs listed under 42 USC § 5116(b)(1), while it
seems the Commonwealth was unlawfully intending to only consider one gender
for the typical receipt of such services and programs.
55.Again, the same disparate gender discrimination by the Commonwealth’s
state courts violates the corresponding prohibitions under the federal financial
assistance received within and by sections of Title 42, Chapter 113 of the US
Code.
56.Further, the same unlawful practices or policies violate the written letter,
intent, and/or spirit of many other such federal statutes tied in with federal grant
monies, such as 42 USC § 12301, 42 USC § 12331, 42 USC §12351, 42 USC §
12352, 42 USC § 12371, and many others.
57.Because the Commonwealth has received so many different types of “Federal
financial assistance”, and has yet continued a patently unlawful discriminatory
practice or policy by using, in either whole or part, judges, prosecutors, other court
personnel, courthouses, and materials and supplies funded by the federal
17
government, the programs or activities described fall within the protection and
relief available to the Plaintiffs under 42 USC § 2000d-7, and under other such
statutes, prohibiting such discrimination, denials of due process, and/or denials of
fair services.
58.Defendant Commonwealth of Virginia has failed to abide by such
aforementioned provisions of federal law, and has either willfully, recklessly,
and/or negligently allowed the unlawful standard practice or policy that continues
to cause the Plaintiffs to suffer, and has also failed to prevent the future suffering
of, the resulting constitutional injuries to custodial rights of parents to their natural
children as above-described, thereby waiving its immunity under law.
59.The Plaintiffs, by and through the principal Plaintiff, and together as a Class,
are entitled to various awards of damages against Defendant Commonwealth of
Virginia for the grievous violations and deprivations of the civil and constitutional
rights described herein, and are also entitled to various and appropriate remedial
actions performed in immediate correction of the manifest injustices detailed
herein, all as demanded and requested by and through the Plaintiffs’ respective
prayers for relief listed under section "G" of this pleading below.
Count II: Defendant Warner is neglecting, ignoring, or otherwise violating his duties
60.Plaintiffs reallege all paragraphs 1 through 59, supra, and incorporate them
herein by reference the same as if fully set forth. (H.I.).
18
61.As Governor, Defendant Warner either knows, or reasonably should know,
that:
a) many, many numerous thousands of United States citizens have been
adjudicated as noncustodial parents by the state courts of Virginia;
b) not all such noncustodial parents have been proven to be unfit dangers to
their children, and nor would any reasonable person even begin to hint that such
might ever be the case;
c) the inalienable right of any parent to custody of his or her children is an
ancient right;
d) the same right to custody of children is well established under law, and
even obvious;
e) the easily-grasped and basic principle of equal protection under the law;
and, that
f) therefore, there must be some sort of problem with the ability of Virginia
state courts to consistently dispense fair and equitable justice when making child
custody determinations between divorced, separated, or unmarried parents.
62.Yet, Defendant Warner has a clear legal duty and responsibility, under both –
his oath to uphold the Constitution, and also Virginia law – to either correct, and/or
cause the correction of, any such practices or policies that fail to protect the legal
interests or rights of United States citizens under his jurisdiction and/or authority.
19
63.Under at least Virginia Code §§ 1-17.2, 2.2-104, 2.2-111, 2.2-3900, and 2.2-
3901, Defendant Warner’s duty and responsibility is clear in this matter, in
addition to that of his oath.
64.Defendant Warner has therefore either willfully, recklessly, and/or
negligently allowed the unlawful standard practice or policy that continues to cause
the Plaintiffs to suffer, and failed to prevent the same standard practice or policy
from causing the future suffering of, the resulting constitutional injuries to
custodial rights as above-described.
65.The Plaintiffs are entitled to all appropriate declaratory, injunctive,
prohibition and/or mandamus relief from this Court, all as demanded and requested
by and through the Plaintiffs’ prayers for relief respectively listed under section
"G" of this pleading below.
66.The Plaintiffs further note that regardless of the course of these proceedings,
nor the length of time expended herein, Defendant Warner has been duly notified
of all the above, has an indisputable affirmative duty to immediately correct, or
cause the immediate correction of, such violative practices, and can now be held
liable via his individual capacity, for either neglecting, refusing, or otherwise
failing to even attempt that duty within a reasonably short period of time.
20
Count III: Defendant Kilgore is neglecting, ignoring, or otherwise violating his duties
67.Plaintiffs reallege all paragraphs 1 through 59, supra, and incorporate them
herein by reference the same as if fully set forth. (H.I.).
68.As Attorney General, Defendant Kilgore either knows, or reasonably should
know, that:
a) many, many numerous thousands of United States citizens have been
adjudicated as noncustodial parents by the state courts of Virginia;
b) not all such noncustodial parents have been proven to be unfit dangers to
their children, and nor would any reasonable person even begin to hint that such
might ever be the case;
c) the inalienable right of any parent to custody of his or her children is an
ancient right;
d) the same right to custody of children is well established under law, and
even obvious;
e) the easily-grasped and basic principle of equal protection under the law;
and, that
f) therefore, there must be some sort of problem with the ability of Virginia
state courts to consistently dispense fair and equitable justice when making child
custody determinations between divorced, separated, or unmarried parents.
21
69.Yet, Defendant Kilgore has a clear legal duty and responsibility, under both –
his oath to uphold the Constitution, and also Virginia law – to either correct, and/or
cause the correction of, any such practices or policies that fail to protect the legal
interests or rights of United States citizens under his jurisdiction and/or authority.
70.Under at least Virginia Code §§ 1-17.2, 2.2-111, 2.2-500, 2.2-507, 2.2-513,
2.2-3900, and 2.2-3901, Defendant Warner’s duty and responsibility is clear in this
matter, in addition to that same duty and responsibility under and by his sworn
oath.
71.Defendant Kilgore has therefore either willfully, recklessly, and/or
negligently allowed the unlawful standard practice or policy that continues to cause
the Plaintiffs to suffer, and failed to prevent the same standard practice or policy
from causing the future suffering of, the resulting constitutional injuries to
custodial rights as above-described.
72.The Plaintiffs are entitled to all appropriate declaratory, injunctive,
prohibition and/or mandamus relief from this Court, all as demanded and requested
by and through the Plaintiffs’ prayers for relief respectively listed under section
"G" of this pleading below.
73.The Plaintiffs further note that regardless of the course of these proceedings,
nor the length of time expended herein, Defendant Kilgore has been duly notified
of all the above, has an indisputable affirmative duty to immediately correct, or
22
cause the immediate correction of, such violative practices, and can now be held
liable via his individual capacity, for either neglecting, refusing, or otherwise
failing to even attempt that duty within a reasonably short period of time.
Count III: Defendant Hassell is neglecting, ignoring, or otherwise violating his duties
74.Plaintiffs reallege all paragraphs 1 through 59, supra, and incorporate them
herein by reference the same as if fully set forth. (H.I.).
75.As Chief Justice, Defendant Hassell either knows, or reasonably should
know, that:
a) many, many numerous thousands of United States citizens have been
adjudicated as noncustodial parents by the state courts of Virginia;
b) not all such noncustodial parents have been proven to be unfit dangers to
their children, and nor would any reasonable person even begin to hint that such
might ever be the case;
c) the inalienable right of any parent to custody of his or her children is an
ancient right;
d) the same right to custody of children is well established under law, and
even obvious;
e) the easily-grasped and basic principle of equal protection under the law;
and, that
23
f) therefore, there must be some sort of problem with the ability of Virginia
state courts to consistently dispense fair and equitable justice when making child
custody determinations between divorced, separated, or unmarried parents.
76.Yet, Defendant Hassell has a clear legal duty and responsibility, under both –
his oath to uphold the Constitution, and also Virginia law – to either correct, and/or
cause the correction of, any such practices or policies that fail to protect the legal
interests or rights of United States citizens under his jurisdiction and/or authority.
77.As Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Defendant Hassell serves as the
administrative head of Virginia's judicial system, and is charged with overseeing
the efficient and effective operation of the entire system – a system which cannot
be deemed “efficient and effective” if it is often failing to protect the legal interests
or rights of many thousands of United States citizens.
78.Further, as presiding officer of the Judicial Council of Virginia, Defendant
Hassell is charged with the responsibility of making a continuous study of the
organization, rules, and methods of procedure and practice of the judicial system of
the Commonwealth, and he is ultimately responsible also for examining the work
accomplished and results produced by the system and its individual offices and
courts.
79.Therefore, under the two aforementioned administrative roles, and at least
Virginia Code §§ 1-17.2, 2.2-3900, and 2.2-3901, Defendant Hassell’s duty and
24
responsibility, to either correct, or cause to be corrected, a judicial system which is
failing to protect the legal interests or rights of many thousands of United States
citizens, is clear in this matter, in addition to that same duty and responsibility
under and by his multiple sworn oaths.
80.Defendant Hassell has therefore either willfully, recklessly, and/or
negligently allowed the unlawful standard practice or policy that continues to cause
the Plaintiffs to suffer, and failed to prevent the same standard practice or policy
from causing the future suffering of, the resulting constitutional injuries to
custodial rights as above-described.
81.The Plaintiffs are entitled to all appropriate declaratory, injunctive,
prohibition and/or mandamus relief from this Court, all as demanded and requested
by and through the Plaintiffs’ prayers for relief respectively listed under section
"G" of this pleading below.
82.The Plaintiffs further note that regardless of the course of these proceedings,
nor the length of time expended herein, Defendant Hassell has been duly notified
of all the above, has an indisputable affirmative duty to immediately correct, or
cause the immediate correction of, such violative practices, and can now be held
liable via his individual capacity, for either neglecting, refusing, or otherwise
failing to even attempt that duty within a reasonably short period of time.
G. Prayers for Relief
25
83.Plaintiffs pray this Court that all issues in this cause be tried to a jury to the
extent they are so triable under the Seventh Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
84.Plaintiffs pray this Court for a just, sufficient, and reasonable award of
various damages, against Defendant Commonwealth of Virginia, and the same
upon its estate and all holdings, present and future, in the aggregate value of
$1,000,000.00 payable per Plaintiff, including all judgment interest obtainable
pursuant to 28 USC § 1961(a), and accruing thereon, executable upon all monies,
property, chattels, assets, goods, pecuniary interests, and anything whatsoever of
any value, tangible or intangible, that may be owned or controlled, wholly or
partially, by said Defendant, along with execution and/or garnishment against all of
said Defendant's forms of income, interests, or any other earnings, present and
future, all and the same until such time as said judgment(s) is/are satisfied as to the
Plaintiffs' favor, paid in full, or otherwise settled by lawful agreement.
85.Plaintiffs pray this Court for an appropriate portion of the above-sought
damages to be in the form of directing the Defendant to provide the Plaintiffs with
various compensatory tax treatment(s) as previous "noncustodial" parents, for a
fixed term of years, in reconciliation and balance for previous and existing
disparately applied custodial tax benefits and tax preferences.
26
86.Plaintiffs pray this Court for an appropriate portion of the above-sought
damages, to be in the form of execution against unused, abandoned, or unnecessary
state property and assets, with disbursement of these damages by liquidation or
direct transfer of title.
87.Plaintiffs pray this Court to direct that Defendant Commonwealth of Virginia
pay back, to the federal government, and in a manner specified by the Court, all
appropriate portions of federal funding monies obtained under fraudulent or
otherwise unlawful acquisitions thereof.
88.Plaintiffs, and on behalf of all citizens of the United States, and on behalf of
all other persons or entities that may also either be, or become, parties to domestic
relations cases, or related types of cases, within Defendant Commonwealth of
Virginia’s courts, pray this Court to cause and enforce the immediate prohibition of
all above described violative practices, by issuing an appropriate declaratory and/or
injunctive order permanently enjoining the same, as to and against any or all of the
individually named Defendants herein.
89.Plaintiffs pray this Court grant an award against the Defendants, severally or
jointly, recompensing their costs of litigation, including all reasonable expenses
and fees therein.
90.Plaintiffs also pray this Court grant and compel all such other and further
relief deemed just and proper in the premises.
27
WHEREFORE, the undersigned Principal Plaintiff, Harold E. Leist,
individually, and on behalf of all putative plaintiffs so similarly situated (together,
“the Class”), now and together pray this Court for the above described forms of
relief, and/or all such substantially similar relief; and, for all other relief that is just
and proper in the premises.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________Harold E. Leist
28