Virginia Petition For Writ of Quo Warranto Vs James Renwick Manship

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, IT
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
July 6, 2012
BY UPS GROUND DELIVERY
Honorable Edward Semonian, Jr., Clerk
Alexandria Circuit Court
Courthouse
520 King Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Re: Commonwealth of Virginia v. James Renwick Manship
Dear Mr. Semonian:
900 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-786-2071
FAX 804-786-1991
Vtrginia Relay Services
800-828-1120
7-1-1
Enclosed for filing is a Petition for a Writ of Quo Warranto (with attachments), and a
proposed Order. I have enclosed an additional copy of the Petition, and request that it be stamped
and mailed back to this office in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope.
Pursuant to Virginia Code 1 7.1-266, I understand that the Commonwealth is not
required to pay filing fees associated with bringing this case. If I am in error, please let me know
at (804)786-8198. Likewise, if you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Enclosures
/cc: James R. Manship
John D. Gilbody
Assistant Attorney
VIRGINIA:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Petitioner,
v. Case No.
------
JAMES RENWICK MANSHIP, SR.
Respondent.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO
TO: The Honorable Judges of the Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria
The Commonwealth of Virginia, through the Office of the Attorney General of Virginia,
hereby petitions this Court for a Writ of Quo Warranto under Virginia Code 8.01-636 and
8.01-637 to be issued, thereby enjoining James Renwick Manship, Sr. from practicing law in
Virginia for the following reasons:
1. James Renwick Manship, Sr. ("respondent") is an individual who is not licensed
or authorized to practice law in Virginia.
2. The Office of the Attorney General (the "OAG") received information from the
Virginia State Bar ("Bar") that Respondent has engaged in activities that constituted the
unauthorized practice oflaw. In addition, the OAG is aware of other instances where the
respondent has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
3. The respondent lives at 203 North Fairfax Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
4. On January 6, 2011, the respondent attempted to observe a visit between a child in
foster care and that child's grandparent, Delores Heffernan. The respondent identified himself as
"counsel" for Mrs. Heffernan to a social worker. The respondent's request to observe the visit
was denied. At that time the respondent provided a business card that identifies the respondent,
inter alia, as "Court Counsel" and "Counselor OF Law." See Exhibit A.
5. On February 28, 2011, the respondent filed a pleading in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Virginia relating to the incarceration of Jeffery Franklin
Washington. See Exhibit B. In this pleading, the respondent describes his role as "Authorized
'Advocate' for Pardon of J.F. Washington." While the precise purpose for the pleading is not
clear, the document asserts that Mr. Washington was wrongly incarcerated as the result of some
alleged plot among the seven defendants.
6. On March 18,2011, the respondent appeared in the Arlington Circuit Court with
Ms. Heffernan. She identified the respondent as her court reporter.
7. On March 24, 2011, the respondent accompanied Ms. Heffernan to the Arlington
County Department of Human Services ("DHS") for a visitation with a child. The respondent
presented a document that purports to be a Power of Attorney("POA") executed by the a child's
grandparent. See Exhibit C. The respondent insisted that the POA gave him the authority to be
present during the visitation.
8. On May 16, 2011, the respondent attempted to appear at a court hearing in
Warren County Circuit Court in the matter of Masters v. Conley, CL1 0-585. The respondent
argued that under the provisions of the Virginia Code addressing powers of attorney, he was
entitled to acts as counsel for defendant Conley. The Court did not allow the respondent to act
as counsel for defendant Conley.
9. On May 26, 2011, a pleading was sent via facsimile to Warren County from
"States Manship" in the Masters case. See Exhibit D. The pleading is similar in style and
2
content to other pleadings filed the respondent and the moniker "States Manship" is used by the
respondent in writings he has published on the internet. Petitioner believes that respondent is the
author of this document, and will seek to determine this through discovery.
10. On June 1, 2011, the respondent filed a "Complaint ofViolation ofVirginia Law
by Arlington Public Servants" in Arlington Circuit Court. In that complaint, the respondent
identified himself as the "Next Friend" oftwo individuals named Ashlie and Sabrina. See
Exhibit E. The respondent is not related to either minor, nor does he have custodial relationship
with either minor.
11. On September 16, 2011, the respondent filed a "Complaint and Emergency
Motion for Restraining Order" in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia purporting to be on behalf of eight children to whom he is not related. See Exhibit F.
This action was dismissed on December 27, 2011.
12. On October 14, 2011, respondent filed an "Appearance of Counsel" form in
Arlington Circuit Court. See Exhibit G (the POA form, attached as Exhibit C, was attached to
the original but excluded here). According to a stamp on the document, the "Appearance of
Counsel" was also filed in Arlington Juvenile & Domestic Court later that month.
13. On December 15, 2011, a document entitled "Complaint of Malicious Prosecution
by Arlington County Against Grandmother D. O'Brien Heffernan with 12/9/10022 Not Guilty
Verdict Being "Not Unfavorable" to Plaintiff' was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia and signed by Delores O'Brien Heffernan. The document is
attached as Exhibit H, and resembles in style and content the pleadings authored by Mr.
Manship. Notably, the document contains a Certificate of Service that includes the statement
"Karen Grane, who properly should NOT be the beneficiary of representation by the Assistant
3
Attorney General." This exact same language is used in the certificates of service signed by Mr.
Manship in the other federal case involving Ms. Grane. Given this similarity, and the fact that
the address listed on the Complaint is that of Manship, the Commonwealth believes that Mr.
Manship likely authored this document.
14. On June 21, 2012, the respondent filed a "Petition for Interlocutory Appeal" in teh
Supreme Court of Virginia. See Exhibit I. According to the caption, this filing purports to
pertain to several cases pending in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Arlington
County. The respondent is not a party in interest in that matter.
15. The actions described above fall within the Supreme Court ofVirginia's definition
of the practice oflaw and violate the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Part 6, Section I,
(UPR) 1-101,2-103, and 2-104. Contrary to the respondent's representations in courts in the
Commonwealth, a signed power of attorney does not and cannot authorize a non-lawyer to
represent another party.
16. Virginia Code 8.01-261(14) (a) provides that venue shall be in this Court as the
Respondent resides in the City of Alexandria.
WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth of Virginia petitions this Court to issue a Writ of
Quo Warranto to be prosecuted against James Renwick Manship, Sr. pursuant to Va. Code
8.01-636(2a), to determine whether James Renwick Manship, Sr. has engaged in the
unauthorized practice oflaw. In the event that James Renwick Manship, Sr. is found to have
engaged in such practice, the Commonwealth requests that he be permanently enjoined from
engaging in such acts in Virginia and that he reimburse the Commonwealth for its fees and costs
in prosecuting this action. A proposed Writ is attached.
4
Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General of Virginia
Wesley G. Russell, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General
Peter R. Messitt
Senior Assistant Attorney General
John D. Gilbody (VSB No. 42788)
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
900 East Main Street
(804) 786-2071 (Telephone)
(804) 371-2087 (Facsimile)
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
By:
I, John D. Gilbody, Assistant Attorney General, declare upon information and belief that
the statements contained in the foregoing Petition are true.
5
CITY OF RICHMOND ~
Sworn and subscribed before me t h i s ~ oay of July, 2012 by John D. Gilbody,
Assistant Attorney General.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this 6th day of July 2012, I mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, a
true copy of the foregoing to:
James Renwick Manship, Sr.
203 North Fairfax Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
6
VIRGINIA:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Petitioner,
v. Case No.
------
JAMES RENWICK MANSIDP, SR.
Respondent.
WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO
WHEREAS the Petition by the Commonwealth of Virginia has been presented to this
Court praying that a Writ of Quo Warranto issue against James Renwick Manship, Sr.,
WHEREAS, in the opinion of this Court, the reasons set forth in the Petition are
sufficient at law;
NOW, THEREFORE, you are hereby commanded in the name of the Commonwealth of
Virginia to summon James Renwick Manship, Sr. to appear on the __ day of ____ _
2012, at am/pm. before this Court, to show by what warrant or authority of law the
respondent has provided legal services to others, undertaken the representation of others before
administrative, state or federal courts, and/or held himself out as authorized or qualified to
practice law in Virginia, by serving a true copy of this writ and a copy of this petition (including
service by Sheriff or a private process server) upon:
203 North Fairfax Street
VA 22314
If personal service is not possible, posted service shall be effected.
WITNESS this signature of the Judge of this Court. Attested by the Clerk of this Court in
the City of Alexandria this __ day of _____ , 2012.
Judge
Attestation:
--------------
Clerk of the Circuit Court
2
Amos 5:15-
"Hate evil &
Love the Good.
Remodel your
(',ourts into
True Halls of
Justice."
Stop Imbala.nce
by Da.r Mcmbe!'s
COURT REPOBTEB.
Court Counsel (not "legal counsel", nor "Bar")
Counselor OF Law & Citizen Ra.gh.ts in Court
Counselor in the "Court of Public Opinion"
Advocate ofLeglslati.on, Online Legal. Research
(former Nauy Cryptology, "Decode" Codes of Law)
(Best in Natr:on awardltR Crypto Commanding Officer, 1985)
STATESlVI.Al.VSHIP PAB.TNEB.S
Box76
Mount Vernon, V"xrginia 22121-0076
AgvocateNoJurYNg_Justice.org
tel: 703 .. NRAl77S
Case 5:11-cv-00014-JP.. . of 22 Pageid#: 3
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Harrisonburg Division
James Renwick Manship, Sr. 1
God and Country Foundation, Chairman & Counselor 1
Chaplain, Amos 5:15 Project - "Remodel your Courts Into True Halls of Justice."
Authorized "Advocate" for Pardon of J. F. Washington
Plaintiff, Pro Se, In Forma Pauperis
versus
Paul H. Thomson, 'prosecutor' 1986-2002, recently arrested
John E. Wetsel, Jr., formerly recused 'Hitler' trial judge, now presiding
John R. Prosser, former "Alford Plea" Defense Attorney, now judge
David P. Sobonya, former Police Detective, investigated, now FBI
James K. Bailous, former Police Detective, twice terminated
Alexander R. lden, 'prosecutor', 2002 to present, obstructed justice
Marc Abrams, "#2 prosecutor", assistant to both Thomson and lden
Wnchester Courts Criminal Justice System workers, past or present 1
Co - Conspirators, & Defendants 1
a..ERK'S OFFICE U.S. DIST. COURT
AT VA
FILED
FEB 2 8 2011

JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
AS IN 2008 "BROKEN GAVEL" JUQGE CONVICTIONS, VIOLATIONS OF THE
RACKETEER INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT 18 USC 1962(C)
1. "BROKEN GAVEL" is the legal code name for the conspiracy of two judges and a
bondsman who were prosecuted beginning 10 October 2007 and convicted in the Western
District of Louisiana under the direction of a black man named Donald Washington.
2. "BROKEN BALANCE .. or "BROKEN BALANCE OF JUSTICE .. are fitting options for
code names for the conspiracy of two judges, two elected local prosecutors and an
assistant prosecutor, and two policemen, in the Western District of Virginia, all named
above, in their ongoing "un-balanced" conspiracy to cover-up crimes all the way back to
16 August 1994, painstakingly exposed by a black man named Franklin washington.
3. Donald washington served as aU. S. Attorney. Franklin Washington served as a
factory worker. Yet in the minds of common Citizens, in We the People, in OUR
Courts, federal courts or state courts -- position, power or privilege are n'?t rightly
determinants for advancing Justice by one, while for the other, Justice denied.
"Broken Gavel" or "Broken Balance of Justice" RICO Complaint against Winchester
page 1 of 22
Case 5:11-cv-00014-JP.. Document 2 Filed 02/28/11 Page:._ of 22 Pageid#: 4
4. For Truth and Justice to survive in our Courts, an unbiased judge must zealously honor
Due Process Rights to promote BALANCE of Defense Counsels' effective - and honest-
advocacy with the actions and antics of the Prosecution with its Police and Forensic
resources. Nortbem Virgjnja Daily ace-reporter, Darcy Spencer, broke the story of 4
Apri11995 about trial Judge Wetsel IN COURT on 3April1995 comparing an
innocent Anny Veteran Jeff Washington to Adolf Hitler. (Court Transcripts show
Judge Wetsel compared Washington to Hiller on BOTH 3 and 4 April1995, so NO
cover-up excuse of a "one-time slip of the tongue" II) No right thinking American
Citizen, Judge, or member of the Bar should call Trial Judge John E. Wetsel, Jr. an
unbiased judge. The "Prosecution" were Thomson and Abrams, the Police were Sobonya
and Bailous, the ineffective, and according to his own penmanship notes, dishonest
Defense Counsel, was Prosser. lden joined in the conspiracy of Thomson, Abrams,
Sobonya, Bailous, Prosser and VVetsel after he defeated Thomson by 423 votes in
November a.d. 2001, after the media exposed Paul Thomson in many illegal or improper
"after hour antics". lden perpetuated the corruption of the office of Paul Thomson by hiring his
aide Abrams. Uke as is writlen in the BROKEN GAVEL INDICTMENT 5:07 CR- 50097:
A. AT ALL TIMES MATERIAL HEREIN:
1. The defendant, JOHN E. WETSEL, Jr., is a public officer holding a high-level,
decision making position, namely a judge elected by the General Assembly of
Virginia, serving in the 26th Judicial District of Virginia.
2. The defendant, PAUL H. THOMSON, is a public officer holding a high-level decision
making position, namely the elected Commonwealth Attorney from 1986 to 2002,
and then an "Officer of the Court" as a member of the Virginia State Bar, to present.
page 2of22
Case 5: 11-cv-00014-JP... Document 2 Filed 02/28/11 Page; _ of 22 Pageid#: 5
3. The defendant, JOHN R. PROSSER, was an "Officer of the Court" as a member of
the Virginia State Bar, on or before 16 August 1994, when he assumed the duty as
Defense Counsel for Army Veteran Jeffrey Franklin Washington, until1995 when
he, Prosser, did the "Fee, Plea, and Flee" concept of Defense Counsel Advocacy, by
undermining, and then leaving the case without pursuing any Appeal, and then
Prosser was rewarded for his "cooperation" in the Alford Plea Agreement with his
nomination to be judge, where Prosser is now a public officer holding a high-level,
decision making position, namely a judge elected by the General Assembly of
Virginia, serving in the 26th Judicial District of Virginia.
Thank God for small favors, a curious 11 days after
\!JttThe

Ex-commonwealth's attomey amsted
Paul Thomson was arrested by Federal law
enforcement authorities, and the same day,
21 January 2011, as the Petition for a Special Grand Jury of Plaintiff Manship where
Judge Prosser was named as a subject for investigation, Judge Prosser submitted a
"surprise" retirement letter to the Chief Justice of the Virginia supreme Court.
4. On or about 25 July 2008, Plaintiff Manship, a man who has testified in 1990
before Congress on a bill to help the Coast Guard better fight the Drug War
and in 2007 had served as a Drug Demand Reduction Officer for the
Civil Air Patrol, was "by accident" or by Divine Providence, in the Courtroom
of Judge Prosser, to witness a fairly pretty white woman found Guilty by
Judge Prosser on TEN DRUG CHARGES, but then Judgef'rlcsserstrangely
SUSPENDED ALL JAIL 11ME ON AU.. TEN CHARGES. That"SWeelheartDeal" by
Pn:Jsser did "not pass the smel11est''. A co-witness was present to corroborate the event
page 3of 22
Case 5:11-cv-00014-JP... Document 2 Filed 02/28/11 Page . of 22 Pageid#: 6
5. The Defendant, David P. Sobonya, is a public officer holding a mid-level, decision
making position, namely in recent years an FBI employee with access to Case files
as a FOIA inquiry response employee, and until some months after a Winchester
City Council Closed Session Personnel Committee meeting that followed a Police
"lntemallnvestigation" demanded by Franklin Washington, father of "inmate" Jeffrey
Franklin Washington, who is the victim of Evidence Tampering, by then Investigator
Sobonya. Sobonya served as a Police Investigator in Winchester, Virginia from
16 August 1994 or before, until leaving the Winchester Police force in 2008. Police
notes of 02/17/1999 shCM' Investigator Sobonya was present at an "emergency'' meeting
with high-level city leaders within 20 minutes or so of learning from a Confidential
Informant, that Commonwealth Attorney, now Defendant, Paul Thomson was:
"skimming money from drug dealers".
Policeman Sobonya allowed Paul Thomson to remain in a position of trust
The Police Notes show Thomson's drug connection was reported to the FBI.
No FBI investigation report is known to exist Now Sobonya works for the FBI.
Defendant FBI agent Sobonya was subpoened by Defendant Alex lden to
testify to the Winchester Grand Jury that met on 15 February 2011, an odd or
unusual or improper procedure by lden and Sobonya, if not quite illegal.
6. The defendant, ALEXANDER R. IDEN, is a public officer holding a high-level
decision making position, namely the elected Commonwealth Attorney from 2002 to
present, previously a City Councilman (maybe one of the City Leaders who
learned of Paul Thomson skimming money from drug dealers on
02117/1999 ?) and prior to that, an "Officer of the Court" as a member of the Virginia
"Broken Gavel" or "Broken Balance of Justicen RICO Complaint against Winchester
page 4of 22
Case 5:11-cv-00014-JP.. Document 2 Filed 02/28/11 Page _of 22 Pageid#: 7
State Bar. Since assuming office in 2002, Defendant lden has been involved in a
number of "cover-up" crimes in the Obstruction of Justice by his efforts blocking, or
delaying, the release of Exculpatory Evidence in the case of innocent Army Veteran
Jeffrey Franklin Washington.
7. The defendant, MARC ABRAMS, is a public officer holding a mid-level decision
making position, namely second to the elected Commonwealth Attorney, both
Thomson and lden, from on or about 16 August 1994 to present, and prior to that,
an "Officer of the Court" as a member of the Virginia State Bar. Defendant Abrams
has been involved in a number of "cover-up" crimes in the Obstruction of Justice by
his efforts blocking, or delaying, the release of Exculpatory Evidence in the case of
innocent Army Veteran Jeffrey Franklin Washington.
8. In the same Police Chief letter of 28 July 1999, where the Bailous termination was
mentioned, Chief Gary Reynolds also echoed Defendant Thomson's words that he,
Thomson, had made a "mess" of the Washington case. In that same letter, Police
Chief Reynolds also suggested that an investigation be conducted by the Attorney
General or the Supreme Court, as long as the facts were presented. No such
investigation was ever conducted of Thomson's drug connections or his other mess,
and lden did not "clean up the mess" when he was elected in 2001 to replace Thomson.
9. The Defendant, James K. Bailous, was a public officer holding a mid-level, decision
making position, namely served as a Police Investigator in Winchester, Virginia until
he was terminated in 1999, near which time Defendant Paul Thomson protested to
Police Chief Gary Reynolds the "ourprise" termination of Investigator Bailous. A
revised personnel action removed the stain of termination from the Bailous file.
page 5of22
Case 5:11-cv-00014-JP.. Document 2 Filed 02/28/11 Page of 22 Pageid#: 8
1 0. Bailous was later terminated from the Berryville Police Department, reportedly for
being caught having sex with a citizen in the back seat of a police cruiser. Similar
antics by Bailous outside of his uniform circulate about the town of Winchester.
11. The wife of Police Investigator Bailous was a first cousin to Murder suspect
John Coleman, so to avoid Conflict of Interest, Bailous should NEVER have been
involved in the case. Transcripts show Bailous was "secretly'' present on 17
August 1994 when witness Rudy Powell said that "John Coleman did it'', and later
Doleman had a POSITIVE Gun Shot Residue Test, yet Policeman Bailous steeled
the investigation toward the innocentAnny Veteran Jeffrey Franklin Washington.
12.Aconspiracy of Police Investigator Bailous whose Cortllia of Interest from the beginnirlJ on a
about 16August 1994, is simply appaDing. Bailous ''silenced" witness Rudy Powell after
he identified a white man, Scott .Jackson as a likely white gunman, while identifying
John Doleman as the man who did it, yet the Bailous aines were alla..Yed and covered-up
by Police lnvestiga1Dr Sobonya, who covered-up the testimony ofKris1en Black about a
whits man named Scott who gave the murder victim $1000. Sobonya also did Evk:tenoe
Tanpering altering the prqJer oompletion oflle GSR Tests, with slight variance in his notes of
1 and 8 September 1994, shoNing a cover-up. Suborning Perjury, or wtness Tanpering, is
shown in Paul Thomson's "Plea Agreements" wilh several drug dealers. Sobonya aiiCMied
and covered-up the ''skimming money fran dnJg dealers" report of02117/1999
describing CornmonweaHh Attorney Paul Thomson. Reports exist of a1lomey John R.
Prosser being involved with drug use, and with an unstated Conflict of Interest as Rudy
Powell's former counsel A page of no1Bs in Prosser's own penmanship that stONS
many reasons any competent counsel VIIOUid have gone to a jury 1rial, yet he coerced a Plea.
"Broken Gavel" or aBroken Balance of Justice" RICO Complaint against Winchester
page 6of 22
Case 5:11-cv-00014-JP... Document 2 Filed 02/28/11 Page of 22 Pageid#: g
Penmanship of Prosser - multiple indicators of innocence of his client
Jeffrey Franklin Washington, yet Prosser, Thomson & Judge Wetsel together ooen:ect an Alford Plea.
G:t.o r<=:l-
h'or J:Ck "'-'-f-t./
-
A-wf ..

........................ . .......................... ..

A' crime scenejwith a ;
.. =..:....;- !WHITE MAN hair fiber inside.:

;S1x W1tnesses and Poliqemen say:
. 1 was a White Man gun man. 1
;Jeff Washington is a Blaek Man. :
. ._ . .
CL:..I'fC,.rV - -- ------- -
Olo..t..._,__
k.m'..eu. -.Sifo-l
Ct:>l-w..ve J -J. .... CoM, _-i:> C'U<"
page 7of 22
Case 5:11-cv-00014-JP... Oocument 2 Filed 02/28/11 Page _ Jf 22 Pageid#: 10
Jeffery Franklin Washington
ak.a. Private Jeffery Washington, US Army, Honorable Discharge, 12/311993
Inmate 11226337 DOB: 26 November 1972 SSN: 230-98-6217
Greenville Correctional Facility, Housing Unit 9-121
The Honorable Tim Kaine
Governor of Virginia
1111 East Broad Street,
Dear Governor Kaine:
901 Correctional Way, Jarratt, Virginia 23870
Thursday, 25 September 2008
I am writing to authorize James Renwick Manship, Sr. of the God and Country Foundation of
Mount Vernon, Vtrginia to act on my behalf working with your assistants and with you as
Governor to Issue a Pardon, either Absolute or Conditional, as your legal counsel advlaea
may be best In my case after a careful re-reading of the U.S. supreme Court case of /J.QcJh
Carolina ANortl. I pray in the name of all that is Good and Just, you grant me a Pardon.
I believe in part due to the stress caused by this whole ordeal, my beloved and ever faithful
father suffered a stroke a few years ago, and so readily admits his reduced ability to focus on
the key issues of my case rather than getting overwhelmed in the nearly endless sea of details.
A preacher, Constitution teacher, court reporter, both as a transcriber and a journalist, a Major in
the Civil Air Patrol as a Drug Demand Reduction Officer, who in college at Auburn University
served as the Student Government Association Director of Legal Aid, James Renwick Manship
has recently come to aid my father who Is still being assisted by other friends and family in
Winchester. Ever faithful, my father has labored long and lovingly for years to regain my Uberty.
1 believe an Absolute Pardon is warranted, yet conversation between Mr. Manship and the
Deputy Secretary of the Commonwealth Bernie Henderson on Monday, 15 September
suggested the course of seeking a Conditional Pardon. The Conditional Pardon Is based on
(1) my 14 years of Good Behavior, (2) a Rehabilitation Plan for me to comply with upon your
granting the Conditional Pardon, and (3) is Justified Q two forenalc Lab Evidence letters that
proves I did not fire the murder weawn wbile a Prosecution Wjtness against me djd fire a gun.
TWo Forensic Lab letters that prove my innocence were never seen by the Jury,- or mel
1 ask that if you can not see from the above, and previously provided documents, that you
consider this a "Work in Progress". Please state what else is needed to meet your requirements
so that my wonderful father and his assistant, Mr. Manship, may work to meet your request.
In this Petition for Pardon, I authorize James Renwick Manship to represent me, respond to any
additional information inquiries you as Governor or your aides may request, and to modify the
prepared documents so to conform with the requirements of the Governor or his staff as
necessary to achieve either a Conditional or Absolute Pardon.
May God bless and inspire your "thoughts, words and worlcn as George Washington prayed,
and as a 20 year old man he wrote in his Tuesday morning prayer:
"bless the people ... be ... a comfolfflr to the comfortless, a deliverer to the captives ... "
.;?f: en .. 9; .-.c:.'J / t7 J'
J LYNN DRIVER
NOTARY PUBLIC
Commonwealth of Virginia
Reg. t# . J . 1
My Commission Expires 3/ .31.3_

.t1i't\
page 8of 22
Case 5:11-cv-00014-JP.. Oocument 2 Filed 02/28/11 Page _ Jf 22 Pageid#: 11
13.Given that Plaintiff Manship wrote to Judge Wetsel on 24 October a.d. 2008, seeking
the Judge to act in accordance with Virginia supreme Court Rule 1.1, to declare VOID Ab
Initio the Paul Thomson prepared and seriously flawed "Alford Plea" Plea Agreement,
signed in his Court on 28 February a. d. 1995. despite the fact that the Plea Agreement
included two Abduction charges that Judge Wetsel in December 1994 had written a letter
to prosecutor Thomson stating did not apply in this case based on recent case law. And
paragraph 4 of the Thomson Plea Agreement that was COERCED upon Jeffrey Franklin
Washington by a Conspiracy between Prosecutor Thomson, Defense Counsel Prosser,
and blind-eye acceptance of trial Judge Wetsel, provided that Washington could withdraw
from the Plea Agreement if it was changed. AFTER SIGNATURE BY WASHINGTON,
the two abduction charges were removed, as they had been removed BEFORE signing
the Plea Agreements with John Doleman and others. That change "invokes" the "escape
clause" of Paragraph 4, yet Washington was NOT given his Plea Agreement "Contractual
Righf to withdraw from the Plea. While not online in the 2011 Rules of the Virginia
supreme Court, the 2002 Michie printed book of Rules of Virginia supreme Court, on
page 4 are five applicable paragraphs with titles:
Time limH not applicable to orders void ab initio.
"Void Judgment"
Void decree or order is a nullity
This rule is not a limitation on power and authority of court to vacate void order.
Judgmen1s that are void may be attacked in any court at any time.
14.Judge Wetsel ignored Plaintiff Manship's letter, so Plaintiff Manship testified against
Wetsel in the Courts of Justice Committees on 4 February 2009, to torpedo Wetsel's
ambitions to serve on the Court of Appeals of Virginia, yet John Wetsel failed to honor
Canons of Judicial Conduct to recuse himself as Presiding Judge over the Grand Jury.
page 9of22
Case 5:11-cv-00014-JPJ .Jocument 2 Filed 02/28/11 Page . _of 22 Pageid#: 12
15.Judge Wetsel conspired to deny the Plaintiff fair access to the Grand Jury by writing
and issuing to the Grand Jury instructions that contained (1) False Statements, (2)
Misleading Statements, or (3) Statements based on out of date Court handbooks, all as
part of a conspiracy with others named above, lden and Sobonya, to wrongfully influence
the deliberations of the Grand Jury of Winchester on 15 February anno domini 2011.
16.And even in the mere proceeding as the presiding judge over this Winchester Regular
Grand Jury where the Plaintiff was seeking "a Special Grand Jury composed of
from seven to eleven citizens of a city or county, selected by the Circuit Court and
summoned to Investigate any condition which tends to promote criminal
activity in the community or by any governmental authority, agency or official."
"The Special Grand Jury, composed entirely of private citizens, is the one non-
political body with legal authority to make such investigations."
Wetsel violated the Canons of Judicial Conduct in his Conflict of Interest as the trial
judge on the case the Petitioner was seeking the Special Grand Jury to investigate.
17. 'Prosecutor' Paul H. Thomson is related to a powerful political dynasty of Virginia,
and for over two decades acted with the attitude of "Commonwealth laws for common
folk did not apply to him", as one of his fellow Commonwealth Attorneys said to the
Plaintiff on 9 December 201 0 after Manship spoke to the Criminal Justice Services
Board, "Yeah, Paul had an overly inflated view of himself." and then suggested the
word, "Hubris", the Greek word for "Pride before the Fall". On or about 4 January
2011, Manship met with Virginia State Police Detective Martin Chapman to address
the corruptions and conspiracy of the case of Thomson against Jeff Washington and report
the "Thomson is skimming money from drug dealers" in the 02/17/1999 Police Notes.
page 10of 22
Case 5:11-cv-00014-JPJ .Jocument 2 Filed 02/28/11 Page .. of 22 Pageid#: 13
18.0n 10 January a.d. 2011, Paul Thomson was arrested for Evidence Tampering,
Witness Tampering, with Drug Possession charges added days later in a recent case,
yet the same type of behavior Thomson practiced in his case against Washington.
19.0n 18August a.d. 2009, Paul Thomson running chased Manship walking down the.
street, yelling at and making threats at Plaintiff Manship when as a Process Server,
Manship gave the document below where the above quote is on the bottom of the first page.
Also is shovm the "Stamped In" stamp of Defendant Alex lden and the Circuit Court Clerk:

M< .m
THE COMMONWEAlTH OF VIRGINIA:
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE CITY OF WINCHESTER AND FREDERICK COUNTY
Jeffrey Franklin Washington, (W) Army Veteran, Inmate 1226377
Pet111oner, In Fonna Pauperis. Pro Se
v. CBseNo. __
Commonwealth of VIrginia, llmothy Kaine, Governor, 2006-present JURY TRIAL
and DEMANDED
John R. Wel&el, Jr., (A) "Adolf.._.,-judge 1994 - present
and
Paul Hampton Thomson, (T) Commonwealth Attorney, 1986-2002 f) ('fj
and 1 (W),'
R. AleJcander !den, Commonwealth Attorney, 2002-present
I Respondents I
MODON fOR miAL BY JURY PVE m FORENSIC pBQSEC!.DpR!AL & JUQJC!AL
M!SCQNQLJCI TO DECLARE VOIQ "BBAPY VIOLATION" CQEBCEQ "ALFORD PLEA"
1. OJtraged Is the sense of Justice of the great good wisdom of the American People
from whom Is derived the Authority U1l8d and abused by elecled 8eiVIIIIIs such as the
named past and present Commonwealth Attorneys of Wlnches!Br, and judges llke
Wetsel elec:IBd by the General Assembly, when Citizens learn 110m Court Tranacrlpls of
3 April 1995, a week before "Unbiased judge" Wetsel issued his sentence ol70 years in
prison on an Alford Plea" "oonviccion" in the Commcll...alth C8lle against Jeffrey
Frenld!n Wuhlngtan. '1udge" Wetael companldlhe Army Veteran to Adolf Hlll4lrl
2. The Outrage esca1a1es when the Wise and just Amertc:an People learn that former
elected servant Commonwealth Attorney Paul Hampton 'l"hommlan - "ttlttmmtng
lfiGIJffY ,_ dnlg dlelers" acconllng tD Pollc:e ftOiell dated 02117199.
page 11 of 22
20.Northern Virginia Daily ace reporter Alex Bridges wrote in his article on 16 February
about the 15 February 2011 Grand Jury:
The eight-person panel came out of the secret deliberations after more than
three hours. Spokesman Michael Buller, a fonner city councilman, told Wetsel
that, after examining evidence presented to them, they did not wish to be
impaneled as a special grand jury.
That "clue" - '1onner city councilman" with added research reveals unstated Conflicts of
Interest of the Jury Foreman of the 15 February Regular Grand Jury ofWnchester. The
presiding judge, John Wetsel, despite his two days of back to back "Hitler''
comparisons to Army Veteran VVashington, and having been PREVIOUSLY RECUSED from
this \Nashington case, failed to self-recuse, and now refuses to "allow'' the Motion for
Rehearing to proceed in his letter to Plaintiff Manship dated February 18, 2011.
21.0n 19 January 2011, Plaintiff Manship with Franklin Washington and his loyal aide
met in the Culpeper Regional Office of the Virginia state Police with Orange County
Commonwealth Attorney Diana Wheeler and Detective Eric Deel, who resides in
Winchester, an apparent Conflict of Interest when investigating the "brotherhood" of law
enforcement agents in Winchester. Repeatedly Mrs. Wheeler used the phrase, "This does
not pass the smell test." when listening to Petitioner testimony where Prosser was a key
suspect. The Paragraph 4, July 2008 Prosser permissive drug "rulings" were nearly a
month before Petitioner Manship on 22 August 2008 FIRST learned of the Paul Thomson,
Commonwealth Attorney, Drug related Murder case of Carlos Marshall where John
Prosser was the incredibly inept "Defense Counsel" who badgered, conspiring with
the prosecutor, to COERCE his client to accept an Alford Plea on 28 February 1995,
"Broken Gavel or "Broken Balance of Justice RICO Complaint against Winchester
page 12of 22
Case 5:11-cv-00014-JPJ .Jocument 2 Filed 02/28/11 Page . ~ o f 22 Pageid#: 15
despite even his own penmanship notes (ABOVE) from early in the case that showed
MANY, MANY reasons that his client was NOT GUILTY, and SO MANY reasons that
even an honest FIRST YEAR LAW STUDENT could have gained a Jury Acquittal.
22.Presiding Judge over the Regular Grand Jury of 15 February a.d. 2011 was
Prosser's bench colleague, J.E. Wetsel, who despite MULTIPLE Conflicts of
Interest in the case before the Grand Jury FAILED to "Self-Recuse", despite BOTH
judges by letter (attached) being forced to Recuse themselves by Franklin
Washington aided by the presence of Court Reporter, and now Plaintiff Manship:
VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF WINCHESTER
FRANKLIN WASHINGTON. ProSe
v.
CML CASE NO. CLQ8..324
UNOA LOGAN, VaKey Reporting Agency, and
LANELL HOCKMAN
On the 'z2C day ct Aupt, 2008, the Hononlble John R. Prosier. Judge,
entered an Oilier I'8CU8Ing hlmtelf fn:lm hearing lhls case; lllld on the 28" clay of
August. 2008, the Honorable John E. Weisel. Jr., Judge, trilnd 1111 order I1ICUSi!g
hlmllell f ~ llearlng lha capllonld casa. The clefendanla In 11118 Clll8 are court
reporlin who l1lgUfariy report In !he Circuli Cc11n11 ct Fradallck Cowlty and the City of
WIIIChealer.
Thar'efo111lt 18 ORDEREO lhlll Hononlble James V. Lane.IMII pAISide over IIIIa
cese.
The Clalk Is dlnlc:tad 111 certify a Q1f1f hereof Ill counaal of record, Pro Se parties;
the JudgN of the Twenty.Sbclh Judicial Clcuit, and 1D the Honolabla Chief Justice l.eJoy
R. Halsell, Sr.
JJ/5l: .. ,:
~ - ~ ...
page 13 of 22
Case 5:11-cv-00014-JPJ .Jocument 2 Filed 02/28/11 Page .. of 22 Pageid#: 16
23.After the arrest of former Commonwealth Attorney Paul Thomson by Federal agents on
10 January 2011, Petitioner Manship teamed from a Confidentiallnfonnant who played
football with Prosser's son that many students at Handley High talked about the facts of
the elder Prosser using cocaine. Petitioner seeks to find corroborating informants.
24.Defendant Prosser self-admitted playing basketball with drug dealer Carlos
Marshall, and Prosecution Exhibit #5 Police Interview with Rudy Powell testified
on 17 August 1994, within 24 hours of the murder of Carlos Marshall that Carlos
had been beat up by out of town thugs on the basketball court.
25.Defendant Prosser's former client, Rudy Powell mentioned a local thug's name,
Scott Jackson, but was immediately silenced by Defendant James K. Bailous,
then the primary Winchester Police Detective in the case, but whose presence
during the Police Interview was "HIDDEN" on the front page. Why HIDDEN?
26.Defendant David Sobonya accepted from the Coroner $152 and change taken
from the pockets of drug dealer and murder victim Carlos Marshall, THEN
GAVE IT TO THE UNDERTAKER, and yet with Thomson continued to PRESS for
many ROBBERY related CHARGES against Jeff Washington, so to create a
CAPITAL MURDER charge, where the DEATH PENALTY could be sought.
27.Defendant David Sobonya, by abuse of his Police position, did GSR Test
EVIDENCE TAMPERING, calling ahead on 1 September naming his "target" suspect,
then altering his story in Police notes in an 8 September entry, and that same day,
telling the Forensic Tech to terminate testing the remaining GSR test kits after learning
that Jeff Washington tested NEGATIVE, and the murder victim Marshall was POSITIVE.
page 14of 22
Case 5:11-cv-00014-JPJ Jocument 2 Filed 02/28/11 Page . _ of 22 Pageid#: 17
28.Defendant Paul Thomson OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE from 14 September to 13
February by REFUSAL to release the Test Analysis EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE.
However, the "DPS to JP" initials with a November date on some copies of the
Certificate of Analysis reveal either Defense Counsel Prosser KNEW his client was
NOT GUlL lY months before the 27-28 February trial, or may reveal David P.
Sobonya was "covering his rear" by a false notation of "DPS to JP" initials and date.
It is possible, Prosser in fact, had never seen the GSR Test Results until February 1995.
29.Winchester Police Detectives David Sobonya and James K. Bailous, despite both
Rudy Powell interview on 17 August and on 23 August, Kristen Black, girlfriend of
Carlos Marshall who did a "self-confession" of Guilt about a Drug Buy trip to
Philadelphia, that BOTH stated their 'street knowledge" that the murder of Carlos
Marshall was MONEY motivated, and PRE-PLANNED, with a likely suspect being a
White Man named Scott Jackson, NEITHER Detective Sobonya NOR Bailous
arrested or tested Scott Jackson. Is this evidence of Civil Rights violation bias?
30.Scott Jackson was a white man who Carlos owed money according to Rudy Powell.
Kristin Black said a white man named Scott gave $1000 to Carlos to buy drugs. Three
or more eye witnesses to the murder of Carlos Marshall said a white man was one of
the two gunman wearing a ski mask. Witnesses said one of the two g ~ n m a n
repeatedly yelled, ''VVhere's the money? VVhere's the shit?'' (drugs), that correlates to
Scott's interests in both money and drugs. Police Bulletin about 13 minutes after the
murder said the suspect was a WIM (White Male) wearing a ski mask.
31.A ski mask was found by a child the next day or so near the crime -with a white man's
hair fiber within it.
page 15 of 22
Case 5:11-cv-00014-JPJ Jocument 2 Filed 02/28/11 Page . _of 22 Pageid#: 18
32. Neither Police Detective Bailous NOR Sobonya had the white hair fiber tested, to match
either Scott Jackson, or Jamie Fluelling, a white man with a black man found in a red car
near the murder scene. The Police radio log transcript shows a statement from Jamie
Fluelling that suggests that white man Fluelling was an undercover drug informer. Detective
Sobonya stopped the GSR Test on Fluelling. A drug infonner can be a gunman too.
33.John Prosser as Defense Counsel in his penmanship NOTES ear1y in the case that
showed "WHITEMAN" and many witnesses who so stated. His dient Washington is black.
34.Prosser had represented Rudy Powell in a drug case prior to the murder of drug dealer
Carlos Marshall. Prosser was retained and paid $35,000 by Franklin Washington to
represent his son, Jeffrey Franklin Washington, the primary "suspect" and framed
gunman "fall-guy" of Police Detectives Bailous and Sobonya. Defendant John
Prosser never sought or obtained "Leave from the Court", that is Judge Wetsel,
to proceed as defense counsel for Jeff Washington, despite this Conflict of
Interest. Judge Wetsel certainly had many reasons to know about Prosser's Conflict of
Interest, but made no mention of Prosser's problem, yet another Conspiracy to Violate
the Civil Rights of the falsely accused Army Veteran Jeffrey Franklin Washington.
35.Faithful father Franklin Washington learned about Prosser's Conflict of Interest from
the Mother of Rudy Powell on 1 March 1995, the day AFTER Prosser and Thomson
had Coerced Jeff Washington to accept an Alford Plea "approved" (and later changed)
by Judge Wetsel rather than risk a death sentence in a Trial by Jury.
36.However, MANY falsehoods by prosecutor Thomson, and gross neglect by defense
counsel Prosser were the reasons that Jeff Washington, the lone hold-out from August
1994 to 28 February 1995 to submit to ANY sort of Plea Bargain, yet after Defense
page 16 of 22
Case 5:11-cv-00014-JPJ .Jocument 2 Filed 02/28/11 Page . _ of 22 Pageid#: 19
Counsel Prosser said to Jeff's Mother to beg her son to take the Alford Plea or "he
would die in the electric chair". The distraught Mother of Jeff Washington begged her
son to accept the Alford Plea recommended by his Defense Counsel, Defendant
Prosser, so Jeff Washington finally relented.
37. This Prosser and Thomson mind game" on the mother is a violation any standards of
mere decency to say nothing of violation of Brady standards for a Constitutionally valid
Plea Bargain, a Plea Bargain written by Paul Thomson, that IGNORED a December
letter from trial Judge Wetsel stating there was NO abduction.
38. Prosser did NOT object to the Abduction charges being included in the Plea agreement
39. Thomson and Prosser's Plea Agreement for Jeff Washington IGNORED the FACT that
the Coroner gave $152 and change from Murder VICtim Carlos Marshall to Investigator
Sobonya that undermines the many charges of Robbery. It IGNORED the FACT that the
other alleged victim of Robbery, HaNey Trent, repeatedly said there was NO ROBBERY,
and the bag of drugs reportedly "robbed" were found by Police in the bushes.
40. Prosser did NOT object to the Robbery charges being included in the Plea agreement.
41.1n Title 18 United States Code is an apt desaiption of the legal seNice of John Prosser:
1346. Definition of "scheme or artifice to defraud"
For the purposes of this chapter, the term "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes
a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the ingible right of honest services.
Broken Gavel" or eroken Balance of Justice" RICO Complaint against Winchester
page 17of22
42. Defendant Wetsel's "Supplemental Grand Jury Instructions" written on or
before 15 February 2011, are Violation of Perjury laws, if not laws against Jury
Tampering, for several good and sufficient reasons:
(1) One, Judge Wetsel's document contains FALSE statements.
(2) Two, Judge Wetsel's document contains MISLEADING statements.
(3) Three, it appears that Judge Wetsel in his "Supplemental Grand Jury
Instructions" referred to an out of date Virginia supreme Court Handbook
for Grand Jurors. The current edition is dated October 2010, and was
referenced by Manship in both his original Petition and his letter of 4 February
a.d. 2011 required by the 25 January Wetsei"Letter of Instructions".
(4) Plaintiff Manship in the second paragraph of his letter of 4 February a.d. 2011 to
Judge John E. Wetsel, Jr. and Clerk of the Court Terrence Whittle, that
Petitioner letter required by the letter of Judge Wetsel dated 25 January 2011,
specifically stated:
Your second paragraph refers to "it is the policy ofthis Circuit...".
request to receive a copy of that Circuit Court policy, whether an
instruction or a manual so I may be fully informed and thus able to do
my best to advance Justice.
(5) At or about 3:04p.m. on 4 February a.d. 2011, with a witness present, Petitioner
Manship face to face asked Clerk of Court Terrence Whittle for a copy of the
Circuit Court Policy, whether instruction or manual. Clerk Whittle said he did not
have any such local Circuit Court instruction regarding Grand Jury functioning.
page 18 of 22
Case 5:11-cv-00014-JPJ .Jocument 2 Filed 02/28/11 Page , _of 22 Pageid#: 21
(6) In spite of the request prior to the convening of the Grand Jury of Petitioner
Manship, timely submitted to both Judge Wetsel and Clerk Whittle, Due Process
was violated by the presiding judge, John Wetsel, in his failure to provide IN
ADVANCE of the meeting with the Grand Jury, a copy of the "Supplemental
Grand Jury Instructions" authored by Judge Wetsel.
43. On 02/17/1999, a Confidential Informant reported in Winchester Police Notes
that one Respondent, herein listed, then Commonwealth Attomey Paul
Thomson
"was skimming money from drug dealers".
44. Within minutes, another respondent herein listed, then Winchester Police Investigator
David Sobonya, now with the FBI, met with other Public Servants of Winchester,
to discuss what to do with this Confidential Informant report. It was decided to
shuffle it off to the FBI, where from 1999 to 2008, they did nothing notable or noticed
with the investigation. Did the FBI ever really investigate the case?
45. On 10 January 2011, DEAagents, NOT FBI agents were responsible for arresting
the very same Paul Thomson for Drug Possession, Evidence Tampering and
Witness Tampering, the latter two Federal crimes that Prosecutor Thomson,
Police Investigator Sobonya, and Police Investigator Bailous did in 1994 and 1995
in their Conspiracy to Violate the Civil Rights of young black Army Veteran Jeffrey
Franklin Washington in their Malicious Prosecution of that innocent young man
when there were MOUNDS of EVIDENCE to EXONERATE the young Jeff
Washington, yet the Conspiracy to Interfere with the Civil Rights of Washington
continues by the above named Defendants, most for nearly 17 years.
page 19of 22
Case 5:11-cv-00014-JPJ .Jocument 2 Filed 02/28/11 Page'-- of 22 Pageid#: 22
46. In our "Adversarial Court System", such Police and Prosecutor Abuse and
Misconduct is properly protected against by a zealous and HONEST Defense
Counsel, in this tragic case, John R. Prosser. Prosser's OWN penmanship notes
show he had MANY, MANY reasons to go to a JURY TRIAL to gain an acquittal of
his client Jeff Washington, whose faithful father Franklin Washington paid Prosser
over $35,000 for HONEST and competent counsel, neither of which the
Washington family received, however so-called "Defense Counsel" Prosser
doing what is called "Fee and Plea", or as in this case "Fee, Plea, and Flee", or
abandon the Washington Appeal process, Prosser was in gross violation of
even the most minimal standards of proper legal advocacy, and did commit
FRAUD upon his Client, and on the good will of the Citizens of Virginia.
47. On 17 February, in the Year of Our Lord 1688, the namesake of the Plaintiff, the last of
the Scot Covenanters, Reverend James Renwick was first hung, and then had his
head and hands chopped off, and posted on stakes at the gates to the City of
Edinburgh. Some of James Renwick's famous words were:
"Let us be Lions in God's Cause, and Lambs in our own."
33. God's Cause is Truth, Justice and the American Way. The American Way is
Liberty and Justice for All, without special privilege for anyone, including without
Sovereign Immunity for Police and Prosecutors, none for Thomson, lden, or
Abrams, none for Sobonya or Bailous, and without Judicial Immunity for errant
Judges, like Prosser and Wetsel. In God's eyes, All men are equal, and that is a
Cause, every American, and every Citizen of Winchester impaneled on a Grand
Jury can believe in and vote for seeing return to the Courts of Winchester.
page 20of22
Case 5:11-cv-00014-JPJ Jocument 2 Filed 02/28/11 Page"". of 22 Pageid#: 23
Judge Wetsel conspired to undermined this fundamental Citizen Right by his false
and misleading statements covered in the veil of Judicial "Supplemental Grand
Jury Instructions" as part of a conspiracy with Defendant lden and Defendant
Sobonya to subvert the good purpose of the rarely used provision of the laws of
the Commonwealth of Virginia for a common citizen to Petition his fellow Citizens
on a Regular Grand Jury to Order the Court to convene and impanel another
group of fellow Citizens as a SPECIAL GRAND JURY summoned to investigate
any condition which tends to promote criminal activity in the community or by
any governmental authority, agency or official."
"The Special Grand Jury, composed entirely of private citizens, is the
one non-political body with legal authority to make such investigations."
Such Special Grand Jury must be able to be formed by the Regular Grand Jury
without deceptive instructions or other impediments by any current or former Public
Servant, whether that be a local or state or federal law enforcement agent such as
Defendant Sobonya or Defendant Bailous, a former or current Prosecutor like Defendants
lden, Defendant Abrams, or Defendant Thomson, or a former or current Judge, such as
Defendant Wetsel or Defendant Prosser. For this Civil Right and Freedom for Justice to
prevail, I continue to pray and serve as a Journalist for Justice and Minister for Justice.
Respectfully submitted,

James RenwicMManship, Sr., Chaplain
God and Country Foundation
G. washington: "d:> my Duty ID God and Country"
Amos 5:15 Project "Hate evil and love the good.
Remodel your Courts into True Halls of Justice."
16 Montague Ct. Winchester, Virginia 22601
703-NRA-1776
page 21 of 22
Case 5:11-cv-00014-JPJ .Jocument 2 Filed 02/28/11 Page..__ of 22 Pageid#: 24
I, James Renwick Manship, Sr., hereby certify that everything contained in
this Petition is true to the best of my knowledge, and that the original of this
AS IN 2008 "BROKEN GAVEL" JUQGE CONVICTIONS. VIOLATIONS OF THE
RACKETEER INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT 18 USC 1962(C)
was mailed or delivered in person by a third party to the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of the City of Winchester and copies of the original were mailed to or
served by a third party to individual Defendants below, this 28th day of
February in the Year of Our Lord Jesus, the 2011th.
?L ... ~ .. ~

16 Montague Court
Winchester, Virginia 22601 7o'3-)!lf.A-177.b
Dale: 28 February ad. 2011
Copies To Named Defendants:
Mr. Paul Thomson,{tormercommonwealthAttomey)15 South Braddock Street Winchester, VA22601
Mr. John E. Wetsel, Jr., Presiding Judge (fonner trial Judge who compared accused to Adolf Hitler, twice in two days)
5 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601
Mr. John Prosser, crormer Defense Counsel, now iudge> (5 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601
Mr. David Sobonya, (tenner Winchester Police Investigator) address unknown, sent care of:
c/o Chief of Police, VVinchester Police Department, 231 E Piccadilly St. VVinchester, VA 22601
Mr. James K. Bailous, (former Winchester Pollee Investigator) address unknown, sent care of:
c/o Chief of Police, VVinchester Police Department. 231 E Piccadilly St. VVinchester, VA 22601
Mr. Alexander R. lden, (commonwealth Attorney) 5 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601
Mr. Marc Abrams, (Assistant Commonwealth Attorney) 5 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601
page 22of22
::.
POWER OF ATTORNEY Cvf\ \ t- '? tf ..()/1)(2-1/

. I
I, residing in ra.-rw
, Virginia, in accordance with the
2010 additions to Virginia Code 26-72. Unifo.rm Po.wer or Attorney Act. and
to exercise the powers and discret.ions described below, and expect acceptance, or
26-91. Liability for refusal to :tccept acknowledged power of attorney.
My Agent or Agents shall have full power and au-thority to act on my behalf, while
I reserve my right to act on my own behalf whenever I so elect. My Agents' powers
shall include the powers defined jn 26-97. Construdion of autho.rity generalJy.,
26-106. Claims and litigation., and 26-107. maintenance. or also:
1. To serve as Advocate, Mediator, or Counselor, as .attorney, :to .institute, .supervise,
prosecute, defend, intervene in, abandon, compromise, arbitrate, setUe, dismiss, and
appeal from any and an legal, equitable, judicial.or administrative hearing$, .actions, suits.
proceedings, attachments, arrests or distresses, involv.ing :me ;in any ,way. and .l""' ;'"
.... 1 J:. . ..._,._
behalf speak forme :in open Court, in .Judge's chambers, or Clerk's offices, and
MAR 2:; 2011
I hereby grant to my Agent the .full right, power, and authority to do ,every act, deed. and -
._.:,..('''.,., ......... .....
thing necessary or advisable to be done regarding 1he above powers, as'lUiit'SS.-'
do if personally present and acting., and when .I am present, as I request.
tJ. ' R 2 3
This Power of Attorney shall become effective immediately. This Power
be revoked by me at any time by providing written notice to my agent. :!f.
Dated a 5 /z 3 /11
{I
UJ-tJ ll.tvdtlL:

(Citizen Name & Si9fliB)
Amos 5:15: Hate ew1 and love the good. Remodel your Coutts into True halls ofJustice."
per 20t0 Virgh1Ja Code addition, with key Code sections and VsC Rules provided 1
POWER OF ATTORNEY
Notary
I, f.Jt:r"""lJ.If. '-A e Jd;IMs, a Notary Public for the County of Lu, AJ&TIJ ttl
I
in the Commonwea'lth of Virginia aforesaid, did hereby witness
sign give Power of Attomey a:r.e bearing the date of 20fl_
and dtd hear T4??214, /l4At,.J,Ahe named Citizen with Power of Attorney,
swear the Oath required of a Virginia attorney (as shown below, modified slightly.)
My commission expires
The Virginia State Bar may license or certify an attorney, but the sovereign Citizen "authorizes" .
. 'e'''''''' Do you solemnly swear or qJfirm :that :YOU :will
(this) Consti!Dti?n fff (for) the United -and
I l PUBLIC \ the Constitution ofthe CommonwealthofVirg1n:aa,
f i AfYREGtltOB'!04 i en! and that you wiUfairhfu.lly, honest{y.;projessionally,
\ \.. ==StONJ _. i and courteously yourself in the practice, oflaw,cznd
\ . '" __ .- .. Ziii eyoureffiee-oj.(duticsas)a_ tt.orn_. ey.6:tlats:to.thebest(Jfyourablltty,
. so help ,you God?
,,,, of ,,,,.
, ........ ,,.,
Per conversation with.public servan1s of the VJrginia.supJeme Court and Citizen
Herb Lux on 16 March in the Year of Our lord 2011, above is the Qath.adminisleled to attorneys being
sworn in to the practice oflaw before the Courts of Virginia (slightJ.ymOOified for more accuracy).
55-I 06. When and where writings admitted to record.
Except when it is otherwise provided. the circuit coun of any county or city. or the clerk of any
such coun, or his duJy qualified deputy, in his office. shal1 admit to record any such writing as to
any person whose name is signed thereto with an original signature, eJtcept as provided in
55.:.ll3, when it shall have been acknowledged by him. or proved by two witnesses as to him in
such coun. or before such clerk, or his duly qualified deputy. in his office, or the manner
prescribed in Articles 2 ( 5.Hll cl seq.), 2.1 ( SS::llfU et seq.), and 3 ( ct seq.) of this
chapter. When such writing is signed by a person acting on behalf of another, or in any
representative capacity, the signature of such representative may be acknowledged or proved in
the same manner. (Code 1919. 1972. c. 1994, c.
per 2010 Virginia Code addition, with key Code sections and VsC Rules provided 2
-
POWER OF ATTORNEY
26-113. Agent's certification.
The following optional fonn may be used by an agent to cenify facts concerning a power of
attorney.
AGENT'S CER.'fiFICATIOH AS '1'0 TBB VALmiTY OP POWER OF A'rl'ORHBY AND AGENT S IWTHORITY
state of. we4.. (-/{
of .. -
J
I, . 11)\flf 'P'ltlame of Agent) certify under penalty of perjury
that Jlt.(P.rno9 .. !lila. (Name of Principal) granted authorit,Y JB ,
agent or successor agent in a power of attorney dated ,2..3 Mar.&A .A-P. I I . .
I further certify that to my knoWledge:
( 1) 'l'be Principal is alive and has not revoked the power of attorney or my
authority to act under the power of attorney and the power of attorney and my
authority to act under the power of attorney have not. terminated;
(2) If the power of attorney waa drafted to become effective upon the
happeninq of an event or continqency, the event or continqency bas occurred;
(3) If I was named as a successor &CJent, the prior aqent is no lonqer able or
wi.llinq to serve; and
(4) . (Insert other relevant statements)
Aqent's Telephone Humber
'fhia -uaent was ocknowled9!"' 7 me oa (Date)
by

My coisu:on exp1res: RY. . ;r .. (Seal, if any)
Notary Registration Number: /.tiN. 7/.r ........ .
This document. pr-epared by:
(20 I 0, cc. !.55, 632.)
., ........... ...
E ... :,
' . .. "J':j I.
'. . ........
t/ .. .. NOTNW.

... ......
i ---\ .

\ ..
;. 21281!0& . . I.
.. . ......... ..
' II! . ..
',,, 14L TH 01" ,,'
...............
per 2010 Virginia Code addition, with key Code sections and VsC Rules provided 3
POWER OF ATTORNEY per 2010 additlon to the Code of VIrginia 26-72 and related sections
I, , residing in , Virginia, in accordance with the
2010 additions to Virginia Code 26-72. Uniform Power of Attorney Act. and .
.26-82. Coagents and successor agents. hereby appoint------------
of ______________ as my attorney- in- fact ("Agenf')
to exercise the powers and discretions described below. and expect acceptance, or
26-91. Liability for refusal to accept acknowledged power of attorney.
My Agent or Agents shall full power and authority to ad on my behalf, while I
reserve my right to act on my own behalf whenever I so elect. My Agents' powers shall
include the defined in Personal and family maintenance. or also,
8.01-8. Bow minors may sue. Any minor entitled to sue may do so by his next friend. Either
or both parents may sue on behalf of a minor as his next friend. <Code t950, t 8-87; tm, c. 617: 1998. c. 402.)
1. To serve as Advocate, Mediator,. or Counselor, as attorney, to instittJte, supervise,
prosecute, defend, intervene in, abandon, compromise, arbitrate, settle, dismiss, and
appeal from any and all legal, equitable, judicial or administrative hearings, actions,
suits, proceedings, attachments, arrests or distresses, involving me in any way, and in
my behalf speak for me in open Court, in Judge's chambers, or Clerk's offices, and
2. To prepare, sign, and file documents with .any governmental body or agency to
include a Special Grand Jury as in 19.2-209. Presence of counsel for a witness.
Any witness appearing before a special grand jury shall ,have the right to have
counsel of his own procurement present when he testifies. Such counsel shall
have the right to consult with and advise the witness during his examination, but
shall not have the right to conduct an examination of his own of the witness.
(1975, c. 495.)
1 hereby grant to my Agent the full right, power, and authority to do every ad, deed, and
thing necessary or advisable to be done regarding the above powers, as fully as I could
do if personally present and acting, and when I am present, as I request
This Power of Attorney shall become effective immediately. This Power of Attorney may
be revoked by me at any time by providing written notice to my agent.
Dated. __________ _
(Citizen Name & Signature)
Amos 5:15: "Hate evil and love the good. Remodel your Coutts Into True halls of Justice."
I.
trom: 11 user
0
FAX
To: Jennifer Sims
Company: Clerk, Circuit Court of
Warren County
1'9 1/ b H:I/Zb/11
0
Facsimile Transmittal
From: States Manship
Date: 0512612011
Fax Number. 5406363274 Pages: 6 (including cover page)
Re: Appeal of 16 May Order, Motion to Vacate (due to Fraud ... )
Comments:
Dear Clerk ~ s . Jennifer Sima,
Please receive and file this "Notice of Appeal" and "Motion to Va.oa.te Void
Judgment" due to F.rauc! on the Court by False Statements of Petitioner& ~ .
ancl Mra. M a a t ~ a ancl their Counaela, Silek ancl Wilkin&.
Thank you.
Please fax acknowledgement to 703-637-1146.
I am working on getting a local phone number for youz convenience aa wall but
for now, please aenc! all mail to my Virginia ac:!dreaa: Box 76, Mount Vernon,
VA 22121.
Rabe:rt M. Conley
POA
EXHIBIT
I 0
To: Jennifer Sims M ~ ~ l / 4 FrOI: It Jser Pg 'lJ 6 05126/IJ j pm
..
0
c
I
I
CIRCUIT COURT OF WARREN COUNTY
RALPH E. MASTERS
and
I
I
I
I
I
MARY B. MASTERS,
Husband and Wife,
Petitioners
v.
I Case No: L 10000585-00
I
WANDA B. CONLEY
and
I JURVTRIAL
I DEMAND
ROBERT M. CONLEY
Attorney-in-Fact for Wanda B. Conley, ProSe
Respondents
NOTICE OFAPPEAL
I
I
pr
11
MOT!ON TO VACATE" YOIQ JUQGMENT
BASED ON HAZRATY V. HAZBATY (2007)- FRAUD ON THE COURT- "AT ANX TIME''
1. The Motion to Vacate substitute for the previous Motion for Continuance Is based on the fact
the judgment of 16 May 2011 was procured by means of extrinsic and oollateral fraud by
Petitioners Mr. & Mrs. Masters, or by their Bar counsels, Silek and Wilkins; thereby rendering
any judgment or court ORDER based upon such fraud, Void eb initio. The case of Hazralv v.
Hazra1Y. CL-2006-10831 of August 22, 2007 has in Its opinion words relevant to the case:
'While It is true that more than twenty-one days have passed since the
entry of both the November 15, 2006 Order and the January 18, 2007,
Contempt Order under Ya Code 8,01-428CPl the Court Is empowered
to sat aside a Judgment or decree for fraud upon the court at any
time, even after more than twenty-one days have elapsed. When
conduct by a party or counsel prevents the
11
fair submission of the
controversy to the court" extrinsic fraud exists and the subsequent
Judgment Is rendered void and may be attacked at any time.
2007 Va, Cir. LEXIS 146, Hazraty v. Hazraty CL-2006-10831
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA2007Va. Clr.
LEXJS 146August 22,2007, Decided
peet v. Peat. 16 Va. App. 323. 326. 429 S.E.2d 487. 490. 9 Va. Law Rep.
1305 (1993), Book v, Rook. 233 Va, 92 353 S E,2d 758 3 Ya Law Rep
1944 ( 1987)"
rfUII: I u:illf.
r:1 \J/ D 17>1/LD/11 .>!Jill
0
0
2. The original Temporary Order placing Mrs. Conley under medical control of Mrs. Masters
and her husband was based on pleadings filed by Virginia State Bar Counsel Silek without
Due Diligence to detennine if the statements of the Masters were true or false. ManY,
were false and thereby a FRAUD on this honorable Court. Virginia Code applies:
8.01-428. Setting aside default judgments; clerical mistakes;
independent actions to relieve party from judgment or proceedings;
grounds and time limitations.
D. Other judgments or proceedings. - This section does not limit the
power of the court to entertain at any time an independent action to
relieve a party from any judgment or proceeding, or to grant relief to a
defendant not served with process as provided in 8.01-322, or to set
aside a Judgment or decree for fraud upon the court.
"Fraud consists of a false representation of a material fact, made
Intentionally and knowingly, with the intent to mislead, upon which
the defrauded person relies to his detriment n
Peat v. Peat, 16 Va. App. 323, 326,429 S.E.2d 487,490 (1993).
3. While certainly Respol)dent Robert Conley has been defrauded by the false
statements of Mrs. Mary Masters with her husband Ralph, so too has his mother,
Mrs. Wanda Conley been defrauded because her return home to her former home
In South Carolina has been delayed due to the Court proceedings since August
201 0 filing by the Petitioners, the Masters. Then again, Counsel for the
Petitioners, have been defrauded by the false statements of the Masters, though
stated with the legal caveat, "On information and belief ... n so to do a lawyer
avoidance of accountability for their false words. Yet finally, the Court of Warren
County has been defrauded by the Masters false words, as written and entered by
Counsel Sllek and Wilkins. The Fraud by Petitioners and Petitioners' Counsels are
are more than ample cause to declare VOID Ab Initio this case and vacate the Order.
ru: .n:rmr rer :mr:; e :J'IU-IIJO-.JLf'l rr01: user 1'9 4/ 6 Ubrl6/J 1 J3 pm
..
0
4. Further, careful review of the Court record reveals that the Guardian Ad Utem, Bridget
Madden, was named by the Counsel for the Petitioners, and began action even
before "approved" by the judge, suggesting an over-cozy pre-existing friendly
relationship between the Bar member who is supposed to be protecting the Interests
of Mrs. Conley, the so-called Guardian Ad Litem, Bridget Madden, and the counsels
who ugot her the job" I Silek and Wilkins, a clear and serious Conflict of Interest.
5. In Court on 16 May 2011, as Pro Se Respondent, Robert Conley was not able to
effectively convey to this Court the details of his mother's return to their home
he owns, with a trained elder care married couple to care for Mrs. Conley.
Mr. Conley had an agent and attorney at fact under Virginia Code 2672.
Uniform Power of Attorney Act, Minister James Manship, but that agent was
denied by the Court to speak on behalf of Mr. Conley, a violation of Mr. Conley's
Rights as well as violation of VIrginia supreme Court Rules and punishable under
26-91. Liability for refusal to accept acknowledged power of attorney.
6. Just before the hearing on 16 May 2011 Bar member attorney at law Mr. Gray learned
of the positive proposal of quality care for Mrs. Conley, coordinated by attorney in fact
Minister Manship. Mr. Gray immediately recognized the benefits for both Respondents,
Wanda Conley and Robert Conley, and also to benefit this Court. So Mr. Gray offered
counsel to the Court about the proposed elder caregivers Steven Smith and his wife
where Steven Smith has a B.A in Psychology, an M.A. In Sociology, with
experience as an administrator of an elder care home and working at a state mental
hospital. Both Steve and Marjorie have experience providing elder care. Like Mr.
Conley, Steve Smith cared for his mother for many years In their Williamsburg home.
...
.. .
trOll: 1 user Pg ':J/ 6 H'::Jrlli/11 J3 pm
0
0
7. Further, Mr. Smith is a "bi-vocational" minister, founder of Henricus Colledge 1619,
that educates about America's first college, before Harvard, located near Richmond,
for the purpose of educating Natives about the Christian faith; while also serving as a
high quality contractor for Colonial Williamsburg; so Mr. Smith is well placed with both
contractor experience to fix the Conley house In North Myrtle Beach to make It
comfortable for Mrs. Wanda Conley. The Smiths currently live in Florence, South
Carolina, less than 60 miles from the Conley home in North Myrtle Beach, and are
ready to relocate after the repairs are completed to prepare for Mrs. Conley.
8. The above proposal for quality, trained elder care for Mrs. Conley in the Conley home In
North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina complies with Judge Hupp's in Court statement that
Mrs. Conley be moved from Front Royal to "the Carolinas". The return of Mrs. Conley to
her home shared for many years with her son Robert Conley Is a "best solution".
9. The Respondent Mr; Conley proposes a 60 to 90 day "phased In approach" during
which time the North Myrtle Beach house Is made ready for the return of his mother
while Mrs. Conley remains with the TumersJn Front Royal, with the Smiths in place to
care for Mrs. Conley when she is brought from Front Royal back home.
10.This document is filed as both a Notice of Appeal, so to preserve the RIGHTS of
Respondents Wanda Conley and Robert Conley, and to have restored the eariier
DEMAND for a Jury Trial; also to have Mr. Conley RESTORED HIS RIGHT to present
EVIDENCE on his behalf, a RIGHT stripped away by Judge Hupp's Sanction Order that
forced an adverse settlement under duress upon Robert Conley, and his mother, that Is
memorialized by the Order signed by Judge Hupp on 16 May 2011; an Order to be
VACATED as VOID due to the FRAUD on the Court by Petitioners and their Counsels.
Robert M. Conley
Respondent, Pro Se
. . ~
. ~ ..
trOll: user Pg 6/ 6 85126/11 J3 p11
0
0
I, Robert M. Conley, do certify a copy of this NOTICE OF APPEAL and MOTION TO
VACATE VOID JUDGMENT document will be sent first class mail to the Petitioners,
Respondent Wanda Conley, and Virginia State Bar members involved in the case.
Robert M. Conley
Respondent, Pro Se
Hon. Dennis Lee Hupp, Presiding Judge, Bar member
Circuit Court of Warren County
1 East Main Street
Front Royal, VA 22630-3313
Joseph F. Silek, Jr., Bar member
Kimberly B. Wilkins, Bar member
Lawson and Silek, P.L.C.
43 Chester Street
Post Office Box 602
Front Royal, Virginia 22630
Telephone: (540) 635-9415
Fax: (540) 6359421
Counsel for Ralph E. and Mary B. Masters
Wanda B. Conley,
Respondent
Interim address:
56 Morrison Lane,
Front Royal, VA 22630
Ralph E. Masters and
Mary B. Masters
Petitioners
1418 Modena Street,
Gastonia, NC 28054
(Perpetrators of Fraud In Initial Court Petitl_?n and subsequently)
Bridget G. Madden, Bar member
1 00 Peyton Street
Front Royal, Virginia 22630
Telephone: {640) 636-6320
Facsimile: (540) 636-6057
Guardian ad /Item for Wanda B. Conley
(chosen by Silek and Wilkins, thus Conflict of Interest)
/
_.. . -- ~ . .' '
EXHIBIT
COMMONWEALTH OF- lh ~ l A :
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY
James Renwick Manship, Sr., "Next Friend" of Ashlie & Sabrina
V. I Case No. ___ _
I
Karen Grane, Arlington County Court appointed Guardian Ad Litem I
Jason McCandless, Assistant Arlington County Attorney I
Sherry Brothers, Arlington County CPS Supervisor I
George Varoutsos, Arlington County JDR Court public servant I
Defendants
JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
COMPLAINT OF VIOLATION OF VIRGINIA LAW BY ARLINGTON PUBLIC SERVANTS
1. "Ignorance of the Law is No excuse." is an oft heard refrain from members of the
"Legal Fraternity", otherwise known as the professional labor union called the Virginia
State Bar, that in 1938 became an "arm" or agency of the Virginia supreme Court.
2. Effective 1 July in the Year of Our Lord Jesus 2010, the Uniform Power of Attorney
Act passed by the General Assembly of Virginia became effective, that is became
"law", so that the Virginia supreme Court and "other such inferior Courts" in Virginia,
as worded in ''this Constitution", are also obligated to honor and obey this law.
3. While the Oath (below) that each Officer of the Court is required by the Virginia
supreme Court to swear, does NOT require specifically as an attorney-at-law, he or
she obey the law, the fact each is a Citizen requires each attorney with ability to obey:
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will support the
Constitution of the United States
and the Constihttion of the Commonwealth ofVirginia,
and that you will faithfully, honestly, professionally, and courteously
demean yourself in the practice of law and execute your office of
attorney at law to the best of your ability,
so help you God?
4. To date public servants and officers of the Court Grane, McCandless, and Varoutsos,
and public servant Brothers, each herein a defendant, have refused to honor or obey the
Uniform Power of Attorney Act that became law on 1 July anna domini 2010 in
accordance with 26-91. Liability for refusal to accept acknowledged power of attorney. Each
has failed to act as required by the law within the seven (7) days prescribed by the law.
COMPLAINT OF VIOLATION OF VIRGINIA LAW BY ARLINGTON PUBLIC SERVANTS 1
5. The legal document establishing the Power of Attorney between two Citizens was
properly Notarized by a Notary licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
6. The legal document establishing the Power of Attorney between two Citizens was
properly registered at the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Arlington County in
accordance with 55-106. When and where writings admitted to record.
7. The legal document establishing the Power of Attorney between two Citizens included
the exact wording given in the Virginia law, as well as other appropriate wording that
included Christian Faith references, a Right protected by the U.S. First Amendment:
26-113.Agent's certification.
The following optional form may be used by an agent to certify facts
concerning a power of
26-97. Construction of authority generally. attorney.
AGENT'S CERTIFICATION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY AND
AGENT'S AUTHORITY
8. 26-91. C. A person that refuses in violation of this section to accept an acknowledged power
of attorney is subject to:
1. A court order mandating acceptance of the power of attorney; and
2. Liability for reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in any action or
proceeding that confirms the validity of the power of attorney or mandates
acceptance of the power of attorney.
9. The "liability for reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in any action or proceeding that
confirms the validity of the power of attorney or mandates the acceptance of the power of
attorney'' must be equal to the labor rate times the totals of time expended by each of the
defendants, and/or any Bar member legal counsel, and/or paralegals, and/or legal research
assistants, and/or Virginia State Bar staff time expended in any efforts in the Courts or
Legislature or Executive Branch to deny any Citizen the Right to act as an agent and attorney
in fact in accordance with the Virginia law that became effective 1 July a. d. 201 0.
10.The Founding Fathers envisioned and created a "Bi-Cameral" Judicial Branch, or
Courts, to interpret and apply the laws, much like the Bi-Cameral Legislative Branch,
with its upper body the Senate and lower body the House, to develop and create the
laws, where in the Judicial Branch, the upper body is the "Bench" of Judges, and the
lower body is the Jury Box of Jurors. So the Court Order in paragraph 5 sub-
paragraph 1. can and must issue forth from the verdict of a Jury of Citizens as to
which strata, or elements, or professional associations are required to obey the law,
not a judge who is a member of some elevated strata, or element, or association such
as society currently confers upon members of the exclusive professional monopoly
labor union called the Virginia State Bar. Only by a Jury can true Equal Justice for All
be achieved in the Courts of Virginia, thus the Plaintiff demands his RIGHT to a Trial by
Jury to defend his RIGHT in this case.
~ " 1 1
v
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the 1st day of June in the Year of Our Lord Jesus 2011 ,
a copy of this court filing was sent by U.S. first class mail to each of the defendants at
their place of employment.
~ t t l
I
Plaintiff, ProSe, In Forma Pauperis
'I.
,;,,.
.

.::.
,.:"
...
..J
_: . -' r
Case 1 of26 PageiD# 1
FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA . . . ;FIL.EO
Alexandria Division
A.O., a child of 12 on 16 September, by her next friend, James Renwick Manship,
and her next friend Delores O'Brien Heffemazotl SEP 1 b p 5: 1 q .
A.B., a minor child, by her next James Renwick Manship,
and her next friend Salim Bennett, CLERK US DISTRICT COURT
N.B., a minor child, by her next James Renwick Manship, ALEXAHDRIA. VIRGINIA
and her next friend Salim Bennett,
O.B., a minor child, by her next friend, James Renwick Manship,
T.B., a minor child, by her next friend, James Renwick Manship,
Z.B., a minor child, by her next James Renwick Manship,
TJ., a minor child, by her next friend, James Renwick Manship,
and her next friend Tiffany Johnson
S.S., a minor by her next friend, James Renwick Manship,
and her next friends Kit and Nancy Hey Slitor,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
I;;,. I I c vI OtJ3
uce(UF-It
Next Friend Manship files and as Disabled Veteran, In Forma Pauperis
Plaintiffs,
v.
SHERRI BROTHERS, in her official capacity as Arlington County Vuginia
Supervisor, Child Protective Services Division
MARITA Y. WILSON, in her official capacity as Arlington County Vuginia
Social Worker, Child Protective Services Division
TAMMEE GAYMON, in her official capacity as Arlington County Varginia
VALERIE CUFFEE, in her official capacity as Arlington County Vuginia
SUZANNE EISNER, in her official capacity as Arlington County Vuginia
Director, Department of Human Services
JASON McCANDLESS, in his official capacity as Arlington County Virginia
Assistant County Attoniey
KAREN MARIE GRANE, in her official capacity as Arlington County Vrrginia
JDR Court Appointed Guardian Ad Litem
ESTHER WIGGINS, in her official capacity as Arlington County Vuginia
JDR Court Judge
GEORGE VAROUTSOS, in his official capacity as Arlington County Vuginia
JDR Court Judge
Defendants.
COMPLAINT and EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RESTRAINING ORDER
This is a civil rights class action brought on behalf of A.O., whose t21h birthday is today land all children
who are now or will be in the foster care custody of the Arlington County Department ofHuman Services.
Case 1:11-cv-01003-JCC -,JrA Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 P a ~ e 2 of26 PageiD# 2
INTRODUCI'ION
1. This is a civil rights class action brought on behalf of all children who are now or will be in
the foster care custody of the Arlington County VJ.rginia Department of Human Services, division
of Child Protective Service (DHS/CPS) as a result of allegations of child abuse or child neglect
("Plaintiff Childrenj, all too often without facts to support the allegations of abuse or neglect
Defendants, each sued in his or her official capacity only, are SHERRI BROTHERS, in her
official capacity as Arlington County Vuginia Supervisor, Child Protective Services Division;
MARITA Y. WILSON, in her official capacity as Arlington County Virginia Social Worker, Child
Protective Services Division; TAMMEE GAYMON, in her official capacity as Arlington County
Vuginia Social Worker, Child Protective Services Division; VALERIE CUFFEE, in her official
capacity as Arlington County Vuginia Social Worker, Child Protective Services Division;
SUZANNE EISNER, in her official capacity as Arlington County Virginia, Director, Department
of Human Services; JASON McCANDLESS, in his official capacity as Arlington County
Vuginia Assistant County Attorney; KAREN MARIE GRANE, in her official capacity as
Arlington County Virginia Court Appointed Guardian Ad Litem by either judge VAROUTSOS or
WIGGINS, in her official capacity as Arlington County Vuginia IDR Court Judge GEORGE
VAROUTSOS, in his official capacity as an administror and Arlington County Vuginia JDR
Comt Judge, (collectively, "Defendants''). Hafer y. Melo 502 U.S. 21 (1991) Social workers (and
other government employees) may be sued for deprivation of civil rights under 42 USC 1983 if they
are named in their official capacity. Aponte Matos y. Toledo Dayilla (1st Cir. 1998) An officer who
obtains a W811111lt through material false statements which result in an unconstitutional seizure may
be held liable personally for his actions under section 1983. Forrester y. White 84 U.S. 219 (1988)
Holding that judges do not have absolute immunity when acting in an administrative capacity.
See the attached document with hundreds of other cases that have related Family Rights rulings.
2. Plaintiff Children, each of whom relies on DHS I CPS for basic care and protection, seek
both declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy violations of their legal rights and to prevent
Defendants, by their actions and their failure to act as lawfully required, from continuing to
cause them harm. Defendants Brothers. Grane, McCandless and Varoutsos specifically have
ignored both verbal, and written, "Cry for Help" reports of Child Abuse from a little girl, A.O.,
Case 1 :11-cv-01003-JCC -.JFA Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 Page 3 of 26 PageiD# 3
while in the misnamed "care" of Arlington Foster Care. A.O. wrote a letter on 15 August 2011,
and her mother Patty Tackett and a DC Civil Rights lawyer filed the letter in the Court file the
same day. On 29 August, A.O. 's Grandmother, Next Friend Heffernan, discovered the Child
Abuse letter buried deep in the case file, and had the letter brought forward and date stamped so
it was refiled at the top of the file, and gave a copy to Defendant Jason McCandless. Days later,
both the 15 August and 29 August date stamped letters were removed from the file - a FELONY.
3. The foster care system operated by Arlington DHS I CPS is responsible, under federal and
state law, for investigating allegations of child abuse and neglect, for delivering in-home services
to preserve families when safely possible, for providing temporary care and protection for
children who cannot safely remain at home, for securing safe and stable families as soon as
possible for children removed into state care, whether by reunification, adoption or legal
guardianship, and for preparing those youth who will age out of foster care to live independently
as adults. In the Arlington DHS I CPS system there is a pattern of FELONY actions to conceal
Child Abuse. In the fllSt Foster family chosen by Arlington DHS I CPS, that of Scott and Marci
Burka, while the parents took a 2.5 day trip to Texas, they left their 16 year old daughter Carol
Jane "C.r' "in-charge" of the household, including 11 year old foster child, Plaintiff A.O. CJ then
left the Burka home for an extended period of time leaving her 14 year old brother "in-charge".
During that time, 11 year old A.O. tried to go to the bathroom but the 14 year old boy blocked
her, so A.O. tried to run up the stairs to another bathroom, but the boy grabbed her ankles, caused
her to fall on the steps, pulled her down, and punched A.O. in the face and the breasts. Various
defendants of the Arlington DHS I CPS system were informed of this assault and child abuse,
and instead of investigating, dismissed the report as A.O. making a false statement. When A.O.
reported the assault in school, CPS intervened with the school employees to force A.O. to
apologize for reporting the Child Abuse assault. After Next Friends Manship and Heffernan
contacted the school principal and his assistant, eventually Arlington DHS I CPS changed the Foster
family. In a meeting with the Next Friends. Manship and Heffernan were told by the School
Psychologist that the emotional well-being of A.O. improved after leaving the Burka foster family.
Sadly, such gross neglect is not rare or isolated, or beyond.
Case 1 :11-cv-01003-JCC -.JfA Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 h : ~ g e 4 of 26 PageiD# 4
4. The Arlington foster care system, however, is causing physical and psychological harm to
the abused and neglected children it is mandated to protect. The myriad systemic defects
afflicting the Arlington foster care system have long been known to Defendants, who are
responsible by law for the many vulnerable children and youth currently in foster care.
Defendants are failing to take the necessary action to discharge their obligations to ensure the
safety and well-being of the children taken into their custody. Several Defendants make False
Statements in open court, and file sworn documents filled with False Statements, while others are
turning a blind eye to the pervasive practice of Perjury by Arlington DHS I CPS in IDR Court.
A Foster Parent to 31 children, who is a good friend ofNext Friend Manship and Virginia
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli states in his 15 June 2011 campaign announcement:
4. The complete overhaul of the Foster Care system within the Department
of Family Services. As a foster parent to 31 children, I unfortunately know
that the system is broken at almost every level ...
S. DHS I CPS has harmed and continues to hann abused and neglected children in foster care
in numerous ways, including:
a. Children are abused and neglected while in Arlington foster care custody at an alarming
rate, there is a pattern of deception of Pennanency Plans, and extortion of Parents to "go
along" with the threat of losing their children, [Contrary to Court Rulings such as
FLORIDA v. BOSTICK, 501 U.S. 429 (1991)] creating unrealistic ''treatment plans"
and "requirements" upon the parents, and then with pre-planned failure, acting to take the
children away, either for placement in "permanent .. foster care, "adopted out", or placed
in contracted "care facilities"' that have a deplorable record of Child Abuse, and have
been sanctioned in Federal Court case in the Western District ofVarginia.
b. Children in DHS I CPS foster care are moved from foster home to foster home with
damaging frequency, many moved between five or more different foster homes while in
state care. If left in their family, the children would be better cared for than in foster care.
c. Many of the children in DHS I CPS foster care with a permanency goal of adoption languish
in foster care for years; some literally grow up in state care, denied time with parents.
Case 1 :11-cv-01003-JCC -vrA Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 F-c:o!Je 5 of 26 PageiD# 5
d. Children "age out" of DHS I CPS foster care every year with no permanent family, a
substantial number of them inadequately prepared to live independently as adults. Next
friend Manship has done video i n t e r v i e ~ with a fonner Foster Child that details the
abuses she suffered under VIrginia care at the contractor used by Arlington. Days after
Next Friend Manship made public Arlington association with the Contractor, Defendant
Valerie Cuffee went to WAMU-FM Public Radio http://wamu.org/audio-player?
nid=t5488announcing a policy change after a Western District ofVirginia court decision
adverse to the "child reform facility" contractor on contract with Arlington DHS /CPS.
e. Approximately one in six children who are reunified with their families after removal into
foster care return to foster care due to emotional injuries sustained in foster care.
6. These and other hamis to children are caused by Defendants' failure to effectively manage
the agency's workforce, resources and practices. A number of systemic problems undermine the
agency's ability to fulfill its legal obligations.. including:
NOTE: The federaJ government collects data concerning 52 jurisdictions that participate in the ntle IV-E
foster program implemented under the Social Security Act. Those 52 jurisdictions are the 50 states, the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. lnfonnation has been requested from Arlington DHS I CPS, they
have said they do not have the infonnation, or the money to collect.
a. DHS I CPS caseworkers may carry unmanageable caseloads vastly exceeding what is
considered appropriate according to generally accepted professional standards. Excessive
caseloads make it difficult in the best of circumstances, and oftentimes impossible, to
meet even minimum standards of care and protection for children.
b. DHS I CPS does not require or adequately provide ongoing training for caseworkers and
supervisors on how to honor the Rights of both children and parents.
c. DHS I CPS uses favoritism in assigning foster children to "favored families", in one case
Steven Kaufman, a politically connected, assistant U.S. Attorney who was childless with
his wife Sandra Doliner, and who hosted parties for Arlington DHS I CPS at their model
home a block away from then DHS I CPS offices. DHS I CPS fails to recruit and
maintain a sufficient number and array of safe and appropriate family foster homes and
therapeutic placements. The serious shortage of qualified foster care trained and screened
Case 1 :11-cv-01003-JCC -.Jt=A Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 F-'dge 6 of 26 PageiD# 6
parents prevents DHS I CPS from matching children with caretakers able to meet their
needs, so often forces DHS I CPS to make resource-driven placement decisions based
simply on available beds, or bribes, rather than on "best interests of the child".
d. Contrary to U. S. supreme Court and Circuit Court rulings, family relationships are
unnecessarily disrupted, and sometimes permanently severed, because DHS I CPS does
not ensure regular or meaningful child-parent and sibling visitation, and because parents
do not receive the services which might enable their children to safely return home.
e. DHS I CPS fails to provide foster parents with the necessary supports and services, such
as Respite Foster Parents in the case of the Burka's 2.5 day abandonment of Plaintiff A.O.
0, so to properly and legally care for the children placed with them. Among other things,
DHS I CPS pays monthly foster care maintenance payments that if the same funds were
used to provide proper services to some birth families, the "deficiencies" alleged by
DHS I CPS would be resolved or eliminated.
f. DHS I CPS has failed to make child and family services and foster care placements
equally accessible to children and parents by placing children far across the state.
7. As the custodian of children in foster care, DHS I CPS assumes constitutional obligations
that include protecting children in state care from hann and preserving the children's
relationships with their parents and siblings whenever safely possible. Furthermore, because it
receives federal funding Wlder Trtles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act, as administered
by the United States Department of Health and Human Services ("U.S. HHSj, Arlington must
confonn to federal laws and regulations concerning the care of children in their custody.
Defendants fail to meet these constitutional and statutory obligations.
8. DHS I CPS bas not implemented the reforms necessary to remedy the severe and persistent
legal violations within its foster care system, despite its longstanding knowledge of these
systemic ills.
Case 1 :11-cv-01003-JCC -.JFA Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 F-dge 7 of 26 PageJD# 7
9. Defendants fail to exercise professional judgment in their care and protection of Plaintiff
Children and, through their actions and inactions, demonstrate deliberate indifference toward the
safety and well-being of the children in their custody.
10. Over the last 15 months, Defendants have exacerbated longstanding systemic problems,
and aggravated the resulting harm to children, by "un-Constitutional" interventions in families,
that is to say interventions NOT in accord with Court rulings, and failing to provide a full
continuum of foster care placements and services, and essential services for families.
11. The Plaintiff Children have waited far too long for state officials to meet their
constitutional and federal law obligations. They now respectfully seek equitable relief from this
Court so that they may experience the safe and nurturing childhoods to which they are entitled.
JURISDICTION. VENUE AND ASSIGNMENT
12. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 to redress violations of the United
States Constitution and federal statutes. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331
and 1343(a)(3).
13. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). The pervasive and systemic Child Abuse
and Neglect claims arise in this case were perpetrated by Arlington DHS I CPS in the Eastern
District of Virginia,.
14. Assignment in the Easter Division is proper pursuant to the rules because all of the Named
Plaintiffs- A.O., Arianna, Nildta, Oreinda, Trei, Ziana, Talayah, S.S. -reside in the Eastern
Division of Virginia:
a. Named Plaintiff A.O. was removed from her parental home in Stafford County Vll'ginia
and placed into the foster care custody ofDHS I CPS pursuant to an action commenced
Case 1 :11-cv-01003-JCC -JFA Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 Page 8 of 26 PageiD# 8
by DHS I CPS in the Arlington County Juvenile Court. The DHS I CPS Office in
Arlington handles day-to-day responsibilities on A.O. 's case.
b. Named Plaintiffs AB, NB, OB, TB, ZB now reside in Stafford County with a Foster
family, placed there by Arlington DHS I CPS. Arlington handles day-to-day
responsibilities on all these children's cases.
c. Named PlaintiffTJ resides in Arlington County: TJ was removed from her parental home
in Arlington County and placed into the foster care custody ofDHS I CPS pursuant to an
action commenced by DHS I CPS in the Arlington Cotmty Juvenile Court. A DHS I CPS
Office in Arlington handles day-to-day responsibilities on TJ's case.
d. Named PlaintiffS S, or whatever she has been renamed now resides in Charlotte, North
Carolina. SS was removed from her parental home in Arlington County and placed into
the foster care custody of DHS I CPS pursuant to an fraudulent action commenced by
DHS I CPS in the Arlington Cotmty Juvenile Court. The DHS I CPS Office in Lynn,
Arlington handled day-to-day responsibilities on SS's case for many years.
PARTIES
Named Plaintiffs
Note: In accordance with local rules, the identities of the minor Named Plaintiffs have been protected with common
initials. At some point, pseudonyms may be necessmy because of the many, many children abused by Arlington
DHS I CPS will have the same initials ..
lS. In early 2009, whenAO was six years old, Arlington DHS I CPS sought an Ex Parte Order
for Emergency Removal of a Child from Arlington Juvenile Court, Defendant Varoutsos, which
was granted. AO traveled with her Montgomery County Circuit Court Order designated
Guardian to Florida, back to Maryland, and then in July 2010 to Stafford County, where she was
removed him from the care of her Guardian by the Stafford County Sheriff's Office, and
transported across Stafford, Prince William, Fairfax, and Arlington County lines without proper
paperwork of a "pick up order", and delivered to Arlington DHS I CPS and subsequent Arlington
Foster "care" at the Burka residence in Arlington. For many months, AO was denied any access
to members of her family.
Case 1 :11-cv-01003-JCC -ur=A Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 F-age 9 of 26 PageiD# 9
16. AO, today twelve years old, remains in foster care. Since AO's removal 14 months ago,
DHS I CPS has moved her twice across four different counties and two foster homes. In addition,
AO was assaulted in the first Foster family, abused by a Police Detective and an attorney.
17. When DHS I CPS first removed AO from her grandmother's home in July 2010, DHS I
CPS placed her in a foster home along with a 14-year-old boy who engaged in inappropriate,
coercive or aggressive behavior.
18. Despite its knowledge of this threat, DHS I CPS for months refused to select another foster
home for AO. Instead, DHS I CPS forced AO to apologize for reporting the in the foster home
assault. Any sort of safety plan proved ineffective.
19. AO told school employees about the in the foster home child abuse, but if the principal
reported it to DHS I CPS, DHS I CPS refused to take positive, constructive action. AO was
forced to stay in the foster home where she was assaulted.
20. Only by intervention actions by Next Friends of AO, Manship and Heffernan, eventually
forced the Foster family to be changed. Other efforts on behalf of the best interests of the child,
AO, have been viciously resisted by the Defendants, including two filings of Unauthorized
Practice of Law against Next Friend Manship, who is a Chaplain, and a Mandatory Reporter of
Child Abuse or Neglect, and who is working fully within the laws ofVirginia.
21. Next friend Heffernan has had a frivolous and malicious "Rule to Show Cause" filed against
her by Defendant Jason McCandless for sharing an un-stamped, thus not official court file
document of an false statement filled sworn Affidavit by Defendant Sheni Brothers, that Next
Friend Heffernan shared with Next Friend Manship, and Manship sent an email to Defendant
Brothers containing a link and the text of the Virginia Perjury Law code section.
22. The above is not a full account of the case, but is indicative.
Case 1:11-cv-01003-JCC -..JrA Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 Paye 10 of26 PageiD# 10
23. The account of the other minor children will be provided in an additional pleading.
Named Plaintiffs, Collectively
24. Defendants' actions and inactions with respect to the Named Plaintiffs are part of a
systemic pattern of conduct that has caused, and continues to cause, irreparable hann.
Defendants have violated and acted with deliberate indifference to and beyond the bounds of
professional judgment regarding the Named Plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory rights by
failing to provide necessary services and appropriate placements for them; by failing to make
periodic comprehensive assessments of their needs and providing services consistent with those
needs; by failing to make timely and meaningful casework contacts and monitor their progress in
foster care in order to ensure their safety and well-being; by failing to provide them with
monitoring and services necessary to prevent them from deteriorating physically,
psychologically, emotionally, educationally or otherwise while in state custody; by failing to pay
foster care maintenance payments on their behalf that cover the reasonable costs of caring for
them; by failing to support their family relationships, in particular by not providing child-parent
and sibling visits; by failing to provide appropriate management and supervision while they have
been in DHS I CPS custody in accordance with their individual needs, best interests and
professional standards; by failing to provide case management and planning in accordance with
their individual needs, best interests and professional standards; and by failing to develop and
implement a viable pennanency plan that will allow them to leave foster care and secure safe and
appropriate permanent homes in accordance with their individual needs, best interests and
professional standards.
Next Friends
25. Named Plaintiff AO. appears by her next friend, James Renwick Manship, Sr. Chaplain
Manship bas received training as a Court-Appointed Special Advocate in Fairfax County
Virginia in 200 I. He has twice completed Therapeutic Foster Parent training through a company
licensed in VJ.Jginia and Maryland, and on contract with Fairfax County .. Chaplain Manship
knows AO personally, generally knows the issues regarding her foster care custody described
here and is well suited to represent her best interests in this case. Chaplain Manship maintains his
Case 1 :11-cv-01003-JCC -JrA Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 Paye 11 of 26 PageiD# 11
principal residence in Mount Vernon, Fairfax County, Vuginia, and has received multiple awards
from Governor Gilmore and other Vuginia elected servants. In 1979 to 1982, Manship lived in
Arlington County and received the Outstanding Member Award from the Arlington (Host) Lions
Club where the Police Chief Smokey Stover, and the Commonwealth Attorney Henry Hudson,
who is now a United States Judge in Richmond, were both members.
26. The other next friends are the Parents or Guardian by Court Order.
Defendants
27. SHERRI BROTHERS, in her official capacity as Arlington County Virginia, Supervisor,
Child Protective Services Division.
28. MARITA Y. WILSON, in her official capacity as Arlington County VIrginia Social Worker,
29. TAMMEE GAYMON, in her official capacity as Arlington County Virginia Social Worker,
30. VALERIE CUFFEE, in her official capacity as Arlington County Vuginia Social Worker,
31. SUZANNE EISNER, in her official capacity as Arlington County Vuginia, Department of
Human Services.
32. JASON McCANDLESS, in his official capacity as Arlington County Virginia, Assistant
County Attorney.
33. KAREN MARIE GRANE, in her official capacity as Arlington County Virginia, JDR Court
Appointed Guardian Ad Litem
34. ESTiffiR WIGGINS, in her official capacity as Arlington County Virginia, JDR Court Judge.
35. GEORGE VAROUTSOS, in his official capacity as Arlington County Virginia, JDR Court
Judge.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
36. The questions of law and fact raised by the Named Plaintiffs are common to and typical of
the putative class they seek to represent. Each child relies on Defendants for child welfare
placement, services and permanency, and is dependent on Defendants for his or her basic safety
and weD-being. Each child is being banned, or is at risk of being banned, by the systemic
deficiencies within the Arlington foster care system.
37. Questions of fact common to the class include:
a. whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children safe, appropriate and stable foster
care placements as required by law and by reasonable professional standards;
b. whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children with timely and appropriate services
and care necessary to keep them safe and to prevent them from deteriorating physically,
psychologically or otherwise while in state custody as required by law and by reasonable
professional standards;
c. whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children with timely and appropriate services
necessary to ensure that they are either safely reunited with their families when appropriate or,
when that is not possible, promptly freed for adoption and placed with a permanent family as
required by law and by reasonable professional standards; and
d. whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children with the supports necessary to
maintain family relationships including the provision of child-parent visits and sibling visits, as
required by law and by reasonable professional standards.
38. Questions of law common to the class include:
a. whether Defendants' actions and inactions violate Plaintiff Children's substantive rights
under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to
be free from hann while in state custody;
b. whether Defendants' actions and inactions violate Plaintiff Children's rights to family
association under the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
Case 1:11-cv-01003-JCC-..JrA Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 Paye 13of26 PageiD# 13
c. whether Defendants' actions and inactions violate Plaintiff Children's rights under the
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 ("AACWA"), as amended by the Adoption
and Safe Families Act of 1997 (" ASFA"), and relevant federal regulations to timely adoption and
adequate foster care maintenance payments; and
d. whether Defendants' actions and inactions violate Plaintiff Children's procedural rights not
to be deprived of legal entitlements - including (i) the rights in relation to "placement of children
in private families; early and periodic screening, diagnostic and treatment standards;
individualized health care plan" as provided procedures; (ii) the rights to sibling visitation, (d);
and (iv) the right to be considered for placement with relatives, other adult persons who have
played significant positive roles in the child's life, and any minor siblings or half-siblings, -
without a meaningful opportunity to be heard ways: under the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
39. The Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the entire class of
Plaintiff Children.
40. The violations of law and resulting harms averred by the Named Plaintiffs are typical of the
legal violations and hanns suffered by all class members.
41. Each Named Plaintiff appears by a next friend, and each next friend is sufficiently familiar
with the facts of the child's situation to fairly and adequately represent the child's interests in this
litigation.
42. Plaintiff Children's Next Friends have identified and thoroughly investigated all claims in
this action, and have committed sufficient resources to represent the class.
43. Defendants have acted or failed to act on grounds generally applicable to all Plaintiff
Children, necessitating declaratory and injunctive relief for the class. Plaintiff Children's counsel
knows of no conflicts among class members.
Case 1:11-cv-01003-JCC -vrA Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 Pa
8
e 14 of26 PageiD# 14
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
I. DEFENDANTS ARE CAUSING HARM TO CmLDREN IN FOSTER CARE
DHS I CPS is causing harm to children in its foster care custody in the following
a. it fails to protect children from abuse and neglect in foster care;
b. it unnecessarily moves children among multiple foster care placements;
c. it places children in unsuitable or inappropriate foster homes that cannot properly care for
them;
d. it fails to reunify children with their families safely, or to provide them with an adoptive or
other pennanent family when it finds that safe reunification is not possible; and
e. it fails to provide needed medical, dental, mental health, educational and other services
necessary for children's safety, pennanency and well-being.
44. DHS I CPS thereby violates the constitutional and federal statutory rights of the Plaintiff
Children.
47. The CFSR process includes two categories ofperfonnance measures relating to outcomes
for children. First, the performance of the audited system across the entire population of children
served is evaluated in relation to six safety and pennanency indicators based on a national
database of child welfare outcomes. Second, a randomly selected set of child case files from the
audited system is reviewed by federal auditors and assessed in relation to seven safety,
permanency and well-being outcome measures.
A. Defendants FaD To Proteet Children From Abuse And Negleet In Foster Care
48. Maltreatment of children in foster care has been a significant problem in Arlington for
years.
49. Fully aware of this history of high rates of abuse or neglect in foster care, Defendants are
failing to implement the changes required to protect children in foster care from maltreatment.
SO. The high rate of maltreatment in care in Arlington is an inevitable result of a system
burdened with arrogant attitudes of caseworkers, inadequate caseworker and supervisor training,
poor caseworker-child visitation practices and an inadequate array of appropriate foster homes
and attendant support services.
S 1. The problem of child maltreatment in Arlington foster care has received wide publicity,
including, inter alia:
a. Numerous Washington Examiner articles
b. Articles in other publications
c. Many Web sites and Web Logs (Blogs)
d. Many YouTube and other Video service exposure documentaries
52. Every move may be experienced by the child as another traumatic event, regardless of the
reason for the move. Stability in living situation is a foundation to permanency. Instability of
placement, multiple moves, and our inability to achieve timely permanency can increase a child's
sense of anxiety and heighten a child's feelings of insecurity or 'not belonging.
53. As recognized in Child and Family Services Plan for FY2010- Multiple moves disrupt a
child's ability to maintain connections with family and/or to develop the connections they need
for positive emotional, social growth. Instability in placement also significantly impacts a child's
educational achievement. Research has shown that the more frequently a child moves subsequent
to a home removal, the longer it is before they are able to return home and the less likely they are
to progress in their education.
B. Defendants Unnecessarily Move Children Among Multiple Foster Care Placements
54. Beyond the obvious changes in home environment and primary caretaker, placement
moves often result in changes in a child's caseworker, therapist and other service providers,
school and friends. as well as in the frequency or nature of family visitation.
Case 1 :11-cv-01003-JCC -.JrA Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 Paye 16 of 26 PageiD# 16
55. DHS I CPS moves children among foster care placements at a rate that places Arlington
among the eight worst foster care systems in the country in terms of placement stability.
According to federal data from the July 2007 CFSR, 51.4% of children who had been in foster
care for one to two years had experienced three or more placements, and 77.5% of children in
foster care for more than two years had experienced three or more placements. Even within the
first twelve months of their placement into foster care, 28.1% of children in DHS I CPS custody
had already experienced multiple placement moves in 2007.
56. The frequency of moves for children in DHS I CPS foster care is an inevitable result of a
system with an inadequate array of suitable foster homes, ineffective matching between children
and foster homes, and a lack of services, specialized programs and financial supports to enable
foster parents to manage child needs.
C. Defendants Plaee ChUdren In Unsuitable Or Inappropriate Foster Homes Unable To
Properly Care For Them
51. DHS I CPS harms children by selecting foster homes that are ill-suited and ill- equipped to
meet their needs. For example, DHS I CPS placed: a child who only speaks English in a home
where English is not spoken; a toddler with foster parents who specifically requested teens and
were unable to provide the daycare needed for younger children; an asthmatic child in a home
with smokers; and a gay teen in a home intolerant of differences in sexual orientation.
58. DHS I CPS also banns children by making inappropriate decisions regarding residential
and group placements. Due to the trauma they have experienced, some children are unable to live
in an intimate family setting without prior therapeutic intervention and stabilization. For these
children, temporary placement in a more structured congregate setting .is often clinically
recommended.
Case 1:11-cv-01003-JCC -Jr-A Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 Page 17 of26 PageiD# 17
59. Defendants frequently do not follow clinical recommendations that a child be placed in a
more restrictive and structured foster care setting such as a residential treatment center.
Conversely, Defendants too often fail to return children placed in residential care to more family-
like settings when they are ready.
D. Defendants Fall To Provide Children With Permanent Families As Soon As Safely
Possible
1. Defendants FaU To Safely Reunify Children W"llh Their Families
2. Defendants Fail To Timely Place Children With Adoptive Families When Reunification
Is Not Possible
J. Defendants Fail To Prepare ChUdren Who "Age Out" Of Foster CtUe To Live As
Independent Adults
A June 2008 study by the Boston Foundation of youth aging out in 2005, Preparing Our Kids for
Education, Work and Life, states: "[Y]outh who age out of [DHS I CPS] are still at considerable
risk, particularly for homelessness, significant mental health needs, early pregnancy, physical
violence and unwanted sexual contact." The study reported that, of the youth surveyed, within
three years of aging out of foster care:
a. 37% experienced homelessness;
b. 54% were unemployed; of those who were employed, 47% were employed 20 hours or less
per week and only 1 00/o received health benefits through employment;
c. 30% were threatened or injured with a weapon in the last 12 months;
d. 11% suffered sexual contact against their will within the last 12 months;
e. 25% had been arrested and 8% had been incarcerated within the last 12 months;
f. 34% had used illegal drugs and 31% had drunk heavily in the past 30 days;
g. 43% had been pregnant or bad impregnated someone; and
h. 59% reported feeling "sad or hopeless almost every day for two weeks or more in a row''
during the last 12 months, which is an indicator of depression.
E. Defendants Fan To Provide ChUdren With Essential Services
1. Defendants Fail To Provide Children With Adequate VISitation With Parents And
Siblings, Dtmlllging Their Family Relationships
Case 1 :11-cv-01003-JCC -.JrA Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 Paye 18 of 26 PageiD# 18
2. ChUdren Do Not Recewe A d e q u t ~ t e Medical, Dental And Mental Health Care
J. DRS I CPS Fails To .Asslll'e That Children Receive Adequate Educational Senices
II. THE HARMS AND RISK OF HARMS SUFFERED BY CHILDREN RESULT FROM
DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO PROPERLY MANAGE THE DHS I CPS FOSTER CARE
SYSTEM
A. Defeadants Fai1 To Maiatain An Adequately Staffed And Appropriately Traiaed
Chlld Welfare Workforce
1. Caseworkers CtJt7Y UniiUlnageable Caseloads
2. DHS I CPS F111Js To Provide Adequate Training To Its ChUd WelftJre Workforce
B. DefeadaDts Fai1 To Properly MaD&ge DHS I CPS's Foster Care Plaeemeats
1. DHS I CPS Fails To Recruit And Retain An Adequate Number Of Foster Homes
2. DHS I CPS Fails To 1imely And Appropriately M11ke Use Of Kin Placements
J. DRS I CPS Does Not Approprilltely Match Children To Foster C11re Placements Cap11ble
Of Meeting Their Needs
4. DHS I CPS Fails To Assure Foster Home Sll.fety
b) DHS I CPS Fails To Effectively Monitor Foster Placements Recruited, Mt1nt1ged And
Supervised By Private Agencies
C. DHS I CPS Fails To Properly Develop And Implement Case Plans And Serviee Plaas
For Foster Chftdrea And Their Families
1. DHS I CPS Fails To Sustllin Family 1ies And Support Reunijrctllion When It Is Safely
Possible
2. DHS I CPS Fails To .Asslll'e 1imely Adoptions
J. DRS I CPS Fails To Adequately Prepare Youth Aging Out To Live Independently As
Adults
D. DHS I CPS Fails To Aec:ess Avaftable Federal Faadiag
Case 1: 11-cv-01 003-JCC -Jr-A Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 Page 19 of 26 PageiD# 19
COUNT I
60. (Substantive Due Process under the U.S. Constitution) (Asserted by all Named Plaintiffs and
Plaintiff Children)
61. Each of the foregoing allegations is incorporated as if fully set forth
62. A state assmnes an affirmative duty under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution to protect a child from hann when it takes that child into its foster care custody.
63. The foregoing actions and inactions of Defendants in their official capacities, constitute a
failure to meet their affinnative duty to protect from harm all Named Plaintiffs and Plaintiff
Children, which is a substantial factor leading to, and proximate cause o( the violation of the
constitutionally- protected liberty and privacy interests of all Named Plaintiff's and Plaintiff
Children.
63. The forgoing actions and inactions of Defendants, in their official capacities, constitute a
poticy, pattern, practice or custom that is inconsistent with the exercise of professional judgment
and amounts to deliberate indifference to the constitutionally-protected rights and liberty and
privacy interests of all Named Plaintiffs and class members. As a result, all Named Plaintiffs and
class members have been, and are at risk of being, deprived of the substantive due process rights
conferred upon them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
64. These substantive due process rights include, but are not limited to:
a. the right to from unnecessary hann while in government custody;
b. the right to a living environment that protects foster children's physical, mental and emotional
safety and well-being;
c. the right to services necessary to prevent foster children from deteriorating or being harmed
physically, psychologically, or otherwise while in government custody, including but not limited
to the right to safe and secure foster care placements, appropriate monitoring and supervision,
appropriate planning and services directed toward ensuring that the child can leave foster care
and grow up in a permanent family, and adequate medical, dental, psychiatric, psychological, and
educational services;
d. the right to treatment and care consistent with the purpose of the assumption of custody by
DHS/CPS;
Case 1 :11-cv-01003-JCC -Jt-A Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 Page 20 of 26 PageiD# 20
e. the right not to be maintained in custody longer than is necessary to accomplish the purposes
to be served by taking the child into custody;
f. the right to receive care, treatment and services determined and provided through the exercise
of accepted professional judgment; and
g. the right to be placed in the least restrictive placement according to a foster child's needs.
COUNTll
(First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution) (Asserted by all
Named Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Children)
66. The foregoing actions and inactions of the Defendants, in their official capacities, amount
to a policy, pattern, practice, or custom of failure to exercise professional judgment and of
deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, and are the cause of the violation of
such rights. As a result of Defendants' conduct, all Named Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Children have
been, and are at further risk of being, harmed and deprived of the liberty interests, privacy
interests and associational rights conferred on them by the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
COUNTID
(The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 670 et seq.) (Asserted by
all Named Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Children)
68. As. a result of the foregoing actions and inactions by Defendants, in their official capacities,
Defendants are engaging in a policy, pattern, practice, or custom of depriving all Named
Plaintiffs and class members of the rights conferred on them by the Adoption Assistance and
Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
(collectively the "Adoption Assistance Act") and the regulations promulgated under the Act, 45
C.F.R. Parts 1355-1357 to documentation, including a child-specific recruitment plan, of the
steps the agency is taking to find an adoptive family, to place a child with an adoptive family and
Case 1 :11-cv-01003-JCC -.JrA Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 P a ~ d 21 of 26 PageiD# 21
to fiDalize the adoption (42 U.S.C. 675(l)(E)) and to foster care maintenance payments paid to
the foster care providers with whom the child is placed that cover the actual cost (and the cost of
providing) the Plaintiff child's food, clothing, shelter, daily supervision, school supplies,
reasonable travel to visitation with family, and other expenses (42 U.S.C. 67l(a)(l), 67l(a)
(11), 67l(a)(l2), 672(aXl), 675(4)(A)).
COUNT IV
(Procedural Due Process) (Asserted by all Named Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Children)
70. Defendants' actions and inactions have resulted and are continuing to result in the
deprivation of the following state-law entitlements to which each Plaintiff child bas a
constitutionally protected interest, without ofrering the Plaintiff Children adequate and
meaningful opportunity to be heard:
a. The rights in relation to "placement of children in private families; early and periodic
screening, diagnostic and treatment standards; individualized health care plan";
b. The right to a "medical passport" as set forth in policy;
c. The rights to sibling visitation as provided in ; and
d. The right to be considered for placement with relatives, other adult persons who have
played significant positive roles in the child's life, and any minor siblings or half-siblings as
provided in policy.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
71. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff Children respectfully request that this Honorable Court:
a. Assert jurisdiction over this action;
b. Order that Plaintiff Children may maintain this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23
(b)(2) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
c. Declare unconstitutional and unlawful pursuant to Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:
Case 1 :11-cv-01003-JCC -.JrA Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 P ~ ~ d 22 of 26 PageiD# 22
Defendants' violation of Plaintiff Children's substantive right to be ftee from harm under the due
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
i. Defendants' violation of Plaintiff Children's rights under the First, Ninth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
ii. Defendants' violation of Plaintiff Children's rights under the Adoption Assistance and
Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(l), 67l(a)(ll), 67l(a)(l2), 672(a)(l), 67S(l)(B)
and 67S(4)(A).; and
ii. Edueationffraining. DHS I CPS shall develop and implement educational qualifications
and a mandatory comprehensive pre- service and in-service training program for caseworkers
and Defendants' violation of Plaintiff Children's right to procedural due process under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on the basis of state--created property
rights.
72. Pennanently enjoin Defendants from subjecting Plaintiff Children to practices that violate
their rights.
73. Order appropriate remedial relief to ensure Defendants' future compliance with their legal
ob&gations to Plaintiff Children, including, but not limited to, the following:
i. Return of Children in Foster eustody to Parents & Children deaied Due Proeess Rights.
ii. Caseloads. DHS I CPS shall establish and implement limits on the caseloads of all case-
carrying workers for children in DHS I CPS placements and private agency placements operating
under contract with DHS I CPS. These caseload limits shall be based on the standards for
accreditation of public child welfare agencies set by the Council on Accreditation ("COA ") and
the professional standards set by the Child Welfare League of America ("CWLA j supervisors
based on standards for acceptable management of a child welfare system;
iii. AvailabiUty ofNeeessary Resourees for the Plaeement ofChDdren aad Serviees for
Childno and Pannts. An assessment shall be conducted by qualified professionals tO
detennine the need for additional services and placements, including the need for family
preservation services, foster and adoptive placements (including placements for children with
Case 1: 11-cv-01 003-JCC -JrA Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 Paye 23 of 26 PageiD# 23
disabilities or other behavioral needs), wraparound services, reunification services, independent
living services, and medical, dental, and mental health services, for children in foster care
throughout the state; and the time period during which these placements and services will be
developed. Defendants shall take the steps necessary to develop these services and placements
according to the assessment and the time frames it provides;
iv. Monitoring tbe Safety of Children in Placement. DHS I CPS workers shall visit all
children in placement and their foster parents as frequently as set forth in the standards set by the
COA and the CWLA in order to ensure that the children are safe. DHS I CPS shall also comply
with the standards and processes required under Arlington law for the approval, screening,
oversight and utilization of all placement types that house foster children;
v. Child-Parent and Sibling VISitation. DHS I CPS shall develop and implement policies
providing for adequate visitation between parents and children of those parents removed into
foster care and siblings one or more of whom has been removed into foster care; Defendants
shall develop and implement policies, which adequately provide for siblings being placed
together in foster care and in adoptive or guardianship settings where those pennanency goals are
achieved;
vi. Case and Service Planning. DHS I CPS shall take necessary action to provide adequate
and timely case plans and case reviews for children and adequate and timely services plans for
their parents.
vii. Quality Assurance/Data. DHS I CPS shall ensure that it has a quality assurance ("QA")
system consistent with the standards of the COA and CWLA that is capable of measuring the
quality of services provided to children in DHS I CPS custody;
viii. Contract Monitoring and Performance-Based Monitoring. DHS I CPS shall ensure that
an adequately staffed and trained contract monitoring unit is created within the state's central
office for purposes of overseeing and managing the purchased services of the agency; DHS I
CPS shall develop and implement a perfonnance-based contracting scheme with its private foster
care providers to ensure the protection of children;
ix. Foster Care Maintenance Rates. DHS I CPS shall determine and pay foster care
reimbursement rates that fully meet the elements set forth in 42 U.S.C section 675(4)(A);
Case 1 :11-cv-01 003-JCC -Jr-A Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 Paye 24 of 26 PageiD# 24
x. Monitoriag/Enforc:ement. The provisions of the Court order entered pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 65( d) shall be monitored by a neutral expert monitor appointed by the Court. 1n addition,
the Court shall have continuing jurisdiction to oversee compliance with that order.
74. Award to Plaintiff Children the reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the prosecution of
this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1920 and 42 U.S.C.
1988, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e) and (h); and
75. Grant such other and further equitable relief as the Court deems just, necessary and proper to
protect Plaintiff Children from further harm by Defendants.
DATED: 16 September anno domini 20 II
James Renwick Manshi
Next Friend
Amos 5:15 Project "Hate evil and love the good Remodel your Courts into True Halls of .hatice."
God and Country Foundation, Box 76, Mount Vernon, Virginia 22121-0076,
Phone: 703-672-1776 Facsimile: 703-638-1146
Based on Pleading submitted by:
CHILDREN'S RIGHTS 330 Seventh Avenue, Fourth Floor New York, New York 10001
Phone: (212) 683-2210 Facsimile: (212) 683-4015
Case 1 :11-cv-01003-JCC -JrA Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 Pa!::Jd 25 of 26 PageJD# 25
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
JURISDICTION, VENUE AND ASSIGNMENT
PARTIES
Named Plaintiffs
A.O.,
A.B.,
N.B.,
O.B.,
T.B.,
Z.B.,
T.J.,
s.s. s.,
Named Plaintiffs, Collectively
Next Friends
Defendants
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
I. Defendants Are Causing Harm To Children In Foster Care
A. Defendants Fail To Protect Children From Abuse And Neglect In Foster Care
B. Defendants Unnecessarily Move Children Among Multiple Foster Care Placements
C. Defendants Place Children In Unsuitable Or Inappropriate Foster Homes Unable To
Properly Care For Them
D. Defendants Fail To Provide Children With Pennanent Families As Soon As Safely
Possible
1. Defendants Fail To Safely Reunify Children With Their Families
2. Defendants Fail To Timely Place Children With Adoptive Families When
Reunification Is Not Possible
3. Defendants Fail To Prepare Children Who "Age Out" Of Foster Care To Live As
Independent Adults
E. Defendants Fail To Provide Children With Essential Services
1. Defendants Fail To Provide Children With Adequate Visitation With Parents And
Siblings, Damaging Their Family Relationships
2. Children Do Not Receive Adequate Medical, Dental And Mental Health Care
3. DHS I CPS Fails To Assure That Children Receive Adequate Educational Services
Case 1 :11-cv-01003-JCC -.JrA Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 Pal:Jd 26 of 26 PageiD# 26
II. The Harms And Risk Of Harms Suffered By Children Result From Defendants' Failure To
Properly Manage The DHS I CPS Foster Care System
A. Defendants Fail To Maintain An Adequately Staffed And Appropriately Trained Child
Welfare Workforce
1. Caseworkers Carry Unmanageable Caseloads
2. DHS I CPS Fails To Provide Adequate Training
To Its Child Welfare Workforce
B. Defendants Fail To Properly Manage DHS I CPS's Foster Care Placements
1. DHS I CPS Fails To Recruit And Retain
An Adequate Number Of Foster Homes
2. DHS I CPS Fails To Tunely And Appropriately
Make Use Of Kin Placements
3. DHS I CPS Does Not Appropriately Match Children To Foster Care Placements
Capable Of Meeting Their Needs
4. DHS I CPS Fails To Assure Foster Home Safety
C. DHS I CPS Fails To Properly Develop And Implement Case Plans And Service Plans
For Foster Children And Their Families
1. DHS I CPS Fails To Sustain Family Ties And Support Reunification
When It Is Safely Possible
2. DHS I CPS Fails To Assure T"unely Adoptions
3. DHS I CPS Fails To Adequately Prepare Youth Aging Out
To Live Independently As Adults
D. DHS I CPS Fails To Access Available Federal Funding
COUNT I
COUNTll
COUNT III
COUNT IV
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
~
'
. ; .
.,,
' ~ =
')
(
' .
( ... -.
EXHIBIT
I .G
VIRGIN I A: ARLINGTON COU'NTY CIRCUIT
IN TH E.fA !of!.j;Af*Q;Ooll+J.; Q Bl6ififilol-6 l C 0 URT
C'OMMONWEAL TH OF VIRGINIA
filA't"f..iKCOUNTY OF ARLINGTON Docket No. (s): CJ11-67, CM11-10
DELORES O'BR:IEN HEFFERNAN
\'s. GUARDIAN OF ASHUE O'BRIEN Court Date: October a.d. 2011 & on
ARLINGTON COUNTY DH.S I CPS I JDR ,EMPLOYEES Officer Name: 'Officer of the Court' Jason McCandless
Defendant
APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL
Petitioner I Plaintiff
The Court will please note the appearance of the undersigned as Counsel for the litl!'iiliiRult in the above styled matter.
PRINT: James Renwick Manship, Sr.
Name of Counsel <Please Print Leoiblv!
Box 76
Address
Mount Vernon, Virginia 22121
City State
Retained Court-Appointed
fro Bono Public Defender!
Appearance of Counsel
(Rev. 10/06)
RECEIVED
OCT l4 2011
'::'-.e ..
c [ V VA Code 26-106
Counsel's Signature VA State Bar I. D.#
14 October anno domini 2011
Date
703-672-1776
Telephone
FOR CLERK USE ONLY:
Public Defender/Court Appointed Attorney: -----
notified that serviccs.are,no longer required.
[J By Phone: Spoke wilb: ---------
[J ByMail
Deputy Clerk Date
.-.:
il
Case 1 : 11-cv-0 1354r#Hk de 1 of 11 Pagel D# 2
FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA FILED
Alexandria Division
DELORES O'BRIEN HEFFERNAN, Grandmother and Guardian of minor A.O.
ProSe, In Forma Pauperis 2011 DEC I
Plaintiff,
TntCTCOURT
v.
""'""'""A. VIRGINIA
ARLINGTON COUNTY
THEO STAMOS, in her official capacity as Arlington County Commonwealth
Attorney (Elect), current Deputy (in court on 1219/11 malicious prosecution)
(unknown name Assistant Commonwealth Attorney), in her official capacity as
Arlington County assistant Commonwealth Attorney (did 12/9/11 prosecution)
MARIE GRANE, in her official capacity as Arlington County Vuginia
JDR Court Appointed Guardian Ad Litem
SHERRI BROTHERS, in her official capacity as Arlington County Virginia
Supervisor, Child Protective Services Division
MARITA Y. WILSON, in her official capacity as Arlington County Vuginia
JASON McCANDLESS, in his official capacity as Arlington County Vnginia
Assistant County Attorney
COLIN BROWN, in his official capacity as Arlington County Vuginia
Principal of McKinley Elementary School (on SIS/11 and in court on 12/9/11)
Defendants.
Case No .
11
1: 11cv

JURY
TRIAL
DEMAND
COMPLAINT OF MALICIWJS PROSECJJTION BY ARLINGTON CWJNTY
AGAINST GRANDMQTRER D. O'BRIEN HEFFERNAN WITB 12/9/lQJJ
NOT GUILTY VERDICT BEING "NQT IJNFAYORABLE" TO PLAINTIFF
1. On 9 December 2011, Arlington General District Court Judge Richard McCue found Delores
O'Brien Heffernan, Plaintiff in this Complaint, NOT GUILTY of the charge of Criminal Trespass
18.2-119 filed, advanced, or prosecuted by Arlington County employees, Defendants named above.
2. Plaintiff O'Brien Heffernan asserts, pleads, and asks for Judicial Notice that aNoT GUILTY verdict
is an outcome ''not unfavorable" to her, a required assertion so the Court is not to dismiss this case.
3. Plaintiff O'Brien Heffernan notes that in the Memorandum Opinion by federal Judge Cacheris in
case Civil No. 03-590-A on page 31 is stated:
1. Malicious Prosectuion Claims (NOTE: Wrong spelling in the original)
COMPLAINT OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION BY ARLINGTON COUNTY AGAINST p. 1
Case 1: 11-cv-01354-JCC-J. A Document 1-1 Filed 12/15/11 f ,Je 2 of 11 PageiD# 3
a. Statute of Limitations
Malicious Prosecution claims have a two-year statute of limitations. Va Code Ann.
8.01-248; .:if& Blackmon y. Perez. 792 F. Supp. 1086, 1092 (E.D. Va 1992) (holding malicious
prosecution claims barred under Va Code Ann. $8.0 1-248). s The cause of action for malicious
prosecution accrues ''when the relevant criminal or civil action is terminated." Va Code Am. $8.01-249.
5 The Court notes that at the time of Blaclgnon Va. Code Ann., $8.0 1248 provided for a one-year statue
(NOTE: spelling error in the original) of limitations. That period. however, was extended to two years in 1995.
Michael y. Sentam Healtb Sys= 939 F. Supp. 1220, 1229 (E.D. Va. 1996).
4. Plaintiff Heffernan files not in two years but within two weeks, so is timely in filing her Complaint
5. All the incidents of the fillse charges, false arrest, and malicious prosecution were done within
Arlington Comdy, that is totally within the jmisdicCion of the Eastern District ofVnginia
6. Discovecy by Plaintiff O'Brien Heffernan by proper use ofRequest for Admissions, Request for
Production, lnterrogatmies, Depositions, Subpoenas and Subpoena Duces Tecum will be able to
conclusively reveal the complicity of the above named Defendants in the original fD1se charges on 26 May
2011 based on fil1se allegations by Defendants Karen Gtane, Sherri Brothers, Mari1a Wilson, and Colin
Brown relating to an prior approved school meeting on 5 May 2011 (where no police report has been
forthcoming ftom the Defendants or Arlington County agents), the subsequent fiiJse mest in the Arlington
Court house on 13 October 2011 instigated by Defendant Jason and the "circus" trial on
9December2011, withTWELVESheriffDeputiesintheCourtroom,FOURArlingtonPoliceOffioers,
FOURmembersofthestaffoftheCommonwealthAttomey'sofiice,andwherePiaintiffO'Brien
Heffernan was foWld NOT GUILTY by Judge Richard McCue after hearing Principal Colin Brown as
witness for the prosecution, and hearing Patricia Tackett, James Renwick Manship, Sr., and
McDennott, witnesses for the defense in that trial by ProSe defendant Delores O'Brien Heffernan.
COMPLAINT OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION BY ARLINGTON COUNTY.AGAINST HEJi'FERNAN p.l
Case 1: 11-cv-01354-JCC-J. A Document 1-1 Filed 12/15/11 ~ -de 3 of 11 PageiD# 4
7. Polioe Detective K. Trealde, #1074, Arlington County Police Department is not named as a
Defendant because other than at the instigation of other Defendants was only "taadng 1he complaint"
fiom Defendant Colin Brown on or about 0512612011 at 12:47 P ~ and does not appear to be otherwise
involved in the Malicious Prosecution of Delores O'Brien Heffernan. Plainti1f reserves the Right to add
Tle8kle or other Police Department employees if Discovery reveals actions outside the "color of law'' of
duty.
FACTS OF THE CA8E
8. On 25 March 2011, James Renwick Manship, Sr., under a new Vuginia law 26-72, Attorney in
fact for Mrs. Patricia Tackett, mother of A.O., granddaughter of Plaintiff Delores O'Brien
Heffernan, wrote a letter to Defendant Colin Brown (Exhibit A) detailing many, but not all
instances of a pattern of child abuse of A.O. while under the "care" the Burkas, an Arlington CPS
selected Foster Family, assigned to "care" for A.O. from 22 July 2010 to 19 March 2011, and
abuse by Defendant Wilson, Brothers, Orane, and McCandless.
9. Between 25 March and 5 May 2011, a series of email and phone communications between
Plaintiff O'Brien Heffernan, Guardian of A.O. by Maryland Circuit Court ORDER, and Mrs.
Patricia Tackett, Mother of A.O., an educational progress meeting was scheduled in accordance
with Code of Federal Regulations 34 CFR 300.345 - Parent Participation. Mrs. Tackett was
invited, and was invited to bring along others. Logically, Mrs. Tackett invited her mother,
Plaintiff O'Brien Heffernan, and her Attorney in fact, Mr. Manship. There was NO indication by
Principal Brown that Defendants Grane, W'Jlson, or Brothers were to be present.
10. On S May, Mrs. Tackett came in her car, while Plaintiff' O'Brien Heffernan came in the
pickup truck of Mr. Manship, to McKinley Elementary School for the scheduled meeting.
COMPLAINT OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION BY ARLINGTON COUNTY AGAINST HEFFERNAN p.3
Case 1 :11-cv-01354-JCC-J. A Document 1-1 Filed 12/15/11 f ::Je 4 of 11 PageiD# 5
11. Mrs. Tackett, Mr. Manship, and Mrs. O'Brien Heffernan were all swprised and dismayed by
the presence of Defendants Grane, Wllson and Brothers. Mr. Manship stated that that was a breach
of trust by Defendant Colin Brown, and that all three should depart for a rescheduled meeting.
12. Defendant Sherri Brothers approached Mrs. O'Brien Heffernan to say, "Mrs. O'Brien (NOT
her proper name O'Brien Heffernan), you know you are not supposed to be here."
13. Mr. Manship asked Miss Brothers, "On what basis is Mrs. Heffernan to not be here?"
Brothers responded "There is an order." Manship objected by saying, "Not so. Where? Show it."
14. Ignoring the objection, and request for proof of any such order, Defendant Brothers then said
to the school principal, "Mrs. Heffernan is not supposed to be here.", whereupon Defendant
Brown complied with Defendant Brothers request for him to ask Mrs. O'Brien Heffernan to
leave the school property.
15. Mr. Manship advised Mrs. O'Brien Heffernan to depart, and she did so promptly. Then Mr.
Manship advised Mrs. Tackett the two of them should also leave, and after a bit of discussion by
Mrs. Tackett to try to persuade the Principal to reverse his order to Mrs. O'Brien Heffernan and
Mr. Manship to leave, Tackett refused to be alone, so she and Mr. Manship also left.
16. Mrs. Tackett went in her car, and Mrs. O'Brien Heffernan went in the truck of Mr. Manship
to a gas station on Leesburg Pike whereupon when they received a call to Mrs. O'Brien
Heffernan (NOT Mrs. Tackett) from the Special Education Teacher of McKinley Elementary
School stating the school personnel and the Arlington CPS workers with Miss Grane were going
to "go ahead with the meeting", and for Mrs. O'Brien Heffernan to attend by phone conference,
Mr. Manship was given the phone to inform the school employee that would NOT be done, and
the school was in violation of Code ofFederal Regulations 34 CFR 300.345.
COMPLAINT OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION BY ARLINGTON COUNTY AGAINST HEFFERNAN p. 4
Case 1 :11-cv-01354-JCC-J. A Document 1-1 Filed 12/15/11 ~ ::Je 5 of 11 PageiD# 6
17. Mr. Manship stated that a re-scheduled educational status or student progress meeting was
required.
18. A letter dated-- May 2011 was sent by Defendant Brown to Mrs. Tackett that re-scheduled
the 5 May 2011 meeting for 1 June 2011 at the Arlington County School Board headquarters_,
where Defendant Brown, school principal; Kristi Murphy, Sp. Ed. Coordinator; and Kellene
Mountain, psychologist attended for the school with Mrs. Tackett, Mr. Manship and Plaintiff
O'Brien Heffernan, and CPS workers or GAL were NOT allowed to be present. Discovery will
reveal the exact date of Defendant Brown's letter.
19. At that I June 2011 meeting, where both sides made AUDIO RECORDINGS (future
exhibits), the School Psychologist stated that the emotional well-being of A.O. had improved
after being removed :from the Burka foster family home on Saturday, 19 March 20 II which was
the result of several months of effort by Mr. Manship and P1aintiff'Mrs. O'Brien Heffernan, after
A.O., an 11 year old girl was assaulted by a 15 year old Burka boy in December 2010.
20. Defendant Brothers stated in an 28 January email to Plaintiff O'Brien Heffernan that a 11
year old girl being alone with a 15 year old boy, pulled down the stairs, blocked :from going to
the bathroom, and then punched in the face and breasts, "did not meet our definition of assault".
What is needed for the Arlington CPS "definition", out and out sexual rape and brutal bruising?
21. According to Mrs. Stephanie Tebor, a contracted "psychologist" for Arlington CPS, based on
a meeting with A.O., after the foster family assault, stated A.O. considered suicide while in the
Arlington CPS foster 'care' system. Teborg did not take any protective actions in response.
22. The Washington Examiner wrote an article about the plight of A.O. on 8 February. On 6
January, Arlington CPS restored visitation between Grandmother O'Brien Heffernan and A.O.,
the first time for anyone in the family in over five months, since 18 August 2010.
COMPLAINT-OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION BY ARLINGTON COUNTY AGAINST HEFFERNAN p. 5
Case 1:11-cv-01354-JCC-..J, A Document1-1 Filed 12/15/11 1 de6of11 PageiD#7
23. Mr. Manship was at one meeting where A.O. gave him a big hug for his help. At one
meeting, Mr. Manship gave GAL Grane his card, whereupon she filed an Unauthorized Practice
of Law Complaint with the Vuginia State Bar that went nowhere as it was just harassment.
24. What is significant is that BEFORE the 1 June 2011 Arlington School headquarters meeting,
Defendant Brown, on his own initiative, or more likely instigated by Defendants Grane,
McCandless, Brothers and/or Wilson, filed false charges of Criminal Trespass against Plaintiff
O'Brien Heffernan on 26 May 2011. Brown made NO mention of his false chmges being filed.
25. As stated in paragraph 7 of the 25 March a.d. 2011 letter from Mr. Manship to Mr. Brown:
7. Also be advised that Assistant County Attorney Jason McCandless will be a
Defendant in a Federal law suit for his part in a Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights,
so you may be well advised to seek legal counsel from a source without a
Conflict of Interest as the County Attorney suffers under.
8. The referenced parties above at this time have no specific complaint with you or
your staff, so you are not now named parties, by any of the above in any lawsuit.
Therefore, we request that you cooperate with Mrs. Tackett, the mother's
requests, as requ1red by law, for she has no restraints or injunctions upon her by
the Court
Defendant Brown may be wise to file a Cross-Complaint against the instigators of his False
Charges of Criminal Trespass against Grandmother and Guardian, Plaintiff O'Brien Heffernan.
26. On or about 26 January 2011, Plaintiff O'Brien Heffernan, with the assistance of Mr.
Manship, under a provision of Virginia law and Virginia supreme Court Handbook for Grand
Jmors filed against Guardian Ad Litem Karen Grane a CffiZEN PETITION FOR SPECIAL
GRAND JURY PER VIRGINIA COURT HANDBOOK FOR GRAND JURORS INTO
FINANCIAL FRAUD BY OFFICER OF THE COURT (Karen Grane for "padded", that is to say
Fraudulent Expense Vouchers, by cross-referencing Discovery facts from a Maryland case).
27. On 31 January 2011, Plaintiff O'Brien Heffernan filed a MOTION & REPLY TO FRAUD
BY DECEPTIONS OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM, regarding Defendant Karen Grane.
Case 1 :11-cv-01354-JCC-JFA Document 1-1 Filed 12/15/11 F- _ , : : ~ e 7 of 11 PageiD# 8
28. In Court on 24 March 2011, Karen Grane TWICE spoke the word SEXUAL in relation to
the abuse reported by the Burka teen age boy of the foster family approved by Arlington CPS.
29. On 25 March 2011, Plaintiff O'Brien Heffernan filed an EMERQENCYMQTION UNDER
VIRGINIA CODE 63.2-1510 FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF and SANCTIONS ON COUNTY
ATIQRNEY McCANDLESS and GUARDIAN AD LITEM KAREN GRANE. Vuginia Code
63.2-1510 is titled: "Complaints by others of certain injuries to children.", and stated "In light of
the above and related Vtrginia Code sections, Guardian Ad Litem attorney Karen Grane has
violated her trust, and Vtrginia law, and both McCandless and Brothers have aided and abetted
the crime by their compliant silence."
30. With no notice of the Arlington Circuit Court Clerk to Plaintiff O'Brien Heffernan of when
she would make her presentment to the Grand Jury from January to May, on 1 June a.d. 2011,
attorney in fact Manship, and another aggrieved parent victim of Arlington CPS combined to file
another Citizen Petition for Special Grand Jury with Defendant Grane again named, along with
other Arlington employees who have violated various Virginia laws.
31. Attorney in fact Manship pursued Heffernan's second Petition for Special Grand Jury, in that
he had previously addressed a Grand Jury in another jurisdiction to investigate similar massive
corruption by the former Commonwealth Attorney, his Deputy, his successor, his two police
investigators, and others. The attorney and former prosecutor took a guilty plea in June 2011,
had his Vrrginia State Bar card revoked in August, and was sent to prison in September 2011. A
sitting judge submitted a surprise early retirement letter the same day Manship filed a Citizen
Petition for Special Gmnd Jury, two days after Manship met with Vrrginia State Police about the
man's corrupt performance as a "sell out his client" Defense Counsel in the 1994-95 case.
COMPLAINT OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION BV ARLINGTON COUNTY AGAINST HEFFERNAN p. 7
Case 1 :11-cv-01354-JCC-JFA Document 1-1 Filed 12/15/11 ~ _ d e 8 of 11 PageiD# 9
32. Many delaying tactics were employed by the Arlington Circuit Court Clerk Office attorney
and others in the employ of Arlington Courts in regard to Attorney in fact and Petitioner Manship
under Section 23 of the Vuginia supreme Court Handbook for Grand Jurors, "'Any citizen or
group of citizens may ask the Circuit Court of a city or county to convene a Special Grand Jury."
33. Further reading of the Virginia law reveals three paths a Citizen may ask for a Special Grand
Jwy, one of which is to appear before a regular Orand Jwy, often composed of only five Citizens
as jurors, so unable to sit as a Special Orand Jury, to make a Presentment to request the Jurors
vote to impanel a group of Citizens as a Special Orand Jury as in Section 26 that states:
"As has been set out in Section 3, a Special Grand Jury is composed of frOm seven
to eleven eitizens of a city or county, selected by the Circuit Court and summoned to
investigate any condition which tends to promote criminal activity in the
eommu.ity or by any goveramental authority, agency or omciaL"
"The Special Grand Jury, composed entirely of private citizens, is the one non-
political body with legal authoritY to make s ~ c h investigations."
34. Arlington contractors like Defendant GAL Grane, or Arlington employees like Defendants
McCandless, Wilson, or Brothers who allow what Grane TWICE used the word IN COURT as a
SEXUAL assault by a foster family teen age boy on an 1 1 year old girl in its Foster care program
is a "criminal activity" that PRIVATE CITIZENS, NOT ARLINGTON EMPLOYEES MUST
INVESTIGATE, this and other felony acts, if this Vuginia Law is to be honored and obeyed.
35. Citizen Manship Noticed to Appear before the 21 November 2011 Grand Jury, but was
denied the RIGHT of a Citizen to make a Presentment before the Grand Jury for either a Direct
Indictment by vote of the jurors of a True Bill, or for an Investigation by a separately impaneled
Special Orand Jwy to investigate and indict as the investigation reveals proper. The denial of the
Grand Jury RIGHT by Arlington "actors", makes action in the Federal Court a necessary action.
Case 1 :11-cv-01354-JCC-JFA Document 1-1 Filed 12/15/11 P ...... 9 of 11 PageiD# 10
36. Also on 21 November 2011, Citizen attorney in fact for Plaintiff O'Brien
Heffernan, along with a news reporter Janice Wolk Grenadier, met with Defendant Theo Stamos
to relate to her as the Deputy and newly elected Commonwealth Attorney the years of Malicious
Prosecution by Defendant Karen Grane, to which Defendant Stamos indignantly defended her
fellow Bar member as "just doing her job", rather than demonstrating any honest measme of
"Prosecutorial Discretion", to (1) investigate the fraudulent Expense Vouchers filed by
Defendant Karen Grane as the Guardian Ad Litem in the A.O. case, and (2) to investigate the
extent of Malicious Prosecution instigated by GAL Grane against Plaintiff' O'Brien Heffernan
since she was assigned to the case on 19 February 2009, over two and a balfyears before.
37. Despite, or in spite oftbat meeting on 21 November 2011 with Mr. Manship, attorney in fact for
Mrs. O'Brien Heffernan, Defendant Theo Stamos maliciously continued on 1219/11 the fiivolous and
malicious prosecution of Grandmother and Guardian by Maryland Court Order Mrs. O'Brien
Heffernan for &lsely alleged, fidsely charged, falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted Criminal
Tn:spass for merely appearing at the school with her daughter, mother of A.O. and Mr. Manship at a
school progress meeting, and leaving promptly after being told by the principal to do so.
38. Two honest Guardian Ad Litems, Bar members George Dodge and Fitzhugh Godwin, have
stated they are appalled at the efforts of Arlington against Plaintiff O'Brien Heffernan.
39. Thank God, Judge McCue had the wisdom and courage to say NOT GUILTY to this
Malicious Prosecution of Defendant Stamos by way of her assistant Commonwealth Attorney.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
40. One Cause of Action stated is Malicious Prosecution against the Plaintiff, clearly from 26
May to 9 December 2011 in the false charge of Criminal Trespass, judged NOT GUILTY.
Case 1 :11-cv-01354-JCC-JFA Document 1-1 Filed 12/15/11 PaiJ J 10 of 11 PageiD# 11
41. Another Cause of Action is Malicious Prosecution against the Plaintiff by Defendant Grane
from 19 Febrwuy 2009 to the present, by a series of adverse and hostile actions.
42. One relief that can be granted is for the Court to provide assistance of counsel to Plaintiff
O'Brien Heffernan to pursue the felony violations by one or more of the named Defendants.
43. Another relief that can be granted is to issue a Scheduling Order for a full and complete
process of Discovery by the Plaintiff of the Defendants, as described in paragraph 6, above.
44. Another relief that can be granted is as part of that Scheduling Order to schedule a Trial by
Jury so that Private Citizens can evaluate the facts and the laws pertaining .to this case to
detennine the extent of Malicious Prosecution by the Defendants, and other violations of law.
DATED: 15 December 2011
Respectfully submitted by:
S h o ' ~ ~ ~
Delores 0' Brien Heffernan,
ProSe, and In Forma Pauperis
COMPLAINT OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION BY ARLINGTON COUNTY AGAINST HEFFERNAN p.IO
Case 1:11-cv-01354-JCC-JFA Document 1-1 Filed 12/15/11 Pa_. 11 of11 PageiD# 12
I hereby certify that on the 15th day of December 2011, I will file the foregoing with a
companion In Fonna Pauperis Motion so that the U.S. Marshal Service will serve the Complaint
on each of the named Defendants at the the Clerk of the Court, asking the Clerk to use the CM/
ECF system to notify the Arlington County government attorney to notify other employee
defendants, and certify I will send electronically to the various adult co-plaintiffs. In addition, I
hereby certify that I will mail the document by U.S. mail to the following non-compliant with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure attorney:
Am L. Tramblian,
Depu1y County Attorney
Arlington County Attorney's Office
2100 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 403
Arlington, Vu:ginia 22201
703-228-3100 (voice)
703-228-7106 (fax)
and also to Arlington juvenile judge appointed Guardian Ad Litem attorney Karen Grane, who
properly should NOT be the beneficiary of representation by the Assistant Attorney General:
Karen Marie Grane
2007 North 15th Street, Suite 1
Arlington, Vu:ginia 22201
NOTE: For Grane's basement office shared with other "favored" Arlington JDR
Court appointed Guardian Ad Litem attorneys Mina Ketchie and Isabel
"R....,
Delores O'Brien Heffernan, Pro Se, In Forma Pauperis
%Amos 5:15 Project, God and Country Foundation, Box 76, Mount Vernon, Vuginia 22121
703-NRA-1776
COMPLAINT OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION BY ARLINGTON COUNTY AGAINST HEFFERNAN p.ll
-.-.. : ~
: ....
:._l
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA:
IN THE SUPREME COURT
IN BE: ASHLIE MAE O'BRIEN, 12 year old victim of bloody assault by
r
Arlington County Deputy Sheriff Neptuno Mendez-Ventura, and
abuses by Arlington authorities such as G.A.L. Karen Grane, who
submitted Fraudulent Expense Vouchers, & Asst. County Attorney
Jason McCandless, as well as judges and other court personnel.
Case No: CJ12-1
---
CJ12-3 thru 12-7
JUN 2 1 2012
CJ11-67. CJ11-68
PEMION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
DENIAL OF MOTION TO QUASH
ARLINGTON COUNTY ATTORNEY SUBPOENA ON
AJTORNEY-CLIENT and CLERGY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE BASIS
and
MOTION FOB DISCOVERY OF ARLINGTON CPS CELL PHONE TEXTS
THAT WOULD REVEAL IN COURT WITNESS TAMPERING BY
ARLINGTON CPS SUPERVISOR SHERRI BROTHERS and OTHERS
1. Petitioner James Renwick Manship, Sr., Chaplain of the Amos 5:15
Project "Hate evil and love the good. Remodel your Courts into True
halls of Justice" of the God and Country Foundation comes now to
inform the Virginia supreme Court that the Circuit Court of Arlington
County Virginia ignored a Petition under UCCJEA that was filed, and
allowed several instances of what investigation would reveal as Witness
Tampering by Arlington CPS Supervisor Sherri Brothers and others.
PETITION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL I MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF CPS CELL TEXT MSGS page 1
2. Petitioner Manship was four or more times threatened by Judge Ben
Kendrick with jailing when Attorney in Fact Manship reported to Deputies
the fact that despite a Rule on Witnesses where he was ejected from the
Courtroom, and told to sit on a hard bench while all the other witnesses
were escorted into a witness lounge with decent chairs; so outside in the
haii"Joumalist for Justice" Minister for Justice Manship took notes on the
times of comings and goings of Witnesses and others at Courtroom 1 OB.
3. This Termination of Parental Rights Appeal hearing was continued from
prior dates, with date set to 20 June in the Year of Our Lord Jesus 2012
by now retired Judge Joanne Alper, and so was on 20 June 2012 "heard"
by another retired Arlington Judge, Ben Kendrick, presumably on an
order from the Chief Justice to serve as a Substitute Judge in Arlington,
much like the order Kendrick received to serve in Winchester to replace
judge John Prosser who surprised folks by his submission of an "early
retirement letter" to now deceased Chief Justice Hassell on the same
day, 21 January 2011, that Chaplain Manship filed a Citizens Petition for
Special Grand Jury. two days after 19 January 2011 when Manship and
two others met with Virginia State Police Special Agent and a Special
Prosecutor to reveal the many corruptions of Bar member John Prosser.
4. The arrest of former Commonwealth Attorney Paul Thomson on 1 0
January 2011 , despite being very well politically connected as the
nephew of former Democrat, United States Senator Harry Byrd, came
six days after 4 January 2011 when Chaplain Manship showed to a
Virginia State Police agent at VSP Headquarters on Midlothian Turnpike
in Richmond the Winchester Police Notes of 02/17/99 that said,
"Paul Thomson is skimming money from drug dealers."
There is no Statute of Limitations on Felony Crimes in Virginia.
5. Paul Thomson, former Commonwealth Attorney was arrested in January
and convicted by a "Plea Deal" in June for Witness Tampering, Evidence
Tampering, and Drug Possession, getting a short sentence for his crimes.
6. The month before Thomson's arrest, December 2010, Chaplain
Manship testified before the Criminal Justice Services Board, after
which he met an honest Commonwealth Attorney who knew of the
hubris of Paul Thomson and suggested setting up the meeting of
Manship with the Virginia State Police. Christmas intervened where
Chaplain Manship was way down south in Texas for several weeks.
7. Since the arrest, conviction and sending off to Federal Prison of the
powerful Paul Thomson and the early retirement of his cohort, partner in
crime John Prosser, former Private Investigators and former Police
have been "coming out of the woodwork" to tell Investigative Journalist
Manship what they know of the corruptions of these two Bar members,
and two corrupt Police Detectives, James Bailous and David Sobonya.
8. Also in December 2010, Chaplain Manship coached Mrs. Nancy Hey
Slitor to testify, according to Chairman Bill Janis, very powerfully, about
the corrupt actions of Arlington JDR Court Judge Esther Wiggins.
9. At that Courts of Justice Committee hearing, Manship met a DC Bar
attorney who was ALSO testifying against JDR judge Wiggins, on behalf
of three mothers "raped" by Wiggins and the Arlington CPS employees.
10. One of those three mothers whose children were "snatched" by Wiggins
and the Arlington CPS cohorts, was the widow and grandmother, Mrs.
Delores O'Brien Heffernan, who was trying to regain custody of her 10
year old grand daughter Ashlie Mae O'Brien, snatched on 22 July 2010.
11 . In December 2010 or at the latest January 2011, Chaplain Manship first
met Arlington CPS Supervisor Sherri Brothers, about the time she
stated that Ash lie being hit in the face and breasts by a 14 year old boy
son of the Arlington CPS selected Foster Parents, the Burkas, was not,
in her opinion, assault, not physical assault and not sexual assault.
PETITION FOR INTEALOCUTORY APPEAL I MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF CPS CELL TEXT MSGS page 4
12. CPS Supervisor Brothers refused to move Ashlie to another Foster
home where she was less likely to suffer a physical or sexual assault.
13. Chaplain Manship wrote a letter to Ashlie's principal at McKinley
School, knowing that he was a mandatory reporter under Virginia Law.
A short time later, Arlington CPS moved Ashlie to another Foster home.
14. On the building where this Constitution tor the United States of America
is inscribed the words, 'The Past is Prologue". That past Dereliction of
Duty by CPS Supervisor Miss Sherri Brothers, was prologue to other
violations of CPS handbook procedures, if not violation of Virginia laws,
by CPS Supervisor Brothers and others abusing power in Arlington.
15. Sherri Brothers arrived at Court the same time and served as an
"assistant" to the "prosecutor", Jason McCandless, subject of a Bar
complaint related to this case, as all too typical, a legitimate complaint
not given honest consideration by the Bar disciplinary screeners.
16. On or about 0925, Manship served a Court document on Jason
McCandless. Minutes later Manship witnessed McCandless hand out
documents, or "scripts" for the trial that day set to start at ten to CPS
Supervisor Sherri Brothers, Taymee Gaymon, and Maureen Watkins,
that an objective observer might evaluate as "Witness Tampering" by
Bar member McCandless.
17. Sometime after 1 0 AM, the hearing presided by Judge Kendrick began.
18. Plaintiff Heffernan raised the question of proper jurisdiction by the
UCCJEA Emergency Petition filed in Montgomery Maryland Circuit
Court, with a required hearing scheduled for Friday, 22 June 2012.
19. Judge Kendrick was irate, and called on Mrs. Heffernan and Chaplain
Manship to raise their right hand to be sworn to an Oath to tell the truth.
Like Washington, Chaplain Manship answered,
11
1 do, so help me God."
20. Manship also stated, "Objection your honor. All lawyers in this
courtroom should also be required to take an Oath to tell the truth."
Judge Kendrick failed the Equal Justice test by neglecting to do so.
21. Kendrick badgered Mrs. Heffernan about who wrote the Petition she
signed and filed. She claimed it as her document and stated she had
help from several sources, including a law library & Chaplain Manship.
22. Kendrick then turned his wrath on Chaplain Manship saying words to
the effect, (the Court transcript can provide the exact words), I will
prosecute you and have you jailed for Unauthorized Practice of Law.
23. Chaplain Manship replied that as of 1 July 2010, a new law in Virginia
states a Citizen could authorize another citizen, whether or not a
Virginia State Bar member, to represent the Citizen as an Attorney in
Fact. (In fact, Attorney derives from the French, meaning "to represenr)
24. On the other hand, some wags may say that "LAWYER" derives from
the Southern drawl way of saying LIAR.
25. Judge Kendrick then badgered Mrs. Heffernan with the question, "Is Mr.
Manship speaking for you?,, to which Mr. Manship objected, stating,
"Under FARE'ITA v. CAUFORNIA a United States supreme Court
decision a party may both speak for themselves AND have "assistance
of counsel", one does not exclude the other.
26. Judge Kendrick then asked, do you have the cite?
NOTE: Not off the top of the head able to give the citation, but here it is:
422U.S. 8o6
FAREITA v. CALIFORNIA.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA,
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT.
No. 73-5772.
Argued November 19, 1974
Decided June 30, 1975
Read the entire Opinion and more at:,
. f ~ I ., "'.!
' ~ ' ~ A
27. Judge Kendrick again threatened Chaplain Manship with UPL
prosecution, and Manship answered that both Bar Complaint subject
McCandless and Expense Voucher Fraud filing Grane had done so
before, their claims were investigated and found without merit.
28. Kendrick denied the Motion to Quash made by Chaplain Manship.
29. McCandless began his case and first called for a Rule on Witnesses,
with at that time, about 10:30 AM, the ONLY witness sent out of the
courtroom was Chaplain Manship. CPS employee witnesses not so.
30. At 11 :55 AM, another McCandless witness, Stephanie Tebor arrived,
and was escorted by a Deputy into a Witness waiting room.
31. Uncomfortable on the hard bench where Chaplain Manship had been
told by Deputies to sit, at 12:01 PM, Manship asked Deputy J. Overholt
to be treated like this other witness, able to sit in comfort in the Witness
Waiting Room. Manship's request for Equal Justice was denied.
32. At 12:21 PM, Taymee Gaymon exited 1 OB, and moments later Maureen
Watkins. Both of them were witnesses but allowed to remain in the
Courtroom AFTER the Rule on Witnesses, when Manship was ejected.
33. At 12:22 PM, Sherri Brothers exited 108 and went into the witness room
where witness Stephanie Tebor had been escorted. Both Deputy
Weaver and Deputy Richard were informed of this Witness Tampering
and asked to tell Judge Kendrick. Both refused to report to the judge.
Deputy Adams was also told. He too refused to report to the judge.
34. At 12:41 PM Taymee Gaymon re-entered 108.
35. At 12:51 PM, Mrs. Anna Burns, foster mother who in October 2011 hit
the foster child Ashlie O'Brien (Assault) arrived and sat on the bench
where Chaplain Manship initially sat. Deputy Overholt told her initially
to wait outside, because she was subpoened by Miss Tackett.
36: At 15:56 PM, Dep. Overholt calls Anna Burns from the bench to come
sit in the Witness waiting room. Witness Manship still kept outside.
37. Chaplain Manship asks Deputy Overholt why he is not allowed in the
Witness waiting room like the other witnesses? Overholt answers, "Just
wait there." pointing to the bench.
38. At 12:57 PM Witness Stephanie Tabor exits waiting room at the same
time Witness Mr. Burka arrives, they chat cordially, and Tabor tells
Burka that the Witness waiting room is "over there". Burka enters it.
Witness Manship is still excluded from the Witness room. Tebor has
two big bags over her shoulders, one tan, the other black, and a handful
of papers, maybe the "scripf' given out by Jason McCandless?
39. At 13:54 PM Witness Tabitha Kelley arrived, and sat on bench. Pulls
out her cell phone and begins to text - a privilege denied to Witness
Manship. Later she too was escorted into the Witness waiting room.
40. At 14:07 PM, called into Courtroom 10 B by Deputy Overholt with other
witnesses. Threatened by Judge Kendrick not to talk with other
witnesses about the case.
41. Informed Judge Kendrick about the Witness Tampering of Stephanie
Tabor by Arlington CPS Supervisor Sherri Brothers.
42. Kendrick asked what the two women said and then uttered,
"Supposition". I stated that if I had done the same act going alone into
the witness room after being in the court room hearing others testify, his
actions would likely be different.
43.At 14:11 PM, Was told to return in one hour for lunch recess.
44. Chaplain Manship went down by the stairs one flight to the Sheriff
Office to ask for a FOIA request form to AGAIN REQUEST the Court
Security Videos of the 4th floor on 7 December 2011 where Deputy
Neptune Mendez-Ventura did a BLOODY ASSAULT of 12 year old
Ashlie Mae O'Brien, witnessed by Chaplain Manship.
45. Due to lack Sheriff Office willingness to make a copy of my hand-written
FOIA Request (after denying they had a FOIA Request Form) for my
records and the court record, I first went to the 6th floor to have copies
made in the Circuit Court Clerk's office, file one copy and return the
original to the Sheriff Office on the bloody assault by Deputy Ventura.
46. Leaving the Courthouse, Sherri Brothers approached Chaplain
Manship, and he said to her, "Shame on you for Witness Tampering
with Stephanie Tebor."
47. Chaplain Manship prayer walks around Arlington Courthouse and
returns at 15:09 PM to the 1 Qth floor.
48. At 15:22 PM, just after taking a Latty Taffy into my mouth, Deputy
Adams calls me into the Courtroom, where Judge Kendrick threatens
me about my comment to Sherri Brothers about her Witness Tampering.
49. I restated much the same as stated before, he would be mad if I had
taken knowledge outside the courtroom and discuss with a witness.
50. At 15:25 PM, Deputy Adams went to witness room for Stephanie Tebor.
At 16:02 PM, Stephanie Tebor exits Courtroom 10B.
51. At 16:02 PM, a female Deputy, name , goes into Witness waiting
room and brings out Mr. Burka to go into 108.
52. At 16:26 PM, Tabitha Kelley returns, says hello, and enters witness
room. Again, witness room for all but Chaplain Manship.
53. At 16:29 PM, Assistant County Attorney Joniece Connanan (?sp)
walking with a while male with blue shirt, and Mr. Burka exit 1 OB. Anna
Burns enters 1 OB as a witness.
54. At 16:44 PM, Marita Wilson arrives, looks confused, wanders around,
comes back at 16:46 with a woman in an orange sweater who leads her
into the Witness waiting room, except for Witness Manship.
55. At 16:48 PM, a five minute potty break. At 16:49 PM, Deputy Weaver
pulls out cell phone and makes calls, a privilege denied common folk.
56. At 16:59 PM, Witness Anna Burns exits 108. Tabitha Kelley enters.
57. At about 1700 PM, the case status screen goes blank, so no time
shown. Deputy Weaver who was using her cell phone that shows time
when I asked her for the time, she says, "I don't have a watch."
58. At 5:24PM, the Cleaning Lady looks at her cell phone and tells me the
time. Yet again, having a cell phone is DENIED to an Attorney in Fact.
59. At 5:35PM, given the time by a cleaning man.
60. At 5:49 PM ?, Tabitha Kelley exits 1 OB with Deputy Weaver.
61. At 5:53PM?, Manta Wilson exits Witness room, goes to restroom.
62. At 5:53PM, Tabitha Kelley returns, enters the Witness room, exits the
witness room, and then uses her CELL PHONE to TEXT.
63. Moments later Deputy Chavez brings out something (looks like a key)
to Tabitha Kelley.
64. MUCH of the ABOVE time and action Account is to show that the
witnesses had TEXT communications into and out of the courtroom,
THUS making a MOCKERY of the notion of "Rule on Witnesses".
65. As a former Navy Special Duty Cryptology Officer, we would derive
"intelligence" even without intercepting the actual text of the radio
transmission.
66. In a supposedly Rule of Law Fair Trial, it is grossly unfair that Arlington
County employees are able to text other employees both in and outside
the Courtroom.
67. Sometimes the Deputies will tell someone to stop texting in the
Courtroom as was done to GAL Karen Grane on 7 December 2011, but
there before Chaplain Manship was ejected from Courtroom 1 0 B, he
saw both GAL Karen Grane and CPS Supervisor texting on their ''smart
phones", and later outside, others text and have someone in the court
come out of courtroom 108.
68. How much Witness Tampering could Sherri Brothers or Karen Grane
do by using Text messages, before, during and after the hearing?
69. What is the solution? Petitioner ALSO Petitions for a Writ of
Mandamus for an Writ of Mandamus Order for Discovery of all text
message from 0700 to 1900 on 20 June 2012 of all the cell phone
coverage providers for Sherri Brothers, Karen Grana, Taymee Gaymon,
Maureen Watkins, Marita Wilson, Stephanie Tebor, Anna Burns, Mr.
Burka, Jonaniece Connanan, Jason McCandless and James Manship,
ostensibly, a witness subpoened by Jason McCandless like the others.
70. Total neglect or ignoring the facts was the response of retired, substitute
Judge Kendrick to the Tuesday, 19 June 2012 filing of the Emergency
Petition filed in Montgomery County Circuit Court, Judge Richard Jordan
set a date of Friday, 22 June 2012 for the mandatory hearing to
determine proper jurisdiction under UCCJEA, whether it be Montgomery
County Maryland where Ashlie was born and a resident, and wrongly
removed on 9 May 2012 by an Arlington employee, or whether it is .
Stafford County Virginia, where Ashlie lived for about three weeks before
being wrongly removed on 22 July 2010 by an Arlington employee, and
in the process was searched" and photographed in a
dressing room.
EMERGENCY PETITION FOR REQUIREP Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and
Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) HEARING BEFORE ANY LEGAL REMOVAL OF
VICTIM OF CHILD ABUSE BY ARLINGTON COUNTY CPS and FOSTER SYSTEM.
ASHUE MAE OBRIEN. ALSO BLOODY ASSAULTED BY DEPUTY VENTURA
(see Video DC(position where Ashlie tells of the felony assault b.y Arlinaton Deputy)
AND CONFERENCE OF JUDGE OF STAFFORD COUNIY VIRGINIA WIIH
A JUPQE OF MONTGOMERY COUNIT MARYLAND TO SET PRQPER VENUE
71. In a video interrogation on 19 June 2012 witnessed by Arlington Court
Appointed Counsel Elizabeth Tuomey, in response to a question by
Jason McCandless, Asst. County Attorney to Ashlie Mae O'Brien, Ashlie
stated of all her options, she wanted to live with her Grandmother and
Guardian, Mrs. Delores O'Brien Heffernan.
72. Great concern was shown by Montgomery County Circuit Court
personnel about the dereliction of duty by Judge Alper, Judge Newman,
Commonwealth Attorney Stamos, and Circuit Court Clerk Ferguson, all
of whom have aided and abetted the of the crimes of a bloodly
Assault and Battery by Arlington Deputy Sheriff Neptuno Mendez-
Ventura against the 12 year old minor child, Ashlie O'Brien, in the
courtroom and adjacent hallway of Arlington County JDR Court on 7
December 2011.
73. Great concern should be shown by the Chief Justice of Virginia Cynthia
Kinser that TOTALLY IGNORED by Ben Kendrick has been her Order of
19 April 2011 naming retired Judge Ben Kendrick to handle the case of
Manship vs. (Several Winchester Public Servants) including one now in
Federal Prison, Paul Thomson.
74. The text of the ORDER to Judge Kendrick directs him to set the date, but
on 19 November 2011, when retired judge Kendrick was AGAIN on the
bench in Arlington (SO TO DOUBLE DIP and get as much as 150 /o of
his pre--retirement Judicial Salary), judge Kendrick said setting the date
was the job of the Circuit Court Clerk of Winchester.
75. However, weeks earlier, Terry Whittle, Clerk of the Circuit Court said they
were waiting for action by Judge Kendrick. Who to believe? Judge
Kendrick? Or Clerk Terry Whittle?
76. On 3 April 2008, Judge Kendrick in court stated to Chaplain Manship that
he had a bias against him (Manship). On 8 April, Kendrick signed the
ORDER OF DISQUALIFICATION in the case.? Sadly, the Bias of Ben
Kendrick against Citizen and Chaplain Manship continues years later.
77. Likely Kendrick FAILED to inform the Chief Justice of that April 2008
Disqualification Order for admitted bias when he agreed to take the case
of Manship vs. (corrupt Winchester Public Servants) in April 2011, or
maybe Kendrick agreed to kill the case for Judge Wetsel who in
February 2011 wrote a supplemental Grand Jury Instructions" that
contained FALSE and misleading statements, and as such was both
Perjury and Jury Tampering by Winchester Presiding Judge Wetsel, who
was forced to recuse himself from the case?
78. If not the words of Wetsel that were false and misleading, then the acts of
Wetsel allowing Mike Butler to serve as Jury Foreman when Wetsel had
reason to know that Butler was on City Council when they voted on the
Personnel action to terminate the employment of Winchester Police
Captain David Sobonya, head of the Criminal Investigation Unit, in part
related to his Evidence Tampering in the Jeff Washington case, and
allowed Commonwealth Attorney Alex lden, who was also implicated in
wrongdoing, to call on David Sobonya and a local lackey VSP Special
Agent Eric Deal, married to the head of investigations in Frederick County
to make counter-presentments to the Grand Jury after Manship made his.
79. Whatever the motive or speculation of motive, the fact is that in over 14
months, substitute Judge Ben Kendrick has FAILED to set a date on
PETITION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL I MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF CPS caL TEXT MSGS page 16
which he presides over a Grand Jury of the City of Winchester for the
Rehearing of the Presentment of Petitioner Manship
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
80. Given over 4 years of admitted bias against Chaplain Manship by now
retired judge Ben Kendrick, Petitioner prays that this Interlocutory Appeal
to reverse and remand Kendrick's Denial of Manship's Motion to Quash
the subpoena of Arlington County Attorney assistant Jason McCandless.
81. Given that substitute and retired judge Ben Kendrick has flagrantly
ignored Federal law regarding a REQUIRED hearing to determine
proper venue in the case of Ashlie Mae O'Brien, who as a fearful12 year
old girl who has been assaulted by members of TWO different Foster
families chosen by Arlington CPS, and gross over-crowding of 12 adults
and 5 children along with 2 foster children in the THIRD Arlington CPS
foster home, that the hearing on 20 and 21 June 2012 be declared a
Nullity.
81. Given the threats of Ben Kendrick abusing his temporary authority as a
substitute judge, Petitioner prays that this corrupt, now retired judge
never be again given any assignment by ORDER of the Chief Justice, or
any other employee of the Courts of Virginia, either as provided by
Virginia law for a period of up to 90 days, or for a specific case until its
completion, so that Kendrick is no longer a "Double Dipper" able to earn
more in retirement than when on the bench before his retirement, such
that retirement is a fraud on the Taxpayers of Virginia, in that it is a veiled
Pay Increase for older judges who now have no accountability to the
General Assembly to be re-elected, as a minor incentive to be honest
while serving and taking taxpayers GW dollars.
82. That an ORDER issue from the Virginia supreme Court to the Attorney
General to direct the Virginia State Police to obtain the Text messages of
Arlington CPS Supervisor Sherri Brothers, Tabitha Kelley, Marita Wilson,
Maureen Watkins, Taymee Gaymon, as well as Arlington County Attorney
Assistants Jason McCandless and Jonneice Connanan (?sp), to .
determine the extent of Witness Tampering done during the hearing of 20
and 21 June 2012 presided over by substitute, retired judge Kendrick
who was irate at Petitioner Manship for telling him of Witnes
21 June 2012 Date

Virginia Petition For Writ of Quo Warranto Vs James Renwick Manship

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Virginia Petition For Writ of Quo Warranto Vs James Renwick Manship

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen