In The

Supreme Court of Virginia

Record No.

In re: Michael Field,

Petitioner

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION

Michael Field, Petitioner 1340 North Great Neck Road #1272-384 Virginia Beach, VA 23454 (757) 675-0855 fieldmike@aol.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents......1 Table of Authorities........2 Table of Exhibits.........8 Table of Appendices...10 Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition......11 Facts and Memorandum of Law....16 Preface......16 Taking of Evidence...18 Background...24 Mandamus....26 Prohibition......26 Due Process......29 1: Inspection and Preservation of Court Records.......31 2: Reports of Commissioners in Chancery.43 3: Default Judgments....46 4: Recovery of Statutory Costs and Damages...49 5: Opportunity to be Heard, Counterclaim..59 6: Responsibility for the Quality of Justice...66 Prayer for Relief...71 Notarized Certification.....71 Appendices..72
1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CONSTITUTIONS

Page

United States Constitution*.....passim Virginia Constitution*............passim STATUTES Va. Code 8.01-227*........15 Remedy by motion on certain bonds Va. Code 8.01-271.1*.......61, 63 Signing of pleadings, motions, and other papers; oral motions, sanctions Assignment of Claims Va. Code 8.01-12*..20 Suit by beneficial owner when legal title in another. Va. Code 8.01-13*......20 Assignee or beneficial owner may sue in own name. Attachments Va. Code 8.01-535.....56 Jurisdiction of Attachments; trial or hearing of issues Va. Code 8.01-537.1*.....15 Plaintiff to File Bond Va. Code 8.01-567.....52 Principal defendant may also file counterclaims or defenses Va. Code 8.01-568*...............15, 52, 53, 56, 63 Quashing attachment or rendering judgment for defendant
*

Indicates a violation of the statute, rule, or canon by a court official occurred

2

Commissioners in Chancery Va. Code 8.01-609*......46 Commissioners in Chancery - Duties; procedures generally Courts of Record Va. Code 17.1-123*..42 How orders are recorded and signed Va. Code 17.1-124*..42 Order books Va. Code 17.1-129*..42 Filing date and time to be noted on papers Va. Code 17.1-208*..31 Records, etc. open to inspection; copies; exception Va. Code 17.1-215...42 Process book Va. Code 17.1-247*..42 When and how clerk to verify his record. Va. Code 17.1-248...42 Clerk to make index to each of his books Va. Code 17.1-249...42 General indexes for clerks office; daily index Va. Code 17.1-250*..42 Correction of indexes
*

Indicates a violation of the statute, rule, or canon by a court official occurred

3

Jury Trial of Right Va. Code 18.1-336*........34 Jury trial of right; waiver of jury trial; court-ordered jury trial; RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA Va. Sup. Ct. Rule 1:4*..61, 62 General Provisions as to Pleadings Va. Sup. Ct. Rule 1:13*......61 Endorsements Va. Sup. Ct. Rule 3:8*........46 Answers, Pleas, Demurrers and Motions Va. Sup. Ct. Rule 3:19*......49 Default Va. Sup. Ct. Rule 3:23*.15, 44, 46 Use of and Proceedings Before a Commissioner in Chancery Va. Sup. Ct. Rule 5:7.......11, 71 Petitions for Mandamus and Prohibition Va. Sup. Ct. Rule 5:10*..12 Record on Appeal: Contents Va. Sup. Ct. Rule 5:11*.....13, 22, 37 Record on Appeal: Transcript or Written Statement Va. Sup. Ct. Rule 5:13*..12 Record on Appeal: Preparation and Transmission
*

Indicates a violation of the statute, rule, or canon by a court official occurred

4

CANONS OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Page

Canon 1*.....passim A Judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Canon 2*.passim A Judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the Judges activities. Canon 3*.passim A Judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently.

(Part Six, III of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia integrates the Canons of Judicial Conduct for the State of Virginia stated above.)

RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Preamble: A Lawyers Responsibilities*...........66 A lawyer is an officer of the legal system. Rules 1.1 - 1.18: Client-Lawyer Relationship*......passim Rules 3.1 - 3.9: Advocate*.............passim Rules 4.1 - 4.4: Transactions with Persons other than Clients*.passim

(Part Six, II of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia integrates the Professional Guidelines and the Rules of Professional Conduct stated above.)
*

Indicates a violation of the statute, rule, or canon by a court official occurred

5

CASES

Page

Ableman v. Booth.34 Aetna Casualty Co. v. Supervisors....66, 70 Ancient Art Tattoo Studio, Ltd. v. City of Virginia Beach.....28 Anthony v. Kasey...65 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Ira Stephen Saul...17 Barnes v. American Fertilizer Company......... 65 Britt Construction, Inc. v. Magazine Clean, LLC..16 Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Company...30 Carolina, C & O Ry. v. Board of Supervisors...28 Coleman v. Virginia Stave Company...65 Collins v. Shepherd....65 In re: Commonwealths Attorney for the City of Roanoke..27 Commonwealth v. Lancaster....68 Connecticut v. Doehr.59 Cowan v. Fulton.....28 Daniels v. Truck & Equip. Corporation.....68 Dovel v. Bertram....27 Early Used Cars, Inc. v. Province.....28 Estate of Hackler v. Hackler......68 Evans v. Smyth-Wythe Airport Commission...65

Page Evans v. Virginia...18 Fauquier Nat'l Bank v. Hazelwood Savings & Trust Company.....56 Ferry Company v. Commonwealth.65 Gannon v. State Corp. Commonwealth..27 Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v Hartford-Empire Co. ...31 Lapidus v. Lapidus65 Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Company.57 Marbury v. Madison.59, 69, 70 Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp v. Watson.25 Parratt v. Taylor.58 Richlands Med. Assn v. Commonwealth.........26, 27 Shapiro v. Younkin...37 Singh v. Mooney...65 Sniadach v. Family Finance Corporation....57 Super Fresh Food Mkts. of Va., Inc. v. Ruffin.....68 Watkins v. Watkins...65 Williams v. Commonwealth...16 Winfree v. Mann.........55

TABLE OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Page Email from counsel regarding threats.17 Judge Kemler Transcript August 8, 2012...18 Baker Plaintiffs Opposition Page 6.21 Baker Plaintiffs Opposition Page 6.....21 Baker Plaintiffs Opposition Page 11...21 Baker Plaintiffs Opposition Page 9.....22 Outlaw Trial Testimony Page 4...23 Judge Kemlers Order granting Baker Plaintiffs Non-Suit....23 Judge Kemler August 8, 2012 Transcript.......32 Mr. Fields Motion for a Report in Compliance with the Rules..33 Judge Kemler August 8, 2012 Transcript...33 Mr. Fields Written Statement of Facts....36 Judge Kemlers 1/21/05 Order to Report Trustees Position....39 Legal Bill for ex parte conference with Judge Kemler...40 Judge Browns 2/9/05 Ex Parte Order to Report Trustees Position40 Judge Kemler and Mr. Field August 8, 2012 Transcript....41 Judge Kemler and Mr. Field August 8, 2012 Transcript....45 Baker Plaintiffs Opposition Page 9.....48

Exhibit 19 20 21 22 23 24

Page Baker Plaintiffs Opposition Page 6.....48 Judge Brown Mr. Fields Hearing to Quash Attachment....51 Counsel for GMAC re: Statutory Right to Damages..52 Judge Kloch re: Facts did not support the seizure..54 Report of the Committee of District Courts.55 Statutory Right to Damages. ..60

TABLE OF APPENDICES Appendix Transcript August 8, 2012.A Ancillary Background SynopsisB Order Approving Sale and Assignment of Claims to Michael Field...C Certified Table of Contents of Baker v. Field...D Report of the Commissioner in ChanceryE August 15, 2005 Index CL 04-001130...F December 20, 2005 Index CL 04-001130....G March 20, 2006 Index CL 04-001130.H Unendorsed December Order CL 04-001130.....I December Order Filed as Exhibit in Civil Action 1:05CV1507........J Unsigned Amended Pleading...K Transcript and MP3 of Voicemail from Judge Kemlers Law Clerk 9/18/12..L Communications Chain with Judge Kemlers Law Clerk and Clerks Office.M Virginia State Bar Inquiry Request Ira S. Saul.N Judicial Review and Inquiry and Review Commission Kemler...O Judicial Review and Inquiry and Review Commission WeiserP Report of the Committee on District Courts.....Q Electronic Case History dated December 8, 2012..R Fax Cover Sheet obtained from Deputy Brian Grenadier...S December 6, 2011 Letter to Judge Kemler and Delivery Receipt..T December 6, 2011 Index CH 04-001230 & CL 05-001284.....U December 12, 2011 Index CH 04-001230 & CL 05-001284...V
10

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION COMES NOW, the undersigned Petitioner, pursuant to Article VI of the Virginia Constitution and Rule 5:7, et seq. of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, respectfully moves this Honorable Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus and a Writ of Prohibition to the court officials in the Circuit Court for the City of Alexandria. The Petitioner (Mr. Field) has requested and the court officials have refused to perform certain required ministerial acts in obedience to the mandate of legal authority without regard to, or the exercise of, their own judgment, bias, or self interests. The court officials act outside their authority, outside their jurisdiction, and in violation of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, the Virginia Code, the Canons of Judicial Conduct, the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Virginia Constitution and the United States Constitution. The court officials are purposefully infringing upon Mr. Fields constitutionally protected interests. The court officials are depriving Mr. Field of his fundamental due process rights including the rights to notice, an opportunity to be heard, equal protection under the law, an impartial arbiter, an ethical arbiter, access to inspect and copy the record, and trial by jury. This Petition seeks to address these constitutional violations and compel the performance of the ministerial duties.

11

The court officials known at this time are: the Clerk of the Court Edward Semonian Jr., the Commissioner in Chancery Michael Weiser, the Honorable Chief and Presiding Judge Lisa B. Kemler, and attorney Ira S. Saul. The proceedings referenced by this Petition are: CL 04-001130, CH 04-001230, and CL 05-001284. Mr. Field has a lawful right to the relief requested. Mr. Field has no other adequate legal remedy and requests the issuance of a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition to the court officials of the Circuit Court for the City of Alexandria for the purpose of preventing a defect or failure of justice, to provide adequate post due process deprivation remedies, to provide a process sufficient to remedy the ongoing due process deprivations that conveys to Mr. Field the feeling that the State is treating him justly, to ensure that Mr. Field is afforded equal protection under the law, to prohibit future violations of Mr. Fields rights and more specifically to: 1.) Allow Mr. Field, his counsel and his forensic science experts to inspect or be fully informed of the original records, papers, and material ex parte communications of the circuit court and the clerks office related to these proceedings and furnish copies of the following records: a.) all items which constitute portions of the record on appeal of these proceedings under Rule 5:10 which were not prepared and transmitted to the Supreme Court as required by Rule 5:13 , and

12

b.) the report of the Commissioner in Chancery Weiser which Judge Kemler claimed, on August 8, 2012, indicates a finding of no assets, and c.) all of the exhibits offered into evidence on September 28, 2011 including those which were objected to and not admitted into evidence by Judge Kemler during the trial held, absent a jury though duly demanded, and a copy of the receipt or other records evidencing the Baker Plaintiffs payment of the fee as ordered by Judge Kemler required to reopen CL 05-001284, and d.) the order and process books and all associated indexes for the dates of May 25, 2005 , December 15, 2005, and September 28, 2011, and e.) the Baker Plaintiffs motion for non suit and Judge Kemlers order granting non-suit regarding Defendant Allen C. Outlaw, and f.) Mr. Fields written statement of facts, testimony, and other incidents of the case, which included or consisted of a portions of the transcript signed by the trial judge within ten days after notice of objection was filed with the clerk pursuant to Rule 5:11(g) or other records indicating Judge Kemler complied with the requirements of Rule 5:11(g)(1-5). Records related to ex parte communications referenced in the voicemail from Judge Kemlers law clerk, the existence of which was subsequently denied by the same law clerk (Appendix L and M), and

13

g.) all records and ex parte communications related to the filing of surety bond(s) by Plaintiff GMAC with the court or clerk including records showing the fact that bond was given endorsed on the process, or certified by the clerk to the serving officer. If it was certified by the clerk, records showing that the serving officer returned the certificate with the process, and any ex parte communications between the Alexandria Circuit Court judges and the Sheriffs department and/or their counsel and h.) all records or ex parte communications indicating the dates that the court initially came into possession of the Order Approving Sale and Assignment of Claims to Michael Field (Appendix C), and i.) all records or ex parte communications between counsel for the Baker Plaintiffs and the court as ordered on January 21, 2005, and j.) all records or ex parte communications between the Baker Plaintiffs (or their counsel) and the court as ordered on February 9, 2005, and k.) the entire courts fax related to the unendorsed order dated December 15, 2005 (Appendix J) and related ex parte communications, and l.) all records or communications related to the ex parte conference call that occurred between the court and counsel for the trustee of AutoMall Online on February 8, 2005. (Mr. Field will pay the required fees for copies related to Request one.)

14

2.)

Compel Commissioner in Chancery Weiser to abide the Decree of Reference dated November 30, 2011 and report back to the court in the manner as mandated by Rule 3:23.

3.)

Allow Mr. Field an opportunity to be heard on his motion for the entry of default judgment against Defendant Outlaw, enter judgment in favor of Mr. Field and impanel a jury to fix the amount of damages.

4.)

Comply with Va. Code 8.01-568 and the established statutory pre-trial attachment procedures by entering an order for the restoration of the effects of the attachment, take all actions and enter all orders necessary to ensure that Mr. Field shall recover his costs and damages for loss of use of the Property, including but not limited to the requirement that a bond conforming with 8.01-537.1 is posted until Mr. Field has actually recovered his costs and damages for loss of use of the Property pursuant to 8.01-227.

5.)

Allow Mr. Field an actual opportunity to file and an actual opportunity to be heard regarding the counterclaim.

6.)

Compel the court officials to perform their duties and make the disclosures as required by the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Rules of this Court and the Virginia Code for the misconduct as detailed in Mr. Fields reports as filed with the Virginia State Bar and the Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission.

15

FACTS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW PREFACE The relief sought in this Petition, such as access to inspect the records of ones own proceedings, is so fundamental to Mr. Fields due process rights that a memorandum of law seems superfluous. The Petitioner has an undeniable legal right to the relief requested. The facts are supported by the true record, the statutory language is unambiguous and the Court is bound by the plain meaning of that language. Britt Construction, Inc. v. Magazzine Clean, LLC, 271 Va. 58, 62, 623 S.E.2d 886, 888 (2006); Williams v. Commonwealth, 265 Va. 268, 271, 576 S.E.2d 468, 470 (2003). It is established that, on occasion, court officials refuse to perform certain required ministerial acts in obedience to the mandate of legal authority without regard to, or the exercise of, their own judgment, bias, or self interests. In Virginia, the initial civil remedy for this improper behavior is a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of Prohibition. The initial civil remedy, in this instance, is frustrated by court officials acting in concert in an unlawful and biased manner while protecting their own self interests. The frustration of the remedy is amplified by the fact that some of the court officials are scurrilous individuals determined by the courts to have poor moral character and have disregarded the Canons and Rules of Professional Conduct as well as their personal responsibility for the quality of justice.
16

The court officials improper conduct is not limited to Mr. Field and the relief sought in this Petition is of significant public importance. For example, had the court officials performed their mandated ministerial duties in these proceedings, the bankruptcy of General Motors and the governments subsequent multi-billion dollar bailout of the new GM and the old GMAC would have been avoided. Instead, Mr. Field and his counsel have been obstructed from seeking relief and denied access to the records at the Circuit Court for the City of Alexandria by threats of physical harm and the unethical behavior evidenced in this Petition.

Exhibit 1 - Exhibit admitted into evidence, over Mr. Fields objection that it contained attorney-client privileged communications, by Commissioner in Chancery Weiser however omitted from his report and the certified record

Counsel for the Baker Plaintiffs, Ira S. Saul, was suspended from the practice of law in Virginia and Maryland for many years after being convicted of four counts of bank fraud criminal acts reflecting adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. See Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Ira Stephen Saul.

17

One now retired court official, upon motion of Mr. Field, properly disqualified himself from these and future proceedings with this Petitioner. This particular court official, while aggressively avenging a deputy Sherriff of the City of Alexandria, admitted that he knew, at the time, that he introduced false records into evidence to obtain the death penalty. Evans v. Virginia , 471 U.S. 1025 (1985). He utilized similar tactics while protecting the interests of the Sherriff, the court and the Plaintiffs in these proceedings. These court officials have an admitted and proven history of illegally infringing upon the rights of others in order to achieve their self interests. This pattern of behavior continues

Exhibit 2 - Judge Kemler Page 43 August 8, 2012 Transcript Page 2282 Certified Record, Appendix A

TAKING OF EVIDENCE This Petition calls into question the true status of material unresolved issues and seeks the mandated ministerial execution of judgments in multiple proceedings currently pending in the Circuit Court for the City of Alexandria, Virginia. The court officials have systematically denied Mr. Field his due process rights and then have compounded the effect of the deprivation by denying Mr. Fields right to post deprivation remedies as established by the Virginia Code.
18

Vigorously avoiding the ministerial execution of the prior judgments of the court and refusing to address the unresolved issues, the court officials along with the Plaintiffs and others are colluding by misstating and falsifying the true court records to make it appear to the public and to the Supreme Court of Virginia, on the surface, that the ministerial duties are completed or that valid Final Orders have actually been entered in the proceedings. The true record will show that ministerial duties, mandated by statute, are to be performed and that material issues remain unresolved. Mr. Field has been denied the right to notice, hearings, and trial by jury. Mr. Field is denied access to the full court records for inspection and copying and has been permanently restricted from filing certain documents with the clerk. Documents filed by Mr. Field with the clerk related to the relief requested in this petition have been discarded or disregarded by the court. As a pro se litigant, Mr. Field is at an extreme disadvantage against these dishonest and incestuous court officials as they blatantly abuse their positions of authority to promote and protect their self interests. For example, in one proceeding, the Baker Plaintiffs bragged about fraudulently conspiring with a co-defendant and Judge Kemler to recover twice for the same false claim a claim that was sold and assigned to Mr. Field in a

19

bankruptcy auction pursuant to 363(f) and pursued via 8.01-12,13. See Appendix B and C. The Baker Plaintiffs, upset by the Bankruptcy Courts Order, explained to Mr. Field that they were aware that Mr. Field had recently received a favorable ruling against GMAC in the Alexandria Circuit Court and that they had an option to resolve the dispute. The Baker Plaintiffs demanded that Mr. Field assign a few million dollars of the damages owed by GMAC to Mr. Field to the Baker Plaintiffs and a couple of hundred thousand dollars in favor of Judge Haddocks son as attorney for the City of Alexandria. Mr. Field rejected the extortive proposal. In response, the Baker Plaintiffs boasted of their considerable influence over the Alexandria court officials and explained that Mr. Field would soon experience the extreme prejudice of the court. In the end, this was the Baker Plaintiffs only truthful statement. See Appendix B. A few seasons of judicial perversion passed and, Michael Lee Pope, a reporter for the Alexandria Gazette Packet, interviewed counsel for the Baker Plaintiffs and reported that Outlaw eventually settled in an undisclosed agreement with the plaintiffs, but Field maintained his innocence. Mr. Field filed discovery requests related to the undisclosed settlement, a short motion seeking disclosure of the terms of the settlement agreement and a motion for the required adjustment to the judgment pursuant to 8.01-35.1.

20

In response, the Baker Plaintiffs replied that Mr. Field was harassing the Baker Plaintiffs because there was never a settlement and therefore sought sanctions. The Baker Plaintiffs represented to the court:

Exhibit 3 Baker Plaintiffs Opposition Page 6 Page 1931 Certified Record

Exhibit 4 Baker Plaintiffs Opposition Page 6 Page 1931 Certified Record

Exhibit 5 Baker Plaintiffs Opposition Page 11 Page 1936 Certified Record

Exhibit 6 Baker Plaintiffs Opposition Page 9 Page 1934 Certified Record

21

As a result of the Baker Plaintiffs representations and their request for sanctions, Judge Kemler sanctioned Mr. Field with a record setting penalty in total value of more than two million dollars. Judge Kemler, a material fact witness in the dispute, concluded the hearing with another, unwarranted, thinly veiled threat of arrest of Mr. Field. The Baker Plaintiffs later reminded Mr. Field of their influence over Judge Kemler and chided Mr. Field for his futile attempts to enforce his lawful rights. Judge Kemlers order, which falsely recites sanctionable actions of Mr. Field, is yet another fraud on the judicial machinery perpetrated by these court officials. The court officials all know that Mr. Fields actions are righteous, that a settlement was reached with Outlaw, that Judge Kemler entered an order granting the Baker Plaintiffs motion for non suit, and that Mr. Field owns all of the claims. Mr. Fields counsel recalled that the Baker Plaintiffs had non-suited claims against Outlaw however the clerk refused Mr. Field access to confirm this fact in the records. Mr. Field ordered Outlaws trial testimony that revealed the settlement arrangement and filed a copy with the clerk. Judge Kemler refused to sign or correct the transcript of the testimony as required by Rule 5:11 - testimony that was admitted into evidence in violation of 8.01-35.1(A)(1).

22

Exhibit 7 Outlaw Trial Testimony Page 4 Page 2242 Certified Record

The Alexandria Circuit Court Clerk refused Mr. Fields requests to inspect the official record so Mr. Field visited the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Virginia to review the records that were certified and forwarded from Alexandria last month. Serendipitously, Judge Kemlers order granting the Baker Plaintiffs non-suit of claims against Outlaw is found at page one, however, the Baker Plaintiffs motion for non-suit does not appear in the records as recently certified by the clerk.

Exhibit 8 - Judge Kemlers Order Granting Plaintiffs Non-Suit Motion Page 1 Certified Record

Mr. Field, the Supreme Court of Virginia and counsel for the court officials are at an extreme disadvantage in properly adjudicating the merits of this Petition
23

because the original court records have been restrictively secreted in judges chambers rather than securely maintained in the offices of the clerk of the court. Mr. Field requests that the entire original record of the proceedings be forwarded to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Virginia for review and verification by the parties including but not limited to the documents specifically described in Request number one of this Petition. This cause rests upon the record. The record has been unlawfully disturbed and Mr. Field requires access to the documents listed in Request number one in order to fully proceed. Unfortunately, the taking of additional evidence will be necessary for the complete resolution of this Petition. Background Ever since Mr. Field refused the extortive threats to pay millions of dollars to the Baker Plaintiffs and Judge Haddock, and to cease attempting to collect costs and damages from GMAC, the court officials have refused to act when they must act, acted outside their jurisdiction and appear to be actively engaged in a collective scheme to defraud Mr. Field, the Supreme Court of Virginia and the public by obscuring the actual record of these proceedings. These proceedings have been plagued since their inception with continuous due process violations including the concealment of material ex parte communications, the refusal to allow an opportunity to be heard, denial of trial by

24

jury, lack of proper notice, falsification and concealment of portions of the record, extortion, alleged bribes, collusion, obstruction, fraud, and the appearance of bias. Mr. Field has a legal right to a fair and impartial adjudicatory process and the relief requested in this Petition relief which has been continually obstructed and denied by these subordinate court officials acting in a deliberate, considered and planned manner. The misconduct and failure to act by the court officials described herein is the species of extrinsic fraud which tampers with the judicial machinery and subverts the integrity of the Court itself. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp v. Watson 413 S.E.2d 630 (1992) This Petition does not seek the review or undoing of any previous judgment of the Court and the factual root causes of the due process violations are not the subject of this Petition Mr. Field simply seeks enjoyment, protection and enforcement of his lawful rights as established and mandated under the United States and Virginia Constitutions, the Virginia Code, the ethical rules and the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. The underlying misconduct evidenced in this Petition, and described in more detail in Appendix B, is not necessary to support the Petition however the details disclosed shed light on the motivation of the court officials failure to comply with their duties and provides the Supreme Court of Virginia additional information to

25

assist in the formulation of the mandates and prohibitions necessary to restore order, prevent a failure of justice, and remedy the sinful political atmosphere of the Alexandria Court which fosters these Constitutionally repugnant activities. Mandamus and Prohibition Generally The granting of a writ of mandamus or prohibition by the Supreme Court of Virginia is a rare occurrence. The published caseload reports of the Supreme Court of Virginia indicate that of the 520 petitions filed during the past five years, none were awarded. This Petition does not seek to correct erroneous decisions of the court officials and does not seek to review any instance in which the court may have abused its discretion. This Petition seeks to take the first steps necessary to prevent a complete defect or failure of justice. Mr. Field has a clear and indisputable right to the issuance of a writ to cause the inferior court to lawfully exercise its jurisdiction according to the mandatory directives of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, the Virginia Code, the ethical rules and the Constitutions of Virginia and the United States. Mr. Field has exhausted all of his adequate legal remedies and must now petition the Supreme Court of Virginia for a writ of mandamus and prohibition. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy employed to compel a public official to perform a purely ministerial duty imposed upon him by law. Richlands Med.

26

Assn v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 384, 386, 337 S.E.2d 737, 739 (1985); accord In re: Commonwealths Attorney for the City of Roanoke, 265 Va. 313, 317, 576 S.E.2d 458, 461 (2003), Gannon v. State Corp. Comm'n, 243 Va. 480, 481-82, 416 S.E.2d 446, 447 (1992). A ministerial act is one which a person performs in a given state of facts and prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority without regard to, or the exercise of, his own judgment upon the propriety of the act being done. Richlands Med. Assn, 230 Va. at 386, 337 S.E.2d at 739 (quoting Dovel v. Bertram, 184 Va. 19, 22, 34 S.E.2d 369, 370 (1945)). As this Court previously explained: Mandamus may be appropriately used and is often used to compel courts to act where they refuse to act and ought to act, but not to direct and control the judicial discretion to be exercised in the performance of the act to be done; to compel courts to hear and decide where they have jurisdiction, but not to pre-determine the decision to be made; to require them to proceed to judgment, but not to fix and prescribe the judgment to be rendered. Page v. Clopton, 71 Va. (30 Gratt.) 415, 418 (1878). When the action of a court is a simple refusal to hear and decide the case; and this Court having held that no appeal lies from such refusal, it is exactly the case to which the highly remedial writ of mandamus is most frequently applied, in

27

order to prevent a defect or failure of justice. Cowan v. Fulton, 64 Va. (23 Gratt.) 579, 584 (1873). This is such a case. When there is a clear right to the relief sought, a legal duty to perform the requested act, and no adequate remedy at law, a writ of mandamus should be issued. Ancient Art Tattoo Studio, Ltd. v. City of Virginia Beach, 263 Va. 593, 597, 561 S.E.2d 690, 692 (2002) As Mr. Field has no adequate avenue at law, the remedy of mandamus is required in order to prevent a defect or failure of justice. Cowan, 64 Va. (23 Gratt.) at 584. This Court has further noted that to be adequate, the legal remedy must be equally as convenient, beneficial, and effective as the proceeding by mandamus. Carolina, C & O Ry. v. Board of Supervisors, 109 Va. 34, 37, 63 S.E. 412, 413 (1909). In Davis v. Sexton, 211 Va. 410, 177 S.E.2d 524 (1970), the Supreme Court of Virginia held that a judges ruling in direct contravention of a specific statutory provision was not within his discretion. The writs should be issued in this matter because Mr. Field has a clear right to the relief sought, the respondent has a legal duty to perform the act which Mr. Field seeks to compel, and there is no adequate remedy at law." Early Used Cars, Inc. v. Province, 218 Va. 605, 609, 239 S.E.2d 98, 101 (1977).

28

A purpose of the writ of mandamus, which is an extraordinary remedy, is the promotion of substantial justice. See Gannon, 243 Va. at 482, 416 S.E.2d at 447; Railroad Company, 206 Va. at 162, 142 S.E.2d at 548; Richmond-Greyhound Lines, 200 Va. at 151-52, 104 S.E.2d at 816. This promotion of substantial justice has served as a prerequisite to the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this Commonwealth for almost 200 years. For example, the Court stated in Commonwealth v. Justices of Fairfax County Court, 4 Va. (2 Va. Cas.) 9, 13 (1815) "A mandamus is a prerogative writ; to the aid of which the subject is entitled upon a proper case previously shown to the satisfaction of the Court. The original nature of the writ, and the end for which it was framed, direct upon what occasions it shall be used. It was introduced to prevent disorder from a failure of justice, and defect of police. Therefore, it ought to be used upon all occasions where the law has established no specific remedy, and where in justice and good government there ought to be one." This is such an occasion. Due Process The fourteenth amendment provides that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The due process clause contains guarantees of both "substantive" and "procedural" due process. Substantive due process requires that governmental action have a rational

29

relationship to a legitimate end of government while procedural due process requires that notice and an opportunity to be heard be given to persons whose liberty or property interests will be affected by governmental actions. Generally, due process requires some notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the deprivation of a protected interest. In certain cases, however, a postdeprivation remedy is adequate. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985) Mr. Field seeks enforcement of his post-deprivation remedies. The court officials refusals to act are violations of procedural due process. Mr. Field has been deprived of his constitutionally protected property interests; through state action; and the procedures utilized for doing so are constitutionally inadequate. Mr. Field has the right to the equal enjoyment of the rules of judicial procedure and the equal treatment there under. In Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252 (2009), the United States Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a judge to disqualify himself not only when actual bias has been demonstrated or when the judge has an economic interest in the outcome of the case, but also when "extreme facts" create a "probability of bias." One judge properly disqualified himself from these proceedings under these circumstances. The facts in this Petition evidence deceptive behavior of the court

30

officials, create the probability of bias, warrant investigation and certainly require the disqualification of Judge Kemler and others in the Alexandria Court. The extensive violations by the court officials as detailed in this Petition are evidence of a deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme to defraud not only Mr. Field and the Supreme Court of Virginia but also the Federal Courts and the public. This Court has the power and authority to correct and prevent a failure of justice caused by not only the court officials failures to act but also caused by the fraud upon the judicial process which will be presented once the record is made available. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) Request 1: Inspection and Preservation of Court Records Mr. Field has made repeated requests and motions to inspect and obtain copies of the records described in Request 1 of this Petition to the court officials and all requests have been denied. Va. Code 17.1-208 mandates that any records and papers of every circuit court that are maintained by the clerk of the circuit court shall be open to inspection by any person and the clerk shall, when requested, furnish copies thereof. The court officials have taken measures, in concert, and given instructions preventing Mr. Field access to the court records. The Clerk of the Court has

31

transmitted portions of the record of these proceedings to this Court and Mr. Field was able to access these partial records. Mr. Field simply desires to review all of the items which constitute the entire actual record, not just those items the court officials have selectively transmitted to the Supreme Court of Virginia. On July 7, 2012 Mr. Field filed and noticed a motion for Commissioner in Chancery Weiser, to submit a report in compliance with the rules and for the court to rule on Mr. Fields objections. On August 8, 2012 Judge Kemler, a principal fact witness of the controversy, denied Mr. Fields motions on the basis that the Commissioners report indicated a finding of no assets.

Exhibit 9 Judge Kemler August 8, 2012 Page 2209 Certified Record Appendix A

32

Exhibit 10 Mr. Fields Motion Page 2143 Certified Record

Exhibit 11 Judge Kemler Page 43 August 8, 2012 Transcript Page 2282 Certified Record Appendix A

Mr. Fields copy of the report from the Commissioner attached as Appendix E makes no such finding and the court officials refuse to allow Mr. Field to inspect and copy the report Judge Kemler relied upon at the hearing.
33

On September 28, 2011 Judge Kemler conducted a trial regarding the factual ownership of certain claims in the proceedings. Judge Kemler ordered that the proceedings were reopened after the payment of a fee by the Baker Plaintiffs. The Petitioner had timely filed a demand for a jury pursuant to 8.01-336 and the Constitutions however Judge Kemler refused a trial by jury. As detailed in Judge Kemlers order dated September 28, 20111, the court made certain determinations, improperly contradicting a federal court order, based upon the exhibits admitted into evidence as well as the ore tenus of attorney Wayne Lee. Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859) Mr. Field attempted to enter numerous exhibits into evidence however the court sustained each and every objection by the Baker Plaintiffs. The exhibits, including those that were objected to and not admitted into evidence do not appear in the records as transmitted to this Court. Mr. Field has been denied access to these records and denied access to records evidencing payment of the fee by the Baker Plaintiffs to reopen the case. There are suspicious circumstances surrounding the orders dated December 15, 2005 (Appendix I and J), May 25, 2005, and September 28, 2011. Mr. Field has been refused access to the indexes necessary to review and take proper action regarding the circumstances related to these three orders.

34

The Baker Plaintiffs claim that Outlaw was never officially non-suited however the first document in the record transmitted to the Supreme Court is an order signed by Judge Kemler granting the Baker Plaintiffs motion to non suit. See appendix D. The corresponding motion to non suit was not in the records transmitted and Mr. Field desires a copy of these record. Mr. Field timely filed a written statement of facts, testimony, and other incidents of the case, which included or consisted of portions of the transcript. Mr. Field timely filed a transcript of the August 8, 2012 hearing (certified record page 2238 and Appendix A) and a transcript of the testimony of Outlaw (certified record 2178) in which the Baker Plaintiffs called Outlaw as a witness and proffered testimony from him regarding the fact he had entered a settlement agreement with the Baker Plaintiffs. Mr. Field filed the concise written statement of facts as a measure to circumvent the clerks refusal to allow Mr. Field to inspect the original records of the case and Judge Kemlers refusal to disclose the ex parte communications described in this Petition.

35

Exhibit 12 Mr. Fields Written Statement of Facts Page 2159 Certified Record

The Baker Plaintiffs filed objections to the statement but did not specify what they believed to be erroneous.
36

Thereafter, Mr. Field learned from a third party that Ira Saul and Judge Kemler had been communicating on an ex parte basis and that each were taking steps in violation of the Rules in order to limit the scope of Mr. Fields potential appeal. Judge Kemlers law clerk subsequently denied he possessed the transcript however he failed to realize Mr. Field retained his earlier voicemail. See Appendix L and M. Mr. Field has requested and been denied access to the records signed by Judge Kemler within ten days after notice of objection was filed with the clerk pursuant to Rule 5:11(g) or other records indicating Judge Kemler complied with the requirements of Rule 5:11(g)(1-5). This Court has recently discussed the Courts requirements under Rule 5:11(g) in Shapiro v. Younkin 688 S.E.2d 157 (2010). GMAC was ordered by the court to file a conforming bond in the amount of twenty one million dollars prior to conducting the pretrial seizure. The Petitioner seeks the records showing the fact that bond was given endorsed on the process, or certified by the clerk to the serving officer. If it was certified by the clerk, records showing that the serving officer returned the certificate with the process. Mr. Field and his counsel learned from Deputy Sherriff Grenadier, the senior duty deputy who handled the levy and seizure, that on the day of the attachment and multiple occasions afterwards, Deputy Grenadier and counsel for GMAC

37

consulted with the judges of the court, ex parte, regarding the fact that a conforming bond had not been posted. Deputy Grenadier provided copies of his records to Mr. Field which included a fax cover sheet dated the day of the levy and seizure indicating that seventeen pages were sent to the court and that the original bond was being sent by overnight delivery. See Appendix S. Mr. Field has requested to inspect the original papers of the case and the request has been rejected. The judges and counsel for GMAC never revealed the fact that ex parte communications had been occurring regarding the bond nor were the contents of such communications ever revealed to Mr. Field. The ownership of the claims in the Baker proceeding was in dispute. On January 21, 2005 Judge Kemler ordered that counsel for the Baker Plaintiffs discuss the status of the dispute with the trustee for AutoMall Online, Inc. (AMOL) and report the trustees position to the court. The report was ex parte and not disclosed so, it is unclear whether, at the time, counsel for the Baker Plaintiffs falsely informed Judge Kemler that the trustee elected to sell the claims to the Baker Plaintiffs and that Mr. Field was not granted standing to pursue the counterclaims or whether counsel told the court the truth and Judge Kemler elected to overrule and disregard the trustees decision to sell the claims to Mr. Field and grant him standing as ordered by the bankruptcy court via a 363(f) sale of disputed assets under federal bankruptcy law.

38

Exhibit 13 January 21, 2005 Order Judge Kemler

Mr. Field never received notice of counsels communication to the court in response to this order. This communication is material and Mr. Field has requested and been denied access to inspect the communication. The records, at one point, in time contained a fax from counsel for the Baker Plaintiffs to Judge Kemler scheduling a conference call to discuss the sale of all of the claims to the Baker Plaintiffs. The fax contained hand written notes which appeared to be those of Judge Kemler indicating the claims were being sold to the Baker Plaintiffs. The bill for legal fees for counsel for the AMOL trustee indicates that a conference call did occur. Mr. Field was not informed about the conference call at the time it occurred and only learned of it via later investigations. This ex parte

39

conference was material in that it related to the sale of the claims to the Baker Plaintiffs.

Exhibit 14 Counsel for AMOL Trustees Bill for Conference Call with Circuit Court

On February 9, 2005 Judge Brown also ordered that counsel for the Baker Plaintiffs report the trustees position to the court. Mr. Field was not noticed of this hearing and was not notified that the order was entered.

Exhibit 15 February 9 Order Judge Brown

Again, Mr. Field never received notice of counsels communication to the court in response to this order. This communication is highly material and Mr. Field has requested and been denied access to inspect the communication. While the initial plan of the AMOL trustee was for the claims to be quickly sold to the Baker Plaintiffs, Judge Mayer intervened and established a fair judicial process that resulted in the transfer of the claims to Mr. Field. See Appendix C.

40

Exhibit 16 Judge Kemler, Mr. Field August 8, 2012 Page 2221 Certified Record Appendix A

The record of each circuit court proceeding is an extremely important element that assures each parties interests are protected during the course of the resolution of a dispute.

41

The legislature, together with the Supreme Court of Virginia have established numerous safeguards such as statutes, oaths, rules and other measures to ensure that the record is accurately reflected and free from corruption. Va. Code Title 17.1 relates generally to the Courts of Record while Chapter 2 of the title deals specifically with the Clerk of the Court and the record keeping requirements and procedures of the court. Va. Code 17.1-123 states how orders are recorded and signed, Va. Code 17.1-124 requires the clerk to maintain Order Books, Va. Code 17.1-129 requires the filing date and time to be noted on papers, Va. Code 17.1-215 requires the clerk to maintain a process book, Va. Code 17.1-247 details when and how clerk is to required to verify his record, Va. Code 17.1-248 requires the clerk to make an index to each of his books, Va. Code 17.1-249 requires the clerk to maintain general indexes for the clerks office as well as maintain a daily index of court proceedings, and Va. Code 17.1-250 details the steps required to make corrections of the required indexes. Rule 5:10(a)(3) states that each exhibit offered in evidence, whether admitted or not, and initialed by the trial judge is part of the record of a proceeding. Mr. Field has a clear right to inspect the original records so his team is properly prepared to enforce his lawful rights. The clerk has a mandated, unambiguous, ministerial duty to maintain and allow inspection of these records.

42

Request 2: Reports of Commissioners in Chancery A Decree of Reference to Commissioner in Chancery Weiser was entered by the court on November 30, 2011 related to the interrogation of Mr. Field. Mr. Field twice traveled from Virginia Beach to Alexandria for two days of interrogations and delivered hundreds of documents that were admitted into evidence over Mr. Fields stated and written objections. The transcript will show that, during the interrogations, Commissioner Weiser overruled all of Mr. Fields objections without reading them or considering the basis for the objections at all. Mr. Field was forced, under threat of arrest, to reveal attorney client communications, court ordered sealed documentation, confidential settlement agreements and information wholly unrelated to the statutory purpose of the interrogation process. All of Mr. Fields documents were entered as Exhibits and transferred, over objection, to the possession of Ira Saul and never returned. The Decree itself and the Rules require that Commissioner Weiser file a report. Mr. Field made a written request to Commissioner Weiser to file the report which was ignored. Commissioner Weiser filed a two page report that did not contain findings of fact, conclusions of law, all exhibits admitted into evidence or a transcript of the proceedings as required by the Rules. See Appendix E.

43

Commissioner Weisers report gives the false impression that only two exhibits were entered into evidence, Def. A and Def. B, while hundreds of documents were actually entered into evidence, over Mr. Fields objections, and secreted away by Commissioner Weiser and Ira Saul. Mr. Field filed exceptions to the report within ten days regarding the fact that the Commissioners report was missing numerous items and was not in compliance with Rule 3:23. For many months, the court officials took no actions regarding the proceedings so Mr. Field filed and scheduled a motion with the court requesting Commissioner Weiser file a report that complied with the rules so the objections could be properly ruled upon. Ira Saul, counsel for the Baker Plaintiffs, opposed Mr. Fields request for a report to be filed in compliance with the Rules. Notably, one of Mr. Fields objections to the proceedings before Commissioner Weiser was that the Decree of Reference was entered by Judge Haddock for improper purposes. The interrogatories were not intended to discover Mr. Fields assets for the purposes of collecting on a judgment. The interrogatories were conducted by the court officials to intimidate Mr. Field, to reinforce the Baker Plaintiffs claims of control over the Alexandria court, and to conduct an illegal search and seizure of Mr. Fields private information.

44

MR. FIELD:

Exhibit 17 Judge Kemler, Mr. Field August 8, 2012 Page 2212 Certified Record Appendix A

45

Va. Code 8.01-609 details the general duties and procedures of a Commissioner in Chancery and states that Every commissioner shall examine, and report upon, any matters as may be referred to him by any court. The proceedings before a commissioner in chancery shall be conducted as set forth in this chapter and the Rules of Court. (emphasis added) Rule 3:23(d) states that the commissioner shall prepare a report stating his findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the matters submitted by the decree of reference. The commissioner shall file the report, together with all exhibits admitted in evidence and a transcript of the proceedings and of the testimony, with the clerk of the court. (emphasis added) Mr. Field has a clear right to procedural due process. Commissioner Weiser has a mandated, unambiguous, ministerial duty that has yet to be performed. Request 3: Default Judgments Outlaw was personally served with a copy of the complaint and hired counsel to represent his interests in the proceeding. Outlaw never filed an answer of any type to the complaint pursuant to Rule 3:8. There was a dispute over the ownership of the claims against Outlaw. The dispute was between Mr. Field, co-defendant AMOL and the Baker Plaintiffs. AMOL filed and noticed a motion to be heard regarding the ownership dispute however the Alexandria Circuit Court refused to hear and decide the motion.

46

Mr. Fields counsel noticed the hearings for the Demurrers on three occasions however the court unilaterally removed the hearings from the docket and instructed the parties to settle the dispute. As a portion of the Baker Plaintiffs demand for settlement, Mr. Field was to agree not to pursue any further claims against GMAC and Mr. Field was required to deliver a payment to Judge Haddocks son, as attorney for the City of Alexandria, of over two hundred thousand dollars. See Appendix B. Mr. Field refused to accept the Baker Plaintiffs demands and essentially ignored their various threats. As a result of the court officials refusal to allow a hearing or enter a ruling on AMOLs demurrer, AMOL filed for bankruptcy protection and the ownership dispute was ordered to be decided by an auction of the claims. Meanwhile, Outlaw, by counsel, filed a motion to stay the entire circuit court proceeding acknowledging that Outlaw had not yet responded to the complaint. Outlaw represented to the court that he had entered a settlement agreement with the Baker Plaintiffs who determined the agreement required approval by the court. Outlaw claimed he had tendered his shares in AMOL and provided information to the Baker Plaintiffs and was simply awaiting court approval of the settlement and for the Baker Plaintiffs to non-suit their claims against him. Outlaw, by counsel, alternatively requested that the scheduling order be adjusted pending the outcome of the claim auction in the bankruptcy court.

47

The court denied Mr. Outlaws motion to stay the proceedings however Judge Brown entered an order continuing the existing scheduling order until counsel for the Plaintiffs notified the court regarding the trustees position on the dispute regarding the claims. The Baker Plaintiffs and Mr. Field submitted bids to buy the claims. All of the claims in the proceeding, including all claims against Outlaw were ordered sold and assigned, free and clear of all other liens, encumbrances or interests, to Mr. Field. See Appendix C. The settlement was never approved. Outlaw never filed an answer.

Exhibit 18 Baker Plaintiffs Opposition Page 9 Page 1934 Certified Record

Exhibit 19 Baker Plaintiffs Opposition Page 6 Page 1931 Certified Record

Mr. Field sought a hearing for entry of default and judgment against Outlaw. The court refused to allowed Mr. Field to be heard and the court refused to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining Outlaw claims.
48

The Baker Plaintiffs argue that they never officially non-suited any Outlaw claims and that the Outlaw claims simply disappeared from the proceedings. The real record will show that the Baker Plaintiffs non-suited two claims against Outlaw and that eight counts, owned by Mr. Field, remain undisturbed and unanswered by Outlaw. Mr. Field is not seeking relief in this Petition specifically related to the Baker Plaintiffs collusion regarding the Outlaw claims and their concerted fraud in concealing the nature of their settlement agreement with Outlaw. Mr. Field has the remedy of a separate litigation to resolve this issue. Mr. Field is seeking to resolve the issue that at least eight of the claims against Outlaw remain unanswered and unresolved in these proceedings and is seeking to enforce his lawful right to a hearing regarding the entry of default and judgment for the amount of related damages. Outlaw was properly served, retained counsel, and never responded at all. Under Rule 3:19 Outlaw is in default. Mr. Field filed a motion pursuant to Rule 3:19(c) however the court refuses to hear the motion or make a ruling. Request 4: Recovery of Statutory Costs and Damages Mr. Field is the assignee of all claims of and the trustee in dissolution of Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. aka Field Auto City, Inc. or Field Mitsubishi which was a General Motors and Mitsubishi dealership located in Alexandria, VA. Mr.

49

Field and his wife Joyce Koons Field discovered and reported that General Motors had been secretly utilizing their dealership to falsify General Motors financial and sales records in an effort to boost GMs share price and portray a false sense of corporate success to the public. See Appendix B. Plaintiff GMAC falsely sued out, ex parte, and the court issued an order for the pretrial seizure and levy of attachment of Mr. Fields property. The order required a bond be posted in the amount of twenty-one million dollars to protect Mr. Fields interests and ensure recovery of his damages in the event that the grounds claimed by GMAC for the ex parte taking of Mr. Fields property were deemed insufficient enough to allow the deprivation of Mr. Fields due process rights. As requested by GMAC and as ordered by the court, the Sherriffs department executed a pre trial seizure and levy of attachment of Mr. Fields property an inventory of hundreds of new and used automobiles - emptying more than six acres of vehicle display area. Mr. Field immediately filed a motion to quash the attachment. GMAC was notified of and appeared at the hearing to quash the attachment. The original attachment was invalid on its face because in violation of 8.01537.1, the fact that bond had been given was not endorsed on the process, nor certified by the clerk to the serving officer no conforming bond was actually posted prior to the attachment.

50

The court heard testimony from both parties and quashed the seizure and levy of attachment on the basis that none of the grounds for attachment in 8.01534 existed and it did not appear to the court that there was a substantial likelihood that the plaintiff's allegations would be sustained at the trial.

Exhibit 20 Page 218 Mr. Fields hearing to quash attachment

The court entered an order quashing the attachment and ordered that the attached property be returned to Mr. Field. The attached property was not returned in the same condition as it was prior to the attachment. Mr. Field incurred significant costs and damages due to the loss of use of the property and has recovered nothing. Counsel for GMAC succinctly explained to the court one of the remedies of Mr. Field:

51

Exhibit 21 Counsel for GMAC arguing their Demurrer to Mr. Fields counterclaim of wrongful seizure

GMAC was partially correct. Mr. Field actually has three statutory remedies: 1.) The mandatory recovery of costs and damages pursuant to 8.01-568 as the attachment was quashed on the basis that none of the grounds in 8.01-534 existed or because the attachment was invalid on its face or the plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits of his underlying claim and / or, 2.) The mandatory entry of judgment in favor of Mr. Field and recovery of costs and damages pursuant to 8.01-568 because there was no underlying claim and / or, 3.) Optionally, a counterclaim filed pursuant to 8.01-567 if an actual underlying claim was filed. In response to GMACs demurrer to Mr. Fields counterclaim of wrongful seizure, the court issued an Opinion stating Mr. Field has a statutory right to damages and that the Defendants right to a hearing on the amount of damages sustained would stand regardless of whether or not Mr. Field files a counterclaim.

52

GMAC later filed an amended petition for attachment. The amended petition is invalid on its face because it is unsigned, bears no signed verification and the fact that bond had been given was not endorsed on the process, nor certified by the clerk to the serving officer. See Appendix K. Since that time, the court officials, in violation of Mr. Fields due process rights, has refused to follow the statutory procedures and has continually hindered Mr. Fields effort to recover his costs and damages. The court officials have refused to allow a hearing on Mr. Fields costs and damages, has refused to enter an order for the restoration of the attached effects, and refuses Mr. Field any avenue to recover its costs and damages. Mr. Field simply desires to recover its costs and damages as mandated by 8.01-568 related to the loss of use of the Property related to the quashed attachment. The court has not entered any order nor issued any opinion related to 8.01568. The issue has been raised by Mr. Field and the court refuses to rule and has obstructed Mr. Field from accessing his post deprivation remedies through threats of arrest, violence, destruction of the record, and other due process obstructions described in this Petition. The pre-trial attachment was quashed and law of the case is that the facts did not support the seizure. Mr. Field is entitled to recover his costs and damages and

53

is entitled to the order for the restoration of the attached effects. The code does not create a self-executing judgment and the court is responsible for taking ministerial steps in effectuating Mr. Fields remedy. The court officials refuse to complete the steps related to the law of the case and refuses to acknowledge or officially refute its duties.

Exhibit 22 Counsel for GMAC arguing Demurrer to Mr. Fields counterclaim

An attachment is the act or process of taking, apprehending, or seizing persons or property, by virtue of a writ, summons or other judicial order, and bringing the same into custody of the court for purpose of securing satisfaction of the judgment ultimately to be entered in the action. Virginia Circuit Court Clerks Manual Civil Glossary Page 1 Rev 12/11 Attachment has been described by the Virginia courts as an anarchistic and drastic remedy that deprives a defendant of the use and free alienation of their

54

property before judgment, thus it is strictly prescribed by statute to protect the twin aims of securing a debt owed, and protecting defendants due process interests. Robert Baldwin of the Supreme Court of Virginia issued a report entitled The Duties of Sheriffs in Executing Judgments and Attaching Property which essentially questioned the constitutionality of the statutory framework as vague because the provisions are scattered throughout the code, frequently written in archaic language and often had gaps in the details of handling civil process.

Exhibit 23 Page 1 Report of the Committee of District Courts Appendix Q

The case law regarding Mr. Fields right to costs and damages is rare because the right to the remedy is clear. Unfortunately, the General Assembly did not adopt most of the recommendations contained in the report. Attachment "is neither a formal action at law nor a bill in equity, but a statutory procedure." Winfree v. Mann, 154 Va. 683, 692 (1930). Consequently, it is original process and falls within a narrow definition.
55

Because "attachment is purely a statutory remedy, a court, even of general jurisdiction, cannot proceed by attachment unless the power rests upon express statutory authority." Fauquier Nat'l Bank v. Hazelwood Sav. & Trust Co., 165 Va. 259,263 (1935). The jurisdiction of attachments and the related trials or hearings of the issues is established in the circuit court under 8.01-535 et seq. 8.01-568 is specifically entitled Quashing attachment or rendering judgment for defendant and sets forth the courts duty in the event an attachment is quashed or judgment is entered for the Defendant. Regardless of which outcome occurs, the statute requires that In either case, he shall recover his costs, and damages for loss of the use of his property, and there shall be an order for the restoration of the attached effects. The plaintiff shall have the burden of proof in proceedings pursuant to this section. (emphasis added) The use of the word "shall" in a statute indicates that the procedures are intended to be mandatory, imperative or limiting. Schmidt v. City of Richmond, 206 Va. 211, 218, 142 S.E.2d 573, 578 (1965) Mr. Field has a lawful right to the recovery of his costs and damages for the loss of use of his property and is entitled to an order for the restoration of the attached effects. Mr. Fields lawful right to this remedy stems from the initial state

56

sanctioned violation of Mr. Fields constitutional right to a notice and a hearing prior to the seizure of his property. Because no valid bond that conformed to the requirements of the Virginia code was ever properly posted in these proceedings, Mr. Field lacks the alternative safeguard or remedy of seeking payment from the bond obligor and is forced to turn to this court for the purpose of preventing a defect or failure of justice. Constitutionality Constitutional requirements of due process apply to prejudgment attachment procedures whenever state officers act jointly with a private creditor in securing the property in dispute. Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U. S. 337, Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc. - 457 U.S. 922. The statutory framework of the pretrial attachment process in Virginia does not allow the lower court official discretion in whether or not the successful defendant recovers his cost and damages for the loss of use of his property and is entitled to an order for the restoration of the attached effects. The statutory language mandates the entry of an order for the restoration of the attached effects and recovery of damages and costs related to the initial deprivation of the defendants due process rights. An interpretation of the statutory framework which allows discretion to the court to deviate from the established statutory scheme by eliminating Mr. Fields

57

post deprivation remedies is a violation of Mr. Fields rights to due process and renders the Virginia pretrial ex parte attachment procedures unconstitutional. In order for Virginias ex parte pre-trial attachment scheme to be constitutional, it must provide a meaningful post deprivation hearing that fully compensates the individual. In addition, procedural due process should do more than merely provide the opportunity for an injured party to replenish his resources. The post deprivation remedy must convey to the individual the feeling that the state is treating him justly. Parratt v. Taylor 451 U.S. 527 (1981) The procedural steps in obtaining the post deprivation remedy must be clear to the average citizen - the statutory language clearly places this responsibility on the court: he shall recover his costs, and damages for loss of the use of his property, and there shall be an order for the restoration of the attached effects. The code does not state that Mr. Field must take any action to obtain the remedy. The code does not state Mr. Field must file a separate complaint, file a motion, request a hearing, lodge a counterclaim. If the statutes are to be interpreted that Mr. Field must take some sort of action, such directive is not clearly stated in the code and such vagueness would render the statutory scheme unconstitutional. Mr. Field has had no opportunity to replenish his resources and Mr. Field absolutely does not feel that the state is treating him justly.

58

The Virginia pre-trial ex parte attachment statutes which allow the taking of property absent notice and absent an avenue for post deprivation redress are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and would be procedurally defective and void. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) To the extent Virginias pre-trial ex parte attachment procedures are Constitutional, the continuing actions of the state officials in obstructing and denying Mr. Fields recovery of the costs and damages as mandated by the statute are actions which are secondly and separately unconstitutional deprivations of Mr. Fields property and rights. Connecticut v. Doehr 501 U.S. 1 (1991) In order for the ex parte pre-trial attachment statutes to be constitutional, Mr. Field should have the clear right to the recovery of costs and damages. The court has an unambiguous ministerial duty to enforce Mr. Fields statutory remedies. Request 5: Opportunity to be Heard, Counterclaim As part of a belts and suspenders strategy, Mr. Field initially filed a counterclaim of Wrongful Seizure even though the statute provide a statutory mechanism to collect damages. Plaintiff GMAC filed a Demurrer to the Wrongful Seizure counterclaim on the basis that Mr. Fields rights to costs and damages were statutory in nature and that a cause of action of Wrongful Seizure did not actually exist.

59

At the hearing of GMACs demurrer to Mr. Fields counterclaim of wrongful seizure, GMAC opened their argument by stating that Mr. Field had a statutory right to damages and that there was no cause of action for a wrongful seizure:

Exhibit 24 Counsel for GMAC explaining Mr. Fields right to a hearing on damages

The court issued a letter opinion stating that Mr. Field was entitled to damages by statute regardless of whether or not a counterclaim was filed and that the counterclaim was simply superfluous. In response to the courts written opinion and subsequent instructions, Mr. Field amended the Counterclaim and removed the counterclaim for Wrongful Seizure.

60

At one point, Plaintiff GMAC sought leave to amend its initial petition because the initial petition sought pre-trial seizure and there was no underlying claim. Mr. Field objected to the amendment and sought to have the amended petition stricken as it was unsigned and did not have the verification as required by statute. Plaintiffs counsel has continually refused to sign the amended pleading as required by Rule 1:4(c) and Va. Code 8.01-271.1. The court refused to strike the unsigned pleading and allowed the Plaintiff to litigate and conduct discovery for years. The amended pleading remains unsigned and is therefore a nullity. Although it is a nullity, the amended petition was ultimately dismissed by the court. See Appendix K also referenced as pages 350-357 in the Table of Contents. Mr. Field and his counsel maintained copious records of the proceedings and periodically requested copies of the clerks indexes of the proceedings. See Appendices F, G, and H. At some point in time after March 20, 2006, the court inserted an irregular order into the papers of the case without notice to Mr. Field or his counsel. The order is irregular in that: Mr. Field nor his counsel was ever aware the order was sent to the court for entry or that it was entered, it bears no endorsement of counsel under Rule 1:13, the Certificate of Service date does not exist, Counsel listed for Mr. Field, Arthur Schwartzstein, was terminated from the case a week earlier as

61

ordered by court, the order bears no stamp or mark from the clerks office, the order was not indexed on the date of the order or for months thereafter, the order requires impossible performance due to the dates required for compliance. The order is essentially an attempt at a nunc pro tunc entry that requires the answering of unsigned pleading. Mr. Field has obtained evidence that the order was fraudulently altered after coming into possession of the court. The order is vague and difficult to understand almost nonsensical. The order was related to GMACs Demurrer to Mr. Field counterclaim of wrongful seizure. GMAC argued that there was no cause of action for wrongful seizure and that Mr. Field had a statutory right to damages via a hearing absent a jury. Mr. Field only removed his counterclaim for wrongful seizure based upon Judge Klochs instructions. To change positions on the issue, off the record and without notice is a clear due process violation. Worse, the deadline in the order for Mr. Field to file the wrongful seizure counterclaim was six months prior to the alleged date the order was entered. Even if Mr. Field knew about the order, compliance with the order was impossible. Further, the order required Mr. Field to answer an unsigned pleading answer a nullity. Rule 1:4(c) requires that every pleading be signed by counsel or an unrepresented party.

62

Va. Code 8.01-271.1 requires that every pleading, written motion, and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in his individual name. Va. Code 8.01-271.1 further mandates that if a pleading, written motion, or other paper is not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the pleader or movant. The fact that the amended Petition was unsigned was brought to the attention of the court and GMACs counsel on numerous occasions yet GMAC and their counsel refused to sign the pleading. This was a smart choice for GMACs counsel because the amended Petition contained the same proven false claims as were included in the original Petition. To the extent the order overruled Judge Klochs written opinion allowing Mr. Field a trial by jury, the information never reached the docketing system because the cause remained set for a jury. To the extent the order requires Mr. Field to file a claim for wrongful seizure, Mr. Fields counsel certainly would have done so had notice of the entry of the order ever been provided. Regardless of its validity, the order was singularly related to GMACs hearing on demurrer, renewal of the bond and the issue of trial by jury. The issue of the post deprivation remedy as mandated by 8.01-568 was never raised, discussed or

63

decided upon because the court, GMAC and Mr. Field were at all times in agreement that such relief was mandatory. Void Orders There are a number of void orders that were issued during these proceedings. The orders are void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction, based upon unconstitutional statutes, unconstitutional procedures and extrinsic fraud by officers of the court, and because the court has acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law. Final Order GMAC Proceeding The order in which the lower court describes as final does mean the court officials have no further obligation related to the dispute because the order is not self-executing. The court has ministerial obligations under the statutes to ensure Mr. Field recovers his costs and damages. To the extent the order is to be interpreted to provide no avenue for the restoration of the attached effects not Mr. Fields recovery of costs and damages, then the order does not comply with the mandate of the attachment procedures and the mode of procedure employed by the court was such that it could not lawfully adopt. The order is therefore not a final order and to the extent the court intended, by the order, to preclude Mr. Field from recovering its costs and damages, the order is void ab initio.

64

In Coleman v. Virginia Stave Co., 112 Va. 61, p. 75, 70 S.E. 545, Judge Buchanan, speaking for the court in a case involving a sale of infant's land, said: 'It seems to be settled law, that where a new jurisdiction is created by statute and the mode of acquiring and exercising that jurisdiction by the court upon which it is conferred is prescribed by statute, a substantial compliance therewith, at least, is essential, otherwise the proceeding will be a nullity.' An order is void ab initio, rather than merely voidable, if "the character of the judgment was not such as the court had the power to render, or because the mode of procedure employed by the court was such as it might not lawfully adopt." Collins v. Shepherd, 649 S.E.2d 672, 274 Va. 390 (Va., 2007) Evans v. Smyth-Wythe Airport Comm'n, 255 Va. 69, 73, 495 S.E.2d 825, 828 (1998); Lapidus v. Lapidus, 226 Va. 575, 579, 311 S.E.2d 786, 788 (1984); Watkins v. Watkins, 220 Va. 1051, 1054, 265 S.E.2d 750, 753 (1980); Barnes v. American Fertilizer Co., 144 Va. 692, 706, 130 S.E. 902, 906 (1925); Anthony v. Kasey, 83 Va. 338, 340, 5 S.E. 176, 177 (1887) An order that is void ab initio is a "complete nullity" that may be "impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, anywhere, at any time, or in any manner." Singh v. Mooney, 261 Va. 48, 52, 541 S.E.2d 549, 551 (2001) The Supreme Court of Virginia further held in Ferry Company v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. 428, 83 S.E. (2d) 782, that a judgment of a court acting

65

under limited power delegated by statute was void if such judgment was not embraced within the express terms of the statute nor included by necessary inference from the language used. The language prescribing the mode of application of the attachment statutes is express and mandatory. Any departure from the prescription is not merely a voidable "trial error. "Where the court, as here, is exercising special statutory powers, the measure of its authority is the statute itself; and a judgment or order in excess of the powers thereby conferred is null and void. In such a case, even though the court may have jurisdiction of the general subject matter and of the parties, an adjudication with reference thereto which is not within the powers granted to it is coram non judice." Aetna Casualty Co. v. Supervisors, 160 Va. 11, 45, 168 S.E. 617, 626 (1925) The order is further void ab initio as it violates Mr. Fields due process rights and those rights as established under the Virginia attachment statute. Request 6: Responsibility for the Quality of Justice The court officials, in their employment and as lawyers, are officers of the legal system and have a responsibility for the quality of justice. This Petition, and appendices, demonstrate that there were violations of the ethical rules related to the court officials professional duties. The rules require that the court officials take actions to remedy their violations. Mr. Field is seeking to have these rules enforced.

66

ACTUAL STATUS OF PROCEEDINGS The court has closed and reopened these proceedings a number of times and has entered at least four orders in which it included the words Final Order. The cases are open when Mr. Fields opponents seek relief and closed when Mr. Field attempts the same. In the GMAC matter, an order for the restoration of the effects of the attachment has not been entered and Mr. Field has not recovered his costs or damages for loss of use of the attached property. In the Baker matter, the court officials have refused Mr. Field an opportunity to be heard regarding the default status of Defendant Outlaw related to counts one through eight (or counts one through ten if you believe the Baker Plaintiffs and the court officials version of the record). There may be other outstanding issues however Mr. Field must first review the court records in order to determine all of his remedies. Final Orders Final orders have not been entered in these proceedings and the court officials refuse to act in a manner that a legitimate final order may be entered, or alternatively, final orders have been entered yet the court officials have refuse to ministerially supervise the execution of their own judgments. Despite the courts efforts to prematurely terminate these proceedings and frustrate Mr. Fields ability to be heard, the orders labeled as Final are not final as
67

there are important issues that remain unresolved such as the eight unanswered counts against Outlaw which were sold and assigned to Mr. Field. A final order is one "'which disposes of the whole subject, gives all the relief that is contemplated, and leaves nothing to be done by the court'" Daniels v. Truck & Equip. Corp., 205 Va. 579, 139 S.E.2d 31 (1964), Erikson v. Erikson, 19 Va. App. 389, 390, 451 S.E.2d 711, 712 (1994) (quoting Southwest Va. Hosps. v. Lipps, 193 Va. 91, 193, 68 S.E.2d 82, 83-84 (1951)) This Court has explained that a final judgment is one which disposes of the entire action and leaves nothing to be done except the ministerial superintendence of execution of the judgment. Super Fresh Food Mkts. of Va., Inc. v. Ruffin, 263 Va. 555, 560, 561 S.E.2d 734, 737 (2002) The fact that an order is labeled as final is not dispositive on its finality; the order must, in fact, be final. The Supreme Court of Virginia has held that "despite its title as the `Final Order,' the order entered in this proceeding" was not final since important issues remained unresolved. Estate of Hackler v. Hackler, 44 Va. App. 51, 602 S.E.2d 426 (Va. App., 2004) Commonwealth v. Lancaster, 45 Va. App. 723, 731, 613 S.E.2d 828, 832 (2005) In the GMAC proceeding, the issue raised in this Petition is not regarding any decision of the court that was previously argued and decided by the court on the merits. This is not an issue of error; the court has refused to allow the issue of costs

68

and damages to be considered at all. While the court has recognized that Mr. Field has a statutory right to costs and damages, it refuses to allow a hearing or to empanel a jury to consider the merits and enter orders related to the issue. Though the true record should be revealed, the actual status is irrelevant. This Court has issued writs of mandamus even though the writ had the effect of undoing a final judgment. In Kirk v. Carter, 202 Va. 335, 337, 117 S.E.2d 135, 137 (1960), the lower court was required to hear a case which it had previously dismissed. In Richardson v. Farrar, 88 Va. 760, 770, 15 S.E. 117, 121 (1892), the circuit court was directed to reinstate the complaint and hear the case on its merits. Jurisdiction over initial Appeals The Respondents will likely raise the issue of this Courts previous review of assignments of error in these proceedings. The previous appellate reviews of errors did not touch upon the topics contained in this Petition. In order for the Supreme Court of Virginia to have jurisdiction over the initial appeals, the orders from which Mr. Field appealed must have been valid orders. Any order, to the extent one exists, denying Mr. Field the recovery of all of his costs and damages related to the ex parte pretrial seizure is unconstitutional and therefore void. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) Further, affirmance of the judgment appealed from does not operate to make a void judgment binding. Where the judgment appealed from is absolutely void

69

upon its face because the court is without power to enter such a judgment. Aetna Casualty Co. v. Supervisors, 160 Va. 11, 168 S.E. 617 (Va, 1933) Mr. Field is not before this Court arguing error. Mr. Field is here properly seeking Mandamus and Prohibition to compel the lower court officials to act properly where they refuse to act properly and must act properly and to prohibit the lower court from exercising power outside their jurisdiction. To the extent the GMAC final order was final, and the appeal was providently granted, Mr. Field is seeking execution of the order and recovery of his costs and damages as clearly contemplated by the statue. CONCLUSION The court officials have all evolved into adversarial parties in the proceedings and are abusing their authority, at Mr. Fields expense, to protect their self interests. Mr. Field has a clear right to the relief requested as mandated in the unambiguous statutes and rules discussed throughout this petition. The court officials are violating Mr. Fields rights by refusing to perform their ministerial duties as required by these statutes and rules, therefore, this writ should issue. Alternatively, if these statutes and rules do not clearly provide Mr. Field the relief requested or if these statutes and rules not require the court officials to perform their ministerial duties, then the statutes and rules are void as repugnant to the Constitution of the United States of America.

70

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, for the above stated reasons, and for those reasons to be submitted at any oral argument scheduled in this matter, Mr. Field respectfully moves this Honorable Court to issue the writs of mandamus and/or prohibition to the court officials as requested in this Petition.

Michael Field, Petitioner

CERTIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY, pursuant to Rule 5:7 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, under penalty of law, that the facts and argument contained in the above pleading and Appendices are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I further certify that I will cause the Court Officials to receive service of process in accordance with Chapter 8 of Title 8.01.

Michael Field, Petitioner SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid this 10th day of December 2012.

Notary Public

License Number

My Commission Expires

71