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 Richmond, Virginia 23219 (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

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF RICHMOND ~

Sworn and subscribed before me this~ 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:

James Renwick Manship, Sr. 203 North Fairfax Street Alex~dria, 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

James Renwick Manship, Sr. 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 Agvocate®NoJurYNg_Justice.org tel: 703 .. NRA·l77S

Case 5:11-cv-00014-JP.. ~l:flSfAT'E!!~~RI~ge; . 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 HARRISOHBUR~ VA

FILED

FEB 2 8 2011

BY:~.~~~-DEPliTYc~·-'

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.

"Broken Gavel" or "Broken Balance of Justice" RICO Complaint against Winchester 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 ~~~,;rstar • • Ex-commonwealth's attomey amsted

Paul Thomson was arrested by Federal law

fl::!~~ 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 ~2008 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

"Broken Gavel" or "Broken Balance of Justice" RICO Complaint against Winchester 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.


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·ski.Mask-wiis~ouiictNEAFi1

IJ//-f,r~Nl ·A' ~he crime scenejwith a ; ':...:!..:.:...;~ .. =..:....;- !WHITE MAN hair fiber inside.: tii?&~Vr ··:·----.-::::::.·:::::."":::::::~._-_._._._._._._-_-_-_-_-.---~ ~ ;S1x W1tnesses and Poliqemen say: . 1 ~here was a White Man gun man. 1 ~'( ;Jeff Washington is a Blaek Man. : . ._ . . ~'-I CL:..I'fC,.rV -~------.- ··-···· •• ····-- ·--~ -·-----··- -··

~~y- Olo..t..._,__ l.'-t~.::.>L..~ ~fry~ k.m'..eu. -.Sifo-l 7..~-.. Ct:>l-w..ve J -J. .... CoM, _-i:> C'U<"


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, Richmond, Virginia 23219

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 .. ·r-.<'&1-~-'t-/ 9; .-.c:.'J / t7 J' J LYNN DRIVER

NOTARY PUBLIC Commonwealth of Virginia

Reg. t# 70132~ . J . 1 My Commission Expires 3/ .31£.£3_

~~s~L_ .t1i't\ ~r~r.Agton


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.


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.


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:

.§:5':;;~~2. (;-~

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.



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 . ~of 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: .. ,: ~-~··· ...


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.


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~nman

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.


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


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 i•ngible 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.


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.


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.


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,

?~ qrz-~~Jff 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


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 ... ~ .. ~ •

James Renwick Manship, Sr. 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


::.··

POWER OF ATTORNEY· Cvf\ \ t- '? tf ..()/·1)(2-1/ ~(:[1~:,,1

. I ~ I, Velor~O»timtlkMit, 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. Constr·udion of autho.rity generalJy.,

§ 26-106. Claims and litigation., and § 26-107. Personal~dfami•y 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 18iiEC~ .l""' ~g?;..l't'·: ·;'" .•...• 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 -· ._.:,.•.•('''.,., ......... o:..-~, ..... ~

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 '~1'11

This Power of Attorney shall become effective immediately. This Power ofAI.-=,~~ ~~c be revoked by me at any time by providing written notice to my agent. :!f. """'~ ~;; C~!!."'''

Dated a 5 /z 3 /11 {I

UJ-tJ ll.tvdtlL:

~O~.a~~ (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 ArJ?Aitu,.:t?~ ~

sign ~nd give Power of Attomey ~ ind~ 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 ~pport .l'1P~o;!$-~<;~"'tlte (this) Consti!Dti?n fff (for) the United States(of~e~ca) -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 ~emean yourself in the practice, oflaw,cznd •• \ . '" __ ···~"~-·.-· .. Ziii eyoureffiee-oj.(duticsas)a_ tt.orn_. ey.6:tlats:to.thebest(Jfyourablltty,

~_, . ··••••••·;~~~- so help ,you God? ,,,, ~LoTH of · ,,,,. , ........ ,,., Per conversation with.public servan1s of the ~of-the Clerk~ 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. § 5204~ 1972. c. 130~ 1994, c. s~.)

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. lltr~illi"~/fQft.\MDI\ we4.. (-/{ CountylC~ty of A.r.b~-~C'\ ..• ·-~ ~ •• J~. J .1,~,Sr

I, \JJ.lrr\ot;~ •. 11)\flf£ • 'P'ltlame of Agent) • certify under penalty of perjury that Jlt.(P.rno9 .. A.H~ !lila. (Name of Principal) granted • authorit,Y JB ·¥, agent or successor agent in a power of a·ttorney 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 wa·a 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 ~-"r.~,./.R/1., (Date)

by ./'~.~~Agent)

• ~~/.tP/F My co•isu:on exp1res: • RY.• .•• .(_::_.~ ••• ;r .. (Seal, if any) Notary Regi·stration Number: • • /.tiN. 7/.r ........ .

This document. pr-epared by: • • ~;e,a .R~...v.,&tf441l.6l~p ~. (20 I 0, cc. !.55, 632.)

., ........... ... ~' E ... :••,

•' . .. • "J':j I. •'. . ........ ~~-~ t/ .. • .. NOTNW··.

(. ~ ... ~ ...... i -·--\ . n~-~~ ~ \ ~ ..

;. •• •• 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 ~ave 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 po~ers 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. Maat~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

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

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 11MOT!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 11fair 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 § 26·72.

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

Ma~orie, 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) 635·9421 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 ~lA:

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY

James Renwick Manship, Sr., "Next Friend" of Ashlie & Sabrina Plaintiff, Pro Se, In Forma Pauperis

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.


~"11 v

James Renwick Manship, Sr.

Plaintiff, Pro Se, In Forma Pauperis


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.


~ttl I

James Renwick Manship, Sr.

Plaintiff, ProSe, In Forma Pauperis


'I.

,;,,.

. -.~

.··~--·.·::.

•,.·:·"

... ~,

.·.J _: .:,..o-~ --~ . ··-' r· ~;

Case 1:11-cv-0100iNJ~~11ffilfil~sm~~lif~b\nrf9e 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 frien~ James Renwick Manship, · and her next friend Salim Bennett, CLERK US DISTRICT COURT

N.B., a minor child, by her next frien~ James Renwick Manship, ALEXAHDRIA. VIRGINIA and her next friend Salim Bennett,

O.B., a minor child, by her next friend, James Renwick Manship, and her next friend Salim Bennett,

T.B., a minor child, by her next friend, James Renwick Manship, and her next friend Salim Bennett,

Z.B., a minor child, by her next frien~ James Renwick Manship, and her next friend Salim Bennett,

TJ., a minor child, by her next friend, James Renwick Manship, and her next friend Tiffany Johnson

S.S., a minor chil~ 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 Pro~ 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

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 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 Pa~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, ~Arlington or beyond.

Case 1 :11-cv-01003-JCC -.JfA Document 1 Filed 09/16/11 h:~ge 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 intervie~ 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, Child Protective Services Division.

29. TAMMEE GAYMON, in her official capacity as Arlington County Virginia Social Worker, Child Protective Services Division.

30. VALERIE CUFFEE, in her official capacity as Arlington County Vuginia Social Worker, Child Protective Services Division.

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· Pa8 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 Adequt~te 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 protec~on 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 Pa~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 ENrEofl"'~ Bl6ififilol-6 l C 0 URT

C'OMMONWEAL TH OF VIRGINIA 'f8~o0f filA't"f¥..iK•COUNTY 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!'iilii«Rult 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 rlNftqmr"sEJWR~ nfSip~ ef~tJR~ 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) KARE~ 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

Social Worker, Child Protective Services Division 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 l~5'fl dOOfdF~,J'fA.

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 a·NoT 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 HE~AN 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 1·248 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 McCandl~ 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 Geo~ge

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 ~_de 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 nonpolitical body with legal authoritY to make s~ch 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 Manship~ 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:

Sho'~~~ 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 ~denbach,

""")?4~ o~~v-- "R...., S'~ 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, 111 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 ~~strip searched" and photographed in a K~Mart

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 cover~up 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

Documents

Transcript of Virginia Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto vs James Renwick Manship