Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
also on behalf of all persons so similarly situated in this action (together, “the
1.This is a multi-grounded civil rights action at law, at common law, and also in
equity, to vindicate and restore various rights of the Plaintiffs secured under federal
law, to vindicate and restore their various inalienable rights guaranteed under
certain portions of, and several Amendments to, the United States Constitution, and
for the Plaintiffs to claim all rights, damages, and forms of relief obtainable under
2.In no way, shape, or form, do or will the Plaintiffs claim or assert, either
controversy under any state law, whatsoever, excepting only that a matter must be
fairly characterized as an act, practice, or policy of, or by, the state which exists or
matters arising solely under any state law or state rights, with, again, excepting
only that a given matter must or might be fairly characterized as an act, practice,
pattern, or policy of, or committed by, the state which exists or functions in
1
4.The Plaintiffs seek all available forms of declaratory, injunctive, retrospective
and prospective relief that correspond to the various causes of action and prayers
rightful custody of minor children is in dispute between natural parents, and where
the United States Constitution, and consistent, numerous, and binding stare decisis
of the United States Supreme Court, provides certain liberty, privacy, and family
interest protections to all such natural parents, and wherein various and numerous
thwarting the rightful and lawful conclusions of due process during any such child
relations, within any related or ancillary proceedings, and especially those matters
directly concerning child custody and child support, often involving bias or
prejudice in favor of, or against, one gender or the other, and the same practices
2
8.Given the above serious and important natures of this case, the significant
implications to the general welfare, and the same including grievous and numerous
violations of civil and constitutional rights, this Court should afford special
attention thereupon, and impart expediency to the resolution of this action, all
9.The parties consist of principal Plaintiff Leist, the putative plaintiff Class, and
Warner, Virginia Attorney General Kilgore, and Virginia Chief Justice Hassell.
of the State of North Carolina, and has a child custody case under the jurisdiction
States citizens, 18 years of age or older on the date of filing this action, with each
having conceived one or more natural children, of whom any one or more of which
is/are currently: (a) living; (b) residing within the jurisdiction of any court of the
United States; (c) not institutionalized; and, (d) of age in years so that the very
3
existence of such child(ren) either does, or could, give present or future rise to any
legal or equitable proceeding in any court for the payment, by such plaintiff, of any
form of child support, to any other person or party, in any form or method
12.Further, that each such above plaintiff has also been previously adjudicated,
parent”, or any other such similar term or phrase commonly applied to represent
that such plaintiff does not equally enjoy the same full sets and degrees of physical,
possessory, and legal rights to all aspects of the care, custody, and management of
said child(ren) that are recognized to belong to, or enjoyed by, the other natural
13.Lastly, that each such above plaintiff, in addition to the above criteria, has
either: (a) never been formally convicted, in any competent court of the several
accordance to the full protections of all constitutional due process rights normally
minor child – whatsoever – but, specifically excluding from the above criteria only
child support; or, (b) obtained full reversal, vacation, overturning, or other like
4
purging, of each, any, and all such convictions in any one or more competent
the United States, subject to the provisions of the United States Constitution, all
Amendments made thereto, and any express statutory Acts of Congress enacted by
the authority thereunder, having willingly joined the Union of the Several States,
and thereby also willingly subjecting itself to the supreme power of the Federal
Government, and is now made a direct defendant party to this action, through
binding service of process upon its representative leaders, and is also made a
superior, for the various actions, and/or inactions, committed, and/or neglected, by
representatives that may be generally described herein, and/or by any other persons
official manner, and/or by other persons, or entities, acting in concert with any of
the above persons or entities, as well as by its own neglect, and/or refusals, to act
to prevent, and/or correct, directly, and/or indirectly, various wrongs, harm, and/or
acts, and/or by having conspired with any other persons to commit the same.
5
Defendant Commonwealth of Virginia is sued for all possible forms of relief under
Commonwealth of Virginia, the Governor of the same, and is sued solely in his
official capacity thereunder for all available prospective relief in the injunctive and
declaratory senses.
Commonwealth of Virginia, the Attorney General of the same, and is sued solely in
his official capacity thereunder for all available prospective relief in the injunctive
Commonwealth of Virginia, the Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, the
presiding officer of the Judicial Council of Virginia, and is sued solely under both
such official capacities for all available prospective relief in the injunctive and
declaratory senses, and seeking such same forms of relief that may be available
6
18.Jurisdiction and venue over all subject matters herein are properly had and
held within this Honorable Court, pursuant to at least the following relevant
provisions of law:
States;
judges in every State under the supreme law of the land, and which same
d)28 USC § 1331 – regarding issues arising under the Constitution, laws, or
preliminary relief;
h)28 USC § 1962 – regarding liens, by judgment, upon property within the
district;
7
i)28 USC § 2201 – regarding creations of remedies and declarations of rights;
available;
k)28 USC § 2283 – regarding this Court's authority to stay proceedings in any
state court;
facilities; and
19.This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims by the
Plaintiffs that may be, or are so, related to the claims herein that they form part of
the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution,
D.Allegations of Law
20.The United States Supreme Court has long and consistently held that the
all general child-rearing decisions related to one's children are fundamental rights
21.As such, any actions by any person or entity, whether it be by a person acting
8
demonstrated by a pattern of deprivations generally attributable to a state itself,
that intrude upon these fundamental rights, are patently unconstitutional until, and
unless, first validated by a substantially compelling state interest applied with strict
22.The state is not permitted to intrude upon these fundamental rights of the
natural parent without clear and convincing proof of demonstrable harm to the
child(ren) in question.
unless there is clear and convincing evidence of proven harm, or of the threat or
24.The United States Supreme Court has consistently reminded that there is a
presumption that fit parents act in their children's best interests, and that there is
normally no reason for the state to inject itself into the private realm of the family
to further question fit parents' ability to make any decisions regarding their
domestic relations actions have each previously sworn their oaths, as required by
9
Virginia law, to uphold the guarantees and protections of the United States
26.In addition, the same judges have various legal duties, under professional
conduct rules for attorneys, and/or various judicial conduct canons, to promote,
and similar qualities and traits of integrity, at all times during the litigation of any
legal proceedings.
United States Constitution, all Amendments made thereto, and any and all express
constitutional and legal compliance of any and all transactions conducted under the
29.Defendants Warner, Kilgore, and Hassell have each, before taking their
respective offices, given sworn oaths to uphold and support the laws and the
30.Defendants Warner, Kilgore, and Hassell each have certain duties under law
to ensure that the constitutional rights of all United States citizens within their
10
31.Each of the Defendants is severally and jointly responsible for the welfare of
its citizenry, and for the ultimate protections of the rights of each United States
citizen within its jurisdiction, is also therefore responsible for ensuring that its
procedures, or any other means necessary, do not violate, on a systemic scale, any
of the federal laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to the widespread application
of family law, and of federal rights and privileges, in regards to the general
parents.
32.The Plaintiffs, as United States citizens and natural parents, have certain
States Supreme Court, including the right not to have custody, care, and
management of their natural children taken away from them by the power of the
Commonwealth, without having first been proven as unfit parents by clear and
33.Any natural parent has these same such rights and guarantees, regardless of
marital status.
11
34.The taking of child custody from an otherwise fit natural parent violates the
Constitution.
E.Allegations of Fact
35.Plaintiff Leist, and each putative plaintiff, whether a male or female, has
previously conceived one or more natural children with one or more members of
36.Plaintiff Leist, and each putative plaintiff, has previously appeared before the
said natural children, as between the rights of themselves, and the rights of the
right to custody, care, and management of said natural children was taken from
Plaintiff Leist, and from each respective putative plaintiff, by the power of the
scrutiny applied in a least intrusive manner, before taking away such custody.
inalienable right to custody, care, and management of said natural children was
protected and upheld as to the parent opposing Plaintiff Leist, and as to the parent
12
39.Such an arbitrary taking and award of child custody between two fit natural
parents of the opposite sexes constitutes gender discrimination, and an act that is
40.As a result, Plaintiff Leist, and each such putative plaintiff, has been
widespread, and continually applied practice or policy by Virginia state courts, all
42.As a result of that unlawful standard practice or policy, should Plaintiff Leist,
or any such putative plaintiff, attempt to seek to regain his or her rightful custody
of such children using the Virginia state courts, there is no reasonable expectation
that the results would be any different, and the constitutional injuries to custodial
violations of at least the following: (1) the unreasonable seizures prohibited by the
deprivations of life, liberty, and/or property, without due process of law, that are all
13
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (4) the guarantees against
cruel and unusual punishments that are all secured by the Eighth Amendment to the
United States Constitution; (5) the protections of the privileges and immunities of
Constitution; (6) the full and equal protections of the law promised to all citizens
by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (7) the right to be
heard, as a party in a court of law, secured by the Sixth Amendment to the United
discrimination that are found in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
F.Causes of Action
44.Plaintiffs reallege all paragraphs 1 through 43, supra, and incorporate them
various programs and services that it either administers, enjoys, and/or provides,
14
46.Typically, each area of relevant federal law that provides for the
the United States Code that specifies prohibited discriminations, and then also
expressly waives immunity for a violative state, and further provides for all forms
of relief against a state that are available against any other entity.
and the Plaintiffs do not believe such a complete recitation of all applicable federal
statutes is necessary, when the same form of relief is available to the Plaintiffs by
48.Several forms of “Federal financial assistance” are provided under Title 42,
Chapter 7, Subchapter IV, including under both Part A (TANF), and Part D (Child
Support enforcement).
funding, while § 601(a)(2) and (a)(4) clearly require the Commonwealth to use
such funding to promote marriage, and the formation and maintenance of two-
15
50.Under Part D (Child Support), multiple sections provide appropriations of the
provide notice of rights to both parents within the context of performing paternity
affidavits. The violation is that the Commonwealth unilaterally fails to inform both
such parents, by notice required under law, that they each have a constitutional
determine custody.
51.In addition under Part D, the Commonwealth routinely fails its duties under §
which constitutes a denial of services, an act which, in itself, is further liable under
court personnel, and materials and supplies for the Commonwealth’s state
16
53.Yet, 42 USC § 3789d(c)(1) prohibits the very form of discrimination (sex)
intended unisex services and programs listed under 42 USC § 5116(b)(1), while it
seems the Commonwealth was unlawfully intending to only consider one gender
state courts violates the corresponding prohibitions under the federal financial
assistance received within and by sections of Title 42, Chapter 113 of the US Code.
56.Further, the same unlawful practices or policies violate the written letter,
intent, and/or spirit of many other such federal statutes tied in with federal grant
practice or policy by using, in either whole or part, judges, prosecutors, other court
government, the programs or activities described fall within the protection and
17
relief available to the Plaintiffs under 42 USC § 2000d-7, and under other such
fair services.
and/or negligently allowed the unlawful standard practice or policy that continues
to cause the Plaintiffs to suffer, and has also failed to prevent the future suffering
of, the resulting constitutional injuries to custodial rights of parents to their natural
59.The Plaintiffs, by and through the principal Plaintiff, and together as a Class,
Virginia for the grievous violations and deprivations of the civil and constitutional
rights described herein, and are also entitled to various and appropriate remedial
herein, all as demanded and requested by and through the Plaintiffs’ respective
prayers for relief listed under section "G" of this pleading below.
60.Plaintiffs reallege all paragraphs 1 through 59, supra, and incorporate them
18
61.As Governor, Defendant Warner either knows, or reasonably should know,
that:
b)not all such noncustodial parents have been proven to be unfit dangers to
their children, and nor would any reasonable person even begin to hint that such
ancient right;
d)the same right to custody of children is well established under law, and even
obvious;
e)the easily-grasped and basic principle of equal protection under the law;
and, that
f)therefore, there must be some sort of problem with the ability of Virginia
state courts to consistently dispense fair and equitable justice when making child
62.Yet, Defendant Warner has a clear legal duty and responsibility, under both –
his oath to uphold the Constitution, and also Virginia law – to either correct, and/or
cause the correction of, any such practices or policies that fail to protect the legal
interests or rights of United States citizens under his jurisdiction and/or authority.
19
63.Under at least Virginia Code §§ 1-17.2, 2.2-104, 2.2-111, 2.2-3900, and 2.2-
3901, Defendant Warner’s duty and responsibility is clear in this matter, in addition
negligently allowed the unlawful standard practice or policy that continues to cause
the Plaintiffs to suffer, and failed to prevent the same standard practice or policy
from causing the future suffering of, the resulting constitutional injuries to
prohibition and/or mandamus relief from this Court, all as demanded and requested
by and through the Plaintiffs’ prayers for relief respectively listed under section
66.The Plaintiffs further note that regardless of the course of these proceedings,
nor the length of time expended herein, Defendant Warner has been duly notified
cause the immediate correction of, such violative practices, and can now be held
liable via his individual capacity, for either neglecting, refusing, or otherwise
failing to even attempt that duty within a reasonably short period of time.
20
Count III: Defendant Kilgore is neglecting, ignoring, or otherwise violating his
duties
67.Plaintiffs reallege all paragraphs 1 through 59, supra, and incorporate them
know, that:
b)not all such noncustodial parents have been proven to be unfit dangers to
their children, and nor would any reasonable person even begin to hint that such
ancient right;
d)the same right to custody of children is well established under law, and even
obvious;
e)the easily-grasped and basic principle of equal protection under the law;
and, that
f)therefore, there must be some sort of problem with the ability of Virginia
state courts to consistently dispense fair and equitable justice when making child
21
69.Yet, Defendant Kilgore has a clear legal duty and responsibility, under both –
his oath to uphold the Constitution, and also Virginia law – to either correct, and/or
cause the correction of, any such practices or policies that fail to protect the legal
interests or rights of United States citizens under his jurisdiction and/or authority.
2.2-3900, and 2.2-3901, Defendant Warner’s duty and responsibility is clear in this
matter, in addition to that same duty and responsibility under and by his sworn
oath.
negligently allowed the unlawful standard practice or policy that continues to cause
the Plaintiffs to suffer, and failed to prevent the same standard practice or policy
from causing the future suffering of, the resulting constitutional injuries to
prohibition and/or mandamus relief from this Court, all as demanded and requested
by and through the Plaintiffs’ prayers for relief respectively listed under section
73.The Plaintiffs further note that regardless of the course of these proceedings,
nor the length of time expended herein, Defendant Kilgore has been duly notified
22
cause the immediate correction of, such violative practices, and can now be held
liable via his individual capacity, for either neglecting, refusing, or otherwise
failing to even attempt that duty within a reasonably short period of time.
74.Plaintiffs reallege all paragraphs 1 through 59, supra, and incorporate them
know, that:
b)not all such noncustodial parents have been proven to be unfit dangers to
their children, and nor would any reasonable person even begin to hint that such
ancient right;
d)the same right to custody of children is well established under law, and even
obvious;
e)the easily-grasped and basic principle of equal protection under the law;
and, that
23
f)therefore, there must be some sort of problem with the ability of Virginia
state courts to consistently dispense fair and equitable justice when making child
76.Yet, Defendant Hassell has a clear legal duty and responsibility, under both –
his oath to uphold the Constitution, and also Virginia law – to either correct, and/or
cause the correction of, any such practices or policies that fail to protect the legal
interests or rights of United States citizens under his jurisdiction and/or authority.
77.As Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Defendant Hassell serves as the
the efficient and effective operation of the entire system – a system which cannot
be deemed “efficient and effective” if it is often failing to protect the legal interests
organization, rules, and methods of procedure and practice of the judicial system of
the Commonwealth, and he is ultimately responsible also for examining the work
accomplished and results produced by the system and its individual offices and
courts.
Virginia Code §§ 1-17.2, 2.2-3900, and 2.2-3901, Defendant Hassell’s duty and
24
responsibility, to either correct, or cause to be corrected, a judicial system which is
failing to protect the legal interests or rights of many thousands of United States
citizens, is clear in this matter, in addition to that same duty and responsibility
negligently allowed the unlawful standard practice or policy that continues to cause
the Plaintiffs to suffer, and failed to prevent the same standard practice or policy
from causing the future suffering of, the resulting constitutional injuries to
prohibition and/or mandamus relief from this Court, all as demanded and requested
by and through the Plaintiffs’ prayers for relief respectively listed under section
82.The Plaintiffs further note that regardless of the course of these proceedings,
nor the length of time expended herein, Defendant Hassell has been duly notified
cause the immediate correction of, such violative practices, and can now be held
liable via his individual capacity, for either neglecting, refusing, or otherwise
failing to even attempt that duty within a reasonably short period of time.
25
83.Plaintiffs pray this Court that all issues in this cause be tried to a jury to the
extent they are so triable under the Seventh Amendment to the United States
84.Plaintiffs pray this Court for a just, sufficient, and reasonable award of
upon its estate and all holdings, present and future, in the aggregate value of
pursuant to 28 USC § 1961(a), and accruing thereon, executable upon all monies,
partially, by said Defendant, along with execution and/or garnishment against all of
said Defendant's forms of income, interests, or any other earnings, present and
future, all and the same until such time as said judgment(s) is/are satisfied as to the
damages to be in the form of directing the Defendant to provide the Plaintiffs with
fixed term of years, in reconciliation and balance for previous and existing
26
86.Plaintiffs pray this Court for an appropriate portion of the above-sought
pay back, to the federal government, and in a manner specified by the Court, all
88.Plaintiffs, and on behalf of all citizens of the United States, and on behalf of
all other persons or entities that may also either be, or become, parties to domestic
Virginia’s courts, pray this Court to cause and enforce the immediate prohibition of
injunctive order permanently enjoining the same, as to and against any or all of the
89.Plaintiffs pray this Court grant an award against the Defendants, severally or
90.Plaintiffs also pray this Court grant and compel all such other and further
27
WHEREFORE, the undersigned Principal Plaintiff, Harold E. Leist,
“the Class”), now and together pray this Court for the above described forms of
relief, and/or all such substantially similar relief; and, for all other relief that is just
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Harold E. Leist
28