va appellate brief

Comes now the principal Plaintiff-Petitioner, Harold E. Leist, individually, and

also on behalf of all persons so similarly situated in this action (together, “the

Class”), and submits the following:

A. Introduction and Nature of the Case

1. This is a multi-grounded civil rights action at law, at common law, and also

in equity, to vindicate and restore various rights of the Plaintiffs secured under

federal law, to vindicate and restore their various inalienable rights guaranteed

under certain portions of, and several Amendments to, the United States

Constitution, and for the Plaintiffs to claim all rights, damages, and forms of relief

obtainable under any available means.

2. In no way, shape, or form, do or will the Plaintiffs claim or assert, either

expressed or implied, any manner of rights or interests alluding to any aspect of

controversy under any state law, whatsoever, excepting only that a matter must be

fairly characterized as an act, practice, or policy of, or by, the state which exists or

functions in derogation of federal law or federal rights.

3. Further, the Plaintiffs expressly disclaim any such potential allusions to

matters arising solely under any state law or state rights, with, again, excepting

only that a given matter must or might be fairly characterized as an act, practice,

pattern, or policy of, or committed by, the state which exists or functions in

derogation of federal law or federal rights.

1

4. The Plaintiffs seek all available forms of declaratory, injunctive,

retrospective and prospective relief that correspond to the various causes of action

and prayers for relief herein.

5. This case involves applications of family law in a general nature, wherein

rightful custody of minor children is in dispute between natural parents, and where

the United States Constitution, and consistent, numerous, and binding stare decisis

of the United States Supreme Court, provides certain liberty, privacy, and family

interest protections to all such natural parents, and wherein various and numerous

Acts of Congress have provided similar, or even better, protections.

6. This case further involves significant amounts of what appears to be willful,

reckless, and/or negligent fraud, deceit, collusion, and/or abuse of powers by a

statewide and systemic pattern of obstructing, hindering, and/or otherwise

thwarting the rightful and lawful conclusions of due process during any such child

custody proceedings held within its own courts of law.

7. This case further involves allegations of widespread and standard practices

by the Commonwealth of Virginia to unlawfully discriminate in all areas of

domestic relations, within any related or ancillary proceedings, and especially

those matters directly concerning child custody and child support, often involving

bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, one gender or the other, and the same

practices being patently unconstitutional in their prevalent application.

2

8. Given the above serious and important natures of this case, the significant

implications to the general welfare, and the same including grievous and numerous

violations of civil and constitutional rights, this Court should afford special

attention thereupon, and impart expediency to the resolution of this action, all

pursuant to its authority under 28 USC § 1657 (a).

B. Parties to the Case

9. The parties consist of principal Plaintiff Leist, the putative plaintiff Class,

and the Defendants, including the Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Governor

Warner, Virginia Attorney General Kilgore, and Virginia Chief Justice Hassell.

Each is generally described below.

Principal Plaintiff Harold E. Leist

10.The principle Plaintiff, Harold E. Leist, is a United States citizen, a resident

of the State of North Carolina, and has a child custody case under the jurisdiction

of the Virginia state courts.

Statement and Description of the Plaintiff Class

11.The principle Plaintiff-Petitioner, and all putative co-plaintiffs, are United

States citizens, 18 years of age or older on the date of filing this action, with each

having conceived one or more natural children, of whom any one or more of which

is/are currently: (a) living; (b) residing within the jurisdiction of any court of the

United States; (c) not institutionalized; and, (d) of age in years so that the very

3

existence of such child(ren) either does, or could, give present or future rise to any

legal or equitable proceeding in any court for the payment, by such plaintiff, of any

form of child support, to any other person or party, in any form or method

heretofore established by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

12.Further, that each such above plaintiff has also been previously adjudicated,

by any judge of any court of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as a “noncustodial

parent”, or any other such similar term or phrase commonly applied to represent

that such plaintiff does not equally enjoy the same full sets and degrees of physical,

possessory, and legal rights to all aspects of the care, custody, and management of

said child(ren) that are recognized to belong to, or enjoyed by, the other natural

(commonly referred to as the “custodial”) parent of said child(ren).

13.Lastly, that each such above plaintiff, in addition to the above criteria, has

either: (a) never been formally convicted, in any competent court of the several

States or of the United States, and by proceedings performed with absolute

accordance to the full protections of all constitutional due process rights normally

afforded every criminal defendant, as having been either seriously abusive, or

seriously neglectful, to the health, safety, or physical or emotional welfare, of any

minor child – whatsoever – but, specifically excluding from the above criteria only

those circumstances wherein such prosecution was solely related to nonpayment of

child support; or, (b) obtained full reversal, vacation, overturning, or other like

4

purging, of each, any, and all such convictions in any one or more competent

courts of the several States, or of the United States.

Defendant Commonwealth of Virginia

14.The Commonwealth of Virginia is a sovereign, but inferior, republic body of

the United States, subject to the provisions of the United States Constitution, all

Amendments made thereto, and any express statutory Acts of Congress enacted by

the authority thereunder, having willingly joined the Union of the Several States,

and thereby also willingly subjecting itself to the supreme power of the Federal

Government, and is now made a direct defendant party to this action, through

binding service of process upon its representative leaders, and is also made a

defendant party by virtue of its vicarious liability, and/or liability as respondeat

superior, for the various actions, and/or inactions, committed, and/or neglected, by

its various subordinate officials, agents, employees, and/or any other

representatives that may be generally described herein, and/or by any other persons

functioning, and/or appearing, to represent the Commonwealth of Virginia in any

official manner, and/or by other persons, or entities, acting in concert with any of

the above persons or entities, as well as by its own neglect, and/or refusals, to act

to prevent, and/or correct, directly, and/or indirectly, various wrongs, harm, and/or

injuries to the Plaintiffs, and/or property of the Plaintiffs, including by criminal

acts, and/or by having conspired with any other persons to commit the same.

5

Defendant Commonwealth of Virginia is sued for all possible forms of relief under

the expressly clear and unambiguous provisions of 42 USC § 2000d-7.

Defendant Virginia Governor Mark R. Warner

15.Defendant Mark R. Warner is a United States citizen, a resident of the

Commonwealth of Virginia, the Governor of the same, and is sued solely in his

official capacity thereunder for all available prospective relief in the injunctive and

declaratory senses.

Defendant Virginia Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore

16.Defendant Jerry W. Kilgore is a United States citizen, a resident of the

Commonwealth of Virginia, the Attorney General of the same, and is sued solely

in his official capacity thereunder for all available prospective relief in the

injunctive and declaratory senses.

Defendant Virginia Chief Justice Leroy R. Hassell, Sr.

17.Defendant Leroy R. Hassell, Sr., is a United States citizen, a resident of the

Commonwealth of Virginia, the Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, the

presiding officer of the Judicial Council of Virginia, and is sued solely under both

such official capacities for all available prospective relief in the injunctive and

declaratory senses, and seeking such same forms of relief that may be available

under either or both of said official capacities.

C. Jurisdiction and Venue

6

18.Jurisdiction and venue over all subject matters herein are properly had and

held within this Honorable Court, pursuant to at least the following relevant

provisions of law:

a) Article III, Section 2, of the United States Constitution – regarding issues

risen under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States;

b) Article IV, Section 2, of the United States Constitution – regarding equal

protection of all privileges and immunities of citizens amongst the several

States;

c) Article VI of the United States Constitution – regarding the binding of

judges in every State under the supreme law of the land, and which same

consists of the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States;

d) 28 USC § 1331 – regarding issues arising under the Constitution, laws, or

treaties of the United States;

e) 28 USC § 1343 – regarding deprivations of rights, and/or privileges, of

citizens of the United States;

f) 28 USC § 1391 – regarding venue and defendants generally;

g) 28 USC § 1657 – regarding priority of actions, and temporary or

preliminary relief;

h) 28 USC § 1962 – regarding liens, by judgment, upon property within the

district;

7

i) 28 USC § 2201 – regarding creations of remedies and declarations of

rights;

j) 28 USC § 2202 – regarding further reasonable, necessary, or proper relief

available;

k) 28 USC § 2283 – regarding this Court's authority to stay proceedings in

any state court;

l) 42 USC § 2000b – regarding deprivations of civil rights within public

facilities; and

m) 42 USC § 2000b-2 – regarding individual remedies for deprivations of

civil rights within public facilities.

19.This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims by the

Plaintiffs that may be, or are so, related to the claims herein that they form part of

the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution,

pursuant to 28 USC § 1367.

D. Allegations of Law

20.The United States Supreme Court has long and consistently held that the

care, custody, maintenance, management, companionship, educational choices, and

all general child-rearing decisions related to one's children are fundamental rights

protected by the Federal Constitution.

8

21.As such, any actions by any person or entity, whether it be by a person acting

alone, in conjunction with another, directly or indirectly, by any state entity, or

demonstrated by a pattern of deprivations generally attributable to a state itself,

that intrude upon these fundamental rights, are patently unconstitutional until, and

unless, first validated by a substantially compelling state interest applied with strict

scrutiny, and then only performed in the least intrusive manner.

22.The state is not permitted to intrude upon these fundamental rights of the

natural parent without clear and convincing proof of demonstrable harm to the

child(ren) in question.

23.All natural parents existing under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of

Virginia are constitutionally entitled to be free of government intrusion into the

previously existing rights to care, custody, and management of their children,

unless there is clear and convincing evidence of proven harm, or of the threat or

danger of such harm, to the minor children in question.

24.The United States Supreme Court has consistently reminded that there is a

presumption that fit parents act in their children's best interests, and that there is

normally no reason for the state to inject itself into the private realm of the family

to further question fit parents' ability to make any decisions regarding their

children, unless there is first a compelling state interest.

9

25.All judges of the Commonwealth of Virginia that have jurisdiction over

domestic relations actions have each previously sworn their oaths, as required by

Virginia law, to uphold the guarantees and protections of the United States

Constitution, and the laws of the United States.

26.In addition, the same judges have various legal duties, under professional

conduct rules for attorneys, and/or various judicial conduct canons, to promote,

use, and restrict themselves to honesty, candor, impartiality, fundamental fairness

and similar qualities and traits of integrity, at all times during the litigation of any

legal proceedings.

27.Defendant Commonwealth of Virginia is subject to the provisions of the

United States Constitution, all Amendments made thereto, and any and all express

statutory Acts of Congress.

28.Defendant Commonwealth of Virginia, therefore, is also responsible for the

constitutional and legal compliance of any and all transactions conducted under the

supervision of its agents.

29.Defendants Warner, Kilgore, and Hassell have each, before taking their

respective offices, given sworn oaths to uphold and support the laws and the

Constitution of the United States.

10

30.Defendants Warner, Kilgore, and Hassell each have certain duties under law

to ensure that the constitutional rights of all United States citizens within their

scope of authority are protected.

31.Each of the Defendants is severally and jointly responsible for the welfare of

its citizenry, and for the ultimate protections of the rights of each United States

citizen within its jurisdiction, is also therefore responsible for ensuring that its

collection of judicial officers, by and through standard practices, policies, and/or

procedures, or any other means necessary, do not violate, on a systemic scale, any

of the federal laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to the widespread application

of family law, and of federal rights and privileges, in regards to the general

determinations of child custody between divorced, separated, and unwed natural

parents.

32.The Plaintiffs, as United States citizens and natural parents, have certain

inalienable rights and guarantees secured to them by the United States

Constitution, and/or by Amendments thereto, and as interpreted by the United

States Supreme Court, including the right not to have custody, care, and

management of their natural children taken away from them by the power of the

Commonwealth, without having first been proven as unfit parents by clear and

convincing evidence of substantial risk or danger to such children, in accordance

with due process of law.

11

33.Any natural parent has these same such rights and guarantees, regardless of

marital status.

34.The taking of child custody from an otherwise fit natural parent violates the

Constitution.

E. Allegations of Fact

35.Plaintiff Leist, and each putative plaintiff, whether a male or female, has

previously conceived one or more natural children with one or more members of

the opposite sex.

36.Plaintiff Leist, and each putative plaintiff, has previously appeared before the

jurisdiction of at least one Virginia state court to resolve custody dispositions of

said natural children, as between the rights of themselves, and the rights of the

opposing natural parents.

37.In each such aforementioned child custody determination, the inalienable

right to custody, care, and management of said natural children was taken from

Plaintiff Leist, and from each respective putative plaintiff, by the power of the

Commonwealth, but without the prerequisite findings of unfitness by clear and

convincing evidence, and without employing the constitutional doctrine of strict

scrutiny applied in a least intrusive manner, before taking away such custody.

38.In each same aforementioned child custody determination, the same

inalienable right to custody, care, and management of said natural children was

12

protected and upheld as to the parent opposing Plaintiff Leist, and as to the parent

which opposed each putative plaintiff, respectively.

39.Such an arbitrary taking and award of child custody between two fit natural

parents of the opposite sexes constitutes gender discrimination, and an act that is

violative of equal protection.

40.As a result, Plaintiff Leist, and each such putative plaintiff, has been

unlawfully injured in the care, custody, management, society, and companionship

of, and to, his or her such children.

41.Further, these arbitrary child custody determinations are done as a daily,

widespread, and continually applied practice or policy by Virginia state courts, all

in violation of the Constitution.

42.As a result of that unlawful standard practice or policy, should Plaintiff Leist,

or any such putative plaintiff, attempt to seek to regain his or her rightful custody

of such children using the Virginia state courts, there is no reasonable expectation

that the results would be any different, and the constitutional injuries to custodial

rights of their children would remain and continue.

43.The above-described facts constitute present, continuing, and also potential

violations of at least the following: (1) the unreasonable seizures prohibited by the

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) the prohibited

deprivations of life, liberty, and/or property, without due process of law, that are all

13

protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution; (3) the absolute impartiality of judicial proceedings demanded by the

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (4) the guarantees against

cruel and unusual punishments that are all secured by the Eighth Amendment to

the United States Constitution; (5) the protections of the privileges and immunities

of all citizens maintained by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution; (6) the full and equal protections of the law promised to all citizens

by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (7) the right to be

heard, as a party in a court of law, secured by the Sixth Amendment to the United

States Constitution; and, (8) the prohibitions against various forms of

discrimination that are found in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

F. Causes of Action

Count I: Defendant Commonwealth of Virginia is violating its duties under federal law

44.Plaintiffs reallege all paragraphs 1 through 43, supra, and incorporate them

herein by reference the same as if fully set forth. (H.I.).

45.Defendant Commonwealth of Virginia receives numerous forms of “Federal

financial assistance”, to compensate, in whole or part, expenditures made for

various programs and services that it either administers, enjoys, and/or provides,

14

but yet violates multiple statutory prohibitions against committing discrimination

by such corresponding services or programs.

46.Typically, each area of relevant federal law that provides for the

appropriation of federal monies also includes one or more companion statutes of

the United States Code that specifies prohibited discriminations, and then also

expressly waives immunity for a violative state, and further provides for all forms

of relief against a state that are available against any other entity.

47.The entire list of such “groups” of federal statutes that Defendant

Commonwealth of Virginia is alleged to be violating is rather large and involved,

and the Plaintiffs do not believe such a complete recitation of all applicable federal

statutes is necessary, when the same form of relief is available to the Plaintiffs by

only using the very limited examples given next below.

48.Several forms of “Federal financial assistance” are provided under Title 42,

Chapter 7, Subchapter IV, including under both Part A (TANF), and Part D (Child

Support enforcement).

49.Under Part A (TANF), multiple sections provide appropriations of the actual

funding, while § 601(a)(2) and (a)(4) clearly require the Commonwealth to use

such funding to promote marriage, and the formation and maintenance of two-

parent families – as directly opposed to purposely or recklessly creating higher

15

ratios of single-parent households – while § 608(d) provides links to the various

prohibitions against forms of discrimination.

50.Under Part D (Child Support), multiple sections provide appropriations of the

actual funding, while § 666(a)(5)(C)(i), as an example of routine discrimination

and violation by the Commonwealth, instructs that the Commonwealth must

provide notice of rights to both parents within the context of performing paternity

affidavits. The violation is that the Commonwealth unilaterally fails to inform both

such parents, by notice required under law, that they each have a constitutional

right to custody, barring unusual circumstances, and this omission is gender

discrimination by default application of the typical subsequent procedures to

determine custody.

51.In addition under Part D, the Commonwealth routinely fails its duties under §

669b to provide reasonable access and visitation programs to noncustodial parents,

which constitutes a denial of services, an act which, in itself, is further liable under

law. See 42 USC § 2000b-2.

52.Under various provisions of Title 42, Chapter 46, the Commonwealth

receives “Federal financial assistance” under the numerous programs of that

Chapter, for training of judges, training of prosecutors, training of various other

court personnel, and materials and supplies for the Commonwealth’s state

courthouses, judges, prosecutors and various other court personnel.

16

53.Yet, 42 USC § 3789d(c)(1) prohibits the very form of discrimination (sex)

that is routinely practiced by the Commonwealth’s state courts in the above

described custody matters.

54.Likewise, the Commonwealth’s standard practice or policy of disparate

discrimination in the above described custody determinations violates the gamut of

intended unisex services and programs listed under 42 USC § 5116(b)(1), while it

seems the Commonwealth was unlawfully intending to only consider one gender

for the typical receipt of such services and programs.

55.Again, the same disparate gender discrimination by the Commonwealth’s

state courts violates the corresponding prohibitions under the federal financial

assistance received within and by sections of Title 42, Chapter 113 of the US

Code.

56.Further, the same unlawful practices or policies violate the written letter,

intent, and/or spirit of many other such federal statutes tied in with federal grant

monies, such as 42 USC § 12301, 42 USC § 12331, 42 USC §12351, 42 USC §

12352, 42 USC § 12371, and many others.

57.Because the Commonwealth has received so many different types of “Federal

financial assistance”, and has yet continued a patently unlawful discriminatory

practice or policy by using, in either whole or part, judges, prosecutors, other court

personnel, courthouses, and materials and supplies funded by the federal

17

government, the programs or activities described fall within the protection and

relief available to the Plaintiffs under 42 USC § 2000d-7, and under other such

statutes, prohibiting such discrimination, denials of due process, and/or denials of

fair services.

58.Defendant Commonwealth of Virginia has failed to abide by such

aforementioned provisions of federal law, and has either willfully, recklessly,

and/or negligently allowed the unlawful standard practice or policy that continues

to cause the Plaintiffs to suffer, and has also failed to prevent the future suffering

of, the resulting constitutional injuries to custodial rights of parents to their natural

children as above-described, thereby waiving its immunity under law.

59.The Plaintiffs, by and through the principal Plaintiff, and together as a Class,

are entitled to various awards of damages against Defendant Commonwealth of

Virginia for the grievous violations and deprivations of the civil and constitutional

rights described herein, and are also entitled to various and appropriate remedial

actions performed in immediate correction of the manifest injustices detailed

herein, all as demanded and requested by and through the Plaintiffs’ respective

prayers for relief listed under section "G" of this pleading below.

Count II: Defendant Warner is neglecting, ignoring, or otherwise violating his duties



18

61.As Governor, Defendant Warner either knows, or reasonably should know,

that:

a) many, many numerous thousands of United States citizens have been

adjudicated as noncustodial parents by the state courts of Virginia;

b) not all such noncustodial parents have been proven to be unfit dangers to

their children, and nor would any reasonable person even begin to hint that such

might ever be the case;

c) the inalienable right of any parent to custody of his or her children is an

ancient right;

d) the same right to custody of children is well established under law, and

even obvious;

e) the easily-grasped and basic principle of equal protection under the law;

and, that

f) therefore, there must be some sort of problem with the ability of Virginia

state courts to consistently dispense fair and equitable justice when making child

custody determinations between divorced, separated, or unmarried parents.

62.Yet, Defendant Warner has a clear legal duty and responsibility, under both –

his oath to uphold the Constitution, and also Virginia law – to either correct, and/or

cause the correction of, any such practices or policies that fail to protect the legal

interests or rights of United States citizens under his jurisdiction and/or authority.

19

63.Under at least Virginia Code §§ 1-17.2, 2.2-104, 2.2-111, 2.2-3900, and 2.2-

3901, Defendant Warner’s duty and responsibility is clear in this matter, in

addition to that of his oath.

64.Defendant Warner has therefore either willfully, recklessly, and/or

negligently allowed the unlawful standard practice or policy that continues to cause

the Plaintiffs to suffer, and failed to prevent the same standard practice or policy

from causing the future suffering of, the resulting constitutional injuries to

custodial rights as above-described.

65.The Plaintiffs are entitled to all appropriate declaratory, injunctive,

prohibition and/or mandamus relief from this Court, all as demanded and requested

by and through the Plaintiffs’ prayers for relief respectively listed under section

"G" of this pleading below.

66.The Plaintiffs further note that regardless of the course of these proceedings,

nor the length of time expended herein, Defendant Warner has been duly notified

of all the above, has an indisputable affirmative duty to immediately correct, or

cause the immediate correction of, such violative practices, and can now be held

liable via his individual capacity, for either neglecting, refusing, or otherwise

failing to even attempt that duty within a reasonably short period of time.

20

Count III: Defendant Kilgore is neglecting, ignoring, or otherwise violating his duties



68.As Attorney General, Defendant Kilgore either knows, or reasonably should

know, that:







ancient right;


even obvious;


and, that




21

69.Yet, Defendant Kilgore has a clear legal duty and responsibility, under both –




70.Under at least Virginia Code §§ 1-17.2, 2.2-111, 2.2-500, 2.2-507, 2.2-513,

2.2-3900, and 2.2-3901, Defendant Warner’s duty and responsibility is clear in this

matter, in addition to that same duty and responsibility under and by his sworn

oath.

71.Defendant Kilgore has therefore either willfully, recklessly, and/or










nor the length of time expended herein, Defendant Kilgore has been duly notified


22




Count III: Defendant Hassell is neglecting, ignoring, or otherwise violating his duties



75.As Chief Justice, Defendant Hassell either knows, or reasonably should

know, that:







ancient right;


even obvious;


and, that

23




76.Yet, Defendant Hassell has a clear legal duty and responsibility, under both –




77.As Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Defendant Hassell serves as the

administrative head of Virginia's judicial system, and is charged with overseeing

the efficient and effective operation of the entire system – a system which cannot

be deemed “efficient and effective” if it is often failing to protect the legal interests

or rights of many thousands of United States citizens.

78.Further, as presiding officer of the Judicial Council of Virginia, Defendant

Hassell is charged with the responsibility of making a continuous study of the

organization, rules, and methods of procedure and practice of the judicial system of

the Commonwealth, and he is ultimately responsible also for examining the work

accomplished and results produced by the system and its individual offices and

courts.

79.Therefore, under the two aforementioned administrative roles, and at least

Virginia Code §§ 1-17.2, 2.2-3900, and 2.2-3901, Defendant Hassell’s duty and

24

responsibility, to either correct, or cause to be corrected, a judicial system which is

failing to protect the legal interests or rights of many thousands of United States

citizens, is clear in this matter, in addition to that same duty and responsibility

under and by his multiple sworn oaths.

80.Defendant Hassell has therefore either willfully, recklessly, and/or










nor the length of time expended herein, Defendant Hassell has been duly notified





G. Prayers for Relief

25

83.Plaintiffs pray this Court that all issues in this cause be tried to a jury to the

extent they are so triable under the Seventh Amendment to the United States

Constitution and Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

84.Plaintiffs pray this Court for a just, sufficient, and reasonable award of

various damages, against Defendant Commonwealth of Virginia, and the same

upon its estate and all holdings, present and future, in the aggregate value of

$1,000,000.00 payable per Plaintiff, including all judgment interest obtainable

pursuant to 28 USC § 1961(a), and accruing thereon, executable upon all monies,

property, chattels, assets, goods, pecuniary interests, and anything whatsoever of

any value, tangible or intangible, that may be owned or controlled, wholly or

partially, by said Defendant, along with execution and/or garnishment against all of

said Defendant's forms of income, interests, or any other earnings, present and

future, all and the same until such time as said judgment(s) is/are satisfied as to the

Plaintiffs' favor, paid in full, or otherwise settled by lawful agreement.

85.Plaintiffs pray this Court for an appropriate portion of the above-sought

damages to be in the form of directing the Defendant to provide the Plaintiffs with

various compensatory tax treatment(s) as previous "noncustodial" parents, for a

fixed term of years, in reconciliation and balance for previous and existing

disparately applied custodial tax benefits and tax preferences.

26

86.Plaintiffs pray this Court for an appropriate portion of the above-sought

damages, to be in the form of execution against unused, abandoned, or unnecessary

state property and assets, with disbursement of these damages by liquidation or

direct transfer of title.

87.Plaintiffs pray this Court to direct that Defendant Commonwealth of Virginia

pay back, to the federal government, and in a manner specified by the Court, all

appropriate portions of federal funding monies obtained under fraudulent or

otherwise unlawful acquisitions thereof.

88.Plaintiffs, and on behalf of all citizens of the United States, and on behalf of

all other persons or entities that may also either be, or become, parties to domestic

relations cases, or related types of cases, within Defendant Commonwealth of

Virginia’s courts, pray this Court to cause and enforce the immediate prohibition of

all above described violative practices, by issuing an appropriate declaratory and/or

injunctive order permanently enjoining the same, as to and against any or all of the

individually named Defendants herein.

89.Plaintiffs pray this Court grant an award against the Defendants, severally or

jointly, recompensing their costs of litigation, including all reasonable expenses

and fees therein.

90.Plaintiffs also pray this Court grant and compel all such other and further

relief deemed just and proper in the premises.

27

WHEREFORE, the undersigned Principal Plaintiff, Harold E. Leist,

individually, and on behalf of all putative plaintiffs so similarly situated (together,

“the Class”), now and together pray this Court for the above described forms of

relief, and/or all such substantially similar relief; and, for all other relief that is just

and proper in the premises.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________Harold E. Leist

28

va appellate brief

Documents