Exhibits
`
`EX. 12
`
`VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK
`
`ROY L. PERRY-BEYand
`
`RONALD M. GREEN,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`Docket No.: (119-3928
`
`CITY or NORFOLK, et a1.
`
`Defendants.
`
`ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH
`
`On May 20, 2019, the Court received a Motion to Quash filed by counsel on belialf of:
`
`. Kenneth Cooper Alexander, 3 member of the Norfolk City Council and Mayor of the City
`of Norfolk (hereinaflerihe “City”);
`
`a Martin A. Thomas, In, a member ofthe Norfolk City Counsel and vice Mayor for the City;
`
`1- Paul‘R. Riddiek, a member of the Norfolk City Council;
`
`0 Thomas R. Snfigiel, a member of me Norfolk City Council;
`
`. Angela Williams Graves, a member of- the Norfolk City Council;
`
`- Marnie B. Johnson, a member ofthe Norfolk City Council;
`
`- Andria P. McClellan, a member of the Norfolk City Council;
`
`,
`
`I Courtney Doyle, 'a member of the Norfolk City Council;
`
`I Douglas Smith, the appointed City Manager for the City and its chief executive ofiicer
`
`- Richard A. Bull, the appointed Clerk for the City;
`
`
`
`EX. 12
`
`VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK
`
`ROY L. PERRY-BEYand
`
`RONALD M. GREEN,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`Docket No.: (119-3928
`
`CITY or NORFOLK, et a1.
`
`Defendants.
`
`ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH
`
`On May 20, 2019, the Court received a Motion to Quash filed by counsel on belialf of:
`
`. Kenneth Cooper Alexander, 3 member of the Norfolk City Council and Mayor of the City
`of Norfolk (hereinaflerihe “City”);
`
`a Martin A. Thomas, In, a member ofthe Norfolk City Counsel and vice Mayor for the City;
`
`1- Paul‘R. Riddiek, a member of the Norfolk City Council;
`
`0 Thomas R. Snfigiel, a member of me Norfolk City Council;
`
`. Angela Williams Graves, a member of- the Norfolk City Council;
`
`- Marnie B. Johnson, a member ofthe Norfolk City Council;
`
`- Andria P. McClellan, a member of the Norfolk City Council;
`
`,
`
`I Courtney Doyle, 'a member of the Norfolk City Council;
`
`I Douglas Smith, the appointed City Manager for the City and its chief executive ofiicer
`
`- Richard A. Bull, the appointed Clerk for the City;
`
`
`
`0 Bernard A. Pishko, the appointed City Attorney for the City who is representing the City
`in the instant case;
`
`0 Adam D. Melita — Deputy City Attorney for the City who is representing the City in the
`instant case; and
`
`0 Heather Ann Mullen — Deputy City Attorney for the City who is representing the City in
`the instant case
`
`(hereinafter “Subpoenaed Persons”). Plaintiffs caused to be served on each of the Subpoenaed
`
`Persons a witness subpoena for them to appear on June 3, 2019, at 2:00 pm in the Norfolk Circuit
`
`Court for a hearing on the Plaintifi's’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the above-mentioned
`
`6356.
`
`The Court’s review of Plaintiff’s Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Petition for
`
`Preliminary Injunction suggests that legal, and not factual, issues will control the outcome of this
`
`case. it does not appear that many of Plaintiffs’ alleged facts will be contested. Determination of
`
`these issues are not likely to turn 01] testimony from witnesses but on legal issues, including, inter
`
`0150, the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this controversy, the authority of the judicial
`
`branch of government to compel a city to perform a legislative fiinction, arid the applicability of
`
`Virginia Code §lS.2-18 12 to the City’s authority to take the action sought by Plaintiffs. None of
`
`the witnesses under subpoena on Whose behalf a motion to quash has been filed, are likely to
`
`present any testimony that touches on any of these issues. Before the Court will allow these pro
`
`se plaintiffs to interrupt the busy schedules of more these dozen leaders of this City to present
`
`testimony that is likely unnecessary and not eontroverted, the Court requires Plaintiffs to prepare
`
`a written proffer of the factual testimony that they expect to elicit from each such witness. That
`
`proffer shall be presented to the City Attorney’s office and to the Court on or before May 28,
`
`2019. The motion to quash wili he‘under advisement until that proffer is received and the City
`
`2
`
`
`
`has presented any additional pleadings regarding the same. The Court anticipates Ihat most of
`
`the relevant facts can be stipulatuds
`
`The Clerk is DIREC'I‘ED to email a copy oft'his Order to aii unrepresented parties and to
`
`counsel 3f record.
`
`Endursemenis by counsel and/or the punks are waived.
`
`It is so ORDERED.
`
`ENTER: ll [Mia ngfl
`
`MARY JAENE HALL‘, JUDGE
`
`{a}
`
`
`
`
` NORFOLK
`
`
`
` Exhib its
`EX. 13
`
`BERNARD A, PISHKO
`City Attorney
`ADAM D. mum
`HEATHER A. MULLEN
`JACK a CLOUD
`DEREK A MUNGO
`TAMELE Y. HDBSON
`NADA N. KAWASS
`ANDREW 1:. FOX
`MICHELLE G. FOY
`MATTHEW P. MORK‘EN
`mm L. KELLEY
`mm M. MASSIE
`ZACHARY A. SIWDNS
`we I. SOLORIA
`ALEX H. PINCUS
`meager. A. BEVERLY
`MARGARET A. KELLY
`mm5mm A. mung
`KRISTOPHER R. McCLELLAN
`
`Ofi‘z‘ce afthe City Attorney
`
`Direct Dial: (75?) 664-4368
`
`October 10, 2019
`
`WA USPS - CERTIFIED
`
`Hon. Douglas B. Robeien, Clark
`Supreme Court of Virginia
`100 North 9th Street, 5m Floor
`Richmond, VA 23219
`
`Re:
`
`RD! Perm-Bey, et a]. v. City of Norfolk, et al.
`Record Na: 1 91 235
`
`Dear Mr. Robelen:
`
`
`
`Please find enclosed one (1) on'ginal and three (3) copies of the CITY OF
`-
`NORFOLK’S MOTION TO DISM¥SS, which I ask to be filed with the papers of the above-
`mentioned case.
`
`Thank you for your attention to this matter.
`
`Respectfuiiy Submitted,
`
`dam D. Melita
`
`Deputy City Attorney
`
`ADMflsb
`Enclosures
`
`cc:
`
`Roy Perry-Bey, pro 86
`Ronald M. Green, pro se
`Jacqueline C. Hedbiom, Assistant Aflarney General
`
`810 Union Street, Suite 900 ' Norfolk, VA 23510
`
`(757) 664.4529 - Fax: (757) 664-4201
`
`
`
`IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGHV'IA
`
`RONALD M. GREEN
`
`ROY L. PERRY BEY and
`
`Appellants,
`
`v
`
`Record No: 191235
`
`CITY OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, et al.
`
`Appellees.
`
`CITY OF NORFOLK’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Comes new the Appeliee City of Norfolk (hereinafter “‘City”), by
`
`counsel, and says that this Court should not take any further cognizance of the
`
`Amended Petition for Appeal filed in this matter, dated September 25, 2019,
`
`by reason ofthe following:
`
`i.
`
`The ruling of the trial court that the Appellants seek to appeal
`
`was rendered following a hearing held in open court on July 15, 2019.
`
`Notwithstanding the presence of a court reporter who transcribed the
`
`proceedings, the Appellants failed to file either the transcript from the hearing
`
`or a statement in lieu of transcript, as required by Rule 5:11. Because the
`
`Appellants cannot present any argument on appeal that they did not present to
`
`the trial court} Martin v. Zikerl, 269 Val 35, 39 (2005), a record of what
`
`arguments they made at the hearing is essential to the determination of
`
`
`
`whether any assignment of error listed in their Petition is or is not being
`
`presented for the first time in this Court. The requirement to file a transcript
`
`or statement in lieu of transcript is mandatory, see Towler v. Commonwealth,
`
`216 Va. 533, 53465 (1976), and the Appcilants’ failure to file anything
`
`summarizing the proceedings below requires that their. ?etitien be dismissed.
`
`2.
`
`Whiie the Appeilants’ Petition purports
`
`to include
`
`two
`
`assignments of error, (Pet. for App. 1), there is nothing to indicate where in
`
`the record each error was preserved in. the triai court. Rule 5:17(c) expressiy
`
`requires that the Petition inciude “an exact reference” to the page or pages in
`
`the transcript (which was not filed), the statement in lieu of transcript (which
`
`was not filed), or the record Where the error is preservedi Because no such
`
`references are inciuded in the Petition, the wouid«be assignments of error are
`
`insufficient and the Petition must be dismissed, pursuant
`
`to Rule
`
`5:17(c)(1)(iii).
`
`3.
`
`Substantiveiy,
`
`the two paragraphs iisteci under the heading
`
`“assignments of error” in the Petition fail to address any ruling or finding of
`
`the triai court. Rather, they merely state that the triad court’s. judgment
`
`“conflicts with” certain principals of law. (See'Pet. for App. 1). Because the
`
`
`
`assignments of error are insufficient, the Petition must be dismissed, pursuant
`
`to Rule 5:17(c)(1)(iii).
`
`4.
`
`To the extent this Court were to read the fifteen numbered
`
`paragraphs that appear beiow the heading “Questions Presented” in the
`
`Petition, (Pet. for App. 2—3), as constructiVe assignments of error, these too
`
`are insufficient, since every one of them faiis to include any reference to the
`
`page in the record Where the error was preserved in the trial court.
`
`_
`
`S.
`
`The Petition
`
`fails
`
`to include
`
`severe}
`
`clear, mandatory
`
`requirements
`
`for
`
`it
`
`to be considered compliant with Ride 5:17(e).
`
`Specifieaiiy, it contains:
`
`(a) No statement of the nature of the case (required by Rule
`
`51176009);
`
`(b) No statement of facts that relate to the assignments of error
`
`(required by Rule 5:17(c)(5)); and
`
`(e) No legai argument (required by rule 5:17{c)(6)).
`
`Because these necessary elements are missing; the Petition is defective and
`
`should not be considered by this Court.
`
`
`
`For all of the foregoing reasons, the Appeilee City of Nerfoik meves
`
`this Court to find that the Petition flied in this case is defective and that no
`
`appeal has been perfected, Wherefore this matter shaii be dismissed.
`
`
`
`CITY OF NORFOLK,
`
`Adam Dione
`
`Deputy City Attorney
`
`Adam D. Meiita, Deputy City Attorney
`Virginia State Bar No.2 41716
`900 City Hail Building
`810 Union Street
`
`Norfolk, Virginia 235} 0
`Phone: (757) 664-4529
`Fax: (75?) 664-4201
`E-maii: adam.meiite@noffolk.gov
`Counsel for Appellee City of Norfolk
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on the 10‘“ day of October, 2019, one original} and
`
`three copies ofthis Motion to Dismiss were sent, postage prepaid, via certified
`
`mail to be filed with the Clerk ofthe Supreme Court of Virginia and additional
`
`copies were sent, postage prepaid, via first-c1355 mail to the following;
`
`Roy L. Perm—Bey, pro se
`89 Lincoln Street, #1112
`Hampton, Virginia 23669
`E-maii: ut§2020@grnail.eom
`
`Ronaid M. Green, pro se
`5540 Bamhoiiow Road
`
`Norfolk, Virginia 23502
`E—mail: RonaldPreppie@aoi.com
`
`
`
`Jacqueline C. Hedbiom
`Office of the Attorney Generai
`202 North 9th Street
`
`Richmond, Virginia 23219
`Phone: (804) 69243598
`Fax: (804) 371-208?
`Emaii: JHedeom@oag.state.va.us.
`
`W A
`
`dam D. Melita
`
`Deputy City Attorney
`
`
`
`Exhibits
`
`Ex. 14
`
`VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF NORFOLK
`
`Docket N0.: CL19-3928 (MJH)
`‘
`
`)
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`ROY L. PERRY—BEY and
`RONADL M. GREEN
`
`vs.
`
`CITY OF NORFOLK and
`NORFOLK CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE
`
`PROFFER OF FACTUAL TESTIMONY 0F WITNESSES
`
`Pursuant to order on May 21, 2019, the Court required plaintiffs to prepare a
`
`written proffer of factual
`
`testimony they expect
`
`to elicit fiom each witness in a
`
`proceeding pending in Court on June 3, 2019, as follows:
`
`1.
`
`The connecting relevant factual testimony of each witness pursuant Rule 2: 104
`
`(a)(b), which shall be necessary information to be tried:
`
`2.
`
`Bernard A. Pishko, as the appointed City Attorney for the City and Norfolk City
`
`Attorneys Office and necessary Witness representing the City in this instant case,
`
`does it presents a serious and unethical conflict of interests, in Violation of Rules
`
`of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Part 6, § 11 Rule 3.7 (a),(c).
`
`3.
`
`Adam D. Melita, as the appointed Deputy City Attorney for the City and Norfolk
`
`City Attorneys Office and necessary witness representing the City in this instant
`
`case, does it presents a serious and unethical conflict of interests, in violation of
`
`Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Part 6, § II Rule 3.7(a),(c).
`
`4.
`
`Heather Ann Mullen, as the appointed Deputy City Attorney for the City and
`
`Norfolk City Attorneys Office and necessary witness representing the City in this
`
`instant case, does it presents a serious and unethical conflict of interests,
`
`in
`
`Violation of Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Part 6, § 11 Rule 3.7(a),(c).
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Bernard A. Pishlco, based on the plain language of Resolution 1,678, is the City
`
`Confederate Monument at issue in this litigation, a monument to a war, conflict,
`
`engagement, or war veterans, and is covered by Virginia Code § 15 .2—1882.
`
`6.
`
`Adam D. Melita, based on the plain language of Resolution 1,678,
`
`is the City
`
`Confederate Monument at issue in this litigation, a monument to a war, conflict,
`
`engagement, or war veterans, and is covered by Virginia Code § 152—1882.
`
`7.
`
`Heather Ann Mullen, based on the plain language of Resolution 1,678, is the City
`
`Confederate Monument at issue in this litigation, a monument to a war, conflict,
`
`engagement, or war veterans, and is covered by Virginia Code § 15 .2-1882.
`
`8.
`
`Bernard A. Pishko, based on the plain language of Resolution 1,678, does
`
`Virginia Code § 15.2-1882, apply retroactively to the monument at issue in this
`
`litigation, which was erected in the City of Norfolk “a municipality” in 1889 on
`
`busy Commercial Place, at the gateway for the ferries running between Norfolk
`
`and Portsmouth.
`
`9.
`
`Adam D. Melita, based on the plain language of Resolution 1,678, does Virginia
`
`Code § 152-1882, apply retroactively to the monument at issue in this litigation,
`
`which was erected in the City of Norfolk a “municipality” in 1889 on busy
`
`Commercial Place, at the gateway for the ferries running between Norfolk and
`
`Portsmouth.
`
`1. The witness subpoena has bearing upon the testimony of legal facts and the Plaintiffs
`First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment causes of actions in this case, without
`deference and restraint due to their prose status or interruption of the busy schedules of
`the witness or number of witnesses, should not be broadly quashed because the subpoena
`is allowed by Va. Code § 801-407; 161—265; Supreme Court Rules: 1:4, 4:5. & all)
`Harlow v. Fitzgerald, post, p.457 U.S. 800).
`
`
`
`10.
`
`Heather Ann Mullen, based on the plain language of Resolution 1,678, does
`
`Virginia Code § 152—1882, apply retroactively to the monument at issue in this
`
`litigation, which was erected in the City of Norfolk a “municipality” in 1889 on
`
`busy Commercial Place, at the gateway for the fenies running between Norfolk
`
`and Portsmouth.
`
`Bernard A. Pishko, does the City Confederate Monument content or speech honor
`
`the Confederate States of America at issue in this litigation or violate the First
`
`Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of
`
`Virginia and the Constitution of the United States of America and laws.
`
`Adam D. Milita, based on the City Confederate Monument content or speech
`
`honor the Confederate State of America at issue in this litigation or violate the
`
`First Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment
`
`to the
`
`Constitution of Virginia and the Constitution of the United States of America and
`
`laws.
`
`Heather Ann Mullen, does the City Confederate Monument content or speech
`
`honor the Confederate States of America at issue in this litigation or violate the
`
`First Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment
`
`to the
`
`Constitution of Virginia and the Constitution of the United States of America ans
`
`laws.
`
`Bernard A. Pishko, does the circuit court of the Commonwealth have jurisdiction
`
`in this litigation, over the subject matter of the controversy under Virginia Code
`
`§ 8.01—581.014.
`
`ll.
`
`l2.
`
`l3.
`
`14.
`
`
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`l8.
`
`19.
`
`Adam D. Melita, does the circuit court of the Commonwealth have jurisdiction in
`
`this litigation, over the subject matter of the controversy under Virginia Code
`
`§8.01—581.014.
`
`Heather Ann Mullen, does
`
`the circuit court of the Commonwealth have
`
`jtu’isdiction in this litigation, over the subject matter of the controversy under
`
`Virginia Code § 8.01—581.014.
`
`Kenneth Cooper Alexander, was the City of Norfolk established by law, a body
`
`politic and corporate to be known and designated as the city of Norfolk, may sue
`
`and be sued under Va. Code § 152-1404 and the Courts M have jurisdiction
`
`provided by law, and exclusive jurisdiction subject in each case only by admiralty
`
`jurisdiction of the United States. (1918, c. 34), § 1 Norfolk City Charter.
`
`Martin A. Thomas, Jr., was the City of Norfolk established by law, a body politic
`
`and corporate to be known and designated as the city of Norfolk, may sue and be
`
`sued under Va. Code § 15.2-1404 and the Courts flail have jurisdiction provided
`
`by law, and exclusive jurisdiction subject
`
`in each case only by admiralty
`
`jurisdiction of the United States. (1918, c. 34), § 1 Norfolk City Charter.
`
`Paul R. Riddick, was the City of Norfolk established by law, a body politic and
`
`corporate to be known and designated as the city of Norfolk, may sue and be sued
`
`under Va. Code § 152-1404 and the Courts @ have jurisdiction provided by
`
`law, and exclusive jurisdiction subject in each case only by admiralty jurisdiction
`
`of the United States. (1918, c. 34), § 1 Norfolk City Charter.
`
`TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE: There is no factual issues in dispute that the City’s Confederate monument conveys
`government hate speech, directed at the Plaintiffs, and denigrate them and members of their race as persons of lesser
`worth, In addressing this legal issue, the Court has to determine whether the City is engaging in it’s “own expressive
`conduct" or “providing a forum for private Confederate hate speech” or religious white supremacy in violation of law.
`
`4
`
`
`
`20.
`
`Thomas R. Smigiel, was the City of Norfolk established by law, a body politic
`
`and corporate to be known and designated as the city of Norfolk, may sue and be
`
`
`sued under Va. Code § 152—1404 and the Courts shall have jurisdiction provided
`
`by law, and exclusive jurisdiction subject
`
`in each case only by admiralty
`
`jurisdiction of the United States. (1918, c. 34), § 1 Norfolk City Charter.
`
`21.
`
`Angela Williams Graves, was the City of Norfolk established by law, a body
`
`politic and corporate to be known and designated as the city of Norfolk, may sue
`
`and be sued under Va. Code § 152—1404 and the Courts fl have jurisdiction
`
`provided by law, and exclusive jurisdiction subject in each case only by admiralty
`
`jurisdiction of the United States. (1918, c. 34), § 1 Norfolk City Charter.
`
`22.
`
`Mamie B. Johnson, was the City of Norfolk established by law, a body politic and
`
`corporate to be known and designated as the city of Norfolk, may sue and be sued
`
`under Va. Code § 152-1404 and the Courts 3&1] have jurisdiction provided by
`
`law, and exclusive jurisdiction subject in each case only by admiralty jufisdiction
`
`of the United States. (1918, c. 34), § 1 Norfolk City Charter.
`
`23.
`
`Andria P. McClellan, was the City of Norfolk established by law, a body politic
`
`and corporate to be known and designated as the city of Norfolk, may sue and be
`
`
`sued under Va. Code § 152—1404 and the Courts shall have jurisdiction provided
`
`by law, and exclusive jurisdiction subject
`
`in each case only by admiralty
`
`jurisdiction of the United States. (1918, c. 34), § 1 Norfolk City Charter.
`
`24.
`
`Courtney Doyle, was the City of Norfolk established by law, a body politic and
`
`corporate to be known and designated as the city of Norfolk, may sue and be sued
`
`under Va. Code § 152-1404 and the Courts shall have jurisdiction provided by
`
`
`
`law, and exclusive jurisdiction subject in each case only by admiralty jurisdiction
`
`of the United States. (1918, c. 34), § 1 Norfolk City Charter.
`
`25.
`
`Douglas Smith, was the City of Norfolk established by law, a body politic and
`
`corporate to be known and designated as the city of Norfolk, may sue and be sued
`
`under Va. Code § 152-1404 and the Courts M have jurisdiction provided by
`
`law, and exclusive jurisdiction subject in each case only by admiralty jurisdiction
`
`of the United States. (1918, c. 34), § 1 Norfolk City Charter.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`Richard A. Bull, was the City of Norfolk established by law, a body politic and
`
`corporate to be know and designated as the city of Norfolk, may sue and be sued
`
`under Va. Code § 15.2-1404 and the Courts fl have jurisdiction provided by
`
`law, and exclusive jurisdiction subject in each case only by admiralty jurisdiction
`
`of the United States. (1918, c. 34), § 1 Norfolk City Charter.
`
`Bernard A. Pishko, was the City of Norfolk established by law, a body politic and
`
`corporate to be known and designated as the city of Norfolk, may sue and be sued
`
`under Va. Code § 152-1404 and the Courts fl have jurisdiction provided by
`
`law, and exclusive jurisdiction subject in each case only by admiralty jurisdiction
`
`of the United States. (1918, c. 34), § 1 Norfolk City Charter.
`
`28.
`
`Adam D. Melita, was the City of Norfolk established by law, a body politic and
`
`corporate to be known and designated as the city of Norfolk, may sue and be sued
`
`under Va. Code § 1521404 and the Courts shall have jurisdiction provided by
`
`law, and exclusive jurisdiction subject in each case only by admiralty jurisdiction
`
`of the United States. (1918, c. 34), § 1 Norfolk City Charter.
`
`
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`Heather Ann Mullen, was the City of Norfolk established by law, a body politic
`
`and corporate to be known and designated as the city of Norfolk, may sue and be
`
`sued under Va. Code § 152—1404 and the Courts fl have jurisdiction provided
`
`by law, and exclusive jurisdiction subject
`
`in each case only by admiralty
`
`jurisdiction of the United States. (1918, c. 34), § 1 Norfolk City Charter.
`
`Kenneth Cooper Alexander, based on the plain language of the provisions of §§ 2
`
`and Chapter 27-2 et seq, of the Norfolk City Charter does it explicitly authorize
`
`the city in this litigation, as a matter of law, to remove, relocate or otherwise
`
`dispose of the City Confederate monument or declare it a "nuisance" in the city
`
`and detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or the environment.
`
`31.
`
`Martin A. Thomas, Jr., based on the plain language of the provisions of §§ 2 and
`
`Chapter 27-2 et seq, of the Norfolk City Charter does it explicitly authorize the
`
`city in this litigation, as a matter of law, to remove, relocate or otherwise dispose
`
`of the City Confederate monument or declare it a "nuisance" in the city and
`
`detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or the environment.
`
`32.
`
`Paul R. Riddick, based on the plain language of the provisions of §§ 2 and
`
`Chapter 27—2 et seq, of the Norfolk City Charter does it explicitly authorize the
`
`city in this litigation,
`
`to remove, relocate or otherwise dispose of the City
`
`Confederate monument or declare it a "nuisance” in the city and detrimental to the
`
`public health, safety or welfare or the environment.
`
`33.
`
`Thomas R. Smigiel, based on the plain language of the provisions of §§ 2 and
`
`Chapter 27-2 at seq, of the Norfolk City Charter does it explicitly authorize the
`
`city in this litigation,
`
`to remove, relocate or otherwise dispose of the City
`
`
`
`Confederate monument or declare it a "nuisance" in the city and detrimental to the
`
`public health, safety or welfare or the environment.
`
`34.
`
`Angela Williams Graves, based on the plain language of the provisions of §§ 2
`
`and Chapter 27—2 er seq, of the Norfolk City Charter does it explicitly authorize
`
`the city in this litigation,
`
`to remove, relocate or otherwise dispose of the City
`
`Confederate monument or declare it a "nuisance" in the city and detrimental to the
`
`public health, safety or welfare or the environment.
`
`35.
`
`Marnie B. Johnson, based on the plain language of the provisions of §§ 2 and
`
`Chapter 27—2 et seq, of the Norfolk City Charter does it explicitly authorize the
`
`city in this litigation,
`
`to remove, relocate or otherwise dispose of the City
`
`Confederate monument or declare it a "nuisance" in the city and detrimental to the
`
`public health, safety or welfare or the environment.
`
`36.
`
`Andria P. McClellan, based on the plain language of the provisions of §§ 2 and
`
`Chapter 27-2 et seq, of the Norfolk City Charter does it explicitly authorize the
`
`city in this litigation,
`
`to remove, relocate or otherwise dispose of the City
`
`Confederate monument or declare it a "nuisance" in the city and detrimental to the
`
`public health, safety or welfare or the environment.
`
`37.
`
`Courtney Doyle, based on the plain language of the provisions of §§ 2 and
`
`Chapter 27—2 et seq, of the Norfolk City Charter does it explicitly authorize the
`
`city in this litigation,
`
`to remove, relocate or otherwise dispose of the City
`
`Confederate monument or declare it a "nuisance" in the city and detrimental to the
`
`public health, safety or welfare or the environment.
`
`
`
`38.
`
`Douglas Smith, based on the plain language of the provisions of §§ 2 and Chapter
`
`27-2 er seq., of the Norfolk City Charter does it explicitly authorize the city in this
`
`litigation, as a matter of law, to remove, relocate or otherwise dispose of the City
`
`Confederate monument or declare it a "nuisance" in the city and detrimental to the
`
`public health, safety or welfare or the environment.
`
`39.
`
`Bernard A. Pishko, based on the plain language of the provisions of §§ 2 and
`
`Chapter 27-2 et seq, of the Norfolk City Charter does it explicitly authorize the
`
`city in this litigation,
`
`to remove, relocate or otherwise dispose of the City
`
`Confederate monument or declare it a "nuisance" in the city and detrimental to the
`
`public health, safety or welfare or the environment.
`
`40.
`
`Adam D. Melita, based on the plain language of the provisions of §§ 2 and
`
`Chapter 27-2 et seen, of the Norfolk City Charter does it explicitly authorize the
`
`city in this litigation,
`
`to remove,
`
`relocate or otherwise dispose of the City
`
`Confederate monument or declare it a "nuisance" in the city and detrimental to the
`
`public health, safety or welfare or the environment.
`
`4].
`
`Heather Ann Mullen, based on the plain language of the provisions of §§ 2 and
`
`Chapter 27—2 et seq, of the Norfolk City Charter does it explicitly authorize the
`
`city in this litigation,
`
`to remove, relocate or otherwise dispose of the City
`
`Confederate monument or declare it a "nuisance" in the city and detrimental to the
`
`public health, safety or welfare or the environment.
`
`11. The Constitution of the United State of America requires loyalty to America, the City’s Confederate
`monument is a symbol of Confederacy, and requires divided loyalty, which the “City” maintains, endorses
`and promotes in furtherance of religious white supremacy in violation of the United State Constitution, the
`Constitution of Virginia and existing law or laws.
`
`
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`Bernard A. Pishko, is a vote by a council member prosecutable under the criminal
`
`statute Virginia Code § 15.2-137, at issue in this litigation.
`
`Adam D. Melita, is a vote by a council member prosecutable under the criminal
`
`statute Virginia Code § 152—137, at issue in this litigation.
`
`Heather Ann Mullen,
`
`is a vote by a council member prosecutable under the
`
`criminal statute Virginia Code § 15.2—137, at issue in this litigation.
`
`Bernard A. Pishko, does the context and language of Virginia Code § 15.2-137,
`
`make it clear the relocation of the City Confederate Monument at issue in this
`
`litigation, is not a removal under the statute.
`
`Adam D. Melita, does the context and language of Virginia Code § 15.2—137,
`
`make it cIear the relocation of the City Confederate Monument at issue in this
`
`litigation, is not a removal under the statute.
`
`Heather Ann Mullen, does the context and language of Virginia Code § 15.2—137,
`
`make it clear the relocation of the City Confederate Monument at issue in this
`
`litigation, is not a removal under the statute.
`
`Bernard A. Pishko, does Virginia Code § 152—137 or § 152—1882, violate the
`
`First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, because the restriction is based on
`
`the content of the monument or violate the Fifth Amendment because it deprives
`
`the city of the right to convey it’s own speech or use its property how it wants.
`
`Virginia‘s Rules of Evidence require that the proponent “make known” “the substance
`of the evidence to the comt by proffer. Rule 2: lO3(a)(2); see Ray v. Commonwealth, 55
`Va.App. 647, 650 n. 1, 688 S.E.2d 879, 881 n. l (2010). Id.
`
`10
`
`
`
`49.
`
`Adam D. Melita, does Virginia Code § 152-137 or § 152—1882, Violate the First
`
`Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, because the restriction is based on the
`
`content of the monument or Violate the Fifth Amendment because it deprives the
`
`city of the right to convey it’s own speech or use its property how it wants.
`
`50.
`
`Heather Ann Mullen, does Virginia Code § 152—137 or § 152-1882, Violate the
`
`First Amendment’s freedom of Speech clause, because the restriction is based on
`
`the content of the monument or violate the Fiflh Amendment because it deprives
`
`the city of the right to convey it’s own speech or use its property how it wants.
`
`The factual
`
`testimony they expect
`
`to elicit from each witness will affirm
`
`defendants give Confederacy legitimacy, a weight, that plaintiffs are not obliged
`
`to acknowledge.
`
`Plaintiffs without limiting the foregoing proffer of factual testimony they expect
`
`to elicit from each witness have submitted a sufficient written proffer..
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`May 28, 2019.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Q. Wk r @M‘W
`
`/s/MR. RONALD M. GREEN
`5540 BARNHOLLOW
`NORFOLK, VA 23502
`(757) 348.0436
`
`.71,»--_*-jf_iii‘l72>
`.n-PERRY-BEY
`__._.., i
`sg‘tiNCOLN STREET #1772
`HAMPTON, VA 23 669
`(804) 362.0011
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`MR. Roy L. PERRY-BEY
`
`89 LINCOLN STREET #1772
`
`HAMPTON, VA 23669
`
`(804)362—0011
`
`ufj20208gmail.com
`
`g;
`
`July 12, 2019
`The Honorable George E. Schaefer, III,
`Clerk Law Division
`Norfolk Circuit Court Clerk's Office
`150 St Paul’s Blvd. 7th Floor
`Norfolk, VA 23510
`
`(757}793-3506
`
`‘11
`(F:
`5%}:
`HI: _- m
`£3 r0
`E:
`a; E
`53‘
`g
`5
`;§
`}
`5 E?- 3
`9
`
`Re: #CL19—3928, Roy L. Perry~Bey, and Ronald M Green
`v City of Norfolk Virginia, et a1.,
`
`Dear Mr. Schaefer, III:
`
`Enclosed please find the plaintiffs motion DEFEEEIEQ
`to June 15, 2019, proceeding to be filed in the above
`referenced matter, which I ask that you please present
`
`to the Hon. Mary Jane Hall, Judge.
`
`Thank you for your kind assistance in this matter.
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`MfifE§§§%§%;;erry—Bey
`
`
`
`CLLEEK
`_ SUPREME GOURT‘ OF VffiGiNiA
`
`
`l'nl'llll'
`
`
`VIRGINIA:
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OFmfififififlfiflefiw;fl
`
`ROY L. PERRYwBEY and
`
`RONALD M. GREEN
`
`‘75.
`
`Docket No.: CL19*3928—MJH
`
`CITY OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA ET AL.
`
`MOTION OBJECTING TO PROCEEDING
`
`so
`FemFUJ
`ROW COME, Plaintiffs Roy L. Perry-Bey and Ronald fir E;
`$3
`Green, hereby seek leave of court to make an ogjeétioe
`'
`£1:
`
`V¥I
`
`Vim3w3‘8.
`
`i ”
`
`,
`
`R3
`
`to the June 15, 2019, hearing, on the basis that Adam
`
`D. Melita, Deputy City Attorney employee and defendant,
`
`is not permitted to represent himself or the following
`
`defendants:
`
`The City of Norfolk, Norfolk City Council, Norfolk City
`
`Council members, Bernard A. Pishko, Norfolk City
`
`Attorney, and Heather Ann Mullen, Deputy City Attorney.
`
`The Defendant is prohibited from filing any motions,
`
`signing pleadings, other papers, making representations
`
`and appearances es “COUNSEL OF RECORD” to this Court.
`
`lawyer in a civil action or
`“A government
`TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE:
`administrative proceeding has the responsibility to seek justice and to
`develop a full and fair record. and he shouid not use his position or the
`economic power of the government to harass parties or to bring about unjust
`settlements or results." Fee is ex rel Clan
`v. Su erior Court, 39 Cal. 3d
`at 746.
`
`
`
`The Demurrer, Motion to Suspend Discovery, and Response
`
`to Subpoena Duoes Teoum filed by the City of Norfolk,
`
`circa June 25, 2019,
`
`in bad faith,
`
`is not proper before
`
`this Court that should be stricken from the docket, and
`
`Juégflgnt by Default granted in favor of the Plaintiffs
`
`as a matter of law:
`
`If the Court proceeds in the City matter when the City
`
`Attorney’s Office is conflicted from handling over my
`
`objection, based on conflict of interests, standards of
`
`professional conduct, professional ethics, professional
`
`neglect, professional malpractice, and impermissible or
`
`egregious transaction or filings, dual appearances and
`
`divided loyalty or violation §§33.l~86 through 33.1w93
`
`of the Code of the City of Norfolk, Virginia, 1979, as
`
`amended, entitled "Ethics in Public Contracting," and
`
`Rule 1:7 et seq., note my appeal.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By fig
`
`L. PERRY- any
`7
`MR!
`89 Lincom STREET #1772
`
`By E g/Ytérfl2,:
`
`“MR. RONALD M. GREEN
`5540 BARNHOLLOW ROAD
`
`HAMRTON, VIRGINIA 23669
`
`NORFOLK, VA 23502
`
`
`
`Sec. 33.1-86. ~ Purpose.
`
`ATTACHMENTS — EIHICS 1N PUBLIC CONTRAC’fiNG ‘
`
`The provisions of this chaptersupplement, but do not supersede, other provisions of law including but
`not limited to, the State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act {Virginia Code, § 21-6391 et SEQJ,
`the Virginia Governmental Frauds Act {Virginia Code, § 182-4981 et seq), and Articles 2 (Virginia Code, §
`182438 et seq.) and 3 (Virginia Code, § 18.2446 et seq.) of Chapter 10 of Trtie 18.2 {reiated to bribery).
`The provisions of this article apply notwithstanding the fact that the conduct described may not constitute a
`vioiation of the State and Local Government Conflict of interests Act.
`
`(Ord. No. 33,095, § 1, 9-1184; Ord. No. 34,573, 5 2, 6-30—87}
`
`Sec. 334—83". — Prescribed participation by public employees in procurement transactions.
`
`Except as may be specifically allowed by provisions of the State and Locai Government Conflict of
`interests Act {Virginia Code, section lit-639.1 et seq.}, no public employee having official responsibility for a
`procurement transaction shaii participate in that transaction on behaif of the public body when the
`employee knows that:
`
`'
`
`(1} The employee is contemporaneously empioyed by a bidder, offer or or contractor involved in the
`procurement transaction; or
`
`(2} The employee, the employee's partners, or any member of the empioyee‘s immediate famiiy
`hoicls a position with a bidder, offer or or contractor such as an officer, director, trustee, partner
`or the iike, or is employed in a capacity involving pers
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
