Steven W. Goodman 1028377
Green Rock Correctional Center
Post Office Box 1000
Chatham, Virginia 24531
Christopher Kavanaugh, U.S. Attorney
Office of the United States Attorney
255 W. Main Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: Filing of Criminal Civil Rights Complaint
Dear Mr. Kavanaugh:
CRIMINAL CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
JUDGE W. ALLAN SHARRETT, JUSTICE STEVEN R. MCCULLOUGH,
JUSTICE WILLIAM C. MIMS, JUSTICE D. ARTHUR KELSEY, JUSTICE
CLEO E. POWELL, JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS, JUSTICE TERESA M.
CHAFIN AND JUSTICE S- BERNARD GOODWYN DID KNOWINGLY,
WILLINGLY, AND DELIBERATELY, WITH MALICE AND AFORETHOUGHT,
INJURE STEVEN W. GOODMAN IN THE FREE EXERCISE OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ACCESS TO THE
COURTS, AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. S 241.
FACTS AND EVIDENCE
1, Steven W. Goodman, – hereby incorporate, by specific reference hereto the enclosed Petition for Impeachment and supporting Appendix of Evidence, particularly the Statement of Facts and Evidence set forth on pages 3 to 7 of the Petition for Impeachment.
CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS
(18 U.S.C. § 241)
If two or more persons conspire to injure…any person in any state …[or] Commonwealth…in the free exercise…of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution…of the United States…They shall be fined under this Title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both…
ELEMENTS OF OFFENSE
Elements of crime defined by 18 U.S.C. § 241 are unlawful conspiracy based on unlawful agreement of defendants . Steedle v. United States 85 F .2d 867 (3rd Cir. 1936). To be punishable under 18 USC § 241, which makes conspiracy to interfere with citizen’s free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Federal Constitution criminal offense, offender must act with specific intent to interfere with federal rights in question. United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 86 S. Ct. 1170, 16 L.Ed.2d 239 (1966) .
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED
(Due Process of Law)
Violation of Fourteenth Amendment due process rights required actual denial by state or its officers in order to constitute violation of conspiracy provision of civil rights United States v. Powell, 212 U.S. 564, 29 S. Ct. 690, statute. 53 L. Ed.2d 653 (1909). Federal civil rights statute (18 USC § 241), which makes conspiracy to interfere with citizen’s right or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by Constitution or Laws of United States a criminal offense, must be accorded sweep as broad as its language; this Language includes rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. United States v. Price, 383 U . S. 787, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 16 L.Ed.2d 239 (1966).
ARGUMENT
The facts are beyond dispute:
- Judge Sharrett, did in fact, dismiss Goodman’s Motion for Judgment without the application, consideration or citation of any Virginia decisional case law, controlling or Link to otherwise. Petition for Impeachment: S/F, par. 4-5; App., pages 35-41.
- The Justices refused Goodman’s Petition for Appeal without providing any findings of fact or conclusions of law even though their de novo standard of review for questions of law, such as the legal sufficiency of Goodman’s complaint and the legislative intent of the statutory provision at issue, requires them to do so. Petition for Impeachment: S/F, par. 7; App., page 74.
- The Justices denied. Goodman’s Amended Motion to Vacate Judgment without providing any factual findings or conclusions of law. Petition for Impeachment: S/F, par. 10; App., page 81.
- The Judge and Justices have a duty, not discretion, to exercise their judicial power according to law, but they failed to do so.
- Instead, they exercised their judicial power independent from the Constitutions of Virginia and the United States when they (1) dismissed Goodman’s complaint (Judge Sharrett); (2) refused Goodman’s petition for appeal (Justices); and (3) denied Goodman’s Amended Motion to Vacate Judgment(Justices).
- Their exercise of judicial power independent of the state and federal constitutions, and rule of law, deprived Goodman of his constitutional right to be heard, and have his case decided, according to law in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
CONCLUSION
Based on the forgoing, Judge Sharrett, Justice Mc Cullough, Justice Mims, Justice Kelsey, Justice Powell, Justice Lemons, Justice Chafin, and Justice Goodwyn did in fact conspire to deprive Goodman of his constitutional right to due process of law in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241.
MOTIVE
While the above crime is complete without the establishment of a motive, there is a reason and motive that explains why the Judge and Justices went outside the bounds of the law to dismiss Goodman’s constitutional challenge of Parole Board rules that allows them to investigate and consider the crime, sentence and criminal record.
Had the Judge or Justices decided Goodman’s complaint according to law, they would have been compelled to declare that the Parole Board rules that allows them to investigate and consider the crime, sentence, and criminal record are unconstitutional and void; and, therefore, the Parole Board cannot deny parole for any crime related reason.
Such a decision by these courts would have created enormous costs to society:
- The mass release of over 1,000 felons whom the Parole Board says are the worst of the worst (rapists, robbers, murderers, and child molesters); and
- The payment of probably billions of dollars in monetary damages for each year every parole eligible felon was arbitrarily detained without lawful authority given that the Board has almost exclusively relied on these unconstitutional rules to deny parole for the last twentythree (23) years.
Sincerely,
Steven W. Goodman
CC: (Certified Mail, Return Receipt)
Judge W. Allan Sharrett
Justice Steven R. Mc Cullough
Justice William G. Mims
Justice D. Arthur Kelsey
Justice Cleo E. Powell
Justice Donald W. Lemons
Justice Teresa M. Chafin
Justice S. Bernard Goodwyn
Honorable Suzette Denslow, Clerk VA House of Delegates
(Certified Mail Only) (With Enclosures)
Honorable Ralph Northam, Governor
Honorable Mark Herring, Virginia Attorney General
Honorable Merrick Garland, US Attorney General Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice
Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission
Jennifer McClellan, State Senator
Joe Morrissey, State Senator
Charniele Herring, State Delegate
ACLU Foundation
ACLU of Virginia
Abolitionist Law Center
Center for Constitutional Rights
Equal Justice Initiative
Legal Aid Justice Center, Charlottesville
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
NAACP, Richmond Chapter
National Lawyers Guild
The McArthur Center
Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights
Ben Crump, Attorney
Burnadette M. Donovan, Professor, W & L Law School
Amnesty International B
lack Lives Matter, Richmond
Critical Resistance
Coalition for Justice
Human Rights Watch I
nterfaith Action For Human Rights
Justice Forward
Prison Activist Center
VA CURE
Al Sharpton
Dan Abrams, News Nation
Associated Press
Marcia Coyle, National Law Journal
Mother Jones
Prison Legal News
Pro Publica
Richmond Times-Dispach
Roanoke Times
Sandy Hausman, NPR
The Marshall Project
The Virginian Pilot
Virginia Center for Investigative Journalism
Virginia Mercury
Washington Post File
