IN THE VIRGINIA
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
In Re:
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. CHAPIN, and JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN
PETITION FOR IMPEACHMENT
Steven W. Goodman 1028377
Green Rock Correctional Center
Post Office Box 1000
Chatham, Virginia 24531
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This unprecedented petition for impeachment against a sitting Judge and every Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia rises and falls with the answer to one simple question:
WHETHER JUDGE SHARRETT AND JUSTICES MCCULLOUGH,
MIMS, KELSEY, POWELL, LEMONS, CHAFIN, AND GOODWYN
EXERCISED THEIR JUDICIAL POWER ACCORDING TO LAW
The answer to this question can be found in a matter of minutes by reading the orders and opinions at issue herein.
The real question is whether the Constitutions of Virginia and the United States, and the rule of law, will be rehabilitated or utterly destroyed. That is the ultimate question that this body will decide, and the answer will be based on your answer to this one simple question- presented in this petition for impeachment.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Statement of Facts and Evidence.
Federal Civil Rights Statute and Canons of Judicial Conduct Violated.
18 U. S.C. § 241. Conspiracy Against Rights.
Canon 1. A Judge Shall Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
Canon 3. A judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently
Facts and Evidence Beyond Doubt
No Findings of Fact or Conclusions of law
Judge Sharrett and Justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia Must Be Impeached
Criminal Civil Rights Investigation Mandatory
TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES:
COMES NOW your petitioner, Steven W. Goodman, pro se, and hereby petitions the Honorable Members of the Virginia House of Delegates to open an impeachment inquiry seeking the removal of the aforementioned Judge and Justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia . In support thereof, the following is averred:
JURISDICTION
Judges or Justices offending against the Commonwealth by malfeasance in office, corruption, neglect of duty, or other high crimes or misdemeanors may be impeached by the House of Delegates, and removed from office subsequent to a conviction at trial by the Senate. Article I V, S 17, of the Constitution of Virginia.
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
- JUDGE W. ALLAN SHARRETT DID KNOWINGLY, WILLINGLY, AND DELIBERATELY, WITH MALICE AND AFORETHOUGHT, COMMIT A CRIMINAL ACT AND MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE THROUGH HIS OFFICIAL CONDUCT IN GOODMAN V. BENNETT, CASE NO. CL19-264„BASED ON THE FOLLOWING:
- HE DECIDED QUESTIONS OF LAW REGARDING THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF GOODMAN’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AND THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF A STATUTORY PROVISION AT ISSUE IN THE CASE, AND DISMISSED GOODMAN’S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, WITHOUT THE APPLICATION, CONSIDERATION, OR CITATION OF ANY VIRGINIA DECISIONAL CASE LAW THAT GOVERNS AND CONTROLS THESE QUESTIONS OF LAW, OR ANY OTHER STATE, FEDERAL OR OTHER LEGAL AUTHORITY.
- INSTEAD, HE SUBSTITUTED HIS WILL AND PERSONAL OPINION FOR THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS, AND RULE OF LAW To SUPPORT HIS CONCLUSION THAT GOODMAN’ S COMPLAINT FAILED To STATE A CLAIM AS A MATTER OF LAW.
- HE DID SO TO FURTHER AND COVER UP THE MASS ARBITRARY DETENTION OF GOODMAN AND OTHER PAROLE ELIGIBLE FELONS, WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY, BY THE VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD FOR THE LAST TWENTY-THREE YEARS, AND THE ENORMOUS COSTS TO SOCIETY SHOULD GOODMAN PREVAIL ON HIS COMPLAINT INCLUDING:
- THE MASS RELEASE OF THOUSANDS OF VIOLENT FELONS WHOM THE PAROLE BOARD CALLS THE WORST OF THE WORST (Rapists, Robbers, Murderers, and Child Molesters); and
- ENORMOUS MONETARY DAMAGES FOR EACH YEAR EVERY PAROLE ELIGIBLE FELON WAS ARBITRARILY DENIED PAROLE AND DETAINED, WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY, SINCE JANUARY 1, 1998.
- JUSTICES MCCULLOUGH, MIMS, KELSEY, POWELL, LEMONS, CHAPIN, AND GOODWYN DID KNOWINGLY, WILLINGLY AND DELIBERATELY, WITH MALICE AND AFORETHOUGHT, COROf1T A CRIMINAL ACT AND MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE THROUGH THEIR OFFICIAL CONDUCT IN GOODMAN V. BENNETT, RECORD NO. 200555, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING:
- THEY EACH HAD PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT JUDGE SHARRETT HAD A DUTY TO DECIDE THE MERITS OF GOODMAN’ S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ACCORDING TO LAW, BUT FAILED TO DO SO; INSTEAD, JUDGE SHARRETT DISMISSED GOODMAN’S COMPLAINT FOR A FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM WITHOUT THE APPLICATION, CONSIDERATION, OR CITATION OF ANY VIRGINIA DECISIONAL CASE LAW, CONTROLLING OR OTHERWISE.
- THEY HAD A DUTY TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION, AND WERE IN A POSITION TO DO SO, AND THEY FAILED TO ACT.
- THEY HAD A DUTY, ACCORDING TO THEIR DE NOVO STANDARD OF REVIEW THAT GOVERNS AND CONTROLS QUESTIONS OF LAW, TO PROVIDE INDEPENDENT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, BUT FAILED TO DO SO.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE
- On August 15, 2019, Steven W. Goodman (“Goodman”) filed a motion for judgment (Appendix (“App.”) pages 6-12) and supporting memorandum of law (App., Pages 13-27) in the Greensville County Circuit Court.
- In his memorandum of law, Goodman argued, through the application of Virginia decisional case law, controlling or otherwise, and other relevant legal authorities:
- GOODMAN HAS STATED A CLAIM (App, pages 13-14)
- DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER CONSTITUTIONAL (App., pages 15-17).
- PAROLE INVESTIGATION STANDARD LIMITS DISCRETION (App., pages 18-20).
- NO AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER CRIME-RELATED FACTORS (App., pages 20-22).
- PAROLE DECISION FACTORS B, D, E, AND F UNCONSTITUTIONAL (App., pages 22-25).
- INTERPRETIVE RULE UNCONSTITUTIONAL (App., pages 22-24).
- CRIME-RELATED PAROLE DECISION FACTORS UNCONSTITUTIONAL (App., pages 24-25).
- On November 21, 2019, the Parole Board, through their attorney Assistant Attorney General Laura H. Cahill (“Cahill”), filed a motion to dismiss Goodman’s complaint (App., pages 28-34). In this motion, Cahill did not respond to the arguments and authorities Goodman presented in. his supporting memorandum of law (App., pages 13-27) nor did she present any Virginia; decisional case Law, controlling or otherwise, or any other state or federal Legal authority in support of her motion to dismiss.
- On December 5, 2019, Judge Sharrett issued an opinion, which did not set forth any findings of conclusions of law, granting Cahill’s motion to The entire substance of this ‘ ‘letter opinion” is as follows:The Court has carefully reviewed the pleadings and the record in this matter, and concludes that it is proper to grant the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. App., page 41.Judge Sharrett further directed Cahill to prepare an order “reflecting the decision of the Court” (App., page 41).
- On December 18, 2019, Judge Sharrett signed Cahill’ s order dismissing Goodman’s complaint for failure to state a claim (App., pages 35-40). The order of dismissal was the entirety of Cahill’s Motion to Dismiss transformed into an order. Compare Motion to Dismiss (App., pages 28-34) and the order of dismissal. (App., pages 35-41). The order of dismissal does not apply, consider or cite any Virginia decisional case law, controlling or otherwise, nor does it respond to the arguments and authorities Goodman presented in his memorandum of law. (App., pages 13-27).
- Goodman timely filed a petition for appeal (App., pages 42-73) in which he presented the following Assignments of Error:
- THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED WHEN IT CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS TO CONSIDER SUCH MOTION. App., pages 54-55.
- THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUNDS GOODMAN FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM. App., pages 56-59.
- THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED MOTION TO DISMISS BECAUSE (App., pages 59-63):
- THE CIRCUIT COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES PRESENTED BY GOODMAN. App., page 60.
- THE CIRCUIT COURT GAVE SIGNIFICANT WEIGHT TO IRRELEVANT FACTORS. App., pages 60-61.
- THE CIRCUIT COURT FAILED TO APPLY THE LAW TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. App., pages 61-62.
- THE CIRCUIT COURT FAILED TO RULE ON GOODMAN’S CLAIM THAT THE PAROLE BOARD UNCONSTITUTIONALLY AMENDED STATUTORY LANGUAGE IN THEIR INTERPRETIVE RULE OF A GOVERNING STATUTE. App., pages 62-63.
- THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BECAUSE IT FAILED TO PROPERLY INTERPRET THE STATUTE THAT GOVERNS TH E ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE. App., pages 63-68.
- THE CIRCUIT COURT FAILED TO CONSTRUE THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND GOVERNING STANDARDS ON PAROLE •TOGETHER. App., pages 66-67.
- THE CIRCUIT COURT FAILED TO INTERPRET THE STATUTORY TERM “PRISONER’ S. App., pages 67-68.
- THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED WHEN IT DEPRIVED GOODMAN OF HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO HAVE HIS CASE HEARD AND DECIDED BY A FAIR, IMPARTIAL, AND UNBIASED JUDGE. App., pages 68-72.
- On December 7, 2020, the Supreme Court of Virginia entered an order refusing Goodman’s petition for appeal.App., page 74. This order states as follows:
Upon review of the record in this case and consideration of the argument submitted in support of the granting of the appeal, the Court is of the opinion there is no reversible error in the judgment complained of. Accordingly, the Court refuses the petition for appeal
The Supreme Court of Virginia did not issue any findings of fact or conclusions of law in support of their decision.
- On February 18, 2020, Goodman filed an Amended Motion to Vacate Judgment. App., pages 75-80 Goodman argued that the order of dismissal (App., pages 35—40) was void ab initio because Judge did not apply, consider, or cite any Virginia decisional case law, controlling or otherwise, or any other state, federal, or other legal authority in his letter opinion (App., page 41) or order (App., pages 35-40.)
- On January 25, 2021, Goodman filed a “Legal Notice” that was addressed to the Justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia (App., pages 82-87) via certified mail (App., page 88). A copy of this Legal Notice was also mailed to each individual Justice via certified mail (App., pages 88-89).
In this Legal Notice, Goodman demanded:
“The Justices of this Court must CEASE and DESIST from their manifest abuse of power to further and cover up the arbitrary detention, WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY, of Goodman and others by the Virginia Parole Board. App . , page 82.
Goodman set forth three (3) instances of the Justices! abuse of judicial power. App., pages 82-84. He also provided a motive for their abuse of power. App., pages 84-86. Goodman received no response to the Legal Notice by the Court, nor did they sanction him for filing it.
- On March 16, 2021, the Supreme Court of Virginia issued an order denying Goodman’s Amended Motion to Vacate Judgment. App., page 81.The Court did not provide any findings of fact or conclusions of law in support of this order .
FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTE AND
CANONS OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT VIOLATED
18. U. S.C. § 241
CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS
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…
CANONS OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CANON 1. A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD THE
INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY
- An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary shall be preserved.
CANON 2. A JUDGE SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE
APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL OF THE JUDGE’S ACTIVITIES
- A judge shall respect and comply with the Law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
CANON 3. A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES
OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY
B(2). A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism.
B(5). A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, or similar factors, are issues in the proceeding.
B(7). A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.
D(I). A judge Who receives reliable information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of these Canons should take appropriate action. A judge having knowledge that another judge has committed a violation of these Canons that raises a substantial question as to the other judge’s fitness for office should inform the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission.
ARGUMENT
JUDGE SHARRETT AND JUSTICES MCCULLOUGH, MIMS, KELSEY, POWELL, LEMONS, CHAPIN, AND GOODWYN MUST BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE, WITH A REFERRAL TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR A CRIMINAL CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION, FOR THEIR CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE GOODMAN OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW, MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE, AND NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS OF THE CANONS OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.
FACTS AND EVIDENCE BEYOND DOUBT
The facts and evidence presented in support of this Petition for Impeachment are beyond dispute. They consist exclusively of pleadings and orders filed in support of Goodman’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of specific Parole Board rules, and his subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
NO FINDINGS OF FACT OR CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The letter opinion (S/ F, par. 4; App., page 41) and subsequent order of dismissal (S/ F, par.5; App., page 35-40) are totally devoid of any findings of fact and conclusions of law. Similarly, the order refusing Goodman’s petition for appeal (S/ F, par. 7; App., page 74) and order denying his motion to vacate judgment (S/ F, par. 10; App., page 81), entered by the Supreme Court of Virginia, are also devoid of any findings of fact or conclusions of law. In sum, the judge and Justices did not apply, consider or cite any Virginia decisional case law, controlling or otherwise, or any other state or federal decisional case law, or other legal authority when they rendered their decision at the center of this petition for appeal (S/ F, par. 4, 5, 7, and 10; App., pages 35-41, 74, and 81).
JUDGE SHARRETT AND JUSTICES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA MUST BE IMPEACHED
From the founding of this Nation to the present day, the United States has boldly and proudly boasted that we are a government of law, and not of men. Marbury v. Madison, 2 L. E. D. 60, 69, 1 Cranch 137, 163 (1803) (“The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right”).
This entire matter rises and falls with the determination of one simple question:
DID JUDGE SHARRETT AND THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF VIRGINIA RENDER •THEIR DECISIONS AT THE CENTER
OF THIS IMPEACHMENT PETITION ACCORDING TO LAW.
The answer is emphatically NO. Judges have a duty, not discretion, to apply the law to the facts of the matter that is before the court. The orders at issue establish-beyond any doubt that Judge Sharrett and the Justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia did NOT render their decisions according to law.
The failure of Judge Sharrett and the Justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia to render their judgments and orders according to law has deprived Goodman of his rights to freedom of speech, access to the courts, and due process of law guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Such conduct constitutes a conspiracy to violate Goodman’s constitutional rights in violation of 18 U. S.C. § 241, a crime that is punishable by a fine, ten years in prison, or both.
In addition, this criminal conduct has destroyed the honor and integrity of the entire judicial system and courts, the constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the rule of law- in violation of Canons 1, 2(A), and 3(B)(2), (5) and (7) of the Canons of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia. In addition, the Justices had personal knowledge that Judge Sharrett violated these Canons and they failed to refer these violations to the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission in violation of Canon 3(D) (1).
Based on the foregoing, the House of Delegates must impeach Judge Sharrett and the Justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia and seek their removal from office via a trial in the Virginia Senate. The failure of this body to do so will further damage the honor and integrity of this Commonwealth and this Nation, irretrievably destroy the constitutions of Virginia and the United States.
CRIMINAL CIVIL RIGHTS INVESTIGATION MANDATORY
In addition to impeachment and removal from office, the Virginia House of Delegates must request the Department of Justice to conduct a criminal civil rights investigation. This investigation must include the actions of former Governor Allen, his Parole Board and others in the promulgation and implementation of this criminal scheme to arbitrarily detain, without lawful authority, parole eligible felons, as well as the actions of Judge Sharrett and the Justices to further and cover it up.
In 1993, George Allen was elected Governor with his promise to abolish parole. Shortly thereafter, Attorney General Gilmore issued an official advisory opinion stating, “parole may not be abolished retroactively in Virginia, 1994 Va. either by statute or by administrative action. AG Lexis 24. While the right to be considered for parole was not abolished, the right to be reviewed for parole in the manner prescribed by state law was abolished. This is a distinction without a difference. Thus, they knowingly, willingly, and deliberately, with malice and aforethought created a criminal scheme to abolish parole retroactively, albeit -on a case-by-case basis, in spite of the advice that they could not lawfully do so.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Judge Sharrett and Justices McCullough, Mims, Kelsey, Powell, Lemons, Chafin and Goodwyn must be impeached by the Virginia House of Delegates, and this matter referred to the Virginia Senate for trial.
Steven W. Goodman 1028377
Green Rock Correctional Center
Post Office Box 1000
Chatham, Virginia 24531
DECLARATION
I, Steven W. Goodman, declare under the penalty and pain of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and understanding.
Steven W. Goodman 1028377
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify the following:
- The original and three (3) copies of the foregoing Petition for Impeachment has been mailed to the Clerk of the Virginia House of Delegates for filing;
- A true copy of the foregoing Petition for Impeachment has been mailed to Judge Sharrett, Justice McCullough, Justice Mims, Justice Kelsey, Justice Powell Justice Lemons, Justice Chafin and Justice Goodwyn; and
- I mailed the original and copies of the foregoing Petition for Impeachment, as set forth above, on this_________day of November, 2021, via certified mail, return receipt.
Steven W. Goodman
