Reply to Gov. Gilmore's Request to Impose Sanctions to Petitioners


VIRGINIA:  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

Larry W. Bryant, Gretchen Condon, and Evelyn J. Goodwin,
  Petitioners,


	     v.
				      Chancery
No.000691


Hon. James S. Gilmore, III
Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia (and his
successors)
The State Capitol -- 3rd Floor
Richmond, VA  23219,
  Defendant


		     PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
	(AND FOR CONCOMITANT INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF)

      [PROPOSED] Petitioners' Reply Brief to Defendant's Demurrer

[NOTE to the honorable judges of this court:  Inasmuch as the
defendant's demurrer serves also as a motion-to-dismiss and as a motion
to have this court impose (or to consider imposing) sanctions against
the petitioners, it warrants a formal, written reply from the
petitioners.  Come now the petitioners to file this brief in opposition
to the defendant's demurrer.]

An Extraordinary Remedy for an Extraordinary Socio-political, Defense-
	      preparedness, and Law-enforcement Problem

1.  The defendant's protestations over the petitioners' legal standing
to pursue this action must be viewed by this court as hollow at best and
obstructionistic at worst.

2.  In the first place, mandamus case law in Virginia acknowledges the
entry of any party even peripherally affected by/interested in the issue
or controversy at hand (see, for example, the case of Rhinehart & Dennis
Co. v. McArthur (123 Va. 556.96 S.E. 829 (1918), wherein the court held
that even an indirectly involved claimant should be admitted as a party
so that the respective rights may be determined speedily).

3. In the second place, for this court to ignore or to deny the
petitioners' standing would, in and of itself, contribute to the
documented failure of justice in this matter, inasmuch as the
petitioners have no other specific and adequate legal remedy for their
grievance.

4.  Were this action a tort claim, the defendant's concern about
standing might have some merit.  But this action began, and remains, a
public-interest matter implicating both the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution (as regards petitioners' free-speech and
redress-of-grievance rights) and Articles I and V of the Virginia
Constitution (as regards the governor's mandated
military-defense-preparedness, law-enforcement, and welfare-protection
functions).  Furthermore, affiants Luca and Morgan, both Virginia
residents with histories of multiple UFO/E.T.-invasion episodes, have
given their express, written approval for ANY legal action on their
behalf that might bring them relief.  Thus, these two affiants have
become proxy parties to this petition.  For this court to deny them
vicarious standing would be to steal the extraordinariness from the
mandamus remedy; for they as victims possess the ultimate degree of
standing.

5.  By rejecting the defendant's argument as to the petitioners'
standing, this court can (and must) do the right thing for the general
welfare of Virginia citizens.  In thus coming to the fore in a matter
from which the defendant, for whatever stated or unstated reason, has
chosen to recede, this court can help restore the public's confidence in
government integrity and accountability.

       No Discretionary Function Permits Dereliction of Duty

6.  This court summarily should reject the defendant's attempt to hide
behind the doctrine of discretionary function when it comes to his
constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws of the commonwealth
and to his statutory duty to protect the general welfare of our
citizenry.  Indeed, acting as a court of inquiry, this court has both
the jurisdiction and the opportunity, buttressed by the vox populi, to
insure that mandamus lie for the public's safety, the public's
right-to-know, and the public's role in seeking and demanding full
governmental accountability for official deeds done or undone.

7.  Furthermore, the defendant may not (and must not) on the one hand
arbitrarily interpose the authority of his office to exert his
protective function (e.g., in the Hugh Finn choice-of-death case -- see
Gilmore v. Finn, Opinion No. 990779 of the Virginia Supreme Court, as
entered on March 3, 2000) while on the other hand arbitrarily deny the
petitioners access to that very same authority in any matter of public
safety.  He thus cannot have it both ways here:  such a double standard
betrays the public's trust in his office, puts the body politic at risk,
and fuels the failure of justice in this matter.

8.  A public official's methodically, arrogantly, and unaccountably
pursuing a course of INaction in defiance of a clearly articulated,
legally sound demand from the citizenry becomes an action itself and
cannot withstand a petitioners' call for corrective mandamus and
injunctive/declaratory relief.  Hence, at issue here is not the
petitioners' duty to shut up and go away; rather, it's the duty
(ministerial or otherwise) of the defendant to submit to administrative
and judicial review and to correct his inaction/action accordingly.  In
this case, the defendant's statutory duty to protect the general welfare
(as in the case of invasion) affords him no discretion to ignore or
otherwise shirk that duty, period.  Here, the defendant's argument
plants a red herring when he cites as a defense the discretionary clause
of Va. Code, section 2.1-49B.

9.  The petition's exhibits amply document the past and current failure
of justice in this matter, thus controverting the defendant's contention
that the petition constitutes a "doubtful case."  The defendant's
specious argument against the petition's objectives leaves no doubt that
he plans to continue stifling the will of the people, as expressed in
the Virginia Constitution and in pertinent statutes of the commonwealth.

10. By a preponderance of the evidence, your petitioners have documented
the defendant's dereliction of duty in this grave issue of the ongoing,
worldwide, clandestine UFO/E.T. invasion of and violation of human
rights.  Had the defendant chosen to file an answer contesting any part
of the factual basis for this petition, he would have failed to defeat
the merits of the petitioners' claim.  In law, as in science, "absence
of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence."  That rubric lies
at the heart of this petition -- for, without this court's mandate to
compel the defendant's compliance with the spirit and letter of Virginia
law, our quest for further evidence will be severely and unfairly
truncated -- at the expense of the public interest and of the victims'
rights as articulated in the petition's exhibits.  The defendant's
demurrer thus imposes upon the petitioners a "Catch-22" situation, which
might read:  "If you, the petitioners, believe that I, the defendant,
have the authority and the duty to help repel the 'UFO invasion,' then
you'll have to show me all the evidence of that invasion.  But I will do
nothing to help you gather that evidence; and, indeed, by this demurrer,
I'm seeking to impede your gathering it."

			       Conclusion

11.  The defendant's attempt to delay or evade discovery in this matter
* constitutes all the more reason for this court (1) to reject his
demurrer; (2) to proceed with all necessary litigation; and, ultimately,
(3) to award the petitioners their sought-for writ of mandamus.  For
this court to do otherwise would diminish the public's confidence in the
integrity, practice, and institutions of government.

12.  Throughout the petition, its originators and its affiants have
acted as surrogate whistleblowers to expose, condemn, and counter the
official government coverup of UFO/E.T. reality.  The defendant -- as
well as this court -- knows, or should know, that whistleblowing
constitutes a form of First Amendment-protected speech.  Accordingly,
just as this civic-minded action deserves any and all relief and support
available from this court, it also deserves to remain free from reprisal
at the hands of the defendant.  His vindictive desire/attempt to have
sanctions levied against the petitioners serves to renew and refocus the
petitioners' call for this court to convene -- with or without the
defendant's cooperation -- a special grand jury to assess the
UFO/E.T.-invasion/coverup evidence thus far amassed and to solicit,
investigate, analyze, and report upon any and all oither pertinent
evidence that the public (including prospective new whistleblowers) can
offer.

13.  What's more, the defendant's denouncing the petition as "frivolous"
and his expressing a desire for (or threat of) court-imposed sanctions
upon the petitioners serve (1) to insult the intelligence of this court;
(2) to demean the good character and good-faith intent of the
petitioners in their advancement of the will of the people in this
matter; and (3) to mock our justice system's protection of citizens'
First Amendment free-speech rights and their right to petition our
government for redress of grievances.  Accordingly, the petitioners
hereby ask the judges of this court to reject this spiteful attempt by
the defendant to recover his litigation costs and to disparage the
petition as "frivolous."
_ _  _ _ _ _ _ _ _

* FOOTNOTE:  Namely, by his failure to fulfill the petitioners' proposed
First Set of Interrogatories (enclosure 1) and to petitioners' First
Request for Documents (enclosure 2).

- - - - - - - - - -
Larry W. Bryant, pro se
Lead Petitioner


Keeping you informed with the latest UFO and alternative News:
Back to home page