Petition for a Writ of Mandamus (and for Concomitant Injunctive and Declaratory Relief)
by Larry W. Bryant
VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA
v. Chancery No. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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)
To the honorable judges of said court:
Your petitioners -- Larry W. Bryant, Gretchen Condon, and Evelyn J. Goodwin -- respectfully represent as follows:
Role of Petitioners in this Action
1. Lead petitioner Larry W. Bryant resides at 3518 Martha Custis Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, where he directs the Washington, D.C., office of the public-interest group Citizens Against UFO Secrecy (CAUS). In that capacity as a Virginia citizen and as an internationally recognized UFO researcher, he has a clear and specific legal right to the relief sought by this petition on behalf of all fellow Virginians current and future.
2. Petitioner Gretchen Condon resides at 3104 Threechopt Road, Hampton, VA 23666. She joins this petition as a Virginia citizen seeking -- for her own safety, independence, personal privacy, general physical/emotional protection, and right to be let alone -- the defendant's full, faithful, unequivocal, and immediate fulfillment of his constitutional and statutory duty in this matter -- a duty that he and his staff (including the office of the Virginia attorney general) ought to and can perform.
3. Petitioner Evelyn J. Goodwin, a Virginia citizen and UFO-sighting witness residing at 44 Green Oaks Road, Newport News, VA 23601, likewise attests to her own profound concerns as cited above by petitioner Condon.
Basis for this Extraordinary Remedial Process and the Jurisdiction of this Court
4. Since the petitioners have determined that no other specific and adequate legal remedy exists for the grievance defined and documented herein, they must look to the jurisdiction of this court of record in their quest for relief. Statewide, that jurisdiction traditionally has included a variety of petitions for writ of mandamus, as authorized by the Code of Virginia (Section 17-123) (e.g., in the case of Morrisette v. McGinnis, 246 Va. 378, 436 S.E. 2d433 (1993)); and Sec. 17.1-513 (providing for jurisdiction over "...other cases in which it may be necessary to prevent the failure of justice and in which mandamus may issue according to the principles of common law.").
Chronology of Defendant's Dereliction of Duty
5. In documenting the defendant's dereliction of duty in this matter, the petitioners hereby aver --
a. That shortly after February 22, 1999, petitioner Bryant caused to be mailed a "demand letter" to the defendant (see true copy marked as Exhibit A), in which is explained the nature of an ongoing clandestine "invasion" (with its related harm and threat to public safety). This twofold nature matches the following definition of "invasion" as published in Black's Law Dictionary: "Encroachment upon the rights of another" (Aetna Insurance Co. versus Boon -- 95 US 121).
b. That to this date, the defendant has chosen not to respond to said "demand letter."
c. That on September 26, 1999, petitioner Condon sent to the defendant an e-mail message (see the printout thereof marked as Exhibit B), which reiterates the substance of Bryant's "demand letter" and which to this date has elicited no response from the defendant (despite the now high visibility of the defendant's dereliction of duty).
d. That on December 30, 1999, petitioner Bryant e-mailed the defendant to relay the content of an Internet-circulated "administrative petition" titled "Repel the 'UFO Invasion'" (see the printout of that e-mail message marked as Exhibit C, including its nearly 100 signatories), which (1) exhausts petitioners' administrative efforts to compel the defendant's compliance; and (2) remains unanswered by the defendant.
Codification of the Defendant's Constitutional and Statutory Duty to Repel the UFO/E.T. Invasion
6. Besides the defendant's moral obligation under Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution (whereby he ought to and can help the U.S. government protect all the states from invasion), he has a legal obligation to proceed unilaterally with all available means (and all deliberate speed) to identify, assess, and repel this clandestine invasion within Virginia. That obligation derives particularly from such legal authority/mandate as --
a. The Virginia constitution's Article I (Bill of Rights): "A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the good people of Virginia in the exercise of their sovereign powers, which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.
"Section 1. (Equality and rights of Men):
"That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
b. The Virginia constitution's Article V, Section 7 (Executive and Administrative Powers): "The Governor shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The Governor shall be Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of the Commonwealth and shall have power to embody such forces to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and enforce the execution of the laws."
c. The code of Virginia's Title 2.1 (Administration of the Government Generally); Chapter 5 (Governor, Section 2.1-49B: "In accordance with subsection A and pursuant to his duty to protect or preserve the general welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth, the governor may institute any action, suit, motion or other proceeding on behalf of its citizens...."
d. Section 18.2-47 of the Code of Virginia (titled "Abduction and kidnapping defined; punishment"), which makes no distinction between an abduction perpetrated by a fellow citizen of Earth or by some extraterrestrial (E.T.) entity sent here to conduct such invasive activity upon unsuspecting (and unprotected) citizens. Accordingly, this Class 5 felony warrants complete, immediate, and sustained law-enforcement response and adequate preventive measures regardless of the perpetrator's origin. The defendant knows that Virginia law prohibits (and punishes) the abducting, torturing, falsely imprisoning, wantonly impregnating, and unconsensually surgically altering (via implants) a person. He also knows that he has the power (and the duty) to repel these invasive activities of apparently alien-originated UFO encounters; yet, in direct dereliction of duty under the above-cited provisions, he refuses even to acknowledge the existence of the "invasion."
Nature of the UFO Invasion and of the Ongoing Threat Thereof
7. As explained in the accompanying "Affidavit of Larry W. Bryant in Support of the Petition" (Exhibit D), he and a number of his colleagues have drawn upon a growing body of direct evidence (credible eye-witness testimony) and relevant evidence (documentary exposition via subject-matter specialists) spanning more than 40 years of UFO-related research, investigation, and activism. Their conclusion as to the worldwide scope, character, and import of the "flying triangle" and "UFO/E.T. abduction" phenomena inescapably would find an echo from the Virginia governor's office were the defendant to avail himself of just a portion of that evidence. Indeed, for starters, the defendant -- as well as the judges of this court -- would profit from beginning his introduction with the following material on the abduction issue alone:
a. The affidavit of Virginia resident (and multiple abductee) Robert A. Luca (Exhibit E), whereby he boldly defies the official ridicule-and-deny policy to take a public stand on this vital issue of public safety and government accountability.
b. The Fauquier County, Va., sheriff's report on the likely abduction of Virginia resident Maria Elena Morgan on June 27, 1999 (as recounted in Exhibit F, to which is appended said abductee's affidavit of May 3, 2000).
c. The published memoirs -- "Connections: Solving Our Alien Abduction Mystery" -- by the pseudonymous "Beth Collings" and "Anna Jamerson" (Wildflower Press, Newberg, Oregon -- 1996). The authors -- both residing in Catlett, Va. -- have chosen to write under pseudonyms so as to protect certain family members from the insensitivity of intrusive curiosity seekers. Earlier, however, they publicly did attach their real names (Clare Holcomb and Diana Graves, respectively) to their first-person account, which is summarized in a "USA Today" news feature of December 16, 1993, titled "Too-close Encounters" (Exhibit G). Nevertheless, their grudgingly (yet almost desperately) adopted public-figure status remains tangential to the private hell they've been experiencing in coping with their life-long alien-abduction episodes. To its victim, alien rape (being certainly no less a crime than domestic rape) carries with it an exponential stigma upon public disclosure.
d. The latest UFO-related treatise written by David M. Jacobs, Ph.D.: "The Threat" (Simon & Schuster -- 1998). Capping the author's 11 years of research into the UFO/E.T. abduction phenomenon, this pivotal work leaves no doubt about -- in the book-cover blurb -- "The Secret Agenda: What the Aliens Really Want . . . and How They Plan to Get It." The core of that agenda centers on what Jacobs calls "the breeding program." From the book's case studies, he concludes: "... all the alien procedures [as recounted by their victims] serve a reproductive agenda. And at the heart of the reproductive agenda is the Breeding Program, in which the aliens collect human sperm and eggs, incubate fetuses in human hosts to produce alien-human hybrids, and cause humans to mentally and physically interact with these hybrids for the purpose of their development." Jacobs' findings to date indicate no sign of abatement in this criminal intervention into the lives and autonomy of the Earth's citizens. Thus, the invasion's victims (past/present/future) continue to be held hostage by the mere fact of the invasion. What's more, many of the victims have declined to go public with their accounts -- for fear that doing so will harm their reputations, adversely affect their careers, or subject them and their family members to unwarranted ridicule or other abuse from neighbors, colleagues, or authorities. This reluctance to come forward strengthens the invasion's clandestine nature -- and in the long run puts more and more citizens at risk of becoming its next victims. And finally: the continuing failure of our governmental officials to confront (and to remedy) the reality of this invasion plays into the hands of its perpetrators -- be they human, non-human, or some combination thereof. That failure, if allowed to persist, cannot but heighten the threat posed by the ongoing invasion.
Our Prayer: the Nature, Extent, and Expected Application of Prayed-for Relief
8. The petitioners' invocation of this extraordinary remedial process dovetails with the above-defined extraordinary victimization of our citizenry -- a worldwide public-safety issue that no government official dare ignore if we are to rely upon our constitutional and statutory safeguards for protecting/preserving our general welfare.
9. Wherefore, your petitioners, as they are without sufficient and adequate remedy, pray that a writ of mandamus be issued by this court directed to the defendant demanding and compelling him (and his successors) to provide the following measures of relief (plus such further relief as may be deemed proper and complete by the court):
a. Convene a Virginia state special grand jury, within this court's jurisdiction, to investigate, identify, and report upon the scope, impact, perpetrators, and methodology of this clandestine invasion.
b. Appoint a task force within the Virginia Department of State Police to promptly begin collecting, analyzing, and publishing all available intelligence (including technical, medical, forensic, and military-originated documentary evidence) as regards the history, trends, threatening nature, and projected outcome/consequences of the invasion.
c. Direct the Virginia National Guard to promptly establish, operate, and publicize a quick-reaction force to respond to and repel all current and future reported occurrences of the above-defined invasive activity as perpetrated by these non-human/humanoid/alien entities yet to be apprehended and brought to justice.
d. Announce and afford to the invasion's victims all victims-rights counseling, comfort, and protective measures commensurate with those extended to any other Virginia citizens victimized by criminal activity.
e. Coordinate with the Virginia attorney general to promptly begin a plan of action for encouraging and helping the attorney general of the United States to comply with the mandate of Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution as regards the federal government's duty to protect all the states from invasion.
10. Petitioners pray further that this court --
a. Enjoin the defendant, his staff, and his successors from continuing to be derelict in their constitutional and statutory duty not to ignore the petitioners' grievance and beseechment in this matter.
b. Declare the defendant's dereliction of duty to be harmful to the interests, expectations, and welfare of the body politic; to be subject to current and future review and remedy by the court; and to be negatable only by his full, timely, and sustained compliance with the pertinent orders of this court.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Larry W. Bryant STATE OF VIRGINIA: CITIES OF Alexandria, Hampton, and Newport News -- to wit: We -- Larry W. Bryant, Gretchen Condon, and Evelyn J. Goodwin -- petitioners herein, being duly sworn, say that we have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof, and that the same is true to the best of our knowledge, information, and belief. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Larry W. Bryant Gretchen Condon Evelyn J. Goodwin Alexandria - Hampton - Newport News - Subscribed and sworn to before me this _ _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _, 2000 by Larry W. Bryant, Gretchen Condon, and Evelyn J. Goodwin. My commission expires: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Notary Public (City of: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Lead Petitioner (L.W.B.), pro se
3518 Martha Custis Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: (703) 931-3341; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
The PAG Network
©2001. All Rights Reserved.
Send CAUS Comments and Reports to: CAUS@CAUS.ORG