Webb v. Virginia State Bar, Case No. CM25-830 (Arlington Cir. 2025)

In accordance with Va. Code § 17.1-501(B), "If all the judges of any court of record are so situated in respect to any case, civil or criminal, pending in their court as to render it improper, in their opinion, for them to preside at the trial, unless the cause or proceeding is removed, as provided by law, they shall enter the fact of record and the clerk of the court shall at once certify the same to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall designate a judge of some other court of record or a retired judge of any such court to preside at the trial of such case." And, on Valentine's Day, in a Virginia for lovers, a sworn affidavit, pursuant to Va. Code § 19.2-217, had been filed by a presumptively competent witness to the Commonwealth's Attorney for the County of Arlington with respect to what had only been described, under law, as “medical countermeasures against COVID-19”, 85 Fed. Reg. 52, March 17, 2020, not vaccines, and yet mandated for Arlington County employees, as well as staff, faculty and students, without even informed consent regarding "an unapproved use of an approved drug, approved or cleared device, or licensed biological product", developed rapidly to address "a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a CBRN agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents". 85 Fed. Reg. 63, April 1, 2020.

“The term CBRN stands for ‘chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear’, and relates to specific hazards that may be encountered during an incident”, and “[t]he term CBRN is generally reserved for the deliberate release of a hazardous material such as in a terrorist attack, whereas the term Hazmat is used for accidental release or exposure to toxic industrial material.” Antony Calder & Steven Bland, Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear considerations in a major incident, 33 Surg. (Oxf.) 9, pp. 442–448, August 6, 2015.1. Moreover, expressly limited to military forces, as well as citizens residing abroad, arguably this fact would render any other use outside that scope an “unauthorized commitment” under the Federal Acquisition Regulations, FAR § 1.602-3. However the focus of this action, filed after Mother's Day, and brought in mandamus to compel a grand jury investigation, had limited its application to the mandates for women, who had been compelled, essentially to engage in human experimentation of mRNA and adenovirus, which had since the 1980s been established as most effective for inducing oncogenic expression in transgenic mice involved in female breast cancer research, hence a known carcinogen.

Pursuant to Va. Code § 15.2-1626, a popularly elected Attorney for the Commonwealth "shall exercise all the powers conferred and perform all the duties imposed upon such officer by general law." And, as directed by Va. Code § 15.2-1627, this constitutional officer "shall be a part of the department of law enforcement of the county or city in which he is elected or appointed, and shall have the duties and powers imposed upon him by general law, including the duty of prosecuting all warrants, indictments or informations charging a felony"; however, in discretion, "he may in his discretion, prosecute Class 1, 2 and 3 misdemeanors". Hence, under law, the permitted range of prosecutorial discetion is expressly limited, but George Soros-financed Commonwealth's Attorney Parisa Dehghani-Tafti, who had twice run unopposed by any Arlington GOP candidate, has adopted the categorical position that she enjoys plenary and absolute prosecutorial discretion, concurring with the opinion of her co-partisan colleague, City of Alexandria Commonwealth's Attorney Brian Porter, with no objection expressed by even the NAACP, “[e]ven accepting, arguendo, that probable cause exists. . . no court can order the Commonwealth Attorney to charge anyone”, and “[t]he decision to charge is a discretionary duty that lies entirely within the province of the public prosecutor”. Renewed Motion for Entry of Demurrer, Webb v. Porter, Case Number CL22002367 (Alexandria Cir. August 23, 2023).

In addition, the public school board had been named as a civil defendant for a failure to respond to a specific request for a document, under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA), Va. Code Section 2.2-3700 et seq. Specifically, the school board had been requested to produce a copy of of the safe school reopening plan, which had been ordered by former Virginia State Health Commissioner Mohammed Norman Oliver, M.D., Mohammed Norman Oliver, Order of Public Health Emergency, June 8, 2020. And after evading service of the summons and complaint in another matter for almost a year, see Webb v. Washington Post, Case No. CL24002622-00 (Richmond Cir. 2024), implicating the Office of the Sheriff in multiple criminal offenses, including malfeasance of office, in violation of Va. Code § 2.2-3122, contempt of court, in violation of Va. Code § 16.1-264, and conspiracy to commit a felony of conspiracy to violate rights, 18 U.S.C. §, in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-22, on June 16, 2023, the fugitive school board had surrendered to a commercial process server, retained at the plaintiff's expense, followed by surrender of the Washington Post on June 17, 2025, in a matter commenced on June 18, 2024, scheduled now for hearing on initial motions on July 14, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. in Richmond.

Only after these related events, on June 23, 2025, the Chief Justice for the State Supreme Court, with no report in the press, had determined upon certification that , pursuant to Va. Code § 17.1-501(B), "all the judges", without exception in the Arlington Circuit Court were "so situated in respect" to this case "as to render it improper, in their opinion, for them to preside at the trial, unless the cause or proceeding is removed, as provided by law", only the second such action of record in the Arlington Circuit Court, and only the fourth time of record in which this particular provision has been invoked since its enactment; however, this provision has never been raised, as here, in a matter in which the court, at the request of the prosecutor, had imposed and enforced a dubious, pre-filing injunction.

The matter is now scheduled for hearing in the Arlington Circuit Court before Retired Judge Sarah L. Deneke, on July 22, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. in Room 10B.