UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ALDO dibelardino,

+12 suri juris Virginia residents, citizens John & Jane Does 1-100* Petitioner(s)

V.

Norfolk, Virginia Federal Court Officials;

All United States Marshals

Jerome Grate, Grand Jury Coordinator

Virginia Beach Officials;

Unlawful Sheriff Holcomb & all sworn Deputies

All Judges including Lewis, Mahan, Smith, & Spencer

Elected Clerk of the Court Tina Sinnen,

Commonwealth Attorney Colin Stolle & all staff

Respondent(s)

DOCKET NUMBER: 24-1843

EXPEDITED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR INJUNCTION TO REMOVE UNLAWFUL SHERIFF

* Please note - citizens remain unnamed because of documented security and safety concerns including but not limited to body cam footage of excessive force by government officials, documented injuries, false arrest, jailing, & other escalating abuses, etc.

This MOTION and all referenced EXHIBITS are posted online at CourtOfPublicAwakening.org to ensure public transparency.

Petitioner, Aldo Dibelardino, (Hereinafter “ALDO” or “Petitioners” interchangeably) are resident(s) of Virginia Beach and above the age of eighteen(18) years old.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioners, respectfully file this EXPEDITED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR INJUNCTION TO REMOVE UNLAWFUL SHERIFF to enjoin the actions of unelected Sheriff Holcomb, in his official capacity as the City of Virginia Beach Sheriff, whose unlawful conduct and abuses of authority have infringed upon Petitioner’s constitutional rights and the rights of citizens under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. These abuses include the denial of free speech and public assembly related to educating citizens about their grand jury rights to RESTORE ACCOUNTABILITY at the Virginia Beach Circuit courthouse, thus obstructing public awareness of fundamental civic duties and participation in the judicial process.

The unelected sheriff’s actions have occurred amidst broader judicial misconduct, which we allege to be part of ongoing RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) activity, and comes at a critical time just before the November 5, 2024, elections. Some of these activities are detailed in related filings including but not limited to Virginia Beach Circuit Court (hereinafter VBCC) CL24-1585, CL24-2865, and CL24-4272.

This MOTION is filed under expedited emergency circumstances as Petitioner’s and the public’s constitutional rights are being violated on an ongoing basis, causing irreparable harm, and the actions of the unelected sheriff continue to enable and facilitate violations of these rights, leading to immediate and irreversible consequences. The urgency is heightened as these violations threaten to undermine the integrity of the upcoming November 5,2024 elections.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (the All Writs Act) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this case involves claims arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

2. Venue is proper in this Court as the violations alleged arise from actions within the jurisdiction of Virginia Beach, Virginia, which is within the Fourth Circuit’s jurisdiction.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On August 21, 2024, Petitioners filed an OPEN EXPEDITED EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT(s) of MANDAMUS with this Court (Case No. 24-1843), seeking the restoration of citizens’ grand jury rights as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and the Williams 1992 ruling details.

2. Since that filing, Respondents, including but not limited to unelected Sheriff Holcomb, have unlawfully restricted free speech and public assembly at the VBCC courthouse, where Petitioners have sought to

educate the public on their grand jury rights to RESTORE ACCOUNTABILITY. Unlawful actions include, but are not limited to: A. On July 19, 2024, Petitioner ALDO, a candidate for the elected sheriff position, was falsely arrested and jailed for trespassing while lawfully educating the public about our grand jury rights to restore accountability. This occurred on a sidewalk 152 feet from the courthouse door, a location previously approved by a deputy sheriff. Video of arrest here - https://www.peacemakersheriff.org/ &

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Je51_2xh4

B. Denying Petitioners the right to present evidence, including a grand jury poster board, at the VBCC during a related hearing on September 9, 2024. A FOIA request has been submitted for the body-cam footage of Deputy Rupert's actions denying the entry of 'expressive materials' into the courthouse. Previous related FOIA requests have been unjustly denied by the Virginia Beach Sheriff's Office (VBSO), citing an 'ongoing investigation.’

C. Failure by both the Chesapeake Commonwealth Attorney Special Prosecutor David A. Vitto and the Virginia Beach General District Court Judge Daniel R. Lahne to assure a “wrongful official act is prevented or rectified” (Va. R. Sup. Ct.1.13) as evident in this recording of the September 9, 2024 related hearing -

(https://recorder.google.com/f21ae43a-e03c-4a4a-bda1-b63046c2356c) Thumb drive with audio file included as EXHIBIT 1

Three* separate Supreme Court of the United States cases were cited and ignored that clearly establish and reinforce the public's right to free speech and protest outside our courthouses as long as it does not impede the administration of justice. * US v Grace (1983), Gregory v City of Chicago (1969), and Cox v Louisiana (1965)

3. Respondent’s actions have been part of a broader pattern of judicial misconduct, which Petitioners believe to be orchestrated in furtherance of RICO activity intended to suppress citizen involvement in the judicial process and influence local governance ahead of the November 5, 2024, elections.

4. These restrictions on speech have escalated despite ongoing litigation and have created an imminent threat to Petitioner’s First Amendment rights and the public’s right to free speech, particularly in matters related to civic engagement and oversight of our grand jury system.

5. The actions of Respondents, enabling this unconstitutional conduct, necessitate immediate injunctive relief, as they are causing irreparable harm to both Petitioners and the public.

LEGAL ARGUMENT

I. Standard for Injunctive Relief

To obtain a preliminary or emergency injunction, Petitioner must show:

1. A likelihood of success on the merits of the claim;

2. Irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; 3. The balance of equities tips in Petitioner’s favor; and 4. An injunction is in the public interests affirmed in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)

II. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

A. First Amendment - Right to Free Speech

Petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits of the First Amendment claim. The suppression of free speech in a public forum, particularly when it pertains to matters of public concern such as citizens’ rights and civic participation in our grand jury system, constitutes a clear violation of the First Amendment. The Respondent's actions in preventing educational efforts at the courthouse infringe upon the public's right to know and engage in the judicial process.

B. Fifth Amendment – Right to a Grand Jury

The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, which is essential to ensuring citizens have the ability to participate in the judicial process as a “protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental actions” (Williams 1992) . Petitioner’s efforts to educate the public about their grand jury rights are protected by this fundamental guarantee. The restriction of such education by Respondents, under color of state law, directly infringes on Petitioner’s right to engage in speech related to this essential civic function, and on the public’s right to be informed about their grand jury rights.

Further, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause ensures that citizens are not deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. By interfering with Petitioner’s efforts to inform the public about their grand jury rights, Respondent’s actions are depriving Petitioners and the community of the opportunity to fully understand and exercise this constitutional right. The suppression of speech related to grand jury education also represents a procedural due process violation, as Petitioners have been denied the ability to carry out a lawful civic action in a public forum, which is a protected form of speech under the First Amendment.

Given these facts, Petitioners have a strong likelihood of success on the merits under the Fifth Amendment because the sheriff's actions directly undermine the rights guaranteed by the grand jury clause and due process protections.

C. Fourteenth Amendment – Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses

The 14th Amendment extends federal constitutional protections to the states, prohibiting local authorities from violating the fundamental rights of individuals under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

1. Due Process Clause (14th Amendment): The sheriff’s suppression of public speech and education efforts regarding grand jury rights constitutes a deprivation of Petitioner’s liberty without due process of law. Liberty, in this context, includes the right to engage in protected speech in a public forum, particularly speech related to the constitutional functioning of the justice system. The Respondent’s actions have prevented Petitioners from exercising these rights, causing irreparable harm by unlawfully restricting the free flow of information necessary for citizens to understand and exercise their civic duties.

Additionally, these restrictions on speech have been imposed without any legitimate governmental justification or procedural safeguards, violating both procedural and substantive due process rights under the 14th Amendment.

2. Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment): The sheriff’s actions appear to specifically target Petitioner’s speech related to grand jury education, while permitting or not similarly restricting other forms of speech and assembly at the courthouse. This unequal application of rules violates the Equal Protection Clause, as Petitioners have been singled out for differential treatment

without any rational basis or compelling state interest. The targeted suppression of speech related to grand jury rights, while allowing other public discussions to proceed, constitutes an unconstitutional form of selective enforcement and discrimination.

As both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment protect Petitioner’s rights to engage in public speech on civic matters, Petitioners have demonstrated a high likelihood of success on the merits regarding these claims.

III. Irreparable Harm

The continued suppression of free speech and the obstruction of grand jury rights education constitutes irreparable harm. The imminent threat to Petitioner’s and the public’s constitutional rights cannot be remedied

by monetary damages. The harm is further magnified as it comes just before a crucial election, where public awareness of grand jury rights and civic responsibilities is vital.

IV. Balance of Equities

The balance of equities strongly favors Petitioners. The harm to the Petitioners and the public is severe and ongoing, while granting injunctive relief would merely prevent Respondents from continuing unconstitutional actions.

V. Public Interest

An injunction is in the public interest. It would protect the constitutional rights of Petitioners and the public, ensuring that citizens are informed about their grand jury rights and free to exercise their First Amendment

rights. Suppressing such speech undermines democratic processes and public trust in the judiciary.

Petitioners support this MOTION and if called upon will testify under penalty of perjury and make available others who have been impacted by said trespasses.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Issue an immediate injunction restraining unlawful unelected Sheriff Holcomb from restricting Petitioner’s and the public’s free speech and assembly rights at the Virginia Beach Circuit Court courthouse;

2. Enjoin Respondents from taking any further actions that obstruct public education regarding grand jury rights and interfere with lawful public gatherings;

3. Declare that the actions of Respondents violate the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

4. Dismiss the false trespassing charge against Petitioner ALDO;

5. Grant such other relief as the Court deems appropriate and just under the circumstances.

VI. Certification and Closing

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, by signing below, I, ALDO, certify to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief that this MOTION: (1) is not being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) is supported by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the MOTION otherwise complies with the requirements of Rule 11.

Blessings & Grace as we bring Justice for All to the Nations,

ALDO dibelardino, pro-se

Dated_______________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, complete copy

By: Pamela Burnham____________________

1. mailed USPS Priority Mail Signature service to;

United States Court of Appeals 4th Circuit,

1100 East Main Street, Suite 501, Richmond, Virginia 23219 2. hand delivered to;

VBCC civil service office - for distribution to respondents Norfolk Virginia Federal Court - for distribution to respondents

‍

‍