Whether a necessity defense is available for a First Amendment claim involving evidence of unlawful conduct to silence speech

QUESTIONS PRESENTED “Globally, as of 6:09pm CEST, 10 June 2022, there have been 532,201,219 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 6,305,358 deaths, reported to WHO”, Staff, “WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard,” WHO, (accessed June 11, 2022), and, the present case rises on appeal, to raise assignments of error, in an action brought in petition for writ of mandamus to compel a prosecutor to charge a sheriff, who had, despite a duly filed praecipe, in malfeasance of office, Va. Code § 2.2-3122, and contempt of court, Va. Code § 16.1-264, failed to serve process upon fellow partisan Commonwealth Respondents, in what became the first and longest surviving litigation brought in challenge against the lockdown orders in ; the State of Virginia, Webb v. Northam, Case No. CL2001624 (Alexandria Cir. 2020), on appeal Record No. 210536 (Va. 2022), with that related action being raised upon appeal and presenting the following questions: 1. Whether, on a claim raising or connected to a derogation or violation of a First Amendment right, where evidence, beyond a shadow of doubt, establishes a pattern of unlawful conduct, under color of law, to silence or quash the same, presents the availability of a defense of necessity. 2. Whether, “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”, Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), where, upon a mere pretext, or when the “proffered explanation is unworthy of credence”, ‘ Texas Dept. of Comm. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981), a state court may dismiss a case brought by an unrepresented litigant, in derogation of the principle that “[t]he fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard”, Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 (1914), and that such should occur “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner”, “ Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965). 3. Whether in exercise of its “ ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases”, Link v. Wabash : R. Co., 870 U.S. 626 (1962), the “solicitude for a civil rights plaintiff with counsel must be heightened when a civil rights plaintiff appears pro se’, Gordon. v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir. 1978), extending so as to ensure that a “demurrer should not be granted if its effect would be to incorrectly ‘shortcircuit’ litigation and erroneously deprive parties of trials on the merits.” Vogen Funding, LP v. Wener, 78 Va. Cir. 448 (2009) (citing Fultz v. Delhaize America, — Inc., 278 Va. 84 (2009); CaterCorp, Inc. v. Catering Concepts, Inc., 246 Va. 22 (1998). 4. Whether, upon review, there is evidence in the record, clearly indicating . attempts of state agencies and departments to evade the personal jurisdiction of the court, at least, under federal law, constituting felonies in conspiracy to “ic evade a summons, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512, and/or conspiracy to violate rights, as contemplated under 18 U.S.C. § 241, in the public interest, “the court must order that one or more grand juries be summoned.” Fed.R.Crim.Pro. 6(a). PARTIES AND