Whether the Petitioner violated an order by the Virginia Supreme Court the causation for the Virginia Supreme Court to deny the Petition

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. On January 12 2023, the Virginia Supreme Court ordered the Petitioner: “[A]ppellant shall have until February 19 2023 to file a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeals of Virginia and a petition for appeal with the Clerk of this Court”. The Petitioner complied with the Virginia Supreme Court’s order. The notice of appeal had been filed at or around October 31 2022 with the Virginia Court of Appeals, and the petition for appeal on February 19 2023. The Petitioner was under the belief he had satisfied the order as prescribed by the Virginia Supreme Court. On March 14 2023 the Virginia Supreme Court denies the petition for appeal citing: “Finding that the appellant has failed to comply with this Court’s order issued January 12, 2023 and finding that the appeal was not perfected in the manner provided by law because the appellant failed to file the notice of appeal in the Court of Appeals, the Court dismisses the petition for appeal filed in the abovestyled case. Rule 5:14(a)” Whether the Petitioner violated an order by the Virginia Supreme Court the causation for the Virginia Supreme Court to deny the Petition 2. Virginia Supreme Court Rule 5:17(G)(1) states: (1) Right to oral argument. The appellant is entitled to state orally, in person or by telephone conference call, 2 to a panel of this Court the reasons why the petition for appeal should be granted. The appellee is not entitled to oral argument, whether in person or by telephone conference call. The Petitioner was denied the opportunity to state orally before the Virginia Supreme Court why the petition for appeal should be granted. Whether the Virginia Supreme Court failed to perfect its own rules of procedure denying the , Petitioner due process under U.S. Constitution Amendment XIV. 3. On September 28 2021 the Petitioner was unlawfully suspended from office prior to awaiting trial. On July 18 2022 the Alleghany County Circuit Court, Hon. Judge Ed Stein presiding, ordered case CL20827 nonsuited under Virginia Code §8.01380 upon a motion by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia Code 24.2-236 states in-part: “(T]he officer's compensation shall be withheld and kept in a_ separate account and paid to him if and when the judicial proceedings result in his favor” The Petitioner invokes the Robert’s doctrine. The Robert’s doctrine is derived from King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. II (2015) under a holding provided by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., having held respectively: “[B]ut oftentimes the ‘meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only 3 become evident when placed in context” and in holding ‘[I]f the statutory language is plain, we must enforce it according to its terms’. Placing the nonsuit in context, had the nonsuit been ordered on June 30 2022 the Petitioner would have resumed his duties on the school board. This undoubtingly would be a favorable judicial proceeding for the Petitioner. In this case the Petitioner would have had his compensation returned and be eligible for reimbursement under Virginia Code §24.2-238 for legal and court costs. Whether the Circuit Court Ordered Nonsuit was lawful, a favorable outcome for the Petitioner under Virginia Code §24.2-236, and a violation of the Petitioner’s U.S. Constitutional rights under Amendment XIV (fourteen). As it has deprived the Petitioner of liberties and property without first been given due process.