Whether a state trial court's refusal to recuse itself after a party files a federal civil rights lawsuit against the judge, combined with the issuance of orders allegedly containing false factual findings and the destruction of case records, violates the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and constitutes grounds for declaring those orders void ab initio

No question identified. : Lockhart v. Lockhart @ SCUS Emergency Application For Stay or To Declare Void Ab Initio Page 2 of 13 STATEMENTS OF THE CASE SCV #230360 1) In December 2016, Mrs Lockhart filed for a bed and board divorce on the grounds of cruelty and/or constructive desertion (i.e. false accusations of sexual abuse) while the Lockharts were not separated and the whole family lived in the same home (FXCC CL-2016-17580). No bed and board divorce has been issued to this date. Due to extrinsic fraud and unresolved claims and causes of action, no final order has been issued per SCV Rule 1:1(b). 2) Furthermore, because the divorce proceeding has not been conducted according to law, no final order of absolute divorce can be issued per Virginia Code § 20-121.2. For example, the trial court prevented Mr Lockhart from presenting evidence at several hearings and trials throughout the proceeding in violation of 42 USC 1981. The court failed to ensure the two children have frequent and continuing contact with both parents in violation Va Code § 20-124.2(B). The court received no corroborating evidence of Mrs Lockhart’s grounds for divorce as required by Virginia Code § 20-99(1). The court failed to set the valuation date according to Va Code 20-107.3(A) and this has caused the Lockharts’ million dollar retirement marital asset to be frozen since in 2018 leaving equitable distribution unresolved. These are just some of the clear material substantial violations during the divorce proceeding that demonstrates this case has been a miscarriage of justice. 3) On October 3, 2018, all judges were disqualified soon after Mr Lockhart pointed out most of their extrinsic fraud and due process and equal protection violations in a federal civil rights lawsuit. (Exhibit 1 Order) On October 31, 2018, retired judge Theodore Markow was designated by the Supreme Court of Virginia to resolve the case. (Exhibit 2 Order) 4) On June 4 2019, after continuing misconduct by officers of the trial court, Mr Lockhart engaged in federally protected activity and sued Markow in federal court for serious civil rights violations. As a result of the lawsuit, Markow retaliated by issuing a series of void ab initio orders including a temporary no contact interim order with no expiration date in violation of Virginia Code § 8.01-624. On June 26, 2019, Mr Lockhart moved the trial court to suspend the no contact order pending an appeal. (Exhibit 3 Motion) On July 9, 2019, Markow refused to recuse himself due to the pending lawsuit. (Exhibit 4 Order) On August 9, 2019, Markow and the court refused to suspend enforcement of the temporary no contact order and an unauthorized arrest warrant. (Exhibit 5 Order) On August 30, 2019, Markow signed an order that contained multiple false statements of facts and law. (Exhibit 6 Order) 5) Markow abandoned the case after issuing these orders. Markow did not resolve all the claims and causes of action of the case, including claims of frozen Lockhart v. Lockhart @ SCUS Emergency Application For Stay or To Declare Void Ab Initio Page 3 of 13 marital assets, claims of extrinsic fraud, among others. Since June 2019, Mr Lockhart reported Markow’s racist retaliating conduct to the FBI. (Exhibit 7 FBI complaint) Mr Lockhart believes some state or federal investigator or prosecutor has warned Markow not to return to Fairfax to have anything to do with this case. 6) On September 13 2022, the trial court issued a notice to destroy parts of the record and the notice falsely declared a final order was entered on November 23, 2020. (Exhibit 8 FXCC Notice) On November 14, 2023, Clerk John T. Frey signed a “Final Order” to destroy certain records. (Exhibit 9 Order) Mr Lockhart believes Frey and deputies engaged in criminal obstruction of justice and has since requested state & federal criminal investigations. (Exhibit 10 FXCC Criminal Complaint) 7) On December 14, 2022, Mr Lockhart initiated an appeal in the Court of Appeals of Virginia (CAV) (case