TO THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN ITS OVERSIGHT AND CONSUMER‑PROTECTION CAPACITIES:

The enclosed forensic materials measure how the Odyssey case-management system recorded writ issuance and sheriff execution in the absence of any docketed judgment for possession, any appeal-trigger event, or any lawful adjudicative predicate in the General District Court record. In parallel, and in the same narrow, record-driven spirit, this cover submission encloses a Pre-Eviction Statutory Notice and Objection Timeline demonstrating that, in the days immediately preceding the February 4, 2026 execution, multiple courts and the Sheriff’s Civil Process Division received formal, statute-anchored notices asking for protection from enforcement on those same predicate defects.

The table is not offered as rhetorical embellishment but as an additional control lens: it shows that the predicate gaps documented in the Odyssey Forensic State Transition Matrix did not occur in a vacuum. A pro se defendant, acting within the limits of his knowledge and health, repeatedly pleaded to this Court and to related authorities for protection—through a hand-delivered multi-track emergency packet to the Circuit Court on January 26, 2026, a fraud-on-the-court and perjury notice to the General District Court on January 30, 2026, and a sequence of sheriff-directed statutory hold and objection filings on February 2 and 3, 2026—before the February 4 execution took place.

Taken together, the forensic record and the timeline illustrate three interlocking facts:

System-level predicate failure: The Odyssey docket reflects writ issuance and execution with an infinite predicate gap—no judgment object for possession, no appeal-period trigger, and no adjudicative order capable of supporting a writ under Virginia law—yet still transitions to an enforcement state.

Institutional notice and statutory invocation: Before execution, the General District Court, the Circuit Court, and the Sheriff’s Office each received written filings invoking specific statutory protections—Va. Code §§ 8.01-428, 8.01-470, 8.01-474, 8.01-476, 55.1-1204(A), 55.1-1415(C), and related perjury and obstruction provisions—supported by closed-loop documentary evidence including cashier’s checks, landlord ledger entries, tenant-rights form status, and the prior judgment abstract.

Parallel protection efforts by a pro se litigant: The Circuit Court emergency packet (appeal, mandamus, injunction, federal-question notice, declaratory judgment), the General District Court fraud-on-the-court submission, and the sheriff-side hold and 72-hour objections show a consistent pattern of a defendant using every accessible channel to assert rights and to request judicial and ministerial protection, even as the system of record continued to show a path from complaint to execution that never lawfully passed through judgment.

The attached table preserves those efforts in neutral, audit-grade form: each row lists the date and time of the filing, the recipient, the title and core content of the document, the statutes invoked, and whether the action appears in Odyssey or only in physical or fax form. Where docketing status is unknown, and where filings may never have been entered into the electronic record, that omission is itself a control issue under Rule 1:12 and a significant part of the oversight question.

This cover submission therefore asks that, in reviewing the primary forensic packet, your offices also:

Treat the Pre-Eviction Statutory Notice and Objection Timeline as a supplemental exhibit for evaluating whether enforcement proceeded not only without a judgment predicate in Odyssey, but also in the face of contemporaneous statutory objections, fraud-on-the-court filings, and a pending Circuit Court emergency injunction request.

Consider whether any internal review to date has examined the handling, routing, docketing, or non-docketing of these filings—particularly the January 26 Circuit multi-track packet, the January 30 General District Court perjury notice under § 8.01-428, and the February 2–3 sheriff holds under §§ 8.01-474 and 55.1-1415(C)—as part of the same control loop that permitted writ execution without a judgment object.

The aim is not to ascribe personal fault, but to ensure that any investigation of the Odyssey-record predicate gap fully accounts for the parallel paper trail in which a pro se tenant, before being removed from his home, invoked specific statutes, presented closed-loop evidence, and expressly sought protection from the very enforcement that the system later recorded as complete.

Respectfully submitted as a supplemental lens on the same events,