TO THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN ITS OVERSIGHT AND CONSUMER‑PROTECTION CAPACITIES:
This correspondence is submitted as a follow-up to the previously transmitted forensic packet concerning Odyssey case-management sequencing, writ issuance, and eviction-level enforcement in the absence of any docketed judgment for possession or triggered appeal window. It is framed in the same discipline and jurisdictionally anchored posture as the original submission: not as a rhetorical objection to a landlord–tenant outcome, but as a structured invocation of oversight authority over ministerial acts, record integrity, and process design in a state-managed court system.
The initial packet demonstrated, using the court’s own outputs, that the Odyssey docket in the referenced General District Court matters records writ issuance on January 13, 2026 and sheriff execution on February 4, 2026, even though no judgment object for possession, no appeal-trigger event, and no lawful adjudicative predicate ever appear in the system of record prior to those enforcement acts. The 128-row Forensic State Transition Matrix and the 64-step Odyssey CMS Audit Checklist were deliberately constructed so that an auditor, judge, or investigator could verify that sequence directly from certified docket extracts, writ records, and execution timestamps, without having to rely on this litigant’s narrative.
- To reaffirm that the relief sought is narrowly ministerial: vacatur or nullification of ultra vires writ-issuance entries, correction of docket state to align with the actual adjudicative record, and preservation and production of Odyssey configuration and audit logs necessary for independent review.
- To highlight that the structural defects identified—negative-delta execution before any merits hearing; writ-level enforcement where the “judgment” predicate is measured as ∞ (never occurring)—are not idiosyncratic grievances but system-level failure modes with direct implications for low-income and pro se tenants statewide.
- To request confirmation that an active, documented investigation of the identified control gaps and workflow exposures has begun, including assignment of responsibility, preservation of electronic evidence, and a timeline for remedial recommendations.
- To ensure that parallel notice to other custodians (the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission, the General District and Circuit Courts, the State Inspector General, and designated media custodians) is understood not as an attempt to inflame public sentiment, but as a safeguard against further concealment, data loss, or retaliatory process.
In parallel with the forensic work summarized above, the defendant undertook repeated, statute‑anchored efforts to obtain protection from the very enforcement path that the Odyssey record now reflects. In the days leading up to the February 4, 2026 execution, filings were delivered to the General District Court, the Circuit Court, and the Virginia Beach Sheriff’s Civil Process Division invoking, among other provisions, Va. Code §§ 8.01‑428, 8.01‑470, 8.01‑474, 8.01‑476, 55.1‑1204(A), and 55.1‑1415(C, and enclosing closed‑loop evidence of perjury, tenant‑rights defects, and the absence of any lawful judgment predicate.
Those filings—including a hand‑delivered multi‑track emergency packet to the Circuit Court on January 26, 2026, a fraud‑on‑the‑court notice to the General District Court on January 30, 2026, and statutory hold and objection notices to Sheriff Civil Process on February 2 and 3, 2026—are organized in the attached Pre‑Eviction Statutory Notice and Objection Timeline. The table is not offered as argument, but as an additional control lens: it shows that a pro se defendant was actively pleading to this Court and related authorities for protection on the same predicate defects that the Odyssey Forensic State Transition Matrix now measures from the system’s own outputs.
The undisputed structural fact set, as organized in the Mandamus Control Map and narrative, remains the same: a complaint was docketed and set for a March 10, 2026 merits hearing; no judgment for possession or adjudicative order authorizing enforcement was ever entered prior to January 13, 2026; writs of possession/eviction were nonetheless generated at 09:14 a.m. on January 13, 2026; a Motion to Quash was filed on January 22, 2026 without any recorded stay, ruling, or suspension; and sheriff execution was recorded on February 4, 2026, approximately thirty-four days before the scheduled merits hearing date.
Within a mandamus-style framework, those measurements translate into a narrow but profound question: did ministerial officers (clerk and sheriff) perform enforcement acts in the absence of the non-discretionary statutory predicates that must exist first, and did the Odyssey CMS configuration, validation rules, and override controls permit or facilitate that breach. The matrix rows reflecting ∞ predicate gaps (no judgment, no appeal trigger, no lawful parent object) and negative deltas (execution before adjudication) are not argumentative rhetoric; they are control-language signals that the enforcement state was achieved in a database environment that never lawfully transitioned into an “enforcement-eligible” posture.
Accordingly, in the same carefully limited vein as the original packet, I respectfully renew and sharpen the following requests:
That your office (or the appropriate designated oversight body) confirm, in writing, whether an internal Odyssey workflow and audit review has been opened on the specific sequence documented in Exhibits A–E, including identification of the custodial entity responsible for preserving configuration files, audit logs, foreign-key rules, and validation settings for the period spanning case creation through sheriff execution.
That you state whether, as a matter of current policy, any Virginia Odyssey deployment is allowed to issue writs of possession or eviction in unlawful detainer matters without a linked judgment object, appeal-period calculation, or judicial authorization event, and if not, whether the January 13, 2026 events are being treated as an incident reportable to system-governance leadership.
That you indicate whether provisional remedial guidance—such as a temporary rule requiring manual confirmation of a judgment object and appeal expiry before any UD writ can be generated—has been or will be disseminated pending completion of a full control audit.
That you confirm preservation of all Odyssey, clerk-station, and sheriff-interface logs relevant to the issuance and execution events at the timestamps identified in Exhibit E (including 01/13/2026 09:14 and 02/04/2026 08:30), and that no data-retention policy will be allowed to purge those materials before independent review is complete.
The lived consequences of the sequence defect are already visible: a tenant was dispossessed from his home under color of writs that, within the system of record, never lawfully ripened from a judgment for possession or an expired appeal period. Yet the core inquiry placed before you remains impersonal and systemic: whether the jurisdictional architecture that governs writ issuance and sheriff enforcement retained its lawful shape once implemented through automated workflows, or whether the platform silently allowed enforcement to detach from adjudication in ways that disproportionately burden unrepresented, economically vulnerable litigants who cannot themselves interrogate system logs.
If your office has already taken specific actions in response to the original forensic submission—such as initiating an internal investigation, coordinating with the courts’ administrative leadership, or engaging independent systems auditors—this follow-up letter is intended to sit in that same record as a concise restatement of the problem definition, the evidentiary posture, and the limited, ministerial relief sought. If no such steps have yet been taken, this letter respectfully urges that the documented pattern not be left to fade as an individual hardship, but be treated as an opportunity to repair a narrow yet foundational segment of Virginia’s eviction-enforcement machinery.
I remain ready to supplement the record with sworn declarations, technical detail, or additional documentation, and to coordinate as needed to ensure that the forensic materials already submitted can be ingested into whatever investigative or audit tools your office employs.
With respect for the institutions addressed, and in the conviction that transparent, sequence-based measurement is the most reliable path to remediation, I have the honor to remain,
Respectfully submitted,