IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH

Judge-Facing Exhibit Packet — Mandamus and Odyssey CMS Forensic Demonstration

Rose Hall Apartments LLC v. Thomas D. Coates — Unlawful detainer proceeding sequence and enforcement‑predicate review

Exhibit Index

Exhibit	Description	Purpose
Exhibit A	Certified docket extracts and event timeline (Odyssey / OCIS printouts).	Record anchor showing the presence or absence of judgment, appeal events, and enforcement entries.
Exhibit B	Record Sequence Compliance Matrix (128‑row Forensic State Transition Matrix).	Measures predicate → system output → elapsed‑time delta for each control point.
Exhibit C	Mandamus Element‑to‑Record Map.	Maps the measured record defects to the standard mandamus elements (clear right, clear duty, lack of adequate remedy, and ministerial relief).
Exhibit D	Odyssey CMS Audit Checklist (64 control tests).	Fieldwork instrument for obtaining logs, user IDs, timestamps, workflow‑control and override evidence from Odyssey and related systems.
Exhibit E	Timestamp anchors (01/13/2026 09:14; 02/04/2026 08:30; 03/10/2026).	Fixed points for elapsed‑time calculations and for demonstrating negative‑delta sequence inversions between judgment, writ, and execution.

Jurisdictional Anchor and Limited Relief Statement

Filing Clarification — Circuit Court Civil Jurisdiction Only

To: Clerk of the Circuit Court, City of Virginia Beach, for presentation to the Court in its civil jurisdiction.

This packet is submitted in a mandamus‑style posture focused on ministerial process integrity, not on re‑litigating the merits of the underlying unlawful detainer controversy or asking this Court to re‑weigh discretionary judicial decisions made in the General District Court. It is structured to permit the Court to see, in a compact way, how the Odyssey case‑management system recorded state transitions in this matter, and whether those transitions respected the basic statutory sequence of judgment, appeal opportunity, and only then lawful writ issuance and execution.

Under Virginia’s unlawful detainer framework, a writ of eviction or possession is tied to a judgment for possession, and the defendant’s ten‑day appeal period must expire before the sheriff may lawfully dispossess a residential tenant. The exhibits assembled here are designed to show, from the court’s own records, that in the referenced matters the system recorded writ‑level issuance and sheriff execution in the absence of any docketed judgment object for possession, any triggered appeal‑period sequence, or any adjudicative order capable of supporting enforcement.

The relief implicitly framed by these materials is correspondingly narrow. It concerns ministerial corrections within the Court’s supervisory reach — including, as appropriate, vacatur or nullification of ultra vires writ‑issuance entries, correction and clarification of docket state to reflect the actual adjudicative record, and preservation and production of Odyssey configuration, audit logs, and workflow‑control evidence necessary for independent oversight review.

Nothing in this packet seeks damages, sanctions, or any finding of personal fault against judicial officers. The focus is on whether ministerial and automated processes respected the non‑discretionary predicates that Virginia law imposes as conditions for eviction‑level enforcement, and on ensuring that similarly situated pro se and low‑income litigants are not exposed to dispossession where the record never lawfully ripens into an enforceable judgment for possession.

How to Read the Attached Exhibits

Exhibit A supplies the certified docket and event timeline that anchors all subsequent analysis; it is the authoritative statement of what the Odyssey system records as having occurred, and in what order. Exhibits B, C, and D are derived, non‑argumentative tools that translate that record into control‑language suitable for auditors, inspectors general, and systems‑governance personnel.

Exhibit B walks through 128 discrete control rows, each comparing a required predicate (for example, existence of a judgment object or appeal‑period trigger) with the actual system output and an elapsed‑time delta.
Exhibit C then maps the same measured defects onto the familiar mandamus elements, confining any requested relief to ministerial correction and record preservation.
Exhibit D provides a checklist of 64 fieldwork steps that any oversight office can use to obtain and test the underlying Odyssey audit data without relying on this litigant’s characterization.
Exhibit E fixes the critical timestamps that convert narrative concern into measurable sequence inversion, including the issuance of writs before any merits hearing and the execution of those writs prior to the scheduled hearing date.

Taken together, this Judge‑Facing Exhibit Packet is intended to give the Court a compact, neutral way to see the same problem three ways: from the docket itself, from a system‑control perspective, and from a narrowly tailored mandamus lens that respects the limits of this Court’s role and remedies.