VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF NORFOLK

ROY L. PERRY-BEY and )

RONADL M. GREEN )
)
vs. ) Docket No.: CL19-3928 (MJH)
)
CITY OF NORFOLK, et al. )

OPENING STATEMENT OF ROONALD M. GREEN

In addressing the legal issue in this case, the Court has to

determine whether the City of Norfolk, Virginia which owe their
origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from the
legislature, is engaging in its “own expressive conduct” or
providing a forum for the Confederacy “hate speech” “white
supremacy” or “religious white supremacy” in violation of law.

The privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. Along
with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, became part of the
Constitution on July 9, 1868.

The Clause states:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States.

By this action, the plaintiffs seeks the following remedies,

A declaratory judgment that the City of Norfolk, Virginia’s

Confederate flag monument’s “speech” or “content” on behalf
of the Confederacy, directed at Plaintiffs, is unconstitutional,
under the First and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of
the Unites States and the Constitution of Virginia, and laws.

The declaratory form of relief created by the statute was

intended to resolve pending or threatened controversies before
the need for coercive intervention was required. Section 1 of
the Act provides, in relevant part:

Any court of the United States, upon the filing of an

appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal
relations of any interested party seeking such declaration,
whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such
declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment
or decree and shall be reviewable as such.

1
The Defendants demurrer, says, even if we admit all you say to
be true, the law affords you no relief or stated another way
defendants objects to proceeding any further in the case until
the court has ruled on whether the plaintiff has stated a claim.

The declaratory relief was clearly intended to offer a milder

alternative to the general injunction remedy. Yet, section 2
of the Act specifies that “[f]urther necessary or proper relief
based upon a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted,
after reasonable notice and hearing, against any adverse party
whose rights have been determined by such judgment.” Such relief
may include damages or injunctive remedies, which are considered
ancillary to the enforcement of the declaratory judgment.

In considering a demurrer, the Court should determine only

whether the pleadings alleges “sufficient facts to constitute
a foundation in law for the judgment sought. In making that
determination, the court accepts as true all facts properly
pleaded and all reasonable and fair inferences that may be
drawn from those facts.

The court is not obligated, to accept as true the defendant’s

legal conclusions. For that matter, the court is not obligated
to consider the defendant’s legal conclusions, even if they are
faulty or omitted.

The Plaintiffs herein, as residents and citizens of the State

of Virginia and as taxpayers with a constituent interest in the
appropriate disposition of public property, have suffered and
continue to suffer injury as result of the illegal use of the
Confederate flag monument and the property on which it is placed
to support and endorse the Confederacy, (“White Supremacy”); and
its message or expression “conveys” regulated private government
hate speech directed at the Plaintiffs. They are inferior to the
White man or race.

The defendants message or expression being conveyed offends the

Plaintiffs religious liberty and equal protection secured by the
First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United State
and the Constitution of Virginia and laws.

The Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality and implication

of Va. Code § 15-2-1812 and Va. Code § 18.2-137, which does not
restrict the removal or relocation of the monument. Therefore,
the defendants is exceeding its authority, in maintaining the
Confederate Flag Monument, is subject to judicial review.

2
It is a general and undisputed proposition of law that a
municipal corporation possesses and can exercise the following
powers, and no others: first, those granted in express words;
second, those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to
the powers expressly granted; third, those essential to the
accomplishment of the declared objects and purposes of the
corporation not simply convenient, but indispensable. Tabler
v. Fairfax County.

Any fair, reasonable, substantial doubt concerning the existence

of power is resolved by the courts against the corporation, and
the power is denied.” (Merriam v Moody’s Executors).

Monday, June 3, 2019

Respectfully Submitted,

MR. RONALD M. GREEN

5540 BARNHOLLOW ROAD
NORFOLK, VA 23502