IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ex rel.

The Concerned Citizens of Petersburg,

an Unincorporated Association, Petitioners,

v. Richmond Circuit Court Case No.: LR2125-3

THE HONORABLE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR.,

CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA, Defendant.

REPLY TO MOTION TO DISMISS ALL CLAIMS AGAINST

CHIEF JUSTICE HASSELL

Comes now the Commonwealth of Virginia, ex rel., The Concerned Citizens of Petersburg, an Unincorporated Association (hereinafter "Concerned Citizens"), by counsel, and in reply to the "Motion to Dismiss All Claims Against Chief Justice Hassell", states as follows:

1. Chief Justice Hassell had moved to dismiss this appeal "to the extent its seeks any relief whatsoever against him in either his individual or official capacity, on the ground that appellants have not assigned as error Judge Markow's ruling that Chief Justice Hassell was never a party to the proceedings of the trial court".

2. It is absolutely true that Chief Justice Hassell was never made a party to the proceedings in the trial court by issuance of the Writ;

3. However, this ruling was specifically made with reference to the consideration of the putative defendant's pleadings, and Judge Markow's ruling on this point was absolutely correct: Chief Justice Hassell had no business filing any pleadings;

4. This raises the question of whether sanctions may be requested under §8.01-271.1 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, where frivolous pleadings have been filed by a person who is not properly a party to the suit. The Concerned Citizens aver that, at least for purposes of §8.01-271.1, a person who claims to be a party by filing pleadings at least becomes a party for purposes of determining whether sanctions under §8.01-271.1 should be applied to him, if for no other purpose. The public policy behind §8.01-271.1 is as appropriately applied to the person who frivolously maintains he is a party as it would be to one who is actually a party and files frivolous pleadings, motions, or papers.

5. Even if the Virginia Supreme Court could not control the actions, errors and omissions of Chief Justice Hassell within the context of this Quo Warranto appeal, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that State Supreme Courts have a "supervisory power" over the administration of justice. While the scope of this power has not been clearly defined, it may be described as an inherent ability of the court to formulate and enforce rules based on "civilized standards of procedure . . ." (see McNab v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 340-341 and United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 733 (1980)). The underlying rationale for existence of this power is twofold - to deter governmental misconduct and to preserve judicial integrity (see Payner at 735-36 n.8.). Among other things, this power has been utilized to impose ethical and professional standards upon prosecutors, and devise sanctions for misconduct by government officials (see United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 181 (1975; Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1, 14 (1956) and United States v. Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207, 1214-17 (7th Cir. 1980); United States v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267, 276 (2d Cir. 1974)).

WHEREFORE, the Concerned Citizens, by counsel, move that the "Motion to Dismiss all Claims Against Chief Justice Hassell" be overruled, and that further, the court take notice of its Supervisory Power over individual Justices in order to award any appropriate sanctions and impose any appropriate ethical guidance for which Virginia Code §8.01-271.1 might be found insufficient.

Respectfully submitted,

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ex rel.

The Concerned Citizen of Petersburg,

an Unincorporated Association

By Counsel

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of was mailed, postage prepaid to Edward M. Macon, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, 900 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, counsel for the Honorable Leroy R. Hassell, Jr., this _____ day of January, 2004.