In a Writ of Error Coram Nobis [Invoice] to the Supreme Court of Virginia in an appeal of the decision of that body issued on 3 December 2004, the “insider influence” enterprise of Havrilak, as a Substitute Judge, with another judge on the bench of the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, extensively detailed the violation of Civil Rights by attorney Sandra Havrilak accomplished by exploiting her connections as a Substitute Judge, on behalf of her client Troy Deel, and for her own financial gain by “churned” legal fees. Sanctions under Virginia Code 8.01-271.1 have been demanded in documents filed with the Courts.
Havrilak and Zuckerman form an enterprise that has used their joint influence with an entity of the Commonwealth to violate the rights of Plaintiff Veronique Wyvell. Fairfax Medical Malpractice attorney, David Duff and his colleague, Benjamin Smith, gave the Plaintiff two Supreme Court cases when they discussed with the Plaintiff ethical infractions and malpractice perpetrated against Plaintiff Wyvell by court appointed William Zuckerman. In court Havrilak said she had worked with Zuckerman before [Watt v. Watt]. Also Duff’s law office gave one Supreme Court case from CaseFinder on legal malpractice to cite regarding the abuse of rights of Plaintiff Wyvell by attorney Havrilak.
In over four years Zuckerman has committed an ongoing “Obstruction of Justice” by refusal to release to registered nurse Wyvell the raw test data, which could validate -- or invalidate -- his insider influenced and corrupt evaluation submitted to the court, as APA Ethics Guidelines recommend. Zuckerman’s refusal strongly suggests his invalid evaluation. Havrilak has exploited his Obstruction.
Further, psychologist Zuckerman, in the process of his own messy divorce where his daughters did not wish to speak with him, spoke a Sexual Innuendo to Plaintiff Wyvell at the outset of an interview. The sexual innuendo made her extremely uneasy near him during office visits. It constitutes Sexual Abuse by Zuckerman that is a violation of APA Professional Ethics Guidelines, further rendering invalid his “work”.
In Lohr v. Larsen, 246 Va. 81, 431 S.E.2d 642 (1993) the cancerous spread and overuse and misuse of Sovereign Immunity was noted by Justice Hassell, joined by Justice Keenan, who in dissent write:
“Today, the majority expands the scope of sovereign immunity to include licensed physicians who practice in state health clinics. As a result of the majority’s decision, indigent persons who receive negligent health care from such physicians have no remedy in tort against them.”
.........Further, Justice Hassell writes in the 1993 Lohr decision:
“In James, just as here, the physicians argued that they enjoyed the cloak of sovereign immunity and, thus, were immune from a lawsuit…”
The “cloak of sovereign immunity” does not apply to Zuckerman or Havrilak.
In Atkinson v. Sachno, 261 Va. 278, 541 S.E.2d 902 (2001) while Justice Hassell was absent, the court wrote an opinion that establishes the standing for Plaintiff Wyvell to bring a Tort against independent contractors Zuckerman and Havrilak. Deel is their client, an individual with business and political influence who has damaged the Plaintiff:
“So that no doubt will exist on that issue, we expressly hold that while some employees or agents of the Commonwealth may be entitled to the protection of sovereign immunity, all independent contractors are excluded from that protection.”
William Zuckerman, a licensed clinical psychologist, is an independent contractor and thereby is excluded from protection from Tort Liability for his “professional”, or “medical” malpractice. Any false claim of his or claim by his lawyer for the citizen-abusive-concept of Sovereign Immunity that in practice shields “state actors” who abuse and violate the rights of innocent citizens, such as Zuckerman has done with many, many women, is unwarranted and subject to further court action at the federal level.
In Adkins v. Dixon, 253 Va. 275, 482 S. E. 2d 797 (1997) the Supreme Court of Virginia said:
“[7] Nor do we agree with the defendant’s contention that sufficient control is found in Dixon’s “status as an officer of the Court” and by the “Code of Professional Responsibility, as administered by [Page 281] the State Bar…”
“[8] For these reasons, we conclude that there is no such immunity in these cases. Therefore, the court erred in sustaining a plea of immunity.”
Plaintiff Wyvell and countless other victims of legal malpractice and legal abuse sanctionable under Virginia Code 8.01-271.1 find the above quotation from the Supreme Court a breath of fresh air because the justices’ words serve as tacit acknowledgement that the Virginia State Bar has failed to “self-police” its lawyer members. Virginia Courts need to step up and protect the public with “271.1” sanctions against abusive attorneys like Sandra Havrilak.
Havrilak exploits her position as a Substitute Judge to have a court colleague approve her “churning” of legal fees. Havrilak then writes the order for that judge, on her own legal stationery in a brazen act of arrogance, setting the bond amount against Plaintiff Wyvell near exactly equal ($7862.00 vs. $7862.17 vs. $7862.50) to her excessive, “churned” legal fees. This action of Substitute Judge Havrilak endorsed by her colleague Judge Thacher through his signature is a Violation of the Constitutional Rights of Plaintiff Wyvell guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment protecting citizens, that reads “Excessive bail shall not be…”
The irregular bond amount of $7862.00 has no relation to a simple guarantee of the appearance of Plaintiff Wyvell in Court, which is the sole rightful purpose of bail. It is remunerative for Substitute Judge Havrilak, and punitive against Plaintiff Wyvell.
In this case, attorney Havrilak is protected by neither Sovereign Immunity as a sometimes court paid Guardian Ad Litem, or by Judicial Immunity as a sometimes court paid Substitute Judge. The Code of Professional Responsibility and its underlying ethics lay lost, buried deep under Havrilak’s financial gain by excessive legal bills.
In May 1999, Judge Carr of the Fairfax County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court signed an order awarding sole physical custody of daughter Brigitte to Plaintiff Wyvell. Brigitte is also the daughter of Defendant Troy Deel. Judge Carr’s Order was appealed to the Fairfax County Circuit Court, whereupon Havrilak entered the case, a conflict of interest because she also serves as a Substitute Judge in that very same court.
The Fairfax Bar Journal, Fall/Winter 2004 issue, on page 6 has an Interview with a newly appointed judge, the Honorable Mitchell I. Mutnick. His commentary is pertinent to the abuse of power and position by Substitute Judge Havrilak:
“Substitute judging made my practice more difficult….Subbing also forced me to make my practice more restrictive, because I felt it was inappropriate to practice and sub in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.”
Havrilak has not regulated herself in the ethical manner exemplified by Judge Mutnick.
The Virginia State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct in the PREAMBLE: A LAWYER’S RESPONSIBILITIES, reads in part:
The legal profession is largely self-governing. Although other professions also have been granted powers of self-government, the legal profession is unique in this respect because of the close relationship between the profession and the processes of government and law enforcement. This connection is manifested in the fact that ultimate authority over the legal profession is vested largely in the courts.
Havrilak has not “self-governed” herself in an ethical manner, or even a legal manner.
The Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission posts Judicial Canons. Judicial CANON 2: “A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities.” and CANON 6: “Judges pro tempore, retired judges, and substitute judges are required to comply with the Canons.” have been violated by both Judges Thacher and Havrilak. A jury in a federal case would likely decide there was a violation of judicial ethics, and violation of Constitutional Rights.
The Virginia Constitution Article VI, Section 10 reads in part:
“If the Supreme Court after the hearing on the complaint finds that the judge has engaged in misconduct while in office, … or that he has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice, it shall censure him or shall remove him from office…” (Bold and underline added for emphasis.)
This Virginia Constitution requirement applies to both Judge Thacher and Substitute Judge Havrilak.
Havrilak manipulated circumstances in the Circuit Court where she also sits on the bench to the disastrous disadvantage of Plaintiff Wyvell, and adverse to the Best Interests of the Child, her daughter Brigitte. With the agreement of Havrilak, on 16 February 2000 Zuckerman was appointed as Forensic Child Custody Evaluator. After Zuckerman’s sexual overture in an initial interview was ignored by Plaintiff Wyvell, he testified in September 2000, adverse to Plaintiff Wyvell, recommending Child Custody be transferred to the father, Defendant Deel.
Shocked by Zuckerman’s testimony in the Circuit Court and concerned it was in retaliation for his sexual advance being spurned by her, Registered Nurse Wyvell asked for the raw test data, and has continued to ask for the test data for over four years from Psychologist Zuckerman.
Zuckerman continues to violate APA Professional Guidelines by refusing to release the test data. The Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers in vol. 18, 2002, page 58 under “III. Psychological Testing” says,
“Moreover, the objective data generated by the psychological tests can balance the bias and potential errors inherent in clinical interview data.”
In his custody report, Zuckerman also recommended “psychotherapy”, so the judge ordered a “treatment plan” based on Zuckerman’s evaluation and recommendation, which by concealment of test data strongly suggests bias, errors, and fraud in the Courts.
Havrilak then continued to exploit this corrupt, sexually abusive psychologist - client relationship with the unfounded demand for a “treatment plan”. In the absence of a plan, Havrilak used her colleagues on the Circuit Court, in ruling after ruling, to reduce the parenting time of Plaintiff Wyvell and deny summer vacation time by the false claim of her refusal to comply with a (non-existent) treatment plan, thereby harassing Plaintiff Wyvell to desperation, dejection and depletion of financial resources.
Then Havrilak used Plaintiff Wyvell’s exhaustion to have her jailed -- a victim of the vexatious litigation engineered by attorney / substitute judge Havrilak.
Havrilak’s colleague Judge Thacher hand wrote “CASH ONLY” on the CAPIAS he signed for the excessive bail amount demanded. That bond was posted by Chris Wyvell, the brother of Plaintiff Wyvell. The Fairfax Court then violated its Contractual requirements with Chris Wyvell per DC-330 Surety Bond Form by confiscating his Surety Bond, stealing from one citizen to pay the legal fees of Substitute Judge Havrilak. The bond amount that should have been properly returned to Chris Wyvell is now the subject of a Writ Of Error Corum Nobis to the Virginia Supreme Court.
With the expressed ideal of the Virginia State Bar being that lawyers in the Commonwealth of Virginia are “self-governing”, the Plaintiff submits this Tort case to Virginia judges who are also lawyers of Virginia, for compensation for damages suffered, and a punitive award against a lawyer, Sandra Havrilak.
Additional damages have been suffered due to the actions of a court appointed custody evaluator, William Zuckerman, and by the initiator of the actions, Troy Deel.
The statewide reputation of psychologist Zuckerman from his leading role in the Supreme Court and Virginia State Bar funded factually deceptive video “Spare The Child”, influences an “enterprise” or “corrupt organization” of attorney / Judge Havrilak in league with Zuckerman, which likely caused over thirty (30) local lawyers and one in Richmond whom Plaintiff Wyvell contacted to decline to assist her with this case.
...
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
It is the Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief...this case will be wisely decided at the state level under Virginia Code 8.01-428, this Motion for Relief of Judgments of the Circuit Court of Fairfax County is also a Writ of Mandamus for a return to the Status Quo Ante, with the reasonable, right, and proper May 1999 custody decision of Judge Carr of the Fairfax County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court that is Sole Physical Custody of the child with the natural mother, nurse, church nursery attendant, pre-school teacher’s assistant, and Plaintiff Veronique Wyvell.
The alternative to an unjust decision in Fairfax Circuit Court is filing of a 42 USC 1983 Civil Rights Violation lawsuit in federal court. The United States Department of Justice intervened in the case of Annette Greco Litman v. George Mason University (4th Circuit 98-1472), and with a Pro Se plaintiff, Gloria Willingham v. Crooke, et al v. Fairfax County (4th Circuit 00-2053-A).
Substantial financial damages (over $94,000.00 US dollars) have been suffered by Plaintiff Wyvell. Untold pain and suffering justify, in addition, a punitive award against Zuckerman and Havrilak for damages. Enumeration of the financial harm is given below:
Attorney Gold ... $ 3000.00
Attorney Plevy ... $ 30,000.00
Attorney Havrilak ... $ 2500.00
Attorney Barondess ... $ 27,000.00
Attorney Schiller ... $ 450.00
Psychologist Zuckerman ... $ 6500.00
Psychologist Samenow ... $ 1700.00
Psychiatrist Novello ... $ 5000.00
Psychologist Koch ... $ 1500.00
Psychologist Eabon ... $ 250.00
Psychologist Pearlman ... $ 600.00
Surety Bond ... $ 7862.00
Attorney Hirsch ... $ 8000.00 [ Appendix / Brief / Petition ]
... ... (rough) $ 94,362.00 Financial Damages suffered by Plaintiff
(Above are approximate amounts, the Sheriff on a Writ from the Court can determine the precise amounts, and total amount of financial harm suffered by the Plaintiff Wyvell.):
And the above financial damages do not represent the hours upon hours and hours of the Plaintiff’s time required for research, writing, and court appearances. The mere listing of the many “professionals” involved suggests a measure of the unnecessary pain and suffering experienced by Plaintiff Wyvell caused by attorney Havrilak’s exploitation of her “insider influence” as a substitute judge. The “racketeering” within the “enterprise” of Havrilak and Zuckerman, who both used their considerable insider influence has contributed to the corruption of the organization known as the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, to the serious detriment of Plaintiff Wyvell and her minor child.
Respectfully submitted,
Veronique Wyvell
Plaintiff, Pro Se
7831 Enola Street, #TA7
McLean, VA 22102
...
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that true copies of the foregoing were served as follows on this 16th day of December 2004:
-- By facsimile and mail, postage prepaid, to WILLIAM ZUCKERMAN, psychologist, Fax: 703-764-3068, 8987 Cotswold Drive, Burke, VA 22015
-- By facsimile and mail, postage prepaid, to SANDRA HAVRILAK, lawyer and Substitute Judge, Fax: 703-591-4847, 9900 Main Street, Suite 500, Fairfax, VA 22031
-- By mail, postage prepaid, to TROY DEEL, client of Havrilak and Zuckerman, 19959 Palmer Classic Parkway, Ashburn, VA 20147
Veronique Wyvell
Plaintiff, Pro Se
7831 Enola Street, #TA7
McLean, VA 22102
...
Exhibit A
In the Circuit Court of Fairfax County CASE NO. CH162281
Wyvell v. Zuckerman, Havrilak, and Deel
EXTRACTS OF PETITIONS FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES ON ATTORNEY HARASSMENT AND SUBSTITUTE JUDGE INSIDER INFLUENCE ABUSE
§ 8.01-271.1. Signing of pleadings, motions, and other papers; oral motions; sanctions.
Every pleading, written motion, and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in his individual name,…
The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that (i) he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper, (ii) to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and (iii) it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. …
If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed or made in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed the paper or made the motion, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper or making of the motion, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
(1987, cc. 259, 682; 1998, c. 596.)
1) To: Substitute Judge / Attorney Sandra Havrilak, Fairfax County Circuit Court, ltr from Veronique Wyvell dated 6 May 2003, reads in part:
“Here is my reaction to your 1 May letter: Troy was properly served with notice of my motion via fax, first class mail, and hand-delivery. He has once again simply lied to you.”
“Courthouse records show you never filed a notice of withdrawal to end your legal representation of Troy.”
“…because I can’t stand a judge who goes red in the face at the drop of a hat and loses his temper in a courtroom full of people.”
“And, if you manage a successful motion to quash, don’t expect me to pay your fees…
“I’ve been trying for over four years to resolve the matter…”
This Petition letter addresses harassment, delay and increases in cost of litigation.
2) To: Chief Judge Michael McWeeny, Fairfax County Circuit Court, ltr from Veronique Wyvell dated 14 May 2003, reads in part:
“Opposition by Ms. Sandra Havrilak to random judging even for five minute motions is annoying me. She is the attorney for the plaintiff, Mr. Troy Deel; I am the defendant and the mother of Brigitte who is at the center of this custody dispute. I am trying my best to handle small problems on my own because these matters are urgent and more than thirty lawyers in this town have declined to accept my case.”
“Bickering by Ms. Havrilak over who should be our judge and now her squabbling over who should be our custody evaluator have deadlocked my case. I hope to have your reply before my motion in late May…”
This Petition letter addresses harassment, delay and increases in cost of litigation.
3) To: Substitute Judge / Attorney Sandra Havrilak, Fairfax County Circuit Court, ltr from Veronique Wyvell dated 30 May 2003, reads in part:
“You have the arrogance to insist you cannot find satisfaction with Dr. Samenow’s diagnostic summaries because they show the absence of mental disease, causing you to question the doctor’s integrity. You picked him.”
“You then have the audacity to obligate me to:
(1) the financing of Dr. Samenow’s reinvolvement when the treatment plan you seek is obviously non-existent,
(2) a Motion to Compel when the treatment plan you seek is obviously non-existent,
(3) a three hour trial when the treatment plan you seek is obviously non-existent, and
(4) paying you for defending Troy Deel when the treatment plan you seek is obviously non-existent.”
“Because you bungled your effort to get rid of William Zuckerman to coverup his many mistakes including his misdiagnosis of me and his defective recommendation that I get psychotherapy our custody evaluator is also non-existent, complicating my full compliance with our custody order.”
“Congratulations for inventing the perverted basis for your July trial.”
“I am astounded by your relentless misuse of the law to abuse me and to harass me and to bring me down morally and financially. You already deserve sanctioning for barging in on my relationship with Dr. Samenow last spring…”
“…forcing me to report you and your misconduct to the Virginia State Bar, complicating once again my compliance with our custody order.”
“cc: …Chief Judge Michael McWeeny”
This Petition letter addresses harassment, delay and increases in cost of litigation.
4) To: Substitute Judge / Attorney Sandra Havrilak, Fairfax County Circuit Court, ltr from Veronique Wyvell dated 14 June 2003, reads in part:
“Allow me to make another good faith effort to explain my position on your refusal for two consecutive years now to allow my daughter to have summer vacation visitation with me in light of your notice today of more bad faith litigation against me for July:…”
“…and Fairfax lawyers, with the exception of Mr. Cottrell, protect “Bill” by giving him special treatment when the FBI claims I have a class action malpractice suit against the impostor.” [“Bill” refers to William Zuckerman, court appointed psychologist who was used by Havrilak to render a custody evaluation adverse to Veronique Wyvell]
“cc: The Honorable Michael McWeeny, Chief Judge, Fairfax Circuit Court”
This Petition letter addresses harassment, delay and increases in cost of litigation.
5) To: John Frey, Clerk, Fairfax County Circuit Court, ltr from Veronique Wyvell dated 15 August 2003, reads in part:
“For the record and in reference to the motion against me set for 29 August 2003, I refuse to represent myself and lawyers refuse my case.”
“Mental impairment and physical impairment in Mark Barondess and William Zuckerman during their involvement with my case seriously jeopardized due process of law for me.”
“…and I am forwarding to Judge Thacher, Judge McWeeny, and Sandra Havrilak the materials under review by the American Psychological Association for ethical violations by Dr. Zuckerman.”
“Considering the crippled condition of my case which is entirely beyond my control the subpoena forcing my court presence on the 29th only to be disparaged even more than I already have been is reprehensible.”
“cc: The Honorable Michael McWeeny, Chief Judge”
This Petition letter addresses harassment, delay and increases in cost of litigation.
6) To: Tom Davis, United States Congressman, ltr from Veronique Wyvell dated 22 August 2003, reads in part:
“Please advise the courts of Fairfax, Virginia to stop abusing me. I am a non-offending mother. Instead of giving me the retrial I deserve, they are badgering me, indeed terrorizing me,…”
“I hope for relief from constant disparagement by barbaric courts infected with warped judging, malicious repetitive litigation meant to harass, and fraudulent custody evaluations by a corrupt child psychologist named William Zuckerman.”
“cc: The Honorable Michael McWeeny, Chief Judge
The Honorable Jonathan Thacher, Judge
John Frey, Clerk of the Court
Sandra Havrilak, Attorney at Law”
This Petition letter addresses harassment, delay and increases in cost of litigation.*
*Please see also the October 6, 2003 cover letter of Attorney / Substitute Judge Sandra Havrilak, which self-incriminates her with regard to the above Petitions, and her billing of $7862.17 from May 19, 2003 to July 10, 2003 (on the two pages that follow).
888 Related Links 888
“APPENDIX III VSC Jan05”
http://www.box.net/shared/v3dp63fxd0
“Capias +Order Thacher 26Sep03”
http://www.box.net/shared/7g32d91v2c“‘Dear Mr. Robelen’ ChiefDeputyClerk VSC 2Feb05”
http://www.box.net/shared/l98kobaajg
...
“‘Dear Mr. Robelen’ ChiefDeputyClerk VSC 11Feb05”
http://www.box.net/shared/y1fl0rxp13
...
“‘Dear Mr. Robelen’ ChiefDeputyClerk VSC 25Feb05”
http://www.box.net/shared/r3jrzd6zpk
“Decision (in Bowman) VSC 3Dec04”
http://www.box.net/shared/i0c22csct2
“Decision (in Wyvell) VSC 3Dec04”
http://www.box.net/shared/jg69tj6rcx“Esq. David A. Hirsch ‘Appendix’ VSC”
http://www.box.net/shared/q3o7qlbhq7“Esq. David A. Hirsch ‘Opening Brief of Appellant’ VSC”
http://www.box.net/shared/7gdtu4gaph“Esq. David A. Hirsch ‘Petition for Appeal’ VSC”
http://www.box.net/shared/a4ylqy19ni“Invoice Havrilak 6Oct03”
http://www.box.net/shared/rhcn6fr5c1
...
“MOTION Leave to Amend VSC 11Feb05”
http://www.box.net/shared/j6xvdxlv8b“MOTION Restore Appellee Havrilak VSC Feb05”
http://www.box.net/shared/aiyjkhvtg6“MOTION Restyle Case VSC Feb05”
http://www.box.net/shared/1ix149rvar“MOTION Substitute Docs 1of2 VSC 11Feb05”
http://www.box.net/shared/g9ym0sm9ym“MOTION Substitute Docs 2of2 VSC 25Feb05”
http://www.box.net/shared/3y9sugm5ex“REHEARING Petition Amended VSC 19Jan05”
http://www.box.net/shared/ymh6isij2z“REHEARING Petition Reduced VSC 25Feb05”
http://www.box.net/shared/3s3gyxhhvl
“STATEMENT OF FACTS (by Miss Wyvell) VSC Feb05”
http://www.box.net/shared/6xxr3ahzz9
“TORT +ExA +Inv Wyvell 16Dec04”
http://www.box.net/shared/tbcjupp1l0“WRIT ErrorCoramNobis +Ap2 Wyvells 16Dec04”
http://www.box.net/shared/9oyro8ugiz
“Zuckerman & Havrilak in Watt v Watt”
http://www.box.net/shared/4t8pz0yikv
