VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF NORFOLK

ROY L. PERRY-BEY and

RONALD M. GREEN

Plaintiffs,
vs. Docket No.: CL19-3928 (MJH)

CITY OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA

NORFOLK CITY COUNCIL
MARK R. HERRING
KENNETH COOPER ALEXANDER
MARTIN A. THOMAS, JR.,
PAUL R. RIDDICK
THOMAS R. SMIGIEL
ANGELA WILLIAMS GRAVES
MAMIE B. JOHNSON
ANDRIA P. MCCLELLAN
COURTNEY DOYLE
DOUGLAS SMITH
RICHARD A. BULL
BERNARD A. PISHKO
ADAM D. MELITA and
HEATHER ANN MULLEN, In their Official Capacities.

Defendants.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Comes now Plaintiffs, and represent to this Honorable Court as follows, incorporating by
reference the exhibits to the Complaint filed April 26, 2019, and Preliminary Injunction filed
April 29, 2019, petitions this Court to declare that the activities in which Defendants, City of
Norfolk, Norfolk City Council, and the Attorney General, by, through, the Commonwealth
of Virginia (“Defendants”) has engaged, is engaging, constitute violations of Plaintiffs rights
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Constitution of Virginia and the Constitution of the United States,
and laws; and challenges the implication of Va. Code § 15-2-1812 et seq., and Va. Code § 18.2-
137 et seq., applicability “(if any”), to the City of Norfolk; to enjoin these violations and to
award Plaintiffs expenses, and to grant such other relief that this Complaint request.
Jurisdiction
(1). The Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk has authority to entertain this action and grant the
relief requested under the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, § 42 U.S.C. 1983,Va.

1
Code § 8.01-6.3, Va. Code § 8.01. 195.6, Va. Code § 8.01-229, § 8.01-620, and Va. Code § 15.2-
1404, this Complaint concerns the City’s public Confederate monument its “speech” promoting
(“Confederacy”) which was erected in the City of Norfolk a “municipality” in 1889 located on
busy Commercial Place, at the gateway for the ferries running between Norfolk and Portsmouth.
The Confederate monument is not a monument to a war, conflict, engagement, or war veterans.
It is a monument of historical significance to the outlawed “treasonous” Confederate States of
America (“White Supremacy”).
Parties
(2). That Plaintiff Roy L. Perry-Bey (hereinafter “Perry-Bey”) is a resident of the City of
Newport News, Virginia and citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia. He is a registered
voter in the City of Newport News. He utilizes and enjoys downtown Norfolk and has
undertaken a ‘special burden’ or has altered his behavior to avoid direct and unwelcome
contact with the offensive Confederate monument, during their business or visits to downtown.
(3). That Plaintiff Ronald M. Green, (hereinafter “Green”) is a resident of the City of Norfolk,
Virginia, and citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia. He is a registered voter in the City of
Norfolk. He utilizes and enjoys downtown Norfolk and has undertaken a ‘special burden’ or has
altered his behavior to avoid direct and unwelcome contact with the offensive Confederate
monument, during his business or visits to downtown.
(4). That Defendant City of Norfolk, Virginia (hereinafter “City”) is a municipal corporation
and political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The City owns the Confederate
Standard-Bearer statute, Confederate monument, and public right away, under § 15.2-2001
(5). That Defendant Norfolk City Council (hereinafter “City Council”) is the governing body
of the City. Its powers are conferred by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
(6). That Defendant is Mark R. Herring, Attorney General of Virginia, by, through, and at the
relation of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
(7). That Defendants, Alexander, Thomas, Jr., Riddick, Smigiel, Graves, Johnson, McClellan and
Doyle are members of the City Council.
(8). That Defendant, Douglas Smith, is the Norfolk City Manager.
(9). That Richard A. Bull, is the Norfolk City Clerk.
(10). That Defendants, Pishko, Melita, Mullen, and all others are members of the City Attorney’s
Office.

2
 Monuments and War Memorials
(11). That a Resolution adopted by the Common Council dated June 14, 1898, granting the
Picket Buchahan Camp Confederate Veterans permission to erect the governments Confederate
monument honoring “White supremacy” and the treasonous Confederate States of America,
United Confederate Veterans Organizations, and the Confederate dead. Exhibit 12 & 13, 14.
(12). That in a Resolution 1,678 dated August 22, 2017, the City expressed its desire to relocate
its Confederate monument, and ask the Attorney General for an opinion a “priority” to clarify the
meaning of Va. Code § 15-2-1812 and Va. Code § 18.2-137, relating to the removal of war
memorial going back to 1904. Exhibit 24.
(13). That by letter of Kenneth Cooper Alexander, Mayor for the city of Norfolk, dated August
17, 2017, to the Norfolk City Council, Mr. Alexander stated In 2015, Norfolk City Council
received numerous request to remove the Confederate monument at Commercial Place on Main
Street. The Council discussed the matter at its September 2015 retreat, and was unanimous inits
view to leave the confederate monument in place, noting its historic value. Exhibits 6, 7 & 8.
(14). That by letter of Bernard A. Pishko, city attorney for the city of Norfolk, dated August 18,
2017, requested to the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, stated that Norfolk
owns a Confederate monument blocking the middle of the city’s Main Street and the City
Council is considering relocating it and there are “civil” and “criminal” statutes protecting
certain monuments. It is my opinion that neither the “civil” or “criminal” statute statute
prohibits the relocation being considered by the Norfolk City Council but I request your
opinion on whether a Norfolk Councilman could be criminally prosecuted under Va. Code
§ 18.2-137. “I am of the opinion that a vote by a councilman would not be prosecutable under
the statute”. “Likewise, to construe these statutes to take away rights of ownership would violate
the Fifth Amendment and be unconstitutional.”
(15). That by letter of Mark R. Herring, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
dated August 25, 2017, to Julie Langan Director, Virginia Department of Historic Resources,
Mr. Herring stated, “I am responding to your request for an official advisory opinion in
accordance with Va. Code § 2.2-505, or other legal restrictions, may impact the authority of a
locality to remove or relocate war or veterans monuments on property owned or controlled by
the locality”. In evaluating the impact of this code section, it should be noted that the
longstanding rule in Virginia is that statutes, “are construed to operate prospectively, unless, on

3
the face of the instrument or enactment, the contrary intention is manifest beyond reasonable
question.” “The general rule is that no statute, however positive in its terms, is to be construed as
designed to interfere with existing contracts, rights of action, or suits, and especially vested
rights, unless the intention that it shall so operate is expressly declared. When the General
Assembly omits a clear manifestation of intent that a statutory change should apply retroactively,
it generally should conclude that the legislature did not intend such an application. Exhibit10.
(16). That by memorandum of Gregory D. Underwood, Norfolk Commonwealth’s Attorney,
Commonwealth of Virginia, dated August 22, 2017, to Ramin Fatehi, Norfolk Assistant
Commonwealth’s Attorney, Mr. Understood stated, “I have concluded my analysis of
Va. Code § 15.2-1812 and Va. Code § 18.2-137, with respect to Monuments installed
in municipalities before 1998, Va. Code § 15.2-1812 and its predecessors spoke only of
the installation of Monuments by county governing bodies, not the governing bodies of
municipalities, and only in the “public square” of the county. It appears that, if a Monument
was installed after 1904 by action of the governing body of a county in a municipality that
contained the “public square of a county” within its municipal limits, Va. Code § 15.2-1812
would prohibit the removal of the Monument. If however, a Monument was installed before
1998 by action of an entity other than a county governing body or in a place other than the
“public square” of a county, Va. Code § 15.2-1812 would not restrict the removal or relocation
of that Monument.” Exhibit 9.
(17). On or about August 22, 2017, Plaintiffs petitioned the city council during an open public
meeting to remove the massive confederate monument displaying the treasonous Seal of the
Confederate States of America, a 15-foot-tall bronze sculpture racist symbol a Confederate
Standard-Bearer, and confederate flag, representing white supremacy, directed at Plaintiffs.
(18). The placement of and Display of the city’s massive confederate monument displaying
endorsed secession, the treasonous Seal of the Confederate States of America, a 15-foot-tall
bronze sculpture racist symbol of a Confederate Standard Bearer, representing the Confederacy,
amounts to government intrusion into, entanglement with and endorsement of Jim Crow laws,
slavery, lynching, violence, racial segregation, religious or political intimidation directed at
Plaintiffs of African descendant, and other people of color, on behalf and in furtherance of the
Confederacy and treasonous Confederate States of America.
_______________________________
18. "These monuments, symbols, and images of racial intolerance have no place on public property nor in government and must come down now.

4
(19). First, Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits in this case should it proceed to trial.
Several sources of Virginia law seek to ensure public safety by the removal of its Confederate
monuments and prohibiting the unregulated and coordinated Skin Heads, white Supremacist
and Neo-Nazis use of force as result: The plaintiffs must come into direct and unwelcome
contact with the City’s Confederate monument “public nuisance” and white supremacist hate
groups during their civil rights protest, that gives them offense, during their frequent public
protests to remove it; and to participate fully as a citizen and to fulfill their legal obligations.
Books v. Elkhart County, 401 F.3d 857, 861 (7th Cir. 2005).
(20). The Plaintiffs has undertaken a ‘special burden’ or has altered their behavior to avoid
direct and unwelcome contact with the offensive Confederate monument a “political or religious
symbol of hate and inhumanity”, during their business or visits to downtown. Hein v. Freedom
From Religion Foundation, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2553, 2559 (2007).
(21). The plaintiffs allege denial of an adequate remedy at law", i.e. money damages and
Defendants intrusion into, entanglement with and endorsement of the Confederacy “White
supremacy” directed at the Plaintiffs, will not suffice for the City’s maintaining its Confederate
monument illegally authorized by the Commonwealth of Virginia, on behalf of the Confederacy,
in furtherance of Jim Crows laws, white supremacy, domestic terrorism, hate, crimes against
humanity, racial violence, public segregation, deprivation of citizenship, justice, equality,
constitutional rights, discrimination's, the White League, Norfolk’s White Citizens' Council,
and the outlawed, treasonous, Confederate States of America located in downtown Norfolk,
which represent a past and future danger to Plaintiffs and public safety, that gives them offense.
See: Dred Scott v. Sanford; Brown v. Board of Education; Texas v. White 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700,
19 L. ED. 227 (1869). See, e.g., Fletcher v. Baltimore & P.R. Co., 168 U.S. 135, 138 (1897).
(22). Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer injury as result of the illegal use of the
Display “Confederate monument” and the public property on which it is placed conveying
government endorsement explicitly of specific support of the Confederacy (“White supremacy”)
political or religious “message or context” directed at the Plaintiffs.
(23). Plaintiffs are entitled to freedom of and from government endorsed Confederacy, in
furtherance of (“White supremacy”), is a fundamental right deprived them by the governments
“symbol of inhumanity”, and incitement of racial hate or violence directed at Plaintiffs.
TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE: There are no factual issues in dispute that the City’s Confederate monument conveys government private regulated hate speech, directed at the
Plaintiffs, and denigrate them and members of their race as persons of lesser worth. In addressing this legal issue, the Court has to determine whether the City authorized by the
state is engaging in its “own expressive conduct” or “providing a forum for Confederate “hate speech” “white supremacy” or “religious white supremacy” in violation of law.

5
(24). The Defendants has maintain its unconstitutional display of government regulated private
hate speech from 1889 until present, directed at people of African descent and their descendants,
on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, and sex, in furtherance of White
supremacy, for the express purpose to promote segregation and incite violence or prejudicial
actions against the Plaintiffs, (“African-Americans”), to disparage or intimidate, which also,
affects the public order and the peace and dignity of the City of Norfolk, Virginia and the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
Claims for Relief
(25). Plaintiffs come before the Court and incorporates all allegations previously stated as if
set out in full herein and make the following claims against these Defendants.
(26). Plaintiffs assert an actual controversy exists as to the right of the Defendants to permit the
placement use, and continued presentation of the Display, and as to its continued legal status.
These controversies are justification pursuant to state or federal law.
(27). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
(28). Plaintiffs is deprived their right to Freedom of and from government sponsored and
endorsed Confederacy, “White supremacy” is a fundamental right.
(29). The continued governments sponsorship and maintenance of the Confederate monument,
the Seal of the Confederate States of American Monument, Confederate Standard-Bearer and
engraved Confederate flag Display, constitutes white supremacy, segregation, religious bigotry,
hate speech, antisemitism, and political or religious white supremacy practices in violation of the
Supremacy Clause of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of
Virginia and of the Constitution of the United States of America, and laws.
(30). There is no compelling or even rational reasons for the Defendants to Display or promote
White supremacy, political or religious White supremacy in furtherance of and on behalf of the
Confederate States of America or religious bigotry, directed at Plaintiffs for the exclusive
purpose to deprive them fundamental civil rights and discriminate against them in violation
of Equal Protection.

6
(31). Defendants have invidiously targeted and discriminated against the Plaintiffs from its
Confederate monument “White power” policies, practices, and customs, by expressly or
strategically displaying on public property and in the pubic right-away to advance or declare
Confederacy, “White supremacy”, the principal or primary purpose of the unconstitutional
Display or context .
(32). The Display or “context” has an effect which constitutes support of a particular political
or religious bigotry, (“White supremacy”).
(33). The Display constitutes a government endorsement of a particular political or religious
bigotry (“White supremacy”).
(34). The Display fosters an excessive entanglement between government religion and private
hate speech.
(35). The Display or context deprives Plaintiffs of their rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Constitution of Virginia and the United States Constitution and/or
otherwise by law.
(36). IRREPARABLE HARM. Due to the Defendants’ unlawful discrimination and disparate
treatment of Plaintiffs, that have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm to their
rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional
rights as citizens who reside in the State of Virginia, and utilized the machinery of the State
and Local Government and the City Hall Government Building.
(37). Plaintiffs’ injuries are continuing and repeated each day the Display is permitted to remain
in violation of Constitution of Virginia and of the United States Constitution and/or otherwise by
law.
(38). NO ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law because
legal relief cannot remedy the denial of the individual Plaintiffs First and Fourteenth Amendment
fundamental rights. Unless the Display is moved or relocated by order of this Court, Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights will continue to be violated. Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. V. EchoStar
Satellite Corp., 269 F. 3d 1149, 1156 (10th Cir. 2001). Furthermore, “[w]hen an alleged
constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury
is necessary.” Kikumura v. Hurley, 242 F. 3d 950, 963 (10th Cir. 2001).
_________
11. The history of Tidewater localities and the Monuments of Norfolk is beyond the restrictions in Va. Code § 15.2-1812 and
Va. Code § 18.2-137. Norfolk has not served as a county seat since at least 1846. (As of 1846 the seat of Norfolk County was
in present-day Portsmouth.) No Monument has been put up in a municipality since.

7
(39). BALANCE OF HARM. The balance of harm as irreparable injury to Plaintiffs in
comparison to the “harm” to Defendants weighs in Plaintiffs’ favor, When a law that legislators
or voters wish to enact is likely unconstitutional, their interest do not outweigh those of the
Plaintiffs in having their constitutional rights protected. Wings, LLC v. Capitol Leather, LLC,
No. CL–2014–9, 2014 WL 7686953, at *5 (Va. Cir. Mar. 6, 2014) (quoting Winter v. Nat’l Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). see also, Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F. 3d at 1132 citing
Coal. For Econ. Equity v. Wilson, 122 F. 3d 692, 699 (9th Cir. 1997).
(40). PUBLIC INTRESTS. The granting of declaratory and injunctive relief will be in the public
interests, in that there is always a public interests in the protection of constitutional rights,
especially fundamental rights. “The First Amendment does not protect violence.” N.A.A.C.P. v.
Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 916 (1982). G.G. ex rel. Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch.
Bd., 822 F.3d 709, 725 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395
(1981)), vacated on other grounds, 137 S.Ct. 1239 (2017). Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F. 3d 1071, 1079,
(6th Cir. 1994). (“While the public has an interests in the will of the voters being carried
out…the public has a more profound and long-term interests in upholding an individual’s rights.”
Id.; see also Cate v. Oldham, 707 F. 2d 1176, 1190 (10th Cir. 1983). (noting “[t]he strong public
interests in protecting First Amendment values”).
(41). The Plaintiffs is suing under the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment and Section
42 U.S.C. 1983, a civil rights law passed by Congress that provides a remedy to persons who
have been deprived of their federal constitutional and statutory rights under color of state law.
(42). The Defendants “individually” or “collectively” their officers, agents, employees, and all
those acting in concert with them engaged in the foregoing actions, they were charged with
knowledge of the applicable statutes pursuant Va. Code § 15-2-1812 et seq., Va. Code § 18.2-
137, et seq., and impermissible Constitutional impact on the Plaintiffs rights.
(43). That During the public or private deliberations of the members of the City Council, there
was opinions from the City Attorney, Commonwealth’s Attorney, Assistant Commonwealth’s
Attorney and further discussion about obtaining an opinion from the Attorney General of the
Commonwealth of Virginia before any actions or lack therefore was taken as to the legality of
their proposed actions or lack thereof actions. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants “individually” or “collectively acted in a grossly negligent, reckless, wilful, wanton,
and intentional manner, violating their constitutional rights and are thus subject to punitive

8
damages. They are not immune from suit or liability for intentional or willful misconduct or
gross negligence under Section 15.2-1404 and § 15.2-1405 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended, and other provisions of general law, for their conduct.
(44). That Defendants “collectively” or “individually” are further liable to Plaintiffs for their
reasonable litigation cost and fees incurred in connection with the unlawful statutory
enforcement (Va. Code § 15-2-1812 et seq., Va. Code § 18.2-137, et seq.,).
(45). That Defendants “collectively” or “individually” had legal authority over 100 years to
relocate its Confederate monument with knowledge § 15.1-270 do not retroactively limit the
Government’s authority or property rights.
(46). That the Court declare the City acts in maintaining its unconstitutional “display or context”
of government regulated private hate speech from 1889 until present, directed at people of
African descent and their descendants, on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin, national
origin, and sex, in furtherance of White supremacy, for the express purpose to promote
segregation and incite violence or prejudicial actions against the Plaintiffs, (“African-
Americans”), to disparage or intimidate them, were unlawful ultra vires, and the Plaintiffs
shall recover and require reimbursement to the City of all moneys expanded in the entire illegal
endeavor, including all expenditures for the salaries of City Councilors and City employees
attributed to the illegal endeavor pro rata.
(47). That Plaintiffs recover and have money judgments against each and all of the Defendants:
City of Norfolk, Norfolk City Council, Attorney General of Virginia, by, through, and at the
relation of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the individual Defendants Alexander, Thomas, Jr.,
Riddick, Smigiel, Graves, Johnson, McClellan, Doyle, Smith, Bull, Pishko, Melita and Mullen
for actual damages in an amount to be determined by the Court, but not less than $500 for each
Plaintiff, including such money damages for the unlawful and interference, violation and
encroachments as described in this Complaint, as the Court may determine, including if ruled
applicable punitive damages against each Defendant in the sum of $100,000, with interest on
said judgments at the legal rate from August 22, 2017. See, e.g., Eddy v. Virgin Islands Water
& Power Auth., 955 F. Supp. 468, 476 (D.V.I. 1997)…
_________________________

18. Where a municipality creates or permits a nuisance as here by non-feasance or misfeasance it is guilty of tort and like a private
corporation or individual and to the same extent is liable for damages in a civil action to any person suffering injury therefrom,
irrespective of the question of negligence, and such liability cannot be avoided on the ground that the municipality was exercising
government power. West v. Brockport, 16 N.Y. 161 (1857); see also Niese v. City of Alexandria, 264 Va. 230, 238 (2002).
Taylor v. City of Charlottesville, 240 Va. 367, 372 (1990).

9
(“The net effect of the Supreme Court decisions interpreting 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including Will v.
Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989),] and Ngiraingas v. Sanchez, 495 U.S.
182 (1990)], is to treat the territories and their officials and employees the same as states and
their officials and employees.”), reconsidered on other grounds, 961 F. Supp. 113 (D.V.I. 1997);
see also Iles v. de Jongh, 638 F.3d 169, 177-78 (3d Cir. 2011) (analyzing official-capacity claims
against Governor of Virgin Islands under, inter alia, Will).
(48). That Plaintiffs recover from all Defendants their litigation costs including but not limited
to fees described above in paragraph 47, expanded herein.
(49). That Plaintiffs have such other and further relief as the nature of their case may require.

Respectfully submitted:

By___________________________ (date) May 28, 2019 By_____________________

/s/MR. ROY L. PERRY- BEY /s/MR. RONALD M. GREEN
89 LINCOLN STREET #1772 5540 BARNHOLLOW ROAD
HAMPTON, VIRGINIA 23669 NORFOLK, VA 23502
(804) 362-0011 (757) 348-0436

https://www.wavy.com/news/norfolk-civil-rights-group-plans-march-to-city-council-over-confederate-monument/1099799402

10
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing this 28th day of
May, 2019, by US Mail, postage prepaid, to Adam D. Melita, Norfolk Deputy City Attorney,
City of Norfolk, City Hall Building, 9th Floor, 810 Union Street Norfolk, VA 23510.

By_______________________
MR. ROY L. PERRY- BEY
89 LINCOLN STREET #1772
HAMPTON, VIRGINIA 23669

By_______________________
/s/MR. RONALD M. GREEN
5540 BARNHOLLOW ROAD
NORFOLK, VA 23502

11