Re: Judicial Review of Judge M. Langhorne Keith

Hanyok vs. Hanyok (Record No. 1754-01-4 Court of Appeals of Virginia)

My name is John M. Hanyok. I am a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia. I am a very responsible father. I served my country and proudly protected our US and VA Constitutions. I live by a code of honor and I believed in the judicial system and our courts. I trusted that those appointed to serve our needs would have the skills to be fair, impartial, and unbiased. I trusted our laws would be upheld and that the cannons of judicial conduct of VA had some meaning.

Trustingly, I asked Fairfax County Judge M. Langhorne Keith to enforce a parenting agreement and to preserve my resources so that I could continue to provide for and parent my children. I expected that as a responsible father I would be treated with dignity. Under our constitution I should have been afforded due process by having agreements between my then, wife and I, upheld. These agreements were also backed by individual court orders for enforcement, which required by law and by the court, some measure of accountability.

At the beginning of a two day hearing, Judge Keith cut my lawyer off several times in his opening statements. He would not even acknowledge that there was a hearing on visitation. It is the courts responsibility to ensure that issues about children are to be dealt with in the most expeditious of proceedings. After two prominent witnesses testified, Judge Keith took it upon himself to recess and ordered the lawyers into his chambers where he attempted to cut a deal to take the case out of court. He prejudiced himself by predetermining the outcome of significant testimony of expert witnesses. There is testimony in the trial transcript that substantiates my statements. The outcome of a trial is to be determined at the end of hearing not before testimony.

When I attempted, under oath, to describe how a VA lawyer had lied and assassinated my character to my children, gain favor of the court in chambers and in court, Judge Keith told me, my testimony was not important. The judge demonstrated he was predisposed to take queues, from opposing counsel and to discount an attempt to state facts and the truth.

Judge Keith, against my objections and my lawyers, took my sons Ryan and Daniel into chambers to choose between parents. There was nothing on the record of those proceedings in his private chambers. Only when tipped off by opposing counsel that there might be an appeal, and only then, he made post hoc statements to justify why he was removing a responsible father from the lives of his children. These false statements were then further manipulated, to fabricate justifications, for what then wrongfully became the states right to determine best interest of my children by the VA Court of Appeals.

A national organization, The Children’s Rights Council’s completed a detailed review of Judge Keith’s one sentence visitation schedule, "dinner every two weeks" In the Amicus Curiae to the Court of Appeals their analysis was labeled "constitutionally infirm and a farce" Please comprehend, at the beginning of the trial his ex parte offer was "dinner every week". I did not play by his unwritten local rules. The VA law requires, "The court shall assure frequent and continuing contact".

Judge Keith routinely requiring court appearances, changed his dates, and then refused to hear testimony on visitation. However, at the same time, he attached legal fees to the sale of my property and ordered it sold, or be held in contempt. The court holds the assets. The more I asked for consideration the more I was striped of resources and dignity. Judge Keith’s objective was to protect the Fairfax Court from exposure to investigation by attempting to dispose of a case that demonstrates a history of judicial abuse.

There were twenty-eight, on the record objections to Judge Keith’s bench decisions. Coincidently, there were also twenty-eight objections in the declaration of independence from King George. The rule of men in power is the same, unless the men abide by The Rule of Law.