Response to response

The only response I received from my responses was:

5. As of the date of the filing of this Motion, Defendant Sheila O'Connell has been served with the Complaint and the time period for her to file an answer is pending. Upon information and belief, Defendant Anthony M. O'Connell has filed a response to the Complaint, which consisted of a one-page letter directed to the Clerk of Court, and the filing of numerous documents and records containing his annotations.
(From the injunction dated 2012.09.28)

(Chief Judge Dennis J. Smith to Trustee Anthony O'Connell, November 27, 2012)
RE: In Re: Harold A O'Connell, CL-2012-13064
Dear Mr. O'Connell:
I have received your letter regarding the Notice of Scheduling Conference you
received in case CL 2012 -0013064. Th,is is indeed a valid notice from our court .'
provided. so that you would be aware of a Scheduling Conference at which we will, if" .
appropriate, set a trial date and enter a scheduling order in accordance with the Uniform
Pretrial Scheduling Order adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia. No evidence will
be taken at that time as this is only a hearing to establish the schedule for the orderly
processing of the case.
As for accountability for the notice, it clearly indicates that it is sent by the judges
of the circuit court and provides you with a phone number at which you can contact our
case management staff with regard to the Scheduling Conference. We would not send
out a notice indicating that you can contact the judges directly as such contact is
inappropriate.
Your letter also indicates that you do not know what issues are raised in the case
but our records indicate that you have responded to the Complaint which sets out the
Plaintiff's allegations and prayer for relief so I therefore assume that you are acquainted
with the issues which have been raised. As to whether the Plaintiff's allegations are
true or merit relief, these issues will not be dealt with at the December 4,2012
Scheduling Conference but are instead decided in the course of later proceedings or
after a trial at which each side has had an opportunity to present evidence in the form of
documents or testimony and make arguments as to the proper disposition of the issues.
You also request that our court take certain actions, but please note that Judges
take actions based upon pleadings which are properly filed, and even then, only after
each interested party has had an opportunity to respond and be heard on the request.
Sending a letter to a judge is not filing a pleading in a case as pleadings are properly
filed with the Clerk of Court. Additionally, copies of anything sent to the Court for filing
must be provided to all other interested parties. As your letter does not indicate copies
were sent to the other parties I will provide them with a copy of your letter and this
response.
Finally, with regard to your participation in the Scheduling Conference at 8:30
a.m. on December 4,2012, this is a civil case and it is your choice as to whether you
participate in this administrative hearing or any further hearings. If you do not appear,
the Court will proceed to establish scheduling without your input. We will, however,
send you a copy of any Order that is entered at that hearing.
Sincerely Yours, [Chief Judge Dennis J. Smith]
(From Chief Judge Dennis Smith's letter of November 27, 2012)

I can't prevent misunderstandings such as the above unless I communicate in a way that leaves a record, such as the web.

Please read the Summons and the Injunction and then read my responses. My responses are evidence and the evidence is the point. Dismissing the evidence is not approval by default.

Would the Judges please use their power to have the accountants expose the core evidence, their accounting trails at bk467p191?