Review / Public Record Statement My experience before Judge Leslie R. (Les) Adams in Pittsylvania County General District Court raises serious concerns about due process and access to the courts. I currently reside in the State of Florida, approximately nine hours away from Pittsylvania County. I have repeatedly informed the court that I have no independent income and live in a single-vehicle household, making long-distance travel extremely difficult. Despite these circumstances, several procedural requests were denied by Judge Adams, including: • A request to recall a Failure to Appear (FTA) that was issued after I was unable to attend court due to documented medical circumstances. • A request to quash a capias that was issued even though I had not been properly served for a later hearing date. • A request for a remote hearing despite my out-of-state residency and medical limitations. • A request to represent myself (pro se) after expressing concerns about threats made by appointed counsel. During this process, my appointed counsel, Elmer Woodard, threatened me on a recorded call witnessed by my husband, stating that I could “rot in jail.” I asked the court to terminate counsel due to this threat. Judge Adams refused to remove the attorney and also refused to allow me to proceed pro se. These decisions have left me unable to meaningfully participate in the proceedings while simultaneously labeling me as a “fugitive” based on a Failure to Appear, even though I maintain that I was not properly served for the hearing in question. The result has been: • A capias warrant remaining active • A fugitive designation attached to my name • Ongoing barriers to addressing the underlying issues in court These actions have created extreme duress and have prevented me from accessing the court to defend myself. I am publicly documenting this experience because the courts must uphold due process, proper service, and the right of a citizen to participate in their own defense. Legal Knowledge: Observation The enforcement actions in this matter before Leslie R. Adams originate from a deputy’s affidavit that the affected party asserts is reckless and materially false. Despite the affidavit being the foundation for the proceedings, the court denied requests for a remote appearance, refused to recall a Failure to Appear, and refused to quash a capias, even though the party resides nine hours out of state, documented medical limitations were provided, and the party maintains they were never lawfully served for the hearing in question. The court also refused to terminate appointed counsel after the party reported threats from that attorney and requested to proceed pro se. The resulting posture labels the party a “fugitive” for failing to appear, while simultaneously denying the procedural mechanisms necessary to appear, challenge the affidavit, contest service, or defend the matter that originated from the deputy’s affidavit. Fairness & Impartiality: Observation on Fairness My experience before Leslie R. Adams raises serious concerns about procedural fairness. Proceedings were initiated from a deputy’s affidavit that I assert is reckless and materially false. Despite this being the foundation of the case, the court denied the basic procedural avenues needed to challenge it. Requests for a remote appearance were denied even though I reside nine hours away out of state and documented medical limitations were provided. The court also refused to recall a Failure to Appear or quash a capias for a hearing date I maintain I was never lawfully served for. In addition, after reporting that my appointed counsel threatened me and requesting to represent myself, the court refused both to terminate counsel and to allow me to proceed pro se. These rulings resulted in me being labeled a “fugitive” for non-appearance, while simultaneously being denied the mechanisms necessary to appear and defend against the allegations originating from the deputy’s affidavit. This sequence of decisions raises significant questions regarding fairness and equal access to the court. Judicial Temperament: Judicial Temperament Observation My experience before Leslie R. Adams reflects a concerning lack of patience and neutrality toward a litigant attempting to raise procedural and service issues. When I informed the court that I resided nine hours out of state and had documented medical limitations preventing travel, my requests for a remote appearance were denied without accommodation. Motions to recall a Failure to Appear and quash a capias tied to a hearing I maintain I was never properly served for were also denied. Additionally, after reporting threats from my appointed counsel and requesting permission to represent myself, the court refused both to remove the attorney and to allow me to proceed pro se. This combination of rulings gave the appearance that the court was unwilling to meaningfully address concerns raised by the litigant, raising questions about fairness, neutrality, and judicial temperament when dealing with a party seeking to defend themselves. Communication: Observation on Judicial Communication Communications from Leslie R. Adams have been minimal, unclear, and procedurally obstructive. Key filings, including requests for remote hearings, medical non-appearance, and motions to quash a capias, were either ignored or denied without explanation. Instructions regarding hearings and obligations were inconsistent and did not provide adequate guidance for compliance, particularly for an out-of-state litigant with documented medical limitations. These communication practices hinder a party’s ability to meaningfully participate, challenge disputed allegations from a deputy’s affidavit, and access procedural rights, raising concerns about transparency and judicial responsiveness. Timeliness: Observation on Timelines The handling of my case by Leslie R. Adams demonstrates significant delays and manipulation of procedural timelines. A matter originating from a deputy’s materially false affidavit was extended over a full year, during which requests for medical non-appearance, remote hearings, and other lawful motions were systematically denied or ignored. Despite never being lawfully served for the alleged January 20, 2026 hearing, the court issued a Failure to Appear and labeled me a “fugitive”, compounding harm to my liberty and parental rights, and creating undue coercion to comply with a matter grounded in false claims.