Judge Ellis Final Order Protects Corrupt Court Officers and Judges
On January 13, 2023, Judge Joseph Ellis issued his Memorandum Opinion and Order in four complaints filed in the Henrico County Circuit Court, dismissing the complaints and imposing an injunction on Nickolas Spanos from filing any further ethics complaints exposing corruption in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The complaints against corrupt court officials filed by Spanos were supported by hundreds of pages of evidence which included FBI reports, court documents, emails of court clerks stating that records and filings were tampered with, tampered court records sent to the Court of Appeals, Judge’s false statements, and numerous other documents that the defendants had accepted bribes in exchange for financial and political favors.
The Memorandum Opinion was unethically written for Judge Ellis by McGuireWoods Counsel Brandon Santos, the attorney for Defendants Richard Cullen, James Comey, Howard Vick, William Birch Douglass III, and William Hutchens, who were previous attorneys with McGuireWoods law firm in Richmond, Virginia.
The five McGuireWoods attorneys were accused of supporting and promoting a "White Nationalism Doctrine" along with seven co-defendants that gave special legal protection and treatment to the white, affluent middle to upper-class professionals who were clients attorneys of McGuireWoods law firm that were involved in a 600-kilo cocaine organization. As a result, the white, affluent professionals were protected from being investigated and charged for their role in the 600-kilo cocaine organization.
The Plaintiff, Nickolas Spanos, had submitted evidence of FBI reports, court documents, and other evidence that exposed the McGuireWoods Shadow Government headed by Richard Cullen. Additionally, the complainant gave evidence that Richard Cullen had bribed several Henrico County Commonwealth Attorneys, Judges, U.S. Attorneys, and other court officials to obstruct justice in the Spanos cocaine case.
Spanos filed a Motion for Judge Joseph Ellis to Recuse Himself from hearing any of the ethics complaints. The Motion gave evidence of Judge Ellis's close financial relationship with McGuireWoods law firm, Richard Cullen, and having ex parte communications with Brandon Santos. Judge Joseph Ellis who works as a mediator for Juridical Solutions has a financial conflict of interest as McGuireWoods law firm is a client of Juridical Solutions, which Judge Ellis mediated litigation for McGuireWoods. Judge Joseph Ellis is paid $400 per hour for his mediation service and the average mediation is 30-50 hours. See link below:
Judge Ellis was ethically obligated to rule on the Motion to Recuse himself before presiding over the hearing, Judge Ellis refused to rule on the Motion to Recuse Himself and conducted the ethics complaint hearings which violated numerous judicial canons of Virginia.
The Memorandum Opinion and Order written for Judge Ellis by McGuireWoods defense counsel Brandon Santos has given evidence of judicial misconduct by Judge Ellis which Judge Ellis and Brandon Santos had ex parte communications on the details of the Memorandum Opinion and Order that Brandon Santos drafted for Judge Ellis to sign. The Memorandum Opinion and Order was signed at the end of the January 13, 2023, hearing, giving further evidence that ex parte communications took place between Judge Ellis and Brandon Santos.
Despite Judge Ellis issuing an order on September 19, 2022, dismissing the four complaints filed by Spanos, Judge Ellis suspended the order to unethically allow McGuireWoods Brandon Santos to file a Pre-Filing Injunction on October 5, 2022. The Pre-Filing Injunction ordered Spanos not to file further ethics complaints in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Yet, each Virginia circuit court has jurisdiction over filings submitted to it and other courts cannot prohibit any court filing.
The Memorandum Opinion and Order contradicts itself throughout the Final Order and gives evidence of further corruption of judges, which states in part:
"Upon consideration of the Motion, briefs, and presentations at oral argument, the Court determines that a pre-filing injunction is merited. In determining whether a pre-filing injunction is substantively warranted, a court must weigh all the relevant circumstances, including (1) the party's history of litigation, in particular, whether he has filed vexatious, harassing, or duplicative lawsuits; (2) whether the party had a good faith basis for pursuing the litigation or simply intended to harass; (3) the extent of the burden on the courts and other parties resulting from the party's filings; and (4) the adequacy of alternative sanctions."
How can Judge Ellis rule on the Pre-Filing Injunction which he had ruled that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter further. McGuireWoods did not file a separate Motion for Injunction but filed the Pre-Filing Injunction after Judge Ellis issued an order stating that the Court did not have jurisdiction in this matter and no further rulings were necessary.
"First, in addition to the above-captioned cases, the Plaintiff’s history of litigation shows he has filed many duplicative, vexatious lawsuits generally alleging "ethics complaints" against various attorneys and judges in the central Virginia region."
"Second, and to this end, Plaintiff’s "ethics complaint[s]" in these cases are intended to harass. As noted above, Plaintiff has repeatedly asserted this cause of action in circuit courts of the Commonwealth, and not once has he been successful. That is for good reason, as authorities in Virginia have long held that the Code does not afford Plaintiff standing to bring an ethics complaint in this Court."
The Plaintiff proved that he met the requirements to have standing in filing complaints against attorneys who harmed him and others by their actions and provided hundreds of pages of evidence to support his allegations.
The Defendants in their Demurrers and Plea in Bar never denied the allegations and failed to defend themselves, only stating that their misconduct was protected by judicial and prosecutorial immunity.
"Third, the burden on this Court and Defendants has been significant. Plaintiff’s Complaints in the above-captioned matters required the recusal of all sitting judges in the Henrico County Circuit Court. And, as noted above, Plaintiff has filed multiple suits in multiple jurisdictions across central Virginia, none of which have succeeded. Plaintiff has also extended the burden of his various baseless claims into appellate courts, where he is currently pursuing seven appeals at the state and federal level relating to the above-referenced "ethics complaints" filed in Henrico, Richmond, and Louisa. See Spanos v. Gibney, Case No. 22-2246 (4th Cir.) (removed from Spanos v. Gibney, CL 22-2249 (Henrico)); Spanos v. Vick, et al., CAV Record No. 1558-22-2; Spanos v. Vick, CAV Record No. 1554-22-2; Spanos v. Douglass & Hutchins, CAV Record No. 1553-22-2; Spanos v. Freed, et al., CAV Record No. 0706-22-2; Spanos v. Feinmel, CAV Record No. 0140-2202; Spanos v. Taylor; CAV Record No. 0139-22-2."
The Plaintiff has the right to petition the courts under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and has filed his complaints according to Virginia Statutes concerning the discipline of attorneys who violate the rules of the Virginia Code of Professional Conduct.
Even the Virginia State Bar's Deputy Intake Officer Jane Fletcher stated to Spanos through numerous letters supporting the Plaintiff's right to take civil action against attorneys who acted unethically and the Virginia Courts had jurisdiction to discipline attorneys.
"To this end, Plaintiff argues in his "Objections to the Defendants Pre-Filing Injunction" that his appeals of the above-captioned cases divested this Court of jurisdiction to hear the Motion. But this Court-in accordance with Rule 1: 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia-clearly suspended the order dismissing his Complaints with prejudice so that it would retain jurisdiction to hear the Motion. In this respect, the Plaintiff’s attempt to wield his appellate filings as a shield against the Motion further demonstrates the undue burden he has imposed on the judicial system."
How can Judge Ellis rule in his Final Order that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter, yet Judge Ellis rules on the Pre-Filing Injunction which is part of the matter and was filed after he issued his final order, even stating; "Given this ruling, it is not necessary for the Court to rule on other motions and defenses filed by Defendants to Plaintiff s Complaint.”
"Finally, this Court has an obligation to protect the Court, its staff, the Defendants, and future defendants, from the harassment and expense of unfounded litigation, and to preserve valuable judicial resources. For these reasons, imposing a pre-filing injunction is an appropriate sanction under this case and the many similar cases Plaintiff has filed across the Commonwealth."
No, the Court has an obligation to serve and protect the public first and foremost, to insure that justice is served and to report unethical misconduct by attorneys and judges. The Court is obligated to follow the U.S. Constitution, Judicial Canons of Virginia, Virginia Statutes, and the SCV Rules of Court. Its obligation is not to protect the McGuireWoods shadow government that has created a criminal syndicate in the Virginia Judicial system.
"It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Plaintiff is enjoined from any further filings in this Court, or in any other court in the Commonwealth of Virginia without first obtaining leave from this Court. As a part of any motion for leave to file any such pleading or filing, Plaintiff must attach a copy of this Memorandum Opinion & Order and a detailed written statement explaining why such pleading or filing is materially different from the "Ethics Complaints" filed against the Defendants in the above-captioned actions."
Judge Ellis has violated his own Final Order, how can he order the Plaintiff not file further ethics complaints when he has ruled that the Court has no jurisdiction in this matter?
Judge Ellis contradicts his own order, as he is stating that the "Plaintiff is enjoined from any further filings in this Court, or in any other court in the Commonwealth of Virginia without first obtaining leave from this Court", Judge Ellis is giving a clear message that Virginia Courts have jurisdiction to hear ethics complaints against attorney unethical misconduct, otherwise Judge Ellis would have stated that the Plaintiff is enjoined from filing any further ethics complaints in Virginia Courts as they do not have jurisdiction to hear these matters.
A footnote at the end of the order
ironically states that Judge Ellis's Final Order is without standing:
"This Court does not restrict whether another court of this Commonwealth can accept filings from Plaintiff, only that Plaintiff will face contempt in this Court for failure to comply with this Memorandum Opinion & Order or the accompanying court orders."
Judge Ellis is threatening Spanos
with contempt of court, knowing that Spanos has 13 outstanding indictments for
the distribution of cocaine and was publicly accused by the Henrico
Commonwealth Attorneys’ office for being the "hub of a 600-kilo cocaine
organization that operated in the Richmond, Virginia area for over ten
years". The basis of the Complaints filed by Spanos is that numerous DOJ
and court officials accepted bribes to refuse the extradition and prosecution
of Spanos to prevent him from testifying against white, affluent McGuireWoods
attorneys and clients.
