Prominent Attorneys and their Counsel Face Harsh Sanctions in White Nationalism Case in the Virginia Court of Appeals.
On April 28, 2023, eight prominent attorneys through their counsel in the Richmond area filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal in the Court of Appeals of Virginia. What started as a normal motion has turned into a nightmare for the eight attorneys facing ethics complaints for conspiring together to promote and support a "white nationalism" syndicate which protected white affluent professionals from being investigated and prosecuted for their role in a 600-kilo cocaine organization that operated in the Richmond area for over ten years.
The Appellant immediately filed a Motion for Sanctions against the nineteen attorneys for fraud on the court and violating the rules of the Virginia Code of Professional Conduct(VCPC), specifically Rule 8.4 Misconduct. The attorneys are listed below.
|
APPELLEE |
APPELLEE COUNSEL |
|
Richard Cullen and Wade Kizer |
Irving Blank |
|
Judge Lee A. Harris Jr. |
Brittany McGill, Amy Hensley |
|
Shannon L. Taylor |
Theodore Brenner |
|
James B. Comey, Howard C. Vick Jr. |
Brandon Santos, Garret Hooe |
|
Michael Y. Feinmel |
William Tunner, John O’Herron |
|
Todd Stone |
S. Keith Barker |
|
George Manoli Loupassi |
Bradley Marrs |
The most prominent Attorney facing sanctions is Richard Cullen, the chief legal advisor to Governor Glenn Youngkin, Cullen is listed as the organizer of the "white nationalism" syndicate which operated in the Virginia Courts for over two decades.
Other prominent attorneys include James B. Comey, Judge Lee A. Harris Jr., Shannon Taylor, Howard Vick, and numerous McGuireWoods law firm attorneys. Richard Cullen, James Comey, and Howard Vick worked together at McGuireWoods. Richard Cullen is the Godfather of James Comey's daughters.
The Motion for Sanctions states that the nineteen attorneys conspired together to commit numerous violations of Virginia Codes, Fraud on The Court, and Misconduct. A copy of the Motion for Sanctions can be viewed: Motion for Sanctions in the Court of Appeals
The violations are listed as:
VCPC Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal;
(2) fail to disclose a fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;
(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal controlling legal authority in the subject jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
(4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures.
(b) A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
(c) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer, which will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision whether or not the facts are adverse.
(d) A lawyer who receives information clearly establishing that a person other than a client has perpetrated fraud upon the tribunal in a proceeding in which the lawyer is representing a client shall promptly reveal the fraud to the tribunal.
(e) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (d) continue until the conclusion of the proceeding and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information protected by Rule 1.6.
VCPC Rule 8.4 Misconduct
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal or deliberately wrongful act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation which reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law;
Va. Code § 8.01-271.1. Signing of pleadings, motions, and other papers; oral motions; sanctions.
B. The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that (i) he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper, (ii) to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and (iii) it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
F. Signature defects in appellate filings, including the notice of appeal, shall be raised in the appellate court where the appeal is taken. Failure to timely raise the issue of a defective signature in an appellate pleading, motion, or other paper while the case is pending before the appellate court waives any challenge to that pleading, motion, or other paper based on such a defect.
G. If a signature defect is not timely and properly cured after it is brought to the attention of the pleader or movant, the pleading, motion, or other paper is invalid and shall be stricken. A signature defect shall be cured within 21 days after it is brought to the attention of the pleader or movant. If a signature defect is timely and properly cured, the pleading, motion, or other paper shall be valid and relate back to the date it was originally served or filed.
It is questionable if the Appellees even mailed their February 27, 2023, and October 17, 2023, “Notice” to the Appellant and should be ordered to produce a certified U.S. Postal receipt or commercial delivery receipt evidencing of completing the service process on the Appellant. The Appellees recognize that the Appellant resides in a foreign country and should have taken reasonable care to assure that the Appellant received the “Notice,” as certified in their Joint Motion submitted to this Court.
Rule 1:12. Service of Papers after the Initial Process:
All pleadings, motions, and other papers served after the initial process in an action and not required to be served otherwise, and requests for subpoenas duces tecum must be served by delivering, dispatching by commercial delivery service for same-day or next day delivery, transmitting by facsimile, transmitting by electronic mail when Rule 1:17 so provides or when consented to in writing signed by the person to be served, or by mailing, a copy to each counsel of record on or before the day of filing.