White Supremacy in the Virginia Court of Appeals

Va. Appellate Court Justices Protect known White Supremist Judge Daniel T. Balfour

A complaint filed with the VGA exposes retired Judge Daniel T. Balfour as having close ties with Neo-Confederate organizations that have strong white supremist beliefs and that their heritage of pro-slavery should be preserved. Article on Complaint filed with VGA

The fact is that Virginia Appellate Justices Daniel Ortiz, Lisa Lorish, and Richard AtLee recognized that Daniel T. Balfour has strong ties to white supremist organizations and funds them by selling his book "13th Virginia Cavalry." Appellate Justices Daniel Ortiz, Lisa Lorish, and Richard AtLee, ignored the evidence in CAV Rec. No. 0706-22 that retired Judge Balfour committed treason by usurping the authority of the SCV and VGA. See Article on Bribery of Appellate judges

Daniel T. Balfour has been a judge for over twenty (20) years, eight (8) years as a presiding judge in Henrico County Circuit Court and twelve (12) years as a retired judge who is on recall. The SCV can recall retired judges, only by a designation order, to preside over cases where presiding judges in that judicial circuit have recused themselves or if the court is overloaded.

The most disturbing fact is that a known racist Judge (Balfour) has been presiding over circuit court cases in the City of Richmond for over twelve (12) years which has a population of 44% blacks and presided in the Henrico County for eight (8) years where the population of blacks is 29.6%.

The "13th Virginia Cavalry" was written in 1986 by Daniel T. Balfour which depicts Judge Balfour's ancestors fight to retain the rights to own and enslave African Americans. Judge Balfour "13th Virginia Cavalry" promotes and supports the heritage of pro-slavery and funds white supremist organizations that continue to recruit families and individuals to their events.

Daniel T. Balfour is a current member of the "13th Virginia Cavalry" Company I, Board Member of the Museum of the Confederacy and a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The "13th Virginia Cavalry" Company I, is a white supremist organization which that continues to promote PRO-SLAVERY views and lifestyles to individuals and families through events in this current time of awareness.

13th Virginia Cavalry" Company I promotional flyer

The recruitment flyer states "The Company seeks to recreate Civil War-era battle tactics and emulate Civil War camp life. Company I, 13th Virginia Infantry Regiment is highly respected in the reenactment community. It is a family oriented unit based in South Central Pennsylvania with members from Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland. From living history to battle reenactments, the 13th Virginia takes the field today to preserve the historic record of the War of the Rebellion and to help educate those who come to witness what we do. Don’t wait, Join now to be a member of the best Confederate reenactment unit anywhere.”

13th Virginia Cavalry Company I flag

Daniel T. Balfour's 13th Virginia Cavalry dedication page uses the same phrases as the promotional flyer used to organize events and recruit new members to their white supremacy Confederate community.

Part 2.Virginia Lawyer boasted in emails that Appellate Judges were bribed and it rang true!

Attorney Robert L. Freed is facing two serious cases in the Virginia Courts which he is accused of extrinsic fraud upon the court in conspiring with his clients to attempt a $1.3 million fraud and an ethics complaint to have his law license revoked for numerous ethical misconduct and criminal violations.

Richmond Circuit Court Case No. CL21-4150 Spanos v. Freed et al. is an ethics complaint filed against Robert L. Freed and Emily E. Kokie, who committed extrinsic fraud upon the court by obtaining a default judgment without serving the defendant. They hid the default judgment from the defendant, who only discovered it after 18 years, after the death of his mother and the default judgment was to be paid through her will.  

Robert Freed is represented by his counsel Julie S. Palmer and Michael Harman, who have entangled themselves in Freed's corruption. The prima facie evidence is strong against them so the only path to getting a decision in their favor was to have Freed's close friend and associate retired judge Daniel T. Balfour preside over the case and rule in Freed's favor.

The problem with that is that Daniel T. Balfour usurped the authority of the Supreme Court of Virginia (SCV) and the Virginia legislature, as retired Judge Balfour had not been designated by court order to preside over and enter orders in CL21-4150. The SCV confirmed in emails that they had no records of a designation order for Daniel T. Balfour to preside over CL21-4150.

Retired judge Balfour entered an order on February 17, 2022, dismissing the ethics complaint against his close friend Robert Freed and Spanos appealed the case to the Court of Appeals of Virginia (CAV) Rec. No. 0706-22.

Spanos filed numerous pleading giving undeniable evidence of Freed's fraud upon the court and Motion for Sanctions against Freed and his Counsel Julie Palmer and Michael Harman for violating the Virginia Code of Professional Conduct (VCPC), SCV rules and most importantly Virginia Codes for bribery.

The strongest evidence was a October 31, 2022, email by Robert Freed to the trustee and accountant to the Spanos Trust and Freed's legal assistance boasting that he was "I have been assured that his petition for appeal will be denied".

Robert Freed's admission violates VCPC Rule 8.4, 4. state or imply an ability to influence improperly or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body, or public official.

Despite the prima facie evidence of corruption against Robert Freed and his close personal friend retired judge Daniel T. Balfour, the CAV Justices Daniel Ortiz, Lisa Lorish, and Richard AtLee ignored Spanos' pleadings and failed to rule or address them in their January 18, 2024 Order dismissing the ethics complaint against Robert Freed.

Spanos affirmatively showed to the CAV that a miscarriage of justice had occurred by retired Judge Balfour’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction to preside and enter orders in CL21-4150, rendering the Trial Court’s Final Order void ab initio.

The Order entered by the CAV Justices Daniel Ortiz, Lisa Lorish, and Richard AtLee is shameless and gives further evidence of the “protection syndicate” in the Virginia Judicial system. The “protection syndicate” operates uncloaked and without fear of reprisals in the Courts, as they have become a hive that operates with ex parte communications to deprive pro se litigants if they dare seek to protect their Constitutional rights to Due Process. 

CAV Justices Daniel Ortiz, Lisa Lorish, and Richard AtLee knowingly acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and contrary to case law in deciding the Appellant’s case before this Court. 

The problem is that Daniel T. Balfour usurped the authority of the Supreme Court of Virginia (SCV) and the Virginia legislature, as retired Judge Balfour had not been designated by court order to preside over and enter orders in CL21-4150. The SCV confirmed in emails that they had no records of a designation order for Daniel T. Balfour to preside over CL21-4150.

Part. 1 Virginia Appellate Judges caught in web of corruption

Virginia Appellate Judges Daniel E. Ortiz, Lisa M. Lorish, and Richard Y. AtLee have been caught in judicial corruption and violating their oath to the Constitution in a highly controversial ethics complaint against Attorney Robert Freed. Robert L. Freed and Emily Kokie are accused of conspiring with their clients to commit a $1.2 million fraud by not serving a defendant and obtaining a default judgment without his knowledge.

Appellate Judges Ortiz, Lorish, and AtLee, attempted to cover up the treasonous usurpation of authority by retired Judge Daniel T. Balfour who illegally presided over the ethics complaint against attorneys Robert Freed and Emily Kokie without a designation order by the Richmond Circuit Court (RVA Court) or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia (SCV).

On January 18, 2024, Appellate Judges Ortiz, Lorish, and AtLee entered an order dismissing the Appeal, which they ignored and failed to rule on two Motions to Void the Trial Courts Order based on Extrinsic Fraud on the Court rendering the Final Order Void ab initio. The two Motions stated that retired Judge Daniel T. Balfour had no jurisdiction or authority to preside and enter orders in the ethics complaint.

Appellate Judges Lisa Lorish and Daniel Ortiz were newly elected by the Virginia Senate in 2021 to the Virginia Court of Appeals. Judge Richard Y. AtLee was elected in 2015.

Judges Ortiz, Lorish, and AtLee presided over Spanos v. Freed et al, CAV Rec. No. 0706-22 (RVA CL21-4150), which gave evidence supported by the SCV and RVA Court records that no designation order had been entered for retired Judge Daniel T. Balfour to preside and enter orders.

Under Virginia Code § 17.1-105. Designation of judges, retired judges called to preside over circuit court cases must have a designation order by the RVA Court or a designation order from the Chief Justice of the SCV. RVA Court records fail to show any designation orders had been entered.

Spanos v. Freed et al.

On August 18, 2023, the SCV Clerk confirmed in an email to the Appellant that no designation order had been entered for retired Judge Balfour to preside over Case Nos. CL21-4150.

Retired Judge  .

Daniel T. Balfour and Robert Freed have had a close personal and business relationship for decades, even writing published works together called "Simple" Wills The Oxymoron 

Further corruption and judicial canons violations by Appellate Judges Ortiz, Lorish, and AtLee are evidenced by their premature Order dated January 25, 2024, which they denied Spanos a Petition for Rehearing, which Spanos had not filed with the CAV until January 26, 2024. The Order gives evidence of violation of Federal code Title 18, USC. 242, Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law.

January 25, 2024 CAV Order

Spanos filed a Plea for the CAV to enter orders on his two Motions to Void the Trial Court's Final Order and Correct their January 25, 2024, Order.

This is the second case before the CAV which retired Judge Daniel T. Balfour illegally presided and entered orders concerning Robert L. Freed as an Defendant, which retired Judge Balfour had not been designated by the RVA Court or the SCV.

The CAV is presiding over Spanos v. Freed et al, Rec. No. 1456-23, (RVA CL23-2683), which Freed is a defendant with four others who attempted to commit a $1.2 million fraud on Spanos by defective service process and concealing the hearing and default judgment from Spanos.

High Profile Richmond Attorneys Face Serious Sanctions for Fraud and Misconduct

 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.