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.

Chapter 4. Judge Joseph Ellis ignores Virginia Statutes & Superior Court Rulings

 McGuireWoods Corruption Surfaces in Judge Ellis Rulings on Virginia Court's Jurisdiction in Attorney Disciplinary Cases

   The Court of Appeals of Virginia Opinion on December 6, 2022, in Virginia Retirement System v. Joan S. Shelton Va. App. 434 (2022) authored by the Honorable Judge Mary Bennett Malveaux clearly states: 

• “[a]n agency does not possess specialized competence over the interpretation of a statute merely because it addresses topics within the agency’s delegable authority.” 
• “[w]hen the language of a statute is unambiguous, [courts] are bound by the plain meaning of that language.” 
• “[W]hen the General Assembly has used specific language in one instance, but omits that language or uses different language when addressing a similar subject elsewhere in the Code, we must presume that the difference in the choice of language was intentional.” 

     The CAV Opinion directs the Trial Courts to strictly adhere by Virginia codes and not to deviate from the language and prohibits it to be interpreted in any other manner than what the codes states.

     Judge Ellis' order on September 19, 2022, and the Memorandum Opinion/Order on January 13, 2023, intentionally ignored:

• Virginia Supreme Court Rule 13-2 Authority of the Courts:                 

     "Nothing in this Paragraph shall be interpreted so as to eliminate, restrict or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of this Commonwealth to deal with the disciplining of Lawyers as provided by law. Every Judge shall have authority to take such action as may be necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of clients of any Attorney whose license is subject to a Suspension or Revocation." 

• U.S. Supreme Court v. Consumers Union, 446 U.S. 719, (1980):         

   “Appellant Virginia Supreme Court, which claims inherent authority to regulate and discipline attorneys, also has statutory authority to do so. Pursuant to these powers, the court promulgated the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility (Code) and organized the Virginia State Bar to act as an administrative agency of the court to report and investigate violations of the Code. The statute reserves to the state courts the sole power to adjudicate alleged violations of the Code, and the Supreme Court and other state courts of record have independent authority on their own to initiate proceedings against attorneys.”

• Virginia Statutes on Virginia Court's jurisdiction and authority concerning attorney disciplinary cases in the Virginia Courts:      

§ 54.1-3915. Restrictions as to rules and regulations:

    "...“nor shall it promulgate any rule or regulation or method of procedure which eliminates the jurisdiction of the courts to deal with the discipline of attorneys.”

          § 54.1-3910. Organization and government of Virginia State Bar:

              "...The Virginia State Bar shall act as an administrative agency of the Court for the purpose of investigating and reporting violations of rules and   regulations adopted by the Court under this article."

• SCV opinion disseminated in Moseley, 273 Va. 688 (2007):

           “A court has an inherent power to discipline and regulate attorneys practicing before it. This power, since the judiciary is an independent branch of government, is not controlled by statute. Thus, the court's authority to discipline attorneys and regulate their conduct in proceedings before that court is also a constitutional power derived from the separation of powers between the judiciary, as an independent branch of government and the other branches.  

     “This inherent and constitutional power is essentially acknowledged in Code § 54.1- 3915, which prohibits the promulgation of any rule or regulation or method of procedure which eliminates the jurisdiction of the courts to deal with the discipline of attorneys.”

         The January 13, 2023, Memorandum Opinion was unethically drafted by McGuireWoods Brandon Santos for Judge Joseph Ellis; Judge Ellis violated several Judicial Canons by signing the Memorandum Opinion; giving further evidence of a judicial system corrupted by the McGuireWoods Shadow Government.

Chapter 1. EVIDENCE OF MCGUIREWOODS SHADOW GOVERNMENT IN VIRGINIA COURTS

 Judges' Orders Further Exposes the McGuireWoods Shadow Government Corruption

January 22, 2023. Author- Brace Impact

     After 14 months, decisions were issued concerning four complaints filed in the Henrico County Circuit Court against 10 high-profile attorneys consisting of judges, prosecutors, and high profile attorneys including Richard Cullen, the Chief Legal Advisor for Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin.

    As alleged in the complaints filed, Judge Joseph Ellis's Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on January 13, 2023, gave further evidence that McGuireWoods Shadow Government, headed by Richard Cullen, controls the Judicial system in the Virginia Courts. No matter the crimes committed by Virginia Shadow Government lawyers and the legal arguments presented by Plaintiffs, the judges will disregard the U.S. Constitution and Rules of Court and always rule in favor of McGuireWoods Shadow Government.

    The highly controversial case forced the recusal of five Henrico County Circuit Court judges and three other judges designated by the Virginia Supreme Court.  Judge Wilford Taylor had recused himself after evidence filed in the cases proved he had ex parte communications with third parties which he reversed a previous order allowing Spanos to give testimony by two-way audio-video communications. Judge Joseph Ellis denied Spanos's Motions to appear by two-way audio-video and give testimony.

     The defendants listed in the ethics complaints are:

• Richard Cullen
• James B. Comey
• Howard Vick
• Judge Lee A. Harris
• Shannon Taylor
• Michael Feinmel
• Heidi Barshinger
• George Manoli Loupassi
• Wade Kizer
• Todd Stone
• William Birch Douglass III
• William Hutchins

    

    The Defendants filed Demurrers and Pleas of Immunity stating that their unethical misconduct and crimes were protected by judicial and prosecutorial immunity. The Defendants did not deny the allegations of bribery, obstruction of justice, destroying evidence, forgery and several constitutional violations in the complaints.  

     

     Evidence filed in the complaints depicted that McGuireWoods law firm operates the Virginia Shadow Government, headed by Richard Cullen, which controls the three branches, Judicial, Legislative, and Executive, of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The complaints further stated that McGuireWoods law firm has infiltrated the DOJ and FBI by placing McGuireWoods attorneys in key positions and controlling the manner of which the FBI and DOJ is operated.

    

     The complaints gave hundreds of pages of evidence that the 10 high profile attorneys promoted and supported a "white nationalism doctrine" which gave special legal treatment and protection to over 30 white affluent professionals consisting of lawyers, doctors and businessmen who were involved in a 600 kilo cocaine organization that operated in the Richmond area for over 10 years. Many of the white affluent professionals were clients of McGuireWoods law firm and connected to Richard Cullen. 

    The complaints filed by Nickolas Spanos, who had been accused of being the "hub" of the 600-kilo cocaine organization, gave evidence of bribery, political favors, and a criminal syndicate that operated in the Henrico County Circuit Court. Spanos who has been protected by the Henrico Commonwealth Attorney's office and kept in exile, so that he could not testify against the affluent white professionals who were involved in the 600-kilo cocaine organization. Despite having 13 indictments for the distribution of cocaine, the Henrico Commonwealth Attorney's office has refused to extradite Spanos to Henrico County.

    The complaints gave evidence, which included FBI reports and court documents that Richard Cullen obstructed justice and bribed Henrico Commonwealth Attorneys to protect Spanos from being arrested and extradited to Henrico County to face the 13 indictments for distribution of cocaine amounting to 600 kilos. Court documents stated that Cullen, managing partner for McGuireWoods law firm, did not want Spanos prosecuted for the 13 indictments as it would lead to Spanos testifying against the affluent white professionals who were attorneys employed by McGuireWoods or clients of McGuireWoods.

     Spanos and his family were clients of McGuireWoods, under Richard Cullen's management, with estate holdings in the millions of dollars. Richard Cullen bribed Henrico County Commonwealth Attorney Howard Vick with a partners position with McGuireWoods law firm in exchange for his refusal to file an extradition request for Spanos while he was in Greece. The USA and Greece have had an extradition treaty since 1937 and Spanos had no protection from being extradited.

    On January 13, 2023, Judge Joseph Ellis issued orders for:

Case No. CL21005758 Spanos v. Vick, 

Case No. CL21005759 Spanos v. Douglass et al., 

Case No. CL21006572 Spanos v. Vick et al.

Case No. CL22002250 Spanos v. Harris et al.

   The orders dismissed Spanos's complaints stating that Spanos did not have standing and the Court did not have jurisdiction to discipline attorneys accused of violating the Rules of the Virginia Code of Professional Conduct (VCPC).

    Spanos gave evidence that Virginia Codes, Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Virginia Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court cases and the Virginia State Bar dictated that only Virginia Courts have the authority and jurisdiction to discipline attorneys who violate the rules of the VCPC. Judge Joseph Ellis ignored the Virginia Legislature, Virginia Supreme Court rules, Virginia and U.S. Supreme Court opinions and Virginia State Bar letters which all supported Spanos's assertions that Virginia Courts have jurisdiction in attorney disciplinary hearings.

    Spanos filed motions for Judge Joseph Ellis to recuse himself because he violated the Virginia Judicial Canons by having a conflict of interest concerning the defendants, specifically Richard Cullen and other McGuireWoods defendants. Judge Joseph Ellis refused to address the motion to recuse himself and neglected to issue an order.

    Spanos also filed an Objection to a Pre-Filing Injunction submitted by McGuireWoods which sought to prohibit Spanos from filing ethics complaints in the entire Commonwealth of Virginia. Spanos based his objection that McGuireWoods attorneys violated Va. Code § 8.01-271.1. which contained signature defects and gave notice that they were required to be remedied within 21 days of notice by Spanos. McGuireWoods attorneys Brandon Santos, Garret Hooe, and Ellen Hubbard, had unethically signed the Pre-Filing Injunction without being authorized to represent the other 7 defendants who had their own counsel of record.

    Judge Joseph Ellis unethically neglected to rule on Spanos's Motions and issued his Memorandum Opinion and Order without addressing the two important motions filed by Spanos.

    Despite the dismissal of the ethics complaints, Judge Joseph Ellis' Memorandum Opinion and Order undeniably proves that Virginia Judges are controlled by McGuireWoods Shadow Government headed by Richard Cullen and despite the hundreds of pages of evidence proving that a criminal syndicate exists in the Henrico County Circuit Court which supported and promoted "white nationalism", Virginia's citizens are left unprotected and have no constitutional rights to file complaints in the Virginia Courts.

   

   

Virginia Senators Continues to Reappoint Corrupt Judges

 Va. Senators Reappoints Corrupt Judge Despite Hard Evidence of Bribery and Political Gain

     Virginia's Judicial system is rotten with corruption, judges ignore their sworn oath to honor the Virginia Judicial Canons and violate the Rules of the Virginia Code of Professional Conduct. Virginia Senators are responsible for the appointment of Judges in Virginia for a six year term.

     In December 2021, the Virginia General Assembly received hundreds of pages of evidence exposing a criminal syndicate, headed by Judge Lee A. Harris Jr., operating in the Henrico County Circuit Court for over 24 years.

       Live testimony in a video provided to the Judicial sub-committee by a witness, who Judge Harris had protected in a 600-kilo cocaine organization, gave additional evidence of Henrico County Court documents being tampered by Judge Harris, Henrico Commonwealth Attorney Shannon Taylor and Deputy Commonwealth Attorney Michael Feinmel, The evidence showed that the three conspired to destroy hundreds of pages of exhibits of evidence to protect an international fugitive from being extradited to Henrico County and be prosecuted for thirteen indictments for distribution of cocaine.

      Judge Lee A. Harris Jr. obstructed justice in the 600-kilo cocaine case by issuing orders denying the transport of the 600-kilo cocaine fugitive from Greece to Henrico County as to stand trial for the thirteen indictments. Despite the Fugitive asking to be voluntarily extradited to Henrico County, Judge Harris refused to issue an order to provide transportation and escorted by U.S. Marshals.

       The Virginia Senate recognizing the evidence of corruption which included bribery, obstruction of justice, destroying evidence, and making false statements to the Court, the 2022 Virginia Senators voted unanimously to reappoint Judge Lee A. Harris to a six year term so that he would reach retirement status.

 https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?221+vot+SV0093SR0009+SR0009

       It is evident that the only issue that Republicans and Democrats can unanimously agree on is to continue to keep the Virginia Justice system corrupt.

The Senators who voted 40-0 to reappoint Judge Lee Harris were:

                              DISTRICT      PARTY 

George L. Barker	39	Democrat
John J. Bell	13	Democrat
Jennifer B. Boysko	33	Democrat
Amanda F. Chase	11	Republican
John A. Cosgrove, Jr.	14	Republican
R. Creigh Deeds	25	Democrat
Bill DeSteph	8	Republican
Siobhan S. Dunnavant	12	Republican
Adam P. Ebbin	30	Democrat
John S. Edwards	21	Democrat
Barbara A. Favola	31	Democrat
T. Travis Hackworth	38	Republican
Emmett W. Hanger, Jr.	24	Republican
Ghazala F. Hashmi	10	Democrat
Janet D. Howell	32	Democrat
Jen A. Kiggans	7	Republican
Lynwood W. Lewis, Jr.	6	Democrat
Mamie E. Locke	2	Democrat
L. Louise Lucas	18	Democrat
David W. Marsden	37	Democrat
T. Montgomery "Monty" Mason	1	Democrat
Jennifer L. McClellan	9	Democrat
Ryan T. McDougle	4	Republican
Jeremy S. McPike	29	Democrat
Joseph D. Morrissey	16	Democrat
Stephen D. Newman	23	Republican
Thomas K. Norment, Jr.	3	Republican
Mark D. Obenshain	26	Republican
Mark J. Peake	22	Republican
J. Chapman Petersen	34	Democrat
Todd E. Pillion	40	Republican
Bryce E. Reeves	17	Republican
Frank M. Ruff, Jr.	15	Republican
Richard L. Saslaw	35	Democrat
Lionell Spruill, Sr.	5	Democrat
William M. Stanley, Jr.	20	Republican
Richard H. Stuart	28	Republican
David R. Suetterlein	19	Republican
Scott A. Surovell	36	Democrat
Jill Holtzman Vogel	27	Republican

Three Richmond Lawyers Entangled in Fraud on The Court

 Prominent Richmond Lawyers face Serious Bribery Charges and Fraud on the Courts

Ethics Complaints filed in the Circuit Court and Sanctions filed in the Court of Appeals of Virginia (CAV) have placed 3 prominent Richmond lawyers facing criminal and civil action and are likely to have their license to practice law in Virginia revoked.

Robert L. Freed, who is facing ethics complaints, Case No. 0706-22-2, Spanos v. Robert L. Freed, et al., in the CAV for conspiring with his clients to commit fraud of $100,000., Fraud on the Court, misconduct, and numerous violations of the Rules of the Virginia Code of Professional Conduct (VCPC), now faces class 4 felony charges for violating Va. Code § 18.2-447. When a person guilty of bribery.

In a October 31, 2022, email to several persons and his legal assistant, Freed admitted to influencing the judges of the CAV to dismiss the complaint against him even before a hearing date for oral arguments has been set and the CAV deciding the case. A November 8, 2022, Motion for Sanctions was filed in the CAV for Freed's confession of bribing/influencing a judicial preceding. The sanctions are requesting that the CAV report the bribery/influence charge to the Richmond City Commonwealth Attorney for investigation. Click to view Motion for Sanctions November 8, 2022 

Julie S. Palmer and Michael E. Harman of Harman, Claytor,  Corrigan, & Wellman, represent Robert Freed and Emily Kokie in the ethics complaint. 

Julie Palmer was elected in 2022 as President of the Virginia Association of Defense Attorneys https://www.vada.org/directors

Julie Palmer was recently named as one of Virginia Lawyers Weekly’s 2022’s Influential Women in Law.                                        https://valawyersweekly.com/2022/04/04/vlw-names-2022s-influential-women-of-law/

Freed, Palmer and Harman are facing sanctions before the CAV for fraud on the court, making false statements to the court, and tortious interference. Palmer and Harman face separate charges of  bribery/influencing a judicial proceeding in pending cases in the Henrico County Circuit Court. 

The August 1, 2022, Motion for Sanctions against Freed, Palmer, and Harman allege that Palmer and Harman took a February 22, 2022, circuit court record transcript and had ex parte communications with Judge Wilford Taylor Jr., who was presiding over Henrico County Circuit Court Cases CL21006572, CL21005759, to influence Judge Taylor to reverse orders he had previously issued in the Plaintiff’s cases. Click to view CAV SANCTIONS Aug. 1, 2022

The Plaintiff filed a Motion to Recuse Judge Taylor with the Henrico Circuit Court on February 28, 2022, based on evidence provided to the Plaintiff about the ex parte communications between Palmer, Harman, and Judge Wilford Taylor. 

Michael Harman and Judge Wilford Taylor are connected through the McCammon Group, a dispute resolution company which employs Michael Harman and Judge Wilford Taylor as dispute mediators.        Click to view https://www.mccammongroup.com

Shortly thereafter, Judge Taylor recused himself from the Appellant’s cases in the Henrico County Circuit court. Judge Wilford Taylor had been designated by the Supreme Court of Virginia to preside over the Henrico Court cases, as all the Judges of the Henrico County Circuit Court had recused themselves. The SCV had to designate a new judge after Judge Taylors recusal.

Palmer and Harman's influence/bribery of a court member or official, is Fraud on the court and considered to be one of the most serious violations that can occur within a court of law. If fraud on the court occurs, the entire case is voided or cancelled. This means that any ruling or judgment that the court has issued will be rendered void. Additionally, the case will need to be retried, and with different court officials. This is often done in an entirely different venue in order to avoid further instances of fraud on the court.