Israeli-linked Hirschler colluded with 3 Va. Judges in Land Fraud

Evidence was presented to three Virginia Circuit Court judges that the Israeli-linked Hirschler law firm had colluded with their client, Kitsa Panos, to forge her elderly partner's signature in a $1.4 million land fraud on Lingerfelt Commonwealth Partners.

In three separate cases, the forged $1.4 million contract and the revoked power of attorney for Kitsa Panos were presented as evidence to Virginia Judges: Judge Joseph J. Ellis, Judge Harold W. (Chip) Burgess, and Judge  M. Duncan Minton that Hirschler Law partner Franklin B. Cragle III had advised his client Kitsa S. Panos to forge her partners signature as to defraud her of her 20% share and sell 52 acres of valuable industrial property to Commonwealth Partners for $1.4 million that had a defective title.

Kitsa S. Panos and Franklin B. Cragle III

Judge Joseph J. Ellis, Judge Harold W. (Chip) Burgess, and Judge M. Duncan Minton ignored evidence of fraud by the Israeli-linked Hirschler law firm; in doing so, they violated the Virginia Judicial Canons requiring them to report criminal actions by attorneys. Evidence showed that Judge Joseph J. Ellis, Judge Harold W. (Chip) Burgess, and Judge  M. Duncan Minton had ex parte communications with Hirschler partners to collude in the $1.4 million land fraud.

In a recent case in Chesterfield County Circuit Court, case # CL25-0333, ignored the $1.4 million fraud and sealed the court filings that contained the evidence. At a scheduled June 23, 2026, hearing at which the Co-defendant and witness to the $1.4 million fraud was to testify, Judge M. Duncan Minton set aside his order allowing the defendant-witness to testify by audio-video and ordered him to personally appear despite being located in Greece, 5000 miles away.

Israeli linked Hirschler has a history of having ex parte communications, bribing judges, and the Virginia State Bar to obtain favorable rulings and judgments for their clients.

Articles of Impeachment are being drafted against Judge Joseph J. Ellis, Judge Harold W. (Chip) Burgess, and Judge  M. Duncan Minton for their collusion and violation of the Virginia Judicial Canons.

Part 2. McCammon Group and Juridical Solutions provide "Justice" to the Highest Bidder

 McCammon Group and Juridical Solutions "Neutrals" have History of Corruption and Unethical Misconduct

The McCammon Group and Juridical Solutions is composed of retired judges and lawyers who offer Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) to litigating parties to mediate their differences outside the courts. 

The first problem is that these retired "neutrals" are not bound by the Judicial Canons and the Virginia Code of Professional Conduct (VCPC). Another problem is these neutrals are paid by the hour, ranging from $300-$800 per hour. One must think, in whose interest is the dispute resolution favor? The neutral of course, as he is getting paid by the hour, the longer it drags out, the better for them and costly for the parties, as they are paying their attorneys as well.

https://www.mccammongroup.com

https://juridicalsolutions.com

The McCammon Group and Juridical Solutions offer mediation and arbitration services, one might think they are the same but there is a difference yet either choice will end you back to the courts.

Juridical Solution states "Mediation and Arbitration are quite distinct procedures. Mediation is not binding upon the parties, but is a process where a Neutral Mediator works with the parties and their counsel in seeking to facilitate an agreeable resolution of the disputes between them. On the other hand, Arbitration is a process where the parties select a Neutral Arbitrator who will hear evidence presented by the parties, and then render a binding Arbitration Award. An Arbitration Award is essentially the same as a judgment by a Court of competent jurisdiction." 

Lets look at the last sentence "An Arbitration Award is essentially the same as a judgment by a Court of competent jurisdiction."

Wrong, it is not the same: 

• a Court judgement can be appealed, challenged and enforced.
• if the "Arbitration Award" is breached by either party or both, the parties will have to litigate in the Courts to settle the breach of award.
• the "neutral" is the only one deciding the dispute, where as in a Court, a jury can decide the litigation.

Who would you take your chances with, a corrupt "neutral" who is paid by the hour, or a jury of your peers who are paid by the state?

Juridical Solutions states "Mediation is an alternative to a Courtroom trial where a Judge or Jury decides the outcome of your dispute.  The retired Judges of JS are neutral facilitators (mediators) who help you settle your  case on your terms.  Court is public; mediation is private and confidential.  Court is formal and restricted to certain evidence; mediation is more wholistic."

• a courtroom trial can be settled by the opposing parties at any time without having to pay a corrupt "neutral" by the hour.
• a jury can decide the outcome, much better to put your faith in twelve peers than in the hands of a "retired" judge who is not bound by any codes or canons of professional conduct.
• court hearings are a matter of record, so any evidence or statements made by witnesses can be used in the Appellate Court, where in mediation or arbitration is confidential.  

McCammon Group states "the hourly rate applies to all of the Neutral’s professional time. Generally, travel time will be billed at 50% of the hourly rate (100% for cases convened outside of VA/MD/DC). Reasonable out-of-pocket expenses such as hotels, tolls, third party conference call charges, etc. will be billed."

If the lawyer/law firm does not wish to be the responsible payer, it will be necessary for the party to establish and maintain a satisfactory retainer account with McCammon before any professional services may be rendered.

McCammon Group's hourly rate could cost the parties over $1500 per hour if you include "travel time, out-of-pocket expenses, hotels, call charges, etc." This is an open invitation to get scammed in a expensive way!

If we take a close look at a few of the "neutrals", many are facing ethics complaints and sanctions in the Appellate Courts for their unethical misconduct of violating Virginia and Federal Codes, the VCPC, and Judicial Canons of Virginia.

Juridical Solutions retired Judge Daniel T. Balfour is under investigation by the Supreme Court of Virginia for violating Va. Code § 18.2-481. Treason, which usurped the authority of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

https://virginiastatebarcorruption.blogspot.com/2023/08/virginia-supreme-court-investigating.html

McCammon Group's Michael E. Harman is facing numerous sanctions in the Appellate Court for 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. Michael E. Harman conspired with his associate Julie Palmer to bribe retired Judge Wilford Taylor, also a McCammon Group "neutral", and have ex parte communications as to vacate previous orders in Henrico County Circuit Court Cases CL21006572 and CL21005759. 

Judge Wilford Taylor was shamelessly forced to recuse himself from presiding over the hearings and the SCV was obligated to designate another Judge, who happen to be Juridical Solutions retired Judge Joseph J. Ellis.

Judge Joseph Ellis had conflicts of interest to preside over four cases in the Henrico Circuit Court involving ethics complaints against Richmond high profile attorneys. Judge Ellis close relationship with the Defendants and McGuire woods law firm, which he was a "neutral" in arbitration and mediation dispute resolutions.

A motion for Judge Ellis to recuse himself was filed several times, yet Judge Ellis refused to enter an order and violated several judicial canons by hearing the ethics complaints. With no surprise Judge Ellis dismissed the ethics complaints against the nine high profile Richmond attorneys, entering contradicting orders that violated the constitution, Virginia and Federal codes, and the rules of the VCPC.

Corrupt Judges are the Problem with Virginia's Judicial System

 Corrupt Judges Tarnish the Image of Virginia's Judicial System

     The term "a few bad apples..." rings loud in the Virginia Justice system, as recent ethics complaints filed in the courts have exposed the deep state corruption that exists in the courts. Further evidence supports that there is a Virginia Shadow Government (VSG) that controls the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches in Virginia.

     The head of the VSG is Richard Cullen, recognized for his title as the "Godfather" of the VSG, Cullen has been in charge of McGuireWoods law firm for decades and despite some leaves of absence to take high-profile positions in the DOJ, Cullen still calls the shots. Richard Cullen is currently the Chief Legal Advisor to Governor Glenn Youngkin.

     When a syndicate like the VSG controls the three branches of the government, they control the state, but when the VSG controls the Judicial branch it controls the U.S. Constitution and the Virginia Constitution, as the courts decide due process of law and this is by far the most significant article of any constitution. 

     Judge Lee A. Harris Jr. had a distinguished and unblemished career, beginning with the Henrico County Commonwealth Attorney's office and in 1992 Judge Harris was appointed to be a Circuit Court Judge with Henrico County, Judge Harris has been a Circuit Court judge for almost 30 years. Recently, over three Ethics Complaints have been filed against Judge Harris, the most significant is CL21006572 filed in the Henrico Circuit Court, Harris and eight other defendants are accused of operating a criminal syndicate in the Virginia Justice system and promoting white nationalism, which believes that white people are superior and deserve preferential treatment and legal protections. The complaint states that Richard Cullen bribed Harris to give preferential treatment and legal protection to white affluent professionals who were McGuireWoods clients and lawyers involved in a 600-kilo cocaine case involving a international fugitive. Court records show that Judge Harris and other Henrico County prosecutors conspired together to keep the fugitive in exile, so that he could not be extradited back to Henrico County to testify against McGuireWoods clients.

     John Adrian Gibney, Jr. is a federal judge on senior status with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. He joined the court in 2010 after a nomination from President Barack Obama. Judge Gibney is facing an Ethics complaint, CL22002249, filed in the Henrico County Circuit Court, which states that Judge Gibney refused to recuse himself for conflict of financial interest, from a case he was presiding over. The case involved an ethics complaint filed against Howard C. Vick Jr., a former Henrico Commonwealth attorney who received bribes by Richard Cullen, who offered Vick a partners position with McGuireWoods law firm in exchange for his refusal to extradite a international fugitive who was the hub of a 600-kilo cocaine organization that operated in the Richmond area for over 10 years. The ethics complaint against Judge Gibney states Judge Gibney violated the Virginia Judicial Canons (VJC) and the Virginia Code of Professional Conduct (VCPC). Judge Gibney is married to Yvonne Gibney who is on the VSB Disciplinary Board panels, had direct financial conflict of interest and personal conflict of interest concerning the Vick Complaint. A motion was filed by the Plaintiff for Judge Gibney to recuse himself but Gibney refused and issued an order and memorandum in the case, which evidenced Gibney's conflict of interests.

     Joseph J. Ellis retired in 2019 from the 15th Judicial Circuit, where he presided in Spotsylvania County. Judge Ellis currently works for Juridical Solutions, specializing in Alternate Dispute Resolution through mediation services. The Supreme Court of Virginia appointed Judge Ellis to preside over three ethics complaint cases (CL21005758, CL21005759, CL21006572) pending in the Henrico County Circuit Court, the ethics complaints are against McGuireWoods attorneys, judges, prosecutors and government officials who conspired together to violate the RICO act and constitutional rights. An ethics complaint, CL22006233, was filed in the Henrico Circuit Court against Judge Ellis violated the Virginia Judicial Canons (VJC) and the Virginia Code of Professional Conduct (VCPC) concerning Conflict of Financial Interests and violating Title 18 Section 242, Deprivation of Rights.

    All the circuit court judges in the Henrico County Circuit Court have recused themselves from hearing and cases concerning international fugitive Nickolas Spanos and the 600-kilo cocaine case, which alleges bribery by Richard Cullen to public officials for financial and political gain. Furthermore, all the U.S. District court judges of the Eastern District of Virginia have recused themselves from presiding over the Judge John Gibney ethics complaint case and a U.S. District court judge from Maryland had to be specially appointed to the Spanos-Gibney case.

    In any "rotten apple" situation, the only remedy is to separate the bad apples from the good apples, which appears to be the case concerning corrupt judges.

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 3. Judge Joseph Ellis States Corrupt Court Officials Must Be Protected

Judge Ellis Final Order Protects Corrupt Court Officers and Judges

February 1, 2023. Author- Brace Impact

      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:

https://juridicalsolutions.com/professionals/hon-joseph-j-ellis-ret-juridical-solutions-mediation-arbitration/

   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.

Chapter 2. Richard Cullen's McGuireWoods Shadow Government Exposed

 Judge Joseph Ellis and McGuireWoods Brandon Santos Collusion Exposes the McGuireWoods Shadow Government

January 25, 2023. Author- Brace Impact

      On January 13, 2023, Judge Joseph Ellis signed a Memorandum Opinion Orders for Henrico County Circuit Court Case Nos.:  

• CL21005759 Spanos v. Douglass et al.
• CL21005758 Spanos v. Vick, 
• CL21006572 Spanos v. Vick et al.
• CL22002250 Spanos v. Harris et al.

      The Memorandum Opinion Orders were drafted by McGuireWoods Counsel Brandon Santos, who was the counsel of record for the defendants James B. Comey, Howard C. Vick, William Birch Douglass, and William Hutchins. Brandon Santos represented Richard Cullen until February 15, 2022, when Richard Culled resigned from McGuireWoods to become the Chief Legal advisor to Governor Glenn Youngkin. Irving Blank was designated as defense counsel for Richard Cullen, as Cullen wanted to detach himself from James Comey and Howard Vick's obstruction of justice and bribery allegations.  

      McGuireWoods attorney Brandon Santos profile description states "Brandon’s practice focuses on advising and defending corporate and individual clients facing regulatory, administrative and criminal investigations. He has advised clients in a wide variety of matters including allegations of healthcare fraud, bank fraud, financial fraud, accounting fraud, import and customs violations, false claims, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Part of his practice focuses on conducting internal corporate investigations". Brandon Santos is brought in when serious allegations of fraud and government corruption are charged against defendants.

     Brandon Santos is the lap dog of Richard Cullen, and was assigned to defend the McGuireWoods attorneys that were part of the 600-kilo cocaine criminal syndicate. The Defendants had colluded to support and promote a "White Nationalism doctrine", giving 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. 

     Before the January 13, 2023, hearing there was a previous hearing on September 19, 2022 on the subject cases, which Judge Joseph Ellis issued an order, drafted by Brandon Santos. The September 19, 2022, order stated:

              “Plaintiff lacks standing to seek the relief requested in the Complaint, and this Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief requested in the Complaint.”

              “It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Defendants' motions are SUSTAINED, and Plaintiff s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. Given this ruling, it is not necessary for the Court to rule on other motions and defenses filed by Defendants to Plaintiff s Complaint.”

              “It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this Order is SUSPENDED until further order of this Court.”

    Please note the important sections of Judge Joseph Ellis' Order are emphasized above. 

Judge Joseph Ellis defective order errors

    On October 5, 2022, 17 days after Judge Ellis' order, Brandon Santos filed a Motion for Entry of Pre-filing Injunction to have Judge Ellis issue an order prohibiting the Plaintiff from filing further ethics complaints in the entire Commonwealth of Virginia. The Pre-filing Injunction was signed by only McGuireWoods counsel not by the other 7 Defendants counsel of record. McGuireWoods did not represent the other 7 defendants. Brandon Santos violated Va. Code § 8.01-271.1. which contained signature defects. Plaintiff gave notice to all the defendants counsel that they were required to remedy the signature defects within 21 days of written notice, Defendant's counsel never remedied the defective signatures.

     The filing of the Motion for Entry of Pre-filing Injunction violated the Virginia Supreme Court Rules of Court. The Pre-filing Injunction should have been filed separately and before the September 19, 2022, hearing date, not after Judge Ellis entered an order. The pertinent parts to Judge Ellis' order states:

• “Plaintiff lacks standing to seek the relief requested in the Complaint, and this Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief requested in the Complaint.”
• "Plaintiff s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. Given this ruling, it is not necessary for the Court to rule on other motions and defenses filed by Defendants to Plaintiff s Complaint.”

     Judge Ellis' order clearly states: 

• "...this Court has no jurisdiction" 
• "...it is not necessary for the Court to rule on other motions and defenses filed by Defendants to Plaintiff s Complaint.”

    Brandon Santos and Judge Joseph Ellis recognized the order's language and recognized two important issues; the court ruled it had no jurisdiction to hear the subject cases, thus it had no jurisdiction to hear the Pre-filing Injunction, additionally the order stated that it was not necessary for the Court to rule on other motions. Brandon Santos and Judge Ellis conspired together to violate Judge Ellis's September 19, 2022, order as they clearly violated the directive of the order which stated "...it is not necessary for the Court to rule on other motions and defenses filed by Defendants to Plaintiff s Complaint.” .

     Another important factor was that Judge Ellis order stated "...Order is SUSPENDED until further order of this Court.” Why would Judge Ellis suspend his order until further order of the Court? Brandon Santos and Judge Ellis recognized that Spanos would file a notice of appeal and have the cases heard before the Court of Appeals of Virginia (CAV), where he would be allowed to give oral arguments. Where Judge Ellis had violated Spanos's constitutional right to make arguments and give testimony in the Henrico Circuit court.

     Brandon Santos intentionally did not file the Motion for Injunction as a separate case as Spanos who resides in Greece would require that Santos serve him in accordance to the mandatory requirements of the Hague Service Convention. If Santos followed the articles of the Hague Service Convention, it would have weighed against William Birch Douglass III and William Hutchins, who were Defendants in one of the complaints filed. Douglass and Hutchins are accused of fraud concerning Spanos's Trust, having not properly serving him according to the mandatory requirements of the Hague Service Convention.

     Brandon Santos and Judge Ellis conspired together to keep the ethics complaint cases in the Henrico Circuit Court indefinitely by suspending the order. Neither Santos or Judge Ellis wanted the CAV to hear the ethics complaints, as it would further expose their unethical court procedures in the Appellate Court. The McGuireWoods shadow government is desperately trying to keep the Spanos cases from gaining exposure.

    Spanos recognized Judge Ellis and Brandon Santos plan to attempt to prevent him from filing a notice of appeal but Spanos ignored the September 19, 2022, Order stating that the order was suspended and tactfully filed a notice of appeal with the Henrico Circuit Court Clerk on October 12, 2022, 22 days after the order was entered. The Henrico Court Clerk was obligated to follow procedures and process the notice of appeal to the CAV and transmitted the court records on December 1, 2022, which the CAV accepted and confirmed the notice of appeal and records.

    On December 13, 2022, McGuireWoods counsel filed a Motion to Dismiss with the CAV on the basis that the September 19, 2022, Order was not final thus non-appealable. On December 15, 2022, Spanos filed his Objection to McGuireWoods' Motion to Dismiss based on his arguments that the order became final and that Judge Ellis's directives in his order stated that "...it is not necessary for the Court to rule on other motions and defenses filed by Defendants to Plaintiff s Complaint.”, thus all court affairs pertaining to the ethics complaints had been concluded and the order was final.