Virginia State Bar Corruption Expert Challenges Virginia Attorneys

 "Take the Challenge and Prove us Wrong!"

Rhetta M. Daniel has been practicing law for over 40 years without a single client complaint filed against her.

In 2017, Rhetta Daniel began representing her client in an international fugitive criminal case in which he was accused of being the "hub of a 600 kilo cocaine organization operated in Richmond, Va for over 10 years.

The case exposed a criminal syndicate operating in the Henrico County Circuit Court for over 20 years, involving the alleged unethical conduct of a number of high profile judges, attorneys and prosecutors. The client's case also involved alleged bribery, obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting a fugitive, FBI corruption and other violations of federal and state codes.

Rhetta Daniel filed a Motion for Brady material in the Henrico County Circuit Court in December 2017, and that is when her troubles began. In early 2018, Virginia State Bar started looking for attorneys who would file complaints against her.

Then in February 2018, the Virginia State Bar filed ethics charges of "impairment" against Rhetta Daniel and swiftly suspended her right to practice law based on her refusal to release five years of protected medical records containing secrets and confidences of her clients. This tactic by the VSB that quickly prevented Rhetta Daniel from defending her high profile client and other pro bono clients involved in serious civil litigation.

Despite providing through medical and psychological reports and the testimony of three medical experts that Rhetta Daniel was more than capable of practicing law, the VSB illegally suspended her law license.

Since 2018, Rhetta Daniel, a former VSB Prosecutor and Henrico County Chief Deputy Commonwealth Attorney, began her fight to obtain justice for herself and other attorneys.

Rhetta Daniel knew that if the Virginia State Bar could impose an illegal suspension and subsequent disbarment on her, it could do the same to any attorney practicing law in Virginia. Through intensive research, Rhetta Daniel began to dissect the Virginia Code, Supreme Court if Virginia Rules of Procedure and constitutional provisions concerning the power of the VSB to discipline attorneys licensed in Virginia or suspend or revoke attorneys' licenses.

Rhetta Daniel has become an expert in her quest to clear her untarnished name, to protect other lawyers, to protect the public and to expose the imposition of illegal discipline of attorneys by the VSB since 1976.

The Challenge

Rhetta Daniel challenges attorneys, judges or anyone else to prove her analyses of the governing law are wrong. The challenge is not about a monetary prize but of legal knowledge and wits, the ability to analyze the Virginia Code sections and procedural Rules empowering Virginia's judiciary and restricting the authority of Virginia's judicial and legislative branches of government.

Rhetta Daniel's Claims:

1. The Virginia State Bar only has the authority to "investigate and report" alleged violations of the Rules of Virginia Code of Professional Conduct to Virginia courts and request that Virginia courts take disciplinary action against attorneys practicing law in Virginia.

Rhetta Daniel's fundamental basis is found in Virginia Code § 54.1-3910. Organization and government of Virginia State Bar:

“The Supreme Court “may” promulgate rules and regulations organizing and governing the 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”… Code 1950, § 54-49; 1974, c. 536; 1991, c. 564; 2002, c. 306. [Emphasis added.]

2. The General Assembly has the exclusive power to establish all Virginia courts and tribunals. The General Assembly enacted restrictive statutes that address the disciplining, suspending, and disbarring attorneys who violate the Rules of the VCPC. These statutes give absolute jurisdiction to Virginia courts to impose discipline on attorneys after complaints have been filed against them in the courts.

Rhetta Daniel's positions are based on the provisions of is Virginia Code § 54.1-3910 and § 54.1-3915. Restrictions as to rules and regulations:

Notwithstanding the "foregoing provisions of this article," the Supreme Court “shall not” promulgate rules or regulations prescribing a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of attorneys which are inconsistent with any statute; “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.” . . . Code 1950, § 54-51; 1974, c. 536; 1988, c. 765.

3. The Supreme Court of Virginia's Rule 13-2, also recognizes that Virginia courts are the only Virginia governmental entities that are authorized to discipline attorneys who are found by a Virginia court to have violated the Rules of the VCPC.

SCV RULE 13-2 AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS.

Nothing in this Paragraph [Organization and Government of the Virginia State Bar] “’shall’ be interpreted so as to eliminate, restrict or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of this Commonwealth to deal with the disciplining of Attorneys 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.

Every Circuit Court shall have power to enforce any order, summons or subpoena issued by the Board, a District Committee or Bar Counsel and to adjudge disobedience thereof as contempt.

Updated: November 25, 2019

Rhetta Daniel's Assertions

Supreme Court of Virginia Case:

The SCV's opinion issued in a case, In re: Moseley, 273 Va. 688 (2007) stated:

“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.”

The Virginia Supreme Court went on to state “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.”

U.S. Supreme Court Case:

U.S. Supreme Court v. Consumers Union, 446 U.S. 719, (1980), which has never been reversed or modified by any court, is a pivotal decision and states:

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.

Prove us wrong!

Response to the challenge can be submitted in the comments or by email to ethics@vajusticegov.us 

     

Virginia State Bar has Illegally Disciplining Lawyers Without Authority.

 Virginia State Bar has no Authority to Discipline Lawyers, only "Investigate and Report"

         Numerous Virginia Codes and Supreme Court of Virginia (SCV) Rules state that only Virginia Courts have authority to discipline erring attorneys. Yet the Virginia State Bar (VSB) have been illegally disciplining attorneys without any authority, since 1976, violating legislature established by the Virginia General Assembly (VGA).

      The VSB Disciplinary Board is only authorized to investigate and report violations of the Rules of the Virginia Code of Professional Conduct (VCPC) by erring attorneys to the courts. The VSB has no authority to suspend, revoke or discipline attorneys.

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

        "The Supreme Court “may” promulgate rules and regulations organizing and governing the 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.” . . . 

        All persons engaged in the practice of law in the Commonwealth “shall” be active members in good standing of the Virginia State Bar." Code 1950, § 54-49; 1974, c. 536; 1991, c. 564; 2002, c. 306.

        The case of the U.S. Supreme Court v. Consumers Union, 446 U.S. 719, 720, (1980), which has never been reversed or modified by any court, states:

 

        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. 

  

      Only the VGA has the exclusive power to establish all Virginia Courts and Tribunals:

1. Article IV. Legislature

2. Articled IV. - Section 14. Powers of General Assembly; limitations

3. Article VI. Judiciary

4. Article VI. Judiciary - Section 7. Selection and qualification of judges

      The Virginia Codes that establish the authority of Virginia Courts to discipline erring attorneys are:

• § 54.1-3915. Restrictions as to rules and regulations.
• § 54.1-3935. Procedure for disciplining attorneys by three-judge circuit court.
• § 54.1-3936. Protection of client interests in proceedings pending disciplinary action.
• § 54.1-3937. Procedure for revocation of certificate of registration of professional law corporations or professional limited liability companies.

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

       "Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this article, the Supreme Court “shall not” promulgate rules or regulations prescribing a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of attorneys which are inconsistent with any statute; “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.” . . . Code 1950, § 54-51; 1974, c. 536; 1988, c. 765.

The SCV RULE 13-2 AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS states:

        "Nothing in this Paragraph [Organization and Government of the Virginia State Bar] “’shall’ be interpreted so as to eliminate, restrict or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of this Commonwealth to deal with the disciplining of Attorneys 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."

    Clearly, the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board members are liable for not following Virginia Codes and the Supreme Court of Virginia Rules, which they illegally disciplined attorneys for over 40 years.  

  

Virginia State Bar has been illegally Disciplining Attorneys for 40 years

 Virginia Court Cases Filed Expose the Virginia State Bar's Illegal Discipline System for 40 years

Virginia Supreme Court Justice Donald W. Lemons

In the past few months, several Ethics Complaints have been filed in the Virginia Courts against Judges and attorneys which has exposed the Virginia State Bar had no authority to discipline attorneys. 

Since 1976, the VSB had no authority to prosecute or discipline attorneys as stated in Virginia Codes passed by the Virginia General Assembly. The VSB only has authority to investigate and report.

An important fact is that there are no "statute of limitations" for Ethics Complaints against attorneys.

The Virginia General Assembly established the State Agencies, Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission (JIRC) and Virginia State Bar to only investigate and report violations of Virginia Judicial Canons and Virginia Code of Professional Conduct committed by Virginia judges and lawyers to the appropriate Virginia courts.

As each Ethics Complaints are being heard, Judges are issuing orders which support Va. Code § 54.1-3915. simply stating that only the Virginia Courts have authority to discipline attorneys in Ethics Complaints.

The Virginia Attorney General's Office who is appointed to defend judicial officers in Ethics Complaints have not challenged Va. Code § 54.1-3915 and based their defense pleadings on Judicial Immunity.

Supreme Court of Virginia 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 Attorneys 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. Every Circuit Court shall have power to enforce any order, summons or subpoena issued by the Board, a District Committee or Bar Counsel and to adjudge disobedience thereof as contempt.

JUDGES ETHICS COMPLAINTS

Virginia Code § 54.1-3915 reserves the authority to the courts to discipline to Virginia attorneys practicing law in Virginia, and all Virginia judges who must be licensed to practice law in Virginia.

Judges do not have judicial immunity, absolute immunity, sovereign immunity, or qualified immunity, or any immunities, for intentionally and maliciously engaging in alleged unethical conduct violating the Virginia Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct and Virginia Canons of Judicial Conduct.

Judges do not have judicial immunity, absolute immunity, sovereign immunity, or qualified immunity, or any other immunity for violating rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Judges do not have judicial immunity, absolute immunity, sovereign immunity, or qualified immunity, or any other immunity for acting outside their jurisdiction.

§ 54.1-3915 Restrictions as to rules and regulations:

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this article, the Supreme Court shall not promulgate rules or regulations prescribing a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of attorneys which are inconsistent with any statute; 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...

Virginia Circuit Courts have sole jurisdiction for civil Ethics Complaints alleging unethical conduct of attorneys under VA Code § 54.1-3915.

Va. Code § 54.1-3915 is the applicable Virginia statute in this case and sets out that the Supreme Court of Virginia shall not “promulgate any rule or regulation or method of procedure which eliminates the jurisdiction of the courts to deal with the discipline of attorneys...”.         

Va Code § 54.1-3915 provides no restrictions on who may file an ethics complaint against attorneys practicing law in Virginia. See Drewry, 161 Va. at 842, 172 S.E. at 286(Va 1934).

Based on VA Code § 54.1-3915 and all other applicable statutes, the Virginia State Bar does not have statutory authority to prosecute or discipline attorneys.

The Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board and District Committees members are not judicial officials appointed by the Virginia General Assembly to serve as judges, hearing officers, or any other type of judicial official.

Those interested can review VA Codes § 54.1-3915 and all Sections from § 54.1-3900 through § 54.1-3915, to verify this information.

In 1976, the VA Supreme Court and the VSB started the completely confidential VSB Disciplinary Board and Disciplinary System through only Virginia Supreme Court Rules and Regulations to take the cases in-house to hide the favors they were giving to the powerful lawyers practicing in Virginia.

Ethics Cases Currently Filed in Virginia Courts

• U.S. District Court Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division Case 3:21-cv-00638
• Henrico County Circuit Court CL21005758, CL21005759, CL21006572
• Louisa County Circuit Court CL21000136, CL21000137, CL21000138, CL21000209, CL21000221, CL21000222
• Orange County Circuit Court, CL21000427, CL21000704, CL21000851

Virginia Supreme Court Chief Justice hiding from being served in Ethics Complaint

When high court justices hide from being served with court filings. 

Chief Justice Donald W. Lemons, Supreme Court of Virginia dodges service of a civil Ethics Complaint and a Petition for a Declaratory Judgment filed in the Circuit Court of the County of Louisa, Virginia.

Chief Justice Lemons refused three times to allow his office staff to accept substitute business service.

In a separate Ethics Complaint filed in Orange County, Virginia, Chief Justice Donald Lemons again refused service at his office and was served at his home at 1340 N. Ivanhoe street, Alexandria, VA, 22301.

Karen Gould, Executive Director of the Virginia State Bar accepted service and is represented by the Virginia Attorney General.

How does Chief Justice Lemons think that running from service is going to help him?

Rhetta M. Daniel filed an Ethics Complaint against Chief Justice Lemons and eleven other defendants, who are listed as:

Karen Gould, Executive Director of the VSB 

Chief Justice Lemons of the Supreme Court of Virginia 

E. Grier Ferguson, Esq., Executor and Trustee of Judge William Wellington Jones (deceased)

Alison R. Zizzo, Esq., Ferguson's attorney 

Vanessa Stillman, Esq., Ferguson's attorney 

Nathan Olansen, Esq., Ferguson's attorney

Glen M. Robertson, Esq., Ferguson's attorney

Judge John F. Daffron, Jr. (ret. Chesterfield), sitting specially in the City of Suffolk Circuit Court - Appointed by the VA Supreme Court 

Judge H. Thomas Padrick, Jr. (ret. Virginia Beach), sitting specially in the City of Suffolk Circuit Court. Appointed by the VA Supreme Court 

W. Randolph Carter, Jr. L, Clerk of the City of Suffolk Circuit Court 

Elizabeth K. Shoenfeld, Esq., Asst. Bar Counsel

Prescott L. Prince, Esq., Asst. Bar Counsel

The Ethics Complaint filed on June 09, 2021 can be viewed at the below link:

ETHICS COMPLAINT FILED IN LOUISA COUNTY

The Ethics Complaint filed lists the following offences:

Case # CL 21-209

Ethics allegations: Failing to report other attorneys and judges unethical and criminal actions for prosecution.

Knowing violating Virginia laws since he became a Justice on the Supreme Court of Virginia.

CL 21-221

Declaratory Judgment:

Seeking a decision from the Louisa Circuit Court that since 1976, the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Virginia State Bar have disregarded Virginia Statutes and knowingly broken the law.

Ethics & Declaratory Judgments Cases:

Both deal with:

The collusion of the VSB and the Supreme Court of Virginia has caused thousands of Complaints to be dismissed without investigation and thousands of lawyers to be disciplined without the VSB having the statutory authority to impose any discipline.

It's a criminal act (accessory after the fact) to fail to report evidence of a crime to the appropriate federal or state authorities. The VSB & the VA Sup Ct rarely report evidence of a crime even though they are mandated to do so by the VSB Code of Professional Conduct and the Virginia Supreme Court Rules of Procedure for the VSB.

Va Sup Ct Procedural Rule 13-30 

G. Disclosure of Criminal Activity. If Bar Counsel or a Chair of the Board or a Chair of a District Committee discovers evidence of criminal activity by an Attorney, Bar Counsel, the Chair of the Board or a Chair of a District Committee shall forward such evidence to the appropriate Commonwealth’s Attorney, United States Attorney or other law enforcement agency. The Attorney concerned shall be notified whenever this information is transmitted pursuant to this subparagraph 13-30 unless Bar Counsel decides that giving such notice will prejudice a disciplinary investigation.

More corruption hits Henrico County Shannon Taylor's office

Henrico County CA Shannon Taylor corruption stacking up prior to 2019 elections

In a request sent to Google llc. to obtain confidential information about the news media group Exposing Corruption in Virginia, the Henrico Police by request of HCCA Shannon Taylor has illegally represented itself as the FBI conducting the investigations. A copy of the email request to Google states:

" ---BEGIN PRESERVATION REQUEST---
Dear Word Press,

I am attempting to obtain information related to a Blog (exposingcorruptioninvirginia.home.blog) which is believed to be run by the suspect of a witness tampering/intimidation investigation wherein similar information is being posted on a separate blog.

Can you please confirm whether or not Word Press is the appropriate entity which would possess records such as subscriber/registration information for the blogger(s) and IP history from which articles are posted? If so, I would ask that any information related to the aforementioned blog be preserved until the appropriate legal process can be obtained.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thank you!

TFO - FBI Richmond Cyber Task Force 
Henrico County Police Division 
---END PRESERVATION REQUEST---"

A Henrico Circuit Court Motion/Order dated March 05, 2019, requested to Google llc. give all information pertaining to the news media group Exposing Corruption in Virginia, in order to identify the confidential reporters and news sources. A Henrico Police Department Detective Stuart T. Voncanon was listed as the investigator in the subject court order. The Henrico County Circuit Court Judge who signed the order is Gary A. Hicks. CLICK TO VIEW THE COURT ORDER

In addition to falsely representing themselves as the FBI, the Henrico County Police department and Henrico County CA Shannon Taylor are violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which protects the Freedom of the Press.

Shannon Taylor is a member of the Virginia State Bar's 2018-2019 Standing Committee on Legal Ethics. 

The news media group Exposing Corruption in Virginia has responded to Google llc with a March 19, 2019 email stating:

"Hi Google

I thank you for this information and must formally object to this request for information.

The request is not been made by the FBI Richmond division and Henrico Police Department Detective S.T. VonCanon is not part of the FBI. The FBI only files its legal process through the Federal courts not local county courts. 
 Henrico Police Department Detective S.T. VonCanon is falsely representing himself as FBI.

The request by the HPD  is an inquiry for a motion/order, there is no legal case attached to this motion/order.

This request by Henrico Police Department Detective S.T. VonCanon is a violation of the U.S. Constitution First Amendment right to Freedom of the Press.

Our organization is a news media exposing corruption inside the Virginia Justice system, our blog series VASTATEBARCORRUPTION has exposed illegal corruption and violations of the Virginia criminal code, which criminal complaints have been filed against corrupt Virginia government officials which include Henrico County Court officials. Our blogs have attached the evidence of corruption, thus our news reporting is accurate and defended.

The request that GOOGLE LLC has received is a fishing expedition, in order to persecute the reporters and news informants, which is a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Our news reporting operates under the blanket protection of the Freedom of the Press.

 “The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.” The freedom of the press, protected by the First Amendment, is critical to a democracy in which the government is accountable to the people. A free media functions as a watchdog that can investigate and report on government wrongdoing.

We are formally requesting that you deny the inquiry request of the Henrico County Court/police department."

It is unclear if news media group Exposing Corruption in Virginia will retain a lawyer to object to the Henrico Court order submitted to Google llc.