Part 1. Richmond Casino Wishes will Fail because of its overwhelming Corruption

 Richmond's Overwhelmed Corruption Cannot Support the Responsibility of a Casino

Author Brace Impact, September 18, 2023

Urban One Inc.’s $562 million Casino project in Richmond, Virginia has huge stakes for its referendum approval on November 2, 2023. 

Urban One Inc.’s project is claiming to bring in around 1,350 permanent jobs. Along with supporting people with employment, it estimates that it will make $30 million in annual tax revenue for Richmond as well as $16 million in charitable contributions over the next decade. 

Dangling the "carrot in front of the donkey" is Alfred Liggins, Urban One’s CEO, stating “Our proposal is unparalleled and can not be matched, “We would be creating the only black-owned casino in the United States of America. Perhaps more importantly, our project will be very diverse and inclusive.” So because it would be black owned means that his Casino would not be prone to violent crimes, theft, loan sharking, narcotics distribution, prostitution, and theft? 

                      URBAN ONE ALFRED LIGGINS

Despite Liggins boasting that the Casino would create 1350 new jobs earning at least $15 an hour. Common sense dictates that with Casinos comes organized crime and violence, the RPD is overwhelmed now, what happens after the Casino is operating and citizens turn to loan sharks for gambling money, narcotics distribution, prostitution, and fraud? 

A Casino in Richmond, who cannot control its corruption, would increase crime and the burden on its failing court system. In Richmond, the statistics prove that justice goes to the highest bidder, would a lower class citizen get the same justice as a well dressed attorney from a major law firm or a businessman who makes political contributions, absolutely not!

Whenever there is enormous revenue, corruption goes hand in hand, especially when corrupt judges, law firms and public officials are involved. History has taught us that these are the major concerns, especially in a city with high violent crime, deteriorating public schools, and lack of housing for lower to medium class citizens and out of control corruption. 

Council President Mike Jones, who represents the 9th District said “We're going to hear dog whistle...Crime this, crime that. Those are just dog whistles," said “Please stop speaking on behalf of Southside residents, they are grown.” 

https://richmondfreepress.com/news/2021/may/27/gold-rush/

                         RVA COUNCILMAN MIKE JONES

Elected officials like Mike Jones with his eyes on gold quickly dismisses Richmond's highest violent crime rate ever and Richmond's inability to employ police officers and its failed support of the Richmond Police Department. Exactly what is Councilman Mike Jones justification, that "grown southside residents" don't commit violent crimes? 

The turmoil in Richmond's Justice system is no stranger to corruption as justice is sold to its highest bidder. Richard Cullen's McGuireWoods Shadow Government has poisoned the three branches of Virginia's Government putting a stranglehold on the Constitution. Richard Cullen positioned himself as the Chief legal advisor to Governor Glenn Youngkin, Cullen wears the proud title of the "Godfather of the Virginia Shadow Government."

Richard Cullen controls the Virginia Justice system, especially in  Richmond and surrounding counties of Henrico, Chesterfield, Hanover, and New Kent. Richard Cullen has strategically placed his judicial pawns in the Circuit Courts, Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court as to obtain favorable decisions for him and his criminal syndicate.

https://virginiastatebarcorruption.blogspot.com/2023/02/corrupt-judges-are-problem-with.html

The Virginia senate elects Judges based on their corruption level and not on integrity, Richard Cullen's Shadow Government wants Judges who are players and not those who abide by their sworn oath and the Judicial Canons of Virginia, history has proven this over a period of twenty-five years. 

https://virginiastatebarcorruption.blogspot.com/2022/11/virginia-senators-continues-to.html

Judge Willian Reilly Marchant, Chief Judge of the Richmond Circuit Court was handed the Casino referendum case and had issued an order clearing the way for a Richmond casino referendum to appear on ballots this November, despite Richmond citizens strongly opposing it last year. 

What has changed over the past year to give the Casino another chance at the ballots in November, higher bribes and political favors, of course! With a $562 million project and yearly income of over $100 million at stake, payoffs to judges and public officials just got more expensive.

Under Chief Judge Marchant, the Richmond Circuit Court operates under anarchy, evidence of retired judges presiding over highly controversial cases, without an order from the Circuit court or the Supreme court designating them and giving authority to hear cases and issuing orders are common. The Supreme Court is investigating judges who conspired with retired judges and lawyers to commit treason by usurping the authority of the Virginia Supreme Court and the Virginia General assembly.

https://virginiastatebarcorruption.blogspot.com/2023/08/rva-judges-and-high-profile-lawyers.html

How can Richmond justify having a Casino that will surely bring a variety of serious felonies to the area which will be covered up by Richmond Commonwealth Attorney Colette McEachin. Colette McEachin has proven her history of corruption by refusing to disqualify herself and refer criminal complaints filed with her office naming her associates conspiring to treason, bribery, and fraud.

McEachin was obligated to disqualify herself and appoint a special prosecutor and have the Virginia State Police investigate the criminal complaints, instead McEachin buried the criminal complaints to protect her political friends.

By its history of corruption, Richmond does not deserve a Casino until it gives the citizens evidence of it cleansing itself of the cancer of corruption.

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 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. 

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