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 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.

    

        

Thousands of Virginia Court orders could be null and void.

Thousands of Virginia Circuit Court Orders could be defective and illegal

A Circuit Court Deputy Clerk, who wished to remain anonymous, has disclosed that hundreds to thousands of court orders have not been recorded, have gone missing or the judge who signed them has not officially taken their oath as per the Virginia Code. The Circuit Court Clerk is not issuing a public statement in attempt to cover up the clerical errors which could overturn thousands of cases.

All defendants in Virginia who have had orders issued against them are urged to go to the Circuit Court Clerks Office to verify if court orders issued against them are recorded in the Circuit Clerks Order book. If the orders have not been recorded, the orders are illegal and can not be enforced.

They are also urged to verify if the Judge that signed their order had taken their oath before the Clerk of the Court of record and recorded. Numerous judges who had either been transferred to another jurisdiction or their term had been appointed, have failed to take their oath before the clerk, thus any order they have signed is null and void.

If the Circuit Court Clerk can not provide a record of either a court order being recorded or a judge that has issued an order, who has not taken their oath, then the affected party should contact their attorney or seek legal advise from legal services to have the order dismissed.

The Code of Virginia that address these issue are below with the links to view.

§ 17.1-123. How orders are recorded and signed.

A. All orders that make up each day's proceedings of every circuit court shall be recorded by the clerk in a book known as the order book. Orders that make up each day's proceedings that have been recorded in the order book shall be deemed the official record pursuant to § 8.01-389 when (i) the judge's signature is shown in the order, (ii) the judge's signature is shown in the order book, or (iii) an order is recorded in the order book on the last day of each term showing the signature of each judge presiding during the term.

B. If a judge dies, retires or resigns before orders recorded in the order book have been authenticated, the orders shall have the same force and effect and shall be deemed authenticated when the signature of another judge of the same circuit court or the signature of the judge appointed to fill the vacancy or to preside over the court until the vacancy is filled is authenticated as provided in subsection A.    Click to Code of Virginia Orders Recorded

§ 16.1-69.17. Oath of office of judges, clerks and others. . .

Every judge, substitute judge, clerk, deputy clerk, and juvenile and domestic relations probation officer of a juvenile and domestic relations district court shall, before entering upon the duties of his office, take the oath required by law. The oath of the judge and substitute judge shall be taken before a clerk of a court of record to which appeals from his court lie or any judge, and the oath of the clerk and other officers of the court shall be taken before the judge of the court he serves. Any oath taken before a judge or clerk prior to July 1, 1992, and otherwise conforming with this section is valid.

Click to Code of Virginia Oath of Office