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.
