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 

     

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.  

  

Removing Statues is not going to Cure Virginia's Justice System's White Nationalism Problem

Good Ol' Boy Judges are the Problem with the Virginia Justice System 

        If the Virginia Justice System is to eliminate racism in the courts, good ol' boy Judges need to be eliminated. Since the era of slavery, Virginia Justice and good ol 'boy Judges go hand in hand, providing two justice systems, one for people of color/ethnic groups and another for white affluent professionals.

      Dictionary defines “white nationalism” as:

                     1: the belief, theory, or doctrine that white people are inherently superior to people from all other racial and ethnic groups, and that in order to preserve their white, European, and Christian cultural identities, they need or deserve a segregated geographical area, preferential treatment, and special legal protections.

      This is no secret, everyone in the Virginia justice system recognizes the two justice system exists and accepts it. No one speaks against it, except the victims who are primarily people of color. 

       The attorneys do not dare speak against the good ol' boy system because they will be targeted by the Virginia State Bar with their illegal disciplinary system, which can illegally revoke an attorney's license without due process of law. See article: Virginia State Bar Illegal Disciplinary System

How can a justice system be fair when Judges rule on cases based on anything but the Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution. Good ol' boy Judges will rule on:

• Who the law firm is- usually a large corporation or connected attorney close to the Judge.
• Who the parties are- white professionals are given the good ol' boy privileges of case being decided in their favor.
• What is the race of the attorney representing the client- again white attorneys are given the privilege of rulings in their favor.

      We need not mention that Virginia criminal convictions are primarily based on race and that that people of color are sentenced to far more time than Caucasians convictions.

      These good ol' boy Judges have been serving in the courts for decades and own the system. They rule as they please with no accountability because they know that the Appellate and Supreme Court Judges are also good ol' boys.

      Despite there being Virginia Judicial Canons for Judges, those rules do not apply to good ol' boys. These Judicial Canons only apply to judges who have committed serious criminal crimes.

      Honesty, integrity, and fairness no longer exists in the Virginia Courts. The only rule that applies is who you are. If you are a white affluent professional, you are protected and afforded special preferential treatment. If you are a person of color or belong to an ethnic group, you are segregated for a different unjust system which will hide exculpatory evidence, convict you and sentence you to the prison labor camps run by corporations.

     Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts chided federal judges for not recusing themselves from cases posing a conflict of interest. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/john-roberts-argues-judges-stay-out-cases-financial-conflict-interest?fr=operanews&fbclid=IwAR3AHYtwih2NhHlKmHs3gKTz4gC2GukHG7TlsePLv8tlf3mdwYiU-iAbyR0

      A recent article about "Robed in secrecy: How judges accused of misconduct can dodge public scrutiny". Virginia ranks amongst the lowest states for Judicial Discipline transparency.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/robed-secrecy-judges-accused-misconduct-can-dodge-public-scrutiny-rcna7638

      Complaints against corrupt judges are far and few, but a loophole in the law has given private citizens the right to file ethics complaints against corrupt lawyers and judges which bypass the Virginia State Bar and allows to file ethics complaints directly with Virginia Circuit courts. Don't expect any victories in the circuit courts, as the good ol' boys cover for each other.

      Want to make a change in this good ol' boy judges system? Write or call your delegates and senators, demand they eliminate Judicial Immunity and make the good ol' boys liable for their corruption.

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