RVA Judges and High Profile Lawyers Caught in Treason Plot against the Supreme Court of Virginia

Richmond Circuit Court Judge McClenney and Judge Balfour Conspired with Corrupt Lawyers to illegally create their own Court System without the Supreme Court's Authority.

Richmond Circuit Court Judge Jacqueline McClenney and retired Judge Daniel T. Balfour conspired together to usurp the authority of SCV Chief Justice Samuel Bernard Goodwyn by conducting a hearing without SCV Chief Justice Goodwyn designating retired Judge Daniel Balfour to preside over a hearing on July 24, 2023.

The SCV is investigating the reason why Judge Balfour presided over the hearing without Chief Justice Goodwyn signing an order designating him to preside over the case. Further investigation into why the Richmond Circuit Court Judges did not preside over the hearing and why proper procedures were not followed in accordance with Va. Code § 17.1-105. Designation of judges to hold courts and assist other judges.

Va Code § 17.1-105. Designation of judges states:

B. If all the judges of any court of record are so situated in respect to any case, civil or criminal, pending in their court as to render it improper, in their opinion, for them to preside at the trial, unless the cause or proceeding is removed, as provided by law, they shall enter the fact of record and the clerk of the court shall at once certify the same to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall designate a judge of some other court of record or a retired judge of any such court to preside at the trial of such case.

Richmond Circuit Court Judicial Secretary Virginia Bray confirmed in emails that neither Judge McClenney nor the other Richmond Circuit Court judges signed an order recusing themselves. Court records indicate that no recusal order was signed and entered into the case file and that the SCV Chief Justice Goodwyn was never notified to designate a judge to preside over the case.

SCV and Richmond Court records show that Judge McClenney was scheduled to preside over the hearing but retired Judge Balfour just showed up in Court Room 307 and quickly presided over the hearing and illegally issued an order dismissing the controversial case and immediately left the court house.

On July 28, 2023, the Petitioner filed pleadings objecting to the illegal order which details evidence of Robert L. Freed and his counsel had conspired with Judge McClenney and Judge Balfour to violate Va. Code § 18.2-481. Treason, stating that the two judges and the opposing counsel; (1) Establishing, without authority of the legislature, any government within its limits separate from the existing government;(2) Holding or executing, in such usurped government, any office, or professing allegiance or fidelity to it; or (3) Resisting the execution of the laws under color of its authority.

The case (CL23-2683) involves several high profile lawyers who committed extrinsic fraud on the court and defrauded the Petitioner out of $100,000. The lawyers are listed as Robert L. Freed, Defendant, and his counsel Julie Palmer and Michael E. Harman of Harman Claytor Corrigan & Wellman, P.C.

Court records show that a serious conflict of interest was disclosed in emails to Judge McClenney and opposing counsel Julie Palmer and Mark Nanavati that their client Robert L. Freed has a long close personal relationship with Judge McClenney which was concealed from the Plaintiff and the Court.

Further Court records show that there was a serious conflict of interest between Judge McClenney and former Virginia Delegate George Manoli Loupassi, which a Letter of Recusal was sent to Judge McClenney on July 17, 2023 and a Motion to Recuse Judge McClenney was filed on July 21, 2023.

George Manoli Loupassi

In 2014, Richmond Delegate G. Manoli Loupassi, who chaired the House judicial selection subcommittee, endorsed and hard-pressed Judge McClenney’s appointment to the 13th Judicial Circuit. The highly controversial appointment of Judge McClenney and the removal of the Honourable Birdie Hairston Jamison created a media storm concerning how “anonymous” lawyers’ negative survey results about Judge Jamison’s policy of rejecting too many D.U.I. plea deals because of “high dollar lawyers” who represented DUI offenders.

                                             Honorable Birdie Hariston Jamison

The highly controversial removal of Judge Jamison and replacing her with Judge McClenney created a large media debate on why Judge McClenney was appointed to the 13th Judicial Circuit;

https://www.nbc12.com/story/30564637/richmond-traffic-judge-breaks-her-silence-talks-about-not-being-reappointed/

https://richmond.com/news/local/government-politics/ex-richmond-judge-defends-record-criticizes-judicial-re-election-process/article_14d5a4c2-1e13-526a-9c2d-33c7442f56fd.html

https://richmondfreepress.com/news/2014/dec/19/judge-defends-record/

https://richmondfreepress.com/news/2015/jan/22/general-assembly-ousts-jamison-welcomes-mcclenney/

https://www.facebook.com/NBC12News/videos/1105608196116947/

Judge McClenney’s allegiance to Loupassi and other high-profile defendants in Petitioner’s ethics complaint to vindicate exposing the existing criminal syndicate operating in the Virginia justice system. Furthermore, the appointment of Judge McClenney for the 13th Judicial Circuit was decided on who is a cooperative “player” in the judicial system, as alleged by the news media in the attached articles detailing the statements of the Honorable Jamison and other known political individuals. 

Loupassi and other high profile lawyers have ethics complaints filed in the Court Of Appeals and face having their law license suspended or revoked for operating a "white nationalism" syndicate where they protected affluent professionals involved in a 600- kilo cocaine organization that operated in Richmond for over ten years.

https://virginiastatebarcorruption.blogspot.com/2023/05/high-profile-richmond-attorneys-face.html

Part 1. Exposing Virginia Judicial Corruption Syndicates

 Judicial Mediation Services exposed as corrupt judges/attorney networks sold to the highest bidder

Judicial corruption has been organized into a new modus operandi with the formation of mediation services by "neutrals,” retired judges, and experienced attorneys independently contracted by companies to give an alternative to courts. These mediation services are a syndicate of corruption, organizing judges and attorneys to receive bribes in exchange for favorable decisions.

The popular term used by these companies is called Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR), described as "assisting litigants or would-be litigants in resolving disputes without the cost, time, publicity and delay that may be encountered in going to Court and litigating a case through trial and possible appeals." 

On the surface, it sounds honest, efficient, and time management. Still, when we closely examine who are the "neutrals" and their history, it’s like biting into a poisonous apple, as the term "neutral" is contradictory to their services. It’s a matter of the highest bidder who gets the favorable decision.

But any decision made is not a court order, not binding on either party and if no settlement is reached, the parties are back to step one, the courts. Most importantly, the mediation is confidential and is prohibited from being used in the courts.

We will look at two of the most popular Judicial Mediation Services; 

The McCammon Group, 

https://www.mccammongroup.com/neutrals/ 

and 

Juridical Solutions PLC, 

https://juridicalsolutions.com/professionals/

Both mediation services charge by the hour, ranging from $300 to $500 per hour; add in the attorney cost for each party, and this Alternate Dispute Resolution would cost two litigants well over $1200 per hour. As all parties are getting paid by the hour, it would not behoove the attorneys and the "neutrals" for an early settlement. 

Another trap in this judicial syndicate is that the mediation services are not a court of law. Thus the judges are not obligated to the Canons of Judicial Conduct for the State of Virginia. They can break the rules and not be held responsible. 

https://casetext.com/rule/virginia-court-rules/virginia-rules-of-supreme-court/part-six-integration-of-the-state-bar/section-iii-canons-of-judicial-conduct-for-the-state-of-virginia

It is questionable if the attorneys can be held responsible for violating the Rules of the Virginia Code of Professional Conduct, as the mediation is confidential.

One would ask, what is the advantage of using mediation services? None for the litigants; imagine spending tens of thousands on unbinding, corrupt, and confidential mediation services. If one party is not agreeable, you are back in the courts anyway but have wasted time, money, and effort for nothing but frustration for the litigants.

The only ones who come out winners are the attorneys and judges who mediate these services, which is another scam for the litigant!

High Profile Richmond Attorneys Face Serious Sanctions for Fraud and Misconduct

 Prominent Attorneys and their Counsel Face Harsh Sanctions in White Nationalism Case in the Virginia Court of Appeals.

On April 28, 2023, eight prominent attorneys through their counsel in the Richmond area filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal in the Court of Appeals of Virginia. What started as a normal motion has turned into a nightmare for the eight attorneys facing ethics complaints for conspiring together to promote and support a "white nationalism" syndicate which protected white affluent professionals from being investigated and prosecuted for their role in a 600-kilo cocaine organization that operated in the Richmond area for over ten years.

The Appellant immediately filed a Motion for Sanctions against the nineteen attorneys for fraud on the court and violating the rules of the Virginia Code of Professional Conduct(VCPC), specifically Rule 8.4 Misconduct. The attorneys are listed below.

APPELLEE	APPELLEE COUNSEL
Richard Cullen and Wade Kizer	Irving Blank
Judge Lee A. Harris Jr.	Brittany McGill, Amy Hensley
Shannon L. Taylor	Theodore Brenner
James B. Comey, Howard C. Vick Jr.	Brandon Santos, Garret Hooe
Michael Y. Feinmel	William Tunner, John O’Herron
Todd Stone	S. Keith Barker
George Manoli Loupassi	Bradley Marrs

The most prominent Attorney facing sanctions is Richard Cullen, the chief legal advisor to Governor Glenn Youngkin, Cullen is listed as the organizer of the "white nationalism" syndicate which operated in the Virginia Courts for over two decades.

Other prominent attorneys include James B. Comey, Judge Lee A. Harris Jr., Shannon Taylor, Howard Vick, and numerous McGuireWoods law firm attorneys. Richard Cullen, James Comey, and Howard Vick worked together at McGuireWoods. Richard Cullen is the Godfather of James Comey's daughters.

The Motion for Sanctions states that the nineteen attorneys conspired together to commit numerous violations of Virginia Codes, Fraud on The Court, and Misconduct. A copy of the Motion for Sanctions can be viewed: Motion for Sanctions in the Court of Appeals

The violations are listed as:

VCPC Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal;

(2) fail to disclose a fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;

(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal controlling legal authority in the subject jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

(4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures.

(b) A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

(c) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer, which will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision whether or not the facts are adverse.

(d) A lawyer who receives information clearly establishing that a person other than a client has perpetrated fraud upon the tribunal in a proceeding in which the lawyer is representing a client shall promptly reveal the fraud to the tribunal.

(e) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (d) continue until the conclusion of the proceeding and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information protected by Rule 1.6.

VCPC Rule 8.4 Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal or deliberately wrongful act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation which reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law;

Va. Code § 8.01-271.1. Signing of pleadings, motions, and other papers; oral motions; sanctions.

B. The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that (i) he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper, (ii) to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and (iii) it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

F. Signature defects in appellate filings, including the notice of appeal, shall be raised in the appellate court where the appeal is taken. Failure to timely raise the issue of a defective signature in an appellate pleading, motion, or other paper while the case is pending before the appellate court waives any challenge to that pleading, motion, or other paper based on such a defect.

G. If a signature defect is not timely and properly cured after it is brought to the attention of the pleader or movant, the pleading, motion, or other paper is invalid and shall be stricken. A signature defect shall be cured within 21 days after it is brought to the attention of the pleader or movant. If a signature defect is timely and properly cured, the pleading, motion, or other paper shall be valid and relate back to the date it was originally served or filed.

It is questionable if the Appellees even mailed their February 27, 2023, and October 17, 2023, “Notice” to the Appellant and should be ordered to produce a certified U.S. Postal receipt or commercial delivery receipt evidencing of completing the service process on the Appellant. The Appellees recognize that the Appellant resides in a foreign country and should have taken reasonable care to assure that the Appellant received the “Notice,” as certified in their Joint Motion submitted to this Court.

Rule 1:12. Service of Papers after the Initial Process: 

All pleadings, motions, and other papers served after the initial process in an action and not required to be served otherwise, and requests for subpoenas duces tecum must be served by delivering, dispatching by commercial delivery service for same-day or next day delivery, transmitting by facsimile, transmitting by electronic mail when Rule 1:17 so provides or when consented to in writing signed by the person to be served, or by mailing, a copy to each counsel of record on or before the day of filing.

Chapter 5. McGuireWoods Commits Fraud on the Court Defending themselves from Fraud on the Court

 RVA McGuireWoods Continual Fraud on the Court exposed in Ethics Complaint case

   An ethics complaint against McGuireWoods attorneys Richard Cullen, James Comey, Howard C. Vick, William Birch Douglass III, and William Hutchens has led to more fraud on the court violations by their defense attorney Brandon Santos of McGuireWoods RVA.

   The ethics complaints filed in Henrico County Circuit Court are; CL21005759 Spanos v. Douglass et al., CL21005758 Spanos v. Vick, CL21006572 Spanos v. Vick et al., which alleged several violations of the Virginia Code of Professional Conduct, Federal and Virginia Codes, were heard on January 13, 2023, by Judge Joseph Ellis. 

   On September 19, 2022, Judge Joseph Ellis issued an order clearly stating:

              “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.”

    Judge Joseph Ellis’s order clearly states that the court has no jurisdiction in these matters, and it is unnecessary for the court to rule on other motions and defenses filed by Defendants. So then, why would Judge Ellis suspend his order until further order from this court?

   On October 5, 2022, 17 days after Judge Ellis' order, Brandon Santos devised a scheme to file a Motion for Entry of Pre-filing Injunction to have Judge Ellis issue an order prohibiting the Plaintiff from filing further ethics complaints against the entire Commonwealth of Virginia.

   McGuireWoods Brandon Santos violated Judge Ellis's order and had unethically violated the Virginia Supreme Court Rules of Court, as he comingled his Motion for Injunction with the Plaintiff's ethics complaint; Santos’s Motion for Injunction should have been filed separately and before September 19, 2022, hearing date, not after Judge Ellis entered an order. Additionally, Plaintiff should have been served according to Hague Service Convention, as Plaintiff is a resident of Greece.

    The major problem with serving Plaintiff according to the Hague Service Convention, then McGuireWoods Santos would be supporting the Plaintiff's argument in his ethics complaint filed against McGuireWoods William Birch Douglass III and William Hutchins.

   William Birch Douglass III and William Hutchens are accused of committing fraud on the court during their employment with McGuire-Woods law firm. They conspired unethically to have their client illegally removed as trustee & executor of a family trust.

      McGuire-Woods’ partners initiated a lawsuit representing both the plaintiff and the defendant. The McGuire-Woods partners knew the exact location of the trustee in Greece. They communicated with him through conference calls and postal service but did not serve him through the Hague Service Convention; instead served him at his mother’s house, who was the plaintiff.

   Greece's Protocol to the Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters states that foreign service can only be processed through the Greek DOJ and served by only a certified service processor/court official. Furthermore, the documents intended to be served must also be translated into the Greek language and certified by the Greek Department of Foreign Affairs.

   The Trust had no provision for removal, and the petition for removal listed no financial irregularities to justify the petition. 

   The Defendants filed a Defense Pleading on September 27, 2021, in which they did not deny the allegations, only that the statute of limitations had expired for the criminal violations. Yet, there is no statute of limitations for fraud in the court, unethical misconduct, and violation of the Rules of the Virginia Code of Professional Conduct.

   The McGuireWoods partners responded in their defense pleadings that Nickolas Spanos was never a client of McGuireWoods despite evidence showing that Spanos was a client from 1992 and had issued several checks signed by Spanos to McGuireWoods law firm for over seven years. The checks are listed in Estate reports to the Henrico County Commissioner of Accounts. 

 

   

Corrupt Judges are the Problem with Virginia's Judicial System

 Corrupt Judges Tarnish the Image of Virginia's Judicial System

     The term "a few bad apples..." rings loud in the Virginia Justice system, as recent ethics complaints filed in the courts have exposed the deep state corruption that exists in the courts. Further evidence supports that there is a Virginia Shadow Government (VSG) that controls the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches in Virginia.

     The head of the VSG is Richard Cullen, recognized for his title as the "Godfather" of the VSG, Cullen has been in charge of McGuireWoods law firm for decades and despite some leaves of absence to take high-profile positions in the DOJ, Cullen still calls the shots. Richard Cullen is currently the Chief Legal Advisor to Governor Glenn Youngkin.

     When a syndicate like the VSG controls the three branches of the government, they control the state, but when the VSG controls the Judicial branch it controls the U.S. Constitution and the Virginia Constitution, as the courts decide due process of law and this is by far the most significant article of any constitution. 

     Judge Lee A. Harris Jr. had a distinguished and unblemished career, beginning with the Henrico County Commonwealth Attorney's office and in 1992 Judge Harris was appointed to be a Circuit Court Judge with Henrico County, Judge Harris has been a Circuit Court judge for almost 30 years. Recently, over three Ethics Complaints have been filed against Judge Harris, the most significant is CL21006572 filed in the Henrico Circuit Court, Harris and eight other defendants are accused of operating a criminal syndicate in the Virginia Justice system and promoting white nationalism, which believes that white people are superior and deserve preferential treatment and legal protections. The complaint states that Richard Cullen bribed Harris to give preferential treatment and legal protection to white affluent professionals who were McGuireWoods clients and lawyers involved in a 600-kilo cocaine case involving a international fugitive. Court records show that Judge Harris and other Henrico County prosecutors conspired together to keep the fugitive in exile, so that he could not be extradited back to Henrico County to testify against McGuireWoods clients.

     John Adrian Gibney, Jr. is a federal judge on senior status with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. He joined the court in 2010 after a nomination from President Barack Obama. Judge Gibney is facing an Ethics complaint, CL22002249, filed in the Henrico County Circuit Court, which states that Judge Gibney refused to recuse himself for conflict of financial interest, from a case he was presiding over. The case involved an ethics complaint filed against Howard C. Vick Jr., a former Henrico Commonwealth attorney who received bribes by Richard Cullen, who offered Vick a partners position with McGuireWoods law firm in exchange for his refusal to extradite a international fugitive who was the hub of a 600-kilo cocaine organization that operated in the Richmond area for over 10 years. The ethics complaint against Judge Gibney states Judge Gibney violated the Virginia Judicial Canons (VJC) and the Virginia Code of Professional Conduct (VCPC). Judge Gibney is married to Yvonne Gibney who is on the VSB Disciplinary Board panels, had direct financial conflict of interest and personal conflict of interest concerning the Vick Complaint. A motion was filed by the Plaintiff for Judge Gibney to recuse himself but Gibney refused and issued an order and memorandum in the case, which evidenced Gibney's conflict of interests.

     Joseph J. Ellis retired in 2019 from the 15th Judicial Circuit, where he presided in Spotsylvania County. Judge Ellis currently works for Juridical Solutions, specializing in Alternate Dispute Resolution through mediation services. The Supreme Court of Virginia appointed Judge Ellis to preside over three ethics complaint cases (CL21005758, CL21005759, CL21006572) pending in the Henrico County Circuit Court, the ethics complaints are against McGuireWoods attorneys, judges, prosecutors and government officials who conspired together to violate the RICO act and constitutional rights. An ethics complaint, CL22006233, was filed in the Henrico Circuit Court against Judge Ellis violated the Virginia Judicial Canons (VJC) and the Virginia Code of Professional Conduct (VCPC) concerning Conflict of Financial Interests and violating Title 18 Section 242, Deprivation of Rights.

    All the circuit court judges in the Henrico County Circuit Court have recused themselves from hearing and cases concerning international fugitive Nickolas Spanos and the 600-kilo cocaine case, which alleges bribery by Richard Cullen to public officials for financial and political gain. Furthermore, all the U.S. District court judges of the Eastern District of Virginia have recused themselves from presiding over the Judge John Gibney ethics complaint case and a U.S. District court judge from Maryland had to be specially appointed to the Spanos-Gibney case.

    In any "rotten apple" situation, the only remedy is to separate the bad apples from the good apples, which appears to be the case concerning corrupt judges.

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.