RMD 001 RMD 002 Deadlines, Notice of Intent to File Suit and Request for an En Banc Hearing for the above-referenced matters and states as follows: 1. The Respondent, Rhetta Moore Daniel, is the Appellant (“Appellant”). 2. The Supreme Court of Virginia (“The Court”) has ruled over centuries that no person or entity has the right to violate the law. 3. The Court and the individual justices of the Court cannot violate any provisions of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia or any acts or statutes passed by the Virginia General Assembly and codified in the Code of Virginia. MOTION TO STAY & MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF ALL JUSTICES & MOTION TO EXTEND ALL APPEAL DEADLINES 4. Paragraphs 1 – 3 are restated herein. Based on the fact that the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Virginia State Bar Organization routinely commit violations of the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia as described hereinabove and below and in the interests of justice, the Supreme Court of Virginia must grant the Appellant’s Motion to Stay, Motion for the Recusal of all Justices, Motion to Extend all Appeal Deadlines until an impartial tribunal can be appointed by the Virginia General Assembly to preside over the appeal of the Appellant’s matters and the appeals of 2 RMD 003 all other misconduct and impairment matters involving attorneys practicing law in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 5. The Court has been aware since at least early in 1996 that the Virginia General Assembly ordered the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (“JLARC”) in 1995 to conduct a full audit of the Virginia State Bar. 6. The Virginia State Bar is the Virginia State Bar Organization. (hereinafter “VSBO”)., and it has no right to violate any state or federal laws.1 7. The VSBO is not a state “regulatory” agency, court or tribunal under the Virginia Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation.2 8. The VSBO is exempted from the Virginia Administrative Process Act.3 9. The VSBO is a mandatory bar organization established in 1938 when the VSBO separated from the Virginia Bar Association, a voluntary trade organization for Virginia lawyers. 10. The VSBO, its employees, agents, prosecutors, bar counsel, volunteers or others associated with the VSBO cannot violate any provisions of the  1 1.Name— ThenameoftheOrganizationshallbetheVirginiaStateBar.https://www.vsb.org/proͲ guidelines/index.php/barͲgovt/name 2 http://www.dpor.virginia.gov/ 3 https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodepopularnames/administrativeͲprocessͲact/ 3 RMD 004 United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia or any acts or statutes passed by the Virginia General Assembly and codified in the Code of Virginia as law. 11. The VSBO is identified and limited by the Code of Virginia to be an only an “administrative” section of the Court and established only to “assist” the Court under the following two statutes: A. VA Code § 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. 4 B. § 54.1-3935. Procedure for disciplining attorneys by threejudge circuit court. . . . A. Upon receipt of a demand for a three-judge circuit court, the Virginia State Bar shall file a complaint in a circuit court where venue is proper and the chief judge of the circuit court shall issue a rule against the attorney to show cause why the attorney shall not be disciplined. . . . B. Bar Counsel of the Virginia State Bar shall prosecute the case. . . . . 12. The VSBO is instructed by the Rules of the Virginia Supreme Court that  4 https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3910/ 4 RMD 005 if the VSBO “discovers evidence of criminal activity by an Attorney, Bar Counsel, the Chair of the Board or a Chair of a District Committee shall forward such evidence to the appropriate Commonwealth’s Attorney, United States Attorney or other law enforcement agency. The Attorney concerned shall be notified whenever this information is transmitted pursuant to this subparagraph 13-30 unless Bar Counsel decides that giving such notice will prejudice a disciplinary investigation”. See: Part Six, Virginia Supreme Court Rules 13-30 G.5 13. The VSBO rarely notifies the appropriate Commonwealth’s Attorney, United States Attorney or other law enforcement during or after a disciplinary investigation is complete and the evidence of the commission of a crime is clear. For example, VSB v. Susan Carol Armstrong wherein the documentary evidence in the possession of the VSBO proved “beyond a reasonable doubt” that on or about September 7, 2007, Ms. Armstrong embezzled approximately ($112,000.00) from a Canadian citizen while she was a Partner in Richmond, Virginia with the large international Troutman Sanders law firm.6 [See: Attached 2009 VSB Certification  5 https://www.vsb.org/proͲguidelines/index.php/barͲgovt/procedureͲforͲdiscipliningͲsuspendingͲandͲ disbarringͲattorneys/13Ͳ30/ 6 http://ewsocis1.courts.state.va.us/CJISWeb/CaseDetail.do;RichmondCityCircuitCourt: CL09000456Ͳ00  Defendant:ARMSTRONG,SUSANCAROL  5 Plaintiff:VIRGINIASTATEBAR re: Susan Carol Armstrong and VSB Exhibits.] RMD 006 14. The VSBO is not a Virginia court or tribunal established by the Virginia General Assembly which has the only authority to establish courts and tribunals in the Commonwealth of Virginia.7 15. The VSBO has no other legislative authority to file charges or documents related to impairment proceedings or to prosecute ethical misconduct matters before any entities except the Virginia Circuit Courts. 16. Only the General Assembly can create Virginia courts or tribunals. 17. The General Assembly did not establish the VSBO disciplinary board. 18. The General Assembly did not establish the VSBO district committees. 19. It is clear in VA Code § 54.1-3915. Restrictions as to rules and regulations that the Virginia Supreme Court has violated Virginia law ever since it created the unauthorized and illegal VSBO disciplinary board and the district committees. 20. VA Code § 54.1-3915, states clearly: “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  7 ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction...Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction,appellate courts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownascourtsof record...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/  6 RMD 007 promulgate any rule or regulation or method of procedure which eliminates the jurisdiction of the courts to deal with the discipline of attorneys.” In no case shall an attorney who demands to be tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for the violation of any rule or regulation adopted under this article be tried in any other manner. [Emphasis added.] Code 1950, § 54-51; 1974, c. 536; 1988, c. 765. The chapters of the acts of assembly referenced in the historical citation at the end of this section may not constitute a comprehensive list of such chapters and may exclude chapters whose provisions have expired. 21. The VSBO disciplinary board and district committees are acting as “courts of record” without having been established as courts or tribunals by the General Assembly, and this conduct is illegal under the Constitution of Virginia and the Code of Virginia, cited herein. 22. All supposed judicial acts of the VSBO disciplinary board and district committees and all orders entered by these entities are ultra vires acts and are void ab initio and in toto because these VSBO entities are not courts or tribunals established by the legislature in Virginia.8 23. In 1995, the Virginia General Assembly ordered the first and only audit of the VSBO by the staff of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (“JLARC’).9  8 ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction...Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction,appellate courts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownascourtsof record...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/ 9 1995JLARCVSBReportͲhttp://jlarc.virginia.gov/pdfs/reports/Rpt182.pdf 7 RMD 008 24. In 1995, JLARC conducted the only audit of the VSBO from 1938 through 2019. 25. In 1995, the JLARC investigators identified serious financial irregularities and other administrative and disciplinary operational irregularities of the VSBO as a trade organization which were inconsistent with allowable conduct and administration of a regulatory body.10 11 [Corroborated by James E. Whitener, (ret. NCIS Fraud Investigator) and former VSBO Investigator.] 26. In 1995, the JLARC Report described VSBO irregularities, including two unauthorized VSBO Funds and other issues that were not authorized by the General Assembly. Some of the uncorrected irregularities noted by JLARC in 1995 are listed below and described in further detail in the body of these objections: A. In 1985, the Court established the non-legislative unauthorized VSBO Client Protection Fund; B. In 1987, the Court established the non-legislative unauthorized VSBO Administration and Finance Fund; C. In 1986 or before, the Court knew the VSBO was historically  10 1995JLARCVSBReport,PageV–“Theexpendituresresemblethosemoretypicalofaprofessionalortrade association”.Ͳhttp://jlarc.virginia.gov/pdfs/reports/Rpt182.pdf 11 CorroboratedbyInv.JamesE.Whitener,(ret.NCISFraudInvestigator)andformerVSBOInvestigator. 8 receiving funds from VSBO sponsored private insurance RMD 009 companies which the VSBO specifically endorsed; D. Since at least 1995 or before, the VSBO’s has commingled funds from the annual VSBO mandatory dues fund with other funds from the above-identified unauthorized Funds and other unidentified sources; E. Since 1985, the VSBO’s imposed an annual mandatory, unauthorized “tax/fee” which was supposedly allocated to “funding” the unauthorized VSBO Client Protection Fund; and F. From at least the early 1990s, the VSBO accepted gifts of valuable fine art and other valuable personal property from lawyers, law firms and other influential persons or entities in violation of Virginia laws for gifts to a Virginia regulatory entity.12 G. Historically, the “in-house” VSBO disciplinary system discriminates against minorities, women, solo and small firm attorneys who have no “clout”. [See: June 13, 2018 VSB Public Discipline Chart (demographic analysis) for the past 27+ years, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.] 27. The failure to report evidence of crimes is not only a state crime,  VSBOClientProtectionFundAnnualReportͲhttps://www.vsb.org/site/about/cpf_2018 12 9 RMD 010 but it is also a federal crime of “Misprision of a Felony” set out in 18 U.S. Code §ௗ4. Misprision of felony.13 28. In 2018 and 2019, the VSBO published that the unauthorized Client Protection Fund has a $10 Million Surplus, which is far above any amount needed to be amassed to refund losses to clients harmed by disciplined attorneys practicing law in Virginia. 29. In 2018 and for previous decades, the VSBO had imposed an annual mandatory “tax/fee” of $25.00 per active member which Virginia attorneys must pay to be able to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia (“Virginia”). 30. In 2019, the VSBO reduced the mandatory annual “tax/fee” to $10.00 per active member if they are going to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia (“Virginia”).14 31. In approximately 1986-1987, the Court, without the approval of the Virginia General Assembly, established the unauthorized VSBO Administration and Finance Fund to disburse state funds for various uses that Virginia law prohibits such as the purchase of alcohol, travel costs for  13 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4;&U.S.v.KarenOlsen, No.15Ͳ30022 Decided:May15,2017;https://caselaw.findlaw.com/usͲ9thͲcircuit/1860472.html; http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/05/15/15Ͳ30022.pdf 14 ClientProtectionFund–AnnualReport(2017Ͳ2018)Ͳhttps://www.vsb.org/site/about/cpf_2018 10 spouses, etc. RMD 011 15 32. The Court and the VSBO established these unauthorized Funds (“CPF” & “AF”) without the authorization of the Virginia General Assembly (“General Assembly” or “legislature”).16 33. Since 1995 and continuing, additional research had identified verified ultra vires acts and malfeasance of the Court and the VSBO which still include some of the 1995 issues identified by JLARC which have not been addressed or remedied by the Court or the VSBO or which have been hidden within other categories of disbursement of funds by the VSBO. [Corroborated by Inv. James E. Whitener.] 34. Since 1995, research has identified other ultra vires acts and malfeasance of the VSBO bar counsel (plural) and assistant bar counsels for decades before and after 1995. 35. Since 1995, the Court and the VSBO have actively participated jointly and severally in new or unaddressed violations of the Constitution of Virginia and the Code of Virginia.17  151995JLARCReportre:VSBO–1995JLARCReportre:VSBOͲhttp://jlarc.virginia.gov/pdfs/reports/Rpt182.pdf; 16 ClientProtectionFund–AnnualReport(2017Ͳ2018)Ͳhttps://www.vsb.org/site/about/cpf_2018;1995 JLARCReportre:VSBO–1995JLARCReportre:VSBOͲhttp://jlarc.virginia.gov/pdfs/reports/Rpt182.pdf; 17 1995JLARCReportre:VSBOͲhttp://jlarc.virginia.gov/pdfs/reports/Rpt182.pdf;ConstitutionofVirginia, ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction.ThejudicialpoweroftheCommonwealthshallbe vestedinaSupremeCourtandinsuchothercourtsoforiginalorappellatejurisdictionsubordinatetothe SupremeCourtastheGeneralAssemblymayfromtimetotimeestablish.Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction, appellatecourts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownas 11 RMD 012 36. Since 1995, the Court and the VSBO have violated continually the rights of attorneys practicing law in Virginia by establishing unauthorized courts of record (VSBO disciplinary board and district committees). 37. The ultra vires acts and malfeasance of the Court and the VSBO from 1995 continue to violate Virginia Constitutional and Virginia statutory law, as well the United States Constitution and its Amendments (“US Constitution”). 38. Since 1995, the Court and the VSBO have violated continually the constitutional and statutory rights of attorneys practicing law in Virginia by improperly allowing bar counsel (deemed to be “prosecutors”) to file complaints, petitions and charges and to prosecute attorneys before the VSBO disciplinary board and district committees when the Code of Virginia only authorizes bar counsel to prosecute before a Three-Judge  courtsofrecord...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/;TheSupreme CourtmaypromulgaterulesandregulationsorganizingandgoverningtheVirginiaStateBar.TheVirginia StateBarshallactasanadministrativeagencyoftheCourtforthepurposeofinvestigatingandreporting violationsofrulesandregulationsadoptedbytheCourtunderthisarticle...[Emphasisadded.][Note:Under theCodeofVirginiaStatuteandallrelatedstatutes,theVSBOprosecutors(barcounsel)havenoauthorityto prosecuteanymattersbeforeanyVSBOgrouporentitybecausetheVSBOdoesnothaveanyvalidcourtsof recordtopresideovertheprosecutionofanydisciplinarymattersandtheVSBOprosecutorisonlyauthorized toprosecutebeforeaThreeͲJudgePanelinanappropriateVirginiaCircuitCourt.See:AttachedFebruary15, 2019PreͲHearingMemorandum,incorporatedhereinbyreferenceasifrestatedinfull;and https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3909/; https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3910/;etseq.]  12 18 Panel in the appropriate circuit court. RMD 013 [NOTE: The list of ultra vires acts and malfeasance of the Court and the VSBO contained in this document is not exhaustive, but is consistent with the content of the 1995 JLARC Report and the attached June 13, 2018 VSBO Public Discipline demographic analysis proving that for approximately the past 27 years only “minorities, women, solo practitioners and small firm members with no influence” receive Public Discipline in Virginia. No big firm attorneys or influential attorneys have received any Public Discipline.] NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE THE COMMONWEALTH & THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR ORGANIZATION & THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT 39. The Appellant, Rhetta Moore Daniel, hereby NOTICES the Supreme Court of Virginia that the Appellant intends to file suit for the joint and several continuing ultra vires acts, alleged illegal acts and malfeasance by the following entities and individuals which have prohibited the Appellant  18 [https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3935/; https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3915/;& https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3910/] 13 since 2018 from continuing to practice law: RMD 014 A. The Commonwealth of Virginia and some of its employees; B. The Virginia State Bar Organization and some of its employees; C. The Supreme Court of Virginia and some of its employees; D. The employees and volunteers of the VSBO in their official capacities and as individuals; and E. The Justices of the Court in their official capacities and as individuals. 40. The Appellant hereby gives NOTICE to the Supreme Court of Virginia that the Appellant previously noticed the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia of the intent to sue the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Virginia State Bar Organization, their employees and volunteers and individuals, jointly and severally, for their joint and several past and continuing ultra vires acts and malfeasance. 41. The Appellant hereby notices the Supreme Court of Virginia that on April 23, 2019, the Appellant noticed the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia, Mark Herring, Esquire, (“Attorney General”) of the intent to sue the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Virginia State Bar Organization, its employees and volunteers, jointly and severally, as employees, agents and volunteers of the Virginia State 14 RMD 015 Bar Organization and the Supreme Court of Virginia in and its justices in their official capacities and as individuals for their joint and several past and continuing ultra vires acts and malfeasance related to the Appellant and other Virginia attorneys.19 42. The Appellant shall identify some of the continuing ultra vires acts and malfeasance of the Court and the VSBO in this document.  IDENTIFICATION OF CONTINUING AND SUBSEQUENT ULTRA VIRES ACTS AND MALFEASANCE OF THE COURT AND THE VSBO WHICH VIOLATE THE APPELLANT’S RIGHTS AND THE RIGHTS OF ALL ATTORNEYS PRACTICING LAW IN VIRGINIA  43. Paragraphs 1 – 42 are restated herein. 44. Since 1976, the Supreme Court of Virginia and the VSBO have been engaging in ultra vires acts and malfeasance in establishing and allowing the VSBO’s disciplinary board and district committees to act as Virginia courts of record and to impose discipline, suspend and revoke  19 April23,2019LettertoDavidaDavis,ClerkoftheVSBO&CopytoVirginiaAttorneyGeneralMarkHerring, attachedheretoandincorporatedhereinbyreferenceasifrestatedinfull. 15 attorneys’ licenses to practice law in Virginia. RMD 016 45. Since 1976, as a matter of law, all disciplinary orders entered by the VSBO disciplinary board and by the VSBO district committees have been and are void ab initio and in toto. 46. In 2018, the Supreme Court of Virginia and the VSBO engaged, jointly and severally, in ultra vires acts and malfeasance by allowing the VSBO Asst. Bar Counsel, Elizabeth K. Shoenfeld, Esquire, (“Ms. Shoenfeld”) to file, without any authority granted to the VSBO or her by the Virginia legislature, to file a Petition requesting the VSBO disciplinary board suspend the Appellant’s license to practice law in Virginia because the VSBO had no evidence that the Appellant was suffering from any impairment to practice law. 47. On June 17, 2018, the VSBO and the Supreme Court of Virginia engaged, jointly and severally, in ultra vires acts and malfeasance when the VSBO disciplinary board, appointed illegally by the Supreme Court of Virginia, suspended the Appellant’s license to practice law in Virginia, when there was “no evidence that the Appellant was impaired to practice law”. [See: Attached June 7, Non-Compliance Virginia State Bar Organization Order, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.] 16 48. On June 7, 2018, without any authority granted by the Virginia RMD 017 General Assembly, the ultra vires acts and malfeasance of the VSBO’s disciplinary board appointed illegally by the Supreme Court of Virginia to sit as judges, when the VSBO disciplinary board suspended the Appellant’s license to practice law in Virginia when it had no evidence that the Appellant was impaired to practice law violated the Appellant’s due process rights and prohibited the appellant from earning any income from the practice of law which she had depended on to support herself and her family for almost 41-years without ever having any client complaints or any discipline. [See: Attached June 7, Non-Compliance Virginia State Bar Organization Order, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.] 49. In 2019, the Supreme Court of Virginia and the VSBO engaged, jointly and severally, in ultra vires acts and malfeasance, without any authority granted by the Virginia legislature, by allowing the VSBO third district committee to certify charges of misconduct against the Appellant. 50. In 2019, the Supreme Court of Virginia and the VSBO engaged, jointly and severally, in ultra vires acts and malfeasance without any authority granted by the Virginia legislature by allowing Ms. Shoenfeld and Asst. Bar Counsel Prescott L. Prince, Esquire (“Mr. Prince”) to prosecute the 17 Appellant before the VSBO disciplinary board. RMD 018 51. In 2019, the Supreme Court of Virginia and the VSBO engaged, jointly and severally, in ultra vires acts and malfeasance without any authority by allowing the VSBO disciplinary board to hear the Appellant’s alleged misconduct cases and by allowing the VSBO disciplinary board to enter the February 22, 2019 Summary Order and March 25, 209 Memorandum Order which supposedly revoked the Appellant’s license to practice law in Virginia. 52. In 2018 and 2019, the VSBO third district committee certification and the VSBO disciplinary board orders pertaining to the Appellant were and are void ab initio and in toto acts, certifications and orders as a matter of law because these acts and documents were performed without the authorization of the Virginia legislature. 53. In 2018 and 2019, VSBO third district committee and the VSBO disciplinary board engaged in malfeasance and prohibited ultra vires acts regarding the Appellant because these VSBO entities were and are not courts or judicial bodies established by the Virginia General Assembly.20  20 ConstitutionofVirginia,ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction.Thejudicialpowerof theCommonwealthshallbevestedinaSupremeCourtandinsuchothercourtsoforiginalorappellate jurisdictionsubordinatetotheSupremeCourtastheGeneralAssemblymayfromtimetotimeestablish.Trial 18 RMD 019 54. The interest of justice demands that the 2018 suspension and the 2019 revocation of the Appellant’s right to practice law in Virginia be stayed during the pendency of all state and federal litigation because the purported VSBO disciplinary board orders in 2018 and 2019 were ultra vires, illegal acts and constituted malfeasance, jointly and severally, by the Court and the VSBO when the Virginia legislature did not authorize said acts and orders. 55. In 2018 and 2019, the VSBO disciplinary board purported orders are void ab initio and in toto because the VSB prosecutors had no Virginia Constitutional or statutory authority to file Complaints, Petitions or Motions with the Clerk of the VSBO or with any Virginia court, and they did not have any authority to prosecute before the VSBO disciplinary board.21 56. In 2018 and 2019, the ultra vires orders entered by the VSBO  courtsofgeneraljurisdiction,appellatecourts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneral Assemblyshallbeknownascourtsofrecord...[Emphasisadded.] https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/ 21 §54.1Ͳ3934.RevocationoflicensebyBoard.TheBoardofBarExaminersmay,forgoodcause,revokeany licenseissuedbyitatanytimebeforetherehasbeenaqualificationunderitinanyofthecourtsofthis Commonwealth.Code1950,§54Ͳ72;1988,c.765;&§54.1Ͳ3935.Procedurefordiscipliningattorneysby threeͲjudgecircuitcourt.https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3934/& https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3935/.& §54.1Ͳ3935.ProcedurefordiscipliningattorneysbythreeͲjudgecircuitcourt...B.BarCounseloftheVirginia StateBarshallprosecutethecase.https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ 3935/ 19 RMD 020 disciplinary board in the above-referenced matters are void ab initio and in toto because the volunteer members of the group known as the VSB (VSBO) disciplinary board are not judges or judicial officers appointed by the Virginia General Assembly. 57. Since 1976, the individuals, a/k/a the VSBO disciplinary board members, have not had any authority or power to act granted by the Virginia Constitution or by the legislature. 58. Since 1976, the individuals, a/k/a the VSBO disciplinary board members and the VSBO district committee members have engaged in ultra vires acts and malfeasance by acting as if they were judges or tribunal officers with the authorization by the Virginia legislature in every adjudication of impairment proceedings, adjudication of all charges of misconduct and by imposing discipline on any attorney practicing law in Virginia without the authorization of the Constitution of Virginia or the Virginia General Assembly. 59. The Court and the VSBO never had any authority to create any courts, tribunals, other judicial bodies, judges or other judicial officials.22  22 ConstitutionofVirginia,ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction.Thejudicialpowerof theCommonwealthshallbevestedinaSupremeCourtandinsuchothercourtsoforiginalorappellate jurisdictionsubordinatetotheSupremeCourtastheGeneralAssemblymayfromtimetotimeestablish.Trial courtsofgeneraljurisdiction,appellatecourts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneral Assemblyshallbeknownascourtsofrecord...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/ 20 60. Since 1976, when the Court, not the Virginia General Assembly, RMD 021 established the VSBO disciplinary board and the district committees as illegal Virginia courts or tribunals, all orders issued by the VSBO disciplinary board and district committees have been void ab initio and in toto based on ultra vires acts and malfeasance of the Court because the Court has never had any authority in Virginia to create any courts, tribunals, other judicial bodies, judges or other judicial officials.23 61. The Court has recognized for decades that void ab initio orders may be attacked at any time and in any forum because said orders are a complete nullity.24 62. In April 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth  23 ConstitutionofVirginia,ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction.Thejudicialpowerof theCommonwealthshallbevestedinaSupremeCourtandinsuchothercourtsoforiginalorappellate jurisdictionsubordinatetotheSupremeCourtastheGeneralAssemblymayfromtimetotimeestablish.Trial courtsofgeneraljurisdiction,appellatecourts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneral Assemblyshallbeknownascourtsofrecord...[Emphasisadded.] https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/ 24Anorderwhichisvoidabinitioisacompletenullity,anditmaybeimpeacheddirectlyorcollaterallybyall persons,anywhere,atanytime,orinanymanner.Thedistinctionbetweenanactionofthecourtthatisvoid abinitioratherthanmerelyvoidableisthattheformerinvolvestheunderlyingauthorityofacourttoactona matterwhereasthelatterinvolvesactionstakenbyacourtwhichareinerror.Anorderisvoidabinitioif enteredbyacourtintheabsenceofjurisdictionofthesubjectmatterorovertheparties,ifthecharacterof theorderissuchthatthecourthadnopowertorenderit,orifthemodeofprocedureusedbythecourtwas onethatthecourtcould“notlawfullyadopt.”Evansv.SmythͲWytheAirportComm'n,255Va.69,73,495 S.E.2d825,828(1998)(quotingAnthonyv.Kasey,83Va.338,340,5S.E.176,177(1887)).2Thelackof jurisdictiontoenteranorderunderanyofthesecircumstancesrenderstheorderacompletenullityanditmay be“impeacheddirectlyorcollaterallybyallpersons,anywhere,atanytime,orinanymanner.”Barnesv.Am. FertilizerCo.,144Va.692,705,130S.E.902,906(1925);Singhv.Moody,261Va.48,541S.E.2d549(2001); Collinsv.Shepherd,274Va.390,649S.E.2d672(2007) 21 RMD 022 Circuit (“Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals”) served the Appellant with a Notice to Show Cause. 63. The Appellant had to file a Response to the Notice of Show Cause from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by May 6, 2019, which deadline was before the Appellant could perfect an appeal of the void ab initio March 25, 2019 Order issued by the VSBO disciplinary board to the Supreme Court of Virginia. 64. Before May 6, 2019, the Appellant filed with the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s a Response to the Notice of Show Cause. 65. Before May 6, 2019, the Appellant could not appeal 2018 VSBO disciplinary board orders because the VSBO disciplinary board repeatedly refused to issue a Memorandum Order for the 2018 Impairment case, and under the special Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia for the VSBO only VSBO disciplinary board Memorandum Orders are appealable. 66. On April 30, 2019, in the Appellant’s Response to a Notice to Show Cause issued by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Appellant attacked the 2018 and 2019 VSBO disciplinary board orders and attacked the authority of the Court to establish courts or tribunals or to 22 RMD 023 hear appeals from the VBSO illegally established courts or tribunals.25 67. Since April 30, 2019, with the collateral civil litigation in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and with the April 23, 2019, notification by the Appellant to the Virginia Attorney General of the Appellant’s intent to sue the Commonwealth, the Court and all justices of the Court in their official and individual capacities and the VSBO, their employees, volunteers in their named positions and as individuals there has been a direct conflict of interests between the Court, VSBO and Appellant. 68. The Appellant challenges herein the Court for its ultra vires acts and malfeasance and for enabling the VSBO to conduct ultra vires acts and malfeasance for decades.  25 Anorderwhichisvoidabinitioisacompletenullity,anditmaybeimpeacheddirectlyorcollaterallybyall persons,anywhere,atanytime,orinanymanner.Thedistinctionbetweenanactionofthecourtthatisvoid abinitioratherthanmerelyvoidableisthattheformerinvolvestheunderlyingauthorityofacourttoacton amatterwhereasthelatterinvolvesactionstakenbyacourtwhichareinerror.Anorderisvoidabinitioif enteredbyacourtintheabsenceofjurisdictionofthesubjectmatterorovertheparties,ifthecharacterof theorderissuchthatthecourthadnopowertorenderit,orifthemodeofprocedureusedbythecourtwas onethatthecourtcould“notlawfullyadopt.”Evansv.SmythͲWytheAirportComm'n,255Va.69,73,495 S.E.2d825,828(1998)(quotingAnthonyv.Kasey,83Va.338,340,5S.E.176,177(1887)).2Thelackof jurisdictiontoenteranorderunderanyofthesecircumstancesrenderstheorderacompletenullityandit maybe“impeacheddirectlyorcollaterallybyallpersons,anywhere,atanytime,orinanymanner.”Barnes v.Am.FertilizerCo.,144Va.692,705,130S.E.902,906(1925);Singhv.Moody,261Va.48,541S.E.2d549 (2001);Collinsv.Shepherd,274Va.390,649S.E.2d672(2007). ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction.ThejudicialpoweroftheCommonwealthshallbe vestedinaSupremeCourtandinsuchothercourtsoforiginalorappellatejurisdictionsubordinatetothe SupremeCourtastheGeneralAssemblymayfromtimetotimeestablish.Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction, appellatecourts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownas courtsofrecord...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/ 23 RMD 024 69. From 1976, forward, the Court and the VSBO have been engaging in substantially the same ultra vires acts and malfeasance by allowing the VSBO disciplinary boards and district committees to impose discipline on attorneys practicing law in Virginia and by allowing VSBO bar counsel (plural) to prosecute attorneys before the VSBO disciplinary board and the district committees. 70. In 2018, the VSBO denied the Appellant the right to a public hearing before a duly authorized court established by the Virginia legislature. 71. In 2019, the Appellant did not demand a hearing in a Virginia Circuit court before a Three-Judge Panel because, under the Constitution of Virginia and the Virginia Code, the Appellant knew: A. The VSBO district committee had no authority to certify any charges against the Appellant; B. The VSBO prosecutors had no authority to prosecute the Appellant before a VSBO disciplinary board; and C. No VSBO disciplinary board panel had any authority to enter enforceable orders imposing any discipline on any attorney. 72. In 2018 and 2019, the Appellant was the victim of said ultra vires acts and malfeasance by the Court and the VSBO. 24 RMD 025 73. In 2018 and 2019, by purely ultra vires acts and malfeasance by the Court and the VSBO, the Appellant was prohibited from practicing law in Virginia. 74. From at least 1976, the Court and the VSBO have disciplined attorneys improperly who were practicing in Virginia because the Court, its justices, the Court’s employees and agents and the VSBO employees, agents, volunteers have acted willfully and wantonly without any authorization by the Constitution of Virginia or the Virginia General Assembly. 75. From at least 1976, the Court and the VSBO have violated the Constitution of Virginia which reserves the exclusive right to the Virginia General Assembly to create courts or tribunals and appoint judges. 76. Since 1976, the knowing multiple violations of Virginia law by the Court and the VSBO raises the specter that the Court, the justices, its agents, the VSBO, its employees, its agents and the volunteers who have served or are serving on the VSBO disciplinary board and the district committees also have and are violating (1) Virginia’s Judicial Canons and (2) Virginia’s Rules of Professional Conduct, which was formerly 25 26 Virginia’s Rules of Professional Responsibility. RMD 026 77. During all years and under all circumstances, the Court, its personnel and agents and all VSBO personnel, agents and volunteers should not violate any Virginia law and must comply strictly with Virginia law as an example for the lower courts and all attorneys practicing law in Virginia. 78. During all years and under all circumstances, the Court must adhere to all provisions of the Virginia Judicial Canons to avoid the appearance of impropriety, to avoid actual improprieties and violations of other sections of the Virginia Judicial Canons and must avoid any appearance of committing ethical violations of the Virginia Code of Professional Conduct as promulgated by the Court. 79. The Constitution of Virginia and Virginia Code provide the only lawful procedures for disciplining attorneys practicing law in Virginia, including the suspension and revocation of the licenses of attorneys’ practicing law in Virginia. 80. The Code of Virginia authorizes only the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners to issue licenses to attorneys to practice law in Virginia.27  26 http://www.courts.state.va.us/agencies/jirc/canons_of_judicial_conduct.pdf;https://www.vsb.org/proͲ guidelines/index.php/rules/preamble/ 27 https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3934/ 26 RMD 027 81. The Constitution of Virginia and the Virginia Code authorize only: A. The Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, within strict limitations, to revoke attorney’s license; and B. Appropriate Three-Judge Panels Virginia Circuit Court Panels to discipline an attorney or to suspend or revoke an attorney’s license who is practicing law in Virginia.28 82. The Constitution of Virginia and the Virginia Code do not authorize any other Virginia agency, court or tribunal to discipline any attorney practicing law in Virginia. 83. The Constitution of Virginia and the Virginia Code do not authorize any other Virginia agency, court or tribunal to suspend or revoke an attorney’s license who is practicing law in Virginia. 84. The Constitution of Virginia and the Virginia Code only authorize the appropriate Three-Judge Panels Virginia Circuit Court Panels to discipline  28 §54.1Ͳ3934.RevocationoflicensebyBoard.TheBoardofBarExaminersmay,forgoodcause,revokeany licenseissuedbyitatanytimebeforetherehasbeenaqualificationunderitinanyofthecourtsofthis Commonwealth.Code1950,§54Ͳ72;1988,c.765;&§54.1Ͳ3935.Procedurefordiscipliningattorneysby threeͲjudgecircuitcourt.https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3934/& https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3935/. & §54.1Ͳ3935.ProcedurefordiscipliningattorneysbythreeͲjudgecircuitcourt...B.BarCounseloftheVirginia StateBarshallprosecutethecase.https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ 3935/  27 attorneys practicing law in Virginia. RMD 028 85. The Court and the VSBO have no United States Constitutional authority, Virginia Constitutional or Virginia statutory authority to discipline any attorney practicing law in Virginia or to suspend or revoke any attorney’s license to practice law in Virginia other than specified by the Code of Virginia in §54.1-3935.29 86. The VSBO Council is only an elected governing body of the VSBO trade organization and is not a court or a tribunal.30 87. The Court, the VSBO and the VSBO Council have no authority to create courts, tribunals or any other judicial bodies or any other judicial court, board, commission or groups to impose any discipline or to suspend or revoke any attorneys’ licenses to practice law in Virginia.31 88. The Court and the VSBO have no authority to take any action disciplinary against or suspend or revoke any license of attorneys practicing law in Virginia because Virginia law restricts the power to create courts, tribunals and judicial bodies to the Virginia General Assembly under the relevant  29 https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3935/; https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3915/; https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3910/ 30 https://www.vsb.org/site/about/council;ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction...Trial courtsofgeneraljurisdiction,appellatecourts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneral Assemblyshallbeknownascourtsofrecord...[Emphasisadded.] https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/ 31 https://www.vsb.org/site/about/council 28 Articles of the Virginia Constitution. RMD 029 32 89. The Virginia Constitution and Virginia Code restrict the VSBO bar counsel to prosecuting disciplinary cases only before a properly designated Three-Judge Panel Circuit Court.33 90. As stated herein: A. The Court has no Virginia Constitutional authority, statutory authority, United States Constitutional authority, or any federal statutory authority to establish or create Virginia or federal courts or Virginia or federal judicial bodies. B. The Court has no Virginia Constitutional authority or any statutory authority to appoint any Virginia judges or any judicial officers of any type. 91. The Court has no Virginia Constitutional authority or any statutory authority to appoint any persons to serve as judges or judicial officers for the VSBO disciplinary board, but the VSBO operates as if it is a Virginia Circuit Court. In other words, “If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.” (quote attributed to Indiana poet  32 ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction...Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction,appellate courts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownascourtsof record...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/ 33 https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3935/ 29 RMD 030 James Whitcomb Riley - 1849–1916)] & “This seems to me to be an application of the well known elephant test. It is difficult to describe, but you know it when you see it.”; (1) The Rt.Hon. Charles Gerald John Earl Cadogan (Formerly Viscount Chelsea ) (2) Cadogan Estates Limited Appellants V. Hugh Francis Morris Respondent, In The Supreme Court Of Judicature Ccrtf 98/0162 Cms2, Court Of Appeal (Civil Division ), On Appeal From The West London County Court (Mr. Recorder Kallipetis Qc ) (1998).34 92. The Court does not have any authority to discipline attorneys, and the Court cannot create any other court or tribunal to discipline attorneys even if these entities, “. . . walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.” or “This seems to me to be an application of the well known elephant test. It is difficult to describe, but you know it when you see it”. 93. Virginia law provides the exclusive authority to discipline attorneys practicing law in Virginia to Three-Judge Panels presiding in the appropriate Virginia Circuit Courts.35 Is the lack of authority of the  34 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1671.html ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction...Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction,appellate courts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownascourtsof record...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/&§54.1Ͳ3910. OrganizationandgovernmentofVirginiaStateBar. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3935/ 35 30 RMD 031 VSBO and the Court under Virginia law the “elephants” in the room? 94. Never has the Court had any authority to authorize the VSBO Council, which is the VSBO’s elected governing body for the VSBO trade association, to appoint any VSBO district committee members as judges, judicial officials, judicial bodies, courts of record or tribunals to impose any discipline on any attorneys practicing law in Virginia.36 95. Never has the VSBO Council had any authority under the Constitution of Virginia or the Virginia Code to appoint any VSBO district committee members to preside over disciplinary matters as judges, judicial officials, judicial bodies or courts or to impose any discipline on attorneys practicing law in Virginia. 96. The Court has no authority to recognize as valid any VSBO disciplinary boards’, district committees’, VSBO clerk’s or other VSBO employees’  36 TheSupremeCourtmaypromulgaterulesandregulationsorganizingandgoverningtheVirginiaStateBar. TheVirginiaStateBarshallactasanadministrativeagencyoftheCourtforthepurposeofinvestigatingand reportingviolationsofrulesandregulationsadoptedbytheCourtunderthisarticle...[Emphasisadded.]Under thisCodeofVirginiaStatuteandallrelatedstatutes,theVSBOprosecutors(barcounsel)havenoauthorityto prosecuteanymattersbeforeanyVSBOgrouporentitybecausetheVSBOdoesnothaveanyvalidcourtsof recordtopresideovertheprosecutionofanydisciplinarymattersandtheVSBOprosecutorisonlyauthorizedto prosecutebeforeaThreeͲJudgePanelinanappropriateVirginiaCircuitCourt.See:AttachedFebruary15,2019 PreͲHearingMemorandum,incorporatedhereinbyreferenceasifrestatedinfull;and https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3909/; https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3910/; 54.1Ͳ3915.Restrictionsastorulesandregulations.Notwithstandingtheforegoingprovisionsofthisarticle, ..theSupremeCourtshallnotpromulgateanyruleorregulationormethodofprocedurewhicheliminatesthe jurisdictionofthecourtstodealwiththedisciplineofattorneys...[Emphasisadded.] https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3915/; ;https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3934/; https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3935/,etseq.  31 or volunteers’ orders, including all orders entered related to VSBO RMD 032 Impairment and Misconduct proceedings. 97. The Court has no authority to enforce any disciplinary board or district committee orders because all these orders are void ab initio and in toto and may be attacked in any court or in any other appropriate forum at any time. 98. Currently, the Court must confront the VSBO disciplinary board’s 2018 and 2019 void ab initio and in toto orders related to the Appellant because the VSBO disciplinary board is not a Virginia court or tribunal. 99. In 2018, the VSBO disciplinary board attempted to suspend the Respondent’s license. 100. In 2019, the VSBO disciplinary board attempted to revoke the Respondent’s license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 101. In 2018 and 2019 all the VSBO disciplinary board orders issued for the Appellant and all orders related to other attorneys practicing law in Virginian were and are void ab initio and in toto orders because the Code of Virginia specifies that only the Board of Bar Examiners and ThreeJudge Panels presiding over cases in the appropriate Virginia circuit court have authority to act pursuant to the only applicable Virginia Code 32 RMD 033 § 54.1-3934 and § 54.1-3935. 102. The Code of Virginia authorizes only the Board of Bar Examiners to revoke an attorney’s license during a limited time and Three-Judge Panels sitting in an appropriate Virginia Circuit Courts to discipline an attorney or to suspend or revoke attorneys’ licenses who are practicing law in Virginia. 103. Virginia Code § 54.1-3910 limits the VSBO statutory authority to (1) “investigating and reporting violations of rules and regulations adopted by the Court” and (2) no authority exists for the VSBO to discipline any attorneys practicing law in Virginia because the VSBO’s statutory authority is strictly limited by this statute to “investigating and reporting violations of rules and regulations adopted by the Court under this article” to some unknown entity or person and is strictly limited to prosecuting before only Three-Judge Panels in the appropriate Virginia circuit courts by Virginia Code § 54.1-3910.37 104. In 2018 and 2019, all ultra vires actions and malfeasance committed by the VSBO employees, agents, individuals and volunteers against the Appellant and when the VSBO disciplinary board entered the ultra vires  37 https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3910/; https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/54.1Ͳ3935.  33 RMD 034 2018 and 2019 orders without any Virginia Constitutional or statutory authority to suspend or revoke the Appellant’s license to practice law in Virginia. 105. All the 2018 and 2019 orders related to the Appellant are void ab initio and in toto, and said malfeasance and ultra vires acts by the VSBO and the VSBO disciplinary board negate all immunity defenses. 106. Since 1976, the Court has been active in facilitating the VSBO and the VSBO’s employees, agents and volunteers to commit ultra vires acts and malfeasance and to violate Virginia law as set out in part herein. 107. Since 1976, the Court’s continuing ultra vires acts and malfeasance, plus the Court’s lack of authority to act independently to impose any discipline on any attorney practicing law in Virginia, demonstrates that the Court is a biased judicial body that cannot rule impartially on the VSBO’s lack of authority to discipline attorneys or to suspend or revoke any attorney’s license to practice law in Virginia. 108. Specifically, in 2018 and 2019, the Court’s continuing ultra vires acts and malfeasance, plus the Court’s lack of authority to act independently to discipline that Appellant, demonstrates that the Court is not an appropriate, unbiased judicial body which should be allowed to rule on the VSBO’s lack of authority to discipline the Appellant or the VSBO’s 34 disciplinary board’s lack of authority to suspend or revoke the RMD 035 Appellant’s license to practice law in Virginia. 109. Since 1976, based on the Court’s complicity, continuing ultra vires acts and malfeasance, the Court has no authority to determine if any VSBO entities have any authority to exercise judicial action against any attorney practicing law in the Commonwealth of Virginia or have any authority for the VSBO entities function as courts or tribunals. 110. Since 1976, the Court never has been an independent appellate court for VSBO disciplinary appeals. 111. Since 1976, the Court and each of its justices should have recused themselves and refused to consider all appeals from VSBO disciplinary board orders and should not have issued any opinions related to any VSBO disciplinary board orders. 112. Since 1976 forward, the Court’s complicity in enabling the VSBO’s ultra vires acts and malfeasance by its employees, agents, individuals and volunteers and the Court’s complicity in committing its own ultra vires acts and malfeasance by the justices, employees and agents of the Court in violation of the Virginia Constitution and Virginia Code demonstrate their joint and several, professional, financial, business interests and self-serving interests and conflicts of interests with the 35 Appellant and all other attorneys practicing law in Virginia which RMD 036 renders the Court unable to be an impartial appellate court.38 113. Since at least 1976, based on the facts, law and data contained in these Motions and the enclosures, it is impossible for the Court to serve as an impartial appellate tribunal for appeals from the VSBO disciplinary board, and the Court cannot render impartial opinions on VSBO matters, statutory revisions for the organization and government of the VSBO, legal ethics opinions or Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Court to govern the VSBO because the Court and the VSBO have jointly and severally violated Virginia law contained in the Constitution of Virginia and the Code of Virginia for over four (4) decades (1976-2019). REQUEST FOR STAY OF REVOCATION OF RESPONDENT’S RIGHT TO PRACTICE LAW IN VIRGINIA & REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ALL APPEAL DEADLINES UNTIL ALL LITIGATION ATTACKING THE ULTRA VIRES ACTS AND MALFEASANCE OF THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT AND THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR ORGANIZATION  38 VirginiaJudicialCannonsͲhttp://www.courts.state.va.us/agencies/jirc/canons_of_judicial_conduct.pdf& VirginiaJudicialCannon3: http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/amendments_tracked/canon_3_b_interlineated.pdf&Virginia RulesOfProfessionalConducthttps://www.vsb.org/proͲguidelines/index.php/rules/preamble/& https://www.vsb.org/proͲguidelines/index.php/rules/clientͲlawyerͲrelationship/,etseq.  36 IS FINAL RMD 037 The Appellant, Rhetta Moore Daniel, respectfully requests that the Supreme Court of Virginia stay the revocation of the Appellant’s right to practice law in Virginia and stay all deadlines for the Appellant’s appeal(s) to the Court until all collateral litigation is final which will challenge and attack the authority of the Court and the Virginia State Bar Organization to discipline attorneys practicing law in Virginia. 114. Paragraphs 1 – 113 are restated herein. 115. In support of the Respondent’s request for the Court to stay the revocation and previous suspension of the Respondent’s right to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Respondent restates and incorporates Paragraphs 1 – 102^^^ set out hereinabove as if restated herein in full and states further as follows: 116. The Respondent’s license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia remains as valid as it was when issued by the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners in June 1977 because (1) the actions of the Court in appointing the VSBO disciplinary board and the VSBO’s disciplinary board actions were ultra vires, malfeasance and unauthorized acts under Virginia law. 37 RMD 038 117. In 2018 and 2019, the VSBO’s acts directly affecting the Appellant’s practice of law and the Appellant’s right to privacy and to earn a living in her profession were as follows: A. Malfeasance, ultra vires and alleged illegal acts that did not conform to the limitations of the Virginia Constitution or Code of Virginia; B. Malfeasance, ultra vires and alleged illegal acts by the VSBO individual persons who were acting as appointed members of the VSBO disciplinary board and district committees which have never been authorized by the Virginia General Assembly to act as Virginia judges; C. Malfeasance, ultra vires and alleged illegal acts by the VSBO pseudo-judicial/tribunal entities, created only by fiat of the Court and which never were created or authorized by the Virginia General Assembly to act as legitimate Virginia courts, tribunal or any other type of judicial bodies; D. Malfeasance, ultra vires and alleged illegal acts of the individual persons appointed by only the VSBO Council (the VSBO’s Trade Organizations/Association’s elected government) to VSBO district committees because these individuals issued certifications of charges 38 RMD 039 of misconduct and orders imposing discipline on attorneys practicing law in Virginia since approximately 1976. E. Malfeasance, ultra vires and alleged illegal acts by these individuals and entities, the Court and the VSBO, have negated all immunities to their liabilities as individuals and as employees of the Commonwealth of Virginia; and F. Malfeasance, ultra vires and alleged illegal acts by the VSBO disciplinary board because all orders entered by the VSBO disciplinary board from at least 1976 through 2019 are void ab initio and are nullities. G. Malfeasance, ultra vires and alleged illegal acts because at least 1976 through 2019, the Court has engaged in continuing lack of subject matter and procedural jurisdiction and because the VSBO has engaged in continuing lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of subject matter and procedural jurisdiction H. Malfeasance, ultra vires and alleged illegal acts by the Court and the VSBO which have denied due process for all attorneys practicing law in Virginia who have been disciplined or prosecuted by the VSBO district committees and disciplinary board since at least 1976 through 2019. 39 RMD 040 118. From 1938 forward, the Court never had authority to establish any VSBO courts, tribunals or judicial bodies or authorized the individuals who are members of the VSBO disciplinary board, district committees or any other groups which functions as a VSBO court or any judicial entity. 119. In approximately 1976, the Court promulgated illegal Rules and Regulations designed to exclude the Virginia circuit courts unless a Respondent demanded a Three-Judge Circuit Court Panel because the Court knew then and knows now that the Court never had any power or authority to create any courts or judicial bodies based on the applicable Articles of the Virginia Constitution and Acts passed by Virginia General Assembly and codified as statutes in the Code of Virginia.39 120. From approximately 1976 through 2019, the Court, VSBO prosecutors, investigators and all individual volunteers, agents who serve or work with the district committees and the disciplinary board and all other VSBO personnel have engaged in ultra vires acts, alleged illegal acts and malfeasance as described herein for more than four (4) decades. 121. In 2019, the Court, VSBO prosecutors, investigators and all individual  39 §54.1Ͳ3909.Rulesandregulationsdefiningpracticeoflawandprescribingproceduresforpracticeoflawby lawstudents,codesofethics,useoflimitedliabilitycompanies,anddisciplinaryprocedure;§54.1Ͳ3910. OrganizationandgovernmentofVirginiaStateBar;§54.1Ͳ3915.Restrictionsastorulesandregulations;§54.1Ͳ 3934.RevocationoflicensebyBoard;&§54.1Ͳ3935.ProcedurefordiscipliningattorneysbythreeͲjudgecircuit court;etseq.&https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3909/,etseq.  40 RMD 041 volunteers, agents who serve or work with the district committees and the disciplinary board and all other VSBO personnel have engaged in ultra vires acts, alleged illegal acts and malfeasance as described herein continue to engage, jointly and severally, in ultra vires acts and malfeasance which violate Virginia Constitutional, Virginia statutes and case law. 122. Since at least 1976 and through 2019, the Court has acted illegally and violated Virginia law by deliberately and knowingly exceeding the authority granted to the Judicial Branch by the Constitution of Virginia and Virginia Code and by deliberately and knowingly promulgating rules and regulations for the VSBO’s “in-house” disciplinary district committees and disciplinary board to preside over disciplinary matters with the intent of controlling which attorneys practicing law in Virginia are illegally publicly disciplined or illegally have their licenses suspended or revoked. 123. Since approximately 1976 through 2019, the Court and the VSBO have illegally violated Virginia law by deliberately, knowingly exceeding the authority granted to the Judicial Branch by the Constitution of Virginia and Virginia Code and by illegally, deliberately and knowingly promulgating rules and regulations for the VSBO’s “in- 41 RMD 042 house” disciplinary district committees and disciplinary board that allow the “in-house” disciplinary system to target only minorities, women, solos and small firm members for Public Discipline. 124. Since approximately 1976 through 2019, the Court and the VSBO have illegally violated Virginia law by deliberately, knowingly exceeding the authority granted to the Judicial Branch by the Constitution of Virginia and Virginia Code and by illegally, deliberately and knowingly promulgating rules and regulations for the VSBO’s “inhouse” disciplinary district committees and disciplinary board that allow the “in-house” disciplinary system to protect the favored classes of white male, and some female, influential lawyers and large law firm members practicing law in Virginia. 125. The Constitution of Virginia reserves the right to establish courts in Virginia to the Virginia General Assembly.40 126. Since 1976 through 2019, the Court’s establishment of the VSBO disciplinary board and district committees has violated the Constitution of Virginia which prohibits the Judicial Branch from establishing any  40 ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction.ThejudicialpoweroftheCommonwealthshall bevestedinaSupremeCourtandinsuchothercourtsoforiginalorappellatejurisdictionsubordinatetothe SupremeCourtastheGeneralAssemblymayfromtimetotimeestablish.Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction, appellatecourts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownas courtsofrecord...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/ 42 RMD 043 41 courts or tribunals. 127. Since 1976 through 2019, the Court has violated numerous statutes passed by the Virginia General Assembly.42 128. Since 1938, no VSBO board, committee, department, division or entity has any constitutional or statutory authority to discipline or revoke the license of any attorney who was or is licensed to practice law in Virginia or who was or is practicing law in Virginia pro hac vice. 129. In 2018 and 2019, based on the applicable Virginia Constitutional and statutes, the VSBO and VSBO disciplinary board had no authority to prosecute or discipline the Appellant, suspend or revoke the Appellant’s license to practice law or take any such actions against other attorneys who are practicing law in Virginia. 130. Under the statutes in the Code of Virginia, only the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners established by the Virginia General Assembly has any  41 ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction.ThejudicialpoweroftheCommonwealthshall bevestedinaSupremeCourtandinsuchothercourtsoforiginalorappellatejurisdictionsubordinatetothe SupremeCourtastheGeneralAssemblymayfromtimetotimeestablish.Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction, appellatecourts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownas courtsofrecord...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/ 42 ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction.ThejudicialpoweroftheCommonwealthshall bevestedinaSupremeCourtandinsuchothercourtsoforiginalorappellatejurisdictionsubordinatetothe SupremeCourtastheGeneralAssemblymayfromtimetotimeestablish.Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction, appellatecourts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownas courtsofrecord...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/  43 RMD 044 statutory authority as Virginia state agency to revoke the license of a Virginia attorney. 131. Since 1938 or before, only the appropriate Virginia Circuit Courts and the appropriate Three-Judge Panels presiding in Virginia Circuit Courts have been the courts or tribunals authorized to discipline any attorney in Virginia or the suspend or revoke the license of any attorney practicing law in Virginia. 132. From 1938 through 2019, the Virginia General Assembly never authorized the VSBO Bar Counsel (and assistant bar counsel) to prosecute before the VSBO disciplinary board or the district committees. 133. From 1938 through 2019, the Virginia General Assembly authorized only the VSBO Bar Counsel (and assistant bar counsel) to prosecute before a Three-Judge Panels in an appropriate Virginia Circuit Court.43 134. Since 1938, the Virginia General Assembly has authorized only the appropriate Virginia Circuit Courts to suspend or revoke a law license issued by the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners to attorneys practicing  43 §54.1Ͳ3934.RevocationoflicensebyBoard.TheBoardofBarExaminersmay,forgoodcause,revokeany licenseissuedbyitatanytimebeforetherehasbeenaqualificationunderitinanyofthecourtsofthis Commonwealth.Code1950,§54Ͳ72;1988,c.765;&§54.1Ͳ3935.Procedurefordiscipliningattorneysby threeͲjudgecircuitcourt...B.BarCounseloftheVirginiaStateBarshallprosecutethecase. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3935/ 44 law in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 44 RMD 045 135. Since 1976, the Court has been complicit with and enabled the VSBO to engage in illegal, ultra vires acts and malfeasance in violation longstanding Virginia law because the Virginia General Assembly has only authorized the appropriate Virginia Circuit Courts to discipline, suspend or revoke a law license issued by the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners after an attorney has been sworn in by any court to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia.45 136. From 1976 through 2019, the Court’s promulgation of the Court’s Rules and Regulations for the VSBO disciplinary process violate numerous Virginia statutes by designating VSBO bar counsel (plural) to prosecute attorneys before the VSBO disciplinary board. 137. Since approximately 1976, based on applicable Virginia law the Court and the VSBO jointly, severally and individually, have authorized the VSBO disciplinary board members and the VSBO district committees, to  44 §54.1Ͳ3934.RevocationoflicensebyBoard.TheBoardofBarExaminersmay,forgoodcause,revokeany licenseissuedbyitatanytimebeforetherehasbeenaqualificationunderitinanyofthecourtsofthis Commonwealth.Code1950,§54Ͳ72;1988,c.765;&§54.1Ͳ3935.ProcedurefordiscipliningattorneysbythreeͲ judgecircuitcourt...B.BarCounseloftheVirginiaStateBarshallprosecutethecase. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3935/ 45 §54.1Ͳ3934.RevocationoflicensebyBoard.TheBoardofBarExaminersmay,forgoodcause,revokeany licenseissuedbyitatanytimebeforetherehasbeenaqualificationunderitinanyofthecourtsofthis Commonwealth.Code1950,§54Ͳ72;1988,c.765;&§54.1Ͳ3935.ProcedurefordiscipliningattorneysbythreeͲ judgecircuitcourt...B.BarCounseloftheVirginiaStateBarshallprosecutethecase. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3935/ 45 RMD 046 engage in illegal, ultra vires acts and malfeasance by allowing these individuals who possess no judicial authority to enter orders disciplining, suspending and revoking attorneys’ license who practice law in Virginia. 138. In 2018 and 2019, based on applicable Virginia law, the Court and VSBO authorized the VSBO disciplinary board members, jointly, severally and individually, to engage in illegal and ultra vires acts and malfeasance by allowing these individuals with no judicial authority to enter orders allegedly suspending in 2018 and revoking in 2019 the Appellant’s license to practice law in Virginia. 139. Since 1938, the Court and the VSBO have always known that the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners is the only state agency which can revoke an attorney’s license to practice law in Virginia. 140. Since 1938, the Court and the VSBO have always known that a ThreeJudge Circuit Court Panel sitting in the appropriate Virginia Circuit Courts are the only judges authorized by the Virginia General Assembly to discipline an attorney, suspend or revoke an attorney’s law license issued by the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners.46  46 §54.1Ͳ3934.RevocationoflicensebyBoard.TheBoardofBarExaminersmay,forgoodcause,revokeany licenseissuedbyitatanytimebeforetherehasbeenaqualificationunderitinanyofthecourtsofthis Commonwealth.Code1950,§54Ͳ72;1988,c.765;&§54.1Ͳ3935.ProcedurefordiscipliningattorneysbythreeͲ judgecircuitcourt...B.BarCounseloftheVirginiaStateBarshallprosecutethecase. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3935/ 46 RMD 047 141. Since 1976, when the Court created by mere judicial fiat the new “inhouse” VSBO disciplinary system, the Court has known that the VSBO bar counsel has no authority to prosecute before the VSBO disciplinary board or district committees. 142. Since 1976, when the Court created the new “in-house” VSBO disciplinary system, the Court has known that it was violating Virginia law in allowing the VSBO district committees, the VSBO disciplinary board or the VSBO’s various other entities, groups, employees and volunteers, jointly and severally, to engage in illegal, ultra vires acts and malfeasance. 143. In 2018 and 2019, the Court knew that it was violating Virginia law in allowing the VSBO district committees, the VSBO disciplinary board or any other VSBO entities, groups, employees and volunteers, jointly and severally, to engage in illegal, ultra vires acts and malfeasance related to the prosecution of the Appellant.47 144. In 2017, the Virginia General Assembly amended Virginia Code §  47 §54.1Ͳ3915.Restrictionsastorulesandregulations.Notwithstandingtheforegoingprovisionsofthisarticle,. ..theSupremeCourtshallnotpromulgateanyruleorregulationormethodofprocedurewhicheliminatesthe jurisdictionofthecourtstodealwiththedisciplineofattorneys...[Emphasisadded.]§54.1Ͳ3935.Procedure fordiscipliningattorneysbythreeͲjudgecircuitcourt. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3915/; https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3934/ 47 RMD 048 48 54.1-3935 and reiterated that VSBO Bar Counsel is only authorized to prosecute before Virginia Circuit Court Three-Judge Panels after a Respondent demands to be tried by a Virginia circuit court. 145. Since 1938, based on the Virginia law, the Court has known that bar counsel only authority was and is to prosecute VSB matters before Three-Judge Panels in the appropriate Virginia Circuit Courts. [Emphasis added.]49 146. Between May 3, 2016, and June 1, 2016, the VSBO drafted the amendments to VA Code, § 54.1-3535 which was within 28 days after the Appellant filed the first verified public Complaint for Ellett Richard McGeorge, III, in the Circuit Court for the County of Henrico, VA. (Ellett Richard McGeorge, III v. Susan Carol Armstrong, Esquire, CL No. CL16001189-00, County of Henrico Circuit Court. Note also, on the attached 6.13.18 Chart of Public Discipline for the VSBO published in 2009 for the only time in 27+ years of VSBO data, the VSBO published that Susan Carol Armstrong, then a partner for Troutman Sanders was not disciplined even though the VSBO’s records and the Richmond City  48 49 https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3935/ VACode,§54.1Ͳ3535;https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3935/ 48 RMD 049 Circuit Court’s records reveal she embezzled $112,000.00 from a Canadian citizen.50 [See: Attached 6.13.18 VSB PUBLIC DISCIPLINE CHART for the past 27+ years.] 147. In 2017, based on the amended Virginia law, the Court knew that it had no authority to hear any Virginia attorney misconduct or impairment cases. 148. In 2017, based on the amended Virginia law, the Court knew that it had no authority to allow bar counsel to prosecute any matters except before Three-Judge Panels in the appropriate Virginia Circuit Courts. [Emphasis added.] 149. Since May-June 2016, the Court and the VSBO knew that the Court and the VSBO were the only Virginia governmental entities who revised Virginia Code § 54.1-3935. Procedure for disciplining attorneys by three-judge circuit court.51 150. In 2016 and 2017, the Court and the VSBO engaged in prohibited  50 http://ewsocis1.courts.state.va.us/CJISWeb/CaseDetail.do;RichmondCityCircuitCourt: CL09000456-00 Defendant: ARMSTRONG, SUSAN CAROL Plaintiff: VIRGINIA STATE BAR   51 §54.1Ͳ3935.ProcedurefordiscipliningattorneysbythreeͲjudgecircuitcourt...B.BarCounseloftheVirginia StateBarshallprosecutethecase.https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3935/ [Amended2017].  49 RMD 050 lobbying to have the Virginia General Assembly enact amended Virginia Code § 54.1-3935. Procedure for disciplining attorneys by three-judge circuit court, as amended by the Court and VSBO. 151. In early 2017, at the request of the Court and the VSBO, the Virginia General Assembly amended Virginia Code § 54.1-3935. Procedure for disciplining attorneys by three-judge circuit court which amended Virginia Code § 54.1-3935 became effective on July 1, 2017.52 152. In 2016 and 2017, the Court and the VSBO knew their amendments to Virginia Code § 54.1-3935. Procedure for disciplining attorneys by three-judge circuit court eliminated the authority of the VSBO bar counsel, all judges or justices to initiate and file alleged attorney misconduct verified Complaints in a Virginia circuit court or any other Virginia court.53 153. Since July 1, 2017, the restrictive amendments to the amended VA Code, § 54.1-3535, the Virginia General Assembly reiterated that no  52 §54.1Ͳ3935.ProcedurefordiscipliningattorneysbythreeͲjudgecircuitcourt...B.BarCounseloftheVirginia StateBarshallprosecutethecase.https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3935/ [Amended2017].https://www.vsb.org/proͲ guidelines/index.php/rule_changes/item/revision_section_54.1_3935_code;https://www.vsb.org/docs/GAͲ appdͲ54.1Ͳ3935_2017Ͳ02.pdf 53 §54.1Ͳ3935.ProcedurefordiscipliningattorneysbythreeͲjudgecircuitcourt...B.BarCounseloftheVirginia StateBarshallprosecutethecase.https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3935/ [Amended2017].https://www.vsb.org/docs/Aug07_PropRuleChngs.pdf;https://www.vsb.org/proͲ guidelines/index.php/rule_changes/item/revision_section_54.1_3935_code 50 RMD 051 VSBO bar counsel has authority to prosecute violations of the Virginia Code of Professional Conduct before any VSBO entities and that the VSBO has no legal authority to prosecute a Respondent before a ThreeJudge Panel in an appropriate Virginia Circuit Courts unless a “Respondent” demands a Three-Judge Circuit Court Panel Hearing.54 [Emphasis added.] 154. Since July 1, 2017, based on the VSBO’s and the Court’s amendments of Virginia Code § 54.1-3935. Procedure for disciplining attorneys by three-judge circuit court., as passed by the Virginia General Assembly, the Court and the VSBO knew and knows that the VSBO bar counsel does not have any authority under Virginia law to file any complaints of alleged misconduct or impairment against any attorney related to attorneys practicing law.55 155. On December 15, 2016, and on February 21, 2017, the VSBO deliberately misled the public and the VSBO members by publishing the following language regarding the amendments to Virginia Code § 54.1-  54 §54.1Ͳ3935.ProcedurefordiscipliningattorneysbythreeͲjudgecircuitcourt...B.BarCounseloftheVirginia StateBarshallprosecutethecase.https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3935/ [Amended2017].https://www.vsb.org/docs/Aug07_PropRuleChngs.pdf;https://www.vsb.org/proͲ guidelines/index.php/rule_changes/item/revision_section_54.1_3935_code 55 https://www.vsb.org/docs/Aug07_PropRuleChngs.pdf;https://www.vsb.org/proͲ guidelines/index.php/rule_changes/item/revision_section_54.1_3935_code 51 RMD 052 3935. Procedure for disciplining attorneys by three-judge circuit court: The Standing Committee on Lawyer Discipline (COLD) has approved a revision to Section 54.1-3935 of the Code of Virginia for presentation to the 2017 General Assembly. The revision was prompted by concerns that the statute’s provisions are antiquated, predate the current Rules of Court that govern disciplinary proceedings, and do not reflect the actual practice of the courts or the Virginia State Bar (VSB) in attorney disciplinary matters. The Virginia State Bar is the agency of the Supreme Court authorized to handle attorney disciplinary matters. The Supreme Court of Virginia has promulgated rules and procedures to govern lawyer discipline, which may be found in Part Six, Section IV, Paragraph 13 of the Rules of Court. The statute as written allows any person to initiate a formal attorney disciplinary proceeding in the circuit court. Some complainants have filed complaints in circuit court after the VSB had investigated and dismissed the same matter. The revision approved by COLD strikes former subparagraph A in its entirety. Former subparagraph A provided that courts may report attorney crimes or misconduct to the VSB for investigation and upon receipt of a report, issue a rule against the attorney. This section was removed for several reasons. First, the provision that courts may report a matter to the VSB is superfluous given Canon 3.D.(2) of the Canons for Judicial Conduct for the State of Virginia, which instructs when judges must report attorney misconduct to the VSB. Second, bar investigations are confidential, and the VSB’s filing of an investigative report with a court would make an otherwise confidential investigation public unless the report was filed under seal, which the statute, as written, does not contemplate. Third, the procedure described in the former subparagraph A allows a single judge to make a complaint, cause the VSB to investigate the complaint, review the investigative report, and issue a rule to show cause against a lawyer for misconduct. This process bypasses the volunteer-based system of self-regulation set forth Paragraph 13, which provides that disciplinary rule charges be approved by a three-member subcommittee of a district committee, which is comprised of two lawyers and a lay member. The VSB does not have institutional memory of a court exercising this vast authority over a lawyer’s license in the last twenty years. Lastly, to 52 RMD 053 the extent that a goal of the process set forth in former subparagraph A is to provide for a speedy resolution to attorney disciplinary matters, the VSB already has a mechanism to obtain an expedited hearing in Paragraph 13-18. D. of the Rules of Court. In expedited proceedings, a respondent attorney may be tried by the VSB Disciplinary Board or may demand to be tried by a three-judge circuit court. In all cases in which a three-judge circuit court is empaneled, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints to the panel three judges from outside the judicial district that issued the rule against the attorney. See, former and new subparagraph B. of Va. Code Section 54.1-3935.56  156. Since 1938 and continuing, the Court and the VSBO have known that VSBO bar counsel has the authority to prosecute alleged violations of the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility, now the Virginia Code of Professional Conduct, only in the appropriate Virginia Circuit Courts. 157. In 2017, the VSBO and the Court lobbied the Virginia General Assembly to strip away the public’s statutory rights and all Virginia courts’ and judges’ rights to file Public Complaints against attorneys for alleged ethical violation in Virginia Circuit Courts and all courts, so the VSBO. 158. The 2017 amendments to VA Code § 54.1-3935, drafted by the VSBO in May 2016, allow the VSBO to engage in secret star chamber proceedings which harm the public but continue to protect large law firm  56 https://www.vsb.org/proͲguidelines/index.php/rule_changes/item/revision_section_54.1_3935_code 53 RMD 054 members and influential attorneys (1) who serve on the VSBO Council; (2) who give extremely valuable art and gifts to the VSBO and (3) who are the favored class of attorneys in Virginia who have not received any Public Discipline in more than 42 years.57 [See: Attached 6.13.18 VSB Public Discipline Chart for the past 27+ years.] 159. Since 1976, the Court and the VSBO have known that the VSBO disciplinary board and district committees continually have violated Virginia law by disciplining any attorneys practicing law in Virginia. 160. In 2018 and 2019, when the Appellant’s cases were before the VSBO disciplinary board, the Court and the VSBO knew that the VSBO disciplinary board and the district committees were violating Virginia law by disciplining the Appellant or any attorneys practicing law in Virginia. 161. In 2018 and 2019, the Court knew that the Appellant deliberately did not demand a Three-Judge Circuit Court Panel hearing for the abovereferenced misconduct cases because the Court, the VBSO and Appellant all knew the VSBO disciplinary board and the third district committee had no authority to discipline the Appellant or certify any  57 https://www.vsb.org/site/news/item/proposed_changes_va_code_2016_06 https://www.vsb.org/docs/Aug07_PropRuleChngs.pdf;https://www.vsb.org/docs/GAͲappdͲ54.1Ͳ3935_2017Ͳ 02.pdf;https://www.vsb.org/proͲguidelines/index.php/rule_changes/item/revision_section_54.1_3935_code; 54 RMD 055 charges of misconduct against the Appellant or any attorney practicing law in Virginia. 162. From at least 2016 forward, the Court and the VSBO administration, VSBO prosecutors knew that the Court and VSBO were continually violating the Constitution of Virginia and the Virginia Code as described herein and knew that the Appellant intended to expose these violations of Virginia law (3:18-cv-00234-HEH, Daniel v. Virginia State Bar, et al.58 [See: Attached 6.13.18 VSB Public Discipline Chart for the past 27+ years.] 163. In 2018, the Respondent filed a federal case in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond) to challenge the authority of the VSBO disciplinary board to hear an unfounded Petition for Impairment filed against the Appellant when the VSBO had no medical evidence or physician expert opinions that the Appellant had any impairments even though the VSBO alleged the Appellant was impaired to practice law in Virginia.59 164. In 2018, U. S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr., husband of  58 Danielv.VirginiaStateBar,etal.,U.S,DistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofVirginia; https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/cgiͲbin/iquery.pl?102555254429209ͲL_1_1Ͳ0Ͳ3828083ͲptyͲ pla%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Ͳplaintiff 59 Danielv.VirginiaStateBar,etal.,U.S,DistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofVirginia; https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/cgiͲbin/iquery.pl?102555254429209ͲL_1_1Ͳ0Ͳ3828083ͲptyͲ pla%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Ͳplaintiff 55 the VSBO disciplinary board member, Yvonne S. Gibney, recused RMD 056 himself from presiding over Daniel v. VSB, et al., to provide the Appellant with an impartial judge and tribunal in the U. S. District Court case.60 [Emphasis added.] 165. In 2018 and in 2019, VSBO disciplinary board member, Yvonne S. Gibney, 2nd Vice Chair-Elect, and the wife of U. S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr., refused to recuse herself even though her husband, U. S. District Court Judge Gibney properly recused himself from presiding over Daniel v. VSB on April 9, 2018, at the same time that Yvonne S. Gibney, an individual member of the VSB disciplinary board who had not been appointed by the Virginia General Assembly, refused to recuse herself. [Emphasis added.] 166. On April 19, 2018 and on February 21, 2019, and February 22, 2019, the refusal of Yvonne S. Gibney to recuse herself from the VSBO disciplinary board panels tainted the VSBO disciplinary board hearings, deprived the Appellant of an impartial trier of fact (if she had been one) and deprived the Appellant of her Constitutional due process rights to a fair and impartial tribunal if the VSBO disciplinary board had been  60 Danielv.VirginiaStateBar,etal.,U.S,DistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofVirginia; https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/cgiͲbin/iquery.pl?102555254429209ͲL_1_1Ͳ0Ͳ3828083ͲptyͲ pla%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Ͳplaintiff  56 61 one. RMD 057 [Note: The Appellant maintains continually the position that the VSB disciplinary board and district committees are not courts or tribunals authorized by the Constitution of Virginia or by the Virginia General Assembly and that all impairment and misconduct hearings held by these entities deprive all attorneys practicing law in Virginia of Constitutional of constitutionally impartial tribunals, due process of law and other guaranteed Virginia and U. S. Constitutional rights.] 167. From 1976, and continuing, if the VSBO disciplinary board had been established and its panel individuals had been appointed by the Virginia General Assembly to act as judges or judicial officers, they would have been governed by the Virginia Judicial Canons requiring a judge or a judicial officer to refuse to serve if there was and is even an appearance of impropriety.62 168. However, in Virginia, the Court illegally established the VSBO disciplinary board and district committees and illegally appointed the disciplinary board members.  61 Danielv.VirginiaStateBar,etal.,U.S,DistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofVirginia; https://ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov/cgiͲbin/iquery.pl?102555254429209ͲL_1_1Ͳ0Ͳ3828083ͲptyͲ pla%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Ͳplaintiff;VSBDISCIPLINARYBOARD DOCKETNUMBERS:18Ͳ032Ͳ1104,18Ͳ032Ͳ111046,18Ͳ032Ͳ111733&18Ͳ000Ͳ111751. 62 CANONSOFJUDICIALCONDUCTFORTHECOMMONWEALTHOFVIRGINIA http://www.courts.state.va.us/agencies/jirc/canons_of_judicial_conduct.pdf 57 RMD 058 169. To make matters worse, the VSBO Council, the governing body of the VSBO Trade Organization/Association appoints the members of the VSBO district committees. 170. Worse, the VSBO disciplinary department employees, including all bar counsel and investigators, are “at will” employees and can be fired without any notice or justification by the Council’s Executive Committee or Executive Director of the VSBO Trade Organization/Association and have no right of appeal or any redress provided by the Virginia Administrative Process Act or any other Virginia laws. 171. In 2016 forward, the Court, the VSBO Trade Organization or Association administrative officers, VSBO Executive Director, VSBO bar counsel, employees, individuals, volunteer individual volunteer members of the VSBO disciplinary board and district committees, the VSBO Committee of Lawyer Discipline (COLD), the VSBO Council and the Virginia General Assembly knew the VSBO was lobbying to have the Virginia General Assembly to eliminate all statutory rights and authority of the Court, the VSBO, other Virginia courts, judges, all persons or other entities to file verified public complaints in the Virginia circuit courts against attorneys practicing law as formerly authorized by statute for approximately Sixty-six+ (66+) years. [See: VA Code § 58 RMD 059 54.1-3935 before the 2017 amendments.] [See: VA Code § 54.1-3935, as amended and effective July 1, 2017.]63 172. For decades, based on the applicable law in Virginia, the Court and the VSBO bar counsel knew bar counsel had no authority to prosecute the Appellant or any other attorney practicing law in Virginia before the VSBO disciplinary board or the VSBO district committees.64 173. Effective on July 1, 2017, when the Virginia General Assembly amended Virginia Code § 54.1-3935, the Virginia legislature limited even more strictly the authority for the VSBO bar counsel to act pursuant to that statute by removing the original Section A of the statute that may have provided authority for the VSBO bar counsel to file and prosecute VSBO misconduct cases.65 174. Since July 1, 2017, the Virginia General Assembly only authorized the VSBO bar counsel to prosecute before appropriate Virginia Circuit Court Three-Judge Panel presiding over VSBO matters.66  63 COLDalsoapprovedproposedrevisionstoSection§54.1Ͳ3935oftheCodeofVirginia. https://www.vsb.org/site/news/item/proposed_changes_va_code_2016_06; https://www.vsb.org/site/about/lawyer_discipline_report_2016 64 VSBOrevisionstoSection54.1Ͳ3935oftheCodeofVirginia. https://www.vsb.org/site/news/item/proposed_changes_va_code_2016_06; https://www.vsb.org/site/about/lawyer_discipline_report_2016 65 https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3934/ 66 VSBOCOLDalsoapprovedproposedrevisionstoSection54.1Ͳ3935oftheCodeofVirginia. https://www.vsb.org/site/news/item/proposed_changes_va_code_2016_06; https://www.vsb.org/site/about/lawyer_discipline_report_2016 59 RMD 060 175. Beginning on July 1, 2017, there has been no authorization from the Virginia General Assembly for any judges or justices, the public or any other entities to file any Complaints, Petitions, or other attorney disciplinary pleadings, verified or not, in any Virginia courts requesting the investigation and prosecution of attorneys practicing law in Virginia for any alleged ethical violations, other misconduct or criminal acts.67 176. Effective July 1, 2017, the statutory authorization for filing circuit court verified attorney-ethics violation complaints in a Virginia circuit court or any other court was eliminated by the General Assembly at the request of the Court and the VSBO; and this act by the General Assembly eliminated a filing by a judge, person or an entity of alleged violations of attorney ethics in any Virginia court, including the Supreme Court of Virginia, and reversed the last remnants of real transparency in the VSBO disciplinary process,.68 177. In 2016 and in 2017, the VSBO and the Court accomplished their joint and several goals of taking away the public’s rights and the judges’ rights to file verified public complaints in the appropriate circuit courts or other courts to limit access to the courts and to control all discipline imposed in 67 VSBO&VAGeneralAssemblyrevisionstoCodeofVirginia§54.1Ͳ3935.https://www.vsb.org/proͲ guidelines/index.php/rule_changes/item/revision_section_54.1_3935_code 68 VSBO&VAGeneralAssemblyrevisionstoCodeofVirginia§54.1Ͳ3935.https://www.vsb.org/proͲ guidelines/index.php/rule_changes/item/revision_section_54.1_3935_code 60 RMD 061 house, which the 1995 JLARC Report emphasized should be reversed. [Emphasis added.]69 178. In 2018 and 2019, the Court and the VSBO knew applicable Virginia law provided no authority for VSBO or the VSBO disciplinary board to permit assistant bar counsels, Elizabeth K. Shoenfeld and Prescott L. Prince, either jointly or severally, to prosecute the Appellant in 2018 for alleged impairment or to prosecute the Appellant in 2019 before the VSBO disciplinary board, any court or tribunal for alleged misconduct based on the same evidence when they had no medical or other evidence to support allegations of impairment or sufficient to prove any misconduct warranting the suspension or revocation of the Appellant’s license to practice law because the Appellant had no client complaints ever nor disciplinary record for over 41 years. 179. At all times, the Court, the VSBO, its prosecutors, employees, volunteers, all VSBO disciplinary board members and individuals involved in the process of investigating and reporting alleged ethical issues are bound to comply with the Constitution of Virginia and all applicable Virginia statutes.70  69 VSBO&VAGeneralAssemblyrevisionstoCodeofVirginia§54.1Ͳ3935.https://www.vsb.org/proͲ guidelines/index.php/rule_changes/item/revision_section_54.1_3935_code 70 CodeofVirginia§8.01Ͳ271.1https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/8.01Ͳ271.1;ConstitutionofVirginia,Article VI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction.ThejudicialpoweroftheCommonwealthshallbevestedin 61 180. In 2018 and 2019, the Court and the VSBO knew the applicable RMD 062 Virginia law provided no authority for VSBO and the VSBO disciplinary board to permit the assistant bar counsels, Elizabeth K. Shoenfeld and Prescott L. Prince, either jointly or severally as VSBO attorneys or as individuals, to prosecute the Appellant in 2018 for an alleged nonexistent impairment or in 2019 for alleged any disciplinary violations based on the same evidence when the VSBO, its employees, volunteers and all VSBO disciplinary board members had to comply fully with the Constitution of Virginia and all applicable Virginia statutes.71 181. For years, all VSBO disciplinary board hearings have been supposed to be public hearings on the record. 182. In 2018 and 2019, the VSBO disciplinary board held secret, non-public “off the record” hearings in the Appellant’s cases. 183. In 2019, the VSBO disciplinary board secret, non-public hearings without having a court reporter present to take the proceedings and  aSupremeCourtandinsuchothercourtsoforiginalorappellatejurisdictionsubordinatetotheSupremeCourt astheGeneralAssemblymayfromtimetotimeestablish.Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction,appellatecourts, andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownascourtsofrecord... [Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/ 71 VSBO&VAGeneralAssemblyrevisionstoCodeofVirginia§54.1Ͳ3935.https://www.vsb.org/proͲ guidelines/index.php/rule_changes/item/revision_section_54.1_3935_code;ConstitutionofVirginia,ArticleVI. JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction.ThejudicialpoweroftheCommonwealthshallbevestedina SupremeCourtandinsuchothercourtsoforiginalorappellatejurisdictionsubordinatetotheSupremeCourtas theGeneralAssemblymayfromtimetotimeestablish.Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction,appellatecourts,and suchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownascourtsofrecord... [Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/ 62 RMD 063 prepare a Transcript. 184. The Court, the VSBO, the VSBO prosecutors and the VSBO disciplinary board all know that all VSBO disciplinary board hearings are to be public hearings on the record, and all knew they were violating the Rules of the Virginia Supreme Court by holding secret, “off-the-record”, non-public VSBO disciplinary board hearings in any VSBO disciplinary board matters. 185. In 2018 and 2019, the Court, the VSBO, the former bar counsel, Edward L. Davis, Esquire, and the assistant bar counsel, Elizabeth K. Shoenfeld and Prescott L. Prince, knew that no VSBO Bar Counsel had any Virginia Constitutional or statutory authority to prosecute the Respondent before the VSBO disciplinary board because A. Respondent’s former attorney filed a pre-hearing Memorandum on February 15, 2019, summarizing the Virginia law on point; B. Before February 21, 2019, during a non-public conference call hearing with the chair of the VSBO disciplinary board and the assistant bar counsel, Ms. Shoenfeld and Mr. Prince; C. During that non-public conference call hearing, the VSBO disciplinary board reserved the right to consider the February 15, 2019 Memorandum challenging the authority of the VSBO 63 RMD 064 disciplinary board; and D. During that non-public conference call hearing, the VSBO disciplinary board reserved the right to consider other procedural issues, such as the recusal of two individuals assigned to the VSBO board panel before the VSBO hearings commenced on February 21 & 22, 2019, as is memorialized in the March 25, 2019 Memorandum Order.72 [As required by the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, the March 25, 2019 VSBO Memorandum Order entered by the VSBO disciplinary board is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if restated herein in full.] [Note: By referring to and attaching the March  72 ConstitutionofVirginia,ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction.Thejudicialpowerof theCommonwealthshallbevestedinaSupremeCourtandinsuchothercourtsoforiginalorappellate jurisdictionsubordinatetotheSupremeCourtastheGeneralAssemblymayfromtimetotimeestablish.Trial courtsofgeneraljurisdiction,appellatecourts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneral Assemblyshallbeknownascourtsofrecord...[Emphasisadded.] https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/ 72Anorderwhichisvoidabinitioisacompletenullity,anditmaybeimpeacheddirectlyorcollaterallybyall persons,anywhere,atanytime,orinanymanner.Thedistinctionbetweenanactionofthecourtthatisvoid abinitioratherthanmerelyvoidableisthattheformerinvolvestheunderlyingauthorityofacourttoactona matterwhereasthelatterinvolvesactionstakenbyacourtwhichareinerror.Anorderisvoidabinitioif enteredbyacourtintheabsenceofjurisdictionofthesubjectmatterorovertheparties,ifthecharacterof theorderissuchthatthecourthadnopowertorenderit,orifthemodeofprocedureusedbythecourtwas onethatthecourtcould“notlawfullyadopt.”Evansv.SmythͲWytheAirportComm'n,255Va.69,73,495 S.E.2d825,828(1998)(quotingAnthonyv.Kasey,83Va.338,340,5S.E.176,177(1887)).2Thelackof jurisdictiontoenteranorderunderanyofthesecircumstancesrenderstheorderacompletenullityanditmay be“impeacheddirectlyorcollaterallybyallpersons,anywhere,atanytime,orinanymanner.”Barnesv.Am. FertilizerCo.,144Va.692,705,130S.E.902,906(1925);Singhv.Moody,261Va.48,541S.E.2d549(2001); Collinsv.Shepherd,274Va.390,649S.E.2d672(2007). 64 RMD 065 25, 2019 VSBO disciplinary board order, the Appellant is not waiving and is reasserting the Appellant’s position that this Order and all other orders of the VSBO disciplinary board and district committees are void ab initio and in toto.]73 186. In 2018 and in 2019, the Court, the VSBO bar counsel, the VSBO assistant bar counsel and the VSBO disciplinary board jointly, severally and individually violated the Constitution of Virginia and all applicable Virginia Statutes by proceeding with the VSBO disciplinary board hearings on April 9, 2018, May 18, 2018, on February 21, 2019 and February 22, 2019, over the objections of the Appellant. [See: The PreHearing Memorandum, dated February 15, 2019, authored by Henry E. Howell, III, Esquire, and the February 6, 2019 Analysis of Virginia Law prepared by the Appellant, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if restated herein in full.] 187. In 2019, the Court, the VSBO, VSBO disciplinary board, VSBO disciplinary board members as VSBO disciplinary board members and as  73 Parkerv.Stephenson,104S.E.39(Va.1920),wheretheVirginiaSupremeCourtheldthat“Underour decisions,someofwhicharehereinbeforereviewed,thepresenceofthenecessarypartiesrequiredbysection 2616oftheCode(1904),inasuitofthisnature,isjurisdictional,andadecreerenderedintheirabsenceisvoid astoinfantswhoseinterestsareaffectedthereby.;Rookv.Rook,233Va.92,353S.E.2d756(1987)whereinthe VirginiaSupremeCourtstated“thedistinctionismadebetweenvoidabinitioandvoidableandtheVirginia SupremeCourtopinedthat"Thedistinctionisanimportantoneinthelawbecauseanorderthatisvoidabinitio constitutesalegalnullitythatissubjecttochallenge"atanytime,"includingmanyyears." 65 RMD 066 individuals and the VSBO bar counsel in the VSBO capacities and as individuals, jointly and severally, violated all applicable Constitution of Virginia provisions and Code of Virginia statutes when the VSBO assistant bar counsel filed and prosecuted the 2018 and 2019 matters; when in 2019, the VSBO disciplinary board presided over the abovereferenced misconduct cases related to the Appellant and in 2018 and 2019 when the VSBO supposedly suspended and supposedly revoked the Appellant’s license to practice law in Virginia. 188. Before February 21, 2019, and on February 21, 2019, he VSBO the VSBO prosecutors in their official capacities and as individuals and the VSBO disciplinary board in their supposed official capacities and as individuals knew that no VSBO bar counsel had any authority to prosecute before the VSBO disciplinary board and that the VSBO only had authority to investigate and report alleged ethical misconduct.74 189. On April 9, 2018, May 18, 2019, February 21, 2019, and February 22, 2019, the VSBO disciplinary board knew it had no authority to hear the above-referenced impairment or misconduct cases against the Appellant.75  74 VirginiaCode§54.1Ͳ3910,VirginiaCode§54.1Ͳ3915.andRestrictionsastorulesandregulationsandVirginia Code§54.1Ͳ3935.https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/54.1Ͳ3910,etseq. 75 VirginiaCode§54.1Ͳ3910,VirginiaCode§54.1Ͳ3915.andRestrictionsastorulesandregulationsandVirginia Code§54.1Ͳ3935.https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/54.1Ͳ3910,etseq. 66 RMD 067 190. On April 9, 2018, May 18, 2019, February 21, 2019, and February 22, 2019, the VSBO disciplinary board and the VSBO bar counsel knew they were jointly, severally, individually and intentionally violating the provisions of the Constitution of Virginia, Virginia Code § 54.1-3910; Virginia Code § 54.1-3915, and Virginia Code § 54.1-3935. Procedure for disciplining attorneys by three-judge circuit court because these statutes state in plain language as follows: VA Code § 54.1-3910: 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, Ross v. Craw, 343 S.E.2d 312, 231 Va. 206 (1986) – trial counsel, Rhetta Moore Daniel, Esquire, a/k/a/Appellant, and appellate counsel, Donald W. Lemons, Esquire, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia.].] [Note: The Constitution of Virginia prohibits the Court from establishing courts or tribunals. The Virginia Code § 54.1-3915 prohibits the Court from promulgating any rules or regulations that conflict the statutes contained in the Code of Virginia by the use of the word, “shall” instead of “may” as used in Virginia Code § 54.1-3910.] [Emphasis added. Ross v. Craw, 343 S.E.2d 312, 231 Va. 206 (1986) – trial counsel, Rhetta M. Daniel, Esquire, the current Appellant, and appellate counsel, Donald W. Lemons, Esquire, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia.] VA Code § 54.1-3915: 67 RMD 068 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. . .76 VA Code § 54.1-3935: B. Bar Counsel of the Virginia State Bar shall prosecute the case. [Note: Only if the Respondent demands to be tried before a Three-Judge Panel case in the proper circuit court can the VSBO bar counsel prosecute any cases, but the VSBO bar counsel have no authority to prosecute before the VSBO inhouse VSBO disciplinary board panels or VSBO district committees which are just individuals who are not appointed by the Virginia General Assembly to serve as judges or any type of judicial official authorized to adjudicate attorney misconduct to determine any impairment because those powers are reserved to the Virginia courts.] 191. Based on Virginia law, the Court, the VSBO, the VSBO disciplinary board and VSBO district committees have no Virginia Constitutional authority or statutory authority to exercise any court or judicial powers for disciplining any attorney, certifying any charges, filing any  76 §54.1Ͳ3915.Restrictionsastorulesandregulations.Notwithstandingtheforegoingprovisionsofthisarticle, ...theSupremeCourtshallnotpromulgateanyruleorregulationormethodofprocedurewhicheliminatesthe jurisdictionofthecourtstodealwiththedisciplineofattorneys...[Emphasisadded.] https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3915/  76 §54.1Ͳ3935.ProcedurefordiscipliningattorneysbythreeͲjudgecircuitcourt. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title54.1/chapter39/section54.1Ͳ3934/  68 impairment or disciplinary cases or suspending or revoking any RMD 069 attorney’s license. 192. In 2018 and in 2019, the VSBO disciplinary board did not have any Virginia Constitutional or Virginia statutory authority to suspend or revoke the Appellant’s license or the license of any lawyers practicing law in Virginian because the VSBO groups of individuals commonly referred to as the VSBO disciplinary board and VSBO district committees are not tribunals or courts established by the Virginia General Assembly as is required by the Constitution of Virginia. 193. Never, have the Virginia Supreme Court and the VSBO Council had any Virginia Constitutional or statutory authority to establish any Virginia courts or other judicial bodies or to appoint any judges or judicial officers.77 194. In 2019, even if the Virginia Judicial Canons were to apply to the individuals who are not appointed by the Virginia General Assembly to act as Virginia judges or any other type of judicial officers, the VSBO disciplinary board had no authority or right to allow three (3) of the five (5) members of the VSBO disciplinary board panel, Yvonne S. Gibney,  77 ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction...Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction,appellate courts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownascourtsof record...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/ 69 RMD 070 wife of U. S. District Court Judge, John A. Gibney, Jr., Bretta M. Z. Lewis and Melissa J. Goodman, to sit on the VSBO disciplinary board Panel on February 21 & 22, 2019. 195. Well before February 21, 2019, the VSBO disciplinary board members and the VSBO prosecutors knew the three (3) individuals needed to recuse themselves because they had professional, personal, financial and other prohibited conflicts of interests with the Appellant. 196. On February 21 and 22, 2019, the professional, personal, financial and other prohibited conflicts of interests of these three (3) individuals on the VSBO disciplinary board panel precluded them from serving as members of a fair and impartial court or tribunal’s adjudicatory panel if the VSBO disciplinary board was such an entity, which it is not. 197. On February 21, 2019, even though the Appellant’s counsel and the Appellant objected to these three (3) individuals from serving and requested that they recuse themselves, they as individuals and in their official capacities, the VSBO disciplinary board and the VSBO bar counsel, Ms. Shoenfeld and Mr. Prince, failed to recognize that under the provision of the Virginia Judicial Canons, these three (3) members of the disciplinary board panel should not sit on any tribunal in judgment of the Appellant. 70 UNAUTHORIZED STIPULATIONS & ADVERSE RMD 071 CONSEQUENCES 198. Paragraphs 1–197 are restated herein. 199. On February 22, 2019, the Court knows that as a matter of law, the VSBO disciplinary board had no authority to sustain VSBO prosecutors’ objections when the Appellant’s former attorney, Henry E. Howell, III, Esquire, who had no authorization from the Appellant to stipulate to any evidence, made unauthorized stipulations of facts over the Appellant’s strenuous objections. 200. On February 22, 2019, the Court knows that based on the unauthorized stipulations of the Appellant’s former attorney, the VSBO disciplinary board ruled improperly and without any authority as judges that the Respondent’s defense witnesses, Cina Wong, and James E. Whitener, could not testify under oath during any phase of the February 21 & 22, 2019 hearings. [Note: After the Respondent fired Mr. Howell, the Respondent, Mr. Whitener did testify as a mitigation witness only on February 22, 2019.] 201. On February 21 & 22, 2019, the VSBO’s prosecutors and disciplinary board members were fully aware that Mr. Whitener was a critical fact witness for the Appellant based on Mr. Whitener’s experience with the 71 RMD 072 Virginia State Bar as an experienced financial investigator and his career with the NCIS as a specialist in major fraud against the government extensive financial investigations, foreign counterintelligence, and computer forensics. 202. On February 21 & 22, 2019, the VSBO and its prosecutors knew that Mr. Whitener had spent substantial time conducting extensive investigations into the financial transactions conducted by E. Grier Ferguson, Esquire, for the years of 2006 through early 2018, which involved Mr. Ferguson’s commingling of funds and alleged misappropriation of funds of William Wellington Jones, Judge William Wellington Jones’ Estate and Revocable Trust in violation of the Supreme Court of Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct and in particular VCPC Rule 1.15.78 203. During the hearing on Friday, February 22, 2019, the Appellant’s attorney without any authorization from the Appellant stipulated the proposed testimony of Mr. Whitener incorrectly to the direct detriment and prejudice of the Appellant. 204. On February 22, 2109, even after the Appellant fired Mr. Howell on the  78 Rule1.15SafekeepingProperty https://www.vsb.org/proͲguidelines/index.php/rules/clientͲlawyerͲrelationship/rule1Ͳ15/ 72 spot, the VSBO disciplinary board members would not allow the RMD 073 Appellant to withdraw the incorrect stipulated facts or call Mr. Whitener as a factual witness during the defense phase of the VSBO disciplinary board hearings. 205. The Court knows as a matter of law that due process required the VSBO disciplinary board to allow the Respondent had a right to fire Mr. Howell if the Respondent did not concur with his unauthorized conduct and stipulations. 206. The Court knows that on February 22, 2019, that the VSBO disciplinary board engaged in ultra vires acts and malfeasance when the VSBO disciplinary board and the VSBO prosecutors knew the Appellant’s attorney had prejudiced the Appellant by his proffers of evidence in the misconduct phase of these cases. 207. The Court knows as a matter of law and fact that the Appellant had the absolute right to fire her defense attorney during his unauthorized, incomplete proffers of material testimony and documentary evidence that the witnesses, Cina Wong and James Whitener, which they would give when called to testify under oath. 208. The Court knows as a matter of law that on February 22, 2019, the actions of the Respondent’s former defense counsel in concert with the 73 RMD 074 prejudicial acts of the VSBO prosecutors and the VSBO disciplinary board, they jointly and severally deprived the Respondent of her constitutionally guaranteed due process rights to present a full and complete defense to a fair and impartial court or judicial body established by the Virginia General Assembly. 209. The Court knows as a matter of law that the VSBO disciplinary board and the VSBO district committees have never been Virginia courts or tribunals established by the Virginia General Assembly in accord with the provisions of Article V, Constitution of Virginia.79 APPELLANT’S CONTINUANCE REQUEST DENIED BY ILLEGAL VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD 210. Paragraphs 1 –208 are restated 211. The Court knows as a matter of law that the VSBO disciplinary board had no judicial authority granted by the Virginia General Assembly to deny the Appellant’s request for a continuance after the Appellant fired  79 79  ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction...Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction,appellate courts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownascourtsof record...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/  74 RMD 075 her defense attorney on February 22, 2019, for his unauthorized conduct and statements during the misconduct phase of the hearings. 212. The Court knows as a matter of law and fact that given the unexpected turn of events on February 22, 2019, during the misconduct phase of the hearings before the VSBO disciplinary board, which is not a court or tribunal established by the Virginia General Assembly, that the Appellant was entitled to a continuance to prepare to go forward pro se or for time to hire other defense counsel. 213. The Court knows that as a matter of law that the VSBO disciplinary board had no right to deny the Respondent’s reasonable request for a continuance of the VSBO hearing because it is not a Virginia court or tribunal established by the Virginia General Assembly, and it had no power as judges to deny the Appellant’s request for a continuance. 214. On February 22, 2019, the Court knows that as a matter of law the VSBO disciplinary board denied the Appellant’s guaranteed constitutional due process rights to a continuance which was urgently needed so that the Appellant could present a full defense before a fair and impartial court or disciplinary tribunal established by the Virginia General Assembly. 75 RMD 076 ILLEGAL MOTION FOR AND ILLEGAL APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR THE APPELLANT 215. Paragraphs 1 - 212 are restated herein. 216. From at least 1976 and through 2019, the VSBO has never had any Virginia Constitutional or statutory authority, Virginia case law or Court Rules authorizing the VSBO disciplinary board to appoint a GAL for a Respondent in any VSBO misconduct matter.80 217. On February 22, 2019, as a matter of Virginia law that the VSB disciplinary board, not a Virginia court or tribunal established by the Virginia General Assembly in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of Virginia, engaged ongoing malfeasance and committed illegal ultra vires acts when it appointed an unauthorized Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”) for the Respondent in a VSBO misconduct case based on the unauthorized, ultra vires motion of the VSBO prosecutors, Elizabeth K. Shoenfeld and Prescott L. Prince, on February 22, 2019.81 218. In 2019, months before the February 21 and 22, 2019 VSBO disciplinary board hearings, the Appellant and her former counsel  80 Part6,SectionIV,Paragraph13,RulesoftheSupremeCourtofVirginia,PROCEDUREFORDISCIPLINING, SUSPENDINGANDDISBARRINGATTORNEYS—Rules13Ͳ1throughRule13Ͳ31Ͳhttps://www.vsb.org/proͲ guidelines/index.php/barͲgovt/procedureͲforͲdiscipliningͲsuspendingͲandͲdisbarringͲattorneys/ 81 Part6,SectionIV,Paragraph13,RulesoftheSupremeCourtofVirginia,PROCEDUREFORDISCIPLINING, SUSPENDINGANDDISBARRINGATTORNEYS—Rules13Ͳ1throughRule13Ͳ31Ͳhttps://www.vsb.org/proͲ guidelines/index.php/barͲgovt/procedureͲforͲdiscipliningͲsuspendingͲandͲdisbarringͲattorneys/ 76 RMD 077 informed the VSBO bar counsel, the VSBO and the VSBO disciplinary board of the following points: A. The VSBO prosecutors lacked the authority to make written or verbal Motions for a GAL in any VSBO misconduct case; and B. The VSBO disciplinary board lacked authority to appoint a GAL in a VSBO misconduct case under any Virginia law.82 219. On February 22, 2019, when the VSBO prosecutors, Ms. Shoenfeld and Mr. Prince, moved for the unauthorized appointment of a GAL for the Appellant and the VSBO disciplinary board ordered illegally that the Appellant’s former counsel would serve as Appellant’s GAL based on Virginia law, the VSBO prosecutors and the members of the VSBO disciplinary board intentionally engaged in malfeasance and ultra vires illegal acts to prejudice the Appellant over the Appellant’s objections after she fired her former counsel.83 220. In 2019, and before, under Virginia law, the VSBO disciplinary board knew it had no authority to appoint a GAL in a misconduct matter, and  82 https://www.vsb.org/proͲguidelines/index.php/barͲgovt/ ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction...Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction,appellate courts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownascourtsof record...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/;Organizationand GovernmentoftheVirginiaStateBar.PartSix,§IV,¶13Ͳ23(AͲG),BoardProceedingsuponImpairment. 83 OrganizationandGovernmentoftheVirginiaStateBar.PartSix,§IV,¶13Ͳ23(AͲG),Board ProceedingsuponImpairment.https://www.vsb.org/proͲguidelines/index.php/barͲgovt/ 77 RMD 078 the VSBO disciplinary board emphasized its lack of authority and the lack of authority of the VSBO bar counsel, Ms. Shoenfeld and Mr. Prince, to make such a motion in “Footnote 2, on page 2” of the March 25, 2019 Memorandum Order because the VSBO disciplinary board tried to classify these joint and several ultra vires, illegal acts and malfeasance as moot.” 221. Once illegal, ultra vires acts and malfeasance are committed, no one can undo these illegal acts by deeming the prior, completed acts as “moot” acts.”84 222. From 1976 and through 2019, the VSBO has never had any Virginia Constitutional authority or Virginia statutes, Virginia cases or Court Rules authorizing the VSBO disciplinary board to appoint a GAL for a Respondent in any VSBO misconduct matter. 223. On March 25, 2019, or at any time, the VSBO bar counsel’s Motion to Appoint Guardian Ad Litem [sic] to represent Respondent for the remainder of the February 22, 2019 hearing was not “moot”, could not become “moot” and was ultra vires illegal acts and  84 DailyPress,Inc.v.Commonwealth,739S.E.2d636(Va.2013) https://casetext.com/case/dailyͲpressͲ1;OfficeoftheVirginiaAttorneyGeneralͲ https://virginiarules.org/virginiaͲrules/criminalͲlaw 78 malfeasance by the VSBO bar counsel in violation of Virginia law. RMD 079 85 224. On February 22, 2019, and after, the appointment of a GAL for the Appellant was not and is not a “moot” issue because the VSBO disciplinary board violated Virginia law when it appointed the GAL for the Appellant. 225. On February 22, 2019, and after, the appointment of a GAL for the Appellant was not and is not a “moot” issue because the VSBO prosecutors and the VSBO disciplinary board cannot engage in illegal actions to the detriment of any attorneys practicing law in Virginia, many of whom who are not as knowledgeable of VSBO Rules and procedures as the Appellant. 226. On February 22, 2019, it was only after the Appellant objected and after the VSBO assistant bar counsel had to consult by telephone from the courtroom with the VSBO Ethics Counsel, James M. McCauley, Esquire, that the prosecutor, Ms. Shoenfeld, instructed the VSBO disciplinary board to reverse its illegal Order appointing the GAL for the  85 ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction...Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction,appellate courts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownascourtsof record...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/;Organizationand GovernmentoftheVirginiaStateBar.PartSix,§IV,¶13Ͳ23(AͲG),BoardProceedingsuponImpairment. OrganizationandGovernmentoftheVirginiaStateBar.PartSix,§IV,¶13Ͳ23(AͲG),Board ProceedingsuponImpairment.https://www.vsb.org/proͲguidelines/index.php/barͲgovt/  79 RMD 080 Appellant. 227. On February 22, 2019, based on the Appellant’s objections to the appointment of a GAL and based on the specific instructions of the Virginia State Bar “Ethics Counsel” James M. McCauley, Esquire, the bar counsel, Elizabeth K. Shoenfeld and Prescott L. Prince, and the VSBO disciplinary board were forced to recognize their joint and several malfeasance and ultra vires illegal acts related to the appointment of a GAL. [Emphasis added.] 228. On February 22, 2019, only after the Appellant’s objections, citation of the Court’s special Rules of Procedure for the Virginia State Bar and the instructions of “Ethics Counsel” James M. McCauley, Esquire, did the VSBO disciplinary board chair, with the consent of the VSBO disciplinary board’s individual members, reverse the VSBO disciplinary board’s and bar counsel’s ultra vires and illegal act of appointing a GAL for the Appellant. 229. The Court knows as a matter of law that based on Virginia law, the malfeasance and illegal, ultra vires acts are not moot acts or issues. 230. The Court knows as a matter of law that when a criminal offense or ultra vires act is committed, it cannot be reversed or undone by subsequent acts. 80 RMD 081 231. The Court knows as a matter of law that when the Court, the VSBO bar counsel, employees, agents, individuals, volunteers and others acting at the direction of and under the control of the VSBO and the Court committed the unauthorized, ultra vires and illegal acts during the hearings and before related to the appointment of a GAL and other unauthorized actions, those acts and the associated malfeasance were completed when executed by VSBO bar counsel and the VSBO disciplinary board. 232. The Court knows that subsequent acts by individual, entity or any court, including the Supreme Court of Virginia, cannot legally negate retroactively any illegal act, ultra vires act, malfeasance or any other unauthorized prior acts committed by the same or another entity because said illegal acts or malfeasance is a “fait accompli” – “something that has already happened or been done and cannot be changed.”  VIOLATION OF LAW ILLEGAL FEBRUARY 22, 2019 VSBO DISCIPLINARY BOARD GUARDIAN AD LITEM ORDER 233. Paragraphs 1 – 230 are restated herein. 81 RMD 082 234. The Court knows as a matter of law that there is no United States or Virginia Constitutional, statutory or other authority that exonerates the Court, VSBO, VSBO prosecutors or the VSBO disciplinary board members in their official capacities or as individuals from violating any Virginia law. 235. On February 22, 2019, the ultra vires and illegal verbal motion by the VSBO prosecutors for the appointment of a GAL by the VSBO disciplinary board, which is not a court or tribunal established by the Virginia General Assembly, in the VSBO misconduct cases related to the Appellant illustrate blatantly why the VSBO disciplinary board only cited Part Six, § IV, ¶ 13-23(G) 13-23 of the Rules, in the March 25, 2019 Memorandum Order which applies only to VSBO Impairment investigations and proceedings.86 236. On February 22, 2019, and after, the VSBO, the VSBO prosecutors and the VSBO disciplinary board panel members in their official capacities and as individuals have been actively trying to obfuscate and cover up their joint and several ultra vires acts, illegal acts and malfeasance of February 22, 2019, and before. [See: March 25, 2019 Memorandum  86 ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction...Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction,appellate courts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownascourtsof record...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/;Organizationand GovernmentoftheVirginiaStateBar.PartSix,§IV,¶13Ͳ23(AͲG),BoardProceedingsuponImpairment. 82 RMD 083 Order, attached hereto and incorporated herein as if restated in full.] 237. On February 22, 2019, and after, the VSBO, its bar counsel, Elizabeth K. Shoenfeld and Prescott L. Prince, who have no Constitutional or statutory authority to prosecute any lawyer except before a Three-Judge Panel in a Virginia Circuit Court, and the VSBO disciplinary board members in the official capacities and as individuals could not and cannot cite any Rules of the Virginia Supreme Court, provisions of the Virginia Constitution or Virginia statutes which authorize a GAL in a misconduct case because no such law exists in Virginia.87 238. On February 21 & 22, 2019, over the strong objections of the Appellant, the VSBO, its prosecutors as VSBO employees and as individuals, the VSBO disciplinary board, and its individual members, jointly and severally violated the Respondent’s Virginia Constitutional and United States Constitutional due process rights and deprived the Appellant of trial before a legal and impartial Virginia court or tribunal.88 239. On February 21 & 22, 2019, over the strong objections of the  87 ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction...Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction,appellate courts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownascourtsof record...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/;Organizationand GovernmentoftheVirginiaStateBar.PartSix,§IV,¶13Ͳ23(AͲG),BoardProceedingsuponImpairment. 88 ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction...Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction,appellate courts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownascourtsof record...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/;Organizationand GovernmentoftheVirginiaStateBar.PartSix,§IV,¶13Ͳ23(AͲG),BoardProceedingsuponImpairment. 83 RMD 084 Appellant, the VSBO, the VSBO prosecutors, and the VSBO disciplinary board members in their official capacities and as individuals, jointly and severally, violated Virginia law by appointing a GAL for the Appellant. 240. On February 21 & 22, 2019, over the strong objections of the Appellant, the VSBO, the VSBO prosecutors, and the VSBO disciplinary board members in their official capacities and as individuals, jointly and severally, prevented the Appellant from having a fair and impartial hearing before a legal Virginia court or tribunal established by the Virginia General Assembly and guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution and Virginia Constitution.89 241. On February 21 & 22, 2019, based on the strong objections of the Appellant and as confirmed by the VSBO “Ethics Counsel” James M. McCauley, Esquire, the VSBO, the VSBO prosecutors, and the VSBO disciplinary board members in their official capacities and as individuals, jointly and severally, knew there was no Virginia authority or legal basis to appoint a GAL for the Appellant or to appoint a GAL for any attorneys practicing law in Virginia during any phase of a misconduct hearings or, which also includes the 2018 unfounded and frivolous VSBO impairment  89 PartSix,§IV,¶13Ͳ23(G)13Ͳ23oftheRulesonlyappliestoVSBOImpairmentprocedures. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/ 84 RMD 085 proceedings against the Appellant based on the same facts as the 2019 misconduct cases.90 242. The Court knows that as a matter of Virginia law, on March 25, 2019, the VSBO disciplinary violated the Respondent’s U. S. Constitutional rights and Virginia Constitutional rights when it cited in the March 25, 2019 Memorandum Order only Part Six, § IV, ¶ 13-23(G) 13-23 of the Supreme Court of Virginia Rules of the Organization and Government of the VSBO because the VSBO prosecutors and the VSBO disciplinary board knew there were no Rules of the Virginia Supreme Court in Part Six, § IV, ¶ 13-1 – 13-31 or elsewhere that has ever allowed the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem in VSBO “misconduct” cases and that Part Six, § IV, ¶ 23(A)-(G) of Rule 13-23 applies only to VSB Impairment matters.91 [Emphasis added.] 243. On March 25, 2019, the VSBO disciplinary board cited only Part Six, § IV, ¶ 23(A)-(G) of Rule 13-23 in its Memorandum Order to mislead the public in general, other attorneys practicing law in Virginia and the  90 OrganizationandGovernmentoftheVirginiaStateBar.PartSix,§IV,¶13Ͳ23(AͲG),BoardProceedingsupon Impairment.ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction...Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction, appellatecourts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownas courtsofrecord...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/ 91 OrganizationandGovernmentoftheVirginiaStateBar.PartSix,§IV,¶13Ͳ23(AͲG),BoardProceedingsupon Impairment.ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction...Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction, appellatecourts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownas courtsofrecord...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/ 85 RMD 086 Supreme Court of Virginia on appeal, which are further ultra vires acts and misfeasance.92 [Emphasis added.] ILLEGAL VIRGINIA STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD FEBRUARY 22, 2019 ORDER FOR COUNSEL TO ADVISE THE APPELLANT DURING THE HEARINGS  244. Paragraphs 1 – 241 are restated herein. 245. The Court knows that as a matter of law, the VSBO, the VSBO disciplinary board members in their official capacities and as individuals and the VSBO prosecutors in their official capacities and as individuals deliberately and irrevocably harmed the Appellant by ordering that the Respondent’s former counsel to remain at counsel table and to remain in the hearing room to “advise” the Respondent after Respondent fired him during the misconduct phase of the February 22, 2019 hearing because no provision of the Constitution of Virginia, the Virginia Code or the Rules of the Virginia Supreme Court authorize such ultra vires and illegal action by any entity.  92 OrganizationandGovernmentoftheVirginiaStateBar.PartSix,§IV,¶13Ͳ23(AͲG),BoardProceedingsupon Impairment.ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction...Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction, appellatecourts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownas courtsofrecord...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/  86 RMD 087 246. For almost the identical reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs the VSBO prosecutors, Ms. Shoenfeld and Mr. Prince, in their official capacities and as individuals, the VSBO disciplinary board members in their official capacities and as individuals have no authority under the U. S. Constitution, Constitution of Virginia, Code of Virginia or any Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia to order any attorney to force the Appellant or any attorney (Respondent) in any misconduct matters or impairment proceedings during any part of the investigation or prosecution by the VSBO prosecutors or investigators to have an attorney to “advise” them during any misconduct investigation or prosecution. 247. The Court is fully aware that as a matter of law, the VSBO disciplinary board had no authority to enter the March 25, 2019 Order or to include in said order factual misstatements and misconstrued facts which memorialized that the VSBO prosecutors and the VSBO disciplinary board had deprived the Respondent of her constitutionally guaranteed due process rights to present a complete defense evidence before a fair and impartial Virginia court or tribunal established by the 87 93 Virginia General Assembly under the Virginia Constitution. RMD 088 248. The Court is fully aware as a matter of law that the VSB disciplinary board had no authority to revoke the Respondent’s license to practice law based on the provisions of the Virginia Constitution and Virginia statutes and has no authority to revoke any other attorney’s license.94 249. The Court is fully aware that as a matter of law, the VSBO disciplinary board has no authority to revoke the Appellant’s license to practice law, to restrain or prohibit the Appellant or other attorneys from practicing law in Virginia or restrict their guaranteed U. S. Constitutional and Virginia  93 ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction.ThejudicialpoweroftheCommonwealthshall bevestedinaSupremeCourtandinsuchothercourtsoforiginalorappellatejurisdictionsubordinatetothe SupremeCourtastheGeneralAssemblymayfromtimetotimeestablish.Trialcourtsofgeneraljurisdiction, appellatecourts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshallbeknownas courtsofrecord...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/ 94 ArticleVI.JudiciarySection1.Judicialpower;jurisdiction.ThejudicialpoweroftheCommonwealthshall bevestedinaSupremeCourtandinsuchothercourtsoforiginalorappellatejurisdictionsubordinatetothe SupremeCourtas“theGeneralAssembly”mayfromtimetotimeestablish.Trialcourtsofgeneral jurisdiction,appellatecourts,andsuchothercourtsasshallbesodesignatedbytheGeneralAssemblyshall beknownascourtsofrecord...[Emphasisadded.]https://law.lis.virginia.gov/constitutionexpand/article6/ [Emphasisadded.] [ThePreͲHearingMemorandum,datedFebruary15,2019,authoredbyHenryE.Howell,III,Esquire,is attachedheretoandincorporatedhereinbyreferenceasifrestatedhereininfull;andtheFebruary6, 2019AnalysisofLawpreparedbytheRespondent,whichisattachedheretoandincorporatedhereinby referenceasifrestatedhereininfull.] §54.1Ͳ3915.Restrictionsastorulesandregulations.Notwithstandingtheforegoingprovisionsofthisarticle, theSupremeCourtshallnotpromulgaterulesorregulationsprescribingacodeofethicsgoverningthe professionalconductofattorneyswhichareinconsistentwithanystatute;norshallitpromulgateanyruleor regulationormethodofprocedurewhicheliminatesthejurisdictionofthecourtstodealwiththedisciplineof attorneys.Innocaseshallanattorneywhodemandstobetriedbyacourtofcompetentjurisdictionforthe violationofanyruleorregulationadoptedunderthisarticlebetriedinanyothermanner.Code1950,§54Ͳ51; 1974,c.536;1988,c.765.  88 Constitutional rights to exercise free speech. 95 RMD 089 250. The Court is fully aware that no one, including the justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia, jointly and severally, in their official or individual capacities, has the right to violate the law. MOTION FOR AN EN BANC HEARING 251. Paragraphs 1 - 247 are restated herein. 252. If the Supreme Court of Virginia requires a Hearing before an impartial tribunal on any issues presented in this document, the Appellant requests an En Banc Hearing before all substitute justices sitting on the Supreme Court of Virginia. WHEREFORE, the Appellant, Rhetta Moore Daniel, respectfully requests that, based on Virginia law, the ultra vires acts, illegal acts and the malfeasance of the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Virginia State Bar  95 U.S.ConstitutionͲFirstAmendmentͲReligionandExpressionAmendmentText|Annotations.Congressshall makenolawrespectinganestablishmentofreligionorprohibitingthefreeexercisethereof;orabridgingthe freedomofspeech,orofthepress;ortherightofthepeoplepeaceablytoassemble,andtopetitionthe Governmentforaredressofgrievances.; §54.1Ͳ3910.OrganizationandgovernmentofVirginiaStateBarͲhttps://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/54.1Ͳ3910 §54.1Ͳ3915.Restrictionsastorulesandregulations.Notwithstandingtheforegoingprovisionsofthisarticle, theSupremeCourtshallnotpromulgaterulesorregulationsprescribingacodeofethicsgoverningthe professionalconductofattorneyswhichareinconsistentwithanystatute;norshallitpromulgateanyruleor regulationormethodofprocedurewhicheliminatesthejurisdictionofthecourtstodealwiththedisciplineof attorneys.Innocaseshallanattorneywhodemandstobetriedbyacourtofcompetentjurisdictionforthe violationofanyruleorregulationadoptedunderthisarticlebetriedinanyothermanner.Code1950,§54Ͳ51; 1974,c.536;1988,c.765.   89 RMD 091 RMD 092 RMD 093 EXHIBIT 1 RECORD FILED ON JUNE 4, 2019 WITH THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA APPEAL # 190716 NOT ATTACHED - FILED WITH THE SCV RMD 094 EXHIBIT 2 1995 JLARC REPORT VIRGINIA STATE BAR RMD 095 RMD 096 RMD 097 RMD 098 and educate members of the legal profession; and to promote the administration of justice and quality of legal services provided to Virginians. Virginia is one of 32 states and the District of Columbia that have unified, mandatory bar organizations. Currently, the VSB is made up of 20,408 active members who each pay $185 in annual fees for the privilege of practicing law in Virginia. Annual attorney fees are used to fund most of the Bar’s operations and totaled $4.3 million in FY 1995. Total Bar operating expenditures in FY 1995 were almost $5.3 million. This review of the Virginia State Bar is one in a series of studies on the administration of justice in Virginia. Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 263 specifically directed JLARC to conduct an analysis of the VSB and evaluate the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of the VSB in carrying out its mission. This review found that while the VSB shares a number of characteristics with other unified state bars, the agency is unique when compared to agencies that regulate other professions and occupations in Virginia. The VSB is different because it combines activities to regulate the profession with non-regulatory activities that are similar to those usually conducted by professional associations. This unusual mix of activities raises questions about how to best allocate resources and prioritize activities to carry out the Bar’s mission. Analysis of State Bar operations indicates that: REVIEW OF THE VIRGINIA STATE B AR December 1995 Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission The Virginia State Bar (VSB) was created in 1938 by the General Assembly as an administrative agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia. The creation of the agency unified Virginia’s lawyers in a mandatory State Bar to provide for the regulation of lawyers practicing in the Commonwealth. Since that time, Virginia State Bar activities have grown to support a broad mission which includes efforts to regulate, improve, • lawyers may be paying more in annual fees than is necessary to fund the Bar’s operations, as evidenced by the growing cash balances maintained in VSB special funds, I RMD 099 • the system to discipline lawyers in Virginia works relatively well, although, some steps need to be taken to better ensure public protection and build public confidence, and and paying their associated expenses. While not monitored through CARS, the Auditor of Public Accounts does conduct periodic audits to ensure that expenditures are properly documented and that these expenses are not charged to the State Bar fund. • most activities of the VSB are consistent with the mission established for the Bar by statute and the Rules of Virginia Supreme Court, but the association-like nature of the Bar’s nonregulatory activities exposes the Bar to potential conflicts, diverts resources from the Bar’s most important activity — lawyer discipline — and raises concerns about public accountability. While A Majority of VSB Expenditures Pay for Lawyer Regulation, Lawyers May Be Charged Excessive Fees Analysis of VSB funding indicates that about 54 percent of total State Bar expenditures are used to regulate lawyers through the disciplinary system and other regulatory activities carried out by the Virginia State Bar. Nevertheless, Virginia lawyers may be paying more than is necessary to fund the activities of the VSB. Growing cash balances in two of the VSB’s special funds form a large cash reserve that could have paid for about one-half of the agency’s operating expenditures in FY 1995. In three of the past five fiscal years, VSB revenue exceeded expenditures (see figure on next page). Excess revenues, combined with growing cash balances in the Bar’s special funds have provided the Bar with a large cash reserve. Currently, the VSB has more than $2.5 million in combined reserve amounts from the State Bar fund and the A&F fund. Some of this reserve can be attributed to the VSB implementation of two increases in member dues over the past five years. Recommendations are made in this report to: Three Special Funds Are Maintained to Pay for VSB Activities The VSB is authorized to maintain three distinct special funds to pay for its regulatory and non-regulatory activities. The State Bar fund is authorized by the Code of Virginia and is composed primarily of the mandatory annual fees paid by lawyers to be members of the VSB. The administration and finance (A&F) fund is authorized by the Rules of Virginia Supreme Court (Court Rules) and was created to pay for conference, meeting, and related VSB expenses for which State funds cannot be used. The clients’ protection fund is also authorized by the Court Rules and is used to compensate persons who have experienced financial losses due to the dishonest conduct of a lawyer. Member dues also finance this fund. The State Bar fund is one of many special funds within the State Treasury, and as such, is monitored through the Commonwealth’s Cost Accounting and Reporting System (CARS). The A&F fund and the clients’ protection fund are maintained and administered solely by the VSB and are not tracked by CARS. The VSB is responsible for investing the revenue of these funds • amend the Code of Virginia to ensure that mandatory member dues are not increased if the reserve levels in VSB special funds exceed ten percent of total operating expenditures, and • reduce the amount of VSB member dues. II RMD 100 Growth in VSB Revenues, Expenditures, and Fund Balances, FY 1991 - FY 1995 $6 5 Total Revenues Total Expenditures Cash Balance 4 3 2 1 1991 1992 1993 Fiscal Years Transfers of Funds from the State Bar Fund to the Clients’ Protection Fund Raise Questions about Fund Integrity 1994 1995 the clients’ protection fund raises concerns about the integrity of the State Bar fund. This fund was established to pay for the cost of lawyer regulation, primarily lawyer discipline. Further, the current method of funding the clients’ protection fund is inconsistent with the methods used for budgeting other VSB expenditures, even though these expenses accounted for eight percent of the VSB’s expenditures in FY 1995. While the Bar has made contributions to the clients’ protection fund since 1976 from the State Bar fund, this contribution was not formally budgeted until recently in FY 1995. The Bar’s 1994 long range plan included a goal of contributing $200,000 annually to the clients’ protection fund for a period of at least five years beginning in FY 1995. Nevertheless, the Bar’s budget for FY 1995 included only $130,000 as a line item for the clients’ protection fund, which represented a portion of that recommended by The clients’ protection fund was established in 1985 by Court Rules to further the administration of justice by reimbursing clients for financial losses caused by the dishonest conduct of Virginia lawyers. Since its inception, the fund has been capitalized by lawyers’ annual fees to the VSB. To date, the fund has received more than $1.5 million in transfers from the State Bar fund and has paid out more than $1.3 million to petitioners. The Bar’s council has provided revenues to the fund in two ways: (1) approval of fund transfers from the State Bar fund, and (2) loans from the State Bar fund for the express purpose of accruing interest income to capitalize the fund. These loans were later forgiven. The practice of routinely transferring revenue from the State Bar fund to capitalize III RMD 101 the long range plan and a portion of the $400,000 which the Bar actually contributed to the fund. Consequently, capitalizing the fund appears to continue to be a discretionary expenditure depending on the financial position of the State Bar fund at the year’s end. Continued growth in demand for payments from the clients’ protection fund to persons who have experienced financial losses due to the dishonest conduct of lawyers may necessitate a more straightforward funding mechanism to ensure fund integrity and protect the public. Because it is unclear whether the General Assembly intended for the fund to be capitalized by Bar member dues, recommendations are contained in this report to address these concerns by having the VSB: tangible property and returned to the State Treasury. Recommendations are made to: • identify and determine if portions of the VSB’s insurance revenue should be designated and treated as unclaimed property, and • ensure that all future refunds involving intangible property are treated as unclaimed property by the VSB when the owner cannot be identified. Some Bar A&F Fund Expenditures Do Not Appear Consistent with the Purpose of the Fund The Bar’s administration and finance fund was created in 1987 by the Supreme Court of Virginia to pay for: • discontinue the current practice of making State Bar fund transfers to the clients’ protection fund without specific statutory authority, and expenses related to meetings of the Council, meetings of the Executive Committee, the Annual and Midyear Meetings, and other official functions of the State Bar . . . . (Court Rules) • request General Assembly authorization to maintain and finance the clients’ protection fund through a specific funding mechanism. Analysis of the A&F fund indicates that certain expenditures may not be consistent with the purpose of the fund as established by the Supreme Court. Further, the cash balance in the A&F fund has accumulated to a level more than three times the amount expended from the fund in FY 1995. The Supreme Court may not have intended that the Bar maintain such a large cash balance when it originally set up the fund. The three primary events that are funded through the A&F fund are the VSB annual meeting, the annual Cambridge seminar, and the midyear legal seminar. Receipts from these events are deposited with the State Treasurer in the State Bar fund. The money is then transferred to the A&F fund to pay for associated expenses. However, in FY 1995 the fund is also used to pay for: Certain Revenues Received by the Bar May Have Been Erroneously Retained Since at least FY 1987 and possibly earlier, the VSB has received revenues from its sponsored insurance plans. From FY 1988 to FY 1995, the Bar received approximately $727,000 in insurance proceeds for various reasons. The majority of these funds appear to be from refunds for favorable claims experience on the part of VSB policyholders. These funds were eventually deposited in the VSB’s administration and finance fund and have collected more than $88,000 in interest income. It appears that some of these insurance refund amounts should have been treated as unclaimed in- IV RMD 102 • alcoholic beverage expenses for social meetings of the council, executive committee, specialty law sections, and committees; public from lawyer misconduct. In doing so, the VSB has developed a complex disciplinary system that strives to balance the need to protect the public with the need to ensure that the limited resources of the Bar are used efficiently. The Bar is also faced with the challenge of maintaining public trust, being accountable, and protecting the public while ensuring the system protects the rights of those accused and treats them fairly. This review found that the disciplinary system works relatively well in achieving balance between the competing demands on the system. Nevertheless, some problems were identified which need to be addressed to improve public protection, build public trust in the system, and increase accountability to the public. Moreover, some minimal steps could be taken to improve fairness in the system. Process for Dismissing Complaints Needs Strengthening. Protection of the public is the most important goal of Virginia’s disciplinary system. The disciplinary process begins with the filing of complaints by members of the public regarding the conduct of members of the Virginia State Bar. However, the majority of complaints against members of the Bar are dismissed before a hearing ever takes place on the complaint. Bar counsel appear to have sufficient basis to screen out most of these complaints. However, review of VSB disciplinary files indicated some weaknesses in: (1) the documentation of case dismissal decisions, (2) the provision of an opportunity for complainants to comment on the accused attorney’s response to allegations, and (3) the scope of bar counsel’s authority to dismiss cases. Recommendations are made to: • travel expenses for spouses of Bar officers; and • staff activities and expenses such as coffee, soda, a staff holiday party, and other items. These types of expenses are not normally approved by the Commonwealth for reimbursement. In addition, they do not appear to relate directly to “official” business of the Bar. Reimbursement of the above types of expenses appears inconsistent with what the Supreme Court intended in setting up the fund. Further, these expenditures raise questions about the focus and priorities of the VSB in carrying out its mission. The expenditures resemble those more typical of a professional or trade association. The VSB was not set up primarily as a professional association, but rather as a regulatory agency with a mission that includes upholding and elevating the standards of honor and integrity in the legal profession. As such, all of its discretionary expenditures should be made prudently and should be able to withstand public scrutiny. Recommendations are made to: • lower the A&F fund balance to a reasonable level, and • discontinue payment of certain expenses from the A&F fund. The Disciplinary System Works Well Although Some Changes Are Needed to Improve Public Protection and Build Public Confidence • improve documentation of dismissed cases and limit bar counsel’s authority to dismiss cases after a preliminary investigation, and The primary mission of the VSB is to regulate the legal profession to protect the V RMD 103 • provide complainants with an opportunity to rebut the accused attorney’s response prior to dismissal. Steps Could Be Taken to Improve Public Confidence in the System. This review found that the VSB has taken a number of important steps to improve public trust in the system to discipline lawyers in recent years. However, several aspects of the current system continue to reduce confidence in the system and perhaps raise suspicions that the system is designed to protect lawyers instead of the public. These include maintaining a committee system that is closed to public access and allowing certain practices which create appearances of impropriety. Further, lack of understanding about the system and its purposes could be improved to facilitate a higher degree of public trust. Review of disciplinary files indicated that the Bar could more clearly explain reasons for case dismissals to complainants. Recommendations are made to: Additional Improvements Could Be Made to Protect the Public. This review also identified several changes to the disciplinary system that could be made to enhance the VSB’s ability to protect the public. Currently, complainants do not have the right to appeal dismissals by bar counsel. In addition, bar counsel cannot appeal decisions to dismiss cases after adjudication by Bar committees or the disciplinary board. However, attorneys accused of violating ethical standards (respondents) have the right to appeal case decisions in most instances. In addition, citizen complainants do not have the same rights to immunity from civil suits in filing complaints against lawyers, as lawyers currently have. While the system has changed to involve lay persons in the adjudication of complaints against lawyers, lay member participation is not mandatory in all parts of the process. Further, it is not clear that the VSB has taken steps to ensure that adjudicatory decisions are consistent across the Commonwealth. This report includes recommendations to: • further open the disciplinary process to the public; • prevent members of the Bar’s council from representing respondents in disciplinary proceedings and clarify participation by other Bar officers, committee members, and board members; • provide complainants with the right to appeal dismissals, • provide complainants with absolute immunity from civil suits for all disciplinary complaints made to the VSB, • prohibit Bar members from having access to confidential disciplinary information, other than Bar staff and members of the standing committee on lawyer discipline; • require lay member participation in district committee and disciplinary board actions, and • require disclosure of potential conflicts of interest in disciplinary cases; and • have the VSB take steps to assess consistency in outcomes of committee decisions. • provide more detailed explanations for dismissals to complainants. VI RMD 104 Minor Changes Could Be Made to Further Improve System Fairness. Analysis of the VSB disciplinary system found that, on the whole, attorneys accused of violating ethical standards are treated fairly. However, some minor changes could be made to improve the fairness of the system. Currently, respondents are only entitled to receive very limited information from bar counsel about their case in order to prepare for a hearing. Further, respondents and their counsel are not allowed to be present for subcommittee meetings in which decisions are made to impose discipline and approve or disapprove proposed agreed dispositions. And, subcommittee members who consider whether to set a case for hearing may also sit on the committee panel that hears the case. Recommendations are made to improve system fairness by: • improving the monitoring of performance in meeting time guidelines, • reclassifying at least one position as an additional bar counsel position, • better monitoring of staff productivity and assessing the need for paralegal support, and • developing a training program for investigative staff. The VSB’s Current Mission and Role Raises Concerns about Its Regulatory Focus This review found that, with one minor exception, most VSB activities appear consistent with the mission established for it by the General Assembly and the Supreme Court of Virginia. Nevertheless, there appears to be a need for better prioritization of activities to ensure that the Bar’s regulatory activities remain its primary focus. Findings in this report indicate that the Bar may need to reallocate existing resources to address resource needs in this area. The association-like nature of some programs and activities conducted by the Bar raises questions about whether the Bar is properly focused on its regulatory mission. In addition, the expansion of the Bar into commercial activities is unusual for a State agency and exposes the Bar to potential conflicts, especially with its regulatory function. Further, these types of activities divert resources from the Bar’s most important activity — lawyer discipline — and raise concerns about public accountability. • providing respondents with limited discovery in disciplinary cases and the right to appeal dismissals which create a disciplinary record, and • excluding certain subcommittee members from the adjudicatory process, and allowing respondents and their counsel to be present for subcommittee meetings. Changes Could Be Made to Improve the Efficiency of the Disciplinary System. Currently, the VSB assesses the efficiency of the disciplinary system by monitoring time guidelines it has established for the various steps in the disciplinary process. Analysis of VSB performance in reaching its guidelines indicates that most complaints are not processed within the goals established for the system. Several changes could be made to assist the Bar in achieving its goals and strengthening the efficiency of the system. Recommendations are made to improve efficiency by: Implications for the Future Role of the Virginia State Bar Concerns about the unusual mission and role that the unified bar has as a state governmental agency are not new. One legal scholar who studied unified bars in the 1980s has argued that the unified bar as an VII RMD 105 institution has three contradictory images which affect its governance and accountability — that of a public agency, a compulsory membership organization, and a private voluntary association. Clearly, these images are reflective of the role of the unified bar in Virginia and as such, raise concerns about how these contradictory roles can be appropriately balanced to ensure continued protection of the public and enhance public confidence in Virginia’s legal system. Without a more thorough examination and delineation of the role of the Virginia State Bar in the future, striking the proper balance between the Bar’s regulatory and non-regulatory activities will continue to be problematic. The Bar will most likely continue to experience pressure to change the scope of its activities from its members, other statewide voluntary bar associations, complainants, and members of the General Assembly. The Supreme Court of Virginia and the General Assembly may wish to consider several options for the future to refocus the Bar’s activities and improve its public accountability. These could include structural changes to the Bar’s governance, transfer of certain activities to other entities, or implementing a more structured system of oversight. VIII RMD 106 RMD 107 RMD 108 The mission Rules must be approved by VSCA What procedures are in writing? Last sentence describes conflict RMD 109 Activities Year Added Current Authority Code of Virginia Court Rules Creation of the State Bar fund as a special fund in the State Treasury for member fees 1940 §54.1-3913 Regulation of legal aid societies 1956 §54.1-3916 Master retirement program for members 1968 §54.1-3917 Registration of legal corporations 1973 §54.1-3902 Creation of the VSB disciplinary board 1976 Pt. 6, § IV, Para. 13(C) Legal ethics and unauthorized practice of law opinions 1978 Pt. 6, § IV, Para. 10 Membership list available to not-for-profit organizations conducting continuing legal education 1981 Legal ethics course (precursor to professionalism course) 1984 Pt. 6, § IV, Para. 13.1 Clients’ protection fund 1985 Pt. 6, § IV, Para. 16 Expanded disciplinary responsibilities of the council, the committee on lawyer discipline, and bar counsel 1986 Pt. 6, § IV, Para. 13(B) Mandatory continuing legal education requirements 1986 Pt. 6, § IV, Para. 17 Creation of the administration and finance fund 1987 Pt. 6, § IV, Para. 9(i) Member certification of liability insurance 1989 Pt. 6, § IV, Para. 18 Procedure for administrative suspension of members 1991 Pt. 6, § IV, Para. 19 Council authority to improve the quality of legal services 1991 Pt. 6, § IV, Para. 9(j) Council authority to evaluate judicial candidates 1991 Pt. 6, § IV, Para. 9(j) Approval of trust account depositories 1993 Pt. 6, § IV, Para. 20 Endorse or hold group or individual insurance policies for the benefit of members 1995 Pt. 6, § IV, Para. 14 §54.1-3918 §54.1-3917.1 RMD 110 RMD 111 There is no mention of making recommendations to change in law, only to rules of the SCV. RMD 112 RMD 113 RMD 114 RMD 115 RMD 116 Sylvia Daniels RMD 117 RMD 118 RMD 119 See recommendations, supra. RMD 120 RMD 121 RMD 122 RMD 123 RMD 124 RMD 125 RMD 126 $5 4 Total Expenditures (Millions) 3 2 1 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 Fiscal Years 1995 RMD 127 RMD 128 RMD 129 Total Revenues Percent Revenues Exceed Expenditures Total Expenditures 1991 1992 1993 Fiscal Years 1994 1995 RMD 130 RMD 131 RMD 132 RMD 133 RMD 134 RMD 135 RMD 136 RMD 137 RMD 138 Revenues* Annual Meeting Expenditures $105,919 Annual Meeting $86,928 $31,957 Cambridge Seminar $46,416 Cambridge Seminar Midyear Seminar $20,481 Midyear Seminar $8,063 President’s Art Collection Project $1,500 Council/Executive Committee $17,713 Officers/Spouses $8,702 General Committees $3,979 Additional Insurance Refunds (Added to Designated Reserves) $245,025 Reimbursements Received $162,409 Checking Account Interest Interest Income: Treasury Note Interest Income: Certificates of Deposit TOTAL Professionalism Course $6,425 $17,188 $958 Sections $3,104 Young Lawyers Conference $1,653 Reimbursements Staff $152,733 $4,566 $8,913 $614,276 Bank Service Charges $454 Local Bar Program $277 TOTAL $321,088 RMD 139 RMD 140 fit of the few Expenditures should withstand public scrutiny RMD 141 Bar needs to build public trust. How do secret sanctions build trust? Bar needs to be more efficient RMD 142 RMD 143 Is this annual review taking place? Reports? COLD is suppose to oversee Bodie. Is anything in writing? RMD 144 There is a lot of discretionary decision making occurring by the Bar Counsel. RMD 145 RMD 146 I wonder if the investigator's report matches the Bar Counsel report. I don't think they do. RMD 147 I wonder if the disciplinary record exists on these dismissed cases. RMD 148 RMD 149 RMD 150 These recommendations have not b