Rhetta M . Daniel

You have copied or sent to my attention various emails dating back to April 2, 2022 regarding allegations of misconduct by two assistant Bar Counsel, your previous attorney, your appointed guardian ad litem, and members of the Disciplinary Board. I have reviewed them. Regarding the allegations of violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility against the two assistant Bar Counsel, COLD policy (Disciplinary Complaints Against Bar Counsel or a Lawyer Member of Bar Counsel Staff) provides that Renu Brennan, Bar Counsel, will determine whether to treat the allegations as disciplinary or administrative matters. If Bar Counsel determines that your allegations are a disciplinary matter, then she, Braxton Hill, who chairs the COLD Oversight Committee, and I, as COLD Chair, will appoint a member of a district committee with at least two years' experience and no current working relationship with either of the two assistant bar counsel to serve as special bar counsel. In either event, you will be notified.

The public or any entity can file Civil Ethics Complaints against lawyers practicing law in Virginia and Virginia Justices and judges because all Justices and judges in Virginia must be licensed to practice law in Virginia.

No one has to file Ethics Complaints with the Virginia State Bar or the Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission.

§ 54.1-3915. Restrictions as to rules and regulations.

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this article, the Supreme Court shall not promulgate rules or regulations prescribing a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of attorneys which are inconsistent with any statute; nor shall it promulgate any rule or regulation or method of procedure which eliminates the jurisdiction of the courts to deal with the discipline of attorneys. 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.

Code 1950, § 54-51; 1974, c. 536; 1988, c. 765.

Anyone can file a civil Ethics Complaint against attorneys practicing law in Virginia and Virginia Justices and judges because the Justices and judges must be licensed to practice law in Virginia.

There are five Civil Ethics Complaints against attorneys, criminal prosecutors, judges, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, the Virginia State Bar prosecutors and Executive Director and a Circuit Court Clerk which were filed by the public pending in the Louisa County, Virginia, Circuit Court and one filed in the Orange County, Virginia, Circuit Court against four judges.

§ 54.1-3915. Restrictions as to rules and regulations.

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this article, the Supreme Court shall not promulgate rules or regulations prescribing a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of attorneys which are inconsistent with any statute; nor shall it promulgate any rule or regulation or method of procedure which eliminates the jurisdiction of the courts to deal with the discipline of attorneys. 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.

Code 1950, § 54-51; 1974, c. 536; 1988, c. 765.

Civil Ethics Complaints should be filed in the Virginia Circuit Courts and not with the Virginia State Bar.

§ 54.1-3915. Restrictions as to rules and regulations.

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this article, the Supreme Court shall not promulgate rules or regulations prescribing a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of attorneys which are inconsistent with any statute; nor shall it promulgate any rule or regulation or method of procedure which eliminates the jurisdiction of the courts to deal with the discipline of attorneys. 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.

Code 1950, § 54-51; 1974, c. 536; 1988, c. 765.

Virginia Code provides the authority for any person or entity to file Ethics Complaints against lawyers practicing law in Virginia and Virginia Justices and judges.

§ 54.1-3915. Restrictions as to rules and regulations.

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this article, the Supreme Court shall not promulgate rules or regulations prescribing a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of attorneys which are inconsistent with any statute; nor shall it promulgate any rule or regulation or method of procedure which eliminates the jurisdiction of the courts to deal with the discipline of attorneys. 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.  Code 1950, § 54-51; 1974, c. 536; 1988, c. 765.

For 45 years, the Virginia State Bar and the Virginia Supreme Court have been violating the Code of Virginia based on lack of authority in the Constitution of Virginia and the Code of Virginia to discipline lawyers practicing law in Virginia.

The Virginia State Bar has no Virginia Constitutional or statutory authority to impose any discipline on attorneys practicing law in Virginia.  The Code of Virginia § 54.1-3915 - Restrictions as to rules and regulations, states specifically that The Supreme Court of Virginia cannot "promulgate any rule or regulation or method of procedure which eliminates the jurisdiction of the courts to deal with the discipline of attorneys."

The Code of Virginia § 54.1-3910. Organization and government of Virginia State Bar, states that specifically that the Virginia State Bar only has authority to "[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."

The Petition explains the severe impact that these violations had and are continuing to have on the Public and attorneys practicing law in Virginia.

Since 1950, the Code of Virginia,  § 54.1-3915. Restrictions as to rules and regulations, has authorized only the Virginia Courts to discipline attorneys.

Since 1976 (45 years), the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Virginia State Bar have refused to comply with Code of Virginia,  § 54.1-3915 by setting up a secret Disciplinary System in violation of this Virginia statute.

§ 54.1-3915. Restrictions as to rules and regulations, states "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. 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. Code 1950, § 54-51; 1974, c. 536; 1988, c. 765."

The July 15, 2019, Second Motion to Extend the Time for the Filing of the Appellant’s Opening Brief Under Rule 5:26 (d) and the Appellant’s “New Motion” for The Court to Apply Virginia Supreme Court Rule 5:32, Appeal on the Original Record Without an Appendix and to Waive the Filing of Any Appendix describes Virginia State Bar and Virginia Supreme Court Discrimination against Minorities, Women, Solos and Small Firm Members who are not wealthy.

The Economic Discrimination Fosters the Suppression of the Right to Appeal a Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Case Continues.

The First and Second Motions to Extend the Time for the Filing of the Appellant’s Opening Brief Under Rule 5:26 (d) and the Appellant’s “New Motion” for The Court to Apply Virginia Supreme Court Rule 5:32, Appeal on the Original Record Without an Appendix and to Waive the Filing of Any Appendix outline the suppression of the "Appeal of Right" except for the very wealthy. 

Minorities, women, solos and small firm members cannot afford to appeal based on the assessment of the "Virginia State Bar (Appellee's) printing costs to the Appellant" at the initiation of the "Appeal of Right" by the Rules of the Virginia Supreme Court promulgated especially for the VSB illegal and unauthorized "in-house kangaroo courts."

Since 1976, the VSBO disciplinary board has been only a body oF unauthorized individuals with no judicial authority created by fiat by the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Current research and evidence supports that Supreme Court of Virginia and the Virginia State Bar Organization routinely commit violations of the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The interests of justice demand an impartial tribunal , but the Court refused to request that the Virginia General Assembly to preside over the appeal of the Appellant’s matters and the appeals of all other misconduct and impairment matters involving attorneys practicing law in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

On June 25, 2019, the Supreme Court of Virginia refused to ask the Virginia General Assembly appoint an impartial tribunal and dismissed all related Motions for the same.

Exhaustion of State Remedies - Federal Court Jurisdiction -

Since 1976, the VSBO disciplinary board has been only a body on unauthorized individuals with no judicial authority created by fiat by the Supreme Court of Virginia.

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not exclude the Respondent from proceeding before the United States Court of Appeals.

The current matters do not exclude the Respondent from proceeding because we litigated the issues before an appointed body that is not a Virginia state court or any other legitimate Virginia tribunal.
The Virginia State Bar Organization disciplinary board is not a court, tribunal or other judicial body established by the Virginia General Assembly.

Further, there is no opportunity for an independent review by the Supreme Court of Virginia because this Court has only lawyers serving as justices.

In 1976, the Supreme Court of Virginia created an unauthorized “judicial” body (the VSBO disciplinary board) that has no authority from the Virginia Assembly to act as a court, tribunal or a judicial body, District of Columbia Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S. Ct. 149, 68 L. Ed. 362 (1923).

In Virginia, there is no appeal of a VSBO disciplinary board order to an independent, impartial tribunal or any means to have an independent review of a lawyer disciplinary order.

The U. S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Eastern District of Virginia, has subject matter jurisdiction, and the Respondent has the standing to litigate the state issues before this Honorable Court.

The VSBO disciplinary board entered the state judgment without legitimate state authority, and there is no state court that can take action to rule that the judgment is ineffectual. Shooting Point, L.L.C. v. Cumming, 368 F.3d 379, 383-84 (4th Cir.2004) (citations omitted); [Note: Such as the void ab initio order of the VSBO disciplinary board.].

Also, an appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court would be futile because the Virginia Supreme Court, itself, engaged in ultra vires acts and malfeasance giving rise to the issues affecting the Respondent and thousands of other attorneys practicing law in Virginia for decades.

The Respondent has standing because the Respondent showed "injury in fact," causation, and lack of redress. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S. Ct.2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992). "Injury in fact" is an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) "actual or imminent, not `conjectural' or `hypothetical,'" Id.; res judicata does not apply because the Respondent raised these claims and has a right to obtain review of the state court decision in any federal court." Guess, 967 F.2d at 1004 (quoting Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482 n. 16, 103 S.Ct. 1303);
accord Centifanti v. Nix,865 F.2d 1422, 1432 (3d Cir.1989) (plaintiff who
lacked "a realistic opportunity to fully and fairly litigate" his constitutional claims is not barred by res judicata from bringing those claims in the district court).

The Virginia State Bar Organization corporate structure emphasizes that is is a Trade Organization which has complete control through its elected governing body, the Council, composed of influential and powerful attorneys from across Virginia.

When viewed with the 27-years +/- Chart of Public Discipline Imposed by the Virginia State Bar Organization, it is clear why:

(1) minorities;
(2) women;
(3) solos; and
(4( small firm members with no influence are the only attorneys in Virginia who have received Public Discipline in over 40 years.

Over at least the past 32 years, the Virginia State Bar Organization, a mandatory trade organization, has imposed Public Discipline on only minorities, women, solo practitioners and small firm members with no influence.

The Virginia State Bar Organizational Chart and the data from the Virginia State Bar Organization speak for themselves.

To make it appear to be more efficient, the former disciplinary department administration instructed the Virginia State Bar Organization Intake Section to reject most complaints filed each year.

This chart shows a dramatic drop in the Public's Complaints opened for investigation by the VSB.  The VSB wanted to increase the VSB Closure Rate even at the expense of protecting the Public. VSB sources confirm that this rejection without investigation process continues.

The Virginia Constitution and Virginia Statutes provide authority only to the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners and the appropriate Virginia Circuit Court Three-Judge Panels to discipline any attorney in any manner or to suspend or revoke any attorney’s license who is practicing law in the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia).

The Virginia State Bar Organization (VSBO) has no United States Constitutional authority, no Virginia Constitutional or any statutory authority to discipline any attorney in any manner or to suspend or revoke any attorneys license.

The Disciplinary Board of the Virginia State Bar is part of the Virginia State Bar under Part Six of the Rules. No language in Chapter 39 of Title 54.1 authorizes the Virginia State Bar or the VSB Disciplinary Board to impose any penalties on a licensed attorney for professional misconduct, and certainly not license revocation that takes away a right that Section 54.1-3900 grants to all licensed attorneys in Virginia. The only authority that the General Assembly has granted to the organization of the Virginia State Bar is the authority to investigate and report attorney misconduct. Again, Section 54.1- 3910 establishes the Virginia State Bar. The enabling statutes could not be clearer on the Bar's limited authority overseeing attorney misconduct:
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. (Emphasis added.)

Contrast this statutory language in Section 54.1-3910 that establishes the Virginia State Bar with the language in Virginia Code§ 54.1-3934, Revocation of license by Board, which expressly empowers the Board of Bar Examiners to revoke an attorney's license under specific conditions:
The Board of Bar Examiners may, for good cause, revoke any license issued by it at any time before there has been a qualification under it in any of the courts of this Commonwealth.