Opinion ID: 1949728
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Record From Virginia

Text: We thus begin with the presumption that reciprocal discipline is appropriate and that we are bound by the findings of the Virginia Circuit Court (which were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Virginia). The Circuit Court found that respondent has been charged in Virginia with being drunk in public, for driving while intoxicated, and for knowingly obstructing a law enforcement officer in the performance of duty. The court explained that the latter charge arose when respondent refused entry to a sheriff's deputy who was attempting to execute a Writ of Possession to evict respondent from his apartment. Respondent did so despite warnings that his continued failure to comply with their instructions to open his door would result in an obstruction of justice charge. When respondent failed to appear on his return date for that charge, the court forfeited his bond and issued a writ of capias [4] for his arrest. The court also found that respondent has a long history of filing civil actions against numerous and various defendants on grounds that are, at best, of questionable merit, including the filing of a 336-page complaint against the law firm for which he formerly worked. In February 2000, Judge Albert V. Bryan, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia enjoined respondent from filing any further complaints against a certain group of named defendants without first obtaining leave of court. Respondent violated this order in August 2000 by filing a 378-page complaint against thirty-seven defendants, including some covered by the injunctive order. In the August 2000 filing, respondent named his two sons as co-plaintiffs; at that time one was a minor and the other was nineteen years old. [B]y naming his children as co-plaintiffs, by suing as their counsel when one of the children was not in his legal custody, the court determined, respondent made false statements to a tribunal concerning the legal status of his `client' child. The court also found that, by purporting to be acting as [the children's] `attorney', the Respondent has subjected two other individuals, one of whom was a minor, to potential sanctions and/or counter-claims. The Board also referred to two letters written by respondent after the Supreme Court of Virginia announced its decision. Although these letters did not contribute to the decision to impose discipline in Virginia, they may reflect on respondent's fitness to practice law and are a part of the record received from the Commonwealth. Respondent acknowledges that he wrote the letters, referring to them as letters addressed to the three judges that he did not file with the court but sent by mail to their home addresses, and the letter he sent VSB Bar Counsel Williams. In one letter, respondent wrote to counsel for the Virginia State Bar: I refuse to participate or cooperate [in] any way in your criminal and cowardly Fascist racketeering conspiracy, otherwise known as the murder Ditton legally game. Go to hell. The other letter was addressed to the home of Judge Haley, a member of the three-judge panel of the Circuit Court. Respondent characterized the five-year suspension as a Hitlerite decision ... a Fascist decision. By refusing to follow the rule of law you violated your oath of office. You further lied to me when stating to me you had a conscience. You leave me with only my absolute moral superiority that I invoke against you and your co-conspirators as follows.... Respondent quoted from two movies, The Great Dictator and Judgment at Nuremberg, then closed with the admonition Go to hell. A notation at the bottom of this letter indicates that copies had been sent to the other two members of the panel.