My First Supreme Court of Virginia oral argument that exposed corrupt judges and lawyers

On August 28, 2024, I had the privilege to present my first oral argument to grant my petition for appeal. The appeal stems from a case which a retired judge was not designated by the SCV or the Richmond trial court to preside over and enter an order in an ethics complaint filed against corrupt lawyers who committed fraud to extort me of over $100,000. See article https://virginiastatebarcorruption.blogspot.com/2024/03/white-supremacy-in-virginia-court-of.html

This is my ten (10) minute allowed oral argument.

Good morning your honors, Nickolas Spanos, pro se, before the court. May it please the court?

This Petition for Appeal asks primarily whether

?a) a retired judge may preside over and enter orders in matters without a designation order by the SCV or the Trial Court;

b) an order entered by an undesignated retired judge who lacked subject matter jurisdiction and authority is void ab initio;

c) are orders entered by Appellate Judges who knowingly and willfully acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and contrary to case law are void; and

d) Are judges allowed exclusive and separate privileges that directly conflict with the U.S. and Virginia Constitution, allowing them to deprive citizens of those rights? These questions raise significant issues of first impression in this Court, which could have far-reaching implications.

On February 17, 2022, Daniel T. Balfour (Balfour) deprived the Petitioner of his Virginia and U.S. Constitutional right to due process of law in Case No. CL21-4150 by usurping the authority of the Supreme Court of Virginia (SCV), the Virginia Legislature, and the Trial Court. Balfour, without designation orders by the Trial Court under § 17.1-105. Designation of judges and by the Chief Justice of the SCV under § 17.1-106. Temporary recall of retired judges, Balfour took it upon himself, as a layman, to preside over and enter a final order without authority and subject matter jurisdiction.

?

During the matter before the CAV and before the CAV had scheduled oral arguments and entered an Order, The Appellant discovered numerous acts of extrinsic fraud upon the court by Daniel T. Balfour, and the Appellees Robert Freed, Emily Kokie, and their Counsel Julie Palmer, which rendered the Trial Court’s final order void ab initio.

The Appellant discovered that Daniel Balfour, without designation order by the Trial Court under § 17.1-105 Designation of Judges and without designation order by the Chief Justice of the SCV under § 17.1-106 Temporary Recall of Retired Judges, took it upon himself as a layman to preside over and enter a final order without authority and subject matter jurisdiction to do so.

Daniel Balfour intentionally acted with prejudice and bias towards the Petitioner, depriving him of his Constitutionally protected rights to due process by presiding over the matter without a designation order, giving him subject matter jurisdiction and authority.

One of the most paramount issues in the Appellants’ pleadings was Balfour's extrinsic fraud upon the court, rendering his order void ab initio. An Order that is void ab initio is considered "a 'complete nullity' that may be impeached directly or collaterally by all persons, anywhere, at any time, or in any manner.

The other influential argument by the Appellant was that Balfour lacked subject matter jurisdiction and authority to preside over and enter orders. Thus, a court’s action is void ab initio if “entered by a court in the absence of jurisdiction of the subject matter or over the parties, if the character of the order is such that the court had no power to render it, or if the mode of procedure used by the court was one that the court “could not lawfully adopt.”

Extrinsic fraud upon the court and absence of jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties are the most significant factors in the complete breakdown of the judicial mechanism. Despite the Appellant noting his argument to the Tribunal Judges, they knowingly and willfully acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and contrary to case law in deciding the Appellant’s matter.

The Appellant afforded the Tribunal numerous opportunities to redress its errors and correct its orders where it failed to specifically address and rule on Balfour’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction and authority in CL21-4150.

Error 1

The Tribunal erred by failing to address the Appellant’s claims that the Trial Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the authority to preside over and enter orders as Balfour was never designated by the SCV nor the Trial Court to preside over CL21-4150.?

Va. Codes § 17.1-105. Designation of judges to hold courts, and §17.1-106. Temporary recall of retired judges is the mandatory statute that gives retired judges the authority and subject matter jurisdiction to preside over cases. (Whether the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court12 or a presiding judge of a court of record13 designates a retired judge on recall status, a designation order is mandatory for the retired judge to have the authority and subject matter jurisdiction to preside over the case.?

For the designation to be official, it is also compulsory that the designation order be filed in the Trial Court records, entered in the civil order book of the court, and a copy sent to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Subject-matter jurisdiction is unique. It “cannot be waived or conferred on the court by agreement of the parties”; a defect in it “cannot be cured by reissuance of process, the passage of time, or pleading amendment”; “a court always has jurisdiction to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction”; and “the lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time in the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal by the court sua sponte.

Error 2

The Tribunal erred by depriving the Appellant of his 14th Amendment and Virginia Constitutional right to due process of law, as the Justices knowingly and willfully acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and contrary to case law in deciding the Appellant’s case.

The Petitioner, under Rule 5:25. Had stated his objections with reasonable certainty to the Tribunal at the time of their rulings and noted that their Orders were arbitrarily, capriciously, and contrary to case law, depriving the Appellant of his U.S. Constitutional rights to due process.

The Petitioner, under SCV Rule 5A:18. had shown for good cause and invoked the right to address the Tribunal that the Trial Court’s Final Order as void ab initio, anywhere, at any time, or in any manner to enable the Tribunal to attain the ends of justice sua sponte.

Daniel T. Balfour (Balfour) deprived the Petitioner of his Virginia and U.S. Constitutional right to due process of law in Case No. CL21-4150 by usurping the authority of the Supreme Court of Virginia (SCV), the Virginia Legislature, and the Trial Court.

Balfour, without a designation order by the Trial Court under § 17.1-105 Designation of judges and by the Chief Justice of the SCV under § 17.1-106 Temporary recall of retired judges, took it upon himself to preside over and enter a final order without authority and subject matter jurisdiction to do so.

Simply put, Balfour was a layman, a nobody off the street without authority and jurisdiction, without a designation order by the trial court or the chief justice.

The petitioner prays for this honorable Court to grant this petition for appeal,