Virginia Judicial Corruption

                                     I.  Secret Inmates for 38 Months

      Andrew Chien (“Chien”), a senior citizen of Connecticut, was a secret inmate for 1148 days (about 38 months) until June 27, 2016, in Chesterfield County Circuit Court of Virginia. The secret inmate is the status of no charge, no trial and sentence, no arrest and incarceration records in Virginia State Police Department and Department of Correction, Richmond Branch of FBI, or any public records, such as people’s search engines (www.truthfinder.com etc). The reason to cause secret inmate, is that Chien’s case is civil. This is a typical white-color crime, because the purpose of secret inmate is for blackmail, robbery, and theft under “color of law”.by one private party against another. Chien was debt imprisoned, which was abolished by federal law in 1833.

       Such secret inmate or arbitrary prolonged incarceration for civil dispute, was affirmed by both Chief-Justice Donald W Lemons (“Hon. Lemons”) of Virginia Supreme Court in multi times of appeals, including appeals of 2018, and Attorney General Mark Herring (“AG Herring”) in Chien’s two countersuits in summer of 2014, and 2015 respectively.  AG Herring ignored several times of Chien’s criminal complains during the making secret inmate, including one submitted in April of 2017.

       To create, or protect the case law of secret inmate, betrayed the Constitution of Amend XIV of due process, violation of human rights which is not strange for dictator society or slavery system against black people, but not in our democratic system. The criminal system needs transparency and accountability to criminal justice. To abuse police force in a civil case, is assault, battery or kidnapping, conspired by private lawyers with agency of the Chesterfield County Circuit Court, but protected by AG Herring and Hon. Lemons.

a        During the secret inmate status, Chien wrote complaint letters to then Governor Terry McAuliffe who responded that this issue not in his authority. In 2019, Chien filed case 3:19cv 235 (HEH) in US District Court, Richmond Division to ask declaration relief for a humane right violation. Both AG Herring and Hon. Lemons denied it, but District Court ruled there is no subject jurisdiction to determine the merits. This blog is for public attention. Virginia needs a clean jurisdiction to get out the white-criminal acts of assault, battery, robbery and extortion by private lawyers conspired with police and judicial officers. As long as it was the case law, it may repeat to other victims, not single one alone. Chien hopes the topics have wider coverage including media, law schools, lawyers and political campaigns to resolve the corruption of Virginia state judicial system.

II. Violating Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”)

for Over Eight Years with Potential over $100 million Penalty

if had Charged by Federal Trade Commission

      Both AG Herring and Hon. Lemon run a corrupted Commissioner-in Chancery system in Virginia for debt collection with operation fully opposite to Chapter 23, Code of Virginia.

      The excuse of incarcerating Chien, was to force Chien paying the balance of the default judgment award for Richard J Freer (“Freer”). However, creditor at lawyers, by abused police force for collecting debt, violated FDCPA, codified as “15USC§1692”, especially

“15USC§1692d…. the following conduct is a violation of this section:

  (1) The use or threat of use of violence or other criminal means to harm the physical person, reputation, or property of any person” (emphases added)

    U. S. Supreme Court in 2010 ruled in Case Jerman v Carlisle et al., 130 S.Ct. 1605,1609:

       “The Act is enforced through administrative action and private lawsuits. With some exceptions not relevant here, violations of the FDCPA are deemed to be unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq., and are enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). See § 1692l. As a result, a debt collector who acts with “actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances that such act is [prohibited under the FDCPA]” is subject to civil penalties of up to $16,000 per day. §§ 45(m)(1)(A), (C); 74 Fed.Reg. 858 (2009) (amending 16 CFR § 1.98(d)).” (Emphases added).

       The Federal Trade Commission increased the daily penalty for inflation adjustment, $40,000/day after August 1, 2016; for 2017, $40.654/day ($14.8 million/year); 2018, $41,484/day ($15.1 million/year); 2019, $42,530/day ($15.5 million/year); 2020, $42,530/day ($15.8 million/year); 2021, $43,792/day ($15.9 million/year).

      The consequence of violence, includes not only physical, but also properties and reputation.

        Although. the physical violence ended 06/27/2016; but Chien’s professional belongings and other parties’ commercial assets under Chien’s custody shipped from Connecticut to Virginia in September of 2014, and December of 2015 twice, without a list, a penny payment or return. There is no official clearance of the false imprisonment, which prohibited Chien from running business.  Therefore, the offense of 15USC§1692d(1) has been continuously till today. The total penalty would have past $100 million if Federal Trade Commission had made charge.

      The high penalty is under condition of the government action, and it may or mayn’t be discounted in legal process, but it also reflects the great damage to the economy of the society by criminal means to collect debt. Currently, forty-five million persons owned student loans. Every year, average half a million persons applied personal bankruptcy because of unpaid various loans. Black people in default debt, is double of whites. If all creditors had used false imprisonment to collect debt, US would have lost hundreds of billions of dollars of General Domestic Product every year. This is significant destructive of the society’s economy, civilization, harmony and ethics.

                           III. Private Lawyer Controlled Legal System

      The judgment credit for Freer, was fully made by perjury evidence, or under conspiracy among lawyer Andrew K Clark (“Clark”) with a judge of Chesterfield County Circuit Court. Freer’s lawsuit was for retaliation of Chien’s whistle-blower of his embezzlement in the bankruptcy of former Commonwealth Biotechnologies Inc (“CBI”), which approved by the audited financial statements. Freer, after obtained the judgment, became to collect the judgment debt in Connecticut State Court, but met some resistance of Chien’s countersuit. Virginia debt collection was the conspiracy among Freer, Clark, and William K Grogan (“Grogan”), Commissioner in Chancery of Chesterfield County Circuit Court, who is an agency, private lawyer, not employee of the court, and whose authority is limited by Chapter 23 of Code of Virginia, and his authority for beginning debt interrogatory, taking income, or issuance order for arrest, must have first motion procedure, then to get the prove of the Judge. But here, no any motion procedure existed, the orders of Grogan were ghost-written by Clark. Further, on 05/07/2014,  Grogan impersonated as a judge, wearing the judge rube, sat on the beach to issue order to indefinitely incarcerate Chien for Commercial Assets including cash of non-parties’ corporations. After Chien rejected, they conspired to forge a stock certificate for Freer then to steal the cash of a public traded company in the bank located in Connecticut, then distributed among them. Clark and Grogan are debt collectors as defined in FDCPA. They offended both FDCPA, and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).

                                  IV. Request Criminal Investigations

       There were Criminal Report sent to Richmond Branch of FBI in June of 2019, and Virginia Attorney General Office in April of 2017, no response.

       In July of 2021, Chien and several shareholders sent Criminal Reports, delivered on July 26, 2021, 3:50 p.m, to Raj Parekh: Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), 919 E Main Street, Richmond VA 23219-4625. So far, no response.

       This investigation is critical to resolve this issue. There is no time ban because (i) due to financial institution fraud (18 U.S.C. §1344), happened in November of 2014, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3293, a ten-year statute of limitations applies to RICO charges, where the racketeering activity involves a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 – bank fraud; (ii) there are possessing charges for currently holding forged stock certificate and false corporation identity; (iii) 18USC § 3301 and penalties specified in 15 U.S.C. §77x, or 15 U.S.C.§78ff for both willful false statements and failure to file periodic financial statements to US Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

     Attorney General (“AG”) Mark Herring Held Secret Inmate

              Part 1. Case Cl. 14000549 Chien v Commonwealth & Grogan

       1.  In summer of 2014, Chien based on VA Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, in the Circuit Court of the County for Prince George (“Prince George Circuit Court”), where the Riverside Regional Jail locates, filed two lawsuits. One is Chien v Freer, Andrew K Clark (“Mr. Clark”) and LeClairRyan under Case: Cl.14000491. Mr. Clark etc., represented the defendants. Another is Chien V. Commonwealth of Virginia, William K Grogan (“Grogan”), and Grogan Associates, under case: Cl.14000549. One month earlier before the case initiated, Chien wrote letter to AG Herring to inform the potential lawsuit regarding Civil Right violation. Although, Assistant Attorney General, J. D. McChesney (“AAG McChesney”) wrote pleadings, but he was under the assignment, instruction and supervision   of AG Herring, whose name listed on the filing as counsel for defendants.

      2. In Case Cl.14000549, Chien on 8/20/14, mailed motion to allege civil right violation, and ask release immediately, by citing VA Code “§8.01-612”, and “§18.2-457 No court shall, without a jury, for……contempt ……imprison more than ten days”.

     But, Commonwealth at AAG Machesney, ignored the Motion. Prince George Circuit Court originally arranged a hearing dated 9/8/14, for Chien’s pleadings, but Commonwealth, and Mr. Clark wanted Summary judgment without a hearing to make a general denial, which violated Due Process Clause. Because the Summary Judgment can’t be granted before carefully examining the evidence. “At the summary judgment stage, the trial judge’s function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. ……… In essence, the inquiry is whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury, or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law (Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986))

       Chien’s existing incarceration records were clear and convincing evidence of the false imprisonment. Then AAG Machesney, took excuse of Government refusing to cover the costs of transportation of the hearing for civil case to cancel the hearing. On the letter dated 08/15/14, to Bishop Knott, Clerk of the Court, AAG Machesney etc., conspired together with Mr. Clark for objection, wrote: “Neither one of us believes that our clients should have to bear the cost of the plaintiff’s attendance at court in this civil action.” (Note: the cost of transportation, which served inmates collectively, is very small faction of the cost of everyday incarceration). Prince George Circuit Court, upon requests, cancelled the hearing, and signed Commonwealth asked order to use conclusion and label without evidence, to deny Chien’s complaint.

     3. In another case of Cl.14000491, the conspiracy between Mr. Clark and AAG Machesney for discrimination Chien, was in development. With copy being sent to non-party Commonwealth’s two counsels in conspiracy, Mr. Clark filed Motion to Sanction Chien on August 29, 2014 in his case, which has 3 defendants only. However, in that Motion, he claimed to represent Commonwealth, Grogan and others also, as shown in sanction term of the draft order (“Clark Asked Order”):

    “ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Sanction is GRANTED and the following pre-filing injunction is hereby instituted and shall remain in effect unless otherwise modified by Chesterfield Court:

           ……

(ii) Andrew Chien is hereafter prohibited from commencing a new lawsuit in any state court in the Commonwealth of Virginia against following persons, entities, and/counsel who have involved a prior pro se litigation commenced by Andrew Chien:(a) Richard J. Freer; (b) Andrew K. Clark; (c) LeClairRyan P.C. (including any attorneys employed by LeClairRyan, P.C); (d) Commonwealth Biotechnologies, Inc.; (e) William K. Grogan, Commissioner in Chancery; (f) William K. Grogan & Associates; and (g) the Commonwealth of Virginia (collectively the “Named Defendants”;

                         Part 2. Case Cl.15-1569 Chien v. Grogan et cl

       4. In Summer of 2015, Chien in Chesterfield Circuit Court filed new lawsuit against Grogan and two Clerks for illegal incarceration, and extortion of money, and grand-larceny etc. under case: Cl.15-1569.  Under instruction and assignment of AG Herring, AAG McChesney represented Grogan, with AG Herring’s name printed as first Counsel of Grogan. AAG McChesney mailed motion on 7/24/15 (docket of Cl. 15-1569) to dismiss the case by wrongly applying the pre-filing injection requirement as shown in the sanction order of the case Cl.14000491, which was held in a different jurisdiction and Grogan was not a party. This motion indicated the conspiracy between AAG McChesney and Mr. Clark. After that motion filed, then the allegation for false imprisonment was dismissed

      5. The court filings in both cases Cl.14000549 and Cl.15-1569 by AAG McChesney on behalf of AG Herring, were mail fraud and wire fraud (email fraud was wire fraud), because it supported Grogan indefinitely incarceration of Chien, and made Chien suffering longer under secret inmate status.

        Part 3. Repeated Ignored Criminal Reports in Virginia Debt Collection

      6. In additional to these pleadings, Chien also sent letters to allege the criminal nature to incarcerate Chien.

       There were two important letters to send to: (a)Attorney General Mark H Herring; (b)Commonwealth Attorney of Chesterfield County: W. W. Daveport; (c)Grand Jury of Chesterfield County; (d)Six judges of Chesterfield Circuit Court, including Judge Rockwell, and Chief Judge Steven McCallum; Hon. T J. Hauler;(e) Court Administrator of Chesterfield Circuit Court;(8) Clerk Wendy S Hughes.

The first letter dated 5/6/16, with subject:

“White-criminal investigation imminent for (1) Chien’s illegal incarceration by private crime in perjury and grand larceny; (2) Clerk office tampering Order Book offending §18.2-472 in Case CL.12-485”.

The Second letter dated 5/20/16 with attachment of Chien’s affidavit with subject:

“Allegation of over a dozen of counts of both felony and misdemeanor offended by William K Grogan (“Grogan”) against US Court and US Government under shield of Chesterfield County Circuit Court”.

AG Herring ignored the two letters.

     7.  After Chien released, in February and April of 2017, Chien used e-mail and certified first-class mail respectively, sent detailed documents to AG Herring to allege that Grogan etc., engaged the false imprisonment for ransom or money laundering. There is no response.

     8. In US District Court, Richmond Division, Chien filed lawsuit against AG Herring et al in 2019, under Case 3:19cv235 for declaration relief to ask AG Herring admitting the secret inmate for 38 months, is humane right violation. But AG Herring denied. District Court ruled no subject matter jurisdiction.

    

   

  Chief-justice Donald W Lemons Created Case Law

of Secret Inmate

    1. Hon. Donald W Lemons (“Hon. Lemons”) as Chief-Justice of Virginia Supreme Court has administrative liability for training Judges, Clerks and Sheriffs and monitoring the operation of the Circuit Court in additional to his responsibility to deal with cases. He had well known Chien’s cases due to eight appeals during Chien’s incarceration such as Recording No. 131044, 140842, 151104, 151219, 151316, 152307, 1523207, 160254. Despite of the denial of these appeal cases, Hon. Lemons has the responsibility to consider and correct the wrong procedure of the Chesterfield County Circuit Court in prisoning Chien for 38 months. But he did nothing. On the contrary, he issued orders to affirm the illegal incarceration.

   . Recording No. 1523207 was regarding the illegal incarceration, which used twice. First time was dated on 12/15/2015 tied with Recording No. 151219 Chien vs Commonwealth of Virginia et al., to deny Chien’s Writ of Habeas Corpus. Second time dated 06/03/2016, tied with Recording No. 160254 Chien v. Grogan et. al., for Writ for Mandamus. The reason for denial was that Grogan orders not the official. But he forgot the commonsense that unofficial incarceration was kidnapping. Hon. Lemons also denied to assign Chien an attorney because Chien’s incarceration was civil case. Therefore, he was well known the secret inmate status.

    Hon. Lemons created Virginia case law for indefinitely incarceration under the civil dispute with debt collection, which violated Amend IV, V and XIV of the constitution, and “42USC§1983” of civil right.

       2. Hon. Lemons committed several subject errors in his orders or en banc orders

         (a) In 2013, Hon. Lemons denied to release Chien after Chien filed personal bankruptcy in Connecticut, in which Hon. Lemons committed the subject error;

         (b) Hon. Lemons denied that Chesterfield County Circuit Court of Virginia in Case Cl 12-485 of Freer’s defamation, committed subject error to interrupt the operation of the Bankruptcy Court, Richmond Division.

         (c) Hon. Lemons denied that Virginia debt collection committed subject error by ignored the fact that Connecticut State Court has exclusive jurisdiction over Chien’s property and began the debt collection upon request of Freer since September of 2012 till today.

      3. Hon. Lemons didn’t want to recognize the perjured evidence of Freer and Mr. Clark made in Case Cl.12-485 despite that Freer and Mr. Clark submitted a perjured copy in front of him.

      4. Chien tried to reopen the case of Cl 12000491 then appealed to Supreme Court under Record No. 181219 for recognizing the fraud of secret inmate which was denied on 06/19/19.

      5. Chien tried to reopen the Case Cl. 12-485 then appealed to Supreme Court under Recording No.181182 for recognizing the subject error and perjured evidence and the debt collection violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), which was denied on 12/04/2018.

      6. In US District Court, Richmond Division, Chien filed lawsuit against Hon. Lemons et al in 2019, under Case 3:19cv235 for declaration relief to ask Hon. Lemon admitting the secret inmate for 38 months, is humane right violation. But Hon. Lemons denied. The District Court ruled that it doesn’t have subject-matter jurisdiction.

---

Follow My Blog

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.