From the June 2003 Idaho Observer:

Kennedy puts Virginia Supreme Court on trial

Linda Kennedy is a Virginia attorney who was disbarred last year. The ethics department of the Virginia BAR investigated Kennedy after she uncovered undisputable proof that the ethics department and a trial judge had falsified trial records. Kennedy, who was Rep. James Traficant's attorney, appealed the disbarment. A report on her day in court follows. One must appreciate this woman's resolve. One must also appreciate the position the Supreme Court for the State of Virginia is in at this time. The only thing in the way of justice in this matter is that there are no rules.

by Ed Truncellito, JD

On June 5, 2003, seven justices of the Virginia Supreme Court were put on trial in their own court by attorney Linda Kennedy who was disbarred last year.

The justices had the spotlight turned around on them when Kennedy addressed them from the podium. Kennedy was there to appeal her disbarment for violating the First Unwritten Rule of Virginia Legal Ethics: Do not embarrass the Virginia Bar by blowing the whistle on white-collar crimes they commit against an unwitting Virginia public.

Kennedy began by throwing Chief Justice Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr. off guard. She complimented him saying she heard him preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ at Regent University. Maybe he momentarily forgot that a similar tactic was used by the Apostle Paul to subdue King Agrippa. The justice straightened up and beamed with pride as he was reminded of the distinction that Regent bestowed upon him in the eyes of his black community by honoring him as a professor of law and theology.

Next Kennedy quoted a second one of the justices, a woman, who was published as stating that nobody wins when legal process is not always above suspicion. Kennedy thanked her for the statement but added that the message apparently has not yet reached the Virginia Bar.

Kennedy silenced a third justice by interrupting his question and asking that the justices not ask her any more questions. She said they had a copy of her written brief, and she wanted to use her entire 15 minutes to explain to them in person how their legal system has become disgracefully corrupt. And if that did not convince them that arguing the law was fruitless, then nothing ever would.

Nonetheless a moment later a fourth justice, another woman, interrupted to ask if she understood correctly that Kennedy did not want to answer their questions, perhaps implying that Kennedy had something to hide. But Kennedy rebuked her. Kennedy said it could not have been made any plainer: “No questions.”

Kennedy added that if the justices believed that it was acceptable for one of their judges and the prosecutor from the Virginia State Bar to materially alter the transcripts in the lower court, then they might as well disbar Kennedy right then, because she cannot help people if that was the case. The Justice pushed herself back in her chair showing consternation, but she had nothing more to say.   Having silenced the justices, Kennedy then proceeded -- shall we say “earnestly” -- to “chew their butts” as plain folk in Virginia would call it.

Good for you, Kennedy, because the buck stops here. These justices are the senior officers of the Virginia Bar whose lawyers are trying to cover up the fact that Kennedy caught them red-handed falsifying the very court record that these justices had sitting right there under their noses on the bench. The legal process that brought them the case record was not merely suspicious. It was blatantly fraudulent.

Kennedy had fished through the culprits' trash cans and found handwritten notes on her transcripts that clearly showed that the trial judge had approved falsifications of the trial record to cover up perjury by the head of the Virginia Bar Ethics Department -- changes that were being proposed by the Bar prosecutor.

Kennedy has audiotapes that prove what the ethics leader really said, in his own recorded voice. But the trial court changed the parts of the record where the trial judge refused to allow those audiotapes to be played. Ironically, the trial judge's comments were falsified in the record claiming he said he would have exonerated Kennedy if only she could have proved what the audiotapes in fact do prove.

Talk about smoking guns. But this is just one of the more glaring cases. It is an open secret that records are being falsified routinely in cases all over the state and all over the country while the high courts hear them with a deaf ear. Zed McLarnon, a forensic audio-visual expert, has documented that transcripts in Massachusetts courts are altered with the knowledge of court personnel. In Indiana, Rebecca Rohrs has conclusively documented literally thousands of alterations in hearing transcripts in a child custody case. “This is criminal misconduct,” attorney Eugene Wrona says of similar practices in Pennsylvania, “and these people belong in jail.”

Further, it is notorious that lawyer whistleblowers can expect to share Kennedy's fate. Law students are misled like the public, being told in law school that law is an honorable profession. Not until they begin practicing do they discover how money really changes hands. Only after they have invested years in their law school education are they taught that they must maintain an unwritten code of secrecy. Then they shut up -- or they are disbarred.

After Kennedy's 15 minutes, Chief Justice Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr., told her the time was up. Kennedy announced that there was no need for her to listen to her opponent's excuses or comment on them. Then she walked out with some 30 of her supporters including pastors and lawyers.

The justices in this case will pronounce a verdict on themselves.

If they order a full investigation and overturn Kennedy's disbarment, then the justices will have pronounced their innocence. Otherwise, Regent University ought to reconsider whom they allow to preach to our youth.