Steams’ only desire was essentially to make a copy of the document to be used in his name. By being brought in his name, any defect relating to the Board’s standing is irrelevant; Steams had standing under the Act and timely filed his Petition. The fact that Steams did not act as a scribe, copying the arguments of the Board’s Petition, does not mean that his Petition is automatically void due to the Board’s lack of standing. Rule 1:4(0, as cited by the Commission, allows any “accompanying exhibit” to be a part of a pleading by reference; nothing more is required. If the Board had no standing to file its Petition, then the Petition would have no “legal effect,” meaning that its efficiency as a “pleading” would be negated. See e.g., Jordan v. Liggan, 95 Va. 616, 29 S.E. 330 (1898) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, the mere words of the Petition
holding that an insufficient pleading in equity is a nullity holding that the formula in section 522f2a creates equity for purposes of lien avoidance even if debtors otherwise have no equity in the property holding that pleading rules are substantive holding  he who seeks equity must do equity  holding that an action for specific performance lies in equity