Two decades of attorneys service...

What started my review of past representation was a failure of a legal service to provide counsel for my girlfriend, it has been a year. During this year my girlfriend has been called stupid, no attorney provided and this service has failed to address her outstanding issues. Being called stupid by an attorney does not help one who has gone through a mental breakdown because of past attorney's failures or crusades.



In the past we followed the rules of obtaining counsel, recommendations by individuals and by peers, looked up their status in the Virginia State Bar. Yet we had the experiences documented here http://home.comcast.net/~styx.cml-lsm/01/Cases/prolog.htm. When one approaches these "attorneys" to address legal malpractice they provide a lecture about "strategy" and dismiss the case, the Bar provides a form letter claiming no wrong doing, which results in questions as to how deeply they looked into the complaints about their members.



Of course it is expected that the damaged client regulate this arena. This was not possible because as a result of attorney failure my girlfriend had to file bankruptcy - no money to censor the Virginia State Bar's failed member. Then the probono attorney (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A41405-2000Jun1) she retained for a dog bite injury was highly recommended, this attorney was also going to look into the past issues with the past four attorneys retained - so much for that solution. When the probono attorney deserted five years had past, which meant that both cases were damaged.


Another point that I found interesting was that this site did not have a legal malpractice section when we were in need of it. In the legal newsgroups I was told that I had "sour grapes", one individual actually asked for details, when I provided them there was no response - not even a bugger off, interesting in that he argued about he integrity of the profession. http://research.lawyers.com/Suing-Your-Lawyer.html malpractice statute of limitations to a year - convenient....


After seven attorneys, my girlfriend had made a couple mistakes and needed an attorney so we tried this legal service a year ago, they failed to provide an attorney for a court date with three weeks notice and notification of the impending issue months in advance (when subscribed to). One wonders why we cannot obtain representation, we are not rich, but then we did not need a rocket scientist either - maybe it is because we are stupid we deserve to be denied competent counsel or maybe because we are "bad" people as this one crusader told us. When the service failed to address the issue my girlfriend needed to address we contacted the BBB, the BBB claims that service failure is outside their purview - this too is convenient - my girlfriend is being treated for anxiety.

Ironically today after posting to this site my girlfriend received a summons. This service which I subscribed to failed to provide an attorney a year ago and when the BBB dropped our complaint stopped their diligence.

The horrors of past Virginia counsel hit my girlfriend again. Would a theoretical future attorney just forget to engage as their client is being threatened by opposing counsel, desert or talk their client into a guilty plea based on an implication that Virginia courts are kangaroo courts. One cant prove their innocence when their attorney doesn't bother contacting/reading the proof.

Presumption of Guilt.

Here are our experiences of trying to address attorney(s) who we believe failed to represent us competently.



1) When one attempts to address issues such as we had with our representation the "strategy" excuse is thrown. Everything is "strategy", for example what "strategy" would a partner in a Law Firm have to ignore misstatements in court, not present evidence and allow mental health records of their client to be accessed that did not cover the period. We found out that this partner was running for political office and opposing counsel represented a political demographic. Another "strategy" is to multi-task clients, why bother with substance when one can process volume, this attorney convinced me that the Courts are kangaroo court, the store video and lack of witnesses did not matter when I was assaulted by the police. Then there is the "deserting" strategy. All good strategy - votes and profits, good business.



2) On several occasions our complaints actually got past the "excuse" and the fall back is that there are some "shyster" attorneys out there, but they are a "small" percentage.



3) Usually we got an argument where these "professionals" claim that complainant has "sour grapes", that they should forget that they may have been sacrificed for a demographic, deserted, talked us into a guilty plea because the courts are biased, that the evidence proving ones innocence does not matter. Time passes and conveniently the statute of limitations runs out.



4) When I contacted the Governor of Virginia about our problem with Virginia State Bar members the response from the office was that it was a local matter, not a state matter.



5) When we had a deserting attorney, the Washington Post wrote an article on this attorney, the columns lasted for a year - I wrote a certified letter to the author of the article, the letter was lost, no response.



6) The only complaints to the Virginia State Bar that I have seen have any affect is payments to the attorney or a misfiling - the Bar dismisses sacrificing clients, multi-tasking failures and just plain incompetence as strategy. A form letter is provided stating that there was no wrong doing or that too many details were provided. If too few details are provided the next question asked is for more details, intentional obfuscation.



====================================================================



* If ones attorney does not present their clients position, then the client is not defended.

* If the court does not hear the clients position, then the courts judgment is in question
* If the attorney lies to the court then the courts judgment is in question.

* If the court cannot make a competent judgment, then the process is invalidated.

* If the process is invalidated there can be no expectation of a fair, impartial hearing/trial.

* If the State Bar does not address a failure to competently represent then the member is not censored and will continue the behavior. Theft and fraud without consequences is a profitable venture.

* If this is the accepted process, then all that one has is fictional theater, an illusion of process, a fraud.



Lets just skip the "speaking in tongues", yes dear I am sure that one can obfuscate the failure of brother and sister members with quaint excuses intended to diminish others. I have been called many names to belittle me. It also makes one wonder why there are no recording devices allowed in the courthouses, it would have been nice to record the judges tantrum on a deal a prosecutor made without hearing both sides of the case. The time when the opposing counsel was making "misstatements" and we presented documents refuting the "misstatements" to our attorney, which he dismissed with the "professional courtesy" excuse. A clients word is irrelevant as demonstrated by a trustee for the bankruptcy court.



I have noticed that attorneys never accept, never read documents of the issue, presentation of a document highlighting assets of the case are not followed up on. In one of our cases I identified CSB, ER doctors to the attorney retained to support a medical condition and reaction to prescription drugs defense, the doctors, therapists and institutions informed us later that they were never contacted. In this case our attorneys strategy was to convince us that we were guilty, they presumed us guilty of a crime and we could not prove our innocence.



Now we have this bank attorney that claims that my girlfriend must be punished for being a victim of a scam, that ignorance of the Law is no excuse, he has an unemployed abused housewife, injured by a dog bite, a woman who has had numerous breakdowns when she realized that she had been deceived, who this attorney deems must be punished, another crusader. We also have a legal service that did not provide a service which should have been an attorney to protect my girlfriends from this bank attorney, we have the BBB who claims that this service failure is not of their purview. We then reach into our past experiences and point out that the Virginia State Bar dismissed a bankrupt probono client when their attorney deserted in 2000, damaging an injury case and an "abuse of process" case. We have a partner in a law firm who we were told was running for office and a religious crusader who had a demographic, it was required that the partner be fired and another attorney retained, this fourth attorney claimed that we had an "abuse of process" case against the religious crusader.




http://home.comcast.net/~styx.cml-lsm/01/Cases/prolog.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A41405-2000Jun1

The malpractice solution that the Virginia State Bar wants their client to execute when their members strategy fails might be fine if the client is done with the case and still retains the resources to address another issue. In our situation we had to fire the attorney and then get another attorney to address the mess that the prior attorney had left by the time that the situation was resolved it was well past the "statute of limitations". Then there are the cascading events that occur as a result of the damage caused by a negligent attorney, who is protected by both a short statute of limitations for malpractice and the Virginia State Bar's blinders to their membership. The claim is that one of our members would not do such a thing, when one highlights the results of this attorney "strategy" that can only be explained by either incompetence or another goal, the Bar ducks behind a "strategy" excuse and recommends that the damaged client sue. By the time that a damaged client, who realizes that they cannot afford competent counsel gets past the laughter of the members any opportunity to address has past and the client hears "sour grapes" and the integrity of the profession is unregulated. With each item presented as justification for a malpractice suit they dismiss it with the "strategy" excuse till one has nothing, the client has "sour grapes".

Lets look at what we had that could not be addressed as malpractice in 1995 because of a "Statute of limitations" and the Virginia State Bar would not address either.
1) An attorney so upset that they thought that they had an "abuse of process" action against the opposing attorney.
2) A real estate agent that stated that our attorney was running for political office.
3) An attorney that never bothered to contact therapists or doctors for a spousal abuse defense.
4) An attorney that did not contest the access of their clients records - notably the date of exclusion.
5) An attorney that never contacted their client in jail when they could not pay child support because their husband disrupted their employment.

In 2005 I was assaulted by the police, allegedly my girlfriend had altered a prescription while in the throws of an adverse reaction to prescription drugs requiring a night in ER, she does not remember altering the prescription.
1) My attorney convinced me that the court was a kangaroo court, with our past experience I believed it and with the judges reaction to the prosecutors "deal" this was reinforced - presumption of guilt.
2) I knew what occurred that night, the police report contained lies, I tried to get my attorney to obtain the video, he ignored all attempts at contact after my conviction.
3) I tried to obtain the video from CVS but they would not provide it, with the video I could make my case to another attorney who otherwise laughed again at my claim of innocence - presumption of guilt.
Again we had a credibility issue, maybe it is because we are stupid, ugly or other form of discrimination that makes us not a client of choice.

Now in 2006 we have this Legal Service that claims to provide an attorney as needed. My girlfriend needed one for a court date, notified them three weeks in advance and had to go to court without one the opposing counsel lied to the judge and a judgment was made, this service claims "oops" and again we hear the laughter of - presumption of guilt.

http://home.comcast.net/~styx.cml-lsm/01/Cases/organizations.htm#malpractice
http://home.comcast.net/~styx.cml-lsm/01/Cases/organizations.htm#kangaroo
http://home.comcast.net/~styx.cml-lsm/01/Cases/OurIssues01.htm#thirdloser
http://home.comcast.net/~styx.cml-lsm/01/Cases/OurIssues05.htm#theservice

The bottom line is that this system is a crap shoot, the implementation is by whimsy and there is no attempt at the illusion of integrity in this process. If one has issues that might be a legal malpractice item good luck, the strategy excuse covers everything.

After running in the circle between the Virginia State Bar and their members one wonders about the claimed integrity. Over the years when we attempted to address our concerns in the abstract, members of this community would call us stupid as if being smart was a criteria for something and what's with the name calling. Once cornered and material presented these individuals would vanish, silence, why would they ask ?



How would one prove that they were sacrificed for political gains by an allegedly skilled individual ? Who of course is protected by the "statute of limitations" for legal malpractice because by the time that the damaged client gets out of the mess that they were left in, the period has past. Where does one go to address such a strategy "failure" ? We are told that the Virginia State Bar does not address "strategy".



If the institution that "claims" to certify their members does not ensure that these "members" represent their clients competently, then an opportunity for deceptive practices is made available. Things that come to mind when contemplating our experiences are terms like "swindler", "fraud", "scam" and "racket". There is not even a pretense to uphold an illusion of integrity with this implementation, sure with the deserting attorney, the Virginia State Bar went after him but they did not ensure that the deserted clients could obtain representation with a case that may have been damaged as a result of neglect by their offending "member". I remember sitting in one of these "members" office as my girlfriend begged him to address the dog bite injury case that the deserter had been handling, this was a member who actually was willing to see her on a consultation. As a result of the consultation he stated that he could not do anything, too much time had past, the case was damaged.



Avoidance means that they are no longer even attempting to uphold the illusion of "law", a "presumption of guilt" paradigm is implemented and any legislated "law" is interpreted in a whimsical manner with no oversight of process and no functional means of addressing alleged abuses of process.



Even if one hires a partner of a law firm one risks being at the whims of external strategies such as religious, political, racial, sexual or class bias - especially if one is not a "client of choice". The risk is to be up against an attorney that is engaged, on a crusade or just a good mercenary - the client is sacrificed, good strategy, presumption of guilt is enforced.



One wonders why our jails are full and crime is rampant - avoidance - a good strategy and profitable scam. The more "crime/chaos" the greater the need and the greater the profit. If an individual resolves a conflict personally and they are caught it may be a crime, if one retains one of these "members" to address a conflict, one loses control, the retained member may not engage and choose a "drop the ball" strategy, collect the clients money and in one of our cases a demographic - the opposition wins a case. The client who thought that there was a solution, an avenue to escape from a bad situation is left broken, wondering what happened, proof was available to support their position but it was not used, when they question this "strategy" they are called "stupid", told "professional courtesy", that they do not know the dynamics of the situation. These excuses are exactly what a swindler tells their marks - we know as we have heard the same lines from both "honest swindler" and "attorneys".



When one approaches a retained member to attempt to address an issue one is presented with excuses as to why they would not obtain material. One says that a piece of evidence or document would refute a "misstatement" told to the courts, the attorney dismisses it, with a pat on the hand, "trust me" or "professional courtesy" or "you can hire another". Videos are dismissed with "if you were upset it would go against you", regardless if the contents would show that a police officer falsified their report and of course one gets upset when one is assaulted for shopping. This experience is like being forced to hire someone to play a chess match and your hired help removes the Queen, both Knights and claims that these pieces are irrelevant, that one is stupid and then ones hired help expects their victim to accept their loss. For five years in court we heard how we were sinners, how an abused housewife must go back to her abuser a man who told her he wanted to become a she, a choice that was unacceptable to her - as her attorney dismissed doctors, therapists, witnesses and documents because of personal, religious or political bias. I cannot help but wonder if she had gone back and the husband turned into a she, then the Virginia Courts would have condoned and facilitated a gay marriage - precedence would have been set.



This is a good scam, the first thing in a confidence game is to isolate the mark from their resources, no witnesses, no documents, no trace. The mark cannot prove what the swindler did, the mark cannot prove that the swindler did not use an asset or failed to use an asset with intent. We provided both the Virginia State Bar and these attorneys with outlines throughout the years identifying assets, doctors, therapists, locations of materials such as videos, police reports yet we never saw proof that these resources were viewed. This was confirmed when we called up the doctors and therapists we discovered that they had never been contacted by retained attorneys. To provide context mental health records were subpoenaed by the opposing counsel excluding the relevant periods - co-habitation, stalking and assaults. We were not aware of the exclusion till we visited the archives and noticed the dates, ironic since the patient had been seeing counselors for at least three years prior and the date accessed. The Virginia State Bar whined that my list was too long for them to address on an item by item basis but they found no wrong doing. We can only assume that they did not contact any of the "assets" for they did not provide an explanation for any of the items identified. For starters what was the foundation for the "abuse of process" started by the fourth attorney and why was it dropped - we can still prove that the attorney had instructed us on how to proceed so that attorney must have identified an issue. Were this attorneys directions for this "abuse of process" a whimsy ?



There is a question as to the diligence of the Virginia State Bar's inquiries into their members and therefore a question as to the integrity of the institution and the members that it represents. How much do they avoid addressing a complaint ? How deep is their investigation ? Do they investigate intentional abuses or do they just rubber stamp them ? Can one really trust an organization to investigate their own members, especially members that may have influence ?

I apologize for being a "stupid" person, too "stupid" to lick the boots of these individuals and because we are stupid can have no expectations of competent counsel for we are a crop to be harvested. There is no expectation of "due process", "presumption of innocence" or any other quaint propaganda.

Some have told me that I should not have pled guilty if I was innocent.


The problem here is that one cannot trust the attorney that one retains. The only real oversight is if they do not file a form, do not comply with a contract all else is "strategy", which the Virginia State Bar dismisses regardless of material presented. If that attorney had failed by not obtaining the material I identified, the Bar would have dismissed it as strategy. I would probably have been in jail for a longer period and I would have the problem of trying to obtain another one of these members to prove my innocence and prove malpractice.

In our CVS incident I could not risk that the counsel I retained would represent me competently with a "not guilty" plea. In that courthouse he was unprepared (had not followed up on the details of the case), multi-tasking with several other cases, busy convincing me that I was guilty and in a kangaroo court. If I had pled "not guilty" I could have been in jail for a much longer period not because I was guilty but because this member of the Bar would not bother to represent me competently. Now I accepted his claim that the courts were operating on a presumption of guilt, but I expected that I would at least be able to obtain the video after double jeopardy applied to file charges of assault, falsifying a report or a least appeal - that day I could not trust the attorney to represent me competently.

Our history supports the premise that we can not expect competent counsel from members of the Virginia State Bar.



For years we accepted the blame for our situation, maybe I should have pleaded guilty, maybe an abused housewife does not have rights, maybe Virginia does condone gay marriages, maybe it is okay for a member of the Bar to sacrifice a client for a demographic, maybe it is okay for an attorney to process their client, maybe it is okay for the Virginia State Bar to dismiss a probono client whose attorney deserted them and their other clients which then breaches the integrity of the institution - maybe we/I am wrong.


So if what I say is true, I was assaulted, thrown in jail and tried based on a presumption of guilt. Apparently witnesses were not documented, video not obtained and the courts/charges were manipulated such that one court never heard the full context of the events that morning. I was then told that I was lucky and the judge proved my luck when they argued with the prosecutor over his deal. Now I have a record - I am a "threat to society" I have a notation saying so.

Bottom line is that I cannot trust a member of the Virginia State Bar, based upon our experiences with eight various "member" firms I can identify negligence and possible misconduct.


It can be said that you get what you pay for, but dont expect any protection from "law" or "integrity" as both are administered in a whimsical manner. There is not even the illusion of "standards", "ethical behavior", "integrity" or good business - if there was I would not be here saying this and my girlfriend would not have had a breakdown.



The pond is contaminated, facts do not matter, it is the illusion, the image is all that is relevant this is good theater - it is not good law or even good business - we can question the integrity of the pond.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://home.comcast.net/~styx.cml-lsm/01/Cases/OurIssues04.htm#youareguiltyattorney
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=25&sid=1212286 I find it interesting that a Federal Judge heard this case, maybe the victim had an impartial judge, one not invested in the community.

To demonstrate the level of integrity within the Virginia State Bar lets look at how they handled the desertion of one of their members.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A41405-2000Jun1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A32933-2000Jun10
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A40897-2000Aug5
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A26129-2000Sep7
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A30729-2000Dec6
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/64552698.html?dids=64552698:64552698&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Nov+22%2C+2000&author=Josh+White&pub=%5BFINAL+Edition%5D%3B+The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=V.03&desc=N.C.+Arrests+Manassas+Lawyer+in+Embezzlement+Case
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/59663882.html?dids=59663882:59663882&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Sep+7%2C+2000&author=Josh+White&pub=The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=B.02&desc=N.Va.+Lawyer+Arrested%2C+Accused+of+Embezzlement

My girlfriends probono attorney, retained to address an injury caused by a dog owned by a medic in our community which affected her only mode of transportation (walking) and her spirit, after walking everywhere to have her leg give out because of nerve damage did not help her self esteem. My girlfriend had looked for months, got recommendations, referrals and then approached this attorney who accepted her case. This was the only member in months of searching that appeared to be positive and proactive about her case - after five years of being called a sinner and bankruptcy from a divorce case, she believed that her luck was changing.

Five years pass, the medic that was supposed to treat the injury moved out of the neighborhood, State Farm insurance company then claimed that they could no longer find their client. My girlfriend is injured, still bankrupt and owes this specialist that the attorney got for her, to be paid based on a settlement. The attorney even had an admission on tape by the State Farm insurance agent that we had a case.

What is interesting is the Virginia State Bar's response/policy, they actively represented the interests of the clients who lost money, settlements or made payments. When my girlfriend asked about her case, her losses they responded here are your files and stated that she wont have much luck with malpractice because apparently they were going to take it all, with a - bye.

My girlfriend then went back to trying to contact other members to address her case, too busy, too much time, too much - she was bankrupt. It is understood that attorneys are not supposed to solicit a client, however the Virginia State Bar could have aided in preserving the integrity of the institution by providing a "replacement" player or at a minimum a list of members who were aware of their deserting members cases and would be willing to take on such cases.

This disregard for preserving the integrity of the institution when one of their members deserts all their clients, including a probono client provides context for how they handle the clients who complain about their other members. They did address this members desertion "strategy" but then failed to deal with the damage that was left behind by a member that was certified by their institution. Does this "policy" protect the integrity of the institution ?

My girlfriend went into depression again..... not a client of choice....... Thought a legal service would help, it was part of a real business so there should be some sort of oversight, guess not. My girlfriend is on a verge of another breakdown because of these "members" - What lists are we on ? Is it because we have not been successful in having our issues addressed, that all we have is negative credibility ? Is she/us being discriminated against by Virginia State Bar members because we are not clients of choice - not profitable ? She is considering calling around again as it appears that complaints to either the Virginia State Bar or the Better Business Bureau do little or no good - there is always another crop to be harvested in this arena.

Integrity of the institution....(((?)))

What I found rather interesting was that around this period the Virginia State Bar removed their "Nine Canons of Ethical Conduct" and replaced them with "Professional Guidelines and Rules of Professional Conduct". "Guidelines" vs. "Canon's" and then the avoidance of "strategy". I found this particularly poignant as I watched my girlfriend search for an attorney who would finish the injury case - it seemed that the Bar's dismissal of her situation was a breach of Canon 1 and 2, which no longer existed.



Canon 1 A lawyer should assist in maintaining the integrity and competence of the legal profession.

Canon 2 A lawyer should assist the legal profession in fulfilling its duty to make legal counsel available and should render pro bono publico legal services.

Canon 3 A lawyer should assist in preventing the unauthorized practice of law.

Canon 4 A lawyer should preserve the confidences and secrets of a client.

Canon 5 A lawyer should exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of a client.

Canon 6 A lawyer should represent a client competently.

Canon 7 A lawyer should represent a client zealously within the bounds of the law.

Canon 8 A lawyer should assist in improving the legal profession.

Canon 9 A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety.



I like Canon 6 & 7 when I consider the representation that we have had. Canon 9 is also of interest in the case of the Crusader. Now we have "Guidelines", members whose goal is to find "clients of choice" and "harvest" the rest.



One can accept the "strategy" excuse for not presenting material supporting their clients case, if the member is successful, provides the client with an acceptable outcome, within the law and the case. If the member does not provide the client with an acceptable outcome using their "strategy" and they omitted to present material that the client made available which may have had consequence, then they were lacking skill, incompetent, negligent or harvesting clients. The complaint should be noted, a demerit or "culled" from the theater as "bad players" are "culled" from the game.



If the "Bar" was diligent and did identify that one of their members may have made a "mistake", then the institutions "report" could be used by the client as leverage to present to another prospective member in order to address a malpractice issue and obtain compensation for damages. The integrity of the institution and the courts would then be maintained.



As for the excuse that everyone would have "grievance", well "avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety" - do the job that was accepted in a competent manner, if assets are identified at least show some diligence and review them. The noted situation in my girlfriends case were the State doctors and therapists treating her and continued to treat her - were never contacted, diligence was not observed (prescription fraud/spousal abuse).



Lets examine this "strategy" excuse in our CVS pharmacy incident where the doctors and therapists were not contacted by the attorneys we hired to represent us. The institution that gave my girlfriend the medication that caused the event, was not monitoring her, had not addressed her complaints of reaction. As a result my girlfriend who was being treated for anxiety, in the throws of a reaction to medication required another medication to help her through the reaction - the CVS pharmacist called the police who surrounded her and I was assaulted and incarcerated. My girlfriend was released in this condition to hitchhike ten miles home where she had a total meltdown requiring an ambulance. Since the incident the institution has been proactive in treating her and covered her ER expenses. My girlfriend asked the people in the institution whether they had been contacted by her attorney - they had not, they were relieved. When I contacted the Bar with my complaint and I identified that the institution had not been contacted even though I had provided details to the attorneys. The Bar and its members excused the failure as "strategy" which they do not address. Is the Virginia State Bar effectively ensuring the integrity of its institution ?

Now we have this legal service that we subscribed to in order to address an outstanding case - but they failed to provide counsel for a court date. It appears that they are ignoring us and this is causing more stress on my girlfriend, I am concerned about her. This service called her "stupid" rather than identifying assets and doing their jobs. Should we go for the ninth member of this "Bar" ? What "strategy" will this member use to sell us out ?



The Virginia State Bar does not have the "Nine Canon's", does not address "strategy" complaints and expects the beleaguered client to risk hiring another "harvester" to address the failures of the first, second, third.....eighth. There is no accountability, no oversight and the integrity of the institution and the courts are in question.

Alternative strategies, solutions and the results.



Our experiences include a period we were the focus of a stalker, an abusive husband who my girlfriend was trying to escape from. This individual had terrorized the family that had provided sanctuary for her. I saw this father take his kid and throw the child at the woman who was helping the mother, knocking her down. On numerous occasions this individual was observed in the woods around which ever residence his victim was in. He would show up at her employment, disrupt it and accost her. Allegedly this individual had even threatened the staff at the woman's shelter.



"Law enforcement" was a failure they would be late, they would show up after an incident occurred and then ask what was the matter, then they would "pose", nothing would be done and the next day was a repeat. Since my girlfriend had been abused by her husband, she demonstrated the behavior of an abused individual, since no one else was around by the time these "police" showed up, the nearest person becomes the focus of these "professionals". After an assault or confrontational incident, one is not really in a "calm" state of mind. Note that court orders are not effective if the offender is not caught in the process, highlighted by the time I went outside and found my girlfriend knocked out on the patio. The clueless courts are about as incompetent as they get, after years of such events, the accepted excuse is coincidence - again it would help if the member of the Bar would use an effective "strategy" and actually present the assets.



I have military training, so after numerous incidents when I saw this individual lurking in the woods, my first reaction was baseball bat and a dark night. We lived in a community where as a result of "initiatives" the drug gangs were moving their markets out into the communities so a scenario could have been executed - it was not / we did not. So rather than taking a little risk on a covert night maneuver we obeyed the law and got stalking, assaults, financial losses and preyed upon by malicious "professionals". Fifteen years of failed representation and "Law Enforcement" that was not.



So let us look at what abiding by the "law" in a hostile environment provided us.



A member of this "Bar" who was on a crusade against an abused housewife trying to escape with her family from an abusive individual. Two members of the "Bar" who when confronted with this crusader, made excuses as to why they could not represent my girlfriend. A third member of the "Bar" who sacrificed their client claiming "professional courtesy" and we were informed was running for political office and his opponent represented a political demographic. An attorney that claimed numerous mistakes were made by the "professional courtesy" attorney and also started an "abuse of process" action against the crusading member of the "Bar" - but then dropped it. This provided five years of stress, aggravation and "fear" - the financial damage exposed my girlfriend to a dog bite (her transportation was walking). So with the member of the "Bar" retained to represent this issue another five years pass and this member chose to desert all his clients. Then my girlfriend has another breakdown and because her medication is messed up an incident occurs requiring more members of this "Bar", again they do not bother contacting anyone (doctors/store video) their solution is plead guilty (presumed guilty), take our money and go on to the next harvest....fifteen years.



Now these attorneys profession is "strategy", yet the one agency that can address such "strategies" as sacrificing a client, crusading members, ensuring that a client who is deserted by one of their own is still represented, does not. This institution and their members becomes an additional problem, not a solution. It is a very good "racket", a captive customer base, dependent upon the "service" provided by their members whose "strategy" is to profit off of the "mark" - at least a drug addict has a choice of service provider.



After over fifteen years of experiencing the "impartial" and "fair" judicial implementation in Virginia and reviewing "strategies" one can conclude that the services provided by these "institutions" do not represent solutions.



The professions mantra is "avoid", "spin" and "profit". "Avoid" integrity/responsibility, "Spin" it so that the criticizer is at fault and "profit" from the mark. One can only wonder at the damage caused by this implementation and the disregard of this "Bar" to address the competence of its members, to address the actual service that is supposed to be provided. When one hires one of these jokers one expects that they would at least be able to present the available assets of the client. So the question is how many people have been damaged by this implementation and when they did complain to the "Bar" they got - "we do not address strategy complaints, but you can hire another one of our esteemed members to sue our offending member". The "harvest" must be very good, a distressed potential client enters into their trap, presenting them with their assets which are dismissed as irrelevant, the client is "lucky" and they will try to resolve the situation. The distressed client unfamiliar with the arena believes this and is led to slaughter. The only reason that we "discovered" a political connection in one case was because another professional was slandered so they looked into why our attorney was not representing us. We then asked the doctors who would have identified a possible justification for divorce by documenting years of abuse, they were not contacted. The courts bypassed the Privacy Act of 1977 by accessing records that skipped four years of abuse, just documented stress and was irrelevant to the reason for divorce - this was not discovered till we went to the archives. The prescription fraud and police assault, video, anomalies in the report and again the doctors were not contacted to identify whether the client was reacting to medication - presumed guilty. The deserting attorney cost five years and any chance at addressing the screw ups of the prior five years. The Bar dismisses these "failures" as strategy which they do not address. Who do you think pays for these mistakes ? How many people were destroyed by these predators ? How many people are in the Social Services system because these members did not do their job by providing an effective strategy for their client ? How many people are on the streets because the Bar did not aid them in ensuring the integrity of their membership ?

What I find interesting is how this "Bar" and these members keep trying to isolate my girlfriend. My girlfriend was destroyed by the incompetence of their members, she is in fragile condition. For example State Social Services and myself are paying the bills for my girlfriend, the dog bite injury that the deserting member did not complete keeps her from gainful employment. She suffers from depression, a bipolar condition, residuals from the seventeen years of abuse and years of impotence. These people apply "spin" and claim that she is lying, regardless somehow she relayed to me explicit instructions because they could not provide an attorney for a court date and then they did not address my numerous complaints, till I contacted the Bar. They confuse her and then they say ah ha, we are right she is wrong and go on to harvest another victim - we do not have to contact doctors or therapists she is presumed guilty.



I hope that this is my last rant here on our experiences with these members of the "Bar", being put in a financial bind does provide time to review and provide perspectives of ones experiences. Unlike the "presumed guilty" courts and members, I can support what I have been stating on this forum and because their members were negligent it was not refuted (evidence not provided) - We have records, a doctor witnessed the "abuse of process", can reference the omitted CVS video (which is probably erased), inaccurate police reports and of course a year of Washington Post articles on our deserting attorney - there is no intention of integrity.


The choice is a dark night and a baseball bat or fifteen years and going .....