A Crusade against Chattel (1989-1995) - The Diligent Virginia Attorneys


This is not about the individual in the pictures or their choice.
This is about how the Virginia courts, the "officers of the court" handled a dispute where the spouse did not agree with their husbands lifestyle choice and wanted out of the relationship. This battle took five years and four attorneys (1989-1995), this page highlights what assets were available, was and was not used and the outcome. It also presents questions that we have found ourselves asking through the years. Was Mr. J. Michael Sharman just representing his client zealously ? Looking out for the best interests of the client and resolution to the dispute ? We did not care for this attorney's client, he was abusive and his making a lifestyle choice that his wife did not agree with, pushed her over the threshold. So just how far was Mr. J. Michael Sharman willing to go for his client / cause, this crusade ? Did Mr. A. Strode Brent represent the wife competently ? dismissing assets that documented stress and abuse ? Did we have an "abuse of process" issue ? If so then why did the attorney that started it, forget about it ? Leaving my girlfriend, myself and the psychiatrist confused as to the desertion. Then there is the question of these "Christian Groups" and members of the "Church of God" whose members actively persecuted a housewife and mother trying to escape with her children from a relationship with someone that chose a lifestyle that she found "unacceptable" ? As you read this keep in mind that according a trustee of the Virginia courts and the Virginia State Bar the wife was competently represented.
Mommy, why does daddy paint his toe nails ? Mommy, why do the other kids laugh at me in school ? Mommy, why don't the other kids play with me ? Mommy why does daddy wear your clothes ? Mommy, why does daddy beat you ? These were questions the child was asking of his mother. When she escaped she was stressed out so much that the doctors had prescribed "Prozac". This was a case where any "rational" system should have aided in an equitable resolution, in this weakened state both parties became prey of the Christian groups and the Virginia Court racket.
Based upon the Fairfax County Court's ruling and the actions of Mr. J. Michael Sharman this was a good father and a good Christian. These are the only pictures that I took of the pictures from the fathers album that I would consider posting. This is considered a good Christian ? For years this confused us, the reason that we continued to see the psychiatrist, as the wife was the one that went to church, sought family counseling while the husband "played". The husband called her up at a Church camp to inform her of his decision to become a woman - yet these "Christians" persecuted the wife for escaping....

What the wife had in hand	What was available
A complete album of pictures that the husband took of himself similar but worse than the ones posted. Allegedly a bill from a doctor who was going to perform a gender alteration on the husband. The wife was informed of this intent in a phone conversation while she was at a church camp - she used to be the church goer. Documents from Social Services indicating their assistance, housing for both herself and her minor son and food allowances. Lists of name of doctors, therapists, witnesses and the dates of separation documented by Social Services. The wife was reluctant to release her doctors documents because she discussed everything with these "professionals" who had been there for her throughout this trauma. These discussions included being upset with her attorneys, trying to "accept" the "strategy" of sacrificing a client. The reluctance to allow access to the documents did not preclude talking to these people or having them appear in court to support her position - they were never contacted by her attorney's.	Doctors and therapists Two to three years prior to separating from the husband January 1989 the wife had been participating in mental health counseling in Social Services. From what I have been told the husband had even threatened them on several occasions, demonstrating abusive personality to them also. The doctors and therapists witnessed the state of the relationship and had years of documented abuse? Social Services, continued to see the abused wife several years following the separation, throughout the divorce. Nearly six years of documented stress was dismissed by the four attorneys [ 1, 2, 3, 4] during this period social services claim that they were never contacted and even had sent letters in defense of their patient. Then there is the attempt to quash the access of mental health records by Mr. J. Michael Sharman, a quash which was dismissed yet excluded the period of co-habitation in a note by the judge. Is there separation of Church and State in the Virginia Courts ? Bible Reading in Virginia Courts. Mr. J. Michael Sharman's courtroom strategy included reading from the Bible. In this courtroom class we learned what the Bible said about Adultery. It was that activity followed by his lying about the date of separation that prompted my challenging Mr. Brent and his response about "professional courtesy". I was also startled that the Judge would allow the Bible to be read to the court in that manner, I expected secular courts. Christian Therapist's vs. State Therapists and the Virginia Courts Mr. J. Michael Sharman's brought up "marriage counseling" to the courts demanding that the judge use a Christian counselor over a State sponsored counselor, the judge accepted this demand. The wife stated that she had seen both "marriage counselors" and "mental health counselors" for several years at the State Social Services center. The judge ordered the wife to see the Christian marriage counselor. The Christian counselor immediately started the mantra of chattel, that the wife was property of the husband, the wife walked out of the session. Mental health records accessed - Privacy Act ? Mr. J. Michael Sharman subpoenaed the wife's mental health records on the "Motion to Quash" the judge made a note that explicitly excluded the period of co-habitation and the year of stalking, threats, and assaults. Another date that Mr. A. Strode Brent overlooked. To understand this one has to understand the context. The children had been removed, the wife had lost all claim to the children so the only matter before the courts was who would be awarded the divorce - three years had passed. If the records were to be accessed then in order to make an informed decision the judge should have had all the records subpoenaed not a subset. According to the Privacy Act the courts can only access relevant documents - the material accessed did not address the period of co-habitation. This identified another collusion between the Courts and Mr. J. Michael Sharman's. The courts sided with the Christian Brotherhood attorney. Were the courts really executing secular law or exhibiting a political and religious bias, when they "overlooked" relevant details ? When the wife separated she left with the minor son to a neighbors house for sanctuary. When she left the residence she notified Social Services and had them register her separation - so there should have been documentation. Stalking and harassment. The family that the wife sought sanctuary with was so terrified of the husband that they bought a .357 revolver and filed a restraining order. Before I got involved I witnessed this "father" who was carrying the minor son throw the child at the woman who provided sanctuary for the wife and child, knocking the woman down in the process. The husband would call up this families home at all hours of the night, threatening and preaching, it got to the point that they all were listening in to his tirades for entertainment. A list of places where the wife worked and the husband showed up to harass her, usually costing her the job and causing stress. Numerous assaults, one of which my neighbors ran the husband off, a co-worker chased him off with a butcher knife. One time I found the wife unconscious on my patio, he had smashed in her face. We moved thirty miles away, to a remote region, did not get a mail box and did get a Post Office Box. Mr. J. Michael Sharman had the courts release our street address and within months the husband shows up. In letters from Mr. J. Michael Sharman the appearance was again a coincidence - believed by the courts. The wife knew of an illegitimate child in Pennsylvania or Ohio with a woman that the husband had an affair with. An adultery that predated any voluntary adulterous activity by the wife. Their also was another woman that took the pictures for the album, who the husband was allegedly having an affair with. Husband allegedly had a felony statutory rape of a thirteen year old child on his record.

What the wife had in hand

What was available

A complete album of pictures that the husband took of himself similar but worse than the ones posted.
Allegedly a bill from a doctor who was going to perform a gender alteration on the husband. The wife was informed of this intent in a phone conversation while she was at a church camp - she used to be the church goer.
Documents from Social Services indicating their assistance, housing for both herself and her minor son and food allowances.
Lists of name of doctors, therapists, witnesses and the dates of separation documented by Social Services. The wife was reluctant to release her doctors documents because she discussed everything with these "professionals" who had been there for her throughout this trauma. These discussions included being upset with her attorneys, trying to "accept" the "strategy" of sacrificing a client. The reluctance to allow access to the documents did not preclude talking to these people or having them appear in court to support her position - they were never contacted by her attorney's.

Doctors and therapists
Two to three years prior to separating from the husband January 1989 the wife had been participating in mental health counseling in Social Services. From what I have been told the husband had even threatened them on several occasions, demonstrating abusive personality to them also. The doctors and therapists witnessed the state of the relationship and had years of documented abuse?

Social Services, continued to see the abused wife several years following the separation, throughout the divorce. Nearly six years of documented stress was dismissed by the four attorneys [ 1, 2, 3, 4] during this period social services claim that they were never contacted and even had sent letters in defense of their patient. Then there is the attempt to quash the access of mental health records by Mr. J. Michael Sharman, a quash which was dismissed yet excluded the period of co-habitation in a note by the judge.
Is there separation of Church and State in the Virginia Courts ?

Bible Reading in Virginia Courts.
Mr. J. Michael Sharman's courtroom strategy included reading from the Bible. In this courtroom class we learned what the Bible said about Adultery. It was that activity followed by his lying about the date of separation that prompted my challenging Mr. Brent and his response about "professional courtesy". I was also startled that the Judge would allow the Bible to be read to the court in that manner, I expected secular courts.

Christian Therapist's vs. State Therapists and the Virginia Courts
Mr. J. Michael Sharman's brought up "marriage counseling" to the courts demanding that the judge use a Christian counselor over a State sponsored counselor, the judge accepted this demand. The wife stated that she had seen both "marriage counselors" and "mental health counselors" for several years at the State Social Services center. The judge ordered the wife to see the Christian marriage counselor. The Christian counselor immediately started the mantra of chattel, that the wife was property of the husband, the wife walked out of the session.

Mental health records accessed - Privacy Act ?
Mr. J. Michael Sharman subpoenaed the wife's mental health records on the "Motion to Quash" the judge made a note that explicitly excluded the period of co-habitation and the year of stalking, threats, and assaults. Another date that Mr. A. Strode Brent overlooked.

To understand this one has to understand the context. The children had been removed, the wife had lost all claim to the children so the only matter before the courts was who would be awarded the divorce - three years had passed. If the records were to be accessed then in order to make an informed decision the judge should have had all the records subpoenaed not a subset. According to the Privacy Act the courts can only access relevant documents - the material accessed did not address the period of co-habitation. This identified another collusion between the Courts and Mr. J. Michael Sharman's.

The courts sided with the Christian Brotherhood attorney. Were the courts really executing secular law or exhibiting a political and religious bias, when they "overlooked" relevant details ?
When the wife separated she left with the minor son to a neighbors house for sanctuary. When she left the residence she notified Social Services and had them register her separation - so there should have been documentation.
Stalking and harassment.
- The family that the wife sought sanctuary with was so terrified of the husband that they bought a .357 revolver and filed a restraining order. Before I got involved I witnessed this "father" who was carrying the minor son throw the child at the woman who provided sanctuary for the wife and child, knocking the woman down in the process. The husband would call up this families home at all hours of the night, threatening and preaching, it got to the point that they all were listening in to his tirades for entertainment.
- A list of places where the wife worked and the husband showed up to harass her, usually costing her the job and causing stress.
- Numerous assaults, one of which my neighbors ran the husband off, a co-worker chased him off with a butcher knife. One time I found the wife unconscious on my patio, he had smashed in her face.
- We moved thirty miles away, to a remote region, did not get a mail box and did get a Post Office Box. Mr. J. Michael Sharman had the courts release our street address and within months the husband shows up. In letters from Mr. J. Michael Sharman the appearance was again a coincidence - believed by the courts.
The wife knew of an illegitimate child in Pennsylvania or Ohio with a woman that the husband had an affair with. An adultery that predated any voluntary adulterous activity by the wife.
Their also was another woman that took the pictures for the album, who the husband was allegedly having an affair with.
Husband allegedly had a felony statutory rape of a thirteen year old child on his record.

The courts awarded the divorce to the husband, based on the wife's adultery, awarding half the community property and as a result Mr. J. Michael Sharman then filed his suit. So for seventeen years of an abusive marriage the wife got less than $10K most of which was taken by her attorneys and bankruptcy. She lost her children, was bitten by a neighbors dog because she had no transportation and was walking. Was under a doctors care on State aid, the injury to the leg caused intermittent collapse which made employment a problem. Then there was the abortion, which was necessary because of the stress the wife was under and considered only because she was trying to save the children she had and was not in a position to handle the loss of mobility with a stalker around.

The alternate strategy - First (Mr. Alveine G. Halago) & Second Attorney (Mr. Mason) Mr. Halago was relatively ethical, we assume that his reason for dropping my girlfriend was that he was going into Corporate law, he did refer the second attorney, Mr. Mason. The second attorney, Mr. Mason's, "strategy" with the pictures when he defended us from the harassment charge resulting from the recorded phone call was effective. At the time I thought that he would have fought it based on a date that was incorrect over two weeks off - Mr. Mason may have made note of my questioning the date, much closer to the event than the Mr. A. Strode Brent's presentation of intent to sue by Mr. J. Michael Sharman. Soon after addressing the tape issue Mr. Mason told us that his case load was too heavy and he would not be able to represent my girlfriend. Mr. Mason did not provide a referral, the Judge Valentine would not allow a continuance and as a result my girlfriend went to court without an attorney.

Third Attorney - Mr. A. Strode Brent of Whitestone, Brent, Young & Merril, P.C. *

Maybe Mr. A. Strode Brent, a Partner in the Law Firm, did his best but just did not have the skill's to obtain a positive outcome for his client. Maybe the Law Firm did not have the resources to call Social Services, obtain registration of separation and prepare Mr. A. Strode Brent.
Why did this attorney "drop the ball" ? Was there collusion between him and Mr. J. Michael Sharman ? I keep getting stuck on the politics, Christian network, government connections and an attorney that appears to have had a political agenda. This attorney was representing a client against a zealous attorney on a crusade, who happened to be politically connected - an opportunity that would explain his "professional courtesy" comment, where there is smoke....

So many questions as to Mr. A. Strode Brent failure, what fits the "strategy" that this attorney executed:

What is meant by Fraud upon the Court (wiki)?
Why didn't he use the pictures when Mr. J. Michael Sharman paraded the church through the courts as witnesses against the wife - like Mr. Mason did in his representation ?
Why didn't he call the doctors or therapists who were expecting to be called and could relay tales of "incidents" and concern for their patient ? This failure by an attorney to engage would be repeated in (2005).

Then there was the issue when Mr. Sharman had the courts access my girlfriends mental health records made by these counselors, identified by the Motion to Quash.
- Did Mr. Brent fail to contact my girlfriend about the subpoena to access her private records - or - was he not informed?
- By cajoling this Mr. Brent she managed to get him to file the Motion to Quash, however she was not aware that the access excluded the period of cohabitation and the following year of stalking and assaults.
- Did Mr. Brent intentionally overlook the Privacy Act of 1977, notification of a patient prior to accessing their private records?
Why didn't he get the Social Services registration of separation ? If he did why was the date of separation a question for years ? The wife had followed the instructions of her counselors for the correct separating procedure.
The phone calls, the date and statute of limitations
The husband had just been awarded the divorce based on my girlfriends infidelity, according to Virginia law the wife gets half the property. This upset Mr. J. Michael Sharman, he started a suit and delayed the liquidation of the community home. The irony of this strategy was that the home had enough equity to pay off the wife and the husband could remain in the residence.

I distinctly remember the meeting where Mr. A. Strode Brent informed us of the "emotional distress" suit filed by the husband as a result of phone calls made several years earlier. We read the document and noticed that the date on the document was incorrect. Over two years had passed but we remembered when the events occurred for the following two reasons:
- The date of the calls were about a week prior to both the son's birthday and my own. The date on the warrant was several weeks after both our birthdays, the husband had waited several weeks before reporting the calls.
- I remember discussing the incidents with Mr. Mason, believing that since the events did not occur on the documented date the case should be dropped.
- When we were informed of the suit we questioned the dates, as we were discussing this Mr. Brent walked out of his office, I remember calling to his back that the event did not occur at that time, he ignored me. He returned and again I brought up the dates, no note was made. We brought it up later to the bankruptcy trustee and in his report he stated that because Mr. Brent did not make any note of a discrepancy in dates there was no malpractice. Mr. Brent's failure protected him from a malpractice charge sticking, maybe it was not a failure but his "strategy" to represent with discrimination.
The reason for the phone calls
The calls had been made after a two hour session of the mother begging to have an alleged visitation with her son for his birthday (which had NOT passed). Both a friend and myself were barbecuing a chicken and would pass my girlfriend, the mother, in tears repeatedly begging, first for the visitation she had been denied and then to talk to her son, this tragedy occurred over a period of two hours. In the calls I had been careful only to mention actual events in an attempt to stop the husband's stalking and assaults. Calling the cops had no effect, apparently Mr. Brent made no attempt to obtain these records. There was concern as to how the husband found his wife, we had found out that the daughter was so upset with her mother she had told her father. This had perplexed us at the time as we had offered to take her in, years later she relayed to me this story.
Mr. Brent walked out of his office without making a note
We remember being confused by this action as we believed the date was relevant, the event was over two years past and having the subject come up in the meeting without preparation took us down memory lane. We remembered that the mother had tried to get a visitation for her son's birthday and then discussions with the Mr. Mason, believing that his strategy would be based on the date. When we were questioning the date, Mr. Brent walked out of his office - I remember calling at his back, him turning around, nodding and going on out of the office, we broached the date again subject when he returned, again the nod and no notation made, the subject changed. This was a good strategy on Mr. Brent's part because according to the trustee for the courts report, Mr. Brent was awarded his payment because he had made no notation of our questioning the date. After the meeting the mother found a diary entry documenting the date.

If Mr. Brent was zealously looking out for the interests of his client and had contacted Mr. Mason, pressed the time issue, the statute of limitations would have been in question as having passed and the suit invalidated. Again the doctors and therapists could have been used to defend against the suit by identifying the "emotional distress" that my girlfriend was under during that period. Applying these assets would have saved their client emotional stress, another year of court and financial losses.
- Why didn't this attorney make note ?
- Why didn't this attorney contact Mr. Mason who had represented us in the criminal aspect of the case ?
- Was this another "Professional Courtesy" ?
- Is this an example of the "strategy" of a senior partner of the law firm of Whitestone, Brent, Young & Merril, P.C. and diligent representation that can be expected from a member of the Virginia State Bar ?
Courts release our street address to an abuser and stalker an individual that assaulted their spouse on numerous occasions.
Mr. J. Michael Sharman demanded that the courts order us to give up our new residence street address. The courts of course forced us to relinquish our street address and within months of the security breach the ex-husband was accosting my girlfriend at her work thirty miles from his residence, seventy miles from his place of employment. These events are documented in a letter from his attorney stating that his showing up several times at her work, having to be forced out by a co-worker at knife point was a coincidence. Virginia's theocratic courts bought it hook line and sinker, Mr. Sharman was their attorney/prophet.
Professional Courtesy - I remember getting upset with Mr. Brent, when the wife presented him with documents, social service papers that she carried around, refuting the claims that Mr. J. Michael Sharman was making to the court. The papers she handed Mr. Brent were Social Services housing documents that would have identified the date of separation and intent. Mr. Brent responded that he was showing "professional courtesy" and remained silent as Mr. Sharman continued his fabrications. At the time we believed in "professional strategy" and assumed that he had a "plan" - discussions, something.... Mr. Brent followed the "courtesy" comment with "attorneys are allowed a certain leeway" which I finished with "to lie to the courts".
- Why didn't Mr. Brent engage ?
- What strategy is "professional courtesy" ?
- Did this failure to engage indicate a lack of skill of a partner in a law firm or an alternate agenda ?
- What "mistakes" did Ms. Judy A. Dugger discover to illicit repeated comments on Mr. Brent's failure ?
- What possible goal would a partner in a law firm have for sacrificing a client ?
According to a real estate agent, Mr. A. Strode Brent was running for political office. The real-estate agent claimed that he had been slandered in court, he was very upset as not only were the delays costing him money but since he was a reputable agent he claimed that being called liar in the courtroom theater would harm his professional reputation. Apparently he made up such a fuss that Mr. Brent did file a Rule to Show Cause. Maybe there was some political dynamic going on here, where my girlfriend became a pawn. Here is a little item I found out today (November 14, 2008) that may support our belief that Mr. Brent was not engaged because of a political strategy. The deeper I dig the more support I find for our concern about a political "conflict of interest" with religious overtones.
Mr. Brent was to be paid by his clients settlement, yet he dropped the ball - why ?
What motivated this individuals failed representation
- As a business it would be in his best interests to look out for the client try to achieve maximum returns.
- An officer of the court is supposed to represent their client.
- Was this "officer of the court" trying to gain Mr. J. Michael Sharman favor for their political goals ?
- Maybe this partner did not have the skills to stand up to his associate ? But then why didn't he use the assets that were available even if they were applied ineptly ?
- This could be another Presumption of guilt, we were processed because of the past and this attorney believed his brother in arms.
What "professional courtesy" was this attorney providing to the opposing counsel ?
Did Mr. Brent realize that he could not win this case against Mr. J. Michael Sharman and just give up ? What would make him believe that he couldn't he win ? Was it because the Judges / courts were prejudiced against his client ? Was there some Christian group incentive at play here ?
Jailed for non-payment of child support - the wife lost jobs because of her husband's stalking so Mr. J. Michael Sharman had her sent to jail. Mr. Brent would not respond or address the fact that his client was in jail - why ? This resulted in the next attorney being contacted. This also started the next cascade of events with the locals....
Why didn't Mr. A. Strode Brent contact social services after Mr. J. Michael Sharman, accessed their clients records ?
The Court Trustee - Mr. Robert G. Mayer handling the bankruptcy claimed in his report that Mr. A. Strode Brent did their job. Ms. Judy A. Dugger had repeatedly stated that Mr. A. Strode Brent had left a mess, we had expected that these failed strategies, identified by an industry professional, would be relayed to Mr. Robert G. Mayer. In his report Mr. Robert G. Mayer stated that Mr. A. Strode Brent had not made any note about the disputed time and as a result there was no malpractice that would require forfeiture of payment. I thought (shredder ?)...
- We also heard a rumor that apparently Mr. J. Michael Sharman called Mr. Brent to remind him to file a claim.
- The deadline for a creditor to make a claim may have passed, I vaguely remember that we thought the time had passed with no filing and then the next week we were informed of the filing.
- Did Ms. Judy A. Dugger identify the failures of Mr. A. Strode Brent, this attorney had not identified their complaints to us so we expected that this attorney would identify "professional" indiscretions - did they (Canon 5) ? If not - Why not ?
- Did Mr. Robert G. Mayer dismiss items brought up by Ms. Judy A. Dugger about Mr. A. Strode Brent representation ? If so why ?
According Mr. Robert G. Mayer Mr. A. Strode Brent did represent my girlfriend competently and should be awarded their payment.

Fourth Attorney - Ms. Judy A. Dugger Got the wife out of jail for non-payment of child support and effectively handled the settlement all the while complaining about the mistakes made by prior counsel. Their strategy was to bankrupt the wife, remove her from the civil suit filed by Mr. J. Michael Sharman based on the phone tapes - it worked.

This attorney deserved their paycheck. They claimed that we were lucky, when they made such claims, usually in conjunction with a complaint about the Mr. A. Strode Brent or the ethical conduct of Mr. J. Michael Sharman. The complaints reminded me of the stalking, the family that was terrorized, the employment opportunities disrupted and the Northwest Center therapists that documented the stress caused by the husband. Lastly there was the "emotional distress suit" initiated by the husband's attorney days past the statute of limitations.

Bankruptcy In order to escape the suit and protect my girlfriends assets this attorney bankrupted her and hoped that the ex-attorney had forgotten about the debt. What was interesting was that when the dead line passed this attorney called the bankruptcy trustee who at first told them that the debt had not been claimed. However the end of the following week my girlfriend was told that Mr. A. Strode Brent had contacted them. Was this another "wink" ?

Abuse of process - we were dropped again by an attorney - Ms. Dugger instructed us to wait six months and to see a psychiatrist to support an "abuse of process" action against Mr. J. Michael Sharman. What was interesting is that after giving us specific instructions on an "abuse of process" action this attorney then forgot about us - almost as if they were "suggested" to drop the case - this was a source of conversation for years with the Psychiatrist that this attorney had instructed us to see. What caused this dismissal, I cannot believe that it was because they were upset with me for bringing it up.

Why did this attorney drop us ?
- Was it workload?
- Was there some political incentive?
- During her representation she had made comments stating that she "had to work here after our case" when we asked why she did not challenge an item presented by Mr. Sharman and that we were lucky....
- Was the "abuse of process" just a sale to make us accept the "bankruptcy" strategy? If so why make a damaged client expend further resources for an action that the attorney had no intention to follow through with?
Why did she yell at me when I was upset after following her instructions she dropped the issue ?
Why was this attorney was so adamant about this "abuse of process" if they were not going to follow through ? My girlfriend was bankrupt, I was having problems and seeing a psychiatrist would cost more money, so why ? This was like Mr. A. Strode Brent leaving his client in jail.
We had pre-paid the attorney for a "emotional distress suit"civil suit trial that did not occur. This was brought up and I effectively used the Canons to obtain a partial refund.

Psychiatrist - We saw the psychiatrist from 1994 - 2003. The three of us, the psychiatrist, my girlfriend and myself were perplexed by the fourth attorney's change in direction. Not only had the attorney given us explicit instructions but they had given this psychiatrist instructions also, we sat in his office wondering what to do. We had survived five years of legal battles, a losing attorney, my girlfriend was bankrupt and Ms. Judy A. Dugger had given us some hope. It was during this "decision" time that my girlfriend was bitten by a neighbors dog. During these sessions we discussed both the divorce case and the ongoing "dog bite" case as they went on we identified the depth of the attorney failure that we had experienced. The psychiatrist would try to defend the attorneys and then we would remember and provide refuting material, on numerous occasions he would just shake his head. On June 1st of 2000 we received a phone call from the psychiatrist telling us to pick up that days Washington Post, when we did this article was in it Big-Spending Lawyer Leaves Clients in Limbo State Bar Says N.Va. Man Fled With Settlement Funds on page B01. This started our experience with a thieving member of the Virginia State Bar.

Husband's attorney - Mr. J. Michael Sharman Zealous representation of a client ? I keep bringing up the "Christian Brotherhood connection because this attorneys "strategy" was to chant the Christian Mantra that we "were sinners", that "the wife should obey the husband" and he paraded church members through the court. I understand that they were members of the "Church of God", our concern stems from the "Christian Brotherhood" on this attorneys letterhead in conjunction with his strategy.

This was not a dispute between a "man" and a "woman" this became a cause, a Holy War, a Crusade where the courts became the willing tool - the chattel must be destroyed. So much for secular "Rule of Law".
Curious I looked up this individuals name on the Internet today, June 11, 2007, and found this link. Involvement with politics stood out, the "Christian" mantra. I then remembered the real estate agent who looked into the reasons that Mr. A. Strode Brent was not representing my girlfriend competently, he claimed that our attorney was running for a local political office. It hit me like a train, this would explain why Mr. A. Strode Brent did not engage, the missing piece - her attorney was looking for a demographic... In the past I did not publish this attorneys name as I did not want to provide him and his "Christian zealot" groups with advertising. I realize that this was incorrect as they obviously choose to represent a marginalized group of people who should not be denied the opportunity of having "zealous" representation. I feel sorry for the women that these people have and will damage in their "zealous crusade" to identify them as "chattel", property of the husband regardless of his/her choices.	Is this a credible officer of the court, which court secular or theocratic ? How about those politicians that supported this Virginia "officer of the court" ? Representing the rights of Christian Brotherhood Newsletter Subscribers. J. Michael Sharman is an attorney, author, and speaker with a broad base of legal and legislative experience. Recently, on behalf of a 14 year-old sexual assault victim, Mike won the largest jury verdict in Virginia for the year 2005 and largest sexual assault jury verdict in Virginia's history. Mike worked on Capitol Hill as legislative assistant and campaign executive administrator for U.S. Senator Alan K. Simpson. He has been appointed by Gov. Gilmore to the Virginia Business Education Partnership program, and he previously served under Gov. Allen on the Child Support Advisory Committee. Mike has testified on constitutional and health care issues before seven different state legislative bodies in four states, and the legislation he wrote protecting religious and economic freedoms has been successfully passed into law in seven states. Mike has written FAITH OF THE FATHERS: RELIGION AND MATTERS OF FAITH CONTAINED IN THE PRESIDENTS' INAUGURAL ADDRESSES FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON TO GEORGE W. BUSH and he has a work in progress, ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF OUR CHRISTIAN HERITAGE. He served for five years on the Board of Directors for Washington Bible College and Capital Bible Seminary, and is on the Advisory Council for In Trust: The Magazine for Theological Education. Mike has a B.A. in International Relations from Mary Washington College, a J.D. from the University of Wyoming College of Law, and an LL.M. in International Taxation from Regent University. -- Christian Worldview Network [] The above statement found on June 11, 2007 on the Christian Worldview Network opened up concerns of what transpired from 89-95, church/state and the infection of Virginia government. (Theocratic or Secular ?) This quote put in perspective the depth of the betrayal of Mr. A. Strode Brent. Until this point we had assumed that this partner that was retained was just distracted by a political campaign, it was not expected that he might compromise his professional integrity for a "Church of God" group. Maybe there was no collusion between the two. However the results of his representation indicate otherwise, since he was a senior partner in a law firm there was expectation of some skill level. If the real estate agent had not notified us of this attorneys political activities we would have believed that we had another incompetent member of the Virginia State Bar, one that had to be fired. What was Ms. Judy A. Dugger's foundation to instruct us in preparation for an "abuse of process" action against Mr. J. Michael Sharman ? I question the character of Mr. J. Michael Sharman as an officer of the Virginia courts and his ability to separate Church and State. I also question the ability of the Virginia State Bar's competency in regulating its members representation of clients in the context of "Rule of Law". Some questions as to our situation at this time and this article.... Did Mr. Sharman win because he outperformed Mr. Brent or was it truly conflict of interest? Did the Virginia courts allow the Bible to be read because Mr. Sharman represented political and religious interests or was the judge prejudiced? How did Mr. Sharman win those cases in 2005? Did Mr. Sharman march the church through the courts? Did the alleged perpetrator's attorney actually represent, produce supporting evidence? In my girlfriends case her attorney, Mr. Brent, remained silent so the courts never heard about the years of counseling before my girlfriend escaped, never saw the pictures and never heard about the date discrepancies. The victim of the abuse was persecuted, the intent was to destroy an abused woman who was trying to escape an abuser. Interesting my girlfriend had a breakdown in 2004/2005, the culmination of damage started by Mr. Sharman's persecution, rapes as a child in foster homes, seventeen years of abuse, persecution in Virginia courts, retained counsel who was caught stealing settlements all took a toll. ...a nonprofit political organization whose purpose is to elect conservative candidates to the Virginia legislature. -- Commonwealth Commentary Newsletter (CCN)

Here are a several conversations and situations that stand out in our dealings with Mr. Sharman, an officer of the Court and member of the Virginia State Bar.....

The access of my girlfriends confidential mental health records without notifying her. Then there was the note by the judge H.L. Thomas that explicitly excluded the period of cohabitation and the year following. Who says that confidential records are confidential, it is a lie, a fraud.	Mr. Sharman pulled a neat trick when he had the courts release our new street address. We had given out our Post Office Box as a contact but that was unacceptable, Mr. Sharman had the courts force us to provide our street address. Mr. Sharman apparently gave this address to his abusive client because a couple of months after the release the husband accosted his wife again at work. When my girlfriend approached Mr. Sharman about the access of records, he referenced letters in his brief case identifying that he did notify her of the access. A neat little fraud on the courts given that it was explicitly identified that we did not receive mail at our street address because of his clients activities.
Virginia Courts ordered the wife to see a biased "Christian" marriage counselor. along with readings from the Bible in court.	So much for the separation of Church and State. It is a shame that since the Virginia courts are theocratic, that they do NOT adhere to the teachings of Christ.
Annihilation In a meeting in the courthouse Mr. J. Michael Sharman stated that he to destroy us, specifically my girlfriend. His intent was not to see a resolution it was destruction, he was on a crusade against a woman who he considered a sinner, who had an "abortion" - a murderer.	Such hatred for women, his goal was to destroy my girlfriend who wanted to get away from the individual above. Why such animosity from a "Christian" to zealously defend a cross-dresser, abuser and rapist ? Girlfriend was stalked on the streets by this attorneys client, Christian zealots and stalked through the legal system by this attorney. This attorney, with the assistance of the Prince William County Courts forced us to relinquish our street address within months the husband was in our area, harassing my girlfriend at her work. The excuse was coincidence and the courts believed this - hook, line and sinker. Just how far would this zealot go with their manipulation to punish a sinner ?
Members of the church showed up at our residence.	The husband terrorized the family that originally provided sanctuary for the wife along with numerous assaults, verbal and physical. Then the "Christians" would show up to "preach" about "family" and "duty". Where were these meddlers when the son attempted suicide ? Where were they during the spousal abuse ? Where were they when the father was accosting the daughter - if that was true ?
Mr. J. Michael Sharman courtroom strategy was to preach about family values, my girlfriends adultery and being a murderer.	This guy need to get a life and tell the truth - but then Mr. A. Strode Brent did not present a defense, remaining silent during Mr. Sharman's Christian ramblings and inaccurate statements with "professional courtesy" claim.
Suit over Phone Tapes - After the Virginia Courts ruled the divorce in the husbands favor and awarded according to Virginia Law. Mr. J. Michael Sharman filed an "emotional distress" suit over the phone calls.	What stood out was that the date on the police report was at least two weeks from the event. The statute of limitations would have passed and the suit would have been void - this is where Mr. A. Strode Brent's failure really stood out as he did not make note of our questioning the date, did not contact Mr. Mason for details of the case.
Bankruptcy - Friend of the Court Mr. J. Michael Sharman showed up as a "friend of the court" for my girlfriends bankruptcy.	Ms. Judy A. Dugger stated that his showing up for the bankruptcy was "unethical" since his client, the husband could not be part of the case. There was an issue about a deadline passing and possible phone call reminding Mr. A. Strode Brent of the "debt". There was also questions about the bankruptcy trustee, Mr. Robert G. Mayer, handling of the case. Why had the deadline pass with no additional debt and then the debt appear ? Did he listen to issues presented about Mr. A. Strode Brent's failed "strategies" from Ms. Judy A. Dugger ?
Not being paid - Mr. J. Michael Sharman gloated that he was not being paid by the husband. If this attorney was on a "crusade" then he was not constrained by "law" or "market", an enviable position it is to have one go on a crusade for you, for free. According to this attorney's statement not only did the husband keep all his portion of the settlement, the escaping chattel was punished.	The son later told us that there was some sort of payment dispute - strategy ? The only problem with a payment is the amount of time this attorney spent on the chattel, the house was not worth the "market" rate, which can be attested by the wife losing her share to her attorneys.
Incompetent "strategy" & Abuse of Process ?

Virginia Courts and the Privacy Act - is this a law?....

There are the courts access of the wife's mental health records from social services, through a subpoena by Mr. J. Michael Sharman. The wife found out about the access when her counselor called up notifying her that a sheriff had a subpoena to access her private records. There are several items of interest here.

We are unaware that the courts attempted to contact either Mr. A. Strode Brent or the wife identifying intent to subpoena. The wife found out in a phone call from her counselor as the sheriff was confiscating their records.
The wife called up Mr. A. Strode Brent demanding some sort of action, which resulted in the "Motion to Quash".
In prior actions the children had been excluded from the divorce proceedings with statements from the judges that "we will not go against another judges ruling" - why not, if evidence was presented that identified that an issue was not addressed ?
The records subpoenaed have a note excluding the period of residence in the household, separation and a year of stalking/assaults/threats after the separation (this was discovered in a visit at the archives around 1995). The information contained in the accessed notes was not relevant to determining the divorce issue. Why the skip of time ? Why not all the records ? Up until the visit to the archives we had believed that the courts had accessed all the records till we found the note on the "Motion to Quash".

I read somewhere that the courts could access confidential information that was relevant to the case, Privacy Act 1974. The information identified by the courts to be accessed only identified stress of an abused house wife a year after separating, trying to escape from an abusive husband, with an impotent attorney, confiding to their mental health counselor their strategies and fears. This is information the courts handed to Mr. J. Michael Sharman. The information excluded the co-habitation, stalking and avoided the "relevant" material. The records accessed only identified stress of a distraught woman trying to escape from an abuser, of course the question returns, why didn't Mr. A. Strode Brent engage and obtain all the records ?

Post-divorce - the consequences of Virginia's theocratic courts and Christian agenda.

Since the State's help was not enough in this situation, the mother did not have a family so she pleaded to her husbands family to keep the child away from their son after he kidnapped the child - her goal was to keep the child as far from the conflict as possible. Of course this did not work and Mr. J. Michael Sharman used her distraught calls against her(Good Christian Husband).
The minor son, what he told us when he reestablished contact with his mother.

Contact was reestablished by the child from a hospital, apparently the child tried to commit suicide by jumping off a building. Either the son found out our phone number or a friend of his established contact again.
Father ignored the son after the divorce, this resulted in a medical condition involving his spine.
Father ignored child protection, when the authorities were around he and his son would hide in the house till they left - the son described such activities.
For the custody hearing, the child allegedly got a new toy to play with.
The son alleges that he left the household a year prior to their eighteenth birthday, yet the mother was not notified of the change in residence resulting in an extra year of "child support" paid to the husband through the Courts/State arranged by Ms. Judy A. Dugger. Then the courts claimed that the payments were not made - we had the canceled checks - what happened ? Another screw up by the courts ?
The house was infested with roaches and trash, yet a Health Inspector for Fairfax County had passed it. According to a letter from Mr. J. Michael Sharman the inspector implied that it was the mother that made the complaint - this was considered harassment by the courts. When the house was finally auctioned off, it was necessary to strip the place because of infestation, cat feces and garbage - good job Fairfax County Health Inspector, we see that you are doing your job or your standards are pretty low.
The child was a prisoner, not allowed to play he became overweight, the mother tried the authorities but they chose to disregard her concerns - again dismissed as harassment.

The daughter who was eighteen, what she told us

When the husband kidnapped the minor son the daughter returned to the home. The daughter claimed that she was worried for her brother's safety so, when the father kidnapped the son she went back to household.
The daughter apparently was mad at her mother and so she told where we were living.
We did not know this till much later when the daughter alleged to me in a conversation that her father turned his attentions onto her for relations and it was for this reason that she told where her mother was living. I do not know if this is true or not, but it was a concern given what we knew of his history.

Given "family values" spouted by these "Christian Groups" - where were they when these events occurred ? Where was this Christian attorney ? He effectively removed the mother from her children which exposed them to their father. Where were the courts who fell for this "strategy", did they ensure that the children were protected after they isolated them ?

Reston Police assault in 1989/1990 I was assaulted by the police, it was a dark night and they were in my back yard. They did not identify themselves when both my roommate and myself challenged them. The response from the night was "who wants to know", when I stated that I was the owner and that they were trespassing, they finally identified that they were the police. I asked why they were there and they did not respond, I then informed them that they were trespassing and to leave my property.

If they had stated their business, identifying that they had cause to be on my property we would have been accommodating:

If we were talking too loud.
Maybe someone saw my girlfriends husband stalking her in our backyard (witnesses/police report to support her case - of course police reports were not used by my girlfriends attorney).
A statement of other business - we would have gone in.
Because it was a dark night, we were alone, no charges filed requiring an attorney - I doubt that there was any documentation of the incident. No proof, no case - cops get away with assault.

Instead they said - "are you man enough to make us", they had stomped a small bush and were standing on my patio, expecting professionals I went down to tell them to leave, they assaulted me, incarcerated and released me in the morning no charges. It seems like I am a target for these animals.

Both of these notes were discovered in a visit to the Fairfax County archives after the dog bite, we were curious why Ms. Judy A. Dugger claimed that we had an "abuse of process" case.
Rule to Show Cause	Motion to Quash
We did not know of this "Rule to Show Cause" till our visit to the Fairfax County Archives. Apparently the real estate agent may have lit a little fire under Mr. A. Strode Brent in order for this to be filed with a "failure to comply with a court order" based on the real estate agents testimony. Note the response to this attempt from the judge: Court will not enter Rule to Show Cause where petition is sworn by attorney rather than party also insufficient time - return. Kind of confusing, here Mr. A. Strode Brent is attempting an action to address a problem and this Judge just does not bother because the "party" did not swear to it. Why didn't the attorney get with his client, the party and have them "swear" to it ? Maybe the attorney did not want his client to know what the real estate found out ? Maybe this was a facade, rather than pushing it this attorney did enough to have "plausible deniability" and used the judge to block any concerns the agent had - attorney made an attempt, failed and the agents complaint was dismissed, which may have explained why the agent made sure that we knew Mr. A. Strode Brent had a political agenda ?	7-17-91 Motion to quash denied Def. entitled to psychiatric records from 1-1-90 Privacy Act of 1977 - relevance ? At the time of the phone call from the therapist, it was believed that Mr. J. Michael Sharman had accessed all the records and Mr. A. Strode Brent just did not bother to review them - except the motion to quash - driven by the emphatic prompting of their client. Nothing was wrong with the dismissal of the quash till one understands the context. The wife separated on January 27, 1989, she had started counseling in 1986 or 1987. The children had been excluded from the divorce proceedings by a prior judge. With Mr. A. Strode Brent messed up strategy the wife's only support was her therapist. The only information accessed by the courts was woman trying to cope, under stress. Is this relevant in deciding who would be awarded the divorce ? The courts accessed information that did not pertain to the divorce case, it appears that the courts disregarded the Privacy Act of 1977. Was this with intent ? The courts had the file and should have known the time line. Failed to notify the individual/their attorney of intent. Collected information from confidential records that specifically excluded the issue before the courts. Did not obtain the material that covered the period of co-habitation and separation. Mr. J. Michael Sharman knew about the records, had the courts selectively obtain material that excluded the years of abuse, got inside of my girlfriends head and where was Mr. A. Strode Brent ? Then again I could be wrong as it is obvious from our experiences that anything and everything is accessible. What was obtained from this period was discussions of strategy with a mental health counselor over "attorney" failures, frustration and coping with the stress from the crusading attorney. When I see these "privacy" statements I laugh, the "laws" are irrelevant and bypassed on whim.

Both of these notes were discovered in a visit to the Fairfax County archives after the dog bite, we were curious why Ms. Judy A. Dugger claimed that we had an "abuse of process" case.

Rule to Show Cause

Motion to Quash

We did not know of this "Rule to Show Cause" till our visit to the Fairfax County Archives. Apparently the real estate agent may have lit a little fire under Mr. A. Strode Brent in order for this to be filed with a "failure to comply with a court order" based on the real estate agents testimony. Note the response to this attempt from the judge:

Court will not enter Rule to Show Cause where petition is sworn by attorney rather than party also insufficient time - return.

Kind of confusing, here Mr. A. Strode Brent is attempting an action to address a problem and this Judge just does not bother because the "party" did not swear to it. Why didn't the attorney get with his client, the party and have them "swear" to it ? Maybe the attorney did not want his client to know what the real estate found out ? Maybe this was a facade, rather than pushing it this attorney did enough to have "plausible deniability" and used the judge to block any concerns the agent had - attorney made an attempt, failed and the agents complaint was dismissed, which may have explained why the agent made sure that we knew Mr. A. Strode Brent had a political agenda ?

7-17-91 Motion to quash denied Def. entitled to psychiatric records from 1-1-90

Privacy Act of 1977 - relevance ?

At the time of the phone call from the therapist, it was believed that Mr. J. Michael Sharman had accessed all the records and Mr. A. Strode Brent just did not bother to review them - except the motion to quash - driven by the emphatic prompting of their client. Nothing was wrong with the dismissal of the quash till one understands the context.

The wife separated on January 27, 1989, she had started counseling in 1986 or 1987.
The children had been excluded from the divorce proceedings by a prior judge.
With Mr. A. Strode Brent messed up strategy the wife's only support was her therapist. The only information accessed by the courts was woman trying to cope, under stress. Is this relevant in deciding who would be awarded the divorce ?

The courts accessed information that did not pertain to the divorce case, it appears that the courts disregarded the Privacy Act of 1977. Was this with intent ? The courts had the file and should have known the time line.

Failed to notify the individual/their attorney of intent.
Collected information from confidential records that specifically excluded the issue before the courts.
Did not obtain the material that covered the period of co-habitation and separation.
Mr. J. Michael Sharman knew about the records, had the courts selectively obtain material that excluded the years of abuse, got inside of my girlfriends head and where was Mr. A. Strode Brent ?

Then again I could be wrong as it is obvious from our experiences that anything and everything is accessible. What was obtained from this period was discussions of strategy with a mental health counselor over "attorney" failures, frustration and coping with the stress from the crusading attorney. When I see these "privacy" statements I laugh, the "laws" are irrelevant and bypassed on whim.

During the five years we found it ironic that here Mr. J. Michael Sharman was defending their client with "Christian" quotes and misstatements. I did not know the wife till after she separated and we had just gone out when I observed the loving, Christian, father who was carrying his son throw the child at another woman whose goal was to get the child out of the argument knocking her down with the child.

Just where were these organizations for the children ? Did the father molest the daughter ? I do not know, this is what the daughter told me in an emotional discussion. Does/did the husband have an illegitimate child in Pennsylvania or Ohio ? I witnessed assault, terrorism, stalking, phone harassment and talked to the mental health counselors treating my girlfriend, the separated wife who confirmed abuse in the household. I took pictures of the husbands album containing really un-Christian pictures, these Christians persecute communities as living in sin yet one of their community actively went on a crusade against a woman trying to extract herself from such a relationship.

It is good to see that these "Christian" groups defends cross-dressers, rapists and abusers against an abused woman with such resolve. I really did enjoy the "Church of God" or so they claimed, coming over to preach, even have an implied threat on paper from them. If these people are on the side of "God", what does that make the other side ?

With this material available, why was none of it used by the Mr. A. Strode Brent ? Was he supporting the husbands attorney, through intent or lack of concern ?

When the church people started their claims of upstanding citizen, born again and the wife's adultery - Mr. A. Strode Brent could have shown them and the courts the pictures of their "born again" individual. Asked these "Christians" if they were aware of the abuse in the household while the wife lived there. Refuting any denial with Social Services Mental Health Counselors that the wife had been seeing for around three years prior to her separation. These actions may have derailed Mr. J. Michael Sharman strategy, but Mr. A. Strode Brent did not - why, is this failure chronic problem with all attorneys ?
Mr. A. Strode Brent did not visit/address the issue that their client was in jail for non-payment of child support - why ?
Why did Mr. A. Strode Brent walk out of their office when we were contesting the date that the phone calls were made ? Why did this attorney not make note that we questioned the date of the calls ? If we were right the "statute of limitations" would have passed and the lawsuit for $150K would have been irrelevant, another year, girlfriends bankruptcy and expenses for the fourth attorney would all have been avoided. Just which side was this attorney on ?
Was Mr. A. Strode Brent a senior partner in a law firm outclassed ? Why did he roll over ? As a professional in business faced with a problem one would expect that one would access available resources to provide a diligent service - so why not ?
Was Mr. A. Strode Brent seeking favor for his political campaign ? Just what did Mr. A. Strode Brent and Mr. J. Michael Sharman talk about when no one was around ?

The Virginia State Bar claims that they do not address "strategy", by their inaction they do not address "ethics" either. The courts never heard this material or it was so muted that it became irrelevant. Sitting in court as Mr. J. Michael Sharman made misstatements to the court, the wife would pull out a paper refuting the statement and provide it to her third attorney and he would respond "professional courtesy" and remain silent. What to do, she had been through two attorneys already, had an experience with the courts without an attorney and now she had this....