Well it is now February 18, 2009 and it appears that
Mr. Thomas R. Breeden the original firm and Mr. Douglas E. Mataconis are not going to respond to my letters a year ago. My girlfriends issues were never resolved, I cannot afford to buy another attorney to address her issues. Instructions ignored, billing questions and avoidance or dismissal - my girlfriend remains in a fragile state.
There was another noteworthy item that I discovered as I was refreshing myself for a dialog with the Virginia State Bar. I was going through my girlfriends papers on her dog bite and attorney
Thomas E. Burks. I noticed that Mr. Thomas R. Breeden's firm represented the doctor that sued my girlfriend when
Thomas E. Burks deserted. If I remember correctly the doctor dropped the case against my girlfriend. We had an "oh jeez" moment, trying to be positive I told her that they would be diligent in their representation - my girlfriend did not remember that the law firm she had chosen had sued her in the past, just that she had been sued.
I wont name them yet (June 28, 2008), well it is February 20, 2009,
Mr. Thomas R. Breeden and Mr. Douglas E. Mataconis still have not responded, we do not know if my girlfriend is represented or not at this time. Last August 2007, we realized that the
Legal Service was not going to provide a referral to address an upcoming
court date.
So my girlfriend picked up a phone book, looked for an attorney that represented her type of cases, I looked them up to see if anything stood out, nothing did of course so she called them and a member of the
law firm took the case.
According to what my girlfriends new attorney told her was that the
Citibank attorney claims that they want to see my girlfriend, an unemployed, bankrupt, ex-abused woman in jail for
this mistake.
After the court case I tried to get my girlfriend to address the other issues that needed to be resolved. I was upset that this attorney just negotiated a payment that his unemployed, no income, injured client had to pay as a result of a scam by someone with access to Multiver's corporate checks and Citibank's acquiescence and betrayal of their client, possibly for insurance. At the time I had funds to proactively address my girlfriends other outstanding issues, have her file bankruptcy and clean her slate of those issues at least - no response and dismissal again.
Several items stand out about this firm and how they have dealt with my girlfriend, they are as follow:
- September 20, 2007 Court date.
- October 02, 2007 Invoice claiming balance of trust.
- Separation of practices from the original firm retained.
- October 22, 2007 Another invoice now claiming that my girlfriend owed money. The numbers did not match up.
- November 10, 2007 - letter with requested payment sent asking about the discrepancy, addressing my girlfriends other issues (check cashed November 15, 2007 - attorney recieved the letter). The attorney informed my girlfriend that he was going to send a letter after the December 5, 2007 court date, he also told her that she did not need to appear, girlfriend was suffering health problems.
- December 5, 2007 - court date where the attorney did represent my girlfriend to a status quo.
- January 02, 2008 - Follow up correspondence requesting clarification as to why the numbers did not add up. Also requests for how to proceed in getting my girlfriend out from under all her problems, I suggested bankruptcy.
- May 01, 2008 - the original firm sent a check, apparently they had held half my payment when the two attorneys separated. The amounts still did not match, but at this time we understood what had happened. Girlfriends outstanding issues remain outstanding.
- No response from the attorney to my letters addressing the resolution of my girlfriends other problems.
- My girlfriend calls up and he will state that he is busy, that he will get back to her and that she should let him know if anymore legal documents show up.
- This attorney then tells my girlfriend that he does not handle "bankruptcy", she had hired the firm in the first place because they were reputable and advertised addressing such issues.
- The original law firm sent the difference. Still no explanation for the discrepancies in the invoices.
- February 20, 2009 - still no response, figure that they are not going to respond to my letters.
Here my girlfriend has need of representation, I was willing to cover the costs, provide details to which the alleged "professional" could talk to my girlfriend and they dismiss her. These "attorneys" tell my girlfriend how lucky she is yet they fail to use what my girlfriend has available to her. Such items in this case are as follows:
- A Summons that was delivered on the date that it said my girlfriend should go to court. She could not get an attorney in time and we had no money to afford one.
- How my girlfriend an unemployed, bankrupt, abused woman, trying to get started after an injury managed to get a corporate check from a Canadian corporation.
- Citibank damaged themselves when they paid, or did not pay, we do not know, we do know that they are claiming that my girlfriend owes a significant sum to them.
My girlfriends original alleged fraud is abstracted - exposing the following posibilities:
- Was the Multiver Corporation:
- Money laundering ?
- Evading taxes ?
- Committing insurance fraud ?
- Multiver corporation is forgotten...
Citibank's losses probably covered by their insurance or maybe not given their claim of "debt" is based on "legal fees" which happend to match the payment my girlfriend used.
It is to be noted that my girlfriend was threatened when she was told by her Canadian "employers" that it sounded like money laundering when they changed their instructions. This has been dismissed, it is unprovable.
- Citibank attorney claimed that Multiver claimed that they had a bad employee. If so why did someone else take over the activity and then threaten my girlfriend ?
- Multiver was profitable that year, did they double their money ?
- How much is Citibank making off of the insurance claim and my girlfriend ?
If these questions had been presented to the courts would another ruling have resulted ? Our experiences demonstrate that the courts and its representatives are not interested in "rule of law", they are executing a "
presumption of guilt" paradigm, their goal is to process and prey upon those that cannot defend themselves.
Maybe it would not matter because the courts are
kangaroo courts lacking integrity and diligence. We will never know another outcome because Virginia's population of attorneys have questionable integrity, this profession has no oversight ensuring the quality of service to the community - de-regulation is profitable and caters to the economically viable, not the victims.
Virginia State Bar an agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia facilitates the fleecing of the States citizens with rules that are
here today and
gone tomorrow
Again we are here, this will be considered "strategy" or something that requires we hire another member of the Bar to address, facilitating the racket. The results that the institution expects is to convince everyone that the fault lies in the "client", not the member who is supposed to be knowledgeable in their professional environment.