Virginia Jurisprudence at its finest

This comes from nearly two decades of dealing with Virginia Courts, their officers and Law Enforcement. If one notices I am not addressing what the "law" claims, I am addressing what the "implementation" allows and the end results. The cumulative effect of this implementation minimizes any benefit derived from "law", if the courts do not hear the context of the case they cannot render a competent judgment based on the "legislated law's" that exist - the citizens get "whimsy".
The problem is how to prove negligence. In our cases we had assets in the doctors and institutions [89,05] whose goal would be to treat the patient and given the arena would ensure that they had record of any contact. After the cases were completed when we contacted the therapists and doctors, they did not remember any contact from our attorneys, then they referenced their records and no entry was made there either. Then the mental health record access outside of the relevant period, the comment by a real estate agent that the third attorney was allegedly running for political office, the political connections of the opposing counsel, the "abuse of process" directions of the fourth attorney. Then this "strategy" repeated again and again we lose. Now since these attorneys took such "liberties" with a "strategy" that could possibly be proven what "liberties" are they taking with their other cases ? They are secure in the knowledge that they are untouchable except for in our fifth attorneys case.

I have also tried to make this briefer but one or two things dropped can be attributed to a strategic mistake, however the material that our members of the Virginia State Bar dropped could have altered the outcome of the case if the members had been engaged. The material that we provided or had available if in competent hands could have provided a winning strategy - the questions becomes why did'nt they engage as professionals, review available assets and develop a strategy for their client ? Maybe they are too overworked to provide their service as professionals, to do their job ? Not competent ? Lastly it could be their strategy does not coincide with their clients - seeking political demographics ?

These are ethical questions, which the Virginia State Bar ignores, as indicated by their form letter replies to my complaints - that they do not address strategy. I can see the individual in the Virginia State Bar that responded with the suggestion to sue another attorney laugh at that, at us.
I am concerned for my girlfriend, these "Crusaders" have taken their toll on her health and mind.
These people destroy others without regard to "claimed" process. My girlfriend was removed from her children, the children were not protected and my girlfriend lost their respect because she failed to achieve her goals - which was to escape from an abusive relationship with her children.
This is the "information age". Who knows, no one will know unless our situation is looked into and until it is looked into in a diligent manner. I will continue to claim that this is a corrupt implementation that is thwarting "due process". Either they obey their own claims or the claims / laws are disregarded on whim.

The institutions and their members weasel out of our concerns through subterfuge and "spin". When cornered members of this institution claims "you do not understand", you have "sour grapes", you "should accept it" and of course blame the client. The clergy act, talking "Latin" is cute, it is irrelevant if the position is not presented and the client represented, the system will fail.
There is no oversight of this industry, the strategy is not the service it is to harvest the client. The best a client can hope for is to have a strong counsel on ones own side against weak counsel on the other, but this implementation does not serve society. Much like our experience here, where we had the weak counsel. This leaves the question of whether "due process" is effectively implemented. On the other hand the best one can ask for is two incompetent attorneys and hope that the judge is an idiot, justice based on the flip of a coin. If one has wealth they can threaten their retained counsel by being able to afford to throw money away based on principle. Most cannot afford to do that, so they might complain, be told that they have "sour grapes" and then they "deal with" the losses that their "professional" cost them - the client has been harvested. Without witnesses (even a judge does not see what is not presented), a proactive institution overseeing their members or an effective process to "diligently" review complaints the implementation of the system fails.

This could be considered a self supporting niche that allows certain behavior types to generate revenue. Most other professions depend on results, plumber fixes the pipes, doctors heal, businesses provide a service. A football player, an example of a performance "profession" has instant replay or the witnesses of the audience paying attention to his game to determine if he is a "good" player. These attorneys have an excellent cover, a multitude of excuses to hide behind and usually no witnesses - the one organization with any ability to identify the "bad" attorney claims that they do not address "strategy". It is a perfect scam, create the illusion and reap the rewards.

Do you really feel lucky.....
Contents   Talk   Blog's