No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains....
When someone says that individuals have a right to privacy I laugh because I know that this is not true. Like any law this one was/can be bypassed for convenience, much like Yoo-Bybee did with the reinterpretation of torture. In our case this law was bypassed by the Virginia Courts to access my girlfriends mental health records for her divorce.
Granted one exclusion is the Courts, providing that the material is relevant to the case. In my opinion specifically excluding the mental health records describing a period of life in a hostile domestic environment, one of mental and physical abuse is in violation of this law. Also in my opinion the subject of the access of information should have been informed of the access prior to the event along with any exclusionary clauses such as dates. In my opinion the Virginia Divorce court is in violation of Federal law.
Following this reasoning one looks at motive for explicit exclusions, negligence on the courts part or possible manipulation to justify a Theocratic interpretation of the law.
Virginia Courts behaved oddly on several instances during these divorce proceedings.
- The husband's attorney Mr. Michael Sharman had the Virginia courts order her to see a "Christian" marriage counselor, ignoring her mentioning that she had been seeing state counseling for years.
- The first my girlfriend was aware that her records were going to be accessed was when her mental health counselor called informing her that the sheriff was there with a subpeona for the records. Was her attorney, Mr. Strode Brent informed and did not bother to relay this access to his client? She had expected him to use her social services mental health counselors from to support her case.
- My girlfriend called up her attorney, Mr. Strode Brent and demanded that he do "something". This resulted in a Motion to Quash the Courts access of mental health records, an event my girlfriend could not make. When the quash failed we expected that all the records had been acquired and such access would have been in the purview of the courts.
- After the dog bite injury we went to the Fairfax County Archives and looked up the case, as we were looking at the papers we found the Motion to Quash with a note "7-17-91 Motion to quash denied Def. entitled to psychiatric records from 1-1-90".
- The wife separated on January 27, 1989, she had started counseling in 1986 or 1987.
- NOTE: By the time of the access my girlfriend had been denied visitation or any opportunity at parenting by the courts, their choice of a good parent was an abusive one. The children and her current state of mind were not relevant in the upcoming divorce proceedings.
- The records allowed by the courts excluded the period of co-habitation by nearly two years, the information obtained in the exclusion was NOT under the perview of the courts in rendering a divorce ruling. The records accessed gave Mr. Michael Sharman insight into my girlfriends state of mind two years after her escape.
The courts hearing the case should have been aware of the timeline, they had the file, so why did they exclude the records of co-habitation? Was this another failure of my girlfriends attorney, Mr. Strode Brent? What was at play here, was there some sort of "Christian Brotherhood" collusion between the courts and Mr. Michael Sharman, an attorney who stated that they "were going to destroy us", whose activities prompted our next attorney, Ms. Judy Dugger to state that we should go for an "abuse of process" action. This was an example of where courts selectively excluded relevant documentation of the psychological state of an individual living within a hostile environment in order to facilitate the rendering of a biased judgment. A judgment that supported a Theocratic interpretation of law, a judgment that punished the wife, chattel for leaving their master, husband.
The wife separated on January 27, 1989, she had started Social Services marriage/mental health counseling in 1986 or 1987.
With that note made by Judge H.L. Thomas excluding mental health records of the household environment and cohabitation, the only relevant information to the courts in this divorce case he created an environment that would justify a biased judgment - the divorce was awarded to the husband. If the records during the years of cohabitation, abusive environment and the stalking immediately following the wife's escape from the household had been made available in a non-biased court the outcome may have been different.
Avoidance by an Agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia.....I have pointed this out, starting with the Virginia State Bar an Agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia. When such items are presented these "authorities" pull a Yoo-Bybee interpretation, or overlook such questions of implementation, theocratic, by these actions they have identified that criminal, negligent, abuse of process or other "strategies" are not addressed by the Agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia. "Strategy" is the profession and if it is being ignored then diligence along with the competency of the justice system can be thrown out the window by those choosing to take advantage of the opportunity.
Physically abused for around seventeen years, abused by Virginia's Theocratic Courts - the psychological damage remains....As a consequence of negligent Virginia Courts, implementing a Theocratic bias my girlfriend has had numerous breakdowns over the last nineteen years, was injured walking her only transportation and even though the children did get in contact with her they remain estranged - have not maintained contact. My girlfriend remains in a fragile emotional state as a direct result of the negligent Virginia Courts, its officers and a lifetime of abuse starting with the Foster Homes she was placed in.
"Color of Law" - law enforcement what a joke, kangaroo courts are condoned....Failure of law enforcement, specifically the FBI to address continues with the Yoo-Bybee implementation of law, when it is convenient apply it, when the law is not reinterpret and ignore it.
