The bottom line, the implementation of Law in America is a fraud.

The modern implementation of Law is a fraud.

There is a stated intent that our courts would strive to be fair and impartial. We all know that humans make mistakes and events happen that are out of our control. We all know that in any population there are some "bad apples" and there are some that make hard unpopular choices.

There is an expectation that a population would try to avoid mistakes that were counter to the policies of the group.

For example one would expect an Agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia to collect client grievances to identify members in their population who may not be representing their clients competently. The excuse that is made by the Virginia State Bar is that most clients are disgruntled, upset and have "sour grapes" so its members would be unfairly treated. According to the Bar this excuse justifies ignoring the clients, when it does this it creates a fault in jurisprudence. With the 2000 dismissal of ethics the organization covered its eyes and plugged its ears, it is clueless as to what its body is doing, it has no idea if its members are predatory, failing with bias, have adapted a volume "strategy" or are actually diligent in their representation - the Bar does not address "strategy". Some damaged client's cannot afford buy another member who may or may not represent them diligently.

We have had around ten attorneys, members of the Virginia State Bar. How can the Virginia State Bar claim that its members represented their clients, us competently when these members ignored identified material such as doctors, Social Services counselors, police reports, store security videos, dates and one deserted.

It may be stated that we might have "sour grapes" as a result of the "mistakes" of these professionals. My question is how many others? What about "profiling" by the courts and the police? Was my girlfriend profiled because she was a nobody, a foster child whose mother tried to kill her? A disposable person whose value was as a sacrifice by a member seeking political office, a probono client, a nobody, not worth the Virginia State Bar's time. How many others have looked at their cases and wondered what the heck happened and when they broached subject there was a litany of excuses culminating in implying that it was their fault, that the client was stupid or in need of mental health counseling.

So what does this show about this implementation? Without functional oversight can anyone that hires one of these members expect to be represented competently? It appears that the modern implementation of law is intended to be biased, there is no longer an attempt at diligence, the intent is profit through volume, under the table deals or not doing the research into a case, these attorneys say "why spend the time with these ungrateful clients when we can take their money". As it stands I know that I cannot expect competent representation from Virginia attorneys, whether this is because of our history, on a black list or just because these members of the Virginia State Bar an Agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia, have no functional oversight, these professionals know they can get away with whatever "strategy" suits them.

Betrayal of Public Trust.

The reality is that the law is a deception, a facade. If one questions this premise all one has to do is consider John Yoo and his buddy Jay Scott Bybee who became a judge because of his reinterpretation of law. It is rather humorous to watch people who would persecute and hound someone they do not approve of till they die, look the other way to protect their own, torture criminals. Really folks if someone broke into your home, kidnapped you, incarcerated you for years because you were in the wrong place you would be angry. These people did not keep us safe, their intent is to destabilize the world, create monsters, generate chaos so that they can profit. Their greed/stupidity has created a new generation of monster, both foreign and domestic.

These people are implementing a third world judicial system here, if one does not fit in their profile they will ensure that the individual is persecuted and punished regardless of guilt or innocence. In my girlfriends divorce the judge for her divorce did things like force her to see a Christian counselor provided by the husbands attorney, he ignored years of Social Services counseling and then allowed the husbands attorney access to these records excluding the period of cohabitation, stalking and assaults - there is a question as to where her attorney was on this. The end result was that the judge awarded the divorce to her husband, he could say that he did not "see"/"hear" anything that would have resulted in another ruling - this is judge should have known the timeline, so why the specific exclusion, convenient excuse for a biased outcome...

Then there was the CVS incident what was going on here, was the attorney just busy or having a bonding session with the police. The attorney did say that "they lie all the time and you would not be believed" identifying that the cops lack oversight and the courts are Kangaroo courts. You the reader can pick, kangaroo court or biased attorney, I hope you do not have the experience.

It is interesting that these "professionals" fail to perform and then appear to not expect consequences.

When events happen they blame the individual when it was their failure to identify and mitigate the issue, bad policies result in cascading outcomes. When people in crisis are not provided with functional avenues for solutions they become desperate, resorting to negative, possibly violent activities. The results are a direct consequence of negligent implementation of process from those tasked with executing the duties of process.

From first hand experiences I can attest that I considered confronting those that "upset" us, the problem was that the individuals that caused the original problems were resorting to violence and vandalism. Two animals died from poisons and a car was destroyed. We did not know what was next would they shoot us, burn the house down or cutting our other cars brake lines. As an individual to address and deter this would have required extreme measures, if I took action it would not have been an escalation it would have been an end to the problem. The police were more than useless, a notable quote by one officer to a vandalism/harassment incident was "what do you expect us to do about it". I am not a law enforcement officer, I have a military background and associated skills, we called "law enforcement" for a solution, they identified that they had none. One deterrent could have been to drive by their homes, knocked on the door a few times - knowing the people law enforcement might have even observed some drug use, maybe even caught someone that was stealing medication from a nursing home or observed child abuse. The fact that we called the police or publicly expressed our concerns did not make us safer, it tied our hands because we made an issue out of the attacks. Of course the subjects knew of our calling the police so the activities increased, we were made the laughing stock of the community. Was their intent to create a monster?

I have not been silent about our issues so one would expect that the form of government being implemented in America would be diligent in ensuring a policy of non-discrimination, quality legal representation and law enforcement through oversight. Functional oversight protects the citizen from poor or negligent service and those implementing process from an angry community. This is not done, why? Why couldn't I obtain the CVS video? Why didn't the Bar ensure the quality of the profession for a probono client deserted by a member? What about the third attorney and courts that seem confused between secular and theocratic law?

So a question is why is there a policy of avoidance, failure to address situations?

Is this with intent?

Avoidance results in desperate measures being taken by individuals to solve a problem, violence, chaos and fear. It is also to be identified that those with nothing to lose have no incentive to "obey the law", they discover that the law only applies to those that have property and they are free to commit "crimes". So when an individual is confronted with such a problem and "law enforcement" fails they attempt their own solution, this is never pretty. The odd thing about this is that it makes the victim a monster, the one that must be persecuted, in effect now there are/were two criminals and fear in the community. As a result stricter laws and the use of harsher methods to enforce these laws is allowed, the claim being is that it is for the "greater good". This is known behavior response by those ruling and it is profitable. The greater the monster they can create, the greater the fear generated and the more control they are given.

Why is it that these leaders are supporting the rise of carry guns to town meetings concept? Allowing and escalating through their rhetoric the incitement of radical/violent activities, increasing chaos, fear and profits for their corporate masters. An added benefit of the chaos would be to stop the public health care initiative and maintain corporate ownership of the people. The creation of foreign and domestic monsters looking for solutions is the culmination of this lemming migration.

Why is it that if someone was tricked by the practice of corporate deception, trapped by desperation or obfuscation of agreements it is the victims fault? The attorneys do not even bother defending their clients, is it because in most cases the judges will interpret the law in favor of their corporate masters, kangaroo courts. For example I never thought that the credit card companies would give my bankrupt, unemployed girlfriend a credit card with a limit more than a $1000, they gave her three cards each with limits more than $10,000 - three and a half times the credit that I carry. I could not get the attorney we hired to address these cards and he ignored a money laundering/insurance scam between Citibank and a Canadian company called Multiver - neither the attorneys or authorities such as the FBI would touch this issue, it was my girlfriends fault that someone sent money to her with instructions, she thought she had an opportunity to get on her feet. Wolves in Christian skins and corporations have an alliance to own this country.