Lawyers.com - 2010  Part II

Censorship, editing of opinions this population does not agree with...

Still am upset that "Lawyers.com" censored my posts as "Jowey" when this population does not want to hear something they scream like little babies and try to ignore it or demean the individual - they do this on public forums and professionally.

Compare old posts to what are currently on the now restricted Jowey's account and the posts that remain note that they are all replies.

Of course Jowey could not let this lie so he was reincarnated as Jowey Styxx and posted Slip and fall injury.

This whole process is geared towards "clients of choice", character assassination is the strategy.

To process a presumption of guilt, character assassination if there is no guilt and liability on the part of a preferred customer. Because my girlfriend did not yell, when she woke up from her slipping in the hospital, that there was water on the floor the hospital is not liable. My girlfriend did not see anything on the floor but the room was being used as a cafeteria, food, water and other drinks were in it - if I can slide across the floor in boots, the floor is slippery add water and food. My girlfriend was trying to sit down and gets injured.

Yet a slip and fall attorney, a "professional" who specializes in such cases, cannot represent a client in this situation.

Curious, what if my girlfriend saw water on the floor, intentionally stepped in it and then slipped and fell breaking her leg, apparently then "Prince William Hospital" would be liable. Note to future victims of slippery floors, if you see something on it step in it and hope you slip and fall.

Last post on Lawyers.com over my girlfriends Slip and fall injury at Prince William Hospital

The reason I post here in addition to annoying a bunch of pompous dilettantes, is because I do not trust the integrity of the profession in Virginia. I came to this site to see what responses I would get from a population outside of Virginia.

Population will only represent "clients of choice"

It does appear that this population is on the same page, one cannot win a case against attorneys representing an institution - that is the the most common response from the lawyers contacted. That her best option is to file bankruptcy. Facts do not matter, the law does not matter, it is because the institution has more money to engage in character assassination - blame the rape victim for the event, strategy. My girlfriend would lose because she is a person in crisis so she asked for the fall, a rape victim wearing the wrong clothes, in the wrong part of town - she asked for it.

Conversation with my father, an attorney

My father was an attorney and we were discussing his profession. One day we were on a drive and he pointed to an African American poor family and say not a good client, a Brady house, good client I asked about fairness, that the law should be impartial based upon what he had told me in the past. His response was to laugh, that the court was a theater, facts do not matter in the courtroom only what one can get the court to believe. I replied that it is an adversarial system however both sides are supposed to ensure the integrity of the law. I had been told about public trust, code of ethics and integrity of the profession - that got a laugh. I thought to myself what a dishonorable profession, take that occupation off my list of choices. In 2000, the year my girlfriends attorney was caught stealing settlements, the Virginia State Bar discarded its ethics - disposable public trust, the Virginia State Bar does not address "strategy" failures, failure to engage with supplied material.

Girlfriend is not client of choice

We, my girlfriend is not considered "good clients" not "client of choice". "Clients of choice" are the ones that will sit up from a fall and lie - "there was water on the floor", prove them wrong there was water, food and drinks in a crowded room full of people carrying the substances. Add these substances to a surface I described and it is hazardous - one can only wonder at the number of falls in the facility that have not resulted in injury. The habitual criminal is a "client of choice", one who goes to jail and tells his buddies about how well they were represented for a crime that they did do. The deep pockets, wealthy and institutions buy their law using the character assassination strategy.

A religious crusader in court

The one exception is the engaged zealous, competent counsel like the Crusading attorney whose stated goal was to use the courts to destroy a sinner, my girlfriend - it took four attorneys and my girlfriends settlement, she was forced into bankruptcy when the crusader sued us for emotional distress. Her attorneys never used years/decades of documented abuse. The Crusading attorney had the courts access records after the period of cohabitation, stalking and assaults, the courts had the periods involved. The courts also accepted the coincidence excuse when the husband showed up after the court forced us to release our street address. Why did the fourth attorney drop the "abuse of process" ?

Conversation with a felon

Years ago I was talking to someone who had a felony conviction actually several. I asked him about the law after he had spent two weeks for assaulting a cop, he laughed. Just lie, sell some dope and buy a crooked attorney one that would engage - course he knew people who knew crooked attorneys, his jail house buddies. The question I have to ask, is a crooked attorney a "good" attorney because they do engage. Therefore where are the "crooked" attorneys because I am fed up with "un-crooked" attorneys who do not engage. Oh yes that individual is a client of choice, get them reduced sentences and they will be out on the streets again needing more legal counsel, guess who they will come to - repeat business and as I have been told this is a business and those are the clients of choice.

The Judicial business complex, the "client of choice"....

This population sweeps their indescretions under the carpet, when someone calls them on their mistakes the individual is attacked as being stupid. I have pointed out that over the years I had provided material to our counsel that would have at least brought question to the case. This material was ignored, in one case explicitly excluded to ensure a biased outcome. This population has betrayed the public trust, it cannot tell the difference between its "bad apples" or "good apples" because it does not collect client grievances. This profession's peers do not know whether one of its members ignored years of documented abuse, whether one was medically impaired or evidence recording the event was available.

Those implementing this profession do not care about diligence, integrity or competency. The client of choice, the client who will bring in the most revenue is the habitual offender, the sooner they are out to commit another crime, the sooner there will be another paycheck. The rest of us are just bonuses, who are processed and discarded.

This is business, a scam, a con, a fraud....