The Professionals The Narrative

In law it is all about the story, presenting a legal narrative to others who will then make a judgment on the issue. The narrative is the service, the strategy that the professional is supposed to provide to the client and the courts. When they fail, the process becomes a fraud, the excuses for their failure is irrelevant.

Expectations

When a client retains an attorney they expect the "professional" to present the narrative effectively using the available material. The client does not expect the "professional" to produce excuses for their failures, the "professional" is supposed to understand both the strengths. weaknesses of their client, the case and then weave a story from this foundation.

Research

To represent the client effectively the "professional" should research the material provided, understand the character or lack of character of their client and then produce the narrative to the court. They should weave the incident, appearance, history and turn weaknesses of their client into legal strengths - this is part of the research, the strategy, the service of the profession.

The Virginia attorney context - a population without ethics.

What we have found out from observation is that the "professional" will research their clients finances to determine how much of a threat they are, if the client is experiencing hardship they are deemed not to be a threat and the attorneys strategy is to harvest clients retainer and process them. There is no further research or no consideration for representing their clients competently. When challenged for a failure this population replies that it was their clients fault, the case too hard, the opposition too good, that the client does not understand the theater or that the client has "sour grapes" and should be dismissed. The "professional" blames the client for their failure in diligence, failure to research their cases and use their clients human condition.

The human condition, the excuse that the "professional" uses when the client points out that they did not use material and they fail - "you have to understand we are human and we make mistakes" says the spider to the fly.

Clients of choice.

There are exceptions to the financial condition of the client, habitual offenders, do the job and one has a client for life, a client who represents a contact to a population of other revenue streams. It is actually in the "professionals" best interests to increase this population, processing first time clients starts a cascade in the clients life that would feed their system - problems, chaos all represent revenue streams if not for the individual attorney, their associates.

Our Attorney's Narrative's My girlfriends divorce. an example of an effective narrative and failed one.

Mr. J. Michael Sharman the husband's Christian Brotherhood attorney was engaged, did provide a narrative that represented his client. The reading from the Bible in court, repeating the "adultery" mantra, refuting dates and bringing in "Church of God" parishioners was an effective strategy. My girlfriend was portrayed as adulterous chattel, this attorney told my girlfriend to go back to the husband or be destroyed. The husband was "Born Again" and all indiscretions were forgiven and his counsel engaged, he provided an effective narrative to the courts for his client.

An example of a strategy to destroy an individual, to start a cascade in someones life would be Mr. Sharman, this attorney told my girlfriend that he "would destroy her" if she did not go back to her abuser. Mr. Sharman had his client stalk and assault the chattel at her employment, church members stalking her telling her that she should be "put to death", costing her the job, after five years the chattel was bankrupt, was dog bitten because her mode of transportation was walking. The chattel had survived foster homes, seventeen years of abuse, stalking, assaults and then a stupid neighbors dog bites her, the leg gives out unexpectedly and depression sets in. The cascade started, what would it have been if I had not taken her in, under the table employment, living on the streets, driven back by the Virginia courts to an abuser? A statistic followed by an excuse, prey to predators, the public would be told that she was of no value, just another number.....

Mr. Strode Brent a senior partner of Whitestone, Brent, Young & Merril, P.C. did not produce a narrative. When Mr. Sharman said adultery, Mr. Brent should have responded with abuse and illegitimate child - this preeminent attorney was silent. When Mr. Sharman brought the church in and portrayed his client, the husband as a good Christian, Mr. Brent should have shown the pictures of the husband dressed as a woman and stated that the personal choices of my girlfriends husband were such that she could not stay in the relationship - this preeminent attorney was silent. Mr. Brent could have contacted my girlfriends Social Services counselors who were helping with the situation and would have represented a documented history from before separation to after - this preeminent attorney did not bring that narrative to the case. When dates were mentioned Mr. Brent forgot about them, did not challenge Mr. Sharman with the date of separation, even when my girlfriend handed him Social Services documents in court, did not make note of our questioning the date of phone calls in his office and in the latter part of the case, when Mr. Sharman accessed my girlfriends personal mental health records did not challenge that the period subpoenaed started a year after separation.

Why didn't Mr. Brent a "preeminent", senior partner in a law firm provide this narrative to the courts on behalf of his client? Was it because of politics? A dislike for women? A dislike for my girlfriend? Maybe because my girlfriend had nothing, did not have a high school degree, was raised in foster homes, she was chattel, this client did not matter to this "preeminent" senior partner of Whitestone, Brent, Young & Merril, P.C. and certified by the Virginia State Bar.

The excuses as to why Mr. Brent did not engage, did not provide a narrative to the courts that represented his client is irrelevant the consequences were the same. According to this the failure of my girlfriends "preeminent" attorney represents a fraud on the court and that is not subject to any statute of limitation

---

To clarify our relationship at the time I met my girlfriend after she had escaped from her husband with her child. She was living in a small room in an apartment with a woman and her family. The husband would call up harass the household and lurk in the neighborhood. Eventually I talked to the Social Services counselors, confirming the six month wait for housing and abuse that had existed in the household. The first time I saw the husband he had taken his son and threw him at the sanctuary provider, knocking her down, at that time the ladies boyfriend showed me a .357 revolver they had purchased because of the stalking.

What I did not expect was the disregard law enforcement had in doing their jobs, the religious dogma in Virginia courts and negligent officers of the court.

My girlfriends dog bite. the Virginia State Bar an agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia's narrative.

My girlfriend was the pro bono client of Mr. Thomas Burks, an attorney that was caught stealing settlements. Not much to say about this attorney or his narrative, however 2000 was the year that I found out that the Virginia State Bar had discarded its ethics. Our case, at this time and the cases that followed identifies the Virginia State Bar's narrative to the public.

The Virginia State Bar sent my girlfriend Mr. Burks files and discarded her case, she was only a pro bono client, had not paid any money to Mr. Burks and was irrelevant. The Bar as an agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia did not "maintain the integrity of the profession", the courts by ensuring that a client of a member had competent pro bono counsel to conclude her case. In later incidents I noted that it responds to complaints about its members strategies by telling a damaged client to "file a civil malpractice action, or, in a criminal case, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus". Talk to members of this institution about taking such action, the first thing out of their mouths is money. My girlfriend was bankrupt from the divorce, no counsel would take the aged injury or the stealing attorney's case - to this day we do not know if State Farm paid out and my girlfriend never saw it (her case predated the other cases mentioned in the Washington Post).

When Mr. Burks was retained for the injury we mentioned the "abuse of process" and he told us to wait till after the injury, five years pass and this highly recommended attorney was caught stealing settlements. When we brought up the "abuse of process" issue to other attorneys in the discussion of "dog bite injury" and Mr. Burks stealing settlements - it brought out a chuckle.

The narrative from the Virginia State Bar is one of negligence, avoidance of responsibility to the public. The negligence of this agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia creates an environment where its members do not have to provide a functional service - after all they are regulated by damaged clients who are told that such cases are hard to win, of course this is in a biased environment. The institution demonstrates a disregard for the clients of its members.

My girlfriends breakdown and the CVS police assault.

I retained Mr. Raymond D. Kline for my girlfriend and he recommended Mr. Daugherty with the concept that they would team up to represent us. I gave him the same package I gave Mr. Daugherty this included ER doctor names, contacts for CSB doctors and identified the security video's. In court Mr. Kline had not contacted these doctors, did not attempt to refute criminal intent or present a narrative that would describe reactions to medications provided, problems with scheduling that resulted in trips to the Emergency Room. Such a narrative may not have mattered because the prosecutor in the case identified that they were on a crusade against people taking Zoloft, the prosecutor believed that the people were using the medication as an excuse. If this Mr. Kline had provided the narrative supporting his client at the minimum it would have demonstrated that he was a professional exercising "due diligence" on behalf of his client.

When I retained Mr. Donald R. Daugherty I provided him with an outline of the CVS police assault, documents that I had and identified that the assault occurred in a CVS store with security cameras which could verify my narrative of the situation. In court this attorney had not researched the case, had not reviewed the security video, was multi-casing and presumed me guilty. His narrative was minimal, presume me guilty and avoid contact attempts from jail, friends and correspondence. His narrative was to take money for no work but provide the illusion of service.