HOLODECK LAW

INTRODUCTION

BY LINDA KENENDY, J.D.

ATTORNEY NOT LICENSED IN VIRGINA!

(linking is in the works)

This is Mike D. Thanks for visiting this site. What you are about to read is an awesome testimony from one of our own whistle blowers, Linda Kennedy, attorney (and proudly not licensed in the state of Virginia). We give this disclaimer because those she has exposed for the good of the people of this nation are regularly trying to entrap her to discredit and even stop the great work she has done. Linda Kennedy has accomplished this work, not for vainglory or self-promotion, but for the sake of truth and integrity that should guide and direct each of us regardless of who we are or what we do. These entrappers will use some small time corrupt or mentally ill person(s) to make false allegations and then throw the entire weight of the system against her in spite of the lack of evidence or credibility, just to stop this message. Whether she is a plaintiff, defendant, or witness, just watch how simple matters will become complex once the retaliators step into the picture.

So everyone needs to read this with that kind of respect, understanding the sacrifices our true whistleblowers make in the face of this type of retaliation. This account she speaks of took place from 1996-2003, and there has been plenty of time to discredit her on these facts, yet, as of April 2010, no one involved on the other side has ever denied them. So watch out for anyone who, after all these years, suddenly finds what Linda Kennedy calls the “wet ink documents” or “documents on demand” which fake evidence would try to disprove what she has been saying for all these years. No suits were filed against her for telling this story, no days in jail, no allegations that she was lying, etc. These people Linda Kennedy has exposed are very big and very connected. So, if one day you hear that she has been arrested, or some other retaliatory act, whether directly because of this exposure, or through some veiled and apparent unconnected claims. . . well then, look at the culprits, not only in Virginia, but from Dave vonKleist and Joyce Riley, and others in the alleged “Alternative Media” as well, who have also been exposed in her books, videos and other media as the phonies they are. If you are not familiar with her other work, it is quite amazing and detailed in her follow-up and analysis in getting to the bottom of a situation.

Linda Kennedy truly is “THE PEOPLE’S LAWYER,” as she exemplifies what those who have been hurt by the system could only dream of. Below are excerpts from one of her books, “HOLODECK LAW,” Where Nothing is as it Appears. (Holodeck refers to the Illusion of justice that this book details. The book also gives you options on how to proceed when you are sucked into the “Litigation Vortex” as Linda Kennedy calls it). It is a must read. Bravo Linda Kennedy! Bravo!

The following is reproduced with expressed written permission of Linda Kennedy as it is copyrighted material. I had to retype everything into a web format from a hard copy so any errors should be attributed to me. I was also using one of her early manuscripts and not the final edition so there will be some other changes as we go. WE WERE ALSO HACKED TWICE ALREADY so we have had to start some of this over again. You will read why we are targets of hackers. It will become clear. There s also a second edition to this book. However, I could not link up her entire appendix-index as it was a book in itself. She has definitely provided proof beyond any doubt that this story is true using the courts own transcripts and records. I tried to give you a feel for what she had in this appendix however by linking up some of the material. If you see yellow highlighter I am still trying to gather that material and link it up to this writing and have not been able to do so yet because it is a lot of work and I do work full time. But, every American should read this all the way through. If you are reading this from any other site than this one at Precious Time Radio, however, know that this has been illegally stolen and may not be accurate. Read this Intro on Precioustimeradio.com/aboutlindakennedy.html ONLY. All other sites should be linked to this site and should not be carrying this information on their own site to at least try to keep her writing accurate and authentic. These people she opposes have tried to write under her name before, as well as other types of identity theft, cut and pasting her picture on pornographic sites, stealing her picture and doctoring it to look like a mug shot and posting it with claims that she is wanted in several states and so forth, and just in general, trying to defame her by using her own name even though it is not from her or not true about her. As of April 2010, Linda Kennedy has never been charged with any crime, never been arrested for anything, and hasn’t even had a speeding ticket in years and years. Her record is squeaky clean. When you read this account, you will see why so many are trying to defame, falsely arrest, bait and switch and otherwise trap her. There are eyewitnesses to this account and Linda has tried to protect them as much as possible as you will see why when you read this account. Apparently, some have gotten retaliated against in order to try to force them to clam something false about her so that she can be arrested. Thus far, nobody has been willing to do that in spite of the attempts by those who oppose her.

My suggestion is that you read the entire piece first, then go back and look at exhibits. I have reduced their size just so they would not take forever to download, but they may still take a little time to open. Also, if they are too small, use your mouse and click on the document to enlarge so you can read it. Your program may require a different method than a mouse click, but these documents are worth reading after you get the feel for the overall chapter first. It is amazing and enlightening proof of what is really going on in America today in spite of what we hear on the news and Linda Kennedy uses many proof sources and witnesses to tell this story!.

But, as you read this, be blessed. What a great work Linda Kennedy has put together, in Holodeck Law, Where Nothing is as it Appears, and what a great person who walks among us. She is truly an unsung American hero. Thanks K for letting us take a look inside your book “Holodeck Law.” Thanks for your insights, and most of all for your heart of a champion. I know many of us wished we had you as our lawyer, but we had to learn the hard way. Your sacrifice has not gone unnoticed and I am sure God is well pleased. Readers, let us get some more groups together so she can lecture to them live or on video conferencing, and then we can network more people who have received a real education and can tell others. Linda Kennedy is worth it. Mike D.

Please consider donating for Linda Kennedy to continue working hard for America in spite of what these people you read about continually do to her. You can donate by paypal but please note that Linda Kennedy does not want to be a 501(c)3 organization and it will be clear why she refuses to ask for government tax write offs as you read this Introduction.

</form></Center>

Please read donation guidelines if you do not understand the significance of a 501(c)3, and to what you are donating. Thank you.

If you do not see the paypal icon on this page, please go to Precioustimeradio.com and click on the paypal icon there. Thank you for you generous gift that helps keep the public informed.

INTRODUCTION TO WHO IS YOUR AUTHOR, LINDA KENNEDY

(I am working on putting each section of the chapter on a separate page so please excuse the construction. For now, it is all on one web page. Mike D.)

Greetings my good reader and thanks for deciding to venture onto an analysis of the Holodeck, Where Nothing is as it Appears by reading a book I authored called, “Holodeck Law.” I am Linda Kennedy. Publically, and for business purposes, I am known by my given first name Linda Kennedy. However, privately, and to good friends, I am called “Kennedy.” If you are reading this in good faith, Kennedy will do. If you are reading this for any other reason, then Ms. Kennedy will suffice (ok, just a joke). I am also occasionally known by my married last name “Collins” and you will see some documents that refer to me as “Collins” in this introduction.

I realize I am addressing a wide variety of people in this book Holodeck Law. Some are lawyers and judges, some are lay people in the area of law, some are Christians, some are not, and some have been hurt deeply by what I am going to describe to you here, and some have not experienced it for themselves. So this book and even this introduction has been a real challenge to write, where I can address each of you from where you live. But, I hope you will all be patient as you read, realizing I am dealing with a wide variety of readers, and my prayer is that you see my heart in this message, not for my sake, but for the sake of the message itself, which is way bigger than me.

In the mid 1990's I graduated from Regent University School of Law, passed the Virginia State Bar and began practicing law. At the time, I believed that the government was good and here to help us. Therefore, I decided I could never defend alleged "criminals" because they were probably guilty since the government who was here to help us was making allegations against them, and I did not want to be forced to help set them free when I knew they were guilty. I had discussions with some of my friends and colleagues but was conflicted when they would say that you had to defend alleged criminals because that is how you held the government accountable. I thought . . . accountable for what? They are here to protect the public and since we are all under the same rule of law in our system of blind justice, what accountability were my friends suggesting needed our attention. Here I was at Regent University School of Law, and I believed, Pat Robertson of all people would have told us if my belief was wrong, wouldn’t he? He was in politics right? If he witnessed something different than what he was preaching, he would have said we could not trust our leaders, whether they be the right/left paradigm of leadership (take your pick) or whether independent right? Wouldn’t he or someone else in leadership have blown the whistle on the accountability issue? One of them would have certainly said something right, I thought? And, if Pat Robertson knew there were problems that required us to hold both republican, democrats and independents accountable to such a degree as my friends were suggesting, wouldn’t he also only hire Christian Professors at his law school who would tell the truth about such matters, if he knew that we were being deceived by this system we live in, if that were so? But, I believed it all. I believed in the system. I believed the government was here to help us. I believed in voting for your favorite republican, democrat or independent. I believed the rule of law mattered and that we had the fairest system in the whole world. Oh, how naïve I was. But, I do not want to spoil my eye witness account so read on, dear friends, read on.

I am certain many of you have, or at least had, the same opinion, so I understand completely where you are coming from if you still hold that opinion today. I mean, when someone goes after an alleged "criminal" the style of the case says the "State v. the criminal," right? It says the "People v. the criminal," right? Or the "Commonwealth v. the criminal," right? The style of the case implies that government is allegedly standing in our place, the people, protecting us against these rogue individuals right? Sometimes the elected Attorney General even steps in so that we the people are protected right? That is the societal thinking on the Holodeck, where nothing is as it appears. However, in my years of practicing law, I found out that my beliefs had to be totally reworked as what I believed to be true, and what I was actually observing were two totally different realities. Although I was never a prosecutor and was not involved in putting people behind bars, I would still like to apologize publically to all those affected by the kind of thinking I described above. I would like to apologize to those who are in jail now or ever were in jail for alleged crimes they never committed, and even to those who may have been guilty of something small and ended up spending a lot of time behind bars due to unscrupulous people who were more interested in convictions than in truth and justice, including those lawyers and judges without conscience and those who work for them. To those of you who were or are affected by this type of societal belief that remains, please, with my deepest remorse, forgive me. I really didn't know. Now I do. And so I write this book, which includes my search for truth; and in searching for truth, I have had to unlearn everything I grew up believing. I have been unofficially unlearning for a long time, but on this particular topic, my unlearning began in 1996 and 1997. I have been unlearning and relearning since that time. And of course, if we take this life seriously, and we love truth and justice, our job to unlearn what we were taught when it conflicts with truth, and then relearn what is true never ends. Additionally, I believe that when we have proof of these untruths that affect many others, it is also our duty as truth seekers to make sure we do not then just stand idly by while others get sucked into the lie to their own demise.

I decided to write this book, "Holodeck Law," when I discovered that a lot of people were being affected and badly hurt by what I call the "Litigation Vortex." I write about the Litigation Vortex in the next chapter, dedicating an entire chapter to describing what it is, and then later, I go into more detail about the strategies and tactics of those who care little about truth and justice once you are caught in the Litigation Vortex, and then, later, give you some Plan B strategies (What to do when the law and facts don't matter, when you are caught in the Litigation Vortex) in order to assist you in escaping the sucking action of this Litigation Vortex. Many people identify with the Litigation Vortex when they read that specific chapter and I have gotten hundreds and perhaps thousands of responses to that chapter alone. I learned these Plan B strategies on what to do when the law and facts do not matter in the courtroom, from the very miscreants I write about here in this chapter as I observed how big civil defense firms and big prosecuting lawyers behave in and out of court, and how some judges protect and even promote these unethical and sometimes illegal activities. I learned how these miscreants are also protected all the way up to the Supreme Court of both Virginia and of the United States, which allows them to use these illegal tactics against whomever they please without detection by the public. I describe my Plan B strategies elsewhere in this book. The good thing though, is sometimes you will find a prosecutor or a civil defense firm lawyer with ethics. Unfortunately, more often than not, I have realized that you won't. And, in this Introduction you will learn that these favored status lawyers are protected and a part of the inside crowd at the Bar (the Virginia State Bar and other Bars). As they prove their willingness to be unscrupulous and follow orders, they then become many of the judges, who are approved by the very same Bars and the legislature who are almost all Bar members. And of course, they can also work at the Bar or be appointed by the Bar to some low level, honorary position, ready to do the Bar’s dirty work when called upon. I will get to that shortly.

Also, I have used the words, “miscreants,” and “minions” to describe some of the players in this account, not because I am trying to name call, but because I truly cannot come up with any other names that adequately describe these people. I guess I could use the word “creatures” and other names like that, but miscreant and minion seemed appropriate so when you read this, I hope you will not hear anger or sarcasm, but a true description of how I felt I could describe them. I have also changed the names of those who appear innocent and even some of the guilty (for now), unless they continue to make themselves an issue and continue in their bad acts which will force me to defend myself further. I have kept some of these people nameless in this chapter because although you need the background in this matter to understand the points I am making, my intention is not to get you all caught up in a bunch of names of small time minions. The bigger picture must not be lost on small potatoes.

And what is the bigger picture? The bigger picture is the lack of accountability in the courts, the media, and in our government as a whole, and what happens to those who really try to hold the system accountable through legal and nonviolent means (which is all I ever promote). Yes, my friends were really right on this one. . . even more than they realized I am sure. The system has to be held accountable, and they will never be if we buy into “self-policing,” secret hearings, and the “PERCEPTION” of public trust. And in addition, the picture even becomes bigger than this, and that is that we must put our trust in what is real, and not in mere perceptions of truth. We must do find the truth and then live it in order to live an honest and productive life while we are here. This statement will be described here in much more detail but please keep this bigger picture in mind as you read.

So here in this introduction, I hope you will focus, not on the bad acts of someone I was trying to help, or on the bad acts of those who were supposed to help me help that person, as they are all small potatoes and just described here so that you have the foundation for the bigger picture. In order for this book to make a difference in your life and in the lives of others, you must focus on how the legal system and the other branches of government and even the media (including the alleged Alternative Media), protect the interests of injustice and help demonize those who fight for justice. This is unlike what we have all been taught from cradle to the grave. This is different than what we hear in our churches where we are told that if you pay taxes and vote, that you are a good little Christian and God will bless you with money so you can go out and live your extravagant lives (I really paraphrased this one and I realize that, but the truth is that most Churches are not telling you the truth about what is really happening in America). In order to understand what I am telling you, you have to remember that these small potatoes; those low level miscreant-types that may come after you as plaintiffs or defendants are merely the tool that those behind the scenes use for their own interest and you have to be able to see that this is how the legal system really works. Those behind the scenes are able to do come after you behind the scenes through the use of deception and deception thrives when we unknowingly put trust in it and accept what we hear or what we were taught on its face without ever re-evaluating it. Sometimes the legal cases you hear about are in themselves legitimate, and sometimes they are not. But often, there are those who are handling the case from behind the scenes, who you cannot see or sue, who have a separate agenda apart from anything to do with the matter at hand, who are manipulating the case for their own purpose without any interest in justice, alleged Constitutional Rights, etc. That is what you need to see and that is what this Introduction is all about. I will explain this more later, but it is really important that you focus on the real issues I am describing, and not just on someone who may be doing you wrong in a courtroom or someone doing me wrong in a courtroom. My Plan B Strategies also works outside the courtroom, but they work best when those with the secret agenda can control all the rules and the alleged facts, and that is in courtroom.

If you are in a legal battle, and it appears that the law and facts are not mattering in your case, instead of focusing on the other side (plaintiff/defendant), ask why is this person (plaintiff/defendant) able to get away with so much, when what they are doing is obviously going against the rule of law and the facts in the case. ASK WHY? That will draw your focus toward the real culprits who are allowing someone to do some wrong at your expense. And again, not every case will be like this, and count yourselves blessed if this has not happened to you. Most of the time, you will see what I am describing when you are going up against big business or big government or when you or your witnesses are a target of the state for other reasons, such as when you are a whistleblower (a real one). So, if you have not witnessed what I am about to spell out, then, again, count yourself blessed. But, what I describe shines a much broader light on what is going on in America so even if you can say, I have never seen this before . . . remember that a wise man learns from the experiences of others but a fool must learn from his own. With that in mind, I provide background for you so you can get a good feel for what is happening in our court system, and in its alleged oversight by the method of “self-policing” by organizations like the Virginia State Bar and other Bars, on the bigger Holodecks, where nothing is as it appears. I then show you who knows this is happening and has chosen not to tell you, which leads to seeing the Bigger Holodeck called America, and if you really look closely, you will see some things ever bigger than this. So read and take heed as you learn more about whom you serve this day. My prayer is that God would richly bless all of you who are willing to read in good faith. And who knows, perhaps at the end, you will see why my faith in God is so strong and you will understand why we so desperately need to worship Him and Him alone.

“A good judicial system,” former Justice O’Connor said, “is essential in order to provide legal guarantees granted under a national constitution to a country’s citizens. Judges need to feel able to faithfully uphold their country’s laws and constitution, regardless of their views of other government branches or the public, she said.” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, 9/23/2003

“Nobody wins when the system is not above suspicion.” Justice Elizabeth Lacy, Virginia Supreme Court.

After you read through this website, then lets come back to these quotes shall we? These shocking facts below and all 2,000 pages of evidence were put before both of these Judges to see if they meant what they said to the public, or whether they were just giving “lip service” to create the “perception of public trust” that is based on deception and not reality

As I continue, I pray God brings those readers to this book: Judges, lawyers, and lay people alike who have a love for truth and justice. I pray those readers will then use this information to educate others so that what the system refers to as the “perception of public trust” can no longer be used to hide the truth. Such genuine truths (and not mere perceptions), although sometimes hard to learn or accept, must be the foundation of any viable society and the foundation of any life worth living. Otherwise, why have laws at all? What would be the purpose of them if they only count sometimes or not at all? Isn’t that what our media claims happens in other countries (Russia, Iraq, etc.)? Don't we often hear about the state owned and operated news in other countries and the "people's courts" that the Nazi's used which were far from fair and accurate? We supposedly have “the most fair justice system in the world” right? Haven’t you heard that statement more than a few times before? We supposedly have a free press. Isn't that one of the sacred rights we have as people . . . a free press and the right to free speech. As the Minister of Propaganda for the Nazis, Joseph Goebbels said, if you repeat a lie long enough, it sounds true. Is that what we are doing in America, to create the “perception” or truth instead of telling the truth? I know that seeking and understanding genuine truth has always been the goal for me. I hope it is for you too. So let us examine if we have heard real truth about our system, or have we been the victims of the Nazi-style propaganda creating a “perception of public trust” through countless repetition of the lie that claims that we have the fairest justice system in the whole world. And if you find out that you have believed propaganda, then look at the culprits of this propaganda. . . including, but not limited to our alleged “free press” that is actually privately owned and has no legal duty to tell you the truth. Then ask if perhaps you have been fooled on other fronts too, since nobody seems to be telling you stories like what is documented below even though I provide proof sources from the culprits themselves.

The Very Beginning of Unlearning so that I Could Finally See

I remember when I was a very young girl, and my dad decided to get involved in something called "politics." I didn't know what politics was exactly, but I was told that voting for our leaders was a very special right we all had as Americans. And my dad was trying to be one of these leaders. This process was presented to me as sacred since I was told that we had a choice on how we would be governed. I was told that even a poor man from nowhere could be president if it was our country's will, so I gave great homage to this process that was called "politics" because that is what I was taught as a child. I am sure many of you had the same understanding as did I.

Although my dad died before I was old enough to really know him very well, he was a poor man without any connections, but he had the "magic name" as the papers liked to call it: "Kennedy." And we were in the days of “Camelot,” where a Kennedy could do no wrong. So, although not related to "The Kennedy Clan" my dad did carry the name and that name was quite popular at the time for obvious reasons.

At the time also, a poor man running against the big named families, and yes, even winning, caused a big stir in the world of the political elite. And, now many years later, as you will read about in this introductory chapter, I realize that this poor man running for public office was a real problem for the connected politicians who handed down their royal heritage through their genetic tree to their sons from generation to generation to become the alleged leaders of the next generations in spite of our belief in voting and that anyone could be president.

For example, the Taft name was very big all around the country. Bob Taft had presidents, senators and many other “nobles” in his blood line. In fact, Taft ran for office after a national publication stated that, " Republicans had urged him to seek his father's Senate seat ever since the elder Taft died in 1953." This publication further stated that Taft had a "magic name" too, and that "[h]is family was a political asset due to their long standing connections. It was assumed that Taft's familial connection would be passed along once again to Bob Taft when my dad won his Democratic primary to run against the heavily favored Taft. And although my dad ran against several others like Taft before running against Taft, who had these connections, with my dad having the well recognized name of Kennedy, he was able to hold his own and even win something here and there in spite of being poor and a "nobody" in the eyes of the political elite.

As one might assume, and as I touched upon, the well established society did not like my dad being able to pierce their veil and trespass on their political realm. And again, even though from the time we are born we hear about how anyone can run for president, if you do a little research, it is very rare that anyone can make it to any significant level of politics without having family connections. Just look up how many presidents were related to one another. It is not by just mere coincidence that so many of them are related even though they do not happen to tell you that voluntarily. It is astounding. Or look at some of the judge’s courtrooms. Quite often you will see that their daddy and grand daddy before him/her sat on the same bench, and even in the same courtroom as that judge. You will also find that some of them have married into their own family (cousins, etc.) which is supposedly illegal in this U-S of A. Yes, family heritage plays a much bigger role in the United States in the realm of politics and “elected” leadership than we are led to believe, and for very good reason, which topic goes beyond this book although I have covered it in great detail elsewhere. Suffice it to say, my dad had none of these connections.

Because my dad was not connected and we were poor on top of it, my dad received a lot of criticism from the papers and the old world families who would say something like, “how dare he have the nerve to run against” so and so, and you fill in the blank for which man or woman of privilege fits there. Even the national news got into the act when a national publication criticized my dad for being poor and unconnected. It tried to make my dad out to be someone who didn't even care about politics and would indicate that my dad was not of the proper breeding to be a candidate. This one particular article claimed that "[w]hile some of the Democrats were respectable candidates (emphasis added) who campaigned hard, Kennedy, 38, spent only $300, rarely made a speech, even used leaflets sparingly." My dad was respectable in that he took the process very seriously, and he believed in the process, but he was poor and his family was unconnected so he was to be disdained having dared run against the elite. In this matter, as you will see, his sole error was that he too believed that anyone could be president. Wasn’t he just believing in the propaganda that we have heard all our lives. . .that anyone could be president? I can honestly say that $300 to our family was like a million dollars to the elite. But in politics, truth does not matter, perception matters. And that includes the media covering the stories. It is the picture they choose to paint that then controls our thinking. It is not the truth, but merely the perception we allow those we trust to paint. Because we believe we have a free press, and we believe that the press tells us the truth, or perhaps maybe it slants the story based on its beliefs, but would never outright lie to us, then we trust what they say is news. Deception works because we trust the phony messenger. As you read, keep these “perception mantras” in mind and think about how true they really are and if perhaps, you have heard a lie once too often and accepted it as true without thinking it through due to it being repeated so often.

But back to my dad, on one particular campaign some politicians were trying to buy him off and the rumors were rampant in the news papers that the Politicians were trying to pay my dad off. The paper actually did a caricature of my dad sitting on his poor man's throne while politicians threw money at him. I threw in another few headlines in this collage for you, but yes, my dad was respectable indeed. Although poor, some people just can't be bought as you can see from the brief collage in this appendix, indexed at the end of the book. And although I didn’t understand all of this at the time, and have only recently looked into this matter more thoroughly, the legacy of being true to who you are, and not being bought off, was the legacy my dad was able to leave for me. Little did I know that someday I would have to fight the same battle myself.

Through all of this, as I have been told, my dad endured several attempts on his life, and he was regularly told that his family would be in danger if he continued to run for public office. I do remember this as we had to be very careful wherever we went. But my dad continued to run. On the day of one of these elections, my dad died. At about 4:00 A.M. a family member called the hospital which was right around the corner from our rented upstairs apartment, because my dad was complaining of stomach pains according to one of the papers, but the ambulance never came. So a family member ran to the hospital which was right around the corner, and found out there was no record of a call from my house. By time the ambulance finally arrived (3 plus hours later), at around 7:00 A.M., he was dead. The story as I understand it was that there was no autopsy performed and although the officials were calling it a heart attack, the papers reported that my mother kept saying he was complaining about his stomach and not his chest or heart. As I sat on the couch with my brother learning that my dad had died, and although I was only 5 years old, there was one thing I knew for sure . . . I would never want to get into this alleged honored profession called "politics." As you will read, all this thinking would change when I got older which is part of the subject of this Introduction. Suffice it to say, that I forgot what my dad’s experience had taught me as a little girl. And so, I had to unlearn and relearn on my own much later as you will read about here. And yes, sometimes fools have to learn from their own experience. That includes me!

So as life slowly went back to "normal" if you could call it that, I went back into my slumber thinking that the system was respectable again, and that our vote and the right to choose our leaders was almost a religious experience. That is what I heard throughout my public school education, and I heard it enough to believe it because I trusted the messenger. That is what all my teachers taught me in school, as I am sure you have had a similar experience in your schools. And I trusted them, of course, and I am sure most if not all of them really believed that. Well, I found out eventually that this was not always so, and my story is going to focus on how I came to that realization . . .that not everything is as it appears, and in telling you this story, I am going to show you some of the many, many proofs that I have that took me on a journey (some call it a nightmare) that I would not want anyone else to endure. That is another of the main reasons for this introduction, my book "Holodeck Law," and in sharing my story.

As I have said already, there is a saying that goes something like this: "A wise man learns from the experiences of others, but a fool must learn from his own." My wish is that you learn and apply what I am telling you throughout this book, Holodeck Law, so that when it is your turn to be sucked into what I call the "Litigation Vortex," you will at least start defending yourself from a position of knowledge and strength instead of believing in fairy tales about Consitutional Rights that we have been taught are true. Hopefully you will not have to spend two or three years and much of your money in the learning process of fools because nobody told you this story. By then, it may be too late for you to recover the onslaught, and you may be too emotionally damaged to be able to put up a strong, legal, nonviolent fight, which is what I always advocate. No violence, no illegality. So be strong my friends, and learn. If you are already in the Litigation Vortex, do not lose hope. I have provided some “Plan B Strategies” for you. They are to be used when the law and the facts don’t seem to matter to the authorities in your situation. Do not use them on the offense or you become the very people I expose here. Use them only defensively. They are all legal and nonviolent when used properly, and I learned them by observing some of the illegal strategies and tactics that these big civil defense firms and big time government lawyers employ on a regular basis with immunity from discipline, even though they use them in unethical and even illegal ways. You can use these tactics in a legal, nonviolent way, once you understand the principles behind them and the playing field on which you are.

I dedicate this book to my late Mother, who died 5 years after my dad, when I was 10. Without her loving strength to help me and my family past those earlier tragic years, I don’t know if I would have survived. And that same love and strength helped me survive this ordeal you are going to read about in this introduction, as well as many other discoveries I have made since the time of these events that go beyond the scope of this book. And my mother’s love also paved the way for me to accept the Lord Jesus Christ into my life as well. And after you read this book, I think you will see why we need a savior in this world. Thanks Mom. God loves you and so do I. Thank you, God, for who You are and for sending Jesus Christ to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. May You now send them to this book so that they can see that You are the only one we can put our trust in.

Law Career in Brief: Graduated from Law School

I graduated from Regent School of Law in December 1995, having finished school early, and walked with my class in 1996 for my official graduation. I chose Regent University, and only Regent University, because I wanted to be trained in the most ethical way I could be and I believed that would be so if I was learning from committed Christians. Being a Christian, I wanted to make sure I thought out all the Biblical issues before being confronted with them for the first time in real life as a lawyer without first having a plan on how to ethically deal with these matters. And the funny thing is I never wanted to be a lawyer. I was praying to God for many years, what He would have me do to serve Him honorably with whatever years He gave me, and according to His will for my life. Finally, I believed I received an answer to my prayers. I was always an activist of sorts. I always had compassion for those in need, and would start shelters or assist with the homeless whenever possible. So, eventually, as I was going through law school and getting into the practice of law, I realized that my calling was to help those who couldn't afford legal services, and to try to make a difference in their lives so that they could get up from their financial death beds to a brighter future. In these people’s lives there was usually a very strained marriage, they were losing their jobs and homes and things like that. So once I helped them through the quagmire, then many times, I would waive much of my fee if they would just go to church with me one time, which I then hoped would help them in mending their relationships, so they could be more productive in God’s service and plan for their lives. I helped them avoid divorce, avoid bankruptcy, and things like that, but also I helped them to find what was really most important in life and that the things that we tend to most worship, i.e., money, cars, boats, planes and trains, are really not all they are cracked up to be. I tried to show them that serving God is really where one’s happiness comes from. Interestingly, to anyone I made the offer to waive much of my fee if they would just come to church with me one time, each one went to church with me, and not a one took any money back. So, I had really great relationships with my clients because they knew I was sincere about what I was doing and that I knew that God loved them and wanted the best for them and so did I. Regent School of Law seemed perfectly suited for what I believed to be my calling in life because Regent’s mission statement was, "Christian Leadership to Change the World."

So, realizing I needed to go to only Regent, I sold most of my things, left a good paying, but very unsatisfying job, qualified to go to Regent and I was off to law school. When I arrived at Regent in Virginia Beach, there was a situation going on that involved Pat Robertson and the now former Dean. There was a lot of arguing and name calling and a general feeling of anger and distrust that involved both faculty and students. Sides were being taken and name calling and accusations were flying. I tried to understand the issues, but could never get clarity on who was doing what to whom. It was an awful situation and was a major issue for the entire school almost my entire time there. It was very disheartening to see Christian people fighting as they were, especially when nobody could clearly state what they were fighting about. I would actually hold parties for those professors who were being fired, even though I didn’t know many of them, simply because I didn’t want to see Christians shooting their wounded (figuratively speaking) and leaving them hanging out to dry. No matter who was right in the arguments, I knew that we could not do that to these men and women who chose to come to Regent for a Christian purpose. It was a very discouraging time to say the least. By the time I graduated, I was really worn out over all the arguing and accusations, and good professors being fired, and the he said, she said, where nobody could give me a clear explanation about what the problem was/were. Although I really tried to understand the issues, as I did not want to follow a false leader, if Pat Robertson was false, for some reason, nobody could clearly explain the problem(s) to me in a way that would make sense. So I left there very tired of the whole Regent experience. By that time, I was in major debt due to the school not having federal funds allocated to it at the time, so I just needed to get a job so I could start paying off my law school debt. I was even a little mad at God (I have since asked for His forgiveness), for thinking that I was supposed to go to law school and go to Regent.

Handled Workers' Compensation & Longshoreman Claims

Eventually, I started practicing law. But first, I spent a year with a company that handled insurance claims. Through several controversies, in which I witnessed an Insurance administrator work with lawyers in Norfolk to change doctor's reports, hire fake witnesses, and the like, and with me telling those witnesses not to lie no matter what, I decided to go on my own and open my own firm and help some of the people these administrators and lawyers were hurting through their doctoring of evidence and witnesses. It was in the field of worker's compensation and Longshoreman's work (Longshoreman’s Compensation is the federal version of state worker's compensation). I also took on an employment law case in Norfolk Federal Court which is part of the subject of this introduction and I will dedicate time to this matter momentarily.

The worker’s compensation work was very difficult though in that there was a lot of pain and suffering these victims of injuries were experiencing. This was especially true with the Longshoremen. Other than a few companies that were honest and ethical, most were not honorable to these workers, and the workers were actually treated with no respect, and when they became injured, they were treated as the enemy of the employer (not all employers were like this, but there were many who were and it was awful. . . I have referenced some of my stories in the appendix which is indexed where you can see several documents referenced. I do this because some of these miscreants do need to be named in this case, because they were hurting so many people). The standard mode of operation from these bad employers was when a worker was injured, funds were cut off immediately and medical care denied as a routine practice, no matter the facts or law, in order to try to starve the employee out so he would just give up and move on. Medical treatment, even if given, was steered to certain facilities that would do whatever was necessary to help cut the employee off from further benefits and so on and so forth (those names are also indexed with proof sources). Fortunately, there were some good, honest doctors in the mix also, but they knew if they didn’t “behave” they would not get repeat business from these big companies. And that was the doctor’s lifeblood. There were also other forms of retaliation that could be used against the good doctors which goes beyond the scope of this chapter, but many are not as independent as they may appear due to the laws in Virginia giving power to the employers and big civil defense firms in these matters.

Because I had spent a little time in the claims department of the insurance administrator right out of law school, I knew how they and their civil defense firms operated. So, now as a plaintiff’s lawyer, I would be working diligently on my clients’ matters getting those doctors who really did care about their patients to understand the situation as it related to workers' compensation laws. I would get them to use the proper language in order to describe the injury accurately from a legal perspective so that they would not inadvertently hurt the employee’s chances of receiving benefits. For example, even though a doctor may use the words "flare-up," "exacerbation," and "aggravation," interchangeably, some lawyers and judges made a lot of money for the employers and insurance carriers by making these terms mean something different legally. So if a doctor used the wrong medical term, the employee was cut off from benefits even though, medically, the terms were interchangeable. This is typical of Virginia Law where our lawyer-infested legislature has made laws that do not favor employees in Virginia in worker's compensation, employment law, unemployment benefits and the like. Virginia is pro-business and not pro-people and one only has to delve just beneath the surface into employment matters to figure that out. In fact, you will see in a Supreme Court Brief, my first Issue Presented before them was that the laws in Virginia make it impossible for a lawyer to represent an employee in an employment law matter because any recovery will be only a small percentage of what the lawyer has to pay in order to take the case through to its completion, thus Virginia Laws deny access to the courts for a plaintiff in an employment law matter because plaintiff’s lawyers cannot afford to take these cases. It is the same for worker’s compensation cases.

And for an example of how the legislature makes laws that are not favorable to the employee, in worker's compensation laws, at least when I practiced, a plaintiff's lawyer would make about $250 per completed case if it did not settle. This amount would come out of the injured worker's award if any, which is generally very small (not like personal injury recoveries). On the other hand, the civil defense lawyer, representing big business, including employers and insurance carriers, had no such limit and could bill hourly. So while a plaintiff's lawyer is making $250 if the lawyer wins in court, the defense lawyer is making $10,000-$15,000 per the same case. Although this sounds like the injured worker is being protected by the small fee a plaintiff’s lawyer receives, what it actually did is it made it almost impossible for a lawyer representing an injured employee/plaintiff to make a living in worker's compensation law. So the plaintiff had very few choices of who he could go to in order to receive representation. He would end up having to go to a worker's compensation mill where a firm just grinded hundreds of these cases through, with little time to approach the cases the way I was willing to go about it; giving each person individual attention, visiting doctors, and strategizing for the injured worker so that he or she got the best result possible in a system that does not favor the employee. And injured workers having to go to a workers’ compensation mill for legal services leads to the more deceptive part of the law in Virginia that hurts the injured worker. In order for a workers’ compensation mill to stay in business, the lawyer had to get settlements. They couldn’t live on $250.00 a case if the case went through the entire process, and it would take too much time to give individual attention to the many cases that needed it. So with a settlement, the workers’ compensation mill might get 1/4 of that settlement which although still small, is much more than $250. So the defense attorneys know that if the plaintiff's attorney demands too much or is a stickler on a point that the defense attorney just doesn't like, the defense attorney can just say I won't settle with you then, and the plaintiff's attorney has to go through a year’s work to get $250.00 if he wins, and that is a big if in Virginia. Meanwhile the worker is without a job, medical care, etc. At the same time, the defense attorneys are ringing up the bill on their side because the case has been prolonged, i.e., more billing time. So even though the law appears to help the injured worker by making the plaintiff’s attorney fee very low, what the law actually does is help keep the injured worker's settlement low because the defense attorney gets to call the shots or refuse to settle, and it helps the defense firm control the plaintiff’s attorney’s level of pursuit on the plaintiff’s behalf. Even worse, for those few of us who would not sell out to the defense firms demands, we were not only blacklisted for that case (refusal to settle under any circumstances), but I was told more than once, that the defense firm would never settle with me on ANY CASE every again. I have referenced some of them in the appendix because they should be named. For you lawyers reading this, you know that this is a violation of the ethics rules isn't it? But, when these defense firms are the same ones whose partners write and teach the CLE's (Virginia State Bar approved ethics course that make money for the Bar), the same as those who are some of the bar presidents (not all), and who sign our licenses to practice law, who exactly are we going to complain too? Keep remembering that question when you say, “but they can’t do that.”

So anyway, I was winning all my cases, because I knew how the defense firms sat on these files and billed outrageously while the attorney did nothing. Meanwhile, I was out there busy, getting my client's case in its best possible position before the defense firm even knew what hit them. Additionally, I had been in contact with the local unions and some of them wanted me to replace their longstanding representatives as their union attorney. Although I was approached several different times, the unions were unfortunately too afraid to fight as hard as they would need to in order to get the benefits they really wanted and needed. Some were happy fighting and winning the right to have a "hamburger day" where the employer had to buy them a hamburger once a month. I told them they needed to fight for better benefits and protection, especially in case of injury, so that they could buy their own steaks instead. But they were very scared and I certainly understood their concerns. Even though I turned down several offers for this type of representation, I did start a worker's compensation union, where workers from all over the state, in spite of what union or employer they worked for or with, could ban together and help protect each other's alleged rights to be treated fairly when they were injured. This began to take off, even garnering about 13 minutes on a 30 minute news show on a main Tidewater TV channel. When the TV reporter wanted to do a follow-up story, the station told her she could not do so because if my work caught on, we would close the shipyards. Of course that was never my goal. My goal was that people be treated fairly and honestly. And there is room for this with any employer. I knew some employers who were fair and honest. They were good to their workers and tough on fraud. It worked. It can be done. If instead, we used Virginia’s reasoning, and the reasoning of this TV station, and were worried about closing down a facility more than worrying about the welfare of people, we wouldn’t even have child labor laws today. And what about the end of slavery? Would that have ever happened if we were so worried about business, that we sacrificed the rights of the individual? But such is Virginia, including the media. They are not pro-people. Their laws deceptively protect business, not people. They only give people the "perception" of being fair. And they are not alone.

But, in the midst of this, as I said, I was also told by these big law firms that no defense firm would ever settle a worker’s compensation case with me again, which suddenly put my clients in danger. As such, I had to pass off all of my cases to one of the workers' compensation mills, to the one guy I felt would treat them right. He accepted and settled almost all the cases fairly quickly as they were ripe for settlement. He had to promise the defense firms that none of that settlement money would go to me before he settled even though that is another ethical violation. Needless to say, I cannot comment any further on that matter to protect the innocent. But, again lawyers reading this . . . that's unethical at least, right? They were actually breaking the rules of ethics that we are held to (allegedly) as lawyers and the Virginia State Bar, if honest, would have rushed in to discipline them right? They are supposed to anyway. And these culprits are from big firms especially in Norfolk . . . you would know their names and you can look on your law licenses for signatures of some of those who are partners in their firms (indexed with references and proof sources in appendix). So who would I have complained to?

Handled an Employment Law Matter as First Official Court Case

At the same time, I had been put in contact by one of the workers' compensation workers with a lady who had allegedly been sexually harassed while working for Milcom Systems in Virginia Beach. Milcom is some sort of government contractor that works on ships. I took this case even though the lady's former attorney missed deadlines at the lower level (The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC) which rendered those claims void. My client told me initially and throughout the case that the only things she wanted were for the employer to leave her alone, purge her file and she wanted to make sure they let her keep her job. Not to let the cat out of the bag, but I got her all these things which is almost impossible to get in Virginia, especially when her prior attorney already missed deadlines in the case. She told me this was all she wanted several times throughout the case including when negotiations with Milcom started becoming more serious. My goal in becoming a lawyer, and the reason I left a good life financially, was for the ministry of helping those who had been destroyed financially. I wanted to try to get them on a positive road to being productive in the service of God’s work, for these reasons, I decided to take her case (this realization of my purpose in life occurred over time). This was a ministry for me though, as I called my firm “WBF Legal” which "WBF" meant “Walking By Faith.” I took her case because I could see that she had been treated unfairly and unjustly by her employer and they were taking no responsibility in trying to make it right, but instead, back dating documnets and trying to cover their tracks. In fact, they were retaliating against her because she complained about being harassed. However, I also knew I had to keep the doors to my office open, and to do that I needed to make some money too. Unfortunately for me, I was a sucker for a hard luck story, as you will see. This lady had seen several attorneys who refused to take her case as it was not a strong case that would yield a lot of money, if any, especially in Virginia of all places, because the employment laws in Virginia were so harsh to employees. And that goes for both State and the Federal Court laws, especially how they are applied in the 4th Circuit (Virginia). Additionally, there was the matter of her prior lawyer already missing deadlines which took away some of her legal claim. Henry “Hank” Sadler, Esq., was one of the attorneys who refused to take her case, even though it is my understanding that he had done other work for my client and her boyfriend. Remember his name. You will see it again here.

But the bottom line is that I made it clear to my client that this was not a case where money would be made, and that she should not expect any. She was clear on that and this was not our goal in this case. I was taking her case because nobody would help her, and because she said her goal was to save her job and get the harassers to leave her alone. I told her that this would be my goal as well, and that she had to make sure these goals were worth the money she would have to spend, which if it didn’t settle quickly would be very expensive. I made it clear to her that she had to pay for any and all expenses related to the case because I could not fund it since I was barely making money to keep the doors open as it was, and under the Rules of Professional Responsibility, the ethical code that governs an attorney’s behavior, it is/was unethical for a lawyer to fund a case (certain types of case are a little different, but you are not supposed to fund an employment law case).

As I described above, I had been taking cases for people who needed access to the courts but who couldn’t get it, or couldn’t get individual attention, due to the crazy laws in Virginia that support employers over workers to such a great degree, that employees could be physically or financially destroyed without recourse, especially if no lawyer would be willing to take the case. I will explain more of that while I tell you more about this situation. But, I also told my client that if this case went sour and the employer, or more likely the employer’s attorney, continued to play hardball, they would try to close my office down through the constant writing and submission of frivolous motions and hearings, so that I would have no time for any other business all in an attempt to get rid of her case. No lawyer could survive that type of attack and if the judge allowed it, against the rules, then the plaintiff’s lawyers business would be ruined. So my client also agreed to hire and pay for any help that would be necessary to try to fend off these tactics, and pay for at least one other attorney, if needed. This was all agreed upon in writing, and I reminded her of this in many writings and other contacts. I left nothing to chance, in particular, because I had dealt with Van Deventer Black attorneys already and that is who was representing the employer and, in my opinion, having dealt with them previously, they were not known for their integrity or in following the rule of law or ethics. I had also dealt with Milton Tomas Lucas, the Milcom Systems attorney, who was from Van Deventer Black. Milcom Systems was the employer in this matter and they were government contractors receiving large bids from the Navy. In my opinion Thomas Lucas was the least ethical attorney I had met up to that point, although others at that firm ran a close second. I had witnessed him employing hard ball and unethical tactics before. Relatively speaking, as you read on, I now think he is a mere lightweight when it comes to the topic of unethical attorneys. As bad and outrageious as he was, you will see there is worse, and some of this is documented in this introduction.

Much of my writing on Plan B Strategies (what to do when the law and facts don’t matter) is based on my experiences with Tom Lucas. Unfortunately, I have met much worse since then, and most are not even attorneys (they are in the alleged “Alternative Media,” aka Dave vonKleist, Joyce Riley and others). This goes beyond the scope of this book, and is addressed elsewhere. But the good thing, and so I am not misunderstood here, there are also some wonderful attorneys and judges I have met who, once they hear my account and see the overwhelming evidence, are on board with me and are willing to fight the good legal, nonviolent fight to help all people have equal access and fairness in the court system in spite of itself). Unfortunately, some of them will face the same fate as have I. All of us who are working together to try to bring about change in the justice system, know that we have a long way to go in that regard, but without a fair justice system . . . and without an honest media to keep these stories in front of the public, then what I document below will continue to happen. And this is precisely why we need God folks. We need something to believe in that is solid and honest in spite of what is going on in this world. But, back to this account.

I had never represented a client in Federal Court before, and this was my first case I would have to file for a client in any court. My client’s deadline to file was coming fast, so I had to swear in to Federal Court so I could represent her at all, I had to research the issues, learn the facts since this case was already two years old, and then file a complaint within the time remaining trying to work around the fact that the first lawyer missed some deadlines making much of her claim void. If you have ever heard of the Federal 4th Circuit's "rocket docket," it is a real experience (and not a good one). The rocket docket refers to the speed at which these cases fly through the court in the 4^th Circuit. And again, this “rocket docket” may sound like a good thing in that cases do not get dusty because they move through there so fast, but unlike the state courts in Virginia (when it follows the law), something called “summary judgment” matters in federal court. This means that although you have requested a jury trial (which is supposedly your right), the judge can rule that you do not have a case, simply because the defense would not cooperate, give you the documents that they must give you by law and so on and so forth. So if the Judge is promoting big business (which they are not supposed to do in the fairy tale world we were taught about in school. Judges are supposed to be fair, impartial, neutral, and only working within the law). So, back to summary judgment, it behooves the big civil defense firm to drag their feet, stall, stonewall, and in bad faith be ridiculously unresponsive to anything they are required to do by law, so that they can beat you to the summary judgment finish line and get the judge to dismiss the case before you have a chance to show you have a legitimate case, just because you could not receive the documents or do the depositions you were attempting to do, because they refused to be cooperative and the Judge didn't make them cooperate. Without the documents that are under the control of the opposition, you only have allegations and not proof. So, if a Judge permits such unethical and illegal behavior on the part of the defense, the facts cannot be proven and you do not get to go before a jury even though that is supposidly your right . . . to have a jury trial.

This speedy trial nonsense is yet another fiction of the law that appears to help the plaintiffs in a civil case or criminal defendants in a criminal case, but actually it helps the big defense firms and prosecutors if they employ bad faith tactics to keep justice out of your grasp by refusing you the evidence you need to prove your case before summary judgment is reached in a civil case, or before the trial in a criminal case. These rules of ethics and law only work when everyone is acting ethically and within the bounds of the law, and only if the Judges and State Bar intend to enforce these rules. But if one of the lawyer’s is not working withint the law, and the judge and/or Bar is not willing to discipline that lawyer, then you have such nonsense and madness that was basis for me writing my chapter on Plan B: What To Do When The Law and Facts Don't Matter." When the system protects those who abuse the process for a different agenda, then there is no justice but only the perception of justice. When those in position to police the offenders are the offenders and their partners, and they are the ones who then select the judges, then their is no hope for justice whatsoever.

And with that Federal Suit being filed on behalf of my client, the defendant Milcom Systems had the perfect bad faith attorney in Thomas Lucas, who would carry on their strategy of being what I would term absolutely classless. You will read about some of this, and each item I discuss is filed in the Virginia State Courts, including the Virginia Supreme Court, and the Federal Courts, including some in the U.S. Supreme Court and with the Virginia State Bar. Tom Lucas was at the time practicing at Van Deventer and Black, but in the middle of litigation, moved to McGuire, Woods, Battle and Boothe (Virginia Chief Justice Leroy Hassell's firm and the firm ranked the biggest in Virginia, withoffices in several countries). Lucas took this employment law case with him to his new firm at McGuire Woods. In addition, I was working against two other big law firms in Virginia as there were two other defendants.

Without going into mega details, Thomas Lucas stonewalled me at every turn. He would not turn over the most basic of evidence, he would withhold deposition dates, saying he forgot his calendar with a sadistic smile, and then not return my calls preventing me from taking depositions by avoiding the scheduling of dates; he would send me bad faith motion upon motion to try to keep me busy answering them so that I would not be able to file motions to compel information (a way to put the issue before the judge so I can get the information he was supposed to produce), he would threaten to close down my business to make me quit and force my client to fend for herself against him, etc. This is not just my opinion of Tom Lucas. You will see later that he got called on the carpet, albeit just for a moment.

In one situation, my client had a document from Milcom that I was asking for from Milcom itself that by law they had to produce and turn over to me. I needed to get the document directly from Milcom Systems to confirm that this was indeed a document that came from them in that it was a genuine and real document that they were acknowledging was legitimate. Otherwise, you show up with that document and they deny it is theres and you have nothing. It is a type of authentication. Milcom, through Lucas, kept saying that they did not have such a document and that they did not even have the capability of making such a document (this was a key document that went to the crux of one of the causes of action). Interestingly, however, Milcom had already turned over to the EEOC 1-2 years before other documents in that exact same format as the one I was asking for, so they were lying in saying they could not produce a document in that format. But, that was only part of it. I needed that exact document and I knew they had it. In truth, they just did not want to acknowledge the legitimacy of that document because it was vital to proving part of my client’s case against them. What they were trying to do is say that the document that I had was not from them so therefore it could not be used as evidence against them. The judge kept saying that Milcom said they could not produce that type of document so I needed to move on. Finally, after several hearings, I was able to show the judge, in spite of himself, that they did have the capability to make such a document and indeed did make such documents in that exact format in that they had turned over a slew of them to the EEOC a year or two before in that format. With that, Lucas got up and said, well then that document I have is a stolen document (So if my client stole the document, doesn’t that mean that Milcom did own that document, and could have produced it and repeatedly lied to the court about it before?). And with that, the judge ruled that it was a stolen document and had to be returned to Milcom Systems. So I returned the document right in the courtroom in front of the Judge and then asked the Judge for that document back in my motion to compel discovery requests as this was a document they should have given to me by law. Amazingly, but typical of what these judges do, to this request the judge said no, Milcom did not have to turn over the document because Milcom said they could not produce such a document. And back to the beginning I went while Tom Lucas was permitted to lie to the court and withhold vital evidence with the help of the judge, while they raced to summary judgment, to prevent my client from getting a jury trial which she was supposed to have as of right. That is the 4th Circuit rocket docket and Virginia where the laws protect the employer and the employer's unscrupulous attorneys even when it gets really ridiculous like this, and when the law doesn't outright protect them, then these minions just make it up as they go, no matter how rediculous it is. Who is going to know? Who is going to tell? Who is going to discipline them when they own the disciplinary system?

At one point, the Judge told me about only two cases that ever made it to trial (or that he considered a success or something like that, but the point doesn't change). He said one case the plaintiff won and the jury awarded the plaintiff a buck or some incredibly unreasonable award, and the other was some similar horror story as the judge tried to convince me to go away and take this case with me. This is the judge mind you. Welcome to Virginia. During all of this, my client got up and testified that she witnessed how Tom Lucas kept threatening to report me to the bar to gain an advantage in litigation, and other such nonsense as this, which of course is unethical according to the Virginia State Bar's own rules of ethics.. The Bar supposedly MUST discipline any attorney who tries to threaten another attorney with a bar complaint in order to gain an advantage in the litigation. Those are the Virginia State Bar rules of ethics. Here the judge and as you will see, the bar knew all about this, but refused to pursue Tom Lucas. So, where does an attorney or a claimant go to report the complete breaking of these rules, laws, etc., if the Judges and the firms who are intertwined with the bar are the ones doing it or permitting it?

Additionally, Lucas began attacking me personally so that I would have to withdraw for the benefit of my client just as his firm did in the worker’s compensation cases. At this point, my client had already defaulted on me several times by not even attempting to keep up with the huge bill that was mounting, due to the tactics Lucas was employing which I had warned her about, and because of this, I was sleeping on the floor at a friend’s house because I could no longer afford to stay in my own place due to having to fund her case. It was about this time that I also sold my car to get some money for this case, because she would no longer pay money toward it. I was tired of not getting the support I needed in order to continue this mess, while being personally attacked by Tom Lucas, all with the Judges approval. I was working hard to keep my client employed and at the same time I was sleeping on the floor and selling my car because she kept defaulting on me. What is wrong with this picture? So I told my client I was going to have to withdraw now that Tom Lucas was trying to make this case about me instead of the facts. So, she hired another attorney (attorney #1) because I was going to seek permission from the court to withdrawal dueto Lucas trying to sabotage this case by making me an issue. But, as you will read, when I tried to withdraw, my client wanted the court to keep me on anyway (I am Linda Kennedy Collins in these transcripts which was my married name). So my client hired this “attorney #1” because I was withdrawing. However, the court refused to allow me to withdraw because my client wanted me to stay on the case. This will be important later when the court and bar claimed that I hired attorney #1. How could I have? Attorney #1 was hired by my client because I put in my withdrawal motion into the court which was then denied by the court because my client didn’t want me out of the case. It says it right in the transcript of the hearing. So I was stuck with this attorney #1 who would quickly start ruining the case almost beyond repair. And, because I couldn't get out of the case and my client would not fund her own case even though she was working, I was getting stuck with the bill also and my office doors were closed to any other business because Tom Lucas was sending me motion after motion that I had to answer in order to keep me occupied and unable to get the documents I needed to prove the allegations we made.

Before I continue with the story, let me show you just one example of how hard these hard ball tactics were that these civil defense firms use against a plaintiff and the plaintiff’s attorney that never gets punished by the court or the Virginia State Bar. These lawyers are the people who run the Virginia State Bar, who are partners of those who run the bar, they are judges from these firms, and even the Chief Supreme Court Judge in Virginia. And it is the Bar and these favored attorneys who run for office and are allegedly "voted" into office and then these bar-infested legislators and the Virginia State Bar select as judges who are lawyers from these firms and others like them. As you read this this example, keep asking why in the world would such criminal activity go unpunished as you read this and you will begin to see how bad the situation really is. I will provide just a small portion of the evidence that I have in order to give you this illustration, but there is much more to this story than what I provide here.

There was a major issue that arose during litigation where Milcom Systems was suggesting that the EEOC acted improperly by talking to someone from Milcom in the EEOC’s investigation of the case. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a federal government agency that supposedly protects the people from Milcom and Lucas type behavior, but in reality they have no teeth to enforce anything so once again, although they are nice people who work hard and some know exactly what I am talking about here, they are paper tigers to give the public the "perception" of protection and fairness. They have no power to make anybody do anything including making the employer or the employer attorney cooperate with them in their investigation. And this investigation goes on for up to two years, while the employer's attorney bills his client for not cooperating, but often giving the appearance of doing something for the employer.

This alleged wrong doing on the part of the EEOC was during the time before I was on the case. It later came out that the EEOC did not do anything inappropriately, and Milcom and Tom Lucas knew the EEOC investigator was innocent of any alleged violation and had not been involved in any wrong, but that did not stop them from threatening the investigator of the EEOC to gain an advantage in litigation also.

The story is that Milcom System intercepted and taped or otherwise recorded or digitally imprinted a conversation between the EEOC and my client while my client was at work. This was a 3^rd party taping of a conversation which is illegal in Virginia, since Milcom wasn’t a party to the conversation (it is legal to tape a conversation in Virginia if you are a party to the conversation). Milcom was alleging that this conversation involved the illegal contact by the EEOC of one of their workers, which was not true and Milcom knew it was not true as it came out in later depositions. So Milcom was claiming that the EEOC investigator told my client in this conversation, that she had talked to another Milcom employee, and Milcom was claiming that that was an illegal contact, even though they knew it was not. But, when I received the case about a year or two after this recorded conversation, and started going through the mounds of documents rom the EEOC investigation, I noticed this taping issue come up in the investigators hand written notes and saw what was really happening. I started pursuing the story as it had everything to do with the case as I will explain momentarily.

Anyway, Milcom kept denying that they taped any conversation and it took me months to finally get Tom Lucas cornered enough so that I could depose the President and Vice President of Milcom who were the ones involved in this apparent misdeed. Of course, they were pretending to not know anything about this taping as you will read in the appendix I have provided. I not only had to fight for months to get these people scheduled to be deposed because Lucas kept “forgetting” his calendar and would not return calls, letters, kept delaying my motions for a demand for dates, etc., but I also had to fight for evidence that was constantly being hidden and destroyed, made up, etc. When I finally cornered the court enough to give me permission to depose or receive documents, then, I had to wait several more weeks to schedule because Tom Lucas would still continue to“forget” his calendar and then he again wouldn’t return calls. . . bla bla bla. And the court allowed all these shenanigans to continue without intervention. Once I was finally able to schedule the depositions, Tom Lucas would purposely disrupt constantly, and even pretend there was a fight brewing between all of us, and then would walk out with his client just a few minutes into the deposition. He would totally create a crisis and an appearance of an argument out of thin air and then walk out as if he was justified to do so. This was especially the case when I was trying to depose his client, Milcom Vice President Bill Fleming who was a loaded canon just waiting to say something ridiculous and Lucas knew it.

Long story short, finally I was able to depose the President of Milcom, Richard Fleming. In that deposition, I received a memo where Milcom claimed they allegedly “accidently” intercepted the message between my client and the EEOC. Now I thought up to that point, they didn’t even know about this situation. So the truth started to trickle out in spite of all these lies that they indeed knew about this and that they actually were now claiming they "accidently" intercepted the conversation. In this latest version of their story, they claimed that even though they accidently intercepted the message, that there was no tape of the message. They were claiming that what they heard proved that the EEOC was acting inappropriately even though they later admitted the EEOC did not act inappropriately.

Then, finally, I was able to depose VP Bill Fleming and you will see why Tom Lucas was trying so hard to keep him from me. In his deposition, and in the memo I finally received in regard to this accidental interception of the conversation, the memo reads:

“I don’t expect that Lucas has pushed the issue of the phone call by [EEOC} but this may be useful in negotiations.”

Now so far, that sounds like Milcom wants to use this alleged wrong against the EEOC in their negotiation of any settlement against my client. Using a tape or an alleged wrongdoing of the EEOC to gain an advantage over my client in a negotiation is otherwise known as blackmail. You can’t threaten the EEOC that you will report them for something if they do not give you a good result in a matter against the claimant. That is clearly illegal and criminal. But, so far, it doesn’t sound like Tom Lucas was involved in this but just Milcom right. Just wait. And by the way, although the EEOC can't force anyone to do anything, the deadline for my client to file suit was coming and the other attorney was still on the case, so Milcom was determining if they needed to settle or just let this continue on and see if the other attorney would file the suit. Again, this was all before I came on board.

Back to this alleged tape of the conversation between my client and the EEOC which Milcom claimed was an accident, upon further questioning about what Milcom meant by making the contents of this telephone call useful in litigation, Bill Fleming later said:

'that they [EEOC] may be less likely to do something like demand exorbitant and unreasonable settlement."

So now we see more clearly that Milcom Systems wanted to use this alleged wrong doing on the part of the EEOC to force the EEOC to give them a more favorable settlement against my client in exchange for them not reporting the EEOC investigator for the alleged wrongdoing. This is Blackmail. And again, it became clear in my depositions that Milcom Systems even knew that the EEOC did not do what they were alleging the investigator did. But, this still doesn’t say or show that Tom Lucas was involved in Milcom Systems thinking that they could use some 3^rd party interception (or taping) of a message between the EEOC and my client to gain an advantage in the litigation by stopping the EEOC from “doing something like demand exorbitant and unreasonable settlement” right? But, just wait.

Now remember, first Milcom Systems was pretending that they didn’t know anything about any such interception of a conversation or taping or what have you. Then they were caught and had to admit that they at least intercepted a conversation between the EEOC and my client. Now they were claiming that although they listened, that there was no tape or recording or imprinting of the conversation which would be illegal in Virginia since Milcom was not a party to the conversation.

And here is where it gets really interesting. When my client originally complained to Milcom about sexual harassment and retaliation, Milcom did not do an investigation into my client’s claims. That was a problem for them because doing a timely investigation is part of the defense against a harassment claim. So Milcom through another bit of bad advice on the part of Tom Lucas, had to “create” the appearance of a timely investigation after the fact, years later, to make it look like they had investigated years ago, when they had not. So what they did is they decided to claim that when Lucas became involved as their attorney, he was also their investigator. So even though in truth, Lucas was representing their interests, Milcom claimed that he was their good faith, neutral investigator to try to be able to use the defense that they timely investigated the sexual harassment and retaliation claims my client was making which they had not done. So, not only is Milcom Systems trying to blackmail the EEOC, and may have been involved in 3^rd party taping which is also illegal in Virginia, they made Tom Lucas a witness in the case since they were claiming he was investigating my clients allegations. This meant that now Lucas could be questions as to whether he did a valid, adequate and good faith investigation into my client’s claims (not as a one sided lawyer, but as a good faith investigator trying to get to the truth and to correct the problem). This meant he could no longer be their attorney and that anything he did as their attorney was now open for questioning since he was allegedly their good faith, neutral investigator. And they were claiming this in order to defend against my client’s suit which stated that Milcom would not investigate her claims of sexual harassment and retaliation. So let’s see how Tom Lucas allegedly investigated her claims in good faith shall we (sarcasm intended in this case). This is the actual note from the EEOC investigator (one of several pages) who I also interviewed. Notice that the EEOC investigator is talking to the attorney Tom Lucas (atty). This was after the alleged 3rd party interception by accident occurred. Lucas is talking about this memo that President Richard Fleming allegedly wrote when they allegedly “accidently” intercepted a 3^rd party conversation between my client and the EEOC. The EEOC representative said this memo was not accurate (see above link for actual note of EEOC investigator). Then look at what she writes about what Tom Lucas said to her:

“Then atty said he had tape.”

Wait! I thought there was no tape according to Milcom. And they said this under oath, which means they also, among other things were perjuring themselves . . . yes, another criminal offense. There is more in the EEOC notes, where the EEOC investigator, realizing that Tom Lucas and Milcom were trying to use her alleged wrongdoing against her as a threat, is saying that they did not want to bring this to her supervisor's attention, and she saying that she would not discuss this matter without her supervisor present, etc. And then according to the EEOC investigator, Tom Lucas says:

" Atty said he did not want to have to go further w/it.”

Again,Tom Lucas is not only admitting they have a tape, which is illegal as it is a 3^rd party taping of a conversation, but he . . . Tom Lucas . . . an attorney in Virginia under the Ethical Rules of the Virginia State Bar and the Laws of Virginia is using this tape that doesn't exist to try to gain an advantage against my client by blackmailing the EEOC. This statement was made a couple of times and then at the bottom of the page, the EEOC says that this memo from President Richard Fleming,

“indicated that effort was made to save msg., & was not able to. I do not know where atty got tape.”

This meant that the EEOC investigator knew someone was lying. Milcom claimed that they could not save the message because it was just an accidental interception of the conversation, but Tom Lucas has the tape that they claimed they never made. . . Blackmail folks. AND illegal 3^rd party taping of a conversation. And now you can add perjury. This was Tom Lucas’ part in the good faith and timely investigation of my client’s complaints in a fair and neutral way. This is not my opinion. These are court documents including depositions of Richard and William Fleming, the President and Vice President of Milcom Systems, a government contracted company, and the EEOC, a government agency.

This is what attorneys representing the little guy will see when they go against big business and big government. Most others do not get the “joy” (sarcasm intended) of seeing this. Attorneys on the whole would never be allowed to see this. It has to be isolated cases where the outcome matters to the court and state or federal governmnet and to its protected attorneys and firms. Otherwise the “perception” of public trust would be destroyed. But the biggest question for you is why didn’t the Virginia State Bar go after Lucas, but instead, do everything they could to protect him later as you will see shortly? In fact, although Tom Lucas had no special attorney skills in my opinion and won cases by deception and bad faith tactics under cover of the courts and bar who protected him, he is listed repeatedly as one of the best attorneys in the area, and was actually not very good at all when he actually had to really work, he regularly does speaking programs for the Virginia State Bar (where the bar makes money off of his speeches as lawyer have to attend so many of these diatribes each year in order to keep their licenses). As you will see also, it isn’t like the Bar didn’t know about any of this.

For the record, there are more notes on the side of the EEOC document that show that the memo that Richard Fleming wrote was in error. And while you are asking questions, why didn’t the court react properly to this when it was brought to their attention. Instead, you will see what they did to me for even bringing it up. It will amaze you, at least you who are reading in good faith and believe that we should have an honest court system that does not favor any one party but gives everyone a fair chance in order to get to the truth of the matter so that everyone is equally protected. That is what the law says. That is allegedly the kind of "right" that we go to war over. To protect or freedom, etc. Isn't that what you have heard over and over again?. That is what blind justice means. . .that justice doesn’t care who you are. . .that everyone has an equal chance of bringing their controversy to the court and that the court will rule fairly and you will receive a fair hearing in front of a jury of your peers. Instead, unfortunately, you will see that blind justice means something totally different, as I am sure some of you are beginning to see here.

Additionally, just so you get the feel for how these cases go, I offer just a few pages of part of this deposition that lasted for hours and even days because of the disruptions, walking out, and evasiveness by Lucas and Bill Fleming and the other minions at Milcom. Page 1 of the transcript is the argument about whether there was an actual tape or just an eave’s dropping by Milcom “by accident” as an unwelcomed 3^rd party to the conversation between my client and the EEOC. Page 2 continues the issue of the tape but I find out that President Richard Fleming allegedly accidently intercepted the message between the EEOC and my client. Page 3 clarifies that it was recorded on voicemail if you believe this guys story. But at the bottom of that page, notice the game he is playing. It wasn’t taped, it was digitally recorded he finally admitted. That is why this case was so expensive, because Lucas and what I considered their slimy witnesses and defendants were constantly playing games like this playing word games between taped and recorded and digitally imprinted, etc. On Page 4, you see more of the games over whether it was tape, digital or microchips and other technology that was involved and other nonsense where Bill Fleming was purposely trying to disrupt the honest question and answer session to find out if the conversation was recorded or digitalized or micro-chipped or in any other way memorialized, which answers were under oath. They did not want to admit they taped the conversation. However when you see the conversation between the EEOC and Tom Lucas, he had no problem telling the EEOC investigator he had a tape and he didn’t want to have to use it. Page 5 was more smoke and mirrors about the difference between whether something was erased or irretrievable, but basically, Milcom was claiming they didn’t have the message any longer, if you want to believe that. But, again, when you look at the EEOC’s notes, the EEOC investigator said Lucas said he had a tape and at the bottom of her note, she was wondering how President Richard Fleming claimed they could not save it, and at the same time, Lucas is claiming they have a tape. I hope you can see the absolute nonsense and criminal activity going on here. Somebody was lying. And William Fleming admitted that they were going to use this alleged wrongdoing against the EEOC in order to “convince” the EEOC to decrease any amount they might otherwise owe to my client for their silence which is blackmail. If this is not unethical and against the law, then what is? That one deposition was 270 pages long and not until page 267, did I get Bill Fleming to admit that they were using this illegally intercepted tape (Lucas’ words), to gain an advantage in litigation . And there was more than one day of depositions for Bill Fleming. This was the last day. . . 270 pages of their nonsense so they didn’t have to admit to what they had done. I had $20,000 in deposition costs alone because Milcom and Lucas would not stipulate to any of the most basic facts, and then proceeding to keep the evidence away from me for 1 ½ years with Judge Miller’s approval and assistance in the Norfolk Federal Fourth Circuit.