(linking to documents is in the  works)




http://www.precioustimeradio.com/audio/alextph7-2-03editedid.MP3 (As many radio show host names were edited out due to Kennedy not endorsing any radio shows . . .and these are just clips in order to get to the point),

3.       ANOTHER RADIO SHOW HOST DISCUSSING IN DEPTH THE ARGUMENT (As many host names were edited out due to Kennedy not endorsing any radio shows; see document below),

4.       AN INTERVIEW WITH LINDA KENNEDY FROM A NATIONAL RADIO SHOW (As many hosts names were edited out due to Kennedy not endorsing any radio shows; see document below), 



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 Lea 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.  A lot of them area lawyers who get really nervous when she is around, because they know she sees things that lay people can only suspect and she cannot be bought. 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 or smear campaigns; well then, look at the culprits, not only in Virginia, but from Dave and Joyce 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.    Additionally, any lawyers lurking in the background are always suspects. They hate her for what she has done for the American people and you will read why this is so below. 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!   Read her article on Military Courts v. Civil/Criminal Courts:  What’s the Difference.  (None) ( http://www.precioustimeradio.com/holodecklaw/militarycourts.html ).  You will get a feel for what Ms. Kennedy was doing years ago to protect the public.

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 FOUR TIMES ALREADY so we have had to start some of this over again AND I AM ALSO GIVING SEPARATE LINK URL'S IF THE LINKS DO NOT WORK DUE TO THIS PROBLEM.  You will read and understand why we are targets of hackers below.  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 accused of dishonesty even with the Bar, 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!.  Also, if you do not know what a “Holodeck,” you may want to read Litigation Vortex ( http://www.precioustimeradio.com/holodecklaw/litigationvortex.html ), first so you can understand what she is talking about.  It is AWESOME!

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. 


You can reach Mike D at holodecklaw@live.com but messages are restricted to the subject line only as we get a lot of nasty, virus filled retaliation mail from you know who. . . (you’ll be able to answer this after you read this chapter.

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.




(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 when a license is required, I am known by my given first name Linda Kennedy.  However, when a licence is not required, or privately, and to good friends, I am called "Lea" or “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 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." ( http://www.precioustimeradio.com/holodecklaw/litigationvortex.html ). 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. In between, I talk about the Triangle and Two Defense ( http://www.precioustimeradio.com/holodecklaw/triangleandtwodefense.html ) to further describe why you need Plan B Strategies for what to do when the law and facts don’t matter.  (In tribute to Kennedy's work, a song was written by a national song writer about Kennedy's Plan B Strategies and was played around the U.S. and in various parts of the world). 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 that these very miscreants are selling in order to protect their enterprise and shut anyone up who sees it and talks about it.  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 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 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 because we have heard it so many times it just sounds true.  Isn't that exactly what Joseph Goebbels, the Propaganda Minister for the Nazi used to entice an entire nation on Nazis? It is an old tactic, but when we fail to learn from history, we are destined to repeat it. And what you will read in the following pages will sound exactly like the description of the Nazi Poeple's Courts. But it is happening here. 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 or elsewhere.  My Plan B Strategies also work 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 truly lucky 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, not the ones promoted on TV or other media).  So, if you have not witnessed what I am about to spell out, then, again, count yourself truly lucky and 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 even bigger than this which goes beyond the scope of this book, but I have addressed them through other avenues..  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 Chapter (website-Mike D.), then lets come back to these quotes shall we?  These shocking facts in this book 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 on the Holodeck.

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 I refered to previously, 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” of 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 (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/kennedydad3.BMP).

 Mike D:  See Kennedy’s Dad depicted as the King and a Political Party trying to buy him off and him refusing to be bought off below.  Then scroll down and keep reading underneath the picture.

Kennedy said he would not be bought off. That is the statement right below this picture. 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, being brave when it mattered, 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," (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/holodecklaw/litigationvortex.html) 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 we have and that 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 from 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, ( http://www.precioustimeradio.com/holodecklaw/litigationvortex.html )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. There was also a song written about my Plan B Strategies and dedicated and given to me on a radio show in 2003. What you are reading about is a very big event that has been put on the back burner by the very same people who were promoting me when they learned I would not take this matter to the World Court. There are very important reasons I would not do so, and I have covered them ad nuseam in many a radio show and writing so I will not do it hear. Suffice it to say that a lot of these movements in America, allegedly to promote our freedom have a very ugly counter agenda. You must be very careful about being involved in any of them. Especially if they are promoted by the alleged Alternative Media. I covered that in my "Disinformation Occupation" series so will not do so here. But it is very important that you understand what I am saying here.


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.  See end for additional dedications.


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.  and working insurance claims along side several companies 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 move into plaintiff's work 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 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.

This unfortunately, is a selling point to big businesses moving to Virginia. They know that they will have to pay taxes somehwhere, so they shop around for states that protect big business the most and that is the trade off. Come to Virginia big business, pay your taxes and "political donations" and we will let you "screw" the laborer.


Because I had spent a little time working on employer claims initially, 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.

It is all smoke and mirrors. It is a Holodeck where we think we have rights but we really do not.


And for an example of how the legislature makes laws that are not favorable to the employee, but only appear to be fair, 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” when you find yourself in one of these situations. 


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.

And this is the case from Right and Left Wing politicians. It is not discriminating.


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 based on the Code and the Rules lawyers are allegedly governed by. They were actually breaking the rules of ethics that we are held to (again, 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 or the firms of some of the Supreme Court Chief Justices. (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.  ( http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/clientswishresize.BMP ). 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 after I fought through their unetical acts, and the acts of their most unethical, big name attorney and firm..  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.

As I learned more about the situation over time, my client was not free from responsibility, but the retaliation was clear so I fought the fight.


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). 

I got all these agreements and understandings in writing.


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 the scheduling of unwarranted 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. And that firm's partner had her signature on my law license. They were immune to presecution for unethical behavior.  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., Joyce 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 4th 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 is all more Holodeck where you think you have rights you really don't have; where nothing is as it appears.    


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 and are supposed to receive by right, 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 across the board. 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 the 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. And when the public doesn't look or doesn't care, then perception and thus, deception thrives.  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 before you say, well, we have elected Judges in our state, guess again. I cannot go into this here, but remember the word "perception" and then start looking and watching and studying.


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 (whose partner signed my license to practice law in Virginia), 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, with offices in several countries) ( http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/75biggestfirms.BMP ). 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. And by the way, did you notice who was #4 on that list? Troutman Sanders which is where Lucas worked after McGuire Woods got thoroughly embarassed by this rookie.

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. But it took me over a year to get that and a change of judge which was also a miracle.


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 and when the disciplinary is secret?


At one point, the Judge called Lucas and myself into his Chambers which is hardly ever a good thing for the underdog, and told me about only two employment 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 in 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.  ( http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/bargainadvantagelitigationresize.BMP ). 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, and they all select each other to positions of authority?


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 due to 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).  ( http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/bargainadvantagelitigationresize.BMP ). 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 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 before I was involved in this matter and then brought up 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 a year or two before I was the attorney. 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. The employee's attorney also bills, the plaintiff, which in most employment law cases, the plaintiff no longer has a job, and so employee victims can't get an attorney due to the fact they don't have money because they lost their job. It is a vicious cycle but I hope you can see through the perception and deception about rights we allegedly have which we do not. This denial of access to the courts due to the fact that attorneys will not take a case like this for the very reasons I am showing you, is a Consitutional violation, if the law and the facts mattered. But to these minions, it is only about perception and we believe these perceptions so we are deceived and they get to carry on unabated except when a fool like me gets involved and takes a case like this.


This alleged wrong doing on the part of the EEOC was during the time before I was on the case.  While I was on the case, I was able to prove 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, and they way they did it is absolutely illegal but they were protected by the court and bar. 


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 3rd 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 and the taping does not cross state lines).   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 from 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 since it is illegal to tape as a 3rd party in Virginia.  Of course, they were pretending to not know anything about this taping as you will read in the appendix I have provided (Mike:  See next paragraph for links).  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.

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.   These tactics are not just meant to evade damaging testimony, this tactic is designed to ring up the charges because the civil defense firms represent the deep pockets and know they can keep their client fooled long enough in order to keep billing them.  Page 1 (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/BFleming.BMP) 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 3rd party to the conversation between my client and the EEOC.   Page 2 (http://precioustimeradio.com/images/BFleming2resize.BMP) 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 (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/BFleming3resize.BMP) 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, (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/BFleming4resize.BMP) 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 (http;//www.precioustimeradio.com/images/BFleming5resize.BMP) 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 was claiming they have a tape to the EEOC.   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 andnot 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 (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/image/bargainadvantagelitigationresize.BMP).   And there was more than one day of depositions for Bill Fleming before this.  This was the last day. . . 270 pages of their last day and of their nonsense so they didn’t have to admit to what they had done and they could ring up the charges.   I had $20,000 in deposition costs alone because Milcom and Lucas would not stipulate to any of the most basic facts, and then proceeded to keep the evidence away from me for 1 ½ years with Judge Miller’s approval and assistance in the Norfolk Federal Fourth Circuit.   And at one point, I even told Fleming that the jury was going to really love hearing all of this nonsense knowing full well that they had taped my client, and were lying about 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  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/blackmailrfletter.BMP). Now I thought up to that point, they didn’t even know about this situation (See prior paragraph)?  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 from Milcom VP Bill Fleming reads:  

"I don't expect that Lucas has pushed the issue of the phone call by [EEOC] but this may be useful in negotiations."

http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/BFleminggainadvantageresize.BMP NEED TO CORRECT THIS LINK


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 of 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 who missed her deadlines 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 who missed deadlines would file the suit. Again, this was all before I came on board, but the point is, that at that time, there were negotiations going on.


Back to this alleged tape of the conversation between my client and the EEOC which Milcom taped and then 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."

http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/BFleminggainadvantageresize.BMP NEED TO CORRECT THIS LINK-HACKED


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 which they knew didn't even happen.  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 3rd 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 have been illegal in Virginia since Milcom was not a party to the conversation. 

(Not to mention all the perjury since this was all under oath).


And here is where it gets really interesting.  We are coming back around to whether Lucas was involved in the Blackmail in a moment, but you have to understand this legal concept firt. 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 Milcom 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 as an attorney, 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 3rd party taping which is also illegal in Virginia, and several counts of perjury, 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 questioned as to whether he did a valid, adequate timely 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 is the law. The plaintiff can examine/cross examine the witnesses and a good faith investigator is a neutral witness which Milcom was claiming that Lucas was. This meant Lucas 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 instead. Because Lucas doesn't really have to know the law since he is never held to it, he obviously did not think this one through. But they already rang the bell in their attempts to deceive so I jumped on it. And they were claiming that Lucas was their good faith investigator in order to defend against my client’s suit which stated that Milcom would not investigate her claims of sexual harassment and retaliation.  So, even though I knew this was a ludicrous fabrication of the story, I went with it since that was what they were going to claim as their defense. Now, let’s see how Tom Lucas allegedly investigated my client's 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.  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/EEOCnoteresize.BMP). Notice that the EEOC investigator is talking to the attorney Tom Lucas (atty).  This was after the alleged 3rd party interception of my client and the EEOC by "accident" occurred. Lucas is talking about this memo that President Richard Fleming allegedly wrote when they allegedly “accidently” intercepted a 3rd party conversation between my client and the EEOC.  The EEOC representative said this memo was not accurate (Mike:  See above link for actual note of EEOC investigator).  The EEOC was saying that the memo that Milcom was using to claim that they accidently heard a conversation between the EEOC and my client was not accurate in its content.  She was saying that the story Milcom said occurred was not true. Then look at what she writes about what Tom Lucas said to her: 


                                                                “Then atty said he had tape.” http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/EEOCnoteresize.BMP


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 again . . . yes, another criminal offense.  There is more in the EEOC notes, where the EEOC investigator was realizing that Tom Lucas and Milcom were trying to use her alleged wrongdoing against her as a threat so she would give them a favorable result against my client. Then she says in her notes 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.".” http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/EEOCnoteresize.BMP

Again,Tom Lucas is not only admitting they have a tape, which is illegal as it is a 3rd 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 ot 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 3rd 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. These are also in the discovery turned over by Tom Lucas and are also in statements Tom Lucas made in transcript and to the court. He said their was no tape. 

So now what do we have. We have a partner attorney who worked for the partnering attorney lady that signed my law license, who then moved to a law firm whose senior partner is the head of the Virginia Supreme Court who is caught in numerous lies to the court, posing as an investigator in a case to defraud the factual account and the court, who is involved in a criminal, third party taping, and then using that tape to threaten the EEOC in a matter he knows is false, to try to force the EEOC to undercut any settlement negotiation for my client based on these threats. Hello! Are you just beginning to see something wrong here? Now we are just in the set up for what I am trying to show you so please do not stop now. The best is yet to come.


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 Court and 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, Lucas is listed repeatedly as one of the best attorneys in the country, teaches CLE classes on the Virginia State Bar's behalf that we are forced to take, and was not even a very good lawyer at all when he actually had to really know the law and facts of the case. But again, he regularly does speaking programs for the Virginia State Bar's cash cows (attorneys forced to listen for a fee paid to the Bar). As you will see below, it is not like the Bar didn't know anything about how Lucas actually conducted business, including on this case.


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 so the first question then is would the court properly respond to this evidence when it was brought to their attention.  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.


With these smoking guns, and after a lot of wasted time and money, Milcom offered some measly settlement offer (before Bill Fleming's final smoking gun just discussed, but before this and after, I was able to get some smoking guns). Here is one settlement for $14,000 and no job securities which is what my client wanted, not the money.  NEED TO CHANGE THIS LINK. The $14,000 would not have even covered the cost of litigation and I no longer had a home or a car and had to close my business down in order to keep up with the frivolous motions and bad, hardball tactics Lucas was submitting and setting up with the courts blessing.  My client knew I had already spent way more than any settlement would reimburse due to Lucas’ tactics which the court permitted in order to protect big business and government and big, connected law firms and lawyers. .NEED TO CHANGE THIS LINK. (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/clientswishresize.BMP). At another time, there was a settlement of I believe $30,000, but again, I had spent so much more by now, with depositions alone totally about $20,000.  And none of these offers included any job protection which is what my client was after, which she put in writing so that we were both very clear what my representation was to do.  Milcom wanted my client gone.  They couldn’t get rid of her with me helping her.   And my client had already defaulted on keeping up with paying these expenses that were necessary to keep her in the ballgame because the court was allowing Lucas’ hard ball tactics to continue.  This is why nobody wants to take employment law, or workers’ compensation cases and other cases that go against big business or big government in Virginia. We would prefer to keep our home, car and business whenever possible. But I was a sucker for justice.  The other attorney who missed the EEOC deadline before I entered the matter, received a "potential offer" (nothing firm), of $1,000-$1,500. My client repeatedly told me that it was not the money, but the job security and being left alone, etc. that was her goal. She put this in writing in her own handwriting. By then my expenses were so much greater than this anyway, as I was fighting 3 firms, and in one of Lucas' briefs, he claimed on the record, that it cost him $15,000 to prepare. One brief.  My employment law expert, that I later had to retain when my client turned against me, did the multiplication on how much money this firm charged Milcom, in relation to what I charged, and it was outrageous. My client actually intercepted a bill from Lucas and it read into the $300,000 range. And we were not even close to being finished. I have no doubt that was genuine in that I know what it was costing me and that I had to close the office down just to deal with Lucas' tactics. That is how expensive this case was. I had left my home and sold my car and was living on scraps now sleeping on a friend's floor. But anyway, although Milcom and Lucas finally flinched and actually brought an offer to the table, my client would not take it because it was not what she was seeking and I had that in her own handwriting that she admits she wrote


And the incredible thing is that the Judge continued to cover for Lucas' bad behavior and continually sided with him even though it was obvious that they were trying to delay or prohibit me from getting material evidence that would help me prove this case which by law they had to turn over to me in a timely fashion. I finally had to do some depositions in the courtroom because I had to keep calling the Judge due to Lucas trying to constantly disrupt the depositions and attempt to walk out, ending the deposition early.

Meantime, I was dealing with my client almost daily as she called for emotional support constantly and would show up at the office unannounced knowing that I was doing nothing but her case. As for her boyfriend, I had to cut him off totally from any communication long before because he continually engaged in outrageous conduct, interfering in the case by writing the judge and dodging service and things of this nature even though he was not even central to the case, but in fact a liability. He left me messages regularly, but I would not pick up the telephone because I did not want to be blamed for his incredibly damaging behavior. Although my client told me that they were no longer seeing each other, I found out differently much later and that is an incredible story in itself.  They did share a child together so they did have some contact, but the story is much more incredible than them just sharing a child.  I will get to that shortly.

Two significant things happened that need to be addressed, but realize much more happened in this case, too much to even document here, but it was absolutely amazing, and mostly because Lucas and others like him do these things because they know they are immune from discipline, otherwise they would not be so open and blatant about their actions nor would they have the jobs with these big firms.

By agreement, I told my client that because I knew Lucas' tactics, she would eventually have to hire one more attorney at her expense, because I knew he would overwhelm me with bad faith paper attacks and the like, if we could not resolve the matter quickly. I even stopped responding to some of his motions because I learned his trick. I would have an important motion to compel to make which would ask the court to force him to turn over evidence he was required to turn over by law, and he knew it. So he would send me 3-5 motions all at once with deadlines on things that were not even important or relevant to try to keep me from doing what I needed to do to get a document or deposition date or whatever. He would then schedule hearing dates while lying to the clerk saying that I approved of the date, which I had not nor had he ever asked me regarding same. Then, after I took time to respond to all of his frivolous motions, keeping me from my work, he would take the motions off the docket because they were never meant to be heard, but to just keep me busy. So finally, I decided not to respond to most of them, seeing that this was his strategy. One time we actually appeared in court on one of the motions I had not responded to since I had my own motions to enter. But, the rules were clear that I didn't have to file a brief and that did not preclude me from arguing the motion, so his strategy changed somewhat after that unless it was really a big issue and then he would still try the tactic.  He was never once admonished by the Judge hearing the case. The clerk never stopped scheduling his unilaterally set hearings.  Only once the case went to another judge when I elected a different judge for the summary judgment hearing, did any of these bad faith acts emerge and get addressed in spite of my attempts to get the court and Lucas to act properly so that my client’s case could get to a jury with the evidence that Milcom Systems was required to give me by law.

So, as I stated earlier, when I finally decided to withdraw because Lucas was personally attacking me and trying to take the focus off the facts and law, my client hired a totally incompetent lawyer who had mental issues (I am calling her attorney #1 in this writing). Then, my client told the judge she did not want me to withdraw as I stated several pages earlier.  This attorney #1 missed meetings, missed points, and was just not willing to put in the time or effort that this case needed.  Obviously, due to the bad faith tactics of the other side, with court approval, the depth of the issues involved, the lack of favor Virginia gives to the employee by law, and my client’s emotional dependency, it was a high maintenance case. During that time, I had filed a brief based on a good faith belief that made Tom Lucas a witness in the case because he chose to have Milcom claim that he was the investigator on their behalf so that they could say they timely investigated my client’s claims against them.I told you about this earlier.  That made him a witness as I had to then question him about his investigation and how timely and in good faith it actually was.  And of course, I showed you above how in his alleged “investigation” he was telling the EEOC that he had the tape that he didn’t want to use against her so she needed to give them a favorable outcome.  Obviuosly, that is not a good faith investigation of my client’s claims.  Us an illegal 3rd party taping to blackmail the EEOC in order to gain an advantage in the investigation, which 3rd party taping is illegal and which using it to gain an advantage is blackmail, along with the perjury that came with it when Milcom kept changing their story under oath was obviously not good for Milcom, for Tom Lucas, for Van Deventer Black, for the Bar whose Van Deventer Black partner signs our Virginia State Bar licenses and whose husband is a judge in Norfolk where this court is located, nor for McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe who was ranked the top law firm in Virginia and where our head of the Virginia Supreme Court was a partner, nor was it good for Virginia or the Federal 4th Circuit who allows these hard ball tactics to go unpunished and unreported to protect big business and big government in Virginia. 

Furthermore, during the entire litigation, Lucas kept trying to break my client’s attorney-client privilege based on my client's boyfriend allegedly being a part of our legal strategy discussions which would have broken the privilege if true. That would make me a witness in the matter as I could no longer claim attorney privilege.  But in fact, I excluded the boyfriend from these for that very reason and furthermore, from any contact with me because he was such a loose cannon and I did not want to be blamed for his outrageous actions, so this was not true or a viable reason to break the privilege. But this was a regular strategy of Lucas' even though it was frivolous.  However, and in contrary to Lucas' shoot from the hip attempts, I had done research on attorney-client privilege in employment law matters.  In Milcom’s attempt to cover for their calloused approach to my client’s complaints, where they refused to investigate, and then tried to create the illusion of an investigation by claiming Lucas did their investigation they made Lucas a witness in this case as the investigation had to be timely and in good faith and the investigator was subject to questioning.

In doing the research on this issue, I filed a brief.  And you have to understand, in Federal Court, these motions in the form of a brief are the size of appeals briefs which are huge. They are very lengthy with a lot of research needed each time. This was extremely time consuming and very tiring. I calculated spending over 30 all nighters at my office just trying to hang in there for my client who had been stiffing me by now.

So, I filed a good faith brief explaining my position. Then the other attorney my client hired (attorney #1) who had no clue and could not follow what I was saying, filed her own brief, trying to piggy back off mine. She was not in my firm, did not appear on my letterhead, and on the transcripts my client admits that I did not hire her (I was withdrawing and my client hired her to take my place before the court allowed her to keep me in the case also by force).  This attorney #1 was hired by my client. In spite of this, the court was going to consider sanctioning (fining us for a frivolous brief) both of us because he did not like attorney #1’s brief, who admittedly had nothing to do with the facts or the law I was presenting. So I opposed any potential sanction that may be assessed, explaining in my motion to oppose, my position and that I wrote my own brief which was not sanctioned, that I did not adopt anybody else’s brief, nor did I even look at attorney #1’s brief (look at one of three different orders I got from the Virginia Supreme court saying that I didn’t oppose the motion for sanctions as their reason not to look at all the other issues I raised before them. . . more on this later). This other attorney's paralegal (#1) who helped attorney #1 write this attorney’s brief, gave me an affidavit stating that I had nothing to do with attorney #1’s brief, did not help write it, nor did I get a copy of it.  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/paralegalaff7-9-02resize.BMP) The motion for sanctions was eventually denied and I was not sanctioned. For those who don't know it, some attorneys ask for motions for sanctions on everything they write. It is quite ridiculous and it is their attempt to try to threaten a bar complaint against you without saying they are, simply because they know that if you are sanctioned, the bar comes in, and they will discipline you. There are times for sanctions, but this certainly was not one of them.  Not on my brief. In fact, a month or two after this case was over, my brief was adopted as law, and attorneys can no longer investigate the claim in a sexual harassment suit or they will become factual witnesses since a timely and good faith investigation is part of the defense an employer makes in order to avoid a cause of action for sexual harassment/retaliation.  So my brief was not only made in good faith, but it became the law of the land a couple months later. In my appendix you will find that in any court, a good faith filing requesting that the court look to change the present law or a law that has not yet been established is a totally appropriate filing. In this case, the court was obviously trying to protect Lucas and these connected attorneys and firms and judges as I had exposed a serious of criminal and willful acts where the court was involved in protecting these behaviors in order to keep citizens of this country in a losing position and those with money and connections in a winning position in spite of their behavior. But for this story, NO sanction was ever granted in Lucas’ favor and my brief was not in issue. It was Attorney #1's brief.   But, interestingly, this stopped my pursuit of Lucas as a witness, AND the entire issue of the illegal 3rd party taping by Milcom and Lucas using it to blackmail the EEOC was also stopped by these threats and the court willingness to hear a motion for sanctions when it was totally inappropriate.  How convenient.  Shouldn’t a neutral judge be concerned about these facts?  I also spoke with the Virginia State Bar as we were talking about major criminal issues here, but they replied in a totally inappropriate manner as you will read about soon .  They were not going to do anything about this.  Not to Lucas or the Judge anyway.  And not to Attorney #1 or #2 either. We will get there.

Meanwhile, Attorney #1 was fired by my client shortly thereafter for mental illness (manic depression being one of the disorders according to what attorney #1 told me), and here is my client’s letter to me confirming that she fired Attorney #1 (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/attorney#1firedresize.BMP),NEED TO CHECK LINK

(page 2) (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/attorney#1fired2resize.BMP).  NEED TO CHECK LINK My client also wrote to the court herself telling the Judge that she had fired Attorney #1.  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/attorney#1firedjudge.BMP). NEED TO CHECK LINK. My client fired attorney #1 because my client hired attorney #1, not me.  This is very important. The Virginia State Bar has a long history of disciplining attorney #1, but somehow, they keep letting her stick around.  Back to the story though, my client fired Attorney #1 and in her place, my client hired attorney #2 just as our written agreement warranted that she would have to get help if I could not keep up with the paper terrorism Tom Lucas employs.  Attorney #2 was actually helpful in this matter and did her fair share of the work so that she understood the issue.  But, the key point, that my client was hiring and firing the extra help.  Not me.  It was by contract that she did this.  That would be a sticking point later as others would try to stick me with things this attorney #1 did.  Attorney #1 was never in my firm, on my letterhead, nor did we adopt each other’s work. I was stuck with Attorney #1 when my client told the Judge that she did not want to release me from representation in the case. Why would she? I was doing all the work for no money and she was working while not paying her bill.  In fact, when my client fired attorney #1, clinet's boyfriend left me a message on my recorder threatening to ruin attorney #1, her family, and I think what may have been physical harm to attorney #1.  http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/boyfriendattorneyresize.BMP. I told my client that either her boyfriend, or ex-boyfriend, layoff totally, or I would immediately go to the court and report his threat which I had on tape since he left it on my machine.   Attorney #1 really is not well, but nothing would warrant that kind of criminal threat to anyone.  I would not allow it.   My client agreed that she and her boyfriend or ex-boyfriend agreed to stay out of Attorney #1’s future affairs.    

The other incident was the last straw for Milcom and Lucas. My client had to be evaluated by Milcom's specials who is a psychiatrist. This hired gun psychiatrist was the one who taught every other psychiatrist in the area. His name was Blackman.  So whoever I got to rebut him, my expert would be perceived as inferior to their expert since Milcom's expert was the teacher and mine would be the student. Plus we had no money as my client, although still working would not pay her bills, and I was already broke having had to fund part of the case because she would not, and I was not allowed to get out of the case per her request to the judge. Although she was no longer deserving, I still had a duty to do my best and the story of what happened to this psychiatrist is absolutely fascinating, and really quite funny although I cannot share all of the information with you here. I wish I could. It makes me laugh thinking about it.  But long story short, their expert was the best friend of attorney Ruthie Litvin (Lucas' associate who was a Lucas wanna-be and also on the case). And the psychiatrist’s wife was not only an attorney, but an employment law attorney who went to school with Ruthie Litvin. Then during the deposition the psychiatrist was caught having destroyed his secretary’s notes of the interview with my client even though this was not normal procedure for him, and it went down hill for them from there. It ended with me asking Dr. Blackman a lot of questions about his malpractice carrier and Ruthie Litvin trying to end the deposition early. There is much more to it than this, and truly, you would laugh your heads off if you heard it, but that is for another time. I actually have made a video of that story with documents as a part of my Plan B Strategies series.  People have chuckled about this one from one side of the country to the other as they have sat through my seminars on Plan B Strategies. It was an extremely memorable account and every time I share it, especially with lawyers and judges, I get loud and sustained laughter.  There is more in the appendix indexed in Holodeck Law that provides some extra stories and proof sources, including pertinent parts of this bozo’s deposition (opps, should have said "Minion" but "bozo" is warranted with "Ol' Doc. Blackman" who traded a knowingly fraudulent "opinion" for a substantial fee. On this one, he was caught lying under oath to delivery the "goods" so ordered by Lucas, Litvin and their firm.   Not surprisingly, Milcom wanted to settle up the next day, and I can only imagine what it would have been like to have been that fly on that wall when Dr. Blackman, his angry lawyer wife, Litvin, Lucas, and their powers that be in the shadows yelled and screamed at each other when discussion over the depostion occurred in regard to who Dr. Blackman's insurance carrier was. I wish I could share the rest, but I really can't do it here. It was so, so very funny. But the settlement offered would still not give my client the job securities she was after, and no amount of money could reimburse me for all the money I had spent, the business I had to close, the house and car I lost, etc., let alone all the time and heartache I went through. The stories I could tell are better than any suspenceful John Grishom novel, and some so funny in hindsight, that in spite of this horror, it still brings a smile to my face.

But, like I said, the next day, I started hearing some serious "uncles" from the other side. Meanwhile, the only judge in Norfolk 4th Circuit who is known for at least trying to give a fair ruling got the case.   THANK GOD! Summary Judgment motions were heard (in Lucas’ attempt to keep these facts from a jury and get the case dismissed in spite of our right to a jury trial), and we then had to await the ruling to see if this would go to trial, or whether it would just be dismissed with prejudice (case over). Then, shortly thereafter, we all got called into the Judge’s chambers. I was there, attorney #2 was there, and then Milcom System's people, and Lucas and I think Litvin too was there.  I have the attendance documented in some notes, but that is my recollection without digging through massive amounts of documents and notes. The Judge proceeded to yell at Tom Lucas and Milcom Systems representative. He acknowledged to Lucas that he motioned against everything I did acknowledging finally what had been permitted by the other judge (Judge Miller) this entire time.  The Judge said he wasn't going to write a long order denying Milcom’s request for summary judgment, and then said, "here. . .here's your order."  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/employmentorderresize.BMP).


Page2,     (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/employmentorder2resize.BMP) and slammed down a two page order denying Milcom’s request to keep the case from a jury.  Winning against a summary judgment motion is very rare in Virginia 4th Circuit, but the 2 page order from this judge was just as unusual in that normally, the order is long, allegedly explaining reason why the decision was made.    My employment law expert commented on this very short Order in his affidavit (See #28, and #29)   (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/emplexpertaff7resize.BMP) which expert I would need later on as you will see. Then he told Milcom to bring their check book because he was calling a settlement conference. Then he looked at me and told me to tell my client to not be greedy. At the time I thought that would be no problem since my client knew I was trying to help her save her job and was trying to force Milcom to leave her alone, keep her job, purge her file, etc., which is what my client said she wanted all along including what she had said in writing.  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/clientswishresize.BMP). I also put her wishes in writing and sent them back to her to make sure we had the same understanding in several letters and in our agreements.  Meanwhile, she owed me more money than she could ever pay, which in part, I was intending to waive once everything was resolved (I could not fund the case by law, however, I could refuse to collect and that was legal in Virginia).  I did not tell her what my intentions were simply because I did not know the outcome of the settlement in advance.  My overwhelming thought was elation and relief that this fiasco was finally going to end and that we held this employer and their unethical attorney accountable for their actions and helped someone who could not gain access to the courts without an attorney, keep her job, etc. 


So we had the settlement conference and amazingly, Milcom did not want to settle unless I agreed to never take any case against them again. (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/attorneycantsue.BMP ).  This is a direct violation of the ehtical rules that Lucas is well aware of.   If I were unethical or threatening, I would understand, but all I did was not give up and I continued to try to get documents, other evidence and depositions from key people in spite of all the dirty tricks of Milcom and Tom Lucas, who had the court’s blessing up until the end and then some. Of course, I refused to agree to anything since I was not a part of this agreement and they had to change the wording in the final agreement.  By the way, making an attorney agree to do this as a part of any settlement is also unethhical and a violation of the rules of conduct in Virginia, but they still actually put it in writing and Lucas tried to force me into it anyway. I think part of Milcom’s concern was that I knew them like a book now. In my discovery I got them to eventually hand over mounds and mounds of pornographic emails from them to and from the Navy that were rated XXX. I knew their weaknesses, including alleged affair(s) of their president and other things.  Other employees were coming to me to ask me to help them set up a union at Milcom and things of that nature. I told Milcom that I would not be a part of any agreement, and if they want that to happen, they need to put that in the contract of each employee in the future as a condition of working for Milcom and see who is willing to sign it.

But, amazingly, what Milcom and Lucas didn’t learn, is that I really wasn’t looking to sue people.  I tried to work the matter out several times before it got expensive and Tom Lucas was too confident in himself, going against some rookie, not realizing that sometimes someone’s “heart” and belief system needs to be brought into the equation.  He saw this as easy money where he could just bill, bill, bill, and then just make me go away once things got more involved. But, in spite of me learning that this lady had brought on a lot of the harassment herself by engaging in the very actions she was complaining about, I believed this lady was wronged in that Milcom had to investigate the issues and instead of doing that, they retaliated against her.  I just wanted to try to help her make it right.  With money not even being an issue in this matter other than the case having been very expensive, we were not even after money.  But, when the opposing attorney sees money to be made at their client’s expense, like Lucas saw when he was representing a deep pocket and going after a rookie, sometimes there is no way you can settle it until that attorney believes he has made all the easy money he can off of his own client.  Then when the case gets more difficult and you make the other side start working, they all of a sudden settle. This happened in the Milcom case when Lucas finally offered $30,000, but by then he had made it too expensive for me and didn’t’ properly read what we were really after. . .it wasn’t money. I can’t say for sure that this was Tom Lucas’ motive. . . to ring up the charges against his own clinet, but I know settlements started coming in once the depositions started getting interesting and I have seen this behavior repeatedly by defense attorneys for these big civil firms and even did an audit for a group who was looking at this very issue and found this to be so.  It is common practice and something I address more in The Litigation Vortex chapter. But, whether or not that was Lucas’ motive and I think it was, the problem is, he could not see that I was not interested in the monetary portion of the settlement although I had to pay the bills incurred, but my client wanted these other benefits and Milcom nor their attorney ever evaluated our side appropriately to see the truth of the matter.  To be honest with you, this case had me pretty tired and employment law just isn't the way to go if you are an honest attorney fighting for the little guy (the state of Virginal has less favorable laws than the Feds for Virginia if that were possible).  In fact in a brief I wrote to the Virginia Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, I addressed the issue that Virginia effectively quashes any help for the employee by making it almost impossible for the employee’s attorney to survive a law suit on the client’s behalf.  This case was a perfect example of that. There is an appearance of rights, but we really do not have any right to access to the courts. Nor do we have a right to a jury inspite of the law. It is all an illusion on the Holodeck.

But, through everything, I was able to keep my client on the job, and get her a promotion which is almost unheard of.  I got her personnel file purged, and even got her a letter of recommendation so that this case would not follow her to her next job should she ever want to move on.  I got Milcom to write that if she left Milcom they would hire her back as a part of her recommendation letter, and you know that was pulling teeth because they hated her, and she costs them over $300,000 in legal fees before the settlement.  And she was to be left alone with no further harassment (although in the case, it was brought out that she invited some of it). These were the things she wanted, and it cost me an arm and a leg, my home, my car, other clients, my health, my marriage, not to say many thousands of dollars out of my own pocket to get it for her.  And I also received what the police called an “intimidation break in” at my house to boot as they questioned me as to whether I was working on a case that would bring something like this on. I only had one case by this time. So what do you think?   And of course my office was closed to all other business for about 1 of the 1 ½ years just for this case, due to Tom Lucas being permitted to use incredibly hard ball tactics with the court’s blessing.  But, I really believed in access to the court for all.  This is a fundamental right that everyone should have, not just those who can afford it or are favored.  This is the foundation of a free and civilized world.   But, with the laws and favoritism used by these courts in this state and others as well, how could I have ever taken another one of these cases?  I was almost destroyed by it.  But at least it was over. And the word spread that if you face Linda Lea Kennedy, she will make you a reasonable offer and you need to take it because otherwise, she will fight you incredibly diligently on principle and in order to protect the system that needs to be fair to all parties.  She will hold the system accountable. The system is always supposed to be on trial.  And you know. . .that is exactly what lawyers are supposed to do, and that is what my friends tried to tell me earlier in law school, which I could not grasp until I started taking big business and big government cases.  Then I saw way more than they would ever have understood. 

And in fact, just shortly thereafter, a client came to me with an employment law matter that had just been through the EEOC process, just like my last client, and the opposing attorney on the case was none other than Tom Lucas.  Well, within a week or two, Lucas settled the case for my asking price.  So, definitely, he understood that I would be fair, but that you had better settle up front in good faith.  And truthfully, I told my client that I could not take another case to that court because I knew she would not get a fair shake and that because she was looking for a monetary award, I did not believe I could get it for her no matter how good her facts might be, and no matter how much the law favored her side.  You are just not allowed to really represent employees in Virginia. . .not unless you play along and do not make waives and let the defense attorneys call the shots so you do not get blacklisted or worse. If you play along, you have to bill up front by the hour and just take the clients money knowing that the outcome will not be good for him or her. That is discussed more in in The Litigation Vortex and the Triangle and Two Defense which are provided in later chapters.  Well for me though, the retaliation was just about to start, and life was about to get much worse and all of this background is for purposes of setting the stage so you can see the big picture that is being spelled out shortly.

Settlement Reached, Client Breached, Virginia State Bar Preached

So, back to this agreement between my client and Milcom, the agreement was finally reached and my client signed off on everything knowing that she got everything she wanted and that she would not receive any of the funds due to my bill being around $134,000 which was less than ½ of Lucas’ bill of over $300,000.  Plus I had to fight three different law firms. I do not know what the other two firms for Milcom’s people charged that I also had to fight, but they were also big firms so I am sure it was not cheap.   At this point, I had not yet told her I was intending to wave much of my fee so she could, in addition to walking away with everything she wanted, also walk away with some cash out of the  settlement of $75,000, minus taxes owed and costs.  I had to finish paying the court reporters, the experts, attorney #2, the other professionals on the case that relied on her word that they would be paid, etc.  That didn’t leave much for me to begin with, especially after having to close down the office, sell the car and get rid of my home, etc., just because the woman who kept her job wouldn’t pay her bills, but I was intending to give her  some cash that was earned and waive the excess amounts above that too so everyone walked away with some money in spite of the agreement and all I had lost personally due to her breaches and Lucas and the Courts tactics.  Meanwhile she walks away with everything she wanted plus some money to boot.

But, I heard from Lucas a couple of weeks later and instead of him turning over the settlement check to me as agreed upon and which is proper via the Ethical Code, he called back to say he was giving the money straight to my client instead, which again was unethical. My client was allegedly born in another country and had citizenship there and if he did that, I would not be able to pay any of the bills due on her case, which companies and professionals could put liens on the money, and they would not trust my word any longer since she was my client also and they were providing me with a professional courtesy by deferring her bill.  So I called James McCauley, (Jim McCauley), the head of ethics at the Virginia State Bar and told him what was happening and he told Lucas he had to turn the money over to me. Lucas called a meeting with the prior judge (not the one who reprimanded him), Judge Miller since he was lambasted by the 2nd Judge and did not want to face him again.  This first judge was the one who ruled consistently in Lucas’ favor in spite of my good faith attempts and the law. That judge told him to turn that money over to me so I could pay the clients debts on the case . What had happened is that Lucas said that my client and her boyfriend had called him and said they would sue him if he gave me the check.   So much for my good deed.  Instead of Lucas telling me, this was his chance to stick it to me, a rookie, for making him look so bad.

As a side note, when Lucas and I left the courthouse after this meeting, Lucas stepped on the sidewalk by the courthouse and I remained up on the stairs, and he said with a slight smile while slow to speak. . ."this . . . was the most contested battle I have ever been in." And, I smiled back at him knowing that he may not have underestimated my skills as this was my first court case for a client in court ever, but that he definitely did underestimate my tenacity and willingness to fight for someone who I believed was wronged, but also to hold the system accountable. As I shook my head yes, I replied and asked him, "Do you know what my friends call me Tom?" And he said no, what? And I said, "Columbo." We both smiled in that Columbo was often underestimated to the suspect’s own demise. He shook his head yes in return, acknowledging that this was probably a pretty good nickname for me and we went our separate ways.  To this day, friends refer to me as Columbo as I am usually driving an old car and I am definitely not ivy tower.  Just a regular Joe.

But back to the story, so now, here we go again. Before I heard about my client trying to intercept the funds from Lucas, I had already decided to wave much of my bill and give my client some of the money even though she was not due that money via our contract. I wanted to make sure the court reporters ($20,000), attorney #2 ($20,000), and others were paid because they had relied on my word that they would be paid and so worked without payment until a settlement was reached if any.  So my paying these people was an urgent matter so that these people knew they could trust me at my word in the future. I also got a phychiatrist and a private investigator among other professionals, to work for free as a favor due to the sitaution. By considering to give my client some of the funds not due her, I wanted everyone to go away happy, and be finished with all of this. But, instead, my client was trying to get the money that she claimed she was not interested in all along, nor was it due her by contract. I took her case because she sounded like she had been mistreated, and I proved that she indeed was mistreated through retaliation, in spite of her lying and cheating and egging some of it on. I proved that Milcom really did do these things to her, by their own admissions in spite of her inviting some of the behavior.  By law I could not fund her case, and personally I could not take on cases where I would be out of pocket over $100,000 for every client and then not recover anything for my hard work, and meanwhile close my office down and sell my belongings to try to stay afloat.   That business was not going to last long.  And that is what you will have to do if you fight big business or big government anywhere. . .not just Virginia.  That is just part of the punishment for the lawyer who takes it on, and that is why so many complaints get dismissed.  Because what lawyer would take the case?  Thus, the law, although it sounds fair, purposely denies justice to those it wants to deny justice to.  It is all about the perception of justice. It is the Holodeck. 

And again,  back to the story, at about the same time, my client called the other attorney (#2) that she hired late in the court battle as per contract, and told attorney #2 that she didn't owe me any money and in fact somehow I owed her money. She said she and her boyfriend were in this together all along, and she was bragging about how she even wanted the materials I had to purchase at my own expense because she stopped paying. She said she knew I couldn’t fight her because I was broke due to taking her case, and that she knew all my tricks so she could beat me. She said she was ready to file another suit against Milcom and wanted to know if this attorney #2 would take it for her. Then amazingly she said she never signed my contract that set out our terms. Attorney #2 reminded her that we all sat down together after she came on and reviewed the contract together (along with the supplemental agreement). My client said, yes, but that was not my signature. Attorney #2 asked her why she didn't speak up then. To this, my client had no answer. There were actually two legitimate contracts, one initially (that had three origiinals so my client, her boyfriend and I all had an original) and one supplemental where I told my client that it was time to hire that second attorney (as per the first contract) because things were heating up and things of that nature (I can't remember everything and it is not in front of me as I write). Two of those three originals were thrown out because there were too many extra negotiations going on during the signing of the agreement (long story, but my client and her boyfriend were going back on their word initially and I should have just refused to represent her at the beginning, but I as a sucker on this one), and there became one original and one supplemental contract.  These extra contracts were thrown out at my client’s boyfriend’s office and after I left they dug them out of the trash apparently for future use if needed.  You could even see where water and other liquid had been spilled on them while they were in the trash, but again, this is too long of a story to go into here.  The point is, my client and her boyfriend had intentions from the very beginning to not honor their contract no matter what they had to claim.  Very sick really because they tried to pass one of these contracts from the trash as the original and tried to say they never signed my contract. 

I also had 50-100 DOCUMENTED contacts with my client during this case both by documented telephone calls, meetings, messages, and letters, updating her regularly as to status and expense referring to the contracts.   I had a lot more but this is what I could quickly prove without even trying and was extraordinary so I never counted anything above and beyond this including her almost daily visits to the office since I was working only on her case for the last year.  Just some of the letters and notes included my initial consultation notes telling my client what to expect as I described in this write up elsewhere, letters dated November 17, 1997, before I filed suit, December 12, 1997 before I filed suit, January 17, 1998 after the suit was filed, February 5, 1998, a 2nd letter of the same date, a 3rd letter on the same date, March 16, 1998, March 17, 1998, April 20, 1998, June 2, 1998, June 19, 1998, September 10, 1998, September 19, 1998, October 27, 1998, November 27, 1998, January 30, 1999, just to name a few, and this does not count the almost daily contact we had between messages and live meetings. She was also at all depositions. Needless to say, I kept her informed. 

Attorney #2 called me that night that my client was divulging her scheme against me, and said we have big trouble because of what the client is suddenly claiming.  I was pretty shocked even though I really had enough of this client and her alleged ex-boyfriend for some time.  But, I could not believe the stab in the back I was receiving.  At the time of Attorney #2’s call, I was adjusting down my fee and costs just so I could give my client something even though by contract, and with what she actually wanted, there was no money due her and I had already lost my house and car over it, not to mention all the clients I had to pass on in order to keep up with Lucas’ paper attack  (I have listed more in this chapter, and it is not worth going into the itemization of everything I lost trying to help this client).

Attorney #2 called me again after talking to the client again the next day at approximately 11:23 A.M. on March 23, 2000, and left me a message saying:

“. . . she [the client] doesn’t understand about the thing that I the message I . . . the retainer agreement—I told her I had reviewed the ones that she signed as the ones in your office—and she called back and said that she has the signed agreement and she doesn’t know what you are talking about so I wonder if her name suddenly got on that line too—that would be very interesting and not past them. . . “  



                By now, Attorney #2 also had a good dose of this client and her ex-boyfriend who was a loose cannon, with him calling and writing the judge and things of that nature.  Attorney #2 understood fully why I had to cut him off early on in the litigation from any further communication with me.  He just left messages and I would refuse to talk to him. So her last statement was referring to the fact that my client was in my office constantly and because I was so busy working on her case, she had some free reign just because I couldn’t watch her all the time, and Attorney #2 was wondering if she had sabotaged the original agreements in my office.   Attorney #2 was saying that “that would be very interesting and not past them” [client and boyfriend] as they had been scheming according to their own account to her, since the beginning.   Attorney #2 called me again and told me that she told my client to send her whatever she claims is the real contract.  From my ex-client’s new attorney, he later sent us this transcript of Attorney #2’s message to the client.  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/messagetome2resize.BMP). This time Attorney #2 was trying to get this alleged contract that my ex-client was claiming was the only real contract.  And Attorney #2 reminded my ex-client that she had seen what I had and it was signed. 

Another call to the Head of Ethics at the Virginia State Bar, Jim McCauley was made. . . Taped

So, I called Jim McCauley, the head of ethics at the Virginia State Bar again, describing what was happening and asking for the Bar’s advice since I wanted to proceed ethically in the matter. By now I had already been warned by someone inside the bar that I was being positioned for disbarment because I was making too much noise on employment and worker’s compensation matters and had gone against these big firms and had won cases against them.  These attorneys were connected and I was making fools of these allegedly top notch lawyers.  And to make it clear, it was not that I was God’s gift to lawyers or anything like that.  It was just that I had studied how these minions operated and saw how they were very lazy and did not have to know the law because they had the leverage to force the disadvantaged attorney into compromises that were not good for the client.  If the disadvantaged attorney did not cooperate, he would get blacklisted or abused in the court and get disbarred or go out of business.  I learned how to beat them by getting my ducks in a row before showing my cards, and using their laziness and yes, their over confidence against them.  By time they knew what had hit them, I was in a good position (as good as one could be in such a disgusting system) and then mere will would take over in spite of the abuse until I could trap them in some of their own schemes.  Although several of the lawyers I faced in worker’s compensation and employment law were not highly skilled, such as Tom Lucas, in spite of their lofty positions, I could name a number of attorneys I knew who could do circles around me as lawyers . . . if the law and facts mattered.  They were just better skilled than I.  But because I observed what was really going on and was able to trap these minions in their own muck I was able to trap them into saying uncle much like the story of their Expert Dr. Blackman (Bozo)  which story I could not give you in detail here. 

By now, I had been on TV talking about workers' compensation and how unfair it was and how poorly the injured are being treated (I haven't even begun to tell you everything that happened). I was on another TV program after a judicial panel of the Virginia Supreme Court discussion, where I spoke, telling the Supreme Court on TV that those who try to fight for their clients in the areas that affect big business, or big government in Virginia, get blacklisted and are paying a heavy price (I haven't told you nearly everything that happened), and that the laws and accountability needed to change so everyone, employees, injured parties, and employers all had a fair chance, and that those who represent them also have a fair chance to do a good job without retaliation. The Supremes just had to sit there while being televised and pretend that they cared. Needless to say, that did not give them any warm and fuzzies about me. I was also working loosely with a few of the unions, and had started a work comp union and was being approached by several leaders in the community to help them start unions. In a pro big business, big government state where there is minimal oversight and accountability, my opinions and willingness to fight for the worker were not popular opinions or activities to have or engage in. And it is funny, because I am not against businesses making money. Just do it fairly. I am not against government, just corrupt government. But when your message shines light on unfair business practices or corrupt government, then the system that you are not trying to take on, takes on you. But, so what, we have a First Amendment right? There is no such thing as a thought crime right? My job was to represent my client to the best of my ability within the bounds of the law right?  Just wait. . . .

Because I was insisting on following the head of the Virginia State Bar’s ethics department’s advice, and knew I had the real contract, I felt confident that I would be able to sustain this attack from this former client and any concern that the Bar might have targeted me for due to my opinions and willingness to fight for the little guy in an anti-people state.  So on March 25, 1999, I sent my bill and billing I had given to my client over the course of this litigation to Jim McCauley, the head of ethics at the Virginia State Bar, and also sent my contracts, a letter again describing the events, etc., and asked him to review everything, telling him that the issue was not a fee dispute but a dispute over whether the contract I had was real or not real, (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/mccauley3-25-99resize.BMP).  Page 2 (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/mccauley3-25-99-2resize.BMP).  Notice at the top, I also faxed the letter itself to Jim McCauley. 

(Mike D. . . This part got hacked, but I asked Linda Kennedy to summarize just a short part of this due to time in retyping everything.   This part was very crucial to this story). Linda says: “I was talking about how the bar and James McCauley approved me to disburse funds under the condition that I could prove that my contract was the real one if challenged. I had already hired a handwriting expert who did very nice work and was actually involved in the Bonet case out in Colorado. The expert also proved by forensics that I had the real contract. I also had several witnesses who knew that the client had signed my contract as well. Eventually, my client was forced to admit it when she got cornered in perjury.


But, I also knew not to trust the Bar and in Virginia it is legal to tape a conversation as long as you do not cross state lines and as long as you are a party to the conversation, so without Jim McCauley knowing, I taped his conversation giving me approval to disburse funds. The Virginia Bar never knew this until the last moment much later when I had to use it as part of my defense when they claimed they never gave me permission to disburse funds.


Also, the attorney who took my ex-client's case against me claiming that I didn't have her signature on my contract and that I didn't handle the case properly, was the attorney who would not even take the underlying employment law case because he knew there was no money in it. He knew the employment law case was not a winner and would not help her just based on principle alone, but now for a fee, he takes the case against me for taking the client's case he wouldn't even take himself.. That was Henry "Hank" Sadler who I mentioned early in this chapter and told you to remember his name. Hypocrit. So they sue me on a contract disbute (not a fee disbute which is very important later). A contract disbute means that we were arguing about which contract was real. A fee disbute means that we agree on the contract being real, but we are challenging fees charged. This was never a fee disbute and the Bar acknowledge this in the taped conversation that it was a contract disbute and not a fee disbute. This is important later.” Mike D: I am trying to rehash the next part so you will get the idea by reading this if you understand what Linda Kennedy said above. So back to the story. . .


Although the Virginia State Bar allows you no discovery against them which is unconstitutional (you have to know what and why allegations are being made against you as a part of the 5th and 14th Amendments’ Due Process Clauses), and unconstitutionally allows no requests for a more definite statement (you have to know what and why allegations are being made against you for the same reasons), and unconstitutionally claims they do not have to follow precedents, the Constitution of Virginia or the United States (that is not true anywhere by law and hopefully you know this without me having to say so), including saying that they are not barred (stopped from proceeding on claims they cannot bring) by Subject Matter Jurisdiction and so on, I was able to receive this letter through a long, hard and nasty fight with the Virginia State Bar by filing a Freedom of Information Act request against them.  This is something any citizen can do (or is supposed to be able to do).  Because the Bar would not allow me to even get my own file, I filed it.  Filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) would later be one of the reasons the Bar felt I should be disbarred even though it had nothing to do with what they were claiming I did wrong.  Over the course of time, it was apparent that I was indeed targeted for disbarment.  And again, my FOIA requests was one of the reasons the bar gave the courts for my disbarment along with me writing Military v. Civil Courts, Litigation Vortex, and Holodeck Law among and thinking they were corrupt.  They actually said this and we will get to that later.  I dared ask them for the information I sent them to show that I did make contact with the Bar and with this communication I showed them what we discused which they were denying.  They still didn’t know I had a tape of the conversation as well.   So because I demanded they be held to the Constitution, give me evidence, define specifically what they were claiming I did wrong, thinking they were corrupt, were reasons they actually claimed were reasons I should be disbarred.  Because I wanted to prove that I had spoken to them and sent letters to them, which they later tried to deny.   But that part of the account will be explained shortly. 

And a word on Subject Matter Jurisdiction. This is really big. This is the only claim you can make on appeal that you have not raised at trial. You do not even have to have it in a motion. All you have to do is say it and if true, the case goes away. It is known as the granddy of Jurisdiction. What is Subject Matter Jurisdiction? This is very important. If the court is not allowed to hear the case due to the subject matter, then they cannot decide the case. So for example, and here is a ridiculous one so you really get the point. Let's say you smiled at someone really big. And that person got really upset about it and decided to sue you over that smiling thing. Well, it is true, you smiled at him. But so what. It is not against the law to smile at someone. So the court cannot hear any cases over someone smiling at someone else, even if it is true that you did smile, because they do not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. This is a foundational concept in that otherwise, a court can hear any claim they wanted against anybody they didn't like and make decisions on things they have no jurisdiction over. So keep this in mind because it is unconstitutional for a court to hear and decide a case over which it has no Subject Matter Jurisdiction.


For now, it is clear from the fax confirmation at the top of this letter that on March 25, 1999, Page 2http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/mccauley4-14-99resize.BMPand http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/mccauley3-25-99-2resize.BMP, that was returned to me by the bar through my Freedom of Information Demand (since I couldn’t get any discovery from them and wasn’t allowed to subpoena my own file), that I was in discussion with the Bar over this matter and was telling them the same account that I speak of today.   Nothing changed.  I wasn’t the one who kept changing my story based on what they claimed.  As you can see from the top of this letter, I had faxed this letter to the bar and I had received this letter back from the Bar as a part of my Freedom of Information Act request a year or two later when I learned that the Bar does not have to turn over to you any evidence they intend to use against you.  They can do a trial by ambush any time they wish which is unconstitutional, as it goes against Due Process.  You can’t surprise someone with allegations so they can’t properly prepare their defense.  How does that get to the truth?  If the truth mattered that is.  When what you are saying is true and you are bringing claims against someone, you don’t need to hide your claims so as to take someone by surprise so they can’t defend themselves, and you certainly don’t need to change the “facts”  as you go either (Yes, this is a teaser for what the Bar was yet to do). 

So, back to my discussion with Jim McCauley, the head of ethics at the Virginia State Bar.  Obviously, if my client was claiming that my contract was a fake, and it was not fake but real, my client's argument was over . . . and I knew that it was real (as well as the supplemental that she signed affirming some of the original provisions when she was in breach of the original agreement). After reviewing my materials, Jim McCauley, the head of ethics at the Virginia State Bar, said my bill was in order, he told me I could disburse funds based on the fact that this was not a fee dispute, but a dispute over who had the real contract. (remember this. . . this is not a fee dispute. . . this will be very important later), Jim McCauley, the head of ethics at the Virginia State Bar clarified that if necessary, if she did pursue a law suit, would I be able to prove that my contract was real if needed, and I responded with a very confident yes, that I could prove that she signed my contract. I told him that I had the real, complete contract with the real signatures on it, and that my ex-client was lying about not having had signed it. And he then said again that he gave me permission to go ahead and disburse now.

For reasons stated here and below, I did not trust the bar as I got word that they were not pleased that I was standing up for the little guy in Virginia and making too much noise.  So, I was already on guard with anything the bar might tell me.  And by now, I had thoroughly researched the law on taping conversations in Virginia, so I knew I was permitted to tape my conversation with Jim McCauley since I was a party to the conversation and we were both within the state lines, so I taped this conversation with Jim McCauley although I made sure the bar did not know about it, just in case.  I also had witnesses listening to the conversation on speaker telephone because I just couldn’t trust the bar.  So here is how that portion of the conversation went, word for word as it is on tape http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/mccauley4-14-99resize.BMP, and this tape and transcript was put before the Virginia Court, the Virginia Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court to prove that I had been given permission by the head of the Virginia State Bar's ethics counsel.

McCauley:  “Yes. It appears from my review of what you had sent that this is a contract dispute with the issue being who has the real contract.  Under these circumstances, I direct you to disburse, however, you need to make sure you can prove that you have the real contract if it becomes necessary in the future.”

Kennedy:  “Oh yes, Jim.  If needed, I can prove that this is my contract with her.  There are some distinguishable marks and things that will show that her story is totally fabricated, along with doing ink test, and other things that will show that my story is what actually happened, including [attorney-witness’] testimony from the time [Client] called her and disclosed her plot.”

McCauley:  “Ok, then, under these circumstances, I believe you are proceeding ethically so go ahead and disburse.”   

I Had People to Pay Who Were Good to my Client Based on my Word.

                In trying to help my client even though she was not helping me in return, several of the workers I hired on her behalf, like transcribers and experts, were willing to work without being immediately paid just so I could bring the case forward.  Because I had given many people my word that they would get paid, per my client, if they would advance my client their services as my client promised me the same, now I was very concerned about a number of people getting paid who were good enough to help my client.   She was obviously not going to pay them.  So upon receiving permission from the head of the ethics department at the Virginia State Bar, after reviewing expenses and agreeing that the client was not going to receive funds in this matter due to the extraordinary costs it took to try to save her job and force Milcom Systems supervisors and owners to leave her alone, I disbursed the funds.  Jim McCauley later admitted (after being caught in perjury first), that he approved the entire disbursement amounts knowing that my client was not due any of these funds, even though he thought it was a nice gesture that I wanted to include her in the disbursement initially.  At this point, however, I told him I was no longer interested in trying to create any further good will with this ex-client as she had tried to set me up after all the sacrifices I and several others had made on her behalf.  I had had enough. 

Because I had already been warned by an insider and friend that worked for the Virginia State Bar that the Bar felt threatened by my pro-worker stance and willingness to come forward in the media and elsewhere to try to help these people, I taped this conversation with Jim McCauley and also had witnesses present for the conversation which conversation I put on speaker telephone.  Although I was very concerned about all the people who were owed money and wanted to make sure they were paid as promised, as they helped me help my ex-client on my word that they would be paid, under no circumstances was I going to disburse any funds without proof that I was given authority to do so by the head of ethics at the Virginia State Bar.  Again, here is the transcript of this conversation on 4-14-99 between me and Jim McCauley, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/mccauley4-14-99resize.BMP, head of ethics at the Virginia State Bar giving me clearance to disburse funds, and again, these transcripts and the corresponding tapes were later submitted to the courts including the Virginia Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court, along with a copy of the tapes and other letters, etc. in support thereof.    

So, I disbursed funds making sure I followed Jim McCauley, the head of ethics at the Virginia State Bar’s instructions precisely.  By now my client filed suit saying that she did not sign my agreement. She also reported me (not Lucas) to the Bar. But, because there was a suit going on at the time, where my ex-client was claiming she had the contract and did not sign my contract, the Bar’s policy is to wait for the court proceeding to be completed.  After being caught in many of her own traps, it was as I described above with my client finally admitting that she signed my contract and agreeing to not pursue any further action against me, and in turn I dropped my counterclaims against her.  I wasn’t interested in pursuing her, I just wanted to go forward and not be bothered by this any longer. 

                I also wrote Jim McCauley, the head of ethics at the Virginia State Bar a follow up letter dated April 17, 1999 ,    (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/mccauley4-17-99resize.BMP)             Page 2, (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/mccauley4-17-99-2resize.BMP)  and faxed it as well.  The Bar would not turn over this letter of course because that would show they actually gave me permission to disburse funds and they still did not know I already had it on tape.  They wanted to paint me as a theft and crimnial to get rid of me and discredit all thework I had accomplished in opening up the bars and fighting for people against their favored status firms and lawyers, and so they could not let people know that I called the head of ethics so that I could be instructed on how to proceed in the most ethical way and within the rules.  So the bar does not know I taped at this point, but here is what the follow-up letter said. . . and the first line is what is most important and it reads: 

                                                                Kennedy:  “As per our discussion, I know I can prove my contract is the real contract.”

And then in paragraph two:

Kennedy:  “. . . I did not feel comfortable without speaking to you.  Upon your review of Sadler’s and my letters, we discussed the validity of disbursing funds under my contract.  You stated that if I can prove that my contract was the real contract, then I could disburse.  I told you I could prove it.”


x-Client Files Suit Against Kennedy Using Same Attorney (Hank Sadler) Who Refused to Assist her with her EEOC Claim Earlier

So, I was pretty confident I covered all of my bases by first checking with the head of Ethics at the Virginia State Bar, then doing what they said to do, knowing that I had the real contract.  So, next I had to deal with my client suing me, using Attorney Hank Sadler, and of course her filing a bar complaint saying that she had the only contract. Interestingly, even though I found out Hank Sadler handled other matters for my ex-client and her boy friend, he refused to help her with the very EEOC/Employment Law case that I was willing to take even though at the time we did not have much of a case at all.  She also wrote Judge Miller of the Federal 4th Circuit, who ruled against us constantly, allowed Tom Lucas to totally abuse me and the system in order to gain advantage over the matter, and who which Judge my client absolutely hated, saying that she had never seen my contract before, but that she had the only original. 

And, then I had to hire a handwriting expert.  I looked for someone who actually had integrity, and who was willing to do extensive work in reviewing everyone’s signature based on mounds of handwriting samples to give an honest evaluation.  On the other hand, Sadler hired a high school buddy of his (at least that was my understanding) who was going to try to say that my ex-client didn't sign my contract.  My handwriting expert is a very honest, nice person who loves justice, and that is why I wanted that person to be my expert.  This expert has been on some really big cases, and keeps up to speed on the latest technology, and tries to understand the facts of the case so as to make a good, solid evaluation.  I really appreciated this person’s care to detail.  In addition, I also hired a handwriting expert who was known in the industry as a crook because I knew that the other side was going to need some “help” trying to prove that my contract wasn’t real.  I did this just to put the crooked guy on the sidelines and keep him away from the other side.  He was never used, nor would I have used him.  I knew my contract was real.  I needed someone to show that this was true scientifically.  I knew the honest person could do it without compromising principles.  I cannot express enough gratitude for this person’s hard work and effort, but mostly for the love of justice and fair play we share.  We need more people in the system like this. 

I also hired an employment law expert who after reading and reviewing my case, waived much of his fee and called my efforts heroic (see #30), (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/emplexpertaff7resize.BMP),  and that he started employing my strategy of making the attorney a witness in the case if he involves himself in the underlying investigation of an employment law matter (in the trial transcript).   Again, this good faith strategy I put forth, by makingLucas a witness in the case because Milcom voluntarily named him as a fact witness . . .as the person who allegedly investigated the case for them as a neutral third party in order to make it appear that they timely investigated the matter, was adopted by the Federal Trade Commissionand made law shortly after this cae settled.     My employment law expert explains my good faith position here (See #26) (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/emplexpertaff6resize.BMP).  He reviewed billing and things of that nature as well and was very complimentary.  After the proceedings, he waived much of his bill as a thank you for what I had done in this matter as he felt it was an extraordinary effort for a client in need who I believed was genuine and in need of legal assistance.   Here is the employment law experts detailed affidavit, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, Page 6, Page 7, Page 8.  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/emplexpertaffresize.BMP,  http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/emplexpertaff2resize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/emplexpertaff3resize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/emplexpertaff4resize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/emplexpertaff5resize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/emplexpertaff6resize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/emplexpertaff7resize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/emplexpertaff8resize.BMP).   I have blacked out his name because he went against the entire system including the bar as you will hear about soon, and as you will see, at his own peril.  So he was not just a hired gun like many experts.  He had a lot to lose and still spoke for me.  I really appreciated him for doing that.  To this day, I can’t express to him how much I appreciate what he did to try to help me.   He did an even better job when Georgiadis was trying to harass him and intimidate him in questioning him at trial.  It got so ugly that the judges had to try to calm Georgiadis down during questioning.  Paul Georgiadis was trembling terribly, his voice was getting really high as he started yelling, his voice was cracking, and frankly he is just plain emotionally unstable when he is challenged with real facts.  It happened several times during the proceeding, including Georgiadis laying hands on me in the courtroom.  http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/assaultresize.BMP.   Does that sound like an impartial government official that was just trying to get to the truth or was I frustrating his assigned agenda that would give him all the applause and whatever else he desired from his “bosses.”  Incredible.  In a letter I was able to get later, on the Virginia State’s own letterhead between Georgiadis and McCauley, you will see that he definitely had marching orders, and that I was frustrating him as was my expert.  As I said, this seasoned veteran of employment law called my work “Heroic.”  (See page 7, #30) (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/emplexpertaff7resize.BMP).   And this expert had every reason to testify against me.  After all, he was endangering his own license for coming against the bar. 

Meanwhile, the other attorney (attorney #2) and I were getting extremely nasty threats of violence from my ex-client's boyfriend.  Attorney #2 was told she had better not testify on my behalf since she not only knew about this case, but about my ex-client’s telephone call to her right after the case was over saying they were going to take advantage of me and that this was their plan all along.

In this proceeding with my ex-client where, and although I had an absolutely incompetent attorney defending me in this matter, I was able to prepare my case myself and get it ready for trial. My client wanted arbitration so I agreed. By now, her handwriting expert who was a high school friend of Sadlers had told her that she signed my contract in spite of her claims to the contrary. So she suddenly "remembered" that she signed my contract, but then she claimed something else last minute. So at arbitration my witnesses, including attorney #2, were to appear on my behalf. Also to appear was the first attorney my ex-client hired before me (he was the one who missed the EEOC deadline before I was involved, because my client also wanted to sue him earlier, but I refused to do it).

So my former client, through her new attorney Hank Sadler, put on their case. They were still holding out hope that somehow they were going to prove that I signed my ex-client’s contract and she didn’t sign mine even though she already admitted that she did sign mine when Sadler’s buddy and handwriting “expert” said she signed my contract.  Amazingly, their handwriting expert didn't even use my actual handwriting samples in trying to say I signed this other contract. So their handwriting expert started stumbling through without anything to go on and was still trying to draw conclusions based on writing that was not even mine as the standard. The arbiter finally stopped their handwriting expert as it became ridiculous as you can't compare someone else’s handwriting and say that this means something about my handwriting.   So my former client agreed to not go any further with this, or the bar complaint, if I would drop my counterclaims. I agreed.

Meanwhile, just before this agreement to drop the case, the other attorney that was coming to testify for me (Attorney #2) who was involved in the employment case was running behind schedule. She had called up to the floor where we were located at Dominion Tower telling me she was running behind and I told her to call when she arrived and a lady would come down and escort her to the office since it was after hours and the building was closed to the public. The security guard at the front desk was also called to notify him that a lady would come down and receive the attorney (#2) and escort her upstairs.  Everybody heard me say this including my ex-client's boyfriend who was also there. So when my attorney-witness (#2) arrived at Dominion Tower and called, I told her a lady would be down to escort her up. As #2 waited by the security guard, a man approached and greeted her by the elevator.  As she started to enter the elevator, she and the security guard said that they thought a lady was coming down to greet and escort her.  The man then stumbled a bit and then said, Hi I am _________ (the ex-client's boyfriend name). At that point, the other elevator opened and there was the lady who was coming down to escort attorney #2.  This boyfriend had tried to intercept my witness (attorney #2) who would have testified that my ex-client had called her saying all those things about me not having the contract, that this attorney #2 actually sat with me and the client going over the very documents that the ex-client was denying she had signed now, that the client claimed that I owed her money and not the other way around, that the ex-client was going to sue Milcom Systems again, that I could not fight my ex-client because I had no money since I spent it all on her already, that she and her boyfriend were in on this all along and intended to come against me if they did win anything, that they dug the other contracts we discarded in the trash in case they would need them later, that that is what they had used to say I signed this other contract, etc.   The lady escorted #2 up stairs and the boyfriend followed soon thereafter but not in the same elevator of course.    This is what I had to deal with on a regular basis with these miscreants.  But again, they were small potatoes and this is not what I want you to focus on.  It is the bigger picture.  So keep reading.

So the matter was resolved finally with my client agreeing that she had signed my contract, and dropping the matter with prejudice including her complaint with the Virginia State Bar as long as I dropped my counterclaims, which I was more than willing to do.  It was time to move on, learn from my mistakes and go forth.  Access to the courts was too expensive a price for me to keep doing this and there will always be those with sob stories that will use you until you are all used up.   In June of 2000, shortly after I prevailed, I called Jim McCauley, head of ethics at the Virginia State Bar to follow up with him, and told him that the case was over.  He asked, what do you mean it was over?  So we discussed the matter more thoroughly again which I have linked our taped conversation here  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/emplexpertaff7resize.BMP) and page two of that conversation here.   (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/mccauley6-2000-2resize.BMP).   The entire conversation was taped as I was taking no chances.  In brief, when I was sued by my ex-client, she was trying to claim that I was involved in ethical wrongdoing because I had disbursed funds.  I told them I had conferred repeatedly with the Virginia State Bar and followed their instructions.  So as a part of that, Jim McCauley of the Virginia State Bar agreed to write me a letter for the hearing I had with my ex-client detailing that he had told me to disburse funds and that this was a contract dispute and not a fee dispute.  Instead, Jim McCauley wrote me a long letter detailing that sometimes an attorney’s bill would exceed the amount received and so the client was not rightfully due the award.  Although this is true because the system makes it almost impossible for the plaintiff’s attorney to fight against these big civil defense firms, and lets these big firms ring up the charges so that you cannot afford to take on the plaintiff’s case (like this case), Jim McCauley did not write about the key issues we had discussed in April 1999 and the surrounding time frame.  Jim McCauley would not put in writing that he gave his permission to disburse nor would he differentiate this as a contract dispute rather than a fee dispute.  It was clearly a dispute over who had the real contract, and was not a fee dispute where my ex-client was contesting my fees.  Jim McCauley failed to state these very key facts in his letter.  But, the advice he actually gave me is indexed above, where Jim McCauley, head of the Virginia State Bar gave me permission to disburse and differentiated the issue so that it was clear that this was a dispute over who had the real contract, and not a fee dispute where my ex-client was disputing my fee.    

In June, 2000, although Jim McCauley, the head of ethics at the Virginia State Bar seemed to be trying to sidestep the real issues, after I reminded him by saying, Page 2:

http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/mccauley6-2000resize.BMP and http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/mccauley6-2000-2resize.BMP

“I think the letter did not describe that and it did not discuss your permission to disburse which is why we did not use it—because it was for the wrong days.  I also was concerned in that we never talked about what was said in the letter b/c you were of the understanding that this was a contract issue and so that never came up.”

at the end of our conversation in June of 2000, Jim McCauley acknowledged, Page 2:


“I am beginning to remember all of that.  I am glad it all worked out and thank you for the call.”

And yes, this was all before the courts, including the Virginia Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.  Did it matter?  Wait and see. 

                I was a little concerned that Jim McCauley wasn’t more forthcoming about telling me to disburse, but, I won the suit anyway, and I felt it was finally all over.  So once I spent about $30,000-$40,000 on the suit against my client, and had to almost close down my firm for another year while dealing with this ex-client, I finally thought this was over.  I was re-evaluating my commitment to helping those who were being abused by the system since it seemed that I was the one taking most of the abuse (I haven’t outlined it all here, but it was amazing).  By then, I had what the police called an “Intimidation Break In” where someone wants you to know they were there, trying to terrorize you, and things of that nature.  By then, I learned that if the big civil defense firms can’t win on the law and the facts, they will resort to trashing and harassing your client, ringing up the charges to extraordinary amounts, try to close you down, try to separate and divide you and your client, you and your spouse and co-workers, then if none of that works, they will try to ruthlessly trash you relentlessly with every lie and half truth they can come up with.   And they do it with the court and Bar’s blessing because they are those attorneys who are protected by the Bar.  Because I was not willing to submit to these tactics, and still did not realize just how bad it really was, I was definitely someone who had to be dealt with. 


                By now of course, I knew that the Virginia State Bar’s Public Mission Statement was not true, as I had already seen too much, and I have not gone into a lot of that for now, but you will see what I mean, as you continue reading.  Let’s look though at the Virginia State Bar’s stated purpose: 


“The mission of the Virginia State Bar, as an administrative agency of the Supreme Court of Virginia, is (1) to regulate the legal profession of Virginia; (2) to advance the availability and quality of legal services provided to the people of Virginia; and (3) to assist in improving the legal profession and the judicial system.”


This was in the “Virginia Lawyer Register” which his the official publication of the Virginia State Bar by their own claim.   As you will see, the Bar does not regulate the lawyers in Virginia with an even hand, they do not advance availability of legal services to the public because they let people like Tom Lucas behave as he did, making it impossible for a plaintiff’s lawyer to ever take on a case for someone just because they need access to the courts, even if there appears to be no money in it.  And you will see that the Virginia State Bar actually punishes those who dare to actually provide access to the court for people who have legitimate complaints but cannot afford legal services.   I mean, how many attorneys do you know who would abandon their home and sell their car and close their office down for someone who was not going to be getting money out of the case and whose lawyer would never get properly reimbursed?  And as for the Virginia State Bar’s assistance in improving the legal profession and the judicial system, read on and you be the judge.  But, by now, I had sustained through a very trying year, having still almost totally closed down the office in order to defend myself.  Additionally, I had survived some very disgusting threats by my ex-client and her boyfriend that were absolutely outrageous and showed how dark their souls really were. 

Here Comes the Virginia State Bar

                                So, as I took a couple of small cases here and there, trying to decide if I really wanted to do this anymore, much to my disappointment, I received a personal and confidential letter from the Virginia State Bar stating that they were going to pursue me in spite of all that happened.  I called the Virginia State Bar attorney on the matter, Paul Georgiadis, and asked him why they were pursuing me when I took the Virginia State Bar’s own advice and proceeded accordingly.  As of yet, the Bar did not know I had taped (every single conversation I had with them and was continuing to do so when I called Georgiadis too.  Here is my transcript of my conversation with Georgiadis, 

(http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/georgiadisinitialconversationresize.BMP), Page 2. (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/georgiadisinitialconversation2resize.BMP).  Georgiadis claimed that I never talked to the Bar and they would never have given me the advice I was claiming they gave. He told the Subcommittee this in order to bring allegations against me. Georgiadis knew otherwise by now and was selectively giving the subcommittee erroneous and misrepresented information. He and the Virginia State Bar were caught repeatedly doing this varous other correspondence as well, which took me a long time to acquire. . . but I did acquire the evidence against them. But, tapes, letters on their letterhead, witnesses, court records. . . it didn't matter. To add insult to injury, Georgiadis laughed when he told me he was going to disbar me. He also told me I was taking myself too seriously (as if talk of disbarment wasn't serious enough). At the timeof this call, he had gotten me mixed up with attorney #1 also, who was also named "Linda" and told me I had exhausted my disciplinary quota of private repremands. I told him I had no disciplinary record at all, and after he decided to look, he acknowledged that he was thinking of the wrong person (attorney #1), but was still going to disbar me. So much for the facts and law and integrity of the Bar. And also, why do we give such independent rights to some guy who just decides what he is going to do within his own discretion. So who is Georgiadis that he should be making such decisions? We will see so hang in there and keep reading.


Virginia State Bar Breaks its Own Rules And Gets Caught

                I then got into a long battle over whether Jim McCauley did or did not give me this advice.  But, just as importantly, it came out that McCauley and Georgiadis had talked about what was supposed to be a series of private conversations between me and Jim McCauley as the head counsel of ethics at the Virginia State Bar.  The Virginia State Bar may have changed their policy since this case and because there were so many who were exposed over all of this, but at the time, Ethics counsel and Bar Counsel were not permitted to talk to one another.  They claimed they did not talk to each other when I questioned them.  They were caught in their lies, in that they did talk to each other about this matter, and that caused Georgiadis to use that information, twist it, and come after me just as I was warned by a bar insider.  The conversations with ethics counsel were private and that was how the bar advertised these communications.  Here is one bar staff member in the Ethics Office, Laurie Fuller, who I called and taped.  You can read her telling me that bar counsel was not allowed to discuss matters in any way with ethics counsel,  Page 2, Page 3,.  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/lauriefullerresize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/lauriefuller2resize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/lauriefuller3resize.BMP).   The Bar's counsel and the Ethics counsel remaining separate is a common sense policy.  Otherwise, situations just like mine would arise where you have collusion between bar and ethics counsel in trying to come after someone after the fact for purposes other than what is claimed, and denying that the Ethics department gave advice that was followed by the bar member.  In other cases perhaps someone would confess something damaging about themselves to ethics counsel.  That attorney would not be open to contacting the bar if they knew this would go straight to the disciplinary arm of the bar.  It is obvious, that this policy is in place to encourage open communications on sticky issues like perhaps drug use, or other such situations as this.  Mine obviously was not like that, but it still was not supposed to be discussed with the bar prosecutor, and since I had already been warned about the bar’s intent, this became a very central issue in my situation as they were purposely colluding to change and twist facts in order to take the opportunity to disbar me.  If ethics counsel could openly turn these matters over to bar counsel, and even deny the advice that the ethics department gave the bar member, then why would anyone ever call ethics counsel for an opinion, right?  How could we trust that we could even follow that advice, right?  So again, this was a very troubling issue in this matter, especially since I had tapes of what McCauley actually told me, that he was now lying about what he actually told me because he didn't know I had tapes, that he and Georgiadis were now colluding to disbar me under these false pretenses, and that the Virginia State Bar and others as you will see, were on notice and would not intervene.  It gets worse.  Just wait.  Here are a few more letters in regard to the unauthorized collusion between Paul Georgiadis and Jim McCauley (Barbara Williams to Kennedy, Page 2, Kennedy to Barbara Williams, Page 2).    These are letters written to me AFTER the bar was caught in their lies, as up to this point, they were saying that Georgiadis and McCauley had not spoken to each other.  Here is the transcript of Jim McCauley’s taped message to me saying he never talked to Georgiadis about anything substantive, Page 2, (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/mccauleymayhaveresize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/mccauleymayhave2resize.BMP), and before they knew I already had others confessions and statements otherwise.  Here is Paul Georgiadis claiming he never talked to Jim McCauley which was a lie,  Page 2.  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/georgiadisinitialconversationresize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/georgiadisinitialconversation2resize.BMP).  Also, notice in McCauley’s taped conversation after he denied having given me permission to disburse, and I told him I had witnesses. He got a little nervious.  He put on his dancing shoes. It will make you laugh and is worth the read.  

All of a sudden he was real interested in the fact that I had witnesses, and then suddenly “remembered” that he may have told me to disburse based on a contract issue.    Page 2. Doesn’t this sound just like my ex-client who suddenly “remembered” that she signed my contract when her own handwriting expert told her she did?

http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/mccauleymayhaveresize.BMP  and

 , http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/mccauleymayhave2resize.BMP

                Obviously, just as I had been warned, in spite of all the Virginia State Bar’s denials and then twisting of facts once they found out I could prove they did indeed collude with one another, this was the Virginia State Bar’s way of shutting me up and putting me out of business permanently as I had made too much noise in favor of the common man.  That culminated in my tape recording numerous bar staff who confirmed that these matters were privileged communications and could not be shared between bar and ethics counsel.  Several of these letters and tape transcripts and tapes were filed with the Virginia Court, the Virginia Supreme Court and discussed in my U.S. Supreme Court Brief.  The dancing and side stepping used by the bar as they tried to weasel out of being caught in these unethical communications was amazing to say the least.  If there is more time, I will attach more of the story as an indexed item.   There were several messages Jim McCauley rudely left on my answering machine once he realized the cat was out of the bag: that I talked to Lauire Fuller, now with the bar, showing how cornered they knew they were on this topic.   (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/mccauleyfullertaperesize.BMP).  They had to come up with a new plan since I now caught them in the lie, where Bar Counsel and Ethics counsel were denying talking to each other, and then when caught, they had to come up with a new story.  Here is the letter where I respond to Jim McCauley after he realized that Laurie Fuller let the cat out of the bag that McCauley was not supposed to talk to Georgiadis/bar counsel and did anyway, Page 2, Page 3.  (http:/www.precioustimeradio.com/images/georgiadisinitialconversationresize.BMP, http:/www.precioustimeradio.com/images/georgiadisinitialconversation2resize.BMP, http:/www.precioustimeradio.com/images/georgiadisinitialconversation3resize.BMP).  Their new argument was that they could talk to one another because I waived my right of confidentiality when I used McCauley telling me to disburse as part of my defense.  But, they had a problem.  I had used McCauley’s direction as a defense in the underlying suit my client had filed against me.  In other words, a year before the bar came after me, I used the defense that McCauley told me what to do as a defense to my ex-client’s suit against me.  And in that, Jim McCauley, knowing that I had a suit against me and that I was using his direction as part of my defense, sent my lawyer (who was really bad), a letter “on my behalf.”  Although Jim McCauley would not say he told me to disburse or that this was a contract issue and not a fee dispute, he did talk about the fact that sometimes an attorney’s fees and costs far outweigh any amounts that might go to a client.  I did not use the letter because it did not talk about the things I needed, i.e.,he told me to disburse.  But, in that letter, knowing that I was in litigation and was using McCauley’s direction as a defense, notice what he wrote on this letter: 

“Our calls are confidential and we will not voluntarily provide information to third parties-particularly bar prosecutors working in the disciplinary system, unless the consulting attorney authorizes my staff to release information.  As a result, I consider my telephone conversation with Ms. [Kennedy] Collins to be confidential and ask that you not reveal the contents of this letter until Ms. Collins has signed this letter acknowledging that she waives confidentiality in order to authorize the use of this information in the fee arbitration.”

Hopefully you can see some disinformation here, but the most important thing is he says that he cannot talk to bar prosecutors unless I signed this form.  I did not use the letter because it was not accurate, and so I did not sign the form.  The bar did not have a signed waiver so after they were caught talking to one another, they had to make up the fact that because I brought them into the matter, I waived my right.  But, this letter you are reading here, was a year before.  Do you see the problem with the time line?  They lied about not talking to each other.  They were caught when I got Fuller to say that was their policy.  Then they made up the waiver story.  Here is the signature page to this letter where I did not sign it because I could not use the letter as it was not on point and inaccurate. 

                By now, I had the support of groups of activists all over the country.  These were not my groups, but groups I had assisted in trying to get accountability in the government, especially in the courts, through all legal and nonviolent means available.  I even gained support in some other parts of the world where judicial and Bar accountability were needed, as this is not just a problem here in the U.S.  Many of them, although supportive, still thought that if you could just find that one law or fact, then all the courts would just have to say, ok, you win.  My job became showing them, that in certain situations, when nobody is looking, or when the government/courts/bar want you bad enough . . . no law and no fact will ever matter.  And that there will be no accountability from their superiors so all you can do then is build a record. . . if they let you.  That story is still to come.  So, I decided to put my own case on display to show these people that they needed to quit constantly researching and thinking they were nuts when they became a part of one of these types of cases, where those in charge would pretend that what they were doing was perfectly legal when it is obviously not.  I also started teaching, “Plan B Strategies:  What to do when the law and facts don’t matter.”   These strategies helped us help many others get out of jail when they were innocent but had just gotten caught in the meat grinder, and we helped many others who were trying to save their house, their children, etc.  It really caught on.  I talk more about the Litigation Vortex in a later chapter.  You won’t want to miss this.

                At this point, I filed my own bar complaint against Paul Georgiadis.  This is a guy that the bar gives independent discretion to in order to determine who he goes after and who he does not.  Is this someone you want to have this kind of discretion?  I also investigated him myself and learned that he had adopted his own illegitimate son in order to hide infidelity and submitted these fraudulent documents into the court in Richmond.   His father was also on the lamb from the United States due to some issues, I believe they were tax issues, but I do not have that in front of me at the time and can’t recall for certain.  But, Paul Georgiadis did pad his father’s immigration file so that he could fraudulently return into the country without the Feds pursuing him.  Yes, this is all in the lower court record, the Virginia Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court.  This is the guy the bar is giving independent judgment to and this is the guy that still works with the bar, who the bar still has not disciplined for his own illegal activity. And yes, these issues were raised at the bar also.  Interestingly, Georgiadis never once denied any of these allegations.   And as a part of people learning more about me, people from almost all 50 states, and 5 other countries (I think they were England, Canada, Germany, France, and Australia), started filing bar complaints against Paul Georgiadis, Tom Lucas, Ruthie Litvin, Barbara Williams, Attorney #1, Thomas Edmonds, Jim McCauley and others protesting why they were going on a witch hunt based on these facts and why they were not investigating these other attorneys who they had all this information on who were acting unethically?  Complaint 1, 1b, 2, 2b, 3, 3b   http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/barcomplaintpeople1resize.BMP, ttp://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/barcomplaintpeopl1bresize.BMP,  http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/barcomplaintpeople2resize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/barcomplaintpeople2bresize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/barcomplaintpeople3resize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/barcomplaintpeople3bresize.BMP, are just samples of about 100 bar complaints that were sent by people against the bar for their malicious prosecution of me. 

A State Agency Receives Gifts from those it is Supposed to Discipline

Barbara Williams and Thomas Edmonds were two of the big wigs running the bar at the time.  They were involved in other questionable activity, making money from the Virginia Law Foundation even though that is a state agency.  I sent several Freedom of Information Acts to the Bar to get some of my file since they do not allow discovery, but I also took the opportunity to ask the Bar several questions.  One of my favorite answers was given by one of the Bar underlings.  I was hot on the Bar’s trail as to the misappropriation of funds by a state agency as they were so arrogant in the past to have their own foundation even though they were a government agency which is incredibly unethical. So anyway, I wanted to know about the gifts and donations given to the Virginia State Bar.  Again, this is a state agency and they should not be accepting even a cup of coffee let alone gifts and donations.  Much to my surprise, and I think because they knew I had my own information, and if they didn’t answer at least somewhat honestly, albeit vaguely, they would be caught in another major lie.  So anyway, here is the Virginia State Bar’s answer to my FOIA Requests about gifts and donations , page 2.  It states in part:   http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/bargiftssmall11-16-01resize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/barcomplaintpeople3bresize.BMP


“These reports address some (emphasis added) of the areas that fall within your request.  They do not reflect donations, meaning gifts, as the word is usually defined.  The VSB does not normally solicit donations and receives only a limited number of donations.  They are usually small amounts (emphasis added), given to support a particular even t or program and are recorded and accounted for only in the individual programs.  There is no aggregate report or record reflecting donations (emphasis added).” 

How’s that for a state agency’s accountability?  I have more, and soon, I will post more, but how do you like the statement that the donations “are usually small?”  There is no aggregate report or record of these donations.  Then I was able to get a very expensive booklet about 8 ½ x 11, and about 20-30 pages long, Page 2, Page 3.  http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/artcollectionresize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/artcollection2resize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/artcollection3resize.BMP.  These are just the cover pages.  This was a professionally published magazine of some of the art work the Virginia State Bar boasts of that hangs on their walls.  These expensive paintings and prints were given to the Bar from various large well-known law firms in Virginia.  And where did they come from?  Well, right in the magazine, there are the names of the law firms and lawyers in Virginia who have donated expensive art work to the Bar.  On the second page and third page you just see some contributors.  When you look through this magazine, you will see big name firm after big name firm providing their protection money or whatever that is, that keeps them from bar scrutiny, and this expensive art work is just one of many things the bar receives.  Notice that Tom Lucas’ firm is listed.  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/artcollection3resize.BMP).  Also, notice that Tom Lucas’ and the head of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s firm are listed right at the top.  How is that for a state agency’s accountability and neutrality who receives gifts, usually small?  There is much more here that I have not disclosed, but it’s amazing that none of those law firms or lawyers seem to be having the same trouble I have had with the Virginia State Bar  . . . including Tom Lucas’ firm who blackmails the EEOC.  I guess they must be really ethical right?  They are the improvement of the “legal profession and the judicial system” that the bar talks about in its mission statement.  It is all an illusion. 

                      Interesting, shortly after all of this, bar, and later court personnel, started being “reassigned” and even suddenly retired out of the blue.  They were quietly disciplined in their own way, receiving full pay and benefits, but being chastized, not for being unehtical, but for being stupid about it and letting some punk like me get the best of them over and over again.  But, none of that stopped these people from continuing to come after me without a law or fact in their favor.   None of them were disbarred or disciplined in any way.  These people were permitted and even directed to just make up whatever “facts” they needed to come after me, and when that didn’t work, they changed the allegations during the trial and even on appeal all of which is unconstitutional.  On appeal there were two different claims against me that were never even an issue at trial.  Due Process?  Right.  And even when you get rid of some, they just hired more of the same.  Even if the old corrupt hire new corrupt, they are still corrupt.  Do you really think these people would start hiring honest people here?  As you will see, Georgiadis is still on the bar staff and so is McCauley.  

And as the Virginia State Bar was able to proceed without limits, as for those 100 or so bar complaints that were filed against the bar from all over the country and some of the world. . . well all 100 of them, were dismissed without an investigation, and they were being dismissed by those who were being complained about.  How’s that for accountability?  Wouldn’t you like to be the judge of yourself when you find yourself in court.  You get to decide whether you win or lose?  That is the falacy of independent judgment we buy into when we believe the mantras they spew out there for us over and over again.  And that they police themselves because they can exercise independent judgment that is not influenced by their own interests.  It is all an illusion.  Here are a few of the complaints filed against the bar about the bar, but like I said, there were over 100 of them filed.  Here are:  Complaint 1, 1b, Complaint 2, 2b, Complaint 3, 3b, (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/barcomplaintpeople1resize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/barcomplaintpeopl1bresize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/barcomplaintpeople2resize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/barcomplaintpeople2bresize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/artcollection3resize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/barcomplaintpeople3bresize.BMP).   just to give you an idea of how much people were following this around the country.  Initially, these complaints were being summarily dismissed where the bar member being complained about could say that he or she does not accept the complaint and just dismissed it.   Barbara Williams called it an “administrative matter,” for “administrative review” by none other than Barbara Williams, meaning she could decide if they were corrupt.  She sited a date that this policy came into being and wouldn’t you know, it was right when I was going through the bar complaint process.  Here is the letter from Barbara Williams to me regarding my complaint against Georgiadis, Page 2.  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/artcollection3resize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/mccauleygeorgieconspire6-5-01-2resize.BMP). And in the Appendix here is my reply to Barbara Williams clearly showing how ridiculous and against their own policies it was for Barbara Williams to summarily dismiss this complaint.  After the bar realized it was looking bad by just summarily dismissing complaints, which was proving my point, they changed their strategy by sending my already summarily dismissed complaint to the alleged “New” member of the “COLD” committee for dismissal after an alleged review.  

I loved the excuse Rhysa Griffith South, the alleged new Chair of the alleged oversight Subcommittee made.  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/rhysagriffithsouth8-21-01.BMP).  She claimed that my

“allegations without more would not meet the requisite evidentiary standard of clear and convincing evidence necessary to support a Bar complaint.  Since the committee has received no further evidence from you to support your statements, your complaint will be dismissed and no further action will be taken.” 

I guess I should be proud that they invented a new committee just for me.  But all kidding aside, first of all, to have a bar complaint investigated, it does not take a standard of clear and convincing evidence.  It is an allegation.  The allegation my ex-client made was nothing more than her word against mine.  It was not until an investigation was opened that more submissions are made.   Likewise, by then, I had already been writing Thomas Edmonds, Barbara Williams (and whoever else’s name I had) letters shouting to the roof tops that the bar itself gave me the advice and that they cannot come after me for following their advice.  I also had submitted more on my investigation of Paul Georgiadis, which again, I knew was true because even some of his own family hates him and was more than willing to assist me in getting the information I needed.   Georgiadis never denied any of it.  So what about today Rhysa?  Do you have enough evidence yet to open an investigation on all of this?  Well, readers, just wait.  She would get a lot more before this story is over.   By the way, the “clear and convincing evidence” argument continued after this initial claim by Rhysa Griffith South.  Read a lengthy, but very informative letter that I wrote in response including me discussing some of the secret dismissals the bar has been involved in, summarily dismissing connected individuals without an investigation in spite of the evidence.  In it I keep asking, who is watching the bar? , Page 2, Page 3, Page 4.  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/rhysagriffithsouth8-21-01.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/torhysa9-10-01-2resize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/torhysa9-10-01-3resize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/torhysa9-10-01-4resize.BMP.  This letter really sums up everything you are reading here today.   If you read any attachments, this should sum up why I was such a danger to the Virginia State Bar and its “oversight” lords.   Here is my letter in response to Barbara Williams’ deciding to find that they are not corrupt, summarily dismissing bar complaints against the bar,  Page 2.  http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/rhysagriffithsouth8-21-01.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/mccauleygeorgieconspire5-31-01-2resize.BMP

                With the many bar complaints I had received from clients that were being secretly and summarily dismissed by the Virginia State Bar, I can honestly and unequivocally tell you that this clear and convincing standard is a crock of bull intended to protect those the Bar wants to protect, while going after whoever they please, whether for vendetta sake, or just to boost the end of the year numbers.  And as long as the Bar and Judicial disciplinary processes remain secret, this will always be so.  And it is you, honest attorney, who is the fish in the bowl waiting to be hooked when they need a little boost in their percentages in order to give the people the “perception of public trust” in their self policing.

                So this went on for quite a while and then I was assigned to Bill Monroe, who was heading the disciplinary matter at that time.  Well, by now, I know I am not going to get a fair shake by the Virginia State Bar and they are going to use the same dirty tactics that I witnessed from Tom Lucas.  The law and the facts were just not going to matter here.  And the Virginia State Bar itself was going to pick the panel who would rule over me, call all the shots, and I believed they would further pervert justice and fair play.  At this time, I learned that there is no discovery process against the Virginia State Bar.  As a target of the bar, you have no Constitutional rights.  You can’t get the evidence that will be used against you, you can’t depose anyone, you can’t get a more definite statement from the bar as to why they are coming after you, according to the bar, they are not even held to Subject Matter Jurisdiction, which of course is an unconstitutional claim. 

                This is one point I need to explain better.  In our first year of law school, every student learns that there are two types of Jurisdiction:  Personal Matter Jurisdiction, and Subject Matter Jurisdiction.  Personal Matter Jurisdiction is when a court has the ability to have authority over a person based on where they live or whether they have property in that jurisdiction or something called “significant contacts” with that location where the court could rule over them.  It is a little more complex than this but to keep it simple, for example, if you live in California, you can’t be sued in Virginia state courts unless you have had significant contacts within the state or have property within the state.  And even then, whoever wants to sue you will probably have to sue you in California.  The court has no personal matter jurisdiction over you in this example.  But, the second of these is the grand daddy of all jurisdictions.  That is Subject Matter Jurisdiction.  In this situation, no matter what you have done, even if true, if the subject of what you did is not against the law, then you can raise the objection of subject matter jurisdiction and the court must let you go because they do not have a legal reason to hold you any longer.  So for example, if you smiled really big at someone, although it is true, that person cannot sue you for smiling really big at them.  It is not against the law, therefore, a court cannot hold you under their jurisdiction for your action of smiling because that subject (big smile) is not within their purview.  What is really important about Subject Matter Jurisdiction, is that in most situations, if you don’t object to some ruling at the lower level like in a trial court, you cannot appeal that issue later.  So if you do not object to say, personal jurisdiction, then you waive that objection and the court has jurisdiction over you.  But, with subject matter jurisdiction, you can appeal for the first time at any stage of the process, even at the U.S. Supreme Court level if you want, and they have to accept that and have to let you go.  It is very rare that this is applicable to any law, but subject matter jurisdiction is one where bringing it up at any time applies.  In other words, subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived.

                So the Virginia State Bar and Paul Georgiadis claiming they are not held to Subject Matter Jurisdiction, means that if they wanted to, they could come after a lawyer for anything at all, even if it does not violate the rules.  If you got divorced, if you adopted a child, if you bought a house, . . . anything.  So, if you are around the Virginia State Bar, you may not want to flash those pearly whites!    Obviously, this is just nonsense. 

                At this time, I had a radio show that was geared to trying to get the word out for people who were caught in the Litigation Vortex.  They would network with other legally abused people and go to each other’s hearing so that if the law and facts were ignored by the judge and lawyers, at least there would be witnesses.   Again, it is not about the other side.  Yes, they might be crooks, unethical and what not.  But, they are being used too.  Where there is no conflict, there is no money.    And there is more to this point that I will get to later.   But, I started going to hearings for these groups I had set up all over the country to try to make people aware of the importance of taking time to go to court and witness what is going on when there seemed to be no accountability otherwise.  Additionally, a number of attorneys and complainants who reported someone to the bar only to see it summarily dismissed without an investigation were also contacting me for help.  This evidence I was able to attain, of secret bar dismissals of very connected attorneys in Virginia whose complaints against them were also being summarily dismissed, were critical to seeing inside the Bar’s secret process.  One very well known politician in Virginia had a claim which was summarily dismissed without an investigation even though he was being accused of assisting in the forging and filing of documents into the court on a regular basis.  I guess that wasn’t important enough to the bar, eh?

                I went to one lawyer’s personal injury hearing where she was the plaintiff, against a big law firm and a very big business in Virginia. It was in the Federal 4th Circuit again.   This lawyer had been terribly abused by the system for years and at this point, if anyone ran her over with a truck, they would win in the courts because she got blood on their tires.  It was very obvious that the courts were extremely hostile to her.  She was on oxycoton at the time and was trying to represent herself.  She could barely stay awake at the plaintiff’s table.  The court would not let me help her OR EVEN SPEAK TO HER.  I kid you not.  When she dropped her sweater in the courtroom and I bent over to pick it up, I almost got tackled by the other side and a bailiff, with the judge screaming that I was to leave her sweater alone.  They were very paranoid about her receiving any assistance and about me being the one to help her.  During this time, I personally witnessed key areas of the transcripts change in her case.  One of these changes actually involved me, when the judge personally addressed me in the seats far behind the plaintiff’s table because the judge was concerned that I was taking notes.  It was quite incredible to see for myself.  So, I put in two affidavits for this attorney talking about the changed transcripts and, in particular, where they were changed.  On another occasion, after this lady was wheeled out of the courtroom (she was in a wheel chair), I went back inside the courtroom only to see the judge, the lawyer, and the defendants all chatting together, with the judge saying, “how did I do?”   I started shouting, “ex-parte communication,” while I was pointing at him and others came and saw it for themselves before he hustled out of the courtroom again.  It was getting pretty ridiculous and I was loosing heart quickly in what I once believed to be an honorable profession.

                As for the Virginia State Bar, with clients now bringing me secretly dismissed complaints against connected lawyers, I started monitoring what was being dismissed on one attorney, but yet was being pursued against another.  These arbitrary and capricious dismissals and prosecutions are obviously unconstitutional but remain possible because the Virginia State Bar tries to scare honest attorneys into thinking that if the system were totally open, that their names would be besmirched by an unscrupulous client like mine.   To some extent, this may be true, but when you understand that the Virginia State Bar is not only secretly dismissing the Tom Lucas’ and the Paul Georgiadis and Jim McCauley’s of the world, but they also need to come after others in order to boost their percentages so they can give the “perception of public trust.”  When you grasp this, you will understand that the Bar has to go after someone to make up that difference.  Let me show you what I mean here.  This is very important. 

                As a part of my case, I was showing how the Virginia State Bar has to have a certain number of disciplinary actions each year to give the “perception” that they are policing themselves.  It is always about the “perception”  of public trust. . . not the public trust itself that they are after.  So, if they are secretly dismissing complaints against their own, and those others who are connected, then who do they then come after?  Think about it.  But, don’t think too long without looking at these documents linked here.    You are looking at the Virginia Register for 2000, Page 2, (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/disciplinarystats2000resize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/mccauleygeorgieconspire5-31-01-2resize.BMP), but I also submitted as evidence, 2001 and 2002, where the Virginia State Bar proudly displays the number of attorneys they have disciplined that year.  This is how they claim they are policing themselves.  And this very defense, where say prosecutors, or the state bars, or whomever, was used in California, I think it was regarding Janet Reno and some corruption in the California courts and with the police, letting their drug connections go, while going after some innocent people to make sure they had some arrests to report.  If I recall correctly, a number of prisoners were freed based on this defense.  In fact, at a subsequent hearing, one of my witnesses who I had never met before, who witnessed Paul Georgiadis assault me  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/georgiadisassaultslindakennedy.BMP), in the courtroom, said that she called the Virginia State Bar shortly after my proceedings, and they bragged that they had disbarred more attorneys than any other state that year.  Are you beginning to see the picture yet?

So anyway, I was also writing Bill Monroe, who was in cahrge over whoever was hearing my case at the Subcommittee level. He was the Virginia State Bar President at the time, but was not a paid member of the Bar itself but was appointed. Some time in the middle of this case, another President was appointed due to term expiration. I wrote Monroe in regard to the Bar having given me the very advice they were now pursuing me for. He called a conference call between he, Georgiadis and I, and told Georgiadis that it appeared that Georgiadis did not give the lower committee all the information, and that this was key information if it was true, Page 2. There are about 10 pages of taped transcripts here for you to read in the index, which shows that Monroe was concerned that Georgiadis didn't tell the whole truth at the Subcommittee level and that Monroe felt that if I had been given that advice by the Bar, that he would feel it was very Germaine to the case. In fact, Georgiadis hadn't told any of the truth, and just two weeks before my hearing, he was bringing forth some new allegation just to pile it on. So Monroe sent Georgiadis back to the lower committee to represent the "facts" a little more accurate. THIS WAS A FIRST IN VIRGINIA! Even though this was better than nothing, I warned Monroe that Georgiadis would just come up with more claims by time it got out of the Subcommittee and because I was not allowed to be present, this delay was simply going to give more time to Georgiadis to bolster his phony claims some more. Monroe disagreed and said that maybe this will be what dismisses this all together, but I knew better and told him so.

So obviously, I did not have much hope that this act would remedy the sitaution at all, and I will show you some documents I received much later that showed how much Georgiadis actually lied to teh Subcommittee in order to come after me. But, Monroe didn't believe my prognosis and sure enough, yes, an additional charge was filed against me by Georgiadis after the Bar leanred about his fraudulent activity with his family that resulted in him filing fake documents into the court. What a surprise! Aren't you surprised? And this happened right after I filed my Bar Compaint against Georgiadis for his activities. I did appreciate that Monroe was at least willing to see that something was not right. Interestingly, i subpoenaed Bill Monroe to my actual trial and he appeared under subpoena, but the judge would not let him speak and dismissed him. But, I would say to Bill Monroe, whether you are still with these miscreants or not, you seemed to be a fair person. Does any of this I write sound fair to you now? You know my transcripts of our conversations were accurate. Is it fair Bill Monroe? Is it just? Are you willing to just sit back and bill bill bill like the rest of them, keeping your mouth shut and thus supporting the very thieves you claim to defend this country against? You were at the motions hearing under subpoena. And whether or not you are still a Bar officer, you are still a member of the Bar. I could not stomach what they were doing to people. Can you? Are you? You know what happened. Where are you now? Silence is consent Mr. Monroe.

                At this point, I was just about finished practicing law anyway, as I knew I could not help those in most need of assistance within this court system if I was going to have to go against big business or big government.  I was officially retiring.  Even if I escaped this disbarment attempt, they would just do it again.  They were already trying to set me up in some other matters, and freezing all of my assets on bogus claims so I could ot defend myself. So I knew I had to approach this situation of helping those in need in a different way anyway. 


But, at this time, I was approached by United States Congressman James Traficant, who had just been found guilty for allegedly taking bribes.  He wanted me to help him fight off the sentencing and appeal issues.  He was amazed that even though I knew nothing of his story, nor did I follow his trial, that I could pretty much tell him what happened.  The judge would not let key evidence into your case to dispute the charges, they had alleged jail house witness types who swore that you said or did something damaging to you, that your judge fell asleep during the trial, etc., etc., etc.    His story in brief was that he was actually taking money out of one of his accounts and transferring it into another.  Of course, this judge would not let him enter the one account into evidence that showed he was actually just transferring funds, so with an alleged witness saying that he slid the money under the door, and without Traficant being able to show that the money going into one account was merely a transfer, the jury was left with the illusion that the money in his account was the money that was slid under the door.  In Traficant’s expulsion hearing in Congress, a couple of wacko congressmen from Ohio and Colorado were claiming that they did not care if the judge was unethical and were not willing to allow Traficant to prove his case. . .that they should expel him anyway.  And, when Congress had an oral vote, Traficant actually won. . .that Congress would await an investigation of the judge before deciding on whether to expel Traficant.  Then the guy from Colorado got up and said, let’s have a recorded, written vote.  Well, all those yes votes turned to no votes when they actually had to write it down.  So Traficant was expelled without Congressional support for the judge to be investigated before they expelled the Congressman. So why wouldn't these Congressmen write down the vote that they were so willing to orally give. Who were they afraid of that they couldn't honestly vote in writing?   The public would have been for investigating any judge that did this. . .that purposely refused to enter evidence that would show that there was no bribe. It wasn't the public that these Congressmen were afraid of. But, when there is no public accountability, each lawyer, congressman, judge or anyone else who desires sincerity and honesty are in danger.  Those who want accountabiilty become the fodder. And the duped public is led right down the rabbit trail believing the very criminals in office who we believe to be crooked and helping them lynch anyone who actually speaks on the public's behalf. The system works off the "perception of public trust" and we are so selfish and lazy that we do not look at the situation to see what is really going on, or we have not even learned how to see a situation through all the disinformation so we are unable to see it. That is why I put together an entire "Disinformation Occupation" series, where I break down different disinformation strategies being used by the media and the alleged alternative media so that you can start learning how to see through the "perception of public trust."

                So back to the story, at this point, I think I have two cases total, and Traficant’s case.  I did not want to be a part of this farce any longer.  But, I also didn’t want to be disbarred in that I had worked hard with much sacrifice in going to law school and passing that very hard Virginia Bar Exam where just over 50% of the first time test takers pass.  But, I knew what I was up against, and knew that I was not going to get a fair shot.  I was finding out that there was no such thing as a First Amendment in Virginia and as you will see, in the United States either.  So I thought about just walking away, but then how could I help these people I had been working with if I did not take this opportunity to show them that the system is corrupt, and that we must fight thissituation outside the courtroom.  I mean, I had so much evidence to show that everything I did was not only ethical but recommended by the Bar itself.  I had more smoking guns to support me than the Rifleman.    One of the Bar’s own workers told me that I shouldn’t just walk away because he knew I did not do what was being claimed, and he knew they would not disbar me (I believe he truly believed that).   He sat through the trial and I think he was in for a rude awakening.

Mostly though, I wanted to stop the public from being "sucked into the Litigation Vortex." So many people I tried to help kept thinkingtaht if they researched harder, longer or smarter, that somehow they would find the magic bullet that would halt these criminals from their criminal activities. What I needed to show them is that you could do everything right, filed things the right way, say the right things, object to the right issues, write the brief's, argue the winning side, and still lose because when criminals are in charge, they don't care about laws or facts. Criminals break the laws, they do not uphold them. And criminals are not going to find criminals corrupt. That is just a matter of common sense. So now, I was going to shove this license and everything I had worked so hard for back in the face of these criminals and if nothing else, prove to the public that we do not have any laws or facts that will matter in any case if the courts do not with them to matter; that we have no First Amendment if the court does not wish us to have one; that those intrusted to represent The People, only represent government interests, and so forth and so on. And I was going to prove it all the way up to and including The Supreme Court of the United States. I knew how to do it. I had the tools. And I had the public support so that this could not be done in secret no matter how hard the Virginia Bar, the Virginia Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court wanted this to be their little secret. I would then put government officials on trial as I would put them on notice of the situation. If there were checks and balances in this country, other branches would go nuts over these facts. If there was an uncontrolled and free press in this country, this would be a story they dream of that would put them up for awards for reporting. If nothing else, I would smash the "perception of public trust" once and for all for anyone who would pay attention now and in the future.    The if enough people cared (which I had my doubts) we could get rid of these crooked organizations and politicians and stop voting for the "lesser of two evils" or for their third selection they often give when we figured out the first two.

Motions Fiasco Day

                I decided to go forward in spite of my reservations, knowing that this was going to be quite the farce.  By now, I had involved myself in several other cases involving Virginia State Bar and other Court corruption and I put in affadvits in certain cases where the case was independently taped and the transcripts were being rewritten. So , I knew that there was a high probability of the transcripts changing in my situation due to my evidence in that I got "secret" Bar documents they never intended to have in the public eye, putting the bar under the microscope as you will read more about later, and of course, if I started playing my tapes that I had which they still did not know existed, which would catch them in their lies as they had already documented their lies on paper. 

So one of the first things I did, after asking the bar for a more definite statement, was to insist on the hearing being video taped, audio taped and that I could have my own separate court reporter.  Of course, I was denied all of these, and one of the most crooked judges I have ever met, Judge Glen Tyler, stated that the court reporter could NOT even have a tape recorder present unless the bar approved it.  How’s that for neutrality?  It is not only customary practice for the court reporter to tape, but in Virginia there was a law at the time that gave a party the right to tape record the hearing. The three judges were Judge Glen Tyler, and two retired judges who were going to follow Judge Glen Tyler’s lead.  They were John E. Clarkson of Norfolk, and Judge William L Winston of Northern Virginia. 

                Then I was denied my motion for a more definite statement from the bar. A motion requesting a more definite statement is something a party uses when it is not clear what the claims against you are. So being denied an understanding of what I allegedly had done meant that the claims would change and I would be trying to hit a moving target throughout the proceeding which is exactly what happened. So I would now have to just guess what the basis of the allegations were during the trial and try to pin them down as Georgiadis, Tyler and the others would continually change them so that I couldn't have a defense.  The underlying case with my ex-client had so much paperwork attributed to it that I had an entire room in my office designated to it.  The amount of documents in that case were so massive, that just the depositions alone cost about $20,000.  There was no way I could show up with every document, and be able to put my hands on each and every document and know every item in the document while being ambushed by the Bar on alleged claims that were not even made clear, since they did not have to give me the basis for their allegations.  I filed a Motion stating that it was unconstitutional in the U.S. and in Virginia for the Bar to have a "trial by ambush." This is actually a phrase of art in the legal profession. "Trial by Ambush" means that you are not getting a chance to defend yourself due to the lack of clarity in the allegations. This is unconsitutional as you can imagine as it violates the 5th and 14th Amendments to your right for a fair hearing through due process.   Guess what?  Denied. 

                But, I knew I had to somehow build a record, and it was going to have to be through my own motions since the transcripts were out of my control, and with the judge deciding that the court reporter did not even have to tape without the bar’s permission, well, that was a sure sign that this was not going to be the most accurate or fair hearings I had ever seen.   So I filed everything. . .requests, objections, summaries, I mean everything I could write I put in a motion and got each one court certified so that I could make my own record the best I could in spite of what they had planned. 

                Interestingly, at the motions day, I found out that the bar was trying to go after my strategy in the underlying litigation against Milcom Systems and Lucas which caused me to win that case.  We were under the Ethical Code at that time (since then the Bar changed to the Ethical Rules which was a different set of regulations than the Code). The code clearly stated that the bar did not have subject matter jurisdiction over a lawyer’s strategy.  So whether I decided to use strategy A, or B, or XYZ, the Bar could not go after me for strategy calls. Not only did that not matter, but even in the Bar’s own materials to the complanant, they say that they cannot and will not pursue an attorney for his or her strategy.  Specifically, the Bar states that under the headline:  Dissatisfaction with the quality of a lawyer’s advice or strategy  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/smjstratresize.BMP) that,

“The Virginia State Bar cannot regulate the quality of a lawyer’s advice or strategy except for certain situations, such as missing deadlines, failing to file required documents or totally abandoning the case.  

If you feel that your lawyer represented you poorly your remedy may be to file a civil malpractice action, . . . These cases must be filed in a court of law, not with the Virginia State Bar.  The Virginia State Bar cannot advise you on the chance of success of any such case. “

Although the Bar does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the advice or strategy except in matters as indicated above, the bar did not mind continually going after my strategy even though I beat one of the alleged top rated employment law attorneys on the eastern seaboard, Tom Lucas. Hello. . .no subject matter jurisdiction and hello. . .I WON THE CASE. And I showed you the type of “strategy” Tom Lucas used to try to win the case.  The Bar continued to go after my strategy even though I won the case against Tom Lucas and his bad faith strategies, and even though I also won the underlying law suit my ex-client filed against me.  Additionally, not only did my strategy work, but my brief that made Lucas a witness in that case because he was involved in the investigation of the claim by Milcom's own admission, became law a month or two after I settled the case.  So, if an attorney gets involved in the investigation of a claim for an employer in an employment law matter, he becomes a witness in the case, because part of the defense an employer makes is that he timely investigated the complaint against his employees who allegedly were involved in the sexual harassment or retaliation.  So in reality, there was no strategy in issue even though the Bar insisted on going after it anyway. . . and by now, the law had been made that attorneys could be made witnesses in the case under these circumstances.  But when you only deal with "the perception of public trust," the law and the facts just don't matter, thus my Plan B Strategies. 

But, as you remember, the Bar claims that they are not held to subject matter jurisdiction which is crazy, goes against their own ethical rules (the code at the time), contradicts their own literature, (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/smjstratresize.BMP) and which bad faith claim is about as unconstitutional as you can get.  EVERY court or tribunal in the United States of America is held to subject matter jurisdiction.  And they will tell you that themselves, unless it is inconvenient for them to do so. Ask any first year law student. Subject Matter Jurisdiction is the granddaddy of law, and an objection to SMJ even at the Supreme Court level, even if never raised at any time prior to the Surpremes has to be granted and the case must be dismissed. That is as clear a law in the United States as there is.

And while we are at it, if the bar wanted to go after strategy, keep asking, why did the Virginia State Bar refused to go after Tom Lucas for using a 3rd party illegal taping of the EEOC and then blackmailing the EEOC to gain an advantage in litigation which one of his Milcom System clients, Vice President Bill Fleming admitted to under oath.  Furthermore, Lucas and Milcom Systems used this tape to try to blackmail the EEOC into a better resolution against my client which is another violation when you use a criminal allegation to try to gain an advantage in a civil case.

If you thought these things couldn't happen in America, so did I. I thought every lawyer, including the Paul Georgiadis' of the Virginia State Bar had to sign an oath committing to uphold the laws of the Constitution of the United States and of Virginia. The underlying case with Tom Lucas was a clear case of blackmailing the EEOC, using illegal third party-tapings, etc. Here is Georgiadis' oath of office (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/baroathresize.BMP).   You judge for yourself if Paul Georgiadis is living up to his oath, or is he just using this oath for the purposes of "the perception of public trust?" And here is Judge Glen Tyler's Oath of Office. (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/tyleroathresize.BMP). And where were the Virginia State Bar,The Judiciary Committee on Discipline, and the other retired judges, and Van Deventer Black, McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe, and later Troutman and Sanders in this? This is not the only thing this unscrupulous lawyer Tom Lucas ever did. How about Thomas Edmonds who signed this oath below, who was also on notice of the sitaution and "retired" a short time later? Barbara Williams who oversaw Georgiadis and summarily dismissed over 100 Bar Complaints against the Bar in two weeks time. . . that is, dismissed the complaints without an investigation.



                                This site has been hacked again with all links being destroyed.  I am in the process of re-linking.  Thank you for your patience.  Mike D.

                The Bar then claimed that I was sanctioned which I was not.  They kept saying that I could not explain my position because the Bar will not look past an Order of the Federal Judge.  So I asked them, if I presented the Order that shows that I was not sanctioned, will that alleviate this allegation against me?  The Judge said yes.  The next day I presented the Order (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/tyleroathresize.BMP) that showed I was not sanctioned, and the judge said, well, for whatever that is worth, indicating that now they were going to look behind the judges Order anyway.  Notice on this Order, it says Defendant’s “Petition” for attorney fees and costs is dismissed . . . (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/orderfedresize.BMP) that means there was no granting of such a sanction before, but it was just someone’s motion or petition for same.  Petitions happen all the time as some unethical attorney tries to scare other attorneys into submission.   Lucas had that request for sanctions garbage on just about everything he submitted which is on its face bad faith.  So, once I presented the Order that I was not sanctioned, then the issue became that my brief was “sanctionable.”  Not sanctioned; Sanctionable.  (See Employment Law expert affidavit Page 5, #22 about “requests for sanctions v. sanctions.  They are not the same thing). (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/emplexpertaff5resize.BMP).  So during the hearing, they change the allegation and then do not let me discuss it because I was allegedly sanctioned.  So I didn’t even get to address it even though I showed I was not sanctioned and they changed the claim in the middle of trial. . . both unconstitutional as you cannot change a claim during a trial and you have to give an opportunity for someone to prepare and then defend.  And don’t forget, if we are now looking at my strategy, then the Bar by the Ethical Code which we were under at the time, and the bar’s own literature, says that the bar does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a lawyer’s strategy in a case (which case I won by the way so my strategy could not have been too bad, especially against three of the alleged best firms in the country).  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/smjstratresize.BMP).   As stated, I was not allowed to defend myself in the bar hearings against the alleged Sanction according to the bar and the court, because they would allegedly not look behind a judges Order.  The day before, I asked them if I could show them that I was not sanctioned, and if so, would that make a difference?  They said yes.  When I showed them the judge’s Order the next day as you have seen above, showing I wasn’t sanctioned, the judge said, ok, “for all that’s worth” trying to discount what they said the day before that they would have to drop the charge.  That is when they changed their allegations from “sanctioned,” to sanctionable, which is pursuing me for an attorney’s strategy which they have no subject matter jurisdiction over and which they could not do via the Constitution as it violates due process to change allegations during a hearing.  But now, since there was no sanction, then even though they had no jurisdiction over “sanctionable” actions, then I should have been able to defend myself against their allegations because now we were not looking behind a judge’s Order since there was no order for sanctions.  But, not so.  I was never allowed to defend myself against their allegations which kept changing during the “trial.”  They just found my strategy sanctionable so without me ever having a chance to defend myself, that was the finding with no evidence presented for this allegation.  In fact, I had an employment law expert testify for me, but the bar did not have one to testify for them.  I had a handwriting expert ready to testify for me, but the bar had no handwriting expert to testify for them.  They had no experts to counter what I put forth.  My evidence was uncontroverted as we say in the business.  But, it did not matter.   Furthermore, the Bar did not have jurisdiction over a lawyer’s strategy.  There we go with subject matter jurisdiction again.   So the allegations I went into the courtroom included the allegation that I was sanctioned, the case was on appeal saying that what I did was “sanctionable.”  They were just changing charges right in front of me, to see what could stick and what I could prove otherwise.  It was truly a trial by ambush which is totally Unconstitutional of course.  So, in addition to not being sanctioned, I presented my motion opposing the potential for sanctions, and showed that I had nothing to do with this other attorneys’ brief (attorney #1), which brief was in issue since her brief was not hitting the key issues of the matter.  My brief was fine and was not an issue.  I explained that attorney #1 was not hired by me (and there was proof right in the transcripts that showed this to be so), that she did not write on my letterhead, and that I did not adopt her argument or even saw it, which her own paralegal provided an affidavit stating same as she wrote the brief.  It didn’t matter Georgiadis said.  I asked, then why isn’t the actual attorney who wrote it being brought before this court?  Georgiadis again said it didn’t matter.  And interestingly, Georgiadis kept trying to say I never opposed the motion for sanctions.  But, in the Bar’s own submissions under the FOIA requests I had made, Georgiadis turned over my very motion opposing sanctions.  He had that motion, he knew that I opposed that motion, he knew that I did not get sanctioned, and he knew I had nothing to do with the brief in question.  But it didn’t matter.  I mean, if they are changing the allegations right in front of me from being sanctioned, to someone else’s brief being sanctionable, then what law or fact was really going to matter here?

                So I had a couple of days of motions (I do not have all of that in front of me, but I believe it was two days), and filed motion after motion to make sure I was creating a record in anticipation that the transcripts would be changed once I broke out the tapes.  Meanwhile, I decided to go to Federal Court to try to put a halt to this lynching, and get some discovery from the bar.  I didn’t have much hope long term with this move, but at least I could get some information so that I was not totally ambushed at trial like the bar Judge Glen Tyler was willing to do during the motions.  Before the Federal Judge got a “talking to” he actually filed the first every harassment hearing against a bar in the United States (that is what I was told), via a bad faith exception to the rule that keeps the Federal Court out of state court matters.  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/fedbadfaithexceptionresize.BMP).  So, the Federal Court acknowledged that the Bar was trying to lynch me and he wanted to know why?  The Federal Judge asked, what did she really do to warrant this?     (See lines  15-16 ).  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/fedridiculouswhyresize.BMP).   As you can see the Attorney General’s office didn’t even know the facts, yet they came to the aid of the Virginia State Bar anyway.  Where’s the accountability?  Who’s watching the Bar.  Isn’t that part of the Attorney General’s job, to watch over these rogue agencies so the people really are protected?   And he also said, making her liable for someone else’s brief is ridiculous.   (See lines 9-14).  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/fedridiculouswhy.BMP).  Obviously from this write up, nobody was saying I adopted this brief in some way, not even Attorney #1’s own paralegal who wrote it.  And they never brought Attorney #1 into court because she is really unstable and had worn out all her private reprimands already, so she would not have been a good witness for the Bar. 


                Additionally, I told the Federal Judge about the EEOC being blackmailed by Tom Lucas.  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/fedeeoctapegeorgiadisconcernresize.BMP ).  This was based on the EEOC’s own account and that of VP Bill Fleming who admitted it under oath finally (See lines 1-19)  He asked who prosecuted the case.  I told him nobody did.  He looked shocked.  I reported it to the bar and they summarily dismissed it without an investigation.  So the Judge said he was really concerned about this Georgiadis fellow (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/fedeeoctapegeorgiadisconcern.BMP ) and set the evidentiary hearing on the bad faith exception to the rule that says the Feds have to stay out of state court matters.  (See 22-25).  The exception was available  when it was obvious a citizen was not going to get a fair trial in state court. It was obvious.   At one point, the judge hinted to the Attorney General’s office that the state court needed to drop this so the Feds would not have to embarrass the state.  (See lines  16-20).  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/fedridiculouswhy.BMP).

Just before this Federal hearing, Georgiadis, in front of witnesses I didn't even know, assaulted me right in the courtroom. (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/assaultresie.BMP ). I filed a charge with the magistrate because no city prosecutor woulddare to go against the Bar (why is that?). The fact that this is so, should tell everyone something about the lack of accountability of the courts and the Bar. Additionally, it tells us that we give WAY too much discretion to prosecutors as to who they do and do not go after. After many witnesses testified in the assault hearing, Georgiadis got a hand slap (a judge told him not to do that again) and the whole thing went away. And this is during my case. You would think that at least he would be recused from proceeding further as this was not a normal thing to do unless I was frustrating some other issues within him, but the judges refused to take him off the case even though he truly had a personal and directed vendetta on top of his directive to get me disbarred. It was incredible to witness and I had a court room full of people watching. Many I had never met before.

                To no surprise, before the next hearing in Federal Court, the Judge got his talking to and took it off the docket and started threatening me with sanctions, and criminal contempt and all of these types of things.  Because the Attorney General’s office was caught in a lie that the judge acknowledged was a lie, I filed a motion for sanctions against the Attorney General’s office.  The Judge acknowledged that they were subject to a sanction based on their actions which I caught them in, but he said that if he gave them one, he would have to give me one since I did not properly request the sanction (which I did properly submit. . . I learned it from Lucas himself who was constantly asking for sanctions even though he was the one who deserved them).  So much to the judge’s surprise, I said, fine.  I accept your sanction, so go ahead and sanction the Attorney General’s office, knowing that the bar claims that they automatically go after anyone who is sanctioned.  No, not this time.  No sanction.

                Then the judge started threatening me with criminal contempt for being before him.  I pulled a toothbrush out of my pocket and told the judge that if I could get a jury trial, I would take the contempt charge.  He didn’t want to actually give me a jury so no criminal contempt for whatever he was going to say I did next was imposed. And believe me, I did everything I could to force him to impose criminal contempt aganist me and give me a jury trial.  He wouldn't do it.


So Back to the State Hearing with the Virginia State Bar

                So, even though I didn't get sanctioned, and although they are not allowed to change the allegation during the hearnig as they did, my brief wasn't "sanctionable" and my good faith argument became the law in April of 1999, it was being alleged that somehow I was going to be disciplined for someone else's brief (Attorney #1) which I never read, or adopted, and which was not on my letterhead nor did that attorney work with me or share my office. The Bar did not go after Attorney #1 even though she had a long history of disciplinary problems. I did not even hire Attorney #1 and had no control over her. And claiming one person did something that they know someone else did, and saying that it didn't matter who did it, in addition to changing an allegation during the trial are both unconstitutional and against Due Process under the 5th and 14th Amendment. This is also unconstitutional in that it is a "Trial by Ambush." This is a legal phrase that means that you cannot surprise someone with what the allegations are so that that person cannot amply prepare a defense.

The second allegation, as far as I could tell, was that my fees were unreasonable. Again, my fees were already approved by Jim McCauley himself, the head of Ethics at the Virginia State Bar, and I also won the civil suit on that issue when my ex-client sued me and then had to "remember" that my contract was the real one after her own hand-writing expert told her she signed my contract. Furthermore, just one of the three opposing firms' fees, Tom Lucas' firm billed over $300,000 and his fees were not being challenged. It turned out that they were bringing in the fees of Attorney #2 not my fees, but somehow, again, they did not go after Attorney #2 and I was going to be disciplined for another attorney's alleged transgressions, i.e. attorney #2's fees, even though I had my own billing approved. I did not hire Attorney #2, she was not a part of my firm, etc. Again, unconstitutional under the 5th and 14th Amendments' Due Process clauses. Additionally, the claims of what was unreasonable within these fees kept changing during the hearing also. . .again Unconstitutionl and a Trial by Ambush.

And do you remember earlier when I told you this was a contract dispute and not a fee dispute? Remember I said this would be important later? Well, I had proven my contract was the real contract to the point that my ex-cleint even had to admit it under oath after denying it for so long. Jim McCauley, head of Ethics at the Bar also acknowledged this was a contract and not a fee dispute remember from the tape recordings? So since I won the argument over who had the real contract, the Bar then changed the allegation to it being a fee dispute and not a contract dispute. Again, Trial by Ambush. . . Unconstitutional, etc. But it gets even better. Because I was seeing how the Bar was behaving and could tell that the Bar was not doing this for the first time, I started taking cases against the Bar. It was hard to find what the bar was really up to because they are permitted to do everything in secret. Secret hearings, secret investigations, and secret dismissals. So I put out ads to the public and told anyone who had a legitimate complaint against an attorney and did not get an investigation, or a proper investigation, to come see me and I would see if I felt I could handle the case for free. I never charged a dime for this, and got many people to come to me with their documents. I decided that we needed a library of all the secret complaints that were dismissed with or without an investigation so that the public had some sort of reference point as to what the Bar was and was not doing for the public. It was very telling indeed.

So back to this alleged fee dispute, because I had been representing the public against the Bar in order to help the people open up the very secret and unfair Bar process, I actually had the secret dismissal letters from the Bar stating that they could not investigate certain claims and they gave some reason why they could not do so. Well, guess what one of their letters addressed. . . yes. . . fee disputes! So, the Virginia State Bar states that they do not have SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION over fee disputes right on their own letterhead. So there are two constitutional issues here. One of course is the Virginia State Bar states on its own letterhead in its secret dismissals that it does not have Subject Matter Jurisdiction to go after fee disputes, but it then went after me for an alleged fee dispute saying they are not held to Subject Matter Jurisdiction. And Subject Matter Jurisdiction is the big one. It is the granddaddy of all laws and is the only claim you can make at the appeal level and still be heard even if you didn't bring it up at trial. I did bring it up repeatedly all the way up the ranks of the courts and . . . it didn't matter. Additionally, the Bar is also showing in this letter that they are arbitrarily and capriously going after whomever they please which is also unconstituional and another reason that giving prosecutors their own discretion in whom they go after is such a bad idea. So we learn her that the Virginia State Bar is not held to precendent, Subject Matter Jurisdiction and the Constitution. Wow! Incredible right?


So once the Virginia state Bar said they were not under any Constitutional provisions in spite of the oaths the Judges and Georgiadis signed and against all common sense, I again had to argue that this was ot a fee dispute, but a contract dispute over who had the real contract and that my ex-client's own attorney and eventually the ex-cleint addmitted that my contract was genuine. There was no fee dispute claim and the Head of the Virginia State Bar Ethics Committee, Jim McCauley approved my fees and gave me permission to disburse funds. And round and round I went in the "Litigation Vortex." This is really how the courts work folks. And they can do this because as you will see, we do not have the checks and balances you think we have. The ones you were taught that we have. So read on.

And as a sidebar (excuse the pun), at the same time the Virginia State Bar had other attorneys trying to set me up, sue me and grab any funds away from me that they could so that I could not defend myself and so I would be financially destroyed by the end of this and could not appeal, which in the United States, your appeal as of right costs money. Addtionally, it spred my time really thin because I was being attacked on mulitple fronts. They were also contacting some of my ex-cleints to see if some of them had any complaints they might want to bring against me, and this would be a great time to do it if they did. NOT ONE OF THEM HAD A COMPLAINT! As you can see, the attorneys teaching so called "ethics" must have taught Tom Lucas because they were just as dirty. Other attorneys have complained to me that this happened to them, where the Virginia State Bar tried to get complaints manufactured against someone they wanted to disbar. And although these attorneys did not take a stand agains the Bar, there is good reason why the Virginia State Bar benefits from these hearings. I will get to that later.

And what about all the justice propaganda you hear where "justice is blind," and we do not play favorites and we have the fairest system in the world. Men and women have lost their lives thinking they were defending the alleged "attacks on our freedom." What country in their right mind woud be fighting to have a reinactment of the Nazi's People's Court? When you travel to other countries and you engage the locals in some intelligent conversation, one of the things they might tell you is that they cannot believe how much we fall for the state propaganda that is spewed out in this country over the airways and in print. Isn't that what we hear about those alleged ignorant people in these alleged third world countries as we watch the nightly news? Might we be the ones who are blinded due to trusting in these propaganda ministers who appeal to our pride when they tell us about dumb people from other countries who are controlled by their "state press" as we watch them shooting guns in the air and yelling sounds we do not understand?

So with this alleged fee dispute, it of course was ridiculous, especially since the Virginia State Bar told one of my clients in a letter on their letterhead that they would not pursue another attorney because the Virginia State Bar has no Subject Matter Jurisdiction over fee disputes. Not satisfied with the Bar's summarily dismissing her complaint, this client came to me for assistance. And to be fair, I didn't know if this attorney was guilty or not and my intention was not to play judge and jury. But, society including honest attorneys needed an honest adjudiation system in place so these issues could be fairly and properly investigated. That is the foundation of a civil and just society. A fair and just rule of law and an honest system who adjudicates them. Instead, we have a Bar that secretly dismisses cases of some while going after others for their own purposes and I will get to another of the Bar's big reasons for having to go after innocent attorneys later. In my case, I would hope it is obvious why they wanted me labelled as one of the money grubbing attorneys that they are, and then wanted me kicked out of their sand box.

Additionally, my employment law expert, who had a lot to lose by going against the Bar, testified under oath that he was once reported to the Bar on a fee dispute and the Bar told the complaining party that they had no Subject Matter Jurisdiction over him. I am very thankful for this witness who didn't have to put himself in harms way, but did it anyway and also waived much of his fee after learning about what the Bar was doing to me and what I was trying to do for the public and for honest attorneys. And the Bar's own literature brochures that they hand out to the complaining party also says tht it has no Subject Matter Jurisdiction over fee disputes and recommends that the complaining party get the attorney to go through arbitration which I did, and I won. CHECK OUT THIS LINK

So, again this is arbitrary and capricious behavior on the part of this Bar to go after whomever it chooses for whatever it chooses whether it has jurisdiction or not and obviously again, against the Constitution.


                I think the third allegation was that I disbursed funds before a final resolution in the case occurred.  Honestly, I am still not positive what the allegations were because they kept changing.  Even on appeal, I had two new allegations against me.  No due process, moving targets, being accused of other attorney’s briefs, fees, and for following Jim McCauley’s, the head of ethics at the Virginia State Bar, own advice.  How’s that for a fair process?  Wait until you hear what happened when I pulled the tapes out.

                During these motion days, the bar also searched the Internet and pulled some of my articles from sites which I had nothing to do with.  These sites happened to like my article and posted it on their site.  Georgiadis submitted these articles along with some wacky sites that had them posted on them, and said that I needed to be disbarred because I thought they were corrupt.   So now we are talking “thought crimes.”  That is right out of George Orwell’s 1984.  And by the way. . .aren’t they?  What is the big offense here.  They are so entirely corrupt that it is hard not to laugh while writing this, but for the fact that I was gang raped by the judiciary.  Then he put into evidence people’s websites who I did not even know, using that as evidence that I needed to be disbarred because others were picking up on my work.  Somebody elses brief, somebody elses fees, and somebody elses websites.   Wow, how’s that?  Now it is guilt by association and thought crimes that I am openly being persecuted for.  Georgiadis was obviously not afraid of acting inappropriately at this point.  He had his superior’s blessings.  So add thought crimes and guilt by nonassociation because people I didn’t know or associate with put my articles on their websites. 

                I think also, the bar was trying to say that I made the case more expensive than it needed to be.  If you recall, Tom Lucas claimed that just one brief cost his client $15,000.  I was just refusing to let that strategy win.  So again, they were trying to attack my strategy in the case, which they had no jurisdiction to do, but hey, what’s a little subject matter jurisdiction between friends right?  Additionally, the three judge panel kept denying my witness subpoenas, including the EEOC investigator who was blackmailed and Bill Fleming who admitted he and Lucas blackmailed the EEOC.  It was imperative that I be able to call these witnesses because if the Bar was trying to show that my strategy was not a good one, in spite of the fact that I beat the biggest firms in Virginia in this case while being a mere rookie with no money, an unruly client and her boyfriend, and little assistance, then I had to show why I had to fight so hard. . .because of Lucas’ hard ball tactics, even trying to blackmail the EEOC.  And, think about it.  Bill Fleming admitted that this is what they were doing.  Did Lucas get disbarred?  No, he is listed on the best employment law lawyers lists on the Internet.  Does anyone see a problem here? 

                Anyway, here is a partial list of briefs I filed leading up to and during my trial, both in state and federal court:  (coming soon . . .there are many of them)

                 Needless to say the two day trial was an absolute farce, as expected.   Sometimes it wasn’t clear where the allegations were coming from in that the Judges made sure I knew where they stood and what they were there to do.  I could never tell exactly what I was defending against since the allegations kept changing.  This culminated in Paul Georgiadis actually assaulting me  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/assaultresize.BMP) in the middle of the hearing in front of numerous witnesses who testified against him, but he was permitted to stay on the case anyway.  And some of these witnesses I had never met before.  They were as shocked over that as I was.  I would think that with the entire system willing to let Georgiadis win, he could at least keep control of himself.  I mean, I was the one being targeted.  But, with everything they tried, I had the answer and that became very frustrating to Geogiadis who was only prepared for a landslide victory.  The judges even had to physically calm him down like he was a four year old having a tantrum on more than one occasion.  It happened once, when he was losing the argument to my employment law expert who did an incredible job for me.  He was also once in the Virginia State Bar’s sights on a fee dispute complaint, but then, guess what?  The Bar dismissed the claim because . . . yes, they did not have subject matter jurisdiction over fee disputes . . . unless you are targeted for disbarment that is.  This is what arbitrary and capricious abuse of process and malicious prosecution are all about folks.  That is what “self-policing” and the secret process of disciplining brings… abuse. This is how absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

Of course, the judges made sure the message to me was clear:  No fact and no law were going to matter.  They fell asleep during my testimony, which is a tactic I have seen before and this is a way they have of telling you that nothing you say will matter.  Interestingly, the judges wouldn’t let me talk about the EEOC blackmail situation because I did not have the witnesses present.  They acknowledged that if I had the witnesses present, this testimony would be admissible and relevant information.  When I reminded them that I had subpoenaed them and the Judges allowed Georgiadis to quash the subpoenas, they just smiled.  At one time I told them that they were taking away any defense I could raise by these unethical and unconstitutional rulings, they said, then appeal or give up.  I already knew what would happen on appeal.  These people don’t make things this obvious unless they have the blessing of their superiors.  And that is a good lesson for everyone.  When you see a lawyer or judge acting in this way, they are not afraid of a complaint.  These three were terribly nasty and mocking in their rulings.  Fortunately, I had a full house of people witnessing everything.  What the judges and bar assumed, however, is that these people were my “supporters.”  What they didn’t know, is that many of these people never heard of me before, and were coming because they were told they would see justice in action in America.  They saw it all right.  And several of these people were the ones who witnessed Paul Georgiadis assault me right in court.  One, a Daughter of the American Revolution member who has several lawyers and judges in her family, was so shocked, she not only testified for me at the assault trial of Georgiadis, saying she had never witnessed anything like this hearing in her life, but she also called the Virginia State Bar and they were bragging to her that they disbar more attorneys than any other state. 

But, even with all this help from Judges, transcribers (you will hear about that soon), and lying bar witnesses, Georgiadis was still having trouble nailing any claims down.  He even forgot to do something critical to the case, and the judges kept hinting to him after he rested his case, so that he would authenticate some information.  But, he rested his case.  Oh well, so much for the rules of law.  You’d think that if the Bar wanted to rail road someone, they would at least find someone competent to do it cleanly.  But, I have found that most of these people who are willing to do it have never had to win a case honestly, so when they are confronted with facts that shoot down their attempts, they really don’t know what to do.  You will see that later when I tell you more about what the Attorney General’s office did.   If it were not true, it would have been comical. 

                Much more happened, each a shocking story in itself, but let’s get to the tapes.    Believe it or not, the judges would not let me treat Jim McCauley as a hostile witness, even though I had to force him to come to the hearing, while the bar kept sending him away on vacation every time we were getting set on a date for trial.  By now, Georgiadis, Barbara Williams, Thomas Edmonds, James McCauley and other Bar minions admitted that they colluded together after they were caught on tape denying so several times earlier (all on tape, but of course, they claimed it was ethical to do so).  They still did not know about the tapes, but they did know I had some witnesses.  Perhaps you know of some of these witnesses as I know many have shared my book to many of you readers out there.   

                Now, to get the setting right about the Jim McCauley tape:  Jim McCauley gave me permission to disburse funds based on the fact that my ex-client’s claim was that she had the only contract and that I did not have the real contract.  So this was not a fee dispute even though the bar was trying to claim it was (and said they were not held to subject matter jurisdiction so that they could nail me on a fee dispute).  And you ask why?  Why not go after me for something they actually had jurisdiction over?  First of all, they did not know I had all the dismissal letters from clients who had their claims against connected attorneys summarily dismissed, so they did not know I could show them their own letter saying they did not have jurisdiction over a fee dispute.  Secondly, in order to find against me on disbursing funds during a fee dispute, they had to say I was in a fee dispute (even though it was a contract dispute over who had the real contract).  But, thirdly, something these minions love to do, is label you what they are.  So by trying to label me a money grubbing lawyer like they actually are, they hoped that by creating the illusion that I was the money grubber that this would discredit me enough to take my ministry to the people away.  For those of us who use our trade for ministry, money is nothing more than a tool for the purpose that God has put on our hearts.  But, to these people, it is everything.  So they must paint you into being what they actually are, while hiding their true motives with lofty “ethical rules” that they then allegedly police their own.  And this usually works.  Discrediting the leader is nothing knew, and quite often once they do, the whole thing falls apart.  But, it didn’t happen this way this time and you will see why as you read on.   And this is very important to any of you who have been wrongly discredited by the system.   You can either accept their shame, which is what they try very hard to force you to do, or you can not receive that and use it for the good of the people, and then their actions actually get turned around on them.  It is a hard thing to do, because you have to really put yourself second and see the bigger picture.  You have to come to the realization that sometimes it is not just about you or me, but it is about a suffering people who are silently harassed and ruined by these power brokers who have seemingly everything in their favor.  But, that is where these minions are wrong.  More on that later. 

On day one of a two day “trial,” this matter of whether McCauley did or did not tell me to disburse funds came up at one point earlier, and Georgiadis even said to the court, that not only did Jim McCauley never tell me to disburse funds under any circumstances, but if Jim McCauley had done so, then I would have to exonerate Linda Kennedy.  So at this point, the Bar doesn’t know I have a very special tape recording.  They can assume that any messages they left on my recorder I do have, but they did not know that I actually had the tape of McCauley directing me to disburse funds based on this being a contract issue and not a fee dispute.  They also know I have witnesses to this conversation between me and McCauley, because I told them so, so they are prepared to threaten, intimidate and try to destroy any witness that comes forward on my behalf.     So the second day of the “trial,” first thing, the judges decided that I had to call Jim McCauley as my first witness even though I had another plan.  They said this was because he was on vacation (again), and that they did not want to keep him.  So, the judges and the bar had their plan in order.  Try to rush through this, get McCauley to say he absolutely didn’t and wouldn’t ever tell me to disburse funds, and that this was a fee dispute, and they would have the smoking guns to throw away the key to my claims, and everyone of them goes away fat and happy, laughing and making merriment for a job well done.  Not so fast . . .

Just before I got McCauley on the stand, I reminded the judge of the question he asked Georgiadis the day before.  The question the judge asked, trying to give Georgiadis a softball that he could hit out of the park was very simple, and the answer the judge was looking for was very simple.  But, Georgiadis was in the role of playing the fair and honest bar counsel who wanted to look overly ethical.  These people should realize that nobody can act that well when you are this type of miscreant, but because of his pride, Georgiadis missed the softball the Judge was tossing up for him.  The Judges knew McCauley was willing to lie, but they knew he also couldn’t withstand any real penetrating questions and could slip up easily because he was not a good liar.   So Judge Glen Tyler asked Mr. Georgiadis, if it even mattered whether the bar told Ms. Kennedy to disburse.  Would that even matter?  How ridiculous is that?  But, the judge was again trying to take my defenses away by making whether McCauley directed me or not irrelevant.  But, in Georgiadis’ pride, he swung and missed, and instead of providing Glen Tyler with the answer he wanted. . . “No, judge it would not matter”,  Georgiadis said, “Judge, if Mr. McCauley told Ms. Kennedy to disburse funds, than I would have to exonerate her.” Oops.  Georgiadis missed it, and I almost stood up and said, sorry judge, that was a real swing and a miss wasn’t it.  But, I did not want to give them another chance to coach Georgiadis, so I just took the strike.  But, I did turn to some of my court watchers and said, please note that.  I knew if there were going to be transcript “rewriting,” this would be one area where Georgiaidis would get another change to answer it the way the judges needed him to if you know what I mean (see below for the rewriting of transcripts  . . . still to come). 

With that, Judge  Glen Tyler went into an approximate 1-2 minute tirade directed at me, because he knew that I as noting that answer, and that when the transcripts changed, I would have witnesses who wrote it down, with the time it was said.  Glen Tyler stood up and leaned over his bench and said, “You don’t intimidate me Ms. Kennedy, you don’t intimidate me.”  And so on and so forth.  This went on for quite a while with people in the seats who were not generally court watching but who were told to come see the American justice system at work.  These were people who believed in the system until they saw this “trial.”    Well, I won’t leave you hanging on this one, yes, the transcripts were altered here, but wait and see how God will still trap these minions who bring justice into a state of disrepute. 


So finally, I get Jim McCauley on the stand.   I start asking him questions about what he does, what his role is at the bar, etc., and then this issue of ethics counsel talking with bar counsel comes up.  McCauley’s plan was to play really dumb on that one (maybe it wasn’t acting. . . I am not yet convinced either way because he is definitely a weak link to the deceptive bar in that he doesn’t lie very well).  So, I introduced a tape of a message that McCauley left on my machine at the office.  Not THE tape of him telling me to disburse, but one he actually left on my machine when he was angry after I got Laurie Fuller of the Bar to admit that they were not supposed to be talking to bar counsel under any circumstances, Page 2, Page 3 (on tape).  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/assaultresize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/lauriefuller2resize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/lauriefuller3resize.BMP).  This tape that I was entering into evidence was clearly admissible since McCauley voluntarily left the message on my machine and knew he was doing so.  But Judge Glen Tyler indignantly said I could absolutely not play the tape.   This was a key bit of information for me, and I will tell you why in a minute.  You will laugh I am sure.  But just wait.  But, important here, is there was absolutely no reason for the Judge to deny the playing of this tape.  This is when Jim McCauley started leaving more aggressive messages on my recorder.  He knew he was caught.  Laurie Fuller didn’t call back. . . McCauley did. 

So, I get what I can out of McCauley on this collusion deal with Georgiadis and figure I can bring it back around later with some other questions, but I knew that they were not going to let me play THE tape where McCauley told me to disburse.  This is not because it was an illegal tape or would not normally be admissible, but because if they were not going to let me play the tapes of McCauley knowingly leaving me a message, they were certainly not going to let me play a tape of McCauley not knowingly being taped, in spite of its legal and admissible qualities under (the alleged) Virginia law.  Additionally, I also knew that I could not call my witnesses because the Bar would most likely come after them next if they provided the smoking guns I needed.  So what do I do?   

Well I started asking him questions about the conversation where he had directed me to disburse funds based on a contract dispute and not a fee dispute.  I asked him, “Did you tell me to disburse funds?”  To this McCauley of course answered, “No, absolutely not.”  So, now I have him nailed down to a definite answer even though it was a lie and he knew it.  I know I can’t play the tape of him telling me to disburse funds because it was a contract dispute and not a fee dispute, and I can’t call witnesses that the bar would then target.  So again, what do I do?  Well, I left out a couple of important facts that were going on behind the scenes.  Once you read this, you will see what an awesome God we really do have, where what evil intends for evil, God can use for good.      

And, this is may be a place where you will laugh a little.  Although the tape of my conversation with McCauley about disbursing funds exists and is in my possession although not in Virginia any longer, I had already decided to retire by then, and had recently moved my office to a less expensive location while I wound things down.  In doing so, a number of boxes got misplaced and things misfiled.  Just before this “trial,” I and my staff were having a terrible time finding this tape.  We looked and looked, but I also had an alleged “trial” to prepare for.  So while my staff continued to search, I had to get to work on other matters.  So, at this alleged “trial,” I actually didn’t even have the tape in court.  So, when Judge Glen Tyler said that I absolutely could not play the tapes of McCauley leaving messages on my recorder (which tapes I did have at the courthouse), what they really did, is it helped me because I then knew that they would also not let me play the tape of McCauley’s and my conversation where he told me to disburse and said this was a contract dispute and not a fee dispute.  This meant, if I played my cards right, I could bluff having this tape in my hand while asking McCauley questions, since McCauley knew we did indeed have such a conversation. 

So back to the story of me questioning Jim McCauley on whether he told me I could disburse funds because this was a contract dispute and not a fee dispute, and he said, “No, absolutely not.”  So I pull out a tape (not the right one.  It could have been blank for all I know), and I tell the judges I am going to play a tape of the actual conversation that Jim McCauley and I had on or about such and such a date (I don’t have all of that in front of me as I write this), but I believe it was April 14, 1999.  So I am putting the tape into the tape recording, and of course, Judge Glen Tyler knee jerks up to protect their conglomeration and shouts, “No, you cannot play that tape in this courtroom.”  And you can imagine what I am thinking right about now-pheeeewwwww!  And although I had to look disgusted, and they all had smug smiles on their faces, I popped the tape back out and held it up toward McCauley and pretended to read off the tape, and said, “Ok, Mr. McCauley, under penalty of perjury, on April 14, 1999, did you or did you not tell me to disburse funds?”  Is the drama building yet?  Are you feeling it?   Well, so was everyone in the courtroom. 

Now, normally TV does a very poor job of creating real court drama, but they do get one thing right.  Whenever you ask an opposing witness a very troubling question, and that witness lies, but doesn’t do it well, the opposing counsel (and in this case three judges too), will come to the rescue of the witness, jumped to his feet and start coaching the witness in what to say under the guise of speaking to the judge.  Like in this case, one would expect Georgiadis to jump to his feet and say, “Judge, this is ridiculous.  Mr. McCauley already said, No, absolutely not.  This question is asked and answered already.”  And if the witness didn’t get the coaching from his counsel and just repeat what Geogiadis just said, the judge would save the witness and agree with opposing counsel and McCauley would be off the hook, not having to answer the question.  But, again, it shows just how big God is, because instead of the drama I just outlined, everyone was completely still, completely silent.  You could have heard a pin drop in the entire courtroom as everyone in the crowd also watched and awaited McCauley’s answer.      

                It seemed like 4 or 5 seconds went by, and I was really concerned that someone would interrupt and take McCauley off the hook.  But, instead, McCauley’s face got all red, and his scalp was drawn back like a person really humiliated and embarrassed, and then he said it.  “YES.”  And I said, “Yes what?”  And McCauley said, “Yes, I told you to disburse funds.”   And right about now, you know what I am thinking again-feeewwwww!   And so were my witnesses who knew they were off the hook even though I had already told them I would not ask them to come forward.  But, one other person in that room knew what really happened.  That I could have not played that tape because I didn’t have it with me that day.  After I asked a few more questions of McCauley not having to do with that conversation, I did not dare to ask anything else as I didn’t want anyone to say, “ok, I was wrong, go ahead and play that tape.”  So I asked McCauley what he was actually doing at the bar if he could give advice to people and then go and help get that prosecuted for that same advice.  He went back to the very falsely proud miscreant he is and discussed his lofty position in trying to help keep attorneys out of trouble by giving them ethical advice that they could bank on.  And so appropriately, I asked, “like me right?”  McCauley just looked at me and said nothing, and I held my stare back at him for another couple of seconds seeing that there would be no response, and so that was the end of my direct, since I couldn’t ask any other questions that would make anyone want to listen to that tape.  

                As I was going back to my seat, I looked up at one of the witnesses who had heard the original conversation with McCauley back in 1999.  This person’s look said it all.  It is one thing to believe in someone like me, and believe what I was saying was true, but somewhere inside this person, there was still a belief that someone with honor would put a stop to this.  But as in this case, it is a whole other thing when you actually witness it for yourself.  This person witnessed a lying, scheming bar, who colluded with one another against their own policies and the policies they promote to the public and to attorneys, to try to set me up for disbarment by changing their story they knew was true, in order to try to discredit and ruin me.   But, even more importantly for this portion of the story, this person was the only other person in that room who knew  I did not have the tape in my hand that caused Jim McCauley to change his story from, “No, absolutely not,” to “Yes.  (Yes what).  Yes, I told you to disburse funds.” So, this witness knew that I could not ask another question and that I could not do a redirect no matter what since I could not risk someone suggesting I play the tape after all.   This is important for you to remember.

                Now also remember, the judges would not let me treat McCauley as a hostile witness, knowing that although McCauley was a liar (which I just proved he was on direct), but that he was not a very good liar.   So they had to save room for Georgiadis to rehabilitate the witness just in case all of their scheming didn’t work.  So, because Georgiadis was allowed to use traditional cross examination techniques, as if McCauley was their hostile witness, he got to legally coach the witness, with McCauley saying, yes, to anything Georgiadis said.  So, Georgiadis would say things like, “when you told Ms. Kennedy to disburse, what you meant was that she could disburse after she went through a complete trial to resolve the fee dispute right?  And of course, McCauley would say, “yes.”  So the strategy by Georgiadis now was to say that any permission McCauley gave me to disburse was only after I went to court, had another year’s worth of hearings and a trial, like the one my ex-client put me through and she lost.  And only then could I disburse funds.   So we now had three different answers from McCauley to the same question of whether or not he told me to disburse.  We had, “No, absolutely not.”  We had, “Yes, (yes what), Yes I told you to disburse funds.”  And we had, “Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes” to whatever Georgiadis said which basically amounted to the story that I was told I could disburse funds only after the alleged “fee dispute” was resolved (which of course there was no fee dispute, it was a dispute over who had the real contract).  And, by the way, since I won the underlying suit with my ex-client and she admitted I did have the real contract, I disbursed fees properly that way also. 


                When the court got back to me and asked me if I wanted to redirect, obviously I didn’t as I did not have the tape in the courtroom and could not risk being asked to play it.  So, I said, “No, I think three stories are enough.”  What I meant is McCauley gave three different answers to the same question as outlined above.  Now, what is significant about this, and I will tell you about the hassle it was to get the transcripts in a minute, but, remember. . . I did not, and could not do a redirect for fear of being asked for the tape.  And the only witness in the room who also knew this was looking me right in the eye when I turned around, knowing full well, that I better just move on to the next witness since I got what I needed already. 

                Although the judges made me start with McCauley because he was on vacation and had to leave, the judges called for an immediate recess even though we were only an hour into the morning, and Georgiadis went back with them.  Do you believe that?  He went back with the judges, and McCauley to discuss what they do now.  Right after they left, the court reporter from Graham and Associates pushes over her transcription machine onto the floor, saying she broke it, etc., etc., etc.  It was actually more comical than this.  And others saw it all happening.  Obviously, I was not going to get an accurate representation of what happened when I finally got the transcription.  But, I already knew that.  They were not going to let me have McCauley lying under oath, showing how the bar colluded to disbar someone troubling to them, etc.   They were not going to let the public hear about what actually closely resembled the “Nazi Peoples’ Courts” that we see on the history channel. 

                About 5 minutes went by, and everyone that was allowed to enter the judges chamber (all but me), came back out and announced that suddenly Jim McCauley’s vacation wasn’t all that important and that he would stick around for a while.  I am sure by now, they had a 4th story, but who really needs one if you are in control of the transcripts anyway.  But, the transcriber also taped the proceeding.  Yes, the bar allowed her to do so, but as you could imagine, trying to get the court to preserve the tape and the record, would be another impossible climb.  But, again, God is good. 

                Just a quick moment on Thomas Lucas and the rest of the charade.  He had some real memory lapses during his time on the stand, and the judges would not let me ask him about the Blackmailing of the EEOC he and Milcom Systems were involved in, his billing, even the one bill of the brief he made public for $15,000, and things like.  The court said that because I did not have the EEOC witnesses present, I could not ask Lucas these questions.  And of course, as I told you earlier, I reminded the judges that they allowed the bar to protect Lucas by quashing my subpoenas of those witnesses, the judges just smiled.  So they were protecting their own here, even to the point of allowing this lawyer and Milcom Systems to blackmail the EEOC for the benefit of the employer in Virginia, Milcom Systems.  What I did do, however, is I proferred that evidence into the record, as I did about 2,000 pages worth of evidence, none of which the Judges would let me enter into evidence to defend myself.  This evidence was directly related to the allegations which kept changing throughout the trial and into appeal.   The bar and court were really hoping I would just give up, or in the alternative, they knew I would be stopped at the appellate level anyway.  They had no fear.  They had no oversight that would come against them.  When you see this kind of behavior, know that these people are not worried about any oversight issues.  Including the media that will not do any real reporting when it comes to matters like this.  That includes the Alternative Media who lies just as much as the mainstream, and more than any lawyer I know, including Lucas.  Remember that.  Do not think these people are afraid of the Media.  They are only afraid of real exposure that affects the “perception of public trust.”  That is their sole concern.  And if they want you badly enough, they will pay that price too, and just try to defame you more severely to try to stop people from seeing through their garbage.    

                Attorney #2 also testified, but it didn’t matter what she said either, even though the bar just used her as their key witness to discipline another attorney.  You can’t have it both ways, unless you are the court and the bar that is.  Then, the Bar calls my ex-client as a witness.  They did this without even having to subpoena her and even though she agreed that she would no longer help pursue me against the bar as a part of the settlement where I dropped my counterclaims against her.   Her testimony did not help the bar, and in fact, by catching her in lies, I was able to help my case more.  But in closing arguments, Georgiadis again lied about what she said, even though I grafted it out on a flip chart as she was saying it so Georgiadis could not lie about it later.  It didn’t matter of course. 


                There was so much more that happened, it is really hard to describe.  In the “trial,” the bar actually made up a whole new contract that neither my ex-client nor I claimed was accurate in trying to find some additional allegations to bring against me during the trial.  Even the Bar’s own investigator described the real contract differently than what the Bar was putting in as the contract that I signed or even the one my ex-client had tried to say was real the year before, until she was caught in that lie.  This was entered into evidence just as Georgiadis was willing to fake his own son’s adoption and padded his father’s immigration file to sneak him back into the country without the Feds being on his trail.  Those documents were entered also.  But, why would this tiger change its stripes.  And he is still at the bar to this day.  Why is that?  His fake contract was submitted in the court record and the Supreme Court, but it didn’t matter that the bar was willing to make up new evidence.  Shoot, by now, this did not even make the top 10 on my list of what became “Bargate.”  It just didn’t matter.

                So, as expected, the Judges disbarred me based on all three allegations in spite of the evidence.  Interestingly, Georgiadis and Barbara Williams were trying to say I had a disciplinary record again (like attorney #1 had), but this time they were not just confused.  They knew they did not prove any of the allegations especially since I was clearly not the attorney who wrote the brief, my fees were not in question and the Jim McCauley actually approved my bill, and that I was not sanctioned.  I think at some point, the bar was trying to also claim I did not keep in contact with my client and some other allegations that kept changing as we went through the two days of motions and the two “day trial.”  But, these too were shot down, and in fact I had proof of between 50-100 (I lost count at a certain point), of communications I could document having with my ex-client.  I had to shut my office down for this person and she was there at least 3 times a week, plus numerous telephone calls to and from.  When I started seeing that she was not to be trusted either, I forced her to leave messages so that I had documented everything she said and did, and then I had long cell phone bills calling her back and discussing in detail with her, her questions or suggestions.  I also had many letters written to her during this time.  So obviously, that allegation was not true.  And because I knew I could not count on the transcripts as I knew they were not going to let some of what I exposed to be in a transcript, I created my own record through motions and court certified filings of these documents with attachments.

                So anyway, just before the Judges went back to allegedly “deliberate,” Paul Georgiadis and Barbara Williams (through her letter to the court), were trying to provide the judges with a little something extra, by trying to create a past disciplinary record when I had no prior disciplinary record.  They did this so that the  judges would not have to find against me on all three of these ridiculous allegations (whatever they would eventually decide they were), and make it “appear” that they were being fair and honest and not finding me accountable for all three of these allegations.  They could then say that they wouldn’t have disbarred me , but for some prior disciplinary record.  And that because of this alleged prior record, they just had no choice but to disbar me.  But, seeing that I had no disciplinary record at all, which the Judges even agreed that I had no prior record, they chose to just disbar me on the ridiculous three allegations.  And the way they did it was very slick and tricky.   They pretended that I was receiving “progressive discipline” so that each time I was found to have violated one of the allegations, I was disciplined more severely.   Progressive discipline is what they were trying to use by making it appear that I had a prior record.  This makes the public think that you have had a history of being unethical and the system tried to work with you and rehabilitate you, but you just couldn’t be helped.  What they did here, because I had no prior disciplinary record, is they made it appear that I did by reprimanding me for the first allegation, suspending me for the second allegation, and then disbarring me for the third allegation.   These miscreants are still worried about what the public sees, so this was their attempt to deceive the public into thinking I had a prior record when I didn’t.  But, this also works against them, if I were going to appeal it, because if I won on even one of these allegations and got it reversed, then I would no longer be disbarred.  If I won on two of the three on appeal, I would no longer be suspended, and if I won on all three, of course, I would still have no disciplinary record at all and would still have a license.   When you read any one of the three different Orders I received from the Virginia Supreme Court, you will see that this did not happen.  I will get to that in a little while.  But these people truly are being exposed for how they really operate, defying even the most basic laws that are supposed to protect the public, including the lawyers who try to represent the public against them.   For now, let’s get to the next illusion of justice.  “The Record.”            

Plan of Action After Disbarment at the Trial Level


Well, obviously I was going to appeal, even though I was pretty sure that I would see no difference from those above these miscreants as the miscreants themselves.  Why should I have expected anything different at this point.  Obviously, these people were willing to behave in this manner with a courtroom full of people watching them.  I had already put in affidavits of court reporters changing the record when the little guy was going against big business and big government.  I had already been to the media who would not report on some of the biggest cases that whistle blowers in Virginia were actually taking against the Virginia Government.   I had already spoken before the General Assembly headed by Bob McDonald and presented actual changed transcripts and tapes that showed what I was saying was true.  And I had done much more than this, but it just wasn’t going to matter.   

                So, I continued to take my case forward as publically as I could, in spite of the mainstream media blackout, and use it to demonstrate to good faith people who were being abused by the system, that if the system wants you, there is no fact and no law that will save you.  I told them that the only chance I had of reversing this finding is if I had  a courtroom full of people who might force the courts to behave themselves (even though the lower court decided to ignore them), and if the system wants you badly enough, they will still find against you.  But, if that is the case, then at least you can expose them by having that full courtroom of people who will then see the truth.  

                So I ordered the transcripts immediately, and filed my notice to appeal “as of right.”  For those trained in the law, “as of right” means that you do not have to ask permission to get your case heard on appeal.  It is “as of right.”  And this is where you really have to read the fine print on some of these laws allegedly as of right.  What that means in Virginia in this type of case is that you still have to file an appeal to be heard.   If you just assume you have a right to be heard, you are knocked out of the process and have no appeal.  So, the courts have an additional way of getting rid of your case through this trick of using the words, “as of right.”  And they make your appeal “as of right” conditional on appealing to appeal as of right, only when a three-judge panel hears your case.  Most people who ask for a three-judge panel have already expressed that they do not have faith in the Virginia State Bar’s picking of its own panel, so those people are already onto the systems cherry picking process.  So, as a part of the courts way to get you out of their club, they make those people have to appeal to appeal as of right.  Then they can deny that appeal to appeal, and you are gone with no due process at the lower level or on appeal.  These miscreants are very slick and they are hoping you all are not paying attention.   Once you pay attention, their darkness is brought into the light.  This is important so that you can make, legal, nonviolent plans that have a chance to work in your personal life and for the lives of your society that don’t continue to be based on this illusion of justice. 

                So, of course, the Virginia State Bar, now represented by your tax dollars, and Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, try to knock me out based on an alleged procedural error.   Funny thing is the Attorney General Attorney- James Hopper, tried to claim that I had continually made errors through the process of appeal, but he couldn’t state even one error that I had made.  Furthermore, and even more humorous, was that the Assistant Attorney General James Hopper missed the deadline for answering my appeal to appeal as of right, which made the bar and the AG’s office in default.  Having realized that after the fact, the AG’s office tried to file a late brief trying to say that I was making procedural errors since they missed their procedural deadline.  Is that funny or what?  Then they filed a motion for something that they could no longer ask for in their appeal brief because they missed the deadline, but this motion was trying to knock me out of the appeal process through alleged procedural errors they could not name.  Obviously, they did not want me being heard at the Supreme Court level which is where this was heading if I got my alleged appeal “as of right.”   And they did not want to give me an opportunity to be heard, not because I would win, but because they knew it was highly likely that I was coming with a large contingent of the public to put the Virginia Supreme Court on trial before the public.   This is where James Hopper piled on new allegations that I was somehow already tried for, even though they were not even heard or brought up at the “trial.”   It was never alleged that I was a dishonest attorney, it was never alleged that I had a moral turpitude issue, it was never alleged that I stole money or anything like that.  Now, on appeal James Hopper claimed all these as specific allegations against me that were allegedly heard at the lower level. 

                At this point, the Bar is scheduling and having hearings with Judge Glen Tyler without me even being noticed.  Here are just some of the motions I was filing once I found this out: 

Motion to:    (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/motionspostorder.BMP) (1) Address order entered without first hearing from Kennedy, (2) Quash any proceedings heard by this judge and brought forth by this prosecutor, (3) deny any hearings without proper notice, (4) Deny any hearings without allowing Kennedy to independently tape and video record the proceeding for her protection and in the interest of justice.  More coming. . .there were about 20-30 of them or more.

Bar and Judges Play Keep Away with Order and Transcripts, and then Rewrite History

But, I have gotten ahead of myself a little.  Let me tell you how hard it really was to even get my appeal.  Again, these people did not want me to have another opportunity to be heard.   I had to give notice of my intent to appeal within a very short timeframe.  And I had other deadlines, which required me to have the transcripts and the Order.  So, the Virginia State Bar’s new trick was to keep me from receiving the Order so I could not attach it to my pleadings, which was a requirement and I would be knocked out of the appeal process if I did not have this Order.  So, I started faxing, certifying letters, motioning judges, contacting the bar, sending letters to the Circuit Court, Federal Court. . .anyone I could, not so they would help me willingly, but to make enough noise to try to force someone into giving me the Order.  Finally, I received an Order and had to rush to get my documents into the appropriate court in time to Notice and file an appeal to appeal as of right. 

I also timely ordered the transcript from Ronald Graham and Associates.  Now you have to realize that these reporters are used often by the State of Virginia, and especially by the Virginia State Bar.  Beware people.  Time and again, Ronald Graham and associates would purposely try to stall, delay and even outright refuse to give me the transcripts in spite of me giving them $3,500 in advance, which was a real gouging to begin with.  I taped each and every conversation I had with these miscreants as well.  One hand did not know what the other hand was doing, just like the Virginia State Bar, so I got some really interesting admissions.  At one point, I got one lady to admit that the Bar already had several key pages of the transcript, even though Graham and Associates insisted the Bar had no transcripts either and that they could not expedite them even if I was willing to pay the money to do so.  I have Ronald Graham saying on tape that he couldn’t give me or sell me any transcripts without the Virginia State Bar’s permission first.  When I asked him how that is so, since they are supposed to not take sides and are supposed to supply accurate transcripts to any party who is willing to pay for them, he said he didn’t know, it just is.  Well, let me let you read this transcript for yourself right here,  Page 2,  Page 3.   (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/ronaldgrahambarpermresize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/motionspostorder.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/motionspostorder.BMP).  Here are the money orders, Page 2  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/ronaldgrahammoneyresize.BMP, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/ronaldgrahammoney2resize.BMP), that I sent to Ronald Graham and they were sent back to me further delaying my getting the transcripts while the Bar already had their transcripts (or at least sum of theirs. . . stay tuned for that one).  Unbelievable how nasty and hostile these minions can be when you are onto them, and they are trying to keep you from real justice. 

Meanwhile, while I was on top of this situation so that whatever changes were made, they would be sloppy changes and the other side would not have all the time in the world to rewrite the whole thing, I was also picking the trash cans of Ronald Graham and Associates as they arrogantly threw away their notes and changes being made by the bar right in their own trash cans.  I am sure the State of Virginia has subsequently purchased them a shredder once this all became known at the Supreme Court level.  But, I used these notes to call back to Ronald Graham several times saying I heard that you are moving other cases ahead of mine and transcribing other matters instead of mine in spite of me paying you $3,500 for accurate transcripts to be received in a timely manner.  And, every now and then, I would get lucky, by talking to the front desk person who wasn’t properly coached and she would admit that the Bar already had the transcripts and the Bar said not to give the transcripts to me and things like that.  I also got these notes out of the trash, and all of this was submitted to the Virginia Supreme Court (although I still have other evidence that I have held at bay as protection in case sometime in the future, another retaliation comes my way).  And it all started when I was trying to get the transcripts of the motions days so that I could address these in motions before the “trial.”  I could not even get the transcripts to the motions days, and so finally got Ronald Graham on the telephone.  As you will read from my taped conversation with Ronald Graham, he admitted that he was not allowed to give me any transcripts without the Bar’s permission (paid or unpaid), Page 2, Page 3.  (http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/ronaldgrahamtranscriptresize.BMP, Read the rest of this transcript to see the hostility in this guy’s voice even though I had never met or had never talked to him before.  Obviously, the Bar had long poisoned that well, and with the repeat business the state gives Ronald Graham, and his associates, well, prostitutes like this are the ones who regularly get hired by minions.  Check with some honest reporters and they will tell you they cannot break into the “club” unless they are willing to sell their souls.  I found out through my dumpster diving that he and his wife belong to a Church which is allegedly professing Jesus Christ.  So, I decided to let God handle it.  He will do a much more thorough job than I ever could going through these courts for another round of the “Litigation Vortex.”  So I screamed to the rooftops about it, and put it in my appeals and left it at that.

But here are notes that are from Ronald Graham and Associates own garbage can stating, “Linda Kennedy is easy money,” one of Ronald Graham’s children telling “Sue” to lie to me on the telephone so that I think Ronald Graham is out of town when he is there diligently working on the new and improved transcripts, a note showing that the original transcripts went to Georgiadis, and that Ronald Graham had to read through it.  When was I suppose to get my true and accurate copy I wonder?      I guess not on Saturday, July 20, when they were being mailed somewhere, but not to me.  I guess way after July 20, because only Georgiadis was getting his copy then according to the other note, etc.  And here is a message faxed to me on July 19, by Ronald Graham saying that they wanted $3,500 in advance.  So I sent that Money promptly, Page 2.  (This was no easy feet since the courts and some lawyers had already started working on my finances so that I could not bring this forth.  In another chapter, I talk about some of what they did.  But back to this account, then notice that Ronald Graham, although they were mailing these transcripts to Paul Georgiadis on Saturday, July 20, on July 19, they are telling me that they could not get them to me before August 10th if they tried really hard, but that 30 days is more likely.  And of course, they were pretending that Ronald Graham was out of town when he was not.  At 30 days, we would already be at August 19, even though the Bar had their transcripts (inaccurate as they may be) mailed on July 20.  This would give the bar and Judge Glen Tyler plenty of time to “correct the phrasing” as one of the changed transcripts I dug from the trash indicated. You can take a look at these for yourself.  Meanwhile, I was also sending motions everywhere that the court preserve the record including the tapes of the hearings.  I made this request as noisy and as often as I could, because I believed I knew what was coming.  So then I get a letter on July 29, 2002 from Ronald Graham stating that he ordered my money returned because he could not transcribe these before 30 days.  Now remember, the Bar had already long received theirs as they were mailed on Saturday, July 20.  The transcripts are already finished (except for the approved changes of course).  So now another unnecessary delay arises with Ronald Graham sending my money back to help the bar and judges have more time to pervert the record, and keep me from appealing or at least making a decent appeal which means I had to site the record that they wouldn’t give me.   Notice this letter is signed by “Susan.  Sue was the person one of Ronald Grahams children was telling to lie to me so that I would think Ronald Graham was out of town when he was not.     So I started writing everyone who had a fax number, and here are my just a couple of my letters to Ronald Graham.  8/5/02, 8/14/02.  I was also writing the judges, the Supreme Court, the bar and everyone else.  By now, I am talking about the things I dug out of the trash can without telling them my special source of information.  Meanwhile remember I am also fighting to receive the Order that the Bar and Court are playing kept playing keep away with so I could not note my appeal.  So my special trash can knowledge finally convinced Georgiadis and Glen Tyler that they had taken enough of my time to “correct the phrasing.”   Finally, on August 16, 2002, Georgiadis wrotes a letter that makes it sound like he didn’t know what I was talking about and that Ronald Graham (although he got his name wrong), could give me transcripts at any time as long as I could pay for them.  By the way, Stephania is Stephania Smith least she not be mentioned in this. 

So, in my many contacts making as much noise as I could, Georgiadis responded to me about Ronald Graham claiming that I had to have the Virginia State Bar’s permission to get transcripts so I could appeal.  Georgiadis, although he can’t even get the minion Graham’s name right, stated that he never said that and of course I was free to get the transcripts if I could afford them.  And at this time, there were several other court proceedings against me trying to take every last dime to my name so that I couldn’t afford them, all initiated by attorneys and courts that were involved in this matter.  They were hitting me from all sides so that I could not appeal.  In another chapter, I discuss how the courts and other attorneys became involved in helping the Virginia State Bar and the Court keep me from the appeal process. 

So, obviously, by now, I am absolutely positive that there are going to be some major rewrites of the record.   When I finally received the transcripts, my one witness and I knew the first place to look to see if the transcripts had changed and that was Jim McCauley committing perjury under oath when I waived that blank tape in front of him.  By now, we found the tape . . . it was right under our noses the whole time, and we just didn’t realize that was it.  But anyway, it worked out for us that I couldn’t find it, because that made us very aware that I could not do a redirect of McCauley because I was concerned that if I did, the Judge would finally say, ok, let’s just hear the tape and I couldn’t play a tape I did not have in my possession.  If there was a place that the Bar and Courts would change the transcript it would have to be there.  So, I found the page as we were standing there over the box of transcripts, not even having unpacked the other transcripts yet.  And sure enough, what did we find.  Not only was the testimony changed, but they actually split my direct questioning in half, and gave me a redirect with a few of the questions I asked, and answers that would help them.  All the perjured testimony was gone and now I had a redirect of McCauley that I couldn’t have done because I did not have the tape in court.    I couldn’t redirect.  Additionally, they claimed that I decided not to play the tape, which I never stated that.  So it appeared in the changed transcripts that McCauley never told me to disburse funds based on a contract issue and that I then said, ok, then I do not need to play the tape, making it again appear that that is what I had on the tape.  This was obviously not true as the tape actually showed that McCauley told me to disburse because it was not a fee dispute but a dispute over who had the real contract.  That was my witness’ final realization of who we had been serving in these courts all these years.  All the sacrifice and commitment we made to get law degrees, pass a very difficult bar and bring forth claims for the people to provide a way for all people to get justice.  All this came crashing down when my witness finally saw with eyes wide open, the transcripts change from what the witness knew to be true in court to this entirely new record.  These people who are a part of this are absolutely corrupt to the core folks.  And remember, I was being pursued by the Bar, because they said, she thinks we are corrupt so she has to be disbarred which of course is a thought crime to begin with and is an unconstitutional reason for pursuing someone.  That is another matter that no court in America is supposed to have Subject Matter Jurisdiction over.  Remember that claim by Paul Georgiadis . . . that I should be disbarred because I thought they were corrupt?  Well, I rest my case . .  . no just kidding.  Not yet, there is more. 

But, at this point, I had an ever growing following of people who were abused by this system here and unfortunately around the country where the stories were very similar to what I was seeing here.  But, so many of them, like probably many of you, were thinking that if you could just find the right law, or the right court, things would be different.  In fact, I even got the FBI involved in Norfolk, Virginia.  Under some insider policy which I can’t go into here, they were forced to do an investigation in spite of themselves.   When I spoke to the investigator, he admitted that the FBI in this area was aware of changed transcripts and that it was indeed happening, but they were not sure if it was a national or just a local problem.  I told them that it appeared to be national, but what I would suggest for the time being, is that they start on the local problem since I have more than enough evidence including tape recordings of the trial itself that two of the court watchers made, that will show that the transcripts had been materially altered in key places to get a desired outcome. 

The FBI’s investigation consisted of emailing to random government lawyers, who knew I was telling the truth, and who just happened to know me even though the investigator did not know they knew me.  Some of these lawyers sent me the email from the investigator, and I called back to the FBI Investigator telling him that sending out a random email to government attorneys was not going to help discover any facts in this matter since if they were to say anything, they too would be on the hotseat.  I suggested he talk to some of the plaintiff lawyers who were representing the little guy against big business or big government since these lawyers were most likely going to know more about what I was exposing, and be more willing to show him what was going on in Virginia, both in the state and federal courts at their own risk.  If nothing else, that should have shown this investigator that enough attorneys knew my story and wanted to help me by forwarding the investigators message to me, even though the investigator was reaching attorneys at random and not by any names I had given him, but instead, that was the end of the investigation.   

Back to the transcripts, other significant changes including Judge Glen Tyler’s outburst about how I do not intimidate him.  Remember that one?  He had given Georgiadis a softball question asking him if it even mattered what the Bar gave me as advice, hoping Georgiadis would say no it didn’t.  But in Georgiadis’ arrogance, he missed the pitch and said, yes, and if McCauley actually said that to me, then he would have to exonerate me.   You could see the Judges frustration on his face, as he realized that Georgiadis missed the answer.   And of course I smiled at the judge because I knew the answer he was expecting.  And the next morning before I questioned Jim McCauley, I reminded him that Georgiadis said he would have to exonerate me if I could show that the Bar gave me the advice as I claim.  To that Judge went into a rage and rant about how I do not intimidate him, and he said. . .that was a rhetorical question, meaning that even though Georgiadis answered it wrong, the Judge was not held to his answer and could find against me even though that was the prosecutor’s job to bring forth the claims.  Well, that was all changed, and the rant was put in another place even though I had my witnesses who noted when and in what context this was all said.  And although the Bar did not yet know, there were two people taping the hearing in the courtroom on their own accord which showed that these changes were made as well.

Although there were several more changes made, what was significant is Georgiadis in his pride and arrogance had to make himself look good even though he looked like a emotionally unstable wreck in the courtroom where even the judges had to help get him calmed down, and of course, there was the assault that didn’t matter in spite of witnesses also.  But, who’s counting.  But, he left the softball question in the transcripts. You know, the one where the judge asked him if it even mattered if the Bar gave me advice?  The Judge wanted him to say no, which of course is absolutely ridiculous that they were trying to say that the bar can give you advice, and then collude with one another and disbar you for following their advice.  But, the Judges were very concerned about the dim witted Jim McCauley messing up on the stand.  So they needed to make his testimony immaterial.  But, because Georgiadis missed it, that is when the outrage and tirade of Judge Glen Tyler kicked in about not being intimidated.  Anyway, once the Bar changed the transcripts to where McCauley didn’t tell me to disburse under the conditions I claimed, then Geogiadis felt that leaving his statement would make him look fair and honorable.  So he left in the statement that if Mr. McCauley told Ms. Kennedy to disburse, he would have to exonerate me.  Well, pride does come before a fall sometimes, and well, remember that Federal Case I filed to just try to get some documents?  Remember there was the first ever harassment hearing scheduled against the bar after that until the judge was given a talking to and took it off the docket.  Well, in James Hopper’s and the Attorney General’s arrogance, not having any understanding of the facts and just filing whatever because the outcome was already determined, they filed a letter from Georgiadis on the Virginia State Bar’s own letterhead, that contradicted the Virginia State Bar’s new and improved transcripts which again, even under the changes, proved that James McCauley perjured himself under oath anyway.  This letter claimed to the Subcommittee the second time he had to go there:

“Ethics Counsel McCauley agrees that R consulted him; he disagrees that he advised her to disburse.  He did advise

her that she could disburse if she had “the contract” of representation while the client was fabricating another version.”

Now, before and after this quote, Georgiadis tries to explain it away with fee disputes and things that he is making up that he never said McCauley actually said.  But, there you have it.  That is what I had been saying all along.  That is what the tape and the transcript I submitted to the Virginia Supreme Court said, and that is what James McCauley said after he perjured himself, and I started waiving that blank tape at him.     

                Is God not good people?   This document which you can see here, is from Paul Georgiadis where he says that Mr. McCauley did indeed tell me to disburse funds based on the fact that this was a contract issue and not a fee dispute.  HELLO!  Did you hear that?   Additionally, I received another similar document during my brief stay in the Federal Court where it showed that Paul Georgiadis had lied to the first subcommittee by stating as follows:

“While the VSB admits that Respondent had a telephone consultation with McCauley on or about March 22, 1999, the VSB denies that McCauley gave advice that would be so contrary to the black letter of the Rule and that Respondent gave no facts that would justify such a violation of the Rule.”

And yes, these are in the Virginia Supreme Court Record, and I am taking these quotes right off my brief.

                So let’s review all the different “stories” that the bar was claiming McCauley said, and we will also include my transcript of the actual conversation with McCauley, and my direct examination of McCauley to round everything out.

Summary of McCauley Various and Different Stories that Continued to be Revealed Throughout the Ordeal

4/14/99:  I talked to Jim McCauley after several other contacts and he told me that I could disburse as long as I could prove if necessary, that my contract was the real contract because this was not a fee dispute.  In my prior and subsequent letters, I sent him my contracts, billing, fees, some letters, etc., so he had all the facts.

6-2000:  Jim McCauley sends some stupid letter about the philosophy of practicing law and how hard it is to be a plaintiff’s attorney because the amount of money you have to spend on the case sometimes far exceeds the recovery.   Although we did speak of this briefly, because my fee far exceeded anything I could make on this case, which I told my client in advance, but was trying to give her access to the courts when nobody else would try to help her save her job and keep the harassers at bay.  This was not the main discussion we had (see 4/14/99 taped transcript and other letters I provided in the appendix)

_____-I call Jim McCauley and tell him the underlying suit my client brought is over and he finally admits that he is remembering the account including disbursing funds based on a contract.  There is another time where he didn’t remember at all and was denying it until I told him I had witnesses.  He got real nervous then and said he “may have told me.” 

Another message where McCauley tells me he didn’t tell me to disburse and then after hearing I had witnesses, said he may have told me.

8-22-01:  Paul Georgiadis uses this ex-client’s greed and lack of appreciation as the front to come after someone who is challenging the bar and the legal system for its lack of accountability to the public.  He lies to the subcommittee saying that McCauley never gave me such advice.  Meanwhile, I have caught the bar in their collusion and they are caught lying about it until they came up with a new defense to argue that they did have a right to speak to one another. 

7-16-02:  McCauley is in court on direct examination and says, “No, Absolutely not” to my question of disbursement based on a contract dispute.

7-16-02:  I pull out a tape knowing the court will not let me play it because of their earlier ruling that day, and said, “under penalty of perjury, did you or did you not tell me to disburse.”  After a long pause, McCauley says “yes.”  I say “yes what”.  McCauley says, “yes I told you to disburse funds.”

7-16-02:  McCauley says, yes, yes, yes, to every question that Georgiadis gives on cross examination basically saying that McCauley said I could disburse only after I proved in a court of law that my contract was the real contract. 

7-16-02-I refuse to redirect saying “three stories are enough (at that time I was referring just to the three stories he gave on 7-16-02.).

8-___01- I receive two documents in Federal Court from an arrogant and uniformed Attorney General’s office who knew this was a done deal no matter what I tried to do.  They gave me two subcommittee reports from Georgiadis saying two different stories of what McCauley said to me.  One said he never told me to disburse ever.  The other said he did tell me to disburse because it was a contract dispute. 

                I have lost count on how many stories that is to the same question, but I know my account has never changed. 

So, once I finally received the altered transcripts, I started writing letters and notices again to Ronald Graham, Glen Tyler, Georgiadis, Barbara Williams, the Supremes, the Feds, etc.  Here is letter putting Ronald Graham on notice to preserve the tapes because these transcripts were fictional. 

Now remember, and let’s go back in time.  There were two subcommittee meetings where Georgiadis made his claims against me.  The first time, I had two claims against me.  I started making a lot of noise, contacting everyone who I could, telling them that I followed the Bar’s own advice and now they are coming after me for it.  That caused Bill Monroe to send the matter back to the subcommittee because he was concerned that Georgiadis did not properly present all the facts,  Page 2.  And as you can see above, Georgiadis claimed that McCauley gave him two different stories to the same question in the two subcommittee letters.  Then Georgiadis came back from the subcommittee meeting with another allegation plus the other two, just as I told Bill Monroe he would.  I was not privy to any of these meetings, nor to what he said at the time in order to be permitted to bring these allegations against me including the newest one just two weeks before the scheduled hearing, and right after I filed a bar complaint against him.  But, again, at the Federal Court, the clueless James Hopper just turned over willy nilly these subcommittee documents with some new allegations he was making there, even though he did not even understand the case.  And in those, I found the original subcommittee letter where Georgiadis told the subcommittee that McCauley DID NOT tell me to disburse at all.  Then when it was sent back down, I have Georgiadis letter to the Subcommittee that says that McCauley DID tell me to disburse based on the fact that the issues was a contract dispute and not a fee dispute.   So then we have the three stories McCauley answered to the same question at the trial level once I caught him in perjury and waived the blank tape in his face.  Then we have the new and improved transcripts that change those three sets of answers to a fourth series of answers (similar to the third answer when McCauley was saying yes, yes, yes to whatever Georgiadis asked).  But, the problem is now we have two letters:  One that says McCauley never told me to disburse ever.  And another that is what McCauley answered to me on direct examination, when I waived the tape in his face and told him to answer again under penalty of perjury.  So even going off of the changed transcripts that the Bar and Judge Glen Tyler wrote, McCauley still committed perjury by agreeing to Georgiadis’ cross examination questions, and additionally, Georgiadis knew at the time he was bringing these allegations against me years ago, and also at trial, that he was assisting McCauley in bearing false witness and committing perjury.  And before you ask, yes this was all before the Virginia and the United State Supreme Court.   So, now we have a case of proven collusion between the Virginia State Bar counsel and The Head of Ethics at the Virginia State Bar, attempting to disbar someone because she thinks they are corrupt, and I will let you be the judge of whether these three clowns on the bench were helping them any.  And of course, the whole story about the changed transcripts and Ronald Graham’s part in this perversion of justice.

More on the Changed Transcripts

One thing I thought was interesting though, is the new claims against me that James Hopper brought for the first time on appeal (which appeal he defaulted on of course), were not even mentioned in the new and improved changed transcripts.  That is how arrogant these people are.  No law and no fact were going to matter and they had no fear of reprisal from any oversight committee including the 7 that sit on the Virginia Supreme Court.  They just fling it, repeat it often enough, have their crooked little minions try to use it against you for the rest of your life to try to discredit you, and because we in society do not pay attention, it becomes the law.


                Ok, now for the interesting part (no just kidding), I continued to dumpster dive for several weeks after the changed transcripts were received.  And in one of my ventures, I dug up a document which was submitted to the Supreme Court of Virginia and the U.S. Supreme Court.  Take a look at this document right here.   Here are the notes of one or more of Graham and Associates, following the directions of the Bar/Judges, making the changes just as I am telling you, Page 2,     Page 3,  to cause me to have a redirect and to take out and put things into the record that were not accurate.  Page 2, says that “Bar says to add 13-25,” to “split Kennedy appearances” (in other words give me a direct and redirect when there was no redirect).  Page 2 also says that they had Paul Georgaidis’ private number at the bar which was (804) 775-0558, and my most favorite of all. . .even the honorable (small “h”) judge Glen Tyler gets in the act by saying “Glen Tyler corrected orig phrasing.”  While I am glad Judge Glen Tyler is correcting me because I certainly wouldn’t want to have said the wrong thing or anything like that (just joking of course).  There is much more than this that I have as well.  But there you go and yes, this was all before the Virginia Supreme Court when they tried to ask me stupid questions about the law as if any law was going to matter at this point (see below for more details).  Feast your eyes on these transcripts folks.   Notice them giving me a redirect examination (see page 3), where the court reporter says “no testimony, and then says R-D for Redirect).  And as I have stated, I could never have done a redirect because I was too concerned about them asking me for a tape I did not have in the courtroom on that day.  My witness and I were the only two in that courtroom who knew I did not have the tape with me.  We both discussed this right after the Judges needed an emergency break after the McCauley testimony.  We talked about how I could not ask another question right then.  I have always suspected the Bar would come back and try to discredit me in this area, but I guess since I also had the other documents on their letterhead that showed they perjured and colluded to get me disbarred with the help of the courts, they felt they didn’t really need to attack this evidence. 


                As soon as I saw this, as you can imagine, I started making a lot of noise again, to any and everyone who I could.  I wrote letters, filed motions for the lower court and Virginia Supreme Court to order the record preserved, along with preserving the tapes the Ronald Graham and Associates were doctoring.  Here are just some of these here: 

Motion for a More Definite Statement, Motion to Quash the Trial By Ambush  (many more to come. . .about 20-30 of them)

Motion to Answer Kennedy’s Motion to Dismiss the Bar from any Further Arguments and Impose sanctions Against the Bar and Attorney General’s Office, Motion to Dismiss Because the Court Does Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Therefore Any Rulings by its Courts are Void Including, But not Limited to This Bogus Dismissal Motion by Those Who are committing Crimes in Office Under the Virginia Supreme Court’s Watch, Without Fear or Repercussions, Motion to Answer Kennedy’s Motion to this Court to Set Aside this Verdict and Reinstate Kennedy Based on Fraud, and Makes Demand for an Immediate Investigation into the Fraud by the State; Motion to Answer Kennedy’s Motion to this Court to Have a Full Supreme Court Panel, En Banc, Since the Supreme Court is Supposed to Oversee the Activities of Its Agents Including Judge Tyler and Prosecutor Georgiaids, and Lead Ethics Counsel James McCauley;  Motion for Kennedy again to state her concern on the record that the transcripts and record are being tampered with and with the record being prematurely sent to the state Supreme Court did not even have jurisdiction over the matter, and which court is refusing to oversee these criminals who are acting so boldly and without fear of repercussions, who knows if any of the record will be authentic anymore. 

At one point, I even asked why is it that I am the only one asking the record be preserved, Page 2, Page 3.  I mean, if I was making it up, wouldn’t the other side want it preserved.  But no.  There was silence on the other side, including the Virginia Supreme Court.  I speak about this toward the end of this chapter, but know that as much as you are able, you need to be forgiving.  And before you rip this page right out of the book, just listen.  When you get angry and hateful, then you become them.  You become as ruthless as they are.  You become base natured and are a mirror image of the very thing you hate. . . injustice.  It took me a long time to understand this, and thankfully, God taught me this long ago, and that is. . .forgiveness is for you, not for the one who has harmed you.  When you are willing to forgive (even if you do not feel like it), and keep forgiving, the hatred that you feel actually goes away.  And that is when you can let God do whatever he is going to do, in whatever time he is going to do it in.  Then, you just have a duty to warn in ways people will understand.  And that is what this is all about.  Yes, they are miscreants, yes they are minions, and I am sure you can think of a lot of other words to use.  But, once you forgive, then it is in God’s hands, and I have to tell you, that is a dreadful thing, when you have behaved as these have, and you are in the hands of God.  So that is where I have left them.  I have moved on.  But, I always have a duty to warn, at least until God releases me of that, and until then, heed my warning.  I will say more about this in closing.  But back to this account.

                So the transcripts have changed not surprisingly.  And I am shouting it to the rooftops, but not even the Supreme Court cared and refused to preserve the record.   By now, I have dodged all the attempts by the Virginia State Bar to get me out of the loop, and silence me.  But, since they could not accurately count the days before the deadline to file their response, I am going forward to the Virginia Supreme Court.  

                Interestingly, even though the Virginia Supreme Court did not yet have jurisdiction, the lower court removed my files and sent them to Richmond, even before I filed my notice.  That meant that the file was in the hands of those in Richmond who are down the street from the Virginia State Bar, and out from under my watchful eye.  While it was up there, new Virginia State Bar documents that were backdated began to appear in the file.  One time when I went in to review my file at the Supreme Court, I found out that it was held in the Clerk of Court’s office himself.  It took him about 20 minutes to get it for me.  When I received it, there had been more changes made to it, so I put in a motion for the Clerk’s office to quit doctoring my file.  Amazingly, and to show how arrogant these people are, they denied me my motion saying, “Motion for the Supreme Court Clerk to Quit Doctoring My File Denied.”  And the clerk signed it.  I asked him on tape if he got permission to write that motion and sign it and he said he did.  He said that the Chief Justice reviews all these before they are mailed out.  I brought that up at my hearing before the Supremes.  The next day, the Clerk of many years suddenly felt the need to immediately retire.  But did that change anything they were doing to me?   Along the way, lots of people lost their jobs and some were promoted.  But again, did that change any way I was being dealt with?  Read on.

And, have I told you lately, that God is good?  Well, He is.  One day, about the summer before the Virginia Supreme Court hearing, I was sitting in an outdoor café with a friend.  By now, I didn’t even read the Virginian Pilot because I could see that they were agenda media, and I am not talking right and left as this illusion is promoted frequently about the news.  No, I am talking about how the Virginian Pilot purposely keeps stories like this from the public.  So, why would I ever pay money or even read it for free.  But, I was sitting there sipping on coffee when one small page of the paper blows right up to my heels.  So I picked it up just so not to have litter in the streets.  As I picked it up I saw something about the Virginia Supreme Court on the very page that blew to my feet.  It said that the Virginia Supreme Court was releasing someone due to a very small, minor technicality.  And I mean it was minor.  Those who practice law in Virginia would understand how minor it was and that you don’t normally see this in Virginia.  And I am glad for that person, if the story was real, but, more importantly for this story, there was a quote from Judge Lacy.  By now, I had researched these Supreme Court Judges and knew their backgrounds. . . both good and not so good.  Believe me, there is a lot the media doesn’t tell you.  Anyway, Justice Lacy is known to be one of the lynching judges who tries to derail your oral argument before it ever starts.  You only have 15 minutes to argue, and you have seen these facts. . .will 15 minutes due?  So, she is one of the judges who tries to get you off track, eat up your 15 minutes with useless arguments, and then you are finished before you have said anything and then they rule against you because you did not say some alleged magic word. 

                The quote of Justice Lacy was:  “Nobody wins when the process is not above suspicion.”  Now imagine that.  Here I am minding my own business, and God sends me a paper I would never buy or read, and when I pick it up to throw it out, there are Justice Lacy’s words.   Those words would be a part of my opening remarks to this Virginia Supreme Court, not only to make her eat them if they rule against me, but to take her out of the game as my guess was that she would be their lynching judge of choice. 


                What was also interesting, is that Judge Hassell who was a muckity-muck for McGuire Woods Battle and Boothe. . . yes, Tom Lucas’ and Ruthie Litvin’s firm who handled the Milcom Systems case.  By now, I had researched him as well.  And although I do not offer that research here, it is important to note that Judge Lacy was due to be the next chief judge of the Virginia Supreme Court.  And for the first time, I think ever, Hassell was chosen out of turn to be the chief judge right when several troubling cases were coming to the Supreme Court.  So realize that I was not the only one bringing troubling cases forward to the Virginia Supreme Court during this time.  We had a blackmailed judge who spent two years in jail after he learned and had on tape, judges in one of the courts splitting bail money with bondsmen they chose, clerks, and others, therefore behooving judges to make sure people were arrested and put in jail.  These people arrested were just revenue sources.  The imprisoned judge who was finding this out had the offending judges on tape saying, among other things, that if the public knew what they were up to, the public would think they were the Chicago Mafia.  That is in a court case in Virginia.  Funny you haven’t heard about it.  Oh, yeah.  The Virginian Pilot.  Never mind.

                Additionally, Justice Leroy Hassell was a muckity muck at Regent University School of Law.  At the time, not only was I a graduate of that school, but I was an adjunct professor there, and had donated a lot of my time and money to be a part of “Christian Leadership to Change the World.”  Yeah, right.  I won’t go there because I know that is for God to deal with, but let’s say when they were confronted with actual evidence, those who knew better chose to ignore the evidence and not even investigate it to see if they may be following someone they shouldn’t.  

                Of course more record altering was happening at the Supreme Court Clerk’s office.  I even had to write a motion trying to stop them from doctoring the records.  And as cocky, arrogant minions behave, not worrying about what the public thinks because they know they control the flow of information, they had the audacity to say that my motion for them to stop padding my file was denied.  ( http://www.precioustimeradio.com/images/barsupremespaddingfile.JPG ).  Check it out in the appendix.  They are that arrogant.  And this Clerk said that Justice Hassell approved this Order. Of course, right after my oral argument in which I bring this up to Justice Hassell, the head Clerk who was there many years, suddenly “retired” with no fanfare and no prior announcement.  He just suddenly decided to retire right after my oral argument in which I brought up that this clerk told me that the order was reviewed and approved by Justice Hassell.  Of course he suddenly retired with benefits.  But did that affect the outcome of my case?  No.  It was only the perception that these minions were dealing with.  Those who shined light on the minions or blamed the minions for their actions.

                And readers, instead of going into detail about my argument, let me link you to it so you can hear it yourself (BE READY TO TURN YOUR VOLUME UP/DOWN).  You can find the transcript of this argument in my appendix.  You can also hear a broadcast of my summary of the argument with the argument and a song written about me (PLAN B)  ( http://www.precioustimeradio.com/audio/sctthp11-24-03%20no%20ID.mp3  ).         The sound gets better as my argument starts.  Also, don’t pay any attention to these minions pretending to promote me on the air.  They are the alternative media and just wanted to use me as their poster child to go before the World Court.  This is a very long story and I have dealt with these criminals elsewhere, but suffice it to say, they are just as corrupt as anyone I am telling you about here, and they are all on the same side.  That is another illusion I break in Holodeck Law and other writings, videos, tapes, air time, etc., where nothing is as it appears. 

                So in brief, I go through this story, first by telling the judges I do not want to be interrupted, and that I RELY ON MY BRIEF for anything I have not mentioned here since I only have 15 minutes.  And I also quoted Judge Lacy so as to hush her up before she got started, and have her eat her words in front of a court full of people if she was going to permit this farce to continue. 

                Now think about it.  If nothing else, let’s say they hated me, and didn’t like my argument, and hated what I was wearing, and didn’t like my delivery, and did not like my writing style and just generally though I was ugly.  If you heard these facts, along with having tapes submitted, changed transcripts submitted, having the Bar say on the record that they are not held to subject matter jurisdiction, catching the head of the Bar Ethics Counsel Jim McCauley caught in perjury no matter which story or which transcript you used, etc., isn’t that enough for the Virginia Supreme Court to say, we can’t allow this and this at least needs to be reheard if not automatically overturned?  Add to this that the bar admitted that they didn’t need to know who wrote and filed the brief from attorney #1 and that I could still be pursued for it, and that I could be pursued for it even though I had nothing to do with it, and on and on and on. And remember, that allegation changed during the trial from being sanctioned to being sanctionable which his not a legal act.  You can’t change the stated allegations in midstream.  And if I was being pursued for the allegation of this brief being “sanctionable, while the bar already said it had no subject matter jurisdiction over strategies anyway, so that is not a valid allegation anyway.  And they were not supposed to look behind the judges order, at least that is what they said when they wouldn’t let me defend myself when they were calling it a sanction.  And I never got to defend myself on the new allegation that changed from sanction to sanctionable either..  And the bar has no subject matter jurisdiction over fee disputes, and my fees were approved by the bar, and I was told to disburse by the bar, and the bar had unethical contacts with one another and they lied about it and they got caught lying and colluding to get me disbarred based on their false testimony, and they changed the transcripts once Jim Mccauley got caught perjuring himself, and they brought new allegations on appeal, and they colluded to bring forth allegations to shut someone up because I thought they were corrupt, and . . . need I go on?  Isn’t that enough for the Virginia State Court to say: 

“Nobody wins when the process is not above suspicion” Judge Lacy?     

Who won this time?  Not me.  And I wouldn’t say “nobody” won in this case.  Who benefited, Justice Lacy?  Who won Justice Hassell from Regent University School of Law?   If you haven’t read this letter, please do so, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4,  because you will see just a small portion of what the Bar was concerned with and why I had to go . . . in violation of everyone’s Constitutional Rights as I was trying to protect the public from this secret system of arbitrary and capricious conduct couching itself under the guise of “policing itself.”  People are being put to death under Virginia Law using these secret processes and unfair practices, by these same seven who are making judgments as the Supremes at our expense.  In fact, when you listen to my Virginia Supreme Court argument, that very morning I heard on the news that Virginia had sentenced its first woman to death (Terry Fischer).  And I addressed this issue in my argument.  I asked if Terry Fisher’s transcripts were changed?  Was the Prosecutor in her case getting fake witnesses, and so forth?  These are valid question when the government will do anything to “win,” even if the process is not above suspicion, as long as the “perception of public trust” is in tact and we believe that these government agencies are policing themselves. 

                And remember, I had a full courtroom with picketers outside, and many age groups and professions represented inside.  Pastors, lawyers, law students, children, other professionals, other nonprofessionals.   And I told the Supremes that if they were going to let these corrupt acts to continue, then they should disbar me because how could I ever tell anyone to go into these courts knowing that this is what is inside?   And here were my Issues Presented that I raised at every level, Page 2, Page 3.

                A day or two later, after I told everyone to just keep quiet and give the Virginia Supreme Court a chance to do the right thing in spite of themselves, one of these alleged Alternative Media minions decided to use his connections to write a scathing article about the Virginia Supreme Court in the Washington Times, Page 2, Page 3, with the Title:  KENNEDY PUTS VIRIGINIA SUPREME COURT ON TRIAL or I have also seen on the net, instead of “Kennedy” the word “whistleblower.”  Although it was somewhat accurate, it was agenda driven, exploiting my hard work and my attempt to save my license if possible, and open up the secret system for their own selfish purposes.  As soon as I saw it, I said, I am disbarred.  I knew that was it.  And yes, interestingly, I received three different orders disbarring me, each for a different reason, but each said that because they didn’t have to hear one issue, then they could dismiss all three and that is how they didn’t have to address any of the issues that were so troubling to them.  However, if you recall, the lower court had to make it look like I was receiving “progressive discipline” and so with each claim they found against me, my punishment became more severe.  So even if the Virginia Supreme Court was correct, they still could not dismiss the other two claims since if they only found against me on one, then the other two did not lead to a disbarment, but either a suspension or a public reprimand.  That is how they do it folks. 


                Additionally, if you heard my oral argument which is linked again here, I stated that I relied on my brief for anything I could not get in within the 15 minutes.  In my brief, I could not get an extension on page limits, which is another trick these miscreants use.  They make the matter so outrageous that there is no way you can cover everything, and then they knock you out by finding they do not have to decide because you didn’t claim such and such or say a magic word.  In one, they claimed I never challenged whether or not my brief was sanctionable.  While, I did challenge it, in that the allegation was that I was sanctioned when I was not sanctioned.  I was not allowed to argue a judges order according to the bar.  So the next day I showed the lower court the order that showed I was not sanctioned.  Then the allegation turned to sanctionable, as they then looked behind the judges order themselves. . .something they said they couldn’t do.  As I told you, my good faith brief became the law the next month or two after the case against Milcom Systems ended.  So, my brief could not have been sanctionable if it was written in good faith and became the law of the land.  The Supreme Court then said in one of the Order’s that I never challenged the Milcom case judge about the sanctions (that I never received).  Well, not only did I challenge the sanction as shown in my appendix to this book and on page 351 of my Supreme Court submissions, but the Virginia State Bar was the one who subpoenaed these records so the court knew that they were stating a lie in order to step around having to decide on the matter of how corrupt they are.  I But, in all of the three Orders I received on the same matter (you are only supposed to receive one), none of the judges signed it, and there was no record of who voted which way.  Cowards.  At least take responsibility for what the readers are reading here.  What that means folks, is they are all responsible. 

Also, although I never had a hearing on the facts of the case, and my testimony to almost all the facts was uncontroverted, meaning that there was nobody on the other side that said anything differently, yet, the judges in both state and federal court wrote up a phony fact scenario painting me as the money grubbing attorney that they are, to help discredit the message in spite of absolutely no evidence.  The judges then became the witnesses in a post hearing write up.   The facts were never presented differently by any witness.  So how is it that they found differently than my testimony if me and my witnesses were saying the same thing and they were not providing witnesses to contradict my testimony?

                And it is important to note, that before any of this happened in this case, back in 1998, when I was finding out for myself how corrupt things were, but had not figured out how deep the rabbit hole actually was, I met a lawyer outside of one of the courthouses.  And we began talking.  I was still amazed at what I was seeing at the time of our chance meeting.  He filled me in on a number of things I was not quite ready to hear yet.  But, I noted them in my mind.  One of the things he said is that the facts at the lower level will change by time it goes to appeal, and whatever agenda the court has, they will rewrite these facts to smear either the little guy or his attorney if they need to punish someone for fighting to hard, or appealing or whatever.  That is exactly true, and I have seen it too many times, including on this case, to deny it.  Notice on the fact or maybe I should say the fiction that the Virginia Supreme Court wrote up on the Virignia State Bar’s write up (See appendix).  Do you see anything about any of this in it.  Were these “facts” they claim as true even litigated at the lower court level. . . no.  Does it even say what McCauley said in the letters from Georgaidis that are right on Virginia State Bar Stationary?  No.  How about Jim McCauley’s half hearted letter where he told me that the client didn’t have to receive any of that money?  No.  Of course you will not see where even using the changed transcripts, Jim McCauley still perjured himself with the Virginia State Bar’s own letter from Georgiadis to the Virginia State Bar subcommittee.  You do not see that in any of the Bar or courts right ups do you?  It is Orwellian. 

The government agenda is clear.  Discredit anyone who figures them out.  Make the truth teller look like the money grubber, drug addict, porno queen, or whatever else.  This is who they are and this is the justice system in America.    I say this because my story is much bigger than what happened in Virginia, and much bigger than the U.S. Supreme Courts denial of cert, which means they did not think an attorney who stands for the little guy, and is targeted and set up by the Virginia State Bar because she thinks they are corrupt has sufficient public interest to warrant a review.  They would rather review Nicole Smith’s case to see which guy gets the money.  And by the way, the Virginia State Bar and Attorney General’s office had so many different stories out there, that they didn’t even bother responding to my U.S. Supreme Court brief (I had to keep writing the Supremes because I was concerned that the bar was playing keep away again).  I guess they were worried they wouldn’t be able to count the days right and would end up defaulting again (joke).  I lost count of their defaults in this matter at 7 or 8.  After that, if the court keeps ignoring their defaults, why continue counting.  At some point, it is just cumulative information. 

And I do want to take a detour just for a moment here.  Although I hate what these miscreants did to me and do to others on a regular basis, and only those few who deal in this type of litigation and are willing to fight hard for our clients know it exists, I do not hate these people.  In fact, I know there is a God for many reasons, but one of them is that somehow, he has taken what anger I should have from an earthly prospective, and redirected it to forgiving them for all they have done, even though they do not deserve it, and then turning that clear conscience to worshiping Him more because I know that He is our only hope.  We cannot put hope or faith in any of these people or their corrupted system that I have outlined here, as we are all fish in a bowl, ready to be hooked when convenient.   And unfortunately, for those of us who grew up like me, totally believing in the system, it has been a really painful experience to realize everything I believed in was wrong.  And I have been wounded deeply, far beyond the judicial rape I received and continue to receive by these minions.  It was the experience of my belief’s being uncloaked which was the most painful of all.  And this is why I call the book you are reading, Holodeck Law, Where Nothing is as it Appears.  And although it may be painful for some of you to read this, it is important that you do, before something like this comes your way.  And for those who were looking for confirmation because you have a similar story, if you were looking for someone to say I understand what you went through, or what you are going through right now, I hope this book makes you shout with a resounding “YES!”  Somebody sees it!  Somebody knows it.  And I want to tell you that I am not the only one.   

And in this book, Holodeck Law, I give you a lot of suggestions and strategies for what to do if you are caught in what I call, “The Litigation Vortex,” where you are not released until every last dime is spun from your pockets, if at all.   Just know that with each persecution you receive, if you are willing to put your own needs second, you can wake up more people who cannot see it without, well . . . seeing it.  Rally your people and others like you (you can find them easily enough in the courthouses), so that you can go to each other’s hearings, spread the word far and wide in ways people will understand, use each other’s briefs as proof that you are not the only one seeing this or that you are not the only one claiming it, and before you know it, these minions secrets will come into the light in spite of their efforts to keep their secrets and to defame or worse, anyone who sees it and is willing to tell others about it.

A very big word of caution though.  These people send their own to infiltrate, find out about your case, or your work, to bear false witness against you, and etc.  Watch out for people.  Just because someone allegedly has a case in court, and allegedly is being persecuted for their “thought crimes” does not mean that they are for real.  I cannot tell you how many times I have encountered these alleged Patriots infiltrating groups (I call them P.I.G.’s).  They include some lawyers, the alleged Alternative Media (really watch out for them. . . they are worse than lawyers who are infiltrating), and others, who regularly make things up out of thin air.  Because they have the government’s approval, it is amazing the type of evidence they will come up with against you.  They will have alleged tape recordings that sound like you, when you have not said anything like that, video tape that looks like you when you were never there, certified letters that you never signed, and so on and so forth.  If you examine technology today, all these things are very possible to do through video and audio morphing and transformation.  So beware. Watch your photo albums in particular as a favorite thing they like to do is rewrite your history and put you up on porno sites and things like this using old pictures of your face to make it believable.  There are many worse and more sinister things they can do with these pictures, but just be aware.  Don’t let them know about you or your family.  You have a common cause and share that only.  Do not tell them the Achilles heal about your case, or about your smoking guns (figuratively speaking).  Do not let them take advantage of any anger you have and bait you into doing something violent.  Not only will you become just like them, but they want you to do this so they can lock you up and all of society can clap their hands as the government is there to protect them.  Beware.  Loose lips sink ships.  Remember, my witness was the only person who knew I did not have the tape the day I want into court and waved it in front of McCauley’s face.  What you have learned about these minions is not a small thing.  All of those quotes like, “the American Justice System is the Fairest in the Whole World,” is said over and over for a reason.   These minions need the public to believe in the “perception” of public trust in order for them to continue on, and to get rid of people like me who know better and know how to document it and tell about it.

                 As you will read elsewhere, the retaliation I continually face for having exposed these miscreants continues to this day, and I suspect will continue until something dramatic happens either for me, or more likely against me.  These people have absolutely no scruples and have control of all government processes so  what they are capable of doing is immeasurable, and without consciences, and with the technological advances, eventually, they will place me at some scene of some crime or alleged crime and no matter what I may say in defense, there will be a repeat of the above account all over again.  They must discredit this message which shines its light brightly on who these people really are, and the game of illusion they play.  Sooner or later, unless God stops them, they will find me guilty of some absurd set of circumstances.  And they usually use some mentally ill person or greedy person to bring an allegation or to complicate a simply matter into the bizarre to get the ball rolling.  But, the handler’s fingerprints are eventually evident.  At that time I will go through this again, perhaps not being so fortunate next time to even escape with my well being. 

                That is the plan of these minions.  They take leadership out of the way any chance they get.  They use my ex-client’s greed and willingness for revenge to be the front so that it appears that they are “policing themselves” when in fact they are targeting those who are making too much noise about them.  And they do it by discrediting because otherwise you are a hero or martyr.  As many of you know, I have set up numerous groups who are committed to nonviolent and legal ways to hold the system accountable and to help one another since God is always about the individual.  They have used video, books, tapes, audios, etc. of mine to show in a detailed way to those who have ears to hear.  Be careful of those who approach you with false information. They are out there too.  The bottom line though is that, whether you believe this or not, God cares for people and nothing these minions do changes how God sees those who care about justice and how he sees them.  And this is why you need a savior folks.  This is why you need Jesus in your life.  He may not save you from this, but he will be there walking you through it just like he did me.  And when you see that there is nothing earthly that you can rely on, as have I and which I document in part here, then you will see that Jesus is the only way.  I hope you embrace this.  This teaching will make you strong when you feel weak, it will make you bold when you feel cowardly, and it will give you life eternal, once you face death as everyone, good or evil will face since it is a natural process in a fallen world.  Are you ready to accept the Lord into your life?  Ask me about it.  He will give you peace in spite of the storm you may be facing.  Who knows, he may even blow an article at your heels when you most need it. 

                As you read the rest of this book, I hope you will pay careful attention to the index where I have provided an incredible amount of supporting evidence.  Almost all of it, the 3 Judge Panel would not allow me to submit in my defense.  And for those of you who ask, where was Regent University in all this.  I am going to leave them to God, but Pat Robertson knew including numerous certified letters from supporters as well as me, Dean Jeffrey A. Brauch knew and even though he was not aware of the facts, tried to impress upon the writers questioning his apparent lack of concern, that these judges and justices were incredible “men of God” and refused to look into the situation (I have his letter to some CBN/Regent supporters who were questioning why he and Regent are not actively trying to assist with this matter since those on the board of Regent, and others esteemed by Regent are the ones pursuing me).   Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, who is promoted by Regent University as a Christian  . . . well, Attorney James Hopper came to the defense of the Virginia State Bar without even knowing the facts, and lied to the Judge in order to get my harassment hearing off the docket in Federal Court, and got the Judge to change his entire perspective before we ever had another hearing.  How did that happen since we are not supposed to have “ex-parte” communications where a judge is not permitted to discuss cases with outsiders or others who might sway his opinion in any way?   Robert McDonald knows as I spoke to the entire legislature about it and he was the head of it at the time.  And even Dennis W. Archer knows.  Who is he you ask?  Dennis W. Archer was the head of the National Bar Association for the entire United States of America,  Page 1, 2, 3, 4.  He knows.  I presented questions to him by certified mail.  Take a look at the questions and then guess what he said. . . if you guessed silence you are right.  No response, no national outcry, no request for an investigation.  Are you catching on to how big this really is?  And I am not even giving you some of the biggest parts of this that led to even bigger issues that I could not have imagined were connected but for seeing it for myself. 


                There were some who did come to my aid at Regent University and to them I thank them.  And there were some law students who got a real education for a change, and that is for sure.  They sat in that Supreme Court and listened in disbelief.   They thanked me when they came out of the hearing and said it was a life changing experience for them and that they would be sure to share the word.  And of course, I told them to do so, but to do so very carefully and to the right people. . . those with ears to hear.  Don’t assume that because you are in an alleged Christian School, Church, Ministry, etc.  that there are people there who are interested in good faith.  Read the New Testament and see how many times God’s people were dealing with imposters amongst them.   Some things never change.   A great thank you to the Late Professor John Stanford who was there when I needed him most.  May the Lord bless his family and tell him well done, my good and faithful servant.  He tried to warn me about what was going on, but I couldn’t yet hear it clearly.   There were others who would prefer I do not mention them for fear of reprisal.  

                And, as I said initially, there are also some honest lawyers and judges out there who when they hear my account and see the overwhelming evidence, they look a lot like my key witness, an attorney, did when the final realization hit, as Jim McCauley perjured himself, and when we stood over the box of transcripts looking at how they were changed.  That person saw first hand and personally what I had been whistle blowing about for years.  That look is the same look no matter the person or people I talk to if they are honest.  It is the same absolutely disgusted look that I had when I saw these things happening to other people and knew I could not remain silent.  But, more importantly, it is the disillusioned look of those who love the truth, thought they were serving the truth, but who got confronted by the realization that we were not serving the truth; that we are on a Holodeck, and nothing was as it appeared.  Many of those people who have heard have made adjustments in their lives and in how they assist others so that they can be more effective in their work, and be more at peace with who they are in truth, and in doing so have become closer to God who they have decided to serve more diligently as this system cannot be seen as our savior.   In contrast, these people I have exposed here care only about the “perception of public trust.”  It is not real.  It is not true.  It is an illusion; a Holodeck if you will.  And the greater collusion which I have not even discussed here is evident in order for these people to keep their secrets.  I hope that you good faith readers will begin to see, that except for God, anything else we put our trust in is merely the “perception of our savior.”  It is not real.  It is not true.  We cannot count on it.  It is smoke and mirrors existing for its own agenda and policing itself to keep its secrets.

                One attorney told me that he went to a continuing legal education course in another state and this matter came up where their state bar was speaking.  Of course that bar speaker didn’t talk about me or my case, but they told the attorneys in the audience that they would not put any advice they gave in writing.  And so one of the attorneys asked, well then what are we calling you for if we can’t rely on your advice?  The Bar in that state said that it is a risk they take.  And so another said, so if we follow your advice are you going to come after us for it, and the bar said maybe.  This of course, caused the audience to go into an outrage and the CLE was shortened because nobody wanted to listen to anything else the Bar in that state had to say.  If you look at one of my FOIA’d documents to the bar, I asked what they are making on CLE’s. One of them made the Bar $18,000, if you even want to believe their numbers as true since they have no oversight over receiving money and oh, yes, most of the gifts they receive are small, remember that one?  Now that lawyers are hearing that all that money they pay to the Bar could get them prosecuted anyway is having some repercussions.  So, the effects of what happened to me are spreading even if I do not get to experience its rewards personally.  But, I leave that in God’s hands.    And I know in Him, nothing is wasted even though I face the accuser over and over again trying to entrap me and discredit this message.  So be careful of people who sound like me, or identify themselves as me but are not.  These minions like to impersonate people, especially on the Internet so that the person appears to discredit his or her own message.  It’s all about perception, remember?  This sounds as bizarre as this case, but I have seen this happen more than a few times.  With modern technology and the internet, it is not hard to do these days.  I have been pasted up on porno sites as a porno queen, I have been said to be talking about aliens, and whatever else these people just make up.  For those of you who believe in Jesus, read II Peter Chapter 2.  That is who these people are.  But, nothing new is underneath the sun.

                Also, I didn’t tell you this, but before the bar grabbed me, I was being groomed as an Independent to run for Attorney General in Virginia and would have taken on the cleaning up of the Virginia State Bar and its overseers as my first responsibility.  But, again, I got a dose of reality that I should have remembered as a little girl.  Who would ever want to be involved in this thing called “politics?”   And, because I was scheduled to be a guest speaker before the American First Party’s first every national convention, being well known by now as United States Congressman Traficant’s lawyer, of course, the Bar made sure to set a hearing date on that date knowing I would be out of town and could not cancel this speaking engagement, and even though it was not even a critical issue.  Judge Glen Tyler would not make the Bar change the date and that is when they “re-worked” the Order that they would not give to me, and I had to notice my appeal by the next day or lose my right to an appeal my appeal as of right (sarcasm intended).   So the final Order was not even what was in issue in the alleged “Trial.”  It is pretty bad when after all the cheating they did, they still had to change the Order in spite of all the colluding, perjury, making up new allegations on appeal, give the federal judge a good “talking to,” and even come up with three more Orders at the Supreme Court level all because lil’ ol’ me.  (I’m sure I left some of the outrageousness out, but I tried to lump it all together under the heading of “cheating.”). 

I would encourage you all to read my four page letter I wrote to Rhysa Griffith South on September 9-10-01 to see more of what I was doing that caused the bar to target me for disbarment, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4  (what I have outlined here is only a small portion of what was going on . . . it is much, much bigger than this and I still am involved in the bigger picture today which makes this story look like a story about Mother Theresa. . . and yes, the bar is still involved), to see why a poor kid from Cleveland whose parents were both dead by age 10, became such a thorn in the side of Virginia, and later, a thorn on a much bigger scale, which I have not addressed here for time sake and to keep within the context of this book.   But, suffice it to say, that I do understand what you are going through, those of you who are caught in “Holodeck Law, Where Nothing is as it Appears, and have been sucked into this “Litigation Vortex,” Where you are not released until every last dime is spun from your pockets, if you are released at all.   In that letter to Rhysa Griffith South, I addressed those who were honest at the Virginia State Bar, if anyone, and reminded them about a recent news story that was disgracing the Norfolk Police Department.  In brief, there was a news story about how police were allegedly sexually assaulting women and any complaints from these women were ignored or even worse, covered up, allowing the perpetrators to continue in this illegal and brutal conduct.  I don’t know if that story is true, since “Nothing is as it Appears” with these people on the Holodeck and quite often they smear the good guys using the system, the papers, etc., but taking it as true to make my point only, I told those honest members at the Virginia State Bar, if any, that if the police would have taken this matter more seriously instead of protecting their own through their secret “policing themselves policies,”  then many women would not have been sexually assaulted by Norfolk’s police officers, and they would not now be embarrassed publically.  Likewise, I told the Bar that unless something drastic is done with the bar, their rape of the public and of good, honest attorneys, while protecting the most corrupt attorneys will eventually be discovered as well.   Perhaps I do not even have to ask you if you believe that the Virginia State Bar has ever intended to live up to their lofty mission statement I posted earlier.  Perhaps today is the day the Lord has made so that the public begins to get a real education in who we have served and why we should never put trust in the system as you read this abbreviated account here.  Anyone want to know why my belief in God is so strong?  I have heard people sarcastically say, why do I need God?  What is it that I need to be saved from.  I would answer with this account, because He is the only one to trust and this is precisely why we need a savior.   

And you know, people are always ready to say all lawyers are crooks, and all Christians are hypocrites and to an extent, many are.  But, I know not everyone is.  I’ve met some who are not.  Many of them have helped me survive and even thrive occasionally in spite of these and others trying to shut me down and shut me up.  But, perhaps now you can see why some choose the more heavily traveled road of ignoring this information, for no good deed goes unpunished on the Holodeck.  And for those taking the road less traveled, there are major consequences and few friends (relatively speaking).  And many who are your "friends" when convenient become quick enemies using this against you for selfish gain, at the opporutne time. But, I know that as I grow closer to God each day, that when he asks this of each of us:  Did we do justice, love mercy and walk humbly before him, that even though I have a long way to go, I am a lot closer to achieving these goals then when I first started out on this journey because I no longer rely on the Holodeck for safety or stability.  And when we see these wrongs that affect so many, if we choose not to “blow the trumpet” or sound the warning, then the innocent blood of those who come after us into this “Litigation Vortex” is on our hands.  Ez 33:6.  This introduction is my attempt to fulfill my duty to warn and to do my best to tell each of you, including Christians, that we have put our trust in the wrong things.  Whether we believe in God and Christ or not, we are truly being deceived by those we think are leaders, and I do not just mean our alleged Government leaders.  I have mentioned only a few of the “religious leaders” that I dealt with, and am leaving them and all the others in that category to God as He is known to shake everything that needs to be shaken.   But, through all of this, suffice it to say that I have learned a lot along this path, which steps of mine, I believe have been ordered (and the continuing saga is much bigger than this where I am constantly under attack. It really never ends.).  I hope my eye-witness account in this Introduction has benefitted many, but I always leave results to God.  He is the only one that can make the seeds of truth grow.    

And as I said, I have a difficult task addressing many different readers in this book, but for those Christians reading this eye-witness account or for anyone who loves the truth, I have truly learned what the old testament Prophet Jeremiah was told when he complained to God about those who seemed to have life easy even though they had God on their lips, but He is far from their hearts.  Read Jeremiah 12:1-5 where Jeremiah makes his complaint, and then read God’s answers as to why God allowed bad things to happen to good people.  That question is not at all a mystery as so many claim or even pretend it is today.  Jeremiah 12:6.     God is raising up people who have said no to these corrupt systems.  He is raising up a people who will no longer be satisfied with being deceived, whether by miscreants in government, or whether in the churches who allow for these deceptions to continue when they know better.  He is raising up a people who want the truth and desire to honor truth more than their own easy lives they are promised if they go along to get along.  God calls for integrity no matter what these “leaders” try to engage you in and no matter what carrots they dangle out in front of you if you remain in your slumber. And no matter who else takes the carrot and sells you out for it.   It is your choice who this day you will serve. 

Finally, as I told you, we would come back to the quotes of the Virginia Supremes and the United State Supreme Judges.  Just as I had used Judge Lacy’s words against her, that “nobody wins when the court is not above suspicion,” I found this other quote shortly before filing my U.S. Supreme Court brief, and used it as my intro for that brief.  It is entitled:  Justice O’Connor stresses importance of effective judicial systems.”  And in it she is quoted as saying, “[a] good judicial system 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.”   Justice Sanda Day O’Connor, 9/23/2003    

“Oh really?”   Linda Kennedy, 9/24/2003


Thanks for reading and if you so desire, go on to the next Chapter, which illustrates what you may be going through and how I might be able to guide you in at least putting up the good fight.  If they want you bad enough, as you have read here, it won’t matter in the outcome, but you at least have your own record so that you can share it with others as we work toward properly educating the public so that facts and the rule of law will matter for all and minions will no longer be able to rely on the “perception of public trust” which allows minions to thrive.  But, for many, my strategies have worked well, and we have had success in getting the innocent out of prison, the innocent out of ridiculous judgments and the like, because the system didn’t really want them badly enough, and if you take these worthless miscreants by surprise, they may just release you too from what is now commonly known as “The Litigation Vortex.”  God Bless each one of you who reads in good faith.  I hope you can see that I really do understand what you are going through and you are not the only one who sees it. 

Chapter Two:  Litigation Vortex

Chapter Three:  Triangle and Two Defense

Several Other Chapters are written from Kennedy’s book Holodeck Law that are not available on line including “Plan B:  What to do when the Law and Facts Don’t Matter.” 

Last Chapter:  Everything That Can Be Shaken, Will Be Shaken

Linda Kennedy is a nationally recognized speaker, giving speeches and seminars around the United States, has set up numerous Court Watches for those in need of public accountability, has authored several more books, videos, and other media exposing corruption while trying to assist the public by creating public accountability groups, and has her own radio show until recently. Linda has also been a guest on many radio and TV shows giving lectures on several topics including Plan B Strategies: What to do When the Law and the Facts don't Matter.   Linda Kennedy can be reached at holodecklaw@live.com  Please put your message in the Re line because, as you can imagine, Linda recieves a lot of virus attacks and therefore does not open email. style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>.

<p><center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">

<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_s-xclick">

<input type="hidden" name="hosted_button_id" value="7N2Z76TNKHDGY">

<input type="image" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!">

<img alt="" border="0" src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif" width="1" height="1">


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.

Copyright Holodeck Law 2005, by Linda Kennedy

 I do not give permission for anyone to print this Chapter on any other page than this one at Precious Time Radio, http://www.precioustimeradio.com/aboutlindakennedy.html.  I do this, not to be selfish, but to try to safeguard my testimony as those who must discredit it, will do things like change this information and say it is from me.  If you hear my voice, see my pictures, see video of me, or read my work, be very aware that these people have the best technology that money can buy and they are bent on discrediting real whistleblowers.  Please direct people to this site.  It is important that the secrets of those who use them to attack legitimate opposition come to light.  Thanks Mike D. for your work to get this up on my site, and for all those reading in good faith, and most of all . . . Let’s Not Waste Anymore Precious Time and Keep the Faith. 

As I said, 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 God 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, and for who You are 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. Amen.