Saturday, December 30, 2006

Aggression Against Citizens' Liberties By Power Brokers Is A Prelude To Aggression Abroad

Dear Citizen, August 2006

Israel continues to bomb Lebanon into the "stone age" over the capture and killing of ten of its soldiers allegedly by Hezbollah. While this disproportionate response may precipitate World War III, Americans need introspection of see where they stand.

Throughout history, aggression against people’s liberties within its borders by power brokers has always established a prelude for aggressive tendencies abroad. Lack of logic lead to anarchy and chaos, which eventually is enforced by sheer brute force. The Founding Fathers realized that free and sovereign people are much less likely to get involved in foreign entanglements. Yet as the brittle rule of republic law has crumbled, it lends itself to abuses by any head of state and henchmen. They will manipulate the high priests' legal system to their own choosing. Even if they are held to account, they will hide behind its veil of nonsensical complexities.

Written are a few cases in point.

The US Supreme Court “ruled” that the Bush Administration was wrong in not treating a Gitmo prisoner properly in court case Hamden vs Rumsfeld. It did this despite the fact Congress passed a law withdrawing jurisdiction from all courts except the Court of Appeals in D.C. concerning Gitmo detainees. While Article III of the American Constitution empowers Congress to do this, the Supreme Court could not care less. If they abuse and misuse their authority like this, is it any surprise the executive branch will do the same?

A proposed 32 page bill on the Congress Floor would allow all “enemy combatants”, including American Citizens, to be detained until hostilities cease. In theory this sounds acceptable. However,with the totally arbitrary courts, this will advance the “police state”. The language is typically broad and it could authorize the military to indefinitely hold citizens for political and personal reasons. All it takes is for someone to be accused of tenuous ties to terror networks. Trials would be held in secrecy.

Apparently it is okay to monitor everyone’s activities, particularly with cameras, but it is not okay to monitor activities even in regular courts in which cameras are still not allowed.

The legal minds are at it again. George W. Bush’s battery of lawyers recently have argued that Taliban members were not entitled to Geneva Convention protections as POW’s because Afghanistan was a “failed state”. Yet the Geneva Convention, which America recognizes as law, already states Taliban fighters and other foreign terrorists who do not constantly appear to belong to an organized fighting unit can be treated as highway robbers and pirates. Bush’s own lawyers are shooting him in both feet. Why cannot law be made to be understood?

President Bush has singed over 800 Signing statements that give him the authority to ignore written law. In one signing statement, the right to torture detainees held in the war on terrorism will be reserved. So how does Congress react? Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter wants to take the President to Federal Court.In the American Constitution, the President has no authority to re-write laws like this. When the President exceeds his authority, he will be subject by congressional review for possible impeachment. Involvement by federal courts is mentioned nowhere.

The House Republican Leadership will consider using the “martial law process” for vital pieces of legislation. While certain house members and attorney/lobbyists are currying favors and dealing behind closed doors, the remaining house members will have only a day or two to examine tens, if not hundreds, of pages of attorney written bills before it comes to a vote.

The Pentagon, as highlighted by former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, cannot account for $3.3 trillion. One trillion of that sum vanished during the watch of Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakhem between 2001 and 2004. It just so happens Zakheim is a dual Citizen of both America and Israel. He has extensively lobbied for many defense armament Israel has received.

As the world now drifts ever closer towards total was abyss, this silliness must end. Forget the Constitution. There are absolutely no standards of law. There is now dissent against the neocon war agenda by senior military leaders. America has prompted its puppets in Georgia and Ethiopia to attack it neighbors so potential nations will not enter the fray. While Egypt and other puppet Arab states have declared its intent not to become involved, Russia now along with Syria and Iran have its military on highest alert. Russia and China could place hundreds of thousands of Americans in harm’s way if they utilize their highly disciplined, well organized, and cost efficient military. While both nations, especially China, do not sponsor adequate freedoms, they do have firm rule of law. America’s anti-democratic heavy handed nonsense is not tolerated there.

The first and foremost step to curtail these trespasses is simple. Current members of the military, police force, and even bureaucracy do not hold office. Teachers and school administrators are not on school boards. It is time to separate law from politics.

Very Truly Yours,
Harsha Sankar
908 Valley Ridge Road
Covington Virginia 24426

High Attorney Fees Breed Sociopathic Tendencies

Dear Citizen, June 2002

13 Million dollars was paid to lawyers by taxpayers to defend Timothy McVeigh.

Seven million dollars was paid again by taxpayers to lawyers for the defense of foreign nationals charged with the American embassy bombings in Africa.

Taxpayers paid Andrea Yates lawyer $500.00 an hour.

The Boston ArchDiosys Catholic Churchmembers are being suedfor 30 million (lawyers to receive one-third to one-fourth) for the horrible,criminal actions of several of their priests and bishops.

Many capable doctors are quitting their practices because large judgments have more than doubled in five years.

According to A Voice For The Children,headed by Will & Pam Gaston, $20 Million in Oregon was paid out in the last year in closed settlements to abused foster children seized by the state by bar members .This is the usual attorney money-go-round - average of $500,000 to victim and attorney with no admission of guilt by the state or agency or any officer, closed record and the whole system stays intact, no public record and no Public Right to Know.

Virginia taxpayers have spent a fortune in litigation over the gerrymandering issue.

No wonder law schools are full and law shows now flood the airwaves.When a clique makes the law their business, uncontrollable greed will result. Fear, anarchy, and paralysis will prevail.

These extreme fees are not normal in a free,democratic society.This money and power grab breed megalomania,self-adoration,absence of empathy,"cult of personality", and other sociopathic tendencies.Attorney totalitarianism has demonized the productive work ethic and has led to the degradation of American culture of free enterprise and simple,honest,and consistent rule of law.

Bar Associations should not be involved in the judge-selection process.

Very Truly Yours,

Harsha Sankar
908 Valley Ridge Road
Covington,Virginia 24426

Friday, December 29, 2006

Jews Should Openly Embrace Their Heritage

Dear Fellow American,

Anti-semitism is a phenomenom that has existed for ages. While these sentiments are much more prevalent and embedded in Europe than in America, still it is a concern in this nation.

The Nazis slaughtered millions of Jews. This genocide was obviously not just the work of a very small clique. Pre-1945 Europeans never regarded the Jews as inferior as they did with the Slavs,Gypsies,Orientals,Blacks,and Asian Indians. They had the misconception that the Jews used their intelligence and resourcefulness to manipulate and exploit the common man. They attributed the heavy Jewish participation in the arts,banking, and journalism as signs of a conspiracy when this should have been viewed as a cultural phenomenom.

Blacks constitute 80% of the players in the NBA and 70% in the NFL. Asian Indians own half of the American lodging industry.Yet no one has suggested illicit collusion. People of total/partial Jewish faith and/or origin represent 60% of Hollywood personnel and also represent the vast majority of high -level media operatives.This is despite the fact they are less than 4% of the population. This should be viewed as achievements and not as exploitation.

While Jews work well with each other, they are hardly monolithic and in America they are Americans first and foremost.The best way anti-semitism can be combated is for many Jewish Americans to stop their unconditional support for Israel and most importantly to embrace openly their descent and heritage.It is a shame many have changed their names and religion to “fit in”and many more choose to remain “closet Jews”. WWII ended 57 years ago and Jews must cease being sensitive if asked about their semitism. While Jews cite these practices as reasons to avoid persecution, it gives the wrong impression to the predominantly “gentile” population that secretive conspiracy exists.

The following are few of the names of people of Jewish ethnicity in entertainment and mass communications.

Harrison Ford, Leah Remini,Paul Newman,John Stossel,Robert Redford,Geraldo Rivera,Paula Zahn,LesleyStahl,Morley Safer,Dan Rather,Laurin Sydney,Larry King,Scott Simon(NPR),Harry Houdini,David Copperfield,Carl Reiner,Rob Reiner,EdAsner,Hal Linden(Allen Lipshitz),Sarah MichelleGellar,Aaron Spelling,Tori Spelling,RichardDryfuss,Norman Lear,William Shatner,LeanordNimoy,P.Richardson(Home Improvement),JonathanTaylor Thomas(Jonathan Weiss),Michael T.Weiss,Marx brothers,All 4 stooges,MichaelLandon(Eugene Horowitz),Melissa and SarahGilbert,Roseanne,Tom Arnold,Roman Polanski, Jerry Sienfeld, Nia VardolosJason Alexander,Mike Wallace,Barbara Streissand,Barbara Walters,Dan Lauria,FredandBen Savage,Jenna Leigh Green(berg),Chris Isaak(mother),Brian Wilson(mother),Tonyand Jamie Lynn Curtis,Rhea Perlman,The Beastie Boys,E.Vedder(Pearl Jam),Michelle Tractenberg?,Sid Ceasar,Tina Louise(Ginger),Florence Henderson,Jane Seymour(Father),Taylor Dayne,Dustin Hoffman,James Caan,J.C.Van Damme(mother),Barry Manilow,Dustin Diamond,Linda Ronstadt,Louis Mayer(MGM),William Paley(CBS),Mayim Bialik,Michael Stoyanov,Ron Jeremy,Kari Wuhrer,Judd Hirsch,Yasmine Bleeth(Father),Jackie Mason,Alicia Silverstone,Jerry&Ben Stiller,Robert De Niro(mother),Jerry Springer,Sally Jesse Raphael,Joan Rivers,Paul Shaffer,Doc Severensson,Ricki Lake,Joel&Jennifer Grey,M.Broderick,S.J.Parker, Andrew Shue,Ted Koppel,Bill Maher,Andrew”Dice”Clay,Henry Winkler,Marion Ross,Brooke Langton,Chevy Chase,Paul Simon,Neil Diamond,Carrie & Joely Fisher,Steven Bochco,Yul Brynner,Lorraine Bracco,Adam Sandler,Jerry Lewis,Steven Segal,Joel Seigel,Paul Stanley,Gene Simmons,Dinah Shore,George Burns(Nathan Birbaun),David Schwimmer,Lisa Kudrow,Bernard Kalb,Wolf Blitzer,Wendy Mallik,Natasha Lyonne,Dyan Cannon,Amber Benson,Seth Green,Selma Blair,Robert Downey,Jr.,Elizabeth Berkeley,Jeremy Licht,Judith Light,Sara Hughes(Ice Skater),Danny Strong,Corey Haim,Debra Messing,Joan Collins,Rosanna &David&Patricia Arquette,Anson Williams,Jamie Lynn Sigler,Gabrielle Carteris, Lesley Anne Warren,Zsa Zsa & Eva Gabor,Sharon Osbourne,Mindy Cohn,Charlotte Rae,Jeremy Miller,Leel'ee Sobieski,Ashley & Courtney Peldon,Daniel Day-Lewis,Mimi Rogers,Brad Garrett,Doris Roberts,Jamie Gertz,Juliet Landau,Josh Saviano,Tom Bosley,Donny Most,Eddie Kay Thomas,Jason Hervey,Piper Laurie(Rosetta Jacobs),Randy "Macho Man"Savage,Leslie Nielsen,Rod Steiger,Jon Cryer,Peter Strauss,Eli Wallach,Danielle Fisher, Howard Caine(Hogan'sHeroes),Eddie Carmel,Robert Carmine(Father),Josh Charles,David Charvet,Maury Chaukin,Robert Clary(Hogan's Heroes),Sidney Clute,Lee J.Cobb(Leon Jacobs),Julian Beck,Paul Ben-Victor,F.Murray Abraham,Jack Benny, Daniel Benzali,Charlie Brill, Adrien Brody,Joel Brooks,Phil Buckman,Red Buttons,Scott Cohen,Harry Connick,Jr.(mother),Michael Conrad,Jackie Cooper(Father),Allen Covert(Father),Peter Coyote(Cohon),John Francis Daley(mother),Michael Ian Black(Schwartz),Mel Blanc,David Duchovny,Orlando Bloom,Alan Blumenfeld,Bud Abbott,Don Adams(Get Smart),Harvey Atkin,Hank Azaria,Martin Balsam,Frank Bank(Leave It To Beaver),John Banner(Hogan's Heroes),Chuch Barris,David Alan Basche,Randall Batinkoff,Justin Berfield,Peter Berg,Corbin Bensen(father),Joey Bishop(Joseph Gottlieb),Jack Black,Hart Bochner,Peter Bogdanovich,Zach Braff,Michael Brandon(Feldman),Tony Randall(Leanord Rosenberg),Elisabeth Shue,Rob Schneider,Don Rickles,Goldie Hawn,Kate Hudson(mother),Kevin Pollack,Abigail Van Buren(Lederer),BillMaher,Vanity(Mother),Robert Lansing,Gary David Goldberg,Lisa Loeb,Gene Siskel,Linda Lavin,Alan&Adam Arkin,Bob Hoskins,Taylor Dayne,Gwyneth Paltrow,Sandra Bernhardt,Vic Morrow,Bob Saget,Jon Tenny, Michael Kinsley, Harvey Korman,Jack Klugman,Helena Bonham-Carter,(Mother),Steve Gutenberg,Lorenza Lamas(Mother),Christopher Lambert(Father),Barbara Hershey,Sasha Mitchell,Carly Simons,Adam Rich,Art Buchwald,Stephanie Powers,Cindy Margolis,Craig T.Nelson,Robby Benson,Judd Nelson,Natalie Schaffer,Cloris Leachman,Bea Arthur(Frankel),Estelle Getty,Neil Sedaka,Audrey Hepburn,Charles Bronson, Benny Goodman, Joan Lunden,Corey Feldman, Milton Berle(Melden Berlinger),Madeline Kahn,Sally Field,Ken Olin,Abe Vigoda,Rain Pryor(Mother),David Birney,Jennifer Jason Leigh,Lorraine Newman(SNL),Helen Hunt(Father),Robert Goulet,Jeff Goldblum,Gina Gershon,Kenny G,Jamie Luner,Jessica Tandy, Amy Irving, Steven Weber(Wings),Stanley Kubrick,Elliot Gould,Suzanne Pleschette,Lorne Greene,Ron Silver,Molly Ringwald,Paula Abdul,Lorne Michaels(SNL),Tim Burton,Joey Slotnik,Geena Davis,Monty Hall,Woody Allen,Irving Berlin,Mel Brooks,Billy Crystal,Bob Dylan,Richard Gere,Cathy Lee "Epstein"Gifford,Harvey Keitel,Calvin Klein,Michelle Lee,Bob Marley,Gregory Peck,Paul Reiser,D.L.Roth,Winona Ryder,Telly Savalas,Danny Kaye,Sissy Spacek,Peter Ustinov,Robin Williams,Julianna Marguilies,Lauren Bacall,Scott Wolf,Noah Wyle,Lisa Bonet(Mother),Lenny Kravitz(Father), Ellen Barkin,Alan Rickman,Gene Wilder,Brian Austin Green,Rita Hayworth,Walter Matthau,Stepanie Kramer,Pauly Shore,Rodney Dangerfield,Dinah Manoff(Empty Nest),Howie Mandel, Debra Winger, Kevin Kline,Raven-Wrestler,Jon Lovitz,Isaac Isamov,Susanna Hoffs,Christine Lakin,Gilda Radner,J.Gordon-Levitt,Bette Midler,Jonathan Silverman,Boris Karloff,Gilbert Gottfried,Dan Futterman,Harvey Fierstein,Fyvush Finkel,Michael Fishman(Roseanne),Phil Foster,Ben Foster,Jon Favreau(Mother),Oded Fehr,Fritz Feld(Feilchenfeld),Marty Feldman,Norman Fell(Feld),Jesse Eisenberg,Stephen Elliot(Elliot Stitzel),Noah Emmerich,Peter Falk,Don Diamont,Stephen Dorff,Jerry Douglas(Gerald Rubenstein),Herb Edelman,James Franco(Mother),Al Franken,Dan Frischman,Stephen Furst,John Francis Daley(Mother),Stuat Damon(Zonis),Rodney Dangerfield(Jacob Cohen),Larry David,Amanda Bynes

Very Truly Yours,

Harsha Sankar
908 Valley Ridge Road
Covington,Virginia 24426

The Perversion Of Values Created The Leisure Class

Dear Fellow American, March 2005

Enclosed is an excerpt from Robert L. Heilbroner's widely acclaimed book The Wordly Philosophers. The author describes the views of a prominent philosopher of the late19th and early 20th century, Thorstein Veblen. While academia always lacked true, sensitive touch to common-sense reality since they are theoreticians by nature, the following is written verbatim his particular view on the non-productive, parasitic leisure class as expressed by Heilbroner. Veblen hit the nail on the head on this one.

[The Polynesians and the ancient Icelanders and the shogunates of feudal Japan were, in Veblen's gaze, a different kind of community in pre-industrial society: they had well-defined leisure classes.These classes, be it noted, were not idlers.On the contrary, they were among the busiest members of the community. But their "work" was all predatory; they seized their riches by force or cunning and took no part in the actual production of wealth by sweat or skill.But although the leisure classes took without rendering any productive service in return, they did so with the full approval of the community. For these societies were not only rich enough to be able to afford a nonproductive class, but aggresive enough to admire them; far from being regarded as wasters or spoilers, those who rose to the leisured ranks were looked up to as the strong and the able.

As a consequence, a fundamental change in attitudes towards work took place. The activities of the leisure class-the winning of wealth by force-came to be regarded as honorific and dignified. Hence, by contrast,pure labor became tainted with indignity.Veblen saw this as the degradation of a once honored way of life under the impact of a predatory spirit; a community that admires and elevates force and brute provess cannot beatify human toil. For modern man, in Veblen's eyes,was only a shade removed from his barbarian forebearers.In modern life prevailed the heritage of the past.The leisure class had changed its occupation, it had refined its methods, but its aim was still the same-the predatory seizure of goods without work.Instead of seeking booty or women, it sought money. In the eyes of society, the members of the leisure class were still the more warlike and more fearsome members of society, and accordingly, the underlying common sought to either submit or utilize their betters.Everyone,workman and middle-class citizen as well as capitalist,soon sought the services of the leisure class as opposed to revolting against it. The populace, which felt acutely the indignity that attached to non-predatory means of livelihood, such as work. In contrast, it was much more redeeming to demonstrate their predatory prowess]

Does the particular philosophy expounded by Thorstien Veblen sound relevant? Allow the reader bethe judge. Many honestly feels that these positions are narrow and constrictive.I believe it espouses the views most Americans hold. Many attorneys feel these sentiments as radical, and misguided(They simply do not want the public to be aware of their official misdeeds.)One needs to review all this objectively and then analyze.

Very Truly Yours,

Harsha Sankar
908 Valley Ridge Road
Covington, Virginia

Exposure Of False Iconism As Myths

Harsha Sankar

June 7th, 2001

Updated December 27th,2010

Dear Citizen:

I write this letter because more than ever we as Americans need to take a stand against tyranny and oppression which has been inflicted against us by the legal profession. The blame is ours since we have allowed style to precede substance in importance. Showmanship has replaced integrity. The Founding Fathers never wanted a ruling class with master status. Yet we have conferred such status to a special interest group who has studied anti-liberty, non-democratic, unconstitutional, and non-sensical system of governance. The American Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights) was written to be understood and supported by the people. It was not written in "legalese" so it could be interpreted to the fancy of predatory forces. Our Charter was patterned after the Ten Commandments for its simplicity and transparency. Very few, no matter what faith, will disagree with the Ten Commandments.

It is the duty and not just the right of the common, average American to express free and true speech and free press in efforts to publicize corruption, fraud and abuse prevailing in public related sectors. Lawyers do not receive wealth through voluntary means. Rather they obtain it through coercion and cunning. These factors unfortunately dominate our legal system today.Depicted is the greed, absurdity, amorality, and lack of empathy demonstrated by the Moss & Rocovich firm in Roanoke, Virginia. While this example is just a small instance of the graft and heavy-handed tactics which are constantly perpetuated by the legal profession on the American people, it is paramount we as individuals shed light to this barratry. We must do so for the sake of the working and entrepreneurial citizenry. When people fear government, tyranny will exist. When government (including its judicial branch) fears and defers to the people, liberty will prevail.Freedom and representative government were hard to gain. They are easy to lose.

This essay is not stating counsel (not limited to law degree holders and bar association members) does not have its place in a free, democratic society. However our nation has by far too many lawyers, too many lawsuits, and at the same times too little access for the common man to navigate and utilize our courts. We spend more in direct attorney fees in litigation alone than we do for our entire national defense. We pay not just financially, but also morale-wise as ethics, family structure, civility, and emotional well-being are severe casualties. The Ten Commandments and the first ten amendments liberated us. Yet we have degraded ourselves to second-class citizens simply because we have not undergone a subjective, arbitrary, three year study of laws and court procedural rules which mostly harass, intimidate, confuse, and ultimately enslave us.Is it any wonder the wealth and value-vacuuming effect created by this judgmental aristocracy has caused social ills and tensions to rise to all-time highs? Too many Americans have been reduced to slave labor by this status quo as they are being driven to the brink of deep frustration and despair. The breakdown of core values and morality is evident as cynicism takes deep root. Most importantly, what makes these matters so revolting is most of this is totally unnecessary. People and their countries will always experience inherent struggles. However, there is no legitimacy to this.

Very Truly Yours,

Harsha Sankar
908 Valley Ridge Road
Covington, VA 24426

In the following letter I will not state by name the particular attorney who committed this "rape". The courts should be free of vindictiveness. One main reason why the Courts have been given unprecedented, god-like powers is due to the vengeance factor. Courts should be free to apply and support the law in an impartial, objective, and by the book manner. This public institution should be free from personal, populist, and professional influences. There is or at least should be a general, common sense code of conduct for attorneys. Lawyers should hold in high regard the needs and objectives of the client. Lawyers are paid for trying in a good faith manner to provide results satisfactory to the client. An attorney is paid for the time he/she spends working for the client in strict deference to the client's defined needs and wishes. This work generally includes discussion, research, listening, advising, as well as communicating on behalf of the client. Lawyers must consult the client in the most forthright fashion possible simply because this is in the client's best interest. While they cannot guarantee results, must be reasonably paid for their honest efforts, and must stay always within the parameters of the law, ethics, and "good taste", they are not mediators or arbitrators. Their purpose is to solely serve the client's agenda as approved by the client.Lawyers are not supposed to be paid for who they areor for their knowledge, 'prominence' , and self-importance. In any profession or business, there must be a certain amount of principles, standards, and integrity. People cannot just do whatever is materially expedient.Rampart promiscuity and loose morals have definitely eroded people's confidence in the legal system. There must be empathy, uniformity and an ethical compass.

If help cannot be provided, then at least no harm should be inflicted. While good manners are not a legal, ethical, or moral requirement, certainly a contemptuous attitude towards a client/customer will prejudice the proper outlook and perspective of the professional/ business person. This will invariably lead to actions or inactions, which will cause harm (and in a client's case he/she will suffer from a loss of rights). A lawyer must focus on the legal and factual merits of a specific matter only. Personal factors such as status/stature, reputation,to whom one is related, finances etc.. should not be taken into consideration. Attorneys must advise clients as to what to expect, especially in terms of financial costs,in advance before any commitments are made. If a lawyer cannot provide the normal and proper deferential and economical counsel to the satisfaction of the client, for whatever reason, that lawyer needs to advise the client to pursue his claim elsewhere.

The following summary is my experience with Moss/Rocovich, P.C. Inc. I gave ample opportunities for John Rocovich, partner, to try to provide remedy. It is always best to try to resolve differences bilaterally, privately, and equitably.Unfortunately reason did not prevail. If this grievance has no legitimacy, then very few do. All productive Americans who achieve their living through voluntary means need to make public their experiences of legal carnage and thus pressure our public officials to implement necessary reforms.

Harsha Sankar
908 Valley Ridge Road
Covington, Virginia 24426


On November 3rd , 1987, I entered into a contract with a dummy, asset less corporation called United Vending Systems of America, Inc. (UVS, Inc.) in Alexandria, Virginia. I paid this company $37,200.00 ( a huge amount of money) that was to be refundable (minus gross profits of soda and snack vending machine sales) if I was dissatisfied after six months of selling efforts. UVS, Inc. was to provide training, product delivery, and machine maintenance. I would sell machines under my own corporation' s name (UVS of S.W. Virginia). UVS, Inc. reneged on product delivery and maintenance. I soon discovered it had defrauded at least ten and possibly thirty other investors throughout the nation.

While I had dealt with other lawyers, I contacted John Rocovich. We had a five-hour frank and thorough discussion in which he did not charge. The reason he cited was "taking on a new client".(However, the five hour discussion was riddled with many irrelevant self-aggrandizing statements such as how he was on the board of directors of the Bank of Floyd and how he was a co-founder of Hop-In Food Stores.)I expressed I wanted the payments to UVS, Inc. to be refunded immediately. However, as I had touched base with soda and snack vending machine manufacturers/ distributors for research purposes, I still wanted to participate in the soda and snacks vending business despite a non-compete covenant in the signed contract. Accordingly, Mr. Rocovich wrote a demand letter to UVS, Inc.

Then he transferred the case to his partner (now ex-partner). This partner proceeded to call William Burroughs, who UVS listed as counsel. I had earlier that day itself told this attorney while I had a solid case, I strongly felt a judgment would be worthless since I suspected UVS, Inc. was transferring money overseas. Mr. Burroughs, as he had stated in his response to Rocovich's demand letter,told this lawyer a lawsuit would hinder settlement and would also lead to unnecessary, costly attorney fees. This partner's reply was, "You make money and I make money."Suit was quickly instituted against the dummy corporation. The same day I had my lawyer call Fawn Engineering, a vending machine manufacturer which had strong ties with UVS, Inc. More importantly, Fawn allowed UVS to advertise itself as its strong collaborator. Fawn's brochures and United Vending Systems of Fawn's tapes easily misled me into believing Fawn would arrange the necessary product delivery and maintenance. I felt Fawn was liable also and they had assets.

This partner was given 14 pages of prepared material that thoroughly described all aspects. I spent approximately twenty hours formulating ideas, writing it, and then having it typed. The reason for this effort was to save the partner time and me money.After three less than hour-long meetings (the partner stepped out of one conference for the majority of the time to supposedly research law) and after seven (five-minute) phone conferences, I received a bill for over three thousand, one hundred dollars. This bill included the filing of the five or six allegation lawsuit and the subsequent amendment in which one brief sentence was added. The bill had five different names.

Like most people, I could barely afford one attorney at approximately one hundred dollars per hour. Who can afford four attorneys? Certainly not me at that time or even now. In early September 1988, I met Mr. Rocovich and I expressed my grave concern about the billing. Less than a week later, this partner proceeded to set up depositions with the opposing litigants in Northern Virginia . I had questioned if this was necessary. He replied yes. He then cancelled the conference we had earlier scheduled. My lawyer said there would be time to discuss strategy and the case on the plane trip. During the trip, He Refused To Talk To Me, Period. HE INSISTED ON READING THE NEWSPAPER. Obviously there were many specific issues that I deemed necessary for consideration and possible incorporation. When I tried to prompt his input, he responded "Your contact of vending machine manufacturers could be a problem. We'll see".During the deposition, I could detect Mr. Burroughs knew my attorney had contempt for me. (The letter the defendant's attorney had written to my attorney confirmed this. I was not shown this letter that had expressed the desire for quick settlement and that premature litigation would hinder that).The first time I had seen this attached letter was when it was recovered from the State Bar. Furthermore, my attorney nodded his head either in approval or in mutual respect when the defendant answered his questions in which I already knew the answers). Then the defendant's attorney asked this partner, "Is there too much blood on the table"after he asked me if I had contacted any vending machine manufacturers (my answer was yes). My attorney abruptly took me outof the room and brutally asked me "What do you want, twenty, thirty thousand! Don't you trust me!" I expressed exasperation and he said "Sh, Sh!" This commotion was within earshot of the opposing litigants. Needless to say, this final act of sabotage doomed my recovery chances. He and the plaintiff's attorney then met privately. When I asked the partner the crux of this brief, secret discussion, the partner responded it was about attorney fees and the possibility of the defendant suing me. After the two hour deposition, this partner refused to talk with me (Apparently He Felt Reading The Newspaper Was More Important) and he even refused to sit next to me on the flight back. I was billed an extra $2,500.00. There is nothing wrong with my contact with anyone for the purposes of research and education. If that partner believed otherwise, then he should have not filed suit and we should not have flown to Northern Virginia.

For the record, I never generated one red cent in revenue in the sale/distribution of snack and soda vending machines and its products. All work done on my behalf was obviously in bad faith. He even insulted me by saying, "Why don't you write it off as a loan from your father? (Much had been earned and most borrowed) When I explained that to him, he taunted me, expressing contempt and disbelief.(It took me years in free labor and cash payment to take care of the loan balance) While these humiliating remarks, isolated by itself, do not account for anything, it is just indicative of how badly my objectives were mistreated.( Whether I had earned part or all of that huge investment, borrowed it from the bank, family,or Mafia, won it from the lottery, found it in a taxi cab,inherited it from an uncle, received it on a silver platter from my grandmother, or stole it from an old lady is none of his concern.)I paid the total fee due to severe personal difficulties. After two (fifteen minute) conferences, two brief phone calls, and the meaningless recording of judgment against asset-less UVS, Inc. (Mr.Burroughs told his partner in the initial phone conference that UVS, Inc. did not have the money to pay the corporate filing fee. UVS, Inc. dissolved itself in 1989), I was billed an additional $250.00.For nearly nine months, he refused to return all except one of my phone calls (he did not have anything to say in that two-minute conversation) . Due to this negligence, the statute of limitations of instituting suit against Fawn Engineering expired. No one would have agreed to this outrage and absurdity. This is exactly what a client does not need. No letters were written to me or on my behalf by this partner.

I lodged a complaint with the Virginia State Bar. Despite the incredulous response from this attorney as well as the overwhelming evidence supporting my claim, Harry Hirsch of the Virginia State Bar cited my complaint has no foundation whatsoever as the Virginia State Bar dismissed my complaint. Harry Hirsch did this despite the fact attorneys are not supposed to file suit just to gather information,according to the State Bar and Supreme Court Rules and even according to State and Federal law. Once suit is filed, the intent should be to try all allegations in a court of law. The intent of filing suit should not be to extort settlement, to gouge the client, nor is it to determine client's standing on a case.

I swear the proceeding is true to the absolute best of my beliefs. I am prepared to verify what has been written.

Harsha Sankar,
June 7th 2001


I met John Rocovich, Jr. in February 1990 and I expressed to him the facts and my sentimentsthat I described in the summary. Due partly to third party vacillating interference (in which I accept sole responsibility) and due mainly to Rocovich's unprofessionalism that this matter was protracted. I did continuously express my strong dissatisfaction. In January 1995, Mr. Rocovich offered total refund. I did not accept because I felt his motives for settlement were ulterior. No individual with self-respect will allow himself/herself to be used or manipulated. A little over four years after Dr. Sankar's (my father) discharge of the Moss and Rocovich's firm, I sent to John Rocovich a copy and the original of my thorough letter requesting a partial refund. I later wrote to him asking for the sake of principle, that only half of what I paid to the firm in 1988 should be returned. I instructed the refund should only go to the legal reform associations. (If he was dubious about that he could have contributed to charities such as Feed The Children. I did not want to receive one red cent so my motivation would not come into question. Furthermore, I had written the firm could pay in installments (e.g. 12 months x $250.00). The only answer I could receive is he felt there was not reason to re-open the case. If he had told me this settlement was not possible now since the partner no longer practices with the firm, I would have understood. All I wanted was for closure and resolution to be based only on the basic & objective merits.

As the number of legal professionals grows, the legal system becomes more relative and less tangible. I explained in great detail why I waited for over four years to approach him. He threw my only copies of the letter away after I requested it. Arrogance will continue to exist among lawyers as long as there is no accountability.

Very Truly Yours
Harsha Sankar
908 Valley Ridge Road
Covington, VA 24426

Addenda To Conclusion

The intent of these letters is not to denigrate and disparage all lawyers. Many lawyers understand the meaning of assistance of counsel as stipulated in the American Constitution and thus demonstrate the principle of honest work for honest pay. However, due to lack of accountability, the legal profession invariably is corrupt. Absence of empathy has become the hallmark of this insidious system as ethics and common sense morals are marginalized. In all matters in all spheres, if the consumer (customer/client/ patient) has a complaint of not receiving what he/she expected from the provider, it is incumbent on the provider to see if the dispute and difference can be worked out equitably to both parties based on the specific,detailed and relevant merits.For a provider to determine it is beneath him/her to try to resolve the grievance in a meritorious, quick, and fair manner because the provider feels his/her role was not to defer to the stated objectives of the consumer is unprofessional. Moreover, it is fraud and misrepresentation and also an admission that the fee is not legitimate.

The consumer would not agree to be treated as chattel, burdens, or wards. Rather the consumer rightfully expects to be advised properly on their matters and that all work conducted by the provider should be in efforts to try to obtain results deemed satisfactory by the consumer. This is a consumer's contractual right and should be exercised. Not only is it the principled way to provide, it is also in the long-term the most practical as well. Too often megalomania and self-adoration interfere in these logical practices.

The problem Americans face now is that our corrosive system caters to these predatory and parasitic instincts. It is time to replace promiscuous shysterism with standardized professionalism that is compatible with society norms. The concept of honest work/time for honest pay, while practiced by many lawyers, is becoming more and more of a foreign concept to the legal profession. Our more progressive, productive middle-class country which was governed by democratic self-rule is fast approaching third-world status in terms of governance, wealth disparity, and values. The ruling elite bears responsibility.

Very Truly Yours,
Harsha Sankar
Midlothian Turnpike
Richmond, VA 23225

P.S. Unfortunately in my matter, it was marked by one-upmanship, immature status posturing, and belittling remarks on an irrelevant personal level. One should not mind honest criticisms and honest differences of opinions on relevant and specific issues.As sociopath traits breed in the legal profession, these meritorious issues become obscured. If a lawyer feels he/she/the firm is overqualified to represent someone and/or his/her company because it is used to represent big clients, then why would it insist on taking money from a small businessman such as myself and keeping it? This demonstrates that the master is the true slave.

Dear Reader, March 2006

What is expressed in the preceding was simply a dispute between consumer and service provider. Unfortunately it was never treated as such. We are not supposed to live in a cast-like medieval and feudalistic hierarchy. People are only supposed to receive payment for what they do according to the prior authorization and approval of the consumer, as any can reasonably expect. Apparently John Rocovich is in either desperate need for money or desperately hungers for money. If his firm was not, he would have cited something to the effect "Here is your lousy money! We (or I) do not need your filthy money! Take it and stay out of my hair!" I never wanted the money directly. Fortunately for me, I have only had positive experiences with other lawyers(Evans Jessee and Martin Willis, both of Roanoke,Michael Collins and Greg Mooney,both of Covington, and Leon Rose of Toms River, New Jersey) I interacted with. Based on what I've seen, they treat everyone the same. As product/service providers they should demonstrate this ethic. I would not expect any less if I took my car to an auto mechanic for a review of defects and for an assessment of possible cost-effective repairs. The auto mechanic's focus should solely be on the car as a lawyer's focus should be on solely on a client's matter. Yet John Rocovich never made himself aware of the details. He claimed, demonstrating repulsive megalomania in the process, that his firm had handled 4000 cases and I could not expect him to be privvy to such specifics.

As a small business man I have interacted with tens of thousands of customers. For customers who are satisfied I do not worry. However, if there is a dispute or grievance I get to the bottom of it by obtaining the core facts. That is the only way I can resolve the dispute equitably. I am certain that vast majority of product/service providers do the same as I. They certainly should not make the same argument as Rocovich did with me. For any to act that the consumer is somehow privileged to have some one or some entity supposedly work for him or her is totally repugnant to the concept of accountability. This mentality is invariably becoming more common and frequent. This narcissism poses a grave danger to the rest of society.

Is an individual wrong to have put my grievances in writing and have a lawyer take a thorough and objective look at it? Was I wrong to place my trust and confidence in a lawyer? With the Moss & Rocovich firm I was. In the dire predicament I was in, I do not think I was wrong in consulting someone with a certain amount of expertise and experience and obtaining a professional opinion at a reasonable fee(a couple hundred dollars at most). However there are professionals with standards and unfortunately there are charlatans.

You have as thousands of others read my letters on this matter. The response has been tremendous. If a lawyer has to do this to make it in the profession of assisting people, my strong advice is to do something else. If a lawyers has to treat a client in a condescendingly insulting and patronizingly humiliating manner and expect that client to pay for that, then that lawyer should again follow the advice just given. Specific criticisms of a client's action is fine. However, this is beyond the pale. Any success that lawyer achieves will result in the exploitation of others. A free and merit-based society will suffer in the process.

All emotional and financial stake I renounced approximately 14-15 years ago. It costs me nothing to circulate this letter. Obviously I lost substantially over this matter. However, his firm lost too. People are starting to wake up to the abnormalities and dysfunctionalities of a legal system that treats different people differently. If a lawyer himself has no uniform standards, how can he or she be fit to counsel people to the uniform standards of the law? I cannot, as a good American citizen, not do my part to protest publically the practices of people who feel they can do what they want, when they want, to whom they want, and charge whatever they want A client should be emotionally and financially prepared to "go the distance" once a lawsuit is filed. The suit should not only be legitimate, it should financially be viable. There has to be something for the client to "sink his teeth into". Even if the defendant has visible assets, it does not make any sense for a plaintiff to spend in 1988 12-15 thousand dollars in lawyer labor to chase 37-40 thousand dollars. Because of the nature of the trial courts, such an endeavor would expose the client to too much risk. This is a matter that should have never left the consultation phase, especially if the lawyer and client do not share the same sentiments and goals. Even if an issue is lawsuit prohibitive, that does not mean a lawyer cannot negotiate with the concerned parties at a cost of 200-1500 dollars.No ethical lawyer files suit as first resort.

Thanking You,
Harsha Sankar

P.S. John Rocovich and his law firm are sociopaths and degenerates. Even other attorneys have commented in private that his ethics are "questionable". So there is no doubt about that. However, this type of depraved and dysfunctional behavior only reflects the entire legal profession as a whole unit.

Please do not take my word for it. Just read how Rocovich abuses the system by abusing and manipulating Virginia Tech, the Virginia College of Osteopathic Medicine, and the "Via" estate fund.

An attorney and client have to have an arms-length relationship so that all representations are unbiased. Attorneys should renounce any and all decision-making authority and should not derive any personal benefit. In the case of the Virginia College Of Osteopathic Medicine,it is funded primarily by a deceased industrialist's Estate. This estate's attorney misappropriates authority to himself and his spouse to set up this facility.

He then places himself and his spouse on its board,selecting himself chairman. The attorney secures additional funding from an university(Virginia Tech) that he is already affiliated.

Instead of being condemned for participating in obviously corruptand unethical conflicts of interest,he is labeled as Founder. Tax judges are supposed to disallow these practices.

After Rocovich gets dismissed from the Virginia Tech Board Of Visitors, he immediately gets reinstated to the Board Of Visitors after the 2009 gubernatorial election in which Bob McDonnell gets elected. Perhaps a $47,000 campaign contribution from Rocovich to McDonnell
helped to influence matters. From 1996-2009, attorney John Rocovich has contributed $263,000.00 to the campaigns of politicians. Is it any wonder attorneys can do as they please when such corruption and graft exist?

The heavy-handedness ends when The People take back their nation and ban attorneys from office. No Same-Hands Governance! Lack of accountability and lack of separation of powers
breed this tyranny.

However, the ruling elite do have an Achilles Heel and that is exposure. Exposed, shysters run like rodents hiding from sunlight.