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.
Sincerely,
Harsha Sankar
908 Valley Ridge Road
Covington, Virginia 24426
Summary
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
Conclusion
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
Virginia
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Harsha Sankar
908 Valley Ridge Road
Covington, Virginia 24426
Summary
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
Conclusion
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
Virginia
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.
posted by Harsha Sankar at 10:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home