Virginia DCSE employee being investigated for the UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW

Got a copy of a letter sent to a non-attorney employee of the Virginia
Division of Child Support Enforcement who signed a motion for rule to
show cause against me earlier this year.

The letter advises her that she HAS engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law in violation of the Rules of the Supreme Court of
Virginia and in violation of §54.1-3904 of the Code of Virginia, which
is a criminal statute relating to the unauthorized practice of law.

The letter was signed by the staff attorney for the State Bar who had
originally tossed my complaint who has now referred the matter to the
Standing Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. The DCSE
employee is advised to consult with an attorney prior to making any
response to the Bar.

The employee, Diane Spencer-Storey, has until November 14 to respond.

What did she do?

wrote in message
oups.com...
Got a copy of a letter sent to a non-attorney employee of the Virginia
Division of Child Support Enforcement who signed a motion for rule to
show cause against me earlier this year.

The letter advises her that she HAS engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law in violation of the Rules of the Supreme Court of
Virginia and in violation of §54.1-3904 of the Code of Virginia, which
is a criminal statute relating to the unauthorized practice of law.

The letter was signed by the staff attorney for the State Bar who had
originally tossed my complaint who has now referred the matter to the
Standing Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. The DCSE
employee is advised to consult with an attorney prior to making any
response to the Bar.

The employee, Diane Spencer-Storey, has until November 14 to respond.

As I wrote, she signed a Motion for a Rule to Show Cause against
me...not the first time...probably will be the last. It appears,
according to what I've heard, non-attorney employees of DCSE have done
this regularly and without statutory authority across Virginia.

Shannon Talley wrote:
What did she do?

wrote in message
oups.com...
Got a copy of a letter sent to a non-attorney employee of the Virginia
Division of Child Support Enforcement who signed a motion for rule to
show cause against me earlier this year.

Sadly, the Powers That Be aren't doing this out of any concern for you
or other men who have been screwed by the DCSE workers... They're doing
it only because they figured out that a lawyer wasn't paid to sign the
motion.

Once that matter is settled, it'll be back to business as usual.

- Ron ^*^


wrote:

As I wrote, she signed a Motion for a Rule to Show Cause against
me...not the first time...probably will be the last. It appears,
according to what I've heard, non-attorney employees of DCSE have done
this regularly and without statutory authority across Virginia.

Shannon Talley wrote:

What did she do?

wrote in message
groups.com...
Got a copy of a letter sent to a non-attorney employee of the Virginia
Division of Child Support Enforcement who signed a motion for rule to
show cause against me earlier this year.

Can you imagine how things would be if other groups had the same control
over the way the legal system works as lawyers do? If the butchers had this
degree of control, we would have enforcement action against people who
carved up chickens at their dining room tables, thus engaging in the
"unauthorized practice of butchery." If the garbage men had similar powers,
anyone who deposited their own trash in the trunks of their cars, and then
took it to the municipal dump, would be prosecuted for the "unauthorized
practice of garbage disposal." When I helped my next-door neighbor whose
toilet was blocked up, I would be engaging in the "unauthorized practice of
plumbing." And -- God help us -- if prostitutes had the same control over
the legal system as do lawyers -- there would be a blizzard of enforcement
actions brought by the state Association of Sex Workers (ASW) against
amateurs who provided the same services as the professional ladies of the
night.

There is nothing that more vividly illustrates the fact that lawyers
have little to offer than their eagerness to pursue "unauthorized practice
of law" enforcement actions. If their expertise is so valuable, why does
the public need to be forced to use it?

"All professions are conspiracies against the lay public" (George
Bernard Shaw). Nowhere is this more true than with lawyers in the U.S.

Unauthorized practice of law? Pah! What a crock!

wrote in message
oups.com...
Got a copy of a letter sent to a non-attorney employee of the Virginia
Division of Child Support Enforcement who signed a motion for rule to
show cause against me earlier this year.

The letter advises her that she HAS engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law in violation of the Rules of the Supreme Court of
Virginia and in violation of §54.1-3904 of the Code of Virginia, which
is a criminal statute relating to the unauthorized practice of law.

The letter was signed by the staff attorney for the State Bar who had
originally tossed my complaint who has now referred the matter to the
Standing Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. The DCSE
employee is advised to consult with an attorney prior to making any
response to the Bar.

The employee, Diane Spencer-Storey, has until November 14 to respond.

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Can you imagine how things would be if other groups had the same
control
over the way the legal system works as lawyers do? If the butchers had
this
degree of control, we would have enforcement action against people who
carved up chickens at their dining room tables, thus engaging in the
"unauthorized practice of butchery." If the garbage men had similar
powers,
anyone who deposited their own trash in the trunks of their cars, and then
took it to the municipal dump, would be prosecuted for the "unauthorized
practice of garbage disposal." When I helped my next-door neighbor whose
toilet was blocked up, I would be engaging in the "unauthorized practice
of
plumbing." And -- God help us -- if prostitutes had the same control
over
the legal system as do lawyers -- there would be a blizzard of enforcement
actions brought by the state Association of Sex Workers (ASW) against
amateurs who provided the same services as the professional ladies of the
night.

There is nothing that more vividly illustrates the fact that lawyers
have little to offer than their eagerness to pursue "unauthorized practice
of law" enforcement actions. If their expertise is so valuable, why does
the public need to be forced to use it?

"All professions are conspiracies against the lay public" (George
Bernard Shaw). Nowhere is this more true than with lawyers in the U.S.

Unauthorized practice of law? Pah! What a crock!

I find this discussion falling way short of reality.

In my state CS case workers and employment division administrative judges
are authorized to sign motions and orders. In the most absurd cases a CS
case worker has the same signatory power as a circuit court judge.

The laws are written to allow the CS Administrator the power to sign these
documents just like a judge. And the CS Administrator simply delegate their
authority to low level case workers without anyone watching what they do or
how they do it.

The State Bar in this case is upset about a lawyer not getting paid. My
concern is how the judges don't stand up and demand the bureaucrats usurping
their authority be prosecuted.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Kenneth S."

In my state CS case workers and employment division administrative judges
are authorized to sign motions and orders. In the most absurd cases a CS
case worker has the same signatory power as a circuit court judge.
===
Yep. Same in PA. Nothing new here (just as we told him last time he posted
this
earth shattering news).
===

Except Virginia is not Pennsylvania and the ability to sign any type of
court pleadings is clearly articulated in Virginia law...by the way,
the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Judge OVERRULED my attorney's
motion to dismiss based on the same grounds.

We have DCSE employees in Virginia who can sign administrative orders,
issue administrative subpoenae, etc., but there's no statutory
authority for signing legal pleadings - the Bar has
looked...apparently it was only going to get this far if DCSE didn't
AGREE to stop doing this.



§ 8.01-271.1. Signing of pleadings, motions, and other papers; oral
motions; sanctions.

Every pleading, written motion, and other paper of a party represented
by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in
his individual name, and the attorney's address shall be stated on the
first pleading filed by that attorney in the action. A party who is not
represented by an attorney, including a person confined in a state or
local correctional facility proceeding pro se, shall sign his pleading,
motion, or other paper and state his address.

The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him
that (i) he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper, (ii) to the
best of his knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable
inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law
or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal
of existing law, and (iii) it is not interposed for any improper
purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless
increase in the cost of litigation. If a pleading, written motion, or
other paper is not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed
promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the pleader
or movant.

An oral motion made by an attorney or party in any court of the
Commonwealth constitutes a representation by him that (i) to the best
of his knowledge, information and belief formed after reasonable
inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or
a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of
existing law, and (ii) it is not interposed for any improper purpose,
such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in
the cost of litigation.

If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed or made in violation of
this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall
impose upon the person who signed the paper or made the motion, a
represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include
an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the
reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading,
motion, or other paper or making of the motion, including a reasonable
attorney's fee.

(1987, cc. 259, 682; 1998, c. 596.)

Gini wrote:

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Kenneth S."

In my state CS case workers and employment division administrative judges
are authorized to sign motions and orders. In the most absurd cases a CS
case worker has the same signatory power as a circuit court judge.

===
Yep. Same in PA. Nothing new here (just as we told him last time he posted
this
earth shattering news).
===

All of this is interesting. What is the penalty for practicing, umm,
DCSE officialry without a license?

I mean, if I file bogus documents and sign off as a lawyer, I've
practiced law without a license and can get in trouble for that. But
what if I file bogus documents that can be filed by someone who isn't a
lawyer?

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:eWJ9f.5$6C.2@dukeread02...


Gini wrote:

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Kenneth S."

In my state CS case workers and employment division administrative judges
are authorized to sign motions and orders. In the most absurd cases a CS
case worker has the same signatory power as a circuit court judge.

===
Yep. Same in PA. Nothing new here (just as we told him last time he
posted this
earth shattering news).
===

All of this is interesting. What is the penalty for practicing, umm, DCSE
officialry without a license?

I mean, if I file bogus documents and sign off as a lawyer, I've practiced
law without a license and can get in trouble for that.
====
No you haven't. Anyone can "file documents" as long as they pay the filing
fee.
I'm not sure what you mean by "bogus," so can't comment on that.
====