Complaint Review: National Legal Professional Associates - NLPA

My son is in federal prision and was convicted of attempted bank robbery. Yes, he was guilty of thinking about robbing the bank BUT he changed his mind. He was stopped while driving away from the bank's parking lot by policemen and ask for credentials & to search the car. The found a saw off shot gun (with one bullet in it) and a several ball up notes in the glove (dept.) of the car. He did not have driver license (suspended). He was convicted of attempted bank robbery & given 27 years. He did go inside of the bank & asked question regarding opening an account & was dress improperly for the weather condition, he never took a gun or a note inside the bank (just looked supicious).

My son told me to contact this organization NLPA because someone in prison told him they could help his case. I should have investigated on my own before jumping in and paying out $13,100 (NLPA received $6300 & attorney $6800). We live and learn!!

I have already save another parent from making the same mistake and I hope that this with help others. They referred me to an attorney in Florida, Charles A. Murray in Naples, Fl. NLPA stated that since my son was sentenced under mandatory guidelines this provide grounds for attack. NLPA also stated that my son may have the ability of file a 2nd petition under _2255 & raise the issue that the Booker decision shows that he was unconstitutional sentenced.

In December 2005, Attorney Murray contacted me to let me know that this was a time sensitive matter and that we had to proceed immediately before it was too late. So I agreed and paid him his fee via credit card. He told me it might be up to 6 months or better before a decision is handed down on this case. My son received a leter from the U.S. Court of Appeals in March of 2006 stating that his appeal was denied due to the fact that the law on which you based the appeal was not on point. In fact, according to that court, the case that you used did not apply to cases on collateral review for the purpose of authorizing a second of successive 2255 motion.

I later read in FAMMGRAM booklet that the Appeal courts reject retroactivity of Book, which meant that, a harsh law forbids the retroactive application of "new rules" of constitutional law unless a court and in some cases the Supreme Court, announces that the new rule is retroactive.

I am absolutely 100% sure NLPA & Attorney Murray was aware of this ruling but, still swindle me out of $13,100. If you desire more detain information regarding this case please write a rebuttal or contact this company for my email address.

Linda
Jacksonville, Florida
U.S.A.