Complaint Review: Olaf Gebhart & Associates - Jason Adkins - Newport News Virginia

Initially, it is interesting to note that it is either through misunderstanding, forgetfulness, or, something else, that this individual states that she retained in 2006, while her written retainer agreement occurred in 2007. Similarly, that no such guarantees of time were ever given, except in the agreement, which this individual signed twice, which clearly indicates, in two areas of the document, that there is no such guarantee and that delay may be attributable to, among other things, an order of publication, which was necessary here. Regarding the order of publication, although this individual chooses not to believe such, the office received a written apology from the newspaper in which the necessary ad ran for having made a mistake in this regard, which was exactly how this individual was advised. Also as she indicates, she chose not to appear for necessary depositions scheduled with this office, in 2007, having appeared for rearranged depositions in 2008, yet another delay of which she was advised, attributable not to the office. Finally, also as she indicates she was advised, paperwork necessary to her final divorce was sent to the necessary court some time ago which resulted in a waiting-period for the judge to sign such documents, which, as confirmed by the relative clerk's office on the 10th day of September, 2008, in writing, with the office and, thereafter, communicated directly to this individual who was, at that time, advised that she could contact the clerk's office herself to confirm, the paperwork had not, yet, been signed by the judge, again, a a delay attributable not to the attorney/law office. Although this individual was advised at each and every step of exactly that which was taking place and where such is indubitably reflected in her file with this office, she chose not to accept these truths and, instead, engage in a campaign against those who were honest with her and indicate falsehoods such as her file allegedly having been lost and her failure to recollect when she actually retained. This person's perception that she was, in some way, involved in a removal or personnel change in the office is also very telling as it was so much easier to ignore the honest and frequent explanations that her writing shows she received to, instead, choose only to accept her own, erroneous understanding while claiming that she was the one person who was responsible for exposing such alleged fraud and corruption. None of this makes any sense. That which does make sense, however, is exactly that which this person was told ... the truth, which she, at every step could have confirmed by contacting the local newspaper in which the order of publication was run, the clerk's office where the paperwork lies, et cetera, if she chose not to "believe" the law office, yet she never bothered to confirm this information which was given her. Instead, she claims that she had retained in the year prior to her actually having done so, claims that her file was lost, claims that there was some fraud, et cetera and that she, in some way, was the one who exposed it and its participants and, most significantly, spread all of this over and throughout this website. A mere contacting of the office with which this person dealt is all that is necessary to confirm the actual truth of a matter such as this, yet, where this person was afforded the respect of having been told the truth at each and every step, she will also be afforded the respect of confidentiality in her relationship with the office. It is unfortunate that she could not afford others the same respect. In closing, it is a very positive thing to have "removed" oneself from dealings with individuals such as this who chose not to use her efforts to confirm the truthfulness of all that was explained to her, but, instead, offer exactly the opposite of the truth in this website, beginning with something as clear as the very year in which she retained the office.

Initially, it is interesting to note that it is either through misunderstanding, forgetfulness, or, something else, that this individual states that she retained in 2006, while her written retainer agreement occurred in 2007. Similarly, that no such guarantees of time were ever given, except in the agreement, which this individual signed twice, which clearly indicates, in two areas of the document, that there is no such guarantee and that delay may be attributable to, among other things, an order of publication, which was necessary here. Regarding the order of publication, although this individual chooses not to believe such, the office received a written apology from the newspaper in which the necessary ad ran for having made a mistake in this regard, which was exactly how this individual was advised. Also as she indicates, she chose not to appear for necessary depositions scheduled with this office, in 2007, having appeared for rearranged depositions in 2008, yet another delay of which she was advised, attributable not to the office. Finally, also as she indicates she was advised, paperwork necessary to her final divorce was sent to the necessary court some time ago which resulted in a waiting-period for the judge to sign such documents, which, as confirmed by the relative clerk's office on the 10th day of September, 2008, in writing, with the office and, thereafter, communicated directly to this individual who was, at that time, advised that she could contact the clerk's office herself to confirm, the paperwork had not, yet, been signed by the judge, again, a a delay attributable not to the attorney/law office. Although this individual was advised at each and every step of exactly that which was taking place and where such is indubitably reflected in her file with this office, she chose not to accept these truths and, instead, engage in a campaign against those who were honest with her and indicate falsehoods such as her file allegedly having been lost and her failure to recollect when she actually retained. This person's perception that she was, in some way, involved in a removal or personnel change in the office is also very telling as it was so much easier to ignore the honest and frequent explanations that her writing shows she received to, instead, choose only to accept her own, erroneous understanding while claiming that she was the one person who was responsible for exposing such alleged fraud and corruption. None of this makes any sense. That which does make sense, however, is exactly that which this person was told ... the truth, which she, at every step could have confirmed by contacting the local newspaper in which the order of publication was run, the clerk's office where the paperwork lies, et cetera, if she chose not to "believe" the law office, yet she never bothered to confirm this information which was given her. Instead, she claims that she had retained in the year prior to her actually having done so, claims that her file was lost, claims that there was some fraud, et cetera and that she, in some way, was the one who exposed it and its participants and, most significantly, spread all of this over and throughout this website. A mere contacting of the office with which this person dealt is all that is necessary to confirm the actual truth of a matter such as this, yet, where this person was afforded the respect of having been told the truth at each and every step, she will also be afforded the respect of confidentiality in her relationship with the office. It is unfortunate that she could not afford others the same respect. In closing, it is a very positive thing to have "removed" oneself from dealings with individuals such as this who chose not to use her efforts to confirm the truthfulness of all that was explained to her, but, instead, offer exactly the opposite of the truth in this website, beginning with something as clear as the very year in which she retained the office.

Initially, it is interesting to note that it is either through misunderstanding, forgetfulness, or, something else, that this individual states that she retained in 2006, while her written retainer agreement occurred in 2007. Similarly, that no such guarantees of time were ever given, except in the agreement, which this individual signed twice, which clearly indicates, in two areas of the document, that there is no such guarantee and that delay may be attributable to, among other things, an order of publication, which was necessary here. Regarding the order of publication, although this individual chooses not to believe such, the office received a written apology from the newspaper in which the necessary ad ran for having made a mistake in this regard, which was exactly how this individual was advised. Also as she indicates, she chose not to appear for necessary depositions scheduled with this office, in 2007, having appeared for rearranged depositions in 2008, yet another delay of which she was advised, attributable not to the office. Finally, also as she indicates she was advised, paperwork necessary to her final divorce was sent to the necessary court some time ago which resulted in a waiting-period for the judge to sign such documents, which, as confirmed by the relative clerk's office on the 10th day of September, 2008, in writing, with the office and, thereafter, communicated directly to this individual who was, at that time, advised that she could contact the clerk's office herself to confirm, the paperwork had not, yet, been signed by the judge, again, a a delay attributable not to the attorney/law office. Although this individual was advised at each and every step of exactly that which was taking place and where such is indubitably reflected in her file with this office, she chose not to accept these truths and, instead, engage in a campaign against those who were honest with her and indicate falsehoods such as her file allegedly having been lost and her failure to recollect when she actually retained. This person's perception that she was, in some way, involved in a removal or personnel change in the office is also very telling as it was so much easier to ignore the honest and frequent explanations that her writing shows she received to, instead, choose only to accept her own, erroneous understanding while claiming that she was the one person who was responsible for exposing such alleged fraud and corruption. None of this makes any sense. That which does make sense, however, is exactly that which this person was told ... the truth, which she, at every step could have confirmed by contacting the local newspaper in which the order of publication was run, the clerk's office where the paperwork lies, et cetera, if she chose not to "believe" the law office, yet she never bothered to confirm this information which was given her. Instead, she claims that she had retained in the year prior to her actually having done so, claims that her file was lost, claims that there was some fraud, et cetera and that she, in some way, was the one who exposed it and its participants and, most significantly, spread all of this over and throughout this website. A mere contacting of the office with which this person dealt is all that is necessary to confirm the actual truth of a matter such as this, yet, where this person was afforded the respect of having been told the truth at each and every step, she will also be afforded the respect of confidentiality in her relationship with the office. It is unfortunate that she could not afford others the same respect. In closing, it is a very positive thing to have "removed" oneself from dealings with individuals such as this who chose not to use her efforts to confirm the truthfulness of all that was explained to her, but, instead, offer exactly the opposite of the truth in this website, beginning with something as clear as the very year in which she retained the office.

Initially, it is interesting to note that it is either through misunderstanding, forgetfulness, or, something else, that this individual states that she retained in 2006, while her written retainer agreement occurred in 2007. Similarly, that no such guarantees of time were ever given, except in the agreement, which this individual signed twice, which clearly indicates, in two areas of the document, that there is no such guarantee and that delay may be attributable to, among other things, an order of publication, which was necessary here. Regarding the order of publication, although this individual chooses not to believe such, the office received a written apology from the newspaper in which the necessary ad ran for having made a mistake in this regard, which was exactly how this individual was advised. Also as she indicates, she chose not to appear for necessary depositions scheduled with this office, in 2007, having appeared for rearranged depositions in 2008, yet another delay of which she was advised, attributable not to the office. Finally, also as she indicates she was advised, paperwork necessary to her final divorce was sent to the necessary court some time ago which resulted in a waiting-period for the judge to sign such documents, which, as confirmed by the relative clerk's office on the 10th day of September, 2008, in writing, with the office and, thereafter, communicated directly to this individual who was, at that time, advised that she could contact the clerk's office herself to confirm, the paperwork had not, yet, been signed by the judge, again, a a delay attributable not to the attorney/law office. Although this individual was advised at each and every step of exactly that which was taking place and where such is indubitably reflected in her file with this office, she chose not to accept these truths and, instead, engage in a campaign against those who were honest with her and indicate falsehoods such as her file allegedly having been lost and her failure to recollect when she actually retained. This person's perception that she was, in some way, involved in a removal or personnel change in the office is also very telling as it was so much easier to ignore the honest and frequent explanations that her writing shows she received to, instead, choose only to accept her own, erroneous understanding while claiming that she was the one person who was responsible for exposing such alleged fraud and corruption. None of this makes any sense. That which does make sense, however, is exactly that which this person was told ... the truth, which she, at every step could have confirmed by contacting the local newspaper in which the order of publication was run, the clerk's office where the paperwork lies, et cetera, if she chose not to "believe" the law office, yet she never bothered to confirm this information which was given her. Instead, she claims that she had retained in the year prior to her actually having done so, claims that her file was lost, claims that there was some fraud, et cetera and that she, in some way, was the one who exposed it and its participants and, most significantly, spread all of this over and throughout this website. A mere contacting of the office with which this person dealt is all that is necessary to confirm the actual truth of a matter such as this, yet, where this person was afforded the respect of having been told the truth at each and every step, she will also be afforded the respect of confidentiality in her relationship with the office. It is unfortunate that she could not afford others the same respect. In closing, it is a very positive thing to have "removed" oneself from dealings with individuals such as this who chose not to use her efforts to confirm the truthfulness of all that was explained to her, but, instead, offer exactly the opposite of the truth in this website, beginning with something as clear as the very year in which she retained the office.

It appears that a great deal of effort was placed into making this report. It would be fortunate if, at least half of such effort was placed in discovering the truth in matters such as these. It is, by far, so easy for one to preach about that which is only his/her perception and understanding, through a website such as this one, where he/she absolutely refuses to give consideration, in any way, to that information and explanation which is so freely and frequently given. Where one chooses to intentionally ignore the truth, particularly where it is so frequently explained, it is easiest for him/her to place blame on others. It is extremely unfortunate that this lacking of motivation is something that such an individual would call to incite in others by asking that they, too choose to ignore. It would be my hope that such a reporting as this one serves to achieve the opposite effect ... so that all may realize and learn a lesson that the writer of this report seemingly did not ... although you do not necessarily like it, it may still be the truth. They are those persons who bother to discover this truth, despite their distaste with hearing it, that are truly enlightened. On the unfortunate other end are those who, having heard news that they do not "enjoy" or understand, assume that it must be false and lash out, such as here, at those persons who have done them the respect of delivering a message that may, in fact, be difficult to accept. It is never a problem that one check-up on those who are providing a service for them ... for an example relative to this report, call the clerk of court, et cetera ... ask about and check on your matter ... you will likely be surprised, as is likely the case here, that things are exactly as you have been told. Sometimes the truth hurts and it is, often, too easy to ignore. Make an effort not to ignore and, although it may make you uncomfortable, accept the truth as it is, without such an effort to convince yourself of what it should be! This is, in fact, the best use of your efforts.