June
20, 1986
Larry
Drivon files a Supplemental Exhibit, his Letter of Intent to
Withdraw dated December 5, 1984, on the morning of the hearing
in the matter.* Judge Raymond D. Williamson, Jr. has an 8:30am
calendar thereby excusing him from releasing Larry in view
of the fact that Larry said in his letter that it would be
in the best interests of my case that he withdraw 1.5 years
earlier, before "we are farther down the line and additional
tactical decisions have been made which might be different
than those made by another firm handling this matter." Drivon
ends his letter assuring me that he wants to "obviate" the
successful completion of this matter on my behalf.** The judge
would not see this nor would he learn prior to the hearing,
on the record (wink wink, nod nod) that Larry decided instead
to double his stay on the case from 1.5 to 3 years, and contrariwise,
not to "schedule Haig's deposition in this matter and
then force the matter as quickly as possible to trial."
Larry's
stay on the case for the additional 1.5 years served the following
purpose. Should something requiring Larry to be my unequivocal
legal counsel making a "tactical decision" on my
behalf actually occur, then the on-record absence of the Letter
of Intent to Withdraw would serve its purpose. One such significant
happenstance would prove to be my father, Vasken Berberian's,
unexpected death on January 24, 1985. It is my belief that
for mostly this reason, my father's death, Larry stayed on
as my legal counsel for the additional year and a half. Of
course, this tactical decision or strategy was never verbalized
to me. I would figure this out after the fact when I could
see things more clearly and without as much in-the trenches
emotion involved. Though not directly connected to his decision
to withhold the filing of his Letter of Intent (something I
wouldn't find out until his actual withdrawal, his having led
me to believe that it was on record since the time of his mailing
me an un-file-stamped copy of it), another tactical decision
Larry would make would be his failure and refusal to take the
deposition of Haig Berberian despite my urging him to do so.
The question remains, why? He also failed to take the deposition
of my father, Vasken Berberian, prior to my father's death.
My father was to be my star witness. What he did do instead,
I assume, was to make a cassette recording of a meeting Larry
had with my father and I. Upon Larry's withdrawal, and after
I requested a copy, he would deny making any such recording.
The question remains, why? The answer is the stuff with which
conspiracies and their hidden agendas are made.
*This
is one of the many and varied tricks of the attorney trade.
I will point out many more tricks, sleights of hand, bill of
goods sold, head-fakes and selling of snake oil throughout
the course of this exposé regarding Berberian v.
Berberian & Wells Fargo Bank, my case being particularly
pregnant with such deceptions.
**The
attorney who helped me contest Larry Drivon's withdrawal pointed
out to me as he circled the word on a copy of the letter, that "obviate" was
a curious word to use in the last sentence (or any sentence
for that matter) of the Notice of Intent to Withdraw letter
wherein Larry said that he would help me in any way he can
to find successor counsel. The judge would not see (on the
record) any of the information in Drivon's letter nor the memorialized
intentions therein, prior to nor in the context of the decision
the judge was ruling upon. This was, of course, the intention
of the tactical late filing.