The Criminal Acts of Michelle Dickerman and the Charlottesville Law Enforcement: July 2012

These snakes in the grass, supplying the venom;
I aint scared of your teeth, I admire what's in em;
Keep 'em waiting in the shadows there, thinking they hidden;
But the truth is you don't have the stomach to get em;
Go on already, hit em! You gotta be kiddin';
Wanna talk about a victim, Imma put you there with 'em!
- Linkin Park, "Victimized"

**This post was set to auto-post at 5:30pm**

Originally I had intended on writing a post about why the blog had been locked for some time. I still intend on doing this, but the post has been in draft stages for awhile. I had originally intended this post to only address a few points, but it has grown in size over time and may cover most of what I wanted to discuss.

Of the comments I've received from those contacting me, some of the comments involved the photos of Ms. Manweiler/Dickerman on this blog. A few people believe there might be some misunderstandings related to this by those who view my blog, so I feel it necessary to explain. The first thing to keep in mind is that all the photos that appeared on this blog were provided by other readers.

In the case of the 2006 trip Ms. Manweiler took: A reader of my blog had linked me the online photo album in a post that I had neglected to turn commenting off. This was an album that was in the possession of a third party who happened to be on the trip with Ms. Manweiler. There are actually more photos of Ms. Manweiler in this album than what I posted on this blog. I felt they were irrelevant or unnecessary. Before anyone thinks that I only picked out photos that show her smiling, there were other photos with Ms. Manweiler smiling in them but I did not post them. The point had been made with the ones I showed.

In the case of the post centered on Ms. Manweiler: I eventually took this post off of public viewing because other people felt it was going overboard and sent the wrong message. I understand that some felt it was going a bit over the top, but keep in mind I had fully intended to make articles focused on ALL the involved parties, not just Ms. Manweiler/Dickerman. Her article was just the first one produced.

The two photos of Ms. Manweiler that were used in that article were provided to me by someone who knew Ms. Manweiler when she attended the University of Virginia. There were a lot more photos submitted by this person than what I actually posted - I just did not feel it necessary to show all of what was provided.

This individual wouldn't tell me where the photos came from, but another contact who viewed them on my blog told me the source. I had already figured they came from a Facebook page due to the size of the photos and the file names. This other contact steered me towards the Facebook page of a former roommate of Ms. Manweiler's from UVA. Some of the photos I had received are found in two public albums on this roommate's Facebook page, but not all of the photos I had been given were found on these two public albums. I can only assume that those photos I had been given that were not found on the public albums were in a "Friend's Only" album from this person's Facebook page.

Of the photos I received from the UVA contact, I only selected two to post with the Manweiler article. One was a more recent photo of Ms. Manweiler. There are two reasons for this:

During my legal troubles of 2006, my mugshot was displayed for all to see on newspapers and TV news. For me to see this was bad enough, and being the very private individual I am I'll never fully get over it. But many of my family members were greatly upset to see my mugshot on the evening news, though traumatized would be a better word for it. In one example, one of my sisters was at a party with her friends, when suddenly someone says "Hey, isn't that your brother on the news?" You can imagine how upset my sister was. The only thing correctly reported by media sources was the fact I was arrested, and it was all done on a lie by Ms. Manweiler. I feel that Ms. Manweiler and other guilty parties should get a little taste of that embarrassment. Granted it's not the same as TV news, but I do a get large amount of views not just from strangers, but from people that obviously know Ms. Manweiler/Dickerman and her family.

The other reason is that Michelle Annette Manweiler is not the only Michelle Manweiler out there. There are at least two others from my understanding. I actually got chewed out because of this once, as an individual thought I was talking about someone they knew. This prompted me to post photos to help eliminate the chance of a misunderstanding.

The reality is that most photos of Ms. Manweiler that I receive get deleted. Let me make this completely clear: I have no attraction to Ms. Manweiler and do not have the slightest bit of interest in her appearance. I do not even know why on earth I ever thought she was worth my affection in years past. That affection had died long ago, many years before this legal issue.

My past actions were motivated by anger and immaturity. This woman has always treated me as if I wasn't even a human being, and this was the motivation for my actions. She used me as a way of getting attention and sympathy from her friends, by lying to make this situation out to be something it was not. She did this without any regard to the harm it caused me, then had the audacity to complain when it blew up in her face. It's like the playground bully beating up on someone, then crying foul after being punched in the nose. Ms. Manweiler has never been anything more than just an arrogant bully, and I have nothing but disdain for people like her.

Ms. Manweiler/Dickerman is not the only woman to have ever shot me down, she's not even the first one on the list to do so. Ms. Manweiler is also not the only one who ignored me or was nasty to me for no reason. Yet Ms. Manweiler is the only person that I have ever scuffled with like this. So why is it that she's the only one who has ever received a backlash? Any intelligent person should be able to guess that obviously there is more to Ms. Manweiler's behavior than what she claims.

It is quite apparent that something else happened that she isn't telling people. She isn't telling them for good reason - if people had seen the same things from her that I have, they likely wouldn't have anything to do with her. Even a narcissist needs friends in order to validate their existence, so she plays a role to hide the real Michelle Manweiler. In a way I know her better than her friends and her fiance - I've seen the real person, while all they have seen is a performance.

In spite of the nasty behavior and the rumor-mongering conducted by this woman, I attempted to reach some kind of understanding with Ms. Manweiler to resolve the issues peacefully. Not only did she refuse to resolve it peacefully, but she manipulated those attempts to portray me as something I was not - all to get more attention for herself. Even when I walked away the behavior from Ms. Manweiler continued. Keep that in mind - every time I tried to just walk away and leave it alone, that was when things would get even worse.

I received more harassment from her friends and others during the times when I wasn't even in contact with Ms. Manweiler. A person can only be pushed so much, and eventually I decided that if Ms. Manweiler wasn't going to compromise and resolve this peacefully, I was at least going to try getting some satisfaction by giving her a hard time for awhile. Not saying that was the right thing to do, just stating what the motivation was.

If I was going to risk jail time over something as ridiculous as a woman's appearance, I would have picked someone who could at least place 3rd in a beauty pageant. Despite the "dog in heat" behavior of Prosecutor Platania and my former counsel William Johnson, Ms. Manweiler isn't anything special to look at. I'm not saying I'm Romeo either, but she's definitely not Juliet. It is a sign of her ego and delusion that Ms. Manweiler still apparently believes this was at all about chasing her skirt. This was about my hatred of her being a bully in the past, nothing more. I'm not trying to be mean or insulting here, I want to make it quite clear what this is about and what my motivations have been.

Another thing that others viewing my blog have also worried about is that maybe I've given away too much information. Believe me when I say that Ms. Manweiler has not even seen the tip of the iceberg. I have not shown all my emails nor all my evidence. There is a lot that Ms. Manweiler isn't prepared for and she's going to be quite shocked when she eventually finds out what I have. Even if it's not enough to bring her to justice, it's enough to permanently ruin her reputation. The evidence can't be disputed, and Ms. Manweiler should keep in mind the example of Casey Anthony - even though acquitted of murdering her daughter, many people still assume she's guilty. The evidence I have clearly shows Ms. Manweiler tampered with the emails, and my lawyer admits these discrepancies were present on the prosecution's copy in both documentation and tape recordings. When I show people step-by-step what Ms. Manweiler did to these emails, they all say she's clearly guilty.

A further issue is that some of the people that know Ms. Manweiler and have provided me information, have noticed how I presented their information on the blog. I have actually attempted to mislead Ms. Manweiler deliberately about some of my information to avoid her being able to figure out who is actually talking with me. If I were to not be vague and accurately presented some of the information, Ms. Manweiler would be able to pinpoint some of my sources right away. She would be quite surprised to find out who is talking with me and what information I actually have been given. There are people close to her that feel she took this too far. I've asked them to not say anything to Ms. Manweiler or even defend me, and far as I know they have honored that request. To protect their identities, I'm going to ensure that Ms. Manweiler does not have enough information to figure out who has contacted me.

On another note, I'd like to point out a potential argument Ms. Manweiler might make to people she knows. Now let's say that Ms. Manweiler claims ignorance of what the prosecution was doing, and that all of this was done without her consent. Well there are far more emails between prosecutor Platania and my former attorney than what I posted here on this blog. The blame is squarely laid upon Ms. Manweiler and her parents by Mr. Platania for everything that took place. In fact, despite sitting down at a small conference table, Mr. Platania couldn't even look at me at the sentencing hearing - even when directly speaking to me he'd look at someone else.

You could clearly tell that even the prosecutor thought this was wrong, and I wasn't the only person present who picked up on that. After the sentencing hearing when my mother collapsed against a wall and bawled her eyes out, Platania even stood there staring as if he knew what he had done was wrong, while the Charlottesville probation officer comforted my mother. Too bad Platania's conscience didn't give him the spine to stand up to the Manweilers.

Even my former attorney laid the blame squarely on Ms. Manweiler and her parents. On tape recorded conversations, my mother would ask my lawyer why something was being done to me, and his response was always "Because it's what the Manweilers want". Mr. Johnson quite clearly lays the blame on her and her parents for the prosecution's heavy handed actions.

So if Ms. Manweiler is telling people that she and her parents never had any say in what took place, even her allies in the 2006 case tell a much different story. When even the prosecutors say it was all her doing, it's a bit hard to argue. Think about this as well: Ms. Manweiler was being given special treatment, so why would they take actions that she was supposedly against?

As an example, a rich UVA student had stabbed a volunteer fire fighter to death in an argument - I actually received worse punishment than him. He just had to serve 3 years in a white collar prison for voluntary manslaughter, while I was given a five year suspended sentence for being accused of threatening someone over the internet - a person who never laid eyes on me since 1999. How the hell do I get more prison time tacked on than a guy who killed another human being? He also didn't get the 20 years good behavior time that I did - and he killed someone. Even child molesters and rapists in Charlottesville had not been given 20 years good behavior. Prosecutor Joe Platania fully admitted to the Judge in the plea hearing that this amount had never been given out before in the history of the Charlottesville Circuit Court. The fact this woman was given special treatment is beyond contesting, even by the prosecution.

So here they are giving this woman an insane amount of special treatment, basically saying that because daddy has money and she went to UVA that her life is more valuable than anyone else in Charlottesville. So if Ms. Manweiler stood up and said, "No, I don't want him to get a felony, I don't think that would solve anything" - would anyone really be dumb enough to think they would tell Ms. Manweiler to go to hell and do it anyway? How can anyone really think Joe Platania is going to ignore the woman who he was caught fawning over in the courthouse?

Platania even said in court that Ms. Manweiler had seen the plea terms and was in full agreement - I still have the newspaper article where the reporter quoted his exact words on this. Not to mention that Ms. Manweiler's own victim impact statement showed that she was entirely okay with what was being done - which shows just how screwed in the head she really is.

I've talked to two retired Judges and multiple attorneys - while not all have been told she's a lawyer, when hearing Platania's comment that Ms. Manweiler was in full agreement with those terms, they all shake their head and say she's vicious. Two lawyers both used the term "sick" when hearing Ms. Manweiler agreed to this. Everyone without exception looks at the penalties that were given and say that it was evil, that nothing I was accused of doing warranted this kind of punishment. Everyone else can clearly see this as overboard and wrong yet Ms. Manweiler can not - shouldn't that immediately tell you something about her?

However, let's play devil's advocate. Say if Ms. Manweiler didn't have a say in what went on, that she really didn't want them to take this as far as they did. For years this woman has been monitoring me. She's monitored my online profiles, even to the point of having her friends send friend requests to me when I've set the profile to private. These people, who I clearly know to either be her friends or 'friend of a friend', sent me friend invites not long after locking a profile. I accept to see what they do when added to my friends list. They snoop around the profile, and then they remove themselves from my friends list.

Even now there are people on my friends list that I have no doubt are snooping. Even if they aren't in contact directly with Ms. Manweiler, they have mutual friends with her. I know which ones it would be, and believe me when I say that they would not be on my profile if there was anything that I was worried about Ms. Manweiler seeing.

Getting back on point, as you can see Ms. Manweiler was keeping an eye on me even before the creation of this blog. That information combined with my blog has given Ms. Manweiler more than enough of a picture of the severe harm done. She sat back for years while I struggled to get my life back together, laughing her ass off the whole time. For any of her friends and coworkers that read this, know this fact: If Ms. Manweiler actually didn't want this to have been done, if she had been forced into this by prosecutors, if she believed this was wrong like everyone else believes - she could have fixed this at any time.

I was informed by a lawyer that at any time Ms. Manweiler could write to the governor and ask for a pardon and it would be granted - though my understanding is that I'd have to accept that pardon. I would never accept the pardon, because if I do there might not be a shot of challenging the charge in court and getting it expunged - though I may be mistaken on this.

I'm not going to live with a felony on my record for the rest of my life however, not even a pardoned one. That just isn't an option. Even a pardoned felony will show up on a background check, and as the lawyer helping me said "It only makes it slightly easier than a felony in getting a job". It still closes a lot of doors to me and it would still cause problems in my employment.

I've gone on record on this blog stating that I'd never accept the pardon, but I didn't make this blog until more than four years after the sentencing. Which means that for four years Ms. Manweiler could have asked for a pardon if she felt she had done wrong. She has never even made the attempt to right what is clearly viewed as a wrong by everyone else. This should further prove what a sick person she really is deep down.

I never threatened to kill or hurt her or her family. Why would I have? Up until that point she was merely a bully, nothing more. Not only that, but if I had threatened her it would have been a clear statement of intent and not some vague comment, because during that time I honestly didn't know that you could be charged for threatening someone. I didn't know anything about law, so I had believed that you could say what you wanted so long as you didn't go through with it. The only instances where I had believed you could be charged is bomb threats on a facility and threatening the president.

So considering I had no idea you could get charged with threats against a regular person, obviously if I was threatening Ms. Manweiler I would have stated it directly. There would have been no need of interpreting my words or any misunderstanding of what I was saying. Trust me, back then if I was threatening to hurt Ms. Manweiler for any reason, I would have come right out and said it. If Ms. Manweiler thinks she received threats in 2006, she doesn't know what a threat is. I once had a guy get so pissed off at a forum post of mine that he sent me multiple messages of how he was going to track down my address in Virginia and "gut" me "like a fish". Now THAT is a threat. Did I go running to the police? No, I knew the guy was full of shit.

Even the Judge from the District court kept telling the prosecutor that there was nothing in those emails that suggested a threat made on Ms. Manweiler or her family. That was why the prosecution and my lawyer threatened me into waiving the preliminary and then threatened me into pleading guilty - they knew there was no evidence of death threats and they knew she tampered with the emails. Even the court documentation stated that there was never a finding of guilt, it was cut short by being coerced into pleading guilty by the prosecution and my former attorney.

There is a certain point where you have to use some common sense, and clearly the other parties in this case didn't use any. You had a guy who initiated contact via the internet. This person had no criminal record, no history of violent behavior, a DoD security clearance, lived three hours away from the "victim" and for months never even bothered to find out where the "victim" even lived - thus no in person contact ever occurred. It would take a complete idiot to view someone like that as a threat.

People need to keep one thing in mind about this case - the only thing that this felony involves was an accusation of sending emails over the internet. That's it, that's what this whole case revolved around. I deserve to get harsher treatment than a molester, rapist or even a guy who stabbed a firefighter to death? I deserve to have my life destroyed over something like that? Bullshit.

My sister actually received a genuine death threat via email once, from a guy with a violent criminal record who lived not far from her. There was no mistaking what this guy was saying. Keeping in mind what happened to me, she went to the police station to file a report to see what the reaction would be. The police told her that since the guy only hinted at it and didn't come out and actually say he was going to kill her, they said they couldn't do anything unless he shows up at her doorstep.

Apparently since the word "kill" wasn't used, that was an excuse to do nothing for my sister. I've researched this kind of case and I've found multiple instances of law enforcement doing nothing when someone has received blatant threats. Even in Charlottesville, most people who do get convicted only get misdemeanors - and only after they committed other actions related to the case. Yet Ms. Manweiler gets vague statements (which were clearly tampered with) from a guy she hasn't seen and who didn't even know where she lived, and I get my skull crushed by the legal hammer. It was because she was a UVA student with a rich alumni father, nothing more.

Make no mistake, my life has been destroyed with this felony. I spent years before I got the opportunity to start all over again. There is no guarantee that it will still continue. I have deliberately held off on certain things in my job that require a background check. I will hold off as long as possible, but eventually I have to do them. That's when I've got a 50/50 chance of losing my job - maybe even worse odds for me. Just because this engineering company hired me even with this charge, that doesn't mean that any other place would do the same. Plus when this contract is over with I have to hope that we get awarded this additional contract coming up. If not, my company may not have the ability to keep me on for long. I can tell you right now, I will not go back to being unemployed and living in my parent's house again.

Hopefully I won't lose the job, because it is the best opportunity I have to challenge the charges and get this thrown out. I already have a lawyer ready to fight for me, and they did the research to find a few ways to challenge the conviction. Keep in mind that the guy from the Norfolk Four case got his conviction thrown out. All he was able to challenge in court was the confession that had been coerced from him. As far as I know no other evidence against him was challenged, just that one thing. I have far more than that.

The entire case was based on pieces of paper printed up by Ms. Manweiler and handed to the police. That and her own testimony was the sole evidence. Think about that - essentially this entire case hinged on just her word alone. As one lawyer said, "She could have done anything to those emails".

At no point did the prosecution or police ever recover any of the original emails - they only used the print-ups from Ms. Manweiler. The C'ville law enforcement even admitted in court that they supposedly damaged my computer hard drive and thus never obtained the original copies. My lawyer admits to this taking place, and even names who in the C'ville law enforcement told him about it. Not to mention this was even brought up in court, with plenty of witnesses and documentation to go with it.

There is a thing called "chain of custody". Law enforcement has to obtain evidence that is free of tampering and then monitor who has access to this evidence at all times - otherwise entire cases can get thrown out. What this means in this case is that the Charlottesville law enforcement was supposed to have verified the email evidence from an original source - either from my computer or from Myspace servers. Ms. Manweiler, the "victim", is not considered an appropriate source. They are on record as having stated that they never obtained anything from either of the original sources I mentioned. The only source of evidence against me is what Ms. Manweiler handed in. This is a huge problem for the Charlottesville law enforcement, as this is extreme negligence. In this day and age of Photoshop you can't just trust something that a person hands you from an electronic source.

I can prove that Ms. Manweiler tampered with the evidence. I can prove that she took pages from the same email and put separate dates on them to make it look like I wrote more emails than I did. I can show that she was forwarding emails to a fake Myspace profile made to look like mine. Since the Charlottesville law enforcement is documented as having never verified these emails from another source, they can no longer be considered useable as evidence in the case brought against me.

The fact that some tampering can be proven to have occurred means that without verification from another source, nothing in these emails can be assumed to be genuine. That verification never occurred during the original case, and now can no longer occur. Neither Ms. Manweiler or the Charlottesville law enforcement have the ability to prove that Ms. Manweiler did not complete fabricate the email contents - again, they never verified them against any other source. I can also show that while there were suspicions, this new evidence had not been discovered until after the legal proceedings were over.

Platania also initially tried to claim in court that I had confessed to all charges. This never took place, and Platania later dropped this lie. Why? Because they conveniently "lost" the tape recording of Detective Rudman's interview of me. Not only did I not confess to the charges but I informed Rudman of things that Ms. Manweiler did in the past that were not favorable to the prosecution of me. So they decided to "lose" the tape so they could make a false claim of a confession. I guess Platania smartened up eventually and dropped those claims because he knew without the tape he couldn't prove what was said in the interview.

Hell I wasn't even read my rights. Due to the stress I felt all day at work when hearing I was being sought by police, I had fallen asleep in the interrogation room while Rudman was going through my apartment. He later comes barging in with his partner, which jolted me out of a pretty deep sleep, sticks a piece of paper in front of my face and tells me to sign it. I was still not completely awake yet (and in shock), and thanks to having a police officer father and being raised to trust police I gave into his demand.

Once I woke up completely and got over the shock, I regretted not holding off on his demands and refusing to sign something I didn't even get the chance to read, but it was too late. I'm sure Rudman planned that perfectly after he heard my father was a retired Newport News police officer who was calling the Hampton police to find out what was happening to his son. This is the kind of cheap tricks police pull on people these days. Law enforcement no longer cares about getting things right, they want to get it resolved so they can move on to the next case - even if that means someone gets hurt for something they didn't do. Ms. Manweiler definitely picked some real honorable people to further her goals.

The other hurdle in court is the question of why I plead guilty. That is something I can also demonstrate. I have documentation showing I was coerced by the prosecution. I also have proof showing my own lawyer coerced me and refused to do his job. When I tried to fire him and replace him with Katherine Peters, he even admits on tape that Head Prosecutor Warner Chapman threatened me out of that civil right as well. I can more than prove I was coerced and threatened on all sides.

Again, the Norfolk Four guy was able to get his conviction thrown out solely because he could show a corrupt police officer had coerced his confession - he didn't challenge any of the other evidence brought against him to my knowledge. I can not only prove I was coerced and threatened into pleading guilty by both my lawyer and the prosecution, but I can also successfully show that the original evidence had been compromised and never verified from an independent source. Because I can show that tampering of the email evidence occurred, it should not have been trusted by the Charlottesville law enforcement. The Charlottesville law enforcement does not have the ability to show to what extent Ms. Manweiler tampered with the emails, thus the entire thing has to be called into question. Ms. Manweiler as well can not show to what extent the emails were tampered with, as any evidence she has saved to this day can not be verified with an independent source, and thus anything she held onto can not be trusted.

So I have much better chances than Ms. Manweiler and the Charlottesville law enforcement likely give me credit. The problem comes in that this will put me severely into debt with attorney fees. This is a complicated process that not many lawyers in Virginia do. There isn't any other option for me however, I'm not going to continue on with this charge. You can bet that when I get it thrown out, I will more than recoup those costs in civil court when I sue the Charlottesville police, Mr. Platania and Warner Chapman.

I know Ms. Manweiler has been printing blog posts and trying to get things prepared to fight back. This would be another serious error by her. I can tell you right now, if Ms. Manweiler does anything to try to prevent me from getting this charge removed, she and her parents better pray to God that I don't succeed in throwing this charge out. Because if they show up in court to fight and I still win - they will get every bit of the lack of mercy they showed me when it's my turn to take legal action.

Both the prosecution and my former attorney have provided ample evidence proving Ms. Manweiler's parents were just as responsible as Ms. Manweiler herself for what took place. This means that I can hold her parents liable as well. At the moment I have no incentive to leave her parents out of this. If the Manweilers try to fight the dismissal of the charge and I still win, I wouldn't hesitate to take things as far as the law allows me, and that includes her parents as well.

This warning applies to both parties - the Manweilers and the law enforcement alike. I'm still deciding on whether I'll confront the Charlottesville law enforcement with the evidence, and give them the opportunity to fix this before I have to do it myself. Essentially whichever party fixes this on their own will not be the focus of later legal actions. I already know Ms. Manweiler would never attempt to fix it, her ego is too huge to even come close to admitting she was wrong to do what she did - which does nothing to improve my attitude towards her. Whether I give the Charlottesville law enforcement the opportunity is something I haven't decided. Rudman's behavior on this blog has not improved my attitude towards him or his department.

When the law enforcement see just how much this woman screwed them over and cost them, they might be willing to bring everything to bare against her. If indeed they bring charges against Ms. Manweiler, I'm going to take into account not only the lack of mercy in 2006, but also take into account everything that has happened since that time. However, I'm not expecting anything more than the same stupidity and corruption I've seen from the Charlottesville law enforcement so far. I'd likely be better off going straight to fighting this in court and hoping I win. If I win, whoever showed up in court to fight the dismissal, would then face worse consequences than if they had just stayed at home. Printing up stuff for the Charlottesville law enforcement still counts as showing up in court to fight, even if Ms. Manweiler isn't physically there.

I'm quite aware though that winning is not guaranteed. Especially in our garbage legal system. All I have to say is this - if I have to do this on my own and if any party steps up to fight it, God help you if I happen to win.

Ms. Manweiler shouldn't hope for this charge to stand quite frankly. If she were really as intelligent as she claims, she should have picked up by now that this felony has accomplished nothing other than to escalate this situation.

The initial claim was that this was to keep me from owning a gun. Not only is this a violation of my Constitutional rights (as even the prosecution admitted I committed no crime while exercising that right, and prosecution for a lawfully exercised right just because you disagree with it is a violation), but it was a lie to coverup the real reasons for doing this. After all, about a quarter of the felons in the cell with me were getting charged with illegal possession of a firearm, and some were being prosecuted by Platania himself.

We have laws against buying and selling drugs - that doesn't stop people from doing it does it? It didn't stop kids in my high school from showing up high to after school activities. Not only that but killing someone carries the worst penalty of all, death or life in prison, which are far worse penalties than you could get for illegally obtaining a firearm. So if that harsh of a penalty doesn't discourage someone from committing murder - do you think they would give a damn about breaking a law against illegally obtaining a firearm that carries penalties far, far less than murder? This felony does nothing to accomplish the goal Mr. Platania claimed, and he would have known this himself considering he was involved with prosecuting some of these guys in the cell block.

It also does nothing to help Ms. Manweiler. Does she really think that sending me to prison is a good idea? So you had someone who was angry at you, but never laid a hand on you. You want to send them to one of the most brutal and violent institutions in the country that will turn them into an animal. That's supposed to be an improvement? Would she really think I'd just forget about the whole thing after an experience like that? I only spent five months behind bars, and even that short of a stay didn't have a good effect on me. I don't want to think about the kind of person I'd be after 5+ years in prison. If I don't even want to think about it, neither should Ms. Manweiler.

Essentially, having me threatened into a felony I didn't commit was one of the dumbest decisions Ms. Manweiler has made in her entire life. It gave me no incentive to let this slide. I would have been more willing to ignore the fact she lied and tampered with evidence if I didn't have a mark that followed me for my entire life. For her to claim in her victim impact statement that she felt like there was a weight lifted off her shoulders, seriously makes me question her competency. The simple fact is that so long as this false felony exists on my record in any form, this is not going to be over. I have no reason to let this injustice stand.

The effects of this charge are a day-to-day thing. Several hobbies I wanted to get involved in are seriously in question on whether I will be able to take part in them, not just my ownership of firearms.

I recently tried to join a group for a hobby of mine I really enjoy. Even though there isn't anything even remotely to do with firearms in this hobby, this group informed me that one of the requirements was a background check with no serious charges. Without getting into detail, as I wouldn't put it beyond Ms. Manweiler to try to cause problems, this type of activity involves getting permission for visiting historic locations after normal visiting hours for research. In order to be trusted by the staff of a location, they need to be able to show that their group members aren't troublemakers. They asked if I had anything to tell them. So I told them what happened, because they would have found out anyway and I wanted the chance to explain what took place. They were upset by what happened and wished me luck in getting it removed, but they stated that so long as I were a felon I could not join the group. Even a pardon might not help. I've seen the same requirements from several other groups related to the same hobby.

Let's just say that my level of anger at Ms. Manweiler reached a pretty epic level at that point. Every day I have more let downs and more doors close in my face. At any point I could lose this new life I've managed to gain. It's only a matter of time before I do. My level of tolerance for the situation erodes day by day. Ms. Manweiler might be thinking that since she's already caused damage she might as well keep this going. It should be blatantly obvious that that isn't a good idea, but a big ego tends to keep people from seeing the obvious.

I've noticed views from the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice recently. Based on information I have these are very likely to be from Ms. Manweiler. You can imagine that the DoJ view raised some eyebrows from me at first, but it's either Ms. Manweiler or someone who worked with her. There isn't any jurisdiction for the DoJ to get involved. Not to mention that I can't imagine Ms. Manweiler hasn't taken the hint by now. This isn't getting solved by doing more harm to me. When has doing harm to me ever done anything for Ms. Manweiler other than make a much bigger problem? This isn't getting resolved by allowing the damage done to me to continue either. Anyone should be able to figure that out.

The more you take from someone, the less they have to lose. This is one reason our current legal system is trash and has done nothing to improve our level of crime. If you hammer people, if you give no opportunity for them to move on from that label you attach to them, they have no reason to do anything else. One guy I worked with since 2006 had a felony from 16 years ago and had never gotten into trouble since. It still created problems with his job and life. Anyone who thinks that something like that should continue are the ones who really belong in a cage. Because this "throw away the key" mentality sure as hell isn't helping the situation.

I've already prepared myself for fighting this as long as I live. If Ms. Manweiler is preparing herself to stop me from taking my life back, then she had better resign herself to this battle for the rest of her life. In addition, she and her fiance should hang up any political ambitions. A run for office is guaranteed to bring this entire situation out into the public eye. Nothing reveals skeletons in one's closet quite like politics.

I've yet to find a person who didn't think Ms. Manweiler was an evil individual for what happened in 2006 once I went over the situation with them. My tape recordings of my former attorney include statements that sound bad for Ms. Manweiler, not just for the prosecution. I'd be quite happy to go over the evidence for the news to show how Ms. Manweiler tampered with the emails. The fact that Ms. Manweiler received special treatment is beyond contesting, as no citizen of Charlottesville has ever received that same level of protection. She is completely aware that I was denied due process in her name - not just being threatened into a guilty plea, but even being threatened out of replacing my incompetent lawyer. None of these things paint her in a flattering light. Ms. Manweiler should keep in mind the examples of O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman - you don't have to be found guilty for the public to believe that you are guilty.

Karma will catch up to Ms. Manweiler one day, this I have complete faith on.

Code

Monday, July 23, 2012

The inequality of our justice system

Monday, July 9, 2012

A few notes and comments

Search This Blog