I figured with the subject matter of the previous post I needed to make an update, along with a few additional comments.
Obviously I'm not in jail, nor did I expect to get arrested after the City of Charlottesville ISP viewing. I took a couple precautionary steps just in case, but I highly doubt anything is going to come from that viewing. This isn't the first time the Charlottesville law enforcement was directed to my blog by Michelle Dickerman (Manweiler), and they didn't do anything to me that time either.
This was even after the Charlottesville police spent resources poking around on my blog the first time, looking for a way to avoid being tracked. Keep that in mind folks - the Charlottesville law enforcement was looking through my blog on the public dime during their first pass, and using their computer resources on this instead of other cases.
This investigation wasn't done to look over the evidence showing Michelle Dickerman tampered with the emails they based the conviction on. They very suspiciously avoided looking at those posts. The taxpayers instead ended up paying Rudman to look into how to hide from the trackers on my blog, information that I suspect got passed on to Michelle Dickerman.
Obviously in both instances, Dickerman didn't contact the police and district attorney to call attention to the evidence I have on her. The only possible reason she would have contacted them is to try to get me arrested again. Rudman wouldn't have spent time on my blog during the first viewing while on the public payroll, unless Dickerman wanted them to take legal action against me.
Yet despite spending tax money to look around my blog, the Charlottesville police never went after me. This is something people need to keep in mind. If there was no validity to my claims, Charlottesville law enforcement wouldn't have any problem going after me. They haven't touched me.
If they arrest me, there will be media attention again. There is no way they could prevent the public from seeing this blog. I've made sure that even if they tried taking it down, other families members can put it back up with all posts intact. Once people view my evidence and the account of all the corrupt actions that took place, questions would start being asked that the police and district attorney won't like having to answer. Especially in the current climate that law enforcement is dealing with in the media. Things will certainly not go their way the second time around, and I will gladly speak with the media and give them some sections of the records from Johnson. Especially sections of the tape that don't sound so good for the prosecution. In reality, coming after me again might be the best thing for me, because it would be a sure way to give media attention to the actions the Charlottesville law enforcement committed in 2006.
That said, I'm not about to openly invite that by saying something on this blog that could readily justify a law enforcement response. Michelle Dickerman and the Charlottesville law enforcement aren't getting things that easy for them this time around. If they come after me, they are going to have to put themselves in a bad position of making up justification that simply isn't there. I've made sure this whole time that there isn't anything law enforcement could try to claim in my posts. Back in 2006 they tried to make up claims on massively vague statements just because they didn't like that I said mean things to Michelle Dickerman. But even the most idiotic of magistrates and judges wouldn't issue a warrant on anything I've said on this blog.
As an example of the ridiculous nature of the 2006 case, one such massively stretched claim of a death threat was that one of the emails had "eye for an eye" on getting even with Michelle Dickerman. Even a grade school aged child would know that "eye for an eye" means receiving the same thing you dealt out to someone. "If you put out someone's eye, your own eye shall be put out". Last time I checked I still have a pulse, thus Michelle Dickerman did not kill me. So "eye for an eye" clearly doesn't work as a death threat. And even if she had me knocked off in 2006, unless I can rise from the grave zombie style carrying out the threat would clearly be impossible. So "eye for an eye" isn't a death threat unless you think people can pull that off from the afterlife.
While I received two rather blatant threats of violence from Michelle Dickerman in the past, prior to 2006 she had not yet carried out any act of physical violence against me. Thus an "eye for an eye" statement wouldn't work as a threat of physical violence either, given that no physical violence had been done to me at the time. What had Dickerman done to me in the past prior to going to the cops in 2006? Caused emotional stress and harassment. Gee that kind of sounds like what Dickerman had claimed in her victim impact statement to have happened to her from my contact - almost like messing with her over the internet in the first place was what was being done to get back at her.
Don't get me wrong, just because this woman viciously inflicted harm in the past for no reason prior to 2006, that didn't give justification for running my mouth online to get back at her years later. Though it sure as hell doesn't give her justification either to play the victim, and it sure as hell doesn't justify her lying to police and tampering with evidence. But that's something we've already hashed out here in this blog.
Needless to say, if the Charlottesville law enforcement tries coming after me again, they will be doing it on even shakier ground than before. That's why I don't see them actually trying to come after me, no matter how much Michelle Dickerman might scream at them. We'll see what happens though.
I don't have any reason to doubt that both instances of Charlottesville views was due to Michelle Dickerman calling for my arrest. It wouldn't be a smart decision, but that's clearly never stopped her before. Seems everyone else saw what she was doing in 2006 was a bad idea, everyone but Michelle Dickerman.
I'm sure even the prosecutors knew it was a bad idea. But according to my lawyer, Chapman only cared about one thing. To make sure that if anything happened to Michelle Dickerman afterwards, that at least Chapman wouldn't get a finger pointed at him for not having done enough. If you look back at my post on Johnson's plea deal offer, he even mentions in the letter that the prosecution was motivated by making sure they weren't "on the hook" if I did something to Dickerman afterwards. Though this was rather stupid of the prosecution believe frankly. People would say the excessive punishment pushed things that far. Indeed, this whole situation only exists right now because of the excessive punishment. Even knowing all of the underhanded actions from my lawyer, Dickerman and the prosecution - had they just gone with misdemeanors I'd have walked away and gone back to my life. That wasn't going to happen after being threatened into a felony, one that the prosecution knew Dickerman tampered with the evidence to cause.
I remember a comment from one inmate after I passed around her impact statement in the cell block. His response was that if he wanted someone to forget about him and move on, the last thing he'd want to do is give that person a felony which would remind them for the rest of their life. The rest of the inmates agreed. This was a guy who got himself hooked on cocaine at a party, and tried to grab money out of cash registers to feed his addiction. But Ms. Valedictorian couldn't figure that one out for herself.
So I don't doubt Michelle Dickerman is trying everything in her power to cause me trouble, despite the fact it can blow up in her face. One example of that is that Dickerman mentioned in her victim impact statement about how terrible it was that reporters were calling her for statements back in 2006. What does she believe is going to happen once reporters see what's on this blog? There is clear cut evidence that she tampered with the emails. She knows the punishment is excessive and that she received privileged protection that regular Americans don't get - for merely being a rich UVA student in Charlottesville. Imagine what will happen when reporters find out her dad was not only a rich banker but that he is a UVA alumni as well and donated to the university?
The last time Michelle Dickerman contacted the Charlottesville law enforcement, I put up an offer for both parties if they wanted to have this situation move on one day instead of hanging over their heads. It was one I knew neither party would take despite the fact it was beneficial for whichever party came forward, but at least I could demonstrate that I gave them an out. But no point in even bothering going into further details on that, because I know neither side is smart enough to take that out I gave them. Instead I'm going to continue down this road I've chosen and will be resolving this my way.
