I wasn't planning on making another post yet, since what will be this blog's final post is still being worked on. But I've had yet another problem rear up thanks to my current background. This isn't exactly related to the CAC request, as I've still received no word on that. What has happened at the moment is that I received an email from my company's security officer - my name was put in for a contract proposal and they want to know if I have a clearance. I don't since I ended up having it inactivated after resigning from Northrop Grumman after my bond was denied. I have also tried to hold off for as long as possible with putting in for a clearance - because there isn't a chance in hell I'll get it. Even if they would ignore the felony charge, they won't just ignore the 20 years good behavior nonsense. Getting turned down for this will definitely be a problem. Once I mention that I don't have a clearance, I will likely be asked to start the process to get one. I think the only reason the security officer would be the one to ask this, is because he's been instructed to get the paperwork started should I respond that I don't have a clearance.
I don't have any plans on posting anything further until the final post is done, we'll see if nothing major occurs (as I really don't intend on posting the results of the CAC request, however that may turn out). As I mentioned before, these updates aren't being posted for anyone on the Manweiler side of the fence. I just want to make sure that what is occurring thanks to the felony charge is on the record.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Monday, August 25, 2014
Background check update
Taking a moment during lunch to write a quick update.
I've been waiting all this time to hear back on the background check involved with obtaining a CAC. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on what their answer will be) the only word I've received so far is that the process has been suspended, due to them being unable to read certain hand written information on my form. I don't have the best hand writing and was under stress when filling out the form. The specific information that they wanted me to redo for clarity was the circumstances of the felony charge. Specifically, the investigators want me to more clearly write what city/state the charges took place in and the address of the court involved with the charges. I have since submitted a typed out form today which will more clearly show this information (during the first attempt I was unable to access a computer at the time and the USCG personnel needed the form filled out).
This focus by them on my criminal record doesn't quite confirm whether they will approve or deny my request for a CAC, but it certainly isn't a good sign. My concern isn't necessarily whether they will deny based on just the felony, since it did happen back in 2006 and not recent, but that they will likely deny me due to the 20 years good behavior hanging over my head. In fact it is a good bet they will deny the access card based on that 20 years good behavior, since that might be considered to be nearly equivalent to still being in custody of the state.
Just within this year I've been hammered at all sides due to this felony charge. I was denied a place to rent by two leasing companies thanks to the felony. Now I'm at risk of suddenly losing my job thanks to it. That isn't an exaggeration either. There was one new designer for the company I work for who was denied a CAC request last year by the USCG - he no longer works for the company. Roughly 80% or more of our work comes from the USCG, so being unable to obtain a CAC means that I can't do 80% of the work my company does. Why would they keep around someone who can only do 20% or less of what gives the company an income? If the USCG denies me not on the basis of the felony charge but instead on the 20 years good behavior, this means that the company can't just 'wait it out' a couple more years until I pass the 10 year mark where the charge no longer needs to be recorded on the form.
An additional, though certainly much more minor of an issue, is the fact I recently was told I won't be able to take part in a specific activity due to this felony. One of the organizations I intended to join prior to my legal difficulties of 2006 was the Civil Air Patrol (CAP). This was an opportunity to obtain a pilots license and flight time much more cheaply than doing it alone, while at the same time contributing to such things as search and rescue. I spoke with someone involved with the CAP that would have knowledge of the likelihood of me being able to join with my record. After explaining the events and what was done to me, this individual was very sympathetic and angry over how far the legal penalties went. However, they said that while I could submit an application, as there was nothing to lose, this individual apologetically said that the answer would likely "not just be a 'no', but probably a 'hell no'".
Right now I'm just too angry to continue writing any further on this point and my lunch is almost up. I just wanted to post a quick update. At the moment I'm working on a lengthy post that is intended to be the final post I'll ever be making on this blog, so I don't see any need to post anything further until I've completed that final post.
I've been waiting all this time to hear back on the background check involved with obtaining a CAC. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on what their answer will be) the only word I've received so far is that the process has been suspended, due to them being unable to read certain hand written information on my form. I don't have the best hand writing and was under stress when filling out the form. The specific information that they wanted me to redo for clarity was the circumstances of the felony charge. Specifically, the investigators want me to more clearly write what city/state the charges took place in and the address of the court involved with the charges. I have since submitted a typed out form today which will more clearly show this information (during the first attempt I was unable to access a computer at the time and the USCG personnel needed the form filled out).
This focus by them on my criminal record doesn't quite confirm whether they will approve or deny my request for a CAC, but it certainly isn't a good sign. My concern isn't necessarily whether they will deny based on just the felony, since it did happen back in 2006 and not recent, but that they will likely deny me due to the 20 years good behavior hanging over my head. In fact it is a good bet they will deny the access card based on that 20 years good behavior, since that might be considered to be nearly equivalent to still being in custody of the state.
Just within this year I've been hammered at all sides due to this felony charge. I was denied a place to rent by two leasing companies thanks to the felony. Now I'm at risk of suddenly losing my job thanks to it. That isn't an exaggeration either. There was one new designer for the company I work for who was denied a CAC request last year by the USCG - he no longer works for the company. Roughly 80% or more of our work comes from the USCG, so being unable to obtain a CAC means that I can't do 80% of the work my company does. Why would they keep around someone who can only do 20% or less of what gives the company an income? If the USCG denies me not on the basis of the felony charge but instead on the 20 years good behavior, this means that the company can't just 'wait it out' a couple more years until I pass the 10 year mark where the charge no longer needs to be recorded on the form.
An additional, though certainly much more minor of an issue, is the fact I recently was told I won't be able to take part in a specific activity due to this felony. One of the organizations I intended to join prior to my legal difficulties of 2006 was the Civil Air Patrol (CAP). This was an opportunity to obtain a pilots license and flight time much more cheaply than doing it alone, while at the same time contributing to such things as search and rescue. I spoke with someone involved with the CAP that would have knowledge of the likelihood of me being able to join with my record. After explaining the events and what was done to me, this individual was very sympathetic and angry over how far the legal penalties went. However, they said that while I could submit an application, as there was nothing to lose, this individual apologetically said that the answer would likely "not just be a 'no', but probably a 'hell no'".
Right now I'm just too angry to continue writing any further on this point and my lunch is almost up. I just wanted to post a quick update. At the moment I'm working on a lengthy post that is intended to be the final post I'll ever be making on this blog, so I don't see any need to post anything further until I've completed that final post.
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Confirmed
I've received confirmation today that my past CAC issuing was indeed performed using a background check that was done for my past security clearance while I worked for Northrop Grumman - prior to my legal issues in 2006. That has now expired and they have to do a completely new Federal background check, except now with the felony charge showing up. I really wish I had known this happened, for two years I thought they knew the situation and still approved me, so I had falsely believed all this time that I would never have CAC issuing problems. I can only hope that the length of time and low level of the felony still allows me to receive the card.
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Yet again...
So I'm currently working with the USCG on a project and it is requiring me to get a CAC card again. For those who don't know what this is, it is an ID smart card. Without this card I am not allowed to do any work requiring me to have access to USCG computers and facilities. Being refused this card would be a disaster for me - and had that refusal happened when I was first hired it would have eliminated my best chance to get my life back together to some degree. If the refusal to issue it now occurs, there is an 80% chance I lose my job - this is not an exaggeration.
I had no issues previously getting this card when I first started working with my company. But a few months have lapsed since I had one and it requires me to submit for a new one. The process would be faster and not require another background check if they used the information from last time showing everything was done. There is a problem - they no longer have me in the system it seems. Not only am I no longer in the system, but there is the possibility that when they originally did my background check for the first CAC, they may have seen that I already had a background check when getting a security clearance (back when I worked at Northrop Grumman prior to my legal difficulties in 2006). From what others were saying, it is possible that this original background check from before my legal difficulties (and the attached information of having a clearance) was still considered acceptable and thus the CAC was issued. So it is possible that the CAC may have been given based on a background check that was done before I was threatened into pleading to a felony I did not commit. Apparently there is a time limit on how long the background check acceptability lasts, and that time may have lapsed. Meaning that being required to have another background check again will now show a felony and thus could result in a refusal of the CAC.
Whether this is what actually happened with the first issuing or not I'm not certain and neither are the USCG personnel, but it is certainly possible. I really have no idea what happened with that first CAC issuing at the moment. What I do know is this; I had to fill out a form that was forwarded to the security office to see if they can find any documentation on my first CAC issuing. If the previous theory is incorrect and they do find record of a check done at that time, it means they will use that and issue the CAC without a problem. If they don't find this information, they will then initiate a brand new background check with the new information that was provided (my felony record, since they require information within a 10 year span). Considering that we should have heard from the security people today, there is a possibility that when I come into work tomorrow I will be told it was refused.
Another issue is that when filling out this form, I had to write down my felony charge information. This information was seen by one of the USCG personnel before they forwarded along. Thankfully they had the chance to get to know me long before they found out I'm a felon. I believe this person will not tell anyone else I work with, but then I have no way of really knowing that. In addition, the idea was given to my engineering manager by USCG personnel that getting a security clearance for me would allow my company to have evidence of having a government background check performed and they can forward this along next time. If my company asks me to submit for a clearance I can guarantee I will not receive it, which is why I've put off doing it all this time. Since it is submitted through my company's security officer they will know it was denied. This will likely result in the loss of my job - again not an exaggeration.
If anyone still questions why I don't just "move on" from what was done to me in 2006, you now know just one of many reasons why I will not walk away. Years since it was done and it still creates problems. It was the most ignorant decision Ms. Manweiler has ever made in her life.
I didn't post this to sway opinions. I didn't post it for Ms. Manweiler's eyes. I didn't post it to complain or vent. I have my reasons why.
I had no issues previously getting this card when I first started working with my company. But a few months have lapsed since I had one and it requires me to submit for a new one. The process would be faster and not require another background check if they used the information from last time showing everything was done. There is a problem - they no longer have me in the system it seems. Not only am I no longer in the system, but there is the possibility that when they originally did my background check for the first CAC, they may have seen that I already had a background check when getting a security clearance (back when I worked at Northrop Grumman prior to my legal difficulties in 2006). From what others were saying, it is possible that this original background check from before my legal difficulties (and the attached information of having a clearance) was still considered acceptable and thus the CAC was issued. So it is possible that the CAC may have been given based on a background check that was done before I was threatened into pleading to a felony I did not commit. Apparently there is a time limit on how long the background check acceptability lasts, and that time may have lapsed. Meaning that being required to have another background check again will now show a felony and thus could result in a refusal of the CAC.
Whether this is what actually happened with the first issuing or not I'm not certain and neither are the USCG personnel, but it is certainly possible. I really have no idea what happened with that first CAC issuing at the moment. What I do know is this; I had to fill out a form that was forwarded to the security office to see if they can find any documentation on my first CAC issuing. If the previous theory is incorrect and they do find record of a check done at that time, it means they will use that and issue the CAC without a problem. If they don't find this information, they will then initiate a brand new background check with the new information that was provided (my felony record, since they require information within a 10 year span). Considering that we should have heard from the security people today, there is a possibility that when I come into work tomorrow I will be told it was refused.
Another issue is that when filling out this form, I had to write down my felony charge information. This information was seen by one of the USCG personnel before they forwarded along. Thankfully they had the chance to get to know me long before they found out I'm a felon. I believe this person will not tell anyone else I work with, but then I have no way of really knowing that. In addition, the idea was given to my engineering manager by USCG personnel that getting a security clearance for me would allow my company to have evidence of having a government background check performed and they can forward this along next time. If my company asks me to submit for a clearance I can guarantee I will not receive it, which is why I've put off doing it all this time. Since it is submitted through my company's security officer they will know it was denied. This will likely result in the loss of my job - again not an exaggeration.
If anyone still questions why I don't just "move on" from what was done to me in 2006, you now know just one of many reasons why I will not walk away. Years since it was done and it still creates problems. It was the most ignorant decision Ms. Manweiler has ever made in her life.
I didn't post this to sway opinions. I didn't post it for Ms. Manweiler's eyes. I didn't post it to complain or vent. I have my reasons why.
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Further postings on hold for the time being
At the moment I'm not continuing the lengthy post I was doing, I'm putting it on an indefinite hold for several reasons. One reason is that some things have now changed and the post has to now be updated with new information. Another reason is that at the moment I'm far too angry thanks to the current situation to continue with writing posts. The final and most important reasons will be explained below.
I've already mentioned that I was moving to the Arlington area thanks to the contract with the Coast Guard ending. I have had to walk away from an excellent job opportunity with the USCG as a GS employee, because I will not be accepted into the position as a felon. There isn't anything I can do about it at the moment other than just turn my back and walk away from something with potentially more pay, opportunities and job stability.
This already angered me a great deal but now I've run into a further complication. I was informed yesterday that the apartment I applied to has indeed rejected my application, as I was beginning to suspect after having talked to their investigator earlier, and no explanations on my part to them was going to change their minds. They did this on the grounds that their leasing company policy is they don't rent to felons until seven years after the conclusion of probation terms. I'm hoping they mean the 5 years probationary period and not the 20 years good behavior I was slammed with. As it is if they are going by the completion of the probation I'm still going to be unable to rent from ANY apartment owned by this leasing company for a few years - and this isn't a small leasing company either meaning that my options are limited. I can only hope there aren't more leasing companies in the area with this policy towards felons.
With both the turning down of a USCG position and a rejection by an apartment due to the felony charge, to say I'm angry would be a massive understatement. This has gone too far and I've been well past my point of tolerance for some time. Living with a felony charge I did not commit thanks to the corruption of some ignorant and vicious people is not an option. I've made some decisions and I'm going to pursue those options - I'm not speaking any further on this.
The decision by the Manweiler family to slam me with a felony that they knew I never committed was a mistake (not to mention that they knew it was completely unwarranted and only done as a special favor to them). I was even willing at the time to plead guilty to charges I knew I never committed so long as I was given misdemeanors and allowed to move on with my life. Michelle Manweiler instead made the idiotic decision to slap a felony on me for a laugh. She was already warned that this was dumb idea by my former attorney - who despite his incompetence was quite aware that nothing was going to be accomplished by giving me a felony. This is the section of his letter about the subject where he warns about this very issue (full letter posted elsewhere on this blog):
If nothing had happened in 2006 both of us would have moved on with our lives and not even given each other a second thought to this day. Now in my 30s, without even counting what was done to me in the legal arena in 2006, I've realized the situation prior to the legal issue was not worth it. So what if this woman had caused harm, lied and spread rumors and other people brought them up years later - in my 30s I would have told them to just get over it and grow up. Had none of the legal nonsense happened in 2006, when running into Ms. Manweiler in my 30s I wouldn't have even wasted the effort to acknowledge her let alone bother giving her the finger. Even with the arrest and criminal proceedings of 2006, with misdemeanors I would not be going through things like this and thus could have just shut the door on that part of my life. Now that isn't an option - for me or Ms. Manweiler.
It amazes me that a valedictorian can be so brainless as to ALWAYS make the worst possible decisions when it comes to this situation. I've made plenty of bad decisions when it comes to the argument myself - but were I in Ms. Manweiler's shoes I would never have been stupid enough to agree to plea agreement terms like that without expecting to make things 100 times worse. It was a bad choice and Ms. Manweiler should always remember it was a choice she made and did not have to make, just as I will always remember the lack of mercy that was shown by her.
I've already mentioned that I was moving to the Arlington area thanks to the contract with the Coast Guard ending. I have had to walk away from an excellent job opportunity with the USCG as a GS employee, because I will not be accepted into the position as a felon. There isn't anything I can do about it at the moment other than just turn my back and walk away from something with potentially more pay, opportunities and job stability.
This already angered me a great deal but now I've run into a further complication. I was informed yesterday that the apartment I applied to has indeed rejected my application, as I was beginning to suspect after having talked to their investigator earlier, and no explanations on my part to them was going to change their minds. They did this on the grounds that their leasing company policy is they don't rent to felons until seven years after the conclusion of probation terms. I'm hoping they mean the 5 years probationary period and not the 20 years good behavior I was slammed with. As it is if they are going by the completion of the probation I'm still going to be unable to rent from ANY apartment owned by this leasing company for a few years - and this isn't a small leasing company either meaning that my options are limited. I can only hope there aren't more leasing companies in the area with this policy towards felons.
With both the turning down of a USCG position and a rejection by an apartment due to the felony charge, to say I'm angry would be a massive understatement. This has gone too far and I've been well past my point of tolerance for some time. Living with a felony charge I did not commit thanks to the corruption of some ignorant and vicious people is not an option. I've made some decisions and I'm going to pursue those options - I'm not speaking any further on this.
The decision by the Manweiler family to slam me with a felony that they knew I never committed was a mistake (not to mention that they knew it was completely unwarranted and only done as a special favor to them). I was even willing at the time to plead guilty to charges I knew I never committed so long as I was given misdemeanors and allowed to move on with my life. Michelle Manweiler instead made the idiotic decision to slap a felony on me for a laugh. She was already warned that this was dumb idea by my former attorney - who despite his incompetence was quite aware that nothing was going to be accomplished by giving me a felony. This is the section of his letter about the subject where he warns about this very issue (full letter posted elsewhere on this blog):
Even cocaine addicts were smarter than Ms. Manweiler when it came to this decision. As one of them put it quite well when discussing this with me in jail (paraphrase from memory) - "If I wanted someone to just forget about this situation and move on, the last thing I'd want is to give them a felony that will always remind them of this situation and me for the rest of their lives." Nothing was accomplished by giving me a felony except to escalate a situation that in 2006 was actually nothing more than a dumb argument that was running out of steam when the cuffs got slapped on.
If nothing had happened in 2006 both of us would have moved on with our lives and not even given each other a second thought to this day. Now in my 30s, without even counting what was done to me in the legal arena in 2006, I've realized the situation prior to the legal issue was not worth it. So what if this woman had caused harm, lied and spread rumors and other people brought them up years later - in my 30s I would have told them to just get over it and grow up. Had none of the legal nonsense happened in 2006, when running into Ms. Manweiler in my 30s I wouldn't have even wasted the effort to acknowledge her let alone bother giving her the finger. Even with the arrest and criminal proceedings of 2006, with misdemeanors I would not be going through things like this and thus could have just shut the door on that part of my life. Now that isn't an option - for me or Ms. Manweiler.
It amazes me that a valedictorian can be so brainless as to ALWAYS make the worst possible decisions when it comes to this situation. I've made plenty of bad decisions when it comes to the argument myself - but were I in Ms. Manweiler's shoes I would never have been stupid enough to agree to plea agreement terms like that without expecting to make things 100 times worse. It was a bad choice and Ms. Manweiler should always remember it was a choice she made and did not have to make, just as I will always remember the lack of mercy that was shown by her.
"For he shall have judgment without mercy, that has showed no mercy."
--- James 2:13
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
"Equal Standard of Conduct for Police"
I wanted to add some additional commentary on a recent political issue, but first an update on my post I've been working on. As you can see it isn't finished yet, otherwise it would be posted. Why hasn't it been completed as soon as I had hoped? I have to move into a new apartment in Arlington by this weekend and there is a complication - and it actually relates to the subject matter of this blog. I've rented in two places so far since finally gaining employment after years of being unable to get a job with the false felony charge. Both rental properties stated they do background checks and employment checks on potential renters. I've been lucky; both apartments only checked my rental history and my pay stubs. The first place resulted in having a high security deposit thanks to only one other rental history that I had - back in 2006 when I had to break my lease because the Charlottesville legal system refused to bond me out to save my job. Well it looks like I wasn't lucky the third time around. This time the rental company did in fact do an extensive background check - not just employment but also criminal. Thanks to the felony charge I have a problem now that is going to affect my ability to rent any apartment from this leasing company for some time. I'm not going to go any further into this situation at the moment, I'm quite frankly too angry right now. But as I'm sure anyone can understand, I have bigger issues and that lengthy post will have to wait until things settle down.
I did however decide on including another video by the individual from my previous post. This video was prompted by the recent shooting of a homeless man - essentially shot because he didn't have a permit to camp and didn't provide identification. As an individual who's the son of a retired police officer (my father was in SWAT, NARC and later Detective) I'm well aware that many cops out there are good people trying to do the right thing. But these days we have more individuals going into law enforcement who have no business ever being given a badge. These individuals are also not being punished when making really bad calls or being held to higher standards.
Shooting a 98 year old veteran in a nursing home with a bean bag shotgun (killing him) is a bad call. Wrestling a jogging woman to the ground for jaywalking because of her startled reaction to an initially unknown person grabbing her is a bad call. To shoot a homeless man in the back because he didn't ID himself and was camping somewhere he didn't have "papers" for is a bad call. Too often I've seen worthless police chiefs and agencies cover up for these actions and give nothing but excuses. I see cops violating traffic laws every day that these same cops would immediately pull a civilian over for. I was nearly rear-ended by a cop back when I still worked for Northrop Grumman, because he was riding my bumper even though I was doing the speed limit. The cars in front of me slammed on their brakes and I had to hit mine - what attracted my attention to my right side was the bumper riding cop next to me who had to swerve into the shoulder because he was so close there was no room to stop. That badge only gives you one thing - the authority to enforce the law, not the authority to break the law. Too many police seem to not understand this simple concept today. If you refuse to hold yourself to the same standards you enforce upon us, what right do you have to then try to hold us accountable when we misstep? Before jumping immediately into the "Cause ma authoritah!" stance, just remember that authority comes from we the people and we can take it back.
However, it would be unfair to simply write off these incidents as merely a problem with law enforcers. A big chunk of blame comes with writing these laws that police then have to enforce. No matter what the profession, you will always get individuals who don't have any business being there. When you add fear, adrenaline and an issued service pistol you are guaranteed to have an incident at some point. As Mr. Cameron states quite well, when creating or enforcing a law we all need to ask ourselves one question: "Is this worth taking a man's life for?"
There is one thing I did forget to bring up on the previous video. I'm sure that Ms. Manweiler, upon viewing that video, rolled her eyes at the individual - especially when he jokingly said that ex parte was latin for "secret trial where defendant has no fucking rights". What does a guy wearing a camo hat with a suit know about law right? Well Mr. Cameron is actually a practicing attorney with more years of courtroom experience than Michelle Manweiler. Just thought I'd point that out before anyone assumes this guy doesn't know what he's talking about when he discusses the law.
P.S. - Cute attempt at hiding yourself by using IP's from other countries, but there is some information you just can't hide even with an IP outside the United States. Thanks for playing though.
I did however decide on including another video by the individual from my previous post. This video was prompted by the recent shooting of a homeless man - essentially shot because he didn't have a permit to camp and didn't provide identification. As an individual who's the son of a retired police officer (my father was in SWAT, NARC and later Detective) I'm well aware that many cops out there are good people trying to do the right thing. But these days we have more individuals going into law enforcement who have no business ever being given a badge. These individuals are also not being punished when making really bad calls or being held to higher standards.
Shooting a 98 year old veteran in a nursing home with a bean bag shotgun (killing him) is a bad call. Wrestling a jogging woman to the ground for jaywalking because of her startled reaction to an initially unknown person grabbing her is a bad call. To shoot a homeless man in the back because he didn't ID himself and was camping somewhere he didn't have "papers" for is a bad call. Too often I've seen worthless police chiefs and agencies cover up for these actions and give nothing but excuses. I see cops violating traffic laws every day that these same cops would immediately pull a civilian over for. I was nearly rear-ended by a cop back when I still worked for Northrop Grumman, because he was riding my bumper even though I was doing the speed limit. The cars in front of me slammed on their brakes and I had to hit mine - what attracted my attention to my right side was the bumper riding cop next to me who had to swerve into the shoulder because he was so close there was no room to stop. That badge only gives you one thing - the authority to enforce the law, not the authority to break the law. Too many police seem to not understand this simple concept today. If you refuse to hold yourself to the same standards you enforce upon us, what right do you have to then try to hold us accountable when we misstep? Before jumping immediately into the "Cause ma authoritah!" stance, just remember that authority comes from we the people and we can take it back.
However, it would be unfair to simply write off these incidents as merely a problem with law enforcers. A big chunk of blame comes with writing these laws that police then have to enforce. No matter what the profession, you will always get individuals who don't have any business being there. When you add fear, adrenaline and an issued service pistol you are guaranteed to have an incident at some point. As Mr. Cameron states quite well, when creating or enforcing a law we all need to ask ourselves one question: "Is this worth taking a man's life for?"
There is one thing I did forget to bring up on the previous video. I'm sure that Ms. Manweiler, upon viewing that video, rolled her eyes at the individual - especially when he jokingly said that ex parte was latin for "secret trial where defendant has no fucking rights". What does a guy wearing a camo hat with a suit know about law right? Well Mr. Cameron is actually a practicing attorney with more years of courtroom experience than Michelle Manweiler. Just thought I'd point that out before anyone assumes this guy doesn't know what he's talking about when he discusses the law.
P.S. - Cute attempt at hiding yourself by using IP's from other countries, but there is some information you just can't hide even with an IP outside the United States. Thanks for playing though.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Posting in the works
I have a lengthy post currently being written on my situation thus far, but unfortunately have not had the time to complete it yet. This is due to a number of factors, especially a recent move from my old apartment as I transition to the Arlington area. There have been some developments, some of which have only helped to escalate this situation. Hopefully I'll have the post completed soon. In the mean time I put a photo and caption on the front page of the blog to help identify the subject of this blog, especially to those searching for Michelle Dickerman (Manweiler). I've been informed that some have not been sure of the subject matter of the blog at first glance. I have a great deal of posts written over the years that are no longer applicable, and will be slowly pulling them off public viewing and archiving them in an effort to streamline this blog.
As a brief summary, this blog involves a legal injustice that occurred in 2006 in Charlottesville, one that continues to impact every facet of my life to this day. I have already produced evidence related to my claims (and have more I hold in reserve for court) and these can be easily seen in the most popular posts list. The central figure is Michelle Annette Dickerman of Arlington VA, known as Michelle Annette Manweiler prior to her marriage to John Dickerman. The reason for her being at the center of this situation can be easily seen from viewing the material I previously pointed out. Michelle Dickerman (usually referred to in my posts as what I knew her by at the time, Ms. Manweiler or Michelle Manweiler) once worked for a law firm named Greenberg Traurig in Washington DC, and it is my understanding she now works for the Department of the Treasury. Her father and mother, Gregory and Carol Manweiler of Williamsburg VA, are also part of the situation due to their involvement in the case. It is my belief that Mr. Manweiler, a vice president of a bank and an alumni of Ms. Manweiler's Alma mater in Charlottesville, used personal contacts, both political ones and at the University of Virginia, to put pressure on local law enforcement to commit acts that violated not only my civil rights, but also every sense of equality and justice.
Other figures of note in this case are the two prosecutors (Warner Chapman and Joseph Platania), Detective Nicholas Rudman of the Charlottesville police, my former lawyer William Johnson and a former reporter for the Daily Progress Liesel Nowak (now Liesel Crosier).
As a brief summary, this blog involves a legal injustice that occurred in 2006 in Charlottesville, one that continues to impact every facet of my life to this day. I have already produced evidence related to my claims (and have more I hold in reserve for court) and these can be easily seen in the most popular posts list. The central figure is Michelle Annette Dickerman of Arlington VA, known as Michelle Annette Manweiler prior to her marriage to John Dickerman. The reason for her being at the center of this situation can be easily seen from viewing the material I previously pointed out. Michelle Dickerman (usually referred to in my posts as what I knew her by at the time, Ms. Manweiler or Michelle Manweiler) once worked for a law firm named Greenberg Traurig in Washington DC, and it is my understanding she now works for the Department of the Treasury. Her father and mother, Gregory and Carol Manweiler of Williamsburg VA, are also part of the situation due to their involvement in the case. It is my belief that Mr. Manweiler, a vice president of a bank and an alumni of Ms. Manweiler's Alma mater in Charlottesville, used personal contacts, both political ones and at the University of Virginia, to put pressure on local law enforcement to commit acts that violated not only my civil rights, but also every sense of equality and justice.
Other figures of note in this case are the two prosecutors (Warner Chapman and Joseph Platania), Detective Nicholas Rudman of the Charlottesville police, my former lawyer William Johnson and a former reporter for the Daily Progress Liesel Nowak (now Liesel Crosier).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)