End of August Update

Due to the length of time this has been submitted in court, I expect to receive a decision any time now. So I don't have a problem finally posting the motion I submitted in Charlottesville circuit court. The two sheets of this document can be found below this write-up.

Not that it would have helped out Michelle Dickerman (Manweiler) by interfering in this. There isn't any reason a judge would refuse to provide me with documents from my own criminal file unless Michelle Dickerman got in contact with the judge. Which if I understand it correctly, as a lawyer Dickerman would get herself in trouble for initiating ex parte communications with the judge on this motion, and the judge would potentially get in trouble if they communicated with her about my motion without my knowledge. The same would happen if the prosecutor contacted the judge without me being included.

Since there is no reason to not provide me with documents from the criminal case against me, a negative response to my motion will bring with it the logical assumption that Michelle Dickerman interfered in the process. After all, the judge was not involved in anyway with my case, and thus they stand to lose nothing by providing me with the requested documents. So if they refuse to unseal the file there isn't any other likely explanation than Michelle Dickerman's involvement. It would be a good way to escalate the situation further.

I'm not expecting that I'll find what I'm looking for in the sealed file, especially after the clerk said she felt it was my PSI. It may be that the original evidence Joe Platania provided to the court was destroyed, which would prevent me from discovering if he tampered with the emails to remove evidence of Michelle Dickerman's criminal actions. Even if the emails are within the file, it is entirely possible that Platania was arrogant enough to be unconcerned about discovery, and thus never removed the evidence of Dickerman's tampering.

If the latter was the case however, it would still provide me with additional emails to prove what Dickerman did (like the first page of the three page email she split up by writing in fake dates). The evidence of Dickerman's tampering still being present in court documents would help strengthen my position regardless. It just wouldn't carry the immediate effect of confronting Platania with his criminal removal of Dickerman's tampering - tampering that I can prove in court was originally present.

But again, I'm not really expecting to find what I'm looking for. Just as I'm not expecting to get much traction with the Charlottesville Police Internal Affairs. After all the Virginia State Bar ignored my inquiry against my former defense lawyer, even as they admitted there were things he should have done and clearly didn't. So I can't say I have any faith in organizations investigating themselves for wrongdoing. At least by going to IA I can cut off any further communication between Dickerman, Detective Rudman, and Prosecutor Joe Platania. No way they would be stupid enough to continue contact with her after IA gets involved, and it'll keep Platania and Rudman off my blog during their work hours at least.

As I've said before I've already decided on a course of action for getting justice, I'm just attempting to try a couple of things before I fully commit to that action. I'm not planning on the unsealed documents or the IA report to pan out, so I have continued forward as if they will not succeed. If there are any thoughts by the other parties that this is ever going to go away for them, the motion submitted in court shows that I have no intention of ever letting them walk away from what they did in 2006.

Below is the two page motion I filed in court. I didn't bother to bring up my suspicions on Platania's actions with the evidence. I have no proof yet that my suspicions are correct, and a motion is intended to be a presentation of facts. Instead I have pointed out various events tied to the evidence that I can prove took place.

I can prove that Michelle Dickerman tampered with the emails she provided to law enforcement, I've already gone over that previously in more detail. When she writes fake April and May dates on what I can prove was one email sent to her in March (even the email itself says it was sent in March), there can be no contesting the fact that Michelle Dickerman tampered with evidence in a way that would not have allowed its use in court.

There are further accusations and evidence showing she did more than just write fake dates. Indeed the only explanation behind the "To Rick" discrepancy is that she was forwarding emails to a fake account made to look like mine - giving her the ability to edit the emails as she saw fit. But going into accusations, however accurate and unchallengeable, that haven't been hashed out in a court of law isn't intended for a motion submitted in court.

The important issue is that none of the emails could have legally been used by the prosecution until they were verified via an independent source. Proper legal procedure isn't using evidence that was printed up and handed to them by the claimed "victim" in this day and age of Photoshop. Giving false witness isn't a new concept, its presence even in the Ten Commandments shows it is an old problem. Charlottesville law enforcement had both a legal and moral responsibility to verify the authenticity of the emails via another source. This should have been followed through before the filing of charges and before jailing me. Just accepting printouts that were handed to you does not cut it.

This legal responsibility was not followed through by the Charlottesville police nor even the prosecution. Thus none of the emails used by prosecutors Joseph Platania and Warner Chapman could be legally used in court, especially not when there is blatant tampering such as Dickerman writing in fake dates.

I can prove that the Charlottesville police claimed to have damaged my computer, thus removing a primary source of verification. Not only do I have written and verbal (on tape) confirmation from my former defense attorney that this took place, but I also witnessed the prosecutor confirm the hard drive damage at a bond hearing.

I can prove that Michelle Dickerman deleted her Myspace profile right after my arrest, which destroyed all remaining evidence with that deletion. My attorney confirms this happened via written and verbal (on tape) evidence. He even admitted to me personally that Dickerman admitted herself that she had deleted it, when my lawyer spoke with her at the final protective order hearing.

I also possess a Daily Press article in which they reported that Michelle Dickerman deleted her profile right after my arrest. My mother confirmed the profile deletion after having tried searching for Dickerman's profile when she read that article (she's the one who saved the article for me). Thus I have proof and testimony from multiple sources that confirm Dickerman deleted her profile and thus destroyed critical evidence during the case.

Michelle Dickerman had just graduated law school at the time and passed the bar exam on the first try. Thus she was well aware that she was committing destruction of evidence and obstructing a criminal investigation by deleting the profile. My former attorney even admits on tape to my mother that Michelle Dickerman was wrong to commit this act - "She was wrong, she shouldn't have done that".

I can prove that the prosecution did not fully comply with the motion of discovery filed in court. Given that my lawyer recorded that the prosecution gave "four" emails out of their claimed "dozen" emails (that number never actually existed), it is beyond contestation that the prosecution did not hold up to their legal obligation and thus violated a court order. My attorney also admits on tape he was only given "four" emails, and that he was told there were more emails that were never supplied to him despite his requests.

I say four emails in quotes because Michelle Dickerman claimed page 2 and 3 of a single email as being two additional emails. By putting false dates on the other two sheets, Dickerman split one email into three. So those four emails given to my lawyer are in reality just three emails - because the April and May emails are actually the same email from March. This by the way is the reason the prosecution had more emails than what were actually sent to Michelle Dickerman. She had split single emails into multiple emails by putting fake dates on individual pages.

Presenting these facts shows that there is a strong case behind my pursuit of post-conviction remedy, and gives the judge a reason to ensure that I have all legal documents needed to proceed forward. I have to admit, when summarized like this it really makes Michelle Dickerman (the Recipient called out in the motion) and the Charlottesville law enforcement look very bad - even criminal in their behavior. It was not my intention when writing it, but their actions show through for what they are by mere statements of fact.

Page 1

Page 2

I also wanted to take a moment to point out very good news from a family member whom I asked to help me with my search engine issues. He is more skilled in websites and search engines than I am, and I told him I was having trouble getting my blog to show up higher in search results for certain parties.

Below is the screenshot he sent me the end of last week with the Michelle Dickerman results. Happy to see it hitting the number one slot, and especially to see the keywords showing up below it. This causes no confusion for the person searching. Since following his tips, I've seen an uptick in people looking up Michelle Dickerman. I received plenty of traffic before from people looking her up, but it's far easier when my blog is hit number one.

Unfortunately pulling this same thing off with searches on Joseph Platania and Warner Chapman is unlikely despite our best efforts. I would be competing with multiple newspaper articles, and news sites by their very nature obviously receive far more traffic than a personal blog. My banner on the Important Links post shows up in the first few image previews Google displays for Joseph Platania, so that is at least helpful and I do get viewers thanks to this.

Getting the same results on my former attorney William Johnson is pretty much a dream at this point. Not because he gets any media coverage, but simply because the name William Johnson is so common that even finding the correct guy is difficult.

A disadvantage of the searches is that I keep getting views from Pennsylvania for Andrew Alston (Alston lives in that state if I recall correctly). It seems to be the same people, so it has left me wondering why they keep viewing the same post all the time. The advantage however is that someone from the University of Virginia has been interested in the Alston case, and has been looking through my blog as a consequence. It would be interesting if a student of the university made a report on the Alston trial and included my case along with it.

I'll likely update the blog once I receive a decision on my motion, until then there isn't much point to writing anything else.