Michelle Dickerman has seen that post from December, and I'm aware it has been a point of discussion since then. It isn't the first time that's happened in recent times however. I'm aware that I come up in conversations a number of times involving her and her family/friends, including conversations her husband has with others. As an example, I've had interesting viewers to my LinkedIn profile that have had no reason to have visited my profile.
I had a CEO from a Canadian firm, and another individual working for CPA Canada, view my LinkedIn within a very short span of each other last year. The CEO worked in a completely unrelated industry from me, and CPA Canada is a national organization of Canadian accountants. Not much reason for employees of either organizations to have viewed the LinkedIn profile of an east coast US citizen working in maritime engineering. Especially someone who has never had contacts or work involving Canada. Their views were close together and we had no mutual connections or overlapping industry work. One is a CPA organization after all, which has absolutely nothing to do with US shipbuilding and engineering. I haven't witnessed any further Canadians stop by my profile since those two views.
It is a reasonable conclusion to suspect Michelle Dickerman's husband, John Dickerman, of bringing me up in conversations given his work with the Business Council of Canada. Which would require mentioning my full name and not just the website and blog, since I've tried to make sure my full name isn't on either site. I'm sure I've slipped up somewhere with my name over all the years this blog has existed, but that would require digging deep through the blog. That is not something the average person is going to do.
Assuming that John Dickerman was even behind this, I have no idea why her husband would ever bring me up to any business contacts. To me it seems a rather stupid risk for him to do that honestly. Maybe I'm misreading the guy, but he does come off to me as arrogant like his wife (I've seen some photos where he's gesturing like he's lecturing his friends during talks, while his friends do not seem to be as serious with the discussion). Arrogance combined with money and status does tend to make people do stupid things - his wife and her father know all about that. You end up convincing yourself that you are untouchable when you are very much not as safe as you think. I can't however just ignore that two Canadians, one a CEO and one working for a CPA association, who both had no connections or links to me, viewed my LinkedIn profile in close proximity to each other. Both of them however would certainly have reasons to have had contact with John Dickerman given his current employment. I really can't ignore all of that.
Some additional examples are also from last year. I had a grade school music teacher from either Fairfax or Falls Church (old views aren't showing up in the list for me anymore so I can't confirm which one) who viewed my LinkedIn profile. Again, no mutual connections and no mutual employment. Obviously not in the same employment field either. The woman had a photo on her profile so I knew that I have never met her before. Another viewer was an individual working in DC, who viewed me not long after the music teacher's views. The guy had a profile photo as well and I have never met him. He also had the same last name as one of John Dickerman's friends which is very interesting. Having the same last name isn't absolute proof of course, but it doesn't help that the guy had no mutual connections or mutual industry work. Not remotely in the same field as me either same as the music teacher who had viewed my profile before him. My roommate also said she has never seen either of those individuals before when I showed the profiles, so that covers that potential there (and no, she has no ties to Canada either).
The only traffic to my LinkedIn profile relates to my industry work or religious organizations. While I'm sure this is standard for most people, I'm also sure it is exacerbated by the fact I rarely use LinkedIn or interact with all that much material on it. The less you use it the less you get pushed out to others. So when I get a notification that someone with no connections to me or my work stops by I tend to notice. None of those examples I've named is a 'smoking gun' when it comes to Dickerman involvement of course. But once again it is rather hard to not suspect that my name was brought up by Dickerman and her husband in order for these viewers to have looked me up. Too many odd coincidences with these individuals that tend to point in the direction of the Dickerman family. Especially when these views happen very close together.
LinkedIn views however aren't remotely the reason for this update. I just wanted to point out that I'm aware that I get discussed, and that sometimes people involved in those discussions tend to go poking around in things themselves. Or those people spread the word to others who then take a look for themselves. What actually prompted this post involves a view that suggests that I was once again the subject of a conversation. Even that view would have probably been ignored had it not been for a freak incident that occurred at the same time. Then again, perhaps I shouldn't be ignoring the views that I do dismiss, since sometimes there might be a story behind it.
Recently I received a viewer from the Department of Justice. That isn't anything new, I've received views from there over the years on occasions. I wouldn't have even bothered bringing it up now if it wasn't for something else that happened on the same exact day as the view. Something that made me wonder if it was 'game time' for the inevitable confrontation that will happen between myself and Michelle Dickerman.
My mother texted me that she was very worried that a cop had pulled into my parent's driveway and had been knocking on the door before finally leaving. My parents had not been home at the time and instead had seen it on security cameras. I had seen the notification of the DOJ view about an hour prior to getting the message about the cop from my mother. I was working from Falls Church remotely at the time I received the text so I immediately began prepping for something to happen. I had thought that Michelle Dickerman had finally been arrogant enough to waltz right into that trap.
Since I was told the cop had left, the first thing I did was lock down my social media from public view, having learned that lesson from 2006 the hard way. I also took the December update post, and the Google update post made prior to it, off of public viewing briefly. Those posts involve discussions about my employment that I didn't care to have broadcasted on the news if I could help it (they were not deleted, as you can see they were returned to public viewing). Those steps took less than a minute, and I then logged into the app to look at my parent's security cameras to see what was going on.
A Hampton Sheriff's deputy had pulled into my parent's driveway after the DOJ view. The deputy got out of the vehicle with some papers in hand and started knocking on the door, announcing that it was the sheriff's department. When they received no answer they briefly left, before pulling right back into the driveway, walked back up to my parent's porch (this time with no papers in hand), and could be heard on the camera to be saying something that the camera couldn't pick up because of the wind. The deputy then left again. So far they have not returned to my parent's house, and considering the length of time now it's pretty clear they aren't returning.
I immediately knew that this had nothing to do with the Department of Justice viewer or Michelle Dickerman when I saw it was a Hampton Sheriff's deputy. For one thing a DOJ employee isn't going to rely on a lone sheriff's deputy to make any kind of arrest. Especially because as I understand it the sheriffs only handle low level misdemeanors and only local legal stuff (bench warrants, failure to respond to jury summons, etc). If Michelle Dickerman was trying for 'Round Two: Electric Boogaloo' with me, it would have been more than one Hampton Police car in the driveway and detectives from whatever police department Dickerman contacted (or just detectives knocking on the door). Granted another duty of the sheriffs is delivering court summons for legal matters. However, if Michelle Dickerman was really dumb enough to go poking the bear with something like that, she at least wouldn't entrust that to a Sheriff's department when she has the money to hire her own process server.
So I dismissed this visit from the Sheriff as completely unrelated to anything with me. Considering the Sheriff's department hasn't returned since this first visit, my parents and I suspect that they came to the wrong address (seems that happens to cops a lot). There is an individual down the road from where my parents live who has been into drugs and other such stupidity in the past, and according to my parents this isn't the first time cops knocked on the wrong door in the neighborhood looking for him.
Considering the sheriff briefly left, came right back into the driveway, got out without paperwork, and briefly went on the porch before leaving for the last time, this lends some weight to the visit being a wrong address situation. They likely left a card on the door. When leaving they had seen the actual address, realized their mistake, and came back to grab the card off the door. My parents checked when they got home and there wasn't anything left behind by the Sheriff's deputy. So it probably was a wrong address, made more certain by the fact they haven't returned in weeks. I would however have really, really preferred this screw up to not have happened immediately after a DOJ viewer visited my blog.
I wasn't reacting to the DOJ visit notification until I received the warning of a cop knocking on the door no more than an hour after. Only then did the heart rate go up a couple notches. Additionally, a very concerned text from my mother about a cop at the house wouldn't have had as significant of a reaction from me had it not coincided with the DOJ visit. Frankly there wouldn't have even been a panicked message from my mother about the visit from a police officer had Michelle Dickerman not slapped the nuke button back in 2006. But Dickerman did take things that far in 2006, and in turn she's going to answer for the harm she's inflicted on multiple people.
As for the Department of Justice viewer - I suspect this may have happened after a conversation Michelle Dickerman had with a peer, though this is not a guarantee.
There is a small possibility of the DOJ viewer being Dickerman, but I think this is less likely. While Michelle Dickerman has reasons to interact with DOJ employees as part of her employment, and probably attends meetings at their office location, this isn't likely to have been a situation where Dickerman was logged onto the DOJ ISP. When checking the recorded hardware stats of the viewer their monitor resolution shows it is a 21:9 aspect ratio ultrawide monitor. So we're not likely dealing with Dickerman bringing her Treasury laptop into a DOJ office, plugging into an ultrawide monitor, and logging into the DOJ network.
For one thing the stats show a clean native resolution used by this viewer. If Dickerman had plugged in her laptop to a monitor, with both devices have differing resolutions between the two of them, I should see something other than the clean native 21:9 aspect ratio that the stats show. If Dickerman were using a hoteling station for visitors to the DOJ office, those aren't going to be supplied with an ultrawide monitor like that.
I also seriously doubt that Dickerman has a permanent office and PC setup solely for her use at the DOJ given that she's a treasury department worker. I know the government likes to waste money, but I doubt her position is high enough to warrant that kind of expense. Especially given the fact that laptops exist and are a more efficient way of addressing the need. Why on earth would they give her two permanent offices/PCs between two different departments?
I can't imagine there is a shared office and PC set aside for multiple treasure executives to use either. That's certainly a security risk for the government. Not to mention that surely even Michelle Dickerman wouldn't be foolish enough to go browsing my blog on a computer she shares with other Treasury executives in her department. I'm also seriously doubting her logging into a DOJ colleague's assigned PC using Dickerman's own credentials, as once again we hit that 'browsing my blog on someone else's computer' problem. I seriously doubt even Dickerman would take that kind of risk.
Even in a scenario using a VM on the DOJ network via a Treasury issued laptop is rather unlikely. Granted a VM configured for a wide angle monitor resolution, using the VM's browser for the view, would report the ultrawide resolution of the VM. But that would absolutely suck to use with a standard government laptop screen. I've managed to maintain 20/20 vision despite the heavy monitor usage of my line of work, and that would still suck for me to use that kind of resolution on a standard laptop - let alone a woman that wears glasses dealing with that. I also doubt the resolution would work well even if she was using a hoteling station with dual standard monitors.
Even if she were doing something like this for some weird reason, the VM isn't likely to show up at the same IP as the DC DOJ office building she would have had to be in. Even if she used her laptop to remote into her desktop at the Treasury department while on the DOJ network, the IP address would have shown up as the Treasury department instead.
I also had the AI I've used give me push back on this, when I attempted to put forward alternative explanations for the DOJ viewer still being Dickerman instead of a colleague. As I'll get into later, I'm prepping a post involving questioning AI and feeding it details about this situation with this woman. When I went over all of this with the AI just to see what it said, it consistently said that the simplest explanation was that the DOJ viewer was a colleague and not Michelle Dickerman on the DOJ network. And even the AI thought that Dickerman wasn't likely to be dumb enough to surf my blog on the network of a different government agency she was visiting. She would have to know any sites she visits on their network would be logged.
As for use of an Ultrawide monitor, monitors like that wouldn't be supplied to just anyone at the DOJ. It would be supplied to specific employees - maybe IT, some specialist roles that do side-by-side document review, or a higher level employee like an executive position. Michelle Dickerman as a deputy assistant general counsel is likely going to be interfacing with DOJ employees that are at her equivalent level of authority or above - she wouldn't regularly work closely and directly with lower level DOJ employees. Dickerman would work with DOJ managers who would themselves delegate work to lower level employees.
Even if these lower level employees present material at meetings, this wouldn't encourage a very close working relationship with a deputy assistant general counsel. I certainly couldn't see Michelle Dickerman sharing information about this conflict between us with just any DOJ employee. It would have to be someone she knew and trusted, which suggests a DOJ employee matching her pay scale that she has a close working relationship with. I also doubt it was someone who knew her husband from his time at the DOJ. He's been a corporate lobbyist for quite some time, so I imagine there aren't too many of his personal connections still hanging around, let alone seeking out my blog to see what I've recently posted. Especially the viewing behavior I'll get into.
All of this implies there was a recent conversation between Dickerman and this DOJ employee. A conversation which in turn encouraged this employee to take a peak at my blog. Why do I believe this viewing was the result of a conversation, and not just a random employee coming across my blog who knew Dickerman's name and looked her up? Well for one thing this employee completely avoided looking at my website. When using Google, which this employee did, my website shows up in the number two slot in Google search results for Dickerman (it even shows that this position is displayed for everyone in my website analytics). My blog however shows up anywhere from 5th place to 8th place for viewers. So this DOJ employee had to deliberately ignore my website and scroll down to look for my blog.
If this was just a random person looking Dickerman up, they wouldn't have skipped my website in the number two slot in order to go right for the blog. Some random DOJ employee would go for the website that is right below Michelle Dickerman's LinkedIn profile in the search results. They also never went to the website after viewing the blog. So my blog was clearly the target here, and this wouldn't be the case if the viewer wasn't someone who knew at least some of the details of this dispute.
They also did a casual viewing of the blog - their activity matching someone who was only seeking the most recent post. A casual viewer would have dug around into some of the more relevant older posts. Especially when someone working at the DOJ sees posts linked in the 'most viewed posts' listing off to the side labeled "Criminal Evidence Against Michelle Dickerman". This was the behavior of someone who knew what they were looking for and found it. This was someone who knew I made a recent post on the blog and wanted to take a look. Which suggests that Michelle Dickerman brought up my most recent post to this individual in conversation.
That would also mean that something I said in that recent post damaged her calm enough to make Dickerman speak to a colleague about it. It's a pretty big risk to her in making more people aware of the dispute, but it is even more of a risk when it's a colleague from work. I don't care how well you think you know another employee, bringing a professional peer into her confidence on this is a big gamble. So if indeed this was a DOJ peer that Michelle Dickerman had spoken with, and what was said was enough to encourage them to seek out my recent post, then that certainly suggests a few things to me.
For one thing it shows that something I said must have rattled her - good, she has every reason to be rattled. It also shows that Michelle Dickerman wanted another set of eyes to look over what I wrote. She didn't want to just trust the input of her husband and family. It suggests that the recent post bothered her enough that she wanted to see how this professional peer would comment on what they had read. Even if she didn't deliberately point this employee towards the blog, Dickerman had to know that they would likely go and take a look. It would honestly be pretty stupid to expect that colleague to not start Googling her name. So I feel that this would instead be a case of a colleague being deliberately directed towards the recent blog post.
Could I be mistaken in the theories I've put forward here? Absolutely.
I could be wrong about how the Department of Justice has its offices setup. I'm going off my own experience with government hardware and procedures. But while I've dealt with combined GS and Military procedures and equipment at military locations the purely civilian government branches, like the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury, don't necessarily have to play by the same IT access rules as military computer IT does. I think they probably do, but given that I have no experience with either the DOJ or the Treasury, I obviously can't say that for certain. Even though the VM theory has some big holes in it, it would also be the most technically plausible explanation if this was Michelle Dickerman and not one of her colleagues at the DOJ.
So I do have to account for the fact that it is entirely possible that Michelle Dickerman was on the DOJ network, and decided to view my blog while she was there. Not the brightest idea for her to look up such material on another government department's network given everything she does on it is logged and seen by administrators. More so in fact given that she would be a visitor to the office. But as I've said before when discussing her husband - money and status when combined with arrogance tends to result in very poor decisions. However, I think it is far more likely that the Occam's razor answer is that this viewer was a DOJ employee that Dickerman knew. Even the AI kept coming back to that being the simplest explanation - that a DOJ employee Michelle Dickerman had a conversation about my recent post had gotten curious about said post. Or that colleague was deliberately steered towards my blog. And that definitely suggests certain things - like someone's getting a bit upset.
So perhaps I need to pay better attention to some of these views, even if they are from a common location or ISP. As for life beyond that, there are various things in the works. I've decided that I'm going to work on three different avenues simultaneously to get justice against Michelle Dickerman, and which ever one is available first is the one I go with.
Thanks to the uncertainty with my employment, I can't push forward on the Writ on my own dime. Once I start the process I'm potentially locked in for a three year battle that could cross into six figure territory for legal fees easily. I can't just abandon it, especially on the appeal, if I end up unemployed and in a bad spot. Having to abandon it mid-way due to financial issues means I permanently lose what may be my last attempt at sorting out justice inside a courtroom. So for the time being I'm having to depend on outside help. But asking an organization to use their resources to help me means I'm working at their pace. Yes I wanted my life back yesterday, but when someone else is footing the bill I don't have a right to complain about how long things are taking. That's just how it is.
I am however pushing forward on the plan to confront the Charlottesville law enforcement head on by filing a police report. A big reason for the silence and not updating the website is due to two issues: the pace of the current work related project I'm on, and gathering documentation and writing up everything about the events of 2006. I will be filing that police report, I will be making a stop off at the DA's office after speaking with the detective to confront them, and I will be in contact with Internal Affairs.
I intend on pushing hard on Charlottesville law enforcement, getting in their faces, and daring them to either fix their fuck up or arrest me. If they arrest me they walk face first into that trap. Arresting me gives me exactly what I need for wrecking everyone's life - exposing this entire shitshow to the public. Especially since I'll have my write ups and documentation sent to the new media before I set foot in Charlottesville. I might even try to encourage a reporter to go with me, and the fact that I'll be filing a police report might be significant enough to get their attention. But my arrest would definitely get media attention just like it did last time.
My family will also have multiple copies of documentation available at different locations. So if Charlottesville thinks they are going to be smart by trying to prevent media access, my family will have everything they need to expose what took place. Attempting to block media access to me will go public right along with everything else, and it will help demonstrate the corruption of Charlottesville law enforcement further.
The third option I hinted at relates to what I had already planned to do back in 2020. After 20 years of living with a felony, I'm at the point where I really want to do option three more than any of the other two I've discussed. More time passes by with a felony on my record that I didn't commit. More years of my life go down the drain, never to be recovered. Already the amount of damage this woman inflicted has resulted in the decision to never have a family. As the years keeping slipping by without resolution, without the ability to move on, more of my hopes and dreams for a future life go up in smoke. Damage that can never be repaired.
I had hoped I would have had this shit resolved by now, so I could disconnect from things and prepare for whatever comes in the future. But resolving this is going at a snails pace, while the world seems to keep accelerating and showing how little time I have. I'm feeling more and more backed into a corner. As I continued to barrel towards my 50s, I became more and more inclined to return to that decision I made in 2020. Now I've genuinely reached that point on the door step of 20 years that this woman has ripped from me. So I'm working all three options at once. Whichever one happens first - well, I already have a feeling which one happens first, and I've made peace with what comes after that.
Anyway, returning to option two of confronting the police and prosecution. Do I expect Charlottesville to actually make things right? No. They will either attempt an arrest (which doesn't go well for them) or they will ignore me - which also won't go well for them. If they decide to ignore me, that just ends up blowing up in their faces when something happens down the road. One way or another this dispute is coming to a head, and the entire shitshow will come out in the public regardless of how I have to accomplish that. There are many ways that can happen, some methods I like less than others. Granted they might surprise me and be smart enough to throw Dickerman under the bus. It isn't like Charlottesville doesn't have charges they could bring against her. The lawyer I've been speaking with is certain that Dickerman would have been under oath when testifying at the protective order hearing.
Being under oath is a problem for Michelle Dickerman because it means facing a felony charge of perjury. On top of other charges they could bring against her considering the amount of damage she inflicted and the large length of time this has gone on (we're about to hit 20 years). My lawyer has stated he has no belief that Michelle Dickerman will actually come forward to fess up on her own because of the serious impact it'll have on her career. This is thanks to the perjury charge and the fact that the Virginia State Bar is not going to ignore what she did. That's very likely a correct assessment, though I'm less inclined than him to trust that the State Bar will actually do something.
Dickerman should have taken the example I've shown in other posts, of that woman who came forward after getting a man falsely imprisoned. That woman received a slap on the wrist for her actions. While that absolutely offends most peoples' sense of justice, including mine, there is a rational reasoning behind it. The justification given by the state is that they want to encourage those who give false testimony to come forward and correct what they did. So they go extremely lenient on them instead of hammering them like they deserve. That woman however waited four years before coming forward. She had to be forced into it, but she still came forward on her own. Which is more than Dickerman ever did.
Michelle Dickerman is staring 20 years in the face. I don't know that she's facing at any leniency anymore at this point. We're hitting 20 years in November and I think at that point there isn't any way back for her. She's getting a sledgehammer at that point no matter what when we hit 20 years. No mercy shown by me. No mercy shown by the legal system. Honestly I think that's what needs to happen - everything in this woman's life needs to be shredded and burned. Leave the piece of shit with nothing but ashes at best. Twenty fucking years you asshole.
Dickerman is going to face consequences for 2006 one way or another. The only choice given to her anymore is whether or not she wants to lessen those consequences and more importantly leave her family out of this. Those are far better options than she ever gave me. Of course, Michelle Dickerman only cares about herself and her career. So she's not going to listen to any sense when it comes to the impact this is absolutely going to have with her family. After having me railroaded into a felony she lied and fabricated evidence for, it has never been a matter of if there will be consequences. It's a matter of when it will be, how bad it'll be, and how many people around her have to suffer for it happening.
Dickerman made all kinds of performative hand wringing in her 2006 victim impact statement. She wrote about how worried she was for the safety of everyone around her. How she was so wracked with guilt for the danger others were in. Yet when Dickerman was given the option to keep her family clear of this shitshow while limiting damages to herself - this woman didn't have the integrity to do the right thing. The longer she waits, the older her kids and their peers get. That means they will not only be able to understand what is going on, but the other kids around them will connect the dots.
Because Michelle Dickerman continues to wait instead of doing the right thing, when all this comes out it's very likely her kids will be harassed and bullied by other kids for their mother's actions until they graduate high school. I tried to warn Dickerman about that. She was given offers to avoid this happening way back in 2019. She just ignored them. For all her bullshit performances in her victim impact statement, when it came time for Michelle Dickerman to think about others, the only person she has ever thought about is the woman she sees in the mirror every morning. I told you people she was a narcissist who doesn't care about others.
The fact that Michelle Dickerman has not only been incapable of doing the right thing for 20 years, but she also refuses to do the right thing when it is of benefit to her own family, is all the proof you need of what she really is. Everyone will see that once everything goes public. Being dragged kicking and screaming into responsibility for her actions after 20 years of not doing anything is going to get her ripped to shreds in the public square. It really does make certain decisions of the future easier to take against her. It's easier to not show mercy to a person who has not only shown her lack of integrity and remorse, but has also shown she's willing to sacrifice everyone around her to maintain what she has.
Even the AI I've hinted at for the next post has been using the 20 years of inaction to
prove that the psychological profile it built of this woman is valid. It pointed out that Dickerman could have even alleviated some of the damage she inflicted over a decade ago, and that doing it "would have cost her nothing more than a signature". She refused to take steps to heal some of the damage she'd inflicted on me even when it wouldn't have required a confession of her crimes. I'd like to add that the AI also pointed a finger at her husband
John Dickerman as well, despite the fact that I tried to give him the benefit of
the doubt when mentioning him during the experiment - AI response:
"You're probably wrong about the husband". This 20 years of non-action
will also smear his reputation as well, and honestly he needs to get
dragged for it the same as his wife.
The AI flat out said that it was obvious John Dickerman was enabling Michelle Dickerman's behavior. I've mentioned before about the woman who came forward to confess that she lied to get a guy in prison, previously showing the news report about her in past posts. I get conflicting reports of whether it was her husband who encouraged her to confess or if it was a coworker. Regardless of their relationship to that woman, the fact is that that individual has more integrity in their little finger than John Dickerman has in his entire body. John Dickerman knows exactly what his wife did. As someone who went to law school, he knows the actions of the prosecutors were excessive and evil. He knows this was a railroading. He has been to the blog and seen the evidence against his wife. His wife wouldn't have been able to maintain keeping her secret for going on 20 years now if John Dickerman ever spoke up or challenged her on it.
Which means this guy, who plays up how much of a good Christian and progressive man he is, never once had enough balls or integrity to ever demand his wife make right the evil she committed. He never even pushed her to take actions to 'fix' some of the damage she caused, actions which wouldn't have even require his wife to confess to her crimes. John Dickerman will get his reputation ruined right along side his wife when people hear about this bullshit secret of theirs - a secret that they both have kept this entire time. Honestly it might just cost him his career as a political corporate lobbyist when all of this hits the public square. He deserves every bit of it for enabling her evil acts while falsely portraying himself as a good person. I've said it before but it needs repeating - all of their beliefs are just 'window dressings'.
But I've been getting into this in more detail in the other post, especially the AI stuff, so there isn't any need to rehash things here.
As for other things in my life. Unfortunately getting my gun rights restored in Virginia isn't an across the board thing for the rest of the United States (even though it should be). While the Feds consider the right restored, buying and owning guns is a state-by-state thing. Thus with a state level felony, you have to see what the rules are for every other state you want to possess a firearm in. Obviously you have to put in a greater effort to check things than someone without a felony would on local firearm laws.
For example, I've said before I'm planning on a move to West Virginia. But my right to own a gun isn't restored in West Virginia just yet and thus I'm not able to own a gun there for the moment. I have to go through West Virginia's specific process regardless of having it done in VA. I've already reviewed it and I'm getting it setup. Given that West Virginia is a deep red state and very pro-gun that won't be an issue. So it doesn't matter that I could just keep petitioning an infinite amount of times until someone finally signs off on the restoration - WV will be an easy one shot deal for me to own guns in that state. That doesn't change the fact that it is a massive pain in the ass having to deal with that. But it does help with some plans in the future, so obviously I'm doing what I have to do for the time being.
I've already secured a very small place in WV in preparation for eventually leaving behind the Falls Church location. Though that small WV place is temporary while I use it as a 'staging ground' for hunting after a more suitable location. While I'd prefer some place deeper in the mountains, thanks to my felony situation I have to instead keep much closer to the DMV area where a lot of engineering firms are.
I have to be close to potential office locations because I can't guarantee that I can find employment that is 100% remote given my criminal record. Hell I can't even guarantee that I'll find employment even if it isn't remote. So my options are limited to around the very upper east section of West Virginia that is surrounded by NOVA and Maryland. Right now the location I've setup is just a bit over an hour drive to Arlington. That's not accounting for traffic of course, but I'm willing to setup something where I leave early as hell in the morning and maybe even work 4/10s. This moving to WV and some of the potential firearms laws however makes for a situation that somewhat borders on comedy (well comedic to me at least) and a healthy dose of irony when it comes to Dickerman. It relates quite a bit to what I discussed in my previous post.
I very much have reason to believe that Dickerman has had a concealed carry permit and a gun for self defense. She and her husband are antigun of course, but like many of their type they are of course massive hypocrites. "Do as I say not as I do". Well right now Michelle Dickerman's ideological fellow travelers are in the process of seriously restricting her ability to protect herself. Right now it is looking like they want to push a ban on all semi-auto firearms in VA - not just semi-auto rifles but everything semi-auto. They want to push an AWB first, but they have already stated they want everything semiauto. This leaves Dickerman with far, far less effective options for protection.
Meanwhile, West Virginia is actually pushing forward to potentially legalize 'hole punchers' of the fully automatic variety to be issued by the state. I haven't dug into the legalese fully, but it sounds like the Federal ban on post-1986 machine guns actually left the door open in the law for states to enact legislation that allows fully automatic machine guns to be issued by the state. Given WV is heavily red and heavily pro-gun there is a high chance that such legalization could end up happening. They would setup a department for it, you petition to get permission from the state with payment ready, and they essentially 'issue' full-autos to you so long as you're legally allowed to own a firearm. That's the jest I get from it from some of the rundowns that lawyers on YouTube have posted up.
So why is this a bit of comedic 'bad karma' for Michelle Dickerman?
This woman had me railroaded into a felony she knew me to be innocent of. Her lies, manipulations, and fabricated evidence absolutely ripped my life apart. The excuse behind why my life had to be ruined was to keep me from ever owning a firearm again. But this was a lie by the prosecution - I was always going to get the right restored and I knew this all the way back in 2006. Well Michelle Dickerman is now about to be seriously restricted and maybe even disarmed by the very people she and her husband voted for. She certainly won't have access to as effective of firearms as I will own. The irony there is thick enough to cut with a knife.
So the guy whose life she ruined over a lie, all the while claiming it was to keep him from owning guns again? The guy who has held a grudge for 20 years thanks to said destruction, when he would have otherwise moved on long ago? Well that guy will be living in another state (WV), but unfortunately that location still has to be in an area that keeps him within an hour drive of Arlington. All thanks to that felony charge Michelle Dickerman pushed for in 2006. And yet that guy not only has the ability to own AK/AR pattern weapons once again despite the felony - but those weapons might even be full on machine guns thanks to potential future WV laws.
A modern German soldier channels his ancestor
At the same time, Dickerman could very likely be stuck with Elmer Fudd level firearms that are far less effective at self defense. Great job you stupid asshole. Michelle Dickerman and I are in a way swapping places when it comes to who can own what legally. So we come back to that question I asked her in the last post - was what she did in 2006 worth it to her? What did this idiot accomplish other than making everything worse for herself and everyone around her?
Now Michelle Dickerman might be thinking that what I've said above is irrelevant - "Well he's only allowed to own that stuff in West Virginia, once he crosses state lines into Virginia with it he'd be breaking the law." Time to wake up to a little thing she's been out of touch with her entire life - cold hard reality. Until you actually get caught all laws are a 'Schrodinger's cat'. They are both violated and not violated, until a cop actually has a reason to pull you over and search your vehicle. But if the cop doesn't have a reason to even look in your direction on a roadway packed full of cars...
So yes, I do think it is a bit of comedic and dark karma for Michelle Dickerman. And I have to once again ask the same question - does Dickerman still think it was good idea to pull the stunt she did in 2006? Was it worth the coming shitstorm? Was it worth losing everything over some stupid fucking emails that you still had to tamper with just to get the result you did?
I think for now I've written enough. I might put eyes on this again tomorrow or Tuesday and modify anything I missed or correct some wording. I do think the next post with the AI discussion of the dispute between Michelle Dickerman and I will be a pretty good one, so I'm trying to work on getting that out while I juggle work load and prepping for the Charlottesville police report.