usdc edv a opposition to report for sanctions

8/3/2019 USDC EDV a Opposition to Report for Sanctions

1/15

A.O., a child of 12, and other minors, by Manship, Next Friend, and others

Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Next Friend Manship files Pro Se, and as Disabled Veteran,In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARLINGTON COUNTY

Sherri Brothers, Karen Grane, Jason McCandless, George Varoutsos, et al

Defendants.

1. In the minds of many who flaunt the title, J.D. has become THE title for the Aristocracy in

America, with its corresponding affectation of Esq., short for Esquire, all as power brokers.

2. Yet the true source of power for any good J.D. would be as a Jesus Disciple, for Jesus is also known

as an Advocate, Mediator, and Counselor, words used to describe all too rare to find honest lawyers.

3. Founding Father Noah Webster, creator of the Dictionary published in anno domini 1828, also

shared the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ from The Gospel of Saint Luke, Chapter 11, Verse 46:

And he said, Woe to you also, ye lawyers, for ye load men with burdens

grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of

your fingers. - Webster's Bible Translation, a.d. 1833, the Common Version.

4. The burdens borne by parents whose beloved children are snatched by modern day Barbarians and camp

followers, that is to say Bar members and other taxpayer paid employees of Arlington County, are grievous in

the extreme, and truly tyrannical acts of an arrogant Arlington government, to be constrained by a Jury.

5. WHERE is even one honest lawyerto step forward to defend the cause of Justice for the

Parents and their Children, when a non-Barattorney-in-fact is DENIED the Constitutional Right to

provide assistance of counsel if the Parents exercise their Freedom of Choice for such an attorney?

Even the Court seems not to know, for it fails to assign a lawyer to advance Equal Justice for All.

6. The Lincoln Law or False Claims Act of 1863 provides any Citizen to be a Private Attorney General.

OPPOSITION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 11 JANUARY A.D. 2012

ON ARLINGTON ATTORNEYS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BY IFP PLAINTIFF p. 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

Case No:

1: 11CV1003JCC/JFA


ON ARLINGTON ATTORNEYS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS UPON NEXT FRIEND PLAINTIFF

JURY TRIALDEMANDED
http://websterbible.com/luke/11.htmhttp://websterbible.com/luke/11.htmhttp://websterbible.com/luke/11.htm


2/15

7. The Lincoln Law, or Qui Tam (meaning in place of the king) Act, deputized the common

man, the average citizen, even without any elevated degree of J.D. or Ph.D., to lead the way in

rooting out corruption in government by being the Plaintiff for all Citizen-taxpayers. That 1863

law, passed anew, is the key piece of legislation in the growing field of Whistleblower Law. A

lawyer is NOT required by a Plaintiff to file a Qui Tam action, but at some point in the litigation,

the Attorney General may intervene and upon successful conclusion, reward the Citizen who

initiated the lawsuit with a bounty of from 15 to 35 per cent of the final monetary award.

8. If a non-Bar Citizen may file a Qui Tam lawsuit as Private Attorney General for all other

Citizens to protect the monetary interests from financial abuse in the Government, why on Gods

green earth, can not a non-Bar Citizen as an Attorney-in-fact, as provided for under Virginia law,

file a Next Friend lawsuit on behalf of one or a few other Citizens and Children to protect those

Children and Parents from PHYSICAL and FINANCIAL abuse by the Arlington Government? This

Right of Citizens to use the law applied in 1863, 1913, 1963. Will it apply today, or a year away 2013?

9. In a.d. 1911, Charles Warren, a member of the Boston Bar, wrote the bookA History of the

American Bar, where in Chapter 1 Law without Lawyers on page 7 is written

In New England, the clergy for a long time maintained a complete supremacy

in the magistracy and in the courts The clergy possessed, as in England,

much of the legal knowledge of the community.

This Plaintiff, a Chaplain of the Amos 5:15 Project, Hate evil and love the good. Remodel your

Courts into True halls of Justice. of the God and Country Foundation does in a First Amendment

free exercise thereof respect of religion, defend Gods Children with Mans Law as guided by

Gods Law; and true to Original Intent of the Founding Fathers, who full well knew about the legal Bar

in the Courts of England, yet wisely chose NOT to establish a Bar in this Constitution. Indeed, neither

Madison nor Washington, this Constitutions Prime Architects, were Bar members. This Constitution for

the United States of America used ONLY the words assistance of counsel, NOT assistance of legal

counsel, NOT the assistance of lawyers, and CERTAINLY NOT the assistance of Bar members.




3/15

10. Not until the 1920s did many law schools form, and not until the 1930s with FDRs

Revolution in the Judiciary with his arrogant Court Packing Plan and then the Bar being

made an agency of the supreme Court in each state did the Bar system, like in England, come to

dominate, and arguably destroy, the Justice system in America envisioned by our Founders.

11. In reality the ascendancy of the Bar is a Counter-Revolution against the Principles of Liberty

that were the Heart and Soul of our American Revolution led by non-lawyer George Washington.

12. Few Bar member Attorneys-at-law know the legal history that the Bar in England originated

as far back as the 1200s. Few Bar members know the word attorney is derived from the early

17th Century French, meaning to assign or depute (deputize) for a particular purpose. That is

to say a Citizen may deputize another Citizen for the particular purpose of speaking on his or her

behalf, or preparing documents that speak for the Citizen with the written versus the spoken

word. So in the modern narrowness of mind and poor understanding of meanings of words,

many lawyers have erroneously claimed the word attorney to be synonymous with Bar member.

The word counsel is misunderstood and stolen by Bar members in a similar manner.

13. But what good is the legal Bar? The Bar CLAIMS (falsely) to protect Citizens from

unscrupulous legal hucksters, and claims to advance professionalism. Attachment A is a Seed of

Truth one page information sheet that quotes former Chief Justice Warren Burger in a.d. 1978 in

the American Bar Association Journal with Washington on the cover, about the DEPLORABLE

state of both lawyer competence, and lawyer discipline, or self-regulation of the legal profession.

14. Decades after Chief Justice Burgers criticism, little if any progress in levels of Competence,

Honesty, Self-Regulation, or Discipline of Bar members (lawyers) are indicated by a number of studies:

A 2006 American Bar Association survey found that out of 123,927 complaints, only

3.5 percent led to formal discipline and less than one percent resulted in disbarment.

> QUESTION: How does that rate relate to the prosecution rate of common Citizens?

> QUESTION: Is this a Separate Tribunal contrary to the principle of Equal Justice?




4/15

Of these 123,927 complaints, 92 percent led to no discipline or only informal

slaps on the wrist in the form of private sanctions.

> QUESTION: How does this PRIVATE Bar court comport with a speedy and PUBLIC trial?

> QUESTION: If lawyers can judge lawyers, why not burglars judge burglars and rapists judge rapists?

A 2002 Columbia Law School nationwide survey found that two out of three

Americans do not think lawyers are even somewhat honest, 60% of Americans

believe lawyers were overpaid and only 2% felt lawyers were underpaid.

> QUESTION: Has knowledge of the law been used and abused by lawyers as license to

loot family fortunes by Divorce Lawyer promotion of the social disease of Divorce and

looting the family inheritance by lawyer abuse of the elderly in the Probate Court system?

A 2003 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found that 84% percent of Americans do

not believe lawyers have high ethical standards.

> QUESTION: How as the Bar as an agency of the state supreme Court since the 1930s

increased the trust of the People in the ethics and inherent Justice of the Judicial branch?

According to theNational Law Journalin 2002, 69% of Americans think that

lawyers are more focused on making money than serving their clients.

> QUESTION: Does the Bar, that is in reality a Public Section Mandatory Union of

workers, protecting Member interests far, far more than Citizens interests, violate the

Sherman-Anti-Trust Act of the 1890s, and also is a Restraint on Free Commerce?

In a 2002 American Bar Association survey of 750 households, less than one-quarter (19%) of respondents expressed confidence in lawyers work and three

quarters of respondents contended that lawyers focused more on making money

than serving their clients.

> QUESTION: How has the Bar positively responded to Chief Justice Burgers concern

of 1978 opining that only 25 per cent to 50 per cent of lawyers were competent, when

now the Public perception is 19 per cent express confidence in the work of lawyers?

The Plaintiff could go on and on and on with statistics that prove that the Bar has been either a

total or nearly total failure in serving the best interests of the PUBLIC versus being a Protection

Racket for its members to suppress competition as stated by several warning letters from the

U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission in 2004 and 2005 time frame that

stated Unauthorized Practice of Law rules were in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.




5/15

15. In the Life and Death field of Health, a Citizen has the Right to Choose to employ a

Medical Doctor, a Chiropractic Doctor, an Osteopathic Doctor, a Naturopathic Doctor, or even a

Faith Healer, and live or die with that decision. Why not allow Citizens Freedom of Choice?

16. At least until Obamas Care (ObamaScare) becomes effective, if not first repealed, a Citizen

can hire a doctor and a surgeon and a nutritionist without interference by any government agency.

17. If a Citizen hires a Bar member, that lawyer can hire other lawyers to provide assistance of

counsel to the primary lawyer in one or more areas of the case, yet in the Virginia Bar rules, if

not in other states, a Bar member can lose his license if he helps aPro Se litigant. This is a clear

and present danger to the ideals of Equal Justice for All because it places aPro Se litigant in an

unequal status to a Bar member who can hire all sorts of other lawyers to help with his case.

18. If a defendant, maybe even any litigant, even a non-Citizen, does not speak English, the

Court will assign an interpreter to translate from the persons native language to English.

19. If a mute, not deaf or dumb, but one who thinks and writes in English, but unable to speak

aloud, were to be a party in a case, a sign language interpreter would be obtained by the Court.

20. Given those two interpreter realities, why then if a Citizen does not speak Legal-ese, or

know how to do Public Speaking, without near crippling fear, which various studies have

revealed Public Speaking is a major source of stress to a majority of the population, why then

can aPro Se litigant not hire a legal coach or a legal speech coach or even a legal speaker

to speak part or all the case prepared by thePro Se litigant?

21. The Rules of the supreme Court of Virginia (on page 347 of the 2002 Edition), states a key

clause in support of the above public speaker or legal speaker Citizens RIGHT where it states:

otherwise than in the presentation of facts, figures, or factual conclusions, as

distinguished from legal conclusions

Only a JURY, or in the absence of a jury by proxy the judge, makes a legal conclusion. Even a

Bar member only makes Motions or Petitions for Jurors or Judges to make conclusions upon.




6/15

22. Further, the Virginia Code 54.1-3904. Penalty for practicing without authority.

states: Any person who practices law without being authorized OR licensed While the

Public Sector Mandatory Union called the Bar that is in its very inception a violation of the

Virginia Right to Work laws, the Virginia State Bar does license lawyers, the individual

sovereign Citizen AUTHORIZES either an attorney at law, who is licensed under the Virginia

Code section beginning at 54.1-3900.Practice of law; student internship program; definition,

OR as of 1 July in the Year of Our Lord Jesus 2010, as an attorney in fact under the Virginia Code

section beginning at 26-72. Uniform Power of Attorney Act. with provision for enforcement

upon Bar members or others who refuse to honor this new law at 26-91. Liability for refusal to

accept acknowledged power of attorney. This new law is part of a nationwide movement of

Citizens demanding alternatives to Bar licensed lawyers whose performance, as related by statistics

above, is woefully inadequate and too expensive for the value received, due to monopoly practices.

23. Further, the Pro Bono assistance of counsel by Chaplain Manship of the Amos 5:15 Project of the

God and Country Foundation, as part of his First Amendment RIGHT of free exercise of religion is

outside of the boundaries of regulation by the state, due to Separation of Church and State factors.

24. Chaplain Manship has served over 40 months Pro Bono as Advocate for Pardon for innocent

Army Veteran Jeffrey Franklin Washington to both Governor Kaine and Governor McDonnell, which

is in nearly any Jurors mind a true ministry and not an income source as it is for Bar licensed

lawyers. Thus any FINAL assessment of threatened Sanctions at the instigation of any

Attorneys must be the Legal Conclusion of a JURY, not a judge, who is also a Bar member,

and thus has a Conflict of Interest in objectively deciding the case about Bar privileges , unless

the judge rules for a Summary Dismissal of the Malicious efforts of Arlington Attorneys in seeking

sanctions in this case where Chaplain Manship as a Mandatory Reporter of Child Abuse is reporting

Arlington employees involvement in Child Abuse, that even Court Security Cameras can PROVE!




7/15

25. In the above advocate actions for innocent Veteran Jeff Washington, Chaplain Manship is pleased

with his role in moving the system to ARREST Virginia State Bar member Paul Thomson, and

working to force Judge Wetsel to finally STOP allowing a FEDERAL CONVICT to continue to

PRACTICE LAW in the Winchester Circuit Court, and then putting pressure on the Virginia

State Bar to revoke his Bar license, an effort first begun on 19 February a.d. 2009, when the LIES of

Virginia State Bar member Paul Thomson persuaded Virginia State Bar member Timothy Kaine to

KILL an INNOCENT MAN. Yet, again the Virginia State Bar was DERELICT in self-regulation.

26. Governor Perry of Texas had the INTEGRITY to Pardon posthumously an innocent man who he

signed the warrant of Execution and later learned was innocent. Will Virginia State Bar members

have the same level of integrity? After Paul Thomson was arrested, a Private Investigator contacted

Chaplain Manship to advise he had an eye-witness who saw a member of the law enforcement

community in Winchester withdraw a pistol, and then enter the dark alley where moments later a shot

was fired that killed Police Officer Ricky Timbrook. Governor Kaine KNEW this information, but

killed Eddie Bell anyway because Virginia State Bar member Paul Thomson persuaded him to do so.

Both Virginia State Bar members Kaine and Thomson, and other Bar members, have blood on their hands.

27. While admittedly, that Winchester case does not directly relate to the attacks by Arlington Attorneys

on Chaplain Manship by attempting to manipulate the tool of the Federal Court Rule 11 Sanctions, but

retired Judge Ben Kendrick of Arlington, has shown PREJUDICE after being named by Chief Justice

Kinser to preside over the Winchester case where Chaplain Manship appealed for a Rehearing of his

Citizen Petition for Special Grand Jury, with the Virginia Code or supreme Court Handbook stating that

the Special Grand Jury, composed of Private Citizens (not lawyers), is the one non-political body with

the authority to investigate and indict government agencies or officials. As a former Navy cryptologist,

with Court Discovery of phone records and email, RICO coordination may be able to be proven.




8/15

SPECIFIC ITEMS of DECEPTION BY LICENSED LAWYERS

28. First and foremost, licensed lawyers have been continuously deceptive in ignoring the document

file stamped 2011 SEP 30 P 4:34 and titled ANSWER to ORDER and MEMORANDUM

OPINION of 21 SEPTEMBER / AMENDED COMPLAINT and EMERGENCY MOTION FOR

RESTRAINING ORDER -- DESPITE the FACT that the United States Marshal Service served that

document on 24 October to all but one defendant and 26 October to the other, Karen Grane.

29. As a result of licensed lawyer deceptions, on page 8 of the 11 January 2012 PROPOSED

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION, it states, factual allegations in paragraphs 55

and 57 of the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint served by the U. S. Marshals on 24

October states on page 17, and I quote:

55. Defendants have acted or failed to act on grounds generally applicable to all Plaintiff

Children, necessitating declaratory and injunctive relief for the class. Plaintiff Childrens

counsel knows of no conflicts among class members.

57. DHS / CPS thereby violates the constitutional and statutory rights of the Plaintiff

Children.

Given the additional efforts by Plaintiff Manship to correct errors, there was NO RECKLESS

DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH by Manship, though that could be said for the licensed lawyers.

30. Further, while Pro Se Plaintiff Manship, without any staff and precious few resources, makes

those two errors, (or even more likely somewhere), the Arlington licensed lawyers THREE

WAYS FAIL TO FOLLOW the specifics of Rule 11, (1) in ignoring the separate motion

provision the first time, (2) ignoring the advance warning provision the first time, and (3)

neglecting the 21 day safe harbor provision the second time, but for the fellow Bar member




9/15

lawyers who composed for the judge the Proposed Findings legal document, that is OK and

explained away. Sorry that is further evidence that ONLY a JURY can PROPERLY and

FAIRLY judge if Sanctions against a non-Bar member are reasonable. That is both Reckless

Disregard for the Truth of following FRCP Rule 11 and was filed REPEATEDLY to harass Manship.

31. The 76 page Complaint against the Massachusetts Child Protective Services agency was

whittled down by lead Plaintiff Manship to 28 pages in the original 16 September complaint to

32 pages in the 30 September Amended Complaint, and Plaintiff Manship CLEARLY indicated

on page 32 that he copied from the Children Rights Complaint, so facts about child abuse in one

jurisdiction are suggestive even if not definitive, so useful to any Juror in understanding the

scope of the problem. Government lawyers have been deceptive by responding only to the first

Amended Complaint filed on 24 September BEFORE Plaintiff Manship received in the mail the

ORDER of Judge Cacheris of 21 September, and ignoring a KEY LEGAL MEMORANDUM.

32. Item (2) is yet ANOTHER LICENSED LAWYER DECEPTION:

that plaintiff had been put on notice three times that he cannot bringpro se actions onbehalf of others.

No where in that deceptive statement are the key works Next Friend. No PRIOR

Memorandum of Law on the question of Next Friend had been submitted as here with the key

legal Memorandum as Exhibit G - ANSWER to ORDER and MEMORANDUM OPINION of

21 SEPTEMBER / Memorandum of Law on Next Friend Legal Status - History and

Application. Between the Arlington attorneys, the Attorney General and the law clerks in the

judges chambers the only descriptive was sprawling. Sprawling could be honestly interpreted

to mean comprehensive, thorough, or expansive, though the lack of addressing the points suggest

the Bar licensed lawyers do NOT want to address the legal rights of Next Friend status honestly.




10/15

33. At the top of page 2 of that Memorandum of Law on Next Friend Legal Status -

History and Application are the words of Virginia Law:

8.01-8 How minors may sue. Any minor entitled to sue may do so by his next friend. Either or

both parents may sue on behalf of a minor as his next friend. (Code 1950, 8-87; 1977, c. 671; 1998, c. 402)

The deceptive licensed lawyers NO WHERE I could find in their Answer or Reply or Opposition

legal documents address the LAW OF VIRGINIA as stated clearly above. WHERE in the above

two line Code of Virginia does it say a Licensed Lawyer is the ONLY Citizen entitled to

protect a minor? The LAW says parents may sue. The LAW does NOT say parents may

sue ONLY if they can afford a lawyer, and can find a lawyer honest and brave enough to sue the

government when government employees are the abusers of Citizens, both adults and

children. And the LAW does NOT say ONLY parents may sue, indeed, the Memorandum

provides the History that originally Next Friend did NOT include parents, NOR did the LAW say

ONLY licensed lawyers may sue for children at the request of parents. The licensed lawyers

interpretation is a NARROW MINDED, Selfish and Self-Serving Interpretation based on a very

clear financial Conflict of Interest. AGAIN, ONLY a Jury of non-lawyers is a proper agency of

government to make the legal conclusion as to which Citizens may sue as Next Friend.

34. On page 3 is stated (1) that the plaintiff was put on notice that the filing of frivolous lawsuits in

this Court could subject him to the imposition of sanctions. Similar lawsuits as this have been

successful in 32 of 34 cases, a STRONG indicator the case is NOT FRIVOLOUS.

35. Further, the fact that the ORDER stated Dismissed WITHOUT Prejudice shows the Complaint

was NOT Frivolous, even though the Arlington Bar licensed lawyers and social workers who are

named as Defendants may considered the complaint a danger to their continuation of corruption.




11/15

36. The mere fact that licensed lawyers are threatening a Pro Se Plaintiff with the charge of such a

case defending Children from abuse is a STRONG INDICATOR of BIAS in favor of ONLY lawyers

succeeding in the Alexandria federal court. Indeed, years ago, in either God and Country Foundation

v. City of Alexandria, orManship v. City of Alexandria (since Pro Se In Forma Pauperis Plaintiff

does not have Pacer, or much of any place to store or retrieve past legal filings) Cryptologist Manship

analyzed the Pro Se court cases in USDC - EDV Alexandria, and found ONLY THREE that were

NOT Dismissed, ONE of which was a woman who filed an Employment discrimination lawsuit

against George Mason University, and the U.S. Department of Justice intervened on her case, so hard

to claim that case was Pro Se. The self-protective bias of any skilled trade union is such that it is

only too natural to seek to exclude Non-Members from working in that field of endeavor, for pay

or even Pro Bono for those Citizens unable to afford the artificially high prices a monopoly creates.

37. Another area where a Citizen can practice law is in making a Presentment to a Grand Jury, a

Right of Plaintiff Manship that has been violated by Obstruction of Justice by the Chief Judge and

other Bar licensed lawyers in Arlington in this case against the corruption found in the Arlington

Courts. Justice Lewis Powell in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974) said,

In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that

they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can

only be instituted by a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. Cf. Costello v.

United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956)

38. Justice Antonin Scalia in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 47 (1992) delivered the opinion

of the United States supreme Court:

the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the

Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches

described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.




12/15

Scalia cited United States v. Chanen, 549 F. 2nd 1306, 1312 (CA9) (quotingNixon v. Sirica, 159

U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F. 2nd 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977).

39. Since the grand jury is not part of the three branches of government set forth in the

Constitution - Scalia also says the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose

functioning the courts do not preside. - it is perfectly reasonable to characterize the grand jury as

the fourth branch of government.

40. Justice Scalia continues, Although the grand jury operates, of course, in the courthouse and

under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has been, so to speak,

at arms length. United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974).

41. Few licensed lawyers understand that the Judicial Branch was constructed by the Founders in a

Bi-Cameral manner, like the Legislative Branch. The Grand Jury is to the House like Judges are to

the Senate, CRITICAL for proper balance of the Judicial Branch.

42. Similarly, the Attorney in fact is to the Attorney at law as a necessary balance in the Judicial Branch.

Not until the 1920s and 1930s did the legal Bar with its licensed Attorneys at law begin its ascent to a

virtual PRIESTHOOD of power in America, while excluding Clergy and other Citizens of good will,

a development that would be considered the path to Tyranny by the Framers of this Constitution, if an

honest lawyer studies our Legal History, and contrasts our founding legal structure WITHOUT ANY

MENTION of the legal Bar while the legal Bar in English Courts was long established.

43. While Plaintiff might like to further expose the inherent monopolistic, public sector mandatory

union bias in the current legal system, Plaintiff is NOT being paid for his legal work like taxpayer

paid Bar licensed lawyers, so every minute doing this is a minute taken away from teaching Children

in schools the TRUE meaning ofthis Constitution for the United States of America that was created




13/15

primarily by two non-lawyers, Washington, known as a devout Christian and Prayer Warrior, and

Madison, a Theology student under Rev. Witherspoon, and who certainly envisioned no legal Bar

barring or banning Citizens of good will from providing assistance of counsel to other Citizens, as

George Washington said in his Monday morning prayer, in the likeness of Jesus Christ, where

Jesus is known as an Advocate, Mediator, and Counselor.

I pray for the Courts concurrence:

__________________________

James Renwick Manship, Sr. , J.D.*

J.D.* = Jesus Disciple

Jesus = Advocate, Mediator, Counselor

J.D.1 = Juris Dictionary weekend law school graduate

Chaplain, Legal Historian **

Next Friend, Lead Plaintiff,Pro Se, andIn Forma Pauperis, Virginia Code Attorney in fact

Amos 5:15 Project: Hate evil and love the good. Remodel your Courts into True Halls of Justice.

God and Country Foundation, Box 76, Mount Vernon, Virginia 22121-0076,

Phone: 703-672-1776 Facsimile: 703-638-1146




14/15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 25th day of January in the Year of Our Lord Jesus 2012, I will

file the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court, asking the Clerk to use the CM/ECF system to

notify the Arlington County government attorney to notify other Arlington employee defendants:

Ara L. Tramblian,

Deputy County Attorney

Arlington County Attorneys Office

2100 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 403

Arlington, Virginia 22201

703-228-3100 (voice)

703-228-7106 (fax)

also to assistant Attorney General, attorney for the Commonwealth of Virginia employees:

Farnaz Farkish

Assistant Attorney General

900 East Main Street

Richmond, Virginia 23219

and also to Arlington juvenile judge appointed GuardianAd Litem attorney Karen Grane, who

properly should NOT be the beneficiary of representation by the Assistant Attorney General:

Karen Marie Grane

2007 North 15th Street, Suite 1

Arlington, Virginia 22201

NOTE: For Granes basement office shared with other favored Arlington JDR

Court appointed GuardianAd Litem attorneys Mina Ketchie and Isabel Kaldenbach,

__________________________________

James Renwick Manship, Sr., J.D.*

J.D.* = Jesus Disciple

Jesus = Advocate, Mediator, Counselor

Next Friend,Pro Se, In Forma Pauperis; Virginia Code Attorney in fact

Amos 5:15 Project, God and Country Foundation, Box 76, Mount Vernon, Virginia 22121

703-NRA-1776




15/15



usdc edv a opposition to report for sanctions

Documents