IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division 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. OPPOSITION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 11 JANUARY A.D. 2012 ON ARLINGTON ATTORNEYS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS UPON NEXT FRIEND PLAINTIFF 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 lawyer to step forward to defend the cause of Justice for the Parents and their Children, when a non-Bar attorney-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 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Case No: 1: 11CV1003 JCC/JFA

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 book A 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. OPPOSITION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 11 JANUARY A.D. 2012 ON ARLINGTON ATTORNEYS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BY IFP PLAINTIFF
p. 2

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? OPPOSITION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 11 JANUARY A.D. 2012 ON ARLINGTON ATTORNEYS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BY IFP PLAINTIFF
p. 3

 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 the National Law Journal in 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 onequarter (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. OPPOSITION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 11 JANUARY A.D. 2012 ON ARLINGTON ATTORNEYS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BY IFP PLAINTIFF
p. 4

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 a Pro Se litigant. This is a clear and present danger to the ideals of Equal Justice for All because it places a Pro 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 a Pro 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 the Pro 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. OPPOSITION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 11 JANUARY A.D. 2012 ON ARLINGTON ATTORNEYS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BY IFP PLAINTIFF
p. 5

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! OPPOSITION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 11 JANUARY A.D. 2012 ON ARLINGTON ATTORNEYS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BY IFP PLAINTIFF
p. 6

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. OPPOSITION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 11 JANUARY A.D. 2012 ON ARLINGTON ATTORNEYS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BY IFP PLAINTIFF
p. 7

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 conicts 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 OPPOSITION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 11 JANUARY A.D. 2012 ON ARLINGTON ATTORNEYS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BY IFP PLAINTIFF
p. 8

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 denitive, so useful to any Juror in understanding the scope of the problem. Government lawyers have been deceptive by responding only to the rst Amended Complaint led 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 bring pro se actions on behalf 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. OPPOSITION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 11 JANUARY A.D. 2012 ON ARLINGTON ATTORNEYS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BY IFP PLAINTIFF
p. 9

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 nd 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. OPPOSITION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 11 JANUARY A.D. 2012 ON ARLINGTON ATTORNEYS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BY IFP PLAINTIFF
p. 10

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, or Manship 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 rst three Articles. It is a constitutional xture in its own right.

OPPOSITION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 11 JANUARY A.D. 2012 ON ARLINGTON ATTORNEYS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BY IFP PLAINTIFF
p. 11

Scalia cited United States v. Chanen, 549 F. 2nd 1306, 1312 (CA9) (quoting Nixon 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 of this Constitution for the United States of America that was created OPPOSITION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 11 JANUARY A.D. 2012 ON ARLINGTON ATTORNEYS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BY IFP PLAINTIFF
p. 12

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, and In 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

OPPOSITION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 11 JANUARY A.D. 2012 ON ARLINGTON ATTORNEYS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BY IFP PLAINTIFF
p. 13

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 Guardian Ad 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 Guardian Ad 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

OPPOSITION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 11 JANUARY A.D. 2012 ON ARLINGTON ATTORNEYS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BY IFP PLAINTIFF
p. 14

OPPOSITION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 11 JANUARY A.D. 2012 ON ARLINGTON ATTORNEYS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BY IFP PLAINTIFF
p. 15