* Stan McChrystal … Vijaya Gadde
» Stan McChrystal, Rich Karlgaard, Nanette DeRenzi, Dennis McGinn, CNA Military Advisory Board, Paul Kern, Gordon Sullivan, Patrick Crooks, Charles Chuck Wald, Vladimir Putin, Kremlin Press Office, John Mulholland, US Army Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, Steven Anderson, Anthony Charles Zinni, Middle East Institute, Bobby R. Inman, Joseph W. Ralston, James Cartwright, Steve Abbot, Robert Tyrer, James M Bodner, Robert L. Grenier, Andrew Holland, Judith A. “Jami” Miscik, Jonathan Allen, Daniel J Smith, Francis A Branch, Wilma J Atkins, Lawrence Fowler, Thomas Moorman, Thomas Brown, Emanuel Cohan, Frank Battistelli, Peter F. Olsen, Timothy McVeigh, Raymond Odierno, Twitter, Jack Doursey, Vijaya Gadde.
* 21 Nov: Re: Combat Consultant: Q&A With Retired General Stanley McChrystal
» 05 Jan: Edit Added Link to: “Disclosure: When I am angry with them, …. “
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub: US v TJ McVeigh, EoP v Twitter / EoP NWO SCO: EoP Applicants | EoP NTE GM: EoP NTE GMA: Cabinet; EoP NTE GMRU | EoP Axis MilNec Evac: Lotto: EoP v WiP Law, EoP v WiP Academia, EoP v WiP Media, EoP v WiP Charity / EoP v WiP Neg.
From: EoP MILED Clerk <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: Combat Consultant: Q&A With Retired General Stanley McChrystal
To: Stan McChrystal <email@example.com>, Rich Karlgaard <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Nanette DeRenzi <email@example.com>, Paul Kern <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Gordon Sullivan via Patrick Crooks <Patrick.Crooks@armyhistory.org>, Charles Chuck Wald <email@example.com>, Vladimir Putin via Kremlin Press Office <firstname.lastname@example.org>, John Mulholland via US Army Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff <email@example.com>, Steven Anderson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Anthony Charles Zinni via Middle East Institute <email@example.com>, “Bobby R. Inman” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Joseph W. Ralston” <email@example.com>, James Cartwright <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Steve Abbot <Steve.Abbot@nmcrs.org>, Robert Tyrer <email@example.com>, James M Bodner <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Robert L. Grenier” <email@example.com>, Andrew Holland <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Judith A. Jami Miscik” <JMiscik@kissingerinc.com>, Jonathan Allen <email@example.com>, Daniel J Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Francis A Branch <email@example.com>, Wilma J Atkins <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Lawrence Fowler <email@example.com>, Thomas Moorman <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Thomas Brown <email@example.com>, Emanuel Cohan <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Frank Battistelli <email@example.com>, “Peter F. Olsen” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “CEO: Jack Doursey” <email@example.com>, “General Counsel: Vijaya Gadde” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
TO: Stan McChrystal & Rich Karlgaard
CC: EoP Applicants
CC: EoP App’s Awaiting Resolution of EoP v Twitter: Case 71096767
CC: Twitter: Jack Doursey & Vigaya Gadde.
Stan McChrystal & Rich Karlgaard:
Stan McChrystal (email@example.com); Rich Karlgaard (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Nanette DeRenzi (email@example.com); Dennis McGinn via CNA Military Advisory Board Members: Paul Kern (firstname.lastname@example.org); Gordon Sullivan via Patrick Crooks (Patrick.Crooks@armyhistory.org); Charles Chuck Wald (email@example.com); Vladimir Putin via Kremlin Press Office (firstname.lastname@example.org); John Mulholland via US Army Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff (email@example.com); Steven Anderson (firstname.lastname@example.org); Anthony Charles Zinni via Middle East Institute (email@example.com); Bobby R. Inman (firstname.lastname@example.org); Joseph W. Ralston (email@example.com); James Cartwright (firstname.lastname@example.org); Steve Abbot (Steve.Abbot@nmcrs.org); Robert Tyrer (email@example.com); James M Bodner (firstname.lastname@example.org); Robert L. Grenier (email@example.com); Andrew Holland (firstname.lastname@example.org); Judith A. “Jami” Miscik (JMiscik@kissingerinc.com); Jonathan Allen (email@example.com); Daniel J Smith (firstname.lastname@example.org); Francis A Branch (email@example.com); Wilma J Atkins (firstname.lastname@example.org); Lawrence Fowler (email@example.com); Thomas Moorman (firstname.lastname@example.org); Thomas Brown (email@example.com); Emanuel Cohan (firstname.lastname@example.org); Frank Battistelli (email@example.com); Peter F. Olsen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
EoP App’s Awaiting Resolution of EoP v Twitter: Case# 71096767:
Timothy McVeigh: @Timothy4316; Raymond Odierno: @GENRayOdierno;
Twitter: Jack Doursey & Vijaya Gadde:
CEO: Jack Doursey (email@example.com); General Counsel: Vijaya Gadde (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Ref: EoP v Twitter [eop-v-twitter.tygae.org.za]: Case# 71096767.
Re: Combat Consultant: Q&A With Retired General Stanley McChrystal
If any of your answers to Forbes: Combat Consultant: Q&A With Retired General Stanley McChrystal, were multi-tasking response to EoP Applicants EoP v WiP Negotiations issues; herewith my feedback. Apologies for delay I started this response a while ago, but got interrupted.
Q: How do you instill cultural changes, such as driving meritocracy deeper into an organization, when people at the top don’t want to give up power? Who wants to give up power?
McChrystal: Well, nobody is the answer, because it’s just not in our nature. We convince ourselves that we hold onto power not because of ego but because it makes us more effective at our jobs. And there’s a logic to that. The trick is to convince people in different parts of the organization that it’s in their best interest. You incentivize them to be connected to the larger goals.
There’s a great story I got from a board I was on, an insurance company that was selling all these policies to people. It came to light that the company was losing money on every policy it sold. So the board called in the head of sales and asked, “My God, what have you done?” And the guy replied, “Exactly what you told me to do.” And the board said, “What do you mean? We didn’t tell you to lose money.” He said, “No, you pay us to sell policies. You don’t pay us to ensure that the company makes money. We did what we were incentivized to do.”
Now, that’s a very stark case, but, in reality, most organizations incentivize people in power, position or control with a pretty limited set of outcomes.
I am unclear what your definition of ‘power’ is. Google definition of power: ‘the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events.’
Here is my experiential working hypothesis regarding two types of power: capacity to influence others:
* Honest Buck Stops Here Facts: Allot of people – for numerous reasons – particularly in the short term, cannot be reached by simple honesty. However, the few who – generally those who sincerely consider character as reasonably important value, can be reached by honesty, are better quality; and resulting relationships are based on a sound honest facts foundation. In the longer term although you may not influence their behaviour towards your goals, but at the very least you also won’t influence their goals towards them considering you an enemy.
* Flatter and/or Bribe Ponzi Scheme: Bribe and/or flatter them; depending on what you are willing to fraudulently bribe or flatter them with; you may – particularly in the short term – get spectacular results, but the whole scheme is built on the quicksand of lies, that ultimately get exposed; cause people who may have been consciously or unconsciously deceived, partially as a result of their addiction to being bribed and/or flattered, which few of them will probably own up to; will end up being very pissed and angry with you for deceiving them.
I am not a good liar, and have never been interested in spending time or resources to learn to be a good liar/briber/flatterer. I have been deceived to tell what I considered to be truths, but were in fact less than truths, such as by Brad Blanton. But if or when I am provided with evidence that I was intentionally or negligently deceived, I own up to having been deceived and apologize for any statement which may have been subjectively sincere, but was based on information I considered accurate, but which was not. For me consciously choosing to lie, bribe or flatter is like putting on a communication straight jacket. I prefer to help people who would prefer to get out of their communication straight jackets do so; and leave those whose preference it is relate in terms of straightjacket communication policies to do their thing.
Put simply: For me ego/eco literacy [ego-eco-literacy.tygae.org.za] honesty communication is the best policy.
You’re gonna get a job. That’s what you’re gonna do. You’re gonna get a little job– some job a convict can get… Iike scraping off trays at a cafeteria or cleaning out toilets. And you’re gonna hold on to that job like gold… because it is gold! Let me tell you, Jack. That is gold. You listening to me? And when that man walks in at the end of the day… and he comes to see how you done… you ain’t gonna look in his eyes. You’re gonna look at the floor… because you don’t wanna see that fear in his eyes… when you jump up and grab his face and slam him to the floor… and make him scream and cry for his life. So you look right at the floor, Jack. Pay attention to this, motherfucker. And then he’s gonna look around the room– see how you done. And he’s gonna say, “Oh, you missed a little spot over there. Jeez, you didn’t get this one here. What about this little bitty spot?” And you’re gonna suck all that pain inside you… and you’re gonna clean that spot. And you’re gonna clean that spot… until you get that shining clean. And on Friday, you’ll pick up your paycheck. And if you could do that… you could be president of Chase Manhattan– corporations. If you could do that. Not me, man. I wouldn’t do that kind of shit. I’d rather be in jail. – Runaway Train.
Q: How do you create what you call a shared-consciousness culture?
If you want to recruit people like me; you are very honest; you answer my questions, you listen to my constructive criticism feedback, and earn my trust, about what exactly our ultimate ‘shared consciousness teams’ goals are. Everyone is required to abide by whatever our team rules are.
If you want to recruit a bunch of fragile ego morons addicted to being flattered or bribed with ‘success’ or their ‘career’ or whatever the fuck their fragile little ego’s need to feel part of a ‘[insert feelgood psychobabble bullshit to appease individuals existential economic, racial, religious, class, gender insecurity]’ team; then of course you would tell them whatever the fuck you think the fragile ego snowflakes want to hear.
As previously stated, herewith my interpretation of EoP motivated – numbers unknown – members of FSB/NSA:
According to EoP MILED Clerk’s interpretations; subject to EoP RH IQO [eop-rh-iqo.tygae.org.za] caveat: EoP Applicants [eop-applicants.tygae.org.za], on behalf of themselves and various individuals in Military Intelligence Agencies, want to know what level of buck stops here backup support they can count on, to cooperatively implement – preferably nonviolently and voluntarily – eg: Polite Peace Keeper Referendum; ICC International Law Tribunal, etc – or if necessary by military necessity EoP Axis MilNec Evacuation coercion – an Ecology of Peace international law social contract.
– EoP ADR: Ego/Eco Literacy [ego-eco-literacy.tygae.org.za]
Disclosure: When I am angry with them, based upon my expectations for how quick they should be doing what I think they should be doing and so on; then I doubt my working hypothesis conclusions about their EoP motivated sincerity. When I have vented my anger, and calm down; and consider: (a) the monumental task of the psycho-social WiP to EoP cultural conversion difficulties being attempted in order to find sufficient cooperative persons to implement EoP intl law; (b) that they may have information I don’t have access to, which they used to do what they did; and if I had had access to their information, I may have done exactly what they did; consider the manpower and time that must go into manufacturing all these psychotronic manipulated coincidences, that are so closely related to EoP v WiP Negotiations, I put ‘what could their motives be’ through my mental strainer. No matter how sincere, of course, if the ultimate conclusion is reached by individuals with access to the most information; that there is insufficient support, then that reality will need to be confronted. Alternatively if there are possibly sufficient number of sincere individuals, what can be accomplished by them depends on their level of sincerity. For example: I ain’t got a problem facing a firing squad; but I am not going back to an African prison or mental institution cell; for anyone or any goal.
My motivations / goals:
EoP Applicants [eop-applicants.tygae.org.za] know what EoP MILED Clerk wants; an overview of which can be found at US v TJ McVeigh [us-v-tjm.tygae.org.za]. In exchange for help to get what EoP MILED Clerk wants; she does what she can, to help EoP Applicants get what they want.
If the (a) US Dept of Justice response to EoP MILED Clerk US v TJ McVeigh request; continues to be to refuse to clarify whether they do or do not want a new trial for McVeigh; and (b) there is insufficient civilian peacenik and/or military coercion support; for the implementation of an EoP international law social contract; EoP Applicants are requested to confirm their support directly to NSA Adm Rogers; for him to authorize McVeigh; to travel to SA, as per EoP MILED Clerk’s request; and the EoP v WiP NWO Negotiations can be suspended until there is greater support; and/or terminated.
– EoP ADR: Ego/Eco Literacy [ego-eco-literacy.tygae.org.za]
Re: Incentivize team to be connected to the larger goals:
If you know what someone cares about, really, as opposed to pretend, then you can provide them with an honest assessment as to whether your goals have anything to offer them. At the very least, if none, you can provide them with an honest answer that does not bullshit them.
If you don’t know what someone really cares about, then its more difficult. In a country or culture where military and intelligence agencies have spent decades socio-culturally manipulating their cockroach cattle to be cockroach-cattle easily manipulated by breeding/consumption bribery and ‘duhmockery citizenry’ flattery; you got to first ‘There is No Tomorrow’ bitchslap them awake out of their delusional reality that their procreation/consumption duhmockery bribery welfare choices are sustainably possible; before you can incentivize them with the EoP orderly and humane vs WiP Race/Class/Religious Wars very violent deindustrialization/depopulation options.
The ultimate – among others: responsible freedom [responsible-freedom.tygae.org.za] self respect from character: walking your talk, property ration [property-ration.tygae.org.za] enabling self sufficiency self respect and financial freedom from the ratrace; cultural law self rule freedom [cult-law-self-rule.tygae.org.za] freedom from self righteous political correct bullshit being shoved down your throat by someone with cultural values different to your own – goals of an EoP Scientific and Cultural [eop-scicultlaw.tygae.org.za] Intnl law social contract; are enough to incentivize me; to sign my responsible freedom oath; to provide EoP motivated political leaders with my mandate to begin official public negotiations; to implement EoP Intnl law.
If the 1% bad, 1% good, 98 % neutral and/or the micro-organisms in the compost heap society theory is reasonably correct, which I think it is, although of course the percentages could be very different; then the individuals to focus on incentivizing would be the 2%. The 98% neutral who have been economically, militarily and/or sexually abused by the WiP racial/religious/class war system, who are not too mindcontrol enslaved by a ‘right to breed/consume’ religious or economic ideology, would be worth focussing on, and the 98% neutral who have been profiting from exploiting others, could be converted with EoP Intnl law incentives that may target particular issues they care about more than profiting from WiP slavery. A significant number of the 98% neutral cannot be incentivized with honesty and/or facts; they require their particular ideological, religious, racial celebrities to incentivize them; if they can be incentivized, they want their benefits on a silver platter, as opposed to earning them.
I am unaware of any clear explicit unambiguous orders. If or where I am made aware of clear unambiguous orders, I provide sincere feedback about obeying and/or reasons for not obeying, and/or obey with my best effort. Generally I evaluate the request, based upon my interpretation of the sincerity of the individual related to the particular request. If I am able to help, and I consider the individual sincere about their particular request, I do what I can within my time constraints and resources. If I consider the individual to be engaged in bullshit verbal diarhea image management, my suggestion is they hire a fuck honour public relations company to spread their verbal diarhea.
McChrystal: What you can do is tell people how to think about things and the broader mission. There’s a great line we used to use in Afghanistan: “If, when you get on the ground, the order that we gave you is wrong, execute the order that we should have given you.” Think about the responsibility you’re giving your subordinates when you issue that instruction. You’re looking for them to use their best judgment.
Q: But when you ask employees to use their “best judgment,” that means they’ll be overriding rules. What’s the right level of dissent in an organization? I imagine, that will vary. A freewheeling software company might be a more accommodating place for raucous debate and dissent than the military or the factory floor. How do you get the right level of creative dissent in an organization? And I’d especially love to hear your perspective, because your previous business, the military, doesn’t appear to tolerate much dissent.
In a culture where there are thousands and thousands of arbitrary rules, not overriding some or a dozen of this or that rules is almost impossible. In a culture where there are very simple basic rules – EoP Scientific and Cultural Law Rules – all that is required is to breed/consume below carrying capacity limits and engage in fully informed consenting agreements; then there is no need to override any rules; and in fact, intentional overriding of the rules, if not clearly punished to avoid others adopting the same ‘fuck the rules, jump on the resource ratrace’ attitude, ultimately results in WiP Tragedy of the Commons slavery.
Re: Military Officials and Dissent:
In my experience, while I am not and never have been a member of the US or Russian military; they have not only tolerated, but welcomed and listened to, sometimes even appreciated ego/eco literacy dissent, which cannot be said for any civilian corporation I ever worked for, including Brad Blanton’s Radical Honesty Enterprises corporation.
McChrystal: [Laughs] There’s a pile of dissent in the military! It just takes different forms. In all healthy organizations, dissent takes place face to face. People tell you, “Okay, I disagree with that.” In unhealthy organizations dissent is passive-aggressive resistance.
Q: Which then poisons a culture.
Re: Importance of Dissent and Time and Place for Dissent:
McChrystal: Exactly. So here’s my view on dissent. Dissent is important. The problem with dissent is that there’s a time and place for it, and there’s a time and place not to have it. I tell people, “When the landing-craft ramp drops and hits the beach, that’s not the time to discuss the plan.” Unhealthy dissent goes away when you show your team respect, engage them in the process and pass information along to them. Give them as much transparency into decision making as is possible and practical to do.
I would agree with that advice, if the individuals in the team have the same definitions for ‘respect’; mine being honesty. I would not consider EoP applicants to be ‘my team’, more like FSB/NSA’s suggestions of their potential EoP applicants team. I am simply the temporary interpreter.
But everybody needs to understand that there’s a point–once a decision has been made or a line has been crossed–at which dissent is no longer appropriate, unless it is very carefully and very maturely provided in the right time, place and way. And that takes a deft hand. What I’m saying is that it’s not okay to bitch about everything all the time and fight things. There’s a time to shut up and execute, and the organization should be schooled in that.
When we work with companies, we explain that planning and executing a task has three phases. The first phase is information gathering, and the second is considering what information to include. These two phases are when you talk things out; dissent at this point is not only essential but also a moral responsibility. If you’ve got something to say, you’ve got to say it then. After a decision is made, it’s probably no longer appropriate to say anything.
In reality, I’m not that black and white, because there might be things emerging after the fact that people should know. But if you didn’t speak during those first two phases, I think it’s inappropriate to raise things that aren’t of an emergency nature.
Interpretation of Status of EoP Applicants Decisions:
Putin/FSB Decision: My interpretations of FSB’s correspondence is documented at EoP FSB [eop-fsb.tygae.org.za]: 08 Mar: Adv Grp 621, F Moe, Johnstone Family: Re: FSB: AM Kalganov 10 Feb letter received 17 Feb 2017 details the EoP interpretation of the FSB’s letter being a response to among others: EoP correspondence to Donald Trump [eop-v-djt.tygae.org.za: 26 Nov: NSA Adm Rogers: EoP MILED Clerk Tells Donald Trump to Answer EoP or WiP Q by Dec 5].
Tim’s Decision: My interpretations of Timothy’s possible messages are documented at US v TJ McVeigh [us-v-tjm.tygae.org.za].
Other Applicants Decisions: I am unaware of any decisions any other EoP Applicants have made, except via occasional news articles, to which I have responded with my interpretations of possible messages of relevance to EoP v WiP Negotiations. Generally speaking I have interpreted EoP Applicants plausible deniable silence as (i) stated to ICC Judges in 29 Dec: ICC: Judge Silvia Fernandez de Gurmendi: Re: EoP ICC Private Pros: EoP PoW’s -v- Nobel Committee and Peace Laureates et al; possibly summarized as (ii) ‘We – potential EoP Appolicants – to varying degrees, are ‘EoP Applicant/Observers’ on behalf of FSB/NSA EoP Applicants; observing the responses to EoP MILED Clerk’s notifications to individuals, organizations etc of EoP v WiP Negotiations, to ascertain the level of military, legal and/or political support for implementing an EoP Intnl law social contract; and based upon our Just War conclusion we will make a decision towards officially confirming our EoP Applicant ‘We give a fuck about an Honourable American foreign policy’ status; or making our recommendations to NSA Adm Rogers, to authorize McVeigh; to travel to SA, as per EoP MILED Clerk’s assisted suicide request; and EoP v WiP Negotiations can be suspended and/or terminated.
Military EoP PoW RR Supp; Judge J Gray: Re: EoP ICC Priv Pros: Mutual Agreed Treason Firing Squad Back Up Measures
Military Read Receipt Supporters: EoP submission to Amend PoW definition to Swiss Federal Council:
Put simply: the question facing you is: Are you an – I give a fuck about an Honourable American Foreign Policy — Back up Applicant?
As you may recall: You were invited to honourably acknowledge receipt of the — EoP submission to Amend PoW definition to Swiss Federal Council — Legal Invitation sent to you; to indicate your support the implementation of international Ecology of Peace jurisprudence; indicating their alleged support for the implementation of an Ecology of Peace international law social contract.
You were subsequently provided two opportunities to withdraw your support; if your initial support was not honourable; or you had changed your mind. None of you have withdrawn your read receipt support.
On behalf of the EoP Applicants; I have requested Judge James Gray and various other judges, lawyers and paralegals to consider whether they would be willing to provide Assistance of Counsel Services for the EoP Private Prosecution application to the International Criminal Court.
In correspondence to Judge Gray and the EoP Applicants I suggested among others the Mutual Agreed Treason Firing Squad Back Up Measures; and possible additional Back Up EoP Applicants; measures should he be sincerely and seriously willing to consider providing the EoP Applicants with professional qualified pro bono assistance of counsel lead counsel advice.
———— excerpt —————-
Mutual Agreed Treason Firing Squad Back Up Measures:
Our purpose must be focused on root cause problem solving of eliminating the right to breed/consume with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits Masonic War is Peace clauses from international law social contract. This is not a private prosecution to make official Freemasons ‘wrong’ and scapegoat them for the breeding/consumption war clauses in the international law social contract. Many groups could have made efforts to amend and remove these international law clauses and did not. All Freemasons and Masonic lodges are to be welcomed to buck stops here honourably cooperate and support the removal of these clauses. If however there are Masonic lodges and/or overt and/or covert Masons who prefer a violent Masonic bloodbath; then we may find ourselves facing treason charges. If that is the case; my suggestion is that all Applicants; all Research; all Counsel, all Expert witnesses; all of us stand together. They either put all of us infront of a firing squad or none of us.
Every assistance of counsel: judge, lawyer or paralegal; every primary and back up applicant; every expert witness; who signs up to the Ecology of Peace campaign must recognize that if one of us in some fuck honour backward country of fuck honour niggers, spicks, crackers, japs, chink cockroaches gets charged with treason for their participation in supporting the EoP ICC implementation of an Ecology of Peace international law social contract; then we are all going to support that person and face the firing squad together.
———— excerpt —————-
– EoP Leg Sub: 01 Sep: EoP App’s: NB: Re: Ralph Schneider Request to be Removed as EoP Applicant.
Ralph Schneider thought he was on a mailing list.
So there was obviously a massive miscommunication. I tried to be as clear as possible, and if anyone was unclear about any statements, and had asked a question for me to clarify any statement, I would have answered them.
If anyone else thinks they are on a mailing list; please let me know so I can remove you.
Re: Weight and West Point:
When I got up this morning, I weighed 178 pounds, which is exactly what I weighed when I reported to West Point in 1972.
Having listened to allot of your Podcast interviews, speeches, etc including your info about fat and queer and purple hair people whom you had on your Team of Teams, and all you gave a fuck about was whether they could get the job done, not what colour their hair was or what they weighed, I doubt you are bothered about anyone else’s weight, gender etc.
If however my weight is a problem for anyone, they are welcome to say so, and clarify whether my weight is relevant to the particular job that I am required to do; or whether they are simply letting off steam; being bluntly honest; to get their withheld judgements out of the way.
Anyway, not sure if any of that feedback was helpful.
A copy of this correspondence shall be documented at EoP Legal Submissions [eop-leg-sub.tygae.org.za].
Lara Johnstone, aka Andrea Muhrrteyn [EoP Oath PDF]
PO Box 5042, George East, 6539, RSA
GMC 4643-13 & 2578-14 Pro Se Applicant
Former MILED Clerk & Acting Clerk