I think the State Attorney/C.I.A. is a Police Officer outside of the United States of America (Washington, DC) and unless you are filing suit you are not allowed to tell anyone about their Central Intelligence Agency Identity, if you know for sure, I think this is a cleverly disguised Federal Tax Procedure that basically says if your Military Intelligence/Federal Police Informant and you know someone is a US Federal Police Officer you’re not suppose to tell anyone or you’ll be branded a snitch and you won’t be paid your wages as a Government Service Worker and if you don’t tell everyone who the United States Marshal Police Officer is you’ll be shipped out of he country because the Federal Government doesn’t like a US Marshal that sides with any one State in Court Proceedings because they are trying to drive the US Marshals into the arms of Federal Workers because the United States Marshal Police Officer is a County Sheriff extraordinaire and them deputies can’t stand them because they’re smarter than the average “Watcher” (Town Watchman before they organized and formed a Union at about the time that Slavery was abolished in New York City in 1829 A.D.) and they think that the Maryland – Pennsylvania System (US Marshal College) deficient, So, does the State Attorney/C.I.A. actually work for the US Marshals as a trusted confidant in support of the US Marshal Police Officer as Chief of the State Police Officer that opposes the Federal Governments Political Actions that have most often been declared experimental and unnecessary because failure requires restitution be paid to the victims of a bad police plan which I guess would ultimately be the Sheriff’s Department? Does the Police Department feel like maybe the Sheriff’s Department (includes the State Attorney/Military Officer) once felt and that the Sheriff’s are just lazy people that make life to easy for the Enlisted in exchange for sexual gratification by pushing dope on them, but wait that’s what caused the Enlisted to join forces and begin a Union Police Department and would putting the Sheriff – Marshal in prison after removing all of their worldly possessions really be such a good idea?
Since the State Attorney/C.I.A. Office began at about the same time as the U.S.A.F. is they’re a chance that they have always been the son or daughter of the Police and are responsible for infiltrating the Sheriff’s Department to find evidence that suggests the Sheriff – Marshals are corrupt so that it may be broadcast and weaken the resolve of the Sheriffs and drive the Sheriff Deputies away because of perversion leaving the City as their only alternative where the nearby port awaits passengers leaving the country on a Permanent Vacation because of the scarcity of Uniformed Police jobs and their long standing working friendship with the Sheriff – Marshal that might be innocent of all Civil and Criminal charges after all?
Is the Argument between the US Marshals and the Federal Marshals a result of the Adultery and Child Labor Laws since the Federal Government are Juvenile Probation Officers and the United states Government are Adult Probation Officers and a lot of people have trouble with the idea that children of broken homes should have to do the same work adults have to do and should be given more leniency in Civil and Criminal Court Convictions and that while the current laws seem sufficient that they are not being adhered to and that is causing an increase in the crime wave of many communities all across America.
I think that at present children may be enlisted without consent of a parent by the Navy and during a time of war the Military reserves the right to refuse to pay anyone in the Military usually for Criminal Behavior and knowing that and the current laws stating children between the ages of 0-7 years of age cannot be prosecuted for anything, children between the ages of 7 – 14 may be prosecuted and jailed in juvenile court and if serious enough given an adult sentence of punishment at the legal voting age and children older than the age of 14 may be prosecuted in Adult Court and given an Adult sentence of punishment. I think that California has expressed that because of this ruling by the Supreme Court that they are permitted to give the child 14 years of age or older the power of consent on typically adult legal issues and they also reserve the right to prosecute anyone that is not Californian for abridging those rights imparted to the children 14 years of age and up by California retaining a certain idea that yes they are grown up but not quite.