Showing posts with label Ted Wilmot. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ted Wilmot. Show all posts

Monday, October 27, 2014

Gloucester, VA County Government Document Shows Illegal Ordinance AC 3-18




Gloucester, Public Hearing, Nov. 2014 from Chuck Thompson

All you have to do is go to page 6 in the document above.  We downloaded this from the Gloucester County government website.  They show the illegal ordinance they want to force on everyone.  There are no state codes that match this making it a made up ordinance which is a blatant violation of the Dillon Rule.  The folks running this county have no regard for the rule of law yet they expect you to?  How does that work?

  Now one of the kickers in all of this is that the county attorney, Ted Wilmot, knows this is illegal, but he does not care.  He is just creating an income opportunity for the county.  That's how the county views it.  Never mind the fact that they are going to turn innocent victims into criminals.

  Let's go even further, the county is purposefully putting Animal Control and potentially, the sheriff's deputies at life threatening risk if they are forced to enforce this illegal law.  If someone breaks a window on a vehicle, there could be a big dog in the vehicle who is not going to like this violation and may maim or even kill someone.  We the tax payers are the ones who will have to foot that bill as well.

  Now where is the local media on any of this?  Anyone think they do not know about it?  Sure they do.  They are complicate in all of this through their silence and they wonder why their following keeps dropping?  They no longer report any real news.  They become just as guilty for victims created by this illegal ordinance if they refuse to report on this.

  The Board of Supervisors took an oath of office before they could start on their jobs, now we see what they think of that oath.  It meant nothing to them if they allow this kind of garbage.




We are putting up this video to remind the three new board members what they said when they were running for these Board of Supervisors posts.




County Attorney, Ted Wilmot has been known to lie to the Board of Supervisors in the past, this video is a very interesting study on that.  Ted has worked very hard ever since with his body language but still has many tells.  Sorry, at this point, Ted Wilmot needs to be fired for cause trying to push through illegal ordinances that will wreck total havoc everywhere, even with county employees.


Gloucester, Virginia Links and News, GVLN
Voted
Gloucester, Virginia's Best News Source

Friday, October 24, 2014

Open Letter to the Citizens of Gloucester County Virginia

Open Letter to the Citizens of Gloucester County Virginia

Your meetings seem to get more interesting overtime. Where can you go to a county meeting to talk about a “cat house”? Did you not go to or see the meeting. Check out the video.



"The Land of the Life Worth Living" for everyone in the county.
If you have not seen this meeting it is available on Mr. Thompson’s website. I cannot do justice to what was shared in the meeting. But here are a few highlights to whet your appetite.




At hour 3 in the meeting Mr “Ted” Wilmot, you know his complete name with out me have to write it out, started discussing changes to the Animal Control Ordinances to bring them into compliance with Virginia Code. He used phrases like: “consistent with state definition”, “track state code definitions”, “track precisely with state code”.

Now after hearing him use these phrases I have to wonder why Gloucester County Ordinance Chapter 3 Section 3-18 is still part of the code?

Amend Section 3-18 as follows:
Sec. 3-18. Animals in enclosed vehicles.
(a) It shall be unlawful to leave any animal in a vehicle without the
benefit of air conditioning when the outside temperature reaches
eighty (80) degrees fahrenheit or greater.
(b) Any person who confines an animal in an unattended vehicle so as
to cause the animal to suffer from heat stress, shall be guilty of a
Class 1 misdemeanor. The animal control officer or other officer
shall have the authority to remove any animal foundleft in an
enclosed a vehicle that appears to be suffering from heat stress.
The animal shall be provided immediate veterinary care. The
animal owner or custodian shall be responsible for all expenses
incurred during the removal of the animal or its subsequent
treatment and impoundment.
(c) In the event that the person responsible for the violation cannot be
ascertained, the registered owner of the vehicle, as required by
Chapter 6 of Title 46.2 of the Code of Virginia, shall constitute in
evidence a prima facie presumption that such registered owner
was the person who committed the violation.”



Virginia Code Title 3.2 Chapter 65 Comprehensive Animal Care (3.2-6500 thru 3.2-6590) and specifically 3.2-6508 Transporting animals; requirements; penalty.

"§ 3.2-6508. Transporting animals; requirements; penalty.

A. No owner, railroad or other common carrier when transporting any animal shall allow that animal to be confined in any type of conveyance more than 24 consecutive hours without being exercised, properly rested, fed and watered as necessary for that particular type and species of animal. A reasonable extension of this time shall be permitted when an accident, storm or other act of God causes a delay. Adequate space in the primary enclosure within any type of conveyance shall be provided each animal depending upon the particular type and species of animal.

B. No person shall import into the Commonwealth, nor export from the Commonwealth, for the purpose of sale or offering for sale any dog or cat under the age of eight weeks without its dam.

C. Violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor. “

I do not see anything that looks like the county code in this section or as Mr. Wilmot would say “consistent with state definition”, “track state code definitions”, “track precisely with state code”. Does Mr. Wilmot know we live in a Commonwealth and not a state? Inquiring minds want to know?

Lets look further: 3.2-6566 Preventing cruelty to animals; interference; penalty

Ҥ 3.2-6566. Preventing cruelty to animals; interference; penalty.

Each animal control officer, humane investigator or State Veterinarian's representative shall interfere to prevent the perpetration of any act of cruelty upon any animal in his presence. Any person who shall interfere with or obstruct or resist any humane investigator or State Veterinarian's representative in the discharge of his rights, powers, and duties as authorized and prescribed by law is guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. “

Not here either. Lets continue: 3.2-6568 Power of search for violations of statutes against cruelty to animals

Ҥ 3.2-6568. Power of search for violations of statutes against cruelty to animals.

When an affidavit is made under oath before a magistrate or court of competent jurisdiction by any animal control officer, humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, or State Veterinarian's representative that the complainant believes and has reasonable cause to believe that the laws in relation to cruelty to animals have been, are being, or are about to be violated in any particular building or place, such magistrate or judge, if satisfied that there is reasonable cause for such belief, shall issue a warrant authorizing any sheriff, deputy sheriff, or police officer to search the building or place. After issuing a warrant under this section, the magistrate or judge shall file the affidavit in the manner prescribed by § 19.2-54. After executing the warrant, the animal control officer, humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, or State Veterinarian's representative shall return the warrant to the clerk of the circuit court of the city or county wherein the search was made. “

I believe Section 3-18 paragraph (b) violates Virginia Code. Does Mr. Wilmot have a real law degree and everything or did he just forget to stop at a “Bar” or was that pass a bar? Maybe his vast staff did this work and he did not check it to make sure it was legal?

I cannot find in Virginia Code where this is a legal ordinance. Lets look at the proposed ordinance to see what it says:

Animals in enclosed vehicles.

(a) It shall be unlawful to leave any animal in a vehicle without the
 benefit of air conditioning when the outside temperature reaches eighty (80) degrees fahrenheit or greater.”

This says animals in a vehicle a horse trailer back of an open pickup truck, etc. if it is 80 degrees Fahrenheit or greater you can have your animal taken with this new change if you do not have air conditioning. When are the animal control vehicles going to meet this requirement. Bring them into compliance and then consider 3-18 after it is made part of the Virginia Code.

If the Board considers passing this they are “criminals with no regards for the rule of law”? I believe your oath of office state you will uphold the US and Virginia Constitution and laws. This does not appear to meet those requirements?


If you want to hear about these changes listen at hour 3 for about 10 minutes and learn about the county's position on cat houses.

I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice. Our founding fathers used common sense and Christian scripture when establishing our founding documents. This change does not meet either of these., you decide?

"The Land of the Life Worth Living" for everyone in the county.

Sincerely,
Alexander James Jay

P.S. So why are we hiring another Animal Control Officer don't the ones we have get in enough mischief without needing another one?


"Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free discussion are the antidotes of both." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 1816


"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Smith, 1822


Gloucester, Virginia Links and News, GVLN
Voted
Gloucester, Virginia's Best News Source

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Gloucester, VA Animal Control Breaking and Entering? What About "YOUR" Rights? (Part 2)


On Sunday, August 24th, 2014 we did a story about how Animal Control Deputy Laura Dickie was about ready to break a window on a vehicle to remove an animal from a car because the animal was left in the car by itself and without air conditioning and would have been removed to an animal control truck for transportation, without air conditioning.  Well, that story by itself is horrific, however, can anyone actually blame the Animal Control officer for doing a job she has been told she must do?  Who is actually to blame?  What if she had actually broken in the window and was seriously hurt by doing so or maimed by the dog in the vehicle?  Who would have been at fault?

  Again, in our view, the local ordinance, 3-18 is itself highly illegal.  The above poster highly misleading and posted in the following locations, Wal Mart front doors, Tractor Supply, and Dollar Tree.  Who approved these posters?  Ted Wilmot is the county attorney who wrote this law or at least finalized approval for the Board of Supervisors to vote on and approve.  That was done in February, 2013.  4 present Board members approved that and now we have 3 new board members who had nothing to do with this.

  So that would mean the Ted Wilmot and 4 present Board of Supervisors would then be responsible for any harm that comes to any Animal Control deputy who follows this insane ordinance and gets hurt or even killed in the process?  There is also a great deal of responsibility by the County Administrator and Assistant Administrator for allowing this crazy ordinance to be on the books.

  Again, here is a recap of that ordinance;

 Sec. 3-18. Animals in enclosed vehicles

(a) It shall be unlawful to leave any animal in a vehicle without the benefit of air conditioning when the outside temperature reaches eighty (80) degrees fahrenheit or greater.

(b) Any person who confines an animal in an unattended vehicle so as to cause the animal to suffer from heat stress, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The animal control officer or other officer shall have the authority to remove any animal found in an enclosed vehicle that appears to be suffering from heat stress. The animal shall be provided immediate veterinary care. The animal owner or custodian shall be responsible for all expenses incurred during the removal of the animal or its subsequent treatment and impoundment.

(c) In the event that the person responsible for the violation cannot be ascertained, the registered owner of the vehicle, as required by Chapter 6 of Title 46.2 of the Code of Virginia, shall constitute in evidence a prima facie presumption that such registered owner was the person who committed the violation.

(Ord. of 7-1-2008(1), § (2); Ord. of 2-5-2013(1))

There is also a certain degree of fault by each animal control officer as each one is required to know state code and they should also know that if a local ordinance is out of compliance with state code, then the local ordinance is not legal according to the Dillon Rule.  Virginia is considered a Dillon Rule state.  It seems rather clear that the county has no issues with maintaining this ordinance and will continue to prosecute anyone and everyone they can with such until someone gets seriously hurt, sued, or even worse, killed.  Why?  Because the county thinks they can milk this for some serious money in our view.  The safety of employees?  Well, they can be replaced.  


By:  This Ad Not Yet Paid For

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Gloucester, VA Local Government Racketeering, Price Fixing, Real and Personal Property Theft? (Part 1)

Photo of a dog behind a chain-link fence at th...
 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



Above is a video no one has ever seen until it's posting recently on You Tube.  It's of what looks to us to be an illegal raid and property theft sanctioned by certain Gloucester, Virginia officials.  Each official involved is going to be named and their violations shown through a series of court documents and showing what state codes of Virginia say.  The video was shot back in March of 2009.  Court documents show a very clear pattern of harassment from what we see as the statement in one of the documents shows Animal Control having been on this victim's property, without warrant's at least 30 times in 3 years.

  The victim is Robert Warden of Gloucester.  He was the talk of the area for years because of this raid.  The entire event was so disturbing that Mr Warden could not even talk about it without getting very upset.  The media never covered his side of the story.  We have been working with Mr Warden now for several years and now we can start to tell this story.  What you are going to see should highly disturb you to no end.  It's very blatant corruption in our view.

With the statement about Animal Control having visited Mr Warden 30 times in 3 years is in the below court document.



Gloucester, VA vs Bob Warden (9) 2009 from Chuck Thompson

See page 15 of the above document that shows Animal Control having been to Mr Warden's property 30 times in 3 years.  Does anyone find that disturbing?  In the above document, Animal Control officers, who are required to know state Animal Control codes, have no clue and make false claims based on the court documents above.  Animal Control is trying to argue in the above document, that dogs must always have collars on at all times no matter what the circumstances are.

Here is what Virginia State Code says;

§ 3.2-6531. Displaying receipts; dogs to wear tags.

Dog and cat license receipts shall be carefully preserved by the licensees and exhibited promptly on request for inspection by any animal control officer or other officer. Dog license tags shall be securely fastened to a substantial collar by the owner or custodian and worn by such dog. It shall be unlawful for the owner to permit any licensed dog four months old or older to run or roam at large at any time without a license tag. The owner of the dog may remove the collar and license tag required by this section when: (i) the dog is engaged in lawful hunting; (ii) the dog is competing in a dog show; (iii) the dog has a skin condition that would be exacerbated by the wearing of a collar; (iv) the dog is confined; or (v) the dog is under the immediate control of its owner.

Again we have to point out that Animal Control Officers are required to know these codes yet Mr Baranek states that all dogs must have collars with tags on at all times not matter what.  Mr Warden asks where Warrants are from Animal Control who each time, Animal Control dodges the questions.  Based on what is in the court documents above, Animal Control seems to be clearly trespassing on Mr Warden's property illegally.  To go even further, Animal Control in the State of Virginia can not serve warrants anyway.  We will show in future articles that Mr Warden's animals could not be seen from any street.


§ 3.2-6502. State Veterinarian's power to inspect premises where animals are kept; investigations and search warrants.

A. The State Veterinarian and each State Veterinarian's representative shall have the power to conduct inspections of animal shelters, and inspect any business premises where animals are housed or kept, including any boarding establishment, kennel, pet shop, pound, or the business premises of any dealer, exhibitor or groomer, at any reasonable time, for the purposes of determining if a violation of: (i) this chapter; (ii) any other state law governing the care, control or protection of animals; or (iii) any other state law governing property rights in animals has occurred.

B. Provisions for investigation of suspected violations of this chapter and other laws pertaining to animals are provided in § 3.2-6564. Provisions for obtaining a warrant and the power of search for violations of animal cruelty laws are provided in § 3.2-6568.

The above is the updated 2014 version of the law.

Now let's look at what B. states above.  We need to look at 3.2-6564

§ 3.2-6564. Complaint of suspected violation; investigation.

A. Upon receiving a complaint of a suspected violation of this chapter, any ordinance enacted pursuant to this chapter or any law for the protection of domestic animals, any animal control officer, law-enforcement officer, or State Veterinarian's representative may, for the purpose of investigating the allegations of the complaint, enter upon, during business hours, any business premises, including any place where animals or animal records are housed or kept, of any dealer, pet shop, groomer, or boarding establishment. Upon receiving a complaint of a suspected violation of any law or ordinance regarding care or treatment of animals or disposal of dead animals, any humane investigator may, for the purpose of investigating the allegations of the complaint, enter upon, during business hours, any business premises, including any place where animals or animal records are housed or kept, of any dealer, pet shop, groomer, or boarding establishment.

Upon obtaining a warrant as provided for in § 3.2-6568, the law-enforcement officer, animal control officer, State Veterinarian's representative, or humane investigator may enter upon any other premises where the animal or animals described in the complaint are housed or kept. Attorneys for the Commonwealth and law-enforcement officials shall provide such assistance as may be required in the conduct of such investigations.

B. If the investigation discloses that a violation of § 3.2-6503 has occurred, the investigating official shall notify the owner or custodian of the complaint and of what action is necessary to comply with this chapter.

Please note, these laws are for businesses and shelters.  A private adobe where animals are kept on private property does not fall under the above unless a complaint was directly made to Animal Control.  In the court document above, no complaint was issued and no warrant was forthcoming.  

§ 3.2-6568. Power of search for violations of statutes against cruelty to animals.
When an affidavit is made under oath before a magistrate or court of competent jurisdiction by any animal control officer, humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, or State Veterinarian's representative that the complainant believes and has reasonable cause to believe that the laws in relation to cruelty to animals have been, are being, or are about to be violated in any particular building or place, such magistrate or judge, if satisfied that there is reasonable cause for such belief, shall issue a warrant authorizing any sheriff, deputy sheriff, or police officer to search the building or place.

 After issuing a warrant under this section, the magistrate or judge shall file the affidavit in the manner prescribed by § 19.2-54. After executing the warrant, the animal control officer, humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, or State Veterinarian's representative shall return the warrant to the clerk of the circuit court of the city or county wherein the search was made.

§ 19.2-54. Affidavit preliminary to issuance of search warrant; general search warrant prohibited; effect of failure to file affidavit.

No search warrant shall be issued until there is filed with the officer authorized to issue the same an affidavit of some person reasonably describing the place, thing, or person to be searched, the things or persons to be searched for thereunder, alleging briefly material facts, constituting the probable cause for the issuance of such warrant and alleging substantially the offense in relation to which such search is to be made and that the object, thing, or person searched for constitutes evidence of the commission of such offense.

 The affidavit may be filed by electronically transmitted (i) facsimile process or (ii) electronic record as defined in § 59.1-480. Such affidavit shall be certified by the officer who issues such warrant and delivered in person; mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested; or delivered by electronically transmitted facsimile process or by use of filing and security procedures as defined in the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (§ 59.1-479 et seq.) for transmitting signed documents, by such officer or his designee or agent, to the clerk of the circuit court of the county or city wherein the search is made, with a copy of the affidavit also being delivered to the clerk of the circuit court of the county or city where the warrant is issued, if in a different county or city, within seven days after the issuance of such warrant and shall by such clerks be preserved as a record and shall at all times be subject to inspection by the public after the warrant that is the subject of the affidavit has been executed or 15 days after issuance of the warrant, whichever is earlier; however, such affidavit, any warrant issued pursuant thereto, any return made thereon, and any order sealing the affidavit, warrant, or return may be temporarily sealed for a specific period of time by the appropriate court upon application of the attorney for the Commonwealth for good cause shown in an ex parte hearing.

 Any individual arrested and claiming to be aggrieved by such search and seizure or any person who claims to be entitled to lawful possession of such property seized may move the appropriate court for the unsealing of such affidavit, warrant, and return. The burden of proof with respect to continued sealing shall be upon the Commonwealth. Each such clerk shall maintain an index of all such affidavits filed in his office in order to facilitate inspection. No such warrant shall be issued on an affidavit omitting such essentials, and no general warrant for the search of a house, place, compartment, vehicle or baggage shall be issued. The term "affidavit" as used in this section, means statements made under oath or affirmation and preserved verbatim.

Failure of the officer issuing such warrant to file the required affidavit shall not invalidate any search made under the warrant unless such failure shall continue for a period of 30 days. If the affidavit is filed prior to the expiration of the 30-day period, nevertheless, evidence obtained in any such search shall not be admissible until a reasonable time after the filing of the required affidavit.

Now we can't stress enough to read the above court document.  Then look at the VA Code below and you may just see that a very serious violation against Mr Warden's rights have in fact been violated?  You think?

§ 19.2-59. Search without warrant prohibited; when search without warrant lawful.

No officer of the law or any other person shall search any place, thing or person, except by virtue of and under a warrant issued by a proper officer. Any officer or other person searching any place, thing or person otherwise than by virtue of and under a search warrant, shall be guilty of malfeasance in office. Any officer or person violating the provisions of this section shall be liable to any person aggrieved thereby in both compensatory and punitive damages. Any officer found guilty of a second offense under this section shall, upon conviction thereof, immediately forfeit his office, and such finding shall be deemed to create a vacancy in such office to be filled according to law.

Provided, however, that any officer empowered to enforce the game laws or marine fisheries laws as set forth in Title 28.2 may without a search warrant enter for the purpose of enforcing such laws, any freight yard or room, passenger depot, baggage room or warehouse, storage room or warehouse, train, baggage car, passenger car, express car, Pullman car or freight car of any common carrier, or any boat, automobile or other vehicle; but nothing in this proviso contained shall be construed to permit a search of any occupied berth or compartment on any passenger car or boat or any baggage, bag, trunk, box or other closed container without a search warrant.

At the time this occurred, the code of Virginia read as below:



Va code ann 19.2 56 from Chuck Thompson

Present law still prohibits Animal Control officers from being able to execute search warrants:

VA Code, 9.1-101Definitions:

" Law-enforcement officer " means any full-time or part-time employee of a police department or sheriff's office which is a part of or administered by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, and who is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the penal, traffic or highway laws of the Commonwealth, and shall include any (i) special agent of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; (ii) police agent appointed under the provisions of § 56-353; (iii) officer of the Virginia Marine Police; (iv) conservation police officer who is a full-time sworn member of the enforcement division of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries; (v) investigator who is a full-time sworn member of the security division of the Virginia Lottery; (vi) conservation officer of the Department of Conservation and Recreation commissioned pursuant to § 10.1-115; (vii) full-time sworn member of the enforcement division of the Department of Motor Vehicles appointed pursuant to § 46.2-217; (viii) animal protection police officer employed under § 15.2-632; or (ix) campus police officer appointed under Chapter 17 (§ 23-232 et seq.) of Title 23. Part-time employees are those compensated officers who are not full-time employees as defined by the employing police department or sheriff's office.

As of this present time, there are no Animal Protection Police.  Animal Control Officers are NOT Animal Protection Police.

This ends part one.  We have a great deal to cover and well over a thousand pages of court transcripts, legal documents, more video, pictures and more VA code we will be covering exposing what Mr Warden has had to endure from Animal Control, Ted Wilmot, Gloucester County Attorney, Monique Donner, then Assistant Commonwealth Attorney, Judge Long and other officials.  

  What is interesting is we have statements from people involved in removing animals from Mr Warden's property that highly conflict with court documents and the county's position on this matter that makes for some more serious questions.  You have to ask why.  We have and we believe we know the answers that are going to shock everyone.  Stay tuned.

Monday, March 10, 2014

Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Non Public Meetings?

Brenda Garton told Supervisor Orth the budget work session meetings would not be video broadcasted.  
The Code of Va. does not allow a closed meeting for budget work sessions. 
§ 2.2-3707 of the Code of Virginia says:
H. Any person may photograph, film, record or otherwise reproduce any portion of a meeting required to be open. The public body conducting the meeting may adopt rules governing the placement and use of equipment necessary for broadcasting, photographing, filming or recording a meeting to prevent interference with the proceedings, but shall not prohibit or otherwise prevent any person from photographing, filming, recording, or otherwise reproducing any portion of a meeting required to be open. No public body shall conduct a meeting required to be open in any building or facility where such recording devices are prohibited.





Tax payers of Gloucester County, Virginia pay for recording capabilities at two locations to record and broadcast public meetings.  We also pay County employees to perform recording and broadcasting functions.

In the above video, no one mentions whether or not these meetings will be open to the public.  It is also not mentioned if the videos, that Ms Garton shook her head yes to, regarding that the work sessions would be recorded,  would be made public.  




In the above video, Ted Wilmot explains in great detail what a meeting is and what the requirements are under FOIA.  When dealing with the taxpayers money, why are the meetings not being broadcast and why are they not showing as open to the public on the county website?  We are asking the Board this question and will post an update once they get back with us.

  Just a reminder, we want, pay for and expect open and fair government.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, February 15, 2014

Ted Wilmot Explains FOIA Meetings Policies and Proceedures




You want to turn the volume up on your speakers as well as on the video itself to watch this and hear it properly.  Ted Wilmot and Brenda Garton actually do a decent job of explaining FOIA meetings to the Board of Supervisors.  5 stars to Ted on this one.  He actually acted like an attorney.  (Guess we can't beat him up on this one).  Some dirty little secrets get revealed in this meeting.  Watch and listen closely.  Mr Bazzani, please turn your microphone on when speaking.  Thank you.  Found some other interesting information on the Agenda that we will be sharing soon.
Enhanced by Zemanta