|Ken Cuccinelli (R) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)|
I do not intend to participate in Mr. Thompson’s debate. I responded, and stand by that response. I suspected that he would not be satisfied with my response, though I am confident that those well-versed in local government law would agree with me. I shall have no further comment to him in this matter. I already see 4 other emails from Mr. Thompson to me from yesterday. I attempted to accommodate Mr. Thompson by responding, and now I find I have more pressing matters to address. Thank you.
It's very simple, we want to see laws that are not valid, removed from the books and the people of the county no longer harassed by these phony ordinances. Gloucester Animal Control ordinance 3-17, in our view is a violation of state code and the Dillon Rule. Ted Wilmot has already admitted that this Animal Control ordinance does not have an equal in Virginia State codes. He admits that the ordinance is a mosaic of various other state codes. What he does not admit and will not admit is that this mosaic creates new issues that state codes do not have attached to them.
By refusing to continue to argue the point, Mr Wilmot has informed the board, by the above email, he will not be defending this position and that the Board of Supervisors are on their own. We are not looking to argue this point. We simply want the ordinance removed from the county books. This is one of many that look to us to be in violation of the Dillon rule and we have already stated that we are going to bring forth at least one per month until all of the questionable ordinances are removed.
Now also please note, the video at the bottom of this site is of the most recent Board of Supervisor's meeting. In that meeting, Ted Wilmot is arguing to have the Board of Supervisors remove other county codes as they are duplicated in other areas of State code. This is now beginning to sound like double talk coming from the county attorney?
We have already shown how the Dillon Rule does not give any county or city for that matter, the right to create it's own ordinances from thin air or through a mosaic of state codes. To do so would be anarchy. But Ted seems to want to argue the case for complete anarchy and sees it as legitimate.
About the 4 emails Ted received from us.
1.) We disagreed with Ted's comments and explained why.
2.) We sent a PDF from Fairfax county, VA to Ted to show how other Virginia counties use the Dillon Rule and how it restricts the county government and in what manners.
3.) We updated Ted that we sent his argument to Ken Cuccinelli for his comment since Ted was not aware of what the opinion is of the Virginia Attorney General. What we did not tell Ted was that we also sent the same question to Terry McAuliffe, Virginia Democratic nominee for Governor for his feedback on the issue.
4.) We sent him early comments from one of our readers and regular contributor to this site that tore up Ted's arguments line by line and nearly word by word, leaving Ted in the dust. That post is just below this post. If you came here on this post, then hit the Home button towards the top of this site and you will get all the latest feeds and you will see the post just below this one.
Questioning Ted's ability in the court; One has to ask, based on Ted's own statement above, does he do this in court as well? If he is being beat up in a case, does he throw his hands up in the air and say, "You can see the law that I am arguing. I have more pressing matters to attend to and I am now done here!"
What kind of representation is Ted providing the Board of Supervisors as well as how is this protecting the citizens of Gloucester County, Virginia?
Why this debate will continue to go on. The Board of Supervisors can not afford to loose here. If they do, then it shows that they have in fact been making up their own ordinances and using them against the people of the county, which would seem to us to be violations to the public trust as well as violations to their oaths of office and making each person who had a hand in the creation of these ordinances, personally liable for any and all damages to anyone who has suffered being charged with these so called violations. It also opens up the question of intentional abuse by officials against the governed.
It would also continue to prove what we have been saying all along, these people do not care about real laws, they make them up as they go along for their own personal agenda's. That's been our opinion for a very long time and we seem to keep proving that point and we will continue to argue that point.
People should not fear the government, the government should fear the people. That's an historical statement that needs to ring clear once again.