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.

1 comment:

  1. I would love to have more info as I own be of these horses


Thank You for taking the time to comment on this article. Please note, we moderate every comment before we allow it to post. Comments do not show up right away because of this.