Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Gloucester Virginia Animal Control Trolling For Unlicensed Fish?

The above picture was sent to us from a concerned citizen who took the picture after watching Animal Control driving around what used to be called Yacht Haven and is still the Yacht Haven area.  Were they looking for unlicensed fish there?  Did someone file a complaint about unlicensed fish seen swimming in the York River?  By what right does Animal Control have in patrolling areas outside of county owned land and even then, by what right do they have to even do that without a complaint being filed?

  Just more waste from the county of your hard earned tax dollars.  If these folks are that bored, then they are not needed and the county can save a lot of money by getting rid of this excess bloat.  It was reported as vehicle number 73.  Date was April 21st, 2015 at 10:40 AM.  This isn't even patrolling, this is just down and outright trolling.

  The picture was taken with a cell phone and we edited it by fixing some of the colors and straightening out the picture.  Who knows?  Maybe they had to pick up a very special delivery.

York County Virginia's Racist General District Court And Judge Hudgins Place In It?

We fought the American Revolution to free ourselves from tyranny.  The American Revolution ended in York County, Virginia in Yorktown.  A beautiful area loaded with incredible American history and heritage.  The issues we see today is that tyranny is far from dead and is in fact alive and well and practiced in our court rooms each and everyday where justice simply does not prevail, but instead tyranny against the people flourishes unrestrained.

  I was in the General District Court witnessing some of the cases being held in that court on April 21st, 2015.  Judge Stephen Ashton Hudgins was presiding in the court and is the chief justice for the York County General District Court.  Even though this man may have been wearing a black robe, what I saw, he should have just worn his white sheet with the three common KKK letters on that sheet as well as the Commonwealth Prosecutor for York County.  (My opinion).

  Each person who appeared to be of African American decent, (Black to cut the politically correct garbage), that went before Judge Hudgins while I was there were all, what seemed to be, prosecuted to the full extant of the charges against them and held on the side for processing.  Now its by design that you can not hear what is going on with each case in that court room, so I can not say what each of them was charged with and what determination was used to prosecute them.  If you were white and dressed half way decent, you at least got to leave the court with having to pay your fees, fines, and or court costs.  Not one person was innocent no matter what.  No white people that I saw were held for processing.

  Those folks who were black were also treated with contempt if they so much as moved in a funny way by a female bailiff in that courtroom.  It was a very vulgar atmosphere in that courtroom.  I was there with a friend who was being, in my opinion, fraudulently charged by a trooper who according to the rules of the court, never signed two summons, traffic tickets, against her.  She filed two motions that the court and the Commonwealth fully ignored in violation of the rules of the court.  Judge Hudgins refused to acknowledge the filings as did the Commonwealth Attorney and they railroaded her with the full knowledge they did not have a case nor proper subject matter jurisdiction to do so.  Again, this is my opinion based on what I have read of the case and saw in the courtroom.


York County, Virginia General District Court Filing Traffic Court 

The above is a redacted copy of most of the paperwork that went before the court and to the Commonwealth Attorney.  The name of the person who was, again in my opinion, falsely charged, has been removed and some of the additional evidence that has little bearing on this story was redacted for privacy.  As shown before on this site, whenever any law-enforcement gives you a summons, including what is commonly referred to as a traffic ticket, the law-enforcement officer is required to sign that summons according to the rules of the court.  The rules they say you have to abide by when you go into court.  They are also supposed to abide by them but I have yet to see one court do so.

  Judge Hudgins it seems ignored the rules of the court and the rules of judicial conduct that all judges are required to uphold and the Commonwealth attorney it seems is also in violation of the rules of the court.  How is anyone expected to trust the courts with this kind of nonsense going on?  The courts are not fair.  They are corrupted from everything I am seeing.

  I recently found a form to file with the Department of Criminal Justice System here in Virginia.

The above linked PDF form can be used to file complaints against anyone in government whenever they violate your rights.  Judge Hudgins as well as the Commonwealth Attorney seemed to have violated the civil rights of the person in the above case as well as the civil rights of a number of folks of what appears to be of African American decent.  They appear to have been very racist.  The ACLU should try sitting in this courtroom for a few days to observe cases and see if they see the same issues I am describing here.  I am going to file a complaint with the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice System over these issues.

  I even recognized a Federal Government Employee sitting in the courtroom who also appeared to be watching cases and going through what looked like a law notebook.  What he may report could prove to be interesting.  Is it that there are known issues within this court as I am presently describing and its being looked at very closely?  One can only hope.

  Again, these are my observations and opinions.  They are not meant to be taken as legal advice or considered in any way as practicing law.  I am not an attorney with the BAR in any state.  What I am is disgusted with what I am witnessing in the courtrooms around Virginia as are a growing number of people whom I am in contact with.

Monday, April 20, 2015

Gloucester, Virginia Local Government Allows Personal Use of Government Vehicles In Violation of State Codes?

§ 2.2-1179. Use of vehicles for commuting.
No passenger-type vehicle purchased or leased with public funds shall be used to commute between an employee's home and official work station without the prior written approval of the agency head and, in the case of vehicles assigned to the centralized fleet, the DirectorThe Director shall establish guidance documents governing such use of vehicles and shall ensure that costs associated with such use shall be recovered from employees. Employees who do not report to an official work station shall not be required to pay for travel between their homes and field sites. Guidance documents established by the Director and recovery of costs shall not apply to use of vehicles by law-enforcement officers. By executive order of the Governor, such guidance documents may extend to all motor vehicles of any type owned by the Commonwealth, or such of them as the Governor may designate.
(1989, c. 479, § 33.1-406; 2001, cc. 815842, § 2.1-548.07; 2013, c. 485.)

§ 2.2-1178. Use of passenger-type vehicles on an assigned basis.
A. Passenger-type vehicles assigned to the centralized fleet may be assigned to persons performing state duties only if deemed necessary by the head of the agency or institution requesting such vehicle and approved in writing by the Director. Request for such vehicle shall be made in writing on forms prepared by the Department of General Services by the head of the agency or institution explaining in detail the purpose of or reason for such assignment.
B. Assignments shall be approved by the Director only on the basis of one of the following criteria:
1. The vehicle shall be driven not less than the annual usage standard. The Director shall promulgate a minimum mileage standard taking into account best value, industry standard practices, and the use of alternative transportation methods;
2. The vehicle shall be used by an employee whose duties are routinely related to public safety or response to life-threatening situations:
a. A law-enforcement officer as defined in § 9.1-101, with general or limited police powers;
b. An employee whose job duties require the constant use or continuous availability of specialized equipment directly related to their routine functions; or
c. An employee on 24-hour call who must respond to emergencies on a regular or continuing basis, and emergency response is normally to a location other than the employee's official work station; or
3. The vehicle shall be used for essential travel related to the transportation of clients or wards of the Commonwealth on a routine basis, or for essential administrative functions of the agency for which it is demonstrated that use of a temporary assignment or personal mileage reimbursement is neither feasible nor economical.
C. No assignment shall be for a period exceeding two years except upon review by the Director as to the continued need for the assignment.
D. The use of such vehicle shall be limited to official state business.
(1989, c. 479, § 33.1-405; 2001, cc. 815842, § 2.1-548.06; 2011, c. 611.)

Verses Gloucester County Human Resources Information:

Use of County Vehicles and Equipment 620.1 Introduction The operation of vehicles is necessary in conducting the day-to-day business of the County. This use of vehicles represents one of the greatest risks facing the County. Recognizing this, it is imperative that the County take reasonable steps to control the use of County and privately owned vehicles while performing County business. This policy sets forth the guidelines and policies governing the operation of vehicles used in the performance of official County business. Department and agency heads are responsible for implementation and enforcement of this policy for all vehicles and drivers assigned to their department.

 620.2 Applicability and Definition This policy applies to all County vehicles as defined herein and to all employees who routinely or occasionally drive a County vehicle. The term County vehicle as used in this policy is defined as (1) any County owned, leased or rented vehicle, including special-use vehicles such as construction and excavation equipment designed to operate primarily offroad but driven on public roads to a job site, and (2) privately owned vehicles when used in the performance of official County duties. (Sheriff’s Department and Department of Social Services vehicles and employees are covered by their respective operating policies.)

 620.3 Authorized Use The following examples are an attempt to cover most circumstances or conditions of authorized use and should not be considered all inclusive:

 A. Official Use - County vehicles are authorized “For Official Use Only.” Such vehicles are to be utilized to perform the functions and to conduct the operations and programs of the Department or Agency which is using the vehicle. County vehicles may be utilized both within and outside of the County for official use. 

B. Transport of Unofficial Parties – When such official use includes the transport of unofficial parties, that is parties not directly related to County business, the County Administrator must first approve such transport. 

C. Use of Vehicles by other Public Entities - Employees of other public entities may operate County vehicles under the specific approval of the department head as long as such operation is essential in conducting County business. Department heads granting permission for non-County employees to operate County vehicles are responsible for ensuring that the driver is properly licensed, trained and qualified to operate the vehicle. 

D. Personal Use - County vehicles may not be utilized for personal purposes. Exceptions include those employees who, while conducting County business, are away from their normal place of work at mealtime and those employees with an assigned  vehicle where such vehicle is the only practical mode of transportation available at mealtime. Employees whose duties require them to be away from a County office building during the day may briefly stop at a commercial establishment located along their work required travel route to use a restroom or purchase a refreshment. Department and Agency Heads are charged with reviewing with staff appropriate and de minimis usage identified herein. 

E. Take Home –In order to meet the business needs of the County, the County Administrator may authorize an employee to take a County vehicle home. County vehicles taken home overnight shall be locked and secured in the responsible employee's driveway or other designated parking space which is in close proximity to the employee’s residence. It is the intent of the County to limit the use of take home vehicles to the greatest extent practicable and to restrict this practice to those living within Gloucester County unless specifically stated otherwise. An employee in possession of a take home vehicle may stop briefly at a grocery store, pharmacy, etc. for reasons of personal convenience along the most direct route to or from their residence.  Such stops must be completed within one half hour of the beginning or end of the employee’s shift. The following examples are an attempt to illustrate the circumstances under which the County Administrator, or his/her designee, may authorize an employee to take a County vehicle home and should not be considered all inclusive: 

1. Employees who are subject to 24-hour call out, and due to the nature of their work, report directly to a jobsite away from a County facility in a County vehicle required by the nature of their response.

 2. Duty vehicles designed or equipped for high priority response where response time will be enhanced by allowing the vehicle to remain in custody of individual employee. Employees assigned to duty vehicles which are taken home must be available to respond upon request on a 24-hour basis any time the employee has custody of the vehicle. 

3. To prepare for a post-disaster response in order to plan an effective and efficient recovery. 

4. When travel from the employee's home, either within or outside of Gloucester County, to a destination for official County business is the most direct and/or closest route, (for example, early morning travel to a conference).

 620.4 Control and Use of Vehicles The County Administrator, department and agency heads shall carefully monitor and take necessary action to preclude operations that are contrary to the policies and procedures herein. Gloucester County Administrative Policy Gloucester, Virginia Section:

 620 Page: Page 3 of 10 Supersedes: N/A Effective Date: November 1, 2014 Title: 

Use of County Vehicles and Equipment Authorized By: County Administrator The following examples are an attempt to cover most circumstances or conditions of use and should not be considered all inclusive: A. Vehicle Identification - All service vehicles utilized by County departments will be identified with the official logo, departmental designation, and color scheme as designated by the County Administrator. 

B. Proper Licensing - Employees and authorized drivers must have a valid vehicle operator’s or commercial driver’s license in their possession at all times while operating a County vehicle. 

C. Qualified Operator – A qualified operator (driver) must be positioned at the vehicle's controls any time it is running unless otherwise approved by the manufacturer. No vehicle shall be left unattended without first stopping the motor, locking the ignition, removing the key and locking the doors or otherwise securing the vehicle to prevent theft, vandalism, and unintentional movement. 

D. Seatbelts - All drivers of County vehicles and all passengers therein shall properly use seat belts (if the vehicle is equipped with seat belts). Employees are prohibited from removing, deactivating, modifying or otherwise defeating any occupant restraint system installed by the manufacturer unless approved or instructed by the manufacturer. 

E. Motor Vehicle Laws - Employees shall obey all City/County, State and Federal laws while operating County vehicles and any time personal vehicles are used on official County business. Drivers should practice “defensive driving” and anticipate and observe the actions of other drivers and control their own vehicle in such a manner so as to avoid an accident involvement. 

F. Prohibition of Alcohol and Illegal Substances - It is prohibited for County vehicles to be utilized if the driver is impaired by, or under the influence of alcohol, intoxicants, drugs, or illegal substances. The possession or consumption of alcohol, intoxicants, or illegal drugs while operating a County vehicle is also prohibited. 

G. Smoking - Smoking and/or the use of tobacco products is not permitted in County vehicles. 

H. Mobile Communication Devices – Drivers of County vehicles should refrain from operating cellular telephones or other electronic devices that may cause driver distraction while operating a County vehicle. Drivers shall make every attempt to properly park their vehicle prior to using such devices. Drivers must adhere to Virginia laws and jurisdictional laws while traveling out of the State. 

I. Rendering Assistance - County vehicles may not be used to pull or push any other vehicle unless the vehicle is equipped to do so and the driver has been properly Gloucester County Administrative Policy Gloucester, Virginia Section: 620 Page: Page 4 of 10 Supersedes: N/A Effective Date: November 1, 2014 Title: Use of County Vehicles and Equipment Authorized By: County Administrator trained. It is permissible to render assistance in case of emergencies and to transport unofficial parties in such cases. 

J. Passengers – No person shall be allowed to ride on running boards, fenders, hoods, tailgates, beds, or other locations on a vehicle not designed or approved by the vehicle manufacturer for passenger seating. 

K. Cargo - When cargo, materials or tools are being transported, the driver is responsible for assuring that all items are properly secured to prevent them from shifting or falling from the vehicle or trailer. 

L. Backing up large vehicles – Drivers of large vehicles and/or construction equipment will avoid whenever possible, operating the vehicle in reverse to avoid the necessity of backing. Before entering the vehicle, the driver shall check the rear clearance of the vehicle. 

1. The driver shall not back the vehicle unless such movement can be made with reasonable safety and without interfering with other traffic. 

2. A spotter should be used whenever possible. Before and during backing movements, the driver and spotter will check blind zones for objects not visible in rear-view mirrors, watch both sides for adequate clearance, and limit speed to allow a full stop on short notice. 

M. Towing - A driver whose vehicle is towing a trailer, dolly, or other equipment shall ensure that the trailer hitch is securely latched, adequate for the load being towed, properly installed on the towing vehicle, and that safety chains are properly attached. 

1. The driver shall also ensure that the tow vehicle, in general, is rated to tow the type and weight of trailer being towed. 

2. The driver shall ensure that the trailer or other towed equipment is supplied with proper lighting including brake lights, turn signals, and running lights. 3. Any vehicle having a load which extends more than four (4) feet beyond the rear shall have the end of the load marked with a red flag, not less than twelve (12) inches in square. 

N. Intentional Misuse - Intentional misuse, abuse, moving violations, reckless operation, or negligent actions while operating a County vehicle may result in the suspension of the employee's driving privileges and is grounds for further disciplinary action. 

O. Citizen Complaints – Complaints regarding the use or operation of County vehicles are received in the County Administrator’s office. The County Administrator, or appropriate department or agency head, shall investigate the complaint and, if necessary, take appropriate corrective action. 

Either way, you can read the rest at the above link.  Anyone see major violations between county policy and state Codes?  Looks to us as though the county is in direct violation of Commonwealth Codes as is par for the course.  How many other violations does that county allow on its books?  How much of your tax money do county officials think they are allowed to waste?  When they are wasting your money like this, of course they need more tax revenue.  Of course they are going to raise your taxes.  So what if they are only wasting your money as we can clearly see they have no issues in doing so.  We think they should raise your taxes to 95 cents per hundred dollars and not leave it at just 72 cents.  That way they can buy more cars and waste more gas.  You should buy all of them lunch everyday.

  You should also buy them breakfast and dinner as well.  They all want raises so you should give them at least a 10% raise each and every year.  Why should they have to suffer even though you may be suffering?  You should pay all of their health care costs as well as that of their families costs too.  You should provide all of the county employees with no cost and no percentage loans so they can all buy and live in nice houses.  Maybe even your old house that you can no longer afford.

  You should also do the same so that they can all buy and drive nice cars or trucks.  Each employee should be able to afford an expensive Disney vacation at least once a year as well.  Come on and step up for these folks.  Who cares if they are in total violation of what Virginia allows and does not allow.  At least you will be doing your part in ensuring a truly rotten future for all of us.

Letter To The Daily Press, Chris Hutson's Voting Record and Teresa Altemus

Dear Ms. Hubbard,
Your April 19th article on Teresa Altemus appears to be just one more in a long line of articles written by daily press reporters responsible for the Gloucester County area that are biased to say the least. It appears that you wrote the article with much enthusiasm directed at supporting Gloucester Point Supervisor Chris Hutson in his reelection efforts, the unlawful and very costly actions of the Gloucester 40 and Gloucester’s former Commonwealths Attorney, while casting a negative cloud about Mrs. Altemus; even though she and the other targeted Supervisors were all found not guilty of all charges. In fact it was not Mrs. Altemus and the other targeted Supervisors who costGloucester County hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. It was a group of people, who were all associated with the same local civic organization (Rotary Club) that cost Gloucester Countyall of that money. Did anyone at the Daily Press ever look into why such effort was put into attempting to have Mrs. Altemus and the other targeted Supervisors removed from office? I think not. What were the Rotary folks trying to keep hidden from the People and who was directing them? Those are questions that still should be asked. It is also noteworthy that each of the individuals quoted in your article, except for John Walsh (the local Republican Committee Chair) has been discredited or rejected byGloucester voters. Perhaps it is that group which is continually looking in the rear view mirror rather than forward through the windshield.
There was absolutely nothing in your article about Mrs. Altemus’ views on anything that matters to the majority of the voters inGloucester County. There were no quotes from anyone supporting Mrs. Altemus, but there were numerous quotes from the other direction. In fact your article, in its own subtle way, tends to steer the reader away from Mrs. Altemus in favor of Mr. Hutson. What or who is the driving force behind Mr. Hutson having that privilege? It certainly cannot be a result of his track record as Supervisor for the Gloucester Point, Virginia district.
I personally contacted you via email on June 3, 2014 about Mr. Hutson’s conflict of interest in the Terrapin Cove Sewer project, but nothing was ever reported by the Daily Press. During the May 20, 2014 Board of Supervisors meeting, Mr. Hutson voted to approve the Terrapin Cove Sewer Extension project.  Part of the project entailed installing public sewer along Laurel Drive at Gloucester Point at a total project cost of $773,638.  The vote was 4 in favor of the project and 3 against it. 
The following information was obtained from the GloucesterCounty online property database and is for property on Laureldrive that is owned by Mr. Hutson’s father and mother in-laws. 
Owner Address:
PO BOX 122
RPC #: 32740
Physical Location:
Magisterial District: Gloucester Point
Tax Map #: 051C 5 C 5
Mr. Hutson should have abstained from voting on the Terrapin Cove sewer project in accordance with Commonwealth ofVirginia Conflict of Interest laws.  Without publicly disclosing his interest in the project area property, Chris Hutson not only voted for the project, he also acted as the primary public body advocate during the design, review and procurement processes. Shortly after the BOS meeting this information was brought to the attention of all of the Supervisors via an email message. After the email notification was sent it was further realized that Mr. Hutson’s father in-law has served on the Gloucester Public Utilities Advisory Committee since 2004 and was reappointed for another four year term by Mr. Hutson in 2012. 
During the June 3, 2014 BOS meeting the Terrapin Cove project was brought back to the floor for further discussion by Supervisor Ashley Chrisco, on the premise that funding was uncertain due to the Commonwealth not yet approving its budget. That in itself was a cover up. The Terrapin Cove project was not a Commonwealth funded project and the County’s ability to fund it was uncertain from the projects conception. Mr. Hutson knew this all along. The BOS voted to delay the project start up and to pull funding from it until the Commonwealth approved its budget. Then, upon the recommendation of At Large Supervisor John Meyer, the Board directed that a certified letter be sent to each property owner within the project area asking the owners for a binding commitment to hook up to the sewer system if the project moves forward. This and other steps should have been accomplished before any other money was spent to design the sewer expansion. Due to the project area resident’s lack of hookup commitment, the Board ultimately voted to terminate the project with Mr. Hutson finally abstaining from the vote.  
At issue here is not only Mr. Hutson’s excessive spending practices, but also and most importantly, the conflict of interest votes he made. Mr. Hutson went so far when caught in the deception that he blamed his wife. His comment during the July 1, 2014 board meeting was, “I’m married, my wife doesn’t tell me anything.” What is even more curious about Mr. Hutson’s claim is he used the same excuse convicted former Governor McDonald was using at the time. One cannot help but wonder what else Mr. Hutson is hiding from the People with the assistance of the Daily Press.
In your article Mr. Hutson speaks about transparency. During a public hearing on October 7, 2014, Mr. Hutson essentially stated that the only way the Board of Supervisors knows what the People and Citizens want is through comments made at Board of Supervisor meetings during citizen comment periods. What about emails to the Board or to ones district representative, or phone calls, letters and face to face communications? I can honestly say Mr. Hutson has never responded to a single email I have sent to him and I live at Gloucester Point off of Terrapin Cove Road.
In your article Mr. Hutson touts how well the current Board is doing for the People of Gloucester, yet he has voted in opposition of the other board members on numerous occasions. The most recent occasion was his vote against the recently adopted 2016 County budget. Yet your article said nothing about Mr. Hutson’s voting record or his desire to raise Gloucester’s real estate tax rate from $.65 to $.72.
My question to you is; why did you write and why did the Daily Press publish such a biased article?
Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester PointVirginia