Gloucester, Virginia Board of Supervisors Video With Notes On Law, Jan. 2015

Video from the January 7th, 2015 Board of Supervisors meeting.  This is where the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust begged the Board for money and the board approved giving them their pleading.  Your tax dollars now working against you as now that money will be used to get others to beg from the Gloucester Main Street Preservation Trust to give up some of that money to them.

  This is how government and others conspire against the people.  They turn everything into a begging contest.  Let me explain.  In order to be considered, you must submit an application for various benefits.  Let's break that down.  Submit, submission, submissive.  To be under.  You apply to be under.  Hence you are begging.  Bet you never looked at it this way.  What did you think it meant?  Bet you never even thought about it since you are told to beg everyday for pretty much everything.

  Now this money is supposed to be used to generate pre qualified entrepreneurs.  Amazing.  They want people to beg for stuff they already have a right to do.  How is that working for everyone?  It's the same with a business license.  If you already have the right to contract, why do you need a business license?  You don't no matter what they tell you.  Zoning permits?  You already have the right, why are you asking for permission?  When you ask for permission, they have the right to say no or charge you a fortune to tell you yes when you already had the right?

  Your pocket is being picked and you are allowing it to happen to you.  Stop asking for permission for what you already have the right to do.  Those permits and licenses are for them, not for you.  Why are you paying?  Because you did not know any better.  When we challenged the county on all of this, they remained silent.  Why?  Because we already showed them through Federal Law we were right.

ENFORCEMENT OF CITY/COUNTY CODES PROHIBITED
California Law prohibits Cities and Counties from enforcing City or County Codes and Ordinances upon property that is not OWNED by the City or County even if the property is within City limits.

California Penal Code: Chapter 5b CITATIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF COUNTY, CITY, OR CITY AND COUNTY ORDINANCES Sections 853.1through 853.4 was repealed in 1967.

The Supreme Court ruled that Municipalities cannot exert any acts of ownership and control over property that is not OWNED by them, see Palazzolo v. Rhode Island 533 US 606, 150 L.Ed. 2d 592, 121 S.Ct. ___(2001) (no expiration date on the taking clause for City's illegal enforcement of its Codes on the man's private property and restricting the man's business), affirming both Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 US 1003, 120 L.Ed. 2d 798 (1992).(butterfly activists and Code Enforcement cannot restrict development of the man's private swampland unless they lawfully acquire the land FIRST, surveying with binoculars constitutes a "takings"), and Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 US 687 (1999), 143 L.Ed. 2d 882 S.Ct.____ (1998).

In the Monterey case, the California private property owner was awarded $8 million for Code Enforcement's illegal trespass and restriction of his business, and another $1.45 million for the aggravation of a forced sale.

Federal Law also prohibits Cities and Counties from issuing citations against businesses, see Title 18 U.S.C.891-896, quoting Section 891 "An extortionate means is any means which involves the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation, or property."

Black's Law Dictionary 5 th Edition (page 1140): Recaption. At Common Law, a retaking or taking back.

We do not have to make any of this up.  Here it is right from the law books.  The county has no right to get involved in your business at any time for any reason.  You may also want to look up Hale vs Henkel, the government does not even have a right to ask you about your business and if they do, you have a right to tell them to go very far away and never come back.

http://freedom-school.com/law/stare-decesis-hale-v-henkel.html

The above is a link to one of the interpretations of the case.

Now let's talk a bit more about government corruption shall we?  If you own a small business and are collecting and paying sales tax, the question that must be asked is why?  Is the county or the state paying you to do this?  If they are not, you have been tricked into doing so thinking it is required.  It is not.  In fact, if they are not paying you to do this, you have a right to sue them.  They are in violation of the 13th amendment of the US Constitution.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

  If you are not being paid to collect sales taxes, then what crime have you committed that makes you an involuntary slave to the government?  You can not just stop paying those taxes without penalties because you already agreed to a contract that you didn't understand.  It's called an adhesion contract.  But they will do everything to enforce that illegal contract down your throat.  You have to give them advanced notice that you will no longer be collecting or paying that sales tax.  You can sue them for back payments for your costs of collecting these taxes as well as not giving you full disclosure when they contracted you in their scheme.  Don't you just love the way the government operated these days?

  None of this is legal advice.  Only a Bar attorney can give you legal advice as they are franchised members of the franchised legal system having paid their annual franchise dues.  We discuss concepts of law here instead.  Everyone has a right to discuss concepts of law as it is an inherent right.

York Herald 2015 1-15, By Phil Bazzani 

The most recent issue of the York Herald by Phil Bazzani, York District Board of Supervisors for Gloucester County, Virginia.  Get his take on some of the issues or the avoidance thereof.  But most of them try to avoid many of the issues.  They have to or they end up with a great deal of liability.  Not that this is not already an issue anyway.  Just saying anything on the issues ups their liability however and they all know this so they all do everything they can to avoid it.

  

Related articles

• Gloucester, Virginia: Are You A Citizen?
• Can The American Flag Be A Threat? Yes, Say Judges
• The Truth About Your Birth Certificate?
• Even Knowing About This Law Might Prevent You From Serving On A Jury
• Here's What Inversions Are Costing Us
• Gloucester, VA Do You Need A License Plate On You Vehicle? Federal Law Says No. States Can Not Override?

Why did the Attorney General change the Commonwealth's legal position in Bostic v. Rainey?

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

After a thorough and comprehensive legal analysis of precedents and recent court rulings, Attorney General Herring has determined that Virginia's ban on marriage for same-sex couples is unconstitutional because it improperly denies the fundamental right to marry, which is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, to thousands of Virginians on the basis of their sexual orientation. The Supreme Court has consistently said that marriage is a fundamental right that the government cannot limit without a very strong reason. Because there is no sufficiently strong reason to  deny same-sex couples the right to marry, Attorney General Herring has concluded the Supreme Court would strike down Virginia's ban if it were presented with the case. For these reasons, he has notified the federal court deciding Bostic that he is changing Virginia's legal position to reflect his determination that the state's marriage ban is unconstitutional.

What are the legal precedents that led to this decision?

There is considerable Supreme Court precedent stating that marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and rulings stating that the federal government cannot discriminate against same-sex couples. There are also rulings from other federal courts striking down similar same-sex-marriage bans in other states.

• First, the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor struck down section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.  Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court made clear that the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is violated by laws treating same-sex married couples as second-class citizens.  Justice Scalia’s dissent also made clear that the Court’s rationale would justify invalidating State bans on same-sex marriage.  I agree with that assessment.
• Second, the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas made clear that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct were unconstitutional, regardless of how such activity may traditionally have been viewed.  Justice Scalia predicted then that the decision would justify invalidating laws that ban same-sex marriage.
• Finally, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marriage -- not a particular kind of marriage -- is fundamental:  


• In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court upheld the right to marriage, not the right to interracial marriage.
• In Turner v. Safley, the Supreme Court upheld the right to marriage, not the right to prisoner inmate marriage.
• In Zablocki v. Redhail, the Supreme Court upheld the right to marriage, not the right of people owing child support to marry.

As a fundamental right, the right to marriage cannot be denied unless (among other things) limiting that right serves a compelling State interest.  The reasons offered in support of Virginia’s same-sex-marriage ban do not meet even the most deferential legal standard of review, let alone this heightened scrutiny. 

Based on these precedents, among others, the Attorney General has concluded that if the Supreme Court were to be presented with the facts of this case, it follows that it would again uphold the right to marry and find the exercise of that fundamental right may not be denied to these loving couples based solely on their sexual orientation.   The two federal courts that have most recently considered this issue agreed, striking down the bans on same-sex-marriage in Utah and Oklahoma.

Is the Attorney General within his power to change the state's position?

Yes. The Attorney General is the sole person empowered to present the Commonwealth's position in legal matters and it is up to him or her to determine that position through rigorous legal analysis.

Doesn't the Attorney General have to defend the state's laws?

The Attorney General has a duty to support laws that are constitutional, and has just as strong a duty not to defend laws that he has concluded after careful and thorough analysis are unconstitutional. The Attorney General swears an oath to support the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Virginia. When a state law or part of the Virginia Constitution is in conflict with the United States Constitution, as Attorney General Herring has concluded in this case, the United States Constitution prevails because it is the supreme law of the land.

Furthermore, the Attorney General's primary client is the people of Virginia, not just state agencies. When the constitutional rights of the people of Virginia are being violated, he has a duty to protect their interests.

Have other attorneys general done things like this before?

Yes. There is precedent for an attorney general  or executive branch official refusing to defend a law that he or she has determined is unconstitutional.

• Former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli declined to defend the Opportunity Educational Institution, often referred to as Virginia's "school takeover bill," last year.
• Former Attorney General Jerry Kilgore joined with 43 other State attorneys general in 2003 to argue that an attorney general is properly carrying out his constitutional duties when he seeks to invalidate a State law that he believes, in his independent judgment, to be unconstitutional.  In that brief, Kilgore and the other attorneys general  say that when the  Attorney General believes a state law "violates the constitution, he has a paramount obligation to defend the constitution he is sworn to uphold.”
• Former Attorney General Kilgore also declined to defend a federal constitutional challenge to a provision in Virginia's constitution that prohibited the incorporation of churches and religious denominations.  That provision was struck down in the 2002 case Falwell v. Miller.
• Justice Antonin Scalia has stated that the President can resist unconstitutional laws, saying an executive has the power “to disregard them when they are unconstitutional.”
• In 1989, then-acting Solicitor General John Roberts, now Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, filed a friend-of-the-court brief declaring that the United States considered a particular law to be unconstitutional.
• In a 1976 election-law case, then-Solicitor General Robert Bork filed two contradictory briefs, one which defended the law at issue, and another, on behalf of the Attorney General and the United States, which provided a counterargument to help the Court resolve the First Amendment questions presented.

Does this mean Virginia's same-sex marriage ban is over?
No. Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage will continue to be enforced until and unless a court or the legislature acts to end its enforcement . The State Registrar of Vital Records will continue to enforce the ban, and clerks are not legally permitted to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples.

Does this mean the case is over?

No. Before announcing the Commonwealth's change in legal position, Attorney General Herring took steps to ensure the case could continue and the court could hear both sides of the issue.  The Circuit Court Clerks for the City of Norfolk and Prince William County remain defendants.  Lawyers for both clerks will provide a full and capable defense for the ban in court.

Does this mean Virginia's marriage ban will be undefended in court?

No. The Circuit Court Clerks of Norfolk and Prince William County are both represented by able lawyers who will make their best possible case for the marriage ban's legality. They also have a brief filed by previous Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to assist them in their defense of the ban.

Why didn't the Attorney General appoint special counsel to defend the ban?

Special counsel is not necessary in this case because there are still two other parties  in the case, the Circuit Court Clerks for the City of Norfolk and Prince William County, who are vigorously defending the ban's legality.

Is Attorney General Herring just doing this because he thinks same-sex couples should be able to marry?

Attorney General Herring's decision to oppose Virginia's marriage ban is based on his legal analysis of the facts in this case and relevant court rulings, especially those in recent years that address this specific issue.

Our Notes:  Did these people ever hear of God's Law? Demoralization of the population.  It has nothing to do with rights from what we see.

Related articles

• Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 3)
• Governor Terry McAuliffe Executive Order Number 2
• Virginia attorney general to fight state's same-sex marriage ban
• Is Eric Holder Right About State Gay Marriage Bans?