Showing posts with label Attorney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Attorney. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Gloucester, Virginia Zoning For Horses: None By Federal Law

Now here is a very interesting case that was brought up before the Board of Supervisors and we just covered this issue in an earlier post tonight, but the issue involves zoning for horses in Gloucester County.  Well zoning only applies to county owned land.  Not to anyone with a farm, business, or personal use.  The county has no legal say whatsoever in this matter, yet, are trying to state that they do.  You have no obligation at any time to ask for permission to do anything here in the county or anywhere in the 48 states of the Union.  (We know there are 50 states, but you better look up some facts on who the Constitution actually applies to).  The claims made by Ted Wilmot simply are not true based on the information below.

Again, let's look at those laws:

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Chapter 5b CITATIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF COUNTY, CITY, OR CITY AND COUNTY ORDINANCES Sections 853.1through 853.4 was repealed in 1967.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

Now even though California law is cited here, it is applicable throughout all 48 contiguous states of the union.  Ted Wilmot does not know the law?  Whomever brought the charges against these people should be sued to no end.  Each county employee involved should be sued as a private individual as well as the county in our opinion.  Again, the audacity of these folks is unreal.   Please note the amount the man sued for and won.  The county needs to be taken to task on this outrageous invasion of the people the county brought to court.  The massive invasion of their rights is unconscionable.

  Now what is truly sad is the fact that the people who are in court over this, their own attorney does not even know this nor tried to look it up.  What does that say about their own legal council?  You need to hire an attorney why?  Ever?  Good luck with that.

But as we like to state, none of this should ever be construed as legal advice.  You can only get legal advice from a Franchised Bar attorney which we have not bought into the Bar franchise nor are we even interested in doing so.  So for franchised legal advice, please see a franchised legal consultant known as an attorney.  We only discuss lawful concepts which everyone has a right to do as that right is inherent and unalienable.  No license required.  In fact, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, it's the people who make the laws, not the government.  If you question that, please see the Commonwealth Constitution.  

  Those codes that the legislature churns out is only the color of law.  If it were law, it would say it was law.  Instead, they are statutes, codes and or ordinances.  That is not law.  Those codes, ordinances and or statutes really do not apply to you.  They apply to a person.  Who is a person?  An actor who wears a mask.  

  Who are the true actors?  Government employees.  Most folks are wrongfully charged and do not even know it and get thrown in jail, prison, or charged with crimes they did not actually commit.  And you thought maybe something was wrong with the system?  Yes there is.

The Official State Office Known As Person 

The above document is free to download from our SlideShare site.  It explains who a person is.  We verified the definition of a person through the Oxford dictionary as well as the Catholic Dictionary.  An actor who wears a mask.  If it was meant to be against a man or a woman, the codes, statutes and or ordinances would say so.  They clearly never do.  You have to ask why.  Or just learn the real definition.  Have you been fooled by the legal system?

Coming soon.  How to disqualify any judge or prosecuting attorney.  The legal term?  Recuse them.

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Gloucester, VA County Truck Number 67 At McDonald's Again

Parks and Recreation truck number 67 was seen again at McDonald's this past morning, Monday, December 16th, 2013 at about 8:15 AM.  This is the same truck that was here last week on Monday.  Below is the county employment code from the county's own website.  Chapter 13 of the employment code.

Section 13-27: Use of County Vehicles

County vehicles are provided for the use of employees and authorized
volunteers in conducting official business of the County. Personal use of County
vehicles is prohibited. Certain employees are required or allowed to take a County
vehicle home at night, as they are required to respond to the needs of the County
outside of normal business hours. Take home vehicles must be approved by the
County Administrator who shall maintain a current record of all authorized take home vehicles.

Operators of County vehicles 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. Operators of County vehicles and all
passengers therein shall properly use seat belts at all times. Injury resulting from a failure to wear seat belts may constitute gross negligence on the part of the individual and upon case review may jeopardize an employee’s eligibility for relief normally provided under the worker’s compensation or disability claims.  

Above is the link to the information so everyone can verify this for themselves.  We don't make this stuff up.  For 8 months we have been reporting this abuse.  For 8 months the abuse continues with nothing being done about it.  It would seem fair to say that Brenda Garton, county administrator and Ted Wilmot, County Attorney are not doing their jobs but are instead failing to do their jobs in protecting the county, the taxpayers and the Board of Supervisors from waste, fraud and abuse as well as increased costs and expenses as well as increased liabilities.  We have filed a complaint form with human resources about this employee who is very clearly in violation of the above policy.

  Since it is clear that neither the county administrator nor the county attorney are capable of doing their jobs, they should be termed for cause without any further form of compensation whatsoever.  One also has to question the department heads as to why they are unable to properly communicate to their own employees what the policy states and then make sure that the employees maintain this agreement.  The above employee driving truck 67 has already been reported and nothing has been done about it.  Employees continue to use county vehicles for their own personal use all the time with no regard for employment policies and the county officials are letting them?

Gloucester County Sheriff's Deputy at the drive through of Hardee's courthouse area at about 7:15 AM this past Monday, December 16th, 2013.  Catching breakfast just after getting on the clock?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Message To The Gloucester County Board of Supervisors

Open Letter to the Citizens of Gloucester County Virginia

I write today because the county is out of touch with the people of Gloucester.  I read the story Mr. Thompson posted about a Ware Neck resident that took Gloucester County to Court and won only to have Ted Wilmot appeal the decision.

What is Mr. Wilmot trying to accomplish? Is he trying to make life miserable for anyone that is not part of his circle?  Is this payback to the citizens of Gloucester County since Louse Theberge did not get the republican nomination for supervisor?  The county approved both homes being built on the property if there is anyone responsible for the situation it is the county by allowing both homes on one property in the first place.  The zoning ordinance was established by the county it was not directed by any higher government; it is allowed by the state.  The county makes exceptions to rules when it is in their interest.  The court has ruled and the county should allow this to go forward.

Mr. Wilmot was hired under questionable practices by the Board of Supervisors several years ago; we have removed most of the supervisors that were involved and should not bring any of th
em back into the county government.  It is time for Mr. Wilmot to be removed from his position.  This can be easily done.  Mr. Thompson has shown in his blog that some of the practices of Mr Wilmot are very questionable, possibly illegal, and that he does not follow Virginia Commonwealth Law while writing County ordinances.  Why would a law abiding organization like our Board of Supervisors choice to keep him as an employee?

Gloucester County Board of Supervisors: tell Mr. Wilmot to drop this case that he has on your behalf.  Also, tell him his services are no longer needed as of December 31, 2013.  People of Gloucester, let the supervisors know how you feel.  We do not need this kind of treatment of our citizens.

“For the Common Good. “

Alexander James Jay

P.S. I am not a lawyer so I am not giving you a legal definition but what these writings mean to me.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Gloucester, VA, County Attorney Ted Wilmot Lying To Board of Supervisors?

The above video clip is a behavioral analysis of Ted Wilmot during two Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors meetings.  In our opinion he was lying on both clips, however, his actions on the second clip are more clear than they are on the first.  We took video clips from various You Tube posts that are experts in the field of detecting when people are lying and incorporated them in with clips from Gloucester County Board of Supervisor meeting video clips.

  The results speak for themselves and we suggest you make up your own mind on whether or not you think this man is lying to his bosses.  What we do know.  In the first clip, Ted Wilmot says that he and Animal Control were on top of changes to state law and county ordinances well before we started our complaints on the ordinances being in violation of state law.  In the second clip, Mr Wilmot dropped that argument.  What we had pointed out to Mr Wilmot is that his proposed changes to section 3-15 that were published on January 2nd, for that first clip meeting, were still in violation of state law.  After we pointed that out, the county had published the changes and they are all found on this site.

  So he did have to change the January 2nd, Animal Control ordinances proposal  per part of our suggestions to meet state law requirements.  That's how we knew he was lying in the second clip.  We have a copy of the original proposal and it's on this site and we have the changed proposal on this site as well.

  But lets go even further.  The state laws changed back in 2011.  Why did both Animal Control and Ted Wilmot wait until 2013 to play catch up?  Let's make it worse.  We have already shown on this site that the new ordinances still have violations to state laws.  That means Mr Wilmot is lying down on the job of protecting the county.

  Just when you think we are done.  Mr Wilmot prosecuted a woman in a Gloucester Court with a supposed violation to section 3-15 which is the ordinance that was being changed because it was in violation of state laws, only a few days after this meeting.  He knew he was prosecuting a person with an ordinance that was not valid.  Still more.  The judge for the case, went along with the prosecution filing misdemeanor charges, court costs and penalties.  They are still forcing this woman to pay those fees for an ordinance violation that in itself was a violation of state law.

  Welcome to the new wild wild west.

For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.
Have a news story? Submit it above.
Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.
Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.
We cover what no one else will.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Lawyers Directory Link Gloucester County, VA

Well we hope you never need one unless it is for something positive such as buying a house, starting a new business, inheriting a fortune, or something else wonderful, either way though, here is a link to our local lawyers. Gloucester Attorneys. Best of luck whatever your needs are. Hope everything turns out good for you.