Showing posts with label Compliance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Compliance. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Gloucester: Potential Fake Warrant Leads To Potential Continued Harassment By County Officials?

Are Gloucester County officials trying to harass us?  Are they attempting to break the law in order to force us to comply with some hidden agenda they may have of trying to silence us?  We are going to show you a letter county officials recently sent to us and the response back.  Then we are going to show how they obtained access to private property with the use of a highly questionable warrant in debt for some person who does not live on this property and has not been on this property for over 5 years.

Gloucester County Complaint and Response from Chuck Thompson

Above is a copy of the letter sent to CRF Ventures LLC.  This is a 4 page document.  The first two pages contain the alleged county complaint and the last 2 pages are CRF Ventures LLC's response to the county.  Now how did this all come about?

The above is a copy of the Warrant in Debt that a Sheriff's deputy had that he used to intimidate some commercial tenants on the property stating they had to let him onto posted private property because he had this warrant to serve.  He told them, according to their own words, that he would charge them with obstruction of justice, if they did not let him onto the property.

  Here is a major issue.  The person on this warrant, does not and has not lived on this property in over 5 years.  That in and of itself is bad enough, but it gets worse.  The date this was attempted to serve this warrant on the property was two days after the court date listed on the warrant.  There is an arrow to show that the case was being continued on May 22nd 2015 at 9:00 AM in the General District Court.  But the question must be asked.  Where was the original warrant served before the first court date of April 24th, 2015?  It was not served anywhere on anyone on this property.  So why all of a sudden was it attempted to be served on April 26th, 2015 on this property?

  We gave the deputy a very difficult time as we had told him that there was no one here by that name and that he was in fact trespassing on the property.  He said he did not see a sign that said no trespassing.  He drove right by a very large sign that states such and has been there for years.

  Deputy John Doe threw the warrant out his vehicle window at me and said I was served.  He served me knowing full well I can not be mistaken as a female.  But he must be legally blind and he is driving on the roads?  So if the source of the complaint came from Deputy John Doe, it was not valid.  I complained to Sheriff Warren and also explained to Sheriff Warren that his deputy did not know how to conduct a proper service as the deputy failed to sign the back of the Warrant as required by the rules of the court.  (An indication that the Warrant was possibly a fraud just to get on the property?)

  Also, Deputy John Doe, throwing the warrant out his window at me, and it landing on the ground, he littered on private property.  After Deputy John Doe left I contacted Sheriff Warren as already stated and he had another Deputy come out and pick up the original warrant that Deputy John Doe came on the property with.  But not before I made multiple copies of it front and back.

  Deputy John Doe also threatened me with charges of Obstructing Justice.  I know what it lawfully takes to obstruct justice and was not committing any such act, so I told Deputy John Doe he had better look up the code and make sure he fully understands it.  He then threatened to conduct an illegal search and seizure on private property without a warrant to do such.  You bet I gave this guy a very hard time.  So it was not long afterward that the County complaint came in and that looks like its in retaliation to these events of Deputy Jon Doe.

  What was the threat of illegal search and seizure?  He said he was going to run a plate on a vehicle in our driveway to see if the name for the owner of the vehicle came back as a match for the name on the warrant.  (No it did not).  Did he conduct that violation?  I can only imagine that he did.  I can not prove it without records from the Sheriff's office.  I trust that Darrell Warren has taken care of retraining this deputy or getting rid of him.

  Had the name of the owner of the vehicle actually matched, then I would have been possibly guilty of obstructing justice.  If the person actually lived somewhere on this property and I did not inform Deputy John Doe of such, then I may have been guilty of obstructing justice.  Without those two facts, I was being threatened by an armed thug after he was told that the person named on the warrant did not reside here.  That in my book is criminal behavior by someone who is charged with holding higher standards of conduct and is being paid to serve us, not threaten us.


Friday, October 10, 2014

Governor McAuliffe Signs Executive Order Directing State Agencies to Comply with Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Girls in Small Black Bikinis and Bras at the A...
. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Since There Is No State Oversight, State Agencies Can Ignore This Order?  We Would Recommend Yes!

Today Governor Terry McAuliffe signed Executive Order #30, directing all Virginia state agencies, authorities, commissions and other entities to make the necessary policy changes to comply with yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision not to review the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision legalizing gay marriage in Virginia. The text of the Executive Order is as follows:


Importance of the Issue

            The highest priority of state government should be to guarantee every person’s right to live, learn, work, and do business, regardless of their race, gender, creed or sexual orientation. This principle guided my first act as Governor when I signed Executive Order #1 banning discrimination in the state workplace based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This principle also guided the Virginia leaders, advocates and allies who fought for marriage equality and won when the Supreme Court declined to review the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling inBostic v. Schaefer. Same-sex marriage is now legal in Virginia. This is a historic and long overdue moment for our Commonwealth and our country.

            The decision has opened new doors to my administration’s guiding principle of equality. An open and welcoming environment is imperative to grow as a Commonwealth, and to build a new Virginia economy that will attract vital businesses, innovative entrepreneurs, and thriving families.

            On issues ranging from recognizing same-sex marriages to extending health care benefits to same-sex spouses of state employees, state government is already well-prepared to implement this landmark decision. My administration will act quickly to continue to bring all of our policies and practices into compliance so that we can give married same-sex couples the full array of benefits they deserve. 

            Pursuant to the authority vested in me as the Chief Executive Officer of the Commonwealth, and pursuant to Article V of the Constitution and the laws of Virginia, I hereby order, effective immediately, that all entities in the executive branch, including agencies, authorities, commissions, departments, and all institutions of higher education further evaluate all policies and take all necessary and appropriate legal measures to comply with this decision.  

In addition, the Director of the Department of Human Resource Management shall notify all state agencies that employees whose same-sex marriage is recognized as legal in the Commonwealth, and who are eligible, may enroll their spouse and eligible dependents in the health benefits program for state employees within sixty (60) days of marriage.

            A full and complete report of all appropriate measures will be reviewed by the Counselor to the Governor and presented to the Governor on or before November 15, 2014.

Effective Date of the Executive Order
            This Executive Order shall become effective upon its signing, and shall remain in full force and effect unless amended or rescinded by further executive order.
            Given under my hand and under the Seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia this 7th day of October, 2014.

Terence R. McAuliffe, Governor


     Secretary of the Commonwealth

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Gloucester, VA Local Government Employment Policy Violations?

Section 3-14 of the Gloucester County Employment Policies states as follows;  A position with Gloucester County is considered to be the employee's primary occupation.  Employees may not engage in other employment which presents a conflict of interest with their county position and/or which interferes with and detracts from the efficient and effective performance of their duties with the county.

  Really!  Is this just hogwash statements that are posted on the county web site for compliance purposes only, or an elite system, that only applies to certain individuals but not others?  Let's once again visit complaints we have made on this site for some time now.  Jeff Stillman of Gloucester Animal Control owns a pet cremation business.  This has all the earmarks of being a second job that would be in direct violation to the above stated policy.  Here is a question we have to ask to see if Gloucester County itself is in compliance with their own policies.

  Has Jeff Stillman signed any kind of waiver with the county that states that he will not discuss any aspect of his other business regarding his pet cremation business during the course of his job?  That means even mentioning such would be a violation to his employment with the county.  The reverse would also be true.  He would not be allowed to discuss his county position during any course of his work with the pet cremation business.  This also means that others in Animal Control are also prevented from discussing Jeff Stillman's pet cremation business.

  Has Jeff managed to gain business for his pet cremation business because of his position with Animal Control?  Is Jeff using his position with Animal Control to gain business for his own personal gain?  Is Jeff getting taxpayer supported payments for work sent to him because of his position with Animal Control?  Jeff can not even be seen in his pet cremation business wearing his animal control uniform if we are to make certain that there is no conflict of interest.

  That is just one case.  Let's now look at Carl (Chuck) Shipley, head of Animal Control for Gloucester County.   Carl Shipley is the owner of Chuck's carpet cleaning.  Here is the link to his business web site.  In an earlier post we pointed out that Chuck's carpet cleaning operated during hours that Chuck, aka Carl is supposed to be working for Animal Control.  This conflict has been removed from the site.  Has Carl used his position with the county to get contracts?  Again, is there some form of waiver that Carl had to sign that prevents him from discussing his outside business during the course of his job as well as the reverse that prevents him from discussing his county job during the course of his side business?  This also means that Carl can not take calls while he is under county employment, during the course of his work, from any employee or customer even asking a simple question under Chuck's carpet cleaning.

Manage Everything on Your Android and iDevice from Computer

  This is a two sided compliance issue.  It is the job of both the employees to make sure that they are always 100% compliant as well as county officials to make sure that their staff is in 100% compliance.  Is the county in compliance here?  What assurances do the citizens of Gloucester County have that compliance is being maintained?  Can the county afford a violation to the public trust?  Signing waivers now would only show a conflict of interest has existed.  These waivers needed to be signed at the time these businesses were started.  Also, was county approval gained before either one of them started their businesses?  Is there evidence of this?  Can the county actually assure us that no conflicts of interest exists with either one of these businesses?

  We did not make the county policy here.  We are just asking if the county can assure us that they are following their own rules.  If these two businesses owned by Animal Control Officers do not present a conflict of interest, what does?  Or do elitist policies dictate instead?

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