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

Friday, May 1, 2015

Governor McAuliffe Says Cheese

~ Twenty Paces to Create Jobs, Introduce Apprenticeship Program and Support Next Generation of Farmers in County~

RICHMOND – Governor Terry McAuliffe announced today that Ewes Guys, LLC, doing business as Twenty Paces, will open operations for its new farmstead sheep and goat’s milk cheese production and processing facility in Albemarle County.  The company, which focuses on high-quality, sustainably-made products, will invest $321,000 in a facility at Bellair Farms and create seven new jobs.  In addition to producing high-end cheeses and meats for restaurants and specialty cheese retailers, Twenty Paces will ensure the transfer of farming expertise between generations through an apprenticeship program, dedicated to sharing dairy farming knowledge with the community.  The Commonwealth is partnering with Albemarle County and Twenty Paces on this project through the Governor’s Agriculture and Forestry Industries Development (AFID) Fund.

Speaking about the investment, Governor McAuliffe stated, “I am pleased to announce that Twenty Paces will open this new artisanal cheese production facility in Albemarle County, furthering Virginia’s reputation as a leader in the specialty food industry and helping to build the new Virginia economy.  With this announcement, we continue to realize the benefits of fully integrating agriculture and forestry into the state’s strategic economic development platform.  Supporting entrepreneurs with unique business models is another way for Virginia to grow and diversify our economy.”

With a newly renovated and expanded creamery, Twenty Paces will produce high-quality sheep and goat’s milk, as well as process, age, and distribute farmstead cheeses for a rapidly growing artisanal cheese market in the U.S.  A true entrepreneurial start-up, Twenty Paces will also produce grass-fed lamb and goat meat for restaurants and specialty food retailers in the Commonwealth and along the East Coast.  This new artisanal product will bolster Virginia’s reputation as a center for artisanal food production.  Twenty Paces will use 100% Virginia-grown sheep and goat’s milk for its products.

“Twenty Paces’ investment in this facility is the result of creative entrepreneurs engaged with a supportive community, and the partnership at Bellair Farms is a model for how new local, sustainable agriculture can work,”  said Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry Todd Haymore, who represented Governor McAuliffe at the announcement.  "It is particularly exciting to have young people interested in preserving agricultural heritage and traditions. Continuing to expand agricultural expertise throughout the Commonwealth is an important component to building the new Virginia economy, and I applaud Twenty Paces for its commitment to furthering those traditions by training apprentices at their facility.”

“Twenty Paces’ commitment to producing 100% natural, sustainably-produced artisanal cheeses benefits not only the agricultural economy of the Commonwealth, but consumers along the East Coast and beyond,” added First Lady Dorothy McAuliffe, who also attended the announcement.  “Virginia is blessed to have a diversified agricultural economy that provides fresh, wholesome commodities and food products, in addition to thousands of jobs.  I also believe that innovative agricultural operations, like Twenty Paces, will help in our mission to bridge the nutritional divide in Virginia.”

Through this investment, Twenty Paces will utilize working farmlands and an existing barn at Bellair Farms to produce its farmstead specialty cheeses, supporting the Commonwealth’s largest economic driver, agriculture.  Realizing the importance of the next generation of farmers in Virginia, the company is committed to sharing dairy farm knowledge with others in the community through its apprenticeship program. 

“Twenty Paces is honored to be recognized by Albemarle County and the Governor through this AFID grant,” said Kyle Kilduff, co-owner of Twenty Paces.  “Their support, as well as the support of Bellair Farm owner, Cynthia Davis, and farm manager, Jamie Barrett, helps ensure the success of Twenty Paces in Virginia’s growing artisanal cheese industry.  Twenty Paces is committed and proud to carry on the family farm and entrepreneurial tradition through farmstead cheese production and management-intensive grazing. These practices improve pasture, produce flavorful milk and cheese, and also lower our cost of production, allowing us to provide jobs in our community through a sustainable business model for years to come.”

The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services partnered with Albemarle County to secure this project for Virginia.  Governor McAuliffe approved an $11,000 grant from the AFID Fund to assist with the project and Albemarle County will provide an $11,000 cash match. 

“Albemarle County is extremely pleased to partner with the Governor and Twenty Paces through this important grant program, which furthers our long standing priority of supporting the County’s agricultural heritage and economy,” said Tom Foley, Albemarle County Executive.  “We are very fortunate to have citizens of our community, like Cynthia Davis of Bellair Farms, who demonstrate personal stewardship and commitment to agriculture through efforts like placing Bellair Farms in an historic trust and starting a CSA operation.”

Speaking about the announcement, Senator Creigh Deeds, D-Bath County said, “Living in rural Virginia, I know the importance of a strong agricultural economy and appreciate the Governor’s dedication to this region’s local, small producers.  The Governor’s continued support and partnership on economic development opportunities, like the AFID grant, help communities across Virginia, and I am particularly pleased about the positive regional impact this announcement has today.”

According to a 2013 economic impact study conducted by the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, agriculture and forestry are two of Virginia’s largest private industries with a combined economic impact of $70 billion annually.  Agriculture generates more than $52 billion per annum, while forestry generates more than $17 billion.  The industries also provide more than 400,000 jobs in the Commonwealth.  More information about the Weldon Cooper Center’s study can be found at

About the Agriculture and Forestry Industries Development Fund
The AFID Fund was created during the 2012 session of the General Assembly and is being embraced by the McAuliffe Administration as an important tool in growing the Commonwealth’s agriculture and forestry sector and helping to make Virginia the leading exporter of agricultural and forest products on the East Coast.  More information about the AFID grant, which has the flexibility to assist projects large and small throughout Virginia, can be found at

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Gloucester, VA Animal Control Fake Audio Submitted As Evidence

The above video was created from a file provided to the Gloucester, Virginia District Court back in 2010.  This is one of several audio files.  This part of the audio was never played in court and one has to wonder why.  Listen to it and tell me that it isn't fake.  Yet Animal Control deputy, Steve Baranek, testified, under oath, that all audio he created and entered into court evidence was true and accurate.  This is from court file number DW_C0153.  Are you to tell me that a dog answered the phone?

  He also states he was shot at.  Below again is a copy of the court report from that case.  At no point was this man ever shot at like he states in the audio above.  But again, he did state, under oath no less, that the audio was not altered and is a true copy of everything that did happen.  So people are supposed to believe Steve Baranek of Gloucester Animal Control how?  He can't be lying that he was shot at, but testimony from both the Sheriff's office, and him, fail to show that even one gun shot, at any point, at anytime took place?  Did Steve for some reason just decide to suppress this fact?  Was he just being a nice guy?

  There are just way to many questions in the entire case that do not for one minute begin to make sense to any mind of reason.


The gloucester, va case that never was from Chuck Thompson

By all means, here is today's challenge.  Find where Steve states in court that he was shot at.  It's all from the same case.  Laura Crews has petitioned the court for meta data on the audio files used against her on this case and all I can imagine is that she will get it once hell freezes over for obvious reasons.  We already know from inside the Sheriff's office that the Sheriff's office has destroyed evidence in regards to this case and I challenge the Sheriff's office to prove they did not.  Nothing against the present administration as this was done under Gentry when he still held office.  As the word goes, Gentry, ordered it destroyed.

Who wants to have some real fun with all of this?  Start at page 15 and go through at least to page 23.  Its a fast read.  You won't understand what you are reading until I point out a very cleat fact here.  Animal Control at no point has or ever had the ability to serve a search warrant.  They are forbidden by Virginia Code from doing such.  With that knowledge, now go read the suggested pages above.  How did Judge Shaw allow this case to move forward?  He had a legal obligation to stop the case right there and throw it out.  He didn't do that.  Why?  Read the Canons of Judicial Conduct For The State of Virginia and you will see that Judge Shaw did in fact have a legal obligation to stop the case right there and throw it out.  But this is just my opinion here and I am not an attorney trying to practice law.  I am simply reporting on what I see and read.

  If you are not an attorney you are considered to stupid to understand the law yet ignorance of the law is no excuse.  All of that from the same group of people who administer justice?  Yup!

Canons of Judicial Conduct: Virginia Commonwealth from Chuck Thompson

Because I recommend you read the Canons of Judicial Conduct for the State of Virginia, I provide them for you right here.  I don't make this stuff up.  They do.  I just show you where it all is.  Read section 3:D.  Guess who the Judge is the case against Laura Crews today.  Judge Shaw.  Are we going to see a repeat of these same shenanigans?  Actually he is about to be asked to recuse himself from the case as these matters are about to be brought into evidence once again.    

Monday, December 1, 2014

Standards of Conduct, Gloucester County Board of Supervisors

In the Agenda for Dec. 2, 2014 BOS meeting:
There is a proposal to add the following to the STANDARDS OF CONDUCT GLOUCESTER COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Citizens appearing before the Board will not be allowed to campaign for public office, promote private business ventures, engage in personal attacks, debate among the audience, use profanity, vulgar or abusive language, or jeer, cheer, or applaud, except during ceremonial matters. The Sergeant-at-Arms may be directed by the Board Chair to remove persons who violate these rules.
This suggests the People and Citizens in the meeting audience are not allowed to reasonably demonstrate consent or non-consent?  What is wrong with minor levels of applauding or even booing?  What is right with having law enforcement engaged as the Sergeant-at Arms?  There are way too many “will not be allowed” items contained in the proposed language.  Rules of order can be created without binding, gagging and intimidating the People and the Citizens.  The People’s and Citizens’ voices should not be limited, ignored nor silenced. 
Section 6-1 of York County’s Board of Supervisors Rules of Procedure is an example of less dictatorial language and reads as follows:
The efficient and dignified conduct of public business is the ultimate concern of the Board.  Accordingly, it is the policy of the Board that its meetings be conducted with the highest degree of order and decorum.  The Board's integrity and dignity will be established and maintained at all times during the conduct of public business, and the Board will permit no behavior which is not in keeping with this policy.  The soliciting of funds, the use of abusive or profane language, personal attacks on Board members, the failure to comply with time limits on speakers, or other forms of offensive conduct will not be tolerated.  The Chairman will maintain proper order at all times during all meetings of the Board and shall effect the removal from any meeting of any person guilty of offensive conduct if the offending party fails or refuses to cease such conduct.
In York County’s rule the necessity of good order is effectively communicated and control of order is placed with the Chairperson, not law enforcement.  On the other hand, York County’s rule also speaks of personal attacks on Board members.  Without a clear definition of personal attack; one would think a speaker can only compliment a Board member.  Each Board member is elected by the People and Citizens; therefore the People and Citizens should be allowed to publicly address issues pertaining to Board members as long as it is done in a respectful and orderly manner. 
Just my 2 cents,
Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.

Monday, October 27, 2014

Gloucester, VA County Government Document Shows Illegal Ordinance AC 3-18

Gloucester, Public Hearing, Nov. 2014 from Chuck Thompson

All you have to do is go to page 6 in the document above.  We downloaded this from the Gloucester County government website.  They show the illegal ordinance they want to force on everyone.  There are no state codes that match this making it a made up ordinance which is a blatant violation of the Dillon Rule.  The folks running this county have no regard for the rule of law yet they expect you to?  How does that work?

  Now one of the kickers in all of this is that the county attorney, Ted Wilmot, knows this is illegal, but he does not care.  He is just creating an income opportunity for the county.  That's how the county views it.  Never mind the fact that they are going to turn innocent victims into criminals.

  Let's go even further, the county is purposefully putting Animal Control and potentially, the sheriff's deputies at life threatening risk if they are forced to enforce this illegal law.  If someone breaks a window on a vehicle, there could be a big dog in the vehicle who is not going to like this violation and may maim or even kill someone.  We the tax payers are the ones who will have to foot that bill as well.

  Now where is the local media on any of this?  Anyone think they do not know about it?  Sure they do.  They are complicate in all of this through their silence and they wonder why their following keeps dropping?  They no longer report any real news.  They become just as guilty for victims created by this illegal ordinance if they refuse to report on this.

  The Board of Supervisors took an oath of office before they could start on their jobs, now we see what they think of that oath.  It meant nothing to them if they allow this kind of garbage.

We are putting up this video to remind the three new board members what they said when they were running for these Board of Supervisors posts.

County Attorney, Ted Wilmot has been known to lie to the Board of Supervisors in the past, this video is a very interesting study on that.  Ted has worked very hard ever since with his body language but still has many tells.  Sorry, at this point, Ted Wilmot needs to be fired for cause trying to push through illegal ordinances that will wreck total havoc everywhere, even with county employees.

Gloucester, Virginia Links and News, GVLN
Gloucester, Virginia's Best News Source

Friday, August 29, 2014

Gloucester, VA Note To The Board of Supervisors, August, 2014

During the July 1, 2014 I spoke to you about things that needed to be fixed for all of the citizens. They are at the bottom as a reference.

I would like to focus on number 5 today:  “Bring County Ordinances into compliance with Virginia Code.  Mr. Wilmot can help you with this if not consider hiring a competent county attorney.”

It is a little known fact that the General Assembly and the Governor develop and pass new laws or codes, every year and they take affect on July 1, the start of the Virginia fiscal year.  The newspapers let “WE the People” know of these new codes or changes to existing laws in June so we are aware of the changes and will be in compliance on July 1st.  Is the County Attorney aware that these changes take place or the County Administrator?  Since “WE the People” know and are required to be in compliance on July 1st why are not the County Ordinances being updated and made available for a public hearing no later than the first August Board of Supervisor meeting so the county is in compliance?  In my opinion there should be a public hearing in the July meeting.

I have to wonder is the County Attorney and his assistant not capable of executing the requirements of their Jobs?  Are the responsibilities of the job too much for them? You would think ensuring the County is in compliance with United States Constitution and Federal Regulation; and Virginia Constitution and Codes would be number one on the list.  Mr. Thompson has even offered his services to assist the County Attorney in bringing County Ordinances into compliance and in response the County Attorney refuses to correspond with Mr. Thompson by email.  I have to wonder is the County Attorney still in Junior High School and not an adult?  Why do we have a number of County Ordinances that have never complied with Virginia Code, as pointed out by Mr. Thompson especially in regard to animal control?  Is there any connection with these illegal Ordinances and the stories Mr. Thompson is reporting on?

The next point does the County Administrator have over-site on what the County Attorney is doing?  In my opinion a reasonable person would believe the County Administrator’s Office would ensure the County Attorney’s office is aware that keeping County Ordinances in compliance with Virginia Codes may be important?  Are the responsibilities of the County Administrator’s Office too much for the current staff to handle?  Are the responsibilities of the job too much for them?

In my opinion maybe we need to replace the County Attorney and assistant; and the County Administrator and assistants; it appears the duties of their jobs are greater than they have the ability to accomplish with growing responsibilities of world we live in today.    In my opinion failing to execute their duties is a violation of their “Oath of Office” and grounds for removal but a competent Attorney may be needed to determine this.

Prior to the election all candidates for the Board of Supervisors got together at the Library to share what they would do if elected, Mr. Thompson has the audio on the web site.  The three new supervisors stated if they were told of County Ordinances that was not in compliance with Virginia Code they would fix it.  We are in violation of Virginia Code in many sections of our County Ordinances.  This needs to be fixed along with the underlying problems.  We expect you to keep your word.  Mr. Blake answered something to the effect that he is only one person.  I believe he did not become a supervisor.

Working on your next report card there is still time to improve your grade during this month recording period. 


Wayne Crews

P.S. “Here is what you to do:

1.  Integrity at the Board of Supervisors level.
Quit voting for things that benefit you over the county.

2.  Hold Department Heads and Supervisors to high standards and get rid of them when they break the rules.  You cannot hold lower level employees to high standards if they are not practiced at the higher levels.

3.  Fire employees on the spot if they use vehicles for personal business, except in the case of an emergency and the employee better contact the supervisors before the supervisor contacts them.  No shopping, banking, and fast food restaurants in county vehicles.  If trash is found in the vehicle from these places the employee needs to receive the same punishment.

4.  Quit wasting taxpayers money.  The Board of Supervisions and all county employees need to be good stewards of the resources.

5.  Bring County Ordinances into compliance with Virginia Code.  Mr. Wilmot can help you with this if not consider hiring a competent county attorney.” 

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Gloucester, VA Animal Control Breaking And Entering? What About "YOUR" Rights?

Pictured above is Animal Control Officer, Laura Dickie, getting ready to break into a vehicle and take personal property from the people in possession of the rental car.  The folks who have the rental car are from NY and the car has NJ plates.  Why was she about to break into the car and take personal property from these people?  Well it's based on one of the Gloucester County ordinances we have been complaining about on this site now for some time.  The ordinance reads as follows;

 Sec. 3-18. Animals in enclosed vehicles

(a) It shall be unlawful to leave any animal in a vehicle without the benefit of air conditioning when the outside temperature reaches eighty (80) degrees fahrenheit or greater.

(b) Any person who confines an animal in an unattended vehicle so as to cause the animal to suffer from heat stress, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The animal control officer or other officer shall have the authority to remove any animal found in an enclosed vehicle that appears to be suffering from heat stress. The animal shall be provided immediate veterinary care. The animal owner or custodian shall be responsible for all expenses incurred during the removal of the animal or its subsequent treatment and impoundment.

(c) In the event that the person responsible for the violation cannot be ascertained, the registered owner of the vehicle, as required by Chapter 6 of Title 46.2 of the Code of Virginia, shall constitute in evidence a prima facie presumption that such registered owner was the person who committed the violation.

(Ord. of 7-1-2008(1), § (2); Ord. of 2-5-2013(1))

Now let's look at what the temperature reading was for the time period in question.  The time these photos were taken are from around 3:12 PM through 3:24 PM August 24th, 2014.  

We took screen shots from various weather services to see what an average overall temperature reading was during the time in question.  Well, from everything we could see, it was under the 80 degree Fahrenheit limit that the ordinance states is required to be in violation of the above listed ordinance.  Again, the ordinance is highly questionable and in our view, illegal.  There is no corresponding state code and with Virginia being a Dillon Rule state, the Dillon Rule has been violated by Gloucester County from what we see.

Here is a picture of the temperature taken just right down the road from where the incident was witnessed.  77 Degrees.  Not 80 degrees or above.  But we have found evidence that county officials have decided that they can't even follow their own codes and have decided to step up the violations.  See the picture below.

The picture you are viewing is a sign hanging up on the front door of Tractor Supply here in Gloucester, Virginia.  Note that it says nothing about the actual ordinance and what that ordinance actually states.  It also gives no warning that Animal Control will break into your vehicle and take a pet which is considered personal property if they think they can get away with this.  What one must also note is that the sign does not cover temperatures in the 80 degree range as stated in the county ordinance.  What gives?

In fact, it leads one to believe that a violation occurs at temperatures at the 75 degree range.  The picture also fails to point out whether those inside temperature readings are for open or closed windows of any vehicle.  

Getting back to the entire incident.

There was a dog in the red car which is a 4 door vehicle.  All 4 windows were down in the car and the car had not been there for very long.  This incident was witnessed from start to finish.  Laura Dickie agitated the dog inside as the dog considered her a danger.  

The man with the long white hair and camo pants is the person who called in what he considered a violation to the Gloucester County Animal Control ordinance listed above.  Just before Ms Dickie was ready to bust out the window on the vehicle, the person renting the vehicle came out of Wal Mart and came back to her vehicle.  The conversation was overheard and it was overheard that Ms Dickie was in fact getting ready to bust out the window and take the dog from the vehicle.  

  Here is a very serious question.  Where is the search warrant that would allow law enforcement to do this and where were the local sheriff's department to back her up?  Animal Control officers can not execute search warrants in Virginia.  It has to be done locally by the Sheriff's department.  Again, where is the search warrant?  There is nothing in Virginia State Code regarding animals that allows Animal Control to break into your vehicle that we have ever seen.  Please see VA Code 3.2-6500 and beyond for state Animal Control codes.

  The owner of the animal and in charge of the rental car was not charged with any wrong doing whatsoever.  But Animal Control was still getting ready to bust the window and take the owners dog, hence personal property without notice.  

  Another question that comes to mind, why didn't Laura Dickie just go into Wal Mart and see about having the owner paged before even considering such drastic measures?  Well, did you see the fine for the above so called violation? Up to $2,500.00  and up to one year in jail?  It's on the sign shown above.  That is financial incentive for Animal Control to bust out some windows on people's vehicles.  Can you imagine all the legal troubles these folks would have had to face had they shopped for only 5 more minutes?  They were from out of state and spending money here in our economy.  What kind of message are we sending visitors to Gloucester County?  What kind of message is being conveyed to the local citizens?   Anyone now understand why we have been arguing against this insane ordinance now?  And again, this is only one of a number of county ordinances that have no place being on the books as they do not meet the Dillon Rule.  It's time for this nonsense to stop.

  Oh, and the Animal Control truck above?  There is no air conditioning that the animal would be put in.  That truck only has a top air vent.  The animal would be transported in violation of the county's own code.  What on Earth is that?  The hypocrisy.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Gloucester, VA Government Racketeering, Price Fixing, Real and Personal Property Theft? (Part 2)

We have spoken to Robert Warden who has informed us that to the best of his knowledge, he never received a search warrant when these folks, in the above video, came onto his property and just started taking his animals.  You read that correctly.  NO SEARCH WARRANT was ever given Mr Warden that he recalls.  We have asked Animal Control, the County Attorney and the County Administrator for a copy, if one exists, of the Search Warrant that was required for the above confiscation of Mr Warden's animals.  We have already covered those laws in our last article so we are not going to repeat them again.

Now if someone wanted to argue the following state code, then it's easy to argue.

§ 3.1-796.115. Seizure and impoundment of animals; notice and hearing; disposition of animal; disposition of proceeds upon sale. (3.2-6569)

A. Any humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or animal control officer may lawfully seize and impound any animal that has been abandoned, has been cruelly treated, or is suffering from an apparent violation of this chapter that has rendered the animal in such a condition as to constitute a direct and immediate threat to its life, safety or health. Before seizing or impounding any agricultural animal, such humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or animal control officer shall contact the State Veterinarian or a State Veterinarian's representative, who shall recommend to such person the most appropriate action for the disposition of the agricultural animal, provided, however, that the seizure or impoundment of an equine resulting from a violation of subdivision A (iii) or subdivision B (ii) of § 3.1-796.122may be undertaken only by the State Veterinarian or State Veterinarian's representative who has received training in the examination and detection of sore horses equivalent to that required by 9 C.F.R. Part 11.7 and that is approved by the State Veterinarian. The humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or animal control officer shall notify the owner of the agricultural animal and the local attorney for the Commonwealth of the recommendation. The humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or animal control officer may impound the agricultural animal on the land where the agricultural animal is located if:

1. The owner or tenant of the land where the agricultural animal is located gives written permission;

2. A general district court so orders; or

3. The owner or tenant of the land where the agricultural animal is located cannot be immediately located, and it is in the best interest of the agricultural animal to be impounded on the land where it is located until the written permission of the owner or tenant of the land can be obtained.

If there is a direct and immediate threat to an agricultural animal, the humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or animal control officer may seize the animal, in which case the humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or animal control officer shall file within five business days on a form approved by the State Veterinarian a report on the condition of the animal at the time of the seizure, the disposition of the animal, and any other information required by the State Veterinarian.

Upon seizing or impounding an animal, the humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or animal control officer shall petition the general district court in the city or county wherein the animal is seized for a hearing. The hearing shall be not more than ten business days from the date of the seizure of the animal. The hearing shall be to determine whether the animal has been abandoned, has been cruelly treated, or has not been provided adequate care.

B. The humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, or animal control officer shall cause to be served upon the person with a right of property in the animal or the custodian of the animal notice of the hearing. If such person or the custodian is known and residing within the jurisdiction wherein the animal is seized, written notice shall be given at least five days prior to the hearing of the time and place of the hearing. If such person or the custodian is known but residing out of the jurisdiction where such animal is seized, written notice by any method or service of process as is provided by the Code of Virginia shall be given. If such person or the custodian is not known, the humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, or animal control officer shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the jurisdiction wherein such animal is seized notice of the hearing at least one time prior to the hearing and shall further cause notice of the hearing to be posted at least five days prior to the hearing at the place provided for public notices at the city hall or courthouse wherein such hearing shall be held.

C. The procedure for appeal and trial shall be the same as provided by law for misdemeanors. Trial by jury shall be as provided in Article 4 (§ 19.2-260 et seq.) of Chapter 15 of Title 19.2. The Commonwealth shall be required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

D. The humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, or animal control officer shall provide for such animal until the court has concluded the hearing. Any locality may, by ordinance, require the owner of any animal held pursuant to this subsection for more than thirty days to post a bond in surety with the locality for the amount of the cost of boarding the animal for a period of time set in the ordinance, not to exceed nine months.

In any locality that has not adopted such an ordinance, a court may order the owner of an animal held pursuant to this subsection for more than 30 days to post a bond in surety with the locality for the amount of the cost of boarding the animal for a period of time not to exceed nine months. The bond shall not be forfeited if the owner is found to be not guilty of the violation.

If the court determines that the animal has been neither abandoned, cruelly treated, nor deprived of adequate care, the animal shall be returned to the owner. If the court determines that the animal has been (i) abandoned, or cruelly treated, or (ii) deprived of adequate care,as that term is defined in § 3.1-796.66,  (§ 3.2-6503.1. Care of agricultural animals by owner; penalty.
A. Each owner shall provide for each of his agricultural animals:
1. Feed to prevent malnourishment;
2. Water to prevent dehydration; and
3. Veterinary treatment as needed to address impairment of health or bodily function when such impairment cannot be otherwise addressed through animal husbandry, including humane destruction.
B. The provisions of this section shall not require an owner to provide feed or water when such is customarily withheld, restricted, or apportioned pursuant to a farming activity or if otherwise prescribed by a veterinarian.
C. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that there has been no violation of this section if an owner is unable to provide feed, water, or veterinary treatment due to an act of God.
D. The provisions of this section shall not apply to agricultural animals used for bona fide medical or scientific experimentation.
E. A violation of this section is a Class 4 misdemeanor.)   or (iii) raised as a dog that has been, is, or is intended to be used in dogfighting in violation of § 3.1-796.124, then the court shall order that the animal be: (i a) sold by a local governing body; (ii b) humanely destroyed, or disposed of by sale or gift to a federal agency, state-supported institution, agency of the Commonwealth, agency of another state, or a licensed federal dealer having its principal place of business located within the Commonwealth; (iii c) delivered to any local humane society or shelter, or to any person who is a resident of the county or city where the animal is seized or an adjacent county or city in the Commonwealth and who will pay the required license fee, if any, on such animal; or (iv d) delivered to the person with a right of property in the animal as provided in subsection E.

E. In no case shall the owner be allowed to purchase, adopt, or otherwise obtain the animal if the court determines that the animal has been abandoned, cruelly treated, or deprived of adequate care; however, the court shall direct that the animal be delivered to the person with a right of property in the animal, upon his request, if the court finds that the abandonment, cruel treatment, or deprivation of adequate care is not attributable to the actions or inactions of such person.

F. The court shall order the owner of any animal determined to have been abandoned, cruelly treated, or deprived of adequate care to pay all reasonable expenses incurred in caring and providing for such animal from the time the animal is seized until such time that the animal is disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this section, to the provider of such care.

G. The court may prohibit the possession or ownership of other companion animals by the owner of any companion animal found to have been abandoned, cruelly treated, or deprived of adequate care. In making a determination to prohibit the possession or ownership of companion animals, the court may take into consideration the owner's past record of convictions under this chapter or other laws prohibiting cruelty to animals or pertaining to the care or treatment of animals and the owner's mental and physical condition.

H. If the court finds that an agricultural animal has been abandoned or cruelly treated, the court may prohibit the possession or ownership of any other agricultural animal by the owner of the agricultural animal if the owner has exhibited a pattern of abandoning or cruelly treating agricultural animals as evidenced by previous convictions of violating § 3.1-796.73 or §3.1-796.122. In making a determination to prohibit the possession or ownership of agricultural animals, the court may take into consideration the owner's mental and physical condition.

I. Any person who is prohibited from owning or possessing animals pursuant to subsection G or H may petition the court to repeal the prohibition after two years have elapsed from the date of entry of the court's order. The court may, in its discretion, repeal the prohibition if the person can prove to the satisfaction of the court that the cause for the prohibition has ceased to exist.

J. When a sale occurs, the proceeds shall first be applied to the costs of the sale then next to the unreimbursed expenses for the care and provision of the animal, and the remaining proceeds, if any, shall be paid over to the owner of the animal. If the owner of the animal cannot be found, the proceeds remaining shall be paid into the Literary Fund of the state treasury.

K. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the humane destruction of a critically injured or ill animal for humane purposes by the impounding humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, animal control officer, or licensed veterinarian.

So in order for the above to be applicable, the below code must first be met.  (Note, this is the state code that was in place in 2009.  It has since been repealed and rewritten.)

§ 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.

Gloucester, VA vs Bob Warden (7) 2009 from Chuck Thompson

In the above document, we see the arguments of all the lawyers and the judge in what constitutes a valid seizure.  Look at the horrible arguments allowing the seizure as valid by the judge.  He defaults his ability to understand the above to a higher court so that he can get away with a horrible ruling in our view.  He claims he did not fully understand 3.2-6569 above.  Well just go up on this post a bit and see if there is anything there that is difficult to understand.  The entire case was defaulted to an appeal for interpretation of an appellate court to decide.  So the ruling was made on ........well.....nothing that we can see.  The arguments should have been on other areas of the code that clearly states immediate danger to life, safety, or health.

  If you read the code above, "C. The procedure for appeal and trial shall be the same as provided by law for misdemeanors. Trial by jury shall be as provided in Article 4 (§ 19.2-260 et seq.) of Chapter 15 of Title 19.2. The Commonwealth shall be required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt."

(Can anyone say; Judicial Review?)

Mr Warden had his property taken from him based on ......well....nothing provable in this court that we can begin to see and all at a huge cost to Mr Warden.  That is disgusting.  The initial charges at the beginning of the case are state charges of cruelty to animals.

Now we are going to show the opening court transcript and this gets even worse.  It does state that they had a warrant, but we highly doubt the information contained in the records.  Even if they did, you will see that the court ignored and decided against both state and federal laws in our view and we are going to show just that based on state code, from our interpretations.

Gloucester, VA vs Bob Warden (1), 2009 from Chuck Thompson

The argument starts on page 9 of the above document.  The attorney for Mr Warden argues that the alleged warrant or summons claims only one animal.  The county and state argue economy.

Here is what state code reads;

§ 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.

As stated above, a general search warrant is prohibited.  The warrant or summons or whatever was used, should have read each animal and listed all the animals to be seized.  Not just one animal.  Throwing out the argument to bring the charges down to one animal in our view was illegal as the argument was very specific.  The argument Mr Warden's attorney made were very clear and specific.  

"Deprive AN animal of necessary food, drink, and emergency veterinary treatment.  So it alleges a single animal."  

The defense claim that the charge was the same for 38 or 39 animals is just there for economy.  We highly disagree.  There were ways to write the papers to read either animals or add in a bill of particulars for each animal and that would have created the correct legal wording.  Judge Long sided with the defense.  Absurd in our view as well as gross misconduct.    

It has been heard numerous times that most attorney's outside of Gloucester County will not take a clients case who is to be tried in any Gloucester court room.  Reason?  It's viewed as one of the worst if not the states worst Kangaroo court systems.  The information we have heard says that the Commonwealth attorney gets together with the county attorney, if involved, and the judge, before the trial and they decide how they are going to proceed with the case and determine the case's outcome well before the case even gets to court.  We can not prove this but it's been repeated so many times from so many people, it's very hard to ignore.  We have witnessed an attorney that will not take cases in Gloucester as they did not think their client would get a fair hearing.   So we believe there is plenty of validity to the stories of others.

 The hearing shall be not more than ten business days from the date of the seizure of the animal. The hearing shall be to determine whether the animal has been abandoned, has been cruelly treated, or has not been provided adequate care.    Now if we look at when the animals were seized or can we maybe say; STOLEN?, off of Mr Warden;s property, that was in March.  The trail was in July.  This is well beyond the 10 days as stated by state code.  What gives?

  Again, we are checking on whether search warrants were issued or if they were just summons.  The video above shows no evidence that any search warrant was issued.  This ends part two.  We are going to cover a lot more on this as we have only hit the tip of the entire iceberg.