Showing posts with label Cruelty to animals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cruelty to animals. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Ex Gloucester, Animal Control Deputy, Kristine James, Sounds Off On Facebook

Ex Gloucester Animal Control Officer sounds off on Facebook.  She deleted the post soon after making it, but not before it was copied.

  The following is what was stated.

"Kristine James
4 hrs
I am going to post this now, as I am no longer with an Animal Control dept. ...
You people are freaking nuts!!! Animal raids. Do you know what they are? Really? They are searches conducted by warrants, ONLY after suspected animal abuse, cruelty, etc. If you are mistreating your animal and you think you are above the law by doing so, you are wrong. YOU are doing wrong by treating your animal as you see fit. Filthy conditions, at home medical treatment, insufficient water/food/shelter. You are the problem, not the law. If you could have only seen what I have...The animals suffer, not you..their caretaker...oh boo hoo if you get a door notice, you automatically think, oh no! They are going to raid my home. Bull crap! I have seen and heard so many times from people that "they raided my home and threatened to kill me and my family". First off, get over yourself. I have never said anything of the sort, nor have anyone I have worked with. If you LOVED animals so much, they would be your first concern. You would care for them properly, and would do everything in compliance with the law. Obviously you're not, that's why you have this site. Put the blame where it belongs...on you! (so called animal lovers) I expect to be banned after this...no worries."

What Kristine James is not aware of is that local raids where people had their legal rights grossly violated happened before she was hired as an Animal Control deputy.  She is also clearly unaware of the fact that we have evidence on this site in great detail about such and are continuing to investigate these issues.  We are also sitting on a bunch of evidence that we have not released and have had for several years.  We have audio recordings of live interviews with victims, we have court documents, legal papers and more all showing a very clear pattern.  We invite her to look at what we have online and show how the information is wrong.

  She makes the above disgusting comments based on a very limited time in one county working mostly part time in her duties with very little experience.  She was stating this to people all around the nation.  It is very clear she is not a Christian.  If she were, she would know and understand that God gave man dominion over all animals.  Today's man made laws give animals dominion over man.  An inversion of God's laws.  We are not stating that it is right to abuse animals, however, no animal has rights over any person.

  She also fails to understand that those who are no longer able to care for animals as they once were able to, have been forced into their present conditions through the economy.  Her socialist tyranny came through loud and clear however.  Glad she is gone from Animal Control and maybe her replacement will prove to be more understanding.  Her comments were posted in a group of animal owners who have had their own rights violated share their stories and try to help out others as well as spread the word on what is really going on out there.

Kristine James is one of the owners at Buying It Used here in Gloucester.  The store that when they first opened their doors, looked like a Gloucester County government warehouse sale center, which by local ordinance is illegal.  We can't say that this was the case, but we did find evidence to highly suggest such and posted here on this site.  So the comments do not really surprise us.  Now she can legally turn Buying It Used into a Gloucester County government warehouse sales center.  But can you trust her?  We will shop somewhere else thanks.


The above picture is of a projector marked as property of Gloucester County, Petsworth District school and on the shelf of Buying It Used.
Gloucester County Ordinance strictly forbids county employees from even purchasing used equipment from the county.  So how did it get there?


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


Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Gloucester, VA Animal Control Breaking and Entering? What About "YOUR" Rights? (Part 3)


Now for more information we have not covered.  When Laura Dickie, animal control deputy, responded to this call, after talking to the owner of this vehicle with the dog inside the car, while she was preparing to leave, another vehicle pulled in to a parking space the next lane over with a dog in the car.  The dog's head was sticking out the rear window of the car and the dog was barking at Laura Dickie.  Ms Dickie ignored this new incident and did not even bother to talk to the owners of the new vehicle that pulled in.  Why did she only speak to the one and then ignore the other?  Something is very wrong with this incident at so many levels.

Moving back to the poster on store entrances;


Let's look at some issues here.  The sign pictured above can be found at the following locations and is posted on the main entrances of the respective sites.  Wal Mart, Tractor Supply and Dollar Tree in the courthouse area.  No other areas have we found these posters.

  First issue.  The locations where these signs are found are private property parking lots.  The sign requests that anyone can report a pet being left in a car at these locations.  Well, if you see someone pull into a handicapped parking space in these same locations, and the person is not handicapped,  you can call a tow truck but one will never come as you are not the owner of the store or property and have no authority to make the request.  You can call a Sheriff's Office, but again, the same issue.  You are not authorized to report the claim as you are not the owner of the property and therefore a deputy can not do anything about the so called violation.  Only a store manager who's parking space is being violated can file a complaint about someone parking in a handicapped space who is not handicapped.

  So with this in mind, how can any animal control deputy ever possibly bypass these same issues when a person calls in a so called violation?

  If you have an accident in a parking lot at one of these locations, you can call the police.  The only thing you will be told is all they can do is file a report about the accident.  Since it is private property, they can not determine who is at fault.

  So what we have is what appears to be an illegal search and seizure being perpetuated by county officials against anyone they choose in certain sections of the county.  Sort of like a speed trap.  Here is a catch you are not made aware of.  If you make the call to report what you think is a violation?  You may be held just as responsible for the actions of the animal control deputy should the deputy decide to break into a vehicle and remove personal property such as a pet and it is determined that the action was highly illegal.  And you should be held accountable for such a violation.

Article 4 of the Bill of Rights reads;   IV ) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  Our opinion?  When you shop at any of these stores, find the store manager and complain about these signs.  They are highly misleading and may just potentially get innocent people in a great deal of trouble.  The signs do not tell you that animal control might just break into a vehicle and take personal property.  The signs also suggest that temperatures of 75 degrees is enough to warrant you to call.  The inside temperature readings on the sign are highly misleading as they do not indicate whether windows were up or down during the readings or if the vehicles were in direct sun light or in the shade.  They also fail to indicate humidity factors.

Online news story quote:

“Anytime we see (the dog’s) temperature jump above the 104 to 105 range it’s dangerous for the dog,” Montgomery told the Daily Telegraph last week. “Once we break into the 100-degree range in the car, the dog will be uncomfortable and the 110-degree range can be fatal,”

More from the web.

Is it illegal to leave your dog in a parked car? The answer to this question, of course, depends on in the state in which you live. Actually, only 16 states (AZ, CA, IL, ME, MD, MN, NC, NV, NH, NJ, NY, ND, RI, SD, VT, and WV) have statutes that specifically prohibit leaving an animal in confined vehicle. The next factor important to the question is the condition under which the the animal is left in the vehicle. Most of these laws provide that the animal must be confined or unattended in a parked or stationary vehicle. Further, the laws add that in order for a person to violate the law, the conditions have to endanger the animal's life. Some of the statutes specifically state that extreme hot or cold temperatures, lack of adequate ventilation, or failing to provide proper food or drink meet this definition. Other laws are more vague and just require that the conditions are such that physical injury or death is likely to result.

Above sourced from;  https://www.animallaw.info/topic/table-state-laws-protect-animals-left-parked-vehicles  Check out all the state codes on the above link.  Virginia does NOT have this code on it's books.

Estimated Vehicle Interior Air Temperature v. Elapsed Time

Estimated Vehicle Interior Air Temperature v. Elapsed Time
Elapsed timeOutside Air Temperature (F)
707580859095
0 minutes707580859095
10 minutes899499104109114
20 minutes99104109114119124
30 minutes104109114119124129
40 minutes108113118123128133
50 minutes111116121126131136
60 minutes113118123128133138
> 1 hour115120125130135140
Courtesy Jan Null, CCM; Department of Geosciences, San Francisco State University

Now checking the chart we looked up online from the AVMA.  We checked the above AVMA chart information and it's based on a vehicle in direct sunlight with the windows closed.  


We like this one a bit better.  It shows the humidity factor with heat.  



Now we do agree that leaving your pet in a hot vehicle can be dangerous and even deadly.  However, we do not think that animals have rights over humans.  We do not think pets should be treated with disrespect or even tortured.  Adding insult to injury however is madness.  We send children to school in buses with no air conditioning in the same exact conditions and nothing is done about that.


Demand Equal Rights For Our Children

Demand Equal Rights For Our Children

We put up a petition on Change.org regarding this matter.  Why are our children treated lower than pets?  Why are our rights being so blatantly violated?  

Now the Board of Supervisors knew about this before the latest BoS meeting in September.  They could have responded to this and in our view they have.  Here is the video where they address animal control issues.


A dog leash ordinance request made by a BoS member requesting more government intrusion on his neighbors they did not want or would have filed complaints themselves.  This is how they address violations to your rights?  Now that is sad.






Thursday, August 14, 2014

Gloucester, VA Local Government Racketeering, Price Fixing, Real and Personal Property Theft? (Part 1)

Photo of a dog behind a chain-link fence at th...
 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



Above is a video no one has ever seen until it's posting recently on You Tube.  It's of what looks to us to be an illegal raid and property theft sanctioned by certain Gloucester, Virginia officials.  Each official involved is going to be named and their violations shown through a series of court documents and showing what state codes of Virginia say.  The video was shot back in March of 2009.  Court documents show a very clear pattern of harassment from what we see as the statement in one of the documents shows Animal Control having been on this victim's property, without warrant's at least 30 times in 3 years.

  The victim is Robert Warden of Gloucester.  He was the talk of the area for years because of this raid.  The entire event was so disturbing that Mr Warden could not even talk about it without getting very upset.  The media never covered his side of the story.  We have been working with Mr Warden now for several years and now we can start to tell this story.  What you are going to see should highly disturb you to no end.  It's very blatant corruption in our view.

With the statement about Animal Control having visited Mr Warden 30 times in 3 years is in the below court document.



Gloucester, VA vs Bob Warden (9) 2009 from Chuck Thompson

See page 15 of the above document that shows Animal Control having been to Mr Warden's property 30 times in 3 years.  Does anyone find that disturbing?  In the above document, Animal Control officers, who are required to know state Animal Control codes, have no clue and make false claims based on the court documents above.  Animal Control is trying to argue in the above document, that dogs must always have collars on at all times no matter what the circumstances are.

Here is what Virginia State Code says;

§ 3.2-6531. Displaying receipts; dogs to wear tags.

Dog and cat license receipts shall be carefully preserved by the licensees and exhibited promptly on request for inspection by any animal control officer or other officer. Dog license tags shall be securely fastened to a substantial collar by the owner or custodian and worn by such dog. It shall be unlawful for the owner to permit any licensed dog four months old or older to run or roam at large at any time without a license tag. The owner of the dog may remove the collar and license tag required by this section when: (i) the dog is engaged in lawful hunting; (ii) the dog is competing in a dog show; (iii) the dog has a skin condition that would be exacerbated by the wearing of a collar; (iv) the dog is confined; or (v) the dog is under the immediate control of its owner.

Again we have to point out that Animal Control Officers are required to know these codes yet Mr Baranek states that all dogs must have collars with tags on at all times not matter what.  Mr Warden asks where Warrants are from Animal Control who each time, Animal Control dodges the questions.  Based on what is in the court documents above, Animal Control seems to be clearly trespassing on Mr Warden's property illegally.  To go even further, Animal Control in the State of Virginia can not serve warrants anyway.  We will show in future articles that Mr Warden's animals could not be seen from any street.


§ 3.2-6502. State Veterinarian's power to inspect premises where animals are kept; investigations and search warrants.

A. The State Veterinarian and each State Veterinarian's representative shall have the power to conduct inspections of animal shelters, and inspect any business premises where animals are housed or kept, including any boarding establishment, kennel, pet shop, pound, or the business premises of any dealer, exhibitor or groomer, at any reasonable time, for the purposes of determining if a violation of: (i) this chapter; (ii) any other state law governing the care, control or protection of animals; or (iii) any other state law governing property rights in animals has occurred.

B. Provisions for investigation of suspected violations of this chapter and other laws pertaining to animals are provided in § 3.2-6564. Provisions for obtaining a warrant and the power of search for violations of animal cruelty laws are provided in § 3.2-6568.

The above is the updated 2014 version of the law.

Now let's look at what B. states above.  We need to look at 3.2-6564

§ 3.2-6564. Complaint of suspected violation; investigation.

A. Upon receiving a complaint of a suspected violation of this chapter, any ordinance enacted pursuant to this chapter or any law for the protection of domestic animals, any animal control officer, law-enforcement officer, or State Veterinarian's representative may, for the purpose of investigating the allegations of the complaint, enter upon, during business hours, any business premises, including any place where animals or animal records are housed or kept, of any dealer, pet shop, groomer, or boarding establishment. Upon receiving a complaint of a suspected violation of any law or ordinance regarding care or treatment of animals or disposal of dead animals, any humane investigator may, for the purpose of investigating the allegations of the complaint, enter upon, during business hours, any business premises, including any place where animals or animal records are housed or kept, of any dealer, pet shop, groomer, or boarding establishment.

Upon obtaining a warrant as provided for in § 3.2-6568, the law-enforcement officer, animal control officer, State Veterinarian's representative, or humane investigator may enter upon any other premises where the animal or animals described in the complaint are housed or kept. Attorneys for the Commonwealth and law-enforcement officials shall provide such assistance as may be required in the conduct of such investigations.

B. If the investigation discloses that a violation of § 3.2-6503 has occurred, the investigating official shall notify the owner or custodian of the complaint and of what action is necessary to comply with this chapter.

Please note, these laws are for businesses and shelters.  A private adobe where animals are kept on private property does not fall under the above unless a complaint was directly made to Animal Control.  In the court document above, no complaint was issued and no warrant was forthcoming.  

§ 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.

§ 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.

Now we can't stress enough to read the above court document.  Then look at the VA Code below and you may just see that a very serious violation against Mr Warden's rights have in fact been violated?  You think?

§ 19.2-59. Search without warrant prohibited; when search without warrant lawful.

No officer of the law or any other person shall search any place, thing or person, except by virtue of and under a warrant issued by a proper officer. Any officer or other person searching any place, thing or person otherwise than by virtue of and under a search warrant, shall be guilty of malfeasance in office. Any officer or person violating the provisions of this section shall be liable to any person aggrieved thereby in both compensatory and punitive damages. Any officer found guilty of a second offense under this section shall, upon conviction thereof, immediately forfeit his office, and such finding shall be deemed to create a vacancy in such office to be filled according to law.

Provided, however, that any officer empowered to enforce the game laws or marine fisheries laws as set forth in Title 28.2 may without a search warrant enter for the purpose of enforcing such laws, any freight yard or room, passenger depot, baggage room or warehouse, storage room or warehouse, train, baggage car, passenger car, express car, Pullman car or freight car of any common carrier, or any boat, automobile or other vehicle; but nothing in this proviso contained shall be construed to permit a search of any occupied berth or compartment on any passenger car or boat or any baggage, bag, trunk, box or other closed container without a search warrant.

At the time this occurred, the code of Virginia read as below:



Va code ann 19.2 56 from Chuck Thompson

Present law still prohibits Animal Control officers from being able to execute search warrants:

VA Code, 9.1-101Definitions:

" Law-enforcement officer " means any full-time or part-time employee of a police department or sheriff's office which is a part of or administered by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, and who is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the penal, traffic or highway laws of the Commonwealth, and shall include any (i) special agent of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; (ii) police agent appointed under the provisions of § 56-353; (iii) officer of the Virginia Marine Police; (iv) conservation police officer who is a full-time sworn member of the enforcement division of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries; (v) investigator who is a full-time sworn member of the security division of the Virginia Lottery; (vi) conservation officer of the Department of Conservation and Recreation commissioned pursuant to § 10.1-115; (vii) full-time sworn member of the enforcement division of the Department of Motor Vehicles appointed pursuant to § 46.2-217; (viii) animal protection police officer employed under § 15.2-632; or (ix) campus police officer appointed under Chapter 17 (§ 23-232 et seq.) of Title 23. Part-time employees are those compensated officers who are not full-time employees as defined by the employing police department or sheriff's office.

As of this present time, there are no Animal Protection Police.  Animal Control Officers are NOT Animal Protection Police.

This ends part one.  We have a great deal to cover and well over a thousand pages of court transcripts, legal documents, more video, pictures and more VA code we will be covering exposing what Mr Warden has had to endure from Animal Control, Ted Wilmot, Gloucester County Attorney, Monique Donner, then Assistant Commonwealth Attorney, Judge Long and other officials.  

  What is interesting is we have statements from people involved in removing animals from Mr Warden's property that highly conflict with court documents and the county's position on this matter that makes for some more serious questions.  You have to ask why.  We have and we believe we know the answers that are going to shock everyone.  Stay tuned.

Monday, January 14, 2013

Gloucester, VA - Animal Control Code 3-15 Partial Conceded Arguments

We are continuing to investigate 3-15 of Gloucester Animal Control and looking at how 3.2-6503 of Virginia Law is applied for those clues.  Here is what we see so far.  Case law studies under 3.2-6503.


Applicable Case Law:
Settle v. Commonwealth, 692 S.E.2d 641, 56 Va. App. 222 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
Facts: Charles E. Settle, Jr. was convicted in a bench trial of two counts of inadequate care by owner of
companion animals, pursuant to Code § 3.1-796.68, and one count of dog at large, pursuant to Fauquier
County Code §§ 4-22 and 13-1.  Witness testimony was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant, who was sitting in court in the witnesses' presence, was the same person with whom
the witnesses dealt on numerous occasions.
Holding:  Pursuant to Code § 3.1-796.115,all of the dogs at issue were seized from appellant's control
and placed in the care of local animal shelters. Additionally, the trial court declared three of the dogs dangerous pursuant to Code § 3.1-796.93:1. Settle was convicted of two counts of inadequate care by an
owner, in violation of Virginia Code § 3.1-796.68 and allowing a dog to run at large, in violation of Va.
Code § 3.1-796.128, In addition, pursuant to Code § 3.1-796.115, Settle was adjudicated unfit to own a
companion animal and his dogs.  Three dogs were declared to be “dangerous dogs” under Code § 3.1-
796.93.  Remaining dogs were ordered forfeited to the Fauquier County SPCA and/or the Middleburg
Humane Foundation.  Conviction affirmed.

Sentencing:  Settle was ordered to pay a total of $300.00 in fines and $423.00 court costs. The trial
court awarded a monetary judgment pursuant to the Middleburg Humane Foundation in the amount of
$45,261.51.


Hillman v. Commonwealth, No. 1211-01-3, 2002 WL 496982 (Va. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2002).
Facts: Appellant convicted in trial court for failure to provide care for her animals under Code § 3.1-
796.68.  Appellant contends her conviction for these offenses in circuit court violated both Code § 19.2–
294 and the double jeopardy prohibitions of the United States and Virginia Constitutions.
Holding: Convictions for cruelty to animals in circuit court did not violate Code § 19.2–294 because
those convictions occurred as part of the same prosecution as her convictions for failure to provide care
for those animals. Appellant’s convictions for cruelty to animals after she already had been convicted for
failure to provide care for those animals did not violate double jeopardy prohibitions because the
offenses are not the same.  The failure to care offense is not included in the cruelty offense.
Sentencing: Individual was convicted of both a Class 4 misdemeanor under Code § 3.1–796.68(A)(7)
for the lesser offense of failing to provide “veterinary treatment to prevent disease transmission” and a
Class 1 misdemeanor under Code § 3 .1–796.122(A)(ii) for the greater offense of failing to provide
“emergency veterinary treatment.”

These two cases above are how 3.2-6503 have been applied on one site.  We dug for many hours trying to find more where 3.2-6503 or 3.2-6503.1 have been used and prosecuted in other counties around the state.    So far we have found only one case where 3.2-6503 and or 3.2-6503.1 were solely used but they were in Gloucester County and charged under 3-15.  No other cases we found were solely prosecuted under 3.2-6503 or 3.2-6503.1.  Others who have been charged with 3.2-6503 or 3.2-6503.1 had other animal control laws that they were in violations of.

  Based on what we have found around other localities in the state, we concede the proper use of 3-15 in it's new form that Gloucester County is seeking to approve.  For that we do sincerely  apologize and admit when we are wrong and we were wrong here.  What we are not conceding at this time is the way in which Gloucester County Animal Control has used 3-15 in the past.  State law 3.2-6503 is very broadly stated to the point of allowing anyone to be charged with a violation to this law, making it a black hole law, even though it is backed by 3.2-6500.  In which case, the real issue is the state law, requiring a better understanding of the state law by localities is then needed along with a more clearly defined set of rules on how it is used.  This then becomes a state problem that the state needs to address with all it's localities.

  Here is what really ticks us off about all of this.  Animals have more rights than humans.  Put those same laws on localities for the homeless in their communities and every locality will fail that test.  Go ahead and apply 3.2-6503 to homeless people in any locality.  The locality would fail the test but even worse, the homeless fail even more.  We enjoy animals as much as the next person, but we do not put animal rights above human rights.  No locality provides adequate food, shelter that is properly cleaned, potable water, adequate space, adequate exercise, adequate treatment and transportation and adequate health care for the homeless of their communities.  None.  Animals have more rights than humans.  Now that should make everyone sick.

  People who torture animals on purpose are sick and require help.  Not more abuse from the legal system.  People who are suffering because of our wonderful economy and can not afford all the proper care that once only a short time ago was not an issue, are now being called criminals.  Animal Control laws that keep expanding infringe on the rights of humans and are a parasite to human rights when overrun by higher rights for animals.  Yes, protect the animals, but in a fair manner.  Clearly define violations in a fair manner.  Broadly stated black hole laws open up abuse.  3.2-6503 is ripe for abuse and has been abused.  There are probably more false charges of animal control violations than real ones causing real issues with anyone even wanting to own an animal anymore.  Hope everyone is ready to become a vegetarian or import all our meat from Mexico and Canada.

REEDS Jewelers Logo Option

  What is the best solution we can come up with for this mess?  Just bail out the banks again and go back to sleep.  God save the queen.  Bless the Pope and remember that your commander in chief knows best.  Oh yes, and we are not attorneys and only attorneys can give you legal advice.  This post is not meant for using as a mouth wash and can not be taken as legal council or advice.  Also, the world ended on 12-21-12, so what are we still doing here anyway?


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