Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisor's Meeting Video for December, 2013

The last meeting for 3 members of the Board of Supervisors and they go out approving yet more ordinances that look to us like very clear violations of county code.  All we can say is we are very glad these criminals are gone.  And of course, they had to pat themselves on their own backs because no one else wants to go any where near them.

County animal control officers may purchase their county-issued
service handguns in the situations set forth in, and subject to the
requirements of, Va. Code § 59.1-148.3, and all amendments thereto, with
the approval of the county administrator.

So what does state code read?

§ 59.1-148.3. Purchase of handguns of certain officers.

A. The Department of State Police, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the State Lottery Department, the Marine Resources Commission, the Capitol Police, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Department of Forestry, any sheriff, any regional jail board or authority and any local police department may allow any full-time sworn law-enforcement officer, deputy, or regional jail officer, a local fire department may allow any full-time sworn fire marshal, the Department of Motor Vehicles may allow any law-enforcement officer, and any institution of higher learning named in § 23-14 may allow any campus police officer appointed pursuant to Chapter 17 (§ 23-232 et seq.) of Title 23, retiring on or after July 1, 1991, who retires (i) after at least 10 years of service, (ii) at 70 years of age or older, or (iii) as a result of a service-incurred disability or who is receiving long-term disability payments for a service-incurred disability with no expectation of returning to the employment where he incurred the disability to purchase the service handgun issued or previously issued to him by the agency or institution at a price of $1. If the previously issued weapon is no longer available, a weapon of like kind may be substituted for that weapon. This privilege shall also extend to any former Superintendent of the Department of State Police who leaves service after a minimum of five years. This privilege shall also extend to any person listed in this subsection who is eligible for retirement with at least 10 years of service who resigns on or after July 1, 1991, in good standing from one of the agencies listed in this section to accept a position covered by the Virginia Retirement System. Other weapons issued by the Department of State Police for personal duty use of an officer, may, with approval of the Superintendent, be sold to the officer subject to the qualifications of this section at a fair market price determined as in subsection B, so long as the weapon is a type and configuration that can be purchased at a regular hardware or sporting goods store by a private citizen without restrictions other than the instant background check.

B. The agencies listed in subsection A may allow any full-time sworn law-enforcement officer who retires with 5 or more years of service, but less than 10, to purchase the service handgun issued to him by the agency at a price equivalent to the weapon's fair market value on the date of the officer's retirement. Any full-time sworn law-enforcement officer employed by any of the agencies listed in subsection A who is retired for disability as a result of a nonservice-incurred disability may purchase the service handgun issued to him by the agency at a price equivalent to the weapon's fair market value on the date of the officer's retirement. Determinations of fair market value may be made by reference to a recognized pricing guide.

C. The agencies listed in subsection A may allow the immediate survivor of any full-time sworn law-enforcement officer (i) who is killed in the line of duty or (ii) who dies in service and has at least 10 years of service to purchase the service handgun issued to the officer by the agency at a price of $1.

D. The governing board of any institution of higher learning named in § 23-14 may allow any campus police officer appointed pursuant to Chapter 17 (§ 23-232 et seq.) of Title 23 who retires on or after July 1, 1991, to purchase the service handgun issued to him at a price equivalent to the weapon's fair market value on the date of the officer's retirement. Determinations of fair market value may be made by reference to a recognized pricing guide.

E. Any officer who at the time of his retirement is a full-time sworn law-enforcement officer with a state agency listed in subsection A, when the agency allows purchases of service handguns, and who retires after 10 years of state service, even if a portion of his service was with another state agency, may purchase the service handgun issued to him by the agency from which he retires at a price of $1.

F. The sheriff of Hanover County may allow any auxiliary or volunteer deputy sheriff with a minimum of 10 years of service, upon leaving office, to purchase for $1 the service handgun issued to him.

G. Any sheriff or local police department, in accordance with written authorization or approval from the local governing body, may allow any auxiliary law-enforcement officer with more than 10 years of service to purchase the service handgun issued to him by the agency at a price that is equivalent to or less than the weapon's fair market value on the date of purchase by the officer.

H. The agencies listed in subsection A may allow any full-time sworn law-enforcement officer currently employed by the agency to purchase his service handgun, with the approval of the chief law-enforcement officer of the agency, at a fair market price. This subsection shall only apply when the agency has purchased new service handguns for its officers, and the handgun subject to the sale is no longer used by the agency or officer in the course of duty.

Nope, don't see Animal Control listed in the above list of who can buy a handgun.  But the county does not care and they are going to sell one to Carl Shipley for all his years of terrorizing animal owners in the county?  Twitching Ted, (I'm still not an attorney), Wilmot, the court jester, county attorney is the one who wrote this code knowing that Virginia is a Dillon Rule state.  Maybe the new board should fire both Ted and Brenda as their first line of duty come January, 2014.  We must say, Twitching Ted performed in his sorry manner giving away the fact you just can't trust this guy?  Watch him in the video.  His body language still has not improved although he has taken a bit more control over his hands when he isn't hiding them.

  Anyone find it odd that Sheriff Warren refuses to take responsibility for selling a handgun to an animal control officer?  Is it because Sheriff Warren is smart enough to know that he can't do that?  Is Brenda being put up as a patsy then for selling a handgun to a retired Animal Control officer?  The fall gal?  It would seem that the new board might just have just cause for termination of two overpaid county employees and they do not get to pass go and collect $200.00 either.  They would just get to go.  

Now here is the real kicker, Chris Hutson stated that he had issues with going with anything other than keeping within the state rules or following the Dillon Rule.  He voted against version 3 of the new county code because he feels like it's in violation of the Dillon Rule and accused Ted of making up his own laws.  Watch the video, it's right there.  All the other board members had no problem with violating state laws?  Anyone have issues with this?  Ted didn't care and neither did Brenda.  Seems they have no issues with violating state laws.  We need criminals running the county why?  Just open the jail cells, those folks could probably do a much better job than these two.  We can just imagine how many people are behind bars that should not be and we see those who should be but are not.

That's okay, we are presently working on a plan that will forever prevent the county from violating Dillon rules in the future.  If they do, it will cost them very dearly and we are working on this at the state level with the introduction of new state laws.  Here is a little preview, it falls in under state compliance audits.  Fail an audit and funding disappears and criminal charges could also be brought along with investigations into the courts depending on the nature of the violations.  That's just a small sample preview.  The state then forces the criminals out of office and may criminally charge the offenders.  Does that make you nervous Ted?  How about you Brenda?  Welcome to accountability for actions.  Coming very soon.

Related articles

• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Consider Ordinance To Cheat The IRS?
• Graphic: Sheriff's Department hired officers with histories of misconduct
• Gloucester, VA Judges Private Vehicle Chambers Pushed Off Til Later Date
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Meeting Video Nov. 2013
• Gloucester, VA Judges Requests Private Chambers For Personal Vehicles At Taxpayer Expense of Course
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors To Honor Themselves For Raising Your Taxes

Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Meeting Video Nov. 2013

We are running late putting up a copy of this video as we took the week off for meetings and some rather deep investigations.  This particular BoS meeting is rather short compared to many in the past.  It has it's laughs however.  Twitching Ted, (I'm not an attorney), Wilmot, court jester was allowed to speak in this meeting.  Of course he was presenting a new ordinance that seems to be in clear violations of the Dillon rule, hence state code, so even though he has learned to control his hands better than in the past, his facial twitches and deep swallows were still evident that he was less than comfortable with his presentation of the ordinance choices he drafted.  As we keep saying, if you have to go up against an attorney, this is the guy you want to go up against.  You can easily read him like a book.   Sorry Ted, you are still not ready for the prime time players.

The laughing jester // Art museum of Sweden, Stockholm (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 You can also catch a good laugh as both Hutson and Theberge try to force the private chambers for the judge's personal cars down the taxpayers throats.  Kudos to Chrisco for not allowing it and forcing it over to CPI where it belongs.

  The big question we still have is why is this board trying to go out with passing yet further ordinances that in every way appear as such blatant violations to state code?  Are they trying to go out with maximum damage to the taxpayers?  Be sure to thank them for all the money they have taken out of your pocket for years to come.  If we continue to see this kind of garbage, Gloucester will get renamed Tumbleweed county as everyone flocks to leave because of the ridiculous taxes and lack of return on investments from those higher taxes.

In our opinion, Gloucester is still a prefered place to live on our list with only a handful of places throughout the state that also include a few minor hidden sections around Williamsburg, James City County and York County and maybe a few choice areas around Charles City county and New Kent County, otherwise the rest of the state has fun places to play, but not to live.  The rest of the list for us is short on a national level and only includes minor selections in PA, Florida and Georgia.  Everywhere else we have been are just not our cup of tea.  Sure there are a lot of great places throughout the nation to play in, but living there, no thanks.

  Gloucester has key amenities in place in select sections of the county and is sustainable for a gated bedroom community.  It is not self sustaining and if it were made to be self sustaining, then it would be lost as a prefered location as it would become overpopulated with numerous undesirable elements.  Is anyone looking for an extension of Newport News here or Williamsburg for that matter?

  Controlled growth is needed, but it must be smart and not at tremendous costs to the taxpayers and for the benefit of the few within the county.  The county right now is very blessed with tremendous talent.  A talent that needs to be taken advantage of for the good of the county overall and not abused by the county.  It is our sincere hope that the new Board of Supervisors will be bringing the proper mix of talent and dedication to clean up the mess that is being left to them and that the present board members follow the new lead coming in.  We are also hoping that the new board members resist the Rotary club indoctrinations as well, but there is no way to know that right off.  Time will tell.

Related articles

• Gloucester, VA Speaking for.....
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Consider Ordinance To Cheat The IRS?
• Gloucester, VA Judges Private Vehicle Chambers Pushed Off Til Later Date
• Gloucester, VA Judges Requests Private Chambers For Personal Vehicles At Taxpayer Expense of Course
• Gloucester, VA More Page Middle School Corruption?
• Gloucester, VA Page Middle School Dis Service Announcement 1

More On Gloucester's One Dollar Gun Sales

Regulating Animal Control (Photo credit: Office of Governor Patrick)

Gloucester One Dollar Gun Sales from Chuck Thompson

Here is the entire issue that was a part of a public discussion last night before the Gloucester, Virginia board of supervisors.  As it turns out, Carl, (Chuck), Shipley decided to whine and cry about being able to buy his gun for one dollar from the county even though he only had 22 years of service in, and county code says you have to have 25 years of service in.  Well, first off, the 25 years of service is in violation of state codes.  Not that this is bad enough, but Animal Control does not qualify as law enforcement per Virginia code.  Now they are granted limited law enforcement capabilities by both state code and local ordinance, but are not technically considered law enforcement by either that we see.  See the above 59.1-148.3 state code.

 It appears Animal Control officers are excluded from section A which is the defining section for the rest of the code.  Carl's complaint was that he wanted to buy his gun for one dollar even though he does not have the right to from what we see in the state code.  Watch the video here as Brenda Garton now plays legal interpretation for state code in violation of the Dillon Rule.

We have gone over the state codes regarding law enforcement officers and animal control officers.  Animal Control at this time is not listed as law enforcement.  They have certain deputized duties of law enforcement, but are not listed as law enforcement at all.  http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+3.2-6555  Link to Animal Control officer status with the state.  Now it looks like in the future there will be a new breed that does meet the law enforcement section of state code, but that division has not yet been made law, even though it is on the books to become law.  http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-632  This link will take you to where the state is looking at Animal Protection Police.  If and when that comes, then those are the ones who will meet law enforcement guidelines of the state.  (More invasions on privacy).

  So what we see in the video is county employees making assumptions in violation of the Dillon Rule regarding Carl Shipley being able to buy a gun for one dollar when he is not classified as law enforcement.   Where was Twitching Ted, (I'm not an attorney), Willymot, the court jester, county attorney on all of this?  Not a word came out of his mouth.  County employees just state Twitches opinion for him, and it does not look as though that opinion was correct.  But hey, when do we actually see these people trying to even consider following any laws anyway?  It's more fun to make them up as you go along.  Even the Sheriff was appalled at the county ordinances not meeting state guidelines.

 

Related articles

• Gloucester, VA Officials Selling Hand Guns For One Dollar Each
• Gloucester Animal Control Ordinances Debate Continues
• Why does the Gloucester Animal Control Ordinances Debate Continue
• Ted Wilmot, Gloucester County Attorney Throws Board of Supervisor's Under The Bus?
• Gloucester, VA Government Employees Happy Meal, Literally
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Guilty of Willful Misconduct?

Gloucester, VA Animal Control In Violation of it's Own Ordinances?

Is Gloucester, Virginia Animal Control in violation of it's own ordinances?  From what we see, yes;

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.

The above is from Gloucester, Virginia's own government website and is part of the Gloucester County Animal Control ordinances for Gloucester, Virginia.  Now we have argued that there are still a number of ordinances on Gloucester's books that are not compliant to state laws, hence, in violation of the Dillon Rule.  However, Ted Wilmot has argued that they are still defensible.  So with that being that case, we will take his word for it and show how Gloucester Animal Control looks to be the biggest offender of animal cruelty ever seen in Gloucester, Virginia's own history.

You just read their code above, do you think Animal Control officers follow that ordinance?  We are going to show that no they do not, in our view, and in fact are in direct violation of said code.  Let's look at some Animal Control vehicle pictures and see if they are in compliance with the above or if they are in violation of their own codes, causing inhumane suffering of animals.

Starting with this one picture, we are going to show that Gloucester Animal Control does not follow it's own ordinances and are potentially transporting animals in inhumane and cruel manners.

  Notice this truck, there are no side windows, no ventilation top, no form of Air Conditioning per Gloucester AC section 3-18 as listed above.  But you have not seen the entire evidence yet.

So let's look at some other photos to see if they are in violation.

To the left here, there is an air gap between the truck cab and the truck bed.  Not sufficient to supply air conditioning from the cab to the back.  That would mean that animals are being transported in Gloucester County Animal Control vehicles in violation of AC ordinance 3-18 above would it not?

But let's assume for a moment that some air conditioning can go from the cab to the bed, let's look inside the bed of the truck and see if the animals being transported by Animal Control are in a decent environment.

This is the inside of the bed of one of the Animal Control trucks.  If you look towards the back, there are windows that are open between the cab and the bed, however, the steel cage represents an air flow issue.  In fact, we would say that the steel cages add an extra measure of heat transference.  This is the only source of air flow in the bed of this one truck.  How is this able to keep animals in a cool and comfortable environment to meet the ordinance under 3-18 above?  

  It isn't from what we see.  That would suggest cruel and inhumane treatment of the animals.  

This is another version and the most popular version used by Gloucester Animal Control.  It is only slightly better in that it has a ventilated top over the cover of the bed of the truck.  The same air gap exists between the cab and the bed.

Let's take a look inside this one.

Here you can see the air ventilation over the top cover of the bed.  There is a rear window opening at the back of the bed, but one is not seen in the cab, meaning no air flow from the cab to the truck bed.  No air conditioning.  Same steel cages which restrict air flow to the animals inside the cages.

  So what we can see, while Gloucester, Animal Control is transporting animals during the summer, they are shaking and backing the animals in a cruel and inhumane manner from what the evidence seems to suggest.  So according to Gloucester County ordinance 3-18 above, every Animal Control officer that has ever transported any animal in any of these vehicles while the outside temperature was at 80 degrees or above is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor charge on each and every event.  That would also mean that those above the office of Animal Control who has allowed this are also guilty, such as Ted Wilmot, County attorney, Brenda Garton, County Administrator, and the entire Gloucester County Board of Supervisors in our view.

  Going further, that would also mean that each of these individuals are also guilty of violations of state code 3.2-6500, failing to provide a comfortable environment for the animals as we are willing to bet that each cage in the above pictures and all Animal Control vehicles do not provide adequate resting pads for the animals.  That would also mean that each of these individuals would seem guilty of violations to Gloucester Animal Control ordinance 3-13, cruelty to animals.

Sec. 3-13. Cruelty to animals.

(a) Any person who:

(1) Overrides, overdrives, overloads, tortures, ill-treats, abandons, willfully inflicts inhumane injury or pain not connected with bona fide scientific or medical experimentation, or cruelly or unnecessarily beats, maims, mutilates, or kills any animal, whether belonging to himself or another;

(2) Deprives any animal of necessary food, drink, shelter, or emergency veterinary treatment;

(3) Sores any equine for any purpose or administers drugs or medications to alter or mask such soring for the purpose of sale, show, or exhibition of any kind, unless such administration of drugs or medications is within the context of a veterinary client-patient relationship and solely for therapeutic purposes;

(4) Willfully sets on foot, instigates, engages in, or in any way furthers any act of cruelty to any animal;

(5) Carries or causes to be carried in or upon any vehicle, vessel, or otherwise any animal in a cruel, brutal, or inhumane manner, so as to produce torture or unnecessary suffering; or

(6) Causes any of the above things, or being the owner of such animal permits such acts to be done by another, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

(b) Subsequent violations punishable as a Class 6 felony shall be charged under section 3.2-6570(B) of the Code of Virginia.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the dehorning of cattle conducted in a reasonable and customary manner.

(d) For the purposes of this section the word animal shall be construed to include birds and fowl.

(e) This section shall not prohibit authorized wildlife management activities or hunting, fishing, or trapping as regulated under the other titles of the Code of Virginia including, but not limited to, Title 29.1, or to farming activities as provided under Title 3.2 or regulations promulgated thereunder.

(f) In addition to the penalties provided in subsection (a), the court may, in its discretion, require any person convicted of a violation of subsection (a) to attend an anger management or other appropriate treatment program or obtain psychiatric or psychological counseling. The court may impose the costs of such a program or counseling upon the person convicted.

(g) It is unlawful for any person to kill a domestic dog or cat for the purpose of obtaining the hide, fur, or pelt of the dog or cat. A violation of this subsection shall constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of this subsection shall be charged under section 3.2-6570(E) of the Code of Virginia.

(h) Any person who (i) tortures, willfully inflicts inhumane injury or pain not connected with bona fide scientific or medical experimentation, or cruelly and unnecessarily beats, maims, or mutilates any dog or cat that is a companion animal whether belonging to him or another and (ii) as a direct result causes the death of such dog or cat that is a companion animal, or the euthanasia of such animal on the recommendation of a licensed veterinarian upon determination that such euthanasia was necessary due to the condition of the animal, punishable as a Class 6 felony, shall be charged under section 3.2-6570(F) of the Code of Virginia. If a dog or cat is attacked on its owner's property by a dog so as to cause injury or death, the owner of the injured dog or cat may use all reasonable and necessary force against the dog at the time of the attack to protect his dog or cat. Such owner may be presumed to have taken necessary and appropriate action to defend his dog or cat and shall therefore be presumed not to have violated this subsection.

(i) Any person convicted of violating this section may be prohibited by the court from possession or ownership of companion animals.

There would appear to be further Class 1 Misdemeanor charges on this as well.  

Sec. 3-7. Maintenance of animals and fowl.

(a)  Each stable, pen, coop, or other place where any animal or fowl is kept, shall be maintained at all times in a safe and sanitary condition and so as not to constitute a nuisance. Solid and liquid waste matter shall be removed therefrom not less than twice each week, and more frequently if necessary, to eliminate offensive odors or to prevent accumulations constituting a hazard to the health or safety of any person, animal or fowl.

(b)  Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

How many violations are each and every Animal Control officer and each and every other person mentioned, guilty of then?  I think we can find plenty more yet.  These people would seem to be the biggest offenders of their own codes and should know better as they are required to know these codes and should object to transporting animals in these unsafe and very cruel and inhumane conditions.

We the citizens of Gloucester County, Virginia would like to see a weekly report that each animal control vehicle meets safe and sanitary conditions as is deemed appropriate by the above Gloucester County ordinance.  How is Gloucester County ensuring our safety?  We want to know.  Further, we want to see pictures of any and all animals that come into the Gloucester County Animal Control shelter each and every week.  Posted on the county website, it would provide owners with a chance to see if their pets have been picked up or if they are still missing.

  Also, we would like to have video cameras in the Gloucester County Animal Shelter to see how the county is caring for each and every animal in it's charge.  How do we know that Animal Control is not in further violations of it's own ordinances otherwise?  We already see that Gloucester Animal Control does not follow it's own ordinances with the vehicles pictured above with evidence of their own ordinances listed here.  Charges should also be higher against all of these people as they should be held to higher standards.  

  Tuesday evening, September 3rd, the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors are going to be recognizing some of these Animal Control officers at the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors meeting at the Colonial Courthouse.  These people should be all served with court appearances to face these grievous issues, not giving the  high five to each other for their own continuous violations to their own ordinances.  Steve Baranek is famous for his quote, "We speak for those who can not".  We would like to point out the same, we are presently speaking out for those who can not, against the cruelty of animals by Animal Control.

On a final note, we are not attorney's and none of this should be considered legal advice in any way.  We are simply questioning the obvious and researching what we can to ask further questions.  Pictures were contracted by us from one of the people who has provided us with pictures of county employees violations of using government vehicles for personal use.

This article may be ported to other sites in it's entirety to include pictures by anyone wishing to report on this issue.  We have gained permission for the pictures to be used by other news agencies under fair use laws of the United States without any form of copyright infringement.  This article may also be ported to print.  Link back is requested but not detrimental.

Related articles

• Protecting Your Rights
• Gloucester Animal Control Ordinances Debate Continues
• Gloucester County Ordinances Repealed, August, 2013
• Ted Wilmot, Gloucester County Attorney Throws Board of Supervisor's Under The Bus?
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Guilty of Willful Misconduct?
• Gloucester, VA Government Vehicle Now Meals On Wheels?

A story passed down through time around the campfire

A Piece of Fiction:

Open Letter to the Citizens of Gloucester County Virginia

“For the Common Good. “

Today I would like to tell you a story to help you to understand how part of the county code came into being and that it has no basis in law but in nanny state big government.

This story has been told around campfires when the hunters returned from the hunt and the gathers returned from the fields.  A long time ago (less than 10 years using clocks of today’s time) in a province far away whose name rhymes with Gloucester there was a farmer that lives in the northern lands of the province who liked to travel in his horseless wagon whose name rhymes with pickup truck, with his companion animal, whose name rhymes with dog, when he was not attending to his herd and farm.  There was a law keeper, whose name rhymes with Hawkins that did not like this farmer and would wait to ambush him every time he left his farm with his companion animal.  No one around the campfire understands why the law keeper had this dislike for farmer since farmer was well known and got along well with his neighbors and the law keeper would not come to the gatherings at the end of the day to say why.

One day the law keeper decided to take the farmer to the village chief who's position was to judge what the law keeper told him and determine if anything wrong had been done.  The law keeper told the village chief that farmer liked to let his companion animal ride in the back of the horseless wagon and was not tied to the horseless wagon while traveling on the province paths, whose name rhymes with road.  The village chief nodded his head and listened to both men.  He then went to the book of laws for the province and for the region the province was located, whose name rhymes with Virginia and made the ruling that there are no laws in the land that prevents the companion animal from riding in the back of the horseless wagon when it is not tied to the wagon. Quit wasting my time on your nanny rules and leave my people alone.

The law keeper was madder than ever and decided he would fix farmer.  So he went to one of the village elders, whose name rhymes with Theberge and the province herder, whose name rhymes with Shipley and told them what happened and that he did not want it to happen again.  The elder's job was to make laws for the province, believed she was smarter than everyone else in the province, and that she should run their lives for them and believed in lots of nanny state rules said we can come up with a plan to help you. The province herder was trying to become more impotent in the province was willing to go along with the plan.  So the three of them worked together until they worked out a plan to change all the laws in the province for companion animals so they could grow the province herders empire, increase income by fining the people they did not like and to specifically get back at farmer for making the law keeper look bad in front of the village chief.  They convinced the other elders to change the laws for the good of the province and the other elders not knowing the plan went along since they did not want to be on the bad side of this elder since she would make their lives miserable.

The laws were changed.  Farmer and the others in the province knew why and shook their heads in disgust not knowing what else to do.  Time passed and a new man, whose name rhymes with Thompson came to the province and saw the laws and that they were evil and in violation of region laws and of bigger chiefs saying provinces could not make stricter laws not allowed by the region, whose name rhymes with Dillon Rule, and let the elders know they were in violation.  The elders not knowing any different asked their law writer, whose name rhymes with Wilmot, to look into the issue.  The story has different versions at this point but the most common version is the elder that made up the law told the law writer we made this law up fair and square and you have to defend it no matter that it is not allowed by the region.  At this point the story kind of ends but there are lessons told at this point.  This elder loses her position among the group of elders because she does not listen to the people of the province.  The province herder retires to go beat rugs and sit on his porch in shame.  There are rumors that the law writer loses his position for cause without severance pay because he is not capable of doing his job and has to become a gather since the hunters will not allow him to hunt with them.  The law keeper has the opportunity to learn from this and become a good citizen of the province if he is willing because other stories told round the fire was he was a good man and can become one again.

This story has nothing to do with any person alive or dead if it seems like it does it is coincidence and not done on purpose.  This is a work of fiction.

County residents tell the Supervisors to get rid of County Code 3-17 before it gets the county sued.

I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice.  Our founding fathers used common sense when establishing our founding documents. 

“For the Common Good. “

Sincerely,

Alexander James Jay

P.S.  Point to ponder:  God only ask for a Tithing of 10 percent and he returns it to us seven fold.  The government asks for 50 percent or more depending on your tax rate. What do we get in return?  A new school in the swamp.

Related articles

• wriggle & rhyme
• Jabberwocky
• Protecting Your Rights
• Ted Wilmot, Gloucester County Attorney Throws Board of Supervisor's Under The Bus?
• Laws Should Not Be Suspended
• Health Foods That Are Not

Gloucester, VA - Dillon Rule For State And Local Government And Home Rule Laws

Once again we have heard from the person who stated yes to Gloucester Animal Control Law, Section 3-15 being a valid law.  The following is the recent reply and we again wish to thank that person for taking the time to respond and the invaluable argument that person gives as well as contributing to the knowledge base of us all.


Me again. I think the discussion is moving in the correct direction. I would suggest that the intent of 6543 is to permit local governments to adopt AND make more stringent ordinances that parallel the sections listed. Localities may adopt parallel ordinances for all of the code so long as they are not more stringent. In fact, they do not need to do so because the locality could simply rely on the state code to file charges. Adopting codes locally serves to make ordinances overall more clear and transparent so a citizen does not have to navigate a few applicable ordinances in local law (that in this case are permitted to be more stringent) and a few from state law never really knowing if they have observed all laws. 

So, I continue to maintain that if you do not like the ordinance, your beef should be with the state, not the locality. This is particularly true in Virginia given it is a "Dillon Rule" state.

I trust this information is useful.

One argument I have here is the use of "Adopt AND" phrase in the above argument. In state law 3.2-6543, there is a coma after adopt in the wording that the state uses and it is there for a reason.  It has a meaning.  If the state law makers meant "adopt and", then they would not have used the coma in the sentence.  In law, the coma break is used to signify the proper context of the meaning.  Now let's look at the Dillon Rule.

                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                         

Dillon Rule in Virginia

Fairfax County operates under the urban county executive form of government, an optional form of Virginia county government, and like other Virginia local governments,Fairfax County has limited powers.

More specifically, Virginia courts have concluded that local governments in Virginia have only:

1. Those powers that are specifically conferred on them by the Virginia General Assembly
2. Those powers that are necessarily or fairly implied from a specific grant of authority
3. Those powers that are essential to the purposes of government -- not simply convenient but indispensable

This doctrine of limited authority for local governments is commonly called the Dillon Rule, a name that is derived from the writings of John Forest Dillon, who served as a judge, a law professor and an author of legal textbooks in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The Dillon Rule is used in interpreting law when there is a question of whether or not a local government has a certain power. The Dillon Rule narrowly defines the power of local governments. It also states that if there is any reasonable doubt whether a power has been conferred on a local government, then the power has NOT been conferred.

The Dillon Rule as a concept is found in all states – meaning that apart from the power ceded to the federal government in the U.S Constitution, the state governments have all the remaining governmental authority. However, most states have adopted various types of “home rule” provisions that permit some or all of their local governments to undertake those governmental functions that are not specifically precluded by the laws of those home rule states. Virginia has not provided such home rule authority to its local governments.

The Virginia Supreme Court and other Virginia courts routinely apply the Dillon Rule to determine whether or not a local government has the legal authority to undertake a disputed action. For well-established county functions, like planning, zoning, and taxation, there are a number of statutes that give the county clear direction and authority to act, but in new areas of governmental concern, the Dillon Rule can serve as a constraint to innovative governmental responses.

This means that Fairfax County has limited powers in areas such as raising revenue, and it cannot take certain actions without appropriate action from the state, which limits revenue diversification options among other things.

                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                                             

The above is reprinted from http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/government/about/dillon-rule.htm the Fairfax County Government web site.

                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                                                                           

Home Rule Law & Legal Definition

Home rule is the power of a local city or county to set up its own system of self-government without receiving a charter from the state. Home rule is allowed under some state constitutions. The authority to act in local affairs is transferred from state law to a local charter, adopted and, as need be amended, by the voters through referendum. Home rule shifts much of the responsibility for local government from the state legislature to the local community. A county that adopts a home rule charter has the ability to amend its governmental organization and powers to suit its needs. A home rule charter is, in essence, a local constitution.

A home rule county is still subject to restrictions found in the United States Constitution, state constitutions, and in state laws applicable to all counties. While not restricted to only things specifically authorized by state law, home rule counties can do anything not specifically forbidden by state or federal law.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                                                                      

The "Home Rule" definition is reprinted from http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/home-rule/ US Legal web site.  The link will take you right to the definition as re printed above.

  So again, I like the argument.  It is very clear, well thought out and executed, however I still see all of these flaws.  So again, I argue that the state has not authorized the county to import and or alter Gloucester County Animal Control Section 3-15 as derived from state law 3.2-6503 as it pertains to what the state does permit under 3.2-6543 which only allows restricted adoptions of certain laws and 3.2-6503 not on the approved list for adoption.  No where do we see the Dillon Rule working on Gloucester County's behalf, but instead, against it.  The Dillon Rule is limited government not expanded government.  To import 3.2-6503 and alter it is an expansion of power, not a limitation of power and definitely not a transparent use of law but more like an abuse of law in our view.

§ 15.2-1425. Actions by localities.

The governing body of every locality in the performance of its duties, obligations and functions may adopt, as appropriate, ordinances, resolutions and motions.

  If you wish to argue this as being open to adopting state laws under the Dillon Rule, we don't see it as a valid argument.  We have gone through the laws of what localities can and can not do, 3.2-6543 seems to stand as what localities may adopt for the laws and or ordinances of each locality within the state under Animal Control Laws.  Section 3-15 of Gloucester County Animal Control Law does not seem to stand the test as it is derived from 3.2-6503 of Virginia State law that does not fall under 3.2-6543 as having the ability to be adopted by localities.  Again the coma after the word, "Adopt" in the state law 3.2-6543 is the key here.

  If I were to hazard a guess as to who our person is with a brilliant grasp of our legal system, I would guess that it's a person who is employed by the Gloucester County government.  If I were to hazard an even further guess as to exactly who this person is I would hazard it to be Ted Wilmot, the Gloucester County Attorney.  These are only guesses.  Either way, it seems clear that the intent of the continuing arguments for 3-15 is in defense for having the law on the books of Gloucester County as it has the ability to raise plenty of money for the county and court system.  Taking it off the books would cause a serious cash flow issue for the county and certain services which in many cases seems more like citizen dis services as it seems to be abused by Animal Control officers on a regular basis.

  Still I like the arguments and would prefer them to continue.  It's a learning curve and I will not say we are 100 percent right.  There could be areas we are missing.  After all, we are not attorney's and this is not meant as legal advice in anyway.  It's just questioning everything.  Again, thank you and  please continue the input and we ask that you not take offense to our arguments.  We all have something to learn from it.

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.

Related articles

• Gloucester County Chamber of Commerce Annual Dinner Set for Jan. 19
• New Va. laws aimed at protecting homeowners take effect