Showing posts with label Judge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judge. Show all posts

Thursday, January 24, 2019

Public Notice: Judge Jeffery W Shaw Lawsuit Update

An update on the lawsuit against Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey W Shaw.  Everyone is looking online to see where the lawsuit is posted.  We have been given permission to show the front page of the lawsuit because it isn't like any other lawsuit anyone has ever seen before.  We will not be publishing the entire brief so please do not ask or look for it.  Most will not understand how any of this works.  The front page only sets the stage for the filing.  This is a commercial lien.  It can not be sealed.  It can not be redacted.  And no one can understand how it all comes together without reading the brief in it's entirety.   Below is a copy of the front of the brief.

(By:  Liberty Law)

Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey W Shaw Lawsuit Update from Chuck Thompson

We have redacted the injured party's name from the above information.  

Friday, June 24, 2016

Fed Court Orders Gloucester To Allow Transvestite To Use Boys Bathrooms

A Federal Court of Eastern Virginia has ordered the Gloucester school board to allow Gavin Grimm to use the male restroom.  Now, sorry I really do not care if anyone is offended by my views here, Gavin is a little whiny transvestite.  What this so called transgender stuff is no one really knows.  It's something new that was made up to upset the balance of decent society.  (I can hear the rants now coming from some claiming human rights).   Transgender, cleaning up the word, transvestite.

I am seriously wondering if the judge who made this careless decision is willing to share his bathroom with little girls? Or is that the reason this decision was made?  The judge?  Robert G Doumar.  A questionable judge based on others experience with him.  Here is one of his ratings.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 9209
This is one of the worst judges in America. He screamed at highly qualified experts, his mood changed by the hour, he did not give fair treatment to both sides - allowed one party to use demonstratives but not the other, did oustide research on his own to decide the case. If he was a good judge once, he is not now and should get off the bench. I was warned about him before but had no idea he would be as bad as he was.

Source link is above for the above copied rating on this judge.  Might be on too many medications and is having issues keeping his temper?  

This is not about human rights.  It's about giving extra rights to what some will call perverts.  This is the kind of crap one gets in a secular society.  You can challenge anything and everything for any reason at any time.  But marrying more than one woman is illegal in this country?   Why is that exactly?  So when will Bob, Steve, Robin and Joan all be allowed to inter marry each other and live at Bob's mom's house?  One big happy family?  Don't forget to allow them to marry the dog on top of all this.

It's not going to far when we already have gone to far.  Best bet now is to pull your children from the local schools or pervert your children.   Well, why not just marry them off to that judge?  Let him take care of your children.  Oh, but you have to pay their support though.  

There is nothing Constitutional about perversion. We had a republic but we allowed it to be stolen from us as Benjamin Franklin predicted.

I doubt our public officials have the guts for it, but they should ignore the judge's order, and demand that the judge go through a psychiatric evaluation based on feedback from the public on a public forum.  That might not be grounds, but I have seen psychiatric orders given on less from the courts.

In the event our public officials just go along with that order, then as already given, it is my opinion that everyone who finds the order offensive should pull their children from the school and it is a Constitutional legality to refuse to pay taxes based on refusing to fund government that no longer serves your interest.  Problem is that courts no longer follow the Constitution and will lock you up anyway in violation of the Supreme law of the land.  These days the law is whatever the judge feels like the law should be and based on who is paying the most to make sure a certain agenda is followed.  Again, my opinion based on what I have seen in many courts.  Not all judge's are bad and not all courts are corrupt.  But the number of courts and judges who are corrupt is growing, not shrinking.  

Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers. Rulers are no more than attorneys, agents, and trustees, of the people; and if the cause, the interest, and trust, is insidiously betrayed, or wantonly trifled away, the people have a right to revoke the authority that they themselves have deputed, and to constitute other and better agents, attorneys and trustees.  (John Adams:  1765).

Saturday, February 15, 2014

Governor McAuliffe Statement on Bostic v. Rainey Ruling

Governor Terry McAuliffe released the following statement on the federal district court’s decision striking down Virginia’s ban on marriage for same-sex couples:

"I applaud the federal district court's decision to ensure all Virginians are treated equally under the law, no matter what their backgrounds are or whom they love. In order to grow our economy and attract the best businesses, entrepreneurs, and families to Virginia, we must be open and welcoming to all who call our Commonwealth home.  As this case continues through the judicial process, I will enforce the laws currently on the books, but this decision is a significant step forward in achieving greater equality for all of our citizens."

Link to more information on the Judge who made this ruling.  

Our Notes:  If this is what the founding fathers had intended, they would have made provisions for it.  They didn't as they did not accept this concept.  We can not even imagine how this woman can call herself a Christian.  Even our Russian and Chinese friends who read this site are highly offended by this.   This judge should be thrown out of the country.   And what does that say about our Governor?  In all fairness, we having nothing against the gay community.  We just do not consider it a right.  We view it as a special interest with special privileges which is a violation to both the State and Federal Constitutions from what we have reported here on this site.

  Next move?  The promotion and legalization of pedophilia?  It's coming.  Is this the price this woman had to pay for this position?  (What, you don't think this happens?)  The next probable move is the legalization of pot.  But hey, why stop there.  Legalize all of it.  Opium, LSD, Cocaine, Meth, the whole 9 yards.  Start opening casinos.  Legalize prostitution.  Get a bunch of abortion clinics into the state.  One on every corner and make them cheap and funded by the state.  DO WHAT THOU WILT is the order of the "LAW".    Babylon Returns, get used to it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, December 31, 2012

Citizens of Gloucester, VA Calling For Immediate Termination of Circuit Court Clerk (Judge) Gloria Owens For Legal Violations

Citizens of Gloucester, Virginia are calling for the immediate termination of circuit court clerk, Gloria Owens for violations to the Commonwealth of Virginia Constitution, article 1 section 10, General Warrants of Search or Seizure Prohibited:  That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted.  This is a link to the site where the Commonwealth of Virginia Code is located.  And violations to 19.2-56 as well as the possibility of impersonating a judge on a legal document.

That the above Search Warrant written by one Gloria Owens is in direct violation of the above Commonwealth of Virginia Constitutional law as a request for the search and or seizure of any and all animals had no founding basis and is a direct violation of said above Virginia law.  That said 3rd party complaint did not justify such a wide open search and or inspection hence rendering said warrant null and void and in violation of both the State of Virginia Constitution and the Federal Constitution regarding Search Warrants as well as a direct violation to Virginia law 19.2-56.  And as one can see above, Gloria Owens marked the box under her signature as a judge which she is not, giving the appearance that she mis-represented herself on this legal document.


§ 3.2-6568. Power of search for violations of statutes against cruelty to animals
When a sworn complaint is made to any proper authority 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 authority, 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.


That upon any state representative and or law enforcement investigator whom views the above warrant in it's entirety will find that a third party complaint, that was not reliable under the terms of unconstitutional searches, was a first complaint that would only cause an investigation under 3.2-6568.  That the above 3rd party complaint was for pets inside the owners main dwelling as evidenced by Gloucester County's own records and attached to this Warrant.

That said Search Warrant can not be written and commanded by just a court clerk and requires the authorization of either a Magistrate or a Judge.  That the above Search Warrant in our opinion was written without said required authorization.  That said Search Warrant violated the evidence of facts.  That Gloria Owens signed and marked herself as a Judge in a false manor and did not add the required, "on behalf of", statement.

A freedom of information request is being pursued to determine if in fact one Gloria Owens acted on her own or if either a magistrate and or judge was contacted,where and or that permitted this violation, where further requests for termination will be called for against said person(s).  

Code of Virginia - Title 19.2 Criminal Procedure - Section 19.2-56 To whom search warrant directed; what it shall command; warrant to show date and time of issuance; ...

Legal Research Home > Virginia Lawyer
§ 19.2-56. To whom search warrant directed; what it shall command; warrant to show date and time of issuance; ...

The judge, magistrate or other official authorized to issue criminal warrants, shall issue a search warrant if he finds from the facts or circumstances recited in the affidavit that there is probable cause for the issuance thereof.

Every search warrant shall be directed to (i) the sheriff, sergeant, or any policeman of the county, city or town in which the place to be searched is located, (ii) any law-enforcement officer or agent employed by the Commonwealth and vested with the powers of sheriffs and police, or (iii) jointly to any such sheriff, sergeant, policeman or law-enforcement officer or agent and an agent, special agent or officer of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the United States Treasury, the United States Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the United States Department of Homeland Security, any inspector, law-enforcement official or police personnel of the United States Postal Inspection Service, or the Drug Enforcement Administration. The warrant shall (i) name the affiant, (ii) recite the offense in relation to which the search is to be made, (iii) name or describe the place to be searched, (iv) describe the property or person to be searched for, and (v) recite that the magistrate has found probable cause to believe that the property or person constitutes evidence of a crime (identified in the warrant) or tends to show that a person (named or described therein) has committed or is committing a crime.

The warrant shall command that the place be forthwith searched, either in day or night, and that the objects or persons described in the warrant, if found there, be seized. An inventory shall be produced before a court having jurisdiction of the offense in relation to which the warrant was issued as provided in § 19.2-57.

Any such warrant as provided in this section shall be executed by the policeman or other law-enforcement officer or agent into whose hands it shall come or be delivered. If the warrant is directed jointly to a sheriff, sergeant, policeman or law-enforcement officer or agent of the Commonwealth and a federal agent or officer as otherwise provided in this section, the warrant may be executed jointly or by the policeman, law-enforcement officer or agent into whose hands it is delivered. No other person may be permitted to be present during or participate in the execution of a warrant to search a place except (i) the owners and occupants of the place to be searched when permitted to be present by the officer in charge of the conduct of the search and (ii) persons designated by the officer in charge of the conduct of the search to assist or provide expertise in the conduct of the search.

Every search warrant shall contain the date and time it was issued. However, the failure of any such search warrant to contain the date and time it was issued shall not render the warrant void, provided that the date and time of issuing of said warrant is established by competent evidence.

The judge, magistrate, or other official authorized to issue criminal warrants shall attach a copy of the affidavit required by § 19.2-54, which shall become a part of the search warrant and served therewith. However, this provision shall not be applicable in any case in which the affidavit is made by means of a voice or videotape recording or where the affidavit has been sealed pursuant to § 19.2-54.

Any search warrant not executed within 15 days after issuance thereof shall be returned to, and voided by, the officer who issued such search warrant.

(Code 1950, § 19.1-86; 1960, c. 366; 1968, c. 572; 1975, c. 495; 1977, c. 289; 1979, c. 584; 1980, c. 573; 1981, c. 559; 1984, cc. 491, 598; 1988, c. 50; 1989, c. 719; 2000, c. 783; 2001, cc. 183, 205; 2007, c. 416.)


That the above Virginia law has been violated and upon a previous freedom of information request, Gloucester County officials failed to provide proof and or evidence of the date and time of issuance of the above Search Warrant.  

Code of Virginia - Title 19.2 Criminal Procedure - Section 19.2-54 Affidavit preliminary to issuance of search warrant; general search warrant prohibited; effect of f...

Legal Research Home > Virginia Lawyer
§ 19.2-54. Affidavit preliminary to issuance of search warrant; general search warrant prohibited; effect of f...
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 facsimile process. 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 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; however such affidavit may be temporarily sealed 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, and 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.

(Code 1950, § 19.1-85; 1960, c. 366; 1973, c. 502; 1975, c. 495; 1976, c. 552; 1977, c. 109; 1979, c. 583; 1980, c. 362; 1981, c. 559; 1989, c. 719; 2006, c. 285; 2007, c. 212; 2008, cc. 147, 183.)


That the above listed Search Warrant is in violation to 19.2-54 as listed here on this page.  Gloucester County, Virginia citizens can not afford and will not tolerate criminals to be employed in this county and are requesting full termination of the employment of one Gloria Owens immediately based on the above complaint.  This complaint has been sent to the Gloucester County, Virginia board of Supervisors as well as the county Administrator for action.

  Local law can not supersede state law.  No state law can supersede another state law.  Animal Control laws can not and do not supersede state search warrant laws.

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