Showing posts with label Laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Laws. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

The Many Lies of Governor Ralph Northam and The Latest Breach of More Laws

(By:  Chuck Thompson)
Governor Ralph Northam has declared a state of emergency for this coming Monday where he says guns to be outlawed from the grounds around the Capitol building due to supposed threats seen on Facebook.  Here is a serious problem folks, he wants to ban guns from the grounds of the Capitol building yet he does not have that right.  In fact, he is breaking the law of the Commonwealth even trying to declare such.  HB 20 sponsored by Delegates Mike Watson and Tony Wilt, stating the following; "Emergency services and disasters; constitutional rights, Provides that nothing in the Emergency Services and Disaster Law shall be interpreted to limit or prohibit the otherwise lawful possession, carrying, transportation, sale, or transfer of firearms".  that law passed in 2012 under governor McDonnell who signed it into law.

  So we have a real dilemma here folks.  Either the present Governor is ignorant of the law, or he just does not care what the law says.  Now let's address his argument for trying to pull this illegal bluff off.  He states that there is intel that "Militia plan on storming the Capitol on Monday the 20th, VCDL's lobby day.  That folks is a lie.  No militia is planning that anywhere.  Paramilitary or more like Anarchists have in fact stated that they do have these plans.  I knew about them weeks ago.  But to claim "Militia are planning this is a purposely deceitful propaganda ploy as there are a number of Constitutionally planned militia in the making which scares the hell out of the democrats, because the militia will not follow any orders that are unconstitutional such as red flag laws, and the like.  The left are trying to create a bad impression of the coming Militia because it stops their plans to disarm law abiding citizens against the constitution of both Virginia and of these United States of America.  It's what we call using the poison pen to undermine sound ideas.

  Now what further should concern everyone is the idea that the actions are construed as so grievous by so many as to why anyone would even consider violence against the Commonwealth legislators.  Could it possibly be due to the fact that the democrats are violating their oaths of office?  Democrats breaking the supreme law of the land both with the Virginia Constitution as well as the Constitution of these United States of America?  Attempting to tear down and destroy each and every aspect of the Bill of Rights?  The Bill of Rights which are not rights granted "We The People", by government, but instead by God and only an extra layer of protection for "We The People" in the event of a tyrannical government?

  It's beyond disturbing that anyone could think that destroying the Bill of Rights will protect anyone except a corrupt government.  We are seeing democratic legislators spitting in the face of every Virginian and lying all along the way while doing so trying to convince the ignorant that they want to take away your rights to keep you safe.

  It was laughable when one person stood before the democratic lead committee the other day and was given unlimited time to tell the committee that he was from Fairfax county and that 80% of the people in Virginia, later corrected to 80% of the people in Fairfax county supported gun control.  Can someone show me where even 80% of the population in Fairfax speaks English?  Can anyone even show me where 20% of Fairfax even speaks English?  It was highly dishonest and the Democrats went along with it because it supported their cause.  Never mind that most of the people that spoke that morning were dead set against the stripping "We The People" of our rights.

  A serious problem we now face here in the Commonwealth is how do you trust a government that lies, and breaks the laws in order to put forth their own agenda?  Where is law?  Democrats are actually creating a precedence for lawless government. 

Monday, March 23, 2015

Capias Fraud In Gloucester, Virginia?

Highly Queationable Capias, Virginia from Chuck Thompson

Above is a Capias used to arrest a local resident.  Problem is from everything I have read in the Virginia Criminal Justice rules, the above Capias was illegally put together and executed in my opinion and I will go over why here very shortly.  I am also including the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Rules so that everyone can read them and make their own interpretation.

Capias csp1 letter from Chuck Thompson

Now on page 7 of the above document it shows three areas in where a Capias may be used.  Those three areas are as follows:  Failure To Appear, Contempt of Court, and Failure To Obey A Court Order.  Now a Capias may be issued for the arrest of someone who has been indited by a grand jury on felony charges, but not on misdemeanor charges.

  In the top Capias, the defendant was ordered to be arrested for two very vague accusations of statutory violations that are both misdemeanors.  When you read the Virginia rules here, you will see that the most the court may do is issue a summons to appear to the defendant.  The only way this defendant could have been arrested is if she violated some court order, but she was not in court and has no court orders against her.  She did not meet any contempt of court order as she was not yet put before any court.  There was no failure to appear as she had not been issued any form of notice.

  So how and why did they arrest her?  This is the only document used for her arrest along with two True Bills of accusations of statutory violations made against her.  No arrest warrant(s) were ever issued or executed nor any summons ever given.  Also, the rules state that only a court clerk, magistrate, or judge may sign a Capias depending on how it is being created and for what purpose.  In this case it was signed by a deputy clerk and not the court clerk.

  It begs me to ask: are the courts somehow exempt from their own rules that they create?  I am pretty darn sure that the courts, judges whom have sat over this case and the clerks are all aware of this and this may be a very big part in why they are demanding that the defendant go through a mental evaluation.  The entire case in my opinion is based on retaliation against us and predicated on fraud throughout.  Much more coming.  

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Gloucester, Virginia Zoning For Horses: None By Federal Law

Now here is a very interesting case that was brought up before the Board of Supervisors and we just covered this issue in an earlier post tonight, but the issue involves zoning for horses in Gloucester County.  Well zoning only applies to county owned land.  Not to anyone with a farm, business, or personal use.  The county has no legal say whatsoever in this matter, yet, are trying to state that they do.  You have no obligation at any time to ask for permission to do anything here in the county or anywhere in the 48 states of the Union.  (We know there are 50 states, but you better look up some facts on who the Constitution actually applies to).  The claims made by Ted Wilmot simply are not true based on the information below.

Again, let's look at those laws:

California Law prohibits Cities and Counties from enforcing City or County Codes and Ordinances upon property that is not OWNED by the City or County even if the property is within City limits.

California Penal Code: Chapter 5b CITATIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF COUNTY, CITY, OR CITY AND COUNTY ORDINANCES Sections 853.1through 853.4 was repealed in 1967.

The Supreme Court ruled that Municipalities cannot exert any acts of ownership and control over property that is not OWNED by them, see Palazzolo v. Rhode Island 533 US 606, 150 L.Ed. 2d 592, 121 S.Ct. ___(2001) (no expiration date on the taking clause for City's illegal enforcement of its Codes on the man's private property and restricting the man's business), affirming both Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 US 1003, 120 L.Ed. 2d 798 (1992).(butterfly activists and Code Enforcement cannot restrict development of the man's private swampland unless they lawfully acquire the land FIRST, surveying with binoculars constitutes a "takings"), and Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 US 687 (1999), 143 L.Ed. 2d 882 S.Ct.____ (1998).

In the Monterey case, the California private property owner was awarded $8 million for Code Enforcement's illegal trespass and restriction of his business, and another $1.45 million for the aggravation of a forced sale.

Federal Law also prohibits Cities and Counties from issuing citations against businesses, see Title 18 U.S.C.891-896, quoting Section 891 "An extortionate means is any means which involves the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation, or property."

Black's Law Dictionary 5 th Edition (page 1140): Recaption. At Common Law, a retaking or taking back. 

Now even though California law is cited here, it is applicable throughout all 48 contiguous states of the union.  Ted Wilmot does not know the law?  Whomever brought the charges against these people should be sued to no end.  Each county employee involved should be sued as a private individual as well as the county in our opinion.  Again, the audacity of these folks is unreal.   Please note the amount the man sued for and won.  The county needs to be taken to task on this outrageous invasion of the people the county brought to court.  The massive invasion of their rights is unconscionable.

  Now what is truly sad is the fact that the people who are in court over this, their own attorney does not even know this nor tried to look it up.  What does that say about their own legal council?  You need to hire an attorney why?  Ever?  Good luck with that.

But as we like to state, none of this should ever be construed as legal advice.  You can only get legal advice from a Franchised Bar attorney which we have not bought into the Bar franchise nor are we even interested in doing so.  So for franchised legal advice, please see a franchised legal consultant known as an attorney.  We only discuss lawful concepts which everyone has a right to do as that right is inherent and unalienable.  No license required.  In fact, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, it's the people who make the laws, not the government.  If you question that, please see the Commonwealth Constitution.  

  Those codes that the legislature churns out is only the color of law.  If it were law, it would say it was law.  Instead, they are statutes, codes and or ordinances.  That is not law.  Those codes, ordinances and or statutes really do not apply to you.  They apply to a person.  Who is a person?  An actor who wears a mask.  

  Who are the true actors?  Government employees.  Most folks are wrongfully charged and do not even know it and get thrown in jail, prison, or charged with crimes they did not actually commit.  And you thought maybe something was wrong with the system?  Yes there is.

The Official State Office Known As Person 

The above document is free to download from our SlideShare site.  It explains who a person is.  We verified the definition of a person through the Oxford dictionary as well as the Catholic Dictionary.  An actor who wears a mask.  If it was meant to be against a man or a woman, the codes, statutes and or ordinances would say so.  They clearly never do.  You have to ask why.  Or just learn the real definition.  Have you been fooled by the legal system?

Coming soon.  How to disqualify any judge or prosecuting attorney.  The legal term?  Recuse them.

Sunday, November 2, 2014

Gloucester, VA Animal Control Ordinances vs State and Federal Laws and Codes

We have completed going through all of the Gloucester County, Virginia ordinances as they relate to and are covered under Animal Control.  What we have found are numerous violations in a number of local ordinances.

  Gloucester Animal Control Ordinance 3-18 is our biggest complaint, however, it is not our only complaint.  We have a real problem with Gloucester County officials just making up ordinances in violation of both state as well as federal codes, and or laws.

It is outrageous that county officials have gotten away with this for so long and it's time to put a stop to it all.   Here is what we found posted in a SlideShare container to keep the site compact but still very usable.

Gloucester, Virginia Animal Control Ordinances With Notes, 10 2014 from Chuck Thompson

The above is the complete Animal Control ordinances for Gloucester County as of November 2nd, 2014 as they currently stand.  We have highlighted areas we found to be illegal or highly questionable, in yellow.  Our notes follow the yellow highlighted sections with a salmon colored highlighting over the notes.  We point out that we can not find any corresponding state codes and argue to have these illegal codes removed from the books.

  A copy of the above has already been sent to the Board of Supervisors for this upcoming meeting to be held at the Colonial Courthouse in the Courthouse circle on Wednesday evening.  That meeting starts at 7:00 PM.

  Our biggest contention is the very highly illegal ordinance 3-18.  We have done all the research on this ordinance and it's proposed changes and have sent all the findings to the Board of Supervisors asking that no form of ordinance 3-18 show up on the books as it not only violates state codes, it also violates Federal Laws too.

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 left in an
enclosed a 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 the proposed new ordinance 3-18. It's original form was not legal and this new re write is even more illegal than it's predecessor.  We have posted those reasons on here many times already.  What we have not posted on here is Federal laws.  We have heard arguments being claimed that Animal Control isn't considering horse trailers as vehicles.  Well under the definition of federal law, horse trailers are considered vehicles.

CFR Title 41;  §102-34.35  

Motor vehicle means any vehicle, self propelled or drawn by mechanical power, designed and operated principally for highway transportation of property or passengers, but does not include a military design motor vehicle or vehicles not covered by this part (see §102-34.20).

That is the definition of a vehicle under federal law.  So it does include a horse trailer as a vehicle.  Animal Control's statements do not override federal law.

Further, we did research under title 49 of federal laws to see if the federal government requires air conditioning for transportation of people or animals.  There are no requirements and anyone who wants to question this, please, here are the links to check out for yourself.

Yes, we even looked up the transportation of migrant works as it is only reasonable that these laws would be more stringent.  Air conditioning is not required under federal laws.

  Local ordinances can not supersede state laws that can not supersede federal laws.  Animal Control ordinance 3-18 seeks to supersede both state and federal laws.  That is simply outrageous.

Today, Sunday November 2nd, 2014, we received a phone call from a friend who told us about a meeting of concerned animal owners in the county, the meeting of which was held at Anna's Pizza in the courthouse area.  Some of the people at this meeting are not going to be able to attend the Board of Supervisors meeting this coming Wednesday.

We have sent a copy of this petition to the Board of Supervisors and we recommend that everyone who is concerned about this and other illegal ordinances contact the Board as soon as possible before Wednesday Night's meeting. is their email address.

Monday, March 3, 2014

Gloucester, VA Container Use Ordinances and Codes Updated

17 Courthouse Area, Container in the back visible from the highway.  

Closer view of the container on the left back side.

Route 17 south, Ordinary.  Container to the left in back.  Visible from highway.

As the one directly above only more of a side view.

Route 17, south, Gloucester Point.  Container next to billboard.

Route 17 South.  Container barely, but, still visible from highway behind shop.

Route 17 South, Container sticks out just enough from side of building to be seen from highway.

Route 17 South.  One container stuck out from side of building just enough to be visible from highway.  When we went back behind area this is what we saw.  4 Containers.

Route 17 South.  S&B Muffler and Brakes.  To the right of the building behind little dumpster.  Very visible from highway.

Again, we are not picking on any business by any means.  The board of Supervisors are looking at ordinances that will affect the future use of containers on any property in the county.  At the moment, every single one of these businesses are in violation of county ordinances.  The county does not enforce these ordinances in any way unless of course, you are foolish enough to ask for the county's permission.  Best advice?  Do not ask for permission, just do it.   If you get questioned, refer them to this site.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, March 2, 2014

Gloucester, VA Storage Container Use Ordinances

Gloucester, VA Zoning Codes For Containers, 2014 from Chuck Thompson

Above are the present ordinances for the use of storage containers in Gloucester County and the proposed new ordinances for the use of storage containers.  Below is a series of pictures that show a complete lack of anyone following present use ordinances or proposed new ordinance guidelines.  So what is the sense of even bringing it up?

As seen right on route 17 south, Gloucester.  Hayes area.  Not one, but two.

Two storage containers right there in plain view on route 17 South in front of a vacant business.  Vacant.  Where is the compliance?  Where are the required permits?  These have been here for over one month.

Wait, there is more.

Two more storage containers in plain view from two roads, one of which is route 17.  These are located on the grounds of the Salvation Army.  We are not picking on any business for this report.  We are showing that there is no enforcement of present ordinances, and that these containers would still be in violation of any changes to the present ordinances.

The above two pictures are showing yet another container located on the property of Franktronics.  Visible from two roads including route 17.  Again, this is not to pick on any business.  But it becomes a fair point to ask, are a few exempt from the laws of the many?  Is this sound business?  What messages are you giving to potential new businesses that are looking at Gloucester as a potential area to expand into?  They can but you can't?  Laws only apply to those we choose to make them apply to?  The land of the chosen few?

  And what messages are you delivering to present business owners in the area?  Again it becomes the same mantra.  The land of the chosen few?  Ask not what Gloucester can do for you.  Ask what Gloucester may do to you?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, December 7, 2013

Gloucester, VA Officials Violate Anti Trust Laws In Illegal Gun Fraud Scam?

Since when has it become legal to backdate laws?  What state code gives any locality in the state of Virginia the ability to backdate when a new ordinance update takes effect?  What state law exists in Virginia that allows any locality the ability to violate the Dillon Rule when Virginia is clearly a Dillon Rule state?

  Since when has it become law for county officials who are not law enforcement officers to sell guns without a license to do so in violation of state laws and antitrust laws?   These are some very tough questions we want to see answered.  Why?  Because it seems that our county Board of Supervisors, county attorney and county administrator have just broken a nice large list of laws that would all seem to qualify as felony charges against each one of them.

  Let's take a look at this mess.  Tuesday night, December 3rd, 2013 the Board of Supervisors voted to pass option 3 of county ordinance 22-20, Purchase of Handguns By Retired Officers.  The main objective?  To sell an already retired animal control officer a handgun for a buck.  Let's look at the entire list of options as it came off of the Gloucester County Virginia Government website.

Gloucester, VA Code 22-20 Purchase of Handguns from Chuck Thompson

Look at the very bottom of page 12.  It is retroactive as of July, 2013.  Wait, they just passed this vote Tuesday night, December 3rd, 2013.  How can they backdate this?  There was no public hearing prior to that date to argue either for or against the ordinance.  In fact, it did not even become an issue until September, 2013.  How can they backdate the new updated ordinance to July, 2013?  Isn't that fraud?  It was done to allow Carl Shipley, retired animal control officer, the ability to buy his handgun that he carried for years, for one dollar.

  But wait, we already argued that he is not eligible to buy his handgun as we are not able to see any state law that allows anyone in animal control to qualify under the state law as it presently exists.  County officials have not been able to show evidence of this either.

  Hold on now, it gets worse.  Let's look at the sale of firearms in the state of Virginia.

Chapter 11.1 - Firearms

§ 59.1-148.4. Sale of firearms by law-enforcement agencies prohibited; exception.
A law-enforcement agency of this Commonwealth shall not sell or trade any firearm owned and used or otherwise lawfully in its possession except (i) to another law-enforcement agency of the Commonwealth, (ii) to a licensed firearms dealer, (iii) to the persons as provided in § 59.1-148.3 or (iv) as authorized by a court in accordance with § 19.2-386.29.

Brenda Garton is the county administrator, not law enforcement, so exactly how is it that she can be authorized to sell handguns to retired animal control?

§ 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies.

A. No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution or motion, as permitted by §15.2-1425, and no agent of such locality shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than those expressly authorized by statute. For purposes of this section, a statute that does not refer to firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, shall not be construed to provide express authorization.
Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from adopting workplace rules relating to terms and conditions of employment of the workforce. However, no locality shall adopt any workplace rule, other than for the purposes of a community services board or behavioral health authority as defined in § 37.2-100, that prevents an employee of that locality from storing at that locality's workplace a lawfully possessed firearm and ammunition in a locked private motor vehicle. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, from acting within the scope of his duties.
The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also apply to any authority or to a local governmental entity, including a department or agency, but not including any local or regional jail, juvenile detention facility, or state-governed entity, department, or agency.
B. Any local ordinance, resolution or motion adopted prior to the effective date of this act governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, other than those expressly authorized by statute, is invalid.
C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs to any person, group, or entity that prevails in an action challenging (i) an ordinance, resolution, or motion as being in conflict with this section or (ii) an administrative action taken in bad faith as being in conflict with this section.
D. For purposes of this section, "workplace" means "workplace of the locality."

From what we are reading above, county officials can not create the ordinance 22-20, option 3 as listed above in the container.

§ 15.2-1426. Form of ordinances.

The object of every ordinance, except an ordinance approving a budget, an annual appropriation ordinance or an ordinance which codifies ordinances, shall be clearly expressed in its title. All ordinances which repeal or amend existing ordinances shall identify by title the section to be repealed or amended.

Where is backdating added into the above?

§ 15.2-1427. Adoption of ordinances and resolutions generally; amending or repealing ordinances.

A. Unless otherwise specifically provided for by the Constitution or by other general or special law, an ordinance may be adopted by majority vote of those present and voting at any lawful meeting.

B. On final vote on any ordinance or resolution, the name of each member of the governing body voting and how he voted shall be recorded; however, votes on all ordinances and resolutions adopted prior to February 27, 1998, in which an unanimous vote of the governing body was recorded, shall be deemed to have been validly recorded. The governing body may adopt an ordinance or resolution by a recorded voice vote unless otherwise provided by law, or any member calls for a roll call vote. An ordinance shall become effective upon adoption or upon a date fixed by the governing body.

C. All ordinances or resolutions heretofore adopted by a governing body shall be deemed to have been validly adopted, unless some provision of the Constitution of Virginia or the Constitution of the United States has been violated in such adoption.

D. An ordinance may be amended or repealed in the same manner, or by the same procedure, in which, or by which, ordinances are adopted.

E. An amendment or repeal of an ordinance shall be in the form of an ordinance which shall become effective upon adoption or upon a date fixed by the governing body, but, if no effective date is specified, then such ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.

F. In counties, except as otherwise authorized by law, no ordinance shall be passed until after descriptive notice of an intention to propose the ordinance for passage has been published once a week for two successive weeks prior to its passage in a newspaper having a general circulation in the county. The second publication shall not be sooner than one calendar week after the first publication. The publication shall include a statement either that the publication contains the full text of the ordinance or that a copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the clerk's office of the circuit court of the county or in the office of the county administrator; or in the case of any county organized under the form of government set out in Chapter 5, 7 or 8 of this title, a statement that a copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of the clerk of the county board. Even if the publication contains the full text of the ordinance, a complete copy shall be available for public inspection in the offices named herein.
In counties, emergency ordinances may be adopted without prior notice; however, no such ordinance shall be enforced for more than sixty days unless readopted in conformity with the provisions of this Code.

G. In towns, no tax shall be imposed except by a two-thirds vote of the council members.

The highlighted section above does not allow for backdating.  Just dating.  Let's continue to look at the laws.

§ 15.2-1433. Codification and recodification of ordinances.

Any locality may codify or recodify any or all of its ordinances, in permanently bound or loose-leaf form. Such ordinances may be changed, altered or amended by the governing body, and ordinances or portions thereof may be deleted and new material may be added by the governing body. Such changes, alterations, amendments or deletions and such new material shall become effective on the effective date of the codification or recodification.

Ordinances relating to zoning and the subdivision of land may be included in any codification or recodification of ordinances; however, no change, alteration, amendment, deletion or addition of a substantive nature shall be made and no new material of a substantive nature shall be added to such ordinances unless, prior to the date of adoption of such codification or recodification, notice of such proposed changes, alterations, amendments, deletions or additions shall be published as required by the Code of Virginia and public hearings held thereon as provided by the Code of Virginia for adoption and amendment of zoning and subdivision ordinances. Renumbering or rearranging of sections, articles or other divisions of any such ordinance shall not be deemed to be a change, alteration or amendment of a substantive nature.

Any such codification or recodification may be adopted by reference by a single ordinance, without further publication of such codification or recodification or any portions thereof. The ordinance adopting such codification or recodification shall comply with all laws of the Commonwealth and any provision of any city or town charter requiring posting or publication of ordinances or notice of intent to adopt ordinances. At least one copy of such codification or recodification or a complete set of printer's proofs of the text thereof shall be made available for public inspection in the office of the clerk of the governing body in which such codification or recodification is proposed to be adopted.

No ordinance levying or increasing taxes shall be enacted as new material in any such codification or recodification or amended in substance therein unless advertised in accordance with general law.

Supplements for such codifications or recodifications may be prepared from time to time at the direction of the governing body of the locality, either as units or on a replacement page basis; however, where replacement pages are prepared, a distinguishing mark or notation shall be placed on each replacement page to distinguish it from original pages and pages of other supplements. No further adoption procedure shall be required for supplements or replacement pages in which no substantive change is made in ordinances previously and validly adopted by the governing body of the locality. If changes, alterations, amendments, deletions or additions of a substantive nature are made in any such supplement, then such supplement shall be adopted by the governing body in the same manner provided by general or special law.

At least one copy of any codification or recodification adopted hereunder and at least one copy of every supplement thereto shall be kept in the office of the clerk of the governing body and shall there be available for public inspection during normal business hours.

Any codification or recodification adopted hereunder shall be admitted in evidence in all courts without further proof.

From what this state code reads, backdating is not an option.  Also, we looked at the October meeting where this was first introduced.  Effective backdating was not listed as a potential option and the public was not made aware that this change to the local ordinance would be backdated.  So again, we ask how is this legal?  See below for the full documentation.

Now in all fairness, I can argue a case for the backdating based on the way the state code reads, however, it would have to be advertised and also included in previous documents to take legal effect, which the backdating of the new ordinance in question does not have attached to it.  Therefore, I could not reasonably argue the backdating the way it has been done.  Therefore, it is viewed as fraud in our opinion.

Let's also look at the legal definition of Animal Control.

§ 3.2-6555. Position of animal control officer created.

The governing body of each county or city shall, or each town may, employ an officer to be known as the animal control officer who shall have the power to enforce this chapter, all ordinances enacted pursuant to this chapter and all laws for the protection of domestic animals. The governing body may also employ one or more deputy animal control officers to assist the animal control officer in the performance of his duties. Animal control officers and deputy animal control officers shall have knowledge of the animal control and protection laws of the Commonwealth that they are required to enforce. When in uniform or upon displaying a badge or other credentials of office, animal control officers and deputy animal control officers shall have the power to issue a summons or obtain a felony warrant as necessary, providing the execution of such warrant shall be carried out by any law-enforcement officer as defined in § 9.1-101, to any person found in the act of violating any such law or any ordinance enacted pursuant to such law of the locality where the animal control officer or deputy animal control officer is employed.

 Commercial dog breeding locations shall be subject to inspection by animal control at least twice annually and additionally upon receipt of a complaint or their own motion to ensure compliance with state animal care laws and regulations. The animal control officer and the deputy animal control officers shall be paid as the governing body of each locality shall prescribe.
Any locality where an animal control officer or deputy animal control officers have been employed may contract with one or more additional localities for enforcement of animal protection and control laws by the animal control officers or deputy animal control officers. Any such contract may provide that the locality employing the animal control officer or deputy animal control officers shall be reimbursed a portion of the salary and expenses of the animal control officer or deputy animal control officers.

Every locality employing an animal control officer shall submit to the State Veterinarian, on a form provided by him, information concerning the employment and training status of the animal control officers employed by the locality. The State Veterinarian may require that the locality notify him of any change in such information.

The above does not show Animal Control officers as qualifying under state code; § 59.1-148.3. Purchase of handguns of certain officers.  So what we have here is a county ordinance that appears to violate the Dillon rule on multiple levels, is backdated and contains the sale of guns by a person not authorized by the state to sell handguns?  All written by a county attorney and approved in a 5 to 1 to 1 vote by the Board of Supervisors?  And these people patted themselves on the back for all of this and more?
Enhanced by Zemanta