Circuit Court Judge Jeffery W Shaw Orders Removal Causing Multiple Assaults Against Council

(By:  Liberty Law)
Gloucester County, Virginia.  Circuit Court Judge, Jeffrey W Shaw orders removal of defendant's council resulting in multiple assaults against council.  No valid reason can be found for Judge Jeffrey W Shaw's order to remove a defendant's council in court yesterday.  Defendant's council is a 67 year old woman, about 5 foot 2 inches and weighing in at about 100 lbs.  Council was simply explaining law to Mr Shaw but he refused to hear the law.  He ordered the removal of council and the bailiff, who had just moments before called for backup, grabbed the arm of this senior citizen, brought it around her back and then proceeded to use force by both twisting her arm and moving it in an upward position, exerting unnecessary force and causing pain.  She tried to continue to explain the law to Mr Shaw all the while the bailiff continued his excessive force and a second bailiff coming in and using additional force against this woman.

  We were there and are witnesses to this event along with a host of others.  Affidavits are now being created that will be signed and notarized and sent to the highest authorities in the nation.  Two bailiffs using excessive force in a premeditated fashion, with malice, against a 67 year old woman who is only 5 foot 2 inches weighing in at about 100 lbs posses no threat.  She was thrown out of the court for the rest of the case all for explaining law to a judge?  No complaints are being filed with the sheriff's office as we do not believe this incident should be a reflection of that office.  The two bailiff's will probably be sued as individuals for their own actions as well as the court for failing to prevent the excessive force as it was happening.  And all of this happened because Judge Jeffrey W Shaw does not believe in the United States Constitution for which he was sworn into office and pledged to uphold.  The situation above all happened because this woman was explaining the defendant's Constitutionally guaranteed rights to Mr Shaw.  Additional lawsuits will now be filed against Judge Jeffery W Shaw for his actions in the court yesterday.  

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.  

Public Notice; Attorney Bruce E Arkema And His Law Firm, Durrette, Arkema, Gerson & Gill pc are being sued

A lawsuit was filed in King William County that has named Bruce E Arkema and his law firm, Durrette, Arkema, Gerson & Gill, pc for the following charges.  Denied a defendant a Right of Due Process of Law, The Right To Due Process of Law, Domestic Mixed War, War, Malfeasance of Office, Slavery, Treason, Fraud, Extortion, Grand Theft, Robbery, False Documents, Conspiracy and Racketeering to name a few.  We have a copy of the filing in our office and have verified the case.  A commercial lean has been filed against them.

(By: Liberty Law)

Suit challenging Va. abortion clinic regulations filed

English: The state seal of Virginia. Српски / Srpski: Застава америчке савезне државе Вирџиније. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Posted: Thursday, June 13, 2013 4:59 pm | Updated: 5:46 pm, Thu Jun 13, 2013.

Associated Press |

RICHMOND, Va. — Falls Church Healthcare Center has filed the first lawsuit challenging Virginia's new abortion clinic regulations, which require existing facilities to meet the same building standards as newly constructed hospitals.

The lawsuit filed this week in Arlington County Circuit Court claims there is no medical justification for requiring clinics to meet those standards, which cover such matters as hallway widths and closet sizes. It also says Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, an anti-abortion Republican, erroneously advised the board that it lacked legal authority to exempt existing clinics from the new-hospital construction standards.

The attorney general's office is reviewing the lawsuit and had no immediate comment, spokesman Brian Gottstein said Thursday.

The Republican-controlled General Assembly in 2011 passed legislation requiring the regulation and licensure of abortion clinics. Supporters say the regulations are intended to protect women's health, but opponents say the aim is to put clinics out of business by mandating renovations they cannot afford. Hillcrest Clinic in Norfolk cited the regulations as one of the reasons for closing in April, a week after the state board gave its final approval on an 11-2 vote, leaving 19 abortion clinics operating in the state.

Falls Church Healthcare Center says in the lawsuit that it would have to spend $2 million on renovations of its century-old building to comply with the regulations.

"We are committed to providing women's healthcare to the underserved population in northern Virginia," Rosemary Codding, the center's director, said in a telephone interview. "They're taking away the rights of these women, and I have to stand up for them."

Last year, against the advice of a senior assistant attorney general, the board voted to exempt existing clinics from the new-hospital building code. Cuccinelli, the GOP candidate for governor, refused to certify the regulations. He told board members they had exceeded their authority, and his office might not represent them if they were sued. The board reversed its position and applied the new-hospital standards to existing facilities.

In its complaint, the medical center says the regulations conflict with an executive order signed by Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell requiring exploration of less restrictive alternatives in adopting regulations that have a financial impact on small businesses. It also says there is no rational basis for imposing tougher building standards on abortion clinics than other existing medical facilities.

The abortion clinics have defended their safety records. However, inspections conducted while the regulations were going through the regulatory process uncovered scores of violations. Among them, the anti-abortion Family Foundation of Virginia noted, were dried blood on some equipment at the Falls Church center.

"The women who visit the Falls Church Healthcare Center would be better served if the owners spent money preventing the bloody and improperly sterilized equipment and patient examination tables found in inspections and having basic procedures to protect the health of its patients," the organization's president, Victoria Cobb, said in a written statement. "Instead they are spending it on a lawsuit to protect themselves from having public health officials hold them accountable."

Codding said she the droplets of blood were not a major issue, and corrective measures have been taken.

"We've been re-inspected twice, and we have a license to operate through 2014," she said.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/suit-challenging-va-abortion-clinic-regulations-filed/article_1f3369e2-d46c-11e2-be26-001a4bcf6878.html  Story link and the last section of the story is here.

Related articles

• Planned Parenthood files lawsuit challenging state's new abortion clinic law (updated)
• Wisconsin GOP working hard to shut down one of the last abortion clinics in the state
• Maryland abortion clinics shut down due to negligence
• Items seized from abortion clinic
• 12 of 16 Maryland abortion clinics fail inspections
• 4 Md. Abortion Clinics Shut Down, 3 Docs Suspended

Animal Control Code, Law, Ordinance, Section 3-15, Wrongfully Charged? Gloucester, VA

We are going to open this post with the statement; We are not attorney's and the following information does not constitute legal advice.  Only an attorney can give you legal advice.  The purpose of this article is to openly discuss issues we have found with Gloucester County Ordinance 3-15 as it presently exists as of January 18th, 2013 on the Gloucester County, Virginia site.

  If you have been charged and or convicted under Gloucester County Animal Control Ordinance Section 3-15, you may want to seriously consider getting legal advice as soon as possible.  We would suggest finding a competent attorney that is not, I repeat, not practicing in Gloucester County.  You will learn soon why we are making this suggestion.

  In December, 2012 we started arguing the legality of Gloucester County Animal Control Ordinance section 3-15.  We started looking at the ordinance from every standpoint as we felt that there was something seriously wrong with it.  Looks like we were right.  We will cover all of that in this article.  In our opinion, this ordinance is the most abused code in Gloucester County, designed to bypass and overstep state laws causing serious misuse, malicious abuse, and serious charges and or convictions on a section of the population of Gloucester County citizens in a serious violation of the public trust.

Here is the Gloucester County Animal Control Code section 3-15 as it presently stands;
                                                                                                                                                                          

Sec. 3-15.  Failure to perform duties of ownership; penalty.

(a)       Each owner or custodian of an animal shall provide for each of his animals all the following as defined in section 3.2-6500 of the Code of Virginia:

(1)       Adequate feed;

(2)       Adequate water;

(3)       Adequate shelter that is properly cleaned and sanitized;

(4)       Adequate space in the primary enclosure for the particular type of animal depending upon its age, size, species, and weight;

(5)       Adequate exercise;

(6)       Adequate care, treatment and transportation; and

(7)       Veterinary care when needed for disease control or to prevent suffering or disease transmission.

The provisions of this section shall apply to an owner or custodian of any animal, fowl, or reptile, including every private owner, animal shelter, pound, dealer, pet shop, exhibitor, kennel, groomer, and boarding establishment. This section shall not require that animals used as food for other animals be euthanized.

(b)       Game and wildlife species shall be cared for in accordance with current regulations promulgated by the Virginia Department of Games and Inland Fisheries.

            (c)        Violation of this section is a Class 4 misdemeanor.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

This is still on the Gloucester County government web site under Animal Control as of January 18th, 2013.  Here is what the state law reads that the ordinance is required to emulate.  The State Law is 3.2-6503

§ 3.2-6503. Care of companion animals by owner; penalty.

A. Each owner shall provide for each of his companion animals:

1. Adequate feed;

2. Adequate water;

3. Adequate shelter that is properly cleaned;

4. Adequate space in the primary enclosure for the particular type of animal depending upon its age, size, species, and weight;

5. Adequate exercise;

6. Adequate care, treatment, and transportation; and

7. Veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering or disease transmission.

The provisions of this section shall also apply to every pound, animal shelter, or other releasing agency, and every foster care provider, dealer, pet shop, exhibitor, kennel, groomer, and boarding establishment. This section shall not require that animals used as food for other animals be euthanized.

B. Violation of this section is a Class 4 misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of subdivision A 1, A 2, A 3, or A 7 is a Class 2 misdemeanor and a second or subsequent violation of subdivision A 4, A 5, or A 6 is a Class 3 misdemeanor.

                                                                                                                                                                         

Note the major differences between the two.  Under 3-15, 3.) Gloucester added the term sanitized.  Not found in state law. under the corresponding section.  Under provisions highlighted on both 3-15 and 3.2-6503 above, there are again major discrepancies.  Gloucester uses the term all animals that is not found in state law.  That means if you have an elephant, Gloucester considers it to be a domestic pet?  Really?  It falls under 3-15 so yes it does appear that way.

  Also, Gloucester is saying that agricultural animals, fowl and reptiles are also considered the same as domestic pets. Again, this is all well above the state law.  The state of Virginia from what we know, does not allow any locality to create ordinances that are broader than state law.   The ordinance must emulate the state law.  Does anyone see an emulation here?  At first glance maybe, but upon inspection, not that we see.  So what happens when a county ordinance is above and beyond it's scope with state law?  It becomes a non law or null and void from what we understand.  

Here is what state law says about county ordinances.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

§ 3.2-6543. Governing body of any locality may adopt certain ordinances.

A. The governing body of any locality of the Commonwealth may adopt, and make more stringent, ordinances that parallel §§ 3.2-6521 through 3.2-6539, 3.2-6546 through 3.2-6555, 3.2-6562, 3.2-6569, 3.2-6570, 3.2-6574 through 3.2-6580, and 3.2-6585 through 3.2-6590. Any town may choose to adopt by reference any ordinance of the surrounding county adopted under this section to be applied within its town limits, in lieu of adopting an ordinance of its own.

Any funds collected pursuant to the enforcement of ordinances adopted pursuant to the provisions of this section may be used for the purpose of defraying the costs of local animal control, including efforts to promote sterilization of cats and dogs.

B. Any locality may, by ordinance, establish uniform schedules of civil penalties for violations of specific provisions of ordinances adopted pursuant to this section. Civil penalties may not be imposed for violations of ordinances that parallel §3.2-6570. Designation of a particular violation for a civil penalty shall be in lieu of criminal sanctions and preclude prosecution of such violation as a criminal misdemeanor. The schedule for civil penalties shall be uniform for each type of specified violation and the penalty for any one violation shall not be more than $150. Imposition of civil penalties shall not preclude an action for injunctive, declaratory or other equitable relief. Moneys raised pursuant to this subsection shall be placed in the locality's general fund.

An animal control officer or law-enforcement officer may issue a summons for a violation. Any person summoned or issued a ticket for a scheduled violation may make an appearance in person or in writing by mail to the department of finance or the treasurer of the locality issuing the summons or ticket prior to the date fixed for trial in court. Any person so appearing may enter a waiver of trial, admit liability, and pay the civil penalty established for the offense charged.

                                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                                                              

  The above section shows what a locality may adopt, and make more stringent.  Not what a locality may adopt, and make broader terms for.  Ted Wilmot proposed changes to the local ordinances here in 2013 to reflect Animal Control law changes made by the state of Virginia back in 2011.  Are we a little behind here? So what that suggests is that Ted Wilmot has opened the county up to the potential of lawsuits for failing to maintain proper county ordinances?   3-15 of Gloucester County Animal Control is presently in violation of state law as we see it.  How many people have been charged with and or convicted of a violation to county ordinance 3-15 that in itself looks like it's a violation of state law?  So people have misdemeanor convictions against them based on an ordinance that itself was in violation of state laws?  This is what you bring to your attorney.

  The potential for a class action lawsuit against the county here is incredible as well as all the individual lawsuits from what we are looking at.  You can view the new proposed changes to section 3-15 on the following embedded PDF.

Gloucester County Virginia Animal Control ammendments 1 2013 from

This is just one of 26 summons filed against one family here in Gloucester, VA.  20 of those charges were filed under Gloucester County Ordinance 3-15.  Ted Wilmot prosecuted this case knowing that the county ordinance was in violation of state law in our view.  19 charges under 3-15 were dropped but one was still charged and convicted putting a misdemeanor charge, fine and court costs against a person here in Gloucester.  The court allowed the charge and conviction proving to be a potential problem and not a potential solution.  So potential lawsuits against the county can not take place in the county.

  The funny part about all of this, in December, the Gloucester Mathews Gazette Journal reported that Gloucester Animal Control served 32 summons during the month of November.  What the paper did not tell you was that 26 of the summons were to only one family that Animal Control Officers pretty much destroyed  in our view.  See our story on this through this internal link.  http://www.gloucestercounty-va.com/2012/12/gloucester-va-animal-control-section-3_11.html

  It is in our opinion that the county may want to start looking at all the cases filed in court under 3-15 and consider reversing all the misdemeanor charges, fines and court costs.  Where should the money come from for all of this?  The Animal Control Budget of course.  Strip the county down to one Animal Control officer with no secretary.  Oldest out first as that is where the highest payroll is.  Keep the newest person as they have not jumped the pay grade yet, so the budget can be kept in line.  Replace Ted Wilmot with a new attorney with a lower pay grade that won't leave the county open on areas like this.

Again, we are not attorney's and this is not legal advice.  Only an attorney can legally advice you.  We recommend seeking legal advice if you or someone you know has been a victim of Gloucester County Ordinance 3-15.  We do not recommend attorney's from Gloucester as we are not aware of any that have argued the legality of 3-15 making any of them a potential part of the problem and not a part of the potential solution, but keep in mind not every attorney in Gloucester has had to defend clients against this code.  So it's a personal judgement call.  Also, not being attorney's we are not able to foresee all the issues that surround this controversy.

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
• Grandmother, 3 children die in Va. fire
• Candlelight vigil held for victims of fatal Gloucester County house fire
• Four people die in Gloucester County house fire
• Bolling to attend two events in Gloucester Tuesday

Holli M Cohoon Now Harassing Victim?

Is Holli M Cohoon now harassing the victim she gave highly questionable testimony against?  

Let's go back to the beginning on this.  Holli M Cohoon was once a 911 operator for the Gloucester, VA Sheriff's Office.  We have been reporting for some time now on this case and we have shown that at the very least, Holli has lied in court.  Now all of a sudden from out of nowhere, the victim gets this emergency protective order a few days after we released a story on Holli and her Sunrise Donut shop.

  The victim in this case was initially raided by the Gloucester, VA Sheriff's Office, under Sheriff Steve Gentry, and Gloucester, VA Animal control without a search warrant.  A search warrant was not issued to this victim until later in the day after she was released from jail.  This victim had no idea was she was even taken to jail.

Click Image to enlarge.  Names and personal 
information removed for privacy.

We have shown that the search warrant that was given to the victim after being released from jail was not valid in any area of law.  We showed also that this victim had all kinds of false evidence used against her by Gloucester, VA Animal Control and the Gloucester, VA Sheriff's Office.  We show that Holli's testimony was no where near the other false evidence given by others presenting further false evidence.
We have shown how the evidence is false.

  The victim in this case has been working on a lawsuit against Holli M Cohoon for some time now and it is opinion that Holli may have gotten wind of a pending lawsuit and is using this as a way to throw off the case.  So is this a harassment attempt by Holli?

 When putting together a lawsuit, you get detailed information on what the other party owns in order to determine if the lawsuit can be justified.

Now here is some other information we find very interesting.  We went over the above document with a fine tooth comb and see that Gloucester County court officials followed everything to the letter of the law.  Now how is it they can do this now but were unable to do this in the past?  Every area properly signed, every aspect properly dated and executed.  Yet on the search warrant given after the raid on the victim, nothing was done properly.  Go back into our archives and see for yourself.  We posted that evidence.  Or Click Here to see all the evidence from this case.

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.