Gloucester VA Links and News: Officers

Showing posts with label Officers. Show all posts

Monday, November 4, 2013

Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Consider Ordinance To Cheat The IRS?

Gloucester, Virginia: The Board of Supervisors to consider changes to it's local ordinance that has not been in compliance with state code is now being considered for change. The wording still does not reflect state code which would mean in our book, a violation to the Dillon Rule and further seeks to sell guns, under certain circumstances, for one dollar each.

Now on the one hand to be as fair as possible on the one dollar gun sale, we can go along with it under proper considerations. According to the new ordinance being considered, a Sheriff's deputy can buy his firearm from the county, after 20 years of service, and upon retirement from service, for one dollar. If a deputy retires before 20 years of service, and after 15 years of service according to the new ordinance, the deputy can buy the gun at fair market value.

Here is where there is a real problem with the 20 year plan. It's at taxpayer expense. Now, if the gun, after 20 years of service, is at a fair market value of let's say $250.00, that is a loss of $249.00 per person, who retires, to the taxpayers. Now if the ordinance took into consideration the tax ramifications of this ordinance, then wording should have been put into the documents being considered that the one dollar purchase consideration is with the note that the remaining balance of the the fair market value will be added to the compensation of the retiring officer for tax purposes.

In other words, no free rides. We are not looking to take anything away from anyone who has committed a life to law enforcement. There are plenty of deserving law enforcement officers that should get a fair break. The tax compensation liability is still more than fair and much less than paying fair market value and is still fair to all taxpayers. Under present consideration however, the county has the documents that fail to take this aspect into consideration which to us is cheating the taxpayers not only of the county, but the state and at the federal level as well. It's still compensation and must be factored in. The ordinance as it is worded is a free ride and cheats everyone.

Further, state code does not recognize Animal Control as deserving any considerations for the purchase of handguns at anytime from what we have read. Even if the county allows it with this ordinance change, it has become to late for ex Animal Control officer, Carl Shipley, to fall into the new ordinance to purchase his handgun. Is the Board of Supervisors going to go out violating more state codes and potentially cheating the taxpayers and the state along with the IRS? This Tuesday's board meeting will be a very telling tale.

Also, how could county attorney, Twitching Ted (I'm Not An Attorney) Wilmot, the court jester, write this kind of dribble without showing proof that Animal Control should even be considered? And is the board going to buy this dribble without proof of such?

Below is the documentation from the county on all of this. Because we can't make this stuff up.

Gloucester, VA One Dollar Gun Sales Update from Chuck Thompson

Monday, September 9, 2013

Animal Control Criminals of Gloucester, VA Should Be Fired?

Recently we showed how the deputies of Animal Control in Gloucester, Virginia were in violation of a number of their own ordinances, making them criminals without any regard for the law, what we are now going to show is the state law that shows that these criminals need to be fired for their actions in our view. Below in the slideshare container is the story in PDF format that shows what ordinances these deputies have violated in our view as well as picture evidence of those violations. We are linking the original story at the bottom of this post as well.

Gloucester Animal Control In Violation of Ordinances? from Chuck Thompson

Here is the state code of Virginia that shows that these criminals need to go in our view.

§ 3.2-6557. Animal control officers and humane investigators; limitations; records; penalties.

A. No animal control officer, humane investigator, humane society or custodian of any pound or animal shelter shall: (i) obtain the release or transfer of an animal by the animal's owner to such animal control officer, humane investigator, humane society or custodian for personal gain; or (ii) give or sell or negotiate for the gift or sale to any individual, pet shop, dealer, or research facility of any animal that may come into his custody in the course of carrying out his official assignments. No animal control officer, humane investigator or custodian of any pound or animal shelter shall be granted a dealer's license. Violation of this subsection is a Class 1 misdemeanor. Nothing in this section shall preclude any animal control officer or humane investigator from lawfully impounding any animal pursuant to § 3.2-6569.

B. An animal control officer, law-enforcement officer, humane investigator or custodian of any pound or animal shelter, upon taking custody of any animal in the course of his official duties, or any representative of a humane society, upon obtaining custody of any animal on behalf of the society, shall immediately make a record of the matter. Such record shall include:

1. The date on which the animal was taken into custody;

2. The date of the making of the record;

3. A description of the animal including the animal's species, color, breed, sex,

approximate age and approximate weight;

4. The reason for taking custody of the animal and the location where custody was taken;

5. The name and address of the animal's owner, if known;

6. Any license or rabies tag, tattoo, collar or other identification number carried by or appearing on the animal; and

7. The disposition of the animal.

Records required by this subsection shall be maintained for at least five years, and shall be available for public inspection upon request. A summary of such records shall be submitted annually to the State Veterinarian in a format prescribed by him.

C. Any animal control officer or custodian of any pound who violates any provision of this chapter that relates to the seizure, impoundment and custody of animals by an animal control officer may be subject to suspension or dismissal from his position.

D. Custodians and animal control officers engaged in the operation of a pound shall be required to have knowledge of the laws of the Commonwealth governing animals, including this chapter, as well as basic animal care.

We can not argue for suspension as it would imply that these criminals, in our view, would have only transported one animal, one time in a hazardous and inhumane way. It is clear that this would not be the case. Each and every Animal Control Officer is required to know state codes as well as local ordinances. for them to even considering claiming they had no idea is not justified.

§ 15.2-612. Manager responsible for administration of affairs of county; appointment of officers and employees.

The county manager shall be responsible to the board for the proper administration of all the affairs of the county which the board has authority to control. To that end he shall appoint all officers and employees in the county's administrative service, except as otherwise provided in this form of county organization and government, and except as he authorizes the head of a department or office responsible to him to appoint subordinates in such department or office. All appointments shall be based on the ability, training and experience of the appointees which are relevant to the work which they are to perform.

County Administrator, Brenda Garton would be the one now who is responsible for firing them or comes under full responsibility for the criminal behavior of these criminals without any regard for the laws based on the above from what we are reading. Someone has to speak for all the animals who are not able to speak for themselves that have been hamed, treated with cruelty and in inhumane ways by Animal Control Officers.

Now of course, we are not attorneys and none of this should be considered legal advice in any way, only a competent attorney can legally advise you. We are only asking questions based on our research and showing our opinions based on that research. Should the research prove correct, we would expect appropriate actions to go fourth.