Showing posts with label Officials. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Officials. Show all posts

Friday, March 17, 2017

Zoning Is Theft, Tell Your Elected Officials To Pay Up Or Tear Up The Laws.

Zoning.  The government controls it and they are the ones who have made up the entire system.  Does zoning do anything for "We The People" though?  Why yes it does.  It robs us.  It is an insidious system of theft from the pockets of anyone who wishes to do something with the property they purchase for whatever use they had planned.

  It is nothing more than a socialist construct that allows government, against your rights, to dictate how, what, when and where, you can do something with private property.  Wait, did I say private property?  How can property possibly be private if the government can step in at anytime and tell you what you can and can not do with it?  Someone somewhere is lying to us.  Let's look at the basic definition of zoning to see if we can get a better grasp of what it is supposed to be.

  "Zoning:  The basic purpose and function of zoning is to divide a municipality into residential, commercial, and industrial districts (or zones), that are for the most part separate from one another, with the use of property within each district being reasonably uniform."

   Already we have issues with the government determining what can be done with private property.  That means private property is no longer private.  If that is the case, then that means the government has an ownership stake in all property.  If that is the case, and they are saying it is, then the government should also be paying a percentage of taxes on property under your name or entity that you hold property under and the government should be getting bills from you on any and all maintenance and upkeep you do on any property.  When is the last time this has happened?  It hasn't you say?  Why not.

  If the government is going to dictate to you what can be done with property, then the government needs to also step up and start paying their fair share or get out of our way.  Paying for zoning changes and having to go through public hearings for those changes is tantamount to pure theft.  The government is stealing from you and all the rest of us.  It's time to tell the government to get out of our way and stop stealing from us or they better step up and start paying their fair share of all the work and materials we add to any given property.  Tear up the zoning laws.  Stop the theft.  Tell your elected officials to pay up or tear it up.  This is not a government service unless you consider theft of your money a government service.  

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Gloucester: Potential Fake Warrant Leads To Potential Continued Harassment By County Officials?

Are Gloucester County officials trying to harass us?  Are they attempting to break the law in order to force us to comply with some hidden agenda they may have of trying to silence us?  We are going to show you a letter county officials recently sent to us and the response back.  Then we are going to show how they obtained access to private property with the use of a highly questionable warrant in debt for some person who does not live on this property and has not been on this property for over 5 years.

Gloucester County Complaint and Response from Chuck Thompson

Above is a copy of the letter sent to CRF Ventures LLC.  This is a 4 page document.  The first two pages contain the alleged county complaint and the last 2 pages are CRF Ventures LLC's response to the county.  Now how did this all come about?

The above is a copy of the Warrant in Debt that a Sheriff's deputy had that he used to intimidate some commercial tenants on the property stating they had to let him onto posted private property because he had this warrant to serve.  He told them, according to their own words, that he would charge them with obstruction of justice, if they did not let him onto the property.

  Here is a major issue.  The person on this warrant, does not and has not lived on this property in over 5 years.  That in and of itself is bad enough, but it gets worse.  The date this was attempted to serve this warrant on the property was two days after the court date listed on the warrant.  There is an arrow to show that the case was being continued on May 22nd 2015 at 9:00 AM in the General District Court.  But the question must be asked.  Where was the original warrant served before the first court date of April 24th, 2015?  It was not served anywhere on anyone on this property.  So why all of a sudden was it attempted to be served on April 26th, 2015 on this property?

  We gave the deputy a very difficult time as we had told him that there was no one here by that name and that he was in fact trespassing on the property.  He said he did not see a sign that said no trespassing.  He drove right by a very large sign that states such and has been there for years.

  Deputy John Doe threw the warrant out his vehicle window at me and said I was served.  He served me knowing full well I can not be mistaken as a female.  But he must be legally blind and he is driving on the roads?  So if the source of the complaint came from Deputy John Doe, it was not valid.  I complained to Sheriff Warren and also explained to Sheriff Warren that his deputy did not know how to conduct a proper service as the deputy failed to sign the back of the Warrant as required by the rules of the court.  (An indication that the Warrant was possibly a fraud just to get on the property?)

  Also, Deputy John Doe, throwing the warrant out his window at me, and it landing on the ground, he littered on private property.  After Deputy John Doe left I contacted Sheriff Warren as already stated and he had another Deputy come out and pick up the original warrant that Deputy John Doe came on the property with.  But not before I made multiple copies of it front and back.

  Deputy John Doe also threatened me with charges of Obstructing Justice.  I know what it lawfully takes to obstruct justice and was not committing any such act, so I told Deputy John Doe he had better look up the code and make sure he fully understands it.  He then threatened to conduct an illegal search and seizure on private property without a warrant to do such.  You bet I gave this guy a very hard time.  So it was not long afterward that the County complaint came in and that looks like its in retaliation to these events of Deputy Jon Doe.

  What was the threat of illegal search and seizure?  He said he was going to run a plate on a vehicle in our driveway to see if the name for the owner of the vehicle came back as a match for the name on the warrant.  (No it did not).  Did he conduct that violation?  I can only imagine that he did.  I can not prove it without records from the Sheriff's office.  I trust that Darrell Warren has taken care of retraining this deputy or getting rid of him.

  Had the name of the owner of the vehicle actually matched, then I would have been possibly guilty of obstructing justice.  If the person actually lived somewhere on this property and I did not inform Deputy John Doe of such, then I may have been guilty of obstructing justice.  Without those two facts, I was being threatened by an armed thug after he was told that the person named on the warrant did not reside here.  That in my book is criminal behavior by someone who is charged with holding higher standards of conduct and is being paid to serve us, not threaten us.


Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Gloucester, VA Animal Control Retaliates Against Us For Exposing Them (Part One)

Retaliation.  Above what you see is Animal Control officer Jeff Stillman taking pictures of me while I was at a local Animal Swap meet at Tractor Supply a couple of weeks ago.  I was with a couple of friends and met with other people who I know at this meet.  The pictures were taken of not only me, but also a couple of the friends I was with.  What set this off?  Nothing that I did.  I could care less that he was there.  I was not even aware that he was doing this until one of the people I was talking with told me he was taking my picture.

Once I was made aware of what he was doing, it became a battle of the cameras.  It would seem clear that this is retaliation for my reporting issues surrounding other Animal Control officers and how they seem from every appearance, to be following made up illegal county ordinances as well as reporting on them as they use government vehicles for personal use.

After several minutes of the Battle of the Cameras, he pulled behind Tractor Supply and called in the Sheriff's department.  Numerous deputies showed up.  After about another 10 minutes, several Sheriff's deputies get out of their vehicles along with Jeff and then they walk up to where I am with a friend and stare us down.  Since that did not work for them, they removed themselves to the middle of the swap meet and it became a Mexican standoff.  I was not about to leave just because they wanted to be intimidating.

Now is this stalking by Jeff Stillman against me and my friends?

That is a tough one.  Technically, Animal Control in the state of Virginia are not considered law enforcement in one area but are in other areas.  They are not police.  Do they have the authority to conduct public investigations?  Not from what I could find.  What right did he have to do this?  If he was out of uniform?  Who cares.  But he was in uniform and on county, hence, taxpayer time.  Am I even someone who needs to be checked out for animal issues?  Don't you have to own animals first?

So if I can not be considered someone who needs to be watched for past animal abuses, then why is he doing this?  All we can come up with is this is pure retaliation.

This picture above is from a story we did on Animal Control where this deputy was about to break into a vehicle and take someone's personal property.  The owner came out just in time.  She was acting on what we have shown to be an illegal county ordinance in our view based on all available state codes and the Dillon Rule research.

That illegal ordinance is in the sign above, again, based on our research and reported here on this site.

Jeff Stillman still has a job even though we reported this issue to county officials.  What did they do, just slap him on the hand while patting him on the back for this retaliation?  This is only part of the story.  There is more coming soon.  This guy carries a gun.  Do I feel safe knowing he is still on the road?  No.  But there seems to be no state law against what he has done.  That means we are all in danger with this guy being out there and county officials don't seem to care.  Who is next?  You?  Will he decide to not use a camera the next time and use his gun?  Who knows?  Either way, it seems clear that he is unstable.

Steve Baranek from another story we did on Animal Control.

This picture was taken inside of Buying It Used, owned by yet another Animal Control deputy.  The above is of County property.  How was it acquired?  It's against county ordinance for county employees to buy county used goods from the county auction site which is how county property is supposed to be disposed of.  The projector says Petsworth School on it's side.

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Public Safety Officials Support Swift Passage of Governor McAuliffe’s Budget

Leaders in Virginia’s public safety community announced their support today for Governor McAuliffe’s proposal to invest $17 million in savings from closing the coverage gap to support the Line of Duty program. The Line of Duty Act provides state-funded disability and death benefits for state and local public safety officers or their beneficiaries due to disability or death resulting from the performance of duties.

Statement from the Virginia Professional Fire Fighters:
The Virginia Professional Fire Fighters (VPFF) urge members of the General Assembly to pass Governor McAuliffe’s budget as quickly as possible. Governor McAuliffe’s budget is balanced, responsible, and provides critical funding for the Line of Duty Act, which supports firefighters, first responders, and others who put their lives on the line every day to protect Virginia’s communities.

“As primary emergency medical services (EMS) providers for many of our fellow citizens, VPFF members are all-too-familiar with the negative impacts of the coverage gap. By also including a 2 year pilot of accepting federal dollars to expand healthcare coverage to up to 400,000 Virginians, Governor McAuliffe’s budget will keep our citizens healthier, our neighborhoods safer, and our economy growing.

It is imperative that members of the General Assembly come together to pass this budget, which our public safety officials depend on to ensure strong, safe, and healthy futures for all Virginians.”

Statement from Paula Miller, President, Virginia Public Safety Foundation:
“Governor McAuliffe has sought to engage Virginians in a necessary conversation that is central to our society: how will we care for our first responders and their families when they are injured or killed in service to our communities? His proposal to invest $17 million in the Line of Duty Act Fund and re-engage the Line of Duty Act work group to update state policies and funding mechanisms to provide for our public safety officers and their families is welcome news. I applaud Governor McAuliffe for his leadership on this important issue. I look forward to working with him to ensure that this conversation results in reforms that reflect our commitment to providing for those who face danger every day to keep us safe and contribute so much to making this the best state in which to live, raise a family, and do business."

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Gloucester, VA Officials Flawed Study That Raised Your Taxes

Are the taxes of Gloucester, VA residents artificially higher than they should be?  Are studies being manipulated to cause undue burdens of the local citizenry?  If so, what are those studies?  Can anything be done to correct these issues?

  What if we were to show you documentation that shows what looks to us like very serious flaws to down and outright abuse designed for the purpose of Gloucester County officials justifying their pay raises in the county as well as those of their friends within other departments of the county?  What if these studies were purposely padded to raise compensation for county staff to levels beyond what they should be getting paid and also justify continuing pay increases in a time when so many have not seen an increase in wages in years now?

  How many of you have gotten pay raises in the past several years?  Are you making more money now than you were before?  The answer to this question by the majority of people in Gloucester is that, no, they are not making more and they are not seeing pay raises or the pay raises are so tiny as not to even qualify for calling them a pay raise.

  What we are about to show you is the study that Gloucester officials commissioned, at taxpayer expense, to justify pay raises for certain county employees that is now paying employees at levels designed for city workers in large metropolitan areas.  How do we justify that claim?  It's in the report below.

Class and Comp Study Gloucester County, Virginia from Chuck Thompson

We want to draw your attention to page 8 which is chapter 2, Summary of Employee Outreach.  There is where you see what areas of the state were used to do the study comparisons.

James City County
City of Williamsburg
York County
City of Newport News
New Kent County
Mathews County
City of Fairfax
Fairfax County
College of William & Mary
Chesterfield County
Henrico County
City of Richmond
City of Poquoson
King William County

The above is the list straight out of this report.  Areas with much larger populations, budgets, industries and tax bases with which to draw upon.  How can a county such as Gloucester, with limited industry, low comparative tax base and a population just at around 37,200, justify being compared to the above list?

We can make a study say anything a client wants it to say.  Just tell us what end results you want to see and we can easily manipulate the information to read just that.  Is this what Evergreen did for Gloucester County officials to justify major pay increases for themselves at taxpayer expense?  The report is right here.  You be the judge.   
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Government Officials And Employees Use of Personal Emails Updated

To Whom It May Concern:
The Virginia Freedom of Information Act, the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council, (A state agency with the expertise to help resolve disputes over Freedom of Information issues) the Virginia Public Records Act (PRA) and the Code of Virginia do not allow, support or condone the use of private email accounts to conduct government business.  The following is the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council’s opinion on email communications.  This opinion is basically the Commonwealth’s adopted legal opinion on the use, access and retention of email communications as pertains to government use. 
The use of e-mail in the business place has become routine and is a preferred mode of communication. For state and local government officials and employees, the application of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) relating to access to records and the Virginia Public Records Act (the PRA) relating to the retention of records comes into play.
Government officials and employees frequently ask two key questions about the use of e-mail --"Can the public and media access my e-mail under FOIA?" and "Do I have to save my e-mail?"
This document will attempt to answer these questions and provide guidance about the use and management of e-mail by state and local government.
The nature of e-mail
E-mail generally refers to any communication that requires an electronic device for storage and/or transmission.1 E-mail is a medium for correspondence -- essentially, e-mail is the "envelope" for the communication. For purposes of FOIA & the PRA, e-mail provides a medium for communication, much like a telephone or the U.S. Mail provides a means of communication. The fact that a communication is sent via e-mail is not alone conclusive of whether that e-mail must be accessible to the public under FOIA or retained pursuant to the PRA; one must look at the text and substance of the communication to determine whether it is indeed a public record.
The Virginia Freedom of Information Act
FOIA addresses access to public records. Section 2.2-3701 of the Code of Virginia defines public records for purposes of FOIA to include "all writings and recordings that consist of letters, words or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostatting, photography, magnetic impulse, optical or magneto-optical form, mechanical or electronic recording or other form of data compilation, however stored, regardless of physical form or characteristics, prepared or owned by, or in the possession of a public body or its officers, employees or agents in the transaction of public business."
Clearly an e-mail would fall under this broad definition of a public record, because it applies to all writings and recordings…set down by…mechanical or electronic recording…however stored, regardless of physical form or characteristics. As noted above, e-mail is just the medium, or the envelope, used to convey the communication. Just as a letter sent via U.S. Mail from one public official to another concerning public business would be a public record under FOIA, so would that same communication sent via e-mail.
FOIA requires that unless subject to a statutory exemption, all public records must be open to inspection and copying. Therefore, an e-mail relating to public business would be accessible just like any other public record, and may be withheld from public disclosure only if a particular exemption applies to the content of the e-mail.
The Virginia Public Records Act
While FOIA governs access to records held by state and local government, the PRA governs how long a government entity must retain certain records. The PRA defines "public record" for purposes of records retention, and like FOIA, the definition is fairly broad and would include e-mail as a public record. Section 42.1-77 defines a public record to include recorded information that documents a transaction or activity by or with any public officer, agency or employee of the state government or its political subdivisions. Regardless of physical form or characteristic, the recorded information is a public record if it is produced, collected, received or retained in pursuance of law or in connection with the transaction of public business.
The PRA sets forth different retention schedules for different types of records. Several factors shape how long a record needs to be held. Many records are only kept for so long as business requires them to be kept, although if a record has historical significance or is created by an agency head or director, it may need to be kept longer. For example, certain records are required to be maintained permanently, such as records from standing committees of the General Assembly, annual reports of state agencies, and correspondence of agency directors. Other records need only be kept so long as they are administratively necessary, such as reminders of events like blood drives or fund raisers, courtesy copies of correspondence, or messages received from a listserv. Along the continuum, other records may be required to be retained for 30 days to ten years, depending on their content. After the retention time has expired for a particular document, then that record may be destroyed pursuant to the guidelines set forth by the Library of Virginia.2

2 PRA is administered by the Library of Virginia. For more details on retention schedules for particular types of records or for a particular agency, or for information regarding the proper disposal of records, please contact the Library of Virginia. Records retention information and contact information is also available on the Library's website at
In providing guidance for adhering to the PRA, the Library of Virginia notes that e-mail should be treated the same as paper correspondence. Again, e-mail is only the medium, or the envelope, by which the correspondence is sent; the retention schedule for a particular e-mail will depend on its content and should be preserved the same as its paper equivalent. Both incoming and outgoing e-mail should be retained, along with any attachments sent via e-mail.
Tips for using and managing e-mail
All e-mails related to public business are subject to the provisions of FOIA and the PRA, and should be managed in the same manner as all other public records.
There is a tendency with e-mail to hit the delete button as soon as you are finished with a particular message. However, consideration must be given to whether that particular e-mail must be retained for purposes of the PRA -- you can't automatically delete your e-mail, just as you can't automatically throw away paper correspondence and records.
FOIA governs access to records. The PRA dictates how long you are required to keep certain records. If a government entity keeps an e-mail (or any other record) for longer than its retention schedule requires, that e-mail will still be subject to FOIA if requested. Conversely, if a government entity properly disposes of a record pursuant to a retention schedule, and a subsequent FOIA request is made for that record, FOIA does not require the government entity to recreate the record.
E-mail is often used as a substitute for a telephone call, and is quite informal. However, e-mail creates a record of that communication that must be retained pursuant to the PRA and will be available upon request to the public under FOIA. Consider the consequence of choice to use e-mail instead of the telephone -- it may not be in your best interest to be as informal on e-mail as you are on the telephone.
The Library of Virginia discourages the practice of maintaining permanent records solely in electronic format, without a paper or microfilm backup.3 For records that do not need to be maintained permanently, these e-mails can be printed out and stored in a traditional, paper file (and the electronic copy can be deleted) or electronic folders can be created on the computer to organize e-mails based on functions, subjects or activities. The Library of Virginia suggests that these folders are assigned to your home directory on the computer, and not on the network. By way of example, at the FOIA Council we print a copy of all of the FOIA questions that we receive via e-mail, along with our corresponding response, and file the paper copy in a chronological file. After we have printed a copy to retain for our records, we delete the e-mail off of the computer.
Public officials and employees should not commingle personal and official e-mails. Private e-mails do not need to be retained; e-mails relating to the transaction of public business do. From an e-mail management perspective, it is probably not a good idea to mix personal and official business in the same e-mail. Official e-mails that need to be retained should be maintained with other public records that relate to the same content.
As is clearly evident; the Commonwealth of Virginia does have established guidance pertaining to the use of private email to conduct government business by elected officials and government employees. 
A look at email addresses for Gloucester County Supervisors on the Gloucester County website will reveal each Supervisor having there own county government email address.  A look at the Gloucester County Public Schools website will reveal six of the seven Gloucester County School Board members list private email addresses.  FOIA obtained Gloucester County Public Schools email conversations contain email conversations that either originated from, were sent to, forwarded to or carbon copied to private email addresses belonging to Gloucester County School Board members and school administration personnel.
The following are private email addresses of officials and employees within the Gloucester Public School System that have been identified thus far as using non-Gloucester County government email accounts to conduct government business or to send government business to.

Betty Jane Duncan…
Ben Kiser…  AND
Ben Kiser…
Diane Gamache…
Charles Records…
Ann Burruss…
Carla Hook…
Kevin Smith…   AND  
Kevin Smith…
Kimberly Hensley…
Randy Burack… 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Gloucester, VA School Board's Illegal Activities? Multi Million Dollar Order Without Money To Fund?

Here is what the code of Virginia says.

§ 15.2-1238. Certification of sufficient funds.

Except in emergency, no order for delivery on a contract or open market order for supplies or contractual services for any county department or agency shall be awarded until the chief financial officer has certified that the unencumbered balance in the appropriation concerned, in excess of all unpaid obligations, is sufficient to defray the cost of such order.

15.2-1239. Orders and contracts in violation of article.

If any department or agency of the county government purchases or contracts for any supplies or contractual services contrary to the provisions of this article or the rules and regulations made thereunder, such order or contract shall be void and the head of such department or agency shall be personally liable for the costs of such order or contract.

§ 22.1-175.5. Capital School Projects Fund.

A. The governing body of any locality which is awarded a grant pursuant to this chapter may authorize the local treasurer or fiscal officer, by ordinance or resolution, to create a separate escrow account upon the books of the locality, as described in this section. Upon the adoption of such ordinance or resolution, the treasurer of the locality shall place such grant awards into this account.

B. The escrow account shall be known as the "County/City/Town of ____________ Capital School Projects Fund." All principal deposited to such fund, together with all income from or attributable to the fund, shall be used solely for (i) construction, additions, renovations, including retrofitting and enlarging public school buildings, infrastructure, including technology infrastructure, and site acquisition for public school buildings and facilities or (ii) debt service payments, or a portion thereof, for any such projects completed in the previous ten years if so designated. No disbursement from the fund may be made except upon specific appropriation by the governing body in accordance with applicable law. If a locality establishes such a fund and designates any portion of the funds deposited therein to pay debt service for (i) any general obligation of the locality held by the Virginia Public School Authority or (ii) any Literary Fund loan, the locality shall obtain an opinion of bond counsel that designation of funds to pay debt service on obligations described in clauses (i) and (ii) hereof does not adversely impact the tax-exempt status of such obligations.

C. All grant awards deposited in the fund, including all income from or attributable to such fund, shall be deemed public funds of the locality and shall be subject to all limitations upon deposit and investment provided by general law, including, but not limited to, the Virginia Security for Public Deposits Act (§ 2.2-4400 et seq.). Income, dividends, distributions, and grants accruing to the fund shall be retained in such fund and shall be expended only in accordance with the terms of this section.

D. Nothing in this section shall be deemed or construed to authorize a school board or school division to receive, hold or invest funds in its own name, nor to expend funds in the absence of a specific appropriation by the governing body of the locality in accordance with applicable law.

Here is what was put through by Gloucester, Virginia officials without having funds in any accounts, but instead, just an order to sell bonds. Money from bond sales did not occur until November, 2013. Oyster Point Construction accepted this in light of Virginia code?

Page Notice To Proceed Letter of Intent from Chuck Thompson

And who is accountable for all of this?  Those who signed the above documents?  Nobody?  Who cares?  You have to be kidding!  Don't worry folks, what else we have uncovered is going to show much worse than this.  We are not attorney's and this is not legal advice, but good lord, what the heck are they up to?
Enhanced by Zemanta