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

Gloucester, VA - Dillon Rule For State And Local Government And Home Rule Laws

Once again we have heard from the person who stated yes to Gloucester Animal Control Law, Section 3-15 being a valid law.  The following is the recent reply and we again wish to thank that person for taking the time to respond and the invaluable argument that person gives as well as contributing to the knowledge base of us all.


Me again. I think the discussion is moving in the correct direction. I would suggest that the intent of 6543 is to permit local governments to adopt AND make more stringent ordinances that parallel the sections listed. Localities may adopt parallel ordinances for all of the code so long as they are not more stringent. In fact, they do not need to do so because the locality could simply rely on the state code to file charges. Adopting codes locally serves to make ordinances overall more clear and transparent so a citizen does not have to navigate a few applicable ordinances in local law (that in this case are permitted to be more stringent) and a few from state law never really knowing if they have observed all laws. 

So, I continue to maintain that if you do not like the ordinance, your beef should be with the state, not the locality. This is particularly true in Virginia given it is a "Dillon Rule" state.

I trust this information is useful.

One argument I have here is the use of "Adopt AND" phrase in the above argument. In state law 3.2-6543, there is a coma after adopt in the wording that the state uses and it is there for a reason.  It has a meaning.  If the state law makers meant "adopt and", then they would not have used the coma in the sentence.  In law, the coma break is used to signify the proper context of the meaning.  Now let's look at the Dillon Rule.

                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                         

Dillon Rule in Virginia

Fairfax County operates under the urban county executive form of government, an optional form of Virginia county government, and like other Virginia local governments,Fairfax County has limited powers.

More specifically, Virginia courts have concluded that local governments in Virginia have only:

1. Those powers that are specifically conferred on them by the Virginia General Assembly
2. Those powers that are necessarily or fairly implied from a specific grant of authority
3. Those powers that are essential to the purposes of government -- not simply convenient but indispensable

This doctrine of limited authority for local governments is commonly called the Dillon Rule, a name that is derived from the writings of John Forest Dillon, who served as a judge, a law professor and an author of legal textbooks in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The Dillon Rule is used in interpreting law when there is a question of whether or not a local government has a certain power. The Dillon Rule narrowly defines the power of local governments. It also states that if there is any reasonable doubt whether a power has been conferred on a local government, then the power has NOT been conferred.

The Dillon Rule as a concept is found in all states – meaning that apart from the power ceded to the federal government in the U.S Constitution, the state governments have all the remaining governmental authority. However, most states have adopted various types of “home rule” provisions that permit some or all of their local governments to undertake those governmental functions that are not specifically precluded by the laws of those home rule states. Virginia has not provided such home rule authority to its local governments.

The Virginia Supreme Court and other Virginia courts routinely apply the Dillon Rule to determine whether or not a local government has the legal authority to undertake a disputed action. For well-established county functions, like planning, zoning, and taxation, there are a number of statutes that give the county clear direction and authority to act, but in new areas of governmental concern, the Dillon Rule can serve as a constraint to innovative governmental responses.

This means that Fairfax County has limited powers in areas such as raising revenue, and it cannot take certain actions without appropriate action from the state, which limits revenue diversification options among other things.

                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                                             

The above is reprinted from http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/government/about/dillon-rule.htm the Fairfax County Government web site.

                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                                                                           

Home Rule Law & Legal Definition

Home rule is the power of a local city or county to set up its own system of self-government without receiving a charter from the state. Home rule is allowed under some state constitutions. The authority to act in local affairs is transferred from state law to a local charter, adopted and, as need be amended, by the voters through referendum. Home rule shifts much of the responsibility for local government from the state legislature to the local community. A county that adopts a home rule charter has the ability to amend its governmental organization and powers to suit its needs. A home rule charter is, in essence, a local constitution.

A home rule county is still subject to restrictions found in the United States Constitution, state constitutions, and in state laws applicable to all counties. While not restricted to only things specifically authorized by state law, home rule counties can do anything not specifically forbidden by state or federal law.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                                                                                      

The "Home Rule" definition is reprinted from http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/home-rule/ US Legal web site.  The link will take you right to the definition as re printed above.

  So again, I like the argument.  It is very clear, well thought out and executed, however I still see all of these flaws.  So again, I argue that the state has not authorized the county to import and or alter Gloucester County Animal Control Section 3-15 as derived from state law 3.2-6503 as it pertains to what the state does permit under 3.2-6543 which only allows restricted adoptions of certain laws and 3.2-6503 not on the approved list for adoption.  No where do we see the Dillon Rule working on Gloucester County's behalf, but instead, against it.  The Dillon Rule is limited government not expanded government.  To import 3.2-6503 and alter it is an expansion of power, not a limitation of power and definitely not a transparent use of law but more like an abuse of law in our view.

§ 15.2-1425. Actions by localities.

The governing body of every locality in the performance of its duties, obligations and functions may adopt, as appropriate, ordinances, resolutions and motions.

  If you wish to argue this as being open to adopting state laws under the Dillon Rule, we don't see it as a valid argument.  We have gone through the laws of what localities can and can not do, 3.2-6543 seems to stand as what localities may adopt for the laws and or ordinances of each locality within the state under Animal Control Laws.  Section 3-15 of Gloucester County Animal Control Law does not seem to stand the test as it is derived from 3.2-6503 of Virginia State law that does not fall under 3.2-6543 as having the ability to be adopted by localities.  Again the coma after the word, "Adopt" in the state law 3.2-6543 is the key here.

  If I were to hazard a guess as to who our person is with a brilliant grasp of our legal system, I would guess that it's a person who is employed by the Gloucester County government.  If I were to hazard an even further guess as to exactly who this person is I would hazard it to be Ted Wilmot, the Gloucester County Attorney.  These are only guesses.  Either way, it seems clear that the intent of the continuing arguments for 3-15 is in defense for having the law on the books of Gloucester County as it has the ability to raise plenty of money for the county and court system.  Taking it off the books would cause a serious cash flow issue for the county and certain services which in many cases seems more like citizen dis services as it seems to be abused by Animal Control officers on a regular basis.

  Still I like the arguments and would prefer them to continue.  It's a learning curve and I will not say we are 100 percent right.  There could be areas we are missing.  After all, we are not attorney's and this is not meant as legal advice in anyway.  It's just questioning everything.  Again, thank you and  please continue the input and we ask that you not take offense to our arguments.  We all have something to learn from it.

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
• New Va. laws aimed at protecting homeowners take effect

Gloucester, VA - Animal Control Law 3-15 Early Results of National Survey

We are reporting early results on our national and site survey.  6 people so far have chimed in with a resounding no to the question of is Gloucester Animal Control Law Section 3-15 even legal.  One early respondent who states that they are not a legal professional but are just chiming in answered, yes, it is valid as it is supported by a state law.  We want to thank everyone so far that have answered this question.

  The point we would like to make to the person who answered yes and stated their reason is to please once again look at the state code 3.2-6500.  It's not a state law but instead definitions of terminology used throughout state code laws.  We welcome all answers and will report all results.  We would agree with the person who answered yes and never would have started this survey had Gloucester Animal Control Law Section 3-15 been supported by an actual state law and not some definitions of terminology.  We do value the input anyway and will report all yes and no answers along with the arguments to this.

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

• Family fears for missing Gloucester man after van and dog found in Tappahannock

Gloucester, VA - Animal Control Law Section 3-15 Now Under National Scrutiny

Gloucester, Virginia Animal Control Law Section 3-15 now under national scrutiny.  We have been questioning the legality of Gloucester County Animal Control Law Section 3-15 asking if this is even a law.  We said that we would be creating a national survey and asking some of the finest legal minds in the US whether it is or not.  That survey has now been launched into a national campaign.  The following is the survey with section 3-15 fully inserted along with the corresponding VA Law section 3.2-6500 added.  The survey has no copy rights and can be printed, posted and sent by anyone to any legal professional for their answers to this question.  We are not attorneys and only an attorney can legally advise anyone along these lines.  What we are after though is whether legal professionals could even consider any of this a law.



We will be publishing answers to this survey periodically.

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.

Gloucester, VA Animal Control Section 3-15 A Holiday Story - Compliments of Carl (Chuck) Shipley and Jeff Stillman

The following is a story that is presently going on in Gloucester County, Virginia and is written by people we believe are being victimized by Gloucester Animal Control.  The story is in their own words.  We have copies of the files to back up their story and we have already used one of them on this site.

Attacked By Animal Control?

The following is a story written by two people presently being victimized, in our opinion, by Gloucester Animal Control.

The names of the victims are being withheld for their own protection. Those names listed here with Animal Control do know who these victims are. We have full documentation to the accuracy of this story.  The following story is written in their own words.

At this time my daughter and myself are living in a motel room. We have lost our home and our business and my job. We also have charges pending against us from Animal Control of Gloucester that if they are not dismissed may affect my long time career as a Licensed Veterinary Technician. We feel that we are being targeted and we feel that these charges are unjustified. I am sorry this is so long but there are lots of details and I felt that some of even the small details are important.

About seven months ago we lost our house of 10 years. Although we were in workout with the bank, they told us they did not like dealing with small home businesses and our house was sold to Fannie Mae They gave us less then a month to vacate. Our home business is a educational program using small exotic animals. We have birds that talk and sing, a tortoise big enough to stand on, a groundhog that sits up and lets you pet him, reptiles that do feeding demonstrations. We have about 25 small animals, none are poisonous or dangerous. Just this year we did 45 schools, 30 churches, 8 nursing homes, 60 private programs and several fund raisers, we did more than a few of these free or at a reduced rate as a community service. We have been operating for about 6 years and we have hundreds of positive comments. We were USDA and Fish & Game licensed. I have been a licensed Veterinary Technician for over 30 years. I have worked in zoos and with veterinary clinics, I have also been a wildlife rehabber both federal and state for all that time. My daughter has been working with animals her whole life including being a veterinary assistant at several veterinary clinics. Our animals are more than just our business. They are like family and their welfare has always come before our own.

Due to the stress of the move and all that was going on I had a physical collapse and spent a week in the hospital. Even though I had no insurance the situation was so serious they would not let me go home. My daughter was left to move alone with 3 friends from our church. We ended up moving to a farm in Gloucester, we paid rent and utilities and helped around the farm.

While we were in the process of moving a young man that had a grudge toward my daughter started a slander campaign against my daughter and our business. He said we were running from the law and that we had warrants against us, all the accusations were false. The day we moved to the farm we got a call from the caretaker of the woman we were living with brothers home. He said Gloucester Animal Control was over there asking where we were, they also said there were warrants out for our arrest. He was very upset. Shortly thereafter Animal Control showed up where we were. Officer Jeff Stillman and a woman deputy got out of their truck and the first thing Jeff said to me was that we had warrants for our arrest from the county we had moved from. My daughter was on the phone with the sheriffs department and they said that that was false. After we told Jeff this he continued to berate us. He was rude and belligerent toward us and our new landlord. He accused us of lying about when we had moved the animals into the county and of trying to avoid the permit process in Gloucester. We tried to explain about how we had moved quickly and that we were ready to do whatever we needed to be fully compliant. He continued to yell and threaten us and he asked to see the animals. When we took him in to see the animals he was visibly afraid of the reptiles. He stated loudly several times don't open the cages. He took pictures of the animals through the cages. He said that he was afraid our snakes would escape and cause a problem like Florida had. We explained that all our snakes were females and that we had safe enclosures and had never had an escape. After he left I was shaking with exhaustion and stress, he towered over us and yelled right in our faces. I had never met an officer so unprofessional rude and just plain threatening before.

The only animals that a permit were needed for were the four snakes and the groundhog so we started the permitting process. We acquired the insurance $50,000 liability and had everything in order but the vet visit. We made several appointments but had trouble getting vets that would see reptiles. We kept animal control updated to our progress because the vet visit was finally scheduled one day before the paperwork was due. At the last moment the vet changed the appointment to one day later. We called animal control and asked if they wanted us to turn in everything but the vet papers and we would have them the next day. They told us to turn in everything together. The vet visit went well and we turned in the paperwork on the date it was due. We then got a call from Jeff, he said the paperwork was one day late and he had issued a summons for late paperwork. Again he was quite rude. We had spent considerable money with the insurance and vet visits to comply and I felt this was a bit much especially since we had kept them updated to the status. I complained to Carl Shipley the head of Animal Control who I know personally through church about Jeff's unprofessional behavior. Steve Barneck and Jeff Stillman showed up to do the inspection. They were both polite. They issued the permit the next day. When I went to court the judge asked why the paperwork had been late and I explained the veterinary issues. All the while I was talking Jeff kept interrupting and making comments about myself and the animals. The judge dismissed and I had to pay $100.00 court costs.

After 3-4 semi-peaceful months the woman we were staying issued us an eviction notice. We looked desperately for a place for us and the animals. We were able to get a storage unit to store our personal belongings and a friend offered her spacious building to house the animals. We were ready to move.

In compliance with our permit I caught Carl Shipley at church the day before and let him know we were moving the animals. I told him we would let them know the exact address as soon as we got them moved. The day we were moving I had to work, I had gotten a job at a new veterinary clinic. My daughter and a friend rented a u-haul and were packing up when animal control showed up. Once again it was Jeff Stillman and the woman deputy. He went up and talked to our landlord who was very upset. Things went from bad to worse once again Jeff was angry and belligerent. he berated my daughter about her dog, a husky mix, saying that he knew the dog was a wolf hybrid. He said that she had no rabies proof even though she said she had all the papers and that she had just gotten the dog as a gift for her birthday. The first thing Jeff saw when he entered the animal room was a dead kitten by the food bowl. My daughter had no idea that it was sick much less dying and was quite upset to see It even though it was not ours and belonged to the person who owned the farm. Jeff demanded to know what had happened to it and that she was responsible for it's death. He yelled at her and told her the room smelled terrible and that the cages were beyond filthy. The cages had been cleaned the morning before and several of the animals were in temporary traveling cages because we were moving them. We planned on cleaning and re bedding everyone as we moved them. She called me crying in hysterics that Jeff had screamed at her telling her she was in serious trouble and that he was going to issue a bunch of charges against her. He frightened her badly because he wouldn't talk to her he just kept screaming right in her face. He then photographed the cages. The female deputy examined the animals because Jeff was afraid to touch them and she stated that even though the cages could use cleaning the animals looked healthy and bright eyed. This whole exchange was witnessed by the man that was helping my daughter move, he was appalled at the unprofessional conduct he saw. Jeff stated that he would be back the next day to make sure we had vacated. We spent the early evening and late into the night getting everyone crated and getting all our belongings packed up.

That night it got very cold, we loaded up the animals last so that they would stay warm and headed to the building where they were supposed to stay. When we arrived the building turned out to be too large to heat properly, it was 30 degrees and we didn't know what to do. We combined all of the animals in the back of the van, and spent the remainder of the night running the heater in the van to keep the animals alive and warm. It had to be the worst night of my life. I was afraid that we would lose all our animals, I went from immense fear to complete despair. We had no where to go and no one to turn to. We were completely alone and afraid. We were sure that we were going to have to turn the animals over, and lose them all forever just so that they wouldn't freeze. On the off chance we contacted an acquaintance that we knew in Northumberland County, he managed to connect us with a woman who knew someone who had a room where we could stay for a couple of weeks while we adjusted some things.

When we arrived there was a 15'x15' tack shed with a bed, microwave, and small fridge with no running water, we had to go into the house to use the bathroom and to clean up. The room was small, but we made the best of it we set the animals up and at least we were warm and safe. The woman who gave us a temporary place called animal control just to let them know where we were, because they said that they needed to know where the animals went. Jeff told her that the animals were horribly malnourished and badly cared for, the woman informed him that she had seen the animals and that they were healthy, well socialized and sweet. Jeff then proceeded to call the man who had helped us find this place and told him what horrible animal caretakers we were. The man then called the place where we were staying hysterical because he was worried about the animals, because of what Jeff had told him. The woman cleared things up quickly, and informed him that Jeff had lied to him about the condition of the animals. About a week after we arrived, two Gloucester County Troopers showed up late in the evening on a Saturday served my daughter 12 summons. 1 for each animal cage, and one for her dogs rabies, which she had proof of. There happened to be a lawyer from Gloucester there watching his daughter, and he asked what the summons were about. He told us that animal control justified their jobs, by giving out multiple summons instead of just 1, and even if the charges were dropped we would still end up paying thousands in court fees. It was a very discouraging and worrisome conversation.

Because we were still having trouble finding a place, we started re homing our animals, so that they would be safe until we found a place to live and got back on our feet. It took almost a week and hundreds of resources to get the animals placed in the best places that they could go. Near the end of week two, I went to the library and saw Jeff at a store on my way there. About 15 minutes after Jeff saw me, I received a call from my employer and he let me go. It just so happens that Jeff runs the crematorium business that my employer used, so he knew my employer well and knew that I worked there. I talked with Carl Shipley at church that Sunday, and he got very rude with me and told me that he had seen the pictures, and that the cages were just filthy and that I had a bunch of summons as well, but that they hadn't served them because they couldn't find me. I was at the same place where my daughter received hers, and they knew that. The woman at the house where we were staying had already rented the room we were living in, before she had let us come and stay there so we had to find another place to go. Our church got us a temporary place at an inn in West Point, a couple days after we got settled a New Kent county officer showed up and served me 14 summons. 1 for each animal cage and for the rabies and tags on my two dogs, even though I have rabies certificates on them that we could show him. The summons were dated weeks after my daughters were. Talk about kicking us while we are down. We are currently looking for any kind of jobs and trying to find a safe place to live in the meantime.

The name of the church is not mentioned in this story and we see no reason to bring them into the story other than to applaud the majority of folks at this church as they have stepped up and have been helping these two ladies.  Now here is the rest of the story with Carl, (Chuck), Shipley and the additional 14 summons or warrants.  The mother is the one who owns the business which owns the animals.  The daughter does not.  Our opinion based on experience with Gloucester County's legal system is that these 14 warrants did not exist prior to the mother meeting with Carl Shipley.  It was during this church meeting that the mother explained to Carl that the animals did not belong to the daughter.  What that means.  Had Carl not known about this, when the court date came up, the entire case would have been thrown out.  You can not charge someone with an offense against animal care when they do not own the animals and hence are not responsible for the care of the animals.  

  That would have put a very bad light on Animal Control for wasting the court's time.  So once Carl learned that the animals were not the daughters, he told the mother that she had papers waiting for her.  Two days later she received 14 papers compared to the daughters 12.  When we looked at the papers for the mother, we noticed some nice little tricks being played.  Items added to the 14 papers that were not on the first 12.  In our opinion, the warrants for the mother have all been back dated.  Slippery in our view.  We are not saying that this is an illegal act in this case.  That we just do not know.  We just think it's more shady work on the part of Gloucester County officials.  If you go a few posts back, you will see a copy of one of the warrants issued to the mother.  Highlighted on that warrant is a date received and initials.  These were not on the daughter's copies.

  Here it is again.  This is one of the warrants given to the mother.

This second copy here is one that has been issued to the daughter.  No time and or date stamp.  That does not make them any more or any less legal.  We bet though that if one could view the meta data on the creation of these files, that one would see that the warrants for the mother were done on or about November 26th, 2012.  Much later than that of the daughter.  Again, we can not say that it's not legal, just shady in our own view.

  These two ladies are in need of assistance.  If you can help, please send us an email through this site and we will pass it on to them.  They will contact you and you will be dealing with them and not us.

  They are in need of shelter, food, support and they also feel they need legal representation when they have to appear in court.  We are helping them as much as we can but our own resources can only stretch so far.  They are still in a motel room until the end of the week.  Money is extremely tight.

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

• How to Find a Veterinarian
• It's Veterinary Technician Week!