All Gloucester Schools In Violation of The US Constitution

Gloucester schools and all schools across the country all operate in violation of the United States Constitution in our opinion.  And we are going to show you why.  Everyday parents are forced to put their children on a bus or walk them to school against the child's wishes and in many cases, against the will of the parents.  That's called kidnapping.  If parents don't send the child or children to school, the parents get into trouble with some crazy claim that they are damaging their children.

(By:  Steven Blume)

There is no provision in the United States Constitution that provides for this.  Children are then imprisoned for hours against their will and forced to work without compensation in violation of the 13th amendment which clearly reads as follows.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Please explain what crime a child has committed that subjects them to such cruel and unusual punishment?  Children are then normally sent home after hours of incarceration to be further punished with what is referred to as homework.  Again, what crime have they committed?  It's called education but is it really?  It's indoctrination and propaganda mixed with some education so that those who run these enterprises can confuse folks into saying it's education.  Money is extorted from the masses of local citizens, many against their will, to support this criminal activity.  Here is what James Madison said about the powers of congress regarding the Constitution.

Political History, James Madison On Constitutional Law from Chuck Thompson

  So according to Madison, our government does not have a right to take our children from us and tax us for what government these days calls education.  So where does the power come from?

The right to a free public education is found in the various state constitutions and not in the federal constitution. Every state has a provision in its constitution, commonly called the "education article," that guarantees some form of free public education, usually through the twelfth grade. The federal constitution, on the other hand, contains no such guarantee. In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 held that education is not a "fundamental right" under the U.S. Constitution. Thus, as a matter of constitutional law, the founding fathers left it to the states to decide whether to provide an education or not and, if deciding to provide one, determine at what level of quality.

The Federal government involvement comes from the so called spending clause, which again, referring to Madison, Congress simply does not have.  For more on what the states are doing, check the link here.  https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1882/Constitutional-Requirements-Governing-American-Education.html

  And, the state's constitutions were not originally set up that way.  Therefore they can and should be considered null and void.  If you are sick and tired of paying for insane indoctrination policies being put on the youth of this nation that have already been proven dangerous, take action.  Stop sending your children to these decrepit institutes of degradation.  Home school.  You do not have to follow their agenda on home schooling either.  Teach your children civics, their natural rights.   No state has the right to take your children at any time for any reason.  Your children are your property.  Government has no say in that area.  Free education was a socialist policy that was allowed into our society and has had crippling negative effects ever since.  

https://www.home-school.com/Articles/the-history-of-public-education.php  Here is a great resource for the birth of government controlled education and it's nasty foundings.  It's foundation, morally bankrupt.  That trend has only continued with great fervor.  It's time for a new war on education, or the end of government controlled indoctrination.  

Virginia Governor and Attorney General Thumb Nose At State Constitution

3 girls kissing. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5129 Offered June 19, 2014 Directing the Speaker of the House of Delegates to appoint counsel in the court in whichBostic v. Rainey is pending to permit the General Assembly to intervene and defend vigorously the constitutionality of Article I, Section 15-A in such court and in all other proceedings in any other court.


---------- Patron-- Marshall, R.G. ---------- Committee Referral Pending ----------

WHEREAS, the plaintiffs in Bostic v. Rainey (Bostic),  now pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, attack the constitutionality of Article I, Section 15-A of the Constitution of Virginia; and

WHEREAS, engagement of special counsel in Bostic is necessary because Mark R. Herring, the Attorney General of Virginia, without legal  authority and without precedent, not only ceased defending the validity of Article I, Section 15-A but joined the plaintiffs in convincing the trial judge to hold that Article I, Section 15-A was unconstitutional; and

WHEREAS, engagement of special counsel in Bostic is also necessary because the Governor of Virginia, violating his constitutional obligation under Article V, § 7 of the Constitution of Virginia to ensure that the laws of the Commonwealth be faithfully executed,  has refused to exercise the authority granted to him by § 2.2-510 of the Code of Virginia to employ special counsel to defend the constitutionality of Article I, Section 15-A of the Constitution of Virginia; and

WHEREAS, the case of INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), involved a situation analogous to that involved in Bostic in which the United States House of Representatives and Senate successfully intervened, and the United States Supreme Court stated that Congress is the proper party to defend the validity of a statute when an agency of government, as a defendant charged with enforcing the statute, agrees with plaintiffs that the statute is inapplicable or unconstitutional; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That the Speaker of the House of Delegates engage special legal counsel to move the court in which Bostic v. Raineyis pending to permit the General Assembly to intervene and defend vigorously the constitutionality of Article I, Section 15-A in such court and in all other proceedings in any other court.

(The Governor and the Attorney General both took oaths of office and in that oath, swore to uphold the Constitution of Virginia.  Neither one of them is willing to do so and if they are not willing to do so here, what other areas are they going to destroy?  What laws are they willing to break to get their way?  Why are Virginians allowing this?  In a democratic republic, the people decide.  That decision was already made by the people.  Now these two clowns are doing everything they can to destroy the state Constitution.  They both need to be thrown out of office once and for all.  They are no friends to "WE THE PEOPLE", but instead they are political terrorists!)

Related articles

• VIRGINIA: House Approves Resolution To Defend Marriage Ban With Own Lawyers
• Virginia House of Delegates Approves Resolution Hiring Lawyers to Defend State's Gay Marriage Ban
• The Virginia Constitution of 1776

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