Gloucester, VA Note To The Board of Supervisors, August, 2014

Dear Board of Supervisors:

During the July 1, 2014 I spoke to you about things that needed to be fixed for all of the citizens. They are at the bottom as a reference.

I would like to focus on number 5 today:  “Bring County Ordinances into compliance with Virginia Code.  Mr. Wilmot can help you with this if not consider hiring a competent county attorney.”

It is a little known fact that the General Assembly and the Governor develop and pass new laws or codes, every year and they take affect on July 1, the start of the Virginia fiscal year.  The newspapers let “WE the People” know of these new codes or changes to existing laws in June so we are aware of the changes and will be in compliance on July 1^st.  Is the County Attorney aware that these changes take place or the County Administrator?  Since “WE the People” know and are required to be in compliance on July 1^st why are not the County Ordinances being updated and made available for a public hearing no later than the first August Board of Supervisor meeting so the county is in compliance?  In my opinion there should be a public hearing in the July meeting.

I have to wonder is the County Attorney and his assistant not capable of executing the requirements of their Jobs?  Are the responsibilities of the job too much for them? You would think ensuring the County is in compliance with United States Constitution and Federal Regulation; and Virginia Constitution and Codes would be number one on the list.  Mr. Thompson has even offered his services to assist the County Attorney in bringing County Ordinances into compliance and in response the County Attorney refuses to correspond with Mr. Thompson by email.  I have to wonder is the County Attorney still in Junior High School and not an adult?  Why do we have a number of County Ordinances that have never complied with Virginia Code, as pointed out by Mr. Thompson especially in regard to animal control?  Is there any connection with these illegal Ordinances and the stories Mr. Thompson is reporting on?

The next point does the County Administrator have over-site on what the County Attorney is doing?  In my opinion a reasonable person would believe the County Administrator’s Office would ensure the County Attorney’s office is aware that keeping County Ordinances in compliance with Virginia Codes may be important?  Are the responsibilities of the County Administrator’s Office too much for the current staff to handle?  Are the responsibilities of the job too much for them?

In my opinion maybe we need to replace the County Attorney and assistant; and the County Administrator and assistants; it appears the duties of their jobs are greater than they have the ability to accomplish with growing responsibilities of world we live in today.    In my opinion failing to execute their duties is a violation of their “Oath of Office” and grounds for removal but a competent Attorney may be needed to determine this.

Prior to the election all candidates for the Board of Supervisors got together at the Library to share what they would do if elected, Mr. Thompson has the audio on the web site.  The three new supervisors stated if they were told of County Ordinances that was not in compliance with Virginia Code they would fix it.  We are in violation of Virginia Code in many sections of our County Ordinances.  This needs to be fixed along with the underlying problems.  We expect you to keep your word.  Mr. Blake answered something to the effect that he is only one person.  I believe he did not become a supervisor.

Working on your next report card there is still time to improve your grade during this month recording period. 

Respectfully,

Wayne Crews

Gloucester Point District

P.S. “Here is what you to do:

1.  Integrity at the Board of Supervisors level.

Quit voting for things that benefit you over the county.

2.  Hold Department Heads and Supervisors to high standards and get rid of them when they break the rules.  You cannot hold lower level employees to high standards if they are not practiced at the higher levels.

3.  Fire employees on the spot if they use vehicles for personal business, except in the case of an emergency and the employee better contact the supervisors before the supervisor contacts them.  No shopping, banking, and fast food restaurants in county vehicles.  If trash is found in the vehicle from these places the employee needs to receive the same punishment.

4.  Quit wasting taxpayers money.  The Board of Supervisions and all county employees need to be good stewards of the resources.

5.  Bring County Ordinances into compliance with Virginia Code.  Mr. Wilmot can help you with this if not consider hiring a competent county attorney.” 

Related articles

• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Meeting Video, August, 2014 With Notes
• Gloucester, VA Animal Control Breaking and Entering? What About "YOUR" Rights? (Part 2)
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisor's Meeting, Video and Notes, July, 2014
• Gloucester, VA Officials Violate Anti Trust Laws In Illegal Gun Fraud Scam?
• Ted Wilmot, Gloucester County Attorney Throws Board of Supervisor's Under The Bus?
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Consider Ordinance To Cheat The IRS?

Gloucester, VA Animal Control Breaking and Entering? What About "YOUR" Rights? (Part 2)

On Sunday, August 24th, 2014 we did a story about how Animal Control Deputy Laura Dickie was about ready to break a window on a vehicle to remove an animal from a car because the animal was left in the car by itself and without air conditioning and would have been removed to an animal control truck for transportation, without air conditioning.  Well, that story by itself is horrific, however, can anyone actually blame the Animal Control officer for doing a job she has been told she must do?  Who is actually to blame?  What if she had actually broken in the window and was seriously hurt by doing so or maimed by the dog in the vehicle?  Who would have been at fault?

  Again, in our view, the local ordinance, 3-18 is itself highly illegal.  The above poster highly misleading and posted in the following locations, Wal Mart front doors, Tractor Supply, and Dollar Tree.  Who approved these posters?  Ted Wilmot is the county attorney who wrote this law or at least finalized approval for the Board of Supervisors to vote on and approve.  That was done in February, 2013.  4 present Board members approved that and now we have 3 new board members who had nothing to do with this.

  So that would mean the Ted Wilmot and 4 present Board of Supervisors would then be responsible for any harm that comes to any Animal Control deputy who follows this insane ordinance and gets hurt or even killed in the process?  There is also a great deal of responsibility by the County Administrator and Assistant Administrator for allowing this crazy ordinance to be on the books.

  Again, here is a recap of that ordinance;

 Sec. 3-18. Animals in enclosed vehicles

(a) It shall be unlawful to leave any animal in a vehicle without the benefit of air conditioning when the outside temperature reaches eighty (80) degrees fahrenheit or greater.

(b) Any person who confines an animal in an unattended vehicle so as to cause the animal to suffer from heat stress, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The animal control officer or other officer shall have the authority to remove any animal found in an enclosed vehicle that appears to be suffering from heat stress. The animal shall be provided immediate veterinary care. The animal owner or custodian shall be responsible for all expenses incurred during the removal of the animal or its subsequent treatment and impoundment.

(c) In the event that the person responsible for the violation cannot be ascertained, the registered owner of the vehicle, as required by Chapter 6 of Title 46.2 of the Code of Virginia, shall constitute in evidence a prima facie presumption that such registered owner was the person who committed the violation.

(Ord. of 7-1-2008(1), § (2); Ord. of 2-5-2013(1))

There is also a certain degree of fault by each animal control officer as each one is required to know state code and they should also know that if a local ordinance is out of compliance with state code, then the local ordinance is not legal according to the Dillon Rule.  Virginia is considered a Dillon Rule state.  It seems rather clear that the county has no issues with maintaining this ordinance and will continue to prosecute anyone and everyone they can with such until someone gets seriously hurt, sued, or even worse, killed.  Why?  Because the county thinks they can milk this for some serious money in our view.  The safety of employees?  Well, they can be replaced.  

Mark Warner for US Senator

By:  This Ad Not Yet Paid For

Related articles

• Gloucester, VA Animal Control Breaking And Entering? What About "YOUR" Rights?
• Gloucester Animal Control Ordinances Debate Continues
• Gloucester, VA Animal Control In Violation of it's Own Ordinances?
• Gloucester, VA What Glo-Quips Didn't Tell You, July, 2014
• Why does the Gloucester Animal Control Ordinances Debate Continue
• Gloucester County Ordinances Repealed, August, 2013

Gloucester, VA Animal Control Breaking And Entering? What About "YOUR" Rights?

Pictured above is Animal Control Officer, Laura Dickie, getting ready to break into a vehicle and take personal property from the people in possession of the rental car.  The folks who have the rental car are from NY and the car has NJ plates.  Why was she about to break into the car and take personal property from these people?  Well it's based on one of the Gloucester County ordinances we have been complaining about on this site now for some time.  The ordinance reads as follows;

 Sec. 3-18. Animals in enclosed vehicles

(a) It shall be unlawful to leave any animal in a vehicle without the benefit of air conditioning when the outside temperature reaches eighty (80) degrees fahrenheit or greater.

(b) Any person who confines an animal in an unattended vehicle so as to cause the animal to suffer from heat stress, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The animal control officer or other officer shall have the authority to remove any animal found in an enclosed vehicle that appears to be suffering from heat stress. The animal shall be provided immediate veterinary care. The animal owner or custodian shall be responsible for all expenses incurred during the removal of the animal or its subsequent treatment and impoundment.

(c) In the event that the person responsible for the violation cannot be ascertained, the registered owner of the vehicle, as required by Chapter 6 of Title 46.2 of the Code of Virginia, shall constitute in evidence a prima facie presumption that such registered owner was the person who committed the violation.

(Ord. of 7-1-2008(1), § (2); Ord. of 2-5-2013(1))

Now let's look at what the temperature reading was for the time period in question.  The time these photos were taken are from around 3:12 PM through 3:24 PM August 24th, 2014.  

We took screen shots from various weather services to see what an average overall temperature reading was during the time in question.  Well, from everything we could see, it was under the 80 degree Fahrenheit limit that the ordinance states is required to be in violation of the above listed ordinance.  Again, the ordinance is highly questionable and in our view, illegal.  There is no corresponding state code and with Virginia being a Dillon Rule state, the Dillon Rule has been violated by Gloucester County from what we see.

Here is a picture of the temperature taken just right down the road from where the incident was witnessed.  77 Degrees.  Not 80 degrees or above.  But we have found evidence that county officials have decided that they can't even follow their own codes and have decided to step up the violations.  See the picture below.

The picture you are viewing is a sign hanging up on the front door of Tractor Supply here in Gloucester, Virginia.  Note that it says nothing about the actual ordinance and what that ordinance actually states.  It also gives no warning that Animal Control will break into your vehicle and take a pet which is considered personal property if they think they can get away with this.  What one must also note is that the sign does not cover temperatures in the 80 degree range as stated in the county ordinance.  What gives?

In fact, it leads one to believe that a violation occurs at temperatures at the 75 degree range.  The picture also fails to point out whether those inside temperature readings are for open or closed windows of any vehicle.  

Getting back to the entire incident.

There was a dog in the red car which is a 4 door vehicle.  All 4 windows were down in the car and the car had not been there for very long.  This incident was witnessed from start to finish.  Laura Dickie agitated the dog inside as the dog considered her a danger.  

The man with the long white hair and camo pants is the person who called in what he considered a violation to the Gloucester County Animal Control ordinance listed above.  Just before Ms Dickie was ready to bust out the window on the vehicle, the person renting the vehicle came out of Wal Mart and came back to her vehicle.  The conversation was overheard and it was overheard that Ms Dickie was in fact getting ready to bust out the window and take the dog from the vehicle.  

  Here is a very serious question.  Where is the search warrant that would allow law enforcement to do this and where were the local sheriff's department to back her up?  Animal Control officers can not execute search warrants in Virginia.  It has to be done locally by the Sheriff's department.  Again, where is the search warrant?  There is nothing in Virginia State Code regarding animals that allows Animal Control to break into your vehicle that we have ever seen.  Please see VA Code 3.2-6500 and beyond for state Animal Control codes.

  The owner of the animal and in charge of the rental car was not charged with any wrong doing whatsoever.  But Animal Control was still getting ready to bust the window and take the owners dog, hence personal property without notice.  

  Another question that comes to mind, why didn't Laura Dickie just go into Wal Mart and see about having the owner paged before even considering such drastic measures?  Well, did you see the fine for the above so called violation? Up to $2,500.00  and up to one year in jail?  It's on the sign shown above.  That is financial incentive for Animal Control to bust out some windows on people's vehicles.  Can you imagine all the legal troubles these folks would have had to face had they shopped for only 5 more minutes?  They were from out of state and spending money here in our economy.  What kind of message are we sending visitors to Gloucester County?  What kind of message is being conveyed to the local citizens?   Anyone now understand why we have been arguing against this insane ordinance now?  And again, this is only one of a number of county ordinances that have no place being on the books as they do not meet the Dillon Rule.  It's time for this nonsense to stop.

  Oh, and the Animal Control truck above?  There is no air conditioning that the animal would be put in.  That truck only has a top air vent.  The animal would be transported in violation of the county's own code.  What on Earth is that?  The hypocrisy.

Related articles

• Gloucester, VA What Glo-Quips Didn't Tell You, July, 2014
• Gloucester, VA Animal Control In Violation of it's Own Ordinances?
• Gloucester, VA Government Racketeering, Price Fixing, Real and Personal Property Theft? (Part 2)
• Gloucester, VA County Services Outrageous Costs, $600 Per Cat and Dog In November
• Gloucester, VA Local Government Racketeering, Price Fixing, Real and Personal Property Theft? (Part 1)
• Why does the Gloucester Animal Control Ordinances Debate Continue

Gloucester, VA Government Racketeering, Price Fixing, Real and Personal Property Theft? (Part 2)

We have spoken to Robert Warden who has informed us that to the best of his knowledge, he never received a search warrant when these folks, in the above video, came onto his property and just started taking his animals.  You read that correctly.  NO SEARCH WARRANT was ever given Mr Warden that he recalls.  We have asked Animal Control, the County Attorney and the County Administrator for a copy, if one exists, of the Search Warrant that was required for the above confiscation of Mr Warden's animals.  We have already covered those laws in our last article so we are not going to repeat them again.

Now if someone wanted to argue the following state code, then it's easy to argue.

§ 3.1-796.115. Seizure and impoundment of animals; notice and hearing; disposition of animal; disposition of proceeds upon sale. (3.2-6569)

A. Any humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or animal control officer may lawfully seize and impound any animal that has been abandoned, has been cruelly treated, or is suffering from an apparent violation of this chapter that has rendered the animal in such a condition as to constitute a direct and immediate threat to its life, safety or health. Before seizing or impounding any agricultural animal, such humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or animal control officer shall contact the State Veterinarian or a State Veterinarian's representative, who shall recommend to such person the most appropriate action for the disposition of the agricultural animal, provided, however, that the seizure or impoundment of an equine resulting from a violation of subdivision A (iii) or subdivision B (ii) of § 3.1-796.122may be undertaken only by the State Veterinarian or State Veterinarian's representative who has received training in the examination and detection of sore horses equivalent to that required by 9 C.F.R. Part 11.7 and that is approved by the State Veterinarian. The humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or animal control officer shall notify the owner of the agricultural animal and the local attorney for the Commonwealth of the recommendation. The humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or animal control officer may impound the agricultural animal on the land where the agricultural animal is located if:

1. The owner or tenant of the land where the agricultural animal is located gives written permission;

2. A general district court so orders; or

3. The owner or tenant of the land where the agricultural animal is located cannot be immediately located, and it is in the best interest of the agricultural animal to be impounded on the land where it is located until the written permission of the owner or tenant of the land can be obtained.

If there is a direct and immediate threat to an agricultural animal, the humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or animal control officer may seize the animal, in which case the humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or animal control officer shall file within five business days on a form approved by the State Veterinarian a report on the condition of the animal at the time of the seizure, the disposition of the animal, and any other information required by the State Veterinarian.

Upon seizing or impounding an animal, the humane investigator, law-enforcement officer or animal control officer shall petition the general district court in the city or county wherein the animal is seized for a hearing. The hearing shall be not more than ten business days from the date of the seizure of the animal. The hearing shall be to determine whether the animal has been abandoned, has been cruelly treated, or has not been provided adequate care.

B. The humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, or animal control officer shall cause to be served upon the person with a right of property in the animal or the custodian of the animal notice of the hearing. If such person or the custodian is known and residing within the jurisdiction wherein the animal is seized, written notice shall be given at least five days prior to the hearing of the time and place of the hearing. If such person or the custodian is known but residing out of the jurisdiction where such animal is seized, written notice by any method or service of process as is provided by the Code of Virginia shall be given. If such person or the custodian is not known, the humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, or animal control officer shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the jurisdiction wherein such animal is seized notice of the hearing at least one time prior to the hearing and shall further cause notice of the hearing to be posted at least five days prior to the hearing at the place provided for public notices at the city hall or courthouse wherein such hearing shall be held.

C. The procedure for appeal and trial shall be the same as provided by law for misdemeanors. Trial by jury shall be as provided in Article 4 (§ 19.2-260 et seq.) of Chapter 15 of Title 19.2. The Commonwealth shall be required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

D. The humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, or animal control officer shall provide for such animal until the court has concluded the hearing. Any locality may, by ordinance, require the owner of any animal held pursuant to this subsection for more than thirty days to post a bond in surety with the locality for the amount of the cost of boarding the animal for a period of time set in the ordinance, not to exceed nine months.

In any locality that has not adopted such an ordinance, a court may order the owner of an animal held pursuant to this subsection for more than 30 days to post a bond in surety with the locality for the amount of the cost of boarding the animal for a period of time not to exceed nine months. The bond shall not be forfeited if the owner is found to be not guilty of the violation.

If the court determines that the animal has been neither abandoned, cruelly treated, nor deprived of adequate care, the animal shall be returned to the owner. If the court determines that the animal has been (i) abandoned, or cruelly treated, or (ii) deprived of adequate care,as that term is defined in § 3.1-796.66,  (§ 3.2-6503.1. Care of agricultural animals by owner; penalty.

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

1. Feed to prevent malnourishment;

2. Water to prevent dehydration; and

3. Veterinary treatment as needed to address impairment of health or bodily function when such impairment cannot be otherwise addressed through animal husbandry, including humane destruction.

B. The provisions of this section shall not require an owner to provide feed or water when such is customarily withheld, restricted, or apportioned pursuant to a farming activity or if otherwise prescribed by a veterinarian.

C. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that there has been no violation of this section if an owner is unable to provide feed, water, or veterinary treatment due to an act of God.

D. The provisions of this section shall not apply to agricultural animals used for bona fide medical or scientific experimentation.

E. A violation of this section is a Class 4 misdemeanor.)   or (iii) raised as a dog that has been, is, or is intended to be used in dogfighting in violation of § 3.1-796.124, then the court shall order that the animal be: (i a) sold by a local governing body; (ii b) humanely destroyed, or disposed of by sale or gift to a federal agency, state-supported institution, agency of the Commonwealth, agency of another state, or a licensed federal dealer having its principal place of business located within the Commonwealth; (iii c) delivered to any local humane society or shelter, or to any person who is a resident of the county or city where the animal is seized or an adjacent county or city in the Commonwealth and who will pay the required license fee, if any, on such animal; or (iv d) delivered to the person with a right of property in the animal as provided in subsection E.

E. In no case shall the owner be allowed to purchase, adopt, or otherwise obtain the animal if the court determines that the animal has been abandoned, cruelly treated, or deprived of adequate care; however, the court shall direct that the animal be delivered to the person with a right of property in the animal, upon his request, if the court finds that the abandonment, cruel treatment, or deprivation of adequate care is not attributable to the actions or inactions of such person.

F. The court shall order the owner of any animal determined to have been abandoned, cruelly treated, or deprived of adequate care to pay all reasonable expenses incurred in caring and providing for such animal from the time the animal is seized until such time that the animal is disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this section, to the provider of such care.

G. The court may prohibit the possession or ownership of other companion animals by the owner of any companion animal found to have been abandoned, cruelly treated, or deprived of adequate care. In making a determination to prohibit the possession or ownership of companion animals, the court may take into consideration the owner's past record of convictions under this chapter or other laws prohibiting cruelty to animals or pertaining to the care or treatment of animals and the owner's mental and physical condition.

H. If the court finds that an agricultural animal has been abandoned or cruelly treated, the court may prohibit the possession or ownership of any other agricultural animal by the owner of the agricultural animal if the owner has exhibited a pattern of abandoning or cruelly treating agricultural animals as evidenced by previous convictions of violating § 3.1-796.73 or §3.1-796.122. In making a determination to prohibit the possession or ownership of agricultural animals, the court may take into consideration the owner's mental and physical condition.

I. Any person who is prohibited from owning or possessing animals pursuant to subsection G or H may petition the court to repeal the prohibition after two years have elapsed from the date of entry of the court's order. The court may, in its discretion, repeal the prohibition if the person can prove to the satisfaction of the court that the cause for the prohibition has ceased to exist.

J. When a sale occurs, the proceeds shall first be applied to the costs of the sale then next to the unreimbursed expenses for the care and provision of the animal, and the remaining proceeds, if any, shall be paid over to the owner of the animal. If the owner of the animal cannot be found, the proceeds remaining shall be paid into the Literary Fund of the state treasury.

K. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the humane destruction of a critically injured or ill animal for humane purposes by the impounding humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, animal control officer, or licensed veterinarian.

So in order for the above to be applicable, the below code must first be met.  (Note, this is the state code that was in place in 2009.  It has since been repealed and rewritten.)

§ 3.2-6568. Power of search for violations of statutes against cruelty to animals.

When an affidavit is made under oath before a magistrate or court of competent jurisdiction by any animal control officer, humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, or State Veterinarian's representative that the complainant believes and has reasonable cause to believe that the laws in relation to cruelty to animals have been, are being, or are about to be violated in any particular building or place, such magistrate or judge, if satisfied that there is reasonable cause for such belief, shall issue a warrant authorizing any sheriff, deputy sheriff, or police officer to search the building or place. After issuing a warrant under this section, the magistrate or judge shall file the affidavit in the manner prescribed by § 19.2-54. After executing the warrant, the animal control officer, humane investigator, law-enforcement officer, or State Veterinarian's representative shall return the warrant to the clerk of the circuit court of the city or county wherein the search was made.

Gloucester, VA vs Bob Warden (7) 2009 from Chuck Thompson

In the above document, we see the arguments of all the lawyers and the judge in what constitutes a valid seizure.  Look at the horrible arguments allowing the seizure as valid by the judge.  He defaults his ability to understand the above to a higher court so that he can get away with a horrible ruling in our view.  He claims he did not fully understand 3.2-6569 above.  Well just go up on this post a bit and see if there is anything there that is difficult to understand.  The entire case was defaulted to an appeal for interpretation of an appellate court to decide.  So the ruling was made on ........well.....nothing that we can see.  The arguments should have been on other areas of the code that clearly states immediate danger to life, safety, or health.

  If you read the code above, "C. The procedure for appeal and trial shall be the same as provided by law for misdemeanors. Trial by jury shall be as provided in Article 4 (§ 19.2-260 et seq.) of Chapter 15 of Title 19.2. The Commonwealth shall be required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt."

(Can anyone say; Judicial Review?)

Mr Warden had his property taken from him based on ......well....nothing provable in this court that we can begin to see and all at a huge cost to Mr Warden.  That is disgusting.  The initial charges at the beginning of the case are state charges of cruelty to animals.

Now we are going to show the opening court transcript and this gets even worse.  It does state that they had a warrant, but we highly doubt the information contained in the records.  Even if they did, you will see that the court ignored and decided against both state and federal laws in our view and we are going to show just that based on state code, from our interpretations.

Gloucester, VA vs Bob Warden (1), 2009 from Chuck Thompson

The argument starts on page 9 of the above document.  The attorney for Mr Warden argues that the alleged warrant or summons claims only one animal.  The county and state argue economy.

Here is what state code reads;

§ 19.2-54. Affidavit preliminary to issuance of search warrant; general search warrant prohibited; effect of failure to file affidavit.

No search warrant shall be issued until there is filed with the officer authorized to issue the same an affidavit of some person reasonably describing the place, thing, or person to be searched, the things or persons to be searched for thereunder, alleging briefly material facts, constituting the probable cause for the issuance of such warrant and alleging substantially the offense in relation to which such search is to be made and that the object, thing, or person searched for constitutes evidence of the commission of such offense. The affidavit may be filed by electronically transmitted (i) facsimile process or (ii) electronic record as defined in § 59.1-480. Such affidavit shall be certified by the officer who issues such warrant and delivered in person; mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested; or delivered by electronically transmitted facsimile process or by use of filing and security procedures as defined in the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (§ 59.1-479 et seq.) for transmitting signed documents, by such officer or his designee or agent, to the clerk of the circuit court of the county or city wherein the search is made, with a copy of the affidavit also being delivered to the clerk of the circuit court of the county or city where the warrant is issued, if in a different county or city, within seven days after the issuance of such warrant and shall by such clerks be preserved as a record and shall at all times be subject to inspection by the public after the warrant that is the subject of the affidavit has been executed or 15 days after issuance of the warrant, whichever is earlier; however, such affidavit, any warrant issued pursuant thereto, any return made thereon, and any order sealing the affidavit, warrant, or return may be temporarily sealed for a specific period of time by the appropriate court upon application of the attorney for the Commonwealth for good cause shown in an ex parte hearing. Any individual arrested and claiming to be aggrieved by such search and seizure or any person who claims to be entitled to lawful possession of such property seized may move the appropriate court for the unsealing of such affidavit, warrant, and return. The burden of proof with respect to continued sealing shall be upon the Commonwealth. Each such clerk shall maintain an index of all such affidavits filed in his office in order to facilitate inspection. No such warrant shall be issued on an affidavit omitting such essentials, and no general warrant for the search of a house, place, compartment, vehicle or baggage shall be issued. The term "affidavit" as used in this section, means statements made under oath or affirmation and preserved verbatim.

Failure of the officer issuing such warrant to file the required affidavit shall not invalidate any search made under the warrant unless such failure shall continue for a period of 30 days. If the affidavit is filed prior to the expiration of the 30-day period, nevertheless, evidence obtained in any such search shall not be admissible until a reasonable time after the filing of the required affidavit.

As stated above, a general search warrant is prohibited.  The warrant or summons or whatever was used, should have read each animal and listed all the animals to be seized.  Not just one animal.  Throwing out the argument to bring the charges down to one animal in our view was illegal as the argument was very specific.  The argument Mr Warden's attorney made were very clear and specific.  

"Deprive AN animal of necessary food, drink, and emergency veterinary treatment.  So it alleges a single animal."  

The defense claim that the charge was the same for 38 or 39 animals is just there for economy.  We highly disagree.  There were ways to write the papers to read either animals or add in a bill of particulars for each animal and that would have created the correct legal wording.  Judge Long sided with the defense.  Absurd in our view as well as gross misconduct.    

It has been heard numerous times that most attorney's outside of Gloucester County will not take a clients case who is to be tried in any Gloucester court room.  Reason?  It's viewed as one of the worst if not the states worst Kangaroo court systems.  The information we have heard says that the Commonwealth attorney gets together with the county attorney, if involved, and the judge, before the trial and they decide how they are going to proceed with the case and determine the case's outcome well before the case even gets to court.  We can not prove this but it's been repeated so many times from so many people, it's very hard to ignore.  We have witnessed an attorney that will not take cases in Gloucester as they did not think their client would get a fair hearing.   So we believe there is plenty of validity to the stories of others.

 The hearing shall be not more than ten business days from the date of the seizure of the animal. The hearing shall be to determine whether the animal has been abandoned, has been cruelly treated, or has not been provided adequate care.    Now if we look at when the animals were seized or can we maybe say; STOLEN?, off of Mr Warden;s property, that was in March.  The trail was in July.  This is well beyond the 10 days as stated by state code.  What gives?

  Again, we are checking on whether search warrants were issued or if they were just summons.  The video above shows no evidence that any search warrant was issued.  This ends part two.  We are going to cover a lot more on this as we have only hit the tip of the entire iceberg.

Related articles

• Gloucester, VA Local Government Racketeering, Price Fixing, Real and Personal Property Theft? (Part 1)
• Animal Control Criminals of Gloucester, VA Should Be Fired?
• Gloucester, VA Animal Control In Violation of it's Own Ordinances?
• Gloucester, VA What Glo-Quips Didn't Tell You, July, 2014
• Why does the Gloucester Animal Control Ordinances Debate Continue
• Gloucester, VA Officials Violate Anti Trust Laws In Illegal Gun Fraud Scam?

Gloucester, VA What Glo-Quips Didn't Tell You, July, 2014

If you caught this paper or if you missed it, there is a good deal you were not told about the story.  So we are going to fill in the holes for you.

Here is the crux of the story.

 Sec. 3-18. Animals in enclosed vehicles.permanent link to this piece of content

(a)

It shall be unlawful to leave any animal in a vehicle without the benefit of air conditioning when the outside temperature reaches eighty (80) degrees fahrenheit or greater.

(b)

Any person who confines an animal in an unattended vehicle so as to cause the animal to suffer from heat stress, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The animal control officer or other officer shall have the authority to remove any animal found in an enclosed vehicle that appears to be suffering from heat stress. The animal shall be provided immediate veterinary care. The animal owner or custodian shall be responsible for all expenses incurred during the removal of the animal or its subsequent treatment and impoundment.

(c)

In the event that the person responsible for the violation cannot be ascertained, the registered owner of the vehicle, as required by Chapter 6 of Title 46.2 of the Code of Virginia, shall constitute in evidence a prima facie presumption that such registered owner was the person who committed the violation.

(Ord. of 7-1-2008(1), § (2); Ord. of 2-5-2013(1))

That's the entire story inside the paper.  It came out after we brought up the following with a number of county officials.

Gloucester Animal Control In Violation of Ordinances? from Chuck Thompson

Now what is interesting here is that a local ordinance can not supersede state code nor Federal Laws.  According to everything we have looked up, neither the local government nor the state government can regulate vehicle manufacturers and what is required in a vehicle.  So we see Gloucester thinks it can supersede state and Federal rules?

Here is a copy of an email we sent to the Sheriff's department.

 Greetings;

  We want to help.  Since we can not find any State codes that are equal to Gloucester County AC Section 3-18, we have started a campaign to help get this to both the State and Federal Government.  We have contacted the State Attorney General asking him to look into getting state codes created to fall into compliance with our county ordinance.  We have also contacted Congressman Rob Wittman and Senator Mark Warner as well as President Obama asking that they get together and create laws to get into compliance with Gloucester County.

The following is exactly what we sent out to the above;

Greetings (Addressed to the person in question);

  I am wondering why I am unable to find a state code or Federal Law that is in compliance with a Gloucester County, Virginia Ordinance, Animal Control Ordinance 3-18.

 Sec. 3-18. Animals in enclosed vehicles.permanent link to this piece of content

(a)

It shall be unlawful to leave any animal in a vehicle without the benefit of air conditioning when the outside temperature reaches eighty (80) degrees fahrenheit or greater.

(b)

Any person who confines an animal in an unattended vehicle so as to cause the animal to suffer from heat stress, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The animal control officer or other officer shall have the authority to remove any animal found in an enclosed vehicle that appears to be suffering from heat stress. The animal shall be provided immediate veterinary care. The animal owner or custodian shall be responsible for all expenses incurred during the removal of the animal or its subsequent treatment and impoundment.

(c)

In the event that the person responsible for the violation cannot be ascertained, the registered owner of the vehicle, as required by Chapter 6 of Title 46.2 of the Code of Virginia, shall constitute in evidence a prima facie presumption that such registered owner was the person who committed the violation.

(Ord. of 7-1-2008(1), § (2); Ord. of 2-5-2013(1))

  I am asking that the state of Virginia and Federal Government work together and please look into this and get into compliance with Gloucester County, VA ordinance 3-18.  Municode Link is https://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientID=10843&stateID=46&statename=Virginia

  To show how the state and Federal Government is in fact out of compliance with local ordinance.

Now to offer some more ideas, we are working on building an email campaign to send to all of the vehicle manufacturers demanding that all vehicles sold in the USA and Canada now be equipped with Air Conditioning as it is unknown if any of those vehicles will ever come through Gloucester County transporting an animal during temperatures above 80 Degrees and we do not need people committing criminal acts in this county.

  We see several opportunities for generating revenue from this that we would like to share with you.  

1.)  We would recommend that deputies now go throughout the county, to each car lot and or anyone who is selling a vehicle and make sure that the vehicle has a working air conditioner.  If it does not, then a fine should be imposed on the seller for each violation and the vehicle should be removed from future sale until it meets compliance.

2.)  Meeting this compliance may cause some people undue burdens, so we are also recommending selling a mandatory county decal that creates a statement from the owner that the vehicle does not have air conditioning and thus will never be used for transporting animals at anytime where temperatures meet or exceed 80 degrees.  Even if the purchaser does not own an animal, this decal should still be made mandatory as one never knows when they will be called on to transport any animal from a neighbor, friend or road emergency.  This would take care of any issues from 1 above.

We also believe that people should be prosecuted for violations to this county ordinance.  We would like to suggest that the Sheriff's office please start with 4 people we know who are violating this policy right now.  Gloucester Animal Control has 4 trucks in violation of this code right now and these criminals need to be made examples of.

Please forward a copy of this email to Sheriff Darrell Warren.

If you have any comments, suggestions or more ideas, please do not hesitate to contact us.  We are more than happy to help with this vital issue.

We sent out emails last night and have already heard from Senator Mark Warner.  His email is as follows.

I appreciate the trust and confidence you have shown in me by contacting me with your letter in which you requested my assistance with your question regarding federal codes protecting animals. 

In an effort to be of assistance to you, I have referred your letter to the Congressional Research Service (CRS). I will promptly forward any information I may receive from CRS to you.

My staff and I stand ready to be of assistance in any other matter that is of concern to you.

Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator

All we can say at this point is that if the county government is going to make up it's own ordinances, it better be prepared for the consequences that go along with them.  We will keep you up to date with this story as it progresses.  

Related articles

• Gloucester, VA Animal Control In Violation of it's Own Ordinances?
• Gloucester, VA Storage Container Use Ordinances
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisor's Meeting, Video and Notes, July, 2014
• Gloucester County Ordinances Repealed, August, 2013
• Gloucester, VA County Services Outrageous Costs, $600 Per Cat and Dog In November
• October Gloucester, VA Ordinances In Violation of State Code