Thursday, January 17, 2013

Gloucester, VA Local Government Employment Policy Violations?

Section 3-14 of the Gloucester County Employment Policies states as follows;  A position with Gloucester County is considered to be the employee's primary occupation.  Employees may not engage in other employment which presents a conflict of interest with their county position and/or which interferes with and detracts from the efficient and effective performance of their duties with the county.

  Really!  Is this just hogwash statements that are posted on the county web site for compliance purposes only, or an elite system, that only applies to certain individuals but not others?  Let's once again visit complaints we have made on this site for some time now.  Jeff Stillman of Gloucester Animal Control owns a pet cremation business.  This has all the earmarks of being a second job that would be in direct violation to the above stated policy.  Here is a question we have to ask to see if Gloucester County itself is in compliance with their own policies.

  Has Jeff Stillman signed any kind of waiver with the county that states that he will not discuss any aspect of his other business regarding his pet cremation business during the course of his job?  That means even mentioning such would be a violation to his employment with the county.  The reverse would also be true.  He would not be allowed to discuss his county position during any course of his work with the pet cremation business.  This also means that others in Animal Control are also prevented from discussing Jeff Stillman's pet cremation business.

  Has Jeff managed to gain business for his pet cremation business because of his position with Animal Control?  Is Jeff using his position with Animal Control to gain business for his own personal gain?  Is Jeff getting taxpayer supported payments for work sent to him because of his position with Animal Control?  Jeff can not even be seen in his pet cremation business wearing his animal control uniform if we are to make certain that there is no conflict of interest.

  That is just one case.  Let's now look at Carl (Chuck) Shipley, head of Animal Control for Gloucester County.   Carl Shipley is the owner of Chuck's carpet cleaning.  http://www.chuckscarpetcleaning.com/Pages/default.aspx  Here is the link to his business web site.  In an earlier post we pointed out that Chuck's carpet cleaning operated during hours that Chuck, aka Carl is supposed to be working for Animal Control.  This conflict has been removed from the site.  Has Carl used his position with the county to get contracts?  Again, is there some form of waiver that Carl had to sign that prevents him from discussing his outside business during the course of his job as well as the reverse that prevents him from discussing his county job during the course of his side business?  This also means that Carl can not take calls while he is under county employment, during the course of his work, from any employee or customer even asking a simple question under Chuck's carpet cleaning.

Manage Everything on Your Android and iDevice from Computer

  This is a two sided compliance issue.  It is the job of both the employees to make sure that they are always 100% compliant as well as county officials to make sure that their staff is in 100% compliance.  Is the county in compliance here?  What assurances do the citizens of Gloucester County have that compliance is being maintained?  Can the county afford a violation to the public trust?  Signing waivers now would only show a conflict of interest has existed.  These waivers needed to be signed at the time these businesses were started.  Also, was county approval gained before either one of them started their businesses?  Is there evidence of this?  Can the county actually assure us that no conflicts of interest exists with either one of these businesses?

  We did not make the county policy here.  We are just asking if the county can assure us that they are following their own rules.  If these two businesses owned by Animal Control Officers do not present a conflict of interest, what does?  Or do elitist policies dictate instead?


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.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Gloucester, VA Officials Once Again Ignore FOIA Requests

On December 31, 2012, we filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act and posted on this site that we would be doing so.  As of today, January 16th, 2013 we still have not heard a word on our request.  We know that it is not the fault of Christi Lewis who is the director of the Gloucester Community Department of Education.  She has been a terrific person to work with and goes well beyond the call of her job to help.

  It's the usual stonewalling of Gloucester County officials in not wanting to respond to the requested information as the answers would be to revealing in our opinion of the situation.  Either way, there is no excuse for not answering the request as required by law.  The county has done this to us before and we have reported it here.  We had to file a number of complaints in order to get only part of the information we requested in the past.  The county claimed they did not understand the full nature of the request in the past.  (Can't read English?)  You have to wonder what it is they may be trying to hide.

Halloween Coupon Code</


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.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Gloucester County Revamps New Proposed Animal Control Ordinances Based On Our Arguments

Yesterday, January 15th, 2013, we re wrote Gloucester County Ordinance 3-15 to make it compatible with state law.  A number of the new proposed ordinances made by Gloucester County were not in sync with state laws which would have potentially invalidated them.  We submitted the new proposals last night with the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors, the Gloucester County Administrator and with the Gloucester County Gazette Journal.  We also made notice that we would be going through the rest of the new codes for compliance.

  Today we looked at the proposals on the Gloucester County site and they have been changed to reflect the changes we made based on the arguments we pointed out.  All of the original wording is still there from the first proposals,  but now they have gone in and struck out the words in the codes that can not be in there.

  Ted Wilmot has to be pretty upset as well as the folks over in Animal Control.  This means they all have to learn the laws of the state and apply them correctly now.  Which is leading to a number of upcoming articles.

The following is the new changes made by Gloucester County as of today.  These are not the same as those made and were published on January 3rd, 2013.  We have a complete copy on the original proposed changes on this site.  So these are not the approved changes made during  the January 2nd, 2013 meeting of the Board of Supervisors.  It's easy to compare the differences.  The copy below came off the Gloucester County Government web site from the Board of Supervisor's meeting notes.  We are re printing it here so everyone can see the changes for the upcoming meeting on February 5th, 2013 at the town hall courthouse.

  This is reprinted under the fair use terms of the United States.




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.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Gloucester, VA - Proposed Re Write Of County Animal Control Ordinance Section 3-15

We have been going through the new proposed ordinance codes for Animal Control of Gloucester County and we are proposing several re writes already.  Specifically to section 3-15.  Our re writes put the code into state compliance where the present writing seems to cause a technical problem that could legally through the code out in a court of law if argued correctly.

  We removed the title at the top of the code, which presently reads as follows; "Failure To Perform Duties of Ownership".  The reason we removed this section is that it potentially opens the ordinance to malicious and or abusive charges and or prosecutions.  With that potential existing, it becomes a very serious threat to the public trust and in contradiction to how the state code 3.2-6503 and or 3.2-6503.1 are meant to be used which is what Gloucester County ordinance 3-15 is supposed to be mimicking.

  We added in after each statement Virginia law definitions from 3.2-6500 so that people are easily able to understand the ordinance and are not confused by the present way that the code reads and without having to search all over the place to find the meaning.  We also changed the way 3-15 ends with "The provisions of this section shall also apply to every an owner or custodian
of any animal, fowl, or reptile, including every private owner, animal shelter or
other releasing agency, and every foster care provider, 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."

We changed this back to follow state law and be in full compliance with state law.  We put it as follows;

"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."

Present proposed ordinance 3-15 is written more broadly than state law 3.2-6503 which on a technical level, could just invalidate the ordinance as the terminology places agricultural animals, fowl and reptiles in the same category as domestic animals changing the meaning of the law altogether.  Hence a violation of state law and illegal causing it to be null and void in our view.

The following are our proposals for re writing the code to meet the needs of the county that would ensure and maintain the public trust.

Proposed Re Write of local ordinance 3-15
January 15th, 2013

Sec. 3-15.  Care of companion animals by owner; penalty. Based on VA Law 3.2-
6503

(a) Each owner or custodian of an animal shall provide for each of his
companion animals all the following as defined in section 3.2-6500 of

(1) Adequate feed;

Definition from VA law 3.2-6500:  “Adequate feed” means access to and the provision of food that is of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain each animal in good health; is accessible to each animal; is prepared so as to permit ease of consumption for the age, species, condition, size and type of each animal; is provided in a clean and sanitary manner; is placed so as to minimize contamination by excrement and pests; and is provided at suitable intervals for the species, age, and condition of the animal, but at least once daily, except as prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally occurring states of hibernation or fasting normal for the species.

(2) Adequate water;

Definition From VA Law 3.2-6500: “Adequate water” means provision of and access to clean, fresh, potable water of a drinkable temperature that is provided in a suitable manner, in sufficient volume, and at suitable intervals appropriate for the weather and temperature, to maintain normal hydration for the age, species, condition, size and type of each animal, except as prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally occurring states of hibernation or fasting normal for the species; and is provided in clean, durable receptacles that are accessible to each animal and are placed so as to minimize contamination of the water by excrement and pests or an alternative source of hydration consistent with generally accepted husbandry practices.

(3) Adequate shelter that is properly cleaned and sanitized;

Definition from VA Law 3.2-6500: “Adequate shelter” means provision of and access to shelter that is suitable for the species, age, condition, size, and type of each animal; provides adequate space for each animal; is safe and protects each animal from injury, rain, sleet, snow, hail, direct sunlight, the adverse effects of heat or cold, physical suffering, and impairment of health; is properly lighted; is properly cleaned; enables each animal to be clean and dry, except when detrimental to the species; and, for dogs and cats, provides a solid surface, resting platform, pad, floor mat, or similar device that is large enough for the animal to lie on in a normal manner and can be maintained in a sanitary manner. Under this chapter, shelters whose wire, grid, or slat floors: (i) permit the animals’ feet to pass through the openings; (ii) sag under the animals’ weight; or (iii) otherwise do not protect the animals’ feet or toes from injury are not adequate shelter.

“Properly cleaned” means that carcasses, debris, food waste, and excrement are removed from the primary
enclosure with sufficient frequency to minimize the animals’ contact with the above-mentioned contaminants;
the primary enclosure is sanitized with sufficient frequency to minimize odors and the hazards of disease; and
the primary enclosure is cleaned so as to prevent the animals confined therein from being directly or indirectly
sprayed with the stream of water, or directly or indirectly exposed to hazardous chemicals or disinfectants,“Sanitize” means to make physically clean and to remove and destroy, to a practical minimum, agents injurious to health.

“Enclosure” means a structure used to house or restrict animals from running at large.

(4) Adequate space in the primary enclosure for the particular type of animal depending upon its age, size, species, and weight;

Definition from VA Law 3.2-6500: “Adequate space” means sufficient space to allow each animal to: (i) easily stand, sit, lie, turn about, and make all other normal body movements in a comfortable, normal position for the animal; and (ii) interact safely with other animals in the enclosure. When an animal is tethered, 

“adequate space” means a tether that permits the above actions and is appropriate to the age and size of the animal; is attached to the animal by a properly applied collar, halter, or harness configured so as to protect the animal from injury and prevent the animal or tether from becoming entangled with other objects or animals, or from extending over an object or edge that could result in the strangulation or injury of the animal; and is at least three times the length of the animal, as measured from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail, except when the animal is being walked on a leash or is attached by a tether to a lead line. When freedom of movement would endanger the animal, temporarily and appropriately restricting movement of the animal according to professionally accepted standards for the species is considered provision of adequate space.

(5) Adequate exercise;

Definition of VA Law 3.2-6500:  “Adequate exercise” or “exercise” means the opportunity for the animal to move sufficiently to maintain normal muscle tone and mass for the age, species, size, and condition of the animal.

(6) Adequate care, treatment and transportation; 

Definition of VA Law 3.2-6500:  “Treatment” or “adequate treatment” means the responsible handling or
transportation of animals in the person’s ownership, custody or charge, appropriate for the age, species,
condition, size and type of the animal.

“Veterinary treatment” means treatment by or on the order of a duly licensed veterinarian.

(7) Veterinary care when needed for disease control or to
prevent suffering or disease transmission.

Definition of VA Law 3.2-6500:  “Adequate care” or “care” means the responsible practice of good animal
husbandry, handling, production, management, confinement, feeding, watering, protection, shelter,
transportation, treatment, and, when necessary, euthanasia, appropriate for the age, species, condition, size and type of the animal and the provision of veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering or impairment of health.

“Emergency veterinary treatment” means veterinary treatment to stabilize a life-threatening condition, alleviate
suffering, prevent further disease transmission, or prevent further disease progression.

“Euthanasia” means the humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death or by a method that involves anesthesia, produced by an agent that causes painless loss of consciousness, and death during such loss of consciousness. 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.

(c) Violation of this section is a Class 4 misdemeanor. A second or
subsequent violation of section 3-15 (a)(1), (2), (3) or (7) is a class 2
misdemeanor; and a second or subsequent violation of section 3-15
(a)(4), (5) or (6) is a class 3 misdemeanor.

Transparency in government statement:  How Animal Control Officers seek to use this law to ensure
local compliance.  (Open so that Gloucester County Animal Control can make it's statement in this
section).

Now for Section 3-15.1 this is our proposed re write of that ordinance code;

Sec. 3-15.1. Care of agricultural animals; penalty. Based on VA Law 3.2-6503.1

(a)  Each owner or custodian shall provide for each of his
agricultural animals:

Definition from VA Law 3.2-6500: “Agricultural animals” means all livestock and poultry.

(1) Feed to prevent malnourishment;

Definition from VA Law 3.2-6500: “Adequate feed” means access to and the provision of food that is of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain each animal in good health; is accessible to each animal; is prepared so as to permit ease of consumption for the age, species, condition, size and type of each animal; is provided in a clean and sanitary manner; is placed so as to minimize contamination by excrement and pests; and is provided at suitable intervals for the species, age, and condition of the animal, but at least once daily, except as prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally occurring states of hibernation or fasting normal for the species.

(2) Water to prevent dehydration; and

Definition from VA Law 3.2-6500: “Adequate water” means provision of and access to clean, fresh, potable water of a drinkable temperature that is provided in a suitable manner, in sufficient volume, and at suitable intervals appropriate for the weather and temperature, to maintain normal hydration for the age, species, condition, size and type of each animal, except as prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally occurring states of hibernation or fasting normal for the species; and is provided in clean, durable receptacles that are accessible to each animal and are placed so as to minimize contamination of the water by excrement and pests or an alternative source of hydration consistent with generally accepted husbandry practices.

(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.

Definition from VA Law 3.2-6500:  “Veterinary treatment” means treatment by or on the order of a duly licensed veterinarian.

(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.

Transparency in government statement:  How Animal Control Officers seek to use this law to ensure
local compliance.  (Open so that Gloucester County Animal Control can make it's statement in this
section)

These are our re writings to the presently proposed ordinances and we are sending these proposals to the Board of Supervisors as well as the Gloucester Mathews Gazette Journal.  We think this is a better way to present the ordinances.  We added in the transparency in government sections at the end of each ordinance so that everyone may be able to see how the county plans on using such.

St. Patricks Day Coupon Code

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.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, January 14, 2013

Virginia Government Official Employees Notice - Perfect Side Business With Tax Payer Support

If you are an official in a local, town or county government position in the state of Virginia, we have the perfect business for you.  Tax payer supported and locality code requirements if so desired to be added to ensure success of your new enterprise.

  Start an animal crematorium.  Get together with other local officials and invest in this concept.  We recommend you get together with your zoning commissioner, county or local government employed attorney, animal control officers and anyone else you need to make the business a success.  Every county should have one of these.  Why not profit from state law?  In Virginia one of the state laws spells out how to properly get rid of dead companion animals.    § 3.2-6554. Disposal of dead companion animals.
The owner of any companion animal shall forthwith cremate, bury, or sanitarily dispose of the animal upon its death. If, after notice, any owner fails to do so, the animal control officer or other officer shall bury or cremate the companion animal, and he may recover on behalf of the local jurisdiction from the owner his cost for this service.

  So what is sanitarily disposing of an animal anyway?  It's not spelled out so it does not exist.  Create a county, city or town ordinance that gets rid of the term, sanitary leaving only two choices.  Burial and cremation.  Think creatively to get people to see how burial may not be in their best interest as it may come back to haunt them under soil contamination laws.  

§ 18.2-510. Burial or cremation of animals or fowls which have died.

When the owner of any animal or grown fowl which has died knows of such death, such owner shall forthwith have its body cremated or buried or request such service from an officer or other person designated for the purpose. If the owner fails to do so, any judge of a general district court, after notice to the owner if he can be ascertained, shall cause any such dead animal or fowl to be cremated or buried by an officer or other person designated for the purpose. Such officer or other person shall be entitled to recover of the owner of every such animal or fowl that is cremated or buried the actual cost of the cremation or burial and a reasonable fee to be recovered in the same manner as officers' fees are recovered, free from all exemptions in favor of such owner. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor.

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to require the burial or cremation of the whole or portions of any animal or fowl which is to be used for food or in any commercial manner.
This section shall not apply to any county until the governing body thereof shall adopt the same.

http://townhall.virginia.gov/L/GetFile.cfm?File=C:%5CTownHall%5Cdocroot%5CGuidanceDocs%5C440%5CGDoc_DEQ_3969_v1.pdf

The above is a link to a Virginia Department of Environmental Quality PDF discussing issues with disposing of dead animals as well and the growing problems faced by Virginians.  Worried about how all this may look to your constituents?  No problem.  Put your share of the business in a trust or family member name.  Is there legal precedence for this already in Virginia?  Yes there is.  Jeff Stillman of Gloucester County Animal Control already owns one and the county has not considered it to be a conflict of interest.  Legal precedence set.

OneGoodThread.com
OneGoodThread.com

  Also, what you learn from the PDF above is how to create local ordinances that require cremation in your locality.  Part of why you need your planning commissioner on board with you.  This is not a joke.  We are looking into the best ways to buy a crematorium business and will cover that in a coming article.  There are other benefits for owning a crematorium as well.  Document disposal.  Certain forms of hazardous waste disposal.  We are sure you can come up with plenty of more ways to use the business.  Plus you now have a retirement business and you are doing your community a service which is tax payer supported.

  Why you want your animal control and local policing authorities on board.  Every dead animal found along the road sides can be county ordinance coded that cremation is the only option and at the expense of the locality hence, at the tax payer's expense that guarantees your income.  Doctors and other professionals have been doing this for decades.  Why should you be left out.?  Before you throw this to the air, wait, there is more.  Think of all the extra business you can pick up by making it mandatory for the animal care providers to use cremation to maintain proper licensing in your area.  Have a local animal shelter?  Same there as well. Cremation is made mandatory for the shelter as well.

  Stay tuned for up coming articles along these lines.

Disclaimer:  This is a fictitious business proposal to show the absurdity of real life events that presently exist in Gloucester County, Virginia. 


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.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Gloucester, VA - Readers Respond, Ben Coffey Missing

A reader has asked the following question;

Killing Killers has left a new comment on your post "Gloucester, VA - Ben Coffey Missing Something Not ...": 

Following this case too over at on Killing Killers--where did you find the info about Coffey checking to see if his boats were still there? I followed your link, but either the reference was removed from that news article or it was never there.

Let me know if you have this source handy someplace so I can read it and then post a case update for my own weblog visitors.

E.R

The answer, requires a correction.  We did not catch what we first read properly.   

reprinted from the site, On Friday, Terry and his son-in-law went down to where Ben docks his boat to check if they were still docked there.  They found both boats.

http://wtvr.com/2013/01/06/man-missing-in-tappahannock/

It was the father and son-in-law that went searching for Ben's boats.  Our own opinion, Ben saw something he should not have seen or was watching something that someone else wanted and did anything to get it.  That something was most likely in Gloucester County.  http://www.gloucestercounty-va.com/2012/12/gloucester-va-local-terrorist.html  This is an internal link to one of our other stories.  We caution that the first part of the story is fictional.  Rumors have abounded Gloucester County for decades over local police and official corruption.  Part of those rumors center around the Colonial Parkway murders and how they were done by a local Gloucester County Sheriff's deputy.  Other rumors include how local sheriff's deputies break into peoples houses and that whenever any murder suicide or even a suicide occurs, it should be considered a highly suspicious event in Gloucester County.

MAXpc 300X300

  There are even rumors about how a past Sheriff who commited suicide was actually bumped off for what he knew.  No investigation was ever done other than to call it a suicide.   Further rumors abound about the folks at the historical society and how they go about getting what they want.  How do you prove rumors?  We have been working on a particular case that has corruption writen all over it and fighting it for some time now.  https://sites.google.com/site/gloucestervanews/  This is a link to that story.  Striclty a personal opinion, and no disrespect to the family meant here, Ben is at the bottom of a river and is crab bait.  I hope to God I am wrong.  

  This site started over 4 years ago and was meant to be a positive impact and promotion of the county.  It has since become a battleground with the county.  When the site was more a positive aspect for the county, no one cared.  When it became a battleground, readership went through the roof.  We are read all over the world and have between 1,200 to over 2,000 viewers per day now.  In those early days, we were doing well when we hit 30 viewers per day.  As an entier entity, we are producing over 6,000 hits per day on a regular basis between our various sites.  Some days we are over 12,000 hits in a single day.  So the battles continue.  To coin a phrase, everyone loves a bloodbath, it's good for business.  Sad, isn't 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.


  
Enhanced by Zemanta

Gloucester, VA - Animal Control Code 3-15 Partial Conceded Arguments

We are continuing to investigate 3-15 of Gloucester Animal Control and looking at how 3.2-6503 of Virginia Law is applied for those clues.  Here is what we see so far.  Case law studies under 3.2-6503.


Applicable Case Law:
Settle v. Commonwealth, 692 S.E.2d 641, 56 Va. App. 222 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
Facts: Charles E. Settle, Jr. was convicted in a bench trial of two counts of inadequate care by owner of
companion animals, pursuant to Code § 3.1-796.68, and one count of dog at large, pursuant to Fauquier
County Code §§ 4-22 and 13-1.  Witness testimony was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant, who was sitting in court in the witnesses' presence, was the same person with whom
the witnesses dealt on numerous occasions.
Holding:  Pursuant to Code § 3.1-796.115,all of the dogs at issue were seized from appellant's control
and placed in the care of local animal shelters. Additionally, the trial court declared three of the dogs dangerous pursuant to Code § 3.1-796.93:1. Settle was convicted of two counts of inadequate care by an
owner, in violation of Virginia Code § 3.1-796.68 and allowing a dog to run at large, in violation of Va.
Code § 3.1-796.128, In addition, pursuant to Code § 3.1-796.115, Settle was adjudicated unfit to own a
companion animal and his dogs.  Three dogs were declared to be “dangerous dogs” under Code § 3.1-
796.93.  Remaining dogs were ordered forfeited to the Fauquier County SPCA and/or the Middleburg
Humane Foundation.  Conviction affirmed.

Sentencing:  Settle was ordered to pay a total of $300.00 in fines and $423.00 court costs. The trial
court awarded a monetary judgment pursuant to the Middleburg Humane Foundation in the amount of
$45,261.51.


Hillman v. Commonwealth, No. 1211-01-3, 2002 WL 496982 (Va. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2002).
Facts: Appellant convicted in trial court for failure to provide care for her animals under Code § 3.1-
796.68.  Appellant contends her conviction for these offenses in circuit court violated both Code § 19.2–
294 and the double jeopardy prohibitions of the United States and Virginia Constitutions.
Holding: Convictions for cruelty to animals in circuit court did not violate Code § 19.2–294 because
those convictions occurred as part of the same prosecution as her convictions for failure to provide care
for those animals. Appellant’s convictions for cruelty to animals after she already had been convicted for
failure to provide care for those animals did not violate double jeopardy prohibitions because the
offenses are not the same.  The failure to care offense is not included in the cruelty offense.
Sentencing: Individual was convicted of both a Class 4 misdemeanor under Code § 3.1–796.68(A)(7)
for the lesser offense of failing to provide “veterinary treatment to prevent disease transmission” and a
Class 1 misdemeanor under Code § 3 .1–796.122(A)(ii) for the greater offense of failing to provide
“emergency veterinary treatment.”

These two cases above are how 3.2-6503 have been applied on one site.  We dug for many hours trying to find more where 3.2-6503 or 3.2-6503.1 have been used and prosecuted in other counties around the state.    So far we have found only one case where 3.2-6503 and or 3.2-6503.1 were solely used but they were in Gloucester County and charged under 3-15.  No other cases we found were solely prosecuted under 3.2-6503 or 3.2-6503.1.  Others who have been charged with 3.2-6503 or 3.2-6503.1 had other animal control laws that they were in violations of.

  Based on what we have found around other localities in the state, we concede the proper use of 3-15 in it's new form that Gloucester County is seeking to approve.  For that we do sincerely  apologize and admit when we are wrong and we were wrong here.  What we are not conceding at this time is the way in which Gloucester County Animal Control has used 3-15 in the past.  State law 3.2-6503 is very broadly stated to the point of allowing anyone to be charged with a violation to this law, making it a black hole law, even though it is backed by 3.2-6500.  In which case, the real issue is the state law, requiring a better understanding of the state law by localities is then needed along with a more clearly defined set of rules on how it is used.  This then becomes a state problem that the state needs to address with all it's localities.

  Here is what really ticks us off about all of this.  Animals have more rights than humans.  Put those same laws on localities for the homeless in their communities and every locality will fail that test.  Go ahead and apply 3.2-6503 to homeless people in any locality.  The locality would fail the test but even worse, the homeless fail even more.  We enjoy animals as much as the next person, but we do not put animal rights above human rights.  No locality provides adequate food, shelter that is properly cleaned, potable water, adequate space, adequate exercise, adequate treatment and transportation and adequate health care for the homeless of their communities.  None.  Animals have more rights than humans.  Now that should make everyone sick.

  People who torture animals on purpose are sick and require help.  Not more abuse from the legal system.  People who are suffering because of our wonderful economy and can not afford all the proper care that once only a short time ago was not an issue, are now being called criminals.  Animal Control laws that keep expanding infringe on the rights of humans and are a parasite to human rights when overrun by higher rights for animals.  Yes, protect the animals, but in a fair manner.  Clearly define violations in a fair manner.  Broadly stated black hole laws open up abuse.  3.2-6503 is ripe for abuse and has been abused.  There are probably more false charges of animal control violations than real ones causing real issues with anyone even wanting to own an animal anymore.  Hope everyone is ready to become a vegetarian or import all our meat from Mexico and Canada.

REEDS Jewelers Logo Option

  What is the best solution we can come up with for this mess?  Just bail out the banks again and go back to sleep.  God save the queen.  Bless the Pope and remember that your commander in chief knows best.  Oh yes, and we are not attorneys and only attorneys can give you legal advice.  This post is not meant for using as a mouth wash and can not be taken as legal council or advice.  Also, the world ended on 12-21-12, so what are we still doing here anyway?


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.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Gloucester, VA - Ben Coffey Missing Something Not Being Told



We are sure everyone is already familiar with this story about the missing man, Ben Coffey.  Just from looking at the initial report on WTKR's web site, http://wtvr.com/2013/01/06/man-missing-in-tappahannock/
we were struck with the question as to why Ben was looking to see if his boats were still docked at the pier where he left them.  Why would he do that?  There is a reason why and we are willing to bet that it's a big part of the puzzle as to why Ben is missing.  If we were investigating this case, we would pull records from Ben's cell phone and home phone to see who called him before he went to look for his boats.  We would also be checking his last few phone calls as well.

  Attempts to find Ben Coffey have since stopped in Tappahanock.  The investigation has now moved to Gloucester where the news is saying Ben lived out of the van that was found in Tappahanock.  Now why would he be living in a van when he had two boats and another claim says he was living with an acquaintance?  Was he living out of his van at the acquaintance house?  Again, this makes no sense.  Find why he went to look for his two boats and you will probably find the rest of the answers.

  Gloucester Mathews Gazette Journal has this story;

The family of a missing Gloucester resident is seeking the public’s help in locating him. Benjamin Lloyd Coffey, 27, was last seen on New Year’s Eve. His vehicle was found New Year’s Day on Hobbs Hole Drive adjacent to the Holiday Inn Express in Tappahannock.
Coffey’s father, Terry Coffey of Richmond, said his son had rented a cottage on the North River for several months and was helping an acquaintance renovate a Gloucester property and take care of some animals. He said his son had apparently stopped renting the cottage about a month ago and was living with the acquaintance.
Coffey said his son was at the family’s Richmond residence Christmas Eve when they enjoyed a big dinner and opened gifts. He said he last saw his son the next morning when the younger Coffey left early, saying he needed to get back to take care of the animals. "He was in a good mood. He enjoyed his Christmas presents and was very happy," Coffey said.
The last known person to have talked with Ben Coffey was a childhood friend, with whom he spoke around 5:15 p.m. on New Year’s Eve.
He told the friend he was in Richmond and was headed home. "We would all assume it would mean Gloucester," Coffey said of his son’s destination. "Then his van was found in Tappahannock, that’s so confusing to me. It doesn’t make sense."
Click Here for the rest of the story at the Gloucester Mathews Gazette Journal web site.  


This is a Google map of the area where Ben Coffey had been living up until November, 2012.  If he was renting a cottage at the North River Inn, why not dock the boats there unless you needed easier access to other points.
Please note:  There is an update to this article that was posted days ago.  Please hit the home button above to view this update.

STOPzilla Mobile Security 300x250


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.

Enhanced by Zemanta