Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Will Drinking Diet Soda Help You Lose Weight?

English: Diet Coke Products
English: Diet Coke Products (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
 


By Dr. Mercola
Do you believe that drinking diet soda will allow you to "have your cake and eat it too" while still controlling your weight, or even shedding a few pounds? This is certainly what the soda industry wants you to believe.
Last year, Coca-Cola Company rolled out an ad campaign encouraging people to unite in the fight against obesity. The ads drew fire from consumers, consumer advocates, and obesity experts1, 2 alike.
Most people saw the campaign as little more than an effort in damage control, considering the overwhelming evidence linking soda consumption to obesity.
Soon thereafter, Coca-Cola Co. launched another ad campaign, this time assuring you that diet beverages containing the artificial sweetener aspartame are a safe alternative to regular soda.3
Now, the soda industry has taken their propaganda to the next level by publishing a study that claims to confirm what the industry has been saying all along—that drinking diet soda will help you lose weight.4, 5
Actually, the industry-funded trial claims diet soda drinkers lose weight faster than those who don't drink ANY soda at all! Talk about going for broke. As reported byTime Magazine:6
"The small study, funded in part by the American Beverage Association, divided 300 diet soda drinkers into two groups. One group could go on drinking the sweet stuff, while the other cut out diet soda entirely.
The study found that the drinkers, with intensive coaching, lost an average of 13 pounds over 12 weeks, while the abstainers, with the same coaching, lost only 9 pounds...
'The most likely explanation was that having access to drinks with sweet taste helps the [artificially-sweetened beverage] group to adhere better to the behavioral change program,' concluded study author Dr. Jim Hill..."

Funding Research—The Best PR Money Can Buy

This study comes like a knight in shining armor, "just in the nick of time," to rescue the soda industry's rapidly dwindling sales.
Growing awareness of the health dangers associated with soda, both regular and diet, has pushed beverage sales into a freefall.7 Sales of carbonated beverages in general fell three percent in 2013, while diet Coke and diet Pepsi both dropped by nearly seven percent.8
Purdue University researcher Susie Swithers9 has strongly criticized the featured study, saying it is "fatally flawed, and leaves us with little science to build on."
For example, it does not contain any information about what the non-diet soda drinkers were actually consuming. While water was suggested as the ideal beverage, did they actually drink water, or did they compensate with fruit juices and regular soda instead?
Susie Swithers' own research shows that diet drinks promote heart problems, and that animals fed artificial sweeteners develop a disrupted metabolic response to real sugar. Earlier this year, she told MedicineNet.com:10
"[Like diabetics], they become hyperglycemic. Their blood sugars go up higher than they should. They also make less of a heart-protective protein. If drinking diet soda interferes with this system, then over the long term you're taking something away that protects your cardiovascular health, and that could be what's contributing to these effects."
Furthermore, with so much evidence weighing against the safety and effectiveness of diet soda, whether for weight loss or any other disease prevention, the featured industry-funded study really offers no scientifically relevant evidence at all that might shift the balance in diet soda's favor. As Swithers notes, "this paper tells us nothing about the long-term health consequences that should be our real focus." What the study CAN do, however, is create media buzz and splashy headlines where the words "science," "study," and "proven weight loss" are favorably combined, and that is worth more than anything a PR firm might cook up.

Industry Funding Dramatically Increases Odds of Favorable Research Results

The misuse of science to further a preconceived commercial agenda is so rampant today that it can be quite tricky to determine what's what. One key factor is to determine who paid for the research, because when industry funds the research, it's virtually guaranteed to be favorable. Quite simply, an independent researcher has far less incentive to come to any particular conclusion—good or bad.
I've previously said that we've left evidence-based decision-making behind, and we're now in an era of "decision-based evidence-making." What I mean by that is that the preferred business model of an industry is created first, followed by "scientific evidence" that has been specifically created to support the established business model.
This is yet another perfect example of this. After two failed marketing campaigns (the latter of which was designed to look like a public service announcement rather than a classic advertisement), the beverage industry turned to "science" in an effort to win back customers.
As I discussed in a previous article, the Calorie Control Council is an association that represents manufacturers and suppliers of low-calorie, sugar-free, and reduced sugar foods and beverages. It is, of course, a staunch defender of aspartame's safety and effectiveness for weight management and diabetic control, and is quick to dismiss any research that suggests otherwise.
The group recently denounced research showing that post-menopausal diet soda drinkers raise their risk of heart attacks and stroke, stating that such findings "do not support the majority of the scientific evidence on the topic, and are at odds with statements from the American Heart Association."11
What many don't realize is that the Calorie Control Council has strong ties to the Kellen Company, which is instrumental in creating and managing industry front groups specifically created to mislead you about the product in question, protect industry profits, and influence regulatory agencies. Unfortunately for anyone who has fallen for the false advertising, diet soda actually tends to promote weight gain, and numerous studies that were NOT funded by industry attest to this.

The List of Studies Refuting 'Diet' Claims Is Long

Research has repeatedly shown that artificially sweetened no- or low-calorie drinks and other "diet" foods tend to stimulate your appetite, increase cravings for carbs, and stimulate fat storage and weight gain. Artificial sweeteners basically trick your body into thinking that it's going to receive sugar (calories), but when the sugar doesn't arrive, your body signals that it needs more, which results in carb cravings. Most people give in to such cravings and end up overeating on other foods and snacks.
This connection between sweet taste alone and increased hunger can be found in the medical literature going back at least two decades. But artificial sweeteners also appear to produce a variety of metabolic dysfunctions that promote weight gain. Here's a sampling of some of the studies published through the years, clearly refuting the beverage industry's claims that diet soda aids weight loss:
Preventive Medicine, 198612This study examined nearly 78,700 women aged 50-69 for one year. Artificial sweetener usage increased with relative weight, and users were significantly more likely to gain weight, compared to those who did not use artificial sweeteners—regardless of their initial weight. According to the researchers, the results "were not explicable by differences in food consumption patterns. The data do not support the hypothesis that long-term artificial sweetener use either helps weight loss or prevents weight gain."
Physiology and Behavior, 198813In this study, they determined that intense (no- or low-calorie) sweeteners can produce significant changes in appetite. Of the three sweeteners tested, aspartame produced the most pronounced effects.
Physiology and Behavior, 199014Here, they found that aspartame had a time-dependent effect on appetite, "producing a transient decrease followed by a sustained increase in hunger ratings."
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 199115In a study of artificial sweeteners performed on college students, there was no evidence that artificial sweetener use was associated with a decrease in their overall sugar intake either.
International Journal of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, 200416This Purdue University study found that rats fed artificially sweetened liquids ate more high-calorie food than rats fed high-calorie sweetened liquids. The researchers believe the experience of drinking artificially sweetened liquids disrupted the animals' natural ability to compensate for the calories in the food.
San Antonio Heart Study, 200517Data gathered from the 25-year long San Antonio Heart Study also showed that drinking diet soft drinks increased the likelihood of serious weight gain – far more so than regular soda.18 On average, for each diet soft drink the participants drank per day, they were 65 percent more likely to become overweight during the next seven to eight years, and 41 percent more likely to become obese.
Journal of Biology and Medicine, 201019This study delves into the neurobiology of sugar cravings and summarizes the epidemiological and experimental evidence concerning the effect of artificial sweeteners on weight.

According to the authors: "[F]indings suggest that the calorie contained in natural sweeteners may trigger a response to keep the overall energy consumption constant. ...Increasing evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners do not activate the food reward pathways in the same fashion as natural sweeteners… [A]rtificial sweeteners, precisely because they are sweet, encourage sugar craving and sugar dependence."
Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 201020This review offers a summary of epidemiological and experimental evidence concerning the effects of artificial sweeteners on weight, and explains those effects in light of the neurobiology of food reward. It also shows the correlation between increased usage of artificial sweeteners in food and drinks, and the corresponding rise in obesity.
Appetite, 201221Here, researchers showed that saccharin and aspartame both cause greater weight gain than sugar, even when the total caloric intake remains similar.
Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism, 201322This report highlights the fact that diet soda drinkers suffer the same exact health problems as those who opt for regular soda, such as excessive weight gain, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and stroke.23, 24 The researchers speculate that frequent consumption of artificial sweeteners may induce metabolic derangements.

Comprehensive Review Finds You Gain Weight by Drinking Diet Soda

The 2010 review in the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine25 is of particular relevance here, as it offers a great historical summary of artificial sweeteners in general, and the epidemiological and experimental evidence showing that artificial sweeteners tend to promote weight gain. It also illustrates that as usage of artificial sweeteners has risen, so has obesity rates—despite all these "diet friendly" products. According to a recent Democrat & Chronicle article,26 "a University of Texas Health Science Center study found that frequent drinkers of diet sodas had waist circumference increases that were 500 percent greater than non-drinkers of diet soda."
Source: Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine June 8, 2010: v83(2)
According to the author:
"Intuitively, people choose non-caloric artificial sweeteners over sugar to lose or maintain weight...But do artificial sweeteners actually help reduce weight? Surprisingly, epidemiologic data suggest the contrary. Several large scale prospective cohort studies found positive correlation between artificial sweetener use and weight gain.
The San Antonio Heart Study examined 3,682 adults over a seven to eight year period in the 1980s. When matched for initial body mass index (BMI), gender, ethnicity, and diet, drinkers of artificially sweetened beverages consistently had higher BMIs at the follow-up, with dose dependence on the amount of consumption. Average BMI gain was +1.01 kg/m2 for control and 1.78 kg/m2 for people in the third quartile for artificially sweetened beverage consumption."
The review also highlights the 1986 study published in Preventive Medicine27 (also listed above). Again, nearly 78,700 women were included in this American Cancer Society study, and at one year follow-up, 2.7 percent to 7.1 percent more artificial sweetener users had gained weight, when compared to non-users and matched by initial weight. A later study,28 performed in the 1990s, also found that women who regularly used saccharin gained more weight over an eight year period, compared to non-users. The same kind of results are found in studies evaluating the effect of artificial sweeteners in children:
  • In one two-year long study,29 which involved 166 school children, increased diet soda consumption was associated with higher BMI at the end of the trial.
  • The Growing Up Today Study,30 which included more than 11,650 children aged 9-14, also found a positive association between diet soda consumption and weight gain in boys. Each daily serving of diet beverage was associated with a BMI increase of 0.16 kg/m2.
  • The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Growth and Health Study31 included 2,371 girls aged 9-19 for 10 years. Soda consumption in general, both regular and diet, was associated with increase in total daily energy intake.
  • Another 2003 study looking at 3,111 children found diet soda, specifically, was associated with higher BMI.32

Diet Soda May Harm Diabetics to Greater Degree Than Sugar

How much evidence do you need before you make up your mind? Will one study showing serious harm make you think twice about drinking diet soda? Will 10... 50... 100 studies bring you to a decision? Besides decimating the claim that diet soda is a useful diet aid, studies have also linked diet drinks and artificial sweeteners to a number of other, more serious health hazards, including increased risk of stroke and cancer. There are in fact hundreds of published studies demonstrating the harmful effects of aspartame... Yet the industry keeps repeating the mantra that "no harmful effects have ever been proven."
After hearing it so many times, many actually believe this to be true. Browsing through the medical literature, however, will quickly reveal such claims to be a stretch, if not an outright lie. For starters, researchers have demonstrated that aspartame worsens insulin sensitivity to a greater degree than sugar. This is a serious blow for diabetics who follow the recommendation to switch to diet sodas to manage their condition. It's worth noting that the study in question used a dosage of aspartame that approximates the ADI for aspartame in the US (approx. 50 mg/kg body weight), and not only was aspartame found to decrease insulin sensitivity compared to controls, it also wrought havoc on brain function!

Studies Also Warn of More Serious Health Hazards

Two years ago, preliminary research warned that diet soda appears to dramatically increase your risk of stroke. The researchers found that people who drank diet soft drinks on a daily basis were 43 percent more likely to have suffered a vascular event, including a stroke. This association persisted even after controlling for other factors that could increase the risk, such as smoking, physical activity levels, alcohol consumption, diabetes, heart disease, dietary factors, and more. According to the authors:
"This study suggests that diet soda is not an optimal substitute for sugar-sweetened beverages, and may be associated with a greater risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death than regular soda."
Of even greater concern are the studies suggesting a link between artificial sweeteners and cancer—the number one killer of Americans under the age of 85:33
  • One lifetime feeding study published in 201034 found that aspartame induced cancers of the liver and lung in male mice. It was also carcinogenic in male and female rats.
  • The most comprehensive and longest human study — spanning 22 years — that has ever looked at aspartame toxicity was published in 2012. It evaluated the effect between aspartame intake and cancer, and the researchers found a clear association between aspartame consumption and non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and leukemia.

FDA Approval Means Little When It Comes to Ascertaining Safety

As previously noted by Dr. Janet Hull,35 many tend to excuse the negative health effects of aspartame simply because it has received the stamp of approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). "[T]his may not be something the American consumer can actually depend upon anymore," she writes, because "[t]he FDA rules and regulations for the approval of food additives... it has some serious flaws."
As discussed in her article, "Abusing the FDA Approval Process,"36 the FDA requires that the industry do its own researchand actually places the burden of proof on the company making the product. Dr. Hull explains:
"Basically, all the FDA is responsible for is reviewing the summaries of research conducted by the company applying for approval, typically from scientific studies the applicant has pay-rolled. Then, the company presents their reasons whytheir product should be allowed in the public food supply based on their research. At the very least, the research reports are controversial, and rarely reviewed by independent researchers not related to the industry."
Should you still be confused on this issue, thinking that the buck somehow stops at the FDA, FDA spokesman Theresa Eisenman recently clarified who is ultimately responsible for making sure a food product is safe, stating that:37 "Manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their food products are safe and lawful..."
But what company would really make a serious effort to find problems with the very products they want to capitalize on? Despite this illogical premise, the FDA trusts corporations to be honest in their research and evaluations. How likely do you think it is that this "honor system" will actually ensure that each product released to market is safe?
When it comes to artificial sweeteners, aspartame in particular, there's no doubt in my mind that the system has protected industry profits at consumers' expense. And we've not seen the last of it. Despite mounting evidence showing that artificial sweeteners as a group have adverse health effects, the FDA has just approved yet another artificial sweetener called Advantame,38, 39 derived from a combination of aspartame and vanillin.
Being 20,000 times sweeter than refined sugar, Advantame is the sweetest artificial sweetener so far. To put this into perspective, aspartame, sucralose, and saccharine range from 200 to 700 times sweeter than sugar. Also, as reported by the LA Times:40
"Like aspartame, advantame contains phenylalanine, which is metabolized with difficulty by people with a rare genetic disorder, phenylketonuria. But because of its intense sweetness, advantame would be used at much lower volumes than is asparatame. As a result, the FDA has declared that it can be safely consumed by those with phenylketonuria."

Are You Ready to Ditch Diet Soda?

When you consume artificial sweeteners, your brain actually craves more calories because your body receives no satisfaction on a cellular level by the sugar imposter. This can contribute to not only overeating and weight gain, but also an addiction to artificial sweeteners. To break free, I recommend addressing any emotional component of your food cravings using a tool such as theEmotional Freedom Technique (EFT).
A version of EFT specifically geared toward combating sugar cravings is called Turbo Tapping. For further instructions, please see the article, "Turbo Tapping: How to Get Rid of Your Soda Addiction." The video below with EFT practitioner Julie Schiffman also demonstrates how to use EFT to fight food cravings of all kinds.



If you still have cravings after trying EFT or Turbo Tapping, you may need to make some changes to your diet. My free nutrition plan can help you do this in a step-by-step fashion. As for safer sweetener options, you could use stevia or Luo Han, both of which are safe natural sweeteners. That said, if you struggle with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, or extra weight, then you have insulin sensitivity issues and would likely benefit from avoiding ALL sweeteners.
Last but not least, if you experience side effects from aspartame or any other artificial sweetener, please report it to the FDA (if you live in the United States) without delay. It's easy to make a report — just go to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator page, find the phone number for your state, and make a call reporting your reaction.

 http://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2014/08/15/drinking-diet-soda.aspx


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.


Monday, August 18, 2014

Abolish the Economic Development Authority of Gloucester County, Virginia


According to the Bylaws of the Economic Development Authority of Gloucester County, Virginia (EDA); the EDA was created in 2010.  Since its creation, the EDA has done very little to fulfill its purpose of promoting overall economic growth and stability within Gloucester County.  Since its inception the EDA has focused the majority of its efforts on supporting the interests of a select few individuals and a few nonprofit organizations like the Gloucester Main Street Association, the Gloucester Community Foundation and the Main Street Gloucester Preservation Trust. 

 In comparison, very little has been done in the best interest of Gloucester’s overall citizenry and economic stability.  A new plan should be devisedto retain and allow for the expansion of existing businesses and to attract new, clean, responsible, commercial and industrial enterprises which will best contribute to the economic well being of the community and the preservation of its natural resources.  The existing EDA should be completely abolished and economic development matters placed within the County’s planning department until a new unbiased Authority with a clear and transparent path of direction is created.  We the People of Gloucester County have grown tired of watching our tax dollars being squandered.
 
Kenneth E. Hogge, Sr.
Gloucester PointVirginia


Fitch Upgrades Various Gloucester County, VA Ratings; Outlook Stable

Seal of Gloucester County, Virginia
Seal of Gloucester County, Virginia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
NEW YORK--()--Fitch Ratings upgrades the following Gloucester County, Virginia (the county) bonds:
--$7.2 million Economic Development Authority of Gloucester County lease revenue refunding bonds, series 2006 to 'AA-' from 'A+';
--Implied general obligation (GO) rating to 'AA' from 'AA-'.
The Rating Outlook is Stable.
SECURITY
The bonds are limited obligations of the Economic Development Authority (EDA) of Gloucester County, VA and are payable from lease rental payments from Gloucester County to the trustee, subject to an annual appropriation by the county board of supervisors.
Catch the rest of the story at the link below.

Governor McAuliffe Appoints Adoption Champion

English: Virginia state capitol in Richmond. F...
. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Adoption Champion will support permanency through adoption efforts statewide

Richmond, VA (August 18, 2014) — Today, Governor Terry McAuliffe announced the appointment of Deborah J. Johnston as Virginia’s newest Adoption Champion.  An adoptee herself, Ms. Johnston is the owner of a Midlothian-based home health care agency. She is passionate about helping children find permanent families, and in her new role, will work to support the Commonwealth’s permanency efforts statewide.

“Promotion and recruitment efforts are critical to ensuring Virginia’s children are placed in loving and caring homes,” said Gov. McAuliffe. “Ms. Johnston will work with prospective adoptive families, recruitment agencies, local departments of social services, public officials and adoptive families in order to promote this mission.”

Last year’s VAdopts: Campaign for 1,000, successfully resulted in 1,041 adoption matches and 695 finalized adoptions.  Since then, the Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS) has worked diligently with local and state social services staff to keep the momentum going.  “Supporting the continued goal of achieving permanency through adoption, with a specific focus on the longest waiting youth, older teens and youth with special needs, remains a top priority,” said Margaret Ross Schultze, VDSS Commissioner.  “Ms. Johnston has a powerful story, and I am very excited to welcome her as Virginia’s Adoption Champion.” There are currently 828 foster children available for adoption in Virginia.

Ms. Johnston will serve as spokesperson for adoption in Virginia, and will work to engage and educate the public in support of Virginia’s adoption program goals and objectives.  “I look forward to drawing from my personal experience to support and promote adoption throughout the Commonwealth,” said Johnston.  “This initiative is extremely close to my heart, and I am honored by this appointment.”


Governor McAuliffe Announces 25 New Jobs in Grayson County

Seal of Grayson County, Virginia
Seal of Grayson County, Virginia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
~ Hansen Turbine to invest $2.5 million to expand manufacturing operation ~

RICHMOND – Hansen Turbine, a manufacturer of coating spray applications for the aircraft and turbine parts coating industry, will invest $2.5 million to expand operations in Grayson County. Sister company Falcon Turbine will relocate from North Carolina to the facility, providingspecialized aluminized coatings. The project will create 25 new jobs.

Speaking about today’s announcement, Governor McAuliffe said, “Hansen Turbine has been a valued employer in Grayson County for more than six years, and the addition of Falcon Turbine to the operation is tremendous for an economically distressed community. The combined facility will increase efficiency and enable completion of the final product, from manufacturing to finishing, in one location. This quality company is a great component of Virginia’s thriving turbine components manufacturing sector, and as it expands will continue to help diversify the industrial base in the region. As my team and I work to build a new, stronger and more innovative Virginia economy, cutting edge aerospace companies like these will be at the center of our efforts. We welcome Falcon Turbine to Grayson County, and celebrate the addition of 25 new jobs paying above the average prevailing wage.”

“Hansen Turbine is a strong corporate partner to Grayson County, and, combined with Falcon Turbine, we are confident that the expanded operation will be even stronger,” said Maurice Jones, Virginia Secretary of Commerce and Trade. “This project is a great result of efforts to support existing businesses in Southwest Virginia, and we look forward to the company’s future growth and success in the years to come.”

Hansen Turbine is a privately owned company specializing in turbine component manufacturing and coating.  The people who manage and do the work have a long history in the turbine industry. The company’s mission is reliability. Hansen works hard to meet expectations in quality, service, delivery, cost and communication. They continuously refine their procedures, processes and tools.
Falcon Turbine provides specialized smooth cold and diffused aluminized coatings to the power generation and other industries.  They also offer a near “chrome-free” alternative coating that significantly reduces environmental impact without sacrificing performance. The Falcon management, quality assurance and engineering team have in excess of 40 combined years in the aircraft and turbine parts coating industry.
“On behalf of the employees and customers of Falcon Turbine and Hansen Turbine, we thank Governor Terry McAuliffe and his staff, as well as County Administrator Jonathan Sweet and his staff, for the work that went into this project,” said Helmar Nielsen, Owner and President, Hansen/Falcon Turbine, Inc. “Bringing Falcon and Hansen together in Virginia creates a level of efficiency both for our companies and for our customers. It will allow us to cross train and raise the level of competency of our employees in high-tech machining and equally high-tech coating. Virginia is a great state in which to do business, and we commend the Governor and our county leaders for their economic vision and a balanced approach to private and public enterprise.”

The Virginia Economic Development Partnership worked with Grayson County and Virginia’s aCorridor to secure the project for Virginia. Governor McAuliffe approved a $50,000 grant from the Governor’s Opportunity Fund to assist Grayson County with the project. The Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission approved $105,000 in Tobacco Region Opportunity Funds for the project. Additional funding and services to support the company’s employee training activities will be provided through the Virginia Jobs Investment Program.

“We are excited to have effectively competed for and secured Falcon Turbines’ relocation and expansion project to Grayson County, and the assistance we received from the Commonwealth was key to our success,” said John K. Brewer, Chairman, Grayson County Board of Supervisors. “We feel the company’s strategic decision to co-locate their finishing operations within Hansen Turbines’ manufacturing facility will benefit both companies and provide them both greater stability and increased opportunity for future growth.”   

"On behalf of the Virginia Tobacco Commission, I am excited to welcome Falcon Turbine to Southwest Virginia and congratulate them on their relocation and expansion,” said Senator Bill Carrico, a member of the Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission and Senate District Representative. “This project positions this company to become an instant force in our region by adding 25 net-new jobs for Grayson County with a capital investment of $2.5 million. This announcement is another positive sign for our local economy and a product of hard work by everyone involved in the project."
###

Since the beginning of the McAuliffe Administration, 155 economic development deals have been closed in Virginia that will create over 13,281 jobs and $4.25 billion in capital investment.