CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS

Attached are 20 Constitutional questions surrounding the rights to Life, Liberty, Private Property, a Trial by Jury, a Speedy Trial, & Protection Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure.

 

RIGHT TO LIFE: 14th Amendment:  

​

1.  Because Bedford County succeeded in shutting down the business located at 1026 Bandy Mill Road, they succeeded in bankrupting the Thornock’s.  Because of the bankruptcy, all of their assets were forfeit to the Bankruptcy, including the location at 913 East Main Street, Salem VA, where Shawn Weaver was living and managing.  Mr. Weaver was on probation, after spending 20 years in prison for armed robbery of a drug store.  Because the Thornock’s were forced into bankruptcy, Mr. Weaver was forced from his employment managing the home and from his home simultaneously, which caused him to break parole and forced him back into prison, where he was murdered by an unstable inmate.  The Thornock’s lost contact with him after the bankruptcy because he could no longer afford a phone service and was in prison.  Over a year after these proceedings began, the Thornock’s were made aware of his death by the Salem police who stated that he was an unclaimed body, and that 913 East Main Street was his last known place of residence.  In spite of several residents pleading for legal representation against Bedford County, none was provided.  Generating the Constitutional question of whether Shawn Weavers right to life was violated?

​

2.  Because of the Bankruptcy, Mr. Thornock suffered from severe psychological problems which caused him to seriously entertain the thought of suicide.  Raising the Constitutional question of whether stripping someone of all means to take care of themselves and their family, before the completion of a fair trial by jury, constitutes a violation to the right to life?

 

RIGHT TO LIBERTY: 14th Amendment

​

3.  After contacting hundreds of lawyers and law firms, neither the Thornock’s nor any of their employees and residents were able to find any legal representation whatsoever at any price to represent them against Bedford County.  We were all openly denied legal representation in court even after openly begging for representation.  Raising the Constitutional question as to whether, if the government creates a local monopoly on the legal system to where there is no one willing and able to represent opposing parties against them, is that against the right to liberty?

 

4.  When basic livelihood and housing is in jeopardy and is lost, as was the case for the Thornock’s and many of their residents and employees, are we not treating criminals better by allowing them legal representation, than we are productive members of society?  How can government officials be held accountable by those without the resources needed to do so?  What is the difference between denying an individual and family their home and industry and putting them in jail?  There is no right to life nor liberty without means to sustain life.

 

5.  How does the government hold itself liable for the laws and regulations that are holding a community in poverty, lack of education, and disrepair?  The Thornock’s attempted to build up rural Hardy, VA for years and were thwarted by the local government at every turn.  Hardy, VA is statistically a more impoverished and less educated area.  The Constitutional question is whether over regulation inhibits liberty and effective property ownership?

 

6.  Were there sufficient emergency precautions put into place for these types of circumstances that were in part created by Covid?  How can liberty and the right to private property be protected, when special considerations are not made under emergency conditions?  Ultimately, because of how Bedford County continued to misdirect and thwart the Thornock’s business attempts, the Thornock’s were entitled to less than $20,000 in Covid Relief.

 

RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY: 14th Amendment

​

7.  Bedford County repeatedly misdirected the Thornock’s regarding the correct procedures of development of the property.  They did not require the use of an architect or engineer until years after the building and zoning permits were issued, and after the building was down over safety concerns.  At which point the relationship between Bedford County and the Thornock’s was strained to the point to where finding an architect or engineer willing to work within those dynamics was extremely difficult.  If a county can strain the relationship, at which point an architect or engineer is not willing to help, is that not effectively taking the property?  Additionally, the Thornock’s had already spent the majority of their funds on the incorrect development according to the County’s standards of development.  Bedford County additionally repeatedly misdirected the Thornock’s concerning proper development off of the record, repeatedly shutting down multiple business efforts by the Thornock’s and others in the subject building because of this dynamic.  The Constitutional question is if this repeated procedural misdirection constitutes government Taking of private property?  As ultimately the property currently sits, owned by Pinnacle Bank, without use or function.

​

8.  If the government has the ultimate discretion on interpretation of the law, and yet the property owner has the ultimate liability on knowing the law before development begins, what is to stop a hostile government from effectively taking a property by consistently interpreting the law against the interests of the landowner?  All while shifting the legal blame onto the landowner for not knowing what their interpretation of the law might be.  What good is property ownership if it cannot be reasonably developed by the landowner?

 

9.  The building and zoning code is designed to hold both rural and urban areas to the same safety and development standards.  In spite of the fact that rural areas have less resources, such as public water, sewer, and roads.  Therefore, zoning codes are inherently oppressive to rural areas as it is not financially feasible or reasonable for experienced developers to develop these areas to the required standards.  While local rural landowners statistically do not have the finances and education to develop their own property within these standards.  Leaving many rural areas in a state of underdevelopment and oppression.  Effectively meaning that the local zoning ordinance is not accomplishing its designated task of promoting development within rural developments and that it is inherently designed as a weapon to oppress rural development in favor of urban development.  The Bedford County Zoning Ordinance specifically states that it is designed to promote development.  However, it is effectively taking private property from poor rural landowners as the use for industry is severely limited, while experienced developers will not be drawn to develop the area.  The constitutional question is if the poor are not able to develop the rural area they are living in because of burdensome development laws in conjunction with a lack of resources and education, and the rich do not develop that same area because of those same restrictions, then is the development code serving simply as a tool of oppression to those in rural areas, rather than for its intended purpose to promote development?  Effectively taking property rights away from the rural and the poor.  Furthermore, when the local government is given vast amounts of power over the interpretation of the law, in conjunction with vast immunities and policing powers, how are these onerous and oppressive policies supposed to be successfully challenged, when most people in these areas do not have the resources to successfully fight this oppression?  Especially in light of the fact that the courts will not litigate an issue based upon theory, but only based upon actual loss.  How is the court then supposed to be made aware of these oppressive issues when the poor do not have the resources and education to bring them to awareness?

 

10.  How is anyone supposed to establish a pattern of jurisdictional abuse against the government, with such a strict 2-year statute of limitations in conjunction with the vast amount of immunities that the government enjoys?  Especially in light of the fact that property development is so long and intensive.  The dispute over the development of this subject property began in 2016 as Diane Conner worked to develop the property, renting it from the Thornock’s.  However, Judge Updike in the Bedford County Circuit Court would not hear anything about how she was also misdirected by the County.  Which would have established a pattern of negligence on the part of the county and evidence for regulatory takings of the property.  The only reason that this case is being heard is because of the fact that Bedford County reopened their lawsuit against the Thornock’s from 2018 when Bedford County sued the Thornock’s to shut down a U-Haul business.  If the government cannot be properly challenged on development issues, what is to prevent them from taking the property with a series of prolonged procedural misdirection?

 

11.  When a local jurisdiction is being sued over a property dispute, isn’t there an inherent conflict of interest present when the lawsuit is being held in their own court?  Especially when the property owner is self-represented.  The judge is inclined to have an inherent bias as they are familiar with all of the county lawyers and likely have previous experience with them.  While they are not familiar, nor do they have a personal relationship with the property owners.  Standing as an inherent flaw in the system when it comes to preserving private property rights.

 

12.  Because Bedford County aggressively and forcefully shut down this affordable housing development without any consideration for those they were affecting, we wonder if the Government is truly concerned about developing and preserving affordable housing?  We were provided with absolutely no resources for the preservation thereof and we were only met with resistance and resentment from Bedford County.  Without affordable housing, we are squeezing out the people who desperately need affordable housing, and we are creating a nation of slaves to their housing.  Thereby effectively destroying property rights.

 

13.  If a government can effectively impede the financial development of a property through misdirection and through applying arduous procedural measures, and then take the property if we are unable to pay taxes on that property, are we then renting land from the government through our property taxes?  Does the government effectively own all land in today’s society and our property taxes are effectively rental payments?

 

14.  How can unelected government officials be expected to not abuse their power and authority and abuse property rights, when there are few to no consequences for them when they do abuse their power and authority because of the vast immunities they enjoy?

 

15.  Should the government be required to investigate claims of tampering with basic water resources?  10 days after the government started their lawsuit against the Thornock’s, the well at the subject property went dry and the health department refused to investigate claims that there were extra unpermitted wells, and those that were permitted were drilled twice as deep as permitted.  What good is a property if access to basic resources like water is cut off?  Why are permits pulled for new wells if no effort to investigate claims of violations is to be made?

 

16.  Is the government responsible for the detrimental effects on local businesses by allowing a casino into a nearby jurisdiction, in light of the clear conflict interest and negative impacts to the local economy?  Especially in consideration of the massive amount of tax dollars a government gains from gambling businesses like Rosie’s Casino in Vinton, VA, less than ten miles away from the subject property?  Rosie’s Casino originally had a severe negative impact on the business within the subject property when it was operating as a flea market, as their presence sucked the local economy dry.  When hyper restrictive regulation prohibits the vast majority of the population from competing in a specific industry, such as “historical horse racing” slot machines, does that business then become an operation of the state?  Destroying free enterprise in a capitalist system as we are now forced to compete with the state?  While the historical horse racing machines are not technically slot machines, they are highly proprietary and regulated.  The question is if this is a cleverly designed system for the state to legalize and control gambling to collect tax dollars and subvert the wellbeing of various local businesses and individuals?  If small business is then required to compete with the state, which ultimately has infinitely more resources, is this not a way to destroy small business and ultimately take small business owners’ livelihood and property?

 

RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY: 6th & 7th Amendment

​

17.  Our right to trial by jury was impeded based upon procedural impediments.  We attempted to gain a trial by jury, however, we were told that we had to be there for docket calls.  Because we were just bankrupted by Bedford County, and we were living in Texas at the time, we did not have the necessary resources in order to attend docket calls and obtain a trial by jury.

 

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL 6th Amendment

 

18.  Is the government responsible for the further loss of employment due to high levels of emotional and psychological distress, further diminishing the odds of sustaining life?  In February of 2023, Mr. Thornock was illegally fired from JES Foundation Repair and Groundworks by Nick Feaster, with the full knowledge and blessing of the owner and CEO, Matt Malone.  After Mr. Thornock was illegally fired from his recent position with Groundworks, due to the psychological stress and suicidal ideation that Bedford County caused, he has been forced to go through the EEOC in order to sue Groundworks. The very first available appointment with the EEOC was nearly 6 months after Groundworks terminated Mr. Thornock’s employment, and it is required to get their permission before a lawsuit can commence.  Is the EEOC acting in a swift enough manner for individuals who illegally lost their employment, especially when we do not qualify for any unemployment assistance?  Or is the requirement to go through the EEOC an impediment to the right to a speedy trial?  While the right to a speedy trial traditionally only applies to criminal cases, when the right to life and liberty are being threatened due to lack of employment, why would the right to a speedy trial not apply to this situation?  Or have we again created a state where criminals have more rights than those who are productive members of society?

 

PROTECTION AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE: 4th Amendment

 

19.  Is the Government allowed to file an emergency injunction to threaten to immediately remove everyone from their home during the Covid Eviction Moratorium?  The Bedford County government threatened unreasonable search and seizure, to immediately kick nearly 20 residents out of their home, in order to begin these proceedings.  Did that injunction inherently violate the Thornock’s and their residents 4th Amendment rights?

 

20.  Is the government allowed to send both the police and CPS to a location after their emergency injunction was denied, terrifying and terrorizing resident, and forcing Mia and Brian Simpson and their children out anyway?  With nowhere to send them other than the homeless shelter after two days in a hotel. 

 

The purpose of submitting these constitutional questions and brief to the Supreme Court of Virginia is not because we somehow think we are going to win.  As we perceive that there are far too many protections for the government and that there is far too much corruption for that to actually occur.  Additionally, we are not so arrogant as to think that we have that one in a million winning case against the government.  The purpose is actually to offer the government a conscious choice of how this country will proceed in the future.  We recognize that core changes in the preservation of the Constitution cannot occur without the submission of cases like these.  

Most cases like these don’t reach the Supreme Court, because those who would file them have neither the resources nor education to do so.  While the government is expert at gaslighting and shifting all of the blame and consequences on their victims.  With a family of five, with very few resources as we have been placed in financial and social prison due to these proceedings, many disagree with using what few resources we have available to fight this case.  However, many great men and women have made much greater sacrifices for the great country we live in today and we feel it is our patriotic duty to honor them by bringing this before the Supreme Court, regardless of what happens to our family, in an effort to fight for the possibility of a better future for our country.