Please move to report HB13, 378, 677, 1066, and especially for 1080. Thank you.

I'm writing in protest of HB 25, in which anyone convicted of first offense of possession of child pornography will not be eligible to earn enhanced sentence credits. The bill is choosing to deny citizens an opportunity to demonstrate improved behavioral conduct, participating in assigned programs while incarcerated and receiving requisite enhanced sentence credits. Please do not pass this bill. Thank you.

Please vote NO on HB25, which denies earned sentence credits to anyone convicted of a first-time offense of child porn possession. From a public safety standpoint, people with this conviction have a remarkably low re-offense rate – so low, in fact, it’s difficult for researchers to find repeat offenders to study.*** Therefore, please allow these folks to earn good-time credits and return to their families. Virginia should not pay for lengthy jail/prison stays for such low-risk offenders. ***Ira Mark Ellman, When Animus Matters…The Problematic Sex Offender Registry, JOURNAL OF LAW AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, p.21 (Dec 2021).

Hello, Delegates; I oppose excluding those convicted of first offense CP from HB5148. Violators are labeled violent offenders when this is a non-contact offense. They have been convicted of possession, not distribution, not production. And despite what those who would incite fear say, they have not been convicted of murder or rape. In fact, the U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION reports that for most, it was their very first criminal conviction. The COMMISSION also reports that child pornography offenders have low recidivism rates--lower than contact offenders and significantly lower than the average recidivism rate--meaning it is unlikely that they will go on to commit additional offenses. (see link to this reference below) It is the producers and purveyors of this material that must be caught and severely dealt with. For the opportunity to earn an earlier release, they must take classes and participate in programs designed to rehabilitate them. They maintain a job and earn certifications in vocational fields. In short, they are incentivized to improve themselves. To earn maximum credits at the highest Level is extremely difficult. To have this conviction stripped from the Bill, after working almost 2 years to earn the opportunity for an earlier release, would be devastating. https://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/FS-Intro-to-Child-Pornography-Sentencing-8.31.16.pdf VOTE NO against HB 25. Thank you.

Dear Mr Chairman and members of the committee Please vote YES and have HB25 brought into law. There is no rehabilitation for a person who gains sexual gratification by looking at child pornography, it is their sexual preference and the same meaning if a person prefers blondes, brunettes, older or younger. They will always have that preference it may just be more difficult to detect. Taj Mahon-Haft a professor at Radford University assisted with writing the original Bill, having been convicted of possession and production of child pornography. He and others like him have been housed in low level prisons. How do you change a person's sexual preference? The answer is you can't and these people should serve the sentence imposed by the courts. Taj Mahon-Haft continued to download this material whilst being out on bond and is now trying to use the system to gain early release. He was arrested on 3 occasions relating to crimes of drugs and child pornography and had in his possession over 150 images and videos both on his personal and university computers. Taj Mahon-haft is just one person, there are many others just like him within the VADOC, Taj himself will not admit guilt he blames to Police for planting these images. Please VOTE YES TO HB25

I am against these bills. People deserve second chance and people who have earned it should not have this taken away. Thank you.

Delegate Bell HB735 and Delegate Anderson HB25 AND ALL DELEGATES ON THIS COMMITTEE PLEASE STOP TRYING TO ROLLBACK THE LITTLE BIT OF REFORM THAT HAS BEEN PASSED , this double breaks my heart and spirit because of all the crave outs that were made hours and hours of talks to get HB5148 to even pass Delegate Don Scott agreed to remove certain people based on the crime they committed WHICH BY THE WAY WE THE PEOPLE BELIEVE EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO EARN THE EXTRA GOOD TIME CREDITS!!!! A BIG POINT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IS THIS IS NOT GIVING THEY HAVE TO EARN IT! I ask everyone to VOTE. NO , FOR HB25 AND HB735 BETTER YET JUST PBI and realize that is the Smart thing to do!!!

Hello, Delegates, I oppose excluding those convicted of First Offense CP from HB5148. They were included in the bill as it was passed in the General Assembly in 2020. Violators are labeled violent offenders despite this being a non-contact offense. They have been convicted of possession . Not distribution and not production. Despite those who would incite fear, they have not been convicted of murder or rape. In fact, the US Sentencing Commission reports that for most, it was their very first criminal conviction. The Commission also reports that CP offenders have low recidivism rates— lower than contact offenders and significantly lower than the average recidivism rate—meaning it is very unlikely they will go on to commit additional offenses. It is the producers of this material that must be caught and severely dealt with. To have this offense stripped from the bill, after families and inmates have been working and planning on them returning to their families sooner, would be heartbreaking. Please Vote No Against HB 25 Thank you. Debra Turner Valley Justice Coalition HTTPS://fAMM.org/wp-content/uploads/FS-Intro-to-Child-Pornography-Sentencing-8.31.16.pdf

I am opposed to HB25. With a conviction of possession of child pornography from 2007, it has reduced the amount of work that I am skilled at doing and it hurts our small business. Thank you

The regressive bill is choosing to deny citizens an opportunity to demonstrate improved behavioral conduct, participating in assigned programs while incarcerated and receiving requisite enhanced sentence credits. The law that goes into effect on July 1, 2022 should stand. Then the current system will be replaced with a four-level classification system, correctly allowing sentence credits to be earned based on an inmate’s behavioral conduct and participation in all programs to which the inmate is assigned. We should make every effort in the Commonwealth to encourage rehabilitation during incarceration so that families can be reunited and individuals can be productive employees in society, not wards of the carceral state for a day longer than absolutely necessary.

The Humanization Project would like to express our objection to HB 735 and HB 25. We will keep this brief, as we know you have a lot to look through and hear from people, and we feel this is very simple. HB 735 would undo all of your hard work of earned sentence credit expansion. While the earned sentence credit expansion legislation last year was based on evidence and best practices, rooted in the values of equity, racial justice, and second chances, this bill is clearly only meant to fear monger and create sound bites. Undoing the first stages of reform will simply return us to a broken system that perpetuates crime and poverty. Earned sentence credit expansion should have included all people behind bars. Those who have done the worst things are those who we should most want to have incentive to become better people. You all worked so hard to negotiate and include as many people as possible, and while we would have liked all to be included, we are grateful for the work that you did. HB 25 would carve out yet another low-level, non-violent offense–an offense often set upon 18 year olds in consenting high school relationships. Continuing to carve out offenses disproportionately impacts disadvantaged communities, our communities of color. Please look past the stigma and stand against HB 25. Apologies that we could not be here today to speak, but we urge you, please vote no on HB 735 and HB 25. Thank you.

I am opposed to ANY erosion of "Earned Sentence Credits". People who are held prisoner in any of our carceral facilities must be given opportunities to earn credits by any actions they take to engage with good things for themselves and for others who are incarcerated. Please vote NO on any bills which would take away persons' opportunities for Earned Sentence Credits. (HB 25, HB 735, HB 5148) Rather, please create MORE OPPORTUNITIES for Earned Sentence Credits.

HB735 - Bell : the community is against this bill. The inmates here in VA have served their time, some serving time for crimes they did not commit. The prisons and jails house people who deserve a second chance and deserve an opportunity to be rehabilitated. This bill will not make Virginia great again, it will actually push Virginia back in time. Let’s move forward and STOP this bill from trying to repeal the four- classification system. The people housed in VA prisons and jails along with the entire community needs to give these humans another chance that they are productive citizens outside of those prison and jail walls! HB25- Anderson: The community is against this bill. Anyone who is trying to harm children with child pornography should not be eligible for the enhanced sentencing credits effective July 1, 2022. If it’s somebody first offense and they get released early they may be encouraged to go involve another child with pornography and put them in danger. This bill seems to support the Jeffrey Epstein’s and Ghislaine Maxwell’s of Virginia and the community is against it!

I am Debra Turner of the Valley Justice Coalition. This bill and this conviction were debated at length almost 2 years ago. The Earned Sentence Credits Bill which includes this offense was passed by the General Assembly and signed by the governor. We oppose excluding those convicted of first offense child pornography from HB5148. Violators are inaccurately labeled violent offenders; this is a non-contact SO. They have been convicted of possession, not distribution, not production. And despite what those who would incite fear say, they have not been convicted of rape or murder. In fact, the U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION reports that for most, it was their very first criminal conviction. The COMMISSION also reports that child pornography offenders have low recidivism rates--lower than contact offenders and significantly lower than the average recidivism rate--meaning it is unlikely that they will go on to commit additional offenses. It is the producers and purveyors of this material that must be caught and severely dealt with. For the opportunity to earn an earlier release, they must take classes and participate in programs designed to rehabilitate them. They maintain a job and earn certifications in vocational fields. In short, they are incentivized to improve themselves. To earn maximum credits at the highest Level is extremely difficult. To have this conviction stripped from the Bill, after working almost 2 years to earn the opportunity for an earlier release, would be devastating. VOTE NO against HB 25. Thank you. https://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/FS-Intro-to-Child-Pornography-Sentencing-8.31.16.pdf

Please vote YES for this bill HB25. I believe earned sentence credits is a good and productive thing for the ones who truly have shown improvement while incarcerated, however certain offenses you don't change from due to a mental issue as an desire which this offense child pornography is one!!! I am 100 percent against this crime! This exclusion should have never been added!! I truly believe each and everyone who is voting should do their part for our Commonwealth State and look into these codes before voting. Thank You for your time!!

With the broad definition of pornography this casts the net too far and wide to be fair. It appears this introduced bill is based on the 'fear factor' vs any kind of verified effectiveness study. We continue to make it harder and harder for people to return to society and hope to live a productive life without having to add more collateral damages. Let the voice of reason prevail. Mass incarceration does not make our communities safer - prevention and support are the answer.

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

On behalf of our volunteers and members, the Virginia Black Leadership Organizing Collaborative strongly oppose HB 79, HB 122, and HB 759, and would ask that you vote NO on these bills. These bills would disproportionately affect black & poor citizens. Data released by the Virginia Community Policing Act shows that black drivers are the only racial or ethnic group in the state that are stopped by police at a higher rate than their share of the population. Black drivers are also more likely to be pulled over for minor offenses such as equipment violations. We believe that because black constituents are the most affected, they have the right to have a say in bills that would repeal the provisions made since 2020 to stop police officers from engaging in these minor stops. Limiting interactions between law enforcement and citizens saves bodily and monetary resources and increases the safety of officers who face uncertain situations whenever they pull over any vehicle. It also increases the safety of black drivers whose lives are at risk whenever they are pulled over by a police officer as we have seen in too many cases where excessive and/or deadly force was used in these sorts of traffic stops. Finally, reinstating the provision that states law enforcement may stop, seize, and search based upon marijuana odor contradicts the widely lauded legalization of marijuana in Virginia creating the potential for scenarios where someone who doesn’t even partake in marijuana consumption or partakes in a legal amount, could still be subject to invasive (at the very least) searching. For all the reasons stated above, please vote NO on HB 79, HB 122, and HB 759. Thank you so much for your consideration, hard work, and service to the Commonwealth.

I strongly oppose HB 79. This bill is an effort to further entrench racist policing.

Please pleas be peaceful, show mercy, be fair, do not revert to aggressive policing. Do not support HB79. Also 122 0r 759 Criminal justice reform is non partisan, I have been a republican for years. I support the landmark legislation that limits pre textual stops. I want to reduce any race-based traffic stops. I have bi-racial grandchildren who are peaceful, but at risk if you allow pre textual stops. Allow them the freedom to move about unharassed by police who want to more aggressively policing brown people. It lead to great injustice. Criminal justice should not be political. Have mercy!

I am writing to you to request you strongly oppose HB 79 and any other HB that may go against legislation passed and that took effect on March 1st, 2021 that limits race-based traffic and pedestrian stops. The current legislation is what the Commonwealth of Virginia needs in order to be considered fair and just to all. Racially based stops have no place in our Commonwealth, and in our nation as a whole. Having the current legislation in place ensures that all Virginians can feel safe and not feel like he or she will be discriminated against by our law enforcement officers here in the Commonwealth. Former laws allowed law enforcement officers to utilize pre-texual stops to unjustly search Virginians, disproportionately stopping and searching more Black and Brown citizens of the Commonwealth. Under the current law, this disproportionate number of stops for Black and Brown Virginians is decreasing, meaning the current law is working. Please continue to allow the current law to make our Commonwealth a more fair, equal and just place by opposing HB 79 and similar HBs like HB 122 and HB 759.

I strongly oppose this legislation. Long overdue strides are being made to stop the disparate treatment of low income individuals and people of color and we cannot allow those efforts to be reversed.

I am in strong opposition to HB 79. On March 1, 2021 legislation went into effect in Virginia limiting racist pretextual stops and searches. Data already shows racial disparities in traffic stops are decreasing. Please don't undo Virginia's progress on making our criminal justice system more just. Thank you.

I am writing the House of Delegates to strongly urge that they block the repeal of laws banning pretext traffic stops for minor infractions (HB79, HB122, and HB759). Repealing these laws will put minorities in danger of being stopped and wrongfully detained. I know this to be true because it happened to one of my good friends from college. She was pulled over, arrested and detained, later released and left stranded to figure out a way to get home. The prosecutor in her locality found that the state trooper had no legal basis for stopping her and pulling her from her car. This incident was unacceptable and left me feeling unsafe to drive at night. Police officers are supposed to make everyone feel safe and protected. No group should be left to worry if they will survive a traffic stop. Please consider the weight of this decision and remember that you serve ALL Virginians. ALL Virginians deserve to feel safe, be treated with dignity and respect; not presumed guilty of wrong doing.

.

Repealing these bills will not keep the innocent, safe. It was the ones selected that ultimately saved my friends life and livelihood, due to a state trooper who violated her rights and these bills, making false claims. These bills and the dashcam footage allowed her at minimum, maintain her already clean record. Do not repeal.

I am not sure why any honest, moral, and decent human being, would want to stop law abiding citizens for no good reason. The fact that we need laws to protect citizens from dishonest law enforcement personnel is a disgrace in its own right. These laws should not be repealed.

Repeal this bill. The loud mufflers disturb the neighborhoods and destroy the peace in our neighborhoods. They serve no purpose

Allowing pretext traffic stops for minor infractions will victimize innocent citizens and create opportunity for more racially biased injustice, like these: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prosecutor-no-legal-basis-virginia-state-trooper-stop-black-woman-n1267018

The Virginia Sheriffs Association supports HB 79 and HB 122 to revert secondary offenses to primary offenses. Law enforcement officers must be able to enforce the traffic laws to keep the roads safe. The Virginia Sheriffs Association opposes HB428. Requiring the probation office to be notified undercuts the confidentiality of the informant and both jeopardizes the investigation and puts the informant's safety at risk. As well, eliminating "recent" violators from becoming informants fails to recognize that often informants can be adjudicated in violation, sentenced and want to begin to work shortly after the violation. This bill significantly hampers law enforcement safe and effective use of confidential informants.

Honored legislators, I and my family do NOT support attempts to go backwards on civil rights and justice. We must stay the course on ending racial profiling in traffic stops and other law enforcement activities. If we are to have a just, democratic society, we must end racial bias in the law enforcement area first and foremost. As a former Fairfax County dispatcher, I understand the problem; racial profiling does terrible damage in relations between the police and the public, and does nothing to improve public safety. We've ended racial profiling, we must stay course. Respectfully, Dr. Rebecca Goolsby

Please do not pass HB79. Traffic stops are dangerous both for law enforcement and for the citizens being pulled over, and officers should not be creating that risk by pulling people over solely for things like improper exhaust or objects hanging from rear view mirrors. Also, this bill would not make anyone safer. For example, in Fairfax County, crime has fallen significantly since the passage of laws prohibiting the types of stops this bill seeks to reintroduce. There are still countless traffic laws whose violation justifies a stop. There is no need to repeal the progress made last year, especially when those pulled over for the reasons this bill would authorize tend to be poor and racial minorities.

I strongly oppose these bills. Without impact to public safety, they seek to remove the recent justice improvements across Virginia. The kinds of low-level traffic stops these bills seek to bring back disproportionately affect people of color and negatively impact the Commonwealth. Race-based policing has no place in Virginia. In the first four months of SB5029/ HB5058 going into effect, the number of Black drivers who were searched fell by 40 percent, and the number of white drivers dropped by 30 percent. It's no secret that police across the country, including Virginia, have work to do to increase public trust - HB79, HB122, and HB759 don't help. They damage trust and public relationships, and they are both ineffective and inefficient: As one example, "analysis of arrest data found that weapons were discovered in about 7 percent of traffic stops in Petersburg from 2018 to 2020." [NBC News, "Police face a 'crisis of trust' with Black motorists. One state's surprising policy may help."]. See also this study, an analysis of over 24 million traffic stops in North Carolina from 2002 to 2020. It found that the encounters led to arrests about 2% of the time. Searches also rarely occurred, and when they did, weapons were discovered in one-tenth of 1% of incidents. Black people were the subjects of nearly half the stops, even though they are only 21% of the state’s population: https://fbaum.unc.edu/books/SuspectCitizens/SuspectCitizens-updated-tables-and-figures-2002to2020.pdf There simply isn't data that shows these bills will prevent crime - worse, they continue to erode public trust in police, reducing public safety.

I strongly oppose the following bill(s): HB79, HB122, HB759 that's being considered for the simple fact that these bills are racist and only target individuals within the black and brown-skinned communities. Data already shows racial disparities in traffic stops are decreasing due to key legislation that was passed in last year's General Assembly. For this legislation to want to intentionally undo that work is sad and sickening. I hope that today you will not allow these bills to pass this legislation and that this committee would help to protect the constitutional rights regardless of race that is to be freely given in this country. Black drivers are stopped disproportionately more than white drivers compared to the local population and are at least twice as likely to be searched, but they were slightly less likely to get a ticket. Help remove the idea that black drivers are stopped on the pretext of having done something wrong. Stop the stigma that exists--such as "driving while black!" and the racial disparity that occurs when traffic stops happen to blacks. Say no on bills HB79, HB122, and HB759.

This bill has allowed street racers and those with loud mufflers to pit neighbors against neighbors and to terrorize our neighborhoods. We Have street racers with loud mufflers racing our neighborhood streets, and revving their engines till 3-4 am. A couple of them have done utter destruction to our parking lots private and public defacing them with their tires. These driver are driving drunk, drinking in parking lots, driving high. The sheer number of calls for service regarding these cars has increased. We have so many people running stop signs, not stopping for police, etc. We can't have family picnics or evenings in our yards without being plagued by street racers or loud mufflers. The peace of our evenings is destroyed. I have literally watched these racers drive up and down roads and make their cars backfire, which sounds like gunshots. The number of calls to police for gunshots has increased. People are becoming terrified.

I would appreciate if you take in consideration my thoughts on these bulls especially 1080. This would harm innocent children and families their are 13,000 children on sex offender registries in Virginia...What do you plan to do with them their parents can go in a shelter but a child is excluded. Also a single parent who has a requirement to register stays outside and children are took inside unattended. Please consider this bill as not a wise choice

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

I oppose multiple bills that have made it to the house the one bill regarding Emergency Sex Offenders is the most absurd bill I have ever heard in my life. No one is going to be worried about sexual offending in a State of Emergency number one. For example Dad is on a registry and he has three children who are accepted inside without supervision while dad is kept outside in the storm or natural catastrophe. When you pass bills like this your punishing innocent children and families. What about people who committed murder or child abusers are they treated the same? You Senators and delegates got this wrong and this is harmful to innocent families and children. Now let's talk about the 13,000 children on Sex Offender Registries in Virginia some as young as 7 years of age so Mom , Dad and entire family is allowed in but the child is made to stand outside during a castophre alone and sacred while his or her family are allowed inside these laws are based off fear and gives a false sense of security to the general public. Sex Offense is to broad, urination in public is a registable offense as a Violent Sex Offender, Reprorting a Sex Crime will land you on a Violent Sex Offender Registry such is my sistuation. Please reconsider the harm the harm of this bill

I oppose any tolling of speedy trial rights. This bill ignores the extreme imposition on defendants who are presumed innocent, and the extreme emotional toll on of having a felony charge placed over them. It establishes no metrics for determining a judicial emergency and leaves the exercise of statutory rights subject to the discretion of a justice or judge. No justice or judge should have the authority to toll any Constitutional or statutory right of an individual to hold the government accountable for bringing a charge. Frankly this sounds like: "Just bring the charge, we will work on finding a basis for prosecution later." I adamantly oppose this bill.

Please move to report HB104, 212 & 304 for the lives of children and 775 so that no other Gov. shuts down our freedom of religion.

The Virginia Sheriffs Association supports this bill. Legislation from 2020 permitting criminal defendants to choose a jury trial and judge sentencing has overloaded the Circuit Court dockets. Permitting a relaxation of the speedy trial requirements in cases of delay from this new legislation will ease the burden on court security provided by Sheriffs Offices.

Have you tried Roll On – 200mg from JUSTCBD?

The city has chosen ONE as a gaming host. This bill is identical to Morrissey's SB203 which puts limits on a casino referendum in Richmond for five years. We in the city of Richmond feels as Mr. Morrissey have committed MUTINY on us. We see this bill (HB-1134) only as a designed to remove Richmond city from becoming a host city, which in the end becomes Richmond being remove indefinite. PLEASE VOTE NO to HB-1134.

The Office of the Executive Secretary (the administrative offices of the state court system) has several implementation issues with this bill, House Bill 163. First, the changes to the alternative transportation authorization language remove the language requiring that the proposed alternative transportation provider (“ATP”) be identified to the magistrate. This change shifts the burden of determining the availability of a potential ATP to the magistrate. This shift would require an independent judicial officer, tasked with making the ultimate decision on an ATP based on evidence presented, and require that officer to actively collect the evidence that will then be used in a decision they must make. Additionally, the bill could make it less likely that ATPs will be utilized because it removes the current language requiring that a proposed ATP be identified to the magistrate. Although the bill requires a magistrate to consider "all options for alternative transport,” it is unclear where the magistrate is to find information about those options if no one is coming to the magistrate and requesting an ATP. Second, the bill would prevent magistrates from issuing a TDO if a hospital bed is not instantly available. This change to the statutes contradicts the existing statutory directive that the magistrate “shall issue” the TDO when the statutory TDO criteria are met. By adding the following language to Code sections 16.1-340.1 and 37.2-809 – “The magistrate shall not issue a temporary detention order until a facility of temporary detention that is ready and able to accept the minor upon issuance of the order has been identified.” – the bill links the magistrate’s ability to legally issue a TDO to the hospital’s ability to admit the respondent. Furthermore, the bill fails to give any guidance on how the facility’s ability to accept the respondent is to be verified or by whom. State law currently requires hospitals to accept patients in need of temporary detention if no other placement is available. Requiring magistrates to “verify” that the hospital is willing and able to comply with the law is unlikely to fix the underlying problem of hospital capacity. Finally, the bill adds language to the TDO statutes that makes the TDO void if the receiving facility does not immediately accept custody of the respondent upon arrival. This raises troubling repercussions for a respondent who has met the statutory criteria for temporary detention and is now left without direction or access to treatment without any evaluation of whether the initial circumstances leading to issuance of the TDO have abated or been resolved.

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and committee members: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on HB 16 and thank you, Delegate Fowler, for your work updating our state’s Safe Haven law. We, Virginia is for Children (an advocacy group for the lives of vulnerable children in our state), are following the Safe Haven law efforts and are fully supportive of the extension to thirty days of age for infant relinquishment. This is a reasonable, standard amount of time for a mom/parent to conclude that they cannot parent their baby OR, change their mind and decide they can parent their baby. Such a significant, life-altering decision does not need to be rushed or hurried. We know that moms who have just given birth, especially those who are alone, need time to recover physically and emotionally. Moms can experience postpartum depression after the birth of child, this typically occurs within the first 1-3 weeks after birth, parents can be in desperate situations- experiencing homelessness, abuse, addiction and need time to get help. Twenty-one states are now at thirty days for age of relinquishment. Utah just extended their law to thirty days in February, 2020 and approved funding for safe haven law awareness. Extending this law can potentially save more infants from abuse, neglect, and abandonment and give parents the time they need to make important decisions. We hope the committee will approve the extension and consider providing state funding for safe haven law awareness and promotion of safe haven locations or “safe baby sites”. Not enough parents are informed about the law’s existence and the process involved. Our group is especially interested in a state funded, DSS promoted, 24-hour confidential, crisis hotline that would provide intervention and support for women in crisis pregnancies and struggling parents, so that they can get the help they need to parent their baby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and committee members for your time and for the opportunity to voice our support of this bill. Sincerely, Leah Kipley VA is for Children

I am in full support of SB 378 as a victim of a violent tragedy, I can say that this bill does not free people who have committed horrible crimes. This bill allows individuals to apply for reconsideration. The courts review the charges, the sentence. and the behavior and it allows victims like my brother and I to have a say. This bill allows my cousin to get a second look after serving 15 years on a drug crime. Yes this bill will allow our fathers killer to petition after he serves 15 years, if he has changed and meets the qualifications, however we have confidence that will not happen. He will not have met those qualifications in 15 years. This is about individuals some change, some will not, I do not see a problem with allowing the originating court to look at a case and decide if it is still a just sentence. The Nay'sayers who use extreme cases to discourage, need to read this bill, its not parole, its not a get out after 10 law. As a graduate in political science and having a brother who is a United States Marine I would like to encourage you to please vote yes on SB 378, if we can trust the courts then you should as well. Trust the courts that sentenced these people. The ones who qualify to petition the court deserve a second look, its just a look, so trust the judges and the courts, give them a chance.

Please move to report HB13, 378, 677, 1066, and especially for 1080. Thank you.

AARP Virginia supports legislation that improves the rights of the individual under guardianship and ensures due process of those rights. As such we are in support of House Bills 424 (Herring), 623 (Hudson), 634 & 643 (Roem).

Comments by Jane Powell, former President of Central Virginia Training Center Families and Friends: I am a legal guardian for my sister, a former resident of CVTC. Family guardians of current and former Training Center residents, and presumably other family guardians, would be unduly burdened by the following guardianship bills and are furthermore not qualified to meet all of the requirements of the bills: HB424, HB634 and HB643. These bills set laudable goals, yet codifying these goals would cause negative consequences for family guardians, many of whom are in their 70s or older. • Many of the former residents of CVTC and SWVTC in particular sought legal guardianship of their training center loved ones prior to closure of those facilities, and those who are distant from their loved one’s new placement would be unduly and unnecessarily burdened by quarterly in-person visits when their loved one is in a stable and desirable placement. For example, one guardian lives in Florida and has arranged for his capable and fully engaged son to check in on his SEVTC relative on a frequent basis. The guardian does see his disabled son several times a year, but legally requiring strictly scheduled quarterly in-person visits would impose a completely unnecessary burden and expense. Other family guardians of former training center residents would face similar difficulties. • Family guardians lack the professional qualifications to “observe and assess” some of the provisions of HB424 and HB634, such as how an individual’s mental and physical health care needs are being met. Few visits occur during educational or vocational programs when such observational visits would be disruptive, and likewise there is often no way for families to “observe” progress made toward expressed goals. Family guardians rely on the professionals who care for their loved ones to inform them of the status of these things. • Most training center residents and former training center residents lack funds to pay a professional substitute to make visits on their guardian’s behalf, as proposed in HB634. • Many family guardians lack the technological savvy and/or equipment to meet some of the virtual meeting alternatives proposed in these bills. • Routine court review hearings are unnecessary for severely developmentally disabled persons whose conditions will never improve to the point that they will no longer need a guardian. Going through a court proceeding every three years imposes unnecessary expense and hardship on the families of such individuals. HB424, HB634 and HB643 would have a chilling effect on family guardianship, when families by their nature have the purest guardianship motives and thus should be encouraged. If applied only to paid professional guardians, the bills might make sense, but not when they are universally applied to all legal guardians. Even so, most of the bills’ provisions would be better as opt-in measures when circumstances warrant such measures rather than universal requirements for all legal guardians.

The Arc of Northern Virginia supports the guardianship reform bills presented by Delegates Herring, Roem, and Glass. These bills all increase transparency around guardianship and better protect the person under guardianship. We get calls from individuals who are unsatisfied with their guardian's choices to deny visits from loved ones, lack of communication/visits, and with concerns about the guardian's actions. These bills provide protection for vulnerable individual's who rely on a robust guardianship oversight system to stay safe and protect their rights.

Indigent persons should have the ability to appeal cases regardless of whether the landlord reports that back rent has not been paid in full. In all other cases, indigent persons may appeal without paying a fee; and the current situation for renters is a denial of their basic right to have the facts of the case looked at. At present, justice is denied to the tenant only on the basis of the landlord's word, which may itself reflect inaccurate or incomplete information. Especially during the pandemic, when the affordable housing market is extremely tight, it is not in the interest of the community for persons to be evicted, particularly without the ability to appeal the case and to present the facts. This bill corrects basic inequity in the current law affecting low-income renters, and encourages community stability.

On behalf of the Virginia Coalition of Latino Organizations, I write in support of HB614/SB474. This bill rectifies the long-overlooked denial of due process and denial of a right to a jury trial by extending the indigency waiver to all civil litigants, regardless of the type of case. With this bill, low income-tenants who wish to appeal their eviction case can ask the court to waive the appeal bond, thereby granting them full access to review of their case in Circuit Court. Thank you very much for your consideration.

This bill alleviates what is already a burdensome financial situation for many tenants. n civil cases, indigent litigants can have the money bond required to appeal their case waived unless they are appealing an eviction based on nonpayment of rent. These tenants are thus effectively denied their right to seek de novo review of their unlawful detainer case, they do not get access to the more robust pre-trial discovery available only in circuit court, and they are denied their right to a jury trial enshrined in Virginia’s Constitution. The rare tenants who can scrape together the money to pay the appeal bond must also pay ongoing rent into the court on or before the fifth day of the month or their case is summarily dismissed. If the tenant does not pay the full rent into court, upon written motion from the landlord the court must, without a hearing, enter a judgment and an order of possession against the tenant. The court must also release the appeal bond funds to the landlord without further hearing or proceeding of the court unless the tenant files a motion to retain some or all of the funds. Regardless of the merits of the tenant’s claim, the court must enter an order of possession in favor of the landlord. HB614 rectifies the long-overlooked denial of due process and denial of a right to a jury trial by extending the indigency waiver to all civil litigants, regardless of the type of case. With this bill, low income-tenants who wish to appeal their eviction case can ask the court to waive the appeal bond, thereby granting them full access to review of their case in Circuit Court. The Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights supports this bill.

The VA State Conference NAACP support this bill.

AARP Virginia supports legislation that improves the rights of the individual under guardianship and ensures due process of those rights. As such we are in support of House Bills 424 (Herring), 623 (Hudson), 634 & 643 (Roem).

Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is Yolanda Bell and I thank you for allowing me to speak today. I am a Veteran and constituent of Del Roem’s. I have come to testify in favor of guardianship reform for the last three years. I promised my mother the day before she died I would take care of my sister Anastasia and keep her safe. The Inova guardians made a liar out of me. My sister was 120+lbs when the guardians took her.  She weighed a mere 87lbs nine months later when they ended her life. She had no terminal illness. This is what happens when wards are allowed to be isolated from loving family and friends.  When reporting requirements and oversight of guardians and by guardians is lax and almost nonexistent vulnerable wards suffer, are abused, neglected, and die. Anastasia literally had 13 holes in her body and too many bruises to count. Delegate Roem has seen the autopsy pictures. Her isolation was so severe that she was forced to die alone with no one to hold her hand, tell her they loved her, no one to pray with her or over her. Clergy was even turned away preventing them from giving her the last rites of the Church. My mother always taught us "family will be there for you when no one else will." The extra sets of eyes are taken away by guardian isolation leaving no one to look out for them or to protect them.   The entire situation surrounding my sisters guardianship was a travesty of epic proportions. No one should be ripped away from a loving and caring family. Even the judge said my sister was well taken care of by me. No one should be forced to die alone. And guardians, professional court appointed guardians who make their living off the pain and suffering of the elderly and disabled - the vulnerable - should not have carte blanche power to isolate wards from family especially where no abuse, neglect, or exploitation has been alleged or found. Our father was a combat veteran serving 26 years in the Air Force. It astounds me that almost 5 years later we are still fighting to get these basic protections for the disabled and elderly who are conscripted into these guardianships. I am grateful that the JLARC Study exposed and highlighted the numerous problems we have with guardianships and professional guardians here in Virginia, not the least of which are isolation and lack of oversight. Guardianships as they currently stand in Virginia strip the wards of their constitutional rights. In 1974 the US Supreme Court in Stanley v. Illinois held that "family association rises to a constitutional right."  What was done to my sister Anastasia will haunt me for the rest of my life. The bottom line and reality of the situation is that I should not have had to beg to see my sister. I should not have had to beg to spend time with her, to be by her side, especially once they decided to end her life. No one should have to beg and plead with anyone let alone strangers to be with their loved one especially if they are dying. God by whatever name you choose to call Him, and by whatever means you choose to worship Him, commands us to protect and care for the vulnerable, for “the least of these among us”. You have an opportunity ensure what happened to my sister and our family never happens again to anyone else. People are being hurt and are dying.  Please pass these bills to protect the most vulnerable among us. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Yolanda Bell

As an attorney who has served as counsel to Petitioner's in Guardianship (institutional and private) AND to Respondent (alleged incapacitated) and as Court Appointed Guardian Ad Litem, I am very familiar with the real life implications and human concerns with the parties in these cases. I am thoroughly familiar with the current Guardianship statutes, procedures and the weaknesses in the system. I have read all the proposed bills, as well as the JLARC report and would like to comment. I am not particularly opposed nor in favor

Comments Document

My name is Yolanda Bell. I am a Veteran who comes from a family of veterans and first responders. I reside in Manassas and I am a constituent of Del Roem. I have come to testify in favor of guardianship reform for the last three years. I am grateful the JLARC Study exposed and highlighted the numerous problems we have with professional court appointed guardians here in VA, not the least of which are isolation and lack of oversight. As a key stakeholder for the JLARC Guardianship Study I implore you to vote for each of these important and necessary Bills to address the findings in the Study and prevent what happened to my sister and our family from happening to anyone else. Before you vote I would appreciate you taking the time to read the attached written testimony I gave to the subcommittee last week. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely Yolanda Bell Anastasia’s Voice

When considering the frequency of required guardian visits, please be aware that the National Guardianship Association's Standards of Practice requires MONTHLY visits. Asking Virginia guardians to visit every 90 days, with some flexibility, is really a low but much needed bar. If the concern is that required visits every 90 days would be too great a burden on guardians, consider FIRST the much greater needs of the at-risk person under guardianship whose needs can change quickly over time. A person-centered system means putting the individual first. Also consider that the guardian is a fiduciary, with a huge responsibility, and making minimal required visits should be a natural part of that responsibility. But guardians definitely need support. Please consider ways to assist guardians in their duties through more usable, consistent and accessible forms; training, and technical assistance. Erica Wood, Arlington

Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman and Committee Members. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Yolanda Bell and I come again to speak in favor of Del Roem’s HB634 regarding visitation. Regular visitation of wards by guardians is necessary. Especially if they are restricting visitation from family, friends, and clergy. In my sisters case I disagreed with the hospitals discharge decision and as her POA of 17 years I appealed the decision to the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) in Washington, D.C. which IAW federal law should have negated the hospitals discharge decision. The CMS Administrative Law Judge agreed my sister was too ill to be discharged. By that time the hospital had taken her and the guardians contracted by the hospital refused to give her back. Even after providing them with the ALJ’s decision. It was near impossible to get back into to see the trial judge. The hospital that took my sister essentially washed their hands of her once they got her removed from their facility and turned over to their contracted guardians. Their further participation in the process may have prevented the abuse and neglect my sister suffered. An entity should not be able to petition for guardianship of someone to gain their purpose and then wash their hands and say now that she’s gone we want nothing more to do with it. “But for” their action, their petition, my sister and others like her would not have been in a guardianship and ultimately lost their lives. It truly boggles my mind that this is allowed to happen. I sincerely and wholeheartedly do not believe requiring visitation will cause a drop in Professional Court Appointed Guardians. These individuals are being paid, some very significantly. After researching the hospital that took my sister for the last 5 years, in well over 200 cases, my sisters guardians who have over 100 wards were pulling in an estimated $1M plus a year on their wards just in federal funding, SSI, military and federal retirements, etc., not to mention those wards who were well off. So I do not believe professional guardians will just walk away. Unfortunately not everyone serving as a professional guardian has the integrity, conscience, and foresight of Del Leftwich to know when they are not able to serve their wards to the best of their ability while serving their firm equally as well; recognizing that he was doing his wards a disservice. And to make that difficult decision that it was one or the other. If a guardian is not doing an eyes on visit things will be missed, and it will be to the detriment of vulnerable wards, especially those who cannot speak for or defend themselves. You have seen some of the pictures of what was done to my sister. She suffered dearly. Why? Because she was allowed to be severely isolated, and her particular guardians did not take complaints of abuse seriously and did not check on her. Please do not let this happen to anyone else. I will never truly recover from what was done to my sister. However knowing this Assembly has prevented others from experiencing what my family has experienced will make it a little easier to make it through the days. Please vote unanimously to report HB634. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Yolanda Bell Anastasia’s Voice

AARP Virginia supports legislation that improves the rights of the individual under guardianship and ensures due process of those rights. As such we are in support of House Bills 424 (Herring), 623 (Hudson), 634 & 643 (Roem).

Comments by Charlotte Barkley, Executive Director of PAAC (the Parent Advocacy and Advisory Council of South West Virginia) and the step-mother of a former resident of SWVTC who is now thriving in a Group Home placement. I strongly support HB634 as it ensures a regular, ongoing observation of an incapacitated person’s overall health, care and well-being. The assurance that an incapacitated person is being properly cared for can be upheld by allowing the guardian to hire someone to visit the incapacitated person and report back on the observations made during the visit. This allows a guardian who is unable to make a personal visit and observation at least every 90 days, for whatever reason, a way to ensure the incapacitated person is being well cared for.

While not representing an organization, I am a member of the Virginia Public Guardian and Conservator Advisory Board and the Supreme Court WINGS (Working Interdisciplinary Network of Guardianship Stakeholders) and was involved for many years in guardianship issues when working at the American Bar Association. I support HB 634, to ensure guardians are better informed about the needs, goals, preferences and values of the adult they are serving, and to bring Virginia closer to the national standard in guardian visits. I support HB 643 on review hearings, to strengthen the court's role in monitoring, and to determine whether a guardianship continues to be necessary of needs to be modified. I support HB 623 sharpening the duties, role and report of the guardian ad litem.

Comments by Jane Powell, former President of Central Virginia Training Center Families and Friends: I am a legal guardian for my sister, a former resident of CVTC. Family guardians of current and former Training Center residents, and presumably other family guardians, would be unduly burdened by the following guardianship bills and are furthermore not qualified to meet all of the requirements of the bills: HB424, HB634 and HB643. These bills set laudable goals, yet codifying these goals would cause negative consequences for family guardians, many of whom are in their 70s or older. • Many of the former residents of CVTC and SWVTC in particular sought legal guardianship of their training center loved ones prior to closure of those facilities, and those who are distant from their loved one’s new placement would be unduly and unnecessarily burdened by quarterly in-person visits when their loved one is in a stable and desirable placement. For example, one guardian lives in Florida and has arranged for his capable and fully engaged son to check in on his SEVTC relative on a frequent basis. The guardian does see his disabled son several times a year, but legally requiring strictly scheduled quarterly in-person visits would impose a completely unnecessary burden and expense. Other family guardians of former training center residents would face similar difficulties. • Family guardians lack the professional qualifications to “observe and assess” some of the provisions of HB424 and HB634, such as how an individual’s mental and physical health care needs are being met. Few visits occur during educational or vocational programs when such observational visits would be disruptive, and likewise there is often no way for families to “observe” progress made toward expressed goals. Family guardians rely on the professionals who care for their loved ones to inform them of the status of these things. • Most training center residents and former training center residents lack funds to pay a professional substitute to make visits on their guardian’s behalf, as proposed in HB634. • Many family guardians lack the technological savvy and/or equipment to meet some of the virtual meeting alternatives proposed in these bills. • Routine court review hearings are unnecessary for severely developmentally disabled persons whose conditions will never improve to the point that they will no longer need a guardian. Going through a court proceeding every three years imposes unnecessary expense and hardship on the families of such individuals. HB424, HB634 and HB643 would have a chilling effect on family guardianship, when families by their nature have the purest guardianship motives and thus should be encouraged. If applied only to paid professional guardians, the bills might make sense, but not when they are universally applied to all legal guardians. Even so, most of the bills’ provisions would be better as opt-in measures when circumstances warrant such measures rather than universal requirements for all legal guardians.

I am writing to request your support this session for House Bills 634, 643, 1207 and 1620. All of these bills are regarding various facets of guardianship. I have been involved in attempts to change or introduce new legislation in Virginia since I approached my local delegate in November 2017. Additionally, I have testified in the House subcommittee regarding the legislation and how it directly affected my ability to visit with my now deceased partner since June 2017. During that period, I was not allowed to visit for arbitrary reasons due to a guardian for two years. This left my partner isolated and I am sure contributed to her early demise due to Alzheimer's disease. I hope that what happened to me and multiple other Virginians will not continue into perpetuity. There was no one else to regularly visit her and it still pains me as she died with my only seeing her twice in three years. Thank you in consideration and support. Sincerely, Mike Jacobs 2151 Jamieson Avenue, #707 Alexandria, VA 22314-5723

Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is Yolanda Bell and I thank you for allowing me to speak today. I am a Veteran and constituent of Del Roem’s. I have come to testify in favor of guardianship reform for the last three years. I promised my mother the day before she died I would take care of my sister Anastasia and keep her safe. The Inova guardians made a liar out of me. My sister was 120+lbs when the guardians took her.  She weighed a mere 87lbs nine months later when they ended her life. She had no terminal illness. This is what happens when wards are allowed to be isolated from loving family and friends.  When reporting requirements and oversight of guardians and by guardians is lax and almost nonexistent vulnerable wards suffer, are abused, neglected, and die. Anastasia literally had 13 holes in her body and too many bruises to count. Delegate Roem has seen the autopsy pictures. Her isolation was so severe that she was forced to die alone with no one to hold her hand, tell her they loved her, no one to pray with her or over her. Clergy was even turned away preventing them from giving her the last rites of the Church. My mother always taught us "family will be there for you when no one else will." The extra sets of eyes are taken away by guardian isolation leaving no one to look out for them or to protect them.   The entire situation surrounding my sisters guardianship was a travesty of epic proportions. No one should be ripped away from a loving and caring family. Even the judge said my sister was well taken care of by me. No one should be forced to die alone. And guardians, professional court appointed guardians who make their living off the pain and suffering of the elderly and disabled - the vulnerable - should not have carte blanche power to isolate wards from family especially where no abuse, neglect, or exploitation has been alleged or found. Our father was a combat veteran serving 26 years in the Air Force. It astounds me that almost 5 years later we are still fighting to get these basic protections for the disabled and elderly who are conscripted into these guardianships. I am grateful that the JLARC Study exposed and highlighted the numerous problems we have with guardianships and professional guardians here in Virginia, not the least of which are isolation and lack of oversight. Guardianships as they currently stand in Virginia strip the wards of their constitutional rights. In 1974 the US Supreme Court in Stanley v. Illinois held that "family association rises to a constitutional right."  What was done to my sister Anastasia will haunt me for the rest of my life. The bottom line and reality of the situation is that I should not have had to beg to see my sister. I should not have had to beg to spend time with her, to be by her side, especially once they decided to end her life. No one should have to beg and plead with anyone let alone strangers to be with their loved one especially if they are dying. God by whatever name you choose to call Him, and by whatever means you choose to worship Him, commands us to protect and care for the vulnerable, for “the least of these among us”. You have an opportunity ensure what happened to my sister and our family never happens again to anyone else. People are being hurt and are dying.  Please pass these bills to protect the most vulnerable among us. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Yolanda Bell

As an attorney who has served as counsel to Petitioner's in Guardianship (institutional and private) AND to Respondent (alleged incapacitated) and as Court Appointed Guardian Ad Litem, I am very familiar with the real life implications and human concerns with the parties in these cases. I am thoroughly familiar with the current Guardianship statutes, procedures and the weaknesses in the system. I have read all the proposed bills, as well as the JLARC report and would like to comment. I am not particularly opposed nor in favor

The Arc of Northern Virginia supports the guardianship reform bills presented by Delegates Herring, Roem, and Glass. These bills all increase transparency around guardianship and better protect the person under guardianship. We get calls from individuals who are unsatisfied with their guardian's choices to deny visits from loved ones, lack of communication/visits, and with concerns about the guardian's actions. These bills provide protection for vulnerable individual's who rely on a robust guardianship oversight system to stay safe and protect their rights.

Comments Document

My name is Yolanda Bell. I am a Veteran who comes from a family of veterans and first responders. I reside in Manassas and I am a constituent of Del Roem. I have come to testify in favor of guardianship reform for the last three years. I am grateful the JLARC Study exposed and highlighted the numerous problems we have with professional court appointed guardians here in VA, not the least of which are isolation and lack of oversight. As a key stakeholder for the JLARC Guardianship Study I implore you to vote for each of these important and necessary Bills to address the findings in the Study and prevent what happened to my sister and our family from happening to anyone else. Before you vote I would appreciate you taking the time to read the attached written testimony I gave to the subcommittee last week. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely Yolanda Bell Anastasia’s Voice

AARP Virginia supports legislation that improves the rights of the individual under guardianship and ensures due process of those rights. As such we are in support of House Bills 424 (Herring), 623 (Hudson), 634 & 643 (Roem).

Comments by Charlotte Barkley, Executive Director of PAAC (the Parent Advocacy and Advisory Council of South West Virginia) and the step-mother of a former resident of SWVTC who is now thriving in a Group Home placement. I strongly support HB643 as it provides a way to ensure that an incapacitated person is receiving the best care and oversight under the current court-appointed guardian. This bill is in the best interests of the incapacitated person in that it helps insure adequate overview of that person’s care.

While not representing an organization, I am a member of the Virginia Public Guardian and Conservator Advisory Board and the Supreme Court WINGS (Working Interdisciplinary Network of Guardianship Stakeholders) and was involved for many years in guardianship issues when working at the American Bar Association. I support HB 634, to ensure guardians are better informed about the needs, goals, preferences and values of the adult they are serving, and to bring Virginia closer to the national standard in guardian visits. I support HB 643 on review hearings, to strengthen the court's role in monitoring, and to determine whether a guardianship continues to be necessary of needs to be modified. I support HB 623 sharpening the duties, role and report of the guardian ad litem.

Comments by Jane Powell, former President of Central Virginia Training Center Families and Friends: I am a legal guardian for my sister, a former resident of CVTC. Family guardians of current and former Training Center residents, and presumably other family guardians, would be unduly burdened by the following guardianship bills and are furthermore not qualified to meet all of the requirements of the bills: HB424, HB634 and HB643. These bills set laudable goals, yet codifying these goals would cause negative consequences for family guardians, many of whom are in their 70s or older. • Many of the former residents of CVTC and SWVTC in particular sought legal guardianship of their training center loved ones prior to closure of those facilities, and those who are distant from their loved one’s new placement would be unduly and unnecessarily burdened by quarterly in-person visits when their loved one is in a stable and desirable placement. For example, one guardian lives in Florida and has arranged for his capable and fully engaged son to check in on his SEVTC relative on a frequent basis. The guardian does see his disabled son several times a year, but legally requiring strictly scheduled quarterly in-person visits would impose a completely unnecessary burden and expense. Other family guardians of former training center residents would face similar difficulties. • Family guardians lack the professional qualifications to “observe and assess” some of the provisions of HB424 and HB634, such as how an individual’s mental and physical health care needs are being met. Few visits occur during educational or vocational programs when such observational visits would be disruptive, and likewise there is often no way for families to “observe” progress made toward expressed goals. Family guardians rely on the professionals who care for their loved ones to inform them of the status of these things. • Most training center residents and former training center residents lack funds to pay a professional substitute to make visits on their guardian’s behalf, as proposed in HB634. • Many family guardians lack the technological savvy and/or equipment to meet some of the virtual meeting alternatives proposed in these bills. • Routine court review hearings are unnecessary for severely developmentally disabled persons whose conditions will never improve to the point that they will no longer need a guardian. Going through a court proceeding every three years imposes unnecessary expense and hardship on the families of such individuals. HB424, HB634 and HB643 would have a chilling effect on family guardianship, when families by their nature have the purest guardianship motives and thus should be encouraged. If applied only to paid professional guardians, the bills might make sense, but not when they are universally applied to all legal guardians. Even so, most of the bills’ provisions would be better as opt-in measures when circumstances warrant such measures rather than universal requirements for all legal guardians.

I am writing to request your support this session for House Bills 634, 643, 1207 and 1620. All of these bills are regarding various facets of guardianship. I have been involved in attempts to change or introduce new legislation in Virginia since I approached my local delegate in November 2017. Additionally, I have testified in the House subcommittee regarding the legislation and how it directly affected my ability to visit with my now deceased partner since June 2017. During that period, I was not allowed to visit for arbitrary reasons due to a guardian for two years. This left my partner isolated and I am sure contributed to her early demise due to Alzheimer's disease. I hope that what happened to me and multiple other Virginians will not continue into perpetuity. There was no one else to regularly visit her and it still pains me as she died with my only seeing her twice in three years. Thank you in consideration and support. Sincerely, Mike Jacobs 2151 Jamieson Avenue, #707 Alexandria, VA 22314-5723

Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is Yolanda Bell and I thank you for allowing me to speak today. I am a Veteran and constituent of Del Roem’s. I have come to testify in favor of guardianship reform for the last three years. I promised my mother the day before she died I would take care of my sister Anastasia and keep her safe. The Inova guardians made a liar out of me. My sister was 120+lbs when the guardians took her.  She weighed a mere 87lbs nine months later when they ended her life. She had no terminal illness. This is what happens when wards are allowed to be isolated from loving family and friends.  When reporting requirements and oversight of guardians and by guardians is lax and almost nonexistent vulnerable wards suffer, are abused, neglected, and die. Anastasia literally had 13 holes in her body and too many bruises to count. Delegate Roem has seen the autopsy pictures. Her isolation was so severe that she was forced to die alone with no one to hold her hand, tell her they loved her, no one to pray with her or over her. Clergy was even turned away preventing them from giving her the last rites of the Church. My mother always taught us "family will be there for you when no one else will." The extra sets of eyes are taken away by guardian isolation leaving no one to look out for them or to protect them.   The entire situation surrounding my sisters guardianship was a travesty of epic proportions. No one should be ripped away from a loving and caring family. Even the judge said my sister was well taken care of by me. No one should be forced to die alone. And guardians, professional court appointed guardians who make their living off the pain and suffering of the elderly and disabled - the vulnerable - should not have carte blanche power to isolate wards from family especially where no abuse, neglect, or exploitation has been alleged or found. Our father was a combat veteran serving 26 years in the Air Force. It astounds me that almost 5 years later we are still fighting to get these basic protections for the disabled and elderly who are conscripted into these guardianships. I am grateful that the JLARC Study exposed and highlighted the numerous problems we have with guardianships and professional guardians here in Virginia, not the least of which are isolation and lack of oversight. Guardianships as they currently stand in Virginia strip the wards of their constitutional rights. In 1974 the US Supreme Court in Stanley v. Illinois held that "family association rises to a constitutional right."  What was done to my sister Anastasia will haunt me for the rest of my life. The bottom line and reality of the situation is that I should not have had to beg to see my sister. I should not have had to beg to spend time with her, to be by her side, especially once they decided to end her life. No one should have to beg and plead with anyone let alone strangers to be with their loved one especially if they are dying. God by whatever name you choose to call Him, and by whatever means you choose to worship Him, commands us to protect and care for the vulnerable, for “the least of these among us”. You have an opportunity ensure what happened to my sister and our family never happens again to anyone else. People are being hurt and are dying.  Please pass these bills to protect the most vulnerable among us. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Yolanda Bell

As an attorney who has served as counsel to Petitioner's in Guardianship (institutional and private) AND to Respondent (alleged incapacitated) and as Court Appointed Guardian Ad Litem, I am very familiar with the real life implications and human concerns with the parties in these cases. I am thoroughly familiar with the current Guardianship statutes, procedures and the weaknesses in the system. I have read all the proposed bills, as well as the JLARC report and would like to comment. I am not particularly opposed nor in favor

The Arc of Northern Virginia supports the guardianship reform bills presented by Delegates Herring, Roem, and Glass. These bills all increase transparency around guardianship and better protect the person under guardianship. We get calls from individuals who are unsatisfied with their guardian's choices to deny visits from loved ones, lack of communication/visits, and with concerns about the guardian's actions. These bills provide protection for vulnerable individual's who rely on a robust guardianship oversight system to stay safe and protect their rights.

Have you tried Roll On – 200mg from JUSTCBD?

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

HB 677 requires posting of information on the courthouse door and local website. This legislation needs a delayed effective date and funding if there is not an interactive website in rural localities. The Patron had agreed to a delayed effective date of July 1, 2025. I would request the Committee consider that amendment. Thank you. Chip Dicks

Please move to report HB13, 378, 677, 1066, and especially for 1080. Thank you.

Stop with the lies!

No! Stop with the lies! Cannibas is much safer than alcohol and pharmaceuticals!! Let the average person be free with a plant! Stop holding the little guy back....just stop.

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

Comments Document

Attached

Vote NO This bill is shameful. Stealing humanity from those that need it the most. A quote from Norway " Treat people like dirt and they will be dirt. Treat them like human beings and they will act like human beings." We can not keep turning back reforms. Please vote NO to this Bill and continue to reform our Justice System.

Vote NO This bill is shameful. Stealing humanity from those that need it the most. A quote from Norway " Treat people like dirt and they will be dirt. Treat them like human beings and they will act like human beings." We can not keep turning back reforms. Please vote NO to this Bill and continue to reform our Justice System.

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

HB 735 should be PBI! Progress for true reform was made with HB 5148. With unfavorable conditions still being present behind our prison walls due to COVID-19, offenders who have earned an early release should be permitted a second chance and not further deprived of human dignity. Please vote "NO" and truly consider the lives of the men and women who have hope in the current legislation. Thank you!

Please vote to PBI Delegate Bells HB735. There are many people incarcerated within the DOC who have worked hard on their own recognisance to rehabilitate themselves with no incentive. During the 2020 special session they were given hope, these people have continued to work hard on themselves even during the pandemic when all classes and work assignments were closed, many were locked in their cells with nothing but their own minds and it is cruel to pull all the hope they had from under their feet when many could be coming home in a matter of months instead of years. The earned sentence credits bill was studied and recommended by the crime study committee so it wasn't just passed on a whim, alot of hard work and research went into this bill so please do not eradicate it at this late stage. PLEASE VOTE TO PBI HB735 BY DELEGATE BELL

I am against these bills. People deserve second chance and people who have earned it should not have this taken away. Thank you.

PLEASE VOTE NO TO HB735. At the last meeting it was discussed by those in favour of this Bill that Earned Sentence Credits leads to confusion with judges and juries and that if a sentence is given then that is what the offender should serve. It was even said that the current sentencing guidelines were sufficient and working well. This is not the case. My loved one is one of the few who benefits from the Earned Sentence Credits. He is a non-violent offender who received 17 years for drug use related crimes. NO VIOLENCE, NO WEAPONS. Yet he has been incarcerated with men who have wounded maliciously with the intent to do either serious bodily harm or kill and have received a sentence of less than 17 years. There is no justice in this. My loved one did not have a jury as he plead guilty. His sentence was delivered souly by the judge. He has been in prison now for almost 14 years and during this time he has received no charges for violence, has been clean of all substances and has worked hard to better himself. He has worked as a tutor helping other inmates gain their GED as well as attending classes and programs to better himself. Earned Sentence Credits is not a given right, the clue is in the name - it must be EARNED. Please do not allow Virginia to become a ‘lock them up and throw away the key’ state. Allow these people, who are non-violent and the lowest risk to society, to better them selves and to have something to aim for. Do not take away the only hope they have, the only incentive they have. Taking away any hope of an early release through Earned Sentence Credits will result in these non-violent, low risk offenders having no incentive to remain determined to leave those prisons a better citizen with an incentive to rehabilitate their lives and becoming productive members of society, which is surely what everyone wants. Please vote no for HB735.

Delegate Bell HB735 and Delegate Anderson HB25 AND ALL DELEGATES ON THIS COMMITTEE PLEASE STOP TRYING TO ROLLBACK THE LITTLE BIT OF REFORM THAT HAS BEEN PASSED , this double breaks my heart and spirit because of all the crave outs that were made hours and hours of talks to get HB5148 to even pass Delegate Don Scott agreed to remove certain people based on the crime they committed WHICH BY THE WAY WE THE PEOPLE BELIEVE EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO EARN THE EXTRA GOOD TIME CREDITS!!!! A BIG POINT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IS THIS IS NOT GIVING THEY HAVE TO EARN IT! I ask everyone to VOTE. NO , FOR HB25 AND HB735 BETTER YET JUST PBI and realize that is the Smart thing to do!!!

I am writing to voice my complete opposition to HB 735. The earned sentence credit expansion legislation was the first stage of reform to a broken system. I urge that you vote "NO" to HB 735 as it stands to undo much needed progress in Virginia's criminal justice system.  Please permit my loved one and countless other men and women the opportunity to earn a reduction in their sentences according to current legislation that is set to go into effect in July. Earned sentence credit expansion further incentivizes individuals behind the walls to make positive choices each and every day. Everyone deserves a true second chance, and this can only be done by voting “NO” to HB 735. Thank you.

The Humanization Project would like to express our objection to HB 735 and HB 25. We will keep this brief, as we know you have a lot to look through and hear from people, and we feel this is very simple. HB 735 would undo all of your hard work of earned sentence credit expansion. While the earned sentence credit expansion legislation last year was based on evidence and best practices, rooted in the values of equity, racial justice, and second chances, this bill is clearly only meant to fear monger and create sound bites. Undoing the first stages of reform will simply return us to a broken system that perpetuates crime and poverty. Earned sentence credit expansion should have included all people behind bars. Those who have done the worst things are those who we should most want to have incentive to become better people. You all worked so hard to negotiate and include as many people as possible, and while we would have liked all to be included, we are grateful for the work that you did. HB 25 would carve out yet another low-level, non-violent offense–an offense often set upon 18 year olds in consenting high school relationships. Continuing to carve out offenses disproportionately impacts disadvantaged communities, our communities of color. Please look past the stigma and stand against HB 25. Apologies that we could not be here today to speak, but we urge you, please vote no on HB 735 and HB 25. Thank you.

My grandson, Austin Kerr, inmate # 1693397 has been in prison for almost 7 years and he told me that if he had not been locked up, that he thinks that he would be dead by now because of the self destructed road he was headed down when he was a teenager. Prison has offered him the opportunity to take classed to better himself and he has a plan for self improvement when he gets to come home to us. Please, please, please vote "no" on HB735. Please allow my grandson a second chance to prove that he can be an upstanding citizen and an asset to our community. Thank you for your time.

I am opposed to ANY erosion of "Earned Sentence Credits". People who are held prisoner in any of our carceral facilities must be given opportunities to earn credits by any actions they take to engage with good things for themselves and for others who are incarcerated. Please vote NO on any bills which would take away persons' opportunities for Earned Sentence Credits. (HB 25, HB 735, HB 5148) Rather, please create MORE OPPORTUNITIES for Earned Sentence Credits.

My husband, Antonio Wiggins #1029324 is an inmate at Wallen's Ridge State Prison. He has been there since 02/14/2019 without any incidents. He was transferred from St. Brides for fighting. He has worked long and hard to get back to level 1 and to maintain his level 1 status in hopes that he would get to come early due to the good time. He has been a model inmate, especially for a level 5 prison. His crime did not fit his punishment. He was a drug abuser, not a drug dealer. They found him in possession of 18 pills of Heroin and crack. That's it. He was sentenced to 13 years. He has been in prison since 2016. He is a changed man now. All he wants to do is come home to his family ( we have 4 children) and start fresh. He wasn't there for the first 2 to graduate and if this system is taken away, he won't be home to watch his other 2 graduate (our youngest is 10). So I urge you, NOT to vote yes on this bill. Give our guys and gals a fighting chance to come home and make a change. I know that you will definitely see a change in my husband if the ESC law that begins in July 2022 is allowed to stand. Thank you!

HB735 - Bell : the community is against this bill. The inmates here in VA have served their time, some serving time for crimes they did not commit. The prisons and jails house people who deserve a second chance and deserve an opportunity to be rehabilitated. This bill will not make Virginia great again, it will actually push Virginia back in time. Let’s move forward and STOP this bill from trying to repeal the four- classification system. The people housed in VA prisons and jails along with the entire community needs to give these humans another chance that they are productive citizens outside of those prison and jail walls! HB25- Anderson: The community is against this bill. Anyone who is trying to harm children with child pornography should not be eligible for the enhanced sentencing credits effective July 1, 2022. If it’s somebody first offense and they get released early they may be encouraged to go involve another child with pornography and put them in danger. This bill seems to support the Jeffrey Epstein’s and Ghislaine Maxwell’s of Virginia and the community is against it!

Please do not support this bill. There are so many good people that deserve a second chance and this bill doesn’t not give them that soon enough. Please vote no to this bill!

My loved one is one of the few who currently stands to be released early due to the Earned Sentence Credits Bill which was passed last year. He has served almost 13 years of a 17 year sentence for a non violent crime. Not only was it non violent, it was in no way related to crimes against women or children and involved no weapons. He got involved with drugs as a young man in his teens and spiralled as a result of his habit. However, during his time in prison he has worked hard at rehabilitating himself and amongst other things he has worked as a tutor, helping other inmates to gain their GED. During the time he has so far served he has been housed with some of the most violent of men, incarcerated for murder, rape, offences against children and other heinous crimes. Also he has endure violence towards him by gangs as well as extortion which has been detrimental to his state of mind. Yet during those 13 years he has never been involved in any violence towards other inmates, is always respectful towards staff and has not allowed those around him to change his determination to better himself and learn from his mistakes. The Earned Sentence Credit will see him released later this year rather than August 2025. This is his only hope right now. All he wants is to be able to return home and make amends with his family and do good with the rest of his life. Therefore I am begging you not to take this hope away from him, the only chance he has to come home now, and plead with you to have some mercy for him and others who have been given this chance and to vote NO for HB735, Virginia prisons are in crisis mode. Currently the levels of Covid cases for both inmates and staff are rising again. The facility where my loved one currently resides has been on lockdown for almost 8 weeks because of this. And even before this they were short staffed, meaning they were not allowed out of their cells after a certain time because there simply wasn’t enough staff to facilitate this. Staff are complaining of extended working hours, some pulling double shifts on a regular basis. This is getting worse because of Covid. The prisons are over crowded and basic standards such as food given to inmates are less than humane. Surely it makes sense to allow the Earned Sentence Credit Bill passed last year to stand and allow those who have worked hard to rehabilitate themselves, those like my loved one who are very low risk, to be allowed early release and relieve this pressure cooker which is slowly building within Virginia’s prison system. Please vote NO to HB 735 and allow Earned Sentence Credits to stand. Please vote NO to this bill - HB 735

Please vote no for this bill. How does it make sense to not try to reduce the population in the prisons with the pandemic and the shortage of staff. If anything the bill date should be pushed up not retracted. Please consider these individuals in prison. They are human beings as well and are being treated inhumane with this shortage taking place. Please vote no to HB735

I am Tiffany Mcdowney And I Have A Son And Husband That Is Incarcerated and I’m writing because I think the vote to repeal the good time bill that was passed and to go into affect July 2022 should left alone and should be left alone to go through. My Son And Husband has changed and they both are nonviolent offenders I believe everyone should be given a second chance to right their wrongs. Virginia shouldn’t undo what has already been voted into law we need to move forward instead of backwards.

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

On behalf of the nearly 3000 Independent Auto Dealers in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Virginia Independent Automobile Dealers Association (VIADA) strong supports HB740. Catalytic Converter theft is an endemic that effects people from all walks of life and businesses both big and small.

As Chief of Police in Lexington, Virginia, I am in full support of these bills to assist law enforcement with the prevention and prosecution of offenders who steal catalytic converters. Last year in 2021, the City of Lexington experienced a substantial increase of (16) catalytic converters stolen representing a 1500% increase compared to the prior year 2020, with only (1) incident of a catalytic converter stolen. Unfortunately, we were not able to effectuate arrests in these matters but developed a group of solid suspects who were identified and stopped on multiple occasions, in the suspected crime of stealing catalytic converters, with information that these individuals were selling the stolen goods to a scrap metal purchaser in Richmond, Virginia. Since catalytic converters do not have serial numbers or identifiable marks that can be connected back to a damaged car, we were not able to garner enough probable cause to effectuate arrests on these individuals. The approval of these bills will assist with the deterrence of the crime as the offenders will not have the ability to readily sell these stolen goods and increase law enforcement’s ability to charge the scrap metal purchasers, who accept questionable property from individuals who are not authorized scrap sellers.

Comments Document

The theft of catalytic converters has become a major issue in our community (City of Danville). Throughout 2021, we experienced a drastic increase in the theft of catalytic converters: From January to May there were 3 Catalytic Converters reported stolen throughout the city of Danville. During the months of June, July, and August investigators noticed an increase to about 5 per month. During the months of September and October there was a drastic increase to 10 and 21 reported thefts, respectively. Concentrated efforts results in 29 felony arrests/18 mindemeanor charges. HB 740 and HB 1214 would provide our community with addtional resources to combat this crime and deter future offending.

I want to offer my support of this bill as a law enforcement professional. The problem of catalytic converter theft is one that disables vehicles and leaves vehicle owns stranded with extremely expensive repairs, some of which are not covered by any insurance.

I am writing as an executive board member of VACP and the Chief of Police in Buena Vista to show support for HB 740. I feel this bill adequately addresses the issues of larceny of vehicle parts specifically Catalytic Converters, it holds the scrap yard dealers liable for what materiel they take in it also enhances the penalties for the offender since much of the vehicle parts are not traceable but we know they were stolen.

Catalytic Converter Thefts Chesterfield County has seen a noteworthy increase in catalytic converter thefts over the past two years. In 2020, 178 such thefts were reported. That number increased to 516, reported in 2021. While 2020 is still early, if all things remain consistent, we are on track to experience 699 catalytic converter thefts in 2022. This increase in all the more stunning when one considers that our county experienced a double-digit drop in crime last year. We estimate the total property loss from these thefts in 2020 and 2021 to be $573,600 between 860,400. We appreciate this matter being taken into consideration and support legislation to inhibit this trend, further penalize offenders, or otherwise disrupt an emerging criminal enterprise that’s costing Virginia’s millions of dollars each year. Thank you. Respectfully, Col. Jeffrey S. Katz, Chief of Police - Chesterfield County 2nd VP, Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police

Comments Document

Attached

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

Dear Chairman and Members of the House Courts of Justice Committee, My name is Emily Mooney, and I am a policy manager at REFORM Alliance, a national nonprofit seeking to improve probation and parole policies and support public safety by creating pathways to redemption, work, and wellbeing. As part of this mission, REFORM worked with the Virginia legislature and allies such as the American Conservative Union, the Faith and Freedom Coalition, and JusticeForwardVA to pass HB 2038 last year. This bill promised to support public safety, fiscal prudence, and a strong workforce by bringing Virginia’s probation policies into alignment with research that overwhelmingly suggests long probation terms and the use of prison time for technical probation violations, such as missing a meeting with one’s probation officer undermine rehabilitation and efforts to ensure people on probation become productive, taxpaying members of society. HB 758 seeks to roll back these reforms and promote lengthy probation terms by setting a new 2-year probation cap for Class 1 and 2 misdemeanors. This new cap means a defendant could spend up to 2x or 4x longer on probation than they could spend behind bars for these offenses and at least twice as long as they would under current law. Research suggests that most serious violations occur early within a defendant’s probation term (generally within the first year) and that lengthy supervision terms at best have no impact on recidivism rates. Indeed, a length of stay study of South Carolina’s and Oregon’s probation systems commissioned by PEW Charitable Trusts proves that states can safely and substantively reduce supervision terms with no negative impact on safety. We also know that excessively long probation terms contribute to high caseloads and overflowing court dockets, both of which make it difficult to focus the necessary time and resources on high-risk offenders. Placing reasonable limits on probation terms is a tried and true method for prioritizing caseloads on high-risk offenders, saving millions of dollars, and decreasing recidivism and community instability. HB 758 undermines all of these goals. In addition to setting higher misdemeanor caps, HB 758 seeks to eliminate the graduated sanctions implemented under last years’ probation reforms which sought to limit needless, costly incarceration and workforce disruptions for technical violations like failing to notify a probation officer of a change of employment. Without these parameters, missed meetings with probation officers or other very minor failures to follow complicated rules will subject huge numbers of people to incarceration, damaging their ability to continue mending their lives, supporting their families, and pursuing life goals. This bill would drag many people back into the legal system, ensuring probation becomes a pipeline to prison rather than a launchpad for success. Finally, the new definition of technical violation (vii) under HB 760 is also problematic. By exempting drug use or possession of a Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substance from the definition of a technical violation, HB 760 opens up another way to put addicts in jail for long time periods, which we know begets numerous negative consequences and doesn't help with rehabilitation in most cases. For these reasons, I urge you to vote against HB 758 and HB 760 and oppose any rollbacks. Sincerely, Emily Mooney Policy Manager REFORM Alliance

Dear Chairman and Members of the House Courts of Justice Committee, My name is Emily Mooney, and I am a policy manager at REFORM Alliance, a national nonprofit seeking to improve probation and parole policies and support public safety by creating pathways to redemption, work, and wellbeing. As part of this mission, REFORM worked with the Virginia legislature and allies such as the American Conservative Union, the Faith and Freedom Coalition, and JusticeForwardVA to pass HB 2038 last year. This bill promised to support public safety, fiscal prudence, and a strong workforce by bringing Virginia’s probation policies into alignment with research that overwhelmingly suggests long probation terms and the use of prison time for technical probation violations, such as missing a meeting with one’s probation officer undermine rehabilitation and efforts to ensure people on probation become productive, taxpaying members of society. HB 758 seeks to roll back these reforms and promote lengthy probation terms by setting a new 2-year probation cap for Class 1 and 2 misdemeanors. This new cap means a defendant could spend up to 2x or 4x longer on probation than they could spend behind bars for these offenses and at least twice as long as they would under current law. Research suggests that most serious violations occur early within a defendant’s probation term (generally within the first year) and that lengthy supervision terms at best have no impact on recidivism rates. Indeed, a length of stay study of South Carolina’s and Oregon’s probation systems commissioned by PEW Charitable Trusts proves that states can safely and substantively reduce supervision terms with no negative impact on safety. We also know that excessively long probation terms contribute to high caseloads and overflowing court dockets, both of which make it difficult to focus the necessary time and resources on high-risk offenders. Placing reasonable limits on probation terms is a tried and true method for prioritizing caseloads on high-risk offenders, saving millions of dollars, and decreasing recidivism and community instability. HB 758 undermines all of these goals. In addition to setting higher misdemeanor caps, HB 758 seeks to eliminate the graduated sanctions implemented under last years’ probation reforms which sought to limit needless, costly incarceration and workforce disruptions for technical violations like failing to notify a probation officer of a change of employment. Without these parameters, missed meetings with probation officers or other very minor failures to follow complicated rules will subject huge numbers of people to incarceration, damaging their ability to continue mending their lives, supporting their families, and pursuing life goals. This bill would drag many people back into the legal system, ensuring probation becomes a pipeline to prison rather than a launchpad for success. Finally, the new definition of technical violation (vii) under HB 760 is also problematic. By exempting drug use or possession of a Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substance from the definition of a technical violation, HB 760 opens up another way to put addicts in jail for long time periods, which we know begets numerous negative consequences and doesn't help with rehabilitation in most cases. For these reasons, I urge you to vote against HB 758 and HB 760 and oppose any rollbacks. Sincerely, Emily Mooney Policy Manager REFORM Alliance

Comments Document

In support of HB 761.

My name is Elizabeth Lancaster, and I served as a public defender for the County of Loudoun for 15 years, prior to going into private practice in 2020. One of the main reasons I left a job I loved was the absolute frustration I felt with the Bench. I could no longer advise my clients on what to expect in Court due the incredibly disparate treatment they were likely to receive from the Court depending on the Judge they were to appear in front of. Many local practitioners sat and watched in horror as criminal cases turned into nothing more than a grudge match between the Commonwealth's Attorneys Office and the Bench... with little to no reference to the facts, mitigating circumstances, or wishes of the litigants. My role, the role of my client, the role of the victim, and societal impact of crime no longer counted as much as the Bench's display of hostility towards the Commonwealth, rightly or wrongly deserved in many cases. The Commonwealth's Attorney can be held accountable in multiple transparent and public ways. Judges, however, seem to be immune from this level of review and scrutiny to the constituency they serve. No one public body has a more dramatic impact on their local citizenry than the Bench. And yet that is the one public body that the citizenry have no true ability or knowledge of how to call to account. One of my first cases as a private practitioner was to represent a gentleman who was charged with disorderly conduct at a School Board Meeting. His daughter had been raped in a school bathroom, and he attended his first ever school board meeting to hear the discussions of safety in the schools. He was not only silenced via arrest, but was then labeled a domestic terrorist for having the audacity to attempt to take part in holding his School Board accountable. Over the last year I have watched first hand as multiple local public bodies have fought to conceal their own wrong doing. While some of my own personal beliefs may differ from my client, I will always stand up for any individual being charged by the state. And I do so without fear of recourse or because I live and breathe by the integrity of our Justice System as mandated by the Constitution of the United States of America. I will always stand up for any individual attempting to speak truth to power. Holding our elected officials accountable is not only a right, but a duty imposed upon all citizens. When citizens are unable to meaningfully participate in holding a public body accountable, then we are left with a broken system. The JIRC process has already demonstrated that it cannot hold the Bench accountable. I'd bet that very few citizens understand the JIRC process or how to properly file a complaint. And those of us who do know, know that many times it is a meaningless exercise of self-flagellation. And this has to stop. I am writing today to voice my support for HB761 as the first of many steps to provide meaningful and transparent oversight of the Judges in our Commonwealth. I am writing today because I have witnessed, first hand, that those public bodies seeking to shield themselves from public scrutiny are most often the most guilty of incompetence in carrying out their elected duties to their constituencies. Any argument against transparency and accountability should be viewed with incredible skepticism. And there is no reason to treat our elected Bench any differently than any other public body.

HB761 is all about transparency. I am a fan of this bill because it helps create awareness of the existence of such an important body as the JIRC. Not many residents and attorneys in the Commonwealth even know it exists and it is a resource to help make our system of justice better! Feedback is so important to the development of us all of us, especially to our judges who get reviewed infrequently. By then, it is too late to nip bad behavior in the bud. So, this is an opportunity to get things right before they fester and turn into something that is potentially bad. Most judges are studied and wonderful, but this would help root out the handful of bad actors or uncover patterns of behavior before a judicial term ends. By learning of issues early, no disciplinary action may be necessary, but perhaps instead just some training and mentoring before bad habits develop. This will help make for even better judges, fairer, respectful systems, and create more transparency and open government. Thank you!

Right now, the judicial branch of government has the least oversight of the three branches of government. It is not subject to meaningful transparency and review as judges are, with few exceptions, permitted de facto lifetime appointments after their first election. The one mechanism for judicial review, the JIRC, is effectively useless as a means of providing accountability for judicial misconduct. Last year, of the more than 350 judicial complaints made to the JIRC, only six were found to properly set forth a complaint that properly referenced the judicial canons. Five of those were dismissed after counselling the offending judge. Because the JIRC has not disclosed the nature of the other complaints, one can only surmise that the other 350 complaints were procedurally defaulted as not being properly submitted. This does not mean that certain judges are not misbehaving, but largely suggests that the process of ensuring that complaints are properly submitted is widely misunderstood. This bill is an important step, with minimal economic impact, in ensuring that all branches of the government are subject to the examination by the public in the bright light of day. I cannot imagine any person who seeks responsible, limited government that is beholden to the citizens would oppose this mechanism that ensures all citizens, including those marginalized by economic and other factors, greater voice in demanding transparency and accountability among all three branches of government.

I support this bill so the public is aware these forms exist and know there is a process in place and a remedy available. This will build public trust. Residents of the Commonwealth must have rights and a say in how their state is run. Residents of the Commonwealth have no idea JIRC exists. The public has the right to track judges’ performance and see any patterns of inappropriate or unaccountable behavior and even provide an option for CLE/retraining. How would a legislator know not to reappoint a judge if there was not a track record of his/her performance? How can the legislature know the misconduct or poor performance, discrimination from the bench if they do not know what others in the courtroom are experiencing first hand (attorneys, officers, litigants, etc.). They cannot know what others are experiencing if it is only attorneys that know the JIRC exists. By making hard copy complaint forms in court offices across the state (with a sign) it forces clerks to direct complainants and by making them downloadable on every website with information and instructions creates access and knowledge which will inevitable cause more complaints to be filed. Yes, some will be frivolous, but some will be telling and reveal patterns of behavior! We in the Commonwealth deserve to know how our state is being judged!!!

Judges wield considerable power. Some judges wield that power inappropriately and are not in any way held accountable. The members of the General Assembly should be aware of any instances or patterns of impropriety before Judges are reappointed. JIRC complaints are a mechanism to bring those issues to the attention of the General Assembly. The general public is not aware that they can file Judicial Complaints. Most attorneys are not even aware of how the JIRC operates. So therefore Complaint forms with attached copies of or references to the Judicial Canons must be made available. Forms and links should be available on local and the Virginia Supreme Court website. Without receiving feedback from the community, legislators are NOT informed as to issues or patterns of impropriety. Issues and patterns of impropriety do exist, and it is a discredit to the community for Judges to be reappointed blindly with no input from those who have been affected by them. Thank you.

Virginians mistreated in court need to know how to complain of judicial misconduct. This bill gives them knowledge of and access to their legal rights. I support this. Andi Geloo Fairfax (attorney)

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

Please move to report HB104, 212 & 304 for the lives of children and 775 so that no other Gov. shuts down our freedom of religion.

PLZ protect all monuments in the great state of Virginia!

Enactment of HB808 is needed to clarify that the “$5” is the maximum amount, not the only amount allowed. It is important in the case of large employers having large numbers of employees, like my employer, Huntington Ingalls/Newport News Shipbuilding, who has over 20,000 employees and is charging the $5 fee because they believe that is the only amount they can charge. Last year, 2021, I paid $260 to my employer in “support fees”. Multiply that by the number of employees paying this on our large payroll, and the “support fee” revenue totals in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Much more than is required to cover the administrative costs. Currently, my employer’s hands are tied because even if they wanted to charge a lower amount than $5, they can not because of the wording of the code and the unwillingness of any government agency to put in writing that it’s ok to charge any amount up to $5. I don’t expect them to do it for free, but I would like them to have the opportunity to charge less than $5, if they can see they’re way clear to do so.

Requesting information

I oppose multiple bills that have made it to the house the one bill regarding Emergency Sex Offenders is the most absurd bill I have ever heard in my life. No one is going to be worried about sexual offending in a State of Emergency number one. For example Dad is on a registry and he has three children who are accepted inside without supervision while dad is kept outside in the storm or natural catastrophe. When you pass bills like this your punishing innocent children and families. What about people who committed murder or child abusers are they treated the same? You Senators and delegates got this wrong and this is harmful to innocent families and children. Now let's talk about the 13,000 children on Sex Offender Registries in Virginia some as young as 7 years of age so Mom , Dad and entire family is allowed in but the child is made to stand outside during a castophre alone and sacred while his or her family are allowed inside these laws are based off fear and gives a false sense of security to the general public. Sex Offense is to broad, urination in public is a registable offense as a Violent Sex Offender, Reprorting a Sex Crime will land you on a Violent Sex Offender Registry such is my sistuation. Please reconsider the harm the harm of this bill

Comments Document

Members of the House of Delegates Courts of Justice - Subcommittee #2, I request that you vote "No" regarding HB 856. This measure requires more detailed verbiage and, in turn, professional assessment for a child attachment determination. It has been my observation that numerous factors, including domestic abuse, must be taken into consideration. More importantly, before consideration, coercive control must be implemented in family court with consideration about children’s safety. Federal legislation passed in 2018, House Concurrent Resolution 72, outlines how professionals should be identified including a thorough vetting and reporting process.

I say no to these because for the sake of the children mental health after domestic violence/ abuse sometimes the abusive parent continues their abuse after post separation and legal abuse. The children have the right to choose what they need. In an abusive situation the judges should not turn a blind eye to it, they should protect the children since they are the future. Always believe survivors and children to tell the truth.

I request that you vote "NO" regarding HB 856. While this bill does have good intentions for a truly attached child and parent, it does not provide any verbiage regarding who the professional is that needs to make this determination. From personal experience, an abusive parent can easily change their demeanor and treatment of a child when in the presence of a Guardian Ad Litem, friends, and family members to try to convince others of their involvement in the child's life. Of course, a child will love any positive treatment from a parent and will show more attachment to that parent at that time. Again as House Concurrent Resolution 72 states, specific professionals should be the ones to make these determinations based on a thorough reporting process regarding the workings of each family unit. I thank you for taking the time to consider my thoughts regarding these bills and I ask that you keep a child's right to a safe and healthy home at the forefront of your decisions.

Comments Document

To the members of the House of Delegates Courts of Justice - Subcommittee #2, I request that you vote "no" regarding HB 856. While this bill does have good intentions for a truly attached child and parent, it does not provide any verbiage regarding who the professional is that needs to make this determination. From personal experience, an abusive parent can easily change their demeanor and treatment of a child when in the presence of a Guardian Ad Litem, friends, and family members to try to convince others of their involvement in the child's life. Of course, a child will love any positive treatment from a parent and will show more attachment to that parent at that time. As House Concurrent Resolution 72 states, specific professionals should be the ones to make these determinations based on a thorough reporting process regarding the workings of each family unit.

I would appreciate if you take in consideration my thoughts on these bulls especially 1080. This would harm innocent children and families their are 13,000 children on sex offender registries in Virginia...What do you plan to do with them their parents can go in a shelter but a child is excluded. Also a single parent who has a requirement to register stays outside and children are took inside unattended. Please consider this bill as not a wise choice

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

Virginia police have a well-established reputation for harassment of harassing motorists for “Driving While Black.” Pretextual “broken taillight” policing disproportionately targets Black and brown drivers, and these types of traffic stops can often lead to deadly outcomes. These stops contribute little if anything to public safety, and serve only to aggravate tension between police and marginalized communities. Virginia’s restrictions on pretextual policing were a model for the nation, and multiple cities and municipalities are now considering similar laws. We should be building on this successful reform rather than reversing it. Please vote NO on HB1030.

I oppose multiple bills that have made it to the house the one bill regarding Emergency Sex Offenders is the most absurd bill I have ever heard in my life. No one is going to be worried about sexual offending in a State of Emergency number one. For example Dad is on a registry and he has three children who are accepted inside without supervision while dad is kept outside in the storm or natural catastrophe. When you pass bills like this your punishing innocent children and families. What about people who committed murder or child abusers are they treated the same? You Senators and delegates got this wrong and this is harmful to innocent families and children. Now let's talk about the 13,000 children on Sex Offender Registries in Virginia some as young as 7 years of age so Mom , Dad and entire family is allowed in but the child is made to stand outside during a castophre alone and sacred while his or her family are allowed inside these laws are based off fear and gives a false sense of security to the general public. Sex Offense is to broad, urination in public is a registable offense as a Violent Sex Offender, Reprorting a Sex Crime will land you on a Violent Sex Offender Registry such is my sistuation. Please reconsider the harm the harm of this bill

I would appreciate if you take in consideration my thoughts on these bulls especially 1080. This would harm innocent children and families their are 13,000 children on sex offender registries in Virginia...What do you plan to do with them their parents can go in a shelter but a child is excluded. Also a single parent who has a requirement to register stays outside and children are took inside unattended. Please consider this bill as not a wise choice

Stop Child Abuse Now (SCAN) of Northern Virginia is a survivor-led organization and calls for minimum levels of training for adults working with children in sports settings. As child advocates, our sole responsibility is to put children at the center of everything we do, we not only support but need passage of this bill HB 1043 as a non-partisan action to prioritize the safety of children in the Commonwealth. This is an opportunity to back up our values and beliefs with action. As a community, we say that child safety is paramount. Leading research tells us children who experience harm in organizations have more adverse impacts in adulthood. The debt to child sexual abuse alone is over $800,000 per child. We know all adults are responsible for keeping children safe. Let’s back up those beliefs with actions and pass HB 1043. 90% of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by someone known and close to the child. Right now, child protection professionals consider competitive sports leagues a high-risk activity for emotional, physical, and sexual abuse. Athletics should improve every aspect of a child’s healthy development. It should not cause lifelong impacts on their health and wellbeing. Those who work with children should expect that privilege to come with obligations. An obligation to keep children safe, to maintain professional boundaries, and to behave in ways that don’t make children more susceptible to abuse. Obligations to know, identify and report signs of abuse within the program or organization. Obligations to know what to do if a child sees them as a trusted adult and discloses harm by another child or an adult.

I would appreciate if you take in consideration my thoughts on these bulls especially 1080. This would harm innocent children and families their are 13,000 children on sex offender registries in Virginia...What do you plan to do with them their parents can go in a shelter but a child is excluded. Also a single parent who has a requirement to register stays outside and children are took inside unattended. Please consider this bill as not a wise choice

I oppose multiple bills that have made it to the house the one bill regarding Emergency Sex Offenders is the most absurd bill I have ever heard in my life. No one is going to be worried about sexual offending in a State of Emergency number one. For example Dad is on a registry and he has three children who are accepted inside without supervision while dad is kept outside in the storm or natural catastrophe. When you pass bills like this your punishing innocent children and families. What about people who committed murder or child abusers are they treated the same? You Senators and delegates got this wrong and this is harmful to innocent families and children. Now let's talk about the 13,000 children on Sex Offender Registries in Virginia some as young as 7 years of age so Mom , Dad and entire family is allowed in but the child is made to stand outside during a castophre alone and sacred while his or her family are allowed inside these laws are based off fear and gives a false sense of security to the general public. Sex Offense is to broad, urination in public is a registable offense as a Violent Sex Offender, Reprorting a Sex Crime will land you on a Violent Sex Offender Registry such is my sistuation. Please reconsider the harm the harm of this bill

Please move to report HB13, 378, 677, 1066, and especially for 1080. Thank you.

Have you tried Roll On – 200mg from JUSTCBD?

Comments Document

I am not sure I understand the reasoning behind this bill. All you see when you look at these people is a label and what you perceive that they did. This label takes away the fact that these are humans! Humans that need help. More and more laws keep being passed to "keep society safe" YET we aren't any safer because of these draconic laws. These laws make zero sense. They do nothing to help keep people safer... but they do make people less safe by 1) forcing these people into homelessness where they have nothing to lose 2) give society a false sense of security and 3) deter society's attention from the REAL threats (the people who they are allowing into their own homes...fathers, uncles, friends...who are NOT YET on this list...the people who are the real threats to your children). You have to ask yourself...What do you want? When is it going to be enough? The people forced to register have done their time for the crime they have committed. They have been released into society. Where does it benefit anyone to punish them for the rest of their lives (and beyond)? The fact that these people are pushed into a state where they have to have emergency shelter is absolutely inhumane. All they want is a place to wait out the cold temperatures. Here is ONE of many tragic ending to these laws...tell me...who does this help? https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2009/01/death_of_sex_homeless_offender.html

I would appreciate if you take in consideration my thoughts on these bulls especially 1080. This would harm innocent children and families their are 13,000 children on sex offender registries in Virginia...What do you plan to do with them their parents can go in a shelter but a child is excluded. Also a single parent who has a requirement to register stays outside and children are took inside unattended. Please consider this bill as not a wise choice

Please rely on facts not fear. The facts are that registered folks have an extremely low re-offense rate. And after a few years, they are no more likely to re-offend than you or I. We should encourage rehabilitation, not enact byzantine regulations. Please vote NO on HB1080.

I am opposed to HB1080: Enough with the endless regulations and restrictions heaped upon people listed on the sex offender registry. These registered folks are just trying to rebuild their lives and provide for their families. During an emergency their goal will be securing shelter for their spouse and children -- not assaulting strangers! Please rely on facts not fear. The facts are that registered folks have an extremely low re-offense rate. And after a few years, they are no more likely to re-offend than you or I. We should encourage rehabilitation, not enact byzantine regulations. Please vote NO on HB1080.

I personally was homeless for many years of my adult life. I can attest to the sheer “survival mode” desperation of a person who simply wants shelter from life threatening weather conditions. I knew homeless ppl who would intentionally get put in jail for the winter months for the sake of food and shelter. While realizing that the prison industrial complex is a big windfall of profits for certain special interest business entities, it is largely a drain on taxpayers. I have also known men who have wound up on the sex offender registry for urinating in public (so I have been told) which was supposed to result in police not bothering the homeless who must urinate in public bc there are no other options. Plenty of ppl end up on the registry who may not have committed serious crimes, but at any rate, we trust that our judicial system metes out the appropriate punishment. After serving their sentence then we should simply allow them some dignity to be able to access emergency shelter. Seems like this makes being on the registry the worst of all crimes seeing as it follows ppl around throughout their entire lives. I believe in extenuating circumstances, shades of grey and forgiveness. Murderers, thieves, rapists and drug dealers are not necessarily worse ppl than those who spend their lives on the S.O Registry.

This bill is highly counterproductive. It will bar human beings from shelter during an emergency. All this will do is cost the tax payers money which could be better spent in proven methods. Not to mention you are asking untrained persons to make assements. When katrina hit, laws like this lead to hundreds dying and displacing law abiding citzens. While this law would only accomplish a false sense of security. The more folks who are unable to attain emergency shelter, the more first responders are put at risk.

I am an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse. I was a victim of multiple abusers between the ages of 4-14. None of them ever faced any consequences for the things they did to me. The Registry is supposedly "not a punishment," but merely a 'public safety measure'. But when laws like this are put into place, how can it be anything else but endless punishment? If the Justice System has determined that this person is not a public threat (evidenced by their freedom), there is no reason for anyone else to assume they are a threat. If an individual feels better knowing which houses to tell their children to stay away from, fine, but when there is a public service such as life-saving EMERGENCY SHELTER, it is an unusually cruel punishment to put them in a position where they are blocked from something that there is no legal reason they shouldn't be allowed to do. If keeping out people on the registry is about keeping the community safe, then why isn't there similar legislation for those who have previously been convicted of assault, murder, arson, child abuse, and theft? Shouldn't we know about ALL of the people who ever committed crimes? The person on the cot next to me may have murdered someone and been released from prison; am I really safer next to that person, or an individual (who may be there with their family) who happens to have done something that landed them on the Registry? Frankly, I think I'd rather know about the murderer. To be quite blunt, therapy can help a victim who has been sexually abused, but can't do much for someone who has been murdered. For a boring but very valid consideration, please also consider that this is redundant legislation, as this is already covered in the 2017 Virginia State Managed Shelter Plan. For a more visceral consideration, please consider the dystopian state that may essentially hand down a death sentence to a free citizen who has paid his debt, has followed the rules, and is simply looking for life-saving shelter. If we are going to block anyone with a history of a sex-related offense (even if it was a Romeo-Juliet situation in the 90's) from receiving VITAL emergency services, and continue to pass increasingly restrictive laws that make it very difficult for these citizens to even just live a normal life, we need to think about where we are headed. It must also be considered that a human who is hungry and freezing, but barred from obtaining food and shelter, is a desperate human. Prison food and shelter may seem like a reasonable option. Is that really where we want to put these folks? In a place where the only way to access emergency services is to break a law? This seems unconstitutional, inhumane, and also just plain stupid. Let people get warm. Stop punishing them, I can assure they are already punished daily because of the restrictions and requirements placed on them. Piling on additional burdens for these people does absolutely NOTHING for public safety, and anyone with common sense can see that. I hate RSO laws, but if you think they're great, you better think about this: If you keep tacking on all of these clauses and requirements for people on the registry, at some point this is going to be challenged in the courts, and it will be very obvious that these measures are in fact punitive, and with any luck at all it will help us strike down the registry completely.

I oppose multiple bills that have made it to the house the one bill regarding Emergency Sex Offenders is the most absurd bill I have ever heard in my life. No one is going to be worried about sexual offending in a State of Emergency number one. For example Dad is on a registry and he has three children who are accepted inside without supervision while dad is kept outside in the storm or natural catastrophe. When you pass bills like this your punishing innocent children and families. What about people who committed murder or child abusers are they treated the same? You Senators and delegates got this wrong and this is harmful to innocent families and children. Now let's talk about the 13,000 children on Sex Offender Registries in Virginia some as young as 7 years of age so Mom , Dad and entire family is allowed in but the child is made to stand outside during a castophre alone and sacred while his or her family are allowed inside these laws are based off fear and gives a false sense of security to the general public. Sex Offense is to broad, urination in public is a registable offense as a Violent Sex Offender, Reprorting a Sex Crime will land you on a Violent Sex Offender Registry such is my sistuation. Please reconsider the harm the harm of this bill

Comments Document

Please defeat HB 1080. The bill: 1. punishes registrants if they fail to notify emergency shelter staff of their status as a registrant.  Criminalizing that failure with a $500 fine does nothing to enhance public safety. Contacting shelter staff to state that they were convicted decades ago of a sexual offense will hardly make the priority list when the registrant is only trying to find safe haven for his or her family under emergency conditions. 2. states that shelter staff may access the public registry "and use such information to ensure the safety of all persons in the shelter." Data from the registry is of no value in insuring safety since all registrants are free to live and work in society. It is unknown what training could be given to staff to make such an assessment and what actions would be taken in the unlikely case an assessment was possible. 3. requires Department of State Police to provide a summary of the act's requirements to citizens at the time of his or her initial registration only, but not to the thousands of citizens the General Assembly has characterized as lifelong Tier III sex offenders. Criminalizing a visit to an emergency shelter is punishment. There is no research indicating that registrants pose a threat to society. If so, they wouldn't be living and working in society. Research confirms that any threat in a setting like a shelter or a home is overwhelmingly (over 90%) from family, friends and acquaintances, not a stranger who happens to have been convicted of a crime decades ago. If we're interested in public safety in an emergency shelter and logically consider available data, I guess we should post a social worker at the entrance, separate the children from their parents and interview them regarding abuse they have encountered at home at the hands of their parents, siblings, cousins, uncles, aunts and friends - since that's where the abuse originates. Paragraph 5.3 of the attached shelter plan is adequate. Kill HB 1080, please.

Please move to report HB13, 378, 677, 1066, and especially for 1080. Thank you.

Stop with the lies!

No! Stop with the lies! Cannibas is much safer than alcohol and pharmaceuticals!! Let the average person be free with a plant! Stop holding the little guy back....just stop.

The city has chosen ONE as a gaming host. This bill is identical to Morrissey's SB203 which puts limits on a casino referendum in Richmond for five years. We in the city of Richmond feels as Mr. Morrissey have committed MUTINY on us. We see this bill (HB-1134) only as a designed to remove Richmond city from becoming a host city, which in the end becomes Richmond being remove indefinite. PLEASE VOTE NO to HB-1134.

I oppose multiple bills that have made it to the house the one bill regarding Emergency Sex Offenders is the most absurd bill I have ever heard in my life. No one is going to be worried about sexual offending in a State of Emergency number one. For example Dad is on a registry and he has three children who are accepted inside without supervision while dad is kept outside in the storm or natural catastrophe. When you pass bills like this your punishing innocent children and families. What about people who committed murder or child abusers are they treated the same? You Senators and delegates got this wrong and this is harmful to innocent families and children. Now let's talk about the 13,000 children on Sex Offender Registries in Virginia some as young as 7 years of age so Mom , Dad and entire family is allowed in but the child is made to stand outside during a castophre alone and sacred while his or her family are allowed inside these laws are based off fear and gives a false sense of security to the general public. Sex Offense is to broad, urination in public is a registable offense as a Violent Sex Offender, Reprorting a Sex Crime will land you on a Violent Sex Offender Registry such is my sistuation. Please reconsider the harm the harm of this bill

As a citizen, I was shocked to learn that funding of my local Commonwealth Attorney Office was not based on the population of my county but, instead on the number of felony sentencing events. This is a perverse and strange way to run a railroad. If a County's population increases, the resources dedicated to the Commonwealth Attorney office do not increase unless the Commonwealth Attorney pursues more felonies and obtains sentences on those felonies. It is not hard to see how this creates a financial disincentive for a Commonwealth Attorney to evaluate cases and reduce charges as necessary. It also incentivizes a Commonwealth Attorney to abandon his or her Constitutional obligations to only pursue cases for which he or she believes they can obtain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and over emphasizes the charging decision of a non-lawyer law enforcement officer who is not trained to evaluate with respect to reasonable doubt but only with regard to arrest for probable cause. As an advocate of individual freedom, limited government, and accountable government, I am in favor of any mechanism that seeks to remove financial incentives for a Commonwealth Attorney to seek increased incarceration of citizens.

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

Comments Document

I recommend the bill be amended to support Attorney General intervention in specific crimes of violence that are not being prosecuted in Fairfax County and other jurisdictions with progressive Commonwealth’s Attorneys. These include assault and battery, resisting arrest, hit and run and other crimes. The evidence of the Commonwealth’s Attorney of Fairfax County’s refusal to prosecute these crimes is offered in my article linked below. The combination of assault and battery and resisting arrest has led to injuries and deaths of cops and citizens all over the country. This bill can be amended to put the GA on record as opposing those outcomes by empowering the AG to intervene to prosecute crimes of violence at the request of local law enforcement. Please see https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/some-virginia-senate-democrats-vote-in-committee-to-define-deviancy-down/

Comments Document

My name is Yolanda Bell. I am a Veteran who comes from a family of veterans and first responders. I reside in Manassas and I am a constituent of Del Roem. I have come to testify in favor of guardianship reform for the last three years. I am grateful the JLARC Study exposed and highlighted the numerous problems we have with professional court appointed guardians here in VA, not the least of which are isolation and lack of oversight. As a key stakeholder for the JLARC Guardianship Study I implore you to vote for each of these important and necessary Bills to address the findings in the Study and prevent what happened to my sister and our family from happening to anyone else. Before you vote I would appreciate you taking the time to read the attached written testimony I gave to the subcommittee last week. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely Yolanda Bell Anastasia’s Voice

The Arc of Virginia supports HB1212. This bill will help ensure that adults with disabilities are fully aware of the implications of Guardianship proceedings.

Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is Yolanda Bell and I thank you for allowing me to speak today. I am a Veteran and constituent of Del Roem’s. I have come to testify in favor of guardianship reform for the last three years. I promised my mother the day before she died I would take care of my sister Anastasia and keep her safe. The Inova guardians made a liar out of me. My sister was 120+lbs when the guardians took her.  She weighed a mere 87lbs nine months later when they ended her life. She had no terminal illness. This is what happens when wards are allowed to be isolated from loving family and friends.  When reporting requirements and oversight of guardians and by guardians is lax and almost nonexistent vulnerable wards suffer, are abused, neglected, and die. Anastasia literally had 13 holes in her body and too many bruises to count. Delegate Roem has seen the autopsy pictures. Her isolation was so severe that she was forced to die alone with no one to hold her hand, tell her they loved her, no one to pray with her or over her. Clergy was even turned away preventing them from giving her the last rites of the Church. My mother always taught us "family will be there for you when no one else will." The extra sets of eyes are taken away by guardian isolation leaving no one to look out for them or to protect them.   The entire situation surrounding my sisters guardianship was a travesty of epic proportions. No one should be ripped away from a loving and caring family. Even the judge said my sister was well taken care of by me. No one should be forced to die alone. And guardians, professional court appointed guardians who make their living off the pain and suffering of the elderly and disabled - the vulnerable - should not have carte blanche power to isolate wards from family especially where no abuse, neglect, or exploitation has been alleged or found. Our father was a combat veteran serving 26 years in the Air Force. It astounds me that almost 5 years later we are still fighting to get these basic protections for the disabled and elderly who are conscripted into these guardianships. I am grateful that the JLARC Study exposed and highlighted the numerous problems we have with guardianships and professional guardians here in Virginia, not the least of which are isolation and lack of oversight. Guardianships as they currently stand in Virginia strip the wards of their constitutional rights. In 1974 the US Supreme Court in Stanley v. Illinois held that "family association rises to a constitutional right."  What was done to my sister Anastasia will haunt me for the rest of my life. The bottom line and reality of the situation is that I should not have had to beg to see my sister. I should not have had to beg to spend time with her, to be by her side, especially once they decided to end her life. No one should have to beg and plead with anyone let alone strangers to be with their loved one especially if they are dying. God by whatever name you choose to call Him, and by whatever means you choose to worship Him, commands us to protect and care for the vulnerable, for “the least of these among us”. You have an opportunity ensure what happened to my sister and our family never happens again to anyone else. People are being hurt and are dying.  Please pass these bills to protect the most vulnerable among us. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Yolanda Bell

As an attorney who has served as counsel to Petitioner's in Guardianship (institutional and private) AND to Respondent (alleged incapacitated) and as Court Appointed Guardian Ad Litem, I am very familiar with the real life implications and human concerns with the parties in these cases. I am thoroughly familiar with the current Guardianship statutes, procedures and the weaknesses in the system. I have read all the proposed bills, as well as the JLARC report and would like to comment. I am not particularly opposed nor in favor

The Arc of Northern Virginia supports the guardianship reform bills presented by Delegates Herring, Roem, and Glass. These bills all increase transparency around guardianship and better protect the person under guardianship. We get calls from individuals who are unsatisfied with their guardian's choices to deny visits from loved ones, lack of communication/visits, and with concerns about the guardian's actions. These bills provide protection for vulnerable individual's who rely on a robust guardianship oversight system to stay safe and protect their rights.

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

Comments Document

My name is Yolanda Bell. I am a Veteran who comes from a family of veterans and first responders. I reside in Manassas and I am a constituent of Del Roem. I have come to testify in favor of guardianship reform for the last three years. I am grateful the JLARC Study exposed and highlighted the numerous problems we have with professional court appointed guardians here in VA, not the least of which are isolation and lack of oversight. As a key stakeholder for the JLARC Guardianship Study I implore you to vote for each of these important and necessary Bills to address the findings in the Study and prevent what happened to my sister and our family from happening to anyone else. Before you vote I would appreciate you taking the time to read the attached written testimony I gave to the subcommittee last week. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely Yolanda Bell Anastasia’s Voice

Comments by Charlotte Barkley, Executive Director of PAAC (the Parent Advocacy and Advisory Council of South West Virginia) and the step-mother of a former resident of SWVTC who is now thriving in a Group Home placement. I strongly support HB1260 in its intent to allow an incapacitated person the freedom to have continued visits and interactions with a person with whom they have a long-term, established relationship, and to give legal recourse to an individual whose right to visitation is restricted by the guardian. This will reduce possible spur-of-the moment, vindictive action of a guardian in causing suffering to both the incapacitated person and the visitor with honorable intentions.

I am writing to request your support this session for House Bills 634, 643, 1207 and 1620. All of these bills are regarding various facets of guardianship. I have been involved in attempts to change or introduce new legislation in Virginia since I approached my local delegate in November 2017. Additionally, I have testified in the House subcommittee regarding the legislation and how it directly affected my ability to visit with my now deceased partner since June 2017. During that period, I was not allowed to visit for arbitrary reasons due to a guardian for two years. This left my partner isolated and I am sure contributed to her early demise due to Alzheimer's disease. I hope that what happened to me and multiple other Virginians will not continue into perpetuity. There was no one else to regularly visit her and it still pains me as she died with my only seeing her twice in three years. Thank you in consideration and support. Sincerely, Mike Jacobs 2151 Jamieson Avenue, #707 Alexandria, VA 22314-5723

Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is Yolanda Bell and I thank you for allowing me to speak today. I am a Veteran and constituent of Del Roem’s. I have come to testify in favor of guardianship reform for the last three years. I promised my mother the day before she died I would take care of my sister Anastasia and keep her safe. The Inova guardians made a liar out of me. My sister was 120+lbs when the guardians took her.  She weighed a mere 87lbs nine months later when they ended her life. She had no terminal illness. This is what happens when wards are allowed to be isolated from loving family and friends.  When reporting requirements and oversight of guardians and by guardians is lax and almost nonexistent vulnerable wards suffer, are abused, neglected, and die. Anastasia literally had 13 holes in her body and too many bruises to count. Delegate Roem has seen the autopsy pictures. Her isolation was so severe that she was forced to die alone with no one to hold her hand, tell her they loved her, no one to pray with her or over her. Clergy was even turned away preventing them from giving her the last rites of the Church. My mother always taught us "family will be there for you when no one else will." The extra sets of eyes are taken away by guardian isolation leaving no one to look out for them or to protect them.   The entire situation surrounding my sisters guardianship was a travesty of epic proportions. No one should be ripped away from a loving and caring family. Even the judge said my sister was well taken care of by me. No one should be forced to die alone. And guardians, professional court appointed guardians who make their living off the pain and suffering of the elderly and disabled - the vulnerable - should not have carte blanche power to isolate wards from family especially where no abuse, neglect, or exploitation has been alleged or found. Our father was a combat veteran serving 26 years in the Air Force. It astounds me that almost 5 years later we are still fighting to get these basic protections for the disabled and elderly who are conscripted into these guardianships. I am grateful that the JLARC Study exposed and highlighted the numerous problems we have with guardianships and professional guardians here in Virginia, not the least of which are isolation and lack of oversight. Guardianships as they currently stand in Virginia strip the wards of their constitutional rights. In 1974 the US Supreme Court in Stanley v. Illinois held that "family association rises to a constitutional right."  What was done to my sister Anastasia will haunt me for the rest of my life. The bottom line and reality of the situation is that I should not have had to beg to see my sister. I should not have had to beg to spend time with her, to be by her side, especially once they decided to end her life. No one should have to beg and plead with anyone let alone strangers to be with their loved one especially if they are dying. God by whatever name you choose to call Him, and by whatever means you choose to worship Him, commands us to protect and care for the vulnerable, for “the least of these among us”. You have an opportunity ensure what happened to my sister and our family never happens again to anyone else. People are being hurt and are dying.  Please pass these bills to protect the most vulnerable among us. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Yolanda Bell

As an attorney who has served as counsel to Petitioner's in Guardianship (institutional and private) AND to Respondent (alleged incapacitated) and as Court Appointed Guardian Ad Litem, I am very familiar with the real life implications and human concerns with the parties in these cases. I am thoroughly familiar with the current Guardianship statutes, procedures and the weaknesses in the system. I have read all the proposed bills, as well as the JLARC report and would like to comment. I am not particularly opposed nor in favor

The Arc of Northern Virginia supports the guardianship reform bills presented by Delegates Herring, Roem, and Glass. These bills all increase transparency around guardianship and better protect the person under guardianship. We get calls from individuals who are unsatisfied with their guardian's choices to deny visits from loved ones, lack of communication/visits, and with concerns about the guardian's actions. These bills provide protection for vulnerable individual's who rely on a robust guardianship oversight system to stay safe and protect their rights.

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

Mr. Chairman, It is with a great deal of consideration that, on behalf of the Virginia Association of Regional Jails to note our complete support of HB1341 and we would like to thank Delegate Brewer for her contribution to this important and difficult discussion. Virginia's regional jail's are struggling to manage this problem and seek the assistance of the Commonwealth's providing the level of service the criminally justice involved people deserve that quite frankly transcends both the scope and ability of local corrections.

The Western Tidewater Regional Jail Authority greatly appreciates the work Delegate Brewer has done in amending HB1341 and we fully support HB 1341. We would ask that the committee members to move HB1341 forward. HB1341 is extremely important to assist local jails in quickly getting inmates with psychiatric needs that exceed the treatment capabilities of the jail into a noncorrectional facility specifically designed for handling their care and treatment.